1. 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) •circumcision, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) •circumcision, with immersion •immersion, baraita (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.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 15.14, 15.16, 31.19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) •circumcision, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) •circumcision, with immersion •immersion, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 66, 250, 261, 278| 15.14. "וְכִי־יָגוּר אִתְּכֶם גֵּר אוֹ אֲשֶׁר־בְּתוֹכְכֶם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם וְעָשָׂה אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ־נִיחֹחַ לַיהוָה כַּאֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשׂוּ כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה׃", 15.16. "תּוֹרָה אַחַת וּמִשְׁפָּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם וְלַגֵּר הַגָּר אִתְּכֶם׃", 31.19. "וְאַתֶּם חֲנוּ מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כֹּל הֹרֵג נֶפֶשׁ וְכֹל נֹגֵעַ בֶּחָלָל תִּתְחַטְּאוּ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי אַתֶּם וּשְׁבִיכֶם׃", | 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.", 15.16. "One law and one ordice shall be both for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.", 31.19. "And encamp ye without the camp seven days; whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify yourselves on the third day and on the seventh day, ye and your captives.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 12.48, 24.5-24.8 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, with immersion •circumcision, without immersion Found in books: Lavee (2017) 74, 75, 245, 246, 248, 249, 251| 12.48. "וְכִי־יָגוּר אִתְּךָ גֵּר וְעָשָׂה פֶסַח לַיהוָה הִמּוֹל לוֹ כָל־זָכָר וְאָז יִקְרַב לַעֲשֹׂתוֹ וְהָיָה כְּאֶזְרַח הָאָרֶץ וְכָל־עָרֵל לֹא־יֹאכַל בּוֹ׃", 24.5. "וַיִּשְׁלַח אֶת־נַעֲרֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלֹת וַיִּזְבְּחוּ זְבָחִים שְׁלָמִים לַיהוָה פָּרִים׃", 24.6. "וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה חֲצִי הַדָּם וַיָּשֶׂם בָּאַגָּנֹת וַחֲצִי הַדָּם זָרַק עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ׃", 24.7. "וַיִּקַּח סֵפֶר הַבְּרִית וַיִּקְרָא בְּאָזְנֵי הָעָם וַיֹּאמְרוּ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּר יְהוָה נַעֲשֶׂה וְנִשְׁמָע׃", 24.8. "וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה אֶת־הַדָּם וַיִּזְרֹק עַל־הָעָם וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֵּה דַם־הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר כָּרַת יְהוָה עִמָּכֶם עַל כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה׃", | 12.48. "And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land; but no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.", 24.5. "And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt-offerings, and sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen unto the LORD.", 24.6. "And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he dashed against the altar.", 24.7. "And he took the book of the covet, and read in the hearing of the people; and they said: ‘All that the LORD hath spoken will we do, and obey.’", 24.8. "And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said: ‘Behold the blood of the covet, which the LORD hath made with you in agreement with all these words.’", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 21.17 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, without immersion Found in books: Lavee (2017) 267| 21.17. "כִּי אֶת־הַבְּכֹר בֶּן־הַשְּׂנוּאָה יַכִּיר לָתֶת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יִמָּצֵא לוֹ כִּי־הוּא רֵאשִׁית אֹנוֹ לוֹ מִשְׁפַּט הַבְּכֹרָה׃", | 21.17. "but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath; for he is the first-fruits of his strength, the right of the first-born is his.", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 14.1 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, with immersion Found in books: Lavee (2017) 59| 14.1. "כֻּלָּם יַעֲנוּ וְיֹאמְרוּ אֵלֶיךָ גַּם־אַתָּה חֻלֵּיתָ כָמוֹנוּ אֵלֵינוּ נִמְשָׁלְתָּ׃", 14.1. "כִּי יְרַחֵם יְהוָה אֶת־יַעֲקֹב וּבָחַר עוֹד בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִנִּיחָם עַל־אַדְמָתָם וְנִלְוָה הַגֵּר עֲלֵיהֶם וְנִסְפְּחוּ עַל־בֵּית יַעֲקֹב׃", | 14.1. "For the LORD will have compassion on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land; and the stranger shall join himself with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.", |
|
| 6. Septuagint, Esther, 8.17 (3rd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, with immersion Found in books: Lavee (2017) 60 |
| 7. New Testament, Acts, 15 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, with immersion Found in books: Lavee (2017) 59 |
8. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 4.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, with immersion Found in books: Lavee (2017) 283| 4.1. "אֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כד) מִשְׁפַּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם. מַה בֵּין דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת לְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת פּוֹתְחִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת פּוֹתְחִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין פּוֹתְחִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד לִזְכוּת וְעַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַחֲזִירִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַחֲזִירִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין מַחֲזִירִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְאֵין הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת וְהַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת מְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, אֲבָל הַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת אֵין יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וּלְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּלַּיְלָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּיּוֹם. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם לִזְכוּת וּבְיוֹם שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו לְחוֹבָה, לְפִיכָךְ אֵין דָּנִין לֹא בְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְלֹא בְעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב: \n", | 4.1. "Both non-capital and capital cases require examination and inquiry [of the witnesses], as it says, “You shall have one manner of law” (Lev. 24:22). How do non-capital cases differ from capital cases? Non-capital cases [are decided] by three and capital cases by twenty three. Non-capital cases may begin either with reasons for acquittal or for conviction; capital cases begin with reasons for acquittal and do not begin with reasons for conviction. In non-capital cases they may reach a verdict of either acquittal or conviction by the decision of a majority of one; in capital cases they may reach an acquittal by the majority of one but a verdict of conviction only by the decision of a majority of two. In non-capital cases they may reverse a verdict either [from conviction] to acquittal or [from acquittal] to conviction; in capital cases they may reverse a verdict [from conviction] to acquittal but not [from acquittal] to conviction. In non-capital cases all may argue either in favor of conviction or of acquittal; in capital cases all may argue in favor of acquittal but not all may argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal, or he that had argued in favor of acquittal may afterward argue in favor of conviction; in capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal but he that had argued in favor of acquittal cannot afterward argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict may be reached during the night; in capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict also must be reached during the daytime. In non-capital cases the verdict, whether of acquittal or of conviction, may be reached the same day; in capital cases a verdict of acquittal may be reached on the same day, but a verdict of conviction not until the following day. Therefore trials may not be held on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of a Festival.", |
|
9. Mishnah, Pesahim, 8.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, with immersion Found in books: Lavee (2017) 57, 60, 248, 249, 250, 251| 8.8. "אוֹנֵן טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל אֶת פִּסְחוֹ לָעֶרֶב, אֲבָל לֹא בַקָּדָשִׁים. הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ עַל מֵתוֹ, וְהַמְלַקֵּט לוֹ עֲצָמוֹת, טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל בַּקָּדָשִׁים. גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר בְּעֶרֶב פֶּסַח, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל אֶת פִּסְחוֹ לָעֶרֶב. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הָעָרְלָה כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַקָּבֶר: \n", | 8.8. "An onen immerses [in a mikveh] and eats his pesah in the evening, but not [other] sacred food. One who hears about his dead [for the first time], and one who gathers the bones [of his dead relative] immerses and eats sacred food. A convert who converts on the eve of Pesah: Bet Shammai say: he immerses and eats his pesah in the evening. Bet Hillel say: anyone who separates from the foreskin is like one who separates from the grave.", |
