Pt3 Trending Talmud: Top Queries, Popular Posts, and Plain Readings of Controversial Talmudic Passages

This is the third and final part of a three-part series. Part 1 is here, Part 2 is here; the outline of the series can be found at Part 1.

Determining Which Midianite Women Were Killed in Numbers 31:17–18 (Yevamot 60b)

Yevamot.60b.10-15

Baraita - Fit for Sex, But Didn’t Actually Have Sex

A baraita interprets “every woman that has known man” (Numbers 31:17)¹ as referring not to Midianite women who have actually had sex but to those physically capable of it.

This is inferred from the next verse, which spares “the women children that have not known man,” implying that the relevant distinction is physiological maturity, not sexual history.

תניא נמי הכי:

״וכל אשה יודעת איש״ —

בראויה ליבעל הכתוב מדבר.

אתה אומר בראויה ליבעל,

או אינו אלא נבעלה ממש?

כשהוא אומר: ״וכל הטף בנשים אשר לא ידעו משכב זכר״,

הוי אומר: בראויה ליבעל הכתוב מדבר.

This is also taught in a baraita:

“Every woman that has known man”;

the verse is speaking of a woman who is fit for sex.

The baraita proceeds to discuss this halakha: Do you say it is referring to one who is fit for sex,

or perhaps it is referring only to one who has actually had sex?

When the verse states: “But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves,” which indicates that grown women must be killed even if they have not had sex with a man,

you must say that the verse is speaking of a woman who is fit for sex.

Rav Huna b. Bizna citing R’ Shimon Ḥasida - Testing for Sexual Maturity via the High Priest’s frontplate (tzitz); a sallow face (from dropsy, hydrokan) signifies sexual transgression

The Talmud asks how the Israelites could tell which Midianite girls were “fit for sex.”

Rav Huna bar Bizna, citing R’ Shimon Ḥasida, says they were brought before the High Priest’s frontplate (tzitz): if a girl’s face turned pale, she was deemed sexually mature.

Rav Naḥman generalizes that a sallow face² signifies sexual transgression.

מנא ידעי?

אמר רב הונא בר ביזנא, אמר רבי שמעון חסידא:

העבירום לפני הציץ --

• כל שפניה מוריקות —

  • בידוע שהיא ראויה ליבעל,

• כל שאין פניה מוריקות —

  • בידוע שאינה ראויה ליבעל.

אמר רב נחמן:

סימן לעבירה —

הדרוקן.

The Talmud asks a practical question with regard to the events described by the Torah: From where did they know whether a particular girl was already three years old and fit for sex?

Rav Huna bar Bizna said that R’ Shimon Ḥasida said:

They passed them before the frontplate of the High Priest --

• Any girl whose face miraculously turned sallow (מוריקות) --

  • it was known that she was fit for sex,

• and any girl whose face did not turn sallow --

  • it was thereby known that she was not fit for sex.

Similarly, Rav Naḥman said:

A sign of transgression in the area of sexual morality --

is the disease hidrokan, which causes one’s face to turn sallow.

Rav Kahana - Virginity test by seating the girl over the mouth of a wine jug — a non-virgin’s breath smelled of wine, a virgin’s did not - Judges 21:12

A similar question is asked about the virgins taken from Jabesh-gilead in Judges 21.

Rav Kahana says they sat each girl over the mouth of a wine jug: a non-virgin’s breath smelled of wine, a virgin’s did not.

כיוצא בדבר, אתה אומר:

״וימצאו מיושבי יבש גלעד ארבע מאות נערה בתולה אשר לא ידעו איש למשכב זכר״,

מנא ידעי?

אמר רב כהנא:

הושיבום על פי חבית של יין,

• בעולה —

  • ריחה נודף,

• בתולה —

  • אין ריחה נודף.

Similarly, you can say with regard to the verse:

“And they found among the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead 400 young virgins that had not known man by lying with him” (Judges 21:12).

From where did they know that they were virgins?

Rav Kahana said:

They sat them on the opening of a jug of wine --

• If she was a non-virgin --

  • her breath would smell like wine;

• if she was a virgin --

  • her breath did not smell like wine.

Rav Kahana b. Natan - the tzitz serves only “for acceptance” before God, not for punishment

When the Talmud asks why the frontplate was not used for virginity testing in the case of Jabesh-gilead in Judges 21 (as it had been in the afore-mentioned case of Midianite in Numbers 31:17–18).

Rav Kahana ben Rav Natan explains that the tzitz serves only “for acceptance” (רצון) before God, not for punishment (פורענות).

ונעברינהו לפני ציץ?

