Talmud su Deuteronomio 22:78

MISHNAH: But the following are strangled¹Since no particular form of execution is prescribed for them.: One who hits his father or his mother²Ex. 21:15., and one who kidnaps a person from Israel³In order to sell him or her as a slave, Ex. 21:16, Deut. 24:7., and the Elder who rebels against the Court⁴The Supreme Court sitting in the Temple court. Deut. 17:12., and the false prophet⁵Deut. 18:20–22., and one who prophesies in the name of foreign worship⁶Deut. 13:6., and one who copulates with a married woman⁷Deut. 22:22. This also applies to the woman., and the perjured witness of a Cohen’s daughter and her paramour⁸Even though the adulterous daughter of a Cohen is burned, there is no verse to apply the same punishment to the adulterer. Since witnesses to adultery are witnesses simultaneously to both parties, they cannot be punished more than the adulterer would be..
One who hits his father or his mother is not punishable unless he inflict a wound on them. The following is more aggravating about one who curses¹⁵Father or Mother; Mishnah 7:14. than one who hits, in that one who curses is punishable even after death, but one who hits after death cannot be prosecuted.

As regards a [linen] sheer, Beth Shammai exempt it [from zizith],⁴Because woollen zizith in a linen garment are forbidden as mingled stuff, wool and linen together (Deut. 22, 11). but Beth Hillel declare it liable.⁵In their view the prohibition of wearing mingled stuff is superseded by the commandment of zizith, since the prohibition in Deut. is immediately followed (in verse 12) by the commandment of twisted cords or zizith. The juxtaposition of the two commandments indicates that the latter supersedes the former. An undergarment is exempt, but R. ‘Aḳiba holds that it is liable. A [double-sized] ṭallith that is folded over is subject to zizith, but R. Simeon exempts it.⁶Since if it should happen to be unfolded, the zizith would not be in their proper place, in the four corners, but in the middle of the sheet. A ṭallith consisting entirely of blue wool is subject to zizith.⁷The blue texture of the ṭallith does not exempt it from zizith although one thread of blue (Num. 25, 39) in each of the four zizith is sufficient. A bolster converted into a sheet or a sheet converted into a ṭallith is subject to zizith. A night garment and bed-curtains⁸Or, ‘covers’. are exempt from zizith.⁹In the commandment it is stated, That ye may look upon it (ibid.), which rules out garments worn during the night. A toga,¹⁰Reading ṭoga’ with Jastrow. V has ṭrigon which means ‘a triangular [cloak]’. [It was oval in shape and therefore did not require zizith; cf. Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie, I, p. 611, n. 589.] a travelling cloak,¹¹In V pilgas which Jastrow emends to pinolës (the Greek phainoles). [It is the paenula worn by Roman slaves; Krauss, op. cit. I, p. 170.] shawls fastened at the shoulder,¹²In V pokaltorin, which Jastrow reads as pibolaṭorin, the Latin fibulatorium. a cloak worn on the head,¹³In V ’arbiḳwah. [Krauss loc. cit. identifies it with saga Nervica, a garment of various materials and in different colours.) and an ’anṭenah¹⁴According to Jastrow possibly a corruption of the Greek tebenna, a kind of Roman toga. are exempt. This is the general rule: Any [garment] that is without four corners is exempt from zizith.

HALAKHAH: It is written: (Lev. 19:19) “you should not sow your field kilaim;” I could think, even two kinds of wheat or two kinds of barley. “You should not breed your animals kilaim;” I could think, even black on white cattle, or white on black cattle. “And kilaim cloth, שעטנז, should not be worn by you;” I could think, even two kinds of wool or two kinds of linen. It was made explicit about garments, (Deut. 22:11) “do not wear שעטנז, wool and linen together.” Just as for garments where I forbade you two kinds, neither one is of the genus of the other, so kilaim that I forbade you at any place, neither one is of the genus of the other.

HALAKHAH: “Only [wool and linen] are forbidden as kilaim”. It is written (Deut. 22:11): “Do not wear ša‘aṭnez, wool and linen together.”⁷In Sifry Deut. 232, the text is somewhat more complete: “I would say one is only forbidden to wear it; from where do we know that one may not cover oneself with it (in a blanket)?” I would say one is only forbidden to wear it; the verse says (Lev. 19:19): “It shall not come on you.” If it shall not come on you I would say one may not carry a chest on his back⁸A peddler’s chest full of textiles to peddle to Gentiles.; the verse says “do not wear.” Since a garment is specifically useful to the body, [included are] only things useful to the body. Why was it said that “it shall not come on you?” Rebbi Niḥa bar Sava⁹A Galilean Amora of the fifth generation, student of R. Jonah. Since R. Zeïra was R. Joḥanan’s student, it is clear that the second name in the list must be “R. Jonah”. In the Babylonian tradition, this is a Tannaïtic statement (Tosephta Kilaim 5:13)., Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Zeïra, if there was a large piece of cloth, in a part of which was kilaim and that part was lying on the ground, one cannot cover himself with the other part. I would say, it includes even sea flax¹⁰Shell silk, also called “byssus”, from threads, excreted by shells under water, which harden when exposed to air, used already in antiquity., even hemp; the verse says “wool and linen”; just as wool cannot have an epithet so nothing else can have an epithet. From where that [wool] has no epithet? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, it is written (2K. 3:4) “Mesha‘, the king of Moab, was a nôqēd;” what is a nôqēd? A shepherd! “He delivered to the king of Israel 100’000 lambs and 100’000 wool rams.” Only ram’s wool is called “wool”¹¹All others carry the name of the animal from which they come as an epithet..

If [after betrothal the woman] was raped, she is permitted to him,⁵Cf. Deut. 22, 23-27. but should she have been a willing party she is forbidden to him. If she is the wife of a kohen, she is forbidden to him whether [it happened] under force or with her consent. [For it is stated, And she be not seized⁶Num. 5, 13, E.V. neither she be taken in the act. The phrase is interpreted by the Rabbis in the sense that she did not act under compulsion but willingly, referring to a married woman who was defiled secretly without witnesses to testify against her.—[only then] is she forbidden; if, however, she was seized⁷i.e. violated by force. she is permitted. There is another class of woman who is forbidden [to her husband] even though she had been seized; and who is that? The wife of a kohen.⁸Cf. Yeb. 56b (Sonc. ed., p. 378), Keth. 51b (Sonc. ed., p. 298). R. Ishmael⁹According to R. Ishmael there is no distinction between the wife of a kohen and a lay-Israelite in the case of rape. said: And she be not seized she is forbidden; consequently if she had been seized she is permitted. There is another class of woman who is permitted [to her husband] even if she had not been seized; and who is that? A woman whose betrothal was mistaken.¹⁰If, e.g., a condition were attached to the betrothal that remained unfulfilled. In such a case the woman may leave her husband without a geṭ, and in any subsequent intercourse, whether forced or willing, her status is that of an unmarried woman who had never been previously married. The passage within brackets is added by GRA and is necessary, otherwise R. Ishmael would be contradicting himself. Cf. Yeb. 100b (Sonc. ed., p. 692), Keth. loc. cit.]
If a divorcee who became betrothed was seduced, whether under force or of her free will, she is forbidden to return to her former husband.¹¹If her second husband subsequently died or divorced her. She is, however, permitted to remarry her former husband after betrothal alone, where no marriage with the second man took place and he died. This is the opinion of R. Jose b. Ḳippar in the name of R. Eleazar b. Shammua‘. This is the reasoning by which R. Jose b. Ḳippar expounded his view:¹²This is the reading of GRA as against V and H, who name R. Ishmael as the authority. [It is written,] Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled.¹³Deut. 24, 4. In what circumstances did she become defiled?¹⁴If she was legally married to the second husband the term defiled is inapplicable. It can only be explained by what the Sages have said: If a woman [after betrothal] was forcibly seduced, she is permitted to [her husband]; if she was a willing party she is forbidden to him; but in this case,¹⁵Of the divorcee who became betrothed and was then seduced. This is the reading of GRA. V and H have ‘the wife of a kohen’. whether under compulsion or of her free will she is forbidden to return to her former husband.¹⁶So GRA. V and H ‘to him’.

HALAKHAH: “The following adolescent girls,” etc. It is written⁷Deut. 22:29, speaking of the rapist.: “She should be his wife,” one who can be his wife⁸This argument will be used at the end of the paragraph to exclude the slave-girl from consideration since she cannot legally marry anybody. The bastard can legally marry a proselyte or another bastard (Mishnah Qiddušin4:1). The inverse question could be asked if a bastard rapes a regular Jewish girl. The question is asked in the Babli, 29b.. Can the bastard girl be his wife? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “he should weigh silver appropriate for the bride-price of virgins⁹Ex. 22:16, speaking of the seducer. In the Babli, 29b, R. Simeon ben Laqish argues differently.”, that added many virgins. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if it had said “virgin’s brides-prices”; but it says only “appropriate for the bride-price of virgins”; the verse added them only for the bride-price¹⁰It implies only that even a virgin disqualified in general still has a claim to a full ketubah; e. g., if a bastard girl marries a proselyte.. But where was this said¹¹That the fine must be paid.? As Ḥizqiah stated: “If refusing her father should refuse⁹Ex. 22:16, speaking of the seducer. In the Babli, 29b, R. Simeon ben Laqish argues differently.,” not only if her father refuses; from where even if from Heaven they refuse¹²By a biblical prohibition.? The verse says “refusing should refuse”, in any case. But then a man who has intercourse with a slave girl should pay the fine! This is impossible, as it was stated: I could think that one who has intercourse with a Gentile slave-girl should be obligated, the verse says, “by bride-money he should take her as a wife to himself.” Only one whom he can marry; this excludes the Gentile slave whom he cannot marry¹³While the Gentile slave-girl of a Jewish owner becomes pseudo-Jewish by baptism in a miqweh, she would be able to contract a marriage only by manumission by which she would become a full-fledged proselyte. Cf. Halakhah 1:4, Notes 181–184.. But he cannot marry his sister and he pays the fine! There is a difference since she can be married to others. But his daughter can be married to others and he does not pay the fine¹⁴Mishnah 3:2.! There is a difference since it is a capital crime and nobody who commits a capital crime pays money¹⁵Even if he cannot be convicted because there were no two eyewitnesses to the act..

HALAKHAH: “Which finds are his,” etc. From where may an owner’s hopelessness⁶That a lost article becomes ownerless the moment the owner realizes his loss since he has no hope of recovery. Then appropriating a find which has no distinguishing marks is not theft. This leaves open the question, discussed at length in the Babli, why keeping a find without marks is not theft even before the original owner became conscious of his loss. be deduced from the Torah? Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yehoṣadaq: “So you shall proceed with his donkey,⁷Deut. 22:3: “So you shall proceed with his donkey, so you shall proceed with his garment, so you shall proceed with anything lost by your neighbor and which you found; you cannot avoid taking notice.” As usual, the argument is about a part of the verse which is not quoted. The clause in Italics seems to be superfluous; if he did not lose and you did not find, there would be no case. It must be that you found something which can be traced back to your neighbor.” etc. What is lost by him but may be found by anybody you have to make public. But what is not lost by him but may be found by anybody you do not have to make public. This excludes the owner’s hopelessness about that which was lost by him or anybody.

