MISHNAH: A virgin is married on Wednesday and a widow on Thursday, for in smaller towns court convenes two times per week, on Monday and Thursday, so if he has a complaint about virginity he can quickly go to court
HALAKHAH: “A virgin is married on Wednesday,” etc. Bar Qappara said, because a blessing is written there. But a blessing in only written on the Fifth and the Sixth days! On the Fifth for birds and fish. 1:22 . , on the Sixth for Adam and Eve. 1:28 . . Rebbi Yose said, the reason of Bar Qappara is the Fourth, evening of the Fifth in Bar Qappara’s name. , and the Fifth, evening of the Sixth attributed to Bar Qappara. . Is there not a blessing written also on Sabbath. 2:3 . ? No blessing is written for creatures, only for the day.
Because no blessing is written for creatures? Could she have been married on the Sabbath if a blessing were written for creatures? But was it not stated is stated in full in Berakhot 2:6 (5b 1. 7), Note 261 . : “A man should not first have sexual relations on the Sabbath, for he makes a wound.” It must follow “others”, for “others permit it. text in Berakhot . In the Babli, Ketubot 6b , the opinion of “others” is ascribed to “the Sages” and practice is decided following them. ” But “others” permit only when he is already married, for before he was married he had no right to what she finds, what she earns, and to dissolve her vows Chapter 11. . After he married her, he has the right to receive what she finds or earns, and to dissolve her vows. If you say so, he is like someone who acquires on the Sabbath. 58:13 ). . Rebbi Mana said, this means that those who marry a widow must take her in 64:5. (In Tosafot, Yoma 13b, s . v . לחדא , the statement is quoted in the name of R. Ḥanina.) The question is whether the clause “to take her in”, is different from “entering the ḥuppah ” used to describe the final marriage ceremony of a virgin. From Medieval times, ḥuppah denotes the canopy, open on all sides, under which the pair stands for the recitation of the “Seven Benedictions”. But there is no reason to assume that חוּפָּה originally meant anything but the totally covered bridal bedroom ( Ps . 19:6 ), from חפה “to cover”. There is no indication here that the rules of transfer of property rights are different for marriages of virgins and widows. when it is still daytime on Friday, that he should not be like someone who acquires on the Sabbath.
Rebbi Eleazar explains the reason given in the Mishnah, that if he has a complaint about virginity he can quickly go to court. A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: Since the time of danger vol. 6, p. 187), “danger” always refers to the persecutions after the war of Bar Kokhba, when Jewish observances were forbidden and, therefore, marrying on Wednesday would have been a capital crime. (The Babli explains otherwise.) they used to marry on Tuesdays and the Sages did not object; about Monday one does not listen to him, but if it was because of a danger it is permitted. What is “because of a danger”? because of sorcery. What is the difference between Monday and Tuesday? One who waits one day cannot be compared to one who waits two days. Why not let him wait two days? That his acquisition should not be sweet for him. Why should his acquisition not be sweet for him? One cannot tolerate it, since Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if he found the door open, he is forbidden to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. R. Eleazar holds that the Mishnah does not only give the husband the right to complain about lack of virginity but obligates him to go to court to annul his marriage since nobody can stay married to an adulterous wife ( Mishnah Soṭah 5:1 ) and he presumes his bride was deflowered after she was preliminarily married to him, up to a year earlier. In the Babli, 8b/9a , the same argument is quoted in his name. . Could we not suspect that she was raped? A rape is public knowledge. And even if you suspect that she was raped, there is no other doubt: לֹא סָפֵק אֶחָד “is there not only one doubt?” It is a generally recognized principle in both Talmudim that a single doubt referring to biblical precepts has to be judged restrictively, a double doubt leniently. Cf Yebamot 7:2, Note 73 ; Babli Beṣah 3a . . There is a doubt whether she was raped or whether she was [willingly] opened 33b ). . From the words of the Torah one has to be stringent. Rebbi Yose said, if you suspect that she was raped, there are two doubts. There is a doubt whether she was raped or whether she was [willingly] opened; there is a doubt whether it happened after she was preliminarily married or before. From the words of the Torah, with two doubts one has to be lenient.
If he performed the preliminary marriage in the bridal chamber, these strictures do not apply. They said that Rebbi Mattaniah acted thus for his daughter 6:2, Note 46 ) precedes the final marriage ceremony only by a few moments, the bride could not possibly have committed adultery and R. Eleazar’s argument becomes pointless. R. Mattaniah’s procedure was adopted by all Jewish groups (except that the bridal chamber was transformed into a canopy, Note 15 .) To separate the preliminary from the final marriage, one spends some time by publicly reading the marriage contract. However, it seems that the current procedure is not derived from any talmudic statement but is a consequence of the poverty of the remnants of the Jewish communities in Western Europe after the devastation of the First Crusade which did not allow most people to organize two festivities, one for the preliminary and a separate one for the definitive wedding; cf. I. Schepansky, התקנות בישׂראל, vol. 3, Jerusalem-NewYork 1992, pp. שע-שעא. . In the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar, could she be married any day at a place where courts are in session every day? And at a place where there are no courts (every day)). could she never be married? One does not want to abolish the time of Wednesday. Why does one not want to abolish the time of Wednesday? Because he also accepts what Bar Qappara stated. Bar Qappara said, because a blessing is written there. Could she not be married on Sunday, that he might quickly go to court on Monday? Some want to say, not to abolish the time of Wednesday; some want to say, because of what Bar Qappara stated, for Bar Qappara said, because a blessing is written there.
One agrees that she should not be married either Friday or Saturday night. Not on Friday, for the honor of the Sabbath. Not Saturday night: The colleagues say, because of the exertion; Rebbi Yose says, for the honor of the Sabbath. A baraita supports the colleagues: Why did they say, a virgin is married on Wednesday? That a man should prepare for his needs three consecutive days.
5:2 (63, 1. 64) and Ta‘aniot 4:9 (69b, 1. 50). Rebbi Abba bar Cohen said before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Idi: A man may not [preliminarily] marry on a Friday. That means, to make an engagement feast. This implies that the preliminary marriage itself is permitted. Samuel says, even on the Ninth of Ab a preliminary marriage is permitted, lest another forestall him. The argument of Samuel seems inverted. There 18b . , he says, “God puts singles in a house, etc.. 68:7 . The verse means that marriages are pre-ordained in Heaven. The verse is quoted in the name of R. Joḥanan in the Babli, Soṭa 2a and Sanhedrin 22a , to show that selecting the right mate is as difficult as the liberation of Israel from Egypt, the topic of the second half of the verse. ,” “To rise on scales; they all are of vapor!. 62:1 . In Lev . rabba 29(5 ), this verse is the topic of a sermon of R. Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of R. Levi, that when the fetuses still are like vapor in their mothers’ wombs, they already are joined together on Heaven’s scales. ” And there, he says so? That means, that he should not forestall him in prayer. Even so, it would not be permanent.
