1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 1.16, 21.17 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), fourth (conversion court / witnesses) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 264, 267| 1.16. "וָאֲצַוֶּה אֶת־שֹׁפְטֵיכֶם בָּעֵת הַהִוא לֵאמֹר שָׁמֹעַ בֵּין־אֲחֵיכֶם וּשְׁפַטְתֶּם צֶדֶק בֵּין־אִישׁ וּבֵין־אָחִיו וּבֵין גֵּרוֹ׃", 21.17. "כִּי אֶת־הַבְּכֹר בֶּן־הַשְּׂנוּאָה יַכִּיר לָתֶת לוֹ פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יִמָּצֵא לוֹ כִּי־הוּא רֵאשִׁית אֹנוֹ לוֹ מִשְׁפַּט הַבְּכֹרָה׃", | 1.16. "And I charged your judges at that time, saying: ‘Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.", 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.", |
|
2. Tosefta, Bava Batra, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan 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." | |
|
3. Tosefta, Demai, 2.4-2.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), fourth (conversion court / witnesses) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 263| 2.4. "עם הארץ שקבל עליו כל דברי חבירות ונחשד על דבר אחד נחשד על כולן דר\"מ וחכמים אומרים אין חשוד אלא על אותו דבר בלבד.", 2.5. "גר שקבל עליו כל דברי התורה ונחשד על דבר אחד אפילו על התורה כולה הרי הוא כישראל מומר.", 2.6. "עם הארץ שקבל עליו כל דברי חבירות חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו גר שקבל עליו כל דברי תורה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר אפילו דבר קטן מדקדוקי סופרים.", 2.7. "כהן שקבל עליו כל עבודת כהונה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו בן לוי שקבל עליו כל עבודת לויה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו שנאמר (ויקרא ז׳:ל״ג) המקריב את דם השלמים וגו' אין לי אלא זריקת דם והקטר חלבים מנין ליציקות ובלילות תנופות והגשות הקמיצות והקטרות המליקות והקבלות והזאות והשקאת סוטה ועריפת עגלה וטהרת מצורע ונשיאות כפים מבפנים ומבחוץ ת\"ל (שם) בני אהרן כל עבודה שהיא בבני אהרן [אמר ר\"ש] יכול אין דוחין אותן אלא ממתנות מקדש בלבד מנין אף ממתנות גבולין ת\"ל (דברים י״ח:ד׳) ראשית דגנך [תירושך ויצהרך] וגו' מפני מה (שם) כי בו בחר ה' כל המקבל עליו שירות יש לו במתנות כל שאין מקבל עליו שירות אין לו במתנות בזמן שהכהנים עושין רצונו של מקום מה נאמר בהם (ויקרא ו׳:י׳) חלקם נתתי אותה מאשי משלהן הן נוטלין ואין נוטלין משלי ובזמן שאין עושין רצונו של מקום מה נאמר בהם (מלאכי א׳:י׳) מי גם בכם ויסגור דלתים וגו'.", | |
|
4. Tosefta, Kiddushin, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 244, 263, 265, 268| 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.", |
|
5. Tosefta, Qiddushin, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 244, 263, 265, 268| 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.", |
|
6. Tosefta, Yevamot, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 263, 281, 282| 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.", 8.3. "[איש] אין רשאי לישא עקרה וזקנה איילונית קטנה ושאינה ראויה לילד האשה רשאה להנשא אפי' לסריס ר' יהודה אומר המסרס את הזכרים חייב ואת הנקבות פטור ר' נתן אומר ב\"ש אומרים שני בנים כבניו של משה שנאמר (דברי הימים א כ״ג:ט״ו) ובני משה גרשום ואליעזר בית הלל אומרים זכר ונקבה שנאמר (בראשית ה) זכר ונקבה בראם ר' נתן אומר ב\"ש אומרים זכר ונקבה וב\"ה אומרים או זכר או נקבה.", | 8.3. "...Rabbi Natan said: Beit Shammai say two boys [to fulfill pru urvu], like Moshe’s sons, as it is written: “And Moshe’s sons were Gershom and Elazar\" (Chronicles 1 23:15). Beit Hillel say: a son and a daughter, as it is written: “Male and female God created them” (Genesis 5:2). Rabbi Natan said: Beit Shammai say: a son and a daughter, and Beit Hillel say: a son or a daughter...." |
|
7. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 4.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, conversion at night and Found in books: Lavee (2017) 282, 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.", |
|
8. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 39.14 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, conversion at night and Found in books: Lavee (2017) 283| 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. | 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. ", |
|
| 9. Palestinian Talmud, Demai, 2.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), fourth (conversion court / witnesses) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 263 |
10. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, conversion at night and Found in books: Lavee (2017) 282, 283| 34b. (שמות כט, לז) כל הנוגע במזבח יקדש שומע אני בין ראוי בין שאינו ראוי ת"ל (שמות כט, לח) כבשים מה כבשים ראויין אף כל ראוי ר' עקיבא אומר (שמות כט, כה) עולה מה עולה ראויה אף כל ראוי,ותרוייהו מאי קא ממעטו פסולי מר מייתי לה מכבשים ומר מייתי לה מעולה,והאמר רב אדא בר אהבה עולת העוף פסולה איכא בינייהו מאן דמייתי לה מכבשים כבשים אין אבל עולת העוף לא ומאן דמייתי לה מעולה אפילו עולת העוף נמי,אלא אמר רב אשי כדתניא (ויקרא יז, ד) דם יחשב לאיש ההוא דם שפך לרבות את הזורק דברי רבי ישמעאל,ר"ע אומר (ויקרא יז, ח) או זבח לרבות את הזורק ותרוייהו מאי קא מרבו זריקה מר מייתי לה מדם יחשב ומר מייתי לה מאו זבח,והאמר רבי אבהו שחט וזרק איכא בינייהו לדברי רבי ישמעאל אינו חייב אלא אחת לדברי ר"ע חייב שתים,הא איתמר עלה אמר אביי אף לדברי ר"ע נמי אינו חייב אלא אחת דאמר קרא (דברים יב, יד) שם תעלה עולותיך ושם תעשה ערבינהו רחמנא לכולהו עשיות:,דיני ממונות דנין ביום וכו': (סימן משפ"ט מענ"ה מט"ה) מנהני מילי א"ר חייא בר פפא דאמר קרא (שמות יח, כו) ושפטו את העם בכל עת,אי הכי תחלת דין נמי כדרבא דרבא רמי כתיב ושפטו את העם בכל עת וכתיב (דברים כא, טז) והיה ביום הנחילו את בניו הא כיצד יום לתחלת דין לילה לגמר דין,מתניתין דלא כר' מאיר דתניא היה ר"מ אומר מה ת"ל (דברים כא, ה) על פיהם יהיה כל ריב וכל נגע וכי מה ענין ריבים אצל נגעים,אלא מקיש ריבים לנגעים מה נגעים ביום דכתיב (ויקרא יג, יד) וביום הראות בו אף ריבים ביום ומה נגעים שלא בסומין דכתיב (ויקרא יג, יב) לכל מראה עיני הכהן אף ריבים שלא בסומין ומקיש נגעים לריבים מה ריבים שלא בקרובים אף נגעים שלא בקרובים,אי מה ריבים בשלשה אף נגעים בשלשה ודין הוא ממונו בשלשה גופו לא כל שכן ת"ל (ויקרא יג, ב) והובא אל אהרן הכהן או אל אחד וגו' הא למדת שאפילו כהן אחד רואה את הנגעים,ההוא סמיא דהוה בשבבותיה דרבי יוחנן דהוה דאין דינא ולא אמר ליה רבי יוחנן ולא מידי היכי עביד הכי והא"ר יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה ותנן כל הכשר לדון כשר להעיד ויש שכשר להעיד ואין