INTRODUCTION TO SEDER ZERA'IM

BY

THE EDITOR¹ 

GENERAL CHARACTER AND CONTENTS
 

[page xiii] Zera'im ('Seeds'), the name given to the first of the six 'Orders' into which the Talmud is divided, deals principally with the agricultural laws of the Torah in both their religious and social aspects. It sets forth and elaborates the Biblical precepts relating to the rights of the poor and of the priests and levites to the produce of the harvest, as well as the rules and regulations which concern the tillage, cultivation and sowing of fields, gardens and orchards. These laws are digested in ten tractates, each of which deals with a separate aspect of the general subject which gives the 'Order' its name. To them is prefixed the Tractate Berakoth, which has for its theme the daily prayers and worship of the Jew.

The 'Order' thus comprises 11 tractates, arranged in the separate printed editions of the Mishnah in the following sequence:

1. BERAKOTH ('Benedictions'): Deals with the prayer and worship of Israel; the regulations relating to the main components of the daily prayers; and the forms of thanksgiving or 'grace' to be recited over food and on sundry occasions. 9 Chapters.
2. PE'AH ('Corner'): Treats of the laws of the corners of the field which must be left to the poor and other dues assigned to them in accordance with Lev. XIX, 9f; XXIII, 22; and Deut. XXIV, 19-21. 8 Chapters.
3. DEMAI ('Doubtful'): Treats of produce concerning which there is a doubt whether or not the tithes have been set aside from it. 7 Chapters.
4. KIL'AYIM ('Mixtures'): Deals with the prohibition of mixture [page xiv] in plants, animals and garments set forth in Lev. XIX, 19, and Deut. XXII, 9-11. 9 Chapters.
5. SHEBI'ITH ('Seventh'): Discusses the regulations concerning the rest to be given to the land and the release of debts in the sabbatical year (Shemittah). See Ex. XVIII, 11; Lev. XXV, 2-7; and Deut. XV, 1-11. 10 Chapters.
6. TERUM0TH ('Heave Offerings'): Sets forth the laws regarding the portion of the harvest assigned to the priest in accordance with Num. XVIII 12. 11 Chapters.
7. MA'ASEROTH ('Tithes'): Has for its theme the 'first tithe' which must be given annually to the levite from the produce of the harvest according to Lev. XXVII, 30-33; and Num. XVIII, 21-24. 5 Chapters.
8. MA'ASER SHENI ('Second Tithe'): Details the rules of the 'second tithe' set aside in the first, second, fourth and sixth years of the septennate in accordance with Deut. XIV, 22ff. 5 Chapters.
9. HALLAH ('Dough'): Deals with the rules concerning the portion of the dough which must be given to the priest. See Num. XV, 20-21. 4 Chapters.
10. 'ORLAH ('Uncircumcision', sc. of trees): Deals with the prohibition of the use of the fruit of the young trees during the first three years, and the rules for its treatment in the fourth year. See Lev. XIX, 23-24. 3 Chapters.

11. BIKKURIM ('First Fruits'): Gives the regulations concerning the offering of the first fruits in the Temple (see Deut. XXVI, Iff.), and includes an account of the accompanying ceremony. 3 Chapters.

     

This sequence is followed practically in all the printed and manuscript editions of the Mishnah and Talmud. The only notable exception is the Munich MS. which places Berakoth between Mo'ed and Nashim.²  This, however, seems to have been due more to technical reasons than to a deliberate departure from the recognised sequence. Several attempts have been made to explain the sequence [page xv] of the tractates in the Seder,³  but none is very convincing. There is no doubt that there were several determining factors, of which the order in which the laws appear in the Pentateuch was one, and the number of chapters in the tractate was another; whilst another probable factor was the frequency with which the matters treated in the respective tractates occurred.⁴ 

FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT OF SEDER ZERA^'IM

Seder Zera'im is designated in one place in the Tamud by the term Emunah⁵  This designation provides the answer to the question how regulations regarding worship and prayer came to be grouped with agricultural laws,⁶  and at the same time the reason for the priority given to Berakoth in this 'Order'.

The Hebrew word Emunah has a two-fold connotation — theological and human. It signifies alike faith — trust — in God, and faithfulness — honesty, integrity — in human relations. These two concepts of Emunah do not conflict with each other; on the contrary, they complement and supplement each other. In Judaism, unlike other religions, faith is not some mystic quality charged with supernatural powers capable of winning divine favour and grace. Faith is a dynamic, a motive for faithfulness, and is of value only in so far as it is productive of faithful action; nor is there any faithful action that is not rooted in faith in God. The man of faithfulness is an Ish Emunah, and the man of faith is a Ba'al Emunah. For it is the man of the highest faith in God who is the man of the greatest faithfulness in his dealings with his fellow man; and it is only the man of faithfulness who can truly be considered a man of faith.

The application to the agricultural laws of the signification of Emunah as faith is aptly explained by the Midrash in its exposition of Psalm XIX, 8. '“The testimony of the Lord is faithful (trustworthy)” — this refers to Seder Zera'im, for man has faith (trust) in the Life [page xvi] of the World and sows.”⁷  Man, that is to say, has faith in the divine governance of the world and in the regularity of the natural world order which God has established in His Universe, and sows with the assurance of reaping.

On the other hand, the term Emunah as applied to the'Order' has also been interpreted in the sense of faithfulness. Thus Rashi⁸  says that the 'Order' is called Emunah because the fulfilment of its precepts is a mark of man's faithfulness in his social relations. Man observes these laws, and pays the poor and the priests and levites their respective dues, because he is a man of faithfulness.

Here, too, faith and faithfulness combine to form an indissoluble unity. The man of faith will carry out these observances with faith fulness; whilst the faithfulness with which he performs his duties is a test of his faith.

