Avot DeRabbi Natan 2

What fence did the Torah make to her words? It is stated, And thou shalt not approach unto a woman … as long as she is impure by her uncleanness.1Lev. 18, 19. It might be supposed that he may embrace or kiss her, or engage with her in frivolous talk; the text therefore declares, Thou shalt not approach. It might be further supposed that he may sleep with her if she is clothed in the one bed; the text therefore declares, Thou shalt not approach. Again it might be supposed that she may wash her face and paint her eyes; the text therefore declares, And of her that is sick with her impurity2ibid. XV, 33.—all the days of her impurity she shall be in banishment [from society].3The Heb. נדה, ‘a woman in her impurity’, is here connected with its original meaning of ‘cast out, banished from society’. Hence [the Sages] said: Every woman who makes herself unattractive during the period of her impurity wins the approbation of the Rabbis, and she who adorns herself during the period of her impurity incurs their censure.

The story is told4Quoted from Shab. 13a, b (Sonc. ed., p. 53) with some variants. of a certain man who had read much Scripture, studied much Mishnah, and had attended on many scholars, yet had died in the midst of his days. His wife used to take his tefillin, carry them round the Synagogues and Houses of Study, and weepingly complain, ‘Masters, is it not written in your Torah, That is thy life, and the length of thy days?5Deut. 30, 20. Why, then, did my husband die in the midst of his days, he who read much Scripture, studied much Mishnah, and attended on many scholars?’ There was no one who could answer her. One day, Elijah, of blessed memory, met her and said to her, ‘My daughter, why do you weep and complain?’ She replied, ‘My husband had read much Scripture, studied much Mishnah and attended on many scholars; yet he died in the midst of his days’. He asked her, ‘During the first three days of your impurity what was his relationship towards you?’6The number ‘three’ found in V is difficult to explain, as the woman’s impurity continues, according to Biblical law, for a minimum period of seven days. Consequently there is no ground for drawing a distinction between the first three and the subsequent days. Most scholars, following GRA, substitute ‘seven’ for ‘three’, and the reference is to the monthly period of uncleanness. The ‘latter days of impurity’ would be, what is known in Talmudic phraseology, ‘the days of white garments’, i.e. the seven days of observation after the. cessation of the discharge. During this period a woman is forbidden by Rabbinic law all intimacy with her husband, including acts of endearment. She said to him ‘Master, God forbid! He did not touch me even with his little finger, but used to say to me, “Touch no vessel lest you bring me into a state of doubt” ’. ‘And what was his relationship towards you during the latter days of your impurity?’7In Shab. 13a the text reads: ‘during the days of your white garments’. Cf. the preceding note. She replied, ‘Master, I ate and drank with him, slept with him8V adds ‘in my clothes’ which is omitted in the Talmudic version and appears incompatible with the following words, ‘with our bodies touching’. Some authorities retain the former phrase and alter the latter to ‘without our bodies touching’. in the one bed with our bodies touching, but he had no other intention’. Whereupon Elijah said to her, ‘Blessed be the All-present for slaying him, since it is written in the Torah, And thou shalt not approach unto a woman … as long as she is impure by her uncleanness.’9Lev. 18, 19.It is stated, None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him;10ibid. 6. hence [the Sages] said: Let no man remain alone with a woman at an inn, even though she be his sister or daughter, on account of public opinion. Let no man converse with a woman in the market-place, not even with his wife and needless to say with another woman, on account of public gossip. Let no man walk behind a woman in the market-place, not even behind his wife and needless to say behind another woman, on account of public gossip.It is stated here,11In the Biblical passage concerning unlawful unions. None of you shall approach, and it is stated there, Thou shalt not approach;12ibid. 19. In the passage dealing with menstrual impurity. do not therefore approach to any conduct which may lead to transgression.13By the analogy: just as any manner of approach to a woman in her impurity is forbidden, so any approach whatsoever to a woman prohibited as being near of kin is likewise forbidden. Keep aloof from anything hideous or from whatever seems hideous.14A Rabbinic rule of conduct; cf. Ḥul. 44b (Sonc. ed., p. 239). Accordingly