כד אלא
24 and that their lupines are forbidden as food cooked by idolaters, because<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reason applies to the prohibition of the lupines. v. infra. ');"><sup>45</sup></span> they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The men of Gabla. ');"><sup>46</sup></span> are ignorant of the Torah. 'That their children are bastards', R. Johanan ruling in accordance with his view. For R. Hiyya b. Abba stated in the name of R. Johanan: A man cannot become a proper proselyte unless he has been circumcised and has also performed ritual ablution; when, therefore, no ablution has been performed he is regarded as an idolater; and Rabbah b. Bar Hana stated in the name of R. Johanan that if an idolater or a slave cohabited with the daughter of an Israelite the child [born from such a union] is a bastard. 'That their wine is forbidden as <i>nesek</i> wine', because a nazirite<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Num. VI, 2ff. ');"><sup>47</sup></span> is told, 'Keep away; go round about; approach not the vineyard'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a man must be so careful in the observance of a commandment that he must not only keep away from a prohibition itself but also from that which is permitted but might lead to an infringement of a prohibition, A nazirite who is forbidden to drink wine must not even approach a vineyard. Similarly nesek wine is forbidden only when an idolater has actually touched it; but as a preventive measure it has been forbidden, as here, even when contact was indirect. ');"><sup>48</sup></span> 'That their lupines are forbidden as food cooked by idolaters, because they are ignorant of the Torah'. [Would their lupines have been] permitted if the men had been acquainted with the Torah? Surely R. Samuel b. R. Isaac stated in the name of Rab, 'Any foodstuff that may be eaten raw does not come under the prohibition of food cooked by idolaters', and since lupines cannot be eaten raw the prohibition of food cooked by idolaters should apply!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What need then was there to give as a reason, 'because they are ignorant of the Torah'? ');"><sup>49</sup></span> — R. Johanan holds the view as expressed in a second version. For R. Samuel b. R. Isaac stated in the name of Rab, 'Whatever is not served on a royal table as a dish to be eaten with bread is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by idolaters The reason, therefore,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why the lupines of the men of Gabla were forbidden, ');"><sup>50</sup></span> is because they were ignorant of the Torah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The restriction having been imposed upon them as a preventive measure against their possible laxity in the general laws concerning food cooked by idolaters; cf. parallel passage 'A.Z. 59a. ');"><sup>51</sup></span> for had they been acquainted with the Torah [their lupines would have been] permitted. Our Rabbis taught: 'If a proselyte was circumcised but had not performed the prescribed ritual ablution, R. Eliezer said, 'Behold he is a proper proselyte; for so we find that our forefathers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those who departed from Egypt as heathens and received the Torah on Mount Sinai when they were, so to speak. converted to Judaism. ');"><sup>52</sup></span> were circumcised and had not performed ritual ablution'. If he performed the prescribed ablution but had not been circumcised, R. Joshua said, 'Behold he is a proper proselyte; for so we find that the mothers<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 302, n. 6. ');"><sup>53</sup></span> had performed ritual ablution but had not been circumcised'. The Sages, however, said, 'Whether he had performed ritual ablution but had not been circumcised or whether he had been circumcised but had not performed the prescribed ritual ablution, he is not a proper proselyte, unless he has been circumcised and has also performed the prescribed ritual ablution. Let R. Joshua also infer from the forefathers, and let R. Eliezer also infer from the mothers! And should you reply<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the second query. ');"><sup>54</sup></span> that a possibility<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is possible to circumcise a male proselyte. ');"><sup>55</sup></span> may not be inferred from an impossibility,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The mothers who left Egypt may have been admitted to Judaism by ritual ablution only because the other rite was in their case an impossibility. ');"><sup>56</sup></span> surely [it may be retorted] it was taught: R. Eliezer said, 'whence is it deduced that the paschal lamb<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ex. XII, 3ff. ');"><sup>57</sup></span> of later generations<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Subsequent to the generation that brought the first Paschal lamb in Egypt. ');"><sup>58</sup></span> may be brought from hullin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] 'profane', animals that had not previously been consecrated. In the case of the Paschal lamb consecrated animals could only be such as had been set aside as 'second tithe' the law of which had not been promulgated till after the Exodus. ');"><sup>59</sup></span> only? Those in Egypt were commanded to bring<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'it was said'. ');"><sup>60</sup></span> a Paschal lamb and those of later generations were commanded to bring a Paschal lamb; as the Paschal lamb spoken of in Egypt could be brought from hullin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] 'profane', animals that had not previously been consecrated. In the case of the Paschal lamb consecrated animals could only be such as had been set aside as 'second tithe' the law of which had not been promulgated till after the Exodus. ');"><sup>59</sup></span> only, so may also the paschal lamb which had been commanded to later generations be brought from hullin only'. Said R. Akiba to him, 'may a possibility be inferred from an impossibility!'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Paschal lamb in Egypt could not possibly have been brought from consecrated animals. V. supra n. 7, second clause. ');"><sup>61</sup></span> The other replied. 'Although an impossibility, it is nevertheless a proof of importance and deduction from it may be made'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Men. 82a, which proves that even from an impossibility an inference may be drawn. The difficulty, therefore, remains, why does not R. Eliezer, like R. Joshua, infer from the mothers? ');"><sup>62</sup></span> — But