2. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Bavli, aggada integrated into halakhic context • Bavli, dating of anonymous sections • aggada in Bavli, integrated with halakhic context
Found in books: Hayes (2022) 568; Kalmin (1998) 149
133b. ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה נכסי לך ואחריך לפלוני וראשון ראוי ליורשו הוה שכיב ראשון אתא שני קא תבע,סבר רב עיליש קמיה דרבא למימר שני נמי שקיל א"ל דייני דחצצתא הכי דייני לאו היינו דשלח רב אחא בר רב עויא,אכסיף קרי עליה (ישעיהו ס, כב) אני ה\' בעתה אחישנה:,133b. There was a certain person who said to another: My property is given to you, and after you, to so-and-so, and the first one was fit to inherit from him. After the first died, the second came and claimed the property.,Rav Ilish, who was in the presence of Rava, thought to say that the second also takes a share of the property; he divides it with the heirs of the first. Rava said to him: Judges of compromise, who as a matter of course divide disputed property between the parties, rule in this manner. But isn’t this identical to the case concerning which Rav Aḥa bar Rav Avya sent a ruling that the second receives nothing?,Rav Ilish was embarrassed by his mistake. To comfort him, Rav read the following verse about him: “I, the Lord, will hasten it in its time” (Isaiah 60:22), as if to say: It was due to Divine Providence that I was here to correct you before your mistaken ruling was implemented.,one who wrote a document granting his property to others as a gift and left his sons with nothing, what he did is done, i.e., it takes effect; but the Sages are displeased with him. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: If he did so because his sons were not acting properly, he is remembered positively.,A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, maintaining that depriving one’s children of their inheritance is inappropriate in any event, or not?,The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Yosef ben Yo’ezer had a son who was not acting properly. Yosef ben Yo’ezer had a vessel illiyyata full of dinars, and he arose and consecrated it to the Temple treasury, depriving his son of his inheritance. His son went and married the daughter of King Yannai’s crown weaver. After the son’s wife gave birth, he bought her a fish binita. He tore its stomach open and found a pearl in it. He decided to sell it.,His wife said to him: Do not bring it to the treasury of the king to sell it, as they will take it from you for an insignificant sum of money. Rather, go bring it to the Temple treasurers. And do not appraise it yourself, as declaration to the Most High is equivalent to transfer to an ordinary person, and if you offer to sell it for an amount less than its worth, you will not be able to change your mind. Rather, let them appraise it.,He brought it to the Temple treasury, and they appraised it as having the value of thirteen vessels illiyyata full of dinars. The treasurers said to him: There are seven illiyyata of dinars at our disposal to pay you for the pearl, but there are not an additional six. He said to the treasurers: Give me the seven in exchange for the pearl, and as for the additional six that you owe me, they are hereby consecrated to Heaven.,The treasurers arose and wrote: Yosef ben Yo’ezer bestowed one illiyyata to the Temple treasury, and his son bestowed six. And there are those who say that they wrote: Yosef ben Yo’ezer bestowed one illiyyata to the Temple treasury, and his son removed seven, which he received for the pearl.,The Gemara infers: From the fact that they said approvingly that Yosef ben Yo’ezer’s son bestowed seven, by inference, he acted well when he left him out of his inheritance. The Gemara responds: On the contrary; from the fact that according to the second account, they said disparagingly that he removed seven, by inference, Yosef ben Yo’ezer did not act well when he left him out of his inheritance, as he caused money to be removed from the Temple treasury. Rather, no inference is to be learned from this story with regard to the dilemma as to whether the Rabbis agree with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as the two accounts contradict each other on this matter.,The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Come and hear, as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Shina, do not be in a house where inheritance is transferred away from its rightful heir, even if it is transferred from a wicked son to a good son, and all the more so if it is transferred from a son to a daughter. Evidently, the Rabbis hold that inheritance should not be transferred in any case.,§ The Sages taught: There was an incident involving one man whose children did not act properly. He arose and wrote a document transferring all his property to Yonatan ben Uzziel, one of the Sages, as a gift. What did Yonatan ben Uzziel do? He sold a third of the property for his needs, and consecrated a third of the property, and returned the remaining third to the man’s children.,Shammai came to Yonatan ben Uzziel with his staff and traveling bag to protest his giving part of the property to the man’s children against the deceased’s wishes. Yonatan ben Uzziel said to him: Shammai, if you can repossess the property that I sold from the purchasers and the property that I consecrated from the Temple treasury, you can repossess what I returned to the man’s children as well;''. None | |
|
3. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Bavli • Boyarin, Daniel, on satire in Bavli
Found in books: Hidary (2017) 18; Piotrkowski (2019) 142