The reason for this close connection of faith and faithfulness in the carrying out of these observances is not far to seek. Faith in the 'Life of the World', if held with conviction, implies the recognition of God as the owner of the earth. In virtue of this principle the earth as well as all the gifts of Nature can never become altogether private property. It is handed out in trust to man who by the sweat of his brow extracts its produce. He has the right and the duty to apply his labour to the land; but this does not constitute it his. He must always recognise that ‘To the Lord belongs the earth, and the fulness thereof’ (Psalm XXIV, 1). Whatever rights man has in the earth and its produce are derived from God, and are subject to the overruling consideration that He alone has the ultimate ownership of the land. It follows from this as a corollary that all God's children are entitled to a share in the land, as their common heritage. The landowner, therefore, while enjoying the reward of his toil and stewardship must recognise that others too have a right to live and that he has a duty to enable them to live. It was these common human rights, flowing from the idea of divine ownership of the earth, which the Torah sought to safeguard by the provisions it made under various laws for the benefit of the poor. When a field is harvested [page xvii] the corners (Pe'ah) are to be left uncut; a sheaf⁹  forgotten in the field by the owner (Shikhah) is not to be reclaimed; the gleanings of cornfields (Leket) and vineyards (Pere!)¹⁰  which fall to the ground in harvesting are not to be picked up; nor are the defective clusters of grapes ('Oleloth)¹¹  to be gathered. A special tithe (Ma'aser 'Oni) has in addition to be set aside every three years and laid up in towns and villages for distribution. All these parts of the harvest belong to the poor as their prescriptive rights in the common heritage assigned to them by the divine owner.¹²

It is in the same spirit that the laws of the Sabbatical year (Shemittah) were ordained. Designed to confirm the landless poor in their right to live, `the Sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a Sabbath unto the Lord' (Lev. XXV, 4) helped at the same time to teach that the produce of the earth must not be regarded as the exclusive private property of a selected class, but is part of a common divine heritage in which the poor, the alien, the slave, and even animals have a share.

The idea of the divine ownership of the land was likewise suggested by the biblical prohibition regarding the mixture of seeds (Kil'ayim) While this and similar laws are designated as `Statutes' (Lev. XIX, 19), for which no reason has been revealed, there is no question that underlying them is the idea that the earth belongs to God, and that man has no right to interfere with the appointed order of things or violate the `Statutes' God has established in His physical universe for ever and ever.¹³

The recognition of the divine ownership of the earth is likewise enforced by the command regarding the first fruits (Bikkurim). 'The object of this precept,' writes Aaron Halevi, `is to instil in man the belief that all he has, he holds from the Lord of the Universe.'¹⁴  This [page xviii] too, according to Nahmanides, is the significance of the prohibition of the fruit of young trees in the first three years ('Orlah), and the laws regarding them in the fourth year. This precept, in his view, is closely connected with that of the first fruits. The fruit in the first three years is stunted in growth and hence unfit for the offering to God which alone releases it for human use.'¹⁵

The same motive equally underlies the gifts to be made to the priest — the heave-offering (Terumah), and the portion of the dough (Hallah), and to the levite — the tithe (Ma'aser). In the words of Rabbi Aaron Halevi, 'Since corn and wine and oil constitute the main staple food of human beings and the whole world belongs to God, it is fitting that man should be mindful of his Creator, in enjoying the blessings wherewith He blessed him, and set aside, in His name, a portion thereof, giving it to His ministers who occupy themselves all the time with "heavenly work", before he himself derives benefit from the produce."¹⁶

Faith in the divine ownership of the earth is thus implicit in the agricultural laws of the'Order' and is the all-inspiring motive for the fulfilment of them in faithfulness; and it is this faith which constitutes the very heart of Jewish prayer and worship, to which Berakoth is devoted. For what is the Shema', which forms the opening theme of the Tractate, but the grand affirmation of Israel's faith in God's ownership of the world — His mastery overlife and Nature — with His consequent claim upon human service, devotion and love? Similarly the 'Amidah, the Jewish daily Prayer par excellence, covering the whole range of human needs — physical, mental, and spiritual — is grounded on faith in God's ownership of the Universe, wherein He has power to do as He wills, and to meet the needs of man in prayer. And likewise those benedictions prescribed for various occasions, such as for partaking of food or for enjoying other gifts of Nature, are uttered in grateful acknowledgment to their divine Owner. This is how the Rabbis of the Talmud understood the significance of these ancient benedictions instituted by the spiritual [page xviii] Fathers of Israel. There is nothing sacramental about them; they are but expressions of thanks to God for personal enjoyments and benefits. Noteworthy in this connection is the Talmudic dictum, 'He who enjoys aught in this world without benedition is as though he robbed God.¹⁷  The world is God's and whatever is therein is His; and it is only after making acknowledgment to the divine Owner that man has the right to put to personal use what he has received at His hands.

With faith in divine ownership as the common basic concept, the relevancy of Berakoth in Zera'im becomes evident; nor could there be any fitter introduction to the 'Order' than that tractate from which there breathes the spirit of faith.

It is also to this basic concept that Zera'im owes its pride of place as the opening Seder of the Talmud. Faith is after all the very pivot of the Jewish religion, and it was only natural for the 'Order' which has Faith as its underlying principle to form the prelude, with the Shema' leading, to that authoritative guide of Jewish life and action which is the Talmud.¹⁸

THE AGRICULTURAL LAWS AND OUR TIMES

Berakoth is the only tractate in this 'Order' which has Gemara in both the Babylonian and Palestinian versions. The other tractates have Palestinian Gemara only, as the laws with which they deal are with a few exceptions restricted to the Holy Land. This is in conformity with the well-known principle that all the religious commandments that depend on the soil apply only in the Holy Land.¹⁹  The reason for this reservation is apparently because the conception of divine ownership basic to these commandments has no relevance to conditions in which the Jewish tenancy of the land is not derived directly from its divine Owner. An exception is the law of the 'mixed [page xx] species', which in some of its aspects is valid also outside Palestine,²⁰  as the underlying idea of not interfering with the natural order appointed by God in His Cosmos is of universal application.

