1. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 15.13 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •controversiae, ta shema and Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 165| 15.13. "כָּל־הָאֶזְרָח יַעֲשֶׂה־כָּכָה אֶת־אֵלֶּה לְהַקְרִיב אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ־נִיחֹחַ לַיהוָה׃", | 15.13. "All that are home-born shall do these things after this manner, in presenting an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.", |
|
2. Mishnah, Menachot, 12.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •controversiae, ta shema and Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 164| 12.4. "מִתְנַדֵּב אָדָם מִנְחָה שֶׁל שִׁשִּׁים עִשָּׂרוֹן, וּמֵבִיא בִכְלִי אֶחָד. אִם אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד, מֵבִיא שִׁשִּׁים בִּכְלִי אֶחָד וְאֶחָד בִּכְלִי אֶחָד, שֶׁכֵּן צִבּוּר מֵבִיא בְיוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חַג שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד. דַּיּוֹ לַיָּחִיד שֶׁיְּהֵא פָחוֹת מִן הַצִּבּוּר אֶחָד. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וַהֲלֹא אֵלּוּ לַפָּרִים, וְאֵלּוּ לַכְּבָשִׂים, וְאֵינָם נִבְלָלִים זֶה עִם זֶה. אֶלָּא, עַד שִׁשִּׁים יְכוֹלִים לְהִבָּלֵל. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, שִׁשִּׁים נִבְלָלִים, שִׁשִּׁים וְאֶחָד אֵין נִבְלָלִים. אָמַר לָהֶן, כָּל מִדּוֹת חֲכָמִים כֵּן. בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה הוּא טוֹבֵל, בְּאַרְבָּעִים סְאָה חָסֵר קֻרְטוֹב אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְבֹּל בָּהֶן. אֵין מִתְנַדְּבִים לֹג, שְׁנַיִם, וַחֲמִשָּׁה, אֲבָל מִתְנַדְּבִים שְׁלשָׁה וְאַרְבָּעָה וְשִׁשָּׁה, וּמִשִּׁשָּׁה וּלְמָעְלָה: \n", | 12.4. "A man may offer a minhah consisting of sixty tenths and bring them in one vessel. If one said, “I take upon myself to offer sixty-one tenths,” he must bring sixty in one vessel and the one in another vessel, since the congregation brings on the first day of the festival [of Sukkot] when it falls on Shabbat sixty-one tenths [as a minhah], it is enough for an individual that [his minhah] should be one tenth less than that of the congregation. Rabbi Shimon said: but some of these [sixty-one tenths] are for the bullocks and some for the lambs, and they may not be mixed one with the other! Rather sixty tenths mingles [in one vessel]. They said to him: can sixty be mingled [in one vessel] and not sixty-one? He answered, so it is with all the measures prescribed by the sages: a man may immerse himself in forty seahs of water, but he may not immerse himself in forty seahs less one kortob. One may not offer one [log], two, or five [logs], but one may offer three, four, six, or anything above six.", |
|
3. Mishnah, Shekalim, 6.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •controversiae, ta shema and Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 165| 6.5. "שְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר שׁוֹפָרוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְכָתוּב עֲלֵיהֶם, תִּקְלִין חַדְתִין וְתִקְלִין עַתִּיקִין, קִנִּין וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה, עֵצִים, וּלְבוֹנָה, זָהָב לַכַּפֹּרֶת. שִׁשָּׁה, לִנְדָבָה. תִּקְלִין חַדְתִּין, שֶׁבְּכָל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה. עַתִּיקִין, מִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁקַל אֶשְׁתָּקַד, שׁוֹקֵל לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה. קִנִּין, הֵם תּוֹרִים. וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה, הֵן בְּנֵי יוֹנָה. וְכֻלָּן עוֹלוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, קִנִּין, אֶחָד חַטָאת וְאֶחָד עוֹלָה. וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה, כֻּלָּן עוֹלוֹת:", | 6.5. "There were thirteen chests in the Temple and on them was inscribed [respectively]:“new shekels”;“New shekels” those for each year; “old shekels”;“Old shekels” whoever has not paid his shekel in the past year may pay it in the coming year; “bird-offerings”;“Bird-offerings” these are turtle-doves; “young pigeons for burnt-offerings”;“Young pigeons for burnt-offerings” these are young pigeons. “wood”; “frankincense”; “gold for the kapporet”; and on six, “freewill offerings”. Both [these two chests] are for burnt-offerings, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say: “bird-offerings” one [half] is for sin-offerings and the other [half] for burnt-offerings, but “young pigeons for burnt-offerings” all goes to burnt-offerings.", |
|
| 4. Palestinian Talmud, Bava Qamma, 3.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •controversiae, ta shema and Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 164 |
| 5. Palestinian Talmud, Hagigah, 3.7 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •controversiae, ta shema and Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 170 |
| 6. Palestinian Talmud, Sheqalim, 6.4 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •controversiae, ta shema and Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 165 |
7. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 168| 8b. בנזקין נמי נימא הכי,אלא הכא במאי עסקינן ביתמי דלאו בני פרעון נינהו ושיעבודא דיליה עליה דידיה רמיא,הלכך ליכא למימר הכי,אלא משום דאמר להו טעמא מאי אמור רבנן אין נפרעין מנכסין משועבדים במקום שיש בני חורין משום תקנתא דידי אנא בהא תקנתא לא ניחא לי,כדרבא דאמר רבא כל האומר אי אפשי בתקנת חכמים כגון זו שומעין לו,מאי כגון זו,כדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא יכולה אשה שתאמר לבעלה איני ניזונית ואיני עושה:,פשיטא מכר לוקח בינונית וזיבורית ושייר עידית לפניו ליתו כולהו וליגבו מעידית,דהא אחרונה היא ובינונית וזיבורית ליתנהו גביה דמצי למימר להו גבו מבינונית וזיבורית דלא ניחא לי בתקנתא דרבנן,אבל מכר עידית ושייר בינונית וזיבורית מאי,סבר אביי למימר אתו כולהו גבו מעידית,א"ל רבא מה מכר ראשון לשני כל זכות שתבא לידו וכיון דאילו אתו גבי לוקח ראשון מצי אגבי להו מבינונית וזיבורית ואע"פ דכי זבני בינונית וזיבורית אכתי עידית בני חורין הואי ואין נפרעין מנכסים משועבדים כל זמן דאיכא בני חורין מצי א"ל לא ניחא לי בהאי תקנה,לוקח שני נמי מצי א"ל גבי בינונית וזיבורית דכי זבין לוקח שני אדעתא דכל זכותא דה"ל לראשון בגוה זבין,אמר רבא ראובן שמכר כל שדותיו לשמעון והלך שמעון ומכר שדה אחת ללוי ובא ב"ח דראובן רצה מזה גובה רצה מזה גובה ולא אמרן אלא דזבן בינונית,אבל זבן עידית וזיבורית לא דא"ל להכי דייקי וזבני עידית וזיבורית ארעא דלא חזיא לך,ואפילו זבן בינונית נמי לא אמרן אלא דלא שייר בינונית דכוותיה דלא מצי א"ל הנחתי לך מקום לגבי שמעון אבל שייר בינונית דכוותיה גבי שמעון לא גבי מיניה דמצי א"ל הנחתי לך מקום לגבות ממנו,אמר אביי ראובן שמכר שדה לשמעון באחריות ואתא ב"ח דראובן וטרף משמעון דינא הוא דאזיל ראובן ומשתעי דינא בהדיה ולא מצי א"ל לאו בעל דברים דידי את דאמר ליה אי מפקת מיניה עלי הדר,ואיכא דאמרי אפילו שלא באחריות נמי דא"ל לא ניחא לי דתהוי לשמעון תרעומת עלי,ואמר אביי ראובן שמכר שדה לשמעון שלא באחריות | 8b. then b also with regard to damages, let /b the buyer b say this /b to the injured party. He could threaten to return the bill of sale of the inferior-quality land to the debtor, which would force the injured party to collect directly from the debtor’s inferior-quality land. Since the buyer can do so, he can effectively force the injured party to collect from the purchased intermediate-quality land instead of fulfilling his right to collect from superior-quality land. Yet, the i baraita /i teaches that in this case each party collects from the land that was originally liened to him, which means that damages are collected from the superior-quality land, indicating that this threat would not be effective., b Rather, with what are we dealing here? /b We are dealing b with /b a case in which the debtor died and his inheritors are his b orphans, who are not subject to /b an obligation to b repay /b the debts of their father. When one dies, his monetary debts are not inherited by his children. b And /b therefore, b the lien of /b the creditor b rests /b solely b upon the buyer /b of the land. Any lien that was in effect with regard to the land he owned at the time he incurred the obligation remains, and his creditors can therefore collect what they are owed from that land, even if it is in the possession of a buyer., b Therefore, one cannot say /b that the ruling in the i baraita /i is based on the fact that the buyer can threaten to return the bill of sale to the debtor, or in this case, to his orphans. In this case, even if he were to return the bill of sale, the creditors would not be able to collect from the land now in the orphans’ possession, as they received it anew, not as an inheritance from their father. Therefore, the creditors can still collect from the plots of land that remain with the buyer.,The Gemara suggests another explanation of the i Tosefta /i : b Rather, /b not all the creditors collect from the superior-quality land, which was the last plot of land purchased from the debtor, b because /b the buyer b can say to them: What is the reason /b that b the Sages said one is not paid from liened /b property, i.e., property liened to a creditor that has been sold by the debtor, b whenever there is unsold /b property still in the debtor’s possession? It is b due to an ordice /b created solely b for my /b benefit, as I should not be expected to pay from the land I purchased when the debtor is still able to pay. If that ordice were to be in effect in this case, all of their liens would be in effect with regard to the superior-quality land, as that was purchased last. In this case b I do not /b find b this ordice satisfactory to me, /b and I would prefer for the lien of each creditor to remain in effect with regard to the land it had been on initially, and I will give each of you that land.,The Gemara notes: This fact that one is not required to avail himself of the ficial benefit provided by a rabbinic ordice b is in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rava. As Rava says: Anyone who says: I do not want /b to avail myself b of /b the ficial benefit provided by b an ordice of the Sages, such as this /b one, b one listens to him. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What /b does Rava mean by saying: An ordice of the Sages, b such as this /b one?,The Gemara answers: His statement is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna says: /b The Sages enacted that a husband must sustain his wife. They also enacted that he receives her earnings in exchange. Yet, b a wife is /b legally b entitled to say to her husband: I will not be sustained /b by you, b and /b in turn b I will not work /b i.e., you will not keep my earnings. Since his obligation to sustain her is only for her benefit, she may forgo her sustece and retain her earnings for herself.,The Gemara discusses a limitation on the buyer’s ability to refuse the benefit of the rabbinic ordice: b It is obvious /b that if the b buyer sold, /b of the land he purchased from the debtor, the b intermediate- and inferior-quality /b land to another buyer b and retained in his possession /b only the b superior-quality /b land, which he had purchased last, b then all /b the creditors b may come and collect from /b the b superior-quality /b land., b For /b if the intermediate-quality and inferior quality land were in his possession, b he would be able to say to /b the creditors: b Collect from /b the b intermediate-quality /b land and from the b inferior-quality /b land, as b it is not satisfactory to me /b to avail myself of the b ordice of the Sages /b . Now the he has sold the land of intermediate and inferior quality, however, he cannot unilaterally waive the ordice without the consent of the second buyer. The second buyer benefits from the ordice, since it compels the creditors to collect from the first buyer, and he will therefore certainly not agree to waive it., b But if /b the first buyer b sold /b only the b superior-quality /b land that he had purchased last, b and /b he b retained /b in his possession the b intermediate-quality and inferior-quality /b land, b what /b is the i halakha /i ?, b Abaye thought to say: All /b the creditors b should come /b and b collect from /b the b superior-quality /b land. Since that land was the last plot of land in the debtor’s possession, the creditors’ right of collection was restricted to that land, irrespective of the fact that it was then subsequently sold twice., b Rava said to him: What has the first /b person b sold to the second /b in any sale? b Any rights that will come into his possession. And since, if /b the creditors b were to come to /b the b first buyer /b while he was still in possession of all three plots of land, b he could have had them collect from /b the b intermediate-quality and inferior-quality /b land; b and /b this is the i halakha /i b even though when he /b initially b purchased /b the b intermediate-quality and inferior-quality /b land the b superior-quality /b land b was /b still b unsold /b property in the debtor’s possession. As although there is the rabbinic ordice that b one does not exact payment from liened property when there is unsold /b property still in the debtor’s possession, the buyer b could have said to them: I do not /b find b this ordice satisfactory to me. /b ,Rava continues: Therefore, since the first buyer had the right to say this, the b second buyer can also say to them: Collect /b from the b intermediate-quality and inferior-quality /b land in the first buyer’s possession. b As, when the second buyer purchased /b the superior-quality land, b he purchased /b it b with the understanding that he /b also acquired b all the rights that the first /b buyer b had with regard to /b that land. Accordingly, he also acquires the right to insist that the creditors collect from the intermediate-quality and inferior-quality land.,In a related ruling, b Rava says: /b In the case of b Reuven, who sold all of his fields to Shimon /b simultaneously b and Shimon proceeded to sell one field /b of those purchased b to Levi, and Reuven’s creditor came /b to collect the debt, if the creditor so b desires, he collects from this /b one, i.e., Shimon, and if b he /b so b desires, he collects from that /b one, i.e., Levi. b And we said this only /b in a case b where /b Levi b purchased intermediate-quality /b land from Shimon. A creditor’s right is to collect the debt from intermediate-quality land. Accordingly, in this case, Reuven’s creditor can collect his loan from the intermediate-quality land even after it has been transferred into Levi’s possession. Nevertheless, if he so desires, he may insist on collecting his loan from any inferior-quality land left in Shimon’s possession. This is because a creditor also has the right to demand payment from a borrower’s inferior-quality land instead of his intermediate-quality land, and therefore that land is also liened to the loan., b But /b if Levi b purchased superior-quality and inferior-quality /b land from Shimon, b no, /b the creditor can collect only from Shimon’s intermediate-quality land, b as /b Levi could b say to him: For this /b reason b I was particular to purchase superior-quality and inferior-quality /b land, which is b land that is not fit for you /b to collect from as a creditor., b And if /b Levi b purchased /b the b intermediate-quality /b land from Shimon b as well, we said /b that Reuven’s creditor can collect from him b only /b in a case b where he did not leave /b some b similar intermediate-quality /b land in Shimon’s possession, b as /b in that case, Levi b is unable to say to /b the