| 1. Philo of Alexandria, Allegorical Interpretation, 133 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •defi ling of the hands Found in books: Goodman (2006) 221 |
2. Philo of Alexandria, On The Life of Moses, 2.41-2.42 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •defi ling of the hands Found in books: Goodman (2006) 75 | 2.41. On which account, even to this very day, there is every year a solemn assembly held and a festival celebrated in the island of Pharos, to which not only the Jews but a great number of persons of other nations sail across, reverencing the place in which the first light of interpretation shone forth, and thanking God for that ancient piece of beneficence which was always young and fresh. 2.42. And after the prayers and the giving of thanks some of them pitched their tents on the shore, and some of them lay down without any tents in the open air on the sand of the shore, and feasted with their relations and friends, thinking the shore at that time a more beautiful abode than the furniture of the king's palace. |
|
3. Mishnah, Yadayim, 3.5, 4.5-4.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •defi ling of the hands Found in books: Goodman (2006) 70, 75, 76, 82| 3.5. "סֵפֶר שֶׁנִּמְחַק וְנִשְׁתַּיֵּר בּוֹ שְׁמוֹנִים וְחָמֵשׁ אוֹתִיּוֹת, כְּפָרָשַׁת וַיְהִי בִּנְסֹעַ הָאָרֹן, מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. מְגִלָּה שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ שְׁמוֹנִים וְחָמֵשׁ אוֹתִיּוֹת כְּפָרָשַׁת וַיְהִי בִּנְסֹעַ הָאָרֹן, מְטַמָּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. כָּל כִּתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים וְקֹהֶלֶת מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, וְקֹהֶלֶת מַחֲלֹקֶת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, קֹהֶלֶת אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם וְשִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים מַחֲלֹקֶת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, קֹהֶלֶת מִקֻּלֵּי בֵית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחֻמְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי, מְקֻבָּל אֲנִי מִפִּי שִׁבְעִים וּשְׁנַיִם זָקֵן, בַּיּוֹם שֶׁהוֹשִׁיבוּ אֶת רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה בַּיְשִׁיבָה, שֶׁשִּׁיר הַשִּׁירִים וְקֹהֶלֶת מְטַמְּאִים אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, לֹא נֶחֱלַק אָדָם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל עַל שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים שֶׁלֹּא תְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, שֶׁאֵין כָּל הָעוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ כְדַאי כַּיּוֹם שֶׁנִּתַּן בּוֹ שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁכָּל הַכְּתוּבִים קֹדֶשׁ, וְשִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים. וְאִם נֶחְלְקוּ, לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא עַל קֹהֶלֶת. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חָמִיו שֶׁל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, כְּדִבְרֵי בֶן עַזַּאי, כָּךְ נֶחְלְקוּ וְכָךְ גָּמְרוּ: \n", 4.5. "תַּרְגּוּם שֶׁבְּעֶזְרָא וְשֶׁבְּדָנִיֵּאל, מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. תַּרְגּוּם שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ עִבְרִית וְעִבְרִית שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ תַּרְגּוּם, וּכְתָב עִבְרִי, אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא, עַד שֶׁיִּכְתְּבֶנּוּ אַשּׁוּרִית, עַל הָעוֹר, וּבִדְיוֹ: \n", 4.6. "אוֹמְרִים צְדוֹקִים, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, פְּרוּשִׁים, שֶׁאַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים, כִּתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, וְסִפְרֵי הוֹמֵרִיס אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. אָמַר רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, וְכִי אֵין לָנוּ עַל הַפְּרוּשִׁים אֶלָּא זוֹ בִלְבָד. הֲרֵי הֵם אוֹמְרִים, עַצְמוֹת חֲמוֹר טְהוֹרִים וְעַצְמוֹת יוֹחָנָן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל טְמֵאִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לְפִי חִבָּתָן הִיא טֻמְאָתָן, שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם עַצְמוֹת אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ תַּרְוָדוֹת. אָמַר לָהֶם, אַף כִּתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְפִי חִבָּתָן הִיא טֻמְאָתָן, וְסִפְרֵי הוֹמֵרִיס, שֶׁאֵינָן חֲבִיבִין, אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדָיִם: \n", | 3.5. "A scroll on which the writing has become erased and eighty-five letters remain, as many as are in the section beginning, \"And it came to pass when the ark set forward\" (Numbers 11:35-36) defiles the hands. A single sheet on which there are written eighty-five letters, as many as are in the section beginning, \"And it came to pass when the ark set forward\", defiles the hands. All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands. The Song of Songs and Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) defile the hands. Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet. Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs. Rabbi Shimon says: [the ruling about] Kohelet is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I have received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the academy that the Song of Songs and Kohelet defile the hands. Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man in Israel disputed that the Song of Songs [saying] that it does not defile the hands. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If they had a dispute, they had a dispute only about Kohelet. Rabbi Yoha ben Joshua the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Akiva said in accordance with the words of Ben Azzai: so they disputed and so they reached a decision.", 4.5. "The Aramaic sections in Ezra and Daniel defile the hands. If an Aramaic section was written in Hebrew, or a Hebrew section was written in Aramaic, or [Hebrew which was written with] Hebrew script, it does not defile the hands. It never defiles the hands until it is written in the Assyrian script, on parchment, and in ink.", 4.6. "The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer do not defile the hands. Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai said: Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this? Behold they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, yet the bones of Yoha the high priest are unclean. They said to him: according to the affection for them, so is their impurity, so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother. He said to them: so also are the Holy Scriptures according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness. The books of Homer which are not precious do not defile the hands.", |
|
4. Mishnah, Megillah, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •defi ling of the hands Found in books: Goodman (2006) 221| 3.1. "בְּנֵי הָעִיר שֶׁמָּכְרוּ רְחוֹבָהּ שֶׁל עִיר, לוֹקְחִין בְּדָמָיו בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת. בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת, לוֹקְחִין תֵּבָה. תֵּבָה, לוֹקְחִין מִטְפָּחוֹת. מִטְפָּחוֹת, לוֹקְחִין סְפָרִים. סְפָרִים, לוֹקְחִין תּוֹרָה. אֲבָל אִם מָכְרוּ תוֹרָה, לֹא יִקְחוּ סְפָרִים. סְפָרִים, לֹא יִקְחוּ מִטְפָּחוֹת. מִטְפָּחוֹת, לֹא יִקְחוּ תֵבָה. תֵּבָה, לֹא יִקְחוּ בֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת. בֵּית הַכְּנֶסֶת, לֹא יִקְחוּ אֶת הָרְחוֹב. וְכֵן בְּמוֹתְרֵיהֶן. אֵין מוֹכְרִין אֶת שֶׁל רַבִּים לְיָחִיד, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמּוֹרִידִין אוֹתוֹ מִקְּדֻשָּׁתוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אִם כֵּן, אַף לֹא מֵעִיר גְּדוֹלָה לְעִיר קְטַנָּה: \n", | 3.1. "Townspeople who sold the town square, they may buy with the proceeds a synagogue. [If they sold] a synagogue, they may buy with the proceeds an ark. [If they sold] an ark they may buy covers [for scrolls]. [If they sold] covers, they may buy scrolls [of the Tanakh]. [If they sold] scrolls they may buy a Torah. But if they sold a Torah they may not buy with the proceeds scrolls [of the Tanakh]. If [they sold] scrolls they may not buy covers. If [they sold] covers they may not buy an ark. If [they sold] an ark they may not buy a synagogue. If [they sold] a synagogue they may not buy a town square. The same applies to any money left over. They may not sell [something] belonging to a community because this lowers its sanctity, the words of Rabbi Meir. They said to him: if so, it should not be allowed to sell from a larger town to a smaller one.", |
|
5. Mishnah, Kelim, 15.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •defi ling of the hands Found in books: Goodman (2006) 72| 15.6. "נִבְלֵי הַשָּׁרָה, טְמֵאִין. וְנִבְלֵי בְנֵי לֵוִי, טְהוֹרִין. כָּל הַמַּשְׁקִין, טְמֵאִין. וּמַשְׁקֵה בֵית מַטְבְּחַיָּא, טְהוֹרִין. כָּל הַסְּפָרִים מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, חוּץ מִסֵּפֶר הָעֲזָרָה. הַמַּרְכּוֹף, טָהוֹר. הַבַּטְנוֹן, וְהַנִּקְטְמוֹן, וְהָאֵרוּס, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ טְמֵאִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, הָאֵרוּס טָמֵא מוֹשָׁב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהָאַלָּיִת יוֹשֶׁבֶת עָלָיו. מְצֻדַּת הַחֻלְדָּה, טְמֵאָה. וְשֶׁל הָעַכְבָּרִין, טְהוֹרָה: \n", | 15.6. "Ordinary harps are susceptible to impurity, but the harps of Levites are clean. All liquids are susceptible to impurity, but the liquids in the Temple slaughtering house are clean. All scrolls convey impurity to the hands, excepting the scroll of the Temple courtyard. A wooden toy horse is clean. The belly-lute, the donkey-shaped musical instrument and the erus are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Judah says: the erus is susceptible to sitting impurity since the wailing woman sits on it. A weasel-trap is susceptible to impurity, but a mouse- trap is clean.", |
|
6. Mishnah, Avot, 5.21 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •defi ling of the hands Found in books: Goodman (2006) 80| 5.21. "הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, בֶּן חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים לַמִּקְרָא, בֶּן עֶשֶׂר לַמִּשְׁנָה, בֶּן שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה לַמִּצְוֹת, בֶּן חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה לַתַּלְמוּד, בֶּן שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה לַחֻפָּה, בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים לִרְדֹּף, בֶּן שְׁלשִׁים לַכֹּחַ, בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים לַבִּינָה, בֶּן חֲמִשִּׁים לָעֵצָה, בֶּן שִׁשִּׁים לַזִּקְנָה, בֶּן שִׁבְעִים לַשֵּׂיבָה, בֶּן שְׁמֹנִים לַגְּבוּרָה, בֶּן תִּשְׁעִים לָשׁוּחַ, בֶּן מֵאָה כְּאִלּוּ מֵת וְעָבַר וּבָטֵל מִן הָעוֹלָם: \n", | 5.21. "He used to say: At five years of age the study of Scripture; At ten the study of Mishnah; At thirteen subject to the commandments; At fifteen the study of Talmud; At eighteen the bridal canopy; At twenty for pursuit [of livelihood]; At thirty the peak of strength; At forty wisdom; At fifty able to give counsel; At sixty old age; At seventy fullness of years; At eighty the age of “strength”; At ninety a bent body; At one hundred, as good as dead and gone completely out of the world.", |
