1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 1.16, 21.17 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, fourth baraita (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: •conversion court, fourth baraita (conversion court / witnesses) 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: •conversion court, fourth baraita (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| 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. Palestinian Talmud, Demai, 2.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, fourth baraita (conversion court / witnesses) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 263 |
8. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, fourth baraita (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 |
|
9. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, fourth baraita (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 |
|
10. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, fourth baraita (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? |
|
11. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 244, 264, 265, 266, 281| 47a. אין לי אלא בארץ בח"ל מנין תלמוד לומר אתך בכל מקום שאתך אם כן מה ת"ל בארץ בארץ צריך להביא ראיה בח"ל אין צריך להביא ראיה דברי ר' יהודה וחכמים אומרים בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ צריך להביא ראיה,בא הוא ועדיו עמו קרא למה לי אמר רב ששת דאמרי שמענו שנתגייר בב"ד של פלוני סד"א לא ליהמנייהו קמ"ל,בארץ אין לי אלא בארץ בח"ל מנין ת"ל אתך בכל מקום שאתך והא אפיקתיה חדא מאתך וחדא מעמך,וחכ"א בין בארץ בין בח"ל צריך להביא ראיה ואלא הא כתיב בארץ,ההוא מיבעי ליה דאפילו בארץ מקבלים גרים דסד"א משום טיבותא דארץ ישראל קמגיירי והשתא נמי דליכא טיבותא איכא לקט שכחה ופאה ומעשר עני קמ"ל,א"ר חייא בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן הלכה בין בארץ בין בח"ל צריך להביא ראיה פשיטא יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים מהו דתימא מסתבר טעמא דרבי יהודה דקמסייעי ליה קראי קמ"ל,ת"ר (דברים א, טז) ושפטתם צדק בין איש ובין אחיו ובין גרו מכאן א"ר יהודה גר שנתגייר בב"ד הרי זה גר בינו לבין עצמו אינו גר,מעשה באחד שבא לפני רבי יהודה ואמר לו נתגיירתי ביני לבין עצמי א"ל רבי יהודה יש לך עדים אמר ליה לאו יש לך בנים א"ל הן א"ל נאמן אתה לפסול את עצמך ואי אתה נאמן לפסול את בניך,[ומי] א"ר יהודה אבנים לא מהימן והתניא (דברים כא, יז) יכיר יכירנו לאחרים מכאן א"ר יהודה נאמן אדם לומר זה בני בכור וכשם שנאמן לומר זה בני בכור כך נאמן לומר בני זה בן גרושה הוא או בן חלוצה הוא וחכ"א אינו נאמן,א"ר נחמן בר יצחק ה"ק ליה לדבריך עובד כוכבים אתה ואין עדות לעובד כוכבים רבינא אמר הכי קאמר ליה יש לך בנים הן יש לך בני בנים הן א"ל נאמן אתה לפסול בניך ואי אתה נאמן לפסול בני בניך,תניא נמי הכי ר' יהודה אומר נאמן אדם לומר על בנו קטן ואין נאמן על בנו גדול ואמר ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן לא קטן קטן ממש ולא גדול גדול ממש אלא קטן ויש לו בנים זהו גדול גדול ואין לו בנים זהו קטן,והלכתא כוותיה דרב נחמן בר יצחק והתניא כוותיה דרבינא ההוא לענין יכיר איתמר,תנו רבנן גר שבא להתגייר בזמן הזה אומרים לו מה ראית שבאת להתגייר אי אתה יודע שישראל בזמן הזה דוויים דחופים סחופים ומטורפין ויסורין באין עליהם אם אומר יודע אני ואיני כדאי מקבלין אותו מיד,ומודיעין אותו מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות ומודיעין אותו עון לקט שכחה ופאה ומעשר עני ומודיעין אותו ענשן של מצות אומרים לו הוי יודע שעד שלא באת למדה זו אכלת חלב אי אתה ענוש כרת חללת שבת אי אתה ענוש סקילה ועכשיו אכלת חלב ענוש כרת חללת שבת ענוש סקילה,וכשם שמודיעין אותו ענשן של מצות כך מודיעין אותו מתן שכרן אומרים לו הוי יודע שהעולם הבא אינו עשוי אלא לצדיקים וישראל בזמן הזה אינם יכולים לקבל | 47a. b I have /b derived b only /b that a convert is accepted b in Eretz /b Yisrael; b from where /b do I derive that also b outside /b of b Eretz /b Yisrael he is to be accepted? b The verse states “with you,” /b which indicates that b in any place that he is with you, /b you should accept him. b If so, what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: In the land? /b This indicates that b in Eretz /b Yisrael b he needs to bring evidence /b that he is a convert, b but outside /b of b Eretz /b Yisrael b he does not need to bring evidence /b that he is a convert; rather, his claim is accepted. This is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: Whether /b he is b in Eretz /b Yisrael b or whether /b he is b outside /b of b Eretz /b Yisrael, b he needs to bring evidence. /b ,The Gemara analyzes the i baraita /i : In the case when b he came and /b brought b witnesses /b to his conversion b with him, why do I /b need b a verse /b to teach that he is accepted? In all cases, the testimony of witnesses is fully relied upon. b Rav Sheshet said: /b The case is b where they say: We heard that he converted in /b the b court /b of b so-and-so, /b but they did not witness the actual conversion. And it is necessary to teach this because it could b enter your mind to say /b that b they should not be relied upon; /b therefore, the verse b teaches us /b that they are relied upon.,As cited above, the latter clause of the i