1. Tosefta, Avodah Zarah, 8.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, banning of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190| 8.4. "השוכר את הפועל לעשות חצי היום באיסור וחצי היום בהיתר ונתן כולן בכרך אחד כולן אסורות אלו בפני עצמן ואלו בפני עצמן ראשונות אסורות ושניות מותרות. השוכר את הפועל לעשות עמו מלאכה ולעתותי ערב אמר לו הולך לי את הלגין הזה במקום פלוני אע\"פ שאין ישראל רשאי לעשות כן שכרו מותר. השוכר את החמור לרכוב עליה ואמר לו תנה לי את הלגין הזה עליה אע\"פ שאין ישראל רשאי לעשות כן שכרו מותר. אומר אדם לחברו ולפועלו צאו ואכלו בדינר זה צאו ושתו בדינר זה ואינו חושש משם מעשרות ומשם שביעית ומשם יין נסך אבל אם אמר לו צא ואכול ככר ואני נותן דמיה צא ושתה רביעית ואני נותן את דמיה הרי זה חושש משום מעשרות ומשום שביעית ומשום יין נסך הנותן צמר לצבע עובד כוכבים לצבוע לו אינו חושש שמא צבעו בחומץ של יין נסך אם באו לבית חשבון אסור.", | |
|
2. Tosefta, Kiddushin, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, banning of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 189| 4.1. "הנותן רשות לשלשה לקדש לו אשה ר' נתן אומר בית שמאי אומרים יכולין שנים להעשות עדים ואחד שליח ב\"ה אומרים שלשתן שלוחין ואין יכולין להעיד.", 4.1. "ב' אחים שקדשו שתי אחיות זה אינו יודע לאיזו קדש וזה אינו יודע לאיזו קדש שניהם אסורין מן הספק אם היו עסוקין בגדולה לגדול ובקטנה לקטן אומר אני גדולה לא נתקדשה אלא לגדול וקטנה לא נתקדשה אלא לקטן.", | 4.1. "A man who gave permission to 3 people to betroth for him a wife—Rabbi Natan says: Beit Shammai say: Two of them can be witnesses and one of them an agent; but Beit Hillel say: All of them are agents and they are not able to testify.", |
|
3. Tosefta, Megillah, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, banning of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 189 | 1.10. "There is no difference between an olive-sized piece of a corpse and an entire corpse except that the [tumah associated with the] piece of a corpse [exits through] an opening the size of a handbreadth, whereas the [tumah associated with the] entire corpse [exits through] an opening the size of four handbreadths. There is no difference between a olive-sized piece of a corpse and a piece of a bone larger than a barley seed except for the propensity to contaminate other things in a closed space [which a bone does not have]. There is no difference between a limb taken from a corpse and a limb taken from a living person except that flesh from a limb taken from a corpse is tamei and flesh from a limb taken from a live person is tahor. ", |
|
4. Tosefta, Qiddushin, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, banning of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 189| 4.1. "הנותן רשות לשלשה לקדש לו אשה ר' נתן אומר בית שמאי אומרים יכולין שנים להעשות עדים ואחד שליח ב\"ה אומרים שלשתן שלוחין ואין יכולין להעיד.", 4.1. "ב' אחים שקדשו שתי אחיות זה אינו יודע לאיזו קדש וזה אינו יודע לאיזו קדש שניהם אסורין מן הספק אם היו עסוקין בגדולה לגדול ובקטנה לקטן אומר אני גדולה לא נתקדשה אלא לגדול וקטנה לא נתקדשה אלא לקטן.", | 4.1. "A man who gave permission to 3 people to betroth for him a wife—Rabbi Natan says: Beit Shammai say: Two of them can be witnesses and one of them an agent; but Beit Hillel say: All of them are agents and they are not able to testify.", |
|
5. Tosefta, Yevamot, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, banning of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190| 11.2. "סריס חמה ואנדרוגינוס ואח מאם וגר ועבד משוחרר לא חולצין ולא מיבמין כיצד מתו והניחו נשים ולהם אחים באו אחים ועשו מאמר נתנו גט וחלצו לא עשו כלום בעלו פסלו מן הכהונה וחייבין בקרבן מתו אחים והניחו נשים ולהם אחים באו הם ועשו מאמר נתנו גט או חלצו לא עשו כלום ואם בעלו פסלו מן הכהונה וחייבין בקרבן.", | |
|
| 6. Tosefta, Shekalim, 3.22 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, banning of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
