Jewish History of Intermarriage & Patrilineal/Matrilineal Descent

(1a) He prohibited us from marrying heretics. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "And you shall not marry them" (Deuteronomy 7:3). And he explained what marriage is - "do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons." And in the explanation (Avodah Zarah 36b), they said, "The Torah forbade [it when it is] by way of marriage."

(1b) And there are distinctions about the punishment of one who transgresses this negative commandment. And that is that when the one who has sexual relations with an Aramean has sexual relations in public - anyone who kills him while he is clinging to the sin has carried out the punishment, as Pinchas did to Zimri (Numbers 25:6-8). And they said (Sanhedrin 81a), "One who has sexual relations with an Aramean, zealots may attack him" - but with the conditions that we mentioned. And that is that he has relations with her in public, and [that the punishment is meted out] at the time of the act - like the story that happened (with Pinchas and Zimri).

(1c) But if he did not do this in public or he [already] separated and the zealots did not attack him, he is liable for excision. However this excision is not made clear in the Torah: They said, "[When] zealots did not attack him, what is [the law]?" And it is explained that it is excision (cutting off), from His saying, "for Judah has profaned what is holy to the Lord - what He loves - and espoused daughters of alien gods. The Lord will cut off from the man that does this all living offspring" (Malachi 2:11-12). [This] implies that it is with excision. However when it becomes confirmed about a man - with witnesses and a warning - that he had sexual relations with an Aramean, he is lashed, by Torah law. And know this. (See Parashat Vaetchanan; Mishneh Torah, Forbidden Intercourse 12.)

(1a) When a Jew engages in relations with a woman from other nations, [taking her] as his spouse or a Jewess engages in relations with a non-Jew as his spouse, they are punished by lashes, according to Scriptural Law. As [Deuteronomy 7:3] states: "You shall not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughter to his son, and do not take his daughter for your son."

(1b) This prohibition applies equally to [individuals from] the seven [Canaanite] nations and all other gentiles. This was explicitly stated in Ezra [Nechemiah 10:31]: "That we will not give our daughters to the gentiles in the land and that we will not take their daughters for our sons."

(2a) The Scriptural prohibition applies only to marital relations. When, by contrast, one engages in relations with a gentile woman with a licentious intent, he is given "stripes for rebellious conduct" according to Rabbinic Law. [This is a] decree, lest this lead to marriage.

(2b) If [a Jew] designates [a gentile woman] for licentious relations, he is liable for relations with a niddah, a maid-servant, a gentile woman, and a licentious woman. If he did not designate her for himself, but instead, [engage in relations with her] spontaneously, he is only liable for relations with a gentile woman. All of these liabilities are Rabbinic in origin.

[MY TRANSLATION]

(1a) You are warned about the seven (Canaanite) nations as it is mentioned in Parashat Vaetchanan, as it says "and God dislodges many nations before you, the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Peruzites, Hivvites, and Jebusites" and it says afterward "Do not intermarry with them, do not give your daughter to their son nor take their daughter for your son for they will remove your children from [following] after me" (Deuteronomy 7:1, 3).

(1b) The simple meaning of the text is that the gentile status [of the seven Canaanite nations] as mentioned by the text is that they are "people who make you stray" (בני הסרה) more than all other nations, as our rabbis said "Gentiles outside the land of Israel are not idolators rather they follow the tradition of their ancestors" (Chullin 13). In Yevamot (76) Rava explains that the negative commandment of "do not intermarry" leads to the legal conclusion that from the time of the wedding - that is kiddushin - one transgresses a negative commandment, even if a person (from these seven nations) converts [and by doing so] kiddushin is accepted.

(1c) And Rahab the prostitute, who converted and married Joshua, is from a different nation, not one of the seven nations in which their gentile status [makes them forbidden to ever marry], thus their marriage does not transgress this negative commandment until they had sexual relations. Once they had sexual relations they would transgress the commandment "do not take one of their daughters for your son because they will remove your son from [following] after me." However, [in regards to] all the other nations from which someone may convert and is permitted to intermarry with them to the point the Torah needs to add a verse forbidding an Ammonite and Moabite convert from all other allowed converts from entering the congregation, so that later on the halakha would not follow Rabbi Shimon who said in Yevamot (53) and Kiddushin (65) that even the other nations whose gentile status [is permitted to intermarry] retains the negative commandment "do not give their daughter to your son" since he interpreted an exapansive understanding of"for they remove them." However, all the sages disagree with him and say the text only deals with the seven Canaanite nations.

(1d) It should be obvious given what we explained that someone who has sexual relations with a non-Jew (from a nation that is not one of these seven nations) does not receive lashes, even if they're a kohen, except in situations in which the relations were promiscuous, occurring out of wedlock.

(1e) And even though a Jew who has sexual relations with a non-Jew is not punished in situations we just mentioned, God's wrath will strike them (אם פגעו בו קנאין לשמים והרגוהו) if they have sexual relations in public, i.e. 10 or more Jewish witnesses. Those who kill them will be lauded [for being] zealous [on behalf of God], as is mentioned in Sanhedrin (72) "and the fact to learn from the case of Pinchas and Zimri is that the zealous one is only allowed to strike them down during the act. But if they are separated, the zealous one may not kill (the Jewish man having sexual relations with the non-Jewish woman in public). And if the zealous one kills the Jewish person, the zealous one is also killed...

(1f) And in Avodah Zarah (36) it says that the Hasmoneans decreed that a Jew who has sexual relations even in private with a Kuthite woman is liable [for lashes] due to transgressing four forbidden relations, understood by the mnemonic נשג"ז - women 1) who are mensturating (נדה), 2) who are maidservants (שפחה), 3) who are non-Jews (גויה), and 4) who are prostitutes (זונה). this is a sin even though there is no possibility of capital punishment by the courts nor of lashes, as the punishment is not less severe given there is a greater loss than all the other sexual transgressions - that he will bear a child to an idolator and the child would belong to the Kuthite mother since his son from sexual relations with a Kuthite is not called your son but her son, as is mentioned in Yevamot (16) and Kiddushin (65). And this is how we are caused to connect with non-Jews from whom God separated us to follow after God, and [to connect with non-Jews would be considered as] being unfaithful to God...

(1a) Do not marry with idolaters: That we should not marry with the nations — and Rambam, may his memory be blessed, wrote (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 12:1), “Not with the seven nations and with the other nations” — as it is stated (Deuteronomy 7:3), “You shall not marry with them.” And the matter of marriages is that he give his daughter to [the idolater’s] son or his son to his daughter, and as the verse elucidates, “you shall not give your daughter to his son, and his daughter you shall not take for your son.” And all the more so one who mates with them [himself], as he himself is included in this prohibition. And we say in Tractate Avodah Zarah 36b [that it is] by way of marriages that the Torah forbade. But even though this verse of “You shall not marry them” is written specifically about the seven nations and in their being converts — and so is it understood by our Rabbis, who said in the Gemara (Yevamot 76a), “In their being converts, they have marriages, in their being gentiles, they do not have marriages” — in that which the Scripture restates [that which is already understood], “you shall not give your daughter to his son, and his daughter you shall not take for your son,” it [comes to] include the seven nations and all of the other nations even in their being gentiles. But the seven nations are forbidden even in their being converts because they were the main [source] of idolatry and its first foundation, whereas the other nations are permitted by conversion. But one who has sexual relations on occasion, such as a man who has sexual relations privately with his harlot — this is only a rabbinic prohibition, and it is the prohibition of nashgaz (the Hebrew initials of the four types of women included: menstruant, maidservant, gentile, harlot) mentioned in Avodah Zarah 76a.

(1b) Re: the roots of the commandment. Since most of the masses — in their stupidity — are drawn after the counsel of their wives, if one marries the “daughter of a foreign god,” she will draw him to worship idolatry. And also because her children that are born from her will be raised towards idolatry. And woe to the one who disqualifies his seed.

(1c) Re: the laws of the commandment. As said by our sages, may their memory be blessed (Sanhedrin 81a), that zealots would attack one who has sexual intercourse with an Aramean (gentile) publicly in the eyes of ten or more Israelites. And the proof of the thing is the story of Pinchas and Zimri. But the zealot is nonetheless only permitted to attack him at the time of the promiscuous act, and like in the story that happened; as it is stated (Numbers 25:8), “and the woman through her belly.” But if he separated [from her], we do not kill him, but [rather] bring him to the court and they administer lashes [upon] him, since he did the act publicly. [If] the zealots did not attack him and the court did not administer lashes [upon] him, we know from the words of tradition that he is [punished] by excision, as it is written (Malachi 2:11-12), “and he who husbands (read here as, “who has sexual intercourse with”) the daughter of a foreign god. The Lord will excise the man that does it.” And a gentile who has sexual relations with an Israelite — if she is a married woman, he is killed over her; but, if not, he is not killed. But a Jew who wantonly has sexual relations with a gentile woman — even [if it is] by way of harlotry — she is nonetheless killed, since a mishap happened to an Israelite through her, like the law of an animal. And this thing is explicit in the Torah, as it is stated (Numbers 31:16-17), “They were the ones that were with the word of Bilaam against the Children of Israel, etc. and any woman that could know a man sexually they killed.” [This] and the rest of its details are elucidated in Avodah Zarah and Yevamot and Kiddushin. (See Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Intercourse 2.)

(1d) And it is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and marries with the seven nations in their being converts — meaning to say, that he specifies a woman from them for a wife for his son, or he gave his daughter to one of them — the father has violated a negative commandment. But he is not lashed, as there is no act [involved] with it, whereas the son who did the act of sexual relations is lashed. And with the other nations, and so [too,] with the seven nations, in their being gentiles — one who specifies a woman from them to regularly have sexual relations with her, is lashed by Torah writ — from the first relations after he specified her — and she is killed. And if he did not specify her, but only has sexual relations with her once in the way of harlotry, he is struck with lashes of rebellion, by rabbinic writ.

[MY TRANSLATION]

(1a) A Kuthtite, even though she is not forbidden by rabbinic decree, and even if a Jew has forbidden sexual relations out of wedlock, he is given lashes according to a rabbinic level. And if he secludes himself with her for purposes of licentiousness, he is liable via rabbinic decree due to the four prohibitions of [having sexual relations with] women 1) who are menstruating, 2) who are maidservants, 3) who are non-Jews, and 4) who are prostitutes.

(1b) Maimonides z"l wrote regarding a a Jewish man who has sexual relations with a Kuthite: [A Jewish man who has sexual relations] with a non-Jew for the purpose of marriage receives lashes according to the Torah, as does a Jewish woman who who has sexual relations with a non-Jew for a similar purpose - because of the commandment "Do not intermarry with them" (Deuteronomy 7:3). This prohibition applies both to the seven Canaanite nations and all nations in general.

(1c) And it seems to me that this command is only in regards to the seven Canaanite nations as [Maimonides' conclusion] is not supported by Rabbi Shimon who said "For they will remove" comes to expand all who remove." Even the seven Canaanite nations do not receive lashes because of the command "Do not intermarry" rather after they convert. However, when it comes to the other nations, there is no [prohibition related to] marriage, and they are not lasted until a sexual act is committed, and then they are lashed because of the prohibition "do not take" their daughter for your son...

(1d) Behold his punishment is explained by tradition that he is cut off, as Torah says "For Judah desecrated what was holy to, and desired by, God - and espoused daughters of alien gods. May God leave to any man who has done this no descendants" (Malachi 2:11). And Maimonides wrote that this sin, though it is not punished with death by the rabbinic court, is not to be viewed lightly, rather it is a loss that is not experienced by any of the other sexual prohibitions, for ia chld from a sexual transgression is still his child in all ways, and is certainly considered a Jew...

Forbidden relations with Kuthite women and maidservants, and there are six sections:

(1) If a Jew engages in sexual relations with a female idolater, derech ishut (that is, for the purpose of marriage), or a Jewess engages in sexual relations with a male idolater, that Jew or Jewess is given lashes on a Biblical level. As it is written (Deuteronomy 7:3): "You shall not marry them." (There are those who disagree with this ruling). However, if he engages in sexual relations derech zenut (that is, for licentiousness), casually, he is culpable only on a Rabbinic level for idolatry and for engaging in relations with a prostitute and he is given makat mardut (that is, lashes on a Rabbinic level). And, if he sets her aside for licentious activity, he is culpable on a Rabbinic level for having sexual relations with a nida (that is, menstruant), having sexual relations with a shifcha, (that is, slavewoman), idolatry, and having sexual relations with a prostitute. And, if he is a Kohen (that is, a priest), even if he engages in sexual relations casually, he receives lashes on a Biblical level, as it is written (Leviticus 21:7) ["(A kohen) may not marry a prostitute..."]

