1. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 22.20 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 179 | 22.20. "And a stranger shalt thou not wrong, neither shalt thou oppress him; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, 20.27 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 124| 20.27. "נֵר יְהוָה נִשְׁמַת אָדָם חֹפֵשׂ כָּל־חַדְרֵי־בָטֶן׃", | 20.27. "The spirit of man is the lamp of the LORD, searching all the inward parts.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 3.13 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 153| 3.13. "כִּי לִי כָּל־בְּכוֹר בְּיוֹם הַכֹּתִי כָל־בְּכוֹר בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם הִקְדַּשְׁתִּי לִי כָל־בְּכוֹר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל מֵאָדָם עַד־בְּהֵמָה לִי יִהְיוּ אֲנִי יְהוָה׃", | 3.13. "for all the first-born are Mine: on the day that I smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt I hallowed unto Me all the first-born in Israel, both man and beast, Mine they shall be: I am the LORD.’ .", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 19.33, 25.41 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 159, 179| 19.33. "וְכִי־יָגוּר אִתְּךָ גֵּר בְּאַרְצְכֶם לֹא תוֹנוּ אֹתוֹ׃", 25.41. "וְיָצָא מֵעִמָּךְ הוּא וּבָנָיו עִמּוֹ וְשָׁב אֶל־מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְאֶל־אֲחֻזַּת אֲבֹתָיו יָשׁוּב׃", | 19.33. "And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong.", 25.41. "Then shall he go out from thee, he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 12.5, 17.5, 21.33 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 18, 105, 176, 218| 12.5. "וַיִּקַּח אַבְרָם אֶת־שָׂרַי אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֶת־לוֹט בֶּן־אָחִיו וְאֶת־כָּל־רְכוּשָׁם אֲשֶׁר רָכָשׁוּ וְאֶת־הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר־עָשׂוּ בְחָרָן וַיֵּצְאוּ לָלֶכֶת אַרְצָה כְּנַעַן וַיָּבֹאוּ אַרְצָה כְּנָעַן׃", 17.5. "וְלֹא־יִקָּרֵא עוֹד אֶת־שִׁמְךָ אַבְרָם וְהָיָה שִׁמְךָ אַבְרָהָם כִּי אַב־הֲמוֹן גּוֹיִם נְתַתִּיךָ׃", 21.33. "וַיִּטַּע אֶשֶׁל בִּבְאֵר שָׁבַע וַיִּקְרָא־שָׁם בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה אֵל עוֹלָם׃", | 12.5. "And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.", 17.5. "Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee.", 21.33. "And Abraham planted a tamarisk-tree in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God.", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 26.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 218| 26.3. "וּבָאתָ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְאָמַרְתָּ אֵלָיו הִגַּדְתִּי הַיּוֹם לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ כִּי־בָאתִי אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע יְהוָה לַאֲבֹתֵינוּ לָתֶת לָנוּ׃", | 26.3. "And thou shalt come unto the priest that shall be in those days, and say unto him: ‘I profess this day unto the LORD thy God, that I am come unto the land which the LORD swore unto our fathers to give us.’", |
|
7. Mishnah, Sheviit, 10.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 153| 10.9. "הַמַּחֲזִיר חוֹב בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה מִמֶּנּוּ. הַלֹּוֶה מִן הַגֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרוּ בָנָיו עִמּוֹ, לֹא יַחֲזִיר לְבָנָיו. וְאִם הֶחֱזִיר, רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה מִמֶּנּוּ. כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין, נִקְנִין בִּמְשִׁיכָה. וְכָל הַמְקַיֵּם אֶת דְּבָרוֹ, רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה מִמֶּנּוּ: \n", | 10.9. "One who repays his debts after the seventh year, the sages are pleased with him. One who borrows from a convert whose sons had converted with him, the debt need not be repaid to his sons, but if he returns it the sages are pleased with him. All movable property can be acquired [only] by the act of drawing, but whoever fulfills his word, the sages are well pleased with him.", |
|
8. Mishnah, Yevamot, 11.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 153| 11.2. "הַגִּיּוֹרֶת שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרוּ בָנֶיהָ עִמָּהּ, לֹא חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַבְּמִין, אֲפִלּוּ הוֹרָתוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא בִקְדֻשָּׁה וְלֵדָתוֹ בִקְדֻשָּׁה, וְהַשֵּׁנִי הוֹרָתוֹ וְלֵדָתוֹ בִקְדֻשָּׁה. וְכֵן שִׁפְחָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ בָנֶיהָ עִמָּהּ: \n", | 11.2. "The sons of a female convert who converted with her do not perform halitzah or yibbum, even if the one was not conceived in holiness but was born in holiness, and the other was both conceived and born in holiness. So also [is the law] where the sons of a female slave were freed together with her.", |
|
9. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 3.6, 4.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 29, 283| 3.6. "כֵּיצַד בּוֹדְקִים אֶת הָעֵדִים, הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן וּמְאַיְּמִין עֲלֵיהֶן וּמוֹצִיאִין אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם לַחוּץ, וּמְשַׁיְּרִין אֶת הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן, וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ אֱמֹר הֵיאַךְ אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּב לָזֶה. אִם אָמַר, הוּא אָמַר לִי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לוֹ, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אָמַר לִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר, בְּפָנֵינוּ הוֹדָה לוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַכְנִיסִין אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וּבוֹדְקִים אוֹתוֹ. אִם נִמְצְאוּ דִבְרֵיהֶם מְכֻוָּנִים, נוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין בַּדָּבָר. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים זַכַּאי, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר חַיָּב, זַכַּאי. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים חַיָּב, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר זַכַּאי, חַיָּב. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר זַכַּאי, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר חַיָּב, וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁנַיִם מְזַכִּין אוֹ שְׁנַיִם מְחַיְּבִין וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, יוֹסִיפוּ הַדַּיָּנִין: \n", 4.1. "אֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כד) מִשְׁפַּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם. מַה בֵּין דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת לְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת פּוֹתְחִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת פּוֹתְחִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין פּוֹתְחִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד לִזְכוּת וְעַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַחֲזִירִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַחֲזִירִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין מַחֲזִירִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְאֵין הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת וְהַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת מְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, אֲבָל הַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת אֵין יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וּלְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּלַּיְלָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּיּוֹם. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם לִזְכוּת וּבְיוֹם שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו לְחוֹבָה, לְפִיכָךְ אֵין דָּנִין לֹא בְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְלֹא בְעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב: \n", | 3.6. "How do they check the witnesses? They bring them in and warn them, and then they take them out and leave behind the most important of [the witnesses]. And they would say to him: “State [for us], how do you know that this one is in debt to this one?” If he said, “He said to me, ‘I am in debt to him’, or ‘So-and-so said to me that he was in debt to him’”, he has said nothing. He must be able to say, “In our presence he acknowledged to the other one that he owed him 200 zuz.” Afterward they bring in the second witness and check him. If their words were found to agree, the judges discuss the matter. If two say, “He is not guilty” and one says, “He is guilty”, he is not guilty. If two say, “He is guilty” and one says, “He is not guilty”, he is guilty. If one says, “He is not guilty”, and one says, “He is guilty”, and even if two declared him not guilty or declared him guilty while one said, “I do not know”, they must add more judges.", 4.1. "Both non-capital and capital cases require examination and inquiry [of the witnesses], as it says, “You shall have one manner of law” (Lev. 24:22). How do non-capital cases differ from capital cases? Non-capital cases [are decided] by three and capital cases by twenty three. Non-capital cases may begin either with reasons for acquittal or for conviction; capital cases begin with reasons for acquittal and do not begin with reasons for conviction. In non-capital cases they may reach a verdict of either acquittal or conviction by the decision of a majority of one; in capital cases they may reach an acquittal by the majority of one but a verdict of conviction only by the decision of a majority of two. In non-capital cases they may reverse a verdict either [from conviction] to acquittal or [from acquittal] to conviction; in capital cases they may reverse a verdict [from conviction] to acquittal but not [from acquittal] to conviction. In non-capital cases all may argue either in favor of conviction or of acquittal; in capital cases all may argue in favor of acquittal but not all may argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal, or he that had argued in favor of acquittal may afterward argue in favor of conviction; in capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal but he that had argued in favor of acquittal cannot afterward argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict may be reached during the night; in capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict also must be reached during the daytime. In non-capital cases the verdict, whether of acquittal or of conviction, may be reached the same day; in capital cases a verdict of acquittal may be reached on the same day, but a verdict of conviction not until the following day. Therefore trials may not be held on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of a Festival.", |
|
| 10. Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah, 1-2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 29 |
| 11. Mishnah, Parah, 1-4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 29 |
12. Mishnah, Ketuvot, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 153| 4.3. "הַגִּיּוֹרֶת שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרָה בִתָּהּ עִמָּהּ, וְזִנְּתָה, הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶנֶק. אֵין לָהּ לֹא פֶתַח בֵּית הָאָב, וְלֹא מֵאָה סָלַע. הָיְתָה הוֹרָתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בִקְדֻשָּׁה וְלֵדָתָהּ בִּקְדֻשָּׁה, הֲרֵי זוֹ בִסְקִילָה. אֵין לָהּ לֹא פֶתַח בֵּית הָאָב וְלֹא מֵאָה סָלַע. הָיְתָה הוֹרָתָהּ וְלֵדָתָהּ בִּקְדֻשָּׁה, הֲרֵי הִיא כְבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר. יֶשׁ לָהּ אָב וְאֵין לָהּ פֶּתַח בֵּית הָאָב, יֶשׁ לָהּ פֶּתַח בֵּית הָאָב וְאֵין לָהּ אָב, הֲרֵי זוֹ בִסְקִילָה. לֹא נֶאֱמַר פֶּתַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ, אֶלָּא לְמִצְוָה: \n", | 4.3. "The daughter of a convert who converted together with her mother and then committed an act of fornication is subject to the penalty of strangulation. She is not [stoned] at the door of her father’s house nor [does her husband pay the] hundred sela’. If she was conceived in unholiness but her birth was in holiness she is subject to the penalty of stoning. She is not [stoned] at the door of her father’s house nor [does her husband pay the] hundred sela’. If she was both conceived and born in holiness she is regarded as a daughter of Israel in all respects. A girl who has a father but no door of her father’s house; or a door of her father’s house but no father, is subject to the penalty of stoning [the verse did not state] “the opening of her father’s house” (Deut. 22:21) except as a precept.", |
|
13. Mishnah, Bikkurim, 1.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 218| 1.4. "אֵלּוּ מְבִיאִין וְלֹא קוֹרִין, הַגֵּר מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא, שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע ה' לַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ לָתֵת לָנוּ (דברים כ״ו:ג׳). וְאִם הָיְתָה אִמּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מִתְפַּלֵּל בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ, אוֹמֵר, אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּכְשֶׁהוּא בְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת, אוֹמֵר, אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם. וְאִם הָיְתָה אִמּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, אוֹמֵר, אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵינוּ: \n", | 1.4. "These bring [bikkurim] but do not read the declaration:The convert, since he cannot say: “Which the Lord has sworn to our fathers, to give to us” (Deuteronomy 26:3). If his mother was an Israelite, then he brings bikkurim and recites. When he prays privately, he says: “God of the fathers of Israel,” but when he is in the synagogue, he should say: “The God of your fathers.” But if his mother was an Israelite, he says: “The God of our fathers’.", |
|
14. Mishnah, Bekhorot, 8.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 153| 8.1. "יֵשׁ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן, בְּכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן וְאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה, בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְלַכֹּהֵן, יֵשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לֹא לַנַּחֲלָה וְלֹא לַכֹּהֵן. אֵיזֶהוּ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן, הַבָּא אַחַר הַנְּפָלִים שֶׁיָּצָא רֹאשׁוֹ חַי, וּבֶן תִּשְׁעָה שֶׁיָּצָא רֹאשׁוֹ מֵת, וְהַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בוֹ מִצּוּרַת הָאָדָם. הַמַּפֶּלֶת סַנְדָּל, אוֹ שִׁלְיָא, וּשְׁפִיר מְרֻקָּם, וְהַיּוֹצֵא מְחֻתָּךְ, הַבָּא אַחֲרֵיהֶן, בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן. מִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ לוֹ בָנִים וְנָשָׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁכְּבָר יָלְדָה, עוֹדָהּ שִׁפְחָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה, עוֹדָהּ נָכְרִית וְנִתְגַּיְּרָה, מִשֶּׁבָּאת לְיִשְׁרָאֵל יָלְדָה, בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְלַכֹּהֵן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יג), פֶּטֶר כָּל רֶחֶם בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַד שֶׁיִּפְטְרוּ רֶחֶם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ בָנִים וְנָשָׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁלֹא יָלְדָה, נִתְגַּיְּרָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת, נִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת, יָלְדָה הִיא וְכֹהֶנֶת, הִיא וּלְוִיָּה, הִיא וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁכְּבָר יָלְדָה, וְכֵן מִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהֲתָה אַחַר בַּעְלָהּ שְׁלשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְנִשֵּׂאת וְיָלְדָה, וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לָרִאשׁוֹן, אוֹ בֶן שִׁבְעָה לָאַחֲרוֹן, בְּכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן וְאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה. אֵיזֶהוּ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְלַכֹּהֵן, הַמַּפֶּלֶת שְׁפִיר מָלֵא דָם, מָלֵא מַיִם, מָלֵא גְנִינִים, הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, הַמַּפֶּלֶת יוֹם אַרְבָּעִים, הַבָּא אַחֲרֵיהֶן, בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְלַכֹּהֵן: \n", | 8.1. "There is one who is [counted as] a firstborn [with respect to] inheritance but not with respect to redemption from a priest; a firstborn with respect to redemption from a priest but not a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance; a firstborn [with respect to both] inheritance and redemption from a priest; and a firstborn [in respect] to neither inheritance nor redemption from a priest. Which is a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance but not to redemption from a priest? One which follows one which was not viable whose head came forth alive, or one born in the ninth month whose head came out dead, or when a woman aborts something that looks like an animal, beast or bird, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: [it is not considered an opening of the womb] until [the abortion] has the form of a human being. If [a woman] aborts a sandal or a placenta or a fetus having an articulated shape, or if an embryo came out by pieces, [the infant] which follows after them is a first-born [with respect] to inheritance but not a first-born for redemption from a priest. If one who never had children married a woman who had already given birth, even if she had given birth when she was a slave but is now free, or [had given birth] when she was a non-Jew but has since converted, if after coming to the Israelite she gave birth, [the infant] is considered a first-born [with respect] to inheritance but not a first-born for redemption from a priest. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: [the infant] is a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance and for redemption from a priest, as it says: “Whatever opens the womb in Israel” (Exodus 13:2), meaning only if it opens the womb in Israel. If one had children already and married a woman who had never given birth previously Or if she converted when pregt, or if she was freed when pregt, and she gave birth; If she and a priestess gave birth, she and a Levite’s daughter, she and a woman who had already given birth; And similarly [if a woman] who did not wait three months after her husband's death, married and gave birth and it is not known if the infant was born in the ninth month since the death of the first [husband] or in the seventh month since she married the second, it is a firstborn for redemption from a priest but not a first-born [with respect] to inheritance. Which is a firstborn both [in respect] of inheritance and for redemption from a priest? If [a woman] miscarries a sac full of blood or full of water or full of pieces of flesh; or if [a woman] miscarries something with the shape of fish or locusts or reptiles, or creeping things, or if she discharges on the fortieth day [of conception], [the infant] which follows after [these discharges] is a firstborn both [in respect] of inheritance and for redemption from a priest.", |
