1. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 11.1-11.24, 11.26-11.27, 11.29-11.31, 17.13, 22.27 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 12, 116| 11.1. "וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל־אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר אֲלֵהֶם׃", 11.1. "וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר אֵין־לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים מִכֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הַמַּיִם וּמִכֹּל נֶפֶשׁ הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם שֶׁקֶץ הֵם לָכֶם׃", 11.2. "כֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף הַהֹלֵךְ עַל־אַרְבַּע שֶׁקֶץ הוּא לָכֶם׃", 11.2. "דַּבְּרוּ אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכְלוּ מִכָּל־הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר עַל־הָאָרֶץ׃", 11.3. "כֹּל מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה וְשֹׁסַעַת שֶׁסַע פְּרָסֹת מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה בַּבְּהֵמָה אֹתָהּ תֹּאכֵלוּ׃", 11.3. "וְהָאֲנָקָה וְהַכֹּחַ וְהַלְּטָאָה וְהַחֹמֶט וְהַתִּנְשָׁמֶת׃", 11.4. "אַךְ אֶת־זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה אֶת־הַגָּמָל כִּי־מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא וּפַרְסָה אֵינֶנּוּ מַפְרִיס טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם׃", 11.4. "וְהָאֹכֵל מִנִּבְלָתָהּ יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעָרֶב וְהַנֹּשֵׂא אֶת־נִבְלָתָהּ יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃", 11.5. "וְאֶת־הַשָּׁפָן כִּי־מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא וּפַרְסָה לֹא יַפְרִיס טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם׃", 11.6. "וְאֶת־הָאַרְנֶבֶת כִּי־מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה הִוא וּפַרְסָה לֹא הִפְרִיסָה טְמֵאָה הִוא לָכֶם׃", 11.7. "וְאֶת־הַחֲזִיר כִּי־מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה הוּא וְשֹׁסַע שֶׁסַע פַּרְסָה וְהוּא גֵּרָה לֹא־יִגָּר טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם׃", 11.8. "מִבְּשָׂרָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ וּבְנִבְלָתָם לֹא תִגָּעוּ טְמֵאִים הֵם לָכֶם׃", 11.9. "אֶת־זֶה תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בַּמָּיִם כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת בַּמַּיִם בַּיַּמִּים וּבַנְּחָלִים אֹתָם תֹּאכֵלוּ׃", 11.11. "וְשֶׁקֶץ יִהְיוּ לָכֶם מִבְּשָׂרָם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ וְאֶת־נִבְלָתָם תְּשַׁקֵּצוּ׃", 11.12. "כֹּל אֲשֶׁר אֵין־לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְקַשְׂקֶשֶׂת בַּמָּיִם שֶׁקֶץ הוּא לָכֶם׃", 11.13. "וְאֶת־אֵלֶּה תְּשַׁקְּצוּ מִן־הָעוֹף לֹא יֵאָכְלוּ שֶׁקֶץ הֵם אֶת־הַנֶּשֶׁר וְאֶת־הַפֶּרֶס וְאֵת הָעָזְנִיָּה׃", 11.14. "וְאֶת־הַדָּאָה וְאֶת־הָאַיָּה לְמִינָהּ׃", 11.15. "אֵת כָּל־עֹרֵב לְמִינוֹ׃", 11.16. "וְאֵת בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה וְאֶת־הַתַּחְמָס וְאֶת־הַשָּׁחַף וְאֶת־הַנֵּץ לְמִינֵהוּ׃", 11.17. "וְאֶת־הַכּוֹס וְאֶת־הַשָּׁלָךְ וְאֶת־הַיַּנְשׁוּף׃", 11.18. "וְאֶת־הַתִּנְשֶׁמֶת וְאֶת־הַקָּאָת וְאֶת־הָרָחָם׃", 11.19. "וְאֵת הַחֲסִידָה הָאֲנָפָה לְמִינָהּ וְאֶת־הַדּוּכִיפַת וְאֶת־הָעֲטַלֵּף׃", 11.21. "אַךְ אֶת־זֶה תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף הַהֹלֵךְ עַל־אַרְבַּע אֲשֶׁר־לא [לוֹ] כְרָעַיִם מִמַּעַל לְרַגְלָיו לְנַתֵּר בָּהֵן עַל־הָאָרֶץ׃", 11.22. "אֶת־אֵלֶּה מֵהֶם תֹּאכֵלוּ אֶת־הָאַרְבֶּה לְמִינוֹ וְאֶת־הַסָּלְעָם לְמִינֵהוּ וְאֶת־הַחַרְגֹּל לְמִינֵהוּ וְאֶת־הֶחָגָב לְמִינֵהוּ׃", 11.23. "וְכֹל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ אַרְבַּע רַגְלָיִם שֶׁקֶץ הוּא לָכֶם׃", 11.24. "וּלְאֵלֶּה תִּטַּמָּאוּ כָּל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּנִבְלָתָם יִטְמָא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃", 11.26. "לְכָל־הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר הִוא מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה וְשֶׁסַע אֵינֶנָּה שֹׁסַעַת וְגֵרָה אֵינֶנָּה מַעֲלָה טְמֵאִים הֵם לָכֶם כָּל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּהֶם יִטְמָא׃", 11.27. "וְכֹל הוֹלֵךְ עַל־כַּפָּיו בְּכָל־הַחַיָּה הַהֹלֶכֶת עַל־אַרְבַּע טְמֵאִים הֵם לָכֶם כָּל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּנִבְלָתָם יִטְמָא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃", 11.29. "וְזֶה לָכֶם הַטָּמֵא בַּשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל־הָאָרֶץ הַחֹלֶד וְהָעַכְבָּר וְהַצָּב לְמִינֵהוּ׃", 11.31. "אֵלֶּה הַטְּמֵאִים לָכֶם בְּכָל־הַשָּׁרֶץ כָּל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּהֶם בְּמֹתָם יִטְמָא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃", 17.13. "וְאִישׁ אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִן־הַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכָם אֲשֶׁר יָצוּד צֵיד חַיָּה אוֹ־עוֹף אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל וְשָׁפַךְ אֶת־דָּמוֹ וְכִסָּהוּ בֶּעָפָר׃", 22.27. "שׁוֹר אוֹ־כֶשֶׂב אוֹ־עֵז כִּי יִוָּלֵד וְהָיָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תַּחַת אִמּוֹ וּמִיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי וָהָלְאָה יֵרָצֶה לְקָרְבַּן אִשֶּׁה לַיהוָה׃", | 11.1. "And the LORD spoke unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them:", 11.2. "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying: These are the living things which ye may eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.", 11.3. "Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is wholly cloven-footed, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that may ye eat.", 11.4. "Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only part the hoof: the camel, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you.", 11.5. "And the rock-badger, because he cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, he is unclean unto you.", 11.6. "And the hare, because she cheweth the cud but parteth not the hoof, she is unclean unto you", 11.7. "And the swine, because he parteth the hoof, and is cloven-footed, but cheweth not the cud, he is unclean unto you.", 11.8. "of their flesh ye shall not eat, and their carcasses ye shall not touch; they are unclean unto you.", 11.9. "These may ye eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, them may ye eat.", 11.10. "And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that swarm in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are a detestable thing unto you,", 11.11. "and they shall be a detestable thing unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, and their carcasses ye shall have in detestation.", 11.12. "Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that is a detestable thing unto you.", 11.13. "And these ye shall have in detestation among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are a detestable thing: the great vulture, and the bearded vulture, and the ospray;", 11.14. "and the kite, and the falcon after its kinds;", 11.15. "every raven after its kinds;", 11.16. "and the ostrich, and the night-hawk, and the sea-mew, and the hawk after its kinds;", 11.17. "and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl;", 11.18. "and the horned owl, and the pelican, and the carrion-vulture;", 11.19. "and the stork, and the heron after its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat.", 11.20. "All winged swarming things that go upon all fours are a detestable thing unto you.", 11.21. "Yet these may ye eat of all winged swarming things that go upon all fours, which have jointed legs above their feet, wherewith to leap upon the earth;", 11.22. "even these of them ye may eat: the locust after its kinds, and the bald locust after its kinds, and the cricket after its kinds, and the grasshopper after its kinds.", 11.23. "But all winged swarming things, which have four feet, are a detestable thing unto you.", 11.24. "And by these ye shall become unclean; whosoever toucheth the carcass of them shall be unclean until even.", 11.26. "Every beast which parteth the hoof, but is not cloven footed, nor cheweth the cud, is unclean unto you; every one that to toucheth them shall be unclean.", 11.27. "And whatsoever goeth upon its paws, among all beasts that go on all fours, they are unclean unto you; whoso toucheth their carcass shall be unclean until the even.", 11.29. "And these are they which are unclean unto you among the swarming things that swarm upon the earth: the weasel, and the mouse, and the great lizard after its kinds,", 11.30. "and the gecko, and the land-crocodile, and the lizard, and the sand-lizard, and the chameleon.", 11.31. "These are they which are unclean to you among all that swarm; whosoever doth touch them, when they are dead, shall be unclean until the even.", 17.13. "And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that taketh in hunting any beast or fowl that may be eaten, he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust.", 22.27. "When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam; but from the eighth day and thenceforth it may be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the LORD.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 14.4-14.5, 14.7 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 12, 116| 14.4. "זֹאת הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכֵלוּ שׁוֹר שֵׂה כְשָׂבִים וְשֵׂה עִזִּים׃", 14.5. "אַיָּל וּצְבִי וְיַחְמוּר וְאַקּוֹ וְדִישֹׁן וּתְאוֹ וָזָמֶר׃", 14.7. "אַךְ אֶת־זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה הַשְּׁסוּעָה אֶת־הַגָּמָל וְאֶת־הָאַרְנֶבֶת וְאֶת־הַשָּׁפָן כִּי־מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הֵמָּה וּפַרְסָה לֹא הִפְרִיסוּ טְמֵאִים הֵם לָכֶם׃", | 14.4. "These are the beasts which ye may eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat,", 14.5. "the hart, and the gazelle, and the roebuck, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the antelope, and the mountain-sheep.", 14.7. "Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only have the hoof cloven: the camel, and the hare, and the rock-badger, because they chew the cud but part not the hoof, they are unclean unto you;", |
|
3. Philo of Alexandria, On The Life of Abraham, 257 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •domesticated quadrupeds Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 53 | 257. And the advice was this; not to afflict himself beyond all measure, as if he were stricken down with a novel and unprecedented calamity; nor, on the other hand, to give way to indifference, as if nothing had happened calculated to give him sorrow. But rather to choose the middle way in preference to either extreme; and to endeavour to grieve in a moderate degree; not being indigt at nature for having reclaimed what belonged to her as her due; and bearing what had befallen him with a mild and gentle spirit. |
|
| 4. Philo of Alexandria, De Providentia, 2.68-2.70 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •domesticated quadrupeds Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 53 |
5. Philo of Alexandria, On The Posterity of Cain, 101-102 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 53 | 102. this royal road, which we have stated to be true and genuine philosophy, the law calls the word and reason of God; for it is written, "Thou shalt not turn aside from the word which I command thee this day, to the right hand nor to the left," So that it is shown most manifestly that the word of God is identical with the royal road, since Moses' words are not to depart either from the royal road, or from this word, as if the two were synonymous, but to proceed with an upright mind along the middle and level road, which leads one aright. XXXI. |
|
6. Philo of Alexandria, On The Special Laws, 3.9, 4.100-4.104, 4.106-4.108, 4.117, 4.124, 4.168 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 53, 61, 64 | 3.9. Therefore, even that pleasure which is in accordance with nature is often open to blame, when any one indulges in it immoderately and insatiably, as men who are unappeasably voracious in respect of eating, even if they take no kind of forbidden or unwholesome food; and as men who are madly devoted to association with women, and who commit themselves to an immoderate degree not with other men's wives, but with their own. 4.100. Moreover, Moses has not granted an unlimited possession and use of all other animals to those who partake in his sacred constitution, but he has forbidden with all his might all animals, whether of the land, or of the water, or that fly through the air, which are most fleshy and fat, and calculated to excite treacherous pleasure, well knowing that such, attracting as with a bait that most slavish of all the outward senses, namely, taste, produce insatiability, an incurable evil to both souls and bodies, for insatiability produces indigestion, which is the origin and source of all diseases and weaknesses. 4.101. Now of land animals, the swine is confessed to be the nicest of all meats by those who eat it, and of all aquatic animals the most delicate are the fish which have no scales; and Moses is above all other men skilful in training and inuring persons of a good natural disposition to the practice of virtue by frugality and abstinence, endeavouring to remove costly luxury from their characters, 4.102. at the same time not approving of unnecessary rigour, like the lawgiver of Lacedaemon, nor undue effeminacy, like the man who taught the Ionians and the Sybarites lessons of luxury and license, but keeping a middle path between the two courses, so that he has relaxed what was over strict, and tightened what was too loose, mingling the excesses which are found at each extremity with moderation, which lies between the two, so as to produce an irreproachable harmony and consistency of life, on which account he has laid down not carelessly, but with minute particularity, what we are to use and what to avoid. 4.103. One might very likely suppose it to be just that those beasts which feed upon human flesh should receive at the hands of men similar treatment to that which they inflict on men, but Moses has ordained that we should abstain from the enjoyment of all such things, and with a due consideration of what is becoming to the gentle soul, he proposes a most gentle and most pleasant banquet; for though it is proper that those who inflict evils should suffer similar calamities themselves, yet it may not be becoming to those whom they ill treated to retaliate, lest without being aware of it they become brutalized by anger, which is a savage passion; 4.104. and he takes such care to guard against this, that being desirous to banish as far as possible all desire for those animals abovementioned, he forbids with all his energy the eating of any carnivorous animal at all, selecting the herbivorous animals out of those kinds which are domesticated, since they are tame by nature, feeding on that gentle food which is supplied by the earth, and having no disposition to plot evil against anything.WHAT QUADRUPEDS ARE CLEANXVIII. 4.106. And he gives two tests and criteria of the ten animals thus Enumerated{20}{#le 11:3.} by two signs, first, that they must part the hoof, secondly, that they must chew the cud; for those which do neither, or only one of these things, are unclean. And these signs are both of them symbols of instruction and of the most scientific learning, by which the better is separated from the worse, so that all confusion between them is prevented; 4.107. for as the animal which chews the cud, while it is masticating its food draws it down its throat, and then by slow degrees kneads and softens it, and then after this process again sends it down into the belly, in the same manner the man who is being instructed, having received the doctrines and speculations of wisdom in at his ears from his instructor, derives a considerable amount of learning from him, but still is not able to hold it firmly and to embrace it all at once, until he has resolved over in his mind everything which he has heard by the continued exercise of his memory (and this exercise of memory is the cement which connects idea 4.108. But as it seems the firm conception of such ideas is of no advantage to him unless he is able to discriminate between and to distinguish which of contrary things it is right to choose and which to avoid, of which the parting of the hoof is the symbol; since the course of life is twofold, the one road leading to wickedness and the other to virtue, and since we ought to renounce the one and never to forsake the other.WHAT BEASTS ARE NOT CLEANXIX. 4.117. But doves, and pigeons, and turtle-doves, and all the flocks of cranes, and geese, and birds of that kind, he numbers in the class of domestic, and tame, and eatable creatures, allowing every one who chooses to partake of them with impunity. 4.124. But Moses commanded men to abstain from eating fat, because it is gross. And again, he gave us this injunction, in order to inculcate temperance and a zeal for an austere life: for some things we easily abandon, and without any hesitation; though we do not willingly encounter any anxieties or labours for the sake of the acquisition of virtue. 4.168. And Moses was accustomed to call the middle road the royal one, inasmuch as it lay between excess and deficiency; and besides, more especially, because in the number three the centre occupies the most important place, uniting the extremities on either side by an indissoluble chain, it being attended by these extremities as its bodyguards as though it were a king. |
|
7. Philo of Alexandria, On Husbandry, 133 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •domesticated quadrupeds Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 64 | 133. But it is not every memory which is good, but only that which is exerted on good subjects, since it is a most pernicious thing that what is bad should not be forgotten; on which account, with a view to perfection, it is necessary that the hoofs should be parted, in order that so the faculty of memory, being divided into two sections, the word which flows through the mouth may divide the lips, as being things which nature has made of a two-fold character, and may also separate the advantageous species of memory from that which is mischievous. |
|
8. Philo of Alexandria, On The Migration of Abraham, 147 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •domesticated quadrupeds Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 53 | 147. On which account some also of those who prosecute a gentle kind of philosophy, which is conversant chiefly about the society of mankind, have pronounced the virtues to be means, placing them on confines between two extremes. Since, on the one hand, excessive pride, being full of much insolence is an evil, and to take up with a humble and self-abasing demeanour is to expose one's self to be trampled upon; but the mean, which is compounded of both, in a gentle manner is advantageous. XXVII. |
|
9. Mishnah, Hulin, 7.2, 7.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •domesticated quadrupeds Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 116| 7.2. "שׁוֹלֵחַ אָדָם יָרֵךְ לְנָכְרִי שֶׁגִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה בְתוֹכָהּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּקוֹמוֹ נִכָּר. הַנּוֹטֵל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, צָרִיךְ שֶׁיִּטֹּל אֶת כֻּלּוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, כְּדֵי לְקַיֵּם בּוֹ מִצְוַת נְטִילָה: \n", 7.6. "נוֹהֵג בִּטְהוֹרָה, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּטְמֵאָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף בִּטְמֵאָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וַהֲלֹא מִבְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב נֶאֱסַר גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, וַעֲדַיִן בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מֻתֶּרֶת לָהֶן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, בְּסִינַי נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ: \n", | 7.2. "One may send to a non-Jew a thigh in which the sciatic nerve has not been removed, because its place is known. When a person removes the sciatic nerve he must remove all of it. Rabbi Judah says: only so much as is necessary to fulfill the mitzvah of removing it.", 7.6. "It applies to clean animals but not to unclean. Rabbi Judah says, even to unclean animals. Rabbi Judah said: was not the sciatic nerve prohibited from the time of the sons of Jacob, and at that time unclean animals were still permitted to them? They replied, this law was ordained at Sinai but was written in its proper place.", |
