Pt2 Aḥer’s Apostasy and Its Aftermath (Chagigah 15a-b)

Appendices: The Survival of R' Akiva in the Pardes; Women’s Financial Dependence on Men in the Talmud

This is the second and final part of a two-part series. Part 1 is here; the outline of the series can be found in Part 1.

Aḥer’s Posthumous Fate: In Limbo; R' Meir's Intervention

Upon Aḥer’s death, Heaven refused to either punish¹ or accept him to the World-to-Come:²

He was barred from judgment due to his life of Torah study (עסק באורייתא), yet denied entry to the World-to-Come because of his sins.

R' Meir argued it would be better for Aḥer to face judgment and eventually gain access to the World-to-Come, stating: “When will I die, and smoke rise from his grave?“³

And indeed, following R' Meir’s death, smoke (קוטרא) began to rise from Aḥer’s grave.⁴

כי נח נפשיה דאחר,

אמרי:

לא מידן לידייניה,

ולא לעלמא דאתי ליתי.

לא מידן לידייניה — משום דעסק באורייתא,

ולא לעלמא דאתי ליתי — משום דחטא.

אמר רבי מאיר:

מוטב דלידייניה, וליתי לעלמא דאתי.

מתי אמות, ואעלה עשן מקברו.

כי נח נפשיה דרבי מאיר

סליק קוטרא מקבריה דאחר.

The Gemara relates: When Aḥer passed away,

the Heavenly Court declared that

he should not be judged,

nor brought into the World-to-Come.

He should not be judged in a manner befitting his deeds, because he occupied himself with Torah, whose merit protects him.

And he should not be brought into the World-to-Come because he sinned.

R' Meir said:

It is better that he be judged properly and be brought into the World-to-Come.

When I die I will request this of Heaven, and I will cause smoke to rise up from his grave, as a sign that he is being sentenced in Gehenna.

The Gemara relates: When R' Meir passed away,

smoke rose up from the grave of Aḥer, implying that R' Meir’s wish was granted.

R' Yoḥanan’s Redemption of Aḥer: Questioning R' Meir’s Actions; Pledge to Save Aḥer; Fulfillment of the Promise

R' Yoḥanan rhetorically challenges whether R' Meir’s “roasting” ⁵ of his teacher (רביה) was necessary.

He questions if there was truly no other way to save him and expresses frustration that a Sage who strayed could not be redeemed.

R' Yoḥanan vows that when he dies, he will ensure the cessation of the smoke rising from Aḥer’s grave.⁶

The Talmud states that indeed, tfter R' Yoḥanan’s death, the smoke from Aḥer’s grave ceased (indicating his successful intercession).

A eulogizer (ספדנא) honors R' Yoḥanan’s power, stating that even the gatekeeper⁷ could not oppose him.

אמר רבי יוחנן:

גבורתא למיקלי רביה?!

חד הוה ביננא, ולא מצינן לאצוליה?!

אינקטיה ביד, מאן מרמי ליה, מן?!

אמר: מתי אמות, ואכבה עשן מקברו.

כי נח נפשיה דרבי יוחנן

פסק קוטרא מקבריה דאחר.

פתח עליה ההוא ספדנא:

אפילו שומר הפתח לא עמד לפניך, רבינו!

R' Yoḥanan said:

Was this a mighty deed on R' Meir’s part, to burn his teacher?! Was this the only remedy available?

Can it be that there was one Sage among us who left the path and we cannot save him?!

If we hold him by the hand, who will remove him from our protection; who?!

R' Yoḥanan continued and said: When I die I will have the smoke extinguished from his grave, as a sign that he has been released from the sentence of Gehenna and brought to the World-to-Come.

Indeed, when R' Yoḥanan passed away,

the smoke ceased to rise up from the grave of Aḥer.

A certain eulogizer began his eulogy of R' Yoḥanan with the following:

Even the guard at the entrance could not stand before you, our rabbi. The guard at the entrance to Gehenna could not prevent R' Yoḥanan from arranging the release of Aḥer.

The Honor of Torah and Aḥer’s Legacy: His Daughter’s Plea, R' Yehuda HaNasi’s Harsh Response, and a Heavenly Sign (Job 18:19)

The daughter of Aḥer approached R' Yehuda HaNasi for financial support.⁸

Upon learning her identity, he reacted angrily, questioning how Aḥer's descendants could still exist, citing a verse from Job 18:19.⁹

She implored him to remember Aḥer's Torah rather than his misdeeds.