|
10. 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) •circumcision, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) •immersion, baraita (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.", |
|
11. Mishnah, Ketuvot, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, with immersion Found in books: Lavee (2017) 35| 4.3. "הַגִּיּוֹרֶת שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּרָה בִתָּהּ עִמָּהּ, וְזִנְּתָה, הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶנֶק. אֵין לָהּ לֹא פֶתַח בֵּית הָאָב, וְלֹא מֵאָה סָלַע. הָיְתָה הוֹרָתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בִקְדֻשָּׁה וְלֵדָתָהּ בִּקְדֻשָּׁה, הֲרֵי זוֹ בִסְקִילָה. אֵין לָהּ לֹא פֶתַח בֵּית הָאָב וְלֹא מֵאָה סָלַע. הָיְתָה הוֹרָתָהּ וְלֵדָתָהּ בִּקְדֻשָּׁה, הֲרֵי הִיא כְבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכָל דָּבָר. יֶשׁ לָהּ אָב וְאֵין לָהּ פֶּתַח בֵּית הָאָב, יֶשׁ לָהּ פֶּתַח בֵּית הָאָב וְאֵין לָהּ אָב, הֲרֵי זוֹ בִסְקִילָה. לֹא נֶאֱמַר פֶּתַח בֵּית אָבִיהָ, אֶלָּא לְמִצְוָה: \n", | 4.3. "The daughter of a convert who converted together with her mother and then committed an act of fornication is subject to the penalty of strangulation. She is not [stoned] at the door of her father’s house nor [does her husband pay the] hundred sela’. If she was conceived in unholiness but her birth was in holiness she is subject to the penalty of stoning. She is not [stoned] at the door of her father’s house nor [does her husband pay the] hundred sela’. If she was both conceived and born in holiness she is regarded as a daughter of Israel in all respects. A girl who has a father but no door of her father’s house; or a door of her father’s house but no father, is subject to the penalty of stoning [the verse did not state] “the opening of her father’s house” (Deut. 22:21) except as a precept.", |
|
12. 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) •circumcision, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) •immersion, baraita (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.", |
|
13. Mishnah, Eduyot, 5.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, with immersion Found in books: Lavee (2017) 57| 5.2. "רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, שִׁשָּׁה דְבָרִים מִקֻּלֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחֻמְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. הָעוֹף עוֹלֶה עִם הַגְּבִינָה עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל. תּוֹרְמִין זֵיתִים עַל שֶׁמֶן, וַעֲנָבִים עַל יַיִן, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵין תּוֹרְמִין. הַזּוֹרֵעַ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁבַּכֶּרֶם, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, קִדֵּשׁ שׁוּרָה אַחַת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, קִדֵּשׁ שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת. הַמְּעִיסָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹטְרִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְחַיְּבִין. מַטְבִּילִין בְּחַרְדָּלִית, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵין מַטְבִּילִין. גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר עַרְבֵי פְסָחִים, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל אֶת פִּסְחוֹ לָעֶרֶב. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הָעָרְלָה, כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַקָּבֶר: \n", | 5.2. "Rabbi Yose says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel.A fowl may be put on a table [together] with cheese but may not be eaten [with it], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: it may neither be put on [the table together with it] nor eaten [with it]. Olives may be given as terumah for oil and grapes for wine, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: they may not be given. One who sows seed [within] four cubits of a vineyard: Beth Shammai says: he has caused one row [of vines] to be prohibited. But Beth Hillel says: he has caused two rows to be prohibited. Flour paste [flour that had been mixed with boiling water]: Beth Shammai exempts [from the law of hallah]; But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable. One may immerse oneself in a rain-torrent, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: one may not immerse oneself [therein]. One who became a proselyte on the eve of Passover: Beth Shammai says: he may immerse himself and eat his Passover sacrifice in the evening. But Beth Hillel says: one who separates himself from uncircumcision is as one who separates himself from the grave.", |
|
14. 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) •circumcision, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) •immersion, baraita (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.", |
|
15. 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) •circumcision, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) •immersion, baraita (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.", | |
|
16. Tosefta, Bava Batra, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, without immersion Found in books: Lavee (2017) 267| 3.1. "המוכר את הבית מכר את הדלת ואת הנגר ואת המנעול ואת המכתשת החקוקה אבל לא מכר את התנור ולא את הכירים ולא את הרחיים ולא את המכתשת הקבועה ר\"א אומר כל המחובר בקרקע ה\"ז מכור ואם אמר לו הוא ומה שבתוכו אני מוכר לך הרי כולן מכורין ואע\"פ שאומר לו הוא וכל מה שבתוכו אני מוכר לך לא מכר לו את הבאר ולא את השידה ולא את הדותות והיציעים ולא את המערות שבתוכו א\"כ למה כתב עומקא ורומא שאם רצה להגביה מגביה להשפיל משפיל כל שאינו מכור בבית מכור בחצר. המוכר את החצר מכר את הבית המוכר את הבית לא מכר את החצר אלא אוירה של חצר." | |
|
17. Tosefta, Kiddushin, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 30, 62, 237, 239, 241, 245, 257, 258| 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.", 4.8. "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.", 5.11. "היה ר' מאיר אומר יש איש ואשה שמולידין חמש אומות כיצד עובד כוכבים שיש לו עבד ושפחה ולהם שני בנים נתגייר אחד מהם נמצא אחד גר ואחד עובד כוכבים נתגייר רבן וגיירן לעבדים והולידו בן הולד עבד נשתחרר אחד מהן והולידו בן הולד ממזר נשתחררה שפחה ובא עליה אותו עבד והולידו בן הולד משוחרר נשתחררו שניהם והולידו בן הולד עבד משוחרר יש שמוכר את אביו ליתן לאמו כתובה כיצד מי שיש לו עבד ושפחה והולידו בן שיחרר שפחתו ונשאה וכתב כל נכסיו לבנה זה הוא שמוכר אביו ליתן לאמו כתובה.", | 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.", 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.", 5.11. "Rabbi Meir used to say: It is possible for a man and wife to raise 5 nations. How so? A man who (sic! reading Ehrfurt manuscript's מי against Vienna's גוי) has a male and female slave and they have 2 sons. One of [the sons] converts—behold one of them is a convert, one is a Gentile. Their master converts, he converts the slaves and they have a son—he is a mamzer. The female slave is freed and that slave has sex with her and they have a son—the child is a slave. They are both freed and have a son—the child is a freedman. It is possible for a man to sell to his father and pay his mother her ketubah. How so? A man who has a male and female slave and they have a son. He frees his female slave and marries her and writes his property to her son. He sells it to his father and pays his mother her ketubah.", |
|
| 18. Tosefta, Nazir, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, with immersion Found in books: Lavee (2017) 57, 251 |
19. Tosefta, Pesahim, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 57, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251| 8.8. "אלו דברים ששוה בהן פסח מצרים לפסח דורות פסח מצרים בג' כתות ופסח דורות כיוצא בו פסח מצרים נאמר בו (שמות י״ב:ה׳) שה תמים זכר בן שנה פסח דורות כיוצא בו פסח מצרים נאמר בו (שם) ולא תותירו ממנו עד בקר פסח דורות כיוצא בו רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר אומר אני שלא נאסר חמץ במצרים אלא יום אחד שנאמר (שמות י״ג:ג׳-ד׳) לא יאכל חמץ היום פסח מצרים טעון שיר ופסח דורות טעון שיר.", | |
|
20. Tosefta, Qiddushin, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 30, 62, 237, 239, 241, 245, 257, 258| 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.", 4.8. "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.", 5.11. "היה ר' מאיר אומר יש איש ואשה שמולידין חמש אומות כיצד עובד כוכבים שיש לו עבד ושפחה ולהם שני בנים נתגייר אחד מהם נמצא אחד גר ואחד עובד כוכבים נתגייר רבן וגיירן לעבדים והולידו בן הולד עבד נשתחרר אחד מהן והולידו בן הולד ממזר נשתחררה שפחה ובא עליה אותו עבד והולידו בן הולד משוחרר נשתחררו שניהם והולידו בן הולד עבד משוחרר יש שמוכר את אביו ליתן לאמו כתובה כיצד מי שיש לו עבד ושפחה והולידו בן שיחרר שפחתו ונשאה וכתב כל נכסיו לבנה זה הוא שמוכר אביו ליתן לאמו כתובה.", | 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.", 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.", 5.11. "Rabbi Meir used to say: It is possible for a man and wife to raise 5 nations. How so? A man who (sic! reading Ehrfurt manuscript's מי against Vienna's גוי) has a male and female slave and they have 2 sons. One of [the sons] converts—behold one of them is a convert, one is a Gentile. Their master converts, he converts the slaves and they have a son—he is a mamzer. The female slave is freed and that slave has sex with her and they have a son—the child is a slave. They are both freed and have a son—the child is a freedman. It is possible for a man to sell to his father and pay his mother her ketubah. How so? A man who has a male and female slave and they have a son. He frees his female slave and marries her and writes his property to her son. He sells it to his father and pays his mother her ketubah.", |
