8. If a man betrothed a woman with his portion3 of either the Most Holy Things or the Lesser Holy Things,4 her betrothal is not valid. If [he betrothed her] with Second Tithe,5 whether in error or wantonly, the be¬ trothal is not valid.6 So R. Meir. R. Judah says: If he acted in error7 the betrothal is not valid, but if wantonly8 the betrothal is valid. If it was with dedicated produce and he acted wantonly the betrothal is valid, and if in error the betrothal is not valid. So R. Meir. R. Judah says: If in error the betrothal is valid,9 but if wantonly the betrothal is not valid.10 9. If a man betrothed a woman with Orlah-irmV 1 or Diverse Kinds of the Vineyard,12 or with an ox condemned to be stoned,13 or with a heifer whose neck was to be broken,14 or with the Bird-offerings of a leper,15 or with the Hair-offering of a Nazirite,16 or with the firstborn of an ass,17 or with flesh cooked with milk,*8 or with unconsecrated beasts slaughtered in the Temple Court,19 the betrothal is not valid. But if he had sold them and betrothed her with their price her betrothal is valid.
10. If a man betrothed a woman with Heave-offering20 or Tithes or [Priests’] Dues21 or Sin-offering water or the ashes of the Sin-offering,22 her betrothal is valid, even if he was an Israelite.23 3. 1. If a man said to his fellow, ‘Go and betroth to me such-a-woman’, 2 When it was ownerless property ( Lev. 25**.). In other years what belonged to them could not have been used by him to betroth them.
j Which he had received with his fellow- priests. 4 See Zeb. 51-*.
6 Since it was not his but the Temple’s; it is his only to eat.
• i.e. he had intended taking it up to Jerusalem; therefore he did not consider it common produce, free for his ordinary use.
* He proved that he had no intention of taking it up to Jerusalem or of redeeming it, thereby rendering it common produce.
4 He has committed Sacrilege (Lev. 5uf.) and rendered the Hallowed Thing unfit for its purpose; but he can make restitution.
i0 Since he cannot make restitution; the Hallowed Thing still remains the property of the Temple. 11 App. I. 32. 12 Seep. 28, n. 1. Ex. 21“. 14 Deut. 2ilfl.
18 Ex. 23“; 34**; Deut. 14”. 19 All of which are forbidden for any kind of use.
21 The shoulder and the two cheeks and the maw, which an Israelite must give to the priest from every beast he slaughters. Deut. i8J. 22 Num.
23 i.e. a non-priest, who had received these as his rightful property by inheritance, e.g. from his mother’s father (who was a priest) or his mother, who had married an Israelite.
and he went and betrothed her to himself, her betrothal is valid. So, too, if a man said to a woman, ‘Be thou betrothed to me after thirty days’ time’, and another came and betrothed her during the thirty days, she is betrothed to the second; and if she was the daughter of an Israelite and he a priest, she may eat of Heave-offering. [If he said, ‘Be thou betrothed to me] from now and after thirty days’, and another came and betrothed her during the thirty days, she is betrothed and she is not betrothed; and if she was the daughter of an Israelite and he a priest, or if she was the daughter of a priest and he an Israelite, she may not eat of Heave-offering.
2. If a man said to a woman, ‘Be thou betrothed to me on the condition that I give thee 200 zuz', her betrothal is valid, but he must give it to her; [if] ‘on condition that before thirty days I give it thee’, and her gave it her within the thirty days, the betrothal is valid; otherwise it is not valid. [If he said, ‘Be thou betrothed to me] on the condition that I have 200 zuz', the betrothal is valid if he has them; [if he said], ‘on the condition that I show thee 200 zuz', the betrothal is valid, but he must show her them; and if he showed her them on a [money-changer’s] table, her betrothal is not valid.
3. [If he said, ‘Be thou betrothed to me] on the condition that 1 have a kor's space1 of land’, her betrothal is valid if he has it; [if he said,] ‘on the condition that I have land in such a place’, and he has it in such a place, her betrothal is valid; otherwise it is not valid. [If he said, ‘Be thou betrothed to me] on the condition that I show thee a kor's space of land’, the betrothal is valid if he shows it to her; but if he showed her [land] in the valley [which was not his] her betrothal is not valid.
