1. Tosefta, Peah, 4.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •converted ammonite, lion Found in books: Nikolsky and Ilan (2014) 113| 4.1. "עני שנתן פרוטה לקופה ופרוסה לתמחוי מקבלין אותה ממנו אם לא נתן אין מחייבין אותו ליתן [נתנו לו חדשים והחזיר להן שחקים מקבלין אותה ממנו אם לא נתן אין מחייבין אותו ליתן] היה משתמש בכלי מילת נותנין לו כלי מילת מטה נותנין לו מטה עיסה נותנין לו <כלי> עיסה פת נותנין לו פת להאכילו בתוך פיו מאכילין לו בתוך פיו שנא' (דברים ט״ו:ח׳) די מחסורו אשר יחסר לו אפי' עבד אפי' סוס לו זו אשה שנא' (בראשית ב׳:י״ח) אעשה לו עזר כנגדו מעשה בהלל הזקן שנתן לעני בן טובים סוס שהיה מתעמל בו ועבד שהיה משמשו שוב מעשה באנשי הגליל שהיו מעלין לזקן אחד ליטרא [אחת] בשר ציפורי בכל יום.", 4.1. "רבי יהודה אומר מקום שדורכין את העוללות נאמן עני לומר יין זה של עוללות הוא לקט זה לקטתיו אני ואחי [אני] וקרובי אבל אין נאמן לומר מפלוני נכרי לקחתי מאיש פלוני כותי לקחתי עניי כותים כעניי ישראל אבל עניי נכרים אין מאמינים להם בכל דבר.", | |
|
| 2. Palestinian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 3. Palestinian Talmud, Yevamot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 4. Palestinian Talmud, Demai, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 5. Palestinian Talmud, Sheqalim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
6. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •converted ammonite, lion Found in books: Nikolsky and Ilan (2014) 113| 38a. דאם כן נכתוב קרא להאי רעהו גבי מועד:,שור של ישראל שנגח שור של כנעני פטור: אמרי ממה נפשך אי רעהו דוקא דכנעני כי נגח דישראל נמי ליפטר ואי רעהו לאו דוקא אפילו דישראל כי נגח דכנעני נחייב,א"ר אבהו אמר קרא (חבקוק ג, ו) עמד וימודד ארץ ראה ויתר גוים ראה שבע מצות שקיבלו עליהם בני נח כיון שלא קיימו עמד והתיר ממונן לישראל,רבי יוחנן אמר מהכא (דברים לג, ב) הופיע מהר פארן מפארן הופיע ממונם לישראל,תניא נמי הכי שור של ישראל שנגח שור של כנעני פטור שור של כנעני שנגח שור של ישראל בין תם בין מועד משלם נזק שלם שנאמר עמד וימודד ארץ ראה ויתר גוים ואומר הופיע מהר פארן,מאי ואומר,וכי תימא האי עמד וימודד ארץ מבעי' ליה לכדרב מתנה וכדרב יוסף ת"ש הופיע מהר פארן מפארן הופיע ממונן לישראל מאי דרב מתנה דא"ר מתנה עמד וימודד ארץ ראה וכו' מה ראה ראה שבע מצות שנצטוו עליהן בני נח ולא קיימום עמד והגלה אותם מעל אדמתם,ומאי משמע דהאי ויתר לישנא דאגלויי הוא כתיב הכא ויתר גוים וכתיב התם (ויקרא יא, כא) לנתר בהן על הארץ ומתרגם לקפצא בהון על ארעא,מאי דרב יוסף דא"ר יוסף עמד וימודד ארץ ראה וכו' מה ראה ראה שבע מצות שקיבלו עליהם בני נח ולא קיימום עמד והתירן להם,איתגורי אתגר א"כ מצינו חוטא נשכר אמר מר בריה דרבנא לומר שאפילו מקיימין אותן אין מקבלין עליהן שכר,ולא והתניא ר"מ אומר מנין שאפילו נכרי ועוסק בתורה שהוא ככהן גדול ת"ל (ויקרא יח, ה) אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם כהנים ולוים וישראלים לא נאמר אלא אדם הא למדת שאפילו נכרי ועוסק בתורה הרי הוא ככהן גדול,אמרי אין מקבלים עליהן שכר כמצווה ועושה אלא כמי שאינו מצווה ועושה דא"ר חנינא גדול המצווה ועושה יותר ממי שאינו מצווה ועושה:,ת"ר וכבר שלחה מלכות רומי שני סרדיוטות אצל חכמי ישראל למדונו תורתכם קראו ושנו ושלשו בשעת פטירתן אמרו להם דקדקנו בכל תורתכם ואמת הוא חוץ מדבר זה שאתם אומרים שור של ישראל שנגח שור של כנעני פטור של כנעני שנגח שור של ישראל בין תם בין מועד משלם נזק שלם,ממ"נ אי רעהו דוקא אפילו דכנעני כי נגח דישראל ליפטר ואי רעהו לאו דוקא אפילו דישראל כי נגח דכנעני לחייב ודבר זה אין אנו מודיעים אותו למלכות,רב שמואל בר יהודה שכיבא ליה ברתא אמרו ליה רבנן לעולא קום ניזל נינחמיה אמר להו מאי אית לי גבי נחמתא דבבלאי דגידופא הוא דאמרי מאי אפשר למיעבד הא אפשר למיעבד עבדי,אזל הוא לחודאי גביה א"ל (דברים ב, ב) ויאמר ה' (אל משה) אל תצר את מואב ואל תתגר בם מלחמה וכי מה עלה על דעתו של משה לעשות מלחמה שלא ברשות אלא נשא משה ק"ו בעצמו אמר ומה מדינים שלא באו אלא לעזור את מואב אמרה תורה (במדבר כה, יז) צרור את המדינים והכיתם אותם | 38a. b Because if so, /b if one whose ox gores a consecrated ox is exempt from liability, b let the verse write this /b phrase: b “of another,” with regard to /b the case of b a forewarned /b ox. One could then infer that the owner is exempt from liability in the case of an innocuous ox as well, as the liability with regard to an innocuous ox is less severe than with regard to a forewarned ox. The stating of this exemption specifically in the context of an innocuous ox indicates that the exemption is only concerning the leniency stated in the verse, that if the gored ox belongs to another person, the owner of the belligerent ox is liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.,§ The mishna teaches: With regard to b an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, /b the owner of the belligerent ox is b exempt /b from liability; whereas if a gentile’s ox gores a Jew’s ox, the owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage. The Sages b said: /b This statement is difficult b whichever way you /b look at it. b If /b the phrase b “of another” /b is meant in b a precise /b manner, and therefore the liability applies only if his ox gores the ox of another Jew, b when a gentile’s /b ox b gores that of a Jew he should also be exempt /b from liability. b And if /b the phrase b “of another” /b is b not /b meant in b a precise /b manner, then b even when a Jew’s /b ox b gores that of a gentile /b the owner of the belligerent ox b should be liable. /b , b Rabbi Abbahu said /b that the reason for this ruling is that b the verse states: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld, and made the nations tremble [ i vayyatter /i ]” /b (Habakkuk 3:6). This is homiletically interpreted to mean that God b saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves /b to fulfill, and b since they did not fulfill /b them, b He arose and permitted [ i vehittir /i ] their money to the Jewish people, /b so that in certain cases Jews are not liable for damage caused to gentiles., b Rabbi Yoḥa said /b that the source for this i halakha /i is b from here: /b It is stated in reference to the giving of the Torah: “The Lord came from Sinai and rose from Seir unto them; b He appeared from Mount Paran” /b (Deuteronomy 33:2), which is homiletically interpreted to mean: b From /b the time God came from