|
21. Tosefta, Yevamot, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190, 245, 247, 250| 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.", | |
|
| 22. 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) •circumcision, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) •circumcision, with immersion •circumcision, without immersion •immersion, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190, 252, 254, 257 |
| 23. Palestinian Talmud, Hallah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
24. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 18.5, 39.14 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) •circumcision, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) •immersion, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) •circumcision, with immersion Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190, 283| 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. 39.14. וְאֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ בְחָרָן (בראשית יב, ה), אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר זִמְרָא אִם מִתְכַּנְסִין כָּל בָּאֵי הָעוֹלָם לִבְרֹא אֲפִלּוּ יַתּוּשׁ אֶחָד אֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לִזְרֹק בּוֹ נְשָׁמָה, וְאַתְּ אָמַר וְאֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ, אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ הַגֵּרִים שֶׁגִּיְּרוּ, וְאִם כֵּן שֶׁגִּיְּרוּ לָמָּה אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ, אֶלָּא לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁהוּא מְקָרֵב אֶת הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים וּמְגַיְּרוֹ כְּאִלּוּ בְּרָאוֹ. וְיֹאמַר אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אַבְרָהָם הָיָה מְגַיֵּר אֶת הָאֲנָשִׁים וְשָׂרָה מְגַיֶּרֶת אֶת הַנָּשִׁים. | 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.).", 39.14. "“And the souls that they had made in Haran.” Said Rabbi Elazar ben Zimra: Even if every creature on earth conspired to create (out of nothing) even one mosquito, they could not give it a soul--and you say “the souls that they had made.” Therefore (they must be) they must be those who lived with them and converted. And it it meant “converted” why did it say “made?” In order to teach you that each one who brings an idol worshipper and converts him, it is as though he created him. And why did it say “that they made” rather than “that he made?” Said Rav Huna: Abraham would convert the men, and Sarah would convert the women. ", |
|
| 25. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 258 |
26. 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) •circumcision, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) •immersion, baraita (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.", |
|
| 27. 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) •circumcision, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) •immersion, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
| 28. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 108 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, with immersion Found in books: Lavee (2017) 75 |
29. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, with immersion Found in books: Lavee (2017) 62| 11a. אף אנו נאמר איילונית דוכרנית דלא ילדה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big הגיורת והשבויה והשפחה שנפדו ושנתגיירו ושנשתחררו פחותות מבנות שלש שנים ויום אחד כתובתן מאתים ויש להן טענת בתולין:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רב הונא גר קטן מטבילין אותו על דעת בית דין,מאי קמ"ל דזכות הוא לו וזכין לאדם שלא בפניו תנינא זכין לאדם שלא בפניו ואין חבין לאדם שלא בפניו,מהו דתימא עובד כוכבים בהפקירא ניחא ליה דהא קיימא לן דעבד ודאי בהפקירא ניחא ליה,קמ"ל דהני מילי גדול דטעם טעם דאיסורא אבל קטן זכות הוא לו,לימא מסייע ליה הגיורת והשבויה והשפחה שנפדו ושנתגיירו ושנשתחררו פחותות מבנות שלש שנים ויום אחד מאי לאו דאטבלינהו על דעת בית דין,לא הכא במאי עסקינן בגר שנתגיירו בניו ובנותיו עמו דניחא להו במאי דעביד אבוהון,אמר רב יוסף הגדילו יכולין למחות איתיביה אביי הגיורת והשבויה והשפחה שנפדו ושנתגיירו ושנשתחררו פחותות מבנות שלש שנים ויום אחד כתובתן מאתים ואי ס"ד הגדילו יכולין למחות יהבינן לה כתובה דאזלה ואכלה בגיותה,לכי גדלה לכי גדלה נמי ממחייא ונפקא כיון שהגדילה שעה אחת ולא מיחתה שוב אינה יכולה למחות,מתיב רבא אלו נערות שיש להן קנס הבא על הממזרת ועל הנתינה ועל הכותית ועל הגיורת ועל השבויה ועל השפחה שנפדו ושנתגיירו ושנשתחררו פחותות מבנות שלש שנים ויום אחד יש להן קנס ואי אמרת הגדילו יכולין למחות יהבינן לה קנס דאזלה ואכלה בגיותה,לכי גדלה לכי גדלה נמי ממחייא ונפקא כיון שהגדילה שעה אחת ולא מיחתה שוב אינה יכולה למחות,אביי לא אמר כרבא התם קנסא היינו טעמא שלא יהא חוטא נשכר,רבא לא אמר כאביי כתובה היינו טעמא שלא תהא קלה בעיניו להוציאה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big הגדול שבא על הקטנה וקטן שבא על הגדולה ומוכת עץ כתובתן מאתים דברי רבי מאיר וחכ"א מוכת עץ כתובתה מנה,בתולה אלמנה גרושה וחלוצה מן הנישואין כתובתן מנה | 11a. b We too will say: i Ailonit /i , /b a sexually underdeveloped woman, is a term meaning: Like a b ram [ i dukhranit /i ], because /b like a male sheep [ i ayyil /i ] b she does not bear children. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to b a female convert, or a captive woman, or a maidservant, who were ransomed /b with regard to the captive, or b who converted /b with regard to the convert, b or who were freed /b with regard to the maidservant, when they were b less than three years and one day old, their marriage contract is two hundred /b dinars, as their presumptive status is that of a virgin. Even if they were subject to intercourse when they were younger than that age, the hymen remains intact. b And they are /b subject to b a claim /b concerning their b virginity. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Rav Huna said: /b With regard to b a convert /b who is b a minor, one immerses him /b in a ritual bath b with the consent of the court. /b As a minor lacks the capacity to make halakhic decisions, the court is authorized to make those decisions in his stead., b What is /b Rav Huna b coming to teach us? /b Is he teaching b that it is a privilege for /b the minor to convert, b and one may act in a person’s interests /b even b in his absence? We /b already b learned /b that explicitly in a mishna ( i Eiruvin /i 81b): One b may act in a person’s interests in his absence, but one may not act against a person’s interests in his absence. /b ,Rav Huna’s statement was necessary b lest you say: /b With regard to b a gentile, licentiousness is preferable for him, /b so conversion is contrary to his interests, just b as we maintain that /b with regard to b a slave, licentiousness is certainly preferable. /b Just as a slave has no interest in assuming the restrictions that come with freedom, in that a freed Canaanite slave is a convert to Judaism, a gentile would have the same attitude toward conversion.,Therefore, Rav Huna b teaches us: That applies /b only with regard to b an adult, who has experienced a taste of prohibition. /b Therefore, presumably he prefers to remain a slave and indulge in licentiousness. b However, /b with regard to a b minor, /b who did not yet engage in those activities, b it is a privilege for him /b to convert.,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that the mishna b supports /b Rav Huna’s statement: With regard to b a female convert, or a captive woman, or a maidservant, who were ransomed /b with regard to the captive, or b who converted /b with regard to the convert, b or who were freed /b with regard to the maidservant, when they were b less than three years and one day old; what, is it not /b referring to a case where b they immersed /b the minor converts and the maidservants b with the consent of the court? /b Apparently, a conversion of that sort is valid.,The Gemara rejects that proof: b No, with what are we dealing here? /b It is b with a convert whose /b minor b sons and daughters converted with him, as they are content with whatever their father does /b in their regard. However, that does not apply to a child who is converting on his own., b Rav Yosef said: /b In any case where minors convert, when b they reach majority they can protest /b and annul their conversion. b Abaye raised an objection to his /b opinion from the mishna: With regard to b a female convert, or a captive woman, or a maidservant who were ransomed, /b or b who converted, or who were freed /b when they were b less than three years and one day old, their marriage contract is two hundred /b dinars. b And if it enters your mind /b to say that when b they reach majority they can protest /b and annul their conversion, b do we give her /b the payment of the b marriage contract that she /b will b go and consume in her gentile /b state?,The Gemara answers: She receives payment of her marriage contract b once she has reached majority /b and does not protest, but not while still a minor. The