At that moment, fire descended and licked (סכסכה) R' Yehuda HaNasi’s bench.¹⁰

בתו של אחר אתיא לקמיה דרבי,

אמרה ליה:

רבי!

פרנסני.

אמר לה: בת מי את?

אמרה לו: בתו של אחר אני.

אמר לה:

עדיין יש מזרעו בעולם?!

והא כתיב:

״לא נין לו ולא נכד בעמו

ואין שריד במגוריו״!

אמרה לו: זכור לתורתו, ואל תזכור מעשיו.

מיד,

ירדה אש

וסכסכה ספסלו של רבי.

[...]

The Gemara relates: The daughter of Aḥer came before R' Yehuda HaNasi

and said to him:

Rabbi!

provide me with sustenance, as she was in need of food.

He said to her: Whose daughter are you?

She said to him: I am the daughter of Aḥer.

He said to her, angrily:

Is there still of his seed remaining in the world?!

But isn’t it stated:

“He shall have neither son nor grandson among his people

or any remaining in his dwellings” (Job 18:19)?

She said to him: Remember his Torah, and do not remember his deeds.

Immediately,

fire descended

and licked R' Yehuda HaNasi’s bench.

[...]

Aḥer’s Core Failure: His affinity for Greek culture; Signs of Aḥer's Alienation from Rabbinic Tradition; Greek Poems as Cultural Symptom; Hidden Heretical Readings

The Talmud states that Aḥer would constantly recite Greek poetry (זמר יווני): they would “not cease from his mouth”.¹¹

In addition, it was said that after Aḥer rose from the study hall, “numerous heretical books (ספרי מינין) would fall from his lap”.¹²

אחר מאי?

זמר יווני לא פסק מפומיה.

אמרו עליו על אחר:

בשעה שהיה עומד מבית המדרש,

הרבה ספרי מינין נושרין מחיקו.

The Gemara explains: Aḥer, what was his failing?

Greek tunes never ceased from his mouth. He would constantly hum Greek songs, even when he was among the Sages. This shows that from the outset he was drawn to gentile culture and beliefs.

Similarly, they said about Aḥer:

When he would stand after learning in the study hall,

many heretical books, which he had been reading, would fall from his lap. Therefore, he was somewhat unsound even when among the Sages.

Oenomaus of Gadara and the Parable of Dyed Wool: R' Meir’s View on Aḥer’s Innate Flaw

The non-Jewish philosopher Nimos HaGardi¹³ asked R' Meir if all wool (עמר) dyed in a cauldron (יורה) takes color.

R' Meir responded that only those pure “with their mother” (i.e. from birth/childhood) emerge properly.¹⁴

שאל נימוס הגרדי את רבי מאיר:

כל עמר דנחית ליורה סליק?

אמר ליה:

כל מאן דהוה נקי אגב אימיה — סליק,

כל דלא הוה נקי אגב אימיה — לא סליק.

The gentile philosopher, Nimos HaGardi, asked R' Meir:

Does all wool that enters the cauldron to be dyed emerge colored? In other words, do all those who learn Torah emerge as decent and worthy?

He said to him:

Whoever was clean when he was with his mother, from the outset, will emerge decent and worthy,

but all those who were not clean when they were with their mother will not emerge worthy. One who approaches Torah study having been flawed from the outset will not be properly influenced by it.

Appendix 1 - The Survival of R' Akiva in the Pardes (Chagigah 15b-16a)

Chagigah.15b.16-16a.4

R' Akiva’s Unique Survival: Divine Intervention Amid the Peril of the Pardes (Song of Songs 1:4)

The Talmud continues its discussion of the story of the mystical ascent of the four sages into the Pardes.¹⁵

Unlike the others, R' Akiva “entered and exited safely”. The verse “Draw me, we will run after you” (Song of Songs 1:4) is cited as a reference to his success.

Despite his fitness, even R' Akiva was almost cast out by ministering angels, but God intervened, declaring him worthy.

רבי עקיבא עלה בשלום וירד בשלום,

ועליו הכתוב אומר: ״משכני אחריך נרוצה״.

ואף רבי עקיבא בקשו מלאכי השרת לדוחפו,

אמר להם הקדוש ברוך הוא: הניחו לזקן זה, שראוי להשתמש בכבודי.

The Gemara returns to the four who entered the orchard. It is stated above that R' Akiva ascended in safety and descended safely.

