Home About Network of subjects Linked subjects heatmap Book indices included Search by subject Search by reference Browse subjects Browse texts

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database

   Search:  
validated results only / all results

and or

Filtering options: (leave empty for all results)
By author:     
By work:        
By subject:
By additional keyword:       



Results for
Please note: the results are produced through a computerized process which may frequently lead to errors, both in incorrect tagging and in other issues. Please use with caution.
Due to load times, full text fetching is currently attempted for validated results only.
Full texts for Hebrew Bible and rabbinic texts is kindly supplied by Sefaria; for Greek and Latin texts, by Perseus Scaife, for the Quran, by Tanzil.net

For a list of book indices included, see here.





27 results for "extirpation"
1. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 4.13, 5.2-5.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 130; Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 99
4.13. "וְאִם כָּל־עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁגּוּ וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר מֵעֵינֵי הַקָּהָל וְעָשׂוּ אַחַת מִכָּל־מִצְוֺת יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־תֵעָשֶׂינָה וְאָשֵׁמוּ׃", 5.2. "וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃", 5.2. "אוֹ נֶפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תִּגַּע בְּכָל־דָּבָר טָמֵא אוֹ בְנִבְלַת חַיָּה טְמֵאָה אוֹ בְּנִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה אוֹ בְּנִבְלַת שֶׁרֶץ טָמֵא וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְהוּא טָמֵא וְאָשֵׁם׃", 5.3. "אוֹ כִי יִגַּע בְּטֻמְאַת אָדָם לְכֹל טֻמְאָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר יִטְמָא בָּהּ וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְהוּא יָדַע וְאָשֵׁם׃", 4.13. "And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err, the thing being hid from the eyes of the assembly, and do any of the things which the LORD hath commanded not to be done, and are guilty:", 5.2. "or if any one touch any unclean thing, whether it be the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean cattle, or the carcass of unclean swarming things, and be guilty, it being hidden from him that he is unclean;", 5.3. "or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever his uncleanness be wherewith he is unclean, and it be hid from him; and, when he knoweth of it, be guilty;",
2. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 9.2, 15.22-15.31, 28.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 143; Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 101
9.2. "וְיַעֲשׂוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־הַפָּסַח בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ׃", 9.2. "וְיֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה הֶעָנָן יָמִים מִסְפָּר עַל־הַמִּשְׁכָּן עַל־פִּי יְהוָה יַחֲנוּ וְעַל־פִּי יְהוָה יִסָּעוּ׃", 15.22. "וְכִי תִשְׁגּוּ וְלֹא תַעֲשׂוּ אֵת כָּל־הַמִּצְוֺת הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה׃", 15.23. "אֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֲלֵיכֶם בְּיַד־מֹשֶׁה מִן־הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה וָהָלְאָה לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם׃", 15.24. "וְהָיָה אִם מֵעֵינֵי הָעֵדָה נֶעֶשְׂתָה לִשְׁגָגָה וְעָשׂוּ כָל־הָעֵדָה פַּר בֶּן־בָּקָר אֶחָד לְעֹלָה לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַיהוָה וּמִנְחָתוֹ וְנִסְכּוֹ כַּמִּשְׁפָּט וּשְׂעִיר־עִזִּים אֶחָד לְחַטָּת׃", 15.25. "וְכִפֶּר הַכֹּהֵן עַל־כָּל־עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנִסְלַח לָהֶם כִּי־שְׁגָגָה הִוא וְהֵם הֵבִיאוּ אֶת־קָרְבָּנָם אִשֶּׁה לַיהוָה וְחַטָּאתָם לִפְנֵי יְהוָה עַל־שִׁגְגָתָם׃", 15.26. "וְנִסְלַח לְכָל־עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכָם כִּי לְכָל־הָעָם בִּשְׁגָגָה׃", 15.27. "וְאִם־נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת תֶּחֱטָא בִשְׁגָגָה וְהִקְרִיבָה עֵז בַּת־שְׁנָתָהּ לְחַטָּאת׃", 15.28. "וְכִפֶּר הַכֹּהֵן עַל־הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַשֹּׁגֶגֶת בְּחֶטְאָה בִשְׁגָגָה לִפְנֵי יְהוָה לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו וְנִסְלַח לוֹ׃", 15.29. "הָאֶזְרָח בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכָם תּוֹרָה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָכֶם לָעֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁגָגָה׃", 15.31. "כִּי דְבַר־יְהוָה בָּזָה וְאֶת־מִצְוָתוֹ הֵפַר הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא עֲוֺנָה בָהּ׃", 28.2. "וּמִנְחָתָם סֹלֶת בְּלוּלָה בַשָּׁמֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרֹנִים לַפָּר וּשְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרֹנִים לָאַיִל תַּעֲשׂוּ׃", 28.2. "צַו אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אֶת־קָרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי לְאִשַּׁי רֵיחַ נִיחֹחִי תִּשְׁמְרוּ לְהַקְרִיב לִי בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ׃", 9.2. "’Let the children of Israel keep the passover in its appointed season.", 15.22. "And when ye shall err, and not observe all these commandments, which the LORD hath spoken unto Moses,", 15.23. "even all that the LORD hath commanded you by the hand of Moses, from the day that the LORD gave commandment, and onward throughout your generations;", 15.24. "then it shall be, if it be done in error by the congregation, it being hid from their eyes, that all the congregation shall offer one young bullock for a burnt-offering, for a sweet savour unto the LORD—with the meal-offering thereof, and the drink-offering thereof, according to the ordice—and one he-goat for a sin-offering.", 15.25. "And the priest shall make atonement for all the congregation of the children of Israel, and they shall be forgiven; for it was an error, and they have brought their offering, an offering made by fire unto the LORD, and their sin-offering before the LORD, for their error.", 15.26. "And all the congregation of the children of Israel shall be forgiven, and the stranger that sojourneth among them; for in respect of all the people it was done in error.", 15.27. "And if one person sin through error, then he shall offer a she-goat of the first year for a sin-offering.", 15.28. "And the priest shall make atonement for the soul that erreth, when he sinneth through error, before the LORD, to make atonement for him; and he shall be forgiven,", 15.29. "both he that is home-born among the children of Israel, and the stranger that sojourneth among them: ye shall have one law for him that doeth aught in error.", 15.30. "But the soul that doeth aught with a high hand, whether he be home-born or a stranger, the same blasphemeth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.", 15.31. "Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken His commandment; that soul shall utterly be cut off, his iniquity shall be upon him.", 28.2. "Command the children of Israel, and say unto them: My food which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire, of a sweet savour unto Me, shall ye observe to offer unto Me in its due season.",
3. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 8.17-9.2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 101
4. Tosefta, Keritot, 1.18 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 112
5. Mishnah, Shekalim, 4.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 130
4.2. "פָּרָה וְשָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁל זְהוֹרִית, בָּאִין מִתְּרוּמַת הַלִשְׁכָּה. כֶּבֶשׁ פָּרָה, וְכֶבֶשׁ שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְלָשׁוֹן שֶׁבֵּין קַרְנָיו, וְאַמַּת הַמַּיִם, וְחוֹמַת הָעִיר וּמִגְדְּלוֹתֶיהָ, וְכָל צָרְכֵי הָעִיר, בָּאִין מִשְּׁיָרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, כֶּבֶשׁ פָּרָה כֹּהֲנִים גְּדוֹלִים עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ מִשֶּׁל עַצְמָן: \n", 4.2. "The [red] heifer and the scapegoat and the strip of scarlet came out of the appropriation of the chamber. The ramp for the [red] heifer and the ramp for the scapegoat and the strip of scarlet which was between its horns, and [the maintece of] the pool of water and the wall of the city and its towers and all the needs of the city came out of the remainder in the chamber. Abba Shaul says: the ramp for the [red] cow the high priests made out of their own [means].",
6. Mishnah, Zevahim, 1.1, 2.1-2.5, 3.3-3.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 46, 100
1.1. "כָּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִזְבְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, כְּשֵׁרִים, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה. חוּץ מִן הַפֶּסַח וּמִן הַחַטָּאת. הַפֶּסַח בִּזְמַנּוֹ, וְהַחַטָּאת, בְּכָל זְמָן. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אַף הָאָשָׁם. הַפֶּסַח בִּזְמַנּוֹ, וְהַחַטָּאת וְהָאָשָׁם, בְּכָל זְמָן. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הַחַטָּאת בָּאָה עַל חֵטְא, וְהָאָשָׁם בָּא עַל חֵטְא. מַה חַטָּאת פְּסוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, אַף הָאָשָׁם פָּסוּל שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ:", 2.1. "כָּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁקִּבֵּל דָּמָן זָר, אוֹנֵן, טְבוּל יוֹם, מְחֻסַּר בְּגָדִים, מְחֻסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, שֶׁלֹּא רְחוּץ יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם, עָרֵל, טָמֵא, יוֹשֵׁב, עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבֵּי כֵלִים, עַל גַּבֵּי בְהֵמָה, עַל גַּבֵּי רַגְלֵי חֲבֵרוֹ, פָּסָל. קִבֵּל בַּשְּׂמֹאל, פָּסָל. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר. נִשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם עַל הָרִצְפָּה וַאֲסָפוֹ, פָּסוּל. נְתָנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ שֶׁלֹּא כְנֶגֶד הַיְסוֹד, נָתַן אֶת הַנִּתָּנִין לְמַטָּן, לְמַעְלָן, וְאֶת הַנִּתָּנִין לְמַעְלָן, לְמַטָּן, אֶת הַנִּתָּנִים בִּפְנִים, בַּחוּץ, וְאֶת הַנִּתָּנִין בַּחוּץ, בִּפְנִים, פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת: \n", 2.2. "הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לִזְרֹק דָּמוֹ בַחוּץ אוֹ מִקְצָת דָּמוֹ בַחוּץ, לְהַקְטִיר אֶת אֵמוּרָיו בַּחוּץ אוֹ מִקְצָת אֵמוּרָיו בַּחוּץ, לֶאֱכֹל בְּשָׂרוֹ בַחוּץ אוֹ כַזַּיִת מִבְּשָׂרוֹ בַחוּץ אוֹ לֶאֱכֹל כַּזַּיִת מֵעוֹר הָאַלְיָה בַחוּץ, פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. לִזְרֹק דָּמוֹ לְמָחָר אוֹ מִקְצָת דָּמוֹ לְמָחָר, לְהַקְטִיר אֵמוּרָיו לְמָחָר אוֹ מִקְצָת אֵמוּרָיו לְמָחָר, לֶאֱכֹל בְּשָׂרוֹ לְמָחָר אוֹ כַזַּיִת מִבְּשָׂרוֹ לְמָחָר אוֹ כַּזַּיִת מֵעוֹר הָאַלְיָה לְמָחָר, פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת: \n", 2.3. "זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהַמְקַבֵּל וְהַמְהַלֵּךְ וְהַזּוֹרֵק, לֶאֱכֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכֹל, לְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר, חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּקְרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ: \n", 2.4. "כֵּיצַד קָרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ. שָׁחַט בִּשְׁתִיקָה, קִבֵּל וְהִלֵּךְ וְזָרַק חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, קִבֵּל וְהִלֵּךְ וְזָרַק בִּשְׁתִיקָה. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט, וְקִבֵּל וְהִלֵּךְ וְזָרַק חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, זֶה הוּא שֶׁקָּרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ. כֵּיצַד לֹא קָרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ. שָׁחַט חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, קִבֵּל וְהִלֵּךְ וְזָרַק חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, קִבֵּל וְהִלֵּךְ וְזָרַק חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט, קִבֵּל, וְהִלֵּךְ, וְזָרַק, חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ. הַפֶּסַח וְהַחַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, קִבֵּל וְהִלֵּךְ וְזָרַק חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ. אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁחַט חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, קִבֵּל וְהִלֵּךְ וְזָרַק שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן. אוֹ שֶּׁשָּׁחַט, קִבֵּל, וְהִלֵּךְ, וְזָרַק, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן. זֶה הוּא שֶׁלֹּא קָרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ: \n", 2.5. "לֶאֱכֹל כַּזַּיִת בַּחוּץ וְכַזַּיִת לְמָחָר, כַּזַּיִת לְמָחָר וְכַזַּיִת בַּחוּץ, כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר, כַּחֲצִי זַיִת לְמָחָר וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת בַּחוּץ, פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, זֶה הַכְּלָל, אִם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמָן קָדְמָה לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם, פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִים עָלָיו כָּרֵת. וְאִם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַמָּקוֹם קָדְמָה לְמַחֲשֶׁבֶת הַזְּמָן, פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים זֶה וָזֶה פָסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. לֶאֱכֹל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וּלְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת, כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה מִצְטָרְפִין: \n", 3.3. "הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לֶאֱכֹל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר, כָּשֵׁר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל. לֶאֱכֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכֹל וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר, פָּחוֹת מִכַּזַּיִת, כָּשֵׁר. לֶאֱכֹל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וּלְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת, כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה מִצְטָרְפִין:", 3.4. "הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לֶאֱכֹל כַּזַּיִת מִן הָעוֹר, מִן הָרֹטֶב, מִן הַקִּיפָה, מִן הָאָלָל, מִן הָעֲצָמוֹת, מִן הַגִּידִים, מִן הַטְּלָפַיִם, מִן הַקַּרְנַיִם, חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ אוֹ חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, כָּשֵׁר, וְאֵין חַיָּבִים עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא:", 3.5. "הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין לֶאֱכֹל שָׁלִיל אוֹ שִׁלְיָא בַחוּץ, לֹא פִגֵּל. הַמּוֹלֵק תּוֹרִין בִּפְנִים לֶאֱכֹל בֵּיצֵיהֶם בַּחוּץ, לֹא פִגֵּל. חֲלֵב הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין וּבֵיצֵי תוֹרִין, אֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא:", 3.6. "שְׁחָטוֹ עַל מְנָת לְהַנִּיחַ דָּמוֹ אוֹ אֶת אֵמוּרָיו לְמָחָר, אוֹ לְהוֹצִיאָן לַחוּץ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פוֹסֵל, וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין. שְׁחָטוֹ עַל מְנָת לִתְּנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ שֶׁלֹּא כְנֶגֶד הַיְסוֹד, לִתֵּן אֶת הַנִּתָּנִין לְמַטָּה, לְמַעְלָה, וְאֶת הַנִּתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה, לְמַטָּה, אֶת הַנִּתָּנִין בִּפְנִים, בַּחוּץ, וְאֶת הַנִּתָּנִין בַּחוּץ, בִּפְנִים, שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּהוּ טְמֵאִים, שֶׁיַּקְרִיבוּהוּ טְמֵאִים, שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּהוּ עֲרֵלִים, שֶׁיַּקְרִיבוּהוּ עֲרֵלִים, לְשַׁבֵּר עַצְמוֹת הַפֶּסַח וְלֶאֱכֹל הֵימֶנּוּ נָא, לְעָרֵב דָּמוֹ בְדַם פְּסוּלִין, כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵין הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה פוֹסֶלֶת אֶלָּא חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, וְהַפֶּסַח וְהַחַטָּאת שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן:", 1.1. "All sacrifices slaughtered not in their own name are valid, except that they do not count in fulfilling their owners’ obligation, with the exception of the pesah and the hatat (sin-offering). [This is true for] a pesah in its proper time and a hatat at all times. Rabbi Eliezer says: also the asham (guilt-offering). [This is true for] a pesah in its proper time and a hatat and an asham at all times. Rabbi Eliezer said: the hatat comes on account of sin, and the asham comes on account of sin: just as a hatat [slaughtered] not in its own name is invalid, so the asham is invalid if [slaughtered] not in its own name.", 2.1. "All sacrifices whose blood was caught by a: non-priest, an onen, a tebul yom, one lacking [priestly] vestments, one lacking sacrificial atonement, one who had not washed his hands and feet, an uncircumcised [priest]; an unclean [priest]; one who was sitting, one who was standing on utensils or on an animal or on another’s feet, are disqualified. If [the priest] caught [the blood] with his left hand, it is disqualified. Rabbi Shimon declares it valid. If the blood was poured out on to the pavement and [the priest] collected it, it is disqualified. If [the priest] put it [the blood] on the ramp [to the altar], [or on the altar, but] not against its base; if he applied [the blood] which should be applied below [the scarlet line] above [it] or that which should be applied above, below, or that which should be applied within [he applied] without, or that which should be applied without [he applied] within, it is invalid, but does not involve karet.", 2.2. "One who slaughters a sacrifice [intending]: To sprinkle its blood outside [the Temple] or part of its blood outside; To burn its innards or part of its innards outside; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh outside, Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of the fat-tail outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One he slaughters a sacrifice intending]: To sprinkle its blood or part of its blood the next day, To burn its innards or part of its innards on the next day; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh on the next day; Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of its fat-tail on the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth.", 2.3. "This is the general rule: anyone who slaughters or receives [the blood], or carries [it] or sprinkles [it] [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the sacrifice] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law.", 2.4. "How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; In these cases the mattir was not offered in accordance with the law.", 2.5. "[If one intended] to eat as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive on the outside its intended place, [or] as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. [If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine.", 3.3. "If one slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat what is not normally eaten, or to burn [on the altar] what is not normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid; But Rabbi Eliezer invalidates [the sacrifice]. [If he slaughters it intending] to eat what is normally eaten and to burn what is normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], [but] less than the size of an olive, it is valid. To eat half as much as an olive and to burn half as much as an olive [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid, because [intentions concerning] eating and burning do not combine.", 3.4. "One who slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat as much as an olive of the skin, or of the juice, or of the jelly, or of the hardened meat, or of the bones, or of the tendons, or of the horns, or of the hoofs, either after time or out of bounds, it is valid, and one is not liable on their account in respect of piggul, remt, or uncleanness.", 3.5. "If one slaughters sacred animals [intending] to eat the fetus or the afterbirth outside [of the place or time where the animal must be eaten], he does not render it piggul. If one plucks off [the necks of] doves, [intending] to eat their eggs outside [of the place or time where the animal must be eaten], he does not render [them] piggul. The milk of sacred animals or the eggs of doves one is not liable for eating them in respect of piggul, remt, or uncleanness.", 3.6. "If he slaughtered it with the intention of leaving its blood or its innards for the next day, or of carrying them outside of their place: Rabbi Judah disqualifies [it], But the sages declare it valid. [If he slaughtered it] with the intention of sprinkling [the blood] on the ascent, [or on the altar] but not against its base; or of applying below [the scarlet line] what should be applied above, or above what should be applied below, or without what should be applied within, or within what should be applied without; [Or with the intention] that unclean [persons] should eat it, [or] that unclean [priests] should offer it; [Or] that uncircumcised [persons] should eat it, [or] that uncircumcised persons should offer it; [Or with the intention] of breaking the bones of the pesah, or eating of it before it is roasted; Or of mingling its blood with the blood of invalid [sacrifices]; [In all of these cases] it is valid, because an [illegitimate] intention does not disqualify [a sacrifice] except when it refers to after its time or outside its prescribed place, and [in the case of] a pesah and a hatat, [the intention to slaughter them] for the sake of their being a different sacrifice.",
7. Mishnah, Yoma, 8.7-8.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 130; Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 139
8.7. "מִי שֶׁנָּפְלָה עָלָיו מַפֹּלֶת, סָפֵק הוּא שָׁם סָפֵק אֵינוֹ שָׁם, סָפֵק חַי סָפֵק מֵת, סָפֵק נָכְרִי סָפֵק יִשְׂרָאֵל, מְפַקְּחִין עָלָיו אֶת הַגַּל. מְצָאוּהוּ חַי, מְפַקְּחִין עָלָיו. וְאִם מֵת, יַנִּיחוּהוּ: \n", 8.8. "חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם וַדַּאי מְכַפְּרִין. מִיתָה וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפְּרִין עִם הַתְּשׁוּבָה. הַתְּשׁוּבָה מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל עֲבֵרוֹת קַלּוֹת עַל עֲשֵׂה וְעַל לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. וְעַל הַחֲמוּרוֹת הִיא תוֹלָה עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים וִיכַפֵּר: \n", 8.7. "If an avalanche fell on someone, and it is doubtful whether or not he is there, or whether he is alive or dead, or whether he is an Israelite or a non-Jew, they remove the debris from above him [even on Shabbat]. If they find him alive they remove the debris, but if dead they should leave him there [until Shabbat is over].", 8.8. "The sin-offering and the certain guilt-offering effect atonement. Death and Yom HaKippurim effect atonement together with repentance. Repentance effects atonement for light transgressions: [the transgression of] positive commandments and negative commandments. And for severer transgressions [repentance] suspends [the divine punishment], until Yom HaKippurim arrives and effects atonement.",
8. Mishnah, Shevuot, 1.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 130
1.6. "וְעַל זְדוֹן טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, שָׂעִיר הַנַּעֲשֶׂה בִפְנִים וְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים מְכַפְּרִין. וְעַל שְׁאָר עֲבֵרוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה, הַקַּלּוֹת וְהַחֲמוּרוֹת, הַזְּדוֹנוֹת וְהַשְּׁגָגוֹת, הוֹדַע וְלֹא הוֹדַע, עֲשֵׂה וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, כְּרֵתוֹת וּמִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין, שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ מְכַפֵּר: \n", 1.6. "For intentional transgressions of the laws of impurity in connection with the temple and holy food, the goat offered inside [the Holy of Holies] on the Day of Atonement together with the Day of Atonement itself bring atonement. For other transgressions of the Torah, light and grave, intentional and unintentional, known and unknown, positive and negative, those punishable by kareth and those punishable by death imposed by the court for all these the scapegoat [sent out on the Day of Atonement] brings atonement.",