Gemara asks: b When she reaches majority too, /b is there not the same concern that b she will protest and abandon /b Judaism? The Gemara answers: b Once she reached majority /b for even b one moment and did not protest, she may no longer protest. /b This mishna poses no difficulty to the opinion of Rav Yosef., b Rava raised an objection /b from a mishna (29a): b These /b are the cases of b young women for whom there is a fine /b paid to their fathers by one who rapes them: b One who engages in intercourse with a i mamzeret /i ; or with a Gibeonite woman [ i netina /i ], /b who are given [ i netunim /i ] to the service of the people and the altar (see Joshua 9:27); b or with a Samaritan woman [ i kutit /i ]. /b In addition, the same applies to one who engages in intercourse b with a female convert, or with a captive woman, or with a maidservant, /b provided b that /b the captives b were ransomed or that /b the converts b converted, or that /b the maidservants b were freed /b when they were b less than three years and one day old, /b as only in that case do they maintain the presumptive status of a virgin. In all of these cases, b there is a fine /b paid b to their /b fathers if they are raped. b And if you say /b that b when they reach majority they can protest /b and annul their conversion, b do we give her /b payment of the b fine that she /b will b go and consume in her gentile /b state?,The Gemara answers: Her father receives payment of the fine b once she has reached majority /b and does not protest, but not while she is still a minor. The Gemara asks: b When she reaches majority too, /b is there not the same concern that b she will protest and abandon /b Judaism? The Gemara answers: b Once she reached majority /b for even b one moment and did not protest, she may no longer protest. /b , b Abaye did not state /b his objection from the same source b as /b did b Rava, /b because b there, /b in the mishna cited by Rava, it is referring to b a fine, /b and in that case b this is the reason: So that the sinner will not profit. /b The Sages did not absolve the rapist from payment of the fine merely due to the concern that the woman he raped may ultimately negate the conversion., b Rava did not state /b his objection from the same source b as /b did b Abaye, as /b with regard to b a marriage contract, this is the reason /b that the Sages instituted it: b So that /b his wife b will not be inconsequential in his eyes, /b enabling him b to /b easily b divorce her. /b As long as this woman does not negate her conversion, she is a Jewish woman and the Sages saw to her interests., strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to b an adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl /b less than three years old; b or a minor boy /b less than nine years old b who engaged in intercourse with an adult woman; or a /b woman who had her hymen b ruptured by wood /b or any other foreign object, for all these women b their marriage contract is two hundred /b dinars, as their legal status is that of a virgin. This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The marriage contract /b of a woman whose hymen was b ruptured by wood is one hundred dinars, /b as physically, since her hymen is not intact, she is no longer a virgin.,With regard to b a virgin /b who is either a b widow, /b a b divorcée, or a i ḥalutza /i /b who achieved that status b from /b a state of b marriage, /b for all these women b their marriage contract is one hundred dinars, /b |
|
30. 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) •circumcision, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) •immersion, baraita (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. |
|
31. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 57| 92a. והמלקט לו עצמות טובל ואוכל בקדשים,גר שנתגייר בע"פ ב"ש אומרים טובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב וב"ה אומרים הפורש מן הערלה כפורש מן הקבר:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מ"ט קא סבר אנינות דלילה דרבנן וגבי פסח לא העמידו דבריהם במקום כרת גבי קדשים העמידו דבריהם במקום עשה:,השומע על מתו וכו': מלקט עצמות הא בעי הזאת שלישי ושביעי אימא שליקטו לו עצמות:,גר שנתגייר וכו': אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן מחלוקת בערל נכרי,דב"ה סברי גזירה שמא יטמא לשנה הבאה ויאמר אישתקד מי לא טבלתי ואכלתי עכשיו נמי אטבול ואוכל ולא ידע דאשתקד נכרי הוה ולא מקבל טומאה עכשיו ישראל ומקבל טומאה,וב"ש סברי לא גזרינן אבל ערל ישראל דברי הכל טובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב ולא גזרינן ערל ישראל משום ערל נכרי,תניא נמי הכי אמר ר"ש בן אלעזר לא נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה על ערל ישראל שטובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב על מה נחלקו על ערל נכרי שב"ש אומרים טובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב וב"ה אומרים הפורש מן הערלה כפורש מן הקבר:,אמר רבא ערל הזאה ואיזמל העמידו דבריהן במקום כרת אונן ומצורע ובית הפרס לא העמידו דבריהן במקום כרת,ערל הא דאמרן,הזאה דאמר מר הזאה שבות ואינו דוחה את השבת,איזמל דתניא כשם שאין מביאין אותו דרך רשות הרבים כך אין מביאין אותו דרך גגות ודרך חצרות ודרך קרפיפות,אונן הא דאמרן,מצורע מאי היא דתניא מצורע שחל שמיני שלו בערב הפסח וראה קרי בו ביום טובל ואוכל,אמרו חכמים אע"פ שטבול יום אינו נכנס זה נכנס מוטב יבא עשה שיש בו כרת וידחה עשה שאין בו כרת,וא"ר יוחנן דבר תורה אפילו עשה אין בו שנאמר (דברי הימים ב כ, ה) ויעמד יהושפט בקהל יהודה וירושלים בבית ה' לפני החצר החדשה מאי חצר החדשה שחדשו בו דבר ואמרו טבול יום לא יכנס במחנה לויה,בית הפרס דתנן ושוין ב"ש וב"ה | 92a. b And one who gathers /b the b bones /b of his parents, who are buried in a temporary location for their flesh to decay and who is moving them to a permanent burial place must also observe a day of acute mourning by rabbinic decree. These mourners b immerse and eat /b all types of b sacrificial food /b at night. Since in these cases, even during the day, the mourning is by rabbinic decree, the Sages did not extend it into the evening.,With regard to b a convert who converted on Passover eve, Beit Shammai say: He immerses and eats his Paschal lamb in the evening. And Beit Hillel say: One who separates from the foreskin /b by being circumcised is ritually impure, b like one who separates from the grave /b after coming in contact with a corpse. Consequently, he must first observe the seven-day purification process necessary to remove ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. Only then, from the eighth day onward, may he partake of sacrificial meat., strong GEMARA: /strong b What is the reason /b that an acute mourner may eat the Paschal lamb in the evening? The i tanna /i of the mishna b holds /b that the observance of b acute mourning at night /b after the day of one’s relative’s death b is a rabbinic /b prohibition. b And with regard to the Paschal lamb, /b the Sages waived their prohibition because b they did not uphold their statement /b prohibiting consumption of sacrificial food b in a situation /b in which doing so would violate a prohibition that carries the punishment b of i karet /i , /b as is the case with one who neglects to offer the Paschal lamb. On the other hand, b with regard to /b other b sacrificial food, /b they maintained the prohibition, because b they upheld their statement in a situation /b in which neglecting to eat the sacrificial food entails only the neglect of b a positive mitzva. /b ,We learned in the mishna: b One who hears about /b the death of b his dead /b relative more than thirty days after the death and one who gathers bones immerse and eat sacrificial food in the evening. The Gemara expresses surprise: Can this apply to b one who gathers bones? But /b by doing so he came in contact with the bones of a corpse, and b he needs sprinkling on /b the b third and seventh /b days in order to become ritually pure. The Gemara answers: Emend the teaching of the mishna and instead b say: /b One b for whom they gathered bones, /b meaning that other people gathered the bones of his parents to transfer them to a new grave but he himself did not touch them, has a rabbinical requirement to observe a day of acute mourning, but he is not ritually impure.,We learned in the mishna: With regard to b a convert who converted /b on Passover eve, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel as to whether he may immerse and eat the Paschal sacrifice in the evening. The Gemara discusses the scope of this dispute: b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said /b that b the dispute is about an uncircumcised gentile /b that was circumcised and converted on Passover eve., b Beit Hillel hold /b that b there is a rabbinic decree /b due to a concern that b perhaps he will become contaminated /b by a corpse b in the following year and he will say: Last year, /b even though I had come in contact with a corpse previous to Passover, b did I not immerse and eat /b the Paschal lamb without completing the purification process for impurity imparted by a corpse? b Now also, I will immerse and eat. And he does not know /b and understand b that last year, /b before his conversion on Passover eve, b he was a gentile and /b therefore b he was not susceptible to ritual impurity, /b because gentiles do not contract ritual impurity according to Torah law, but b now he is a Jew and is susceptible to ritual impurity. /b Therefore, the Sages decreed that he should complete the seven-day purification process for impurity imparted by a corpse before he can partake of sacrificial food in order to avoid such a mistake., b And Beit Shammai hold that we do not make a decree /b due to this concern. b But /b with regard to b an uncircumcised Jew /b who for some reason had not been circumcised until Passover eve, b all agree that he may immerse and eat his Paschal lamb in the evening. /b The concern that he will err the following year does not apply, b and we do not decree /b in the case of an b uncircumcised Jew /b who was circumcised on Passover eve, b due to /b concern that the case will be confused with that of b an uncircumcised gentile /b who was circumcised and converted on Passover eve., b That was also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree about /b the fact that b an uncircumcised Jew /b who was circumcised on Passover eve b may immerse and eat his Paschal lamb in the evening. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to an uncircumcised gentile /b who converted on Passover eve. b Beit Shammai say /b that b he may immerse and eat his Paschal lamb in the evening, and Beit Hillel say /b that b one who separates from the foreskin is /b ritually impure b like one who separates from the grave. /b , b Rava said: /b With regard to b an uncircumcised /b gentile who converted, b sprinkling /b the purification waters to purify impurity imparted by a corpse, b and /b a circumcision b scalpel [ i izmel /i ], /b the Sages b upheld their statement /b even b in a situation /b in which doing so would violate a prohibition that carries the punishment b of i karet /i . /b However, with regard to b an acute mourner, a leper, and a i beit haperas /i , /b an area in which a doubt exists concerning the location of a grave or a corpse, b they did not uphold their statement in a situation /b in which doing so would violate a prohibition that carries the punishment b of i karet /i . /b ,The Gemara details all the cases Rava referred to: The case of b an uncircumcised /b gentile who converted is b as we have said /b previously. Beit Hillel disqualify a convert from offering the Paschal lamb, despite the fact that neglecting to do so renders one liable to receive i karet /i .,The case of b sprinkling /b the purification waters to purify impurity imparted by a corpse is b as the Master said /b in a mishna: b Sprinkling /b is prohibited on Shabbat due to b rabbinic decree, and it does not override Shabbat /b even on Passover eve, despite the fact that one who requires sprinkling will then be unable to offer the Paschal lamb.,The case of the circumcision b scalpel /b is b as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : If a circumcision scalpel was not brought to the location of the baby from before Shabbat, b just as we may not bring it through a public domain /b in violation of Torah law, b so /b too b we may not bring it through roofs, through courtyards, and through enclosures, /b even though carrying in this manner is prohibited by rabbinic decree. One who has an uncircumcised member of his household may not bring a Paschal lamb and is liable for i karet /i . The Sages maintained the prohibition of carrying the scalpel in all circumstances, even when doing so would mean the baby would remain uncircumcised on Passover eve, preventing his household from offering a Paschal lamb.,The Gemara lists the cases where the Sages waived their prohibition in the face of a prohibition carrying the punishment of i karet /i : The case of an b acute mourner is that which we said /b in the mishna.,The case of the b leper, what is it? /b It is b as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A leper /b is ritually impure and must undergo an involved, eight-day purification process, which culminates on the eighth day with the bringing of various offerings in the Temple. If his b eighth day occurs on Passover eve, /b such that it would be possible to bring his offerings and be fit to partake of the Paschal lamb that evening, b and he saw an occurrence /b of semen b on that day, /b and one who experiences such a discharge is ritually impure and prohibited from entering the Temple, b he may immerse /b in order to purify himself from the discharge and then bring his offerings b and eat /b the Paschal lamb at night., b The Sages said: Although /b normally, with regard to ritual impurity from seminal discharge, b one who has immersed on that day may not enter /b the Temple until nightfall, b this one may enter. /b The reason is that b it is better for a positive mitzva that has /b a punishment of b i karet /i , /b i.e., the bringing of the Paschal lamb, b to come and override a positive mitzva that does not have /b a punishment of b i karet /i , /b i.e., the mitzva of “They shall send out from the camp every leper and whoever has had issue, and whoever is unclean by the dead” (Numbers 5:2), which requires the removal from the Temple of one who has immersed that day and will become pure only upon nightfall., b And /b furthermore, b Rabbi Yoḥa said: By Torah law, there is not even a positive mitzva /b that restricts one who has immersed that day and will become pure only upon nightfall from entering the Temple, b as it is stated: “And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judea and Jerusalem, in the House of the Lord, before the new courtyard” /b (II Chronicles 20:5). b What /b is indicated by identifying the courtyards as b the new courtyard? /b It indicates b that they innovated something in it, and they said: One who has immersed on that day /b but will become pure only upon nightfall b may not enter the Levite camp, /b which includes the entire Temple Mount. This suggests that the prohibition is of rabbinic origin and is not a positive mitzva.,The case of a b i beit haperas /i , /b in which the Sages did not uphold their decree, is b as it was taught /b in a mishna: b And Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree /b |
|
32. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 66| 62b. גר צריך שלשה מ"ט (ויקרא כד, כב) משפט כתיב ביה כדין מי יימר דמזדקקו ליה הני תלתא,מתקיף לה ר' אבא בר ממל אלא מעתה הנותן פרוטה לשפחתו ואמר הרי את מקודשת לי לאחר שאשתחרריך ה"נ דהוו קידושין הכי השתא התם מעיקרא בהמה השתא דעת אחרת,ואלא הא דאמר ר' אושעיא הנותן פרוטה לאשתו ואמר לה הרי את מקודשת לי לאחר שאגרשיך אינה מקודשת ה"נ לר' יוחנן דהוו קידושין נהי דבידו לגרשה בידו לקדשה,תפשוט דבעי רב אושעיא הנותן שתי פרוטות לאשה באחת אמר לה התקדשי לי היום ובאחת אמר לה התקדשי לי לאחר שאגרשיך תפשוט מינה דלא הוו קידושין דלמא כי היכי דתפסי קידושין השתא תפסי נמי לאחר כן,תניא כותיה דרבי יוחנן אין תורמין מן התלוש על המחובר ואם תרם אין תרומתו תרומה כיצד אמר פירות ערוגה זו תלושין יהיו תרומה על פירות ערוגה זו מחוברת פירות ערוגה זו מחוברת יהיו תרומה על פירות ערוגה זו תלושין לא אמר כלום אבל אמר לכשיתלשו ונתלשו דבריו קיימין,יתר על כן א"ר אליעזר בן יעקב אפילו אמר פירות ערוגה זו תלושין יהיו תרומה על פירות ערוגה זו מחוברת פירות ערוגה זו מחוברת יהיו תרומה על פירות ערוגה זו תלושין לכשיביאו שליש ויתלשו והביאו שליש ונתלשו דבריו קיימין,אמר רבה לא א"ר אליעזר בן יעקב אלא בשחת אבל באגם לא רב יוסף אמר אפילו באגם מאי משמע דהאי אגם לישנא דבוצלנא הוא אר"א דאמר קרא (ישעיהו נח, ה) הלכוף כאגמון ראשו,כמאן אזלא הא דתניא האומר לחברו אם ילדה אשתך נקבה מקודשת לי לא אמר כלום וא"ר חנינא לא שנו אלא שאין אשתו מעוברת אבל אשתו מעוברת דבריו קיימין כמאן אי כרבה כשהוכר עוברה אי כרב יוסף אע"פ שלא הוכר עוברה,ואיכא דאמרי אמר רבה לא א"ר אליעזר בן יעקב אלא בשחת דבי כיבשא אבל בשחת דבי שקיא לא רב יוסף אמר אפילו בשחת דבי שקיא,כמאן אזלא הא דתניא האומר לחבירו אם ילדה אשתך נקבה מקודשת לי לא אמר כלום ואמר רבי חנינא לא שנו אלא שאין אשתו מעוברת אבל אשתו מעוברת דבריו קיימים כמאן כשהוכר עוברה ודברי הכל,אמר אביי רבי אליעזר בן יעקב ורבי ורבי מאיר כולהו סבירא להו אדם מקנה דשלב"ל רבי אליעזר בן יעקב הא דאמרן רבי דתניא | 62b. b A convert requires /b the presence of b three /b Jews for his conversion. b What is the reason /b for this requirement? b It is written with regard to /b a convert: “You shall have one manner of b law, /b for the convert as for the homeborn” (Leviticus 24:22), which indicates that a conversion is b considered a judgment /b that requires three judges. And if he requires three judges, b who says that those three will be available to him? /b Since he cannot convert at a time of his choosing, it is not considered within his power to convert., b Rabbi Abba bar Memel objects to this: If that is so, /b and anything that is in one’s power to perform is not considered lacking in its action, b one who gives one i peruta /i to his /b Canaanite b maidservant and says: You are hereby betrothed to me after I emancipate you, so too /b will you say b that it is a betrothal /b because he has the power to emancipate her? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b How can /b these cases b be compared? There, /b the Canaanite maidservant b initially /b had the legal status of b an animal, /b i.e., she is not subject to betrothal at all, whereas b now /b she has b an independent mind. /b Once she has been emancipated she has the status of a Jew and is not considered the same person at all. Consequently, the attempted betrothal is certainly considered lacking an action.,The Gemara asks: b But that which Rabbi Oshaya says: /b With regard to b one who gives one i peruta /i to his wife and says to her: You are hereby betrothed to me after I divorce you, she is not betrothed, so too according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yoḥa /b will you say b that it is a betrothal /b because he has the power to divorce her? The Gemara answers: b Although he has the power to divorce her, /b does b he have the power to betroth her /b against her will? It is not in his power to effect the betrothal, as once she has divorced him the matter is no longer exclusively dependent upon him.,The Gemara comments: Being that it is not in his power to effect the betrothal, you can use this logic to b resolve /b the b dilemma raised /b by b Rav Oshaya: /b What is the i halakha /i with regard to b one who gives two i perutot /i to a woman, /b and b with one he says to her: Be betrothed to me today, and with /b the other b one he says to her: Be betrothed to me after I divorce you? /b What is her status after he divorces her? That dilemma was left uswered, and the Gemara suggests that you can b resolve from here that it is not a betrothal. /b The Gemara explains that this case is different, and Rav Oshaya’s dilemma was actually as follows: b Perhaps /b in that situation, b just as the betrothal is effective now, it is also effective afterward. /b Since she is currently under her own authority and agrees to betroth herself to him, it is possible that she can now consent to a betrothal that will take effect at a later time.,The Gemara comments: It b is taught /b in a i baraita /i b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yoḥa: One may not separate i teruma /i from the detached for the attached, and if he separated i teruma /i , his i teruma /i is not i teruma /i . How so? /b If b he said: The detached produce of this garden bed will be i teruma /i for the attached produce of this garden bed, /b or: b The attached produce of this garden bed will be i teruma /i for the detached produce of this garden bed, he has not said anything /b of consequence, as the obligation to separate i teruma /i applies only to detached produce. b But /b if b he said /b that the attached produce will be i teruma /i b when they will be detached, and they become detached, his statement is valid, /b as he has the power to detach them., b Moreover, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov said /b that b even /b if b one said: The detached produce of this garden bed will be i teruma /i for the attached produce of this garden bed, /b or: b The attached produce of this garden bed will be i teruma /i for the detached produce of this garden bed when they, /b i.e., the attached produce, b will reach one-third /b of their growth b and are detached, /b although at the time they had yet to ripen which means that the obligations of i terumot /i and tithes do not apply to them, when b they will reach one-third /b of their growth b and are detached, his statement is upheld. /b , b Rabba says: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says /b this ruling b only with regard to fodder, /b produce that has grown stalks even if it is not yet ripe. b But /b he did b not /b refer b to /b produce that is still completely b soft [ i agam /i ]. Rav Yosef says: /b He b even /b referred b to soft /b produce. In relation to this dispute, the Gemara asks: b From where may /b it b be inferred that this /b word b i agam /i is a term of growth [ i butzlana /i ]? /b The Gemara answers that b Rabbi Elazar said /b that this is b as the verse states: “Is it to bow down his head as a bulrush [ i ke’agmon /i ]” /b (Isaiah 58:5), i.e., like a soft, drooping plant.,§ The Gemara asks: b In accordance with whose /b opinion is b that which is taught /b in the following i baraita /i : With regard to b one who says to another: If your wife gives birth to a female she is betrothed to me, he has not said anything? And Rabbi Ḥanina says: They taught /b this i halakha /i b only /b in a case b where /b the other’s b wife is not pregt. But /b if b his wife is pregt his statement is upheld. In accordance with whose /b opinion is this ruling? The Gemara answers: The i baraita /i can be explained in accordance with everyone’s opinion. b If /b it is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabba, /b it is referring to a situation b where her fetus was /b already b noticeable, /b just as the stalks of fodder are recognizable. b If /b it is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Yosef, /b the i halakha /i of the i baraita /i applies b even if her fetus was not /b yet b noticeable. /b , b And there are /b those b who say /b a different version of this dispute. b Rabba says: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says /b his ruling b only with regard to fodder of a non-irrigated field, /b which is not watered. b But /b he did b not /b speak b about fodder of an irrigated field. /b Since the produce of this field will not grow on its own if it is not watered, it is not considered as if this produce has entered the world. b Rav Yosef said: /b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov referred b even to fodder of an irrigated field, /b as this produce too is treated as having entered the world when it reaches the stage of fodder.,The Gemara asks: According to this version of the dispute, b in accordance with whose /b opinion is b that which is taught /b in the following i baraita /i : If b one says to another: If your wife gives birth to a female she is betrothed to me, he has not said anything? And Rabbi Ḥanina says: They taught /b this b only when his wife is not pregt, but /b if b his wife is pregt his statement is upheld. In accordance with whose /b opinion is this ruling? The i baraita /i must be referring to a case b where her fetus was noticeable, /b and therefore b everyone agrees /b with this ruling. The i baraita /i is in accordance with the opinions of both Rabba and Rav Yosef, as even Rav Yosef agrees that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov was referring only to fodder whose stalks were already noticeable., b Abaye says: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, and Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b and Rabbi Meir all hold /b the following principle: b A person can transfer an entity that has not yet come into the world. /b That is, one can perform an act of acquisition for an item that is not yet in existence. The opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov /b is referring to b that which we /b just b said, /b that one can separate i teruma /i even for produce not yet included in this mitzva. Where does b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi state a similar opinion? b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : |
|
| 33. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
34. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 30, 63, 75, 237, 241, 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: |
|
| 35. 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) •circumcision, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) •immersion, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
36. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, with immersion Found in books: Lavee (2017) 278| 47b. (במדבר יח, כח) מכל מעשרותיכם תרימו ומה ראית האי אידגן והאי לא אידגן:,מעשר שני והקדש שנפדו: פשיטא הב"ע כגון שנתן את הקרן ולא נתן את החומש והא קמ"ל דאין חומש מעכב:,השמש שאכל כזית: פשיטא מהו דתימא שמש לא קבע קמ"ל:,והכותי מזמנין עליו: אמאי לא יהא אלא עם הארץ ותניא אין מזמנין על ע"ה,אביי אמר בכותי חבר רבא אמר אפילו תימא בכותי ע"ה והכא בע"ה דרבנן דפליגי עליה דר' מאיר עסקינן דתניא איזהו ע"ה כל שאינו אוכל חוליו בטהרה דברי ר"מ וחכמים אומרים כל שאינו מעשר פירותיו כראוי והני כותאי עשורי מעשרי כדחזי דבמאי דכתיב באורייתא מזהר זהירי דאמר מר כל מצוה שהחזיקו בה כותים הרבה מדקדקין בה יותר מישראל,ת"ר איזהו ע"ה כל שאינו קורא ק"ש ערבית ושחרית דברי ר' אליעזר רבי יהושע אומר כל שאינו מניח תפילין בן עזאי אומר כל שאין לו ציצית בבגדו ר' נתן אומר כל שאין מזוזה על פתחו ר' נתן בר יוסף אומר כל שיש לו בנים ואינו מגדלם לת"ת אחרים אומרים אפי' קרא ושנה ולא שמש ת"ח הרי זה ע"ה א"ר הונא הלכה כאחרים,רמי בר חמא לא אזמין עליה דרב מנשיא בר תחליפא דתני ספרא וספרי והלכתא כי נח נפשיה דרמי בר חמא אמר רבא לא נח נפשיה דרמי בר חמא אלא דלא אזמין ארב מנשיא בר תחליפא והתניא אחרים אומרים אפילו קרא ושנה ולא שמש ת"ח הרי זה ע"ה שאני רב מנשיא בר תחליפא דמשמע להו לרבנן ורמי בר חמא הוא דלא דק אבתריה ל"א דשמע שמעתתא מפומייהו דרבנן וגריס להו כצורבא מרבנן דמי:,אכל טבל ומעשר וכו': טבל פשיטא לא צריכא בטבל טבול מדרבנן ה"ד בעציץ שאינו נקוב:,מעשר ראשון כו': פשיטא לא צריכא כגון שהקדימו בכרי מהו דתימא כדאמר ליה רב פפא לאביי קמ"ל כדשני ליה:,מעשר שני וכו': פשיטא לא צריכא שנפדו ולא נפדו כהלכתן מעשר שני כגון שפדאו על גבי אסימון ורחמנא אמר (דברים יד, כה) וצרת הכסף בידך כסף שיש (לו) עליו צורה הקדש שחללו על גבי קרקע ולא פדאו בכסף ורחמנא אמר (ויקרא כז, יט) ונתן הכסף וקם לו:,והשמש שאכל פחות מכזית: פשיטא איידי דתנא רישא כזית תנא סיפא פחות מכזית:,והנכרי אין מזמנין עליו: פשיטא הכא במאי עסקינן בגר שמל ולא טבל דאמר רבי זירא א"ר יוחנן לעולם אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול וכמה דלא טבל נכרי הוא:,נשים ועבדים וקטנים אין מזמנין עליהן: אמר רבי יוסי קטן המוטל בעריסה מזמנין עליו,והא תנן נשים ועבדים