the Sages said: Keep aloof from a trivial sin lest it lead you on to a grave sin. Run to perform a minor precept for it will lead you on to an important precept.It is stated, Thy belly is like a heap of wheat set about with lilies.15Cant. 7, 3. Thy belly is like a heap of wheat—this describes the congregation of Israel;16Cf. Sanh. 37a (Sonc. ed., pp. 231f). As all derive sustenance from a heap of wheat, so the whole world enjoys favour because of Israel. set about with lilies—these are the seventy elders.17Who constitute the Great Sanhedrin and whose duty it is to make ‘fences’ to safeguard the Torah.Another interpretation of Thy belly is like a heap of wheat [set about with lilies]—these are those light precepts18i.e. the precautionary restrictions, light in themselves, but safeguarding against violation of the laws. Cf. Sanh. loc. cit. which are as tender as a hedge of lilies and through their observance by Israel lead them to life in the world to come. How is this so? A man’s wife is at home with him during the period of her impurity. He could have intimacy with her or not at his will, since no man sees him and no man knows of it to rebuke him. Hence he fears only Him Who ordained the law of [the uncleanness of women. Similarly if a man suffers a seminal emission, he may immerse himself or not as he will, since no man sees him and no man knows of it to rebuke him. Hence He fears only Him Who ordained the law of] immersion.19The lines enclosed within brackets are missing in V, but have been inserted here from MS. E. The origin of the omission is due to a scribe who jumped from the first ‘who ordained the law of’ to the second. You may reason similarly with the law of the dough-offering20Cf. Num. 15, 20f. and the law of the first of the fleece.21Cf. Deut. 18, 4. These are further examples of precepts observed within the privacy of the home over which no control can be exercised by other persons. Such are the light precepts which are as tender as lilies and through their observance by Israel lead them to life in the world to come.

What fence did Moses make to his words? It is stated, And the Lord said unto Moses: Go unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow.22Ex. 19, 10. Now the righteous Moses was not willing to tell it to Israel in the manner in which the Holy One, blessed be He, spoke to him, but said to them, Be ready against the third day; come not near a woman.23ibid. 15. Thus Moses added a third day for them of his own accord, because Moses reasoned as follows, ‘If a man will cohabit with his wife and on the third day the seed will issue from her they will become unclean,24In accordance with the law that if a woman discharged semen at any time within three days of coitus she is unclean, since the semen is still potent; after three days she is clean. Cf. Shab. 86a (Sonc. ed., p. 408) where this rule is derived from the last quoted verse. and in consequence Israel25GRA reads ‘the women of Israel’, which is preferable. would receive the Torah from Mount Sinai in a state of defilement. I will therefore add a third day for them, so that no man will cohabit with his wife26Within these three days. and there will be no fear of the seed issuing from her. All will be clean, and in consequence [the women of] Israel will receive the Torah from Mount Sinai in a state of cleanness’.This27The addition by Moses of an extra day to the Divine command. is one of the things which Moses did of his own accord, reasoning by a fortiori argument, and his decision conformed to the will of the All-present.28Cf. Shab. 87a (Sonc. ed., p. 411), Yeb. 62a (Sonc. ed., p. 412). He broke the tablets, and this act of his accorded with the will of the All-present; he kept away from the Tent of Meeting, and this act of his accorded with the will of the All-present; he separated from his wife, and this act of his accorded with the will of the All-present.[‘He separated from his wife, and this act of his accorded with the will of the All-present.’] How was this? He reasoned as follows: If with regard to the Israelites, who were sanctified for a short period only and summoned for the sole purpose of receiving the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to me, Go unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow;29Ex. 19, 10. I, who am in readiness for the purpose [of receiving] the word of God daily and hourly, since I know not when He will speak with me, whether by day or by night, must all the more separate myself from a woman! And his decision accorded with the will of the All-present.30Proved from the fact that when the people were permitted to resume marital relations, God said to Moses, But as for thee, stand thou here by Me (Deut. 5, 28). R. Judah b. Bathyra said: Moses did not separate from his wife until he was ordered to do so by the Almighty, as it is stated, With him do I speak mouth to mouth31Num. 12, 8.