13b. ונמלך ומצאו בן עירו ואמר שמך כשמי ושם אשתך כשם אשתי פסול לגרש בו,הכי השתא התם (דברים כד, א) וכתב לה כתיב בעינן כתיבה לשמה הכא ועשה לה כתיב בעינן עשייה לשמה עשייה דידה מחיקה היא,א"ר אחא בר חנינא גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שאין בדורו של רבי מאיר כמותו ומפני מה לא קבעו הלכה כמותו שלא יכלו חביריו לעמוד על סוף דעתו שהוא אומר על טמא טהור ומראה לו פנים על טהור טמא ומראה לו פנים,תנא לא ר"מ שמו אלא רבי נהוראי שמו ולמה נקרא שמו ר"מ שהוא מאיר עיני חכמים בהלכה ולא נהוראי שמו אלא רבי נחמיה שמו ואמרי לה רבי אלעזר בן ערך שמו ולמה נקרא שמו נהוראי שמנהיר עיני חכמים בהלכה,אמר רבי האי דמחדדנא מחבראי דחזיתיה לר\' מאיר מאחוריה ואילו חזיתיה מקמיה הוה מחדדנא טפי דכתיב (ישעיהו ל, כ) והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך,א"ר אבהו א"ר יוחנן תלמיד היה לו לר"מ וסומכוס שמו שהיה אומר על כל דבר ודבר של טומאה ארבעים ושמונה טעמי טומאה ועל כל דבר ודבר של טהרה ארבעים ושמונה טעמי טהרה,תנא תלמיד ותיק היה ביבנה שהיה מטהר את השרץ במאה וחמשים טעמים,אמר רבינא אני אדון ואטהרנו ומה נחש שממית ומרבה טומאה טהור שרץ שאין ממית ומרבה טומאה לא כ"ש,ולא היא מעשה קוץ בעלמא קעביד,א"ר אבא אמר שמואל שלש שנים נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו יצאה בת קול ואמרה אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הן והלכה כב"ה,וכי מאחר שאלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים מפני מה זכו ב"ה לקבוע הלכה כמותן מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו ושונין דבריהן ודברי ב"ש ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי ב"ש לדבריהן,כאותה ששנינו מי שהיה ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית בית שמאי פוסלין וב"ה מכשירין אמרו ב"ה לב"ש לא כך היה מעשה שהלכו זקני ב"ש וזקני ב"ה לבקר את ר\' יוחנן בן החורנית ומצאוהו יושב ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית אמרו להן בית שמאי (אי) משם ראיה אף הן אמרו לו אם כך היית נוהג לא קיימת מצות סוכה מימיך,ללמדך שכל המשפיל עצמו הקב"ה מגביהו וכל המגביה עצמו הקב"ה משפילו כל המחזר על הגדולה גדולה בורחת ממנו וכל הבורח מן הגדולה גדולה מחזרת אחריו וכל הדוחק את השעה שעה דוחקתו וכל הנדחה מפני שעה שעה עומדת לו,ת"ר שתי שנים ומחצה נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא והללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שנברא יותר משלא נברא נמנו וגמרו נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא עכשיו שנברא יפשפש במעשיו ואמרי לה ימשמש במעשיו,13b. but later reconsidered and did not divorce her, and a resident of his city found him and said: Your name is the same as my name, and your wife’s name is the same as my wife’s name, and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce, and I will use it to divorce my wife, then this document is invalid to divorce with it? Apparently, a man may not divorce his wife with a bill of divorce written for another woman, and the same should apply to the scroll of a sota.,The Gemara rejects this argument: How can you compare the two cases? There, with regard to a bill of divorce, it is written: “And he shall write for her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and therefore we require writing it in her name, specifically for her; whereas here, with regard to a sota, it is written: “And he shall perform with her all this ritual” (Numbers 5:30), and therefore we require performance in her name. In her case, the performance is erasure; however, writing of the scroll need not be performed specifically for her.,On the topic of Rabbi Meir and his Torah study, the Gemara cites an additional statement. Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that in the generation of Rabbi Meir there was no one of the Sages who is his equal. Why then didn’t the Sages establish the halakha in accordance with his opinion? It is because his colleagues were unable to ascertain the profundity of his opinion. He was so brilliant that he could present a cogent argument for any position, even if it was not consistent with the prevalent halakha. As he would state with regard to a ritually impure item that it is pure, and display justification for that ruling, and likewise he would state with regard to a ritually pure item that it is impure, and display justification for that ruling. The Sages were unable to distinguish between the statements that were halakha and those that were not.,It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir was not his name; rather, Rabbi Nehorai was his name. And why was he called by the name Rabbi Meir? It was because he illuminates meir the eyes of the Sages in matters of the halakha. And Rabbi Nehorai was not the name of the tanna known by that name; rather, Rabbi Neḥemya was his name, and some say: Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh was his name. And why was he called by the name Rabbi Nehorai? It is because he enlightens manhir the eyes of the Sages in matters of the halakha.,The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The fact that I am more incisive than my colleagues is due to the fact that I saw Rabbi Meir from behind, i.e., I sat behind him when I was his student. Had I seen him from the front, I would be even more incisive, as it is written: “And your eyes shall see your teacher” (Isaiah 30:20). Seeing the face of one’s teacher increases one’s understanding and sharpens one’s mind.,And the Gemara stated that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: Rabbi Meir had a disciple, and his name was Sumakhus, who would state with regard to each and every matter of ritual impurity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of impurity, and with regard to each and every matter of ritual purity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of purity.,It was taught in a baraita: There was a distinguished disciple at Yavne who could with his incisive intellect purify the creeping animal, explicitly deemed ritually impure by the Torah, adducing one hundred and fifty reasons in support of his argument.,Ravina said: I too will deliberate and purify it employing the following reasoning: And just as a snake that kills people and animals and thereby increases ritual impurity in the world, as a corpse imparts impurity through contact, through being carried, and by means of a tent, is ritually pure and transmits no impurity, a creeping animal that does not kill and does not increase impurity in the world, all the more so should it be pure.,The Gemara rejects this: And it is not so; that is not a valid a fortiori argument, as it can be refuted. A snake is performing a mere act of a thorn. A thorn causes injury and even death; nevertheless, it is not ritually impure. The same applies to a snake, and therefore this a fortiori argument is rejected.,Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.,The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai.,As in the mishna that we learned: In the case of one whose head and most of his body were in the sukka, but his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem this sukka invalid; and Beit Hillel deem it valid. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Wasn’t there an incident in which the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoḥa ben HaḤoranit, and they found him sitting with his head and most of his body in the sukka, but his table was in the house? Beit Shammai said to them: From there do you seek to adduce a proof? Those visitors, too, said to him: If that was the manner in which you were accustomed to perform the mitzva, you have never fulfilled the mitzva of sukka in all your days. It is apparent from the phrasing of the mishna that when the Sages of Beit Hillel related that the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel visited Rabbi Yoḥa ben HaḤoranit, they mentioned the Elders of Beit Shammai before their own Elders.,This is to teach you that anyone who humbles himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, exalts him, and anyone who exalts himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, humbles him. Anyone who seeks greatness, greatness flees from him, and, conversely, anyone who flees from greatness, greatness seeks him. And anyone who attempts to force the moment and expends great effort to achieve an objective precisely when he desires to do so, the moment forces him too, and he is unsuccessful. And conversely, anyone who is patient and yields to the moment, the moment stands by his side, and he will ultimately be successful.,The Sages taught the following baraita: For two and a half years, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These say: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. And those said: It is preferable for man to have been created than had he not been created. Ultimately, they were counted and concluded: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. However, now that he has been created, he should examine his actions that he has performed and seek to correct them. And some say: He should scrutinize his planned actions and evaluate whether or not and in what manner those actions should be performed, so that he will not sin.,The cross beam, which the Sages stated may be used to render an alleyway fit for one to carry within it, must be wide enough to receive and hold a small brick. And this small brick is half a large brick, which measures three handbreadths, i.e., a handbreadth and a half. It is sufficient that the cross beam will be a handbreadth in width, not a handbreadth and a half, enough to hold a small brick across its width.,And the cross beam must be wide enough to hold a small brick and also sturdy enough to hold a small brick and not collapse. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is wide enough to hold the brick, even though it is not sturdy enough to actually support it, it is sufficient. Therefore, even if the cross beam is made of straw or reeds, one considers it as though it were made of metal.,If the cross beam is curved, so that a small brick cannot rest on it, one considers it as though it were straight; if it is round, one considers it as though it were square. The following principle was stated with regard to a round cross beam: Any beam with a circumference of three handbreadths is a handbreadth in width, i.e., in diameter.''. None | |
|
4. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Bavli (Babylonian Talmud), orality • Synopsis (Bavli and Yerushalmi) • Talmud Bavli, different layers of the • baraitot, intra-Bavli parallel sugyot • conversion court, Bavli roots of • conversion procedure, fifth baraita (protocol of the conversion procedure in the Bavli) • governing voice, Bavli • incest, Bavli and • intertextuality, intra-Bavli • intertextuality, intra-Bavli, as tool of analysis • intertextuality, intra-Bavli, repertoire, social/cultural • parallel sugyot, intra-Bavli • “a convert is like a newborn infant” (phrase, Bavli)
Found in books: Hayes (2022) 264; Lavee (2017) 39, 48, 70, 84, 158, 165, 169, 192, 282, 283; Nikolsky and Ilan (2014) 88; Secunda (2014) 41
46b. בטבל ולא מל כולי עלמא לא פליגי דמהני כי פליגי במל ולא טבל רבי אליעזר יליף מאבות ורבי יהושע באבות נמי טבילה הוה,מנא ליה אילימא מדכתיב (שמות יט, י) לך אל העם וקדשתם היום ומחר וכבסו שמלותם ומה במקום שאין טעון כבוס טעון טבילה מקום שטעון כבוס אינו דין שטעון טבילה,ודלמא נקיות בעלמא,אלא מהכא (שמות כד, ח) ויקח משה את הדם ויזרוק על העם וגמירי דאין הזאה בלא טבילה,ורבי יהושע טבילה באמהות מנלן סברא הוא דאם כן במה נכנסו תחת כנפי השכינה,א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן לעולם אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול פשיטא יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים,מאן חכמים רבי יוסי,דתניא הרי שבא ואמר מלתי ולא טבלתי מטבילין אותו ומה בכך דברי ר\' יהודה רבי יוסי אומר אין מטבילין,לפיכך מטבילין גר בשבת דברי ר\' יהודה ור\' יוסי אומר אין מטבילין,אמר מר לפיכך מטבילין גר בשבת פשיטא כיון דא"ר יהודה בחדא סגיא היכא דמל לפנינו מטבילין מאי לפיכך,מהו דתימא לרבי יהודה טבילה עיקר וטבילה בשבת לא דקא מתקן גברא קמ"ל דר\' יהודה או הא או הא בעי,ר\' יוסי אומר אין מטבילין פשיטא דכיון דאמר רבי יוסי תרתי בעינן תקוני גברא בשבת לא מתקנינן,מהו דתימא לר\' יוסי מילה עיקר והתם הוא דלא הואי מילה בפנינו אבל היכא דהויא מילה בפנינו אימא ליטבל זה בשבתא קמ"ל דרבי יוסי תרתי בעי,אמר רבה עובדא הוה בי רבי חייא בר רבי ורב יוסף מתני רבי אושעיא בר רבי ורב ספרא מתני ר\' אושעיא בר\' חייא דאתא לקמיה גר שמל ולא טבל א"ל שהי כאן עד למחר ונטבלינך,ש"מ תלת ש"מ גר צריך שלשה וש"מ אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול וש"מ אין מטבילין גר בלילה ונימא ש"מ נמי בעינן מומחין דלמא דאיקלעו,אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן גר צריך ג\' משפט כתיב ביה,ת"ר מי שבא ואמר גר אני יכול נקבלנו ת"ל אתך במוחזק לך בא ועדיו עמו מנין ת"ל (ויקרא יט, לג) וכי יגור אתך גר בארצכם'47b. לא רוב טובה ולא רוב פורענות ואין מרבין עליו ואין מדקדקין עליו,קיבל מלין אותו מיד נשתיירו בו ציצין המעכבין את המילה חוזרים ומלין אותו שניה נתרפא מטבילין אותו מיד ושני ת"ח עומדים על גביו ומודיעין אותו מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות טבל ועלה הרי הוא כישראל לכל דבריו,אשה נשים מושיבות אותה במים עד צוארה ושני ת"ח עומדים לה מבחוץ ומודיעין אותה מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות,אחד גר ואחד עבד משוחרר ובמקום שנדה טובלת שם גר ועבד