1. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 32 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 13.2, 22.28 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 13.2. וְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה מַרְאֶהָ שָׁפָל מִן־הָעוֹר וּשְׂעָרָהּ הָפַךְ לָבָן וְטִמְּאוֹ הַכֹּהֵן נֶגַע־צָרַעַת הִוא בַּשְּׁחִין פָּרָחָה׃ 13.2. אָדָם כִּי־יִהְיֶה בְעוֹר־בְּשָׂרוֹ שְׂאֵת אוֹ־סַפַּחַת אוֹ בַהֶרֶת וְהָיָה בְעוֹר־בְּשָׂרוֹ לְנֶגַע צָרָעַת וְהוּבָא אֶל־אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אוֹ אֶל־אַחַד מִבָּנָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים׃ 22.28. וְשׁוֹר אוֹ־שֶׂה אֹתוֹ וְאֶת־בְּנוֹ לֹא תִשְׁחֲטוּ בְּיוֹם אֶחָד׃ | 13.2. When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it become in the skin of his flesh the plague of leprosy, then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests." 22.28. And whether it be cow or ewe, ye shall not kill it and its young both in one day." |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 31.19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 31.19. וְאַתֶּם חֲנוּ מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כֹּל הֹרֵג נֶפֶשׁ וְכֹל נֹגֵעַ בֶּחָלָל תִּתְחַטְּאוּ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי אַתֶּם וּשְׁבִיכֶם׃ | 31.19. And encamp ye without the camp seven days; whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify yourselves on the third day and on the seventh day, ye and your captives." |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 23.20 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 23.20. And she doted upon concubinage with them, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses." |
|
5. Mishnah, Hulin, 5.3-5.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 5.3. If a person slaughtered [an animal] and it was found to be terefah, or if he slaughtered [it as an offering] to idols, or if he slaughtered the red cow, or an ox which was condemned to be stoned, or a heifer whose neck was to be broken: Rabbi Shimon exempts [him from having transgressed the law of “it and its young”]; But the sages make him liable. If a person slaughtered [an animal] and it became nevelah under his hand, or if he stabbed it, or tore away [the organs of the throat], he does not thereby transgress the law of it and its young. If two people bought a cow and its young, he who bought first can slaughter first; but if the second preceded him, he holds his advantage. If a person slaughtered a cow and then two of its calves, he is liable for eighty lashes. If he slaughtered its two calves and then the cow, he is liable for forty lashes. If he slaughtered it and then its calf and then the calf's offspring, he is liable for eighty lashes. If he slaughtered it and then its calf's offspring and then the calf, he is liable for forty lashes. Symmachos says in the name of r. Meir: he is liable for eighty lashes. At four periods in the year he who sells a beast to another must inform him, “I sold today its mother to be slaughtered,” or “I sold today its young to be slaughtered,” and these are they: on the eve of the last day of the feast [of Sukkot], on the eve of the first day of Pesah, on the eve of Shavuot, and on the eve of Rosh Hashanah. According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, also on the eve of Yom Kippur, in the Galilee. Rabbi Judah says, this is so, only when there was no time in between the sales, but if there was time, he need not inform him. Rabbi Judah agrees that if he sold the mother to the bridegroom and the young to the bride, he must inform them of it, for it is certain that they will each slaughter on the same day." 5.4. At these four periods a butcher can be compelled to slaughter against his will. Even if the ox was worth a thousand dinars and the purchaser has only [paid] a dinar, they can force the butcher to slaughter it. Therefore if the animal died, the loss is upon the purchaser. At other times of the year it is not so, therefore if the animal died, the loss is upon the seller." |
|
6. Mishnah, Miqvaot, 8.4, 10.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 8.4. If a non-Jewish woman discharged semen from an Israelite, it is unclean. If an Israelite woman discharged semen from a non-Jewish man, it is clean. If a woman had intercourse and then went down and immersed herself but did not sweep out the house, it is as though she had not immersed herself. If a man who had a seminal emission immersed himself but did not first pass urine, he again becomes unclean when he passes urine. Rabbi Yose says: if he was sick or old he is unclean, but if he was young and healthy he remains clean." 10.8. If one ate unclean foods or drank unclean liquids and then he immersed and then vomited them up, they are still unclean because they did not become clean in the body. If one drank unclean water and immersed and then vomited it up, it is clean because it became clean in the body. If one swallowed a clean ring and then went into the tent of a corpse, if he sprinkled himself once and twice and immersed himself and then vomited it up, behold, it remains as it was before. If one swallowed an unclean ring, he may immerse himself and eat terumah. If he vomited it up, it is unclean and it renders him unclean. If an arrow was stuck into a man, it blocks so long as it is visible. But if it is not visible, he may immerse himself and eat terumah." |
|
7. Mishnah, Negaim, 2.4, 11.1, 12.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.4. What is [the posture] of examining negaim?A man is inspected in the posture of one that hoes or one that gathers olives. And a woman [is inspected in the posture] of one who is arranging dough and one who nurses her child, and one that weaves at an upright loom if the nega was in the right armpit. Rabbi Judah says: also in the posture of one that spins flax if it was within the left armpit. Just as [is the posture] for examining for the nega, so too [is the posture] for shaving hair." 11.1. All garments can contract the uncleanness of negaim except those of non-Jews. One who buys garments [with signs of negaim] from non-Jews they must be inspected as if the signs had then first appeared. The hides [of animals] of the sea do not contract the uncleanness of negaim. If one joined to them anything which grows on land, even if it is only a thread or a cord, as long as it is something that is susceptible to uncleanness, they also become susceptible to uncleanness." 12.1. All houses may contract negaim uncleanness, except those of non-Jews. If one bought houses from non-Jews, any it must be inspected as if they had then first appeared. A round house, a triangular house, or a house built on a ship, on a raft or on four beams, is not susceptible to negaim uncleanness. But if it was four-sided, even if it was built on four pillars, it is susceptible to uncleanness." |