(2) A man who has sexual relations with an idol worshiper, if zealots have not killed him and he has not received lashes at the hands of the court, his punishment is explicit in the words of tradition (Prophets), that he receives excision, as is written, “…For Judah has profaned the holiness of God which He loves, and has married the daughter of his strange god. May God cut off the man that does this, he that calls and he that answers…” (Malachi 2:11-12). He shall not have a caller among the wise nor a responder among the students. REMA: This sin has a deficit which is not present among all the other sexual proscriptions, for the son derived from a (Canaanite) female slave or from a Kuthite (non-Jewish) female is not considered his son, as opposed to descendents from other sexually proscribed women (Tur in the name of Rambam). One who has sexual relations with an idol worshiper in public, whose law is that zealots kill him, as will be explained Choshen Mishpat chapter 425, is included in the classification of sexual proscriptions, and the law is that he should permit himself to be killed rather than transgress (Beit Yosef in the name of Orchot Chaim in the name of Rambam) as is the case with other sexual proscriptions and as explained in Yoreh Deah chapter 157.

(3) A maidservant who immersed for the name of slavery, is forbidden to a freed-man, whether it was his or his friend's slave. One who sleeps with her, is liable for Mardut lashes (lashes from the rabbis).

(4) One who is caught with his maidservant, they take her from him, sell her and scatter the money among the poor people and give his lashes, and shave his hair and seclude him for thirty days.

(5) If the child of a Jewish woman was mixed up with the child of a maidservant both of them are questionable and both are possibly slaves and they force the master of the maidservant to free both of them. If one of the babies was the son of the master of the slave, when they get older, they free each other and they are permitted to marry regular Jews.

(6) If the mixture was [of] girls, they are both slavewomen-in-doubt; [if] someone has intercourse with [either] one of them, the [child] born [of that union] is in doubt. Likewise, if the [child] born of an idolator became mixed with the [child] born of an Israelite, we immerse both of them for the sake of conversion, and each one of them is a convert-in-doubt.

(1) Abraham was now old, advanced in years, and ה' had blessed Abraham in all things. (2) And Abraham said to the senior servant of his household, who had charge of all that he owned, “Put your hand under my thigh (3) and I will make you swear by ה', the God of heaven and the God of the earth, that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites among whom I dwell, (4) but will go to the land of my birth and get a wife for my son Isaac.”

(46) Rebekah said to Isaac, “I am disgusted with my life because of the Hittite women. If Jacob marries a Hittite woman like these, from among the native women, what good will life be to me?” (1) So Isaac sent for Jacob and blessed him. He instructed him, saying, “You shall not take a wife from among the Canaanite women. (2) Up, go to Paddan-aram, to the house of Bethuel, your mother’s father, and take a wife there from among the daughters of Laban, your mother’s brother. (3) May El Shaddai bless you, make you fertile and numerous, so that you become an assembly of peoples.

(34) When Esau was forty years old, he took to wife Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Basemath daughter of Elon the Hittite; (35) and they were a source of bitterness to Isaac and Rebekah.

(6) When Esau saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob and sent him off to Paddan-aram to take a wife from there, charging him, as he blessed him, “You shall not take a wife from among the Canaanite women,” (7) and that Jacob had obeyed his father and mother and gone to Paddan-aram, (8) Esau realized that the Canaanite women displeased his father Isaac. (9) So Esau went to Ishmael and took to wife, in addition to the wives he had, Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael son of Abraham, sister of Nebaioth.

(13) But ye shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and ye shall cut down their Asherim. (14) For thou shalt bow down to no other god; for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God; (15) lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go astray after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and they call thee, and thou eat of their sacrifice; (16) and thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go astray after their gods, and make thy sons go astray after their gods.

(1) When the LORD your God brings you to the land that you are about to enter and possess, and He dislodges many nations before you—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, seven nations much larger than you— (2) and the LORD your God delivers them to you and you defeat them, you must doom them to destruction: grant them no terms and give them no quarter. (3) You shall not intermarry with them: do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. (4) For they will turn your children away from Me to worship other gods, and the LORD’s anger will blaze forth against you and He will promptly wipe you out. (5) Instead, this is what you shall do to them: you shall tear down their altars, smash their pillars, cut down their sacred posts, and consign their images to the fire. (6) For you are a people consecrated to the LORD your God: of all the peoples on earth the LORD your God chose you to be His treasured people.

(1) The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: (2) Speak to the Israelite people and say to them: I the LORD am your God. (3) You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt where you dwelt, or of the land of Canaan to which I am taking you; nor shall you follow their laws. (4) My rules alone shall you observe, and faithfully follow My laws: I the LORD am your God.

(4) An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the assembly of the LORD for ever; (5) because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when ye came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against thee Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Aram-naharaim, to curse thee. (6) Nevertheless the LORD thy God would not hearken unto Balaam; but the LORD thy God turned the curse into a blessing unto thee, because the LORD thy God loved thee. (7) Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever. (8) Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, for he is thy brother; thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land. (9) The children of the third generation that are born unto them may enter into the assembly of the LORD.

(11) For your own sakes, therefore, be most mindful to love the LORD your God. (12) For should you turn away and attach yourselves to the remnant of those nations—to those that are left among you—and intermarry with them, you joining them and they joining you, (13) know for certain that the LORD your God will not continue to drive these nations out before you; they shall become a snare and a trap for you, a scourge to your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from this good land that the LORD your God has given you.

(1) Once Samson went down to Timnah; and while in Timnah, he noticed a girl among the Philistine women. (2) On his return, he told his father and mother, “I noticed one of the Philistine women in Timnah; please get her for me as a wife.” (3) His father and mother said to him, “Is there no one among the daughters of your own kinsmen and among all our people, that you must go and take a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines?” But Samson answered his father, “Get me that one, for she is the one that pleases me.”

(1) King Solomon loved many foreign women in addition to Pharaoh’s daughter—Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Phoenician, and Hittite women, (2) from the nations of which the LORD had said to the Israelites, “None of you shall join them and none of them shall join you, lest they turn your heart away to follow their gods.” Such Solomon clung to and loved. (3) He had seven hundred royal wives and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned his heart away. (4) In his old age, his wives turned away Solomon’s heart after other gods, and he was not as wholeheartedly devoted to the LORD his God as his father David had been.

1) Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who says that King Solomon sinned is nothing other than mistaken, as it is stated: “And his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David, his father” (I Kings 11:4). By inference: Solomon’s heart was not equal to the heart of David, his father; however, he also did not sin.

2) However, how then do I establish the meaning of the verse: “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods” (I Kings 11:4)? That verse is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Natan; as Rabbi Natan raised a contradiction between the two parts of the verse. On the one hand, it is written: “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods.”

3) On the other hand, isn’t it written: “And his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father,” indicating that Solomon’s heart was not equal to the heart of David his father; however, he also did not sin? Rather, the verse says as follows: For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart, in an attempt to spur him to go after other gods; however, he did not go after them.

4) The Gemara asks: Isn’t it written: “Then did Solomon build [yivne] an altar for Kemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon” (I Kings 11:7), indicating that Solomon did in fact stray after idols? The Gemara answers: This can be understood to mean that Solomon sought to build an altar for idols but did not build it.

5) The Gemara objects: But now if that is the way to understand the future tense verb form yivne, what of another instance where the same form is employed: “Then did Joshua build [yivne] an altar to the Lord God of Israel in Mount Eival” (Joshua 8:30)? There too, would you say that Joshua sought to build an altar but did not build one? Rather, there, in the case of Joshua, it means that he actually built it. Here too, with regard to Solomon, it means that he actually built the altar. Rather, this verse should be understood as it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: The verse states: “And the altars that were before Jerusalem, which were on the right hand of the Mount of Olives, which Solomon the king of Israel had built for Ashtoret the abomination of the Zidonim, and for Kemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Milkom the abomination of the children of Ammon, did the king defile” (II Kings 23:13). All these were destroyed by Josiah. The Gemara asks: Is it possible that the righteous king Asa came and did not destroy them, and the righteous king Jehosaphat came and did not destroy them until Josiah came and destroyed them? Didn’t Asa and Jehosaphat destroy all the idolatry in Eretz Yisrael? Rather, the verse juxtaposes the earlier ones, i.e., Solomon, to the later ones, i.e., Josiah. Just as the later ones, Josiah, did not effect the destruction of the altars, as it was done by his predecessors, and nevertheless the verse attributes it to him to praise him as if he had destroyed all those altars, so too, the earlier ones, Solomon, did not effect the construction, and nevertheless the verse attributes it to him to disgrace him as he did not prevent their construction.

6) The Gemara raises another question. Isn’t it written: “And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord” (I Kings 11:6), clearly indicating that Solomon sinned? Rather, since he should have protested against the conduct of his wives, i.e., their involvement in idolatry, but he did not protest, the verse ascribes to him liability as if he had sinned.

7) Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It would have been preferable for that righteous man, Solomon, to be a servant tasked with drawing water and hewing wood for another matter, i.e., idolatry, and not have the verse write about him: “And he did evil in the sight of the Lord,” even though he did not.

8) Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: When Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter, she brought to him a thousand musical instruments and said to him: This is the way we do it for this idolatry, and this is the way we do it for that idolatry, and he did not protest that talk.

9) Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: When Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter, the angel Gabriel descended from heaven and implanted a reed into the sea, and a sandbar grew around it, growing larger each year, and upon it the great city of Rome was built, which became God’s instrument to punish Israel.

(1) Hear this, O priests, Attend, O House of Israel, And give ear, O royal house; For right conduct is your responsibility! But you have been a snare to Mizpah And a net spread out over Tabor; (2) For when trappers dug deep pitfalls, I was the only reprover of them all. (3) Yes, I have watched Ephraim, Israel has not escaped my notice: Behold, you have fornicated, O Ephraim; Israel has defiled himself! (4) Their habits do not let them Turn back to their God; Because of the lecherous impulse within them, They pay no heed to the LORD. (5) Israel’s pride shall be humbled before his very eyes, As Israel and Ephraim fall because of their sin (And Judah falls with them). (6) Then they will go with their sheep and cattle To seek the LORD, but they will not find Him. He has cast them off: (7) [Because] they have broken faith with the LORD, Because they have begotten Alien children. Therefore, the new moon Shall devour their portion. (8) Sound a ram’s horn in Gibeah, A trumpet in Ramah; Give the alarm in Beth-aven; After you, Benjamin! (9) Ephraim is stricken with horror On a day of chastisement. Against the tribes of Israel I proclaim certainties: (10) The officers of Judah have acted Like shifters of field boundaries; On them I will pour out My wrath like water.

(1) Now when these things were done, the princes drew near unto me, saying: ‘The people of Israel, and the priests and the Levites, have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, doing according to their abominations, even of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. (2) For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the lands; yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been first in this faithlessness.’ (3) And when I heard this thing, I rent my garment and my mantle, and plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down appalled. (4) Then were assembled unto me every one that trembled at the words of the God of Israel, because of the faithlessness of them of the captivity; and I sat appalled until the evening offering. (5) And at the evening offering I arose up from my fasting, even with my garment and my mantle rent; and I fell upon my knees, and spread out my hands unto the LORD my God; (6) and I said: ‘O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to Thee, my God; for our iniquities are increased over our head, and our guiltiness is grown up unto the heavens. (7) Since the days of our fathers we have been exceeding guilty unto this day; and for our iniquities have we, our kings, and our priests, been delivered into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, and to spoiling, and to confusion of face, as it is this day. (8) And now for a little moment grace hath been shown from the LORD our God, to leave us a remnant to escape, and to give us a nail in His holy place, that our God may lighten our eyes, and give us a little reviving in our bondage. (9) For we are bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the ruins thereof, and to give us a fence in Judah and in Jerusalem. (10) And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken Thy commandments, (11) which Thou hast commanded by Thy servants the prophets, saying: The land, unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land through the uncleanness of the peoples of the lands, through their abominations, wherewith they have filled it from one end to another with their filthiness. (12) Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their prosperity for ever; that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever. (13) And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great guilt, seeing that Thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such a remnant, (14) shall we again break Thy commandments, and make marriages with the peoples that do these abominations? wouldest not Thou be angry with us till Thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remnant, nor any to escape? (15) O LORD, the God of Israel, Thou art righteous; for we are left a remnant that is escaped, as it is this day; behold, we are before Thee in our guiltiness; for none can stand before Thee because of this.’

(23) Also at that time, I saw that Jews had married Ashdodite, Ammonite, and Moabite women; (24) a good number of their children spoke the language of Ashdod and the language of those various peoples, and did not know how to speak Judean. (25) I censured them, cursed them, flogged them, tore out their hair, and adjured them by God, saying, “You shall not give your daughters in marriage to their sons, or take any of their daughters for your sons or yourselves.

