1. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 17.25 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 17.25. וְיִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ בֶּן־שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה בְּהִמֹּלוֹ אֵת בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ׃ | 17.25. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin." |
|
2. Philo of Alexandria, On The Special Laws, 1.261 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
| 1.261. The body then, as I have already said, he purifies with ablutions and bespringklings, and does not allow a person after he has once washed and sprinkled himself, at once to enter within the sacred precincts, but bids him wait outside for seven days, and to be besprinkled twice, on the third day and on the seventh day; and after this it commands him to wash himself once more, and then it admits him to enter the sacred precincts and to share in the sacred ministrations.XLIX. |
|
3. Mishnah, Hagigah, 2.5-2.6, 3.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.5. They wash hands for [eating] unconsecrated [food], and [second] tithe, and for terumah [heave-offering]. But for sacred food they must immerse [their hands in a mikveh]. With regard to the [water of] purification, if one’s hands became impure, one’s [whole] body is impure." 2.6. If he immersed for unconsecrated [food], and was presumed to be fit to eat unconsecrated [food], he is prohibited from [eating second] tithe. If he immersed for [second] tithe, and was presumed to be fit to eat [second] tithe, he is prohibited from [eating] terumah. If he immersed for terumah, and was presumed to be fit to eat terumah, he is prohibited from [eating] holy things. If he immersed for holy things, and was presumed to be fit to eat holy things he is prohibited from [touching the waters of] purification. If one immersed for something possessing a stricter [degree of holiness], one is permitted [to have contact with] something possessing a lighter [degree of holiness]. If he immersed but without special intention, it is as though he had not immersed." 3.6. Tax-collectors who entered a house, and similarly thieves who restored [stolen] vessels are believed if they say, “We have not touched [anything].” And in Jerusalem they are believed in regard to sacred things, and during a festival also in regard to terumah." |
|
4. Mishnah, Keritot, 2.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.1. There are four persons who require a ceremony of atonement, and there are four who bring a sacrifice for willful as well as for inadvertent transgression. The following are those who require a ceremony of atonement: the zav, the zavah, the woman who gave birth and the metzora. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: also a convert is regarded as a person who still requires a ceremony of atonement until the blood has been sprinkled for him; the same applies to the nazirite with reference to wine, haircutting and uncleanness." |
|
5. Mishnah, Yoma, 3.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 3.3. A man may not enter the Temple courtyard or to worship even if he was clean until he immerses himself. Five immersions and ten sanctifications did the high priest perform on that day. And all in sanctity in the Bet Haparvah with the exception of this one alone." |
|
6. New Testament, Acts, 21 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
7. Tosefta, Negaim, 8.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
8. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 47.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
| 47.8. וְאַבְרָהָם בֶּן תִּשְׁעִים וָתֵשַׁע וגו' (בראשית יז, כד), הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ, וּלְהַלָּן כְּתִיב: אֵת בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ, אֶלָּא אַבְרָהָם עַל יְדֵי שֶׁנִּתְמָעֵךְ עַל יְדֵי אִשָּׁה כְּתִיב: בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ, יִשְׁמָעֵאל שֶׁלֹא נִתְמָעֵךְ עַל יְדֵי אִשָּׁה, כְּתִיב: אֵת בְּשַׂר עָרְלָתוֹ. | |
|
9. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, 92a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 92a. והמלקט לו עצמות טובל ואוכל בקדשים,גר שנתגייר בע"פ ב"ש אומרים טובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב וב"ה אומרים הפורש מן הערלה כפורש מן הקבר:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מ"ט קא סבר אנינות דלילה דרבנן וגבי פסח לא העמידו דבריהם במקום כרת גבי קדשים העמידו דבריהם במקום עשה:,השומע על מתו וכו': מלקט עצמות הא בעי הזאת שלישי ושביעי אימא שליקטו לו עצמות:,גר שנתגייר וכו': אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן מחלוקת בערל נכרי,דב"ה סברי גזירה שמא יטמא לשנה הבאה ויאמר אישתקד מי לא טבלתי ואכלתי עכשיו נמי אטבול ואוכל ולא ידע דאשתקד נכרי הוה ולא מקבל טומאה עכשיו ישראל ומקבל טומאה,וב"ש סברי לא גזרינן אבל ערל ישראל דברי הכל טובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב ולא גזרינן ערל ישראל משום ערל נכרי,תניא נמי הכי אמר ר"ש בן אלעזר לא נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה על ערל ישראל שטובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב על מה נחלקו על ערל נכרי שב"ש אומרים טובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב וב"ה אומרים הפורש מן הערלה כפורש מן הקבר:,אמר רבא ערל הזאה ואיזמל העמידו דבריהן במקום כרת אונן ומצורע ובית הפרס לא העמידו דבריהן במקום כרת,ערל הא דאמרן,הזאה דאמר מר הזאה שבות ואינו דוחה את השבת,איזמל דתניא כשם שאין מביאין אותו דרך רשות הרבים כך אין מביאין אותו דרך גגות ודרך חצרות ודרך קרפיפות,אונן הא דאמרן,מצורע מאי היא דתניא מצורע