—by a mouth-to-mouth order I commanded him to separate from his wife, and he did so. Others interpret in this way: Moses did not separate from his wife until he was ordered to do so by the [18b] Almighty, as it is stated, Go say to them: Return ye to your tents;32Deut. 5, 27. This was a permission to resume marital relations. and after that it is written, But as for thee, stand thou here by Me.33ibid. 28. Moses then turned about34A strange expression in this context. The meaning seems to be that Moses extended the temporary restriction to all the days of his life, and this met with God’s approval. Cf. the second recension on this passage in Schechter’s ed., p. 10. and separated from his wife, and in so doing he was in accord with the will of the All-present.‘He kept away from the Tent of Meeting.’ How was this? He reasoned as follows: ‘If in connection with my brother Aaron, who has been anointed with the anointing oil, clothed in the additional vestments of the High-priesthood and ministers therein in holiness, the Holy One, blessed be He, admonished, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place;35Lev. 16, 2. I, who have not been ordained for the purpose, must all the more keep away from the Tent of Meeting’. He kept away from the Tent of Meeting and in so doing he was in accord with the will of the All-present.36No verse or exposition is cited to prove this. In the Talmudic passages (cf. above, p. 19, n. 28) the instance of keeping away from the Tent of Meeting is not included.‘He broke the tablets.’ How was this? It is related that when Moses ascended on high to receive the tablets which had been inscribed and were lying in readiness [to be revealed] since the six days of creation,37Cf. Aboth 5:9 (Sonc. ed., V, 6, p. 63). as it is stated, And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven [ḥaruth] upon the tables38Ex. 32, 16. As the work of God refers primarily to the six days of creation, it follows that the tablets were then prepared.—read not ḥaruth [graven] but ḥeruth [freedom], for only he is truly free who occupies himself with the Torah39This incidental word-play interrupts the sequence of the passage, and is borrowed from Aboth 6:2 (Sonc. ed., p. 80).—at that time the ministering angels arraigned Moses, saying, ‘Lord of the universe! What is man, that Thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that Thou thinkest of him? Yet Thou hast made him but little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. Thou hast made him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands; Thou hast put all things under his feet: sheep and oxen, all of them, yea, and the beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea’.40Ps. 8, 5-9. They were referring disparagingly to Moses, saying, ‘What virtue is there in man born of woman that he has ascended on high, as it is stated, Thou art ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive, thou hast received gifts?’41ibid. LXVIII, 19. E.V. refers to God. Moses took the tablets and descended with them, rejoicing exceedingly. But as soon as he saw the depravity with which they had depraved themselves in the episode of the calf, he said to himself, ‘How can I give them the tablets, thereby binding them to the performance of weighty commandments, and in consequence condemning them [if they disobeyed] to death before Heaven, for it is written therein, Thou shalt have no other gods before Me?’42Ex. 20, 3. He turned back, but when the seventy elders saw this they hurried after him. He seized one end of the tablets while they seized the other end, but the strength of Moses prevailed over theirs, as it is stated, And in all the mighty hand, and in all the great terror, which Moses wrought in the sight of all Israel.43Deut. 34, 12. He glanced at the tablets and saw that the writing had flown from them; so he exclaimed, ‘How can I give Israel these worthless tablets? I will grasp hold of them and break them, as it is stated, And I took hold of the two tables, and cast them out of my two hands, and broke them.44ibid. IX, 17.R. Jose the Galilean said: I will illustrate this to you by a parable. To what can the matter be compared? To a human king who ordered his agent, ‘Go and betroth for me a beautiful, graceful and well-behaved maiden’. The agent went and performed the betrothal. After the betrothal he discovered that she was unfaithful with another. Thereupon he reasoned to himself, ‘If I give her the contract45Presumably the betrothal document. By destroying this document the verbal betrothal could be disclaimed, and the maiden’s