|
| 10. Palestinian Talmud, Bikkurim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •domesticated quadrupeds Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 116 |
| 11. Palestinian Talmud, Pesahim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •domesticated quadrupeds Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 116 |
| 12. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, 6.1, 9.5 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •domesticated quadrupeds Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 116 |
13. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 7.3, 27.6 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •domesticated quadrupeds Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 10, 116| 7.3. גּוּפָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי לְעוֹלָם אֵין הָעוֹלָה בָּאָה אֶלָּא עַל הַרְהוֹר הַלֵּב, אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי מִקְרָא מָלֵא הוּא (יחזקאל כ, לב): וְהָעֹלָה עַל רוּחֲכֶם הָיוֹ לֹא תִהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים וגו', מִמִּי אַתָּה לָמֵד מִבָּנָיו שֶׁל אִיּוֹב, בַּתְּחִלָּה (איוב א, ד): וְהָלְכוּ בָנָיו וְעָשׂוּ מִשְׁתֶּה, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי מְלָכִים לִהְיוֹת קוֹרִין לַאֲחֵיהֶן וּלְאַחְיוֹתֵיהֶן עִמָּהֶן בַּסְּעוּדָה. רַבִּי תַּנְחוּם בְּרַבִּי חִיָּא אָמַר לְהִטָּפֵל בָּהֶם הָלְכוּ, שֶׁקִּדְּשׁוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (איוב א, ה): וַיְהִי כִּי הֵקִיפוּ יְמֵי הַמִּשְׁתֶּה וַיִּשְׁלַח אִיּוֹב וַיְקַדְּשֵׁם, עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי תַּנְחוּם בֶּן רַבִּי חִיָּא דְּאָמַר שֶׁקִּדְּשׁוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים, נִטְפְּלוּ בָּהֶם וְהָלְכוּ. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּהוּא אָמַר שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי מְלָכִים לִהְיוֹת קוֹרִין לַאֲחֵיהֶם וּלְאַחְיוֹתֵיהֶם בַּסְּעוּדָה, כְּמָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (במדבר יא, יח): וְאֶל הָעָם תֹּאמַר הִתְקַדְּשׁוּ. (איוב א, ה): וְהִשְׁכִּים בַּבֹּקֶר וְהֶעֱלָה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוּדָן בַּר חִלְפַיי בְּעֵי מִסְפַּר יָמִים אוֹ מִסְפַּר בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו אוֹ מִסְפַּר כָּל קָרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר כִּי אָמַר אִיּוֹב (איוב א, ה): אוּלַי חָטְאוּ בָנַי וּבֵרְכוּ אֱלֹהִים בִּלְבָבָם, הֲדָא אָמַר אֵין הָעוֹלָה בָּא אֶלָּא עַל הַרְהוֹר הַלֵּב. רַבִּי אַחָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פַּפָּא שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִים לְשֶׁעָבַר הָיִינוּ מַקְרִיבִין קָרְבָּנוֹת וּמִתְעַסְּקִין בָּהֶן, עַכְשָׁו שֶׁאֵין קָרְבָּנוֹת מַהוּ לְהִתְעַסֵּק בָּהֶם, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, הוֹאִיל וְאַתֶּם מִתְעַסְּקִים בָּהֶם, מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם כְּאִלּוּ אַתֶּם מַקְרִיבִין אוֹתָן. רַבִּי הוּנָא אָמַר תַּרְתֵּי, אֵין כָּל הַגָּלֻיּוֹת הַלָּלוּ מִתְכַּנְסוֹת אֶלָּא בִּזְכוּת מִשְׁנָיוֹת, מַה טַּעְמָא (הושע ח, י): גַּם כִּי יִתְנוּ בַגּוֹיִם עַתָּה אֲקַבְּצֵם. רַבִּי הוּנָא אָמַר חֳרֵי (מלאכי א, יא): כִּי מִמִּזְרַח שֶׁמֶשׁ וְעַד מְבוֹאוֹ גָּדוֹל שְׁמִי בַּגּוֹיִם וּבְכָל מָקוֹם מֻקְטָר מֻגָּשׁ, וְכִי יֵשׁ מִנְחָה טְהוֹרָה וּקְמִיצָה וְהַקְטָרָה בְּבָבֶל, אֶלָּא אֵיזוֹ, זוֹ מִשְׁנָה. אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הוֹאִיל וְאַתֶּם מִתְעַסְּקִים בַּמִּשְׁנָה כְּאִלּוּ אַתֶּם מַקְרִיבִין קָרְבָּן. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר (יחזקאל מג, יא): וְאִם נִכְלְמוּ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ, וְכִי יֵשׁ צוּרַת הַבַּיִת עַד עַכְשָׁו, אֶלָּא אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הוֹאִיל וְאַתֶּם מִתְעַסְּקִים בּוֹ כְּאִלּוּ אַתֶּם בּוֹנִין אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי אַסֵּי מִפְּנֵי מָה מַתְחִילִין לַתִּינוֹקוֹת בְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים וְאֵין מַתְחִילִין בִּבְרֵאשִׁית, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַתִּינוֹקוֹת טְהוֹרִין וְהַקָּרְבָּנוֹת טְהוֹרִין יָבוֹאוּ טְהוֹרִין וְיִתְעַסְּקוּ בִּטְהוֹרִים. 27.6. דָּבָר אַחֵר, שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב אוֹ עֵז, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (מיכה ו, ג): עַמִּי מֶה עָשִׂיתִי לְךָ וּמָה הֶלְאֵתִיךָ עֲנֵה בִי, אָמַר רַב אַחָא עֲנֵה בִי וְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר וְלֹא תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שֶׁקֶר, וּתְקַבֵּל עָלָיו דִּין וְחֶשְׁבּוֹן לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן, בִּשְׁלשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת בָּא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְהִתְוַכֵּחַ עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְשָׂמְחוּ אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם וְאָמְרוּ כְּלוּם אִינוּן יְכוֹלִים לְהִתְוַכֵּחַ עִם בּוֹרְאָן, עַכְשָׁיו הוּא מְכַלָּן מִן הָעוֹלָם, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶם (ישעיה א, יח): לְכוּ נָא וְנִוָּכְחָה יֹאמַר ה', כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁשָּׂמְחוּ אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם הֲפָכָהּ לָהֶם לְטוֹבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה א, יח): אִם יִהְיוּ חֲטָאֵיכֶם כַּשָּׁנִים כַּשֶּׁלֶג יַלְבִּינוּ, בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה תָּמְהוּ הָאֻמּוֹת וְאָמְרוּ זוֹ תְּשׁוּבָה וְזוֹ תּוֹכָחָה, לָא אֲתָא אֶלָּא לְאִתְפּוֹגְגָא עִם בְּנוֹי, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶם (מיכה ו, ב): שִׁמְעוּ הָרִים אֶת רִיב ה', שָׂמְחוּ אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם וְאָמְרוּ הֵיאַךְ אֵלּוּ יְכוֹלִין לְהִתְוַכֵּחַ עִם בּוֹרְאָן, עַכְשָׁיו הוּא מְכַלָּן מִן הָעוֹלָם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁאֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם שְׂמֵחִין הֲפָכָהּ לָהֶן לְטוֹבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מיכה ו, ג): עַמִּי מֶה עָשִׂיתִי לְךָ, (מיכה ו, ה): עַמִּי זְכָר נָא מַה יָּעַץ בָּלָק מֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב, תָּמְהוּ כֻלָּם וְאָמְרוּ זוֹ תְּשׁוּבָה וְזוֹ תּוֹכָחָה זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ, לָא אֲתָא אֶלָּא מִתְפּוֹגְגָא עִם בְּנוֹי. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר (הושע יב, ג): וְרִיב לַה' עִם יְהוּדָה וְלִפְקֹד עַל יַעֲקֹב, שָׂמְחוּ וְאָמְרוּ הֵיאַךְ אֵלּוּ יְכוֹלִין לְהִתְוַכֵּחַ עִם בּוֹרְאָן, עַכְשָׁיו הוּא מְכַלָּן מִן הָעוֹלָם, מִיָּד הֲפָכָהּ לָהֶם לְטוֹבָה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (הושע יב, ד): בַּבֶּטֶן עָקַב אֶת אָחִיו. אָמַר רַבִּי יוּדָן בֶּן רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מָשָׁל לְאִשָּׁה אַלְמָנָה שֶׁקָּבְלָה עַל בְּנָהּ לַדַּיָּן, כֵּיוָן דְּחָמַת דַּיָּנָא דְּיָתֵיב וְדַיָּן בְּנוּר וּבְזֶפֶת וּבְמַגְלְבִין, אֲמָרָה אִין אֲנָא מוֹדַעְנָא סוּרְחָנָא דְּהָדֵין בְּרִי לְהָדֵין דַּיָּנָא כַּדּוּן הוּא קָטֵל לֵיהּ, דְּרָכַת עַד דַּחֲסֵיל דַּיָּנָא, כֵּיוָן דַּחֲסַל אֲמַר לָהּ הָדֵין בְּרִיךְ מַה סָּרַח עֲלָיךְ, אֲמָרָה לֵיהּ מָרֵי כַּד הֲוָה בְּמֵעַי הֲוָה מְבַעֵט, אֲמַר לָהּ כְּדֵין הוּא עֲבֵד לָךְ כְּלוּם, אָמְרָה לֵיהּ לָא, אֲמַר לָהּ זִיל לִיךְ דְּלֵית בַּהֲדָא מִלְּתָא סוֹרְחָן כְּלוּם, כָּךְ כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁאֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם שְׂמֵחִים, הֲפָכָהּ לָהֶם לְטוֹבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: בַּבֶּטֶן עָקַב אֶת אָחִיו, מִיָּד תָּמְהוּ אֻמוֹת הָעוֹלָם וְאָמְרוּ זוֹ תְּשׁוּבָה וְזוֹ תּוֹכָחָה זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ, לָא אֲתָא אֶלָא לְאִתְפּוֹגְגָא עִם בְּנוֹי. וּמָה הֶלְאֵיתִיךָ עֲנֵה בִי, אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁשָּׁלַח שְׁלוּחִין שֶׁלוֹ לִמְדִינָה וְעָמְדוּ בְּנֵי הַמְדִינָה וְשִׁמְשׁוּ לִפְנֵיהֶם בְּאֵימָה וּבְיִרְאָה וּבִרְתֵת וּבְזִיעַ, כָּךְ אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שָׁלַחְתִּי לָכֶם שְׁלשָׁה שְׁלוּחִין, משֶׁה אַהֲרֹן וּמִרְיָם, שֶׁמָּא אָכְלוּ מִכֶּם, שֶׁמָּא שָׁתוּ מִכֶּם, שֶׁמָּא הִטְרִיחוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, כְּלוּם לֹא מִזְכוּתָן אַתֶּם מִתְפַּרְנְסִין, הַמָּן בִּזְכוּת משֶׁה, הַבְּאֵר בִּזְכוּת מִרְיָם, עַנְנֵי כָּבוֹד בִּזְכוּת אַהֲרֹן. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁשָּׁלַח פְּרוֹזְדוֹגְמָא שֶׁלּוֹ לִמְדִינָה, מֶה עָשׂוּ בְּנֵי הַמְדִינָה עָמְדוּ עַל רַגְלֵיהֶם וּפָרְעוּ אֶת רָאשֵׁיהֶם וּקְרָאוּהָ בְּאֵימָה וּבְיִרְאָה בִּרְתֵת וּבְזִיעַ, כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הֲדָא פְּרוֹזְדוֹגְמָא דִידִי לֹא הִטְרַחְתִּי עֲלֵיכֶם וְלֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶם שֶׁתְּהֵא קוֹרִין קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע לֹא עוֹמְדִין עַל רַגְלֵיכֶם וְלֹא פּוֹרְעִין אֶת רָאשֵׁיכֶם, אֶלָּא (דברים ו, ז): בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ בְּבֵיתֶךָ וּבְלֶכְתְּךָ בַדֶּרֶךְ וּבְשָׁכְבְּךָ וּבְקוּמֶךָ, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר רַבִּי סִימוֹן, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עֲשָׂרָה מִינֵי בְּהֵמוֹת מָסַרְתִּי לְךָ, שְׁלשָׁה בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ וְשִׁבְעָה אֵינָן בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ, שְׁלשָׁה בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ (דברים יד, ד): שׁוֹר שֵׂה כְשָׂבִים וְשֵׂה עִזִּים, וְשִׁבְעָה אֵינָן בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ (דברים יד, ה): אַיָּל צְבִי וְיַחְמוּר וְאַקּוֹ וְדִישֹׁן וּתְאוֹ וָזָמֶר, לֹא הִטְרַחְתִּי עֲלֵיכֶם וְלֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶם לְהִתְיַגֵּעַ בֶּהָרִים לְהָבִיא לְפָנַי קָרְבָּן מֵאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵינָן בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ, אֶלָּא מִמַּה שֶּׁבִּרְשׁוּתְךָ מִן הַגָּדֵל עַל אֲבוּסֶךָ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב אוֹ עֵז. | 27.6. "In the case of the sacrifices, also it is so. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘The Ox is pursued by the lion, the goat is pursued by the leopard, the lamb by the wolf; do not offer unto Me from those that pursue but from those that are pursued.’ Hence if is written, “When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth …It may be accepted for an offering” (Lev. 22:27). \n", |
|
| 14. Palestinian Talmud, Orlah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •domesticated quadrupeds Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 116 |
15. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 116| 59a. והא דינין קום עשה הוא וקא חשיב קום עשה ושב אל תעשה נינהו,ואמר ר' יוחנן עובד כוכבים שעוסק בתורה חייב מיתה שנאמר (דברים לג, ד) תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה לנו מורשה ולא להם,וליחשבה גבי שבע מצות מ"ד מורשה מיגזל קא גזיל לה מאן דאמר מאורסה דינו כנערה המאורסה דבסקילה,מיתיבי היה ר"מ אומר מניין שאפילו עובד כוכבים ועוסק בתורה שהוא ככהן גדול שנאמר (ויקרא יח, ה) אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם כהנים לוים וישראלים לא נאמר אלא האדם הא למדת שאפילו עובד כוכבים ועוסק בתורה הרי הוא ככהן גדול,התם בשבע מצות דידהו:,ר' חנינא בן גמליאל אומר אף הדם מן החי: ת"ר (בראשית ט, ד) אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו זה אבר מן החי רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אומר אף הדם מן החי,מ"ט דרבי חנינא בן גמליאל קרי ביה בשר בנפשו לא תאכל דמו בנפשו לא תאכל ורבנן ההוא למישרי שרצים הוא דאתא,כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (דברים יב, כג) רק חזק לבלתי אכל הדם כי הדם הוא הנפש וגו' (רק חזק לבלתי אכל הדם זה אבר מן החי כי הדם הוא הנפש זה דם מן החי),ורבנן ההוא לדם הקזה שהנשמה יוצאה בו הוא דאתא,למה לי למיכתב לבני נח ולמה לי למשני בסיני,כדר' יוסי בר' חנינא דא"ר יוסי בר' חנינא כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונשנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה,לבני נח ולא נשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח ואנו אין לנו אלא גיד הנשה ואליבא דר' יהודה,אמר מר כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונשנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה אדרבה מדנשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח,מדאיתני עבודת כוכבים בסיני ואשכחן דענש עובדי כוכבים עילווה ש"מ לזה ולזה נאמרה:,לבני נח ולא נשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח: אדרבה מדלא נישנית בסיני לבני נח נאמרה ולא לישראל ליכא מידעם דלישראל שרי ולעובד כוכבים אסור,ולא והרי יפת תואר התם משום דלאו בני כיבוש נינהו,והרי פחות משוה פרוטה התם משום דלאו בני מחילה נינהו:,כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונישנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה | 59a. The Gemara challenges: b But /b the mitzva of establishing courts of b judgment is /b a mitzva to b stand up and take action, and /b nevertheless b he counts it /b among the seven mitzvot. The Gemara answers: This mitzva contains a requirement to b stand up and take action, /b i.e., the obligation to establish courts and carry out justice, b and /b it also contains a requirement to b sit and refrain from action, /b i.e., the prohibition against doing injustice., b And Rabbi Yoḥa says: A gentile who engages in Torah /b study is b liable /b to receive the b death /b penalty; b as it is stated: “Moses commanded us a law [ i torah /i ], an inheritance /b of the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4), indicating that b it is an inheritance for us, and not for them. /b ,The Gemara challenges: b But /b if so, b let /b the i tanna /i b count /b this prohibition b among /b the b seven /b Noahide b mitzvot. /b The Gemara explains: According to b the one who says /b that the verse is referring to the Torah as b an inheritance, /b this prohibition is included in the prohibition of robbery, as a gentile who studies Torah b robs /b the Jewish people of b it. /b According to b the one who says /b that the verse is referring to the Torah as b betrothed, /b as the spelling of the Hebrew word for betrothed [ i me’orasa /i ], is similar to that of the word for inheritance [ i morasha /i ], b the punishment of /b a gentile who studies Torah b is like /b that of one who engages in intercourse with b a betrothed young woman, which is /b execution b by stoning. /b ,The Gemara b raises an objection /b to Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement from a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Meir would say: From where /b is it derived b that even a gentile who engages in Torah /b study b is /b considered b like a High Priest? /b It is derived from b that /b which b is stated: /b “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordices, b which if a man does he shall live by them” /b (Leviticus 18:5). The phrase: Which if b priests, Levites, and Israelites /b do they shall live by them, b is not stated, /b but b rather: “A man,” /b which indicates mankind in general. 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 Gemara answers: b There, /b in the i baraita /i , the reference is to a gentile who engages b in /b the study of b their seven mitzvot. /b It is a mitzva for a gentile to study the i halakhot /i that pertain to the seven Noahide mitzvot, and when he does so he is highly regarded.,§ The i baraita /i that lists the Noahide mitzvot (56a) teaches that b Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: /b The descendants of Noah are b also /b commanded concerning the prohibition against consuming b the blood from a living /b animal. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to the verse: b “Only flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat” /b (Genesis 9:4), b this is /b the prohibition against eating b a limb from a living /b animal. b Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: The blood from a living /b animal is b also /b prohibited in this verse.,The Gemara asks: b What is the reasoning /b behind the opinion b of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel? /b The Gemara answers: He b reads into /b the verse: b Flesh with its life you shall not eat; blood with its life you shall not eat. /b The Gemara asks: b And /b how do b the Rabbis /b explain the mention of blood in this verse? After all, in their opinion, blood from a living animal is not forbidden. The Gemara answers: b That comes to permit /b eating limbs from living b creeping animals. /b The verse indicates that the prohibition does not apply to creeping animals, whose blood is not considered separate from their flesh (see 59b).,The i baraita /i continues: b Similarly, you /b can b say /b that according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, blood from a living animal is also forbidden to the Jewish people in particular; as it is stated: b “Only be steadfast in not eating blood, as the blood is the life, /b and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23). With regard to the statements: b “Only be steadfast in not eating blood,” this is a limb from a living /b animal; b “as the blood is the life,” this is blood from a living /b animal.,The Gemara asks: b And /b how do b the Rabbis, /b who hold that there is no specific prohibition with regard to blood from a living animal, interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: b That /b verse b comes to /b teach the prohibition against consuming b blood /b spilled in the process b of bloodletting, /b as this is blood b through which the soul departs /b (see i Karetot /i 20b).,The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, b why do I /b need the Torah to write this i halakha /i with regard b to descendants of Noah, and why do I /b need the Torah to b repeat /b it b at Sinai /b with regard to Jews? Aren’t Jews also descendants of Noah?,The Gemara answers that it is to be understood b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina; as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Any mitzva that was /b first b stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was repeated at Sinai was stated for this /b group b and for that /b group, i.e., it applies to both gentiles and Jews.,But a mitzva that was stated b with regard to the descendants of Noah and was not repeated at Sinai /b among the mitzvot given to the Jewish people b was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah. And we have only /b the prohibition against eating b the sciatic nerve /b to which this classification applies, b and /b this is b according to /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yehuda, /b who holds that the verse: “Therefore the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve, which is on the hollow of the thigh, until this day” (Genesis 32:32), is referring to the sons of Jacob, who were commanded to observe this prohibition even though they had the status of descendants of Noah.,§ b The Master said /b in a i baraita /i : b Any mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was repeated at Sinai was stated for this /b group b and for that /b group. The Gemara raises an objection: b On the contrary, from /b the fact b that it was repeated at Sinai, /b clearly it can be derived that b it was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah, /b as if it pertains to the descendants of Noah as well, why repeat it at Sinai? Aren’t the Jewish people are also descendants of Noah?,The Gemara answers: b From /b the fact b that /b the prohibition of b idol worship was repeated at Sinai, and we find that /b God b punished gentiles for it, conclude from it /b that any mitzva that was repeated at Sinai b was stated for this /b group b and for that /b group, and not only for the Jewish people.,It is further stated in the i baraita /i that a mitzva that was stated b with regard to the descendants of Noah and was not repeated at Sinai was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah. /b The Gemara raises an objection: b On the contrary, from /b the fact b that it was not repeated at Sinai, /b clearly it can be derived that b it was stated for the descendants of Noah and not for the Jewish people. /b The Gemara answers: b There is nothing that is permitted to a Jew and forbidden to a gentile. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b is there b not? But isn’t there /b the permission for a Jew to take a married b beautiful woman, /b who was taken as a prisoner of war, to be his wife? For a gentile to do so is forbidden. The Gemara answers: b There, /b the reason gentiles are prohibited from doing so is b because they are not authorized to conquer. /b It is not permitted for gentiles to wage wars of conquest, and the i halakha /i of marrying a beautiful woman is stated only with regard to a war of conquest. Therefore the fact that a beautiful woman who is a prisoner of war is permitted only to a Jew and not to a gentile does not indicate that gentiles have a higher degree of sanctity.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t /b stealing b less than the value of one i peruta /i /b prohibited to a gentile and permitted to a Jew? The Gemara answers: b There it is because /b gentiles b are not apt /b to grant b forgiveness /b of debts, even of less than the value of one i peruta /i . Therefore, for a gentile to take even such a minuscule amount is considered robbery. Jews normally forgive such small amounts.,It is stated in the i baraita /i that b any mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was repeated at Sinai was stated /b both b for this /b group b and for that /b group. |