Since the fall of the Hebrew State, many of the precepts, particularly those connected with the Temple, such as the priestly portion and the tithe, have lost their biblical force, though rabbinically they are still binding to a certain degree²¹  and are observed by religious settlements in the New Yishuv.²²  The transformation of the national economy consequent upon the loss of Israel's political independence has likewise affected the harvesting laws, reducing their observance to a mere token.²³  As to the Shemittah, the question of its present-day validity has been the subject of much controversy among post-Talmudic authorities, giving rise to a variety of opinions. Some there are who hold that the Shemittah still retains its full biblical force;²⁴  others would deprive it of all validity;²⁵  whilst others again insist on its observance, though only as part of Rabbinic legislation.²⁶  The point at issue is the dependence of the Shemittah on the jubilee. It is the accepted Rabbinic view that the jubilee is bound up with the territorial integrity of the Jewish State on both sides of the Jordan; and that accordingly its observance came to an end with the cessation of the Hebrew polity.²⁷  This being the case, the dependence of the Shemittah on the jubilee, would mean that its laws are no longer applicable nowadays. Its non-dependence, on the other hand, would mean that the Shemittah may well remain in force, even though the jubilee had become obsolete. Here is no place to enter into a discussion of the complicated Halachic problems involved; but from the point of view of human relations, to make the Shemittah dependent on the jubilee, would impart to it a political connotation not applicable to our own days; while its non-dependence would [page xxi] bring it into the category of those socio-moral Laws of the Torah which have not lost their significance even for our times.

In practice the Jewish Communities that maintained themselves in the Holy Land throughout the centuries following the destruction of the Temple continued to adhere to the Shemittah laws.²⁸  But since the rise of the New Judea with agriculture as the basis of its economy, the observance of the Shemittah has become a burning question, urgently demanding a solution. In the early stages of the Chovevei Zion Movement, the fear that the observance of the Shemittah might jeopardise the existence of the struggling colonists impelled Rabbinic authorities to devise measures for overcoming the hardships involved in its operation. With the approach of the Shemittah year 5649 (1888-1889), Rabbi Isaac Elhanan Spektor of Kovno (1817-1896), the foremost rabbinical authority of his age, relying on the view that the Shemittah nowadays is only of Rabbinic origin, sanctioned the nominal sale of the land to a non-Jew and the employment of non-Jewish labourers during the Shemihtah.²⁹  This device met with strong opposition on the part of a number of rabbis, such as Joshua Loeb Diskin (1818-1898) and Samuel Salant (1816-1911), both of Jerusalem.³⁰  A staunch defender of the measure advocated by Rabbi Spektor was Rabbi A. I. Kook (1865-1935), who wrote a brilliant work on the subject under the title [H].³¹  He, too, was not without his opponents, of whom the most prominent was Rabbi Jacob David Willowsky of Slutsk, commonly known as the Ridbaz (1845-1913). At present most of the religious settlements in Palestine avail themselves of Rabbi Spektor's concessions, though a few adopt the more rigorous attitude and, at a great sacrifice, observe the Shemittah in all its details.³²

[page ] The gradual restoration of the Hebrew polity, which is taking shape before our eyes, after a submergence of almost 2.000 years, gives to the study of this 'Order' more than an mere academic or antiquarian interest. It is yet too early to foretell the form in which these agricultural laws of the Torah will find their embodiment in the economic, political and social structure of the Jewish State that is slowly coming into being. But the occupation of mind and heart with these laws must surely help to foster those social ideals which should be the distinguishing mark of the new civilisation the Jewish people are resolved to plant on the hills of Judea, and by which alone it can be preserved.³³

And not for the Jewish people alone. The humanitarian implications, for all times, of these early biblical measures are obvious. The same motives as inspired the social legislation of the Torah will today prompt any ethical being to apply the sense of duty to his daily tasks. He will recognise that whatever he has he holds from God, and that his claim to possession of property is justified only by the opportunity it provides for service to his fellow-man. With this principle as his mainspring of action, he will strive to turn his vocation and his talents, as well as other gifts that fall to him by good fortune, into a contribution to the common weal. This is a lesson the importance of which for our times cannot be over-estimated; for it is only insofar as humanity will assimilate these ideals to all the complexity of its material problems that it can hope to witness the realisation of its millenial dreams of universal i peace and happiness.

METHOD AND SCOPE

TEXT. The Text for this edition is in the main that of the Wilna Romm Edition. Note has, however, been taken of the most important [page xiii] variants of manuscript and printed editions some of which have been adopted in the main body of the translation, the reason for such preference being generally explained or indicated in the Notes. All the censored passages appear either in the text or in the Notes.

TRANSLATION. The translation aims at reproducing in clear and lucid English the central meaning of the original text. It is true some translators will be found to have been less literal than others, but in checking and controlling every line of the work, the Editor has endeavoured not to lose sight of the main aim of the translation. Words and passages not occurring in the original are placed in square brackets.

NOTES. The main purpose of these is to elucidate the translation by making clear the course of the arguments, explaining allusions and technical expressions, thus providing a running commentary on the text. With this in view resort has been made to the standard Hebrew commentators, Rashi, the Tosafists, Asheri, Alfasi, Maimonides, Maharsha, the glosses of BaH, Rashal, Strashun, the Wilna Gaon, etc.³⁴  Advantage has also been taken of the results of modern scholarship, such as represented by the names of Graetz, Bacher, Weiss, Halevy, Levy, Kohut, Jastrow, Obermeyer, Klein and Buchler, — happily still with us — Krauss, Gmzberg, and Herford among others, in dealing with matters of general cultural interest with which the Talmud teems — historical, geographical, archaeological, philological and social.

