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



8003
Mishnah, Bikkurim, 1.4


אֵלּוּ מְבִיאִין וְלֹא קוֹרִין, הַגֵּר מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא, שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע ה' לַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ לָתֵת לָנוּ (דברים כ״ו:ג׳). וְאִם הָיְתָה אִמּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מִתְפַּלֵּל בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ, אוֹמֵר, אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּכְשֶׁהוּא בְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת, אוֹמֵר, אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם. וְאִם הָיְתָה אִמּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, אוֹמֵר, אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵינוּ:These bring [bikkurim] but do not read the declaration:The convert, since he cannot say: “Which the Lord has sworn to our fathers, to give to us” (Deuteronomy 26:3). If his mother was an Israelite, then he brings bikkurim and recites. When he prays privately, he says: “God of the fathers of Israel,” but when he is in the synagogue, he should say: “The God of your fathers.” But if his mother was an Israelite, he says: “The God of our fathers’.


Intertexts (texts cited often on the same page as the searched text):

8 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 26.3, 31.6 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

26.3. וּבָאתָ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְאָמַרְתָּ אֵלָיו הִגַּדְתִּי הַיּוֹם לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ כִּי־בָאתִי אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע יְהוָה לַאֲבֹתֵינוּ לָתֶת לָנוּ׃ 31.6. חִזְקוּ וְאִמְצוּ אַל־תִּירְאוּ וְאַל־תַּעַרְצוּ מִפְּנֵיהֶם כִּי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ הוּא הַהֹלֵךְ עִמָּךְ לֹא יַרְפְּךָ וְלֹא יַעַזְבֶךָּ׃ 26.3. And thou shalt come unto the priest that shall be in those days, and say unto him: ‘I profess this day unto the LORD thy God, that I am come unto the land which the LORD swore unto our fathers to give us.’" 31.6. Be strong and of good courage, fear not, nor be affrighted at them; for the LORD thy God, He it is that doth go with thee; He will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.’"
2. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 17.5 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

17.5. וְלֹא־יִקָּרֵא עוֹד אֶת־שִׁמְךָ אַבְרָם וְהָיָה שִׁמְךָ אַבְרָהָם כִּי אַב־הֲמוֹן גּוֹיִם נְתַתִּיךָ׃ 17.5. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee."
3. Mishnah, Bikkurim, 1.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

1.5. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: a woman who is a daughter of a convert may not marry a priest unless her mother was herself an Israelite. [This law applies equally to the offspring] whether of proselytes or freed slaves, even to ten generations, unless their mother is an Israelite. A guardian, an agent, a slave, a woman, one of doubtful sex, or a hermaphrodite bring the bikkurim, but do not recite, since they cannot say: “Which you, O Lord, have given to me” (Deuteronomy 26:10)."
4. Mishnah, Horayot, 1.4, 3.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

1.4. If the court ruled and one of them knew that they had erred and said to the others, “You are making a mistake”, or if the mufla of the court was not there, or if one of them was a proselyte or a mamzer or a nathin or an elder who did not have children, they are exempt, for it says here (Lev 4:13) “congregation” and it says later on (Num 35:24) “congregation”; just as the “congregation” further on must be fit to issue rulings, so too the “congregation” mentioned here must be fit to issue rulingsIf the court issued a [wrong] decision unwittingly and all the people acted unwittingly, they bring a bull. [If the court ruled wrong] intentionally and [the people] acted unwillingly, they bring a lamb or a goat. [If the court ruled] unwittingly and [the people] acted willingly accordingly, they are exempt." 3.8. A priest takes precedence over a levite, a levite over an israelite, an israelite over a mamzer, a mamzer over a natin, a natin over a convert, and a convert over a freed slave. When is this so? When all these were in other respects equal. However, if the mamzer was a scholar and the high priest an ignoramus, the scholar mamzer takes precedence over the ignorant high priest."
5. Mishnah, Ketuvot, 1.2-1.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