4. R. Meir says: No condition is valid that is not according to the con¬ dition of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben,2 as it is written, And Moses said unto them, If the children of Gad and the children of Reuben will pass over, and it is also written, But if they will not pass over armed.* R. Hanina b. Gamaliel says: It was needful that this should be said, for otherwise the meaning might be that even in the land of Canaan they should inherit naught.
5. If a man betrothed a woman and said, ‘I had thought that she was the daughter of a priest and, Io, she is the daughter of a levite’, or ‘that she was the daughter of a levite and, lo, she is the daughter of a priest’, or ‘that she was poor and, lo, she is rich’, ‘that she was rich and, lo, she is poor', her betrothal is valid, since it was not she that deceived him. If a man said to a woman, ‘Be thou betrothed to me after that I shall become a proselyte’, or ‘after that thou shalt become a proselyte’, or ‘after that I shall have been freed’, or ‘after that thou shalt have been freed’, or ‘after that thy husband dies’, or ‘after that thy sister dies’, or ‘after that thou hast performed halitzah with thy deceased husband’s brother’, her betrothal is not valid. So, too, if a man said to his fellow, ‘If thy wife bears a female child let it be betrothed to me’, her betrothal is not valid.4 But if his fellow’s wife was with child and her pregnancy was manifest, his words hold good, and if she bore a female child her betrothal is valid.
6. If a man said to a woman, ‘Be thou betrothed to me on the condition that I speak on thy behalf to the governor’, or ‘that I work with thee as a labourer’, and he spoke on her behalf to the governor or worked with her as 1 App. II, E. * Showing the consequence if the conditions are not fulfilled.
* The Cambridge text reads, ’she has said nothing’, and omits the rest of the paragraph.
326 THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM a labourer, her betrothal is valid; otherwise her betrothal is not valid. [If he said, ‘Be thou betrothed to me] on the condition that my father con¬ sents’, and his father consented, her betrothal is valid; otherwise it is not valid. If the father died her betrothal is valid. But if the son died, they instruct the father to say that he did not consent.'
7. [If a man said,] ‘I gave my daughter in betrothal but I do not know to whom I gave her’, and one came and said, ‘I betrothed her’, he may be believed. If one said, ‘I betrothed her’, and another said, ‘I betrothed her’, they must both give her a bill of divorce; but if they were so minded the one may give her a bill of divorce and the other may marry’ her.
8. [If a man said,] ‘I gave my daughter in betrothal’,1 2 or ‘I gave her in betrothal and accepted her bill of divorce while she wras yet a minor’, and she is [still] a minor, he may be believed. [If he said,] ‘I gave her in be¬ trothal and accepted her bill of divorce while she was yet a minor’ and she is now of age, he may not be believed. [If he said,] ‘She w’as taken captive and I ransomed her’, whether she was yet a minor or whether she was of age, he may not be believed. If at the hour of his death a man said, ‘I have children’,3 he may be believed; [if he said,] ‘I have brothers’, he may not be believed. If a man gave one of his daughters in betrothal and did not stipulate which, they that were already past their girlhood4 are not taken into account.
9. If a man had two groups of daughters by two wives, and he said, ‘I have given one of my elder daughters in betrothal but I do not know whether it was the eldest of the older group or the eldest of the younger, or the youngest of the older group that is older than the eldest of the younger group’, they are all forbidden excepting the youngest in the younger group. So R. Meir. R. Jose says: They are all permitted excepting the eldest of the older group. [If a man said,] ‘I gave one of my younger daughters in betrothal but I do not know whether it was the youngest of the younger group or the youngest of the older group, or the eldest of the younger group that is younger than the youngest of the older group’, they are all forbidden excepting the eldest of the older group. So R. Meir. R. Jose says: They are all permitted excepting the youngest of the younger group.
xo. If a man said to a woman, ‘I betrothed thee’, and she said, ‘Thou didst not betroth me’, he is forbidden in marriage to her near of kin, but she is permitted to his near of kin.5 If she said, ‘Thou didst betroth me’, and he said, ‘ I did not betroth thee’, he is permitted in marriage to her near of kin, but she is forbidden to his near of kin. [If he said,] ‘I betrothed thee’, and she said, ‘Thou didst betroth none save my daughter’, he is forbidden to the near of kin of the older woman but she is permitted to his near of kin; and he is permitted in marriage to the near of kin of the younger woman and she6 is permitted to his near of kin.