משוחרר טובלין וכל דבר שחוצץ בטבילה חוצץ בגר ובעבד משוחרר ובנדה,אמר מר גר שבא להתגייר אומרים לו מה ראית שבאת להתגייר ומודיעים אותו מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות מ"ט דאי פריש נפרוש דא"ר חלבו קשים גרים לישראל כספחת דכתיב (ישעיהו יד, א) ונלוה הגר עליהם ונספחו על בית יעקב:,ומודיעים אותו עון לקט שכחה ופאה ומעשר עני: מ"ט א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן בן נח נהרג על פחות משוה פרוטה ולא ניתן להשבון,(ומודיעים אותו עון שכחה ופאה): ואין מרבים עליו ואין מדקדקים עליו: אמר רבי אלעזר מאי קראה דכתיב (רות א, יח) ותרא כי מתאמצת היא ללכת אתה ותחדל לדבר אליה,אמרה לה אסיר לן תחום שבת (רות א, טז) באשר תלכי אלך אסיר לן יחוד (רות א, טז) באשר תליני אלין,מפקדינן שש מאות וי"ג מצות (רות א, טז) עמך עמי אסיר לן עבודת כוכבים (רות א, טז) ואלהיך אלהי ארבע מיתות נמסרו לב"ד (רות א, יז) באשר תמותי אמות ב\' קברים נמסרו לב"ד (רות א, יז) ושם אקבר,מיד ותרא כי מתאמצת היא וגו\':,קיבל מלין אותו מיד: מ"ט שהויי מצוה לא משהינן:,נשתיירו בו ציצין המעכבין המילה וכו\': כדתנן אלו הן ציצין המעכבין המילה בשר החופה את רוב העטרה ואינו אוכל בתרומה וא"ר ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב בשר החופה רוב גובהה של עטרה:,נתרפא מטבילין אותו מיד: נתרפא אין לא נתרפא לא מאי טעמא משום דמיא מרזו מכה:,ושני ת"ח עומדים על גביו: והא א"ר חייא א"ר יוחנן גר צריך שלשה הא א"ר יוחנן לתנא תני שלשה:,טבל ועלה הרי הוא כישראל לכל דבריו: למאי הלכתא דאי הדר ביה ומקדש בת ישראל ישראל מומר קרינא ביה וקידושיו קידושין:,אחד גר ואחד עבד משוחרר: קסלקא דעתך לקבל עליו עול מצות ורמינהו במה דברים אמורים בגר אבל בעבד משוחרר אין צריך לקבל,אמר רב ששת לא קשיא הא ר"ש בן אלעזר הא רבנן,דתניא (דברים כא, יג) ובכתה את אביה ואת אמה וגו\' בד"א שלא קבלה עליה אבל קבלה עליה מטבילה ומותר בה מיד,ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר אע"פ שלא קבלה עליה כופה ומטבילה לשם שפחות וחוזר ומטבילה לשם שחרור ומשחררה 98a. הא איסורא איכא ה"ה דאפילו איסורא נמי ליכא ואיידי דבעי למיתני סיפא אבל חייבין תנא נמי רישא אין חייבין,אמר רבא הא דאמור רבנן אין אב למצרי לא תימא משום דשטופי בזמה דלא ידיע אבל ידיע חיישינן אלא אפילו דידיע נמי לא חיישינן,דהא שני אחין תאומים דטפה אחת היה ונחלקה לשתים וקתני סיפא לא חולצין ולא מייבמין ש"מ אפקורי אפקריה רחמנא לזרעיה דכתיב (יחזקאל כג, כ) בשר חמורים בשרם וזרמת סוסים זרמתם,ת"ש דאמר רבי יוסי מעשה בניפטיים הגר שנשא אשת אחיו מאמו ובא מעשה לפני חכמים ואמרו אין אישות לגר ואלא גר דקדיש ה"נ לא תפסי בה קדושין אלא אימא אין איסור אשת אח לגר מאי לאו דנסבא אח כשהוא גר,לא דנסבא כשהוא עובד כוכבים כשהוא עובד כוכבים מאי למימרא מהו דתימא ליגזור כשהוא עובד כוכבים אטו כשהוא גר קמ"ל,ת"ש דאמר בן יאסיין כשהלכתי לכרכי הים מצאתי גר אחד שנשא אשת אחיו מאמו אמרתי לו בני מי הרשך אמר לי הרי אשה ושבעה בניה על ספסל זה ישב ר\' עקיבא ואמר שני דברים גר נושא אשת אחיו מאמו ואמר (יונה ג, א) ויהי דבר ה\' אל יונה שנית לאמר שנית דברה עמו שכינה שלישית לא דברה עמו שכינה קתני מיהת גר נושא אשת אחיו מאמו מאי לאו דנסבא אחיו כשהוא גר,לא דנסבא כשהוא עובד כוכבים מאי למימרא מהו דתימא נגזור כשהוא עובד כוכבים אטו כשהוא גר קמ"ל,ומי מהימן והאמר ר\' אבא אמר רב הונא אמר רב כל תלמיד חכם שמורה הלכה ובא אם קודם מעשה אמרה שומעין לו ואם לאו אין שומעין לו,איבעית אימא מורה ובא היה ואיבעית אימא משום דקאמר הרי אשה ושבעה בניה ואיבעית אימא שאני הכא דקאמר מעשה אחרינא בהדה,אמר מר ויהי דבר ה\' אל יונה שנית לאמר שנית דברה עמו שכינה שלישית לא דברה עמו והא כתיב (מלכים ב יד, כה) הוא השיב את גבול ישראל מלבא חמת עד ים הערבה כדבר ה\' אשר דבר ביד עבדו יונה בן אמתי הנביא,אמר רבינא על עסקי נינוה קאמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר הכי קאמר כדבר ה\' אשר דבר ביד עבדו הנביא כשם שנהפך לנינוה מרעה לטובה כך בימי ירבעם בן יואש נהפך להם לישראל מרעה לטובה,ת"ש גר שהיה לידתו בקדושה והורתו שלא בקדושה יש לו שאר האם ואין לו שאר האב כיצד נשא אחותו מן האם יוציא מן האב יקיים אחות האב מן האם יוציא '. None | 46b. With regard to one who immersed but was not circumcised, everyone, i.e., both Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer, agrees that the halakha is derived from the foremothers that immersion alone is effective. Where they disagree is with regard to one who was circumcised but had not immersed; Rabbi Eliezer derives that it is effective from the forefathers, and Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees because he maintains that in the conversion of the forefathers there was also an immersion.,The Gemara asks: From where did he derive this? If we say that he derived it from the fact that it is written that in preparation for the revelation at Sinai, God commanded Moses: “Go unto the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments” (Exodus 19:10), as Rabbi Yehoshua understands that the washing mentioned in this verse is the ritual immersion of clothes, this leads to the following a fortiori inference: Just as in a case where one became impure through contact with some source of impurity, washing, i.e., immersion, of clothes is not required but immersion of one’s body is required, then in a case where washing of clothes is required, as in the preparation for the revelation at Sinai, isn’t it logical that immersion of one’s body should also be required?,The Gemara rejects the proof: But perhaps when the verse states that they had to wash their clothes, it was merely for cleanliness and not for the sake of ritual purity. If so, no a fortiori inference can be drawn from it to the case of immersion for ritual purity.,Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua derived it from here, where the verse states with regard to the formation of the covet at Sinai: “And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people” (Exodus 24:8), and it is learned as a tradition that there is no ritual sprinkling without immersion. Therefore, our forefathers also must have immersed at Sinai, and consequently that is also an essential requirement for all conversions.,The Gemara asks: And with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, from where do we derive that also in the case of our foremothers there was immersion? The Gemara answers: It is based on logical reasoning, as, if so, that they did not immerse, then with what were they brought under the wings of the Divine Presence? Therefore, they also must have immersed.,Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: A man is never considered a convert until he is both circumcised and has immersed. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? In all disputes between an individual Sage and many Sages the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many Sages; it is therefore obvious that the halakha is in accordance with the Rabbis.,The Gemara explains: Who are the Rabbis referred to in the baraita? It is Rabbi Yosei. Since Rabbi Yosei is merely an individual Sage, it was necessarily for Rabbi Yoḥa to state explicitly that the halakha is ruled in accordance with his opinion.,Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert who came and said: I was circumcised for the sake of conversion but I did not immerse, the court should immerse him, as what would be the problem with that; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Since in any case the court immerses him, Rabbi Yehuda does not require proof of the convert’s claim that he was circumcised for the sake of conversion because he holds that it is sufficient to be either circumcised or immersed for the sake of conversion. Rabbi Yosei says: The court does not immerse him. He holds that both circumcision and immersion must be performed specifically for the sake of conversion and are indispensable parts of the conversion process. Therefore, since it is impossible to verify the convert’s claim with regard to his circumcision, there is no benefit to having him immerse.,The baraita states a ramification of their dispute: Therefore, the court may immerse a convert who was already circumcised on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Since he holds that circumcision alone effected conversion, the immersion will not effect any further change in his status, and so it is permitted on Shabbat. And Rabbi Yosei says: The court may not immerse him. Since he holds that both circumcision and immersion are necessary to effect a conversion, the immersion will effect a change in his status by making him Jewish. Therefore it is prohibited to do so on Shabbat by rabbinic decree, because it appears similar to preparing a vessel for use.,The Gemara analyzes the latter clause: The Master said in the baraita: Therefore, the court may immerse a convert who was already circumcised on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this an obvious extension of his opinion; since Rabbi Yehuda said that either one of circumcision or immersion is sufficient, where a convert was circumcised in our presence the court may certainly immerse him, even on Shabbat. What, then, is the need for the baraita to include the clause that begins with: Therefore?,The Gemara explains: It is necessary to explicitly teach this ramification lest you say that according to Rabbi Yehuda the immersion is in fact the principal act that effects conversion, and when he said in the first clause that a convert who claims to have been circumcised should be immersed since there is no problem with that, his reasoning was that he holds it is only immersion that effects the conversion. And therefore performing the immersion on Shabbat would not be permitted, as it establishes the person with a new status and so would be prohibited by a rabbinic decree because it appears similar to preparing a vessel for use. The latter clause is therefore necessary to teach us that Rabbi Yehuda requires either this or that, i.e., either immersion or circumcision alone is sufficient to effect a conversion.,The Gemara analyzes the next statement in the baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: The court may not immerse him. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this an obvious extension of his opinion? As, since Rabbi Yosei requires two acts, both circumcision and immersion, to effect conversion, we may certainly not establish that person with a new status on Shabbat by completing his conversion by immersing him.,The Gemara explains: It is necessary to explicitly teach this ramification lest you say that according to Rabbi Yosei circumcision is in fact the principal act that effects conversion, and it is only there, in the first clause of the baraita, where the circumcision was not performed in our presence and so there is no way to verify whether it was done for the sake of conversion, that Rabbi Yosei states that the court should not proceed to immerse him; however, where the circumcision was performed in our presence, one might say that the conversion was already effected by the circumcision, and therefore let us immerse this convert on Shabbat. The latter clause is therefore necessary to teach us that Rabbi Yosei requires two acts, both circumcision and immersion, to effect conversion.,Rabba said: There was an incident in the house of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rabbi, and as Rav Yosef teaches it, Rabbi Oshaya bar Rabbi was also present, and as Rav Safra teaches it, a third Sage, Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, was also present, in which a convert came before him who was circumcised but had not immersed. He said to the convert: Remain here with us until tomorrow, and then we will immerse you.,Rabba said: Learn from this incident three principles: Learn from it that a convert requires a court of three people to preside over the conversion, as Rav Safra taught that the case involved three Sages. And learn from it that one is not considered to be a convert until he has been both circumcised and immersed. And learn from it that the court may not immerse a convert at night, as they instructed him to remain there until the following day. The Gemara suggests: And let us say that one should also learn from it that we require a court of experts to preside over the conversion, as Rav Safra identified that three expert Sages were present. The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps they simply happened to be there, but in fact three laymen would suffice.,Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: A convert requires a court of three to preside over conversion, because “judgment,” is written with regard to him, as the verse states: “And one judgment shall be both for you and for the convert that sojourns with you” (Numbers 15:16), and legal judgments require a court of three judges.,The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to