1. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 1.10 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 1.10. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good." |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 15.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 15.16. וְאִישׁ כִּי־תֵצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת־זָרַע וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם אֶת־כָּל־בְּשָׂרוֹ וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃ | 15.16. And if the flow of seed go out from a man, then he shall bathe all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even." |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 31.20-31.23 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 31.21. וַיֹּאמֶר אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן אֶל־אַנְשֵׁי הַצָּבָא הַבָּאִים לַמִּלְחָמָה זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּה יְהוָה אֶת־מֹשֶׁה׃ 31.22. אַךְ אֶת־הַזָּהָב וְאֶת־הַכָּסֶף אֶת־הַנְּחֹשֶׁת אֶת־הַבַּרְזֶל אֶת־הַבְּדִיל וְאֶת־הָעֹפָרֶת׃ 31.23. כָּל־דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר־יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ תַּעֲבִירוּ בָאֵשׁ וְטָהֵר אַךְ בְּמֵי נִדָּה יִתְחַטָּא וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָבֹא בָּאֵשׁ תַּעֲבִירוּ בַמָּיִם׃ | 31.20. And as to every garment, and all that is made of skin, and all work of goats’hair, and all things made of wood, ye shall purify.’" 31.21. And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war that went to the battle: ‘This is the statute of the law which the LORD hath commanded Moses:" 31.22. Howbeit the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead," 31.23. every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make to go through the fire, and it shall be clean; nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of sprinkling; and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make to go through the water." |
|
4. Anon., Testament of Levi, 2.3 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 2.3. And when I was feeding the flocks in Abel-Maul, the spirit of understanding of the Lord came upon me, and I saw all men corrupting their way, and that unrighteousness had built for itself walls, and lawlessness sat upon towers. |
|
5. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 11.21 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
6. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 11.21 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
7. Dead Sea Scrolls, Temple Scroll, 45.7-45.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
8. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 2.128 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 2.128. 5. And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for before sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising. |
|
9. Mishnah, Berachot, 3.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 3.5. If a man was standing saying the tefillah and he remembers that he is one who has had a seminal emission, he should not stop but he should abbreviate [the blessings]. If he went down to immerse, if he is able to come up and cover himself and recite the Shema before the rising of the sun, he should go up and cover himself and recite, but if not he should cover himself with the water and recite. He should not cover himself either with foul water or with steeping water until he pours fresh water into it. How far should he remove himself from it and from excrement? Four cubits." |
|
10. Mishnah, Eduyot, 1.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.3. Hillel says: “A hin full of drawn water renders the mikweh unfit.” (However, man must speak in the language of his teacher.) And Shammai says: “Nine kavs.” But the Sages say: “Neither according to the opinion of this one nor according to the opinion of this one;” But when two weavers from the dung-gate which is in Jerusalem came and testified in the name of Shemaiah and Avtalion, “Three logs of drawn water render the mikweh unfit,” the Sages confirmed their statement." |
|
11. 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." |
|