אמר רב כהנא בריה דרב נתן:

״לרצון להם״ כתיב,

לרצון ולא לפורענות

The Talmud suggests: They should have passed them before the frontplate, as described previously with regard to the daughters of Midian.

Rav Kahana, son of Rav Natan, said:

The verse states with regard to the frontplate: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead…that they may be accepted before YHWH” (Exodus 28:38),

which indicates that the frontplate is worn “for acceptance” but not for calamity.

… Rav Ashi - but only for Jews

Rav Ashi limits this further: it applies only to Israel; for non-Jews it may be used even for punitive purposes.

אי הכי במדין נמי?

אמר רב אשי:

״להם״ כתיב,

• להם —

  • לרצון ולא לפורענות,

• ולגוים —

  • אפילו לפורענות.

The Talmud raises a difficulty: If so, the frontplate should also not have been used with regard to the women of Midian.

Rav Ashi said:

The word “they” is written in the verse,

indicating that

• for them, the Jewish people --

  • the frontplate is for acceptance but not for calamity;

• but for non-Jews --

  • it can be used even for calamity.

Impurity of a Non-Jewish Child Experiencing Ziva (Avodah Zarah 36b-37a)

Avodah_Zarah.36b.19-37a.1

3rd-century rabbis of Eretz Yisrael (R’ Zeira, R’ Asi, R’ Yoḥanan, R’ Yannai, R’ Natan ben Amram, and R’ Yehuda HaNasi) query re the age at which a male non-Jew becomes subject to the impurity of ziva

R’ Zeira recounts a difficult halakhic inquiry that circulated through several generations of 3rd century amoraim of Eretz Yisrael—from himself (R’ Zeira - 3rd generation Eretz Yisrael) to R’ Asi (3rd generation Eretz Yisrael), R’ Yoḥanan (1st generation Eretz Yisrael), R’ Yannai (1st generation Eretz Yisrael), R’ Natan ben Amram, and finally to the complier of the Mishnah, R’ Yehuda HaNasi.

The question concerned the age at which a male non-Jew becomes subject to the impurity of ‘ziva’ .³

דאמר רבי זירא:

1. צער גדול היה לי

   1. אצל רבי אסי,

2. ורבי אסי

   1. אצל רבי יוחנן,

3. ורבי יוחנן

   1. אצל רבי ינאי,

4. ורבי ינאי

   1. אצל רבי נתן בן עמרם,

5. ורבי נתן בן עמרם

   1. אצל רבי:

תינוק גוי --

מאימתי מטמא בזיבה?

As R’ Zeira says:

1. I had great trouble

   1. with R’ Asi when I asked him the following question,

2. and likewise R’ Asi experienced trouble

   1. with R’ Yoḥanan when he posed it to him.

3. And R’ Yoḥanan had trouble

   1. with R’ Yannai,

4. and R’ Yannai had trouble

   1. with R’ Natan ben Amram,

5. and R’ Natan ben Amram had trouble

   1. with R’ Yehuda HaNasi.

The inquiry was as follows: With regard to a male non-Jew child --

from when, i.e., from what age, does he impart ritual impurity as one who experiences ziva?

Disagreement Between R’ Yehuda HaNasi and R’ Ḥiyya: a non-Jewish male imparts impurity from birth (“one day old”), or from age 9

R’ Yehuda HaNasi initially ruled that a non-Jewish male imparts impurity from birth (“one day old”).

When R’ Zeira later consulted R’ Ḥiyya, he was told “9 years and one day.”

Upon hearing this, R’ Yehuda HaNasi retracted his earlier view and accepted R’ Ḥiyya’s position.

The Talmud explains that the decisive factor is sexual capacity: a boy of age 9 is considered capable of having sex, and therefore capable of transmitting impurity associated with sexual discharge.

ואמר לי: בן יומו,

וכשבאתי אצל רבי חייא

אמר לי: בן תשע שנים ויום אחד.

וכשבאתי והרציתי דברי לפני רבי,

אמר לי:

הנח דברי ואחוז דברי רבי חייא.

דאמר:

תינוק גוי אימתי מטמא בזיבה —

בן תשע שנים ויום אחד,

הואיל וראוי לביאה --

מטמא נמי בזיבה.

And R’ Yehuda HaNasi said to me: From when he is one day old.

And when I came to R’ Ḥiyya, he said to me: From when he is 9 years and one day old.

And when I came back and relayed R’ Ḥiyya’s statement before R’ Yehuda HaNasi,

he said to me:

Discard my statement, and grasp the statement of R’ Ḥiyya,

who says: From when does a non-Jew child impart ritual impurity as one who experiences ziva? From when he is 9 years and one day old.