With regard to him, the verse states: “Draw me, we will run after you; the king has brought me into his chambers” (Song of Songs 1:4).

The Gemara relates: And even R' Akiva, the ministering angels sought to push him out of the orchard.

The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: Leave this Elder, for he is fit to serve My glory.

The Verse That Shielded R' Akiva from the Error of Dual Theism (Deuteronomy 33:2; Song of Songs 5:10; Isaiah 48:2; I Kings 19:11-12)

The Talmud then asks: What insight protected R' Akiva from error?¹⁶

Various sages offer interpretations:

1. Rabba bar bar Ḥana, quoting R' Yoḥanan, explains that R' Akiva understood “And He came (אתא) from the holy myriads (רבבות)” (Deut. 33:2) to mean that God remains “singular” (אות) among the angels.

2. R' Abbahu suggests that R' Akiva expounded “Preeminent (דגול) above a myriad” (Song of Songs 5:10), reinforcing that God is “exemplary”¹⁷ among the angels.

3. Reish Lakish cites “YHWH of Hosts is His name” (Isaiah 48:2), emphasizing that God is the “Master” (אדון) of His celestial hosts.

4. R' Ḥiyya bar Abba, quoting R' Yoḥanan, references Elijah’s revelation at Mount Horeb (I Kings 19:11-12), where God was found not in wind, earthquake (רעש), or fire, but in a "still, small voice".¹⁸

מאי דרש?

1. אמר רבה בר בר חנה, אמר רבי יוחנן:

   1. ״ואתא מרבבות קדש״ —

   2. אות הוא ברבבה שלו.

2. ורבי אבהו אמר:

   1. ״דגול מרבבה״ —

   2. דוגמא הוא ברבבה שלו.

3. וריש לקיש אמר:

   1. ״ה׳ צבאות שמו״ —

   2. אדון הוא בצבא שלו.

4. ורבי חייא בר אבא, אמר רבי יוחנן: ״

   1. לא ברוח ה׳

   2. ואחר הרוח — רעש, לא ברעש ה׳.

   3. ואחר הרעש — אש, לא באש ה׳

   4. ואחר האש — קול דממה דקה״,

   5. ״והנה ה׳ עובר״.

The Gemara asks: What verse did R' Akiva expound that prevented him from making the same mistake as Aḥer?

1. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that R' Yoḥanan said: It was the following:

   1. “And He came [ve’ata] from the holy myriads” (Deuteronomy 33:2),

   2. which he explained in this manner: He, God, is unique [ot] among His myriads of angels. Therefore, he knew that he had merely seen an angel.

2. And R' Abbahu said: R' Akiva expounded the verse:

   1. “Preeminent above a myriad” (Song of Songs 5:10)

   2. to indicate that He is exemplary among His myriad.

3. And Reish Lakish said: He expounded the verse:

   1. “YHWH of hosts is His name” (Isaiah 48:2);

   2. He is the Master in His host.

4. And Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba said that R' Yoḥanan said: He expounded the verses:

   1. “But YHWH was not in the wind.

   2. And after the wind, an earthquake; YHWH was not in the earthquake.

   3. And after the earthquake, fire; but YHWH was not in the fire.

   4. And after the fire, a still, small voice,”

   5. and it states in that verse: “And behold, YHWH passed by” (I Kings 19:11–12). R' Akiva used this verse in order to recognize the place of His presence and refrain from trespassing there.

Appendix 2 - Women’s Financial Dependence on Men in the Talmud

Women were typically entirely dependent on their male relatives—fathers, husbands, or sons—for economic stability.

Unlike men, who could typically engage in various trades, professions, or agricultural work, women had very limited opportunities to earn a livelihood.¹⁹

The standard assumption in rabbinic law and literature was that women would be supported by their husbands or fathers, with legal structures in place to ensure provisions for widows and divorcees.²⁰

However, if a woman lacked male relatives or was abandoned, she could find herself in dire straits, with few legal rights to property or financial independence.

The following sources from Tractate Ketubot illustrate how this dynamic plays out in practice: from the tragic decline of Nakdimon ben Guryon’s daughter, who falls from immense wealth to starvation, to three legal narratives of widows petitioning rabbis for stipends that include not just food, but also wine and luxury items like perfumes and silk.

These stories provide a vivid window into the intersection of gender, law, and economic vulnerability in the Talmudic world.