שחל שמיני שלו בערב הפסח וראה קרי בו ביום טובל ואוכל,אמרו חכמים אע"פ שטבול יום אינו נכנס זה נכנס מוטב יבא עשה שיש בו כרת וידחה עשה שאין בו כרת,וא"ר יוחנן דבר תורה אפילו עשה אין בו שנאמר (דברי הימים ב כ, ה) ויעמד יהושפט בקהל יהודה וירושלים בבית ה' לפני החצר החדשה מאי חצר החדשה שחדשו בו דבר ואמרו טבול יום לא יכנס במחנה לויה,בית הפרס דתנן ושוין ב"ש וב"ה | 92a. bAnd one who gathersthe bbonesof his parents, who are buried in a temporary location for their flesh to decay and who is moving them to a permanent burial place must also observe a day of acute mourning by rabbinic decree. These mourners bimmerse and eatall types of bsacrificial foodat night. Since in these cases, even during the day, the mourning is by rabbinic decree, the Sages did not extend it into the evening.,With regard to ba convert who converted on Passover eve, Beit Shammai say: He immerses and eats his Paschal lamb in the evening. And Beit Hillel say: One who separates from the foreskinby being circumcised is ritually impure, blike one who separates from the graveafter coming in contact with a corpse. Consequently, he must first observe the seven-day purification process necessary to remove ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. Only then, from the eighth day onward, may he partake of sacrificial meat., strongGEMARA: /strong bWhat is the reasonthat an acute mourner may eat the Paschal lamb in the evening? The itannaof the mishna bholdsthat the observance of bacute mourning at nightafter the day of one’s relative’s death bis a rabbinicprohibition. bAnd with regard to the Paschal lamb,the Sages waived their prohibition because bthey did not uphold their statementprohibiting consumption of sacrificial food bin a situationin which doing so would violate a prohibition that carries the punishment bof ikaret /i,as is the case with one who neglects to offer the Paschal lamb. On the other hand, bwith regard toother bsacrificial food,they maintained the prohibition, because bthey upheld their statement in a situationin which neglecting to eat the sacrificial food entails only the neglect of ba positive mitzva. /b,We learned in the mishna: bOne who hears aboutthe death of bhis deadrelative more than thirty days after the death and one who gathers bones immerse and eat sacrificial food in the evening. The Gemara expresses surprise: Can this apply to bone who gathers bones? Butby doing so he came in contact with the bones of a corpse, and bhe needs sprinkling onthe bthird and seventhdays in order to become ritually pure. The Gemara answers: Emend the teaching of the mishna and instead bsay:One bfor whom they gathered bones,meaning that other people gathered the bones of his parents to transfer them to a new grave but he himself did not touch them, has a rabbinical requirement to observe a day of acute mourning, but he is not ritually impure.,We learned in the mishna: With regard to ba convert who convertedon Passover eve, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel as to whether he may immerse and eat the Paschal sacrifice in the evening. The Gemara discusses the scope of this dispute: bRabba bar bar Ḥana saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa saidthat bthe dispute is about an uncircumcised gentilethat was circumcised and converted on Passover eve., bBeit Hillel holdthat bthere is a rabbinic decreedue to a concern that bperhaps he will become contaminatedby a corpse bin the following year and he will say: Last year,even though I had come in contact with a corpse previous to Passover, bdid I not immerse and eatthe Paschal lamb without completing the purification process for impurity imparted by a corpse? bNow also, I will immerse and eat. And he does not knowand understand bthat last year,before his conversion on Passover eve, bhe was a gentile andtherefore bhe was not susceptible to ritual impurity,because gentiles do not contract ritual impurity according to Torah law, but bnow he is a Jew and is susceptible to ritual impurity.Therefore, the Sages decreed that he should complete the seven-day purification process for impurity imparted by a corpse before he can partake of sacrificial food in order to avoid such a mistake., bAnd Beit Shammai hold that we do not make a decreedue to this concern. bButwith regard to ban uncircumcised Jewwho for some reason had not been circumcised until Passover eve, ball agree that he may immerse and eat his Paschal lamb in the evening.The concern that he will err the following year does not apply, band we do not decreein the case of an buncircumcised Jewwho was circumcised on Passover eve, bdue toconcern that the case will be confused with that of ban uncircumcised gentilewho was circumcised and converted on Passover eve., bThat was also taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree aboutthe fact that ban uncircumcised Jewwho was circumcised on Passover eve bmay immerse and eat his Paschal lamb in the evening. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to an uncircumcised gentilewho converted on Passover eve. bBeit Shammai saythat bhe may immerse and eat his Paschal lamb in the evening, and Beit Hillel saythat bone who separates from the foreskin isritually impure blike one who separates from the grave. /b, bRava said:With regard to ban uncircumcisedgentile who converted, bsprinklingthe purification waters to purify impurity imparted by a corpse, banda circumcision bscalpel [ iizmel /i],the Sages bupheld their statementeven bin a situationin which doing so would violate a prohibition that carries the punishment bof ikaret /i.However, with regard to ban acute mourner, a leper, and a ibeit haperas /i,an area in which a doubt exists concerning the location of a grave or a corpse, bthey did not uphold their statement in a situationin which doing so would violate a prohibition that carries the punishment bof ikaret /i. /b,The Gemara details all the cases Rava referred to: The case of ban uncircumcisedgentile who converted is bas we have saidpreviously. Beit Hillel disqualify a convert from offering the Paschal lamb, despite the fact that neglecting to do so renders one liable to receive ikaret /i.,The case of bsprinklingthe purification waters to purify impurity imparted by a corpse is bas the Master saidin a mishna: bSprinklingis prohibited on Shabbat due to brabbinic decree, and it does not override Shabbateven on Passover eve, despite the fact that one who requires sprinkling will then be unable to offer the Paschal lamb.,The case of the circumcision bscalpelis bas it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: If a circumcision scalpel was not brought to the location of the baby from before Shabbat, bjust as we may not bring it through a public domainin violation of Torah law, bsotoo bwe may not bring it through roofs, through courtyards, and through enclosures,even though carrying in this manner is prohibited by rabbinic decree. One who has an uncircumcised member of his household may not bring a Paschal lamb and is liable for ikaret /i. The Sages maintained the prohibition of carrying the scalpel in all circumstances, even when doing so would mean the baby would remain uncircumcised on Passover eve, preventing his household from offering a Paschal lamb.,The Gemara lists the cases where the Sages waived their prohibition in the face of a prohibition carrying the punishment of ikaret /i: The case of an bacute mourner is that which we saidin the mishna.,The case of the bleper, what is it?It is bas it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bA leperis ritually impure and must undergo an involved, eight-day purification process, which culminates on the eighth day with the bringing of various offerings in the Temple. If his beighth day occurs on Passover eve,such that it would be possible to bring his offerings and be fit to partake of the Paschal lamb that evening, band he saw an occurrenceof semen bon that day,and one who experiences such a discharge is ritually impure and prohibited from entering the Temple, bhe may immersein order to purify himself from the discharge and then bring his offerings band eatthe Paschal lamb at night., bThe Sages said: Althoughnormally, with regard to ritual impurity from seminal discharge, bone who has immersed on that day may not enterthe Temple until nightfall, bthis one may enter.The reason is that bit is better for a positive mitzva that hasa punishment of ikaret /i,i.e., the bringing of the Paschal lamb, bto come and override a positive mitzva that does not havea punishment of ikaret /i,i.e., the mitzva of “They shall send out from the camp every leper and whoever has had issue, and whoever is unclean by the dead” (Numbers 5:2), which requires the removal from the Temple of one who has immersed that day and will become pure only upon nightfall., bAndfurthermore, bRabbi Yoḥa said: By Torah law, there is not even a positive mitzvathat restricts one who has immersed that day and will become pure only upon nightfall from entering the Temple, bas it is stated: “And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judea and Jerusalem, in the House of the Lord, before the new courtyard”(II Chronicles 20:5). bWhatis indicated by identifying the courtyards as bthe new courtyard?It indicates bthat they innovated something in it, and they said: One who has immersed on that daybut will become pure only upon nightfall bmay not enter the Levite camp,which includes the entire Temple Mount. This suggests that the prohibition is of rabbinic origin and is not a positive mitzva.,The case of a ibeit haperas /i,in which the Sages did not uphold their decree, is bas it was taughtin a mishna: bAnd Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree /b |
|
10. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, 137b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 137b. מל ולא פרע את המילה כאילו לא מל:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רבי אבינא א"ר ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב בשר החופה את רוב גובהה של עטרה:,ואם היה בעל בשר וכו': אמר שמואל קטן המסורבל בבשר רואין אותו כ"ז שמתקשה ונראה מהול אינו צריך למול ואם לאו צריך למול,במתניתא תנא רשב"ג אומר קטן המסורבל בבשר רואין אותו כל זמן שמתקשה ואינו נראה מהול צריך למולו ואם לאו אינו צריך למולו,מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו נראה ואינו נראה:,מל ולא פרע: ת"ר המל אומר אקב"ו על המילה אבי הבן אומר אקב"ו להכניסו בבריתו של אברהם אבינו העומדים אומרים כשם שנכנס לברית כך יכנס לתורה לחופה ולמע"ט,והמברך אומר אשר קידש ידיד מבטן חוק בשארו שם וצאצאיו חתם באות ברית קדש על כן בשכר זאת אל חי חלקנו צוה להציל ידידות שארינו משחת למען בריתו אשר שם בבשרנו בא"י כורת הברית,המל את הגרים אומר ברוך אתה ה' אלהינו מלך העולם אקב"ו על המילה והמברך אומר אקב"ו למול את הגרים ולהטיף מהם דם ברית שאילמלא דם ברית לא נתקיימו שמים וארץ שנאמר (ירמיהו לג, כה) אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חוקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי בא"י כורת הברית,המל את העבדים אומר אקב"ו על המילה והמברך אומר אקב"ו למול את העבדים ולהטיף מהם דם ברית שאילמלא דם