1. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 34.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 34.15. פֶּן־תִּכְרֹת בְּרִית לְיוֹשֵׁב הָאָרֶץ וְזָנוּ אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶם וְזָבְחוּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם וְקָרָא לְךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ מִזִּבְחוֹ׃ | 34.15. lest thou make a covet with the inhabitants of the land, and they go astray after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and they call thee, and thou eat of their sacrifice;" |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 18.21 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 18.21. וּמִזַּרְעֲךָ לֹא־תִתֵּן לְהַעֲבִיר לַמֹּלֶךְ וְלֹא תְחַלֵּל אֶת־שֵׁם אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲנִי יְהוָה׃ | 18.21. And thou shalt not give any of thy seed to set them apart to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD." |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, 1 Kings, 3.12 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 3.12. הִנֵּה עָשִׂיתִי כִּדְבָרֶיךָ הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לְךָ לֵב חָכָם וְנָבוֹן אֲשֶׁר כָּמוֹךָ לֹא־הָיָה לְפָנֶיךָ וְאַחֲרֶיךָ לֹא־יָקוּם כָּמוֹךָ׃ | 3.12. behold, I have done according to thy word: lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there hath been none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee." |
|
4. Mishnah, Arakhin, 8.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 8.4. A man may proscribe [part] of his flock or of his herd, of his Canaanite slaves or female slaves or of his field of possession. But if he proscribed all of them, they are not considered [validly] proscribed, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said: just as when it comes to the Highest One, one is not permitted to proscribe all of his possessions, how much more so should one be careful with his property." |
|
5. Mishnah, Avodah Zarah, 1.2, 1.6, 2.3, 2.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.2. Rabbi Ishmael says on the three preceding days and the three following days it is forbidden; But the Sages say: before their festivities it is forbidden, but after their festivities it is permitted." 1.6. In a place where it is the custom to sell small domesticated animals to non-Jews, such sale is permitted; but where the custom is not to sell, such sale is not permitted. In no place however is it permitted to sell large animals, calves or foals, whether whole or maimed. Rabbi Judah permits in the case of a maimed one. And Ben Bateira permits in the case of a horse." 2.3. The following things belonging to non-Jews are forbidden [for Jews to use] and the prohibition extends to any benefit that may be derived from them: wine, or a non-Jew’s vinegar that was formerly wine, Hadrianic earthenware, skins pierced at the animal’s heart. Rabban Shimon Gamaliel says: when its tear is round, [the skin] is forbidden, but if oblong it is permitted. Meat which is being brought into a place of idol worship is permitted, but that which is brought out is forbidden, because it is like a sacrifice to the dead, this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiba. With non-Jews going on a pilgrimage [to worship idols] it is forbidden to have any business transactions, but with those returning it is permitted. 2.5. Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Ishmael put this question to Rabbi Joshua as they were walking on the way, “Why have they forbidden the cheese of non-Jews?” He replied, because they curdle it with the rennet of a nevelah (an animal that was not properly slaughtered.” He (Rabbi Ishmael) said: “but is not the rennet of a burnt-offering more strictly forbidden than the rennet of a nevelah? [and yet] it was said that a priest who is not fastidious may suck it out raw.” (Though the Sages disagreed with this opinion, and they said that no benefit may be derived from it, although one who consumed it did not trespass [temple property). Rabbi Joshua responded: “The reason then is because they curdle it with the rennet from calves sacrificed to idols.” He (Rabbi Ishmael) said to him: “if that be so, why do they not extend the prohibition to any benefit derived from it?” He (Rabbi Joshua) diverted him to another matter, saying: “Ishmael, how do you read for your [masc.] love is more delightful than wine” or “your [fem.] love etc. (Song of Songs 1:2” He replied: “your [fem.] love is better …” He said to him: this is not so, as it is proved by its fellow [-verse]: your ointments [masc.] have a goodly fragrance … [therefore do the maidens love you] (Song of Songs 1:3).”" |
|