7. Mishnah, Hulin, 10.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, banning of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190| 10.4. "גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר וְהָיְתָה לוֹ פָרָה, נִשְׁחֲטָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיֵּר, פָּטוּר. מִשֶּׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר, חַיָּב. סָפֵק, פָּטוּר, שֶׁהַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵרוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה. אֵיזֶהוּ הַזְּרוֹעַ, מִן הַפֶּרֶק שֶׁל אַרְכֻּבָּה עַד כַּף שֶׁל יָד. וְהוּא שֶׁל נָזִיר. וּכְנֶגְדּוֹ בָרֶגֶל, שׁוֹק. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שׁוֹק, מִן הַפֶּרֶק שֶׁל אַרְכֻּבָּה עַד סֹבֶךְ שֶׁל רָגֶל. אֵיזֶהוּ לְחִי, מִן הַפֶּרֶק שֶׁל לְחִי עַד פִּקָּה שֶׁל גַּרְגָּרֶת: \n", | 10.4. "A convert who converted and owned a cow: If he slaughtered it before he converted, he is exempt from giving the gifts. If [he slaughtered it] after he converted, he is liable. If there was a doubt about it, he is exempt, for the burden of proof lies upon the claimant. What is ‘the shoulder’? From the joint up to the shoulder-socket of the forelimb, and this is the same for the nazirite. The corresponding part of the hind leg is called the thigh. Rabbi Judah says: the thigh extends from the joint up to the fleshy part of the leg. What counts as ‘the cheek? From the joint of the jaw to the last protrusion of the windpipe.", |
|
8. Mishnah, Bekhorot, 8.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, banning of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190| 8.1. "יֵשׁ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן, בְּכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן וְאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה, בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְלַכֹּהֵן, יֵשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לֹא לַנַּחֲלָה וְלֹא לַכֹּהֵן. אֵיזֶהוּ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן, הַבָּא אַחַר הַנְּפָלִים שֶׁיָּצָא רֹאשׁוֹ חַי, וּבֶן תִּשְׁעָה שֶׁיָּצָא רֹאשׁוֹ מֵת, וְהַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין בְּהֵמָה חַיָּה וָעוֹף, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא בוֹ מִצּוּרַת הָאָדָם. הַמַּפֶּלֶת סַנְדָּל, אוֹ שִׁלְיָא, וּשְׁפִיר מְרֻקָּם, וְהַיּוֹצֵא מְחֻתָּךְ, הַבָּא אַחֲרֵיהֶן, בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן. מִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ לוֹ בָנִים וְנָשָׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁכְּבָר יָלְדָה, עוֹדָהּ שִׁפְחָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה, עוֹדָהּ נָכְרִית וְנִתְגַּיְּרָה, מִשֶּׁבָּאת לְיִשְׁרָאֵל יָלְדָה, בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְלַכֹּהֵן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יג), פֶּטֶר כָּל רֶחֶם בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַד שֶׁיִּפְטְרוּ רֶחֶם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ בָנִים וְנָשָׂא אִשָּׁה שֶׁלֹא יָלְדָה, נִתְגַּיְּרָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת, נִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה מְעֻבֶּרֶת, יָלְדָה הִיא וְכֹהֶנֶת, הִיא וּלְוִיָּה, הִיא וְאִשָּׁה שֶׁכְּבָר יָלְדָה, וְכֵן מִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁהֲתָה אַחַר בַּעְלָהּ שְׁלשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וְנִשֵּׂאת וְיָלְדָה, וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אִם בֶּן תִּשְׁעָה לָרִאשׁוֹן, אוֹ בֶן שִׁבְעָה לָאַחֲרוֹן, בְּכוֹר לַכֹּהֵן וְאֵינוֹ בְכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה. אֵיזֶהוּ בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְלַכֹּהֵן, הַמַּפֶּלֶת שְׁפִיר מָלֵא דָם, מָלֵא מַיִם, מָלֵא גְנִינִים, הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, הַמַּפֶּלֶת יוֹם אַרְבָּעִים, הַבָּא אַחֲרֵיהֶן, בְּכוֹר לַנַּחֲלָה וְלַכֹּהֵן: \n", | 8.1. "There is one who is [counted as] a firstborn [with respect to] inheritance but not with respect to redemption from a priest; a firstborn with respect to redemption from a priest but not a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance; a firstborn [with respect to both] inheritance and redemption from a priest; and a firstborn [in respect] to neither inheritance nor redemption from a priest. Which is a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance but not to redemption from a priest? One which follows one which was not viable whose head came forth alive, or one born in the ninth month whose head came out dead, or when a woman aborts something that looks like an animal, beast or bird, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: [it is not considered an opening of the womb] until [the abortion] has the form of a human being. If [a woman] aborts a sandal or a placenta or a fetus having an articulated shape, or if an embryo came out by pieces, [the infant] which follows after them is a first-born [with respect] to inheritance but not a first-born for redemption from a priest. If one who never had children married a woman who had already given birth, even if she had given birth when she was a slave but is now free, or [had given birth] when she was a non-Jew but has since converted, if after coming to the Israelite she gave birth, [the infant] is considered a first-born [with respect] to inheritance but not a first-born for redemption from a priest. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: [the infant] is a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance and for redemption from a priest, as it says: “Whatever opens the womb in Israel” (Exodus 13:2), meaning only if it opens the womb in Israel. If one had children already and married a woman who had never given birth previously Or if she converted when pregt, or if she was freed when pregt, and she gave birth; If she and a priestess gave birth, she and a Levite’s daughter, she and a woman who had already given birth; And similarly [if a woman] who did not wait three months after her husband's death, married and gave birth and it is not known if the infant was born in the ninth month since the death of the first [husband] or in the seventh month since she married the second, it is a firstborn for redemption from a priest but not a first-born [with respect] to inheritance. Which is a firstborn both [in respect] of inheritance and for redemption from a priest? If [a woman] miscarries a sac full of blood or full of water or full of pieces of flesh; or if [a woman] miscarries something with the shape of fish or locusts or reptiles, or creeping things, or if she discharges on the fortieth day [of conception], [the infant] which follows after [these discharges] is a firstborn both [in respect] of inheritance and for redemption from a priest.", |
|
9. Mishnah, Peah, 4.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, banning of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190| 4.6. "עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁקָּצַר אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְגַּיֵּר, פָּטוּר מִן הַלֶּקֶט וּמִן הַשִּׁכְחָה וּמִן הַפֵּאָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְחַיֵּב בְּשִׁכְחָה, שֶׁאֵין הַשִּׁכְחָה אֶלָּא בִשְׁעַת הָעִמּוּר: \n", | 4.6. "A non-Jew who harvested his field and then converted, he is exempt from [leaving] gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and peah. Rabbi Judah makes him liable to leave the forgotten sheaf, since he becomes liable for the forgotten sheaf at the time of their binding.", |
|
10. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 18.5 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, banning of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190| 18.5. עַל כֵּן יַעֲזָב אִישׁ (בראשית ב, כד), תַּנְיָא גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר וְהָיָה נָשׂוּי לַאֲחוֹתוֹ בֵּין מִן הָאָב בֵּין מִן הָאֵם, יוֹצִיא, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים מִן הָאֵם יוֹצִיא מִן הָאָב יְקַיֵּם, שֶׁאֵין אָב לְעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים. אֲתִיבוּן לֵיהּ וְהָא כְתִיב (בראשית כ, יב): וְגַם אָמְנָה אֲחֹתִי בַת אָבִי הִיא וגו', אָמַר לָהֶן בְּשִׁיטָתָן הֵשִׁיבָן. אֲתֵיב לְהוֹן רַבִּי מֵאִיר עַל כֵּן יַעֲזָב אִישׁ אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אִמּוֹ, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּפָשְׁטוּ לֵיהּ עַל כֵּן יַעֲזָב אִישׁ אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אִמּוֹ הַסָּמוּךְ לְאָבִיו הַסָּמוּךְ לְאִמּוֹ. אֲתֵיב רַבִּי אַבָּהוּ וְהָכְתִיב (שמות ו, כ): וַיִּקַּח עַמְרָם אֶת יוֹכֶבֶד דֹּדָתוֹ, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּהוּ מֵעַתָּה אֲפִלּוּ כִּבְנֵי נֹחַ לֹא הָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹהֲגִים קֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה, אֶתְמְהָא. אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי וּפָשְׁטוּ לֵיהּ עַל כֵּן יַעֲזָב אִישׁ וגו', הַסָּמוּךְ לוֹ מֵאָבִיו הַסָּמוּךְ לוֹ מֵאִמּוֹ. רַבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר בְּנֵי נֹחַ עַל הַנְּשׂוּאוֹת חַיָּבִין וְעַל הָאֲרוּסוֹת פְּטוּרִין. רַבִּי יוֹנָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר זוֹנָה שֶׁהִיא עוֹמֶדֶת בַּשּׁוּק וּבָאוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁנַיִם, הָרִאשׁוֹן פָּטוּר וְהַשֵּׁנִי חַיָּב מִשּׁוּם בְּעוּלַת בַּעַל, וְכִי נִתְכַּוֵּן הָרִאשׁוֹן לִקְנוֹתָהּ בִּבְעִילָה, הָדָא אֲמַר בְּעִילָה בִּבְנֵי נֹחַ קוֹנֶה שֶׁלֹא כַּדָּת. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם גֵּרוּשִׁין, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי סִימוֹן וְרַבִּי חָנִין בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם גֵּרוּשִׁין אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם מְגָרְשִׁין זֶה אֶת זֶה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אִשְׁתּוֹ מְגָרַשְׁתּוֹ וְנוֹתֶנֶת לוֹ דּוֹפוֹרוֹן. תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּא עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁגֵּרַשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְנִשַֹּׂאת לְאַחֵר וְהָלְכוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם וְנִתְגַיְּרוּ, אֵינִי קוֹרֵא עָלָיו (דברים כד, ד): לֹא יוּכַל בַּעֲלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר שִׁלְחָהּ וגו', רַבִּי אַחָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא אָמַר בְּכָל סֵפֶר מַלְאָכִי כְּתִיב ה' צְבָאוֹת, וּבְכָאן כְּתִיב אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ב, טז): כִּי שָׂנֵא שַׁלַּח אָמַר ה' אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, כִּבְיָכוֹל לֹא יָחוּל שְׁמוֹ אֶלָּא עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּלְבָד. אָמַר רַבִּי חַגַּי בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעָלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הַגּוֹלָה, נִתְפַּחֲמוּ פְּנֵי הַנָּשִׁים מִן הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְהִנִּיחוּ אוֹתָן וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם וְנָשְׂאוּ נָשִׁים עֲמוֹנִיּוֹת, וְהָיוּ מַקִּיפוֹת אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּבוֹכוֹת, הוּא שֶׁמַּלְאָכִי אוֹמֵר (מלאכי ב, יג): וְזֹאת שֵׁנִית תַּעֲשׂוּ, שְׁנִיָּה לְשִׁטִּים. (מלאכי ב, יג): כַּסּוֹת דִּמְעָה אֶת מִזְבַּח ה' בְּכִי וַאֲנָקָה, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַאן קַבֵּל מֵהֶם, בְּכִי וַאֲנָקָה, מִשֶּׁגָּזַלְתָּ וְחָמַסְתָּ וְנָטַלְתָּ יָפְיָהּ מִמֶּנָּהּ אַתָּה מְשַׁלְּחָהּ, אֶתְמְהָא. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁהֵן מֻזְהָרִין עַל גִּלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ב, כד): וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְלֹא בְּאֵשֶׁת חֲבֵרוֹ, וְלֹא בְּזָכוּר, וְלֹא בִּבְהֵמָה. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל וְרַבִּי אַבָּהוּ וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמְרוּ בֶּן נֹחַ שֶׁבָּא עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹא כְּדַרְכָּהּ חַיָּב מִיתָה. אָמַר רַבִּי אַסֵּי כָּל אִסּוּר שֶׁכָּתוּב בִּבְנֵי נֹחַ לֹא בַּעֲשֵׂה, וְלֹא בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, אֶלָּא בְּמִיתָה, וְהֵיאַךְ עֲבִידָא (בראשית ב, כד): וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד לְמָקוֹם שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם עוֹשִׂים בָּשָׂר אֶחָד. | 18.5. "\"Therefore a man will abandon.\" It was taught: a convert that converted and was married to his sister, whether from the mother or the father - it is acceptable, according to Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: from the mother it is acceptable, from the father, it must be established that he does not worship idols. A refutation arose: does it not say: \"And moreover, she is my sister, the daughter of my father...\" (Genesis 20:12)! He said to them: reply to them by their own reasoning. Rabbi Meir refuted: \"Therefore a man will abandon his father and his mother\" (Genesis 2:24). Rabbi Yocha said: they explained this verse \"therefore a man will abandon his father and his mother\" the one who supports his father, the one who supports his mother. Rabbi Abahu refuted: does it not say: \"And Amram took Yocheved his cousin\" (Exodus 6:20)! Rabbi Shimon the son of Rabbi Abahu said: from here would we learn that at the time of the children of Noah, Israel acted differently, before the giving of the Torah!? Rabbi Levi said: we explain the verse \"therefore a man will abandon...\" the one who is supported by his father, or by his mother. Rabbi Abahu in the name of Rabbi Yocha said: the children of Noah, in matters of marriage are obligated, in matters of engagement are not. Rabbi Yonah in the name of Rabbi Shmuel said: if a whore is in the marketplace, and two men come to her, the first is exempt and the second is liable, because he was sleeping with a married woman. Did the first one intend to acquire her [as a wife]?! It is said: intercourse at the time of the children of Noah acquires, even not in the way of [later] Judaism. And how do we know that they did not divorce? Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Simon and Rabbi Chanin in the name of Rabbi Yocha said: they did not divorce, or they both divorced each other. Rabbi Yocha said: his wife divorced him and gave him a bill of divorce. Rabbi Hiyya taught: an idol-worshipper that divorced his wife, and she went and married someone else, and then they both went and converted to Judaism, I do not apply to them the verse \"The first husband that sent her away cannot...\" (Deuteronomy 24:4). Rabbi Aha in the name of Rabbi Hanina bar Pappa said: in the whole book of Malachi it is written 'Hashem, Lord of Hosts' but here it is written 'the God of Israel' as it says: \"For I hate sending away, said Hashem, God of Israel\" (Malachi 2:16) - as if to say, God's name only rests on Israel. Rabbi Haggai said: When Israel was exiled, the women's faces were blackened from the sun, and they were left and the men went and married Amonite women. They went and circled the altar, crying, as Malachi says: \"And this do a second time\" (Malachi 2:13) - a second time in relation to Shittim. \"Cover with tears the altar of Hashem with wailing and sighing\" (ibid.), the Holy One Blessed be He said: who will accept these tears and wailing, since you stole and did violence to and took it's beauty from her, now you will send her away? And how do we know that they were fastidious about sexual impropriety like Israel? As it says: \"And he cleaved to his wife\" (Genesis 2:24) and not the wife of his friend, or another man, or an animal. Rabbi Shmuel and Rabbi Abahu and Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Hanina said: a child of Noah who comes to his wife unnaturally is liable for the death penalty. Rabbi Assi said: every crime written about the children of Noah is not judged on the metric of positive and negative commandments; rather, they all require the death penalty. How do we know this? \"And he cleaved to his wife and they became as one flesh\" (ibid.).", |
|
| 11. Palestinian Talmud, Hallah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, banning of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
12. Mishna, Challah, 3.6 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, banning of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190| 3.6. "גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר וְהָיְתָה לוֹ עִסָּה, נַעֲשֵׂית עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְגַּיֵּר, פָּטוּר, וּמִשֶּׁנִּתְגַיֵּר, חַיָּב. וְאִם סָפֵק, חַיָּב, וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ חֹמֶשׁ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַקְּרִימָה בַתַּנּוּר: \n", | 3.6. "A convert who converted and had dough: if it was made before he became a convert, he is exempt [from hallah]. After he converted, he is liable. And if there is doubt, he is liable, but [a non-priest who has unwittingly eaten of such hallah] is not liable for the additional one-fifth. Rabbi Akiva said: it all depends on the [time of the] formation of the light crust in the oven.", |
|
| 13. Palestinian Talmud, Peah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, banning of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
| 14. Babylonian Talmud, Bekhorot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, banning of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
15. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 | 67a. Rava adds: The b kneading /b of b consecrated /b dough b exempts /b it from the obligation of i ḥalla /i , b as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Ḥalla /i 3:3): If a woman b consecrated her dough before she kneaded /b it b and she /b subsequently b redeemed it, she is obligated /b to separate i ḥalla /i . Likewise, if b she /b consecrated it b after she kneaded /b it b and /b then b she redeemed it, she is obligated /b to separate i ḥalla /i . But if b she consecrated /b the dough b before she kneaded /b it b and /b the Temple b treasurer /b kneaded b it and /b then b she subsequently redeemed it, she is exempt. /b The reason is that b at the