GLOSSARY AND INDICES. Each tractate is equipped with a Glossary wherein recurring technical terms are fully explained, thus obviating the necessity of explaining them afresh each time they appear in the text. To this have been added a Scriptural Index and a General Index of contents.

In the presentation of the tractates the following principles have also been adopted: [page xxiv]

1. The Mishnah and the words of the Mishnah recurring and commented upon in the Gemara are printed in capitals.
2. [H] introducing a Mishnah cited in the Gemara, is rendered 'we have learnt'.
3. [H] introducing a Baraitha, is rendered 'it has been (or was) taught'.
4. [H] introducing a Tannaitic teaching, is rendered' Our Rabbis taught'.
5. Where an Amora cites a Tannaitic teaching the word 'learnt' is used, e.g., [H] 'R. Joseph learnt'.
6. The word tanna designating a teacher of the Amoraic period (v. Glos.) is written with a small 't'.
7. A distinction is made between … [H] referring to a Tannaitic ruling and … [H] which refers to the ruling of an Amora, the former being rendered 'the halachah is …' and the latter, 'the law is …'
8. R. stands either for Rabbi designating a Palestinian teacher or Rab designating a Babylonian teacher, except in the case of the frequently recurring Rab Judah where the title 'Rab' has been written in full to distinguish him from the Tanna of the same name.
9. [H] lit., 'The Merciful One', has been rendered 'the Divine Law' in cases where the literal rendering may appear somewhat incongruous to the English ear.
10. Biblical verses appear in italics except for the emphasized word or words in the quotation which appear in Roman characters.
11. No particular English version of the Bible is followed, as the Talmud has its own method of exegesis and its own way of understanding Biblical verses which it cites. Where, however, there is a radical departure from the English versions, the rendering of a recognized English version is indicated in the Notes. References to chapter and verse are those of the Massoretic Hebrew text.
12. Any answer to a question is preceded by a dash ( — ) except where the question and the answer form part of one and the same argument.
13. Inverted commas are used sparingly, that is, where they are deemed essential or in dialogues. [page xxv]
14. The archaic second person 'thou', 'thee' etc. is employed only in Haggadic passages or where it is necessary to distinguish it from the plural 'you', 'yours', etc.
15. The usual English spelling is retained in proper names in vogue like Simeon, Isaac, Akiba, as well as in words like halachah, Shechinah, shechitah, etc. which have almost passed into the English language. The transliteration employed for other Hebrew words is given at the end of each tractate.
16. It might also be pointed out for the benefit of the student that the recurring phrases 'Come and hear:' and 'An objection was raised:' or 'He objected:' introduce Tannaitic teachings, the two latter in contradiction, the former either in support or contradiction of a particular view expressed by an Amora.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I desire once again to express my grateful thanks to all the translators and collaborators of Seder Zera'im, and to pay a tribute to Mr. Jacob Davidson, the Governing Director of the Soncino Press for the care with which he has seen through the Press the volumes of this 'Order'.

In conclusion, on behalf of all those of us who have been closely associated with this publication, I offer the traditional prayer.

[H]

May it be Thy will, O Lord our God, even as Thou hast helped us to complete the Seder Zera'im, so to help us to begin other 'Orders', and complete them.

I. EPSTEIN

Jews' College, London.
7th Kislev, 5708.
20th November, 1947.

Footnotes

1. A general Introduction to the Talmud by the late Chief Rabbi Dr l. H. Hertz, appears in the Baba Kamma volume of Seder Nezikin.
2. See H. L. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (English ed.) pp. 253 and 366. Another minor divergence is found in Kauffmann's Mishnah Codex in which Ma'aseroth and Ma'aser Sheni change places; see op. cit. p. 366.
3. See Maimonides, Introduction to Seder Zera'im; Solomon Sirillos's Introduction to his Commentary on Seder Zera'im of the Jerusalem Talmud; and Z. Frankel, Darke ha-Mishnah, p. 257.
4. See H. L. Strack, op. cit. pp. 26-8.
5. Shab. 31a.
6. Cf. Strack, op. cit., p. 27: 'Berakoth is alien to Zera'im'.
7. Midrash Tehillim. a.l.
8. On Shab. 31a, a.l.
9. Or at most two sheaves; see Pe'ah, VI, 5. Shikhah applies also to fruit trees, see Hal. 131b
10. Peret applies only to grapes, and corresponds to Leket in grain, see Hul. 131b and Maimonides, Yad, Mattenoth Aniyim, I. 7.
11. Lit.,'child clusters', applies only to grapes.
12. See Menahem b. Moses ha-Babli, Ta'ame ha-Mizwoth, 97 and Isaiah Hurwitz, Shene Luhoth ha-Berith, Torah she-bi-kethab, Kedoshim.
13. Moses Nahmanides, Commentary on Pentateuch, Lev. XIX, '9; See also Josephus, Antiquities, IV, 8, 20.
14. Sefer ha-Hinnuk, Precept 106.
15. Moses Nahmanides, op. cit., Lev. XIX, 23. See also Josephus, op. cit. IV, 8, 19.
16. Sefer ha-Hinnuk, Precept 507.
17. Ber. 35b.
18. Cf. Marginal Gloss. in Maimonides' Introduction to Zera'im in the name of Isaiah di Trani (The Elder): "'The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord," and for this reason our holy teachers begun the Order of the Mishnah with the Unity of God and the acceptance of the yoke of His kingdom and of the Torah and precepts, evening and morning.'
19. See Kid. 36b.
20. See Kid. 39b.
21. See Maimonides, Terumoth, I, 26.
22. See A. I. Kook, Mishpat Kohen, Responsa 29-57. For the procedure to be followed in setting aside the priestly portion and tithes, see Responsum 35.
23. See Israel of Shklow, Pe'ath ha-Shulhan (ed. Luncz), p. 22a.
24. Maimonides, Shemittah we-Yobeloth, IV, 25, according to Kesef Mishneh.
25. Zerahia ha-Levi, Sefer ha-Terumoth, Sha'ar 85.
26. Tosaf. 'Ar. 32b s.v. 'Manu', and Eliezer of Metz, Sefer Yere'im, 187.
27. See 'At. 32b; Sifra, Behar, II, 3.
28. See Israel of Shklow, op. cit., pp. 103a, 104b-107b.
29. See A. Benzion Shurin, Rabbi Isaac Elchanan's Attitude towards the New Settlement in Palestine, Talpioth (N.Y.) III, pp. 58ff.
30. See J.E. p. 607.
31. First edition, Jerusalem 1910; 2nd ed. revised and enlarged, Jerusalem, 1937. See also A. I. Kook, Mishpat Kohen, Responsa 58-88, and I. M. Blumenfeld, Ma'ase Rub, Sinai, 1937, pp. 316. For texts of deeds of sale, see Mishpat Kohen, pp. 162-166.
32. See correspondence of Rabbi A. I. Kook, with the I.C.A., pleading on behalf of their Jewish employees who refused to work on Shemittah, in Sinai, 1937, pp. 104f. As to Shemittah Kesafim (release of money debts), opinions vary whether it applies at all today, even rabbinically. It is, nevertheless, being widely observed in Palestine, and to some extent also outside, and resort is accordingly made to the Prozbul enactment of Hillel which is designed to overcome the effects of this Shemittah law. See Shebi'ith X, 4.
33. A special institute under the name of 'Midrash Bene Zion' has been established in Jerusalem in which the study of agricultural laws of the Torah is being assiduously pursued. A brief digest of these laws is given in the Calendar of the Institute for the year 5708 (1947-8).
34. These names are referred to more fully in the list of Abbreviations at the end of each tractate.