5:2 (64 1. 59), Sanhedrin 4:6 (22b 1. 17). Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Aḥa, said in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: It is forbidden to judge money matters on Friday. Does not a Mishnah object, Mishnah 4:6 : “In money matters, judgment can be rendered immediately. In criminal matters, the accused can be found innocent immediately, but he can be found guilty only the next day; therefore …” Since judgment may not be rendered on the Sabbath, the panel discussion cannot be held on Friday. : “Therefore, one does not judge criminal matters on Friday or any day before a holiday”? Therefore, one judges money matters! Also, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated thus: One judges money matters on Friday but not criminal matters. One is for practice, the other for Torah study 113a ): One does not schedule court sessions on the eve of a Sabbath or holiday. .
Rebbi Jonah in the name of Rebbi Crispus: An adult woman is like an open amphora. That means, not to let her lose her ketubah . But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. R. Eleazar holds that the Mishnah does not only give the husband the right to complain about lack of virginity but obligates him to go to court to annul his marriage since nobody can stay married to an adulterous wife ( Mishnah Soṭah 5:1 ) and he presumes his bride was deflowered after she was preliminarily married to him, up to a year earlier. In the Babli, 8b/9a , the same argument is quoted in his name. ; here he is not authorized to keep her. As Rashi explains in the Babli, there one treats the case that the husband comes to court to report the case and is ready to be convinced if the proceedings clear his wife. In the Yerushalmi one treats the case that the husband comes to complain convinced that his bride was unfaithful after preliminary marriage. Then one follows the principle that if somebody is convinced that something is forbidden, one cannot permit it. Since the husband is only subjectively forbidden to keep his wife who objectively may have been a virgin, he has to pay the full amount of her ketubah since obligations based on written contracts can be abolished only by a full proof of the guilt of the beneficiary. . This also applies to what Rebbi Ḥanina said, since Rebbi Ḥanina said: It happened that a woman was found without virginity and the case came before Rebbi. He said to her, where is it? She said, the stairs in my father’s house were high and it was rubbed off. Rebbi believed her. That means, not to let her lose her ketubah . But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. This also applies to what we stated there: “The ketubah sum of a virgin who is a widow, or a divorcee, or one who had received ḥalîṣah , after a preliminary marriage ceremony and the women are presumed to be virgins. is 200 [ zuz ], and they are subject to complaints about virginity.” That means, referring to a ketubah sum of a mina or 200 [ zuz ] sum of a non-virgin is 100 zuz , called מְנָה, a mina (1Μνᾶ = 100 Δράχμη, in contrast to the Babylonian מָנֶה manēi = 60 šeqel ). . But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. This also applies to what we stated there: “One who eats unchaperoned at his father-in-law’s in Judea cannot go to court about virginity since he was alone with her.” That means, referring to a ketubah sum of a mina or 200 [ zuz ] sum of a non-virgin is 100 zuz , called מְנָה, a mina (1Μνᾶ = 100 Δράχμη, in contrast to the Babylonian מָנֶה manēi = 60 šeqel ). . But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful one tells him that he cannot keep his wife. . This also applies to what we stated: “If somebody married a woman and found her not to be a virgin. She says, I was raped after the preliminary marriage and your field was flooded is only a mina since the ketubah is executed at the time of the final marriage, his acquisition of marital rights was at the preliminary marriage and, therefore, he cannot claim to have been lured by false pretenses and cannot annul the marriage without paying anything. , but he says, no, it was before the preliminary marriage and my acquisition was in error,” that refers to a ketubah sum of a mina or 200 [ zuz ]. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. This also applies to what we stated: “She says, I was injured by a piece of wood, but he says no, you were trampled on by a man,” that refers to a ketubah sum of a mina or 200 [ zuz ]. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. All these cases are based on what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if he found the door open, he is forbidden to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. R. Eleazar holds that the Mishnah does not only give the husband the right to complain about lack of virginity but obligates him to go to court to annul his marriage since nobody can stay married to an adulterous wife ( Mishnah Soṭah 5:1 ) and he presumes his bride was deflowered after she was preliminarily married to him, up to a year earlier. In the Babli, 8b/9a , the same argument is quoted in his name. .
When is an adult married following Rebbi Eleazar? When is a virgin after marriage married, the same as a widow who is not a virgin. Therefore, for R. Eleazar there is no reason why she should marry on a Wednesday. ? When is a woman injured by a piece of wood married following Rebbi Meïr but is not subject to a claim of missing virginity. ? Let us hear from the following: “If there are witnesses that she went out in hinuma . was lost who claims that she married as a virgin. If she can produce witnesses that ὑμέναια “wedding songs” were sung at her wedding, it is a proof that she married as a virgin (M. Sachs). Since wedding songs were prohibited after the wars of Bar Kokhba ( Soṭah 9:13, Note 189 ), the word hinuma changed its meaning. In Babylonia it became “a veil” (2:1, 26a 1. 71; Babli 17b ), in Galilee φόρημα “a litter”. ” Wednesday was not mentioned. This means that Wednesday does not mean anything.
“A widow [is married] on Thursday.” For if you would let him [marry] any other day of the year, he would go to work the next morning. Since you tell him, on a Thursday, he enjoys himself with her on Thursday, Friday, and Sabbath.
Moses instituted seven days of a marriage feast. 29:27 . But in the interpretation of Nahmanides, the Yerushalmi refers to an oral tradition going back to Moses, without reference to biblical verses. Sforno sees in Gen . 29:21 a biblical justification for R. Mattaniah’s procedure ( Note 24 ). In Yalqut Šim’oni II, 70, in a note attributed to Pirqe R . Eliezer (not in the surviving text): “The seven days of a wedding feast we learned from Jacob and Simson ( Jud . 14:12 ).” and seven days of mourning. 50:10 . Since this mourning was held before the burial, it cannot be the real paradigm for the rabbinic mourning period which starts after burial. , but he instituted nothing for the widow. Even though you say that he instituted nothing for the widow, she needs a benediction. From Boaz, as it is written 4:2 . : “And (Boaz) 4(7). took ten men of the city Elders and said, sit here, and they sat down.” Rebbi Alexander said, 4(7). from here [one learns that] the lesser person is not permitted to sit down until the more important person 4:21 ; cf. the author’s Commentary to Seder ‘Olam (Northvale NJ 1998), pp. 124–125. tells him to sit down. Rebbi Phineas said, from here [one learns that] this family appoints Elders for their marriage feasts. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, from here [one learns that] the wedding blessing needs ten people [present]. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy said, not only a bachelor marrying a virgin, but also a widower marrying a widow, since Boaz was a widower and Ruth a widow, as it is written 1:19 . The same argument in the Babli, Baba batra 91a ; Ruth rabba 3(6). “The entire city was in an uproar because of them.” Is that possible that the entire town was in alarm because of the sorry state of Naomi? But Boaz’s wife had died that very day and when all the people went to the burial, Ruth and Naomi entered. It turned out that when one left, the other entered.