baraita /i states: “With you b in /b your b land” /b (Leviticus 19:33). b I have /b derived b only /b that a convert is accepted b in Eretz /b Yisrael; b from where /b do I derive that also b outside /b of b Eretz /b Yisrael he is to be accepted? b The verse states: “With you,” /b which indicates that b in any place that he is with you, /b you should accept him. The Gemara asks: b But didn’t you /b already b expound that /b phrase in the first clause of the i baraita /i to teach that one doesn’t accept the claims of an individual that he is a valid convert? The Gemara explains: b One /b of these i halakhot /i is derived from the phrase b “with you” /b in the verse cited, b and /b the other b one /b is derived from the phrase b “with you” /b in a subsequent verse (Leviticus 25:35).,The i baraita /i states: b And the Rabbis say: Whether /b he is b in Eretz /b Yisrael b or whether /b he is b outside /b of b Eretz /b Yisrael, b he needs to bring evidence. /b The Gemara asks: b But isn’t “in /b your b land” written /b in the verse? How can the Rabbis deny any distinction between the i halakha /i inside and outside of Eretz Yisrael?,The Gemara explains: b That /b phrase b is necessary /b to teach b that even in Eretz /b Yisrael, the Jewish people should b accept converts, as it could enter your mind to say /b that it is only b for the sake of /b benefiting from b the goodness of Eretz Yisrael, /b and not for the sake of Heaven, that b they are converting, /b and therefore they should not be accepted. b And /b it could also enter your mind to say that even b nowadays, when /b God’s blessing has ceased and b there is no /b longer b the /b original b goodness /b from which to benefit, one should still suspect their purity of motives because b there are /b the b gleanings, /b the b forgotten sheaves, and /b the b corners /b of fields, b and the poor man’s tithe /b from which they would benefit by converting. Therefore, the verse b teaches us /b that they are accepted even in Eretz Yisrael., b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b The b i halakha /i /b is that b whether /b a convert is b in Eretz /b Yisrael b or whether /b he is b outside of Eretz /b Yisrael, b he needs to bring evidence. /b The Gemara asks: b Isn’t /b this b obvious; /b in all disputes between b an individual /b Sage b and many /b Sages the b i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of the b many /b Sages. The Gemara explains: It is necessary to state this b lest you say /b that b Rabbi Yehuda’s reason /b is more b logical, being that the verse supports him /b when it states: “In your land.” Therefore, it is necessary for Rabbi Yoḥa to b teach us /b that the i halakha /i is not in accordance with his opinion., b The Sages taught: /b The verse states that Moses charged the judges of a court: b “And judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the convert with him” /b (Deuteronomy 1:16). b From here, /b based on the mention of a convert in the context of judgment in a court, b Rabbi Yehuda said: /b A potential b convert who converts in a court is a /b valid b convert. /b However, if he converts b in private, he is not a convert. /b ,The Gemara relates: There was b an incident involving one /b who was presumed to be Jewish b who came before Rabbi Yehuda and said to him: I converted in private, /b and therefore I am not actually Jewish. b Rabbi Yehuda said to him: /b Do b you have witnesses /b to support your claim? b He said to him: No. /b Rabbi Yehuda asked: Do b you have children? He said to him: Yes. /b Rabbi Yehuda b said to him: You are deemed credible /b in order b to render yourself unfit /b to marry a Jewish woman by claiming that you are a gentile, b but you are not deemed credible /b in order b to render your children unfit. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But did Rabbi Yehuda /b actually b say /b that b with regard to /b his b children he is not deemed credible? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “He shall acknowledge [ i yakir /i ] /b the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he has” (Deuteronomy 21:17). The phrase “he shall acknowledge” is apparently superfluous. It is therefore expounded to teach that the father is deemed credible so that b he can identify him [ i yakirenu /i ] to others. From here Rabbi Yehuda said: A man is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son, and just as he is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son, so /b too, a priest b is deemed credible to say: This son of mine is a son of a divorced woman /b and myself, b or /b to say: He is b a son of a i ḥalutza /i /b and myself, and therefore he is disqualified due to flawed lineage [ i ḥalal /i ]. b And the Rabbis say: He is not deemed credible. /b If Rabbi Yehuda holds that a father is deemed credible to render his children unfit, why did he rule otherwise in the case of the convert?, b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said /b that b this is what /b Rabbi Yehuda b said to him: According to your statement you are a gentile, and there is no testimony for a gentile, /b as a gentile is a disqualified witness. Consequently, you cannot testify about the status of your children and render them unfit. b Ravina said /b that b this is what /b Rabbi Yehuda b said to him: /b Do b you have children? He said: Yes. He said to him: /b Do b you have grandchildren? /b He said: b Yes. He said to him: You are deemed credible /b in order b to render your children unfit, /b based on the phrase “he shall acknowledge,” b but you are not deemed credible /b in order b to render your grandchildren unfit, /b as the verse affords a father credibility only with respect to his children., b This /b opinion of Ravina b is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda says: A man is deemed credible to say about his minor son /b that he is unfit, b but he is not deemed credible to say about his adult son /b that he is unfit. b And /b in explanation of the i baraita /i , b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b The reference to b a minor /b son does b not /b mean one who is b literally a minor, /b who has not yet reached majority, b and /b the reference to b an adult /b son does b not /b mean one who is b literally an adult, /b who has reached majority; b rather, a minor who has children, this is /b what the i baraita /i is referring to as b an adult, /b and b an adult who does not have children, this is /b what the i baraita /i is referring to as b a minor. /b ,The Gemara concludes: b And the i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak. /b The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in the i baraita /i b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Ravina? /b If there is a i baraita /i that supports his opinion, the i halakha /i should be in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara explains: b That /b i baraita /i b was stated concerning the matter of “he shall acknowledge,” /b that a father is deemed credible to render his son unfit; however, if one claims he is a gentile, he is not deemed credible to say the same about his son.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to a potential b convert who comes to /b a court in order to b convert, at the present time, /b when the Jews are in exile, the judges of the court b say to him: What did you see that /b motivated b you /b to b come to convert? Don’t you know that the Jewish people at the present time are anguished, suppressed, despised, and harassed, and hardships are /b frequently b visited upon them? If he says: I know, and /b although b I am unworthy /b of joining the Jewish people and sharing in their sorrow, I nevertheless desire to do so, then the court b accepts him immediately /b to begin the conversion process., b And /b the judges of the court b inform him /b of b some of the lenient mitzvot and some of the stringent mitzvot, and they inform him /b of b the sin /b of neglecting the mitzva to allow the poor to take b gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and /b produce in the b corner /b of one’s field, b and /b about the b poor man’s tithe. And they inform him /b of b the punishment for /b transgressing b the mitzvot, /b as follows: b They say to him: Be aware that before you came to this status /b and converted, b had you eaten forbidden fat, you would not be punished by i karet /i , /b and b had you profaned Shabbat, you would not be punished by stoning, /b since these prohibitions do not apply to gentiles. b But now, /b once converted, if b you have eaten forbidden fat you are punished by i karet /i , /b and if b you have profaned Shabbat, you are punished by stoning. /b , b And just as they inform him /b about the b punishment for /b transgressing the b mitzvot, so /b too, b they inform him /b about the b reward granted for /b fulfilling b them. They say to him: Be aware that the World-to-Come is made only for the righteous, /b and if you observe the mitzvot you will merit it, b and /b be aware that b the Jewish people, at the present time, are unable to receive /b their full reward in this world; |
|
| 12. Anon., Gerim, 1.1, 4.5 Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, fourth baraita (conversion court / witnesses) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 262, 270 |
| 13. Josephus, Book of Judith, 59 Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, fourth baraita (conversion court / witnesses) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 266 |
| 14. Mishnah, Malachi, 8 Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, fourth baraita (conversion court / witnesses) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 44, 262 |
| 15. Anon., Sifre Zuta, 15.14 Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, fourth baraita (conversion court / witnesses) Found in books: Lavee (2017) 262 |