It is permitted for an ordinary Israelite with crushed testicles to marry a Gibeonite woman. Now, if it enters your mind that he retains his sanctity as a Jew, one should apply here the prohibition stated with regard to Canaanites: “You shall not marry them” (Deuteronomy 7:3). Apparently, then, one whose testicles have been crushed loses his former sanctity, and the same should apply to a priest. Rava said: This is no proof, as is that to say that the prohibition there against marrying Canaanites is due to sanctity or lack of sanctity? Rather, the reason for the prohibition is that perhaps one will father a child from his Canaanite wife and that child will later go off and engage in idolatrous worship. Now, this concern applies only when they are still gentiles, but when they convert, as did the Gibeonites, they are permitted to Jews. And it is the Sages who decreed that Gibeonites are forbidden like mamzerim even after their conversion. And when the Sages decreed that one may not marry them, the decree was limited to those who are capable of having children, but with regard to this one, a man with crushed testicles who is incapable of having children, the Sages did not issue a decree. The Gemara raises an objection against Rava: However, if that is so, then with regard to a mamzer, who is capable of having children, so too one would say that he is prohibited from marrying a Gibeonite. But didn’t we learn otherwise in a mishna (Kiddushin 69a): Mamzerim and Gibeonites are permitted to marry one another. Rather, retract this explanation and replace it with the following: When the Sages decreed that one may not marry a Gibeonite, they limited their decree to those who are fit, so as to prevent them from mingling with Gibeonites; but with regard to those who are unfit to enter into the congregation, the Sages did not issue a decree. Rava then reconsidered and said that what he had previously argued, that the prohibition against marrying them applies only when they are gentiles, is not correct. The prohibition cannot be referring to gentiles, as when they are gentiles there can be no valid marriage with them at all. It is only after they have converted that there can be valid marriage with them, and therefore the prohibition against entering into marriage with them applies. Nevertheless, it is permitted for a man with crushed testicles to marry a Gibeonite woman. Rav Yosef raised an objection from the verse that states: “And Solomon married the daughter of Pharaoh, king of Egypt” (I Kings 3:1), which indicates that there can, in fact, be valid marriage even with gentiles. The Gemara answers: Before Solomon took Pharaoh’s daughter as his wife, he converted her.

§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Balei says that Avimi of Nota says in the name of Rav: The prohibitions with regard to gentiles’ bread and their oil, their wine and their daughters, are all from the eighteen matters issued in a single day in the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel. The Gemara asks: With regard to their daughters, what is the decree? Rabbi Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: They decreed upon their daughters that they should be classified as menstruating women from the time they are in their cradle, i.e., they decreed that from when they are young, gentile women are always considered to be menstruating. The Gemara presents another opinion. And Geneiva says in the name of Rav: Gentiles’ bread, oil, wine, and daughters were all decreed upon due to the concern that Jews might participate in idol worship with gentiles as a result of intermingling with them. As, when Rav Aḥa bar Adda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: They decreed a prohibition upon their bread due to their oil. The Gemara asks: In what way is the prohibition with regard to oil stronger than the prohibition with regard to bread? That is, why does the primary concern relate to the oil of gentiles rather than their bread? The Gemara offers a different interpretation: Rather, they issued a decree prohibiting their bread and their oil due to their wine. And they issued the decree prohibiting their wine due to the fact that this leads to familiarity, and Jews will come to marry their daughters. And they issued a decree prohibiting their daughters due to something else, idolatry. And they further issued a decree on something else due to something else, which will be explained by the Gemara. It was stated that the prohibition against marrying the daughters of gentiles was decreed on account of idolatry. The Gemara raises an objection: But the prohibition against marrying their daughters is prescribed by Torah law, as it is written: “Neither shall you make marriages with them” (Deuteronomy 7:3). The Gemara explains: By Torah law intermarriage is prohibited only with the seven Canaanite nations, but intermarriage with the other nations of the world is not prohibited, and the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that intermarriage is prohibited even with the other nations. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who says that the subsequent verse: “For he will turn away your son from following Me” (Deuteronomy 7:4) serves to include all who turn away one’s son from God, i.e., all gentiles, what is there to say? Rather, by Torah law only sexual relations by way of marriage are prohibited, and they came and decreed that sexual relations are prohibited even by way of licentiousness. The Gemara raises an objection: Licentious sexual intercourse was also prohibited earlier, as they decreed a prohibition in this regard in the court of Shem, as it is written: “It was told to Judah, saying: Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; and moreover, behold, she is with child by harlotry. And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burned” (Genesis 38:24). This proves that the prohibition against licentious intercourse with a gentile was in force long before the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel. The Gemara explains: Rather, the prohibition prescribed by Torah law applies to the case of a gentile who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, as she is drawn after him toward idolatry, but the case of a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman is not included in the prohibition by Torah law. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that the prohibition applies even to a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman. The Gemara rejects this: The prohibition concerning a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, not a rabbinic ordinance. As the Master said: With regard to one who engages in intercourse with an Aramean woman, zealots may attack him, as Pinehas did to Zimri in the wilderness (see Numbers 25:6–8). He said to him: By Torah law intercourse with a gentile is prohibited in public, and only in situations like the incident that occurred, as described in Numbers, chapter 25. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that the prohibition applies even in private. The Gemara raises another difficulty: This was also prohibited in private, as the court of the Hasmoneans decreed that it is prohibited. As when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: The court of the Hasmoneans decreed that a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman bears liability for transgressing four prohibitions, represented by the mnemonic: Nun, shin, gimmel, alef. These letters stands for: Menstruating woman [nidda], maidservant [shifḥa], gentile [goya], and married woman [eshet ish]. By rabbinic law, a man who engages in intercourse with a gentile woman is considered to have violated the prohibitions involved in having intercourse with all four of these women. And when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: He bears liability for four prohibitions represented by the mnemonic: Nun, shin, gimmel, zayin, which stands for: Menstruating woman [nidda], maidservant [shifḥa], gentile [goya], and prostitute [zona]. In any case, it is apparent that this decree was in force before the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel.

§ The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that betrothal with a gentile woman is ineffective? The verse states: “Neither shall you make marriages with them” (Deuteronomy 7:3), which teaches that marrying gentile women is halakhically meaningless. The Gemara asks: We have found that betrothal is ineffective with her; from where do we derive that her offspring is like her? Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: As the verse states with regard to the same issue: “Your daughter you shall not give to his son…for he will turn away your son from following Me” (Deuteronomy 7:3–4). Since the verse is concerned that after one’s daughter marries a gentile, the father will lead his children away from the service of God, this indicates that your son, i.e., your grandson, from a Jewish woman is called “your son” by the Torah, but your son from a gentile woman is not called your son, but her son.

§ Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said: With regard to a gentile who betrothed a Jewish woman nowadays, we are concerned that the betrothal might be valid, despite the fact that a betrothal of a gentile is meaningless, lest he be from the ten tribes of Israel who intermingled with the gentiles. The Gemara raises an objection: But there is an important principle in halakha that any item separated, i.e., not fixed in its place, is presumed to have been separated from the majority. In this case, it can be assumed that any individual singled out from the gentiles belongs to the majority of gentiles and has no Jewish roots at all. The Gemara responds: Rav Yehuda means that there is a concern only with regard to those who came from the permanent dwelling places of the ten tribes. As Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said that the verse states about those exiled from Samaria: “And he put them in Halah, and in Habor, on the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes” (I Kings 18:11). Rabbi Abba bar Kahana proceeded to identify these places. Halah; this is the place called Ḥalzon. And Habor; this is Ḥadyab. The river of Gozan; this is Ginzak. And the cities of the Medes; this is Ḥamadan and its surroundings. And some say: This is Nihar and its surroundings. The Gemara asks: Which are its surroundings? Shmuel said: Kerakh, Mushkhei, Ḥidkei, and Domakya are the surroundings of Ḥamadan. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And all of them are for disqualification. In other words, if someone from one of these places wishes to convert, there is concern that he might be a descendant of a Jew and therefore a mamzer. Consequently, they all are disqualified. Rav Yehuda continued his recounting: When I said this halakha, that there is a concern about the betrothal of gentiles nowadays, before Shmuel, he said to me: One need not worry about this, as your son from a Jewish woman is called your son, i.e., he inherits his lineage from you, and your son from a gentile woman is not called your son, but rather her son. Consequently, all children born to Jews from gentile women are not considered Jews, as their lineage is determined by their gentile mothers. The Gemara asks: Aren’t there Jewish girls who were captured by gentiles, whose children are considered to be Jews? And Ravina said: Learn from this that the son of your daughter from a gentile is called your son. If so, the descendants of Jewish women captured by gentiles would indeed be Jews. The Gemara answers: This is no concern, as it is learned as a tradition that the girls from the ten tribes of that generation became barren and did not give birth to any offspring, whereas some of the exiled men of the ten tribes married gentile women. Consequently, all of the children born there were gentiles. There are those who say that Rav Yehuda actually related the following: When I said this halakha before Shmuel, he said to me: They did not move from there, the place where they deliberated on this matter, until they rendered all of them, including those who intermingled with the ten tribes in different locations, full-fledged gentiles. Consequently, there is no concern that their betrothals might be of any effect, as it is stated: “They have dealt treacherously against the Lord, for they have begotten strange children” (Hosea 5:7).

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of the Rabbis, we found a source that the children of a Canaanite maidservant are not considered the children of their Jewish father, but from where do we derive that children born to a Jewish father by a gentile woman are not considered his children? And if you say: Let us derive it from the case of the Canaanite maidservant, it has already been shown that these are both necessary, and one cannot be derived from the other. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: The verse states: “Neither shall you make marriages with them: Your daughter you shall not give unto his son, nor his daughter shall you take unto your son, for he will turn away your son from following Me” (Deuteronomy 7:3–4). This teaches that your son born from a Jewish woman is called your son, but your son born from a gentile woman is not called your son, but her son. The verse teaches that since the son of a gentile woman is her son alone, he is not considered related at all to his Jewish father. Ravina said: Conclude from here that the son of your daughter by a gentile father is nevertheless called your son, i.e., grandson. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Ravina holds that if a gentile or slave engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is of unflawed lineage? The Gemara answers: There is no conclusive proof from here, because granted, she is not a mamzer, but nevertheless she is still not of unflawed lineage; rather, she is called a Jew who is unfit to marry into the priesthood. The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning: Was this verse not written in relation to the seven nations who inhabited the land of Canaan when Joshua entered Eretz Yisrael but not with regard to other nations? The Gemara responds that the words “He will turn away” comes to include all those who would turn one’s grandson away from God, i.e., any gentile. The Gemara asks: This works out well for Rabbi Shimon, who interprets the rationale behind the mitzva in the verse and draws halakhic conclusions based on that interpretation. Although the verse is stated with regard to the seven nations, the reason for the verse applies to all other gentile nations. However, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who do not draw inferences from the rationale of the verse to apply this ruling to all other nations, from where do they derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: Who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? It is Rabbi Shimon, who applies the rationale of the verse to all other nations.

And they issued a decree prohibiting their wine due to the fact that it leads to familiarity, and people will come to marry their daughters. And they issued a decree prohibiting their daughters due to something else, idolatry. And they further issued a decree on something else, idolatry, due to something else. The Gemara asks: What is the something else alluded to here? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: They issued a decree on a gentile baby, according him the legal status that he transmits impurity as one with the legal status of a great zav, who experienced three emissions, even though he did not experience an emission. This was in order to distance Jewish children from gentile children so that a Jewish boy should not be accustomed to be with a gentile in homosexual relations.

(21) Do not allow any of your offspring to be offered up to Molech, and do not profane the name of your God: I am ה'.

(1) For the leader; on the gittith. Of Asaph.

(2) Sing joyously to God, our strength; raise a shout for the God of Jacob.

(3) Take up the song, sound the timbrel, the melodious lyre and harp.

(4) Blow the horn on the new moon, on the full moon for our feast day.

(5) For it is a law for Israel, a ruling of the God of Jacob;

(6) He imposed it as a decree upon Joseph when he went forth from^-a the land of Egypt; I heard a language that I knew not.

(7) I relieved his shoulder of the burden, his hands were freed from the basket.

(8) In distress you called and I rescued you; I answered you from the secret place of thunder^-b I tested you at the waters of Meribah. Selah.

(9) Hear, My people, and I will admonish you; Israel, if you would but listen to Me!

(10) You shall have no foreign god, you shall not bow to an alien god.

(11) I the LORD am your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt; open your mouth wide and I will fill it.

(12) But My people would not listen to Me, Israel would not obey Me.

