1. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 15.14 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 261| 15.14. "וְכִי־יָגוּר אִתְּכֶם גֵּר אוֹ אֲשֶׁר־בְּתוֹכְכֶם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם וְעָשָׂה אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ־נִיחֹחַ לַיהוָה כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשׂוּ כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה׃", | 15.14. "And if a stranger sojourn with you, or whosoever may be among you, throughout your generations, and will offer an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD; as ye do, so he shall do.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 19.33 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 261| 19.33. "וְכִי־יָגוּר אִתְּךָ גֵּר בְּאַרְצְכֶם לֹא תוֹנוּ אֹתוֹ׃", | 19.33. "And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong.", |
|
3. Tosefta, Avodah Zarah, 8.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) 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.", | |
|
4. Tosefta, Demai, 2.13-2.14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, conversion without Found in books: Lavee (2017) 52| 2.13. "לא יאמר אדם חבר לעם הארץ הולך ככר זו ותן לפלוני חבר שאין משלחין טהרות ביד עם הארץ חבר שאמר לו עם הארץ הולך ככר זו והולך לפלוני ע\"ה לא יתן לו שאין מוסרין טהרות לעם הארץ.", 2.14. "עם הארץ שאמר לחבר תן לי ככר זה ואוכלנו יין זה ואשתנו לא יתן לו שאין מאכילין טהרות לעם הארץ היה נדור מן הככר ואמר לו תן לי ואוכלנו אבטיח שניקר ואמר [לו] תן לי ואוכלנו יין ונתגלה ואמר לו תן לי ואשתנו לא יתן שאין מאכילין את האדם דבר האסור לו כיוצא בו לא יושיט ישראל אבר מן החי לבני נח ולא כוס יין לנזיר שאין מאכילין את האדם דבר האסור לו ועל כולן אין מברכין עליהן ואין מזמנין עליהן ואין עונין אחריהן אמן.", | |
|
5. Tosefta, Kiddushin, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 257, 258| 4.8. "האומר לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי לאחר שאתגייר [לאחר] שתתגיירי לאחר שאשתחרר לאחר שתשתחררי לאחר שימות בעליך לאחר שתמות אחותך או לאחר שיחלוץ ליך יבמיך בכולם אע\"פ שנתקיים התנאי אינה מקודשת.", | 4.8. "A man who says to a women, \"Behold you are betrothed to me after I convert\"; [or] \"... after you convert\"; \"after I am freed\"; \"after you are freed\"; \"after your husband dies\"; \"after your levir will release you via halitzah\"—with all of these, even though the stipulation was fulfilled—she is not betrothed.", |
|
6. Tosefta, Qiddushin, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 257, 258| 4.8. "האומר לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי לאחר שאתגייר [לאחר] שתתגיירי לאחר שאשתחרר לאחר שתשתחררי לאחר שימות בעליך לאחר שתמות אחותך או לאחר שיחלוץ ליך יבמיך בכולם אע\"פ שנתקיים התנאי אינה מקודשת.", | 4.8. "A man who says to a women, \"Behold you are betrothed to me after I convert\"; [or] \"... after you convert\"; \"after I am freed\"; \"after you are freed\"; \"after your husband dies\"; \"after your levir will release you via halitzah\"—with all of these, even though the stipulation was fulfilled—she is not betrothed.", |
|
7. Tosefta, Yevamot, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 52, 190| 8.1. "בן תשע שנים ויום אחד עמוני ומואבי מצרי ואדומי ועובד כוכבים נתין וממזר שבא על בת כהן ועל בת לוי ועל בת ישראל פסלה מן הכהונה ר' יוסי אומר כל שזרעו כשר היא כשרה וכל שזרעו פסול היא פסולה רשב\"ג אומר כל שאתה מותר לישא בתו אתה מותר לישא אלמנתו וכל שאי אתה מותר לישא בתו אי אתה מותר לישא אלמנתו לויה שנשבית בתה כשרה לכהונה לוים המזוהמין באמן לא חששו להם חכמים לויה שנשבית ושנבעלה בעילת זנות נותנין לה את המעשר בת לוי מן הנתינה ומן הממזרת אין נותנין לה את המעשר כהן הדיוט שנשא [את] איילונית הרי זה מאכילה בתרומה כהן גדול לא ישא אנוסתו ומפותתו אבל נושא הוא את הממאנת כה\"ג שמת אחיו חולץ אם יש שם אחין אין חולץ [מפני] מה אמרו כהן גדול שעשה מאמר ביבמתו לא יכנוס שאין מאמר קונה קנין גמור.", 11.2. "סריס חמה ואנדרוגינוס ואח מאם וגר ועבד משוחרר לא חולצין ולא מיבמין כיצד מתו והניחו נשים ולהם אחים באו אחים ועשו מאמר נתנו גט וחלצו לא עשו כלום בעלו פסלו מן הכהונה וחייבין בקרבן מתו אחים והניחו נשים ולהם אחים באו הם ועשו מאמר נתנו גט או חלצו לא עשו כלום ואם בעלו פסלו מן הכהונה וחייבין בקרבן.", | |
|
| 8. Tosefta, Shekalim, 3.22 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190, 257 |