|
15. Mishnah, Bava Batra, 3.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 153| 3.3. כָּל חֲזָקָה שֶׁאֵין עִמָּהּ טַעֲנָה, אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה. כֵּיצַד, אָמַר לוֹ, מָה אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה בְתוֹךְ שֶׁלִּי, וְהוּא אָמַר לוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא אָמַר לִי אָדָם דָּבָר מֵעוֹלָם, אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה. שֶׁמָּכַרְתָּ לִי, שֶׁנָּתַתָּ לִי בְמַתָּנָה, אָבִיךָ מְכָרָהּ לִי, אָבִיךָ נְתָנָהּ לִי בְמַתָּנָה, הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. וְהַבָּא מִשּׁוּם יְרֻשָּׁה, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ טַעֲנָה. הָאֻמָּנִין וְהַשֻּׁתָּפִים וְהָאֲרִיסִין וְהָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפִּין, אֵין לָהֶם חֲזָקָה. אֵין לָאִישׁ חֲזָקָה בְּנִכְסֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְלֹא לָאִשָּׁה חֲזָקָה בְּנִכְסֵי בַעְלָהּ, וְלֹא לָאָב בְּנִכְסֵי הַבֵּן, וְלֹא לַבֵּן בְּנִכְסֵי הָאָב. בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בְּמַחֲזִיק, אֲבָל בְּנוֹתֵן מַתָּנָה, וְהָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ, וְהַמַּחֲזִיק בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר, נָעַל וְגָדַר וּפָרַץ כָּל שֶׁהוּא, הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. | 3.3. "An act of possession without which there is no claim [on the ownership of the property] is not valid possession [to establish ownership]. How is this so? If he said to him: “What are you doing on my property? And the other answered: “No one ever said anything to me”, this is not valid possession [to establish ownership]. [If he said to him]: “You sold it to me”, “You gave it to me as a gift”, “Your father sold it to me”, “Your father gave it to me as a gift”, this is valid possession [to establish ownership]. He who holds possession [for three years] due to inheritance [from the previous owner], does not need to make a claim. Craftsmen, partners, sharecroppers and guardians cannot establish ownership through possession. A man cannot establish ownership through possession of his wife’s property, nor may a wife establish ownership through possession of her husband’s property, nor a father of his son’s property, nor a son of his father’s property. When is this so [that one needs three years to establish ownership]? When the person attempts to acquire the land through possession. But, when the property was given as a gift, or when brothers shared a piece of their inheritance, or when one claimed title by possession to the property of a convert [who died without inheritors], then if the claimant has shut in, walled up or broken down anything, this counts as securing ownership through possession.", |
|
16. Tosefta, Bikkurim, 1.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 218| 1.2. "הקונה אילן אחד בתוך של חבירו הרי זה מביא ולא קורא מפני שלא קנה קרקע דברי ר\"מ וחכ\"א לא מביא ולא קורא.", | |
|
17. Tosefta, Demai, 2.4-2.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 263| 2.4. "עם הארץ שקבל עליו כל דברי חבירות ונחשד על דבר אחד נחשד על כולן דר\"מ וחכמים אומרים אין חשוד אלא על אותו דבר בלבד.", 2.5. "גר שקבל עליו כל דברי התורה ונחשד על דבר אחד אפילו על התורה כולה הרי הוא כישראל מומר.", 2.6. "עם הארץ שקבל עליו כל דברי חבירות חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו גר שקבל עליו כל דברי תורה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר אפילו דבר קטן מדקדוקי סופרים.", 2.7. "כהן שקבל עליו כל עבודת כהונה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו בן לוי שקבל עליו כל עבודת לויה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו שנאמר (ויקרא ז׳:ל״ג) המקריב את דם השלמים וגו' אין לי אלא זריקת דם והקטר חלבים מנין ליציקות ובלילות תנופות והגשות הקמיצות והקטרות המליקות והקבלות והזאות והשקאת סוטה ועריפת עגלה וטהרת מצורע ונשיאות כפים מבפנים ומבחוץ ת\"ל (שם) בני אהרן כל עבודה שהיא בבני אהרן [אמר ר\"ש] יכול אין דוחין אותן אלא ממתנות מקדש בלבד מנין אף ממתנות גבולין ת\"ל (דברים י״ח:ד׳) ראשית דגנך [תירושך ויצהרך] וגו' מפני מה (שם) כי בו בחר ה' כל המקבל עליו שירות יש לו במתנות כל שאין מקבל עליו שירות אין לו במתנות בזמן שהכהנים עושין רצונו של מקום מה נאמר בהם (ויקרא ו׳:י׳) חלקם נתתי אותה מאשי משלהן הן נוטלין ואין נוטלין משלי ובזמן שאין עושין רצונו של מקום מה נאמר בהם (מלאכי א׳:י׳) מי גם בכם ויסגור דלתים וגו'.", | |
|
18. Tosefta, Horayot, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 105, 176| 2.7. "מנין שכל השונה פרק אחד לחברו מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו הוא יצרו ורקמו והביאו לעולם שנא' (ירמיהו טז) אם תוציא יקר מזולל כפי תהיה כאותו הפה שזרק נשמה באדם הראשון כך כל המכניס בריה אחת תחת כנפי השכינה מעלין עליו כאילו יצרו ורקמו והביאו לעולם. יקרה התורה שנאמר (משלי ג׳:ט״ו) יקרה היא מפנינים ואומר (משלי כ׳:ט״ו) יש זהב ורב פנינים וכלי יקר שפתי דעת.", | |
|
19. Tosefta, Kiddushin, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 243, 263, 275| 4.1. "הנותן רשות לשלשה לקדש לו אשה ר' נתן אומר בית שמאי אומרים יכולין שנים להעשות עדים ואחד שליח ב\"ה אומרים שלשתן שלוחין ואין יכולין להעיד.", 4.1. "ב' אחים שקדשו שתי אחיות זה אינו יודע לאיזו קדש וזה אינו יודע לאיזו קדש שניהם אסורין מן הספק אם היו עסוקין בגדולה לגדול ובקטנה לקטן אומר אני גדולה לא נתקדשה אלא לגדול וקטנה לא נתקדשה אלא לקטן.", | 4.1. "A man who gave permission to 3 people to betroth for him a wife—Rabbi Natan says: Beit Shammai say: Two of them can be witnesses and one of them an agent; but Beit Hillel say: All of them are agents and they are not able to testify.", |
|
| 20. Tosefta, Parah, 8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 46 |
21. Tosefta, Qiddushin, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 243, 263, 275| 4.1. "הנותן רשות לשלשה לקדש לו אשה ר' נתן אומר בית שמאי אומרים יכולין שנים להעשות עדים ואחד שליח ב\"ה אומרים שלשתן שלוחין ואין יכולין להעיד.", 4.1. "ב' אחים שקדשו שתי אחיות זה אינו יודע לאיזו קדש וזה אינו יודע לאיזו קדש שניהם אסורין מן הספק אם היו עסוקין בגדולה לגדול ובקטנה לקטן אומר אני גדולה לא נתקדשה אלא לגדול וקטנה לא נתקדשה אלא לקטן.", | 4.1. "A man who gave permission to 3 people to betroth for him a wife—Rabbi Natan says: Beit Shammai say: Two of them can be witnesses and one of them an agent; but Beit Hillel say: All of them are agents and they are not able to testify.", |
|
22. Tosefta, Yevamot, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 159, 166, 188, 263| 8.1. "בן תשע שנים ויום אחד עמוני ומואבי מצרי ואדומי ועובד כוכבים נתין וממזר שבא על בת כהן ועל בת לוי ועל בת ישראל פסלה מן הכהונה ר' יוסי אומר כל שזרעו כשר היא כשרה וכל שזרעו פסול היא פסולה רשב\"ג אומר כל שאתה מותר לישא בתו אתה מותר לישא אלמנתו וכל שאי אתה מותר לישא בתו אי אתה מותר לישא אלמנתו לויה שנשבית בתה כשרה לכהונה לוים המזוהמין באמן לא חששו להם חכמים לויה שנשבית ושנבעלה בעילת זנות נותנין לה את המעשר בת לוי מן הנתינה ומן הממזרת אין נותנין לה את המעשר כהן הדיוט שנשא [את] איילונית הרי זה מאכילה בתרומה כהן גדול לא ישא אנוסתו ומפותתו אבל נושא הוא את הממאנת כה\"ג שמת אחיו חולץ אם יש שם אחין אין חולץ [מפני] מה אמרו כהן גדול שעשה מאמר ביבמתו לא יכנוס שאין מאמר קונה קנין גמור.", 8.3. "[איש] אין רשאי לישא עקרה וזקנה איילונית קטנה ושאינה ראויה לילד האשה רשאה להנשא אפי' לסריס ר' יהודה אומר המסרס את הזכרים חייב ואת הנקבות פטור ר' נתן אומר ב\"ש אומרים שני בנים כבניו של משה שנאמר (דברי הימים א כ״ג:ט״ו) ובני משה גרשום ואליעזר בית הלל אומרים זכר ונקבה שנאמר (בראשית ה) זכר ונקבה בראם ר' נתן אומר ב\"ש אומרים זכר ונקבה וב\"ה אומרים או זכר או נקבה.", 11.2. "סריס חמה ואנדרוגינוס ואח מאם וגר ועבד משוחרר לא חולצין ולא מיבמין כיצד מתו והניחו נשים ולהם אחים באו אחים ועשו מאמר נתנו גט וחלצו לא עשו כלום בעלו פסלו מן הכהונה וחייבין בקרבן מתו אחים והניחו נשים ולהם אחים באו הם ועשו מאמר נתנו גט או חלצו לא עשו כלום ואם בעלו פסלו מן הכהונה וחייבין בקרבן.", | 8.3. "...Rabbi Natan said: Beit Shammai say two boys [to fulfill pru urvu], like Moshe’s sons, as it is written: “And Moshe’s sons were Gershom and Elazar\" (Chronicles 1 23:15). Beit Hillel say: a son and a daughter, as it is written: “Male and female God created them” (Genesis 5:2). Rabbi Natan said: Beit Shammai say: a son and a daughter, and Beit Hillel say: a son or a daughter...." |
|
| 23. Palestinian Talmud, Demai, 2.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 263 |
24. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 39.14 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 283| 39.14. וְאֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ בְחָרָן (בראשית יב, ה), אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר זִמְרָא אִם מִתְכַּנְסִין כָּל בָּאֵי הָעוֹלָם לִבְרֹא אֲפִלּוּ יַתּוּשׁ אֶחָד אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לִזְרֹק בּוֹ נְשָׁמָה, וְאַתְּ אָמַר וְאֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ, אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ הַגֵּרִים שֶׁגִּיְּרוּ, וְאִם כֵּן שֶׁגִּיְּרוּ לָמָּה אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ, אֶלָּא לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁהוּא מְקָרֵב אֶת הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים וּמְגַיְּרוֹ כְּאִלּוּ בְּרָאוֹ. וְיֹאמַר אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אַבְרָהָם הָיָה מְגַיֵּר אֶת הָאֲנָשִׁים וְשָׂרָה מְגַיֶּרֶת אֶת הַנָּשִׁים. | 39.14. "“And the souls that they had made in Haran.” Said Rabbi Elazar ben Zimra: Even if every creature on earth conspired to create (out of nothing) even one mosquito, they could not give it a soul--and you say “the souls that they had made.” Therefore (they must be) they must be those who lived with them and converted. And it it meant “converted” why did it say “made?” In order to teach you that each one who brings an idol worshipper and converts him, it is as though he created him. And why did it say “that they made” rather than “that he made?” Said Rav Huna: Abraham would convert the men, and Sarah would convert the women. ", |
|
| 25. Palestinian Talmud, Bikkurim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 179, 218 |
26. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 105| 99b. זמר בכל יום זמר בכל יום אמר רב יצחק בר אבודימי מאי קרא שנאמר (משלי טז, כו) נפש עמל עמלה לו כי אכף עליו פיהו הוא עמל במקום זה ותורתו עומלת לו במקום אחר,אמר רבי אלעזר כל אדם לעמל נברא שנאמר (איוב ה, ז) כי אדם לעמל יולד איני יודע אם לעמל פה נברא אם לעמל מלאכה נברא כשהוא אומר כי אכף עליו פיהו הוי אומר לעמל פה נברא ועדיין איני יודע אם לעמל תורה אם לעמל שיחה כשהוא אומר (יהושע א, ח) לא ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך הוי אומר לעמל תורה נברא והיינו דאמר רבא כולהו גופי דרופתקי נינהו טובי לדזכי דהוי דרופתקי דאורייתא,(משלי ו, לב) ונואף אשה חסר לב אמר ריש לקיש זה הלומד תורה לפרקים שנאמר (משלי כב, יח) כי נעים כי תשמרם בבטנך יכונו יחדיו על שפתיך,ת"ר (במדבר טו, ל) והנפש אשר תעשה ביד רמה זה מנשה בן חזקיה שהיה יושב ודורש בהגדות של דופי,אמר וכי לא היה לו למשה לכתוב אלא (בראשית לו, כב) ואחות לוטן תמנע ותמנע היתה פלגש לאליפז (בראשית ל, יד) וילך ראובן בימי קציר חטים וימצא דודאים בשדה יצאה ב"ק ואמרה לו (תהלים נ, כ-כא) תשב באחיך תדבר בבן אמך תתן דופי אלה עשית והחרשתי דמית היות אהיה כמוך אוכיחך ואערכה לעיניך,ועליו מפורש בקבלה (ישעיהו ה, יח) הוי מושכי העון בחבלי השוא וכעבות העגלה חטאה מאי כעבות העגלה א"ר אסי יצר הרע בתחלה דומה לחוט של כוביא ולבסוף דומה לעבות העגלה,דאתן עלה מיהת אחות לוטן תמנע מאי היא תמנע בת מלכים הואי דכתיב (בראשית לו, כט) אלוף לוטן אלוף תמנע וכל אלוף מלכותא בלא תאגא היא,בעיא לאיגיורי באתה אצל אברהם יצחק ויעקב ולא קבלוה הלכה והיתה פילגש לאליפז בן עשו אמרה מוטב תהא שפחה לאומה זו ולא תהא גבירה לאומה אחרת נפק מינה עמלק דצערינהו לישראל מאי טעמא דלא איבעי להו לרחקה,וילך ראובן בימי קציר חטים אמר רבא בר' יצחק אמר רב מכאן לצדיקים שאין פושטין ידיהן בגזל וימצא דודאים בשדה מאי דודאים אמר רב יברוחי לוי אמר סיגלי ר' יונתן אמר (סיבסוך) [סביסקי]:,א"ר אלכסנדרי כל העוסק בתורה לשמה משים שלום בפמליא של מעלה ובפמליא של מטה שנאמר (ישעיהו כז, ה) או יחזק במעוזי יעשה שלום לי שלום יעשה לי:,רב אמר כאילו בנה פלטרין של מעלה ושל מטה שנאמר (ישעיהו נא, טז) ואשים דברי בפיך ובצל ידי כסיתיך לנטוע שמים וליסד ארץ (אמר ריש לקיש) [רבי יוחנן אמר] אף מגין על כל העולם כולו שנאמר ובצל ידי כסיתיך ולוי אמר אף מקרב את הגאולה שנאמר (ישעיהו נא, טז) ולאמר לציון עמי אתה,אמר ריש לקיש כל המלמד את בן חבירו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו עשאו שנאמר (בראשית יב, ה) ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן ר' (אליעזר) אומר כאילו עשאן לדברי תורה שנאמר (דברים כט, ח) ושמרתם את דברי הברית הזאת ועשיתם אותם רבא אמר כאילו עשאו לעצמו שנאמר ועשיתם אותם אל תקרי אותם אלא אתם,אמר רבי אבהו כל המעשה את חבירו לדבר מצוה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו עשאה שנאמר (שמות יז, ה) ומטך אשר הכית בו את היאר וכי משה הכהו והלא אהרן הכהו אלא לומר לך כל המעשה את חבירו לדבר מצוה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו עשאה:,אפיקורוס: רב ור' חנינא אמרי תרוייהו זה המבזה ת"ח רבי יוחנן ור' יהושע בן לוי אמרי זה המבזה חבירו בפני ת"ח,בשלמא למ"ד המבזה חבירו בפני ת"ח אפיקורוס הוי מבזה תלמיד חכם עצמו מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה הוי אלא למ"ד מבזה תלמיד חכם עצמו אפיקורוס הוי מגלה פנים בתורה כגון מאי כגון מנשה בן חזקיה,ואיכא דמתני לה אסיפא מגלה פנים בתורה רב ור' חנינא אמרי זה המבזה ת"ח רבי יוחנן וריב"ל אמרי זה המבזה את חבירו בפני תלמיד חכם,בשלמא למ"ד המבזה תלמיד חכם עצמו מגלה פנים בתורה הוי מבזה חבירו בפני ת"ח אפיקורוס הוי אלא למ"ד מבזה חבירו בפני תלמיד חכם מגלה פנים בתורה הוי אפיקורוס כגון מאן אמר רב יוסף כגון הני דאמרי מאי אהנו לן רבנן לדידהו קרו לדידהו תנו,אמר ליה אביי האי מגלה פנים בתורה נמי הוא דכתיב (ירמיהו לג, כה) אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מהכא נמי שמע מינה שנאמר (בראשית יח, כו) ונשאתי לכל המקום בעבורם,אלא כגון דיתיב קמיה רביה ונפלה ליה שמעתא בדוכתא אחריתי ואמר הכי אמרינן התם ולא אמר הכי אמר מר רבא אמר כגון הני דבי בנימין אסיא דאמרי מאי אהני לן רבנן מעולם | 99b. b Sing every day, sing every day, /b i.e., review your studies like a song that one sings over and over. b Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi says: /b From b what verse /b is this derived? It is b as it is stated: “The hunger of the laborer labors for him; for his mouth presses upon him” /b (Proverbs 16:26), i.e., he exhausts his mouth through constant review and study. b He labors /b in Torah b in this place, /b this world, b and his Torah labors for him in another place, /b the World-to-Come., b Rabbi Elazar says: Every man was created for labor, as it is stated: “Man is born for toil” /b (Job 5:7). Based on this verse, b I do not know whether he was created for toil of the mouth, /b speech, or b whether he was created for the toil of labor. When /b the verse b states: “For his mouth presses upon him” /b (Proverbs 16:26), b you must say /b that b he was created for toil of the mouth. And still I do not know /b with regard to the toil of the mouth b whether it is for the toil of Torah or for the toil of conversation. When /b the verse b states: “This Torah scroll shall not depart from your mouth” /b (Joshua 1:8), b you must say /b that b he was created for the toil of Torah. And that is /b the meaning of b what Rava said: All bodies are like receptacles /b to store items until use. b Happy is one who is privileged, who is a receptacle for Torah. /b ,The verse states: b “He who commits adultery with a woman lacks understanding” /b (Proverbs 6:32). b Reish Lakish says: This is /b a reference to b one who studies Torah intermittently, /b who is like an adulterer, who sins with the other woman intermittently, b as it is stated /b about words of Torah: b “For it is a pleasant thing if you keep them within your belly; let them be established on your lips” /b (Proverbs 22:18) and keep the Torah always available.