|
8. Mishnah, Niddah, 4.3, 5.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 4.3. The blood of a Gentile and the clean blood of a metzoraat (a woman with scale disease): Bet Shammai declares clean. And Bet Hillel holds that it is like her spittle or her urine. The blood of a woman after childbirth who did not immerse [in a mikveh]: Bet Shammai says it is like her spittle or her urine, But Bet Hillel says: it conveys uncleanness both when wet and when dry. They agree that if she gave birth while in zivah, it conveys uncleanness both when wet and when dry." 5.1. For a fetus born from its mother's side, she does not sit the prescribed days of uncleanness nor the days of cleanness, nor does one incur on its account the obligation to bring a sacrifice. Rabbi Shimon says: it is regarded as a regular birth. All women are subject to uncleanness [as soon as the blood appears] in the outer chamber, as it says, \"her discharge being blood in her body\" (Leviticus 15:19). But a zav and one who emitted semen convey no uncleanness unless the discharge came out of the body." |
|
9. Mishnah, Pesahim, 8.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 8.8. An onen immerses [in a mikveh] and eats his pesah in the evening, but not [other] sacred food. One who hears about his dead [for the first time], and one who gathers the bones [of his dead relative] immerses and eats sacred food. A convert who converts on the eve of Pesah: Bet Shammai say: he immerses and eats his pesah in the evening. Bet Hillel say: anyone who separates from the foreskin is like one who separates from the grave." |
|
10. Mishnah, Zavim, 2.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.3. One who had [a discharge of] semen does not defile due to zivah for a period of twenty-four hours. Rabbi Yose says: [only] that day. A non-Jew who had a discharge of semen and then converted, he immediately becomes unclean due to zivah. [A woman] who had [an issue] of blood, or had experienced difficulty [in childbirth], [the time prescribed] is twenty-four hours. One who strikes his slave, the \"day or two\" is twenty-four hours. A dog that eats a corpse's flesh, for three days from one time of day to the same time of day, it is considered to be in its natural state. |
|
11. Tosefta, Miqvaot, 6.3-6.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
12. Tosefta, Yevamot, 2.5, 8.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
13. Tosefta, Zavim, 2.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
14. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 84 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
|
15. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, 12b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 12b. כיון דחזו דמזלזלי בהו תקינו להו מאתן כיון דחזו דקא פרשין מינייהו דאמרי עד דנסבינן אלמנת כהנים ניזיל ניסיב בתולה בת ישראל אהדרינהו למלתייהו:,בית דין של כהנים כו': אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל לא ב"ד של כהנים בלבד אמרו אלא אפי' משפחות המיוחסות בישראל אם רצו לעשות כדרך שהכהנים עושין עושין,מיתיבי הרוצה לעשות כדרך שהכהנים עושין כגון בת ישראל לכהן ובת כהן לישראל עושין בת ישראל לכהן ובת כהן לישראל הוא דאיכא צד כהונה אבל בת ישראל לישראל לא,לא מבעיא קאמר לא מבעיא בת ישראל לישראל דלא מצי אמר לה עלויי קא מעלינן ליך אבל בת ישראל לכהן דמצי אמר לה עלויי קא מעלינן ליך אימא לא קמ"ל:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big הנושא את האשה ולא מצא לה בתולים היא אומרת משארסתני נאנסתי ונסתחפה שדהו והוא אומר לא כי אלא עד שלא ארסתיך והיה מקחי מקח טעות רבן גמליאל ורבי אליעזר אומרים נאמנת רבי יהושע אומר לא מפיה אנו חיין אלא הרי זו בחזקת בעולה עד שלא תתארס והטעתו עד שתביא ראיה לדבריה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אתמר מנה לי בידך והלה אומר איני יודע רב יהודה ורב הונא אמרי חייב ורב נחמן ורבי יוחנן אמרי פטור רב הונא ורב יהודה אמרי חייב ברי ושמא ברי עדיף רב נחמן ורבי יוחנן אמרי פטור אוקי ממונא בחזקת מריה,א"ל אביי לרב יוסף הא דרב הונא ורב יהודה דשמואל היא דתנן היתה מעוברת ואמרו לה מה טיבו של עובר זה מאיש פלוני וכהן הוא רבן גמליאל ורבי אליעזר אומרים נאמנת ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבן גמליאל,ואמר ליה רב שמואל בר יהודה לרב יהודה שיננא אמרת לן משמיה דשמואל הלכה כרבן גמליאל אף בראשונה מאי אף בראשונה אע"ג דאיכא למימר אוקי ממונא בחזקת מריה אמר רבן גמליאל ברי עדיף,לימא רב יהודה ורב הונא דאמרי כר"ג ורב נחמן ורבי יוחנן דאמרי כרבי יהושע,אמר לך רב נחמן אנא דאמרי אפילו כרבן גמליאל עד כאן לא קאמר ר"ג התם אלא דאיכא מגו אבל הכא מאי מגו איכא,אי נמי עד כאן לא קאמר רבן גמליאל התם אלא דאמרינן אוקמה אחזקה אבל הכא מאי חזקה אית ליה להאי,הכי נמי מסתברא כדקא משנינן דרב נחמן הוא דאמר כר"ג | 12b. bOncethe members of the court bsaw thatthe priests bwere demeaningthe widows, bthey instituted for thema marriage contract of btwo hundreddinars, so that they would treat them with greater esteem. bOnce they saw thatthe grooms bwere distancingthemselves bfrom them, as they said: Instead of marrying a widowwho is the daughter of bpriestsand paying a marriage contract of two hundred, blet us go marry a virgin Israelite womanfor the same price. Since men would no longer marry widows from priestly families, bthey restoredmatters bto theiroriginal bstatus.This indicates that the mishna and the ibaraitaare addressing different time periods and different ordices.,§ It is stated in the mishna that ba court of priestswould collect a marriage contract of four hundred dinars for a virgin daughter of a priest. bRav Yehuda saidthat bShmuel said: Not only with regard to a court of priests didthe Sages bsaythat they could collect a greater sum for the marriage contract of their daughters, bbut even families of distinguished lineage in Israel. If they wanted to act as the priests do, they may actin that manner.,The Gemara braises an objectionfrom a ibaraita /i: bOne who sought to act as the priests do,as in cases bwhere an Israelite womanis married bto a priest, or the daughter of a priestis married bto an Israelite, may actin that manner. The Gemara infers: This allowance is specifically in cases where ban Israelite womanis married bto a priest, or the daughter of a priestis married bto an Israelite, where there is an aspect of priesthoodinvolved. bHowever,apparently, in a case where bthe daughter of an Israeliteis married bto an Israelite, no,it is not allowed.,The Gemara rejects that inference. The ibaraita bis statedemploying the style of: bIt is not necessary. It is not necessaryto state a case where bthe daughter of an Israeliteis married bto an Israelite, asin that case the groom bcannot say to her:By marrying you, bI am raising yoursocial status, and it is clear that women from distinguished families would demand a marriage contract with a greater sum. bHowever,in a case where ban Israelite womanis married bto a priest, where he can say to her: I am raising yoursocial status, as you are marrying into the priesthood, you might think to bsay no,the woman cannot demand a marriage contract with a greater sum. Therefore, the ibaraita bteaches usthat even in the case of a woman from a distinguished family of Israelites marrying a priest, she may demand a marriage contract with a greater sum., strongMISHNA: /strong There is a case of one bwho marries a woman and did not find her hymenintact, and bshe says: After you betrothed me I was raped, and his,i.e., her husband’s, bfield was inundated,meaning that it is his misfortune that she is not a virgin, as she was raped after betrothal. bAnd he says: No; rather,you were raped bbefore I betrothed you, and my transaction was a mistaken transaction. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible. Rabbi Yehoshua says:It is bnotbased on the statement emerging bfrom her mouththat bwe conduct our lives; rather, thiswoman assumes bthe presumptive status of one who engaged in intercourse when she was not yet betrothed and she misled him, until she brings proofsupporting bher statement. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong bIt was stated:With regard to one who approaches another and says: bI have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: I don’t know, Rav Yehuda and Rav Huna say:The respondent is bobligatedto pay, because he did not deny the claim, band Rav Naḥman and Rabbi Yoḥa say:He is bexemptfrom payment. The Gemara elaborates. bRav Huna and Rav Yehuda saythat the respondent is bobligatedto pay based on the principle: When there is a bcertainclaim, e.g., that of the claimant, band an uncertainclaim, e.g., that of the respondent, the bcertainclaim bprevails. Rav Naḥman and Rabbi Yoḥa say:The respondent is bexemptbased on the principle: bEstablish the money in the possession of its owner,and the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Since the claimant does not support his claim with proof, the money remains in the possession of the respondent., bAbaye said to Rav Yosef: Thisruling bof Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda isessentially the statement bof Shmuel, as we learnedin a mishna (13a): In the case of an unmarried woman bwho was pregt, andthe Sages bsaid to her: What is the nature of this fetus,i.e., who is the father. And she says: It is bfrom a mancalled bso-and-so and he is a priestand is certainly of valid lineage. bRabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible,and the fetus is deemed to be of valid lineage. bRav Yehuda saidthat bShmuel said: The ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabban Gamliel. /b, bAnd Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said to Rav Yehuda: Big-toothed one [ ishina /i], you said to us in the name of Shmuelthat the ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabban Gamliel even in the firstdispute, the dispute cited in the mishna, which is the first in a series of disputes with regard to conflicting claims. The Gemara asks: bWhatis the meaning of beven the first?What is unique about that dispute relative to the others? The Gemara answers: The novel element in the first dispute is that the claim of the bride is accepted bdespite the fact thatalthough bthere isroom bto say: Establish the money in the possession of its owner,and since the money is in the possession of the husband and the woman is the claimant, bRabban Gamliel saidthat the bcertainclaim of the bride bprevailsover the uncertain claim of the groom, who can only speculate about when she was raped.,The Gemara suggests: bLet us saythat it is bRav Yehuda and Rav Huna who saytheir ruling bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabban Gamliel,who says that a certain claim prevails over an uncertain one even to collect money from the possession of the respondent. bAndit is bRav Naḥman and Rabbi Yoḥa who saytheir ruling bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehoshua,that one does not collect money based merely on a claim.,The Gemara rejects that suggestion. bRav Naḥmancould have bsaid to you:That bwhich I said, is even in accordance withthe opinion of bRabban Gamliel. Rabban Gamliel says his ruling only there,with regard to claims of a groom and a bride, bwhere there is a imiggo /i,a halakhic argument that the ability to make a more advantageous claim grants credibility to the claim one actually makes, that bolsters the bride’s claim. She could have claimed that she wasn’t raped at all, but rather that her hymen was ruptured by wood. That is a more advantageous claim because she is not disgraced in the eyes of the groom. Therefore, her claim that she was raped is accorded credibility. bHowever here,where one claims that another owes him money, bwhat imiggois therebolstering his claim and according it credibility?, bAlternatively,Rav Naḥman could have said to you: bRabban Gamliel says his ruling only there, where we say: Establish herlegal status according to her bpresumptive statusas a virgin, and the husband’s claim seeks to undermine that presumptive status. bHowever here, what presumptive status does thisclaimant bhavesupporting the claim that another owes him money? Therefore, even Rabban Gamliel would concede that his certain claim does not prevail.,The Gemara notes: bIndeed,it is balso reasonableto explain bas we are teaching, that it is Rav Naḥman who saidhis ruling bin accordancewith the opinion of bRabban Gamliel. /b |
|
16. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, 43a, 13b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 13b. מעטרה ולמעלה אסור,אמר רב המקשה עצמו לדעת יהא בנדוי ולימא אסור דקמגרי יצה"ר אנפשיה ורבי אמי אמר נקרא עבריין שכך אומנתו של יצר הרע היום אומר לו עשה כך ולמחר אומר לו עשה כך ולמחר אומר לו לך עבוד עבודת כוכבים והולך ועובד,איכא דאמרי אמר רבי אמי כל המביא עצמו לידי הרהור אין מכניסין אותו במחיצתו של הקב"ה כתיב הכא (בראשית לח, י) וירע בעיני ה' וכתיב התם (תהלים ה, ה) כי לא אל חפץ רשע אתה לא יגורך רע,ואמר ר' אלעזר מאי דכתיב (ישעיהו א, טו) ידיכם דמים מלאו אלו המנאפים ביד תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (שמות כ, יג) לא תנאף לא תהא בך ניאוף בין ביד בין ברגל,ת"ר הגרים והמשחקין בתינוקות מעכבין את המשיח בשלמא גרים כדר' חלבו דא"ר חלבו קשין גרים לישראל כספחת אלא משחקין בתנוקות מאי היא,אילימא משכב זכור בני סקילה נינהו אלא דרך אברים בני מבול נינהו,אלא דנסיבי קטנות דלאו בנות אולודי נינהו דא"ר יוסי אין בן דוד בא עד שיכלו כל הנשמות שבגוף שנאמר (ישעיהו נז, טז) כי רוח מלפני יעטוף ונשמות אני עשיתי,באנשים תקצץ איבעיא להו דינא תנן או לטותא תנן דינא תנן כי הא דרב הונא קץ ידא או