9. Mishnah, Peah, 4.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) 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. Mishnah, Hulin, 10.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) 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.", |
|
11. Mishnah, Bekhorot, 8.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) 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.", |
|
12. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 18.5 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) 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.).", |
|
| 13. Palestinian Talmud, Hallah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
14. Mishna, Challah, 3.6 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) 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.", |
|
| 15. Palestinian Talmud, Peah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
| 16. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 258 |
| 17. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
18. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 257, 258| 46a. עובד כוכבים גופא לא קני ליה מאי דקני ליה הוא דמקני ליה לישראל וכיון דקדם וטבל לשם בן חורין אפקעיה לשעבודיה,כדרבא דאמר רבא הקדש חמץ ושחרור מפקיעין מידי שעבוד,מתיב רב חסדא מעשה בבלוריא הגיורת שקדמו עבדיה וטבלו לפניה ובא מעשה לפני חכמים ואמרו קנו עצמן בני חורין לפניה אין לאחריה לא,אמר רבא לפניה בין בסתם בין במפורש לאחריה במפורש אין בסתם לא,אמר רב אויא לא שנו אלא בלוקח מן העובד כוכבים אבל עובד כוכבים גופיה קני,דכתיב (ויקרא כה, מה) וגם מבני התושבים הגרים עמכם מהם תקנו אתם קונים מהם ולא הם קונים מכם ולא הם קונים זה מזה,ולא הם קונים מכם למאי אילימא למעשה ידיו אטו עובד כוכבים לא קני ליה לישראל למעשה ידיו והכתיב (ויקרא כה, מז) או לעקר משפחת גר ואמר מר משפחת גר זה העובד כוכבים אלא לאו לגופיה וקאמר רחמנא אתם קונין מהם אפילו גופיה,פריך רב אחא אימא בכספא ובטבילה קשיא,אמר שמואל וצריך לתקפו במים,כי האי דמנימין עבדיה דרב אשי בעא לאטבולי מסריה ניהלייהו לרבינא ולרב אחא ברי' דרבא אמר להו חזו דמינייכו קבעית ליה רמו ליה ארויסא בצואריה ארפו ליה וצמצמו ליה,ארפו ליה כי היכי דלא להוי חציצה צמצמו ליה כי היכי דלא לקדים ולימא להו לשם בן חורין אני טובל בהדי דדלי רישיה ממיא אנחו ליה זולטא דטינא ארישיה ואמרו ליה זיל אמטי לבי מרך,א"ל רב פפא לרבא חזי מר הני דבי פפא בר אבא דיהבי זוזי לאינשי לכרגייהו ומשעבדי בהו כי נפקי צריכי גיטא דחירותא או לא,א"ל איכו שכיבי לא אמרי לכו הא מילתא הכי א"ר ששת מוהרקייהו דהני בטפסא דמלכא מנח ומלכא אמר מאן דלא יהיב כרגא משתעבד למאן דיהיב כרגא,ר' חייא בר אבא איקלע לגבלא חזא בנות ישראל דמעברן מגרים שמלו ולא טבלו וחזא חמרא דישראל דמזגי עובדי כוכבים ושתו ישראל וחזא תורמוסין דשלקי עובדי כוכבים ואכלי ישראל ולא אמר להו ולא מידי,אתא לקמיה דר' יוחנן א"ל צא והכרז על בניהם שהם ממזרים ועל יינם משום יין נסך ועל תורמוסן משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים לפי שאינן בני תורה,על בניהן שהם ממזרים ר' יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר ר' חייא בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן לעולם אין גר עד שימול ויטבול וכיון דלא טביל עובד כוכבים הוא ואמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד ממזר,ועל יינם משום יין נסך משום לך לך אמרין נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב,ועל תורמוסן משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים לפי שאינן בני תורה הא בני תורה שרי והאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק משמי' דרב כל הנאכל כמות שהוא חי אין בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים והא תורמוס אינו נאכל כמות שהוא חי ויש בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים,ר' יוחנן כאידך לישנא סבירא ליה דאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק משמי' דרב כל שאין עולה על שולחן מלכים לאכול בו את הפת אין בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים וטעמא דאינן בני תורה הא בני תורה שרי,ת"ר גר שמל ולא טבל ר"א אומר הרי זה גר שכן מצינו באבותינו שמלו ולא טבלו טבל ולא מל ר' יהושע אומר הרי זה גר שכן מצינו באמהות שטבלו ולא מלו וחכמים אומרים טבל ולא מל מל ולא טבל אין גר עד שימול ויטבול,ורבי יהושע נמי נילף מאבות ור"א נמי נילף מאמהות וכי תימא אין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר,והתניא ר"א אומר מנין לפסח דורות שאין בא אלא מן החולין נאמר פסח במצרים ונאמר פסח בדורות מה פסח האמור במצרים אין בא אלא מן החולין אף פסח האמור לדורות אין בא אלא מן החולין,א"ל ר' עקיבא וכי דנין אפשר משאי אפשר א"ל אע"פ שאי אפשר ראיה גדולה היא ונלמד הימנה,אלא | 46a. His previous b gentile /b owner b did not have ownership of the /b slave’s b