It was stated: The marriage benedictions are said all seven days: “Neither the marriage benedictions nor the mourning benedictions are said all seven days.” The following discussion shows that this cannot be the correct version. . [Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say that one re-enacts the marriage all seven days.] Rebbi Yose said to him, but did not Rebbi Ḥiyya state: The benedictions of mourners are said all seven days. Can you say that one buries the dead all seven days? How is that? Since here he consoles with him, so there he enjoys with him, the positions of “consoles” and “enjoys” are switched. ; as here one remembers, so there one remembers.
are in the Babli, 12a , and the Tosephta, 1:4 . It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, in Judea in earlier times they appointed two best men, one for the bride and one for the groom, but they appointed them only for the wedding day. In contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times one let the fiancé be alone with the fiancée for an hour so that he became familiar with her; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times the best men were investigating the places of groom and bride; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. In Judea in earlier times the best men were sleeping in the room with groom and bride; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. Anybody who did not follow these rules could not present a claim of missing virginity.
There, we have stated 9:11, a statement of R. Jehudah. : “Every vine gives wine; if there is no wine it is dried up.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Does that mean that Rebbi Jehudah does not admit claims of missing virginity? Rebbi Yose said, in itself it means that Rebbi Jehudah admits claims of missing virginity, as it was stated: Rebbi Jehudah said, in Judea in earlier times they appointed two best men, one for the groom and one for the bride, but they appointed them only for the wedding day. In contrast, this was not done in Galilee … they were sleeping in the room with groom and bride; in contrast, this was not done in Galilee. How is this? She has to bring proof that she comes from a family of dryness.
Rebbi Jeremiah was of the opinion to follow the standard of Judea in Galilee. Rebbi Yose said to him, is the standard of Judea in Galilee a testimony by biblical standards? No, [one follows] the standard of Judea in Judea and the standard of Galilee in Galilee. If you say, it is not testimony by biblical standards, why appoint them? That the daughters of Israel should not become wanton in immorality. If it is that the daughters of Israel should not become wanton in immorality, even if one appoints, they should not be trustworthy! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: A man would not go to all this expense in order to give his wife a bad reputation 10a , Yebamot 107a , Qiddušin 45b .) . If it is that a man would not go to all this expense in order to give his wife a bad reputation, even if one does not appoint, he should be believed. Rebbi Hila said, because of one suspicion, because of one immoral person. Where do we hold? If he investigated and found, he found! If he did not find but investigated, did he not investigate? But we deal with the case that he did not investigate and found. She says, it is blood of virginity. He says no, it is a bird’s blood. His case is damaged since he did not follow the procedures. to keep her; here he is not authorized to keep her. As Rashi explains in the Babli, there one treats the case that the husband comes to court to report the case and is ready to be convinced if the proceedings clear his wife. In the Yerushalmi one treats the case that the husband comes to complain convinced that his bride was unfaithful after the preliminary marriage. Then one follows the principle that if somebody is convinced that something is forbidden, one cannot permit it. Since the husband is only subjectively forbidden to keep his wife who objectively may have been a virgin, he has to pay the full amount of her ketubah since obligations based on written contracts can be abolished only by a full proof of the guilt of the beneficiary. That means, not to let her lose her ketubah. But he is not permitted to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. It follows what we statedthere: “A virgin and a widow, etc.” All these cases are based on what Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if he found the door open, he is forbidden to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. R. Eleazar holds that the Mishnah does not only give the husband the right to complain about lack of virginity but obligates him to go to court to annul his marriage since nobody can stay married to an adulterous wife ( Mishnah Soṭah 5:1 ) and he presumes his bride was deflowered after she was preliminarily married to him, up to a year earlier. In the Babli, 8b/9a , the same argument is quoted in his name. .
It was stated: The claim of virginity is based on any amount (of blood). It happened that for a certain woman nothing was found except for [a stain the size of] a mustard seed. She came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, who said to her, there should be many like you in Israel. Rebbi Zachariah the son-in-law of Rebbi Levi: He cursed her, like people who, when they see a blind man, call him “much light”. The colleagues said, he needled her, any woman with little blood has few children. Rebbi Yose said, he praised her, any woman with little blood will not cause impurity to food prepared in purity.
MISHNAH: The ketubah document may stipulate higher amounts. of a virgin is 200 and that of a widow one mina The Mishnah remains noncommittal about the nature of the coin involved. . The ketubah of virgins who after a preliminary marriage ceremony and the women are presumed to be virgins. become widows, divorcees, or who received ḥalîṣah, is 200 and they are subject to a claim of non-virginity. The ketubah of a proselyte, a prisoner, and a slave who were redeemed, freed, or converted at less than three years and one day of age, is 200 and they are subject to a claim of non-virginity.
HALAKHAH: “The ketubah of a virgin is 200 and that of a widow one mina,” etc. Huna in the name of Samuel: In the Temple šeqel coins struck in Jerusalem during the first war with the Romans are silver coins weighing between 13.5 and 14.3 g. The corresponding Tyrian coinage is about 13.5 g. A Temple šeqel in Babylonian theory is twice the weight of a common šeqel, which is the name of the two-denar coin. This means that the Temple šeqel is equal, both in the Yerushalmi and in the Babli, to the Roman tetradrachma (סֶלַע), based on an unadulterated silver denar (drachma, זוּז) of 3.4 g. Tyre ceased to mint coins between the reigns of Augustus and Septimius Severus, meaning that Tyrian coins in the Mishnaic period were unadulterated silver. Samuel requires that the ketubah be adjusted for the inflation caused by the debasement of the currency in circulation. It may be that he holds that the basic ketubah amount is a biblical requirement (cf. Halakhah 13:11 ). . Rebbi Abba bar Bina said, circulating coin has to be computed on the basis of the currency in circulation. . A Mishnah supports Rebbi Abba bar Bina 8:7 ; cf. Tosephta Ketubot 12:6 . : “The five tetradrachmas of the firstborn 3:47 , identifying the biblical šeqel as tetradrachma. are in Tyrian coinage, the 30 of the slave weregilt for the killing of another person’s slave by one’s ox, Ex. 21:32 . , the 50 of the rapist and the seducer bride money paid by the rapist ( Deut. 22:29 ) and, by inference, the seducer (Ex. 22:15–16 ) of a girl. , the 100 of the slanderer 22:19 . , are all computed in Temple šeqels in Tyrian coinage.” A woman’s ketubah is not stated with them. Rebbi Abin said, did they not learn the ketubah of a woman from the rapist and the seducer 22:16 or at least they are the inspiration for the rabbis to fixate the minimum ketubah at 200 zuz. ? Since the rapist and the seducer are mentioned, it is as if women’s ketubah was stated with them does not prove anything. .