|
| 7. Josephus Flavius, Life, 418, 134 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Goodman (2006) 80 |
8. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, 1.37-1.44, 2.175-2.181 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •defi ling of the hands Found in books: Goodman (2006) 80 | 1.37. and this is justly, or rather necessarily done, because every one is not permitted of his own accord to be a writer, nor is there any disagreement in what is written; they being only prophets that have written the original and earliest accounts of things as they learned them of God himself by inspiration; and others have written what hath happened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also. 8. 1.38. For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; 1.39. and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; 1.40. but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. 1.41. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; 1.42. and how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation, is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them. 1.43. For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in number, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws and the records that contain them; 1.44. whereas there are none at all among the Greeks who would undergo the least harm on that account, no, nor in case all the writings that are among them were to be destroyed; 2.175. for he did not suffer the guilt of ignorance to go on without punishment, but demonstrated the law to be the best and the most necessary instruction of all others, permitting the people to leave off their other employments, and to assemble together for the hearing of the law, and learning it exactly, and this not once or twice, or oftener, but every week; which thing all the other legislators seem to have neglected. /p 2.176. 19. And indeed, the greatest part of mankind are so far from living according to their own laws, that they hardly know them; but when they have sinned they learn from others that they have transgressed the law. 2.177. Those also who are in the highest and principal posts of the government, confess they are not acquainted with those laws, and are obliged to take such persons for their assessors in public administrations as profess to have skill in those laws; 2.178. but for our people, if any body do but ask any one of them about our laws, he will more readily tell them all than he will tell his own name, and this in consequence of our having learned them immediately as soon as ever we became sensible of any thing, and of our having them, as it were engraven on our souls. Our transgressors of them are but few; and it is impossible, when any do offend, to escape punishment. /p 2.179. 20. And this very thing it is that principally creates such a wonderful agreement of minds amongst us all; for this entire agreement of ours in all our notions concerning God, and our having no difference in our course of life and manners, procures among us the most excellent concord of these our manners that is any where among mankind; 2.180. for no other people but we Jews have avoided all discourses about God that any way contradict one another, which yet are frequent among other nations; and this is true not only among ordinary persons, according as every one is affected, but some of the philosophers have been insolent enough to indulge such contradictions, while some of them have undertaken to use such words as entirely take away the nature of God, as others of them have taken away his providence over mankind. 2.181. Nor can any one perceive amongst us any difference in the conduct of our lives; but all our works are common to us all. We have one sort of discourse concerning God, which is conformable to our law, and affirms that he sees all things; as also, we have but one way of speaking concerning the conduct of our lives, that all other things ought to have piety for their end; and this any body may hear from our women, and servants themselves. |
|
9. Tosefta, Sukkah, 4.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •defi ling of the hands Found in books: Goodman (2006) 221| 4.6. "[כיצד] ג' להבטיל את העם מן המלאכה חזן הכנסת נוטל חצוצרת ועולה לראש הגג גבוה שבעיר [נטל לקרות] הסמוכין לעיר בטלין הסמוכין לתחום מתכנסין ובאין לתוך התחום ולא היו נכנסין מיד אלא ממתינין עד שיבואו כולן ויתכנסו כולן בבת אחת [מאימתי הוא נכנס משימלא לו חבית ויצלה לו דגה וידליק לו את הנר].", | 4.6. "Why did they blow three blasts? To make the people cease from work. The sexton took the trumpets, and went to the top of the highest roof in the city to summon those near the city to cease from work. Those near the limits of the city assembled themselves together and came to the schoolhouse. They did not come immediately the trumpets blew, but waited till all were gathered together, and then all came at once. When did they assemble? After one could fill a bottle of water, or fry a fish, or light his lamp. ", |
|
| 10. Tosefta, Yadayim, 2.12-2.14, 4.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •defi ling of the hands Found in books: Goodman (2006) 71, 75, 76 |
11. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 1.17, 20.115 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •defi ling of the hands Found in books: Goodman (2006) 77, 80 | 1.17. As I proceed, therefore, I shall accurately describe what is contained in our records, in the order of time that belongs to them; for I have already promised so to do throughout this undertaking; and this without adding any thing to what is therein contained, or taking away any thing therefrom. 20.115. Now as this devastation was making, one of the soldiers seized the laws of Moses that lay in one of those villages, and brought them out before the eyes of all present, and tore them to pieces; and this was done with reproachful language, and much scurrility; |
|
12. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 2.228-2.231, 7.150 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •defi ling of the hands Found in books: Goodman (2006) 80, 221 | 2.228. 2. Now there followed after this another calamity, which arose from a tumult made by robbers; for at the public road of Bethhoron, one Stephen, a servant of Caesar, carried some furniture, which the robbers fell upon and seized. 2.229. Upon this Cumanus sent men to go round about to the neighboring villages, and to bring their inhabitants to him bound, as laying it to their charge that they had not pursued after the thieves, and caught them. Now here it was that a certain soldier, finding the sacred book of the law, tore it to pieces, and threw it into the fire. 2.230. Hereupon the Jews were in great disorder, as if their whole country were in a flame, and assembled themselves so many of them by their zeal for their religion, as by an engine, and ran together with united clamor to Caesarea, to Cumanus, and made supplication to him that he would not overlook this man, who had offered such an affront to God, and to his law; but punish him for what he had done. 2.231. Accordingly, he, perceiving that the multitude would not be quiet unless they had a comfortable answer from him, gave order that the soldier should be brought, and drawn through those that required to have him punished, to execution, which being done, the Jews went their ways. 7.150. and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews. |
|
13. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •defi ling of the hands Found in books: Goodman (2006) 70| 14a. לא מטמו אמר רבה בר בר חנה ר' יהושע היא דתנן ר' אליעזר אומר האוכל אוכל ראשון ראשון ואוכל אוכל שני שני אוכל שלישי שלישי ר' יהושע אומר האוכל אוכל ראשון ואוכל שני שני שלישי שני לקודש ואין שני לתרומה בחולין שנעשו על טהרת תרומה,אוכל אוכל ראשון ואוכל אוכל שני מ"ט גזרו ביה רבנן טומאה דזימנין דאכיל אוכלין טמאין ושקיל משקין דתרומה ושדי לפומיה ופסיל להו,שותה משקין טמאין מ"ט גזרו ביה רבנן טומאה דזימנין דשתה משקין טמאין ושקיל אוכלין דתרומה ושדי לפומיה ופסיל להו היינו הך מהו דתימא הא שכיחי והא לא שכיחי קמ"ל,והבא ראשו ורובו במים שאובין מ"ט גזרו ביה רבנן טומאה א"ר ביבי אמר רב אסי שבתחלה היו טובלין במי מערות מכונסין וסרוחין והיו נותנין עליהן מים שאובין התחילו ועשאום קבע גזרו עליהם טומאה,מאי קבע אמר אביי שהיו אומרים לא אלו מטהרין אלא אלו ואלו מטהרין אמר ליה רבא מאי נפקא מינה הא קא טבלי בהנך אלא אמר רבא שהיו אומרים לא אלו מטהרין אלא אלו מטהרין,וטהור שנפלו על ראשו ורובו שלשה לוגין מים שאובין מ"ט גזרו ביה רבנן טומאה דאי לא הא לא קיימא הא,וספר מ"ט גזרו ביה רבנן טומאה אמר רב משרשיא שבתחלה היו מצניעין את אוכלין דתרומה אצל ס"ת ואמרו האי קדש והאי קדש כיון דקחזו דקאתו לידי פסידא גזרו ביה רבנן טומאה,והידים מפני שהידים עסקניות הן תנא אף ידים הבאות מחמת ספר פוסלות את התרומה משום דר' פרנך דא"ר פרנך א"ר יוחנן האוחז ס"ת ערום נקבר ערום ערום ס"ד אלא א"ר זירא ערום בלא מצות בלא מצות ס"ד אלא אימא ערום בלא אותה מצוה,הי גזור ברישא אילימא הא גזור ברישא | 14a. b do not render /b it b impure; /b in other words, they do not render the i teruma /i capable of transmitting impurity to other items? b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: It is /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua. As we learned /b in a mishna: b Rabbi Eliezer says: One who eats food /b with b first /b degree ritual impurity status assumes b first /b degree ritual impurity status, and anything with first degree ritual impurity status renders i teruma /i impure. b And one who eats food /b with b second /b degree ritual impurity status assumes b second /b degree ritual impurity status. One who eats b food /b with b third /b degree ritual impurity status assumes b third /b degree ritual impurity status. b Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who eats food /b with b first /b degree ritual impurity status b and /b one who b eats /b food with b second /b degree ritual impurity status assume b second /b degree ritual impurity status. One with second degree ritual impurity status who comes into contact with i teruma /i disqualifies it and does not render it impure. One who eats food with b third /b degree ritual impurity status assumes b second /b degree ritual impurity status b vis-à-vis consecrated /b items, b and /b he does b not /b assume b second /b degree ritual impurity status b vis-à-vis i teruma /i . /b Eating an item with third degree ritual impurity status is only feasible in the case of non-sacred items, as eating impure i teruma /i is prohibited. It is only possible b in /b the case of b non-sacred /b food items b that were prepared /b as if their level of purity were b on the /b level of the b purity of i teruma /i . /b ,With regard to the decree itself, the Gemara asks: b One who eats food /b with b first /b degree ritual impurity status b and one who eats food /b with b second /b degree ritual impurity status; b what is the reason the Sages decreed impurity upon him, /b rendering him impure? The Gemara answers: Because b at times one eats impure food, and takes liquids of i teruma, /i and casts them into his mouth and disqualifies /b the liquids, as the impure food comes into contact with the liquid in his mouth and disqualifies it. To prevent this, the Sages decreed that one who eats impure food becomes impure and must refrain from touching i teruma /i at all.,Similarly, the Gemara asks: b One who drinks impure liquids; what is the reason the Sages decreed impurity upon him? /b The Gemara answers: Because b at times one drinks impure liquids, and takes i teruma /i foods, and casts /b them b in his mouth, and disqualifies them. /b The Gemara asks: b This /b decree b is /b the same as b that /b decree as they were issued for one reason. Why did the mishna list them separately and consider them two different decrees? The Gemara answers: b Lest you say /b that b this, /b people who eat impure food, b is common; /b as it is common for one eating to drink. Consequently, one who eats impure food is likely to drink i teruma /i liquid. b And, /b however, b that, /b one drinking impure liquids who would put food in his mouth while drinking b is uncommon. /b As a result, it is conceivable to say that the Sages did not issue a decree in an uncommon case. Therefore, the mishna b teaches us /b that even in that instance the Sages decreed impurity.,Among the eighteen decrees that the Sages issued on that day, we also learned: b And one whose head and most of his /b body b come into drawn water /b is impure by rabbinic decree. The Gemara asks: b What is the reason the Sages decreed impurity upon him? Rav Beivai said /b that b Rav Asi said: /b The reason for this is that b originally they would immerse /b to become purified b in cave water that was collected, /b still, b and foul. /b Although this water purified them, due to its stench, the people immersing themselves b would pour on themselves drawn water /b in order to clean themselves. Once b they began /b this custom b and transformed it /b into an b established /b part of the ritual, the Sages issued b a decree on /b the drawn water, rendering it b impure, /b to prevent them from washing with it after immersion.,The Gemara asks: b What is /b the meaning of this, that they transformed it into an b established /b part of the ritual? b Abaye said that they would say: /b The cave water is b not /b what b purifies; rather this, /b the cave water, b and that, /b the drawn water, together b purify. Rava said to him: What difference does it make /b if they say that? Ultimately, b aren’t they immersing in /b the cave water? As long as they immersed themselves properly, it matters not if they misunderstand the reason. b Rather, Rava said: /b The problem is b that /b eventually b they would say: This, /b the cave water, is b not /b what b purifies; rather, that, /b the drawn water, b purifies. /b Therefore, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting the use of drawn water after purification., b And /b the Sages decreed impurity upon b a ritually pure person that three i log /i /b of b drawn water fell on his head and most of his /b body. The Gemara explains: b What is the reason that the Sages decreed impurity upon him? /b The reason for the decree is b that if /b it were b not /b for b this /b decree that a ritually pure person, who does not require immersion, becomes impure when drawn water falls on him, then b that, /b the first decree, b would not stand. /b People would not distinguish between a person who was pure from the start and one who was just purified upon emerging from immersion.,The Gemara explains the next case in the mishna: b And a /b Torah b scroll; what is the reason the Sages decreed impurity upon it? Rav Mesharshiya said: /b Since b at first, /b ignorant priests b would conceal i teruma /i foods alongside the Torah scroll, and they said /b in explaining that method of storage: b This is sacred and that is sacred, /b and it is appropriate that they be stored together. Since the Sages b saw that they were coming to ruin, /b as the mice who were attracted to the i teruma /i foods would also gnaw at the Torah scrolls, b the Sages decreed impurity upon it. /b Once they issued the decree of impurity on the Torah scroll, the priests no longer placed i teruma /i near it.,The Gemara explains the next case in the mishna: b And the hands; /b the reason that the Sages decreed impurity upon them is b because hands are busy. /b A person’s hands tend to touch dirty or impure objects. Since one does not always pay attention to what his hands touch, and it is inappropriate for holy food to be touched by dirty hands, the Sages decreed impurity. b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Even hands that come /b to be impure b due to /b contact with a Torah b scroll disqualify the i teruma /i . /b The reason for this decree is b because of /b the statement of b Rabbi Parnakh, as Rabbi Parnakh said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: One who holds a Torah /b scroll in a manner that the scroll is b exposed /b without a covering; his punishment is that he b is buried naked. /b The Gemara wonders: b Does it enter your mind /b to say that he will actually be buried b naked? /b Why should he suffer such ignominy for this sin? b Rather, Rabbi Zeira said: /b He is buried b naked, /b i.e., b without mitzvot. /b And the Gemara wonders further: b Does it enter your mind /b to say that he should be buried b naked /b in the sense of b without mitzvot? /b Will he be stripped of all his merit due to that sin? b Rather, say /b he is buried b naked, /b i.e., b without that mitzva. /b If he touches an uncovered Torah scroll, even for the purpose of performing a mitzva, he is not credited with that mitzva because he performed it inappropriately.,The Gemara asks: b Which /b of these decrees b did /b the Sages b issue first? If you say /b that b they issued this /b decree, impurity of hands in general, b first, /b |
