1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 22.28 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 22.28. כִּי־יִמְצָא אִישׁ נער [נַעֲרָה] בְתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־אֹרָשָׂה וּתְפָשָׂהּ וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ וְנִמְצָאוּ׃ | 22.28. If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;" |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 11.24 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 11.24. וּלְאֵלֶּה תִּטַּמָּאוּ כָּל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּנִבְלָתָם יִטְמָא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃ | 11.24. And by these ye shall become unclean; whosoever toucheth the carcass of them shall be unclean until even." |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 5.13, 19.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 5.13. וְשָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָהּ שִׁכְבַת־זֶרַע וְנֶעְלַם מֵעֵינֵי אִישָׁהּ וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה׃ 19.16. וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יִגַּע עַל־פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה בַּחֲלַל־חֶרֶב אוֹ בְמֵת אוֹ־בְעֶצֶם אָדָם אוֹ בְקָבֶר יִטְמָא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים׃ | 5.13. and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, she being defiled secretly, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken in the act;" 19.16. And whosoever in the open field toucheth one that is slain with a sword, or one that dieth of himself, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days." |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 19.8, 89.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 19.8. תּוֹרַת יְהוָה תְּמִימָה מְשִׁיבַת נָפֶשׁ עֵדוּת יְהוָה נֶאֱמָנָה מַחְכִּימַת פֶּתִי׃ 89.3. כִּי־אָמַרְתִּי עוֹלָם חֶסֶד יִבָּנֶה שָׁמַיִם תָּכִן אֱמוּנָתְךָ בָהֶם׃ 89.3. וְשַׂמְתִּי לָעַד זַרְעוֹ וְכִסְאוֹ כִּימֵי שָׁמָיִם׃ | 19.8. The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. ." 89.3. For I have said: 'For ever is mercy built; In the very heavens Thou dost establish Thy faithfulness." |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 8.2 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 8.2. לְתוֹרָה וְלִתְעוּדָה אִם־לֹא יֹאמְרוּ כַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר אֵין־לוֹ שָׁחַר׃ 8.2. וְאָעִידָה לִּי עֵדִים נֶאֱמָנִים אֵת אוּרִיָּה הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת־זְכַרְיָהוּ בֶּן יְבֶרֶכְיָהוּ׃ | 8.2. and I will take unto Me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.’" |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 50.24 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 50.24. יָקֹשְׁתִּי לָךְ וְגַם־נִלְכַּדְתְּ בָּבֶל וְאַתְּ לֹא יָדָעַתְּ נִמְצֵאת וְגַם־נִתְפַּשְׂתְּ כִּי בַיהוָה הִתְגָּרִית׃ | 50.24. I have laid a snare for thee, and thou art also taken, O Babylon, And thou wast not aware; Thou art found, and also caught, Because thou hast striven against the LORD." |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 17.20, 19.4, 19.8 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 19.4. וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֵלָיו גּוֹיִם בְּשַׁחְתָּם נִתְפָּשׂ וַיְבִאֻהוּ בַחַחִים אֶל־אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם׃ 19.8. וַיִּתְּנוּ עָלָיו גּוֹיִם סָבִיב מִמְּדִינוֹת וַיִּפְרְשׂוּ עָלָיו רִשְׁתָּם בְּשַׁחְתָּם נִתְפָּשׂ׃ | 17.20. And I will spread My net upon him, and he shall be taken in My snare, and I will bring him to Babylon, and will plead with him there for his treachery that he hath committed against Me." 19.4. Then the nations assembled against him, He was taken in their pit; And they brought him with hooks Unto the land of Egypt." 19.8. Then the nations cried out against him On every side from the provinces; And they spread their net over him, He was taken in their pit." |
|
8. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 11.5-11.6 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
9. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 11.5-11.6 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
10. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 5.20-5.24, 6.13-6.23 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
11. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 2.137-2.142 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 2.137. 7. But now, if anyone hath a mind to come over to their sect, he is not immediately admitted, but he is prescribed the same method of living which they use, for a year, while he continues excluded; and they give him also a small hatchet, and the fore-mentioned girdle, and the white garment. 2.138. And when he hath given evidence, during that time, that he can observe their continence, he approaches nearer to their way of living, and is made a partaker of the waters of purification; yet is he not even now admitted to live with them; for after this demonstration of his fortitude, his temper is tried two more years; and if he appear to be worthy, they then admit him into their society. 2.139. And before he is allowed to touch their common food, he is obliged to take tremendous oaths, that, in the first place, he will exercise piety towards God, and then that he will observe justice towards men, and that he will do no harm to any one, either of his own accord, or by the command of others; that he will always hate the wicked, and be assistant to the righteous; 2.141. that he will be perpetually a lover of truth, and propose to himself to reprove those that tell lies; that he will keep his hands clear from theft, and his soul from unlawful gains; and that he will neither conceal anything from those of his own sect, nor discover any of their doctrines to others, no, not though anyone should compel him so to do at the hazard of his life. 2.142. Moreover, he swears to communicate their doctrines to no one any otherwise than as he received them himself; that he will abstain from robbery, and will equally preserve the books belonging to their sect, and the names of the angels [or messengers]. These are the oaths by which they secure their proselytes to themselves. |
|
12. Mishnah, Demai, 2.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.3. One who takes upon himself to become a “chaver” may not sell to an am haaretz either moist or dry [produce], nor may he buy from him moist [produce], nor may he be the guest of an am haaretz, nor may he host an am haaretz as a guest while [the am haaretz] is wearing his own garment. Rabbi Judah says: he may not also raise small animals, nor may make a lot of vows or merriment, nor may he defile himself by contact with the dead. Rather he should be an attendant at the house of study. They said to him: these [requirements] do not come within the general rule [of being a chaver]. |
|
13. Mishnah, Maasrot, 1.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.5. What is considered a “threshing floor” for tithes [i.e. when does produce become liable for tithes]?Cucumbers and gourds [are liable for tithes] once he removes their fuzz. And if he doesn’t remove it, once he makes a pile. Melons once he removes the fuzz with hot water. And if they he does not remove the fuzz, once he stores them in the muktzeh. Vegetables which are tied in bundles, from the time he ties them up in bundles. If he does not tie them up in bundles, until he fills the vessel with them. And if he does not fill the vessel, after he has gathered all that he wishes to gather. [Produce which is packed in] a basket [is liable for tithes] after he has covered it. If he is not going to cover it, until he fills the vessel with them. And if he does not fill the vessel, after he has gathered all that he wishes to gather. When does this apply? When one brings [the produce] to the market. But when he brings it to his own house, he may make a chance meal of it, until he reaches his house." |
|
14. Mishnah, Oholot, 2.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.3. The following defile by contact and carriage but not by overshadowing: A bone of barleycorn size, Earth from a foreign country, A bet peras, A limb of a corpse, or a limb [severed] from a living person which has no longer its appropriate flesh, A spine or a skull which is deficient. How much is [considered] a deficiency in the spine? Bet Shammai say: two vertebrae, But Bet Hillel say: even one vertebra. And in the skull? Bet Shammai say: [the size of a] hole [made] by a drill, But Bet Hillel say: as much as would be taken from a living person and he would die. of what drill did they speak? of the small one [used] by physicians, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: of the large one in the Temple-chamber." |
|
15. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 2.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.1. The High Priest can judge and be judged; he can testify and others can testify against him. He can perform halitzah for another’s wife and others can perform halitzah for his wife or contract levirate marriage with his widow, but he cannot contract levirate marriage since he is forbidden to marry a widow. If any of his near kin die he may not follow after the bier, rather when the bearers are not visible, he is visible, when they are visible he is not visible, and he may go out with them as far as the city gate, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, “He may not leave the Temple, as it says, “Nor shall he go out of the Sanctuary”. And when he comforts other mourners the custom is for all of the people to pass by, the one after the other, while the appointed [priest] stands between him and the people. And when he receives comfort from others, all the people say to him, “Let us be your atonement”, and he says to them, “May you be blessed by Heaven.” When they feed him the funeral meal all the people sit around on the ground and he sits on a stool." |
|
16. Mishnah, Sotah, 9.15 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 9.15. When Rabbi Meir died, the composers of fables ceased. When Ben Azzai died, the diligent students [of Torah] ceased. When Ben Zoma died, the expounders ceased. When Rabbi Joshua died, goodness ceased from the world. When Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel died, locusts come and troubles multiplied. When Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah died, the sages ceased to be wealthy. When Rabbi Akiba died, the glory of the Torah ceased. When Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa died, men of wondrous deeds ceased. When Rabbi Yose Katnuta died, the pious men (hasidim) ceased and why was his name called Katnuta? Because he was the youngest of the pious men. When Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai died, the splendor of wisdom ceased. When Rabban Gamaliel the elder died, the glory of the torah ceased, and purity and separateness perished. When Rabbi Ishmael ben Fabi died, the splendor of the priesthood ceased. When Rabbi died, humility and fear of sin ceased. Rabbi Phineas ben Yair says: when Temple was destroyed, scholars and freemen were ashamed and covered their head, men of wondrous deeds were disregarded, and violent men and big talkers grew powerful. And nobody expounds, nobody seeks, and nobody asks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: from the day the Temple was destroyed, the sages began to be like scribes, scribes like synagogue-attendants, synagogue-attendants like common people, and the common people became more and more debased. And nobody seeks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. In the footsteps of the messiah insolence (hutzpah) will increase and the cost of living will go up greatly; the vine will yield its fruit, but wine will be expensive; the government will turn to heresy, and there will be no one to rebuke; the meeting-place [of scholars] will be used for licentiousness; the Galilee will be destroyed, the Gablan will be desolated, and the dwellers on the frontier will go about [begging] from place to place without anyone to take pity on them; the wisdom of the learned will rot, fearers of sin will be despised, and the truth will be lacking; youths will put old men to shame, the old will stand up in the presence of the young, “For son spurns father, daughter rises up against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law a man’s own household are his enemies” (Micah 7:6). The face of the generation will be like the face of a dog, a son will not feel ashamed before his father. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair says, “Heedfulness leads to cleanliness, cleanliness leads to purity, purity leads to separation, separation leads to holiness, holiness leads to modesty, modesty leads to fear of sin, fear of sin leads to piety, piety leads to the Holy Spirit, The Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead, and the resurrection of the dead comes from Elijah, blessed be his memory, Amen.”" |
