bastard

HALAKHAH: “One who comes to marry a woman from a priestly family,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, as we have stated: “What is qualified dough? Anyone about whom there is [no suspicion of descent from] a desecrated one, a bastard, or a Gibeonite. Rebbi Meïr says, the daughter of any woman not tainted with any of these is qualified for the priesthood. But about a family in which a disability had disappeared, Rebbi Meïr says he checks up to four mothers and marries, but the Sages say, he checks forever.” Rav said, these are the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, he checks from which family one marries into the priesthood and marries. Through whom does he check? Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Josia: He checks through his female relatives. To Rebbi Ḥama came an old man; he asked him: Does one marry into the priesthood from this family? He answered: yes, and he was making a match based on this information. Rav said to his son Ḥiyya: Descend a degree to marry a wife. Rebbi Idi said, the following is a frequent saying of the rabbis: “If the woman was not impure but she is pure.” If she was not impure, she is pure. Not like Pappos ben Jehudah who locks the door before his wife. One said to him, did your forefathers act like this? A Cohen came to Rebbi Joḥanan and said to him: I acted on the Mishnah when I married a woman from a priestly family and checked after her four mothers which are eight. He said to him, if the origin was defective, who would inform you?

HALAKHAH: “One does not investigate from the altar and before,” etc. It is written: “You certainly shall put a king over you.” This refers not only to a king; from where to add public officials, administrators of welfare, clerks of the court, and those who whip with a lash; from where? The verse says, “from amidst your brothers you shall appoint a king over you,” anybody whom you appoint over you shall only be from the select among your brethren. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: “Their distinguished lineage in the army in war.” The merit of their lineage supports them in war. So far from tradition; from the words of the Torah? “No bastard shall come into the Eternal’s congregation.” “No person injured in his testicles shall come, etc.” What is written afterwards? “When you encamp against your enemies, etc.”

MISHNAH: If somebody says, this my son is a bastard, he cannot be believed. Even if both of them say about the fetus in her belly that he is a bastard, they cannot be believed. Rebbi Jehudah says, they are believed.

MISHNAH: If somebody says, this my son is a bastard, he cannot be believed. Even if both of them say about the fetus in her belly that he is a bastard, they cannot be believed. Rebbi Jehudah says, they are believed.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says, this my son is a bastard, he cannot be believed,” etc. There, we have stated: “If somebody said, this is my son, he is to be believed.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To give him, but not to take from him. Rebbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah: “Even if both of them say about the fetus in her belly that he is a bastard, they cannot be believed”? Maybe it was said following Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah said, they can be believed; Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To give him, but not to take from him. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, still it is a baraita: “For he has to recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated one.” If they maintained that he was his son but at the moment of his death he said that he was not his son, he cannot be believed. That he was not his son but at the moment of his death he said that he was his son, he is believed. Some Tannaïm state on the first case that he is believed. Rebbi Ḥisqiah, Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Huna: If they maintained that he was from his slave girl, he is believed. If he was standing next to the customs collectors and said, he is my son, but later he said, he is my slave, he is believed. He is my slave, but later he said, he is my son, he is not believed. Some Tannaïm state, he is believed. Rebbi Mana said, because of those Samaritans who use their sons as slaves.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody says, this my son is a bastard, he cannot be believed,” etc. There, we have stated: “If somebody said, this is my son, he is to be believed.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To give him, but not to take from him. Rebbi Yose said, is that not the Mishnah: “Even if both of them say about the fetus in her belly that he is a bastard, they cannot be believed”? Maybe it was said following Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah said, they can be believed; Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To give him, but not to take from him. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, still it is a baraita: “For he has to recognize the firstborn, the son of the hated one.” If they maintained that he was his son but at the moment of his death he said that he was not his son, he cannot be believed. That he was not his son but at the moment of his death he said that he was his son, he is believed. Some Tannaïm state on the first case that he is believed. Rebbi Ḥisqiah, Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Rebbi Huna: If they maintained that he was from his slave girl, he is believed. If he was standing next to the customs collectors and said, he is my son, but later he said, he is my slave, he is believed. He is my slave, but later he said, he is my son, he is not believed. Some Tannaïm state, he is believed. Rebbi Mana said, because of those Samaritans who use their sons as slaves.

HALAKHAH: “The following ones one saves at the cost of their own persons” etc. “He who pursues another to kill him, whether in a house or on the field one saves at the cost of his own person, both him who pursues another to kill him or him who pursues any of the transgressions in the Torah one saves at the cost of his own person. But if it was a widow for a High Priest, a divorcee or one who had received ḥalîṣah for a common priest, a bastard or a Gibeonite for an Israel, an Israel woman for a bastard or a Gibeonite, one does not save him at the cost of his own person. If the deed had been done, one does not save him at the cost of his own person. If there are people to save her, one does not save him at the cost of his own person. Rebbi Jehudah says, if she said, let him do it, one does not save at the cost of his own person. For if they would injure him, they through him would come to spill blood.”