12. Mishnah, Kelim, 10.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 10.1. The following vessels protect their contents when they have a tightly fitting cover: those made of cattle dung, of stone, of clay, of earthenware, of sodium carbonate, of the bones of a fish or of its skin, or of the bones of any animal of the sea or of its skin, and wooden vessels that are always clean. They protect whether the covers close their mouths or their sides, whether they stand on their bottoms or lean on their sides. If they were turned over with their mouths downwards they afford protection to all that is beneath them to the nethermost deep. Rabbi Eliezer declares this unclean. These protect everything, except that an earthen vessel protects only foods, liquids and earthen vessels." |
|
13. Mishnah, Miqvaot, 2.10, 4.5, 5.4, 5.6 (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." 4.5. In the case of a trough in a rock: One may not fill up [the hatat waters] from it, nor may the [hatat waters] be consecrated in it, nor may one sprinkle from it. And it does not require a tightly stopped-up covering, And it does not invalidate the mikveh. If it was a vessel and had been joined to the ground with lime: One may fill up the hatat waters from it and the hatat waters may be consecrated in it, and one may sprinkle from it, And it requires a tightly stopped-up covering; And it invalidates the mikveh invalid. If a hole was made in it below or at the side so that it could not contain water in however small a quantity, it is valid. And how large must the hole be? Like the tube of a water-skin. Rabbi Yehudah ben Batera said: it happened in the case of the trough of Yehu in Jerusalem that there was a hole in it like the tube of a water-skin, all the pure things in Jerusalem were made using it. But Bet Shammai sent and broke it down, for Bet Shammai say: [it remains a vessel] unless the greater part of it is broken down." 5.4. All seas are equivalent to a mikveh, for it is said, \"And the gathering (ulemikveh) of the waters He called the seas\" (Genesis 1:10), the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: only the Great Sea is equivalent to a mikveh, for it says \"seas\" only because there are in it many kinds of seas. Rabbi Yose says: all seas afford cleanness when running, and yet they are unfit for zavim and metzoraim and for the preparation of the hatat waters." 5.6. If a wave was separated [from the sea] and was forty seahs, and it fell on a man or on vessels, they become clean. Any place containing forty seahs is valid for immersing oneself and for immersing other things. One may immerse in trenches or in ditches or even in a donkey-track whose water is connected in a valley. Bet Shammai say: one may immerse in a rain torrent. But Bet Hillel say: one may not immerse. They agree that one may block its flow with vessels and immerse oneself in it, but the vessels with which the flow is blocked are not thereby [validly] immersed." |
|
14. Mishnah, Oholot, 5.5, 6.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 5.5. If [lying over the hatch] there were vessels made of dung, vessels of stone, or vessels of [unbaked] earth, everything [in the upper story] remains clean. If it was a vessel known to be clean for holy things or for [the water of] purification, everything remains clean, since everyone is trusted with [regard to matters of] purification. For clean vessels and earthenware vessels that are [known to be] clean protect with the walls of ‘tents'." 6.1. Both persons and vessels can form ‘tents’ to bring uncleanness, but not to [protect objects so that they] remain clean. How so? There are four people carrying a chest: If there is uncleanness beneath it, vessels upon it become unclean. If there is uncleanness upon it, vessels beneath it become unclean. Rabbi Eliezer declares them clean. [If the chest] is placed upon four vessels, even if they are vessels made of dung, vessels of stone, or vessels of [unbaked] earth, If there is uncleanness beneath [the chest], vessels upon it become unclean. If there is uncleanness beneath it, vessels upon it become unclean. [If the chest] is placed on four stones or on any living creature, If there is uncleanness beneath it, vessels upon it remain clean. If there is uncleanness upon it vessels beneath it remain clean." |
|
15. Mishnah, Parah, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 5.5. They can make the mixture in all kinds of vessels, even in vessels made of cattle dung, of stone or of earth. The mixture may also be prepared in a boat. It may not be prepared in the walls of vessels, or in the sides of a large jug, or in the stopper of a jar, or in one's cupped hands, for one does not fill up, or mix in, or sprinkle the hatat with anything but a vessel. Only on a vessel does tightly fitting cover afford protection, for only in vessels is protection afforded against uncleanness within an earthen vessel." |