(13) So I let them go after their willful heart that they might follow their own devices.

(14) If only My people would listen to Me, if Israel would follow My paths,

(15) then would I subdue their enemies at once, strike their foes again and again.

(16) Those who hate the LORD shall cower before Him; their doom shall be eternal.

(17) He fed them the finest wheat; I sated you with honey from the rock.

(11) Judah has broken faith; abhorrent things have been done in Israel and in Jerusalem. For Judah has profaned what is holy to the LORD—what He desires—and espoused daughters of alien gods. (12) May the LORD leave to him who does this no descendants^-a dwelling in the tents of Jacob and presenting offerings to the LORD of Hosts.

(1) On the three days before the festivals of gentiles the following actions are prohibited, as they would bring joy to the gentile, who would subsequently give thanks to his object of idol worship on his festival: It is prohibited to engage in business with them; to lend items to them or to borrow items from them; to lend money to them or to borrow money from them; and to repay debts owed to them or to collect repayment of debts from them. Rabbi Yehuda says: One may collect repayment of debts from them because this causes the gentile distress. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: Even though he is distressed now, when he repays the money, he is happy afterward that he is relieved of the debt, and therefore there is concern that he will give thanks to his object of idol worship on his festival.

(2) Rabbi Yishmael says: On the three days before the festivals of gentiles and on the three days after them, it is prohibited to engage in business with those gentiles. And the Rabbis say: It is prohibited to engage in business with them before their festivals, but it is permitted to engage in business with them after their festivals.

(3) And these are the festivals of gentiles: Kalenda, Saturnalia, and Kratesis, and the day of the festival of their kings, and the birthday of the king, and the anniversary of the day of the death of the king. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Every death that includes public burning is a festival that includes idol worship, and any death that does not include public burning is not a festival that includes idol worship. But in the case of the day of shaving his, i.e., a gentile’s, beard and his locks, and the day of his ascent from the sea, and the day that he left prison, and also in the case of a gentile who prepared a wedding feast for his son and celebrates on that day, engaging in business is prohibited only on that day and with that man.

And the other decree: The Sage Bali said that Avimi of Sanvata said: The decrees with regard to gentiles that prohibit their bread, and their oil, and their wine, and their daughters are all one decree of the eighteen matters. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to Rabbi Meir, as according to his opinion the Gemara already enumerated eighteen decrees. However, according to Rabbi Yosei, who holds that the dispute remains with regard to the matter of vessels in the courtyard, they are only seventeen. The Gemara answers: There is also that statement of Rav Aḥa bar Adda, as Rav Aḥa bar Adda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The Sages issued a decree prohibiting eating their bread due to their oil. And they issued a decree prohibiting their oil due to their wine. Consequently, there are two separate decrees.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said a different explanation of the verse: Actually, Mordecai came from the tribe of Benjamin. Why, then, was he referred to as Yehudi? On account of the fact that he repudiated idol worship, for anyone who repudiates idolatry is called Yehudi. It is understood here in the sense of yiḥudi, one who declares the oneness of God, as it is written: “There are certain Jews [Yehuda’in] whom thou hast appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylonia, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego; these men, O king, have not regarded you: They serve not your gods, nor worship the golden image which you have set up” (Daniel 3:12). These three individuals were in fact Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who were not all from the tribe of Judah but are referred to as Yehuda’in because they repudiated idol worship.

[MY TRANSLATION] A person who lives in Israel, even if it's in a city in which the majority of people are idol worships, is more righteous than someone who lives outside the land of Israel in a town in which everyone is Jewish. This teaches that living in Israel is equal to all of the mitzvot in the Torah.

And one who is buried in the land of Israel is like one who is buried underneath an altar. A person should not leave the land of Israel unless the fields of wheat are full of rock. Rabbi Shimon says "in which situations are we talking about?" At a time when it is not possible to buy property. But if it is possible to buy property, then even if a field is rocky he should not leave the land.

And thus Rabbi Shimon says Elimelech, who was one of greatest of his generation and a supporter of the public, and his children died of starvation because they left the land. And all of Israel endures on their land, as it says (Ruth 1:18) "And the city buzzed with excitment [when Naomi came back]" which teaches that the whole city endured while he and his sons died by famine.

Behold the Jacob said (Genesis 28:21): "And if I return safely to my father's home" but the Torah doesn't say "and HASHEM will be my God" (i.e. the Torah does not inherently indicate that he is following God by returning to his home in Israel) rather as the Torah says (Leviticus 25:38) "To give you the land of Canaan to be your God." The entire time that you are in the land of Canaan, I will be your God but when you are not in the land I will not be your God. And thus Joshua said (Joshua 4:13): "About 40,000 shock troops went across, at the instance of the LORD, to the steppes of Jericho for battle;" and Joshua said (Joshua 2:24) "The LORD has delivered the whole land into our power; in fact, all the inhabitants are quaking before us."

And lest it come upon your mind that Israel conquered the land before God - rather the whole time they were on the land it was conquered; when they were not on the land it was not conquered. And thus David said (I Samuel 26:19) "If it is men who have incited you against me, may they be accursed by the LORD! For they have driven me out today, so that I cannot share in the LORD's posession, but am told 'Go and worship other gods.'"

Now don't let it come upon your thinking that David was an idol worshipper rather David was making a point saying that everyone who rests on the land of Israel during a time of peace and leaves, is as if he is an idol worshipper. As it says (Jeremiah 32:41) "I will plant them in this land faithfully." If you are not on the land, you will not be planted faithfully before me, not with my whole heart and not with my full soul.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says "Israel that is outside the land worship idols with purity. How is this possible? Like an idol worshipper who makes a feast for his child and goes and invites all of the Jews in his city. Even though they eat, drink, and serve from their own stuff, [the Jew] is standing by idol worshippers, as it says (Exodus 34:13) "You will eat of their sacrifices."

The Gemara asks: Say that you heard that Rabbi Yehuda rules that one is liable for performing a labor not needed for its own sake in the case of a constructive act; did you hear him deem one liable in the case of a destructive act? Rabbi Avin said: This case, where one rends his garment in anger, is also constructive, because in doing so he assuages his anger. Rending his garment calms him; therefore, it can be said that he derives benefit from the act of rending, and it is consequently a constructive act. The Gemara asks: And is it at all permitted to tear in that manner? Wasn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Ḥilfa bar Agra, who said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri: One who rends his garments in his anger, or who breaks his vessels in his anger, or who scatters his money in his anger, should be like an idol worshipper in your eyes, as that is the craft of the evil inclination. Today it tells him do this, and tomorrow it tells him do that, until eventually, when he no longer controls himself, it tells him worship idols and he goes and worships idols. Rabbi Avin said: What verse alludes to this? “There shall not be a strange god within you, and you shall not bow to a foreign god” (Psalms 81:10). What is the strange god that is within a person’s body? Say that it is the evil inclination. One may not rend his garments in anger, because in doing so he is deriving pleasure from satisfying the evil inclination.

(4) Variantly: "He also loved the peoples": We are hereby taught that the Holy One Blessed be He did not apportion love to the nations of the world in the manner that He did to Israel. Know this to be so for they said that the theft of a gentile is permitted, and, of a Jew, forbidden. And it, indeed, transpired that the monarchy once sent two commissioners, instructing them: Go and make yourselves converts and see what the Torah of Israel is like. (They did so) and they went to R. Gamliel to Usha, and studied Scripture, Mishnah, Medrash, halachoth, and aggadoth. Before dying they said: All of your Torah is beautiful and praiseworthy, except for one thing — the theft of a gentile is permitted, and that of a Jew, forbidden — but we will not reveal this to the monarchy.

As for the connection between divine and earthly royalty, the Gemara cites another story: Rabbi Sheila ordered that a man who had relations with a gentile woman be flogged. That man went to inform the king and said: There is one man among the Jews who renders judgment without the king’s authority [harmana]. The king sent a messenger [peristaka] for Rabbi Sheila to bring him to trial. When Rabbi Sheila came, they said to him: Why did you order flogging for this man? He said to them: Because he had relations with a female donkey. According to Persian law this was an extremely heinous crime, so they said to him: Do you have witnesses that he did so? He replied: Yes, and Elijah the prophet came and appeared as a person and testified. They said to Rabbi Sheila: If so, he is liable for the death penalty; why did you not sentence him to death? He replied: Since the day we were exiled from our land we do not have the authority to execute, but you, do with him as you wish. As they considered the sentence, Rabbi Sheila praised God for saving him from danger: “Yours, O Lord, is the greatness, power, glory, triumph, and majesty; for all that is in heaven and on earth is Yours; Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and You are exalted as head above all” (I Chronicles 29:11). They asked him: What did you say? He told them: This is what I said: Blessed is Merciful One who grants kingdom on earth that is a microcosm of the kingdom in heaven, and granted you dominion and love of justice. They said to him: Indeed, the honor of royalty is so dear to you. They gave him a staff to symbolize his license to sit in judgment and said to him: Judge. As he was leaving, that man said to Rabbi Sheila: Does God perform such miracles for liars? He replied: Scoundrel! Aren’t gentiles called donkeys? As it is written: “Whose flesh is as the flesh of donkeys” (Ezekiel 23:20). Rabbi Sheila saw that he was going to tell the Persian authorities that he called them donkeys. He said: This man has the legal status of a pursuer. He seeks to have me killed. And the Torah said: If one comes to kill you, kill him first. He struck him with the staff and killed him.

The Gemara relates another story that deals with prayer for rain. There was a certain man who was sentenced to be flogged by Rava’s court because he had relations with a gentile woman. Rava flogged the man and he died as a result. When this matter was heard in the house of the Persian King Shapur, he wanted to punish Rava for imposing the death penalty, as he thought, without the king’s permission. Ifra Hormiz, mother of King Shapur, said to her son: Do not interfere and quarrel with the Jews, as whatever they request from God, their Master, He gives them.

MISHNA: Rabbi Yishmael says: On the three days before the festivals of gentiles and on the three days after them, it is prohibited to engage in business with those gentiles. And the Rabbis say: It is prohibited to engage in business with them before their festivals, but it is permitted to engage in business with them after their festivals. GEMARA: Rav Taḥlifa bar Avdimi says that Shmuel says: With regard to a Christian, according to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael it is always prohibited for a Jew to engage in business with him. Since his festival takes place every Sunday and the three days before and after Sunday constitute the entire week, one cannot engage in business with a Christian on any day of the week. The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: It is prohibited to engage in business with them before their festivals, but it is permitted to engage in business with them after their festivals. The Gemara raises a difficulty...And if you wish, say that the difference between the Rabbis and the first tanna is with regard to the statement of Shmuel. As Shmuel says: In the Diaspora it is prohibited to engage in business with gentiles only on their festival day itself. The first tanna is of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, and the later Rabbis are not of the opinion that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

