תלמוד על כתובות 2:10

HALAKHAH: “One does not put up animals in hostelries of Gentiles,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina; Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Jonah⁵Unfortunately G is very lacunary here; therefore its readings are not given after the Hebrew text. The Halakhah starts: “R. Ze‘urah, R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, R. ..… R. Abbahu in the name of R. Yose ben Ḥanina, explain it …” There is no reason to mention the sixth generation R. Abba III and the fifth generation R. Jonah who later disagrees with the statement if already it was attributed to the second generation R. Yose ben Ḥanina.: explain it⁶The Mishnah which forbids to put up unsupervised animals in the stable of a Gentile hostelry makes travel outside Jewish settlements practically impossible. An attribution to R. Eliezer removes the first part of the Mishnah from practice. following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.⁷Mishnah Parah2:1. This refers to the Red Cow (Num. 19) whose ashes are needed to cleanse people from the impurity of the dead. The Cow is not a Temple sacrifice; how far the restrictions imposed on sacrificial animals and the officiating priests apply to the Cow and its officiants are old matters of dispute between Sadducees and Pharisees (Mishnah Parah3:3,7) and among the rabbis themselves. One of the biblical requirements is that the Red Cow never carried a yoke (Num. 19:2). In Mishnah Parah2:1, a first statement of R. Eliezer validates a pregnant Red Cow for the ceremonies; the reason is explained in Mishnah 4 by his student’s R. Illai’s son R. Jehudah, that a bull mounting the Cow on his own cannot be considered making her carrying anything; only copulation by human intervention makes the ox the equivalent of a yoke. The majority rejects the ruling; it considers the Cow and its fetus as two separate beings but v. 19:3 requires the Cow alone to be taken. These restrictions do not apply to ordinary sacrifices. R. Eliezer then forbids buying a Red Cow from Gentiles since a sodomized animal is unfit for the altar; the Sages disagree since without reason one does not suspect that such a thing happened; this would make the Mishnah here unreasonable. (The last generation R. Yose bar Abun even introduces buying a Red Cow from a Gentile into a story about R. Eliezer; Peah1:1 Notes 99 ff., Qiddušin1:7 Notes 607 ff.) Babli 23a.” Rebbi Jonah asked, why do we not explain it according to everybody, following what Rebbi Eleazar said in the name of Rav: Even one who says it is permitted to sell [says] it is forbidden to leave alone⁸One may not leave the animal alone with a Gentile. Chapter 1:6, Note 165. There the first tradent is R. Jonah himself.. If he transgressed and left it alone by everybody’s opinion⁹It is not said what everybody’s opinion is; the corresponding passage in G is in the name of “the rabbis of Caesarea, Giddul bar Benjamin in the name of Rav” but then is missing the conclusion. One has to assume that it was “if he transgressed and left it alone by everybody’s opinion the animal remains permitted.”. Rebbi Jeremiah said, let us hear from the following¹⁰Mishnah Ketubot2:9. If she is jailed because of money matters one must assume that she was not raped; if she was condemned to death one must assume that she was raped or consented to sex with her jailers. If a woman can be alone in the custody of Gentiles without being raped, may the same not be assumed of female animals?: “A woman who was jailed by Gentiles.” Rebbi Yose said, it is different for a woman because she usually cries. Think of it if she was mute! She uses sign language. What about it¹¹The argument appears to be cogent.? Explain it following Rebbi Eliezer, since Rebbi Eliezer said “it may not be bought from Gentiles.” They wanted to say, where do Rebbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree? About the cow, because of “eminence was given to the cow, an adornment was made for the cow.¹²In the Mishnah, not only do the rabbis permit to buy a Red Cow from a Gentile owner, they also allow to buy sacrificial animals from him. The question arises whether R. Eliezer will agree with this or not. The assumption here is that R. Eliezer will agree that sacrifices can be bought from Gentiles but not the Red Cow, whose ceremonies in pharisaic theory were made with many non-scriptural restrictions because of an important difference with Sadducees in matters of ritual purity (Mishnah Parah3:7,8).” But since the rabbis answer to Rebbi Eliezer all sheep of Qedar will be assembled for you¹³Is.60:7. The verse ends: they will be brought on My altar for pleasure. This gives divine sanction for using animals raised by Gentiles for the altar. Since the verse speaks of sacrifices, not of the Red C ow, R. Eliezer must hold that sacrificial animals cannot be bought from Gentiles. The same argument is quoted in the Babli 24a., this says that Rebbi Eliezer disagrees about everything. Rebbi Hoshaia asked, does one reply with an argument about the future against one about the past¹⁴The preceding argument does not prove anything in practice since in the next paragraph it will be shown that in messianic times the Gentiles will accept the Torah. Their animals may well be acceptable then but not now.? Rebbi Abin asked, does one reply with an argument when evil inclinations will have disappeared against one when evil inclinations exist¹⁵This is the same argument as before.?

Witnesses of a declaration of jealousy who were found to be false⁴⁰The technical term “scheming witnesses” derives from Deut. 19:19 where it is stated that the penalty inflicted on a false witness shall be the punishment he schemed to inflict on the accused. Tractate Makkot mainly deals with the case of false witnesses on whom the punishment intended for their victim cannot be inflicted; in that case they are whipped for committing a sin. Since males cannot be subject to declarations of jealousy, the false witnesses must be whipped. are whipped. About witnesses concerning her being in a secluded place who were found to be false, you say that they are whipped; why should they not pay⁴¹On their testimony, the wife loses her ketubah-money? It is not through their action that she loses her ketubah⁴²Without testimony which confirms the declaration of jealousy, their testimony is worthless. Since the verse makes no provision for partial guilt, no monetary punishment can be imposed.. Or it might be, following what Rebbi Abba, Rav Jehudah⁴³Reading רַב יְהוּדָה of a parallel quote in Ketubot 2:10. He was Samuel’s most outstanding student., said in the name of Samuel: One does not infer one thing from another in the matter of false witnesses⁴⁴A possible explanation of this sentence, which appears here and in Ketubot 2:10 without discussion, seems to be that one refrains from imposing the punishment of whipping only in cases in which the imposition of another punishment is straightforward.. And here it is so.

The Greek speakers did not use to do this, but a single person reads the entire portion⁷⁹If the congregation knows no Hebrew, a professional reader will read it for them. Tosephta 3:13.. If one knew the portion he reads it completely. If of seven persons each one knows three verses, they all read⁸⁰Even though the customary reading is longer, if the congregation manages to find among their members three who together can read 21 verses, they can conduct regular services.. If one knows three verses he reads them repeatedly⁸¹If no professional is available, one person may read 3 verses 7 times.. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah, a slave is counted for the count of seven⁸²Even though he is not counted in a quorum of ten adult males.; “and spoke” is counted as one of three verses⁸³The short verse, the Eternal spoke to Moses as follows, is counted as a full verse of the required three. Babli 21b.. But did not Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba say in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina, it is forbidden to teach Torah to one’s slave⁸⁴Babli Ketubot28a.? Explain it if he learned it by himself or that his master taught him like Tabi⁸⁵The slave in Rabban Gamliel’s house for whom the master warranted that he was a moral person..