לטותא תנן,ת"ש דתניא רבי טרפון אומר יד לאמה תקצץ ידו על טבורו אמרו לו ישב לו קוץ בכריסו לא יטלנו א"ל לא אמר להן מוטב תבקע כריסו ואל ירד לבאר שחת,אי אמרת בשלמא דינא תנן היינו דאמרי והלא כריסו נבקעת אלא אי אמרת לטותא תנן מאי כריסו נבקעת אלא מאי דינא תנן לא סגי דלאו על טבורו,אלא ה"ק רבי טרפון כל המכניס ידו למטה מטבורו תקצץ אמרו לו לרבי טרפון ישב לו קוץ בכריסו לא יטלנו אמר להן לא והלא כריסו נבקעת אמר להן מוטב תבקע כריסו ואל ירד לבאר שחת, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big החרשת והשוטה והסומא ושנטרפה דעתה אם יש להן פקחות מתקנות אותן והן אוכלות בתרומה, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big חרשת איהי תבדוק לנפשה דתניא אמר רבי חרשת היתה בשכונתינו לא דיה שבודקת לעצמה אלא שחברותיה רואות ומראות לה,התם במדברת ואינה שומעת הכא בשאינה מדברת ואינה שומעת כדתנן חרש שדברו חכמים בכל מקום אינו שומע ואינו מדבר,הסומא איהי תבדוק לנפשה ותיחזי לחבירתה א"ר יוסי ברבי חנינא סומא אינה משנה,ושנטרפה דעתה היינו שוטה שנטרפה דעתה מחמת חולי,תנו רבנן כהן שוטה מטבילין אותו ומאכילין אותו תרומה לערב ומשמרין אותו שלא יישן ישן טמא לא ישן טהור,רבי אליעזר ברבי צדוק אומר עושין לו כיס של עור אמרו לו כל שכן שמביא לידי חימום אמר להן לדבריכם שוטה אין לו תקנה,אמרו לו לדברינו ישן טמא לא ישן טהור לדבריך שמא יראה טפה כחרדל ותבלע בכיס,תנא משום רבי אלעזר אמרו עושין לו כיס של מתכת,אמר אביי ושל נחשת כדתניא רבי יהודה אומר רואין אותן גבעולין של אזוב כאילו הן של נחשת,אמר רב פפא שמע מינה מכנסים אסורים והכתיב (שמות כח, מב) ועשה להם מכנסי בד לכסות בשר ערוה,ההוא כדתניא מכנסי כהנים למה הן דומין כמין פמלניא של פרשים למעלה עד מתנים למטה עד ירכים ויש להם שנצים ואין להם לא בית הנקב ולא בית הערוה,אמר אביי | 13b. bFrom the corona and above,toward the body, it is bprohibited. /b,§ bRav says: One who intentionally causes himself an erection shall be ostracized.The Gemara suggests: bAnd letRav bsaysimply that it is bprohibited.The Gemara explains that it is proper to ostracize such a man, bas he arouses the evil inclination upon himself. And Rabbi Ami says: He is calleda habitual btransgressor, as this is the craft of the evil inclination. Today he says toa person: bDo thissin, bandwhen the individual obeys his inclination, bon the following daythe evil inclination bsays to him: Do thatsin, band on the following day he says to him: Goand bworship idols, and he goes and worshipsidols., bSome saythat bRabbi Ami says:With regard to banyone who brings himself intoa state of barousal,they bdo not bring him within the boundary of the Holy One, Blessed be He.The proof is that bit is written here,with regard to O, son of Judah: b“And the thing that he did was evil in the eyes of the Lord,and He slew him also” (Genesis 38:10), band it is written there: “For You are not a God who has pleasure in wickedness; evil shall not sojourn with You.The boasters shall not stand in Your sight…But as for me, in the abundance of Your kindness will I come into Your house; I will bow down toward Your holy Temple in fear of You” (Psalms 5:5–8). This demonstrates that whoever does evil, like O, shall not sojourn with God., bAnd Rabbi Elazar says,with regard to the severity of this transgression: bWhatis the meaning of that bwhich is written:“And when you spread forth your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; even when you make many prayers, I will not hear; byour hands are full of blood”(Isaiah 1:15)? bThese arethose men bwho commit adultery with the hand,by masturbating. Likewise, bthe school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:When it is stated in the Ten Commandments: b“You shall not commit adultery”(Exodus 20:13), this means that bthere shall not be adultery among you, whetheryou masturbate bby handor bwhether withone’s bfoot. /b,§ bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bConverts and those who play with children delaythe coming of bthe Messiah.The Gemara asks: bGrantedwith regard to bconverts,this is bin accordance withthe opinion bof Rabbi Ḥelbo, as Rabbi Ḥelbo says: Converts are as harmful to the Jewish people as a leprous scabon the skin, as they are not proficient in the performance of the mitzvot and born Jews learn from them. bButwith regard to the category of bthose who play with children,to bwhat is itreferring?, bIf we saythat this is referring to bhomosexuality,such men bare liable tobe executed by bstoning,and their behavior is criticized not simply because they delay the Messiah. bRather,one might suggest that this is referring to those who emit semen bby way ofother blimbs,i.e., without engaging in intercourse; if so, bthey areconsidered as though they are bringing a flood, and are therefore bliable tobe punished themselves with ba flood. /b, bRather,the ibaraitameans bthat they marry minor girls who are notyet bcapable of bearing children,consequently emitting semen for naught. bAs Rabbi Yosei said: TheMessiah, bson of David, will not come until all the souls of the body have been finished,i.e., until all souls that are destined to inhabit physical bodies do so. bAs it is stated: “For the spirit that enwraps itself is from Me, and the souls that I have made”(Isaiah 57:16). The verse is interpreted as follows: The spirit, i.e., the souls about which it has been decreed by Me that they are to be born, if they are not born, they enwrap the Messiah and prevent him from coming.,§ The mishna teaches that with regard to any hand that is diligent to examine bodily emissions, bamong men,such a hand bshould be severed. A dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: bDo we learnthis statement as a practical ihalakha /i,i.e., that the court should actually sever his hand, bor do we learnit as a mere bcurse,but not as an actual instruction to punish him in that manner? The Gemara elaborates: bDo we learnit as a practical ihalakhalike thatprohibition against striking another, in which the same expression is used: With regard to anyone who raises his hand upon another, his hand should be severed, and bRav Hunaindeed acted accordingly and bsevered the handof an offender? bOrperhaps bdo we learnit as a mere bcurse? /b,The Gemara suggests: bComeand bhear, as it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Tarfon says:If one’s bhandgoes btohis bpenis, his hand should be severed upon his navel.The Rabbis bsaid to him:If so, in a case where ba thorn was stuck inone’s bbelly, should he not remove it?Rabbi Tarfon bsaid to them:Indeed, he should bnotremove it, and if he does so his hand should be severed. The Rabbis replied: bButif his hand is severed while it is upon his navel, bwon’t his belly be split open?Rabbi Tarfon bsaid to them: It is preferable that the belly ofone who acts in this manner bshould be split open, and he should not descend into the pit of destruction. /b,The Gemara analyzes this discussion: bGranted, if