11. [If he said,] ‘I betrothed thy daughter’, and she said, ‘Thou didst betroth none save me’, he is forbidden to the near of kin of the younger woman, but the younger woman is permitted in marriage to his near of 1 So that she shall not be bound to contract levirate marriage.
1 Some texts add: ‘while she was a yet a minor’.
1 He thereby admits that his widow will not be bound to levirate marriage.
* Above twelve years and a half.
5 Since she has not admitted the tie of betrothal.
6 The daughter, who has not admitted the betrothal tie herself, nor is her mother to be trusted concerning her.
kin; he is permitted in marriage to the near of kin of the older woman, but she is forbidden to his near of kin.
12. If the betrothal was valid and no transgression befell [by reason of the marriage] the standing of the offspring follows that of the male [parent]. Such is the case when a woman that is the daughter of a priest, a levite.or an Israelite is married to a priest, a levite, or an Israelite. If the betrothal was valid but transgression befell [by reason of the marriage] the standing of the offspring follows that of the blemished party. Such is the case when1 a widow is married to a High Priest, or a divorced woman or one that had performed haiitzah is married to a common priest, or a bastard or a Nethinah to an Israelite, or the daughter of an Israelite to a bastard or a Nothin. If her betrothal with this man was not valid, but her betrothal with others would be valid, the offspring is bastard. Such is the case when a man has connexion with any of the forbidden degrees prescribed in the Law. If her betrothal with this man was not valid, and her betrothal with others would also not be valid, the offspring is of her own standing. This is the case when the offspring is by a bondwoman or gentile woman.
13. R.Tarfon says.‘Bastard stock can be rendered clean. 2 Thus if a bastard married a bondwoman the offspring is a bondman. If he is set free the son thereby becomes a freeman. R. Eliezer says: Such a one is a bastard slave.
4. 1. Ten family stocks came up from Babylon: the priestly, levitic, and Israelitish stocks, the impaired priestly stocks2, the proselyte, freedman, bastard, and Nothin 4 stocks, and the shetuki 5 and asufi6 stocks. The priestly, levitic, and Israelitish stocks may intermarry; the levitic, Israelitish, impaired priestly stocks, proselyte, and freedman stocks may intermarry; the proselyte, freedman, bastard, Nothin, shetuki, and asufi stocks may all intermarry.
2. And who is deemed of shetuki stock? Any that knows his mother but does not know his father. And asufi stock? Any that was picked up from the street and knows neither his father nor his mother. Abba Saul used to call the shetuki stock [by the name] bedukiP 3. All that are forbidden to enter the congregation8 may intermarry among themselves. But R. Judah forbids it. R. Eliezer says: They that are of assured stock may intermarry with others that are of assured stock, but they that are of assured stock may not intermarry with them that are of doubtful stock, nor they that are of doubtful stock with others that are of doubtful stock. These are of doubtful stock: the shetuki, the asufi, and the Samaritan.
4. If a man would marry a woman of priestly stock, he must trace her family back through four mothers, which are, indeed, eight: her mother, mother’s mother, and mother’s father’s mother, and this one’s mother; also her father’s mother and this one’s mother, her father’s father’s mother, and this one’s mother. [If he would marry] a woman of levitic or Israelitish stock, he must trace the descent back to one mother more.9 1 For these unions see Yeb. a‘. 1 i.e. the offspring need not be bastard.
J Those born of unions forbidden (Lev. 211*.) to them of priestly stock.
» The meaning of the root is ‘to be silent’; and he that is of shetuki stock is ‘silent’ when reproached with his origin.