|
16. Mishnah, Shabbat, 1.4, 1.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.4. And these are of halakhot which they stated in the upper chamber of Haiah ben Hezekiah ben Gurion, when they went up to visit him. They took a count, and Bet Shammai outnumbered Beth Hillel and on that day they enacted eighteen measures." 1.9. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: My father’s house was accustomed to giving white clothing to a non-Jewish launderer three days before Shabbat. And these and these agree that they lay down an olive press beams and wine press rollers." |
|
17. 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." |
|
18. Mishnah, Yadayim, 1.2, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.2. Water may be poured over the hands out of any kind of vessel, even out of vessels made of animal dung, out of vessels made of stone or out of vessels made of clay. Water may not be poured from the sides of [broken] vessels or from the bottom of a ladle or from the stopper of a jar. Nor may one pour [water] over the hands of his fellow out of his cupped hands. Because one may not draw, nor sanctify, nor sprinkle the water of purification, nor pour water over the hands except in a vessel. And only vessels closely covered with a lid protect [their contents from uncleanness]. And only vessels protect [their contents from uncleanness] inside earthenware vessels." 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." |
|
19. 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." |
|
20. New Testament, John, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 2.6. Now there were six water pots of stone set there after the Jews' manner of purifying, containing two or three metretes apiece. |
|
21. 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. |
|
22. 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. |
|
23. Tosefta, Demai, 2.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
24. Tosefta, Shabbat, 1.15 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
25. 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." |
|
26. Tosefta, Kelim Baba Metsia, 5.1 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
27. Babylonian Talmud, Betzah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 16a. כל מזונותיו של אדם קצובים לו מראש השנה ועד יום הכפורים חוץ מהוצאת שבתות והוצאת י"ט והוצאת בניו לתלמוד תורה שאם פחת פוחתין לו ואם הוסיף מוסיפין לו,א"ר אבהו מאי קראה (תהלים פא, ד) תקעו בחדש שופר (בכסא) ליום חגנו איזהו חג שהחדש מתכסה בו הוי אומר זה ראש השנה וכתיב (תהלים פא, ה) כי חק לישראל הוא משפט לאלהי יעקב,מאי משמע דהאי חק לישנא דמזוני הוא דכתיב (בראשית מז, כב) ואכלו את חקם אשר נתן להם פרעה מר זוטרא אמר מהכא (משלי ל, ח) הטריפני לחם חקי,תניא אמרו עליו על שמאי הזקן כל ימיו היה אוכל לכבוד שבת מצא בהמה נאה אומר זו לשבת מצא אחרת נאה הימנה מניח את השניה ואוכל את הראשונה,אבל הלל הזקן מדה אחרת היתה לו שכל מעשיו לשם שמים שנאמר (תהלים סח, כ) ברוך ה' יום יום תניא נמי הכי בית שמאי אומרים מחד שביך לשבתיך ובית הלל אומרים ברוך ה' יום יום,א"ר חמא ברבי חנינא הנותן מתנה לחברו אין צריך להודיעו שנאמר (שמות לד, כט) ומשה לא ידע כי קרן עור פניו,מיתיבי (שמות לא, יג) לדעת כי אני ה' מקדשכם אמר לו הקב"ה למשה משה מתנה טובה יש לי בבית גנזי ושבת שמה ואני מבקש ליתנה לישראל לך והודיע אותם מכאן אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל הנותן פת לתינוק צריך להודיע לאמו,לא קשיא הא במתנה דעבידא לאגלויי הא במתנה דלא עבידא לאגלויי שבת נמי מתנה דעבידא לאגלויי מתן שכרה לא עבידא לאגלויי:,אמר מר מכאן אמר רשב"ג הנותן פת לתינוק צריך להודיע לאמו מאי עביד ליה שייף ליה משחא ומלי ליה כוחלא והאידנא דחיישינן לכשפים מאי אמר רב פפא שייף ליה מאותו המין,א"ר יוחנן משום ר' שמעון בן יוחי כל מצות שנתן להם הקב"ה לישראל נתן להם בפרהסיא חוץ משבת שנתן להם בצנעא שנאמר (שמות לא, יז) ביני ובין בני ישראל אות היא לעולם,אי הכי לא לענשו נכרים עלה שבת אודועי אודעינהו מתן שכרה לא אודעינהו ואי בעית אימא מתן שכרה נמי אודעינהו נשמה יתירה לא אודעינהו,דאמר ר' שמעון בן לקיש נשמה יתירה נותן הקב"ה באדם ערב שבת ולמוצאי שבת נוטלין אותה הימנו שנאמר (שמות לא, יז) שבת וינפש כיון ששבת ווי אבדה נפש:,עושה אדם תבשיל מערב יום טוב: אמר אביי לא שנו אלא תבשיל אבל פת לא,מאי שנא פת דלא אילימא מידי דמלפת בעינן ופת לא מלפתא והא דייסא נמי דלא מלפתא דאמר ר' זירא הני בבלאי טפשאי דאכלי נהמא בנהמא ואמר רב נחומי בר זכריה משמיה דאביי מערבין בדייסא אלא מידי דלא שכיח בעינן ופת שכיחא ודייסא לא שכיחא,איכא דאמרי אמר אביי לא שנו אלא תבשיל אבל פת לא מאי טעמא אילימא דמידי דלא שכיח בעינן ופת שכיחא והא דייסא לא שכיחא ואמר רב נחומי בר זכריה משמיה דאביי אין מערבין בדייסא אלא מידי דמלפת בעינן ופת לא מלפתא ודייסא נמי לא מלפתא דאמר ר' זירא הני בבלאי