INTRODUCTION TO SEDER NASHIM

BY

THE EDITOR

GENERAL CHARACTER AND CONTENTS
 

[page xxvii] The name 'Nashim', 'Women', given to the third 'Order' of the Babylonian Talmud is of ancient origin. This 'Order' was so known in the early Talmudic period when it had been also aptly designated 'Hosen'¹  'Strength'. As the 'Order' devoted to regulating the relations between husband and wife, its fundamental teachings of the sanctity of marriage, moral sobriety and purity of family life, invested the Jewish home with the 'beauty of holiness', which enabled it to resist the disruptive influences and disintegrating force of centuries, thus proving the saving strength of the Jewish people throughout the long and chequered history of their existence.

With woman as its principal theme, the appelation Nashim as applied to this 'Order', is self-explanatory. It may, however, be noted that in the Cambridge MS. of the Mishnah the opening tractate is entitled Nashim instead of Yebamoth, the title evidently having been derived from the third Hebrew word in the tractate: [H] 'Fifteen women'. Consequently, it has been suggested that Nashim was the name by which the first tractate was originally known and to which tractate it was originally restricted, and that this name was finally used to describe the whole of this 'Order', even as a whole is often made to bear the name of a part.²

The 'Order' is divided into seven tractates arranged according to the separate printed edition of the Mishnah in the following sequence:³ [page xxviii]

1. YEBAMOTH (Sisters-in-law). Beginning with the Biblical law relating to the duty of a man to marry his deceased brother's childless widow, the Tractate deals generally with prohibited marriages, the ceremony of halizah, and the right of a minor to have her marriage annulled. 16 Chapters.
2. KETHUBOTH (Marriage Settlements). Treats of the settlement made upon the bride, the fine paid for seduction, the mutual obligations of husband and wife, and the rights of a widow and stepchild. 13 Chapters.
3. NEDARIM (Vows). Describes the various forms avow may take, the kinds of vows which are invalid, how they may be renounced, and the power of annulling them when made by a wife or daughter. 11 Chapters.
4. NAZIR (Nazirite). Discusses what constitutes a Nazirite's vow, and how it may be renounced; enumerates what is forbidden to a Nazirite and deals finally with the case where the vow is taken by women and slaves. 9 Chapters.
5. SOTAH (Suspected Adulteress). The main theme is the ordeal imposed upon a woman whose husband suspects her of infidelity, and its ritual. Other subjects dealt with are religious formulae which may be made in any language or only in Hebrew, the seven types of Pharisees, the reforms instituted by John Hyrcanus, and the Civil War between Aristobulus and Hyrcanus. 9 Chapters.
6. GITTIN (Bills of divorcement). Treats of the various circumstances attending the delivery of the bill of divorcement to the woman when the marriage is to be dissolved. 9 Chapters.
7. KIDDUSHIN (Consecrations). Deals with the rites connected with betrothal and marriage, the legal acquisition of slaves, chattels and real estate, and principles of morality. 4 Chapters.

The above sequence has been followed in this publication, the tractates in the eight volume first edition appearing for practical reasons as follows:

• Vols. I and II. Yebamoth.
• Vols. III and IV. Kethuboth. [page xxix]
• Vol. V. Nedarim.
• Vol. VI. Nazir and Sotah.
• Vol. VII. Gittin.
• Vol. VIII. Kiddushin.

For the edition deluxe it was found expedient to follow another arrangement:

• Vols. I, II and 111. Yebamoth.
• Vols. IV, V and VI. Kethuboth.
• Vol. VII. Nedarim.
• Vol. VIII. Nazir.
• Vol. IX. Sotah.
• Vol. X. Gittin.

• Vols. XI and XII. Kiddushin.