misbehaviour would be treated as that of an unbetrothed girl which does not involve the extreme penalty. Cf. Midrash Rabbah, Exodus, XLVI,§1 (Sonc. ed., pp. 526f). now, I will be condemning her to death46Cf. Deut. 22, 23f. and depriving my master of her for all time; [I will rather tear up the contract]’. In the same way did the righteous Moses reason to himself, ‘How can I now give Israel the tablets, binding them thereby to the performance of weighty commandments, and in consequence condemning them [if they disobeyed] to death, for it is written therein, He that sacrificeth unto the gods, save unto the Lord only, shall be utterly destroyed?47Ex. 22, 19. I will rather seize the tablets and break them, and lead Israel back to the right way. Then Israel might say,48In their defence when charged with idolatry. “Where are the first tablets which [you say] you brought down? There were no such things at all!” ’R. Judah b. Bathyra said: Moses only broke the tablets because he was commanded to do so by the Almighty, as it is stated, With him do I speak mouth to mouth49Num. 12, 8.—by a mouth-to-mouth order I commanded him to break the tablets. Some explain it in this way: Moses only broke the tablets because he was commanded to do so by the Almighty, as it is stated, And I looked, and, behold, ye had sinned against the Lord your God50Deut. 9, 16.—the expression I looked means that he saw that the writing had flown from off the tablets.51The tablets thereby became worthless, and Moses understood it as an order to break them. Others explain: Moses only broke the tablets because he was commanded to do so by the Almighty, as it is stated, And there they are, as the Lord commanded me52ibid. X, 5.—the words commanded me can only mean that he was so commanded and broke them.R. Eleazar b. Azariah said: Moses only broke the tablets because he was commanded to do so by the Almighty, as it is stated, Which Moses wrought in the sight of all Israel53ibid. XXXIV, 12. Cf. Shab. 87a (Sonc. ed., p. 412), Yeb. 62a (Sonc. ed., p. 412).—as everywhere else he acted on the command of God, so here, too, he acted on the command of God.R. ‘Aḳiba said: Moses only broke the tablets because he was commanded to do so by the Almighty, as it is stated, And I took hold of the two tables54ibid. IX, 17.—what is it that a man takes hold of? Is it not that which he is about to break?55A difficult sentence, the text being dubious. The meaning seems to be: since Moses held the tablets firmly he certainly had no intention of breaking them; as he did break them it must have been at the behest of the Almighty. The text varies between leshabberan and lebor’an; the latter makes no sense unless the root bara’ be taken in the sense of ‘cut down, destroy’ (cf. Josh. 17, 15, 18, and Ezek. 23, 47).R. Meir said: Moses only broke the tablets because he was commanded to do so by the Almighty, as it is stated, Which [’asher] thou didst break56Deut. 10, 2.—I thank [yishar] you for breaking them.57The words ’asher (which) and yishar (thank) are homiletically explained as deriving from a common root.

Hezekiah king of Judah did four things [of his own accord] and his acts conformed to the will of the All-present. He hid the Book of Healing58A book containing remedies for various ailments believed to have been compiled by King Solomon. Hezekiah hid it so that people should pray to God for healing. Cf. Ber. 10b (Sonc. ed., p. 56), Pes. 56a (Sonc. ed., pp. 277f). In the Talmud six acts are mentioned, God approving of three and disapproving of three. and his act conformed to the will of the All-present, [as it is stated, And I have done that which is good in Thy sight].592 Kings 20, 3. The words in brackets are inserted by GRA. He broke the brazen serpent60Cf. Num. 21, 9. into pieces and his act conformed to the will of the All-present, [as it is stated, And he broke in pieces the brazen serpent … for unto those days the children of Israel did offer to it; and it was called Nehushtan].612 Kings 18, 4. The verse is omitted in V but is found in MS. E and inserted by GRA. He removed the high places and the altars and his act conformed to the will of the All-present, as it is stated, Hath not the same Hezekiah taken away His high places and His altars, and commanded Judah and Jerusalem, saying: Ye shall worship before one altar, and upon it shall ye offer?622 Chron. 32, 12. He stopped up the waters of Gihon, and his act conformed to the will of the All-present, as it is stated, Hezekiah also stopped the upper spring of the waters of Gihon, and brought them straight down on the west side of the city of David. And Hezekiah prospered in all his works.63ibid. 30. The last words of the verse indicate that his works had divine approval.