Mount b Paran, /b when giving the Torah, b the money of /b the gentile nations b appeared, /b i.e., it was revealed and granted b to the Jewish people. /b , b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, /b the owner of the belligerent ox is b exempt /b from liability. By contrast, with regard to b an ox of a gentile that gored the ox of a Jew, whether /b it was b innocuous or forewarned, /b the owner of the belligerent ox b pays the full /b cost of the b damage, as it is stated: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld, and made the nations tremble.” And /b another verse b states: “He appeared from Mount Paran.” /b ,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the reason the i baraita /i adds: b And /b another verse b states, /b indicating that the first verse is not a sufficient source?,The Gemara explains that this is how the i baraita /i is to be understood: b And if you would say /b that b this /b verse: b “He stood and shook the earth” is necessary to /b express b that which Rav Mattana and Rav Yosef /b derived from the verse, b come /b and b hear /b another source: b “He appeared from Mount Paran,” /b meaning: b From Paran their money appeared to the Jewish people. What is Rav Mattana’s /b exposition? It is b as Rav Mattana says: “He stood and shook the earth.” What did He see? He saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah were commanded but did not fulfill, /b and b He arose and exiled them from their land /b on account of their transgressions., b And from where may /b it b be inferred that this /b term b i vayyatter /i is a term of exile? It is written here: “And made the nations tremble [ i vayyatter /i ]” /b (Habakkuk 3:6), b and it is written there: “ i Lenatter /i upon the earth” /b (Leviticus 11:21), b which is translated /b into Aramaic as: b “To leap upon the earth.” /b Apparently, the root i nun /i , i tav /i , i reish /i , common to both words, indicates uprooting from one place to another., b What is Rav Yosef’s /b exposition? It is b as Rav Yosef says: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld.” What did He see? He saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves and did not fulfill, /b so b He arose and permitted /b their prohibitions b to them. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Did they /b thereby b profit, /b in that their prohibitions became permitted to them? b If so, we have found a transgressor /b who b is rewarded. Mar, son of Rabbana, says: /b This is not to say that for them to transgress their mitzvot is no longer a sin; rather, it is b to say that even if they fulfill them, they do not receive reward for /b fulfilling b them. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But /b do they b not /b receive reward for fulfilling those mitzvot? b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Meir says: From where /b is it derived b that even a gentile who engages in Torah is /b considered b like a High Priest? The verse states /b with regard to the mitzvot: b “Which if a person does, he shall live by them” /b (Leviticus 18:5). It b is not stated: /b Which if b priests and Levites and Israelites /b do, they shall live by them, b but rather: A person, /b indicating that all people are included. b You have therefore learned that even a gentile who engages in Torah /b study b is /b considered b like a High Priest. /b ,The Sages b said /b in response: Rav Yosef meant that b they do not receive the reward as /b does b one who is commanded /b to perform a mitzva b and performs /b it, b but as /b does b one who is not commanded /b to perform a mitzva b and performs /b it anyway. b As Rabbi Ḥanina says: /b One who is b commanded and performs /b a mitzva b is greater than /b one who b is not commanded and performs /b it., b The Sages taught /b the following story in the context of the aforementioned i halakha /i : b And the Roman kingdom once sent two military officials [ i sardeyotot /i ] to the Sages of Israel, /b and ordered them in the name of the king: b Teach us your Torah. /b The officials b read /b the Torah, b and repeated /b it, b and /b repeated it again, reading it for the b third /b time. b At the time of their departure, they said to /b the Sages: b We have examined your entire Torah and it is true, except for this /b one b matter that you state, /b i.e., that with regard to b an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, /b the owner is b exempt /b from liability, whereas with regard to the ox b of a gentile that gored the ox of a Jew, whether /b it was b innocuous or forewarned, /b the owner b pays the full /b cost of the b damage. /b ,The officials’ reasoning was that this i halakha /i is difficult b whichever way you /b look at it. b If /b the phrase b “of another” /b is meant in b a precise /b manner, that the owners of both oxen must both be Jewish, then b even when /b the ox b of a gentile gores the ox of a Jew /b the owner of the ox b should be exempt /b from liability. b And if /b the phrase b “of another” /b is b not /b meant in b a precise /b manner, and the oxen of all are included, then b even when /b the ox b of a Jew gores the ox of a gentile /b the owner b should be liable. /b They added: b But we will not inform this matter to the kingdom; /b having acknowledged that the entire Torah is true, we will not reveal this ruling, as it will displease the kingdom.,§ Incidentally, it is related that b the daughter /b of b Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda died. The Sages said to Ulla: Arise; let us go console him. /b Ulla b said to them: What /b business b do I have with the consolation of Babylonians, which is /b actually b heresy? As, they say /b while consoling mourners: b What can be done? /b This seems to suggest that b if it were possible to do /b something, acting against the Almighty’s decree, b they would do /b so, which is tantamount to heresy. Therefore, Ulla declined to accompany the Babylonian Sages.,Ulla therefore b went to /b console Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda b by himself, /b and b said to him: /b The verse states: b “And the Lord said to me, do not be at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle” /b (Deuteronomy 2:9). b What entered Moses’s mind, /b that God had to warn him not to undertake a particular action? Did it enter his mind b to wage war /b with the Moabites b without permission? Rather, Moses reasoned an i a fortiori /i /b inference b by himself, saying: And if /b with regard to b the Midianites, who came only to help the Moabites /b harm the Jewish people (see Numbers, chapter 22), b the Torah said: “Harass the Midianites and smite them” /b (Numbers 25:17), |
