unfit

All [animals] forbidden for the altar render [others] unfit however few there are. [These are the animals forbidden for the altar]: An animal which had sexual relations with [a woman] or [an animal] that had sexual relations [with a man], an animal set aside (muktzeh) [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped (ne’evad) [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through a caesarean section,What is meant by muktzeh? That which has been set aside for idolatrous use. It [the animal itself] is forbidden, but what is upon it, is permitted. And what is meant by ne'evad? That which has been used for idolatry. Both it [the animal itself] and that which is upon it, are forbidden. In both cases the animal may be eaten.

Most holy sacrifices which were slaughtered on the south side [of the altar], the law of sacrilege [still] applies to them. If they were slaughtered on the south side and their blood received on the north or [slaughtered] on the north side and their blood received on the south, or if they were slaughtered by day and [their blood] sprinkled during the night or [slaughtered] during the night and [their blood] sprinkled by day, or if they were slaughtered [with the intention of eating the flesh] beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, the law of sacrilege still applies to them. Rabbi Joshua stated a general rule: whatever has at some time been permitted to the priests is not subject to the law of sacrilege, and whatever has at no time been permitted to the priests is subject to the law of sacrilege. Which is that which has at some time been permitted to the priests? [Sacrifices] which remained overnight or became defiled or were taken out [of the Temple Court]. Which is that which has at no time been permitted to the priests? [Sacrifices] that were slaughtered [with the intention of eating its flesh] beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, or [the blood of which] was received by the unfit and they sprinkled it.

The offspring of a hatat, the substitute of a hatat, and a hatat whose owner has died, are left to die. A hatat whose year has passed or which was lost and found blemished: If the owners obtained atonement [afterwards, through another animal], is left to die, and it does not make a substitute; it is forbidden to derive benefit from it, but the law of sacrilege does not apply. If the owners have not yet obtained atonement, it must go to pasture until it becomes unfit for sacrifice. It is then sold and another is bought with the money. It makes a substitute, and the law of sacrilege does apply.

All kinds of food can combine with one another: To make up the quantity of half a peras in order to render the body unfit [To make up the food] for two meals to form an eruv; To make up the volume of an egg to contaminate food; To make up the volume of a dry fig with regard to carrying on Shabbat; And the volume of a date with regard to Yom Kippur. All kinds of drinks can combine with one another: To make up a quarter [of a log] in order to render the body unfit; To make up a mouthful with regard to Yom Kippur.

All kinds of food can combine with one another: To make up the quantity of half a peras in order to render the body unfit [To make up the food] for two meals to form an eruv; To make up the volume of an egg to contaminate food; To make up the volume of a dry fig with regard to carrying on Shabbat; And the volume of a date with regard to Yom Kippur. All kinds of drinks can combine with one another: To make up a quarter [of a log] in order to render the body unfit; To make up a mouthful with regard to Yom Kippur.

The courtyard of the women was a hundred and thirty-five cubits long by a hundred and thirty-five wide. It had four chambers in its four corners, each of which was forty cubits. They were not roofed, and so they will be in the time to come, as it says, “Then he brought me forth into the outer court, and caused me to pass by the four corners of the court, and behold in every corner of the court there was a court. In the four corners of the court there were keturot courts” (Ezekiel 46:21-22) and keturot means that they were not roofed. For what were they used? The southeastern one was the chamber of the Nazirites where the Nazirites used to boil their shelamim and shave their hair and throw it under the pot. The northeastern one was the wood chamber where priests with physical defects used to pick out the wood which had worms, every piece with a worm in it being unfit for use on the altar. The northwestern one was the chamber of those with skin disease. The southwestern one: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: I forget what it was used for. Abba Shaul says: they used to store there wine and oil, and it was called the chamber of oil. It [the courtyard of the women] had originally been smooth [without protrusions in the walls] but subsequently they surrounded it with a balcony so that the women could look on from above while the men were below, and they should not mix together. Fifteen steps led up from it to the courtyard of Israel, corresponding to the fifteen [songs of] ascents mentioned in the Book of Psalms, and upon which the Levites used to sing. They were not rectangular but circular like the half of a threshing floor.

How may it be tightly covered? With lime or gypsum, pitch or wax, mud or excrement, crude clay or potter's clay, or any substance that is used for plastering. One may not make a tightly fitting cover with tin or with lead because though it is a covering, it is not tightly fitting. One may not make a tightly fitting cover with swollen fig-cakes or with dough that was kneaded with fruit juice, since it might cause it to become unfit. If he did make a tightly fitting cover [from such material] it protects.

