1. Hebrew Bible, Malachi, 2.10, 2.14-2.16, 3.22 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 112, 115, 116, 126| 2.14. "וַאֲמַרְתֶּם עַל־מָה עַל כִּי־יְהוָה הֵעִיד בֵּינְךָ וּבֵין אֵשֶׁת נְעוּרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה בָּגַדְתָּה בָּהּ וְהִיא חֲבֶרְתְּךָ וְאֵשֶׁת בְּרִיתֶךָ׃", 2.15. "וְלֹא־אֶחָד עָשָׂה וּשְׁאָר רוּחַ לוֹ וּמָה הָאֶחָד מְבַקֵּשׁ זֶרַע אֱלֹהִים וְנִשְׁמַרְתֶּם בְּרוּחֲכֶם וּבְאֵשֶׁת נְעוּרֶיךָ אַל־יִבְגֹּד׃", 2.16. "כִּי־שָׂנֵא שַׁלַּח אָמַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכִסָּה חָמָס עַל־לְבוּשׁוֹ אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת וְנִשְׁמַרְתֶּם בְּרוּחֲכֶם וְלֹא תִבְגֹּדוּ׃", 3.22. "זִכְרוּ תּוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה עַבְדִּי אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי אוֹתוֹ בְחֹרֵב עַל־כָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל חֻקִּים וּמִשְׁפָּטִים׃", | 2.10. "Have we not all one father? Hath not one God created us? Why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, Profaning the covet of our fathers?", 2.14. "Yet ye say: ‘Wherefore?’ Because the LORD hath been witness Between thee and the wife of thy youth, Against whom thou hast dealt treacherously, Though she is thy companion, And the wife of thy covet.", 2.15. "And not one hath done so Who had exuberance of spirit! For what seeketh the one? A seed given of God. Therefore take heed to your spirit, And let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.", 2.16. "For I hate putting away, Saith the LORD, the God of Israel, And him that covereth his garment with violence, Saith the LORD of hosts; Therefore take heed to your spirit, That ye deal not treacherously.", 3.22. "Remember ye the law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordices.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 4.2, 6.4-6.9, 11.13-11.21, 13.1, 21.14, 22.13-22.22, 22.28-22.29, 23.15, 24.1-24.4 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai •elders, bet shammai Found in books: Levine (2005) 167; Sigal (2007) 111, 112, 115, 116, 117, 120, 121, 125, 126, 133, 134| 4.2. "וְאֶתְכֶם לָקַח יְהוָה וַיּוֹצִא אֶתְכֶם מִכּוּר הַבַּרְזֶל מִמִּצְרָיִם לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְעַם נַחֲלָה כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה׃", 4.2. "לֹא תֹסִפוּ עַל־הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם וְלֹא תִגְרְעוּ מִמֶּנּוּ לִשְׁמֹר אֶת־מִצְוֺת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם׃", 6.4. "שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָד׃", 6.5. "וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁךָ וּבְכָל־מְאֹדֶךָ׃", 6.6. "וְהָיוּ הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם עַל־לְבָבֶךָ׃", 6.7. "וְשִׁנַּנְתָּם לְבָנֶיךָ וְדִבַּרְתָּ בָּם בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ בְּבֵיתֶךָ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ בַדֶּרֶךְ וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ׃", 6.8. "וּקְשַׁרְתָּם לְאוֹת עַל־יָדֶךָ וְהָיוּ לְטֹטָפֹת בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ׃", 6.9. "וּכְתַבְתָּם עַל־מְזוּזֹת בֵּיתֶךָ וּבִשְׁעָרֶיךָ׃", 11.13. "וְהָיָה אִם־שָׁמֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶל־מִצְוֺתַי אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם הַיּוֹם לְאַהֲבָה אֶת־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וּלְעָבְדוֹ בְּכָל־לְבַבְכֶם וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁכֶם׃", 11.14. "וְנָתַתִּי מְטַר־אַרְצְכֶם בְּעִתּוֹ יוֹרֶה וּמַלְקוֹשׁ וְאָסַפְתָּ דְגָנֶךָ וְתִירֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ׃", 11.15. "וְנָתַתִּי עֵשֶׂב בְּשָׂדְךָ לִבְהֶמְתֶּךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ וְשָׂבָעְתָּ׃", 11.16. "הִשָּׁמְרוּ לָכֶם פֶּן יִפְתֶּה לְבַבְכֶם וְסַרְתֶּם וַעֲבַדְתֶּם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוִיתֶם לָהֶם׃", 11.17. "וְחָרָה אַף־יְהוָה בָּכֶם וְעָצַר אֶת־הַשָּׁמַיִם וְלֹא־יִהְיֶה מָטָר וְהָאֲדָמָה לֹא תִתֵּן אֶת־יְבוּלָהּ וַאֲבַדְתֶּם מְהֵרָה מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ הַטֹּבָה אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה נֹתֵן לָכֶם׃", 11.18. "וְשַׂמְתֶּם אֶת־דְּבָרַי אֵלֶּה עַל־לְבַבְכֶם וְעַל־נַפְשְׁכֶם וּקְשַׁרְתֶּם אֹתָם לְאוֹת עַל־יֶדְכֶם וְהָיוּ לְטוֹטָפֹת בֵּין עֵינֵיכֶם׃", 11.19. "וְלִמַּדְתֶּם אֹתָם אֶת־בְּנֵיכֶם לְדַבֵּר בָּם בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ בְּבֵיתֶךָ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ בַדֶּרֶךְ וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ׃", 11.21. "לְמַעַן יִרְבּוּ יְמֵיכֶם וִימֵי בְנֵיכֶם עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע יְהוָה לַאֲבֹתֵיכֶם לָתֵת לָהֶם כִּימֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם עַל־הָאָרֶץ׃", 13.1. "אֵת כָּל־הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם אֹתוֹ תִשְׁמְרוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת לֹא־תֹסֵף עָלָיו וְלֹא תִגְרַע מִמֶּנּוּ׃", 13.1. "כִּי הָרֹג תַּהַרְגֶנּוּ יָדְךָ תִּהְיֶה־בּוֹ בָרִאשׁוֹנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ וְיַד כָּל־הָעָם בָּאַחֲרֹנָה׃", 21.14. "וְהָיָה אִם־לֹא חָפַצְתָּ בָּהּ וְשִׁלַּחְתָּהּ לְנַפְשָׁהּ וּמָכֹר לֹא־תִמְכְּרֶנָּה בַּכָּסֶף לֹא־תִתְעַמֵּר בָּהּ תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנִּיתָהּ׃", 22.13. "כִּי־יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבָא אֵלֶיהָ וּשְׂנֵאָהּ׃", 22.14. "וְשָׂם לָהּ עֲלִילֹת דְּבָרִים וְהוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם רָע וְאָמַר אֶת־הָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת לָקַחְתִּי וָאֶקְרַב אֵלֶיהָ וְלֹא־מָצָאתִי לָהּ בְּתוּלִים׃", 22.15. "וְלָקַח אֲבִי הנער [הַנַּעֲרָה] וְאִמָּהּ וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת־בְּתוּלֵי הנער [הַנַּעֲרָה] אֶל־זִקְנֵי הָעִיר הַשָּׁעְרָה׃", 22.16. "וְאָמַר אֲבִי הנער [הַנַּעַרָה] אֶל־הַזְּקֵנִים אֶת־בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה לְאִשָּׁה וַיִּשְׂנָאֶהָ׃", 22.17. "וְהִנֵּה־הוּא שָׂם עֲלִילֹת דְּבָרִים לֵאמֹר לֹא־מָצָאתִי לְבִתְּךָ בְּתוּלִים וְאֵלֶּה בְּתוּלֵי בִתִּי וּפָרְשׂוּ הַשִּׂמְלָה לִפְנֵי זִקְנֵי הָעִיר׃", 22.18. "וְלָקְחוּ זִקְנֵי הָעִיר־הַהִוא אֶת־הָאִישׁ וְיִסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ׃", 22.19. "וְעָנְשׁוּ אֹתוֹ מֵאָה כֶסֶף וְנָתְנוּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה כִּי הוֹצִיא שֵׁם רָע עַל בְּתוּלַת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלוֹ־תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה לֹא־יוּכַל לְשַּׁלְּחָהּ כָּל־יָמָיו׃", 22.21. "וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת־הנער [הַנַּעֲרָה] אֶל־פֶּתַח בֵּית־אָבִיהָ וּסְקָלוּהָ אַנְשֵׁי עִירָהּ בָּאֲבָנִים וָמֵתָה כִּי־עָשְׂתָה נְבָלָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לִזְנוֹת בֵּית אָבִיהָ וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ׃", 22.22. "כִּי־יִמָּצֵא אִישׁ שֹׁכֵב עִם־אִשָּׁה בְעֻלַת־בַּעַל וּמֵתוּ גַּם־שְׁנֵיהֶם הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִם־הָאִשָּׁה וְהָאִשָּׁה וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל׃", 22.28. "כִּי־יִמְצָא אִישׁ נער [נַעֲרָה] בְתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־אֹרָשָׂה וּתְפָשָׂהּ וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ וְנִמְצָאוּ׃", 22.29. "וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִמָּהּ לַאֲבִי הנער [הַנַּעֲרָה] חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף וְלוֹ־תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנָּהּ לֹא־יוּכַל שַׁלְּחָה כָּל־יָמָיו׃", 23.15. "כִּי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מִתְהַלֵּךְ בְּקֶרֶב מַחֲנֶךָ לְהַצִּילְךָ וְלָתֵת אֹיְבֶיךָ לְפָנֶיךָ וְהָיָה מַחֲנֶיךָ קָדוֹשׁ וְלֹא־יִרְאֶה בְךָ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר וְשָׁב מֵאַחֲרֶיךָ׃", 24.1. "כִּי־תַשֶּׁה בְרֵעֲךָ מַשַּׁאת מְאוּמָה לֹא־תָבֹא אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ לַעֲבֹט עֲבֹטוֹ׃", 24.1. "כִּי־יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבְעָלָהּ וְהָיָה אִם־לֹא תִמְצָא־חֵן בְּעֵינָיו כִּי־מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ׃", 24.2. "וְיָצְאָה מִבֵּיתוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ־אַחֵר׃", 24.2. "כִּי תַחְבֹּט זֵיתְךָ לֹא תְפָאֵר אַחֲרֶיךָ לַגֵּר לַיָּתוֹם וְלָאַלְמָנָה יִהְיֶה׃", 24.3. "וּשְׂנֵאָהּ הָאִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ אוֹ כִי יָמוּת הָאִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן אֲשֶׁר־לְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה׃", 24.4. "לֹא־יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר־שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה כִּי־תוֹעֵבָה הִוא לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְלֹא תַחֲטִיא אֶת־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה׃", | 4.2. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.", 6.4. "HEAR, O ISRAEL: THE LORD OUR GOD, THE LORD IS ONE.", 6.5. "And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.", 6.6. "And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart;", 6.7. "and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.", 6.8. "And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes.", 6.9. "And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates.", 11.13. "And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto My commandments which I command you this day, to love the LORD your God, and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul,", 11.14. "that I will give the rain of your land in its season, the former rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil.", 11.15. "And I will give grass in thy fields for thy cattle, and thou shalt eat and be satisfied.", 11.16. "Take heed to yourselves, lest your heart be deceived, and ye turn aside, and serve other gods, and worship them;", 11.17. "and the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and He shut up the heaven, so that there shall be no rain, and the ground shall not yield her fruit; and ye perish quickly from off the good land which the LORD giveth you.", 11.18. "Therefore shall ye lay up these My words in your heart and in your soul; and ye shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes.", 11.19. "And ye shall teach them your children, talking of them, when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.", 11.20. "And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates;", 11.21. "that your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, upon the land which the LORD swore unto your fathers to give them, as the days of the heavens above the earth.", 13.1. "All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.", 21.14. "And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast humbled her.", 22.13. "If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,", 22.14. "and lay wanton charges against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say: ‘I took this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the tokens of virginity’;", 22.15. "then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate.", 22.16. "And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders: ‘I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;", 22.17. "and, lo, he hath laid wanton charges, saying: I found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.", 22.18. "And the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him.", 22.19. "And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.", 22.20. "But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel;", 22.21. "then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die; because she hath wrought a wanton deed in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.", 22.22. "If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so shalt thou put away the evil from Israel.", 22.28. "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;", 22.29. "then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days.", 23.15. "For the LORD thy God walketh in the midst of thy camp, to deliver thee, and to give up thine enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be holy; that He see no unseemly thing in thee, and turn away from thee.", 24.1. "When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house,", 24.2. "and she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh another man’s wife,", 24.3. "and the latter husband hateth her, and writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife;", 24.4. "her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 18.20, 18.22, 18.26, 23.42 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Sigal (2007) 74, 116, 125| 18.22. "וְאֶת־זָכָר לֹא תִשְׁכַּב מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה תּוֹעֵבָה הִוא׃", 18.26. "וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אַתֶּם אֶת־חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַי וְלֹא תַעֲשׂוּ מִכֹּל הַתּוֹעֵבֹת הָאֵלֶּה הָאֶזְרָח וְהַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכְכֶם׃", 23.42. "בַּסֻּכֹּת תֵּשְׁבוּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כָּל־הָאֶזְרָח בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשְׁבוּ בַּסֻּכֹּת׃", | 18.20. "And thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour’s wife, to defile thyself with her.", 18.22. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.", 18.26. "Ye therefore shall keep My statutes and Mine ordices, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the home-born, nor the stranger that sojourneth among you—", 23.42. "Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are home-born in Israel shall dwell in booths;", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 5.13, 5.20, 15.37-15.41 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai •elders, bet shammai Found in books: Levine (2005) 167; Sigal (2007) 125| 5.13. "וְשָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָהּ שִׁכְבַת־זֶרַע וְנֶעְלַם מֵעֵינֵי אִישָׁהּ וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה׃", 15.37. "וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃", 15.38. "דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם וְעָשׂוּ לָהֶם צִיצִת עַל־כַּנְפֵי בִגְדֵיהֶם לְדֹרֹתָם וְנָתְנוּ עַל־צִיצִת הַכָּנָף פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת׃", 15.39. "וְהָיָה לָכֶם לְצִיצִת וּרְאִיתֶם אֹתוֹ וּזְכַרְתֶּם אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֺת יְהוָה וַעֲשִׂיתֶם אֹתָם וְלֹא־תָתֻרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם וְאַחֲרֵי עֵינֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר־אַתֶּם זֹנִים אַחֲרֵיהֶם׃", 15.41. "אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִי אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם לִהְיוֹת לָכֶם לֵאלֹהִים אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם׃", | 5.13. "and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, she being defiled secretly, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken in the act;", 5.20. "but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband—", 15.37. "And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:", 15.38. "’Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them throughout their generations fringes in the corners of their garments, and that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue.", 15.39. "And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray;", 15.40. "that ye may remember and do all My commandments, and be holy unto your God.", 15.41. "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the LORD your God.’", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 3.1, 3.8-3.9 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 117| 3.1. "וְגַם־בְּכָל־זֹאת לֹא־שָׁבָה אֵלַי בָּגוֹדָה אֲחוֹתָהּ יְהוּדָה בְּכָל־לִבָּהּ כִּי אִם־בְּשֶׁקֶר נְאֻם־יְהוָה׃", 3.1. "לֵאמֹר הֵן יְשַׁלַּח אִישׁ אֶת־אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָלְכָה מֵאִתּוֹ וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ־אַחֵר הֲיָשׁוּב אֵלֶיהָ עוֹד הֲלוֹא חָנוֹף תֶּחֱנַף הָאָרֶץ הַהִיא וְאַתְּ זָנִית רֵעִים רַבִּים וְשׁוֹב אֵלַי נְאֻם־יְהֹוָה׃", 3.8. "וָאֵרֶא כִּי עַל־כָּל־אֹדוֹת אֲשֶׁר נִאֲפָה מְשֻׁבָה יִשְׂרָאֵל שִׁלַּחְתִּיהָ וָאֶתֵּן אֶת־סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻתֶיהָ אֵלֶיהָ וְלֹא יָרְאָה בֹּגֵדָה יְהוּדָה אֲחוֹתָהּ וַתֵּלֶךְ וַתִּזֶן גַּם־הִיא׃", 3.9. "וְהָיָה מִקֹּל זְנוּתָהּ וַתֶּחֱנַף אֶת־הָאָרֶץ וַתִּנְאַף אֶת־הָאֶבֶן וְאֶת־הָעֵץ׃", | 3.1. ". . . saying: If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man’s, may he return unto her again? Will not that land be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; and wouldest thou yet return to Me? Saith the LORD.", 3.8. "And I saw, when, forasmuch as backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a bill of divorcement, that yet treacherous Judah her sister feared not; but she also went and played the harlot;", 3.9. "and it came to pass through the lightness of her harlotry, that the land was polluted, and she committed adultery with stones and with stocks;", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Nehemiah, 13.23-13.29 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 130| 13.23. "גַּם בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם רָאִיתִי אֶת־הַיְּהוּדִים הֹשִׁיבוּ נָשִׁים אשדודיות [אַשְׁדֳּדִיּוֹת] עמוניות [עַמֳּנִיּוֹת] מוֹאֲבִיּוֹת׃", 13.24. "וּבְנֵיהֶם חֲצִי מְדַבֵּר אַשְׁדּוֹדִית וְאֵינָם מַכִּירִים לְדַבֵּר יְהוּדִית וְכִלְשׁוֹן עַם וָעָם׃", 13.25. "וָאָרִיב עִמָּם וָאֲקַלְלֵם וָאַכֶּה מֵהֶם אֲנָשִׁים וָאֶמְרְטֵם וָאַשְׁבִּיעֵם בֵּאלֹהִים אִם־תִּתְּנוּ בְנֹתֵיכֶם לִבְנֵיהֶם וְאִם־תִּשְׂאוּ מִבְּנֹתֵיהֶם לִבְנֵיכֶם וְלָכֶם׃", 13.26. "הֲלוֹא עַל־אֵלֶּה חָטָא־שְׁלֹמֹה מֶלֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבַגּוֹיִם הָרַבִּים לֹא־הָיָה מֶלֶךְ כָּמֹהוּ וְאָהוּב לֵאלֹהָיו הָיָה וַיִּתְּנֵהוּ אֱלֹהִים מֶלֶךְ עַל־כָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל גַּם־אוֹתוֹ הֶחֱטִיאוּ הַנָּשִׁים הַנָּכְרִיּוֹת׃", 13.27. "וְלָכֶם הֲנִשְׁמַע לַעֲשֹׂת אֵת כָּל־הָרָעָה הַגְּדוֹלָה הַזֹּאת לִמְעֹל בֵּאלֹהֵינוּ לְהֹשִׁיב נָשִׁים נָכְרִיּוֹת׃", 13.28. "וּמִבְּנֵי יוֹיָדָע בֶּן־אֶלְיָשִׁיב הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל חָתָן לְסַנְבַלַּט הַחֹרֹנִי וָאַבְרִיחֵהוּ מֵעָלָי׃", 13.29. "זָכְרָה לָהֶם אֱלֹהָי עַל גָּאֳלֵי הַכְּהֻנָּה וּבְרִית הַכְּהֻנָּה וְהַלְוִיִּם׃", | 13.23. "In those days also saw I the Jews that had married women of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab;", 13.24. "and their children spoke half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews’language, but according to the language of each people.", 13.25. "And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God: ‘Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons, or for yourselves.", 13.26. "Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, and he was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless even him did the foreign women cause to sin.", 13.27. "Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to break faith with our God in marrying foreign women?’", 13.28. "And one of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest, was son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite; therefore I chased him from me.", 13.29. "Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, and the covet of the priesthood, and of the Levites.", |
|
| 7. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 4.20-4.21, 13.17 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 141 |
| 8. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 4.20-4.21, 13.17 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 141 |
| 9. Anon., Testament of Judah, 26.3 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 74 |
10. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 23.22-23.27, 25.16-25.26, 42.9 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 120, 130 | 25.16. I would rather dwell with a lion and a dragon than dwell with an evil wife. 25.17. The wickedness of a wife changes her appearance,and darkens her face like that of a bear. 25.18. Her husband takes his meals among the neighbors,and he cannot help sighing bitterly. 25.19. Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wifes iniquity;may a sinners lot befall her! 25.21. Do not be ensnared by a womans beauty,and do not desire a woman for her possessions. 25.22. There is wrath and impudence and great disgrace when a wife supports her husband. 25.23. A dejected mind, a gloomy face,and a wounded heart are caused by an evil wife. Drooping hands and weak knees are caused by the wife who does not make her husband happy. 25.24. From a woman sin had its beginning,and because of her we all die. 25.25. Allow no outlet to water,and no boldness of speech in an evil wife. 25.26. If she does not go as you direct,separate her from yourself. 42.9. A daughter keeps her father secretly wakeful,and worry over her robs him of sleep;when she is young, lest she do not marry,or if married, lest she be hated; 42.9. The glory of the stars is the beauty of heaven,a gleaming array in the heights of the Lord. |
|
| 11. Anon., Testament of Reuben, 3.15 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 120 |
12. Philo of Alexandria, On The Special Laws, 3.14 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 133 | 3.14. And yet what can be a more flagitious act of impiety than to defile the bed of one's father after he is dead, which it would be right rather to preserve untouched, as sacred; and to feel no respect either for old age of for one's mother, and for the same man to be both the son and the husband of the same woman; and again for the same woman to be both the mother and wife of the same man, and for the children of the two to be the brothers of their father and the grandsons of their mother, and for that same woman to be both the mother and grandmother of those children whom she has brought forth, and for the man to be at the same time both the father and the uterine brother of those whom he has begotten? |
|
13. Mishnah, Eduyot, 4.7-4.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 116, 123| 4.7. "הָאִשָּׁה מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּדִינָר וּבְשָׁוֶה דִינָר, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, בִּפְרוּטָה וּבְשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. וְכַמָּה הִיא פְרוּטָה, אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנָה בְאִסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, פּוֹטֵר הוּא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְגֵט יָשָׁן, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹסְרִין. אֵיזֶהוּ גֵט יָשָׁן. כָּל שֶׁנִּתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ אַחַר שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ לָהּ. הַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְלָנָה עִמּוֹ בְפֻנְדְּקִי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵט שֵׁנִי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵט שֵׁנִי. אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁנִּתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. אֲבָל אִם נִתְגָּרְשָׁה מִן הָאֵרוּסִין, אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵט שֵׁנִי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לִבּוֹ גַס בָּהּ: \n", 4.8. "בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מַתִּירִין אֶת הַצָּרוֹת לָאַחִים, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹסְרִין. חָלְצוּ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין. נִתְיַבְּמוּ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מַכְשִׁירִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל פּוֹסְלִין. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵלּוּ פוֹסְלִין וְאֵלּוּ מַכְשִׁירִין, לֹא נִמְנְעוּ בֵית שַׁמַּאי מִלִּשָּׂא נָשִׁים מִבֵּית הִלֵּל, וְלֹא בֵית הִלֵּל מִלִּשָּׂא נָשִׁים מִבֵּית שַׁמָּאי. וְכָל הַטָּהֳרוֹת וְהַטֻּמְאוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ אֵלּוּ מְטַהֲרִין וְאֵלּוּ מְטַמְּאִין, לֹא נִמְנְעוּ לִהְיוֹת עוֹשִׂים טָהֳרוֹת אֵלּוּ עַל גַּב אֵלּוּ: \n", 4.9. "שְׁלֹשָׁה אַחִים, שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶם נְשׂוּאִים לִשְׁתֵּי אֲחָיוֹת וְאֶחָד מֻפְנֶה, מֵת אֶחָד מִבַּעֲלֵי אֲחָיוֹת וְעָשָׂה בָהּ מֻפְנֶה מַאֲמָר, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָחִיו הַשֵּׁנִי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ, וְהַלָּה תֵּצֵא מִשּׁוּם אֲחוֹת אִשָּׁה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, מוֹצִיא אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּגֵט וַחֲלִיצָה, וְאֶת אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו בַּחֲלִיצָה. זוֹ הִיא שֶׁאָמְרוּ, אִי לוֹ עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאִי לוֹ עַל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו: \n", 4.10. "הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִתַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, שְׁתֵּי שַׁבָּתוֹת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, שַׁבָּת אֶחָת. הַמַּפֶּלֶת לְאוֹר שְׁמֹנִים וְאֶחָד, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹטְרִין מִן הַקָּרְבָּן, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְחַיְּבִין. סָדִין בְּצִיצִית, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹטְרִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְחַיְּבִים. כַּלְכָּלַת הַשַּׁבָּת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹטְרִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְחַיְּבִין: \n", | 4.7. "A woman is betrothed by a denar or the value of a denar, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: by a perutah or the value of a perutah. And how much is a perutah? One-eighth of an Italian issar. Beth Shammai says: one may dismiss his wife with an old bill of divorcement, But Beth Hillel forbids it. What is an old bill of divorcement? Whenever he was secluded with her after he has written it for her. One who divorces his wife and she [afterwards] spends a night with him at the [same] inn: Beth Shammai says: she does not require a second bill of divorcement from him. But Beth Hillel says: she requires a second bill of divorcement from him. When [does she require a second bill of divorcement]? When she was divorced after marriage. But if she was divorced after betrothal she does not require from him a second bill of divorcement, since he is not [yet] familiar with her.", 4.8. "Beth Shammai permits the rival wives [of a deceased brother to be married] to the [surviving] brothers; But Beth Hillel forbids them. If they have performed halitzah, Beth Shammai pronounce them unfit to [marry into] the priesthood, But Beth Hillel pronounced them fit. If they have married their brother-in-law, Beth Shammai pronounce them fit [to marry into the priesthood], But Beth Hillel pronounced them unfit. And although these pronounce unfit and these pronounce fit, Beth Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from [the daughters of] Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel refrain from marrying women from [the daughters of] Beth Shammai. And in the case of all matters of purity and impurity in respect to which these pronounce pure and these pronounce impure, they did not refrain from preparing foods requiring a condition of purity each by means of [the vessels of] the other.", 4.9. "[In the case of] three brothers, of whom two were married to two sisters and one was unmarried, if one of the husbands of the sisters died and the unmarried one betrothed her (maamar), and afterwards his other brother died, Beth Shammai says: his wife remains with him, and the other [widow] is released on the grounds of [the law forbidding] the wife’s sister. But Beth Hillel says: he should put away his wife with a get and halitzah, and the wife of his brother [he should put away] with halitzah. This is the case of which they said: woe to him because of his wife, and woe to him because of his brother’s wife!", 4.10. "One who takes a vow not to have intercourse with his wife: Beth Shammai says: [after] two weeks [he must divorce her and pay her kethubah], And Beth Hillel say: after one week. A woman has a miscarriage on the eve of the eighty first [day]: Beth Shammai exempt her from bringing the offering, And Beth Hillel do not exempt her. [With regards to the rules of] tzitzit (fringes) on linen sheet: Beth Shammai exempts, And Beth Hillel does not exempt. A basket of [fruit set aside for] the Sabbath: Beth Shammai exempts it [from tithes]. And Beth Hillel does not exempt it.", |
|
14. Mishnah, Berachot, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 49| 5.5. "הַמִּתְפַּלֵּל וְטָעָה, סִימָן רַע לוֹ. וְאִם שְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר הוּא, סִימָן רַע לְשׁוֹלְחָיו, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשְּׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם כְּמוֹתוֹ. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶן דּוֹסָא, כְּשֶׁהָיָה מִתְפַּלֵּל עַל הַחוֹלִים וְאוֹמֵר, זֶה חַי וְזֶה מֵת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מִנַּיִן אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ. אָמַר לָהֶם, אִם שְׁגוּרָה תְפִלָּתִי בְּפִי, יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהוּא מְקֻבָּל. וְאִם לָאו, יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהוּא מְטֹרָף: \n", | 5.5. "One who is praying and makes a mistake, it is a bad sign for him. And if he is the messenger of the congregation (the prayer leader) it is a bad sign for those who have sent him, because one’s messenger is equivalent to one’s self. They said about Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa that he used to pray for the sick and say, “This one will die, this one will live.” They said to him: “How do you know?” He replied: “If my prayer comes out fluently, I know that he is accepted, but if not, then I know that he is rejected.”", |
|
15. Mishnah, Eruvin, 6.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 50| 6.2. "אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מַעֲשֶׂה בִצְדוֹקִי אֶחָד, שֶׁהָיָה דָר עִמָּנוּ בְּמָבוֹי בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְאָמַר לָנוּ אַבָּא, מַהֲרוּ וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת כָּל הַכֵּלִים לַמָּבוֹי, עַד שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיא וְיֶאֱסֹר עֲלֵיכֶם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֵר, מַהֲרוּ וַעֲשׂוּ צָרְכֵיכֶם בַּמָּבוֹי עַד שֶׁלֹּא יוֹצִיא וְיֶאֱסֹר עֲלֵיכֶם: \n", | 6.2. "Rabban Gamaliel said: A Sadducee once lived with us in the same alley in Jerusalem and father told us: “Hurry up and carry out all vessels into the alley before he carries out his and thereby restricts you”. Rabbi Judah said [the instruction was given] in different language: “Hurry up and perform all of your needs in the alley before he carries out his and thereby restricts you”.", |
|