someone who came and said: I am a convert, one might have thought that we should accept him; therefore, the verse states: “And if a convert sojourns with you in your land, you shall not oppress him” (Leviticus 19:33). The emphasis on “with you” suggests that only someone who was already presumed by you to be a valid convert should be accepted as a convert. If he came and brought witnesses to his conversion with him, from where is it derived that he is to be accepted? It is from the beginning of that verse, which states: “And if a convert sojourns with you in your land.”'47b. they are not able to receive either an abundance of good nor an abundance of calamities, since the primary place for reward and punishment is in the World-to-Come. And they do not overwhelm him with threats, and they are not exacting with him about the details of the mitzvot.,If he accepts upon himself all of these ramifications, then they circumcise him immediately. If there still remain on him shreds of flesh from the foreskin that invalidate the circumcision, they circumcise him again a second time to remove them. When he is healed from the circumcision, they immerse him immediately, and two Torah scholars stand over him at the time of his immersion and inform him of some of the lenient mitzvot and some of the stringent mitzvot. Once he has immersed and emerged, he is like a born Jew in every sense.,For the immersion of a woman: Women appointed by the court seat her in the water of the ritual bath up to her neck, and two Torah scholars stand outside the bath house so as not to compromise her modesty, and from there they inform her of some of the lenient mitzvot and some of the stringent mitzvot.,The procedure applies for both a convert and an emancipated slave who, upon immersion at the time of his emancipation, becomes a Jew in every sense. And in the same place that a menstruating woman immerses, i.e., in a ritual bath of forty se’a of water, there a convert and an emancipated slave also immerse. And anything that interposes between one’s body and the water of the ritual bath with regard to immersion of a ritually impure person, in a manner that would invalidate the immersion, also interposes and invalidates the immersion for a convert, and for an emancipated slave, and for a menstruating woman.,The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said in the baraita: With regard to a potential convert who comes to a court in order to convert, the judges of the court say to him: What did you see that motivated you to come to convert? And they inform him of some of the lenient mitzvot and some of the stringent mitzvot. The Gemara asks: What is the reason to say this to him? It is so that if he is going to withdraw from the conversion process, let him withdraw already at this stage. He should not be convinced to continue, as Rabbi Ḥelbo said: Converts are as harmful to the Jewish people as a leprous scab sappaḥat on the skin, as it is written: “And the convert shall join himself with them, and they shall cleave venispeḥu to the house of Jacob” (Isaiah 14:1). This alludes to the fact that the cleaving of the convert to the Jewish people is like a scab.,The baraita continues: And they inform him of the sin of neglecting the mitzva to allow the poor to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce in the corner of one’s field, and about the poor man’s tithe. The Gemara asks: What is the reason to specifically mention these mitzvot? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: Because a gentile is executed even on account of stealing less than the value of a peruta, since gentiles are particular about even such a small loss, and an item that a gentile steals is not subject to being returned, i.e., he is not obligated to return it to its owner. Since gentiles are unwilling to separate even from items of little value, a potential convert must be made aware that he if converts, he will be required to relinquish some of his property to others.,The baraita continues: And they inform him of the sin of neglecting the mitzva to allow the poor to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce in the corner of one’s field. And they do not overwhelm him with threats, and they are not exacting with him about the details of the mitzvot, i.e., the court should not overly dissuade the convert from converting. Rabbi Elazar said: What is the verse from which this ruling is derived? As it is written: “And when she saw that she was steadfastly minded to go with her, she left off speaking with her” (Ruth 1:18). When Naomi set out to return to Eretz Yisrael, Ruth insisted on joining her. The Gemara understands this to mean that Ruth wished to convert. Naomi attempted to dissuade her, but Ruth persisted. The verse states that once Naomi saw Ruth’s resolve to convert, she desisted from her attempts to dissuade her. The Gemara infers from here that the same approach should be taken by a court in all cases of conversion.,The Gemara reconstructs the original dialogue in which Naomi attempted to dissuade Ruth from converting: Naomi said to her: On Shabbat, it is prohibited for us to go beyond the Shabbat limit. Ruth responded: “Where you go, I shall go” (Ruth 1:16), and no further. Naomi said to her: It is forbidden for us to be alone together with a man with whom it is forbidden to engage in relations. Ruth responded: “Where you lodge, I shall lodge” (Ruth 1:16), and in the same manner.,Naomi said to her: We are commanded to observe six hundred and thirteen mitzvot. Ruth responded: “Your people are my people” (Ruth 1:16). Naomi said to her: Idolatrous worship is forbidden to us. Ruth responded: “Your God is my God” (Ruth 1:16). Naomi said to her: Four types of capital punishment were handed over to a court with which to punish those who transgress the mitzvot. Ruth responded: “Where you die, I shall die” (Ruth 1:17). Naomi said to her: Two burial grounds were handed over to the court, one for those executed for more severe crimes and another for those executed for less severe crimes. Ruth responded: “And there I shall be buried” (Ruth 1:17).,Immediately following this dialogue, the verse states: “And when she saw that she was steadfastly