כשר לדון ואמר ר' יוחנן לאתויי סומא באחת מעיניו,ר' יוחנן סתמא אחריתא אשכח דיני ממונות דנין ביום וגומרין בלילה,מאי אולמיה דהאי סתמא מהאי סתמא אי בעית אימא סתמא דרבים עדיף ואי בעית אימא משום דקתני לה גבי הלכתא דדינא,ורבי מאיר האי ושפטו את העם בכל עת מאי דריש ביה אמר רבא לאיתויי יום המעונן דתנן אין רואין את הנגעים שחרית ובין הערבים ולא בתוך הבית ולא ביום המעונן מפני שכהה נראית עזה ולא בצהרים מפני שעזה נראית כהה,ורבי מאיר האי ביום הנחילו את בניו מאי עביד ליה ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתני רבה בר חנינא קמיה דרב נחמן והיה ביום הנחילו את בניו ביום אתה מפיל נחלות ואי אתה מפיל נחלות בלילה א"ל אלא מעתה מאן דשכיב ביממא ירתון ליה בניה ומאן דשכיב בליליא לא ירתון ליה בניה,דילמא דין נחלות קאמרת דתניא (במדבר כז, יא) והיתה לבני ישראל לחקת משפט אורעה כל הפרשה כולה להיות דין,כדרב יהודה אמר רב דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב שלשה שנכנסו לבקר את החולה רצו כותבין רצו עושין דין שנים כותבין ואין עושין דין,ואמר רב חסדא לא שנו אלא ביום אבל בלילה כותבין ואין עושין דין משום דהוו להו עדים ואין עד נעשה דיין אמר ליה אין הכי קאמינא:,דיני נפשות דנין ביום וכו': מנהני מילי אמר רב שימי בר חייא אמר קרא (במדבר כה, ד) והוקע אותם לה' נגד השמש א"ר חסדא מניין להוקעה שהיא תלייה דכתיב (שמואל ב כא, ו) והוקענום לה' בגבעת שאול בחיר ה' | 34b. b “Whatsoever touches the altar shall be sanctified” /b (Exodus 29:37), b I /b would b derive /b that this applies to every item, b whether /b it is b suited /b to be an offering, b or unsuited /b to be an offering. b The /b following b verse states: /b “Now this is that which you shall offer upon the altar: Two b lambs /b of the first year day by day continually” (Exodus 29:38); from this I derive: b Just as lambs are suited /b to be offerings, b so too, everything /b that is b suited /b to be an offering is included in this i halakha /i . The i baraita /i continues: b Rabbi Akiva says: /b The offerings discussed in this passage are each referred to as b a burnt-offering /b (see Exodus 29:42). Therefore, I derive: b Just as a burnt-offering is suited /b for the altar, b so too, everything /b that is b suited /b for the altar is included in this i halakha /i .,Rav Pappa explains: b And what do the two of them exclude /b by means of these explanations? b Disqualified /b offerings, teaching that they do not become sanctified if they touch the altar. One b Sage, /b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, b brings /b proof for b this /b i halakha /i b from /b the term b “lambs,” and /b one b Sage, /b Rabbi Akiva, b brings /b proof for b this /b i halakha /i b from /b the term b “burnt-offering.” /b This is an example of one explanation from two different verses.,The Gemara questions this example: b But doesn’t Rav Adda bar Ahava say /b that the difference b between them /b is with regard to b a disqualified bird burnt-offering? The one who brings /b proof for b this /b i halakha /i b from /b the term b “lambs” /b holds that: b Lambs, yes, /b they are included in this i halakha /i , b but a bird burnt-offering /b is b not. And the one who brings /b proof for b this /b i halakha /i b from /b the term b “burnt-offering” /b holds that b a bird burnt-offering /b is b also /b included in this i halakha /i ., b Rather, Rav Ashi said: /b An example of one explanation from two different verses is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to one who violates the prohibition against slaughtering an offering outside the Tent of Meeting, the verse states: “Whatever man there be of the house of Israel, that kills an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that kills it outside the camp; and to the opening of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it, to sacrifice an offering to the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord, b blood shall be imputed unto that man; he shed blood; /b and this man shall be cut off from among his people” (Leviticus 17:3–4). This verse serves b to include one who sprinkles /b the blood of consecrated offerings outside the Tent of Meeting; this is b the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b Rabbi Akiva says /b that when the verse states: “Whatever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that offers a burnt-offering b or sacrifice” /b (Leviticus 17:8), it serves b to include one who sprinkles /b blood of consecrated offerings outside the Tent of Meeting. Rav Ashi explains: b What do the two /b i tanna’im /i b include /b by means of these explanations? One who performs b sprinkling /b of the blood outside the Tent of Meeting. One b Sage, /b Rabbi Yishmael, b brings /b proof for b this /b i halakha /i b from /b the phrase b “blood shall be imputed,” and /b one b Sage, /b Rabbi Akiva, b brings /b proof for b this /b i halakha /i b from /b the term b “or sacrifice.” /b This is an example of one explanation from two different verses.,The Gemara questions this example: b But doesn’t Rabbi Abbahu say /b that the difference b between them /b is with regard to one who b slaughtered /b the offering b and sprinkled /b the blood, as b according to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael he is liable /b for b only one /b transgression, and b according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva /b he is b liable /b for b two /b transgressions?,The Gemara responds: b Wasn’t it stated with regard to that /b i baraita /i that b Abaye says: Even according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva, he is liable /b for b only one /b transgression, b as the verse states: /b “But in the place that the Lord shall choose in one of your tribes, b there you shall offer your burnt-offerings, and there you shall do /b all that I command you” (Deuteronomy 12:14). b The Merciful One combined all the actions /b with regard to offerings as one transgression. According to the explanation of Abaye, there is in fact no practical dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva with regard to this matter, and it serves as an example of one explanation from two different verses.,§ The mishna teaches: In cases of b monetary law, /b the court b judges during the daytime, /b and may conclude the deliberations and