Terminology for the Wife’s Stipend: Parnasa (פרנסה) and Mezonot (מזונות)

The technical Hebrew terms used by the Talmud for stipends are parnasa (פרנסה) and mezonot (מזונות):²¹

Mezonot literally means “food, provisions, sustenance”. It typically refers to the basic necessities of life—primarily food, but in some contexts also including clothing, housing, and other essentials.

It is the standard term for the legal obligation a husband has to support his wife, and it also forms the basis for posthumous or post-divorce claims made by widows or ex-wives upon the estate.

See Hebrew Wikipedia, “חיוב מזונות“, my translation:

In halakha, the husband's obligation to provide sustenance (mezonot) to his wife is either a biblical obligation or a rabbinic one, as part of the broader duties of providing shelter, clothing, and conjugal rights (שאר כסות ועונה).

The husband is obligated to support his wife throughout the duration of their marriage and even after his death, until the wife's death.

There is no obligation to provide for a woman after divorce, although the rabbis regarded doing so as a praiseworthy act.

In return for this obligation of sustenance, the husband receives the right to the wife’s earnings from her labor, and there are seven types of work that the wife is obligated to perform for her husband.

Source of the Obligation

According to Rashi, Onkelos, Ibn Ezra, and other commentators, this obligation is derived from the Bible, based on the verse, “Her food, her clothing, and her conjugal rights he shall not diminish” […]

Nature and Scope

The rabbis instituted the wife's obligations as a kind of reciprocal "payment" for the husband’s obligations.

[Maimonides summarizes]:

1. “The [husband’s ongoing right to his] wife’s earnings (מעשה ידי) correspond to [the ongoing cost of] her sustenance (מזונותיה),

2. [The potential cost of] her ransom (פדיונה - if she at some point is captured/enslaved) corresponds to [the husband’s ongoing right to] the output (פירות) of her property (נכסיה),

3. and [the eventual cost of] her burial corresponds to his inheritance of her ketubah” [at her death …]

The obligation of sustenance is explicitly included in the ketubah: “And you shall dwell (יתבא) in my house and be sustained (מתזנא) from my property (נכסי)”, meaning he must provide her with lodging and food as long as she lives in his house.

This obligation continues even if she is no longer residing in his house—after his death—since the definition of "house" in this context is not a physical residence.

Seven Duties the Wife Must Perform for Her Husband (Mishnah Ketubot 59b)

Ketubot.59b.6-7

The Mishnah lists seven domestic tasks a wife must perform for her husband: grinding flour, baking, laundering, cooking, nursing her child, making (מצעת) the bed, and processing (עושה) wool.

ואלו מלאכות שהאשה עושה לבעלה:

1. טוחנת,

2. ואופה,

3. ומכבסת,

4. מבשלת,

5. ומניקה את בנה,

6. מצעת לו המטה,

7. ועושה בצמר.

And these are tasks that a wife must perform for her husband:

1. She grinds wheat into flour,

2. and bakes,

3. and washes clothes,

4. cooks,

5. and nurses her child,

6. makes her husband’s bed,

7. and makes thread from wool by spinning it.

These tasks represent the standard expectations unless offset by additional household help:

1. If the wife brought (הכניסה) to the marriage one female slave (שפחה), she is exempt from grinding, baking, and laundering (as those tasks can be expected to be done by the slave).

2. With two, she is also exempt from cooking and nursing.

3. With three, she’s not required to make the bed or process wool.

4. With four, she is entirely exempt from labor and may (metaphorically) sit leisurely “in a chair” (“cathedra" - from Greek. In classical times, typically only wealthy people owned and sat in chairs.).

1. הכניסה לו שפחה אחת —

   1. לא טוחנת

   2. ולא אופה

   3. ולא מכבסת.

2. שתים —

   1. אין מבשלת,

   2. ואין מניקה את בנה.

3. שלש —

   1. אין מצעת לו המטה,

   2. ואין עושה בצמר.

4. ארבע —

   1. יושבת בקתדרא.

1. If she brought him one maidservant, i.e., brought the maidservant with her into the marriage, the maidservant will perform some of these tasks. Consequently, the wife

   1. does not need to grind,

   2. and does not need to bake,

   3. and does not need to wash clothes.

2. If she brought him two maidservants,

   1. she does not need to cook

   2. and does not need to nurse her child if she does not want to, but instead may give the child to a wet nurse.

