1. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 15.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 48, 54, 278, 279| 15.16. "תּוֹרָה אַחַת וּמִשְׁפָּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם וְלַגֵּר הַגָּר אִתְּכֶם׃", | 15.16. "One law and one ordice shall be both for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 19.33 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 279| 19.33. "וְכִי־יָגוּר אִתְּךָ גֵּר בְּאַרְצְכֶם לֹא תוֹנוּ אֹתוֹ׃", | 19.33. "And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 1.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 51| 1.16. "וָאֲצַוֶּה אֶת־שֹׁפְטֵיכֶם בָּעֵת הַהִוא לֵאמֹר שָׁמֹעַ בֵּין־אֲחֵיכֶם וּשְׁפַטְתֶּם צֶדֶק בֵּין־אִישׁ וּבֵין־אָחִיו וּבֵין גֵּרוֹ׃", | 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.", |
|
4. Tosefta, Demai, 2.13-2.14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 52| 2.13. "לא יאמר אדם חבר לעם הארץ הולך ככר זו ותן לפלוני חבר שאין משלחין טהרות ביד עם הארץ חבר שאמר לו עם הארץ הולך ככר זו והולך לפלוני ע\"ה לא יתן לו שאין מוסרין טהרות לעם הארץ.", 2.14. "עם הארץ שאמר לחבר תן לי ככר זה ואוכלנו יין זה ואשתנו לא יתן לו שאין מאכילין טהרות לעם הארץ היה נדור מן הככר ואמר לו תן לי ואוכלנו אבטיח שניקר ואמר [לו] תן לי ואוכלנו יין ונתגלה ואמר לו תן לי ואשתנו לא יתן שאין מאכילין את האדם דבר האסור לו כיוצא בו לא יושיט ישראל אבר מן החי לבני נח ולא כוס יין לנזיר שאין מאכילין את האדם דבר האסור לו ועל כולן אין מברכין עליהן ואין מזמנין עליהן ואין עונין אחריהן אמן.", | |
|
5. Mishnah, Negaim, 7.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 47| 7.1. "אֵלּוּ בֶהָרוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת. שֶׁהָיוּ בוֹ קֹדֶם לְמַתַּן תּוֹרָה, בְּנָכְרִי וְנִתְגַּיֵּר, בְּקָטָן וְנוֹלַד, בְּקֶמֶט וְנִגְלָה, בָּרֹאשׁ וּבַזָּקָן, בַּשְּׁחִין וּבַמִּכְוָה וְקֶדַח וּבַמּוֹרְדִין. חָזַר הָרֹאשׁ וְהַזָּקָן וְנִקְרְחוּ, הַשְּׁחִין וְהַמִּכְוָה וְהַקֶּדַח וְנַעֲשׂוּ צָרֶבֶת, טְהוֹרִים. הָרֹאשׁ וְהַזָּקָן עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱלוּ שֵׂעָר, הֶעֱלוּ שֵׂעָר וְנִקְרְחוּ, הַשְּׁחִין וְהַמִּכְוָה וְהַקֶּדַח עַד שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשׂוּ צָרֶבֶת, נַעֲשׂוּ צָרֶבֶת וְחָיוּ, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב מְטַמֵּא, שֶׁתְּחִלָּתָן וְסוֹפָן טָמֵא. וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִים: \n", | 7.1. "The following bright spots are clean:Those that one had before the Torah was given, Those that a non-Jew had when he converted; Or a child when it was born, Or those that were in a crease and were subsequently uncovered. If they were on the head or the beard, on a boil, a burn or a blister that is festering, and subsequently the head or the beard became bald, and the boil, burn or blister turned into a scar, they are clean. If they were on the head or the beard before they grew hair, and they then grew hair and subsequently became bald, or if they were on the body before the boil, burn or blister before they were festering and then these formed a scar or were healed: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said that they are unclean since at the beginning and at the end they were unclean, But the sages say: they are clean.", |
|
6. Mishnah, Eduyot, 5.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 57| 5.2. "רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, שִׁשָּׁה דְבָרִים מִקֻּלֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחֻמְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. הָעוֹף עוֹלֶה עִם הַגְּבִינָה עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ עוֹלֶה וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל. תּוֹרְמִין זֵיתִים עַל שֶׁמֶן, וַעֲנָבִים עַל יַיִן, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵין תּוֹרְמִין. הַזּוֹרֵעַ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁבַּכֶּרֶם, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, קִדֵּשׁ שׁוּרָה אַחַת, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, קִדֵּשׁ שְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת. הַמְּעִיסָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹטְרִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְחַיְּבִין. מַטְבִּילִין בְּחַרְדָּלִית, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵין מַטְבִּילִין. גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר עַרְבֵי פְסָחִים, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל אֶת פִּסְחוֹ לָעֶרֶב. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הָעָרְלָה, כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַקָּבֶר: \n", | 5.2. "Rabbi Yose says: there are six instances of lenient rulings by Beth Shammai and stringent rulings by Beth Hillel.A fowl may be put on a table [together] with cheese but may not be eaten [with it], according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: it may neither be put on [the table together with it] nor eaten [with it]. Olives may be given as terumah for oil and grapes for wine, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai. But Beth Hillel says: they may not be given. One who sows seed [within] four cubits of a vineyard: Beth Shammai says: he has caused one row [of vines] to be prohibited. But Beth Hillel says: he has caused two rows to be prohibited. Flour paste [flour that had been mixed with boiling water]: Beth Shammai exempts [from the law of hallah]; But Beth Hillel pronounces it liable. One may immerse oneself in a rain-torrent, according to the opinion of Beth Shammai; But Beth Hillel say: one may not immerse oneself [therein]. One who became a proselyte on the eve of Passover: Beth Shammai says: he may immerse himself and eat his Passover sacrifice in the evening. But Beth Hillel says: one who separates himself from uncircumcision is as one who separates himself from the grave.", |
|
7. Mishnah, Pesahim, 8.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 47, 57| 8.8. "אוֹנֵן טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל אֶת פִּסְחוֹ לָעֶרֶב, אֲבָל לֹא בַקָּדָשִׁים. הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ עַל מֵתוֹ, וְהַמְלַקֵּט לוֹ עֲצָמוֹת, טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל בַּקָּדָשִׁים. גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר בְּעֶרֶב פֶּסַח, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, טוֹבֵל וְאוֹכֵל אֶת פִּסְחוֹ לָעֶרֶב. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הָעָרְלָה כְּפוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַקָּבֶר: \n", | 8.8. "An onen immerses [in a mikveh] and eats his pesah in the evening, but not [other] sacred food. One who hears about his dead [for the first time], and one who gathers the bones [of his dead relative] immerses and eats sacred food. A convert who converts on the eve of Pesah: Bet Shammai say: he immerses and eats his pesah in the evening. Bet Hillel say: anyone who separates from the foreskin is like one who separates from the grave.", |
|
| 8. Tosefta, Shekalim, 8.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 279 |
| 9. Mishnah, Qiddushin, 3.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 53 |
10. Tosefta, Pesahim, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 47, 57| 8.8. "אלו דברים ששוה בהן פסח מצרים לפסח דורות פסח מצרים בג' כתות ופסח דורות כיוצא בו פסח מצרים נאמר בו (שמות י״ב:ה׳) שה תמים זכר בן שנה פסח דורות כיוצא בו פסח מצרים נאמר בו (שם) ולא תותירו ממנו עד בקר פסח דורות כיוצא בו רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר אומר אני שלא נאסר חמץ במצרים אלא יום אחד שנאמר (שמות י״ג:ג׳-ד׳) לא יאכל חמץ היום פסח מצרים טעון שיר ופסח דורות טעון שיר.", | |
|
11. Tosefta, Kiddushin, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 53| 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.", | 4.1. "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.", |
|
| 12. Tosefta, Nazir, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 57 |
| 13. Tosefta, Parah, 8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 46 |
14. Tosefta, Sotah, 7.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 53| 7.5. "ברכת כהנים אלו בשעה שהכהנים אומרים על מעלות האולם הכל כשרין לעלות במעלות האולם בין תמימים בין בעלי מומין בין במשמר שלו בין במשמר שאינו שלו חוץ ממי שיש בו מום בפניו בידיו וברגליו [שלא ישא את כפיו מפני שהעם מסתכלין בו] וכשם שנשיאות כפים במקדש כך נשיאות כפים בגבולין.", | |
|
15. Tosefta, Yevamot, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 47, 52, 53| 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.", | |
|
16. Tosefta, Qiddushin, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 53| 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.", | 4.1. "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.", |
|
| 17. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 71 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 279 |
| 18. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 57 |
19. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 53| 39a. שכל העולם כולו נזדעזע בשעה שאמר הקב"ה בסיני (שמות כ, ו) לא תשא את שם ה' אלהיך לשוא,וכל עבירות שבתורה נאמר בהן ונקה וכאן נאמר לא ינקה וכל עבירות שבתורה נפרעין ממנו וכאן ממנו וממשפחתו שנאמר (קהלת ה, ה) אל תתן את פיך לחטיא את בשרך ואין בשרו אלא קרובו שנאמר (ישעיהו נח, ז) ומבשרך לא תתעלם,וכל עבירות שבתורה נפרעין ממנו וכאן ממנו ומכל העולם כולו שנאמר (הושע ד, ב) אלה וכחש,ואימא עד דעביד להו לכולהו לא ס"ד דכתיב (ירמיהו כג, י) מפני אלה אבלה הארץ וכתיב (הושע ד, ג) על כן תאבל הארץ ואומלל כל יושב בה,וכל עבירות שבתורה אם יש לו זכות תולין לו שנים ושלשה דורות וכאן נפרעין ממנו לאלתר שנאמר (זכריה ה, ד) הוצאתיה נאם ה' צבאות ובאה אל בית הגנב ואל בית הנשבע בשמי לשקר ולנה בתוך ביתו וכלתו ואת עציו ואת אבניו,הוצאתיה לאלתר ובאה אל בית הגנב זה הגונב דעת הבריות שאין לו ממון אצל חבירו וטוענו ומשביעו ואל בית הנשבע בשמי לשקר כמשמעו ולנה בתוך ביתו וכלתו ואת עציו ואת אבניו הא למדת דברים שאין אש ומים מכלין אותן שבועת שקר מכלה אותן,אם אמר איני נשבע פוטרין אותו מיד ואם אמר הריני נשבע העומדין שם אומרים זה לזה (במדבר טז, כו) סורו נא מעל אהלי האנשים הרשעים האלה וגו' וכשמשביעין אותו אומרים לו הוי יודע שלא על דעתך אנו משביעין אותך אלא על דעת המקום ועל דעת ב"ד,שכן מצינו במשה רבינו כשהשביע את ישראל אמר להן דעו שלא על דעתכם אני משביע אתכם אלא על דעת המקום ועל דעתי שנאמר (דברים כט, יג) ולא אתכם לבדכם וגו',כי את אשר ישנו פה אין לי אלא אותן העומדין על הר סיני דורות הבאים וגרים העתידין להתגייר מנין ת"ל (דברים כט, יד) ואת אשר איננו,ואין לי אלא מצוה שקיבלו עליהם מהר סיני מצות העתידות להתחדש כגון מקרא מגילה מנין ת"ל (אסתר ט, כז) קימו וקבלו קיימו מה שקבלו כבר,מאי אף היא בלשונה נאמרה,כדתנן אלו נאמרין בכל לשון פרשת סוטה וידוי מעשר קריאת שמע ותפלה וברכת המזון ושבועת העדות ושבועת הפקדון וקאמר נמי שבועת הדיינין אף היא בלשונה נאמרה,אמר מר אומרין לו הוי יודע שכל העולם כולו נזדעזע בשעה שאמר הקב"ה לא תשא את שם ה' אלהיך לשוא מ"ט אילימא משום דאתיהב בסיני עשר דברות נמי אתיהב,ואלא משום דחמירא ומי חמירא והתנן אלו הן קלות עשה ולא תעשה חוץ מלא תשא חמורות זו כריתות ומיתות ב"ד ולא תשא עמהן,אלא כדקתני טעמא וכל עבירות שבתורה נאמר בהן ונקה וכאן נאמר לא ינקה,וכל עבירות שבתורה לא נאמר בהן לא ינקה והכתיב (שמות לד, ז) ונקה לא ינקה,ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדרבי אלעזר דתניא רבי אלעזר אומר אי אפשר לומר ונקה שכבר נאמר לא ינקה א"א לומר לא ינקה שכבר נאמר ונקה הא כיצד מנקה הוא לשבים ואינו מנקה לשאינן שבים,כל עבירות שבתורה נפרעין ממנו וכאן ממנו וממשפחתו וכל עבירות שבתורה ממשפחתו לא,והכתיב (ויקרא כ, ה) ושמתי אני את פני באיש ההוא ובמשפחתו ותניא אמר ר"ש אם הוא חטא משפחתו מה חטאת לומר לך אין לך משפחה שיש בה מוכס שאין כולה מוכסין ושיש בה לסטים שאין כולה לסטים מפני שמחפין עליו,התם בדינא אחרינא הכא בדינא דידיה כדתניא רבי אומר והכרתי אותו מה ת"ל לפי שנאמר ושמתי אני את פני יכול כל המשפחה כולה בהיכרת ת"ל אותו אותו בהיכרת ולא כל המשפחה כולה בהיכרת,וכל עבירות שבתורה נפרעין ממנו וכאן ממנו ומכל העולם כולו (שנאמר אלה וכחש וכתיב על כן תאבל הארץ ואימא עד דעביד להו לכולהו לא ס"ד דכתיב מפני אלה אבלה הארץ),וכל עבירות שבתורה מכל העולם לא והכתיב (ויקרא כו, לז) וכשלו איש באחיו איש בעון אחיו מלמד שכל ישראל ערבים זה בזה | 39a. b that the entire world trembled when the Holy One, Blessed be He, said at /b Mount b Sinai: “You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain, /b for the Lord will not hold guiltless one who takes His name in vain” (Exodus 20:7)., b And /b be aware that b with regard to all of the /b other b transgressions in the Torah it is stated: “And will…clear the guilty [ i venakkeh /i ]” /b (Exodus 34:7); b whereas here, /b with regard to taking a false oath, b it is stated: “Will not hold guiltless [ i lo yenakkeh /i ].” And /b be aware that with regard to b all of the /b other b transgressions in the Torah, punishment is exacted /b only b from /b the transgressor, whereas b here, /b punishment is exacted b from him and from his family, as it is stated: “Do not allow your mouth to bring your flesh into guilt” /b (Ecclesiastes 5:5). The verse indicates that one who sins with his mouth, by taking a false oath, causes his flesh to be punished as well; b and one’s flesh is nothing other than his relative, as it is stated: “And that you not hide yourself from your own flesh” /b (Isaiah 58:7)., b And /b be aware that with regard to b all of the /b other b transgressions in the Torah, punishment is exacted /b only b from /b the transgressor; whereas b here, /b punishment is exacted b from him and from the entire world, as it is stated: “Swearing, and lying, /b and murdering, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break all bounds…Therefore, the land mourns, and everyone who dwells therein languishes” (Hosea 4:2–3).,The Gemara suggests: b And /b why not b say /b that punishment is not exacted from the entire world b unless he commits all of /b the sins mentioned in the verse? The Gemara answers: This should b not enter your mind, as it is written: “Because of swearing the land mourns” /b (Jeremiah 23:10), indicating that taking a false oath is sufficient to cause the land to mourn. b And it is /b similarly b written /b in the verse in Hosea: b “Therefore, the land mourns, and everyone who dwells therein languishes.” /b Both verses employ a term of mourning.,The i baraita /i continues with the judges’ forewarning: b And /b be aware that with regard to b all the /b other b transgressions in the Torah, if /b the transgressor b has merit, /b God b suspends his /b punishment for b two or three generations, /b and only if his descendants follow in his ways are they punished. Whereas b here, punishment is exacted from him immediately, as it is stated: /b “This is the curse that goes forth over the face of the whole land… b I cause it to go forth, says the Lord of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of he who swears falsely by My name; and it shall abide in the midst of his house and shall consume it, with its timber and its stones” /b (Zechariah 5:3–4).,The i baraita /i analyzes the verse: b “I cause it to go forth” /b means b immediately. “And it shall enter into the house of the thief”; this /b is referring to b one who deceives people, /b e.g., one b who has no money in the possession of another, but claims /b money from b him and administers an oath to him /b in court, thereby causing an oath to be taken in vain. b “And into the house of he who swears falsely by My name” /b is b as it indicates, /b in accordance with its straightforward meaning. From the end of the verse: b “And it shall abide in the midst of his house and shall consume it, with its timber and its stones,” you have therefore learned /b that b a false oath consumes things that /b even b fire and water do not consume, /b such as stones.,The i baraita /i continues: b If /b the defendant b says /b at this point: b I will not take an oath, /b the court b dismisses him immediately, /b and rules him liable to pay. b And if he says: I will take an oath, the /b people b standing there say to each other: “Depart, I pray you, from the tents of these wicked men, /b and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be swept away in all their sins” (Numbers 16:26). b And when /b the judges b administer the oath to him, they say to him: Be aware that we administer an oath to you not according to your understanding /b of the oath, b but according to the /b objective b understanding of the Omnipresent and according to the understanding of the court, /b i.e., the judges’ intention.,This is b as we /b have b found /b written b with regard to Moses, our teacher. When he administered an oath to the Jewish people /b in the plains of Moab so that they would accept the Torah upon themselves, b he said to them: Know that /b it is b not according to your understanding that I administer an oath to you, but according to the understanding of the Omnipresent and according to my understanding. As it is stated: “Neither with you only /b do I make this covet and this oath” (Deuteronomy 29:13), which is homiletically interpreted to mean: Not only according to your intention.,Having quoted a verse, the i baraita /i tangentially interprets the subsequent verse. From the phrase: b “But with he who stands here /b with us this day” (Deuteronomy 29:14), b I have /b derived b only /b that b those who stood at Mount Sinai /b were included in this covet. b From where /b do I derive that b the subsequent generations, and the converts who will convert in the future, /b were also included? b The verse states: “And also with he who is not here /b with us this day” (Deuteronomy 29:14)., b And I have /b derived b only /b that the b mitzvot that /b the Jewish people b accepted upon themselves at Mount Sinai /b were included in the oath. b From where /b is it derived that b mitzvot that were to be initiated in the future, for example, the reading of the Megilla, /b the Scroll of Esther, on Purim, were also included? b The verse states: /b “The Jews b ordained and took /b upon themselves…that they would keep these two days” (Esther 9:27), which is homiletically interpreted to mean: b They ordained, /b in the generation of Esther, mitzvot b that they had already accepted /b upon themselves by oath in the plains of Moab.,§ The Gemara analyzes the i baraita /i . b What /b is the precise meaning of the statement: An oath imposed by the judges b may also /b be b recited in its language? /b ,The Gemara answers: It is b as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Sota /i 32a): b These are recited in any language /b and it is not required that they be recited in Hebrew: b The portion of /b the warning and the oath administered by the priest to b a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [ i sota /i ]; the declaration of tithes, /b which occurs after the third and the sixth year of the seven-year Sabbatical cycle, when one declares that he has given his tithes appropriately; b the recitation of i Shema /i ; and /b the i Amida /i b prayer; and Grace after Meals; and the oath of testimony, /b where one takes an oath that he does not have any testimony to provide on a given issue; b and the oath on a deposit, /b where one takes an oath that he does not have possession of another’s deposit. All these may be recited in any language. b And /b the i baraita /i b also states, /b as an addendum to this i halakha /i , that b an oath /b imposed b by the judges may also /b be b recited in its language, /b i.e., in any language.,§ b The Master said /b in the i baraita /i above that the judges b say to him: Be aware that the entire world trembled when the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: “You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain.” What is the reason /b that the entire world trembled? b If we say /b it was b because /b this prohibition b was given at /b Mount b Sinai, /b this is difficult, as when the entire world trembled, the rest of the b Ten Commandments were also given /b at Mount Sinai. This quality is not unique to this specific prohibition., b And /b if it is b rather due to /b the fact b that /b this prohibition is b severe, is it /b more b severe /b than all the other prohibitions? b But didn’t we learn /b in a i baraita /i : b These are minor /b transgressions: Violation of an ordinary b positive /b mitzva b and /b an ordinary b negative /b mitzva, b except for: “You shall not take /b the name of the Lord, your God, in vain.” And these are b major /b transgressions: Those for which one is liable to receive b excision from the World-to-Come [ i karet /i ] or a court /b -imposed b death /b penalty; b and “You shall not take /b the name of the Lord, your God, in vain” is also b among them. /b Evidently, this transgression is no more severe than transgressions that incur i karet /i or the death penalty., b Rather, the reason /b the world trembled particularly when this prohibition was given is b as it is taught /b subsequently in the i baraita /i : b And with regard to all of the /b other b transgressions in the Torah it is stated: “And will…clear the guilty,” whereas here, it is stated: “Will not hold guiltless.” /b ,The Gemara asks: b And is it not stated with regard to all of the /b other b transgressions in the Torah /b that God b “will not hold guiltless [ i lo yenakkeh /i ]” /b one who transgresses? b But isn’t it written: “And Who will by no means clear the guilty [ i venakkeh lo yenakkeh /i ]” /b (Exodus 34:7)?,The Gemara answers: b That /b verse is b necessary for /b that which is derived through the homiletic interpretation b of Rabbi Elazar, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Elazar says: It is not possible to say: And will clear the guilty [ i venakkeh /i ], /b about all transgressions, b since: Will not clear the guilty [ i lo yenakkeh /i ], is already stated. /b And b it is not possible to say: Will not clear the guilty [ i lo yenakkeh /i ], since: And will clear the guilty [ i venakkeh /i ], is already stated. How /b can b these /b texts be reconciled? The Holy One, Blessed be b He, clears those /b guilty ones b who repent and does not clear those who do not repent. /b ,§ It is stated in the i baraita /i that with regard to b all of the transgressions in the Torah, punishment is exacted /b only b from /b the transgressor, whereas b here, /b punishment is exacted b from him and from his family. /b The Gemara asks: b And /b is punishment b not /b exacted b from /b the transgressor’s b family /b with regard to b all of the /b other b transgressions in the Torah? /b , b But isn’t it written /b in the Torah with regard to one who worships Molech: b “Then I will set My face against that man, and against his family, /b and I will cut him off” (Leviticus 20:5)? b And it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Shimon said: If he sinned, how did his family sin? /b Why are they punished? This serves b to tell you /b that b there is no family that has /b an unauthorized b tax collector among them /b in b which all of /b the family members b are not /b regarded as unauthorized b tax collectors, and /b similarly, there is no family b that has a bandit [ i listim /i ] among them /b in b which all of /b the family members b are not /b regarded as b bandits. /b This is b because they cover for him. /b Evidently, punishment is exacted from the transgressor’s family with regard to transgressions other than taking a false oath.,The Gemara answers: b There, /b with regard to other transgressions, the transgressor’s family is punished b with another punishment, /b less severe than the one the transgressor receives, whereas b here, /b with regard to a false oath, the transgressor’s family is punished b with his punishment. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: Why /b must b the verse state /b with regard to one who worships Molech: b “And I will cut him off”? Since it is stated /b earlier in the verse: b “Then I will set My face /b against that man, and against his family,” one b might /b have thought that b the entire family /b is liable b to /b be punished with b i karet /i . /b Therefore, b the verse states: /b “And I will cut b him /b off,” indicating that only b he /b is liable b to /b be punished with b i karet /i , /b whereas b his entire family is not /b liable b to /b be punished with b i karet /i . /b ,§ The i baraita /i teaches: b And /b with regard to b all of the /b other b transgressions in the Torah, punishment is exacted /b only b from him, /b whereas b here, /b punishment is exacted b from him and from the entire world, as it is stated: “Swearing and lying, /b and murdering, and stealing, and committing adultery,” b and it is written: “Therefore, the land mourns.” /b The Gemara suggests: b And /b why not b say /b that punishment is not exacted from the entire world b unless he commits all /b the sins mentioned in the verse? The Gemara answers: This should b not enter your mind, as it is written: “Because of swearing the land mourns” /b (Jeremiah 23:10), indicating that a false oath is sufficient to cause the land to mourn.,The Gemara asks: b And /b with regard to b all of the /b other b transgressions in the Torah, /b is punishment b not /b exacted b from the entire world? But isn’t it written: “And they shall stumble one upon another” /b (Leviticus 26:37)? This verse is homiletically interpreted to mean that they shall stumble spiritually, b one due to the iniquity of another, /b which b teaches that the entire Jewish people are /b considered b guarantors for one another. /b Apparently, any transgression makes the entire world liable to be punished. |
|
| 20. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 54, 278 |
21. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 53, 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 |
|
22. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 278| 47b. (במדבר יח, כח) מכל מעשרותיכם תרימו ומה ראית האי אידגן והאי לא אידגן:,מעשר שני והקדש שנפדו: פשיטא הב"ע כגון שנתן את הקרן ולא נתן את החומש והא קמ"ל דאין חומש מעכב:,השמש שאכל כזית: פשיטא מהו דתימא שמש לא קבע קמ"ל:,והכותי מזמנין עליו: אמאי לא יהא אלא עם הארץ ותניא אין מזמנין על ע"ה,אביי אמר בכותי חבר רבא אמר אפילו תימא בכותי ע"ה והכא בע"ה דרבנן דפליגי עליה דר' מאיר עסקינן דתניא איזהו ע"ה כל שאינו אוכל חוליו בטהרה דברי ר"מ וחכמים אומרים כל שאינו מעשר פירותיו כראוי והני כותאי עשורי מעשרי כדחזי דבמאי דכתיב באורייתא מזהר זהירי דאמר מר כל מצוה שהחזיקו בה כותים הרבה מדקדקין בה יותר מישראל,ת"ר איזהו ע"ה כל שאינו קורא ק"ש ערבית ושחרית דברי ר' אליעזר רבי יהושע אומר כל שאינו מניח תפילין בן עזאי אומר כל שאין לו ציצית בבגדו ר' נתן אומר כל שאין מזוזה על פתחו ר' נתן בר יוסף אומר כל שיש לו בנים ואינו מגדלם לת"ת אחרים אומרים אפי' קרא ושנה ולא שמש ת"ח הרי זה ע"ה א"ר הונא הלכה כאחרים,רמי בר חמא לא אזמין עליה דרב מנשיא בר תחליפא דתני ספרא וספרי והלכתא כי נח נפשיה דרמי בר חמא אמר רבא לא נח נפשיה דרמי בר חמא אלא דלא אזמין ארב מנשיא בר תחליפא והתניא אחרים אומרים אפילו קרא ושנה ולא שמש ת"ח הרי זה ע"ה שאני רב מנשיא בר תחליפא דמשמע להו לרבנן ורמי בר חמא הוא דלא דק אבתריה ל"א דשמע שמעתתא מפומייהו דרבנן וגריס להו כצורבא מרבנן דמי:,אכל טבל ומעשר וכו': טבל פשיטא לא צריכא בטבל טבול מדרבנן ה"ד בעציץ שאינו נקוב:,מעשר ראשון כו': פשיטא לא צריכא כגון שהקדימו בכרי מהו דתימא כדאמר ליה רב פפא לאביי קמ"ל כדשני ליה:,מעשר שני וכו': פשיטא לא צריכא שנפדו ולא נפדו כהלכתן מעשר שני כגון שפדאו על גבי אסימון ורחמנא אמר (דברים יד, כה) וצרת הכסף בידך כסף שיש (לו) עליו צורה הקדש שחללו על גבי קרקע ולא פדאו בכסף ורחמנא אמר (ויקרא כז, יט) ונתן הכסף וקם לו:,והשמש שאכל פחות מכזית: פשיטא איידי דתנא רישא כזית תנא סיפא פחות מכזית:,והנכרי אין מזמנין עליו: פשיטא הכא במאי עסקינן בגר שמל ולא טבל דאמר רבי זירא א"ר יוחנן לעולם אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול וכמה דלא טבל נכרי הוא:,נשים ועבדים וקטנים אין מזמנין עליהן: אמר רבי יוסי קטן המוטל בעריסה מזמנין עליו,והא תנן נשים ועבדים וקטנים אין מזמנין עליהם,הוא דאמר כרבי יהושע בן לוי דאמר ריב"ל אף על פי שאמרו קטן המוטל בעריסה אין מזמנין עליו אבל עושין אותו סניף לעשרה,ואמר ריב"ל תשעה ועבד מצטרפין מיתיבי מעשה ברבי אליעזר שנכנס לבית הכנסת ולא מצא עשרה ושחרר עבדו והשלימו לעשרה שחרר אין לא שחרר לא תרי אצטריכו שחרר חד ונפיק בחד,והיכי עביד הכי והאמר רב יהודה כל המשחרר עבדו עובר בעשה שנאמר (ויקרא כה, מו) לעולם בהם תעבודו לדבר מצוה שאני מצוה הבאה בעבירה היא מצוה דרבים שאני,ואמר ריב"ל לעולם ישכים אדם לבית הכנסת כדי שיזכה וימנה עם עשרה הראשונים שאפילו מאה באים אחריו קבל עליו שכר כולם שכר כולם סלקא דעתך אלא אימא נותנין לו שכר כנגד כולם,אמר רב הונא תשעה וארון מצטרפין א"ל רב נחמן וארון גברא הוא אלא אמר רב הונא תשעה נראין כעשרה מצטרפין אמרי לה כי מכנפי ואמרי לה כי מבדרי,אמר רבי אמי שנים ושבת מצטרפין אמר ליה רב נחמן ושבת גברא הוא אלא אמר רבי אמי שני תלמידי חכמים המחדדין זה את זה בהלכה מצטרפין מחוי רב חסדא כגון אנא ורב ששת מחוי רב ששת כגון אנא ורב חסדא,א"ר יוחנן קטן פורח מזמנין עליו תנ"ה קטן שהביא שתי שערות מזמנין עליו ושלא הביא שתי שערות אין מזמנין עליו ואין מדקדקין בקטן הא גופא קשיא אמרת הביא שתי שערות אין לא הביא לא והדר תני אין מדקדקין בקטן לאתויי מאי לאו | 47b. b “From all of that is given to you, you shall set apart /b that which is the Lord’s i teruma /i ” (Numbers 18:29). God’s i teruma /i , i teruma gedola /i , must be taken from all of the Levites’ gifts. The Gemara asks: b And what did you see /b that led you to require i teruma gedola /i from first tithe that was taken from grain in piles and not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks? Abaye answers: b This, /b after it was threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and b has become grain, and that, /b which remained on the stalk, b did not /b yet b become grain. /b The verse regarding i teruma gedola /i states: “The first of your grain” (Deuteronomy 18:4), is given to the priest. Once it is considered grain, the right of the priest takes effect and the Levite is required to separate i teruma gedola /i .,The mishna states that if, among the diners, one ate b second tithe and consecrated food that were redeemed, /b he may be included in a i zimmun /i .The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious /b that if these items were redeemed that one could participate in a i zimmun /i . The Gemara responds: b With what are we dealing here? /b We are dealing with b a