issue their ruling even at night. Before discussing this ruling, the Gemara cites b a mnemonic /b for three of the forthcoming discussions: b Judgment, answer, incline. /b The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b concerning the time of the deliberations derived? b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Pappa says: As the verse states: “And let them judge the people at all times” /b (Exodus 18:22), indicating that the judgment can be during the day or at night.,The Gemara challenges this explanation: b If that is so /b that this is the source of the i halakha /i , the court should be able to conduct b the initial /b stage b of the trial /b at night, b as well. /b The Gemara explains: It is possible to resolve the matter b in accordance with /b the statement b of Rava, as Rava raises a contradiction /b between two verses: It b is written /b in one verse: b “And let them judge the people at all times,” /b indicating that the judgment can be during the day or at night, b and /b it b is written /b in another verse: b “Then it shall be on the day that he causes his sons to inherit /b that which he has” (Deuteronomy 21:16), indicating that cases of inheritance are judged only during the day. Rava explains: b How /b can these texts be reconciled? The verse referring to the b day /b is stated b with regard to the initial /b stage b of the trial, /b and the verse that includes the b night /b is stated b with regard to the verdict. /b ,The Gemara comments: b The mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Meir would say: What /b is the meaning when b the verse states /b with regard to the priests: b “According to their word shall every dispute and every leprous sore be” /b (Deuteronomy 21:5)? b And what do disputes have to do with leprous sores? /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b Rather, /b the verse b juxtaposes disputes to leprous sores, /b teaching that b just as leprous sores /b are viewed by a priest only b in the daytime, as it is written: “And on the day when /b raw flesh b appears in him /b he shall be impure” (Leviticus 13:14), b so too disputes /b are judged only b in the daytime. And just as leprous sores /b are viewed by a priest who can see, but b not by blind /b priests, b as it is written: “As far as appears to the priest” /b (Leviticus 13:12), b so too disputes /b are judged by sighted judges, b not by blind judges. And /b the verse b juxtaposes leprous sores to disputes, /b teaching that b just as disputes /b are judged by independent judges, b not by /b judges who are b relatives /b of the litigants, b so too leprous sores /b are viewed b by /b a priest who is b not a relative /b of the afflicted person.,The i baraita /i continues: b If /b these two matters are juxtaposed, why not say that b just as disputes /b are judged specifically b by three /b judges, b so too leprous sores /b are viewed b by three /b priests? b And this /b would be supported by b a logical inference: /b If a case involving one’s b money /b is judged b by three /b judges, is it b not /b clear b all the more so /b that the person b himself /b should be viewed by three priests? To counter this, b the verse states: “And he shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one /b of his sons, the priests” (Leviticus 13:2). From this b you /b have b learned that even one priest views leprous sores. /b In any event, as opposed to the mishna, Rabbi Meir holds that disputes are judged only during the day.,The Gemara relates: There was b a certain blind man who was /b living b in the neighborhood of Rabbi Yoḥa who would serve as a judge, and Rabbi Yoḥa did not say anything to him. /b The Gemara asks: b How did he do this, /b i.e., allow the blind man to judge? b But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥa /b himself b say: /b The b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the ruling of b an unattributed mishna, and we learned /b in an unattributed mishna ( i Nidda /i 49b): b Anyone who is fit to judge /b is b fit to testify, but there are /b those b who /b are b fit to testify but not fit to judge. And Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b The latter clause serves b to include /b one who is b blind in one of his eyes, /b who is fit to testify but is not fit to judge. All the more so Rabbi Yoḥa would agree that the unattributed mishna holds that one blind in both eyes is disqualified from serving as a judge.,The Gemara answers: b Rabbi Yoḥa found another unattributed mishna, /b i.e., the mishna here, which indicates that a blind man can serve as a judge: In cases of b monetary law, /b the court b judges during the daytime and may conclude /b the deliberations and issue the ruling even b at night. /b Accordingly, judging cases of monetary law is not compared to viewing leprous sores, which is the source for disqualifying a blind judge.,The Gemara asks: In b what /b way is b the strength of this unattributed /b mishna greater b than /b the strength of b that unattributed /b mishna? Why would Rabbi Yoḥa rule in accordance with this one and not that one? The Gemara explains: b If you wish, say /b that b an unattributed /b mishna that records the opinion b of many /b Sages is b preferable, /b as the mishna in tractate i Nidda /i is written in accordance with the individual opinion of Rabbi Meir of the i baraita /i . b And if you wish, say /b it is b because /b this unattributed mishna b teaches this /b i halakha /i b in the context of the i halakhot /i of judgment. /b Since this chapter is the primary source for all i halakhot /i of judgments, the ruling written here carries greater weight.,The Gemara continues its discussion of these opinions. b And what /b does b Rabbi Meir interpret /b from b this /b verse: b “And let them judge the people at all times” /b ? b Rava said: /b He interprets that it serves b to include a cloudy day, /b teaching that although a priest does not view a leprous sore on a cloudy day, the court may judge a case on a cloudy day. b As we learned /b in a mishna ( i Nega’im /i 2:2): A priest b does not view leprous sores /b during the early b morning /b when the sun