1.2. A virgin her kethubah is two hundred [zuz], and a widow a maneh (100. A virgin, who is a widow, [or] divorced, or a halutzah from betrothal her kethubah is two hundred [zuz], and there is upon her a claim of non-virginity. A female proselyte, a woman captive, and a woman slave, who have been redeemed, converted, or freed [when they were] less than three years and one day old their kethubah is two hundred [zuz] there is upon them a claim of non-virginity." 1.3. When an adult has had sexual intercourse with a young girl, or when a small boy has had intercourse with an adult woman, or a girl who was injured by a piece of wood [in all these cases] their kethubah is two hundred [zuz], the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: a girl who was injured by a piece of wood her kethubah is a maneh."
6. Mishnah, Maaser Sheni, 5.14 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

5.14. From here they said that Israelites and mamzerim may make the confession, but not converts, nor freed slaves, since they have no inheritance in the land. Rabbi Meir says: neither do priests and Levites since they did not take a share of the land. Rabbi Yose says: they have the Levitical cities."
7. Mishnah, Qiddushin, 4.1, 4.3-4.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

8. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

19a. מאימתי מחייבין עליהן משיראו פני הבית כמאן כי האי תנא דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר בכורים מקצתן בחוץ ומקצתן בפנים שבחוץ הרי הן כחולין לכל דבריהם שבפנים הרי הן כהקדש לכל דבריהם,אמר רב ששת בכורים הנחה מעכבת בהן קרייה אין מעכבת בהן,כמאן כי האי תנא דתניא רבי יוסי אומר שלשה דברים משום שלשה זקנים רבי ישמעאל אומר יכול יעלה אדם מעשר שני בזמן הזה בירושלים ויאכלנו ודין הוא בכור טעון הבאת מקום ומעשר שני טעון הבאת מקום מה בכור אינו אלא בפני הבית אף מעשר אינו אלא בפני הבית,מה לבכור שכן טעון מתן דמים ואימורין לגבי מזבח בכורים יוכיחו מה לבכורים שכן טעונים הנחה,ת"ל (דברים טז, ז) ואכלת [שם] לפני ה' אלהיך וגו' מקיש מעשר לבכור מה בכור אינו אלא לפני הבית אף מעשר אינו אלא לפני הבית ואם איתא ליפרוך מה לבכורים שכן טעונין קרייה והנחה,א"ר אשי נהי דעיכובא ליכא מצוה מי ליכא ולימא מצוה וליפרוך אלא אמר רב אשי כיון דאיכא בכורי הגר דבעי למימר (דברים כו, ג) אשר נשבע [ה'] לאבותינו ולא מצי אמר לא פסיקא ליה,וליהדר דינא ותיתי במה הצד משום דאיכא למיפרך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן יש בהן צד מזבח,ומאי קסבר אי קסבר קדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה וקדשה לעתיד לבא אפי' בכור נמי אי קסבר קדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה ולא קדשה לעתיד לבא אפילו בכור נמי תבעי,אמר רבינא לעולם קסבר קדשה לשעתה ולא קדשה לעתיד לבא והכא בבכור שנזרק דמו קודם חורבן הבית וחרב הבית ועדיין בשרו קיים ומקשינן בשרו לדמו מה דמו במזבח אף בשרו במזבח ומקיש מעשר לבכור,וכי דבר הלמד בהקש חוזר ומלמד בהקש מעשר דגן חולין הוא 19a. bfrom when isa non-priest who eats first fruits bliableto receive death at the hand of Heaven bfor theirconsumption? One is liable bfrom whenthe fruits bwill enter inside the Temple.The Gemara notes: bIn accordance with whoseopinion is this ihalakhastated? It is bin accordance withthe opinion of bthis itanna /i, as it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Eliezer says:With regard to bfirst fruits, some of whichare boutside and some of whichare binsidethe Temple, the halakhic status of those bthat are outsidethe Temple is blikethat of bnon-sacredproduce bfor all matters concerning them,and the halakhic status of those bthat are insidethe Temple is blikethat of bconsecratedproduce bfor all matters concerning them. /b,§ bRav Sheshet says:With regard to bfirst fruits,the lack of bplacementalongside the altar binvalidates them;while the lack of brecitationof the accompanying Torah verses bdoes not invalidate them. /b,The Gemara notes: bIn accordance with whoseopinion is this ihalakhastated? It is bin accordance withthe opinion of bthis itanna /i,Rabbi Yishmael, bas it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yosei says three statements in the name of three elders,and one of those statements is that which bRabbi Yishmael says:One bmighthave thought that ba person would bring second-titheproduce bup to Jerusalem in the present,after the destruction of the Temple, band eat it. Andostensibly, bitcould be derived by means of ba logical inferencethat one may not do so: bA firstbornoffering