|
17. Mishnah, Yoma, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.2. Section one: It once happened that two were even as they ran up the ramp, and one of them pushed his fellow who fell and broke his leg. When the court saw that they incurred danger, they decreed that they would remove the ashes from only by a count. Section two: There were four counts. This is the first count." |
|
18. Mishnah, Shekalim, 1.3-1.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.3. On the fifteenth of [Adar] they would set up tables [of money changers] in the provinces. On the twenty-fifth they set them up in the Temple. When [the tables] were set up in the Temple, they began to exact pledges [from those who had not paid]. From whom did they exact pledges? From Levites and Israelites, converts and freed slaves, but not women or slaves or minors. Any minor on whose behalf his father has begun to pay the shekel, may not discontinue it again. But they did not exact pledges from the priests, because of the ways of peace." 1.4. Rabbi Judah said: Ben Bukri testified at Yavneh that a priest who paid the shekel is not a sinner. But Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai said to him: not so, but rather a priest who did not pay the shekel was guilty of a sin, only the priests expounded this verse for their own benefit: “And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt, it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16), since the omer and the two loaves and the showbread are [brought] from our [contributions], how can they be eaten?" |
|
19. Mishnah, Toharot, 7.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 7.7. One who left his clothes in the cubbies of the bath house attendants: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that they are clean, But the sages say: [they are not clean] unless he gives him the key or the seal or unless he left some sign on them. One who left his clothes from one wine-pressing to the next, his clothes remain clean. If he left them with an Israelite [the clothes are unclean] unless he says, \"I have watched over them carefully.\"" |
|
20. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.6-4.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 4.6. The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer do not defile the hands. Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai said: Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this? Behold they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, yet the bones of Yoha the high priest are unclean. They said to him: according to the affection for them, so is their impurity, so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother. He said to them: so also are the Holy Scriptures according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness. The books of Homer which are not precious do not defile the hands." 4.7. The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you declare an uninterrupted flow of a liquid to be clean. The Pharisees say: we complain against you, Sadducees, that you declare a stream of water which flows from a burial-ground to be clean? The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you say, my ox or donkey which has done injury is liable, yet my male or female slave who has done injury is not liable. Now if in the case of my ox or my donkey for which I am not responsible if they do not fulfill religious duties, yet I am responsible for their damages, in the case of my male or female slave for whom I am responsible to see that they fulfill mitzvot, how much more so that I should be responsible for their damages? They said to them: No, if you argue about my ox or my donkey which have no understanding, can you deduce from there anything concerning a male or female slave who do have understanding? So that if I were to anger either of them and they would go and burn another person's stack, should I be liable to make restitution?" 4.8. A Galilean min said: I complain against you Pharisees, that you write the name of the ruler and the name of Moses together on a divorce document. The Pharisees said: we complain against you, Galilean min, that you write the name of the ruler together with the divine name on a single page [of Torah]? And furthermore that you write the name of the ruler above and the divine name below? As it is said, \"And Pharoah said, Who is the Lord that I should hearken to his voice to let Israel go?\" (Exodus 5:2) But when he was smitten what did he say? \"The Lord is righteous\" (Exodus 9:27)." |
|
21. New Testament, Luke, 5.27-5.32 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 5.27. After these things he went out, and saw a tax collector named Levi sitting at the tax office, and said to him, "Follow me! 5.28. He left everything, and rose up and followed him. 5.29. Levi made a great feast for him in his house. There was a great crowd of tax collectors and others who were reclining with them. 5.30. Their scribes and the Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, "Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners? 5.31. Jesus answered them, "Those who are healthy have no need for a physician, but those who are sick do. 5.32. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. |
|
22. New Testament, Mark, 2.14-2.17 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 2.14. As he passed by, he saw Levi, the son of Alphaeus, sitting at the tax office, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he arose and followed him. 2.15. It happened, that he was reclining at the table in his house, and many tax collectors and sinners sat down with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many, and they followed him. 2.16. The scribes and the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with the sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, "Why is it that he eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners? 2.17. When Jesus heard it, he said to them, "Those who are healthy have no need for a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. |
|
23. New Testament, Matthew, 9.9, 9.11, 9.13 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 9.9. As Jesus passed by from there, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax collection office. He said to him, "Follow me." He got up and followed him. 9.11. When the Pharisees saw it, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners? 9.13. But you go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,' for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. |
|
24. Tosefta, Avodah Zarah, 3.9-3.10 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
25. Tosefta, Demai, 2.1-2.17, 3.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
26. Tosefta, Menachot, 13.21 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
27. Tosefta, Parah, 3.7-3.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
28. Tosefta, Kippurim, 1.12 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
29. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 7 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
|
30. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, 47b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 47b. (במדבר יח, כח) מכל מעשרותיכם תרימו ומה ראית האי אידגן והאי לא אידגן:,מעשר שני והקדש שנפדו: פשיטא הב"ע כגון שנתן את הקרן ולא נתן את החומש והא קמ"ל דאין חומש מעכב:,השמש שאכל כזית: פשיטא מהו דתימא שמש לא קבע קמ"ל:,והכותי מזמנין עליו: אמאי לא יהא אלא עם הארץ ותניא אין מזמנין על ע"ה,אביי אמר בכותי חבר רבא אמר אפילו תימא בכותי ע"ה והכא בע"ה דרבנן דפליגי עליה דר' מאיר עסקינן דתניא איזהו ע"ה כל שאינו אוכל חוליו בטהרה דברי ר"מ וחכמים אומרים כל שאינו מעשר פירותיו כראוי והני כותאי עשורי מעשרי כדחזי דבמאי דכתיב באורייתא מזהר זהירי דאמר מר כל מצוה שהחזיקו בה כותים הרבה מדקדקין בה יותר מישראל,ת"ר איזהו ע"ה כל שאינו קורא ק"ש ערבית ושחרית דברי ר' אליעזר רבי יהושע אומר כל שאינו מניח תפילין בן עזאי אומר כל שאין לו ציצית בבגדו ר' נתן אומר כל שאין מזוזה על פתחו ר' נתן בר יוסף אומר כל שיש לו בנים ואינו מגדלם לת"ת אחרים אומרים אפי' קרא ושנה ולא שמש ת"ח הרי זה ע"ה א"ר הונא הלכה כאחרים,רמי בר חמא לא אזמין עליה דרב מנשיא בר תחליפא דתני ספרא וספרי והלכתא כי נח נפשיה דרמי בר חמא אמר רבא לא נח נפשיה דרמי בר חמא אלא דלא אזמין ארב מנשיא בר תחליפא והתניא אחרים אומרים אפילו קרא ושנה ולא שמש ת"ח הרי זה ע"ה שאני רב מנשיא בר תחליפא דמשמע להו לרבנן ורמי בר חמא הוא דלא דק אבתריה ל"א דשמע שמעתתא מפומייהו דרבנן וגריס להו כצורבא מרבנן דמי:,אכל טבל ומעשר וכו': טבל פשיטא לא צריכא בטבל טבול מדרבנן ה"ד בעציץ שאינו נקוב:,מעשר ראשון כו': פשיטא לא צריכא כגון שהקדימו בכרי מהו דתימא כדאמר ליה רב פפא לאביי קמ"ל כדשני ליה:,מעשר שני וכו': פשיטא לא צריכא שנפדו ולא נפדו כהלכתן מעשר שני כגון שפדאו על גבי אסימון ורחמנא אמר (דברים יד, כה) וצרת הכסף בידך כסף שיש (לו) עליו צורה הקדש שחללו על גבי קרקע ולא פדאו בכסף ורחמנא אמר (ויקרא כז, יט) ונתן הכסף וקם לו:,והשמש שאכל פחות מכזית: פשיטא איידי דתנא רישא כזית תנא סיפא פחות מכזית:,והנכרי אין מזמנין עליו: פשיטא הכא במאי עסקינן בגר שמל ולא טבל דאמר רבי זירא א"ר יוחנן לעולם אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול וכמה דלא טבל נכרי הוא:,נשים ועבדים וקטנים אין מזמנין עליהן: אמר רבי יוסי קטן המוטל בעריסה מזמנין עליו,והא תנן נשים ועבדים וקטנים אין מזמנין עליהם,הוא דאמר כרבי יהושע בן לוי דאמר ריב"ל אף על פי שאמרו קטן המוטל בעריסה אין מזמנין עליו אבל עושין אותו סניף לעשרה,ואמר ריב"ל תשעה ועבד מצטרפין מיתיבי מעשה ברבי אליעזר שנכנס לבית הכנסת ולא מצא עשרה ושחרר עבדו והשלימו לעשרה שחרר אין לא שחרר לא תרי אצטריכו שחרר חד ונפיק בחד,והיכי עביד הכי והאמר רב יהודה כל המשחרר עבדו עובר בעשה שנאמר (ויקרא כה, מו) לעולם בהם תעבודו לדבר מצוה שאני מצוה הבאה בעבירה היא מצוה דרבים שאני,ואמר ריב"ל לעולם ישכים אדם לבית הכנסת כדי שיזכה וימנה עם עשרה הראשונים שאפילו מאה באים אחריו קבל עליו שכר כולם שכר כולם סלקא דעתך אלא אימא נותנין לו שכר כנגד כולם,אמר רב הונא תשעה וארון מצטרפין א"ל רב נחמן וארון גברא הוא אלא אמר רב הונא תשעה נראין כעשרה מצטרפין אמרי לה כי מכנפי ואמרי לה כי מבדרי,אמר רבי אמי שנים ושבת מצטרפין אמר ליה רב נחמן ושבת גברא הוא אלא אמר רבי אמי שני תלמידי חכמים המחדדין זה את זה בהלכה מצטרפין מחוי רב חסדא כגון אנא ורב ששת מחוי רב ששת כגון אנא ורב חסדא,א"ר יוחנן קטן פורח מזמנין עליו תנ"ה קטן שהביא שתי שערות מזמנין עליו ושלא הביא שתי שערות אין מזמנין עליו ואין מדקדקין בקטן הא גופא קשיא אמרת הביא שתי שערות אין לא הביא לא והדר תני אין מדקדקין בקטן לאתויי מאי לאו | 47b. b“From all of that is given to you, you shall set apartthat which is the Lord’s iteruma /i” (Numbers 18:29). God’s iteruma /i, iteruma gedola /i, must be taken from all of the Levites’ gifts. The Gemara asks: bAnd what did you seethat led you to require iteruma gedolafrom first tithe that was taken from grain in piles and not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks? Abaye answers: bThis,after it was threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and bhas become grain, and that,which remained on the stalk, bdid notyet bbecome grain.The verse regarding iteruma gedolastates: “The first of your grain” (Deuteronomy 18:4), is given to the priest. Once it is considered grain, the right of the priest takes effect and the Levite is required to separate iteruma gedola /i.,The mishna states that if, among the diners, one ate bsecond tithe and consecrated food that were redeemed,he may be included in a izimmun /i.The Gemara remarks: bIt is obviousthat if these items were redeemed that one could participate in a izimmun /i. The Gemara responds: bWith what are we dealing here?We are dealing with ba casewhere the consecrated property was not completely redeemed, i.e., bwhere one gavepayment for bthe principal,the value of the tithe, bbut he did not givepayment for bthe fifththat he must add when redeeming items that he consecrated; bandthe mishna bteaches usthat failure to add bthe fifth does not invalidatethe redemption.,We learned in the mishna: bThe waiter who ateat least ban olive-bulkfrom the meal may join in a izimmun /i. The Gemara remarks: bIt is obvious.Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this ihalakha /i? The Gemara answers: bLest you say that the waiterwho stands and serves the diners bdid not establishhimself as a participant in the meal and, therefore, cannot join the izimmun /i, the mishna bteaches usthat even the waiter is considered to have established himself as a participant in the meal.,The mishna states that ba Samaritan [ iKuti /i] may be included in a izimmun /i.The Gemara asks: bWhy?Even if you consider him a member of the Jewish people, blet him be merely an iam ha’aretz /i,one who is not scrupulous in matters of ritual purity and tithes, band it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bAn iam ha’aretzmay not be included in a izimmun /i. /b,The Gemara offers several answers: bAbaye said:The mishna is referring to a iKutiwho is a iḥaver /i,one who is scrupulous in those areas. bRava said: Even if you saythat the mishna refers to ba iKuti /iwho is an iam ha’aretz /i, and herethe prohibition to include an iam ha’aretzin a izimmunrefers to an iam ha’aretz /ias defined by bthe Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir, as it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bWho is an iam ha’aretz /i? Anyone who does not eat non-sacred food ina state of britual purity.This is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:An iam ha’aretzis banyone who does not appropriately tithe his produce. And these iKutimtithetheir produce bappropriately, as they are scrupulous with regard to that which is written in the Torah, as the Master said: Any mitzva that the iKutimembracedand accepted upon themselves, bthey areeven bmore exacting in itsobservance bthan Jews. /b,The Gemara cites a ibaraitawith additional opinions with regard to the defining characteristics of an iam ha’aretz /i: bThe Sages taught: Who is an iam ha’aretz /i? One who does not recite iShemain the evening and morning. This is bthe statement of Rabbi Eliezer.Rabbi Yehoshua says:An iam ha’aretzis bone who does not don phylacteries. Ben Azzai says:An iam ha’aretzis bone who does not have ritual fringes on his garment. Rabbi Natan says:An iam ha’aretzis bone who does not have a imezuzaon his doorway. Rabbi Natan bar Yosef says:An iam ha’aretzis bone who has children butwho does not want them to study Torah, so he bdoes not raise them toengage in bTorah study. iAḥerimsay: Even if one read the Bible and studied Mishna and did not serve Torah scholarsto learn from them the meaning of the Torah that he studied, bthat is an iam ha’aretz /i. Rav Huna said: The ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of iAḥerim /i. /b,The Gemara relates: bRami bar Ḥama did not include Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa, who studied iSifra /i, iSifrei,and ihalakhot,in a izimmun /ibecause he had merely studied and did not serve Torah scholars. bWhen Rami bar Ḥama passed away, Rava said: Rami bar Ḥama died only because he did not include Rabbi Menashya bar Taḥlifa in a izimmun /i.The Gemara asks: bWas it not taughtin a ibaraita /i: iAḥerimsay: Even if one read the Bible and studied mishna and did not serve Torah scholars, that is an iam ha’aretz /i?Why, then, was Rami bar Ḥama punished? The Gemara answers: bRav Menashya bar Taḥlifa is different, as he served the Sages. And it was Rami bar Ḥama who was not precisein his efforts to check bafter himto ascertain his actions. bAnother versionof the Gemara’s answer: Anyone bwho hears ihalakhotfrom the mouths of Sages and studies them is considered a Torah scholar. /b,The mishna states that bone who ate untithed produce andfirst btithe etc.is not included in a izimmun /i. The Gemara remarks: bIt is obviousas one is forbidden to eat untithed produce. The Gemara responds: bIt was only necessaryto teach this ihalakhawith regard to a case where it is only considered buntithed produce by rabbinic law,although by Torah law it was permitted. bWhat are the circumstances?Where the produce grew bin an unperforated flowerpot,as anything grown disconnected from the ground is not considered produce of the ground and is exempt by Torah law from tithing. It is only by rabbinic law that it is considered untithed.,We learned in the mishna that one who ate bfirst tithefrom which its iterumawas not separated may not be included in a izimmun /i. The Gemara remarks: bIt is obvious.The Gemara responds: bIt was only necessaryfor the mishna to teach this with regard to a case bwherethe Levite bprecededthe priest after the kernels of grain were placed bin a pile. Lest you say as Rav Pappa said to Abaye,that in that case, too, the produce should be exempt from the obligation to separate iteruma gedola /i, the itannaof the mishna bteaches us asAbaye brespondedto Rav Pappa, that there is a difference between the case when the grain was on the stalks and the case when the grain was in a pile.,We also learned in the mishna that if one ate bsecond titheand consecrated food that had not been redeemed, he may not be included in a izimmun /i. The Gemara remarks: bIt is obvious?Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this ihalakha /i? The Gemara responds: bIt was only necessaryfor the mishna to teach this ihalakhawith regard to a case bwhere they were redeemed, but not redeemed properly, i.e., second tithe that was redeemed with an unminted coin [ iasimon /i],a silver bullion that had not been engraved. bAnd the Torah says: “And bind up [ ivetzarta /i] the money in your hand”(Deuteronomy 14:25), which the Sages interpreted as follows: iVetzartarefers to bmoney that has a form [ itzura /i]engraved bupon it. Consecrated property;in a case bwhere he redeemed itby exchanging it bfor land instead of money, and the Torah states: “He will give the money and it will be assured to him”(Leviticus 27:19).,The mishna states that ba waiter who ate less than an olive-bulkmay not join a izimmun /i. The Gemara remarks: bIt is obvious.Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this ihalakha /i? The Gemara answers: bSince the first clauseof the mishna btaughtthe ihalakhawith regard to a waiter who ate ban olive-bulk, the latter clause taughtthe ihalakhawith regard to a waiter who ate bless than an olive-bulk.Although it is obvious, in the interest of arriving at a similar formulation in the two parts of the mishna, it was included.,The mishna further states that ba gentile is not included in a izimmun /i.The Gemara remarks: bIt is obvious.Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this ihalakha /i? The Gemara answers: bWith what are we dealing here?We are dealing bwitha case of ba convert who was circumcised butdid bnotyet bimmersehimself in a ritual bath, bas Rabbi Zeira saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: One is neverconsidered ba proselyte until he is circumcised and immerseshimself. bAs long as he did not immersehimself, bhe is a gentile. /b,We also learned in the mishna that bwomen, slaves, and minors are not included in a izimmun /i. Rabbi Yosei said: A minor lying in a cradle is included in a izimmun /i. /b,The Gemara objects: bDidn’t we learnin the mishna bthat women, slaves, and minors are not included in a izimmun /i? /b,The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yosei bstatedhis opinion bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Although a minor lying in a cradle is not included in a izimmun /i, one may make him an adjunct tocomplete an assembly of btenpeople, enabling them to invoke God’s name in a izimmun /i.,On the subject of completing a izimmun /i, bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: NineJews band a slave join togetherto form a izimmunof ten. The Gemara braises an objection:There was an bincident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who entered a synagogue and did not finda quorum of bten, and he liberated his slave and he completed thequorum of bten.From this we may infer that if he bfreedhis slave, byes,he may join the quorum of ten, but if he bdid not freehim, bno,he may not join the quorum of ten. The Gemara responds: In that case, btwo were requiredto complete the quorum; Rabbi Eliezer bfreed one and fulfilled his obligation withanother bone,who completed the quorum of ten without being freed.,With regard to this incident, the Gemara asks: bHow did he do that? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say: Anyone who frees hisCanaanite bslave violates a positive mitzva, as it is statedwith regard to Canaanite slaves: “You will keep them as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold as a possession; bthey will serve as bondsmen for you forever”(Leviticus 25:46)? How, then, could Rabbi Eliezer have freed his slave? The Gemara answers: The case of ba mitzva is different.The Gemara asks: bIt is a mitzva that comes through a transgression,and a mitzva fulfilled in that manner is inherently flawed. The Gemara responds: bA mitzvathat benefits bthe many is different,and one may free his slave for that purpose.,In praise of a quorum of ten, the Gemara states that bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One should always rise earlyto go bto the synagogue in order to have the privilege and be counted among the first tento complete the quorum, bas even if one hundredpeople barrive after him, he receives the reward of them all,as they are all joining that initial quorum. The Gemara is perplexed: bDoes it enter your mindthat he receives bthe reward of them all?Why should he take away their reward? bRather,emend the statement and bsay: He receives a reward equivalent tothe reward of bthem all. /b,With regard to the laws of joining a quorum, bRav Huna said: Nine plus an arkin which the Torah scrolls are stored bjointo form a quorum of ten. bRav Naḥman said to him: Is an ark a man,that it may be counted in the quorum of ten? bRather, Rav Huna said: Nine who appear like ten may join together.There was disagreement over this: bSome said this ihalakhaas follows: Nine appear like ten bwhen they are gathered. And some said this ihalakhaas follows: Nine appear like ten bwhen they are scattered,the disagreement being which formation creates the impression of a greater number of individuals.,Similarly, bRav Ami said: Twopeople band Shabbat jointo form a izimmun /i. bRav Naḥman said to him: Is Shabbat a person,that it may be counted in a izimmun /i? bRather, Rav Ami said: Two Torah scholars who hone each other’sintellect bin halakhicdiscourse bjoin togetherand are considered three. The Gemara relates: bRav Ḥisda pointedto an example of two such Torah scholars who hone each other’s intellect: bFor example, me and Rav Sheshet.Similarly, bRav Sheshet pointed: For example, me and Rav Ḥisda. /b,With regard to a minor’s inclusion in a izimmun /i, bRabbi Yoḥa said: A mature minor,i.e., one who is still a minor in terms of age, but is displaying signs of puberty, bis included in a izimmun /i. Thatopinion bwas also taughtin a ibaraita /i: bA minor who grew twopubic bhairs,a sign of puberty, bis included in a izimmun /i; and one who did not grow two hairs is not included in a izimmun /i. And one is not exacting with regard to a minor.The Gemara comments: bThis ibaraita bitself is difficult. You said thata minor bwho grew two hairs, yes,he is included, bone who did not growtwo hairs, bno,he is not included, band then it taught that one is not exacting with regard to a minor. Whatdoes this last clause come bto include? Is it not /b |
|
31. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, 20a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 20a. big strongמתני׳ /strong /big נדר בחרם ואמר לא נדרתי אלא בחרמו של ים בקרבן ואמר לא נדרתי אלא בקרבנות של מלכים,הרי עצמי קרבן ואמר לא נדרתי אלא בעצם שהנחתי לי להיות נודר בו: קונם אשתי נהנית לי ואמר לא נדרתי אלא באשתי הראשונה שגירשתי,על כולן אין נשאלין להם ואם נשאלו עונשין אותן ומחמירין עליהן דברי רבי מאיר,וחכמים אומרים פותחין להן פתח ממקום אחר ומלמדין אותן כדי שלא ינהגו קלות ראש בנדרים:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big הא גופא קשיא אמרת אין נשאלין להן והדר תני אם נשאלו עונשין אותן ומחמירין עליהן,אמר רב יהודה הכי קתני וכולן אין צריכין שאלה במה דברים אמורים בתלמיד חכם אבל בעם הארץ שבא לישאל עונשין אותו ומחמירין עליו,בשלמא מחמירין דלא פתחינן ליה בחרטה אלא עונשין היכי דמי,כדתניא מי שנזר ועבר על נזירותו אין נזקקין לו עד שינהוג בו איסור כימים שנהג בהן היתר דברי רבי יהודה אמר רבי יוסי במה דברים אמורים בנזירות מועטת אבל בנזירות מרובה דיו שלושים יום,אמר רב יוסף הואיל ואמרי רבנן אין נזקקים לו בי דינא דמזדקקי לא עביד שפיר רב אחא בר יעקב אומר משמתינן ליה:,וחכמים אומרים פותחין לו פתח כו': תנא לעולם אל תהי רגיל בנדרים שסופך למעול בשבועות ואל תהי רגיל אצל עם הארץ שסופך להאכילך טבלים אל תהי רגיל אצל כהן עם הארץ שסופך להאכילך תרומה ואל תרבה שיחה עם האשה שסופך לבוא לידי ניאוף,רבי אחא ברבי יאשיה אומר כל הצופה בנשים סופו בא לידי עבירה וכל המסתכל בעקבה של אשה הויין לו בנים שאינן מהוגנין אמר רב יוסף ובאשתו נדה אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש עקבה דקתני במקום הטינופת שהוא מכוון כנגד העקב,תניא בעבור תהיה יראתו על פניכם זו בושה לבלתי תחטאו מלמד שהבושה מביאה לידי יראת חטא מיכן אמרו סימן יפה באדם שהוא ביישן אחרים אומרים כל אדם המתבייש לא במהרה הוא חוטא ומי שאין לו בושת פנים בידוע שלא עמדו אבותיו על הר סיני,אמר רבי יוחנן בן דהבאי ארבעה דברים סחו לי מלאכי השרת חיגרין מפני מה הויין מפני שהופכים את שולחנם אילמים מפני מה הויין מפני שמנשקים על אותו מקום חרשים מפני מה הויין מפני שמספרים בשעת תשמיש סומין מפני מה הויין מפני שמסתכלים באותו מקום,ורמינהו שאלו את אימא שלום מפני מה | 20a. strongMISHNA: /strong One who btook a vowby associating an item bwith a dedication [ iḥerem /i],saying: This item is hereby forbidden to me like an item dedicated to the Temple, bandthen bsaid: I took a vow only withthe intention that it would be like ba sea net [ iḥermo shel yam /i]that is used to catch fish; or one who took a vow by associating an item bwith an offering, andthen bsaid: I took a vow only withreference to bofferings to kings,i.e., a gift for a king, not an offering to God.,Or one who said: bI am hereby an offering myself [ iatzmi /i], andthen bsaid: I took a vow only withreference to ba bone [ ietzem /i] that I set aside for myself to vow with,as iatzmimeans both myself and my bone, i.e., he set aside a bone so as to pretend to take a vow upon himself; or one who said: bDeriving benefit from me is ikonamfor my wife, andthen bsaid: I took a vow only with regard to my first wife whom I divorced,not with regard to my current wife., bFor allof the above vows, those who took them bdo notneed to brequestof a halakhic authority to dissolve bthem,as the speaker interpreted the vows in a manner that caused them not to take effect at all. bHowever, if they requesteddissolution, apparently due to their being uncertain of their explanations, the court bpunishes them and treats them stringentlyand the vows are not dissolved. This is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. /b, bAnd the Rabbis say:These vows are not treated stringently. Rather, dissolution bis broached with them bysuggesting ba different extenuation,i.e., the halakhic authority suggests extenuating circumstances that undermine the vow but do not pertain to its wording. bAnd we teach themthat they should not take this kind of vow in the future, bin order that they will not take vows lightly. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong bThismatter bis itself difficult.On the one hand, byou said they do notneed to brequestto dissolve bthem, and then it is taughtthat bif they requesteddissolution, the court bpunishes them and treats them stringently,i.e., the vows took effect and the vows are not dissolved., bRav Yehuda saidthat bthis is whatthe mishna bis teaching: All of thesevows bdo not need a request.However, bin whatcase bis this statement said? Inthe case of ba Torah scholar,who knows that these vows do not take effect, and he obviously did not intend for them to take effect in the first place. bHow-ever,in the case of ban ignoramus who comes to requestdissolution of the vow, the court bpunishes him and treats him stringently. /b,The Gemara asks: bGranted,the court btreatshim bstringentlyin bthatthe halakhic authorities bdo not broachdissolution bwith himmerely bby means of regret;rather, extenuating circumstances must be found. bHowever, what are the circumstancesin which the court bpunisheshim?,The Gemara answers that the circumstances are bas it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to bone who vowed to be a nazirite and violated his naziriteship,the halakhic authority bdoes not attend to himto dissolve his vow buntil he observesthe bprohibitionsof naziriteship bfor the samenumber of bdays in which he behaved with permissivenessconcerning the restrictions of a nazirite. This is bthe statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei said: In whatcase bis this statement,that he must observe naziriteship for a period of time corresponding to his vow, bsaid?It is said binthe case of ba shortterm of bnaziriteship,which is not longer than the minimum thirty days. bHowever, inthe case of a blongterm of bnaziriteship it is enough for himto observe it for bthirty days,even if he violated it for a greater number of days. This explains the punishment mentioned in the mishna: An ignoramus who requests the dissolution of his vow must first observe the vow for a certain period of time., bRav Yosef said: Since the Sages saythat the halakhic authority bdoes not attend to him, a court that does attendto him and dissolves his vow immediately bis not acting properly. Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov says:A halakhic authority who dissolves the vow prematurely bis excommunicated. /b,§ It is stated in the mishna that bthe Rabbis say:Dissolution bis broached with himby suggesting a different bextenuation,and he is taught not to take this kind of vow so that he will not take vows lightly. It is btaughtin a ibaraita /i: bNever be accustomed totaking bvows, because ultimately you willdisregard them, and you will even babuse oaths,which are more grave. bAnd do not regularly be around an ignoramus, because ultimately he will feed you untithed produce,as he is not careful to tithe. bDo not regularly be by an ignorant priest, because ultimately he will feed you iteruma /idue to his close relationship with you, and iterumais forbidden to a non-priest. bAnd do not talk extensively with a woman, because ultimately you will come to adultery. /b, bRabbi Aḥa, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, says: Anyone who watches women will ultimately come to sin, and anyone who looks at the heel of a woman will have indecent childrenas a punishment. bRav Yosef said: Andthis brelates toall women, including bhis wifewhen she has the status of ba menstruating woman. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The heelof a woman bthat is mentionedis not the heel of the foot, but bthe place of uncleanliness,i.e., the genitalia, and it is called a heel as a euphemism, bas it is situated opposite the heel. /b,§ bIt is taughtin a ibaraita /i: b“That His fear may be upon your faces”(Exodus 20:17); bthisis referring to bshame,as shame causes one to blush. b“That you not sin”(Exodus 20:17) bteaches that shame leads to fear of sin. From herethe Sages bsaid: It is a good sign in a person that he is one who experiences shame. Others say: Any person who experiences shame will not quickly sin, andconversely, bone who does not havethe capacity to be bshamefaced, it is known that his forefathers did not stand at Mount Sinai. /b,§ bRabbi Yoḥa ben Dehavai said: The ministering angels told me four matters: For whatreason bdo lame people come into existence?It is bbecausetheir fathers boverturn their tables,i.e., they engage in sexual intercourse in an atypical way. bFor whatreason bdo mute people come into existence?It is bbecausetheir fathers bkiss that placeof nakedness. bFor whatreason bdo deaf people come into existence?It is bbecausetheir parents bconverse while engaging in sexual intercourse. For whatreason bdo blind people come into existence?It is bbecausetheir fathers bstare at that place. /b, bAndthe Gemara braises a contradiction: Imma Shalom,the wife of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, bwas asked: For whatreason |
|
32. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, 34a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 34a. רגל הוה וטומאת עם הארץ ברגל כטהרה שוינהו רבנן דכתיב (שופטים כ, יא) ויאסף כל איש ישראל אל העיר כאיש אחד חברים הכתוב עשאן כולן חברים, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big דם עובדת כוכבים ודם טהרה של מצורעת ב"ש מטהרים ובית הלל אומרים כרוקה וכמימי רגליה,דם היולדת שלא טבלה ב"ש אומרים כרוקה וכמימי רגליה וב"ה אומרים מטמא לח ויבש,ומודים ביולדת בזוב שהיא מטמאה לח ויבש, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ולית להו לב"ש (ויקרא טו, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם איש איש כי יהיה זב בני ישראל מטמאין בזיבה ואין העובדי כוכבים מטמאין בזיבה אבל גזרו עליהן שיהו כזבין לכל דבריהם,אמרי לך ב"ש (ההוא בזכרים איתמר דאי בנקבות) היכי לעביד ליטמא לח ויבש עשיתו כשל תורה ליטמי לח ולא ליטמי יבש חלקת בשל תורה,אי הכי רוקה ומימי רגליה נמי כיון דעבדינן היכרא בדמה מידע ידיע דרוקה ומימי רגליה דרבנן,ולעביד היכרא ברוקה ומימי רגליה ולטמויי לדמה רוקה ומימי רגליה דשכיחי גזרו בהו רבנן דמה דלא שכיחא לא גזרו ביה רבנן,אמר רבא זובו טמא אפילו לב"ש קריו טהור אפילו לב"ה,זובו טמא אפילו לב"ש דהא איכא למעבד היכרא בקריו,קריו טהור אפי' לב"ה עבוד ביה רבנן היכרא כי היכי דלא לשרוף עליה תרומה וקדשים,ולעביד היכרא בזובו ולטמויי לקריו זובו דלא תלי במעשה גזרו ביה רבנן קריו דתלי במעשה לא גזרו ביה רבנן,לימא מסייע ליה עובדת כוכבים שפלטה שכבת זרע מישראל טמאה ובת ישראל שפלטה שכבת זרע מן העובד כוכבי' טהורה מאי לאו טהורה גמורה לא טהורה מדאורייתא טמאה מדרבנן,ת"ש נמצאת אומר שכבת זרע של ישראל טמאה בכל מקום | 34a. This incident occurred during ba pilgrimage Festival,either Passover, iSukkot /i, or iShavuot /i, band the Sages rendered the ritual impurity of an iam ha’aretzduring a pilgrimage Festival as purity. As it is written: “And all the men of Israel gathered to the city, like one man, united [ iḥaverim /i]”(Judges 20:11). Whenever all the Jewish people gather in a single place, such as on a pilgrimage Festival, bthe verse renders all of them iḥaverim /i,even one who is an iam ha’aretz /i. There was therefore no concern for impurity due to the saliva of an iam ha’aretz /i. Yet, the High Priest was concerned that this Sadducee was one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman., strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to the bblood ofa menstruating bgentile womanor a gentile izava /i, bandthe bblooddischarged bbya female Jewish bleperduring the days bof purityof a woman who gives birth, bBeit Shammai deemthem britually pure, and Beit Hillel say:The halakhic status of the blood of the gentile woman is blikethat of bher saliva and her urine,which impart impurity only while moist. Likewise, the blood discharged by a Jewish leper during the days of purity imparts impurity only when moist.,With regard to bthe blood of a woman who gave birthand reached the conclusion of her days of impurity, i.e., seven days after giving birth to a male or fourteen days after giving birth to a female, but bwho did notyet bimmersein a ritual bath, bBeit Shammai say:Although she has yet to immerse in a ritual bath, the blood does not retain the halakhic status of menstrual blood. Rather, the status of the blood is blikethat of bher saliva and her urine,and it imparts impurity only while moist. bAnd Beit Hillel say:Since she did not immerse in a ritual bath, her blood is considered like that of a menstruating woman, and it bimparts impuritywhether it is bmoist or dry. /b, bAndBeit Shammai bconcedeto Beit Hillel binthe case of ba woman who gives birth as a izava /i,where the woman must count seven clean days from the conclusion of her days of impurity, bthatany blood bshesees during those seven days bimparts impuritywhether it is bmoist or dry. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that according to Beit Shammai the blood of a gentile woman does not impart impurity. The Gemara objects: bAnd do Beit Shammai not acceptthat which is taught with regard to the verse: b“Speak to the children of Israel and say to them, when any man has an issue [ izav /i]out of his flesh, his issue is impure” (Leviticus 15:2), from which it is inferred: By Torah law, bthe children of Israel become impure through izivaand gentiles do not become impure through iziva /i, butthe Sages bdecreed concerning them that they shall be like izavinin all their mattersof ritual purity.,The Gemara responds: bBeit Shammaicould bsay to youthat bthis was statedonly bwith regard to males,not females. bAs, ifit was stated even bwith regard to females, how should one actwith regard to this impurity? bShouldtheir blood bimpart impuritywhether it is bmoist or dry?If so, byou have rendered it likeblood that imparts impurity bby Torahlaw, and people will mistakenly come to burn iterumathat comes into contact with it. Perhaps one will suggest that it bshould impart impurityonly while it is bmoist and it should not impart impuritywhen it is bdry.But if so, byouwill have bdifferentiatedbetween moist and dry blood even bwith regard toblood bthatis impure by bTorahlaw, i.e., one might mistakenly conclude that the blood of Jewish women imparts impurity only when it is moist, when in fact it imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry.,The Gemara objects: bIf so,then with regard to bthe saliva and urine ofa gentile izava /i, which impart impurity by rabbinic law only when moist, Beit Shammai should balsorule that they do not impart impurity at all, in order to distinguish their saliva and urine from that of a Jewish izava /i, which by Torah law impart impurity only when moist (see 54b). The Gemara responds: bSince we implement a conspicuous marker with regard to the blood ofa gentile woman, i.e., it is clear that her status is different from that of a Jewish woman in that her blood does not impart impurity whatsoever, everyone bwill know thatthe impurity of bher saliva and her urineis only bby rabbiniclaw, and there is no concern that people might come to mistakenly burn iterumathat comes into contact with the saliva and urine of a gentile izava /i.,The Gemara persists: bAnd let them implement a conspicuous marker with regard to the saliva and urine ofa gentile woman, that they should not impart impurity whatsoever, band let them deem her blood impureeven when dry. In this manner, everyone will know that the impurity of a gentile woman applies only by rabbinic law, and they will not come to treat that which is impure by Torah law in the same manner. The Gemara responds: With regard to bher saliva and her urine, which arerelatively bcommon, the Sages decreedthat btheyare impure, but with regard to bher blood, which is notas bcommon, the Sages did not decreethat bitis impure.,§ With regard to a gentile man, bRava says: The izivaofa gentile man is britually impure, even according tothe opinion of bBeit Shammai,who maintain that the izivaof a gentile woman does not impart impurity whatsoever. By contrast, bthe semen ofa gentile is bpure, even according tothe opinion of bBeit Hillel,who hold that the blood of menstruating gentiles and the blood of their izivaimparts impurity when it is moist.,Rava elaborates: bThe izivaofa gentile man is bimpure, even according tothe opinion of bBeit Shammai, as it ispossible bto implement a conspicuous marker with his semen,i.e., since his semen does not impart impurity whatsoever, everyone will know that the impurity imparted by the izivaof a gentile applies by rabbinic law, and they will not come to burn iterumathat comes in contact with the izivaof a gentile.,And bthe semen ofa gentile is britually pure, even according tothe opinion of bBeit Hillel.This is because bthe Sageshad to bimplement a conspicuous marker with regard to itto indicate that the izivaof a gentile imparts impurity only by rabbinic law bin order that they will notcome bto burn iterumaand consecrateditems bthatcome into contact with their iziva /i, as must be performed with iterumaand consecrated items that contract impurity by Torah law.,The Gemara objects: bAnd letthe Sages bimplement a conspicuous marker with regard to the izivaofa gentile man, that it should not impart impurity whatsoever, band let them deem his semen impure.The Gemara explains: With regard to bhis iziva /i, which is not dependent on an actionhe performs but is emitted on its own, bthe Sages decreedthat bitis impure; with regard to bhis semen, which is dependent on an actionhe performs, bthe Sages did not decreethat bitis impure.,The Gemara suggests: bLet us saythat the following mishna ( iMikvaot8:4) bsupportsRava’s opinion: In the case of ba gentile woman who discharged sementhat came bfrom a Jewwho engaged in intercourse with her, the semen is bimpure,as it came from a Jew. bAndin the case of ba Jewish woman who discharged sementhat came bfrom a gentile,the semen is bpure. What, is it notcorrect to say that the mishna means the semen of the gentile is bentirely pure,in accordance with the opinion of Rava? The Gemara refutes this suggestion: bNo,perhaps the mishna means that the semen of a gentile is bpure by Torah lawbut bimpure by rabbinic law,whereas according to Rava, the semen of a gentile is pure even by rabbinic law.,The Gemara cites another source that possibly supports Rava’s opinion: bComeand bheara ibaraita /i: bYou are foundto bsay the semen of a Jew is impure whereverit is found |
|
33. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, 49b, 49a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 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. strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to bthe fourteenthof Nisan bthat occurs on Shabbat, one removes allleaven from his possession, whether it is iterumaor non-sacred food, bbefore Shabbat,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 bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:One may remove the leaven bat itsusual btimeon the fourteenth of Nisan by throwing it away or declaring it ownerless. bRabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok says: iTeruma /ishould be removed bbefore Shabbat,as only a few people are permitted to eat it and therefore one can presume that it will remain uneaten during Shabbat. However, bnon-sacredfoods should be removed bat theirusual btime,on the fourteenth of Nisan itself., strongGEMARA: /strong bIt was taughtin the iToseftathat bRabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok says: One time my father,Rabbi Tzadok, bspent Shabbat in Yavne, and the fourteenthof Nisan boccurred onthat bShabbat. Zonin,who was bthe 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.This story serves as anecdotal evidence that leaven is removed at the usual time on the fourteenth of Nisan, even on Shabbat., strongMISHNA: /strong bOne who is travelingon the eve of Passover bto 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 returnto his house band removethe leaven and afterward breturn to the mitzvatoward which he was traveling, bhe should returnhome band removehis leaven. bBut ifthere is not enough time for him to go home and remove the leaven, and still complete the mitzva that he already began, bhe should nullify it in his heart,as by Torah law this is sufficient.,If one was traveling bto saveJews from an attack by bgentiles, from aflooding briver, from bandits, from a fire, or from a collapsedbuilding, he should not even attempt to return, and instead bhe should nullifythe leaven bin his heart.This applies even if he could remove his leaven and still return to his previous activity. If he went bto establish his Shabbatresidence in order to adjust his Shabbat limit for an boptionalpurpose, rather than in order to fulfill a commandment, bhe should return immediatelyto remove his leaven., bAnd so too,the same ihalakhaapplies to bone who left Jerusalem and remembered that there was consecrated meat in his hand.Meat that is taken out of Jerusalem becomes disqualified, and one is required to burn it in proximity to the Temple. bIf he passedthe area of Mount bScopus[iTzofim /i],beyond which one cannot see Jerusalem, bhe burnsthe meat bat the sitewhere bheis located; band ifhe has bnottraveled that far, bhe must return and burn it before the Temple with wood from the arrangementon the altar, which was designated for burning consecrated items that were disqualified.,The mishna asks: For bhow muchleaven or consecrated meat is one required bto return? Rabbi Meir says:In both bthiscase band thatcase, one must return for ban egg-bulk. Rabbi Yehuda says:In both bthiscase band thatcase, one must return for ban olive-bulk. And the Rabbis saythat the amount depends on the case: With regard to bconsecrated meat,he is required to return if he has ban olive-bulk, butin a case where he remembers that he has bleavened bread,he required to return only bfor an egg-bulk. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara braises a contradictionbetween this mishna and another source. It was taught in a ibaraita /i: bOne who is traveling to eat a betrothal feast in his father-in-law’s house or to establish his Shabbatresidence for an boptionalpurpose, bmust return immediatelyto 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., bRabbi Yoḥa said:This is bnot difficult,as there is a tannaitic dispute with regard to the issue. bThissource, the ibaraita /i, is in accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yehuda,while bthatsource, the mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yosei. As it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bA betrothal feast is optional;this is bthe statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says:It is a bmitzva. /b, bAnd now that Rav Ḥisda said: The disputebetween Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei applies to bthe secondbetrothal feast, where the groom takes part in an additional meal with the bride’s family, bbut everyone agrees that the firstbetrothal bfeast is a mitzva,the contradiction between the mishna and the ibaraitacan be resolved differently. bEven if you say that thismishna and bthat ibaraitaare both in accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yehuda,it is bnot difficult. Thismishna, which relates to the meal as a mitzva, is referring to bthe first meal. That ibaraita /i, which assumes that the meal is not a mitzva, is referring to bthe second meal. /b, bIt was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yehuda said: I heard onlythat there is a mitzva with regard to a bbetrothal feastitself, bbut notwith regard to the feast of the bgifts [ isivlonot /i],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. bRabbi Yosei said to him: I heardthat both ba betrothal feast andthe feast of the bgiftsare considered mitzvot.,Having discussed whether a betrothal feast is a mitzva, the Gemara addresses a related issue. bIt was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Shimon says: A Torah scholar may notderive bbenefit frompartaking in bany feast that is not a mitzva. /b,The Gemara asks: bIn what casedoes this statement apply? bRabbi Yoḥa said: In a casewhere bthe daughter of a priestmarries ban Israelite,or where bthe daughter of a Torah scholarmarries ban ignoramus.Although a wedding feast is generally a mitzva, it is not in this case, bas Rabbi Yoḥa said:When bthe daughter of a priestmarries ban Israelite their union will not be auspicious,as it is disgraceful for the priesthood when the daughter of a priest marries an Israelite.,The Gemara asks: bWhat ismeant by bthisstatement that their union will be inauspicious? bRav Ḥisda said: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 beither be a widow, a divorcee, or without children(see Leviticus 22:13). bIt was taught in a ibaraita /i:Either her husband bwill bury her or she will bury him,because one of them will die young, bor she will cause him to become poor. /b,The Gemara asks: bIs that so? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥahimself bsay: One who wishes to become wealthy should cling to the descendants of Aaron,and ball the more soshould the merit of the bTorahand the bpriesthood cause them to become wealthy.The Gemara answers: This is bnot difficult,as bthiscase, where he becomes wealthy, brefers to a Torah scholarwho marries a woman of priestly lineage. In that case their union will be a successful one. bThatcase, where their union will not be auspicious, refers to ban ignoramuswho marries a woman of priestly lineage.,The Gemara relates that bRabbi Yehoshua married a daughter of a priestand bbecame ill. He said:Apparently, bit is not satisfactory to Aaronthe priest bthat I cling to his descendants, so that he has a son-in-law like me. /b,The Gemara also relates that bRav Idi bar Avin married a daughter of a priest. Two sonswho were bordainedto decide halakhic matters bcame from him,namely bRav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, and Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi.Similarly, bRav Pappa said: Had I not married a daughter of a priest, I would not have become wealthy. /b,On the other hand, bRav Kahana,who was not a priest, bsaid: Had I not married a daughter of a priest, I would not have been exiled,as Rav Kahana was forced to flee from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael. bThey said to him: But you were exiled to a place of Torah,which is not a punishment at all. He answered: bI was not exiled as people aregenerally bexiled,i.e., I did not emigrate of my own free will; rather, I was forced to flee from the authorities., bRabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who benefits frompartaking in ban optional feast,which is not a mitzva, bwill ultimately be exiled, as it is stated: “And eat the lambs of the flock and the calves out of the midst of the stall”(Amos 6:4), band it is written: “Therefore now they shall go into exile at the head of the exiles;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. bThe Sages taught: Any Torah scholar who feasts excessively everywheredegrades himself and brings suffering upon himself. He will bultimately destroy his house, widow his wife, orphan his chicks,i.e., his children, band 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: bWhat is thisbad reputation that he causes to himself and his descendants? bAbaye said:His son bis called the son[ibar/b] bof the one who heats ovens,since this person continually heated ovens in order to prepare food for feasts. bRava said:His son will be called bthe son of the one who dancesin binns [ ibei kuvei /i],as he seems to be invited to every feast to entertain the guests. bRav Pappa said:His son will be called bthe son of the one who licks bowls [ ipinkhei /i]. Rav Shemaya said:His son will be called bthe son of the one who foldshis garment band crouches,i.e., falls asleep drunk.,On the topic of proper marriage partners, the Gemara cites the following discussion. bThe Sages taught: One should alwaysbe willing to bsell all he hasin order to bmarry the daughter of a Torah scholar, as if he dies orif he bis exiledand he cannot raise his children, bhe can be assured that his sons will be Torah scholars,since their mother will ensure that they are well educated. bAnd one should not marry the daughter of an ignoramus, as if he dies or is exiled, his sons will be ignoramuses. /b,Furthermore, bthe Sages taught: One should alwaysbe willing to bsell all he hasin order to bmarry the daughter of a Torah scholar andin order to bmarry off his daughter to a Torah scholar.This type of marriage can be bcompared to grapes of a vinethat become intertwined bwith grapes of a vine, somethingwhich is bbeautiful and acceptableto God and man. bAnd one should not marry the daughter of an ignoramus.This type of marriage can be bcompared to grapes of a vinethat have become intertwined bwith berries of a bramble,which is bsomething unseemly /b |
|
34. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, 66a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 66a. שורך נרבע והלה שותק נאמן ותנא תונא ושנעבדה בו עבירה ושהמית על פי עד אחד או ע"פ הבעלים נאמן האי ע"פ עד אחד היכי דמי אי דקא מודו בעלים היינו ע"פ הבעלים אלא לאו דשתיק,וצריכא דאי אשמעינן הך קמייתא אי לאו דקים ליה בנפשיה דעבד חולין בעזרה לא הוה מייתי,אבל נטמאו טהרותיך מימר אמרינן האי דשתיק דסבר חזי ליה בימי טומאתו,ואי אשמעינן הא משום דקא מפסיד ליה בימי טהרתו אבל שורו נרבע מימר אמר כל השוורים לאו לגבי מזבח קיימי צריכא,איבעיא להו אשתו זינתה בעד אחד ושותק מהו אמר אביי נאמן רבא אמר אינו נאמן הוי דבר שבערוה ואין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים,אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דההוא סמיא דהוה מסדר מתנייתא קמיה דמר שמואל יומא חד נגה ליה ולא הוה קאתי שדר שליחא אבתריה אדאזיל שליח בחדא אורחא אתא איהו בחדא כי אתא שליח אמר אשתו זינתה אתא לקמיה דמר שמואל א"ל אי מהימן לך זיל אפקה ואי לא לא תפיק,מאי לאו אי מהימן עלך דלאו גזלנא הוא ורבא אי מהימן לך כבי תרי זיל אפקה ואי לא לא תפקה,ואמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דתניא מעשה בינאי המלך שהלך לכוחלית שבמדבר וכיבש שם ששים כרכים ובחזרתו היה שמח שמחה גדולה וקרא לכל חכמי ישראל אמר להם אבותינו היו אוכלים מלוחים בזמן שהיו עסוקים בבנין בית המקדש אף אנו נאכל מלוחים זכר לאבותינו והעלו מלוחים על שולחנות של זהב ואכלו,והיה שם אחד איש לץ לב רע ובליעל ואלעזר בן פועירה שמו ויאמר אלעזר בן פועירה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך לבם של פרושים עליך ומה אעשה הקם להם בציץ שבין עיניך הקים להם בציץ שבין עיניו,היה שם זקן אחד ויהודה בן גדידיה שמו ויאמר יהודה בן גדידיה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך רב לך כתר מלכות הנח כתר כהונה לזרעו של אהרן שהיו אומרים אמו נשבית במודיעים ויבוקש הדבר ולא נמצא ויבדלו חכמי ישראל בזעם,ויאמר אלעזר בן פועירה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך הדיוט שבישראל כך הוא דינו ואתה מלך וכהן גדול כך הוא דינך ומה אעשה אם אתה שומע לעצתי רומסם ותורה מה תהא עליה הרי כרוכה ומונחת בקרן זוית כל הרוצה ללמוד יבוא וילמוד,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מיד נזרקה בו אפיקורסות דהוה ליה למימר תינח תורה שבכתב תורה שבעל פה מאי מיד ותוצץ הרעה על ידי אלעזר בן פועירה ויהרגו כל חכמי ישראל והיה העולם משתומם עד שבא שמעון בן שטח והחזיר את התורה ליושנה,היכי דמי אילימא דבי תרי אמרי אישתבאי ובי תרי אמרי לא אישתבאי מאי חזית דסמכת אהני סמוך אהני,אלא בעד אחד וטעמא דקא מכחשי ליה בי תרי הא לאו הכי מהימן,ורבא לעולם תרי ותרי וכדאמר רב אחא בר רב מניומי בעדי הזמה הכא נמי בעדי הזמה,ואיבעית אימא כדרבי יצחק דאמר רבי יצחק שפחה הכניסו תחתיה,אמר רבא | 66a. bYour ox was usedby a man bfor an act of bestialityand is therefore unfit for an offering, band the other,the owner of the ox, bis silent,the witness is bdeemed credible. And the itanna /iof the mishna also btaught( iBekhorot41a): bAndwith regard to an animal bthat was used for a transgressionor bthat killed,if this is attested to bby one witness or by the owner,he is bdeemed credible.The Gemara clarifies this case: bWhat are the circumstancesof bthiscase of the mishna, where the knowledge is established bby one witness? If the owner admitsto the claim, bthis isthe same as: bBy the owner. Rather, is it notreferring to a case bwherethe owner remains bsilent? /b,The Gemara comments: bAndeach of these statements of Abaye is bnecessary. As, had he taught usonly bthat firstcase, where the witness said someone ate forbidden fat, one might have said that he is deemed credible for the following reason: bWere it notfor the fact bthat he himselfwas bconvinced that he had committeda transgression, bhe would notcommit the transgression of bbringing a non-sacredanimal btothe Temple bcourtyardon the basis of the testimony of one witness. Consequently, his silence is evidently an admission., bButif the witness said: bYour ritually purefoods bwere rendered ritually impure,and the accused was silent, bwe would say:The reason bthathe is bsilentand refrains from denying the claim is bthat he thinkshe is not suffering any significant loss, as the food bis fit for himto eat bon his days of ritual impurity,because he is not required to destroy ritually impure foods., bAnd hadAbaye btaught usonly the case of: Your ritually pure food was rendered ritually impure, one might have said that the reason bthiswitness is deemed credible is bthat he causes him a loss on his days of ritual impurity,and therefore his silence is tantamount to a confession. bButin the case of: bHis ox was usedby a man bfor an act of bestiality,the owner of the ox bcan saywith regard to his animal: bNot all the oxen standready to be sacrificed basan offering on the baltar.Perhaps one would think that the owner does not bother denying the claim because he merely forfeits the possibility of sacrificing his ox as an offering, which he considers an inconsequential matter. It is only if there were two witnesses to the act that the animal is put to death, whereas here there was only one witness. It is therefore bnecessaryfor Abaye to specify all these cases.,§ bA dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: If a husband is told bby one witnessthat bhis wife committed adultery, andthe husband remains bsilent, what isthe ihalakha /i? bAbaye said:The witness is bdeemed credible. Rava said: He is not deemed credible.Why not? Because bit is a matter involving forbidden relations, and there is no matterof testimony bfor forbidden sexual relationsthat can be attested to by bfewer than twowitnesses., bAbaye said: From where do I saythis claim of mine? It happened bthatthere was ba certain blind man who would review imishnayotbefore Mar Shmuel. One daythe blind man bwas late for him and was not arriving.Mar Shmuel bsent a messenger after himto assist him. bWhilethe bmessenger was goingto the blind man’s house bby one way,the blind man barrivedat the house of study bby a differentroute, and therefore the messenger missed him and reached his house. bWhenthe bmessenger cameback, bhe saidthat he had been to the blind man’s house and saw that bhis wife committed adultery.The blind man bcame before Mar Shmuelto inquire whether he must pay heed to this testimony. Mar Shmuel bsaid to him: Ifthis messenger bis trusted by you, goand bdivorce her, but if not, do not divorceher.,Abaye comments: bWhat, is it notcorrect to say that this means that bif he is trusted by you that he is not a thiefbut is a valid witness, you must rely on him? This would prove that a single witness can testify in a case of this kind. bAnd Ravaexplains that Mar Shmuel meant: bIfhe bis trusted by you like twowitnesses, bgoand bdivorce her, but if not, do not divorceher. Consequently, Rava maintains that this episode affords no proof., bAnd Abaye said: From where do I saythis claim of mine? bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bAn incidentoccurred bwith King Yannai, who went tothe region of bKoḥalit in the desert and conquered sixty cities there. And upon his return he rejoicedwith ba great happinessover his victory. bAnd hesubsequently bsummoned all the Sages of the Jewish peopleand bsaid to them: Our ancestorsin their poverty bwould eat salty foods when they were busy with the building of the Temple; we too shall eat salty foods in memory of our ancestors. And they brought salty food on tables of gold, and ate. /b, bAnd there was oneperson bpresent, a scoffer,a man of ban evil heart and a scoundrel called Elazar ben Po’ira. And Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the hearts of the Pharisees,the Sages, bare against you.In other words, they harbor secret resentment against you and do not like you. The king replied: bAnd what shall I doto clarify this matter? Elazar responded: bHave them stand bywearing bthe frontplate between your eyes.Since the frontplate bears the Divine Name, they should stand in its honor. Yannai, who was a member of the priestly Hasmonean family, also served as High Priest, who wears the frontplate. bHe hadthe Pharisees bstand bywearing bthe frontplate between his eyes. /b,Now bthere was a certain elder present called Yehuda ben Gedidya, and Yehuda ben Gedidya said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the crown of the monarchy suffices for you,i.e., you should be satisfied that you are king. bLeave the crown of the priesthood for the descendants of Aaron.The Gemara explains this last comment: bAs they would saythat Yannai’s bmother was taken captive in Modi’in,and she was therefore disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, which meant that Yannai was a iḥalal /i. bAnd the matter was investigated and was not discovered,i.e., they sought witnesses for that event but none were found. bAnd the Sages of Israel were expelled inthe king’s brage,due to this rumor., bAnd Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, such is the judgment of a common person in Israel.In other words, merely expelling a slanderer is appropriate if the subject of the slander is a commoner. bBut you are a king and a High Priest.Is bthis your judgmentas well? Yannai replied: bAnd what should I do?Elazar responded: bIf you listen to my advice, crush them.Yannai countered: bBut what will become of the Torah?He retorted: bBehold,it bis wrapped and placed in the corner. Anyone who wishes to study can come and study.We have no need for the Sages.,The Gemara interjects: bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Immediately, heresy was injected intoYannai, bas he should have saidto Elazar ben Po’ira: This bworks out wellwith regard to bthe Written Torah,as it can be studied by all on their own, but bwhatwill become of bthe Oral Torah?The Oral Torah is transmitted only by the Sages. The ibaraitacontinues: bImmediately, the evilarose and bcaught fire through Elazar ben Po’ira, and all the Sages of the Jewish people were killed. And the world was desolateof Torah buntil Shimon ben Shataḥ came and restored the Torah to its formerglory. This completes the ibaraita /i.,Abaye asks: bWhat are the circumstancesof this case? How did those who conducted the investigation refute the rumor that Yannai’s mother had been taken captive? bIf we say that twowitnesses bsaidthat bshe was taken captive, and twoothers bsaidthat bshe was not taken captive, what did you see that you rely on thesewho said that she was not taken captive? Instead, brely on thesewho said that she was taken captive. In such a scenario, one cannot say definitively that the matter was investigated and found to be false., bRather,it must be referring bto one witnesswho testified she was taken captive, and two testified that she was not taken captive. bAnd the reasonthat the lone witness is not deemed credible is only bthat he is contradicted by theother btwo,from which it may be inferred that bif not for thatfact, bhe would be deemed credible.This supports Abaye’s claim that an uncontested lone witness is deemed credible in a case of this kind., bAnd Ravacould reply that this incident affords no proof, for the following reason: bActually,one can say that there were btwowitnesses who testified that she was captured band twowho testified that she was not, bandthe case was decided bin accordance with thatwhich bRav Aḥa bar Rav Minyumi saysin a different context, that it is referring bto conspiring witnesses.The second pair of witnesses did not contradict the testimony of the first pair but established them as liars by stating that the first pair were not there to witness the event. This serves to disqualify the testimony of the first pair altogether. bHere too,it is referring btowitnesses who rendered the first set bconspiring witnesses. /b, bAnd if you wish, saythat this is bin accordance withthe version of the story stated bby Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: They replacedYannai’s mother bwith a maidservant.The first witnesses saw that Yannai’s mother was about to be taken captive, but the second pair revealed that she had actually been replaced with a maidservant, thereby negating the testimony of the first set., bRava says: /b |
|
35. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, 45b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 45b. מנו רב יהודה והא אמר רב יהודה מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין הבא על בת ישראל אותו ולד אין לו תקנה,כי איתמר דרב יהודה כגון דקדיש בת ישראל דנמצא צד עבדות שבו משתמש באשת איש,והאמרי נהרדעי משמיה דרבי יעקב לדברי הפוסל פוסל אפילו בפנויה לדברי המכשיר מכשיר אפי' באשת איש,ושניהם לא למדוה אלא מאשת אב מאן דפסיל סבר מה אשת אב דלא תפסי בה קדושין [הולד ממזר] אף כל דלא תפסי בה קדושין הולד ממזר,ומאן דמכשר סבר מה אשת אב דלדידיה לא תפסי בה קדושין לאחריני תפסי בה קדושין לאפוקי עובד כוכבים ועבד דלא תפסי בהו קדושין כלל,אלא כי איתמר דרב יהודה כגון שבא על אשת איש ונמצא צד חירות שבו משתמש באשת איש,אמר רבינא אמר לי רב גזא איקלע ר' יוסי בר אבין לאתרין והוה עובדא בפנויה ואכשר באשת איש ופסיל א"ר ששת לדידי אמר לי רב גזא לא ר' יוסי בר אבין הוה אלא רבי יוסי ברבי זבידא הוה ואכשר בין בפנויה בין באשת איש א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבה לרבינא איקלע אמימר לאתרין ואכשר בין בפנויה בין באשת איש,והלכתא עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד כשר בין בפנויה בין באשת איש,רבא אכשריה לרב מרי בר רחל ומנייה בפורסי דבבל ואע"ג דאמר מר (דברים יז, טו) שום תשים עליך מלך כל משימות שאתה משים אל יהו אלא מקרב אחיך האי כיון דאמו מישראל מקרב אחיך קרינן ביה,עבדיה דרבי חייא בר אמי אטבלה לההיא עובדת כוכבים לשם אנתתא אמר רב יוסף יכילנא לאכשורי בה ובברתה,בה כדרב אסי דאמר רב אסי מי לא טבלה לנדותה,בברתה עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד כשר,ההוא דהוו קרו ליה בר ארמייתא אמר רב אסי מי לא טבלה לנדותה ההוא דהוו קרו ליה בר ארמאה אמר ריב"ל מי לא טבל לקריו,אמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב הלוקח עבד מן העובד כוכבים וקדם וטבל לשם בן חורין קנה עצמו בן חורין מאי טעמא | 45b. bwho is he?He is bRav Yehuda,as the Gemara cited above. bBut didn’t Rav Yehudahimself bsay:With regard to bone who is a half-slave half-freeman who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, that offspringof that union bhas no recourseto be able to marry? It is apparent, then, that even one who permits the offspring of a slave to marry into the congregation of Israel does not permit the offspring of a half-slave to do so, contrary to Rava’s assertion.,The Gemara resolves the difficulty: bWhenthis ruling bof Rav Yehuda was stated,it was referring to a case bwherethe half-slave bbetrothed a Jewish woman.Since a slave’s betrothal does not take effect, the result of that betrothal is that the woman is married to only the free half of the half-slave half-freeman, such bthat it emergesthat when he has relations with her, the bslave side of him is engaging in relations with a married womanto whom that side of him is not married, and so the offspring of that union is a imamzer /i.,The Gemara raises an objection: bBut didn’tthe Sages bof Neharde’a say in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov: According to the statement of the one who rendersthe child of a gentile or slave and a Jewish woman bunfitto marry into the congregation of Israel, bhe rendersthe child bunfit even whenthe mother is ban unmarried woman.And baccording to the statement of the one who rendersthe child bfit, he rendersthe child bfit even whenthe mother bis a married woman. /b, bAnd both of them derivedtheir opinions bonly fromthe ihalakhaof one’s bfather’s wife,as follows: bThe one who rendersthe child bunfit holdsthat bjust aswith regard to one’s bfather’s wife,one’s bbetrothal of her does not take effecteven after she is widowed or divorced, and so bthe offspringof such a union bis a imamzer /i, so too,with regard to banyone for whom bbetrothal of her does not take effect,including a gentile or a slave, bthe offspring is a imamzer /i. /b, bAnd the one who rendersthe child bfit holdsthat the derivation from the ihalakhaof one’s father’s wife is more limited, and it is derived that the offspring is a imamzeronly in a case bjust likeone’s bfather’s wife,in bthatalthough his bbetrothal of her does not take effect, with someone elsehis bbetrothalof her bdoes take effect.This is bto the exclusion of a gentile and a slave, for whom betrothalof any Jewish woman bdoes not take effect at all,and so the offspring of such a union will not be a imamzer /i. It is apparent from this statement of the Sages of Neharde’a that according to the lenient opinion, the offspring of a slave is never a imamzer /i, irrespective of the marital status of the Jewish woman. Therefore, the Gemara’s resolution is undermined.,The Gemara offers a different resolution: bRather, whenthis statement bof Rav Yehuda was stated,it was referring to a case bwherethe half-slave half-freeman bengaged in intercourse with a married womanwho was married to someone else, band ittherefore bemergesthat although the woman’s union with the slave side of him will not render the offspring a imamzer /i, the bfree side of him is engaging in relations with a married womanto whom he is not married, and due to that side of him the offspring is a imamzer /i., bRavina said: Rav Gazza said to methat bRabbi Yosei bar Avinonce bhappenedto come bto our place, and there was an incident involving an unmarried womanwho had engaged in intercourse with a slave, bandRabbi Yosei bar Avin brenderedher offspring bfitto marry into the congregation of Israel. And there was another incident binvolving a married womanwho had engaged in intercourse with a slave, band he renderedher offspring bunfitto marry into the congregation of Israel by ruling the offspring was a imamzeret /i. bRav Sheshet said: Rav Gazza told methat it was bnot Rabbi Yosei bar Avin; rather, it was Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Zevida, and he renderedthe offspring bfit both inthe case of ban unmarried woman and inthe case of ba married woman. Rav Aḥa, son of Rabba, said to Ravina: Ameimaronce bhappenedto come bto our place and renderedthe offspring bfit both inthe case of ban unmarried woman and inthe case of ba married woman. /b,The Gemara concludes: bAnd the ihalakha /iis that with regard to ba gentile or slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman,the lineage of bthe offspring is unflawed, whethershe was ban unmarried or a married woman. /b,The Gemara cites a related ihalakha /i: bRava ruledthat bRav Mari bar Raḥel,who was the son of a gentile father and a Jewish mother, was bfitto marry into the congregation of Israel, bandfurthermore bhe appointed him as one of the officials [ ipursei /i] of Babylonia. And although the Master saidthat from the verse, b“You shall place a king over youwhom the Lord your God shall chose; from among your brethren shall you place a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15) it is derived that not only with regard to the kingship but also with regard to ball positionsof authority bthat you appoint,the incumbents bmay beselected bonly from among your brethrenwho share your Jewish lineage. Nevertheless, with regard to bthis one,i.e., Rav Mari bar Raḥel, bsince his mother is of Jewishlineage, bwe call him “from among your brethren,”and so he is eligible. br§ A gentile slave purchased by a Jew must be circumcised and then immersed in a ritual bath. By being immersed for the sake of slavery, he takes on the status of a full slave, which, among other things, obligates him to keep certain mitzvot. However, if the slave, or any gentile, is immersed for the sake of conversion, he then becomes a full Jew and fully obligated in mitzvot like any other Jew.,The Gemara considers the result of different intentions accompanying an immersion: bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami’s slave immersed a certain gentile woman for the sake ofhaving bintimate relations,i.e., to purify her from her menstrual impurity. bRav Yosef said: I am able to renderboth bher and her daughter fitto marry into the congregation of Israel., bWith regard to her,I can render her fit bin accordance withthe opinion bof Rav Asi, as Rav Asi saidconcerning a woman whose status as a convert was unclear but who lived as a part of the Jewish people and acted like all other Jewish women: bDidn’t she immerse for the sake ofpurifying herself from bher menstruation?Therefore, even if the original immersion was invalid, her intention in subsequent immersions was sufficient to be considered for the sake of conversion, since ultimately she immersed as an expression of her commitment to Judaism. She is therefore fully Jewish.,And bwith regard to her daughter,she is the daughter of ba gentile or slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman,and the ihalakhais that the lineage of bthe offspring is unflawed. /b,The Gemara details the circumstances of Rav Asi’s ruling: There was ba certainman bwhompeople bwould call: Son of the Aramean woman,as they cast aspersions on the validity of his mother’s conversion. With regard to that case, bRav Asi said: Didn’t she immerse for the sake ofpurifying herself from bher menstruation?A similar incident is recounted: There was ba certainman bwhompeople bwould call: Son of an Aramean man,as they cast aspersions on the validity of his father’s conversion. bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Didn’t he immerse for the sake ofpurifying himself from bhis seminal emission?That intention is sufficient to consider the immersion an immersion for the sake of conversion., bRav Ḥama bar Gurya saidthat bRav said:In the case of a Jew bwho purchased a slave from a gentile, andbefore he managed to immerse him for the sake of slavery the slave bpreemptedhim band immersed for the sake ofconversion to render himself ba freeman, hethereby bacquired himselfand becomes ba freeman,i.e., his immersion effects a full conversion and he is no longer a slave. bWhat is the reasonfor this ihalakha /i? |