6. Mishnah, Avot, 3.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 3.2. Rabbi Hanina, the vice-high priest said: pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for the fear it inspires, every man would swallow his neighbor alive. R. Haiah ben Teradion said: if two sit together and there are no words of Torah [spoken] between them, then this is a session of scorners, as it is said: “nor sat he in the seat of the scornful…[rather, the teaching of the Lord is his delight]” (Psalms 1:1); but if two sit together and there are words of Torah [spoken] between them, then the Shekhinah abides among them, as it is said: “then they that feared the Lord spoke one with another; and the Lord hearkened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that feared the Lord and that thought upon His name” (Malachi 3:16). Now I have no [scriptural proof for the presence of the Shekhinah] except [among] two, how [do we know] that even one who sits and studies Torah the Holy One, blessed be He, fixes his reward? As it is said: “though he sit alone and [meditate] in stillness, yet he takes [a reward] unto himself” (Lamentations 3:28)." |
|
7. Mishnah, Bava Qamma, 8.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 8.1. He who wounds his fellow is liable to compensate him on five counts: for injury, for pain, for healing, for loss of income and for indignity. ‘For injury’: How so? If he blinded his fellow’s eye, cut off his hand or broke his foot, [his fellow] is looked upon as if he was a slave to be sold in the market and they assess how much he was worth and how much he is worth. ‘For pain’? If he burned him with a spit or a nail, even though it was on his fingernail, a place where it leaves no wound, they estimate how much money such a man would be willing to take to suffer so. ‘Healing’? If he struck him he is liable to pay the cost of his healing. If sores arise on him on account of the blow, he is liable [for the cost of their healing]. If not on account of the blow, he is not liable. If the wound healed and then opened and healed and then opened, he is liable for the cost of the healing. If it healed completely, he is no longer liable to pay the cost of the healing. ‘Loss of income’: He is looked upon as a watchman of a cucumber field, since he already gave him compensation for the loss of his hand or foot. ‘Indignity’: All is according to the status of the one that inflicts indignity and the status of the one that suffers indignity. If a man inflicted indignity on a naked man, or a blind man, or a sleeping man, he is [still] liable. If a man fell from the roof and caused injury and inflicted indignity, he is liable for the injury but not for the indignity, as it says, “And she puts forth her hand and grabs him by the private parts”, a man is liable only when he intended [to inflict indignity]." |
|
8. Mishnah, Berachot, 5.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 5.1. One should not stand up to say Tefillah except in a reverent state of mind. The pious men of old used to wait an hour before praying in order that they might direct their thoughts to God. Even if a king greets him [while praying] he should not answer him: even if a snake is wound round his heel he should not stop." |
|
9. Mishnah, Eduyot, 9.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
10. Mishnah, Hulin, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.7. If one slaughtered for a non-Jew, the slaughtering is valid. Rabbi Eliezer declares it invalid. Rabbi Eliezer said: even if one slaughtered a beast with the intention that a non-Jew should eat [only] its liver, the slaughtering is invalid, for the thoughts of a non-Jew are usually directed towards idolatry. Rabbi Yose said: is there not a kal vehomer argument? For if in the case of consecrated animals, where a wrongful intention can render invalid, it is established that everything depends solely upon the intention of him who performs the service, how much more in the case of unconsecrated animals, where a wrongful intention cannot render invalid, is it not logical that everything should depend solely upon the intention of him who slaughters!" |
|
11. Mishnah, Ketuvot, 2.9, 4.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.9. A woman was imprisoned by non-Jews: if for the sake of money, she is permitted to her husband, and if in order to take her life, she is forbidden to her husband.Rabbi Zechariah ben Ha-katzav said: “By this temple! Her hand did not move out of my hand from the time that the non-Jews entered Jerusalem until they departed.” A town that has been conquered by siege-troops: all the priests’ wives who are in it are prohibited [from their husbands]. If they have witnesses, even a slave, even a female slave, they are believed. However, no one is believed as to himself.They said to him: “No one may testify concerning himself.”" 4.12. If he did not write for her, “You shall live in my house and be maintained from my estate throughout the duration of your widowhood”, he is nevertheless liable, because [this clause] is a condition laid down by the court. Thus did the men of Jerusalem write. The men of Galilee wrote as did the men of Jerusalem. The men of Judea used to write: “Until the heirs wish to pay you your ketubah”. Therefore if the heirs wish to, they may pay her her ketubah and dismiss her." |