creditor: b I left a place for you, /b i.e., a plot of land, b in Shimon’s possession, /b from which to collect. b But /b where Levi b did leave /b some b similar intermediate-quality /b land b in Shimon’s possession, /b the creditor b does not collect from /b Levi, b as /b Levi b is able to say to him: I left a place for you from which to collect. /b ,In another related ruling, b Abaye says: /b In the case of b Reuven, who sold a field /b liened to his creditor b to Shimon with a guarantee, /b meaning that Reuven agreed to reimburse Shimon should Reuven’s creditor collect the debt from that field, b and Reuven’s creditor came and seized /b the field b from Shimon, the i halakha /i is that Reuven /b can b go and litigate with /b his creditor and claim that he had already repaid the debt, and insist that the field be returned to Shimon. b And /b the creditor b is unable to say to /b Reuven: b I am not legally answerable to you, /b as I am not taking away your land, since you sold it to Shimon. This is b because /b Reuven could b say to him: If you extract /b the field b from him, /b Shimon b will return to me /b and demand that I reimburse him for his loss. Consequently, I am involved in this matter., b And there are /b those b who say: Even /b in a case b where /b he sold the field b without a guarantee, as well, /b in which case even if the creditor seizes Shimon’s land there are no legal consequences for Reuven, Reuven can litigate with the creditor, b as /b he could b say to him: It is not satisfactory for me for Shimon to have a grievance against me /b because he lost the field I sold him on account of the fact that I was unable to pay my debt. Consequently, I am involved in this matter., b And /b in another related ruling, b Abaye says: /b In the case of b Reuven, who sold a field to Shimon without a guarantee, /b |
|
8. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 164, 168 | 104a. Rabbi Beivai concludes: b And that man, /b i.e., I, b relies on a baker. /b Therefore, my mind is not sufficiently settled to answer the question properly.,The Gemara asks: b What /b conclusion b was /b reached b about /b this question? b Rav Yosef said: Rabbi Yehuda was the halakhic decisor of the house of the i Nasi /i , and he instructed /b them b according to his tradition /b that the blood of an animal carcass is impure., b As we learned /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda says /b that b six matters are among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and among the stringencies of Beit Hillel. /b They include b the blood of a carcass, /b which b Beit Shammai deem ritually pure, /b as in their opinion only the flesh of a carcass imparts impurity; b and Beit Hillel deem /b it b ritually impure. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: Even when Beit Hillel deemed /b it b impure, they deemed /b it b impure only /b when it is b in /b the quantity of at least b a quarter- /b i log /i , b since /b that amount, were it b to congeal, could constitute an olive-bulk, /b which is the minimum amount of the flesh of a carcass that is deemed impure., strong MISHNA: /strong b One does not pledge /b a libation of one b i log /i , two /b i log /i , b or five /b i log /i of wine, because there are no existing libations with those measures of wine. b But one pledges /b a libation of b three /b i log /i , which is the measure of wine brought with a lamb, b or four /b i log /i , which is the measure of wine brought with a ram, b or six /b i log /i , which is the measure of wine brought with a bull. b And /b one may pledge a libation of b six /b i log /i b and beyond, /b as any greater amount can be composed of combinations of these three., strong GEMARA: /strong b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: b Is there a fixed /b amount b for libations, /b in that when one vows to bring a certain number of i log /i of wine they are not offered separately, b or is there no fixed /b amount b for libations, /b and it is permitted to divide them and offer them in smaller amounts?,The Gemara clarifies: b What are the circumstances? /b It is a case b where he brought five /b i log /i of wine. b If you say /b that b there is no fixed /b amount b for libations, /b then b he removes and offers four of them, as /b those b are suitable for /b the libations of b a ram, and the other /b i log /i , which is not of sufficient volume, b is /b allocated for communal b gift /b offerings. Either it itself is offered, or it is redeemed and the money is used to buy offerings for the repletion of the altar, i.e., for times when the altar is idle. But b if you say /b that b there is a fixed /b amount b for libations /b and the wine may not be divided and offered separately, then it b is not offered /b itself or redeemed with money and offered b until he adds to /b the existing measurement such that the total number of i log /i may be offered as an independent libation., b What /b is the i halakha /i ? b Abaye said: Come /b and b hear /b the answer from a mishna ( i Shekalim /i 6:5): There were b six /b collection horns b for /b communal b gift /b