No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2014
Our colleague, Professor Ze'ev Falk 
died on the eve of Rosh Hashana 5759, at the age of 75. His scholarly interests ranged widely; he was expert, inter alia, on the law of the interim period, between Bible and Talmud. Concerning later periods, his attention was given primarily to the law of marriage and divorce. He was a deeply religious man, yet free from any trace of complacency. When, as happens, he was unhappy with the way halakha went, he was wont to speak out and search for solutions. That the custodians of halakha would not tend to heed his suggestions, need not surprise. As a rule, they are reluctant to take notice of question-marks and solutions originating from without; and in their strict sense Falk was an outsider. But this was their problem rather than his.
This short paper is presented here in eius memoriam, as a token of friendship and respect. It would have been within the sphere of his interest.
May he rest in peace.
1 Jewish Antiquities xiii 297: Loeb Classical Library vol. 7, p. 377. Transi, by Ralph Marcus.
2 Also in later formulations in BT and PT, not adduced here.
3 The complete verse Lev. 16:3 reads as follows: “AND [A] HE SHALL PUT THE INCENSE ON THE FIRE BEFORE THE LORD [B] AND THE CLOUD OF INCENSE HID THE COVER THAT IS [OVER THE ARK] OF THE COVENANT; AND HE SHALL NOT DIE”. The Boethusians (=Sadducees) started by quoting passage IB); the Sages (=Pharisees) retorted by quoting passage [A]. The text continues by asking, to what purpose has B been added ? etc.
4 So Rashi ad ma'aleh ašan, BT Yoma 53a.
5 2 Volumes (3rd ed., 1962).
6 More exactly, but in a division alien to the texts themselves, they contain 12 ritual disputes, plus 2 theological ones.
7 The seven legal topics not discussed here are: [8] one detail in the law relating to “false witnesses” (‘edim zomemim); [10] Ransom in Lieu of Capital Punishment; [12] Judicial Leniency in Punishment; [17] The Priestly Interpretation of the Lex Talionis; [18] The Priestly Tradition Regarding Death by Burning; [20] Proof of Virginity by a Bride under Suspicion; and [21] The Ceremony of Halizah.
8 With the exception of primogeniture (for which see Deuteronomy 21:15–17). Within the scope of this paper, a discussion of primogeniture is not required.
9 Hebrew uses interchangeably two terms, manhil or moriš, to designate the person whose property is up for assignation to one or more heirs.
10 While females were thus denied an inheritance, they might still expect to be compensated on the occasion of their marriage, by means of a “dowry”. But this is a different matter, not to be examined here. In Talmudic times the dowry is quantified, set at one tenth of the property of the father, or of his estate. Provisions for maintenance of daughters and widow out of the estate of the deceased might also be mentioned, again without going into details.
11 Technically, the change may have been achieved by interpolating the words <weha'avartem etẖ naḥalatho leviṯo we'im en lo batẖ> [= “you shall transfer his property to his daughter, and if he has no daughter”] into the sequence which may have been earlier. But I would not be too insistent on this point: it is not critical for this paper.
12 The sequence given in the Mishnah might have been better: son (and offspring), daughter (and offspring), father, brothers of the deceased and father's brothers.
13 The complaint by the anonymous disputant may be well taken. The quotation adduced by Ben Zakkai is irrelevant and adds nothing to the discussion: those mentioned are male, hence without bearing on the issue in dispute, concerning the competition between daughter and granddaughter. And anyhow “evidence” adduced from an Edomite genealogy would be less than compelling. It seems then that distracting and confusing the opponent would be the purpose. See Encyclopaedia Judaica 10 (1971), col. 151 for other examples of Ben Zakkai's occasionally evasive tactics of discourse.
14 The word some is a mistake, resulting from the wrong resolution of the abbreviation SOKHD; read correctly sof kol haddoroth – “end of all generations”. This a common Talmudic phrase; see M. Makkoth 3:15, and Kasowski, Ch. J., Thesaurus Talmudis xxvii (1971) 116Google Scholar (13 loci).
15 Here, the italics indicate addition in the text of Maimonides; a change in substance is not entailed.
16 Incidentally, in this instance, “verbatim” implies also that the two later texts faithfully copied the mistake, which has just been pointed out, in n. 14.
17 The granddaughter.
18 The daughter.
19 See my Gifts in Contemplation of Death (Oxford, 1960) 33–34, and passim.
20 The master has to see to it that his non-Jewish slave undergo circumcision (Genesis 17:12–13, 27); as a consequence of being circumcised, the slave is allowed to participate in the Passover ceremonial meal (Exodus 12: 44).
21 In the same vein, also Maimonides, Wrongdoer and Tortfeasor 4:21.
22 One is reminded of the pseudo-philosophical statement in some English cases, “The loss lies where it falls”: their lordships might occasionally have done better than that.
23 So also in Mekhilta Neziqin, ad Exodus 22: 4.
24 Supra n. 21.
25 See for both these terms, Berger, A., Encylopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (1953) col. 600Google Scholar (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 43/Part 2).
26 This paper benefitted by comments of Professor A.V. Levontin and Dr. M. Aberbach.