6 The meaning of the root is ‘to gather’. Asufi has thus the sense of ‘foundling’.
* The meaning of the root is ‘inquire, seek out”. The Gemara (74a) explains it on the basis of Ket. 1*, q.v. * Deut. 23l_*.
* In both lines, namely to her mother’s mother’s mother, and her father’s mother’s mother’s mother.
THIRD DIVISION: NASHIM 5. They need not trace descent beyond the Altar1 or beyond the Plat¬ form2 or beyond the Sanhedrin;3 and all whose fathers are known to have held office as public officers or almoners may marry into the priestly stock and none need trace their descent. R. Jose says: Also any whose name was signed as a witness in the old archives4 at Sepphoris. R. Hananiah b. Antigonus says: Also any whose name was recorded in the king’s army.5 6. The daughter of a male of impaired priestly stock [and so, too, any female descendant] is for ever6 disqualified for marriage with priestly stock. If an. Israelite married a woman of impaired priestly stock, his daughter is qualified for marriage with priestly stock; but if a man of impaired priestly stock married the daughter of an Israelite, his daughter is disqualified for marriage with priestly stock. R. Judah says: The daughter of a male proselyte is regarded as a daughter of a male of impaired priestly stock.
7. R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: If an Israelite married a proselyte, his daughter is qualified for marriage with priestly stock; and if a proselyte married the daughter of an Israelite, his daughter is qualified for marriage with priestly stock; but if a proselyte married a proselyte, his daughter is not so qualified. A proselyte is regarded as of like standing to freed slaves even to ten generations, until such time as his mother is of Israelitish stock. R. Jose says: Even it a proselyte married a proselyte, his daughter is qualified for marriage with priestly stock.
8. If a man says, ‘This my son is a bastard’, he may not be believed. Even if they both said of the unborn child in her womb, ‘It is a bastard’, they may not be believed. R. Judah says: They may be believed.
9. If a man empowered his agent to give his daughter in betrothal and he himself went and gave her in betrothal [to another], if the betrothal by him came first, it is valid, and if the betrothal by his agent came first, that is valid; if it is not known, both7 must give her a bill of divorce; but if they were so minded the one may give her a bill of divorce, and the other may marry her. So, too, if a woman empowered her agent to give her in be¬ trothal and she herself went and betrothed herself [to another], if her own betrothal came first, it is valid; and if the betrothal by her agent came first, that is valid; if it is not known, both must give her a bill of divorce; but if they were so minded the one may give her a bill of divorce and the other may marry her.
10. If a man and his wife went beyond the sea and he and his wife and his children returned and he said, ‘Lo, this is the wife that went with me beyond the sea and these are her children’, he need not bring proof8 about either the woman or the children. If he said, ‘She died and these are her children’, he must bring proof about the children, but he need not bring proof about the woman.
11. [If he said,] ‘I married a woman beyond the sea; lo, this is she and 1 If he found that her father ministered as a priest in the Temple he need not trace her descent further.
* Where the levites sang in the Temple; Arak. 2*; Midd. 2*. If he found that her father sang as a levite in the Temple, that suffices.
J In Jerusalem, membership of which provides valid proof of unimpaired stock.
* Those inscribed in the court's records as eligible to be judges and witnesses. The commentators take ‘ha-Yeshanah’ (here rendered 'old’) as the name of a place near Sepphoris in Galilee. * The reference may be to 1 Chron. 7".
6 In every successive generation. 7 Of those to whom she was betrothed.
8 That it is the same wife (of known pedigree), ore hat the children are her children (and of known pedigree).
these are her children’, he must bring proof1 about the woman but he need not bring proof about the children. [If he said,] ‘She died, and these are her children’, he must bring proof about the wife and the children.
12. A man may not remain alone with two women, but a woman may remain alone with two men. R. Simeon says: Even one man may remain alone with two women when his wife is with him, and he may sleep w'ith them in an inn, because his wife watches over him. A man mav remain alone with his mother or with his daughter; and he may sleep with them with bodies touching. But if they are become of age, she must sleep in her clothes and he in his.
13. An unmarried man may not be a teacher of children, nor may a woman be a teacher of children. R. Eliezer says: Even a man that has no wife [with him] may not be a teacher of children.