So far about a virgin. What about a widow? Rav Ḥinena said, it is enough for a widow that she take half of a virgin’s portion of a widow is a rabbinic institution. .
Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, even if “a woman’s ketubah ” was stated with them of the virgin is a biblical institution, practice could not follow that Mishnah since all amoraic authorities hold that the ketubah is a purely rabbinic institution. The Babli (Qiddu š in 10b ) quotes Mishnah Bekhorot 8:7 with the addition that “all money due by rabbinic institutions is local coin”, following R. Abba bar Bun. A similar statement underlies the text here. , do not all these rabbis disagree? Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Jonathan both say, circulating debt in legal but not circulating coin. coin. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, circulating coin. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Immi, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Jehudah Neśia: Current coin. Rebbi Joḥanan said200–400 , Money & Prices, Ramat Gan 1974, p. 223. I follow Sperber in identifying the coins referred to as those of Severus Alexander, whose Antiochene coins, following those of Elagabalus, earned the attribute of “good”, returning to earlier standards after the debasement of the gold minting by Caracalla. , good Severan tetradrachmas, Jerusalem ones of the war against the Romans, not the copper coins of Aelia Capitolina. R. Joḥanan here holds with Samuel that the ketubah goes by biblical standards. . These are saying so, those are saying otherwise! But he has to be satisfied by rabbinical standards. also changed his mind and thought like them. Are not always these saying so, those are saying otherwise is no different from most other rabbinic institutions. ? Here, even he changed his mind and thought like them.
There came a case before Rebbi Ḥanina of a woman whose ketubah was less than 200 zuz was written for 200 (debased) silver denars, as R. Ḥanina lived in the first half of the third Century C.E., at the end of the Severan dynasty and the early military anarchy. It could also be that the document was written in terms of a foreign currency, Persian or other, which when translated into local currency turned out to be less than the statutory 200 zuz. In any case, it is clear that the ketubah did not amount to the value of 50 Temple šeqel when it became due. , and he said, she should take what he had written for her. He said to Rebbi Mana, sit down and sign. He answered, follow your argument and sign yourself, did not Rebbi Ḥiyya say in the name of Samuel, by the Temple šeqel ? Rebbi Eudaimon of Sepphoris in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: Because of a renunciation is immoral and cannot be tolerated. The Babli, 57a , decides that practice follows R. Meïr, against the opinion of R. Yose (usually the higher authority) that money matters between consenting adults are their private business. The Yerushalmi discusses R. Meïr’s opinion in Halakhah 4:9 in a non-committal way; the discussion here shows that it accepts R. Yose’s opinion as determining practice.] . Now, should a woman whose ketubah was for less than 200 [ zuz ] not hide her ketubah in order to collect by the Temple šeqel ? They said in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna, at a place where one does not write a ketubah by default is 200 full weight silver denar. (A standard ketubah, as explained later, contains additions which exceed the legal minimum. Such additions are impossible if the ketubah is not written.) . But at a place where one writes a ketubah, what she presents she collects. Rebbi Joḥanan said, it was stated thus: If a deaf-mute man married a hearing wife, she has no claim for support nor ketubah, but if she died, he inherits from her, for she wanted to connect him with her property, but he could not want to connect her with his property Chapter 14. The woman who marries him can accept all financial consequences of marriage, but her husband is incompetent to do so. (Naturally, the question could be asked, how can an incompetent person inherit? The question is asked for the next statement; it could have been asked here. The Babli, Yebamot 113a , notes that if the husband is healed and becomes able to conduct business, the marriage ceremony has to be repeated.) . If a hearing male married a deaf-mute woman, she has a claim to support and ketubah, but if she died, he does not inherit, for he wanted to connect her with his property, but she could not want to connect him with her property. But can a deaf-mute woman acquire and have ketubah ? that could be enforced against her husband’s legal heirs, whose claim to the inheritance is biblical? In contrast, the Babli, Yebamot 113a , holds that in this case of a deaf-mute bride her legal status is irrelevant; since the groom dedicated the ketubah money to her, the court will transfer it to her guardians. This must also be the theory of the Tosephta, 1:3 , which prescribes 200 zuz for the virgin deaf-mute or insane bride. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, explain it that at the moment he married her, she was hearing. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, he married her when she was hearing but she turned deaf-mute. In any case, did he not marry her when she was hearing? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, explain it that she was deaf-mute and turned hearing; he married her when she was hearing and she turned deaf. That you should not say, because at the start she was deaf-mute she has [no] ketubah, therefore it is necessary to say that she (does not have) [has] Only the latter make sense. . Rebbi Yose does not say so, but since if one has sexual relations with a deaf-mute, is he not liable for a fine of the Babli (36a ) quote the Tosephta to the effect that she has a claim, but Tosafot RID quotes “she has no claim”. S. Lieberman concludes that the original version of the Babli (if there existed a uniform original version) cannot be reconstrued. He also accepts the emendation of M. Margalit: אִילּוּ מִי שֶׁבָּא עַל הַחֲרֶשֶׁת שֶׁמָּא אִית לָהּ קְנָס. וְכָל־שֶׁאֵין לָהּ קְנָס אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. “If one has sexual relations with a deaf-mute, would he be not liable for a fine? Since there is no fine there is no ketubah .” Even though this changes only one letter in the text, one should hesitate to accept emendations of M. Margalit without very convincing reasons. ? Only if there were no fine would there be no ketubah. Rebbi Yudan said, does that depend on a fine? Look, the adult woman collects no fine but her ketubah is 200, the virgin after marriage collects a fine but her ketubah is a mina, the same as a widow who is not a virgin. Therefore, for R. Eleazar there is no reason why she should marry on a Wednesday. !
113a . ”A deaf-mute or an insane male who were taken in by a hearing woman. Even if the deaf-mute became hearing, or the insane sane, she has no ketubah. If he wants to keep her, her ketubah is one mina.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Only if he slept with her after he became hearing or sane. If he did not sleep with her after he became hearing or sane, she does not even have a ketubah of a mina.