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i that with regard to the verse: b “But the person who acts high-handedly, /b whether he is born in the land, or a stranger, that person blasphemes the Lord” (Numbers 15:30), b this /b is a reference to b Manasseh ben Hezekiah, /b king of Israel, b who would sit and teach flawed /b interpretations of Torah b narratives. /b ,Manasseh b said: But did Moses need to write only /b insignificant matters that teach nothing, for example: b “And Lotan’s sister was Timna” /b (Genesis 36:22), or: b “And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz, /b son of Esau” (Genesis 36:12), or: b “And Reuben went in the days of the wheat harvest and found i duda’im /i in the field” /b (Genesis 30:14)? b A Divine Voice emerged and said to him: “You sit and speak against your brother; you slander your own mother’s son. These things you have done, and should I have kept silence, you would imagine that I was like you, but I will reprove you, and set the matter before your eyes” /b (Psalms 50:20–21). The verses in the Torah are not empty matters, with regard to which you can decide their import., b And about /b Manasseh ben Hezekiah b it is stated explicitly in the /b texts of b tradition, /b the Prophets: b “Woe unto them who draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as with a cart rope” /b (Isaiah 5:18). b What /b is the meaning of the phrase b “as with a cart rope”? Rabbi Asi says: /b This is a reference to b the evil inclination. Initially, it seems like /b a flimsy b spinning [ i kuveya /i ] thread and ultimately it seems like /b a sturdy b cart rope. /b ,Manasseh began by mocking a few verses and ultimately violated the entire Torah. The Gemara asks: With regard to that verse b that we came to /b discuss, b in any event, what is /b the significance of the phrase in the verse b “And Lotan’s sister was Timna”? /b The Gemara explains: b Timna was the daughter of kings, as it is written: “The chief of Lotan” /b (Genesis 36:29), and: b “The chief of Timna” /b (Genesis 36:40), b and each chief is /b a member of b a monarchy, /b albeit b without a crown. /b That is why they are called chief and not king.,Timna b sought to convert. She came before Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and they did not accept her. She went and became a concubine of Eliphaz, son of Esau, and said, /b referring to herself: b It is preferable that she will be a maidservant for this nation, and she will not be a noblewoman for another nation. /b Ultimately, b Amalek, /b son of Eliphaz, b emerged from her, /b and that tribe b afflicted the Jewish people. What is the reason /b that the Jewish people were punished by suffering at the hand of Amalek? It is due to the fact b that they should not have rejected her /b when she sought to convert. Therefore, the verse is significant., b “And Reuben went in the days of the wheat harvest” /b (Genesis 30:14). b Rava, son of Rabbi Yitzḥak, says /b that b Rav says: From here /b it can be seen b that the righteous do not extend their hands /b to engage b in robbery /b even of small items, as rather than taking wheat, Reuben took only the ownerless i duda’im /i . The verse continues: b “And he found i duda’im /i in the field.” /b The Gemara asks: b What are i duda’im /i ? Rav says: /b They are a plant called b i yavruḥei /i . Levi says: /b They are b violets. Rabbi Yonatan says: /b They are b i seviskei /i . /b ,§ Apropos the significance of Torah study, b Rabbi Alexandri says: Anyone who engages in /b the study of b Torah for its own sake introduces peace into the /b heavenly b entourage above and into the /b earthly b entourage below, as it is stated: “Or let him take hold of My stronghold [ i ma’uzi /i ], that he may make peace with Me; and he shall make peace with Me” /b (Isaiah 27:5). One who observes the Torah, which is called i oz /i , introduces peace, even before the presence of God, as it were., b Rav says: /b It is b as though he built a palace of /b heaven b above and of /b earth b below, as it is stated: “And I have placed My words in your mouth, and I have covered you in the shadow of My hand, to plant the heavens and lay the foundations of the earth, /b and say to Zion, you are My people” (Isaiah 51:16). One who has the word of God placed in his mouth through Torah study has established heaven and earth. b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b One who engages in Torah study b also protects the entire world, as it is stated: “And I have covered you in the shadow of My hand.” And Levi says: He also advances /b the coming of b the redemption, as it is stated: “And say to Zion, you are My people.” /b , b Reish Lakish said: /b With regard to b anyone who teaches Torah to the son of another, the verse ascribes him /b credit b as though he formed /b that student, b as it is stated: /b “And Abram took Sarai his wife… b and the souls that they formed in Haran” /b (Genesis 12:5). They are given credit for forming the students to whom they taught Torah. b Rabbi Elazar says: /b It is b as though he fashioned [ i asa’an /i ] the words of Torah /b themselves, b as it is stated: “Observe the words of this covet, i va’asitem otam /i ” /b (Deuteronomy 29:8), indicating that studying the Torah is like fashioning it. b Rava says: /b It is b as though he fashioned himself, as it is stated: “ i Va’asitem otam /i .” Do not read /b “ i va’asitem b otam /b /i b ” /b as: And you shall fashion them; b rather, /b read it as i va’asitem b atem /b /i b , /b meaning: You shall fashion yourself., b Rabbi Abbahu says: /b With regard to b anyone who causes another to /b engage in b a matter of a mitzva, the verse ascribes him /b credit b as though he performed it /b himself, b as it is stated: /b “And the Lord said to Moses… b and your rod, with which you struck the river, /b take in your hand and go” (Exodus 17:5). b And /b was it b Moses /b who b struck /b the river? b But isn’t /b it written explicitly (see Exodus 7:19–20) that b Aaron struck /b the river? b Rather, /b that verse serves b to say to you: Anyone who causes another to /b engage in b a matter of a mitzva, the verse ascribes him /b credit b as though he performed it /b himself.,§ The mishna teaches that those who have no share in the World-to-Come include b an i epikoros /i . Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina both say: This /b is b one who treats a Torah scholar with contempt. Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: This /b is b one who treats another with contempt before a Torah scholar. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Granted, according to the one who says /b that b one who treats another with contempt before a Torah scholar is /b the b i epikoros /i /b mentioned in the mishna, b one who treats a Torah scholar with contempt is /b characterized as one b who interprets the Torah inappropriately, /b due to his lowering of the status of a Torah scholar. b But according to the one who says /b that b one who treats a Torah scholar himself with contempt is /b the b i epikoros /i /b mentioned in the mishna, how would he characterize one b who interprets the Torah inappropriately? Like what /b individual does such a person conduct himself? He is b like Manasseh, son of Hezekiah, /b who would teach flawed interpretations of Torah narratives., b And there are those who teach /b this dispute b with regard to the latter clause /b of the i baraita /i : From here Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i said: b One who interprets the Torah /b inappropriately has no share in the World-to-Come. b Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina say: This /b is b one who treats a Torah scholar with contempt. Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: This /b is b one who treats another with contempt before a Torah scholar. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Granted, according to the one who says /b that b one who treats a Torah scholar himself with contempt is /b the one mentioned in the i baraita /i who b interprets the Torah /b inappropriately, b one who treats another with contempt before a Torah scholar is /b characterized as the b i epikoros /i /b mentioned in the mishna. b But according to the one who says /b that b one who treats another with contempt before a Torah scholar is /b the one mentioned in the i baraita /i who b interprets the Torah /b inappropriately, how would he characterize the b i epikoros /i /b mentioned in the mishna? b Like whom /b does he conduct himself? b Rav Yosef says: /b It is referring to one who conducts himself b like those who say: /b In b what /b manner b have the Sages benefited us /b with all their Torah study? b They read /b the Bible b for their /b own benefit and b they study /b the Mishna b for their /b own benefit., b Abaye said to him: That /b person who questions the benefit provided by Sages is b also /b in the category of one b who interprets the Torah /b inappropriately, since with that statement he repudiates the Torah itself, b as it is written: “If not for My covet, I would not have appointed day and night, the laws of heaven and earth” /b (Jeremiah 33:25). The eternal covet of the Torah is responsible for maintaining the existence of the entire world. b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: From here too conclude /b the same concept b from it, as it is stated: /b “If I find in Sodom fifty just men within the city, b then I will spare the entire place for their sakes” /b (Genesis 18:26). The righteous protect the place where they reside., b Rather, /b the i epikoros /i mentioned in the mishna is referring to one who conducts himself b like one who sits before his teacher and a i halakha /i /b that he learned b from another place happens to fall /b into his consciousness b and /b the student b says: This is what we say there, and he does not say /b deferentially: b This is what the Master said, /b even if he did not learn that matter from his teacher. b Rava said: /b The term i epikoros /i is referring to one who conducts himself b like those from the house of Binyamin the doctor, who say: /b In b what /b manner b have the Sages benefited us /b with all their Torah study? b Never /b |
|
27. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 164| 17b. למר למעוטי כספים למר למעוטי פרדות,ת"ר (דברים טו, יד) אשר ברכך ה' אלהיך יכול נתברך בית בגללו מעניקים לו לא נתברך בית בגללו אין מעניקים לו ת"ל (דברים טו, יד) הענק תעניק מכל מקום אם כן מה ת"ל אשר ברכך הכל לפי ברכה תן לו,ר' אלעזר בן עזריה אומר דברים ככתבן נתברך בית בגללו מעניקים לו לא נתברך בית בגללו אין מעניקים לו א"כ מה ת"ל הענק תעניק דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם :,תנו רבנן עבד עברי עובד את הבן ואינו עובד את הבת אמה עבריה אינה עובדת לא את הבן ולא את הבת הנרצע והנמכר לעובד כוכבים אינו עובד לא את הבן ולא את הבת אמר מר עבד עברי עובד את הבן ואינו עובד את הבת מנהני מילי,דתנו רבנן (דברים טו, יב) ועבדך שש שנים לך ולא ליורש אתה אומר לך ולא ליורש או אינו אלא לך ולא לבן כשהוא אומר (שמות כא, ב) שש שנים יעבד הרי לבן אמור הא מה אני מקיים ועבדך שש שנים לך ולא ליורש,מה ראית לרבות את הבן ולהוציא את האח מרבה אני את הבן שכן קם תחת אביו ליעדה ולשדה אחוזה,אדרבה מרבה אני את האח שכן קם תחת אחיו ליבום כלום יש יבום אלא במקום שאין בן הא יש בן אין יבום,אלא טעמא דאיכא הא פירכא הא לאו הכי אח עדיף ותיפוק לי דהכא תרתי והכא חדא,שדה אחוזה נמי מהאי פירכא הוא דקא נפקא ליה לתנא כלום יש יבום אלא במקום שאין בן :,אמה העבריה אינה עובדת לא את הבן ולא את הבת : מנהני מילי אמר רבי פדא דאמר קרא (דברים טו, יז) ואף לאמתך תעשה כן הקישה הכתוב לנרצע מה נרצע אינו עובד לא את הבן ולא את הבת אף אמה העבריה אינה עובדת לא את הבן ולא את הבת והאי לאמתך תעשה כן להכי הוא דאתא הא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ואף לאמתך תעשה כן להעניק,אתה אומר להעניק או אינו אלא לרציעה כשהוא אומר (שמות כא, ה) ואם אמר יאמר העבד ולא אמה העבריה הרי רציעה אמור,הא מה אני מקיים ואף לאמתך תעשה כן להעניק א"כ נכתוב קרא לאמתך כן מאי תעשה שמעת מינה תרתי,: הנרצע והנמכר לעובד כוכבים אינו עובד לא את הבן ולא את הבת : נרצע דכתיב (שמות כא, ו) ורצע אדוניו את אזנו במרצע ועבדו לעולם ולא את הבן ואת הבת נמכר לעובד כוכבים מנין אמר חזקיה אמר קרא (ויקרא כה, נ) וחשב עם קונהו ולא עם יורשי קונהו,אמר רבא דבר תורה עובד כוכבים יורש את אביו שנאמר וחשב עם קונהו ולא עם יורשי קונהו מכלל דאית ליה יורשים גר את העובד כוכבים אינו מדברי תורה אלא מדברי סופרים,דתנן גר ועובד כוכבים שירשו את אביהם עובד כוכבים גר יכול לומר לעובד כוכבים טול אתה עבודת כוכבים ואני מעות טול אתה יין נסך ואני פירות משבאו לרשות גר אסור,ואי סלקא דעתך דאורייתא כי לא באו לרשותו נמי כי שקיל חילופי עבודת כוכבים הוא דקא שקיל,אלא מדרבנן גזירה הוא דעבוד רבנן שמא יחזור לסורו תניא נמי הכי במה דברים אמורים כשירשו אבל כשנשתתפו אסור,עובד כוכבים את הגר וגר את הגר אינו לא מדברי תורה ולא מדברי סופרים דתנן לוה מעות מן הגר שנתגיירו בניו עמו לא יחזיר לבניו ואם החזיר אין רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו,והתניא רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו לא קשיא כאן שהורתו ולידתו שלא בקדושה | 17b. The Gemara answers: According b to /b one b Master, /b Rabbi Shimon, this term serves b to exclude money. /b According b to /b the other b Master, /b Rabbi Eliezer, it serves b to exclude mules. /b , b The Sages taught /b with regard to the verse: “And you shall grant severance to him out of your flock, and out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress, b of that with which the Lord your God has blessed you” /b (Deuteronomy 15:14). One b might /b have thought that if the b house is blessed due to him, /b then the master b grants him a severance gift, /b and if the b house is not blessed due to him, /b he b does not grant him a severance gift. /b Therefore, b the verse states: “You shall grant severance [ i ha’anek ta’anik /i ],” /b with the doubled form of the verb used for emphasis, to indicate that you must grant him a severance gift b in any case. If so, what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: “of that with which /b the Lord your God b has blessed you”? /b This teaches that b all /b that one b gives him /b as a severance gift should be b in accordance with the blessing /b one possesses., b Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: /b The meaning of the b statements /b of the Torah is b as they are written, /b i.e., as indicated by a straightforward reading of the verse. Therefore, if b the house was blessed due to him, /b the master b grants him a severance gift, /b and if b the house was not blessed due to him, /b he b does not grant him a severance gift /b at all. b If so, what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: “You shall grant severance [ i ha’anek ta’anik /i ],” /b with the doubled form of the verb? b The Torah spoke in the language of people, /b i.e., the emphasis of the doubled verb is merely stylistic, but does not serve to teach a novel i halakha /i .,§ b The Sages taught: A Hebrew slave serves the son /b of his deceased master b but does not serve the daughter. A Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter, /b but only the master. b A pierced /b slave b and /b a Hebrew slave b sold to a gentile serve neither the son nor the daughter. The Master said /b above: b A Hebrew slave serves the son but does not serve the daughter. /b The Gemara asks: b From where is this matter /b derived?, b As the Sages taught, /b with regard to a verse that deals with a Hebrew slave: b “And he shall serve you six years” /b (Deuteronomy 15:12). This indicates that he serves b you and not an heir, /b i.e., if the master dies his slave does not serve one who inherits his estate. Do b you say: You and not an heir, or /b perhaps b is it even: You and not a son? /b The Gemara answers: b When it says: “Six years he shall labor” /b (Exodus 21:2), which does not indicate any exclusion, the inclusion of b a son is /b thereby b stated. How /b then b do I uphold /b the other verse: b “And he shall serve you six years”? /b The expression “serve you” emphasizes that he serves only b you but /b he does b not /b serve b an heir /b other than a son.,The Gemara asks: b What did you see /b that led you b to include the son /b who inherits a Hebrew slave b and to exclude the brother /b from inheriting his brother’s slave? The Gemara answers: b I include the son, as he stands in place of his father to designate her. /b Just as a father can designate a Hebrew maidservant as a wife for himself, so too can he betroth her on behalf of his son. b And /b similarly, he replaces his father with regard b to an ancestral field /b (see Leviticus 27:16–21). If one redeems a field consecrated by his father, it is considered as though the father himself had redeemed it, which means that the field returns to the family in the Jubilee Year. If someone else redeems the field, including a brother, it does not return to the family.,The Gemara asks: b On the contrary, I /b should b include the brother, as he stands in his brother’s place with regard to levirate marriage. /b The Gemara responds: This is