his sons are mamzerim, as he is indifferent to his wife’s engaging in adultery. The Gemara asks: And the first tanna, why did he not include the ruling that the sons of a heretic are mamzerim? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, a heretic does not release his wife and allow her to engage in adultery. The Master said in the mishna: Slaughter performed by a gentile renders the animal an unslaughtered carcass. The Gemara challenges this: And let us be concerned that perhaps he is a heretic who is a devout idolater and deriving benefit from his slaughter is prohibited. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh says: There are no such heretics among the nations of the world. The Gemara asks: But don’t we see that there are? The Gemara answers: Say the majority of the people of the nations of the world are not heretics, and with regard to slaughter one follows the majority. The Gemara notes: Rabba bar Avuh holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The status of gentiles outside of Eretz Yisrael is not that of idol worshippers, as their worship is not motivated by faith and devotion. Rather, it is a traditional custom of their ancestors that was transmitted to them. Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: There are no heretics among the nations of the world, i.e., gentile heretics do not have the halakhic status of actual heretics. The Gemara asks: With regard to what matter did Rav Naḥman state the halakha? If we say that it is with regard to slaughter, now that you said the slaughter of a Jewish heretic is forbidden, is it necessary to say the slaughter of a gentile heretic is forbidden? Rather, it is with regard to the halakha that one lowers them into a pit, i.e., one may kill a heretic, and Rav Naḥman holds that one may not kill them. But this too is difficult, as now if one lowers a Jewish heretic into a pit, is it necessary to say that one lowers a gentile heretic? Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: It is stated with regard to accepting an offering from them, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “When any person of you shall bring an offering” (Leviticus 1:2): The verse states: “Of you,” and not: Of all of you, to exclude the Jewish transgressor who regularly violates a prohibition. Furthermore, God states: “Of you,” to mean that among you, the Jews, I distinguished between a transgressor and other Jews, but not among the nations. One accepts an offering from all gentiles, even a heretic. The Gemara asks: From where do you draw that conclusion? Perhaps this is what the verse is saying: With regard to offerings from Jews, from righteous Jews accept the offering and from wicked Jews do not accept the offering; but with regard to the nations of the world, do not accept their offerings at all. The Gemara rejects that possibility: That should not enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Any man [ish ish] from the house of Israel…who shall sacrifice his offering” (Leviticus 22:18): Since it would have been sufficient to write: A man [ish], what is the meaning when the verse states: “Any man [ish ish]”? It serves to include the gentiles, who may vow to bring vow offerings and gift offerings like a Jew. § The mishna states with regard to an animal slaughtered by a gentile: And the carcass imparts ritual impurity through carrying. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious? Since it is considered an unslaughtered carcass it imparts ritual impurity through carrying. Rava said that this is what the tanna is teaching: This slaughtered animal imparts ritual impurity through carrying, and you have another animal that imparts impurity even in a tent, i.e., if one is beneath the same roof with this animal he becomes impure even though he neither touched it nor carried it. And which animal is that? That animal is an idolatrous offering, and this statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira cited below. There are those who say an alternative version of Rava’s statement: Rava said that this is what the tanna is teaching: This slaughtered animal imparts ritual impurity through carrying, and you have another animal that is like this one in that it imparts ritual impurity through carrying and does not impart impurity in a tent. And which animal is this? This animal is an idolatrous offering, and this statement is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: From where is it derived with regard to an idolatrous offering that it imparts impurity in a tent? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “They adhered to Ba’al-Peor and ate the offerings to the dead” (Psalms 106:28). Just as a corpse imparts impurity in a tent, so too an idolatrous offering imparts impurity in a tent. MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an animal at night, and likewise in the case of the blind person who slaughters an animal, his slaughter is valid. GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the formulation of the mishna: One who slaughters, and not: One may slaughter, that with regard to the slaughter of one who slaughters at night, after the fact, yes, it is valid, but ab initio, one may not do so. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita (Tosefta 1:4): One may always slaughter, both during the day and at night, both on the rooftop and atop a ship, indicating that slaughter at night is permitted ab initio. Rav Pappa said: The tanna of the baraita is referring to a case where there is a torch opposite the slaughterer; therefore, it is permitted ab initio. Rav Ashi said: The language of the baraita is also precise, as slaughter at night is taught there in the baraita similar to slaughter during the day, based on the juxtaposition: Both during the day and at night. And here slaughter at night is taught similar to the slaughter performed by a blind person, with no light, based on the juxtaposition: One who slaughters at night, and likewise the blind person who slaughters. Therefore, the slaughter is valid only after the fact. The Gemara concludes: Learn from it.

Proclos, son of a plosphos, asked Rabban Gamaliel in Acco when the latter was bathing in the bathhouse of aphrodite. He said to him, “It is written in your torah, ‘let nothing that has been proscribed stick to your hand (Deuteronomy 13:18)’; why are you bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite?” He replied to him, “We do not answer [questions relating to torah] in a bathhouse.” When he came out, he said to him, “I did not come into her domain, she has come into mine. People do not say, ‘the bath was made as an adornment for Aphrodite’; rather they say, ‘Aphrodite was made as an adornment for the bath.’ Another reason is, even if you were given a large sum of money, you would not enter the presence of your idol while you were nude or had experienced seminal emission, nor would you urinate before it. But this [statue of Aphrodite] stands by a sewer and all people urinate before it. [In the torah] it is only stated, “their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:3) what is treated as a god is prohibited, what is not treated as a deity is permitted.

(6) Even Jesus the Nazarene who imagined he would be the Messiah and was killed by the Court¹²⁹Or, was handed over to the Romans who killed him as a revolutionary because he proclaimed himself the Messiah, King of Israel. was prophesized about by Daniel as it says, “and also the children of the violent among your people will lift themselves up to establish the vision, but they shall stumble” (Daniel 11:14). Was there ever a greater impediment than this one? All the Prophets spoke of the Messiah, Redeemer of Israel and Savior and Gatherer of the Exiles and Strengthener of the Commandments. But this one caused the ruin of Israel by the sword and the dispersal of its remnant and its humiliation and reversed¹³⁰Or, changed. the Torah, and caused most of the world to err and worship a god other than HaShem (G-d).

(7) Nonetheless, the Thoughts of the Creator of the World are beyond any man’s understanding. For our ways are not His Ways, and our thoughts are not His Thoughts. And all the doings of Jesus the Nazarene and that of that Ishmaelite¹³¹I.e. Mohammed. The Rambam labels him “Meshugah” in his Igeress Teiman. who came after him are nothing but to pave the way for the King Messiah and prepare the entire world to worship G-d together, as it says, “For then¹³²When they will realize that their Messiahs were false will they abandon them and turn to G-d’s true Messiah. I will turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the Name of the Lord, to serve Him with one consent” (Zephania 3:9).

(8) How is this so? The world is now already filled with matters of the Messiah and matters of the Torah and matters of the Commandments. Knowledge of these matters have spread to the distant islands and to the many nations of those with uncircumcised hearts. They discuss these matters and the Commandments of the Torah. Some of them¹³³As did Mohammed. say that these Commandments were once true, but have since been canceled for our times as they were not meant to be observed for all generations. Some of them say that these are secret matters and are not as simple as they would appear, and now the “Messiah”¹³⁴Jesus. has come and revealed these secrets.

(9) But when the true King Messiah will rise and succeed, and he will be lifted up and raised aloft, they all will immediately return and will know that their fathers left them an erroneous legacy, and their fathers and prophets led them astray.

The Gemara cites another verse from the prophecy at the end of the book of Zechariah: “And the Lord shall be King over all the earth, on that day shall the Lord be one and His name one” (Zechariah 14:9). The Gemara asks: Is that to say that now He is not one? Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: The World-to-Come is not like this world. In this world, upon good tidings one recites: Blessed…Who is good and does good, and over bad tidings one recites: Blessed…the true Judge. In the World-to-Come one will always recite: Blessed…Who is good and does good. There will be only one mode of blessing God for tidings. The verse states: “On that day shall the Lord be one and His name one.” The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the word one in this context? Is that to say that now His name is not one? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The World-to-Come is not like this world. In this world, God’s name that is written with the letters yod and heh is read as Adonai, which begins with the letters alef and dalet. God’s name is not pronounced in the same way as it is written. However, in the World-to-Come it will all be one, as God’s name will be both read with the letters yod and heh and written with the letters yod and heh. Rava thought to expound upon the correct punctuation and enunciation of the name of God during his public lecture before one of the Festivals. A certain old man said to him: The word forever is written in the verse: “This is My name forever [le’olam]” (Exodus 3:15) without the letter vav, such that it can be read le’alem, to conceal, meaning that the name should be concealed. Rabbi Avina raised a contradiction: It is written in the verse: “This is My name forever,” implying a requirement to conceal the name of God, and in the very next phrase it states: “And this is My memorial unto all generations” (Exodus 3:15), which indicates that the name of God is to be publicized and remembered by all. Rather, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I, i.e., My name, is not read as I am written. I am written with the letters yod and heh, and I am read with the letters alef and dalet.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Greater is a transgression committed for its own sake, i.e., for the sake of Heaven, than a mitzva performed not for its own sake. The Gemara questions this comparison: But didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav said: A person should always occupy himself with Torah and mitzvot even not for their own sake, as it is through acts performed not for their own sake that good deeds for their own sake come about? How, then, can any transgression be considered greater than a mitzva not for the sake of Heaven? Rather, one must emend the above statement and say as follows: A transgression for the sake of Heaven is equivalent to a mitzva not for its own sake.

(12) And [God] said, “I will be with you; that shall be your sign that it was I who sent you. And when you have freed the people from Egypt, you shall worship God at this mountain.” (13) Moses said to God, “When I come to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers’ [house] has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is [God’s] name?’ what shall I say to them?” (14) And God said to Moses, “Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh,”*Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh Meaning of Heb. uncertain; variously translated: “I Am That I Am”; “I Am Who I Am”; “I Will Be What I Will Be”; etc. continuing, “Thus shall you say to the Israelites, ‘Ehyeh*Ehyeh Others “I Am” or “I Will Be.” sent me to you.’” (15) And God said further to Moses, “Thus shall you speak to the Israelites: ה',*יהוה This name (y-h-w-h; traditionally read Adonai “the Lord”) is here associated with the verb hayah “to be.” the God of your fathers’ [house]—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you:
This shall be My name forever,
This My appellation for all eternity. (16) “Go and assemble the elders of Israel and say to them: ה', the God of your fathers’ [house]—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—has appeared to me and said, ‘I have taken note of you and of what is being done to you in Egypt,

+MY TRANSLATION

(1) (א) And Moses said to God "Here I came to children of Israel" etc. until "Go and assemble the elders" etc. (Exodus 3:13-16). After God promises Moses that He will be with him to save him from the hand of Pharaoh, [God] did not want to command him more regarding [how to deal with] Pharaoh and Egypt, rather to deal with the difficulty of the Israelites accepting Moses [as God's prophet].

(2) When Moses said [in Exodus 13:3] "When I come to the children of Israel and I will say to them that God of their fathers sent me," he means "After You, Hashem O God, send me I will come to them and say what I heard from Your lips, that the God of their ancestors sent me to strengthen them and inform them about their coming redemption. Without a doubt they will respond to me, 'What is God's name?' So please tell me what I should say to them since You only told me 'I am the god of your ancestors, the god of Abraham, the god of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' You did not tell me Your unique name. And God responded by saying "I will be what I will be."

(3) And you already know the opinion of the Rabbi, the Teacher (Ramban? Moshe Rabbeinu?), that Moshe Rabbeinu asked [God] how to prove first the existence of God and afterwards his (i.e. Moshe's) prophecy. [Rabbi, the Teacher] also [taught] that God explained His existence with this short saying - ehyeh asher ehyeh ("I will be that I will be") - since it contains the description and the one making the description in one word (i.e. ehyeh "I will be") with a connecting word. And the purpose of the connecting word, the intention being to mean "hanimtzah asher hu nimtzah - what is discovered is that which is discovered," as if to say that the existence of God is not discovered in any additional way outside of God's essence/nature.

(4) And as the Ramban wrote, he was very distressed since the Torah said the elders of Israel and their sages asked for claims and miracles proving the existence of God or if God's existence can be proven outside of God's essence, because as an Israelite prophet appears they asked for signs and miracles to the truth of his prophecy, but they did not ask from him philosophical proofs of God's existence and Unity.

(5) And Rabbi Ibn Ezra wrote that [Moshe Rabbeinu] asked [God] what is the appropriate name [for Moshe Rabbeinu] to use for the signs/miracles. And Ramban interpreted "What is His name?" to mean "did [God] send [Moses] by way of Judgement or Mercy?" And I have not seen an answer to this matter.

(6) And in the Midrash it is explained [as follows]: "Rabbi Isaac said, 'God said to Moses, 'Say to them 'I was, and now I am, and in the future I will be the one to come.'' Thus the text says 'ehyeh' three times." That is to say that all past and future are the present for the Creator because there is no change or division with him.

(7) And on this matter Rav Saadia Gaon taught "the text says 'ehyeh asher ehyeh' [to teach us] that God did not pass by nor will pass by because he is the first and the last, similar to what Ramban said.

(8) And for all [of these sages] it posed a difficulty that the text said "Thus shall you say to the children of Israel that 'Ehyeh' sent me to you," (Exodus 3:15) insofar as the text only says "Ehyeh" one time.

(9) And there it seems most likely to me that the correct way [to understand] this issue is that Moshe Rabbeinu apprehended why it was appropriate for Israel to suspect his prophecy, that is what is the level of his prophecy? Because during those days there were people who prophesied using demonic power and from angels of destruction. And from [these powers] they glorified themselves that they had the power of the stars as we find the prophets of Ba'al with the power of the sun, and the prophets of Ashera, with the power of the moon. And [these prophets] would be glorified that they had the ability of a different understanding, and also in regards to this there are different levels according to the levels of the mind by which the spoke.

(10) And out of this [context] Moses came with the words of God's message, thus it was appropriate for the children of Israel questioned Moses "Who is the one who drew bestowed upon him the ability to prophecy," because if he prophesied by way of demons or the stars they would not consent to abide by his prophecy. Thus it is appropriate to ask Moses "What is the name [of God]?" because the intention is not to know God's essence but rather to know if the person [prophesying] to them should be listened to, and to protect themselves if [he should] not [be listened to].

