1. Anon., 1 Enoch, 38-71, 37 (3rd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
| 37. The second vision which he saw, the vision of wisdom -which Enoch the son of Jared, the son,of Mahalalel, the son of Cai, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, saw. And this is the beginning of the words of wisdom which I lifted up my voice to speak and say to those which dwell on earth: Hear, ye men of old time, and see, ye that come after, the words of the Holy,One which I will speak before the Lord of Spirits. It were better to declare (them only) to the men of old time, but even from those that come after we will not withhold the beginning of wisdom.,Till the present day such wisdom has never been given by the Lord of Spirits as I have received according to my insight, according to the good pleasure of the Lord of Spirits by whom the lot of,eternal life has been given to me. Now three Parables were imparted to me, and I lifted up my voice and recounted them to those that dwell on the earth. |
|
2. Mishnah, Avot, 6.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 6.6. Greater is learning Torah than the priesthood and than royalty, for royalty is acquired by thirty stages, and the priesthood by twenty-four, but the Torah by forty-eight things. By study, Attentive listening, Proper speech, By an understanding heart, By an intelligent heart, By awe, By fear, By humility, By joy, By attending to the sages, By critical give and take with friends, By fine argumentation with disciples, By clear thinking, By study of Scripture, By study of mishnah, By a minimum of sleep, By a minimum of chatter, By a minimum of pleasure, By a minimum of frivolity, By a minimum of preoccupation with worldly matters, By long-suffering, By generosity, By faith in the sages, By acceptance of suffering. [Learning of Torah is also acquired by one] Who recognizes his place, Who rejoices in his portion, Who makes a fence about his words, Who takes no credit for himself, Who is loved, Who loves God, Who loves [his fellow] creatures, Who loves righteous ways, Who loves reproof, Who loves uprightness, Who keeps himself far from honors, Who does not let his heart become swelled on account of his learning, Who does not delight in giving legal decisions, Who shares in the bearing of a burden with his colleague, Who judges with the scales weighted in his favor, Who leads him on to truth, Who leads him on to peace, Who composes himself at his study, Who asks and answers, Who listens [to others], and [himself] adds [to his knowledge], Who learns in order to teach, Who learns in order to practice, Who makes his teacher wiser, Who is exact in what he has learned, And who says a thing in the name of him who said it. Thus you have learned: everyone who says a thing in the name of him who said it, brings deliverance into the world, as it is said: “And Esther told the king in Mordecai’s name” (Esther 2:22)." |
|
3. Mishnah, Berachot, 1.3, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.3. Bet Shammai say: in the evening every man should recline and recite [the Shema], and in the morning he should stand, as it says, “And when you lie down and when you get up” (Deuteronomy 6:7). Bet Hillel say that every man should recite in his own way, as it says, “And when you walk by the way” (ibid). Why then is it said, “And when you lies down and when you get up?” At the time when people lie down and at the time when people rise up. Rabbi Tarfon said: I was once walking by the way and I reclined to recite the Shema according to the words of Bet Shammai, and I incurred danger from robbers. They said to him: you deserved to come to harm, because you acted against the words of Bet Hillel." 2.7. When Tabi his [Rabban Gamaliel’s] slave died he accepted condolences for him. His disciples said to him: Master, have you not taught us that one does not accept condolences for slaves? He replied to them: My slave Tabi was not like other slaves: he was a fit man." |
|
4. Mishnah, Hagigah, 2.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.5. They wash hands for [eating] unconsecrated [food], and [second] tithe, and for terumah [heave-offering]. But for sacred food they must immerse [their hands in a mikveh]. With regard to the [water of] purification, if one’s hands became impure, one’s [whole] body is impure." |
|
5. Mishnah, Miqvaot, 2.10, 4.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.10. A mikveh which contains forty seahs of water and mud [combined]: Rabbi Eliezer says: one may immerse objects in the water but one may not immerse them in the mud. But Rabbi Joshua says: in the water and also in the mud. In what kind of mud may objects be immersed? Mud over which water floats. If the water was on one side only, Rabbi Joshua agrees that objects may be immersed in the water but may not be immersed in the mud. of what kind of mud have they spoken? Mud into which a reed will sink of itself, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: [mud] in which a measuring-rod will not stand upright. Abba Elazar ben Dulai says: [mud] into which a plummet will sink. Rabbi Eliezer says: such as will go down into the mouth of a jar. Rabbi Shimon says: such as will enter into the tube of a water- skin. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: such as can be measured in a log measure." 4.1. If one put vessels under a water-spout, whether they be large vessels or small vessels or even vessels of dung, vessels of stone or earthen vessels, they make the mikveh invalid. It is all alike whether they were put there [purposely] or were [merely] forgotten, the words of Bet Shammai. But Bet Hillel declare it clean in the case of one who forgets. Rabbi Meir said: they voted and Bet Shammai had a majority over Bet Hillel. Yet they agree in the case of one who forgets [and leaves vessels] in a courtyard that the mikveh remains clean. Rabbi Yose said: the controversy still remains as it was." |
|
6. Mishnah, Yevamot, 1.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.4. Beth Shammai permits the rival wives to the surviving brothers, and Beth Hillel prohibits them. If they perform the halitzah, Beth Shammai disqualifies them from marrying a priest, and Beth Hillel makes the eligible. If they performed yibbum, Beth Shammai makes them eligible [to marry a priest], and Beth Hillel disqualifies them. Though these forbid and these permit, and these disqualify and these make eligible, Beth Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from [the families of] Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel [refrain from marrying women] from [the families of] Beth Shammai. [With regard to] purity and impurity, which these declare pure and the others declare impure, neither of them refrained from using the utensils of the others for the preparation of food that was ritually clean." |
|
7. Mishnah, Toharot, 2.2, 4.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.2. Rabbi Eliezer says: he who eats food with first degree uncleanness contracts first decree uncleanness; [He who eats food with] second [degree uncleanness contracts] second [degree uncleanness]; With third [degree uncleanness contracts] third [degree uncleanness]. Rabbi Joshua says: he who eats food with first [degree] or with second [degree uncleanness contracts] second [degree uncleanness]; With third [degree uncleanness, he contracts] second [degree uncleanness] in regard to holy things but not in regard to terumah. All this applies to common food that was prepared in condition of cleanness that is appropriate for terumah." 4.11. \"If there is doubt concerning the hands as to whether they have contracted uncleanness, have conveyed uncleanness or have attained cleanness, they are deemed clean.\" \"Any doubt that arose in a public domain is deemed clean. \"A condition of doubt concerning an ordice of the scribes\": [For instance, he is uncertain whether] he ate unclean food or drank unclean liquids, whether he immersed his head and the greater part of his body in drawn water, or whether there fell on his head and the greater part of his body three log of drawn water, such a condition of doubt is deemed clean. But if a condition of doubt arose concerning a father of uncleanness even though it was only rabbinical, it is deemed unclean." |
