Talmud for I Chronicles 2:56

The ‘meal of comfort’¹⁸The first meal partaken by the mourners on their return from the funeral is termed ‘the meal of comfort [habra’ah]’; cf. 2 Sam. 3, 35, to cause David to eat bread (lehabroth). It was prepared by friends and consisted of lentils and eggs (cf. Sanh. 63a, Sonc. ed., p. 430, n. 6) the round shape of which being a reminder of the revolving wheel of fortune. is not eaten in their case, as it is stated, Ye shall not eat [anything] with the blood.¹⁹Lev. 19, 26. This is homiletically interpreted to mean: where blood is shed (i.e. an execution has taken place) no ceremonial meal of mourners should be eaten. Cf. Sanh. loc. cit.
[The judges of] a Court who ordered the execution of a man used not to eat anything on that day.²⁰Sanh. loc. cit.
[The condemned] are allowed to converse with their brothers and relatives; and not to delay matters²¹i.e. to avoid giving the appearance that the execution of justice is unduly protracted. they are given to drink wine containing frankincense²²To numb the senses; cf. Sanh. 43a (Sonc. ed., p. 279). so that they should not feel grieved. They are urged²³lit. ‘they teach them’. to confess, because he who confesses has a portion in the World to Come. We find it so with Achan to whom Joshua said, My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the Lord, the God of Israel, and make confession unto Him; and tell me now what thou hast done; hide nothing from me. And Achan answered Joshua, and said: Of a truth I have sinned against the Lord, the God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done.²⁴Josh. 7, 19f. What is the meaning of and thus and thus? It teaches that he violated the ban twice.²⁵By taking from the devoted things on two occasions. Sanh. 43b (Sonc. ed., p. 284) explains that he took of the ban three times, twice in the days of Moses and once at Jericho. [44b] I have sinned, i.e. I and not my household, I and not my children. This teaches that he truthfully²⁶Of a truth (’omnam) is explained as be’emunah (‘truthfully’). confessed. And whence do we know that his confession made atonement for him? As it is stated, And Joshua said: Why hast thou troubled us? The Lord shall trouble thee this day²⁷ibid. 25.—this day art thou to be troubled but thou shalt not be troubled in the World to Come; and it states, And the sons of Zerah: Zimri, and Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol and Dara: five of them in all.²⁸1 Chron. 2, 6. Do we not know that there were five of them in all?²⁹Since five names are specified. It teaches that Achan will be with them in the world to come.³⁰Cf. Sanh. 44b (Sonc. ed., p. 291). Zimri, according to a tradition, is identical with Achan. As Achan is mentioned together with the other four, who are considered to be worthy men, it is an indication that his confession was accepted and with them he shared in the World to Come.
Similarly one who steals the tax³¹i.e. eludes the customs; cf. B.Ḳ. 113a (Sonc. ed., p. 663), Tosiftha B.Ḳ. X, 8. or anything devoted [to the Sanctuary] is as if he shed blood; and not only is he as if he shed blood, but he is also as if he worships idols, was guilty of immorality and desecrates the Sabbath.³²[On this passage, cf. Büchler, Studies in Sin and Atonement, p. 198n.]

One verse¹⁷⁵2S. 17:25. says, “his name was Yitra the Israelite;” another verse says, “Yeter the Ismaelite¹⁷⁶1Chr. 2:17. Both names refer to the same person, father of Amasa, nephew of David..” Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, he was an Ismaelite. And you say, he was an Israelite? But he entered the court of Isaiah¹⁷⁷It seems that the author of this piece identifies Isay with his descendant Isaiah 500 years later. and found him sitting and explaining: “turn to me and be saved, all ends of the earth¹⁷⁸Is. 45:22.,” and converted. Then he gave him his daughter¹⁷⁹It is very doubtful whether David’s sisters ever agreed to live under the authority of a husband.. But the rabbis say, he was an Israelite, and you say, an Ismaelite? But he girded his loins like an Ismaelite and stuck his sword in the earth in court, to kill or be killed, to support the word of my teacher: I shall kill with this sword anybody who transgresses this practice: “Ammonite,” and not female Ammonite; “Moabite,” and not female Moabite. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, I have only what I did learn¹⁸⁰It is possible that instead of משנה one should read משׂדה, “I have only ‘from the field’”, referring to the preceding paragraph that שדה מוֹאב is a catchword for Ruth the Moabite.: “Naomi returned with Ruth the Moabite, her daughter-in-law, who returned from the fields of Moab¹⁸¹Ruth 1:22..” She is the one who first returned from the fields of Moab. Afterwards, he¹⁸²Ruth 2:11, a speech of Boaz. The implication is that Boaz was instrumental in declaring Moabite women eligible for marriage before he became involved with Ruth since otherwise he would have had to recuse himself from decision making. In the parallel in the Babli, 77a, the decision is directly attributed to the prophet Samuel. told her: “You abandoned your father and your mother.” He said to her: If you had come to us yesterday or the day before, we would not have accepted you.