9. Mishnah, Shabbat, 1.2-1.3, 7.1, 7.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 75, 112, 121
1.2. "לֹא יֵשֵׁב אָדָם לִפְנֵי הַסַּפָּר סָמוּךְ לַמִּנְחָה, עַד שֶׁיִּתְפַּלֵּל. לֹא יִכָּנֵס אָדָם לַמֶּרְחָץ וְלֹא לַבֻּרְסְקִי וְלֹא לֶאֱכֹל וְלֹא לָדִין. וְאִם הִתְחִילוּ, אֵין מַפְסִיקִין. מַפְסִיקִים לִקְרוֹת קְרִיאַת שְׁמַע, וְאֵין מַפְסִיקִים לַתְּפִלָּה: \n", 1.3. "לֹא יֵצֵא הַחַיָּט בְּמַחְטוֹ סָמוּךְ לַחֲשֵׁכָה, שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁכַּח וְיֵצֵא. וְלֹא הַלַּבְלָר בְּקֻלְמוֹסוֹ. וְלֹא יְפַלֶּה אֶת כֵּלָיו, וְלֹא יִקְרָא לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ, הַחַזָּן רוֹאֶה הֵיכָן תִּינוֹקוֹת קוֹרְאִים, אֲבָל הוּא לֹא יִקְרָא. כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ, לֹא יֹאכַל הַזָּב עִם הַזָּבָה, מִפְּנֵי הֶרְגֵּל עֲבֵרָה: \n", 7.1. "כְּלָל גָּדוֹל אָמְרוּ בַשַּׁבָּת. כָּל הַשּׁוֹכֵחַ עִקַּר שַׁבָּת וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְשַׁבָּתוֹת הַרְבֵּה, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אֶחָת. הַיּוֹדֵעַ עִקַּר שַׁבָּת וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת הַרְבֵּה, חַיָּב עַל כָּל שַׁבָּת וְשַׁבָּת. הַיּוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא שַׁבָּת וְעָשָׂה מְלָאכוֹת הַרְבֵּה בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת הַרְבֵּה, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַב מְלָאכָה וּמְלָאכָה. הָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכוֹת הַרְבֵּה מֵעֵין מְלָאכָה אַחַת, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא חַטָּאת אֶחָת: \n", 7.4. "הַמּוֹצִיא תֶבֶן, כִּמְלֹא פִי פָרָה. עָצָה, כִּמְלֹא פִי גָמָל. עָמִיר, כִּמְלֹא פִי טָלֶה. עֲשָׂבִים, כִּמְלֹא פִי גְדִי. עֲלֵי שׁוּם וַעֲלֵי בְצָלִים, לַחִים, כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת, יְבֵשִׁים, כִּמְלֹא פִי גְדִי. וְאֵין מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁווּ בְשִׁעוּרֵיהֶן. הַמּוֹצִיא אֳכָלִים כִּגְרוֹגֶרֶת, חַיָּב, וּמִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשָּׁווּ בְשִׁעוּרֵיהֶן, חוּץ מִקְּלִפֵּיהֶן וְגַרְעִינֵיהֶן וְעֻקְצֵיהֶן וְסֻבָּן וּמֻרְסָנָן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, חוּץ מִקְּלִפֵּי עֲדָשִׁים שֶׁמִּתְבַּשְּׁלוֹת עִמָּהֶן: \n", 1.2. "One may not sit down before a barber near Minhah until he has prayed. One may not enter the baths or a tannery, or [sit down] to eat or [begin] a court case. But if they began, they need not break off. One must break off for the reading of the Shema, but not for prayer.", 1.3. "A tailor must not go out with his needle near nightfall, lest he forget and go out. Nor a scribe with his quill. And one may not search his garments [for lice or fleas], nor read by the light of a lamp. In truth it was said, the hazzan may see where the children are reading from, but he himself must not read. Similarly, a zav must not eat together with a zavah, because it may lead to sin.", 7.1. "A great principle they stated in respect to Shabbat: anyone who forgets the fundamental law of Shabbat and performs many labors on many Shabbatot, is liable for only one sin-offering. One who knows the fundamental law of Shabbat and performs many labors on many Shabbatot is liable for a sin-offering for each and every Shabbat. One who knows that it is Shabbat and performs many labors on many Shabbatot, is liable for every primary labor. One who performs many labors belonging to the same category is obligated for only one sin-offering.", 7.4. "He who carries out a cow’s mouthful of straw, a camel’s mouthful of bean stalks, a lamb’s mouthful of clover, a goat’s mouthful of grasses, moist leaves of garlic or moist leaves of onion the size of a dried fig, [or] a goat’s mouthful of dry [leaves], [is liable]. And they do not combine with each other, because they are not alike in their standards. He who carries out [human] food the size of a dried fig is liable, And they combine with each other, because they are equal in their standards, except their shells, kernels, stalks, husks and coarse bran. Rabbi Judah said: excluding the shells of lentils, because they are boiled together with them.",
10. Mishnah, Pesahim, 3.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 75, 139
3.7. "הַהוֹלֵךְ לִשְׁחֹט אֶת פִּסְחוֹ, וְלָמוּל אֶת בְּנוֹ, וְלֶאֱכֹל סְעֻדַּת אֵרוּסִין בְּבֵית חָמִיו, וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ חָמֵץ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, אִם יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וּלְבַעֵר וְלַחֲזֹר לְמִצְוָתוֹ, יַחֲזֹר וִיבַעֵר. וְאִם לָאו, מְבַטְּלוֹ בְלִבּוֹ. לְהַצִּיל מִן הַנָּכְרִים, וּמִן הַנָּהָר, וּמִן הַלִּסְטִים, וּמִן הַדְּלֵקָה, וּמִן הַמַּפֹּלֶת, יְבַטֵּל בְּלִבּוֹ. וְלִשְׁבֹּת שְׁבִיתַת הָרְשׁוּת, יַחֲזֹר מִיָּד: \n", 3.7. "He who is on his way to slaughter his Pesah sacrifice or to circumcise his son or to dine at a betrothal feast at the house of his father-in-law, and remembers that he has chametz at home: if he is able to go back, remove [it], and [then] return to his religious duty, he must go back and remove [it]; but if not, he annuls it in his heart. [If he is on his way] to save from an invasion or from a river or from brigands or from a fire or from a collapse [of a building], he annuls it in his heart. [But if] to rest for pleasure, he must return immediately.",
11. Mishnah, Menachot, 1.1, 1.1-2.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.3, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 100
1.1. "כָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת שֶׁנִּקְמְצוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, כְּשֵׁרוֹת, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים מִשּׁוּם חוֹבָה, חוּץ מִמִּנְחַת חוֹטֵא, וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת. מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת שֶׁקְּמָצָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, נָתַן בַּכְּלִי, וְהִלֵּךְ, וְהִקְטִיר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, אוֹ לִשְׁמָן וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן וְלִשְׁמָן, פְּסוּלוֹת. כֵּיצַד לִשְׁמָן וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, לְשֵׁם מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּלְשֵׁם מִנְחַת נְדָבָה, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן וְלִשְׁמָן, לְשֵׁם מִנְחַת נְדָבָה וּלְשֵׁם מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא: \n", 1.1. "All minhahs from which the handful was taken not in their own name are valid, except that they do not count in fulfilling their owners’ obligation, with the exception of the sinner's minhah and the minhah of jealousy. A sinner’s minhah and the minhah of jealousy from which he removed the handful not in their own name, or he put into the vessel, or brought [to the altar], or burned not in their own name, or for their own name and not for their own name, or not for their own name and for their own name, they are invalid. How can they be “for their own name and not for their own name”? [If offered it] as a sinner's minhah and as a voluntary minhah. And how can they be “not for their own name and for their own name”? [If offered it] as a voluntary minhah and as a sinner's minhah.",
12. Mishnah, Makkot, 3.1, 3.15 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 101
3.1. "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַלּוֹקִין, הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו, וְעַל הַנִּדָּה, אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר. אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה, חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת. גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא מִשֵּׁם אֶחָד בִּלְבָד: \n", 3.15. "כָּל חַיָּבֵי כְרֵתוֹת שֶׁלָּקוּ, נִפְטְרוּ יְדֵי כְרֵתָתָן, שֶׁנֶאֱמַר (דברים כה) וְנִקְלָה אָחִיךָ לְעֵינֶיךָ, כְּשֶׁלָּקָה הֲרֵי הוּא כְאָחִיךָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, מָה אִם הָעוֹבֵר עֲבֵרָה אַחַת, נוֹטֵל נַפְשׁוֹ עָלֶיהָ, הָעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁתִּנָּתֵן לוֹ נַפְשׁוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, מִמְּקוֹמוֹ הוּא לָמֵד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח) וְנִכְרְתוּ הַנְּפָשׁוֹת הָעֹשֹׂת וְגוֹ', וְאוֹמֵר (שם) אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם. הָא, כָּל הַיּוֹשֵׁב וְלֹא עָבַר עֲבֵרָה, נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שָׂכָר כְּעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (דברים יב) רַק חֲזַק לְבִלְתִּי אֲכֹל הַדָּם כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ וְגוֹ', וּמָה אִם הַדָּם שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קָצָה מִמֶּנּוּ, הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ מְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר, גָּזֵל וַעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מִתְאַוָּה לָהֶן וּמְחַמַּדְתָּן, הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵהֶן עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה לוֹ וּלְדוֹרוֹתָיו וּלְדוֹרוֹת דּוֹרוֹתָיו עַד סוֹף כָּל הַדּוֹרוֹת: \n" 3.1. "And these are liable to be flogged:One who had relations with his sister, or his father's sister, or his mother's sister, or his wife's sister, or his brother's wife, or his father's brother's wife, or a menstruant; A high priest who marries a widow, an ordinary priest who marries a divorcee or a halutzah; An Israelite who marries a mamzereth or natinah, or an Israelite woman who is married to a mamzer or a natin. In the case of a [woman who is both] a divorcee and a widow [a high priest] is liable on two counts. But in the case of a [woman who is both] a divorcee and a halutzah, an ordinary priest is liable only on one count.", 3.15. "All who have incurred [the penalty of] kareth, on being flogged are exempt from their punishment of kareth, for it says, “[He may be given up to forty lashes, but not more] ... lest your brother shall be dishonored before your eyes” (Deut. 25;3) once he has been lashed he is [considered] “your brother”, the words of Rabbi Haiah ben Gamaliel. Rabbi Haiah ben Gamaliel said: “Just as one who transgresses one transgression forfeits his life, how much more does one who performs one commandment have his life granted him.” Rabbi Shimon says: “You can learn this from its own passage; as it says: “[All who do any of those abhorrent things] such persons shall be cut off from their people” (Lev. 18:29), and it says: “You shall keep my statutes and my ordices which if a man do, he shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5), which means that one who desists from transgressing is granted reward like one who performs a precept. Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi says: Behold [the Torah] says, “But makes sure that you do not partake of the blood; for the blood is the life, and you must not consume the life with the flesh…[that it may go well with you and with your descendents to come..” (Deut. 12:23-25”-- now, if in the case of blood which a person’s soul loathes, anyone who refrains from it receives reward, how much more so in regard to robbery and sexual sin for which a person’s soul craves and longs shall one who refrains from them acquire merit for himself and for generations and generations to come, to the end of all generations!"