|
12. Mishnah, Kelim, 25.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 25.9. Holy vessels do not have outer and inner sides or a part by which they are held. One may not immerse vessels within one another for sacred use. All vessels become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but they cannot be rendered insusceptible except by a change-effecting act, for an act annuls an earlier act as well as an earlier intention, but an intention annuls neither an earlier act nor an earlier intention." |
|
13. Mishnah, Kilayim, 9.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 9.5. Sellers of clothes may sell [clothes made of kilayim] in accordance with their custom, as long as they do have not the intention in the sun, [to protect themselves] from the sun, or in the rain [to protect themselves] from the rain. The scrupulous hang [such materials or garments] on a stick over their backs." |
|
14. Mishnah, Megillah, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.2. If one reads it with breaks, or naps [in between readings], he has fulfilled his obligation. If he was copying it, explaining it or correcting [a scroll of Esther], if he directed his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If it was written with arsenic, with red chalk, with gum or with sulfate of copper, or on paper or on scratch paper, he has not fulfilled his obligation, unless it is written in Assyrian on parchment and in ink." |
|
15. Mishnah, Menachot, 13.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 13.11. It is said of the olah of cattle, “An offering made by fire of pleasing odor” (Leviticus 1:9); and of the olah of birds, “An offering made by fire of pleasing odor (vs. 17); and of the minhah, “An offering made by fire of pleasing odor” (Leviticus 2:2): to teach you that it is the same whether one offers much or little, so long as one directs one’s heart to heaven. Congratulations! We have finished Tractate Menahot! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. It is no accident that the last mishnah of the tractate finishes with the message that we learned today. After having learned 14 chapters of Zevahim and 13 chapters of Menahot, there is a grave danger that one could learn that all God cares about, and all that is important in Judaism, is bringing the proper sacrifice in the proper manner. Our mishnah teaches that the important issue is the proper intent, that one’s intent in sacrifice should be to worship God. This is not to deny that that the minutiae of rules are extremely important, both in the eyes of the rabbis and surely in the eyes of the priests who served in the Temple while it still stood. Rather, what today’s mishnah seems to say is that the rules are an outer manifestation of the inner kavannah, intent, of the worshipper. Without following the rules, there is no way to bring that intent into the world. But without the intent, the rules are just empty exercises devoid of meaning. I believe that this is a message that is as true of Judaism today as it was in Temple times. Mishnah Menahot has probably been a great challenge for many of you; I know it was for me. So please accept an extra congratulations on completing it. Tomorrow we begin Hullin, the one tractate in all of Seder Kodashim that does not deal with sacrifices or the Temple." |
|
16. Mishnah, Miqvaot, 8.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 8.1. The land of Israel is clean and its mikvaot are clean. The mikvaot of the nations outside the land are valid for those who had a seminal emission even though they have been filled by a pump-beam; Those in the land of Israel: when outside the entrance [to the city] are valid even for menstruants, and those within the entrance [to the city] are valid for those who had a seminal emission but invalid for all [others] who are unclean. Rabbi Eliezer says: those which are near to a city or to a road are unclean because of laundering; but those at a distance are clean." |
|
17. Mishnah, Nedarim, 11.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 11.12. At first they would say that three women must be divorced and receive their ketubah: She who says: “I am defiled to you”; “Heaven is between me and you”; “I have been removed from the Jews.” But subsequently they changed the ruling to prevent her from setting her eye on another and spoiling herself to her husband: She who said, “I am defiled unto you” must bring proof. “Heaven is between me and you” they [shall appease them] by a request. “I have been removed from the Jews” he [the husband] must annul his portion, and she may have relations with him, and she shall be removed from other Jews." |