|
14. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •defi ling of the hands Found in books: Goodman (2006) 71| 7a. השנית ואיצטריך למיכתב בכל שנה ושנה דאי מבכל שנה ושנה הוה אמינא כי קושין קא משמע לן השנית ואי אשמועינן השנית הוה אמינא בתחילה בראשון ובשני קמ"ל בכל שנה ושנה,ורבי אליעזר בר' יוסי האי השנית מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדרב שמואל בר יהודה דאמר רב שמואל בר יהודה בתחילה קבעוה בשושן ולבסוף בכל העולם כולו,אמר רב שמואל בר יהודה שלחה להם אסתר לחכמים קבעוני לדורות שלחו לה קנאה את מעוררת עלינו לבין האומות שלחה להם כבר כתובה אני על דברי הימים למלכי מדי ופרס,רב ורב חנינא ורבי יוחנן ורב חביבא מתנו בכוליה סדר מועד כל כי האי זוגא חלופי רבי יוחנן ומעייל רבי יונתן שלחה להם אסתר לחכמים כתבוני לדורות שלחו לה (משלי כב, כ) הלא כתבתי לך שלישים שלישים ולא רבעים,עד שמצאו לו מקרא כתוב בתורה (שמות יז, יד) כתב זאת זכרון בספר כתב זאת מה שכתוב כאן ובמשנה תורה זכרון מה שכתוב בנביאים בספר מה שכתוב במגלה,כתנאי כתב זאת מה שכתוב כאן זכרון מה שכתוב במשנה תורה בספר מה שכתוב בנביאים דברי רבי יהושע ר' אלעזר המודעי אומר כתב זאת מה שכתוב כאן ובמשנה תורה זכרון מה שכתוב בנביאים בספר מה שכתוב במגילה,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אסתר אינה מטמאה את הידים,למימרא דסבר שמואל אסתר לאו ברוח הקודש נאמרה והאמר שמואל אסתר ברוח הקודש נאמרה נאמרה לקרות ולא נאמרה ליכתוב,מיתיבי רבי מאיר אומר קהלת אינו מטמא את הידים ומחלוקת בשיר השירים ר' יוסי אומר שיר השירים מטמא את הידים ומחלוקת בקהלת ר' שמעון אומר קהלת מקולי ב"ש ומחומרי ב"ה אבל רות ושיר השירים ואסתר מטמאין את הידים הוא דאמר כר' יהושע,תניא ר' שמעון בן מנסיא אומר קהלת אינו מטמא את הידים מפני שחכמתו של שלמה היא אמרו לו וכי זו בלבד אמר והלא כבר נאמר (מלכים א ה, יב) וידבר שלשת אלפים משל ואומר (משלי ל, ו) אל תוסף על דבריו,מאי ואומר וכי תימא מימר טובא אמר דאי בעי איכתיב ודאי בעי לא איכתיב תא שמע אל תוסף על דבריו,תניא ר' אליעזר אומר אסתר ברוח הקודש נאמרה שנאמר (אסתר ו, ו) ויאמר המן בלבו ר' עקיבא אומר אסתר ברוח הקודש נאמרה שנאמר (אסתר ב, טו) ותהי אסתר נשאת חן בעיני כל רואיה,ר"מ אומר אסתר ברוח הקודש נאמרה שנאמר (אסתר ב, כב) ויודע הדבר למרדכי רבי יוסי בן דורמסקית אומר אסתר ברוח הקודש נאמרה שנאמר (אסתר ט, י) ובבזה לא שלחו את ידם,אמר שמואל אי הואי התם הוה אמינא מלתא דעדיפא מכולהו שנאמר קימו וקבלו קימו למעלה מה שקיבלו למטה,אמר רבא לכולהו אית להו פירכא לבר מדשמואל דלית ליה פירכא דרבי אליעזר סברא הוא דלא הוה איניש דחשיב למלכא כוותיה והאי כי קא מפיש טובא ואמר אדעתיה דנפשיה קאמר,דר"ע דלמא כר' אלעזר דאמר מלמד שכל אחד ואחד נדמתה לו כאומתו,והא דרבי מאיר דלמא כרבי חייא בר אבא דאמר בגתן ותרש שני טרשיים היו,והא דרבי יוסי בן דורמסקית דלמא פריסתקי שדור דשמואל ודאי לית ליה פירכא אמר רבינא היינו דאמרי אינשי טבא חדא פלפלתא חריפתא ממלי צני קרי,רב יוסף אמר מהכא (אסתר ט, כח) וימי הפורים האלה לא יעברו מתוך היהודים רב נחמן בר יצחק אומר מהכא וזכרם לא יסוף מזרעם:,ומתנות לאביונים: תני רב יוסף ומשלוח מנות איש לרעהו שתי מנות לאיש אחד ומתנות לאביונים שתי מתנות לשני בני אדם,רבי יהודה נשיאה שדר ליה לרבי אושעיא אטמא דעיגלא תלתא וגרבא דחמרא שלח ליה | 7a. the term: b The second, and it was /b also b necessary to write /b the phrase: b In each and every year; /b proof from one of the verses would have been insufficient. b As, if /b I had derived the i halakha /i only b from /b the phrase: b In each and every year, I would have said /b my conclusion b according to our question /b raised earlier: Why not celebrate Purim in the Adar adjacent to Shevat? b Therefore, it teaches us /b using the term: b The second. And had it taught us /b only the term: b The second, I would have said /b that Purim must be celebrated both b in the first /b Adar b and in the second /b Adar, b i ab initio /i . Therefore, it teaches us: In each and every year, /b indicating that even in an intercalated year, just as in an ordinary year, Purim is to be celebrated only once.,The Gemara asks: b And Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, what does he do with this /b term: b The second? /b Since he holds that the Megilla is read in the first Adar, what does he derive from the verse? The Gemara answers: b He requires /b the term b to /b derive b that /b statement b of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, as Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: Initially, they established /b the observance of Purim b in /b the city of b Shushan /b alone, b and ultimately /b they established it b throughout the world, /b according to the second letter of Purim.,Apropos the statement of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda with regard to the establishment of the holiday of Purim, the Gemara cites a related statement. b Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said: Esther sent to the Sages: Establish me for /b future b generations. /b