HALAKHAH: It is written (Ps. 24:1): “The Eternal’s are the earth and what is in it, the dry land and its inhabitants.” He who profits from the world commits larceny⁴Since he uses God’s property, not his own. until good deeds will permit him⁵The obligation to say Grace after a meal is spelled out in Deut. 8:10. The obligation to recite blessings before one eats is not mentioned explicitly in the Torah. Since Grace is only treated in the next Chapter, one has to find here Biblical allusions to this duty and (in the next section) to the duty of reciting a benediction before fulfilling specified commandments.
The verse appears in the Babli (35a) in the name of Samuel. R. Levi compares the verse (Ps. 115:16) “Heaven is the Eternal’s heaven but the earth He gave to mankind”, explaining that before a benediction everything is the Eternal’s property but after a benediction it becomes human property. While Rebbi Levi is a Galilean teacher, the Yerushalmi rejects his combination since in the third paragraph earthly enjoyment is only “as if one ate from one’s own”. The text of the Yerushalmi is from Tosephta Berakhot 4:1 which is identical with the Talmudic text except that there it says “until all good deeds will permit him”, meaning that only if the preparation of food is completely within the commandments of the Torah then the last step of the preparation, the recitation of the benediction, will allow the food to be given to man as his own.. Rebbi Abbahu said, it is written (Deut. 22:9) “Lest the fullness of the seed that you sow and the yield of the vineyard should be forbidden.” The entire world and its contents are like a vineyard. What is its redemption? The benediction⁶This argument is very difficult to understand and the commentators either chose to ignore it or give very incongruous explanations. The best explanation is that of R. Eliahu Fulda who in his Yerushalmi edition suppresses the word פֶּן “lest”. One would have to assume that Rebbi Abbahu’s text did not have the word but that later scribes added it from memory. By it the negative implication of the verse (which speaks about growing different kinds of plants in a vineyard) are changed to a positive one which now should be translated: “That you shall sanctify the fullness of the seed that you sow and the yield of the vineyard.” Since the sanctity is not that of sacrifices, the sanctity may be removed by redemption (Lev. 27:11). However, there can be no monetary redemption of anything not explicitly authorized in the Torah. Hence, the redemption is non-monetary and is the traditional praise given to God in benedictions. [The simple sense of the verse is that produce grown in a vineyard becomes forbidden for private use as if it were dedicated for sacrifice.]. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abun in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: (Ps. 16:2) “Say to the Eternal, You are my Master⁷The translation follows the Biblical text, not the text written here., my good is only with You.” If you ate and recited the benedictions then it is as if you ate from your own. Another explanation⁸The verse is extremely hard to understand; the next two interpretations have nothing to do with the topic on hand; they are only added to indicate translations that might be considered if בל is not a negation but a verb form derived from בלל, which may mean either “to give food” (Jud. 19:24) or, more frequently, “mixed with fluid, moistened.”: “My good is בל with you”, I am feeding My goodness to your body. Another explanation: “My good is בל with you”, all good things may be mixed together and come to you. Rebbi Aḥa said, what is “only with you?” I shall not bring any good things to the world without you. As it is said (Gen. 41:44) “Without you nobody may lift his hand.⁹Taking בל as shorthand for בִּלְעֲדֵי “without”.” Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: (Lev. 19:24) “Holy for praises”, this shows that it needs benediction before and after. From here did Rebbi Aqiba say that nobody should taste anything before he gives praise¹⁰This is also quoted in the Babli (35a); the source of both Talmudim is Sifra on the verse. The verse speaks of the fruits of a vineyard in its fourth year when the grapes can be used for the first time after having been forbidden for the first three years. This is only a hint for any other food..

Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh says, “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the argument of Rebbi Eleazar ben Arakh? “And take her as wife for himself”, the same expression is used as for qiddushin of a woman¹⁹Deut.22:13, “If a man takes a wife”.. Just as qiddushin acquire completely, so “bespeaking” acquires a sister-in-law completely. What is the formula for “bespeaking” a sister-in-law? “You are betrothed to me by money or money’s worth.²⁰The same formula as for qiddushin; Babli 52a, Tosephta 1:1 (the latter also has the formula for “bespeaking” by document).”

Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, a man who rapes or seduces an orphan girl does not have to pay²⁴Since Deut. 22:29 states that “the man who had intercourse with her has to give her father 50 silver [šeqel].” This seems to negate the obligation if there is no father to collect the fine.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai said, that is a disagreement, it follows Rebbi Yose the Galilean²⁵He holds in Mishnah 3:7 that an underage girl which was preliminarily married and then divorced as a virgin has no claim to the fine (since by the preliminary marriage she was emancipated from her father’s power.) R. Aqiba holds that she can claim the fine for herself.. But following Rebbi Aqiba she can claim the fine and the fine becomes her property. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah said “at less than three years and one day of age,” and is she not like an orphan²⁶Neither the proselyte nor the freedwoman are under the authority of a father; nevertheless, the Mishnah gives them the right to claim the fine.? And did we not state: “Because he raped her,²⁷Deut. 22:29. In the Babli, 44b, and Mekhilta dR. Ismael(Mišpaṭim 17; ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 309), the inference is from Ex. 22:16. In any case, R. Yose the Galilean seems to contradict himself.” that includes an orphan for a fine, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean? Rebbi Aḥai said, explain it that he had intercourse with her when her father was alive; when her father died, he already had the obligation to give to her father²⁸For R. Yose the Galilean the fine belongs to the father’s heirs..

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who makes a wound dressing³³Latin splenium, Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.” from a stoned ox³⁴The Babli 24b explains that one might use fat from the stoned ox to cover a wound.
The ox was stoned by order of the court because it killed humans (Ex. 21:28–29). Its meat is forbidden for usufruct as explained in the sequel. Cf. Mekhilta dR.Ismael Mišpaṭim10 (p. 282). or from leftover sour matter after Passover³⁵Since the Mishnah had stated that leavened matter becomes prohibited for all usufruct in the afternoon of the 14^th of Nisan, after the holiday it cannot become permitted again. cannot be whipped since its prohibition is not clear. For vineyard kilaim he is whipped since Rebbi Ḥanina said³⁶Deut. 22:9. For this derivation, cf. Kilaim 8:1, Note 6.: Lest it be sanctified, lest fire should be kindled. For ˋorlah it is problematic. A prescriptive commandment to removal is written³⁷Since Lev. 19:23 requires that the (budding) fruit is treated as “foreskin” and the foreskin has to be removed, one may take the verse as prescribing the removal of any ˋorlah fruit., a prohibition to eat is written³⁸Last two words of Lev. 19:23. Since R. Joḥanan reads לֹ֥א יֵֽאָכֵֽל as prohibition of eating, not of usufruct, he follows his teacher Ḥizqiah in rejecting the argument of R. Eleazar., [“do not eat”]³⁹An incorrect and unnecessary addition by the corrector, not part of the original ms., a prohibition to remove it is not written⁴⁰Non-fulfillment of a prescriptive commandment is not prosecutable..

³⁰The text in Terumot is close enough that the explanations given there are valid here, but the details of the texts differ too much to be presented as variant readings of one and the same text. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was not cautioned should he not pay since when cautioned he would be flogged? A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If somebody eats heave in error, he pays principal and fifth³¹Mishnah Terumot 6:1.,” but if he was cautioned, will he not be flogged? He explains it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr said, he is flogged and pays. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as we have stated: “The following adolescent girls can claim a fine,” but if he was cautioned, will he not be flogged? He explains it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr said, he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Meïr learned from the calumniator. (Deut. 22:18) “They shall punish him,” flogging; (Deut. 22:19) “and they shall fine him”, money. But the rabbis say, [the law of] the calumniator is separate because of its novelty; one cannot learn from a novelty! Because nowhere else will a person become guilty by speech, but here he becomes guilty by speech; therefore, nothing can be inferred. Another explanation: one cannot transfer the rules of either payment or flogging. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he [eats] fat in error but is intentional about the sacrifice, if he was cautioned he will be flogged and has to bring a sacrifice? So here, he is flogged and he pays. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” If two possibilities are given to the court, one chooses one of them. This excludes matters in the power of Heaven.

³⁰The text in Terumot is close enough that the explanations given there are valid here, but the details of the texts differ too much to be presented as variant readings of one and the same text. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was not cautioned should he not pay since when cautioned he would be flogged? A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “If somebody eats heave in error, he pays principal and fifth³¹Mishnah Terumot 6:1.,” but if he was cautioned, will he not be flogged? He explains it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr said, he is flogged and pays. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, as we have stated: “The following adolescent girls can claim a fine,” but if he was cautioned, will he not be flogged? He explains it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr said, he is flogged and pays. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Rebbi Meïr learned from the calumniator. (Deut. 22:18) “They shall punish him,” flogging; (Deut. 22:19) “and they shall fine him”, money. But the rabbis say, [the law of] the calumniator is separate because of its novelty; one cannot learn from a novelty! Because nowhere else will a person become guilty by speech, but here he becomes guilty by speech; therefore, nothing can be inferred. Another explanation: one cannot transfer the rules of either payment or flogging. Did not Rebbi Abbahu say in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he [eats] fat in error but is intentional about the sacrifice, if he was cautioned he will be flogged and has to bring a sacrifice? So here, he is flogged and he pays. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, (Deut. 25:2) “Because of his guilt.” If two possibilities are given to the court, one chooses one of them. This excludes matters in the power of Heaven.