וקטנים אין מזמנין עליהם,הוא דאמר כרבי יהושע בן לוי דאמר ריב"ל אף על פי שאמרו קטן המוטל בעריסה אין מזמנין עליו אבל עושין אותו סניף לעשרה,ואמר ריב"ל תשעה ועבד מצטרפין מיתיבי מעשה ברבי אליעזר שנכנס לבית הכנסת ולא מצא עשרה ושחרר עבדו והשלימו לעשרה שחרר אין לא שחרר לא תרי אצטריכו שחרר חד ונפיק בחד,והיכי עביד הכי והאמר רב יהודה כל המשחרר עבדו עובר בעשה שנאמר (ויקרא כה, מו) לעולם בהם תעבודו לדבר מצוה שאני מצוה הבאה בעבירה היא מצוה דרבים שאני,ואמר ריב"ל לעולם ישכים אדם לבית הכנסת כדי שיזכה וימנה עם עשרה הראשונים שאפילו מאה באים אחריו קבל עליו שכר כולם שכר כולם סלקא דעתך אלא אימא נותנין לו שכר כנגד כולם,אמר רב הונא תשעה וארון מצטרפין א"ל רב נחמן וארון גברא הוא אלא אמר רב הונא תשעה נראין כעשרה מצטרפין אמרי לה כי מכנפי ואמרי לה כי מבדרי,אמר רבי אמי שנים ושבת מצטרפין אמר ליה רב נחמן ושבת גברא הוא אלא אמר רבי אמי שני תלמידי חכמים המחדדין זה את זה בהלכה מצטרפין מחוי רב חסדא כגון אנא ורב ששת מחוי רב ששת כגון אנא ורב חסדא,א"ר יוחנן קטן פורח מזמנין עליו תנ"ה קטן שהביא שתי שערות מזמנין עליו ושלא הביא שתי שערות אין מזמנין עליו ואין מדקדקין בקטן הא גופא קשיא אמרת הביא שתי שערות אין לא הביא לא והדר תני אין מדקדקין בקטן לאתויי מאי לאו | 47b. b “From all of that is given to you, you shall set apart /b that which is the Lord’s i teruma /i ” (Numbers 18:29). God’s i teruma /i , i teruma gedola /i , must be taken from all of the Levites’ gifts. The Gemara asks: b And what did you see /b that led you to require i teruma gedola /i from first tithe that was taken from grain in piles and not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks? Abaye answers: b This, /b after it was threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and b has become grain, and that, /b which remained on the stalk, b did not /b yet b become grain. /b The verse regarding i teruma gedola /i states: “The first of your grain” (Deuteronomy 18:4), is given to the priest. Once it is considered grain, the right of the priest takes effect and the Levite is required to separate i teruma gedola /i .,The mishna states that if, among the diners, one ate b second tithe and consecrated food that were redeemed, /b he may be included in a i zimmun /i .The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious /b that if these items were redeemed that one could participate in a i zimmun /i . The Gemara responds: b With what are we dealing here? /b We are dealing with b a case /b where the consecrated property was not completely redeemed, i.e., b where one gave /b payment for b the principal, /b the value of the tithe, b but he did not give /b payment for b the fifth /b that he must add when redeeming items that he consecrated; b and /b the mishna b teaches us /b that failure to add b the fifth does not invalidate /b the redemption.,We learned in the mishna: b The waiter who ate /b at least b an olive-bulk /b from the meal may join in a i zimmun /i . The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious. /b Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i ? The Gemara answers: b Lest you say that the waiter /b who stands and serves the diners b did not establish /b himself as a participant in the meal and, therefore, cannot join the i zimmun /i , the mishna b teaches us /b that even the waiter is considered to have established himself as a participant in the meal.,The mishna states that b a Samaritan [ i Kuti /i ] may be included in a i zimmun /i . /b The Gemara asks: b Why? /b Even if you consider him a member of the Jewish people, b let him be merely an i am ha’aretz /i , /b one who is not scrupulous in matters of ritual purity and tithes, b and it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b An i am ha’aretz /i may not be included in a i zimmun /i . /b ,The Gemara offers several answers: b Abaye said: /b The mishna is referring to a b i Kuti /i who is a i ḥaver /i , /b one who is scrupulous in those areas. b Rava said: Even if you say /b that the mishna refers to b a i Kuti /i /b who is an b i am ha’aretz /i , and here /b the prohibition to include an i am ha’aretz /i in a i zimmun /i refers to an b i am ha’aretz /i /b as defined by b the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Who is an i am ha’aretz /i ? Anyone who does not eat non-sacred food in /b a state of b ritual purity. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: /b An i am ha’aretz /i is b anyone who does not appropriately tithe his produce. And these i Kutim /i tithe /b their produce b appropriately, as they are scrupulous with regard to that which is written in the Torah, as the Master said: Any mitzva that the i Kutim /i embraced /b and accepted upon themselves, b they are /b even b more exacting in its /b observance b than Jews. /b ,The Gemara cites a i baraita /i with additional opinions with regard to the defining characteristics of an i am ha’aretz /i : b The Sages taught: Who is an i am ha’aretz /i ? One who does not recite i Shema /i in the evening and morning. This is b the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. /b Rabbi Yehoshua says: /b An i am ha’aretz /i is b one who does not don phylacteries. Ben Azzai says: /b An i am ha’aretz /i is b one who does not have ritual fringes on his garment. Rabbi Natan says: /b An i am ha’aretz /i is b one who does not have a i mezuza /i on his doorway. Rabbi Natan bar Yosef says: /b An i am ha’aretz /i is b one who has children but /b who does not want them to study Torah, so he b does not raise them to /b engage in b Torah study. i Aḥerim /i say: Even if one read the Bible and studied Mishna and did not serve Torah scholars /b to learn from them the meaning of the Torah that he studied, b that is an i am ha’aretz /i . Rav Huna said: The i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b i Aḥerim /i . /b ,The Gemara relates: b Rami bar Ḥama did not include Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa, who studied i Sifra /i , i Sifrei, /i and i halakhot, /i in a i zimmun /i /b because he had merely studied and did not serve Torah scholars. b When Rami bar Ḥama passed away, Rava said: Rami bar Ḥama died only because he did not include Rabbi Menashya bar Taḥlifa in a i zimmun /i . /b The Gemara asks: b Was it not taught /b in a i baraita /i : b i Aḥerim /i say: Even if one read the Bible and studied mishna and did not serve Torah scholars, that is an i am ha’aretz /i ? /b Why, then, was Rami bar Ḥama punished? The Gemara answers: b Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa is different, as he served the Sages. And it was Rami bar Ḥama who was not precise /b in his efforts to check b after him /b to ascertain his actions. b Another version /b of the Gemara’s answer: Anyone b who hears i halakhot /i from the mouths of Sages and studies them is considered a Torah scholar. /b ,The mishna states that b one who ate untithed produce and /b first b tithe etc. /b is not included in a i zimmun /i . The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious /b as one is forbidden to eat untithed produce. The Gemara responds: b It was only necessary /b to teach this i halakha /i with regard to a case where it is only considered b untithed produce by rabbinic law, /b although by Torah law it was permitted. b What are the circumstances? /b Where the produce grew b in an unperforated flowerpot, /b as anything grown disconnected from the ground is not considered produce of the ground and is exempt by Torah law from tithing. It is only by rabbinic law that it is considered untithed.,We learned in the mishna that one who ate b first tithe /b from which its i teruma /i was not separated may not be included in a i zimmun /i . The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious. /b The Gemara responds: b It was only necessary /b for the mishna to teach this with regard to a case b where /b the Levite b preceded /b the priest after the kernels of grain were placed b in a pile. Lest you say as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, /b that in that case, too, the produce should be exempt from the obligation to separate i teruma gedola /i , the i tanna /i of the mishna b teaches us as /b Abaye b responded /b to Rav Pappa, that there is a difference between the case when the grain was on the stalks and the case when the grain was in a pile.,We also learned in the mishna that if one ate b second tithe /b and consecrated food that had not been redeemed, he may not be included in a i zimmun /i . The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious? /b Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i ? The Gemara responds: b It was only necessary /b for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i with regard to a case b where they were redeemed, but not redeemed properly, i.e., second tithe that was redeemed with an unminted coin [ i asimon /i ], /b a silver bullion that had not been engraved. b And the Torah says: “And bind up [ i vetzarta /i ] the money in your hand” /b (Deuteronomy 14:25), which the Sages interpreted as follows: i Vetzarta /i refers to b money that has a form [ i tzura /i ] /b engraved b upon it. Consecrated property; /b in a case b where he redeemed it /b by exchanging it b for land instead of money, and the Torah states: “He will give the money and it will be assured to him” /b (Leviticus 27:19).,The mishna states that b a waiter who ate less than an