|
16. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 116| 47b. ושביעית ביום טוב כהן ונזיר אבית הטומאה ואי אמרינן הואיל אחרישה לא ליחייב הואיל וחזי לכיסוי דם ציפור,א"ר פפא בר שמואל באבנים מקורזלות,ראויות לכותשן וכתישה ביום טוב מי שרי ראויות לכותשן כלאחר יד בצונמא,צונמא בר זריעה צונמא מלמעלה ועפר תיחוח מלמטה ותיפוק ליה משום עפר תיחוח,אלא אמר מר בר רב אשי בטינא וטינא בר זריעה הוא במתונתא,איתיביה אביי המבשל גיד הנשה בחלב בי"ט ואוכלו לוקה חמש לוקה משום מבשל גיד ביום טוב ולוקה משום אוכל גיד ולוקה משום מבשל בשר בחלב ולוקה משום אוכל בשר בחלב ולוקה משום הבערה ואי אמרינן הואיל אהבערה לא ליחייב הואיל דחזי ליה לצרכו,אמר ליה אפיק הבערה ועייל גיד הנשה של נבילה,והתני רבי חייא לוקין שתים על אכילתו ושלש על בישולו ואי איתא שלש על אכילתו מיבעי ליה,אלא אפיק הבערה ועייל עצי מוקצה,ומוקצה דאורייתא הוא א"ל אין דכתיב (שמות טז, ה) והיה ביום הששי והכינו את אשר יביאו ואזהרתה מהכא (שמות כ, ט) מלא תעשה כל מלאכה,א"ל והא את הוא דאמרת בעאי מיניה מרב חסדא ואמרי לה בעאי מיניה מרב הונא הביא שה מאפר ושחטו תמיד ביו"ט מהו,ואת אמרת לן (אמר לי) עלה שה ולא הבכור,אחת ולא מעשר,מן הצאן ולא הפלגס | 47b. b And /b he is plowing during the b Sabbatical /b year, when agricultural labor is prohibited, b on a Festival. /b Additionally, the person plowing is b a priest and a nazirite, /b and he is plowing b a place of ritual impurity, /b i.e., a burial site. It is prohibited for a priest and a nazirite to become impure by walking over the burial spot of a corpse. Therefore, the one plowing commits two transgressions simply by traversing the field. b And if we say /b the principle: b Since, etc., he should not be liable for plowing /b on a Festival, b since /b the dirt he loosens b is fit for covering the blood of a bird. /b One who slaughters a bird or a non-domesticated animal is required by Torah law to cover the blood. Since it is possible that one will need to slaughter many such animals or birds and will not have enough dirt to cover their blood, his plowing may end up facilitating covering the blood. Therefore, it should not be considered a prohibited labor on the Festival.,The Gemara answers that b Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said: /b The case is one in which a person plowed b sharp stones, /b i.e., clods of dirt that have hardened and are unfit to be used to cover blood.,The Gemara asks: Aren’t these clods of dirt b fit /b to be b crushed /b and used to cover blood? The Gemara responds: b Is crushing permitted on a Festival? /b The Gemara counters: But they are b fit to be crushed in an unusual manner, /b which is not prohibited by Torah law. The Gemara answers: The case is one in which a person plowed b hard, /b rocky b soil, /b which cannot be crushed.,The Gemara asks: b Is hard soil fit for planting? /b The case under discussion is one in which a person was preparing the ground in order to plant food crops in a vineyard. The Gemara answers: In this case, b there was hard soil above and /b fertile, b loose soil underneath, /b into which seeds could be planted. The Gemara rejects this answer: b Derive /b that the act of plowing would be permitted in that case b due to /b the b loose soil, /b which is suitable for covering blood., b Rather, Mar bar Rav Ashi said: /b The case is one in which a person plowed b mud, /b which is not fit for covering blood. The Gemara asks rhetorically: b Is mud fit for planting? /b The Gemara answers: The case is one in which a person plowed b moist earth, /b which is suitable for planting but which cannot be used to cover blood., b Abaye raised an objection to /b Rabba’s acceptance of the principle: Since, etc. b One who cooks the sciatic nerve in milk on a Festival and eats it is flogged /b for b five /b distinct prohibitions. How so? b He is flogged due to /b the prohibition of b cooking the /b sciatic b nerve on a Festival, /b which is prohibited because the sciatic nerve is unfit for consumption; b and he is flogged due to /b the prohibition of b eating /b the sciatic b nerve, /b which is explicitly prohibited by the Torah; b and he is flogged due to /b the prohibition of b cooking meat in milk; and he is flogged due to /b the prohibition of b eating meat /b cooked b in milk; and /b lastly, b he is flogged due to /b the prohibition of b kindling /b a fire unnecessarily on a Festival. b And if we say /b the principle: b Since, etc., he should not be liable for kindling /b a fire unnecessarily, b since /b the fire b is fit for /b use in attending to his legitimate Festival needs, e.g., cooking permitted foods.,Rabba b said to him: Remove /b the prohibition of b kindling /b a fire from this list b and add /b the prohibition of eating b a sciatic nerve from an animal carcass /b that was not properly slaughtered.,Abaye responded: b Didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach /b with regard to this mishna: He b is flogged twice for his eating, /b as he violated the prohibitions of eating the sciatic nerve and eating meat cooked in milk, b and three /b times b for his cooking, /b as he violated the prohibitions of kindling a fire, cooking on a Festival, and cooking meat in milk? b And if it is /b so, that the case is one in which the sciatic nerve was taken from an animal carcass, Rabbi Ḥiyya b should have /b stated that he is flogged b three /b times b for his eating, /b as he violated the prohibitions of eating a sciatic nerve, eating meat cooked in milk, and eating an animal carcass., b Rather, /b Rabba said: b Remove /b the prohibition of b kindling /b a fire b and add /b in its place the prohibition of using b wood /b that has been b set aside /b from use on the Festival.,The Gemara asks: Is the prohibition against utilizing b set-aside /b material prohibited b by Torah /b law, such that a person is flogged for violating this prohibition? b He said to him: Yes, as it is written: “And it shall come to pass on the sixth day that they shall prepare that which they bring in” /b (Exodus 16:5). This verse teaches that anything that has not been prepared before the Festival is considered to be set-aside, and it is prohibited to utilize it. This verse indicates that utilizing set-aside objects is prohibited; however, it does not formulate this prohibition as a negative commandment. Therefore, the Gemara adds that b the warning /b indicating that it is a negative commandment b is from here: “You shall not perform any labor” /b (Exodus 20:10). This general statement pertaining to Shabbat includes utilizing objects that were not set aside for use before Shabbat.,Abaye b said to him: Wasn’t it you who said: I raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda, and some say /b the correct version is: b I raised a dilemma before Rav Huna: /b If b one brought a lamb from the meadow, /b and the lamb is therefore set-aside because it was not designated for use before the Festival, b and he slaughtered it /b as the b daily /b offering b on a Festival, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Is it permissible to offer this sacrifice?, b And you said to us: He said to me about this /b issue that the answer can be derived from a verse in Ezekiel pertaining to communal offerings. The verse states: “And one lamb of the flock, out of two hundred, from the well-watered pastures of Israel” (Ezekiel 45:15). This verse is expounded in the following manner: The word b lamb /b is referring to either a male or female lamb, b but not to a firstborn, /b as that status applies only to male sheep.,The word b one /b indicates that a sacrifice may b not /b be brought from the animal b tithe. /b The lamb must be one that can stand alone. An animal designated as tithe is always part of a group, as it is the tenth animal to leave the pen; therefore, it cannot be offered as a communal offering.,The expression: b of the flock /b indicates that only some animals of the flock may be offered, whereas one may b not /b offer b a i palges /i , /b which is no longer a lamb but is not yet considered a ram. |
|
17. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 116| 24a. עד הארכובה רבי ינאי אומר עד לנקביו ר' יוחנן אומר משום רבי יוסי בן יהושע עד מקום טבורו,בין רבי זכאי לרבי ינאי איכא בינייהו טרפה חיה מר סבר טרפה חיה ומר סבר טרפה אינה חיה,בין ר' ינאי לר' יוחנן איכא בינייהו דר"א דאמר רבי אלעזר ניטל ירך וחלל שלה נבלה,אמר רב פפא מחלוקת מלמטה למעלה אבל מלמעלה למטה אפי' כל דהו טהורה וכן אמר רב גידל אמר רבי יוחנן המפלת את שגולגלתו אטומה אמו טהורה,ואמר רב גידל אמר רבי יוחנן המפלת כמין אפקתא דדיקלא אמו טהורה,איתמר המפלת מי שפניו מוסמסים רבי יוחנן אמר אמו טמאה ר"ל אמר אמו טהורה,איתיביה ר' יוחנן לריש לקיש המפלת יד חתוכה ורגל חתוכה אמו טמאה לידה ואין חוששין שמא מגוף אטום באתה ואם איתא ליתני שמא מגוף אטום או ממי שפניו מוסמסין,אמר רב פפי בפניו מוסמסין כולי עלמא לא פליגי דטמאה כי פליגי בפניו טוחות ואיפכא איתמר רבי יוחנן אמר אמו טהורה וריש לקיש אמר אמו טמאה,ולותביה ר"ל לרבי יוחנן מהא משום דשני ליה היינו גוף אטום היינו מי שפניו טוחות,בני רבי חייא נפיק לקרייתא אתו לקמיה דאבוהון אמר להם כלום בא מעשה לידכם אמרו לו פנים טוחות בא לידינו וטימאנוה,אמר להם צאו וטהרו מה שטמאתם מאי דעתייכו לחומרא חומרא דאתיא לידי קולא היא דקיהביתו לה ימי טוהר,איתמר המפלת בריה שיש לה ב' גבים וב' שדראות אמר רב באשה אינו ולד בבהמה אסור באכילה ושמואל אמר באשה ולד בבהמה מותר באכילה,במאי קמיפלגי בדרב חנין בר אבא דאמר רב חנין בר אבא השסועה בריה שיש לה ב' גבין וב' שדראות,רב אמר בריה בעלמא ליתא וכי אגמריה רחמנא למשה במעי אמה אגמריה ושמואל אמר בריה בעלמא איתא וכי אגמריה רחמנא למשה בעלמא אגמריה אבל במעי אמה שריא,איתיביה רב שימי בר חייא לרב רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר כל שיש לו ב' גבין ושני שדראות פסול לעבודה אלמא דחיי (וקשיא לרב) א"ל שימי את ששדרתו עקומה,מיתיבי יש בעוברין שהן אסורין בן ארבעה לדקה בן שמנה לגסה הימנו ולמטה אסור יצא מי שיש לו שני גבין ושני שדראות,מאי יצא לאו יצא מכלל עוברין שאפילו במעי אמן אסורין,רב מתרץ לטעמיה ושמואל מתרץ לטעמיה רב מתרץ לטעמיה בן ארבעה לדקה בן ח' לגסה הימנו ולמטה אסור,במה דברים אמורים כשיצא לאויר העולם אבל במעי אמו שרי יצא מי שיש לו שני גבין ושני שדראות דאפילו במעי אמו נמי אסור | 24a. b Until /b above b the knee. Rabbi Yannai says: Until his orifices. Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Yehoshua: Until the location of his navel. /b ,The Gemara explains the dispute between the i amora’im /i : The difference b between /b the opinion of b Rabbi Zakkai and /b that of b Rabbi Yannai /b is whether b a i tereifa /i can survive /b beyond twelve months. One b Sage, /b Rabbi Yannai, b holds /b that b a i tereifa /i can survive /b beyond twelve months. Therefore, although one whose legs were removed until above the knee has the status of a i tereifa /i , if a woman discharges a fetus of this form she is impure. Only if the fetus lacks legs until his orifices is the woman pure, as such a person cannot survive. b And /b one b Sage, /b Rabbi Zakkai, b holds /b that b a i tereifa /i cannot survive /b beyond twelve months. Therefore, even if the fetus lacks legs only from above the knee and not from his orifices, the woman is not impure.,The difference b between /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yannai and /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yoḥa, /b who both agree that a i tereifa /i can survive, is with regard to a statement b of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said: /b If the b thigh, /b i.e., the hind leg of the animal, b and its recess were removed /b from an animal before slaughter, the animal is considered b an unslaughtered carcass; /b consequently, it is forbidden in consumption and imparts ritual impurity even while still alive. Rabbi Yannai agrees with the statement of Rabbi Elazar, and accordingly holds that if the lower part of a person’s body until his orifices is missing or removed, the person immediately assumes the halakhic status of a corpse. Rabbi Yoḥa disagrees with Rabbi Elazar and holds that one whose lower part of his body was missing or removed has the status of a corpse only if it is removed until his navel., b Rav Pappa says: /b The b dispute /b between the i amora’im /i is with regard to a fetus that is lacking part of its body b from below /b to b above, /b i.e., the lower part of his body; b but /b if it is lacking part of its body b from above /b to b below, even any amount /b of its skull, the woman b is pure. And likewise, Rav Giddel says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b In the case of a woman b who discharges /b a fetus b whose skull is sealed, /b i.e., deficient, b its mother is pure. /b ,The Gemara cites another i halakha /i : b And Rav Giddel says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b In the case of a woman b who discharges /b a fetus that looks b like /b the part b of a palm tree /b that b branches out, /b i.e., the lower part of its body is formless while the upper part has arms and legs coming out of its shoulders like branches, b its mother is pure. /b ,§ It b was stated /b with regard to a woman b who discharges /b a fetus b whose face is mashed /b but not completely flattened, that b Rabbi Yoḥa says its mother is impure, /b and b Reish Lakish says its mother is pure. /b , b Rabbi Yoḥa raised an objection to Reish Lakish /b from a i baraita /i : In the case of a woman b who discharges a shaped hand, /b i.e., a hand whose fingers are discernible, b or a shaped foot, its mother is impure /b with the impurity of a woman after b childbirth, /b as it certainly came from a full-fledged fetus, b and we are not concerned /b that b perhaps it came from /b a fetus with b a sealed, /b i.e., deficient, b body. And if it is so, /b that a fetus with a mashed face does not render its mother impure, b let /b the i baraita /i b teach: /b We are not concerned that b perhaps /b it came b from /b a fetus with b a sealed body or from one whose face is mashed. /b , b Rav Pappi says: In /b a case where b its face is mashed, everyone agrees that /b the woman b is impure. When they disagree, /b it is b in /b a case where b its face is /b completely b flat, /b i.e., none of its features are discernible; b and the opposite was stated: Rabbi Yoḥa says /b that b its mother is pure, and Reish Lakish says /b that b its mother is impure. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But /b according to this version of the dispute, b let Reish Lakish raise an objection to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yoḥa from this /b i baraita /i , from which Rabbi Yoḥa raised an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish according to the previous version of the dispute: If a woman who discharges a fetus whose face is flat is pure, the i baraita /i should have stated that there is no concern that the hand or foot might have come from a fetus with a sealed body or one whose face is flat. The Gemara answers: Reish Lakish did not raise the objection, b because Rabbi Yoḥa /b would have b responded to him /b that the status of b a sealed body is /b the same as that of b one whose face is flat. /b There is no reason to mention both types of deformities.,The Gemara relates: b The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya went out to the villages /b to inspect their father’s fields. When b they came /b back b to their father, he said to them: /b Wasn’t b any incident brought to you /b for a halakhic ruling? b They said to him: /b A case of a woman who discharged a fetus with b a flat face was brought to us, and we deemed her impure /b with the impurity of a woman after childbirth.,Rabbi Ḥiyya b said to them: Go out and deem pure that which you have deemed impure. What was your thinking /b when you ruled that she is impure? Did you reason that as the matter is subject to a dispute, one should rule b stringently? /b But your ruling b is a stringency that leads to a leniency, as you have given /b the woman thirty-three b days of purity /b after the birth of a male, following her period of impurity, which are the minimum days of purity established in the Torah for a woman who gave birth.,§ b It was stated: /b With regard to a woman or female animal b who discharges an entity that has two backs and two spines, Rav says /b that b in /b the case of the b woman, /b her discharged fetus b is not /b considered b an offspring, /b as it cannot survive, and therefore the woman does not have the ritual impurity caused by childbirth, and b in /b the case of the b animal, /b its fetus b is prohibited for consumption. And Shmuel says: In /b the case of b a woman, /b the discharged fetus is considered b an offspring, /b and the woman is impure, and b in /b the case of b an animal, /b the fetus is b permitted for consumption. /b ,The Gemara asks: b With regard to what do /b Rav and Shmuel b disagree? /b The Gemara answers: They disagree b concerning /b the statement b of Rav Ḥanin bar Abba, as Rav Ḥanin bar Abba said: /b The verse states: “Nevertheless these you shall not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only have the hoof cloven [ i umimafrisei haparsa hashesua /i ]: The camel, and the hare, and the rock badger” (Deuteronomy 14:7). The apparently superfluous term b i hashesua /i /b is not a redundant description of the cloven hoof; it is referring to a separate b entity that has two backs and two spines /b and therefore looks like an entirely cloven animal.,It is with regard to this prohibition that Rav and Shmuel disagree. b Rav says /b that b there is no /b such living b entity in the world, and when the Merciful One taught /b this prohibition b to Moses, he taught /b it b to /b him with regard to a fetus that has two backs and two spines that is found b in the womb of its mother /b after slaughter. b And Shmuel says /b that b there is /b such b an entity in the world, and when the Merciful One taught /b this prohibition b to Moses, he taught /b it b to him /b with regard to a living animal b in the world, but /b a fetus that has two backs and two spines b in the womb of its mother is permitted /b for consumption., b Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya raised an objection to Rav /b from a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: Any /b priest b who has two backs and two spines is disqualified from /b the Temple b service, /b as he is blemished. b Evidently, /b an entity b that /b has two backs and two spines b can survive, and /b this is b difficult for /b the opinion of b Rav. /b Rav b said to him: You are /b clearly b Shimi, /b i.e., you asked well. Yet the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus is not referring to one who literally has two backs and two spines, but rather b to /b one b whose spine is crooked /b and therefore appears as though he has two spines. One who actually has two backs and two spines cannot survive.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : Among discharged animal b fetuses, there are those that are forbidden /b in consumption, as they have the halakhic status of carcasses of unslaughtered animals. Specifically, if an animal fetus is b born /b in the b fourth /b month of pregcy in the case b of small /b domesticated animals, where the pregcy is normally five months long, or it is b born /b in the b eighth /b month of pregcy in the case b of large /b livestock, where the pregcy is normally nine months long, or if the miscarriage occurred b from this /b stage of the pregcy b and earlier, /b i.e., if the pregcy ended before this stage, the animal is b forbidden. /b This b excludes one that has two backs and two spines. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What /b does the i baraita /i mean when it states that an animal with two backs and two spines is b excluded? /b Does it b not /b mean that it is b excluded from the category of /b those b fetuses, /b which are permitted for consumption if found inside their mother’s womb, b as /b such animals are b forbidden even /b while they are b in the wombs of their mothers? /b This contradicts the opinion of Shmuel, who holds that an animal fetus of that type is permitted for consumption.,The Gemara answers: b Rav explains /b the i baraita /i b according to his /b line of b reasoning, and Shmuel explains /b the i baraita /i b according to his /b line of b reasoning. Rav explains /b the i baraita /i b according to his /b line of b reasoning, /b as was assumed above: If an animal fetus is b born /b in the b fourth /b month of pregcy in the case b of small /b domesticated animals, or it is b born /b in the b eighth /b month of pregcy in the case b of large /b livestock, or if it was born b from this /b stage of the pregcy b and earlier, /b the animal is b forbidden. /b , b In what /b case b is this statement said? /b In a case b where /b the animal b emerged into the airspace of the world; but /b if it was found b in its mother’s womb /b after its mother was slaughtered, b it is permitted for /b consumption. This b excludes /b the case of a fetus b that has two backs and two spines, as even /b if it is found b in the womb of its mother it is prohibited. /b |