case /b where the consecrated property was not completely redeemed, i.e., b where one gave /b payment for b the principal, /b the value of the tithe, b but he did not give /b payment for b the fifth /b that he must add when redeeming items that he consecrated; b and /b the mishna b teaches us /b that failure to add b the fifth does not invalidate /b the redemption.,We learned in the mishna: b The waiter who ate /b at least b an olive-bulk /b from the meal may join in a i zimmun /i . The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious. /b Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i ? The Gemara answers: b Lest you say that the waiter /b who stands and serves the diners b did not establish /b himself as a participant in the meal and, therefore, cannot join the i zimmun /i , the mishna b teaches us /b that even the waiter is considered to have established himself as a participant in the meal.,The mishna states that b a Samaritan [ i Kuti /i ] may be included in a i zimmun /i . /b The Gemara asks: b Why? /b Even if you consider him a member of the Jewish people, b let him be merely an i am ha’aretz /i , /b one who is not scrupulous in matters of ritual purity and tithes, b and it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b An i am ha’aretz /i may not be included in a i zimmun /i . /b ,The Gemara offers several answers: b Abaye said: /b The mishna is referring to a b i Kuti /i who is a i ḥaver /i , /b one who is scrupulous in those areas. b Rava said: Even if you say /b that the mishna refers to b a i Kuti /i /b who is an b i am ha’aretz /i , and here /b the prohibition to include an i am ha’aretz /i in a i zimmun /i refers to an b i am ha’aretz /i /b as defined by b the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Who is an i am ha’aretz /i ? Anyone who does not eat non-sacred food in /b a state of b ritual purity. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: /b An i am ha’aretz /i is b anyone who does not appropriately tithe his produce. And these i Kutim /i tithe /b their produce b appropriately, as they are scrupulous with regard to that which is written in the Torah, as the Master said: Any mitzva that the i Kutim /i embraced /b and accepted upon themselves, b they are /b even b more exacting in its /b observance b than Jews. /b ,The Gemara cites a i baraita /i with additional opinions with regard to the defining characteristics of an i am ha’aretz /i : b The Sages taught: Who is an i am ha’aretz /i ? One who does not recite i Shema /i in the evening and morning. This is b the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. /b Rabbi Yehoshua says: /b An i am ha’aretz /i is b one who does not don phylacteries. Ben Azzai says: /b An i am ha’aretz /i is b one who does not have ritual fringes on his garment. Rabbi Natan says: /b An i am ha’aretz /i is b one who does not have a i mezuza /i on his doorway. Rabbi Natan bar Yosef says: /b An i am ha’aretz /i is b one who has children but /b who does not want them to study Torah, so he b does not raise them to /b engage in b Torah study. i Aḥerim /i say: Even if one read the Bible and studied Mishna and did not serve Torah scholars /b to learn from them the meaning of the Torah that he studied, b that is an i am ha’aretz /i . Rav Huna said: The i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b i Aḥerim /i . /b ,The Gemara relates: b Rami bar Ḥama did not include Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa, who studied i Sifra /i , i Sifrei, /i and i halakhot, /i in a i zimmun /i /b because he had merely studied and did not serve Torah scholars. b When Rami bar Ḥama passed away, Rava said: Rami bar Ḥama died only because he did not include Rabbi Menashya bar Taḥlifa in a i zimmun /i . /b The Gemara asks: b Was it not taught /b in a i baraita /i : b i Aḥerim /i say: Even if one read the Bible and studied mishna and did not serve Torah scholars, that is an i am ha’aretz /i ? /b Why, then, was Rami bar Ḥama punished? The Gemara answers: b Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa is different, as he served the Sages. And it was Rami bar Ḥama who was not precise /b in his efforts to check b after him /b to ascertain his actions. b Another version /b of the Gemara’s answer: Anyone b who hears i halakhot /i from the mouths of Sages and studies them is considered a Torah scholar. /b ,The mishna states that b one who ate untithed produce and /b first b tithe etc. /b is not included in a i zimmun /i . The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious /b as one is forbidden to eat untithed produce. The Gemara responds: b It was only necessary /b to teach this i halakha /i with regard to a case where it is only considered b untithed produce by rabbinic law, /b although by Torah law it was permitted. b What are the circumstances? /b Where the produce grew b in an unperforated flowerpot, /b as anything grown disconnected from the ground is not considered produce of the ground and is exempt by Torah law from tithing. It is only by rabbinic law that it is considered untithed.,We learned in the mishna that one who ate b first tithe /b from which its i teruma /i was not separated may not be included in a i zimmun /i . The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious. /b The Gemara responds: b It was only necessary /b for the mishna to teach this with regard to a case b where /b the Levite b preceded /b the priest after the kernels of grain were placed b in a pile. Lest you say as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, /b that in that case, too, the produce should be exempt from the obligation to separate i teruma gedola /i , the i tanna /i of the mishna b teaches us as /b Abaye b responded /b to Rav Pappa, that there is a difference between the case when the grain was on the stalks and the case when the grain was in a pile.,We also learned in the mishna that if one ate b second tithe /b and consecrated food that had not been redeemed, he may not be included in a i zimmun /i . The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious? /b Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i ? The Gemara responds: b It was only necessary /b for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i with regard to a case b where they were redeemed, but not redeemed properly, i.e., second tithe that was redeemed with an unminted coin [ i asimon /i ], /b a silver bullion that had not been engraved. b And the Torah says: “And bind up [ i vetzarta /i ] the money in your hand” /b (Deuteronomy 14:25), which the Sages interpreted as follows: i Vetzarta /i refers to b money that has a form [ i tzura /i ] /b engraved b upon it. Consecrated property; /b in a case b where he redeemed it /b by exchanging it b for land instead of money, and the Torah states: “He will give the money and it will be assured to him” /b (Leviticus 27:19).,The mishna states that b a waiter who ate less than an olive-bulk /b may not join a i zimmun /i . The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious. /b Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i ? The Gemara answers: b Since the first clause /b of the mishna b taught /b the i halakha /i with regard to a waiter who ate b an olive-bulk, the latter clause taught /b the i halakha /i with regard to a waiter who ate b less than an olive-bulk. /b Although it is obvious, in the interest of arriving at a similar formulation in the two parts of the mishna, it was included.,The mishna further states that b a gentile is not included in a i zimmun /i . /b The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious. /b Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i ? The Gemara answers: b With what are we dealing here? /b We are dealing b with /b a case of b a convert who was circumcised but /b did b not /b yet b immerse /b himself in a ritual bath, b as Rabbi Zeira said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: One is never /b considered b a proselyte until he is circumcised and immerses /b himself. b As long as he did not immerse /b himself, b he is a gentile. /b ,We also learned in the mishna that b women, slaves, and minors are not included in a i zimmun /i . Rabbi Yosei said: A minor lying in a cradle is included in a i zimmun /i . /b ,The Gemara objects: b Didn’t we learn /b in the mishna b that women, slaves, and minors are not included in a i zimmun /i ? /b ,The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yosei b stated /b his opinion b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Although a minor lying in a cradle is not included in a i zimmun /i , one may make him an adjunct to /b complete an assembly of b ten /b people, enabling them to invoke God’s name in a i zimmun /i .,On the subject of completing a i zimmun /i , b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Nine /b Jews b and a slave join together /b to form a i zimmun /i of ten. The Gemara b raises an objection: /b There was an b incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who entered a synagogue and did not find /b a quorum of b ten, and he liberated his slave and he completed the /b quorum of b ten. /b From this we may infer that if he b freed /b his slave, b yes, /b he may join the quorum of ten, but if he b did not free /b him, b no, /b he may not join the quorum of ten. The Gemara responds: In that case, b two were required /b to complete the quorum; Rabbi Eliezer b freed one and fulfilled his obligation with /b another b one, /b who completed the quorum of ten without being freed.,With regard to this incident, the Gemara asks: b How did he do that? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say: Anyone who frees his /b Canaanite b slave violates a positive mitzva, as it is stated /b with regard to Canaanite slaves: “You will keep them as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold as a possession; b they will serve as bondsmen for you forever” /b (Leviticus 25:46)? How, then, could Rabbi Eliezer have freed his slave? The Gemara answers: The case of b a mitzva is different. /b The Gemara asks: b It is a mitzva that comes through a transgression, /b and a mitzva fulfilled in that manner is inherently flawed. The Gemara responds: b A mitzva /b that benefits b the many is different, /b and one may free his slave for that purpose.,In praise of a quorum of ten, the Gemara states that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One should always rise early /b to go b to the synagogue in order to have the privilege and be counted among the first ten /b to complete the quorum, b as even if one hundred /b people b arrive after him, he receives the reward of them all, /b as they are all joining that initial quorum. The Gemara is perplexed: b Does it enter your mind /b that he receives b the reward of them all? /b Why should he take away their reward? b Rather, /b emend the statement and b say: He receives a reward equivalent to /b the reward of b them all. /b ,With regard to the laws of joining a quorum, b Rav Huna said: Nine plus an ark /b in which the Torah scrolls are stored b join /b to form a quorum of ten. b Rav Naḥman said to him: Is an ark a man, /b that it may be counted in the quorum of ten? b Rather, Rav Huna said: Nine who appear like ten may join together. /b There was disagreement over this: b Some said this /b i halakha /i as follows: Nine appear like ten b when they are gathered. And some said this /b i halakha /i as follows: Nine appear like ten b when they are scattered, /b the disagreement being which formation creates the impression of a greater number of individuals.,Similarly, b Rav Ami said: Two /b people b and Shabbat join /b to form a i zimmun /i . b Rav Naḥman said to him: Is Shabbat a person, /b that it may be counted in a i zimmun /i ? b Rather, Rav Ami said: Two Torah scholars who hone each other’s /b intellect b in halakhic /b discourse b join together /b and are considered three. The Gemara relates: b Rav Ḥisda pointed /b to an example of two such Torah scholars who hone each other’s intellect: b For example, me and Rav Sheshet. /b Similarly, b Rav Sheshet pointed: For example, me and Rav Ḥisda. /b ,With regard to a minor’s inclusion in a i zimmun /i , b Rabbi Yoḥa said: A mature minor, /b i.e., one who is still a minor in terms of age, but is displaying signs of puberty, b is included in a i zimmun /i . That /b opinion b was also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A minor who grew two /b pubic b hairs, /b a sign of puberty, b is included in a i zimmun /i ; and one who did not grow two hairs is not included in a i zimmun /i . And one is not exacting with regard to a minor. /b The Gemara comments: b This /b i baraita /i b itself is difficult. You said that /b a minor b who grew two hairs, yes, /b he is included, b one who did not grow /b two hairs, b no, /b he is not included, b and then it taught that one is not exacting with regard to a minor. What /b does this last clause come b to include? Is it not /b |
|
23. Babylonian Talmud, Bekhorot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 52| 30b. חשוד על המעשר ומאן חכמים ר' יהודה וחד אמר החשוד על המעשר חשוד על השביעית ומאן חכמים ר' מאיר,דתניא עם הארץ שקיבל עליו דברי חבירות ונחשד לדבר אחד נחשד לכל התורה כולה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים אינו נחשד אלא לאותו דבר בלבד,הגר שקיבל עליו דברי תורה אפי' נחשד לדבר אחד הוי חשוד לכל התורה כולה והרי הוא כישראל משומד נפקא מינה דאי קדיש קידושיו קידושין,ת"ר הבא לקבל דברי חבירות חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו עובד כוכבים שבא לקבל דברי תורה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר אפי' דקדוק אחד מדברי סופרים,וכן בן לוי שבא לקבל דברי לויה וכהן שבא לקבל דברי כהונה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו שנאמר (ויקרא ז, לג) המקריב את דם השלמים וגו' העבודה המסורה לבני אהרן כל כהן שאינו מודה בה אין לו חלק בכהונה,ת"ר הבא לקבל דברי חבירות אם ראינוהו שנוהג בצינעה בתוך ביתו מקבלין אותו ואחר כך מלמדין אותו ואם לאו מלמדין אותו ואחר כך מקבלין אותו ר"ש בן יוחי אומר בין כך ובין כך מקבלין אותו והוא למד כדרכו והולך:,ת"ר מקבלין לכנפים ואח"כ מקבלין לטהרות ואם אמר איני מקבל אלא לכנפים מקבלין אותו קיבל לטהרות ולא קיבל לכנפים אף לטהרות לא קיבל:,ת"ר עד כמה מקבלין אותו בית שמאי אומרים למשקין שלשים יום לכסות שנים עשר חודש ובית הלל אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה לשנים עשר חודש,אם כן הוה ליה מקולי בית שמאי ומחומרי בית הלל אלא בית הלל אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה לשלשים:,(סימן חב"ר תלמי"ד תכל"ת מכ"ם חז"ר גבא"י בעצמ"ו),תנו רבנן הבא לקבל דברי חבירות צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים ובניו ובני ביתו אינן צריכין לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף בניו ובני ביתו צריכין לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים לפי שאינו דומה חבר שקיבל לבן חבר שקיבל:,תנו רבנן הבא לקבל דברי חבירות צריך לקבל בפני ג' חבירים ואפילו תלמיד חכם צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים זקן ויושב בישיבה אינו צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים שכבר קיבל עליו משעה שישב אבא שאול אומר אף תלמיד חכם אינו צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים ולא עוד אלא שאחרים מקבלין לפניו,אמר רבי יוחנן בימי בנו של רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס נשנית משנה זו רבי יהודה ור' יוסי איסתפק להו מילתא בטהרות שדרו רבנן לגבי בנו של ר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אזילו אמרו ליה לעיין בה אשכחוה דקא טעין טהרות אותיב רבנן מדידיה לגבייהו וקאי איהו לעיוני בה,אתו אמרי ליה לר' יהודה ור' יוסי אמר להו ר' יהודה אביו של זה ביזה תלמידי חכמים אף הוא מבזה תלמידי חכמים,אמר לו ר' יוסי כבוד זקן יהא מונח במקומו אלא מיום שחרב בית המקדש נהגו כהנים סילסול בעצמן שאין מוסרין את הטהרות לכל אדם:,תנו רבנן חבר שמת אשתו ובניו ובני ביתו הרי הן בחזקתן עד שיחשדו וכן חצר שמוכרין בה תכלת הרי היא בחזקתה עד שתיפסל:,תנו רבנן אשת עם הארץ שנשאת לחבר וכן בתו של עם הארץ שנשאת לחבר וכן עבדו של עם הארץ שנמכר לחבר כולן צריכין לקבל דברי חבירות בתחלה אבל אשת חבר שנשאת לעם הארץ וכן בתו של חבר שנשאת לעם הארץ וכן עבדו של חבר שנמכר לעם הארץ אין צריכין לקבל דברי חבירות בתחלה,ר"מ אומר אף הן צריכין לקבל עליהן דברי חבירות לכתחלה ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר משום ר"מ מעשה באשה אחת שנשאת לחבר והיתה קומעת לו תפילין על ידו נשאת לעם הארץ והיתה קושרת לו קשרי מוכס על ידו: | 30b. is b suspect with regard to tithe. And who /b are the Sages referred to here as b the Rabbis? /b It is b Rabbi Yehuda, /b as in his locale they treated the prohibition of produce of the Sabbatical Year stringently. b And /b the other b one says: One who is suspect with regard to tithe is suspect with regard to /b produce of the b Sabbatical /b Year. b And who /b are the Sages referred to here as b the Rabbis? /b It is b Rabbi Meir. /b , b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Demai /i 2:4): With regard to b an i am ha’aretz /i , /b i.e., one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity and tithes, b who accepts upon himself /b the commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status, /b i.e., that he will be stringent in all matters observed by i ḥaverim /i , including i teruma /i , tithes, and i ḥalla /i , and also undertake to eat only food that is ritually pure, and the Sages accepted him as trustworthy b but /b subsequently he b was suspected with regard to one matter /b in which others saw him act improperly, b he is suspected with regard to the entire Torah. /b This is the b statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He is suspected only with regard to that particular matter. /b ,It is also taught in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Demai /i 2:4): With regard to b a convert who accepted upon himself /b upon his conversion b matters of Torah, /b i.e., all of the mitzvot, b even if he is suspect with regard to one matter /b alone, b he is suspect with regard to the entire Torah, and he is /b considered b like a Jewish transgressor [ i meshummad /i ], /b who habitually transgresses the mitzvot. The Gemara explains that the practical b difference /b resulting from the fact that he is considered like a Jewish transgressor is b that if he betroths /b a woman, b his betrothal is /b a valid b betrothal, /b and they are married. Although he is suspect with regard to the entire Torah, he does not return to his prior gentile status., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of b one who comes to accept upon himself /b the commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status except for one matter, /b which he does not wish to observe, b he is not accepted, /b and he is not trustworthy even with regard to those matters that he does wish to accept upon himself. Likewise, in the case of b a gentile who comes to /b convert and takes upon himself to b accept the words of Torah except for one matter, he is not accepted /b as a convert. b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even /b if he refuses to accept b one detail of rabbinic law, /b he is not accepted.,The i baraita /i continues: b And similarly, /b in the case of b a Levite who comes to accept the matters of a Levite, or a priest who comes to accept the matters of priesthood, except for one matter, he is not accepted. As it is stated: /b “He among the sons of Aaron, b that sacrifices the blood of the peace offerings, /b and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). This means that with regard to b the /b Temple b service, which is handed /b over b to the sons of Aaron, any priest who does not admit to it /b in its entirety b has no share in the priesthood. /b ,The Gemara continues on a similar topic. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of b one who comes to accept upon himself /b a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status, if we have seen that he practices /b such matters b in private, within his home, he is accepted, and afterward he is taught /b the precise details of being a i ḥaver /i . b But if /b we have b not /b seen him act as a i ḥaver /i in his home, b he is taught /b first b and afterward accepted. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Whether /b in b this /b case b or that /b case, b he is /b first b accepted, and he /b then b continues to learn in /b the b usual manner, /b i.e., as a i ḥaver /i he learns from others how to behave., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : An i am ha’aretz /i who wishes to become a i ḥaver /i b is accepted /b first b with regard to hands, /b i.e., he is presumed to be stringent concerning the ritual purity of his hands by making sure to wash his hands before handling pure items, b and afterward he is accepted /b as trustworthy b for purity /b in general. b And if he says: I /b wish to b accept /b purity b only with regard to hands, he is accepted /b for this. If he wishes to b accept /b upon himself the stringencies of a i ḥaver /i b with regard to ritual purity but he does not accept /b upon himself the stringencies b with regard to hands, /b i.e., to wash his hands, which is a simple act, b he is not accepted even for purity /b in general., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Until when is he accepted, /b i.e., how much time must elapse before he is considered trustworthy as a i ḥaver /i ? b Beit Shammai say: With regard to liquids, thirty days. With regard to /b impurity of b clothing, /b about which i ḥaverim /i would be careful as well, b twelve months. And Beit Hillel say: Both /b with regard to b this, /b liquids, b and that, /b clothing, he must maintain the practice b for twelve months /b before he is fully accepted as a i ḥaver /i .,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b If so, this is /b one b of /b the rare cases of b the leniencies of Beit Shammai and of the stringencies of Beit Hillel, /b and yet it is not included in tractate i Eduyyot /i , which lists all of the cases where Beit Shammai are more lenient than Beit Hillel. b Rather, /b the text of the i baraita /i must be emended so that it reads: b Beit Hillel say: Both /b with regard to b this, /b liquids b and that, /b clothing, he must maintain the practice b for thirty /b days before he is fully accepted as a i ḥaver /i .,§ The Gemara provides b a mnemonic /b to remember the topics from here until the end of the chapter: b i Ḥaver /i ; student; sky-blue dye [ i tekhelet /i ]; tax; return; /b tax b collector; by himself. /b , b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who comes to accept upon himself /b a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status must accept /b it b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i . But his children and /b the b members of his household are not required to accept /b the status of i ḥaver /i separately b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i . Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even his children and /b the b members of his household must accept /b the status of i ḥaver /i b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i , because a i ḥaver /i , who accepted it /b himself in the presence of three others, b is not comparable to the son of a i ḥaver /i , /b who b accepted /b that status only due to his father but did not accept it himself explicitly, and their accepting the status not in the presence of three people is insufficient., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who comes to accept upon himself /b a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status must accept /b it b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i , and even a Torah scholar /b who wishes to become a i ḥaver /i b must accept /b the status of i ḥaver /i b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i . /b But b an elder who sits /b and studies Torah b in a yeshiva is not required to accept /b the status of i ḥaver /i b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i , as he already accepted it upon himself from the moment he sat /b and dedicated himself to study Torah in yeshiva. b Abba Shaul says: Even a Torah scholar is not required to accept /b the status of i ḥaver /i b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i ; and not only /b does he have the status of i ḥaver /i without an explicit declaration in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i , b but others /b can b accept /b that they wish to become a i ḥaver /i b in his presence. /b , b Rabbi Yoḥa says: This mishna, /b i.e., the ruling that a Torah scholar must declare his intent to become a i ḥaver /i in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i , b was taught in the days of the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus. /b At that time, b Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei were uncertain about /b a certain b matter of ritual purity. The Sages sent /b a delegation of their students b to the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus /b and told them to b go /b and b tell him to examine /b this matter. The students b found him while he was carrying /b items that were ritually b pure. /b The son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus b seated Sages from his own /b yeshiva b next to /b the students who came to ask the question, because he did not trust these students to keep his items pure. b And he stood and examined /b the matter.,The students returned and b came and told Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei /b that the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus had treated them as though they had the status of i amei ha’aretz /i . b Rabbi Yehuda said to them /b in anger: b This one’s father, /b i.e., Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, b degraded Torah scholars /b by not trusting them with matters of ritual purity. And b he too, /b the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, b degrades Torah scholars. /b , b Rabbi Yosei said to him: Let the honor of the elder, /b i.e., both the father and son, b be left in its place. /b He did not act in this manner to degrade Torah scholars. b Rather, from the day the Temple was destroyed, the priests were accustomed to act with a higher standard for themselves, /b and they decided b that they will not pass ritually pure /b items b to any /b other b person. /b Therefore, the son of Rabbi Ḥanina, as a priest, acted appropriately., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of b a i ḥaver /i that died, his wife and children and members of his household retain their presumptive /b status b until they are suspected /b of engaging in inappropriate deeds. b And similarly, /b in the case of b a courtyard in which one sells sky-blue dye, it retains its presumptive /b status as a place in which fit sky-blue dye is sold b until it is disqualified /b due to the merchant’s unscrupulous behavior., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The /b former b wife an i am ha’aretz /i who /b later b marries a i ḥaver /i , and likewise the daughter of an i am ha’aretz /i who marries a i ḥaver /i , and likewise the slave of an i am ha’aretz /i who is sold to a i ḥaver /i , must all accept /b upon themselves a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status. But /b with regard to b the /b former b wife of a i ḥaver /i who /b later b marries an i am ha’aretz /i , and likewise the daughter of a i ḥaver /i who marries an i am ha’aretz /i , and likewise the slave of a i ḥaver /i who was sold to an i am ha’aretz /i , /b these people b need not accept /b upon themselves a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status i ab initio /i , /b as each of them is already accustomed to behave as a i ḥaver /i .,The i baraita /i continues: b Rabbi Meir says: They too must accept /b upon themselves a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status i ab initio /i . And similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would /b illustrate this point and b say in the name of Rabbi Meir: /b There was b an incident involving a certain woman who married a i ḥaver /i and would tie [ i koma’at /i ] for him phylacteries on his hand, /b and she later b married a tax collector and would tie for him tax seals on his hand, /b which shows that her new husband had a great influence on her level of piety. |
|
24. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 48, 53, 54, 278| 46b. בטבל ולא מל כולי עלמא לא פליגי דמהני כי פליגי במל ולא טבל רבי אליעזר יליף מאבות ורבי יהושע באבות נמי טבילה הוה,מנא ליה אילימא מדכתיב (שמות יט, י) לך אל העם וקדשתם היום ומחר וכבסו שמלותם ומה במקום שאין טעון כבוס טעון טבילה מקום שטעון כבוס אינו דין שטעון טבילה,ודלמא נקיות בעלמא,אלא מהכא (שמות כד, ח) ויקח משה את הדם ויזרוק על העם וגמירי דאין הזאה בלא טבילה,ורבי יהושע טבילה באמהות מנלן סברא הוא דאם כן במה נכנסו תחת כנפי השכינה,א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן לעולם אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול פשיטא יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים,מאן חכמים רבי יוסי,דתניא הרי שבא ואמר מלתי ולא טבלתי מטבילין אותו ומה בכך דברי ר' יהודה רבי יוסי אומר אין מטבילין,לפיכך מטבילין גר בשבת דברי ר' יהודה ור' יוסי אומר אין מטבילין,אמר מר לפיכך מטבילין גר בשבת פשיטא כיון דא"ר יהודה בחדא סגיא היכא דמל לפנינו מטבילין מאי לפיכך,מהו דתימא לרבי יהודה טבילה עיקר וטבילה בשבת לא דקא מתקן גברא קמ"ל דר' יהודה או הא או הא בעי,ר' יוסי אומר אין מטבילין פשיטא דכיון דאמר רבי יוסי תרתי בעינן תקוני גברא בשבת לא מתקנינן,מהו דתימא לר' יוסי מילה עיקר והתם הוא דלא הואי מילה בפנינו אבל היכא דהויא מילה בפנינו אימא ליטבל זה בשבתא קמ"ל דרבי יוסי תרתי בעי,אמר רבה עובדא הוה בי רבי חייא בר רבי ורב יוסף מתני רבי אושעיא בר רבי ורב ספרא מתני ר' אושעיא בר' חייא דאתא לקמיה גר שמל ולא טבל א"ל שהי כאן עד למחר ונטבלינך,ש"מ תלת ש"מ גר צריך שלשה וש"מ אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול וש"מ אין מטבילין גר בלילה ונימא ש"מ נמי בעינן מומחין דלמא דאיקלעו,אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן גר צריך ג' משפט