HALAKHAH: “The following ones one saves at the cost of their own persons” etc. “He who pursues another to kill him, whether in a house or on the field one saves at the cost of his own person, both him who pursues another to kill him or him who pursues any of the transgressions in the Torah one saves at the cost of his own person. But if it was a widow for a High Priest, a divorcee or one who had received ḥalîṣah for a common priest, a bastard or a Gibeonite for an Israel, an Israel woman for a bastard or a Gibeonite, one does not save him at the cost of his own person. If the deed had been done, one does not save him at the cost of his own person. If there are people to save her, one does not save him at the cost of his own person. Rebbi Jehudah says, if she said, let him do it, one does not save at the cost of his own person. For if they would injure him, they through him would come to spill blood.”

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose: Is the child a bastard following Rebbi Jehudah? He said to him, No one with a damaged testicle or with cut-off penis may marry into the Eternal’s congregation interrupts the argument. It interrupted the argument in the matter of the father’s wife. The father’s wife was part of the set of all incest prohibitions; it was selected from this set to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions. Similarly, let the rape victim be selected to teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims. The father’s wife was part of the set of all incest prohibitions; it was selected from this set to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions. Can you say here that the rape victim was in the set, that it could teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims? Why cannot the father’s wife be selected to teach about the rape victim in her case? He said to him, if she is his father’s wife, she is not his rape victim; if she is the father’s rape victim, she is not his wife.

HALAKHAH: “The Elders were asked in Rome,” etc. If somebody stole seeds and sowed, would it not grow in the end? If somebody sleeps with a married woman, would he not in the end cause a bastard to be born? But let the world continue its usual way. The stupid who misbehave will in the future have to account for their deeds.

MISHNAH: If the Court ruled but one of them knew that it was in error and he told them, you are erring, or that the distinguished member of the Court was not there, or that one of them was a proselyte, or a bastard, or a Gibeonite, or a childless old man, it is not liable since it is said here “congregation” and it is said there “congregation”. Since in the congregation mentioned there, all of them were worthy of ordination, also the congregation here all have to be worthy of ordination.

HALAKHAH: “If the Court ruled but one of them knew that it was in error,” etc. The Mishnah is Rebbi’s, since Rebbi said, no one invalidates but the distinguished member of the Court (at Lydda) [only]. It is written: If from the eyes of the congregation, from him who is appointed as eyes of the congregation. It is written, they shall stand there with you. Just as you are neither proselyte, nor Gibeonite, nor a bastard. Proselytes are reasonable, but bastards? does the court appoints bastards? Rav Ḥuna said, when they breached the rules and appointed. Rebbi Ḥanania, Rebbi Mana. One said, as part of the Seventy; the other said, apart from the Seventy. He who said, apart from the Seventy, is understandable. But he who said, as part of the Seventy, therefore not apart from the Seventy? Since he is not suitable for ordination, he is considered like a stone.

HALAKHAH: “They are only liable for something which when intentional is punishable by extirpation,” etc. The commandments of the Eternal. I could think that this also includes those who eat abominations and crawling things. It says here from the eyes and it says there from the eyes. Just as from the eyes mentioned there means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so from the eyes mentioned here means something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Or since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here should mean something that can lead to the death penalty? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, from a place where all incest prohibitions were taken as one set [of sins] causing extirpation, the (married woman) [father’s wife] came out to tell you about the bastard. Rebbi said over which, over her. Since over her mentioned there refers to something which is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin, so over which mentioned here means something for which one is punished by extirpation in case of intentional sin and needs a purification sacrifice for an inadvertent sin. Why does Rebbi not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? [Rebbi Zeˋira said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then from the eyes mentioned there for the Anointed refers to action in error; also from the eyes mentioned here would have to refer to action in error. Therefore, Rebbi will not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes.] Rebbi Yose said: If Rebbi would infer from from the eyes, from the eyes, then since from the eyes mentioned there means something that can lead to the death penalty, so from the eyes mentioned here means something that can lead to the death penalty. Therefore, Rebbi does not infer from from the eyes, from the eyes. (Does Rebbi not have a book) [Will Rebbi not in the end have] to infer from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have the rules for the individual, the chief, and the Anointed? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have “unless they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part”? Not from from the eyes, from the eyes? For if it is not so, from where would we have [the difference between] a ruling of the High Court and a ruling of a lower court? Rebbi Ḥanania said before Rebbi Mana: Would not Rebbi in the end have to infer from from the eyes, from the eyes? He told him, what do you want from Rebbi? Rebbi follows his own opinion, since Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error. Intentional error is only written for the Court. It. It specifies about his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary. Does this follow Rebbi, as Rebbi said, the Anointed refers to action in error; if it would follow the rabbis, there must be an instance of forgetting. (Rav) [Rebbi] Huna said, it was needed for the rabbis. Lest you say, because there is extirpation its blood should be brought into the Sanctuary. Therefore, it was necessary to say it, it specifies his sacrifice that for the singular commandment its blood should not be brought into the Sanctuary.