insufficient proof, as b is there levirate marriage other /b than b in a case when there is no son? /b If b there is a son, there is no levirate marriage. /b This indicates that a son replaces the deceased before a brother, even with regard to levirate marriage.,The Gemara asks: b Rather, the reason for /b this i halakha /i is specifically that b there is this refutation /b that a levirate marriage applies only when there is no son. Does that not indicate that b without this /b consideration I would say that b a brother is preferable /b to a son? b But let me derive /b that a son has a greater claim of standing in place of his father than a brother b from /b the fact that b here, /b with regard to the preference of a son, there are b two /b cases: Designation of a Hebrew maidservant and an ancestral field, b and here, /b in the case of a brother, there is only b one: /b Levirate marriage.,The Gemara answers: With regard to b an ancestral field too, the i tanna /i derives /b the i halakha /i b from this /b same b refutation. /b The i tanna /i learns from the case of levirate marriage that only the son, not the brother, takes the place of his father for the redemption of the field, employing the same reasoning mentioned above: b Is there levirate marriage other /b than b in a case when there is no son? /b Therefore, without this consideration there is only one supporting example for each claim.,§ The i baraita /i taught that b a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the brother nor the daughter. /b The Gemara asks: b From where is this matter /b derived? b Rabbi Padda said: As the verse states /b with regard to a pierced Hebrew slave: b “And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise” /b (Deuteronomy 15:17). b The verse juxtaposes /b a Hebrew maidservant b to a pierced /b slave: b Just as a pierced /b slave b serves neither the son nor the daughter, so too a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter. /b The Gemara asks: b And /b does b this /b verse: b “And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise,” come /b to teach b this /b matter? The i tanna /i b requires it for that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i , that the verse: b “And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise,” /b is a command b to grant /b her b a severance gift. /b ,Do b you say /b that this comparison obligates one b to grant a severance gift /b to a Hebrew maidservant, b or is it /b teaching b only /b that the i halakha /i of b piercing /b a Hebrew slave’s ear with an awl, which is stated immediately beforehand, applies to a Hebrew maidservant as well? The Gemara explains: b When it says /b with regard to piercing: b “But if the slave shall say” /b (Exodus 21:5), which indicates that a Hebrew slave can issue this declaration b but a Hebrew maidservant cannot, /b the i halakha /i of b piercing is /b thereby b stated /b and accounted for., b How do I realize /b the meaning of the verse: b “And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise”? /b This obligates a master b to grant a severance gift /b to a freed Hebrew maidservant. If so, one cannot derive from this verse that a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter. The Gemara answers: b If so, /b that it comes only to compare her to a pierced Hebrew slave, b let the verse write /b merely: b To your maidservant likewise. What /b is the meaning of the additional phrase: b “You shall do”? Draw two conclusions from /b this: A Hebrew maidservant does not serve the son, and she is granted severance gifts.,§ The i baraita /i further teaches that b a pierced /b Hebrew slave b and one sold to a gentile serve neither the son nor the daughter. /b The Gemara explains: The i halakha /i of b a pierced /b slave is b as it is written: “And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever” /b (Exodus 21:6), which indicates that he serves this master, b but not the son or the daughter. /b The Gemara asks: b From where /b is it derived that the same applies to a Hebrew slave b sold to a gentile? Ḥizkiyya says /b that b the verse states /b with regard to the emancipating of a slave who was sold to a gentile: b “And he shall reckon with his purchaser” /b (Leviticus 25:50), which teaches that this applies only to his purchaser b but not to the heirs of his purchaser. /b , b Rava says: By Torah law a gentile inherits /b the property of b his father, as it is stated /b with regard to one sold to a gentile: b “And he shall reckon with his purchaser,” but not with his purchaser’s heirs. /b One can derive from here b by inference /b that ordinarily a gentile b has heirs. /b By contrast, b by Torah law a convert does not /b inherit the property of his father or any other b gentile, /b as once he converts he is considered a new person with no ties to his previous family. b Rather, /b a convert inherits the property of his father b by rabbinic law. /b , b As we learned /b in a mishna ( i Demai /i 6:10): With regard to b a convert and a gentile who inherited /b property b from their gentile father, the convert can say to the gentile: You take /b the objects of b idol worship and I /b will take b money; you take wine /b used for b a libation /b to idolatry b and I /b will take b produce. /b Provided that these objects have not entered the domain of the convert, he may divide everything with his brother so that his brother takes as an inheritance the items that the convert is prohibited from using as a Jew. But b once they have come into the convert’s possession, /b it is b prohibited /b for him to exchange these objects with his brother, as he would thereby be benefiting from idolatry., b And if it would enter your mind /b that a convert inherits property from his father b by Torah law, it /b should be prohibited b when /b these objects b have not /b yet b come into his possession as well, /b as b when he takes /b money or produce and gives the idols to the gentile, b he takes /b an item that has been b exchanged for /b objects of b idol worship. /b Since he receives half the inheritance at the moment when his father dies, he has a share in these items as well., b Rather, /b a convert inherits property from his father b by rabbinic law, /b as this is b a decree that the Sages instituted lest he return to his /b previous b wayward path [ i suro /i ]. /b The Sages were concerned that due to his concern over losing his inheritance, a convert might return to his gentile lifestyle. In any event, as he does not inherit his father’s property by Torah law, the idols are not considered his property. b This /b i halakha /i b is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b In what /b case b is this statement said? /b He may do this b when they inherited. But when /b the convert and the gentile b formed a partnership, it is prohibited /b for him to divide the property so that the gentile takes the idols, as the convert benefits from them indirectly.,With regard to the same issue it is taught: b By Torah law and by rabbinic law a gentile does not /b inherit property b from /b his father who is b a convert, nor /b does b a convert /b inherit property b from /b his father who is b a convert. As we learned /b in a mishna ( i Shevi’it /i 10:9): If one b borrowed money from a convert whose sons converted with him, /b and therefore when they converted there were no longer any legal ties between the sons and the father, b he does not return /b it b to /b the creditor’s b sons, /b as they are not considered his heirs. b And if he /b does b return /b it, b the Sages are not pleased with him. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that b the Sages are pleased with him? /b The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult. Here, /b it is referring to a convert b whose conception and birth were not in sanctity /b of the Jewish people, i.e., his father was a gentile when he was born and afterward the son converted. In this case there are no legal ties between the father and the son, and therefore one who owes money to the father is not required to pay the son. |
|
28. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 218| 19a. מאימתי מחייבין עליהן משיראו פני הבית כמאן כי האי תנא דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר בכורים מקצתן בחוץ ומקצתן בפנים שבחוץ הרי הן כחולין לכל דבריהם שבפנים הרי הן כהקדש לכל דבריהם,אמר רב ששת בכורים הנחה מעכבת בהן קרייה אין מעכבת בהן,כמאן כי האי תנא דתניא רבי יוסי אומר שלשה דברים משום שלשה זקנים רבי ישמעאל אומר יכול יעלה אדם מעשר שני בזמן הזה בירושלים ויאכלנו ודין הוא בכור טעון הבאת מקום ומעשר שני טעון הבאת מקום מה בכור אינו אלא בפני הבית אף מעשר אינו אלא בפני הבית,מה לבכור שכן טעון מתן דמים ואימורין לגבי מזבח בכורים יוכיחו מה לבכורים שכן טעונים הנחה,ת"ל (דברים טז, ז) ואכלת [שם] לפני ה' אלהיך וגו' מקיש מעשר לבכור מה בכור אינו אלא לפני הבית אף מעשר אינו אלא לפני הבית ואם איתא ליפרוך מה לבכורים שכן טעונין קרייה והנחה,א"ר אשי נהי דעיכובא ליכא מצוה מי ליכא ולימא מצוה וליפרוך אלא אמר רב אשי כיון דאיכא בכורי הגר דבעי למימר (דברים כו, ג) אשר נשבע [ה'] לאבותינו ולא מצי אמר לא פסיקא ליה,וליהדר דינא ותיתי במה הצד משום דאיכא למיפרך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן יש בהן צד מזבח,ומאי קסבר אי קסבר קדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה וקדשה לעתיד לבא אפי' בכור נמי אי קסבר קדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה ולא קדשה לעתיד לבא אפילו בכור נמי תבעי,אמר רבינא לעולם קסבר קדשה לשעתה ולא קדשה לעתיד לבא והכא בבכור שנזרק דמו קודם חורבן הבית וחרב הבית ועדיין בשרו קיים ומקשינן בשרו לדמו מה דמו במזבח אף בשרו במזבח ומקיש מעשר לבכור,וכי דבר הלמד בהקש חוזר ומלמד בהקש מעשר דגן חולין הוא | 19a. b from when is /b a non-priest who eats first fruits b liable /b to receive death at the hand of Heaven b for their /b consumption? One is liable b from when /b the fruits b will enter inside the Temple. /b The Gemara notes: b In accordance with whose /b opinion is this i halakha /i stated? It is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b this i tanna /i , as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b With regard to b first fruits, some of which /b are b outside and some of which /b are b inside /b the Temple, the halakhic status of those b that are outside /b the Temple is b like /b that of b non-sacred /b produce b for all matters concerning them, /b and the halakhic status of those b that are inside /b the Temple is b like /b that of b consecrated /b produce b for all matters concerning them. /b ,§ b Rav Sheshet says: /b With regard to b first fruits, /b the lack of b placement /b alongside the altar b invalidates them; /b while the lack of b recitation /b of the accompanying Torah verses b does not invalidate them. /b ,The Gemara notes: b In accordance with whose /b opinion is this i halakha /i stated? It is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b this i tanna /i , /b Rabbi Yishmael, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yosei says three statements in the name of three elders, /b and one of those statements is that which b Rabbi Yishmael says: /b One b might /b have thought that b a person would bring second-tithe /b produce b up to Jerusalem in the present, /b after the destruction of the Temple, b and eat it. And /b ostensibly, b it /b could be derived by means of b a logical inference /b that one may not do so: b A firstborn /b offering b requires bringing /b it b to /b the b place, /b to Jerusalem, and eating it there, b and /b second b -tithe /b produce b requires bringing /b it b to /b the b place; just as /b the b firstborn /b offering may be eaten there b only in the presence of the Temple, so too, /b second b -tithe /b produce may be eaten there b only in the presence of the Temple. /b ,Rabbi Yishmael continues and counters: b What /b is notable b about a firstborn? /b Bringing the firstborn to Jerusalem is required only in the presence of the Temple, because it is notable in b that it requires placement of /b its b blood and /b its b sacrificial portions upon the altar; /b will you say the same with regard to second-tithe produce, which requires only that it be consumed in Jerusalem? He then suggests: b First fruits will prove /b that placement of blood upon the altar is not a factor, as they do not require placement of blood upon the altar, and yet they are brought to Jerusalem only in the presence of the Temple. Rabbi Yishmael counters: b What /b is notable b about first fruits? /b They are notable b in that they require placement /b alongside the altar. Perhaps, since second-tithe produce does not require placement at all, even in the present one must bring it to Jerusalem and eat it there.,Rabbi Yishmael concludes: Therefore, b the verse states: “And you shall eat before the Lord your God… /b the tithe of your grain…and the firstborn of your herd and your flock” (Deuteronomy 14:23); the Torah b juxtaposes /b second- b tithe /b produce b to /b the b firstborn. Just as /b the b firstborn /b may be eaten there b only in the presence of the Temple, so too, /b second b -tithe /b produce may be eaten there b only in the presence of the Temple. /b The Gemara explains: the proof of Rav Sheshet’s opinion from the i baraita /i is: b And if it is so /b that the lack of recitation of the Torah verses invalidates the ritual of first fruits, b let /b the i baraita /i b refute /b the derivation by saying: b What /b is notable b about first fruits? /b They are notable b in that they require recitation /b of the Torah verses b and placement /b alongside the altar., b Rav Ashi said: /b There is no proof from the fact that recitation is not mentioned. b Although /b the lack of recitation b does not invalidate /b the first fruits, b is there no mitzva? /b Everyone agrees that there is a mitzva to recite the Torah verses. b And /b therefore b let /b the i tanna /i b say /b that there is b a mitzva /b to recite the portion; b and refute /b the proof from first fruits in that manner, as in the case of second tithe there is no mitzva to recite Torah verses. b Rather, Rav Ashi said /b that there is a different reason that recitation was omitted from the refutation: It is b that there is /b the case of b the first fruits of a convert, who needs to recite: /b “I have come to the land b that the Lord swore unto our fathers” /b (Deuteronomy 26:3), b and /b since b he cannot say /b it, as the Lord did not swear to give the land to the ancestors of the convert, he brings the first fruits but does not read the portion. Therefore, the obligation to recite the Torah verses b is not clear-cut for /b the i tanna /i and he did not mention it.,The Gemara asks: Why was it necessary for the i tanna /i to derive that second-tithe produce is not brought to Jerusalem at present from the juxtaposition in the verse? b And let the derivation revert /b to its starting point, b and derive /b the i halakha /i b through /b an analogy derived from b the common factor /b of first fruits and the firstborn. Each of the sources neutralizes the significance of the notable factor in the other, leaving the common factor: One must bring them to Jerusalem. From there it may be derived that second-tithe produce, which one must also bring to Jerusalem, need not be brought there when the Temple is not standing. The Gemara answers: The juxtaposition is necessary b due to /b the fact b that /b this analogy b can be refuted: What /b is notable b about the common factor /b that is true b of /b both first fruits and the firstborn? It is notable b in that they have an aspect /b involving the b altar, /b which is not so in the case of second tithe.,The Gemara asks: b And what /b opinion b does /b Rabbi Yishmael b hold /b that led to his initial assumption that one is obligated to bring a firstborn animal to Jerusalem only when the Temple is standing? b If /b he b maintains /b in general that b the initial consecration /b of the Temple b sanctified /b Jerusalem b for its time and sanctified /b Jerusalem b forever, /b and the location of the Temple remains sacred even after the Temple was destroyed, then one should b also /b be obligated to bring b a firstborn /b animal to the place of the Temple and sacrifice it on an altar and eat it. b If he maintains /b that b the initial consecration /b of the Temple b sanctified /b Jerusalem b for its time but did not sanctify /b Jerusalem b forever, /b then he should b raise a dilemma even /b with regard to b a firstborn, /b whether it may be eaten in Jerusalem., b Ravina said: Actually, /b Rabbi Yishmael b maintains /b that the initial consecration of the Temple b sanctified /b Jerusalem b for its time but did not sanctify /b Jerusalem b forever; and /b why is it obvious to him that the firstborn is not eaten? It is because b here, /b he is stating the i halakha /i b with regard to /b the case of b a firstborn whose blood was sprinkled before the destruction of the Temple, and the Temple was /b then b destroyed, and its flesh is still intact. And /b based on a juxtaposition: “You shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar…and their flesh shall be for you” (Numbers 18:17–18), b we compare /b the status of b its flesh to /b the status of b its blood; just as its blood /b must be sprinkled b at /b a time when the b altar /b is standing, b so too its flesh /b may be eaten only b at /b a time when b the altar /b is standing. b And he compares /b the status of second- b tithe /b produce b to /b the status of b a firstborn /b offering, and derives that one may partake of second-tithe produce in Jerusalem only when the Temple is standing.,The Gemara asks: b And does a matter derived via juxtaposition then teach /b another matter b via juxtaposition? /b The principle with regard to the i halakhot /i of consecrated matters is that a i halakha /i derived via one of the hermeneutical principles cannot serve as the basis for derivation of another i halakha /i ; each i halakha /i requires its own source. The Gemara answers: Second b tithe of grain is non-sacred /b produce, and i halakhot /i of non-sacred matters derived via hermeneutical principles may serve as the basis for deriving other i halakhot /i using hermeneutical principles. |