|
36. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, 71b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 71b. (איוב יד, ט) מריח מים יפריח ועשה קציר כמו נטע,ויום טוב היה עושה לאוהביו ת"ר מעשה בכהן גדול אחד שיצא מבית המקדש והוו אזלי כולי עלמא בתריה כיון דחזיונהו לשמעיה ואבטליון שבקוהו לדידיה ואזלי בתר שמעיה ואבטליון,לסוף אתו שמעיה ואבטליון לאיפטורי מיניה דכהן גדול אמר להן ייתון בני עממין לשלם אמרו ליה ייתון בני עממין לשלם דעבדין עובדא דאהרן ולא ייתי בר אהרן לשלם דלא עביד עובדא דאהרן, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כהן גדול משמש בשמונה כלים וההדיוט בארבעה בכתונת ומכנסים ומצנפת ואבנט מוסיף עליו כ"ג חשן ואפוד ומעיל וציץ באלו נשאלין באורים ותומים ואין נשאלין אלא למלך ולאב ב"ד ולמי שהציבור צריך בו, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר דברים שנאמר בהן שש חוטן כפול ששה משזר שמונה מעיל שנים עשר פרוכת עשרים וארבעה חושן ואפוד עשרים ושמונה,חוטן כפול ששה מנא לן דאמר קרא (שמות לט, א) ויעשו את הכתנת שש ואת המצנפת שש ואת פארי המגבעות שש ואת מכנסי הבד שש משזר חמשה קראי כתיבי חד לגופיה דכיתנא ניהוו וחד שיהא חוטן כפול ששה וחד שיהיו שזורין וחד לשאר בגדים שלא נאמר בהן שש וחד לעכב,מאי משמע דהאי שש כיתנא הוא אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא דאמר קרא בד דבר העולה מן הקרקע בד בד ואימא עמרא עמרא איפצולי מיפצלא כיתנא נמי איפצולי מפציל כיתנא אגב לקותיה מפציל,רבינא אמר מהכא (יחזקאל מד, יח) פארי פשתים יהיו על ראשם ומכנסי פשתים יהיו על מתניהם,אמר ליה רב אשי הא מקמי דאתי יחזקאל מאן אמרה ולטעמיך הא דאמר רב חסדא דבר זה מתורת משה רבינו לא למדנו מדברי יחזקאל בן בוזי למדנו (יחזקאל מד, ט) כל בן נכר ערל לב וערל בשר לא יבא אל מקדשי (לשרתני) הא מקמי דאתי יחזקאל מאן אמרה אלא גמרא גמירי לה ואתא יחזקאל ואסמכה אקרא הכא נמי גמרא גמירי לה ואתא יחזקאל ואסמכה אקרא,משזר שמונה מנא לן דכתיב (שמות לט, כד) ויעשו על שולי המעיל רמוני תכלת וארגמן ותולעת שני משזר ויליף משזר משזר מפרוכת מה להלן עשרים וארבעה אף כאן עשרים וארבעה דהוה כל חד וחד תמני,ונילף מחשן ואפוד מה להלן עשרים ושמונה אף כאן עשרים ושמונה דנין דבר שלא נאמר בו זהב מדבר שלא נאמר בו זהב לאפוקי חשן ואפוד שנאמר בהן זהב אדרבה דנין בגד מבגד לאפוקי פרוכת דאהל הוא,אלא דנין מאבנט ודנין בגד ודבר שלא נאמר בו זהב מבגד ודבר שלא נאמר בו זהב ואין דנין דבר שאין בו זהב מדבר שיש בו זהב,רב מרי אמר תעשנו כתיב תעשנו לזה ולא לאחר,רב אשי אמר ועשית כתיב שיהיו כל עשיות שוות והיכי נעביד נעביד תלתא דעשרה עשרה הוו להו תלתין נעביד תרי דתשעה תשעה וחד דעשרה אמר קרא ועשית שיהיו כל עשיותיו שוות,מעיל שנים עשר מנא לן דכתיב (שמות כח, לא) ועשית את מעיל האפוד | 71b. bfrom the scent of water it will blossom and put forth branches like a plant”(Job 14:8–9). If the figurative trunk of one’s family is drying up through lack of Torah, he should plant himself in a place of water, i.e., a family of scholars, water being a metaphor for Torah. This will ensure that his children will blossom into Torah scholars.,§ It was taught in the mishna: The people escort the High Priest to his house. bAnd he would make a feast for his loved ones. The Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThere was an incident involving one High Priest who exited the Holy Temple and everyone followed him. When they saw Shemaya and Avtalyon,the heads of the Sanhedrin, walking along, in deference to them bthey leftthe High Priest bby himself and walked after Shemaya and Avtalyon. /b, bEventually, Shemaya and Avtalyon came to take leave of the High Priestbefore returning to their homes. Envious of the attention they received, bheangrily bsaid to them: Let the descendants ofthe gentile bnations come in peace.Shemaya and Avtalyon descended from converts, and he scornfully drew attention to that fact. bThey said to him: Let the descendants of thegentile bnations come in peace, who perform the acts of Aaron,who loved and pursued peace; band let not a descendant of Aaron come in peace, who does not perform the acts of Aaronand who speaks condescendingly to descendants of converts., strongMISHNA: /strong Throughout the year bthe High Priest serves in eight garments, and the common priestserves bin four: In a tunic and trousers and a mitre and a belt. The High Priest addsanother four garments bbeyondthose worn by the common priest: bA breastplate, and an ephod, and a robe, and a frontplate.When dressed bin theseeight garments, the High Priest may bbe consulted forthe decision of the iUrim VeTummim /i. And he may be consultedfor the decision of the iUrim VeTummim bonly on behalf of the king, or on behalf of the president of the court, or on behalf of one whom the community needs.Individual inquiries are not posed to the iUrim VeTummim /i., strongGEMARA: /strong bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to those bitemsof the priestly vestments about which bit is statedthey must be made with blinen [ ishesh /i], their threadsare spun bsix-fold,as suggested by the use of the term ishesh /i, which also means six. When the Torah states that certain items are btwined,it means their threads are spun beight /b- bfold. /bThreads used to weave the brobewere spun from btwelvestrands. The threads of the bcurtainwere spun from btwenty-fourstrands. The threads used to weave the bbreastplate and ephodwere spun from btwenty-eightstrands.,The Gemara asks: That bthe threadsmade from isheshare spun bsix-fold, from where do wederive this? bThe verse states: “And they made the tunics of linen[ishesh/b] of woven work for Aaron and for his sons. bAnd the mitre of linen, and the adorning mitres of linen, and the linen [ ibad /i] trousers of twined linen”(Exodus 39:27–28). bFive mentionsof the word linen are bwritten;four times as “ ishesh /i” and an additional instance of “ ibad /i,” both meaning linen. bOnemention is stated bfor that ihalakha bitself,to teach bthat they should bemade of blinen. And onemention is written to teach bthat the threads should bespun bsix-fold, isheshbeing interpreted as six. bAnd onemention teaches that the six strands bshould be spun togetherinto one. bAnd onemention teaches that this also applies bto the other garments,even though the term isheshis not statedwith regard to them. bAnd onemention teaches that this requirement is bindispensableand that garments not made this way are invalid.,The Gemara asks: bFrom wheremay it bbe inferred that thisterm ishesh /imeans blinen? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: As the versealso bstates: “ iBad /i,”and uses it interchangeably with ishesh /i. And ibadrefers to bsomething which sprouts from the ground stalk by stalk [ ibad bad /i],each one by itself. This is a fitting description of flax, the plant used to produce linen, as opposed to other plants, such as cotton, whose fibers grow meshed together. The Gemara asks: bAnd saythat it refers to bwool,since when it grows from the animal, each hair grows separately. The Gemara answers: bWool splits,with each hair dividing into several hairs, so it does not fully fit the description of sprouting stalk by stalk. The Gemara asks: But bflax also splitsinto individual hairs. The Gemara answers: bFlax,unlike wool, bsplitsonly bwhen beaten. /b, bRavina said:We have a proof for the matter bfrom here:The verse states: b“They shall have linen[ipishtim/b] bmitres upon their heads, and linen trousers upon their loins”(Ezekiel 44:18). The term ipishtimused in Ezekiel certainly refers to linen; therefore, it is clear that the terms isheshand ibad /i, used in the Torah for the same garments, also refer to linen., bRav Ashi said to him: But before Ezekiel came, who saidthis ihalakha /i? How was it known? Ravina retorted: bAnd according to your reasoning,the same question could be asked with regard to bthat which Rav Ḥisda saidconcerning the disqualification of an uncircumcised priest from serving in the Temple: bThis matter we did not learn from the Torah of Moses our teacher,as it is not written explicitly in the Torah; rather, bwe learned it from the words of Ezekiel ben Buzi,as the verse states: b“No foreigner, uncircumcised of heart or uncircumcised of flesh, shall enter into My sanctuary”(Ezekiel 44:9). One could ask here as well: bBefore Ezekiel came, who saidthis ihalakha /i? bRather,perforce, bthey learned it as a tradition andthen bEzekiel came and supported it with a verse. Here, too, they learned it as a tradition andthen bEzekiel came and supported it with a verse. /b,The Gemara continues to explain the ibaraita /i. That the use of the term btwinedimplies that the thread should be spun from beightstrands, bfrom where do wederive this? bAs it is written: “And they made upon the skirts of the robe pomegranates of sky-blue, and purple, and scarlet, twined”(Exodus 39:24); band derivea verbal analogy from the term b“twined”used in this verse and the term b“twined” fromthe verse about bthe curtain: Just as there,with regard to the curtain, there are btwenty-fourstrands, as will be explained, bso too here,there are btwenty-fourstrands in total. And since each pomegranate is made of three colors, sky-blue, purple, and scarlet, it must be bthat each one of them wasspun from beightstrands.,The Gemara challenges this derivation: bLet us derivethe number of strands instead bfromthe bbreastplate and ephodand say: bJust as there,with regard to the breastplate and ephod, there are btwenty-eightstrands, bso too, herethere are btwenty-eightstrands. The Gemara answers: It is preferable to bderivethe ihalakhotof ban item,i.e., the pomegranates, bwith regard to whichthe use of bgoldthreads bis not stated, fromthe ihalakhotof ban item,i.e., the curtain, bwith regard to whichthe use of bgoldthreads bisalso bnot stated.This would come bto excludethe possibility of deriving them from the bbreastplate and ephod, with regard to whichthe use of bgoldthreads bis stated.The Gemara asks: bOn the contrary,it should be preferable to bderivethe ihalakhotof one bgarment fromanother bgarment,i.e., the ihalakhotof the robe from the ihalakhotof the breastplate and ephod. This would come bto excludethe possibility of deriving them from the bcurtain, which is a tent,i.e., part of the Temple building, and not a garment. The Gemara accepts that the derivation is flawed., bRather,the need for thread of eight strands bis derived from the belt,which had twenty-four threads in total, band a garment and an item with regard to whichthe use of bgoldthread bis not stated,i.e., the pomegranates, bare derivedfrom ba garment and an item with regard to whichthe use of bgoldthread bis not stated. And an item with no gold,such as the pomegranates and robe, bis not derived from an item that has gold in it,such as the breastplate and ephod., bRav Mari saidanother reason not to derive the number of strands in a pomegranate from the breastplate and ephod: “Like the work of the ephod byou shall make it”(Exodus 28:15) bis writtenwith regard to the breastplate to indicate that byou shall make it,i.e., the breastplate, like the ephod, which indicates that bfor this,i.e., the breastplate, you shall use thread of twenty-eight strands, band not for anything else. /b, bRav Ashi saidanother reason that there could not be twenty-eight strands in a pomegranate: b“And you shall makepomegranates of sky-blue, and of purple, and of scarlet” (Exodus 28:33) bis writtento indicate bthat all the makings of it must be equal,i.e., that each color thread should be made from the same number of strands. However, if there are twenty-eight strands in total, the three threads, each of a different color, cannot be made with an equal number of strands, as bhow should we doit? bLet us make threecolored threads bof tenstrands beach;then bthey are thirtystrands in total, which is too many. bLet us make twocolored threads bof ninestrands band one of ten;but bthe verse states: “And you shall make,”to indicate bthat all the makings of it must be equal.Perforce, the threads used for the pomegranates and the robe must be derived from an item woven from threads of a number of strands divisible by three, such as the curtain.,The Gemara continues to explain the ibaraita /i: That the brobemust be woven from threads spun from btwelvestrands, bfrom where do wederive this? bAs it is written: “And you shall make the robe of the ephod /b |
|
37. Anon., Assumption of Moses, 7.9-7.10
|