body, /b since a gentile is unable to have ownership of another’s body; rather, he had rights to only the slave’s labor. And only b that which he owned in him was he /b able to b sell to /b the b Jew. /b Therefore, before immersion, the Jew had rights to only the slave’s labor, but not ownership of his body, b and /b therefore, b once /b the slave b preempted /b his owner b and immersed for the sake of /b conversion to make him b a freeman, he abrogates /b his master’s b lien /b upon him.,The Gemara notes: This explanation is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rava, as Rava said: Consecration /b of an item to the Temple, the prohibition of b leavened bread /b taking effect upon a leavened food, b and /b the b emancipation /b of a slave b abrogate /b any b lien /b that exists upon them., b Rav Ḥisda raised an objection /b from a i baraita /i : There was b an incident involving Beloreya the female convert in which her slaves preempted /b her b and immersed before her /b own immersion for her own conversion. b And /b the details of the b incident came before the Sages, and they said: /b The slaves b acquired themselves /b and became b freemen. /b Rav Ḥisda explains how the i baraita /i poses a challenge: The i baraita /i implies that only because the slaves immersed b before her, /b while she was still a gentile, that b yes, /b they became freemen; however, had they immersed b after her, /b i.e., after she had already converted, then b no, /b they would not have become freemen. The reason for this is presumably that upon her conversion she attains the rights to her slaves’ bodies, and therefore their immersion for the sake of becoming freemen would be ineffective. However, this contradicts the Gemara’s explanation above that when a Jew gains ownership of a slave from a gentile, he has a right to only the slave’s labor.,To resolve the challenge b Rava said: /b When the i baraita /i says that because they immersed b before her /b they acquired themselves, that is b whether /b they immersed b without a specified /b intention b or whether /b they immersed b with explicit /b intention to convert and become freemen. However, had they immersed b after her, /b if they did so b with explicit /b intention to convert, then b yes, /b the immersion would achieve that end, but if they did so b without a specified /b intention, then b no, /b their immersion would, by default, be considered for the sake of slavery and they would not become free., b Rav Avya said: They taught /b that one acquires only the rights to the slave’s labor b only with regard to /b a Jew b who purchased /b a slave b from a gentile /b slave owner, b but /b if b a gentile /b sold b his /b own b body /b as a slave directly to a Jew, then the Jew b acquires /b his body., b As it is written: “Moreover, of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them you may acquire” /b (Leviticus 25:45). The verse states only that b you, /b i.e., Jews, b can acquire /b a slave b from them, /b i.e., a gentile slave, b but they cannot acquire /b a slave b from you, /b i.e., a Jewish slave, b and they cannot acquire /b a slave b from one another. /b ,When it is derived that: b But they cannot acquire /b slaves b from you, to what /b type of acquisition is it referring? b If we say /b it is b for his labor, is that to say /b that b a gentile cannot acquire a Jew for his labor? Isn’t it written: /b “And if a stranger who is a settler with you becomes rich, and your brother becomes poor beside him, and he sells himself to the stranger who is a settler with you, b or to the offshoot of a stranger’s family” /b (Leviticus 25:47), b and the Master said /b in explanation of the phrase b “a stranger’s family” /b that b this /b is referring to b a gentile. /b If so, the verse explicitly states that a Jew can sell himself as a slave to a gentile. b Rather, is it not /b that the reference is b to /b selling b his body, and the Merciful One states /b that b you, /b i.e., Jews, b can acquire /b a slave b from them, /b which means b even his body. /b Accordingly the verse indicates that a Jew can acquire a gentile slave’s body, but a gentile is unable to acquire ownership of another’s body, even that of another gentile., b Rav Aḥa refutes /b Rav Avya’s explanation: b Say /b that the verse is