   

The inclusion of Nedarim in this 'Order', although it has no particular bearing on the subject of 'Women', is because the Scriptural basis of the tractate is Numbers XXX, 3ff which treats of vows made by women — wives and unmarried daughters. The resemblance of Nazir to Nedarim, both dealing with vows, is responsible for the inclusion of the former in this 'Order' instead of Kodashim to which it properly belongs (v. Sot. 2a). Another reason is given in the Talmud for the inclusion of Nazir. Assuming the order of the tractates to be Gittin, Nazir, Sotah, it is explained that Nazir has been included as an antidote to Gittin and Sotah (v. Naz. 2a). Yet in another place (Sot. 2a) the order of the tractates is assumed to be Nedarim, Nazir, Sotah. In view of this divergence it is idle to seek any definite logical sequence in the arrangement of the several tractates within the 'Order'. There is, however, common agreement about Yebamoth being assigned the pride of place at the head of this 'Order'. It is said to owe its position to the number of its chapters which is greater than that of any other tractate in Nashim. The opinion may, however, be hazarded that it is because of the fundamental purpose of marriage which under-lies the Levirate laws dealt with in this tractate that it was selected as a fitting introduction to this 'Order'. The primary object of Levirate Marriage was to provide an heir to succeed in the [page xxx] name of the deceased (Deut. XXV, 6). Marriage having been regarded in Judaism as a divine institution ordained primarily for the purpose of the propagation of the human species, a childless marriage was deemed to have been, in a large sense, a failure. To redeem the deceased brother's failure, it was the duty of the eldest surviving brother to marry his widow and raise, so to speak, a son for him. Where the brother was so churlish as to refuse to redeem his brother's memory from failure, he had to submit to Halizah.

SOME FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE LAWS OF
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE IN THE TALMUD
 

The Rabbis of the Talmud, unlike the Church Fathers, never attached any stigma to marriage. Being opposed to asceticism and celibacy as alien to the spirit of Judaism, they did not regard a person who had never married as superior to one 'who had contaminated himself by marriage'. On the contrary, they declared that true manhood can be realized only through married life: 'He who has no wife is no man' (Yeb. 63a). Marriage was natural in purpose, but divine in origin. As a divine institution it was viewed by them in a twofold light: Firstly, as a means intended for the propagation of the human race; secondly, as an ideal state for the promotion of sanctity and purity of life. Whilst prizing chastity above all other virtues, they refused to ascribe anything degrading to the marital union per se. Prenuptial connections, whether in the case of men or women, they did truly condemn. Not only was harlotry prohibited by them on the basis of Biblical commands (Lev. XIX, 29, and Deut. XXIII, 18), but they even went so far as to forbid the private association of sexes.⁴  Yet the regulated sexual relations between husband and wife were raised to the dignity of a positive command. Thus it is the unmarried man who was said by them to live in unchastity — at least in the inescapable unchastity of thought if not of action; whereas the married man [page xxxi] alone could live in purity. No wonder that they regarded marriage as a holy state, entrance into which carried with it forgiveness of sins.⁵  For this reason they encouraged early marriage, declaring eighteen to be the ideal age, although realists as they were, they insisted on a man being in a position to provide for a wife before venturing into matrimony.⁶

The marriage laws as developed by the Rabbis in the Talmud only served to confirm and deepen the elevated view of married life. Already from time immemorial, a Jewish marriage was contracted by two stages (v. Deut. XX, 7). In the Talmudic period these were designated respectively: erusin and nissu'in. The erusin was an act of betrothal effected by the bridegroom in the presence of two eligible witnesses before whom he declared, 'Be thou consecrated unto me …', [H]. This phrase is explained in the Talmud (Kid. 2b) as 'a setting aside of the woman like a consecrated object'. The bridegroom, that is to say, by the act of erusin imposes upon the woman the character of a sanctified object whereby she becomes prohibited to the world. That, however, does not imply that she is forthwith permitted to him without the need of any further rites; just as the mere consecration of an object for the sanctuary does not complete the process of making it acceptable as an offering. The bridegroom still stands to her in a prenuptial relation in which all marital connections are forbidden. The erusin is thus but a legal contract whereby the woman reserves herself for her husband, without however yet becoming permitted to him. In other words, she binds herself to give herself in marriage to him at the nuptials; otherwise neither he nor she has any claim on the other: He neither inherits from her in case of her death, nor has he any title to use her income or earnings; nor has she claim to sustenance or to any other obligation of a Jewish husband to his wife. This undertaking is, however, indissoluble save by divorce or death, and any act of infidelity on her part is treated as adultery.

On the elapse of a certain period after the erusin, twelve months [page xxxii] in the case of a maiden, and thirty days in that of a widow, there followed the fulfilment of the contract — the nissu'in, at which the bride came to her husband for the consummation of the marriage. But for this consummation, as well as for the contract that preceded it, the consent of both parties was demanded. Indispensable when they had both become of age, consent was deemed an essential factor of marriage; and thus the Rabbis forbade a man to give his daughter in betrothal before she was old enough to express her own feelings on the subject of matrimony, although legally he had the right to contract a marriage on her behalf until she had reached adolescence — twelve years and six months plus one day. For this reason, too, the Rabbis insisted on every betrothal being preceded by shiddukin, a proposal of marriage, the disregard of which involved the infliction of disciplinary measures — flogging.⁷  It is this consideration too that lies behind the institution of mi'un which enabled an orphan girl, who had been given in marriage as a minor by her mother or brother, to have her marriage dissolved by a mere declaration of refusal. Whilst anxious to make provision for the marriage of an orphan girl, should circumstances demand it, the Sages refused to bind her against her own wish to the husband who had been chosen for her while she was not yet in a position to make her own choice, but reserved for her the right to regain her freedom without subjecting her to the necessity of a bill of divorce.