(11) And this is the point made by [King] Solomon when he said "Who went up to heaven?...What is his name and what is his son's name if you know it?" (Proverbs 30:4) to mean "who is this?" And there is no doubt that Moshe Rabbeinu asked this question to know the level of his prophecy and what part of the mind draws down prophecy among all the different parts of the mind, or if it is the serving angels who speak for God. And it is because of Moshe Rabbeinu's humility that he did not ask this of God directly but attached it to what the people would ask him [when he'd report his prophecy].

(12) And Rambam already wrote in the introduction of his Mishneh [Torah] that "When a prophet comes to prophecy to Israel they ask him 'Who spoke to you?' And if he said that a star spoke to him or it was from one of the other gods, they would immediately stone him because they do not listen to any prophecy except from HASHEM alone.' And therefore it is a logical question for the Israelites to ask Moses "What is God's name?" in order to know who gave him the ability to prophecy.

(13) And God responded [with] "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" in order to indicate [to Moses] that the One who spoke with him is not ministering angel, or a mazel, or a star in the sky, and not one of the angels/gods on high because all of them have different essences, and their essence and existence is solely dependent upon the One whose esixence is necessary, i.e. God, since God's existence is dependent upon God's self and not upon anything else.

(14) And he said "ehyeh asher ehyeh" because the letter alef at the beginning [of the word] is as if to say "ani ehyeh" (i.e. "I am/will be") because my existence will be solely dependent on my essence. Indeed all that is discovered other than Me cannot say "ehyeh asher ehyeh" becasue their existence is dependent on something other than themselves. Rather they should say "ehyeh asher hu sabati" (i.e. "I am for the purpose deemed by God") because their existence is related to the purpose [I set for them]. But for me, there is no such thing rather my purpose is to just be.

(15) It is correct [for God to be called] "ehyeh asher ehyeh" so that [Moses] can explain to them (i.e. the children of Israel) that the One who sends him is the original reason [since] the One who is blessed was not created by his creations. And in order to explain His purpose so that Moses would understand, after God told Moses this name God commanded Moses "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel 'Ehyeh' sent me to you" (3:14), as if to say (i.e. "Ehyeh" means here...) The One who is discovered by his own essence, and does not receive His essence from something else - He is the one who sent me to you.

(16) And behold it is not necessary to say [the full name of] "'Ehyeh asher Ehyeh' sent me to you" since what is required by God's name is [to prove] God's essence derives [only] by way of God's self. [Thus, the name] Ehyeh" [by itself] means "My essence and My existence is only derived by Me and not by any other reason.

(17) And at first [God] explained the [meaning] of "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" and afterwards utilized the simple name "Ehyeh" since it encompasses all that is included [in the threefold "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh"]. This [interpretation] explains [how "Ehyeh"] is the appropriate metaphor (in this case, metaphor is synonymous with a "name") to describe [how to call God] but it is not a general principle [of how to call God]. And given how Moses needed to know for himself who was speaking with him - as well as how it was appropriate for the children of Israel to ask Moses who sent him - thus God said for Moses' sake "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh," and for the sake of the children of Israel God said to Moses "speak to the children of Israel, Ehyeh sent me to you."

(18) And since many children of Israel would not understand the finer point (עיון הדק) of this name (i.e. "Ehyeh"), God also commanded Moses "Speak more to the children of Israel - thus said the God of your ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob sent me to you. This is My name forever and this is my remembrance throughout the generations." [God wanted Moses to tell this to the children of Israel[ as if to say "If they don't understand how My essence is only derived by Myself alone, it is enough that they know that the God who chose Abraham and decreed his children to be exiled, and the God who chose Isaac and began exile on the day of his birth, and the God who chose Jacob and commanded him to go down to Egypt with his household and his children, He is the God who sent them and who would redeem them and take them out of their exile. And by way of this [explanation] they (i.e. the children of Israel will know and believe the One who speaks to you (i.e. Moses."

(19) And now [God] said "This is my name forever (לעלם) and this is my remembrance for generation to generation (3:15)" to express that [God's] name "Ehyeh" is God's name for the entire world, that is to say [it is the name that expresses] how God's essence comes from God's self, and how all other essences are dependent on something different than themselves, and this [is what the Torah means by saying] "This is my name forever" - my name being "Ehyeh."

(20) And indeed God's first name is "God of your ancestors" is the [what the Torah means by] "remembrance from generation to generation" since in every generation they will remember it was Mighty God who chose Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and will never forget this covenant with the patriarchs for all generations [to come]. And this is more than enough for the first 4 questions.

(21) And it is also possible to explain that "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" [as follows]: When Moses asked [God] his name, God responded "What does it mean that they would ask about my name? [My] name will be what it will be, and they (i.e. the children of Israel) don't need to engage in the hidden things [about Me]." However, thus you shall say to them 'The One who said I am as Himself - that He is concealed and whose existence is not conceivable is the one who sent me to you. But the only thing they need to know is that I am the God of their ancestors, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

(22) And it is possible to explain "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" as language like "I will be with you," as God said to Moses at the beginning of this section (Exodus 3:12). God said, "Why are you asking Me about My name? Didn't I already tell you 'I will be,' that is to say 'I will be with you?" And thus God commanded Moses to say [to the children of Israel] "Ehyeh ("I will be") sent me, that is to say "The One who said to me Ehyeh - because I will be (i.e. "Ehyeh") with you - is the One who sent me.

(23) And the rabbis (Pesachim 50) explained "This is my name forever (לעלם)." It is written as concealed (לעלם). God said "Not as I am written shall I be called." [God's name] is written with yud and hey, but it is read as alef and dalet. "On that day God will be one" (Zechariah 14:9). Is that to say God's name is not One? Rava explained this section in the study hall [saying] '"forever" (לעלם) is written - God's name will be One in this world upon good tidings, one recites: Blessed...Who is good and does good, and upon bad timings one recites: Blessed...the true judge. However, in the World-to-Come one will always recite: Blessed...Who is good and does good.

(24) And thus it is written in Chapter 10 Yochasin (Kiddushin 71) Rabba bar bar Hana says that Rabbi Yohanan says: The Sages transmit the four-letter name of God to their students once a week, and some say once every 7 years. And the reason for once every seven years is because of what's written, "This is my name forever (לעלם)." [Though the last word is read as "forever,"] it is written as "hidden" (לעלם).

(25) It seems from the teachings of the sages that the name God taught to Moshe Rabbeinu when he saw the burning bush was the single name of God (i.e. the correct pronounciation of the Tetragrammaton).

(14) In those times, many will resist the king of the south, and the lawless sons of your people will assert themselves to confirm the vision, but they will fail.

She may go out with the sela on a callus. Young girls may go out with threads, and even with chips in their ears. Arabian women may go out veiled. Medean women may go out with their cloaks thrown over their shoulders. Indeed, all people [may do likewise] but that the sages spoke of prevailing custom.

The Gemara cites a baraita with additional opinions with regard to the defining characteristics of an am ha’aretz: The Sages taught: Who is an am ha’aretz? One who does not recite Shema in the evening and morning. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: An am ha’aretz is one who does not don phylacteries. Ben Azzai says: An am ha’aretz is one who does not have ritual fringes on his garment. Rabbi Natan says: An am ha’aretz is one who does not have a mezuza on his doorway. Rabbi Natan bar Yosef says: An am ha’aretz is one who has children but who does not want them to study Torah, so he does not raise them to engage in Torah study. Aḥerim say: Even if one read the Bible and studied Mishna and did not serve Torah scholars to learn from them the meaning of the Torah that he studied, that is an am ha’aretz. Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim.

(4) Variantly: "He also loved the peoples": We are hereby taught that the Holy One Blessed be He did not apportion love to the nations of the world in the manner that He did to Israel. Know this to be so for they said that the theft of a gentile is permitted, and, of a Jew, forbidden. And it, indeed, transpired that the monarchy once sent two commissioners, instructing them: Go and make yourselves converts and see what the Torah of Israel is like. (They did so) and they went to R. Gamliel to Usha, and studied Scripture, Mishnah, Medrash, halachoth, and aggadoth. Before dying they said: All of your Torah is beautiful and praiseworthy, except for one thing — the theft of a gentile is permitted, and that of a Jew, forbidden — but we will not reveal this to the monarchy.

Antoninus asked Rebbi, may I build an altar? He said to him, build it and hide its stones. May one make incense for him? He said to him, make it without one of its ingredients. Was it not stated, you may not make for yourselves? You may not make for yourselves [but] others may make for you. Rebbi Ḥanania said, this was for Rebbi Romanos whom Rebbi sent to make it for him. There are indications implying that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] converted; there are indications implying that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] did not convert. One saw him walking with a slight shoe on the Day of Atonement. What do you infer since even God-fearing people go outside thus? (Antolinus) [Antoninus] said to Rebbi, can I eat from the Leviathan in the World to Come? He said to him, yes. He told him, from the Passover lamb you would not let me eat, but from Leviathan you make me eat? He answered, what can we do for you since about the Passover lamb it is written that no uncircumcised man may eat from it. When he heard this, he went and circumcized. He came to Rebbi and said to him, look at my circumcision. He answered him, at mine I never looked, and at yours I should look? Why is he called our holy teacher? Because he never in his life looked at his circumcision. And why is his name Naḥum the holiest of holies? Because he never in his life looked at the figure on a coin. This implies that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] converted. The statement of the rabbis implies that (Antolinus) [Antoninus] did (not) convert, as Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar said: When in the Future World the proselytes come, (Antolinus) [Antoninus] comes at the head of all of them.

Only if he says, it was written before me during the day and signed during the day; only if he says, it was written before me especially for her and signed expressly for her. It was asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does he have to know the names of the witnesses at the moment of their signing? He said to them, did the Gentiles Luciani sign it? And you say so? A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “All bills of divorce coming from overseas are valid even if their names sound Gentile since Jews outside the Land of Israel bear Gentile names.” He said only, outside the Land; therefore not in the Land of Israel. What about this? Rebbi Bevai in the name of Rebbi Issi: unless he writes, at a Jewish place. If there is no Jewish place, in the synagogue. If there is no synagogue, he assembles there ten people. Rebbi Abun said, it would be better to certify the signatures than to assemble there ten people. What about this? Even in a Jewish store.

With regard to the investigation of the priestly lineage, the Gemara relates: A certain gentile would ascend on the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, claiming he was Jewish, and eat Paschal lambs in Jerusalem. He would then return home and boast about how he had tricked the Jews. He said: It is written: “This is the statute of the Paschal lamb; no foreigner may eat of it” (Exodus 12:43), and another verse says: “Any uncircumcised man shall not eat of it” (Exodus 12:48). And yet, I ate from the finest of the fine portions of the Paschal lamb. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira said to him, in an attempt to thwart any repetition of this action: Did they feed you from the fat tail of the lamb? Do you really think they gave you the finest portion? The gentile was ignorant of the fact that the fat tail is sacrificed on the altar, not eaten. The gentile said to him: No. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira replied: If so, when you ascend there next time, say to them: Feed me the fat tail. The next year when he ascended, he said to the other members of the group he joined: Feed me from the fat tail. They said to him: The fat tail is offered up to God. They said to him: Who said that to you, to ask for that portion? He said to them testily: It was Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. They said: What is this incident that has come before us? Could Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira have told him to eat the fat tail? This matter must be investigated further. They investigated his background and found that he was a gentile, and they killed him. They sent a message to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: Peace unto you, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, as you are in Netzivin and your net is spread in Jerusalem. Despite your distance from Jerusalem, you enabled us to apprehend a person who deceived us.

[Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok] said [Beit Shammai & Beit Hillel agreed re: an uncircumcised stranger who sprinkled the blood of sacrifices and ate sacrifices]. On what did they disagree? On an uncircumcised non-Jew who Beit Shammai says immerses and eats the Passover at night, whereas Beit Hillel says it's regarding a dissident from the uncircumcised who is like a dissident from the grave - one is a non-Jewish man who circumcised and the other is a maid-servant who immerses in the mikveh.

(10) When you [an Israelite warrior] take the field against your enemies, and your God ה' delivers them into your power and you take some of them captive, (11) and you see among the captives a beautiful woman and you desire her and would take her [into your household] as your wife, (12) you shall bring her into your household, and she shall trim her hair, pare her nails, (13) and discard her captive’s garb. She shall spend a month’s time in your household lamenting her father and mother; after that you may come to her and thus become her husband, and she shall be your wife. (14) Then, should you no longer want her, you must release her outright. You must not sell her for money: since you had your will of her, you must not enslave her.

This is also taught in a baraita: “You should not show them mercy”; this teaches that you should not give them a chance to encamp in the land of Eretz Yisrael. Another matter: “You should not show them mercy”; this indicates that you should not give them favor. Another matter: “You should not show them mercy”; this teaches that you should not give them an undeserved gift.