At less than three years and one day of age, Rebbi Yose in the name of [Rav] Ḥiyya bar Ashi, Rebbi Jonah, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Rav: What is this like? One makes a dimple in the flesh which straightens out by itself. Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Like one who muddies a source which becomes clear again. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so 5:4 : Younger than that, it is as if one puts a finger on an eye. 6:13, Notes 138-141 . Variant readings: ונמלכין ׀ נמלכו, אין הבתולין ׀ אינן, הבתולין ׀ בתולין. Rebbi Abun said: “I am calling to Almighty God, to the God who decides with me.” If a girl is three years and one day old, if the Court decided to lengthen, her hymen repairs itself, otherwise her hymen does not repair itself.
MISHNAH: If an adult male had sexual relations with an underage girl, or an underage boy with an adult female, or one injured by wood, their ketubot are 200 [ zuz ] , the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, the ketubah of one injured by wood is a mina.
HALAKHAH: “If an adult male had sexual relations with an underage girl,” etc. What is an underage boy and what is an underage girl? They said in the name of Rebbi Jehudah ben Ḥagra, an underage boy is younger than nine years and one day Mishnaiot 10:15–18; Chapter 3, Note 143 . The sex act of a younger boy has no legal consequences. , an underage girl is younger than three years and one day. One understands that if an adult male had sexual relations with an underage girl, her hymen repairs itself. If an underage boy has sexual relations with an underage female, her hymen repairs itself. But if an underage boy has sexual relations with an adult female, her hymen does not repair itself! Rebbi Abin, explain it that he had relations with her without penetration. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abin said, you can even say that he had normal relations with her. The relations of an underage boy are relations but he does not have the force to damage her hymen. It was stated thus: It happened that [an adult] became pregnant while her hymen was intact 14b/15a , holds that an intact virgin might become pregnant in a bathtub from semen floating there. .
They objected to Rebbi Meïr: There is no hymen and you say, her ketubah is 200 [ zuz ] ? He answered them, is that dependent on the hymen? But the adult has no hymen and her ketubah is 200! the virgin widow has a hymen and her ketubah is a mina after the recitation of the wedding benedictions. ! What is the reason? The adult still has all her grace; the virgin widow has lost her grace. Where do they disagree? If she was injured by wood. Rebbi Meïr says, she did not lose her grace, but the rabbis say, she lost her grace.
Did they disagree that a virgin who had sexual relations with an underage boy 6:5, Note 108 ; 7:5, Note 105 ; 13:1, Note 14 ) that sexual relations between unmarried partners are always harlotry which bars the female from marrying a priest. For all other authorities, there would only be a problem regarding the High Priest who may marry only a virgin. or with someone who is not a man is enabled for the priesthood? Rebbi Ḥalaphta ben Shaul said, she is enabled even for the High Priest 59b , this is an Amoraic statement by Samuel. .
Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ammi asked: What is the difference between her and one who had sex with a finger? Is the one who had sex with a finger not disabled for priesthood? Rebbi Haggai said, explain it that there was no penetration. . Rebbi Haggai wanted to change his mind; Rebbi Abba said to him, do not change your mind. Why did Rebbi Haggai want to change his mind? Because of the verse. 21:13 , speaking of the high priest. The complicated expression אִשָּׁהבִבְתוּלֶיהָ “a woman in her virginities” instead of simpy בְּתוּלָה “a virgin” calls for an explanation. : “But he shall marry a wife in her virginities,” only if she is a virgin in both respects 59a . . Similarly, “a virgin and no man had known her.. 24:16 ; here again the double expression calls for an explanation. In Gen . rabba 60(5 ), the explanation is ascribed to R. Simeon ben Laqish. ” A virgin, with respect to penetration. No man had known her, without penetration. Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, [no man] ever had wanted to touch her hand, for it was said. 125:3 . In Gen . rabba 60(5 ), this explanation is ascribed to R. Joḥanan. : “The staff of evil shall not rest on the just’s lot.” Why did Rebbi Haggai want to change his mind? He could explain it by “touching”. Why does (Rav Yosef) [Rebbi Yasa] not explain it by “touching”? Rebbi Mana said, because it presented a problem for him: Rebbi Yasa asked: What is the legal status of “touching”4:2, Note 59 ; Mishnah 6:1 ) and for criminal law ( Mishnah Keritut 2:4 ; cf. Soṭah 1:2, Notes 97,98). The same question is asked in Qiddušin 1:1 (59c 1. 14). with a male? “Touching” with an animal? When Rebbi Jeremiah heard that of Rebbi Haggai, he said, that was not Rebbi Ammi’s problem.
MISHNAH: For virgins who after a final marriage become widows, divorcees, or who received ḥalîṣah after the recitation of the wedding benedictions. , their ketubah is a mina and they are not subject to a claim of non-virginity. For a proselyte, a prisoner, and a slave who were redeemed, converted, or freed at more than three years and one day of age, their ketubah is a mina and they are not subject to a claim of non-virginity.
HALAKHAH: “A virgin, a widow, a divorcee after final marriage,” etc. Who is a virgin after marriage? Rebbi Joḥanan said, any who entered the bridal chamber but her witnesses testify that she had no sexual relations. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that if a man married a woman under the presumption “holding fast” is the presumption that a known status quo ante remains unchanged until a change in status has been observed. In the case here, the groom had the right to assume that his bride was still the virgin she had been at birth. If before the marriage he required special assurances that the bride was a virgin, that is not a case of presumption, and if she was not virginal he can claim acquisition in error and annulment of marriage and forfait of ketubah . that she was a virgin and she turned out not to be a virgin, that is not an erroneous acquisition to deprive her of the ketubah of a mina of one mina; this shows that the presumption does not exclude that the bride was not a virgin. In the Babli, 11b (13a), a statement of Rav Sheshet; this might imply that “R. Yose” here is R. Yasa. . If a man married a woman under the presumption that she never had illegitimate sex and she turned out that she had illegitimate sex, that is not an erroneous acquisition to deprive her of the ketubah of a mina.
Rebbi Eleazar asked, what about a male who sleeps with a manumitted slave girl of the freedwoman is determined in Mishnaiot 1:2 , 4 and her right to the fine imposed on the rapist or the seducer in 3:1 , 2 . R. David Fraenckel emends מהו to מניין and reads the question as asking for the biblical source of the Mishnaiot mentioned. ? Let us hear from the following: I could think that a male who sleeps with a Gentile slave has to pay; the verse says. 22:15 . : “He shall take her as wife by the bride price.” If he can marry her. This excludes the [gentile] slave (or any) whom he cannot marry. Only because he cannot marry her! Therefore, if he can marry her, she collects the fine, and any who collects the fine has a ketubah . Rebbi Yudan said, does that depend on a fine? Look, the adult collects no fine but her ketubah is 200, the virgin after marriage collects a fine but her ketubah is a mina, the same as a widow who is not a virgin. Therefore, for R. Eleazar there is no reason why she should marry on a Wednesday. ! Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana, explain it if she was converted or freed before she reached three years and one day. He said to him, any woman who was converted or manumitted before she reached three years and one day is like an Israel. 44:22 ; cf. Bikkurim 1:5 (Notes 89–99 ), Babli Yebamot 60b .] .