Marriage by consent also explains the signification of huppah which forms one of the distinctive ceremonies at the nuptials. Whatever may be the origin of this ceremony, the huppah, which denotes the baldachin or canopy wherein the bridegroom receives the bride, came to signify in the Talmud the voluntary entrance of the bride upon the final stage in her consecration to the task of womanhood begun at the erusin, and her free surrender to her husband for the consummation of marriage.⁸  Thus is the real significance of the term Kiddushin revealed. It has two aspects: a negative aspect and a positive one. The erusin, in rendering the [page xxxiii] woman forbidden to the world, discloses only its negative side; whereas the positive side is released at the nissu'in, which completes the kiddushin and thus perfects it. Both the erusin and nissu'in together constitute the kiddushin, sanctifying the union.⁹ 

There is still another requisite for the consecration of the union. The kethubah — the deed of marriage settlement¹⁰  instituted primarily with the object of protecting a wife against hasty divorce, had to be drawn up and duly completed before the consummation of marriage. In view of the right vested by the Bible in the husband to divorce the wife at his pleasure — a theoretical right which the Rabbis could not entirely set aside¹¹  — it was felt that no woman could enter upon matrimony with a free and easy mind without being in possession of this safeguard to her marital security. The Sages accordingly forbade marital relations as long as the kethubah had not been completed. Furthermore, they declared that it was forbidden for husband and wife to live together for a single moment without a kethubah (B.K. 89a); and where the kethubah was lost, they had to abstain from intercourse until another kethubah had been made out. [page xxxiv]

This elevated view of marriage is likewise reflected in the Talmudic law of divorce. It is a commonplace to assert that the New Testament condemns divorce as sinful and thus to oppose this stricter view to the latitude allowed by Judaism. But this categorical assertion is open to question. One searches in vain throughout the New Testament for a denunciation of divorce as divorce. In every instance where the teaching of Jesus on the matter is reported, the emphasis is on remarriage rather than on divorce itself. Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery (Luke XVI, 18). The parallel passages in Mark X, 11-12 and Mat. V, 31-32 vary in phraseology but the emphasis is everywhere the same — viz., remarriage after divorce. Even in Mat. XIX, 3-6 where Jesus, appealing to Genesis, makes his famous declaration, 'What therefore God bath joined together let not man put asunder', the complementary verses, 7-9, make it clear that what he was concerned with was not the tragedy involved in a divorce — the wrecking of a home — but the remarriage that would follow. Provided there was no remarriage, the mere putting away of a wife does not seem to have evoked his disapproval. This becomes even more evident in Paul: And unto the married I command, and yet not I but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband. But if she depart let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. (I Cor. VII, 10). This attitude is in consonance with the New Testament view that extols celibacy and virginity above marriage and married life.¹²  As against this attitude, the Talmud with its elevated view of marriage considers the separation of husband and wife which divorce entails, a domestic tragedy for which 'the very altar of God sheds tears', and for this reason declares that 'he who dismisseth his wife is hated by God'.¹³  Yet with all their abhorrence of divorce, the Sages held the continuance of intimate relations between husband and wife after the bonds of affection were snapped to be immoral; and the offspring of such a union was regarded by them as morally unhealthy, belonging to the class of 'rebels' and of such as 'transgress' against God (cf. Ezek. XX, 38).¹⁴  With the result, that whilst the [page xxxv] Rabbis instituted a number of measures such as the payment of the kethubah and other minute regulations attendant on the procedure of divorce designed to act as a check against its abuse, they refused to blind themselves to the harsh realities of life, when divorce with freedom to remarry could come as the only happy release from a galling relationship which discordant natures and unequal tempers had rendered intolerable.

Closely related to the attitude of the Talmud on remarriage after divorce is its attitude of remarriage on widowhood. The strong voice of disapproval of second marriages heard in the Church never found an echo in the Beth Hamidrash. 'If a man married in his youth, let him also marry (if necessary) in his old age'.¹⁵  Widows likewise were encouraged to remarry, though they were not likely to find a suitor for a third marriage owing to the popular belief that a widow who had been unfortunate in the loss of two husbands was ill-starred and apt to bring death on him who might venture to marry her.

In the case of a childless marriage, the widow could find a home in the house of her deceased husband's brother by contracting levitate marriage (yibbum), or she could marry a stranger after having secured her freedom by halizah.¹⁶  Where she married the brother-in-law, the Rabbis enacted, as a safeguard against divorce, that his estate, in the event of divorce, was to be charged with the payment of the kethubah, if the first husband's estate was insufficient for the payment thereof,¹⁷  although according to the earlier law the widow had no claim on the levir beyond the ordinary marital obligations of a husband to a wife.¹⁸

'Of all expositions by the Sages of the commandments in the Torah, none redounds more to their praise than their exposition of the marriage laws'.¹⁹  Such was the verdict of past generations; and such it is confidently anticipated will be the verdict of every diligent student who will endeavour to penetrate the spirit that animated the discussions in the Babylonian and Palestinian schools presented in this 'Order'. [page xxxvi]

METHOD AND SCOPE

TEXT. The Text used for this edition is in the main that of the Wilna Romm Edition. Note has, however, been taken of the most important variants of manuscript and printed editions some of which have been adopted in the main body of the translation, the reason for such preference being generally explained or indicated in the Notes. All the censored passages appear either in the text or in the Notes.

TRANSLATION. The translation aims at reproducing in clear and lucid English the central meaning of the original text. It is true some translators will be found to have been less literal than others, but in checking and controlling every line of the work, the Editor has endeavoured not to lose sight of the main aim of the translation. Words and passages not occurring in the original are placed in square brackets.

NOTES. The main purpose of these is to elucidate the translation by making clear the course of the arguments, explaining allusions and technical expressions, thus providing a running commentary on the text. With this in view resort has been made to the standard Hebrew commentators, Rashi, the Tosafists, Asheri, Alfasi, Maimonides, Maharsha, the glosses of BaH, Rashal, Strashun, the Wilna Gaon, etc.²⁰  Advantage has also been taken of the results of modern scholarship, such as represented by the names of Graetz, Bacher, Weiss, Halevy, Levy, Kohut, Jastrow, Obermeyer, and — happily still with us — Krauss, Buchler, Gmzberg, Klein and Herford among others, in dealing with matters of general cultural interest with which the Talmud teems — historical, geographical, archaeological, philological and social.