you saythat bwe learnthe statement in the mishna as a practical ihalakha /i, this isthe meaning of that bwhichthe Rabbis bsaid: Butif his hand is severed upon his navel, bwon’t his belly be split open? But if you saythat bwe learnthe statement in the mishna as a mere bcurse, whatis the meaning of the phrase: Won’t bhis belly be split open?The Gemara responds: bRather, whatexplanation is the alternative? That bwe learnthe mishna as stating a practical ihalakha /i?That would not explain the exchange between the Rabbis to Rabbi Tarfon, because is it bnot sufficient thatthe hand be severed bnot upon his navel?In other words, even if the hand must actually be severed, it is not clear why it should be severed while it is upon his navel., bRather, thisis what bRabbi Tarfon is saying:With regard to banyone who inserts his hand below his navel,his hand bshould be severed.The Rabbis bsaid to Rabbi Tarfon:If ba thorn was stuck inone’s bbelly, should he not remove it?Rabbi Tarfon bsaid to them:He should bnot.They responded: bBut won’t his belly be split opendue to the thorn? Rabbi Tarfon bsaid to them: It is preferable that his belly be split open, and he should not descend into the pit of destruction. /b, strongMISHNA: /strong In the case of a woman bwho is deaf [ ihaḥereshet /i], or an imbecile, or blind, or who went insane,and is therefore unable to examine herself reliably, bifsuch women bhave competentfriends, those friends bprepare themby examining them and immersing them in a ritual bath. bAndon that basis the incompetent women bmay partake of iteruma /iafter the sun sets., strongGEMARA: /strong The mishna states that competent women must assist ba deaf woman.The Gemara asks: bLet her examine herself; as it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsaid: There was a deaf woman in our neighborhoodwho was so proficient in these matters that bnot only did she examine herself, butwhen bher friends would seestains similar to blood bandwere unsure whether or not the stains were ritually impure, they would bshow herthe stains.,The Gemara answers: bThere,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is referring btoa woman who bcan speak but cannot hear.It is possible for such a woman to be an expert in examining blood. But bhere,the mishna is dealing bwitha woman bwho can neither speak nor hear,and she is therefore considered incompetent and incapable of examining herself. bAs we learnedin a mishna ( iTerumot1:2): The bdeaf personof bwhom the Sages spoke everywhereis one bwho can neither hear nor speak,i.e., a deaf-mute.,§ The mishna further teaches that competent women must assist ba blindwoman. The Gemara similarly asks: bLet her examine herself and showthe cloth bto her friend. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says:The correct version of the bmishnadoes bnotmention ba blindwoman.,§ The mishna also states that competent women must assist ba woman who went insane.The Gemara asks: With regard to her ability to examine herself, bisn’t thisthe same as ban imbecile,who is already mentioned in the mishna? The Gemara answers: Here, the mishna is referring to a woman bwho went insane due to illness,which is a different category than that of an imbecile.,The Gemara further discusses ihalakhotpertaining to an imbecile. bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to ban imbecile priestwho was ritually impure, competent men deal with his purification: bThey immerse him, andthen benable him to partake of iterumain the evening,like any other priest who was impure. bAndthose taking care of him must bwatch over himto ensure bthat he does not sleepbefore he partakes of iteruma /i, in case he experiences a seminal emission, which would render him impure. If bhe slept,he is once again bimpure,and may not partake of iteruma /i; if he bdid not sleephe is bpure. /b, bRabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, saysthat there is another method of allowing an imbecile priest to partake of iteruma /i: bOne prepares for him a leather pouch,which is wrapped around his penis, and before giving him iterumato partake of one checks this pouch to see if he has emitted semen. The other Sages bsaid to him:It is improper to do this, as ball the more sohe will be prevented from partaking of iteruma /i; this pouch bwarms himand increases the likelihood of a seminal emission. Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, bsaid to them: According to your statement, an imbecilepriest bhas no remedythat will enable him to partake of iteruma /i., bThey said to him: According to our statementthere is a way he can partake of iteruma /i, as stated above: If bhe slept,he is bimpure;if he bdid not sleephe is bpure.But baccording to your statement,that one wraps a pouch around his penis, this is not a reliable method, as bperhaps he will see,i.e., experience the emission of, ba dropof semen as small bas a mustardseed, band it will be absorbed in the pouchand will not be noticed, which would mean that he is eating iterumain a state of ritual impurity.,The Gemara continues to discuss the methods by which an imbecile priest can partake of iteruma /i. It was btaughtin a ibaraitathat the Sages bsaid in the name of Rabbi Elazar: One prepares for him a metal pouch,which is placed on his penis and does not warm it.,In explanation of this statement, bAbaye says: Andwhen this itannaspeaks of metal, he means that the pouch should be made bof copper,which does not absorb liquid, and therefore any drop of semen would be visible. This is bas it is taughtin a mishna ( iPara12:5), with regard to the amount of water of purification that must be sprinkled on an individual who is impure due to impurity imparted by a corpse, that bRabbi Yehuda says: One considers those hyssop stems,with which the waters of purification are sprinkled, bas though they aremade bof copper,which does not absorb any of the water., bRav Pappa says:One can blearn fromthe statement of the Rabbis that a pouch wrapped around one’s penis can warm it enough to cause a seminal emission, that btrousers are prohibitedto be worn, as they too warm the penis, by being placed so they are tight against it. The Gemara asks: bBut isn’t it writtenwith regard to the priestly garments: b“And you shall make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness,from the loins even to the thighs they shall reach” (Exodus 28:42)?,The Gemara explains: bThatgarment, the trousers worn by priests, was different, bas it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThe trousers of priests, to what are they comparable?They are bsimilar to riding trousers [ ipamalanya /i] of horsemen,and this is what they look like: bAbove,they reach bup tothe bloins; below,they go bdown tothe bthighs, and they have straps, and they have no opening,neither bat the back nor at the front. /b, bAbaye says: /b |