טפשאי דאכלי נהמא בנהמא,תני ר' חייא עדשים שבשולי קדרה סומך עליהן משום ערובי תבשילין וה"מ דאית בהו כזית אמר רב יצחק בריה דרב יהודה שמנונית שעל גבי הסכין גוררו וסומך עליו משום ערובי תבשילין והני מילי דאית בהו כזית,אמר רב אסי אמר רב דגים קטנים מלוחים אין בהם משום בשולי נכרים אמר רב יוסף ואם צלאן נכרי סומך עליהם משום ערובי תבשילין ואי עבדינהו נכרי כסא דהרסנא אסור,פשיטא מהו דתימא | 16a. bA person’s entire livelihood is allocated to himduring the period bfrom Rosh HaShana to Yom Kippur.During that time, as each individual is judged, it is decreed exactly how much money he will earn for all his expenditures of the coming year, bexcept for expenditures for iShabbatot /i, and expenditures for Festivals, and expenditures forthe school fees of bhis sons’ Torah study.In these areas, no exact amount is determined at the beginning of the year; rather, bif he reducedthe amount he spends for these purposes, bhisincome bis reducedand he earns that much less money in that year, band if he increasedhis expenditures in these areas, bhisincome bis increasedto ensure that he can cover the expense. Therefore, one may borrow for these purposes, since he is guaranteed to have enough income to cover whatever he spends for them., bRabbi Abbahu said: What is the versefrom which this dictum is derived? The source is: b“Blow the ishofarat the New Moon, at the concealedtime bfor our Festival day”(Psalms 81:4). bOn which Festival is the new moon concealed?You bmust saythat bit is Rosh HaShana,which occurs on the first of the month, when the moon is not yet visible, while the moon is visible during the other Festivals, which occur in the middle of the month. bAnd it is writtenin the next verse: b“For it is a statute [ iḥok /i] for Israel, a judgment of the God of Jacob”(Psalms 81:5).,The Gemara explains: bFrom wheremay it bbe inferred that thisword b“statute [ iḥok /i]” is a termrelating bto food? As it is written: “And they ate their allotment [ iḥukkam /i], which Pharaoh gave them”(Genesis 47:22). bMar Zutra said:One can learn that iḥokis referring to food bfrom here: “Feed me with my allotted [ iḥukki /i] bread”(Proverbs 30:8)., bIt is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThey said about Shammai the Elderthat ball his days he would eat in honor of Shabbat.How so? If bhe found a choice animal, hewould bsay: This is for Shabbat.If bhesubsequently bfound another one choicer than it, hewould bset aside the secondfor Shabbat band eat the first.He would eat the first to leave the better-quality animal for Shabbat, which continually rendered his eating an act of honoring Shabbat., bHowever, Hillel the Elder had a different trait, that all his actions,including those on a weekday, bwere for the sake of Heaven, as it is stated: “Blessed be the Lord, day by day;He bears our burden, our God who is our salvation; Selah” (Psalms 68:20), meaning that God gives a blessing for each and every day. bThat is also taughtin a ibaraitain more general terms: bBeit Shammai say: From the firstday bof the week,Sunday, start preparing already bfor your Shabbat. And Beit Hillel say: “Blessed be the Lord, day by day.” /b,§ Apropos the statements about honoring Shabbat, the Gemara cites another statement on the same topic. bRabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: One who gives a gift to his friend need not inform himthat he has given it to him, and he need not concern himself that the recipient might not realize who gave it to him. bAs it is stated: “And Moses did not know that the skin of his face was radiant”(Exodus 34:29); Moses received this gift unawares.,The Gemara braises an objectionto this. Isn’t it written: “Nevertheless, you must keep My iShabbatot /i, for this is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, bthat you may know that I am the Lord Who sanctifies you”(Exodus 31:13), which the Sages expounded as follows: bThe Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Moses, I have a good gift in My treasury, and its name is Shabbat, and I wish to give it to the Jewish people. Go and inform themof this intention of Mine. bAnd from here Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: One who givesa gift of ba piece of bread to a child must inform his motherof his actions, so that the child’s parents will be aware of the giver’s fond feelings for them, thereby enhancing friendly relations and companionship among Jews. This appears to be in direct contradiction to Rabbi Ḥama’s statement.,The Gemara answers: This is bnot difficult; thiscase, where one need not inform the recipient, bis