ברית חוקות שמים וארץ לא נתקיימו שנאמ' אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חוקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי בא"י כורת הברית:, br br big strongהדרן עלך רבי אליעזר דמילה /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongרבי /strong /big אליעזר אומר תולין את המשמרת בי"ט ונותנין לתלויה בשבת וחכ"א אין תולין את המשמרת בי"ט ואין נותנין לתלויה בשבת אבל נותנין לתלויה ביו"ט:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big השתא ר"א אוסופי אהל עראי לא מוספינן למיעבד לכתחלה שרי,מאי היא דתנן פקק החלון ר"א אומר בזמן שקשור ותלוי פוקקין בו ואם לאו אין פוקקין בו וחכ"א בין כך ובין כך פוקקין בו,ואמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן הכל מודים שאין עושין אהל עראי בתחלה בי"ט ואין צ"ל בשבת לא נחלקו אלא להוסיף שר"א אומר אין מוסיפין בי"ט ואין צ"ל בשבת וחכ"א מוסיפין בשבת ואין צ"ל ביום טוב,ר"א סבר לה כרבי יהודה דתניא אין בין יום טוב לשבת אלא אוכל נפש בלבד רבי יהודה מתיר אף מכשירי אוכל נפש,אימר דשמעינן ליה לר' יהודה במכשירין שאי אפשר לעשותם מערב יום טוב במכשירין שאפשר לעשותם מערב יו"ט מי שמעת ליה,דר"א עדיפא מדרבי יהודה:,וחכ"א: איבעיא להו תלה מאי אמר רב יוסף תלה חייב חטאת,א"ל אביי אלא מעתה תלא כוזא בסיכתא הכי נמי דמיחייב | 137b. If bone circumcised but did not uncoverthe flesh at bthearea of the bcircumcisionby folding back the thin membrane beneath the foreskin, bit is as if he had not circumcised. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong bRabbi Avina saidthat bRabbi Yirmeya bar Abba saidthat bRav said:When the mishna said most of the corona, they meant bthe flesh that covers most of the height of the corona,as well as most of its circumference.,We learned in the mishna: bIfthe baby bwas fleshy,the circumcisor corrects the circumcision so that it will not appear uncircumcised. bShmuel said: A child who is encumbered with flesh, one examines him,and bas long as whenhis limb bhardens he looks circumcised, one need not circumcisehim again. bAnd if not,meaning he does not appear circumcised even then, bone must circumcisehim again., bIt was taught in a ibaraita /ithat bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A child who is encumbered with flesh, one examines him,and bas long as when it hardens it does not appear circumcised, one needs to circumcise himagain, band if not, one need not circumcise himagain.,The Gemara asks: bWhat isthe practical difference bbetween thesetwo formulations? The Gemara answers: bThere isa practical difference bbetween themin a case where he bappearscircumcised but bdoes not appearfully circumcised. According to Shmuel, in order to avoid an additional circumcision, one must appear fully circumcised, and this state is insufficient. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, only one who appears uncircumcised requires further circumcision; this partial circumcision is adequate.,We learned in the mishna: If bhe circumciseda child bbut did not uncoverthe area of the circumcision, it is as if he did not circumcise him. bThe Sages taughtin a iToseftathat bone who circumcisesa child brecites: Who has made us holy through His commandments, and commanded us concerning circumcision. The father of thecircumcised bchild recites: Who has made us holy through His commandments, and commanded us to bring him into the covet of Abraham, our father. Those standingthere brecite: Just as he has entered into the covet, so may he enter into Torah, marriage, and good deeds. /b, bAnd the one who recites theadditional bblessing says: Who made the beloved one holy from the womb, marked the decree in his flesh, and gave his descendants the seal and the sign of the holy covet. Therefore, as a reward for this, the living God, our Portion, commanded to deliver the beloved of our flesh from destruction, for the sake of His covet that He set in our flesh. Blessed are You, Lord, Who establishes the covet. /b, bOne who circumcises converts says: Blessed are You, Lord, our God, King of the universe, Who made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us concerning circumcision. And the one who recites theadditional bblessing recites: Who has made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us to circumcise converts, and to drip from them covetal blood, as were it not for the blood of the covet, the heaven and earth would not be sustained, as it is stated: “If My covet would not be with day and night, the ordices of heaven and earth I would not have placed”(Jeremiah 33:25), which is interpreted to mean that were it not for the covet of circumcision that is manifest both day and night, the world would cease to exist. He concludes the blessing with the phrase: bBlessed are You, Lord, Who establishes the covet. /b,When a Jew buys a Canaanite slave, he is obligated to circumcise the slave, as the slave is partially entering the covet of the Jewish people. bOne who circumcises slaves recitesa blessing: bWho made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us concerning circumcision. And the one who recites the additional blessings saysa blessing similar to those mentioned above: bWho made us holy with His commandments, and commanded us to circumcise slaves, and to drip from them covetal blood, as were it not for the blood of the covet the heaven and earth would not be sustained, as it is stated: “If My covet would not be with day and night, the ordices of heaven and earth I would not have placed”(Jeremiah 33:25). bBlessed are You, Lord, Who establishes the covet. /b,, strongMISHNA: /strong bRabbi Eliezer says: One may suspendand stretch over a base bthe strainerthrough which sediment is filtered from wine, bon a Festival. And one may placewine bthrougha strainer that was already bsuspendedthe day before; however, one may not suspend the strainer bon Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: One may not suspend the strainer on a Festival, and one may not placewine for filtering bthrough a suspendedstrainer bon Shabbat; however, one may placewine bthrough a suspendedstrainer bon a Festival. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rabbi Eliezer’s position: bNow, Rabbi Eliezerholds that bwe may noteven baddto ba temporary tenton Shabbat; could it be that bto makea tent bis permitted iab initio /i?Stretching a strainer over a base, which Rabbi Eliezer permits, is comparable to making a tent.,The Gemara explains the question: bWhat isthis opinion of Rabbi Eliezer’s? bAs we learnedin a mishna: With regard to ba window shutterused to cover a skylight, bRabbi Eliezer says: When it is tiedto band hangingfrom the window, i.e., it is not touching the ground, bone may shutterthe window bwith it, and if not, one may not shutterthe window bwith it. And the Rabbis say: Bothin bthiscase bandin bthatcase bone may shutter with it. /b, bAnd Rabba bar bar Ḥana saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: Everyone agrees that one may not construct a temporary tent on a Festivalfor the bfirst time, and needless to say,one may not do so bon Shabbat.The itanna’im bdisagree onlywith regard to baddingto an existing tent, bas Rabbi Eliezer says: One may not addto an existing structure bon a Festival, and needless to say,one may not do so bon Shabbat. And the Rabbis say: One may addto the temporary structure bon Shabbat, and needless to say,one may do so bon a Festival. /b,The Gemara answers: Rabbi Eliezer indeed holds that the suspension of a strainer constitutes a prohibited labor. However, bRabbi Eliezer holds in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehudawith regard to actions that facilitate preparation of food on a Festival, bas it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThe onlydifference bbetween a Festival and Shabbatis with regard to the preparation of bfood alone.It is permitted to perform labors for the purpose of food preparation on a Festival, but not on Shabbat. bRabbi Yehuda permits even actions that facilitate food preparationon a Festival, e.g., fixing utensils with which food is prepared on the Festival. Similarly, Rabbi Eliezer permits the suspension of a strainer, which would otherwise constitute a prohibited labor, in order to prepare wine for use on the Festival.,The Gemara asks: bSay that we heardthat bRabbi Yehudapermits labors that are otherwise prohibited if they bpertain to actions that facilitatefood preparation bthat cannot be performed on the eve of the Festival;however, bwith regard to actions that facilitatefood preparation bthat can be performed on the eve of the Festival, did you hearthat bhepermits doing so?,The Gemara answers: The leniency bof Rabbi Eliezer exceeds that of Rabbi Yehuda.Unlike Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Eliezer does not distinguish between actions that facilitate food preparation that can and those that cannot be performed on the eve of the Festival.,We learned in the mishna: bAnd the Rabbis say:One may not suspend the strainer on a Festival. bA dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: If bhe suspendeda strainer unwittingly, bwhatis the ihalakha /i? bRav Yosef said:If bhe suspendedit, bhe is liableto bring ba sin-offering,like anyone who unwittingly performs a labor prohibited by Torah law on Shabbat., bAbaye said to him: But ifthat is bso,that an action of that sort constitutes performance of the prohibited labor of building by Torah law, then if bone suspended a jug on a peg, is he also liablefor building a tent? |
|
11. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, 47b, 72a, 46a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 46a. עובד כוכבים גופא לא קני ליה מאי דקני ליה הוא דמקני ליה לישראל וכיון דקדם וטבל לשם בן חורין אפקעיה לשעבודיה,כדרבא דאמר רבא הקדש חמץ ושחרור מפקיעין מידי שעבוד,מתיב רב חסדא מעשה בבלוריא הגיורת שקדמו עבדיה וטבלו לפניה ובא מעשה לפני חכמים ואמרו קנו עצמן בני חורין לפניה אין לאחריה לא,אמר רבא לפניה בין בסתם בין במפורש לאחריה במפורש אין בסתם לא,אמר רב אויא לא שנו אלא בלוקח מן העובד כוכבים אבל עובד כוכבים גופיה קני,דכתיב (ויקרא כה, מה) וגם מבני התושבים הגרים עמכם מהם תקנו אתם קונים מהם ולא הם קונים מכם ולא הם קונים זה מזה,ולא הם קונים מכם למאי אילימא למעשה ידיו אטו עובד כוכבים לא קני ליה לישראל למעשה ידיו והכתיב (ויקרא כה, מז) או לעקר משפחת גר ואמר מר משפחת גר זה העובד כוכבים אלא לאו לגופיה וקאמר רחמנא אתם קונין מהם אפילו גופיה,פריך רב אחא אימא בכספא ובטבילה קשיא,אמר שמואל וצריך לתקפו במים,כי האי דמנימין עבדיה דרב אשי בעא לאטבולי מסריה ניהלייהו לרבינא ולרב אחא ברי' דרבא אמר להו חזו דמינייכו קבעית ליה רמו ליה ארויסא בצואריה ארפו ליה וצמצמו ליה,ארפו ליה כי היכי דלא להוי חציצה צמצמו ליה כי היכי דלא לקדים ולימא להו לשם בן חורין אני טובל בהדי דדלי רישיה ממיא אנחו ליה זולטא דטינא ארישיה ואמרו ליה זיל אמטי לבי מרך,א"ל רב פפא לרבא חזי מר הני דבי פפא בר אבא דיהבי זוזי לאינשי לכרגייהו ומשעבדי בהו כי נפקי צריכי גיטא דחירותא או לא,א"ל איכו שכיבי לא אמרי לכו הא מילתא הכי א"ר ששת מוהרקייהו דהני בטפסא דמלכא מנח ומלכא אמר מאן דלא יהיב כרגא משתעבד למאן דיהיב כרגא,ר' חייא בר אבא איקלע לגבלא חזא בנות ישראל דמעברן מגרים שמלו ולא טבלו וחזא חמרא דישראל דמזגי עובדי כוכבים ושתו ישראל וחזא תורמוסין דשלקי עובדי כוכבים