|
18. Mishnah, Peah, 4.6, 6.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 4.6. A non-Jew who harvested his field and then converted, he is exempt from [leaving] gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and peah. Rabbi Judah makes him liable to leave the forgotten sheaf, since he becomes liable for the forgotten sheaf at the time of their binding." 6.11. One who harvests by night and binds sheaves [by night] or one who is blind [that which he leaves] is subject to the law of the “forgotten.” If he intends to remove large leaves first, then the law of “forgotten” does not apply. If he said: “Behold, I am reaping on the condition that I take afterwards that which I have forgotten,” the law of “forgotten” still applies." |
|
19. Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah, 3.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 3.7. One who blows into a pit or a cistern or a jug, if he heard the sound of the shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if he hears the echo [also], he has not fulfilled his obligation. And also one who was passing behind a synagogue or if his house was next to the synagogue and he heard the sound of the shofar or of the megillah [being read], if he directed his heart (had intention), then he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not he has not fulfilled his obligation. Even though this one heard and this one heard, this one directed his heart and this one did not." |
|
20. Mishnah, Shabbat, 16.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 16.8. If a Gentile lights a lamp, an Israelite may make use of its light. But if [he does it] for the sake of the Israelite, it is forbidden. If he draws water to give his own animal to drink, an Israelite may water his [animal] after him. But if [he draws it] for the Israelite’s sake, it is forbidden. If a Gentile makes a plank to descend [off a ship by] it, an Israelite may descend after him; But if on the Israelite’s account, it is forbidden. It once happened that Rabban Gamaliel and the elders were traveling in a ship, when a Gentile made a plank for getting off, and Rabban Gamaliel, and the elders descended by it." |
|
21. Mishnah, Shevuot, 4.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 4.10. [If] he stood in the synagogue and said, “I adjure you that if you know any testimony for me you should come and bear testimony for me”, they are exempt unless he directs himself to them." |
|
22. Mishnah, Yevamot, 16.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 16.4. If a man fell into water, whether it had [a visible] end or not, his wife is forbidden [to marry again]. Rabbi Meir said: it once happened that a man fell into a large cistern and came out after three days. Rabbi Yose: it once happened that a blind man descended into a cave to immerse and his guide went down after him; and after waiting long enough for their souls to depart, permission was given to their wives to marry again. Another incident occurred at Asia where a man was lowered into the sea, and only his leg was brought up, and the Sages ruled: [if the recovered leg contained the part] above the knee [the man’s wife] may marry again, [but if it contained only the part] below the knee, she may not marry again." |
|
23. Mishnah, Zevahim, 2.2-2.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.2. One who slaughters a sacrifice [intending]: To sprinkle its blood outside [the Temple] or part of its blood outside; To burn its innards or part of its innards outside; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh outside, Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of the fat-tail outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One he slaughters a sacrifice intending]: To sprinkle its blood or part of its blood the next day, To burn its innards or part of its innards on the next day; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh on the next day; Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of its fat-tail on the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth." 2.3. This is the general rule: anyone who slaughters or receives [the blood], or carries [it] or sprinkles [it] [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the sacrifice] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law." |
|
24. Mishnah, Terumot, 3.9, 8.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 3.9. Terumah given by a non-Jew or a Samaritan is terumah and their tithes are tithes and their dedications [to the Temple] are dedications. Rabbi Judah says: the law of the vineyard in the fourth year is not applicable to a non-Jew. But the sages say: it is. The terumah of a non-Jew renders [produce into which it falls] medumma and [one who eats it unwittingly] is obligated [to pay back an extra] fifth. But Rabbi Shimon exempts it." 8.11. Concerning both cases Rabbi Joshua said: This is not the kind of terumah over which I am cautioned lest I defile it, but rather to eat of it and not to defile it. If one was passing from place to place with loaves of terumah in his hand and a Gentile said to him: “Give me one of these and I will make it unclean; for if not, I will defile them all,” let him defile them all, and not give him deliberately one to defile, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But Rabbi Joshua says: he should place one of them on a rock." |