MISHNAH: A priest precedes a Levite, a Levite an Israel, an Israel a bastard, a bastard a Gibeonite, a Gibeonite a proselyte, a proselyte a manumitted slave. When? If they are all equal. But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.

MISHNAH: A priest precedes a Levite, a Levite an Israel, an Israel a bastard, a bastard a Gibeonite, a Gibeonite a proselyte, a proselyte a manumitted slave. When? If they are all equal. But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.

MISHNAH: A priest precedes a Levite, a Levite an Israel, an Israel a bastard, a bastard a Gibeonite, a Gibeonite a proselyte, a proselyte a manumitted slave. When? If they are all equal. But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.

MISHNAH: A priest precedes a Levite, a Levite an Israel, an Israel a bastard, a bastard a Gibeonite, a Gibeonite a proselyte, a proselyte a manumitted slave. When? If they are all equal. But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.

HALAKHAH: “A priest precedes a Levite, a Levite an Israel, an Israel a bastard,” etc. “A Sage has precedence over the king, the king has precedence over the High Priest, the High Priest has precedence over a prophet, a prophet has precedence over the Anointed for War, the Anointed for war has precedence over the head of the watch, the head of the watch has precedence over the [head of a] clan, the [head of a] clan has precedence over the executive officer, the executive officer has precedence over the treasurer, the treasurer has precedence over a common priest, a common priest has precedence over a Levite, a Levite over an Israel, an Israel over a bastard, a bastard over a Gibeonite, a Gibeonite over a proselyte, a proselyte over a manumitted slave. When? If they are all equal. But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.”

HALAKHAH: “A priest precedes a Levite, a Levite an Israel, an Israel a bastard,” etc. “A Sage has precedence over the king, the king has precedence over the High Priest, the High Priest has precedence over a prophet, a prophet has precedence over the Anointed for War, the Anointed for war has precedence over the head of the watch, the head of the watch has precedence over the [head of a] clan, the [head of a] clan has precedence over the executive officer, the executive officer has precedence over the treasurer, the treasurer has precedence over a common priest, a common priest has precedence over a Levite, a Levite over an Israel, an Israel over a bastard, a bastard over a Gibeonite, a Gibeonite over a proselyte, a proselyte over a manumitted slave. When? If they are all equal. But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.”

HALAKHAH: “A priest precedes a Levite, a Levite an Israel, an Israel a bastard,” etc. “A Sage has precedence over the king, the king has precedence over the High Priest, the High Priest has precedence over a prophet, a prophet has precedence over the Anointed for War, the Anointed for war has precedence over the head of the watch, the head of the watch has precedence over the [head of a] clan, the [head of a] clan has precedence over the executive officer, the executive officer has precedence over the treasurer, the treasurer has precedence over a common priest, a common priest has precedence over a Levite, a Levite over an Israel, an Israel over a bastard, a bastard over a Gibeonite, a Gibeonite over a proselyte, a proselyte over a manumitted slave. When? If they are all equal. But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.”

HALAKHAH: “A priest precedes a Levite, a Levite an Israel, an Israel a bastard,” etc. “A Sage has precedence over the king, the king has precedence over the High Priest, the High Priest has precedence over a prophet, a prophet has precedence over the Anointed for War, the Anointed for war has precedence over the head of the watch, the head of the watch has precedence over the [head of a] clan, the [head of a] clan has precedence over the executive officer, the executive officer has precedence over the treasurer, the treasurer has precedence over a common priest, a common priest has precedence over a Levite, a Levite over an Israel, an Israel over a bastard, a bastard over a Gibeonite, a Gibeonite over a proselyte, a proselyte over a manumitted slave. When? If they are all equal. But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.”

HALAKHAH: “A priest precedes a Levite, a Levite an Israel, an Israel a bastard,” etc. “A Sage has precedence over the king, the king has precedence over the High Priest, the High Priest has precedence over a prophet, a prophet has precedence over the Anointed for War, the Anointed for war has precedence over the head of the watch, the head of the watch has precedence over the [head of a] clan, the [head of a] clan has precedence over the executive officer, the executive officer has precedence over the treasurer, the treasurer has precedence over a common priest, a common priest has precedence over a Levite, a Levite over an Israel, an Israel over a bastard, a bastard over a Gibeonite, a Gibeonite over a proselyte, a proselyte over a manumitted slave. When? If they are all equal. But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.”