offerings, b and we say: For what /b were they b designated? /b They were designated b for /b funds b left over /b from the purchase of b sin offerings, /b for funds b left over /b from b the /b purchase of b guilt offerings, /b for funds b left over /b from b the /b purchase of a b guilt offering of a nazirite, /b for funds b left over /b from the purchase of the b guilt offering of a leper, /b for funds b left over /b from the purchase of b pairs /b of birds, and for funds b left over /b from the purchase of the b meal offering of a sinner. /b , b And if it is so /b that there is no fixed amount for libations, and if one vowed to bring five i log /i then four are offered as a ram’s libation and the fifth can be redeemed and its money used for a communal gift offering, then b let them institute an additional /b collection b horn /b in the Temple for funds b left over /b from the purchase b of libations. /b ,The Gemara responds: b These /b six horns are dedicated to funds that b go to communal gift offerings, /b and b these /b i log /i of wine left over from libations b are common, /b so there is no need to store them, since it is b possible /b that the libation b of this person /b will b be combined with /b the libation of another b person together /b in order to reach the desired amount, b and /b then it b is offered /b immediately. Therefore, no additional horn was necessary for the money from the redemption of libations., b Rava said: Come /b and b hear /b a resolution to the dilemma from a i baraita /i : The Torah states with regard to libations: “All that are b home born /b shall do these things in this manner, in presenting an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Numbers 15:13). As this verse is superfluous, the various terms in it are used to derive i halakhot /i . The term b “home born” teaches that one may pledge libations /b even when they are not sacrificed together with an offering. b And how much /b is the minimum volume that is offered? b Three i log /i , /b which is the smallest measurement of a libation in the Torah, i.e., the libation that is offered with a lamb., b And from where /b is it derived b that if one desires to add /b to this amount b he may add? The verse states /b with regard to libations associated with the additional offerings for the New Moon: “And their libations: Half a i hin /i of wine b shall be /b for the bull, and one-third of a i hin /i for the ram, and one-quarter of a i hin /i for the lamb” (Numbers 28:14). From the superfluous “shall be” one may understand that there are others, and derive that independent libations may also be brought. b Can /b one b decrease /b the amount of wine in a libation to less than three i log /i ? b The verse states: /b “All that are home born shall do these things, b in this manner” /b (Numbers 15:13), i.e., one may not bring less than three i log /i of wine.,The Gemara clarifies: b What /b does the i baraita /i mean when it says that b one may add /b to the minimum of three i log /i for an independent libation? b If we say /b it means that it is permitted to offer b four or six /b i log /i , then b what is different /b about b three /b i log /i that it was specified? It is b because it is suitable for /b the libations of b a lamb. /b If so, then b four or six /b i log /i are b also suitable, /b as four i log /i is offered as the libation b for a ram and /b six i log /i is offered as the libation for b a bull. Rather, /b in saying that one may add, b isn’t /b the i baraita /i referring to b five /b i log /i of wine, despite the fact that it is not a measurement used with any of the offerings? b And learn from /b this i baraita /i that b there is no fixed /b amount b for libations. /b The Gemara affirms: Indeed, b learn from /b the i baraita /i that this is so., b Rav Ashi said: But didn’t we learn this /b in the mishna: b One does not pledge /b a libation of one b i log /i , two /b i log /i , b or five /b i log /i of wine? Rav Ashi continues: In phrasing the mishna in this manner, the i tanna /i b teaches /b that the status of b five /b i log /i is b similar /b to the status b of two /b i log /i : b Just as two /b i log /i b are not suitable at all /b to be offered independently, b so too, five /b i log /i are b also not suitable at all /b to offer, as there are no libations of this size. This demonstrates that there is a fixed amount to libations, and one may not divide them into two.,The Gemara responds: b Are the cases comparable? This, /b two i log /i , is b as it is, and that, /b five i log /i , is b as it is, /b and there is no reason to compare them. Four of the five i log /i are offered, with the fifth allocated for a communal gift offering., b Abaye said: If you say /b that b there is no fixed /b amount b for libations, then there is no fixed /b amount b for libations, /b and no further discussion is necessary. b If you say /b that b there is a fixed /b amount b for libations, /b then the i halakha /i of b up to ten /b i log /i of wine is b obvious to me. /b One i log /i , two i log /i , or five i log /i may not be brought, since these amounts are not offered as standard libations, but three, four, or six i log /i are brought, as their amount is equivalent to those of standard libations. Between six and ten i log /i may also be brought, since these amounts can be composed of a combination of the various wine libations. With regard to b eleven /b i log /i , |