|
25. Mishnah, Shekalim, 1.5, 3.3, 7.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.5. Even though they said, “they don’t exact pledges from women, slaves or minors, [yet] if they paid the shekel it is accepted from them. If a non-Jew or a Samaritan paid the shekel they do not accept it from them. And they do not accept from them the bird-offerings of zavin or bird-offerings of zavot or bird-offerings of women after childbirth, Or sin-offerings or guilt-offerings. But vow-offerings and freewill-offerings they do accept from them. This is the general rule: all offerings which can be made as a vow-offering or a freewill-offering they do accept from them, but offerings which cannot be made as a vow-offering or a freewill-offering they do not accept from them. And thus it is explicitly stated by Ezra, as it is said: “You have nothing to do with us to build a house unto our God” (Ezra 4:3)." 3.3. [The members] of Rabban Gamaliel’s household used to enter [the chamber] with their shekel between their fingers, and throw it in front of him who made the appropriation, while he who made the appropriation purposely pressed it into the basket. He who made the appropriation did not make it until he first said to them: “Should I make the appropriation?” And they say to him three times: “Make the appropriation! Make the appropriation! Make the appropriation!”" 7.6. Rabbi Shimon said: there were seven things that the court decree and that was one of them. [The others were the following:]A non-Jew who sent a burnt-offering from overseas and he sent with it its libation-offerings, they are offered out of his own; But if [he did] not [send its libation-offerings], they should be offered out of public funds. So too [in the case of] a convert who had died and left sacrifices, if he had also left its libation-offerings they are offered out of his own; But if not, they should be offered out of public funds. It was also a condition laid down by the court in the case of a high priest who had died that his minhah should be offered out of public funds. Rabbi Judah says: [it was offered out] of the property of his heirs, And had to be offered of the whole [tenth]." |
|
26. Mishnah, Makhshirin, 3.5-3.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 3.5. If one moistened [produce] with drying clay: Rabbi Shimon says: if there was still in it dripping liquid, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if there was not, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one sprinkled his threshing-floor with water, he need not be concerned lest wheat be put there and it become moist. If one gathered grass with the dew still on it in order to moisten wheat with it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, But if his intention was for this purpose, it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one carried wheat to be milled and rain came down upon it and he was glad of it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah said: one cannot help being glad of it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he stopped [on his way]." 3.6. If his olives were put on the roof and rain came down upon them and he was glad of it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah said: one cannot help being glad of it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he plugged up the gutter or if he shook the water [onto the olives]." 3.7. If donkey-drivers were crossing a river and their sacks [filled with produce] fell into the water and they were happy about it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah says: one cannot help being happy about it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if they turned over [the sacks]. If one's feet were full of clay, similarly, the feet of his beast, and he crossed a river and he was happy about it, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah says: one cannot help being happy about it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he stopped and rinsed off his [feet] or those of his [domesticated] beast. But with an unclean [beast] it always causes susceptibility to uncleanness." 3.8. If one lowered wheels or the gear of oxen into water at the time of the hot east wind in order that they might become tightened, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one took down a beast to drink, the water which came up on its mouth comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but that which came up on its feet does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If he intended that its feet should be washed, even the water that came up on its feet comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. At the time of footsoreness or of threshing it always causes susceptibility to uncleanness. If a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor took it down, even though his intention was that its feet should be washed, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because with these the act alone counts, but not the intention." |