referring to acquiring a gentile slave by both purchasing him b with money and /b then b by immersing /b him for the purpose of slavery, and only in that case does it teach that a Jew acquires the gentile slave’s body. However, until he has been immersed the acquisition is not fully complete, and therefore if the slave immerses himself with the intention to become free, then his immersion would achieve that end. The Gemara concedes: This is b difficult. /b , b Shmuel said: And /b if one wishes to ensure that one’s slave does not declare the immersion to be for the sake of conversion, then b one needs to hold him tightly in the water /b in a way that demonstrates the owner’s domice over the slave at that time, thereby defining the immersion as one for the sake of slavery.,That is b as /b demonstrated b in this /b incident b involving Minyamin, Rav Ashi’s slave: /b When b he wished to immerse /b him, b he passed him to Ravina and Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, /b to perform the immersion on his behalf, and b he said to them: Be aware that I will claim /b compensation b for him from you /b if you do not prevent my slave from immersing for the sake of conversion. b They placed a bridle [ i arvisa /i ] upon his neck, /b and at the moment of immersion b they loosened it and /b then immediately b tightened it /b again while he was still immersed.,The Gemara explains their actions: b They /b initially b loosened it in order that there should not be any interposition /b between the slave and the water during the immersion, which would invalidate it. b They /b immediately b tightened it /b again b in order that /b the slave b should not preempt /b them b and say to them: I am immersing for the sake of /b becoming b a freeman. When he lifted his head from the water they placed a bucket of clay upon his head and said to him: Go /b and b bring /b this b to the house of your master. /b They did this in order to demonstrate that the immersion had been successful and that he was still a slave., b Rav Pappa said to Rava: /b Has b the Master seen those of the house of Pappa bar Abba who give money /b to the tax-collectors b on behalf of /b poor b people to /b pay b for their poll tax [ i karga /i ], and /b as a result b they would enslave them. /b Anyone who did not pay the tax would be taken as a slave for the king. By paying for such people’s taxes, the members of the house of Pappa bar Abba essentially purchased those people, who had become the king’s slaves, for themselves. Rav Pappa asked: b When /b those slaves b go free, do they require a bill of emancipation, /b because the members of the house of Pappa bar Abba actually attained ownership of the slaves’ bodies, b or not, /b as they were owned only for the sake of their labor?, b He said to him: Were I dead I could not say this matter to you, /b so it is good that you have asked me while I am still alive, as I know that b this /b is what b Rav Sheshet said /b with regard to the matter: b The writ of slavery [ i moharkayehu /i ] of these /b residents of the kingdom b rests in the treasury [ i tafsa /i ] of the king, /b and in fact all the residents of the kingdom are considered to be full slaves of the king, i.e., he owns their bodies, irrespective of whether they pay their taxes. b And /b so when b the king says: One who does not give the poll tax is to be enslaved to the one who /b does b give the poll tax /b on his behalf, the king’s decree is fully effective in making those residents full slaves of those who paid for them. As such, they will require a bill of emancipation when they are freed.,§ The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba /b once b happened /b to come b to Gavla. He saw Jewish women /b there b who had become pregt from converts who were circumcised but had /b still b not immersed /b to complete their conversion process; b and he saw wine of Jews that gentiles were pouring, and Jews were drinking /b it; b and he saw lupines [ i turmusin /i ] that gentiles were cooking, and Jews were eating /b them; b but he did not say anything to them. /b ,Later, b he came before Rabbi Yoḥa /b and told him what he had witnessed. b Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: Go and make /b a public b declaration concerning their children that they