14. R. Judah says: An unmarried man may not herd cattle, nor may two unmarried men sleep under the same cloak. But the Sages permit it. Any man whose business is with women may not remain alone with women; and a man should not teach his son a craft that is practised among women. R. Meir says: A man should always teach his son a cleanly2 craft, and let him pray to him to W’hom riches and possessions belong, for there is no craft wherein there is not both poverty and wealth; for poverty comes no: from a man’s craft, nor riches from a man’s craft, but all is according to his merit. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says: Hast thou ever seen a wild animal or a bird practising a craft? — yet they have their sustenance without care and were they not created for naught else but to serve me? But I was created to serve my Maker. How much more then ought not I to have my sus¬ tenance without care? But I have wrought evil, and [so] forfeited my [right to] sustenance [without care]. Abba Gorion of Zaidan says in the name of Abba Guria:■ 5 A man should not teach his son to be an ass-driver or a camel-driver, or a barber or a sailor, or a herdsman or a shopkeeper, for their craft is the craft of robbers. R. Judah says in his name: Ass-drivers are most of them wicked, camel-drivers are most of them proper folk, sailors are most of them saintly, the best among physicians is destined for Gehenna, and the most seemly among butchers is a partner of Amalek. R. Nehorai says: I would set aside all the crafts in the world and teach my son naught save the Law, for a man enjoys the reward thereof in this world and its whole worth remains for the world to come. But with all other crafts it is not so; for when a man falls into sickness or old age or troubles and cannot engage in his work, lo, he dies of hunger. But with the Law it is not so; for it guards him from all evil while he is young, and in old age it grants him a future and a hope. Of his youth, what does it say? They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength.4 Of his old age what does it say? They shall still bring forth fruit in old age.s So, too, it says of our father Abraham, And Abraham was old and well stricken in years, and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things.6 And we find that Abraham our father had performed the whole Law before it was given, for it is written, Because that Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my command¬ ments, my statutes, and my laws A * Of her family stock. J Some texts add ‘and an easy’. 3 Variant: ‘Saul’.
FOURTH DIVISION NEZIKIN (‘damages’) BABA KAMMA BABA METZIA BABA BATHRA SANHEDRIN MAKKOTH SHEBUOTH EDUYOTH ABODAH ZARAH ABOTH HORAYOTH 1. i. The four primary causes of injury2 are the ox and the pit and the crop-destroying beast and the outbreak of fire. [The distinctive feature of] the ox is not like [that of] the crop-destroying beast, nor is [the distinctive feature of] the crop-destroying beast like [that of] the ox; nor is [the distinctive feature of] either of these, wherein is life, like [that of] lire, wherein is not life; nor is [the distinctive feature of] any of these, whose way it is to go forth and do injury’, like [that of] the pit, whose way it is not to go forth and do injury. What they have in common is that it is the way of them to do injury and that the care of them falls on thee; and if one of them did injury whosoever did the injury must make restitution for the injury with the best3 of his land.
2. If I am answerable for the care of a thing, it is I that render possible the injury that it may do. If I render possible part of that injury I must make restitution for that injury as he that rendered possible the whole of that injury. This applies to all property that is not subject to the law of Sacrilege.4 and to property that belongs to the Sons of the Covenant,5 and to property that is held in ownership and is in any place other than the private domain of the injurer and the common domain of the injured and the injurer. And if the injury is done the injurer must make restitution for the injury with the best of his land.
3. Assessment [of injury] in money or money’s worth must be made before a court of law and at the mouth of witnesses that are freemen and Sons of the Covenant. Women may be parties in [suits concerning] injury. Moreover the injured and the injurer [in certain cases may share] in the compensation.
4. Five [agents of injury] rank as harmless and five as an attested danger.6 Cattle do not rank as an attested danger in so far as they butt, push, bite, lie down, or kick. The tooth [of a beast] is an attested danger in that it consumes whatsoever is fit for it to consume; the leg is an attested danger in that it breaks down [what it tramples upon] as it goes along; so also is an ox which has been declared an attested danger [in that it wTas wont to gore]; and an ox which causes damage in the [private] domain of him that is injured;7 and human kind. The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther, and the serpent rank as an attested danger. R. Eliezer says: When they become tame they do not rank as an attested danger, but the serpent ranks always as an attested danger. Wherein does what is harmless differ from what is an attested danger? The harmless pays half-damages from its own body; and the attested danger pays full damages from the best property.
property.