The Talmud explains the reason for this opinion: Since a 9-year-old boy is fit to engage in sex, he also imparts ritual impurity as one who experienced ziva.

Ravina extends this reasoning to a female non-Jew, who acquires this capacity—and hence this form of impurity—at the age of 3

אמר רבינא:

הלכך --

הא תינוקת גויה בת שלש שנים ויום אחד,

הואיל וראויה לביאה,

מטמאה נמי בזיבה.

Ravina said:

Therefore,

with regard to a female non-Jew child who is 3 years and one day old,

since she is fit to engage in sex at that age,

she also imparts impurity as one who experienced ziva.

Appendix - Child Testimony About Personal Status and Family Lineage (Ketubot 28b)

Ketubot.28b.9-13

Scope of Credible Testimony that an adult may later testify about things heard or seen as a child: that his father said a certain family was kosher or disqualified, that the family ate at a communal ceremony marking a socially unsuitable marriage, or that they brought ḥalla to a certain priest

A baraita asserts that an adult may later testify about things heard or seen as a child: that his father said a certain family was kosher or disqualified, that the family ate at a ‘ketzatza’,⁴ or that they brought ḥalla to a certain priest.

תנו רבנן:

נאמן התינוק לומר

1. כך אמר לי אבא: ״משפחה זו טהורה״, ״משפחה זו טמאה״ [...]

2. ו״שאכלנו בקצצה של בת פלוני לפלוני״,

3. ו״שהיינו מוליכים חלה ומתנות לפלוני כהן״.

על ידי עצמו, אבל לא על ידי אחר.

A baraita states:

A child is deemed credible to say when he reaches majority that

1. this is what my father told me when I was a minor: This family is pure, that family is impure [...]

2. And he is deemed credible to say that we ate at the ketzatza that took place to publicize that the marriage of the daughter of so-and-so to so-and-so was unsuitable;

3. and to say that we would bring ḥalla and priestly gifts to so-and-so, who is a priest.

In that case, he is deemed credible only to testify that he brought the ḥalla by himself, but not by means of another, as one is certain of matters that he performed himself, even as a minor.

However, he is not deemed credible to testify about actions performed by others when he was a minor.

If the witness had been a non-Jew or a slave and later converted or was freed, his childhood testimony is invalid

וכולן, אם היה

1. גוי ונתגייר,

2. עבד ונשתחרר —

אין נאמנים.

And with regard to all these testimonies, if he was

1. a non-Jew and he converted,

2. or a slave and he was liberated,

they are not deemed credible to testify after their conversion and liberation about matters that transpired beforehand when they were disqualified as witnesses.

One cannot testify about rights of passage that he saw as a child

ואין נאמן לומר

1. ״דרך היה לפלוני במקום הזה״,

2. ״מעמד ומספד היה לפלוני במקום הזה״.

רבי יוחנן בן ברוקא אומר: נאמנים.

[...]

And one is neither deemed credible to say that he remembers that when he was a minor,

1. so-and-so had a path in this place;

2. nor that so-and-so had a tract of land where they would perform the ritual of standing and sitting and deliver a eulogy in that place.

R’ Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: They are deemed credible.

[...]

Meaning of “ketzatza”: a public ritual condemning a man’s marriage to a woman of flawed lineage; His family broke a jug of fruit in the square

מאי ״קצצה״?

דתנו רבנן:

כיצד קצצה?

אחד מן האחין שנשא אשה שאינה הוגנת לו —

באין בני משפחה

ומביאין חבית מליאה פירות

ושוברין אותה באמצע רחבה,

The Talmud asks about a term employed in the baraita: What is the meaning of ketzatza?

It is as a baraita states:

How is ketzatza performed?

If a situation where one of the brothers who married a woman who is unsuited for him, due to flawed lineage, occurs,

the family members come

and bring with them a jug full of fruits,

and break it in the middle of a public square (רחבה) to publicize the matter,

... and proclaimed their disapproval, warning others not to mix their descendants with his

ואומרים:

אחינו בית ישראל, שמעו!

אחינו פלוני נשא אשה שאינה הוגנת לו,

ומתייראים אנו שמא יתערב זרעו בזרעינו.

בואו וקחו לכם דוגמא לדורות,

שלא יתערב זרעו בזרעינו.

וזו היא קצצה שהתינוק נאמן להעיד עליה.

and they say:

Our brothers, the house of Israel, listen!

Our brother so-and-so married a woman who is unsuited for him,

and we fear lest his descendants become intermingled with our descendants.

Come and take for yourselves a sample⁵ as an indicator for future generations,

so that his descendants will not intermingle with our descendants.