|
8. Mishnah, Yadayim, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 3.1. If a person puts his hands inside a house with scale disease, his hands have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: his hands have second degree uncleanness. Whoever defiles garments: at the time when he touches [the uncleanness], he defiles hands so that they have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: such that they have second degree of uncleanness. They said to Rabbi Akiba: where do we find anywhere that hands have first degree uncleanness? He said to them: but how is it possible for them to become unclean with first degree uncleanness without his whole body becoming unclean? Only in these cases [can they have first degree uncleanness]. Foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids convey second degree of uncleanness to the hands, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: it happened that a certain woman came before my father and said to him, \"My hands went into the air-space inside an earthenware vessel.\" He said to her: \"My daughter, what was the cause of its uncleanness?\" But I did not hear what she said to him. The sages said: the matter is clear that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been rendered unclean by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands." |
|
9. Mishnah, Zavim, 5.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 5.12. The following disqualify terumah:One who eats foods with first degree uncleanness; Or one who eats food with second degree uncleanness; And who drinks unclean liquids. And the one who has immersed his head and the greater part of him in drawn water; And a clean person upon whose head and greater part of him there fell three logs of drawn water; And a scroll [of Holy Scriptures], And [unwashed] hands; And one that has had immersion that same day; And foods and vessels which have become defiled by liquids." |
|
10. New Testament, Mark, 7.1-7.23 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 7.1. Then the Pharisees, and some of the scribes gathered together to him, having come from Jerusalem. 7.2. Now when they saw some of his disciples eating bread with defiled, that is, unwashed, hands, they found fault. 7.3. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, don't eat unless they wash their hands and forearms, holding to the tradition of the elders. 7.4. They don't eat when they come from the marketplace, unless they bathe themselves, and there are many other things, which they have received to hold to: washings of cups, pitchers, bronze vessels, and couches.) 7.5. The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why don't your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands? 7.6. He answered them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, But their heart is far from me. 7.7. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' 7.8. For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men -- the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things. 7.9. He said to them, "Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 7.10. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother;' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' 7.11. But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to say, given to God;"' 7.12. then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother 7.13. making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this. 7.14. He called all the multitude to himself, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand. 7.15. There is nothing from outside of the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man. 7.16. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear! 7.17. When he had entered into a house away from the multitude, his disciples asked him about the parable. 7.18. He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Don't you perceive that whatever goes into the man from outside can't defile him 7.19. because it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus making all foods clean? 7.20. He said, "That which proceeds out of the man, that defiles the man. 7.21. For from within, out of the hearts of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual sins, murders, thefts 7.22. covetings, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness. 7.23. All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. |
|
11. New Testament, Matthew, 15.1-15.20 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 15.1. Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying 15.2. Why do your disciples disobey the tradition of the elders? For they don't wash their hands when they eat bread. 15.3. He answered them, "Why do you also disobey the commandment of God because of your tradition? 15.4. For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' 15.5. But you say, 'Whoever may tell his father or his mother, "Whatever help you might otherwise have gotten from me is a gift devoted to God 15.6. he shall not honor his father or mother.' You have made the commandment of God void because of your tradition. 15.7. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying 15.8. 'These people draw near to me with their mouth, And honor me with their lips; But their heart is far from me. 15.9. And in vain do they worship me, Teaching as doctrine rules made by men.' 15.10. He summoned the multitude, and said to them, "Hear, and understand. 15.11. That which enters into the mouth doesn't defile the man; but that which proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man. 15.12. Then the disciples came, and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended, when they heard this saying? 15.13. But he answered, "Every plant which my heavenly Father didn't plant will be uprooted. 15.14. Leave them alone. They are blind guides of the blind. If the blind guide the blind, both will fall into a pit. 15.15. Peter answered him, "Explain the parable to us. 15.16. So Jesus said, "Do you also still not understand? 15.17. Don't you understand that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the belly, and then out of the body? 15.18. But the things which proceed out of the mouth come out of the heart, and they defile the man. 15.19. For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual sins, thefts, false testimony, and blasphemies. 15.20. These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands doesn't defile the man. |
|
12. Tosefta, Demai, 2.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
13. Tosefta, Eduyot, 1.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 1.3. If a matter was asked to one Master, and he rendered it impure, he should not ask another Master. If there were two, and one prohibited and the other permitted, one rendered it pure and the other impure -- if there is another Master, we ask him. If not, we follow the stricter ruling. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha says, \"In teachings of Scripture, we follow the stricter opinion. In teachings of the Scribes, we follow the more lenient opinion.\"" |
|
14. Tosefta, Yevamot, 3.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
15. Tosefta, Yadayim, 2.16 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
16. Mishna, Tevulyom, 3.4 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 3.4. Dough that had been mixed [with dough of terumah] or that had been leavened with yeast of terumah, is not disqualified by tevul yom. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Shimon declare it unfit. Dough that had become susceptible [to uncleanness] by a liquid, and it was kneaded with produce juice, and later touched by a tevul yom: Rabbi Elazar ben Judah of Barthotha says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: he disqualifies all of it. Rabbi Akiva says in his name: he disqualifies only the part that he touched." |