is not in full force, b and /b not during the late b afternoon, and not in a house, and not on a cloudy day. /b This is b because a dull /b white sore b appears bright, /b and a bright white sore is deemed ritually impure. b And /b a priest does b not /b view leprous sores b at midday, because a bright /b white spot b appears dull /b and the priest will mistakenly deem it ritually pure. The priest views the leprous sores during the late morning or early afternoon., b And what /b does b Rabbi Meir interpret /b from b this /b verse: b “On the day that he causes his sons to inherit”? /b He already derived from the juxtaposition to leprous sores that the court cannot issue a verdict at night. The Gemara answers: b He requires that /b verse b to /b teach the i halakha /i b that Rabba bar Ḥanina taught in the presence of Rav Naḥman: /b The verse states: b “Then it shall be on the day that he causes his sons to inherit /b that which he has” (Deuteronomy 21:16). The addition of the term “on the day” teaches that it is specifically b during the day that you /b can b distribute inheritances, but you cannot distribute inheritances at night. /b Rav Naḥman b said to him: /b That cannot be the i halakha /i , as, b if that is so, /b then it ought to be that it is only in the case of b one who dies during the day /b that b his children inherit /b from b him but /b that with regard to b one who dies at night, his children do not inherit /b from b him, /b and this is not the case.,Rav Naḥman suggests: b Perhaps you are stating /b a distinction between day and night with regard to the b adjudication of inheritances. /b A proof for this distinction is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : A verse in the passage concerning inheritance states: b “And it shall be for the children of Israel a statute of judgment” /b (Numbers 27:11), teaching that b the entire portion is placed [ i ure’a /i ] /b together b to be /b considered a matter of b judgment, /b subject to the procedural rules that apply to a matter of the court., b And /b this is b in accordance with /b the statement b that Rav Yehuda /b says that b Rav says, as Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: /b In a case where there were b three people who entered /b a room b to visit an ill person, /b and the ill person desires to write a will in order to distribute his property following his death, if the visitors b wish /b to do so, b they /b can b write /b his will and sign it as witnesses, and if b they wish, they /b can b act /b in b judgment, /b i.e., they can act as a court in the matter, since they are three. Therefore, they can determine that the will has the validity of an act of the court and transfer the property to the heirs in their capacity as a court. But if only b two /b came to visit the ill person, b they /b can b write /b the will and sign it as witnesses, b but they cannot act /b in b judgment, /b since three are required to form a court., b And Rav Ḥisda says: /b This i halakha /i was b taught only /b in a case where the three came to visit him b during the day; but /b if the three of them came b at night, they /b can b write /b the will and sign it as witnesses, b but they cannot act /b in b judgment. /b What is the reason that they cannot act in judgment on the next day? It is b because they are /b already b witnesses /b to the will of the deceased, b and /b there is a principle that b a witness cannot become a judge, /b i.e., one who acts as a witness in a particular matter cannot become a judge with regard to that same matter. Rabba bar Ḥanina b said to /b Rav Naḥman: b Yes, /b it is indeed b so /b that this is what b I was saying. /b ,§ The mishna teaches: In cases of b capital law, /b the court b judges during the daytime, /b and concludes the deliberations and issues the ruling in the daytime. The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? b Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya says: The verse states /b with regard to Israelites who worshipped the idol of Peor in the wilderness: b “And hang [ i hoka /i ] them unto the Lord, facing the sun” /b (Numbers 25:4), indicating that capital cases are judged in the face of the sun, i.e., during the day. b Rav Ḥisda says: From where /b is it derived b that i hoka’a /i is hanging? /b Where the Gibeonites requested to be given Saul’s sons, b as it is written: “ i Vehoka’anum /i unto the Lord in Gibeah of Saul, the chosen of the Lord” /b (II Samuel 21:6). |
|
11. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 55| 45a. מחייבי לאוין דתפסי בהו קדושין אבל הכא עובד כוכבים ועבד כיון דלא תפסי בהו קדושין כחייבי כריתות דמי,מיתיבי עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד ממזר רבי שמעון בן יהודה אומר אין ממזר אלא ממי שאיסורו איסור ערוה וענוש כרת,אלא אמר רב יוסף מאן הכל מודים רבי אף על גב דרבי אומר אין הדברים הללו אמורים אלא לדברי ר"ע שהיה עושה חלוצה כערוה וליה לא סבירא ליה בעובד כוכבים ועבד מודה דכי אתא רב דימי אמר רב יצחק בר אבודימי משום רבינו עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד ממזר,רבי אחא שר הבירה ור' תנחום בריה דרבי חייא איש כפר עכו פרוק הנהו שבוייתא דאתו מארמון לטבריא הוה חדא דאעברא מעובד כוכבים ואתו לקמיה דר' אמי אמר להו ר' יוחנן ור' אלעזר ור' חנינא דאמרי עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד ממזר,אמר רב יוסף רבותא למחשב גברי הא רב ושמואל בבבל ורבי יהושע בן לוי ובר קפרא בארץ ישראל ואמרי לה חלופי בר קפרא ועיילי זקני דרום דאמרי עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד כשר,אלא אמר רב יוסף רבי היא דכי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יצחק בר אבודימי משום רבינו אמרו עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד ממזר,רבי יהושע בן לוי אומר הולד מקולקל למאן אילימא לקהל הא אמר רבי יהושע הולד כשר אלא לכהונה דכולהו אמוראי דמכשרי מודו שהולד פגום לכהונה,מק"ו מאלמנה מה אלמנה לכהן גדול שאין איסורה שוה בכל בנה פגום זו שאיסורה שוה בכל אינו דין שבנה פגום,מה לאלמנה לכהן גדול שכן היא עצמה מתחללת הכא נמי כיון שנבעלה פסלה,דאמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון מנין לעובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על הכהנת ועל הלויה ועל הישראלית שפסלוה שנאמר (ויקרא כב, יג) ובת כהן כי תהיה אלמנה וגרושה מי