brequires bringingit btothe bplace,to Jerusalem, and eating it there, bandsecond b-titheproduce brequires bringingit btothe bplace; just asthe bfirstbornoffering may be eaten there bonly in the presence of the Temple, so too,second b-titheproduce may be eaten there bonly in the presence of the Temple. /b,Rabbi Yishmael continues and counters: bWhatis notable babout a firstborn?Bringing the firstborn to Jerusalem is required only in the presence of the Temple, because it is notable in bthat it requires placement ofits bblood andits bsacrificial portions upon the altar;will you say the same with regard to second-tithe produce, which requires only that it be consumed in Jerusalem? He then suggests: bFirst fruits will provethat placement of blood upon the altar is not a factor, as they do not require placement of blood upon the altar, and yet they are brought to Jerusalem only in the presence of the Temple. Rabbi Yishmael counters: bWhatis notable babout first fruits?They are notable bin that they require placementalongside the altar. Perhaps, since second-tithe produce does not require placement at all, even in the present one must bring it to Jerusalem and eat it there.,Rabbi Yishmael concludes: Therefore, bthe verse states: “And you shall eat before the Lord your God… /bthe tithe of your grain…and the firstborn of your herd and your flock” (Deuteronomy 14:23); the Torah bjuxtaposessecond- btitheproduce btothe bfirstborn. Just asthe bfirstbornmay be eaten there bonly in the presence of the Temple, so too,second b-titheproduce may be eaten there bonly in the presence of the Temple.The Gemara explains: the proof of Rav Sheshet’s opinion from the ibaraitais: bAnd if it is sothat the lack of recitation of the Torah verses invalidates the ritual of first fruits, bletthe ibaraita brefutethe derivation by saying: bWhatis notable babout first fruits?They are notable bin that they require recitationof the Torah verses band placementalongside the altar., bRav Ashi said:There is no proof from the fact that recitation is not mentioned. bAlthoughthe lack of recitation bdoes not invalidatethe first fruits, bis there no mitzva?Everyone agrees that there is a mitzva to recite the Torah verses. bAndtherefore bletthe itanna bsaythat there is ba mitzvato recite the portion; band refutethe proof from first fruits in that manner, as in the case of second tithe there is no mitzva to recite Torah verses. bRather, Rav Ashi saidthat there is a different reason that recitation was omitted from the refutation: It is bthat there isthe case of bthe first fruits of a convert, who needs to recite:“I have come to the land bthat the Lord swore unto our fathers”(Deuteronomy 26:3), bandsince bhe cannot sayit, as the Lord did not swear to give the land to the ancestors of the convert, he brings the first fruits but does not read the portion. Therefore, the obligation to recite the Torah verses bis not clear-cut forthe itannaand he did not mention it.,The Gemara asks: Why was it necessary for the itannato derive that second-tithe produce is not brought to Jerusalem at present from the juxtaposition in the verse? bAnd let the derivation revertto its starting point, band derivethe ihalakha bthroughan analogy derived from bthe common factorof first fruits and the firstborn. Each of the sources neutralizes the significance of the notable factor in the other, leaving the common factor: One must bring them to Jerusalem. From there it may be derived that second-tithe produce, which one must also bring to Jerusalem, need not be brought there when the Temple is not standing. The Gemara answers: The juxtaposition is necessary bdue tothe fact bthatthis analogy bcan be refuted: Whatis notable babout the common factorthat is true bofboth first fruits and the firstborn? It is notable bin that they have an aspectinvolving the baltar,which is not so in the case of second tithe.,The Gemara asks: bAnd whatopinion bdoesRabbi Yishmael bholdthat led to his initial assumption that one is obligated to bring a firstborn animal to Jerusalem only when the Temple is standing? bIfhe bmaintainsin general that bthe initial consecrationof the Temple bsanctifiedJerusalem bfor its time and sanctifiedJerusalem bforever,and the location of the Temple remains sacred even after the Temple was destroyed, then one should balsobe obligated to bring