referring to a gift that is likely to be revealed,such as Moses’ shining face, which everyone would point out to him; bthatcase, where one must inform the recipient, bis referring to a gift that is not likely to be revealedin the natural course of events. The Gemara challenges: Isn’t bShabbat also a gift that is likely to be revealed,as the Jews would eventually be instructed with regard to the time and nature of Shabbat? The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, bits reward is not likely to be revealed.Therefore, God told Moses to inform the Jews of the gift of Shabbat and its reward., bThe Master saidearlier that bfrom here Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: One who gives a piece of bread to a child must inform his mother.The Gemara asks: bWhat does he do to him;how does he inform the child’s mother? bHe rubs oil on him and paints his eyes blue,so that when the child arrives home his mother will ask him who did this to him and he will reply that it was a person who also gave him a piece of bread. The Gemara comments: bAnd nowadays, when we are concerned about witchcraft,i.e., that painting the child’s eyes might have been performed as an act of sorcery, bwhatshould one do? bRav Pappa said: He rubs onthe child a little bof that same typeof food that he put on the bread, such as butter or cheese, and this will cause the child’s mother to notice that he received a present.,The Gemara cites a further statement with regard to the gift of Shabbat to the Jewish people. bRabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Allthe bmitzvot that the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave to the Jewish people, He gave to them in public [ iparhesya /i] except for Shabbat, which he gave to them in private. As it is stated: “It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever”(Exodus 31:17), meaning that in a sense, it is a secret between God and the Jewish people.,The Gemara challenges: bIfit is bsothat it was given in secret so that not everyone knew about it, bthe gentiles should not be punished fornot wanting to accept bit;they are liable to receive punishment for refusing to accept the other mitzvot of the Torah. The Gemara answers: The Holy One, Blessed be He, bdid inform themof the concept of bShabbat,but He bdid not inform themof bthe rewardfor the fulfillment of the mitzva. bAnd if you wish, sayinstead that bHe also informedthe gentiles of bits reward,but about the idea of the badditional soulgiven to each person on Shabbat bHe did not inform them. /b, bAs Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, gives a person an additional soul on Shabbat eve, and at the conclusion of Shabbat removes it from him, as it is stated: “He ceased from work and was refreshed [ ivayinafash /i]”(Exodus 31:17). Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish expounds the verse as follows: bSince he ceased from work,and now Shabbat has concluded and his additional soul is removed from him, bwoe [ ivai /i]for the additional bsoul [ inefesh /i]that is blost. /b,It was taught in the mishna that ba person may prepare a cooked dish on a Festival eveand rely on it for Shabbat for the joining of cooked foods. bAbaye said: They taughtthat the joining of cooked foods allows one to cook on a Festival for Shabbat bonlywhen it is made from ba cooked dish; however,if it is composed of bbreadalone, bno,this is not sufficient.,The Gemara asks: bWhat is differentabout bbread thatmakes it bnotfit for this purpose? bIf we saythat bwe require something that accompaniesbread, band bread does not accompanyitself, the following difficulty arises: bPorridge also does not accompanybread, as bRabbi Zeira said: Those foolish Babylonians eat bread with bread,referring to their custom of eating bread with porridge. This shows that porridge is no better accompaniment to bread than bread itself, bandyet bRav Neḥumi bar Zekharya said in the name of Abaye: One may establish an ieiruvwith porridge. Rather,one must say as follows: bWe require something that is not routine,so that it will be clear that one is setting it aside for the purpose of an ieiruv /i, band bread is routine,whereas bporridge is not routine. /b, bSome saya different version of this discussion: bAbaye said: They taughtthat a joining of cooked foods allows one to cook on a Festival for Shabbat bonlywhen it is made from ba cooked dish; however,if it is composed of bbread, no,that is not sufficient. The Gemara asks: bWhat is the reasonfor this? bIf we say that we require something that is