1. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 22.1 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 40, 41, 42, 43, 44| 22.1. וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וְהָאֱלֹהִים נִסָּה אֶת־אַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אַבְרָהָם וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּנִי׃ 22.1. וַיִּשְׁלַח אַבְרָהָם אֶת־יָדוֹ וַיִּקַּח אֶת־הַמַּאֲכֶלֶת לִשְׁחֹט אֶת־בְּנוֹ׃ | 22.1. And it came to pass after these things, that God did prove Abraham, and said unto him: ‘Abraham’; and he said: ‘Here am I.’ |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 18.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •aggadah, as knowledge derived from analytical reasoning Found in books: Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 6| 18.15. עֶרְוַת כַּלָּתְךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה אֵשֶׁת בִּנְךָ הִוא לֹא תְגַלֶּה עֶרְוָתָהּ׃ | 18.15. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter-in-law: she is thy son’wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. |
|
3. Anon., Jubilees, 18.18-18.19, 41.23-41.27 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •aggadah, as knowledge derived from analytical reasoning Found in books: Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 6 | 18.18. from Me, That in blessing I shall bless thee And in multiplying I shall multiply thy seed As the stars of heaven, And as the sand which is on the seashore. And thy seed will inherit the cities of its enemies, 18.19. And in thy seed will all nations of the earth be blessed; Because thou hast obeyed My voice, And I have shown to all that thou art faithful unto Me in all that I have said unto thee: Go in peace." 41.23. And after that she bare two sons, Perez and Zerah, in the seventh year of this second week.rAnd thereupon the seven years of fruitfulness were accomplished, of which Joseph spake to Pharaoh. 41.24. And Judah acknowledged that the deed which he had done was evil, for he had lain with his daughter-in-law, and he esteemed it hateful in his eyes, and he acknowledged that he had transgressed and gone astray; for he had uncovered the skirt of his son, 41.25. and he began to lament and to supplicate before the Lord because of his transgression.<>br>And we told him in a dream that it was forgiven him because he supplicated earnestly, and lamented, and did not again commit it. 41.26. And he received forgiveness because he turned from his sin and from his ignorance, for he transgressed greatly before our God; 41.27. and every one that acteth thus, every one who lieth with his mother-in-law, let them burn him with fire that he may burn therein, |
|
4. Mishnah, Hulin, 1.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •aggadah, as knowledge derived from analytical reasoning Found in books: Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 42, 43| 1.2. הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּמַגַּל יָד, בְּצוֹר, וּבְקָנֶה, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְשֵׁרָה. הַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין וּלְעוֹלָם שׁוֹחֲטִין, וּבַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין, חוּץ מִמַּגַּל קָצִיר, וְהַמְּגֵרָה, וְהַשִּׁנַּיִם, וְהַצִּפֹּרֶן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן חוֹנְקִין. הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּמַגַּל קָצִיר בְּדֶרֶךְ הֲלִיכָתָהּ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין. וְאִם הֶחֱלִיקוּ שִׁנֶּיהָ, הֲרֵי הִיא כְסַכִּין: | 1.2. If one slaughtered with [the smooth edge of] a hand sickle, with a flint or with a reed, the slaughtering is valid. All may slaughter; at all times one may slaughter; and with any implement one may slaughter, except a scythe, a saw, teeth or a finger nail, since these strangle. One who slaughtered with a scythe, moving it forward only: Bet Shammai declare it invalid, But Bet Hillel declare it valid. If the teeth of the scythe were filed away it is regarded as an ordinary knife. |
|
5. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 56.6 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •aggadah, as knowledge derived from analytical reasoning Found in books: Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 40, 41, 42, 43, 44| 56.6. וַיִּשְׁלַח אַבְרָהָם אֶת יָדוֹ וַיִּקַּח אֶת הַמַּאֲכֶלֶת <>(בראשית כב, י)<>, רַב בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה מִנַּיִן לִשְׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא בְּדָבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל, מִן הָכָא, וַיִּשְׁלַח אַבְרָהָם אֶת יָדוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִין מִן הַהַגָּדָה אֲמַר לָךְ, חָזַר הוּא בֵּיהּ, וְאִין מִן אוּלְפָּן אֲמַר לָךְ, לֵית הוּא חָזַר בֵּיהּ, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי הָיוּ נְעוּצִים מִתְּחִלָּתָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּסוּלִים, תְּלוּשִׁין וּנְעָצָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִים, דִּתְנַן הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּמַגַּל יָד בְּמַגַּל קָצִיר וּבְצֹר וּבְקָנֶה, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בִּקְרוּמִיּוֹת שֶׁל קָנֶה, אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין בָּהּ, וְאֵין מוֹהֲלִין בָּהּ, וְאֵין חוֹתְכִין בָּהּ בָּשָׂר, וְאֵין מְקַנְחִין בָּהּ אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, וְלֹא מְחַצִּין בָּהּ אֶת הַשִּׁנַּיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוּחַ רָעָה שׁוֹכֶנֶת עָלָיו. 56.6. וַיִּשְׁלַח אַבְרָהָם אֶת יָדוֹ וַיִּקַּח אֶת הַמַּאֲכֶלֶת (בראשית כב, י), רַב בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה מִנַּיִן לִשְׁחִיטָה שֶׁהִיא בְּדָבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל, מִן הָכָא, וַיִּשְׁלַח אַבְרָהָם אֶת יָדוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִין מִן הַהַגָּדָה אֲמַר לָךְ, חָזַר הוּא בֵּיהּ, וְאִין מִן אוּלְפָּן אֲמַר לָךְ, לֵית הוּא חָזַר בֵּיהּ, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי הָיוּ נְעוּצִים מִתְּחִלָּתָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְּסוּלִים, תְּלוּשִׁין וּנְעָצָן הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְּשֵׁרִים, דִּתְנַן הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּמַגַּל יָד בְּמַגַּל קָצִיר וּבְצֹר וּבְקָנֶה, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים נֶאֶמְרוּ בִּקְרוּמִיּוֹת שֶׁל קָנֶה, אֵין שׁוֹחֲטִין בָּהּ, וְאֵין מוֹהֲלִין בָּהּ, וְאֵין חוֹתְכִין בָּהּ בָּשָׂר, וְאֵין מְקַנְחִין בָּהּ אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, וְלֹא מְחַצִּין בָּהּ אֶת הַשִּׁנַּיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרוּחַ רָעָה שׁוֹכֶנֶת עָלָיו. | 56.6. "And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife (Gen. 22:10). Rav asked R. Hiyya the Elder: How do we know that ritual slaughtering must be with a movable object? From here: \"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife\" — he said: if he told you this from a Haggadah, he might retract; and if he stated it as a tradition, he cannot not retract from it, since Levi taught: If they [sharp flints] were attached [to the ground or rocks] from the very beginning, they are unfit; but if they had been originally detached but subsequently fixed in the ground, they are fit, since we learned: \"If one slaughters with a hand-sickle, a harvest sickle, a flint, or a reed, the slaughtering is fit.\" Said Rabbi Yosei: Five things were said of a reed stalk: You may not slaughter, circumcise, cut meat, wipe your hands, nor pick your teeth with it, because an evil spirit rests upon it.", |
|
6. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, 86a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •aggadah, as knowledge derived from analytical reasoning Found in books: Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 40| 86a. חכים יתקרי ורבי לא יתקרי ואסו דרבי על ידו תהא רבי ור' נתן סוף משנה רב אשי ורבינא סוף הוראה,וסימנך (תהלים עג, יז) עד אבוא אל מקדשי אל אבינה לאחריתם,אמר רב כהנא אישתעי לי רב חמא בר ברתיה דחסא רבה בר נחמני אגב שמדא נח נפשיה אכלו ביה קורצא בי מלכא אמרו איכא חד גברא ביהודאי דקא מבטל תריסר אלפי גברי מישראל ירחא בקייטא וירחא בסתוא מכרגא דמלכא,שדרו פריסתקא דמלכא בתריה ולא אשכחיה ערק ואזל מפומבדיתא לאקרא מאקרא לאגמא ומאגמא לשחין ומשחין לצריפא ומצריפא לעינא דמים ומעינא דמים לפומבדיתא בפומבדיתא אשכחיה איקלע פריסתקא דמלכא לההוא אושפיזא דרבה קריבו תכא קמיה ואשקוהו תרי כסי ודליוה לתכא מקמיה הדר פרצופיה לאחוריה,אמרו ליה מאי נעביד ליה גברא דמלכא הוא אמר להו קריבו תכא לקמיה ואשקיוהו חד כסא ודליוהו לתכא מקמיה ולתסי עבדו ליה הכי ואתסי אמר מידע ידענא דגברא דקא בעינא הכא הוא בחיש אבתריה ואשכחיה אמר אזלינא מהא אי מקטל קטלו לההוא גברא לא מגלינא ואי נגידי מנגדין ליה מגלינא,אתיוהו לקמיה עייליה לאדרונא וטרקיה לבבא באנפיה בעא רחמי פרק אשיתא ערק ואזיל לאגמא הוה יתיב אגירדא דדקולא וקא גריס קא מיפלגי במתיבתא דרקיעא אם (ויקרא יג, ב) בהרת קודמת לשער לבן טמא ואם שער לבן קודם לבהרת טהור,ספק הקב"ה אומר טהור וכולהו מתיבתא דרקיעא אמרי טמא ואמרי מאן נוכח נוכח רבה בר נחמני דאמר רבה בר נחמני אני יחיד בנגעים אני יחיד באהלות,שדרו שליחא בתריה לא הוה מצי מלאך המות למקרב ליה מדלא הוה קא פסיק פומיה מגרסיה אדהכי נשב זיקא ואויש ביני קני סבר גונדא דפרשי הוא אמר תינח נפשיה דההוא גברא ולא ימסר בידא דמלכותא,כי הוה קא ניחא נפשיה אמר טהור טהור יצאת בת