|
18. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •domesticated quadrupeds Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 116| 21b. יש חורש תלם א' וחייב עליו משום שמונה לאוין החורש בשור וחמור והן מוקדשין וכלאים בכרם ובשביעית ויום טוב וכהן ונזיר בבית הטומאה,חנניא בן חכינאי אומר אף הלובש כלאים אמרו לו אינו השם אמר להם אף הנזיר לא הוא השם:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big (אמר רב ביבי אמר ר' יוסי פושט ולובש לובש ממש או) אפי' מכניס ומוציא בית יד אונקלי שלו מחוי רב אחא בריה דרב איקא עיולי ואפוקי רב אשי אומר אפילו לא שהה אלא כדי לפשוט וללבוש חייב:,יש חורש תלם וכו': א"ר ינאי בחבורה נמנו וגמרו החופה בכלאים לוקה אמר להן רבי יוחנן לאו משנתנו היא זו יש חורש תלם אחד וחייב עליו משום שמונה לאוין החורש בשור ובחמור והן מוקדשין וכלאים בכרם האי חורש דמחייב משום כלאים היכי משכחת לה לאו דמיכסי בהדיה דאזיל,א"ל אי לאו דדלאי לך חספא מי משכחת מרגניתא תותה אמר ליה ריש לקיש לר' יוחנן אי לאו דקילסך גברא רבה הוה אמינא מתני' מני רבי עקיבא היא דאמר המקיים כלאים לוקה,מאי רבי עקיבא דתניא המנכש והמחפה בכלאים לוקה רבי עקיבא אומר אף המקיים,מאי טעמא דר' עקיבא דתניא (ויקרא יט, יט) שדך לא תזרע כלאים אין לי אלא זורע מקיים מנין ת"ל ((ויקרא יט, יט) בהמתך לא תרביע) כלאים שדך לא (תזרע כלאים),אמר ליה עולא לרב נחמן ולילקי נמי משום זורע ביום טוב א"ל תנא ושייר,א"ל תנא קתני שמונה ואת אמרת תנא ושייר אמר רבא יש חילוק מלאכות בשבת ואין חילוק מלאכות ביום טוב אמר ליה עדא תהא,איתיביה אביי ואין חילוק מלאכות ביום טוב והתנן המבשל גיד בחלב ביו"ט ואכלו לוקה חמש לוקה משום אוכל גיד ולוקה משום מבשל ביום טוב שלא לצורך ולוקה משום מבשל גיד בחלב ולוקה משום אוכל בשר בחלב ולוקה | 21b. Apropos the case where one receives several sets of lashes for performing a single action, the mishna continues: b There is /b one who b plows a single furrow and is liable /b to receive lashes b for /b violating b eight prohibitions. /b How so? For b plowing with an ox and a donkey, /b in violation of the prohibition: “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together” (Deuteronomy 22:10); b and they are consecrated, /b and therefore he is guilty of misuse of consecrated property; b and /b he is plowing b diverse kinds in a vineyard; and /b it is b during the Sabbatical /b Year, when it is prohibited to work the land; b and /b it is on b a Festival, /b when plowing is a prohibited labor; b and /b he is both b a priest and a nazirite /b and is performing the plowing b in a place of impurity /b imparted by a corpse, which is prohibited for both a priest (see Leviticus 21:1) and a nazirite (see Numbers 6:6)., b Ḥaya ben Ḥakhinai says: /b If he b was wearing /b a garment consisting of b diverse kinds /b of wool and linen while plowing he is b also /b flogged for violating that prohibition. The Sages b said to him: /b That is b not /b a prohibition in b the /b same b category /b as the others, as it is not connected to the act of plowing. Ḥaya ben Ḥakhinai b said to them: /b According to that criterion, the fact that he is b a nazirite is also not /b in b the /b same b category, /b as a nazirite and a priest are not flogged for plowing; rather, they are flogged for contracting impurity imparted by a corpse., strong GEMARA: /strong b Rav Beivai says /b that b Rabbi Yosei says /b that when the mishna teaches with regard to wearing a garment of diverse kinds of wool and linen: And b he removes /b it b and dons /b it after each forewarning, does it mean that one is liable for each forewarning only if he b actually /b removes and b dons /b it, b or /b perhaps one is liable b even /b if b he inserts and removes /b his arm from b the sleeve of his garment [ i unkali /i ]; /b perhaps this is also considered removing and donning the garment? The Gemara relates: b Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, gestured: /b One is liable only for actually b inserting /b his body in the garment entirely b and /b then b removing /b it. b Rav Ashi says: /b The reference in the mishna is not to actually removing and donning the garment; rather, b even if he only waited /b an interval b equivalent /b to the period required b to remove and to don /b the garment, he is b liable /b to receive lashes for each and every forewarning.,§ The mishna teaches: b There is /b one who b plows /b a single b furrow /b and is liable to receive lashes for violating eight prohibitions. b Rabbi Yannai says /b that when the Sages sat b in a group, /b their opinions b were counted and they concluded: One who covers /b seeds of b diverse kinds /b with dirt b is flogged /b for sowing diverse kinds. b Rabbi Yoḥa said to them: Isn’t this /b the i halakha /i in b our mishna: There is /b one who b plows a single furrow and is liable /b to receive lashes b for /b violating eight prohibitions, including: For b plowing with an ox and a donkey, and they are consecrated, and /b he is plowing b diverse kinds in a vineyard. /b With regard to b this /b person who b plows who is liable /b to receive lashes b due to /b violating the prohibition of b diverse kinds, how can you find these /b circumstances? Plowing a field is unrelated to sowing diverse kinds. Is it b not /b a case b where one covers /b the seeds with dirt b in the course of /b his plowing b as he proceeds, /b indicating that one who covers the seeds of diverse kinds is flogged?,Rabbi Yannai b said to him: /b You are correct; but b if I had not lifted the earthenware /b shard b for you, would you have found the gem beneath it? /b It was only after I told you the i halakha /i that you succeeded in finding a source in the mishna. Later, b Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥa: If /b it was b not /b for the fact b that a great man, /b Rabbi Yannai, b praised your /b statement, b I would say /b that there is no proof from the mishna, as it is possible to say: b Whose /b opinion is expressed in b the mishna? It is /b that of b Rabbi Akiva, who says: One who maintains /b diverse kinds by performing actions essential for their existence b is flogged. /b Therefore, one who plows and covers seeds of diverse kinds is liable to receive lashes, as he facilitates the existence of the diverse kinds, not because in covering the seeds it is as though he sowed them.,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the aforementioned statement of b Rabbi Akiva? /b It is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who weeds and one who covers /b the seeds of b diverse kinds /b with dirt b is flogged, /b as he performed an action that promotes the growth of the diverse kinds, which is tantamount to sowing. b Rabbi Akiva says: Even one who maintains /b diverse kinds violates the prohibition.,The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b for the opinion b of Rabbi Akiva? As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that it is written: b “Your field you shall not sow with diverse kinds” /b (Leviticus 19:19), b I have /b derived b only /b that b sowing /b diverse kinds is prohibited. b From where /b do I derive that b maintaining /b diverse kinds, which does not involve any positive action, is also prohibited? It is as b the verse states: “Your animals you shall not breed with different species [ i kilayim /i ]; your field you shall not sow with diverse kinds [ i kilayim /i ]” /b (Leviticus 19:19), which is interpreted as though it is written: Diverse kinds [ i kilayim /i ] in your field you shall not sow, indicating that one may not allow diverse kinds to remain in his field., b Ulla said to Rav Naḥman: And let him be flogged also for /b violating the prohibition of b sowing on a Festival. /b Rav Naḥman b said to him: /b Indeed, lashes for that prohibition could have been included in the mishna. The i tanna /i b taught /b certain prohibitions b and omitted /b other prohibitions.,Ulla b said to him: The i tanna /i taught /b and specifically enumerated b eight /b sets of lashes, b and you say /b that b he taught /b some b and omitted /b some? b Rava says: /b The reason that sowing on a Festival was omitted is that b there is a division of labors on Shabbat, but there is no division of labors on a Festival. /b On Shabbat, one who unwittingly performs several prohibited labors during one lapse of awareness is liable to bring one sin-offering for each labor that he performed. On a Festival, if one performs several prohibited labors, he is liable to receive only one set of lashes, as there is one prohibition against performing labor on a Festival. Since the mishna listed plowing on the Festival, it does not also list sowing on the Festival. Ulla b said to him: That [ i ada /i ] is so. /b , b Abaye raised an objection to /b the opinion of Rava: b And is there no division of labors on a Festival? But didn’t we learn /b in a i baraita /i : b One who cooks /b a sciatic b nerve in milk on a Festival and eats it is flogged /b with b five /b sets of lashes. How so? b He is flogged for /b violating the prohibition of b eating /b a sciatic b nerve /b (see Genesis 32:33); b and he is flogged for /b violating the prohibition of b cooking on a Festival not for /b the b purpose /b of the Festival, as he is prohibited from eating it; b and he is flogged for /b violating the prohibition of b cooking /b a sciatic b nerve, /b which is meat, b in milk; and he is flogged for /b violating the prohibition of b eating meat /b cooked b in milk; and he is flogged /b |
|
19. Babylonian Talmud, Keritot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •domesticated quadrupeds Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 116| 21a. אוציא דם שרצים שאין בהם טומאה חמורה אוציא דם ביצים שאין מין בשר דם דגים דם חגבים שכולו היתר,(ויקרא ז, כו) לעוף ולבהמה אי מה עוף שאין בה כלאים אף בהמה שאין בה כלאים ת"ל ולבהמה,אי מה בהמה שאינה באם על הבנים אף עוף שאינו באם על הבנים תלמוד לומר לעוף ולבהמה,ואימא כל דם כלל עוף ובהמה פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט עוף ובהמה אין מידי אחרינא לא,(ויקרא ז, כז) נפש אשר תאכל כל דם חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט,והא לא דמי כללא בתרא לכללא קמא כללא קמא לאו כללא בתרא כרת,האי תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל כללי ופרטי דרשינן מן הדין גוונא ואף על גב דלא דמי כללא בתרא לכללא קמא,אמר מר כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש דבר שיש בו טומאה קלה וטומאה חמורה ויש בה איסור והיתר ויש בהן מין בשר אף כל דבר שיש בו טומאה קלה וטומאה חמורה וכו',אף כל דקתני לאיתויי מאי,אמר רב אדא בר אבין לאתויי דמו של כוי מאי קסבר אי קסבר כוי ספיקא הוא איצטריך קרא למיסר ספיקא אלא קסבר כוי בריה בפני עצמו הוא,אשכחן דמו חלבו מנלן (ויקרא ז, כג) מכל חלב נבלתו מנלן (דברים יד, כא) מכל נבלה,גיד הנשה מנלן (בראשית לב, לג) בכף הירך תליה רחמנא והא אית ליה כף הירך,טומאתו ושחיטה מנלן סברא מדלכל מילי רבייה רחמנא כבהמה טומאתו ושחיטתו נמי כבהמה,אמר מר אוציא דם מהלכי שתים שיש בהן טומאה חמורה ואין בהן טומאה קלה ורמינהי החותך מן האדם צריך מחשבה והכשר,וקשיא לן מחשבה למה לי תעשה חתיכה שלו מחשבה ואר"ל בחותכו לכלב ומחשבה לכלב לאו מחשבה היא,ולא והתנן כלל אמרו בטומאה כל המיוחד לאכול אדם טמא עד שיפסל מאכילת כלב,ההוא לאסוקי טומאה מיניה דכיון דמעיקרא הוה חזי לאדם לאסוקי מטומאה עד שיפסל מאכילת כלב הכא לאחותי ליה טומאה אי חזי לאדם חזי לכלב אי לא חזי לאדם לא חזי לכלב,מ"מ קתני מחשבה ומחשבה לטומאה קלה היא ה"מ מחיים אבל לאחר מיתה טמא הוא טומאה חמורה,דכוותה גבי בהמה לאחר מיתה אי בשר מטמא טומאה חמורה ואם דם מטמא טומאה חמורה,דתנן דם נבילות בית שמאי מטהרין ובית הלל מטמאין,לא נצרכא אלא לכדתנן נבלת בהמה טמאה בכל מקום נבלת עוף הטהור בכפרים צריך מחשבה ואין צריך הכשר,נבלת בהמה טהורה בכל מקום ונבלת עוף טהור וחלב בשוקים אין צריכין לא מחשבה ולא הכשר,וא"ל רב לרבי חייא מחשבה למה לי לטומאה קלה היא גופה טומאה היא א"ל כגון דאיכא פחות מכזית נבילה וצרפה לפחות מכביצה אוכלין דהאי והאי הוי כביצה,אי הכי ליבעי נמי הכשר דהא תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל (ויקרא יא, לז) על כל זרע אשר יזרע מה זרעים מיוחדין שאין סופן לטמא טומאה חמורה וצריך הכשר אף כל שאין סופן לטמא טומאה חמורה צריך הכשר,א"ל ה"מ באוכלין דעלמא דלית בו פחות מכזית נבלה אבל הכא דאיכא בגויה פחות מכזית נבילה כיון דאילו מצרף ליה כזית לא בעי הכשר | 21a. b I will /b likewise b exclude /b the b blood of creeping animals, which do not have a severe /b form of b ritual impurity. /b Impurity transmitted to a person by the carcass of a creeping animal does not render clothing impure, whereas impurity transmitted by the carcass of an animal or bird does render one’s clothing impure. b I will /b also b exclude the blood of eggs, as /b they b are not a type of meat, /b and finally I will exclude b the blood of fish /b and b the blood of grasshoppers, as they are entirely permitted, /b as explained on 21b.,The i baraita /i continues: The verse states: “And you shall consume no manner of blood, b whether it is of bird or of animal, /b in any of your dwellings” (Leviticus 7:26). The verse mentions both “bird” and “animal,” because b if /b the verse had stated only “bird,” one might have said that b just as a bird /b is a creature b concerning which /b the prohibition of b diverse kinds /b does b not /b apply, as will be explained, b so too, /b the prohibition against consuming blood applies only to b an animal concerning which /b the prohibition of b diverse kinds /b does b not /b apply, whereas the blood of other animals is not forbidden. Therefore, b the verse states: “Or of animal.” /b ,And b if /b the verse had mentioned only “animal,” one might have said that b just as an animal is not /b included b in /b the prohibition against taking the b mother /b bird b with /b her b young /b (see Deuteronomy 22:6–7), b so too, a bird /b whose blood is forbidden is that b which is not /b included b in /b the prohibition against taking the b mother /b bird b with the young, /b i.e., non-kosher birds, whereas the blood of kosher birds is permitted. Therefore, b the verse states: “Whether it is of bird or of animal.” /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But say /b that the verse should be interpreted as follows: The phrase b “no manner of blood” /b is b a generalization, /b and the mention of b “bird or animal” is a detail. /b This is b a generalization and a detail, /b and the hermeneutical principle in such cases is that b the generalization includes only what /b is mentioned b in the detail. /b Consequently, with regard to b a bird and an animal, yes, /b it is prohibited to consume their blood, but with regard to b anything else, /b the prohibition does b not /b apply.,The Gemara explains that when the next verse states: b “Whoever consumes any blood, /b that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:27), b it then generalized /b again. Therefore, this is a case of b a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, /b in which case the relevant hermeneutical principle dictates that b you may deduce /b that the verse is referring b only /b to items b similar to the detail. /b Accordingly, the verse includes everything that has the following three components, as stated above: The capacity for both a light form of ritual impurity and a severe form of ritual impurity; the possibility of being forbidden or permitted; and categorization as a type of meat.,The Gemara objects: b But the last generalization is not similar to the first generalization. The first generalization, /b where it states: “You shall consume no manner of blood,” indicates a regular b prohibition, /b punishable by lashes, whereas b the last generalization, /b where it states: “That soul shall be cut off from his people,” indicates that the prohibition is punishable by b i karet /i . /b Consequently, the hermeneutical principle for cases of a generalization, a detail, and a generalization should not apply.,The Gemara responds: b This i tanna /i , /b whose opinion is recorded in this i baraita /i , is of b the school of Rabbi Yishmael, /b who maintains that b we expound generalizations and details /b even b in a case /b like b this, even though the last generalization is not similar to the first generalization. /b ,The Gemara further analyzes the i baraita /i . b The Master said /b that there is b a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, /b and therefore b you may deduce /b that the verse is referring b only /b to items b similar to the detail. Just as the detail is explicit /b in that it is referring to b an item that has /b the capacity for both b a light /b form of b impurity and a severe /b form of b impurity, and it has /b the possibility of being b forbidden or permitted, and it is a type of meat, so too, every item that has /b the capacity for both b a light /b form of b ritual impurity and a severe form of ritual impurity, /b and has the possibility of being forbidden or permitted, and is a type of meat, is included in the prohibition against consuming blood.,The Gemara asks: b What /b does this phrase: b So too every /b item, b which /b the i baraita /i b teaches, /b serve b to include /b beyond birds and animals, which are mentioned explicitly in the verse? After all, the blood of human beings, creeping animals, fish, and grasshoppers have already been excluded from the prohibition., b Rav Adda bar Avin said: /b It serves b to include /b the b blood of a i koy /i , /b an animal that is not definitively categorized as either a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal. The Gemara asks: b What /b does Rav Adda bar Avin b maintain /b in this regard? b If he maintains /b that b a i koy /i is an uncertain /b case, b is a verse necessary to teach /b the i halakha /i in a case of b uncertainty? Rather, /b Rav Adda bar Avin b maintains /b that the i koy /i b is a distinct entity, /b i.e., it is not in the category of domesticated animals or undomesticated animals, and therefore its i halakha /i must be taught.,The Gemara asks: b We found /b a source for the prohibition against consuming the b blood of /b a i koy /i . b From where do we /b derive that b its fat /b is also forbidden? The Gemara answers that this is derived b from /b the verse: “You shall not eat b any [ i kol /i ] fat” /b (Leviticus 7:23). The additional word “ i kol /i ” serves to include the fat of a i koy /i as being forbidden. The Gemara inquires further: b From where do we /b derive that b its carcass /b is prohibited? The Gemara answers that this is derived b from /b the verse: “You shall not eat b any [ i kol /i ] animal carcass” /b (Deuteronomy 14:21). Here too, the additional word “ i kol /i ” serves to include the carcass of a i koy /i as being prohibited.,The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive that b the sciatic nerve /b of a i koy /i is prohibited? The Gemara answers that b the Merciful One rendered /b the prohibition of the sciatic nerve b dependent on /b the presence of b the spoon of the thigh, /b as it is stated: “Therefore the children of Israel shall not eat the sciatic nerve which is upon the spoon of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33), b and this /b i koy /i b has a spoon [ i kaf /i ] of the thigh, /b i.e., a round protrusion of flesh in its thigh that is shaped like a spoon.,The Gemara further asks: b From where do we /b derive the b impurity /b status of the carcass of a i koy /i , b and /b that ritual b slaughter /b renders its meat permitted for consumption? The Gemara answers that these i halakhot /i are derived by logical b reasoning: From /b the fact b that in all /b the b matters /b mentioned above b the Merciful One included /b the i koy /i and rendered it b like a domesticated animal, /b it is logical that the i halakhot /i concerning b its impurity and its slaughter /b are b also like /b those concerning b a domesticated animal. /b ,§ The Gemara continues to analyze the i baraita /i . b The Master said /b in the i baraita /i : b I will /b therefore b exclude /b the b blood of bipeds, as they have /b the capacity for b a severe /b form of b impurity, /b the impurity of a corpse, b but they do not have /b the capacity for b a light /b form of b impurity, /b since the i halakhot /i of the impurity of food do not apply to human flesh. b But /b one can b raise a contradiction /b from a mishna ( i Okatzin /i 3:2): With regard to b one who cuts /b flesh b from /b a living b person /b for food, there are two conditions under which it becomes impure with the impurity of food: First, the flesh b requires intent /b to eat it or feed it to others, b and /b second, it must b be rendered susceptible /b to impurity by coming into contact with water or one of the other six liquids that render food items susceptible to impurity.,Before explaining the contradiction between this mishna and the i baraita /i cited above, the Gemara seeks to clarify the mishna itself: b And /b the following was b difficult for us: Why do I /b need b intent? Let his /b act of b cutting serve as intent /b to eat the flesh. b And Reish Lakish said: /b This is referring b to one who cuts /b the flesh in order to feed it b to a dog, and intent /b to feed it b to a dog is not /b considered b intent /b to use the flesh as food.,The Gemara asks: b And /b is intent to feed a dog b not /b considered intent to use the flesh as food? b But didn’t we learn /b in a mishna ( i Teharot /i 8:6): The Sages b stated a principle with regard to ritual impurity: /b With regard to b any /b food b that is /b assumed to be b food designated /b for b a person, /b once it becomes impure with the impurity of food, it remains b impure until it is rendered unfit to be consumed by a dog? /b ,The Gemara answers: b That /b mishna is referring b to removing impurity from it. Since /b the food b was initially fit to /b be eaten by b a person, /b its status of b impurity /b cannot be b removed from /b it b until it is rendered unfit to be consumed by a dog. /b By contrast, b here, /b with regard to one who cuts flesh, the mishna is referring b to granting it /b susceptibility to b impurity. /b In this case, b if /b it is b fit for a person /b then it is b fit for a dog, /b i.e., it is susceptible to the impurity of food; b if /b it is b not fit for a person, it is not fit for a dog, /b i.e., it is not susceptible to ritual impurity.,The Gemara addresses the contradiction between the mishna in i Teharot /i and the i baraita /i cited above: b In any case, /b that mishna b teaches /b that human flesh requires b intent, and intent is for a light /b form of b ritual impurity, /b i.e., this requirement of intent is necessary only for the flesh to become susceptible to ritual impurity as a food item. This apparently contradicts the claim of the i baraita /i that the impurity of food items does not apply to human flesh. The Gemara answers: b This statement /b of the mishna that human flesh is susceptible to impurity as a food item applies b while /b the person b is alive. But after death /b his corpse b is impure /b by b a severe /b form of b impurity /b and is no longer susceptible to impurity as a food item, and that is the meaning of the i baraita /i .,The Gemara objects: The i baraita /i contrasts animals, which are susceptible to both light and more severe forms of impurity, and people, who are susceptible only to severe ritual impurity, and the Gemara has explained the i baraita /i as referring to a human being after death. But b in the corresponding /b situation b with regard to an animal after death, if /b one is referring to its b meat, /b then it b transmits impurity /b by b a severe /b form of b impurity, /b the impurity of a carcass, b and if /b one is referring to its b blood, /b it likewise b transmits impurity /b by b a severe /b form of b ritual impurity, /b and not a light form of ritual impurity., b As we learned /b in a mishna ( i Eduyyot /i 5:1): With regard to b the blood of /b animal b carcasses, Beit Shammai deem /b it b pure, and Beit Hillel deem /b it b impure /b just like the carcass itself, which transmits severe ritual impurity. Why, then, does the i baraita /i differentiate between people and animals and indicate that dead animals are susceptible to a light form of ritual impurity?,The Gemara answers: The statement of the i baraita /i that animals are susceptible to a light form of impurity after death while people are not b is necessary only for that which we learned /b in a mishna with regard to the impurity of food ( i Okatzin /i 3:3): b A carcass of a non-kosher animal, /b e.g., a horse or donkey, found b in any location, /b and likewise an unslaughtered b carcass of a kosher bird /b found b in villages, /b where there are not many people and it is unlikely to be eaten, b require /b express b intent /b to be eaten in order for them to be considered food and susceptible to impurity of food. But b they are not required /b to come into contact with a liquid in order to be b rendered susceptible /b to impurity.,By contrast, b the carcass of a kosher animal anywhere, and the unslaughtered carcass of a kosher bird or /b forbidden b fat /b found b in marketplaces, /b will presumably be eaten, and therefore they b require neither intent /b to be eaten b nor /b contact with liquid in order to be b rendered susceptible /b to impurity., b And Rav said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: Why do I /b need b intent for /b a carcass to be eaten so that it will be considered food and therefore susceptible to the impurity of food, which is b a light /b form of b ritual impurity? /b After all, the carcass b itself is /b already impure with a severe form of b impurity. /b Rabbi Ḥiyya b said to /b Rav: It is necessary for a case b where there is less than an olive-bulk /b of the b carcass, /b which is not susceptible to the impurity of a carcass, b and one combined it with less than an egg-bulk /b of b food, /b so b that this and that /b together b are an egg-bulk, /b which is the minimum amount of food that is susceptible to food impurity.,Rav raised a difficulty to Rabbi Ḥiyya: b If so, /b that less than an olive-bulk of an animal carcass does not transmit impurity, b it should also require /b contact with a liquid in order to be b rendered susceptible /b to impurity as a food. b As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught /b that with regard to the impurity of foods, the verse states: b “Upon any sowing seed which is to be sown” /b (Leviticus 11:37), which teaches: b Just as seeds are unique /b in b that they will not ultimately become impure /b with b a severe /b form of b ritual impurity and /b they b require /b contact with liquid in order to be b rendered susceptible /b to impurity, b so too, anything that will not ultimately become impure /b with b a severe /b form of b ritual impurity requires /b contact with liquid in order to be b rendered susceptible /b to impurity.,Rabbi Ḥiyya b said to /b Rav: b This statement /b applies b to foods in general, which do not contain less than an olive-bulk of an animal carcass. But here, where /b the food b does contain less than an olive-bulk of an animal carcass, /b the i halakha /i is different: b Since /b it would be impure with a severe form of ritual impurity b if one were to add to /b the amount of animal carcass so that there would be a full b olive-bulk, /b it b does not require /b contact with a liquid in order b to be rendered susceptible /b to impurity. In any case, this i halakha /i that less than an olive-bulk of a carcass combines with less than an egg-bulk of food to equal a full egg-bulk that is susceptible to food impurity, applies only to the flesh of an animal, |
|
20. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 116| 42a. מהו דתימא אם איתא דילדה קלא הוה ליה קא משמע לן אימר אפולי אפיל:, br br big strongהדרן עלך השוחט /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongאלו /strong /big טרפות בבהמה נקובת הוושט ופסוקת הגרגרת ניקב קרום של מוח ניקב הלב לבית חללו נשברה השדרה ונפסק החוט שלה ניטל הכבד ולא נשתייר הימנו כלום,הריאה שניקבה או שחסרה ר"ש אומר עד שתינקב לבית הסמפונות ניקבה הקבה ניקבה המרה ניקבו הדקין הכרס הפנימית שניקבה או שנקרע רוב החיצונה רבי יהודה אומר הגדולה טפח והקטנה ברובה המסס ובית הכוסות שניקבו לחוץ,נפלה מן הגג נשתברו רוב צלעותיה ודרוסת הזאב רבי יהודה אומר דרוסת הזאב בדקה ודרוסת ארי בגסה דרוסת הנץ בעוף הדק ודרוסת הגס בעוף הגס זה הכלל כל שאין כמוה חיה טרפה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big א"ר שמעון בן לקיש רמז לטרפה מן התורה מנין מנין (שמות כב, ל) ובשר בשדה טרפה לא תאכלו אלא רמז לטרפה שאינה חיה מן התורה מנין דקתני סיפא זה הכלל כל שאין כמוה חיה טרפה מכלל דטרפה אינה חיה מנא לן,דכתיב (ויקרא יא, ב) וזאת החיה אשר תאכלו חיה אכול שאינה חיה לא תיכול מכלל דטרפה לא חיה,ולמאן דאמר טרפה חיה מנ"ל נפקא ליה מזאת החיה אשר תאכלו זאת החיה אכול חיה אחרת לא תיכול מכלל דטרפה חיה,ואידך האי זאת מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל זאת החיה אשר תאכלו מלמד שתפס הקב"ה מכל מין ומין והראה לו למשה ואמר לו זאת אכול וזאת לא תיכול,ואידך נמי מבעי ליה לכדתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל אין ה"נ אלא טרפה חיה מנא ליה נפקא ליה מאידך תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל דתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל (ויקרא יא, מז) בין החיה הנאכלת ובין החיה אשר לא תאכל אלו שמונה עשרה טרפות שנאמרו למשה מסיני,ותו ליכא והא איכא בסגר ושב שמעתתא | 42a. The Gemara answers: b Lest you say: If it is so that /b his wife b gave birth, it would have /b generated b publicity /b and been common knowledge; therefore, one might conclude that the slaughter is valid even if he declared that the slaughter is for the sake of the burnt offering of his wife after childbirth, as in fact she did not give birth. To counter this, Rabbi Elazar b teaches us /b that the slaughter is not valid. b Say /b that his wife b miscarried /b and is liable to bring an offering, but it is not common knowledge, because the baby was not born alive. br/ ,, strong MISHNA: /strong b These /b wounds constitute b i tereifot /i in an animal, /b rendering them prohibited for consumption: b A perforated gullet, /b where the perforation goes through the wall of the gullet, b or a cut windpipe. /b If b the membrane of the brain was perforated, /b or if b the heart was perforated to its chamber; /b if b the spinal /b column b was broken and its cord was cut; /b if b the liver was removed and nothing remained of it, /b any of these render the animal a i tereifa /i .,Additionally, b a lung that was perforated or that was missing /b a piece renders the animal a i tereifa /i . b Rabbi Shimon says: /b It is not a i tereifa /i b unless it is perforated /b through b to the bronchi. /b If b the abomasum was perforated, /b or b the gallbladder was perforated, /b or b the small intestines were perforated, /b it is a i tereifa /i . It is also a i tereifa /i in a case b where the internal rumen was perforated or where the majority of the external /b rumen b was torn. Rabbi Yehuda says: /b For b a large /b animal, a tear of b one handbreadth /b renders it a i tereifa /i , while for b a small /b animal, it is a i tereifa /i only if b the majority of it /b was torn. And it is a i tereifa /i where the b omasum [ i hemses /i ] or the reticulum was perforated to the outside, /b i.e., to the abdominal cavity, but not if the perforation was between the two.,Likewise, if an animal b fell from the roof, /b or if b the majority of its ribs were fractured, or /b if it was b clawed by a wolf, /b it is a i tereifa /i . b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If it was b clawed by a wolf in /b the case of b a small /b animal, i.e., a sheep or goat; b or clawed by a lion in /b the case of b a large /b animal, i.e., cattle; or if it was b clawed by a hawk in /b the case of b a small bird; or /b if it was b clawed by a large /b bird of prey b in /b the case of b a large bird, /b then it is a i tereifa /i . b This is the principle: Any /b animal that was injured such b that /b an animal in b a similar /b condition b could not live /b for an extended period is b a i tereifa /i , /b the consumption of which is forbidden by Torah law., strong GEMARA: /strong b Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Where is there an allusion in the Torah to /b the prohibition of b a i tereifa /i ? /b The Gemara interjects: b Where /b is there an allusion? Doesn’t the Torah state explicitly: b “You shall not eat any flesh that is torn of animals [ i tereifa /i ] in the field” /b (Exodus 22:30)? b Rather, /b the question is: b Where is there an allusion in the Torah to /b the principle b that a i tereifa /i cannot live? As /b the mishna b teaches /b in b the last clause: This is the principle: Any /b animal that was injured such b that /b an animal in b a similar /b condition b could not live /b for an extended period is b a i tereifa /i ; /b one learns b by inference that a i tereifa /i cannot live. /b If so, b from where do we /b derive this?,It is derived from a verse, b as it is written: “These are the living things which you may eat /b among all the animals that are on the earth” (Leviticus 11:2). The verse indicates that you may b eat a living /b animal, i.e., one that can survive, but b you may not eat /b an animal b that is not living, /b i.e., one that cannot survive. One learns b by inference that a i tereifa /i cannot live. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And according to the one who says /b that b a i tereifa /i can live, from where /b does b he /b derive this? The Gemara responds: He b derives it from /b the same verse: b “These are the living things which you may eat /b among all the animals.” “These” indicates that you may b eat /b only b these living things, /b but b you may not eat other living things, /b i.e., i tereifot /i . One learns b by inference that a i tereifa /i can live. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b according to b the other /b opinion, that a i tereifa /i cannot live, b what does he do with this /b word b “these”? /b The Gemara responds: b He requires it for that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught /b that the verse: b “These are the living things which you may eat,” teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, seized /b one b of each and every species /b of animal b and showed it to Moses, and said to him: These /b you b may eat, and these you may not eat. /b ,The Gemara objects: b But the other /b opinion b also requires /b the word “these” for b that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. /b The Gemara replies: b Yes, /b it b is indeed so. Rather, from where /b does b he /b derive the principle b that a i tereifa /i can live? /b He b derives it from the other /b i baraita /i that b the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: /b The verse states: “To make a difference… b between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten” /b (Leviticus 11:47). b These /b living things that may not be eaten b are the eighteen i tereifot /i that were stated to Moses at Sinai /b and enumerated in the mishna. The verse, then, makes reference to a i tereifa /i as a living thing.,The Gemara questions the i baraita /i : b And are there no more /b cases of i tereifot /i ? b But aren’t there /b more cases cited in the Mishna and other i baraitot /i , for which a mnemonic is given: b i Beit /i , i samekh /i , i gimmel /i , i reish /i ; and /b aren’t there b seven /b additional b i halakhot /i , /b i.e., cases of i tereifot /i , taught by i amora’im /i ? |
|