are i mamzerim /i , and concerning their wine /b that it is forbidden b because /b it is like b wine poured as an /b idolatrous b libation, and concerning their lupines /b that they are forbidden b because /b they are b food cooked by gentiles. /b One should be stringent and make such a declaration b because they are not /b well-versed b in Torah, /b and if they are left to be lax in this regard they will eventually transgress Torah prohibitions.,The Gemara explains: With regard to the declaration b concerning their children that they are i mamzerim /i , Rabbi Yoḥa /b conforms b to his /b standard line of b reasoning /b in two i halakhot /i : The first is b as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b One b is never /b considered to be b a convert until he has been circumcised and has immersed. And since /b the convert in the case in Gavla b had not immersed, he is /b still considered b a gentile. And /b the second i halakha /i is as b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b With regard to b a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring /b of that union b is a i mamzer /i . /b , b And /b the reason to declare b concerning their wine /b that it is forbidden b because /b it is like b wine poured as an /b idolatrous b libation /b is that although their wine was not actually poured as an idolatrous libation, it was prohibited by rabbinic decree b due to /b the maxim that: b Go, go, we say to a nazirite, go around and go around, /b but b do not come near to the vineyard. /b Although a nazirite is prohibited only from eating produce of the vine, he is warned not even to come into close proximity of a vineyard as a protective measure to ensure that he will not transgress this prohibition. So too, in many cases, the Sages decreed certain items and actions to be prohibited because they understood that if people would partake of them, they would eventually transgress Torah prohibitions., b And /b the final declaration b concerning their lupines /b that they are forbidden b because /b they are b food cooked by gentiles /b is issued b because they are not /b well versed b in Torah. /b The Gemara expresses astonishment: Does this imply that b were they students of the Torah /b their lupines would b be permitted? Didn’t Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak say in the name of Rav: Any /b food item b that is eaten as it is, raw, is not /b subject b to /b the prohibition of b food cooked by gentiles, /b even when cooked by them? b But a lupine is not eaten as it is, raw, and /b therefore b it is subject to /b the prohibition of b food cooked by gentiles. /b ,The Gemara explains that b Rabbi Yoḥa holds /b in this matter b in accordance with /b the opinion of b the other version /b of what b Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said in the name of Rav: Any /b food item that lacks sufficient importance such that it b does not appear on the table of kings /b in order b to eat bread with it is not /b subject b to /b the prohibition of b food cooked by gentiles. /b Lupines lack importance and are therefore permitted even if cooked by gentiles. b And /b consequently, b the /b only b reason /b to make a declaration prohibiting the residents of Gavla from eating them is b because they are not /b well versed b in Torah, /b and if they are left to be lax in this regard they will eventually become lax in actual Torah prohibitions; by inference, to those well versed b in Torah, it is permitted. /b br § During their sojourn in Egypt, the children of Israel had the halakhic status of gentiles. At the revelation at Sinai they entered into a national covet with God in which they attained their status of the Jewish people. This transformation was essentially the mass conversion of the people, and so their preparation for the revelation provides a paradigm of the process required for conversion for all generations. The i tanna’im /i disagree as to which aspects of that original conversion are to be derived for all generations., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b a convert who was circumcised but did not immerse, Rabbi Eliezer says /b that b this is a convert, as so we found with our forefathers /b following the exodus from Egypt b that they were circumcised but were not immersed. /b