⁵⁶The legend of Aḥer is also found in Ruth rabba 6(6), Eccl. rabba 7(18); partially Babli 15a/b. Note that Aḥer’s birth is dated both to Jerusalem before the first war against the Roman as also to the ascendancy of RR. Eliezer and Joshua after the death of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai about 80CE. His apostasy is dated to the Hadrianic persecutions after 130, and his unmarried daughters appear before Rebbi not before 180. Rebbi Meïr was sitting and preaching in the House of Study of Tiberias when his teacher Elisha passed by riding on a horse on the Sabbath. They came and told him, your teacher is outside. He stopped his sermon and went out to him. He asked him, what did you preach today? He told him, and the Eternal blessed the end⁵⁷Job 42:12. etc. He asked him, what did you explain about this? He answered him, and the Eternal added double all that Job had owned⁵⁸Job 42:10.; that he doubled his money. He said, woe for those who are lost and not found, your teacher Aqiba did not preach this but, the Eternal blessed the end of Job from his beginning, by the merit of commandments and good works which were in his hand from his beginning. He asked him, and what did you preach further? He told him, the end of a matter is better than the beginning⁵⁹Eccl. 7:8.. He asked him, what did you explain about this? For example, a man who had children in his youth but they died, and in his old age they lived; that is the end of a matter is better than the beginning. For example, a man who traded in his youth and lost, and in his old age and gained; that is the end of a matter is better than the beginning. For example, a man who studied Torah in his youth and forgot, in his old age he remembered; that is the end of a matter is better than the beginning. He said, woe for those who are lost and not found, your teacher Aqiba did not preach this but, the end of a matter is good from the beginning, in case it is good from the start, and this applies to me. My father Abuya was one of the leading Jerusalemites. On the day he came to circumcise me he invited all the leading Jerusalemites and sat them in one room, and Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua in another room⁶⁰Cf. Note 56.. After they ate and drank they started to clap with their hands and dance. Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Joshua said, while they are occupied in theirs let us be occupied with ours. They sat occupied with words of the Torah, from the Torah to Prophets, from Prophets to Hagiographs. Fire descended from Heaven and surrounded them. Abuya told them, my teachers! Why do you come to burn down my house? They told him, Heaven forbid! But we were sitting reviewing the words of the Torah, from the Torah to Prophets, from Prophets to Hagiographs, and the words were joyful as at their giving on Sinai. And was the main giving on Sinai not in fire? And the Mountain burns in the fire up to the heart of Heaven⁶¹Deut. 4:11.. My father Abuya told them, my teachers! If that is the power of Torah, if this son of mine survives I dedicate him to Torah. Because his intent was not for Heaven, it did not succeed with this man. He asked him, and what did you preach further? He told him, it cannot be valued by gold or glass⁶²Job 28:17.. He asked him, what did you explain about this? He told him, the words of the Torah are as difficult to acquire as golden vessels, and as easy to lose as glass vessels. And like golden and glass vessels when they are broken he can make them vessels as before, also the student of the Sages who forgot his learning can learn it anew. He said to him, this is enough, Meïr, up to here is the Sabbath domain. He asked him, how do you know? He told him, from the horse’s hooves which I continuously counted for 2’000 cubits. He said to him, all that wisdom is in you and you do not repent? He told him, I cannot. He asked him, why? He told him, once I was passing by the Holiest of Holies riding on a horse on the Day of Atonement which fell on a Sabbath and I heard an unembodied voice coming from the Holiest of Holies, saying, return, erring children⁶³Jer. 3:14,22., except for Elisha ben Abuya who knew My power and rebelled against Me. And all that came to him because he was sitting memorizing in the valley of Genezareth and saw a man climbing to the top of a date palm taking the mother with the chicks and descending safely. The next day he saw another man climbing to the top of a date palm, taking the chicks and sending away the mother. When climbing down he was bitten by a snake, and he died. He said, it is written⁶⁴Deut. 22:7., sending away you shall send the mother, but the chicks you may take for yourself, so it will be good for you and prolong your days. Where is the good for this one? Where is the prolongation of days of this one? He did not know that Rebbi Jacob had explained it preceding him⁶⁵Tosephta Ḥulin 10:16., so it will be good for you in the future world which is all good, and prolong your days, in the future which is all long. But some are saying, because he saw the tongue of Rebbi Jehudah the baker in the mouth of a dog, oozing blood. He said, is this the Torah and this is its reward? This is the tongue which was delivering the words of the Torah correctly; this is the tongue which occupied itself with Torah all its days; [is this the Torah and this is its reward?] It appears that there is no reward and no resurrection of the dead. But some are saying, when his mother was pregnant with him she passed by pagan temples and smelled of this kind. And this smell was bubbling in her body like the poison of a viper. Later Elisha fell sick. They came and informed Rebbi Meïr, your teacher is sick. He went to visit him and found him sick. He asked him, are you not repenting? He asked, and if one repents, is one accepted? He told him, is it not written, man shall repent up to extinction⁶⁶Ps. 90:3., one receives up to the extinction of the breath. At that moment Elisha cried, passed away, and died. Rebbi Meïr was happy internally and said, it seems that my teacher passed away repentant. After they buried him, fire descended from Heaven and burned his grave. They came and informed Rebbi Meïr, your teacher’s grave is on fire. He went to visit it and found it burning. What did he do? He took his kaftan and spread it over it. He said, stay for the night⁶⁷Ruth 3:13., etc. Stay for this world which compares to the night, and it will be in the morning, this is the Future World which is all morning, if the Good One will redeem, this is the Holy One, praise to Him, who is Good, as it is written⁶⁸Ps. 145:9., the Eternal is good to all, and His mercies are on all His creatures. And if He does not want to redeem you I shall redeem you, living is the Eternal⁶⁷Ruth 3:13., and it was extinguished. They asked Rebbi Meïr, if they ask you in that World, whom do you want to visit, your father or your teacher? He told them, I shall visit my teacher first and afterwards my father. They said, will they listen to you? He told them, did we not state⁶⁹Mishnah Šabbat 16:2., “one saves the case of a scroll with the scroll, and the case of phylacteries with the phylacteries”? One saves Elisha Aher by the merit of his Torah. Later his daughters went to take charity from Rebbi. Rebbi decided and said, nobody shall show him grace nor be friendly to his orphans⁷⁰Ps. 109:12.. They told him, Rebbi. Do not look at his deeds, do look at his Torah. At this moment Rebbi cried and decided for them that they be provided for⁷¹This usually means to be given a dowry for a decent marriage.. He said, if this one who toiled in Torah not for Heaven’s sake, see what he produced⁷²He raised a good Jewish family.; one who toils in the Torah for itself not so much more?

He who cohabits with a maidservant is liable to the penalty for transgressing fourteen negative commands and also to the penalty of kareth at the hand of Heaven, viz.: Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind;⁶⁸Lev. 19, 19. The list given here is according to the text of GRA. Cf. Sanh. 82a (Sonc. ed., pp. 543f.). Thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed;⁶⁹ibid. Neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together;⁷⁰ibid. Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with two kinds of seed;⁷¹Deut. 22, 9. Thou shalt not plough [with an ox and an ass together];⁷²ibid. 10. Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff;⁷³ibid. 11. All these laws forbid ‘mixtures’. Thou shalt not commit adultery;⁷⁴Ex. 20, 13. Thou shalt not covet;⁷⁵ibid. 14. And thou shalt not lie with any beast;⁷⁶Lev. 18, 23. Neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God;⁷⁷ibid. 21. also one on account of [laws concerning] a non-Jewish maidservant, a harlot, a niddah and a heathen woman. And one punishment of kareth, as it is stated, May the Lord cut off to the man that doeth this him that calleth and him that answereth out of the tents of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts.⁷⁸Mal. 2, 12. If he was a lay-Israelite and profaned his seed with a maidservant or a heathen woman, he will have no ‘awakening’⁷⁹i.e. instruction. ‘Awakening’ and ‘responding’ correspond in the Heb. to him that calleth and him that answereth in Mal. 2, 12. among the Sages and no ‘responding’ among the disciples. If he was a kohen, he will not have a son that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts.

⁷⁹Similar texts are in Tanhuma Qorah 2 (Buber 4), Num. rabba 18(2), Midrash Prov. 11(27). Rav said, Koraḥ was an Epicurean. What did he do? He went and made togas completely of blue wool. He came before Moses and asked him, does a toga made completely out of blue wool need ṣiṣit? He answered, it is an obligation since it is written⁸⁰Deut. 22:12. While from Num. 15:37–41 one might free a blue toga from exhibiting a blue thread, this verse makes it clear that a knotted appendage is needed.: braids you shall make for yourselves. Does a house full of Torah scrolls need a mezuzah? He answered, it needs a mezuzah since it is written⁸¹Deut. 6:9, 11:20., you shall write them on the door-posts of your house, etc. He asked him, what is the rule for a white spot the size of a bean⁸²Lev. 13:18–23. By rabbinic interpretation, a white spot indicates skin disease only if it is at least the size of a Cilician bean.? He answered him, it is impure. If it spread over his entire body? He answered him, it is pure⁸³Lev. 13:13.. At that moment, Koraḥ said that the Torah is not from Heaven, nor is Moses a [true]^G prophet, nor Aaron a High Priest. ⁸⁴Cf. Num. rabba 18(15), Midrash Prov. 11(27). Then Moses said, Master of all worlds! If a mouth of the earth had been created during the Six Days of Creation, it is fine. Otherwise it should be created now: If the Eternal would create a Creation⁸⁵Num. 16:30..

¹¹⁰Here begins the discussion of the statement about vows. Therefore, is he who makes a vow not to use bread or produce forbidden everything¹¹¹Everything vegetal. according to the rabbis? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is the Mishnah: “He who makes a vow not to use flour is only forbidden these.” How do we hold? If he uses “bread” in the biblical sense then also if he says “produce” it is meant in the biblical sense. He should be forbidden everything since it is written (Deut. 22:9): “The produce of the vineyard.” If he simply says “bread”; only from wheat or barley is it simply called “bread”¹¹²Spelt or oatmeal bread would have to be called spelt-bread or oatmeal-bread buit never “bread” without a qualifier.. Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed it, at a place where one eats bread from all [kinds], only from the five kinds it is simply called “bread”.

³³The quote is from Mishnah Ḥallaḥ 1:2, the remainder from Halakhah Ḥallah 1:3, Notes 105, 110–112 Cf. Tosephta Nedarim 4:3. He who makes a vow not to use bread or produce is forbidden them, the words of Rebbi Meїr. Therefore, is he who makes a vow not to use bread or produce forbidden everything according to the rabbis? Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, so is the Mishnah: “He who makes a vow not to use flour is only forbidden these.” How do we hold? If he uses “bread” in the biblical sense, then also if he says “produce” it is meant in the biblical sense. He should be forbidden everything since it is written (Deut. 22:9): “The produce of the vineyard.” If he simply says “bread”; only from wheat or barley is it simply called “bread”. Rebbi Yose said, I confirmed it, at a place where one eats bread from all [kinds], only from the five kinds it is simply called “bread”.

“Vain” and “untruth” both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear⁵⁰The two versions of the Ninth Commandment, Ex. 20:16 and Deut. 5:17, both are Sinaitic versions which had been said in parallel and were written serially.. “Remember” and “keep”⁵¹The two versions of the Fourth Commandment, Ex. 20:8 and Deut. 5:12. The first two examples are also in the Babli, Šebuot 20b, this example only in Babli Roš Haššanah 27a, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai 20:5 (p. 148). A parallel text from here to the end of the Halakhah is Sifry Deut. 233; Midrash Tannaïm p. 138 (Midrash Haggadol Deut. 22:11), Mekhilta dR. Ismael Yitro Chap. 7. both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. “Its desecrator shall be put to death” and “two unblemished one year old sheep⁵²From here to the end of the paragraph one speaks of laws that contradict one another, not different parallel texts. Another approach to the problem of contradiction in pentateuchal legislation is in Sifry Num. 3; a radically different one in Babli Ḥulin109b, where Yalta, Rav Naḥman’s wife, holds that all of Sinaitic legislation has exceptions (in contrast to the commandments given to Noah which represent Natural Law and are without exceptions).” both were said together⁵³The first verse is Ex. 31:14 on the observation of the Sabbath, the second is Num. 28:9 on the Sabbath sacrifice which requires many actions which if performed outside the Temple on a Sabbath would be capital crimes., which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. “The nakedness of your brother’s wife you shall not uncover⁵⁴Lev. 18:16.”, “her brother-in-law shall come to her⁵⁵Deut. 25:5; cf. Introduction to Tractate Yebamot.”, both were said together. “You shall not move real property from one tribe to another,” “any daughter inheriting real property,” both together⁵⁶On the face of it, both verses, Num. 36:8–9, say the same, viz., that an heiress may marry only a man of her own tribe. The explanation is given in Babli Baba batra 111b, where it is shown that the entire chapter 36 only refers to the daughters of Ṣelofḥad; for all others only the rules of Num. 27:7–11 are applicable without restrictions. In this case, Num. 36:8–9 is the exception from Num. 27:8.. “Fringes you shall make for yourself,” “do not wear sha‘ṭnez”, both were said together⁵⁷In Deut. 22:11, wearing wool and linen together is forbidden. In v. 12, any garment, including linen ones, is required to have fringes, which according to Num. 15:38 must contain a dark blue woolen thread.. And so it says⁵⁸Ps. 62:12., “God spoke once, two I heard from this.” And it is written: “Is not my word like fire, says the Eternal, and like a hammer which shatters a rock.”

“His daughter”. How can his daughter repudiate, is she not married by Torah standards, “my daughter I gave to this man¹³⁵Deut. 22:16. From the text it is clear that the marriage is valid in all respects. The verse implies that the father has the right to marry off his daughter, but only the Babli (Soṭah 23b) infers from it that the mother does not have this right, even though the Yerushalmi accepts that ruling in practice.”? Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Explain it by a minor, who was married off by her father¹³⁶She is emancipated from her father by the marriage but not able to validly contract while under age. This is quoted cryptically in Babli Qiddušin 44b. and divorced, who is like an orphan while her father is alive.