not routine, and bread is routine,the following difficulty arises: bIsn’t porridge notparticularly broutine? Andyet bRav Neḥumi bar Zekharya said in the name of Abaye: One may not establish an ieiruvwith porridge. Rather,one should say as follows: bWe require something that accompaniesbread, band bread does not accompanyitself, band porridge, too, does not accompanybread, bas Rabbi Zeira said: Those foolish Babylonians eat bread with bread,from which it is clear that like bread, porridge does not accompany bread and consequently cannot constitute an ieiruv /i., bRabbi Ḥiyya taught:With regard to blentils thatremain bat the bottom of a poton the eve of a Festival, bone may rely on them forthe bjoining of cooked foods.Although they were not prepared with this purpose in mind, they are nevertheless considered a cooked dish. bAnd this applies onlyif bthere is an olive-bulkof lentils in total. Similarly, bRav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, said:With regard to bfatof meat and the like bthat is on a knife, one may scrape itoff the knife band rely on it for the joining of cooked foods; and this applies onlyif bthere is an olive-bulkof fat in total., bRav Asi saidthat bRav said: Small salted fishthat a gentile then cooked bare not considered the cooked food of gentilesbecause cooking does not prepare them to be food any more than they already were, as they can be eaten in their salted state. bRav Yosef said: Andeven bif a gentile roasted them,a Jew may brely on them for the joining of cooked foods,as they are not considered the cooked food of a gentile and are indeed already edible. However, bifthe bgentile made theminto bfish fried with oil and flour [ ikasa deharsena /i], it is prohibitedto eat them. In this case they are considered the cooked food of a gentile, since his actions have made them into noteworthy food.,The Gemara challenges: bIt is obviousthat this is the case; it need not be taught. The Gemara answers: The justification for teaching it is blest you saythat |
|
28. Babylonian Talmud, Bekhorot, None (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. |
|
29. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (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 |
|
30. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 69b. blike dung vesselsand blike earth vessels, andthese bare not susceptible to ritual impurity, as the Master said: Stone vessels and dung vessels and earth vessels are not susceptible to ritual impurity, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic law? Or perhapsthis is bnotconsidered bdigestion,as these palm leaves remained intact, and therefore the vessel prepared from them is susceptible to ritual impurity like any other wooden vessel.,The Gemara suggests: bResolvethe dilemma bfrom that which Ulla says in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak: An incidentoccurred in which bwolves swallowed two childrenand excreted them bonthe east bbank of the Jordan, andthe bincident came before the Sagesfor a ruling. They were asked whether the remains of the children were ritually impure even after they had passed through the animal’s digestive tract, band they deemed the flesh ritually pure,as it is no longer considered human flesh but wolf excrement. Similarly, the swallowed palm leaves should be considered like elephant dung and therefore the basket made from them should not be susceptible to ritual impurity.,The Gemara rejects this resolution: That case of bflesh is different, asflesh bis softand digestible. Palm leaves, by contrast, are hard and not easily digested. The Gemara suggests: bButin that case, blet us resolvethe dilemma bfrom the last clauseof the account of that incident: The Sages ruled that flesh was ritually pure, bbutthey bdeemedthe intact bbones ritually impure.The bones, which are a harder substance than the flesh, are not considered digested. Likewise, the hard palm leaves should also not be considered digested, and the wicker basket fashioned from them should be susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: The case of bbones is different, as they are harder.Therefore, one cannot cite a proof from here with regard to palm leaves, which are a comparatively softer substance.,§ bRabbi Zeira raises a dilemma:With regard to bwheat that fell from the clouds, what isthe ihalakha /i? The Gemara asks: bWith regard to whatissue was this dilemma raised? bIfit is referring to using this wheat bfor meal offerings, why not?There should be no problem with using the wheat, since wheat for