GLOSSARY AND INDICES. Each Tractate is equipped with a Glossary wherein recurring technical terms are fully explained, thus obviating the necessity of explaining them afresh each time they appear in the text. To this have been added a Scriptural Index and a General Index of contents. [page xxxvii]

In the presentation of the tractates the following principles have also been adopted:

1. The Mishnah and the words of the Mishnah recurring and commented upon in the Gemara are printed in capitals.
2. [H] introducing a Mishnah cited in the Gemara, is rendered we have learnt'.
3. [H] introducing a Baraitha, is rendered 'it has been (or was) taught'.
4. [H] introducing a Tannaitic teaching, is rendered 'Our Rabbis taught'.
5. Where an Amora cites a Tannaitic teaching the word 'learnt' is used, e.g., [H], 'R. Joseph learnt'.
6. The word tanna designating a teacher of the Amoraic period (v. Glos.) is written with a small 't'.
7. A distinction is made between …: [H] referring to a Tannaitic ruling and …: [H] which refers to the ruling of an Amora, the former being rendered 'the halachah is …' and the latter, 'the law is …'
8. R. stands either for Rabbi designating a Palestinian teacher or Rab designating a Babylonian teacher, except in the case of the frequently recurring Rab Judah where the title 'Rab' has been written in full to distinguish him from the Tanna of the same name.
9. [H], lit., 'The Merciful One', has been rendered 'the Divine Law' in cases where the literal rendering may appear somewhat incongruous to the English ear.
10. Biblical verses appear in italics except for the emphasized word or words in the quotation which appear in Roman characters.
11. No particular English version of the Bible is followed, as the Talmud has its own method of exegesis and its own way of understanding Biblical verses which it cites. Where, however, there is a radical departure from the English versions, the rendering of a recognized English version is indicated in the Notes. References to chapter and verse are those of the Massoretic Hebrew text.
12. Any answer to a question is preceded by a dash ( — ), except [page xxxviii] where the question and the answer form part of one and the same argument.
13. Inverted commas are used sparingly, that is, where they are deemed essential or in dialogues.
14. The archaic second person 'thou', 'thee' etc. is employed only in Haggadic passages or where it is necessary to distinguish it from the plural 'you', 'yours', etc.
15. The usual English spelling is retained in proper names in vogue like Simeon, Isaac, Akiba, as well as in words like halachah, Shechinah, shechitah, etc. which have almost passed into the English language. The transliteration employed for other Hebrew words is given at the end of each tractate.
16. It might also be pointed out for the benefit of the student that the recurring phrases 'Come and hear:' and 'An objection was raised:' or 'He objected:' introduce Tannaitic teachings, the two latter in contradiction, the former either in support or contradiction of a particular view expressed by an Amora.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I desire again to express my grateful appreciation of the scholarship and diligence shewn by all the collaborators of Seder Nashim. My special thanks are due to Mr Maurice Simon, M.A., who has assisted in many respects, and to my dear wife for her invaluable help to me in many ways whilst engaged in this work.

I am deeply grateful to Mr J. Davidson, the Governing Director of the Soncino Press, for the infinite patience and care with which he has seen these volumes of Nashim through the Press.

In conclusion, I must tender my humble thanks to the Almighty God for having given me the strength to carry through, amidst other labours, this exacting and strenuous task. And on behalf of all those of us who have been closely concerned with this publication, [page xxxix] I offer the traditional prayer:

[H]

May it be Thy will, O Lord our God, even as Thou hast helped us to complete the Seder Nashim so to help us to begin the other Sedarim, 'Orders', and complete them.

I. EPSTEIN
 

Jews' College
Marcheshvan 27, 5697
12 November, 1936

Footnotes

1. Shab. 31a.
2. V. Rengstorf, K. H. Die Mischna, Jebamot (Giessen, 1929), Introduction p. 1.
3. This order rests on that of Maimonides except that he places Sotah between Gittin and Kiddushin. In the printed editions of the Babylonian Talmud the tractates appear in the following order: Yebamoth, Kethuboth, Kiddushin, Gittin, Nedarim, Nazir, Sotah. For other variations v. Strack. H., Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (Philadelphia), 1931, p. 365.
4. V. Glos. s.v. Yihud.
5. J. Bik. III, 3.
6. V. Sot. 44a.
7. Kid. 12b.
8. V. Yeb. 29b.
9. This explains the first benediction at the Jewish marriage ceremony in which huppah is mentioned before kiddushin: 'Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who sanctifieth His people Israel by (the rite of) huppah and kiddushin' (P.B. p. 298).
10. The kethubah guaranteed the wife out of the husband's estate, in the event of his death or divorce, not only a certain sum of money but also the return of her dowry and the property which she brought to him upon her marriage. Apart from the provision in regard to her general maintenance and other rights, there were special clauses providing for the wife's sons to be the sole heirs of her personal property — kethubath benin dikrin; and also for the maintenance and marriage portion of the daughters out of the husband's estate — kethubath benan nukban.
11. The tendency of the Rabbis was nevertheless to restrict the freedom of the husband in the matter of divorce. In addition to the Biblical law that took away from the husband the right of divorcing a wife he had ravished, or whom he had falsely accused of infidelity during betrothal (erusin), the Rabbis introduced several other restrictive measures. He could not, for instance, divorce his wife if she had become insane, or if she was too young to take care of the bill of divorce. Some of the minute regulations incident to the drafting and delivery of the bill of divorce were also designed to check the husband against abuse of his power.
12. V. Mat. XIX, 12 and I Cor. Ch. VII.
13. Git. 90b.
14. Ned. 20b.
15. Yeb. 62b.
16. V. pp. xxiii and xxx.
17. V. Keth. 53b and Eben ha-Ezer, 168.
18. V. Yeb. 38a.
19. B. M. Lewin, Otzar ha-Geonim, Yebamoth, p. 24.
20. These names are referred to more fully in the list of Abbreviations at the end of each Tractate.

Directory of Sedarim and Tractates