ואכלי ישראל ולא אמר להו ולא מידי,אתא לקמיה דר' יוחנן א"ל צא והכרז על בניהם שהם ממזרים ועל יינם משום יין נסך ועל תורמוסן משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים לפי שאינן בני תורה,על בניהן שהם ממזרים ר' יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר ר' חייא בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן לעולם אין גר עד שימול ויטבול וכיון דלא טביל עובד כוכבים הוא ואמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד ממזר,ועל יינם משום יין נסך משום לך לך אמרין נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב,ועל תורמוסן משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים לפי שאינן בני תורה הא בני תורה שרי והאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק משמי' דרב כל הנאכל כמות שהוא חי אין בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים והא תורמוס אינו נאכל כמות שהוא חי ויש בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים,ר' יוחנן כאידך לישנא סבירא ליה דאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק משמי' דרב כל שאין עולה על שולחן מלכים לאכול בו את הפת אין בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים וטעמא דאינן בני תורה הא בני תורה שרי,ת"ר גר שמל ולא טבל ר"א אומר הרי זה גר שכן מצינו באבותינו שמלו ולא טבלו טבל ולא מל ר' יהושע אומר הרי זה גר שכן מצינו באמהות שטבלו ולא מלו וחכמים אומרים טבל ולא מל מל ולא טבל אין גר עד שימול ויטבול,ורבי יהושע נמי נילף מאבות ור"א נמי נילף מאמהות וכי תימא אין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר,והתניא ר"א אומר מנין לפסח דורות שאין בא אלא מן החולין נאמר פסח במצרים ונאמר פסח בדורות מה פסח האמור במצרים אין בא אלא מן החולין אף פסח האמור לדורות אין בא אלא מן החולין,א"ל ר' עקיבא וכי דנין אפשר משאי אפשר א"ל אע"פ שאי אפשר ראיה גדולה היא ונלמד הימנה,אלא | 46a. His previous bgentileowner bdid not have ownership of theslave’s bbody,since a gentile is unable to have ownership of another’s body; rather, he had rights to only the slave’s labor. And only bthat which he owned in him was heable to bsell tothe bJew.Therefore, before immersion, the Jew had rights to only the slave’s labor, but not ownership of his body, bandtherefore, boncethe slave bpreemptedhis owner band immersed for the sake ofconversion to make him ba freeman, he abrogateshis master’s blienupon him.,The Gemara notes: This explanation is bin accordance withthe opinion bof Rava, as Rava said: Consecrationof an item to the Temple, the prohibition of bleavened breadtaking effect upon a leavened food, bandthe bemancipationof a slave babrogateany blienthat exists upon them., bRav Ḥisda raised an objectionfrom a ibaraita /i: There was ban incident involving Beloreya the female convert in which her slaves preemptedher band immersed before herown immersion for her own conversion. bAndthe details of the bincident came before the Sages, and they said:The slaves bacquired themselvesand became bfreemen.Rav Ḥisda explains how the ibaraitaposes a challenge: The ibaraitaimplies that only because the slaves immersed bbefore her,while she was still a gentile, that byes,they became freemen; however, had they immersed bafter her,i.e., after she had already converted, then bno,they would not have become freemen. The reason for this is presumably that upon her conversion she attains the rights to her slaves’ bodies, and therefore their immersion for the sake of becoming freemen would be ineffective. However, this contradicts the Gemara’s explanation above that when a Jew gains ownership of a slave from a gentile, he has a right to only the slave’s labor.,To resolve the challenge bRava said:When the ibaraitasays that because they immersed bbefore herthey acquired themselves, that is bwhetherthey immersed bwithout a specifiedintention bor whetherthey immersed bwith explicitintention to convert and become freemen. However, had they immersed bafter her,if they did so bwith explicitintention to convert, then byes,the immersion would achieve that end, but if they did so bwithout a specifiedintention, then bno,their immersion would, by default, be considered for the sake of slavery and they would not become free., bRav Avya said: They taughtthat one acquires only the rights to the slave’s labor bonly with regard toa Jew bwho purchaseda slave bfrom a gentileslave owner, bbutif ba gentilesold bhisown bbodyas a slave directly to a Jew, then the Jew bacquireshis body., bAs it is written: “Moreover, of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them you may acquire”(Leviticus 25:45). The verse states only that byou,i.e., Jews, bcan acquirea slave bfrom them,i.e., a gentile slave, bbut they cannot acquirea slave bfrom you,i.e., a Jewish slave, band they cannot acquirea slave bfrom one another. /b,When it is derived that: bBut they cannot acquireslaves bfrom you, to whattype of acquisition is it referring? bIf we sayit is bfor his labor, is that to saythat ba gentile cannot acquire a Jew for his labor? Isn’t it written:“And if a stranger who is a settler with you becomes rich, and your brother becomes poor beside him, and he sells himself to the stranger who is a settler with you, bor to the offshoot of a stranger’s family”(Leviticus 25:47), band the Master saidin explanation of the phrase b“a stranger’s family”that bthisis referring to ba gentile.If so, the verse explicitly states that a Jew can sell himself as a slave to a gentile. bRather, is it notthat the reference is btoselling bhis body, and the Merciful One statesthat byou,i.e., Jews, bcan acquirea slave bfrom them,which means beven his body.Accordingly the verse indicates that a Jew can acquire a