meal offerings does not have to come from Eretz Yisrael. bRather,the dilemma is whether this wheat can be used bfor theoffering of the btwo loaveson iShavuot /i. bWhatis the ihalakha /i?,The Gemara explains the two possibilities. The verse states: “You shall bring out of your dwellings two wave-loaves of two-tenths of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baked with leaven, for first fruits to the Lord” (Leviticus 23:17). When bthe Merciful One states: “Out of your dwellings,”does this serve bto excludewheat bthatcame bfrom outside EretzYisrael, teaching bthatit may bnotbe used for the two loaves; bbutwheat that fell bfromthe bcloudsis bpermitted? Or perhapsthe verse means bspecifically: “Out of your dwellings,”i.e., only from Eretz Yisrael; bandif so, bevenwheat that fell bfromthe bcloudsis balso notacceptable.,With regard to this dilemma, the Gemara asks: bBut is there a case like this?Is it possible for wheat to fall from the clouds? The Gemara answers: bYes, as inan incident involving bAdi the Arab [ itaya’a /i],about whom it is related that it rained bdown on him wheatof ba height of one handbreadthspread boveran area of bthree parasangs. /b,§ bRabbi Shimon ben Pazi raises a dilemma:In a case where one had ban earof grain bthat reached one-thirdof its growth bprior to thebringing of bthe iomer /ioffering, bandthen he buprooted it and plantedit again bafter the iomer /i, andthen bit addedto its growth, bwhat isthe ihalakha /i? bDo we follow the originalgrowth, which was bpermittedby bthe iomer /ioffering, and therefore the additional growth is also permitted? bOr perhaps we follow the additionalgrowth, which was not permitted by the iomer /i, as it grew afterward. bAndif so, it will remain prohibited buntil the next iomer /ioffering bis brought. /b,The Gemara suggests: bResolvethe dilemma bfromthat bwhich Rabbi Abbahu saysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says:With regard to ba youngvine within three years of its planting, whose fruits are prohibited as iorla /i, bthat one grafted onto an old,permitted vine, band there were fruits onthe younger vine, bevenif the older vine badded two hundredparts of growth to the existing fruit, it is still bprohibited.The two hundred permitted parts, which are generally sufficient to nullify one part of iorla /i, are ineffective in this case, because the subsequent additional growth is considered subordinate to the original prohibited growth. This proves that we follow the original growth, and therefore in Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi’s case the original growth that was permitted by the iomershould render the entire plant, including the subsequent growth, permitted in consumption.,The Gemara cites another proof from a similar case. bAndlikewise bRabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani saysthat bRabbi Yonatan says:With regard to ban onion that one planted in a vineyard,creating a forbidden mixture of food crops in a vineyard, band the vineyard wassubsequently buprooted,so that most of the onion grew in a permitted manner, bevenif the onion badded two hundredparts of growth, the onion is bprohibited.The reason the entire onion is prohibited is apparently because we follow the original growth, which is forbidden.,The Gemara states that these proofs are inconclusive, as bthat itself iswhat Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi braisesas ba dilemma:Is it entirely bobvious to the Sages that we follow the maingrowth, and there is bno difference whetherthis leads bto a leniency or whetherit leads bto a stringency? Or perhaps they are uncertainabout the matter, bandtherefore they rule that when it leads bto a stringency,e.g., prohibiting the additional growth of iorlafruit or the additional growth of an onion that had grown in a vineyard, bwe saythat we follow the original growth, but when it leads bto a leniency,such as allowing the consumption of grain after the iomer /i, bwe do not saythat we follow the original growth. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma bshall standunresolved.,§ In connection to the previous discussion with regard to an ear of grain that had grown one-third prior to the iomerand was subsequently uprooted and replanted, bRabba raises a dilemma: With regard tothe obligation to btithe, whatis the ihalakhaof such grain? The Gemara asks: bWhat are the circumstances?The circumstances involve a case bwhere /b |
|
31. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (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 |
|