כתיב ביה,ת"ר מי שבא ואמר גר אני יכול נקבלנו ת"ל אתך במוחזק לך בא ועדיו עמו מנין ת"ל (ויקרא יט, לג) וכי יגור אתך גר בארצכם | 46b. b With regard to one who immersed but was not circumcised, everyone, /b i.e., both Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer, b agrees that /b the i halakha /i is derived from the foremothers that immersion alone b is effective. Where they disagree /b is b with regard to one who was circumcised but had not immersed; Rabbi Eliezer derives /b that it is effective b from the forefathers, and Rabbi Yehoshua /b disagrees because he maintains that b in /b the conversion of the b forefathers there was also an immersion. /b ,The Gemara asks: b From where did he /b derive this? b If we say /b that he derived it b from /b the fact b that it is written /b that in preparation for the revelation at Sinai, God commanded Moses: b “Go unto the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments” /b (Exodus 19:10), as Rabbi Yehoshua understands that the washing mentioned in this verse is the ritual immersion of clothes, this leads to the following i a fortiori /i inference: b Just as in a case where /b one became impure through contact with some source of impurity, b washing, /b i.e., immersion, of clothes b is not required /b but b immersion /b of one’s body b is required, /b then b in a case where washing /b of clothes b is required, /b as in the preparation for the revelation at Sinai, b isn’t it logical that immersion /b of one’s body b should /b also b be required? /b ,The Gemara rejects the proof: b But perhaps /b when the verse states that they had to wash their clothes, it was b merely for cleanliness /b and not for the sake of ritual purity. If so, no i a fortiori /i inference can be drawn from it to the case of immersion for ritual purity., b Rather, /b Rabbi Yehoshua derived it b from here, /b where the verse states with regard to the formation of the covet at Sinai: b “And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people” /b (Exodus 24:8), b and it is learned /b as a tradition b that there is no /b ritual b sprinkling without immersion. /b Therefore, our forefathers also must have immersed at Sinai, and consequently that is also an essential requirement for all conversions.,The Gemara asks: b And /b with regard to the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua, from where do we /b derive that also b in /b the case of our b foremothers /b there was b immersion? /b The Gemara answers: b It is /b based on b logical reasoning, as, if so, /b that they did not immerse, then b with what were they brought under the wings of the Divine Presence? /b Therefore, they also must have immersed., b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b A man is b never /b considered b a convert until he is /b both b circumcised and has immersed. /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 b the many /b Sages; it is therefore obvious that the i halakha /i is in accordance with the Rabbis.,The Gemara explains: b Who are the Rabbis /b referred to in the i baraita /i ? It is b Rabbi Yosei. /b Since Rabbi Yosei is merely an individual Sage, it was necessarily for Rabbi Yoḥa to state explicitly that the i halakha /i is ruled in accordance with his opinion.,Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to a convert b who came and said: I was circumcised /b for the sake of conversion b but I did not immerse, /b the court b should immerse him, /b as b what /b would be the problem b with that; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. /b Since in any case the court immerses him, Rabbi Yehuda does not require proof of the convert’s claim that he was circumcised for the sake of conversion because he holds that it is sufficient to be either circumcised or immersed for the sake of conversion. b Rabbi Yosei says: /b The court b does not immerse /b him. He holds that both circumcision and immersion must be performed specifically for the sake of conversion and are indispensable parts of the conversion process. Therefore, since it is impossible to verify the convert’s claim with regard to his circumcision, there is no benefit to having him immerse.,The i baraita /i states a ramification of their dispute: b Therefore, /b the court b may immerse a convert /b who was already circumcised b on Shabbat; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. /b Since he holds that circumcision alone effected conversion, the immersion will not effect any further change in his status, and so it is permitted on Shabbat. b And Rabbi Yosei says: /b The court b may not immerse /b him. Since he holds that both circumcision and immersion are necessary to effect a conversion, the immersion will effect a change in his status by making him Jewish. Therefore it is prohibited to do so on Shabbat by rabbinic decree, because it appears similar to preparing a vessel for use.,The Gemara analyzes the latter clause: b The Master said /b in the i baraita /i : b Therefore, /b the court b may immerse a convert /b who was already circumcised b on Shabbat. /b The Gemara asks: b Isn’t /b this an b obvious /b extension of his opinion; b since Rabbi Yehuda said that /b either b one /b of circumcision or immersion b is sufficient, where /b a convert b was circumcised in our presence /b the court may certainly b immerse /b him, even on Shabbat. b What, /b then, is the need for the i baraita /i to include the clause that begins with: b Therefore? /b ,The Gemara explains: It is necessary to explicitly teach this ramification b lest you say /b that b according to Rabbi Yehuda the immersion is /b in fact b the principal /b act that effects conversion, and when he said in the first clause that a convert who claims to have been circumcised should be immersed since there is no problem with that, his reasoning was that he holds it is only immersion that effects the conversion. b And /b therefore performing the b immersion on Shabbat /b would b not /b be permitted, b as it establishes the person /b with a new status and so would be prohibited by a rabbinic decree because it appears similar to preparing a vessel for use. The latter clause is therefore necessary to b teach us that Rabbi Yehuda requires either this or that, /b i.e., either immersion or circumcision alone is sufficient to effect a conversion.,The Gemara analyzes the next statement in the i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yosei says: /b The court b may not immerse /b him. The Gemara asks: b Isn’t /b this an b obvious /b extension of his opinion? b As, since Rabbi Yosei requires two /b acts, both circumcision and immersion, to effect conversion, b we may /b certainly b not establish /b that b person /b with a new status b on Shabbat /b by completing his conversion by immersing him.,The Gemara explains: It is necessary to explicitly teach this ramification b lest you say /b that b according to Rabbi Yosei circumcision is /b in fact b the principal /b act that effects conversion, b and /b it is only b there, /b in the first clause of the i baraita /i , b where the circumcision was not performed in our presence /b and so there is no way to verify whether it was done for the sake of conversion, that Rabbi Yosei states that the court should not proceed to immerse him; b however, where the circumcision was performed in our presence, /b one might b say /b that the conversion was already effected by the circumcision, and therefore b let us immerse this /b convert b on Shabbat. /b The latter clause is therefore necessary to b teach us that Rabbi Yosei requires two /b acts, both circumcision and immersion, to effect conversion., b Rabba said: There was an incident in the house of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rabbi, and /b as b Rav Yosef teaches /b it, b Rabbi Oshaya bar Rabbi /b was also present, b and /b as b Rav Safra teaches /b it, a third Sage, b Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, /b was also present, in b which a convert came before him who was circumcised but had not immersed. He said to /b the convert: b Remain here /b with us b until tomorrow, and /b then b we will immerse you. /b ,Rabba said: b Learn from /b this incident b three /b principles: b Learn from it /b that b a convert requires /b a court of b three /b people to preside over the conversion, as Rav Safra taught that the case involved three Sages. b And learn from it /b that b one is not /b considered to be b a convert until he has been /b both b circumcised and immersed. And learn from it /b that the court b may not immerse a convert at night, /b as they instructed him to remain there until the following day. The Gemara suggests: b And let us say /b that one should b also learn from it /b that b we require /b a court of b experts /b to preside over the conversion, as Rav Safra identified that three expert Sages were present. The Gemara rejects this: b Perhaps they /b simply b happened to be /b there, but in fact three laymen would suffice., b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: A convert requires /b a court of b three /b to preside over conversion, because b “judgment,” is written with regard to him, /b as the verse states: “And one judgment shall be both for you and for the convert that sojourns with you” (Numbers 15:16), and legal judgments require a court of three judges., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b someone who came and said: I am a convert, /b one b might /b have thought that b we should accept him; /b therefore, b the verse states: /b “And if a convert sojourns b with you /b in your land, you shall not oppress him” (Leviticus 19:33). The emphasis on “with you” suggests that only someone who was already b presumed by you /b to be a valid convert should be accepted as a convert. If b he came and /b brought b witnesses /b to his conversion b with him, from where /b is it derived that he is to be accepted? It is from b the /b beginning of that b verse, /b which b states: “And if a convert sojourns with you in your land.” /b |