With regard to one who b immersed but was not circumcised, Rabbi Yehoshua says /b that b this is a convert, as so we found with our foremothers that they immersed but were not circumcised. And the Rabbis say: /b Whether b he immersed but was not circumcised /b or whether b he was circumcised but did not immerse, he is not a convert until he is circumcised and he immerses. /b ,The Gemara questions the opinions in the i baraita /i : b But let Rabbi Yehoshua also derive /b what is required for conversion b from /b our b forefathers; /b why didn’t he do so? b And let Rabbi Eliezer also derive /b the i halakha /i b from /b our b foremothers; /b why didn’t he do so? b And if you would say /b that Rabbi Eliezer did not derive the i halakha /i from our foremothers because he holds b one cannot derive /b the b possible from /b the b impossible, /b i.e., one cannot derive that men do not require circumcision from the i halakha /i that women do not require it, because for women it is a physical impossibility, that claim may be refuted.,It would appear that Rabbi Eliezer does not accept that principle, as b isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer says: From where /b is it derived with regard b to /b the b Paschal lamb /b brought throughout the b generations that it may be brought only from non-sacred /b animals? b A Paschal lamb is stated /b in the Torah b in /b reference to the lamb that the Jewish people brought prior to the exodus from b Egypt, and a Paschal lamb is stated in /b reference to the yearly obligation throughout the b generations. /b The association between them teaches that b just as the Paschal lamb stated in /b reference to b Egypt was only brought from non-sacred /b animals, since prior to the giving of the Torah there was no possibility to consecrate property, b so too, /b with regard to b the Paschal lamb stated /b in reference b to /b the obligation throughout the b generations, it may be brought only from non-sacred /b animals., b Rabbi Akiva said to him: But can one derive /b the b possible, /b i.e., the i halakha /i for the Paschal lamb throughout the generations, where a possibility exists to bring it from consecrated animals, b from /b the b impossible, /b i.e., from the Paschal lamb in Egypt, where it was not a possibility? Rabbi Eliezer b said to him: Although it was impossible /b to bring the Paschal lamb in Egypt from consecrated animals, nevertheless, b it is /b still b a great proof, and we may learn from it. /b It is apparent, then, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one can derive the possible from the impossible. Therefore the original question stands: Why didn’t Rabbi Eliezer derive from the foremothers that circumcision is not essential for conversion?,The Gemara concedes: b Rather, /b the i baraita /i must be reinterpreted as follows: |
|
| 19. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
| 20. Babylonian Talmud, Bekhorot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
21. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) 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. |
|
22. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, conversion without Found in books: Lavee (2017) 52| 64b. תניא נמי הכי בד"א שירשו אבל נשתתפו אסור,הדור יתבו וקמיבעיא להו גר תושב מהו שיבטל עבודת כוכבים דפלח מבטיל דלא פלח לא מבטיל או דלמא כל דבר מיני' מבטיל והאי בר מיניה הוא,אמר להו רב נחמן מסתברא דפלח מבטיל דלא פלח לא מבטיל,מיתיבי ישראל שמצא עבודת כוכבים בשוק עד שלא באתה לידו אומר לעובד כוכבים ומבטלה משבאתה לידו אינו אומר לעובד כוכבים ומבטלה מפני שאמרו עובד כוכבים מבטל עבודת כוכבים שלו ושל חבירו בין עובדה ובין שאין עובדה,מאי עובדה ומאי שאינו עובדה אילימא אידי ואידי עובד כוכבים היינו שלו ושל חבירו אלא לאו עובדה עובד כוכבים ומאי שאינו עובדה גר תושב וש"מ גר תושב נמי מבטל,לא לעולם אימא לך אידי ואידי עובד כוכבים ודקאמרת היינו שלו ושל חבירו רישא זה וזה לפעור וזה וזה למרקוליס סיפא זה לפעור וזה למרקוליס,מיתיבי איזהו גר תושב כל שקיבל עליו בפני ג' חברים שלא לעבוד עבודת כוכבים דברי ר"מ,וחכ"א כל שקיבל עליו שבע מצות שקבלו עליהם בני נח,אחרים אומרים אלו לא באו לכלל גר תושב אלא איזהו גר תושב זה גר אוכל נבילות שקבל עליו לקיים כל מצות האמורות בתורה חוץ מאיסור נבילות,מייחדין אצלו יין ואין מפקידין אצלו יין ואפי' בעיר שרובה ישראל אבל מייחדין אצלו יין ואפי' בעיר שרובה עובדי כוכבים שמנו כיינו,שמנו