3. If she brought him three maidservants,

   1. she does not need to make his bed

   2. and does not need to make thread from wool.

4. If she brought him four maidservants,

   1. she may sit in a chair [katedra] like a queen and not do anything, as her maidservants do all of her work for her.

R' Eliezer insists that even if the wife brings a hundred female slaves, she must still process wool, because “idleness (בטלה) leads to licentiousness (zimah)”.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel argues similarly: a husband who prevents his wife from working (via an oath) must divorce her and pay the ketubah, since idleness leads to mental deterioration (שיעמום - shi'amum, boredom-induced stupor/stupidity/dullness).

רבי אליעזר אומר:

אפילו הכניסה לו מאה שפחות —

כופה לעשות בצמר,

שהבטלה מביאה לידי זימה.

רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר:

אף המדיר את אשתו מלעשות מלאכה —

יוציא ויתן כתובה,

שהבטלה מביאה לידי שיעמום.

R’ Eliezer says:

Even if she brought him a hundred maidservants,

he can compel her to make thread from wool,

since idleness leads to licentiousness. Consequently, it is better for a woman to be doing some kind of work.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

Even one who vows that his wife is prohibited from doing any work

must divorce her and give her the payment for her marriage contract,

since idleness leads to idiocy.

Three Accounts of a Rabbi Determining a Widow’s Stipend (Ketubot 65a)

See the three cases in my piece “Wine, Women, and Widowhood: A Talmudic Exploration of Behavior and Stipends (Ketubot 65a)“:

Ibid., section “The Tale of Rava and the Renowned Femme Fatale Homa“:

חומא דביתהו דאביי

אתאי לקמיה דרבא,

אמרה ליה:

פסוק לי מזוני!

פסק לה.

פסוק לי חמרא!

The Gemara relates:

Abaye’s wife, Ḥoma,

came before Rava after Abaye died, as Rava was the local judge.

She said to him:

Apportion sustenance for me, as I am entitled to be sustained by Abaye’s heirs.

Rava apportioned sustenance for her.

She subsequently said to him: Apportion wine for me as well.

And ibid., section “Rav Neḥemya's Ruling: Citing Local Custom in Providing Wine as Sustenance“:

דביתהו דרב יוסף בריה דרבא,

אתאי לקמיה דרב נחמיה בריה דרב יוסף.

אמרה ליה:

פסוק לי מזוני!

פסק לה.

פסוק לי חמרא!

פסק לה.

The Gemara relates a similar incident:

The wife of Rav Yosef, son of Rava,

came before Rav Neḥemya, son of Rav Yosef, for judgment.

She said to him:

Apportion sustenance for me.

Rav Neḥemya apportioned a certain amount of sustenance for her.

She said to him: Apportion wine for me as well.

He apportioned wine for her.

And ibid., section “Widow needing stipend for silk garments ‘for you, for your friends, and for your friends’ friends’ “:

דביתהו דרב יוסף בריה דרב מנשיא מדויל,

אתאי לקמיה דרב יוסף.

אמרה ליה:

פסוק לי מזוני!

פסק לה.

פסוק לי חמרא!

פסק לה.

פסוק לי שיראי!

Similarly, the wife of Rav Yosef, son of Rav Menashya of D’vil,

came before Rav Yosef.

She said to him:

Apportion sustenance for me.

He apportioned sustenance for her.

She added: Apportion wine for me.

He apportioned wine for her.

She continued: Apportion silk garments for me.

Nakdimon ben Guryon’s Daughter (Ketubot 66b-67a)

See the extreme wealth, then poverty described in my piece ““Gathering Barley from the Arabs' Animals' Dung": The Dramatic Fall from Grace of Nakdimon ben Guryon’s Daughter (Ketubot 66b-67a)“:

Ibid., section “The Sages granted her a significant allowance for perfumes“:

מעשה בבתו של נקדימון בן גוריון,

שפסקו לה חכמים ארבע מאות זהובים,

לקופה של בשמים

לבו ביום.

אמרה להם:

כך תפסקו לבנותיכם,

When the Sages designated for her 400 gold coins

for her account (קופה) of perfumes (בשמים - literally: “spices”),

from her late husband’s estate,

for use on that same day,

she blessed them and said to them:

This is how you should also pledge for your own daughters

And then in section “Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai encounters her“:

ראה ריבה אחת,

שהיתה מלקטת שעורים, מבין גללי בהמתן של ערביים.