⁸³This paragraph is inserted as preface to the story about Nabal and David, induced by the mention of Abigail in the preceding sentence.Ḥeṣron had three sons, as it is written⁸⁴A shortened quote from 1Chr. 2:9.: The sons of Ḥeṣron Yeraḥmeël, and Ram, and Kelubai⁸⁵He is Kaleb ben Hesron, presumed ancestor of Nabal.. Yerahmeël should have been first,⁸⁶As the firstborn, he should be first in the genealogical list, but his descendants are listed last, vv. 25 ff. The role of firstborn was taken over by Ram, the ancestor of David. but he married a Gentile woman to crown himself with her, as it is written⁸⁷1Chr. 2:26.: Yerahmeël had another⁸⁸Interpreting “another” as “foreign”.wife; her name was Crown, she is the mother of Onam, for she brought deep sorrow to his house⁸⁹Deriving אוֹנָם from the root אנה “to be in deep sorrow”.. And Ram fathered Amminadav, Amminadav fathered Naḥshon, Naḥshon fathered Salma, Salmon fathered Boaz⁹⁰Ru. 4:19–21, but probably 1Chr.2:10–11 was intended., and Boaz married Ruth.

⁸³This paragraph is inserted as preface to the story about Nabal and David, induced by the mention of Abigail in the preceding sentence.Ḥeṣron had three sons, as it is written⁸⁴A shortened quote from 1Chr. 2:9.: The sons of Ḥeṣron Yeraḥmeël, and Ram, and Kelubai⁸⁵He is Kaleb ben Hesron, presumed ancestor of Nabal.. Yerahmeël should have been first,⁸⁶As the firstborn, he should be first in the genealogical list, but his descendants are listed last, vv. 25 ff. The role of firstborn was taken over by Ram, the ancestor of David. but he married a Gentile woman to crown himself with her, as it is written⁸⁷1Chr. 2:26.: Yerahmeël had another⁸⁸Interpreting “another” as “foreign”.wife; her name was Crown, she is the mother of Onam, for she brought deep sorrow to his house⁸⁹Deriving אוֹנָם from the root אנה “to be in deep sorrow”.. And Ram fathered Amminadav, Amminadav fathered Naḥshon, Naḥshon fathered Salma, Salmon fathered Boaz⁹⁰Ru. 4:19–21, but probably 1Chr.2:10–11 was intended., and Boaz married Ruth.

¹³²This paragraph is R. Ismael’s argument to show that the husband’s inheriting his deceased wife’s properties, if not explicit in the Torah, at least was established practice already in the time of Joshua (Sifry Num. 134.) A different explanation of the verses quoted here is given in the Babli, 113a.“Segub fathered Jair,¹³³1Chr. 2:22. The verse states that Jair, a Calebite, had 23 villages in the land of Gilead (Manasseh).” etc. From where did Jair have cities on Mount Gilead? But he married a woman from the daughters of Manasse who died and he inherited from her. If you would say that the inheritance from a wife was not a word of the Torah it should not say that “Jair had” but that “Segub had.¹³⁴In v. 21 it is reported that Jair’s grandfather Hezron married a Gileadite wife. If the property came through her, the verse should have attributed ownership to her son Segub, rather than her grandson Jair.” Similarly, “Eleazar ben Aaron died.¹³⁵Jos. 24:33, “they buried him on his son Phineas’s hill which had been given to him on the Mountain of Ephraim.”” From where did Phineas have property on the Mountain of Ephraim? But he married a woman from the daughters of Ephraim and inherited from her. If you would say that the inheritance from a wife was not a word of the Torah it should say that “Eleazar had” not that “Phineas had.¹³⁶As Rashi ad. loc. intimates, one cannot say that the tribe of Ephraim gave Phineas property among themselves since the Torah explicitly excluded priests from receiving any land outside the Levitic cities (Deut. 18:1). Therefore, ownership of property outside such cities must be by inheritance from a non-priestly wife. The tribal affiliation of Eleazar’s father-in-law Puṭiel (Ex. 6:25) is not known.”