Esther requested that the observance of Purim and the reading of the Megilla be instituted as an ordice for all generations. b They sent to her: You will /b thereby b arouse the wrath of the nations upon us, /b as the Megilla recounts the victory of the Jews over the gentiles, and it is best not to publicize that victory. b She sent /b back b to them: I am already written in the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia, /b and so the Megilla will not publicize anything that is not already known worldwide.,It was related that b Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Yoḥa and Rav Ḥaviva taught /b the statement cited below. The Gemara comments: b Throughout the order of i Moed /i , wherever this /b latter b pair /b of Sages is mentioned, b exchange Rabbi Yoḥa and insert Rabbi Yonatan /b in his place. They said: b Esther sent to the Sages: Write me for /b future b generations /b and canonize my book as part of the Bible. b They sent to her /b that it is written: b “Have I not written for you three times” /b (Proverbs 22:20), indicating that Israel’s battle with Amalek is to be mentioned b three times /b in the Bible b and not four times? /b Since it is already mentioned three times (Exodus 17:8–16; Deuteronomy 25:17–19; I Samuel 15), there is no need to add a fourth source.,The Sages did not accede to Esther’s request b until they found a verse written in the Torah: “Write this for a memorial in the book, /b and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: That I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under the heavens” (Exodus 17:14). The Sages interpreted the verse: b “Write this,” that which is written /b in the Torah b here /b in Exodus, b and in Deuteronomy; “a memorial,” that which is written in the Prophets, /b i.e., in I Samuel, on this matter; b “in the book,” that which is written in the Megilla. /b The Megilla is the third mention of Amalek and not the fourth, as both mentions in the Torah pertaining to Amalek are considered one; therefore, Esther would be the third, not the fourth source.,The Gemara comments: This matter is b parallel /b to a dispute between b the i tanna’im /i , /b as it was taught in a i baraita /i : b “Write this,” that which is written here, /b in the book of Exodus; b “a memorial,” that which is written in Deuteronomy; “in the book,” that which is written in the Prophets; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i /b disagrees and b says: “Write this,” that which is written /b in the Torah b here /b in Exodus, b and in Deuteronomy; “a memorial,” that which is written in the Prophets /b on this matter; b “in the book,” that which is written in the Megilla. /b Here too, the i tanna’im /i disagreed whether or not the book of Esther has the same force and sanctity as that of the canonized books of the Bible., b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said: /b The book of b Esther does not render the hands ritually impure. /b Although the Sages issued a decree that sacred scrolls render hands ritually impure, the book of Esther was not accorded the sanctity of sacred scrolls.,The Gemara asks: b Is this to say that Shmuel maintains /b that the book of b Esther was not stated with /b the inspiration of b the Divine Spirit? But didn’t Shmuel /b himself b say /b elsewhere that the book of b Esther was stated with /b the inspiration of b the Divine Spirit? /b The Gemara answers: b It was stated /b with the Divine Spirit that it is b to be read /b in public; b however, it was not stated /b that it is b to be written. /b Therefore, the text was not accorded the sanctity of sacred scrolls., b The Gemara raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i . b Rabbi Meir says: /b The book of b Ecclesiastes does not render the hands ritually impure, /b as it was not accorded the sanctity of sacred scrolls; b however, there is a dispute with regard to /b whether or not b the Song of Songs /b renders the hands impure. b Rabbi Yosei says: The Song of Songs renders the hands ritually impure, but there is a dispute with regard to /b the book of b Ecclesiastes. Rabbi Shimon says: /b The ruling with regard to b Ecclesiastes is among the leniencies of Beit Shammai and among the stringencies of Beit Hillel, /b as according to Beit Hillel it renders the hands impure and according to Beit Shammai it does not. b However, /b everyone agrees that the books of b Ruth, and the Song of Songs, and Esther render the hands ritually impure, /b contrary to the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: It was Shmuel b who stated /b his opinion b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua /b cited earlier that the book of Esther was not accorded the sanctity of sacred scrolls., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: /b The book of b Ecclesiastes does not render the hands ritually impure because it is the wisdom of Solomon, /b and not divinely inspired. b They said to him: /b It was certainly divinely inspired and that is the reason that the book of Ecclesiastes was added to the canon; b as was it this alone that /b Solomon b said? Wasn’t it already stated: “And he spoke three thousand proverbs, /b and his poems were a thousand and five” (I Kings 5:12)? Solomon spoke many proverbs, but only a portion of them were canonized in the Bible. Apparently, what is unique about those in Ecclesiastes is that they were divinely inspired. b And it says: “Add you not