שיש לו אלמנות וגירושין בה יצאו עובד כוכבים ועבד שאין להם אלמנות וגירושין בה,אמר ליה אביי מאי חזית דסמכת אדרב דימי סמוך אדרבין דכי אתא רבין אמר רבי נתן ורבי יהודה הנשיא מורים בה להיתירא ומאן רבי יהודה הנשיא רבי,ואף רב מורה בה היתירא דההוא דאתא לקמיה דרב אמר ליה עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל מהו,אמר ליה הולד כשר אמר ליה הב לי ברתך לא יהיבנא לך,אמר שימי בר חייא לרב אמרי אינשי גמלא במדי אקבא רקדא הא קבא והא גמלא והא מדי ולא רקדא,א"ל אי ניהוי כיהושע בן נון לא יהיבנא ליה ברתי א"ל אי הוה כיהושע בן נון אי מר לא יהיב ליה אחריני יהבי ליה האי אי מר לא יהיב ליה אחריני לא יהבי ליה,לא הוה קאזיל מקמיה יהיב ביה עיניה ושכיב,ואף רב מתנה מורה בה להיתירא ואף רב יהודה מורה בה להיתירא דכי אתא לקמיה דרב יהודה א"ל זיל איטמר או נסיב בת מינך וכי אתא לקמיה דרבא א"ל או גלי או נסיב בת מינך,שלחו ליה בני בי מיכסי לרבה מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין הבא על בת ישראל מהו א"ל השתא עבד כולו אמרי' כשר חציו מיבעיא,אמר רב יוסף מרא דשמעתא | 45a. b to /b forbidden relations b for which one is liable for /b violation of b a prohibition /b concerning b which a betrothal /b between the couple b would take effect. However, here, /b with regard to b a gentile and a slave, since their betrothal /b of a Jewish woman b would not take effect, /b a union with them b is comparable to /b forbidden relations b for which one is liable to /b receive b i karet /i , /b and therefore the offspring of such a union will be a i mamzer /i .,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : In the case of b a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring /b born from such a union b is a i mamzer /i . Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says: /b The offspring is b a i mamzer /i only /b if born b from /b relations with b one who is forbidden by a prohibition of forbidden relations /b that are b punishable by i karet /i . /b It is apparent from the i baraita /i that one who holds, as does Shimon HaTimni, that only the offspring from forbidden relations for which one is liable to receive i karet /i is a i mamzer /i , nevertheless holds that the offspring of a slave or gentile and a Jewish woman is not a i mamzer /i ., b Rather, Rav Yosef said: Who /b is included by saying: b All agree? /b It is b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, as b although Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says /b in a i baraita /i (52b) concerning the mishna (50a–51b) that states that a levirate betrothal between a i yavam /i and a i yevama /i with whom he had already performed i ḥalitza /i is ineffective: b This statement was said only according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva, as he would consider a i ḥalutza /i like a forbidden relative /b such that if the i yavam /i betrothed her it would not take effect. b And /b although Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b himself does not hold accordingly /b with regard to that issue, b with regard to /b the offspring of a union with b a gentile or a slave he concedes /b that the offspring is a i mamzer /i . b As, when Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael, he said that b Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said in the name of our Master, /b i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: With regard to b a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a i mamzer /i . /b ,The Gemara cites a related incident: b Rabbi Aḥa, lord of the capital, and Rabbi Tanḥum, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, /b the b man of Akko village, redeemed those captives who came from Armon to Tiberias. One of them had been impregnated by a gentile, and they came before Rabbi Ami /b to ask what the offspring’s status would be when born. b He said to them /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Ḥanina /b all b say: /b With regard to b a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a i mamzer /i . /b ,Upon hearing this, b Rav Yosef said: Is it so great to enumerate men? /b The fact that several great Sages held this opinion does not prove that their opinion is the accepted i halakha /i . b But /b there are b Rav and Shmuel in Babylonia, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and bar Kappara in Eretz Yisrael, and some say /b to b remove bar Kappara /b from this list b and insert /b instead b the Elders of the South, who /b all b say: /b With regard to b a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, /b the lineage of b the offspring is unflawed, /b and he or she may marry into the congregation of Israel., b Rather, Rav Yosef said /b the i halakha /i is in fact that the offspring is a i mamzer /i because this b is Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion, b as when Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael he said that b Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi said in the name of our Master, /b i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that b they say: /b With regard to b a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a i mamzer /i . /b , b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: /b The lineage of b the offspring is sullied, /b and if the child is a girl she is restricted in whom she may marry. The Gemara asks: b To whom /b is she prohibited from marrying? b If we say /b it is b to the congregation /b of Israel, but b didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua /b himself b say /b that the lineage of b the offspring is unflawed /b and he or she may marry into the congregation of Israel? b Rather, /b the offspring is prohibited b to /b marry into b the priesthood, as all of the i amora’im /i who render /b the offspring b fit /b to enter the congregation of Israel b agree that the offspring has flawed /b lineage and is forbidden b to /b marry into b the priesthood. /b ,This is derived b from an i a fortiori /i /b inference b from /b the i halakha /i of b a widow, /b as follows: b Just as /b in the case of b a widow /b who is married b to a High Priest, where the prohibition /b that pertains b to her is not equally applicable to all /b Jews, i.e., only a High Priest is prohibited from