olive-bulk /b may not join a i zimmun /i . The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious. /b Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i ? The Gemara answers: b Since the first clause /b of the mishna b taught /b the i halakha /i with regard to a waiter who ate b an olive-bulk, the latter clause taught /b the i halakha /i with regard to a waiter who ate b less than an olive-bulk. /b Although it is obvious, in the interest of arriving at a similar formulation in the two parts of the mishna, it was included.,The mishna further states that b a gentile is not included in a i zimmun /i . /b The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious. /b Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i ? The Gemara answers: b With what are we dealing here? /b We are dealing b with /b a case of b a convert who was circumcised but /b did b not /b yet b immerse /b himself in a ritual bath, b as Rabbi Zeira said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: One is never /b considered b a proselyte until he is circumcised and immerses /b himself. b As long as he did not immerse /b himself, b he is a gentile. /b ,We also learned in the mishna that b women, slaves, and minors are not included in a i zimmun /i . Rabbi Yosei said: A minor lying in a cradle is included in a i zimmun /i . /b ,The Gemara objects: b Didn’t we learn /b in the mishna b that women, slaves, and minors are not included in a i zimmun /i ? /b ,The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yosei b stated /b his opinion b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Although a minor lying in a cradle is not included in a i zimmun /i , one may make him an adjunct to /b complete an assembly of b ten /b people, enabling them to invoke God’s name in a i zimmun /i .,On the subject of completing a i zimmun /i , b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Nine /b Jews b and a slave join together /b to form a i zimmun /i of ten. The Gemara b raises an objection: /b There was an b incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who entered a synagogue and did not find /b a quorum of b ten, and he liberated his slave and he completed the /b quorum of b ten. /b From this we may infer that if he b freed /b his slave, b yes, /b he may join the quorum of ten, but if he b did not free /b him, b no, /b he may not join the quorum of ten. The Gemara responds: In that case, b two were required /b to complete the quorum; Rabbi Eliezer b freed one and fulfilled his obligation with /b another b one, /b who completed the quorum of ten without being freed.,With regard to this incident, the Gemara asks: b How did he do that? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say: Anyone who frees his /b Canaanite b slave violates a positive mitzva, as it is stated /b with regard to Canaanite slaves: “You will keep them as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold as a possession; b they will serve as bondsmen for you forever” /b (Leviticus 25:46)? How, then, could Rabbi Eliezer have freed his slave? The Gemara answers: The case of b a mitzva is different. /b The Gemara asks: b It is a mitzva that comes through a transgression, /b and a mitzva fulfilled in that manner is inherently flawed. The Gemara responds: b A mitzva /b that benefits b the many is different, /b and one may free his slave for that purpose.,In praise of a quorum of ten, the Gemara states that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One should always rise early /b to go b to the synagogue in order to have the privilege and be counted among the first ten /b to complete the quorum, b as even if one hundred /b people b arrive after him, he receives the reward of them all, /b as they are all joining that initial quorum. The Gemara is perplexed: b Does it enter your mind /b that he receives b the reward of them all? /b Why should he take away their reward? b Rather, /b emend the statement and b say: He receives a reward equivalent to /b the reward of b them all. /b ,With regard to the laws of joining a quorum, b Rav Huna said: Nine plus an ark /b in which the Torah scrolls are stored b join /b to form a quorum of ten. b Rav Naḥman said to him: Is an ark a man, /b that it may be counted in the quorum of ten? b Rather, Rav Huna said: Nine who appear like ten may join together. /b There was disagreement over this: b Some said this /b i halakha /i as follows: Nine appear like ten b when they are gathered. And some said this /b i halakha /i as follows: Nine appear like ten b when they are scattered, /b the disagreement being which formation creates the impression of a greater number of individuals.,Similarly, b Rav Ami said: Two /b people b and Shabbat join /b to form a i zimmun /i . b Rav Naḥman said to him: Is Shabbat a person, /b that it may be counted in a i zimmun /i ? b Rather, Rav Ami said: Two Torah scholars who hone each other’s /b intellect b in halakhic /b discourse b join together /b and are considered three. The Gemara relates: b Rav Ḥisda pointed /b to an example of two such Torah scholars who hone each other’s intellect: b For example, me and Rav Sheshet. /b Similarly, b Rav Sheshet pointed: For example, me and Rav Ḥisda. /b ,With regard to a minor’s inclusion in a i zimmun /i , b Rabbi Yoḥa said: A mature minor, /b i.e., one who is still a minor in terms of age, but is displaying signs of puberty, b is included in a i zimmun /i . That /b opinion b was also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A minor who grew two /b pubic b hairs, /b a sign of puberty, b is included in a i zimmun /i ; and one who did not grow two hairs is not included in a i zimmun /i . And one is not exacting with regard to a minor. /b The Gemara comments: b This /b i baraita /i b itself is difficult. You said that /b a minor b who grew two hairs, yes, /b he is included, b one who did not grow /b two hairs, b no, /b he is not included, b and then it taught that one is not exacting with regard to a minor. What /b does this last clause come b to include? Is it not /b |
|
| 37. Babylonian Talmud, Bekhorot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) •circumcision, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) •immersion, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
| 38. Anon., Qedoshim, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 190 |
| 39. Josephus, Book of Judith, 59 Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, with immersion Found in books: Lavee (2017) 59, 60 |
| 40. Anon., Gerim, 1.1-1.3, 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) •circumcision, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) •circumcision, with immersion •immersion, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 42, 61, 75, 190, 241, 252, 254, 259, 261, 271, 274, 280 |
| 41. Philo of Alexandria, 1Qs, 6.3, 6.19 Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, with immersion •circumcision, without immersion Found in books: Lavee (2017) 27, 28 |
| 42. Anon., Pesikta Rabbati, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 74 |
| 44. Babylonian Talmud, Karetot, 91 Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) •circumcision, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) •circumcision, with immersion •immersion, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 75, 190, 252, 254 |
48. Anon., Midrash On Song of Songs, 1.1.3, 8.2.1 Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, with immersion Found in books: Lavee (2017) 74| 1.1.3. דָּבָר אַחֵר, חָזִיתָ אִישׁ מָהִיר בִּמְלַאכְתּוֹ וגו', אֵלּוּ הַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁהֵם עוֹסְקִין בִּמְלַאכְתּוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, לְפִיכָךְ לִפְנֵי מְלָכִים יִתְיַצָּב, שֶׁמִּתְיַצְּבִים בַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ח, טו): בִּי מְלָכִים יִמְלֹכוּ. בַּל יִתְיַצֵּב לִפְנֵי חֲשֻׁכִּים, אֵלּוּ הָרְשָׁעִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה כט, טו): וְהָיָה בְמַחְשָׁךְ מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם, וּכְתִיב (תהלים לה, ו): יְהִי דַּרְכָּם חשֶׁךְ וְחַלַּקְלַקֹּת. 8.2.1. אֶנְהָגְךָ אֲבִיאֲךָ, אֶנְהָגְךָ מֵהָעֶלְיוֹנִים לַתַּחְתּוֹנִים. אֲבִיאֲךָ אֶל בֵּית אִמִּי, זֶה סִינַי. אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה, לָמָּה קוֹרְאִין לְסִינַי בֵּית אִמִּי, שֶׁמִּשָּׁם נַעֲשׂוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּתִינוֹק בֶּן יוֹמוֹ. תְּלַמְּדֵנִי, מִצְווֹת וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים. אַשְׁקְךָ מִיַּיִן הָרֶקַח, אֵלּוּ מִשְׁנָיוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת, כְּגוֹן מִשְׁנָתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה, וּמִשְׁנָתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא וְשֶׁל בַּר קַפָּרָא וּמִשְׁנַת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. מֵעֲסִיס רִמֹּנִי, אֵלּוּ הַהַגָּדוֹת שֶׁטַּעֲמָן כְּרִמּוֹן. דָּבָר אַחֵר, אַשְׁקְךָ מִיַּיִן הָרֶקַח, זֶה הַתַּלְמוּד שֶׁמְפֻטָּם בְּמִשְׁנָיוֹת כְּרֶקַח. מֵעֲסִיס רִמֹּנִי, אֵלּוּ בִּגְדֵי כְּהֻנָּה גְדוֹלָה, הֵיאַךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (שמות כח, לד): פַּעֲמֹן זָהָב וְרִמּוֹן. | |
|
| 49. Mishnah, Malachi, 8 Tagged with subjects: •circumcision, with immersion •circumcision, without immersion Found in books: Lavee (2017) 28, 248 |