|
17. Babylonian Talmud, Bekhorot, 30b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 30b. חשוד על המעשר ומאן חכמים ר' יהודה וחד אמר החשוד על המעשר חשוד על השביעית ומאן חכמים ר' מאיר,דתניא עם הארץ שקיבל עליו דברי חבירות ונחשד לדבר אחד נחשד לכל התורה כולה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים אינו נחשד אלא לאותו דבר בלבד,הגר שקיבל עליו דברי תורה אפי' נחשד לדבר אחד הוי חשוד לכל התורה כולה והרי הוא כישראל משומד נפקא מינה דאי קדיש קידושיו קידושין,ת"ר הבא לקבל דברי חבירות חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו עובד כוכבים שבא לקבל דברי תורה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר אפי' דקדוק אחד מדברי סופרים,וכן בן לוי שבא לקבל דברי לויה וכהן שבא לקבל דברי כהונה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו שנאמר (ויקרא ז, לג) המקריב את דם השלמים וגו' העבודה המסורה לבני אהרן כל כהן שאינו מודה בה אין לו חלק בכהונה,ת"ר הבא לקבל דברי חבירות אם ראינוהו שנוהג בצינעה בתוך ביתו מקבלין אותו ואחר כך מלמדין אותו ואם לאו מלמדין אותו ואחר כך מקבלין אותו ר"ש בן יוחי אומר בין כך ובין כך מקבלין אותו והוא למד כדרכו והולך:,ת"ר מקבלין לכנפים ואח"כ מקבלין לטהרות ואם אמר איני מקבל אלא לכנפים מקבלין אותו קיבל לטהרות ולא קיבל לכנפים אף לטהרות לא קיבל:,ת"ר עד כמה מקבלין אותו בית שמאי אומרים למשקין שלשים יום לכסות שנים עשר חודש ובית הלל אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה לשנים עשר חודש,אם כן הוה ליה מקולי בית שמאי ומחומרי בית הלל אלא בית הלל אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה לשלשים:,(סימן חב"ר תלמי"ד תכל"ת מכ"ם חז"ר גבא"י בעצמ"ו),תנו רבנן הבא לקבל דברי חבירות צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים ובניו ובני ביתו אינן צריכין לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף בניו ובני ביתו צריכין לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים לפי שאינו דומה חבר שקיבל לבן חבר שקיבל:,תנו רבנן הבא לקבל דברי חבירות צריך לקבל בפני ג' חבירים ואפילו תלמיד חכם צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים זקן ויושב בישיבה אינו צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים שכבר קיבל עליו משעה שישב אבא שאול אומר אף תלמיד חכם אינו צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים ולא עוד אלא שאחרים מקבלין לפניו,אמר רבי יוחנן בימי בנו של רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס נשנית משנה זו רבי יהודה ור' יוסי איסתפק להו מילתא בטהרות שדרו רבנן לגבי בנו של ר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אזילו אמרו ליה לעיין בה אשכחוה דקא טעין טהרות אותיב רבנן מדידיה לגבייהו וקאי איהו לעיוני בה,אתו אמרי ליה לר' יהודה ור' יוסי אמר להו ר' יהודה אביו של זה ביזה תלמידי חכמים אף הוא מבזה תלמידי חכמים,אמר לו ר' יוסי כבוד זקן יהא מונח במקומו אלא מיום שחרב בית המקדש נהגו כהנים סילסול בעצמן שאין מוסרין את הטהרות לכל אדם:,תנו רבנן חבר שמת אשתו ובניו ובני ביתו הרי הן בחזקתן עד שיחשדו וכן חצר שמוכרין בה תכלת הרי היא בחזקתה עד שתיפסל:,תנו רבנן אשת עם הארץ שנשאת לחבר וכן בתו של עם הארץ שנשאת לחבר וכן עבדו של עם הארץ שנמכר לחבר כולן צריכין לקבל דברי חבירות בתחלה אבל אשת חבר שנשאת לעם הארץ וכן בתו של חבר שנשאת לעם הארץ וכן עבדו של חבר שנמכר לעם הארץ אין צריכין לקבל דברי חבירות בתחלה,ר"מ אומר אף הן צריכין לקבל עליהן דברי חבירות לכתחלה ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר משום ר"מ מעשה באשה אחת שנשאת לחבר והיתה קומעת לו תפילין על ידו נשאת לעם הארץ והיתה קושרת לו קשרי מוכס על ידו: | 30b. is bsuspect with regard to tithe. And whoare the Sages referred to here as bthe Rabbis?It is bRabbi Yehuda,as in his locale they treated the prohibition of produce of the Sabbatical Year stringently. bAndthe other bone says: One who is suspect with regard to tithe is suspect with regard toproduce of the bSabbaticalYear. bAnd whoare the Sages referred to here as bthe Rabbis?It is bRabbi Meir. /b, bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita( iTosefta /i, iDemai2:4): With regard to ban iam ha’aretz /i,i.e., one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity and tithes, bwho accepts upon himselfthe commitment to observe bthe mattersassociated with iḥaverstatus,i.e., that he will be stringent in all matters observed by iḥaverim /i, including iteruma /i, tithes, and iḥalla /i, and also undertake to eat only food that is ritually pure, and the Sages accepted him as trustworthy bbutsubsequently he bwas suspected with regard to one matterin which others saw him act improperly, bhe is suspected with regard to the entire Torah.This is the bstatement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He is suspected only with regard to that particular matter. /b,It is also taught in a ibaraita( iTosefta /i, iDemai2:4): With regard to ba convert who accepted upon himselfupon his conversion bmatters of Torah,i.e., all of the mitzvot, beven if he is suspect with regard to one matteralone, bhe is suspect with regard to the entire Torah, and he isconsidered blike a Jewish transgressor [ imeshummad /i],who habitually transgresses the mitzvot. The Gemara explains that the practical bdifferenceresulting from the fact that he is considered like a Jewish transgressor is bthat if he betrothsa woman, bhis betrothal isa valid bbetrothal,and they are married. Although he is suspect with regard to the entire Torah, he does not return to his prior gentile status., bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: In the case of bone who comes to accept upon himselfthe commitment to observe bthe mattersassociated with iḥaverstatus except for one matter,which he does not wish to observe, bhe is not accepted,and he is not trustworthy even with regard to those matters that he does wish to accept upon himself. Likewise, in the case of ba gentile who comes toconvert and takes upon himself to baccept the words of Torah except for one matter, he is not acceptedas a convert. bRabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Evenif he refuses to accept bone detail of rabbinic law,he is not accepted.,The ibaraitacontinues: bAnd similarly,in the case of ba Levite who comes to accept the matters of a Levite, or a priest who comes to accept the matters of priesthood, except for one matter, he is not accepted. As it is stated:“He among the sons of Aaron, bthat sacrifices the blood of the peace offerings,and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). This means that with regard to btheTemple bservice, which is handedover bto the sons of Aaron, any priest who does not admit to itin its entirety bhas no share in the priesthood. /b,The Gemara continues on a similar topic. bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: In the case of bone who comes to accept upon himselfa commitment to observe bthe mattersassociated with iḥaverstatus, if we have seen that he practicessuch matters bin private, within his home, he is accepted, and afterward he is taughtthe precise details of being a iḥaver /i. bBut ifwe have bnotseen him act as a iḥaverin his home, bhe is taughtfirst band afterward accepted. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Whetherin bthiscase bor thatcase, bhe isfirst baccepted, and hethen bcontinues to learn inthe busual manner,i.e., as a iḥaverhe learns from others how to behave., bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: An iam ha’aretzwho wishes to become a iḥaver bis acceptedfirst bwith regard to hands,i.e., he is presumed to be stringent concerning the ritual purity of his hands by making sure to wash his hands before handling pure items, band afterward he is acceptedas trustworthy bfor purityin general. bAnd if he says: Iwish to bacceptpurity bonly with regard to hands, he is acceptedfor this. If he wishes to bacceptupon himself the stringencies of a iḥaver bwith regard to ritual purity but he does not acceptupon himself the stringencies bwith regard to hands,i.e., to wash his hands, which is a simple act, bhe is not accepted even for purityin general., bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bUntil when is he accepted,i.e., how much time must elapse before he is considered trustworthy as a iḥaver /i? bBeit Shammai say: With regard to liquids, thirty days. With regard toimpurity of bclothing,about which iḥaverimwould be careful as well, btwelve months. And Beit Hillel say: Bothwith regard to bthis,liquids, band that,clothing, he must maintain the practice bfor twelve monthsbefore he is fully accepted as a iḥaver /i.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: bIf so, this isone bofthe rare cases of bthe leniencies of Beit Shammai and of the stringencies of Beit Hillel,and yet it is not included in tractate iEduyyot /i, which lists all of the cases where Beit Shammai are more lenient than Beit Hillel. bRather,the text of the ibaraitamust be emended so that it reads: bBeit Hillel say: Bothwith regard to bthis,liquids band that,clothing, he must maintain the practice bfor thirtydays before he is fully accepted as a iḥaver /i.,§ The Gemara provides ba mnemonicto remember the topics from here until the end of the chapter: iḤaver /i; student; sky-blue dye [ itekhelet /i]; tax; return;tax bcollector; by himself. /b, bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bOne who comes to accept upon himselfa commitment to observe bthe mattersassociated with iḥaverstatus must acceptit bin the presence of three iḥaverim /i. But his children andthe bmembers of his household are not required to acceptthe status of iḥaverseparately bin the presence of three iḥaverim /i. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even his children andthe bmembers of his household must acceptthe status of iḥaver bin the presence of three iḥaverim /i, because a iḥaver /i, who accepted ithimself in the presence of three others, bis not comparable to the son of a iḥaver /i,who bacceptedthat status only due to his father but did not accept it himself explicitly, and their accepting the status not in the presence of three people is insufficient., bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bOne who comes to accept upon himselfa commitment to observe bthe mattersassociated with iḥaverstatus must acceptit bin the presence of three iḥaverim /i, and even a Torah scholarwho wishes to become a iḥaver bmust acceptthe status of iḥaver bin the presence of three iḥaverim /i.But ban elder who sitsand studies Torah bin a yeshiva is not required to acceptthe status of iḥaver bin the presence of three iḥaverim /i, as he already accepted it upon himself from the moment he satand dedicated himself to study Torah in yeshiva. bAbba Shaul says: Even a Torah scholar is not required to acceptthe status of iḥaver bin the presence of three iḥaverim /i; and not onlydoes he have the status of iḥaverwithout an explicit declaration in the presence of three iḥaverim /i, bbut otherscan bacceptthat they wish to become a iḥaver bin his presence. /b, bRabbi Yoḥa says: This mishna,i.e., the ruling that a Torah scholar must declare his intent to become a iḥaverin the presence of three iḥaverim /i, bwas taught in the days of the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus.At that time, bRabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei were uncertain abouta certain bmatter of ritual purity. The Sages senta delegation of their students bto the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonusand told them to bgoand btell him to examinethis matter. The students bfound him while he was carryingitems that were ritually bpure.The son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus bseated Sages from his ownyeshiva bnext tothe students who came to ask the question, because he did not trust these students to keep his items pure. bAnd he stood and examinedthe matter.,The students returned and bcame and told Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yoseithat the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus had treated them as though they had the status of iamei ha’aretz /i. bRabbi Yehuda said to themin anger: bThis one’s father,i.e., Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, bdegraded Torah scholarsby not trusting them with matters of ritual purity. And bhe too,the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, bdegrades Torah scholars. /b, bRabbi Yosei said to him: Let the honor of the elder,i.e., both the father and son, bbe left in its place.He did not act in this manner to degrade Torah scholars. bRather, from the day the Temple was destroyed, the priests were accustomed to act with a higher standard for themselves,and they decided bthat they will not pass ritually pureitems bto anyother bperson.Therefore, the son of Rabbi Ḥanina, as a priest, acted appropriately., bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: In the case of ba iḥaverthat died, his wife and children and members of his household retain their presumptivestatus buntil they are suspectedof engaging in inappropriate deeds. bAnd similarly,in the case of ba courtyard in which one sells sky-blue dye, it retains its presumptivestatus as a place in which fit sky-blue dye is sold buntil it is disqualifieddue to the merchant’s unscrupulous behavior., bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bTheformer bwife an iam ha’aretzwholater bmarries a iḥaver /i, and likewise the daughter of an iam ha’aretzwho marries a iḥaver /i, and likewise the slave of an iam ha’aretzwho is sold to a iḥaver /i, must all acceptupon themselves a commitment to observe bthe mattersassociated with iḥaverstatus. Butwith regard to btheformer bwife of a iḥaverwholater bmarries an iam ha’aretz /i, and likewise the daughter of a iḥaverwho marries an iam ha’aretz /i, and likewise the slave of a iḥaverwho was sold to an iam ha’aretz /i,these people bneed not acceptupon themselves a commitment to observe bthe mattersassociated with iḥaverstatus iab initio /i,as each of them is already accustomed to behave as a iḥaver /i.,The ibaraitacontinues: bRabbi Meir says: They too must acceptupon themselves a commitment to observe bthe mattersassociated with iḥaverstatus iab initio /i. And similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar wouldillustrate this point and bsay in the name of Rabbi Meir:There was ban incident involving a certain woman who married a iḥaverand would tie [ ikoma’at /i] for him phylacteries on his hand,and she later bmarried a tax collector and would tie for him tax seals on his hand,which shows that her new husband had a great influence on her level of piety. |
|
18. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, 22a, 3a, 21b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 21b. או צבור וצבור אבל יחיד לגבי צבור כמאן דלא צלי דמי קמ"ל ואי אשמעינן הכא משום דלא אתחיל בה אבל התם דאתחיל בה אימא לא צריכא,אמר רב הונא הנכנס לבית הכנסת ומצא צבור שמתפללין אם יכול להתחיל ולגמור עד שלא יגיע ש"ץ למודים יתפלל ואם לאו אל יתפלל ריב"ל אמר אם יכול להתחיל ולגמור עד שלא יגיע ש"צ לקדושה יתפלל ואם לאו אל יתפלל,במאי קא מפלגי מר סבר יחיד אומר קדושה ומר סבר אין יחיד אומר קדושה,וכן אמר רב אדא בר אהבה מנין שאין היחיד אומר קדושה שנאמר (ויקרא כב, לב) ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל כל דבר שבקדושה לא יהא פחות מעשרה,מאי משמע דתני רבנאי אחוה דרבי חייא בר אבא אתיא תוך תוך כתיב הכא ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל וכתיב התם (במדבר טז, כא) הבדלו מתוך העדה הזאת מה להלן עשרה אף כאן עשרה,ודכולי עלמא מיהת מפסק לא פסיק,איבעיא להו מהו להפסיק ליהא שמו הגדול מבורך כי אתא רב דימי אמר ר' יהודה ור"ש תלמידי דרבי יוחנן אמרי לכל אין מפסיקין חוץ מן יהא שמו הגדול מבורך שאפילו עוסק במעשה מרכבה פוסק ולית הלכתא כותיה:,ר' יהודה אומר מברך לפניהם ולאחריהם: למימרא דקסבר רבי יהודה בעל קרי מותר בדברי תורה והאמר ריב"ל מנין לבעל קרי שאסור בדברי תורה שנאמר (דברים ד, ט) והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וסמיך ליה יום אשר עמדת וגו' מה להלן בעלי קריין אסורין אף כאן בעלי קריין אסורין,וכי תימא רבי יהודה לא דריש סמוכים והאמר רב יוסף אפילו מאן דלא דריש סמוכים בכל התורה במשנה תורה דריש דהא רבי יהודה לא דריש סמוכין בכל התורה כולה ובמשנה תורה דריש,ובכל התורה כולה מנא לן דלא דריש דתניא בן עזאי אומר נאמר (שמות כב, יז) מכשפה לא תחיה ונאמר כל שוכב עם בהמה מות יומת סמכו ענין לו לומר מה שוכב עם בהמה בסקילה אף מכשפה נמי בסקילה,אמר ליה ר' יהודה וכי מפני שסמכו ענין לו נוציא לזה לסקילה אלא אוב וידעוני בכלל כל המכשפים היו ולמה יצאו להקיש להן ולומר לך מה אוב וידעוני בסקילה אף מכשפה בסקילה,ובמשנה תורה מנא לן דדריש דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר נושא אדם אנוסת אביו ומפותת אביו אנוסת בנו ומפותת בנו,ר' יהודה אוסר באנוסת אביו ובמפותת אביו ואמר רב גידל אמר רב מאי טעמא דר' יהודה דכתיב (דברים כג, א) לא יקח איש את אשת אביו ולא יגלה (את) כנף אביו כנף שראה אביו לא יגלה,וממאי דבאנוסת אביו כתיב דסמיך ליה ונתן האיש השוכב עמה וגו',אמרי אין במשנה תורה דריש והני סמוכין מבעי ליה לאידך דריב"ל דאמר ריב"ל כל המלמד לבנו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו קבלה מהר חורב שנאמר (דברים ד, ט) והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וכתיב בתריה יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב,תנן זב שראה קרי ונדה שפלטה שכבת זרע המשמשת וראתה דם צריכין טבילה ורבי יהודה פוטר,עד כאן לא פטר רבי יהודה אלא בזב שראה קרי דמעיקרא לאו בר טבילה הוא אבל בעל קרי גרידא מחייב,וכי תימא ה"ה דאפילו בעל קרי גרידא נמי פטר רבי יהודה והאי דקא מפלגי בזב שראה קרי להודיעך כחן דרבנן אימא סיפא המשמשת וראתה דם צריכה טבילה,למאן קתני לה אילימא לרבנן פשיטא השתא ומה זב שראה קרי דמעיקרא לאו בר טבילה הוא מחייבי רבנן המשמשת וראתה דם דמעיקרא בת טבילה היא לא כל שכן אלא לאו ר' יהודה היא ודוקא קתני לה | 21b. bora case where he prayed as part of ba congregation andbegan to repeat it as part of ba congregation; however,in a case where he initially prayed by himself and subsequently joined the congregation at the venue where it was praying, we might have said that ban individual vis-à-vis the congregation isconsidered bas one who has not prayed.Therefore, bhe taught usthat in this case, too, one may not repeat the prayer. bAnd,on the other hand, bif he had taught us hereonly with regard to one who entered a synagogue, we would have thought that the reason he may not pray again is bbecause he did notyet bbeginto recite the prayer, bbut there, in the case where healready bbeganto recite the prayer, bsaythat this is bnotthe case and he may continue to repeat the prayer. Therefore, both statements are bnecessary. /b, bRav Huna said: One whodid not yet pray and benters a synagogue and found that the congregation isin the midst of brecitingthe iAmida bprayer, if he is able to begin and completehis own prayer bbefore the prayer leader reachesthe blessing of bthanksgiving [ imodim /i], he shouldbegin to bpray, and, if not, he should notbegin to bpray. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If he is able to begin and completehis prayer bbefore the prayer leader reaches sanctification [ ikedusha /i], then he shouldbegin to bpray. If not, then he should notbegin to bpray. /b,The Gemara clarifies: bWith regard to what do they disagree?The basis for their dispute is that one bSage,Rav Huna, bholds: An individualis permitted to brecite ikedusha /ion his own, so he need not insist on reciting it along with the prayer leader; bandthe other bSage,Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, bholdsthat ban individual may not recite ikedusha /ialone, and, therefore he is required to complete his prayer before the communal prayer leader reaches ikedusha /i., bSimilarly, Rav Adda bar Ahava stated,in accordance with the second opinion: bFrom where is it derived that an individual may not recite ikedusha /ialone? bAs it is stated: “And I shall be hallowed among the children of Israel”(Leviticus 22:32), bany expression of sanctity may not berecited in a quorum of bfewer than tenmen.,The Gemara asks: bHow is this inferredfrom that verse? The Gemara responds: This must be understood in light of a ibaraita /i, bwhich was taught by Rabbenai, the brotherof bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It is inferredby means of a verbal analogy [ igezera shava /i] between the words bamong, among. Here it is written: “And I shall be hallowed among the children of Israel,” and there,regarding Korah’s congregation, bit is written “Separate yourselves from among this congregation”(Numbers 16:21). bJust as thereamong connotes bten, so too here,among connotes bten.The connotation of ten associated with the word among written in the portion of Korah is, in turn, derived by means of another verbal analogy between the word congregation written there and the word congregation written in reference to the ten spies who slandered Eretz Yisrael: “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation?” (Numbers 14:27). Consequently, among the congregation there must be at least ten., bAnd, in any case, everyoneagrees that bone may not interrupthis prayer in order to respond to ikedusha /i.,However, ba dilemma was raisedbefore the Sages of the yeshiva: bWhat isthe ruling? Is one permitted bto interrupthis prayer in order btorecite: b“May His great name be blessed”in ikaddish /i? bWhen Rav Dimi camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, bhe said: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, disciples of Rabbi Yoḥa, said: One may not interrupthis prayer bfor anything, except for: “May His great name be blessed,” as evenif one was bengaged inthe exalted study of the bAct of theDivine bChariot[iMa’aseh Merkava /i](see Ezekiel 1) bhe stopsto recite it. However, the Gemara concludes: bThe ihalakhais not in accordance with hisopinion.,We learned in the mishna that bRabbi Yehuda sayswith regard to one who experiences a seminal emission; bhe recites a blessing beforehand and afterwardin both the case of iShemaand in the case of food. The Gemara asks: bIs that to say that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one who experienced a seminal emission is permittedto engage bin matters of Torah? Didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: From wherein the Torah is it derived bthat one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited fromengaging bin matters of Torah? As it is stated:“Just take heed and guard your soul diligently lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart, for all the days of your life, band you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children”(Deuteronomy 4:9), from which we derive, among other things, the obligation to study Torah. bAnd, juxtaposed to it,is the verse: b“The day that you stoodbefore the Lord your God at Horeb” (Deuteronomy 4:10). This juxtaposition teaches us that bjust as below,at the revelation at Mount Sinai, bthose who experienced a seminal emission were prohibitedand were commanded to refrain from relations with their wives and immerse themselves, bso too here,throughout the generations, bthose who experience a seminal emission are prohibitedfrom engaging in Torah study., bAnd if you say that Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposedverses, bdidn’t Rav Yosefalready say: bEven one who does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposedverses throughout bthe entire Torah,nevertheless, bderivesthem bin Deuteronomy [ iMishne Torah /i], as Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposedverses bthroughout the entire Torah and he does derive them in iMishne Torah /i. /b, bAnd from where do we derivethat Rabbi Yehuda bdoes not derive homiletic interpretationsfrom juxtaposed verses bthroughout the entire Torah? As it was taughtin a ibaraitawith regard to the punishment of a sorceress, bben Azzai says: It is stated: “You shall not allow a sorceress to live”(Exodus 22:17), although the manner of her execution is not specified, band it is stated: “Whoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death”(Exodus 22:18). The fact that the Torah bjuxtaposed this matter to thatwas bto say: Just as one who lies with a beastis executed bby stoning(see Leviticus 20), bso too a sorceressis executed bby stoning. /b,With regard to this proof bRabbi Yehuda said to him: And doesthe fact bthatthe Torah bjuxtaposed this matter to that warrant takingthis person bout to be stoned?Should he be sentenced to the most severe of the death penalties on that basis bRather,the source is: bMediums and wizards were included among all sorcerers. And why were they singled outfrom the rest, in the verse: “And a man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones, their blood is upon them” (Leviticus 20:27)? In order to bdraw an analogy to them and say to you: Just as a medium and a wizardare executed bby stoning, so too is a sorceressexecuted bby stoning. /b, bAnd from where do we derivethat Rabbi Yehuda bderives homiletic interpretationsfrom juxtaposed verses bin iMishne Torah /i? As it was taughtin another ibaraita /i: bRabbi Eliezer said that a manmay bweda woman braped by his father andone bseduced by his father;a woman braped by his son andone bseduced by his son.Though one is prohibited by Torah law from marrying the wife of his father or the wife of his son, this prohibition does not apply to a woman raped or seduced by them., bAnd Rabbi Yehuda prohibitshim from marrying ba woman raped by his father and a woman seduced by his father. And Rav Giddel saidthat bRav said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’sopinion? bAs it is written: “A man shall not take his father’s wife, and shall not uncover his father’s skirt”(Deuteronomy 23:1). The last expression, “and shall not uncover his father’s skirt,” implies that: bA skirt that has been seen by his father,i.e., any woman who has had sexual relations with his father, bmay not be uncoveredby his son, i.e., his son may not marry her., bAnd from wheredo we know bthatthe verse bis written with regard to a woman raped by his father? Asthe previous section, bjuxtaposed to it,deals with the laws of rape: b“And the man who lay with her must giveher father fifty shekels…because he has violated her” (Deuteronomy 22:29).,At any rate, we see that in Deuteronomy, Rabbi Yehuda derives homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses. Why does he fail to derive that one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited from engaging in matters of Torah from the juxtaposition of the verses? bThey replied: Indeed, in iMishne Torah /iRabbi Yehuda bdoes derive homiletic interpretationsfrom the juxtaposition of verses, bbuthe requires bthese juxtaposed versesin order btoderive banotherstatement of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who teaches his son Torah, the verse ascribes to himcredit bas if he receivedthe Torah bfrom Mount Horeb. As it is stated: “And you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children”(Deuteronomy 4:9) bafter which it is written: “The day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb.”Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda cannot derive from that same juxtaposition a prohibition banning one who experienced a seminal emission from engaging in matters of Torah., bWe learnedin a mishna that ba izavwho experienced a seminal emission, and a menstruating woman who discharged semen, and a woman who engaged in intercoursewith her husband band she sawmenstrual bblood,all of whom are ritually impure for at least seven days due to the severity of their impurity, nevertheless brequire ritual immersionin order to purify themselves from the impurity of the seminal emission before they may engage in matters of Torah. bAnd Rabbi Yehuda exemptsthem from immersion.,However, bRabbi Yehuda only exemptedfrom immersion in the case bof a izavwho experienced a seminal emission, who was unfit to immerse himself from the outset,as even after immersion he would remain impure with the seven-day impurity of the izav /i. bBut,in the case of bone who experienced a seminal emission alone,with no concurrent impurity, even Rabbi Yehuda brequiresimmersion before he may engage in Torah matters., bAnd if you say: The same is true evenin the case of bone who experienced a seminal emission alone,that bRabbi Yehuda also exemptshim from immersion, band the fact that they disagreein the case of ba izavwho experienced a seminal emissionand not in the case of a person who experienced a seminal emission alone bis in order to convey the far-reachingnature of the opinion bof the Rabbis,who require immersion even in this case. If so, bsay the last caseof that same mishna: bA woman who was engaged in intercourse and she sawmenstrual bblood requires immersion. /b,The Gemara seeks to clarify: bIn accordance with whoseopinion bwas thiscase in the mishna btaught? If you saythat it is in accordance with the opinion of bthe Rabbis, that is obvious; ifin the case of ba izavwho experienced a seminal emission who was unfit to immerse himself from the outset,when he experienced the seminal emission, bthe Rabbisnevertheless brequire immersion, all the more sowouldn’t they require immersion for ba woman who engaged in intercourse andonly then bsaw blood,who bwas fit to immerse herself from the outset,when she came into contact with the seminal emission of her husband? bRather, isn’t this Rabbi Yehuda’sopinion, bandthis case bwas taught specificallyin order to teach |
|
19. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, 14b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 14b. כיון דהך גזור ברישא הא תו למה לי אלא הך גזור ברישא והדר גזור בכולהו ידים,וטבול יום טבול יום דאורייתא הוא דכתיב (ויקרא כב, ז) ובא השמש וטהר סמי מכאן טבול יום,והאוכלין שנטמאו במשקין במשקין דמאי אילימא במשקין הבאין מחמת שרץ דאוריי' נינהו דכתיב (ויקרא יא, לד) וכל משקה אשר ישתה אלא במשקין הבאין מחמת ידים וגזירה משום משקין הבאין מחמת שרץ,והכלים שנטמאו במשקין כלים דאיטמאו במשקין דמאי אילימא במשקין דזב דאוריי' נינהו דכתיב (ויקרא טו, ח) וכי ירוק הזב בטהור מה שביד טהור טמאתי לך אלא במשקין הבאין מחמת שרץ וגזירה משום משקין דזב,וידים תלמידי שמאי והלל גזור שמאי והלל גזור דתניא יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה ויוסי בן יוחנן איש ירושלים גזרו טומאה על ארץ העמים ועל כלי זכוכית שמעון בן שטח תיקן כתובה לאשה וגזר טומאה על כלי מתכות שמאי והלל גזרו טומאה על הידים,וכ"ת שמאי וסיעתו והלל וסיעתו והאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל י"ח דבר גזרו ובי"ח נחלקו ואילו הלל ושמאי לא נחלקו אלא בג' מקומות דא"ר הונא בג' מקומות נחלקו ותו לא וכ"ת אתו אינהו גזור לתלות ואתו תלמידייהו וגזרו לשרוף והאמר אילפא ידים תחלת גזירתן לשריפה אלא אתו אינהו גזור ולא קבלו מינייהו ואתו תלמידייהו גזרו וקבלו מינייהו,ואכתי שלמה גזר דא"ר יהודה אמר שמואל בשעה שתיקן שלמה עירובין ונטילת ידים יצתה בת קול ואמרה (משלי כג, טו) בני אם חכם לבך ישמח לבי גם אני (משלי כז, יא) חכם בני ושמח לבי ואשיבה חורפי דבר אתא | 14b. bonce they decreed that first, why do I need thatdecree of impurity on hands that touch a sacred scroll bas well?Once the Sages decreed impurity on hands in general, there is no longer a necessity to decree impurity on hands that touched a Torah scroll, as hands are impure in any case. bRather,certainly the Sages bdecreedimpurity on bthis,hands that touched a Torah scroll, bfirst. And then they decreedimpurity bon all hands. /b,Among the decrees listed in the mishna, there is the decree that contact with one who bimmersed himself during the daydisqualifies iteruma /i. The Gemara asks: bOne who immersed himself during the daytransmits impurity by bTorahlaw, as it is written: “One who touches it remains impure until evening. He should not eat of the consecrated items and he must wash his flesh with water. bAnd the sun sets and it is purified.Afterward, he may eat from the teruma, for it is his bread” (Leviticus 22:6–7). Consequently, until sunset he is prohibited by Torah law from touching consecrated items, and the same is true for iteruma /i. The Gemara answers: bDelete from here,from the list of decrees in the mishna, bone who immersed himself during the day. /b, bAndamong the decrees that were listed, there is also the decree concerning the impurity of bthe foods that became impurethrough contact bwith liquids.The Gemara asks: bWith liquids thatbecame impure due to contact with bwhatsource of impurity? bIf you saythat the mishna is referring to bliquids that cometo be impure bdue tocontact with ba creeping animal, they areimpure bby Torah law, as it is writtenwith regard to the impurity of creeping animals: b“And every liquid that is drunkin any vessel, will be impure” (Leviticus 11:34). bRather,the mishna is referring to bliquids that cometo be impure bdue tocontact with impure bhands.The Sages issued this bdecree due to liquids that cometo be impure bthroughcontact with ba creeping animal. /b, bAndamong the decrees that were listed, there is also the decree concerning bthe vessels that became impurethrough contact bwith liquids.The Gemara asks: bVessels that became impuredue to contact bwith liquids thatbecame impure due to contact with bwhatsource of impurity? bIf you saythat they become impure due to contact bwith liquidssecreted by ba izav /i,e.g., spittle, urine, etc., bthey areimpure bby Torah law, as it is written: “And if a izavspits on a pure personand he should wash his clothes and wash in water and he is impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:8). The Sages interpreted homiletically: bWhatever is in the hand of the pure person I made impure for you.Not only did the person who came into contact with the liquids of the izavbecome impure, but the objects in his hand did as well. bRather,here it is referring bto liquids that cometo be impure bdue tocontact with ba creeping animal,which by Torah law do not transmit impurity to vessels. bAndthe Sages issued ba decreewith regard to those liquids bdue totheir similarity to the bliquids of a izav /i. /b,Among the list of items in the mishna with regard to which the disciples of Shammai and Hillel instituted decrees, were the hands of any person who did not purify himself for the sake of purity of iteruma /i. If he came into contact with iteruma /i, the Sages decreed it impure. The Gemara asks: bAndwith regard to bhands,was it bthe disciples of Shammai and Hillelwho bissued the decreeof impurity? bShammai and Hillelthemselves bissued the decree. As it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bYosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥa of Jerusalem decreed impurity on the land of the nations,that the land outside Eretz Yisrael transmits impurity; bandthey decreed impurity bon glass vessels,even though glass is not listed in the Torah among the vessels that can become impure. bShimon ben Shataḥ institutedthe formula of ba woman’s marriage contract andalso bdecreedspecial bimpurity on metal vessels. Shammai and Hillel decreed impurity on the hands. /b, bAnd if you saythat the ibaraitais referring to bShammai and his faction and Hillel and his faction, didn’t Rav Yehuda saythat bShmuel said: With regard to eighteen matters they issued decreesthat day, band with regard tothose beighteenmatters bthey disagreedprior to that? The eighteen disputes were only between the disciples of Shammai and Hillel, bwhereas Hillel and Shammaithemselves bargued only in three places.Clearly, they were neither party to the disputes nor the decrees. bAs Rav Huna said:Shammai and Hillel bdisagreed inonly bthree places and no more. And if you saythat Hillel and Shammai bcameand bdecreedthat iterumathat came into contact with hands bwould be in abeyance, and their students came and decreed to burn iterumathat came into contact with hands, then the following difficulty arises. bDidn’t Ilfa,one of the Sages, bsay:With regard to bhands,from bthe beginning their decreewas that iterumathat comes into contact with them is bto be burned?According to Ilfa, there is no uncertainty. iTerumathat came into contact with definite impurity is burned. iTerumathat is in abeyance may not be destroyed. One must wait until it becomes definitely impure or decomposes on its own. bRather,the explanation is that bthey came and issued a decree andthe people bdid not acceptthe decree bfrom them, and their disciples came and issued a decree and they acceptedit bfrom them. /b,The Gemara asks further: bStill,the matter is not clear, as the decree of hands was bissuedby King bSolomon. As Rav Yehuda saidthat bShmuel said: At the time that Solomon institutedthe ordices of ieiruvandof bwashing handsto purify them from their impurity, ba Divine Voice emerged and saidin his praise: b“My son, if your heart is wise my heart will be glad, even mine”(Proverbs 23:15), and so too: b“My son, be wise and make my heart glad, that I may respond to those who taunt me”(Proverbs 27: 11). The Gemara responds: bCame /b |
|
20. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, 28a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 28a. התם הוא דמבטל אבל הכא דלא מבטל לא,ת"ר מעשה ברבי אליעזר ששבת בגליל העליון ושאלוהו שלשים הלכות בהלכות סוכה שתים עשרה אמר להם שמעתי שמונה עשר אמר להם לא שמעתי ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר חילוף הדברים שמונה עשר אמר להם שמעתי שתים עשרה אמר להם לא שמעתי,אמרו לו כל דבריך אינן אלא מפי השמועה אמר להם הזקקתוני לומר דבר שלא שמעתי מפי רבותי מימי לא קדמני אדם בבית המדרש ולא ישנתי בבית המדרש לא שינת קבע ולא שינת עראי ולא הנחתי אדם בבית המדרש ויצאתי ולא שחתי שיחת חולין ולא אמרתי דבר שלא שמעתי מפי רבי מעולם,אמרו עליו על רבן יוחנן בן זכאי מימיו לא שח שיחת חולין ולא הלך ד' אמות בלא תורה ובלא תפילין ולא קדמו אדם בבית המדרש ולא ישן בבית המדרש לא שינת קבע ולא שינת עראי ולא הרהר במבואות המטונפות ולא הניח אדם בבית המדרש ויצא ולא מצאו אדם יושב ודומם אלא יושב ושונה ולא פתח אדם דלת לתלמידיו אלא הוא בעצמו ולא אמר דבר שלא שמע מפי רבו מעולם ולא אמר הגיע עת לעמוד מבית המדרש חוץ מערבי פסחים וערבי יום הכפורים וכן היה ר' אליעזר תלמידו נוהג אחריו,תנו רבנן שמונים תלמידים היו לו להלל הזקן שלשים מהן ראוים שתשרה עליהן שכינה כמשה רבינו ושלשים מהן ראוים שתעמוד להם חמה כיהושע בן נון עשרים בינונים גדול שבכולן יונתן בן עוזיאל קטן שבכולן רבן יוחנן בן זכאי,אמרו עליו על רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שלא הניח מקרא ומשנה גמרא הלכות ואגדות דקדוקי תורה ודקדוקי סופרים קלים וחמורים וגזרות שוות תקופות וגימטריאות שיחת מלאכי השרת ושיחת שדים ושיחת דקלים משלות כובסין משלות שועלים דבר גדול ודבר קטן,דבר גדול מעשה מרכבה דבר קטן הויות דאביי ורבא לקיים מה שנאמר (משלי ח, כא) להנחיל אוהבי יש ואוצרותיהם אמלא וכי מאחר שקטן שבכולן כך גדול שבכולן על אחת כמה וכמה אמרו עליו על יונתן בן עוזיאל בשעה שיושב ועוסק בתורה כל עוף שפורח עליו מיד נשרף:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מי שהיה ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושולחנו בתוך הבית ב"ש פוסלין וב"ה מכשירין אמרו להם ב"ה לב"ש לא כך היה מעשה שהלכו זקני ב"ש וזקני ב"ה לבקר את רבי יוחנן בן החורנית ומצאוהו שהיה יושב ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושולחנו בתוך הבית ולא אמרו לו דבר אמרו להם ב"ש משם ראיה אף הם אמרו לו אם כן היית נוהג לא קיימת מצות סוכה מימיך,נשים ועבדים וקטנים פטורין מן הסוכה קטן שאינו צריך לאמו חייב בסוכה מעשה וילדה כלתו של שמאי הזקן ופיחת את המעזיבה וסיכך על גבי המטה בשביל קטן:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מה"מ דת"ר אזרח זה אזרח (ויקרא כג, מב) האזרח להוציא את הנשים כל לרבות את הקטנים,אמר מר האזרח להוציא את הנשים למימרא דאזרח בין נשים בין גברי משמע והתניא האזרח לרבות את הנשים האזרחיות שחייבות בעינוי אלמא אזרח גברי משמע אמר רבה הלכתא נינהו ואסמכינהו רבנן אקראי,הי קרא והי הלכתא ותו קרא למה לי הלכתא למה לי הא סוכה מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות,יום הכפורים מדרב יהודה אמר רב נפקא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב וכן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אמר קרא (במדבר ה, ו) איש או אשה | 28a. The Gemara answers: There is a difference between the case of the shutter and the case of the sheet. bThere,in the case of the shutter, bwhere he negatesit by shuttering the window, it is considered part of the building and it is therefore prohibited. bHowever, here,in the case of the sheet, bwhere he does not negateit, as he plans on removing it, bno,it is not necessarily prohibited.,The Gemara relates a similar incident. bThe Sages taught:There was ban incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who stayed in the Upper Galilee, andthe people there basked him thirty ihalakhotin the ihalakhotof isukka /i.In response to btwelve, he said to them: I heardan answer from my teachers, and he related what he heard. In response to the other beighteen, he said to them: I did not hearan answer. bRabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:It was bthe reverse of these matters.In response to beighteen he said to them: I heardan answer; in response to the other btwelve he said to them: I did not hearan answer., bThey said to him: Are all the mattersthat byouknow bonly from whatyou bheard?Don’t you say any matters on your own? bHe said to them:Now byou forced me to say a matter that I did not hear from my teachers,as I must describe my character traits and the manner in which I conduct myself. bInall bmy days, no person ever preceded me into the study hall,as I am always first to arrive; band I never slept in the study hall, neither substantial sleep nor a brief nap; and I never left anyone in the study hall and exited,as I was always last to leave; band I never engaged in idle conversation;rather, I discussed only necessary matters or matters of Torah; band I never said anything that I did not hear from my teacher.That is why he did not answer those questions that his teacher did not address.,Apropos the character traits of Rabbi Eliezer, the Gemara cites character traits of his teacher. The Sages bsaid about Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai,the teacher of Rabbi Eliezer: bInall bhis days he never engaged in idle conversation; and he never walked four cubits withoutengaging in bTorahstudy band withoutdonning bphylacteries; and no person ever preceded him into the study hall; and he never slept in the study hall, neither substantial sleep nor a brief nap; and he never contemplatedmatters of Torah bin alleyways filthywith human excrement, as doing so is a display of contempt for the Torah; band he never left anyone in the study hall and exited; and no person ever found him sitting and silent,i.e., inactive; brather, hewas always bsitting and studying; and only he opened the door for his students,disregarding his own eminent standing; band he never said anything that he did not hear from his teacher; and he never saidto his students that bthe time has arrived to ariseand leave bthe study hall except on Passover eves,when they were obligated to sacrifice the Paschal lamb, and bYom Kippur eves,when there is a mitzva to eat and drink abundantly. bAnd Rabbi Eliezer, his student, accustomedhimself to model his conduct bafter hisexample.,The Gemara continues to praise the Sages. bThe Sages taught: Hillel the Elder had eighty students. Thirty of themwere sufficiently bworthy that the Divine Presenceshould brest upon them asit did upon bMoses our teacher, and thirty of themwere sufficiently bworthy that the sunshould bstand still for them asit did for bJoshua bin Nun, and twentywere on an bintermediatelevel between the other two. bThe greatest of allthe students was bYonatan ben Uzziel, and the youngest of themwas bRabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai. /b,The Gemara relates: The Sages bsaid about Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkaithat bhe did not neglect Bible; Mishna; Gemara; ihalakhotand iaggadot /i; minutiae of the Torah and minutiae of the scribes;the hermeneutical principles of the Torah with regard to ia fortioriinferences and verbal analogies;the calculation of the calendrical bseasons;and bnumerology [ igimmatreyaot /i].In addition, he did not neglect esoteric matters, including bthe conversation of ministering angels; the conversation of demons, and the conversation of palm trees; parables of launderers,which are folk tales that can be used to explain the Torah; bparables of foxes;and more generally, ba great matter and a small matter. /b,The Gemara elaborates: bA great matteris referring to the secrets of the bDesign of theDivine bChariot,the conduct of the transcendent universe. bA small matteris, for example, ihalakhotthat were ultimately formulated in the framework of bthe disputes of Abaye and Rava.He did not neglect any of these disciplines so as bto fulfill that which is stated: “That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance and that I may fill their treasuries”(Proverbs 8:21), as Rabban Yoḥa was filled with the disciplines of Torah and wisdom. bAnd if the youngest of them was soprolific, bthe greatest of themwas ball the more soprolific. The Gemara relates that the Sages bsaid of Yonatan ben Uzziel,the greatest of Hillel’s students, bthat when he sat and was engaged in Torahstudy, the sanctity that he generated was so intense that bany bird that flew over him was immediately incinerated. /b, strongMISHNA: /strong In the case of bone whose head and most of hisbody bwere in the isukkaand his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem it unfit, and Beit Hillel deem it fit. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai:And bwasn’t there an incident where the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoḥa ben HaḤoranit and they found himsuch bthat he was sitting with his head and most of hisbody bin the isukkaand his table in the house, and they said nothing to him?Even Beit Shammai did not object. bBeit Shammai said to them:Is there bproof from there?That is not what happened; rather, bthey said to him: If you were accustomedto act in bthismanner, byou have never fulfilled the mitzva of isukkain your life. /b,The mishna continues: bWomen, slaves, and minors are exempt from themitzva of isukka /i. A minor who does not need his motherany longer bis obligatedin the mitzva. There was ban incident where the daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder gave birthjust before iSukkot /i, and Shammai bremoved thecoat of bplasterfrom the roof, leaving the beams, band roofedwith the beams bover the bed for thenewborn bminor. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong With regard to the ihalakhathat women, slaves, and minors are exempt from the mitzva of isukka /i, the Gemara asks: bFrom where are these mattersderived? The Gemara answers that it is bas the Sages taughtin a ibaraitathat it is stated: “All the homeborn in Israel shall reside in isukkot /i” (Leviticus 23:42). Had the verse stated only: bHomeborn,it would have been derived bthatany bhomebornmember of the Jewish people is obligated to observe this mitzva. However, the term with the addition of the definite article: b“The homeborn,”indicates that only certain homeborn members are obligated, i.e., men, bto the exclusion of the women.The word “all” in the phrase: b“Allthe homeborn,” comes bto include the minorscapable of performing this mitzva.,§ The Gemara analyzes the ibaraita /i. bThe Master said: “The homeborn”is bto the exclusion of women. Is that to say thatthe term bhomebornwithout the definite article bindicates both men and women? Isn’t it taughtin a ibaraitawith regard to Yom Kippur that it is stated: “And it shall be a statute forever unto you: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict your souls and shall do no manner of work, the homeborn, or the stranger that sojourns among you” (Leviticus 16:29). And the term b“the homeborn”in that verse comes bto include homeborn women, who are obligated inthe mitzva of bafflictionon Yom Kippur. In that case, the definite article comes to include women. Therefore, bapparently,the term homeborn, without the definite article, bindicatesonly bmen. Rabba said: They areeach a ihalakha /itransmitted to Moses from Sinai, band the Sagesmerely bsupported them with versesas a mnemonic device. Therefore, it is not surprising that the derivations are contradictory.,The Gemara asks: bWhichof them bisderived from bthe verse and which is a ihalakha /itransmitted to Moses from Sinai and merely supported by a verse? bAnd furthermore, why do Ineed bthe verse and why do Ineed bthe ihalakha /i? Isn’t isukkaa positive, time-bound mitzva, andthe principle is that bwomen are exempt from all positive, time-bound mitzvot?There is no need for a special derivation to exempt women from the mitzva of isukka /i.,And there is no need for a derivation with regard to their obligation to fast on bYom Kippur,as that can be bderived fromthat bwhich Rav Yehudasaid that bRav said, as Rav Yehuda saidthat bRav said, and it was likewise taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse says:“When ba man or womanshall commit any sin that a person commits, to commit a trespass against the Lord, and that soul be guilty” (Numbers 5:6). |
|