1 This and the two following tractates (entitled 'First Gate’, ‘Middle Gate', and 'Last Gate’) are divisions of what was originally one tractate entitled ‘Nezikin’, 'Damages’, dealing with various problems arising out of property. ‘The First Gate’ treats of injuries by man or beast and the questions of responsibility and restitution; 'The Middle Gate’ treats of lost property, guardianship, usury, and the hire of labourers; and ‘The Last Gate’ treats of ownership of immovable property and problems relating to it.
1 Lit. 'fathers of injuries’, i.e. they characterize the four main classifications within which miscellaneous kinds of injury can be included. They are therefore given by the Law (Ex. 2 1 **-22*) as representative cases. 3 Ex. 22*.
6 Ex. 21”; ‘If the ox were wont to gore in time past and it hath been testified to its owner’.
7 See below, a*. * Of its owner or guardian.
2. 1. ‘The leg is an attested danger in that it breaks [what it tramples upon] as it goes along’ — thus, a beast is an attested danger [only] in so far as it goes along in its usual way and commits breakage; if it kicked, or if small stones were tossed out from beneath its feet and it thus broke any vessel, one pays [only] half-damages; but if it trampled upon a vessel and broke it, and this itself fell upon another vessel and broke it, for the first one pays full damages, and for the other half-damages. Fowls are an attested danger in so far as they go along in their usual way and commit breakage; but if a fowl had its feet entangled or if it was scratching and it thereby broke any vessel one pays [only] half-damages.
2. ‘The tooth [of a beast] is an attested danger in that it consumes whatsoever is fit for it to consume’ — thus, a beast is an attested danger only in so far as it consumes fruit and vegetables; if it consumed clothing or utensils he pays [only] half-damages. This applies if it was within the private domain of the injured; but if it was within the public domain the owner is not culpable, and if it derived any benefit he need pay for that benefit only. ‘He need pay for that benefit only’ — thus, if it consumed aught from the midst of the market-place he need pay only for the benefit that it derived, but if from the sides of the market-place1 he must pay for the damage that it has done; if from the entrance to a shop, he need pay only for the benefit that it derived, but if from the midst of the shop1 he must pay for the damage that it has done.
3. If a dog or a kid jumped from a roof and broke any vessels, the owner must pay full damages since [through the like acts] they are an attested danger. If a dog took a cake2 and went to a stack of corn and ate the cake and set the stack on fire, its owner must pay full damages for the cake but only half-damages for the stack.
4. Which [kind of ox] is accounted harmless and which an attested danger? That is accounted an attested danger against which evidence [of damage] has been brought within the past three days; and it is accounted harmless after it has refrained [from damage] for three days. So R. Judah. R. Meir says: That is accounted an attested danger against which evidence [of damage] has been brought three times; and it is accounted harmless if children can touch it and it will not gore them.
5. ‘An ox which causes damage in the [private] domain of him that is in¬ jured’ — thus, if it gored, pushed, bit, lay down, or kicked in the public domain it pays only half-damages; but if in the private domain of him that was injured, R. Tarfon says: It pays full damages. But the Sages say: Half¬ damages. R. Tarfon said to them: What! if they have dealt leniently with damage caused by tooth or foot in the public domain (when no restitution is imposed) and stringently with like damage in the private domain of him that is injured (when full damages are imposed), then since they have dealt stringently with damage caused by the horn in the public domain (when half¬ damages are imposed) ought we not therefore to deal the more stringently with damage caused by the horn in the private domain of him that was injured, so thatfull damagesshall be imposed! They answered: Itisenough if the inferred law is as strict as that from which it is inferred:3 if [for damage 1 Since these count as ‘the private domain of the injured’.
1 i.e. stole it while it was still baking, and a red-hot cinder still adhered.