²⁸⁵Tosephta 2:10, Babli 13a (cf. Notes 264–268).“A prophet has precedence over the Anointed for War, the Anointed for War has precedence over the head of the watch, the head of the watch has precedence over the head of a clan, the head of a clan has precedence over the executive officer, the executive officer has precedence over the treasurer, the treasurer has precedence over a common priest, a common priest has precedence over a Levite, a Levite over an Israel (an Israel over a bastard²⁸⁶This clause was erased by the scribe of L, it is not in B or G.).” Is not the Levite equal [to an Israel]²⁸⁷Added from B and G; must be understood in L.? Rebbi Abun said, this was taught in the days of the podium²⁸⁸When the Levites had a role in Temple worship, either as singers on the podium or as watchmen. The statement that Levites are no different from Israel shows that the custom that Levites have to pour water of the Cohen’s hands before he goes to pronounce the priestly blessing is not talmudic. (The source is Zohar III, 146b; the custom is not followed by Yemenites and some other Oriental groups.). Rebbi Abun said, a proselyte and an apostate, the apostate has preference because of what had happened²⁸⁹If a Gentile comes to a rabbi asking to become a proselyte and a Jewish apostate comes at the same time asking to be readmitted to the Jewish community, the rabbi has to deal with the apostate’s case first, not to turn him away permanently as in the case of Joshua ben Perahia (or Jehudah ben Tabbai) (Sanhedrin 6:6, Note 79) and similar stories about Elisha and Gehazi (Sanhedrin 10:3, Notes 284,286).. “Why does everybody run after a proselyte woman, but not after a freedwoman? For the proselyte is presumed to have been guarding herself but the freedwoman²⁹⁰As long as the freedwoman (Latin: libertina) was a slave, she could not marry and, therefore, was free to have guiltless sex with any man she pleased (except Jews.) She cannot be supposed to have changed her ways radically upon manumission. The proselyte as a free woman is supposed to be married as a virgin (Babli 13a). is presumed to be irresponsible.” And why does everybody (run after a rat)²⁹¹To kill them. This is the text of L, taken from the Babli 13a, but it seems that one should accept the text of B and G in brackets. [inquire after a slave]²⁹²Since the slave has no persona in law, he is irresponsible, and cannot be sued for damages. Therefore, a prospective buyer is well advised to inquire whether this slave may in the future expose him to suits for damages caused by his slave.? Because his dealings are bad for people. Rebbi Joḥanan said, do not believe a slave up to sixteen generations. Ismael ben Netaniah ben Elishama of royal descent came and slew Gedaliahu at Miṣpah²⁹³Here ends the fragment G..

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: When I know that the Temple is going to be built again between the territories of Judah and Benjamin, I will go and prepare the fields of Jericho. And who ate the produce of those fields during all those years? The Kenites, the descendants of Moses’ father-in-law, as says (Judges 1:16), “And the Kenites, the descendants of Moses’ father-in-law, went up from the City of Palms.”
He also said: When the Holy Blessed One removed His Presence, He promised to give a great reward in the future to Jethro and his descendants. [How do we know] that the descendants of Jethro were supported from charity in the meantime? Because of what it says (I Chronicles 2:55), “The families of the tribes that dwelled at Jabez,” and then (I Chronicles 4:23), “They were the potters, who dwelled in the plantations.” (They were great men, owners of houses, fields, and vineyards. And because of the work of the King of all kings, the Holy Blessed One, they dwelled there) in the king’s service. So then where did they go? They went to Jabez to study Torah, and there they became a people of God. (At that time) Jabez was a good and righteous man, a man of truth and piety, and he would sit and teach Torah, as it says (I Chronicles 4:10), “And Jabez called out to the God of Israel, saying [if You bless me…and God granted his request].”