כיון שראתה אותו,

נתעטפה בשערה,

ועמדה לפניו.

אמרה לו:

רבי!

פרנסני!

he [=Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai] saw a certain young woman

who was gathering barley from among the dung of the animals of Arabs. She was so poor that she subsisted on the undigested barley within the dung.

When she saw him,

she wrapped herself in her hair, as she had nothing else with which to cover herself,

and stood before him.

She said to him:

My teacher!

sustain me (פרנסני)!

1. מידן לידייניה - literally: “to judge”.

2. עלמא דאתי - thus leaving him in limbo.

Compare Wikipedia, “Limbo“:

In Catholic theology, Limbo (Latin: limbus, 'edge' or 'boundary', referring to the edge of Hell) is the afterlife condition of those who die in original sin without being assigned to the Hell of the Damned.

However, it has become the general term to refer to nothing between time and space in general.

On the World-to-Come in general, see my intro to my piece “Barred from the Afterlife: Heretics, Biblical Sinners, and Groups Denied a Share in the World-to-Come (Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1-4)“.

3. The smoke from his grave would indicate that Aher was now being judged in Gehenna, beginning his path toward atonement.

R’ Meir’s statement is an “optative” construction, i.e. expressing a wish or hope—here, "Would that I die..." or "May I die and smoke rise from his grave."

For another example of “optative” construction in the Talmud, see my piece “Symbolic Dialogues and Strategic Counsel: Six Stories of Antoninus and R' Yehuda HaNasi (Avodah Zarah 10a-b)“, section “Antoninus' Humility: Serving R’ Yehuda HaNasi with Reverence and Devotion“:

אמר:

מי ישימני מצע תחתיך לעולם הבא

Antoninus said:

Oh, that I were set as a mattress (מצע) under you in the World-to-Come!

And see my extended note there as well on the linguistics aspect.

4. Indicating that Aher was indeed now being judged in Gehenna, beginning his path toward atonement.

5. למיקלי - meaning, causing Heaven to punish him in Gehenna.

6. Signifying Aher’s release from Gehenna and entrance into the World-to-Come.

7. שומר הפתח - i.e. the gatekeeper of Gehenna or Heaven.

8. פרנסני - due to her poverty and lack of source of support.

See my Appendix - Women’s Economic dependence in Men in the Talmud.

Aḥer’s status as an outcast likely meant that his family, including his daughter, faced even more social and economic marginalization.

9. לא נין לו ולא נכד.

The verse in Job is understood to convey a general principle that the wicked are punished by God with the loss of their descendants; meaning, their lineage being cut off.

Compare the literary usage of this biblical idiom elsewhere in the Talmud, in Kiddushin.39a.3, when the Babylonian Rav Yehuda seeks guidance from R' Yoḥanan in Eretz Yisrael on the orla laws in the Diaspora (outside of Eretz Yisrael):

R' Yoḥanan sends back a terse, literary directive:

1. “Conceal (סתום) uncertain (ספיקה)” (i.e. conceal the permissive ruling about cases of doubt, to prevent leniency from spreading. On this rabbinic attitude in general, see my piece at my Academia page on Deception in the Talmud. Alternatively, “conceal" here may be referring to the produce itself, similar to item #3 in the directive, see the following.)

2. “Destroy (אבד) certain (ודאה)” (i.e. categorically forbid and destroy produce known to be orla).

3. “Announce (הכרז) regarding their produce that it requires interment (גניזה)” (i.e. publicly declare that produce from those who are lenient must be buried and not used at all).

R' Yoḥanan concludes with a curse: anyone who claims orla does not apply outside of Eretz Yisrael, “will have neither a child nor a grandchild (נין ונכד) ‘who shall cast the line by lot (חבל בגורל) in the congregation of YHWH’ (Micah 2:5)“ (i.e. will be punished with the loss of future generations from Judaism, quoting Micah 2:5).

The full passage:

שלחה רב יהודה לקמיה דרבי יוחנן.

שלח ליה:

1. סתום ספיקה,

2. ואבד ודאה,

3. והכרז על פירותיהן שטעונים גניזה.

וכל האומר אין ערלה בחוצה לארץ –

לא יהא לו נין ונכד ״משליך חבל בגורל בקהל ה׳״.

Rav Yehuda sent a question to R' Yoḥanan concerning the halakha with regard to orla outside of Eretz Yisrael.