unto his words” /b (Proverbs 30:6).,The Gemara asks: b What /b is added by the proof introduced with the phrase: b And it says? /b Why wasn’t the first proof sufficient? The Gemara answers: b And if you would say /b that in terms of what b he said, he said a great deal, /b with regard to b which, if he /b so b desired, it was written, and if he /b so b desired, it was not written; /b then that is why not all of his statements were preserved. Therefore, b come /b and b hear: Add you not unto his words. /b Apparently, the reason that it is prohibited to add to the proverbs is that the book of Ecclesiastes was divinely inspired., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b The book of b Esther was said with /b the inspiration of b the Divine Spirit, as it is stated: “And Haman thought in his heart” /b (Esther 6:6). If the book of Esther was not divinely inspired, how was it known what Haman thought in his heart? b Rabbi Akiva says: /b The book of b Esther was said with /b the inspiration of b the Divine Spirit, as it is stated: “And Esther obtained favor in the sight of all those who looked upon her” /b (Esther 2:15); this could have been known only through divine inspiration., b Rabbi Meir says: /b The book of b Esther was said with /b the inspiration of b the Divine Spirit, as it is stated /b with regard to the conspiracy of Bigtan and Teresh against Ahasuerus: b “And the thing became known to Mordecai” /b (Esther 2:22). This too could have been known only through divine inspiration. b Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit says: /b The book of b Esther was said with /b the inspiration of b the Divine Spirit, as it is stated: “But they did not lay their hands on the plunder” /b (Esther 9:15). The only way that could have been stated with certainty is through divine inspiration., b Shmuel said: Had I been there /b among the i tanna’im /i , b I would have stated a matter that is superior to them all, as it is stated: “They confirmed, and took upon themselves” /b (Esther 9:27), which was interpreted to mean: b They confirmed above /b in heaven b what they took upon themselves below /b on earth. Clearly, it is only through divine inspiration that this could have been ascertained., b Rava said: There is a refutation for all /b of these proofs, b except for /b the proof cited by b Shmuel, for which there is no refutation. /b The Gemara elaborates. That b which Rabbi Eliezer /b said with regard to knowledge of what Haman was thinking in his heart can be refuted, as b it is /b based on b logical reasoning /b to conclude that this was his thinking. b There was no /b other b person as important to the king as he /b was; b and /b the fact is b that when he elaborated extensively and said: /b “Let the royal apparel be brought” (Esther 6:8), b he said /b it b with himself in mind. /b ,That b which Rabbi Akiva /b said with regard to the knowledge that Esther found favor in the eyes of all, b perhaps /b it can be understood and refuted b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar, who said: /b This b teaches that she appeared to each and every one as /b one of b his nation, /b and they expressed that sentiment aloud., b And that which Rabbi Meir /b said, i.e., that the divine inspiration of the book of Esther is clear from the fact that Mordecai exposed the conspiracy against Ahasuerus, b perhaps /b this can be explained and refuted b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, who said: Bigtan and Teresh were both /b members of the b Tarsi /b people and conversed in their own language. Mordecai, who was a member of the Sanhedrin and therefore fluent in many languages, understood what they were saying., b And that which Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit /b said with regard to the knowledge that no spoils were taken, b perhaps /b this can be explained and refuted by the fact that b they dispatched messengers /b who informed them of the situation. However, b with regard to Shmuel’s /b proof from the fact that they confirmed above what they took upon themselves below, b there is certainly no refutation. Ravina said: This /b explains the folk saying b that people say: One sharp pepper is better than a basketful of pumpkins, /b as the quality of the pepper’s taste is more significant than the quantity of the pumpkins., b Rav Yosef said: /b Proof that the book of Esther was divinely inspired may be cited b from here: “And these days of Purim shall not cease from among the Jews” /b (Esther 9:28), an assertion that could have been made only with divine inspiration. b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: /b Proof may be cited b from here, /b at the end of that verse: b “Nor the memorial of them perish from their seed” /b (Esther 9:28).,The mishna mentions: b And gifts /b distributed b to the poor. Rav Yosef taught /b a i baraita /i that the verse states: b “And of sending portions one to another” /b (Esther 9:22), indicating b two portions to one person. /b The verse continues: b “And gifts to the poor” /b (Esther 9:22), indicating b two gifts to two people. /b ,The Gemara relates that, on Purim, b Rabbi Yehuda Nesia sent to Rabbi Oshaya the leg of a third- /b born b calf and a jug of wine. /b Rabbi Oshaya b sent him /b a message of gratitude: |
|
| 15. John Chrysostom, Against The Jews, 1.3.3 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •defi ling of the hands Found in books: Goodman (2006) 221 |