21. Babylonian Talmud, Bekhorot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •domesticated quadrupeds Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 116| 6b. הכי קאמר דבר הבא ממעלי הגרה וממפריסי הפרסה לא תיכול ת"ל (ויקרא יא ד) גמל טמא הוא הוא טמא ואין טמא הנולד מן הטהור טמא אלא טהור,רבי שמעון אומר גמל (ויקרא יא ד) גמל (דברים יד ז) שני פעמים אחד גמל הנולד מן הגמלה ואחד גמל הנולד מן הפרה,ורבנן האי גמל גמל מאי עבדי ליה חד לאסור עצמו וחד לאסור חלבו ור' שמעון לאסור חלבו מנא ליה נפקא ליה מאת הגמל ורבנן אתים לא דרשי,כדתניא שמעון העמסוני היה דורש כל את ואת שבתורה כיון שהגיע (דברים ו יג) לאת ה' אלהיך תירא פירש אמרו לו תלמידיו ר' כל אתין שדרשת מה תהא עליהם אמר להם כשם שקבלתי שכר על הדרישה כך אני מקבל שכר על הפרישה,עד שבא רבי עקיבא ולימד את ה' אלהיך תירא לרבות תלמידי חכמים,אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי אלא מעתה טעמא דרבנן מגמל גמל ור' שמעון מאת הגמל הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא חלב דבהמה טמאה שרי,מאי שנא מהא דתניא הטמאים לאסור צירן ורוטבן וקיפה שלהן,איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל דבהמה טהורה נמי חידוש הוא דאמר מר דם נעכר ונעשה חלב וכיון דחידוש הוא בבהמה טמאה נמי לישתרי קמ"ל,הניחא למאן דאמר דם נעכר ונעשה חלב אלא למאן דאמר איבריה מתפרקין הימנה ואין נפשה חוזרת עליה עד עשרים וארבעה חדש מאי איכא למימר,איצטריך סד"א הואיל וליכא מידי דאתי מחי ושרייה רחמנא והאי חלב כי אבר מן החי הוא ושרי והילכך אפי' בבהמה טמאה לישתרי קמ"ל,וחלב דבהמה טהורה מנלן דשרי אילימא מדאסר רחמנא בשר בחלב הא לחודיה שרי ואימא חלב לחודיה אסור באכילה ומותר בהנאה בשר בחלב בהנאה נמי אסור,ולר"ש דשרי בהנאה משכחת לה למילקי על בישוליה,אלא מדגלי רחמנא דבפסולי המוקדשין (דברים יב טו) תזבח ולא גיזה בשר ולא חלב הא דחולין שרי,ואימא דחולין אסור באכילה ושרי בהנאה דקדשים בהנאה נמי אסור,אלא מדכתיב (משלי כז, כז) ודי חלב עזים ללחמך ללחם ביתך וחיים לנערותך,ודילמא לסחורה אלא מדכתיב (שמואל א יז, יח) ואת עשרת חריצי החלב,ודלמא לסחורה אטו דרכה של מלחמה לסחורה,ואיבעית אימא מהכא (שמות ג, ח) ארץ זבת חלב ודבש ואי לא דשרי משתבח לן קרא במידי דלא חזי ואב"א מהכא (ישעיהו נה, א) לכו שברו ואכלו ולכו שברו בלא כסף ובלא מחיר יין וחלב,אלא מעתה שפן שפן ארנבת ארנבת חזיר חזיר להני הוא דאתו,אלא לכדתניא למה נשנו בבהמה מפני השסועה ובעופות מפני הראה,גמל גמל נמי להכי הוא דאתא כל היכא דאיכא למידרש דרשינן,ת"ר רחל שילדה מין עז ועז שילדה מין רחל פטורה מן הבכורה ואם יש בו מקצת סימנים חייבת ר' שמעון אומר עד שיהא ראשו ורובו דומה לאמו,איבעיא להו לאכילה מי בעי ר"ש ראשו ורובו או לא,לענין בכורה כתיב (במדבר יח, יז) אך בכור שור עד שיהא הוא שור ובכורו שור אבל לאכילה גמל הוא דאמר רחמנא דאסיר הא | 6b. b This /b is what it b is saying: You shall not eat a being that comes from /b one of those animals that b chew their cud and have split hooves /b if it itself does not have the signs of being kosher. To counter this, the continuation of b the verse states: “The camel…is impure /b for you” (Leviticus 11:4). This indicates that a camel itself b is non-kosher, but a non-kosher /b animal b that is born from a kosher /b animal b is not non-kosher; rather, /b it is b kosher. /b , b Rabbi Shimon says /b it is stated: b “Camel” /b (Leviticus 11:4), b “camel” /b (Deuteronomy 14:7), teaching the term b two times /b with regard to the prohibition of consumption. This teaches that b both a camel that is born from a camel and a camel that is born from a cow /b are non-kosher. According to Rabbi Shimon, a non-kosher animal born to a kosher animal is forbidden for consumption, in contrast to the ruling in the mishna.,The Gemara asks: b And /b as for b the Rabbis /b in the i baraita /i , who disagree with Rabbi Shimon, b what do they do with this /b repetition of b “camel,” “camel”? /b The Gemara answers that b one /b of the verses is written b to prohibit /b the camel b itself and one /b is written b to prohibit /b the female camel’s b milk. /b The Gemara asks: b And /b as for b Rabbi Shimon, from where does he /b derive that a camel’s b milk is forbidden? /b The Gemara answers: b He derives it from /b the phrase b “the camel [ i et hagamal /i ].” /b The verse could have stated just the term “ i hagamal /i .” The addition of the word “ i et /i ” teaches that the prohibition applies also to its milk. b And the Rabbis do not interpret instances of “ i et /i ” /b as a means to derive new i halakhot /i ; they consider it to be an ordinary part of the sentence structure and not a source for exegetical exposition., b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Shimon HaAmasoni would interpret each and every /b occurrence of the word b “ i et /i ” in the Torah, /b deriving additional i halakhot /i with regard to the particular subject matter. b Once he reached /b the verse: b “You shall fear the Lord your God” /b (Deuteronomy 6:13), which is written with the added word “ i et /i ,” b he withdrew /b from this method of exposition, as whose fear could be an extension of the fear of God? b His students said to him: Our teacher, what will be with all /b the occurrences of b “ /b i et /i b ” that you interpreted /b until now? Shimon HaAmasoni b said to them: Just as I received reward for the exposition, so I receive reward for /b my b withdrawal /b from using this method of exposition.,The word “ i et /i ” in this verse was not explained b until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: “You shall fear the Lord your God”; /b the word “ i et /i ” in the verse serves b to include Torah scholars, /b i.e., that one is commanded to fear them just as one fears God. In any event, Shimon HaAmasoni no longer derived additional i halakhot /i from “ i et /i .” The Rabbis follow the conclusion of Shimon HaAmasoni that “ i et /i ” is not expounded., b Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, /b that b the reason of the Rabbis /b for the i halakha /i that a camel’s milk is forbidden is that it is derived b from /b the words b “camel,” “camel,” /b written twice, b and Rabbi Shimon /b derives it b from “the camel [ i et hagamal /i ],” /b then could it be reasoned b that /b if b not /b for b this /b derivation b I would say /b that b milk of a non-kosher animal is permitted? /b ,In b what /b way b is /b this case b different from that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The Torah states with regard to the prohibition against eating creeping animals: “These are they b that are impure [ i hateme’im /i ] /b to you among all the creeping animals” (Leviticus 11:31). The Sages interpret the letter i heh /i in the term “that are impure [ i hateme’im /i ]” b to prohibit their juice /b that oozes from their body b and their gravy /b that is produced when they are cooked, b and sediments /b of b their /b flesh that congeal at the bottom of the dish when cooked. Evidently, any liquid that emerges from a non-kosher animal is forbidden.,Rav Ashi responded: The additional exposition to derive that camel’s milk is forbidden b was necessary, /b because it might b enter your mind to say /b it may be permitted, b since /b the permissibility of consumption of the milk b of a kosher animal is also a novelty. /b The milk originates from the blood, which is forbidden for consumption, b as the Master said /b that the reason a nursing woman does not experience menstruation is because b the blood is spoiled and becomes milk. Since it is a novelty /b that the Torah permits milk despite its origins, it might enter your mind to say that b with regard to a non-kosher animal it should also be permitted. /b Therefore, the verse b teaches us /b that it is forbidden.,The Gemara challenges: b This works out well according to the one who says /b that a nursing woman does not menstruate because b the blood is spoiled and becomes milk. But according to the one who says /b that the milk does not originate from blood, but rather the reason she does not menstruate is because b her limbs become disjointed and her soul, /b i.e., her health, b does not return to her until twenty-four months /b later, b what is there to say? /b Why does the Torah employ a verse to render forbidden the milk of a non-kosher animal?,The Gemara answers: It b was necessary, /b because it might b enter your mind to say /b it may be permitted; b since /b generally speaking b there is nothing that comes from a living /b animal b that the Merciful One permits, and /b yet b this milk /b of a kosher animal b is similar to a limb /b severed b from the living and is /b nevertheless b permitted, /b the permissibility of milk is a novelty of the Torah. b And consequently /b it might enter your mind to say that b even /b the milk b of a non-kosher animalshould be permitted /b in line with that novelty. Therefore, the verse b teaches us /b that it is forbidden.,§ The Gemara asks: b And from where do we /b derive b that the milk of a kosher animal is /b in fact b permitted? If we say /b that it is derived b from /b the fact b that the Merciful One prohibits /b eating b meat /b that was cooked b in milk, /b indicating b that /b milk b by itself is permitted, /b one can reject this proof b and say /b that b milk alone is forbidden /b only b for consumption but permitted with regard to /b deriving b benefit /b from it. By contrast, b meat /b that was cooked b in milk is forbidden with regard to /b deriving b benefit /b from it b as well. /b , b And according to Rabbi Shimon, who deems /b meat that was cooked in milk b permitted with regard to /b deriving b benefit /b from it, b you find /b a reason for the Torah to mention the prohibition of meat and milk together, even if milk alone is forbidden as well, and that is in order to render one liable b to receive lashes for cooking them /b together, which would not apply to cooking milk alone., b Rather, /b one can prove that milk is permitted for consumption b since the Merciful One revealed that with regard to disqualified consecrated /b animals that were redeemed: “You may slaughter and eat meat” b (Deuteronomy 12:15). /b This verse is interpreted in the following manner: b “You may slaughter,” but /b you may b not /b use its wool from b shearing. /b You may eat its b “meat,” but /b you may b not /b consume its b milk. /b It can be inferred from here that milk b of non-sacred /b kosher animals is b permitted. /b ,The Gemara rejects this proof: b But /b one could b say /b the distinction between non-sacred milk and milk from sacrificial animals is not with regard to the permissibility of consumption. Rather, milk b of non-sacred /b animals b is forbidden for consumption but is permitted with regard to /b deriving b benefit /b from it, but the milk b of sacrificial /b animals is b forbidden with regard to /b deriving b benefit as well. /b , b Rather, /b proof may be brought that milk is permitted b from /b the fact b that it is written: “And there will be goats’ milk enough for your food, for the food of your household, and maintece for your maidens” /b (Proverbs 27:27). According to the verse, goats’ milk serves as food, and therefore must be kosher.,The Gemara rejects the proof: b But perhaps /b the verse is referring b to /b selling the milk as b merchandise /b and using the money to buy food, and not to consuming the milk itself. b Rather, /b proof may be brought b from /b the fact b that it is written /b with regard to Jesse’s instructions to his son David upon sending him with provisions for his brothers, who were at war against the Philistines: b “And these ten cheeses /b you shall bring to the captain of their thousand” (I Samuel 17:18), which indicates they ate dairy products.,The Gemara rejects this proof as well: b But perhaps /b this verse too means the captain can sell the cheese b as merchandise. /b The Gemara responds: b Is that to say /b that it is b the norm during war to /b engage in b commerce? /b Clearly the cheese was meant for consumption, which proves it is permitted to eat dairy products., b And if you wish, say /b instead that proof may be brought b from here: /b The Torah praises Eretz Yisrael as: b “A land flowing with milk and honey” /b (Exodus 3:17), b and if /b milk b was not permitted, would the verse praise /b the land b to us with an item that is not suitable /b for consumption? b And if you wish, say /b instead a proof b from here: “Come, buy, and eat; and come, buy wine and milk without money and without price” /b (Isaiah 55:1).,§ The Gemara returns to the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, who interpret the repetition of the word “camel” as indicating the prohibitions against eating a camel born from a cow and consuming its milk, respectively, and asks: b But if that is so, /b that the repetition indicates these i halakhot /i , then with regard to the words: b “Hare,” “hare,” “rock badger,” “rock badger,” “swine,” “swine” /b (see Leviticus 11:5–7; Deuteronomy 14:7–8), which are all mentioned twice as being forbidden, b do /b these words b come to /b teach b these /b i halakhot /i as well?,The Gemara explains: They are necessary b only for that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Why were /b all of the non-kosher animals and birds b repeated /b in Deuteronomy (14:7–20), after having been mentioned already in Leviticus (11:10–20)? b With regard to the animals, /b it is b because of the i shesua /i /b (see Deuteronomy 14:7), an animal with two backs and two spines, which is not mentioned in Leviticus, b and with regard to the birds, /b it is b because of the i ra’a /i /b (see Deuteronomy 14:13).,The Gemara challenges: If so, then the double reference of b “camel,” “camel,” also comes for this /b purpose of teaching about the i shesua /i , and not to teach a separate i halakha /i about the camel. The Gemara explains: Nevertheless, b anywhere that it is /b possible b to interpret /b the verse as teaching an additional i halakha /i , b we interpret /b it in that manner. Only where there is no possibility of such an interpretation is the concept of repeating the passage merely to introduce one additional detail invoked.,§ The Gemara discusses an additional source that cites the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i that in the case of b a ewe that gave birth to a goat of sorts and a goat that gave birth to a ewe of sorts, /b in each case the mother b is exempt from /b its offspring being counted b a firstborn. And if it has some of the characteristics /b of its mother, the mother b is obligated, /b i.e., subject to accounting its offspring a firstborn. b Rabbi Shimon says: /b The offspring does not have firstborn status b unless its head and the majority of /b its body b are similar to /b the appearance of b its mother. /b , b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: b With regard to /b the permissibility of b eating /b a non-kosher animal that was born to a kosher animal, b does Rabbi Shimon require its head and most of /b its body to resemble its mother, b or not, /b and possessing some of the characteristics of its mother suffices?,The Gemara explains: b With regard to /b the i halakha /i of b firstborn /b status, b it is written: “But the firstborn of an ox” /b (Numbers 18:17), which indicates that it does not have firstborn status b unless it is an ox and its firstborn is an ox. /b If its head and most of its body do not resemble an ox, it does not have firstborn status according to Rabbi Shimon. b But with regard to consumption, /b where Rabbi Shimon holds a camel born to a kosher animal is forbidden, perhaps it b is /b only an ordinary-looking b camel that the Merciful One states is forbidden, but /b if |
|
22. Babylonian Talmud, Betzah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 116| 12a. מר סבר גזרינן ציר באמצע אטו ציר מן הצד ומר סבר לא גזרינן:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בית שמאי אומרים אין מוציאין לא את הקטן ולא את הלולב ולא את ספר תורה לרשות הרבים ובית הלל מתירין:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תני תנא קמיה דרבי יצחק בר אבדימי השוחט עולת נדבה ביום טוב לוקה,אמר ליה דאמר לך מני בית שמאי היא דאמרי לא אמרינן מתוך שהותרה הוצאה לצורך הותרה נמי שלא לצורך דאי בית הלל הא אמרי מתוך שהותרה הוצאה לצורך הותרה נמי שלא לצורך הכא נמי מתוך שהותרה שחיטה לצורך הותרה נמי שלא לצורך,מתקיף לה רבה ממאי דבית שמאי ובית הלל בהא פליגי דלמא בערוב והוצאה לשבת ואין ערוב והוצאה ליום טוב קא מיפלגי,מר סבר ערוב הוצאה לשבת וערוב הוצאה ליום טוב,ומר סבר ערוב הוצאה לשבת ואין ערוב הוצאה ליום טוב כדכתיב (ירמיהו יז, כב) ולא תוציאו משא מבתיכם ביום השבת בשבת אין ביום טוב לא,מתקיף לה רב יוסף אלא מעתה ליפלגו באבנים אלא מדלא מפלגי באבנים ש"מ,בהוצאה שלא לצורך פליגי,ואף ר' יוחנן סבר במתוך שהותרה הוצאה לצורך הותרה נמי שלא לצורך פליגי דתני תנא קמיה דר' יוחנן המבשל גיד הנשה בחלב ביום טוב ואכלו לוקה חמש,לוקה משום מבשל גיד ולוקה משום אוכל גיד ולוקה משום מבשל בשר בחלב ולוקה משום אוכל בשר בחלב ולוקה | |
|
23. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 116| 74a. ואליבא דרבי עקיבא דאמר אדם אוסר עצמו בכל שהוא,וכי תימא כיון דאית ליה היתר מן התורה קא חייל קרבן שבועה והתנן שבועת העדות אינה נוהגת אלא בראויין להעיד והוינן בה למעוטי מאי רב פפא אמר למעוטי מלך,רב אחא בר יעקב אמר למעוטי משחק בקוביא והא משחק בקוביא מדאורייתא מיחזי חזי ורבנן הוא דפסלוהו ולא קא חיילא עליה שבועה,שאני התם דאמר קרא (ויקרא ה, א) אם לא יגיד והאי לאו בר הגדה הוא כלל,וכל היכא דתני ענוש כרת לא תני אסור והתניא אע"פ שאמרו אסור בכולן לא אמרו ענוש כרת אלא על האוכל ושותה ועושה מלאכה בלבד הכי קאמר כשאמרו אסור לא אמרו אלא בכחצי שיעור אבל כשיעור ענוש כרת ואף על פי שענוש כרת אין ענוש כרת אלא אוכל ושותה ועושה מלאכה בלבד,ואב"א כי קתני אסור אשארא דתנו רבה ורב יוסף בשאר סיפרי דבי רב מניין ליוה"כ שאסור ברחיצה בסיכה ובנעילת הסנדל ובתשמיש המטה ת"ל (ויקרא טז, לא) שבתון שבות,גופא חצי שיעור רבי יוחנן אמר אסור מן התורה ריש לקיש אמר מותר מן התורה רבי יוחנן אמר אסור מן התורה כיון דחזי לאיצטרופי איסורא קא אכיל ריש לקיש אמר מותר מן התורה אכילה אמר רחמנא וליכא,איתיביה ר' יוחנן לריש לקיש אין לי אלא כל שישנו בעונש ישנו באזהרה כוי וחצי שיעור הואיל ואינו בעונש יכול אינו באזהרה ת"ל (ויקרא ז, כג) כל חלב מדרבנן וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא,הכי נמי מסתברא דאי סלקא דעתך דאורייתא כוי ספיקא הוא איצטריך קרא לאתויי ספיקא אי משום הא לא איריא קסברי | 74a. b and /b the mishna is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva, /b who b said: A man prohibits himself from any amount. /b If a man swears that he will not eat, he thereby prohibits himself from eating even the smallest amount of food. Therefore, Reish Lakish himself maintains that eating a half-measure does not constitute a prohibition., b And if you say: /b Perhaps Reish Lakish b maintains /b that b since /b a half-measure b is permitted by Torah /b law, despite the fact that it is prohibited by rabbinic law, one is b liable /b to b bring an offering /b for violating b an oath, /b then there is the following problem: b Didn’t we learn /b in a mishna: b An oath of testimony /b where one is sworn to give testimony on something that he saw or knew, b applies only to those who are eligible to give testimony. /b If one who is ineligible to testify swears an oath to give testimony, the oath is invalid even if he does not testify. b And we discussed it: /b The statement: Those who are eligible to give testimony, comes b to exclude what? /b After all, it was already said that the oath does not apply to women, relatives, and other disqualified people. b Rav Pappa said: /b It comes b to exclude a king. /b A king is not disqualified from giving testimony, but he does not testify before a court, due to the requirement to give respect to a king., b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: /b It comes b to exclude one who plays with dice, /b whom the Sages disqualified from giving testimony. b But surely one who plays with dice is eligible by Torah law /b to give testimony, b and /b it is b the Sages /b who b disqualified him. /b Despite this, b an oath of testimony does not apply to him /b by Torah law, even though the prohibition on his testifying is rabbinic.,The Gemara rejects this by distinguishing between the two cases: b It is different there, /b in the case of testimony, where b the verse states: “If he does not utter it, /b then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1), i.e., a man who can testify but doesn’t do so should be punished. b But this person cannot ever give testimony /b since the court will not accept his testimony. The Torah makes liability for an oath of testimony contingent on one’s ability to testify. Therefore, an oath of testimony would not apply to someone unable to testify. However, one who takes an oath not to eat is liable if he breaks that oath, notwithstanding the rabbinic prohibition against eating less than a measure of forbidden food. Consequently, this rejection does not stand, and the first explanation remains.,§ The Gemara’s initial assumption is that the mishna’s use of the word prohibited is referring to a transgression not punishable by i karet /i . The Gemara asks: b And anywhere that it teaches /b that transgressing is b punishable by i karet /i , /b does it never b teach /b using the word b prohibited? Was it not taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Although they said /b the word b prohibited with all of the /b five Yom Kippur afflictions, b they said /b that the b punishment of i karet /i /b applies b only to one who eats, or drinks, or performs /b prohibited b labor. /b This means that the word prohibit is used with transgressions punishable by i karet /i as well. The Gemara rejects this. b This is /b what the i baraita /i b is saying: When they said /b that those five activities are b prohibited, they said that only /b with regard to b a half-measure; but /b a full b measure is punishable by i karet /i . And although /b a violation b is punishable by i karet /i , it is punishable by i karet /i only /b if one b eats, or drinks, or performs /b prohibited b labor; /b these b alone /b are the cases where i karet /i is incurred., b And if you