13. Mishnah, Keritot, 1.1-1.2, 6.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 129, 130
1.1. "שְׁלשִׁים וָשֵׁשׁ כְּרֵתוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה. הַבָּא עַל הָאֵם, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת הָאָב, וְעַל הַכַּלָּה, הַבָּא עַל הַזְּכוּר, וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה הַמְבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה עָלֶיהָ, הַבָּא עַל אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו, וְעַל הַנִּדָּה, הַמְגַדֵּף, וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְהַנּוֹתֵן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ, וּבַעַל אוֹב, הַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְטָמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְהַבָּא לַמִּקְדָּשׁ טָמֵא, הָאוֹכֵל חֵלֶב, וְדָם, נוֹתָר, וּפִגּוּל, הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהַמַּעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ, הָאוֹכֵל חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח, וְהָאוֹכֵל וְהָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, הַמְפַטֵּם אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן, וְהַמְפַטֵּם אֶת הַקְּטֹרֶת, וְהַסָּךְ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה. הַפֶּסַח וְהַמִּילָה בְּמִצְוֹת עֲשֵׂה: \n", 1.2. "עַל אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִים עַל זְדוֹנָם כָּרֵת, וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָם חַטָּאת, וְעַל לֹא הוֹדַע שֶׁלָּהֶן אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, חוּץ מִן הַמְטַמֵּא מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, מִפְנֵי שֶׁהוּא בְעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אַף הַמְגַדֵּף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טו), תּוֹרָה אַחַת יִהְיֶה לָכֶם לָעֹשֶׂה בִּשְׁגָגָה, יָצָא מְגַדֵּף, שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֶׂה: \n", 6.3. "רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, מִתְנַדֵּב אָדָם אָשָׁם תָּלוּי בְּכָל יוֹם וּבְכָל שָׁעָה שֶׁיִּרְצֶה, וְהִיא נִקְרֵאת אֲשַׁם חֲסִידִים. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל בָּבָא בֶן בּוּטִי, שֶׁהָיָה מִתְנַדֵּב אָשָׁם תָּלוּי בְּכָל יוֹם, חוּץ מֵאַחַר יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים יוֹם אֶחָד. אָמַר, הַמָּעוֹן הַזֶּה, אִלּוּ הָיוּ מַנִּיחִים לִי, הָיִיתִי מֵבִיא, אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים לִי, הַמְתֵּן עַד שֶׁתִּכָּנֵס לְסָפֵק. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין מְבִיאִים אָשָׁם תָּלוּי אֶלָּא עַל דָּבָר שֶׁזְּדוֹנוֹ כָרֵת וְשִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת: \n", 1.1. "There are in the Torah thirty-six [transgressions which are punishable with] karet:When one has intercourse with his mother, His father's wife; Or his daughter-in-law; When a man has intercourse with a male, Or with a beast, Or when a woman brings a beast upon herself; When one has intercourse with a woman and her daughter; Or with a married woman; Or with his sister; Or with his father's sister; Or his mother's sister; Or his wife's sister; Or his brother's wife; Or the wife of his father's brother; Or with a menstruating woman; One who blasphemes [the Lord]; One who worships idols; Or dedicates his children to Molech; Or has a ba’al ov; Or desecrates the Shabbat; When an unclean person eats of sacred food; Or when one enters the precincts of the Temple in an unclean state; When one eats forbidden fat, Or blood; Notar; Or piggul; When one slaughters Or offers up [a consecrated animal] outside [the Temple]; One who eats anything leavened on Pesah; One who eats Or works on Yom Kippur; One who compounds the oil [of anointing]; Or compounds incense; Or uses [unlawfully] oil of anointing; And [when one transgresses the laws of] the pesah, And circumcision from among positive commandments.", 1.2. "For these [transgressions] one is liable to karet if committed intentionally, and if committed unwittingly to a hatat. If there is a doubt whether he had committed the transgression to an asham talui, except in the case of one who defiled the Temple or its consecrated things, for in that case one is liable in this case to a sliding-scale sacrifice, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: also the blasphemer [is an exception], as it says: “You shall have one law for one that acts in error” (Numbers 15:29), this excludes the blasphemer who performs no action.", 6.3. "Rabbi Eliezer says: one may freely offer an asham talui every day and at any time he pleases and such a sacrifice is called the asham of the pious. They said of Bava ben Buti that he used to freely offer an asham talui every day, except on the day after Yom Kippur. He declared: By this temple! Had they allowed me, I would have offered one even then, but they said to me, wait until you have come to a state of doubt.” But the sages say one may not bring an asham talui except for a sin that [is punished by] karet [when done intentionally and for which one brings a hatat [when done unwittingly.",
14. Tosefta, Shabbat, 1.13, 8.5, 9.11, 15.11-15.17 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 112, 121, 133, 139
8.5. "איזהו מנחש האומר נפלה מקלי מידי נפלה פתי מפי קרא לי איש פלוני מאחרי קרא לי עורב נבח בי כלב עבר נחש מימיני ושועל משמאלי ופסק צבי את הדרך לפני אל תתחיל בי שהרי שחרית הוא ור\"ח הוא ומוצאי שבת הוא.", 9.11. "המוציא [כליו] מקופלין ומונחין על כתיפו וסנדליו וטבעותיו בקומצו ה\"ז חייב [ואילו] היה מלובש בהן פטור המוציא אדם וכליו עליו וסנדליו ברגליו וטבעותיו בידיו ה\"ז פטור [שאילו] הוציאן כמות שהן חייב חול עפר ואפר שיעורן כזבל רבי ישמעאל [ב\"ר] יוחנן בן ברוקא אומר עפר כדי לכסות בו דם צפור קטנה איזו היא [דם] צפור קטנה זה דרור חול הגס כדי ליתן על [מלא] פי [הכף סיד] א\"ר נראין דברי ר\"ע בחול [דק] ודברי חכמים בחול [גס] סיד כדי לסוד קטנה שבבנות ר' יהודה אומר כדי לעשות כלכל רבי נחמיה אומר כדי לעשות אנדפי א\"ר נראין דברי ר' יהודה בזמן שהוא [כביצה] ודברי רבי נחמיה בזמן שהוא [חביט].", 15.11. "חבילי קש [וחבילי עצים] וחבילי זרדין אם התקינן למאכל בהמה מטלטלין אותן ואם לאו אין מטלטלין אותן רשב\"ג אומר אם ניטלין באחת יד מטלטלין [אותו] ואם לאו אין מטלטלין אותן.", 15.12. "חבילי איזוב הסיאה [הקורנית] שהכניסן לעצים אין אוכל מהן בשבת למאכל בהמה אוכל מהן קוטם ואוכל ובלבד שלא יקטום בכלי מולל ואוכל ובלבד שלא ימלול בכלי הרבה דברי ר' יהודה וחכ\"א מולל בראשי אצבעותיו ואוכל ובלבד שלא ימלול [בידו] הרבה כדרך שעושה בחול וכן בחמיתה וכן בפגים וכן [בשאר] כל התבלין.", 15.13. "שחלים שטרפן מערב שבת נותן לתוכן חומץ ושמן ואין [טורף] אלא מערב [וממשך] את החמיתה ונותן לתוכן חרדל ששחקו מערב שבת מביא דבש ונותן לתוכו ואין טורף [אלא מערב] שום שרסקו מערב שבת מביא גריסין ונותן לתוכו ואין טורף אלא מערב אין כותשין את המלח במדוך של עץ אבל [מרסק] הוא ביד של סכין ובעץ הפרור ואינו חושש אין מרסקין דבלה וגרוגרות וחרובין לפני זקנים בשבת אבל מרסק הוא ביד של סכין ובעץ הפרור ואין חושש.", 15.14. "המולל מלילות מע\"ש מנפח על יד על יד ואוכל אבל לא בקנון ולא בתמחוי המולל מלילות מערב יו\"ט מנפח בקנון ובתמחוי אבל לא בטבלא ולא בנפה ולא בכברה כדרך שעושה בחול ר' דוסתאי בר' ינאי אמר משום ר\"א מוללין את המלול ומציעין את המוצע ואופין את האפוי ומבשלים את המבושל.",
15. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 7.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 143
16. Tosefta, Pesahim, 4.12-4.13 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 143
4.12. "פעם אחת בקש אגריפס המלך לידע [כמה] מנויין של [אוכלוסין] ואמר להם לכהנים הפרישו לי כוליא מכל פסח ופסח והפרישו לו שש מאות אלף זוגות של כוליות כפלים כיוצאי מצרים ואין לך כל פסח ופסח שלא היו עליו יותר מעשרה מנויין חוץ מטמא ושהיה בדרך רחוקה בו ביום נכנסו ישראל בהר הבית ולא היה מחזיקן והיה [נקרא פסח מעוכין].",
17. Tosefta, Maaser Sheni, 3.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 133
18. Palestinian Talmud, Shabbat, 1.2 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 75
19. Palestinian Talmud, Maaser Sheni, 1.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 133
20. Palestinian Talmud, Pesahim, 2.2, 3.7 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 75, 139
21. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 46
22. Palestinian Talmud, Yoma, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 100
23. Babylonian Talmud, Zevahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 46
47a. מנין למתעסק בקדשים שהוא פסול שנאמר (ויקרא א, ה) ושחט את בן הבקר לפני ה' עד שתהא שחיטה לשם בן בקר,א"ל זו בידינו היא לעכב מנין א"ל (ויקרא יט, ה) לרצונכם תזבחהו לדעתכם זביחו:,שאין המחשבה הולכת אלא אחר העובד: מתני' דלא כי האי תנא דתניא א"ר אלעזר ברבי יוסי שמעתי שהבעלים מפגלין אמר רבא מ"ט דרבי אלעזר ברבי יוסי דאמר קרא והקריב המקריב,אמר אביי רבי אלעזר ברבי יוסי ורבי אליעזר ור"ש בן אלעזר כולהו סבירא להו זה מחשבה וזה עובד הויא מחשבה רבי אלעזר ברבי יוסי הא דאמרן,רבי אליעזר דתנן השוחט לעובד כוכבים שחיטתו כשרה ורבי אליעזר פוסל,ר"ש בן אלעזר דתנן כלל אמר רבי שמעון בן אלעזר כל שאין כשר להצניע ואין מצניעין כמוהו הוכשר לזה והצניעו ובא אחר והוציאו נתחייב זה במחשבה של זה,תרוייהו אית להו דרבי אלעזר ברבי יוסי השתא בחוץ אמרינן בפנים מיבעיא,רבי אלעזר ברבי יוסי לית להו דתרוייהו דלמא בפנים הוא דאמרינן בחוץ לא אמרינן,ר"ש בן אלעזר אית ליה דר' אליעזר השתא בשבת אמרינן בעבודת כוכבים מיבעיא,רבי אליעזר לית ליה דרבי שמעון בן אלעזר דלמא בעבודת כוכבים הוא דאמרת כעין בפנים אבל שבת מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה:, br br big strongהדרן עלך בית שמאי /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongאיזהו /strong /big מקומן של זבחים קדשי קדשים שחיטתן בצפון,פר ושעיר של יום הכיפורים שחיטתן בצפון וקיבול דמן בכלי שרת בצפון ודמן טעון הזיה על בין הבדים ועל הפרוכת ועל מזבח הזהב מתנה אחת מהן מעכבת שירי הדם היה שופך על יסוד מערבי של מזבח החיצון ואם לא נתן לא עכב:,פרים הנשרפים ושעירים הנשרפים שחיטתן בצפון וקיבול דמן בכלי שרת בצפון ודמן טעון הזיה על הפרוכת ועל מזבח הזהב 47a. b From where /b is it derived with regard b to one who acts unawares /b in the case b of consecrated /b items, i.e., if one slaughtered an offering without intending to perform the act of slaughter at all, but rather like one occupied with other matters, b that /b the offering b is disqualified? /b Rav Huna said to Shmuel: It is derived from a verse, b as it is stated: “And he shall slaughter the young bull before the Lord” /b (Leviticus 1:5), teaching that the mitzva is not performed properly b unless the slaughter is for the sake of a young