A potters’ egg is fit [as a vessel]. Rabbi Yose rules that it is unfit. A hen's egg: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah rule it is fit [as a vessel]; But the sages rule that it is unfit.

A potters’ egg is fit [as a vessel]. Rabbi Yose rules that it is unfit. A hen's egg: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah rule it is fit [as a vessel]; But the sages rule that it is unfit.

Whatever causes terumah to be invalid causes liquid to become unclean in the first grade so that it can convey uncleanness at one remove, and render unfit at one other remove, except for a tevul yom. Behold [the food] would say [to the liquid], "That which defiled you did not defile me, but you did defile me."

All seas are equivalent to a ritual bath (mikveh), for it is said, "And the gathering (ulemikveh) of the waters He called the seas" (Genesis 1:10), the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: only the Great Sea is equivalent to a ritual bath, for it says "seas" only because there are in it many kinds of seas. Rabbi Yose says: all seas afford cleanness when running, and yet they are unfit for zavim and metzoraim and for the preparation of the hatat waters.

Spoiled waters are unfit. The following are spoiled waters: those that are salty or lukewarm. Waters that disappoint are unfit. The following are waters that disappoint: those that disappoint even once in a seven year cycle. Those that disappoint only in times of war or in years of drought are fit. Rabbi Judah says: they are unfit.

Spoiled waters are unfit. The following are spoiled waters: those that are salty or lukewarm. Waters that disappoint are unfit. The following are waters that disappoint: those that disappoint even once in a seven year cycle. Those that disappoint only in times of war or in years of drought are fit. Rabbi Judah says: they are unfit.

Spoiled waters are unfit. The following are spoiled waters: those that are salty or lukewarm. Waters that disappoint are unfit. The following are waters that disappoint: those that disappoint even once in a seven year cycle. Those that disappoint only in times of war or in years of drought are fit. Rabbi Judah says: they are unfit.

The waters of the Karmiyon and the waters of Pugah are unfit, because they are marsh waters. The waters of the Jordan and the waters of the Yarmuk are unfit, because they are mixed waters. And the following are mixed waters: a fit kind and an unfit kind that were mixed together. If two kinds that are fit were mixed together both remain fit: Rabbi Judah says that they are unfit.

The waters of the Karmiyon and the waters of Pugah are unfit, because they are marsh waters. The waters of the Jordan and the waters of the Yarmuk are unfit, because they are mixed waters. And the following are mixed waters: a fit kind and an unfit kind that were mixed together. If two kinds that are fit were mixed together both remain fit: Rabbi Judah says that they are unfit.

The waters of the Karmiyon and the waters of Pugah are unfit, because they are marsh waters. The waters of the Jordan and the waters of the Yarmuk are unfit, because they are mixed waters. And the following are mixed waters: a fit kind and an unfit kind that were mixed together. If two kinds that are fit were mixed together both remain fit: Rabbi Judah says that they are unfit.

The waters of the Karmiyon and the waters of Pugah are unfit, because they are marsh waters. The waters of the Jordan and the waters of the Yarmuk are unfit, because they are mixed waters. And the following are mixed waters: a fit kind and an unfit kind that were mixed together. If two kinds that are fit were mixed together both remain fit: Rabbi Judah says that they are unfit.

If valid ashes were put on water that was unfit for the preparation, [the latter] defiles one that is clean for terumah [by contact] with his hands or with his body, But to one who is clean for the hatat it conveys uncleanness neither [by contact] with his hands nor with his body.

All that require immersion in water according to the words of the scribes defile consecrated things and invalidate terumah to be unfit, but they are permitted to unconsecrated food and second tithe, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages forbid second tithe. After immersion [but before the sun sets] he is permitted to all these. And if he entered the sanctuary, whether before or after his immersion, he incurs no guilt.

The carrion of an unclean bird requires intention; and it must be rendered susceptible; It conveys food uncleanness if its minimum bulk is that of an egg; The consumption of half a loaf's bulk of it renders one's person unfit to eat terumah; There is no rule that an olive's worth defiles in the gullet; He who eats of it need not wait for sunset; No guilt is incurred on account of it for entering the sanctuary; But on account of it terumah must be burnt. He who eats a limb of it while it is alive is not subject to the penalty of forty stripes; Slaughtering it does not render it fit. The large feathers and the down contract uncleanness and convey uncleanness and combine with the flesh to constitute the prescribed minimum. The beak and the claws contract uncleanness and convey uncleanness and combine [with the flesh to make up the prescribed minimum].