marrying a widow, and nevertheless b her child /b from that union will b have flawed /b lineage, then so too with regard to b this /b woman who engaged in relations with a gentile or slave, b where the prohibition /b that pertains b to her is equally applicable to all /b Jews, b isn’t it logical that her child /b from that union will b have flawed /b lineage?,And if one would say that the logic of this i a fortiori /i inference could be refuted by claiming that b what /b is true with regard b to a widow /b who is married b to a High Priest, where /b her union with him is what makes b her herself disqualified /b from subsequently marrying any priest and, if she is the daughter of a priest, from eating i teruma /i , is not true with regard to the prohibition against a Jewish woman engaging in relations with a gentile or a slave. This is not correct, because b here, too, once he has engaged in intercourse with her, he /b thereby b renders her unfit /b to marry into the priesthood., b As Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Shimon: From where /b is it derived with regard b to a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a daughter of a priest or with a female Levite or with a female Israelite that they /b thereby b render her unfit /b to marry into the priesthood? b As it is stated: “But a priest’s daughter when she will become a widow, or a divorcée, /b and have no child, she returns to her father’s house as in her youth” (Leviticus 22:13). The verse indicates that she returns to her father’s house and enjoys the rights of the priesthood only in a case where she engaged in intercourse with b one to whom widowhood and divorce can apply, /b i.e., one with whom her marriage would be valid and would be broken only through death or divorce. b Excluded /b from this is a union with b a gentile or a slave, to whom neither widowhood nor divorce can apply, /b as no marriage bond can be formed with them., b Abaye said to /b Rav Yosef: b What did you see that you rely upon Rav Dimi /b and his tradition that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the offspring of a gentile or a slave and a Jewish woman is a i mamzer /i ? b Rely /b instead b upon Ravin, as when Ravin came /b from Eretz Yisrael b he said /b that b Rabbi Natan and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi /b both b rule /b that the offspring is b permitted /b to marry into the congregation of Israel. b And who is /b the b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi /b referred to in Ravin’s report? It is the one who is simply referred to as b Rabbi, /b the redactor of the Mishna, whose opinion is accepted as the i halakha /i .,The Gemara notes: b And even Rav rules /b that the offspring is b permitted, as /b is evident from an incident involving b a certain /b individual b who came before Rav /b and b said to him: /b With regard to the offspring of b a gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, what is /b its halakhic status?,Rav b said to him: /b The lineage of b the offspring is unflawed. /b The individual who asked the question was himself such a child, and b he said to /b Rav: If so, b give me your daughter /b in marriage. He said to him: b I will not give /b her b to you. /b , b Shimi bar Ḥiyya, /b Rav’s grandson, b said to Rav: People /b often b say /b that b a camel in Medes /b can b dance upon /b a small space that holds only a single b i kav /i /b of produce. However, clearly that is an exaggeration, since if one would go to Medes one could demonstrate that b this is /b a space that holds a b i kav /i , and this is a camel, and this is Medes, and /b yet the camel b is not dancing, /b i.e., the truth of a statement becomes apparent when it is put to the test. So too, it would appear that you do not truly believe in your ruling because when put to the test, you are unwilling to rely on it., b He said to him: /b Even b if he were as /b great as b Joshua, son of Nun, I would not give him my daughter /b in marriage. My refusal to give her to him in marriage is not that I do not stand by my ruling; it is for other reasons. b He said to him: If he were as /b great as b Joshua, son of Nun, /b then even b if the Master would not give him /b his daughter, b others would /b still b give him /b their daughters. However, with regard to b this /b man, b if the Master does not give him /b his daughter, b others will not give him /b their daughters either out of fear of damaging the family lineage. Nevertheless, Rav remained unwilling to give his daughter to that individual.,That individual b would not go from /b standing b before /b Rav and continued to plead with him. Rav b placed his eyes upon him and he died. /b ,The Gemara adds: b And even Rav Mattana rules /b that the offspring is b permitted, and even Rav Yehuda rules /b that the offspring is b permitted, as /b is evident from the fact that b when /b a child of a gentile or slave and a Jewish woman b came before Rav Yehuda, he said to him: Go /b and b conceal /b your paternal lineage so that people will not refrain from giving you their daughters in marriage, as it is permitted for you to marry into the congregation of Israel, b or /b otherwise, b marry /b a woman b of your own kind, /b i.e., a woman of similar lineage. b And /b similarly, b when /b such a person b came before Rava, he said to him: Either go into exile /b to a place where your lineage is unknown, so that others will give you their daughters in marriage, b or marry a woman of your own kind. /b , b The residents of Bei Mikhsei sent /b the following question b to Rabba: /b With regard to the offspring of b one who is a half-slave half-freeman, who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, what is /b its halakhic status? b He said to them: Now /b that with regard to the offspring of b a full slave we say /b that his lineage is b unflawed, is /b it b necessary /b to ask about b a half- /b slave?, b Rav Yosef said: The Master /b who is responsible for dissemination b of /b this b i halakha /i /b that the offspring of a slave and a Jewish woman is not a i mamzer /i , |
|
12. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), fourth (conversion court / witnesses) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 244| 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 |
|
13. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), fourth (conversion court / witnesses) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 56| 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 |
|
14. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), fourth (conversion court / witnesses) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 268| 49b. רבי יהודה אומר כופף אזני קדרה לתוכה ומציף עליה מים ואם כונס בידוע שכונס משקה ואם לאו בידוע שמוציא משקה,או שופתה על גבי האור אם האור מעמידה בידוע שמוציא משקה ואם לאו בידוע שמכניס משקה,ר' יוסי אומר אף לא שופתה על גבי האור מפני שהאור מעמידה אלא שופתה על גבי הרמץ אם רמץ מעמידה בידוע שמוציא משקה ואם לאו בידוע שכונס משקה היה טורד טיפה אחר טיפה בידוע שכונס משקה,מאי איכא בין ת"ק לר' יהודה אמר עולא כינוס על ידי הדחק איכא בינייהו,כל אבר שיש בו צפורן וכו' יש בו צפורן מטמא במגע ובמשא ובאהל יש בו עצם ואין בו צפורן מטמא במגע ובמשא ואינו מטמא באהל,אמר רב חסדא דבר זה רבינו הגדול אמרו המקום יהיה בעזרו אצבע יתרה שיש בו עצם ואין בו צפורן מטמא במגע ובמשא ואינו מטמא באהל,אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן וכשאינה נספרת על גב היד,כל המטמא מדרס וכו' כל דחזי למדרס מטמא טמא מת,ויש שמטמא טמא מת ואין מטמא מדרס לאתויי מאי לאתויי סאה ותרקב,דתניא (ויקרא טו, ו) והיושב על הכלי יכול כפה סאה וישב עליה או תרקב וישב עליו יהא טמא,ת"ל (ויקרא טו, ו) אשר ישב עליו הזב מי שמיוחד לישיבה יצא זה שאומרים לו עמוד ונעשה מלאכתנו, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כל הראוי לדון דיני נפשות ראוי לדון דיני ממונות ויש שראוי לדון דיני ממונות ואינו ראוי לדון דיני נפשות, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רב יהודה לאתויי ממזר,תנינא חדא זימנא הכל כשרין לדון דיני ממונות ואין הכל כשרין לדון דיני נפשות והוינן בה לאתויי מאי ואמר רב יהודה לאתויי ממזר חדא לאתויי גר וחדא לאתויי ממזר,וצריכי דאי אשמעינן גר משום דראוי לבא בקהל אבל ממזר דאין ראוי לבא בקהל אימא לא,ואי אשמעינן ממזר משום דקאתי מטפה כשרה אבל גר דקאתי מטפה פסולה אימא לא צריכא, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כל הכשר לדון כשר להעיד ויש שכשר להעיד ואינו כשר לדון, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big לאתויי מאי א"ר יוחנן לאתויי סומא באחת מעיניו ומני | 49b. b Rabbi Yehuda says /b that the method for determining whether an earthenware vessel contains a hole that allows liquid to enter is as follows: One takes the b handles of the pot and turns it over, /b placing it upside down b in /b an empty tub, b and /b he then b covers /b the pot with b water. If /b water b enters /b the pot, b it is known that /b it contains a hole b that enables liquid to enter, and if /b the water does b not /b enter the pot, b it is known that /b the vessel contains a small hole b that enables /b only the b exit /b of b liquids. /b , b Or /b one can determine the size of the hole by the following method: One b places /b the pot, with liquid in it, b on the fire. If the fire holds /b the liquid back and does not allow it to exit the vessel, then b it is known /b that the vessel contains a small hole b that enables /b only the b exit /b of b liquids. And if /b the fire does b not /b hold the liquid back and does not prevent it from exiting the vessel, then b it is known /b that it contains a hole b that enables liquid to enter. /b , b Rabbi Yosei says: One should not place /b the pot with liquid in it b on the fire. /b This is not a reliable test for determining the size of the hole, as it is possible that the hole is actually large enough to enable liquid to enter, but nevertheless b the fire prevents /b the liquid from exiting. b Rather, one places /b the pot with liquid in it b on hot ash. If the hot ash holds /b the liquid back and does not allow it to exit the vessel, then b it is known /b that the vessel contains a small hole b that enables /b only the b exit /b of b liquids. But if /b the hot ash does b not /b hold the liquid back and does not prevent it from exiting the vessel, b it is known /b that it contains a hole b that enables liquid to enter. /b Another manner of testing is to fill the vessel with liquid. If it b drips /b one b drop after /b another b drop, it is known /b that it contains a hole b that enables liquid to enter. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What /b difference b is there between /b the method of testing stated by b the first i tanna /i , /b placing the vessel in a tub of water, and that b of Rabbi Yehuda, /b placing the vessel upside down into the tub and then covering it with water? b Ulla said: /b The difference b between /b their opinions is whether liquid that b enters /b through a hole b with difficulty, /b i.e., as the result of force, is considered entering. According to Rabbi Yehuda, placing the vessel directly into a tub of water constitutes the use of force to a certain degree, and he maintains that if water enters the vessel in such a case, this does not count as liquid entering the vessel. Therefore, he rejects the testing method of the first i tanna /i .,§ The mishna teaches: b In any limb /b of the body b where there is a nail, /b there is certainly a bone in it as well. But it is possible for there to be limbs that contain a bone without a nail. The Gemara explains the halakhic significance of this distinction. A limb b in which there is a nail /b and which therefore certainly contains a bone has the status of a full-fledged limb. Therefore, it b transmits impurity /b through b contact, movement, and in a tent, /b even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk. By contrast, if b there is a bone in /b the limb b but there is no nail, /b it b transmits impurity /b through b contact and movement /b even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk, b but /b it does b not transmit impurity in a tent /b unless its size is that of an olive-bulk., b Rav Ḥisda says: The /b following b matter was stated by our great rabbi, /b Rav, b may the Omnipresent /b come b to his assistance. An extra finger /b on one’s hand b in which there is a bone but there is no nail transmits impurity /b through b contact