|
29. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 159| 109b. אמר רבי זירא אמר רב אינו עובר עליו ומותר והא אנן תנן אינו עובר עליו מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא,בדין הוא דאיסורא נמי ליכא ואיידי דבעא למיתנא סיפא הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו התם מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא תנא נמי רישא אינו עובר עליו,לימא מסייע ליה הכחל קורעו ומוציא את חלבו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו קורעו לאחר בשולו ומותר לב הוא דבעי קריעה אבל כחל לא בעי קריעה,דלמא לב הוא דסגי ליה בקריעה אבל כחל לא סגי ליה בקריעה,ואיכא דאמרי א"ר זירא אמר רב אינו עובר עליו ואסור לימא מסייע ליה אינו עובר עליו מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא,בדין הוא דאיסורא נמי ליכא ואיידי דבעא למיתנא סיפא הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו דהתם מיעבר הוא דלא עבר הא איסורא איכא תנא נמי רישא אינו עובר עליו,ת"ש הכחל קורעו ומוציא את חלבו לא קרעו אינו עובר עליו הלב קורעו ומוציא את דמו לא קרעו קורעו לאחר בשולו ומותר לב הוא דבעי קריעה אבל כחל לא בעי קריעה,דלמא לב הוא דסגי ליה בקריעה אבל כחל לא סגי ליה בקריעה,תניא כלישנא קמא דרב כחל שבשלו בחלבו מותר קבה שבשלה בחלבה אסור,ומה הפרש בין זה לזה זה כנוס במעיו וזה אין כנוס במעיו,כיצד קורעו אמר רב יהודה קורעו שתי וערב וטחו בכותל א"ל ר' אלעזר לשמעיה קרע לי ואנא איכול מאי קמ"ל מתניתין היא הא קמ"ל דלא בעינן שתי וערב וטחו בכותל,אמרה ליה ילתא לרב נחמן מכדי כל דאסר לן רחמנא שרא לן כוותיה אסר לן דמא שרא לן כבדא נדה דם טוהר,חלב בהמה חלב חיה חזיר מוחא דשיבוטא גירותא לישנא דכורא,אשת איש גרושה בחיי בעלה אשת אח יבמה כותית יפת תאר בעינן למיכל בשרא בחלבא,אמר להו רב נחמן לטבחי זויקו לה כחלי והאנן תנן קורעו ההוא לקדרה,והא קתני שבשלו דיעבד אין לכתחלה לא ה"ה דאפי' לכתחלה ואיידי דקא בעי למיתנא סיפא קבה | 109b. strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that if one did not tear the udder of a slaughtered animal before cooking it he does not violate the biblical prohibition against eating meat and milk. b Rabbi Zeira says /b that b Rav says: He does not violate /b the prohibition, b and /b it is altogether b permitted /b to eat the cooked product i ab initio /i . The Gemara objects: b But didn’t we learn /b in the mishna: b He does not violate /b the prohibition, i.e., he is not held liable after the fact. One can infer from here as follows: b He does not violate /b a prohibition by Torah law, b but there is /b nevertheless b a prohibition /b i ab initio /i by rabbinic law.,The Gemara explains: b By right /b the mishna b should have /b taught b that there is no prohibition /b here by rabbinic law b either. But /b the i tanna /i of the mishna uses this language b since he wants to teach /b in b the latter clause: /b One who wants to eat b the heart /b of a slaughtered animal b tears it and removes its blood, /b but if b he did not tear /b the heart before cooking and eating it, b he does not violate /b the prohibition. b There /b it is true that although b he does not violate /b a prohibition by Torah law b there is a prohibition /b by rabbinic law. To preserve linguistic symmetry, b he teaches the first clause /b in this manner b as well, /b stating: b He does not violate /b the prohibition.,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that the following i baraita /i b supports /b this opinion: One who wants to eat b the udder /b of a slaughtered animal b tears it and removes its milk. /b If b he did not tear /b the udder before cooking it, b he does not violate /b the prohibition against cooking and eating meat and milk and does not receive lashes b for it. /b One who wants to eat b the heart /b of a slaughtered animal b tears it and removes its blood. /b If b he did not tear /b the heart before cooking and eating it, b he tears it after its cooking, and it is permitted. /b One can infer from the i baraita /i that b it is /b only the b heart that requires tearing /b after cooking if it was not torn beforehand. b But /b the b udder does not require tearing /b after being cooked unlawfully. Evidently, it is permitted as is.,The Gemara rejects this: b Perhaps /b one should infer the opposite, that b tearing /b after cooking b is sufficient /b only b to /b render the b heart /b permitted, as the heart does not absorb blood through cooking. b But tearing /b after cooking b is not sufficient to /b render the b udder /b permitted, as the meat of the udder absorbs the milk through cooking, and tearing will not remove the absorbed milk., b And some say /b a different version of the above exchange, based on a different version of Rav’s statement: b Rabbi Zeira says /b that b Rav says: /b If one does not tear the udder of a slaughtered animal before cooking it, b he does not violate /b the Torah prohibition, b but /b it is b prohibited /b to eat the cooked product by rabbinic law. The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that the mishna b supports /b this opinion, as it states: b He does not violate /b the prohibition, indicating that although b he does not violate /b a Torah prohibition and is not flogged, b there is /b nevertheless b a prohibition /b by rabbinic law.,The Gemara responds: b By right /b the mishna b should have /b taught b that there is not even a prohibition /b by rabbinic law. b But /b the i tanna /i of the mishna uses this language b since he wants to teach the latter clause: /b One who wants to eat b the heart /b of a slaughtered animal b tears it and removes its blood, /b but if b he did not tear /b the heart before cooking and eating it, b he does not violate /b the prohibition b for it. There, /b it is true that although b he does not violate /b a Torah prohibition b there is a prohibition /b by rabbinic law. b He /b therefore b teaches /b in b the first clause /b in this manner b as well, /b stating: b He does not violate /b the prohibition b for it. /b ,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof from a i baraita /i : One who wants to eat b the udder /b of a slaughtered animal b tears it and removes its milk. /b If b he did not tear /b the udder before cooking it, b he does not violate /b the prohibition b for it. /b One who wants to eat b the heart /b of a slaughtered animal b tears it and removes its blood. /b If b he did not tear /b the heart before cooking and eating it, b he tears it after its cooking, and it is permitted. /b One can infer from the i baraita /i that b it is /b only the b heart that requires tearing /b after cooking if it was not torn beforehand, b but /b the b udder does not require tearing /b after being cooked unlawfully. Evidently, it is permitted as is.,The Gemara rejects this: b Perhaps /b one should infer the opposite, that b tearing /b after cooking b is sufficient /b only b to /b render the b heart /b permitted, as the heart does not absorb blood through cooking. b But tearing /b it after cooking b is not sufficient to /b render the b udder /b permitted, as the meat of the udder absorbs the milk through cooking, and tearing will not remove the absorbed milk. This concludes the second version of the Gemara’s discussion.,The Gemara comments: b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i b in accordance with the first version of Rav’s /b statement: b An udder that one cooked, /b i.e., roasted, b in its milk is permitted. /b By contrast, the b stomach /b of a suckling lamb or calf b that one cooked, /b i.e., roasted, together b with /b the b milk /b it contains is b prohibited /b for consumption.,The i baraita /i explains: b And what /b is the b distinction between this /b stomach b and that /b udder? The milk b this /b calf suckled was considered milk the moment it left the mother’s teat, and it was merely b collected in /b the calf’s b innards. But that /b milk in the udder is not defined as milk, since it was b never collected in /b the animal’s b innards /b from outside but is found in the flesh. Consequently, this meat of the udder is not prohibited if it is roasted with the milk it contains, although one should still tear it by rabbinic law i ab initio /i .,§ The Gemara inquires: b How must one tear /b an udder before cooking it? b Rav Yehuda says: One tears it lengthwise and widthwise [ i sheti va’erev /i ] and smears it against a wall /b to remove all the milk. The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Elazar said to his attendant: Tear /b an udder b for me /b before you roast it, b and I will eat /b it. The Gemara asks: b What is /b this episode b teaching us? It is /b explicitly stated in b the mishna /b that one must do this. The Gemara answers: b This /b story b teaches us that /b according to Rabbi Elazar b we do not require /b one to tear it b lengthwise and widthwise and smear it against a wall. /b Rather, it is enough simply to tear it once, either lengthwise or widthwise.,§ b Yalta said to /b her husband b Rav Naḥman: Now /b as a rule, for b any /b item b that the Merciful One prohibited to us, He permitted to us a similar /b item. He b prohibited to us /b the consumption of b blood, /b yet b He permitted to us /b the consumption of b liver, /b which is filled with blood and retains the taste of blood. Likewise, God prohibited sexual intercourse with b a menstruating woman, /b but permitted sexual intercourse with one’s wife while she discharges b the blood of purity. /b During a particular period after giving birth, even if she experiences a flow of blood she is not rendered ritually impure and remains permitted to her husband by Torah law.,Furthermore, the Torah prohibits the consumption of the forbidden b fat of a domesticated animal, /b but permitted the b fat of an undomesticated animal, /b which has the same flavor. It is prohibited to eat b pork, /b but one may eat b the brain of a i shibuta /i /b fish, which has a similar taste. One may not eat b i giruta /i , /b a non-kosher fish, but one may eat the b tongue of a fish, /b which tastes similar.,Likewise, the Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with b the wife of /b another b man /b but permitted one to marry b a divorced woman in her /b previous b husband’s lifetime. /b The Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with one’s b brother’s wife, /b and yet it permits one to marry his b i yevama /i , /b i.e., his brother’s widow when the brother dies childless. Finally, the Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with b a gentile woman /b but permitted one to marry b a beautiful woman /b who is a prisoner of war (see Deuteronomy 21:10–14). Yalta concluded: The Torah prohibits the consumption of meat cooked in milk; b I wish to eat /b a dish that tastes like b meat /b cooked b in milk. /b ,Upon hearing this, b Rav Naḥman said to /b his b cooks: Roast udders on a spit for her. /b The Gemara asks: b But didn’t we learn /b in the mishna that one must b tear /b the udder first? Rav Naḥman did not tell his cooks to tear the udders. The Gemara answers: b That /b requirement was stated only b with regard to /b cooking in b a pot, /b not roasting.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in the i baraita /i cited above: An udder b that one cooked /b in its milk is permitted? This indicates that b after the fact, yes, /b it is permitted, but one may b not /b roast it b i ab initio /i /b without tearing it. The Gemara answers: b The same is true even /b of roasting b i ab initio /i , /b i.e., it is permitted, b and /b the i tanna /i of the i baraita /i uses this language b since he wants to teach /b in b the latter clause: A stomach /b |
|
30. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 37| 47b. (במדבר יח, כח) מכל מעשרותיכם תרימו ומה ראית האי אידגן והאי לא אידגן:,מעשר שני והקדש שנפדו: פשיטא הב"ע כגון שנתן את הקרן ולא נתן את החומש והא קמ"ל דאין חומש מעכב:,השמש שאכל כזית: פשיטא מהו דתימא שמש לא קבע קמ"ל:,והכותי מזמנין עליו: אמאי לא יהא אלא עם הארץ ותניא אין מזמנין על ע"ה,אביי אמר בכותי חבר רבא אמר אפילו תימא בכותי ע"ה והכא בע"ה דרבנן דפליגי עליה דר' מאיר עסקינן דתניא איזהו ע"ה כל שאינו אוכל חוליו בטהרה דברי ר"מ וחכמים אומרים כל שאינו מעשר פירותיו כראוי והני כותאי עשורי מעשרי כדחזי דבמאי דכתיב באורייתא מזהר זהירי דאמר מר כל מצוה שהחזיקו בה כותים הרבה מדקדקין בה יותר מישראל,ת"ר איזהו ע"ה כל שאינו קורא ק"ש ערבית ושחרית דברי ר' אליעזר רבי יהושע אומר כל שאינו מניח תפילין בן עזאי אומר כל שאין לו ציצית בבגדו ר' נתן אומר כל שאין מזוזה על פתחו ר' נתן בר יוסף אומר כל שיש לו בנים ואינו מגדלם לת"ת אחרים אומרים אפי' קרא ושנה ולא שמש ת"ח הרי זה ע"ה א"ר הונא הלכה כאחרים,רמי בר חמא לא אזמין עליה דרב מנשיא בר תחליפא דתני ספרא וספרי והלכתא כי נח נפשיה דרמי בר חמא אמר רבא לא נח נפשיה דרמי בר חמא אלא דלא אזמין ארב מנשיא בר תחליפא והתניא אחרים אומרים אפילו קרא ושנה ולא שמש ת"ח הרי זה ע"ה שאני רב מנשיא בר תחליפא דמשמע להו לרבנן ורמי בר חמא הוא דלא דק אבתריה ל"א דשמע שמעתתא מפומייהו דרבנן וגריס להו כצורבא מרבנן דמי:,אכל טבל ומעשר וכו': טבל פשיטא לא צריכא בטבל טבול מדרבנן ה"ד בעציץ שאינו נקוב:,מעשר ראשון כו': פשיטא לא צריכא כגון שהקדימו בכרי מהו דתימא כדאמר ליה רב פפא לאביי קמ"ל כדשני ליה:,מעשר שני וכו': פשיטא לא צריכא שנפדו ולא נפדו כהלכתן מעשר שני כגון שפדאו על גבי אסימון ורחמנא אמר (דברים יד, כה) וצרת הכסף בידך כסף שיש (לו) עליו צורה הקדש שחללו על גבי קרקע ולא פדאו בכסף ורחמנא אמר (ויקרא כז, יט) ונתן הכסף וקם לו:,והשמש שאכל פחות מכזית: פשיטא איידי דתנא רישא כזית תנא סיפא פחות מכזית:,והנכרי אין מזמנין עליו: פשיטא הכא במאי עסקינן בגר שמל ולא טבל דאמר רבי זירא א"ר יוחנן לעולם אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול וכמה דלא טבל נכרי הוא:,נשים ועבדים וקטנים אין מזמנין עליהן: אמר רבי יוסי קטן המוטל בעריסה מזמנין עליו,והא תנן נשים ועבדים וקטנים אין מזמנין עליהם,הוא דאמר כרבי יהושע בן לוי דאמר ריב"ל אף על פי שאמרו קטן המוטל בעריסה אין מזמנין עליו אבל עושין אותו סניף לעשרה,ואמר ריב"ל תשעה ועבד מצטרפין מיתיבי מעשה ברבי אליעזר שנכנס לבית הכנסת ולא מצא עשרה ושחרר עבדו והשלימו לעשרה שחרר אין לא שחרר לא תרי אצטריכו שחרר חד ונפיק בחד,והיכי עביד הכי והאמר רב יהודה כל המשחרר עבדו עובר בעשה שנאמר (ויקרא כה, מו) לעולם בהם תעבודו לדבר מצוה שאני מצוה הבאה בעבירה היא מצוה דרבים שאני,ואמר ריב"ל לעולם ישכים אדם לבית הכנסת כדי שיזכה וימנה עם עשרה הראשונים שאפילו מאה באים אחריו קבל עליו שכר כולם שכר כולם סלקא דעתך אלא אימא נותנין לו שכר כנגד כולם,אמר רב הונא תשעה וארון מצטרפין א"ל רב נחמן וארון גברא הוא אלא אמר רב הונא תשעה נראין כעשרה מצטרפין אמרי לה כי מכנפי ואמרי לה כי מבדרי,אמר רבי אמי שנים ושבת מצטרפין אמר ליה רב נחמן ושבת גברא הוא אלא אמר רבי אמי שני תלמידי חכמים המחדדין זה את זה בהלכה מצטרפין מחוי רב חסדא כגון אנא ורב ששת מחוי רב ששת כגון אנא ורב חסדא,א"ר יוחנן קטן פורח מזמנין עליו תנ"ה קטן שהביא שתי שערות מזמנין עליו ושלא הביא שתי שערות אין מזמנין עליו ואין מדקדקין בקטן הא גופא קשיא אמרת הביא שתי שערות אין לא הביא לא והדר תני אין מדקדקין בקטן לאתויי מאי לאו | 47b. b “From all of that is given to you, you shall set apart /b that which is the Lord’s i teruma /i ” (Numbers 18:29). God’s i teruma /i , i teruma gedola /i , must be taken from all of the Levites’ gifts. The Gemara asks: b And what did you see /b that led you to require i teruma gedola /i from first tithe that was taken from grain in piles and not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks? Abaye answers: b This, /b after it was threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and b has become grain, and that, /b which remained on the stalk, b did not /b yet b become grain. /b The verse regarding i teruma gedola /i states: “The first of your grain” (Deuteronomy 18:4), is given to the priest. Once it is considered grain, the right of the priest takes effect and the Levite is required to separate i teruma gedola /i .,The mishna states that if, among the diners, one ate b second tithe and consecrated food that were redeemed, /b he may be included in a i zimmun /i .The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious /b that if these items were redeemed that one could participate in a i zimmun /i . The Gemara responds: b With what are we dealing here? /b We are dealing with b a case /b where the consecrated property was not completely redeemed, i.e., b where one gave /b payment for b the principal, /b the value of the tithe, b but he did not give /b payment for b the fifth /b that he must add when redeeming items that he consecrated; b and /b the mishna b teaches us /b that failure to add b the fifth does not invalidate /b the redemption.,We learned in the mishna: b The waiter who ate /b at least b an olive-bulk /b from the meal may join in a i zimmun /i . The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious. /b Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i ? The Gemara answers: b Lest you say that the waiter /b who stands and serves the diners b did not establish /b himself as a participant in the meal and, therefore, cannot join the i zimmun /i , the mishna b teaches us /b that even the waiter is considered to have established himself as a participant in the meal.,The mishna states that b a Samaritan [ i Kuti /i ] may be included in a i zimmun /i . /b The Gemara asks: b Why? /b Even if you consider him a member of the Jewish people, b let him be merely an i am ha’aretz /i , /b one who is not scrupulous in matters of ritual purity and tithes, b and it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b An i am ha’aretz /i may not be included in a i zimmun /i . /b ,The Gemara offers several answers: b Abaye said: /b The mishna is referring to a b i Kuti /i who is a i ḥaver /i , /b one who is scrupulous in those areas. b Rava said: Even if you say /b that the mishna refers to b a i Kuti /i /b who is an b i am ha’aretz /i , and here /b the prohibition to include an i am ha’aretz /i in a i zimmun /i refers to an b i am ha’aretz /i /b as defined by b the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Who is an i am ha’aretz /i ? Anyone who does not eat non-sacred food in /b a state of b ritual purity. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: /b An i am ha’aretz /i is b anyone who does not appropriately tithe his produce. And these i Kutim /i tithe /b their produce b appropriately, as they are scrupulous with regard to that which is written in the Torah, as the Master said: Any mitzva that the i Kutim /i embraced /b and accepted upon themselves, b they are /b even b more exacting in its /b observance b than Jews. /b ,The Gemara cites a i baraita /i with additional opinions with regard to the defining characteristics of an i am ha’aretz /i : b The Sages taught: Who is an i am ha’aretz /i ? One who does not recite i Shema /i in the evening and morning. This is b the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. /b Rabbi Yehoshua says: /b An i am ha’aretz /i is b one who does not don phylacteries. Ben Azzai says: /b An i am ha’aretz /i is b one who does not have ritual fringes on his garment. Rabbi Natan says: /b An i am ha’aretz /i is b one who does not have a i mezuza /i on his doorway. Rabbi Natan bar Yosef says: /b An i am ha’aretz /i is b one who has children but /b who does not want them to study Torah, so he b does not raise them to /b engage in b Torah study. i Aḥerim /i say: Even if one read the Bible and studied Mishna and did not serve Torah scholars /b to learn from them the meaning of the Torah that he studied, b that is an i am ha’aretz /i . Rav Huna said: The i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b i Aḥerim /i . /b ,The Gemara relates: b Rami bar Ḥama did not include Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa, who studied i Sifra /i , i Sifrei, /i and i halakhot, /i in a i zimmun /i /b because he had merely studied and did not serve Torah scholars. b When Rami bar Ḥama passed away, Rava said: Rami bar Ḥama died only because he did not include Rabbi Menashya bar Taḥlifa in a i zimmun /i . /b The Gemara asks: b Was it not taught /b in a i baraita /i : b i Aḥerim /i say: Even if one read the Bible and studied mishna and did not serve Torah scholars, that is an i am ha’aretz /i ? /b Why, then, was Rami bar Ḥama punished? The Gemara answers: b Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa is different, as he served the Sages. And it was Rami bar Ḥama who was not precise /b in his efforts to check b after him /b to ascertain his actions. b Another version /b of the Gemara’s answer: Anyone b who hears i halakhot /i from the mouths of Sages and studies them is considered a Torah scholar. /b ,The mishna states that b one who ate untithed produce and /b first b tithe etc. /b is not included in a i zimmun /i . The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious /b as one is forbidden to eat untithed produce. The Gemara responds: b It was only necessary /b to teach this i halakha /i with regard to a case where it is only considered b untithed produce by rabbinic law, /b although by Torah law it was permitted. b What are the circumstances? /b Where the produce grew b in an unperforated flowerpot, /b as anything grown disconnected from the ground is not considered produce of the ground and is exempt by Torah law from tithing. It is only by rabbinic law that it is considered untithed.,We learned in the mishna that one who ate b first tithe /b from which its i teruma /i was not separated may not be included in a i zimmun /i . The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious. /b The Gemara responds: b It was only necessary /b for the mishna to teach this with regard to a case b where /b the Levite b preceded /b the priest after the kernels of grain were placed b in a pile. Lest you say as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, /b that in that case, too, the produce should be exempt from the obligation to separate i teruma gedola /i , the i tanna /i of the mishna b teaches us as /b Abaye b responded /b to Rav Pappa, that there is a difference between the case when the grain was on the stalks and the case when the grain was in a pile.,We also learned in the mishna that if one ate b second tithe /b and consecrated food that had not been redeemed, he may not be included in a i zimmun /i . The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious? /b Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i ? The Gemara responds: b It was only necessary /b for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i with regard to a case b where they were redeemed, but not redeemed properly, i.e., second tithe that was redeemed with an unminted coin [ i asimon /i ], /b a silver bullion that had not been engraved. b And the Torah says: “And bind up [ i vetzarta /i ] the money in your hand” /b (Deuteronomy 14:25), which the Sages interpreted as follows: i Vetzarta /i refers to b money that has a form [ i tzura /i ] /b engraved b upon it. Consecrated property; /b in a case b where he redeemed it /b by exchanging it b for land instead of money, and the Torah states: “He will give the money and it will be assured to him” /b (Leviticus 27:19).,The mishna states that b a waiter who ate less than an olive-bulk /b may not join a i zimmun /i . The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious. /b Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i ? The Gemara answers: b Since the first clause /b of the mishna b taught /b the i halakha /i with regard to a waiter who ate b an olive-bulk, the latter clause taught /b the i halakha /i with regard to a waiter who ate b less than an olive-bulk. /b Although it is obvious, in the interest of arriving at a similar formulation in the two parts of the mishna, it was included.,The mishna further states that b a gentile is not included in a i zimmun /i . /b The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious. /b Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i ? The Gemara answers: b With what are we dealing here? /b We are dealing b with /b a case of b a convert who was circumcised but /b did b not /b yet b immerse /b himself in a ritual bath, b as Rabbi Zeira said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: One is never /b considered b a proselyte until he is circumcised and immerses /b himself. b As long as he did not immerse /b himself, b he is a gentile. /b ,We also learned in the mishna that b women, slaves, and minors are not included in a i zimmun /i . Rabbi Yosei said: A minor lying in a cradle is included in a i zimmun /i . /b ,The Gemara objects: b Didn’t we learn /b in the mishna b that women, slaves, and minors are not included in a i zimmun /i ? /b ,The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yosei b stated /b his opinion b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Although a minor lying in a cradle is not included in a i zimmun /i , one may make him an adjunct to /b complete an assembly of b ten /b people, enabling them to invoke God’s name in a i zimmun /i .,On the subject of completing a i zimmun /i , b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Nine /b Jews b and a slave join together /b to form a i zimmun /i of ten. The Gemara b raises an objection: /b There was an b incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who entered a synagogue and did not find /b a quorum of b ten, and he liberated his slave and he completed the /b quorum of b ten. /b From this we may infer that if he b freed /b his slave, b yes, /b he may join the quorum of ten, but if he b did not free /b him, b no, /b he may not join the quorum of ten. The Gemara responds: In that case, b two were required /b to complete the quorum; Rabbi Eliezer b freed one and fulfilled his obligation with /b another b one, /b who completed the quorum of ten without being freed.,With regard to this incident, the Gemara asks: b How did he do that? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say: Anyone who frees his /b Canaanite b slave violates a positive mitzva, as it is stated /b with regard to Canaanite slaves: “You will keep them as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold as a possession; b they will serve as bondsmen for you forever” /b (Leviticus 25:46)? How, then, could Rabbi Eliezer have freed his slave? The Gemara answers: The case of b a mitzva is different. /b The Gemara asks: b It is a mitzva that comes through a transgression, /b and a mitzva fulfilled in that manner is inherently flawed. The Gemara responds: b A mitzva /b that benefits b the many is different, /b and one may free his slave for that purpose.,In praise of a quorum of ten, the Gemara states that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One should always rise early /b to go b to the synagogue in order to have the privilege and be counted among the first ten /b to complete the quorum, b as even if one hundred /b people b arrive after him, he receives the reward of them all, /b as they are all joining that initial quorum. The Gemara is perplexed: b Does it enter your mind /b that he receives b the reward of them all? /b Why should he take away their reward? b Rather, /b emend the statement and b say: He receives a reward equivalent to /b the reward of b them all. /b ,With regard to the laws of joining a quorum, b Rav Huna said: Nine plus an ark /b in which the Torah scrolls are stored b join /b to form a quorum of ten. b Rav Naḥman said to him: Is an ark a man, /b that it may be counted in the quorum of ten? b Rather, Rav Huna said: Nine who appear like ten may join together. /b There was disagreement over this: b Some said this /b i halakha /i as follows: Nine appear like ten b when they are gathered. And some said this /b i halakha /i as follows: Nine appear like ten b when they are scattered, /b the disagreement being which formation creates the impression of a greater number of individuals.,Similarly, b Rav Ami said: Two /b people b and Shabbat join /b to form a i zimmun /i . b Rav Naḥman said to him: Is Shabbat a person, /b that it may be counted in a i zimmun /i ? b Rather, Rav Ami said: Two Torah scholars who hone each other’s /b intellect b in halakhic /b discourse b join together /b and are considered three. The Gemara relates: b Rav Ḥisda pointed /b to an example of two such Torah scholars who hone each other’s intellect: b For example, me and Rav Sheshet. /b Similarly, b Rav Sheshet pointed: For example, me and Rav Ḥisda. /b ,With regard to a minor’s inclusion in a i zimmun /i , b Rabbi Yoḥa said: A mature minor, /b i.e., one who is still a minor in terms of age, but is displaying signs of puberty, b is included in a i zimmun /i . That /b opinion b was also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A minor who grew two /b pubic b hairs, /b a sign of puberty, b is included in a i zimmun /i ; and one who did not grow two hairs is not included in a i zimmun /i . And one is not exacting with regard to a minor. /b The Gemara comments: b This /b i baraita /i b itself is difficult. You said that /b a minor b who grew two hairs, yes, /b he is included, b one who did not grow /b two hairs, b no, /b he is not included, b and then it taught that one is not exacting with regard to a minor. What /b does this last clause come b to include? Is it not /b |
|
31. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 155, 164, 166| 62a. משאי אפשר ובית הלל נמי לילפו ממשה אמרי לך משה מדעתיה הוא דעבד דתניא שלשה דברים עשה משה מדעתו והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום פירש מן האשה ושיבר הלוחות והוסיף יום אחד,פירש מן האשה מאי דרש אמר ומה ישראל שלא דברה עמהם שכינה אלא לפי שעה וקבע להם זמן אמרה תורה (שמות יט, טו) אל תגשו אל אשה אני שמיוחד לדבור בכל שעה ושעה ולא קבע לי זמן על אחת כמה וכמה והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום שנאמר (דברים ה, ל) לך אמור להם שובו לכם לאהליכם ואתה פה עמוד עמדי,שיבר את הלוחות מאי דרש אמר ומה פסח שהוא אחד משש מאות ושלש עשרה מצות אמרה תורה (שמות יב, מג) כל בן נכר לא יאכל בו התורה כולה וישראל מומרים על אחת כמה וכמה,והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום דכתיב (שמות לד, א) אשר שברת ואמר ריש לקיש אמר ליה הקב"ה למשה יישר כחך ששברת,הוסיף יום אחד מדעתו מאי דרש דכתיב (שמות יט, י) וקדשתם היום ומחר היום כמחר מה מחר לילו עמו אף היום לילו עמו ולילה דהאידנא נפק ליה ש"מ תרי יומי לבר מהאידנא והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום דלא שריא שכינה עד שבתא,תניא רבי נתן אומר ב"ש אומרים שני זכרים ושתי נקבות ובה"א זכר ונקבה,א"ר הונא מ"ט דרבי נתן אליבא דב"ש דכתיב (בראשית ד, ב) ותוסף ללדת את אחיו את הבל הבל ואחותו קין ואחותו וכתיב (בראשית ד, כה) כי שת לי אלהים זרע אחר תחת הבל כי הרגו קין ורבנן אודויי הוא דקא מודית,תניא אידך ר' נתן אומר ב"ש אומרים זכר ונקבה ובה"א או זכר או נקבה אמר רבא מ"ט דר' נתן אליבא דב"ה שנא' (ישעיהו מה, יח) לא תהו בראה לשבת יצרה והא עבד לה שבת,איתמר היו לו בנים בהיותו עובד כוכבים ונתגייר ר' יוחנן אמר קיים פריה ורביה וריש לקיש אמר לא קיים פריה ורביה רבי יוחנן אמר קיים פריה ורביה דהא הוו ליה וריש לקיש אמר לא קיים פריה ורביה גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי,ואזדו לטעמייהו דאיתמר היו לו בנים בהיותו עובד כוכבים ונתגייר רבי יוחנן אמר אין לו בכור לנחלה דהא הוה ליה ראשית אונו וריש לקיש אמר יש לו בכור לנחלה גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי,וצריכא דאי אשמעינן בההיא קמייתא בההיא קאמר רבי יוחנן משום דמעיקרא נמי בני פריה ורביה נינהו אבל לענין נחלה דלאו בני נחלה נינהו אימא מודי ליה לריש לקיש,ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר ריש לקיש אבל בההיא אימא מודה ליה לר' יוחנן צריכא,איתיביה ר' יוחנן לר"ל (מלכים ב כ, יב) בעת ההיא שלח בראדך בלאדן בן בלאדן מלך בבל וגו' א"ל בהיותן עובדי כוכבים אית להו חייס נתגיירו לית להו חייס,אמר רב הכל מודין בעבד שאין לו חייס דכתיב (בראשית כב, ה) שבו לכם פה עם החמור עם הדומה לחמור מיתיבי (שמואל ב ט, י) ולציבא חמשה עשר בנים ועשרים עבדים אמר רב אחא בר יעקב כפר בן בקר,א"ה ה"נ שאני התם דיחסינהו בשמייהו ובשמא דאבוהון והכא לא מפרש ואיבעית אימא יחסינהו בדוכתא אחריתי באבוהון ובאבא דאבוהון דכתיב (מלכים א טו, יח) וישלחם המלך אסא אל בן הדד בן טברימון בן חזיון מלך ארם היושב בדמשק לאמר,איתמר היו לו בנים ומתו רב הונא אמר קיים פריה ורביה רבי יוחנן אמר לא קיים,רב הונא אמר קיים משום דרב אסי דאמר רב אסי אין בן דוד בא עד שיכלו כל נשמות שבגוף שנאמר (ישעיהו נז, טז) כי רוח מלפני יעטוף וגו' ורבי יוחנן אמר לא קיים פריה ורביה לשבת יצרה בעינן והא ליכא,מיתיבי | 62a. b from /b one that is b not possible. /b Mankind was initially created with a male and female because otherwise reproduction would not have been possible. However, this fact cannot serve as a source that the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply is fulfilled only once one has a son and a daughter. The Gemara asks: b And Beit Hillel, let them also learn from Moses. /b Beit Hillel could b say to you: Moses acted /b based b on his own perception /b when he separated from his wife, but this does not mean that a man is permitted to neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply after fathering two males, b as it is taught in /b a i baraita /i : b Moses did three things /b based b on his own perception, and his perception agreed with the perception of the Omnipresent: He separated from /b his b wife, he broke the tablets, and he added one day /b to the days of separation before the revelation at Sinai.,The Gemara clarifies: When Moses b separated from /b his b wife /b after the revelation at Sinai, b what did he interpret /b that led him to do so? b He said: If /b in the case of b Israel, with whom the Divine Presence spoke only temporarily and for whom /b God b set /b a specific b time for /b revelation, b the Torah stated: “Do not approach a woman” /b (Exodus 19:15), b I, /b Moses, b who am set aside for /b divine b speech all the