On account of four things is the sun in eclipse;⁴⁵lit. ‘smitten’. on account of an ’Ab Beth Din who died and was not fittingly mourned;⁴⁶With an appropriate memorial address. on account of a betrothed maiden who cried out aloud in the city and there was none to rescue her;⁴⁷Cf. Deut. 22, 24. on account of sodomy; and on account of two brothers whose blood was shed at the same time.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody gives his daughter in preliminary marriage,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the reason of Rebbi Jehudah is to encourage a man to give an ample dowry to his daughter⁴³This presupposes the earlier practice that the ketubah was written and the dowry given at the time of the preliminary marriage, in contrast to the later practice which postponed these transactions to the time of the definitive marriage. In that case, the dowry has to be returned at the dissolution of the preliminary marriage and it is clear that the father wants to have the dowry returned to him. {Many Jewish communities in the Middle Ages enacted rules which guaranteed the return of the dowry to the wife’s family if the marriage was of short duration and/or there were no children; the best known being the rules of the community of Ṭulaiṭula (Toledo), Šulḥan ‘Arukh Even Ha‘Ezer §118.). Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Rebbi (Meïr)⁴⁴Since R. Meïr is not mentioned otherwise in this connection, it seems that this is a scribal mistake for R. Jehudah. learned from the calumniator⁴⁵The calumniator accuses his definitively married wife, who is an adolescent, of infidelity while preliminarily married. If his accusation is false, he pays the fine to the father, not to his wife. This shows that the father retains an interest in the money coming to his adolescent daughter even if she is definitively married. In the opinion of Maimonides (More Nebukhim, part 3, Chapter 49) and Nachmanides (Commentary to Deut. 22:19), the fine of the calumniator is 400 zuz since he wanted to steal from her the ketubah sum of 200 zuz by his accusation; as a thief he has to pay double restitution to the injured party. This supports R. Jehudah’s contention that the father is the injured party. (Interpretation following R. Baruch Fränkel-Teomim.). Did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: If she whored while in her father’s house and he calumniated her⁴⁶He is called a calumniator by the biblical text because he has to accuse his wife of adultery in front of the court, and for that he is punished if his accusation is not sustained. For the court to act on his accusation he has to produce two witnesses to the adultery since as husband he is his wife’s relative and barred from acting as a witness for or against her. after she became an adult, he is not flogged⁴⁷The expression “they shall punish him” in Deut. 22:17 is interpreted to mean “they have him flogged.” nor does he pay 100 tetradrachmas⁴⁸In Deut. 22:18 it is written: They shall fine him 100 silver pieces and give them to the adolescent’s father. If the girl is no longer an adolescent, the punishment does not apply. but either she or the false witnesses are executed by stoning⁴⁹The standard punishment for adultery by a preliminarily married adolescent, Deut. 22:24. If the witnesses for the husband are shown to be false (cf. Note 86), they are stoned since any false witness is punished by the sentence that would have been passed upon the accused if the testimony had been true.? Rebbi Mana asked before Rebbi Yose: Think of it, if he calumniated her when she was an adolescent and now she is an adult? He said to him, we heard that he pays to her father⁵⁰As long as the accusation is made when the girl is an adolescent, the verse gives the money to the father.. Rebbi Jeremiah said before Rebbi Ze‘ira: I am wondering how could the rabbis compare a ketubah to a fine when they are not comparable! For the ketubah is an obligation from the first hour⁵¹The groom has to accept all obligations of the ketubah before a definitive marriage is possible. but the fine is only at the end⁵²The fine is due only upon sentencing.; and you say so? He said to him, who says that to you? Even the [obligation of the] fine is from the first moment⁵³He holds that the act of rape creates the obligation to pay the fine rather than the court’s sentence.. It turns out that Rebbi Mana is like Rebbi Jeremiah and (like Rebbi Yose ben Ze‘ira)⁵⁴This probably should read: וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא. “and Rebbi Yose like Rebbi Ze‘ira,” that the obligation of the fine starts with the rape and, therefore, fine and ketubah are parallel institutions; the rules of the fine may inspire rules of ketubah..

HALAKHAH: “A widow to the High Priest,” etc. What is the reason of the rabbis? “Being” is mentioned here⁵⁴Lev. 21:7: “[The Cohen] shall be holy for you.” and “being” is mentioned there, “if a girl will be betrothed to a man⁵⁵Deut. 22:23, a shortened quote..” Just as “being” there means betrothal, so “being” here means betrothal⁵⁶The status of sanctity of a woman entering a Cohen’s house is determined by her betrothal. The argument follows R. Ismael’s rule, Note 45.. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon? “Being” is mentioned here⁵⁴Lev. 21:7: “[The Cohen] shall be holy for you.” and “being” is mentioned there, “if the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s⁵⁷Lev. 22:12.”. Just as “being” there means marriage, so “being” here means marriage. Rebbi Yosa said, from where do Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon know that the daughter of a Cohen betrothed to an Israel may not eat heave⁵⁸In Mishnah 7:4 it is stated without opposition that betrothal of a Cohen’s daughter to an Israel disables her from eating have (but does not enable a daughter of an Israel engaged to a Cohen to eat heave).? Not from that verse, “if the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s”? Here they make it betrothal, there they make it marriage!⁵⁹The question remains unanswered, the arguments presented up to here are inconsistent. What is the reason of the rabbis? “A man’s”, the man who enables to eat⁶⁰Sifra Emor Parashah5(7): “ ‘If the daughter of a Cohen will be an outside man’s’, this includes not only a bastard, from where even to a Levi or an Israel? The verse says, ‘an outside man’s’. From where a widow to the High Priest, a divorcee or one who had participated in ḥalîṣah to a private Cohen? The verse says ‘a man’s’, a man’s who enables to eat.”
The rather cryptic argument here and in Sifra makes reference to the rule (Mishnah 7:3) that only a man can enable a (non-priestly) woman to eat heave, not a fetus. An Israel woman married to a Cohen eats heave as long as her husband is alive or after his death if she has children, but not if she is the pregnant widow of an otherwise childless man. She will only regain her status as member of the priestly clan after she has given birth. This explains the emphasis of the verse which is formulated לאיש זר and not simply לזר.
For the rabbis, the entire verse refers to betrothal.. Is it not an argument de minore ad majus⁶¹Sifra Emor Parashah 5(8). The Babli, 56b, tries an equally invalid argument.? Since an Israel, whose intercourse does not disable her⁶²A (widowed) daughter of a Cohen married to an Israel may return to her priestly status if she becomes a childless widow. from the priesthood, by intercourse will disable her from eating heave⁶³Once she is married to an Israel by intercourse, she is barred from eating heave., the High Priest, whose intercourse does disable her from the priesthood⁶⁴He desecrates any widow by his intercourse., it should be logical that his intercourse will disable her from eating heave. No. If you argue about an Israel who cannot enable others to eat, what can you say about the High Priest who can enable others to eat? Since he can enable others to eat, his intercourse should not disable her from eating heave. The argument de minore ad majus is broken, and one has to return to the verse. Therefore, it must say “a man’s”; viz., the man who enables her to eat. ⁵³Text from ms. A.
Ms. L and editio princeps: מַה טַעֲמָא לֹא אָֽמְרוּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן נִישּׂוּאִין פּוֹסְלִין אוֹתָהּ מִלּוֹכַל בִּתְרוּמָה. מַה עֲבַד לָהּ רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לוֹכַל אוֹ מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לוֹכַל. נִשְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא אִם לֹא יְדָעָהּ מִשּׁוּם מַה נַעֲשֶׂה פְצוּעַ דַּכָּא וּכְרוּת שָׁפְכָה הֲרֵי יֹאכֵלוּ. אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא. אִית לָךְ מֵימַר. הָדָא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לֶאֱכוֹל וְהָכָא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לְהַאֲכִיל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. לֹא סוֹף דָּבָר מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין. נִבְעֲלוּ בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין פְּסוּלוֹת. לֹא נִבְעֲלוּ בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין .מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין כְּשֵׁירוֹת.
What is the reason that Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon did not say that marriage disables them from eating heave? What do Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon in this case? Because he may eat or because he is not fit to eat? Let us hear from the following: “If he did not know her why his testicles became injured or his penis cut off, these they enable to eat.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon. You have to say, here it is because he enables to eat, there because he enables to eat. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not only from marriage. If they had copulated whether betrothed or married, they are disabled; if they had not copulated whether betrothed or married, they are enabled.
The text is seen to be corrupt. What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon⁶⁵Interpreting the same verse as do the majority rabbis., because he may eat or because he may enable to eat? Let us hear from the following⁶⁶Mishnah 8:1. Since men with injured testicles or torn-off penis cannot marry (Deut. 23:2), if they are Cohanim their intercourse desecrates. They themselves are also barred from eating sanctified food. If they were healthy when they married, their wives retain their priestly status even if the priest who brought them into the priesthood loses his.: “If he did not know her after his testicles became injured or his penis cut off, these they enable to eat.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon⁶⁷The Amora R. Eleazar holds that the rabbis, who exclude the betrothed in a forbidden union from eating heave even though betrothal is an acquisition, must also exclude the wife of a man whose intercourse will disable her. The statement is quoted in the Babli, 75a, and contrasted (as in the Yerushalmi, Halakhah 8:1) with the opinion of R. Joḥanan that the rabbis can agree because she started to eat with permission; that permission cannot disappear without anything happening involving her person. According to R. Joḥanan, nothing is proven here.. You have to say, here it is because he⁶⁸The Cohen before his accident. enables to eat, there⁶⁹The High Priest who never could enable a widow. because he cannot enable to eat. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, not really from betrothal or marriage. If they had copulated whether betrothed or married, they are disabled; if they had not copulated whether betrothed or married, they are enabled⁷⁰In the Babli, 57b, this is the opinion of Samuel, interpreting the position of the rabbis (against the authoritative opinion of Rav)..

HALAKHAH: It was stated: One may put sheaves next⁵⁷The meaning of סומך “to lean on” was studied by J. N. Epstein, ,מבוא לנוסח המשנה 2nd ed. (Jerusalem/Tel Aviv 1964) p. 446. to dried-up vines. Rebbi Yose said, that means that one may not plant a dry vine next to dry standing grain⁵⁸Since only sheaves, bundles of cut grain, may lean on dry vines, it follows that dry, standing grain must be separated even from dried-up vines.. May one sow next to dry vines? Let us hear from the following⁵⁹Mishnah 7:2.:“A dried-up vine is forbidden but does not sanctify⁶⁰Deut. 22:9 declares that grain growing in a vineyard sanctifies both the grain and the vines. This means that it acquires a status similar to sacrifices; all profane use of it is forbidden. But since it is not a sacrifice, it has to be burned. In tractate Kilaim, “sanctified” means “it must be destroyed by burning.” Kilaim not involving vines are sinful but not sanctified..” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is the opinion of Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said⁵⁹Mishnah 7:2., even cotton⁶¹Determination of Maimonides and R. Simson, see Mishnah 7:2. Cotton is not food but cottonseed is. is forbidden but does not sanctify.

HALAKHAH: It is written (Deut. 22:9): “Do not sow kilaim in your vineyard.” This refers to your own vineyard. From where about another person’s vineyard? The verse says, kilaim, no vineyard and no kilaim.⁴³The argument is slightly more clear in the version of Sifry Deut. 230 on the verse: “Do not sow kilaim in your vineyard, lest the fulness of the seed you are sowing be sanctified together with the yield of the vineyard.” The Sifry reads: “I understand not only a fruit-bearing vineyard, from where a vineyard that is not fruit-bearing? The verse says ‘the vineyard’, any vineyard. I understand not only your own vineyard, from where other persons’ vineyard? The verse says ‘do not sow kilaim’, in any way.” R. S. Adani argues that in contrast to Lev. 19:19, where the direct object precedes the predicate, in Deut.22:9 the predicate precedes the direct object and this is always taken as indicating that the prohibition stated at the beginning of the verse covers all situations the verse refers to. Hence, the operative word is not כרמך “your vineyard” but the last word of the sentence, הכרם “any vineyard.” Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, for Rebbi Meïr said that a Gentile cannot acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes⁴⁴Since the Mishnah makes no difference whether the neighbor is Jewish or Gentile, its author must hold that the laws of the Land are not abrogated by Gentile ownership.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is the opinion of everybody, explain it by a Gentile who sowed his vineyard kilaim and a Jew bought it from him⁴⁵Even in the scenario envisaged by R. Eleazar, one cannot infer anything since the Gentile is not required to follow the obligations which in Jewish opinion are a lien on the Land. They are only activated in case a Jew buys the real estate from the Gentile; then the neighbor is a Jew and nobody holds that the obligations are not in force..