wish, say /b instead that b when it is taught /b in the mishna using the language of b prohibited, /b it is referring to b the other /b transgressions, which do not incur i karet /i . b As Rabba and Rav Yosef taught this in other books /b of b Rav’s school, /b i.e., the i Sifrei /i , the halakhic midrash on Numbers and Deuteronomy: b From where /b is it derived b that /b it is b prohibited /b to engage b in bathing, and in smearing /b oil on one’s body, b and in wearing shoes, and in having relations on Yom Kippur? The verse states: “ i Shabbaton /i ” /b (Leviticus 16:31), meaning b resting /b and refraining from certain activities. Therefore, the word prohibit is used with these activities, but they are not punishable by i karet /i .,§ Apropos the dispute between Rabbi Yoḥa and Reish Lakish, the Gemara deals with b the /b matter b itself: /b What is the law with regard to b a half-measure? Rabbi Yoḥa said: It is prohibited by Torah /b law. b Reish Lakish said: It is permitted by Torah /b law. The Gemara elaborates: b Rabbi Yoḥa said it is prohibited by Torah /b law b because it is fit to combine /b with another half-measure. If one continues to eat more, he will eat a whole measure, which is punishable by Torah law. Therefore, even when he eats the first half-measure b he is eating forbidden /b food. b Reish Lakish said it is permitted by Torah /b law. His reason is as follows: With regard to all forbidden foods, b the Merciful One states /b in the Torah: b “Eat,” /b for example in the verse: “You shall eat neither fat nor blood” (Leviticus 3:17). Eating is defined as consuming a minimum of an olive-bulk, b and there is no /b prohibition if one eats less than an olive-bulk., b Rabbi Yoḥa raised an objection to /b the opinion of b Reish Lakish /b from what was taught in a i baraita /i with regard to the prohibition of forbidden fat: b I have /b derived b only /b that b anything that is included in the punishment /b of i karet /i b is included in the prohibition. /b However, one b might /b have thought that b there is no prohibition /b to eat fat of b a i koy /i , or a half-measure /b of forbidden fat, b since there is no punishment /b for those. Therefore, b the verse states: “All fat” /b (Leviticus 7:23), indicating that there is a prohibition to eat any kind of fat, including fat of uncertain status and a half-measure of fat. Therefore, a half-measure of fat is prohibited by Torah law. Reish Lakish rejects this argument: This prohibition is b rabbinic, and the verse /b brought as a proof is b a mere support. /b It cannot be claimed that there is such a prohibition by Torah law.,The Gemara comments: b So too, it is reasonable /b to say that the i baraita /i cites only the verse as a support and not as a source to prove the prohibition. b For if it could enter your mind /b that this teaching constitutes a prohibition b by Torah law, /b there is b uncertainty /b whether b a i koy /i /b is a wild beast or a domestic animal. Is b a verse necessary to include an uncertainty? /b There is no doubt before God and therefore no purpose in writing a case of doubt in the Torah. Consequently, the i baraita /i cites the verse only as a support. The Gemara answers: b If that is the reason, there is no /b conclusive b argument. /b The Sages of the i baraita /i might b have thought /b |
|
24. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •domesticated quadrupeds Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 116| 102b. ומי איכא כי האי גוונא אין דחזיוה רבנן לרב יהודה דנפק בחמשא זוזי מוקי לשוקא,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב יבמה שהגדילה בין האחין מותרת לינשא לאחד מן האחין ואין חוששין שמא חלצה סנדל לאחד מהן טעמא דלא חזינן הא חזינן חיישינן,והא תניא בין שנתכוון הוא ולא נתכוונה היא בין שנתכוונה היא ולא נתכוון הוא חליצתה פסולה עד שיתכוונו שניהם כאחד הכי קאמר אע"ג דחזינן אין חוששין שמא כוונו,ואיכא דאמרי טעמא דלא חזינן הא חזינן חוששין ודקא תנא בעי כוונה הני מילי לאישתרויי לעלמא אבל לאחין מיפסלא,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב סנדל התפור בפשתן אין חולצין בו שנאמר (יחזקאל טז, י) ואנעלך תחש ואימא תחש אין מידי אחרינא לא נעל נעל ריבה,אי נעל נעל ריבה אפי' כל מילי נמי אם כן תחש מאי אהני ליה,בעא מיניה רבי אלעזר מרב הוא של עור ותריסיותיו של שער מהו אמר ליה מי לא קרינן ביה ואנעלך תחש אי הכי כולו של שער נמי ההוא קרקא מקרי,אמר ליה רב כהנא לשמואל ממאי דהאי וחלצה נעלו מעל רגלו מישלף הוא דכתיב (ויקרא יד, מ) וחלצו את האבנים אשר בהן הנגע,ואימא זרוזי הוא דכתיב (במדבר לא, ג) החלצו מאתכם אנשים לצבא התם נמי שלופי מביתא לקרבא,והכתיב (איוב לו, טו) יחלץ עני בעניו בשכר עניו יחלצו מדינה של גיהנם,אלא הא דכתיב (תהלים לד, ח) חונה מלאך ה' סביב ליראיו ויחלצם בשכר יראיו יחלצם מדינה של גיהנם,אלא הא דכתיב (ישעיהו נח, יא) ועצמותיך יחליץ ואמר רבי אלעזר זו מעולה שבברכות ואמר רבא זרוזי גרמי אין משמע הכי ומשמע הכי דהכא אי ס"ד זרוזי הוא א"כ לכתוב רחמנא וחלצה נעלו ברגלו,אי כתב רחמנא ברגלו ה"א ברגלו אין בשוקו לא כתב רחמנא מעל רגלו דאפילו בשוקו א"כ לכתוב רחמנא במעל רגלו מאי מעל רגלו ש"מ מישלף הוא,אמר ליה ההוא מינא לר"ג עמא דחלץ ליה מריה מיניה דכתיב (הושע ה, ו) בצאנם ובבקרם ילכו לבקש את ה' ולא ימצאו חלץ מהם,אמר ליה שוטה מי כתיב חלץ להם חלץ מהם כתיב ואילו יבמה דחלצו לה אחין מידי מששא אית ביה:,באנפיליא חליצתה פסולה כו': למימרא דאנפיליא לאו מנעל הוא,ותנן נמי אין התורם נכנס לא בפרגוד חפות ולא באנפיליא ואין צריך לומר במנעל וסנדל לפי שאין נכנסין במנעל וסנדל לעזרה,ורמינהו אחד מנעל וסנדל ואנפיליא לא יטייל בהן לא מבית לבית ולא ממטה למטה,אמר אביי דאית ביה כתיתי ומשום תענוג אמר ליה רבא ומשום תענוג בלא מנעל ביום הכפורים מי אסירי והא רבה בר רב הונא כריך סודרא אכרעיה ונפיק אלא אמר רבא לא קשיא כאן באנפיליא של עור כאן באנפיליא של בגד,ה"נ מסתברא דאי לא תימא הכי קשיא יום הכפורים איום הכפורים דתניא לא יטייל אדם בקורדקיסין בתוך ביתו אבל מטייל הוא באנפילין בתוך ביתו אלא לאו ש"מ כאן באנפיליא של עור כאן באנפיליא של בגד ש"מ,תניא כוותיה דרבא חלצה במנעל הנפרם שחופה את רוב הרגל בסנדל הנפחת שמקבל את רוב הרגל בסנדל של שעם ושל סיב בקב הקיטע במוק בסמיכת הרגלים באנפיליא של עור והחולצת מן הגדול | 102b. The Gemara asks: b Is there really a case like this /b where people wear one shoe on top of another? The Gemara answers: b Yes, for the Sages saw Rav Yehuda, who went out /b once b to the market wearing five pairs of /b shoes, which were similar to b slippers, /b one on top of another., b Rav Yehuda said /b another i halakha /i that b Rav said: /b An underage b i yevama /i who grew up among /b her husband’s b brothers /b before any i ḥalitza /i was performed b is permitted to marry one of the brothers /b through levirate marriage, b and we are not concerned /b about the possibility b that /b during the time she was in the company of her i yevamin /i b she removed a sandal from one of them, /b and thereby she would have already performed i ḥalitza /i . The Gemara infers from this statement: b The reason /b it is permitted to perform levirate marriage now b is /b specifically b that we did not see /b her remove one of their shoes, b but if /b in fact b we did see /b her do so, b we are concerned /b and treat her as a i yevama /i who already performed i ḥalitza /i and is thereby forbidden to all the brothers.,The Gemara challenges: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Whether he intended /b to perform i ḥalitza /i b and she did not intend /b to, b or whether she intended /b to perform i ḥalitza /i b and he did not intend to, the i ḥalitza /i is invalid, unless they both intended it as one /b to perform a proper act of i ḥalitza /i ? The Gemara answers: b This is what /b Rav b said: Even if we /b did b see /b that she removed a shoe from one of them, b we are not concerned that perhaps they intended to /b perform i ḥalitza /i ., b And there are /b those b who say /b the inference from Rav’s statement should be made in the opposite manner: b The reason /b it is permitted for her to perform levirate marriage now b is /b specifically b that we did not see /b her remove a shoe from one of the brothers. b But if we did see, we would be concerned /b and would treat her as a i yevama /i who already performed i ḥalitza /i , despite our knowledge that she did not intend to perform i ḥalitza /i . b And /b with regard to b that which was taught /b in the i baraita /i , b that intention is required, this applies /b only as far as validating the act of i ḥalitza /i in order b to permit her to marry a stranger. But /b performing an act of i ḥalitza /i even without intention is sufficient to b disqualify her for the brothers, /b rendering prohibited an act of levirate marriage afterward., b Rav Yehuda /b also b said /b that b Rav said: One may not perform i ḥalitza /i using a sandal /b that was b sewn /b together b with /b threads made of b flax, as it is stated: “And I made you shoes of i taḥash /i skin” /b (Ezekiel 16:10), which is the skin of an animal, implying that a shoe is something made entirely of leather. The Gemara challenges: If the source is “ i taḥash /i ,” b let us say: /b A shoe made of b i taḥash /i skin, yes, /b it is valid; but if made of b anything else, no. /b The Gemara rejects this: Because b “shoe” /b and b “shoe” /b are written in the Torah multiple times, this b amplifies /b and includes all types of shoes crafted from leather skins as valid for performing i ḥalitza /i .,The Gemara asks: b If /b the inclusion of the words b “shoe” /b and b “shoe” amplifies, /b then should one include as valid for performing i ḥalitza /i shoes crafted from b even any /b other b materials as well, /b including those not produced from leather at all? The Gemara answers: b If so, what purpose does “ i taḥash /i ” serve, /b as nothing is learned from it? Rather, from the word i taḥash /i it is derived that the shoe must be crafted entirely of leather, but all types of leather are included because the word “shoe” is repeated in the Torah numerous times., b Rabbi Elazar asked Rav: /b What is the status of the following type of sandal used for performing i ḥalitza /i ? In a case where b it, /b the shoe itself, b is made of leather, and /b the sections that hold b its straps [ i tereisiyyot /i ] /b are made b of hair, /b as they were woven together with goat’s hair, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? b He said to him: Do we not refer to /b such a sandal b as: “And I made you shoes of i taḥash /i ”? /b Since it is crafted from material that comes from an animal it is valid. The Gemara asks: b If that is so, /b i.e., that anything derived from an animal is valid, then even if it is fashioned b entirely of hair it should also be /b valid. The Gemara answers: b That would be called a slipper, /b not a shoe., b Rav Kahana said to Shmuel: From where is it known that this /b phrase: b “And she shall remove [ i ḥaltza /i ] his shoe from on his foot” /b (Deuteronomy 25:9), b means to remove? As it is written: /b “Then the priest shall command, b and they shall take out [ i ḥiltzu /i ] the stones in which the plague is” /b (Leviticus 14:40), indicating that the word i ḥaltza /i means that they shall remove the stones from their place.,The Gemara asks whether the word i ḥaltza /i can be interpreted differently based upon its apparent meaning in other contexts: b But /b could you b say it is /b a term for b strengthening, as it is written: “Arm [ i heḥaletzu /i ] men from among you for the army” /b (Numbers 31:3), meaning that men among you will be strengthened and take up arms to prepare for battle? The Gemara answers: b There too, /b the meaning of the word is referring to taking something from its place, as it means b removing /b people b from their houses /b in order b to go /b out b to war. /b ,The Gemara challenges: b But isn’t it written: “He delivers [ i yeḥaletz /i ] the afflicted by His affliction [ i be’onyo /i ]” /b (Job 36:15)? This indicates that the afflicted one becomes stronger due to his affliction, as, if the intention was to deliver him from his affliction, it should have said: From His affliction, rather than “by His affliction.” The Gemara answers that the verse should be interpreted as follows: i Be’onyo /i , in other words, b as reward for his /b suffering from b affliction, He shall deliver him from the judgment of Gehenna, /b as is understood from the term i be’onyo /i , through the reward due to his affliction.,The Gemara challenges further: b But /b with regard to b that it is written: “The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him and delivers them [ i vayeḥaltzem /i ]” /b (Psalms 34:8), doesn’t i vayeḥaltzem /i rather mean: He shall strengthen them? The Gemara answers: The verse means: b As a reward for those that fear Him, He shall deliver them from the judgment of Gehenna. /b Therefore, the Gemara interprets i vayeḥaltzem /i as “delivers them,” not as: Strengthens them.,The Gemara challenges further: b But /b with regard to b that which is written: /b “And the Lord will guide you, and satisfy your soul in drought, b and make your bones strong [ i yaḥalitz /i ]” /b (Isaiah 58:11), b and Rabbi Elazar said /b regarding that verse: b This is the greatest of blessings, and Rava said /b it means: b Strengthening of bones. /b This seems to indicate that the root of the word i ḥalitza /i is referring to strengthening. The Gemara answers: b Yes, it has this connotation, and it has this connotation, /b i.e., the root i ḥ-l-tz /i sometimes connotes removal and sometimes connotes strengthening. b But here, /b only one meaning is possible, as, b if it enters your mind /b that i ḥalitza /i here b connotes strengthening, then let the Merciful One write /b in the Torah: b She shall strengthen [ i ḥaletza /i ] his shoe on his foot [ i beraglo /i ], /b indicating that she should tighten the shoe on his foot, rather than stating: “From on his foot [ i me’al raglo /i ],” which indicates that she is removing something from his foot.,The Gemara responds: b If the Merciful One had written /b in the Torah: b On his foot [ i beraglo /i ], I would have said /b she must strengthen and tighten the shoe b on his foot, yes, but on his calf, no; /b and if his foot were amputated she may no longer perform i ḥalitza /i . Therefore, b the Merciful One writes /b in the Torah: b “From on his foot [ i me’al raglo /i ],” /b to teach that she may strengthen the shoe b even on his calf, /b which is part of the leg, or i regel /i , above the foot. The Gemara answers: b If so, /b and i ḥalitza /i really means strengthening, b let the Merciful One write /b in the Torah: She shall strengthen his shoe b on the upper part of his foot [ i beme’al raglo /i ], /b indicating that the shoe can also be tightened on the area of the calf. b What /b then b is /b the meaning of b “from on his foot [ i me’al raglo /i ],” /b which is written in the verse? b Learn from here /b that in this context the word i ḥalitza /i clearly b indicates removal, /b meaning that the mitzva of i ḥalitza /i is for the i yevama /i to remove the shoe of the i yavam /i and not to tighten it on his foot.,Parenthetical to this discussion, the Gemara relates: b A certain heretic said to Rabban Gamliel: /b You, the children of Israel, are b a nation whose Master removed [ i ḥalatz /i ] Himself from them, /b for God has left you in much the same way in which a i yavam /i would perform i ḥalitza /i with his i yevama /i , b as it is written: “With their flocks and with their herds they shall go to seek the Lord, but they shall not find Him. He has removed [ i ḥalatz /i ] Himself from them [ i meihem /i ]” /b (Hoshea 5:6). The heretic tried to use this verse as scriptural support that God has performed i ḥalitza /i with the Jewish people., b He, /b Rabban Gamliel, b said to him: Imbecile, does it say: He performed i ḥalitza /i to them [ i lahem /i ]? /b Rather, b it says “ i ḥalatz /i from them [ i meihem /i ],” /b meaning it is as if they, the Jewish people, performed i ḥalitza /i on Him. b But if a i yevama /i had her shoe removed by her i yevamin /i , does this have any significance? /b Here too, the meaning of the verse is that the nation of Israel abandoned God by removing themselves from Him, and this abandonment has no significance.,The Gemara analyzes the phrase used in the mishna that discusses the types of shoes that can be used for i ḥalitza /i . It was taught in the mishna that if he was wearing b a soft shoe [ i anpileya /i ] /b made of cloth for i ḥalitza /i , b her i ḥalitza /i is invalid. /b The Gemara explains: b That is to say that an i anpileya /i is not /b considered b a shoe. /b , b And we also learned /b similarly in a mishna ( i Shekalim /i 3:2): b The one who collects the funds /b of shekels donated to the Temple from the chamber and puts them it into baskets in order to be used b may not enter /b to collect the funds b wearing a garment [ i pargod /i ] that is cuffed [ i ḥafut /i ], nor wearing an i anpileya /i , and needless to say /b that he may not enter wearing b a shoe or a sandal, because one may not enter /b the Temple b courtyard wearing a shoe or a sandal. /b It is prohibited for the one collecting funds from the chamber to enter the chamber wearing a garment or footwear in which money could be hidden, lest people come to suspect that he hid in them funds collected from the chamber. In any case, the wording of the mishna indicates that an i anpileya /i is not considered a type of shoe, since it is permitted to enter the Temple wearing an i anpileya /i when there is no reason for suspicion, unlike a shoe or sandal, which can never be worn in the Temple., b And /b the Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from a i baraita /i concerning what footwear is permitted on Yom Kippur, which seems to indicate otherwise: The halakha is b the same for a /b soft leather b shoe, and a /b hard leather b sandal, and an i anpileya /i , as one may not walk in them from one house to another, nor from one bed to another /b on Yom Kippur, due to the prohibition against wearing shoes, indicating that at least as far as Yom Kippur is concerned, an i anpileya /i is considered a shoe., b Abaye said: /b There, with regard to Yom Kippur, it is referring to an i anpileya /i b that has cushioning, and /b this is forbidden b due to the pleasure /b that one derives from cushioned footwear on a day when people are commanded to afflict themselves. b Rava said to him: But /b is footwear b that is not considered /b to be b shoes forbidden on Yom Kippur due to /b the b pleasure /b one derives from wearing them? b But Rabba bar Rav Huna would wrap a scarf on his feet and go out /b on Yom Kippur so his feet would not be injured, implying that there is no prohibition against wearing something comfortable on one’s foot, as long as it is not defined as a shoe. b Rather, Rava said: This /b is b not difficult. Here, /b when they said that an i anpileya /i has the status of a shoe, it is referring to b an i anpileya /i /b made b of leather. There, /b when they do not consider it a shoe, it is referring to b an i anpileya /i /b made b of cloth. /b ,The Gemara adds: b And so too, it is reasonable /b to distinguish in this manner, b as, if you do not say so, it /b is b difficult /b to reconcile the seeming contradiction between one statement about b Yom Kippur and /b another statement about b Yom Kippur. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A person shall not walk /b while wearing b slippers [ i kordakisin /i ] within his house /b on Yom Kippur, b but he may walk /b while wearing b an i anpileya /i within his house. /b This would imply that wearing an i anpileya /i is permitted, but the i baraita /i quoted above taught that it is prohibited. b Rather, /b must one b not conclude from here /b that b here, /b where it indicates that an i anpileya /i is forbidden, it is referring b to an i anpileya /i /b made b of leather, /b as they are considered like a shoe, and b there, /b where an i anpileya /i is permitted, it is referring b to an i anpileya /i /b made b of cloth? /b The Gemara concludes: Indeed, b learn from here /b that it is so.,It b is taught /b in a i baraita /i b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rava: /b If b she performed i ḥalitza /i using a shoe whose seams were opened up, which /b still b covered most of the foot; /b or if she performed i ḥalitza /i b with a sandal /b whose sole b was /b partially b opened that /b still b held most of the foot; /b or if she performed i ḥalitza /i b with a sandal /b made b of cork [ i sha’am /i ], or of fibers /b from a tree; or b with a prosthetic foot of an amputee; /b or b with a felt shoe [ i muk /i ]; /b or b with a leg blanket /b that an amputee makes for his feet as a covering in which to put the stumps of his legs, which is not an actual shoe; or b with a leather i anpileya /i ; and /b likewise, a woman b who performs i ḥalitza /i /b with her i yavam /i when he is an b adult man, /b |