16. Mishnah, Gittin, 4.5, 9.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 90, 111, 120, 126| 4.5. "מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, עוֹבֵד אֶת רַבּוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד, דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, תִּקַּנְתֶּם אֶת רַבּוֹ, וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ לֹא תִקַּנְתֶּם. לִשָּׂא שִׁפְחָה אִי אֶפְשָׁר, שֶׁכְּבָר חֶצְיוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין. בַּת חוֹרִין אִי אֶפְשָׁר, שֶׁכְּבָר חֶצְיוֹ עָבֶד. יִבָּטֵל, וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לִפְרִיָּה וְלִרְבִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה מה) לֹא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ, לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ. אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם, כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל חֲצִי דָמָיו. וְחָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי: \n", 9.10. "בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ אָדָם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מָצָא בָהּ דְּבַר עֶרְוָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כד), כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֲפִלּוּ הִקְדִּיחָה תַבְשִׁילוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם), כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ מָצָא אַחֶרֶת נָאָה הֵימֶנָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם), וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו: \n", | 4.5. "One who is half a slave and half free works for his master one day and for himself one day, the words of Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai said to them: you have set things right for the master but you have not set things right for the slave. He cannot marry a female slave because he is already half free, and he cannot marry a free woman because he is half a slave. Shall he then decease [from having children]? But wasn’t the world only made to be populated, as it says, “He did not create it as a waste, he formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18)? Rather because of tikkun olam we compel his master to emancipate him and he writes a document for half his purchase price. Beth Hillel retracted [their opinion and] ruled like Beth Shammai.", 9.10. "Bet Shammai says: a man should not divorce his wife unless he has found her guilty of some unseemly conduct, as it says, “Because he has found some unseemly thing in her.” Bet Hillel says [that he may divorce her] even if she has merely burnt his dish, since it says, “Because he has found some unseemly thing in her.” Rabbi Akiva says, [he may divorce her] even if he finds another woman more beautiful than she is, as it says, “it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes.", |
|
17. Mishnah, Beitzah, 1.5, 2.6-2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 50, 74| 1.5. "בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵין מְסַלְּקִין אֶת הַתְּרִיסִין בְּיוֹם טוֹב. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין אַף לְהַחֲזִיר. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵין נוֹטְלִין אֶת הָעֱלִי לְקַצֵּב עָלָיו בָּשָׂר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵין נוֹתְנִין אֶת הָעוֹר לִפְנֵי הַדּוֹרְסָן וְלֹא יַגְבִּיהֶנּוּ, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ עִמּוֹ כַזַּיִת בָּשָׂר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵין מוֹצִיאִין לֹא אֶת הַקָּטָן וְלֹא אֶת הַלּוּלָב וְלֹא אֶת סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַתִּירִין: \n", 2.6. "שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מַחֲמִיר כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי, אֵין טוֹמְנִין אֶת הַחַמִּין מִיּוֹם טוֹב לַשַּׁבָּת, וְאֵין זוֹקְפִין אֶת הַמְּנוֹרָה בְיוֹם טוֹב, וְאֵין אוֹפִין פִּתִּין גְּרִיצִין אֶלָּא רְקִיקִין. אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מִימֵיהֶן שֶׁל בֵּית אַבָּא לֹא הָיוּ אוֹפִין פִּתִּין גְּרִיצִין, אֶלָּא רְקִיקִין. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מַה נַּעֲשֶׂה לְבֵית אָבִיךָ, שֶׁהָיוּ מַחֲמִירִין עַל עַצְמָן וּמְקִלִּין לְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל, לִהְיוֹת אוֹפִין פִּתִּין גְּרִיצִין וְחֹרִי: \n", 2.7. "אַף הוּא אָמַר שְׁלֹשָׁה דְבָרִים לְהָקֵל, מְכַבְּדִין בֵּין הַמִּטּוֹת, וּמַנִּיחִין אֶת הַמֻּגְמָר בְּיוֹם טוֹב, וְעוֹשִׂין גְּדִי מְקֻלָּס בְּלֵילֵי פְסָחִים. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִין: \n", | 1.5. "Bet Shammai says: one may not remove shutters on Yom Tov. But Bet Hillel permits even to return them to their place. Bet Shammai says: one may not take a pestle even to cut up meat on it. But Bet Hillel permits [it]. Bet Shammai says: one may not place a hide in front of one who treads upon it nor may he even lift it up unless there is an olive’s worth of flesh on it. But Bet hillel permit it. Bet Shammai says: one may not carry out an infant or a lulav or a Torah scroll into the public domain. But Bet Hillel permit [it].", 2.6. "In three cases Rabban Gamaliel was strict like the words of Beth Shammai.One may not cover up hot food on Yom Tov for Shabbat; And one may not join together a lamp on a festival; And one may not bake [on Yom] thick loaves but only wafer-cakes. Rabban Gamaliel said: “In all their days, my father’s house never baked large loaves but only wafer-cakes.” They said to him: “What can we do with regards to your father’s house, for they were strict in respect to themselves but were lenient towards Israel to let them bake both large loaves and even charcoal-roasted loaves.”", 2.7. "Also he declared three decisions of a lenient character:One may sweep up [on a festival] between the couches, And put spices [on the coals] on a festival; And roast a kid whole on the night of Passover. But the sages forbid them.", |
|
18. Mishnah, Hagigah, 1.2, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 49, 50, 74| 1.2. "בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, הָרְאִיָּה שְׁתֵּי כֶסֶף, וַחֲגִיגָה מָעָה כֶסֶף. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, הָרְאִיָּה מָעָה כֶסֶף, וַחֲגִיגָה שְׁתֵּי כָסֶף: \n", 2.2. "יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, נִתַּאי הָאַרְבֵּלִי אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. יְהוּדָה בֶּן טַבַּאי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. שְׁמַעְיָה אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. אַבְטַלְיוֹן אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ. הִלֵּל וּמְנַחֵם לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ. יָצָא מְנַחֵם, נִכְנַס שַׁמַּאי. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הָיוּ נְשִׂיאִים, וּשְׁנִיִּים לָהֶם אַב בֵּית דִּין: \n", | 1.2. "Bet Shammai say: the pilgrimage-offering (re’eyah) must be worth [at least] two pieces of silver and the hagigah one piece (ma’ah) of silver. But Bet Hillel say: the pilgrimage-offering must be worth [at least] one ma'ah of silver and the hagigah two pieces of silver.", 2.2. "Yose ben Yoezer says that [on a festival] the laying of the hands [on the head of a sacrifice] may not be performed. Yosef ben Joha says that it may be performed. Joshua ben Perahia says that it may not be performed. Nittai the Arbelite says that it may be performed. Judah ben Tabai says that it may not be performed. Shimon ben Shetah says that it may be performed. Shamayah says that it may be performed. Avtalyon says that it may not be performed. Hillel and Menahem did not dispute. Menahem went out, Shammai entered. Shammai says that it may not be performed. Hillel says that it may be performed. The former [of each] pair were patriarchs and the latter were heads of the court.", |
|
19. Mishnah, Ketuvot, 5.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 133| 5.6. "הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִתַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, שְׁתֵּי שַׁבָּתוֹת. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, שַׁבָּת אֶחָת. הַתַּלְמִידִים יוֹצְאִין לְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת, שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. הַפּוֹעֲלִים, שַׁבָּת אֶחָת. הָעוֹנָה הָאֲמוּרָה בַתּוֹרָה, הַטַּיָּלִין, בְּכָל יוֹם. הַפּוֹעֲלִים, שְׁתַּיִם בַּשַּׁבָּת. הַחַמָּרִים, אַחַת בַּשַּׁבָּת. הַגַּמָּלִים, אַחַת לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. הַסַּפָּנִים, אַחַת לְשִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: \n", | 5.6. "A man forbade himself by vow from having intercourse with his wife: Beth Shammai says: two weeks; Beth Hillel says: one week. Students may go away to study Torah, without the permission [of their wives for a period of] thirty days; workers for one week. The times for conjugal duty prescribed in the torah are: For independent men, every day; For workers, twice a week; For donkey-drivers, once a week; For camel-drivers, once in thirty days; For sailors, once in six months. These are the words of Rabbi Eliezer.", |
|
20. Mishnah, Maaser Sheni, 5.15 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 49| 5.15. "יוֹחָנָן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל הֶעֱבִיר הוֹדָיוֹת הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. אַף הוּא בִּטֵּל אֶת הַמְעוֹרְרִים, וְאֶת הַנּוֹקְפִים. וְעַד יָמָיו הָיָה פַטִּישׁ מַכֶּה בִירוּשָׁלָיִם, וּבְיָמָיו אֵין אָדָם צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאוֹל עַל הַדְּמָאי: \n", | |
|
21. Mishnah, Niddah, 9.1-9.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 91| 9.1. "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה צְרָכֶיהָ וְרָאֲתָה דָם, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אִם עוֹמֶדֶת, טְמֵאָה. וְאִם יוֹשֶׁבֶת, טְהוֹרָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ, טְהוֹרָה: \n", 9.2. "אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁעָשׂוּ צְרָכֵיהֶן לְתוֹךְ הַסֵּפֶל וְנִמְצָא דָם עַל הַמַּיִם, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַהֵר. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַמֵּא, שֶׁאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הָאִישׁ לְהוֹצִיא דָם, אֶלָּא שֶׁחֶזְקַת דָּמִים מִן הָאִשָּׁה: \n", | 9.1. "A woman who was attending to her needs and observed an issue of blood: Rabbi Meir says: if she was standing she is unclean but if she was sitting she remains clean. Rabbi Yose says: in either case she is clean.", 9.2. "A man and a woman did their needs in the same bowl and blood was found on the water: Rabbi Yose says it is clean, Rabbi Shimon says that it was unclean, since it is not usual for a man to discharge blood, but nevertheless the presumption is that blood is from the woman.", |
|
22. Mishnah, Parah, 3.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 49| 3.5. "לֹא מָצְאוּ מִשֶּׁבַע, עוֹשִׂין מִשֵּׁשׁ, מֵחָמֵשׁ, מֵאַרְבַּע, מִשָּׁלשׁ, מִשְּׁתַּיִם וּמֵאֶחָת. וּמִי עֲשָׂאָם. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה עָשָׂה משֶׁה, וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה עָשָׂה עֶזְרָא, וְחָמֵשׁ, מֵעֶזְרָא וָאֵילָךְ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, שֶׁבַע מֵעֶזְרָא וָאֵילָךְ. וּמִי עֲשָׂאָן. שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק וְיוֹחָנָן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל עָשׂוּ שְׁתַּיִם שְׁתַּיִם, אֶלְיְהוֹעֵינַי בֶּן הַקּוֹף וַחֲנַמְאֵל הַמִּצְרִי וְיִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן פִּיאָבִי עָשׂוּ אַחַת אֶחָת: \n", | 3.5. "If they did not find the residue of the ashes of the seven [red cows] they performed the sprinkling with those of six, of five, of four, of three, of two or of one. And who prepared these? Moses prepared the first, Ezra prepared the second, and five were prepared from the time of Ezra, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: seven from the time of Ezra. And who prepared them? Shimon the Just and Yoha the high priest prepared two; Elihoenai the son of Ha-Kof and Hanamel the Egyptian and Ishmael the son of Piabi prepared one each.", |
|
23. Mishnah, Peah, 2.5-2.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 50| 2.5. "הַזּוֹרֵעַ אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ מִין אֶחָד, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֵׂהוּ שְׁתֵּי גְרָנוֹת, נוֹתֵן פֵּאָה אַחַת. זְרָעָהּ שְׁנֵי מִינִין, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעֲשָׂאָן גֹּרֶן אַחַת, נוֹתֵן שְׁתֵּי פֵאוֹת. הַזּוֹרֵעַ אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ שְׁנֵי מִינֵי חִטִּין, עֲשָׂאָן גֹּרֶן אַחַת, נוֹתֵן פֵּאָה אַחַת. שְׁתֵּי גְרָנוֹת, נוֹתֵן שְׁתֵּי פֵאוֹת: \n", 2.6. "מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁזָּרַע רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִישׁ הַמִּצְפָּה לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְעָלוּ לְלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית וְשָׁאָלוּ. אָמַר נַחוּם הַלַּבְלָר, מְקֻבָּל אֲנִי מֵרַבִּי מְיָאשָׁא, שֶׁקִּבֵּל מֵאַבָּא, שֶׁקִּבֵּל מִן הַזּוּגוֹת, שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ מִן הַנְּבִיאִים, הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי, בְּזוֹרֵעַ אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ שְׁנֵי מִינֵי חִטִּין, אִם עֲשָׂאָן גֹּרֶן אַחַת, נוֹתֵן פֵּאָה אַחַת. שְׁתֵּי גְרָנוֹת, נוֹתֵן שְׁתֵּי פֵאוֹת: \n", | 2.5. "He who plants his field with one kind of seed, even though he makes up of it two threshing-floors, he gives only one peah [for the lot]. If he plants it of two kinds, even though he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he must give two peahs. One who plants his field with two species of wheat: If he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he gives only one peah; But if two threshing-floors, he gives two peahs.", 2.6. "It happened that Rabbi Shimon of Mitzpah planted his field [with two different kinds] and came before Rabban Gamaliel. They both went up to the Chamber of Hewn Stone and asked [about the law]. Nahum the scribe said: I have a tradition from Rabbi Meyasha, who received it from Abba, who received it from the pairs [of sage], who received it from the prophets, a halakhah of Moses from Sinai, that one who plants his field with two species of wheat, if he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he gives only one peah, but if two threshing-floors, he gives two peahs.", |
|
24. Mishnah, Shabbat, 16.7, 22.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 49| 16.7. "כּוֹפִין קְעָרָה עַל גַּבֵּי הַנֵּר בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא תֶאֱחֹז בַּקּוֹרָה, וְעַל צוֹאָה שֶׁל קָטָן, וְעַל עַקְרָב שֶׁלֹּא תִשֹּׁךְ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מַעֲשֶׂה בָא לִפְנֵי רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי בַּעֲרָב, וְאָמַר, חוֹשְׁשָׁנִי לוֹ מֵחַטָּאת: \n", 22.3. "שׁוֹבֵר אָדָם אֶת הֶחָבִית לֶאֱכֹל הֵימֶנָּה גְרוֹגָרוֹת, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִתְכַּוֵּן לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּלִי. וְאֵין נוֹקְבִים מְגוּפָה שֶׁל חָבִית, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין. וְלֹא יִקְּבֶנָּה מִצִּדָּהּ. וְאִם הָיְתָה נְקוּבָה, לֹא יִתֵּן עָלֶיהָ שַׁעֲוָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְמָרֵחַ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מַעֲשֶׂה בָא לִפְנֵי רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי בַּעֲרָב, וְאָמַר, חוֹשְׁשָׁנִי לוֹ מֵחַטָּאת: \n", | 16.7. "One may turn a dish over a lamp so that the beams should not catch [fire], and over an infant’s excrement, and over a scorpion so that it should not bite. Rabbi Judah said: an incident came before Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai in Arabia and he said, “I fear that he may be liable for a sin-offering.”", 22.3. "A man may break open a cask in order to eat dried figs from it, provided that he does not intend to make the cask into a vessel. And one may not perforate the stopper of a cask, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages permit it. And one may not pierce it at its side; And if it is already perforated one may not place wax upon it, because he smoothes it out. Rabbi Judah said: a case came before Rabbi Yoha ben Zakkai in Arav and he said, “I fear [that he may be liable] to a sin-offering.”", |
|
25. Mishnah, Sotah, 5.1, 9.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 49, 120, 121| 5.1. "כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָהּ, כָּךְ הַמַּיִם בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ה) וּבָאוּ, וּבָאוּ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל, כָּךְ אֲסוּרָה לַבּוֹעֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) נִטְמְאָה, וְנִטְמָאָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, כָּךְ הָיָה דוֹרֵשׁ זְכַרְיָה בֶן הַקַּצָּב. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, שְׁנֵי פְעָמִים הָאֲמוּרִים בַּפָּרָשָׁה אִם נִטְמְאָה נִטְמָאָה, אֶחָד לַבַּעַל וְאֶחָד לַבּוֹעֵל: \n", 9.10. "יוֹחָנָן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל הֶעֱבִיר הוֹדָיַת הַמַּעֲשֵׂר. אַף הוּא בִטֵּל אֶת הַמְעוֹרְרִין וְאֶת הַנּוֹקְפִין. עַד יָמָיו הָיָה פַטִּישׁ מַכֶּה בִירוּשָׁלַיִם. וּבְיָמָיו אֵין אָדָם צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאֹל עַל הַדְּמָאי: \n", | 5.1. "Just as the water checks her so the water checks him, as it is said, “And shall enter”, “And shall enter” (Numbers 5:22,. Just as she is prohibited to the husband so is she prohibited to the lover, as it is said, “defiled … and is defiled” (Numbers 5:27,, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Joshua said: thus Zechariah ben Hakatzav used to expound. Rabbi says: twice in the portion, “If she is defiled…defiled”--one referring [to her being prohibited] to the husband and the other to the paramour.", 9.10. "Yoha the high priest brought to an end the confession made at the presentation of the tithe. He also discontinued the wakers and the knockers Up to his days the hammer used to strike in Jerusalem, And in his days there was no need to inquire about doubtfully tithed produce.", |
|
26. Mishnah, Sukkah, 2.7, 3.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 50, 74| 2.7. "מִי שֶׁהָיָה רֹאשׁוֹ וְרֻבּוֹ בַסֻּכָּה, וְשֻׁלְחָנוֹ בְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, לֹא כָךְ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁהָלְכוּ זִקְנֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי וְזִקְנֵי בֵית הִלֵּל לְבַקֵּר אֶת רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן הַחוֹרָנִי, וּמְצָאוּהוּ שֶׁהָיָה יוֹשֵׁב רֹאשׁוֹ וְרֻבּוֹ בַסֻּכָּה, וְשֻׁלְחָנוֹ בְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לוֹ דָבָר. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה, אַף הֵם אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אִם כֵּן הָיִיתָ נוֹהֵג, לֹא קִיַּמְתָּ מִצְוַת סֻכָּה מִיָּמֶיךָ: \n", 3.9. "וְהֵיכָן הָיוּ מְנַעְנְעִין, בְּהוֹדוּ לַה' תְּחִלָּה וָסוֹף, וּבְאָנָּא ה' הוֹשִׁיעָה נָּא, דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אַף בְּאָנָּא ה' הַצְלִיחָה נָא. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, צוֹפֶה הָיִיתִי בְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּבְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, שֶׁכָּל הָעָם הָיוּ מְנַעְנְעִים אֶת לוּלְבֵיהֶן, וְהֵן לֹא נִעְנְעוּ אֶלָּא בְאָנָּא ה' הוֹשִׁיעָה נָּא. מִי שֶׁבָּא בַדֶּרֶךְ וְלֹא הָיָה בְיָדוֹ לוּלָב לִטֹּל, לִכְשֶׁיִּכָּנֵס לְבֵיתוֹ יִטֹּל עַל שֻׁלְחָנוֹ. לֹא נָטַל שַׁחֲרִית, יִטֹּל בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם, שֶׁכָּל הַיּוֹם כָּשֵׁר לַלּוּלָב: \n", | 2.7. "One whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house: Bet Shammai say: it is invalid and Bet Hillel say it valid. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: Did it not in fact happen that the elders of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoha ben HaHoroni and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah and his table within the house, and they didn’t say anything to him? Bet Shammai said to them: From there [you bring] proof? Indeed they said to him, “If this is your custom, then you have never in your whole life fulfilled the commandment of the sukkah.", 3.9. "And where [in the service] do they wave [the lulav]? At “Give thanks to the Lord” (Psalm, at the beginning and at the end, and at “O Lord, deliver us” (118:25), the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai say: also at “O Lord, let us prosper.” Rabbi Akiva says: I was watching Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua, and while all the people were waving their lulavs [at “O Lord, let us prosper”] they waved them only at “O Lord deliver us.” One who was on a journey and had no lulav to take, when he enters his house he should take it [even if he is] at his table. If he did not take the lulav in the morning, he should take it at any time before dusk, since the whole day is valid for [taking] the lulav.", |
|
27. Mishnah, Taanit, 3.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 49| 3.8. "עַל כָּל צָרָה שֶׁלֹּא תָבֹא עַל הַצִּבּוּר, מַתְרִיעִין עֲלֵיהֶן, חוּץ מֵרוֹב גְּשָׁמִים. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁאָמְרוּ לוֹ לְחוֹנִי הַמְעַגֵּל, הִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁיֵּרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים. אָמַר לָהֶם, צְאוּ וְהַכְנִיסוּ תַנּוּרֵי פְסָחִים, בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא יִמּוֹקוּ. הִתְפַּלֵּל, וְלֹא יָרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים. מֶה עָשָׂה, עָג עוּגָה וְעָמַד בְּתוֹכָהּ, וְאָמַר לְפָנָיו, רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, בָּנֶיךָ שָׂמוּ פְנֵיהֶם עָלַי, שֶׁאֲנִי כְבֶן בַּיִת לְפָנֶיךָ. נִשְׁבָּע אֲנִי בְשִׁמְךָ הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵינִי זָז מִכָּאן, עַד שֶׁתְּרַחֵם עַל בָּנֶיךָ. הִתְחִילוּ גְּשָׁמִים מְנַטְּפִין. אָמַר, לֹא כָךְ שָׁאַלְתִּי, אֶלָּא גִּשְׁמֵי בוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת. הִתְחִילוּ לֵירֵד בְּזָעַף. אָמַר, לֹא כָךְ שָׁאַלְתִּי, אֶלָּא גִּשְׁמֵי רָצוֹן, בְּרָכָה וּנְדָבָה. יָרְדוּ כְתִקְנָן, עַד שֶׁיָּצְאוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִירוּשָׁלַיִם לְהַר הַבַּיִת מִפְּנֵי הַגְּשָׁמִים. בָּאוּ וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהִתְפַּלַלְתָּ עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁיֵּרְדוּ כָּךְ הִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁיֵּלְכוּ לָהֶן. אָמַר לָהֶן, צְאוּ וּרְאוּ אִם נִמְחֵת אֶבֶן הַטּוֹעִים. שָׁלַח לוֹ שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח, אִלְמָלֵא חוֹנִי אַתָּה, גּוֹזְרַנִי עָלֶיךָ נִדּוּי. אֲבָל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לְּךָ, שֶׁאַתָּה מִתְחַטֵּא לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם וְעוֹשֶׂה לְךָ רְצוֹנְךָ כְּבֵן שֶׁהוּא מִתְחַטֵּא עַל אָבִיו וְעוֹשֶׂה לוֹ רְצוֹנוֹ. וְעָלֶיךָ הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר (משלי כג), יִשְׂמַח אָבִיךָ וְאִמֶּךָ וְתָגֵל יוֹלַדְתֶּךָ: \n", | 3.8. "For every trouble that should not come upon the community they sound a blast except on account of too much rain. It happened that they said to Honi the circle drawer: “Pray for rain to fall.” He replied: “Go and bring in the pesah ovens so that they do not dissolve.” He prayed and no rain fell. What did he do? He drew a circle and stood within it and exclaimed before Him: “Master of the universe, Your children have turned their faces to me because I am like one who was born in Your house. I swear by Your great name that I will not move from here until You have mercy upon Your children.” Rain then began to drip, and he exclaimed: “I did not request this but rain [which can fill] cisterns, ditches and caves. The rain then began to come down with great force, and he exclaimed: “I did not request this but pleasing rain of blessing and abudance.” Rain then fell in the normal way until the Jews in Jerusalem had to go up Temple Mount because of the rain. They came and said to him: “In the same way that you prayed for [the rain] to fall pray [now] for the rain to stop.” He replied: “Go and see if the stone of people claiming lost objects has washed away.” Rabbi Shimon ben Shetah sent to him: “Were you not Honi I would have excommunicated you, but what can I do to you, for you are spoiled before God and he does your will like a son that is spoiled before his father and his father does his request. Concerning you it is written, “Let your father and your mother rejoice, and let she that bore you rejoice” (Proverbs 23:25).", |
|
28. Mishnah, Yevamot, 2.8, 14.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 120, 140| 2.8. "מִצְוָה בַגָּדוֹל לְיַבֵּם. וְאִם קָדַם הַקָּטָן, זָכָה. הַנִּטְעָן עַל הַשִּׁפְחָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה, אוֹ עַל הַנָּכְרִית וְנִתְגַּיְּרָה, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִכְנוֹס. וְאִם כָּנַס אֵין מוֹצִיאִין מִיָּדוֹ. הַנִּטְעָן עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, וְהוֹצִיאוּהָ מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכָּנַס, יוֹצִיא: \n", 14.1. "חֵרֵשׁ שֶׁנָּשָׂא פִקַּחַת, וּפִקֵּחַ שֶׁנָּשָׂא חֵרֶשֶׁת, אִם רָצָה יוֹצִיא, וְאִם רָצָה יְקַיֵּם. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא כוֹנֵס בִּרְמִיזָה, כָּךְ הוּא מוֹצִיא בִרְמִיזָה. פִּקֵּחַ שֶׁנָּשָׂא פִקַּחַת, וְנִתְחָרְשָׁה, אִם רָצָה יוֹצִיא, וְאִם רָצָה יְקַיֵּם. נִשְׁתַּטֵּית, לֹא יוֹצִיא. נִתְחָרֵשׁ הוּא אוֹ נִשְׁתַּטָּה, אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא עוֹלָמִית. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, מִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּתְחָרְשָׁה יוֹצְאָה, וְהָאִישׁ שֶׁנִּתְחָרֵשׁ אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵינוֹ דוֹמֶה הָאִישׁ הַמְגָרֵשׁ לְאִשָּׁה מִתְגָּרֶשֶׁת, שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה יוֹצְאָה לִרְצוֹנָהּ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִרְצוֹנָהּ, וְהָאִישׁ אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא אֶלָּא לִרְצוֹנוֹ:" | 2.8. "The commandment to perform yibbum is upon the oldest brother. If a younger brother preempted him [by performing yibbum], he has acquired [a wife]. If a man is suspected of [having relations] with a slave and then she was freed, or with a non-Jewish woman who then converted, he must not marry her. If, however, he did marry her they do not take her away from him. If a man is suspected of [having relations] with a married woman, and then [in consequence] she was taken away from her husband, even though he married her, he must divorce her.", 14.1. "If a deaf man married a woman of sound senses or a man of sound senses married a deaf woman he may, if he wishes, divorce her, and he may, if he wishes retain her; just as he marries by gestures so he divorces her by gestures. If a man of sound senses married a woman of sound senses and she became deaf, he may, if he wishes, divorce her; and he may, if he wishes, retain her. If she became insane he may not divorce her. If he became deaf or insane, he may never divorce her. Rabbi Yoha ben Nuri says: Why may a woman who became deaf be divorced while a man who became deaf may not divorce [his wife]? They answered him: a man who divorces is not like a woman who is divorced, for while a woman may be divorced with her consent and without her consent, a man can divorce only with his consent." |
|
29. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 49| 4.6. "אוֹמְרִים צְדוֹקִים, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, פְּרוּשִׁים, שֶׁאַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים, כִּתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, וְסִפְרֵי הוֹמֵרִיס אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. אָמַר רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, וְכִי אֵין לָנוּ עַל הַפְּרוּשִׁים אֶלָּא זוֹ בִלְבָד. הֲרֵי הֵם אוֹמְרִים, עַצְמוֹת חֲמוֹר טְהוֹרִים וְעַצְמוֹת יוֹחָנָן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל טְמֵאִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לְפִי חִבָּתָן הִיא טֻמְאָתָן, שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם עַצְמוֹת אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ תַּרְוָדוֹת. אָמַר לָהֶם, אַף כִּתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְפִי חִבָּתָן הִיא טֻמְאָתָן, וְסִפְרֵי הוֹמֵרִיס, שֶׁאֵינָן חֲבִיבִין, אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדָיִם: \n", | 4.6. "The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer do not defile the hands. Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai said: Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this? Behold they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, yet the bones of Yoha the high priest are unclean. They said to him: according to the affection for them, so is their impurity, so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother. He said to them: so also are the Holy Scriptures according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness. The books of Homer which are not precious do not defile the hands.", |
|
30. New Testament, John, 4.46-4.53 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 49| 4.46. Ἦλθεν οὖν πάλιν εἰς τὴν Κανὰ τῆς Γαλιλαίας, ὅπου ἐποίησεν τὸ ὕδωρ οἶνον. Καὶ ἦν τις βασιλικὸς οὗ ὁ υἱὸς ἠσθένει ἐν Καφαρναούμ· 4.47. οὗτος ἀκούσας ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ἥκει ἐκ τῆς Ἰουδαίας εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν ἀπῆλθεν πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ ἠρώτα ἵνα καταβῇ καὶ ἰάσηται αὐτοῦ τὸν υἱόν, ἤμελλεν γὰρ ἀποθνήσκειν. 4.48. εἶπεν οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς πρὸς αὐτόν Ἐὰν μὴ σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα ἴδητε, οὐ μὴ πιστεύσητε. 4.49. λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ βασιλικός Κύριε, κατάβηθι πρὶν ἀποθανεῖν τὸ παιδίον μου. 4.50. λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Πορεύου· ὁ υἱός σου ζῇ. ἐπίστευσεν ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῷ λόγῳ ὃν εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἐπορεύετο. 4.51. ἤδη δὲ αὐτοῦ καταβαίνοντος οἱ δοῦλοι αὐτοῦ ὑπήντησαν αὐτῷ λέγοντες ὅτι ὁ παῖς αὐτοῦ ζῇ. 4.52. ἐπύθετο οὖν τὴν ὥραν παρʼ αὐτῶν ἐν ᾗ κομψότερον ἔσχεν· εἶπαν οὖν αὐτῷ ὅτι Ἐχθὲς ὥραν ἑβδόμην ἀφῆκεν αὐτὸν ὁ πυρετός. 4.53. ἔγνω οὖν ὁ πατὴρ ὅτι ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ ἐν ᾗ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς Ὁ υἱός σου ζῇ, καὶ ἐπίστευσεν αὐτὸς καὶ ἡ οἰκία αὐτοῦ ὅλη. | 4.46. Jesus came therefore again to Cana of Galilee, where he made the water into wine. There was a certain nobleman whose son was sick at Capernaum. 4.47. When he heard that Jesus had come out of Judea into Galilee, he went to him, and begged him that he would come down and heal his son, for he was at the point of death. 4.48. Jesus therefore said to him, "Unless you see signs and wonders, you will in no way believe." 4.49. The nobleman said to him, "Sir, come down before my child dies." 4.50. Jesus said to him, "Go your way. Your son lives." The man believed the word that Jesus spoke to him, and he went his way. 4.51. As he was now going down, his servants met him and reported, saying "Your child lives!" 4.52. So he inquired of them the hour when he began to get better. They said therefore to him, "Yesterday at the seventh hour, the fever left him." 4.53. So the father knew that it was at that hour in which Jesus said to him, "Your son lives." He believed, as did his whole house. |
|