(56) “They heard that I sigh; there is no comforter for me; all my enemies heard of my misfortune, were glad because You acted. May You bring the day that You proclaimed, and they will be like me” (Lamentations 1:21).

“They heard that I sigh.” Rabbi Yehoshua interpreted the verse regarding Aaron. You find that when Aaron died, the clouds of glory were dispersed and all Israel gathered to eulogize him. They said: ‘Moses is mourning, Elazar is mourning; who will not mourn?’ Immediately, what is written there? “The Canaanite king of Arad…heard” (Numbers 21:1). And it is written: “He waged war with Israel and he took captive from them” (Numbers 21:1).

The Rabbis interpret the verse regarding the destruction of the Temple. You find that wherever Israel sought to flee, [the local population] would turn them in. They sought to flee northward, but they did not allow them to do so. That is what is written: “For three transgressions of Gaza, but for the fourth, I will not relent: For their exiling of an entire exile, to deliver to Edom” (Amos 1:6). They sought to flee eastward, but they did not allow them to do so. That is what is written: “For three transgressions of Tyre, but for the fourth, I will not relent: For their delivering of an entire exile to Edom, and they did not remember the covenant of brothers” (Amos 1:9). They sought to flee westward, but they did not allow them to do so, as it is written: “A prophecy of Arabia: In the forest in Arabia you will stay the night, caravans [of Dedanites]” (Isaiah 21:13).

“Because You acted,” this is analogous to a king who married a noblewoman. He said to her: ‘Do not speak to your friends. Do not borrow from them and do not lend to them.’ Sometime later the king grew angry at her and expelled her from the palace. She circulated among all her neighbors, but they did not receive her, so she returned to the palace. The king said to her: ‘You have been impudent!’ The noblewoman said to the king: ‘My lord, had I lent them or borrowed from them a vessel, and I would have grown friendly with them, would they not have received me?’ So too, the Holy One blessed be He said to Israel: ‘You have been impudent!’ They said before Him: ‘Master of the universe, did you not write in Your Torah: “You shall not marry them; your daughter you shall not give to his son, and his daughter you shall not take for your son” (Deuteronomy 7:3)? Had we lent them and taken from them and them from us, and his daughter would be with me or my daughter with him, would they not have received me?’ That is: “Because You acted.” “May You bring the day that You proclaimed, and they will be like me,” in distress, and not like me in relief.

(48) If a person is excommunicated for committing a sin and the minister decrees that anyone who encourages the excommunicant shall be punished, we are required to err on the side of doubt [in regard to a situation where someone might be punished] in order to strengthen our faith.

However, if the excoummunicant is excommunicated because of personal matters with another person, as in the legitimacy of their citizenship, we are not obligated to register the threat of punishment.

REMA: And look earlier at YD 228:47 and 232:12 that even though a person is obligated to erase his sins, and the one who does not erase his sins will be caught up in doing them again, in any case a person is not obligated to to pay money [to get out of his sins] and therefore we rule leniently in cases of cancelling sins in which we suspect [the situation of the sins] stands upon our bodies and strength (i.e. their ability to pay money).

(1) When a Jew engages in relations with a woman from other nations, [taking her] as his spouse or a Jewess engages in relations with a non-Jew as his spouse, they are punished by lashes, according to Scriptural Law.1Licentious relations with a gentile man or woman are not included in the scope of this Scriptural prohibition, as stated in the following halachah. As [Deuteronomy 7:3] states: "You shall not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughter to his son, and do not take his daughter for your son."
This prohibition applies equally to [individuals from] the seven [Canaanite] nations and all other gentiles.2Although the verse the Rambam cites as a prooftext refers to the seven Canaanite nations, all other gentiles are also included as reflected by the verse from Nechemiah.
The Tur (Even HaEzer 16) differs with the Rambam, explaining that the verse should be understood within its limited context, referring only to the seven nations. (The Rambam's opinion has a source in the Sheiltot D'Rabbenu Achai Gaon, while that of the Tur is found in the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol) The crux of the difference is the exegesis of the continuation of the verse cited by the Rambam: "For he shall sway your son away." Kiddushin 68b quotes Rabbi Shimon as focusing on the motivating rationale for the verse and thus including all those who might sway a person's heart. Thus it refers to all gentiles. The Sages, however, do not accept this perspective. This was explicitly stated in Ezra3Although the verse is contained in the Book of Nechemiah, the Rambam considers Ezra and Nechemiah as one book. See Hilchot Sefer Torah 7:15. Similarly, Sanhedrin 93b states that none of the books of the Tanach are named after Nechemiah.
The verse cited by the Rambam is part of the oath taken by the people to remain true to their faith upon their return to Zion. At that time, the gentiles living in the land were not Canaanites. [Nechemiah 10:31]: "That we will not give our daughters to the gentiles in the land and that we will not take their daughters for our sons."

(2) The Scriptural prohibition applies only to marital relations.4The Tur, loc. cit., differs with the Rambam concerning this point as well, stating that there is no concept of marriage between a Jew and non-Jew. When, by contrast, one engages in relations with a gentile woman with a licentious intent, he is given "stripes for rebellious conduct" according to Rabbinic Law. [This is a] decree, lest this lead to marriage.
If [a Jew] designates [a gentile woman] for licentious relations, he is liable for relations with a niddah, a maid-servant, a gentile woman, and a licentious woman.5This was a decree passed by the court of the Hasmoneans when they saw that the Jews were sharing intimacy with Greek women (Avodah Zarah 36b). The transgressor is given stripes several times, once for each of the Rabbinic prohibitions he ignored. If he did not designate her for himself, but instead, [engage in relations with her] spontaneously, he is only liable for relations with a gentile woman. All of these liabilities are Rabbinic in origin.6According to Scriptural Law, if a Jew engages in relations with a gentile woman in public "the zealot may strike him," as stated in Halachah 4. The Hasmoneon's decree, however, applies even when relations were carried out in private.

(3) When does the above apply? When the man who engaged in relations was an Israelite. If, however, a priest engages in relations with a gentile woman, he is liable for lashes according to Scriptural Law, because of the prohibition against relations with a zonah.7The term zonah is generally translated as "prostitute." It has, however, a precise halachic definition, as stated in Chapter 18, Halachah 1. [This prohibition applies] both to a non-Jewish zonah and a Jewish one. He receives lashes for relations alone, for he cannot consecrate her.8Note the contrast to the laws applying to a Jewish zonah, as mentioned in Chapter 17, Halachah 2.

(4) Whenever a man has relations with a gentile woman in public, i.e., the relations are carried out in the presence of ten or more Jews, if a zealous person strikes him and kills him, he is considered praiseworthy and ardent.9The Ra'avad rules that the zealous person must warn the transgressor before striking him. The Maggid Mishneh states that the concept of a warning is relevant only with regard to execution by the court and not to the independent actions taken by a zealous person. The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 425:4) quotes the Ra'avad's view. [This applies whether the relations were] in the context of marriage or licentious in nature. This matter is a halachah conveyed to Moshe at Sinai.10I.e., a law which is not commanded by the Written Torah, yet communicated by the Oral Tradition. Support for this can be derived from Pinchas' slaying of Zimri.11As Numbers, ch. 25 relates, the Jews began worshiping idols, because they were lured to by Midianite women. Enraged Moses commanded that the worshipers be executed. Zimri, the prince of the tribe of Shimon, took a Midianite woman and confronted Moses, engaging in relations before him. When Pinchas saw this, he slew Zimri, giving expression to the law mentioned by the Rambam.

(5) The zealous person can strike [the fornicators] only at the time of relations, as was the case with regard to Zimri, as [Numbers 25:8] states: "[He pierced] the woman into her stomach."12Our Sages relate that Pinchas' javelin went through Zimri's back and into her gut, killing them both in the midst of relations. If, however, [the transgressor] withdraws,13Even if he transgressed already. he should not be slain. Indeed, if [the zealous person] slays him, he may be executed [as a murderer].14Needless to say, a warning must be given and two acceptable witnesses must observe the slaying.
If the zealous person comes to ask permission from the court to slay him, they do not instruct him [to],15The initiative to slay the transgressor must be totally that of the zealous person. For the court has no obligation - and there no license - to exact such punishment. even if this takes place at the time [of relations]. Not only that, if the zealous person comes to kill the transgressor and he withdraws and kills the zealous person in order to save himself, the transgressor is not executed for killing him.16For the zealous person is considered as a rodef, pursuer, whom the intended victim has the right to slay, as stated in Hilchot Rotzeach, ch. 1.
When a Jew has relations with the daughter of a resident alien,17As explained in Chapter 14, Halachah 7, this refers to a non-Jew who accepted the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 9:6), the Rambam states that the woman herself - not only her father - must not be an idolater. the zealot may not strike him. [The transgressor] should, however, be given stripes for rebellious conduct.

(6) If the zealot did not strike him, nor did he receive stripes from the court,18The Maggid Mishneh writes that if he was given "stripes for rebellious conduct" by the court, he is no longer liable for kereit. Our Sages (Makkot 23b) state a similar concept with regard to a person who receives lashes for the violation of a Scriptural prohibition. The Rambam extends the idea to include a person who is punished on the basis of Rabbinic decree. his punishment is explicitly stated in the words of the prophetic tradition. He is liable for karet,19This applies even if relations are conducted in private. as [Malachi 2:11-12] states: "Judah desecrated that which is sacred to God, [by] loving and engaging in relations with the daughter of a foreign god. May God cut off from a man who does this any progeny and descendant." [Implied is]20As interpreted by Yevamot 22b, 23a. that if he is an Israelite, he will not have progeny among the wise who will raise issues, nor a descendant among the scholars who will respond. If he is a priest, he will not have [a descendant] who "presents an offering to the Lord of Hosts." Thus you have learned that a person who shares intimacy with a gentile woman is considered as if he married a false deity, as the verse states: "engaging in relations with the daughter of a foreign god." And he is called one who "desecrated that which is sacred to God."

(1) Shulchan Aruch: All of the transgressions which are in the Torah, with the exception of idolatry, sexual prohibitions, and murder: If someone is told to transgress them or he will be killed, so long as he is in private, he should transgress and not be killed. If he wants to be stringent upon himself and be killed, he may do so if the idolater intends to make him violate his religion. Rama: If he can save himself with all he has, he must give it all rather than transgress one of the negative commandments (Ran in Sukkah, Perek Lulav haGazul, and Rashba and Raavad and Rivash Siman 387). When they [Chazal] said that anyone who has the ability to protest and does not, he is seized in the same sin - here, where there is a chance of danger, he does not need to give up his money over this (Mahariv Siman 156). Shulchan Aruch: If he is in public - that is, in front of ten Jews - he must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress, providing the idolater intends to make him violate his religion (even if this is over a minhag such as the way one ties one’s shoes) (Beis Yosef). But if he [the idolater] intends only for his own benefit, he [the Jew] should transgress rather than be killed. If, however, it is a time of legislation (only against Jews) (Beis Yosef in the name of the Nimukei Yosef), even about the strap of one’s shoes he should be killed rather than transgress. Rama: And this is only if they wish to make him violate a negative commandment; if they made a law that one should not fulfill positive commandments, however, he does not need to fulfill it if he will be killed (Ran Shabbos Perek BaMeh Tomnin and Nimukei Yosef Sanhedrin Perek Sorer uMoreh). Nonetheless, if the hour requires it and he wishes to fulfill it and be killed, he may do so (Maharik Shoresh 88). Shulchan Aruch: And by idolatry, sexual prohibitions, and murder, even in private and not a time with legislation and even if the idolater intends it only for his own benefit, he must be killed rather than transgress. Rama: And this is only when they tell him to do an action: for instance, if they tell a man to transgress a sexual prohibition or he will be killed. If they force a woman to have sex or throw him over a child to murder it or he is already erect and they force him to have forbidden sex, he need not be killed (Beis Yosef in the name of Tosfos and Ran Psachim Perek Kol Sha’ah). All prohibitions of idolatry and sexuality and murder - even if they are not punishable by death, just prohibitions without explicit punishment - he must be killed rather than transgress. On the prohibition of “Do not put a stumbling block before the blind” he may transgress rather than be killed (Ran Psachim Perek Kol Sha’ah and Sanhedrin Perek Ben Sorer uMoreh). An idolater sleeping with a Jewish woman is not included as a sexual prohibition (Beis Yosef in the name of the Ramban and the authorities cited above). Idolaters who told a Jew, “Give us one of you so we may kill him” - they may not give him over unless they [the idolaters] singled him out and said, “Give us Ploni” (Mishnah Trumos 8, Rambam Yesodei haTorah 5). There are those who say that even in this case, one should not give him over unless he is already liable for death like Sheva ben Bichri (Beis Yosef in the name of Rashi and the Ran). Likewise, women who were told by idolaters, “Give us one of you so we may rape [lit. make impure] her” - they must all be raped rather than hand over one Jewish life (Rambam ibid). Any place where it is said, “Be killed rather than transgress,” if he transgressed and was not killed, even though he has desanctified the Name, nonetheless he is considered forced and is not liable. This is only where he could not have fled - if he could have fled, and did not do so, he is like a dog sitting on his vomit and is considered to have transgressed deliberately (Beis Yosef in the name of the Rambam Yesodei haTorah 5).