Food that contracted uncleanness from a "father of uncleanness" and one that contracted uncleanness from a derived uncleanness may be combined together to convey uncleanness according to the lighter grade of the two. How so? If the amount of half an egg of food that has first grade uncleanness and the amount of half an egg of food that has second grade uncleanness were mixed together, the two are regarded having second grade uncleanness. And if the amount of half of an egg of food that has second grade uncleanness and the amount of half an egg of food that has third grade uncleanness were mixed together, the two are regarded as having third grade of uncleanness. If the amount of an egg of food having first grade uncleanness and the amount of an egg of food having second grade uncleanness were mixed together, both are regarded as having first grade uncleanness; But if they were then divided, each part is regarded as having second grade uncleanness. If each part separately fell on a loaf of terumah, they cause it to become unfit. But if the two fell together they cause it to have second grade uncleanness.

They said a general rule with regard to clean food: whatever is designated as food for human consumption is susceptible to uncleanness unless it is rendered unfit to be food for a dog; And whatever is not designated as food for human consumption is not susceptible to uncleanness unless it is designated for human consumption. How so? If a pigeon fell into a wine-press and one intended to pick it out for an idolater, it becomes susceptible to uncleanness; but if he intended it for a dog it is not susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that it is susceptible to uncleanness. If a deaf mute, one not of sound senses or a minor intended it as food, it remains insusceptible. But if they picked it up it becomes susceptible; since only an act of theirs is effective while their intention is of no consequence.

All seas are equivalent to a mikveh, for it is said, "And the gathering (ulemikveh) of the waters He called the seas" (Genesis 1:10), the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: only the Great Sea is equivalent to a mikveh, for it says "seas" only because there are in it many kinds of seas. Rabbi Yose says: all seas afford cleanness when running, and yet they are unfit for zavim and metzoraim and for the preparation of the hatat waters.

All foods combine together to make up the half of a half-loaf which makes the body unfit. All liquids combine together to make up the quarter-log which makes the body unfit. This is more of a stringency in the case of one who drinks unclean liquids than in the case of the mikveh, for in this case they have made all other liquids like water.

All foods combine together to make up the half of a half-loaf which makes the body unfit. All liquids combine together to make up the quarter-log which makes the body unfit. This is more of a stringency in the case of one who drinks unclean liquids than in the case of the mikveh, for in this case they have made all other liquids like water.

Anyone who is fit to try capital cases is also fit to try monetary cases. But there are those who are fit to try monetary suits and and unfit to try capital cases. Anyone who is eligible to act as judge is eligible to serve as a witness. But there may be one who is eligible to act as witness and not as judge.

He who ate nevelah of a clean bird, and it still is in his gullet, defiles at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. If he put his head within the air-space of an oven, the oven remains clean. But if he vomited or swallowed it, he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] unfit at one [more remove]. But as long as it is still in his mouth, until he swallows it, he remains clean.

He who touches a dead sheretz, or semen, or he that has suffered corpse uncleanness, or a metzora during his days of counting, or hatat waters of insufficient quantity with which to perform the sprinkling, or carrion, or an object ridden upon [by a zav], defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. This is the general principle: anyone who touches anything that according to the Torah is a "father of uncleanness" defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove], except [for the corpse] of a human. If he had become separated, he defiles at one [remove] and renders [terumah] unfit at one [more remove].

Dough that had been mixed [with dough of terumah] or that had been leavened with yeast of terumah, is not disqualified by tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon declare it unfit. Dough that had become susceptible [to uncleanness] by a liquid, and it was kneaded with produce juice, and later touched by a tevul yom: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Bartota says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he disqualifies all of it. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched.

Water which had become so unfit that it could not be drunk by a beast: If it was in a vessel it is invalid, But if it was in the ground it is valid. If there fell into [the water], dye, or gum or sulphate of copper and its color changed, it is invalid. If a person did any work with it or soaked his bread in it, it is invalid. Shimon of Teman says: even if he intended to soak his bread in one water and it fell into another water the water is valid.

Rebbi was in Acco when he saw a man going up over the rock. He said to him, “are you not the son of the Cohen X, was your father not a Cohen?” He said to him, “the eyes of my father were high, but he married a woman unfit for him and profaned this man.”

HALAKHAH: What means “until it decays”? That it is no longer human food or until it is unfit as dog food? Let us hear from the following: “If it decayed and no longer is human food it is impure by the impurity of food and one burns it in impurity.” It is impure by the impurity of food and you say until unfit as dog food? It must be as human food.