time and for whom /b God b did not set /b a specific b time, all the more so /b I must separate from my wife. b And his perception agreed with the perception of the Omnipresent, as it is stated /b after the revelation at Sinai: b “Go say to them: Return to your tents; and you, stand here with Me” /b (Deuteronomy 5:26–27). This indicates that whereas others could return to their homes and normal married life after the revelation at Sinai, Moses was to stay with God and not return to his wife.,Moses b broke the tablets /b following the sin of the Golden Calf. b What did he interpret /b that led him to do so? Moses b said: If /b in the case of the b Paschal lamb, which is /b only b one of 613 mitzvot, the Torah states: “No alien shall eat of it” /b (Exodus 12:43), excluding not only gentiles but apostate Jews as well, then here, in the case of the Golden Calf, where the tablets represent b the entire Torah and /b where b the Jewish people /b are b apostates, /b as they are worshipping the calf, b all the more so /b must they be excluded from receiving them., b And his perception agreed with the perception of the Omnipresent, as it is written: /b “The first tablets b that you broke [ i asher shibbarta /i ]” /b (Exodus 34:1), b and Reish Lakish said: /b The word i asher /i is an allusion to the fact that b the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: May your strength be true [ i yishar koḥakha /i ] that you broke /b the tablets.,When Moses b added one day /b to the days of separation before the revelation at Sinai based b on his /b own b perception, what did he interpret /b that led him to do so? He reasoned b that /b since b it is written: “And sanctify them today and tomorrow” /b (Exodus 19:10), the juxtaposition of the words “today” and “tomorrow” teaches that b today /b is b like tomorrow: Just as tomorrow /b the men and women will separate for that day b and /b the b night /b preceding b it, so too, today /b requires separation for the day b and /b the b night /b preceding b it. /b Since God spoke to him in the morning, b and the night of that day /b already b passed, /b Moses said: b Conclude from /b this that separation must be in effect for b two days aside from now, /b i.e., not including the day of the command. Therefore, he extended the mitzva of separation by one day. b And his perception agreed with the perception of the Omnipresent, as /b the b Divine Presence did not rest /b upon Mount Sinai b until Shabbat /b morning, as Moses had determined.,§ b It is taught in /b a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Natan says /b that b Beit Shammai say: /b The mitzva to be fruitful and multiply is fulfilled with b two males and two females. And Beit Hillel say: A male and a female. /b , b Rav Huna said: What is the reason of Rabbi Natan, in accordance with /b the opinion of b Beit Shammai? /b It is b as it is written: “And again she bore his brother [ i et aḥiv /i ] Abel [ i et Hevel /i ]” /b (Genesis 4:2). The use of the superfluous word “et” indicates that she gave birth to b Abel and his sister, /b in addition to b Cain and his sister. And it states: “For God has appointed me another seed instead of Abel; for Cain slew him” /b (Genesis 4:25). This indicates that one must have at least four children. b And the Rabbis, /b how do they understand this verse? In their opinion, Eve b was thanking God /b for granting her another child, but one is not obligated to have four children., b It is taught in another /b i baraita /i that b Rabbi Natan says /b that b Beit Shammai say: /b The mitzva to be fruitful and multiply is fulfilled with b a male and a female. And Beit Hillel say: Either a male or a female. Rava said: What is the reason of Rabbi Natan in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel? /b It is b as it is stated: “He did not create it a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” /b (Isaiah 45:18), b and one has made /b the earth b inhabited /b to a greater degree by adding even one child to the world.,§ b It was stated /b that i amora’im /i disagreed over the following issue: If a man b had children when he /b was b a gentile and he /b subsequently b converted, Rabbi Yoḥa said: He has /b already b fulfilled /b the mitzva to b be fruitful and multiply, and Reish Lakish said: /b He has b not fulfilled /b the mitzva to b be fruitful and multiply. Rabbi Yoḥa said he has fulfilled /b the mitzva b to be fruitful and multiply, as he /b already b had /b children. b And Reish Lakish said he has not fulfilled /b the mitzva to b be fruitful and multiply, /b as the legal status of b a convert who /b just b converted is like /b that of b a child /b just b born, /b and it is considered as though he did not have children.,The Gemara comments: b And they follow their /b regular line of reasoning, b as it was stated: /b If b one had children /b when b he /b was b a gentile and he /b subsequently b converted, Rabbi Yoḥa said: He does not have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, /b i.e., the first son born to him after his conversion does not inherit a double portion, b as /b this man already b had “the first of his strength” /b (Deuteronomy 21:17), the Torah’s description of the firstborn in this context, before he converted. b And Reish Lakish said: He does have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, /b as the legal status of b a convert who /b just b converted is like /b that of b a child /b just b born. /b ,The Gemara adds: b And /b it is b necessary /b to state their opinions in both cases. b As, had it /b only been b taught /b to b us with regard to that first /b case of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, one might have said that b it is /b only b in that /b case that b Rabbi Yoḥa said /b his opinion, b because from the outset, /b gentiles b are also subject to /b the mitzva to be b fruitful and multiply. However, with regard to inheritance, /b since b they are not subject /b to the i halakhot /i of b inheritance, /b one might b say /b that Rabbi Yoḥa b concedes to Reish Lakish. /b , b And /b conversely, b if /b their dispute b was stated /b only b with regard to this /b issue of inheritance, I would have said that b it is /b only b in this /b case that b Reish Lakish said /b his opinion, as the i halakhot /i of inheritance do not apply to gentiles. b But with regard to that /b case, the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, one might b say /b that b he concedes to Rabbi Yoḥa. /b Consequently, it is b necessary /b for both disputes to be recorded., b Rabbi Yoḥa raises an objection to Reish Lakish /b based upon the verse: b “At that time Berodach-baladan, son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent /b a letter” (II Kings 20:12), which indicates that gentiles are considered to be the children of their parents. Therefore, when they convert, they should already have fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Reish Lakish b said to /b Rabbi Yoḥa: b When they are gentiles they do have /b family b lineage, /b but when b they convert they do not have lineage, /b as they now belong to the family of the Jewish people and their previous lineage is disregarded., b Rav said: Everyone agrees with regard to /b a Canaanite b slave, that he does not have lineage, as it is written /b that Abraham said to his slaves: b “Remain here with the donkey” /b (Genesis 22:5). This verse is interpreted to mean that they are b a nation comparable to a donkey, /b which has no lineage. The Gemara b raises an objection /b based upon a verse pertaining to Jonathan’s Canaanite slave: b “And Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants” /b (II Samuel 9:10), which indicates that a slave’s sons are in fact considered his sons. b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: /b This is b like /b the expression: b A bullock, son of a bull. /b The word son in this context merely denotes progeny, not lineage.,The Gemara asks: b If so, here too, /b with regard to gentiles, there is no proof from the verse about Berodach-baladan that they have family lineage. The Gemara answers: b There it is different, as /b the Bible b identified him by his name and by his father’s name, /b thereby emphasizing the family connection. b But here, /b it does b not specify /b the names of Ziba’s children. b And if you wish, say /b instead that the Bible b identified /b gentiles b elsewhere by their father and their father’s father, as it is written: “And King Asa sent them to Ben-hadad, son of Tabrimmon, son of Hezion, king of Aram, who dwelled in Damascus, saying” /b (I Kings 15:18). This indicates that there is lineage for gentiles.,§ b It was stated /b that i amora’im /i disagreed over the following issue: If a man b had children and they died, Rav Huna said: /b He has b fulfilled /b the mitzva to be b fruitful and multiply /b through these children. b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b He has b not fulfilled /b the mitzva.,The Gemara clarifies the reasons for their opinions: b Rav Huna said /b he has b fulfilled /b the mitzva b due to /b a statement b of Rav Asi, as Rav Asi said /b that the reason for this mitzva is that the Messiah, b son of David, will not come until all the souls of the body have been finished, /b i.e., until all souls that are destined to inhabit physical bodies will do so, b as it is stated: “For the spirit that enwraps itself is from Me, /b and the souls that I have made” (Isaiah 57:16). Consequently, once a child has been born and his soul has entered a body the mitzva has been fulfilled, even if the child subsequently dies. b And Rabbi Yoḥa said /b he has b not fulfilled /b the mitzva, as b we require “He formed it to be inhabited” /b (Isaiah 45:18), b and /b this b is not /b fulfilled when the children have passed away and no longer inhabit the earth.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b with regard to the opinion of Rav Huna based upon the following i baraita /i : |
|
32. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 159| 71a. בכדי חייו,רבינא אמר הכא בתלמידי חכמים עסקינן טעמא מאי גזור רבנן שמא ילמוד ממעשיו וכיון דתלמיד חכם הוא לא ילמוד ממעשיו,איכא דמתני לה להא דרב הונא אהא דתני רב יוסף (שמות כב, כד) אם כסף תלוה את עמי את העני עמך עמי ונכרי עמי קודם עני ועשיר עני קודם ענייך ועניי עירך ענייך קודמין עניי עירך ועניי עיר אחרת עניי עירך קודמין,אמר מר עמי ונכרי עמי קודם פשיטא אמר רב נחמן אמר לי הונא לא נצרכא דאפילו לנכרי ברבית ולישראל בחנם,תניא אמר ר' יוסי בא וראה סמיות עיניהם של מלוי ברבית אדם קורא לחבירו רשע יורד עמו לחייו והם מביאין עדים ולבלר וקולמוס ודיו וכותבין וחותמין פלוני זה כפר באלהי ישראל,תניא ר' שמעון בן אלעזר אומר כל מי שיש לו מעות ומלוה אותם שלא ברבית עליו הכתוב אומר (תהלים טו, ה) כספו לא נתן בנשך ושוחד על נקי לא לקח עושה אלה לא ימוט לעולם הא למדת שכל המלוה ברבית נכסיו מתמוטטין והא קא חזינן דלא מוזפי ברבית וקא מתמוטטין אמר רבי אלעזר הללו מתמוטטין ועולין והללו מתמוטטין ואינן עולין,(חבקוק א, יג) למה תביט בוגדים תחריש כבלע רשע צדיק ממנו אמר רב הונא צדיק ממנו בולע צדיק גמור אינו בולע,תניא רבי אומר גר צדק האמור לענין מכירה וגר תושב האמור לענין רבית איני יודע מה הוא,גר צדק האמור לענין מכירה דכתיב (ויקרא כה, לט) וכי ימוך אחיך עמך ונמכר לך ולא לך אלא לגר שנא' (ויקרא כה, מז) לגר,ולא לגר צדק אלא לגר תושב שנא' (ויקרא כה, מז) לגר תושב משפחת גר זה הנכרי כשהוא אומר או לעקר זה הנמכר לעבודת כוכבים עצמה,אמר מר ולא לך אלא לגר שנא' לגר למימרא דגר קני עבד עברי ורמינהי אין הגר נקנה בעבד עברי ואין אשה וגר קונין עבד עברי,גר לא נקנה בעבד עברי (ויקרא כה, מא) ושב אל משפחתו בעינן והא ליכא ואין אשה וגר קונין עבד עברי אשה לאו אורח ארעא גר נמי גמירי דמקני קני דלא מקני לא קני,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אינו קונה ודינו כישראל אבל קונה ודינו כנכרי,דתניא הנרצע והנמכר לנכרי אינו עובד לא את הבן ולא את הבת,אמר מר ואין אשה וגר קונין עבד עברי נימא דלא כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל דתניא אשה קונה את השפחות ואינה קונה את העבדים רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף קונה את העבדים אפילו תימא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ולא קשיא כאן בעבד עברי כאן בעבד כנעני,עבד עברי צניע לה עבד כנעני פריץ לה,אלא הא דתני רב יוסף ארמלתא לא תרבי כלבא ולא תשרי בר בי רב באושפיזא בשלמא בר בי רב צניע לה אלא כלבא כיון דמסריך בה מירתתא אמרי כיון דכי שדיא ליה אומצא מסריך בתרה אמרי אינשי משום אומצא דשדיא ליה הוא דמסריך,גר תושב האמור לענין רבית מאי היא דכתיב (ויקרא כה, לה) וכי ימוך אחיך ומטה ידו עמך והחזקת בו גר ותושב וחי עמך אל תקח מאתו נשך ותרבית ויראת מאלהיך וחי אחיך עמך ורמינהי לוין מהן ומלוין אותן ברבית וכן בגר תושב,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מי כתיב אל תקח מאתם מאתו כתיב מישראל,תנו רבנן אל תקח מאתו נשך ותרבית אבל אתה נעשה לו ערב | 71a. to teach that one may lend money with interest to a i ger toshav /i only b to the extent /b required to provide b a livelihood to /b the lender, but not to do so as a regular business., b Ravina said: Here /b in the mishna b we are dealing with Torah scholars, /b for whom it is permitted to lend money to a gentile with interest. The Gemara explains: b What is the reason the Sages decreed /b that one should not lend money to a gentile with interest? The reason is that b perhaps /b the Jew b will learn from /b the gentile’s b actions. /b Continuous interactions with gentiles for the sake of ficial dealings may have a negative influence on a Jew. b And since /b in this case the lender b is a Torah scholar, he will not learn from /b the gentile’s b actions. /b , b There are /b those b who teach that which Rav Huna /b said in connection with b that which Rav Yosef taught: /b The verse states: b “If you lend money to any of My people, even to the poor person who is with you” /b (Exodus 22:24). The term “My people” teaches that if one of b My people, /b i.e., a Jew, b and a gentile /b both come to borrow money from you, b My people take precedence. /b The term “the poor person” teaches that if b a poor person and a rich person /b come to borrow money, b the poor person takes precedence. /b And from the term: “Who is with you,” it is derived: If b your poor person, /b meaning one of your relatives, b and /b one of b the poor of your city /b come to borrow money, b your poor person takes precedence. /b If it is between one of b the poor of your city and /b one of b the poor of another city, the /b one of b the poor of your city takes precedence. /b , b The Master said /b above: If one of b My people and a gentile /b come to you for a loan, b My people take precedence. /b The Gemara asks: Isn’t this b obvious? /b Is there any reason to think that a gentile would take precedence over a Jew? b Rav Naḥman said /b that Rav b Huna said to me: It is necessary only /b to teach b that even /b if the choice is to lend money b to a gentile with interest or to a Jew for free, /b without interest, one must still give preference to the Jew and lend the money to him, even though this will entail a lack of profit., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yosei says: Come and see the blindness in the eyes of those who lend /b money b with interest. /b If b a person calls another a wicked person /b in public, the other becomes insulted and b he harasses him in /b all aspects of b his life /b because he called him by this disgraceful name. b But they /b who lend with interest b bring witnesses and a scribe [ i velavlar /i ] and a pen [ i vekulmos /i ] and ink and write and sign /b a document that testifies: b So-and-so denies the /b existence of the b God of Israel, /b as the very fact that he lent with interest in defiance of the Torah is tantamount to a denial of the existence of God., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: /b Concerning b anyone who has money and lends it without interest, the verse says about him: “He who has not given his money with interest and who has not taken a bribe against the innocent, he who does these shall never collapse” /b (Psalms 15:5). From this statement, the opposite can also be inferred: b You learn /b from this b that /b concerning b anyone who lends /b his money to others b with interest, his property, /b i.e., his ficial standing, b collapses. /b The Gemara asks: b But we see /b people b who do not lend /b money b with interest and /b nevertheless their property b collapses. Rabbi Elazar says: /b There is still a difference: b Those /b who do not lend money with interest b collapse but /b then ultimately b rise, but these, /b who lend with interest, b collapse and do not rise /b again.,Referring to the subject of honest people who collapse temporarily, it is said: b “Why do You observe the treacherous, and remain silent while the wicked swallows the one who is more righteous than he?” /b (Habakkuk 1:13). b Rav Huna says /b about this verse: b One who is more righteous than he, he swallows /b for the moment, but b he does not swallow a completely righteous person /b at all.,§ The Gemara returns to the clarification of the mishna, which mentioned the subject of a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ i ger toshav /i ]. b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: /b With regard to the b convert that is