What fence did Job make to his words? It states, A whole-hearted and an upright man, one that feareth God, and shunneth evil.64Job 1, 8. This65The phrase feareth God and shunneth evil. teaches that Job held aloof from anything that could lead to sin, from anything improper or having the semblance of impropriety.66These were the ‘fences’ which Job erected to safeguard him from wrong-doing. In view of the description that feareth God, etc., what precedes it seems superfluous. And what is the significance of the words a whole-hearted and an upright man? They teach that Job was born circumcised.67The Heb. tam, translated ‘whole-hearted’, is interpreted in the sense of physically perfect, the lack of circumcision being regarded as an imperfection.Adam, the first man, also came into the world circumcised, for it is stated, And God created man in His own image.68Gen. 1, 27. ‘In God’s image’ implies perfection. Seth also was born circumcised, for it is stated, And begot a son in his own likeness, after his image.69ibid. V, 3, physically perfect like his father. Noah also was born circumcised, for it is stated, In his generations a man righteous and whole-hearted.70ibid. VI, 9. Shem also was born circumcised, for it is stated, And Melchizedek king of Salem.71ibid. XIV, 18. The Heb. shalem also signifies physical perfection. [On the identification of Shem with Melchizedek, cf. L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, V, pp. 225f.] Jacob also was born circumcised, for it is stated, And Jacob was a whole-hearted man, dwelling in tents.72ibid. XXV, 28, E.V. a quiet man (Heb. tam). Joseph also was born circumcised, for it is stated, These are the generations of Jacob: Joseph.73ibid. XXXVII, 2. Surely Scripture should have said here, ‘These are the generations of Jacob: Reuben!’74Reuben was Jacob’s firstborn. Why does it say Joseph? [To teach] that as Jacob was born circumcised so Joseph was born circumcised. Moses also was born circumcised, for it is stated, She saw him that he was a goodly child.75Ex. 2, 2. Goodly indicates physically perfect. Now what did his mother see in him finer and better than in all children? [She saw] that he was born circumcised. Even the wicked Balaam was born circumcised, for it is stated, The saying of him who heareth the words of God.76Num. 24, 4. God would not have communicated with one who was uncircumcised. Samuel also was born circumcised, for it is stated, And the child Samuel grew up, increased and was good.771 Sam. 2, 26. E.V., increased in favour. David also was born circumcised, for it is stated, Michtam of David. Keep me, O God; for I have taken refuge in Thee.78Ps. 16, 1. The word michtam is interpreted in Soṭ. 10b (Sonc. ed., p. 49) as makkatho tammah, ‘his wound was whole’, i.e. the place where there should have been a wound after the operation of circumcision was sound, since he was born circumcised. Jeremiah also was born circumcised, for it is stated, Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee.79Jer. 1, 5. Since he was consecrated even before birth he must have been formed perfect in body, i.e. already circumcised. Zerubbabel also was born circumcised, for it is stated, In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, will I take thee, O Ẓerubbabel, My servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith the Lord, and I will make of thee as a signet.80Hag. 2, 23. The Heb. for ‘signet’, ḥotam, suggests the seal of circumcision. Alternatively, since the word ends with the syllable tam it suggests physical perfection, as above, p. 24, n. 67.Scripture states, I made a covenant with mine eyes; how then should I look upon a maid?81Job 31, 1. After the digression, the subject of Job making a ‘fence’ is resumed. This teaches that Job was most strict with himself and would not even glance at a maiden. Is there not here an argument from the less to the greater? If in the case of an unmarried girl whom, if he so wish, he may marry or may give as a wife either to his son or his brother or some other relative of his, Job was most strict with himself and would not glance at her, how much more strict was he in the case of a married woman! Why was Job so strict with himself and would not even glance at a maid? Because he reasoned, ‘Perhaps I look at her to-day, and to-morrow a man comes and takes her to wife; the consequence might be that I should be thinking of a married woman’.