gentile slave’s body, but a gentile is unable to acquire ownership of another’s body, even that of another gentile., bRav Aḥa refutesRav Avya’s explanation: bSaythat the verse is referring to acquiring a gentile slave by both purchasing him bwith money andthen bby immersinghim for the purpose of slavery, and only in that case does it teach that a Jew acquires the gentile slave’s body. However, until he has been immersed the acquisition is not fully complete, and therefore if the slave immerses himself with the intention to become free, then his immersion would achieve that end. The Gemara concedes: This is bdifficult. /b, bShmuel said: Andif one wishes to ensure that one’s slave does not declare the immersion to be for the sake of conversion, then bone needs to hold him tightly in the waterin a way that demonstrates the owner’s domice over the slave at that time, thereby defining the immersion as one for the sake of slavery.,That is basdemonstrated bin thisincident binvolving Minyamin, Rav Ashi’s slave:When bhe wished to immersehim, bhe passed him to Ravina and Rav Aḥa, son of Rava,to perform the immersion on his behalf, and bhe said to them: Be aware that I will claimcompensation bfor him from youif you do not prevent my slave from immersing for the sake of conversion. bThey placed a bridle [ iarvisa /i] upon his neck,and at the moment of immersion bthey loosened it andthen immediately btightened itagain while he was still immersed.,The Gemara explains their actions: bTheyinitially bloosened it in order that there should not be any interpositionbetween the slave and the water during the immersion, which would invalidate it. bTheyimmediately btightened itagain bin order thatthe slave bshould not preemptthem band say to them: I am immersing for the sake ofbecoming ba freeman. When he lifted his head from the water they placed a bucket of clay upon his head and said to him: Goand bbringthis bto the house of your master.They did this in order to demonstrate that the immersion had been successful and that he was still a slave., bRav Pappa said to Rava:Has bthe Master seen those of the house of Pappa bar Abba who give moneyto the tax-collectors bon behalf ofpoor bpeople topay bfor their poll tax [ ikarga /i], andas a result bthey would enslave them.Anyone who did not pay the tax would be taken as a slave for the king. By paying for such people’s taxes, the members of the house of Pappa bar Abba essentially purchased those people, who had become the king’s slaves, for themselves. Rav Pappa asked: bWhenthose slaves bgo free, do they require a bill of emancipation,because the members of the house of Pappa bar Abba actually attained ownership of the slaves’ bodies, bor not,as they were owned only for the sake of their labor?, bHe said to him: Were I dead I could not say this matter to you,so it is good that you have asked me while I am still alive, as I know that bthisis what bRav Sheshet saidwith regard to the matter: bThe writ of slavery [ imoharkayehu /i] of theseresidents of the kingdom brests in the treasury [ itafsa /i] of the king,and in fact all the residents of the kingdom are considered to be full slaves of the king, i.e., he owns their bodies, irrespective of whether they pay their taxes. bAndso when bthe king says: One who does not give the poll tax is to be enslaved to the one whodoes bgive the poll taxon his behalf, the king’s decree is fully effective in making those residents full slaves of those who paid for them. As such, they will require a bill of emancipation when they are freed.,§ The Gemara relates: bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Abbaonce bhappenedto come bto Gavla. He saw Jewish womenthere bwho had become pregt from converts who were circumcised but hadstill bnot immersedto complete their conversion process; band he saw wine of Jews that gentiles were pouring, and Jews were drinkingit; band he saw lupines [ iturmusin /i] that gentiles were cooking, and Jews were eatingthem; bbut he did not say anything to them. /b,Later, bhe came before Rabbi Yoḥaand told him what he had witnessed. bRabbi Yoḥa said to him: Go and makea public bdeclaration concerning their children that they are imamzerim /i, and concerning their winethat it is forbidden bbecauseit is like bwine poured as anidolatrous blibation, and concerning their lupinesthat they are forbidden bbecausethey are bfood cooked by gentiles.One should be stringent and make such a declaration bbecause they are notwell-versed bin Torah,and if they are left to be lax in this regard they will eventually transgress Torah prohibitions.,The Gemara explains: With regard to the declaration bconcerning their children that they are imamzerim /i, Rabbi Yoḥaconforms bto hisstandard line of breasoningin two ihalakhot /i: The first is bas Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said:One bis neverconsidered to be ba convert until he has been circumcised and has immersed. And sincethe convert in the case in Gavla bhad not immersed, he isstill considered ba gentile. Andthe second ihalakhais as bRabba bar bar Ḥana saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said:With regard to ba gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspringof that union bis a imamzer /i. /b, bAndthe reason to declare bconcerning their winethat it is forbidden bbecauseit is like bwine poured as anidolatrous blibationis that although their wine was not actually poured as an idolatrous libation, it was prohibited by rabbinic decree bdue tothe maxim that: bGo, go, we say to a nazirite, go around and go around,but bdo not come near to the vineyard.Although a nazirite is prohibited only from eating produce of the vine, he is warned not even to come into close proximity of a vineyard as a protective measure to ensure that he will not transgress this prohibition. So too, in many cases, the Sages decreed certain items and actions to be prohibited because they understood that if people would partake of them, they would eventually transgress Torah prohibitions., bAndthe final declaration bconcerning their lupinesthat they are forbidden bbecausethey are bfood cooked by gentilesis issued bbecause they are notwell versed bin Torah.The Gemara expresses astonishment: Does this imply that bwere they students of the Torahtheir lupines would bbe permitted? Didn’t Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak say in the name of Rav: Anyfood item bthat is eaten as it is, raw, is notsubject btothe prohibition of bfood cooked by gentiles,even when cooked by them? bBut a lupine is not eaten as it is, raw, andtherefore bit is subject tothe prohibition of bfood cooked by gentiles. /b,The Gemara explains that bRabbi Yoḥa holdsin this matter bin accordance withthe opinion of bthe other versionof what bRav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said in the name of Rav: Anyfood item that lacks sufficient importance such that it bdoes not appear on the table of kingsin order bto eat bread with it is notsubject btothe prohibition of bfood cooked by gentiles.Lupines lack importance and are therefore permitted even if cooked by gentiles. bAndconsequently, btheonly breasonto make a declaration prohibiting the residents of Gavla from eating them is bbecause they are notwell versed bin Torah,and if they are left to be lax in this regard they will eventually become lax in actual Torah prohibitions; by inference, to those well versed bin Torah, it is permitted.br§ During their sojourn in Egypt, the children of Israel had the halakhic status of gentiles. At the revelation at Sinai they entered into a national covet with God in which they attained their status of the Jewish people. This transformation was essentially the mass conversion of the people, and so their preparation for the revelation provides a paradigm of the process required for conversion for all generations. The itanna’imdisagree as to which aspects of that original conversion are to be derived for all generations., bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to ba convert who was circumcised but did not immerse, Rabbi Eliezer saysthat bthis is a convert, as so we found with our forefathersfollowing the exodus from Egypt bthat they were circumcised but were not immersed.With regard to one who bimmersed but was not circumcised, Rabbi Yehoshua saysthat bthis is a convert, as so we found with our foremothers that they immersed but were not circumcised. And the Rabbis say:Whether bhe immersed but was not circumcisedor whether bhe was circumcised but did not immerse, he is not a convert until he is circumcised and he immerses. /b,The Gemara questions the opinions in the ibaraita /i: bBut let Rabbi Yehoshua also derivewhat is required for conversion bfromour bforefathers;why didn’t he do so? bAnd let Rabbi Eliezer also derivethe ihalakha bfromour bforemothers;why didn’t he do so? bAnd if you would saythat Rabbi Eliezer did not derive the ihalakhafrom our foremothers because he holds bone cannot derivethe bpossible fromthe bimpossible,i.e., one cannot derive that men do not require circumcision from the ihalakhathat women do not require it, because for women it is a physical impossibility, that claim may be refuted.,It would appear that Rabbi Eliezer does not accept that principle, as bisn’t it taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Eliezer says: From whereis it derived with regard btothe bPaschal lambbrought throughout the bgenerations that it may be brought only from non-sacredanimals? bA Paschal lamb is statedin the Torah binreference to the lamb that the Jewish people brought prior to the exodus from bEgypt, and a Paschal lamb is stated inreference to the yearly obligation throughout the bgenerations.The association between them teaches that bjust as the Paschal lamb stated inreference to bEgypt was only brought from non-sacredanimals, since prior to the giving of the Torah there was no possibility to consecrate property, bso too,with regard to bthe Paschal lamb statedin reference btothe obligation throughout the bgenerations, it may be brought only from non-sacredanimals., bRabbi Akiva said to him: But can one derivethe bpossible,i.e., the ihalakhafor the Paschal lamb throughout the generations, where a possibility exists to bring it from consecrated animals, bfromthe bimpossible,i.e., from the Paschal lamb in Egypt, where it was not a possibility? Rabbi Eliezer bsaid to him: Although it was impossibleto bring the Paschal lamb in Egypt from consecrated animals, nevertheless, bit isstill ba great proof, and we may learn from it.It is apparent, then, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one can derive the possible from the impossible. Therefore the original question stands: Why didn’t Rabbi Eliezer derive from the foremothers that circumcision is not essential for conversion?,The Gemara concedes: bRather,the ibaraitamust be reinterpreted as follows: |
|
12. Anon., Midrash On Song of Songs, 2.6
|
13. Anon., Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer, 29
|
14. Anon., Gerim, 1.2
|