כיינו ס"ד שמן מי קא הוי יין נסך אלא יינו כשמנו,ולשאר כל דבר הרי הוא כעובד כוכבים רבן שמעון אומר יינו יין נסך ואמרי לה מותר בשתיה,קתני מיהא ולשאר כל דבריו הרי הוא כעובד כוכבים למאי הלכתא לאו דמבטל עבודת כוכבים כעובד כוכבים אר"נ בר יצחק לא ליתן רשות ולבטל רשות,וכדתניא ישראל מומר משמר שבתו בשוק מבטל רשות שאין משמר שבתו בשוק אין מבטל רשות מפני שאמרו ישראל נותן רשות ומבטל רשות,ובעובד כוכבים עד שישכור כיצד אומר לו רשותי קנויה לך רשותי מבוטלת לך קנה ואין צריך לזכות,רב יהודה שדר ליה קורבנא | 64b. b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b In what /b case b is this statement, /b that a convert and a gentile are permitted to divide up common property that includes objects of idol worship, b said? /b This is said with regard to property b that they inherited; but /b if b they were partners, /b it is b prohibited. /b ,§ The Gemara mentions another discussion among Rav Naḥman, Ulla, Avimi bar Pappi, and Rav Ḥiyya bar Ami. b They were sitting again and a dilemma was raised before them: /b With regard to b a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ i ger toshav /i ], /b including the prohibition against engaging in idol worship, b what is /b the i halakha /i with regard to the possibility b that he can revoke /b the status of objects of b idol worship? /b Is it the case that one b who worships /b idols b can revoke /b the status of one, but one b who does not worship /b them b cannot revoke /b the status of one? b Or perhaps /b should it be reasoned that b anyone who is of the same kind /b as idol worshippers, i.e., a gentile, b can revoke /b its status, b and /b a i ger toshav /i b is of the same kind /b as idol worshippers?, b Rav Naḥman said to them: It stands to reason /b that one b who worships /b idols b can revoke /b the status of one, but one b who does not worship /b them b cannot revoke /b the status of one.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b to this ruling from a i baraita /i : In the case of b a Jew who found /b an object of b idol worship in the marketplace, as long as it has not /b yet b come into his possession, he can tell a gentile, and /b the gentile b can revoke /b its idolatrous status. b Once it has come into his possession, he cannot tell a gentile and /b have the gentile b revoke /b its status. This applies to any gentile, b because /b the Sages b said: A gentile can revoke /b the status of b his own /b object of b idol worship or that of another /b gentile, b whether he worships it or whether he does not worship it. /b , b What /b is meant by the phrase: b Worships it, and what /b is meant by the phrase: b Does not worship it? If we say /b both b this and that /b are referring to b a gentile, this is /b the same as the previous statement in the i baraita /i , that a gentile can revoke the status of b his own /b object of idol worship b or that of another /b gentile, i.e., an object that he worships or one that another gentile worships. b Rather, isn’t it /b to be understood that the phrase: b Worships it, /b is referring to b a gentile? And what /b is the meaning of the phrase: b Does not worship it? /b It is referring to b a i ger toshav /i , /b who does not worship any idols. b And learn from it /b that b a i ger toshav /i can also revoke /b the status of objects of idol worship.,The Gemara rejects this explanation. b No, actually, I will say to you /b that b this /b phrase b and that /b phrase are both referring to b a gentile, and /b with regard to that b which you say, /b that b this is /b the same as the statement concerning b his /b object of idol worship b or that of another /b gentile, it can be explained as follows: b The first clause /b is referring to a case where both gentiles worship the same idol, e.g., b this /b one b and that /b one both worship b Peor, or this /b one b and that /b one both worship b Mercury, /b and the i baraita /i is teaching that one can revoke the status of an idol that belongs to the other. b The latter clause, /b which distinguishes between one who worships it and one who does not worship it, is referring to a case where b this /b one worships b Peor and that /b one worships b Mercury, /b indicating that an idolater can revoke the status of an idol that he does not worship at all, but only if he is himself an idolater, as opposed to a i ger toshav /i .,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : b Who is a i ger toshav /i ? /b It is b anyone who has accepted upon himself before three i ḥaverim /i , /b i.e., people devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially i halakhot /i of ritual purity, i teruma /i , and tithes, b not to worship idols. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. /b , b And the Rabbis say: Anyone who has accepted upon himself /b observance of the b seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves /b is a i ger toshav /i ., b Others say: These have not entered the category of i ger toshav /i . Rather, who is a i ger toshav /i ? This is a convert /b who b eats /b unslaughtered b animal carcasses, /b which are not kosher, but b who has accepted upon himself to observe all of the mitzvot that are stated in the Torah except for the prohibition /b against eating unslaughtered b carcasses. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: Whatever the definition of a i ger toshav /i , the following i halakhot /i apply to him: b One may leave him alone with wine /b briefly without Jewish supervision with no concern that he might use it for a libation, thereby rendering it forbidden to Jews, as he is not an idol worshipper. b But one may not deposit wine with him /b for an extended period of time, lest he exchange it with the wine of a gentile, which is forbidden. b And /b this applies b even in a town that has a Jewish majority. But one may leave him alone with wine /b briefly without Jewish supervision b even in a town with a majority of gentiles. His oil is /b treated b like his wine /b in terms of its permissibility.,The Gemara interjects: b His oil is like his wine? /b Can this b enter your mind? Does /b the b oil /b of a gentile b become, /b i.e., assume the status of, b wine /b used for b a libation? Rather, /b the i baraita /i should be emended as follows: b His wine is like his oil. /b It is permitted to derive benefit from it, but not to consume it.,The i baraita /i continues: b And with regard to all other matters, /b a i ger toshav /i b is /b treated b like a gentile. Rabban Shimon says: His wine is /b treated like b wine /b used for b a libation. And some say /b he says: Even b drinking /b it is b permitted. /b ,The Gemara comments on the i baraita /i : b In any event, /b the i baraita /i b teaches: And with regard to all other matters, /b a i ger toshav /i b is /b treated b like a gentile. With regard to what i halakha /i /b is this stated? Is it b not /b teaching b that he can revoke /b the status of an object of b idol worship as a gentile /b can? b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: No, /b it is stated with regard to b giving /b away rights in b a domain or renouncing /b rights in b a domain /b in the context of the i halakhot /i of joining houses in courtyards for Shabbat., b And /b this is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b An apostate Jew /b who nevertheless b observes his Shabbat in the marketplace, /b i.e., in public, b can renounce /b his rights in a shared b domain /b so the other Jews in the domain may carry in it on Shabbat, but an apostate b who does not observe his Shabbat /b even b in the marketplace cannot renounce /b his rights in b a domain, because /b the Sages b said /b that only b a Jew can give /b away rights in his b domain or renounce /b his rights in his b domain, /b and this applies in the context of joining houses in courtyards on Shabbat., b But with regard to a gentile, /b this is not effective b unless /b the Jew b leases /b his domain in the courtyard. b How so? /b A Jew b may say to /b another Jew: b My /b rights in this b domain /b are hereby b acquired by you, /b or: b My /b rights in this b domain /b are hereby b renounced to you, /b and the other Jew thereby b acquires /b those rights, b and it is not necessary /b for him b to take possession /b of it through a formal act of acquisition.,The Gemara relates: b Rav Yehuda sent a gift /b |
|
| 23. Anon., Qedoshim, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
| 24. Babylonian Talmud, Karetot, 91 Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
| 26. Anon., Gerim, 1.1-1.2, 1.7, 2.4-2.5, 3.5-3.7, 4.5 Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 61, 190, 259, 261 |