The blind woman and the she-ram 1:1, Note 65 . are subject to claims of missing virginity. Symmachos said in the name of Rebbi Meïr that the blind woman is not subject to claims of missing virginity. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? I say, he found [her to be a virgin] and destroyed [the evidence] over having 200 zuz with a chance of being deprived of it by a cheating husband. . What is the rabbi’s reason? She can catch him. What does Rebbi Meïr with this argument? He can cleanse it with spittle.
13:15, Notes 123–130 ; cf. Babli Yebamot 111b . The variant readings from Yebamot are indicated by י. It was stated: A claim of non-virginity may be brought within thirty days, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, immediately. Where do we hold? If he copulated, immediately. If he did not copulate, even after a longer delay. But we must deal with the case that it was not spelled out. Rebbi Meïr said, it is credible that a man may hold himself back for thirty days. But the Sages say, a man does not hold himself back even for one day. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: According to Rebbi Meïr, would a man be believed to assert that he held himself back for thirty days in order to make the child of unknown paternity? Let us hear from the following: “If the sister-in-law claims within thirty days that she was not copulated with, one forces him to perform ḥalîṢah with her. After thirty days, one asks him to perform ḥalîṢah with her.” And Rebbi Eleazar said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s. And Rebbi Eleazar said, that refers only to her, but not to her co-wife. As you say there, she is not believed to damage her co-wife, so here, he is not believed to damage his son.
MISHNAH: If somebody eats at his father-in-law’s in Judea without chaperones cannot claim missing virginity since he is alone with her. Both for an Israel widow as a Cohanim widow the ketubah is a mina. The court of priests collected 400 zuz for a virgin was lost. , to which the Sages did not object.
HALAKHAH: “If somebody eats at his father-in-law’s,” etc. In earlier times they decided on a persecution in Judea because they had a tradition from their forefathers that Jehudah had killed Esaw. rabba to 5:7 . The story that Jehudah killed Esaw when the latter wanted to kill Jacob at Isaac’s funeral is in Midraš Soḥer ṭob 18:32, mentioned in Sifry Deut . 348, quoted in Yalquṭ Šim‘ony 162. In the tradition of the Babli, Soṭa 13a , Esaw was killed by Ḥushim ben Dan at Jacob’s funeral. , as it is written. 49:8 . : “Your hand is on your enemies’ neck.” They went and enslaved them and raped their daughters; they decided that a soldier over girls married on Wednesdays. would have sex with her first. They decreed that her husband should come to her when still in her father’s house; for when she knows that her husband’s fear is on her she is drawn after him. But is she not in the end being used for sex by a soldier? She is raped, and a rape victim is permitted to her husband. 7, based on Num . 5:13 . . What did Cohanot do? They were hiding them. Why did they not also hide the daughters of Israel? That becomes talk and the government hears it; then these and those will be taken together. What kind of a sign did they have? The talk of a cook in town: There is a wedding meal, there is a wedding meal; there is light in Beror-Ḥayil was the residence of Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai after the first war with the Romans; it must have been in the imperial domain of Jabneh, in the plain. Lights were lit to indicate an invitation to attend a forbidden circumcision, just as the presence of a professional cook indicated a wedding. : a week for a son, a week for a son. When the persecution ended, the custom did not end. Rebbi Hoshaia’s 3:3 , 50 c 1. 71). daughter-in-law was pregnant when she married definitively.
It was stated: “And for a widow 200. for a widow, against the explicit testimony of the Mishnah. In the opinion of the Babli, 12a/b , the priestly families tried to enforce this for their daughters but were forced to retract since nobody would take a widow for 200 zuz when he could get a virgin for the same price. The Babli also gives to non-priestly noble families the right to establish the higher tariff as default option for their daughters; the Yerushalmi considers this part of the Mishnah obsolete. ” It was stated: “This order applies both to a widow of an Israel and a widow of a Cohen”. Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable that the daughter of a Cohen should collect, for her tribe collects. The daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen should not collect; is it not sufficient that she rose to the priesthood that you say, she should collect? Rebbi Mana said, it is reasonable the other way. The daughter of an Israel married to a Cohen should collect for she rose to the priesthood; the daughter of a Cohen should not collect for she stepped down from the priesthood. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, in both cases they demanded a fine so that everybody should cling to his tribe and family.
MISHNAH: Somebody married a woman and found that she was no virgin. She says, I was raped after you had married me preliminarily, so your field was flooded. He says not so, but it happened before I married you preliminarily; therefore, my acquisition was made in error. Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer say, she is believed was raped later is stronger than his assertion that maybe she was raped or had consensual sex earlier. If the husband wants to deny her claim, he has to provide evidence. . Rebbi Joshua said, we do not live off her mouth but there is a presumption that she had sexual relations before she was preliminarily married unless she provides proof of her statement and he does not want to pay at all, she claims money and a claimant in a civil suit carries the burden of proof. .
HALAKHAH: “Somebody married a woman and found that she was no virgin”, etc. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Does this mean that a claim of missing virginity is impossible following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, only following Rebbi Joshua? He turned around and said, a claim of missing virginity is possible following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, if she remains silent. And even if you say that she talks, if she said that he found her a virgin and destroyed the evidence. Why should she not be believed? One cannot tolerate it, since Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, if he found the door open, he is forbidden to keep her because she might have been unfaithful. R. Eleazar holds that the Mishnah does not only give the husband the right to complain about lack of virginity but obligates him to go to court to annul his marriage since nobody can stay married to an adulterous wife ( Mishnah Soṭah 5:1 ) and he presumes his bride was deflowered after she was preliminarily married to him, up to a year earlier. In the Babli, 8b/9a , the same argument is quoted in his name. . Here you say, she is believed. There, you say that she is not believed. In this case, both agree that the door was open her to be guilty, has to divorce her irrespective of the real facts behind the case. .