|
7. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •converted ammonite, lion Found in books: Nikolsky and Ilan (2014) 113| 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 |
|
8. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Nikolsky and Ilan (2014) 113| 56b. אי נמי דאשתכח בגומא אי אמרת חזקתו בדוק מאן דבדק בגומא נמי בדיק אי אמרת חזקתו מתכבד גומא לא מתכבדא,וכן הכתם וכו' איבעיא להו עד שעת כבוס חזקתו בדוק או דלמא חזקתו מתכבס,למאי נפקא מינה דאמר כיבס ולא בדק אי אמרת חזקתו בדוק הא לא בדק אי אמרת חזקתו מתכבס הא מתכבס,אי נמי דאשתכחה בסטרא אי אמרת חזקתו בדוק מאן דבדק בסטרא נמי בדיק אי אמרת חזקתו מתכבס בסטרא לא מתכבס,מאי תא שמע דתניא א"ר מאיר מפני מה אמרו השרץ שנמצא במבוי מטמא למפרע עד שיאמר בדקתי את המבוי הזה ולא היה בו שרץ או עד שעת כיבוד מפני שחזקת בני ישראל בודקין מבואותיהן בשעת כבודיהם ואם לא בדקו הפסידוהו למפרע,ומפני מה אמרו כתם שנמצא בחלוק מטמא למפרע עד שיאמר בדקתי את החלוק ולא היה בו כתם או עד שעת הכבוס מפני שחזקת בנות ישראל בודקות חלוקיהן בשעת כבוסיהן ואם לא בדקו הפסידו למפרע,ר' אחא אמר תחזור ותכבסנו אם נדחה מראיתו בידוע שלאחר כבוס ואם לאו בידוע שלפני הכבוס,רבי אומר אינו דומה כתם שלאחר הכבוס לכתם שלפני הכבוס שזה מקדיר וזה מגליד ש"מ חזקתו בדוק ש"מ,ומטמא בין לח וכו' א"ר אלעזר לא שנו אלא שרץ אבל כתם לח נמי מטמא למפרע אימר יבש היה ומיא נפיל עליה,שרץ נמי אימר יבש היה ומיא נפיל עליה אם איתא דהכי הוא אמרטוטי אימרטט, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כל הכתמין הבאין מרקם טהורין רבי יהודה מטמא מפני שהם גרים וטועין הבאין מבין העובדי כוכבים טהורין מבין ישראל ומבין הכותים רבי מאיר מטמא וחכמים מטהרים מפני שלא נחשדו על כתמיהן, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big קפסיק ותני אפילו מתרמוד א"ר יוחנן זאת אומרת מקבלין גרים מתרמוד,איני והא רבי יוחנן וסביא דאמרי תרוייהו אין מקבלין גרים מתרמוד,וכי תימא זאת ולא סבירא ליה והאמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כסתם משנה,אמוראי נינהו ואליבא דרבי יוחנן,מבין ישראל וכו' ורבנן אי דישראל מטהרי דמאן מטמו,חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני מבין ישראל טמא מבין הכותים רבי מאיר מטמא דכותים גרי אמת הן וחכמים מטהרין דכותים גרי אריות הן,אי הכי שלא נחשדו על כתמיהן גרי אריות מבעי ליה,אלא הכי קאמר מבין ישראל ומבין הכותים טמאין דכותים גרי אמת הן הנמצאין בערי ישראל טהורין שלא נחשדו על כתמיהם ואצנועי מצנעי להו,הנמצאין בערי כותים רבי מאיר מטמא דנחשדו על כתמיהם וחכמים מטהרין שלא נחשדו על כתמיהן, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כל הכתמים הנמצאים בכל מקום טהורין חוץ מן הנמצאים בחדרים ובסביבות בית הטמאות,בית הטמאות של כותים מטמאין באהל מפני שהם קוברין שם את הנפלים ר' יהודה אומר לא היו קוברין אלא משליכין וחיה גוררתו,נאמנים לומר קברנו שם את הנפלים או לא קברנו נאמנים לומר על הבהמה אם בכרה אם לא בכרה נאמנים על ציון קברות,ואין נאמנין לא על הסככות ולא על הפרעות ולא על בית הפרס,זה הכלל דבר שחשודים בו אין נאמנין עליו big strongגמ׳ /strong /big | 56b. b Alternatively, /b there is a difference between these explanations in a case b where /b the creeping animal b was found in a hole /b in the ground. b If you say the presumptive status of /b a swept alleyway is that it has been b examined, /b it is clear that b one who examines /b the alleyway b also examines /b any b holes, /b and any items that were in the alleyway beforehand should remain pure. By contrast, b if you say its presumptive status /b is that it has been completely b swept, /b this applies only to items that are on the ground, whereas b a hole is not /b considered to have been b swept. /b Consequently, even items that passed through the alleyway before it was swept should be deemed impure.,The mishna teaches: b And likewise, /b a blood b stain /b that was discovered on the robe of a woman renders her impure retroactively. With regard to this i halakha /i as well b a dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: The mishna states that any pure items the woman handled b from /b the b time of laundering /b are impure. Does this mean that once the robe has been laundered b its presumptive status /b is that it has been b examined, /b as when it is laundered it is examined thoroughly, and any blood stain would have been discovered? b Or perhaps /b the mishna means that b its presumptive status /b is that b it is /b thoroughly b laundered, /b and any blood stain would have been removed by the laundering.,The Gemara asks: b What is the /b practical b difference /b that arises from this dilemma? The Gemara replies: There is a difference in a case b where /b the person who laundered the robe b said he laundered /b it b but did not examine /b it. b If you say its presumptive status /b is that it has been b examined, /b in b this /b case the man explicitly said that b he did not examine /b the robe, so it does not have this presumptive status. By contrast, b if you say its presumptive status /b is that b it is /b thoroughly b laundered, /b in b this /b case too it has been b laundered. /b , b Alternatively, /b there is a difference between these explanations in a case b where /b the blood stain b was found on the side /b of the robe, in an area where there are folds and stitches. b If you say its presumptive status /b is that it has been b examined, /b it is clear that b one who examines /b the robe b also examines the side /b of the robe, and therefore any items that the woman handled before the robe was laundered should remain pure. By contrast, b if