BARAITHA. [The disciple of the wise must be] sin-fearing, estimating a man according to his deeds, and he should say, ‘As for my possessions in this world I have no desire for them because the whole world is not mine’. He sits at the feet¹⁷lit. ‘sits and soils his clothes’. In the Talmudic schools the disciple sat on the ground. He is so eager to learn and not miss any of the instruction that he will not leave even to relieve himself. of the disciples of the wise; he never takes an oath in connection with any matter; he questions according to the subject-matter and answers to the point.¹⁸From Aboth V, 10 (Sonc. ed., V, 7, p. 65) where it is included among the characteristics of a wise man.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Whence [do we know that a disciple of the wise should be] meek? From Moses our teacher, as it is stated, Now the man Moses was very meek;¹⁹Num. 12, 3. and on that account Moses was praised, as it is stated, My servant Moses is not so.²⁰ibid. 7. Moses is described as My servant. [We learn that the disciple of the wise must be] lowly of spirit from Aaron, for it is written, For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of Hosts;²¹Mal. 2, 7. and it is written, The law of truth was in his mouth and unrighteousness was not found in his lips; he walked with Me in peace and uprightness, and did turn many away from iniquity.²²ibid. 6.
There is no one more lowly of spirit than he who pursues peace. Consider, how can a man pursue peace if he be not lowly of spirit? How [does he act]? If a man curse him, he says to him, ‘Peace be upon you!’; should a man quarrel with him, he keeps silent; and further, if two men have quarrelled, he humbles his spirit, approaches them and effects a reconciliation between them.
Such, indeed, was the procedure of Aaron, the righteous. When he heard of two men who had quarrelled, he would go to one and say to him, ‘So-and-so, peace be upon you, my master!’ and he replied, ‘Peace be upon you, my master and teacher! What does my master seek here?’ He then said, ‘So-and-so, your friend, sent me to you to appease you, because he declares, “I have offended my friend” ’. Immediately the man reflects, ‘A righteous man like him has come to appease me!’ and exclaims, ‘Master, it was I who offended him’. [Aaron] then went to the other man and said the same to him. When the two meet on the way, one says to the other, ‘Forgive me for the offence which I did to you’ and the other speaks likewise.
When [Aaron] heard of a husband and wife who had quarrelled, he would go to the husband and say to him, ‘[I have come] because I heard that you have quarrelled²³Adopting the reading of H. V has ‘you have become reconciled’. with your wife; should you divorce her it is doubtful whether you will find another like her or not; and further, should you find another and quarrel²⁴The word in V is corrupt and corrected by H. with her, the first thing she will say to you will be, “You must have behaved in a like manner towards your first wife” ’. In consequence of this all Israel, men and women, loved him. Know that it was so; for what does Scripture relate when Moses our teacher died? And the children of Israel wept for Moses;²⁵Deut. 34, 8. but of Aaron it is written, They wept for Aaron thirty days, even all the house of Israel²⁶Num. 20, 29.—that is to say, even the women. Not only [did the women mourn], but they also covered their young children with mud and dust, thereby confirming the word all. It has been taught: Eighty thousand young men named Aaron followed Aaron’s bier. They were the issue of those who wanted to divorce but retracted and their wives became pregnant.²⁷In gratitude to Aaron they gave their sons his name.
We have learnt there:²⁸Aboth I, 12 (Sonc. ed., p. 8). Hillel said: Be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace, pursuing peace, loving your fellow-creatures and drawing them near to the Torah. It is quite right with ‘loving peace’ as we have already mentioned; but where [in the Torah] is ‘pursuing peace’ [enjoined]? As it has been taught: Seek peace, and pursue it.²⁹Ps. 34, 15. Cf. j.Pe’ah I, 1, 15d, where the comment is made: Seek peace in your place, and pursue it in another place. And wherein do all other precepts differ from it? A man is only under the obligation to perform them when they come to his hand, as it is written, If thou meet thine enemy’s ox,³⁰Ex. 23, 4. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee,³¹ibid. 5. If a bird’s nest chance to be before thee,³²Deut. 22, 6. When thou buildest a new house.³³ibid. 8. But as for peace [it is written], Seek peace, and pursue it—everywhere.
It has been taught: [The letters of the word] shalom, ‘peace’, have the numerical value of three hundred and seventy-six and [that number] is indicated by the letters sh w ‘a which form a verb meaning ‘to cry for help’. This teaches that the prayer of one who pursues peace does not go unanswered. If so, when [the name] is written ‘Esau’,³⁴Which also has the numerical value 376. is it [an indication of] peace? Yes, there too we may say so. If, although ‘peace’ is associated with his name, he shakes countries because of [the blessing given to him], And by thy sword shalt thou live,³⁵Gen. 27, 40. had ‘peace’ not been associated with his name, how much more terror would he have caused! But what of, They made war?³⁶ibid. XIV, 2. The Heb. for made is עשו which has the numerical value 376 and is connected with war. It is the same there. If a word with the numerical value of shalom is associated with peoples who aimed to destroy the world and to do injury to Abraham, were the word not used how much more [disastrous would their attack have been!] But what of, Who have done this evil thing?³⁷Deut. 17, 5. Here עשו is associated with evil thing. It is the same there. When [the evildoers] are stoned [to death], peace ensues; and if they were not stoned they would kill one another.
It has been taught: These four kings³⁸Enumerated in Gen. 14, 1. planned [their attack] only on account of Abraham, as it is written, And they turned back, and came to En-mishpaṭ,³⁹ibid. 7. En here means ‘well’ but also signifies ‘eye’. i.e. to Abraham who was the eye of the world. The same is Ḳadesh⁴⁰ibid, The same in Heb. could also be read to mean ‘he’, and Ḳadesh denotes ‘holy’.—through him the name of Heaven was sanctified. But they captured Lot mistaking him for Abraham, as it is written, And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive,⁴¹ibid. 14. and it does not state, ‘his brother’s son’.⁴²They mistook one brother for the other.
It has been taught: These [kings]⁴³Enumerated in Gen. 14, 2. who were allied with Abraham were more guilty [than those opposed to them] and from their names you may learn their character: Bera [signifies that he was bent] on evil [bera‘], Birsha‘ [that he was bent] on wickedness [berisha‘], Shinab [signifies] that he hated his father [sana’ ’ab], Shemeber that he made himself wings [to fly, sam ’eber], Bela that he was a swallower [bolea‘].
The question was asked: Is it permissible to give salutation to a heathen? Come and hear: Greetings may be given to them even on their feast day in the interests of peace.⁴⁴Cf. Giṭ. 62a (Sonc. ed., p. 292). Seeing that [the answer] is evident, why was the question asked? The question asked was, Is it permissible to salute them first? It has been taught: Better is he who greets him first than he who responds to his greetings.⁴⁵Cf. Ṭur Y.D., §148. By greeting him first, he avoids the need for further greetings.
The question was asked: Is it permissible to greet a murderer, adulterer or those who are liable to kareth? As for returning their greetings there is no question [that it is permissible], since they were the first to greet you their salutation must be returned. But how is it with greeting them first? Come and hear: [It is written,] The way of peace they know not, and there is no right in their goings; they have made them crooked paths, whosoever goeth therein doth not know peace.⁴⁶Isa. 59, 8. L. Ginzberg suggested that the author found in the words the way of peace they know not an allusion to murderers and in they made them crooked paths to violent men who escape punishment through superior force (Higger). Hence it can be inferred that if greetings are given by those who are about to suffer the death penalty they may be returned, but not of those who save themselves [from punishment] by force. And as for greeting them first, it is prohibited in all cases. As for an adulterer and his friends, should they greet one in public their salutation is returned out of respect for the public. Some say that he who associates with an adulterer is like an adulterer. And what of the other?⁴⁷The anonymous author of the first statement; how will he refute this argument? [He can reply,] perhaps they were compelled to associate with him.
If these men⁴⁸The men of ill-repute cited. come to make peace with those with whom they quarrelled, they are not received with a full heart, even on the Day of Atonement.⁴⁹When it is a duty to forgive fully any wrong which had been done. The general rule is that it is forbidden to have any dealings with one who adheres [to his sins] and does not repent. What is meant by ‘a full heart’? If, for instance, one says, ‘I absolve and release you’, that is not with ‘a full heart’; [if one says,] ‘May the All-merciful absolve you for what you have done to me’,⁵⁰So H. V has ‘to them’. it is.
The question was asked: [May one return the salutation of] an adulterer and another [man of good repute]? According to the second opinion⁵¹That an adulterer’s greeting may be returned if made publicly. there is no question [that it is forbidden,] seeing that it prohibits the return of a salutation even when given by him in public; but how is it according to the first opinion?⁵²lit. ‘according to some say [that he who associates with an adulterer is like an adulterer]’. Raba replied: Is there, then, here any question at all? He addresses himself to the two of them as one.⁵³He ignores the man of ill-repute and responds to the other, seeing that both greeted him. The question, however, does arise where there are two, one with another behind him who says nothing. He replied: He returns their salutations.⁵⁴Since he includes in his salutation the man of good repute although not greeted by him.
It has been taught: Great is peace because the world is based upon it; as we have learnt: The world is preserved by three things: by judgment, by truth and by peace.⁵⁵Aboth I, 18 (Sonc. ed., p. 10).
It is written in the book of Ben Sira:⁵⁶Sirach or Ecclesiasticus. The quotation is not found in the extant texts. Cf. Schechter, ‘The Quotations from Ecclesiasticus in Rabbinic Literature’, J.Q.R., III (1891), pp. 696f, 704f. Here the quotation is in rhymed Aramaic. Love peace for on it the world is based. Love all people and be warned against pride because it is unbecoming⁵⁷Reading יאיא for יבוא Schechter conjectures delibba’ and renders ‘be careful of pride [of heart] against any man’. to any man. For [pride] kindles anger⁵⁸Disturbs the harmony between people. and uproots the threshold⁵⁹Breaks friendships. and builds up woes⁶⁰Cf. Soṭah 5a (Sonc. ed., p. 19): ‘Over every man in whom is haughtiness of spirit the Divine Presence laments’. instead of [the music of] tabrets. Learn from kings and princes and their entourage who worship idols, in the end they are devoured by fire.⁶¹There is a play on the words תורפין, ‘idols’, and טריפין, ‘devoured’. Love humility so that you come not to poverty.⁶²Shab. 33a (Sonc. ed., p. 154): ‘Poverty is a sign of conceit’. For [pride] is despised and contemptible before God;⁶³[lit. ‘the glorious One’, an epithet for God common in the Targum. Cf. Marmorstein, The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, I, p. 88.] it is unbecoming before Him Who performs mighty acts which cannot be conceived [by man]. [Before Him] myriads upon myriads of angels and Seraphim beat their wings and make them to sound as though they were playing on tabrets. From the beginning He was exalted in His heights,⁶⁴Reading ברומיה for ביומיה, ‘in His day’. robed in excellency as in a cloak,⁶⁵Cf. Ps. 93, 1. and this is His garment always. But to those who whisper in His name He lowers His heights, and from the highest heavens He cares for the poor and orphans. How praiseworthy and beautiful was the prophet who was lauded by the mouth of the Creator, ‘There is none like My servant the prophet’!⁶⁶i.e. Moses; cf. Num. 12, 3, 7. Who among you has inherited the crown⁶⁷So Schechter, who reads kether for bethar, ‘after’. of royalty? The beginning of wisdom and understanding is the fear of the Lord.⁶⁸[Cf. Ps. 111, 10, Prov. 9, 10 and Ben Sira I, 14.] And let not your heart persuade you that your Master will not bring you into judgment⁶⁹Following the emended text of H. for this, and do not hearken to your enemy⁷⁰Instead of רובך, ‘thy master’, read דבבך, ‘thy enemy’. ‘Enemy’ is one of the designations for the evil inclination, which is also termed ‘the hidden one’ because it lies hidden in man’s heart. Cf. Suk. 52a (Sonc. ed., pp. 247f.). hidden within you. Reflect and [let your reflection] lead you [to think on] the day when every face is darkened, when the body burns and the soul is withdrawn.