|
17. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, 152a, 13b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 13b. ושימש תלמידי חכמים הרבה מפני מה מת בחצי ימיו ולא היה אדם מחזירה דבר פעם אחת נתארחתי אצלה והיתה מסיחה כל אותו מאורע ואמרתי לה בתי בימי נדותך מה הוא אצלך אמרה לי חס ושלום אפי' באצבע קטנה לא נגע [בי] בימי לבוניך מהו אצלך אכל עמי ושתה עמי וישן עמי בקירוב בשר ולא עלתה דעתו על דבר אחר ואמרתי לה ברוך המקום שהרגו שלא נשא פנים לתורה שהרי אמרה תורה (ויקרא יח, יט) ואל אשה בנדת טומאתה לא תקרב כי אתא רב דימי אמר מטה חדא הואי במערבא אמרי אמר רב יצחק בר יוסף סינר מפסיק בינו לבינה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ואלו מן ההלכות שאמרו בעליית חנניה בן חזקיה בן גרון שעלו לבקרו נמנו ורבו ב"ש על ב"ה וי"ח דברים גזרו בו ביום:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big א"ל אביי לרב יוסף אלו תנן או ואלו תנן ואלו תנן הני דאמרן או אלו תנן דבעינן למימר קמן תא שמע אין פולין לאור הנר ואין קורין לאור הנר ואלו מן ההלכות שאמרו בעליית חנניה בן חזקיה בן גרון ש"מ ואלו תנן ש"מ:,ת"ר מי כתב מגילת תענית אמרו חנניה בן חזקיה וסיעתו שהיו מחבבין את הצרות,אמר רשב"ג אף אנו מחבבין את הצרות אבל מה נעשה שאם באנו לכתוב אין אנו מספיקין,ד"א אין שוטה נפגע,ד"א אין בשר המת מרגיש באיזמל איני והאמר רב יצחק קשה רימה למת כמחט בבשר החי שנא' (איוב יד, כב) אך בשרו עליו יכאב ונפשו עליו תאבל אימא אין בשר המת שבחי מרגיש באיזמל,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ברם זכור אותו האיש לטוב וחנניה בן חזקיה שמו שאלמלא הוא נגנז ספר יחזקאל שהיו דבריו סותרין דברי תורה מה עשה העלו לו ג' מאות גרבי שמן וישב בעלייה ודרשן:,ושמנה עשר דבר גזרו: מאי נינהו שמנה עשר דבר דתנן אלו פוסלין את התרומה האוכל אוכל ראשון והאוכל אוכל שני והשותה משקין טמאין והבא ראשו ורובו במים שאובין וטהור שנפלו על ראשו ורובו שלשה לוגין מים שאובין והספר והידים והטבול יום והאוכלים והכלים שנטמאו במשקין,מאן תנא האוכל אוכל ראשון והאוכל אוכל שני מפסל פסלי טמויי | 13b. band served Torah scholars extensively, why did he die at half his days?Where is the length of days promised him in the verse? bNo one would respond to herastonishment bat all.Eliyahu said: bOne time I was a guest in herhouse, band she was relating that entire eventwith regard to the death of her husband. bAnd I said to her: My daughter, during the period of your menstruation, howdid bheact btoward you? She said to me: Heaven forbid, he did not touch me even withhis blittle finger.And I asked her: bIn the days of your whitegarments, after the menstrual flow ended, and you were just counting clean days, bhow did he act toward youthen? She said to me: bHe ate with me, and drank with me, and slept with me with bodily contact and,however, bit did not enter his mind about something else,i.e., conjugal relations. bAnd I said to her: Blessed is the Omnipresent who killed himfor this sin, basyour husband bdid not show respect to the Torah. The Torah said: “And to a woman in the separation of her impurity you should not approach”(Leviticus 18:19), even mere affectionate contact is prohibited. The Gemara relates that bwhen Rav Dimi camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, bhe said:That student did not actually sleep with her with bodily contact; rather, bit wasin bone bedthat they slept without contact. bIn the West,in Eretz Yisrael, bthey saythat bRav Yitzḥak bar Yosef said:When they would sleep together in one bed, she wore ba belt [ isinar /i]from the waist down that bwould separate between him and her.Nevertheless, since the matter is prohibited, that student was punished., strongMISHNA: /strong bAnd these are among the ihalakhotthatthe Sages, bwho went up to visit him, said in the upper story of Ḥaya ben Ḥizkiya ben Garon.The precise nature of these ihalakhotwill be explained in the Gemara. These ihalakhotare considered one unit because they share a distinctive element. Since many Sages were there, among them most of the generation’s Torah scholars in Eretz Yisrael, they engaged in discussion of various ihalakhotof the Torah. It turned out that when the people expressing opinions bwere counted,the students of bBeit Shammai outnumberedthe students of bBeit Hillel, and they issued decreeswith regard to beighteen matters on that dayin accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai., strongGEMARA: /strong With regard to the language that introduces our mishna, bAbaye said to Rav Yosef: Did we learnin our mishna: bThese areamong the ihalakhot /i, bor did we learnin our mishna: bAnd these areamong the ihalakhot /i? The difference is significant. bDid we learn: And these,and if so, the reference would be to bthose that we saidearlier, i.e., that those ihalakhotare included in the decrees? bOr did we learn: These,and if so the reference would be to bthose that we seek to mention below? Comeand bheara solution to this dilemma from the fact that these matters were taught together in a ibaraita /i: bOne may not shakegarments to rid them of lice bby the light of the lamp and one may not read by the light of the lamp; and these are among the ihalakhotthatthe Sages bsaid in the attic of Ḥaya ben Ḥizkiya ben Garon. Conclude from thisthat bwe learned: And thesein the mishna, and the reference is to the decrees mentioned earlier., bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraitawith regard to iMegillat Ta’anit /i, which is a list of days of redemption that were established as celebrations for generations: bWho wrote iMegillat Ta’anit /i?This scroll was written by bḤaya ben Ḥizkiyaben Garon band his faction, who held dearthe memory of bthe troublesthat befell Israel and their salvation from them., bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: We also hold dearthe memory of bthe troublesfrom which Israel was saved, bbut what can we do? If we came to writeall the days of that kind, bwe would not manage todo so, as the troubles that Israel experienced in every generation and era are numerous, and on each day there is an event worthy of commemoration., bAlternatively:Why do we not record the days of salvation from troubles? Just as ba crazy person is not hurt,as he is not aware of the troubles that befall him, so too, we cannot appreciate the magnitude of the calamities that befall us., bAlternatively: The flesh of a dead person does not feel the scalpel[iizemel/b] cutting into him, and we, too, are in such a difficult situation that we no longer feel the pains and troubles. With regard to the last analogy, the Gemara asks: bIs that so? Didn’t Rav Yitzḥak say: Thegnawing of bmaggots is as excruciating to the dead asthe stab of ba needle is to the flesh of the living,as bit is statedwith regard to the dead: b“But his flesh shall hurt him, and his soul mourns