you say its presumptive status /b is that b it is /b thoroughly b laundered, /b this applies only to the main part of the robe, but b on /b its b side /b it b is not laundered /b thoroughly enough to remove a blood stain., b What /b is the i halakha /i with regard to these two dilemmas? b Come /b and b hear, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Meir says: For what /b reason b did /b the Sages b say /b that the carcass of b a creeping animal that was found in an alleyway renders /b pure items b impure retroactively from /b the time about which b one may state: I examined this alleyway and there was no creeping animal in it, or from /b the b time of /b the b sweeping /b of the alleyway? It is b due to /b the fact b that /b there is b a presumption with regard to Jewish people /b that b they examine their alleyways at the time of their sweeping. And /b therefore, b if they did not examine /b the alleyway b they retroactively lose /b the purity of any items that were there from the last time it was examined., b And /b similarly, b for what /b reason b did /b the Sages b say /b that a blood b stain that was found on /b the b robe /b of a woman b renders /b her b impure retroactively from /b the time about which b one may state: I examined the robe and there was no /b blood b stain on it, or from the time of the laundering /b of the robe? It is b due to /b the fact b that /b there is b a presumption with regard to the Jewish women /b that b they examine their robes at the time of their laundering. And /b therefore, b if they did not examine /b the robe b they retroactively lose /b the purity of any items they handled since it was last examined., b Rabbi Aḥa says: /b Even in a case where the robe was not examined when it was laundered and a blood stain was subsequently found on it, and it is unknown whether the stain was present before the laundering, there is a remedy to the dilemma: b Let her launder it again. If the appearance of /b the blood stain b changes /b as a result of this laundering b it is known that /b the robe became stained b after /b the previous b laundering, /b which is why the present laundering affected its appearance. Consequently, those pure items that the woman handled before the earlier laundering remain pure. b And if /b the blood stain’s appearance does b not /b change due to the second laundering b it is known that /b the robe became stained b before the /b previous b laundering, /b and therefore the items that she handled before the laundering are impure., b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: /b One can differentiate between a blood stain that was on the robe before it was laundered and one that stained the robe afterward by inspecting the stain itself. This is because the appearance of a blood b stain after the laundering is not similar to /b the appearance of a blood b stain before the laundering, as this /b stain, from after the laundering, b penetrates [ i makdir /i ] /b the garment, b and that /b stain, from before the laundering, b forms a crust [ i maglid /i ] /b that can be scraped off the robe. With regard to the Gemara’s dilemma, one may b conclude from /b Rabbi Meir’s statement that b the presumptive status of /b a swept alleyway or a laundered robe is that it has been b examined. /b The Gemara concludes: Indeed, b conclude from it /b that this is so.,§ The mishna teaches: b And /b the carcass of a creeping animal or a blood stain b renders /b items b impure /b retroactively b whether /b they are still b moist /b or are already dried out. Rabbi Shimon says: The dry one renders items impure retroactively, whereas the moist one does not render items impure since the aforementioned times, but only from such a time that it could still be moist from then up to the moment it was discovered. With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, b Rabbi Elazar says: /b The mishna b taught /b this i halakha /i b only /b with regard to the carcass of b a creeping animal, but /b Rabbi Shimon concedes that b a moist /b blood b stain also renders /b the woman b impure retroactively /b from the time that the robe was examined. This is because one can b say /b the blood stain b was dry /b beforehand b and water fell upon it, /b causing it to become moist.,The Gemara asks: With regard to the moist carcass of b a creeping animal as well, /b one can b say it was dried out /b beforehand b and water fell on it. /b It should therefore render items impure retroactively from the time that the alleyway was swept. The Gemara answers: b If it is so, that this is /b what occurred, the dead creeping animal b would be sundered apart /b and would not have its current appearance., strong MISHNA: /strong b Any /b blood b stains /b on garments b that come from /b the town of b Rekem are ritually pure, /b as most of the residents there are gentiles, and the blood stains of gentile women are not ritually impure. b Rabbi Yehuda deems /b those stains b impure because /b in his opinion the residents of Rekem are not gentiles; rather, b they are converts /b whose halakhic status is that of Jews, b but they are misguided /b and do not put away their bloodstained garments. The blood stains on garments b that come from among the gentiles are ritually pure. /b With regard to blood stains on garments that come b from among the Jews and from among the Samaritans, Rabbi Meir deems /b them b impure, /b as they may have come from the Jews. b And the Rabbis deem /b them b ritually pure due to /b the fact b that /b Jews b are not suspected of /b failing to put away b their /b garments on which there are blood b stains. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna b categorically teaches /b that any blood stains on garments that come from among the gentiles are ritually pure, thereby indicating that this applies b even /b to garments that come b from /b among the gentile population of b Tarmod. Rabbi Yoḥa says: That is to say, one may accept converts from Tarmod, /b i.e., there is no concern with regard to whether they are actually Jews of flawed lineage, who may not marry Jews of fit lineage.,The Gemara asks: b Is that so? But /b aren’t there b Rabbi Yoḥa and the Elders who both say /b that b one may not accept converts from Tarmod? /b This is due to a concern that the daughters of the ten tribes exiled during the First Temple period might have intermingled with them, and according to Rabbi Yoḥa the offspring of a Jewish woman and a gentile is a i mamzer /i , who may not marry a Jew of fit lineage., b And if you would say /b that Rabbi Yoḥa merely infers that this is the opinion of the mishna, as indicated by the term: b That /b is to say, b but he /b himself b does not hold accordingly, /b that is not so. b Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say /b a principle that the b i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the ruling of b an unattributed mishna, /b as is the case here?,The Gemara answers: b They are i amora’im /i , and /b they disagree b with regard to /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yoḥa. /b According to one i amora /i , Rabbi Yoḥa maintains that converts from Tarmod are not accepted, and he did not state that it is a principle that the i halakha /i is in accordance with the ruling of an unattributed mishna. According to another i amora /i , Rabbi Yoḥa holds that the i halakha /i is in accordance with the unattributed mishna, and therefore one may accept converts from Tarmod.,§ The mishna teaches with regard to blood stains on garments that come b from among the Jews /b and from among the Samaritans that Rabbi Meir deems them impure, and the Rabbis deem them ritually pure. The Gemara asks: b But /b with regard to the opinion of b the Rabbis, if they deem /b stains that come b from a Jewish /b woman b pure, whose /b stains b do they deem impure? /b ,The Gemara answers: The mishna b is incomplete and this /b is what b it is teaching: /b Everyone agrees that blood stains on garments that come b from among the Jews are impure. /b With regard to blood stains that come b from among the Samaritans, Rabbi Meir deems /b them b impure, as /b he maintains the b Samaritans are true converts /b and have the halakhic status of Jews, whose blood stains are impure. b And the Rabbis deem /b them b ritually pure, as /b they maintain the b Samaritans are converts /b who converted under duress b due to /b the threat posed by b lions, /b and therefore their conversion is void, and their halakhic status is that of gentiles.,The Gemara asks: b If so, /b why does the mishna state that according to the Rabbis the blood stains of the Samaritans are ritually pure due to the fact b that they are not suspected of /b failing to put away b their /b garments on which there are blood b stains? /b The mishna b should /b state that their blood stains are pure, as they are b converts /b who converted b due to /b the threat of b lions. /b , b Rather, this /b is what the mishna b is saying: /b Blood stains on garments that come b from among the Jews and from among the Samaritans are ritually impure, as /b everyone agrees the b Samaritans are true converts. /b With regard to blood stains b that are found in /b the b towns of Jews, they are pure, as they are not suspected of /b failing to put away b their /b garments on which there are blood b stains, and they /b certainly b put them away. /b Therefore, the stains necessarily come from gentiles.,The Gemara continues paraphrasing the mishna: With regard to blood stains b that are found in /b the b towns of Samaritans, Rabbi Meir deems /b them b impure, as /b the inhabitants b are suspected of /b failing to put away b their /b garments on which there are blood b stains. And the Rabbis deem /b them b pure, as /b they maintain that even Samaritans b are not suspected of /b failing to put away b their /b garments on which there are blood b stains, /b and the stains are necessarily from gentiles., strong MISHNA: /strong b All /b blood b stains /b on garments b that are found anywhere /b where Jews and gentiles reside b are ritually pure, /b since they must not belong to Jews, who put away their stained garments. This is the i halakha /i b except for /b the stained garments b that are found in the /b inner b rooms /b of the house, as these might be garments that the Jews put away there; b and /b except for the stained garments found b in proximity to the house of impurity, /b i.e., the room that women used when they were impure due to menstruation., b The house of impurity of Samaritans imparts /b the b impurity /b that is imparted by a corpse b by means of a tent, due to /b the fact b that they bury the stillborn /b children b there. Rabbi Yehuda says: /b The house of impurity of Samaritans does not impart that impurity, as b they would not bury /b a stillborn child there. b Rather, they would cast /b it outside b and an animal would drag it /b away.,Samaritans b are deemed credible to state: We buried the stillborn /b children b there, /b in a certain place, and it transmits ritual impurity; b or /b to state: b We did not bury /b the stillborn children there, and it does not transmit ritual impurity. b They are /b likewise b deemed credible to state about an animal whether it /b previously b gave birth /b or b whether it did not /b previously b give birth; /b and their testimony is accepted with regard to determining whether the animal’s offspring has the status of a firstborn animal, which is sacred. They b are /b also b deemed credible /b to testify b about the marking of graves, /b i.e., that where they marked is deemed a grave and where they did not mark is deemed a place where there is no grave., b But /b with regard to the following cases, in which the exact location of a grave is unknown, the Samaritans b are not deemed credible /b to testify: They are b not /b deemed credible to testify b about the overhanging boughs, nor about the protrusions /b that jut out of stone fences and cover the ground. If it is unknown which bough or protrusion hangs over a grave, forming a tent that transmits the impurity of a corpse, and if a Samaritan testifies that the grave is not beneath a particular bough or protrusion his testimony is not accepted. b And /b likewise they are b not /b deemed credible to testify b about a i beit haperas /i . /b The Sages issued a decree that in such a case, the area that was plowed is impure as far as one hundred cubits from the original grave, due to the concern that the bones were dispersed by the plow., b This is the principle /b governing the credibility of Samaritans: In the case of any b matter /b of i halakha /i b that they are suspected /b of not fulfilling, b they are not deemed credible /b to testify b about it. /b |