HALAKHAH: What means “until it decays”? That it is no longer human food or until it is unfit as dog food? Let us hear from the following: “If it decayed and no longer is human food it is impure by the impurity of food and one burns it in impurity.” It is impure by the impurity of food and you say until unfit as dog food? It must be as human food.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says,” etc. There, we have stated: “Rebbi Jehudah said, the daughter of a male proselyte is like the daughter of a male desecrated one.” They all interpret the same verse (Ez. 44:22): “Only virgins from the seed of the House of Israel.” Rebbi Jehudah says, unless his father be from Israel. Rebbi Eliezer says, either her father or her mother. Rebbi Yose says, unless they are born in the holiness of Israel. Rebbi Simeon says, unless they grow the hymen in the holiness of Israel. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “A girl which became a proselyte being less than three years and one day of age is acceptable for the priesthood since it was said (Num. 31:18): ‘All the female children unfit for sleeping with a male you shall let live for yourselves,’ and Phineas was with them.” But the rabbis [say], you shall let live as slaves and slave girls for yourselves.

Rebbi Ḥelbo in the name of Rav Huna: A log and most of it by the majority of its circumference. What means by the majority of its circumference? At one place or at most of its entire surface area? It was found stated: Until it became unfit for work.

MISHNAH: The commandment for the two he-goats of the Day of Atonement is that they be equal in looks, in height, and in value, and be bought simultaneously. Even if they are not equal they are qualified; if one was bought one day and the other the next day they are qualified. If one of them dies, if it died before he drew lots he should take a match for the second one; if it dies after he drew lots one brings two and he draws new lots for them. Then he shall say if the one for Hashem dies, “the one for which the lot for Hashem is drawn shall be taken in its stead.” And if the one for Azazel died, “the one for which the lot for Azazel is drawn shall be taken in its stead.” The second one shall graze until it becomes unfit, then be sold, and its proceeds used for voluntary sacrifices since no public purification sacrifice is allowed to die. Rebbi Jehudah says, it shall die. In addition, Rebbi Jehudah says, if the blood is spilled the one to be sent away shall die, if the one to be sent away dies the blood shall be spilled.

HALAKHAH: “If two [men] gave qiddushin to two sisters,” etc. It was stated: These rules apply both for Israel and for Cohanim. That is, if ḥalîṣah was performed first and the levirate afterwards. But to perform levirate first is forbidden; maybe his brother will die and it will turn out that he cohabited with the sister of his sister-in-law. Rav Ḥisda said, that means that having relations with the sister of his sister-in-law does not make her unfit for [marriage into] priesthood. Rebbi Yose bar Abba said, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: He who cohabited with the sister of a woman for whom he had performed ḥalîṣah did not make her unfit for [marriage into] priesthood.

HALAKHAH: “If two [men] gave qiddushin to two sisters,” etc. It was stated: These rules apply both for Israel and for Cohanim. That is, if ḥalîṣah was performed first and the levirate afterwards. But to perform levirate first is forbidden; maybe his brother will die and it will turn out that he cohabited with the sister of his sister-in-law. Rav Ḥisda said, that means that having relations with the sister of his sister-in-law does not make her unfit for [marriage into] priesthood. Rebbi Yose bar Abba said, Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: He who cohabited with the sister of a woman for whom he had performed ḥalîṣah did not make her unfit for [marriage into] priesthood.

MISHNAH: If she performed ḥalîṣah in front of two [judges] or of three when it turned out that one was a relative or unfit, the ḥalîṣah is invalid; Rebbi Simeon and Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian declare it valid. If happened that she performed ḥalîṣah between herself and him in jail; the case came before Rebbi Aqiba and he declared it valid.

Rebbi was in Acco when he saw a man on the rock. He said to him, “are you not the son of the Cohen X, was your father not a Cohen?” He said to him, “the eyes of my father were high, but he married a woman unfit for him and profaned this man.”

“Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says,” etc. There, we have stated: “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, the daughter of proselytes should not marry into the priesthood unless her mother be from Israel” They all interpret the same verse (Ez. 44:22): “Only virgins from the seed of the House of Israel.” Rebbi Jehudah says, unless his father be from Israel. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, either her father or her mother. Rebbi Yose says, unless they are born in the holiness of Israel. Rebbi Simeon says, unless they grow the hymen in the holiness of Israel. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “A girl which became a proselyte being less than three years and one day of age is acceptable for the priesthood since it was said (Num. 31:18): ‘All the female children unfit for sleeping with a male you shall let live for yourselves,’ and Phineas was with them.” How do the rabbis explain? You shall let live as slaves and slave girls for yourselves.