|
25. Anon., Numbers Rabba, 6.3, 20.5, 21.16 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •domesticated quadrupeds Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 116| 6.3. לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם (במדבר ד, כב), לְבֵית אָבוֹת עָשָׂה לוֹ מִשְׁפָּחוֹת וְלֹא לְבֵית אִמּוֹתָם, שֶׁאִם נָשְׂאוּ בְּנֵי גֵרְשׁוֹן מִבְּנוֹת קְהָת אוֹ מִבְּנוֹת מְרָרִי יִקָּרְאוּ בְּנֵיהֶם עַל שֵׁם מִשְׁפְּחוֹת גֵּרְשׁוֹן, אֲבָל אִם מִשְׁאָר מִשְׁפָּחוֹת נָשְׂאוּ מִבְּנוֹת גֵּרְשׁוֹן, הָיוּ בְּנֵיהֶם נִקְרָאִין עַל שֵׁם שְׁאָר הַמִּשְׁפָּחוֹת. (במדבר ד, כג): מִבֶּן שְׁלשִׁים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה וגו', תָּנֵי (תוספתא שקלים ג, טז): כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל אֵין נִכְנָס לָעֲזָרָה לָעֲבוֹדָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִמְשַׁח שִׁבְעָה וְנִתְרַבָּה שִׁבְעָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹא נִמְשַׁח שִׁבְעָה וְנִתְרַבָּה שִׁבְעָה וְעָבַד, עֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. כֹּהֵן הֶדְיוֹט אֵין נִכְנָס לָעֲזָרָה לָעֲבוֹדָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הֵבִיא עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וְעוֹבְדָהּ בְּיָדוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹא הֵבִיא עֲשִׂירִית הָאֵיפָה מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וְעוֹבְדָהּ בְּיָדוֹ וְעָבַד, עֲבוֹדָתוֹ כְּשֵׁרָה. בֶּן לֵוִי אֵין נִכְנָס לָעֲזָרָה לָעֲבוֹדָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן לָמַד חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ח, כד): זֹאת אֲשֶׁר לַלְוִיִּם מִבֶּן חָמֵשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: מִבֶּן שְׁלשִׁים שָׁנָה, אִם נֶאֱמַר: מִבֶּן חָמֵשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר: מִבֶּן שְׁלשִׁים, וְאִם נֶאֱמַר: מִבֶּן שְׁלשִׁים לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר: מִבֶּן חָמֵשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים, אֶלָּא, כָּל אוֹתָן שָׁנִים שֶׁמִּבֶּן חָמֵשׁ וְעֶשְׂרִים וְעַד בֶּן שְׁלשִׁים הָיָה לָמֵד, מִכָּאן וָאֵילָךְ מְקָרְבִין אוֹתוֹ לָעֲבוֹדָה. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ כָּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה סִימָן בְּרָכָה בְּמִשְׁנָתוֹ בְּתוֹךְ חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים, שׁוּב אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר שָׁלשׁ שָׁנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דניאל א, ה): וּלְגַדְּלָם שָׁנִים שָׁלוֹשׁ. זָקֵן אֵין מוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בַּגָּזִית אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נַעֲשָׂה דַיָּן בְּעִירוֹ, מִשֶּׁנַּעֲשָׂה דַיָּן בְּעִירוֹ מַעֲלִין וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בְּהַר הַבַּיִת, מִשָּׁם מַעֲלִין וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בַּחֵיל, מִשָּׁם מַעֲלִין וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית. (במדבר ד, כג): כָּל הַבָּא לִצְבֹא צָבָא, שֶׁהָיוּ שׁוֹעֲרִים. (במדבר ד, כג): לַעֲבֹד עֲבֹדָה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, שֶׁהָיוּ מְשׁוֹרְרִים. (במדבר ד, כד): זֹאת עֲבֹדַת מִשְׁפְּחֹת הַגֵּרְשֻׁנִּי, וְלֹא אַחֶרֶת, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבְּנֵי גֵרְשׁוֹן הָיוּ אֲסוּרִין לִכָּנֵס לַעֲבוֹדַת בְּנֵי מְרָרִי בְּקַרְשֵׁי הַמִּשְׁכָּן וּבְרִיחָיו וְעַמּוּדָיו וַאֲדָנָיו. (במדבר ד, כד): לַעֲבֹד וּלְמַשָֹּׂא, שֶׁבְּעֵת שֶׁהָיוּ מְקִימִין הַמִּשְׁכָּן הֵם הָיוּ פּוֹרְשִׂין יְרִיעוֹת בְּמִשְׁכַּן אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, וְכָל מַה שֶּׁהָיָה מְמֻנֶּה תַּחַת יָדָם הָיוּ מְקִימִין, וּבְעֵת שֶׁהָיוּ פּוֹרְקִין הַמִּשְׁכָּן הֵם הָיוּ טוֹעֲנִין אוֹתוֹ עַל הָעֲגָלוֹת. (במדבר ד, כה): וּמִכְסֵה הַתַּחַשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו מִלְמָעְלָה, כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר תַּחַשׁ שֶׁהָיָה בִּימֵי משֶׁה בְּרִיָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ הָיְתָה וְלֹא הִכִּירוּ בָּהּ חֲכָמִים שֶׁבְּאוֹתוֹ הַדּוֹר אִם מִין חַיָּה הוּא אוֹ מִין בְּהֵמָה הוּא, וְקֶרֶן אַחַת הָיְתָה לָהּ בְּמִצְחָהּ, וּלְפִי שָׁעָה נִזְדַּמֵּן לוֹ לְמשֶׁה, וְנַעֲשָׂה מִמֶּנָּהּ מִשְׁכָּן, וְנִגְנְזָה. מִדְּקָאָמַר קֶרֶן אַחַת הָיְתָה לָהּ בְּמִצְחָהּ, מִזֶּה לָמַדְנוּ שֶׁטְּהוֹרָה הָיְתָהּ. (במדבר ד, כה): וְאֶת מָסַךְ פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, כְּמָה דְתֵימָא (שמות כו, לו): וְעָשִׂיתָ מָסָךְ לְפֶתַח וגו' (במדבר ד, כו): וְאֵת קַלְעֵי הֶחָצֵר, אֵלּוּ קְלָעִים שֶׁעָשׂוּ סָבִיב לַחָצֵר, כְּמָה דְתֵימָא (שמות כז, ט טו): וְעָשִׂיתָ אֵת חֲצַר וגו' וְכֵן לִפְאַת צָפוֹן וגו' וְרֹחַב הֶחָצֵר וגו' וַחֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה קְלָעִים וגו' וְלַכָּתֵף הַשֵּׁנִית וגו' (במדבר ד, כו): וְאֶת מָסַךְ פֶּתַח שַׁעַר וגו', כְּמָה דְתֵימָא (שמות כז, טז): וּלְשַׁעַר הֶחָצֵר וגו' (במדבר ד, כו): אֲשֶׁר עַל הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְעַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ סָבִיב. תָּנֵי מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה אָרְכּוֹ חָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת וְרָחְבּוֹ חָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת וְגָבְהוֹ שָׁלשׁ אַמּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כז, א): וְעָשִׂיתָ אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ (שמות לח, א): מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה וגו', דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כז, א): חָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת אֹרֶךְ וְחָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת רֹחַב, אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא רָבוּעַ, מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שמות כז, א): רָבוּעַ יִהְיֶה, אֶלָּא מֻפְנֶה לְהַקִּישׁ לָדוּן מִמֶּנּוּ גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן רָבוּעַ, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן רָבוּעַ, מָה רָבוּעַ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן גָּבְהוֹ שְׁנַיִם בְּרָחְבּוֹ, אַף כָּאן גָּבְהוֹ שְׁנַיִם בְּרָחְבּוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי מֵאִיר אִם כִּדְבָרֶיךָ נִמְצָא גּוֹבַהּ מִזְבֵּחַ מִן הַקְלָעִים חָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וַהֲלוֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר (במדבר ד, כו): וְקַלְעֵי הֶחָצֵר סָבִיב וגו', מַה מִּשְׁכָּן עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת אַף מִזְבֵּחַ עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת. (במדבר ד, כו): וְאֵת מֵיתְרֵיהֶם, אֵלּוּ הַמֵּיתָרִים, מַה הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין בָּהֶם, הָיוּ מְקַפְּלִין הַיְרִיעוֹת וְהַקְּלָעִים וְהָיוּ אוֹסְרִים אוֹתָם בָּהֶם וּמַנִּיחִים אוֹתָם עַל הָעֲגָלוֹת, (במדבר ד, כו): וְאֶת כָּל כְּלֵי עֲבֹדָתָם, אֵלּוּ קַרְסֵי זָהָב וְאֵלּוּ קַרְסֵי נְחשֶׁת שֶׁהָיוּ מְחַבְּרִים בָּהֶם הַיְרִיעוֹת. (במדבר ד, כו): וְאֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה לָהֶם וְעָבָדוּ, כָּל מַה שֶּׁהָיָה נַעֲשָׂה לְכָל הַכֵּלִים יִהְיוּ בְּנֵי גֵרְשׁוֹן עוֹשִים. (במדבר ד, כז): עַל פִּי אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו תִּהְיֶה לָהֶם וגו', זוֹ הִיא שֶׁאָמְרוּ שֶׁחָלַק הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כָּבוֹד לַבְּכוֹר, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁעֲבוֹדַת בְּנֵי קְהָת הָיְתָה עַל פִּי אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו, כְּמָה דְתֵימָא (במדבר ד, יט): אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו יָבֹאוּ וְשָׂמוּ אוֹתָם אִישׁ אִישׁ וגו', כֵּן עֲבוֹדַת בְּנֵי גֵּרְשׁוֹן הָיְתָה עַל פִּי אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו, אֲבָל בִּבְנֵי מְרָרִי לֹא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ עַל פִּי אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו. (במדבר ד, כז): וּפְקַדְתֶּם עֲלֵיהֶם בְּמִשְׁמֶרֶת אֵת כָּל מַשָֹּׂאָם, הֵבִיא הַכָּתוּב משֶׁה עִמָּהֶם שֶׁיִּהְיוּ מְצַוִּים עֲלֵיהֶם, שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שׁוֹמְרִים עַל כָּל מַה שֶּׁנּוֹשְׂאִים. (במדבר ד, כח): זֹאת עֲבֹדַת מִשְׁפְּחֹת בְּנֵי הַגֵּרְשֻׁנִּי וגו', בַּתְּחִלָּה שָׂמוּ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו וּמשֶׁה עִמָּהֶם לִבְנֵי גֵרְשׁוֹן עַל עֲבוֹדָתָם וְעַל מַשָֹּׂאָם וְעַל מִשְׁמַרְתָּם, מִכָּאן וָאֵילָךְ עֲבוֹדָתָם וּמִשְׁמַרְתָּם הָיְתָה בְּיַד אִיתָמָר בֶּן אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן. 20.5. וַיִּשְׁלַח מַלְאָכִים (במדבר כב, ה), הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עָשָׂה לָהֶם נִסִּים, וְאָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֲנִי גוֹאֵל אֶתְכֶם וָאֶעֱשֶׂה לָכֶם נִסִּים וְאַתֶּם מַמְרִים אוֹתִי, בּוֹא וּרְאֵה שֶׁבַע גְּאֻלּוֹת שֶׁגָּאַלְתִּי אֶתְכֶם וֶהֱיִיתֶם חַיָּבִין לְשַׁבְּחֵנִי שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים כְּנֶגֶד שֶׁבַע גְּאֻלּוֹת, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר (שופטים י, יא יב): וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֲלֹא מִמִּצְרַיִם וּמִן הָאֱמֹרִי וּמִן בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן וּמִן פְּלִשְׁתִּים, וְצִידוֹנִים וַעֲמָלֵק וּמָעוֹן וגו' וַתִּצְעֲקוּ אֵלַי וָאוֹשִׁיעָה אֶתְכֶם, הֲרֵי שֶׁבַע גְּאֻלּוֹת, וְהִמְרִיתֶם אוֹתִי בְּשֶׁבַע עֲבוֹדוֹת כּוֹכָבִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שופטים י, ו): וַיֹּסִיפוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לַעֲשׂוֹת הָרַע בְּעֵינֵי ה' וַיַּעַבְדוּ אֶת הַבְּעָלִים וְאֶת הָעַשְׁתָּרוֹת, וְכֵן הוּא מוֹכִיחָן (מיכה ו, ג): עַמִּי מֶה עָשִׂיתִי לְךָ וּמָה הֶלְאֵתִיךָ, מָה הַטְרַחְתִּי לְךָ, שֶׁמָּא אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ הָבִיאוּ לִי עוֹלוֹת מִן חַיּוֹת שֶׁבֶּהָרִים. שָׁלשׁ בְּהֵמוֹת שֶׁבִּרְשׁוּתְךָ (דברים יד, ד): שׁוֹר שֵׂה כְשָׂבִים וְשֵׂה עִזִּים, וְשֶׁבַע שֶׁאֵינָן בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ (דברים יד, ה): אַיָל וּצְבִי וְיַחְמוּר וְאַקּוֹ וְדִישֹׁן וּתְאוֹ וָזָמֶר, שֶׁמָּא הִטְרַחְתִּיךָ עֲלֵיהֶם לְהָבִיא לְפָנַי מֵהַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ, לֹא צִוִּיתִי אֶלָּא מִבְּהֵמָה שֶׁהִיא בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כב, כז): שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב אוֹ עֵז כִּי יִוָּלֵד. וְכֵן (ויקרא א, ב): מִן הַבְּהֵמָה וּמִן הַבָּקָר וּמִן הַצֹּאן. וְכִי יָצָא סִיחוֹן וְעוֹג לְהִלָּחֵם בָּכֶם וְלֹא הִפַּלְתִּי אוֹתָם לִפְנֵיכֶם, מָה הֶלְאֵיתִי אֶתְכֶם, שֶׁמָּא אָמַרְתִּי לָכֶם לְהָבִיא קָרְבָּן עֲלֵיהֶם, לֹא רָאָה בָּלָק בֶּן צִפּוֹר שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי לָכֶם כָּל הַנִּסִּים וְשָׂכַר עֲלֵיכֶם בִּלְעָם, וְהָפַכְתִּי אֶת הַקְּלָלוֹת לִבְרָכוֹת. 21.16. אֶת קָרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי לְאִשַּׁי (במדבר כח, ב), אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה, אֱמֹר לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא שֶׁאֲנִי צָרִיךְ לְקָרְבָּנוֹת, כָּל הָעוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ שֶׁלִּי הוּא, הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁאַתֶּם מַקְרִיבִים אֲנִי בָּרָאתִי אוֹתָהּ, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר (תהלים נ, יב): אִם אֶרְעַב לֹא אֹמַר לָךְ, אֵין לְפָנַי אֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה. אָמַר רַבִּי סִימוֹן שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מִדּוֹת רַחֲמִים כְּתִיב בִּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות לד, ו): וַיַּעֲבֹר ה' עַל פָּנָיו וַיִּקְרָא ה' וגו', וְיֵשׁ רַחֲמָן מוֹסֵר מְזוֹנוֹתָיו לְאַכְזָרִי, הֱוֵי אִם אֶרְעַב לֹא אֹמַר לָךְ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי סִימוֹן אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עֶשֶׂר בְּהֵמוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ שָׁלשׁ הֵן בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ וְשֶׁבַע אֵינָן בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ, וְלֹא הִטְרַחְתִּי עָלֶיךָ שֶׁתְּהֵא מְחַזֵּר בֶּהָרִים לְהָבִיא קָרְבָּן מֵאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵינָן בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ, לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא מֵהַגְּדֵלִים עַל אֲבוּסְךָ, הֱוֵי אִם אֶרְעַב לֹא אֹמַר לָךְ. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק כְּתִיב: אֶת קָרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי, וְכִי יֵשׁ לְפָנָיו אֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה, לְמֹד מִמַּלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת (תהלים קד, ד): מְשָׁרְתָיו אֵשׁ לֹהֵט, מֵהֵיכָן נִזּוֹנִין, רַבִּי יוּדָן אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק מִזִּיו שְׁכִינָה הֵם נִזּוֹנִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי טז, טו): בְּאוֹר פְּנֵי מֶלֶךְ חַיִּים. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּתִיב (במדבר כח, ו): עֹלַת תָּמִיד הָעֲשֻׂיָה בְּהַר סִינַי, אִם תֹּאמַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְפָנַי אֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה, לְמֹד מִמּשֶׁה רְאֵה מַה כְּתִיב בּוֹ (שמות לד, כח): וַיְהִי שָׁם עִם ה' אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לַיְלָה לֶחֶם לֹא אָכַל וגו', אִלּוּ הָיָה לְפָנַי אֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָה הָיָה אוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה, הֱוֵי אִם אֶרְעַב לֹא אֹמַר לָךְ. | 20.5. "5", 21.16. "16 Another interpretation of (Numb. 27:16) “Let the Lord, appoint”: A parable: A king saw an orphan woman [and] sought to take her for him as a wife. He sent to seek her. She said, “I am not worthy to marry the king.” He sent to seek her seven times, but she did not allow it. In the end she married him. After a time, the king was angry with her and sought to divorce her. She said, “I did not seek to be married to you; you sought me. Since this is so and you have decreed to divorce me and to take another, do not do to that one like what you did to me.” So is it with the Holy One, blessed be He: R. Samuel the son of Nahmani said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, tried for seven days to persuade Moses from the midst of the burning bush, but Moses replied, (in Exod. 4:13), ‘Send please, whomever you will send’; (ibid. 4:10) ‘I am not a man of words, neither yesterday nor the day before.’ This indicates seven days. After time, the Holy One, blessed be He persuaded him; and he went as His agent; and He did all of those miracles through him. In the end, He said to him (in Numb. 20:12), ‘You shall not bring.’ Moses said, ‘Master of the world, (as in Deut. 3:24), “You who let Your servant see the first works of Your greatness, etc.” Since this is so [and] You have decreed against me, do not do like what You did to me to the one that will go in. Rather (as in Numb. 27:17), ‘Who shall go out before them and come in before them.’” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, (in Numb. 27:18) “Take Joshua bin Nun.” And Moses did [it] with a generous eye, as stated (Prov. 22:9), “The generous man is blessed.” A parable: A king said to one of his household, “Give so and so a i seah /i of wheat.” He went and agave him two i seah /i . He said to him, “One i seah /i is from the king and one i seah /i is from me.” So did the Holy One, blessed be He say to Moses (in Numb. 27:18), “And lay your hand upon him” – one hand. What did he do? (In Numb 27:23) “He laid his hands upon him and commissioned him,” to fulfill that which is stated (Prov. 22:9), “The generous man is blessed.” Therefore (as in Prov. 27:18), “He who tends a fig tree will enjoy its fruit.” And why is the Torah compared to a fig tree? Since [the fruit of] most trees – the olive tree, the grapevine, the date palm – is gathered [all] at once, but the fig tree is gathered a little [at a time]. And so too is the Torah. Today he studies a little and tomorrow he studies much; as it is not taught in a year, nor in two. (Numb. 27:18) “A man with the spirit of God with him”: Since you said (in Numb. 27:16), “’The God of the spirits of all flesh,’ since You know each and every one, one should be appointed who knows how to proceed with each and every one of them according to his temperament”; [so then (in Numb 27:18, cont.),] “and lay your hand upon him,” like one who lights a candle from a candle. (Numb 27:20) “Invest him with your majesty,” like one who pours from one vessel to another vessel. Concerning that which I said to you (in Numb. 36:9), “So the inheritance will not move around from one tribe to another,” this glory will not move from the house of your father, as even Joshua who will arise in your place (according to Numb. 27:19), “shall stand in front of Elazar the priest” (nephew of Moses).", |
|
| 26. Anon., Ps.-Matt., 13 Tagged with subjects: •domesticated quadrupeds Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 116 |
| 27. Andrew of Cesarea, Comm. Apoc., 6.16-6.17 Tagged with subjects: •domesticated quadrupeds Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 10 |
| 28. Pseudo-Fructuosus of Braga, Reg. Mon., 143-148, 150-151, 170, 49-50 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 61 |
30. Anon., Esther Rabbah, 4.12 Tagged with subjects: •domesticated quadrupeds Found in books: Rosenblum (2016) 116| 4.12. וַיִּשְׁלַח סְפָרִים אֶל כָּל מְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ (אסתר א, כב), אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ דַּעַת סְרוּחָה הָיְתָה לוֹ, מִנְהָג שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם אָדָם מְבַקֵּשׁ לֶאֱכֹל עֲדָשִׁים וְאִשְׁתּוֹ מְבַקֶּשֶׁת לֶאֱכֹל אֲפוּנִים, יָכוֹל הוּא לְכוּפָהּ, לָא מַה דְּהִיא בָּעְיָא עָבְדָה. אָמַר רַבִּי פִּנְחָס וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה שְׂחוֹק בָּעוֹלָם, בְּנֹהַג שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם מָדִיִּי נוֹשֵׂא פַּרְסִית וְהִיא מְדַבֶּרֶת בְּלָשׁוֹן מָדִיִּי, פַּרְסִי נוֹשֵׂא מָדִיִּית וְהִיא מְדַבֶּרֶת בְּלָשׁוֹן פַּרְסִי, אֲבָל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא דִּבֶּר עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּלָּשׁוֹן שֶׁלָּמְדוּ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמות כ, ב): אָנֹכִי ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לָשׁוֹן יָחֳנָךְ. אָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן דְּבֵית גּוּבְרִין, אַרְבַּע לְשׁוֹנוֹת נָאִין הֵן שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עוֹלָם, לַעַז לְזֶמֶר, פַּרְסִי לְאֶלְיָה, עִבְרִי לְדִבּוּר, רוֹמִים לְקָרֵב. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים אַף אַשּׁוּרִית לִכְתָב. עִבְרִית, יֵשׁ לָהּ דִּבּוּר וְאֵין לָהּ כְּתָב. אַשּׁוּרִית. יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתָב וְאֵין לָהּ דִּבּוּר, בָּחֲרוּ לָהֶם כְּתַב אַשּׁוּרִית וְלָשׁוֹן עִבְרִית. בּוּרְגָנִי אֶחָד אָמַר בָּרְרוּ לְהוֹן לָשׁוֹן רוֹמִי מִלָּשׁוֹן יְוָנִי. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי סִימוֹן אָמַר גְּנַאי הוּא לָהּ שֶׁחוֹתֶמֶת שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלָּה. וְרַב חָנִין בַּר אָדָא אָמַר אַף עַל פִּי כֵן (דניאל ז, יט): וְטִפְרַהּ דִּי נְחָשׁ, אֵינָהּ חוֹתֶמֶת אֶלָּא בִּלְשׁוֹנָהּ. אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן מִכָּאן אָדָם צָרִיךְ לִשְׁנוֹת אֶת פָּרָשִׁיּוֹתָיו, אִלּוּ לֹא שָׁנָה לָנוּ משֶׁה אֶת הַתּוֹרָה מֵהֵיכָן אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין (דברים יד, ז): הַשְּׁסוּעָה, וְאִלּוּ לֹא שָׁנָה לָנוּ דָּנִיֵּאל אֶת הַחֲלוֹם, מֵהֵיכָן אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין וְטִפְרַהּ דִּי נְחָשׁ. | |
|