|
9. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •converted ammonite, lion Found in books: Nikolsky and Ilan (2014) 113| 85b. מידי דהוה לאחר מיתה,מאי הוה עלה אמר רבה בר רב הונא וכן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל לכל אין הבן נעשה שליח לאביו להכותו ולקללו חוץ ממסית שהרי אמרה תורה (דברים יג, ט) לא תחמול ולא תכסה עליו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המכה אביו ואמו אינו חייב עד שיעשה בהן חבורה זה חומר במקלל מבמכה שהמקלל לאחר מיתה חייב והמכה לאחר מיתה פטור:, big strongגמ' /strong /big ת"ר (ויקרא כ, ט) אביו ואמו קלל לאחר מיתה שיכול הואיל וחייב במכה וחייב במקלל מה מכה אינו חייב אלא מחיים אף המקלל אינו חייב אלא מחיים,ועוד ק"ו ומה מכה שעשה בו שלא בעמך כבעמך לא חייב בו לאחר מיתה מקלל שלא עשה בו שלא בעמך כבעמך אינו דין שלא חייב בו לאחר מיתה,ת"ל אביו ואמו קלל לאחר מיתה,הניחא לר' יונתן דמייתר ליה קרא אביו ואמו אלא לר' יאשיה מאי איכא למימר,דתניא (ויקרא כ, ב) איש איש מה ת"ל איש איש לרבות בת טומטום ואנדרוגינוס אשר יקלל את אביו ואת אמו אין לי אלא אביו ואמו אביו שלא אמו אמו שלא אביו מניין ת"ל אביו ואמו קלל אביו קלל אמו קלל דברי ר' יאשיה,ר' יונתן אומר משמע שניהן כאחד ומשמע אחד ואחד בפני עצמו עד שיפרט לך הכתוב יחדיו,מנא ליה נפקא ליה מומקלל אביו ואמו מות יומת,ואידך ההוא מיבעי ליה לרבות בת טומטום ואנדרוגינוס,ותיפוק ליה מאיש איש דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם,וליתני חומר במכה מבמקלל שהמכה עשה בו שלא בעמך כבעמך משא"כ במקלל קסבר מקשינן הכאה לקללה,לימא הני תנאי כהני תנאי דתני חדא כותי אתה מצווה על הכאתו ואי אתה מצווה על קללתו ותניא אידך אי אתה מצווה לא על קללתו ולא על הכאתו,סברוה דכולי עלמא כותים גירי אמת הן מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר מקשינן הכאה לקללה ומר סבר לא מקשינן הכאה לקללה,לא דכ"ע לא מקשינן הכאה לקללה והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר כותים גירי אמת הן ומר סבר כותים גירי אריות הן,אי הכי היינו דקתני עלה ושורו כישראל אלא שמע מינה בהיקישא פליגי ש"מ:, big strongמתני' /strong /big הגונב נפש מישראל אינו חייב עד שיכניסנו לרשותו רבי יהודה אומר עד שיכניסנו לרשותו וישתמש בו שנאמר (דברים כד, ז) והתעמר בו ומכרו הגונב את בנו רבי ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה מחייב וחכמים פוטרין גנב מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין ר' יהודה מחייב וחכמים פוטרין:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ותנא קמא לא בעי עימור א"ר אחא בריה דרבא עימור פחות משוה פרוטה איכא בינייהו,בעי ר' ירמיה גנבו ומכרו ישן מהו מכר אשה לעוברה מהו יש דרך עימור בכך או אין דרך עימור בכך,ותיפוק ליה דליכא עימור כלל לא צריכא ישן דזגא עליה אשה דאוקמא באפי זיקא דרך עימור בכך או אין דרך עימור בכך מאי תיקו,ת"ר (דברים כד, ז) כי ימצא איש גונב נפש מאחיו אין לי אלא איש שגנב אשה מניין ת"ל וגונב איש,אין לי אלא איש שגנב בין אשה ובין איש ואשה שגנבה איש אשה שגנבה אשה מניין ת"ל ומת הגנב ההוא מכל מקום,תניא אידך כי ימצא איש גונב נפש מאחיו אחד הגונב את האיש ואחד הגונב את האשה ואחד גר ואחד עבד משוחרר וקטן חייב גנבו ולא מכרו מכרו ועדיין ישנו ברשותו פטור מכרו לאביו או לאחיו או לאחד מן הקרובים חייב הגונב את העבדים פטור | 85b. The Gemara answers: The i halakha /i here is b just as it is after /b the b death /b of his father, and the son is liable for cursing his father even after his death. Therefore, he is also liable when his father’s death is imminent.,Despite several attempts to cite proof contradicting his opinion, there is no conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Sheshet that a son may serve as an agent of the court to punish his father. The Gemara asks: b What /b halakhic conclusion b was /b reached b about /b this matter? b Rabba bar Rav Huna says, and likewise the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: With regard to all /b cases b a son is not designated /b as b an agent to strike his father or to curse him, except /b in a case where his father b incites /b others to worship idols, b as the Torah states: “Neither shall you spare, nor shall you conceal him” /b (Deuteronomy 13:9)., strong MISHNA: /strong b One who strikes his father or his mother is not liable /b to be executed b unless he wounds /b one of b them. This is a stringency with regard to one who curses /b his father that is more severe b than /b the i halakha /i b with regard to one who strikes /b his father, b as one who curses /b his father or his mother b after /b his or her b death is liable, but one who strikes /b one of them b after /b his or her b death is exempt, /b as he did not cause a wound.,gemara b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i that it is written: “For any man who curses his father and his mother shall be put to death, he has cursed his father and his mother; his blood shall be upon him who curses his father and his mother shall die; b he has cursed his father and his mother; /b his blood shall be upon him” (Leviticus 20:9). This is referring to one who curses his parents even b after /b their b death, as /b one b might /b have thought: b Since one is liable for striking and one is liable for cursing, just as one who strikes is liable only when /b his father or mother are b alive, so too, one who curses is liable only when /b they are b alive. /b , b Furthermore, /b one may draw an b i a fortiori /i /b inference: b If, /b with regard to one who b strikes /b another, b where /b the Torah b deemed /b the status of striking one who performs