There, we have stated: “If she had bodily defects while still in her father’s house, the father has to bring proof.” Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Is this Mishnah from Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer? Not from Rebbi Joshua? He said to him, those are everybody’s words. There is a difference because bodily defects have a way to appear. Rebbi Yose said, formerly we saw rabbis who compared bodily defects to [defects of] virginity. These can be inferred from those and those can be inferred from these. Bodily defects from claims of missing virginity: For if he slept with her in her father’s house, the father has to provide proof. Claims of missing virginity from bodily defects: For if she developed bodily defects and there is a doubt whether it happened after she entered his domain or before she entered his domain, the husband has to provide proof, from claims of missing virginity. But if she lost her virginity, was it not in her father’s house? Nevertheless, you say, the husband has to provide proof; so here also, the husband has to provide proof.
MISHNAH: She says, I was injured by wood, but he says not so, you were trampled on by a man; Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer say, she is believed was raped later is stronger than his assertion that maybe she was raped or had consensual sex earlier. If the husband wants to deny her claim, he has to provide evidence. . Rebbi Joshua said, we do not live off her mouth but there is a presumption that she was trampled on by a man unless she provides proof of her statement and he does not want to pay at all, she claims money and a claimant in a civil suit carries the burden of proof. .
HALAKHAH: “She says, I was injured by wood,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, that follows Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr said the ketubah of one injured by wood is 200 [ zuz ] as ketubah but he does not want to give anything. This is the position articulated by R. Huna here. R. Joḥanan holds that she claims 200 but he wants to give only 100. . Rebbi Yose said, we would think to say, when did Rebbi Meïr disagree with those rabbis? If he took her in assuming she was injured by wood. But if he took her in assuming she was a virgin and it turned out she was injured by wood, then even Rebbi Meïr agrees, R. Meïr agrees that he can sue to annul the contract. , since we have stated: “She says, I was injured by wood, but he says not so, you were trampled on by a man.” That means, there is a disagreement even if he took her in assuming she was injured by wood of one who claims to have been injured by wood. and she turned out to have been injured by wood. Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira did not say so, but: She says, I was injured by wood and my ketubah is 200 [ zuz ]. He says, it is not so, but you were trampled on by a man and you have no claim on me. What are we talking about? If he married her as a virgin and she turns out to have been injured by wood, Rebbi Meïr will agree, R. Meïr agrees that he can sue to annul the contract. . If he married her as one injured by wood and she turns out to have been injured by wood, is there a recognizable difference in the opening of the door between wood or man 9:8 , 17a 1.56). ? Rebbi Huna in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira did not say so, but: She says, I was injured by wood and so I stipulated with you, but he says, it is not so, but you were trampled on by a man and there was no stipulation between you and me as ketubah but he does not want to give anything. This is the position articulated by R. Huna here. R. Joḥanan holds that she claims 200 but he wants to give only 100. .
MISHNAH: If she was seen speaking to a man and one asked her, what kind of man is this? He is Mr. X, a Cohen; Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer say, she is believed. Rebbi Joshua said, we do not live off her mouth but there is a presumption that she was lying with a Gibeonite and a bastard unless she provides proof of her statement 1:1, Note 29 ) and Gibeonites by tradition (cf. Yebamot 2:4, Note 72 ). Therefore, a woman sleeping with such a man is a זוָנָה and forbidden to marry a Cohen ( Yebamot 6:5, Note 100 ). .
HALAKHAH: “If she was seen speaking to a man,” etc. What is “speaking”? She had sexual relations. Why did we state “speaking”? An expression for the knowing; Rebbi says, of purity.
Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshia: Practice follows Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer since two form a majority against one. Rebbi Yose asked: If it is practice, why two? And if two, why practice? Would that mean if Rebbi Joḥanan would hold with Rebbi Joshua that practice would not follow Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer but Rebbi Joshua? What about it? It is a testimony for which a woman in empowered Chapter 15). The Babli concurs, 13b . . They wanted to say, when does Rebbi Joshua disagree with these rabbis? At a place where most are disabling, but at a place where most are qualified, even Rebbi Joshua will agree that anybody who comes from a group belongs to the majority in that group” ( Babli, 15a ). In a town where most inhabitants are Gentile, or otherwise disqualified from marrying Jewish women, one would assume that the unidentified man sleeping with that woman was disqualified (siding with R. Joshua), but in a town where she could legally marry most of the men, he would be qualified (siding with Rabban Gamliel and R. Eliezer). . There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: There is disagreement even at a place where most are qualified. Does Rebbi Joshua think that immorality runs after the disabling? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, a baraita stated that even qualified people whore, as it was stated: Even the most pious man cannot be appointed guardian for illicit sex 1:5 , N. 82. .
MISHNAH: If she was pregnant and one asked her, what kind of fetus is this? He is from Mr. X, a Cohen; Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer say, she is believed. Rebbi Joshua said, we do not live off her mouth but there is a presumption that she is pregnant from a Gibeonite or a bastard unless she provides proof of her statement.
HALAKHAH: “If she was pregnant,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar said, everybody agrees that the child is of unknown paternity 4:1 , the child of unknown paternity is barred from intermarrying with qualified Jews and is permitted only marriage with proselytes, freedmen, bastards, Gibeonites, those of unknown paternity, and foundlings. . It was stated thus: “Where was this said, for the testimony of the woman in her own behalf. But everybody agrees that the child is of unknown paternity.” Rebbi Joḥanan said to him, simply of unknown paternity! We find that a child of unknown paternity can be High Priest. How is this possible? A group of Cohanim was passing by, one of them came and had sexual relations; it turns out that the child of unknown paternity can be High Priest. 25:13 : “A covenant of priesthood it shall be for him and his seed after him”, from which it is inferred that only a Cohen’s child which is recognized as his is a Cohen. In the case under discussion, the child “is silenced from claiming priesthood”. .
Rebbi Eleazar said to him: Is not the dough widow qualified but her daughter is disqualified? He said to him, whoever declares her to be qualified, declares her daughter to be qualified. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, did he not say “whoever declares her to be qualified”? This implies that there is another who disqualifies! Who declares qualified? Rebbi Meïr. Who disqualifies? The rabbis. As we have stated 5:2 ) and the Babli (14a ; Qiddušin 4:4 , 66a 1.29), there is no mention of the desecrated, but there is the added category of “king’s slaves”, who were used by the king to run the state and, by their influence and riches, were able to marry Jewish women even if not manumitted. In Jewish tradition ( Rashi 14a ), Herod was a slave of the Hasmoneans. In the Babli tradition (cf. Otzar haGeonim 8, Ketubot , הפירושים p. 12 ), the dough widow was a woman who had married a man possibly descending from a desecrated woman. This definition is reproduced by Rashi, 14a . The difference between the Galilean and Babylonian traditions was already highlighted by Rabbenu Hananel ( Otzar ha-Geonim l . c., לקוטי פירוש רבינו חננאל p. 12). : What is qualified dough, anyone about whom there is [no suspicion of descent from] a desecrated, a bastard, or a Gibeonite. Rebbi Meïr says, the daughter of any woman not tainted with one of these is qualified for thepriesthood. But about a family in which a disability had disappeared, Rebbi Meïr says he checks up to four mothers 4:4 . and marries, but the Sages say, he checks forever.
Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira had a different version: Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan, what is the rule about a dough widow? He said to him, she is qualified. What about her daughter? He said to him, the one who declares her to be qualified, declares her daughter to be qualified. They wanted to say, according to Rebbi Eleazar, a child of unknown paternity is disqualified 4:1 , the child of unknown paternity is barred from intermarrying with qualified Jews and is permitted only marriage with proselytes, freedmen, bastards, Gibeonites, those of unknown paternity, and foundlings. ; according to Rebbi Joḥanan, a child of unknown paternity is qualified. Rebbi Joḥanan also holds that in some cases a child of unknown paternity is disqualified; he answered [Rebbi Eleazar] following the latter’s reasoning: Since you reason that the child is simply of unknown paternity, we find that a child of unknown paternity can be High Priest! How is this possible? A group of Cohanim was passing by, one of them came and had sexual relations; it turns out that the child of unknown paternity can be High Priest. 25:13 : “A covenant of priesthood it shall be for him and his seed after him”, from which it is inferred that only a Cohen’s child which is recognized as his is a Cohen. In the case under discussion, the child “is silenced from claiming priesthood”. .
The word of Rebbi Zera implies that a child of unknown paternity is qualified, for Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: Is it the same for families4:1 excludes a child of unknown paternity from marrying most Jews. What is the relation of the two Mishnaiot? ? He said to him, so says Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: There, for families. , but here for sanctified food in the country. 23:9 ). . The word of Rebbi Samuel ben [Rav] Isaac implies that a child of unknown paternity is disqualified, for Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac asked: Does this mean that a child of unknown paternity is does not exist following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, only following Rebbi Joshua? He turned around and said, a child of unknown paternity is possible following Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, if she remains silent. And even if you say that she talks, if she said that she does not know.
MISHNAH: Rebbi Yose said: It happened that, when a girl was raped while she went to draw water from the spring, Rebbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri said: If most people of the town can marry into the priesthood then she can marry into the priesthood.
HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Yose said: It happened,” etc. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: That happened at the source of Sepphoris.
Both Rebbi Jeremiah, Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba, say in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Yannai: Rebbi Joshua agrees in the case of the rape victim. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Joshua agrees in the case of the rape victim. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rebbi Yose who said in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: How does one act in a practical case? He said to him, following Rebbi Yose who spoke in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri.
Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he disqualifies since he cohabited there. What about a thoroughfare 5:1, Note 56 . The thoroughfare is government property even in the town. ? Rebbi ‘ Olam ; cf. the author’s Introduction (pp. x–xi) to hisedition of Seder ‘ Olam (Northvale 1998). Jeremiah bar Abba, Rebbi Yose says: By a majority. The force of Rebbi ‘ Olam ; cf. the author’s Introduction (pp. x–xi) to hisedition of Seder ‘ Olam (Northvale 1998). Jeremiah comes from the following which Rebbi Ḥiyya had said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a wall fell in a dead-end street populated by Gentiles, but where one Jew lived, one digs there because of the Jew; but in a thoroughfare one follows the majority. And what is the interpretation of what Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, if he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there? In the opinion of Rebbi ‘ Olam ; cf. the author’s Introduction (pp. x–xi) to hisedition of Seder ‘ Olam (Northvale 1998). Jeremiah, if one saw him coming out of a house. In the opinion of Rebbi Yose, even in a thoroughfare. If Sepphoris was locked. Rebbi Yose says, until there is proof. But here, Rebbi Yose says, by a majority! The force of Rebbi Yose comes from the following, which Rebbi Ze‘ira had said: 3:4, Notes 93–96 ; the variant readings are noted ד . The problem is that a person who is careful about the laws of tithing brings his grain to a mill that also serves the ‘ am haäreṢ , the person who can be presumed to have given heave but not tithes from his grain. If the miller switches batches, the observant is in trouble. Rebbi [Ḥiyya] (Yose), those in parentheses from Ketubot . The text from Demay seems preferable. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If his [box] (bread), those in parentheses from Ketubot . The text from Demay seems preferable. was exchanged at the miller’s, if it was established that an am haäreẓ gave [grain] to be milled there that day, he has to worry. ; otherwise, he does not have to worry. Should he not worry? What is the difference between this and the Saracens? Was it not stated: “If a group of Saracens one day provisioned themselves from forbidden supplies, then that day becomes a proof for all days.” It is impossible for Saracens not to supply themselves. But here it was not established that the am haäreẓ was milling there that day.. The quote establishes that there is a presumption that things go wrong, in our case that the rapist was from a family disqualified for the priesthood. And here, I am saying that the disqualified person went to draw water only that day, and one has to worry. And here, Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: He cohabited with her inside of Sepphoris. And here, Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he was seen coming out of Sepphoris and he cohabited, the presumption is that he is disqualified since he cohabited there.
“And everything found is judged by a majority.” 6:1 ). In difficult cases the rabbis compare this to crawling things. 11:29–30 contains a list of “crawling things”, mostly reptiles, whose cadaver is a source of impurity. The only cadavers that produce impurity are those of crawling things and mammals. , as it was stated is in the Babli 15a , Niddah 18a and Tosephta Tahorot 6:2 . : “Nine frogs and one crawling thing in a private domain 1:2, Note 88 . , if somebody touched one of them and it is not known which one he touched, in doubt he is impure. If he transferred to the public domain and touched, in doubt he is pure. If he returned to the private domain and touched, in doubt he is impure. And for what is found one follows the majority.” Rav Ḥisda said, no valiant person can find his hands. Rebbi Immi said, praise to Him Who chose them of Abot . and their words; do not compare this to a private domain but to the public domain! As it was stated: “Nine crawling things and one frog between them in the public domain, if somebody touched one of them and it is not known which one he touched, in doubt he is pure. If he transferred to a private domain and touched, in doubt he is impure. If he returned to the public domain and touched, in doubt he is pure. And for what is found one follows the majority.” Rav Ḥisda said, no valiant person can find his hands. Rebbi Immi said, praise to Him Who chose them and their words; is the spring of Sepphoris not public domain? Rebbi Yose said, since the two could be alone together it is treated as private domain.
It happened that a baby girl was noticed who had been thrown on a garbage heap. The case came before Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose, who said, she should be adjoined to dough. Rebbi Jeremiah thought to say, to qualified dough, would Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose disagree with his father? Rebbi Yose said, even if you say to disqualified dough, Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose would not disagree with his father. Why? While the qualified whore, only the disqualified throw away.