bull, /b i.e., knowing that he is performing an act of slaughter.,Shmuel b said to /b Rav Huna: b We have this /b as an established i halakha /i already, that it is a mitzva to slaughter the offering for the sake of a bull, but b from where /b is it derived that this requirement is b indispensable? /b Rav Huna b said to him /b that the verse states: b “With your will you shall slaughter it” /b (Leviticus 19:5), i.e., b with your /b full b awareness you shall slaughter /b it, in the form of a purposeful action.,§ The mishna teaches: b Because the intent follows only the one performing the /b sacrificial b rite. /b The Gemara comments: b The mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b this i tanna /i , as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: I heard that /b even b the owner /b of an offering b can render it i piggul /i /b through improper intention. b Rava says: What is the reason of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei? As the verse states: “Then he who sacrifices shall sacrifice /b his offering to the Lord” (Numbers 15:4). The term “he who sacrifices” is a reference to the owner; since the owner is considered one who sacrifices, he too can render his offering i piggul /i with an improper intention., b Abaye says: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar all hold /b that even in a case involving two people, where b this one has intention and that one performs the service, it is /b the b intention /b that is relevant, i.e., it is as though the one performing the service had the intention. The Gemara explains: The statement of b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, /b is b that which we /b just b said, /b that the owner can render his offering i piggul /i through improper intention despite the fact that it is the priest who performs the service.,The statement of b Rabbi Eliezer /b is b as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Ḥullin /i 38b): With regard to b one who slaughters /b an animal on behalf b of a gentile, his slaughter is valid /b and a Jew may eat the meat of this animal. b But Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, /b as the intention of the gentile, which is presumably to use the animal for idol worship, invalidates the act of slaughter performed by the Jew.,The statement of b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar /b is b as we learned /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a principle: /b In the case of b any /b item b that is not fit to be stored, and /b therefore people do b not /b typically b store /b items b like it, /b but b it was deemed fit /b for storage b by this /b person b and he stored it, and another /b person b came and carried out /b on Shabbat the item that was stored, b that /b one who carried it out b is rendered liable by the thought of this /b one who stored it.,The Gemara notes: b These two /b Sages, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, although their rulings are stated in the context of entirely different matters, b accept /b as i halakha /i the ruling b of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei. /b The Gemara explains: b Now /b that concerning matters b outside /b the Temple, i.e., non-sacred slaughter and carrying on Shabbat, with regard to which the Torah makes no reference to intention, b we say /b that the intention of one person is effective for the action of another, b is /b it b necessary /b to state that the same i halakha /i applies to matters b inside /b the Temple, i.e., offerings, with regard to which it is explicitly stated that intention is effective, as indicated by the verse: “With your will you shall slaughter it” (Leviticus 19:5)?,But b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, does not /b necessarily b accept /b as i halakha /i the rulings of b these two /b Sages, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. The Gemara explains: b Perhaps /b it is only concerning b inside /b the Temple b that we say /b that one person’s intention is effective for the action of another, whereas concerning b outside /b the Temple, b we do not say /b this.,The Gemara further differentiates between the opinions of those two Sages themselves. b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar accepts /b as i halakha /i the ruling b of Rabbi Eliezer: Now /b that b with regard to Shabbat we say /b that the intention of one person is effective for the action of another, b is /b it b necessary /b to say that the same applies b concerning idol worship, /b where the actions are somewhat similar to those performed in the Temple?,But b Rabbi Eliezer does not /b necessarily b accept /b as i halakha /i the ruling b of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar: Perhaps it is /b only b with regard to idol worship that you say /b that one person’s intention is effective for the action of another, as idol worship is somewhat b similar to /b service performed b inside /b the Temple. Consequently, it is reasonable that one person’s intention is effective for the action of another in the case of idolatry, as it does for offerings. b But /b with regard to b Shabbat, the Torah prohibited /b only b planned, /b constructive b labor, /b i.e., one is liable only for an action that includes the creative intent of the doer, and here the one who took the item out did not intend to perform a labor.,, strong MISHNA: /strong b What is the location /b of the slaughtering and consumption b of offerings? /b The principle is that with regard to b offerings of the most sacred order, their slaughter /b is b in the north /b of the Temple courtyard.,Specifically, with regard to b the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, their slaughter /b is b in the north and the collection of their blood in a service vessel /b is b in the north, and their blood requires sprinkling between the staves /b of the Ark in the Holy of Holies, b and upon the Curtain /b separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, b and on the golden altar. /b Concerning all those sprinklings, failure to perform even b one placement of their /b blood b disqualifies /b the offering. As to b the remainder of the blood, /b which is left after those sprinklings, a priest b would pour /b it b onto the western base of the external altar. But if he did not place /b the remainder of the blood on the western base, it does b not disqualify /b the offering.,With regard to b bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, their slaughter /b is b in the north /b of the Temple courtyard, b and the collection of their blood in a service vessel /b is b in the north, and their blood requires sprinkling upon the Curtain /b separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, b and upon the golden altar, /b
24. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 75
9b. big strongמתני׳ /strong /big לא ישב אדם לפני הספר סמוך למנחה עד שיתפלל לא יכנס אדם למרחץ ולא לבורסקי ולא לאכול ולא לדין ואם התחילו אין מפסיקין מפסיקין (לקרות ק"ש) ואין מפסיקין לתפלה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big הי סמוך למנחה אילימא למנחה גדולה אמאי לא האיכא שהות ביום טובא אלא סמוך למנחה קטנה,אם התחילו אין מפסיקין נימא תיהוי תיובתא דר' יהושע בן לוי דאמר ר' יהושע בן לוי כיון שהגיע זמן תפלת המנחה אסור לאדם שיטעום כלום קודם שיתפלל תפלת המנחה,לא לעולם סמוך למנחה גדולה ובתספורת בן אלעשה ולא למרחץ לכולא מילתא דמרחץ ולא לבורסקי לבורסקי גדולה ולא לאכול בסעודה גדולה ולא לדין בתחלת דין,רב אחא בר יעקב אמר לעולם בתספורת דידן לכתחלה אמאי לא ישב גזירה שמא ישבר הזוג ולא למרחץ להזיע בעלמא לכתחלה אמאי לא גזירה שמא יתעלפה ולא לבורסקי לעיוני בעלמא לכתחלה אמאי לא דילמא חזי פסידא בזביניה ומטריד ולא לאכול בסעודה קטנה לכתחלה אמאי לא דילמא אתי לאמשוכי ולא לדין בגמר הדין לכתחלה אמאי לא דילמא חזי טעמא וסתר דינא,מאימתי התחלת תספורת אמר רב אבין משיניח מעפורת של ספרין על ברכיו ומאימתי התחלת מרחץ אמר רב אבין משיערה מעפרתו הימנו ומאימתי התחלת בורסקי משיקשור בין כתיפיו ומאימתי התחלת אכילה רב אמר משיטול ידיו ור' חנינא אמר משיתיר חגורה,ולא פליגי הא לן והא להו,אמר אביי הני חברין בבלאי למאן דאמר תפלת ערבית רשות כיון דשרא ליה המייניה לא מטרחינן ליה ולמ"ד חובה מטרחינן ליה והא תפלת מנחה דלכולי עלמא חובה היא ותנן אם התחילו אין מפסיקין ואמר רבי חנינא משיתיר חגורו 9b. strong MISHNA: /strong After having dealt with the limited and defined topic of the i halakhot /i of carrying out on Shabbat, the mishna begins to deal with the i halakhot /i of Shabbat chronologically, beginning with activities that one may not perform prior to the onset of Shabbat. With regard to one’s daily conduct, the mishna says: b A person may not sit before the barber adjacent to /b the time of b i minḥa /i until he recites /b the afternoon b prayer. And a person may not enter the bathhouse and may not /b enter b to /b work in b a tannery /b [ b i burseki /i /b ]. b And /b he may b neither /b begin b to eat /b a meal b nor to /b sit in b judgment /b until he prays. b And /b however, b if they /b already b began /b engaging in those activities, b they need not stop /b and recite the i Amida /i prayer. The i tanna /i articulated a principle: b One stops /b engaging in all of these activities b to recite i Shema /i and one does not stop to /b recite the i Amida /i b prayer. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong First, the Gemara seeks to clarify: b Which “adjacent to i minḥa /i ,” /b in other words, adjacent to which i minḥa /i is the mishna referring? There is a difference between the time of greater i minḥa /i [ i minḥa gedola /i ], which begins approximately a half hour after noon, and the time of lesser i minḥa /i [ i minḥa ketana /i ], which begins approximately two and a half hours before sunset. The Gemara elaborates: b If you say /b that it is prohibited to perform all of these activities adjacent b to i minḥa gedola /i , why not? Isn’t there /b still b much time /b remaining b in the day? Rather, /b the mishna means b adjacent to i minḥa ketana /i . /b ,The Gemara asks: In that case, b if they started, they need not stop. Let us say that this will be a conclusive refutation of /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Once the time of the afternoon prayer has arrived, it is prohibited for a person to taste anything before he recites the afternoon prayer. /b The implication is that even if one began to eat he must stop.,Rather, that explanation is rejected and the Gemara says: b Actually /b the mishna is referring to b adjacent to i minḥa gedola /i , /b and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is dealing with adjacent to i minḥa ketana /i . In response to the question: If the mishna means adjacent to i minḥa gedola /i isn’t there significant time remaining in the day? The Gemara explains that each of the activities enumerated in the mishna is performed in an especially time-consuming manner. When the mishna said: A person may not sit before the barber, it was referring b to a haircut of ben Elasa, /b whose haircut was very complicated and required several hours to complete. When the mishna said: A person may b not /b go b into the bathhouse /b adjacent to i minḥa /i , it was referring b to all matters /b involved in a visit to b the bathhouse; /b not only washing, but also washing one’s hair, rinsing, and sweating. b And /b he may b not /b enter b the tannery /b adjacent to i minḥa /i , the reference is to b a large tannery /b where there are many hides that require tanning and he must initiate the tanning process from the beginning. b And /b he may b not /b enter b to eat, /b the reference is b to a big meal, /b which lasts a long time. b And /b he may b not /b enter b to /b sit in b judgment, /b refers to a judge who enters at b the beginning of /b the b trial, /b and, generally, it will take a long time until a verdict is reached., b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: /b Indeed the mishna can be explained as referring to i minḥa gedola /i and b actually, /b even b our /b ordinary b haircut /b is prohibited. b i Ab initio /i , why may he not sit /b before the barber adjacent to the time of i minḥa /i ? Due to b a decree lest the scissors break, /b and considerable time pass until they repair the scissors or obtain others. When the mishna said: A person may b not /b enter b the bathhouse /b adjacent to i minḥa /i , it is prohibited even if he is entering b just to sweat. i Ab initio /i , why /b may he b not /b enter? Due to b a decree /b issued by the Sages b lest he faint /b in the bathhouse and considerable time elapse until he recovers. b And /b he may b not /b enter b the tannery /b adjacent to i minḥa /i , even if he intends b just to examine /b the skins. b i Ab initio /i , why /b may he b not /b enter? Due to the concern that b perhaps he will notice damage to his merchandise and become anxious /b and come to restore what was ruined. b And /b he may not enter b to eat a meal /b adjacent to the time of i minḥa /i is referring even b to a small meal. i Ab initio /i , why /b may he b not /b enter? There is concern that b perhaps he will come to extend /b his meal for a long time. b And /b he may b not /b enter b to /b sit in b judgment /b adjacent to the time of i minḥa /i , the mishna is referring even b at the conclusion of /b the b trial. i Ab initio /i , why /b may he b not /b enter? Due to concern that b perhaps he will find a reason, /b contrary to what he originally thought, b and will overturn the verdict /b completely, necessitating the restart of the trial from the beginning.,We learned in the mishna that if he began one of the aforementioned activities, haircut, bath, tannery, meal, and judgment, he is not required to stop. The Gemara asked: b From when is /b it considered b the beginning of the haircut? Rav Avin said: From when he places the barber’s wrap over his knees. And from when /b is it considered b the beginning of the bath? Rav Avin said: From when /b the one entering the bathhouse to bathe b removes his /b outer b wrap, /b his cloak. b And from when /b is it considered b the beginning of /b his visit to b the tannery? From when he ties /b the leather apron b between his shoulders /b ( i Me’iri /i ). b And from when /b is it considered b the beginning of eating? Rav said: From when he /b ritually b washes his hands /b for the meal. b And Rabbi Ḥanina said: From when he loosens his belt. /b ,The Gemara comments: b And they do not disagree. /b Rather b this, /b the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina, who said that the beginning of the meal is considered from when he loosens his belt, b is for us, /b for the people of Babylonia, who are accustomed to close their belts tightly, and therefore the beginning of the meal is when one loosens his belt. b And that, /b the statement of Rav, who said that the beginning of the meal is considered from when he ritually washes his hands, b is for them, /b the people of Eretz Yisrael who did not close their belts tightly, and therefore only when one washes his hands does the meal begin.,Similarly, b Abaye said: Those Babylonian Torah scholars, according to the opinion of the one who said: The evening prayer is voluntary, once one /b of them b loosens his belt, we do not impose upon him /b to stop his meal and pray. And the Gemara wonders: b And according to the opinion of the one who said that the evening prayer is obligatory, we do impose upon him? Doesn’t everyone agree that the afternoon prayer is obligatory? And we learned in our mishna that if they started eating, they need not stop. And /b with regard to that i halakha /i , b Rabbi Ḥanina said: /b The beginning of the meal is b from when he loosens his belt. /b
25. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 75, 139
49a. big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ארבעה עשר שחל להיות בשבת מבערין את הכל מלפני השבת דברי ר"מ וחכמים אומרים בזמנו ר"א בר צדוק אומר תרומה מלפני השבת וחולין בזמנן:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תניא ר"א בר צדוק אומר פעם אחת שבת אבא ביבנה וחל ארבעה עשר להיות בשבת ובא זונין ממונה של ר"ג ואמר הגיע עת לבער את החמץ והלכתי אחר אבא וביערנו את החמץ:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ההולך לשחוט את פסחו ולמול את בנו ולאכול סעודת אירוסין בבית חמיו ונזכר שיש לו חמץ בתוך ביתו אם יכול לחזור ולבער ולחזור למצותו יחזור ויבער ואם לאו מבטלו בלבו,להציל מן הנכרים ומן הנהר ומן הלסטים ומן הדליקה ומן המפולת יבטל בלבו ולשבות שביתת הרשות יחזור מיד,וכן מי שיצא מירושלים ונזכר שיש בידו בשר קדש אם עבר צופים שורפו במקומו ואם לאו חוזר ושורפו לפני הבירה מעצי המערכה,ועד כמה הן חוזרין ר"מ אומר זה וזה בכביצה ר' יהודה אומר זה וזה בכזית וחכמים אומרים בשר קדש בכזית וחמץ בכביצה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ורמינהו ההולך לאכול סעודת אירוסין בבית חמיו ולשבות שביתת הרשות יחזור מיד,א"ר יוחנן לא קשיא הא ר' יהודה הא רבי יוסי דתניא סעודת אירוסין רשות דברי ר' יהודה רבי יוסי אומר מצוה,והשתא דאמר רב חסדא מחלוקת בסעודה שניה אבל בסעודה ראשונה דברי הכל מצוה אפילו תימא הא והא ר' יהודה ולא קשיא הא בסעודה ראשונה הא בסעודה שניה,תניא אמר רבי יהודה אני לא שמעתי אלא סעודת אירוסין אבל לא סבלונות אמר לו ר' יוסי אני שמעתי סעודת אירוסין וסבלונות,תניא רבי שמעון אומר כל סעודה שאינה של מצוה אין תלמיד חכם רשאי להנות ממנה,כגון מאי א"ר יוחנן כגון בת כהן לישראל ובת תלמיד חכם לעם הארץ דא"ר יוחנן בת כהן לישראל אין זווגן עולה יפה,מאי היא אמר רב חסדא או אלמנה או גרושה או זרע אין לה במתניתא תנא קוברה או קוברתו או מביאתו לידי עניות,איני והא א"ר יוחנן הרוצה שיתעשר ידבק בזרעו של אהרן כל שכן שתורה וכהונה מעשרתן לא קשיא הא בת"ח הא בעם הארץ,ר' יהושע נסיב כהנתא חלש אמר לא ניחא ליה לאהרן דאדבק בזרעיה דהוי ליה חתנא כי אנא,רב אידי בר אבין נסיב כהנתא נפקו מיניה תרי בני סמיכי רב ששת בריה דרב אידי ור' יהושע בריה דרב אידי אמר ר"פ אי לא נסיבנא כהנתא לא איעתרי,אמר רב כהנא אי לא נסיבנא כהנתא לא גלאי אמרו ליה והא למקום תורה גלית לא גלאי כדגלי אינשי,אמר רבי יצחק כל הנהנה מסעודת הרשות לסוף גולה שנא' (עמוס ו, ד) ואוכלים כרים מצאן ועגלים מתוך מרבק וכתיב לכן עתה יגלו בראש גולים:,ת"ר כל ת"ח המרבה סעודתו בכל מקום סוף מחריב את ביתו ומאלמן את אשתו ומייתם את גוזליו ותלמודו משתכח ממנו ומחלוקות רבות באות עליו ודבריו אינם נשמעים ומחלל שם שמים ושם רבו ושם אביו וגורם שם רע לו ולבניו ולבני בניו עד סוף כל הדורות,מאי היא אמר אביי קרו ליה בר מחים תנורי רבא אמר בר מרקיד בי כובי רב פפא אמר בר מלחיך פינכי רב שמעיה אמר בר מך רבע:,ת"ר לעולם ימכור אדם כל מה שיש לו וישא בת ת"ח שאם מת או גולה מובטח לו שבניו ת"ח ואל ישא בת ע"ה שאם מת או גולה בניו ע"ה,ת"ר לעולם ימכור אדם כל מה שיש לו וישא בת ת"ח וישיא בתו לת"ח משל לענבי הגפן בענבי הגפן דבר נאה ומתקבל ולא ישא בת עם הארץ משל לענבי הגפן בענבי הסנה דבר כעור 49a. strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to b the fourteenth /b of Nisan b that occurs on Shabbat, one removes all /b leaven from his possession, whether it is i teruma /i or non-sacred food, b before Shabbat, /b except for that which will be eaten during the first part of Shabbat. In that case, one cannot remove leaven from his possession on the fourteenth of Nisan itself as he does in other years. This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: /b One may remove the leaven b at its /b usual b time /b on the fourteenth of Nisan by throwing it away or declaring it ownerless. b Rabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok says: i Teruma /i /b should be removed b before Shabbat, /b as only a few people are permitted to eat it and therefore one can presume that it will remain uneaten during Shabbat. However, b non-sacred /b foods should be removed b at their /b usual b time, /b on the fourteenth of Nisan itself., strong GEMARA: /strong b It was taught /b in the i Tosefta /i that b Rabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok says: One time my father, /b Rabbi Tzadok, b spent Shabbat in Yavne, and the fourteenth /b of Nisan b occurred on /b that b Shabbat. Zonin, /b who was b the appointee of Rabban Gamliel, came and said: The time has come to remove leavened bread; and I went with my father and we removed the leavened bread. /b This story serves as anecdotal evidence that leaven is removed at the usual time on the fourteenth of Nisan, even on Shabbat., strong MISHNA: /strong b One who is traveling /b on the eve of Passover b to slaughter his Paschal lamb, to circumcise his son, or to eat a betrothal feast in his father-in-law’s house, and he remembers that he has leavened bread in his house, if he is able to return /b to his house b and remove /b the leaven and afterward b return to the mitzva /b toward