actions b not of your people, /b i.e., a sinner, b like /b that of striking one who performs actions that are b of your people, /b yet the Torah b did not deem him liable /b for striking another b after death, /b then with regard to one who b curses, where /b the Torah b deemed /b the status of cursing one who performs actions b not of your people like /b that of cursing one who performs actions that are b of your people, is it not right that /b the Torah b did not deem him liable /b for cursing another b after /b their b death? /b ,Therefore, b the verse states /b the extraneous phrase: b “He has cursed his father and his mother,” /b to include even one who curses his father or mother b after /b that parent’s b death. /b ,The Gemara asks: b This works out well according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yonatan, for whom the phrase “his father and his mother” is extraneous. But according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yoshiya, /b who disagrees with him, b what is there to say? /b ,This is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that it is written: “For b any man [ i ish ish /i ] /b who curses his father and his mother shall be put to death, he has cursed his father and his mother; his blood shall be upon him.” b What /b is the meaning when b the verse states /b redundantly: b “ i Ish ish /i ”? /b It serves b to include /b not only a son, but also b a daughter, one whose sexual organs are indeterminate [ i tumtum /i ], and a hermaphrodite /b who curse their parent. When the verse states: b “Who curses his father and his mother,” I have /b derived b only /b liability for cursing both b his father and his mother. From where /b is liability derived for one who cursed b his father /b but b who did not /b curse b his mother, /b or one who cursed b his mother /b but b who did not /b curse b his father? The verse states: “He has cursed his father and his mother,” /b from which it is derived that the i halakha /i is as if the verse states: b He cursed his father /b or b he cursed his mother. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya. /b , b Rabbi Yonatan says: /b In verses of this kind when two subjects are joined with a prefix of the letter i vav /i , that prefix b indicates /b the conjunction “and,” meaning b both /b subjects b together, and /b it also b indicates /b the conjunction “or,” meaning b each one by itself, unless the verse specifies /b with the word: b “Together,” /b in which case the meaning is both together. Therefore, the phrase “he has cursed his father and his mother” is extraneous.,Since according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, the phrase is not redundant, b from where does he /b derive that one is liable for cursing his father after his death? The Gemara answers: b He derives it from /b that which is written: b “And one who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death” /b (Exodus 21:17).,The Gemara asks: b And the other /b i tanna /i , Rabbi Yonatan, what does he derive from that verse? The Gemara answers: b He requires /b the other verse b to include a daughter, a i tumtum /i , and a hermaphrodite /b in the prohibition against cursing a parent.,The Gemara challenges: b But let him derive /b that i halakha /i b from /b the redundant use of b “ i ish ish /i ,” /b as Rabbi Yoshiya does. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yonatan holds that b the Torah spoke in the language of people. /b The repetition of the term i ish /i is merely a rhetorical flourish commonly employed in speech, and no additional i halakhot /i can be derived from it.,§ The Gemara asks with regard to the mishna: b And let /b the i tanna /i b teach /b a second stringency in the mishna: b This is a stringency with regard to one who strikes /b his father that is more severe b than /b the i halakha /i b with regard to one who curses /b his father, b that with regard to one who strikes /b a parent the Torah b deemed /b the status of striking one who performs actions b not of your people /b to be b like /b that of striking one who performs actions b of your people, which is not so with regard to one who curses /b a parent. The Gemara responds: The i tanna /i of the mishna disagrees and b holds /b that b we liken striking to cursing /b based on the juxtaposition of the verses.,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that the opinions of b these /b following b i tanna’im /i are parallel to /b the opinions of b those /b following b i tanna’im /i , as it is taught /b in b one /b i baraita /i : With regard to b a Samaritan, you are commanded /b to refrain from b striking him, but you are not commanded /b to refrain from b cursing him. And it is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : b You are commanded neither /b to refrain from b cursing him nor /b to refrain from b striking him. /b ,It is b assumed /b that b everyone, /b i.e., the i tanna /i of each i baraita /i , agrees that b Samaritans are true converts. /b Since their conversion was sincere, their status is that of a Jew who sinned. Based on that assumption, the Gemara suggests: b What, is it not /b that b they disagree about this: That /b one b Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the second i baraita /i , b holds /b that b we liken striking to cursing /b and the i halakha /i is the same with regard to both, and therefore it is neither prohibited to strike a Samaritan, nor is it prohibited to curse him; b and /b one b Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the first i baraita /i , b holds /b that b we do not liken striking to cursing, /b and there is no prohibition against cursing a sinner, but there is a prohibition against striking him?,The Gemara rejects the parallel between the two tannaitic disputes. b No, everyone, /b i.e., the i tanna’im /i in each i baraita /i , agrees that b we do not liken striking to cursing, and here they disagree about this: /b One b Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the