minded she left off speaking with her” (Ruth 1:18). Once Naomi saw Ruth’s resolve to convert, she desisted from her attempts to dissuade her.,The baraita continues: If he accepts upon himself all of these ramifications, then they circumcise him immediately. The Gemara asks: What is the reason to act immediately? It is that we do not delay the performance of a mitzva.,The baraita continues: If there still remain on him shreds of flesh from the foreskin that invalidate the circumcision, he is circumcised a second time to remove them. The Gemara explains: This is as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 137a): These are the shreds of flesh that invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut: Any fragments of the flesh that cover the greater part of the corona. If such shreds remain, the child is considered uncircumcised, and he may not partake of teruma. And in explanation of this mishna, Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: This also includes the flesh that covers the greater part of the height of the corona.,The baraita continues: When he is healed from the circumcision, they immerse him immediately. The Gemara infers from the precise formulation of the baraita that when he has healed, then yes, he is immersed, but as long as he has not healed, then no, he is not. What is the reason for this? It is because water agitates a wound.,The baraita continues: And two Torah scholars stand over him at the time of his immersion. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya say that Rabbi Yoḥa said that a convert requires a court of three to be present at his conversion? The Gemara answers: In fact, Rabbi Yoḥa said to the tanna reciting the mishna: Do not teach that there are two Torah scholars; rather, teach that there are three.,The baraita continues: Once he has immersed and emerged he is a Jew in every sense. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this said? It is that if he reverts back to behaving as a gentile, he nevertheless remains Jewish, and so if he betroths a Jewish woman, although he is considered to be an apostate Jew, his betrothal is a valid betrothal.,The baraita continues: This applies both for a convert and for an emancipated slave. The Gemara considers the meaning of this clause: If it enters your mind to interpret the baraita to mean that a convert and an emancipated slave are the same with regard to accepting upon oneself the yoke of mitzvot, then one could raise a contradiction from that which is taught in another baraita: In what case is this statement that there is a need to accept the yoke of mitzvot said? It is with respect to a convert; however, an emancipated slave does not need to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot when he immerses for the sake of emancipation. Rather, the immersion alone is sufficient to emancipate him and thereby render him a Jew.,Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult, as this baraita that states that an emancipated slave is not required to accept the yoke of mitzvot is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, whereas that baraita that implies he is required to do so is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the first tanna of the following baraita.,As it is taught in a baraita: The Torah permits a Jewish soldier to take a beautiful female prisoner of war out of her captivity in order to marry her. Before he may do so, she must first undergo the process that the Torah describes: “And she shall shave her head, and do her nails; and she shall remove the raiment of her captivity from upon her, and she shall remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a month of days” (Deuteronomy 21:12–13). She may then be immersed for the sake of conversion, even though she does not accept upon herself the yoke of mitzvot. At that point it is permitted to marry her. The baraita asks: Under what circumstance are these matters stated? It is when she did not accept upon herself the yoke of mitzvot; however, if she willingly accepted upon herself the yoke of mitzvot, he may immerse her for the sake of conversion, and he is permitted to marry her immediately without the need for her to undergo the process described in the Torah.,Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even if she did not accept upon herself the yoke of mitzvot, the need for the process can still be circumvented if he forces her and immerses her for the sake of slavery, and then he again immerses her for the sake of emancipation and thereby emancipates her, rendering her a Jewess. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that the immersion of a slave for the sake of emancipation is effective even if the slave does not accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot. 98a. there is a rabbinic prohibition, contrary to Rav Aḥa’s opinion. The Gemara answers: The same is true that there is no prohibition, either. And since the baraita wanted to teach in the latter clause that if they were born in sanctity they are liable, it also taught in the first clause that they are not liable. For this reason, the baraita mentions only the absence of liability.,Rava said: With regard to that which the Sages said, that a gentile has no patrilineage, do not say that it is because they are so steeped in licentiousness that they do not know the identity of their fathers with certainty, but if that identity is known, we are concerned that the paternity is recognized, with regard to the prohibition of intercourse with forbidden paternal relatives and other halakhic issues. Rather, even when it is known, we are still not concerned.,The proof is from the case of two identical twin brothers, who were one drop that was divided into two and obviously have the same father, and yet it is taught in the latter clause of the baraita: They do not perform ḥalitza and they do not perform levirate marriage, although they certainly have the same father. Learn from this that the Merciful One dispossesses the male gentile of his offspring, as it is written with regard to Egyptians: “Whose flesh is the flesh of donkeys, and whose semen is the semen of horses” (Ezekiel 23:20), i.e., the offspring of a male