“A prophet has precedence over the Anointed for War, the Anointed for War has precedence over the head of the watch, the head of the watch has precedence over the head of a clan, the head of a clan has precedence over the executive officer, the executive officer has precedence over the treasurer, the treasurer has precedence over a common priest, a common priest has precedence over a Levite, a Levite over an Israel (an Israel over a bastard).” Is not the Levite equal [to an Israel]? Rebbi Abun said, this was taught in the days of the podium. Rebbi Abun said, a proselyte and an apostate, the apostate has preference because of what had happened. “Why does everybody run after a proselyte woman, but not after a freedwoman? For the proselyte is presumed to have been guarding herself but the freedwoman is presumed to be irresponsible.” And why does everybody (run after a rat) [inquire after a slave]? Because his dealings are bad for people. Rebbi Joḥanan said, do not believe a slave up to sixteen generations. Ismael ben Netaniah ben Elishama of royal descent came and slew Gedaliahu at Miṣpah.

Two families were in Sepphoris, one of city councillors and one rural, who were greeting the Patriarch every day. The councillors went in first and left first. The rural ones went and acquired [knowledge in] Torah. They came and wanted to have precedence. It was asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked it from Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Joḥanan went up and preached in Rebbi Benaiah’s house of study: “But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.” They wanted to say, to be redeemed, for livelihood, and for clothing, but not for the Academy. Rebbi Abun said, even for the Academy. What is the reason? It is more precious than pearls, even than he who enters into the Most Holy [of the Sanctuary.]

Two families were in Sepphoris, one of city councillors and one rural, who were greeting the Patriarch every day. The councillors went in first and left first. The rural ones went and acquired [knowledge in] Torah. They came and wanted to have precedence. It was asked before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked it from Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Joḥanan went up and preached in Rebbi Benaiah’s house of study: “But if the bastard was learned and the High Priest ignorant, the learned bastard precedes the ignorant High Priest.” They wanted to say, to be redeemed, for livelihood, and for clothing, but not for the Academy. Rebbi Abun said, even for the Academy. What is the reason? It is more precious than pearls, even than he who enters into the Most Holy [of the Sanctuary.]

R. Samuel b. Nahamani said in the name of R. Jonathan, three men expressed their request in careless language; two of them were answered favorably, but the third was answered unfavorably. They are: Eliezer the servant of Abraham, Saul the son of Kish, and Jephthah the Gileadite. As to Eliezer, Scripture says (Gen., 24.14): "So let it come to pass that the damsel to whom I shall say, let down thy pitcher," etc. These words include one that is lame or blind. He was answered, however, favorably, in that he happened upon Rebekah. As to Saul, Scripture says (I Sam., 17.25): "And it shall be, that the man who killeth him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and will give him his daughter." This might include a slave or a bastard, but he was answered favorably in that he happened upon David. As to Jephthah, Scripture says (Jud., 11.31): "Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, it shall be the Lord's and I will offer it up for a burnt-offering." This may mean even something unclean (unfit for a sacrifice), and, indeed, he was answered unfavorably, in that it was his daughter who came out of the house. It is with reference to this event that the prophet said to Israel (Jer., 8.22): "Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?" Hence it is also written (ibid., 19.5): "Which I commanded not, nor spoke it, neither came it into My mind." "I commanded not" refers to the son of Mesha king of Moab, for it is said (II Kings, 3.27): "Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering upon the wall. And there came great wrath upon Israel"; "nor spoke it" refers to the daughter of Jephthah; "neither came it into My mind" refers to Isaac the son of Abraham.

(7) R. Simeon bar Manassea says, Who is this that is crooked, that cannot be made straight? This is he who forms an incestuous connexion and begets therefrom a bastard child. If you should say, Nay, it has to do with theft and plunder; but no, for he could make restitution of it, and be made straight. R. Simeon ben Jochai says, Nothing is called crooked but that which was straight at the beginning and has become crooked, and what is this? This is a learned pupil, who severs himself from the Law.

R. Simeon ben Manassea says, What sort of person is this, that is crooked and that cannot be made straight? This is he who forms an incestuous connexion and begets therefrom a bastard child, etc. If he beget, yes; if he do not beget, no. And lo, there is a Baraitha. R. Simeon ben Manassea says, In case of a thief it is possible that he may restore that which he has stolen, and so it may be made good; in case of a robber, it is possible that he may restore his plunder, and so it may be made good; but he that approaches a man's wife, and so makes her unfit for her husband, is cut off from the world, and goes to his own place.