first i baraita /i , b holds /b that b Samaritans are true converts /b and their status is that of a Jew who sinned. Therefore, there is no prohibition against cursing him, but there is a prohibition against striking him. b And /b one b Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the second i baraita /i , b holds /b that b Samaritans are converts /b who converted under duress b due to /b the threat of b lions /b (see II Kings, chapter 17) and their conversion was never valid. Therefore, their legal status is that of a gentile and it is neither prohibited to strike a Samaritan nor to curse him.,The Gemara asks: b If so, /b is b that /b consistent with that b which is taught with regard to /b the second i baraita /i : b And /b in terms of damage caused to b his ox /b his status is b like /b that of b a Jew? /b Apparently, even the i tanna /i of the second i baraita /i holds that the conversion of the Samaritans was sincere. b Rather, learn from it /b that the two i tanna’im /i b disagree with regard to the juxtaposition /b of the two prohibitions, as initially suggested; their dispute is not with regard to the status of a Samaritan. The Gemara affirms: b Conclude from it /b that this is the crux of their dispute.,mishna b One who abducts a Jewish person is not liable /b to be executed b unless he brings /b the abductee b into his domain. Rabbi Yehuda says: /b He is not liable b unless he brings him into his domain and exploits him, as it is stated: /b “If a man shall be found abducting a person of his brethren from the children of Israel, b and he exploited him and sold him, /b then that abductor shall die” (Deuteronomy 24:7). The phrase “exploited him” indicates using him for labor. With regard to b one who abducts his /b own b son /b and sells him, b Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka, deems /b him b liable, and the Rabbis deem /b him b exempt. /b If b one abducted one who is a half-slave half-freeman, /b i.e., a Canaanite slave who belonged to two owners and was emancipated by one of them, b Rabbi Yehuda deems /b him b liable, and the Rabbis deem /b him b exempt. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b And does the first i tanna /i not require exploitation /b as a condition for liability? The Torah states it explicitly in the verse in Deuteronomy. b Rabbi Aḥa, son of Rava, says: /b The difference b between them /b is in a case of b exploitation /b worth b less than the value of one i peruta /i . /b The first i tanna /i holds that one is liable for any exploitation and there is no minimum value in order to establish liability. Rabbi Yehuda holds that one is liable only if one derives benefit equal to at least one i peruta /i from his exploitation., b Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: /b If b one abducted /b another b and sold him /b while he was b asleep, what is /b the i halakha /i ? If one abducted and b sold /b a pregt b woman /b solely b for /b benefit from b her fetus, what is /b the i halakha /i ? b Is that a manner of exploitation /b for which one is liable to be executed b or is that not a manner of exploitation /b for which one is liable to be executed?,The Gemara asks with regard to the dilemmas raised by Rabbi Yirmeya: b But let him derive /b that the abductor is not liable, b as there is no exploitation at all /b of a sleeping individual or a fetus. The Gemara answers: b No, /b it is b necessary /b to raise the dilemma only with regard to the b sleeping /b individual in a case b where one reclines on him, /b and with regard to the pregt b woman where one stands her in the face of the wind /b to protect himself from the wind. In those cases, b is that a manner of exploitation /b for which one is liable to be executed b or is that not a manner of exploitation /b for which one is liable to be executed? b What /b is the i halakha /i ? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma b shall stand [ i teiku /i ] /b unresolved., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i that it is written: b “If a man shall be found abducting a person of his brethren /b from the children of Israel, and he exploited him and sold him, then that abductor shall die” (Deuteronomy 24:7). b I have /b derived b only /b that b a man who abducted /b another is liable. b From where /b is it derived that b a woman /b who abducts another is liable as well? It is derived from b the verse /b that b states: And one who abducts a man, /b and sells him, if he be found in his hand, he shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:16), where the sex of the abductor is not specified., b I have /b derived b only /b that b a man who abducted /b another, b whether a man or a woman, /b is liable, as it is written: “If a man shall be found abducting a person”; the abductor is male but the sex of the abductee is not specified. b And /b I derived that b a woman who abducted a man /b is liable, as it is written: “And one who abducts a man”; the sex of the abductor is not specified but the abductee is male. b From where /b is it derived that b a woman who abducted a woman /b is liable as well? It is derived from b the verse /b that b states: “Then that abductor shall die” /b (Deuteronomy 24:7); the abductor shall die b in any case, /b regardless of the sex of the one who was abducted., b It is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i that it is written: b “If a man is found abducting a person of his brethren,” /b from which it is derived that b whether he abducts a man, or /b whether b he abducts a woman, or /b whether he abducts b a convert, or /b whether he abducts b an emancipated slave or a minor, /b he is b liable. /b If he b abducted /b another b but did not sell him, /b or if he b sold him but he remains in his domain, /b the abductor is b exempt. /b If he b sold him to /b the b father of /b the abductee, b or to his brother, or to one of /b his other b relatives, /b the abductor is b liable. One who abducts slaves is exempt. /b |
|
