Bava Kamma

in the case of the Moabites [themselves] should not the same injunction apply even more strongly? But the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: The idea you have in your mind is not the idea I have in My mind. Two doves have I to bring forth from them;  Ruth the Moabitess and Naamah the Ammonitess. Now cannot we base on this an a fortiori argument as follows: If for the sake of two virtuous descendants the Holy One, blessed be He, showed pity to two great nations so that they were not destroyed, may we not be assured that if your honour's daughter had indeed been righteous and worthy to have goodly issue, she would have continued to live? R. Hiyya B. Abba said that R. Johanan had stated:  The Holy One, blessed be He, does not deprive any creature of any reward due to it, even if only for a becoming expression: for in the case of the [descendants of the] elder [daughter]  who named her son 'Moab',  the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses, Distress not the Moabites, neither contend with them in battle, [implying that] while actual hostilities against them were forbidden, requisitioning from them was allowed, whereas in the case of the younger [daughter]  who called her son 'Ben Ammi',  the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: And when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them at all,  thus implying that they were not to be subjected even to requisitioning. R. Hiyya B. Abba further said that R. Joshua b. Korha had stated:  At all times should a man try to be first in the performance of a good deed, as on account of the one night by which the elder [daughter]  preceded the younger she preceded her by four generations [in having a descendant] in Israel: Obed, Jesse, David and Solomon.  For the younger [had no descendant in Israel] until [the advent of] Rehoboam, as it is written: And the name of his mother was Naamah the Ammonitess. Our Rabbis taught: If cattle of an Israelite has gored cattle belonging to a Cuthean  there is no liability. But where cattle belonging to a Cuthean gored cattle belonging to an Israelite, in the case of Tam the payment will be for half the damage, whereas in the case of Mu'ad the payment will be in full. R. Meir, however, says: Where cattle belonging to an Israelite gored cattle belonging to a Cuthean there is no liability, whereas in the case of cattle belonging to an Israelite, whether in the case of Tam or in that of Mu'ad, the compensation is to be in full. Does this mean to say that R. Meir maintains that the Cutheans were lion-proselytes?  But if [so], an objection would be raised [from the following]:  All kinds of stains [found on women's underwear] brought from Rekem  are [levitically] clean.  But R. Judah considers them unclean, as the inhabitants [of that place] are mainly proselytes  who are in error;  from among Gentiles  they are considered clean. But [where they were brought] from among Israelites  or from Cutheans [after having been obtained from private places all agree in declaring them unclean.  But where they were brought from Cutheans who had already abandoned them to the public at large]  R. Meir considers them unclean,  whereas the Sages consider them clean, for [even] they  were not suspected of being lax in [the exposing of women's stained underwear]. Now does this not prove that R. Meir was of the opinion that Cutheans were true proselytes? — R. Abbahu thereupon said: This was only a pecuniary disability that R. Meir  imposed upon them, so that [Israelites] should not intermingle with them. R. Zera raised an objection [from the following]: These are the damsels through whom the fine  is imposed: If a man has connexion with a girl that is a bastard,  a Nethinah  or a Cuthean.  Now if you maintain that R. Meir imposed a pecuniary disability on them, why then not impose it in this case too,  so that [Israelites] should not mix with them? Abaye thereupon said: