1. 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." |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 19.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 19.16. וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יִגַּע עַל־פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה בַּחֲלַל־חֶרֶב אוֹ בְמֵת אוֹ־בְעֶצֶם אָדָם אוֹ בְקָבֶר יִטְמָא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים׃ | 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." |
|
3. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 5.20-5.24, 6.13-6.23 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
4. 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. |
|
5. Mishnah, Demai, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.2. One who accepts upon himself to be trustworthy (ne’eman), must tithe whatever he eats and whatever he sells and whatever he buys, and he may not be the guest of an am haaretz. Rabbi Judah says: even one who is the guest of an am haaretz can still be considered trustworthy. They said to him: He is not trustworthy in respect of himself! How can he be considered trustworthy in respect of others?" |
|
6. Mishnah, Hagigah, 2.6-2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.6. If he immersed for unconsecrated [food], and was presumed to be fit to eat unconsecrated [food], he is prohibited from [eating second] tithe. If he immersed for [second] tithe, and was presumed to be fit to eat [second] tithe, he is prohibited from [eating] terumah. If he immersed for terumah, and was presumed to be fit to eat terumah, he is prohibited from [eating] holy things. If he immersed for holy things, and was presumed to be fit to eat holy things he is prohibited from [touching the waters of] purification. If one immersed for something possessing a stricter [degree of holiness], one is permitted [to have contact with] something possessing a lighter [degree of holiness]. If he immersed but without special intention, it is as though he had not immersed." 2.7. The garments of an am haaretz possess midras-impurity for Pharisees. The garments of Pharisees possess midras-impurity for those who eat terumah. The garments of those who eat terumah possess midras-impurity for [those who eat] sacred things. The garments of [those who eat] sacred things possess midras-impurity for [those who occupy themselves with the waters of] purification. Yose ben Yoezer was the most pious in the priesthood, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who ate] sacred things. Yoha ben Gudgada all his life used to eat [unconsecrated food] in accordance with the purity required for sacred things, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification." |
|
7. 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." |
|
8. 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." |
|
9. 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.”" |
|
10. 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." |
|
11. 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?" |
|
12. 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.\"" |
|
13. 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)." |
|
14. New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 5.11 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 5.11. But as it is, I wrote to you notto associate with anyone who is called a brother who is a sexualsinner, or covetous, or an idolater, or a slanderer, or a drunkard, oran extortioner. Don't even eat with such a person. |
|
15. 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. |
|
16. 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. |
|
17. 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. |
|
18. Tosefta, Avodah Zarah, 3.9-3.10 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
19. Tosefta, Demai, 2.2-2.3, 2.14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
20. Tosefta, Menachot, 13.21 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
21. Tosefta, Parah, 3.7-3.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
22. Tosefta, Kippurim, 1.12 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
23. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
|
24. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
|
25. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (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 |
|
26. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (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 |
|
27. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (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 |
|
28. Anon., Assumption of Moses, 7.9-7.10
|
