Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 21a the one agrees with the Rabbis, the other with R. Simeon.1 One [Baraitha] taught: He [who sells a house in a walled city] may borrow and redeem, and redeem half. Another taught: He may not borrow and redeem, nor redeem half. There is no difficulty: the latter agrees with the Rabbis, the former with R. Simeon. (Mnemonic; Harash, Habash, Zeman.)2 R. Aha, son of Raba, said to R. Ashi: It3 can be refuted: as for one who sells a house in a walled city, that4 is because his privilege is impaired, that he can never redeem it [any longer];5 will you say the same of him who sanctifies, whose privilege is great, that he can redeem it for ever?6 — R. Aha Saba [the Elder] remarked to R. Ashi: Because one can say: Let the argument revolve, and infer it by what is common [to both. Thus!] Let him who sells ‘a field of possession’ prove it, whose privilege is great, that he can redeem it for ever, and yet he may not borrow and redeem, or redeem half. As for him who sells ‘a field of possession’, that is because his rights are impaired, in that he [cannot] redeem it immediately. Then let one who sells a house in a walled city prove it.7 And thus the argument revolves: the feature of one is not that of the other. What is common to both [cases] is that they8 may be redeemed, and he [the vendor] cannot borrow and redeem, nor redeem half. So may I also adduce the case of one who sanctifies [an inherited field]: it may be redeemed, and he cannot borrow and redeem, nor redeem half. Mar Zutra son of R. Mari said to Rabina: This may be refuted. What is their common feature? That their privileges are impaired. for they [cannot] redeem it in the second year;9 will you say [the same] of him who sanctifies, seeing that his privilege is strong to redeem in the second year? — Rabina answered him: Because one may reply. Let a Hebrew slave sold to a heathen prove it: his rights are unimpaired. for he may be redeemed in the second year, and yet he cannot borrow and redeem, nor redeem by half.10 R. Huna b. Hinena propounded of R. Shesheth: If one sells a house in a walled city, can [the house] be redeemed by relations or not? Do we learn the meaning of ‘his redemption’ from ‘a field of possession’:11 just as ‘a field of possession’ cannot be half redeemed, yet can be redeemed by relations,12 so this too cannot be half redeemed, yet can be redeemed by relations; or perhaps, ‘redemption’ is written only in reference to half,13 but not in reference to relations? — It cannot be redeemed [by relations], answered he. He objected before him: And in all [the land of your possession] ye shall effect a redemption for the land:14 this is to include houses and Hebrew slaves.15 Surely that means houses in a walled city? — No. It means houses in villages. But of houses in villages it is explicitly stated, they shall be reckoned with the fields of the country?16 — That is to make an obligation,17 and is in accordance with R. Eliezer. For it was taught: [If thy brother be waxen poor, and sell some of his possessions, then shall his kinsman that is next unto him come,] and shall redeem that which his brother hath sold:18 that is an option.19 You say, an option: yet perhaps it is not so, but an obligation? Hence it is taught: And if a man have no kinsman.20 But is there a man in Israel who has no kinsman?21 Hence it must refer to him who has [a kinsman,] who [however] refuses to repurchase it, [thus shewing] that he has [merely] an option. R. Eliezer said: ‘and he shall redeem that which his brother hath sold’ [implies] an obligation. You say, an obligation; yet perhaps it is not so, but an option? — Hence it is taught: and in all . . . ye shall effect a redemption.22 The Rabbis said to R. Ashi, or as others state, Rabina said to R. Ashi: On the view that it includes houses in walled cities, it is well;23 but on the view that it includes houses in villages, why ‘in all’?24 This is indeed a difficulty. Abaye raised an objection before him: Why is ‘he shall redeem him,’ ‘he shall redeem him,’ ‘he shall redeem him’, stated three times?25 To include all cases of redemption, that they are to be redeemed in this order.26 Surely that refers to houses in walled cities and Hebrew slaves? — No: to houses in villages and ‘fields of possession’. ‘Houses in villages and fields of possession!’ these are explicitly provided for, ‘they shall be reckoned with the fields of the country’? — It is as R. Nahman b. Isaac said [elsewhere], to teach that the nearer the relation, the greater his precedence; so here too, it is to shew that the nearer the relation, the greater is his precedence.27 Whereon was R. Nahman's dictum stated? — On what was propounded: Can a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite be redeemed by kinsmen or not? On Rabbi's view, that is no question, since he said: He who cannot be redeemed by these [sc. relations] can be redeemed by [the passage of] years,28 thus proving that he cannot be redeemed. Our question is on the opinion of the Rabbis. What is the law? Do we infer ‘sakir’, ‘sakir’29 and do not interpret [the emphasis of, one of his brethren] may redeem him;30 or perhaps, ‘may redeem him’ implies him, but not another?31 — Come and hear:’ ‘In all . . . ye shall effect a redemption’: this is to include houses and Hebrew slaves. Surely that means houses in a walled city, and Hebrew slaves sold to Israelites? No; it means Hebrew slaves sold to heathens. But of a Hebrew slave sold to a heathen it is explicitly stated, or his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him?32 — ____________________ (1) R. Shesheth's answer having been deduced from R. Simeon's dictum. — R. Simeon holds that the reason of a Scriptural law must be sought, and when found it may modify it and provide a basis for other laws; but the Rabbis disagree. Hence R. Simeon argues that one's very disabilities require compensating privileges, and finds this embodied in the laws of the sanctification of ‘a field of possession’, from which the same principles are applied to analogous cases. Whereas the Rabbis argue that when Scripture impairs one's privileges in one direction they are weakened in all, a minori, the sanctification of an inherited field being explicitly excepted by Scripture. (2) Harash — R.AHa son of Raba to R. Ashi; Habash = R.AHa Saba said to R. ASHi; Zeman = Mar Zutra son of R. Mari said to Rabina. (3) The argument in the Baraitha cited above that would derive the case of one who sanctifies from the sale of a house in a walled city. (4) Sc. his inability to borrow and redeem, and redeem half. (5) After the first year; Lev. XXV, 30. (6) I.e., until jubilee, if the Temple Treasurer has not sold it in the meanwhile. (7) He can redeem it immediately, and yet cannot borrow etc. (8) The properties. (9) One who sells an inherited field cannot redeem it before the third year; and the vendor of a house in a walled city cannot redeem it after the first year. (10) As supra 20b. (11) For the quotations v. p. 96, n. 3. (12) Lev. XXV, 25. (13) And find sufficient for his redemption (Lev. XXV, 26); ‘sufficient’ shews that the whole must be redeemed. (14) Ibid. 24. (15) That they can be redeemed by relations. (16) Ibid. 31; i.e., the same law applies to them as to ‘a field of possession. (17) Not only have the relations the right, but also the duty of redemption. (18) Ibid. 25. (19) Lit., ‘a permitted thing’. (20) Ibid. 26. (21) Every Jew must have relatives, if he goes back far enough. (22) This emphasis — since it is already stated elsewhere — proves that redemption is a duty. (23) Since redemption by relations is not mentioned there. (24) Which implies even in those cases where it is not explicitly provided for. (25) In reference to the redemption of a Jewish slave from a heathen master: Ibid. 48, 49. (26) This is assumed to mean that in all cases where redemption is stated it may be by relatives. (27) I.e., in the same order of priority as the kinsmen enumerated in Lev. XXV, 48, 49. (28) Supra, 15b, q.v. (29) V. p. 92, n. 5; hence he can be redeemed by kinsmen. (30) Ibid. 48, referring to a Hebrew slave sold to a heathen. (31) Sc. a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite. (32) Ibid. 49. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 21b That is to make it an obligation, and even on R. Joshua's view.1 Come and hear: Why is ‘he shall redeem him,’ ‘he shall redeem him,’ ‘he shall redeent him,’ stated three times? To include all cases of redemption, that they must be redeemed in this order. Surely that refers to houses in walled cities, and Hebrew slaves sold to Israelites? — No: to houses in villages and fields of possession. ‘Houses in villages’! but there it is explicitly stated: ‘they shall be reckoned with the fields of the country’? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: It is to teach, the nearer the kinsman, the greater his precedence. HE WHOSE EAR IS BORED IS ACQUIRED BY BORING. For it is written, then his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, etc.2 AND ACQUIRES HIMSELF BY JUBILEE OR BY HIS MASTER'S DEATH. For it is written: ‘and he shall serve’2 him — but not his son or daughter; for ever’ — until the eternity of jubilee.3 Our Rabbis taught: ‘[With] an awl’: I only know [that he can be bored with] an awl. Whence do I know to extend [the law to] a prick,4 thorn, needle, borer, or stylus? From the verse, then thou shalt take,5 which includes everything that may be taken by hand: this is the opinion of R. Jose son of R. Judah. Rabbi said: Just as an awl is specified, as being of metal, so must everything [used for this purpose] be of metal. Alternatively, [thou shalt take] the awl6 is to teach7 [that] the great awl [is meant].8 R. Eleazar said: Judan Berabbi9 used to expound: When it [his ear] was bored, only the lobe was bored. But the Sages maintained: A Hebrew slave, [who is] a priest, cannot be bored, as he is thereby blemished;10 and should you say that the lobe is bored, how is he thereby blemished?11 Hence he was bored through the upper part of his ear. Wherein do they differ? — Rabbi interprets [by the method of] general propositions and particularizations.12 [Thus:] ‘Then thou shalt take’ — this is a generalization;13 ‘an awl’ — this is a specification: ‘through his ear unto the door’ is again a generalization. Now [in a sequence of] generalization, specification and generalization, you can include14 only what is similar to the specification: just as the specification is explicit as of metal, so must everything [used for this purpose] be of metal. R. Jose interprets [by the method of] amplification and limitation.15 [Thus:] Then thou shalt take — this is an amplification;16 an awl — this is a limitation; . . . through his ear unto the door is again an amplification. [A sequence of] amplification, limitation and amplification extends [the law to] everything. What is included? All things. And what is excluded? Chemicals.17 The Master said: "’The awl" is to teach that the great awl [is meant].’ How is this implied? — As Raba said: [Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sinew of the hip which is upon the hollow of] the thigh18 implies the right thigh;19 so here too, ‘the awl’ implies the most distinguished of awls. ‘R. Eleazar said: Judan Berabbi used to expound: When it [his ear] was bored, only the lobe was bored. But the Sages maintained: A Hebrew slave [who is] a priest, cannot be bored, because he is thereby blemished.’ Then let him be blemished! — Rabbah son of R. Shila said: Scripture saith, and he shall return unto his own family:20 i.e., to the established rights of his family.21 The Scholars propounded: A Hebrew slave [who is] a priest — can his master give him a heathen bondwoman?22 Is it an anomaly,23 and so there is no difference between priests and Israelites; or perhaps, priests are different, since the Writ imposes additional precepts upon them?24 — Rab said: It is permitted; Samuel ruled: It is forbidden. R. Nahman said to R. ‘Anan: When you were at Mar Samuel's academy you wasted your time in chess.25 Why did you not refute him with this: ‘But the Sages maintained: A Hebrew slave, a priest. cannot be bored, as he is thereby blemished.’ Now if you say that his master cannot give him a heathen bondmaid,it26 follows because we require [that he should say]. I love my master, my wife. and my children,27 which is absent. Nothing more is possible.28 The scholars propounded: May a priest take a ‘a woman of goodly form’?29 Is it an anomaly.30 and so there is no difference between priests and Israelites: or perhaps. priests are different, since the Writ imposes additional precepts upon them? — Rab said: He is permitted; while Samuel maintained, He is forbidden. With respect to the first intercourse there is universal agreement that it is permitted, since the Torah only provided31 for man's evil passions;32 their dispute refers to the second intercourse. Rab ruled: It is permitted; and Samuel ruled,it is forbidden. Rab ruled: It is permitted: since it was [once] allowed, it remains so. But Samuel said, it is forbidden; because she is a proselyte, and so ineligible to [marry] a priest. Others state, with respect to the second intercourse it is generally agreed that it is forbidden, since she is a proselyte. Their dispute refers to the first intercourse: Rab maintained, It is permitted, since the Torah only provided for man's evil passions. Whilst Samuel ruled: that it is forbidden: where one can read, then thou shalt bring her home to thine house,33 we also read, and seest among the captives. [etc.];34 but where we cannot read: ‘Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house,’ we do not read: ‘and seest among the captives [etc.].’ Our Rabbis taught: ‘And thou seest among the captives’ — when taking her captive;35 a woman — even married; ‘of beautiful countenance’ — the Torah only provided for human passions: it is better for Israel to eat flesh of ____________________ (1) Who maintained that the redemption of an inherited field by relations is merely a privilege. (2) Ex. XXI, 6. (3) V. supra 17b. (4) I.e., a sharpened piece of wood. (5) Deut. XV, 17, likewise referring to the boring of a slave. (6) Lit., translation; E.V. disregards the def. art. of the text. (7) Lit., ‘bring’. (8) This is explained below. (9) Berobbi, Beribbi, a contraction of Be Rabbi, was a title of scholars, generally applied to disciples of R. Judah ha-Nasi (Rabbi par excellence) and his contemporaries, but also to some of his predecessors, and occasionally to the first Amoraim (Jast. s.v.); v. Nazir (Sonc. ed.) p. 64. n. 1. (10) And unfit for service in the Temple. (11) A hole in the lobe is not a blemish. (12) In all cases such as the one under discussion Rabbi regards the verse as consisting of a generalization followed by a specification and then again by a generalization. In that case we say that the generalization includes only what is similar to the specification, as explained in the text. (13) I.e., it implies anything that may be taken, as above. (14) Lit., ‘judge’. (15) I.e., the general term is an amplification, extending the law to all things; the limitation that follows limits the law to such things as are similar to itself; hence these two alone are sufficient to arrive at the result deduced by Rabbi. Consequently, if a further amplification is added, it includes even dissimilar things, while the limitation can only exclude one or two things which are entirely unlike, v. Shebu. (Sonc. ed.) p. 12, n. 3. (16) Extending the law to anything that may be taken. (17) A chemical, e.g., an acid, may not be placed on the ear to burn it through. (18) Gen. XXXII, 33. (19) The def. art. implies the well-known, the most important, hence the right, which is the stronger side. (20) Lev. XXV, 41. (21) But if he is bored, he loses his established rights of officiating in the Temple. (22) To produce slaves. (23) That a heathen bondwoman may be given to any Hebrew slave. (24) Hence they have a higher degree of sanctity. (25) Lit., ‘you played in chess’; Iskumdre (the ‘Aruk reads: iskundre) Pers. iskodar, **; v. Perles, Etymologische Studien, p. 113. R. Han. translates: dog-racing. Krauss, T.A. III, 113 regards it as the dice (Wurfel) in various games of chance. (26) The law that a Hebrew slave who is a priest is not bored. (27) Ex. XXI, 5. (28) This refutation is absolute. (29) V. Deut. XXI, 11. A priest may not marry a proselyte: how is it here? (30) Lit., ‘a new,’ unexpected law. (31) Lit., ‘spoke’. (32) The permission to take a beautiful captive is a concession to human failings, which priests share equally with Israelites. (33) Deut. XXI, 12, i.e., take her permanently. (34) Ibid. 11; i.e., permission to satisfy one's lust. (35) Permission is granted only if the woman was originally taken for lust, but not if she was taken for enslavement. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 22a [animals] about to die, yet [ritually] slaughtered, than flesh of dying animals which have perished;1 ‘and thou hast a desire’ — even if she is not beautiful; ‘unto her’ — but not her and her companion;2 ‘and thou shalt take’ — thou hast marriage rights3 over her;4 ‘to thee to wife,’ [teaching] that he must not take two women, one for himself and another for his father, or one for himself and another for his son: ‘then thou shalt bring her home [to thine house].’ teaching that he must not molest her on the [field of] battle.5 Our Rabbis taught: But if the servant shall plainly say;6 he must say and reiterate [it]. If he declares [thus] at the beginning of the sixth year. but not at the end, he is not bored, for it says. ‘I will not go out free’: [hence] he must say it when about to depart. If he says it at the end of the six[th year], but not at the beginning, he is not bored, for it is said: ‘But If the slave shall plainly say’: he must say it while still a slave. The Master said: ‘If he declared [thus] at the beginning of the six[th year] but not at the end, he is not bored, for it is said: I will not go out free; [hence] he must say it when about to depart.’ Why choose [to learn this] from ‘I will not go out free’: deduce it because we require [that he shall say]. ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children,’ which is absent.7 Furthermore, ‘if he says it at the end of the six[th year], but not at the beginning, he is not bored, for it is said . . . "the slave"’: is he then not a slave at the end of the sixth year?8 — Said Raba: [It means,] At the beginning of the last perutah[‘s worth of service], and at the end thereof.9 Our Rabbis taught: If he has a wife and children, but his master has no wife and children, he may not be bored, for it is said, because he loveth thee and thine house.10 If his master has a wife and children, but he has no wife and children, he may not be bored, for it is said: ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children’. If he loves his master but his master does not love him, he may not be bored, for it is said: ‘because he is well with thee.’11 If his master loves him but he does not love his master,12 he may not be bored, for it is said: ‘because he loveth thee’. If he is an invalid but his master is no invalid, he may not be bored, for it is said, because he is well with thee.13 If his master is an invalid but he is no invalid, he may not be bored, for it is said, with thee.14 R. Bibi b. Abaye propounded: What if both are invalids? Do we require, ‘with thee’ [to be applicable], and it is; or perhaps we require, ‘because he is well with thee,’ which is absent? The question stands. Our Rabbis taught: ‘Because he is well with thee’: he must be with [i.e., equal to] thee in food and drink, that thou shouldst not eat white bread and he black bread, thou drink old wine and he new wine, thou sleep on a feather bed and he on straw. Hence it was said: Whoever buys a Hebrew slave is like buying a master for himself. Our Rabbis taught: Then he shall go out from thee, he and his children with him:15 R. Simeon said: if he is sold, are then his sons and daughters16 sold?17 Hence [we learn] that the master is liable for his children's keep.18 Similarly you read: If he is married, then his wife shall go out with him:19 R. Simeon said: If he is sold, is then his wife sold? Hence we learn that the master is responsible for his wife's keep. Now, both are necessary. For if we were informed [this] of his children, [I would say] that is because they cannot work for a living;20 but as for his wife, who can work for a living, I would say: Let her earn her keep. While if we were informed [this] of his wife, that is because it is not meet for her to go begging; but as for his children, for whom it may be seemly to go begging,21 I might say: It is not so. Hence both are necessary. Our Rabbis taught: ____________________ (1) Without ritual slaughter. The first too is repulsive, but sanctioned. (2) The warrior must not take two. (3) Lit., ‘taking’. (4) Though she is a heathen, and does not voluntarily accept conversion. — Also, she can only be taken as a legal wife. (5) Nevertheless one is able to bridle his desire in the knowledge that he will be able to satisfy it at home. Rashi. — War cannot be humanized, nor primitive passions subdued. Yet the Rabbis endeavoured to curb them as far as possible and minimize their evil effects: the captive was to be kindly treated, given the full legal status of a wife, and unmolested in actual battle, — possibly because in cool blood he would altogether recoil from his intentions. (6) Ex. XXI, 5: ‘plainly’ is expressed in Hebrew by the doubling of the verb. (7) The passage is now assumed to mean: if he declares thus at the beginning of the six years. (8) I.e., on the last day of his term. (9) When there is no longer left for him a perutah's worth of labour to perform, he is no longer regarded as slave. (10) Deut. XV, 26; ‘thine house’= household, i.e., a wife and children. (11) Ibid. (12) Yet he desires to remain on account of his wife and children. (13) ‘Well’ understood in the sense of healthy. (14) I.e., just as thou art. (15) Lev. XXV, 41. (16) ‘And daughters’ is absent in the ‘Aruk and in Rashi's commentary on the Pentateuch, where this is quoted. (17) Why state that they go out? (18) And at Jubilee they ‘go out’, i.e., his liability ceases. (19) Ex. XXI, 3. (20) Lit., ‘work and eat’ — the reference is to minors. (21) Being minors, they suffer no disgrace thereby. — The existence of house-to-house begging in Talmudic times follows from certain passages: Pe'ah, VIII, 7; Shab. 2a, 151b; Sifre, Deut. 116 and elsewhere. But women did not beg, and in consequence it was held more meritorious to support a needy woman than a man (Hor. III, 7; J.D. 251, 8). Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 22b If it were stated, [‘Then thou shalt take an awl,] and place his ear unto the door,’1 I would think, Let a hole be bored against his ear through the door; [hence,] only the door, but not his ear. ‘Not his ear!’ is it not written: ‘and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl’:2 — But I would say, the ear is to be bored outside and then placed on the door and a hole bored through the door opposite the ear:3 therefore it is stated, [‘and thou shalt thrust it] through his ear unto the door’. How so? He continues boring until the door is reached. ‘The door’: I understand [from this,] whether it is removed [from its hinges] or not: therefore it is stated, [‘unto the door, or unto] the doorpost’;4 just as the doorpost must be standing,5 so must the door be standing. Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai used to expound this verse as precious stone.6 Why was the ear singled out7 from all the other limbs of the body? The Holy One, blessed be He, said: This ear, which heard my Voice on Mount Sinai when I proclaimed, For unto me the children of Israel are servants, they are my servants,8 and not servants of servants, and yet this [man] went and acquired a master for himself9 — let it be bored! R. Simeon b. Rabbi too expounded this verse as a precious stone. Why were the door and doorpost singled out from all other parts10 of the house? The Holy One, blessed be He, said: The door and the doorpost, which were witnesses in Egypt when I passed over the lintel and the doorposts and proclaimed, For unto me the children of Israel are servants, they are my servants,11 and not servants of servants, and so I brought them forth from bondage to freedom, yet this [man] went and acquired a master for himself — let him be bored in their presence! MISHNAH. A HEATHEN SLAVE IS ACQUIRED BY MONEY, DEED, OR BY HAZAKAH,12 AND REACQUIRES HIMSELF BY MONEY THROUGH THE AGENCY OF OTHERS,13 AND BY DEED, THROUGH HIS OWN AGENCY:14 THIS IS R. MEIR'S VIEW. THE SAGES MAINTAIN: BY MONEY, THROUGH HIS OWN AGENCY, AND BY DEED, THROUGH THE AGENCY OF OTHERS;15 PROVIDING THAT THE MONEY IS FURNISHED BY OTHERS.16 GEMARA. How do we know this? — Because it is written: And ye shall make them [the heathen slaves] an inheritance for your children after you, to possess as an inheritance;17 just as a ‘field of possession’ is acquired by hazakah,18 so is a heathen slave acquired by money, deed, or hazakah. If so, just as ‘a field of possession’ reverts to its [original] owner at jubilee, so should a heathen slave revert to his [former] owner at jubilee? Therefore it is stated, of them shall ye take your bondmen for ever.19 A Tanna taught: [He may be acquired] by halifin20 too. And our Tanna?21 — What is absent in the case of movables he teaches; what is present in the case of movables he does not teach.22 Samuel said: A heathen slave may be acquired by meshikah.23 How so? If he [the purchaser] seizes him [the slave] and he goes to him, he acquires him; if he [merely] calls him and he goes to him, he does not acquire him. As for our Tanna, it [the omission of meshikah] is well: what is absent in the case of movables he teaches; what is present in the case of movables he does not teach.24 But according to the outside Tanna,25 let meshikah be taught?26 — He teaches only what applies to both land and movables, but meshikah, which is possible in the case of movables but not of land, he does not teach. ‘How so? If he seizes him and he goes to him he acquires him; if he [merely] calls him and he goes to him, he does not acquire him.’ But it was taught: How [is an animal acquired] by mesirah?27 If he seizes it by its hoof, hair, the saddle which is upon it, the saddle-bag upon it, the halter in its mouth, or the bell round its neck, he acquires it. How [does one acquire] by meshikah? He calls it and it comes, or he strikes it with a stick and it runs before him, immediately it lifts a foreleg and a hindleg, he acquires it. R. Assi-others state, R. Aha — said: It must walk its full length before him!28 — I will tell you: an animal walks by its master's volition; a slave, by his own.29 R. Ashi said: A slave who is a minor is as an animal.30 Our Rabbis taught: How [is a heathen slave acquired] by hazakah? If he unlooses his shoes for him [the purchaser], or carries his baggage after him to the baths; if he undresses, washes him, anoints,31 scrapes,32 dresses him, puts on his shoes, or lifts him, he acquires him. R. Simeon said: Let hazakah not be greater than lifting, for lifting acquires everywhere. What does he mean? — Said R. Ashi: [The first Tanna implies,] if he [the slave] lifts his master, he acquires him; if his master lifts him, he does not acquire him. Thereupon R. Simeon observed: Hazakah should not be greater33 than lifting, seeing that lifting acquires everywhere.34 Now that you say that if he lifts his master he acquires him — if so, a heathen bondmaid should be acquired by intercourse?35 — When do we say this, when one derives pleasure and the other pain;36 but here both derive pleasure. Then what can be said of unnatural intercourse?37 Said R. Ahaiy b. Adda of Aha:38 Who is to tell us that both do not derive pleasure? Moreover, it is written, [Thou shalt not lie with mankind] with the lyings of a woman:39 thus the Writ compared unnatural to natural intercourse. R. Judah the Indian was a proselyte who had no heirs. He fell sick and Mar Zutra went and paid him a sick visit.40 Seeing him in extremis41 he said to his [R. Judah's] slave, ‘Remove me my shoes and take them to my house’.42 Some maintain, He [the slave] was an adult:43 ____________________ (1) Deut. XV, 17: that is the translation if the preposition c and the conjunction uare removed from ubztc and ,kscu respectively. (2) Ex. XXI, 6. (3) I.e., from the other side of the door (Rashi). (4) Ibid. (5) Otherwise it is not a doorpost. (6) [The phrase apart from the older interpretation ‘pearl’ has been also taken to denote (a) according to the method of the Dorshe Hamuroth (v. Sot. Sonc. ed. p. 80, n. 7.); (b) a ‘changed’ or ‘figurative’ meaning. V. Lauterbach J.Z. J.Q.A. (N.S.) I. pp. 503ff.] I.e., he deduced from it an important ethical principle — man's freedom. (7) Lit., ‘different’. (8) Lev. XXV, 55. (9) When he might have been free. (10) Lit., ‘vessels’. (11) Though this was not said then, it does in fact summarize the purpose of Israel's liberation from Egyptian bondage. (12) V. Glos. The latter two even if the money has not been paid; then the purchase price is an ordinary debt, which does not affect the validity of the transaction. (13) They must give the money to his master to purchase his freedom. But if they give it to him even with the stipulation that his master shall have no rights therein, it is the master's, because R. Meir holds that a heathen slave cannot legally acquire anything without passing it on to his master. (14) He himself must receive the deed of emancipation. (15) Who receive the deed for him. (16) The money is given to him specifically for that purpose, and he gives it to his master. But if the slave finds money, or has it given him, it belongs to his master. (17) Lev. XXV, 46. (18) Like all other landed property. (19) Ibid. (20) V. Glos. (21) Why does he omit halifin? (22) The three methods of acquisitions taught are all ineffective for ordinary movables, whereas halifin can acquire these too. (23) V. Glos. (24) Meshikah gives a title to movables. (25) I.e., the Tanna of the Baraitha, which was not included in Rabbi's compilation of the Mishnah, but taught ‘without’. (26) If Samuel is right, just as halifin is taught. (27) V. Glos. (28) Thus, when an animal comes in answer to a call it is acquired; why not a slave? (29) Even when he obeys a call, he does so by his own desire, unless the master forcibly seizes him. (30) He has no volition of his own and therefore may be acquired by a summons. (31) Massaging with oil was an essential part of the bath. It was and is common in the Orient, and amongst the Romans and Greeks, and had its cause in the hot climate, which causes all living bodies to emit an unpleasant odour; v. Krauss, T.A., I, 229 and 233. (32) With a kind of brush to tone up the circulation. (33) More effective. (34) Lifting is one of the methods of acquiring movables: there, of course, the purchaser lifts the article to be acquired. Hence here too, if the master lifts the slave, i.e., the article to be acquired, he gains a title to him. (35) Which is also a form of lifting. (36) I.e., the slave does an act of servitude from which he personally derives no pleasure. (37) Where only the male derives pleasure. (38) [A village near Mount Hermon, Horowitz. I. S. Palestine. s.v.] (39) Lev. XVIII, 22: lit., translation; ‘lyings’ is understood to refer to two forms of coition, natural and unnatural. (40) Lit., ‘to enquire concerning him’. (41) Lit., ‘he saw that the world weighed very heavily upon him.’ (42) He wished the slave to be in his service when his master died, so as to acquire him by hazakah. (43) And Mar Zutra wished that he should not be without a master for a single moment at his master's death, as he would thereby become free. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 23a one [R. Judah] departed to death, and the other [the slave] departed [from his former master] to life.1 Others maintain, He was a minor, and this was not in accordance with Abba Saul. For it was taught: If a proselyte dies [without heirs] and Israelites take possession of his property, which includes slaves, whether adults or minors, they gain their liberty.2 Abba Saul said: Adults acquire their freedom, but as for minors, whoever takes possession of them [even afterwards] gains a title to them.3 AND REACQUIRES HIMSELF BY MONEY etc. . . . BY MONEY ONLY THROUGH THE AGENCY OF OTHERS, but not through his own. What are the circumstances? Shall we say, without his [the slave's] knowledge? Then consider: we know that R. Meir maintains, It is to a slave's disadvantage to leave his master for freedom;4 and we learned: One may obtain a privilege for a person in his absence, but cannot so act to his disadvantage.5 Hence it obviously means with his knowledge [consent], and we are informed this: only through the agency of others [can he be emancipated thus,] but not through his own, thus proving that a slave has no rights of acquisition apart from his master.6 If so, cite the second clause: BY DEED THROUGH HIS OWN AGENCY: only through his own agency, but not through that of others. But if with his consent, why not through the agency of others? And should you answer, what is meant by THROUGH HIS OWN AGENCY? Through his own agency too, and we are thus informed that his deed [of emancipation] and his hand [i.e., the right to acquire for himself] come simultaneously7 — But it was not taught so? For it was taught: By deed through his own agency, but not that of others: this is R. Meir's view? — Said Abaye: After all, [it means] without his knowledge. Yet money is different: since he [the master] may acquire him [the slave] against his will, he can liberate him8 against his will. If so, the same applies to deed? — This deed is separate and that deed is separate.9 But here too, this money is separate and that money is separate?10 — The impress is nevertheless the same.11 Raba said: In the case of money, its receipt by the master effects it [his liberation]: but as for deed, its receipt by others effects it.12 THE SAGES MAINTAIN: BY MONEY THROUGH HIS OWN AGENCY. Only through his own agency, but not through the agency of others? Why? Granted that it is without his knowledge, yet consider: we know that the Rabbis hold that it is to his advantage to go out from his master's authority to liberty, and we learnt: You may obtain a privilege for a person in his absence, but can act to his disadvantage only in his presence. And should you answer, what is meant by THROUGH HIS OWN AGENCY? Through his own agency too, and we are thus informed that a slave has rights of acquisition independently of his master. — If so, cite the second clause: BY DEED, THROUGH THE AGENCY OF OTHERS, [implying] but not through his own: but it is an establish — ed law that his deed and hand come simultaneously?13 And should you answer, what is the meaning of, THROUGH THE AGENCY OF OTHERS? Through the agency of others too, and we are thus informed that it is to the slave's advantage to leave his master for freedom: if so, they should be combined and taught together: By money and by deed through the agency of others or his own? — But [it means this:] By money, both through the agency of others and his own; by deed, through the agency of others but not his own, and it agrees with R. Simeon b. Eleazar. For it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: By deed too only through the agency of others, but not his own.14 Thus there are three differing opinions in the matter.15 Rabbah said: What is R. Simeon b. Eleazar's reason? — He learns the meaning of ‘lah’ [to her] here from a [married] woman:16 just as a woman [is not freed] until she withdraws the divorce into a domain that is not his [her husband's],17 so a slave too [is not freed] until he withdraws his deed [of emancipation] into a domain that is not his [the master's]. Rabbah propounded: ____________________ (1) I.e., with the death of R. Judah he automatically passed into Mar Zutra's possession. (2) Having been for a moment without a master, they remain permanently free. (3) Hence Mar Zutra's care that they should be in his service at the actual moment of death does not agree with Abba Saul's view. So Rashi, on the basis of the reading in current edition. Alfasi, Asheri, and R. Tam read: and this was (even) in accordance with Abba Saul. Though they could not gain their liberty, he put them into his service lest another take possession of them. (4) For as the slave of a priest he may eat terumah, which is now forbidden him. Again, as a slave he is permitted to live with a heathen bondmaid: this too will now be forbidden. — These are the reasons given in Git.11b. (5) Such an action being invalid. (6) As explained in the note on the Mishnah, q.v. (7) In the very moment of taking the deed he is free, and hence can accept it on his own behalf. Otherwise, his acceptance would be just as though his master held it, and he would not be free. (8) Lit., ‘give him possession’ — of himself. (9) The wording of the two deeds, purchase and manumission, are different: consequently the same reasoning does not apply. (10) Being given for different purposes. (11) There is nothing in the coins themselves to shew their different purposes. (12) In the case of money the master accepts it on his own behalf, not on that of the slave's; therefore the latter's consent is unnecessary. But deed is accepted by others on the slave's behalf; therefore his consent is required. (13) V. p. 111, n. 1. (14) He does not hold that the deed and his rights of acquisition come simultaneously. (15) (i) R. Meir: By money, through the agency of others, even without his knowledge, but not through his own; and by deed through his own agency but not of others. (ii) R. Simeon b. Eleazar: Both by money and deed, through the agency of others but not his own. (iii) The Rabbis in our Mishnah: Both by money and deed, through the agency of others and his own. Hence both are not combined because the second clause is not the Rabbis’ statement but R. Simeon b. Eleazar's. (16) Here: a bondmaid . . . whose freedom was not given (to) her (lah) — Lev. XIX, 20; a married woman; then he shall write (to) her (lah) a bill of divorcement; Deut. XXIV, 1. (17) As it is written, and give it in her hand (ibid.), and she does not belong bodily to her husband. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 23b According to R. Simeon b. Eleazar,1 can a heathen slave appoint an agent to receive his deed of emancipation from his master:2 since he deduces ‘lah’, ‘lah’, from a [married] woman, he [the slave] is as a married woman:3 or perhaps, a woman, who can accept the divorce herself, can also appoint an agent; whereas a slave, who cannot accept his deed of emancipation himself, cannot4 appoint an agent either! After propounding, he solved it himself: We deduce ‘lah’, ‘lah’, from a [married] woman, [hence] he is as a married woman. If so, when R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: These priests are agents of the All-Merciful One, for should you think they are ours, is there aught which we ourselves may not do while they may do [it on our behalf]?5 — is there not? What of a slave, who cannot accept his deed of manumission himself, can yet appoint an agent? — But that [analogy] is fallacious: an Israelite has no connection with the laws of sacrifices at all;6 whereas a slave has a connection with deeds of manumission. For it was taught: It appears correct that a slave can accept his companion's deed from his companion's master, but not from his own.7  PROVIDING THAT THE MONEY IS FURNISHED BY OTHERS. Shall we say that they differ in this: R. Meir holds, A slave has no powers of acquisition distinct from his master, nor a wife distinct from her husband; whereas the Rabbis maintain, A slave can acquire independently of his master and a wife of her husband? — Said Rabbah in R. Shesheth's name: All hold that a slave cannot acquire independently of his master, nor a wife of her husband. But the circumstances are here that a stranger gave him8 a maneh, saying, ‘On condition that your master has no right to it.’ R. Meir maintains, When he says to him, ‘Acquire [it,]’ the slave acquires it and [ipso facto] his master; and when he says to him, ‘on condition [etc.],’ he says nothing.9 Whereas the Rabbis hold, Since he stipulates, ‘on condition,’ the stipulation is effective.10 But R. Eleazar said: In such a case all agree that the slave acquires it and [ipso facto] his master. But the circumstances are here that a stranger gave him a maneh, saying: ‘On condition that you obtain your freedom therewith.’ R. Meir holds that when he says to him, ‘Acquire [it],’ the slave acquires it and [ipso facto] his master; when he says: ‘on condition,’ he says nothing. Whereas the Rabbis maintain, He did not give possession of it [even] to him [the slave], since he said to him, ‘Only on condition that you gain your freedom therewith.’ Now, R. Meir is self contradictory, and the Rabbis likewise. For it was taught: ____________________ (1) Who maintains that a slave cannot receive his own deed. (2) Tosaf. gives two interpretations: (i) Obviously, as stated above, another person must accept it on his behalf. This, however, may be only if the slave does not explicitly appoint him his agent, but if he does, he becomes legally as himself, and just as he himself cannot accept the deed, his agent cannot either. (ii) When another person accepts it on his behalf, must he be his agent, just as the person who accepts a woman's divorce on her behalf must be distinctly appointed by her for that purpose? If so, on the view that it is to the slave's advantage to be freed, the agency is tacitly assumed: while if we hold that it is to his disadvantage, he must be expressly appointed. Or possibly, he does not act in the character of an agent at all, since the slave himself could not have accepted it. In that case, not only is an express appointment unnecessary, but even if the slave actually protests against it, his protest is unavailing. (3) And just as she can appoint an agent, so can he (or, so must he — v. preceding note). (4) Or, need not. (5) V. Ned. 35b. The question is: When a priest offers a sacrifice on behalf of an Israelite, does he act as his agent or as God's? The practical difference is where an Israelite vows to derive no benefit from a certain priest: on the first alternative, the priest may not offer his sacrifices for him; on the second, he may. (6) He cannot offer a sacrifice for himself or for another Israelite. (7) In the first case the deed leaves the master's possession, but not in the second. (8) Lit., ‘caused him to acquire’. (9) I.e., the stipulation is invalid. (10) Hence he can be liberated by money through his own agency. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 24a A woman cannot redeem second tithe without [adding] a fifth. R. Simeon b. Eleazar said on R. Meir's authority: A woman can redeem second tithe without [adding] a fifth.1 Now, how is this meant? Shall we say, [she redeems it] with her husband's money, the second tithe also being her husband's — then she merely acts as her husband's agent.2 But if with her money3 and his tithe, the Divine Law said, [And if] a man [will redeem aught of his tithe, then he shall add there to the fifth part thereof],4 but not his wife?5 Hence it surely refers to such a case, viz., that a stranger gave her a maneh, and said,’On condition that you redeem the tithe therewith,’ and thus we learn that they hold contrary opinions.6 — Said Abaye: Then reverse it.7 Raba said: After all, you need not reverse it, but here the reference is to tithe which came [to her] from her father's estate,8 R. Meir following his opinion that tithe is sacred property,9 so that her husband does not acquire it.10 The Rabbis too are in accord with their view that tithe is secular property, [the usufruct of which] her husband acquires. Therefore she is [merely] deputising for her husband. A Tanna taught: He [the heathen slave] goes out [free] through [the loss of] his eye, tooth, and projecting limbs which do not return.11 Now, as for [the loss of] his tooth or eye, it is well: these are written.12 But how do we know [the loss of] the projecting limbs? — By analogy with tooth and eye: just as these are patent blemishes, and do not return, so [is he freed for the loss of] all [limbs which are] patent blemishes and do not return. But let us say that ‘tooth’ and ‘eye’ are two laws13 which come as one,14 and whenever two verses come as one, they do not illumine [other cases].15 — Both are necessary. For had the All-Merciful mentioned ‘tooth’ [only], I would have argued, [It refers] even ____________________ (1) Second tithe produce was eaten in Jerusalem, or it was redeemed and the money expended in Jerusalem. When one redeemed his own, he added a fifth of its value, but not when he redeemed second tithe belonging to another, unless the owner deputed him. It is assumed that this Baraitha refers to the crops of her husband's field. (2) And must certainly add a fifth. (3) Money, the principal of which by the terms of the marriage settlement belonged to her, while her husband enjoyed its usufruct. This money, and all other property held by a wife on the same terms, are designated ‘property of plucking’ (v. Glos. s.v. mulug). (4) Lev. XXVII, 31. (5) I.e., his wife ranks as a stranger. (6) To those they hold on the question of a slave's freedom. — The rights of a slave and a woman are similar: either they can both acquire independently or both can not. (7) The first Tanna rules that she does not add a fifth; R. Meir holds that she must add a fifth. (8) Lit., ‘the house of the wife’. I.e., she inherited it as her father's heir. Property acquired by a woman after marriage is likewise ‘property of plucking’. (9) Lit., ‘money’. (10) V. infra 52b and 54b. Since it really belongs to God, the Rabbis did not enact that the husband should enjoy its usufruct; hence it is entirely her own, and when she redeems it with her husband's money, no fifth is necessary. (For redeeming one's own tithe with money belonging to another is the same in law as redeeming another Person's tithe with one's own money.) (11) Lit., ‘tips of limbs’. Once lost, just as the eyes and teeth. (12) Ex. XXI, 26f. (13) Lit., ‘verses’. (14) I.e., to teach the same thing. For this analogy could be drawn only if one were mentioned. (15) For otherwise, only ‘eye’ or ‘tooth’ should have been mentioned, and by analogy the other, as well as all limbs the loss of which has the same result, would be included. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 24b to a milk tooth;1 therefore the All-Merciful wrote ‘eye’.2 And had the All-Merciful written ‘eye’, I would have thought,just as the eye is created with him, so must all [for whose loss he is emancipated] be created with him [i.e., at birth], but not a tooth. Thus both are necessary.3 But let us say, [And] if [a man] smite4 — that is a general proposition;5 ‘the tooth . . . the eye’ — that is a specification; and in a general proposition followed by a specification the former includes only that contained in the latter: hence, only ‘tooth’ and ‘eye’ but nothing else! — ‘He shall let him go free’ is another general proposition. And in a sequence of generalization, specification and generalization, you can only include6 what is similar to the specification: just as the specification is explicit as a patent blemish and does not return, so for all [limbs whose loss are] patent blemishes and do not return [the slave is freed]. If so, [say] just as the specification is explicit as a patent blemish, ceases to do its work,7 and does not return, so for all [limbs whose loss are] patent blemishes, cease to function, and do not return [the slave is freed]! Why [then] was it taught: If he [the master] plucked out his [the slave's] beard and thereby loosened his [jaw.] bone,8 the slave is liberated on their account?9 — ‘He shall let him go free’ is an amplification.10 But if it is an amplification, even if he struck his hand and it withered, but it will ultimately heal,11 he should also [be freed]? Why was it taught: If he struck his hand and it withered, but it will ultimately heal, the slave is not freed on its account? — If so,12 of what use are ‘tooth’ and ‘eye’?13 Our Rabbis taught: On account of all these14 a slave gains his freedom, yet he needs a deed of emancipation:15 this is R. Simeon's opinion. R. Meir said: He does not need one. R. Eleazar said: He does need one; R. Tarfon said: He does not need one. R. Akiba said: He needs one. Those who sought to make a compromise before the Sages said: R. Tarfon's view is preferable in respect of tooth and eye, seeing that the Torah conferred the privilege [of freedom] upon him [as compensation];16 and R. Akiba's view in respect of other limbs, since it is a punishment of the Sages [that the slave is freed]. ‘A punishment’? Surely [Scriptural] verses are [here] expounded!17 — But [say thus:] since it is an exposition of the Sages.18 What is R. Simeon's reason? — He learns the meaning of ‘sending’ here from a [married] woman:19 just as a woman [is sent forth] by deed, so is a slave too [sent forth] by deed. And R. Meir?20 — Were ‘to freedom’ written at the end [of the verse, it would be] as you say;21 since, however, it is written: ‘to freedom shall he send him away’, it implies that he is free at the very outset.22 Our Rabbis taught: If he smites his eye and blinds it, [or] his ear, and deafens it, the slave goes out [to freedom] on their account; near23 his eye, so that he cannot see, [or] near his ear, and he can not hear,24 the slave does not go out [free] on their account. R. Shaman said to R. Ashi: Are we to assume that sound is nothing?25 But Rami b. Ezekiel learnt: If a cock stretches its head into the cavity of a glass vessel, crows there and breaks it, he [its owner] must pay for it in full. Also, R. Joseph said: The scholars of Rab26 said: If a horse neighs or an ass brays and breaks utensils in a house, he [their owner] must pay for half the damage!27 — Man is different, he replied; since he is an intelligent being, he frightens himself.28 As it was taught: If one frightens his neighbour,29 he is exempt by the law of man, yet liable by the law of Heaven.30 E.g., if he blows into his ear and deafens him, he is exempt; but if he seizes him, blows into his ear, and deafens him, he is liable. Our Rabbis taught: If he strikes his eye and dims it,31 [or] his tooth, and loosens it: if he can [nevertheless] still use them, the slave does not go out free on their account; if not, the slave goes out free on their account. Another [Baraitha] taught: If his eye [sight] was dim, and he [altogether] blinds him,32 or his tooth was loose, and he knocks it out: if he could use them before, the slave goes out free on their account; if not, the slave does not go free on their account. Now, both are necessary. For if we were taught the first [only], [I would say] that is because his eyesight was originally sound and now it is weak; but here [in the second Baraitha], seeing that his eyesight was impaired before too, I would say [that he does] not [go free]. And if we were taught the second: that is because he completely blinds him; but there [in the first Baraitha] that he does not completely blind him, l would say [that he does] not [go free]. Hence both are necessary. Our Rabbis taught: If his master is a doctor and he asks him to paint his eye [with an ointment], and he blinds him,33 [or] to drill his tooth, and he knocks it out, he laughs at his master and goes out free. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: and he destroy it34 [implies], only when he intends to destroy. And the Rabbis: how do they employ ‘and he destroy it’? — They need it for what was taught: R. Eleazar said: If he inserts his hand in his bondmaid's womb35 and blinds the child within her, he is free [from punishment].36 What is the reason? — Because Scripture said: ‘and he destroy it’, [implying], only when he intends to destroy it. And the other?37 — He deduces this from ‘and he destroy it’, [instead of] ‘and he destroy’.38 And the other? — He does not interpret ‘he destroy’, [and] ‘he destroy it’.39 R. Shesheth said: If he has a blind eye and he [the master] removes it, the slave is freed on its account. And a Tanna supports this: Perfection40 and male sex are required in animals41 but not In birds. I might think, [even] if its wing is palsied, its foot cut off, or its eye picked out [the bird is still fit]: therefore it is said: And if [the burnt sacrifice be . . .] of fowls,42 but not all fowls.43 R. Hiyya b. Ashi said in Rab's name: If he had ____________________ (1) Which does return; e.g., if the slave was a minor. (2) Just as an eye does not return, so must the tooth also be one which does not return. (3) And therefore they are not two verses with the same purpose. (4) Ex. XXI, 26f. (5) Implying that the slave is freed for the destruction of any limb. (6) Lit., ‘judge’. (7) The eye is blinded and the tooth cannot masticate. (8) This appears to be the meaning of the phrase, and is so understood in J.D. 267, 30, where, ‘from the jaw’ is added. Jast. s.v. ksks translates: he loosened a tooth in the slave's jaw. But there seems no sufficient reason for translating omg here as tooth. (9) Though the bone still functions. (10) Not merely a generalization, and therefore it teaches the inclusion of bodily hurts which are not completely similar to the loss of an eye or tooth. (11) Lit., ‘return’ — to its normal state. (12) That nothing at all is excluded. (13) Hence it must be to exclude injuries which are not permanent. (14) Viz., the twenty-four projecting limbs. (15) To legalise his marriage with a free Jewess. (16) Therefore no deed is required. (17) To prove the inclusion of other limbs too. Hence they too have Scriptural force. (18) I.e., the law is derived by Rabbinical exegesis. — The requirement of a deed is only a Rabbinical measure, lest his former master reclaim him as his slave. Hence it is unnecessary in the case of his tooth and eye, for all know that Scripture gave him his freedom. But not all are aware of the Rabbinical exegesis which extended the law to other limbs too; hence the slave needs a document to prove his freedom. — R. Tam. V. also below for another explanation. (19) Here: To freedom shall he send him away (yeshallehenu); a married woman: then he shall write her a bill of divorce. and send her (we-shillehah, the same verb as yeshallehenu) out of his house — Deut. XXIV, 1. (20) Does he not accept this exegesis? (21) For then one might argue: he shall send him — in the manner that a woman is sent away, viz., by deed — and only then is he free. (22) I.e., as soon as he is assaulted he automatically becomes free, and hence no deed is required. — Now, this can apply only to the loss of his eye or tooth, which are distinctly stated in that verse. But the other limbs are included only because ‘he shall send him away’ is an extension (v. supra); hence in respect of those, R. Simeon's exegesis, assimilating the freedom of a slave to that of a woman, may still hold good. Therefore those who compromised ruled that a deed is unnecessary when he loses his eye or tooth, but is necessary in all other cases (Riba in Tosaf.). (23) Lit., ‘against’. (24) I.e., he forcibly strikes a wall or any other object near his ear, and the shock or noise paralyses his optical or aural nerves, rendering him blind or deaf. (25) Because he was blinded by sound he is not freed. (26) Be Rab may either mean the students of Rab's college, which he founded and which continued to flourish several centuries after his death, or, scholars in general. (27) V. B.K. 18b. Thus second is a positive action, for which liability is incurred. (28) He should be able to control his nerves. (29) Thereby causing damage. (30) I.e., legally, he is exempt; morally, he is liable. This proves that in law he is not regarded as having caused the damage. (31) Seriously impairing his eyesight, but not blinding him. (32) Lit., ‘it’. (33) Accidentally. (34) Ex. XXI, 26. (35) Lit., ‘bowels’ — in order to deliver her of child. (36) The child, on birth, is not emancipated. There he does not intend doing anything to its eye at all, but here he does. (37) R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: does he not admit that the word is needed for such a case? (38) ‘And he destroy’ implies that he must intend to destroy: ‘and he destroy it’ implies that even if he is doing something to it, his intention must be destructive. (39) I.e., ‘it’ has no particular significance. (40) I.e., freedom from blemish. (41) For burnt-offerings. (42) Lev. I, 14 ‘of is partitive, excluding some fowls. (43) Thus, though blindness does not disqualify, the loss of a blind eye does. A similar principle operates in the case of a slave. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 25a an additional [freak] finger and he [his master] cut if off, the slave goes out free. Said R. Huna: Provided that it is counted upon the hand.1 [Some] scholars of Nizunia2 absented themselves from R. Hisda's session.3 Thereupon he instructed R. Hamnuna, ‘Go put them under the ban.’4 He went and said to them, ‘Why did you5 not attend the session?’ ‘Why should we attend?’ replied they, ‘when we ask him questions which he cannot answer?’ ‘Have you ever asked me anything,’ he retorted: ‘which I could not solve?’ [Thereupon] they asked him: What if a slave's stones are castrated by his master, is it an open blemish or not? As he was unable to answer it,6 they said to him, ‘What is your name?’ ‘Hamnuna,’ he replied. ‘You are not Hamnuna, but Karnuna,’ jeered they.7 When he came before R. Hisda, he said to him: They asked you a Mishnah. For we learnt: As to the twenty-four tips of limbs of a man, none of these become unclean on account of raw flesh.8 And these are they: the tips of the fingers of the hands and [the toes of] the feet, the tips of the ears, the tip of the nose, the tip of the membrum, and the nipples of a woman;9 R. Judah said: Also those of a man. Now, it was taught thereon: For [the loss of] all these a slave obtains his freedom. Rabbi said: For castration too; Ben ‘Azzai said: [For] the [loss of the] tongue too.10 The master said: ‘Rabbi said: For castration too.’ Castration of what: shall we say: Castration of the membrum? But that is identical with the [loss of the] membrum. Hence it surely means castration of the stones.11 ‘Rabbi said: Castration too’. And Rabbi, [does he] not [include] the tongue? But the following contradicts it. If he [a priest] is sprinkling,12 and the sprinkling[-water] spurts on to his [the unclean man's] mouth, — Rabbi said: He has [validly] besprinkled him;13 but the Sages maintain: He has not [validly] besprinkled him. Surely that means upon his tongue?14 — No: upon his lips. ‘Upon his lips!’ but that is obvious? — I might have thought, sometimes his lips are tightly pressed together.15 Hence we are informed [that they are still regarded as exposed]. But it was taught: on his tongue? Moreover, it was taught: and if the greater length of the tongue was removed;16 Rabbi said: [even] the greater length of the speaking part of the tongue!17 — But [answer thus:] Rabbi said: Castration too,18 and the tongue goes without saying. Ben ‘Azzai said: [The loss of the] tongue, but not castration. Then to what does ‘too’ refer?19 — To the first clause.20 If so, Ben ‘Azzai's statement should have been given priority? — The Tanna [first] heard Rabbi's view and inserted it21 [in the teaching]; then he learnt Ben ‘Azzai's view and inserted it, while the teaching remained unchanged.22 ‘Ulla said: All agree in the matter of uncleanliness that the tongue is [considered] exposed as far as reptiles are concerned. What is the reason? The Divine Law said: And whomsoever [he that hath the issue] toucheth,23 and this too can be touched. With respect to tebilah24 it is as hidden.25 What is the reason? Scripture saith, then he shall bathe his flesh in water:26 just as the flesh is exposed, so must all [which requires contact with the water] be exposed. They differ in respect to sprinkling: Rabbi compares it to uncleanliness, whereas the Rabbis compare it to tebillah. And both differ on this verse: And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean [etc.].27 Rabbi holds, [the verse reads thus:] And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day and purify him.28 Whereas the Rabbis maintain, [the verse is read thus:] and on the seventh day he shall purify him, and he shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water.29 And the Rabbis too: let it be compared with uncleanliness? — purification should be learned from purification.30 And Rabbi: let it be compared to tebillah? — ‘And he shall wash his clothes’ disconnects the subject.31 Now, does Rabbi hold that it [the tongue] is as concealed in respect of tebillah? But Rabin said in the name of R. Adda in R. Isaac's name: It once happened that a bondmaid of Rabbi's household performed tebillah, ascended [from the water], and a bone was found between her teeth, whereupon Rabbi ordered her [to perform] a second tebillah.32 — Granted that we do not require the water to enter, we insist that there shall be room for it to enter.33 And it is in accordance with R. Zera, who said: Whatever is fit for [perfect] mixing, the mixing is not indispensable; whatever is not fit for [perfect] mixing, the mixing is indispensable.34 [ ____________________ (1) I.e., it is on a level with the other fingers and in the same row. (2) A town lying close to Sura. Obermeyer, op. cit., p. 298. (3) [Who became head of the School of Sura after the death of Rab Judah.] (4) Lit., ‘cause them to withdraw’ and live in retirement — a mild form of excommunication. Presumably he knew that their absence was due to dissatisfaction with his teaching methods. (5) Lit., ‘the Rabbis’. (6) Lit., ‘he did not have it in his hand’. (7) Rashi connects Karnuna with karona, the market: ‘you have frittered your time away in the market place, gossiping, otherwise you could have answered us.’ Tosaf. Ham-nuna = a hot fish; Kar-nuna = a cold fish. ‘you are a cold fish, not hot’ — your knowledge is lifeless. (8) V. Lev. XIII, 10: ‘and there be quick raw flesh in the rising’. (9) Each being counted separately, we have twenty-four, apart from the woman's addition, (10) Because it is seen when one peaks; hence its loss is a patent blemish. (11) That is the conclusion of R. Hisda's reply. (12) V. Num. XIX, 17, 19. (13) I.e., he is clean, though the sprinkling must be upon the revealed parts of his body. (14) Shewing that Rabbi regards the tongue as an exposed limb, and thus contradicting his exclusion of the tongue in the case of a slave. (15) And they ceased to be exposed. — At this stage, that may be assumed as the reason of the Sages. (16) In the case of a firstling, that is a blemish, which permits the animal to be eaten as hullin (q.v. Glos). (17) There too, exposed blemishes are required, and we see that Rabbi regards the loss of the tongue as such. (18) Though the testicles are always hidden. (19) Ben ‘Azzai said: ‘The loss of the tongue too’; this appears an addition to Rabbi's ruling, but it is now obvious that it cannot be. (20) I.e., the enumeration preceding Rabbi's statement. (21) Lit., ‘fixed it’. (22) Lit., ‘it did not move from its place’, i.e., it was not altered so as to give Ben ‘Azzai's statement the precedence it logically requires. (23) Lev. XV, 11; though this refers to a zab (v. Glos.), the same holds good of defilement by a reptile, and this verse shews that it must touch an exposed part of the person. (24) V. Glos. (25) In tebillah, the whole of the exposed part of a person must come into contact with the water; but not the tongue, for it is regarded as concealed. (26) Ibid.13. (27) Num. XIX, 29. (28) By linking ‘the unclean’ with ‘purify him’, he deduces that whatever part can become unclean may be validly sprinkled; hence the tongue is included. (29) They connect ‘shall purify’ i.e., sprinkle, with ‘bathe himself, i.e., tebillah. Hence sprinkling must be on the same part which needs tebillah, thus excluding the tongue. (30) . I.e., the two phrases bearing on cleanliness must be coupled. (31) Therefore ‘shall purify’ cannot be linked with ‘bathe himself.’ (32) Which shews that the water must enter the mouth. (33) I.e., though the water need not pass through the crevices between the teeth, yet it must be possible, whereas the bone rendered it impossible. (34) In Men. 103b it is stated: A meal offering of more than sixty ‘esronim (‘isaron pl. ‘esronim = one tenth of an ephah) cannot be offered in one utensil, because it cannot be perfectly mixed with the oil. Hence if sixty-one ‘esronim are vowed, sixty are brought in one vessel, and one in another. Now the Talmud objects, But we learnt that the offering is valid even if not mixed at all? R. Zera's dictum is the answer, and the same principle applies here. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 25b This1 is disputed by Tannaim. And that which is bruised, or crushed, or broken, or cut [ye shall not offer unto the Lord]2 — all these refer to the stones: that is R. Judah's opinion. To the stones and not to the membrum!3 But all these refer to the stones too: that is R. Judah's opinion. R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: They all refer to the membrum.4 R. Jose said: ‘Bruised and crushed’ refer to the stones too,5 whereas ‘broken or cut’ refer only to the membrum but not to the stones.6 MISHNAH. LARGE CATTLE7 ARE ACQUIRED BY MESIRAH8 SMALL CATTLE9 BY LIFTING: THIS IS THE OPINION OF R. MEIR AND R. ELIEZER.10 BUT THE SAGES RULE: SMALL CATTLE ARE ACQUIRED BY MESHIKAH. GEMARA. Rab lectured in Kimhunia:11 Large cattle are acquired by meshikah. Samuel, meeting Rab's disciples, said to them, Did Rab rule that large cattle are acquired by meshikah? But we learnt: BY MESIRAH, and Rab too [previously] ruled, by mesirah! Did he then retract from that [view]? — He ruled in accordance with this Tanna. For it was taught: But the Sages maintain, Both [large cattle and small] are acquired by meshikah. R. Simeon said: Both by lifting. R. Joseph demurred: If so, how can an elephant be acquired, according to R. Simeon? — Said Abaye to him: By halifin, or by renting its place.12 R. Zera said: He [the purchaser] brings four utensils and places them under its feet.13 Then you may infer from this that when the purchaser's utensils are in the vendor's domain [and a bought commodity is placed in them] the purchaser obtains a title.14 — The reference here is to an alley.15 ____________________ (1) The question whether castration of testicles is a patent blemish and so frees the slave. (2) Lev. XXII, 24. (3) Surely if the membrum is cut or broken it is a patent blemish! (4) But not to the testicles, which in his view are concealed and do not disqualify the animal. (5) As then they are more noticeable. (6) For these are less noticeable. — A slave is freed when his master blemishes him in such a way that an animal would thereby be unfit for a sacrifice, and thus the question of his stones is disputed by these Tannaim. (7) Of the bovine race — cows, oxen, etc. (8) Delivery, the vendor gives it over to the purchaser. (9) Sheep, goats etc. (10) So the reading in cur. edd. S. Strashun and Alfasi read Eleazar, the reference being to R. Eleazar h. Shammua’, a contemporary of R. Meir. (11) Neubauer, Geographie, p. 397 identifies Kimhunia with Gamach, a town in upper Armenia; Obermeyer, op. cir. p. 296, (v. also n. 4. a.l.) rejects this identification and places it in the vicinity of Sura. (12) It then becomes his temporarily, and the elephant too; v. Mishnah on 26a. (13) I.e., causes the elephant to step upon them; he is then regarded as having placed it in his utensils, so acquiring it. (14) For presumably the elephant was standing in the vendor's grounds. But this question is disputed in B.B. 85a. (15) Adjoining a public thoroughfare: this is a ‘no man's land’. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 26a Alternatively, [this refers] to bundles of faggots.1 MISHNAH. PROPERTY WHICH OFFERS SECURITY2 IS ACQUIRED BY MONEY, BY DEED OR BY HAZAKAH. [PROPERTY] WHICH DOES NOT OFFER SECURITY3 CAN BE ACQUIRED ONLY BY MESHIKAH. PROPERTY WHICH DOES NOT OFFER SECURITY MAY BE ACQUIRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROPERTY WHICH PROVIDES SECURITY BY MONEY, DEED, OR HAZAKAH;4 AND IT OBLIGATES THE PROPERTY WHICH PROVIDES SECURITY, TO TAKE AN OATH CONCERNING THEM.5 GEMARA. BY MONEY: Whence do we know it? — Said Hezekiah: Scripture saith, men shall acquire fields with money.6 Yet perhaps [the purchase is invalid] unless there is a deed [too], since it continues, and subscribe the deeds, and attest them? — Were ‘acquire’ written at the end, it would be as you say; now, however, that ‘acquire’ is written at the beginning,7 money gives a title, while the deed is merely evidence.8 Rab said: This was taught only of a place where a deed is not indited; but where it is, money alone gives no title. Yet if he [the vendee] distinctly stipulates,9 it is so.10 E.g., when R. Idi b. Abin bought land he used to say: ‘If I wish, I acquire it by money; if I wish, I acquire it by deed.’ [Thus:] ‘If I wish, I acquire it by money,’ so that should you desire to retract [after I have paid], you cannot. ‘And if I wish, I acquire it by deed,’ so that should I desire to withdraw,11 I can. AND BY DEED. How do we know it? Shall we say, because it is written, and subscribe the deeds, and attest them, and call witnesses12 — but you have said that the deed is merely evidence? — But from this verse, so I took the deed of purchase.13 Samuel said: This was taught only of a deed of gift. But in the case of sale, no title is obtained until the money is paid.14 R. Hamnuna objected: By deed: E.g., if he [the vendor] writes for him [the vendee] on paper or a shard,15 even if worth less than a perutah. ‘My field is sold unto you,’ ‘my field is given unto you,’ it is sold and gifted!16 — He raised the objection. and he answered it: This refers to one who sells his field because of its poor quality.17 R. Ashi said: He really wished to present it to him as a gift; why then did he indite it with the phraseology of purchase? In order to strengthen his rights therein.18 AND BY HAZAKAH. How do we know it? — Said Hezekiah: Scripture saith, and dwell in the cities that ye have taken:19 how did ye take it? By dwelling therein.20 The School of R. Ishmael taught: And ye shall possess it, and dwell therein:21 whereby shall ye possess it? By dwelling therein. PROPERTY WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE SECURITY CAN BE ACQUIRED ONLY BY MESHIKAH. Whence do we know it? — Because it is written, and if thou sell aught unto thy neighbour, or buy of thy neighbour's hand,22 [intimating] that an article is acquired [by passing] from hand to hand.23 But according to R. Johanan, who maintained, By Biblical law, money gives a title,24 what can be said? — The Tanna teaches the Rabbinical enactment.25  PROPERTY WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE SECURITY [etc.]. How do we know it? — Said Hezekiah, Because Scripture saith, And their father gave them gifts . . . with fenced cities in Judah.26 The scholars propounded: Need they [the movables] be heaped up [upon the land] or not?27 — Said R. Joseph, Come and hear: R. Akiba said: Land, whatever its size, is liable to pe'ah28 and first fruits,29 ____________________ (1) Not less than three handbreadths high. When he causes the elephant to step upon them, he is regarded as having lifted it. (2) Real estate which may be mortgaged for debts, and remain liable to seizure even if subsequently sold. (3) I.e., movables, because the creditor cannot distrain upon them if sold. (4) If one sells land and movables, as soon as the purchaser acquires the land by one of these three methods, the movables automatically become his. — Hazakah, lit., ‘taking possession,’ e.g., if the vendee performs some small labour therein, such as digging, threshing, closing or making a gap in its fences. (5) In litigation over real estate, no oath is administered; whereas for movables it is. In a dispute concerning both, since an oath is taken for the latter, it is taken for the former too. (6) Jer. XXXII, 44. (7) I.e., before the mention of deeds, (8) Of the sale. (9) That either money or deed shall suffice. [Tosaf. Ri: either the vendor or buyer, whoever makes the terms, is at an advantage.] (10) Lit., ‘he has stipulated’. (11) After paying, but before the deed is drawn up. (12) Jer. XXXII, 44. (13) Ibid. 11; this shews that the deed itself consummates the purchase. (14) Unless otherwise stipulated (Rashi). (15) Shards were used for this purpose in very ancient times: v. Krauss, T.A. 111, 147f, and n. 113a, 1. (16) Thus the deed suffices even for a sale. — The meaning is assumed to be, it is sold or gifted. (17) Being anxious to get rid of it, he is desirous that the deed itself shall consummate the transaction, so that the vendee may not withdraw. (18) Should the donor's creditors seize it for debt, the recipient would be able to claim its value, as stated in the deed, from him. Hence it is literally meant: it is both sold and gifted. (19) Jer. XL, 10. (20) I.e., by hazakah, possession. (21) Deut. XI, 31. (22) Lev. XXV, 14. (23) I.e., by meshikah. (24) In the case of movables. (25) That only meshikah gives a title. The reason of the enactment was this: should money itself transfer the purchase to the vendee, even before he takes possession, and a fire break out on the vendor's premises where the goods lie, he will not trouble to save them. V. B.M. 47b. (26) II Chron. XXI, 3; thus, they acquired the gifts, which were movables, in conjunction with the fenced cities, sc. real estate. (27) When they are to be acquired along with it. (28) V. Glos. (29) V. Deut. XXVI, 2. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 26b [is fit] for a prosbul1 to be written thereon, and that property which does not provide security [movables] shall be acquired along with it. But if you say: They must be heaped thereon, for what is a very small piece of land fit? — R. Samuel b. Bisna explained it in R. Joseph's presence: E.g., if he sticks a needle therein.2 Said R. Joseph to him. You annoy us:3 has the Tanna troubled to teach us about a needle! — Said R. Ashi: who tells us that he did not suspend a pearl on it, worth a thousand zuz? Come and hear: R. Eleazar said: It once happened that a certain Meronite4 in Jerusalem had a large quantity of movables, which he desired to give away. He was thereupon informed that he had no other means but to transfer them along with land. What did he do? He went and bought beth sela’5 near Jerusalem and declared: ‘The north of this belongs to So-and-so, and together with it go a hundred sheep and a hundred barrels’;6 on his death his directions were carried out. But if you say: They [the movables] must be heaped up thereon, for what is beth sela’ fit? — Do you think that by beth sela’ literally a sela’ [coin] is meant? What is sela’? A large area; and why was it called sela’? Because it was as hard as a rock.7 Come and hear: For Rab Judah said in Rab's name: It once happened that a certain man who fell ill in Jerusalem (that is in accordance with R. Eleazar's view) — others state, he was in good health, which agrees with the Rabbis8 — had a large quantity of movables, which he desired to dispose of as a gift. Thereupon he was told that he had no other option but to transfer it along with land. What did he do? He went and purchased [a field] a quarter [kab's sowing] in area9 and declared: ‘Let a square handbreadth10 belong to So-and-so, and with it go a hundred sheep and a hundred barrels’:11 on his death, the Sages confirmed his testimony. Now, if you say that they [the movables] must be heaped up thereon, for what is a square handbreadth fit? — The reference here is to money.12 Reason too supports this. For should you think that a hundred sheep and a hundred barrels are meant literally, he should have transferred them by barter!13 What then: money? Then he could have transferred it to him by meshikah? But [it must mean] that the recipient is absent; then here too,14 it means that the recipient is absent. Then he should have transferred it to him by another?15 — He could not rely thereon, fearing that the other would steal and consume it. Then what is meant by ‘he had no other option’? — It means this: in view [of the fact] that he has no confidence [in a stranger], there is no other course but to transfer it in virtue of real estate. Come and hear: Rabban Gamaliel and some elders were once travelling in a ship. Said Rabban Gamaliel to the elders, ‘Let the tenth which I am to measure out ____________________ (1) V. Glos. The prosbul was a deed whereby a creditor transferred his debts to the Beth din, which were then regarded as though already collected from the debtor, so that the seventh year did not cancel them. This was done only if the debtor possessed land. — This measure was instituted by Hillel, who saw that people refused to lend money when the seventh year was approaching, with consequent hardships for the poor; v. Git. 36a. (2) Which is acquired along with the land. (3) Or, insolent man! (4) A townsman of Meron in Galilee, south of Giscala. The reading here and in the MS. F of B.B. 156b is hbusn . (5) This may have several meanings: (i) a piece of land the size of a sela’, the coin; (ii) a piece of land comprising just one rock, upon which it would be impossible to place anything; and (iii) a piece of rocky soil. The first or second is assumed to be meant. (6) In B.B. 156b it continues: and the south part to So-and-so, etc. (7) So that it could be bought very cheaply. (8) R. Eleazar maintains that a gift, even if made by a very sick person on point of death, is not validly transferred by mere words, but the recipient must perform an act of acquisition. Hence the following story can refer even to a sick person. But the Rabbis hold this unnecessary in the case of a sick person, whose verbal testimony suffices; hence what is related must have happened to a man in good health. (9) On the basis that two sela'im (twelve kabs) of seed are required for 5,000 sq. cubits; ‘Er. 23b. (10) A handbreadth one sixth of a cubit. (11) And the recipient acquired the land by one of the recognised methods. (12) He gave them money worth all that, and money could actually be placed thereon. (13) Halifin v. Glos. Coin cannot be so acquired (B.M. 46a). (14) I.e., even if sheep and barrels are meant literally. (15) Who would accept it on his behalf. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 27a be given to Joshua,1 and its place [where it is lying] be rented to him; and the other tenth which I am to measure out be given to Akiba b. Joseph, that he shall acquire it on behalf of the poor,2 and its place be rented to him’.3 This proves that they must be heaped up thereon.4 — [No:] there it was different, for he did not wish to give them trouble.5 Come and hear: For Raba b. Isaac said in Rab's name: There are two [different kinds of] deeds. [Thus: If a man declares,] ‘Acquire a title to this field on behalf of So-and-so, and indite a deed for him,’6 he can retract from the deed7 but not from the field. [But if he stipulates,] ‘on condition that you indite a deed for him,’ he can retract from both the deed and the field.8 R. Hiyya b. Abin said in R. Huna's name: There are three [kinds of] deeds. Two, as just stated. The third: If the vendor anticipates [payment] and indites a deed for him [the vendee], in accordance with what we learnt: A deed may be written for the vendor9 even though the vendee is not with him,10 then as soon as he takes possession of the land, the deed is vested [in the vendee] wherever it is.11 This proves that they need not be heaped up thereon!12 — A deed is different, as it is the bit of the land.13 But thereon it was taught: This is [an example of] what we learnt, PROPERTY WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE SECURITY MAY BE ACQUIRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROPERTY WHICH PROVIDES SECURITY BY MONEY, BY DEED OR BY HAZAKAH. This proves that they need not be heaped up thereon! This proves it. The scholars propounded: Is ‘by dint’ [thereof] necessary or not?14 — Come and hear: For all these [cases] are taught,15 and yet ‘by dint of is not mentioned. And on your view; is ‘Let him acquire it’ taught?16 But it must mean, only when he says: ‘Acquire it’; then here too, [it may mean] only when he says: ‘By dint of.’17 Now, the law is: they need not be heaped thereon, whereas ‘Acquire it,’ and ‘By dint of are essential. The scholars propounded: What if the field is sold and the movables are gifted?18 — Come and hear: ‘The tenth which I am to measure out to be given to Joshua and its place be rented to him.’ This proves it.19 The scholars propounded: What if the field [is transferred] to one person, and the movables to another?20 — Come and hear: ‘A tenth which I am to measure out be given to Akiba b. Joseph, that he shall acquire it on behalf of the poor, and its place be rented to him.’21 [This does not solve it:] What is meant by ‘rented’? Rented for the tithe.22 Alternatively, R. Akiba was different, for he was the hand of the poor.23 Raba said: This was taught24 only if he [the purchaser] had paid the money for them all. But if he had not paid the money for them all, he acquires only to the extent of his money. It was taught in agreement with Raba. The power of money is superior to that of a deed, and the power of a deed is superior to that of money. The power of money is superior [etc.], in that hekdesh25 and the second tithe26 are redeemed therewith, which is not so in the case of deed.27 And the power of a deed is superior, for a deed can free an Israelite daughter,28 which does not hold good of money. And the power of both is superior to that of hazakah, and the power of hazakah is superior to that of both. The power of both is superior [etc.], in that both give a title to a Hebrew slave, which is not so in the case of hazakah. And the power of hazakah is superior to that of both: For with hazakah, if A sells B ten fields [situate] in ten countries, as soon as B takes possession29 of one, he acquires all. ____________________ (1) I.e., R. Joshua b. Hanania, who was a Levite. (2) It was either the third or the sixth year after the year or release (shemittah), when a tithe must be given to the poor. R. Akiba was the charity overseer. (3) And they were to obtain a title in virtue of the place. — Rashi states: R. Gamaliel had forgotten to separate the tithes before leaving home, nor had he authorized his household to do so, and he was afraid that they might eat thereof before his return. Tosaf.: It was the time when all tithes had to be given up (likewise at the end of the third and the sixth years: though the tithes were separated before, they might be kept in the house of the Israelite until then), and R. Gamaliel chose this way of giving it. In that case it would appear that the tithes had already been separated, but the phrase, ‘which I am to measure out’ suggests otherwise; v. Rashal and Maharsha. v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 62 and notes. (4) Otherwise, why specify the particular spot where they lie? (5) The place being rented to them, they could remove the tithes at their convenience. But had he rented some other place to them, he might have wanted the spot where they were lying. (6) As evidence of ownership. (7) Should he say: ‘I do not wish him to have proof that the field is his.’ (8) For they are interdependent. (9) Viz., my field is sold to X. (10) Either where the vendee has already formally obtained a title thereto, or, according to Abaye, even without it, the mere attesting of such a deed causing the transfer. (11) Though not actually on the land. (12) For fuller notes v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 309. (13) Like the bit used for leading a horse. I.e., the deed is valueless in itself, but a part of the land transaction, of which it is evidence. But other movables, valuable in themselves, possibly need not be heaped up on the land. (14) cdt i,e., must the vendor or donor state that the movables are to be acquired in virtue of the land? (15) On 26b: a hundred sheep etc. (16) Though it is certain that that must be said. (17) And they are omitted because they are taken for granted. (18) Can the latter be acquired through the former? (19) For the tithe was gifted, whereas the place was rented, which is a temporary sale. (20) Can one say: ‘Acquire the field, and in virtue thereof let So-and-so acquire the movables’? (21) Thus the tenth was for the poor, while the place was rented to R. Akiba. (22) And no other purpose. Hence it was really rented to the poor. (23) I.e., he was their representative. (24) That movables are acquired along with land. (25) The plural hekdashoth, sacred objects, viz., animals dedicated to the altar which had subsequently received a blemish, or any object consecrated for Temple use. (26) V. p. 4, n. 4. (27) The writing of a deed obligating the owner with their redemption value does not redeem them. (28) From the marriage bond, viz., divorce. (29) By means of hazakah, which is the meaning of hehezik. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 27b When is this? If he has paid him for all; but if he has not paid the money for all, he gains a title only to the extent of his money. This supports Samuel. For Samuel said: If A sells B ten fields [situate] in ten countries, as soon as B takes possession of one, he then acquires all. Said R. Aha, son of R. Ika: The proof is: if he delivered him ten cows [tied] by one cord,1 and said to him, ‘Acquire them’: would he not acquire then, [all]?2 — How compare? he objected. There the tie is in his hand,3 whereas here the tie is not in his hand. Others state, R. Aha, son of R. Ika, said: The proof that he does not acquire [them all]4 is: if he delivered him ten cows [tied] by one cord and said to him, ‘Acquire this one: would he acquire them all?5 — How compare: there they are separate entities; but here, The earth is one block.6 AND THEY OBLIGATE THE PROPERTY etc. ‘Ulla said: How do we derive [the law of] the superimposed oath7 from the Torah? — Because it is said: And the woman shall say: Amen, Amen.8 And we learnt: To what does she say: Amen? Amen to the curse,9 Amen to the oath,10 Amen that [she was] not [unfaithful] by this man,11 Amen that [she was] not [unfaithful] by any other man.12 Amen that I did not go aside as an arusah, a nesu'ah, when waiting for the yabam,13 or as a kenusah.14 Now, how is this arusah meant? Shall we say that he [the arus] warned her15 when an arusah and makes her drink [the bitter waters]16 likewise as an arusah, — but we learnt: An arusah and one who waits for the yabam neither drink nor receive their kethubah:17 why? Because the Divine Law said, [and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanliness,] being under thy husband,18 which [condition] is absent!19 But if it means that he warned her as an arusah, she privily closeted herself [with the man against whom she was warned] likewise when an arusah, and he makes her drink when a nesu'ah20 — then can the water test her? Surely Scripture said: And the man shall be free from iniquity,21 [which means,] when the husband himself is free from sin, water tests his wife; if the husband himself is not free from sin, water cannot test his wife!22 Hence [it is possible only] by means of superimposition.23 Now, we have found this [a superimposed oath] in the case of sotah,24 which belongs to ecclesiastical law.25 How do we know it of civil law? — The School of R. Ishmael taught: A minori: if we superimpose [an oath] in the case of a sotah, ____________________ (1) Lit., ‘bit’. (2) E.g., if he seized one of them by its hair (Tosaf.). [Or by taking hold of the cord, on the view (supra 25b), that large cattle are acquired by Mesirah (Tosaf. Ri)]. (3) The animals are all tied together. (4) In contradiction to Samuel. (5) Surely not. (6) All land is regarded as ultimately connected. (7) I.e., an oath which would not be taken by itself, except in conjunction with another which must be taken in any case? (8) Num. V, 22; this refers to the priest's adjuration concerning the charge of adultery. (9) Ibid. 21. (10) Ibid. 19. (11) With whom she was now accused of having committed adultery. (12) I.e., that she was not unfaithful in general. (13) In the period between her husband's death and either her marriage, (yibum) or her emancipation (halizah) from the yabam. (14) Lit., ‘gathered in,’ the designation of a yebamah after her marriage to the yabam. (15) Lit., ‘was jealous of her’; v. ibid.14; i.e., he formally expressed his jealousy in the presence of two witnesses and forbade her to closet herself privily with the object of his suspicions. (16) V. Num. V, 24. (17) I.e., they are divorced or given halizah, but forfeit their marriage settlements. (18) Ibid. 19. (19) For neither may live with her husband (viz., the arus or yabam) until the marriage ceremony is completed. (20) I.e., after his warning was ignored, he completed and consummated the marriage, and then subjected her to the water ordeal. — If a woman disregards her husband's warning he must not live with her; hence he himself sinned in consummating the marriage. (21) Ibid. 31. (22) This interpretation is put upon the sentence because in its literary sense it is unnecessary; why would we have thought that the husband bears blame? (23) I.e., it is impossible that an oath shall be taken by itself for misconduct whilst an arusah. She can swear in the first place only because she is charged with adultery when a nesu'ah, and upon this another oath is superimposed, viz., that she was not unfaithful as an arusah too. (24) A wife charged with adultery, v. Glos. (25) truxht , lit., ‘prohibition,’ is used in contradistinction to tbunn money, i.e., civil law dealing with financial questions only. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 28a Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 28a though it [the oath] cannot be demanded of her on the evidence of one witness [only];1 then in the case of a monetary claim, where a demand [for an oath] can be made on the evidence of one witness,2 it surely follows that we superimpose [an oath]. Now, we have thus learnt this of a positive claim; how do we know it of a case of doubt?3 — It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai said: An oath was ordered without [the Temple Court],4 and an oath was ordered within [the Temple Court]: just as in the oath decreed within, doubt was made equal to certainty;5 so also in the oath decreed without, doubt was made equal to certainty. How far does the superimposed oath [go]? — Said Rab Judah in Rab's name: Even if he demands of him, ‘Swear to me that you are not my slave.’6 But he indeed is placed under the ban! For it was taught: If one calls his neighbour ‘slave’,7 let him be placed under the ban; ‘mamzer’,8 . . . he receives forty [lashes]; ‘wicked’, [rasha’] he may strive9 against his very livelihood!10 — But, said Raba: [He may demand of him:] ‘Swear to me that you were not sold to me as a Hebrew slave’. But that is a proper claim? he owes him money!11 — Raba follows his general view. For Raba said: A Hebrew slave belongs bodily [to his master].12 If so, it is the equivalent of land?13 — I might have thought, Only land is it usual for people to sell secretly: had he sold it, it would not be generally known; but as for this,14 had he sold himself, it would have been known.15 Therefore we are informed [that it is not so]. MISHNAH. WHATEVER CAN BE USED AS PAYMENT FOR ANOTHER OBJECT, AS SOON AS ONE PARTY TAKES POSSESSION THEREOF, THE OTHER ASSUMES LIABILITY FOR WHAT IS GIVEN IN EXCHANGE.16 HOW SO? IF ONE BARTERS AN OX FOR A COW, OR AN ASS FOR AN OX, AS SOON AS ONE PARTY TAKES POSSESSION, THE OTHER BECOMES LIABLE FOR WHAT IS GIVEN IN EXCHANGE.17 GEMARA. What is the barter? Money!18 Then this proves that coin can become [an object of] barter.19 — Said Rab Judah: This is its meaning: Whatever is assessed as the value of another object,20 ____________________ (1) At least two witnesses must testify to her closeting herself (v. Sotah 2a). (2) If A claims money from B and produces one witness to support his claim, B must swear that it is false; Sheb. 40a. (3) E.g., A and B are partners in a business; when they come to dissolve partnership, A cannot demand that B shall swear that he did not purloin anything from the business, in order to satisfy his doubts. If, however, B is bound to swear on account of another matter, he must swear on this too. Now, it cannot be argued that this too follows a fortiori from sotah, where the charge of adultery is likewise only doubtful. For the principal oath in connection with sotah is entirely due to doubt; hence the superimposed oath is likewise. But in money matters the principal oath is imposed for a positive claim only. (4) All oaths provided for in Scripture were taken without the Temple Court, except the oath of a sotah. (5) In respect of swearing a superimposed oath. (6) And if he must in any case swear on another matter, he must swear on this too. (7) Probably as a result of his liaison with a heathen bondmaid. (8) Bastard; v. Glos. (9) Lit., ‘descend’. (10) So Rashi, V. also MGWJ. Festschrift, 1934, p. 127, n. 1; also the whole art. a.l. Buchler, Familienreinheit u. Sittlichkeit im zweiten Jahrundert, which discusses this Baraitha at considerable length. (11) I.e., he is really claiming his service, which is an ordinary monetary claim, and there is nothing remarkable in the defendant's having to take a superimposed oath. Hence this is not a fitting answer to the question, ‘How far does a superimposed oath go?’ (12) V. supra, p. 70, n. 2. Hence it is not an ordinary claim of money. (13) For a heathen slave, belonging bodily to his master, ranks as real estate (v. supra 22b) and the same will apply to a Hebrew slave according to Raba's dictum. But then it is already stated in the Mishnah. (14) The claim under discussion. (15) Lit., ‘It has a sound.’ Hence the claim is prima facie false, and no superimposed oath is taken, for this too requires some verisimilitude (Tosaf.). (16) I.e., for the halipin, or barter thereof. (17) Even before it actually reaches his hands. (18) For it is assumed that WHATEVER CAN BE USED AS PAYMENT refers to, or at least includes, money. Hence the Mishnah teaches: If A exchanges a cow for B's money, the money not being given as payment but as barter, just as an ox might have been given, immediately A receives the money, B accepts the risks of anything that may happen to the cow, which is now in his possession. That is so, notwithstanding that had the money been given as payment, A's receipt thereof would not have transferred ownership of the cow to B. (19) This is disputed by Amoraim in B.M. 46a, hence the Mishnah refutes the opposing view. (20) I.e., anything but money, which needs no assessment. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 28b as soon as one party takes possession, the other assumes liability for what is given in exchange. This follows too from the statement, HOW SO? IF ONE BARTERS AN OX FOR A COW, OR AN ASS FOR AN OX. This proves it. Now, on the original hypothesis, that coin can effect a barter, what is meant by HOW SO?1 — It means this: And produce too can effect a barter. HOW SO? IF ONE BARTERS AN OX FOR A COW, OR AN ASS FOR AN OX, as soon as one party takes possession, the other assumes liability for what is given in exchange. Now, this agrees with R. Shesheth, who maintained: Produce can effect a barter. But on R. Nahman's view, viz., that produce cannot effect a barter, what can be said? — It means this: Money sometimes ranks as [an object of] barter. HOW SO? IF ONE BARTERS THE MONEY OF AN OX FOR A COW, OR THE MONEY OF AN ASS FOR AN OX.2 What is the reason? — He agrees with R. Johanan, who said: Biblically speaking, money effects a title. Why then was it decreed that only meshikah gives possession? As a precautionary measure, lest he say to him, ‘Your wheat was burnt in the loft.’3 Now, the Rabbis enacted a preventive measure only for a usual occurrence, but not for an unusual occurrence.4 Now, according to Resh Lakish, who maintains that meshikah is explicitly required by Biblical law: it is well if he agrees with R. Shesheth, who rules [that] produce can effect a barter; then he can explain it as R. Shesheth. But if he holds with R. Nahman, that produce cannot effect a barter, whilst money does not effect a title [at all], how can he explain it?5 — You are forced to say that he agrees with R. Shesheth.6 MISHNAH. THE SANCTUARY'S7 TITLE TO PROPERTY [IS ACQUIRED] BY MONEY; THE TITLE OF A COMMON MAN TO PROPERTY BY HAZAKAH.8 DEDICATION TO THE SANCTUARY IS EQUAL TO DELIVERY TO A COMMON PERSON. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: How is the Sanctuary's title [acquired] by money? If the [Temple] treasurer pays money for an animal, even if the animal is at the world's end, he acquires it; whereas a common person gains no title until he performs meshikah. How is dedication to the Sanctuary equal to delivery to a common person? If one declares, ‘This ox be a burnt-offering,’ ‘This house be hekdesh,’ even if they are at the world's end, it [hekdesh] acquires them; whereas a common person gains no title9 ____________________ (1) I.e., why is an instance given which does not illustrate the use of money as barter? (2) E.g., A sells an ox to B for a certain sum of money, and B takes possession, thereby becoming indebted to A for the purchase price. Then B says: ‘I will give you a cow for the purchase price of the ox,’ to which A agrees. Now, though this is theoretically a fresh transaction, viz., B sells a cow to A, the money owing by B for the ox being regarded as though delivered to him by A for the cow, and it is a principle that the delivery of money alone does not consummate a purchase, it does so here, and neither can retract, i.e.,it is barter, not payment. (3) V. p. 126, n. 7. (4) Such a transaction as described in note 2; consequently, the Biblical law operates. (5) For, as we have seen, on the original hypothesis either of these is involved. (6) The whole passage occurs again in B.M. 46a-b. (7) Lit., ‘the Highest’. (8) This is explained in the Gemara. (9) In similar circumstances. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 29a until he performs meshikah or hazakah. If one [a common person] performs meshikah with it when it is worth a maneh,1 but has no time to redeem it [pay the money] until it rises to two hundred [zuz,] he must pay two hundred.2 What is the reason? — [Scripture saith,] Then he shall pay the money, and it shall be assured to him.3 If he performs meshikah when it is worth two hundred and has no time to redeem it until it falls to a maneh, he must pay two hundred. What is the reason? — That the rights of a layman should not be stronger4 than those of hekdesh.5 If he redeems it when it is worth two hundred, and has no time to perform meshikah before it falls to a maneh, he must pay two hundred.6 What is the reason? — [Scripture saith,] ‘Then he shall pay the money, and it shall be assured to him.’ If he redeems it at a maneh, and has no time to perform meshikah before it rises to two hundred, what he has redeemed is redeemed, and he pays only a maneh. Why? here too, let us say: The rights of a layman should not be stronger than those of hekdesh?7 — Must not a common person submit [to the curse,] ‘He who punished [etc.]?’8 MISHNAH. ALL OBLIGATIONS OF THE SON UPON THE FATHER,9 MEN ARE BOUND, BUT WOMEN ARE EXEMPT. BUT ALL OBLIGATIONS OF THE FATHER UPON THE SON, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN ARE BOUND. ALL AFFIRMATIVE PRECEPTS LIMITED TO TIME,10 MEN ARE LIABLE AND WOMEN ARE EXEMPT. BUT ALL AFFIRMATIVE PRECEPTS NOT LIMITED TO TIME ARE BINDING UPON BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. AND ALL NEGATIVE PRECEPTS, WHETHER LIMITED TO TIME OR NOT LIMITED TO TIME, ARE BINDING UPON BOTH MEN AND WOMEN; EXCEPTING, YE SHALL NOT ROUND [THE CORNERS OF YOUR HEADS],11 NEITHER SHALT THOU MAR [THE CORNER OF THY BEARD],12 AND, HE SHALL NOT DEFILE HIMSELF13 TO THE DEAD.14 GEMARA. What is the meaning of ALL OBLIGATIONS OF THE SON UPON THE FATHER? Shall we say, all which the son is bound to perform for his father? Are then women [i.e., daughters] exempt? But it was taught: [Every man, his mother and his father ye shall fear:]15 ‘every man:’ I know this only of a man; whence do I know it of a woman? When it is said: ‘Every man, his mother and his father ye shall fear’ — behold, two are [mentioned] here.16 — Said Rab Judah: This is the meaning: ALL OBLIGATIONS OF THE SON, [WHICH LIE] UPON THE FATHER to do to his son, MEN ARE BOUND, BUT WOMEN [MOTHERS] ARE EXEMPT. We thus learnt [here] what our Rabbis taught: The father is bound in respect of his son, to circumcise, redeem,17 teach him Torah, take a wife for him, and teach him a craft. Some say, to teach him to swim too, R. Judah said: He who does not teach his son a craft, teaches him brigandage, ‘Brigandage’! can you really think so! — But it is as though he taught him brigandage.18 ‘To circumcise him.’ How do we know it? — Because it is written: And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac.19 And if his father did not circumcise him, Beth din20 is bound to circumcise him, for it is written: Every male among you shall be circumcised.21 And if Beth din did not circumcise him, he is bound to circumcise himself, for it is written: And the uncircumcised male who will not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off.22 How do we know that she [the mother] has no such obligation? — Because it is written, [‘And Abraham circumcised his son . . .] as God had commanded him’: ‘him,’ but not ‘her’ [the mother]. Now, we find this so at that time;23 how do we know it for all times?24 — The School of R. Ishmael taught: whenever ‘command’ is stated,25 its only purpose is to denote exhortation for then and all time.26 Exhortation, as it is written. But charge Joshua, and encourage him, and strengthen him.27 Then and for all time, as it is written, front the day that the Lord gave commandment, and onward throughout your generations.28 ‘To redeem him.’ How do we know it? — Because it is written, and all the firstborn of man among thy sons shalt thou redeem.29 And if his father did not redeem him, he is bound to redeem himself, for it is written, [nevertheless the firstborn of man] thou shalt surely redeem.30 And how do we know that she [his mother] is not obliged [to redeem him]? — Because it is written, thou shalt redeem [tifdeh] [which may also be read] thou shalt redeem thyself [tippadeh]: one who is charged with redeeming oneself is charged to redeem others; whereas one who is not charged to redeem oneself is not charged to redeem others. And how do we know that she is not bound to redeem herself?31 — Because it is written, thou shalt redeem [tifdeh], [which may be read] thou shalt redeem thyself the one whom others are commanded to redeem, is commanded to redeem oneself: the one whom others are not commanded to redeem is not commanded to redeem oneself. And how do we know that others are not commanded to redeem her? — Because the Writ saith, ‘and all the firstborn of man among thy sons shalt thou redeem’:’32 ‘thy sons’, but not thy daughters. Our Rabbis taught: If there is himself to redeem33 and his son to redeem, he takes precedence over his son. R. Judah said: His son precedes him, for the precept in respect to the latter lies [primarily] upon his father, whereas that concerning his son lies [primarily] upon himself. Said R. Jeremiah: All agree, ____________________ (1) A hundred zuz. (2) This refers to an article sold by hekdesh. A common person has to perform meshikah, as for an ordinary secular article; nevertheless he gains no title if it advances in price before he pays. (3) But not before. Actually there is no such verse; but v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 321, n. 1: the deduction will likewise be from ‘shekel’, i.e., the shek,el alone (viz., money) gives the title. But in Shab. 128a s.v. i,bu Tosaf. states that the deduction is from Lev. XXVII, 19: then he shall add the fifth part of the money of thy estimation unto it, and it shall be assured to him, (4) Lit.,’stricter’. (5) For meshikah of secular property immediately vests the title in the purchaser, rendering him liable for its full value as at the time of meshikah. (6) I.e., he cannot claim a rebate. (7) And in a private transaction the vendor can retract if the article appreciates after the money is paid but before meshikah. (8) V. B.M. 44a; though the vendor may withdraw, a curse is pronounced: ‘He who punished the generation of the flood . . . will punish him who does not stand by his word.’ (9) The meaning of this is discussed in the Gemara. (10) Literally, caused by the time. Which are performed at particular times or seasons. (11) Lev. XIX, 27. (12) Ibid. (13) Ibid. XXI, 1. (14) In the Mishnaic language these are turned into substantives by the use of bal (not) joined to the second pers. impf. of the relevant verb. — These ordinances are binding upon men only. (15) Lev. XIX, 3. (16) I.e., the Plural ‘ye’. (17) If the son is a firstborn. (18) Having no occupation, he must take to theft. (19) Gen. XXI, 4. (20) V. Glos. (21) Gen. XVII. 10; this is command in general terms, not particularly to the father, and hence is applied to Beth din. (22) Ibid. 14. (23) That Abraham, not Sarah, was commanded. (24) Lit., ‘for generations’. (25) As here: as God had commanded him. (26) Lit., ‘for immediately and for generations’. [Rashi renders: to denote exhortation, to be zealous in the fulfilment of the command, that it comes into force immediately, and that it is binding for all generations.] (27) Deut. III ,28. (28) Num. XV, 23. (29) Ex. XIII, 13. (30) Num. XVIII, 15. The deduction is from the emphatic ‘surely’, expressed in Hebrew by the doubling of the verb. (31) Though ‘among thy sons’ is explicitly stated, the verse may imply that a father is bound to redeem his son only, but the daughter must redeem herself when she grows up. (32) Ex. XXXIV, 20. (33) His father not having done so. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 29b if only five sela's are available, he takes precedence over his son. What is the reason? A precept affecting his own person is more important. They differ when there are five sela's [worth of property] sold1 and five sela's free. R. Judah holds: A debt decreed in Scripture is as one indited in a bond:2 hence, with these five sela's [that are free] he redeems his son, while the priest goes and seizes the five sela's [worth] that is sold on account of himself [the father]. But the Rabbis maintain, A debt decreed in Scripture is not as one indited in a bond; therefore a precept touching his own person is more important.3 Our Rabbis taught: If one has his son to redeem and the duty of making the festival pilgrimage,4 he must [first] redeem his son and then make the Festival pilgrimage. R. Judah said: He must first make the Festival pilgrimage and then redeem his son, for the one is a passing precept5 whereas the other is not a passing precept. As for R. Judah, it is well, the reason being as he states. But what is the reason of the Rabbis? — Because Scripture states: All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem,6 and only then is it stated, and none shall appear before me empty.7 Our Rabbis taught: How do we know that if one has five [firstborn] sons by five wives, he is bound to redeem them all? From the verse: ‘All the firstborn of thy sons thou shalt redeem.’ But that is obvious, [since] the Divine Law made it dependent upon the opening of the womb?8 — I might have argued, Let us learn the meaning of ‘firstborn’ here from inheritance.9 Just as there, the beginning of his strength [is meant], so here too;10 therefore we are informed [that it is not so]. ‘To teach him Torah.’ How do we know it? — Because it is written. And ye shall teach them your sons.11 And if his father did not teach him, he must teach himself, for it is written, and ye shall study.12 How do we know that she [the mother] has no duty [to teach her children]? — Because it is written, we-limaddetem [and ye shall teach], [which also reads] u-lemadetem [and ye shall study]:13 [hence] whoever is commanded to study, is commanded to teach; whoever is not commanded to study, is not commanded to teach. And how do we know that she is not bound to teach herself? — Because it is written, we-limaddetem [and ye shall teach] — u-lema — detem [and ye shall learn]: the one whom others are commanded to teach is commanded to teach oneself; and the one whom others are not commanded to teach, is not commanded to teach oneself. How then do we know that others are not commanded to teach her? — Because it is written: ‘And ye shall teach them your sons’ — but not your daughters.14 Our Rabbis taught: If he has himself to teach and his son to teach, he takes precedence over his son. R. Judah said: If his son is industrious, bright,15 and retentive,16 his son takes precedence over him. Thus R. Jacob, son of R. Aha b. Jacob, was once sent by his father [to study] under Abaye. On his return he [his father] saw that his learning was dull. ‘I am better than you,’ said he to him; ‘do you [now] remain here, so that I can go’. Abaye heard that he was coming. Now, a certain demon haunted Abaye's schoolhouse, so that when [only] two entered, even by day, they were injured. He [Abaye] ordered, ‘Let no man afford him hospitality;17 perhaps a miracle will happen [in his merit].’ So he [R. Aha b. Jacob] entered and spent the night in that schoolhouse, during which it [the demon] appeared to him in the guise of a seven-headed dragon. Every time he [the Rabbi] fell on his knees [in prayer] one head fell off. The next day he reproached them: ‘Had not a miracle occurred, you would have endangered my life.’ Our Rabbis taught: If one has to study Torah and to marry a wife, he should first study and then marry. But if he cannot [live] without a wife, he should first marry and then study. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: The halachah is, [A man] first marries and then studies. R. Johanan said: [With] a millstone around the neck, shall one study Torah! Yet they do not differ: the one refers to ourselves [Babylonians]; the other to them [Palestinians].18 R. Hisda praised R. Hamnuna before R. Huna as a great man. Said he to him, ‘When he visits you, bring him to me. When he arrived, he saw that he wore no [head-]covering.19 ‘Why have you no head-dress?’ asked he. ‘Because I am not married,’ was the reply. Thereupon he [R. Huna] turned his face away from him. ‘See to it that you do not appear before me [again] before you are married,’ said he. R. Huna was thus in accordance with his views. For he said: He who is twenty years of age and is not married spends all his days in sin. ‘In sin’ — can you really think so? — But say, spends all his days in sinful thoughts. Raba said, and the School of R. Ishmael taught likewise: Until the age of twenty, the Holy One, blessed be He, sits and waits. When will he take a wife? As soon as one attains twenty and has not married, He exclaims, ‘Blasted be his bones!’20 R. Hisda said: The reason that I am superior to my colleagues is that I married at sixteen.21 And had I married at fourteen, ____________________ (1) [Before the birth of his son, v. Tosaf.] (2) Hence the five sela's he owes for his own redemption is like a written liability, contracted before he sold the land, and therefore his creditor, i.e., the priest to whom the redemption money is due, can distrain upon this property. (3) For a creditor can distrain upon mortgaged property that is sold only if he holds a note against the debt. (4) On Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles every male was to visit the Temple at Jerusalem: Deut. XVI, 16. (5) When the Festival is gone it cannot be carried out. (6) Ex. XXXIV, 20. (7) Ibid. With reference to the Festival pilgrimage. (8) Ibid. 19. (9) Here, as stated; inheritance: Deut. XXI, 17: Bur he shall acknowledge . . . the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath; for he is the beginning of his strength. (10) I.e., his own firstborn. (11) Deut. XI, 19. (12) Deut. V, 1. The education of children in olden times was in their parents’ hands, organized teaching being for adults only. The defects of this system were obvious, and schools were established in Jerusalem and later in the provinces for children from the ages of six or seven and upwards. These reforms are variously ascribed to R. Simeon b. Shetah and the High Priest Joshua b. Gamala; v. Halevy, Doroth I, 111, p. 466 and note a.l. (13) [So Rashi. The derivation may however be based on the analogy of Deut. XI, 9 and V, 1.] (14) Differing opinions were held on the desirability of educating women. R. Eliezer's strong opposition is well-known (Sot. III, 4), though the probability is that he referred to advanced Talmudic education only. The laws referring to women's obligation to certain prayers imply that they must have been instructed in the elements of Judaism at least; and it is noteworthy that in the ideal state ascribed to Hezekiah's reign, women were fully educated (Sanh. 94b). (15) Var. lec. filled (with a desire to learn). (16) Lit., ‘his learning endures in his hand.’ (17) Lit., ‘lodging place’, so that he might be compelled to spend the night in the academy. (18) Rashi: The Babylonian scholars used to travel to Palestine, the home of the Mishnah; hence they were free of household worries, and so might marry before study. But the Palestinians, studying at home and bearing family responsibilities, could make no progress if married, and so they were bound to study first. Tosaf. reverses the interpretation. (19) A sudarium with which married men used to cover their heads. V. supra p. 29, n. 5. (20) [MS.M. uapb jph, , ‘May he be blasted’.] (21) So that my mind was entirely free for study. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 30a I would have said to Satan, An arrow in your eye.1 Raba said to R. Nathan b. Ammi: Whilst your hand is yet upon your son's neck,2 [marry him], viz., between sixteen and twenty-two. Others state, Between eighteen and twenty-four. This is disputed by Tannaim. Train up a youth in the way he should go:3 R. Judah and R. Nehemiah [differ thereon]. One maintains, [‘Youth’ means] between sixteen and twenty-two; the other affirms, Between eighteen and twenty-four. To what extent is a man obliged to teach his son Torah? — Said Rab Judah in Samuel's name: E.g., Zebulun, the son of Dan, whom his grandfather taught Mikra [Scripture], Mishnah, Talmud,4 halachoth and aggadoth.5 An objection is raised: If he [his father] taught him Mikra, he need not teach him Mishnah; whereon Raba said: Mikra means Torah?6 — Like Zebulun b. Dan, yet not altogether so. Like Zebulun b. Dan, whom his grandfather taught: yet not altogether so, for whereas there [he was taught] Mikra, Mishnah, Talmud, halachoth and aggadoth, here [i.e., as a general rule] Mikra alone [suffices]. Now, is the grandfather under this obligation? Surely it was taught: And ye shall teach them your sons,7 but not your sonsð sons. How then do I interpret8 [the verse], and thou shalt make them known unto thy sons, and thy sons’ sons?9 As shewing that to him who teaches his son Torah, the Writ ascribes merit as though he had taught him, his son and his son's son until the end of all time!10 — He agrees with the following Tanna. For it was taught: ‘And ye shall teach them your sons’: hence I only know, your sons. How do I know your sons sons? From the verse: ‘and thou shalt make them known unto thy sons and thy sons’ sons’. If so, why state, ‘thy sons’? — To teach: ‘thy sons, but not thy daughters. R. Joshua b. Levi said: He who teaches his grandson Torah, the Writ regards him as though he had received it [direct] from Mount Sinai, for it is said; ‘and thou shalt make them known unto your sons and your sons’ sons’, which is followed by, that is the day that thou stoodest before the Lord thy God in Horeb.11 R. Hiyya b. Abba found R. Joshua b. Levi wearing a plain cloth upon his head12 and taking a child to the synagogue [for study].13 ‘What is the meaning of all this?’ he demanded.14 ‘Is it then a small thing,’ he replied: ‘that it is written: ‘and thou shalt make them known to your sons and your sons’ sons’; which is followed by, that is the day that thou stoodest before the Lord thy God in Horeb’? From then onwards R. Hiyya b. Abba did not taste meat15 before revising [the previous day's lesson] with the child and adding [another verse]. Rabbah son of R. Huna did not taste meat until he took the child to school. R. Safra said on the authority of R. Joshua b. Hanania: What is meant by, and thou shalt teach them diligently [we-shinnantem] unto thy children?16 Read not we-shinnantem, but we-shillashtem: [you shall divide into three]: one should always divide his years into three: [devoting] a third to Mikra, a third to Mishnah, and a third to Talmud. Does one then know how long he will live? — This refers only to days.17 The early [scholars] were called soferim18 because they used to count all the letters of the Torah.19 Thus, they said, the waw in gahon20 marks half the letters of the Torah; darosh darash,21 half the words; we-hithggalah,22 half the verses. The boar out of the wood [mi-ya'ar] doth ravage it:23 the ‘ayin of ya'ar24 marks half of the Psalms.25 But he, being full of compassion, forgiveth their iniquity,26 half of the verses. R. Joseph propounded: Does the waw of gahon belong to the first half or the second? Said they [the scholars] to him, Let a Scroll of the Torah be brought and we will count them! Did not Rabbah b. Bar Hanah say,27 They did not stir from there until a Scroll of the Torah was brought and they counted them? — They were thoroughly versed in the defective and full readings,28 but we are not. R. Joseph propounded: Does wehithgalah belong to the first half or the second? Said Abaye to him, For the verses, at least, we can bring [a Scroll] and count them! — In the verses too we are not certain. For when R. Aha b. Adda came,29 he said: In the West [Palestine] the following verse is divided into three: And the Lord said unto Moses, Lo, I come unto thee in a thick cloud [etc.].30 Our Rabbis taught: There are five thousand, eight hundred and eighty-eight verses in the Torah;31 the Psalms exceed this by eight;32 while Chronicles33 are less by eight. Our Rabbis taught: And thou shalt teach them diligently34 [means] that the words of the Torah shall be clear-cut in your mouth, so that if anyone asks you something, you should not shew doubt and then answer him, but [be able to] answer him immediately, for it is said, ____________________ (1) I defy you! being absolutely free from impure thoughts. In the Bible, Satan has the general connotation of adversary (v. I Kings V, 18; I Sam. XXIX, 4; Ps. CIX, 4), and at first he is not regarded as a distinct being. In Job, however, he does appear so, viz., as the celestial prosecutor; but even then, he cannot act independently, but requires God's permission. It is only later that he appears as an independent agent (I Chron. XXI, 2). The early portions of the Talmud mention him very rarely. but gradually belief in him spread. the popular concepts possibly forcing their way upwards from the lower classes. V. J.E. art. Satan. (2) While you have yet power and influence over him. (3) Prov. XXII, 6; i.e., marry him. (4) The discussion of the Mishnah. (5) V. Glos. (6) The Pentateuch. In the earliest terminology we find Torah and Mikra opposed, the former referring to the Pentateuch and the latter to the other Books of the Bible (v. J.E., ‘Bible, Canon’, III, 142); here they are identified. (7) Deut. XI, 19. (8) Lit., ‘fulfil’. (9) Ibid. IV, 9. (10) Lit., ‘generations’. (11) Ibid. 10. (12) But not a sudarium, V. supra p. 142, n. 2, (13) In Talmudic times the teaching took place in the synagogue. (14) Why was he so hasty to go out as not to don Proper headgear? (15) [ tmnut, a piece of grilled meat usually taken at breakfast]. (16) Deut. VI, 7. (17) Rashi: two days in the week to Mikra, two to Mishnah, and two to Talmud. Tosaf., more plausibly: each day itself should be divided into three. — Actually, scholars have always confined themselves to Talmud: but as the Babylonian Talmud is an amalgam of the three, this dictum is held to be fulfilled; v. Sanh. 24a. Furthermore, the early part of the morning liturgy contains passages from all three. (18) Rashi quotes, and the families of scribes — Soferim — which dwelt at Jabez; I Chron. II, 55. The term is generally applied to the band of Scholars from the Babylonian exile, who propagated the knowledge of the Torah and interpreted it. (19) To safeguard the correctness of the text. Soferim is taken in the original sense of its root safar, ‘to count’. (20) Whatsoever goeth upon the belly (iujd) — Lev. XI, 42. (21) Lev. X, 16: And Moses diligently enquired after — darosh darash — the goat of the sin-offering. (22) Lev. XIII, 33: we-hithggalah, then he shall be shaven. [In M.T. the words ‘he placed on him’ (Lev. VIII, 8) is given as the middle verse.] (23) Ps. LXXX, 14. (24) rgh . (25) It is not stated whether letters or words are meant: S. Strashun observes that he counted the words, and found that the first half exceeds the second by nearly 2,000; hence the reference is to letters, and there is such a reading too. (26) Ps. LXXVIII, 38. (27) On another occasion. (28) E.g., the long i and long o are sometimes indicated by a yod and waw respectively; then the reading is called ‘full’; sometimes they are omitted; then it is called defective. (29) From Palestine to Babylon. (30) Ex. XIX, 9. (31) I.e., the Pentateuch. In M.T. we have 5,845. [The difference is explained by the fact that the Palestinian had more verses than the Babylonian. v. Ned. (Sonc. ed.) p. 118. n. 7. and Graetz MGWJ XXXIV. pp. 97ff.] (32) Tosaf. observes that even if the Psalms are divided into verses of three words, there are still more in the Pentateuch. [The M.T. has 2,527, and the difference could be accounted as in the case of the Pentateuch. The difficulty however remains in regard to Chronicles where M.T. has only 1,765.] (33) Wilna Gaon emends: Daniel and Chronicles. (34) Weshinnantam < shannen, to be keen. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 30b say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister;1 and it is also said, Bind them upon thy fingers; write them upon the table of thine heart;2 and it is also said: As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man, so are the children of thy youth;3 and it is also said, sharp arrows of the mighty;4 and it is also said: Thine arrows are sharp; the peoples fall under thee;5 and it is also said: Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them; They shall not be ashamed, when they speak with their enemies in the gate.6 What is meant by ‘with their enemies in the gate’? — Said R. Hiyya b. Abba, Even father and son, master and disciple, who study Torah at the same gate7 become enemies of each other; yet they do not stir from there until they come to love each other, for it is written, [Wherefore it is said it, the book of the wars of the Lord,] love8 is be-sufah;9 read not ‘be-sufah’ but ‘be-sofah’.10 Our Rabbis taught: We-samtem11 [reads] sam tam [a perfect remedy]. This may be compared to a man who struck his son a strong blow, and then put a plaster on his wound, saying to him, ‘My son! As long as this plaster is on your wound you can eat and drink at will, and bathe in hot or cold water, without fear. But if you remove it, it will break out into sores.’ Even so did the Holy One, blessed be He, speak unto Israel: ‘My children! I created the Evil Desire,12 but I [also] created the Torah, as its antidote; if you occupy yourselves with the Torah, you will not be delivered into his hand, for it is said: If thou doest well,13 shalt thou not be exalted?14 But if ye do not occupy yourselves with the Torah, ye shall be delivered into his hand, for it is written, sin coucheth at the door.15 Moreover, he is altogether preoccupied with thee [to make thee sin], for it is said, and unto thee shall be his desire.16 Yet if thou wilt, thou canst rule over him, for it is said, and thou shalt rule over him.16 Our Rabbis taught: The Evil Desire is hard [to bear], since even his Creator called him evil, as it is written, for that the desire of man's heart is evil from his youth.17 R. Isaac said: Man's Evil Desire renews itself daily against him, as it is said, [every imagination of the thoughts of his heart] was only evil every day.18 And R. Simeon b. Levi19 said: Man's Evil Desire gathers strength against him daily and seeks to slay him, for it is said: The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him;20 and were not the Holy One, blessed be He, to help him [man], he would not be able to prevail against him, for it is said: The Lord will not leave him in his hand.21 The School of R. Ishmael taught: My son, if this repulsive [wretch]22 assail thee, lead him to the schoolhouse: if he is of stone, he will dissolve; if iron, he will shiver [into fragments], for it is said: Is not my word like as fire? saith the Lord,’ and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?23 If he is of stone, he will dissolve, for it is written: Ho, everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters;24 and it is said: The waters wear the stones.25 ‘To take a wife for him.’ How do we know it? — Because it is written: Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands.26 As for [marrying] his son, it is well, for it rests with him;27 but with respect to his daughter, does it then rest with him?28 — This is his meaning: Let her be dowered, clothed and adorned, that men should eagerly desire her.29 ‘To teach him a craft.’ Whence do we know it? — Said Hezekiah: Scripture saith, See to a livelihood with the wife whom thou lovest.30 If ‘wife’ is literal, [this teaches,] just as he [the father] is bound to take a wife for him, so is he bound to teach him a craft [for a livelihood]; if it is [a metaphor for] Torah, then just as he is bound to teach him Torah, so is he bound to teach him a craft. ‘And some say, [He must teach him] to swim in water too. What is the reason? — His life may depend on it. ‘R. Judah said: He who does not teach him a craft teaches him brigandage. "Brigandage"! can you think so? — But it is like teaching him brigandage’. Wherein do they differ? — They differ where he teaches him business.31 BUT ALL OBLIGATIONS OF THE FATHER UPON THE SON etc., What is meant by ‘ALL OBLIGATIONS OF THE FATHER UPON THE SON? Shall we say, all precepts which the father is bound to perform for his son — are then women bound thereby? But it was taught: ‘The father is obliged in respect of his son, to circumcise and redeem him’: only the father, but not the mother? — Said Rab Judah, This is its meaning: All precepts concerning a father, which are incumbent upon a son to perform for his father, both men and women are bound thereby. We have [thus] learnt here what our Rabbis taught: [Ye shall fear every man his father, and his mother]:32 ‘man,’I know it only of man; how do I know it of woman?33 When it is said: ‘Ye shall fear,’ two are mentioned. If so, why state man? A man possesses the means to fulfil this, but a woman has no means of fulfilling this, because she is under the authority of others.34 R. Idi b. Abin said in Rab's name: If she is divorced, both are equal.35 Our Rabbis taught: It is said: Honour thy father and thy mother;36 and it is also said: Honour the Lord with thy substance:37 thus the Writ assimilates the honour due to parents to that of the Omnipresent. It is said: ‘Ye shall fear every man his father, and his mother’; and it is also said: The Lord thy God thou shalt fear, and him thou shalt serve;38 thus the Writ assimilates the fear of parents to the fear of God. It is said: And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death;39 and it is also said: Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin:40 thus the Writ assimilates the blessing41 of parents to that of the Omnipresent. But in respect of striking, it is certainly impossible.42 And that is but logical,43 since the three44 are partners in him [the son]. Our Rabbis taught: There are three partners in man, the Holy One, blessed be He, the father, and the mother. When a man honours his father and his mother, the Holy One, blessed be He, says: ‘I ascribe [merit] to them as though I had dwelt among them and they had honoured Me.’ It was taught: Rabbi said: It is revealed and known to Him Who decreed, and the world came into existence,45 that a son honours his mother more than his father, ____________________ (1) Prov. VII, 4; be as clear in your wisdom — i.e., learning — as in the knowledge that your sister is interdicted to you. Or possibly the deduction is from the second half of the verse: and call understanding thy familiar friend — i.e., be fully versed and familiar therein. (2) Prov. VII, 3. (3) The disciples, Ps. CXXVII, 4. (4) The scholars, Ibid. CXX, 4. (5) Ps. XLV, 6. (6) PS. CXXVII, 5. (7) I.e., at the same academy. Alternatively, in the same subject. (8) cvu , connected by a play on words with cvt , to love. (9) Num. XXI, 24. (10) ‘At the end thereof.’ ‘The book of the wars of the Lord’ — i.e., disputations on Biblical interpretation — eventually leads to love. (11) Deut. XI, 18: Therefore shall ye lay up (we-samtem) these my words etc. (12) Thus Cain defended himself for murdering Abel by arguing that God himself had implanted the evil desire in him (Tan., Bereshit, 25, ed. Buber, p. 10). It is generally understood as man's evil impulses. Occasionally it is personified, as here, and identified with Satan (B.B. 16a); on the other hand, in Ber. 16b it is clearly distinguished as a separate entity. (13) I.e., engagest in the study of the Torah. (14) Gen. IV, 7; sc. above the Evil Desire. (15) Gen. IV, 7; so the E.V. Possibly the Talmud translates: at the door of sin-i.e., when one yields to the Evil Desire — one lies lost — i.e., becomes its slave. (16) Ibid. (17) Gen. VIII, 21. (18) Ibid. VI, 5. (19) In Suk. 52a the reading is: R. Simeon b. Lakish. (20) Ps. XXXVII, 32. (21) Ibid. 33. (22) The Evil Desire. (23) Jer. XXIII, 29. (24) Isa. LV, 1; i.e., the Torah. (25) Job XIV, 19. (26) Jer. XXIX, 6. (27) Lit., ‘it is in his hand’- one can always find a bride for his son. (28) One cannot easily obtain a husband for his daughter. How then does Jeremiah say, and give your daughters to husbands? (29) Lit., ‘spring upon her’. (30) Ecc. IX, 9. (31) The first Tanna, though mentioning a craft, merely desires a means of livelihood, and includes business too. But R. Judah's emphasis on a craft shews that he does not consider business sufficient. — In a country living by agriculture and industry R. Judah thought commerce too precarious. V. Krauss, T.A. 250-252 on trade. He makes the interesting point (p. 252) that whilst reference is frequently made to a po'el batel kyc kgup , an unemployed landworker, one never hears of an unemployed artisan. (32) Lev. XIX, 3. (33) That a daughter too must fear her parents. (34) Viz., her husband, who may render it impossible for her to shew due reverence to her parents. (35) The duty rests upon her just as much as upon her brother. (36) Ex. XX, 12. (37) Prov. III, 9. (38) Deut. VI, 13. (39) Ex. XXI, 17. (40) Lev. XXIV, 15. (41) A euphemism for cursing. (42) To assimilate them, for the Almighty cannot be struck. (43) That parents should be likened to the Almighty. (44) God, father and mother. (45) Viz., God: this phrase is liturgical. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 31a because she sways him by words; therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, placed the honour of the father before that of the mother. It is revealed and known to Him Who decreed, and the world came into existence, that a son reverences his father more than his mother, because he teaches him Torah, therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, put the fear [reverence] of the mother before that of the father. A tanna1 recited before R. Nahman: When a man vexes his father and his mother, the Holy One, blessed be He, says: ‘I did right in not dwelling among them, for had I dwelt among them, they would have vexed Me.’ R. Isaac said: He who transgresses in secret is as though he pressed the feet of the Shechinah for it is written: Thus saith the Lord, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool.2 R. Joshua b. Levi said: One may not walk four cubits with haughty mien,3 for it is said, the whole earth is full of His glory.4 R. Huna son of R. Joshua would not walk four cubits bareheaded, saying: The Shechinah is above my head. A widow's son asked R. Eliezer: If my father orders, ‘Give me a drink of water,’ and my mother does likewise, which takes precedence? ‘Leave your mother's honour and fulfil the honour due to your father,’ he replied: ‘for both you and your mother are bound to honour your father.’5 Then he went before R. Joshua, who answered him the same. ‘Rabbi,’ said he to him, ‘what if she is divorced?’ — ‘From your eyelids it is obvious that you are a widow's son,’6 he retorted: ‘pour some water for them into a basin, and screech for them like fowls!’7 ‘Ulla Rabbah8 lectured at the entrance to the Nasi's house:9 What is meant by, All the kings of the earth shall make admission unto Thee, O Lord, For they have heard the words of Thy mouth?10 Not the word of Thy mouth, but ‘the words of Thy mouth’ is said. When the Holy One, blessed be He, proclaimed, lam [the Lord thy God] and Thou shalt have none [other Gods before me],11 the nations of the world said: He teaches merely for His own honour. As soon as He declared: Honour thy father and thy mother,12 they recanted and admitted [the justice of] the first command [too]. Raba said, [This may be deduced] from the following: The beginning of Thy word is true:13 ‘the beginning of Thy word,’ but not the end!14 But from the latter portion of Thy declaration it may be seen that the first portion is true.15 It was propounded of R. ‘Ulla: How far does the honour of parents [extend]? — He replied: Go forth and see what a certain heathen, Dama son of Nethinah by name, did in Askelon. The Sages once desired merchandise from him, in which there was six-hundred-thousand [gold denarii] profit, but the key was lying under his father, and so he did not trouble him.16 Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: R. Eliezer was asked: How far does the honour of parents [extend]? — Said he, Go forth and see what a certain heathen, Dama son of Nethinah by name, did in Askelon. The Sages sought jewels for the ephod, at a profit of six-hundred-thousand [gold denarii] — R. Kahana taught: at a profit of eight-hundred-thousand — but as the key was lying under his father's pillow, he did not trouble him. The following year the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him his reward. A red heifer was born to him in his herd.17 When the Sages of Israel went to him [to buy it], he said to them, ‘I know you, that [even] if I asked you for all the money in the world you would pay me. But I ask of you only the money which I lost through my father's honour.’ Now, R. Hanina observed thereon, If one who is not commanded [to honour his parents], yet does so, is thus [rewarded], how much more so one who is commanded and does so! For R. Hanina said: He who is commanded and fulfils [the command], is greater than he who fulfils it though not commanded.18 R. Joseph19 said: Originally, I thought, that if anyone would tell me that the halachah agrees with R. Judah, that a blind person is exempt from the precepts,I would make a banquet20 for the Rabbis, seeing that I am not obliged, yet fulfil them. Now, however, that I have heard R. Hanina's dictum that he who is commanded and fulfils [the command] is greater than he who fulfils it though not commanded; on the contrary, if anyone should tell me that the halachah does not agree with R. Judah, I would make a banquet for the Rabbis. When R. Dimi came,21 he said: He [Dama son of Nethinah] was once wearing a gold embroidered silken cloak and sitting among Roman nobles, when his mother came, tore it off from him, struck him on the head, and spat in his face, yet he did not shame her. Abimi, son of R. Abbahu recited: One may give his father pheasants as food, yet [this] drives him from the world; whereas another may make him grind in a mill ____________________ (1) V. Glos. s.v. (b). (2) Isa. LXVI, 1. By transgressing secretly he avers that God's presence is not there, and thus would confine the feet of the Shechinah into a narrower place than what they occupy, viz., the whole earth. (3) Lit., ‘upright stature. (4) Ibid. VI, 3. (5) This does not imply that the husband need not honour his wife (v. B.M., Sonc. ed., p. 352, n. 4) but that the wife must obey her husband, just as a son his father. (6) The eyelids having fallen out with weeping — probably not to be taken literally, but he sensed that the question was merely theoretical. (7) A sarcastic answer. (8) Or, the Great ‘Ulla. (9) It would seem to have been a public place where popular lectures were given. (10) Ps. CXXXVIII, 4. (11) Ex. XX, 2f. (12) Ibid. 12. (13) Ps. CXIX, 160. (14) Surely not! (15) I.e., just. (16) To wake him to take the key. The Jerusalem adds that his father's feet were lying on the chest containing the merchandise and so he could not break it. (17) V. Num. XIX. (18) V. A.Z. (Sonc. ed.) p. 6, n. 1. (19) He was blind. (20) Lit., ‘a festival’. (21) V. p. 46, n. 6. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 31b and [this] brings him to the world to come!1 R. Abbahu said: E.g., my son Abimi has fulfilled the precept of honour. Abimi had five ordained sons2 in his father's lifetime, yet when R. Abbahu came and called out at the door, he himself speedily went and opened it for him, crying, ‘Yes, yes,’3 until he reached it. One day he asked him, ‘Give me a drink of water.’ By the time he brought it he had fallen asleep. Thereupon he bent and stood over him until he awoke. It so happened that Abimi succeeded in interpreting, A song of Asaph.4 R. Jacob b. Abbahu asked Abaye: ‘I, for instance, for whom my father pours out a cup [of wine] and my mother mixes it5 on my returning from the school, what am I to do’?6 — ‘Accept it from your mother,’ he replied: ‘but not from your father; for since he is a scholar, he may feel affronted.’7 R. Tarfon had a mother for whom, whenever she wished to mount into bed, he would bend down to let her ascend;8 (and when she wished to descend, she stepped down upon him).9 He went and boasted thereof in the school. Said they to him, ‘You have not yet reached half the honour [due]: has she then thrown a purse before you into the sea without your shaming her?’ When R. Joseph heard his mother's footsteps he would say: ‘I will arise before the approaching Shechinah.’ R. Johanan said: Happy is he who has not seen them.10 R. Johanan's father died when his mother conceived him, and his mother died when she bore him. And Abaye was likewise. But that is not so, for Abaye said, my Mother told me. . ! — That was his foster-mother. R. Assi had an aged mother. Said she to him, ‘I want ornaments.’ So he made them for her. ‘I want a husband.’ — ‘I will look out for you. ‘I want a husband as handsome as you.’ Thereupon he left her and went to Palestine. On hearing that she was following him he went to R. Johanan and asked him, ‘May I leave Palestine11 for abroad?’12 ‘It is forbidden,’ he replied. ‘But what if it is to meet my mother?’ ‘I do not know’, said he. He waited a short time and went before him again. ‘Assi’, said he, ‘you have determined to go; [may] the Omnipresent bring you back in peace.’ Then he went before R. Eleazar and said to him, ‘Perhaps, God forbid, he was angry?’ ‘What [then] did he say to you?’ enquired he. ‘The Omnipresent bring you back in peace’, was the answer. ‘Had he been angry’, he rejoined, ‘he would not have blessed you’. In the meanwhile he learnt that her coffin was coming.13 ‘Had I known’, he exclaimed: ‘I would not have gone out.’ Our Rabbis taught: He must honour him in life and must honour him in death. ‘In life’, e.g., one who is heeded in a place on account of his father should not say: ‘Let me go, for my own sake’, ‘Speed me, for my own sake’, or ‘Free me, for my own sake’, but all ‘for my father's sake.’ ‘In death’, e.g., if one is reporting something heard from his mouth, he should not say: ‘Thus did my father say’, but, ‘Thus said my father, my teacher, for whose resting place may I be an atonement.’14 But that is only within twelve months [of his death].15 Thereafter he must say: ‘His memory be for a blessing, for the life of the World to come.’ Our Rabbis taught: A Sage must change his father's name and his teacher's name, but the interpreter does not change his father's name and his teacher's name.16 Whose father? Shall we say, the father of the interpreter?17 — Is then the interpreter not obliged [to honour his parents]? — But, said Raba, [it means] the name of the Sage's father or the name of the Sage's teacher. As when Mar, son of R. Ashi, lectured at the college sessions; he said [to the interpreter]: My father, my teacher [said thus], whereas his interpreter said: Thus did R. Ashi say.18 Our Rabbis taught: What is ‘fear’ and what is ‘honour’?19 ‘Fear’ means that he [the son] must neither stand in his [the father's] place nor sit in his place, nor contradict his words, nor tip the scales against him.20 ‘Honour" means that he must give him food and drink, clothe and cover him, lead him in and out. The Scholars propounded: ____________________ (1) The Jerusalem Talmud amplifies this. A man once fed his father on pheasants (which were very expensive). On his father's asking him how he could afford them, he answered: ‘What business is it of yours, old man; grind (i.e., chew) and eat!’ On another occasion it happened that a man was engaged in grinding in a mill, when his father was summoned for royal service. Said his son to him, ‘Do you grind for me, and I will go in your stead, the royal service being very hard.’ (2) Ordination (Heb. semichah, lit., ‘laying of the hands’) was the conferment of authority to exercise Rabbinical functions. (3) I.e., I am coming to open it. (4) Ps. LXXIX, 1. The whole psalm is a lament for the defilement of the Temple and a series of national disasters. Hence the question arises, surely the superscripture should have been, ‘A dirge of Asaph’? By divine inspiration Abimi explained it that Asaph uttered song because the Almighty had allowed His wrath to be appeased by the defilement and other indignities which the Temple had suffered. Otherwise, only the total destruction of His people would have sufficed. So Rashi, quoting some anonymous commentators. Tosaf., quoting the Midrash, explains it otherwise. (5) Their wines were diluted, being too strong to be drunk neat. (6) Am I to permit it, or do I fail in the honour due to them? (7) Though he loves you and does it willingly, he may feel that his son should not permit a scholar to perform these services for him. (8) By stepping upon him. (9) The passage between brackets is omitted in Asheri and Alfasi. (10) His parents, because it is so difficult to honour them adequately. — Of course, he is not to be understood literally. Also, it was a form of self comfort for not having known his parents. (11) Lit., ‘the land,’ par excellence, the familiar designation of Palestine. (12) Lit., ‘outside the land’. (13) She died on the way. (14) [May I make atonement for all the punishment in the Hereafter that may have to come upon him. (Rashi).] (15) [It is held that punishment in the Hereafter does not extend beyond the first twelve months after death.] (16) When scholars lectured, they did not speak directly to their audiences, but through the medium of interpreters, to whom they whispered their statements and who in turn spoke them aloud to the assembled congregations frequently with embellishments of their own. Now, the Sage, when whispering to the interpreter a teaching he heard from his father, must not refer to his father by name but by the formula ‘my father and teacher’; but the interpreter need not do so. (17) If the Sage cites a dictum of the interpreter's father. (18) But not: Thus said the Sage's father. (19) Referring to Lev. XIX, 2: Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father; and Ex. XX, 12: Honour thy father, etc. (20) Should his father be in dispute with another scholar, his son must not side with his opponent (Rashi). In J.D. 240, 2, it is translated: he must not make a decision in deference to his view, i.e,, if his father differs from another scholar, he must not even say: I agree with my father. — These last two, however, hold good only in the father's presence, but otherwise he may state his view freely; yet even then, it is preferable that he should avoid mentioning his father's name when refuting his view, if possible. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 32a At whose expense?1 Rab Judah said: The son's. R. Nahman b. Oshaia said: The father's. The Rabbis gave a ruling to R. Jeremiah — others state, to R. Jeremiah's son — in accordance with the view that it must be at the father's expense. An objection is raised: It is said: Honour thy father and thy mother;2 and it is also said: Honour the Lord with thy substance:3 just as the latter means at personal cost,4 so the former too. But if you say: At the father's [expense], how does it affect him?5 — Through loss of time.6 Come and hear: Two brothers, two partners, a father and son, a master and disciple, may redeem second tithe for each other,7 and may feed each other with the poor tithe.8 But if you say, at the son's expense, he is thus found to fulfil his obligations with what belongs to the poor? — This refers only to an extra quantity.9 If so, could it be taught thereon, R. Judah said: A curse may alight upon him who feeds his father with poor tithe! But if the reference is to an extra quantity, what does it matter?10 — Even so, the matter is humiliating [to the father]. Come and hear: R. Eliezer was asked: How far does the honour of parents [extend]? — Said he: That he should take a purse, throw it in his presence into the sea, and not shame him.11 But if you say, at the father's expense,12 what does it matter to him? — It refers to a potential heir. As in the case of Rabbah son of R. Huna: R. Huna tore up silk in the presence of his son Rabbah, saying: ‘I will go and see whether he flies into a temper or not. But perhaps he would get angry,13 and then he [R. Huna] would violate, Thou shalt not put a stumbling-block before the blind?14 — He renounced his honour for him.15 But he [R. Huna] violated, Thou shalt not destroy [the trees thereof. . .]?16 — He did it in the seam.17 Then perhaps that was why he displayed no temper? — He did it when he was [already] in a temper.18 R. Ezekiel taught his son Rami: If criminals condemned to be burnt [become mixed up] with others sentenced to be stoned, R. Simeon said: They are executed19 by stoning, because burning is severer. Thereupon Rab Judah his son said to him: Father, teach it not thus. For, why state the reason because burning is severer? This follows from the fact that the majority are for stoning.20 But teach it thus: If [criminals condemned] to be stoned are mixed up with [others sentenced] to burning. Said he to him, If so, consider the second clause: But the Sages say: They are executed by burning, because stoning is severer. But why particularly because stoning is severer: deduce it from the fact that the majority are to be burnt? — There, he answered him, the Rabbis oppose21 R. Simeon: As to what you say that burning is severer, that is not so, stoning being severer. Said Samuel to Rab Judah: Keen scholar!22 speak not thus to your father. For it was taught: If one's father is [unwittingly] transgressing a precept of the Torah, he must not say to him, ‘Father, thou transgressest a Biblical precept’, but, ‘Father, it is thus written in the Torah.’ ‘It is thus written in the Torah’ — but he surely grieves him?23 But he must say to him, ‘Father, such and such a verse Is written in the Torah.’24 Eleazar b. Mathia said: If my father orders me, ‘Give me a drink of water’, while I have a precept to perform, I disregard25 my father's honour and perform the precept, since both my father and I are bound to fulfil the precepts. Issi b. Judah maintained: If the precept can be performed by others, it should be performed by others, while he should bestir himself for his father's honour. Said R. Mattena: The halachah agrees with Issi b. Judah. R. Isaac b. Shila said in R. Mattena's name in the name of R. Hisda: If a father renounces the honour due to him, it is renounced; but if a Rabbi renounces his honour, it is not renounced. R. Joseph ruled: Even if a Rabbi renounces his honour, it is renounced, for it is said: And the Lord went before them by day.26 Said Raba: How compare! There, with respect to the Holy One, blessed be He, the world is His and the Torah is His; [hence] He can forego His honour. ____________________ (1) Lit., ‘from whose’ — must he feed him, etc. (2) Ex. XX, 12. (3) Prov. III, 9. (4) Lit., ‘defect in the purse’. (5) His pocket — i.e., what personal loss is there? (6) Lit., ‘work’. (7) With their own money, and need not add a fifth, as is the case when one redeems his own second tithe (v. Lev. XXVII, 31). Now, though these are closely attached, they are nevertheless separate persons, and so e.g., when the master redeems for his disciple, he is not regarded as redeeming his own. (8) E.g., if the father is poor, the son may give him poor tithe. (9) The son must furnish him with an average quantity of food, if his father needs more, he may give him poor tithe. (10) Surely there is no objection to it! (11) Supra 31a. There a different answer is quoted; v. 31b, in the story of R. Tarfon. (12) So that the purse referred to is his father's. (13) And in his anger affront his father (Rashi). (14) Lev. XIX, 14. By causing him to fail in the honour due to him, R. Huna would violate this injunction, which is interpreted as meaning that one must not lead another into sin. (15) So that even if his son affronted him, he would not transgress. (16) Deut. XX, 19; this is a general prohibition against causing unnecessary damage. (17) As it could be easily resewn, there was no real damage. (18) When he could not have noticed this, and yet he did not affront his father. (19) Lit., ‘judged’. (20) For, ‘if criminals condemned to be burnt become mixed up with others sentenced to be stoned,’ implies that the latter are in the majority, as the smaller number is lost (i.e., mixed up) in the larger. (21) Lit., ‘say to’. (22) Others translate: man of long teeth, v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 60, n. 1. (23) For it is the same as telling him that he is transgressing. (24) Not directly stating the law, but leaving it for his father to understand. This does not shame him. (25) Lit., ‘lay aside’. (26) Ex. XIII, 21. Thus the Almighty renounced His honour and constituted Himself their Guide. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 32b But here, is then the Torah his [the Rabbi's]?1 Subsequently Raba said: Indeed, the Torah is his [the scholar's], for it is written, and in his law doth he meditate day and night.2 But that is not so. For Raba was serving drink at his son's wedding, and when he offered a cup to R. Papa and R. Huna son of R. Joshua, they stood up before him; but [when he offered] R. Mari and R. Phineas son3 of R. Hisda, they did not stand up before him. Thereupon he was offended and exclaimed: ‘Are these Rabbis and the others not!’4 It also happened that R. Papa was serving drink at the wedding of Abba Mar, his son; when he offered a cup to R. Isaac son of Rab Judah, he did not rise before him, whereupon he was offended!5 — Even so, they should have shewn him respect. R. Ashi said: Even on the view that if a Rabbi renounces his honour it is renounced, yet if a Nasi6 renounces his honour, his renunciation is invalid. An objection is raised: It once happened that R. Eliezar, R. Joshua and R. Zadok were reclining7 at a banquet of Rabban Gamaliel's son,8 while Rabban Gamaliel was standing over them and serving drink. On his offering a cup to R. Eliezer, he did not accept it; but when he offered it to R. Joshua, he did. Said R. Eliezer to him, ‘What is this, Joshua: we are sitting, while Rabban Gamaliel is standing over us and serving drink!’ ‘We find that even a greater than he acted as servitor’, he replied: ‘Abraham was the greatest man of his age,9 yet it is written of him, and he stood over them.10 And should you say that they appeared to him as Ministering Angels — they appeared to him only as Arabs.11 Then shall not R. Gamaliel Berabbi12 stand over us and offer drink! Said R. Zadok unto them: ‘How long will you disregard the honour of the Omnipresent and occupy yourselves with the honour of men! The Holy One, blessed be He, causeth the winds to blow,13 the vapours to ascend, the rain to fall, the earth to yield, and sets a table before every one; and we — shall not R. Gamaliel Berabbi stand over us and offer drink’! — But if stated, it was thus stated: R. Ashi said: Even on the view that if a Nasi renounces his honour it is valid, yet if a king renounces his honour it is not, for it is said, thou shalt surely set a king over thee,14 teaching that his authority15 shall be over thee.16 Our Rabbis taught: Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head;17 I might think, even before an aged sinner; therefore it is said, and honour the face of a zaken,18 and ‘zaken’ can only refer to a Sage,19 for it is said: Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel.20 R. Jose the Galilean said: ‘Zaken’ [means] only he who has acquired wisdom,21 for it is said: The Lord possessed me [sc. wisdom personified] as the beginning of his way.22 I might think that one might stand up before him [even] at a great distance: therefore it is written, . . . thou shalt rise up, and thou shalt honour,23 [implying], I ordered one to rise up only where it confers honour.24 I might think that one must honour him with money,25 therefore it is written: ‘thou shalt rise up and thou shalt honour’: just as rising up involves no monetary loss, so does honouring also mean without monetary loss. I might think that one must rise up before him out of a privy or a bathhouse, therefore it is written ‘thou shalt rise up and thou shalt honour’, [implying] I ordered to rise up only in a place where it confers honour. I might think that one may shut his eyes as though he has not seen him: therefore it is taught, . . . thou shalt rise up, and thou shalt fear thy God:26 of what is known to the heart only it is said, and thou shalt fear thy God.27 R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: How do we know that the Sage must not trouble [the people]?28 From the verse, . . . old man and thou shalt fear.29 Issi b. Judah said: Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head implies even any hoary head,30 But is not R. Jose the Galilean identical with the first Tanna? — They differ in respect to a young sage: the first Tanna holds that a young sage is not [included in the precept], whereas R. Jose the Galilean holds that he is. What is R. Jose the Galilean's reason? — He can tell you: should you think as the first Tanna asserts, if so, the All-Merciful should have written: ‘Thou shalt rise up before the hoary headed zaken and honour [him]’; why did the All-Merciful divide them? To teach that the one [hoary head] is not identical with the other [zaken], and vice versa. This proves that even a young sage [is included]. And the first Tanna?31 — That is because it is desired to place ‘old man’ in proximity to ‘and thou shalt fear’.32 Now, what is the first Tanna's reason? — Should you think as R. Jose the Galilean maintains, if so, the All-Merciful should have written, ____________________ (1) Surely not. A Rabbi is honoured on account of his learning, which comes from the Almighty; hence he cannot renounce his honour. (2) Ps. I, 2; Raba makes his refer to the student of the Law, Thus: at first, ‘But his delight is in the law of the Lord’; having studied it, he acquires it for himself and it becomes his law. (3) Var. lec., ‘sons’, making it refer to R. Mari too. (4) ‘You consider yourselves too great to rise: are then the others not Rabbis too?’ (5) But if a scholar can renounce his honour, these had in fact done so by serving the drink at all; why then did they resent it that honour was not shewn them? (6) V. Glos. (7) People were reclining in ancient days at meals. (8) Rabban Gamaliel was the Nasi. (9) Lit., ‘generation’. (10) Gen. XVIII, 8; referring to the three angels who appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre. (11) According to Talmudic tradition, when he bade them wash their feet (ibid. v. 4) it was because he suspected them of being Arabs, who worship the dust of their feet. (12) Supra p. 101, n. 8. (13) This phrase is now liturgical, but that ‘wind’ is used instead of ‘winds’. (14) Deut. XVII, 15. (15) Lit., ‘fear’, (16) Hence he cannot renounce the honour and reverence due to him. (17) Lev. XIX, 32. (18) Ibid. E.V. old man. (19) To the Rabbis one was not a Sage unless he was also upright (cf. Prov. IX, 10: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom). (20) Num. XI, 16. (21) Reading zaken as an abbreviation, Zeh kanah hokemah, this one has acquired wisdom. (22) Prov. VIII, 22. (23) Lev. XIX, 32. The words ‘thou shalt rise’ are made to apply to zaken. (24) But no sense of being honoured is experienced when a person rises at a distance. (25) I.e., by giving him money. (26) Ibid. (27) Ibid. 14. Man cannot know whether he sees or not, but God does. V. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 348, nn. 4, 5. (28) He must not intentionally pass by the masses, in order that they should rise, if he has an alternative route. (29) By disregarding the accents, this is read as a prohibition to the Sage. (30) Not particularly that of a scholar. (31) How does he explain the dividing up of the verse? (32) In accordance with the teaching of R. Simeon b. Eleazar. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 33a ‘Thou shalt rise up before and honour the hoary head; thou shalt rise up before and honour the old man.ð And since It is not written thus, it follows that they are identical.1 The Master said: ‘I might think that one must honour him with money, therefore it is written: "thou shalt rise up and thou shalt honourð: just as rising up involves no monetary loss, so does honouring also mean without monetary loss.’ But is there no monetary loss involved in rising? Does it not refer [even] to him who is piercing pearls,2 and whilst he rises up before him he is disturbed from his work?3 — But rising is compared to honouring: just as honouring involves no cessation of work,4 so rising too means such as involves no cessation of work. And honouring is compared to rising too: just as rising involves no monetary loss,5 so honouring means such as involves no monetary loss. Hence it was said: Artisans may not rise6 before scholars whilst engaged in their work. Must they not? But we learnt: All artisans rise before them, give them greeting,7 and exclaim to them, ‘Our brethren, men of such and such a place, enter in peace.’8 — Said R. Johanan: Before them they must stand up, yet before scholars they may not. R. Jose b. Abin said: Come and see how beloved a precept is in its time;9 for behold, they rose up before them, yet not before scholars. But perhaps it is different there, for otherwise you may cause them to offend in the future!10 The Master said: ‘I might think that one must rise up before him out of a privy or a bath-house.’ Is it then not so? But R. Hiyya was sitting in a bath-house, when R. Simeon son of Rabbi passed by, but he did not rise before him, whereat he was offended and went and complained to his father, ‘I taught him two-fifths of the Book of Psalms,11 yet he did not rise up before me!’ It also happened that Bar Kappara — others state, R. Ishmael son of R. Jose — was sitting in a bath-house, when R. Simeon b. Rabbi entered and passed by, yet he did not rise before him. Thereat he was offended and went and complained to his father. ‘I taught him two-thirds of a third of "The Law of Priests".’12 Said he to him, ‘perhaps he was sitting and meditating thereon’.13 Thus, it is only because he might have been sitting and meditating thereon; but otherwise, it would not be [excusable]? — There is no difficulty: the one refers to the inner chambers, the other to the outer chambers.14 That is logical too. For Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said: One may meditate [on learning] everywhere except at the baths and in a privy.15 [That however does not follow:] maybe it is different when [done] involuntarily.16 ‘I might think one may shut his eyes as though he has not seen him.’ Are we then dealing with the wicked! — But [say thus:] I might think that one may shut his eyes before the obligation arises,17 so that when it does, he will not see him that he should stand up before him; therefore it is stated: ‘thou shalt rise up and thou shalt fear’. A Tanna taught: Which rising up shews honour? Say, that is four cubits.18 Said Abaye: That was said only of one who is not his distinguished teacher;19 but as for his teacher par excellence,20 as far as his eyes reach.21 Abaye used to rise as soon as he saw the ear of R. Joseph's ass approaching. Abaye was riding an ass, making his way on the bank of the River Sagya.22 Now, R. Mesharsheya and other scholars were sitting on the opposite bank, and they did not rise before him. Thereupon he expostulated with them: ‘Am I not your teacher par excellence!’ ‘It was thoughtlessness on our part, replied they to him. ‘R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: How do we know that the Sage must not trouble [the people]? From the verse: "old man and thou shalt fear".’ Abaye said: We have it [on tradition] that if he [the Sage] takes a circuitous route,23 he will live [long]. Abaye took a circuitous route. R. Zera did likewise. Rabina was sitting before R. Jeremiah of Difti24 when a certain man passed by without covering his head.25 How impudent is that man! he exclaimed. Said he to him: Perhaps he is from the town of Mehasia,26 where scholars are very common.27 ‘Issi b. Judah said: "Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head" implies even any hoary head.’ R. Johanan said: The halachah is as Issi b. Judah. R. Johanan used to rise before the heathen28 aged, saying: ‘How many troubles have passed over these!’ Raba would not rise up, yet he shewed them respect.29 Abaye used to give his hand to the aged. Raba sent his messengers.30 R. Nahman sent his guardsmen, [for] he said: ‘But for the Torah, how many Nahman b. Abba31 are there in the market place!’32 R. Aibu said in R. Jannai's name: ____________________ (1) Hence one must actually be old in addition to learned. (2) For stringing together. (3) And piercing pearls (or perhaps diamond cutting) being highly paid work, this involves a monetary loss. (4) Honouring implies to shew respect, speak with reverence, but not to cease from work. (5) Since it does not, as just stated, involve cessation of work. (6) This refers either to employees, in which case they may not rise up, since their time is not their own; or to men engaged on their own work, so that the passage must be translated, . . . need not (Tosaf.). (7) Lit., ‘enquire after their welfare’. (8) This refers to those who brought their first fruits to the Temple, who were thus greeted by the workers in Jerusalem, v. Bik. III, 3. (9) I.e., when it is being performed. (10) If they are not shewn honour they may resent it, saying: ‘They hold us of no account’, and so not come again. (11) So Rashi. Tosaf.: Two books of the five into which it may be divided, viz., Chs. I-XLI, XLII-LXXII, LXXIII-LXXXIX, XC-CVI, CVII-CL. Each of these divisions end with ‘amen,’ except the last, which marks the end of the book as a whole, (12) ohbvf ,ru, . The Midrashic exposition of Leviticus, so called because many of its laws refer to priests. It was presumably divided into three sections, and he had taught him two-thirds of one of these. — The work is also known as the Sifra. [Albeck, Untersuchungen uber die halakischen Midraschim, p. 89, n. 1, however, questions this identification, but regards the ohbvf ,ru, as denoting the book of Leviticus itself.] (13) And failed to notice you. (14) In the inner chambers men are nude, and so exempt: in the outer they are clothed, and must pay their usual respects. (15) Since the Rabbi suggested that they might have been meditating on their studies, they must have been in the outer chamber, (16) They may have been in the inner chamber, yet involuntarily their thoughts wandered to their studies — not an unlikely supposition of men to whom the study of the Torah was one of the most vital objects in life. (17) I.e., if he knows that the Sage is coming his way, but he has not arrived yet. (18) When the Sage comes within four cubits of him he must rise, for then it is evident that he is rising in his honour. (19) I.e., either a greater scholar than himself, even if he has never studied under him, or one of his own rank from whom he has learnt something, but not the greater part of his knowledge. Tosaf. Ri. (20) His principal teacher. (21) As soon as he comes into sight he must rise. (22) Obermeyer. p. 225 suggests that thdx is a corruption for thbx , or more correctly thba or thbua , an important canal passing Pumbeditha and joining the Euphrates with the Tigris. (23) So as to avoid the assembly and save them the trouble of rising. (24) Obermeyer, p. 197 conjectures that this is identical with Dibtha, in the neighbourhood of Wasit, north of Harpania. (25) As a sign of respect; on headcovering v. supra 29b. (26) A town near Sura on the Euphrates. (27) There are so many, and they are met with so frequently, that the inhabitants fail to shew them proper respect. [Rashi's text reads: who are familiar with the Rabbis.] (28) Lit., ‘Aramean’. (29) In speech. (30) To help up the aged. (31) [Read with MS.M., tbt hf ,’ ‘like me’, instead of tct rc , ‘b. Abba’.] (32) I.e., his pre-eminence was due solely to his learning, and therefore it was not meet that he himself should help up the aged. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 33b A scholar may rise before his master only morning and evening, that his glory may not exceed the glory of Heaven.1 An objection is raised: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: How do we know that a Sage must not trouble [the people]? From the verse: ‘old man and thou shalt fear’. But if you say, morning and evening only, why should he not trouble [them]; It is an obligation! Hence it surely follows [that one must rise] all day? — No. After all, morning and evening only, yet even so, as far as possible, one should not trouble [the people]. R. Eleazar said: Every scholar who does not rise before his master is stigmatized as wicked, will not live long, and forget his learning, as it is said, but it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he prolong his days which are as a shadow, because he feareth not before God.2 Now, I do not know what this fear is, but when it is said, [Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head . . .] and fear thy God,3 then lo! fear means rising. But perhaps it means the fear of usury and [false] weights!4 — R. Eleazar infers [his dictum] from the use of pene [‘before’] in both cases.5 The scholars propounded: What if his son is his teacher? Must he rise before his father? — Come and hear: For Samuel said to Rab Judah: Keen scholar!6 rise before your father!7 — R. Ezekiel was different, because he had [many] good deeds to his credit, for even Mar Samuel8 too stood up before him. Then what did he tell him?9 — He said thus to him: Sometimes he may come behind me;10 then do you stand up before him,11 and do not fear for my honour. The scholars propounded: What if his son is his teacher; must his father stand up before him? — Come and hear: For R. Joshua h. Levi said: As for me, it is not meet that I should stand up before my son, but that the honour of the Nasi's house [demands it].12 Thus the reason is that I am his teacher:13 but if he were my teacher, I would rise before him.14 — [No]. He meant thus: As for me, it is not meet that I should stand up before my son, even if he were my teacher, seeing that I am his father, but that the honour of the Nasi's house [demands it]. The scholars propounded: Is riding the same as walking,15 or not? — Said Abaye: Come and hear: If the unclean person sits under a tree and the clean person stands, he is defiled; if the unclean person stands under the tree and the clean person sits, he remains clean; but if the unclean person sat down, the clean one is defiled. And the same applies to a leprous stone.16 Now, R. Nahman b. Cohen said: This proves that riding is the same as walking.17 This proves it.18 The scholars propounded: Must one rise before a Scroll of the Law? — R. Hilkiah, R. Simon and R. Eleazar say: It follows a fortiori: if we rise before those who study it, how much more before that itself! R. Elai and R. Jacob b. Zabdi were sitting when R. Simeon b. Abba passed by, whereupon they rose before him. Said he to them: [You should not have risen;] firstly, because you are Sages, whereas I am but a haber:19 moreover, shall then the Torah rise before its students!20 Now, he held with R. Eleazar, who said: A scholar must not stand up before his teacher when he [the disciple] is engaged in studying. Abaye condemned21 this [teaching]. [And . . . when Moses went out unto the Tent . . . all the people rose up and stood . . .] and looked after Moses, until he was gone into the tent.22 R. Ammi and R. Isaac, the Smith — one maintained: [It was] in a derogatory fashion; the other said: In a complimentary way. He who explained it in a derogatory fashion, as is known.23 But he who interpreted it in a complimentary manner — said Hezekiah: R. Hanina son of R. Abbahu told me in R. Abbahu's name in the name of R. Abdimi of Haifa: When the Hakam [Sage]24 passes, one must rise before him [at a distance of] four cubits, and when he has gone four cubits beyond [him], he sits down; when an Ab Beth-din25 passes, one must stand up before him as soon as he comes in sight,26 and immediately he passes four cubits beyond he may sit down; but when the Nasi passes, one must rise as he comes in sight and may not sit down until he takes his seat, for It is written, [and all the people stood . . .] and looked after Moses, until he was gone into the tent. ALL AFFIRMATIVE PRECEPTS LIMITED TO TIME etc. Our Rabbis taught: Which are affirmative precepts limited to time? Sukkah,27 lulab,28 shofar,29 fringes,30 ____________________ (1) One rises only twice a day, morning and evening, in God's honour. (2) Ecc. VIII, 13. (3) Lev. XIX, 32. (4) For there too fear of God is mentioned: Take thou no usury of him nor increase, but fear thy God (Lev. XXV, 36). In respect to false weights Rashi quotes, Thou shalt have a perfect and just weight (Deut. XXV, 15), but Tosaf. observes that fear of God is not mentioned there, and mentions the reading miksholoth , ukuafn , stumbling-blocks: the reference then is to Lev. XIX, 14: thou shalt not put a stumbling-block before the blind, but fear thy God. But S. Strashun explains that there is a misprint in Rashi, and the text to be quoted is, Just balances, just weights . . . shall ye have: I am the Lord your God. (Lev. XIX, 36). ‘I am the Lord your God’ implies fear; cf. B.M. 61b. (5) But is not written In connection with usury. Though it is used in connection with the stumbling-block, yet shewing fear before God has more in common with rising before a Sage than refraining from putting a stumbling-block before the blind (Tosaf.). (6) V. supra p. 156, n. 12. (7) Though Rab Judah was his father's teacher, v. supra 32a. (8) Samuel himself who was Rab Judah's teacher. (9) Surely Rab Judah should have understood it himself, seeing that even his teacher rose before him. (10) [MS.M.: Sometimes I may come behind him.] (11) Though you have already risen once for me. (12) His son had married into the Nasi's family. (13) So it is assumed. (14) Even apart from his high marriage connections. [The reference is probably to his son R. Joseph; cf. B.B. 10b.] (15) So that disciples must rise before their teacher when he rides past. (16) The reference is to a leper, who defiles a clean person when both are under the same covering overhead, but only if the leper is sitting. The boughs of a tree form such a covering. The same applies to a leprous stone. (Stones too could be leprous; v. Lev. XIV, 33-48.) If a man, bearing a leprous stone, sits under a tree, he defiles a clean man standing there; but if he stands with the stone, the other remains clean. (17) For the stone itself is always, as it were, seated on its bearer, yet it defiles only if its bearer sits down, but not if standing. This proves that the bearer only is regarded. Hence if a leper is sitting on an animal which is standing or walking, he does not cause defilement, since the bearer (sc. the animal) is not sitting. (18) The same applying to the problem under discussion. (19) [A title of a non-ordained scholar in contradistinction to a Sage ( ohfj ), an ordained scholar. R. Simeon (Shaman) b. Abba, through one cause or another, did not succeed in obtaining his Ordination, v. Sanh. 24a.] (20) They were actually studying just then, so he referred to them as the Torah itself. (21) Lit., ‘cursed’. (22) Ex. XXXIII, 8. (23) Lit., ‘as it exists’. It being a disparagement of Moses, the Talmud does not wish to elaborate thereon, but merely remarks that its meaning is known. It is explained in Shek. V, 13 and elsewhere: They said: ‘See how thick his legs are, how fat his neck — all acquired out of our wealth!’ (24) V. Hor. (Sonc. ed.) p. 101, n. 8. (25) Lit., ‘father of Beth din,’ v. loc. cit., n. 6. (26) Lit., ‘as far as his eyes see.’ (27) Lev. XXIII, 42: Ye shall dwell in booths (sukkoth) seven days. (28) The taking of the palm-branch (lulab) together with three other species on the Festival of booths; v. ibid. 40. (29) The ram's horn, to be blown on New Year; v. ibid. 24; Num. XXIX, 1. (30) V. Num. XV, 38; this is limited to time, because fringes are unnecessary on night garments. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 34a and phylacteries.1 And what are affirmative precepts not limited to time? Mezuzah,2 ‘battlement’,3 [returning] lost property,4 and the ‘dismissal of the nest.’5 Now, is this a general principle? But unleavened bread,6 rejoicing [on Festivals],7 and ‘assembling’,8 are affirmative precepts limited to time, and yet incumbent upon women.9 Furthermore, study of the Torah, procreation, and the redemption of the son, are not affirmative precepts limited to time, and yet women are exempt [therefrom]?10 — R. Johanan answered: We cannot learn from general principles, even where exceptions are stated. For we learnt: An ‘erub11 and a partnership,12 may be made with all comestibles, excepting water and salt. Are there no more [exceptions]: lo, there are mushrooms and truffles! But [we must answer that] we cannot learn from general principles, even where exceptions are stated. AND AFFIRMATIVE PRECEPTS LIMITED TO TIME, WOMEN ARE EXEMPT. Whence do we know it? — It is learned from phylacteries: just as women are exempt from phylacteries, so are they exempt from all affirmative precepts limited to time. Phylacteries [themselves] are derived from the study of the Torah: just as women are exempt from the study of the Torah, so are they exempt from phylacteries. But let us [rather] compare phylacteries to mezuzah?13 — phylacteries are assimilated to the study of the Torah in both the first section and the second;14 whereas they are not assimilated to mezuzah in the second section.15 Then let mezuzah be assimilated to the study of the Torah?16 — You cannot think so, because it is written, [And thou shalt write them upon the mezuzah of thine house . . .] That your days may be multiplied:17 do then men only need life, and not women! But what of sukkah, which is an affirmative precept limited to time, as it is written, ye shall dwell in booths seven days,18 yet the reason [of woman's exemption] is that Scripture wrote ha-ezrah,19 to exclude women,20 but otherwise women would be liable? — Said Abaye, It is necessary: I would have thought, since it is written: ‘ye shall dwell in booths seven days’, ‘ye shall dwell’ [meaning] even as ye [normally] dwell [in a house]: just as [normal] dwelling [implies] a husband and wife [together], so must the sukkah be [inhabited by] husband and wife!21 — But Raba said, ____________________ (1) V. Deut. VI, 8; the reason is the same as that of fringes. (2) V. ibid. 9. Mezuzah, doorpost, and then by transference, the receptacle containing ‘these words’ affixed to the doorpost. (3) Deut. XXII, 8. (4) Ex. XXIII, 4; Deut. XXII, 1-3. (5) V. Deut. XXII, 6f. (6) To eat which on the first evening of Passover is a positive command: Ex. XII, 18. (7) Deut. XVI, 14. (8) On the Festival of Tabernacles in the seventh year; v. Deut. XXXI, 12. (9) The latter two explicitly include women; unleavened bread is deduced in Pes. 43b. (10) Procreation is deduced in Yeb,65b; the others are deduced supra 29b. (11) V. Glos. (12) All the inhabitants of the same side street provided some foodstuff, e.g., flour, of which one large dish was prepared and placed in a court-yard of one of the houses. This turned all the court-yards into a single domain, and carrying from one into the other on the Sabbath was then permitted. That dish was called the ‘erub (of court-yards). ‘Erub means something which joins, combines, Fr. ‘arab, to commingle. Similarly, several side streets could be combined. (13) Which is obligatory upon women. (14) The first section is Deut. VI, 4-9; the second: XI, 13-21; so-called because these are the first two of the four Pentateuchal passages contained in the phylacteries, and the only two written in the mezuzah. In the first section, Deut. VI, 7f: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children . . . and thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand. In the second section, XI. 18f: and ye shall bind them . . . and ye shall teach them etc. (15) Phylacteries are mentioned in v. 18, and mezuzah in v. 20, so that v. 19, which treats of study, breaks the connection. (16) Just as women are exempt from the latter, so from the former too. — Study and mezuzah are stated consecutively, viz., in vv. 19 and 20. (17) Ibid, 21. (18) Lev. XXIII, 42. (19) R.V. ‘homeborn’. (20) Suk. 28a. (21) Hence ha-ezrah teaches otherwise. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 34b It1 is necessary [for another reason]: I might have thought, we derive [identity of law from the employment of] ‘fifteen’ here and in connection with the Feast of unleavened bread:2 just as there, women are liable, so here too. Hence it is necessary. But what of pilgrimage,3 which is an affirmative command limited to time, yet the reason [of woman's exemption] is that Scripture wrote, [Three times in the year all] thy males [shall appear before the Lord thy God],4 thus excluding women; but otherwise women would be liable? — It is necessary: I would have thought, we learn the meaning of ‘appearance’ from ‘assembling’.5 Now, instead of deriving an exemption from phylacteries, let us deduce an obligation from [the precept of] rejoicing?6 Said Abaye: As for a woman, her husband must make her rejoice.7 Then what can be said of a widow?8 It refers to her host.9 Now, let us learn [liability] from [the precept of] ‘assembling’?10 Because unleavened bread and ‘assembling’ are two verses [i.e., precepts] with the same purpose,11 and wherever two verses have the same purpose, they cannot throw light [upon other precepts].12 If so, phylacteries and pilgrimage are also two verses with one purpose,13 and cannot illumine [other precepts]? — They are both necessary: for had the Divine Law stated phylacteries but not pilgrimage, I would have thought, let us deduce the meaning of ‘appearance’ from ‘assembling’.14 While had the Divine Law written pilgrimage but not phylacteries, I would have reasoned, Let phylacteries be assimilated to mezuzah.15 Thus both are necessary.16 If so, unleavened bread and ‘assembling’ are also necessary? — For what are they necessary? Now, if the Divine Law stated ‘assembling’ but not unleavened bread, it were well:17 for I would argue, let us deduce ‘fifteen’, ‘fifteen’, from the feast of Tabernacles.18 But let the Divine Law write unleavened bread, and ‘assembling’ is unnecessary, for I can reason, If it is incumbent upon children,19 how much more so upon women! Hence it is a case of two verses with the same purpose, and they cannot throw light [upon other precepts]. Now, that is well on the view that they do not illumine [other cases]. But on the view that they do, what may be said?20 Furthermore, [that] affirmative precepts not limited to time are binding upon women; how do we know it? Because we learn from fear:21 just as fear is binding upon women, so are all affirmative precepts not limited to time incumbent upon women. But let us [rather] learn from the study of the Torah?22 — Because the study of the Torah and procreation23 are two verses which teach the same thing,24 and wherever two verses teach the same thing, they do not illumine [others]. ____________________ (1) The deduction from ha-ezrah. (2) Here, Lev. XXIII, 39: on the fifteenth day of the seventh month; Passover, ibid. 6: and on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord. (3) Lit., ‘appearance’ — before the Lord on Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles. (4) Ex. XXIII, 17. (5) ‘Appearance’ is mentioned in both cases. Pilgrimage, as quoted in last note; assembling, Deut. XXXI, 11f: when all Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God. . . assemble the people, men and women, etc. (6) That too is occasioned by the Season, yet is obligatory upon women; v. Deut. XVI, 14. (7) I.e., the duty lies not on the woman herself, but on her husband, to make her rejoice. (8) Who is explicitly mentioned in the same verse, q.v. (9) Lit., ‘the one with whom she dwells’. I.e., the master of the house where she lives must make her rejoice. (10) Just as that is an affirmative precept limited to time and yet incumbent upon women, so are all etc. (11) Lit., ‘that come as one,’ i.e., both are affirmative precepts occasioned by the season, and in both it is stated that they include woman. (12) V. note 7. (13) Both teaching that women are exempt. (14) Just as the ‘assembling’ includes women, so does pilgrimage. (15) Since they are written together, and so women are liable to the former as to the latter. (16) The reason why two verses which teach the same thing cannot illumine other precepts is that if they were meant to do so one only would be sufficient, for the second could be deduced; and similarly all other precepts. But this obviously does not hold good when each is necessary in itself; in that case, therefore, both together throw light upon other cases. (17) I.e., the latter would be unnecessary. (18) Thus shewing that women are exempt from eating unleavened bread; v. supra. (19) V. Deut. XXXI, 12, ‘and the children’. (20) Let us deduce liability of women in regard to all affirmative precepts limited to time. (21) I.e., the precept to fear one's parents, Lev. XIX, 3, which, as deduced supra 29a, applies to both sexes. (22) Which is occasioned by time and yet not obligatory upon women. (23) Likewise not limited in time and not incumbent upon women. (24) Viz., that women are exempt. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 35a But according to R. Johanan b. Beroka, who maintained, Concerning both [Adam and Eve] it is said: And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply,1 what can be said? — Because the study of the Torah and redemption of the firstborn are two verses with one purpose, and such do not illumine [others]. But according to R. Johanan b. Beroka too, let procreation and fear be regarded as two verses with one purpose,2 which do not illumine [other cases]?3 — Both are necessary. For if the Divine Law wrote fear and not procreation, I would argue, The Divine Law stated, [Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,] and conquer it: only a man, whose nature It is to conquer, but not a woman, as it is not her nature to conquer.4 And if Scripture wrote procreation and not fear, I would reason: A man, who has the means to do this [sc. to shew fear to his parents] is referred to, but not a woman, seeing that she lacks the means to fulfil this;5 and that being so, she has no obligation at all.6 Thus both are necessary. Now, that is well on the view that two verses with the same teaching do not illumine [others]: but on the view that they do, what can be said?7 — Said Raba, The Papunians8 know the reason of this thing, and who is it? R. Aha b. Jacob. Scripture saith, And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the Torah of the Lord may be in thy mouth:9 hence the whole Torah is compared to phylacteries: just as phylacteries are an affirmative command limited to time, and women are exempt, so are they exempt from all positive commands limited to time.10 And since women are exempt from affirmative precepts limited to time, it follows that they are subject to those not limited to time.11 Now, that is well on the view that phylacteries are a positive command limited to time; but what can be said on the view that they are not?12 — Whom do you know to maintain that phylacteries are an affirmative precept not limited to time? R. Meir. But he holds that there are two verses with the same teaching, and such do not illumine [others].13 But according to R. Judah, who maintains that two verses with the same teaching illumine [others], and [also] that phylacteries are a positive command limited to time, what can be said? — Because unleavened bread, rejoicing [on Festivals], and ‘assembling’ are three verses with the same teaching,14 and such do not illumine [others].15 AND ALL NEGATIVE PRECEPTS etc. Whence do we know it? — Said Rab Judah in Rab's name, and the School of R. Ishmael taught likewise, Scripture saith, When a man or a woman shall commit any sin that men commit [. . . then that soul shall be guilty]:16 thus the Writ equalised woman and man in respect of all penalties [decreed] in the Torah.17 The School of R. Eliezer taught: Scripture saith, [Now these are the judgments] which thou shalt set before them:18 The Writ equalised woman and man in respect of all civil laws in Scripture.19 The School of Hezekiah taught: Scripture saith, [but if the ox were wont to gore . . .] and he kill a man or woman [the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death];20 the Writ placed woman on a par with man in respect of all death sentences [decreed] in Scripture. Now, it is necessary [that all three should be intimated]. For if the first [only] were stated, [l would say] that the All-Merciful had compassion upon her [woman], for the sake of atonement;21 but as for civil law, I might argue that it applies only to man, who engages in commerce, but not to woman, who does not. While if the second [alone] were intimated, that is because oneðs livelihood depends thereon;22 but as for ransom ,23 I might argue, ____________________ (1) Gen. I, 28; this is the command of procreation. (2) Viz., both are affirmative precepts not occasioned by time and both are incumbent upon women. (3) So that on the contrary only these are obligatory, but not others. (4) And as this is stated together with procreation, the same ruling governs both. (5) V. p. 148. n. 5. (6) Even when she can fulfil it. e.g., if she is unmarried. (7) This is the conclusion of the objection introduced by ‘furthermore’, supra 34b. (8) I.e., scholars of Papunia, between Bagdad and Pumbeditha, possibly on the River Papa, whence the name; Obermeyer, p. 242. (9) Ex. XIII, 9. The ‘sign’ and ‘memorial’ refer to the phylacteries. (10) Now, a direct comparison of this nature, in which the ‘Torah of the Lord’ is practically identified with the ‘sign’ and the ‘memorial,’ is stronger than a mere analogy of the type hitherto discussed, and so outweighs any opposite conclusions arrived at by analogy. (11) For otherwise, this comparison should be written in connection with the latter, e.g., study of the Torah, whence I would deduce that woman are exempt from all such precepts (and from precepts limited to time too, a fortiori). (12) This question is disputed in Shab. 61a. (13) I.e, he does not employ the comparison, but deduces by analogy from pilgrimage, as above. Unleavened bread and ‘assembling’ do not furnish any opposite conclusion, for they are two verses with the same teaching. (14) These are three positive commands limited to time and binding upon women. (15) This is admitted by all. According to this, Abaye's contention that the precept of rejoicing relates to a woman's husband or her host (supra 34b) is rejected. (16) Num. V, 6. (17) Negative precepts involve flagellation. (18) Ex. XXI, 1. (19) This is not adduced as a source of the Mishnah, since it deals with a different subject, but as a parallel to the last statement. (20) Ibid. 29. (21) The first refers to sacrifice for sin, and the woman is given the same opportunity of atoning as man. (22) Viz., on the protection afforded by civil law. (23) The last law quoted treats of the ransom paid by the owner of the ox; vv.29H Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 35b it applies only to man, who is subject to precepts, but not to woman, who is not subject to them.1 And if the last [alone] were intimated, — since there is loss of life, the All-Merciful had compassion upon her;2 but in the first two I might say that it is not so.3 Thus they are [all] necessary. EXCEPTING, YE SHALL NOT ROUND [THE CORNER OF YOUR HEADS] NEITHER SHALT THOU MAR, etc. As for defiling oneself to the dead, that is well, because it is written: Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron: [There shall none defile himself for the dead among his people]:4 [hence], the sons of Aaron, but not the daughters of Aaron. But how do we know [that she is exempt from] the injunction against rounding [etc.] and marring [etc.]? — Because It is written, ye shall not round the corner of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard:5 whoever is included in [the prohibition of] marring is included in [that of] rounding; but women, since they are not subject to [the prohibition of] marring, are not subject to [that of] rounding. And how do we know that they are not subject to [the injunction against] marring? — Either by common sense, for they have no beard. Or, alternatively, [from] Scripture. For Scripture saith, ye shall not round the corner of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corner of thy beard; since Scripture varies its speech,6 for otherwise the Divine Law should write, ‘the corner of your beards’; why, ‘thy beard’? [To intimate], ‘thy beard,’ but not thy wife's beard. Is it then not?7 But it was taught: The beard of a woman and that of a saris8 who grew hair, are like a [man's] beard in all matters. Surely that means in respect to marring? — Said Abaye: You cannot say that it is in respect to marring, for we learn ‘corner’ ‘corner’ from the sons of Aaron:9 just as there, women are exempt; so here too, women are exempt. But if we hold that ‘the sons of Aaron’ is written with reference to the whole section,10 let the Writ refrain11 from it,12 and it13 follows a fortiori. For I can argue, If [of] priests, upon whom Scripture imposes additional precepts, [we say] ‘the sons of Aaron’ but not the daughters of Aaron, how much more so of Israelites! — But for the gezerah shawah I would reason that the connection is broken.14 Then now too let us say that the connection is broken; and as for the gezerah shawah,15 — that is required for what was taught: ‘They shall not shave’: I might think that if he shaves it with scissors,16 he is liable [for violating the injunction]: therefore it is stated, thou shalt not mar.17 I might think that if he plucks it [his hair] out with pincers or a remover, he is liable:18 therefore it is stated: ‘they shall not shave’.19 How then is it meant? Shaving which involves marring, viz., with a razor.20 If so,21 let Scripture write, [‘ye shall not round the corner of your heads, neither shalt thou mar] that of thy beard’? why [repeat] ‘the corner of thy beard’? Hence both are inferred.22  Then when it was taught: ‘The beard of a woman and that of a saris who grew hair, are like a [man's] beard in all respects’: to what law [does it refer]? — Said Mar Zutra: To the uncleanliness of leprosy.23 ‘The uncleanliness of leprosy!’ But that is explicitly stated: If a man or a woman have a plague upon the head or the beard?24 — But, said Mar Zutra, [it is] in respect of purification from leprosy.25 But purification from leprosy too is obvious; since she is liable to uncleanliness [through her beard], she needs [the same] purification! — It is necessary:26 I might have assumed, it is written with separate subjects:27 [thus:] ‘If a man or a woman have a plague upon the head’; while ‘or the beard’ reverts to the man [alone]; therefore we are informed [otherwise]. Issi taught: Women are exempt from the injunction against baldness too.28 What is Issi's reason? — Because he interprets thus: Ye are sons of the Lord your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God:29 [the implied limitation] ‘sons’ but not daughters [is] in respect of baldness. You say, in respect of baldness; yet perhaps it is not so, but rather in respect of cutting? When it is said: ‘For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God,’ cutting is referred to;30 hence, how can I interpret [the implication] ‘sons’ but not daughters? In respect to baldness. And why do you prefer31 to include cutting and exclude baldness? I include cutting which is possible both where there is hair and where there is no hair, and I exclude baldness which is possible only in the place of hair.32 Yet perhaps ‘sons’ but not daughters applies to both baldness and cutting, while ‘For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God’ relates to incision!33 — Issi holds that incision [seritah] and cutting [gedidah] ____________________ (1) Actually, of course, she is subject to certain precepts, as stated on 29a, but not liable to as many as man (Tosaf.). (2) And imposed upon the owner the payment of ransom for the death of a woman as for that of a man. (3) Sc. that woman is the same as man. (4) Lev. XXI, 1. (5) Lev. XIX, 27. (6) Using the plural in the one case and the singular in the other. (7) Is not a woman's beard subject to this prohibition? (8) V. Glos. (9) With reference to Israelites in general: nor shalt thou mar the corner of thy beard; in the section relating to priests: neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard (Lev. XXI, 5), it being assumed that the phrase ‘sons of Aaron’ of v. I applies to the whole section. The employment of ‘corner’ in both cases teaches similarity of law. (10) V. n. 5. (11) Lit., ‘keep silent’. (12) Sc. the gezerah shawah of ‘corner’. (13) Sc. that ‘thou shalt not mar’ does not apply to women. (14) Viz., that ‘the sons of Aaron’ in v. I does not refer to ‘they shall not shave the corner of their beards’ in v. 5. (15) Which appears to intimate that it is not. (16) I.e., clipped the hair very close. (17) Lev. XIX, 27: thus the first verse quoted, Lev. XXI, 5, in reference to Priests, is illumined by the second in reference to Israelites. ‘Mar’ can only refer to the action of a razor, which removes the hair completely. (18) In respect of ‘thou shalt not mar’. (19) In reference to priests, and this illumines the injunction ‘thou shalt not mar’. Plucking hairs one by one is not shaving. (20) Now since the gezerah shawah is wanted for this, I may still say ‘the sons of Aaron’ in Lev. XXI, 1, does not refer to ‘and they shall not shave the corner of their beards’ in v. 5, the connection being broken. (21) That the gezerah shawah merely defines ‘shaving’ and ‘marring’, but does not shew to whom they apply. (22) Viz., definition and scope. (23) The symptoms of leprosy of the skin differ from those of the hair; cf. Lev. XIII, 1-17 with vv. 29-37. The Baraitha teaches that if a woman or a saris grows a beard, though normally their chins are free from hair, the test of leprosy are the symptoms of the latter, not of the former, (24) Lev. XIII, 29. Why should the Baraitha state it? (25) When a woman becomes clean from leprosy of the beard, she must undergo the same ritual as a man, viz., the beard must be shaved off (v. 33) — S. Strashun. (26) The Baraitha refers to the uncleanliness of leprosy, as first stated, yet it is necessary. (27) Lit., ‘on (different) sides’. (28) V. Lev. XXI, 5. (29) Deut. XIV, 1f. (30) For ‘people’ includes men and women; since this is the reason of the previous injunctions, one at least must apply to women too. (31) Lit., ‘what (reason) do you see?’ (32) Since the prohibition of baldness is necessarily more limited, it is logical that the exclusion of daughters shall relate thereto. (33) Lev, XXI, 5: and they (sc. the priests) shall not make any incision (Heb. sarateth, E.V. cuttings) in their flesh. It is now assumed that making incisions (seritah) is not identical with cutting (gedidah), one being by hand and the other with a knife. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 36a are identical.1 Abaye said: This is Issi's reason, viz., he learns ‘baldness’, ‘baldness’, from the sons of Aaron:2 just as there, women are exempt, so here too, women are exempt. But if we hold that the phrase [‘the sons of Aaron’] relates to the whole section, let Scripture refrain from it,3 and it [woman's exemption] follows a fortiori. For I may argue, If [of] priests, upon whom the Writ imposes additional precepts, [we say] ‘the sons of Aaron’ but not the daughters of Aaron, how much more so of Israelites! — But for the gezerah shawah I would think the connection is broken.4 Then now too, let us say that the connection is broken; and as for the gezerah shawah, that is required for what was taught: They shall not make a baldness:5 I might think that even if one makes four or five bald patches he is liable for only one [transgression]; therefore it is stated, karhah [a baldness],6 intimating liability for each separate act. What is taught by, ‘upon their head’? Because it is said: ‘Ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead’: I might think that one is liable only for between the eyes. Whence do I know to include the whole head? Therefore it is stated: ‘upon their head,’ to teach liability for the [whole] head as for between the eyes. Now, I know this only of priests,7 upon whom Scripture imposes additional precepts; whence do we know it of Israelites? — Karhah [baldness] is stated here, and karhah is also stated below; just as there, one is liable for every act of making baldness, and for the [whole] head as for between the eyes, so here too, one is liable for every act of baldness and in respect of the whole head as for between the eyes. And just as below, [baldness] for the dead [is meant], so here too it is for the dead!8 If so,9 let Scripture write kerah [baldness]:10 why karhah? That both may be inferred. Raba said: This is Issi's reason, viz., he learns [the applicability of] ‘between your eyes’ from phylacteries:11 just as there, women are exempt, so here too, women are exempt. Now, why does Raba not say as Abaye? — [The distinction between] kerah and karhah is not acceptable to him. And why does Abaye reject Raba's reason? — He can tell you. Phylacteries themselves are learnt from this: just as there, [‘between the eyes’ means] the place where a baldness can be made [viz.,] on the upper part of the head,12 so here too’ the place for wearing [phylacteries] is the upper part of the head.13 Now, according to both Abaye and Raba, how do they interpret this [verse], ‘Ye are sons [etc.’]?14 — That is wanted for what was taught: ‘Ye are sons of the Lord your God’; when you behave as sons15 you are designated sons; if you do not behave as sons, you are not designated sons: this is R. Judah's view. R. Meir said: In both cases you are called sons, for it is said, they are sottish children;16 and it is also said: They are children in whom is no faith;17 and it is also said, a seed of evil-doers, sons that deal corruptly;18 and it is said, and it shall come to pass that, in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.19 Why give these additional quotations?20 For should you reply, only when foolish are they designated sons, but not when they lack faith — then come and hear: And it is said: ‘They are sons in whom is no faith’. And should you say, when they have no faith they are called sons, but when they serve idols they are not called sons — then come and hear: And it is said: ‘a seed of evil-doers, sons that deal corruptly.’ And should you say, they are indeed called sons that act corruptly, but not good sons — then come and hear: And it is said, and it shall come to pass that, in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.21 MISHNAH. THE [RITES OF] LAYING HANDS, WAVING, BRINGING NEAR [THE MEAL-OFFERING], TAKING THE HANDFUL, BURNING [THE FAT], WRINGING [THE NECK OF BIRD SACRIFICES], RECEIVING AND SPRINKLING [THE BLOOD], ARE PERFORMED22 BY MEN BUT NOT BY WOMEN, EXCEPTING THE MEAL-OFFERING OF A SOTAH23 AND A NEZIRAH,24 WHERE THEY [THEMSELVES] DO PERFORM WAVING. GEMARA. THE [RITES OF] LAYING [HANDS], because it is written: Speak unto the sons of Israel. . . and he shall lay [his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering]:25 thus the sons of Israel lay [hands], but not the daughters of Israel. WAVING: Speak unto the sons of Israel . . ‘ [the fat with the breast, it shall he bring, that the breast] may be waved [etc.]:26 hence, the sons of Israel wave, but not the daughters of Israel. BRINGING NEAR [THE MEAL-OFFERING]: For it is written: And this is the law of the meal-offering: the sons of Aaron shall offer it:27 the sons of Aaron, but not the daughters of Aaron. TAKING THE HANDFUL. For it is written: And he shall bring it to Aaron's sons the priests: and he shall take thereout his handful [of the fine flour thereof].28 the sons of Aaron, but not the daughters of Aaron. BURNING [THE FAT]. Because it is written: And Aaron's sons shall burn it:29 the sons of Aaron, but not the daughters of Aaron. WRINGING [THE NECK OF BIRD SACRIFICES]. Because it is written, and he shall wring [off his head,] and burn it [on the altar]: thus wringing is assimilated to burning.30 RECEIVING [THE BLOOD]. Because it is written, and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring [the blood]:31 and a Master said, ____________________ (1) Both are either by hand or with an instrument. (2) I.e., baldness is mentioned in Deut. XIV. If., in connection with Israelites, and in Lev. XXI, 5, in reference to the priests. Here too it is assumed that ‘the sons of Aaron’ in v. 1. applies to the whole section, (3) This gezerah shawah. (4) V. p. 174, n. 4. (5) Lev. XXI, 5. Heb. lo yikrehu. (6) The verb is followed by its cognate object, though this is unnecessary. (7) ‘Upon their head’ referring to them. (8) I.e., Lev, XXI, 5 refers to such a case. (9) That the gezerah shawah does not also exclude women. (10) A shorter form. (11) Deut. XI, 18: and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes. (12) I.e., where the hair grows. (13) But not on the forehead above the nose, as ‘between your eyes’ would seem to imply. (14) Since they derive Issi's dictum from another source. (15) Obediently and lovingly. (16) Jer. IV, 22. (17) Deut. XXXII, 20. (18) Isa. I, 4. (19) Hos. II, 1. (20) Lit., ‘why ‘and it is said’?’ (21) This whole passage expresses the firm belief that Israel can never be entirely rejected by God for all time. That in turn is based on the conviction that the Jew will never sin so completely as to render a return to God impossible, and the final verse quoted refers to such a religious regeneration. (22) The meaning of these is made clear in the texts quoted in the Gemara. (23) V. Glos. (24) V. Glos, (25) Lev. I, 2, 4. (26) Ibid. VII, 29f. (27) Ibid. VI, 7. [‘Offer it’, i.e., ‘bring it near’ the altar, v. Sotah 14b.] (28) Ibid. II, 2. (29) Sc. the fat, etc., mentioned in the preceding verses. — Ibid. III, 5. (30) Hence it may not be done by women. (31) Ibid. I, 5. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 36b ‘and they shall bring’ refers to the receiving of the blood. AND SPRINKLING. The sprinkling of what?1 If that of the [red] cow — Eleazar is written in connection therewith?2 If [that sprinkled] on the inner precincts [of the Temple],3 is but the anointed priest is stated in connection therewith!4 — But it refers to the sprinkling of a bird's [blood], which is inferred a minori from an animal:5 if an animal, for the slaughtering of which a priest was not specified,6 yet a priest was specified for its sprinkling; then a fowl, for the wringing of whose neck a priest was appointed,7 it surely follows that one [a priest] is specified for its sprinkling!8 EXCEPTING THE MEAL-OFFERING OF A SOTAH AND A NEZIRAH. R. Eleazar said to R. Josiah his contemporary:9 Do not sit down on your haunches10 until you have told me this law: How do we know that the meal.offering of a sotah requires waving? [You ask,] ‘How do we know!’ it is written in the very section, and he shall wave the offering [before the Lord].11 But [the question is,] how do we know that the waving must be by the owner?12 — The meaning of ‘hand’ is deduced from a peace-offering. Here is written: Then the priest shall take [the jealousy- offering] out of the woman's hand:11 while there [in reference to peace-offerings] it is written, his hands [sc. the owner's] shall bring [the offerings of the Lord made by fire]:13 just as here the priest [is stated], so there too the priest [is meant]; and just as there the owner [is specified], so here too the owner [is required]. How so? The priest inserts his hand under the owner's and waves. We have found [this in the case of] sotah; how do we know [it of] a nezirah? — The meaning of ‘palm’ [kaf] is derived from sotah.14 MISHNAH. EVERY PRECEPT WHICH IS DEPENDENT ON THE LAND IS PRACTISED ONLY IN THE LAND [PALESTINE]; AND THAT WHICH IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE LAND IS PRACTISED BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE LAND [IN THE DIASPORA],15 ____________________ (1) Lit., ‘of where’. (2) Num. XIX, 4: and Eleazar shall . . . sprinkle of her blood. Eleazar was the vice High Priest, and this shews that even all other male priests are excluded; surely it is superfluous to state that women are debarred! (3) The sprinkling on the veil and on the golden altar, mentioned in particular cases. (4) Lev. IV, 5f: And the priest that is anointed shall take of the bullock's blood. . . and sprinkled of the blood . . . before the veil of the sanctuary. The difficulty is as explained in the previous note. (5) Lit., ‘a young of the herd’. (6) An Israelite too may slaughter it, for it is written: And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord: and the priests . . . shall bring (i.e., receive) the blood — Lev. I, 5. Hence priests are required only from the reception of the blood and onward, but not for the actual slaughtering. (7) Ibid. I, 15. Wringing the neck of a fowl is the equivalent of slaughtering an animal. (8) And then the analogy between wringing and burning (supra 36a bottom) is extended to sprinkling. — Actually, the Gemara could state that it refers to the sprinkling of animals’ blood, but it goes further and teaches it even of bird sacrifices, though there it is not explicitly mentioned. Moreover, if the Mishnah referred to animals’ blood, zerikoth should have been employed, not hazza'oth (the verb zarak being generally used in the Bible for the sprinkling of the blood of animals). Maharsha. (9) R. Eleazar was an Amora of the third century. There was a Tanna of the second century named R. Josiah, and Rashi assumes that he was still living when R. Eleazar made the following remark; hence the Talmud observes that R. Josiah referred to here was the Amora, his contemporary, not the Tanna. (10) I.e., do not sit down at all (Tosaf. Naz.24b, s.v. rnt) v. Nazir (Sonc. ed.) p. 87, n. 9. (11) Num. V, 25; the reference is to sotah. (12) I.e., by the woman herself. (13) Lev. VII, 30. (14) Sotah, Num. V, 18: and he (the priest) shall put the offering of memorial in her palms (E.V. hands); nazir, (and the same applies to a nezirah), ib. VI, 19: and he (the priest) shall put them upon the palms (E.V. hands) of the Nazirite. The employment of ‘palm’ in both cases teaches that their provisions are identical. (15) The Gemara explains the meaning of ‘DEPENDENT’ and ‘NOT DEPENDENT’. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 37a EXCEPT ‘ORLAH1 AND KILAYIM.2 R. ELEAZAR SAID: HADASH3 TOO.4 GEMARA. What is the meaning of ‘DEPENDENT’ and ‘NOT DEPENDENT’? Shall we say: ‘DEPENDENT’ refers to those [precepts] where ‘coming’ is written, and ‘NOT DEPENDENT’ to those where ‘coming’ is not stated?5 But phylacteries and the [redemption of] the firstling of an ass are practised both within and without the land, though ‘coming’ is written in connection with them?6 — Said Rab Judah: This is its meaning: every precept which is a personal obligation7 is practised both within and without the Land; but what is an obligation of the soil8 has force only within the Land. How do we know these things? — For our Rabbis taught: These are the statutes9 — this refers to the [Rabbinic] interpretations;10 and the judgments — to civil law; which ye shall observe — to [the study of the] Mishnah; to do — to actual practice; in the land: I might think that all precepts are binding in the Land only — therefore it is stated, all the days that ye live upon the earth. If ‘all the days’, I might think that [all precepts] must be practised both within and without the Land — therefore it is taught: ‘in the land’. Now, since the Writ extends and limits [the duration of the precepts], go forth and learn from what is stated in that passage: Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations served their God:11 just as [the destruction of] idolatry is singled out as being a personal duty, and is obligatory both within and without the land,12 so everything which is a personal duty is incumbent both within and without the land. EXCEPTING ORLAH AND KIL'AYIM [etc.]. The scholars propounded: Does R. Eleazar disagree in the direction of leniency or [greater] stringency? ‘In the direction of stringency,’ the first Tanna stating thus: EXCEPTING ‘ORLAH AND KIL’ AYIM, concerning which there is a traditional law, though one might argue that it is a duty connected with the soil, but hadash is practised only in the Land, but not without. What is the reason? ‘Dwelling’ implies after taking possession and settling down.13 Whereon R. Eleazar comes to say that hadash too applies both within and without the Land: What is the reason? ‘Dwelling’ implies wherever you may be living.14 Or perhaps, he differs in the direction of leniency, the first Tanna stating thus: EXCEPTING ‘ORLAH AND KIL'AYIM, concerning which there is a traditional law,15 and all the more so hadash, for ‘dwelling’ implies wherever you are living.16 Whereon R. Eleazar comes to say that hadash is practised only in the land, for ‘dwelling’ implies after taking possession and settling down. While to what does TOO refer? To the first [clause].17 Come and hear: For Abaye said: which Tanna disagrees with R. Eleazar [in our Mishnah]? R. Ishmael. For it was taught: This is to teach you that wherever ‘dwelling’ is stated, it means only after taking possession and settling down:18 this is R. Ishmael's opinion. Said R. Akiba to him: But the Sabbath, in connection with which ‘dwellings’ is stated,19 is yet binding both within and without the land?20 The Sabbath, replied he to him, is inferred a minori: if light precepts must be practised both within and without the land, surely the Sabbath, which is more stringent! Since Abaye said: ‘Which Tanna disagrees with R. Eleazar? R. Ishmael,’ it follows that R. Eleazar differs in the direction of [greater] stringency.21 This proves it. Now consider: to what does R. Ishmael refer? To libations. But in the case of libations ____________________ (1) V. Glos. (2) V. Glos. Though dependent on the land, these are binding in the diaspora too. (3) V. Glos. (4) It may not he eaten before the bringing of the ‘omer (q.v. Glos); v. Lev. XXIII, 10-14. (5) I.e., ‘dependent’ means that Scripture made the performance of the particular precept conditional upon entering Palestine; e.g., Lev. XIX, 23: And when ye shall come into the land, and shall have planted etc. (6) Ex. XIII, 11ff.: And . . . when the Lord shall bring thee (in Heb. ‘bring’ is the causative form of ‘come’ — ‘make thee come’) into the land . . . then every firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb . . . and it shall be for a sign upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes (i.e., phylacteries). (7) I.e., which throws no obligation upon the soil or its produce, but on the person himself. (8) Arising out of land produce, e.g., tithes. (9) Deut. XII, 1. (10) I.e., laws not explicitly stated in the Bible but derived by Rabbinic exegesis. (11) Ibid. 2. (12) Since ‘all the days etc.,’ immediately precedes this, (13) The section on hadash is concluded with the passage: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings (Lev. XXIII, 14). Now, it might be held that ‘in all your dwellings’ implies that hadash is binding even without Palestine. This Tanna, however, on the present hypothesis, maintains that on the contrary it teaches that even in Palestine it came into force only after the Israelites had conquered the land and settled down in dwellings, but not while they were fighting and dividing up the country. (14) V. preceding note. (15) But no Biblical intimation. (16) So that its exception is intimated in the Bible, (17) I.e., R. Eleazar said that hadash too is included in the general principle that all precepts dependent etc. (18) The reference is to Num. XV, 2ff.: When ye come into the land of your dwellings, which I give unto you (lakem, plural), and will make an offering burnt by fire unto the Lord . . . then shall he that offereth ... offer a meal-offering . . . and wine for the drink-offering (libations). Before the erection of the Temple, sacrifices might be offered at either private or public bamoth (high places), one of which was at Gilgal. Now, R. Ishmael deduces from the phrase ‘unto you’, which is in the plural, that the reference is to a public bamah (sing. of bamoth), and only there were libations required. Consequently, ‘dwellings’ cannot mean wherever you dwell, since the public bamah was in one place only, but as stated in the text, and it teaches that though there was a public bamah at Gilgal during the fourteen years of conquest and division, libations were to be brought only after that, when all had settled down in dwellings. (19) Rashi: Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations on the Sabbath day — Ex. XXXV, 3. Tosaf.: it is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings. — Lev. XXIII, 3. (Heb. moshaboth is variously translated dwellings or habitations in the E.V.) (20) Hence dwellings implies extension, in all places. The same holds good of libations, which are accordingly to be offered at private bamoth too. Hence the passage is thus interpreted: Now that you are in the wilderness and have a tabernacle, private bamoth are altogether forbidden. But when ye come unto the land of your habitations, before a tabernacle is erected (as it was subsequently at Shiloah), private bamoth for sacrifice will be permitted, and there too libations will be required. (21) For the first suggested meaning of the Mishnah must be the correct one. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 37b both ‘coming’ and ‘dwelling’ are written!1 — It means thus: This is to teach that wherever ‘coming’ and ‘dwelling’ are stated, it means only after taking possession and settling down: that is R. Ishmael's opinion. If so, [when the Baraitha proceeds:] Said R. Akiba to him, ‘But the Sabbath, in connection with which dwellings is stated’ [etc.], and he answered him, ‘The Sabbath is inferred a minori’, he should have answered him, ‘I spoke of "coming" and "dwelling"’? — He gives him a twofold answer.2 Firstly, I refer to ‘coming’ and ‘dwelling’. Moreover, as to what you say: ‘Behold the Sabbath, in connection with which "dwellings" is stated’ — the Sabbath is inferred a minori. Wherein do they differ? — In whether they offered libations in the wilderness: R. Ishmael maintains that they did not offer libations in the wilderness, whereas R. Akiba holds that they did offer libations in the wilderness.3 Abaye said: This Tanna of the School of Ishmael contradicts4 another Tanna of the School of Ishmael. For the School of Ishmael taught: Since unspecified ‘comings’ are stated in the Torah, whilst the Writ explained in the case of one [that it means] after posses — sion and settling down,5 so all mean after possession and settling down.6 And the other?7 — Because [the appointment of a] king and [the offering of] first-fruits are two verses with the same teaching,8 and any two verses with the same teaching do not illumine [others]. And the other?9 — Both are necessary. For if the Divine Law wrote the case of a king but not first-fruits, I would argue, Since there is enjoyment [of crops] in the case of first-fruits, [the obligation comes] immediately.10 And if the case of first-fruits were stated but not that of a king, I would reason, Since it is a king's way to conquer, [he must be appointed] immediately [on entering the land]. And the other? — Let the Divine Law state the case of a king, and then first-fruits become unnecessary, for I would reason: If a king, who is for conquest, [is appointed only] after possession and settling down, how much more so are first-fruits [obligatory only then]! And the other? — If it were thus written: I would say: It [first-fruits] is analogous to hallah;11 hence we are informed [that it is not so]. Now that you say that a personal duty must be practised both within the Land and without the Land, what is the purpose of ‘dwelling,’ which the Divine Law wrote in connection with the Sabbath?12 — It is necessary. I would say: Since it is written in the chapter on Festivals, it requires sanctification, like the Festivals;13 hence we are informed14 [that it is not so]. What is the purpose of ‘dwelling’ written by the Divine Law in connection with forbidden fat and blood?15 — It is necessary. I might say: Since it is written in the section on sacrifices, as long as sacrifices are practised, heleb16 and blood are forbidden, but not when they are no longer practised. Hence we are informed [otherwise]. What is the purpose of ‘dwelling’ written by the Divine Law in connection with unleavened bread and bitter herbs?17 — It is necessary. I might have thought, since it is written: They shall eat it [the Paschal lamb] with unleavened bread and bitter herbs:18 it holds good only when the Passover sacrifice is [offered], but not otherwise. Hence we are informed [that it is not so]. What is the purpose of ‘coming’ which the Divine Law wrote in connection with phylacteries and the firstling of an ass?19 — That is needed for what the School of Ishmael taught: Perform this precept, for thou shalt enter the land on its account. Now, on the view that ‘dwelling’ implies wherever you live,20 it is well: hence it is written, and they did eat of the [new] produce of the land on the morrow after the passover:21 they ate on the morrow after the Passover, but not before, which shews ____________________ (1) How then can he infer as above? Possibly ‘dwelling’ alone denotes extension, in all places, yet here it implies limitation, because ‘coming’ too is mentioned. (2) Lit., ‘He says to him, ‘One thing, and furthermore",’ (3) Thus: (explaining R. Akiba first:) since libations were offered in the wilderness (naturally at the public bamah, for private bamoth were at that time forbidden), the verse under discussion cannot teach that libations would be required at the public bamoth when they entered Palestine, for they were already obligatory before them. Hence it can refer only to the private bamoth during the fourteen years of conquest and allotment (for thereafter private bamoth were illegal); and so dwelling must be an extension, implying wherever you dwell. According to R. Ishmael, however, the verse can teach that libations would be incumbent at the public bamoth, for hitherto, in the wilderness, they had been forbidden (and the fact that public bamoth are now referred to follows from the plural ‘you’, as stated on p. 182, n. 4); consequently ‘dwelling’ can only mean after settling down. (4) Lit., ‘excludes that of. (5) In reference to the appointment of a king, Deut. XVII, 14: When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein. (6) Thus in his view ‘coming’ itself implies this, without the addition of dwelling. (7) The first Tanna: why does he insist on both? (8) The fuller definition is also stated with respect to first-fruits, ibid, XXVI, 1: And it shall be, when thou art come in unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and possessest it, and dwellest therein. (9) Does he not admit this? (10) For what does it matter whether one is settled or not? If one enjoys a harvest, the first to ripen should be an offering! (11) V. Glos. All admit that this became incumbent immediately they entered the land, cf. Num. XV, 18 and Sifre a.l. (12) V. Ex. XXXV, 3. (13) V. Lev. XXIII. The Festivals were dependent on the sanctification of the month in which they fell, which could be done only by the Sanhedrin in Judah. (14) By the word ‘dwellings’, which applies to all places. (15) Lev. III, 17: It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that ye shall eat neither fat nor blood. (16) I.e., the forbidden fat. (17) Ex. XII, 20: In all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread. — Bitter herbs are mentioned because they generally go together with unleavened bread, but actually ‘dwelling’ is not found in connection therewith, and in fact the obligation nowadays (i.e., after the destruction of the Temple) to eat them is only Rabbinical; in Rashi's text ‘bitter herbs’ seem to have been absent (S. Strashun). (18) Num. IX, 11. (19) Since these are independent of Palestine. (20) So that dwelling written in connection with hadash (Lev. XXIII, 14) does not teach that this holds good only after settling down. (21) Josh. V, 11. E.V. translates ‘old corn’; ‘old’ is not in the text, and the Gemara assumes that the reference is to the new corn, for otherwise, on the morrow after the passover is pointless. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 38a that the ‘omer1 was first offered and then they ate. But on the view that [‘dwelling’ implies] after possession and settling,2 they could have eaten immediately? — They did not need to, for it is written, and the children of Israel did eat the manna forty years, until they came to a land inhabited; they did eat the manna, until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan.3 Now, it is impossible to say [literally], ‘until they came unto the land inhabited,’ since it is also said: ‘[until they came] unto the borders of the land of Canaan’;4 conversely, ‘unto the borders of the land of Canaan’ cannot be understood [literally], since it is also said: ‘until they came unto a land inhabited!’ How then [are these to be reconciled]? Moses died on the seventh of Adar and the manna ceased to descend, but they used the manna which was in their vessels until the sixteenth of Nisan.5 Another [Baraitha] taught: ‘And the children of Israel did eat the manna forty years’. Did they then eat [it] forty years: surely they ate it but forty years less thirty days?6 But it is to teach you that they experienced the taste of manna in the cakes which they brought forth from Egypt. Another [Baraitha] taught: On the seventh of Adar Moses died, and on the seventh of Adar he was born. How do we know that he died on the seventh of Adar? For it is written: [i] So Moses the servant of the Lord died there;7 [ii] And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days;8 [iii] Moses thy servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over [this Jordan];9 [iv] Pass through the midst of the camp, and command the people, saying: Prepare you victuals; for within three days ye are to pass over this Jordan;10 and [v] and the people came up out of Jordan on the tenth day of the first month;11 deduct12 the preceding thirty three days,13 thus you learn that Moses died on the seventh of Adar.14 And how do we know that he was born on the seventh of Adar? — For it is said: And he [Moses] said unto them, I am an hundred and twenty years old this day; I can no more go out and come in.15 Now, ‘this day’ need not be stated;16 why then is it stated? It teaches that the Holy One, blessed be He, sits and completes the years of the righteous [exactly] from day to day and month to month, as it is said,the number of thy days I will fulfil.17 It was taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai said: The Israelites were given three precepts18 on their entry into the Land,19 yet they are practised both within and without the Land, and it is logical that they shall be thus binding. If hadash, which is not permanently forbidden,20 nor is [all] benefit thereof prohibited,21 and its interdict can be raised,22 is [nevertheless] operative both within and without the Land;23 then kil'ayim, which are permanently forbidden,24 of which [all] benefit is prohibited,25 and the interdict of which cannot be raised, it surely follows that it has force both within and without the land; and the same logic applies to ‘orlah on two [grounds].26 R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: ____________________ (1) V. GIos, (2) So that the law of hadash was inoperative when they first entered Palestine. (3) Ex. XVI, 35. ‘Land inhabited’ refers to cis-Jordania, not Gilead on the east of the Jordan, though two and a half tribes did settle there. (4) But not Canaan itself. (5) Hence ‘until they came to a land inhabited’ refers to the actual period of eating it, while it descended only ‘until they came to the borders etc.’, where Moses died. (6) For they came to the wilderness of Sin on the fifteenth of the second month (Ex. XVI, 1), complained of the lack of food (ibid. 2f.), and received the manna on the following day (ibid. 6f, 13). As they ate it until the sixteenth of the first month forty years later, these forty years were short by one month. (7) Deut. XXXIV, 5. (8) Ibid. 8. (9) Josh. I, 2. (10) Ibid, 11. The month of Nisan. (11) Ibid. IV, 19. (12) From the 10th Nisan. (13) N. ii and iv. (14) From Adar 7th to Nisan 10th are 33 days. (15) Deut. XXXI, 2. (16) Obviously he gave his age as on that day. (17) Ex. XXIII, 26. Hence he was then exactly a hundred and twenty years old, which was the day of his death; consequently he was born on that day too. (18) Hadash, ‘orlah and kil'ayim. (19) Since there was no sowing, planting, or harvesting in the wilderness. (20) But only up to and including the sixteenth of Nisan, the day on which the ‘omer is offered. (21) Though it may not be used for human consumption, it may be given to animals. (22) Lit., ‘permitted’. Even on the sixteenth itself, by the offering of the ‘omer. (23) Interpreting dwelling in Lev. XXIII, 14, ‘wherever you live’. (24) If diverse seeds are sown, their produce is forbidden for all time. (25) Not only consumption. (26) The third does not apply, ‘orlah not being permanently forbidden. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 38b All precepts which the Israelites were commanded [to practise] before their entry into the Land1 are operative both within and without the Land; after their entry into the Land, are operative only within the Land, except release of money [debts] and liberation of slaves:2 though they were commanded concerning these after their entry into the Land,is they are practised both within and without the Land. But the release of debts is a personal duty?3 — It is necessary [to state it] Only because of what was taught. Rabbi said: And this is the manner of release: release [thou] [every creditor, etc.]4 the Writ speaks of two releases, the release of soil and the release of debt.5 At the time when you release soil, you release debts; and at the time when you do not release soil, you do not release debts.6 But perhaps it means thus: in the place that you must release soil [sc. Palestine], you must release debts; but in the place where you do not release soil [sc. in the Diaspora], you do not release debts?7 Therefore it is stated, because the Lord's release hath been proclaimed,8 teaching, under all circumstances.9 [Again], liberation of slaves is a personal obligation? — I might have thought, since it is written, and ye shall proclaim liberty throughout the land,10 it holds good only in the Land, but not without; therefore it is stated, it is a jubilee,11 implying, under all circumstances. If so, what is taught by ‘the land’? — When liberation [of slaves] is in force in the Land, it is in force without; when it is not in force in the Land,12 it is not in force without. We learnt elsewhere: Hadash is forbidden by Scriptural law everywhere; [the prohibition of] ‘orlah [without palestine] is a halachah, and [that of] kil'ayim is from the words of the Scribes.13 What is meant by halachah? — Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: It is a law of the country.14 ‘Ulla said in R. Johanan s name: It is a halachah of Moses from Sinai.15 Said ‘Ulla to Rab Judah: On my view that it is a halachah of Moses from Sinai,16 it is well; therefore we distinguish between doubtful ‘orlah and doubtful kil'ayim. For we learnt: Doubtful ‘orlah17 is forbidden in the Land, permitted in Syria,18 whilst outside the Land one may enter [a Genthe's field] and make a purchase,19 providing, however, that he does not see him [the Gentile] gather [‘orlah].20 Whereas in respect to kil'ayim we learnt: If a vineyard is planted with vegetables,21 and vegetables are sold outside it:22 in the Land they are forbidden; in Syria, permitted; in the Diaspora he [the Gentile owner of the vineyard] may enter and gather them,23 providing, however, that he [the Jew] does not personally24 gather [them]25 But on your view, ____________________ (1) I.e., which rank as personal duties. (2) The first in the seventh (Deut. XV, 1f) and the second in the jubilee year (Lev. XXV, 10). (15) This is questioned by the Gemara below. (3) And therefore in force before they entered Palestine (Rashi). (4) Deut. XV, 2. (5) Deduced from the repetition of the word ‘release’. (6) By ‘release of soil’ is meant the return of land at jubilee (Lev. XXV, 10, 23, 28). Obviously this did not operate in the wilderness, when they had no land, and therefore debt release was inoperative too, though it is a personal obligation. (7) Even in Temple times. (8) Ibid. (9) This follows from the emphasis suggested by the quotation. (10) Lev. XXV, 10, (11) Ibid, (12) I.e., when there is no Temple. (13) V. p. 79, n. 7. Biblically the law applies only to Palestine. (14) It is practised voluntarily in the Diaspora. (15) It is a compulsory prohibition going back to Moses, handed down by tradition, though not stated in the Bible. (16) And so has the force of Biblical Law, v. infra p. 190, n. 11. (17) Fruit of which it is not known whether it is of the first three years of planting or not. (18) Syria was not originally part of Palestine but conquered by David (I Chron. XIX, 18f); and it is disputed whether David's conquest (technically called the conquest of an individual) conferred the full sanctity of Palestine upon it. This Tanna holds that it did not; consequently the law of ‘orlah is not so stringent there, and so doubtful ‘orlah is permitted. Yet one may not procure it in the first place, since Syria is not absolutely distinct from Palestine in sanctity. (19) Of fruit, even if he knows that the Gentile sells ‘orlah. (20) [Of fruit which may be doubtful ‘orlah.] (21) Between the vines, which renders both forbidden as kil ‘ayim of the vineyard. (22) And there is a reasonable fear that they may be from the vineyard. (23) And sell to a Jew. (24) Lit., ‘with his hand’. (25) Comparing these two, we see that ‘orlah is treated more stringently than kil ‘ayim. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 39a let it be taught in both cases either that he [the Jew] may enter and make a purchase, or that he [the Gentile] may enter and gather [them]?1 — Samuel did indeed say to R. ‘Anan, Read in both cases either that he [the Jew] may enter and make a purchase, or that he [the Gentile] may enter and gather [them]. Mar son of Rabbana recited it in the direction of leniency: In both cases he [the Gentile] may enter and gather them, provided that he [the Jew] does not personally gather. Levi said to Samuel: Arioch,2 Supply me with doubtful [‘orlah] and I will eat [thereof].3 R. Awia and Rabbah son of R. Hanan supplied each other with doubtful [‘orlah].4 The keen scholars of Pumbeditha5 said. There is no ‘orlah in the Diaspora. When Rab Judah sent [this ruling] to R. Johanan, he sent back: Conceal6 [the law of] doubtful [‘orlah],7 destroy certain [‘orlah], and proclaim that these fruits must be hidden,8 and whoever maintains that there is no ‘orlah in the Diaspora, he will have no offspring nor posterity ‘that shall cast the line by lot in the congregation of the Lord’.9 But with whom do they [the ‘keen scholars’] hold? — With what was taught: R. Eleazar son of R. Jose said on the authority of R. Jose b. Durmaskah, who stated it on the authority of R. Jose the Galilean, who said it on the authority of R. Johanan b. Nuri, who said it on the authority of R. Eleazar the Great: There is no ‘orlah in the Diaspora. Is there not? But we learnt: R. ELEAZAR SAID, HADASH TOO?10 — Read, HADASH.11 R. Assi said in R. Johanan's name: [The prohibition of] ‘orlah in the Diaspora is a halachah of Moses from Sinai.12 Said R. Zera to R. Assi: But we learnt: Doubtful ‘orlah is forbidden in the Land but permitted in Syria.13 He was momentarily non — plussed;14 [then] he answered him,15 Perhaps it [the Mosaic halachah] was thus given: Doubtful [‘orlah] is permitted [in the Diaspora], certain [‘orlah] is forbidden. R. Assi said in R. Johanan's name: One is flagellated for [violating the prohibition of] kil'ayim [in the Diaspora] by Biblical law. But we learnt,16 kil ‘ayim [is forbidden] by the words of the Soferim?17 — There is no difficulty: the one refers to kil'ayim of the vineyard, and the other to the grafting of [heterogeneous] tree[s].18 That agrees with Samuel. For Samuel said: My statutes ye shall keep:19 [that implies] the statutes which I decreed for you in former times.20 Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seeds.’21 just as [the prohibition of] ‘thy cattle’ [means] by copulation, so is [that of] ‘thy field’ by grafting;22 and just as [the law in regard to] ‘thy cattle’ is in force both within and without the Land, so is [that concerning] ‘thy field’ in force alike within and without the Land. But still, ‘thy field’ is written!23 — That is to exclude [diverse] seeds in the Diaspora.24 R. Hanan and R. ‘Anan were walking along a path, when they saw a man sowing [diverse] seeds together. Said one to the other, ‘Come, Master, let us ban him.’25 ‘You are not clear [on this law],’ he replied. Again they saw another man sowing wheat and barley among vines. Said one to the other, ‘Come, Master, let us ban him.’ ‘You are not thoroughly versed [in this law],’ he rejoined. ‘Do we not fully accept R. Josiah's dictum, that [he is not guilty] unless he sows wheat, barley, and grape-stone in the [same] hand-throw?’26 R. Joseph mixed seeds and sowed [them].27 Thereupon Abaye protested: But we learnt: Kil'ayim is forbidden [in the] Diaspora by the words of the Scribes! — There is no difficulty, answered he. That [the Mishnah quoted] refers to kil'ayim of the vineyard; this [my action] is with kil'ayim of seeds. Kil'ayim of the vineyard, of which in the Land [all] benefit is forbidden, are also Rabbinically prohibited outside the Land; kil'ayim of seeds, however, of which [even] in palestine benefit is not forbidden,28 are not prohibited by the Rabbis in the Diaspora. Subsequently R. Joseph said: My former statement was incorrect,29 for Rab sowed the scholars’ garden30 in separate beds.31 What is the reason? Surely in order [to avoid] the mixture of kil'ayim?32 Said Abaye to him: Now that were indeed well if we were informed ____________________ (1) Since ‘orlah and kil'ayim are alike, neither having Biblical force. (2) A playful nickname, v. Gen. XIV, 9, Arioch king of Ellasar; by a pun, Ellasar was read al assur, and the phrase applied to Samuel: he was king, but not in ritual law. When Rab and Samuel differ in respect to civil law, the halachah agrees with Samuel; in ritual law, with Rab. V. Shab. 53a Marginal glosses. [S. Funk, Die Juden in Babylonian, I. p. 42, n. 2. takes the term to denote ‘the Tall’, and as a variant of Arika, a cognomen by which Rab was known, on account of his extraordinary stature.] (3) I.e., gather fruit in my absence, so that I do not know whether it is ‘orlah; Others (mentioned in Tosaf. Ri) translate: supply me (with certain ‘orlah), Levi holding that the prohibition of ‘orlah is inoperative in the Diaspora. (4) [By exchanging fruit cut by one in the absence of the other.] (5) A great academy town in Babylon. The term ‘keen scholars’ denotes Eyfa and Abimi, the son of Rahaba (Sanh. 17b). (6) Lit., ‘shut’. (7) It is permitted, but since there is already a tendency to treat ‘orlah lightly, do not teach this publicly. (8) I.e., not eaten. (9) Micah II, 5. (10) Since he adds hadash, he.evidently agrees with the first Tanna that ‘orlah is forbidden. (11) I.e., only hadash, but not ‘orlah. (12) Various views are held as to the exact meaning of this phrase. Some take it in its literal sense as indicating that the law in question was actually handed down from Moses. Others understand it more figuratively in the sense of a traditional law, whilst its alleged Mosaic origin is not to be taken literally’. V. Weiss, Dor., I. [For a full discussion of this phrase as well as of all the passages where it occurs, v. Bacher, W., Kohler-Festschrift pp. 56ff.] (13) But if certain ‘orlah is forbidden in the Diaspora by Mosaic law, how can we be lenient in doubtful ‘orlah? (It is a general principle that when in doubt, we are stringent if the law is Biblical or Mosaic, lenient if it is only Rabbinical). (14) [Lit., ‘was appalled for a who’, quoted from Dan. IV, 26.] (15) Or possibly, the questioner himself suggested it. (16) Cur. ed. read: R. Eleazar b. R. Jose said to him, But we learnt. This is obviously incorrect, since R. Eleazar b. R. Jose was a Tanna of an earlier generation, and so the Wilna Gaon deletes it. But Asheri reads: R. Eleazar said to R. Assi, which will refer to R. Eleazar b. Pedath, his contemporary. (17) V. p. 79, n. 7. (18) In the latter case diverse growths are actually grafted on each other: that is Biblically forbidden. But in kil'ayim of the vineyard diverse seeds are grown near each other, and though their roots may even intertwine, there is no actual grafting; that is forbidden by Rabbinic law only. (19) Lev. XIX, 19. (20) I.e., to the children of Noah. This follows because Scripture does not state, ye shall keep my statutes (E.V., which does translate thus, disregards the order of the Hebrew) but gives precedence to ‘my statutes,’ implying that they were already long in existence. (21) Ibid. (22) I.e., in both cases the actual fusion of diverse species is forbidden. (23) Implying specifically thine, viz., Palestine. (24) I.e., the planting of diverse seeds in a vineyard is not Biblically forbidden outside Palestine. That follows because the verb ‘to sow’ is more applicable to the sowing of seeds, and with that ‘thy field’ is linked. Nevertheless the analogy, which intimates that grafting is referred to, which is possible only in the case of trees, also shews that grafting is forbidden in the Diaspora too. (25) For violating Rabbinic law. (26) I.e., he must have two species of grain and the seed of the vine in his hand and cast them simultaneously into the soil. (27) Not in a vineyard. (28) Though diverse seeds may not be sown in Palestine, yet if sown one may benefit from (though not consume) the produce. (29) Lit., ‘was nothing’. (30) A vegetable garden for the benefit of his disciples. (31) For different species. (32) And this was outside Palestine. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 39b [that he sowed] four [species] on the four sides of the bed and one [species] in the middle.1 Here, however,2 he did so on account of beauty, or [to save] the attendant trouble.3 MISHNAH. HE WHO PERFORMS ONE PRECEPT IS WELL REWARDED,4 HIS DAYS ARE PROLONGED, AND HE INHERITS THE LAND,5 BUT HE WHO DOES NOT PERFORM ONE PRECEPT, GOOD IS NOT DONE TO HIM, HIS DAYS ARE NOT PROLONGED, AND HE DOES NOT INHERIT THE LAND.6 GEMARA. But a contradiction is shewn: These are the things the fruit of which man eats in this world,7 while the principal remains for him for the future world. Viz., honouring one's parents, the practice of loving deeds, hospitality to wayfarers,8 and making peace between man and his neighbour; and the study of the Torah surpasses them all.9 — Said Rab Judah: This is its meaning: HE WHO PERFORMS ONE PRECEPT in addition to his [equally balanced] merits10 IS WELL REWARDED, and he is as though he had fulfilled the whole Torah. Hence it follows that for these others [one is rewarded] even for a single one!11 — Said R. Shemaiah: That teaches that if there is an equal balance, it tips the scale.12 Yet is it a fact that he who performs one precept in addition to his [equally balanced] merits is rewarded? But the following contradicts it: He whose good deeds outnumber his iniquities is punished,13 and is as though he had burnt the whole Torah, not leaving even a single letter;14 while he whose iniquities outnumber his good deeds is rewarded,15 and is as though he had fulfilled the whole Torah, not omitting even a single letter! — Said Abaye: Our Mishnah means that a festive day and an evil day are prepared for him,16 Raba said: This latter agrees with R. Jacob, who said: There is no reward for precepts in this world.17 For it was taught: R. Jacob said: There is not a single precept in the Torah whose reward is [stated] at its side which is not dependent on the resurrection of the dead.18 [Thus:] in connection with honouring parents it is written, that thy days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with thee.19 In reference to the dismissal of the nest20 it is written, that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days.21 Now, if one's father said to him, ‘Ascend to the loft and bring me young birds,’ and he ascends to the loft, dismisses the dam and takes the young, and on his return falls and is killed — where is this man's happiness22 and where is this man's prolonging of days? But ‘in order that it may be well with thee’, means on the day that is wholly good; and ‘in order that thy days may be long’, on the day that is wholly long.23 Yet perhaps there was no such happening?24 — R. Jacob saw an actual occurrence. Then perhaps he25 was meditating upon a transgression? — The Holy One, blessed be He, does not combine an evil thought with an [evil] act.26 Yet perhaps he was meditating idolatry, and it is written, that I may take the house of Israel in their own heart?27 — That too was precisely his point: should you think that precepts are rewarded in this world, why did the [fulfilment of these] precepts not shield him from being led to [such] meditation?28 Yet R. Eleazar said: Those who are engaged29 on a precept are never harmed?30 — There, when they are going [to fulfil the precept], it is different.31 But R. Eleazar said: Those who are engaged on a precept are never harmed, either when going or returning? — It was a rickety ladder, so that injury was likely,32 and where injury is likely one must not rely on a miracle, for it is written, and Samuel said: How can I go? if Saul hear it, he will kill me.33 R. Joseph said: Had Aher34 interpreted this verse35 as R. Jacob, his daughter's son, he would not have sinned.36 Now, what happened with Aher? Some say, he saw something of this nature.37 Others say, he saw the tongue of Huzpith the Interpreter dragged along by a swine.38 ‘The mouth that uttered pearls licks the dust!’ he exclaimed. [Thereupon] he went forth and sinned.39 R. Tobi son of R. Kisna pointed out a contradiction to Raba: We learnt: HE WHO PERFORMS ONE PRECEPT IS WELL REWARDED; hence, only if he [actively] performs it, but not otherwise. But the following contradicts this: If he sits and commits no transgression he is rewarded as though he has fulfilled a precept! — Said he to him: There it means, e.g., that he was tempted40 and successfully resisted.41 As in the case of R. Hanina b. Pappi, whom a certain matron urged [to immorality]. He pronounced a certain [magical] formula, whereupon his body was covered with boils and scabs;42 but she did something and he was healed. So he fled and hid himself in a bath-house in which when [even] two entered, even in daytime, they would suffer harm.43 The next morning the Rabbis asked him, ‘Who guarded you?’ Said he to them, ‘Two ____________________ (1) I.e., sowing different species in the same bed, yet taking care according to the regulation to leave sufficient space between each for their roots not to intertwine; v. Shab. 84b. The only possible reason would then be that kil'ayim are forbidden outside Palestine. (2) Since he did not observe this regulation. (3) In fetching vegetables, he would know the place of each species. (4) Lit., ‘good is done to him’. (5) I.e., the future world. (6) The Mishnah is explained in the Gemara. (7) I,e., he is rewarded for them in this world. (8) [This does not occur in the Mishnah, Pe'ah I, whence the passage is quoted, and is omitted in MS.M.] (9) Thus, only for these is one rewarded in this world, whereas the Mishnah states this of any precept. To the Rabbis study was not only a means to religious observance (cf. infra 40b: study is great, as it leads to action), but a religious act in itself, — indeed, one of the most important, as is shewn by this and numerous other passages in the Talmud. Nevertheless, they were far from believing that religious sincerity might be replaced by mere intellectualism; v. M. Joseph, Judaism as Creed and Life, p. 360. (10) I.e., his good deeds and bad are exactly balanced, and then he performs a precept, thus tipping the scale. (11) Even if he has no other good deeds to his credit — surely not! (12) If one's good deeds and bad are exactly equal, yet among the good deeds is one of those enumerated above, it causes the former to preponderate. (13) Lit., ‘evil is done to him’. (14) Thus he is purged of his sins in this world, that he may wholly enjoy the next. (15) For his good deeds in this world, that he may wholly suffer punishment in the next. (16) By ‘good is done to him’ the Mishnah means that he is punished in this world; this punishment is regarded as a festive day for him, since he thereby wholly enjoys the next. Conversely the second half of the Mishnah. (17) But our Mishnah disagrees, and is literally meant, referring to this world. (18) Which shews that the reward spoken of is in the next world. R. Jacob appears to identify the next world with resurrection; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 601, n. 3. (19) Deut. V, 16. (20) V. Ibid. XXII, 6f; that precept is always technically so named. (21) Ibid. (22) Lit., ‘the goodness of his days’. (23) I.e., both refer to the next world, not to this, and thereby emphasize that regard comes only then, but not in this world. (24) R. Jacob bases his deduction on a hypothetical event which may never have happened. (25) The one who was involved in this occurrence. (26) For punishment. — I.e., one is not punished for mere intention. (27) Ezek. XIV, 5: ‘heart’ implies intention; the reference is to idolatry; v. preceding verse, and thus we see that even the intention of idolatry is punished. (28) Cf. Aboth IV, 2: ‘the reward of a precept is a precept, and the punishment of transgression is transgression, for precept draws precept and transgression draws transgression’. (29) Lit., ‘sent’. (30) How then could this have happened? (31) But he was returning, having taken the bird etc. (32) Lit., ‘established’. (33) 1 Sam. XVI, 2; he did not rely upon the fact that his mission was by God's command. (34) Elisha b. Abuyah, a great scholar and R. Meir's teacher, who turned against the Torah, whereupon he was dubbed Aher, a different man, a stranger. (35) The promise of reward and long life. (36) He interpreted it literally, as referring to this world, and seeing that the promise was not fulfilled turned unbeliever. (37) Stated above. (38) Lit., ‘a different thing’ — a euphemism for swine, the unmentionable. — Huzpith was one of the martyrs slain in the Hadrianic persecution, after the fall of Bethar; v. Dor. II, 119. The Interpreter was a functionary who interpreted the public readings of the Torah to the people. (39) According to this, it was the eternal question, why do the righteous suffer, which is even put into the mouth of Moses (Ber. 7a), which led him to religious apostasy. For other conjectures v. J.E. s.v. Elishah ben Abuyah. (40) Lit., ‘a matter of transgression came to his hand.’ (41) Lit., ‘he was saved from it,’ (42) Belief in magic was very widespread in ancient times, and was even entertained by scholars. On the whole the Talmud was strongly opposed to it, as ‘impairing the Divine Agencies’ (Sanh. 67b; cf. Tosef. Sotah, XIV, 3; Sotah, IX, 3), and being bound up with idolatry. Nevertheless, in case of need it was resorted to and permitted, so long as pagan means were not employed. Thus healing by means of an amulet was permitted and its use regulated by law (Shab. 61a-b). Here, on the other hand, a Rabbi uses magic to cover himself with boils in order to resist immoral demands, and it is obviously permitted. The most potent means was an incantation, as here, particularly one which employed the name of God. V. Blau, Das altjudische Zauberwesen, pp. 117-146. (43) From demons; yet he stayed there the night alone, and was unhurt. Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 40a Imperial [armour] bearers1 guarded me all night.’2 Said they to him, ‘Perhaps you were tempted with immorality and successfully resisted?’ For it was taught: He who is tempted with immorality and successfully resists, a miracle is performed for him. [Bless ye the Lord, ye messenger's of his:] Ye mighty in strength, that fulfil his word, hearkening unto the voice of his word.3 E.g., R. Zadok and his companions. R. Zadok was summoned by a certain matron [to immorality]. Said he to her, ‘My heart is faint and I am unable; is there aught to eat?’ She answered him, ‘There is unclean food.’ ‘What am I to deduce from this?’4 he retorted: ‘that he who commits this [immorality] may eat this.’5 She then fired the oven and was placing it [the forbidden meat] therein, when he ascended and sat in it. Said she to him, ‘What is the meaning of this?’ ‘He who commits the one [immorality] falls into the other [the fire — of Gehenna]’, was his reply. ‘Had I known that it is so heinous,’ said she, ‘I would not have tormented you’. R. Kahana was selling [work-] baskets, when a certain matron made [immoral] demands upon him. Said he to her, ‘I will first adorn myself.’ He [thereupon] ascended and hurled himself6 from the roof towards earth, but Elijah came and caught him.7 ‘You have troubled me [to come] four hundred parasangs’, he reproved him. ‘What caused me [to do it],’8 he retorted; ‘is it not poverty?’9 so he gave him a shifa10 [full] of denarii.11 Raba pointed out a contradiction to R. Nahman. We learnt: These are the things the fruit of which man enjoys in this world, while the principal remains for him for the future world: Viz., honouring one's parents, the practice of loving deeds, and making peace between man and his neighbour, while the study of the Torah surpasses them all. Now, in reference to honouring one's parents it is written, that thy days may be long, and that it may go well with thee.12 Of the practice of loving deeds it is written: He that pursueth after righteousness and loving kindness findeth life, righteousness and honour.13 Of peacemaking it is said: Seek peace and pursue it;14 and R. Abbahu said: We learn ‘pursuing’ from ‘pursuing’. Here it is written: ‘Seek peace and pursue it’; and elsewhere it is written: He that pursueth after righteousness and loving kindness.15 Of the study of the Law it is written, for that is thy life, and the length of thy days.16 But with respect to the dismissal of the nest17 it is also written, that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days:18 then let this too be taught? — He teaches [some] and omits [others]. [What!] the Tanna states: ‘These are the things,’19 yet you say that he teaches [some] and omits [others]! — Said Raba, R. Idi explained it to me: Say ye of the righteous, when he is good, that they shall eat the fruit of their doings:20 is there then a righteous man who is good and a righteous man who is not good? But he who is good to Heaven and good to man, he is a righteous man who is good; good to Heaven but not good to man, that is a righteous man who is not good.21 Similarly you read: Woe unto the wicked [man] [that is] evil; for the reward of his hands shall be given unto him:22 is there then a wicked man that is evil and one that is not evil? But he that is evil to Heaven and evil to man, he is a wicked man that is evil; he who is evil to Heaven but not evil to man, he is a wicked man that is not evil. Merit has both stock and fruit,for it is said: Say ye of the righteous, when he is good etc.23 Transgression has stock but not fruit,24 for it is said: Woe unto the wicked when he is evil etc.25 Then how do I interpret,26 Therefore shall they [sc. the wicked] eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices?27 Transgression which bears fruit28 has fruit; that which does not bear fruit has no fruit.29 Good intention is combined with deed,30 for it is said: Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before him, for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.31 Now, what is the meaning of ‘that thought upon his name’? — Said R. Assi: Even if one [merely] thinks of performing a precept but is forcibly prevented the Writ ascribes it to him as though he has performed it. Evil intention is not combined with deed,32 for it is said: If I regarded iniquity in my heart, The Lord would not hear.33 Then how do I interpret, behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts?34 Intention which bears fruit35 the Holy One, blessed be He, combines with deed;36 Intention which does not bear fruit the Holy One, blessed be He, does not combine with deed. Then what of the verse, that I may take the house of Israel in their own heart?37 — Said R. Aha b. Jacob: That refers to idolatry, for a Master said: Idolatry is so heinous that he who rejects it is as though he admits [the truth of] the whole Torah.38 ‘Ulla said: [This is to be explained] as R. Huna. For R. Huna said: Once a man does wrong and repeats it, it is permitted him. ‘It is permitted him’! can you really think so? — But it becomes to him as something permitted.39 R. Abbahu said on R. Hanina's authority: Better had a man secretly transgress than publicly profane God's40 name, for it is said: As for you, O house of Israel, thus saith the Lord God: Go ye, serve every one his idols, and hereafter also, if ye will not hearken unto me: but my holy name shall ye not profane.41 R. Il'ai the Elder said: If a man sees that his [evil] desire is conquering him, let him go to a place where he is unknown, don black and cover himself with black,42 and do as his heart desires,43 but let him not publicly profane God's name.44 But that is not so, for we learnt: He who is careless45 of his Master's honour, it were well for him that he had not come Into the world. Now, to what does this refer? — Rabbah said: To one who gazes at the [rain]bow.46 R. Joseph said: To one who secretly transgresses!47 — There is no difficulty: the one means where he can subdue his evil desires; the other, where he cannot. We learnt elsewhere: Credit is not allowed48 for the profanation of the [Divine] Name, whether It is unwitting or intentional.49 What is meant by ‘credit is not allowed?’ — Said Mar Zutra: They [sc. Heaven] do not act like a shopkeeper.50 Mar the son of Rabina said: This is to teach that if it [sc. one's account of sin and merit] is equally balanced, [the profanation of God's name] tips the scale.51 Our Rabbis taught: A man should always ____________________ (1) Var. lec.: Imperial Ethiopian (guards). (2) Probably meaning, ‘a special Providence watched over me’. (3) Ps. CIII, 20. (4) [From the fact that there is only unclean food available (Rashi). Others: ‘What does it matter’?] (5) The former is as heinous as the latter. (6) Lit., ‘fell’. (7) V. note 5. (8) Lit., ‘caused it for me’. (9) Which forces me to go hawking baskets among women. (10) Jast. name of a measure, xestes. Rashi: name of a utensil. (11) Elijah was supposed to appear among men very frequently, particularly to pious men, who were privileged to know his identity. Cf. Git. 70a, Sanh. 113a, Yoma 19b, et passim. (12) Deut. V, 16. (13) Prov. XXI, 21: ‘life’ is understood to refer to the next world, ‘righteousness and honour’ to the rewards in this. (14) Ps. XXXIV, 25. (15) Hence, just as the latter is rewarded in both worlds (v. n. 8), so is the former. (16) Deut. XXX, 20: ‘thy life’ refers to this world, ‘length of thy days’, to the next. (17) V. Deut. XXII, 6-7. (18) Ibid. (19) Which implies only these. (20) Isa. III, 10. (21) Hence the verse refers to the first, in connection with whom ‘they shall eat the fruit of their doings’, i.e., be rewarded in this world. But dismissing the dam is ‘good to Heaven’ only, i.e., it is obedience to God's will, but of no benefit to man. (22) Ibid. 11. (23) ‘The fruit of his doings’ implies reward over and above his merits. (24) I.e., one is punished only according to his desserts. (25) Only ‘the reward of his hands’ is mentioned, but not more. (26) Lit., ‘fulfil’. (27) Prov. I, 31. (28) E.g., when a great man sins he sets an evil example which is copied by others. (29) In both, the principle of ‘measure for measure’ operates. (30) And both are rewarded. (31) Mal. III, 16. (32) There is no punishment for mere intention. (33) Ps. LXVI, 18; i.e., when it remained a mere intention ‘in my heart’, it was overlooked. (34) Jer. VI, 19. (35) I.e., which is followed by action. (36) Punishing both. (37) Ezek. XIV, 5. This shows that there is punishment for mere thought. (38) Hence mere intention is punished. (39) The blunting of man's finer perceptions which make him unable to distinguish between right and wrong is in itself sin's punishment. Cf. Yoma 39a: Sin dulls the heart of man; also Aboth: the punishment of sin is sin. — Hence, when the Writ intimates that evil intention is punished, it refers to a wrong twice committed: the intention to commit it a third time is then punished, even if not carried out. For by then it is not regarded as evil, and its non-performance is not due to repentance but because there was no need for it. (40) Lit., ‘Heaven's’. (41) Ezek. XX, 39. (42) His sombre garments may subdue his lust. (43) If he is still unable to resist. (44) By sinning where he is known. (45) Lit., ‘has no compassion’. (46) Which was regarded as the manifestation of God's glory, and to gaze upon it was disrespectful (cf. Ex. XXIV, 9-11). (47) Because he thereby shews that he fears man more than God. (48) ihphen iht , v. also n. 6. (49) Cf. Mishnah, Aboth, IV, 5. (50) Who gives long credit and then demands payment for many items; but every profanation is punished immediately. (51) If his wrongdoings included this. God does not wait — i.e., ‘give credit’ — until another sin is committed, for that itself tips the scale. — Maharsha. [Rashi's explanation ihphen is here understood in the sense of comparing, balancing the sins against the good deeds.] Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 40b regard himself as though he were half guilty and half meritorious: if he performs one precept, happy is he for weighting himself down in the scale of merit; if he commits one transgression, woe to him for weighting himself down in the scale of guilt, for it is said, but one sinner destroyeth much good:1 [i.e.,] on account of a single sin which he commits much good is lost to him.2 R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: Because the world is judged by its majority, and an individual [too] is judged by his majority [of deeds, good or bad], if he performs one good deed, happy is he for turning the scale both for3 himself and for the whole world on the side of merit; if he commits one transgression, woe to him for weighting himself and the whole world in the scale of guilt, for it is said: ‘but one sinner, etc.’ — on account of the single sin which this man commits he and the whole world lose much good. R. Simeon b. Yohai said: Even if he is perfectly righteous all his life but rebels at the end, he destroys his former [good deeds], for it is said: The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression.4 And even if one is completely wicked all his life but repents5 at the end, he is not reproached with his wickedness,6 for it is said, and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness.7 Yet let it be regarded8 as half transgressions and half meritorious deeds! — Said Resh Lakish: It means that he regretted his former deeds.9 MISHNAH. HE WHO IS VERSED IN BIBLE, MISHNAH, AND SECULAR PURSUITS10 WILL NOT EASILY11 SIN, FOR IT IS SAID, AND A THREEFOLD CORD IS NOT QUICKLY BROKEN.12 BUT HE WHO LACKS BIBLE, MISHNAH AND SECULAR PURSUITS DOES NOT BELONG TO CIVILISATION. GEMARA. R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok said: To what are the righteous compared in this world? To a tree standing wholly in a place of cleanness, but its bough overhangs to a place of uncleanness; when the bough is lopped off, it stands entirely in a place of cleanness. Thus the Holy One, blessed be He, brings suffering upon the righteous in this world,13 in order that they may inherit the future world, as it is said, and though thy beginning is small, yet thy latter end shall greatly increase.14 And to what are the wicked compared in this world? To a tree standing wholly in a place of uncleanness, but a branch thereof overhangs a place of cleanness: when the bough is lopped off, it stands entirely in a place of uncleanness. Thus the Holy One, blessed be He, makes them prosper15 in this world,16 in order to destroy and consign them to the nethermost rung, for it is said: There is a way which seemeth right unto man, But at the end thereof are the ways of death.17 R. Tarfon and the Elders were once reclining in the upper storey of Nithza's house, in Lydda,18 when this question was raised before them: Is study greater, or practice? R. Tarfon answered, saying: Practice is greater. R. Akiba answered, saying: Study is greater, for it leads to practice. Then they all answered and said:19 Study is greater, for it leads to action.20 It was taught: R. Jose said: Great is learning, since it preceded hallah21 by forty years, terumoth21 and tithes by fifty-four years, shemittin22 by sixty-one, and jubilees by one hundred and three.23 A hundred and three? but it was a hundred and four!24 — He maintains that jubilee effects a release25 at the beginning thereof. And just as learning preceded practice, so does the judgment thereof [in the next world] take precedence over that of practice,26 in accordance with R. Hamnuna. For R. Hamnuna said: The beginning of man's judgment is in respect of study27 alone, for it is said: The rejection28 of water29 is the beginning of judgment.30 And just as the judgment thereof takes precedence over that of practice, so does the reward thereof, for it is said: And he gave them the lands and nations; and they took the labour of the people in possession: that they might keep [yishmeru] his statutes, and observe his laws.31 BUT HE WHO LACKS BIBLE, MISHNAH [etc.]. R. Johanan said: And he is unfit to testify.32 Our Rabbis taught: He who eats in the market-place is like a dog; and some say that he is unfit to testify.33 R. Idi b. Abin said: The halachah agrees with the latter.34 Bar Kappara lectured: A bad tempered man ____________________ (1) Ecc, IX, 18. (2) Viz., his meritorious deeds, being now outbalanced. (3) Lit., ‘of. (4) Ezek. XXXIII, 12. (5) The Heb. lit., means, ‘but performs repentance, which demands more than mere regret but actual righting of wrongs committed. (6) Lit., ‘he is not reminded of his wickedness’. (7) Ibid. (8) Where the righteous rebels at the end. (9) In that case his righteous past is completely disregarded. (10) Heb. derek erez, lit., ‘the way of the earth,’ i.e., industry or commerce. (11) Lit., ‘quickly’. (12) Ecc. IV, 12. (13) Thus purging them of the little sin they do commit lopping off the branch inclining to an unclean place. (14) Job VIII, 7. (15) Lit., ‘furnishes them with goodness’. (16) Thus rewarding them for the little good they perform-lopping off the branch inclining to the place, that it may be disregarded in the next world. (17) Prov. XIV, 12. — An attempt to answer the eternal question, why the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer. (18) V. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 502, n. 3. (19) Probably, that was their final decision. (20) This was a practical problem during the Hadrianic persecution, when both study and practical observance were forbidden, and the question was for which risks should sooner be taken. — Weiss. Dor., II, 125, Graetz, Geschichte, IV, p. 429. (21) V. Glos. (22) Plural of shemittah, q.v. Glos. (23) The Torah was given to Israel two months after the Exodus from Egypt, whereas liability to hallah came into force forty years later, when they entered Palestine; terumoth and tithes fourteen years later after Palestine was conquered and allotted to the tribes; shemittah and jubilee seven and forty-nine years respectively after that. (24) The jubilee is the fiftieth year, and it is assumed that its provisions (q.v. Lev. XXV, 8-13, 28, 33, 39-42, 47, 55) became operative only at the end of that year. (25) I.e., its laws, which generally speaking effected the release of slaves and land, came into force. (26) I.e., one is first judged for learning, and then in respect to the fulfilment of precepts. (27) Lit., ‘words of the Torah’. (28) Lit., ‘he who frees himself. (29) I.e., the Torah; cf. Isa. LV, 1. (30) Prov. XVII, 14; it is here so translated. (31) Ps. CV, 44f.; v. supra 37a, where it is stated that ‘ye shall keep’ (tishmeru) refers to the study of the Mishnah. Thus study is mentioned before observance. (32) Being so uncultivated he has no self-respect and is ready to testify falsely. (33) He too lacks self-respect. (34) Lit., with the ‘some say’.

 

Directory of Sedarim and Tractates

2009 JCR