31. New Testament, Luke, 6.1, 16.18 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 121, 151| 6.1. Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ διαπορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν διὰ σπορίμων, καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν. 16.18. Πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμῶν ἑτέραν μοιχεύει, καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν μοιχεύει. | 6.1. Now it happened on the second Sabbath after the first, that he was going through the grain fields. His disciples plucked the heads of grain, and ate, rubbing them in their hands. 16.18. Everyone who divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery. He who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery. |
|
32. New Testament, Mark, 10.11-10.12 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 121, 134| 10.11. καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται ἐπʼ αὐτήν, 10.12. καὶ ἐὰν αὐτὴ ἀπολύσασα τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς γαμήσῃ ἄλλον μοιχᾶται. | 10.11. He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. 10.12. If a woman herself divorces her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery." |
|
33. New Testament, Matthew, 5.17-5.20, 5.31-5.32, 6.2, 6.5, 12.1, 15.1, 15.7, 15.19, 19.3, 23.13-23.26 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Sigal (2007) 56, 111, 112, 115, 116, 117, 120, 121, 123, 125, 126, 127, 130, 133, 134, 140, 141| 5.17. Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας· οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι· 5.18. ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ, ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κερέα οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἕως [ἂν] πάντα γένηται. 5.19. ὃς ἐὰν οὖν λύσῃ μίαν τῶν ἐντολῶν τούτων τῶν ἐλαχίστων καὶ διδάξῃ οὕτως τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ἐλάχιστος κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν· ὃς δʼ ἂν ποιήσῃ καὶ διδάξῃ, οὗτος μέγας κληθήσεται ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν οὐρανῶν. 5.20. λέγω γὰρ ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ περισσεύσῃ ὑμῶν ἡ δικαιοσύνη πλεῖον τῶν γραμματέων καὶ Φαρισαίων, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν. 5.31. Ἐρρέθη δέ Ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, δότω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον. 5.32. Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι[, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ μοιχᾶται]. 6.2. Ὅταν οὖν ποιῇς ἐλεημοσύνην, μὴ σαλπίσῃς ἔμπροσθέν σου, ὥσπερ οἱ ὑποκριταὶ ποιοῦσιν ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς καὶ ἐν ταῖς ῥύμαις, ὅπως δοξασθῶσιν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπέχουσιν τὸν μισθὸν αὐτῶν. 6.5. Καὶ ὅταν προσεύχησθε, οὐκ ἔσεσθε ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί· ὅτι φιλοῦσιν ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς καὶ ἐν ταῖς γωνίαις τῶν πλατειῶν ἑστῶτες προσεύχεσθαι, ὅπως φανῶσιν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις· ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπέχουσι τὸν μισθὸν αὐτῶν. 12.1. Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἐπορεύθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς σάββασιν διὰ τῶν σπορίμων· οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπείνασαν, καὶ ἤρξαντο τίλλειν στάχυας καὶ ἐσθίειν. 15.1. Τότε προσέρχονται τῷ Ἰησοῦ ἀπὸ Ἰεροσολύμων Φαρισαῖοι καὶ γραμματεῖς λέγοντες 15.7. ὑποκριταί, καλῶς ἐπροφήτευσεν περὶ ὑμῶν Ἠσαίας λέγων 15.19. ἐκ γὰρ τῆς καρδίας ἐξέρχονται διαλογισμοὶ πονηροί, φόνοι, μοιχεῖαι, πορνεῖαι, κλοπαί, ψευδομαρτυρίαι, βλασφημίαι. 19.3. Καὶ προσῆλθαν αὐτῷ Φαρισαῖοι πειράζοντες αὐτὸν καὶ λέγοντες Εἰ ἔξεστιν ἀπολῦσαι τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν; 23.13. 23.14. Οὐαὶ δὲ ὑμῖν, γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί, ὅτι κλείετε τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων· ὑμεῖς γὰρ οὐκ εἰσέρχεσθε, οὐδὲ τοὺς εἰσερχομένους ἀφίετε εἰσελθεῖν. 23.15. Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί, ὅτι περιάγετε τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ τὴν ξηρὰν ποιῆσαι ἕνα προσήλυτον, καὶ ὅταν γένηται ποιεῖτε αὐτὸν υἱὸν γεέννης διπλότερον ὑμῶν. 23.16. Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, ὁδηγοὶ τυφλοὶ οἱ λέγοντες Ὃς ἂν ὀμόσῃ ἐν τῷ ναῷ, οὐδέν ἐστιν, ὃς δʼ ἂν ὀμόσῃ ἐν τῷ χρυσῷ τοῦ ναοῦ ὀφείλει· 23.17. μωροὶ καὶ τυφλοί, τίς γὰρ μείζων ἐστίν, ὁ χρυσὸς ἢ ὁ ναὸς ὁ ἁγιάσας τὸν χρυσόν; 23.18. καί Ὃς ἂν ὀμόσῃ ἐν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ, οὐδέν ἐστιν, ὃς δʼ ἂν ὀμόσῃ ἐν τῷ δώρῳ τῷ ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ ὀφείλει· 23.19. τυφλοί, τί γὰρ μεῖζον, τὸ δῶρον ἢ τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ ἁγιάζον τὸ δῶρον; 23.20. ὁ οὖν ὀμόσας ἐν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ ὀμνύει ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ· 23.21. καὶ ὁ ὀμόσας ἐν τῷ ναῷ ὀμνύει ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν τῷ κατοικοῦντι αὐτόν· 23.22. καὶ ὁ ὀμόσας ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ὀμνύει ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ. 23.23. Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί, ὅτι ἀποδεκατοῦτε τὸ ἡδύοσμον καὶ τὸ ἄνηθον καὶ τὸ κύμινον, καὶ ἀφήκατε τὰ βαρύτερα τοῦ νόμου, τὴν κρίσιν καὶ τὸ ἔλεος καὶ τὴν πίστιν· ταῦτα δὲ ἔδει ποιῆσαι κἀκεῖνα μὴ ἀφεῖναι. 23.24. ὁδηγοὶ τυφλοί, διυλίζοντες τὸν κώνωπα τὴν δὲ κάμηλον καταπίνοντες. 23.25. Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι ὑποκριταί, ὅτι καθαρίζετε τὸ ἔξωθεν τοῦ ποτηρίου καὶ τῆς παροψίδος, ἔσωθεν δὲ γέμουσιν ἐξ ἁρπαγῆς καὶ ἀκρασίας. 23.26. Φαρισαῖε τυφλέ, καθάρισον πρῶτον τὸ ἔντος τοῦ ποτηρίου [καὶ τῆς παροψίδος], ἵνα γένηται καὶ τὸ ἐκτὸς αὐτοῦ καθαρόν. | 5.17. "Don't think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill. 5.18. For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. 5.19. Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. 5.20. For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, there is no way you will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. 5.31. "It was also said, 'Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorce,' 5.32. but I tell you that whoever who puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her when she is put away commits adultery. 6.2. Therefore when you do merciful deeds, don't sound a trumpet before yourself, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may get glory from men. Most assuredly I tell you, they have received their reward. 6.5. "When you pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Most assuredly, I tell you, they have received their reward. 12.1. At that time, Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the grain fields. His disciples were hungry and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. 15.1. Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, 15.7. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, 15.19. For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual sins, thefts, false testimony, and blasphemies. 19.3. Pharisees came to him, testing him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?" 23.13. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and as a pretense you make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation. 23.14. "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men; for you don't enter in yourselves, neither do you allow those who are entering in to enter. 23.15. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel around by sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much of a son of Gehenna as yourselves. 23.16. "Woe to you, you blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obligated.' 23.17. You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold? 23.18. 'Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is a obligated.' 23.19. You blind fools! For which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift? 23.20. He therefore who swears by the altar, swears by it, and by everything on it. 23.21. He who swears by the temple, swears by it, and by him who is living in it. 23.22. He who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him who sits on it. 23.23. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith. But you ought to have done these, and not to have left the other undone. 23.24. You blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel! 23.25. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and unrighteousness. 23.26. You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the platter, that the outside of it may become clean also. |
|
34. Mishnah, Kiddushin, 3.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 141| 3.12. "כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ קִדּוּשִׁין וְאֵין עֲבֵרָה, הַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַזָּכָר. וְאֵיזֶה, זוֹ כֹהֶנֶת, לְוִיָּה וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִית שֶׁנִּשְּׂאוּ לְכֹהֵן וּלְלֵוִי וּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ קִדּוּשִׁין וְיֵשׁ עֲבֵרָה, הַוָּלָד הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַפָּגוּם. וְאֵיזוֹ, זוֹ אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמַמְזֵר וּלְנָתִין. וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ עָלָיו קִדּוּשִׁין אֲבָל יֶשׁ לָהּ עַל אֲחֵרִים קִדּוּשִׁין, הַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר. וְאֵיזֶה, זֶה הַבָּא עַל אַחַת מִכָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה. וְכָל מִי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ לֹא עָלָיו וְלֹא עַל אֲחֵרִים קִדּוּשִׁין, הַוָּלָד כְּמוֹתָהּ. וְאֵיזֶה, זֶה וְלַד שִׁפְחָה וְנָכְרִית: \n", | 3.12. "Wherever there is kiddushin and there is no transgression, the child goes after the status of the male. And what case is this? When the daughter of a priest, a Levite or an Israelite is married to a priest, a Levite or an Israelite. And wherever there is kiddushin and there is transgression, the child goes after the status of the flawed parent. And what case is this? When a widow is married to a high priest, or a divorced woman or a halutzah to an ordinary priest, or a mamzeret or a netinah to an Israelite, and the daughter of an Israelite to a mamzer or a natin. And any [woman] who cannot contract kiddushin with that particular person but can contract kiddushin with another person, the child is a mamzer. And what case is this? One who has intercourse with any relation prohibited in the Torah. And any [woman] who can not contract kiddushin with that particular person or with others, the child follows her status. And what case is this? The child issue of a female slave or a gentile woman.", |
|
| 35. Mishnah, Avot, 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.14, 1.15, 1.15-2.4, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 3.9, 3.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Sigal (2007) 49 |
36. Tosefta, Berachot, 3.13, 3.25 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •elders, bet shammai Found in books: Levine (2005) 549| 3.13. "לא הזכיר גבורות גשמים בתחיית המתים ולא שאלה בברכת השנים מחזירין אותו לא אמר הבדלה בחונן הדעת אומרה על הכוס ואם לא אמר מחזירין אותו רבי יוסי אומר אף מי שלא הזכיר ברית בברכת הארץ מחזירין אותו.", 3.25. "שמונה עשרה שאמרו חכמים כנגד שמונה עשרה אזכרות שבהבו לה' בני אלים וכולל של מינים בשל פרושין ושל גרים בשל זקנים ושל דוד בירושלים ואם אמר אלו לעצמן ואלו לעצמן יצא.", | |
|
| 37. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 4.8.23, 15.7.10 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 56, 123, 134 |
| 38. Tosefta, Rosh Hashanah, 2.17 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •elders, bet shammai Found in books: Levine (2005) 167, 549 |
39. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 49| 2.6. "אין מעברין את השנה מפני הטומאה רבי יהודה אומר מעברין את השנה מפני הטומאה אמר רבי יהודה מעשה בחזקיה המלך שעיבר את השנה מפני הטומאה שנאמר (דברי הימים ב ל׳:י״ח) כי מרבית העם רבת מאפרים ומנשה יששכר וזבולון לא הטהרו וגו' ר\"ש אומר אם לעבר אותה מפני הטומאה כבר מעוברת היא אלא עבר ניסן בניסן ואין מעברין אלא אדר ר\"ש בן יהודה אומר משום ר\"ש אף מפני שהעשו את הצבור לעשות פסח שני אין מעברין את השנה אא\"כ היתה צריכה מעברין אותו מפני הצרכים ומפני הדרכים מפני התנורין ומפני הגליות שלא יצאו ממקומם אבל אין מעברין אותה לא מפני הצנה ולא מפני השלגים ולא מפני הגליות שעלו ועדיין לא הגיעו וכולן סעד לשנה ואם עברוה הרי זו מעוברת אין מעברין את השנה אלא ביהודה ואם עברוה בגליל הרי זו מעוברת העיד חנינא איש אונו לפני ר\"ג שאין מעברין את השנה אלא ביהודה ואם עברוה בגליל שהיא מעוברת ומעברין את השנה כל אדר שבראשונה היו אומרים אין מעברין אלא עד הפורים עד שבאו ר' יהושע ור' פפייס והעידו שכל אדר ואדר כשר לעבר רשב\"ג ור' אלעזר בן ר' צדוק אומרים אין מעברין את השנה ואין עושין כל צרכי צבור אלא על תנאי כדי שיקבלו רוב הצבור עליהם.", | |
|
| 40. Tosefta, Shabbat, 1.22 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 50 |
| 41. Tosefta, Sotah, 3.10, 5.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 49, 117 |
| 42. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 2.17.8-2.17.9 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 49 |
43. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, 21.1 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 133 | 21.1. "(Exodus 21:1) \"And these are the judgments\": R. Yishmael says: \"And these\" — What follows is being added to what precedes, viz.: Just as what precedes was stated at Sinai, so, what follows. ", |
|
| 44. Palestinian Talmud, Sotah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 141 |
| 45. Palestinian Talmud, Shabbat, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Sigal (2007) 49 |
| 46. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 49 |
| 47. Palestinian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 48. Palestinian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Sigal (2007) 134 |
| 49. Palestinian Talmud, Gittin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 141 |
| 50. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 90 |
51. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Sigal (2007) 49| 23a. בעתם בלילי רביעיות ובלילי שבתות,שכן מצינו בימי שמעון בן שטח שירדו להם גשמים בלילי רביעיות ובלילי שבתות עד שנעשו חטים ככליות ושעורים כגרעיני זיתים ועדשים כדינרי זהב וצררו מהם דוגמא לדורות להודיע כמה החטא גורם שנאמר (ירמיהו ה, כה) עונותיכם הטו אלה וחטאתיכם מנעו הטוב מכם,וכן מצינו בימי הורדוס שהיו עוסקין בבנין בהמ"ק והיו יורדין גשמים בלילה למחר נשבה הרוח ונתפזרו העבים וזרחה החמה ויצאו העם למלאכתן וידעו שמלאכת שמים בידיהם:,מעשה ששלחו לחוני המעגל וכו': ת"ר פעם אחת יצא רוב אדר ולא ירדו גשמים שלחו לחוני המעגל התפלל וירדו גשמים התפלל ולא ירדו גשמים עג עוגה ועמד בתוכה כדרך שעשה חבקוק הנביא שנאמר (חבקוק ב, א) על משמרתי אעמדה ואתיצבה על מצור וגו',אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם בניך שמו פניהם עלי שאני כבן בית לפניך נשבע אני בשמך הגדול שאיני זז מכאן עד שתרחם על בניך התחילו גשמים מנטפין אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי ראינוך ולא נמות כמדומין אנו שאין גשמים יורדין אלא להתיר שבועתך,אמר לא כך שאלתי אלא גשמי בורות שיחין ומערות ירדו בזעף עד שכל טפה וטפה כמלא פי חבית ושיערו חכמים שאין טפה פחותה מלוג אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי ראינוך ולא נמות כמדומין אנו שאין גשמים יורדין אלא לאבד העולם,אמר לפניו לא כך שאלתי אלא גשמי רצון ברכה ונדבה ירדו כתיקנן עד שעלו כל העם להר הבית מפני הגשמים אמרו לו רבי כשם שהתפללת שירדו כך התפלל וילכו להם אמר להם כך מקובלני שאין מתפללין על רוב הטובה,אעפ"כ הביאו לי פר הודאה הביאו לו פר הודאה סמך שתי ידיו עליו ואמר לפניו רבש"ע עמך ישראל שהוצאת ממצרים אינן יכולין לא ברוב טובה ולא ברוב פורענות כעסת עליהם אינן יכולין לעמוד השפעת עליהם טובה אינן יכולין לעמוד יהי רצון מלפניך שיפסקו הגשמים ויהא ריוח בעולם מיד נשבה הרוח ונתפזרו העבים וזרחה החמה ויצאו העם לשדה והביאו להם כמהין ופטריות,שלח לו שמעון בן שטח אלמלא חוני אתה גוזרני עליך נידוי שאילו שנים כשני אליהו שמפתחות גשמים בידו של אליהו לא נמצא שם שמים מתחלל על ידך,אבל מה אעשה לך שאתה מתחטא לפני המקום ועושה לך רצונך כבן שמתחטא על אביו ועושה לו רצונו ואומר לו אבא הוליכני לרחצני בחמין שטפני בצונן תן לי אגוזים שקדים אפרסקים ורמונים ונותן לו ועליך הכתוב אומר (משלי כג, כה) ישמח אביך ואמך ותגל יולדתך,תנו רבנן מה שלחו בני לשכת הגזית לחוני המעגל (איוב כב, כח) ותגזר אומר ויקם לך ועל דרכיך נגה אור,ותגזר אומר אתה גזרת מלמטה והקדוש ברוך הוא מקיים מאמרך מלמעלה ועל דרכיך נגה אור דור שהיה אפל הארת בתפלתך,כי השפילו ותאמר גוה דור שהיה שפל הגבהתו בתפלתך ושח עינים יושיע דור ששח בעונו הושעתו בתפלתך ימלט אי נקי דור שלא היה נקי מלטתו בתפלתך ונמלט בבור כפיך מלטתו במעשה ידיך הברורין,אמר ר' יוחנן כל ימיו של אותו צדיק היה מצטער על מקרא זה (תהלים קכו, א) שיר המעלות בשוב ה' את שיבת ציון היינו כחולמים אמר מי איכא דניים שבעין שנין בחלמא,יומא חד הוה אזל באורחא חזייה לההוא גברא דהוה נטע חרובא אמר ליה האי עד כמה שנין טעין אמר ליה עד שבעין שנין אמר ליה פשיטא לך דחיית שבעין שנין אמר ליה האי [גברא] עלמא בחרובא אשכחתיה כי היכי דשתלי לי אבהתי שתלי נמי לבראי,יתיב קא כריך ריפתא אתא ליה שינתא נים אהדרא ליה משוניתא איכסי מעינא ונים שבעין שנין כי קם חזייה לההוא גברא דהוה קא מלקט מינייהו אמר ליה את הוא דשתלתיה א"ל בר בריה אנא אמר ליה שמע מינה דניימי שבעין שנין חזא לחמריה דאתיילידא ליה רמכי רמכי,אזל לביתיה אמר להו בריה דחוני המעגל מי קיים אמרו ליה בריה ליתא בר בריה איתא אמר להו אנא חוני המעגל לא הימנוהו אזל לבית המדרש שמעינהו לרבנן דקאמרי נהירן שמעתתין כבשני חוני המעגל דכי הוי עייל לבית מדרשא כל קושיא דהוו להו לרבנן הוה מפרק להו אמר להו אנא ניהו לא הימנוהו ולא עבדי ליה יקרא כדמבעי ליה חלש דעתיה בעי רחמי ומית אמר רבא היינו דאמרי אינשי או חברותא או מיתותא,אבא חלקיה בר בריה דחוני המעגל הוה וכי מצטריך עלמא למיטרא הוו משדרי רבנן לגביה ובעי רחמי ואתי מיטרא זימנא חדא איצטריך עלמא למיטרא שדור רבנן זוגא דרבנן לגביה למבעי רחמי דניתי מיטרא אזול לביתיה ולא אשכחוהו אזול בדברא ואשכחוהו דהוה קא רפיק יהבו ליה שלמא | 23a. b “In their season” /b means b on Wednesday eves, /b i.e., Tuesday nights, b and on Shabbat eves, /b i.e., Friday nights, because at these times people are not out in the streets, either due to fear of demonic forces that were thought to wander on Tuesday nights or due to the sanctity of Shabbat., b As we found /b in b the days of Shimon ben Shetaḥ that rain /b invariably b fell for them on Wednesday eves and on Shabbat eves, until wheat grew /b as big b as kidneys, and barley /b as big b as olive pits, and lentils as golden dinars. And they tied /b up some b of /b these crops as b an example [ i dugma /i ] for /b future b generations, to convey /b to them b how much /b damage b sin causes, as it is stated: /b “The Lord our God, Who gives rain, the former rain and the latter rain, in its season that keeps for us the appointed weeks of the harvest. b Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withheld the good from you” /b (Jeremiah 5:24–25)., b And we likewise found /b that b in the days of Herod /b that b they were occupied in the building of the Temple, and rain would fall at night. And the next day the wind would blow, the clouds would disperse, the sun would shine, and the people would go out to their work. And /b as rain would fall only at a time when it would not interfere with their labor, the nation b knew /b that b the work of Heaven /b was being performed b by their hands. /b ,§ The mishna taught: b An incident /b occurred in b which /b the people b sent /b a message b to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel. /b This event is related in greater detail in the following i baraita /i . b The Sages taught: Once, most of /b the month of b Adar had passed but rain had /b still b not fallen. They sent /b this message b to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel: Pray, and rain will fall. He prayed, but no rain fell. He drew a circle /b in the dust b and stood inside it, in the manner that the prophet Habakkuk did, as it is stated: “And I will stand upon my watch and set myself upon the tower, /b and I will look out to see what He will say to me, and what I shall answer when I am reproved” (Habakkuk 2:1). This verse is taken to mean that Habakkuk fashioned a kind of prison for himself where he sat.,Ḥoni b said before /b God: b Master of the Universe, Your children have turned their faces toward me, as I am like a member of Your household. /b Therefore, b I take an oath by Your great name that I will not move from here until you have mercy upon Your children /b and answer their prayers for rain. b Rain began to trickle /b down, but only in small droplets. b His students said to him: Rabbi, we have seen /b that b you /b can perform great wonders, b but /b this quantity of rain is not enough to ensure that b we will not die. It appears to us that /b a small amount of b rain is falling only /b to enable you b to dissolve your oath, /b but it is not nearly enough to save us.,Ḥoni b said /b to God: b I did not ask for this, but /b for b rain to /b fill the b cisterns, ditches, and caves. /b Rain b began to fall furiously, until each and every drop /b was as big b as the mouth of a barrel, and the Sages estimated that no drop was less than a i log /i /b in size. b His students said to him: Rabbi, we have seen /b that b you /b can call on God to perform miracles b and we will not die, /b but now b it appears to us that rain is falling only to destroy the world. /b ,Ḥoni again b said before /b God: b I did not ask for this /b harmful rain either, b but /b for b rain of benevolence, blessing, and generosity. /b Subsequently, the rains b fell in their standard manner, until all of the people /b sought higher ground and b ascended to the Temple Mount due to the rain. They said to him: Rabbi, just as you prayed that /b the rains b should fall, so too, pray that they should stop. He said to them: This is /b the tradition that b I received, that one does not pray over an excess of good. /b ,Ḥoni continued: b Nevertheless, bring me a bull. /b I will sacrifice it as b a thanks-offering /b and pray at the same time. b They brought him a bull /b for b a thanks-offering. He placed his two hands on its /b head b and said before /b God: b Master of the Universe, Your nation Israel, whom You brought out of Egypt, cannot /b bear b either an excess of good or an excess of punishment. You grew angry with them /b and withheld rain, b and they are unable to bear /b it. b You bestowed upon them /b too much b good, and they were /b also b unable to bear /b it. b May it be Your will that the rain stop and that there be relief for the world. Immediately, the wind blew, the clouds dispersed, the sun shone, and everyone went out to the fields and gathered for themselves truffles and mushrooms /b that had sprouted in the strong rain., b Shimon ben Shetaḥ relayed to /b Ḥoni HaMe’aggel: b If you were not Ḥoni, I would have decreed ostracism upon you. For were /b these b years like the years of Elijah, when the keys of rain /b were entrusted b in Elijah’s hands, /b and he swore it would not rain, b wouldn’t the name of Heaven have been desecrated by your /b oath not to leave the circle until it rained? Once you have pronounced this oath, either yours or Elijah’s must be falsified., b However, what can I do to you, as you nag God and He does your bidding, like a son who nags his father and /b his father b does his bidding. And /b the son b says to /b his father: b Father, take me to be bathed in hot water; wash me with cold water; give me nuts, almonds, peaches, and pomegranates. And /b his father b gives him. About you, the verse states: “Your father and mother will be glad and she who bore you will rejoice” /b (Proverbs 23:25)., b The Sages taught: What /b message did b the members of the Chamber of the Hewn Stone, /b the Great Sanhedrin, b send to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel? /b About you, the verse states: b “You shall also decree a matter, and it shall be established for you; and the light shall shine upon your ways. /b When they cast down, you will say: There is lifting up, for He saves the humble person. He will deliver the one who is not innocent and he will be delivered through the cleanness of your hands” (Job 22:28–30).,They interpreted: b “You shall also decree a matter”; you, /b Ḥoni, b decree from below, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, fulfills your statement from above. “And the light shall shine upon your ways”; a generation that was in darkness, you have illuminated /b it b with your prayer. /b , b “When they cast down, you will say: There is lifting up”; a generation that was cast down, you lifted it up with your prayer. “For He saves the humble person”; a generation that was humble in its transgression, you saved it through your prayer. “He will deliver the one who is not innocent”; a generation that was not innocent, you have delivered it through your prayer. “And he will be delivered through the cleanness of your hands”; you have delivered /b an undeserving generation b through the clean work of your hands. /b ,§ The Gemara relates another story about Ḥoni HaMe’aggel. b Rabbi Yoḥa said: All the days /b of the life b of that righteous man, /b Ḥoni, b he was distressed over /b the meaning of b this verse: “A song of Ascents: When the Lord brought back those who returned to Zion, we were like those who dream” /b (Psalms 126:1). b He said /b to himself: b Is there /b really a person b who can sleep and dream for seventy years? /b How is it possible to compare the seventy-year exile in Babylonia to a dream?, b One day, he was walking along the road /b when b he saw a certain man planting a carob tree. /b Ḥoni b said to him: This /b tree, b after how many years /b will it b bear /b fruit? The man b said to him: /b It will not produce fruit b until seventy years /b have passed. Ḥoni b said to him: Is it obvious to you that you will live seventy years, /b that you expect to benefit from this tree? b He said to him: That man /b himself b found a world /b full b of carob trees. Just as my ancestors planted for me, I too am planting for my descendants. /b ,Ḥoni b sat and ate bread. Sleep overcame him and he slept. A cliff formed around him, and he disappeared from sight and slept for seventy years. When he awoke, he saw a certain man gathering /b carobs from that tree. Ḥoni b said to him: /b Are b you the one who planted /b this tree? The man b said to him: I am his son’s son. /b Ḥoni b said to him: /b I can b learn from this that I /b have b slept for seventy years, /b and indeed b he saw that his donkey had sired several herds /b during those many years.,Ḥoni b went home and said to /b the members of the household: b Is the son of Ḥoni HaMe’aggel alive? They said to him: His son is no /b longer with us, but b his son’s son is /b alive. b He said to them: I am Ḥoni HaMe’aggel. They did not believe him. He went to the study hall, /b where he b heard the Sages say /b about one scholar: b His i halakhot /i are as enlightening /b and as clear b as in the years of Ḥoni HaMe’aggel, for when /b Ḥoni HaMe’aggel b would enter the study hall he would resolve for the Sages any difficulty they had. /b Ḥoni b said to them: I am he, but they did not believe him and did not pay him proper respect. /b Ḥoni b became very upset, prayed for mercy, and died. Rava said: This /b explains the folk saying b that people say: Either friendship or death, /b as one who has no friends is better off dead.,§ The Gemara relates another story, this time about Ḥoni HaMe’aggel’s descendants, who were also renowned for their righteous deeds. b Abba Ḥilkiyya was the son of Ḥoni HaMe’aggel’s son. And when the world was in need of rain they would send Sages to him, and he would pray for mercy, and rain would fall. Once the world was in need of rain, /b and b the Sages sent a pair of Sages to him /b so b that he would pray for mercy and rain would fall. They went to his house but they did not find him /b there. b They went to the field and found him hoeing /b the ground. b They greeted him, /b |
|
52. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 50| 15a. שיהו חולצות ולא מתייבמות לא הספיקו לגמור את הדבר עד שנטרפה השעה,א"ל רשב"ג מה נעשה להם לצרות הראשונות מעתה,אי אמרת בשלמא עשו היינו דקאמר מה נעשה אלא אי אמרת לא עשו מאי מה נעשה,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לא נצרכה אלא לצרה עצמה ומה נעשה הכי קאמר הנך צרות דב"ה לב"ש היכי נעביד להו,ליחלצו מימאסי אגברייהו וכי תימא לימאסן (משלי ג, יז) דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום,ת"ש דא"ר טרפון תאבני מתי תבא צרת הבת לידי ואשאנה אימא ואשיאנה,והא תאבני קאמר לאפוקי מדרבי יוחנן בן נורי,ת"ש מעשה בבתו של רבן גמליאל שהיתה נשואה לאבא אחיו ומת בלא בנים וייבם רבן גמליאל את צרתה ותסברא רבן גמליאל מתלמידי ב"ש הוא,אלא שאני בתו של רבן גמליאל דאילונית הואי הא מדקתני סיפא אחרים אומרים בתו של רבן גמליאל אילונית היתה מכלל דתנא קמא סבר לאו אילונית היתה,הכיר בה ולא הכיר בה איכא בינייהו,ואיבעית אימא כנס ולבסוף גירש איכא בינייהו,איבעית אימא יש תנאי בביאה איכא בינייהו,מתיב רב משרשיא מעשה בר' עקיבא שליקט אתרוג באחד בשבט ונהג בו ב' עשורין,אחד כדברי ב"ש ואחד כדברי ב"ה ש"מ עשו,ר' עקיבא גמריה אסתפק ליה ולא ידע אי ב"ה באחד בשבט אמור או בט"ו בשבט אמור,מתיב מר זוטרא מעשה וילדה כלתו של שמאי הזקן ופיחת את המעזיבה וסיכך על גבי מטה בשביל קטן ש"מ עשו התם הרואה אומר לאפושי אויר קעביד,מתיב מר זוטרא מעשה בשוקת יהוא שהיתה בירושלים והיתה נקובה למקוה וכל טהרות שהיו בירושלים נעשים על גבה ושלחו בית שמאי והרחיבוה שבית שמאי אומרים עד שתיפחת ברובה,ותנן עירוב מקואות כשפופרת הנוד בעובייה ובחללה כשתי אצבעות חוזרות למקומן שמע מינה עשו התם | 15a. that they b should perform i ḥalitza /i and not enter into levirate marriage. /b If they act in this manner, they will be permitted to marry others and the problem will be solved according to all opinions. b They were unable to finalize the matter /b according to the proposition raised by Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri b before times of trouble /b arrived. Due to the outbreak of war they were unable to gather together to vote and establish an accepted halakhic ruling.,Sometime later, when they returned to discuss the issue, b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to /b the other Sages: b What shall we do with those earlier rival wives from now /b onward? Since in the meantime some rival wives had entered into levirate marriage, if we issue a collective ruling that rival wives may not do so, their children will be declared i mamzerim /i . Therefore, it is better not to establish this i halakha /i at all.,The Gemara analyzes this episode in relation to the matter at hand. b Granted, if you say /b that Beit Shammai b did act /b in accordance with their own opinion, b this is /b the meaning of b what /b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel b said: What shall we do? /b Since these rival wives had already entered into levirate marriage, it was impossible to change the status of their children retroactively. b However, if you say /b that b they did not act /b in accordance with their opinion, b what is /b the meaning of: b What shall we do? /b If Beit Shammai did not act upon their ruling, they never actually permitted a i yavam /i to take a rival wife in levirate marriage., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b This amendment was b necessary, /b not for the benefit of the children of rival wives, as Beit Shammai never in fact acted on their ruling; b rather, /b it was necessary b only for the rival wife herself. /b If these rival wives married others, in the opinion of Beit Shammai their marriages were flawed, as they did not perform i ḥalitza /i . And as for the question: b What shall we do, this is what /b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel b is saying: /b With regard to b those rival wives /b who were entirely exempt according b to Beit Hillel, what /b should b we do with them /b according b to Beit Shammai, /b as these rival wives had already married others without performing i ḥalitza /i ?,The Gemara elaborates: If you say b let them perform i ḥalitza /i , they will be repulsive to their husbands, /b as it will seem to the husband that the woman he has been living with for some time suddenly requires a permit for marriage. b And if you would say, let them be repulsive /b to their husbands, as that is not our concern, this is not the case, as the Torah says: b “Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace” /b (Proverbs 3:17).,§ The Gemara suggests further: b Come /b and b hear /b another source, b as Rabbi Tarfon said: I yearn /b for the following scenario: b When shall my daughter’s rival wife come before me and I will marry her? /b In other words, in this hypothetical case I would act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai and take her in levirate marriage. This statement indicates that those who held by the traditions of Beit Shammai did indeed act upon their opinion. The Gemara amends this statement. b Say: And I will marry her off, /b i.e., I shall act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel and marry her off to others.,The Gemara asks: b But he said: I yearn, /b and if he meant that he would follow the ruling of Beit Hillel, which is the common practice, what is the novelty of Rabbi Tarfon’s statement? The Gemara responds: Rabbi Tarfon comes b to exclude /b the statement of b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri, /b who maintains that all rival wives perform i ḥalitza /i . Rabbi Tarfon yearned for an opportunity to demonstrate that the i halakha /i is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri.,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear an incident involving Rabban Gamliel’s daughter, who was married to Abba, his brother, and /b Abba b died childless, and Rabban Gamliel entered into levirate marriage with her rival wife. /b This is apparently conclusive proof that the rival wife of a daughter may enter into levirate marriage. The Gemara asks: b And /b how can b you understand it /b that way? Was b Rabban Gamliel among the disciples of Beit Shammai? /b In fact, Rabban Gamliel, who was a descendant of Hillel himself, certainly followed the opinion of Beit Hillel., b Rather, /b the case of b Rabban Gamliel’s daughter is different, as she was a sexually underdeveloped woman [ i aylonit /i ], /b and therefore the prohibition against marrying her rival wife does not apply, as explicitly stated in the mishna. The Gemara asks: But b from /b the fact b that it is taught /b in b the latter clause /b of the same i baraita /i : b Others say /b that b Rabban Gamliel’s daughter was an i aylonit /i , /b it can be derived b by inference that the first i tanna /i holds /b that b she was not an i aylonit /i . /b ,The Gemara answers: The dispute between the i tanna’im /i was not about whether or not she was an i aylonit /i , as she certainly was. Rather, the practical difference b between them /b is whether b he knew /b that b she /b was an i aylonit /i at the time of marriage and decided to marry her regardless. Some maintain in general that if the husband was aware of her condition prior to marriage, her rival wife is forbidden, b but /b if b he did not know about her /b status, the rival wife is permitted., b And if you wish, say /b that the practical difference b between them /b concerns a different case, that of one who b married and ultimately divorced. /b This is referring to an issue discussed above of whether a woman is considered the rival wife of a forbidden relation simply by virtue of her marriage to the specific man or whether she must be married to him at the time when the mitzva of levirate obligation takes effect, i.e., at the time of the brother’s death., b And if you wish, say /b that the practical difference b between them /b concerns a case where b there is a condition in sexual relations. /b In other words, the first i tanna /i holds that Rabban Gamliel’s daughter was married only conditionally, and since the condition was never fulfilled the marriage was nullified. Consequently, Rabban Gamliel could marry the other wife regardless of his daughter’s status as an i aylonit /i , as she was never married to his brother at all. However, according to the other i tanna /i , even if the marriage was dependent upon a condition that was not fulfilled, because the man engaged in sexual relations with her the act of intercourse itself serves to nullify the condition. Accordingly, he maintains that the only reason Rabban Gamliel could enter into levirate marriage with his daughter’s rival wife was not because of the condition, but due to the fact that his daughter was an i aylonit /i . Whichever explanation is accepted, this case provides no proof with regard to the issue of whether or not Beit Shammai acted in accordance with their ruling.,§ b Rav Mesharshiyya raised an objection /b against those who claim that Beit Shammai did not act in accordance with their opinion. It is taught in a mishna: There was b an incident involving Rabbi Akiva, who collected an i etrog /i on the first of /b the month of b Shevat and performed with it two tenths. /b In other words, he separated two tithes from the fruit, as though it belonged to two different tithing years. He removed both the second tithe and the poor man’s tithe at the same time, two tithes that should not be separated in the same year.,The mishna explains: b One /b tithe he removed b in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai, /b who hold that the new year for trees occurs on the first of Shevat, which means that the i etrog /i required tithing according to the regulations of the upcoming year. b And one /b tithe was b in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, /b who hold the new year for trees is on the fifteenth of Shevat, and therefore the i etrog /i required tithing in accordance with the previous year. The Gemara infers: b Conclude from here /b that Beit Shammai b did act /b in accordance with their opinion, as Rabbi Akiva took care to act in accordance with the ruling of Beit Shammai.,The Gemara answers: b Rabbi Akiva was uncertain as to his tradition, and he did not know if Beit Hillel said /b that the New Year for trees occurs b on the first of Shevat or if they said /b it is b on the fifteenth of Shevat. /b He did not act in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai at all; rather, he sought to act in accordance with the ruling of Beit Hillel but was uncertain about their opinion on this matter.,§ b Mar Zutra raised an objection /b to this issue from a different source: There was b an incident in which the daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder gave birth /b to a son. In Shammai’s opinion this newborn baby is immediately obligated in the mitzva to sit in a i sukka /i , b and he /b therefore b removed the mortar [ i ma’aziva /i ] /b covering the ceiling b and he placed /b i sukka /i b covering over the bed for the minor. Conclude from here /b that Beit Shammai b did act /b in accordance with their opinions. The Gemara answers: There is no proof from b there, /b as anyone b watching /b would b say /b that b he did it /b merely b to increase /b the b air. /b Since people would not necessarily think that he removed the mortar as a ruling of i halakha /i , this behavior is not considered the formation of a faction., b Mar Zutra raised /b a further b objection: /b There was b an incident involving the Yehu water trough in Jerusalem, which had a hole /b that connected it b to a ritual bath, and all the ritual purifications in Jerusalem were performed in it, /b i.e., people immersed their utensils in this trough. b And Beit Shammai sent /b messengers b and they widened /b the opening in the water trough, as in the opinion of Beit Shammai the hole was not large enough for the trough to be considered connected to the adjacent ritual bath b as Beit Shammai say: /b The two areas are not connected b unless the majority of it is opened. /b In other words, they require the major portion of the barrier between the ritual bath and the nearby trough to be open., b And we learned /b in a mishna: Beit Hillel hold that b a joining of ritual baths /b is effective if the hole has the b width of the tube /b used to pour water in and out b of a wineskin, and in its /b open b space /b there is enough room for b about two fingers that can return to their place. /b In other words, if it is possible to insert into the hole two fingers that can move around on all sides, the cavity is sufficiently large to be considered a connection. According to Beit Shammai, however, the hole must open up the majority of the barrier between the two areas. If so, b conclude from this /b that Beit Shammai b did act /b in accordance with their opinions. The Gemara rejects this contention: b There, /b |
|
53. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Sigal (2007) 49| 19a. ואי ס"ד דלא ידעי כי אמר להו מאי הוי אלא מאי דידעי למה לי' למימר להו לאחזוקי ליה טיבותא למשה,אמר רבי יצחק כל המספר אחרי המת כאלו מספר אחרי האבן איכא דאמרי דלא ידעי ואיכא דאמרי דידעי ולא איכפת להו,איני והא אמר רב פפא חד אישתעי מילתא בתריה דמר שמואל ונפל קניא מטללא ובזעא לארנקא דמוחיה,שאני צורבא מרבנן דקודשא בריך הוא תבע ביקריה,אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי כל המספר אחר מטתן של תלמידי חכמים נופל בגיהנם שנא' (תהלים קכה, ה) והמטים עקלקלותם יוליכם ה' את פועלי האון שלום על ישראל אפילו בשעה ששלום על ישראל יוליכם ה' את פועלי האון,תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל אם ראית תלמיד חכם שעבר עבירה בלילה אל תהרהר אחריו ביום שמא עשה תשובה שמא סלקא דעתך אלא ודאי עשה תשובה והני מילי בדברים שבגופו אבל בממונא עד דמהדר למריה:,ואמר ר' יהושע בן לוי בכ"ד מקומות בית דין מנדי' על כבוד הרב וכולן שנינו במשנתנו אמר ליה ר' אלעזר היכא אמר ליה לכי תשכח,נפק דק ואשכח תלת המזלזל בנטילת ידים והמספר אחר מטתן של תלמידי חכמי' והמגיס דעתו כלפי מעלה,המספר אחר מטתן של תלמידי חכמים מאי היא דתנן הוא היה אומר אין משקין לא את הגיורת ולא את המשוחררת וחכמים אומרים משקין ואמרו לו מעשה בכרכמית שפחה משוחררת בירושלים והשקוה שמעיה ואבטליון ואמר להם דוגמא השקוה ונדוהו ומת בנדויו וסקלו בית דין את ארונו,והמזלזל בנטילת ידים מאי היא דתנן א"ר יהודה חס ושלום שעקביא בן מהללאל נתנדה שאין עזרה ננעלת על כל אדם בישראל בחכמה ובטהרה וביראת חטא כעקביא בן מהללאל אלא את מי נדו את אלעזר בן חנוך שפקפק בנטילת ידים וכשמת שלחו בית דין והניחו אבן גדולה על ארונו ללמדך שכל המתנדה ומת בנדויו ב"ד סוקלין את ארונו,המגיס דעתו כלפי מעלה מאי היא דתנן שלח לו שמעון בן שטח לחוני המעגל צריך אתה להתנדות ואלמלא חוני אתה גוזרני עליך נדוי אבל מה אעשה שאתה מתחטא לפני המקום ועושה לך רצונך כבן שמתחטא לפני אביו ועושה לו רצונו ועליך הכתוב אומר (משלי כג, כה) ישמח אביך ואמך ותגל יולדתך,ותו ליכא והא איכא דתני רב יוסף תודוס איש רומי הנהיג את בני רומי להאכילן גדיים מקולסין בלילי פסחים שלח ליה שמעון בן שטח אלמלא תודוס אתה גוזרני עליך נדוי שאתה מאכיל את ישראל קדשים בחוץ,במשנתנו קאמרינן והא ברייתא היא,ובמתני' ליכא והא איכא הא דתנן חתכו חוליות ונתן חול בין חוליא לחוליא ר' אליעזר מטהר וחכמים מטמאים וזהו תנורו של עכנאי,מאי עכנאי אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מלמד שהקיפוהו הלכות כעכנאי זה וטמאוהו,ותניא אותו היום הביאו כל טהרות שטיהר ר"א ושרפום לפניו ולבסוף ברכוהו,אפילו הכי נדוי במתני' לא תנן אלא בכ"ד מקומות היכא משכחת לה ר' יהושע בן לוי מדמה מילתא למילתא ור' אלעזר לא מדמה מילתא למילתא:, נושאי המטה וחלופיהן: ת"ר אין מוציאין את המת סמוך לק"ש ואם התחילו אין מפסיקין איני והא רב יוסף אפקוהו סמוך לק"ש אדם חשוב שאני:,שלפני המטה ושלאחר המטה: ת"ר העוסקים בהספד בזמן שהמת מוטל לפניהם נשמטין אחד אחד וקורין אין המת מוטל לפניהם הן יושבין וקורין והוא יושב ודומם הם עומדים ומתפללין והוא עומד ומצדיק עליו את הדין ואומר רבון העולמים הרבה חטאתי לפניך ולא נפרעת ממני אחד מני אלף יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהינו שתגדור פרצותינו ופרצות כל עמך בית ישראל ברחמים,אמר אביי לא מבעי ליה לאינש למימר הכי דארשב"ל וכן תנא משמיה דרבי יוסי לעולם אל יפתח אדם פיו לשטן,ואמר רב יוסף מאי קראה שנאמר (ישעיהו א, ט) כמעט כסדום היינו מאי אהדר להו נביא שמעו דבר ה' קציני סדום:,קברו את המת וחזרו וכו': אם יכולים להתחיל ולגמור את כולה אין אבל פרק אחד או פסוק אחד לא ורמינהו קברו את המת וחזרו אם יכולין להתחיל ולגמור אפילו פרק אחד או פסוק אחד,הכי נמי קאמר אם יכולין להתחיל ולגמור אפי' פרק אחד או אפילו פסוק אחד עד שלא יגיעו לשורה יתחילו ואם לאו לא יתחילו | 19a. b And if it should enter your mind that /b the dead b do not know, then what of it if he tells them? /b The Gemara rejects this: b Rather what /b will you say, b that /b they b know? /b Then b why does he /b need b to tell them? /b The Gemara replies: This is not difficult, as he is telling them so that b they will give credit to Moses. /b ,On this subject, b Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who speaks /b negatively b after the deceased it is as if /b he b speaks after the stone. /b The Gemara offers two interpretations of this: b Some say /b this is because the dead b do not know, and some say /b that b they know, /b but b they do not care /b that they are spoken of in such a manner.,The Gemara asks: b Is that so? Didn’t Rav Pappa say: /b There was once b someone who spoke /b disparagingly b after /b the death of b Mar Shmuel and a reed fell from the ceiling, fracturing his skull? /b Obviously, the dead care when people speak ill of them.,The Gemara rejects this: This is no proof that the dead care. Rather, a b Torah scholar is different, as God /b Himself b demands /b that b his honor /b be upheld.,Rabbi Yehoshua b ben Levi said /b similarly: b One who speaks /b disparagingly b after the biers of Torah scholars /b and maligns them after their death will b fall in Gehenna, as it is stated: “But those who turn aside unto their crooked ways, the Lord will lead them away with the workers of iniquity; peace be upon Israel” /b (Psalms 125:5). b Even /b if he speaks ill of them b when there is peace upon Israel, /b after death, when they are no longer able to fight those denouncing them ( i Tosafot /i ); nevertheless b the Lord will lead them away with the workers of iniquity, /b to Gehenna.,On a similar note, b it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: If you saw a /b Torah b scholar transgress a prohibition at night, do not think /b badly b of him during the day; perhaps he has repented /b in the meantime. The Gemara challenges this: b Does it enter your mind /b that only b perhaps /b he has repented? Shouldn’t he be given the benefit of the doubt? b Rather, he has certainly repented. /b The Gemara notes: b The idea /b that one must always give a Torah scholar the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has repented refers specifically to b matters /b affecting b himself, but, /b if one witnesses a Torah scholar committing a transgression b involving the property /b of another, one is not required to give him the benefit of the doubt. Rather, he should not assume that he has repented b until /b he sees him b return /b the money to b its owner. /b ,Since matters relating to the respect due Torah scholars were raised, the Gemara continues, citing b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, /b who b said: There are twenty-four places in which the court ostracizes over /b matters of b respect /b due b the rabbi, and we learned them all in our Mishna. Rabbi Elazar said to him: Where /b are those cases to be found? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi b said to him: When /b you look, b you /b will b find /b them., b He went out, analyzed, and found three /b examples: b One who demeans /b the ritual of b washing of the hands, one who speaks /b disparagingly b after the bier of Torah scholars, and one who is arrogant vis-à-vis Heaven. /b The Gemara cites sources for each of these cases., b What is /b the source for b one who speaks /b disparagingly b after the biers of Torah scholars? As we learned /b in the mishna: Akavya ben Mahalalel b would say: /b In the case of a woman whose husband suspects her of adultery, who was warned by her husband not to seclude herself with another man and she did not listen (see Numbers 5), the court b does not administer /b the bitter water potion of a i sota /i to b a convert or an emancipated /b maidservant. b And the Rabbis say: /b The court b administers /b the bitter water potion to them. b And /b the Rabbis b said to him /b as proof: b There is the story of Kharkemit, an emancipated maidservant in Jerusalem, and Shemaya and Avtalyon administered her /b the bitter waters. Akavya ben Mahalalel b said to /b the Sages: That is no proof. Shemaya and Avtalyon, who were also from families of converts, required the maidservant b to drink /b the potion because she was b like them [ i dugma /i ]. And /b since Akavya ben Mahalalel cast aspersion on the deceased Torah scholars, b he was ostracized and died /b while b he /b was still under the ban of b ostracism. And /b in accordance with the i halakha /i with regard to one who dies while under a ban of ostracism, the court b stoned his coffin. /b Apparently, one who deprecates a deceased Torah scholar is sentenced to ostracism.,And b what is /b the source for b one who demeans /b the ritual of b washing of the hands? We learned /b later in the same mishna: b Rabbi Yehuda said: /b That story related with regard to the ostracism of Akavya ben Mahalalel is completely untrue; b God forbid that Akavya ben Mahalalel was ostracized, as the Temple courtyard is not closed on any Jew, /b meaning that even when all of Israel made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, when each of the three groups that gathered to offer the Paschal lamb filled the courtyard, leading the Temple administration to close the courtyard, there was no one there as perfect b in wisdom, purity and fear of sin as Akavya ben Mahalalel. Rather, whom did they excommunicate? Elazar ben Ḥanokh, /b because he b doubted /b and demeaned the rabbinic ordice of b washing of the hands. And when he died, the court sent /b instructions b and they placed a large rock upon his coffin /b in order b to teach you that one who is ostracized and dies in /b a state of b ostracism, the court stones his coffin, /b as if symbolically stoning him. Apparently, one who makes light of the ritual of washing of the hands is sentenced to ostracism., b What is /b the source for the third case, b one who is arrogant vis-à-vis Heaven? /b The mishna relates that Ḥoni HaMe’aggel, the circle-drawer, drew a circle and stood inside it, and said that he would not leave the circle until it rained, and he went so far as to make demands in terms of the manner in which he wanted the rain to fall. After it rained, b Shimon ben Shataḥ, /b the i Nasi /i of the Sanhedrin, relayed to b Ḥoni HaMe’aggel: /b Actually, b you should be ostracized /b for what you said, b and if you were not Ḥoni, I would have decreed ostracism upon you, but what can I do? You nag God and He does your bidding, like a son who nags his father and /b his father b does his bidding /b without reprimand. After all, the rain fell as you requested. b About you, the verse states: “Your father and mother will be glad and she who bore you will rejoice” /b (Proverbs 23:25). Apparently, one who is arrogant vis-à-vis Heaven would ordinarily merit excommunication.,The Gemara challenges this: b And are there no more /b cases of excommunication or threats of excommunication? b Surely there are /b additional cases like the one in the i baraita /i b taught by Rav Yosef: /b It is told that b Theodosius of Rome, /b leader of the Jewish community there, b instituted the custom for the Roman /b Jews b to eat whole kids, /b young goats roasted with their entrails over their heads, as was the custom when roasting the Paschal lamb, b on the eve of Passover, /b as they did in the Temple. b Shimon ben Shataḥ sent /b a message b to him: If you were not Theodosius, /b an important person, b I would have decreed ostracism upon you, as /b it appears as if b you are feeding Israel consecrated food, /b which may only be eaten in and around the Temple itself, b outside /b the Temple.,The Gemara responds: This case should not be included, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that there were twenty-four cases b in our Mishna, /b and b this is /b merely b a i baraita /i . /b ,The Gemara asks: b And are there none in the Mishna? Isn’t there that which we learned /b in the mishna: b One /b who b cut /b an earthenware oven horizontally b into /b ring-shaped b pieces and put sand between the pieces, Rabbi Eliezer deems /b the oven b ritually pure, /b i.e., it is no longer susceptible to ritual impurity. He holds that, although the fragments of the oven were pieced together, it is not considered an intact vessel but, rather, as a collection of fragments, and a broken earthenware vessel cannot become ritually impure. b And the Rabbis deem it ritually impure. /b Since the oven continues to serve its original function, it is still considered a single entity and a whole vessel despite the sand put between the pieces. b And this is /b called b the oven of i akhnai /i , snake. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is /b the meaning of oven of the b snake? Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said: /b It is called snake b to teach that /b the Rabbis b surrounded /b Rabbi Eliezer b with /b i halakhot /i and proofs b like a snake /b surrounds its prey, b and declared /b the oven and its contents b ritually impure. /b , b And it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b On that day, they gathered all /b of b the ritually pure /b food items that had come into contact with the oven b that Rabbi Eliezer had declared ritually pure, and burned them before him, /b and because he did not accept the decision of the majority, b in the end they “blessed,” /b a euphemism for ostracized, b him. /b This is another case that ended in ostracism.,The Gemara answers: b Even so, we did not learn /b the ruling with regard to his b ostracism in the mishna. /b The Gemara asks: Then b where do you find /b the b twenty-four places /b mentioned in Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement? The Gemara responds: b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi likens one matter to another /b similar b matter. /b Whenever he would encounter a case in a mishna where one of the Sages expressed himself inappropriately in reference to other Sages, he concluded that they should have been excommunicated. b Rabbi Elazar does not liken one matter to another /b similar b matter, /b and therefore located only three explicit cases of ostracism.,We learned in the mishna that b the pallbearers and their replacements /b are exempt from the recitation of i Shema /i . On this subject, the Gemara cites that which the b Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The deceased may not be taken out /b to be buried b adjacent to /b the time for b the recitation of i Shema /i , /b but should be buried later. b And if they /b already b started /b to take him out, b they need not stop /b in order to recite i Shema /i . The Gemara challenges: b Is that so? Didn’t they take Rav Yosef out /b to be buried b adjacent to /b the time for b the recitation of i Shema /i ? /b The Gemara resolves this contradiction: The case of b an important person is different, /b and they are more lenient in order to honor him at his burial.,In the mishna, we learned the i halakha /i with regard to the pallbearers and their obligation to recite i Shema /i , and a distinction was made between those b who are before the bier and /b those b after the bier. Our Rabbis taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Those involved in eulogy must slip away /b from the eulogy b one by one while the deceased is laid out before them and recite /b i Shema /i elsewhere. And b if the deceased is not laid out before them, /b the eulogizers must b sit and recite /b i Shema /i b while /b the bereaved b sits silently. They stand and pray and he stands and justifies God’s judgment, saying: Master of the Universe, I have sinned greatly against You, and You have not collected even one one-thousandth /b of my debt. b May it be Your will, Lord our God, to mercifully repair the breaches in our /b fence b and the breaches of Your nation, the House of Israel. /b , b Abaye said: A person should not say that, as Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, and it was also taught in the name of Rabbi Yosei: One must never open his mouth to the Satan, /b i.e., one must not leave room for or raise the possibility of disaster or evil. This formula, which states that the entire debt owed due to his transgressions has not been collected, raises the possibility that further payment will be exacted from him., b And Rav Yosef said: What is the verse /b from which b it /b is derived? b As it is stated: “We should have almost been as Sodom, /b we should have been like unto Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:9), after which b what did /b the prophet b reply to them? “Hear the word of the Lord, rulers of Sodom; /b give ear unto the law of our God, people of Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:10).,We learned in the mishna that, in a case when b they buried the deceased and returned, /b if they have sufficient time to begin to recite i Shema /i and conclude before they arrive at the row formed by those who came to console the bereaved, they should begin. Here, the Gemara clarifies: This is the case only b if they can begin and complete /b recitation of i Shema /i b in its entirety. However, /b if they can only complete b one chapter or one verse, /b they should b not /b stop to do so. The Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from that which we learned in the i baraita /i : After b they buried the deceased and returned, if they can begin /b the recitation of i Shema /i b and finish even a single chapter or verse, /b they should begin.,The Gemara responds: b That is also what /b the i tanna /i of the mishna b said /b and this is the conclusion drawn from his statement: b If one can begin and conclude even one chapter or one verse before they arrive at the row /b of consolers, b they should begin. And if not, they should not begin. /b |
|
54. Babylonian Talmud, Betzah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 91| 2b. גבי יום טוב דסתם לן תנא כרבי יהודה דתנן אין מבקעין עצים מן הקורות ולא מן הקורה שנשברה ביום טוב מוקים לה לבית הלל כרבי יהודה,מכדי מאן סתמיה למתני' רבי מאי שנא בשבת דסתם לן כרבי שמעון ומאי שנא ביו"ט דסתם לן כרבי יהודה,אמרי שבת דחמירא ולא אתי לזלזולי בה סתם לן כרבי שמעון דמיקל יום טוב דקיל ואתי לזלזולי ביה סתם לן כרבי יהודה דמחמיר,במאי אוקימתא בתרנגולת העומדת לגדל ביצים ומשום מוקצה אי הכי אדמפלגי בביצה לפלגו בתרנגולת,להודיעך כחן דבית שמאי דבנולד שרי,ולפלוגי בתרנגולת להודיעך כחן דבית הלל דבמוקצה אסרי וכי תימא כח דהתירא עדיף ונפלוג בתרוייהו,תרנגולת העומדת לגדל ביצים היא וביצתה בית שמאי אומרים תאכל ובית הלל אומרים לא תאכל,אלא אמר רבה לעולם בתרנגולת העומדת לאכילה וביום טוב שחל להיות אחר השבת עסקינן ומשום הכנה,וקסבר רבה כל ביצה דמתילדא האידנא מאתמול גמרה לה,ורבה לטעמיה דאמר רבה מאי דכתיב (שמות טז, ה) והיה ביום הששי והכינו את אשר יביאו חול מכין לשבת וחול מכין ליום טוב ואין יום טוב מכין לשבת ואין שבת מכינה ליום טוב,א"ל אביי אלא מעתה יום טוב בעלמא תשתרי גזרה משום יום טוב אחר השבת שבת דעלמא תשתרי גזרה משום שבת אחר יום טוב,ומי גזרינן והא תניא השוחט את התרנגולת ומצא בה ביצים גמורות מותרות לאכלן ביום טוב ואם איתא ליגזר משום הנך דמתילדן ביומיהן,אמר ליה ביצים גמורות במעי אמן מילתא דלא שכיחא היא ומילתא דלא שכיחא לא גזרו בה רבנן,רב יוסף אמר גזרה משום פירות הנושרין,א"ל אביי פירות הנושרין טעמא מאי | |
|
55. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 49| 16b. הראשונים היו נשיאים ושניים להם אב ב"ד:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר שלשה מזוגות הראשונים שאמרו שלא לסמוך ושנים מזוגות האחרונים שאמרו לסמוך (הראשונים) היו נשיאים ושניים להם אבות ב"ד דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים יהודה בן טבאי אב ב"ד ושמעון בן שטח נשיא,מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן אמר רבי יהודה בן טבאי אראה בנחמה אם לא הרגתי עד זומם להוציא מלבן של צדוקין שהיו אומרים אין עדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיהרג הנידון,אמר לו שמעון בן שטח אראה בנחמה אם לא שפכת דם נקי שהרי אמרו חכמים אין עדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיזומו שניהם ואין לוקין עד שיזומו שניהם ואין משלמין ממון עד שיזומו שניהם,מיד קבל עליו יהודה בן טבאי שאינו מורה הלכה אלא בפני שמעון בן שטח,כל ימיו של יהודה בן טבאי היה משתטח על קברו של אותו הרוג והיה קולו נשמע כסבורין העם לומר שקולו של הרוג הוא אמר להם קולי הוא תדעו שלמחר הוא מת ואין קולו נשמע,אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי ודלמא פיוסי פייסיה או בדינא תבעי',מני הא אי אמרת בשלמא רבי מאיר דאמר שמעון בן שטח אב ב"ד ר"י בן טבאי נשיא היינו דקא מורי הלכה בפני שמעון בן שטח אלא אי אמרת רבנן דאמרי יהודה בן טבאי אב ב"ד שמעון בן שטח נשיא אב ב"ד בפני נשיא מי מורה הלכה,לא מאי קבל עליו דקאמר לאצטרופי דאפי' אצטרופי נמי לא מצטריפנא:,יצא מנחם ונכנס שמאי כו': להיכן יצא אביי אמר יצא לתרבות רעה רבא אמר יצא לעבודת המלך תניא נמי הכי יצא מנחם לעבודת המלך ויצאו עמו שמונים זוגות תלמידים לבושין סיריקון,אמר רב שמן בר אבא א"ר יוחנן לעולם אל תהא שבות קלה בעיניך שהרי סמיכה אינה אלא משום שבות ונחלקו בה גדולי הדור,פשיטא שבות מצוה אצטריכא ליה,הא נמי פשיטא לאפוקי ממאן דאמר בסמיכה גופה פליגי קא משמע לן בשבות הוא דפליגי,אמר רמי בר חמא שמע מינה סמיכה בכל כחו בעינן דאי ס"ד לא בעינן בכל כחו מאי קא עביד ליסמוך,מיתיבי (ויקרא א, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל וסמך בני ישראל סומכין ואין בנות ישראל סומכות רבי יוסי ור' (ישמעאל) [שמעון] אומרים בנות ישראל סומכות רשות,אמר רבי יוסי סח לי אבא אלעזר פעם אחת היה לנו עגל של זבחי שלמים והביאנוהו לעזרת נשים וסמכו עליו נשים לא מפני שסמיכה בנשים אלא כדי לעשות נחת רוח לנשים ואי ס"ד סמיכה בכל כחו בעינן משום נחת רוח דנשים עבדינן עבודה בקדשים אלא לאו ש"מ לא בעינן בכל כחו,לעולם אימא לך בעינן בכל כחו דאמר להו אקפו ידייכו אי הכי לא מפני שסמיכה בנשים תיפוק ליה דאינה לסמיכה כלל,א"ר אמי חדא ועוד קאמר חדא דליתא לסמיכה כלל ועוד כדי לעשות נחת רוח לנשים,אמר רב פפא שמע מינה צדדין אסורין דאי ס"ד צדדין מותרין לסמוך לצדדין אלא לאו שמע מינה צדדין אסורין | 16b. b The first /b members of each pair b served as i Nasi /i , and their counterparts /b served as b deputy i Nasi /i . /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught: Three of the first pairs who say not to place hands and two of the last pairs who say to place hands served as i Nasi /i , and their counterparts /b served as b deputy i Nasi /i ; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say /b the opposite: b Yehuda ben Tabbai /b was b deputy i Nasi /i and Shimon ben Shataḥ /b was the b i Nasi /i . /b ,The Gemara asks: b Who is the i tanna /i /b who taught b that which the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai said: /b I swear that b I will /b not b see the consolation /b of Israel b if I did not kill a conspiring witness. /b This means that Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai sentenced a conspiring witness to death, in order b to counter the views of the Sadducees, who would say: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless the sentenced one has been executed. /b Their views opposed the traditional view, which maintains that conspiring witnesses are executed only if the one sentenced by their testimony has not yet been executed., b Shimon ben Shataḥ said to him: /b I swear that b I will /b not b see the consolation /b of Israel b if you did not shed innocent blood, as the Sages said: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless they are both found to be conspirators; /b if only one is found to be a conspirator, he is not executed. b And they are not flogged /b if they are liable to such a penalty, b unless they are both found to be conspirators. And /b if they testified falsely that someone owed money, b they do not pay money unless they are both found to be conspirators. /b ,Hearing this, b Yehuda ben Tabbai immediately accepted upon himself not to rule /b on any matter of b law unless he was in the presence of Shimon ben Shataḥ, /b as he realized he could not rely on his own judgment.,The i baraita /i further relates: b All of Yehuda ben Tabbai’s days, he would prostrate himself on the grave of that executed /b individual, to request forgiveness, b and his voice was heard /b weeping. b The people thought that it was the voice of that executed /b person, rising from his grave. Yehuda ben Tabbai b said to them: It is my voice, /b and b you /b shall b know /b that it is so, b for tomorrow, /b i.e., sometime in the future, b he will die, and his voice will no /b longer b be heard. /b Yehuda ben Tabbai was referring to himself, but he did not want to mention something negative about himself in direct terms., b Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: /b This provides no conclusive proof that the voice was not that of the executed man, as b perhaps /b ben Tabbai b appeased /b the executed individual in the World-to-Come. b Or, /b alternatively, the latter may have b prosecuted him by the law /b of Heaven, and that is why his voice can no longer be heard.,The Gemara returns to its original question: b Whose /b opinion does b this /b i baraita /i follow? b Granted, if you say /b it is in accordance b with /b that of b Rabbi Meir, /b who b said /b that b Shimon ben Shataḥ was deputy i Nasi /i /b while b Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai was i Nasi /i , that /b explains why b he /b had previously b issued a halakhic ruling in the presence of Shimon ben Shataḥ /b to execute the conspiring witness, and only after that unfortunate incident did he undertake to issue rulings only in the presence of his colleague. b But if you say /b that the i baraita /i is in accordance with b the Sages, who said: Yehuda ben Tabbai /b was b deputy i Nasi /i /b and b Shimon ben Shataḥ /b the b i Nasi /i , /b why did he need to make such a commitment? b May /b the b deputy i Nasi /i issue a halakhic ruling in the presence of /b the b i Nasi /i ? /b ,The Gemara refutes this: b No; what /b did he mean by b accepting upon himself /b not to rule on his own? b He spoke /b with regard b to joining /b the ruling of others: b Even /b with regard to b joining /b the ruling of others, b I will also not join /b until I have first heard the view of Shimon ben Shataḥ.,§ It is taught in the mishna: b Menaḥem departed and Shammai entered. /b The Gemara asks: b To where did /b Menaḥem b depart? Abaye said: He departed and went astray. /b Therefore, the mishna did not wish to delve into the details of his case. b Rava said: He departed for the king’s service. /b He received a post from the king and had to leave the court. b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Menaḥem departed for the king’s service, and eighty pairs of students dressed in silk robes left with him /b to work for the king, and that they no longer studied Torah.,§ b Rav Shemen bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: A rabbinic decree [ i shevut /i ] should never be taken lightly in your eyes, since placing hands /b on the head of an offering on a Festival b is prohibited only as a rabbinic decree /b because it is considered making use of an animal, which is not considered a prohibited labor but merely resembles one, and yet b the greatest /b scholars b of each generation disputed it. /b ,The Gemara is puzzled by this statement: This b is obvious. /b Since it is an accepted rabbinic decree, why should people take it lightly? The Gemara answers: It was b necessary for him /b to state it because it is b a rabbinic decree related to a mitzva. /b In other words, although this rabbinic decree of placing the hands on an animal is not performed for one’s own sake but for the purpose of a mitzva, it was nevertheless a serious matter in the eyes of the Sages.,The Gemara remains puzzled: b This too is obvious. /b In that case as well, the act is prohibited by the Sages. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement comes b to exclude /b the opinion b of the one who said /b that b they disagree with regard to the actual /b obligation of b placing hands, /b i.e., whether or not obligatory peace-offerings require placing the hands. b He /b therefore b teaches us /b that b it is a rabbinic decree /b that is the subject b of their dispute, /b not the requirement itself., b Rami bar Ḥama said: /b You can b learn from here, /b from this dispute, that the mitzva of b placing hands /b requires not only placing one’s hands on the animal’s head, but b we also require /b that one places his hands b with all his strength. For if it enters your mind /b that b we do not require all his strength, what /b prohibition b does one violate /b by placing his hands? b Let him place /b them on a Festival as well, as this does not resemble a prohibited action at all., b The Gemara raises an objection /b to this from a i baraita /i : b “Speak to the children of [ i benei /i ] Israel” /b (Leviticus 1:2). The word i benei /i literally means: Sons of. And it states nearby: b “And he shall place /b his hand on the head of the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 1:4), from which we learn that b the sons of Israel place /b their hands, b but the daughters of Israel do not place /b them. b Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yishmael say: It is optional for the daughters of Israel to place /b their hands. They may place their hands if they so choose, although they are not obligated to do so., b Rabbi Yosei said: /b The Sage b Abba Elazar related to me /b the following incident: b On one occasion, we had a calf for a peace-offering, and we brought it to the Women’s Courtyard, and women placed /b their hands b on it. /b We did this b not because there /b is an obligation of b placing hands in /b the case of b women, but in order to please the women, /b by allowing them to sacrifice an offering, in all of its particulars, as men do. Now, b if it enters your mind /b that b we require /b placing hands b with all one’s strength, /b would b we perform work with consecrated /b offerings b in order to please /b the b women? /b Placing one’s hands forcefully on an animal is considered performing work with it, and if one does it without being obligated to do so, he has thereby performed work with an offering. b Rather, isn’t it /b correct to b conclude from this /b that b we do not require /b placing hands b with all one’s strength? /b ,The Gemara rejects this: b Actually, I /b could b say to you /b that b we do require /b placing hands b with all one’s strength, /b but here they allowed women to place their hands b by saying to them: Ease your hands /b and do not press forcefully, so that their hand placing should not constitute work. The Gemara retorts: b If so, /b then the reason formulated as: b Not because there /b is an obligation to b place hands in /b the case of b women, /b is irrelevant to this law. b Let him derive /b the permission for women to do so from the reason that b it is not /b considered b placing hands at all. /b If placing hands must be performed with all one’s strength, this action the women are performing does not constitute placing hands., b Rabbi Ami said: He stated one /b reason b and another. One /b reason is b that it is not /b considered b placing hands at all, /b as it is not performed with all of one’s strength; b and another /b reason is that they allowed it b in order to please the women. /b , b Rav Pappa said: Learn from this /b that anything upon which one may not place objects or upon which one may not sit on Shabbat, its b sides are /b likewise b prohibited, for if it enters your mind /b to say that the b sides are permitted, /b they could have told the women b to place /b their hands b on the sides, /b i.e., on the head of the animal rather than on its back, as the head of the animal is considered as if it were one of its sides. b Rather, /b must one b not conclude from this /b that the b sides are prohibited? /b |
|
56. Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 91 | 60b. b What is /b the difference b between /b the explanations of Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda? Even Rav Huna agrees that she cannot marry someone else until she gives him the money. Until that point the bill of divorce does not come into effect and she remains married to the first man. The Gemara answers: b The difference between them /b is in a case b where the bill of divorce was torn or lost /b after she received it but before she gave him the money. b According to /b the opinion of b Rav Huna it is /b a valid b bill of divorce, /b as the divorce takes effect from the moment he gives her the document. b According to /b the opinion of b Rav Yehuda it is not a /b valid b bill of divorce, /b as he maintains that the bill of divorce goes into effect only later, which is impossible as it is either torn or lost.,The Gemara comments: b And it is necessary /b to state both disputes, the one with regard to betrothal and the with regard to divorce, as neither i halakha /i could be derived from the other. b As had /b it b taught us /b only that the two Sages disagree b with regard to betrothal, /b one might have said that it is b there /b that b Rav Huna says /b that the betrothal takes effect immediately, despite the fact that he must still give her the money, b because /b betrothal b comes to draw her near /b to him. Therefore, it is likely that he meant for the betrothal to take immediate effect. b But /b with regard to b divorce, when he comes to distance her, /b you might b say /b that Rav Huna b concedes to Rav Yehuda /b that the divorce comes into effect only from the moment she gives him the money., b And /b conversely, b if /b the dispute had been b stated /b only b with regard to this /b case concerning a bill of divorce, one might have claimed that b Rav Huna says /b that the bill of divorce comes into immediate effect only b in this /b situation, b because he is not ashamed to demand /b the money b from her /b whenever he wants, and therefore he divorces her immediately. b But here, /b concerning a betrothal, b when she is ashamed to claim /b the money b from him, /b you might b say that /b Rav Huna b concedes to Rav Yehuda /b that the woman does not accept the betrothal until she actually receives the money. It is therefore b necessary /b for the dispute to be stated in both cases.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b to the opinion of Rav Yehuda from a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Gittin /i 5:5): If one says to his wife: b This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, even if the bill of divorce was torn or lost she is divorced. /b But b she may not marry another /b man b until she gives /b him the money. This ruling apparently accords with Rav Huna’s opinion that the bill of divorce goes into immediate effect from the moment it is given., b And it is further taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to a man who b said to /b his wife: b This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, and he died /b childless, if b she gave /b him the money b she is not bound /b by a levirate bond b to the i yavam /i , /b as she is already divorced. But if b she did not give /b him the money b she is bound /b by a levirate bond b to the i yavam /i . Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: /b If she did not give it to her husband during his lifetime b she /b may b give /b the money b to /b her late husband’s b brother, or to his father, or to one of the relatives /b who inherit from him, and by doing so she fulfills the condition and is retroactively divorced.,The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The i tanna’im /i b disagree only with regard to /b the following: One b Sage, /b the first i tanna /i , b holds /b that by the phrase: On the condition that you will give b me, /b he meant: To me specifically b but not to my heirs. /b Consequently, if she does not give the money to him she is not divorced, as she cannot fulfill the condition by giving the money to his heirs. b And /b one b Sage, /b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, b holds /b that the husband meant: b Even to my heirs. In any event, everyone agrees /b that b it is a condition /b and the divorce takes effect from the moment the bill of divorce is given. This is apparently b a conclusive refutation /b of the opinion b of Rav Yehuda. /b ,The Gemara answers: b Rav Yehuda /b could b say to you: /b In accordance with b whose /b opinion b is this /b i baraita /i ? b It is /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b as Rav Huna says /b that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: Anyone who states /b a condition employing the language: b On the condition, /b is b like /b one who b states /b that the agreement will take effect retroactively b from now, /b even though the condition is fulfilled only later on. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that the phrase: On the condition, indicates that an action should take effect now provided that a certain action is fulfilled later. b And the Rabbis disagree with him, /b claiming that this expression does not mean that the action should take immediate effect, but only from when the condition is fulfilled. And Rav Yehuda would conclude by adding: b And I spoke /b in accordance b with /b the opinion of b the Rabbis. /b ,The Gemara analyzes b the /b matter b itself. Rav Huna says /b that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says /b that b anyone who states /b a condition employing the language: b On the condition, /b is b like /b one who b states /b that the agreement will take effect retroactively b from now, /b even though the condition is fulfilled only later on. b Rabbi Zeira said: When we were in Babylonia we would say: /b With regard to b that /b which b Rav Huna says /b that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: Anyone who states /b a condition employing the language: b On the condition, /b is b like /b one who b states /b that the agreement will take effect retroactively b from now, /b that is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion, but b the Rabbis disagree with him. /b , b When I ascended to there, /b to Eretz Yisrael, b I found Rabbi Asi sitting and saying /b the following ruling b in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa: All concede /b that b with regard to one who says /b to his wife: b On the condition, /b he is b like /b one who b states /b that the divorce will take effect retroactively b from now. They disagreed only /b with regard to one who said to his wife: b From today and after /b my b death, /b whether he is considered to have added a condition or to have retracted from his initial statement., b And it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that if one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce b from today and after /b my b death, /b it is uncertain whether it is a valid b bill of divorce or /b whether it is b not /b a valid b bill of divorce. /b This is b the statement of the Rabbis. /b The Rabbis are uncertain whether he has changed his mind from his initial intention of giving the document that day, and now wishes to give a bill of divorce after his death, which is not effective, or whether he was merely adding a condition that the bill of divorce should take effect from today only when he dies. Conversely, b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: /b A document b like this /b is a valid b bill of divorce. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And according to /b the opinion of b Rav Yehuda, who said /b that the i tanna’im /i b also disagree with regard to /b one who says to his wife: b On the condition, /b instead b of disagreeing with regard to /b the case where one says to his wife: b From today and after /b my b death, let /b them b disagree with regard to /b a case where the husband used the expression: b On the condition. /b ,The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda maintains that they disagree over both cases, and the i baraita /i taught the dispute in this manner b to convey to you the far-reaching nature /b of the opinion b of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that even if the husband says to his wife: b From today and after /b my b death, this is also /b a valid b bill of divorce. /b The Gemara asks: b And let them disagree with regard to /b a husband who says to his wife: b On the condition, to convey to you the far-reaching nature /b of the opinion b of the Rabbis, /b who hold that it is not a valid bill of divorce even in that case. The Gemara answers: It is b preferable /b to emphasize b the power of leniency. /b It is always better to formulate a dispute in a manner that emphasizes the extent of the lenient opinion.,§ The mishna teaches: With regard to one says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me b on the condition that I will give you /b a particular sum of money b from now /b and until thirty days have elapsed, if he gives her the money within the allotted time she is betrothed. The Gemara questions the need for this ruling: It is b obvious /b that this is the case. The Gemara explains: This ruling is necessary, b lest you say /b that the specified time period b is not a /b proper b condition, and he said /b so only b to motivate himself /b to prove the sincerity of his intentions. The mishna therefore b teaches us /b that the time period is an essential part of his condition, and if he fails to give her the money within this period the betrothal is void.,The mishna further teaches that if he says to her: You are hereby betrothed to me b on the condition that I have two hundred dinars, /b if he in fact possesses the specified amount, she is betrothed, but if he does not, she is not betrothed. The Gemara asks: b And let us be concerned /b that b perhaps he has /b this sum, although he fails to show it to her. How can his betrothal be nullified if there is no conclusive evidence that he does not have the money? b And furthermore, it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b we are concerned /b that b perhaps he has /b the money.,The Gemara answers: It is b not difficult, /b as b this /b case, in the mishna, is referring b to a definite betrothal, /b which is not established in this case, as he has failed to demonstrate that he has the funds. By contrast, b that /b case, in the i baraita /i , is referring to b an uncertain betrothal. /b The betrothal cannot be entirely disregarded, as he might have the money after all.,The mishna teaches that if a man says to her: You are hereby betrothed to me b on the condition that I will show you two hundred dinars, /b she is betrothed and he must show her the money. A Sage b taught /b ( i Tosefta /i 3:6): This woman b intended to see only his own /b money, not simply to be shown any two hundred dinars. With regard to the subsequent ruling of the mishna: b And if he showed her /b the money b on the table she is not betrothed, /b the Gemara comments: This is b obvious, /b as the woman wants to see his own money. The Gemara explains: b No, /b it is b necessary /b to teach b that even if he holds /b somebody else’s b money as /b part of a b joint /b business b venture, /b nevertheless, as the money does not actually belong to him he has failed to fulfill the condition., strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me b on the condition that I possess /b tillable land of b a i beit kor /i of earth, she is betrothed, /b provided that b he possesses /b such land. If he said to her that the betrothal is: b On the condition that I possess /b land b in such and such a place, if he possesses /b land b in that place she is betrothed, but if not she is not betrothed. /b If he said to her: You are hereby betrothed to me b on the condition that I will show you a i beit kor /i of earth, she is betrothed, and he shall show her. And if he showed /b her land b in a valley, /b i.e., a field that does not belong to him among other fields, b she is not betrothed. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the statement of the mishna that she is betrothed only if he actually possesses a i beit kor /i of earth, the Gemara asks: b And let us be concerned /b that b perhaps he /b in fact b possesses /b land of this size. b And furthermore, it is /b explicitly b taught /b in a i baraita /i that b we are concerned /b in this situation that b perhaps he possesses /b land of this size. The Gemara answers: It is b not difficult, /b as b this /b case, the one in the mishna, is referring b to a definite betrothal, /b which has not yet been established because he has not proven he owns a field of this kind; and b that /b case, the one in the i baraita /i , is referring b to an uncertain betrothal. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Why do I /b need this mishna b to teach /b this i halakha /i b with regard to land, and why do I /b also need the previous mishna b to teach /b the same ruling b with regard to money? /b There is no clear difference between the two cases. The Gemara answers: It is b necessary /b to state the i halakha /i in both cases, b as had /b one mishna b taught us /b this i halakha /i only b with regard to money /b one might have said that it is only in that case that it is uncertain whether she is betrothed, b because people tend to hide /b their money, and therefore his ficial status might not be well known. b But /b in the case of b land, you /b might b say /b that b if he had land /b this fact b would /b generate b publicity, /b as one cannot hide land. The mishna therefore b teaches us /b that it is also possible for him to own land without people being aware of it.,§ The mishna teaches: If one says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me b on the condition that I possess /b land b in such and such a place, if he possesses /b land in that place she is betrothed, but if not, she is not betrothed. The Gemara questions the need for this ruling: It is b obvious /b that if he does not possess land in that place she is not betrothed, as that was precisely his condition. The Gemara explains that this ruling is necessary b lest you say /b that he can b say to her: What difference does it make to you /b whether the field is in that location or elsewhere, as even if it is farther away b I will go to the trouble of bringing /b the produce from the field to our house, so what loss have you incurred? The mishna therefore b teaches us /b that despite this claim the betrothal is invalid, due to his failure to fulfill the condition.,§ The mishna further teaches: If a one says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me b on the condition that I will show you a i beit kor /i of earth, /b she is betrothed, provided that he possesses such land. A Sage b taught /b ( i Tosefta /i 3:6): The woman b intended to see only his own /b land. The mishna further teaches: b And if he showed /b her a plot of land b in a valley, she is not betrothed. /b The Gemara asks: This is b obvious; /b after all, this land does not belong to him. The Gemara answers: b No, /b it is b necessary /b in a case b where he maintains /b the field b as a sharecropper [ i distora /i ], /b i.e., he owns a share in it. Nevertheless, as the land does not belong to him she did not have this field in mind, and consequently she is not betrothed.,The Gemara comments: b With regard to consecrated /b property, b we learned /b in a mishna ( i Arakhin /i 25a): |
|
57. Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Sigal (2007) 74| 27a. אם יכול למעט בעסקו ימעט ואם לאו יגלגל עמהן,תנו רבנן מאימתי כופין את המטות משיצא מפתח ביתו דברי ר' אליעזר רבי יהושע אומר משיסתם הגולל,מעשה שמת רבן גמליאל הזקן כיון שיצא מפתח ביתו אמר להם רבי אליעזר כפו מטותיכם וכיון שנסתם הגולל אמר להם רבי יהושע כפו מטותיכם אמרו לו כבר כפינו על פי זקן,ת"ר מאימתי זוקפין את המטות בערב שבת מן המנחה ולמעלה אמר רבה בר הונא אף על פי כן אינו יושב עליה עד שתחשך ולמוצאי שבת אע"פ שאין לו לישב אלא יום אחד חוזר וכופה,תנו רבנן הכופה מטתו לא מטתו בלבד הוא כופה אלא כל מטות שיש לו בתוך ביתו הוא כופה ואפילו יש לו עשר מטות בעשרה מקומות כופה את כולן ואפילו חמשה אחין ומת אחד כולן כופין,ואם היתה מטה המיוחדת לכלים אין צריך לכפותה דרגש אין צריך לכפותו אלא זוקפו רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר דרגש מתיר את קרביטיו והוא נופל מאיליו,מאי דרגש אמר עולא ערסא דגדא,אמר ליה רבה אלא מעתה גבי מלך דתנן כל העם מסובים על הארץ והוא מיסב על הדרגש מי איכא מידי דעד האידנא לא אותביניה והשתא מותבינן ליה,מתקיף לה רב אשי מאי קושיא מידי דהוה אאכילה ושתיה דעד האידנא לא אוכליניה ולא אשקיניה השתא אוכליניה ואשקיניה,אלא אי קשיא הא קשיא (דתנן) דרגש אינו צריך לכפותו אלא זוקפו ואי ערסא דגדא אמאי אינו צריך לכפותו הא (תנן) הכופה מטתו לא מטתו בלבד הוא כופה אלא כל מטות שיש לו בתוך ביתו כופה,ומאי קשיא מידי דהוה אמטה המיוחדת לכלים דתניא אם היתה מטה המיוחדת לכלים אינו צריך לכפותה,אלא אי קשיא הא קשיא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר דרגש מתיר קרביטיו והוא נופל מאיליו ואי סלקא דעתך ערסא דגדא מאי קרביטין אית ליה,כי אתא רבין אמר ליה ההוא מרבנן ורב תחליפא בר מערבא שמיה דהוה שכיח בשוקא דגילדאי מאי דרגש ערסא דצלא,איתמר נמי אמר ר' ירמיה דרגש סירוגו מתוכו מטה סירוגה על גבה,אמר רבי יעקב בר אחא אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל (איתמר נמי) אמר רבי יעקב בר אחא אמר רבי אסי מטה שנקליטיה יוצאין זוקפה ודיו,תנו רבנן ישן על גבי כסא על גבי אודייני גדולה על גבי קרקע לא יצא ידי חובתו אמר רבי יוחנן שלא קיים כפיית המטה,תנו רבנן מכבדין ומרביצין בבית האבל ומדיחין קערות וכוסות וצלוחיות וקיתוניות בבית האבל ואין מביאין את המוגמר ואת הבשמים לבית האבל,איני והא תני בר קפרא אין מברכין לא על המוגמר ולא על הבשמים בבית האבל ברוכי הוא דלא מברכין הא אתויי מייתי',לא קשיא הא בבית האבל הא בבית המנחמין:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אין מוליכין לבית האבל לא בטבלא ולא באסקוטלא ולא בקנון אלא בסלים ואין אומרים ברכת אבלים במועד אבל עומדין בשורה ומנחמין ופוטרין את הרבים,אין מניחין את המטה ברחוב שלא להרגיל את ההספד ולא של נשים לעולם מפני הכבוד:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנו רבנן בראשונה היו מוליכין בבית האבל עשירים בקלתות של כסף ושל זהב ועניים בסלי נצרים של ערבה קלופה והיו עניים מתביישים התקינו שיהו הכל מביאין בסלי נצרים של ערבה קלופה מפני כבודן של עניים,תנו רבנן בראשונה היו משקין בבית האבל עשירים בזכוכית לבנה ועניים בזכוכית צבועה והיו עניים מתביישין התקינו שיהו הכל משקין בזכוכית צבועה מפני כבודן של עניים,בראשונה היו מגלין פני עשירים ומכסין פני עניים מפני שהיו מושחרין פניהן מפני בצורת והיו עניים מתביישין התקינו שיהו מכסין פני הכל מפני כבודן של עניים,בראשונה היו מוציאין עשירים בדרגש ועניים | 27a. b if he can reduce his business, he should reduce /b it; b and if not, he may carry on with them, /b i.e., his business partners. He may act in partnership with the members of the group with which he is traveling, but he may not engage in business independently.,§ b The Sages taught /b the following i baraita /i : b From when do /b the mourners b overturn /b their b beds? From when /b the corpse b is taken out of the opening of his house; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: From when the /b tomb b is sealed /b with b the grave cover. /b ,There was b an incident /b in b which /b the i Nasi /i b Rabban Gamliel the Elder died, /b and b once /b his body b left the opening of his house, Rabbi Eliezer said to /b the members of the household: b Overturn your beds. And once the /b tomb b was sealed /b with b the grave cover, Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: Overturn your beds. They /b then b said to him: We already overturned /b them b in accordance with the Elder, /b i.e., Rabbi Eliezer., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b From when do /b the mourners b stand /b their b beds upright on Friday; /b as the rites of mourning are not observed on Shabbat, and the beds must be returned to their ordinary position beforehand? b From i minḥa /i /b time b onward. Rabba bar Huna said: Even so, one may not sit down on /b his upright bed immediately. Rather, he must wait b until it becomes dark /b to do so. b And at the conclusion of Shabbat, even if he has only one /b more b day to sit /b in mourning, i.e., his period of mourning concludes on Sunday, b he must /b once b again overturn /b his bed., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b one who /b is in mourning and must b overturn his bed, he overturns not only his /b own b bed, but rather he overturns all the beds he has in his house. And even if he has ten beds in ten /b different b places, he overturns them all. And even /b if there are b five brothers and one /b of them b died, all of them overturn /b their beds wherever they live., b If, however, it is a bed designated /b for the storage of b garments /b and not for sleeping, b he is not required to overturn it. It is /b also b not necessary to overturn a i dargash /i , but rather he stands it upright. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: /b With regard to b a i dargash /i , one loosens its loops [ i karbitav /i ], /b which hold up the pillows, b and it falls on its own. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of the word b i dargash /i ? Ulla said: /b It is a good- b luck [ i gada /i ] bed, /b as it was common to have ornamental beds for good luck, which were not used for sleeping., b Rabba said to him: However, if /b that is b so, /b then the following statement b with regard to a king /b is difficult, b as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Sanhedrin /i 20a): When the mourner’s meal is served to the king and his family, b all the people recline on the ground, and he, /b the king, due to his honor, b reclines on a i dargash /i . Is there anything upon which we would not have seated him until now, /b when he was not a mourner, b but now, /b specifically during the mourning period, b we seat him on it? /b , b Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: What is the difficulty /b raised by Rabba? One can answer: The i halakha /i is b just as it is in /b the case of b eating and drinking, /b that b until now, /b before one became a mourner, b we did not feed him or give him drink, /b but b now /b that he is a mourner b we feed him and give him drink /b during the first meal after the burial., b Rather, if it /b is b difficult, this /b is b difficult, as we learned /b in a i baraita /i : b It is not necessary to overturn a i dargash /i , but rather he stands it upright. But if it is /b a good- b luck bed, why is it not necessary to overturn it? Didn’t we learn: One who /b is in mourning and must b overturn his bed overturns not only his /b own b bed, but rather he overturns all the beds in his house, /b including this good luck bed?,The Gemara rejects this: b And what /b is b difficult /b in this? One can answer: The i halakha /i is b just as it is in /b the case of b a bed designated for /b the storage of b garments, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b If it is a bed designated for /b the storage of b garments, /b and not for sleeping, b one is not required to overturn it. /b So too, one is not required to overturn a i dargash /i , as it is a bed that is not used for sleeping., b Rather if it /b is b difficult, this is the difficulty: /b It was taught in a i baraita /i : b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: /b With regard to b a i dargash /i , one loosens the loops /b that hold up the pillows, b and it falls on its own. And if it enters your mind /b to say that a i dargash /i is b a /b good- b luck bed, /b it is like other beds, so b what loops does it have? /b , b When Ravin came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, b one of the Sages, whose name was Rav Taḥalifa from the West, /b and b who was frequently /b found b in the market of leather workers, said to him: What is a i dargash /i ? /b It is b a leather bed. /b , b It was also stated /b that b Rabbi Yirmeya said: A i dargash /i /b has b its interlacing from the inside, /b i.e., attached to loops that go through holes that are made in the bed frame itself; whereas b a bed /b has b its interlacing from the outside, /b i.e., the strapping itself is looped around the wood of the frame, and therefore it cannot be loosened., b Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: The i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel /b with regard to a i dargash /i . b It was also stated /b that b Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa said in the name of Rabbi Asi: A bed whose posts [ i naklitin /i ] extend, /b meaning that they are very long so that the bed will remain high off the ground even if it is overturned, b may be stood upright and that is sufficient. /b That is to say, one is not required to overturn such a bed., b The Sages taught /b the following i baraita /i : If the mourner b sleeps on a chair, /b or b on a large /b overturned b mortar, /b or b on the ground, he does not fulfill his obligation, /b even though he is uncomfortable while sleeping. b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b This is b because he did not fulfill /b the mitzva of b overturning the bed. /b , b The Sages taught /b another i baraita /i : b One may sweep and sprinkle /b water on a dirt floor b in the house of a mourner, and one may wash bowls, cups, jugs, and pitchers in the house of a mourner. But one may not bring incense or /b fragrant b spices into the house of a mourner. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Is that so? But doesn’t bar Kappara teach /b the following i baraita /i : b One may not recite a blessing either over incense or over fragrant spices in the house of a mourner? /b From this one may infer that b one may not recite a blessing /b over these incense or spices, b but one may bring them /b into the house of the mourner. This appears to contradict the previous i baraita /i .,The Gemara explains: b It is not difficult. Here, /b the i baraita /i is referring b to the house of a mourner, /b into which spices should not be taken; b there, /b the i baraita /i that states that one may not recite a blessing over them, is referring b to the house of the consolers, /b his relatives, into which spices may be brought., strong MISHNA: /strong b One does not bring /b the first meal after the burial b to the house of mourning on a small tray [ i tavla /i ], in a bowl [ i iskutla /i ], or in a narrow-mouthed basket [ i kanon /i ], but rather in /b ordinary b baskets. And the mourners’ blessing is not recited on /b the intermediate days of b a Festival, but /b the consolers may b stand in a row /b when the mourners leave the cemetery b and console /b them. b And /b the mourners b dismiss the many /b consolers, by telling them that they may return home after they have fulfilled the mitzva of consoling the mourners., b The bier /b of the deceased b is not set down in the street /b during the intermediate days of a Festival b so as not to encourage eulogies. /b On an ordinary weekday, people would gather in the street around the bier to eulogize the deceased, but this should be avoided during the intermediate days of the Festival. b And /b the biers b of women /b are b never /b set down, even if it is not the intermediate days of a Festival, b due to their honor. /b Blood might drip from their bodies, and it would cause them dishonor if their blood stained the street., strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught /b the following i baraita /i : b At first, /b the meal after the burial b would be brought to the house of the mourner /b in various ways. b The wealthy /b would bring the meal b in baskets of silver and gold, and the poor /b would bring it in b baskets of peeled willow branches. And the poor were embarrassed, /b as everyone would see that they were poor. The Sages b instituted that everyone should bring /b the meal b in baskets of peeled willow branches, due to the honor of the poor. /b , b The Sages taught /b a similar i baraita /i : b At first, they would serve /b wine b in the house of the mourner /b during the first meal after the burial; the b wealthy /b would do so b in /b cups made from b white glass, and /b the b poor /b would serve this wine b in /b cups of b colored glass. And the poor were embarrassed, /b as everyone would see that they were poor. The Sages b instituted that all should serve drinks /b in the house of the mourner b in colored glass /b cups, b due to the honor of the poor. /b ,Furthermore, b at first they would uncover the faces of the wealthy /b who passed away b and cover the faces of the poor, because their faces were blackened by famine. And the poor were embarrassed /b because they were buried in a different manner. The Sages b instituted that everyone’s face should be covered, due to the honor of the poor. /b ,Additionally, b at first the wealthy would take /b the deceased b out /b for burial b on a i dargash /i , and the poor /b would take the deceased out |
|
58. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 91| 59b. מתני׳ big strongהאשה /strong /big שהיא עושה צרכיה וראתה דם רבי מאיר אומר אם עומדת טמאה ואם יושבת טהורה ר' יוסי אומר בין כך ובין כך טהורה,איש ואשה שעשו צרכיהן לתוך הספל ונמצא דם על המים רבי יוסי מטהר ורבי שמעון מטמא שאין דרך האיש להוציא דם אלא שחזקת דמים מן האשה, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מאי שנא עומדת דאמרינן מי רגלים הדור למקור ואייתי דם יושבת נמי נימא מי רגלים הדור למקור ואייתי דם,אמר שמואל במזנקת מזנקת נמי דלמא בתר דתמו מיא אתא דם,אמר ר' אבא ביושבת על שפת הספל ומזנקת בתוך הספל ונמצא דם בתוך הספל דאם איתא דבתר דתמו מיא אתא על שפת הספל איבעי ליה לאשתכוחי,אמר שמואל ואמרי לה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר' יוסי וכן אורי ליה רבי אבא לקלא הלכה כרבי יוסי,איש ואשה [כו'] איבעיא להו איש ואשה עומדין מה לי א"ר מאיר,כי אמר רבי מאיר בחד ספקא אבל בספק ספקא לא מטמא או דלמא לא שנא,אמר ריש לקיש היא היא ממאי מדלא קתני ר' מאיר ורבי יוסי מטהרין,א"ה השתא רבי מאיר בספק ספקא מטמא בחד ספקא מיבעיא להודיעך כחו דרבי יוסי דאפילו בחד ספקא מטהר,ואדמיפלגי בחד ספק להודיעך כחו דר' יוסי ליפלגו בספק ספקא להודיעך כחו דר' מאיר כח דהיתרא עדיף ליה,ור' יוחנן אמר כי קאמר רבי מאיר בחד ספקא אבל בספק ספקא לא אמר אם כן ליתני ר"מ ור' יוסי מטהרין אין הכי נמי ואיידי דסליק מרבי יוסי פתח בדרבי יוסי,ורבי יוסי בחד ספקא מטהר בספק ספקא מיבעיא מהו דתימא הני מילי דיעבד אבל לכתחלה לא קא משמע לן,תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן איש ואשה שעשו צרכיהן לתוך הספל ונמצא דם על המים רבי מאיר ורבי יוסי מטהרין ור' שמעון מטמא,איבעיא להו אשה יושבת מה לי אמר רבי שמעון כי אמר רבי שמעון בעומדת דדחיק לה עלמא אבל יושבת לא או דלמא לא שנא,ת"ש דתניא יושבת תולה עומדת אינה תולה דברי ר"מ רבי יוסי אומר בין כך ובין כך תולה ר"ש אומר בין כך ובין כך אינה תולה,איבעיא להו איש ואשה יושבין מה לי א"ר שמעון כי אמר רבי שמעון עומדת דדחיק לה עלמא ויושבת דחד ספק אבל בספק ספקא לא אמר או דלמא לא שנה ,ת"ש כיון דא"ר שמעון חזקת דמים מן האשה ל"ש עומדין ולא שנא יושבין, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big השאילה חלוקה לנכרית או לנדה הרי זו תולה בה,ג' נשים שלבשו חלוק אחד או שישבו על ספסל אחד ונמצא עליו דם כולן טמאות,ישבו על ספסל של אבן או על האיצטבא של מרחץ רבי נחמיה מטהר שהיה רבי נחמיה אומר כל דבר שאינו מקבל טומאה אינו מקבל כתמים, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רב בנכרית | 59b. strong MISHNA: /strong In the case of b a woman who is urinating and saw blood /b intermingled with the urine, b Rabbi Meir says: If /b she urinated while b standing /b she is b ritually impure, /b as the blood could have originated in the uterus. b And if she is sitting, /b she is b ritually pure, /b as it is clear that the blood is from a wound. b Rabbi Yosei says: Whether /b she urinates in b this /b manner, i.e., standing, b or whether /b she urinates in b that /b manner, i.e., sitting, she is b ritually pure. /b ,In the case of b a man and a woman who urinated into a basin [ i hasefel /i ], and blood is found on the water /b in the basin, b Rabbi Yosei deems her ritually pure. /b Even when it is clear that it is the blood of a woman who urinated, and there is only one uncertainty, Rabbi Yosei deems her ritually pure. In this case, there is a compound uncertainty: Did the blood originate with the man or with the woman, and did the blood come from the uterus or from a wound? b And Rabbi Shimon deems her ritually impure, /b because there is only one uncertainty, b as it is not /b the typical b manner of the man to discharge blood /b with his urine; b rather, the presumptive status of /b the b blood /b is that it was discharged b from the woman. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that in a case where a woman finds blood in her urine Rabbi Meir distinguishes between a case where she is standing and a case where she is sitting. The Gemara asks: b What is different /b about a situation where she is b standing? /b The difference is b that we say /b that while she was urinating the b urine returned to the uterus and brought blood /b from there, which renders her impure. But if so, when she is b sitting as well, let us say /b that the b urine returns to the uterus and brings blood. /b Why does Rabbi Meir deem her ritually pure in that case?, b Shmuel says, /b in answer to this question: This mishna is referring specifically to a case b where /b the urine b flows /b in a steady stream, without the woman straining. In such a situation, when she is sitting and the urine flows in a steady stream, the stream of urine does not return to the uterus and bring blood. By contrast, if she is standing the urine does not flow in a steady stream, and she must strain to urinate. When she strains to urinate, the urine can bring blood from the uterus with it, whether she is standing or sitting. The Gemara objects: But in a case where she is sitting b as well, /b when the urine b flows /b in a steady stream, b perhaps after the urine has finished, blood will come /b naturally from the uterus, and the flow of blood will mix with the urine?, b Rabbi Abba says: /b This is no concern, as the mishna is referring to a case b where she is sitting on the edge of the basin and /b urinates in a steady b flow into the basin, and /b the b blood is found /b only b inside the basin. As, if it is so that after /b the stream of b urine finished /b the blood b came /b naturally from her uterus, the blood b should have been found on the edge of the basin. /b Since the blood is found only inside the basin it is clear that it came with the urine, not separately., b Shmuel said, and some say /b that b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said: /b The b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei. And similarly, Rabbi Abba ruled for /b a Sage called b Kala, /b who inquired into this matter, that the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei. /b ,§ The mishna teaches: In the case of b a man and a woman /b who urinated into a basin, and blood is found on the water in the basin, Rabbi Yosei deems her ritually pure. b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: In a case where b a man and a woman were standing /b and they urinated into the same basin, and blood was found in the basin, b what /b would b Rabbi Meir, /b who distinguishes between a woman who was sitting and a woman who was standing, b say /b the i halakha /i is?,The Gemara clarifies the dilemma: b When Rabbi Meir said /b that a woman who sees blood in her urine while standing is impure, does this apply b when /b there is only b one uncertainty, /b i.e., whether the blood came from a wound or from the uterus? b Whereas /b in a case b of a compound uncertainty, /b i.e., whether the blood came from the man or from the woman, and even if it came from the woman, whether it came from a wound or from her uterus, perhaps Rabbi Meir b does not deem /b her b impure? Or perhaps there is no difference /b between the two cases according to Rabbi Meir., b Reish Lakish said: /b Rabbi Meir would rule in b this /b case of a compound uncertainty exactly as he rules in b that /b case of a single uncertainty, i.e., there is no difference between the two cases. Reish Lakish clarifies: b From where /b do I know that this is Rabbi Meir’s opinion? b From /b the fact b that /b the latter clause of the mishna b does not teach: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei deem her pure. /b Instead, the mishna states merely that Rabbi Yosei deems her pure. This indicates that Rabbi Meir deems her impure even if a man and a woman both urinated into the same basin where the blood was found.,The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Reish Lakish’s opinion: b If so, /b i.e., if according to Rabbi Meir a woman is impure even when a man also urinates into the same basin, b now /b that b Rabbi Meir deems her impure in /b a case of b compound uncertainty, is it necessary /b for the mishna to teach his opinion b in /b a case of b one uncertainty? /b The Gemara answers: The mishna formulated the i halakha /i in that manner b to convey the far-reaching /b nature of the opinion b of Rabbi Yosei, /b i.e., b that he deems her pure even in /b a case of b one uncertainty. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But /b if so, b rather than /b stating the b dispute in /b a case of b one uncertainty, /b which serves b to convey the far-reaching /b nature of the opinion b of Rabbi Yosei, let /b the i tanna /i teach the b dispute in /b a case of b compound uncertainty, /b in order b to convey the far-reaching /b nature of the opinion b of Rabbi Meir. /b The Gemara answers: It is b preferable for the /b i tanna /i to teach b the strength of a lenient /b ruling. If a i tanna /i can formulate a dispute in a manner that emphasizes the extent of the more lenient opinion, he will do so., b And Rabbi Yoḥa /b disagreed with Reish Lakish, and b said: When Rabbi Meir says /b that the woman is impure, that applies only to a case b of one uncertainty, but /b in a case b of compound uncertainty /b Rabbi Meir b did not say /b that she is impure. The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rabbi Yoḥa’s opinion: b If so, /b i.e., if Rabbi Meir deems her pure when both a man and a woman urinate into the same basin, b let /b the mishna b teach: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei deem her pure. /b Why does the i tanna /i mention only Rabbi Yosei? The Gemara answers: b Yes, it is indeed so, /b that Rabbi Meir agrees with this ruling, b but since /b the mishna b left off /b with the opinion b of Rabbi Yosei /b at the end of the first clause of the mishna, the i tanna /i b opened /b the latter clause b with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yosei /b as well.,The Gemara asks: b But /b as b Rabbi Yosei deems /b her b pure /b in a case b of one uncertainty, is it necessary /b for the mishna to teach his opinion a case b of a compound uncertainty? /b The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the i tanna /i to state that Rabbi Yosei deems her pure in a case of compound uncertainty, b lest you say /b that b this statement, /b that Rabbi Yosei deems her pure, applies only b after the fact, /b if the woman has already touched pure items, b but /b he does b not /b deem her pure b i ab initio /i . /b Therefore, the i tanna /i b teaches us /b that Rabbi Yosei deems her pure even i ab initio /i .,It b is taught /b in a i baraita /i b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yoḥa: /b In the case of b a man and a woman who urinated into a basin, and blood is found on the water /b in the basin, b Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei deem her ritually pure, and Rabbi Shimon deems her ritually impure, /b as there is only one uncertainty.,§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon deems her ritually impure because there is only one uncertainty, as it is not the typical manner of the man to discharge blood with his urine. b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: In a case where b a woman /b was b sitting /b and she urinated into a basin, and blood was found in the basin, b what /b would b Rabbi Shimon say? /b The Gemara explains the dilemma: b When Rabbi Shimon stated /b his opinion, was he referring specifically b to /b a woman who b is standing, who in general must strain /b to urinate in such a position, and perhaps as a result the blood came from the uterus? b Whereas /b if b she /b is b sitting /b without straining, in which case Rabbi Meir deems her pure, perhaps Rabbi Shimon agrees that she is b not /b impure. b Or perhaps there is no difference /b between the two cases according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.,The Gemara answers: b Come /b and b hear, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : If a woman urinates while b sitting /b and blood is found in the basin, she can b attribute /b the blood to a wound and she is pure, but if she is b standing she cannot attribute /b the blood to a wound, and therefore she is impure; this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei said: Both /b in b this /b case b and /b in b that /b case b she /b can b attribute /b the blood to a wound and she is pure. b Rabbi Shimon said: Both /b in b this /b case b and /b in b that /b case b she cannot attribute /b the blood to a wound, and she is impure.,Another b dilemma was raised before /b the Sages with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: In a case where b a man and a woman /b were b sitting /b and urinated into the same basin, and blood was found in the basin, b what /b would b Rabbi Shimon say? /b The Gemara clarifies the dilemma: b When Rabbi Shimon stated /b his opinion, was he referring to a woman who b is standing, who in general must strain /b to urinate in such a position and perhaps as a result the blood came from the uterus, b or /b to a case where b she /b alone b is sitting, which /b are cases of only b one uncertainty? Whereas /b in a case of b compound uncertainty, /b i.e., uncertainty whether the blood came from the man or from the woman, and even if it did come from the woman, whether it was from a wound or from her uterus, perhaps b he does not say /b that she is impure. b Or perhaps there is no difference /b between the cases, as it is entirely atypical for a man to discharge blood.,The Gemara answers: b Come /b and b hear /b the mishna: b Since Rabbi Shimon said /b that b the presumptive status of /b the b blood /b is that it was discharged b from the woman, /b evidently there b is no difference /b in his opinion whether she was b standing or /b whether she was b sitting. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong In a case where a woman b lent her garment to a gentile woman or to a menstruating /b Jewish b woman, /b and after the borrower returned the garment the owner wore it and then discovered a blood stain, she b attributes /b the blood stain b to /b the gentile or the menstruating woman.,In a case of b three women who wore one garment or who sat on one bench [ i safsal /i ], /b one after the other, and the garment, or bench, was examined before the first of them donned it, or sat on it, and it was clean, and after the third one removed the garment, or stood up, b a blood /b stain b was discovered on /b the garment or on the bench, b all /b the women b are ritually impure. /b ,If b they sat on a stone bench or on the bench [ i ha’itzteva /i ] of a bathhouse, /b neither of which can become ritually impure, the first because it is stone and the second because it is attached to the floor of the bathhouse, and a blood stain was found on one of those benches, b Rabbi Neḥemya deems /b all three women b ritually pure, as Rabbi Neḥemya would say: Any item that is not susceptible to ritual impurity is not susceptible to /b ritual impurity due to blood b stains. /b The decree of impurity due to blood stains was limited to items susceptible to ritual impurity., strong GEMARA: /strong b Rav says: /b The ruling of the mishna is stated b with regard to a gentile woman /b |
|
59. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 74| 35b. ומי פירות אין מחמיצין:,יוצא בדמאי ובמעשר וכו': דמאי הא לא חזי ליה כיון דאי בעי מפקר לנכסיה הוי עני ואוכל דמאי השתא נמי חזי ליה,דתנן מאכילין את העניים דמאי ואת אכסניא דמאי ואמר רב הונא תנא בית שמאי אומרים אין מאכילין את העניים דמאי ואת האכסניא דמאי ובית הלל אומרים מאכילין:,מעשר ראשון שנטלה תרומתו וכו': פשיטא דכיון שנטלה תרומתו חולין הוי,לא צריכא שהקדימו בשיבלים ונטלה הימנו תרומת מעשר ולא נטלה הימנו תרומה גדולה וכדרבי אבהו,דאמר ר' אבהו אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש מעשר ראשון שהקדימו בשיבלים פטור מתרומה גדולה שנאמר (במדבר יח, כו) והרמותם ממנו תרומת ה' מעשר מן המעשר מעשר מן המעשר אמרתי לך ולא תרומה גדולה ותרומת מעשר מן המעשר,אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי אלא מעתה אפילו הקדימו בכרי נמי ליפטר א"ל עליך אמר קרא (במדבר יח, כט) מכל מתנותיכם תרימו את כל תרומת ה',ומה ראית האי אידגן והאי לא אידגן:,מעשר שני והקדש שנפדו וכו': פשיטא הכא במאי עסקינן שנתן את הקרן ולא נתן את החומש וקא משמע לן דאין חומש מעכב:,והכהנים בחלה ובתרומה וכו': פשיטא מהו דתימא מצה שוה לכל אדם בעינן קמ"ל מצות מצות ריבה:,אבל לא בטבל וכו': פשיטא לא צריכא בטבל טבול מדרבנן שזרעו בעציץ שאינו נקוב:,ולא במעשר ראשון שלא נטלה תרומתו: פשיטא לא צריכא שהקדימו בכרי,מהו דתימא כדאמר ליה רב פפא לאביי קא משמע לן כדשני ליה:,ולא במעשר שני והקדש שלא נפדו וכו': פשיטא,לעולם דנפדו ומאי לא נפדו שלא נפדו כהלכתן מעשר שני שפדאו על גב אסימון דרחמנא אמר (דברים יד, כה) וצרת הכסף דבר שיש לו צורה,והקדש שחיללו על גבי קרקע דרחמנא אמר (ויקרא כז, יט) ונתן הכסף וקם לו,תנו רבנן יכול יוצא אדם ידי חובתו בטבל שלא נתקן כל טבל נמי הא לא נתקן,אלא בטבל שלא נתקן כל צורכו שנטלה ממנו תרומה גדולה ולא נטלה ממנו תרומת מעשר [מעשר] ראשון ולא מעשר שני ואפילו מעשר עני מנין,תלמוד לומר (דברים טז, ג) לא תאכל עליו חמץ מי שאיסורו משום בל תאכל עליו חמץ יצא זה שאין איסורו משום בל תאכל חמץ אלא משום בל תאכל טבל,ואיסורא דחמץ להיכן אזלא אמר רב ששת הא מני ר' שמעון היא דאמר אין איסור חל על איסור דתניא ר' שמעון אומר | 35b. b and fruit juice does not /b cause dough to be b leavened. /b Therefore, dough prepared with these liquids is not considered full-fledged leavened bread.,The Gemara turns to the cases of the mishna. The mishna taught that one can b fulfill /b his obligation to eat i matza /i b with doubtfully tithed produce and /b with produce b of /b the b first tithe, /b from which i teruma /i has been separated. The Gemara asks: Can one really fulfill his obligation with b doubtfully tithed produce? /b It is b not suitable for him /b to eat. The Sages prohibited the eating of doubtfully tithed produce that has not been tithed. The Gemara answers: b Since, if one /b so b desires /b he may b renounce /b all b his property, /b thereby becoming a poor person who is permitted to eat doubtfully tithed produce, b now too it is suitable for him, /b even though he did not declare his property ownerless. Consequently, if he used doubtfully tithed produce as i matza /i , he has fulfilled the mitzva after the fact., b As we learned /b in a mishna: b One /b may b feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce, and /b he may also feed Jewish b soldiers [ i akhsanya /i ] /b who lodge with him b doubtfully tithed produce. And Rav Huna said /b that it b was taught /b that b Beit Shammai say: One /b may b neither feed the poor doubtfully tithed produce, nor /b feed b soldiers doubtfully tithed produce. And Beit Hillel say: One /b may b feed /b these groups doubtfully tithed produce. This mishna indicates that doubtfully tithed produce is not prohibited to the same extent as entirely untithed produce, as in certain situations the prohibition pertaining to doubtfully tithed produce does not take effect.,The mishna taught that one can fulfill the obligation to eat i matza /i with produce of the b first tithe from which its i teruma /i , /b the i teruma /i of the tithe, b was taken /b and given to a priest. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that b obvious, as, since its i teruma /i has been taken, it is non-sacred /b food? What novel element is taught by this statement?,The Gemara answers: b No, /b it is b necessary /b to teach the i halakha /i in a case where a Levite b preceded /b the priest while the grain was still b on /b its b stalks. /b Ordinarily, the Levite would be given his first tithe only after the priest had taken the i teruma gedola /i ; however, in this case the Levite took his portion before the priest. b And the i teruma /i of the tithe was taken /b by the Levite from his tithe so that he would be permitted to eat the tithe; however, b the i teruma gedola /i was not taken from /b the produce at all. b And /b the novel element of the mishna is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Abbahu. /b , b As Rabbi Abbahu said /b that b Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: First tithe /b in which the Levite b preceded /b the priest while the grain was still b on the stalks is exempt from i teruma gedola /i , /b even though the Levite thereby reduces the amount of grain the priest receives. b As it is stated: /b “Moreover you shall speak to the Levites and say to them: When you take from the children of Israel the tithe which I have given you from them as your inheritance, b and you shall set apart from it a gift for the Lord, a tithe from the tithe” /b (Numbers 18:26). This verse teaches that the Levite is obligated to set apart b a tithe from the tithe, /b i.e., the i teruma /i of the tithe, b and not i teruma gedola /i and the i teruma /i of the tithe from the tithe. /b , b Rav Pappa said to Abaye: However, if /b that b is so, even /b if the Levite b preceded /b the priest after the kernels of grain were removed from the stalks and placed b in a pile, /b the Levite should not have to separate i teruma gedola /i in this case either. Abaye b said to him: With regard to your /b claim, b the verse states: “From all that is given to you, you shall set apart all of that which is the Lord’s i teruma /i , /b of all the best of it, even its consecrated portion” (Numbers 18:29). This verse teaches that the Levites must designate a portion of the gifts they receive and give it to the priests.,The Gemara asks: b And what did you see /b to lead you to require the separation of 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 produce, after being threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and b has become grain; and that /b produce on the stalk b did not /b yet b become grain, /b and the Levite is therefore exempt from separating i teruma gedola /i from it. Produce that has been arranged in a pile is called grain by the Torah and is given to the priest. Once it is classified as grain, the right of the priest takes effect and the Levite is required to separate i teruma gedola /i from it.,The mishna taught that one can fulfill his obligation to eat i matza /i with b second-tithe /b grain b and /b with b consecrated /b grain b that was redeemed. /b The Gemara asks: It is b obvious /b that this is the case, as consecrated grain that has been redeemed is non-sacred produce. The Gemara answers: b With what are we dealing here? /b We are dealing with a case 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 the additional b fifth /b due when redeeming consecrated items. b And /b the mishna b teaches us /b that failure to add b the fifth does not invalidate /b the redemption. Although there is an obligation to pay this additional fifth, the neglect of this duty does not prevent the grain from becoming non-sacred., b And /b the mishna further taught that b priests /b can fulfill their obligation b with /b i matza /i of b i ḥalla /i and with i teruma /i . /b The Gemara again asks: It is b obvious /b that this is the case. Since a priest is permitted to eat i ḥalla /i and i teruma /i , he can fulfill his obligation to eat i matza /i with them. The Gemara responds: This ruling is nevertheless necessary, b lest you say /b that b we require i matza /i /b that may be eaten b equally by anyone, /b which would mean that i matza /i that may not be eaten by regular Israelites is prohibited to priests as well. The mishna therefore b teaches us /b that the repetition of the words b “ i matzot /i ,” “ i matzot /i ” /b (Deuteronomy 16:3, 8) comes to b amplify, /b i.e., one can fulfill one’s obligation to eat i matza /i even with foods that may be eaten only by specific people.,We learned in the mishna: b However, /b one may b not /b fulfill this obligation b with untithed produce. /b The Gemara asks: It is b obvious /b that this is the case, as it is always prohibited to eat i tevel /i . The Gemara explains: b No, it is necessary /b to teach this i halakha /i in a case b where /b it is considered b untithed produce by rabbinic /b law, and by Torah law the produce is permitted. For instance, this is the case with regard to grain b that one sowed in an unperforated flowerpot. /b Anything grown disconnected from the ground is not defined as produce of the ground, and its owner is exempt by Torah law from tithing it. However, by rabbinic law, grain sowed in b an unperforated flowerpot /b is considered untithed.,It was also taught in the mishna: b And /b one does b not /b fulfill his obligation b with /b i matza /i from produce b of /b the b first tithe, whose i teruma /i , /b i teruma /i of the tithe, b was not taken. /b The Gemara asks: It is b obvious /b that this is the case, as this produce may not be eaten. The Gemara answers: b No, /b it is b 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 /b but before i teruma gedola /i was separated from the produce.,The Gemara elaborates: b Lest you say, as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, /b that in that case too, the Levite should be exempt from the requirement to separate i teruma gedola /i from this produce, 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 a case when the grain was on the stalks and when it was collected in a pile. Therefore, one may not eat this produce before separating i teruma gedola /i from it.,It was further taught in the mishna: b And /b one does b not /b fulfill his obligation to eat i matza /i b with second-tithe /b produce b or consecrated /b grain b that was not redeemed. /b The Gemara asks: Isn’t that, too, b obvious, /b as it is prohibited to eat these foods?,The Gemara answers: b Actually, /b this is speaking of a case b where they were redeemed, and what /b is the meaning of the expression: b They were not redeemed? /b It means b that they were not redeemed properly, /b e.g., b second-tithe /b grain that b was redeemed with an unminted coin [ i asimon /i ]. As the Merciful One says /b with regard to the redemption of the second tithe: “And you shall turn it into money, and bind up the money in your hand, and go to the place which the Lord your God shall choose” (Deuteronomy 14:25). The phrase b “and bind up [ i ve’tzarta /i ] the money” /b indicates that the produce must be exchanged for b an object that has a form [ i tzura /i ], /b not unminted metal., b And /b with regard to b consecrated /b property, we are dealing with a case b where he redeemed it /b by exchanging it b for land instead of money, as the Merciful One says: “And he will give /b the fifth part of b the money /b of your valuation unto it b and it shall be assured to him” /b (see Leviticus 27:19). If one redeemed consecrated property with land rather than money, the consecrated status is not transferred to the land., b The Sages taught: /b I b might /b have thought that b a person fulfills his obligation /b to eat i matza /i b with untithed produce that was not amended /b with regard to tithes. The Gemara analyzes the apparently redundant phrase b untithed produce that was not amended. /b But isn’t b all untithed produce also not amended, /b by definition?, b Rather, /b this i baraita /i is referring to b untithed produce that was incompletely amended. /b How so? For example, produce b from which i teruma gedola /i was taken, but /b the b i teruma /i of the tithe was not taken from /b it. Alternatively, the b first tithe /b was separated from the produce, b but not /b the b second tithe; or, /b it is referring even to grain from which all the tithes were separated, apart from the b poor man’s tithe. /b Although no sanctity applies to the poor man’s tithe, which is simply a monetary gift to the poor, until this tithe has been separated the grain remains untithed. b From where /b is it derived that these types of grain cannot be used for i matza /i ?, b The verse states: “You shall not eat leavened bread with it; /b seven days you shall eat with it i matza /i ” (Deuteronomy 16:3). One fulfills his obligation to eat i matza /i b with /b food b whose prohibition /b is solely b due to /b the prohibition: b Do not eat leavened bread with it, /b if it was not preserved in an unleavened state. This command b excludes this /b grain, b which is not prohibited due to /b the prohibition: b Do not eat leavened bread, but /b rather b due to /b the prohibition: b Do not eat untithed produce. /b ,The Gemara expresses surprise at this i baraita /i . b And the prohibition of leavened bread, where did it go? /b In other words, doesn’t the prohibition: “You shall not eat leavened bread” apply to untithed produce as well? b Rav Sheshet said: /b In accordance with b whose /b opinion b is this /b i baraita /i ? b It is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, who said: One prohibition does not take effect where another prohibition /b already exists. No additional prohibitions can apply to an object that is already prohibited, e.g., untithed grain. Consequently, the prohibition of leavened bread does not take effect on untithed produce. b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon says: /b |
|
60. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Sigal (2007) 49| 11b. תקיפאי קדמאי לעינוותני בתראי,דתניא מעשה ברבן גמליאל שהיה יושב על גב מעלה בהר הבית והיה יוחנן סופר הלז עומד לפניו ושלש איגרות חתוכות לפניו מונחות,אמר לו טול איגרתא חדא וכתוב לאחנא בני גלילאה עילאה ולאחנא בני גלילאה תתאה שלומכון יסגא מהודעין אנחנא לכון דזמן ביעורא מטא לאפרושי מעשרא ממעטנא דזיתא וטול איגרתא חדא וכתוב לאחנא בני דרומא שלומכון יסגא מהודעין אנחנא לכון דזמן ביעורא מטא לאפרושי מעשרא מעומרי שיבליא,וטול איגרתא חדא וכתוב לאחנא בני גלוותא בבבל ולאחנא דבמדי ולשאר כל גלוותא דישראל שלומכון יסגא לעלם מהודעין אנחנא לכון דגוזליא רכיכין ואימריא ערקין וזמנא דאביבא לא מטא ושפרא מילתא באנפאי ובאנפי חביריי ואוסיפית על שתא דא יומין תלתין דילמא בתר דעברוהו:,תנו רבנן על שלשה דברים מעברין את השנה על האביב ועל פירות האילן ועל התקופה על שנים מהן מעברין ועל אחד מהן אין מעברין,ובזמן שאביב אחד מהן הכל שמחין רבי שמעון בן גמליאל אומר על התקופה איבעיא להו על התקופה שמחין או על התקופה מעברין תיקו:,ת"ר על שלשה ארצות מעברין את השנה יהודה ועבר הירדן והגליל על שתים מהן מעברין ועל אחת מהן אין מעברין ובזמן שיהודה אחת מהן הכל שמחין שאין עומר בא אלא מיהודה,ת"ר אין מעברין את השנים אלא ביהודה ואם עיברוה בגליל מעוברת העיד חנניה איש אונו אם עיברוה בגליל אינה מעוברת א"ר יהודה בריה דרבי שמעון בן פזי מאי טעמא דחנניה איש אונו אמר קרא (דברים יב, ה) לשכנו תדרשו ובאת שמה כל דרישה שאתה דורש לא יהיו אלא בשכנו של מקום,ת"ר אין מעברין את השנה אלא ביום ואם עיברוה בלילה אינה מעוברת ואין מקדשין את החדש אלא ביום ואם קידשוהו בלילה אינו מקודש א"ר אבא מאי קרא (תהלים פא, ד) תקעו בחדש שופר בכסה ליום חגנו איזהו חג שהחדש מתכסה בו הוי אומר זה ראש השנה וכתיב כי חוק לישראל הוא משפט לאלהי יעקב מה משפט ביום אף קידוש החדש ביום,ת"ר אין מעברין את השנה | 11b. b the earlier, stern /b authorities b and the later, humble /b authorities, for although Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was known as particularly humble, his proclamation was written with less modesty than that of his father, Rabban Gamliel, who was known to be particularly stern., b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 2:6): There was b an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who was sitting on a step on the Temple Mount, and Yoḥa, that scribe, was standing before him, and three /b blank b documents cut /b from parchment and ready for writing b were set before him. /b ,Rabban Gamliel b said to /b the scribe: b Take one document, and write: To our brothers, the people of the Upper Galilee, and to our brothers, the people of the Lower Galilee, may your peace increase. We are informing you that the time has come /b for b eradication /b of tithes that had been separated from produce but not yet given to their designated recipients, as is to be done in the fourth and seventh years of the Sabbatical-Year cycle, b to separate the tithe from the vat of olives, /b because most of the local olives were grown in the Galilee. Rabban Gamliel continued, instructing the scribe: b And take one document, and write: To our brothers, the people of the South, /b meaning the area of Judea and its environs, b may your peace increase. We are informing you that the time has come /b for b eradication, to separate the tithe from the mounds of stalks /b of grains, because most of the local grain was grown in the Judea region.,Rabban Gamliel continued to instruct the scribe: b And take one document, and write: To our brothers, the people of the Diaspora in Babylonia, and to our brothers who are in Medea, and to the rest of the entire Jewish Diaspora, may your peace increase forever. We are informing you that the fledglings are tender, and the lambs are thin, and time for the spring has not come. And /b consequently, b the matter is good before me and before my colleagues, /b i.e., in our estimation, b and I have /b consequently b added thirty days to this year. /b The third letter indicates that evidently Rabban Gamliel included others in his decision. The Gemara rejects this, and explains: b Perhaps /b this incident occurred b after they deposed /b Rabban Gamliel from his position as i Nasi /i . When he was reinstated, he shared his office with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Therefore, he wrote the decision in the name of his colleagues as well.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 2:2): The court b may intercalate the year for three matters: For the ripening of the grain, /b if it is not yet time for the barley to ripen; b for the fruit of the trees, /b if they have not yet ripened; b and for the equinox, /b i.e., to ensure that the autumnal equinox will precede i Sukkot /i . If b two of /b these concerns apply, the court b intercalates /b the year even if the third factor does not apply; b but for /b only b one of them /b the court b does not intercalate /b the year.,The i baraita /i continues: b And when the ripening of the grain /b is b one of the concerns, everyone is happy. /b Since the grain is not yet ripe, the people do not mind waiting an extra month for Nisan. If the grain is already ripe, however, the extra month would simply prolong the period during which the grain may not be eaten due to the prohibition of the new crop, as the new crop may be harvested and eaten only after the sacrifice of the i omer /i offering on the sixteenth of Nisan (see Leviticus 23:14). b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For the equinox. /b The Gemara seeks to clarify this statement: b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages. When he said: b For the equinox, /b did he mean this is the reason that everyone is b happy, or /b did he mean that only b for the equinox /b may the court b intercalate /b the year? The dilemma b shall stand /b unresolved., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 2:2): The court b may intercalate the year for three /b regional b lands /b of Eretz Yisrael, meaning that the court considers the agricultural situation in three regions: b Judea, and Transjordan, and the Galilee. /b If there is a concern b about two of them, /b the court b intercalates /b the year even if the third region does not need it, b but /b if there is a concern b about /b only b one of them /b the court b does not intercalate /b the year. b And when Judea is one of them, everyone is happy, because the i omer /i /b offering b comes only from Judea. /b If the court therefore ensures that the crops in Judea ripen just before the i omer /i is brought, the crops will certainly be ripe in the other regions as well, and there will be no complications with the prohibition of the new crop.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 2:2): The court b may intercalate the years only /b when located b in Judea. And if they intercalated it /b when located b in the Galilee, /b the year is nevertheless b intercalated. Ḥaya of Ono testified: /b Even b if /b the court already formally b intercalated /b the year when located b in the Galilee, it is not intercalated. Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, says: What is the reasoning of Ḥaya of Ono? The verse states: /b “But to the place that the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put His name there, b to His abode shall you seek, and there you shall come” /b (Deuteronomy 12:5). This is interpreted as: b Every pursuit that you shall pursue /b in the area of i halakha /i b must be only in the abode of the Omnipresent, /b in close proximity to Jerusalem, i.e., in Judea., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 2:7): The court b may intercalate the year only during the day; and if /b the court b intercalated it at night, it is not intercalated. And /b the court b may sanctify the month only during the day; and if /b the court b sanctified it at night, it is not sanctified. Rav Abba says: What is the verse /b from which this i halakha /i is derived? b “Sound the shofar at the New Moon, at the concealed time for our Festival day” /b (Psalms 81:4). On b which Festival is the new moon concealed? You must say it is Rosh HaShana, /b which occurs on the first of the month, before the moon is visible, whereas the moon is visible during the other Festivals, which occur later in the month. b And it is written /b in the next verse: b “For it is a statute for Israel, a judgment of the God of Jacob” /b (Psalms 81:5). b Just as /b all civil b judgment is /b done b during the day, so too is /b the sanctification of Rosh HaShana, and b the sanctification of the month /b in general, done b during the day. /b , b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 2:5): The court b does not intercalate the year /b |
|
61. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Sigal (2007) 49| 146a. שבא נחש על חוה הטיל בה זוהמא ישראל שעמדו על הר סיני פסקה זוהמתן עובדי כוכבי' שלא עמדו על הר סיני לא פסקה זוהמתן א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי גרים מאי א"ל אע"ג דאינהו לא הוו מזלייהו הוו דכתיב (דברים כט, יד) את אשר ישנו פה עמנו עומד היום לפני ה' אלהינו ואת אשר איננו פה וגו',ופליגא דר' אבא בר כהנא דא"ר אבא בר כהנא עד שלשה דורות לא פסקה זוהמא מאבותינו אברהם הוליד את ישמעאל יצחק הוליד את עשו יעקב הוליד י"ב שבטים שלא היה בהן שום דופי:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big שובר אדם את החבית לאכול הימנה גרוגרות ובלבד שלא יתכוין לעשות כלי ואין נוקבין מגופה של חבית דברי ר' יהודה וחכמים מתירין ולא יקבנה מצדה ואם היתה נקובה לא יתן עליה שעוה מפני שהוא ממרח אמר ר' יהודה מעשה בא לפני רבן יוחנן בן זכאי בערב ואמר חוששני לו מחטאת:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big א"ר אושעיא ל"ש אלא דרוסות אבל מפורדות לא ומפורדות לא,מיתיבי ר' שמעון בן גמליאל אומר מביא אדם את החבית של יין ומתיז ראשה בסייף ומניחה לפני האורחים בשבת ואינו חושש ההיא רבנן מתני' רבי נחמיה היא,ומאי דוחקיה דרבי אושעיא לאוקמי מתניתין כרבי נחמיה ובדרוסות לוקמה במפורדות ורבנן אמר רבא מתני' קשיתיה מאי איריא דתני גרוגרות ליתני פירות אלא ש"מ בדרוסות,תניא חדא חותלות של גרוגרות ושל תמרים מתיר ומפקיע וחותך ותניא אידך מתיר אבל לא מפקיע ולא חותך לא קשיא הא רבנן הא ר' נחמיה דתניא ר' נחמיה אומר אפי' תרווד ואפילו טלית ואפילו סכין אין ניטלין אלא לצורך תשמישן,בעו מיניה מרב ששת מהו למיברז חביתא בבורטיא בשבתא לפיתחא קמיכוין ואסיר או דילמא לעין יפה קמיכוין ושרי א"ל לפיתחא קא מכוין ואסיר,מיתיבי רשב"ג אומר מביא אדם חבית של יין ומתיז ראשה בסייף התם ודאי לעין יפה קמיכוין הכא אם איתא דלעין יפה קמיכוין לפתוחי מיפתח:,אין נוקבין מגופה וכו': אמר רב הונא מחלוקת למעלה אבל מן הצד דברי הכל אסור והיינו דקתני לא יקבנה מצדה ורב חסדא אמר מחלוקת מן הצד אבל על גבה דברי הכל מותר והא דקתני לא יקבנה מצדה התם בגופה דחבית,תנו רבנן אין נוקבין נקב חדש בשבת ואם בא להוסיף מוסיף ויש אומרים אין מוסיפין ושוין שנוקבין נקב ישן לכתחילה ותנא קמא מאי שנא מנקב חדש דלא דקא מתקן פיתחא אוסופי נמי קא מתקן פיתחא,אמר רבה דבר תורה כל פתח שאינו עשוי להכניס ולהוציא אינו פתח ורבנן הוא דגזור משום לול של תרנגולין דעביד לעיולי אוירא ולאפוקי הבלא ואם בא להוסיף מוסיף אוסופי ודאי בלול של תרנגולים לא אתי לאוסופי | 146a. b the snake came upon Eve, /b i.e., when it seduced her to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, b it infected her with /b moral b contamination, /b and this contamination remained in all human beings. When the b Jewish people stood at Mount Sinai, their contamination ceased, /b whereas b gentiles did not stand at Mount Sinai, /b and b their contamination never ceased. Rav Aḥa, the son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What /b about b converts? /b How do you explain the cessation of their moral contamination? Rav Ashi b said to him: Even though they /b themselves b were not /b at Mount Sinai, b their guardian angels were /b present, b as it is written: /b “It is not with you alone that I make this covet and this oath, but b with he that stands here with us today before the Lord our God, and with he that is not here /b with us today” (Deuteronomy 29:13–14), and this includes converts.,The Gemara points out that this opinion b disagrees with Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, as Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: Until three generations /b passed, the moral b contamination did not cease from our forefathers: Abraham fathered Ishmael, /b who was of lowly moral stature; b Isaac fathered Esau; /b finally, b Jacob fathered twelve tribes in whom there was no flaw. /b Rabbi Abba bar Kahana holds that the moral contamination ceased in the Patriarchs long before the Revelation at Sinai., strong MISHNA: /strong b A person may break a barrel /b on Shabbat in order b to eat dried figs from it, provided he does not intend to make a vessel. And one may not perforate the plug of a barrel /b to extract wine from it; rather, one must remove the plug entirely to avoid creating a new opening for the barrel. This is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis permit /b puncturing the plug, but they too restrict this leniency and say that b one may not perforate /b the plug of the barrel b on its side. And if it was /b already b perforated, one may not apply wax to it /b to seal the hole, b because /b in doing so b he spreads /b the wax evenly on the barrel and thereby violates the prohibited labor of smoothing. b Rabbi Yehuda said: An incident /b of that kind b came before Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai in /b the city of b Arav, and he said: I am concerned for him, /b because he may be liable b to /b bring b a sin-offering /b as a result of this., strong GEMARA: /strong b Rabbi Oshaya said: They only taught /b that it is permitted to break open a barrel when the figs were b pressed /b together. This is because in that case it is permissible to use a utensil to separate the figs, that utensil may also be utilized to break open the barrel. b However, /b if the figs were already b separated, /b it is b not /b permitted to handle a utensil for the sole purpose of breaking the barrel. The Gemara asks: b And /b is it b not /b permitted to break the barrel for b separated /b figs?,The Gemara b raises an objection /b based on a i baraita /i : b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A person may bring a barrel of wine and cut off /b the b top /b of the barrel b with a sword and place it before the guests on Shabbat without concern /b that it is prohibited to move the sword or that doing so constitutes the creation of a new vessel, which is prohibited. Apparently, it is permitted to move a sword in order to open a barrel on Shabbat even if it is not needed to cut the contents of the barrel. The Gemara answers for Rabbi Oshaya: b That /b i baraita /i , which cites the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b whereas b our mishna is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Neḥemya, /b who said that it is prohibited to move any utensil on Shabbat for any purpose other than that for which the utensil is designated.,The Gemara asks: b And what forced Rabbi Oshaya to establish the mishna in accordance with /b the minority opinion of b Rabbi Neḥemya /b and to say that it is referring only b to /b the case of a b pressed /b dried figs? b Let him establish /b that the mishna is referring even b to separated /b figs b and /b is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis. Rava said: The mishna /b posed a b difficulty for him; why did /b the i tanna /i b teach particularly /b about b dried figs? Let him teach /b a more general i halakha /i with regard to b fruit. Rather, learn from here that /b the mishna is referring specifically to b pressed /b dried figs, and it is because one requires a utensil to separate them that he may use it to open the barrel as well., b It was taught in one /b i baraita /i : If one has sealed, wicker b baskets of dried figs or of dates, one may untie /b the basket’s knot on Shabbat, and b unbraid /b the basket b and cut /b it open. b And it was taught in another /b i baraita /i : b One may untie /b the knot, b but one may not unbraid or cut /b the basket. There is a contradiction between these two i baraitot /i . The Gemara resolves this contradiction: This is b not difficult. This /b i baraita /i , which permits all of these actions, is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis. That /b i baraita /i , which prohibits unbraiding and cutting, is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Neḥemya. As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Neḥemya says: Even a large spoon and even a cloak and even a knife may only be taken /b on Shabbat b for their /b designated b use, /b and it is therefore prohibited to take a knife to cut open baskets of fruit.,The students b raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: What is /b the i halakha /i with regard to whether or not it is permitted b to perforate a barrel with a spear [ i burtiya /i ] on Shabbat? /b Is the assumption that b one intends to /b make b an opening /b in the barrel b and /b it is therefore b prohibited, or perhaps /b is the assumption that b one /b merely b intends to /b display b generosity and it is permitted? /b Rav Sheshet b said to them: He intends to /b make b an opening /b in the barrel b and it is prohibited. /b ,The Gemara b raises an objection /b based on that which was taught in the i baraita /i that b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One may bring a barrel of wine /b on Shabbat b and cut off its top with a sword. /b This contradicts Rav Sheshet’s opinion that opening a barrel with a spear is prohibited? He answered them: b There, /b in the case of the sword, since one essentially destroys the barrel by cutting off its top, b he certainly intends to /b display b generosity /b by breaking the barrel open in his guests’ honor. However, b here, /b in the case of spearing a hole in the barrel, b if it were /b true that b he intends /b to display b generosity, let him open /b the top of the barrel by removing its plug. By perforating the barrel, he indicates that he specifically wants there to be a small hole.,We learned in the mishna: b And one may not perforate the plug /b of a barrel; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, and the Rabbis permit it. b Rav Huna said: /b This b dispute /b is only with regard to a case where one seeks to make a perforation b on top /b of the plug; b however, /b if he seeks to perforate it b from the side, everyone agrees that it is prohibited, /b because people sometimes puncture a barrel beneath the plug in this way. b And that is /b what the mishna b is teaching: One may not perforate it on its side. /b Whereas b Rav Ḥisda said: /b This b dispute /b is with regard to a case where one seeks to perforate it b from the side; however, /b if one seeks to perforate it b on top, everyone agrees that it is permitted, and /b with regard to b that which /b the mishna b is teaching: One may not perforate it on its side, there /b it is referring to perforating b the barrel itself, /b not the plug., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One may not create a new hole /b in a vessel b on Shabbat. And if one seeks to add /b to and widen an already existing hole, b one may add /b to it; b and some say /b that b one may not /b even b add /b to an already existing hole. b And /b all opinions, even those who generally prohibit creating new holes, agree b that one may perforate /b the seal over b an old hole, /b even b i ab initio /i . And /b with regard to the opinion of b the first i tanna /i , /b the Gemara asks: b What is different /b about perforating the seal over an old hole that makes it permitted, whereas b creating a new hole is not /b permitted? Is it because in creating the new hole b he is creating an opening? /b If so, by b adding /b to an already existing hole b he is also creating an opening. /b , b Rabba said: /b Actually, even creating a new hole is not prohibited, because b by Torah law, any opening that is not made to /b both b insert and to remove is not /b considered b an opening, /b and a hole that one perforates in a barrel is intended exclusively to remove the contents of the barrel. b And it was the Sages who issued a decree /b that one may not perforate a vessel b because /b it is similar to perforating b a chicken coop, /b which is designated for use in both directions, e.g., b to let in air and to let out heat, /b and it is therefore prohibited by Torah law. b And /b therefore we learned that b if one seeks to add /b to an existing hole b one may add /b to it. There is no reason to prohibit this due to concern that one may do so in a chicken coop, because b one will certainly not come to add to /b an already existing hole b in a chicken coop, /b |
|
62. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 74| 35b. (במדבר טו, יט) והיה באכלכם מלחם הארץ מה להלן משלכם ולא משל מעשר אף כאן משלכם ולא משל מעשר,לימא מסייע ליה עיסה של מעשר שני פטורה מן החלה דברי ר"מ וחכמים אומרים חייבת בחלה לימא מסייע ליה היא היא,אלא מדבהא פליגי בהא נמי פליגי או דלמא שאני עיסה דאמר קרא (במדבר טו, כ) עריסותיכם עריסותיכם תרי זימני:,של תרומה טמאה פסולה: דלית בה היתר אכילה:,ושל תרומה טהורה לא יטול: פליגי בה ר' אמי ור' אסי חד אמר מפני שמכשירה וחד אמר מפני שמפסידה,מאי בינייהו כגון שקרא עליה שם חוץ מקליפתה חיצונה למ"ד מפני שמכשירה איכא למ"ד מפני שמפסידה ליכא:,ואם נטל כשרה למ"ד מפני שאין בה היתר אכילה הרי יש בה היתר אכילה למ"ד לפי שאין בה דין ממון הרי יש בה דין ממון:,ושל דמאי מ"ט דבית הלל כיון דאי בעי מפקר להו לנכסיה והוי עני וחזי ליה השתא נמי לכם קרינא ביה דתנן מאכילין את העניים דמאי ואת אכסניא דמאי,וב"ש עני לא אכיל דמאי דתנן (אין) מאכילין העניים דמאי ואת האכסנאי' דמאי ואמר רב הונא תנא ב"ש אומרים אין מאכילין את העניים ואת האכסנאים דמאי וב"ה אומרים מאכילין את העניים דמאי ואת האכסנאים דמאי:,של מעשר שני שבירושלים: למ"ד מפני שמכשירה הרי מכשירה למ"ד מפני שמפסידה הרי מפסידה:,ואם נטל כשרה: למ"ד מפני שאין בה היתר אכילה דברי הכל למ"ד לפי שאין בה דין ממון הא מני רבנן היא:,עלתה חזזית: אמר רב חסדא דבר זה רבינו הגדול אמרו המקום יהיה בעזרו לא שנו אלא במקום אחד אבל בשנים ושלשה מקומות כשר אמר ליה רבא אדרבה בשנים ושלשה מקומות הוה ליה כמנומר ופסול,אלא אי אתמר אסיפא אתמר על מיעוטו כשר אמר רב חסדא דבר זה רבינו הגדול אמרו והמקום יהיה בעזרו ל"ש אלא במקום אחד אבל בשנים ושלשה מקומות הוה ליה כמנומר ופסול אמר רבא ועל חוטמו ואפילו במשהו נמי פסול:,נטלה פטמתו: תנא ר' יצחק בן אלעזר נטלה בוכנתו:,נקלף אמר רבא האי אתרוגא דאגליד כאהינא סומקא כשרה והא אנן תנן נקלף פסול לא קשיא | 35b. b “And it shall be when you eat of the bread of the land /b you shall offer up a gift unto the Lord” (Numbers 15:19). b Just as there, /b with regard to i ḥalla /i , one is obligated only if the dough is b from yours and not from /b second b tithe, here too, /b with regard to i matza /i , one fulfills his obligation only if it is b from yours and not from /b second b tithe. /b ,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say that /b this i baraita /i b supports /b the statement of Rabbi Asi: b Dough of /b the b second tithe is exempt from i ḥalla /i ; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It is subject to /b the obligation of separating b i ḥalla /i . /b The Gemara wonders about the tentative nature of the Gemara’s suggestion. b Let us say it supports his /b opinion. The i baraita /i is not similar to the statement of Rav Asi; b it is /b precisely the statement b itself. /b , b Rather, /b this is what the Gemara is suggesting: Do we say that b from the fact that they disagree /b with regard to b this /b case of i ḥalla /i , b they disagree /b with regard to b that /b case of i matza /i b as well? Or perhaps, dough is different because the verse states: “Your dough…your dough” /b (Numbers 15:20–21) b twice. /b Perhaps this duplication indicates that ownership is required in order for dough to be obligated in the mitzva of i ḥalla /i ; however, with regard to i matza /i , where there is no such duplication, perhaps one fulfills his obligation, even in the case of second tithe in Jerusalem, according to Rabbi Meir. Therefore, no proof can be cited from here in support of Rav Asi’s statement.,§ The mishna continues: An i etrog /i b of impure i teruma /i is unfit. /b The reason is, as explained above, b that there is no permission to eat it. /b ,The mishna stated: b And /b with regard to an i etrog /i b of pure i teruma /i , one should not take it /b i ab initio /i . However, if he did, it is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. b Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagreed about this. /b Why may one not take it i ab initio /i ? b One /b of them b said: /b It is b because one renders it susceptible /b to impurity. All vegetation cannot become ritually impure, even if it came into contact with a source of impurity, unless it was moistened by one of seven liquids (see Leviticus 11:37–38). However, once one touches the i etrog /i with wet hands, which are wet because he removed the other three species from the water in which they were kept to preserve their freshness, he renders the i etrog /i susceptible to impurity. The Sages prohibited taking an i etrog /i of i teruma /i , lest it become impure, as it is prohibited to impurify i teruma /i . b And one said: /b It is b because he damages it. /b By handling the i etrog /i , the peel is rendered disgusting, and it is prohibited to damage i teruma /i .,The Gemara asks: b What is /b the practical difference b between