What fence did the Prophets make to their words? It states, The Lord will go forth as a mighty man, He will stir up jealousy like a man of war; He will cry, yea, He will shout aloud.82Is. 42, 13. Surely He is not like one mighty man, but like all the mighty men of the world put together! Similarly, The lion hath roared, who will not fear? The Lord God hath spoken, who can but prophesy?83Amos 3, 8. Surely He is not like one lion, but like all the lions of the world put together! Similarly, And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east, and His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth did shine with His glory.84Ez. 43, 2. [We know that] the phrase the sound of many waters refers to the angel Gabriel, and the words and the earth did shine [19a] with His glory refer to the manifestation of the Divine Presence. Is there not here an argument from the less to the greater? If of the angel Gabriel, who is but one of the countless thousands and myriads who stand before Him, it is said that his voice reaches from one end of the world to the other, how much mightier is the voice of the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, Who created the entire universe and created the celestial and terrestrial beings! But the eye of man is shown only that which it can perceive, and the ear of man is made to hear only that which it can comprehend.85In the three examples quoted from the Prophets it is obvious that the expressions used are inadequate to describe the glory and might of God; the Prophets, however, deliberately employed them so that thereby they conveyed to the people an idea of God’s majesty, using terms which could be comprehended by the limited understanding of man. This choice of expressions and similes is the ‘fence’ which the Prophets made to their words.

What fence did [the authors of] the Holy Writings make to their words? It states, Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house.86Prov. 5, 8. Remove thy way far from her refers to heresy; for a man is warned, ‘Go not among heretics, nor come in to them, lest you stumble through them’. Should he, however, say, ‘I am sure of myself, and even though I go among them I will not stumble through them’; or should he say, ‘I will hear their words and then come away’? Scripture therefore states, None that go unto her return, neither do they attain unto the paths of life.87ibid. II, 19. It is also written, She hath prepared her meat, she hath mingled her wine; she hath furnished her table.88ibid. IX, 2. This verse describes the wicked [heretics].89The word ‘heretics’ is omitted in the text, due, no doubt, to fear of the censor. It is added here by GRA. When a man comes among them they give him to eat and drink, they clothe and cover him, and give him much money. But no sooner does he become one of them, than each recognizes what was his property and takes it back. Concerning these it is stated, Till an arrow strike through his liver; as a bird hasteneth to the snare—and knoweth not that it is at the cost of his life.90ibid. VII, 23.Another interpretation of Remove thy way far from her refers to the harlot; for a man is warned, ‘Go not in this square, enter not in this side-way, for a harlot is there, attractive and bedecked’. Should he, however, say, ‘I am sure of myself, and even if I go there I will not stumble through her’, he is again warned, ‘Go not there even if you are sure of yourself, lest you stumble through her’. For the Sages have said: A man should not make it his habit to pass the door of a harlot, as it is stated, For she hath cast down many wounded; yea, a mighty host are all her slain.91ibid. 26.

What fence did the Sages make to their words? They ruled that the evening Shema‘ may be recited only until midnight, although Rabban Gamaliel said: Until cockcrow.92Cf. the opening paragraph of Mishnah Berakoth. The Sages were also of the opinion that by strict law the Shema‘ may be recited at any time until the morning, but as a precautionary measure they ruled only until midnight. This is an example of a ‘fence’ by the Sages. How is this? When a man comes home from his work, let him not say, ‘I will eat a little, drink a little, sleep a little, and then I will recite the Shema‘’; it may result in his sleeping through the whole night and he will have missed reciting it. He should rather act thus: when he comes home from his work in the evening let him go to the Synagogue or the House of Study. If he is in the habit of reading Scripture, let him read it; if he is in the habit of studying the Mishnah, let him study it; otherwise, let him recite the Shema‘ and say the Tefillah; and whosoever transgresses the words of the Sages is deserving of death.93Cf. Ber. 4b (Sonc. ed., p. 13).Rabban Gamaliel said: There are times when a man recites the Shema‘ twice in one night, once before the rise of dawn and once after the rise of dawn, and he thereby fulfils his obligation both for the day and for the night.94Cf. Ber. 8b (Sonc. ed., p. 44).The Sages rose up and often made fences to their words.95Cf. Finkelstein, op. cit., pp. 26-29 for an original and interesting interpretation of this sentence.

AND RAISE UP MANY DISCIPLES.96Added by all commentators as the heading of the paragraph. The School of Shammai said: A master should teach only those who are wise, meek, of good family and wealthy; whereas the School of Hillel said: He should teach everyone, for many sinners in Israel have in this way been brought near to the study of the Torah, and from them issued righteous, pious and worthy men.