mentioned concerning the sale /b of a Hebrew slave b and /b the b i ger toshav /i that is mentioned concerning interest, I do not know what /b the meaning of each of these references b is. /b ,The Gemara explains: b The convert that is mentioned concerning the sale /b of a Hebrew slave is referring to the following, b as it is written: “If your brother waxes poor with you and is sold unto you” /b (Leviticus 25:39), and it was expounded in a i baraita /i : b And not /b only will he be sold b to you, /b a born Jew, b but /b he will be sold even b to a convert, as it is stated: /b “And sells himself b to a stranger [ i leger /i ]” /b (Leviticus 25:47)., b And /b this sale to a i ger /i is referring to a sale b not /b only b to a righteous convert [ i leger tzedek /i ], but /b even b to a i ger toshav /i , as it is stated: /b “And sells himself b to a stranger who is a settler [ i leger toshav /i ]” /b (Leviticus 25:47). With regard to the continuation of the verse: “Or to an offshoot of b a stranger’s family,” this is /b referring to b a gentile, /b i.e., he will reach a state where he has no choice but to sell himself to a gentile. b When it states: “Or to an offshoot /b of a stranger’s family,” b this is /b referring to b one sold for idol worship itself, /b i.e., he is forced to sell himself as a slave to work in a temple of idol worship.,The Gemara clarifies the i baraita /i . b The Master said: And not /b only will he be sold b to you, /b a born Jew, b but /b he will be sold even b to a convert, as it is stated: /b “And sells himself b to a stranger.” /b Is this b to say that a convert may acquire a Hebrew slave? /b The Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from a i baraita /i : b A convert cannot be acquired as a Hebrew slave, and a woman or a convert may not acquire a Hebrew slave. /b ,The Gemara explains the i baraita /i . b A convert cannot be acquired as a Hebrew slave, /b as b we require /b the fulfillment of the verse: “Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, b and shall return to his own family” /b (Leviticus 25:41), b and /b a convert b is not /b able to do this, since upon conversion the convert severs his relationship with his gentile family, and he therefore has no family. The i baraita /i teaches: b And a woman or a convert may not acquire a Hebrew slave. /b With regard to b a woman, /b the reason is that it is b not proper conduct, /b since people may say that she is purchasing him to engage in sexual intercourse with him. With regard to b a convert as well, /b it b is learned /b as a tradition: Only one b who can be acquired /b as a Hebrew slave b can acquire /b a Hebrew slave, and one b who cannot be acquired /b as a Hebrew slave b cannot acquire /b a Hebrew slave. Since a convert cannot be acquired as a Hebrew slave, he also cannot acquire one.,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s question was that since it has been established that a convert may not acquire a Hebrew slave, why was he mentioned in the verse? b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: He cannot acquire /b a Hebrew slave b and /b have b his i halakha /i /b be like that b of a Jew /b who owns a Hebrew slave, b but he can acquire /b a Hebrew slave b and /b have b his i halakha /i /b be like that b of a gentile /b who owns a Hebrew slave.,This is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : A Hebrew slave who b had his ear pierced /b by his own request in order to remain a slave after his six-year period of servitude was over, and therefore is emancipated only during the Jubilee Year, b and /b also a Hebrew slave b who was sold to a gentile, does not serve /b his master’s b son and /b does b not /b serve his master’s b daughter /b after his master’s death, but rather is emancipated. The same i halakha /i would apply to a Hebrew slave sold to a convert, whose status in this respect is similar to that of a gentile., b The Master said /b above: b And a woman or a convert may not acquire a Hebrew slave. /b The Gemara suggests: b Let us say that /b this i baraita /i is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A woman may acquire maidservants but may not acquire /b male b slaves, /b in order to preserve standards of modesty. b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: She may also acquire /b male b slaves. /b The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b Even /b if b you say /b that this i baraita /i is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, /b it is b not difficult. Here, /b where it is prohibited, the ruling is stated b with regard to a Hebrew slave, /b and b there, /b where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel renders it permitted, the ruling is stated b with regard to a Canaanite slave. /b ,The Gemara explains the difference: b A Hebrew slave /b is regarded as b discreet in her /b eyes, and since she trusts that a Hebrew slave will not reveal their actions to others if they engage in sexual intercourse, it is prohibited for her to acquire a male Hebrew slave. By contrast, b a Canaanite slave /b is regarded as b indiscreet in her /b eyes, so she will be deterred from transgressing with him.,The Gemara asks: b But /b this seems to contradict the i baraita /i b that Rav Yosef teaches: A widow may not raise a dog, /b due to suspicion that she may engage in bestiality, b and she may not allow a student /b of Torah to dwell b as a lodger /b in her home. b Granted, /b it makes sense that it is prohibited for her to have b a student /b of Torah lodging in her home, as he is regarded as b discreet in her /b eyes. b But /b concerning b a dog, since it would follow her /b around afterward if she would engage in bestiality with it, b she is afraid /b to sin with it. Therefore, it should be permitted for her to raise it. The Sages b say /b in response: b Since it will /b also b follow her /b around b if she throws it a piece of meat [ i umtza /i ], people will say: It is following her due to the meat she threw to it, /b and they will not suspect her of sinning. Consequently, she will not be deterred from transgressing.,The Gemara discusses Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s second difficulty: b The i ger toshav /i that was mentioned concerning interest, what is it? /b What was Rabbi Yehuda’s difficulty? b As it is written: “And if your brother waxes poor, and his means fail with you, then you shall strengthen him, as a stranger and a resident [ i ger vetoshav /i ] shall he live with you. You may not take interest or increase from him, but fear your God, and your brother should live with you” /b (Leviticus 25:35–36). This indicates that interest may not be taken from a i ger toshav /i . b And /b the Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from the mishna: b One may borrow /b money b from them, /b i.e., from gentiles, b and lend /b money b to them with interest, and similarly, /b one may borrow money from and lend money to b a i ger toshav /i /b with interest., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Is it written: Do not take from them? /b No, b it is written: /b “Do not take b from him,” /b in the singular, and it means: Do not take interest b from a Jew. /b ,With regard to this verse b the Sages taught: “You may not take interest or increase from him,” but you may become a guarantor for him /b for a transaction involving interest. |
|
| 33. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan A, 12 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 176 |
| 34. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan B, 26 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 105 |
| 35. Anon., Gerim, 1.1-1.3, 2.5, 3.5 Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 42, 153, 172, 243, 270 |
36. Anon., Midrash On Song of Songs, 1.1.3 Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 275| 1.1.3. דָּבָר אַחֵר, חָזִיתָ אִישׁ מָהִיר בִּמְלַאכְתּוֹ וגו', אֵלּוּ הַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁהֵם עוֹסְקִין בִּמְלַאכְתּוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, לְפִיכָךְ לִפְנֵי מְלָכִים יִתְיַצָּב, שֶׁמִּתְיַצְּבִים בַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ח, טו): בִּי מְלָכִים יִמְלֹכוּ. בַּל יִתְיַצֵּב לִפְנֵי חֲשֻׁכִּים, אֵלּוּ הָרְשָׁעִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה כט, טו): וְהָיָה בְמַחְשָׁךְ מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם, וּכְתִיב (תהלים לה, ו): יְהִי דַּרְכָּם חשֶׁךְ וְחַלַּקְלַקֹּת. | |
|
| 37. Anon., Pesikta Rabbati, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 176 |
| 38. Anon., Qedoshim, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 42 |
| 40. Philo of Alexandria, 1Qs, 5.1-5.2, 6.19 Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 18, 28, 29 |
41. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 37| 59a. דא"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יהוצדק מים של רבים אין נאסרין הא דיחיד נאסרין,ותיפוק ליה דהא מחוברין נינהו לא צריכא דתלשינהו גלא,סוף סוף אבני הר שנדלדלו נינהו תסתיים דר' יוחנן דאמר אסורות,לא צריכא דטפחינהו בידיה,ר' חייא בר אבא איקלע לגבלא חזא בנות ישראל דמיעברן מעובדי כוכבים שמלו ולא טבלו חזא חמרא דמזגו עובדי כוכבים ושתו ישראל חזא תורמוסא דשלקי להו עובדי כוכבים ואכלי ישראל ולא אמר להו ולא מידי,אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן א"ל צא והכרז על בניהם שהן ממזרים ועל יינן משום יין נסך ועל תורמוסן משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים משום שאינן בני תורה,על בניהם שהם ממזרים ר' יוחנן לטעמיה דא"ר יוחנן לעולם אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול וכיון דלא טביל עובד כוכבים הוא ואמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד ממזר,וגזור על יינם משום יין נסך משום לך לך אמרין נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב,ועל תורמוסן משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים לפי שאינן בני תורה טעמא דאינן בני תורה הא בני תורה שרי והאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רב כל שנאכל כמות שהוא חי אין בו משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים,ר' יוחנן כי הך לישנא ס"ל דאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רב כל שאינו עולה לשולחן של מלכים ללפת בו את הפת אין בו משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים טעמא דאינן בני תורה הא בני תורה שרי,בעו מיניה מרב כהנא עובד כוכבים מהו שיוליך ענבים לגת אמר להו אסור משום לך לך אמרין נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב איתיביה רב יימר לרב כהנא עובד כוכבים שהביא ענבים לגת בסלין | 59a. b as Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Water that belongs to /b the b public /b is b not rendered prohibited. /b The Gemara infers that since water that belongs to the public is permitted, b therefore, /b in a case where gentiles bow to water that is owned b by an individual /b it is b rendered prohibited. /b ,The Gemara challenges: b But /b Rabbi Yoḥa could b derive /b that even water owned by an individual is permitted, b as /b the water b is connected /b to the ground, and worshipping an object that is connected to the ground does not render it prohibited. The Gemara explains: b No, /b it is b necessary /b to derive this i halakha /i from the fact that the water belongs to the public in a case b where a wave /b raised the water and b detached it /b from the ground. In this case worshipping water owned by an individual would render it prohibited.,The Gemara challenges: Nevertheless, the water b ultimately /b falls into the category of objects that were detached without human involvement, such as b boulders of a mountain that dislodged /b on their own. The Gemara (46a) cites a dispute between Rabbi Yoḥa and the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya with regard to boulders that dislodged without human involvement and were then worshipped, and does not conclude who deems the boulders permitted and who deems them prohibited. b May it be concluded /b from Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement b that /b it is b Rabbi Yoḥa who says /b that the boulders b are prohibited? /b ,The Gemara replies: b No, /b even if Rabbi Yoḥa deems the boulders permitted, his ruling with regard to the water is b necessary /b in a case b where /b one b struck /b the water b with his hand /b and thereby detached it. Since it was detached due to human involvement, if the water was owned by an individual it is prohibited.,§ b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba happened /b to come b to Gavla. He saw Jewish women /b there b who were impregnated by gentiles who /b were in the process of converting and b were circumcised but had not /b yet b immersed /b in a ritual bath. b He /b also b saw wine that gentiles diluted /b with water b and Jews /b then b drank /b the wine. b He /b also b saw lupines that gentiles were cooking and Jews were eating. And /b despite seeing all this, b he did not say anything to them /b to correct their actions.,Later, b he came before Rabbi Yoḥa /b and told him what he had seen. Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: Go and declare about their children that they /b have the status of b children born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [ i mamzerim /i ]. And /b decree b with regard to their wine /b that it is prohibited b as /b an extension of the prohibition of b wine /b used for b a libation. And with regard to their lupines /b you should declare that they are forbidden b due to /b the prohibition of b food cooked by gentiles, as they are not people /b well-versed in b Torah, /b and any leniency would be misunderstood and applied too extensively.,The Gemara explains that with regard to declaring b about their children that they /b have the status of b i mamzerim /i , Rabbi Yoḥa /b conforms b to his /b standard line of b reasoning /b concerning two i halakhot /i . The first is b as Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b One b is never /b deemed to be b a convert until he has been circumcised and has immersed. And since /b the father b has not immersed, he is /b still considered b a gentile. And /b the second i halakha /i is as b Rabba bar bar Ḥana says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b In the case of b a gentile or /b a Canaanite b slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a i mamzer /i . /b ,The Gemara continues to explain Rabbi Yoḥa’s second instruction to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: b And decree with regard to their wine /b that it is prohibited b as /b an extension of the prohibition of b wine /b used for b a libation. /b Although the gentile did not touch the wine when he diluted it, it is prohibited b due to /b the maxim: b Go, go, we say /b to b a nazirite; go around /b and b go around, /b but b do not come near to the vineyard. /b ,Lastly, Rabbi Yoḥa instructed Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba to decree b with regard to their lupines /b that they are forbidden b due to /b the prohibition of b food cooked by gentiles, as they are not people /b well-versed in b Torah. /b The Gemara asks: b The reason /b that the lupines are deemed prohibited is b because they are not people /b well-versed in b Torah; but /b in the case of b people /b who are well-versed in b Torah, /b one can infer that the lupines b are permitted. But doesn’t Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak say /b that b Rav says: Anything that is eaten raw is not subject to /b the prohibition of b food cooked by gentiles, /b even when cooked by them? Lupines are not eaten raw due to their bitterness, and therefore they are subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles.,The Gemara answers: b Rabbi Yoḥa holds in accordance with that /b other b version /b of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak’s statement, b as Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says /b that b Rav says: Anything that /b lacks importance and therefore b does not appear on the table of kings /b in order b to be eaten together with bread is not subject to /b the prohibition of b food cooked by gentiles. /b Lupines are not sufficiently important to be served on the table of kings, and therefore they are permitted even if cooked by gentiles. Consequently, b the reason /b for prohibiting the residents of Gavla from eating them is b because they are not people /b well-versed in b Torah. But /b in the case of b people /b well-versed in b Torah, /b the lupines b are permitted. /b ,§ The Sages b asked Rav Kahana: /b With regard to b a gentile, what is /b the i halakha /i concerning the following question: b May he bring grapes to the winepress /b without doing anything else to them? Rav Kahana b said to them: /b It is b prohibited /b by rabbinic decree b due to /b the maxim: b Go, go, we say /b to b a nazirite; go around /b and b go around, /b but b do not come near to the vineyard. Rav Yeimar raised an objection to Rav Kahana /b from a i baraita /i : With regard to b a gentile who brought grapes to the winepress in baskets /b |
|
| 42. Mishnah, Malachi, 8 Tagged with subjects: •amorarim, palestinian Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 28, 44, 46, 159, 218 |