R' Yoḥanan sent him the following response:

1. Conceal, i.e., do not publicize, the halakha that produce whose orla status is uncertain is permitted;

2. and destroy, i.e., prohibit entirely, produce whose orla status is certain;

3. and with regard to the produce of those who are lenient in this halakha, declare that it requires interment, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from such produce.

And whoever says that there is no prohibition of orla outside of Eretz Yisrael

will have neither a child nor a grandchild “who shall cast the line by lot in the congregation of YHWH” (Micah 2:5).

10. ספסלו - from Latin; the fire from Heaven demonstrated divine intervention.

11. An early sign of his attraction to Greek culture and thought.

12. I.e. while he outwardly engaged in Torah study, he was privately immersed in heretical, subversive texts.

13. נימוס הגרדי - this is the known historical figure Oenomaus of Gadara; see on his appearance in Talmudic literature, see the recent article by Geiger, and see my next note.

14. Implying that Aḥer was flawed from the outset.

Broader analysis: This section is a compact metaphor, part parable, part polemic, and it reflects R’ Meir's theological struggle with the figure of Aḥer.

The Question

Nimos HaGardi (Oenomaus of Gadara) asks: "Does all wool that enters the dye cauldron come out dyed?"

This is a metaphorical way of asking:

"Does everyone who engages in Torah study become virtuous, transformed, and good?"

The implication is: If Torah is so powerful, why doesn't it improve everyone equally—including heretics like Aḥer?

R' Meir’s Response

"Only wool that was pure with its mother—i.e., clean from the start—takes the dye well. But wool that wasn't clean from the beginning won’t absorb the dye."

In other words: Only people who were pure from birth are transformed by Torah. Those with an innate flaw—like Aḥer—cannot be fully redeemed by Torah.

Metaphorical Layers

Wool = Person

• Wool represents a human soul or character.

Dyeing = Torah Study

• The dyeing process is the immersive experience of Torah learning, intended to color (i.e., refine or elevate) the soul.

Clean with its mother = Innately Pure

• "נקי אגב אימיה" implies innate purity, moral potential, or spiritual readiness from the womb or early childhood.

Contaminated wool = Deep-rooted defect

• Wool that wasn’t clean when sheared won’t absorb dye: i.e., some people’s flaws are too deep to be corrected even by Torah.

Theological Implications

This is R' Meir’s rationalization of Aḥer’s failure. R' Meir studied with Aḥer, respected his brilliance, and even continued learning from him after his apostasy—but still, he must come to terms with Aḥer’s downfall.

R’ Meir suggests that Torah is not an automatic purifier. Some individuals are so fundamentally flawed that even Torah cannot "take" on them. Aḥer's heresy wasn't due to the failure of Torah, but due to a flaw in his very nature or origin.

This is a reversal of the idea that Torah transforms all who study it. Instead, it’s a warning: not everyone is moldable, not every soul is receptive.

Historical Context: Oenomaus of Gadara

• Nimos HaGardi is a rabbinic version of Oenomaus of Gadara, a Cynic philosopher known for criticizing religion and prophecy.

• His question can be seen as part of a Hellenistic challenge to rabbinic idealism: if your Torah is so good, why does it fail for some people?

• R’ Meir’s answer concedes that Torah is not universally efficacious—it requires a proper vessel.

Nature vs. Nurture

This passage touches on the ancient debate between innate nature and educational influence. R’ Meir leans toward the idea that some people are born flawed, and even the best education or spirituality won’t fix that.

15. The mystical “orchard” - see my previous piece for a discussion of the main story.

16. From the answers, it’s clear that the error avoided is that of the error of Dual Theism, which was the error of Aher, as explained earlier in this series, in Part 1.

17. דוגמא - from Greek dogma.

See Jastrow, sense #3:

sample, example, token

(corresp[onding] to [Hebrew] אות).

Ḥag[igah] 16a

(play on […] Cant[icles] 5:10)

He is exemplified by His myriad (of angels),

i.e. the Divine nature is recognized indirectly from the nature of His ministering messengers

Linguistic analysis:

Greek δεῖγμα (deigma, "sample, example"), especially as seen in the compound παράδειγμα (paradeigma, "example, model, precedent").

The Greek root δεῖγμα comes from the verb δεικνύω (deiknūmi), "to show," and originally meant something shown as a sample—like a pattern, token, or specimen.
παράδειγμα (from which English gets "paradigm") literally means "something shown beside"—a comparison, example, or model.