time /b that b its obligation /b in i ḥalla /i would have taken effect, i.e., at the time of its kneading, b it was exempt, /b because it was Temple property., b Rava raises a dilemma: /b If dough was b kneaded /b while in the possession of b a gentile, what /b is its status? Is one who acquires it after it has been kneaded obligated to separate i ḥalla /i from it or not? The Gemara answers that this b is taught /b explicitly, b as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Ḥalla /i 3:6): With regard to b a convert who converted and had dough /b in b his /b possession, if it was b prepared before he converted, /b he is b exempt /b from the obligation of i ḥalla /i . If it was prepared b after he converted, /b he is b obligated. /b If he is b uncertain, /b he is b obligated. /b ,The Gemara asks: of the Sages who disagreed with regard to the obligation to tithe grain that is smoothed by a gentile, b who taught this /b mishna with regard to i ḥalla /i ? Perhaps b it /b is a ruling upon which b everyone agrees, and even Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda, who obligate there, /b in the case of tithes, b exempt here /b in the case of i ḥalla /i .,The Gemara explains this possibility. There are three verses written with regard to i teruma /i that contain the term “your grain.” They are: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain” (Deuteronomy 12:17); “And you shall eat before the Lord your God…the tithe of your grain” (Deuteronomy 12:17); and “The first fruits of your grain…you shall give him” (Deuteronomy 18:4). It can therefore be claimed that only b there /b Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda hold that one is obligated to separate tithes from grain that was owned by a gentile, b as /b in addition to the first reference to “your grain,” which excludes grain that was smoothed while in the Temple’s possession, b it is written an additional “your grain,” /b and then another reference to b “your grain.” /b ,The Gemara elaborates: This b is /b an example of b a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression. And /b there is a hermeneutical principle that b a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression comes only to include /b additional cases. In this case, the verses teach that b even /b grain that belonged to b gentiles /b is obligated in the separation of tithes., b But here, /b with regard to the obligation to separate i ḥalla /i , the term b “your dough” is written /b only b twice: /b “of the first of your dough you shall set apart a cake for a gift; as that which is set apart of the threshing floor, so shall you set it apart. of the first of your dough you shall give to the Lord a portion for a gift throughout your generations” (Numbers 15:20–21). b One /b reference to b “your dough” /b teaches that one is obligated to separate i ḥalla /i only from an amount b equal to your dough /b in the wilderness, where the mitzva was commanded, i.e., the volume of one i omer /i . b And one /b reference to b “your dough” /b teaches that only the dough of an ordinary Jew is obligated b but not the dough of gentiles nor the dough of consecrated /b property.,The Gemara continues: b Or perhaps /b it is b Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon /b who b taught /b that mishna, b as they /b maintain that grain that was smoothed by a gentile owner is exempt from the obligation to separate tithes, and likewise dough kneaded by a gentile owner is likewise b exempt /b from the obligation to separate i ḥalla /i . b But Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda derive /b by way of verbal analogy the i halakha /i with regard to i ḥalla /i , concerning which it is written: “of b the first /b of your dough,” b from /b the same expression that appears b there, /b with regard to tithes: b “The first /b fruits of your grain.” Just as in the case of tithes they hold that one is obligated to separate the tithes from a pile of grain that was smoothed by a gentile owner, so too they hold that one is obligated to separate i ḥalla /i from dough that was kneaded by a gentile owner., b Rava said: May it be /b God’s b will that I see /b the answer to my question b in a dream. Rava then said: The one who says /b that the b smoothing of /b a grain pile by its b gentile /b owner b exempts /b a future