them? /b The Gemara answers: The difference would be in a case b where one accorded /b the entire i etrog /i b the status /b of i teruma /i , to the b exclusion of the peel, /b whose status remains non-sacred. b According to the one who said: Because one renders it susceptible /b to impurity, b there is /b a prohibition, as failure to sanctify the peel as i teruma /i does not prevent the fruit from becoming susceptible to impurity. However, b according to the one who said: Because he damages /b the i teruma /i , b there is no /b prohibition, as the peel that might be damaged was never i teruma /i .,The mishna continues: b And if he took /b an i etrog /i of i teruma /i , b it is fit, /b and he fulfilled his obligation after the fact. The Gemara explains: b According to the one who said /b that one does not fulfill his obligation b because there is no permission to eat /b the i etrog /i , b there is permission to eat it. According to the one who said /b that one does not fulfill his obligation b because it has no monetary /b value, b it has monetary /b value.,§ The mishna cites a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai with regard to an i etrog /i b of i demai /i . /b The Gemara asks: b What is the rationale /b for the opinion of b Beit Hillel, /b who deem it fit? It is prohibited to eat i demai /i , due to the concern that it is actually untithed produce. The Gemara answers: b Because, if one wants, he could declare all of his property ownerless, and he would be a pauper, /b in which case the i demai /i would be b fit for his /b consumption. b Now too, /b even though he did not declare it ownerless, b it is considered /b to meet the criterion of “and you shall take b for yourselves.” As we learned /b in a mishna: b One may feed the impoverished i demai /i , and /b one may feed b soldiers [ i akhsanya /i ] /b whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, b i demai /i . /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b why, then, do b Beit Shammai /b deem it unfit? The Gemara answers: b A pauper may not eat i demai /i , as we learned in /b a mishna: b One may not feed the impoverished i demai /i and /b one may not feed b soldiers i demai /i . And Rav Huna said: It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Beit Shammai say: One may not feed the impoverished i demai /i and /b one may not feed b soldiers /b whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, b i demai /i . And Beit Hillel say: One may feed the impoverished i demai /i and /b one may feed b soldiers /b whose support is imposed upon the residents of the city, b i demai /i . /b On that basis, the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to an i etrog /i of i demai /i is clear.,§ The mishna continues: With regard to an i etrog /i b of second tithe in Jerusalem, one may not take it, /b i ab initio /i . The Gemara explains: b According to the one who says /b that an i etrog /i of pure i teruma /i is unfit b because one renders it susceptible /b to ritual impurity, b here too, he renders it susceptible. According to the one who says /b it is unfit b because one damages /b the peel, b here too, he damages /b the peel.,The mishna continues: b And if one took /b an i etrog /i of second tithe in Jerusalem, b it is fit. /b The Gemara explains: b According to the one who said /b that one does not fulfill his obligation with an i etrog /i of i orla /i b because there is no permission to eat /b the i etrog /i , b everyone, /b i.e., Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, b agrees /b that one fulfills his obligation, because in Jerusalem one may eat second tithe. However, b according to the one who said /b that one does not fulfill his obligation with an i etrog /i of i orla /i b because it has no monetary value, /b in accordance with b whose /b opinion b is this /b statement? It is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who do not consider second tithe the property of God; it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.,§ The mishna continues: b If boil-like blemishes arose /b on the majority of the i etrog /i , it is unfit. b Rav Ḥisda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi, /b Rav, b and may the Omnipresent /b come b to his assistance. /b The Sages b taught /b this i halakha /i b only /b in a case where the blemishes are concentrated b in one place; however, /b if they are distributed b in two or three places /b throughout the i etrog /i , b it is fit. /b Rava b said to /b Rav Ḥisda: If the blemishes are distributed in b two or three places, it is as if /b the i etrog /i were b speckled /b with different colors in different places; it lacks beauty b and is /b certainly b unfit. /b , b Rather, /b emend the text: b If /b this statement b was stated, it was stated concerning the latter clause /b of the mishna: b If boil-like blemishes arose /b only b on its minority, it is fit. Rav Ḥisda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi, /b Rav, b and may the Omnipresent /b come b to his assistance. /b The Sages b taught /b this i halakha /i b only /b if the blemishes are concentrated b in one place. However, /b if they are distributed b in two or three places /b throughout the i etrog /i , even if their total remains a minority, b it is as if /b the i etrog /i were b speckled, and /b it is b unfit. Rava said: /b If there is a blemish b on its upper, /b blossom b end, /b which is clearly visible and comprises the essence of the beauty of the i etrog /i , b even if /b the blemish b is /b of b any size, /b the i etrog /i is b unfit. /b ,§ The mishna continues: b If its i pitam /i was removed, /b it is unfit. b Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar taught /b a i baraita /i : This means b if its pestle /b -like protuberance at its upper end b was removed. /b ,The mishna continues: An i etrog /i that b was peeled /b is unfit. b Rava said: This i etrog /i that was peeled like a red date /b so that only its thin, outer peel is removed but the rest remains intact, b is fit. /b The Gemara objects: b But didn’t we learn /b explicitly in the mishna: If the i etrog /i b was peeled /b it is unfit? The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult; /b |
|
63. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Sigal (2007) 74| 17b. דאית ליה קוברין דתניא איזהו מת מצוה כל שאין לו קוברין קורא ואחרים עונין אותו אין זה מת מצוה,ומת מצוה קנה מקומו והתניא המוציא מת מוטל בסרטיא מפניהו לימין אסרטיא או לשמאל אסרטיא,שדה בור ושדה ניר מפניהו לשדה בור שדה ניר ושדה זרע מפניהו לשדה ניר היו שתיהן נירות שתיהן זרועות שתיהן בורות מפניהו לכל רוח שירצה,אמר רב ביבי הכא במת מוטל על המיצר עסקינן מתוך שניתנה רשות לפנותו מן המיצר מפניהו לכל רוח שירצה:,ופטורין מרחיצת ידים: אמר אביי לא שנו אלא מים ראשונים אבל מים אחרונים חובה,אמר רב חייא בר אשי מפני מה אמרו מים אחרונים חובה מפני שמלח סדומית יש שמסמא את העינים,אמר אביי ומשתכחא כקורטא בכורא א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי כייל מילחא מאי א"ל [הא] לא מיבעיא:,ומדמאי: דתנן מאכילין את העניים דמאי ואת אכסניא דמאי אמר רב הונא תנא בית שמאי אומרים אין מאכילין את העניים דמאי ואת אכסניא דמאי ובית הלל אומרים מאכילין את העניים דמאי ואת אכסניא דמאי:,ומלערב: אמרי דבי רבי ינאי לא שנו אלא עירובי חצירות אבל עירובי תחומין חייבין,דתני רבי חייא לוקין על עירובי תחומין דבר תורה,מתקיף לה רבי יונתן וכי לוקין על לאו שבאל מתקיף רב אחא בר יעקב אלא מעתה דכתיב (ויקרא יט, לא) אל תפנו אל האובות ואל הידעונים ה"נ דלא לקי,רבי יונתן הכי קשיא ליה לאו שניתן לאזהרת מיתת ב"ד וכל לאו שניתן לאזהרת מיתת בית דין אין לוקין עליו,אמר רב אשי מי כתיב אל יוציא (שמות טז, כט) אל יצא כתיב:, br br big strongהדרן עלך מבוי /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongעושין /strong /big פסין לביראות,ארבעה דיומדין נראין כשמונה דברי ר' יהודה ר"מ אומר שמונה נראין כשנים עשר ארבעה דיומדים וארבעה פשוטין,גובהן עשרה טפחים ורוחבן ששה ועוביים כל שהוא וביניהן כמלא שתי רבקות של שלש שלש בקר דברי ר"מ,ר' יהודה אומר של ארבע קשורות ולא מותרות אחת נכנסת ואחת יוצאת,מותר להקריב לבאר ובלבד שתהא פרה ראשה ורובה בפנים ושותה,מותר | 17b. b there are /b people available b to bury it. As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Which is /b the corpse that is considered b a i met mitzva /i ?Any /b corpse b that has no one /b available b to bury it. /b If, however, the deceased has friends or relatives to tend to his burial, his corpse is not considered a i met mitzva /i . Likewise, if the body is in a place where if b one calls out, others /b can b answer him, this is not a i met mitzva /i . /b The i Tosefta /i teaches a novel ruling applicable to the case of a military camp: A solider is buried where he was killed, even if the conditions for i met mitzva /i are not met there.,With regard to the i halakha /i itself, the Gemara asks: b And does a i met mitzva /i /b actually b acquire its place? Wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who finds a corpse laid out on a main street evacuates it /b for burial either b to the right of the street or to the left of the street, /b but it may not be buried under the main street itself?,If one can move the corpse either to b an uncultivated field or /b to b a plowed field, he evacuates it to the uncultivated field. /b If the choice is between b a plowed field and a sown field, he evacuates it to the plowed field. /b If b both /b fields b are plowed, /b or if b both are sown, /b or if b both are uncultivated, he evacuates it to any side that he wishes /b to move it. Apparently, a i met mitzva /i is not necessarily buried where it is found. It may be moved elsewhere., b Rav Beivai said: Here we are dealing with a corpse laid out across on the side /b of a public path, and it stretches across the path and reaches the other side. Were the corpse buried there, it would prohibit passage by priests. b Since permission was /b already b granted to evacuate it from the side /b of a public path, b one may evacuate it to any side he wishes. /b If, however, the corpse was in a field, moving it would be prohibited.,We learned in the mishna that in a military camp b one is exempt from /b ritual b washing /b of the b hands. Abaye said: They taught /b this exemption b only /b with regard to b first waters, /b i.e., hand-washing before eating. b However, final waters, /b i.e., hand-washing after eating and before reciting Grace after Meals, b is an obligation /b even in a military camp., b Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said: For what /b reason b did /b the Sages b say that the final waters are an obligation? /b It is b due to /b the fact b that there is the presence of Sodomite salt, which blinds the eyes /b even in a small amount. Since Sodomite salt could remain on one’s hands, one must wash them after eating. This obligation is binding even in a camp because soldiers are also obligated to maintain their health., b Abaye said: And /b this type of dangerous salt b is present /b in the proportion of a single b grain [ i korta /i ] in an /b entire b i kor /i /b of innocuous salt. b Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: /b If b one measured salt /b and came into contact with Sodomite salt not during mealtime, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? Is there an obligation to wash his hands afterward? b He said to him: It was unnecessary /b to say b this, /b as he is certainly obligated to do so.,The mishna continues: b And /b in a military camp, one is exempt b from /b the separation of tithes from b doubtfully tithed produce [ i demai /i ]. As we learned /b in a mishna: b One may feed the poor i demai /i , and /b one may also feed b quartered soldiers [ i akhsanya /i ] i demai /i . Rav Huna said: /b A i tanna /i b taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Beit Shammai say /b that b one may neither feed the poor i demai /i , nor /b may one feed b quartered soldiers i demai /i . And Beit Hillel say /b that b one may feed the poor i demai /i , and /b one may also feed b quartered soldiers i demai /i . /b ,We learned in the mishna: b And /b in a military camp, one is exempt b from establishing an i eiruv /i . /b The Sages of b the school of Rabbi Yannai said: They taught /b that this exemption applies b only /b with regard to b the joining of /b houses in b courtyards. However, /b even those in a military encampment b are obligated /b to establish an i eiruv /i if they desire to effect b a joining of Shabbat boundaries, /b whereby one extends the Shabbat limits beyond which one may not walk on Shabbat., b As Rabbi Ḥiyya taught /b a i baraita /i : b One is flogged by Torah law for /b going beyond the Shabbat limit if there is no b joining of Shabbat boundaries. /b The Torah states: “No man shall go out [ i al yetze /i ] of his place on the seventh day” (Exodus 16:29). Since this is a Torah prohibition, leniency is possible only in life-threatening circumstances., b Rabbi Yonatan strongly objects: Is one flogged for /b violating b a prohibition that is /b expressed in the Torah with the negative b i al /i , /b rather than the negative i lo /i ? b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov strongly objects /b to the question: b If /b what you say is b so, /b with regard to b that which is written: “Turn you not [ i al /i ] unto the ghosts, nor unto familiar spirits” /b (Leviticus 19:31), is the i halakha /i there b too that one is not flogged? /b ,Rather, b this is /b the b difficulty for Rabbi Yonatan: /b The prohibition against overstepping the Shabbat limits is b a prohibition that was given /b primarily b as a warning of court-imposed capital punishment, /b i.e., a prohibition which, under certain conditions, is punishable by the death and not merely by lashes, as is the case with most prohibitions. In fact, the prohibition against carrying objects out to the public domain is derived from that same verse, and one who violates that prohibition is liable for execution by the court. b And /b this principle applies: b Any prohibition that was given /b primarily b as a warning of court-imposed capital punishment one is not flogged, /b even if the death penalty does not apply in that particular case., b Rav Ashi said: Is it written /b in the Torah: b No /b man b shall carry out [ i yotzi /i ], /b indicating a prohibition against carrying objects from one domain to another on Shabbat? b “No /b man b shall go out [ i yetze /i ]” is written. /b Indeed, according to its plain meaning, the verse deals exclusively with the prohibition of going beyond the Shabbat limits and not with the prohibition of carrying out. Everyone agrees that there is no death penalty administered by the court in overstepping the Shabbat limit.,, strong MISHNA: /strong b One may arrange /b upright b boards [ i passin /i ] around a well /b in the public domain in order to permit drawing water from the well on Shabbat. A well is usually at least four handbreadths wide and ten handbreadths deep. Therefore, it is considered a private domain, and it is prohibited to draw water from it on Shabbat, as that would constitute a violation of the prohibition to carry from a private domain into a public one. The Sages therefore instituted that a virtual partition may be built in the area surrounding the well, so that the enclosed area could be considered a private domain, thus permitting use of the well and carrying of the water within the partitioned area.,In this specific instance, the Sages demonstrated special leniency and did not require a proper partition to enclose the entire area. For this purpose, it suffices if there are b four double posts [ i deyomadin /i ] that look like eight /b single posts, i.e., four corner pieces, each comprised of two posts joined together at right angles; this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: /b There must be b eight /b posts that b look like twelve. /b How so? There must be b four double posts, /b one in each corner, with b four plain /b posts, one between each pair of double posts., b The height /b of the double posts must be at least b ten handbreadths, their width /b must be b six /b handbreadths, b and their thickness /b may be even b a minimal amount. And between them, /b i.e., between the posts, there may be a gap b the size of two teams [ i revakot /i ] of three oxen each; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. /b , b Rabbi Yehuda /b disagrees and b says: /b There may be a slightly larger gap, the size of two teams b of four /b oxen each, and this gap is measured with the cows being b tied /b together b and not untied, /b and with the minimal space necessary for b one /b team to be b entering /b while the other b one is leaving. /b , b It is permitted to bring /b the posts b closer to the well, provided that /b the enclosed area is large enough for b a cow to /b stand with b its head and the majority of its /b body b inside /b the partitioned space while b it drinks. /b , b It is permitted /b |
|
64. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Sigal (2007) 91| 41b. בת חורין אי אפשר שכבר חציו עבד יבטל והלא לא נברא העולם אלא לפריה ורביה שנאמר (ישעיהו מה, יח) לא תוהו בראה לשבת יצרה אלא מפני תיקון העולם כופין את רבו ועושה אותו בן חורין וכותב שטר על חצי דמיו וחזרו ב"ה להורות כדברי ב"ש:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר המשחרר חצי עבדו רבי אומר קנה וחכ"א לא קנה,אמר רבה מחלוקת בשטר דרבי סבר (ויקרא יט, כ) והפדה לא נפדתה או חופשה לא נתן לה,מקיש שטר לכסף מה כסף בין כולו בין חציו אף שטר נמי בין כולו בין חציו,ורבנן גמרי לה לה מאשה מה אשה חציה לא אף עבד נמי חציו לא אבל בכסף דברי הכל קנה פדויה ואינה פדויה,לימא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר הקישא עדיפא ומר סבר גז"ש עדיפא,לא דכולי עלמא גזירה שוה עדיפא ושאני הכא דאיכא למיפרך מה לאשה שכן אינה יוצאה בכסף תאמר בעבד שיוצא בכסף,ורב יוסף אמר מחלוקת בכסף דרבי סבר והפדה לא נפדתה פדויה ואינה פדויה ורבנן סברי דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם אבל בשטר דברי הכל לא קנה,מיתיבי המשחרר חצי עבדו בשטר רבי אומר קנה וחכ"א לא קנה תיובתא דרב יוסף תיובתא,(נימא) בשטר הוא דפליגי אבל בכסף לא פליגי לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב יוסף בתרתי,אמר לך רב יוסף פליגי בשטר וה"ה בכסף והא דקא מיפלגי בשטר להודיעך כחו דרבי,וליפלגי בכסף ולהודיעך כחן דרבנן כח דהיתירא עדיף ליה,ת"ש והפדה יכול לכל ת"ל לא נפדתה אי לא נפדתה יכול לכל ת"ל והפדה הא כיצד פדויה ואינה פדויה בכסף ובשוה כסף,ואין לי אלא בכסף בשטר מנין ת"ל והפדה לא נפדתה או חופשה לא נתן לה ולהלן הוא אומר (דברים כד, א) וכתב לה ספר כריתות מה להלן בשטר אף כאן בשטר,אין לי אלא חציו בכסף או כולו בשטר חציו בשטר מנין ת"ל והפדה לא נפדתה או חופשה לא נתן לה מקיש שטר לכסף מה כסף בין כולו בין חציו אף שטר נמי בין כולו בין חציו,בשלמא לרב יוסף בתר דאיתותב הא מני רבי היא אלא לרבה רישא דברי הכל וסיפא רבי,אמר לך רבה אין רישא דברי הכל וסיפא רבי רב אשי אמר רבי היא,אלא מתניתין דקתני מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין בשלמא לרבה מוקים לה בכסף ודברי הכל אלא לרב יוסף לימא רבי היא ולא רבנן אמר רבינא | 41b. b It is /b also b not possible /b for him to marry b a free woman, as he is still a half-slave. /b If you say b he should be idle /b and not marry, b but isn’t it /b true that b the world was created only for procreation, as it is stated: “He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” /b (Isaiah 45:18)? b Rather, for the betterment of the world his master is forced to make him a freeman, and /b the slave b writes /b a promissory b note /b accepting his responsibility to pay b half his value /b to his master. b And Beit Hillel /b ultimately b retracted /b their opinion, b to rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai, /b that a half-slave must be set free., strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught: /b With regard to a master b who emancipates /b only b half of his slave, Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: He /b has b acquired /b himself, i.e., the transaction is complete and half of the slave is emancipated, b and the Rabbis say: He /b has b not acquired /b himself., b Rabba said: /b Their b dispute /b pertains only to a case where the master emancipated him b with a bill /b of manumission, b as Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b holds: /b In the context of a Jewish man who engages in sexual intercourse with a maidservant who had been designated to cohabit with a Hebrew slave, the Torah writes that neither the Jewish man nor the maidservant is liable to receive the death penalty, though the man is liable to bring a guilt-offering. If the woman had been emancipated, she would be a regular married woman, and they would incur the death penalty for their act of intercourse. In describing the woman in that case, the Torah writes: b “And not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given to her” /b (Leviticus 19:20). This is referring to two methods of emancipating a slave: Redemption via money, in the phrase: “And not at all redeemed,” and emancipation via a bill of manumission, in the phrase: “Nor was freedom given her.”,The verse b juxtaposes /b the freeing of a slave via b a bill /b of manumission b to /b the freeing of a slave via payment of b money, /b to teach that b just as /b with b money /b the slave can free b either all of him or half of him, /b for if he were to pay half of his value to the master he would be half-redeemed, b so too, /b by receiving b a bill /b of manumission b either all of him or half of him /b can be emancipated., b And the Rabbis derive /b their opinion, that a slave cannot acquire half of his freedom via a bill of manumission, b from /b a verbal analogy of the word b “her [ i lah /i ]” /b written here: “Nor was freedom given to her [ i lah /i ]” (Leviticus 19:20), and the word b “her [ i lah /i ]” /b written with regard to a man who divorces b a woman: /b “And he writes her [ i lah /i ] a scroll of severance” (Deuteronomy 24:1). b Just as /b in the case of b a woman, /b one is b not /b able to divorce b half of her /b with a bill of divorce, b so too, /b in the case of b a slave, /b one is b not /b able to emancipate b half of him /b with a bill of manumission. b However, with regard to /b a slave who frees himself by giving b money, everyone agrees that /b the slave b acquires /b half of himself, and a female slave would also be partially b redeemed but not /b fully b redeemed. /b ,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say that they disagree about this: As /b one b Sage, /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, b holds /b that a derivation from b a juxtaposition is preferable, /b and consequently he derives the i halakha /i of emancipation via a bill of manumission from the i halakha /i stated in the same verse concerning redemption via money. b And /b one b Sage, /b i.e., the Rabbis, b holds /b that b a verbal analogy is preferable /b and therefore derives the i halakha /i of emancipation via a bill of manumission from the i halakha /i of the divorce of a woman, where the verse employs an analogous term.,The Gemara rejects this: b No, everyone agrees /b that generally b a verbal analogy is preferable, but it is different here because /b the verbal analogy b can be refuted /b by stating the following: b What /b is unique b about a woman /b is that she b cannot leave /b a marriage b via money /b at all, b shall you say /b that one should compare her case b to /b that of b a slave, who does leave /b his servitude b via money? /b Since there are differences between divorce and emancipation, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it is preferable to derive the i halakha /i from a juxtaposition., b And Rav Yosef said: /b The b dispute /b between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis pertains only to a case where the slave was freed b via money, for Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b holds: /b The i halakha /i that a slave can be half-freed can be derived from the phrase: b “And not at all redeemed [ i vehofde lo nifdata /i ]” /b (Leviticus 19:20), indicating that she has been partially b redeemed but not /b fully b redeemed. And the Rabbis hold: The Torah spoke in the language of people, /b and the repetition of the verb in the verse is not to be used as a source for deriving a i halakha /i . b However, /b when the slave is half-emancipated b via a bill /b of manumission, b everyone agrees that /b the slave has b not acquired /b himself and remains a full slave.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b against Rav Yosef’s statement based on what was taught in a i baraita /i : With regard to b one who emancipates half /b of b his slave with a bill /b of manumission, b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: He /b has b acquired /b himself, b and the Rabbis say: He has not acquired /b himself. The Gemara concludes: b The refutation /b of the opinion b of Rav Yosef is a conclusive refutation. /b ,The Gemara suggests: In this i baraita /i , b they disagree /b in a case where the slave is half-emancipated b via a bill /b of manumission. b However, they do not /b explicitly b disagree /b in a case where the slave is half-redeemed b with money. Shall we say /b that b this is a conclusive refutation /b of the statement b of Rav Yosef with regard to two /b aspects: First, as above, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that he is half-freed via a bill of manumission; second, according to his statement, the dispute pertains to redeeming with money, yet the i baraita /i gives no indication that the Rabbis would hold that the slave can be half-redeemed with money?,The Gemara rejects this: b Rav Yosef /b could have b said to you: /b They b disagree with regard to /b emancipation b via a bill /b of manumission, b and the same is true, /b that they would disagree, with regard to redeeming b with money. And this, that they /b explicitly b disagree with regard to /b emancipation b via a bill /b of manumission, is b to convey to you the far-reaching /b nature of the opinion b of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, that a slave can be half-freed even by receiving a bill of manumission.,The Gemara asks: b And let them disagree /b with regard to redeeming b with money, and to convey to you the far-reaching nature of /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b that they hold he cannot be half-freed even through redeeming with money. The Gemara responds: It is b preferable to /b the i tanna /i to emphasize b the power of leniency, /b and therefore the dispute is presented as it is.,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof with regard to this discussion based on a i baraita /i : The verse in Leviticus employs the double expression “ i vehofde lo nifdata /i ,” literally: And redeemed not redeemed, in discussing the designated maidservant. The i baraita /i analyzes this wording. If the verse had stated only b “and redeemed,” /b one b might /b have thought that the verse discusses a maidservant that is b entirely /b redeemed. Therefore, b the verse states “not redeemed.” If /b it had stated only b “not redeemed,” /b one b might /b have thought that it means b an entirely /b unredeemed maidservant, i.e., a full maidservant. Therefore, b the verse states “and redeemed.” How /b can b these /b texts be reconciled? The verse is discussing a case where she is partially b redeemed but not /b fully b redeemed. /b This was accomplished b via money or an equivalent /b value of b money. /b ,The i baraita /i continues. b And I have /b derived b only /b that she can be partially redeemed b via money. From where /b do I derive that she can also be emancipated b via a bill /b of manumission? b The verse states: “And not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given to her” /b (Leviticus 19:20), b and later on, /b in the case of divorce, b it states: “And he writes her a scroll of severance” /b (Deuteronomy 24:1). b Just as later on /b freedom is granted b via a bill /b of divorce, b so too here, /b a maidservant is freed b via a bill /b of manumission., b I have /b derived b only /b that b half of /b a slave can be redeemed b via money, /b as detailed above, b or /b that b all of him /b can be emancipated b via a bill /b of manumission. b From where /b do I derive that b half of him /b can be emancipated b via a bill /b of manumission? b The verse states: “And not at all redeemed nor was freedom given her,” /b and thereby b juxtaposes a bill /b of manumission b to money. Just as /b a slave can be b either fully /b redeemed b or /b half-redeemed via b money, so too, he /b can b be either fully /b emancipated b or /b half-emancipated via b a bill /b of manumission. This marks the end of the i baraita /i .,The Gemara analyzes the i baraita /i in light of the earlier opinions. b Granted, according to Rav Yosef after he was conclusively refuted, /b who now holds that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree both with regard to money and a bill of manumission, in accordance with b whose /b opinion b is this /b i baraita /i ? b It is /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, for half of the slave is freed, whether via money or a bill of manumission. b However, according to /b the opinion of b Rabba, /b that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to a bill of manumission, but everyone agrees that the slave can redeem half of himself with money, do b all agree /b with the statement of b the first clause, but the last clause /b is in accordance with the opinion of only b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi?, b Rabba /b could have b said to you: Yes, all agree /b with the statement of b the first clause, and the last clause /b is in accordance with only b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi. b Rav Ashi said: /b This i baraita /i b is /b entirely in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi.,The Gemara asks: b But /b with regard to b the mishna that teaches: /b In the case of b one who is a half-slave half-freeman, granted, according to /b the opinion of b Rabba, he establishes /b the mishna as referring to a case where the slave was half-redeemed b with money, and everyone agrees /b that this is effective. b However, according to /b the opinion of b Rav Yosef, shall we say /b that the mishna b is /b in accordance with the opinion of only b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b and not /b in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis? /b According to the opinion of Rav Yosef, the Rabbis hold that a slave cannot be half-free, regardless of whether he is freed via money or a bill of manumission. b Ravina said: /b |
|
| 65. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan A, 40, 3 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Sigal (2007) 50 |
| 66. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan B, 23-24, 4 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Sigal (2007) 50 |
| 67. Anon., Sifre To Numbers And Deuteronomy, 214 Tagged with subjects: •bet shammai Found in books: Sigal (2007) 134 |