Rebbi Abin said, only if the roof is at least four [cubits] square. Just as a house does not induce ṭevel unless it is at least four [cubits] square, so the roof does not exempt unless it is at least four [cubits] square, as it is stated¹¹⁴A similar baraita in Babli Sukkah 3a/b.: A house less than four [cubits] square is free from the obligations of mezuzah¹¹⁵Deut. 6:9, 11:20. and the parapet¹¹⁶Deut. 22:8., from the obligation of eruv¹¹⁷If a courtyard belongs to a single owner except that a hut enclosing an area less that four cubits square belongs to another person, that courtyard may be used on the Sabbath by the majority owner without an eruv (cf. Demay 1, Notes 192–193)., does not induce ṭevel, is not counted as a connection to a town¹¹⁸On the Sabbath, one may not go outside one’s town more than 2000 cubits (cf. Peah 8, Note 56). Any house which is within 70 cubits of a house of the town is also counted as part of the town; the count of 2000 cubits starts only at the outermost house. A small building does not count as a house.; he who makes a vow not to be in a house may sit there; one does not give it four cubits before its entrance door¹¹⁹In a courtyard belonging to several owners, the four cubits in front of the entrance of each house are the private domain of this house, to be used to load and unload. This does not apply to a small hut.; it does not remain with the buyer in the Jubilee¹²⁰Lev. 25:30.; it cannot become impure by scale disease¹²¹Lev. 14:34 ff., and its owner does not return from the army because of it¹²²Deut. 20:5..

MISHNAH: He who takes the mother with the young, Rebbi Jehudah says he is flogged but does not have to send away. But the Sages say, he sends away and is not flogged³⁹Deut. 22:6–7.. This is the principle: One is not liable for any prohibition coupled with a positive commandment.

HALAKHAH: ¹³²Partial parallels are in the Babli, 43a; Sifry Deut. 194; Tosephta 7:17.“Who built a house”, not only who built; if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift, from where? The verse says, “the man,” “who is the man”¹³³In the interpretation of Rashi, this means that the verse would have been intelligible if the word האיש were missing: מִ אֲשֶׁה בָּנָה “Who built …”. Therefore, the additional word must imply an extension of the circle of those who have to go and start using their new property.. From where he who builds a barn, a cow-shed, a wood-shed, a storage facility, from where? The verse says, “who builds”. I could think that one who builds a portico¹³⁴A formal structure at the entrance to a courtyard common to several houses. It has no walls and confers no privacy., a covered walkway¹³⁵Greek ἐξέδρα, cf. Ma‘serot 3:6, Note 101., and a verandah would return; the verse says “house”; the house is distinguished by the fact that it can be used as a dwelling¹³⁶Even if it is used as agricultural facility, a barn etc. could be used as a dwelling, having walls on all sides.. This excludes those items which cannot be dwellings. It also excludes a house which does not enclose four by four cubits. As it was stated¹³⁷Ma‘serot 3:7, Notes 114–122. Babli Sukkah 3a/b.: A house which does not enclose four by four cubits is free from the obligation of a parapet¹³⁸Deut. 22:8., or a mezuzah¹³⁹Deut. 6:9, 11:20., or an erub¹⁴⁰If a courtyard belongs to a single owner except that a hut enclosing an area less that four cubits square belongs to another person, that courtyard may be used on the Sabbath by the majority owner without an eruv (cf. Demay 1, Notes 192–193).. It also does not induce ṭevel for tithes¹⁴¹Freshly harvested produce may be eaten untithed. Once the harvest has been removed to a storage area, it is forbidden as food until heave and tithes were given; cf. Ma‘serot 3:5–8. A small shed does not qualify as a storage area. and one does not give it four cubits in front of its door¹⁴²In a courtyard belonging to several owners, the four cubits in front of the entrance to each house are the private domain of this house, to be used to load and unload, and is out of bounds for the other owners. This does not apply to a small hut., and it is not counted as a connection to the town¹⁴³On the Sabbath, one may not go outside one’s town more than 2000 cubits (cf. Peah 8, Note 56). Any house which is within 70 cubits of a house or the city wall of the town is also counted as part of the town; the count of 2000 cubits starts only at the outermost house. A small building does not count as a house., and one who forswears any use of a house is permitted to sit in it¹⁴⁴In popular language, a small shelter is not called a house. Therefore, a person vowing not to sit in a house may sit in a small shelter., and it does not remain with the buyer in the Jubilee year¹⁴⁵It is agricultural property, not a city dwelling; Lev. 25:30., and it cannot become impure by disease¹⁴⁶Lev. 14:34 ff. The rules of diseased structures are explicitly restricted to “a house of the Land of your inheritance”., and its owner does not become exempt from the war because of it.

It was stated²⁴⁹Tosephta Kilaïm 1:15.: One may sow vegetable seeds and tree seeds together. But he who sows with grape kernels is whipped 40 times²⁵⁰“40 times” means 39 times, the maximal punishment for the transgression of a Biblical prohibition (Deut. 25:3).. Rebbi Zeïra said, it is written (Deut. 22:9): “Do not sow your vineyard with two kinds;” the main produce²⁵¹The main produce are grapes and the part used for sowing is grape seed. of your vineyard you should not sow with two kinds. Rebbi Yudan from Kappadokia asked before Rebbi Yose: There²⁵²In the rules of ritual impurity, e. g. Mishnah Makhshirin 1:2, all rules that apply to vegetables and grain also apply to tree fruits. “Here” refers to the rules of kilaïm. This shows that the main place of these paragraphs is in tractate Kilaïm (8:1). they say that tree seeds are called seeds but here you say that tree seeds are not called seeds. He said to him: There²⁵³In the answer, “there” and “here” should be switched; the first answer deals with kilaïm (and refers to the question dealt with there whether one transgresses the prohibition of sowing different kinds in a vineyard only if one sows there two kinds different from vines or only one.) the verse excluded them since usually people do not call them “seeds,” but here the verse added (Lev. 11:37) “any sown seed that may be sown.”

If he came to her before she was preliminarily married, then she was preliminarily married and divorced⁶⁰Does R. Yose the Galilean require the rapist to pay even after his victim was preliminarily married?. Does the statement of Rebbi Aḥai not imply that he pays? Did we not state: “For he had mistreated her,⁶¹Deut. 22:29. A reason is given for the punishment of the rapist; therefore, the punishment applies any time the reason applies.” to include the orphan for the fine, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean⁶²In Sifry Deut. 245, R. Eliezer holds that this refers only to the rapist, for whom the reason is given, but not to the seducer, for whom the rules do not extend to the orphan. In the Babli, 44b, R. Yose the Galilean applies the same rule to the orphaned victim of the seducer by an argument reproduced in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim, Neziqin 17.. Rebbi Aḥai said, explain it that he came to her before her father died; when subsequently her father died he already was obligated to give to her father⁶³R. Yose the Galilean is not contradicting himself; he only exempts the rapist or seducer of the preliminarily married girl if the sexual act happened while the girl was no longer in the father’s power. But if it happened earlier, even though the court proceedings had not started at the father’s death or the girl’s preliminary marriage, the obligation of rapist or seducer is not erased.. One came to her before her father died and subsequently her father died; one came to her before she was preliminarily married, subsequently she was divorced⁶⁴The two cases are parallel.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said that Rav Ḥisda asked: If one came to her before she was married and then she was married⁶⁵Who collects the fine if an adolescent was raped and then (both preliminarily and definitively) married before the rape was adjudicated in court?? Since you say there, she is under her husband but he has to pay to her father, so in this case she is under her husband but he has to pay to her father.

“A person is permitted to plough and draw with all of them.” It is written (Deut. 22:10): “Do not plough with an ox and a donkey together.” (Sifri Deut. 231) You may not plough with an ox and a donkey but you may plough with an ox and a human, a donkey with a human.

Hezekiah said: Great is peace, for in connection with all other precepts in the Torah it is written, If thou see,¹⁷Ex. 23, 5. etc., If thou meet,¹⁸ibid. 4. If there chance,¹⁹Deut. 22, 6. If thou buildest,²⁰ibid. 8, E.V. when thou buildest. [implying,] if a precept comes to your hand, you are bound to perform it;²¹But if not, you are not bound to perform it. but what is written in connection with peace? Seek peace, and pursue it,²²Ps. 34, 15. [meaning,] seek it in your place and follow it to another place.²³If your presence can help to bring about peace there.

MISHNAH: Only spun and woven cloth is forbidden because of kilaim since it is said (Deut. 22:11): “Do not wear šaʻaṭnez”, anything carded, spun, or woven¹⁵¹The word שעטנז of unknown etymology is taken as an abbreviation and split into three: שע ט נז. Maimonides declares נוז “to weave” as Armenian. The Halakhah will show that the conjunction ו has to be understood as “or”, not as “and”.. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, he has turned aside and turned his Father in Heaven against him¹⁵²This homily takes נז as shorthand for נלוז..
Felt is forbidden because it is carded. A woolen border¹⁵³This meaning of פיף is attested to by all Gaonic sources and the commentaries dependent on them; cf. Note 28. Musaphia’s derivation from the Greek (derived from R. Simson’s interpretation of פיף as “fringes”) ἐφυφή “woof” and accepted by the dictionaries makes no sense, as recognized by I. Löw. on a linen garment is forbidden because it goes around like the woven part. Rebbi Yose says, woven ropes are forbidden because he stitches them before he ties them¹⁵⁴One may not make a belt out of two strips, one of wool and one of linen, even if they are not permanently sewn together since one will loosely stitch them together so that they should not separate when worn. About stitching see Mishnah 10.. One should not bind a strip of wool on one of linen to gird his hips even if a leather belt is in between¹⁵⁵One may not permanently sew wool on one side and linen on the other side of a leather belt since the stitcheseven when made of a neutral material like cotton, will bind wool and linen together..

MISHNAH: What one found in a store is his⁵⁶Because most probably one of the previous customers lost the money which by its nature has no distinguishing marks.. Between the counter and the storekeeper it is the storekeeper’s. Before the moneychanger it is his⁵⁶Because most probably one of the previous customers lost the money which by its nature has no distinguishing marks.. Between the chair⁵⁷Where the customer sits who has his money exchanged. and the moneychanger it is the moneychanger’s. If one bought produce from another person or another person sent him produce and he found coins in it, they are his⁵⁸The coins probably were lost by a person engaged in harvest or transport, not the seller of the produce.. But if they were bundled⁵⁹Where the number of coins, their value, and the way they were tied together are distinguishing marks., he takes them and makes it public.
The garment⁶⁰Deut. 22:3: “So you shall treat his donkey, so you shall treat his garment, so you shall treat anything lost by your fellow man, which is lost by him but you found it; you are not allowed to disregard it.” was subsumed under “anything”; why was it mentioned separately? To bracket with it and tell you, just as a garment is special in that it has distinguishing marks and claimants, so about everything which has distinguishing marks and claimants you have to give public notice⁶¹Sifry Deut. 224. This justifies the arguments in Halakhah 4 that even if there are distinguishing marks, one does not have to advertise if there are no claimants..