Jewish owner from the obligation to separate tithes also maintains that the b kneading of /b dough by its b gentile /b owner b exempts /b a future Jewish owner from any obligation to separate i ḥalla /i . So too b the one who says /b that the b smoothing of /b a grain pile by a b gentile /b owner b does not exempt /b a future Jewish owner from the obligation to separate tithes also maintains that the b kneading /b of dough by a b gentile /b owner b does not exempt /b a future Jewish owner from the obligation to separate i ḥalla /i ., b Rav Pappa raised an objection to Rava /b from a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Terumot /i 4:13): With regard to b a gentile who separated /b a lamb in order to redeem b a firstborn donkey, or /b if he separated b i ḥalla /i /b from dough that he kneaded, b one informs him that he is exempt /b from these obligations b and his i ḥalla /i /b may be b eaten by non-priests and /b the lamb designated to redeem his b firstborn donkey /b may be b sheared and worked. /b ,One can infer: b But /b if a gentile separated i teruma /i , the portion of the produce designated for the priest, from a grain pile that he smoothed, b his i teruma /i /b is b prohibited /b to a non-priest. b And this /b is an example of b a i tanna /i who says: /b The b smoothing /b of a grain pile b by a gentile /b owner b does not exempt it /b from tithes, as the same i halakhot /i apply to tithes as to i teruma /i , b and /b yet he maintains that the b kneading /b of dough by b a gentile /b owner b exempts /b it from the obligation to separate i ḥalla /i . This refutes Rava’s conclusion that one who holds that there is an exemption in the case of tithes likewise holds that an exemption applies to i ḥalla /i ., b And Ravina further raised an objection to Rava /b from a i baraita /i : With regard to b i ḥalla /i of a gentile /b that he separated after kneading his dough b in Eretz /b Yisrael, b or his i teruma /i /b that he separated after smoothing his pile of grain b outside Eretz /b Yisrael, in both cases b one informs him that he is exempt /b from those obligations and b his i ḥalla /i /b may be b eaten by non-priests and his i teruma /i does not render a mixture /b prohibited if it becomes mixed with non-sacred produce. One can infer: b But his i teruma /i /b from his grain b in Eretz /b Yisrael is b prohibited /b to non-priests b and renders a mixture /b prohibited if it becomes mixed with non-sacred produce.,The Gemara explains the objection: b And /b again b this /b is an example of b a i tanna /i who says: /b The b smoothing /b of a grain pile b by a gentile /b owner b does not exempt it /b from tithes, and nevertheless he maintains that the b kneading /b of dough b by a gentile /b owner b exempts /b it from the obligation to separate i ḥalla /i .,The Gemara answers: This ruling that the smoothing of a grain pile by its gentile owner does not exempt it from the obligations of i teruma /i and tithes applies only b by rabbinic law. /b By Torah law, the smoothing of a grain pile by its gentile owner does exempt it from the obligation to separate i teruma /i and tithes. The Sages enacted b a decree due to /b the schemes of b people of means. /b There was a fear that conniving merchants might temporarily transfer ownership of their produce to gentiles while the piles were smoothed, after which the gentiles would return them to their possession, thereby circumventing the obligation to separate i teruma /i and tithes. |
|
| 16. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, banning of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
| 17. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
| 18. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, banning of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
| 19. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, banning of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 189 |
| 20. Anon., Qedoshim, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
| 21. Babylonian Talmud, Karetot, 91 Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, banning of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
| 23. Anon., Gerim, 1.1-1.3, 1.7, 2.4-2.5, 3.5-3.7 Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, banning of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 189, 190 |