|
9. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •controversiae, ta shema and Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 164| 10b. הניח בזוית זו ומצא בזוית אחרת פלוגתא דרשב"ג ורבנן דתניא קרדום שאבד בבית הבית טמא שאני אומר אדם טמא נכנס לשם ונטלו רשב"ג אומר הבית טהור שאני אומר השאילו לאחר ושכח או שנטלו מזוית זו והניח בזוית האחרת ושכח,זוית מאן דכר שמיה,חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני קרדום שאבד בבית הבית טמא שאני אומר אדם טמא נכנס לשם ונטלו או שהניחו בזוית זו ומצאו בזוית אחרת הבית טמא שאני אומר אדם טמא נכנס לשם ונטלו מזוית זו והניחו בזוית אחרת רשב"ג אומר הבית טהור שאני אומר השאילו לאחר ושכח או שנטלו מזוית זו והניח בזוית זו ושכח,אמר רבא עכבר נכנס וככר בפיו ונכנס אחריו ומצא פירורין צריך בדיקה מפני שאין דרכו של עכבר לפרר ואמר רבא תינוק נכנס וככר בידו ונכנס אחריו ומצא פירורין א"צ בדיקה מפני שדרכו של תינוק לפרר,בעי רבא עכבר נכנס וככר בפיו ועכבר יוצא וככר בפיו מהו מי אמרינן היינו האי דעל והיינו האי דנפק או דילמא אחרינא הוא,אם תמצא לומר היינו האי דעל והיינו האי דנפק עכבר לבן נכנס וככר בפיו ועכבר שחור יוצא וככר בפיו מהו האי ודאי אחרינא הוא או דילמא ארמויי ארמיה מיניה,ואת"ל עכברים לא שקלי מהדדי עכבר נכנס וככר בפיו וחולדה יוצאה וככר בפיה מהו חולדה ודאי מעכבר שקלתיה או דילמא אחרינא הוא דאם איתא דמעכבר שקלתיה עכבר בפיה הוה משתכח,ואת"ל אם איתא דמעכבר שקלתיה עכבר בפיה הוה משתכח עכבר נכנס וככר בפיו וחולדה יוצאה וככר ועכבר בפי חולדה מהו הכא ודאי איהו הוא או דילמא אם איתא דאיהו ניהו ככר בפי עכבר משתכח הוה בעי אישתכוחי או דילמא משום ביעתותא הוא נפל ושקלתיה תיקו,בעי רבא ככר בשמי קורה צריך סולם להורידה או אין צריך מי אמרינן כולי האי לא אטרחוהו רבנן כיון דלא נחית מנפשיה לא אתי למיכלה או דילמא זימנין דנפל ואתי למיכלה,ואם תמצי לומר זימנין דנפל ואתי למיכלה ככר בבור צריך סולם להעלותה או אין צריך הכא ודאי דלא עבידא דסלקה מנפשה או דילמא זימנין דנחית למעבד צורכיה ואתי למיכליה,את"ל זימנין דנחית לצורכיה ואתי למיכלה ככר בפי נחש צריך חבר להוציא או אין צריך,בגופיה אטרחוהו רבנן בממוניה לא אטרחוהו רבנן או דילמא לא שנא תיקו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ר' יהודה אומר בודקין אור י"ד ובי"ד שחרית ובשעת הביעור וחכ"א לא בדק אור י"ד יבדוק בי"ד,לא בדק בי"ד יבדוק בתוך המועד לא בדק בתוך המועד יבדוק לאחר המועד ומה שמשייר יניחנו בצינעא כדי שלא יהא צריך בדיקה אחריו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מ"ט דרבי יהודה רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא דאמרי תרוייהו כנגד שלש השבתות שבתורה (שמות יג, ז) לא יראה לך חמץ ולא יראה לך שאור (שמות יב, יט) שבעת ימים שאור לא ימצא בבתיכם (שמות יב, טו) אך ביום הראשון תשביתו שאור מבתיכם,מתיב רב יוסף רבי יהודה אומר כל שלא בדק בשלשה פרקים הללו שוב אינו בודק אלמא במכאן ואילך הוא דפליגי,מר זוטרא מתני הכי מתיב רב יוסף רבי יהודה אומר כל שלא בדק באחד משלשה פרקים הללו שוב אינו בודק אלמא בשוב אינו בודק הוא דפליגי,אלא רבי יהודה נמי אם לא בדק קאמר,והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר מקמי איסורא אין בתר איסורא לא גזירה דילמא אתי למיכל מיניה ורבנן סברי לא גזרינן,ומי גזר ר' יהודה דילמא אתי למיכל מיניה והא תנן משקרב העומר יוצאין ומוצאין שוקי ירושלים שהם מלאים קמח וקלי | 10b. The Gemara addresses yet another case: If one b placed /b leaven b in this corner and found /b it b in another corner, /b this is akin to b the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b an axe that was lost in a house, the house is impure, as I say /b that b a ritually impure person entered /b the house b and took /b the axe, touching other items in the process. b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The house is ritually pure, as I say /b that b he lent /b the axe b to another /b person b and forgot, or that he took it from this corner and placed it in the other corner and forgot. /b ,The Gemara asks: b A corner, who mentioned anything about it? /b The i baraita /i was referring to an axe that was lost, not one that was in a different corner.,The Gemara answers: The i baraita /i b is incomplete, and is teaching the following: /b With regard to b an axe that was lost in a house, the house is ritually impure, as I say /b that b an impure person entered /b the house b and took /b the axe, b or, if /b the owner b placed it in this corner and /b later b found it in another corner, the house is /b likewise b ritually impure, as I say /b that b an impure person entered /b the house b and took /b the axe b from this corner and placed in another corner. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The house is ritually pure, as I say /b that b he lent it to another /b person b and forgot, or that he took it from this corner and placed it in that corner and forgot /b about it. When the i baraita /i is interpreted in this manner, the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis applies to the question about leaven., b Rava said: /b If one saw b a mouse enter /b a house with a b loaf /b of bread b in its mouth, and he entered after /b the mouse b and found crumbs, /b the house b requires /b additional b searching, due to /b the fact that b a mouse does not typically generate crumbs. /b Therefore, it cannot be assumed that these crumbs are from the loaf snatched by the mouse. b And Rava /b also b said: /b If one saw b a child enter with a loaf in his hand, and he entered after /b the child b and found crumbs, /b the house b does not require /b additional b searching, because a child typically generates crumbs, /b and one can therefore assume that the crumbs are from that loaf.,Although the rulings in these cases were clear to Rava, b Rava raised a dilemma /b with regard to a related case: If one saw b a mouse enter with a loaf in its mouth, and /b he saw b a mouse leave with a loaf in its mouth, what is /b the i halakha /i ? The Gemara elaborates: b Do we say /b that b this /b mouse b that entered is that /b same mouse b that left /b and there is no more leaven left in the house? b Or perhaps it is a different /b mouse.,The Gemara adds: b If you say /b that b this /b mouse b that entered was this /b one b that left, /b another dilemma arises: If one saw b a white mouse enter with a loaf /b of bread b in its mouth and a black mouse leave with a loaf /b of bread b in its mouth, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Do I say b this is certainly a different /b mouse, b or perhaps /b the black mouse b took /b the loaf b from /b the white mouse?,The Gemara continues to suggest variations on this case: b And if you say /b that b mice do not take from each other, /b as one mouse is generally not significantly stronger than another, if one saw b a mouse enter with a loaf /b of bread b in its mouth and a marten leave with a loaf /b of bread b in its mouth, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Do I say that b the marten certainly took it /b from the mouse, as it is larger and stronger? b Or perhaps it is a different /b loaf, b for if it is so, that /b the marten b took /b the loaf b from the mouse, the mouse /b itself b would /b also b be found in its mouth, /b as the marten would presumably take not only the loaf of bread but the mouse as well., b And if you say /b that we accept the contention that b if it is so, that /b if the marten b took it from the mouse the mouse /b itself b would be in its mouth, /b in regard to a case where one saw b a mouse enter with a loaf /b of bread b in its mouth and a marten leave with /b both b a loaf /b of bread b and a mouse in its mouth, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Do I say that b this is certainly the same /b mouse and loaf, b or perhaps /b even this conclusion can be disputed: b If it is so, that this is the same /b mouse, the b loaf would have been found in the mouse’s mouth /b rather than in the marten’s mouth. Consequently, this must be a different loaf of bread. b Or perhaps /b the loaf of bread b fell /b from the mouse’s mouth b due to /b its b fear /b and the marten b took it /b separately. No satisfactory answer was found for these dilemmas and the Gemara concludes: b Let /b them b stand /b unresolved., b Rava raised a dilemma: /b If there was b a loaf /b of bread b on a high beam /b in the ceiling, does one b need /b to climb b a ladder /b to b take it down or /b is this effort b not necessary? Do we say: The Sages did not /b obligate one to b exert /b himself that much in his search for leaven, and b since /b the loaf of bread b will not fall on its own he will not come to eat it? Or perhaps /b it can be claimed that b sometimes /b the loaf may b fall and he will come to eat it, /b as objects placed high up occasionally drop., b And if you say /b with regard to a loaf of bread on a beam, b sometimes /b it will b fall and he will come to eat it, /b in a case where the b loaf was in a pit, /b does one b need /b to use b a ladder to bring it up, or /b is this effort b not necessary? /b The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: b Here /b the loaf b will certainly not come up on its own, /b and one can therefore let it remain where it is; b or perhaps /b there is still a concern that b sometimes he /b might b go down /b into the pit b to perform /b some b requirement of his, and he will come to eat it. /b ,The Gemara continues to discuss the various permutations of this case. And b if you say /b that b sometimes one goes down /b into the pit b for /b some b requirement of his, and he will come to eat it, /b with regard to b a loaf /b that was b in the mouth of a snake, /b is it b necessary /b for him to bring b a snake charmer to take /b the loaf b out /b of the snake’s mouth, b or /b is this effort b not necessary? /b ,Once again the Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Do I say that b with regard to his /b own b body the Sages /b obligate one to b exert /b himself and search everywhere, but b with regard to his money the Sages do not /b obligate one to b exert /b himself, i.e., he is not required to spend money in order to destroy leaven? b Or perhaps, /b the legal status of his money is b no different /b than that of his body, as one must remove leaven wherever he finds it, in any way