קול ואמרה אשריך רבה בר נחמני שגופך טהור ויצאתה נשמתך בטהור נפל פתקא מרקיעא בפומבדיתא רבה בר נחמני נתבקש בישיבה של מעלה נפקו אביי ורבא וכולהו רבנן לאיעסוקי ביה לא הוו ידעי דוכתיה אזלו לאגמא חזו צפרי דמטללי וקיימי אמרי שמע מינה התם הוא,ספדוהו תלתא יומי ותלתא לילותא נפל פתקא כל הפורש יהא בנידוי ספדוהו שבעה יומי נפל פתקא לכו לביתכם לשלום,ההוא יומא דנח נפשיה דלייה זעפא ודרי לההוא טייעא כי רכיב גמלא מהאי גיסא דנהר פפא ושדייה בהך גיסא אמר מאי האי אמרי ליה נח נפשיה דרבה בר נחמני אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם כולי עלמא דידך הוא ורבה בר נחמני דידך את דרבה ורבה דידך אמאי קא מחרבת ליה לעלמא נח זעפא,רבי שמעון בן חלפתא בעל בשר הוה יומא חד הוה חמימא ליה הוה סליק ויתיב אשינא דטורא אמר לה לברתיה בתי הניפי עלי במניפא ואני אתן ליך ככרין דנרד אדהכי נשבא זיקא אמר כמה ככרין דנרד למרי דיכי,הכל כמנהג המדינה וכו' הכל לאתויי מאי לאתויי באתרא דנהיגי מכרך ריפתא ומשתה אנפקא דאי אמר להו קדימו ואייתי לכו אמרו לו לא כל כמינך,מעשה ברבן יוחנן בן מתיא שאמר לבנו צא ושכור וכו' מעשה לסתור חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני ואם פסק להן מזונות | 86a. shall be called a wise [ḥakim] physician, but he shall not be called rabbi, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s convalescence shall be through him. I also saw written there: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Natan are the end of the Mishna, i.e., the last of the tanna’im, the redactors of the Mishna. Rav Ashi and Ravina are the end of instruction, i.e., the end of the period of the amora’im, the redacting of the Talmud, which occurred after the period of the tanna’im.,And your mnemonic to remember that Rav Ashi and Ravina redacted the Talmud is the verse: “Until I entered into the sanctuary [mikdashei] of God, and considered [avina] their end” (Psalms 73:17). The sanctuary, mikdashei, alludes to Rav Ashi, while the term avina alludes to Ravina, which is a contraction of Rav Avina. The phrase: Their end, is interpreted as a reference to the redacting of the Talmud.,§ The Gemara relates another story discussing the greatness of the Sages. Rav Kahana said: Rav Ḥama, son of the daughter of Ḥasa, told me that Rabba bar Naḥmani died due to the fear of a decree of religious persecution. The Gemara explains: His enemies accused him [akhalu beih kurtza] of disloyalty in the king’s palace, as they said: There is one man from among the Jews who exempts twelve thousand Jewish men from the king’s head tax two months a year, one month in the summer and one month in the winter. Since many people would study in Rabba’s study hall during the months of Adar and Elul, he was being blamed for preventing those people from working during those months.,They sent a messenger [peristaka] of the king after him, but he was not able to find him. Rabba bar Naḥmani fled and went from Pumbedita to Akra, from Akra to Agma, from Agma to Shiḥin, from Shiḥin to Tzerifa, from Tzerifa to Eina Demayim, and from Eina Demayim back to Pumbedita. Ultimately, he was found in Pumbedita, as the king’s messenger arrived by chance at that same inn where Rabba bar Naḥmani was hiding. The inn attendants placed a tray before the messenger and gave him two cups to drink. They then removed the tray from before him and his face was miraculously turned backward.,The attendants said to Rabba bar Naḥmani: What should we do with him? He is the king’s man, and we cannot leave him like this. Rabba bar Naḥmani said to them: Place a tray before him and give him one cup to drink, and then remove the tray from before him and he will be healed. They did this, and he was healed. The messenger said: I am certain that the man I seek is here, as this unnatural event must have befallen me on his account. He searched for Rabba bar Naḥmani and found out where he was. The messenger said that they should tell Rabba bar Naḥmani: I will leave this inn and will not disclose your location. Even if they will kill that man, i.e., me, I will not disclose your location. But if they will beat him, me, I will disclose your whereabouts, as I cannot bear being tortured.,With that guarantee, they brought Rabba bar Naḥmani before the messenger. They took him into a small vestibule [le’idrona] and closed the door before him. Rabba bar Naḥmani prayed for mercy, and the wall crumbled. He fled and went to hide in a swamp. He was sitting on the stump of a palm tree and studying Torah alone. At that moment, the Sages in the heavenly academy were disagreeing with regard to a halakha of leprosy. In general, a leprous spot includes two signs of impurity, a bright white spot and a white hair. The basic halakha is that if the snow-white leprous sore [baheret] preceded the white hair then the afflicted person is ritually impure, but if the white hair preceded the baheret, he is pure.,The heavenly debate concerned a case of uncertainty as to which came first, the spot or the hair. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: The individual is pure, but every other member of the heavenly academy says: He is impure. And they said: Who can arbitrate in this dispute? They agreed that Rabba bar Naḥmani should arbitrate, as Rabba bar Naḥmani once said: I am preeminent in the halakhot of leprosy and I am preeminent in the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by tents.,They sent a messenger from heaven after him to take his soul up to the heavenly academy, but the Angel of Death was unable to approach Rabba bar Naḥmani, as his mouth did not cease from his Torah study. In the meantime, a wind blew and howled between the branches. Rabba bar Naḥmani thought that the noise was due to an infantry battalion [gunda] about to capture him. He said: Let that man, i.e., me, die and not be given over to the hands of the government. The Angel of Death was therefore able to take his soul.,As he was dying, he said in response to the dispute in heaven: It is pure; it is pure. A Divine Voice emerged from heaven and said: Happy are you, Rabba bar Naḥmani, as your body is pure and your soul left you with the word: Pure. A note [pitka] fell from heaven and landed in the academy of Pumbedita. The note read: Rabba bar Naḥmani was summoned to the heavenly academy, i.e., he has died. Abaye and Rava and all of the other Rabbis went out to tend to his burial; however, they did not know the location of his body. They went to the swamp and saw birds forming a shade and hovering over a certain spot. The Rabbis said: We can conclude from this that he is there.,The Rabbis lamented him for three days and three nights. A note fell from heaven, upon which was written: Anyone who removes himself from the lamentations shall be ostracized. Accordingly, they lamented him for seven days. Another note fell from heaven, stating: Go to your homes in peace.,On that day when Rabba bar Naḥmani died, a hurricane lifted a certain Arab [taya’a] merchant while he was riding his camel. The hurricane carried him from one side of the Pappa River and threw him onto the other side. He said: What is this? Those present said to him: Rabba bar Naḥmani has died. He said before God: Master of the Universe! The entire world is Yours and Rabba bar Naḥmani is also Yours. You are to Rabba and Rabba is to You, i.e., you are beloved to each other. If so, why are You destroying the world on his account? The storm subsided.,The Gemara concludes its earlier discussion of obese Sages (84a). Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta was obese. One day he was particularly hot and went and sat on a mountain boulder to cool himself off. He said to his daughter: My daughter, fan me with a fan, and as a gift I will give you packages of spikenard. In the meantime, a strong wind blew. He said: How many packages of spikenard do I owe to the overseers of this wind?,§ The Gemara returns to its discussion of the mishna (83a), which teaches that an employer must provide his laborers with sustece, all in accordance with the regional custom. The Gemara asks: What is added by the inclusive term: All? The Gemara answers: This serves to include a place where it is customary for the laborers to eat bread and drink a quarter-log [anpaka] of wine. As, if in such a case the employer were to say to them: Arise early in the morning and I will bring you this sustece, so as not to waste work time, they may say to him: It is not in your power to compel us to do so.,§ The mishna teaches that there was an incident involving Rabbi Yoḥa ben Matya, who said to his son: Go out and hire laborers for us. His son hired the laborers and stipulated that he would provide sustece for them. The Gemara asks: After the mishna has stated that all practices are in accordance with the regional custom, how can it cite this incident, which seems to contradict the previous ruling, as Rabbi Yoḥa ben Matya and his son did not follow the regional custom? The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: All practices are in accordance with the regional custom, but if the employer pledged to provide sustece for them, |
|
7. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, 16a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •aggadah, as knowledge derived from analytical reasoning Found in books: Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 44| 16a. קשיין אהדדי אלא לאו ש"מ שאני בין מחובר מעיקרו לתלוש ולבסוף חברו ש"מ,אמר מר השוחט במוכני שחיטתו כשרה והתניא שחיטתו פסולה ל"ק הא בסרנא דפחרא הא בסרנא דמיא,ואיבעית אימא הא והא בסרנא דמיא ולא קשיא הא בכח ראשון הא בכח שני,וכי הא דאמר רב פפא האי מאן דכפתיה לחבריה ואשקיל עליה בידקא דמיא ומית חייב מ"ט גירי דידיה הוא דאהני ביה וה"מ בכח ראשון אבל בכח שני גרמא בעלמא הוא,יתיב רב אחוריה דרבי חייא ורבי חייא קמיה דרבי ויתיב רבי וקאמר מנין לשחיטה שהוא בתלוש שנאמר (בראשית כב, י) ויקח את המאכלת לשחוט א"ל רב לרבי חייא מאי קאמר א"ל וי"ו דכתיב אאופתא קאמר והא קרא קאמר קרא זריזותיה דאברהם קמ"ל,אמר רבא פשיטא לי תלוש ולבסוף חברו לענין עבודת כוכבים הוי תלוש דאמר מר המשתחוה לבית שלו אסרו ואי ס"ד הוי מחובר (דברים יב, ב) אלהיהם על ההרים ולא ההרים אלהיהם,לענין הכשר זרעים תנאי היא דתנן הכופה קערה על הכותל בשביל שתודח הרי זה בכי יותן בשביל שלא ילקה הכותל אינו בכי יותן,הא גופא קשיא אמרת בשביל שתודח הרי זה בכי יותן הא בשביל שיודח הכותל אין זה בכי יותן,והדר תני בשביל שלא ילקה הכותל אינו בכי יותן הא בשביל שיודח הכותל ה"ז בכי יותן,א"ר אלעזר תברא מי ששנה זו לא שנה זו רב פפא אמר כולה חד תנא הוא הא בכותל מערה הא בכותל בנין,וה"ק הכופה קערה על הכותל בשביל שתודח ה"ז בכי יותן הא בשביל שיודח הכותל אין זה בכי יותן,בד"א בכותל מערה אבל בכותל בנין בשביל שלא ילקה הכותל הוא דאינו בכי יותן הא בשביל שיודח הכותל ה"ז בכי יותן,בעי רבא | 16a. Ostensibly, the two clauses of the baraita are difficult, as they contradict each other, since the first clause states that slaughter with a blade that is attached is valid and the latter clause states that slaughter is not valid. Rather, must one not conclude from it that there is a difference between a case where the blade was attached from the outset and a case where the blade was detached and ultimately he reattached it? The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn from it.,§ The Master said: In the case of one who slaughters with a mechanism of a wheel with a knife attached to it, his slaughter is valid. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that his slaughter is not valid? The Gemara answers: This contradiction is not difficult. This baraita, which rules that the slaughter is valid, is in a case where the knife was attached to a potter’s wheel, whose movement is generated by the potter pressing on a pedal. Since the slaughter was performed by the force of the person’s actions, the slaughter is valid. That baraita, which rules that the slaughter is not valid, is in a case where the knife was attached to a waterwheel. Since the slaughter was not performed by the force of the person’s actions, the slaughter is not valid.,And if you wish, say instead: The rulings of both this baraita and that baraita are in a case where the knife was attached to a waterwheel, and the contradiction is not difficult. This baraita, which rules that the slaughter is valid, is in a case where the movement of the slaughter was generated by primary force, as the person releases the water that turns the wheel, and on that initial turn of the wheel the knife slaughters the animal. That baraita, which rules that the slaughter is not valid, is in a case where the slaughter was generated by secondary force, as the knife slaughters the animal on the second turn of the wheel.,And this is like that which Rav Pappa says: In the case of a certain person who bound another and diverted a flow [bidka] of water upon him and he died, the one who diverted the water is liable for his murder. What is the reason? It is because those were his arrows that were effective in his murder. And this matter applies in a case where he killed the other person by primary force, as the person was proximate to him and was directly drowned by the water. But if the person was further away and was killed by secondary force after the water flowed on its own, it is not by his direct action; rather, it is merely an indirect action, and he is exempt.,§ Rav sat behind Rabbi Ḥiyya, and Rabbi Ḥiyya sat before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi sat and said: From where is it derived that slaughter is performed specifically with a blade that is detached? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “And Abraham stretched forth his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son” (Genesis 22:10). Rav said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: What is he saying? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rav: He is saying an incorrect reason, comparable to the letter vav that is written on the rough surface of a tree trunk [a’ufta]. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi say a verse as proof for his statement? The Gemara answers: The verse teaches us the diligence of Abraham, who had a knife prepared to slaughter Isaac. It does not teach any halakha concerning ritual slaughter.,§ Apropos the issue of slaughter with a detached blade, Rava said: It is obvious to me that concerning an item that was detached and ultimately one attached it, with regard to the matter of idol worship its halakhic status is that of a detached item, as the Master says: One who bows to his house has rendered it forbidden as an object of idol worship. And if it enters your mind to say that its halakhic status is that of an attached item, it is written with regard to idolatry: “Their gods, upon the high mountains” (Deuteronomy 12:2), from which it is derived: But the mountains are not their gods, as items attached to the ground are never rendered forbidden as objects of idol worship. The halakhic status of a house built from stones that were detached is that of a detached item.,With regard to the matter of rendering seeds susceptible to ritual impurity, there is a dispute between tanna’im, as we learned in a mishna (Makhshirin 4:3): In the case of one who places a bowl on the wall while it is raining so that the bowl will be rinsed with the rainwater, if the water from the bowl then falls onto produce, that is under the rubric of the verse: “But when water is placed upon the seed” (Leviticus 11:38). The water has the halakhic status of a liquid that he poured of his own volition on fruit and seeds. Consequently, it renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. But if he placed the bowl there so that the wall will not be damaged, it is not under the rubric of the verse “but when water is placed upon the seed.” Since he had no intent to use the water, it is not considered to have entered the bowl of his own volition, and it does not render produce susceptible to impurity.,This mishna itself is difficult, as the inferences from the first clause and the latter clause are contradictory. In the first clause you said: In the case of one who places a bowl on the wall so that the bowl will be rinsed with the rainwater, that is under the rubric of the verse “but when water is placed upon the seed,” and the water renders produce susceptible to impurity. By inference, if he placed the bowl so that the wall will be rinsed by means of the bowl, that is not under the rubric of the verse “but when water is placed upon the seed.” That water would not render produce susceptible to impurity, because the intent was for the water to rinse the wall, which is an item attached to the ground.,And then the mishna teaches in the latter clause: If he placed the bowl so that the wall will not be damaged, it is not under the rubric of the verse: “But when water is placed upon the seed.” By inference, if he placed the bowl so that the wall will be rinsed, that is under the rubric of the verse: “But when water is placed upon the seed,” as a wall has the status of a detached item, since it was built from stones that were detached.,Rabbi Elazar said: This mishna is disjointed; the tanna who taught this first clause did not teach that second clause. There is a tannaitic dispute whether the status of a wall that is built from detached stones is that of an attached item or a detached item. Rav Pappa said: The entire mishna is the opinion of one tanna: This first clause is in the case of the wall of a cave, which is attached from the outset; that latter clause is in the case of the wall of a building, which is built from stones that were detached from the ground.,And this is what the mishna is saying: In the case of one who places a bowl on the wall so that the bowl will be rinsed with the rainwater, that is under the rubric of the verse “but when water is placed upon the seed,” and the water renders produce susceptible to impurity. By inference, if he placed the bowl so that the wall will be rinsed by means of the bowl, that is not under the rubric of the verse “but when water is placed upon the seed.”,In what case is this statement said? It is said in the case of the wall of a cave, which was always attached to the ground. But in the case of the wall of a building, whose stones were detached and subsequently reattached, if he places the bowl so that the wall will not be damaged, that is when it is not under the rubric of the verse “but when water is placed upon the seed.” But if he places the bowl so that the wall will be rinsed, that is under the rubric of the verse “but when water is placed upon the seed.”,Rava raises a dilemma: |
|