“And grapes once they have grown to the size of white beans.” Rebbi Ḥananiah the son of Rebbi Hillel said, because it is written (Deut. 22:9): “And the produce of the vineyard⁷⁵The verse defines what is sanctified. Since it is called “produce”, some kind of produce must be visible..” So is the Mishnah: “They do not become sanctified”⁷⁶This refers to the last sentence in the Mishnah, “completely dry grain and grapes completely ripe do not become sanctified.” The Mishnah is formulated in the passive: completely dry produce cannot itself become sanctified because it no longer grows but produce still growing in its vicinity can become sanctified by its presence (R. S. Adani.).

MISHNAH: How does he⁷⁶The rapist mentioned in Mishnah 5. drink from his pot? Even if she is lame, even if she is blind, or even if she is afflicted with boils⁷⁷He has to marry her and is prohibited from divorcing her.. If a matter of immorality was found with her⁷⁸If she was found guilty of adultery or incest. In that case, the husband is not permitted to keep her. or she could not marry in Israel⁷⁹If she was a bastard or a Gibeonite., he may not keep here since it is written⁸⁰Deut. 22:29.: “She shall be his wife,” a wife appropriate for him.

As it was stated⁸⁸Sifry Deut. 241; Tosephta Sanhedrin 10:10.: “Living married to a husband⁸⁹Deut. 22:22. While the man sleeping with a preliminarily married girl is stoned, the adulterer with a woman who had lived with her husband while preliminarily married is strangled; Sifry Deut. 241.,” that includes one who had received her husband in her father’s house while preliminarily married; the one who comes after him is strangled. Not only a regular intercourse but even perverse⁹⁰Perverse intercourse is one which leaves the woman a virgin but leads to sexual satisfaction.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; it is necessary to mention perverse intercourse for if it were regular, why mention her husband⁹¹As is implicit in the text here and made explicit in the Babli, Qiddušin 9b, the preliminarily married girl who had perverse relations with her husband is no longer a virgin in criminal law but any other man can remove her status of virgin only by penetration.? As we have stated: If she was raped by two men, the first is stoned, the second strangled⁹²Speaking of the virgin preliminarily married girl Deut. 22:23–27. The second man sleeps with a married woman who is not a virgin, Deut. 22:22.. The preliminarily married adolescent girl. If ten men came upon her perversely and then one regularly, they are all stoned⁹³The same statement in slightly different formulations in the Babli, Qiddušin 9b, Sanhedrin 66b, Yerushalmi Qidduṡin 1:1 (fol. 58b); Tosephta Sanhedrin 10:9.. If they all come upon her regularly, the first is stoned and the remainder strangled. If ten men “touched” her⁹⁴Their penises touched her genitals without injuring the hymen; cf. Yebamot 4:2, Note 59. and then one penetrated, they are all stoned. If they all penetrated, the first is stoned and the remainder strangled. A single girl. If ten men came upon her perversely and then one regularly, they all pay the fine. If they all come upon her regularly, the first is stoned and the remainder is free⁹⁵They are freed from the biblically imposed fine of the rapist; they still can be sued for claims of diminution of value and suffering.. If she chose one of them, the others were freed from the prohibition⁹⁶This sentence clearly refers to the prior case that all the men raping her are liable for the fine. In that case, all of them are required to marry her and forbidden to divorce her. But since a woman cannot have more than one husband, she may choose one of them. The others then do not infringe on the prohibition to divorce her since they cannot marry her.. If she said, he⁹⁷Her first choice among the rapists. is impossible, she repeatedly chooses. If he was married to her sister, he already is freed⁹⁸A man raping his wife’s sister cannot marry her (Lev. 18:18). He pays but does not marry her.. If she died, he is freed. If he died, one does not force the levir⁹⁹If the childless rapist dies before he marries his victim, there is no obligation on the levir to marry her since the rape is no marriage; it only creates an obligation of marriage..

¹¹⁸his now refers to the adulterous definitively married woman. A closely related text is Ketubot 4:7, Notes 154–160. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi said. not only to the bridal chamber but also to a house containing the bridal chamber¹¹⁹Where the definitive marriage is contracted. This חוּפָּה is not the wedding canopy used today, but a room where the newlyweds will consummate the marriage and spend the following week.
From here to the end of Sanhedrin-Makkot (except Makkot 1:13–2:7) there exists a Genizah fragment (G) edited (with readings compared to the Krotoschin Yerushalmi) by S. Wieder, Tarbiz 17 (1946) 130–135.. The following is problematic: Dining room¹²⁰Greek τρικλίνιον, τó, Latin triclinium. and bedroom¹²¹Cf. Chapter 7:19, Note 363., bridal chamber and bedroom; if she entered the dining room, for which consequence¹²²Before the definitive marriage ceremony.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, to inherit from her¹²³As definitive husband, if the woman died before entering the bridal chamber. Since this idea is not followed up, it does not represent practice. In Ketubot, the name is R. Eleazar. Therefore, the illegible name in G cannot be emended to “R. Johanan” as given in Tarbiz 17.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, to dissolve her vows¹²⁴Nedarim, Chapters 10,11.. Rebbi Zeˋira said, even though Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, to dissolve her vows, he agrees that he cannot actually dissolve them before she enters the bridal chamber¹²⁵If the time allotted to the husband to dissolve his wife’s vows elapses between the arrival of his bride at his home when she stated the fact of her vows and the definitive marriage ceremony, he lost his right of dissolution.. Rebbi Huna¹²⁶In G, “Huna” is corrected to “Jonah”. said, a verse supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: to whore in her father’s house¹²⁷Deut. 22:21.. This excludes the case where the father’s agents handed her over to the husband’s agents, that she could not be stoned, but is strangled¹²⁸A preliminarily married virgin who no longer is in her father's charge is treated in criminal law as if she already were definitively married. Babli Ketubot 49a ..

MISHNAH: If one described the lost object but not its identifying marks, he⁸³The finder may deliver only after satisfying himself that the claimant is the legal owner. should not deliver. To the swindler one should not deliver even if he describes its identifying marks, since it is said: “Until investigating your brother about it,⁸⁴Deut. 22:2; Sifry Deut. 223.” until you investigate your brother whether he be a swindler or no swindler.

MISHNAH: Anything which works and eats⁸⁵E. g., cattle or donkeys. shall work and eat⁸⁶While the finder waits for the owner to claim his animal.. What does not work but eats⁸⁷Any other kind of animal. should be sold because it is said⁸⁴Deut. 22:2; Sifry Deut. 223., “and return it to him,” plan to return it to him⁸⁸The find has to be kept in such a way that it can be returned without presenting to its owner a bill for expenses during the waiting period.. What happens with the money? Rebbi Tarphon says, he may use it; therefore if it is lost he is liable for its alienation. Rebbi Aqiba says, he may not use it; therefore if it is lost he is not liable for its alienation.

HALAKHAH: “The ox and any domestic animal equally are under the rules of falling into a pit,” etc. Falling into a pit, “and an ox or a donkey fell in there.⁵⁶Ex. 21:33.” Separating from Mount Sinai, “neither animal nor man shall live.⁸⁸Ex. 19:13.” Paying double restitution, “from ox to donkey⁸⁹Ex. 22:3, the penalty for the thief found with livestock.”. To return lost property, “you shall certainly return them⁹⁰Deut. 22:1..” Unloading, “do remove⁹¹Ex.. 23:5..” Muzzling, “do not muzzle an ox while threshing⁹²Deut. 25:4..” Interbreeding, “your animal you shall not breed kilaim⁹³Lev. 19:19..” The Sabbath, “that your ox and your donkey may rest⁹⁴Ex. 23:12..”

“A man can sell his daughter,” for it is written²³⁰Ex. 21:7.: “If a man sell his daughter as a handmaid. “A man can betrothe his daughter,” as it is written²³¹Deut. 22:16.: “I gave my daughter as a wife but he hated her.”

“A man is stoned naked, no woman is stoned naked.” For it is written²³²There is no such verse. Probably the reference is to Lev. 24:14: וְרָֽגְמוּ אֹתוֹ which means “they shall stone him;” this verse is quoted in Sifry zuṭa Šelaḥ 36, Babli Sanhedrin 43a., “you shall stone him,” not his garment. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written²³³Deut. 22:24, speaking of the inhabitants of a city whose inhabitants, men and women, turn to idolatry. If the prior argument were correct, the verse would disprove the Mishnah.: “You shall stone them with stones,” does that mean “them but not their garments”? How is that? A man is not greatly degraded by this, so he is stoned naked, but a woman who would be greatly degraded by it cannot be stoned naked²³⁴There is no biblical source for the statement of the Mishnah. Since a garment would soften the blows of the stones, the agony of the man to be executed would be prolonged if he were clothed; since he probably would not mind being seen naked, it is to his advantage being executed while naked. But for a woman, the mental anguish of being naked in public would be much greater than the increased physical pain; therefore a woman has to be executed fully clothed.
The Babli Soṭa 23b refers to the argument in a very abbreviated way which presupposes the knowledge of the Yerushalmi’s argument. The original argument of the Yerushalmi is accepted in the Babli Sanhedrin 43a; in 45a the inference is attributed to R. Jehudah who requires that a woman be stoned naked. By contrast, in Sifra Qedošim Parašah 10(4), an appropriate verse is quoted, Lev. 20:2: “Every man in Israel or among the sojourners in Israel who gives of his children to the Moloch shall certainly die, the people of the land shall stone him with stone.”.

“An oath that I shall eat this loaf;” etc. ¹³³Since by the first oath he became obligated to eat the loaf by biblical rules, the second oath has a similar status as an oath to violate a biblical commandment.Vain and untruth both were said together, which is impossible for the ear to hear and the mouth to say. Its desecrator shall be put to death and on the Sabbath day two sheep¹³⁴Ex. 31:14, Num. 28:9. were said together. Do not wear ša`aṭnez, fringes you shall make for yourselves¹³⁵Deut. 22:11–12., both were said together. The nakedness of your brother’s wife and her brother-in-law shall come to her¹³⁶Lev. 18:16, Deut. 25:5. were said together. You shall not move property; any daughter inheriting real estate¹³⁷Num. 36:8–9. both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. And so it says, God spoke once, two I heard from this¹³⁸Ps. 62:12.. And it says, is not My word like fire, says the Eternal¹³⁹Jer. 23:29. The reference is to the end of the verse, and like a hammer splintering rock..

“A man is sold for his theft,” for his theft but not for the double restitution²²⁸Lev.13:44: “A man afflicted with skin disease is he, impure is he, the Cohen shall certainly declare him impure if his disease is on his head.”
A slightly more complete text in Sifra Tazria‘ Pereq12(1); a shortened text in Babli 23 a, Keritut8b, Arakhin3a.. For his theft but not for his perjury²²⁹The Babli (Soṭa 23 b; Nazir 25 a/b, 28b, 30a, 61b) and dependent sources [Num. rabba 10 (20] disagree and quote R. Joḥanan insisting that according to the biblical text, nobody can impose a state of nazir on another person but that it is traditional practice (in the words of the Midrash: “going back to Moses on Mount Sinai”) that a father may force his son to be a nazir, implying that nobody can dissent.
The same paragraph is found in Nazir 4:6, fol. 53c.. For his theft he is not sold twice. There is only a monetary claim on him. That means, for one theft, but for two thefts he can be sold a second time²³⁰Ex. 21:7.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he stole from a partnership, how are you treating this? As one theft or as two thefts²³¹Deut. 22:16.? If he stole and removed [things] in the night, we would say that if the owners realized [the loss] in the meantime, there are two thefts; otherwise, it is one theft.