gentile is considered no more related to him than the offspring of donkeys and horses.,The Gemara resumes its discussion of the dispute between Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov and Rav Sheshet. Come and hear another proof, as Rabbi Yosei said: An incident took place involving Niftayim the convert, who married the wife of his maternal half brother, and the incident came before the Sages, and they said that there is no valid marriage for a convert. The Gemara asks: Is this possible? And if a convert betroths a woman who is not related to him, is his betrothal to her indeed ineffective? Rather, modify the baraita and say that with regard to a convert there is no prohibition proscribing a brother’s wife. The Gemara concludes: What, is the baraita not referring to a case where the brother, her first husband, married her when he was already a convert, thereby proving that a convert is permitted to marry the wife of his deceased brother who was also a convert, even if they were maternal brothers?,The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is referring to a case where the brother married her while he was still a gentile, and since he converted they are no longer married. The Gemara asks: If he married her while he was a gentile, what is the purpose of stating this obvious halakha? The Gemara answers: Lest you say the Sages should decree that the marriage is prohibited even in a case where the first husband married her while he was a gentile, due to the prohibition against their marriage if the brother married her when he was already a convert. The baraita therefore teaches us that there is no such decree.,Come and hear another proof, as ben Yasiyan said: When I went to cities overseas, I found one convert who married the wife of his maternal half brother. I said to him: My son, who permitted this to you? He said to me: There is a local woman and her seven sons to whom this was permitted. On this very bench safsal, Rabbi Akiva sat and said two statements: He said that a convert may marry the former wife of his maternal half brother, and he said that the verse “And the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time, saying” (Jonah 3:1) implies that the Divine Presence spoke with him only a second time. However, a third time the Divine Presence did not speak with him, i.e., Jonah did not receive any more prophecies. In any event, this baraita teaches that a convert may marry the wife of his maternal brother. What, is it not referring to a case where the convert’s brother married her when he himself was already a convert?,The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is referring to a case where the brother married her while he was still a gentile. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of stating this obvious halakha? The Gemara answers: Lest you say we should decree that marriage between a convert and the former wife of his brother is prohibited even if the brother married her while he was still a gentile, due to the prohibition against their marrying if the brother married her when he was already a convert. The baraita therefore teaches us that there is no such decree.,And is that convert who cited Rabbi Akiva a reliable witness, despite the fact that the ruling affects him personally? Didn’t Rabbi Abba say that Rav Huna said that Rav said: With regard to any Torah scholar who teaches a ruling of halakha in a certain case and it comes to be, if he said it before the incident, one listens to him. And if not, if the ruling followed the incident, one does not listen to him.,The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the convert taught the ruling, and only afterward it came to be that he himself married his sister-in-law. And if you wish, say that he is reliable because he supported his ruling by stating that there was a practical case involving a woman and her seven sons, in which Rabbi Akiva ruled that this kind of marriage is permitted. And if you wish, say that here it is different, as the convert stated a different incident with it. Since he cited an unrelated teaching of Rabbi Akiva in the same testimony, this teaching is also considered reliable.,The Master said that Rabbi Akiva inferred from the verse “And the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time, saying” that the Divine Presence spoke with him only a second time. However, a third time the Divine Presence did not speak with him. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it written with regard to King Jeroboam ben Joash: “He restored the border of Israel from the entrance of Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, which He spoke by the hand of His servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet” (II\xa0Kings 14:25)? Evidently, Jonah prophesied at least once more.,Ravina said: Rabbi Akiva was saying that Jonah did not prophesize a third time about the issue of Nineveh. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that this is the meaning of the phrase “According to the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, which He spoke by the hand of His servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet”: It is not that Jonah had prophesized about the conquests of Jeroboam ben Joash, but rather that just as the fortune of Nineveh turned from bad to good, so too, in the days of Jeroboam ben Joash, Israel’s fortune turned from bad to good.,The Gemara resumes discussion of the dispute between Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov and Rav Sheshet. Come and hear another proof: A convert whose birth was in sanctity but whose conception was not in sanctity has maternal kinship, i.e., his relationship to his mother’s relatives is recognized. However, he does not have paternal kinship. How so? If he married his maternal half sister, who was born before him and converted, he must divorce her. Although by Torah law they are considered unrelated, the Sages rendered it prohibited for them to marry, lest he marry a maternal half sister who was born after him and is forbidden to him. If she is his paternal half sister, he may maintain her as his wife. If he married his father’s maternal half sister, he must divorce her. '. None |
|