18. קול דממה דקה. R' Akiva used this insight to discern God's presence and avoid trespassing beyond his limits. See my previous piece for an extended Talmudic homiletic interpretation of this verse.

19. Essentially, the only opportunity for significant income that women had was prostitution; hence the Latin term for prostitute was “meretrix”: "woman who earns, paid woman".

Compare Wikipedia, “Prostitution in ancient Rome“:

Prostitution in ancient Rome was legal and licensed. Men of any social status were free to engage prostitutes of either sex without incurring moral disapproval, as long as they demonstrated self-control and moderation in the frequency and enjoyment of sex.

Brothels were part of the culture of ancient Rome, as popular places of entertainment for Roman men.

Most prostitutes were female slaves or freedwomen.

The balance of voluntary to forced prostitution can only be guessed at.

Privately held slaves were considered property under Roman law, so it was legal for an owner to employ them as prostitutes.

Pimping and prostitution were, however, considered disgraceful and dishonourable activities, and their practitioners were considered “infamous” (infames); for citizens, this meant loss of reputation and many of the rights and privileges attached to citizenship […]

Most prostitutes seem to have been slaves or former slaves […]

Roman brothels are known from literary sources, regionary lists, and archaeological evidence.

See also my piece and analysis of the story of R’ Meir's sister-in-law in a Roman brothel as a sex slave: “R' Meir's Suspicious Brushes with Sexual Indiscretions, and His Encounters with Roman Troops, as Depicted in the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 18a-b; Sanhedrin 11a; Kiddushin 81a)“, section “Avodah Zarah 18a-b - Sister-in-law in a brothel; Escaping by going into a brothel“.

Presumably coincidentally, Aher himself is said in our sugya—in Part 1—to have solicited a prostitute.

20. Especially the ketubah, which guaranteed financial support upon the dissolution of marriage.

21. The associated verbs:

The verb for parnasa (פרנסה):

לפרנס

On the etymology, see Hebrew Wiktionary, פרנסה, my translation:

Rabbinic Hebrew: from pirnes, apparently from Greek phernizo (φερνίζω), meaning “provided, granted (to a woman in marriage).”

And ibid., פִּרְנֵס, my translation:

Etymology

From Aramaic: pirnes – “provided, granted,” of uncertain origin.

Possibly from Greek: phernizo (φερνίζω) – “provided, granted (to a woman in marriage).” According to the CAL, this is the origin of the word.

Phernizo derives from pherné (φερνή) – “dowry,” i.e., a payment to the bride’s parents.

It is known with certainty that this Greek word was borrowed and became common in Aramaic as purna (פורנא) and in Mishnaic Hebrew as [the verb] hifrin (הִפְרִין) – “gave a dowry.”

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the related word phernizo was also borrowed, which strengthens the possibility that the word parnas (פרנס) derives from phernizo.

Alternatively, it may come from Latin: pensum (the supine form of the verb pendo-pendere, “to weigh,” “to pay”), with a dissimilated ‘r’.

See also Wiktionary, “פרנסה“:

From Ancient Greek […]

Other scholars suggest from Aramaic פרנס (he maintained, sustained, supported), Classical Syriac ܦܪܢܣ (he cared for, provided; he appointed, distributed; he took the oversight, managed, ruled)

The verb for mezonot (מזונות):

לפסוק מזונות

See the passage quoted later, where ed. Steinsaltz translates the verb pasak (פסק) in a variety of ways: “apportion, designate, pledge”.

This verb appears consistently in Mishnah Ketubot 6:2-5, in the context of marriage payments, dowries, and financial pledges:

הפוסק מעות לחתנו,

[...]

If one pledges a sum of money for his son-in-law as part of a dowry

[...]

פסקה להכניס לו אלף דינר,

If the woman pledged to bring in for him 1,000 dinars in cash as a dowry,

הוא פוסק כנגדן חמשה עשר מנה.

[...]

he in turn pledges, in the marriage contract, that he will give her 1,500 dinars against them.

That is, he writes in the ketubah that in the event of divorce or his death, she will be entitled to that greater amount.

[...]

פסקה להכניס לו כספים,

[...]

If she pledged to bring him money rather than goods as part of the dowry,

[...]

המשיא את בתו סתם,

[...]

If the bride’s father pledged to bring her into the marriage without specifying,

[...]

And see Jastrow, sense #3:

to apportion, assign; to provide; to promise, agree