The gathering of the large crowd to take the fruit generates publicity.

And this is the ketzatza that a child who witnessed it is deemed credible to testify about it when he is an adult.

1. For context, see Wikipedia, “Numbers 31“:

Set in the southern Transjordanian regions of Moab and Midian, it narrates the Israelites waging war against the Midianites, commanded by Phinehas and Moses.

They killed the men, including their five kings and Balaam, burnt their settlements and took captive the women, children and livestock.

Moses commanded the Israelites to kill the boys, and women who had sex with men, and spare the virgin girls for themselves.

The spoils of war were then divided between Eleazar, the Levitical priesthood, soldiers and Yahweh.

And see especially section “Killing of captive children and non-virgin women (14–18)“:

Moses was angry that the soldiers had left all women alive, saying:

“They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to Yahweh in the Peor incident, so a plague struck Yahweh’s people. Now kill all the boys.

And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”

And see also Wikipedia, “Matot“, section “Third reading—Numbers 31:13–24“.

On the broader story in Talmudic interpretation, compare my two-part series, “The Prophet, the Prostitutes, and the Curses Reversed: The Biblical Story of Balaam in Talmudic Interpretation (Sanhedrin 105b-106b)“.

2. הדרוקן - ‘hydrokan’ - i.e. edema.

See my two-part piece on this affliction in general in the Talmud, “Bodily Afflictions and Illnesses as Signs of Sin: Wounds, Edema (Hidrokan), and Diphtheria (Askara) (Shabbat 33a-b)“, final part here.

3. זיבה - a genital discharge associated with sexual function.

See Wikipedia, “Zav“:

In Jewish ritual law, a zav (Hebrew: זָב; lit. “flowing”) is a man who has had abnormal seminal discharge from the male sexual organ, and thus entered a state of ritual impurity.

A woman who has had similar abnormal discharge from her genitals is known as a zavah […]

The form zav זָב is the present participle of the verb זוּב, thus literally meaning “flowing”, and is commonly used in the Tanach when referring to bodily discharges originating from the private parts.

By metonymy its meaning is extended to include people suffering from such discharges, and in this sense the word appears in halachic discourse.

On the specific law discussed here, see Hebrew Wikipedia, “טומאת זיבה“, section “זבים מדרבנן“, sub-section “טומאת גויים“, my translation:

According to the Torah, a non-Jew does not become impure (ritually defiled) and does not transmit impurity at all during his lifetime.

This is derived from the fact that in the verses about ritual impurity, the commandment is addressed specifically to the “Children of Israel (בני ישראל)”.

However, the Talmudic rabbis decreed that non-Jews should be considered as zavim (those who emit bodily discharges that cause impurity) in every respect […]

In addition, the Talmudic rabbis decreed impurity upon non-Jewish females from the age of three.

The rabbis prohibited sexual relations with a non-Jewish woman—not only publicly (which incurs the penalty of karet, spiritual excision) but even privately (as prohibited by the Hasmonean court).

In the time of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel, as part of the eighteen rabbinic decrees enacted with the agreement of most of the Sages of Israel, seclusion (yichud) with a non-Jewish woman was also forbidden.

This was intended to further prevent forbidden relations and intermarriage with non-Jews.

At the same occasion, they also established that a non-Jewish woman from the age of three is considered capable of sexual relations and therefore is treated as a zavah (a woman with a discharge).

The following are the relevant Talmudic references:

Shabbat.17b.5:

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק:

גזרו על תינוק גוי שמטמא בזיבה,

שלא יהא תינוק ישראל רגיל אצלו במשכב זכור.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

They issued a decree on a non-Jewish child (תינוק), 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 non-Jewish children so that a Jewish boy should not be accustomed to be with a non-Jew in homosexual sex.

Niddah.34a.5:

״דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם:

איש איש כי יהיה זב״ —

• בני ישראל

  • מטמאין בזיבה,

• ואין הגוים

  • מטמאין בזיבה,

אבל גזרו עליהן שיהו כזבין לכל דבריהם

taught with regard to the verse:

“Speak to the children of Israel and say to them:

when any man has an issue [zav] out of his flesh, his issue is impure” (Leviticus 15:2),

from which it is inferred: By Torah law,

• Jews (“the children of Israel”)

  • become impure through ziva

• and non-Jews

  • do not become impure through ziva,

but the Sages decreed concerning them [=non-Jews] that they shall be like zavin in all their matters of ritual purity.

4. קצצה - a ceremony marking a socially unsuitable marriage; see in the next sections for an elaboration of the ceremony.

5. דוגמא - from Greek.