ba firstbornanimal to the place of the Temple and sacrifice it on an altar and eat it. bIf he maintainsthat bthe initial consecrationof the Temple bsanctifiedJerusalem bfor its time but did not sanctifyJerusalem bforever,then he should braise a dilemma evenwith regard to ba firstborn,whether it may be eaten in Jerusalem., bRavina said: Actually,Rabbi Yishmael bmaintainsthat the initial consecration of the Temple bsanctifiedJerusalem bfor its time but did not sanctifyJerusalem bforever; andwhy is it obvious to him that the firstborn is not eaten? It is because bhere,he is stating the ihalakha bwith regard tothe case of ba firstborn whose blood was sprinkled before the destruction of the Temple, and the Temple wasthen bdestroyed, and its flesh is still intact. Andbased on a juxtaposition: “You shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar…and their flesh shall be for you” (Numbers 18:17–18), bwe comparethe status of bits flesh tothe status of bits blood; just as its bloodmust be sprinkled bata time when the baltaris standing, bso too its fleshmay be eaten only bata time when bthe altaris standing. bAnd he comparesthe status of second- btitheproduce btothe status of ba firstbornoffering, and derives that one may partake of second-tithe produce in Jerusalem only when the Temple is standing.,The Gemara asks: bAnd does a matter derived via juxtaposition then teachanother matter bvia juxtaposition?The principle with regard to the ihalakhotof consecrated matters is that a ihalakhaderived via one of the hermeneutical principles cannot serve as the basis for derivation of another ihalakha /i; each ihalakharequires its own source. The Gemara answers: Second btithe of grain is non-sacredproduce, and ihalakhotof non-sacred matters derived via hermeneutical principles may serve as the basis for deriving other ihalakhotusing hermeneutical principles.


Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
abahu Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 218
amorarim, babylonian Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 218
amorarim, palestinian Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 218
ashi Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 218
cohen, shaye j. d. Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 215
conversion as legal nominalism Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 215
converts/proselytes, ranking below native jews in matrimonial law Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 362
converts/proselytes, treatment under homicide and tort law Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 362
fiction, legal, and conversion Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 215
fiction, legal Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 215
forgetting Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World (2004) 64
genealogical anxiety, centrality of the body and Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 218
genealogical anxiety, iranian context and Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 218
genealogical anxiety, negativity towards converts and Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 218
ger Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 362
harmonization, babylonian Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 218
history, of israel Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World (2004) 64
identity, in contemporary debate Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World (2004) 64
identity, jewish, and conversion as legal fiction Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 215
imagery, missionary Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 218
land, the Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World (2004) 64
nominalism, legal, in rabbinic sources Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 215
rabbi yehudah ha-nasi Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 218
realism, legal, in rabbinic sources' Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 215
silencing Lieu, Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World (2004) 64
talmud yerushalmi Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 218
torahs deviation from Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 215
yehoshua ben levi Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 218