“One who robbed a beam and built it into a large building. The House of Shammai say, he has to tear down the entire building and return it. But the House of Hillel say, he has to pay its worth to support the penitents. If he went into another person’s ruined building and rebuilt it without permission, one estimates for him and his hand is disadvantaged. If he rebuilt it with permission, one estimates for him and his hand is advantaged. If he wanted to take his wood and stones, one does not listen to him.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of the settlement in the Land of Israel. Rav Naḥman bar Isaac asked: If somebody temporarily entered another person’s ruin to put down his bundle, when he wanted to take it up again does one not listen to him? When he heard what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa had said, because of the settlement in the Land of Israel, he said: That is a statement. But if he built at a place unfit for building, or planted trees at a place unfit for planting, Rav said one estimates for him but one tricks him to permit entry both in summer and in winter. One said to him: Was that not already stated: “One estimates for him and his hand is disadvantaged?”

“One who robbed a beam and built it into a large building. The House of Shammai say, he has to tear down the entire building and return it. But the House of Hillel say, he has to pay its worth to support the penitents. If he went into another person’s ruined building and rebuilt it without permission, one estimates for him and his hand is disadvantaged. If he rebuilt it with permission, one estimates for him and his hand is advantaged. If he wanted to take his wood and stones, one does not listen to him.” Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because of the settlement in the Land of Israel. Rav Naḥman bar Isaac asked: If somebody temporarily entered another person’s ruin to put down his bundle, when he wanted to take it up again does one not listen to him? When he heard what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa had said, because of the settlement in the Land of Israel, he said: That is a statement. But if he built at a place unfit for building, or planted trees at a place unfit for planting, Rav said one estimates for him but one tricks him to permit entry both in summer and in winter. One said to him: Was that not already stated: “One estimates for him and his hand is disadvantaged?”

There, we have stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, if his mother was not fit for his father, he is liable only for one [sacrifice]. Therefore, if his mother was fit for his father, he is liable for two. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: There is no difference. Whether his mother was fit for his father or unfit for his father, he is liable only once. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan: Your mother is she, you find him guilty because of his mother; this directs the entire chapter towards his mother. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: What caused Rebbi Joḥanan to concentrate on the mother and to leave the father’s wife aside? He told him, for he argues with Rebbi Ismael, as Rebbi Ismael explained: Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the male. Is not his father included in the category of the male? Only to make him liable twice, as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his father is doubly liable about him. Then should we not state “thirty-seven extirpations in the Torah”? Rebbi Mana said, all denotations of males are one. Your father’s wife’s nakedness; the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does Rebbi Aqiba not explain she is your father’s nakedness? There is no difference whether during lifetime or after death. Rebbi Aqiba explains: Your father’s wife’s nakedness, the verse refers to the father’s wife. Your mother’s nakedness, that is his mother who is his father’s wife. From where his mother who is not his father’s wife? Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness. How does Rebbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after [the father’s] death. Does not Rebbi Aqiba treat your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness? Since your father refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to one’s mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Is it not reasonable to explain that verse except following Rebbi Jehudah who because he does not accept “his mother who is his father’s wife” must explain that your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to your mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Rebbi Zeˋira said, this implies that one infers from parallel language even if it is free only from one side. Rebbi Yudan said to him, this is obvious for Rebbi Aqiba since Rebbi Aqiba infers from parallel language even if it is not free.

Rab Ashe said : The phrase "If the man has waited" must be altered to "If the man has not waited"; because everybody agrees that if he waited sufficient time to finish the remainder of the Tefillah, he recommences from the beginning; but the point of divergence there [between Rab Hisda and Rab Hamnuna] is the case where the man did not wait. One is of the opinion that the man was in an uncomfortable state and unfit [to pray], and therefore his Tefillah is invalid; while the other is of opinion that the man was fit [to pray] and his Tefillah is valid.

Our Rabbis have taught : The oil prevents the Grace [from beign said] — these are the words of R.Zilai ; but R. Ziwai says ; It does not prevent it. R. Aha says : Good oil prevents it. R. Zohamai says : Just as one who is dirty is unfit for the Temple-service, so are dirty hands unfit for the Grace.

Our Rabbis have taught : The oil prevents the Grace [from beign said] — these are the words of R.Zilai ; but R. Ziwai says ; It does not prevent it. R. Aha says : Good oil prevents it. R. Zohamai says : Just as one who is dirty is unfit for the Temple-service, so are dirty hands unfit for the Grace.

[Reverting to] the main text: ‘R. Ammi b. Tavyomi said: If he covered with discarded vessels it is invalid’. What are discarded vessels? Abaye said, Small strips of cloth less than three [handbreadths] square which are unfit to be used either by rich or by poor.

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.

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.