over him”(Job 14:22)? Rather, bsayand explain the matter: bThe dead fleshin parts of the body bof the living personthat are insensitive to pain bdoes not feel the scalpelthat cuts him., bRav Yehuda saidthat bRav said: Truly, that man is remembered for the good, and his name is Ḥaya ben Ḥizkiya, as if not for him, the book of Ezekiel would have been suppressed because its contents,in many details, bcontradict matters of Torah.The Sages sought to suppress the book and exclude it from the canon. bWhat did he,Ḥaya ben Ḥizkiya, bdo? They brought him three hundred jugs of oil,for light and food, bupto his upper story, band he satisolated bin the upper storyand did not move from there until bhe homiletically interpretedall of those verses in the book of Ezekiel that seemed contradictory, and resolved the contradictions.,We learned in the mishna that when the Sages went up to the upper story of the house of Ḥaya ben Ḥizkiya ben Garon, they were counted band issued eighteen decreesin accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. The Gemara asks: bWhat are those eighteen matters?The Gemara answers: bAs we learnedin a mishna, a list of the decrees that the Sages issued with regard to items whose level of impurity is such that if they come into contact with iterumathey disqualify it. By means of that contact, the iterumaitself becomes impure, but it does not transmit impurity to other items. bThese disqualify iteruma /i: One who eats foodwith bfirstdegree ritual impurity status acquired as a result of contact with a primary source of ritual impurity, e.g., a creeping animal; band one who eats foodwith bseconddegree ritual impurity status acquired as a result of contact with an item with first degree ritual impurity status; band one who drinks impure liquidsof any degree of impurity; band one whose head and most of hisbody bcome into drawn waterafter he immersed himself in a ritual bath to purify himself; band a ritually pure person that three ilog /iof bdrawn water fell on his head and most of hisbody; band a Torah scroll; and the handsof any person who did not purify himself for the purpose of handling iteruma /i; bandone bwho immersed himself during the day,i.e., one who was impure and immersed himself, and until evening he is not considered completely pure; band foods and vessels that became impure bycoming into contact with impure bliquids.Contact with any of these disqualifies the iteruma /i. The Gemara seeks to clarify these matters.,The Gemara asks first: bWho is the itanna /iwho holds that bone who eats foodwith bfirstdegree ritual impurity status, band one who eats foodwith bseconddegree ritual impurity status, bdisqualifythe iteruma,but |
|
18. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, 62a, 63b, 64b, 109b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 109b. ואמר רבי אבהו אתיא רדיפה רדיפה כתיב הכא (תהלים לד, טו) בקש שלום ורדפהו וכתיב התם (משלי כא, כא) רודף צדקה וחסד ימצא חיים צדקה וכבוד: בהפרת נדרים כרבי נתן דתניא רבי נתן אומר הנודר כאילו בנה במה והמקיימו כאילו הקריב עליה קרבן,ויתרחק משלשה דברים מן המיאונין דלמא גדלה ומיחרטא בה מן הפקדונות בבר מתא דבייתיה כי בייתיה דמי מן הערבון בערבי שלציון,דא"ר יצחק מאי דכתיב (משלי יא, טו) רע ירוע כי ערב זר רעה אחר רעה תבא למקבלי גרים ולערבי שלציון ולתוקע עצמו לדבר הלכה מקבלי גרים כר' חלבו דאמר ר' חלבו קשים גרים לישראל כספחת בעור,ערבי שלציון דעבדי שלוף דוץ תוקע עצמו לדבר הלכה דתניא רבי יוסי אומר כל האומר אין לו תורה אין לו תורה פשיטא אלא כל האומר אין לו אלא תורה אין לו אלא תורה,הא נמי פשיטא אלא דאפילו תורה אין לו מאי טעמא אמר רב פפא אמר קרא (דברים ה, א) ולמדתם ועשיתם כל שישנו בעשיה ישנו בלמידה כל שאינו בעשיה אינו בלמידה,ואיבעית אימא לעולם כדאמריתו מעיקרא כל האומר אין לו אלא תורה אין לו אלא תורה לא צריכא דקא מגמר לאחריני ואזלי ועבדי מהו דתימא אית ליה אגרא לדידיה קמ"ל,ואיבעית אימא תוקע עצמו לדבר הלכה בדיינא דאתי דינא לקמיה וגמר הלכה ומדמי מילתא למילתא ואית ליה רבה ולא אזיל משאיל,דאמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן לעולם יראה דיין עצמו כאילו חרב מונחת לו בין יריכותיו וגיהנם פתוחה לו מתחתיו שנאמר (שיר השירים ג, ז) הנה מטתו שלשלמה ששים גבורים סביב לה מגבורי ישראל וגו' מפחד בלילות מפחד של גיהנם שדומה ללילה:,ר"ג אומר אם מיאנה וכו': בעא מיניה רבי אלעזר מרב מאי טעמא דר"ג משום דקסבר קידושי קטנה מיתלא תלו וכי גדלה גדלי בהדה אע"ג דלא בעל,או דלמא משום דקסבר המקדש אחות יבמה נפטרה יבמה והלכה לה אי בעל אין אי לא בעל לא,אמר ליה היינו טעמא דר"ג משום דקסבר המקדש אחות יבמה נפטרה יבמה והלכה לה אי בעל אין אי לא בעל לא,אמר רב ששת אמינא כי ניים ושכיב רב אמר להא שמעתא דתניא המקדש את הקטנה קידושיה תלויין מאי תלויין לאו כי גדלה גדלי בהדה ואע"ג דלא בעל,אמר ליה רבין בריה דרב נחמן הא מילתא דקטנה מיתלא תליא וקיימא אי בעל אין אי לא בעל לא דאמרה הוא עדיף מינאי ואנא עדיפנא מיניה,וסבר רב אי בעל אין אי לא בעל לא והא איתמר קטנה שלא מיאנה והגדילה ועמדה ונשאת רב אמר אינה צריכה גט משני ושמואל אמר צריכה גט משני | 109b. bAnd Rabbi Abbahu said: It is derivedby verbal analogy from the terms bpursuitand bpursuit. It is written here: “Seek peace and pursue it”(Psalms 34:15) band it is written there: “He who pursues righteousness and mercy finds life, prosperity, and honor”(Proverbs 21:21), indicating that pursuing peace is a mitzva, just as pursuing righteousness and mercy is. As bfor the nullification of vows, this is in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Natan, as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Natan says:With regard to bone who vows, it is as if he builta personal baltarwhen it is prohibited to build an altar outside the Temple. bAnd one who fulfills thatvow, bit is as if he sacrificed an offering on thispersonal altar, thereby doubling his sin. Therefore, it is preferable that he ask a halakhic authority to dissolve the vow., bAnd one should distance himself from three things: From refusals,as bperhaps she will grow up and regrether decision, and it will turn out that she refused a husband who was suitable for her. bFrom depositsentrusted to him bby an inhabitant of the same city, ashe will treat the bailee’s bhome as his home.The owner might enter the bailee’s house and take the deposit without the latter’s knowledge, and subsequently falsely sue him for its return. bFrom serving as a guarantor: This is referring to Sheltziyyon guarantees,in which the lender is entitled to demand payment from the guarantor even before the borrower defaults on the loan., bAs Rabbi Yitzḥak said: What isthe meaning of that bwhich is written: “He who serves as a guarantor for a stranger shall suffer evil;but he who hates those who shake hands is secure” (Proverbs 11:15)? This means: bEvil after evil will befall those who accept converts, and Sheltziyyon guarantors, and one who confounds himself in matters of ihalakha /i.The Gemara clarifies. Evil will befall bthose