|
| 26. Anon., Qedoshim, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee (2017) 47, 279 |
| 27. Mishnah, Malachi, 8 Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 46, 47 |
| 28. Babylonian Talmud, Karetot, 91 Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 279 |
29. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 52| 64b. תניא נמי הכי בד"א שירשו אבל נשתתפו אסור,הדור יתבו וקמיבעיא להו גר תושב מהו שיבטל עבודת כוכבים דפלח מבטיל דלא פלח לא מבטיל או דלמא כל דבר מיני' מבטיל והאי בר מיניה הוא,אמר להו רב נחמן מסתברא דפלח מבטיל דלא פלח לא מבטיל,מיתיבי ישראל שמצא עבודת כוכבים בשוק עד שלא באתה לידו אומר לעובד כוכבים ומבטלה משבאתה לידו אינו אומר לעובד כוכבים ומבטלה מפני שאמרו עובד כוכבים מבטל עבודת כוכבים שלו ושל חבירו בין עובדה ובין שאין עובדה,מאי עובדה ומאי שאינו עובדה אילימא אידי ואידי עובד כוכבים היינו שלו ושל חבירו אלא לאו עובדה עובד כוכבים ומאי שאינו עובדה גר תושב וש"מ גר תושב נמי מבטל,לא לעולם אימא לך אידי ואידי עובד כוכבים ודקאמרת היינו שלו ושל חבירו רישא זה וזה לפעור וזה וזה למרקוליס סיפא זה לפעור וזה למרקוליס,מיתיבי איזהו גר תושב כל שקיבל עליו בפני ג' חברים שלא לעבוד עבודת כוכבים דברי ר"מ,וחכ"א כל שקיבל עליו שבע מצות שקבלו עליהם בני נח,אחרים אומרים אלו לא באו לכלל גר תושב אלא איזהו גר תושב זה גר אוכל נבילות שקבל עליו לקיים כל מצות האמורות בתורה חוץ מאיסור נבילות,מייחדין אצלו יין ואין מפקידין אצלו יין ואפי' בעיר שרובה ישראל אבל מייחדין אצלו יין ואפי' בעיר שרובה עובדי כוכבים שמנו כיינו,שמנו כיינו ס"ד שמן מי קא הוי יין נסך אלא יינו כשמנו,ולשאר כל דבר הרי הוא כעובד כוכבים רבן שמעון אומר יינו יין נסך ואמרי לה מותר בשתיה,קתני מיהא ולשאר כל דבריו הרי הוא כעובד כוכבים למאי הלכתא לאו דמבטל עבודת כוכבים כעובד כוכבים אר"נ בר יצחק לא ליתן רשות ולבטל רשות,וכדתניא ישראל מומר משמר שבתו בשוק מבטל רשות שאין משמר שבתו בשוק אין מבטל רשות מפני שאמרו ישראל נותן רשות ומבטל רשות,ובעובד כוכבים עד שישכור כיצד אומר לו רשותי קנויה לך רשותי מבוטלת לך קנה ואין צריך לזכות,רב יהודה שדר ליה קורבנא | 64b. b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b In what /b case b is this statement, /b that a convert and a gentile are permitted to divide up common property that includes objects of idol worship, b said? /b This is said with regard to property b that they inherited; but /b if b they were partners, /b it is b prohibited. /b ,§ The Gemara mentions another discussion among Rav Naḥman, Ulla, Avimi bar Pappi, and Rav Ḥiyya bar Ami. b They were sitting again and a dilemma was raised before them: /b With regard to b a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ i ger toshav /i ], /b including the prohibition against engaging in idol worship, b what is /b the i halakha /i with regard to the possibility b that he can revoke /b the status of objects of b idol worship? /b Is it the case that one b who worships /b idols b can revoke /b the status of one, but one b who does not worship /b them b cannot revoke /b the status of one? b Or perhaps /b should it be reasoned that b anyone who is of the same kind /b as idol worshippers, i.e., a gentile, b can revoke /b its status, b and /b a i ger toshav /i b is of the same kind /b as idol worshippers?, b Rav Naḥman said to them: It stands to reason /b that one b who worships /b idols b can revoke /b the status of one, but one b who does not worship /b them b cannot revoke /b the status of one.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b to this ruling from a i baraita /i : In the case of b a Jew who found /b an object of b idol worship in the marketplace, as long as it has not /b yet b come into his possession, he can tell a gentile, and /b the gentile b can revoke /b its idolatrous status. b Once it has come into his possession, he cannot tell a gentile and /b have the gentile b revoke /b its status. This applies to any gentile, b because /b the Sages b said: A gentile can revoke /b the status of b his own /b object of b idol worship or that of another /b gentile, b whether he worships it or whether he does not worship it. /b , b What /b is meant by the phrase: b Worships it, and what /b is meant by the phrase: b Does not worship it? If we say /b both b this and that /b are referring to b a gentile, this is /b the same as the previous statement in the i baraita /i , that a gentile can revoke the status of b his own /b object of idol worship b or that of another /b gentile, i.e., an object that he worships or one that another gentile worships. b Rather, isn’t it /b to be understood that the phrase: b Worships it, /b is referring to b a gentile? And what /b is the meaning of the phrase: b Does not worship it? /b It is referring to b a i ger toshav /i , /b who does not worship any idols. b And learn from it /b that b a i ger toshav /i can also revoke /b the status of objects of idol worship.,The Gemara rejects this explanation. b No, actually, I will say to you /b that b this /b phrase b and that /b phrase are both referring to b a gentile, and /b with regard to that b which you say, /b that b this is /b the same as the statement concerning b his /b object of idol worship b or that of another /b gentile, it can be explained as follows: b The first clause /b is referring to a case where both gentiles worship the same idol, e.g., b this /b one b and that /b one both worship b Peor, or this /b one b and that /b one both worship b Mercury, /b and the i baraita /i is teaching that one can revoke the status of an idol that belongs to the other. b The latter clause, /b which distinguishes between one who worships it and one who does not worship it, is referring to a case where b this /b one worships b Peor and that /b one worships b Mercury, /b indicating that an idolater can revoke the status of an idol that he does not worship at all, but only if he is himself an idolater, as opposed to a i ger toshav /i .,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : b Who is a i ger toshav /i ? /b It is b anyone who has accepted upon himself before three i ḥaverim /i , /b i.e., people devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially i halakhot /i of ritual purity, i teruma /i , and tithes, b not to worship idols. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. /b , b And the Rabbis say: Anyone who has accepted upon himself /b observance of the b seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves /b is a i ger toshav /i ., b Others say: These have not entered the category of i ger toshav /i . Rather, who is a i ger toshav /i ? This is a convert /b who b eats /b unslaughtered b animal carcasses, /b which are not kosher, but b who has accepted upon himself to observe all of the mitzvot that are stated in the Torah except for the prohibition /b against eating unslaughtered b carcasses. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: Whatever the definition of a i ger toshav /i , the following i halakhot /i apply to him: b One may leave him alone with wine /b briefly without Jewish supervision with no concern that he might use it for a libation, thereby rendering it forbidden to Jews, as he is not an idol worshipper. b But one may not deposit wine with him /b for an extended period of time, lest he exchange it with the wine of a gentile, which is forbidden. b And /b this applies b even in a town that has a Jewish majority. But one may leave him alone with wine /b briefly without Jewish supervision b even in a town with a majority of gentiles. His oil is /b treated b like his wine /b in terms of its permissibility.,The Gemara interjects: b His oil is like his wine? /b Can this b enter your mind? Does /b the b oil /b of a gentile b become, /b i.e., assume the status of, b wine /b used for b a libation? Rather, /b the i baraita /i should be emended as follows: b His wine is like his oil. /b It is permitted to derive benefit from it, but not to consume it.,The i baraita /i continues: b And with regard to all other matters, /b a i ger toshav /i b is /b treated b like a gentile. Rabban Shimon says: His wine is /b treated like b wine /b used for b a libation. And some say /b he says: Even b drinking /b it is b permitted. /b ,The Gemara comments on the i baraita /i : b In any event, /b the i baraita /i b teaches: And with regard to all other matters, /b a i ger toshav /i b is /b treated b like a gentile. With regard to what i halakha /i /b is this stated? Is it b not /b teaching b that he can revoke /b the status of an object of b idol worship as a gentile /b can? b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: No, /b it is stated with regard to b giving /b away rights in b a domain or renouncing /b rights in b a domain /b in the context of the i halakhot /i of joining houses in courtyards for Shabbat., b And /b this is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b An apostate Jew /b who nevertheless b observes his Shabbat in the marketplace, /b i.e., in public, b can renounce /b his rights in a shared b domain /b so the other Jews in the domain may carry in it on Shabbat, but an apostate b who does not observe his Shabbat /b even b in the marketplace cannot renounce /b his rights in b a domain, because /b the Sages b said /b that only b a Jew can give /b away rights in his b domain or renounce /b his rights in his b domain, /b and this applies in the context of joining houses in courtyards on Shabbat., b But with regard to a gentile, /b this is not effective b unless /b the Jew b leases /b his domain in the courtyard. b How so? /b A Jew b may say to /b another Jew: b My /b rights in this b domain /b are hereby b acquired by you, /b or: b My /b rights in this b domain /b are hereby b renounced to you, /b and the other Jew thereby b acquires /b those rights, b and it is not necessary /b for him b to take possession /b of it through a formal act of acquisition.,The Gemara relates: b Rav Yehuda sent a gift /b |
|
| 30. Anon., Gerim, 2.4 Tagged with subjects: •conversion court, invention of Found in books: Lavee (2017) 279, 280 |