he can? This series of dilemmas is also left answered and the Gemara concludes: b Let /b them b stand /b unresolved., strong MISHNA: /strong b Rabbi Yehuda says: One searches /b for leaven b on the evening of the fourteenth /b of Nisan, b and on the fourteenth /b in b the morning, and at the time of /b the b removal /b of leaven. b And the Rabbis say: /b that is not the case; however, if b one did not search on the evening of the fourteenth he /b should b search on the fourteenth /b during the day.,If b he did not search on the fourteenth, he should search during the festival /b of Passover. If b he did not search during the Festival, he should search after the Festival, /b as any leaven that remained in his possession during the Festival is classified as leaven owned by a Jew during Passover, which one is obligated to remove. b And /b the principle is: With regard to the leaven b that /b one b leaves /b after the search, he should b place it in /b a b concealed /b location where it will most likely be left untouched, b so that it will not require searching after it /b if it goes missing., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b What is the reason for /b the statement of b Rabbi Yehuda /b that one must conduct a search three times? The Gemara answers: It is b Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna who both say: /b The requirement to conduct three searches b corresponds to /b the b three /b times that b the removal /b of leaven b is /b mentioned b in the Torah. /b One verse says: “ i Matzot /i shall be eaten for seven days, and b no leavened bread shall be seen with you, neither shall there be leaven seen with you, /b in all your borders” (Exodus 13:7), and another verse states: b “Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses” /b (Exodus 12:19), while a third verse says: “Seven days shall you eat i matzot /i , b yet on the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses” /b (Exodus 12:15)., b Rav Yosef raised an objection /b to this explanation, seeking to prove that even according to Rabbi Yehuda one need not conduct three searches for leaven. He explained that Rabbi Yehuda lists the three times when one may conduct a search for leaven. It was taught in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda says: Anyone who did not search at these three times /b may b no longer search. Apparently, /b Rabbi Yehuda does not hold that one must conduct three searches. Rather, in regard to whether or not one may conduct a search for leaven if he failed to conduct a search at one of those three opportunities, it is b from this /b point b forward that they disagree. /b The Rabbis hold that one may conduct the search even after the time of the removal of leaven, and Rabbi Yehuda disagrees., b Mar Zutra taught /b Rav Yosef’s statement in b this /b manner: b Rav Yosef raised an objection /b from that which b Rabbi Yehuda says: Anyone who did not search at one of these three times /b may b no longer search. /b In Mar Zutra’s version, Rabbi Yehuda explicitly states: One of these three times, which reinforces the claim that he obligates one to conduct only one search. The Gemara similarly concludes: b Apparently, /b it is with regard to whether or not b one /b may b no longer search that they disagree. /b , b Rather, /b the Gemara concludes that b Rabbi Yehuda also said: If one did not search /b for leaven bread at the first opportunity, he may do so at the second or third opportunities; however, he may not search for leaven after these three times have passed., b And here, /b in the mishna, it is b about this that they disagree: /b One b Sage, /b Rabbi Yehuda, b maintains /b that b before the prohibition /b against eating leaven takes effect, b yes, /b one may conduct a search; b after the prohibition /b against eating leaven takes effect, b no, /b one may no longer conduct a search, due to a rabbinic b decree lest one come to eat from /b the leaven while searching for it. b And the Rabbis maintain: We do not issue a decree /b lest one come to eat from the leaven, and he may therefore conduct a search even after the prohibition against eating leaven has taken effect.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b And does Rabbi Yehuda issue a decree lest one come to eat /b from the leaven in whose removal he is engaged? b But didn’t we learn /b in a mishna: b Once the i omer /i /b offering b was sacrificed, /b people would b go out and find the markets of Jerusalem filled with flour and toasted grain, /b all from the new crop. This grain was undoubtedly harvested and processed when the Torah prohibition against eating from the new crop was still in effect. |
|
| 10. Pseudo-Quintilian, Minor Declamations, 150 Tagged with subjects: •controversiae, ta shema and Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 167, 169 |
| 11. Pachomius, Inst, 3.1, 3.8 Tagged with subjects: •controversiae, ta shema and Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 164 |
| 12. Anon., Pesiqta De Rav Kahana, 9 Tagged with subjects: •controversiae, ta shema and Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 167 |