who accept converts: This is in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Ḥelbo. As Rabbi Ḥelbo says: Converts are difficult for the Jewish people like a leprous sore on the skin. /b,Evil shall befall bSheltziyyon guarantors because they practice: Pull out, thrust in.That is, they pull out the borrower and thrust the guarantor in his place as the one responsible for the loan. Evil befalls bone who confounds himself in matters of ihalakha /i, as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yosei says: Anyone who says he has no Torah, has no Torah.The Gemara asks: Is this not bobvious? Rather, anyone who says he has nothing otherthan bTorah, has nothing otherthan bTorah. /b,The Gemara asks: bBut isn’tthis balso obvious?One does not receive more reward than he deserves. bRather,it means that bhe does not even have Torah. What is the reason? Rav Pappa said: The verse states: That you may learn them and perform them,which is an abridged version of the verse “Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordices that I speak in your ears this day, that you may learn them, and take care to perform them” (Deuteronomy 5:1). The verse teaches that banyone who is engaged in performingmitzvot bis engaged inTorah bstudy, while anyone not engaged in performingmitzvot bis not engaged inTorah bstudy;the Torah study of one who wishes only to immerse himself in his studies without fulfilling the mitzvot is not considered to be fulfilling even the mitzva of Torah study., bAnd if you wish, say: Actually, it is as you initially said: Anyone who says he has nothing otherthan bTorah has nothing otherthan bTorah. Rather,this statement bis necessarywith regard to one who bteaches others and they go and performthe mitzvot. bLest you say that there is reward for him in it,Rabbi Yosei bteaches usthat since that person engaged in Torah study without the intention of observing the mitzvot himself, he does not receive a reward for the mitzvot that he taught others and which they performed., bAnd if you wish, saythat bone who confounds himself in matters of ihalakha /iis referring bto a judge who had a case come before him, and he learnedthe tradition about ba rulingin a similar case, band he likens one matter to the otherin order to reach a conclusion; band he has a teachernearby bbut he does not go and askhim. This is inappropriate, as judges must be very careful not to err in judgment., bAs Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani saidthat bRabbi Yonatan said: A judge should always view himself as if a sword were placed between his thighs,so that if he leans right or left he will be injured, band as if Gehenna was open beneath him, as it is stated: “Behold, it is the bed of Solomon; sixty mighty men are around it, of the mighty men of Israel.They all handle the sword, and are expert in war; every man has his sword upon his thigh, bbecause of dread in the night”(Song of Songs 3:7–8), i.e., bbecause of the dread of Gehenna, which is similar to the night.Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani understands the mighty men of Israel in this verse to refer to the judges who sit in judgment around the bed of Solomon, i.e., in the Temple.,§ It was taught in the mishna that bRabban Gamliel says: Ifthe minor brefusesof her own accord, her refusal is valid. And if not, she should wait until she reaches majority, whereupon her marriage is valid by Torah law, and the widowed adult sister shall be exempt from levirate marriage due to her status as the sister of a wife. bRabbi Elazar raised a dilemma to Rav: What is Rabban Gamliel’s reasoning?Is it bbecause he holds that the betrothal of a minor girl is in suspension and when she reaches majority, the betrothal reaches majority,i.e., is fully realized, bwith her?Accordingly, the betrothal would then be realized beven if he did not engage in intercoursewith her after she reached majority., bOr perhaps, is it because he holds thatwhen a iyavam bbetroths the sister of his iyevama /i,causing the iyevamato be forbidden to him, bthe iyevamais exempt and is releasedeven though her levirate bond came first? bIf he engaged in sexual intercourse withhis betrothed after she reached majority, then byes,the iyevamais exempt as a forbidden relative, because only then does Rabban Gamliel consider the betrothal to be fully realized, but bif he did not engage in intercourse with hisbetrothed, then the iyevamais bnot exemptfrom levirate marriage., bRav said to him: This is Rabban Gamliel’s reasoning: Because he holds thatin the case of bone who betroths the sister of his iyevama /i, the iyevamais exempt and is released,then bif he engaged in sexual intercoursewith the sister after she reached majority then byes,the iyevamais exempt from levirate marriage, but bif he did not engage in intercoursewith the sister after she reached majority, the iyevamais bnotexempt., bRav Sheshet said: I say that Rav said this ihalakhawhen he was dozing and lying down,as it is difficult. bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: In the case of bone who betroths a minor girl, her betrothal is in suspension. Whatdoes it mean that it is bin suspension? Is it not that when she reaches majority, the betrothal reaches majority with herand is fully realized beven if he did not have intercourse with herafter she reached majority?, bRavin, son of Rav Naḥman, said toRav Sheshet: bThis matter,that the betrothal bof a minor girl remains in suspension,should be understood differently. It means that her betrothal is provisional as long as she is still a minor: bIf he has sexual intercoursewith her after she reaches majority, byes,her betrothal is realized; bif he does not engage in intercoursewith her after she reaches majority, her betrothal is bnotrealized. bFor she saysto herself: bHe has an advantage over mein that he can divorce me, band I have an advantage over him,as I can refuse him. Since the marriage of a minor depends upon her ongoing consent, as she can refuse him at any time, it remains provisional until it is consummated when she is an adult.,The Gemara asks: bBut does Ravtruly bthink thatonly bif he has intercourse with herafter she becomes an adult, then byes, herbetrothal is realized, bbut if he did not engage in intercourse with her,then bno,it is not realized? bWasn’t it statedthat with regard to ba minor who had not refusedher husband band reached majority, andthen bwent and marriedanother, bRav said: She does not require a bill of divorce from the secondman, as she is fully married to the first and consequently her second marriage is invalid? bAnd Shmuel said: She does require a bill of divorce from the secondman, as it is uncertain whether her second marriage is valid. |
|