and movement /b even if its size is less than that of an olive-bulk, b but /b it does b not transmit impurity in a tent. /b , b Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥa said: And /b this is the i halakha /i , that it must contain both bone and a nail for it to be considered a limb, only in a case b where /b this finger b cannot be counted along the back of the hand, /b i.e., the extra finger is not aligned with the others. But if it is aligned with the other fingers then it is considered like any other limb and imparts impurity in a tent, whether or not it contains a nail.,§ The mishna further teaches: Similarly, b any /b item that b becomes ritually impure /b with impurity of a i zav /i imparted by b treading /b becomes ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse. The Gemara explains that this means that b any item that is fit to /b become impure with the impurity of a i zav /i imparted by b treading /b is fit to b become ritually impure /b with b impurity imparted by a corpse. /b ,The mishna continues: b And there are /b vessels b that become ritually impure /b with b impurity imparted by a corpse but do not become ritually impure /b with impurity of a i zav /i imparted by b treading. /b The Gemara asks: b What is added /b by this statement? The Gemara answers: This serves b to add /b a measuring vessel, e.g., the measure of b a i se’a /i or a half- i se’a /i [ i vetarkav /i ]. /b , b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states with regard to the impurity of the treading of a i zav /i : b “And he who sits on /b any b object /b whereon the i zav /i sits shall wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and is impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:6). One b might /b have thought that if a i zav /i b turned over /b a vessel used to measure b a i se’a /i and sat on it, or /b if he turned over a vessel used to measure b a half- i se’a /i and sat on it, /b that vessel b should be /b rendered b impure /b as a seat upon which a i zav /i sat.,Therefore, b the verse states: /b “And he who sits on any object b whereon the i zav /i sits” /b (Leviticus 15:6). The wording of the verse indicates that it is speaking of an object b that is designated for sitting, /b i.e., upon which people generally sit, b excluding such /b a vessel, with regard to b which we say to /b someone sitting on it: b Stand up and /b allow us to use it to b do our work, /b i.e., to measure. This is not defined as a vessel used for sitting, as it serves another function., strong MISHNA: /strong b Any /b person b who is fit to adjudicate /b cases of b capital law is fit to adjudicate /b cases of b monetary law, and there are /b those b who are fit to adjudicate /b cases of b monetary law but are unfit to adjudicate /b cases of b capital law. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Rav Yehuda said: /b The statement of the mishna that some are fit to adjudicate cases of monetary law but are unfit to adjudicate cases of capital law serves b to add /b the case of b a i mamzer /i . /b Although he may not adjudicate cases of capital law, nevertheless he may adjudicate cases of monetary law.,The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to teach this here? b We /b already b learned /b this on b another occasion, /b in a mishna ( i Sanhedrin /i 32a): b All are fit to judge /b cases of b monetary law, but not all are fit to judge /b cases of b capital law. And we discussed it, /b and asked b what is added /b by the phrase: All are fit to judge. b And Rav Yehuda said /b in response that this serves b to add /b the case of b a i mamzer /i . /b The Gemara answers: b One /b mishna serves b to add /b the case of b a convert, and one /b other mishna serves b to add /b the case of b a i mamzer /i . /b ,The Gemara explains: b And /b both additions b are necessary. As, if /b the i mishnayot /i had b taught us /b only that b a convert /b is fit to judge cases of monetary law, one might have said that the i halakha /i is lenient in the case of a convert b because /b he is b fit to enter into the congregation, /b i.e., marry a Jewish woman. b But /b with regard to b a i mamzer /i , who is unfit to enter into the congregation, /b one might b say /b that b he /b is b not /b fit to judge cases of monetary law., b And if /b the i mishnayot /i had b taught us /b only that b a i mamzer /i /b is fit to judge cases of monetary law, one might have said that the i halakha /i is lenient in the case of a i mamzer /i b because he comes from a fit drop /b of semen, i.e., his father is Jewish. b But /b with regard to b a convert, who comes from an unfit drop, /b as he was born a gentile, one might b say /b that he is b not /b fit to judge cases of monetary law. Therefore, it is b necessary /b to teach the i halakhot /i of both a convert and a i mamzer /i ., strong MISHNA: /strong b Any /b person b who is fit to adjudicate /b a case and serve as a judge b is fit to testify /b as a witness, b and there are /b those b who are fit to testify but are not fit to adjudicate. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b What is added /b by this statement, that some people are fit to testify but not to adjudicate? b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b This serves b to add one who is blind in one of his eyes. And /b in accordance with b whose /b opinion is this ruling? |
|
| 15. Anon., Gerim, 1.1, 4.5 Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), fourth (conversion court / witnesses) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 262, 270 |
| 16. Josephus, Book of Judith, 59 Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), fourth (conversion court / witnesses) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 266 |
| 17. Mishnah, Malachi, 8 Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), fourth (conversion court / witnesses) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 44, 262 |
| 18. Anon., Sifre Zuta, 15.14 Tagged with subjects: •babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), fourth (conversion court / witnesses) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 262 |