Rav Huna insists on interpreting the contract text. Rav Huna explained: “The sons shall inherit but the daughters must be fed.” Since the sons inherit movables, the daughters also are fed from movables. Samuel said, the daughters are not fed from movables. A Mishnah supports Samuel: “The female children you shall have from me shall dwell in my house and be supported from my property.” It was stated on this: From real estate but not from movables. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda said: Rav Huna follows Rebbi and Samuel follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, as it was stated: “One uses both guaranteed property and non-guaranteed property for the support of the wife and the daughters, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, guaranteed property may be taken by sons from sons, by daughters from daughters, by sons from daughters, and by daughters from sons. But non-guaranteed property may be taken by sons from daughters but not by daughters from sons.” They said, Rav Huna reversed himself. They said, that was well done, ketubah is a biblical commandment but support of the daughters is from their words. May their words uproot a biblical commandment? It must be that they differ about the money contained in their mother’s ketubah. [Even if you say, they differ about the money contained in their mother’s ketubah.]²⁰⁹Inserted here by the corrector who prepared the editio princeps; missing in Yebamot. But is the money stipulated in their mother’s ketubah not also real estate⁶⁶Deut. 22:19.?

There¹²²Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:15; Tosephta 10:8. From “Rebbi Yasa” to the end of the Halakhah, the text is also in Sanhedrin 7:14; the readings from there are noted ן., we have stated: “He who comes to a preliminarily married adolescent is guilty¹²³To be stoned, Deut. 22:24. The penalty for adultery (if the act is observed by two independent witnesses) is death by strangling. only if she was an adolescent, virgin, preliminarily married, in her father’s house¹²⁴As the Babli explains (Sanhedrin66b), the law does not apply if the girl had been delivered to the husband’s emissaries to be brought to his place for the final wedding.. If two came upon her, the first is stoned and the second strangled¹²⁵Since she was no longer a virgin..” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: That is Rebbi Meïr’s. But following the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “A lad” is written in the paragraph¹²⁶In the entire Pentateuch with the exception of Deut. 22:19, “girl” is written in the masculine form נער “a lad”. R. Meïr takes this as a restriction that the rules apply only to the adolescent in the strict sense. The rabbis take the spelling to mean that one deals with a girl that is not yet feminine, not yet sexually awakened. (Instead of postulating a unique Hebrew-Phoenician root נער III “youth”, the rabbis probably derive נער from the root עור “to awake”.). How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written “a young woman”; this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult¹²⁷Deut. 22:19; the case of the calumniator must deal also with the possibility that the wife is criminally responsible, as pointed out by R. Meïr. Therefore, נַעֲרָ in the context of sexual offenses must mean “underage and adolescent”.. Rebbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the calumniator, “a lad” is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned¹²⁸Deut. 22:21. An underage person is not criminally responsible; the seduction of a minor is statutory rape. If the criminal sanctions do not apply, why should the rest of the rules apply to an underage girl?! What do the rabbis with this? Rebbi Abin said, explain it if he came to her as to a male¹²⁹The rapist is punished even if he uses the נַעֲרָ as if she were a נַעַר, without penetration..

There¹²²Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:15; Tosephta 10:8. From “Rebbi Yasa” to the end of the Halakhah, the text is also in Sanhedrin 7:14; the readings from there are noted ן., we have stated: “He who comes to a preliminarily married adolescent is guilty¹²³To be stoned, Deut. 22:24. The penalty for adultery (if the act is observed by two independent witnesses) is death by strangling. only if she was an adolescent, virgin, preliminarily married, in her father’s house¹²⁴As the Babli explains (Sanhedrin66b), the law does not apply if the girl had been delivered to the husband’s emissaries to be brought to his place for the final wedding.. If two came upon her, the first is stoned and the second strangled¹²⁵Since she was no longer a virgin..” Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: That is Rebbi Meïr’s. But following the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “A lad” is written in the paragraph¹²⁶In the entire Pentateuch with the exception of Deut. 22:19, “girl” is written in the masculine form נער “a lad”. R. Meïr takes this as a restriction that the rules apply only to the adolescent in the strict sense. The rabbis take the spelling to mean that one deals with a girl that is not yet feminine, not yet sexually awakened. (Instead of postulating a unique Hebrew-Phoenician root נער III “youth”, the rabbis probably derive נער from the root עור “to awake”.). How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rebbi Abbahu said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written “a young woman”; this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult¹²⁷Deut. 22:19; the case of the calumniator must deal also with the possibility that the wife is criminally responsible, as pointed out by R. Meïr. Therefore, נַעֲרָ in the context of sexual offenses must mean “underage and adolescent”.. Rebbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the calumniator, “a lad” is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned¹²⁸Deut. 22:21. An underage person is not criminally responsible; the seduction of a minor is statutory rape. If the criminal sanctions do not apply, why should the rest of the rules apply to an underage girl?! What do the rabbis with this? Rebbi Abin said, explain it if he came to her as to a male¹²⁹The rapist is punished even if he uses the נַעֲרָ as if she were a נַעַר, without penetration..

Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law for him who comes to a minor¹³⁰A preliminarily married underage girl, whether by seduction or rape.? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law for him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading “an adolescent¹³¹In Deut. 22:29.”, not an adult.¹³²The man who commits adultery with an adult preliminarily married woman is punished for adultery, as if it were with a definitively married woman. Read “an adolescent”, not a minor! “‘Because he mistreated her’, that includes a minor for a fine”, read ‘because he mistreaded her’,¹³¹In Deut. 22:29. that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Jacob won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is [punished] by stoning but she is free. Rebbi Abin in the name of Samuel: Why? He understood it from the following¹³³Deut. 22:26, speaking of the preliminarily married rape victim. It should be obvious that the rape victim is innocent; why does the verse have to emphasize this?: “The man who had lain with her alone should die.” Did we not know that “the girl has not committed a capital crime”? Then why does the verse say: “Do not do anything to the girl, the girl has not committed a capital crime”? That includes him who comes to a preliminarily married underage girl that he is stoned and she is free¹³⁴The verse is not written for the adolescent rape victim, whose innocence is obvious, but for the consenting underage girl who would have committed a capital crime had she been adolescent. But because of her age, her seduction was statutory rape and she is immune from any form of punishment..

Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law for him who comes to a minor¹³⁰A preliminarily married underage girl, whether by seduction or rape.? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law for him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading “an adolescent¹³¹In Deut. 22:29.”, not an adult.¹³²The man who commits adultery with an adult preliminarily married woman is punished for adultery, as if it were with a definitively married woman. Read “an adolescent”, not a minor! “‘Because he mistreated her’, that includes a minor for a fine”, read ‘because he mistreaded her’,¹³¹In Deut. 22:29. that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Jacob won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is [punished] by stoning but she is free. Rebbi Abin in the name of Samuel: Why? He understood it from the following¹³³Deut. 22:26, speaking of the preliminarily married rape victim. It should be obvious that the rape victim is innocent; why does the verse have to emphasize this?: “The man who had lain with her alone should die.” Did we not know that “the girl has not committed a capital crime”? Then why does the verse say: “Do not do anything to the girl, the girl has not committed a capital crime”? That includes him who comes to a preliminarily married underage girl that he is stoned and she is free¹³⁴The verse is not written for the adolescent rape victim, whose innocence is obvious, but for the consenting underage girl who would have committed a capital crime had she been adolescent. But because of her age, her seduction was statutory rape and she is immune from any form of punishment..

MISHNAH: What is a lost animal¹⁰⁹The Mishnah refers to Deut. 22:1 and Ex. 23:4 which state the duty to return straying animals to their owners.? If he found a donkey or a cow grazing on the road¹¹⁰Even if no person was near watching the animal., this is no lost animal. A donkey whose gear is upside-down or a cow running in a vineyard are lost animals. If he returned it but it ran away, returned it but it ran away even four or five times, he is obligated to return it since it is said¹¹¹Deut. 22:1. The infinitive construction is regularly interpreted as implying repetition; cf. Sifry Deut. 222.: “Return it returning.” If he was losing time worth a tetradrachma¹¹²If the person finding the animal is highly paid and his time is worth much more than that of an agricultural hired hand, the question arises whether he can be forced to miss his lucrative trade in order to return a stray animal., he cannot say, give me a tetradrachma but [the owner] may pay him at the rate of an unemployed worker. If there is a court¹¹³According to Rashi, this may be an ad hoc court composed of three of the finder’s acquaintances who can empower him to charge full compensation for his time. Since the Yerushalmi does not discuss the Mishnah, its position cannot be ascertained., he can stipulate with him¹¹⁴This word is also in Alfasi’s text but only in one ms. of the Babli. R. Yosef Ḥabiba (Nimmuqe Yosef) in his commentary to Alfasi points out that the word makes no sense since the finder’s obligation already has terminated if the animal’s owner is around. before the court. If there is no court, before whom could he stipulate? His own comes first¹¹⁵There is no obligation to incur monetary loss in following Deut. 22:1..
¹¹⁶This is a continuation of Mishnah 11. On the owner’s property, no animal is staying. If one found it in the cow-shed, he has no obligation; in the public domain he is obligated. But if it was between graves, he¹¹⁷If the possible helper was a Cohen. may not defile himself. If his father told him to defile himself, or told him not to return it, he should not listen to him¹¹⁸Since both son and father are required to follow God’s commandments, if the father commands not to obey God, he must be disobeyed (Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Neziqin Chapter 20; ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 325.). ¹¹⁹Here begins the rabbinic interpretation of Ex. 23:5. If he unloaded and loaded, unloaded and loaded even four or five times, he is obligated since it is said: “restoring restore”¹²⁰Ex. 23:5; in rabbinic interpretation, the root here is עזב II. Ibn Ezra in both his commentaries ad loc. calls this “far fetched”. Onqelos, Pseudo-Jonathan, and Saadia translate as if it were written twice, first עזב I “abandon”, then עזב II “put in good order.” This may be a pun intended in the biblical text.. If he¹²¹The owner of a animal which stumbled. sat down and said, since it is your¹²²The person who comes to help. Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai, p. 215. religious obligation, if you want to unload, unload, he¹²²The person who comes to help. Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai, p. 215. is free since it is said: “with him”. It is a religious obligation to unload, but not to load; Rebbi Simeon says, also to load¹²³Implied by the parallel Deut.22:4: “uplifting you shall uplift with him.” Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Neziqin 20 (p. 326); Sifry Deut. 225.. Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, if the load was more than the ordinary, he need not do anything since it is said: “under its load,” a load which it can carry¹²⁴Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Neziqin 20 (p. 325)..

¹²⁸Babli 32a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 20 p. 323, dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai p. 215, Sifry Deut. 222, Midrash Tannaїm (Midrash Haggadol) 22:4.“if you hit upon.¹²⁹Ex. 23:5.” I could think, really if you hit upon him; the verse says, “if you see.¹³⁰Deut. 22:4.” Concerning “if you see,” I could think even at a distance of a hundred¹³¹E has מלוא מיל “a full mil”, which for practical purposes is as impossible as 100 mil. mil? The verse says, “if you hit upon.” How is this? The Sages estimated one in 7 1/2 of a mil, i. e., a stadion¹³¹E has מלוא מיל “a full mil”, which for practical purposes is as impossible as 100 mil.. ¹²⁸Babli 32a; Mekhilta dR. Ismael Neziqin 20 p. 323, dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai p. 215, Sifry Deut. 222, Midrash Tannaїm (Midrash Haggadol) 22:4. Putting in order you shall put in order,¹²⁹Ex. 23:5.” this is unloading. “Uplifting you shall uplift,¹³⁰Deut. 22:4.” this is loading. Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai says, just as his unloading is [an obligation] from the Torah, so his loading is from the Torah¹³³Whereas for the Sages he may ask to be paid for helping in loading; cf. Note 134.. ¹³⁴Babli 32b; other sources cf. Note 128. If the donkey was a Jew’s but the load a Gentile’s, everybody says that he unloads and loads. If the donkey was a Gentile’s but the load a Jew’s, according to the Sages one neither unloads nor loads. According to Rebbi Simeon one unloads but does not load.