which he was traveling, b he should return /b home b and remove /b his leaven. b But if /b there is not enough time for him to go home and remove the leaven, and still complete the mitzva that he already began, b he should nullify it in his heart, /b as by Torah law this is sufficient.,If one was traveling b to save /b Jews from an attack by b gentiles, from a /b flooding b river, from bandits, from a fire, or from a collapsed /b building, he should not even attempt to return, and instead b he should nullify /b the leaven b in his heart. /b This applies even if he could remove his leaven and still return to his previous activity. If he went b to establish his Shabbat /b residence in order to adjust his Shabbat limit for an b optional /b purpose, rather than in order to fulfill a commandment, b he should return immediately /b to remove his leaven., b And so too, /b the same i halakha /i applies to b one who left Jerusalem and remembered that there was consecrated meat in his hand. /b Meat that is taken out of Jerusalem becomes disqualified, and one is required to burn it in proximity to the Temple. b If he passed /b the area of Mount b Scopus /b [ b i Tzofim /i ], /b beyond which one cannot see Jerusalem, b he burns /b the meat b at the site /b where b he /b is located; b and if /b he has b not /b traveled that far, b he must return and burn it before the Temple with wood from the arrangement /b on the altar, which was designated for burning consecrated items that were disqualified.,The mishna asks: For b how much /b leaven or consecrated meat is one required b to return? Rabbi Meir says: /b In both b this /b case b and that /b case, one must return for b an egg-bulk. Rabbi Yehuda says: /b In both b this /b case b and that /b case, one must return for b an olive-bulk. And the Rabbis say /b that the amount depends on the case: With regard to b consecrated meat, /b he is required to return if he has b an olive-bulk, but /b in a case where he remembers that he has b leavened bread, /b he required to return only b for an egg-bulk. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara b raises a contradiction /b between this mishna and another source. It was taught in a i baraita /i : b One who is traveling to eat a betrothal feast in his father-in-law’s house or to establish his Shabbat /b residence for an b optional /b purpose, b must return immediately /b to remove his leaven. This contradicts the mishna, which states that one who is going to a betrothal feast may nullify the leaven without returning for it, because the meal is considered a mitzva., b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b This is b not difficult, /b as there is a tannaitic dispute with regard to the issue. b This /b source, the i baraita /i , is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b while b that /b source, the mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei. As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A betrothal feast is optional; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: /b It is a b mitzva. /b , b And now that Rav Ḥisda said: The dispute /b between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei applies to b the second /b betrothal feast, where the groom takes part in an additional meal with the bride’s family, b but everyone agrees that the first /b betrothal b feast is a mitzva, /b the contradiction between the mishna and the i baraita /i can be resolved differently. b Even if you say that this /b mishna and b that /b i baraita /i are both in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b it is b not difficult. This /b mishna, which relates to the meal as a mitzva, is referring to b the first meal. That /b i baraita /i , which assumes that the meal is not a mitzva, is referring to b the second meal. /b , b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard only /b that there is a mitzva with regard to a b betrothal feast /b itself, b but not /b with regard to the feast of the b gifts [ i sivlonot /i ], /b when the groom would present gifts to the bride. While a festive meal was eaten on this occasion, it was not considered to be a mitzva. b Rabbi Yosei said to him: I heard /b that both b a betrothal feast and /b the feast of the b gifts /b are considered mitzvot.,Having discussed whether a betrothal feast is a mitzva, the Gemara addresses a related issue. b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon says: A Torah scholar may not /b derive b benefit from /b partaking in b any feast that is not a mitzva. /b ,The Gemara asks: b In what case /b does this statement apply? b Rabbi Yoḥa said: In a case /b where b the daughter of a priest /b marries b an Israelite, /b or where b the daughter of a Torah scholar /b marries b an ignoramus. /b Although a wedding feast is generally a mitzva, it is not in this case, b as Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b When b the daughter of a priest /b marries b an Israelite their union will not be auspicious, /b as it is disgraceful for the priesthood when the daughter of a priest marries an Israelite.,The Gemara asks: b What is /b meant by b this /b statement that their union will be inauspicious? b Rav Ḥisda said: /b The inauspicious nature of such a marriage can be identified based on the verse describing the return of a daughter of a priest to her father’s house after marrying a non-priest. The verse is understood as mentioning that the marriage will result in one of three possibilities: she will b either be a widow, a divorcee, or without children /b (see Leviticus 22:13). b It was taught in a i baraita /i : /b Either her husband b will bury her or she will bury him, /b because one of them will die young, b or she will cause him to become poor. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Is that so? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥa /b himself b say: One who wishes to become wealthy should cling to the descendants of Aaron, /b and b all the more so /b should the merit of the b Torah /b and the b priesthood cause them to become wealthy. /b The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult, /b as b this /b case, where he becomes wealthy, b refers to a Torah scholar /b who marries a woman of priestly lineage. In that case their union will be a successful one. b That /b case, where their union will not be auspicious, refers to b an ignoramus /b who marries a woman of priestly lineage.,The Gemara relates that b Rabbi Yehoshua married a daughter of a priest /b and b became ill. He said: /b Apparently, b it is not satisfactory to Aaron /b the priest b that I cling to his descendants, so that he has a son-in-law like me. /b ,The Gemara also relates that b Rav Idi bar Avin married a daughter of a priest. Two sons /b who were b ordained /b to decide halakhic matters b came from him, /b namely b Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, and Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi. /b Similarly, b Rav Pappa said: Had I not married a daughter of a priest, I would not have become wealthy. /b ,On the other hand, b Rav Kahana, /b who was not a priest, b said: Had I not married a daughter of a priest, I would not have been exiled, /b as Rav Kahana was forced to flee from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael. b They said to him: But you were exiled to a place of Torah, /b which is not a punishment at all. He answered: b I was not exiled as people are /b generally b exiled, /b i.e., I did not emigrate of my own free will; rather, I was forced to flee from the authorities., b Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who benefits from /b partaking in b an optional feast, /b which is not a mitzva, b will ultimately be exiled, as it is stated: “And eat the lambs of the flock and the calves out of the midst of the stall” /b (Amos 6:4), b and it is written: “Therefore now they shall go into exile at the head of the exiles; /b and the revelry of those who stretched themselves out shall pass away” (Amos 6:7).,The Gemara continues discussing a Torah scholar who benefits from optional feasts. b The Sages taught: Any Torah scholar who feasts excessively everywhere /b degrades himself and brings suffering upon himself. He will b ultimately destroy his house, widow his wife, orphan his chicks, /b i.e., his children, b and his studies will be forgotten. Much dispute will come upon him, his words will not be heeded, and he will desecrate God’s name and the name of his master and the name of his father. And he will cause a bad name for himself, his children, and his descendants throughout future generations. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is this /b bad reputation that he causes to himself and his descendants? b Abaye said: /b His son b is called the son /b [ b i bar /i /b ] b of the one who heats ovens, /b since this person continually heated ovens in order to prepare food for feasts. b Rava said: /b His son will be called b the son of the one who dances /b in b inns [ i bei kuvei /i ], /b as he seems to be invited to every feast to entertain the guests. b Rav Pappa said: /b His son will be called b the son of the one who licks bowls [ i pinkhei /i ]. Rav Shemaya said: /b His son will be called b the son of the one who folds /b his garment b and crouches, /b i.e., falls asleep drunk.,On the topic of proper marriage partners, the Gemara cites the following discussion. b The Sages taught: One should always /b be willing to b sell all he has /b in order to b marry the daughter of a Torah scholar, as if he dies or /b if he b is exiled /b and he cannot raise his children, b he can be assured that his sons will be Torah scholars, /b since their mother will ensure that they are well educated. b And one should not marry the daughter of an ignoramus, as if he dies or is exiled, his sons will be ignoramuses. /b ,Furthermore, b the Sages taught: One should always /b be willing to b sell all he has /b in order to b marry the daughter of a Torah scholar and /b in order to b marry off his daughter to a Torah scholar. /b This type of marriage can be b compared to grapes of a vine /b that become intertwined b with grapes of a vine, something /b which is b beautiful and acceptable /b to God and man. b And one should not marry the daughter of an ignoramus. /b This type of marriage can be b compared to grapes of a vine /b that have become intertwined b with berries of a bramble, /b which is b something unseemly /b
26. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 46
38b. (ויקרא כב, כז) או כשב פרט לכלאים או עז פרט לנדמה כי יולד פרט ליוצא דופן שבעת ימים פרט למחוסר זמן תחת אמו פרט ליתום,האי יתום ה"ד אילימא דילידתיה אמיה והדר מתה לעולם תיחי ותיזיל אלא דמתה והדר ילידתיה מכי יולד נפקא,אלא פשיטא זה פירש למיתה וזה פירש לחיים אי אמרת בשלמא בעינן חיותא בסוף לידה היינו דאיצטריך קרא למעוטי אלא אי אמרת לא בעינן חיותא בסוף לידה למה ליה מכי יולד נפקא,אמר רבא הלכתא כי הא מתניתא בהמה דקה שפשטה ידה ולא החזירה פסולה,במה דברים אמורים ביד אבל ברגל בין פשטה ולא כפפה בין כפפה ולא פשטה כשרה בד"א בדקה אבל בגסה בין ביד בין ברגל בין פשטה ולא כפפה בין כפפה ולא פשטה כשרה ועוף אפילו לא רפרף אלא גפו ולא כשכש אלא זנבו הרי זה פירכוס,מאי קמ"ל כולהו תננהי בהמה דקה שפשטה ידה ולא החזירה פסולה שאינה אלא הוצאת נפש יד אין רגל לא דקה אין גסה לא עוף איצטריכא ליה דלא תנן:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big השוחט לעובד כוכבי' שחיטתו כשרה ור"א פוסל אמר ר"א אפילו שחטה לאכול לעובד כוכבים מחצר כבד שלה פסולה שסתם מחשבת עובד כוכבים לעבודת כוכבים,א"ר יוסי ק"ו הדברים ומה במקום שהמחשבה פוסלת במוקדשין אין הכל הולך אלא אחר העובד מקום שאין מחשבה פוסלת בחולין אינו דין שלא יהא הכל הולך אלא אחר השוחט:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big הני תנאי אית להו דר' אליעזר ברבי יוסי דתניא אמר ר' אליעזר ברבי יוסי שמעתי שהבעלים מפגלין,מיהו ת"ק סבר אי שמעיניה דחשיב אין אי לא לא סתם מחשבת עובד כוכבים לעבודת כוכבים לא אמרינן ור"א סבר אע"ג דלא שמעיניה דחשיב סתם מחשבת עובד כוכבים לעבודת כוכבים אמרינן ואתא רבי יוסי למימר אע"ג דשמעיניה דחשיב זה מחשב וזה עובד לא אמרינן,איכא דאמרי בדשמעיניה דחשיב פליגי ת"ק סבר כי אמרינן זה מחשב וזה עובד הני מילי בפנים אבל בחוץ לא חוץ מפנים 38b. b or a sheep” /b is b to the exclusion of /b an animal born to parents of b diverse kinds, /b which may not be brought as an offering. The phrase b “or a goat” /b is b to the exclusion of /b an animal b that resembles /b another species of animal. b “When it is born”; /b this is b to the exclusion of /b an animal b born by caesarean section. /b “It shall be b seven days”; /b this is b to the exclusion of /b an animal b whose time has not yet /b arrived. b “Under its mother”; /b this is b to the exclusion of /b an animal that is b an orphan. /b ,Rava elaborates: b What are the circumstances /b of b this orphan? If we say that its mother gave birth to it and then died, /b this is unreasonable. Will the mother b continue living forever? Rather, /b perhaps the reference is to a case b where /b the mother b died and then gave birth to it. /b The Gemara rejects that possibility, as the fact that this animal is disqualified from sacrifice b is derived from /b the phrase: b “When it is born,” /b since after the mother’s death the newborn animal can emerge from the womb only by means of caesarean section., b Rather, /b it is b obvious /b that the reference is to a case where the mother died at the conclusion of the birth, at which point b this /b mother b withdrew for death and that /b newborn b withdrew for life. Granted, if you say /b that b we require life at the conclusion of /b the b birth, that is why a verse was necessary to exclude /b the orphan. b But if you say /b that b we do not require life at the conclusion of the birth, /b and the verse is excluding only an animal that was born after its mother’s death, b why is /b this verse necessary to exclude it? It can b be derived from /b the phrase: b “When it is born.” /b It may be derived from here that in any situation where the animal must be alive, it must remain alive until the end of the process. That is the case with regard to the slaughter of an animal in danger of imminent death as well. The slaughter is valid only if there is an indication of life at the end of the act of slaughter.,§ The mishna teaches: The slaughter of a small animal in danger of imminent death that during the slaughter extended its foreleg that was bent and did not restore it to the bent position is not valid, as extending the foreleg is only part of the natural course of removal of the animal’s soul from its body and not a convulsion indicating life. b Rava says /b that b the i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion expressed in b this i baraita /i : /b The slaughter of b a small animal that extended its foreleg /b that was bent b and did not restore it /b to the bent position b is not valid. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b In what /b case b is this statement said? /b It is b with regard to the foreleg. But with regard to the hind leg, whether /b the animal b extended it and did not restore /b it to the bent position b or /b the animal b bent it but did not extend it, /b the slaughter b is valid. In what /b case b is this statement, /b about extending the foreleg, b said? /b It is b with regard to a small /b animal. b But with regard to a large /b animal, b whether /b the convulsion involves its b foreleg or its hind leg, /b and b whether /b the animal b extended it and did not restore /b it to the bent position b or /b the animal b bent it but did not extend it, /b the slaughter b is valid. And /b with regard to b a bird, even /b if it b fluttered [ i rifref /i ] only its wing or wagged only its tail, that is a convulsion /b and an indication of life.,The Gemara asks: b What is /b Rava b teaching us /b in ruling in accordance with the i baraita /i ? He is teaching us b all of /b those i halakhot /i b we learned /b in the mishna: The slaughter of b a small animal that /b when being slaughtered b extended its foreleg /b that was bent b and did not restore /b it to the bent position b is not valid, as /b extending the foreleg b is only /b part of the natural course of b removal /b of the animal’s b soul /b from its body and not a convulsion indicating life. It may be inferred from the mishna that with regard to movement of b a foreleg /b alone, b yes, /b it is not an indication of life, but movement of b a hind leg, no, /b it is an indication of life. With regard to b a small /b animal, b yes, /b this is the i halakha /i ; with regard to b a large /b animal, b no, /b this is not the i halakha /i , and extending a hind leg does indicate life. The Gemara answers: It b was necessary for /b Rava to teach the i halakha /i in the i baraita /i with regard to b a bird, as we did not learn /b it in the mishna., strong MISHNA: /strong In the case of a Jew b who slaughters /b the animal of a gentile b for a gentile, his slaughter is valid, and Rabbi Eliezer deems it not valid. Rabbi Eliezer says: Even if /b the Jew b slaughtered /b the animal with the intent b to feed the gentile from its diaphragm [ i meḥatzar kaved /i ], /b its slaughter is b not valid, as the unspecified intent of a gentile is /b to slaughter the animal b for idol worship, /b and it is prohibited to derive benefit from it., b Rabbi Yosei says: /b The b matter /b of the intent of the gentile is irrelevant in this case, as can be derived by means of b an i a fortiori /i /b inference. b If in a place where intent /b while slaughtering the animal b invalidates /b the slaughter, i.e., b in sacrificial /b animals, such as when slaughtering an offering with the intent to sacrifice it beyond its designated time, b everything follows only /b the intent of the priest b performing the service /b and not the intent of the owner, then b in a place where intent does not invalidate /b the slaughter, i.e., b in non-sacred /b animals, b is it not right that everything should follow only /b the intent of b the one who slaughters /b the animal?, strong GEMARA: /strong In explanation of the dispute between the first i tanna /i and Rabbi Eliezer, the Gemara explains: b These i tanna’im /i hold /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: I heard that the owners, /b and not only the priest, b render /b an offering b i piggul /i /b by means of improper intent. The same is true with regard to non-sacred slaughter, where the owners’ intent for idol worship invalidates the slaughter, even if the slaughterer has no intent for idol worship., b But the first i tanna /i holds /b that b if we heard /b the gentile say b that he intends /b the animal for idol worship, b yes, /b his intent invalidates the slaughter, and b if /b the gentile did b not /b voice his intent before us, his intent does b not /b invalidate the slaughter, as b we do not say /b that the b unspecified intent of a gentile is for idol worship. Rabbi Eliezer holds: Although we did not hear /b the gentile say b that he intends /b the animal for idol worship, the slaughter is not valid, as b we say /b the b unspecified intent of a gentile is for idol worship. And Rabbi Yosei comes to say /b that b even though we heard /b the gentile say b that he intends /b the animal for idol worship, in a case where b this /b owner b has intent /b for idol worship b and that /b other person is b performing /b the slaughter, b we do not say /b that the intent of the owner invalidates the slaughter., b There are /b those b who say /b an alternative explanation of the mishna. It is b with regard to /b a case b where we heard /b the gentile say b that he intends /b the animal for idol worship that the i tanna’im /i b disagree. The first i tanna /i holds /b that b when we say /b in a case where b this /b owner b has /b improper b intent and that /b other person is b performing /b the slaughter that the intent of the owner invalidates the slaughter, b this statement /b applies only b inside /b the Temple, in the slaughter of offerings. b But /b with regard to non-sacred slaughter b outside /b the Temple, the intent of the owner does b not /b invalidate the slaughter, as with regard to deriving the i halakhot /i of non-sacred slaughter b outside /b the Temple b from /b the i halakhot /i of slaughter of sacrificial animals b inside /b the Temple,
27. Mishnah, Karetot, 1.1-1.2, 2.6, 6.3  Tagged with subjects: •extirpation (karet) Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 99, 112, 133