(2) Shulchan Aruch: It is forbidden for a man to claim that he is an idolater so that they will not kill him; if, however, so that they will not know he is a Jew, he changes his clothes during a time of legislation, this is permitted, since he does not say that he is an idolater. Rama: Even if he must wear shaatnez (Nimukei Yosef Bava Kama Perek haGozel (the second one)). Even though it is forbidden to say that he is an idolater, nonetheless he may say things that can be interpreted multiple ways (Nimukei Yosef Bava Kama Perek haGozel) and the idolaters will understand that he has said that he is an idolater while he means something else. Likewise, if he can trick them so that they will think he is an idolater, this is permitted (Trumas HaDeshen Siman 197). In the same vein, one who desires another man’s wife - if his wife can sleep with him such that he will believe he is sleeping with the forbidden woman, this is permitted (ibid in the Nimukei Yosef). All of this is permitted only where there is a danger, but where there is no danger - for instance, he wears idolaters’ clothes so they will not recognize that he is a Jew so that he can avoid the tax or suchlike - that is forbidden (Hagahos Ashiri and Nimukei Yosef Bava Kama Perek haGozel (the second) and Trumas haDeshen Siman 196 and other authorities).

(3) Shulchan Aruch: One who is liable for the death penalty may run to an idolatrous house of worship to save himself (some say that at a time of legislation this is prohibited (Kol Bo). See above Siman 150).

(23) 23 (Numb. 25:1) “The people began to go whoring unto the daughters of Moab.” Come and see what is written in their leaving from Egypt: (In Ex. 14:2,) “Tell the Israelites to turn back and encamp before Pi-Hahiroth (which sounds like liberty, heiruth).” What is the meaning of Pi-Hahiroth? It was a place that was fixed for unchastity. And because they sheltered themselves [from it] in their leaving, it was called Pi-Hahiroth. But these [Moabite women] because they made themselves available to the people, it is written, (in Numb. 25:1), “the people began to go whoring [unto the daughters of Moab].” (Numb. 25:1) “The people began”: Every place that “the people” is mentioned, it is an expression of shame; but every place that “Israel” is mentioned, it is an expression of commendation: (In Numb. 11:1,) “Now the people were as murmurers [speaking evil in the ears of the Lord]”; (in Numb. 21:5,) “So the people spoke against God and against Moses”; (in Numb. 14:1,) “and the people wept on that night”; (in Numb. 14:11), “Until when will the people anger Me”; (in Exod. 32:25,) “And Moses saw that the people were wild”; (in Exod. 32:1,) “and the people gathered together against Aaron”; and similarly in all of them. (Numb. 25:1) “The people began to go whoring.” Throw a stick into the air, [and] it falls to its place of origin (i.e., its root). The one who had begun with the whoredom at first, finished with it in the end. Their matriarchs (i.e., the matriarchs of Ammon and Moab) began with whoredom (according to Gen. 19:31-34), “And the first-born said to the younger, ‘Let us give our father to drink […].’ So it came to pass on the next day that the first-born said unto the younger […].” She (the first-born) had instructed her in whoredom, and for that reason the Holy One, blessed be He, had pity on the younger and did not expose her. Rather (according to vs. 35), “and she slept with him”; but with reference to the elder, it is written (in vs. 33), “and slept with her father.” In the case of the one who began in whoredom at first, her daughters (i.e., the daughters of Moab) went after her to finish [it, as stated (in Numb. 25:1), “the people began] to go whoring unto the daughters of Moab.” (Numb. 25:2) “And they invited the people to the sacrifices for their gods”: Thus they (i.e., daughters of Moab) were going by the counsel of Balaam, as stated (in Numb. 31:16), “Here these women at the bidding of Balaam made the Children of Israel.” They made themselves curtained stalls and installed harlots in them with every object of delight in their hands. Now a girl would have an old woman as an agent, for an old woman would be in front of the shop. During the time that Israel was passing by on the way to the marketplace, the woman would say to him, “Young man, surely you want objects of linen which have come from Beth-Shean!” Then she would show them to him and say to him, “Come inside and you will see fine things”; and when the old woman would tell him a high price, the girl would [give him] a lower one. From then on the girl would tell him, “You are like one of the family. Sit down and choose for yourself.” Now a jug of wine was placed by her, since the wine of gentiles had not yet been forbidden. Then out comes the girl, perfumed and adorned, and seduces him and says to him, “Why do you hate us, when we love you? Take for yourself this article gratis. We all are children of a single man, children of Terah, the father of Abraham. So do you not want to eat from our sacrifices and from our cooking? Here are calves and cocks for you; slaughter them according to your own precepts, and eat.” Immediately she has him drink the wine, and then the Satan burned within him, so that he became a fool for her, as stated (in Hos. 4:11), “Harlotry, wine and young wine sway the heart.” There are also those who say [that] Balaam commanded them not to have them drink the wine, so that they would not be judged as those who are drunk, but as willful sinners. When he sought her out, she said to him, “I am not listening to you until you slaughter it [as a sacrifice] to Peor and bow down to it.” But he would say, “I am not bowing down to idolatry.” And she would say to him, “You only need to reveal yourself to it.” And [since] he had become a fool for her, he would do so. This is what the masters said, “One who reveals himself (to defecate) to Baal Peor – this is its worship” (Sanh. 64a). It is so stated (Numb. 25:2), “and they bowed down to their gods.” (Numb. 25:3) “Thus Israel was joined (rt.: tsmd) to Baal Peor”: At the beginning, they went in chastely, but at the end they went as many teams of pairs, like a pair (tsemed) of oxen. Another explanation: Like a man tied to his work; joined (rt.: tsmd) [to Baal Peor] like bracelets (rt.: tsmd). R. Levi said, “This was more serious than the [sin of the golden] calf, for while in reference to the calf, it is written (in Exod. 32:2), ‘Take off the gold rings,’ here [it is written] (in Numb. 25:3), ‘was joined (rt.: tsmd) [to Baal Peor,]’ like bracelets (rt.: tsmd)]. Because of the calf about three thousand fell, but here (according to Numb. 25:9) [the number fallen is] twenty-four thousand.” (Numb. 25:4) “[…] Take all the heads of the people, and impale them [before the Lord in the sun].” R. Judan said, “He hanged the heads of the people, because they had not protested about the people.” R. Nehemiah said, “He did not hang them. Rather the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, ‘Appoint Sanhedrin heads for them, and let them judge whoever went to Peor.’ He said to him, ‘But who will make such a one known?’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, ‘I will expose them. In the case of whoever has gone astray, the cloud shall be peeled back from upon him, and the sun shall shine upon him in the midst of the congregation. Then they will know anyone who has gone astray and hang him.’” You know for yourself that it is so, as stated (in Numb. 25:5), “So Moses said unto the judges of Israel, ‘Each of you kill [those of] his own people [who have been joined to Baal Peor].’”

(1) The daughters of Zelophehad, of Manassite family—son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh son of Joseph—came forward. The names of the daughters were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. (2) They stood before Moses, Eleazar the priest, the chieftains, and the whole assembly, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and they said, (3) “Our father died in the wilderness. He was not one of the faction, Korah’s faction, which banded together against ה', but died for his own sin; and he has left no sons. (4) Let not our father’s name be lost to his clan just because he had no son! Give us a holding among our father’s kinsmen!” (5) Moses brought their case before ה'. (6) And ה' said to Moses, (7) “The plea of Zelophehad’s daughters is just: you should give them a hereditary holding among their father’s kinsmen; transfer their father’s share to them. (8) “Further, speak to the Israelite people as follows: ‘If a householder dies without leaving a son, you shall transfer his property to his daughter. (9) If he has no daughter, you shall assign his property to his brothers. (10) If he has no brothers, you shall assign his property to his father’s brothers. (11) If his father had no brothers, you shall assign his property to his nearest relative in his own clan, who shall inherit it.’ This shall be the law of procedure for the Israelites, in accordance with יהוה’s command to Moses.”

Rava said in response that the verse states: “Then you shall give his inheritance to his kinsman who is next to him of his family, and he shall inherit it” (Numbers 27:11), emphasizing that “kinsman” is referring specifically to someone who is of his family, and it is the father’s family that is called one’s family, while one’s mother’s family is not called one’s family. Proof for this is found in another verse, as it is written: “By their families, by their fathers’ houses” (Numbers 1:2).

The Gemara explains: By Torah law intermarriage is prohibited only with the seven Canaanite nations, but intermarriage with the other nations of the world is not prohibited, and the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that intermarriage is prohibited even with the other nations. The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who says that the subsequent verse: “For he will turn away your son from following Me” (Deuteronomy 7:4) serves to include all who turn away one’s son from God, i.e., all gentiles, what is there to say? Rather, by Torah law only sexual relations by way of marriage are prohibited, and they came and decreed that sexual relations are prohibited even by way of licentiousness. The Gemara raises an objection: Licentious sexual intercourse was also prohibited earlier, as they decreed a prohibition in this regard in the court of Shem, as it is written: “It was told to Judah, saying: Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; and moreover, behold, she is with child by harlotry. And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burned” (Genesis 38:24). This proves that the prohibition against licentious intercourse with a gentile was in force long before the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel. The Gemara explains: Rather, the prohibition prescribed by Torah law applies to the case of a gentile who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, as she is drawn after him toward idolatry, but the case of a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman is not included in the prohibition by Torah law. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that the prohibition applies even to a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman. The Gemara rejects this: The prohibition concerning a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, not a rabbinic ordinance. As the Master said: With regard to one who engages in intercourse with an Aramean woman, zealots may attack him, as Pinehas did to Zimri in the wilderness (see Numbers 25:6–8). He said to him: By Torah law intercourse with a gentile is prohibited in public, and only in situations like the incident that occurred, as described in Numbers, chapter 25. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that the prohibition applies even in private. The Gemara raises another difficulty: This was also prohibited in private, as the court of the Hasmoneans decreed that it is prohibited. As when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: The court of the Hasmoneans decreed that a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman bears liability for transgressing four prohibitions, represented by the mnemonic: Nun, shin, gimmel, alef. These letters stands for: Menstruating woman [nidda], maidservant [shifḥa], gentile [goya], and married woman [eshet ish]. By rabbinic law, a man who engages in intercourse with a gentile woman is considered to have violated the prohibitions involved in having intercourse with all four of these women. And when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: He bears liability for four prohibitions represented by the mnemonic: Nun, shin, gimmel, zayin, which stands for: Menstruating woman [nidda], maidservant [shifḥa], gentile [goya], and prostitute [zona]. In any case, it is apparent that this decree was in force before the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel. The Gemara answers: When the court of the Hasmoneans decreed, they prohibited only sexual intercourse, but with regard to seclusion with a gentile woman, no, they did not prohibit that. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that even seclusion with a gentile woman is prohibited. The Gemara raises an objection: Seclusion was also prohibited earlier, as the court of King David decreed that with regard to this matter. As Rav Yehuda says: At that time, after the incident involving Amnon and Tamar (see II Samuel 13:1–19), they decreed with regard to seclusion. The Sages said in response to the objection: There, in David’s court, seclusion with a Jewish woman was prohibited, but seclusion with a gentile woman was not prohibited. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed a prohibition even with regard to seclusion with a gentile woman. The Gemara raises yet another difficulty: Seclusion with a Jewish woman is prohibited by Torah law, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Where is there an allusion in the Torah to the prohibition against seclusion? As it is stated: “If your brother, the son of your mother, entices you” (Deuteronomy 13:7). And does only a half brother who is the son of a mother entice one to sin, whereas the son of a father does not entice? Rather, there is a greater concern that a maternal half brother might entice one to sin, as a son secludes himself with his mother, and no other may seclude himself with any of those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah. Since an individual and his maternal half brother both seclude themselves with their shared mother, they are frequently together in private, and this facilitates enticement. In any case, it is clear that the prohibition against seclusion with a Jewish woman preceded King David. The Gemara explains: The prohibition against seclusion prescribed by Torah law applies specifically to a married woman, and David came and decreed a prohibition even with regard to seclusion with an unmarried woman. And later the students of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel came and decreed even with regard to seclusion with a gentile woman.