|
27. New Testament, Acts, 10.22, 10.36 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 10.22. They said, "Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous man and one who fears God, and well spoken of by all the nation of the Jews, was directed by a holy angel to invite you to his house, and to listen to what you say. 10.36. The word which he sent to the children of Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ -- he is Lord of all -- |
|
28. Tosefta, Avodah Zarah, 4.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
29. Tosefta, Berachot, 3.18 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 3.18. [If a person] was riding on top of a donkey [and it came time to pray Shmoneh Esreh], if there is someone there who can hold his donkey, he should get down and [only then] pray [Shemoneh Esreh], and if not [then] he [should] sit in his place [on the donkey] and pray [Shmoneh Esreh that way]. Rebbi says, “Either way he should pray [Shmoneh Esreh while sitting] in his place [on top of the donkey], as long as he will be paying attention.”" |
|
30. Tosefta, Kiddushin, 5.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 5.4. A daughter of a male disqualified priest (halal) is disqualified from [marrying into] the priesthood forever. Rabbi (sic!, based on Ehrfurt manuscript) says: A daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male halal and disqualified from the priesthood. An isah is disqualified from the priesthood (see previous halakhah); if she [the isah] got married to a Yisrael, her daughter is fit [to marry into] the priesthood. A captive woman is disqualified from the priesthood; if she got married to a Yisrael, her daughter is fit for the priesthood. A freed handmaid is disqualified from the priesthood; if she is married to a Yisrael, her daughter is fit for the priesthood. It turns out that Yisrael is a mikveh for priests [since the daughter of a pesulah with a male Yisrael is no longer pesulah] and a handmaid is a mikveh for all disqualifications." |
|
31. Tosefta, Nedarim, 7.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
32. Tosefta, Rosh Hashanah, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
33. Tosefta, Yevamot, 14.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
34. Tosefta, Shekalim, 1.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
35. Mishna, Challah, 4.7 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 4.7. An Israelite who was a tet of a non-Jew in Syria: Rabbi Eliezer makes their produce liable to tithes and to [the law of] the sabbatical year; But Rabban Gamaliel makes [it] exempt. Rabban Gamaliel says: [one is to give] two hallah-portions in Syria; But Rabbi Eliezer says: [only] one hallah-portion. They adopted the lenient ruling of Rabban Gamaliel and the lenient ruling of Rabbi Eliezer. Eventually they went back and acted in accordance with Rabban Gamaliel in both respects." |
|
36. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, 122a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 122a. תלתא ריגלי אמר לה רב אדא בר אהבה זיל לקמיה דרב יוסף דחריף סכינא,אזלה קמיה פשט מהא מתניתין עובד כוכבים שהיה מוכר פירות בשוק ואמר פירות הללו של ערלה הן של עזיקה הן של נטע רבעי הן לא אמר כלום לא נתכוון אלא להשביח מקחו,אבא יודן איש ציידן אמר מעשה בישראל ועובד כוכבים שהלכו בדרך ובא עובד כוכבים ואמר חבל על יהודי שהיה עמי בדרך שמת בדרך וקברתיו והשיאו אשתו,ושוב מעשה בקולר של בני אדם שהיו מהלכין לאנטוכיא ובא עובד כוכבים אחד ואמר חבל על קולר של בני אדם שמתו וקברתים והשיאו את נשותיהם ושוב מעשה בששים בני אדם שהיו מהלכין לכרכום ביתר ובא עובד כוכבים ואמר חבל על ששים בני אדם שהיו מהלכין בדרך ביתר שמתו וקברתים והשיאו את נשותיהם:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מעידין לאור הנר ולאור הלבנה ומשיאין על פי בת קול מעשה באחד שעמד על ראש ההר ואמר איש פלוני בן פלוני ממקום פלוני מת הלכו ולא מצאו שם אדם והשיאו את אשתו,ושוב מעשה בצלמון באחד שאמר אני איש פלוני בן איש פלוני נשכני נחש והרי אני מת והלכו ולא הכירוהו והלכו והשיאו את אשתו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רבה בר שמואל תנא בית שמאי אומרים אין משיאין על פי בת קול וב"ה אומרים משיאין על פי בת קול מאי קמ"ל מתני׳ היא הא קמ"ל דאי משתכחת סתמא דאין משיאין בית שמאי היא:,והלכו ולא מצאו: ודלמא שד הוה א"ר יהודה אמר רב שראו לו דמות אדם אינהו נמי דמו דחזו ליה בבואה,ואינהו נמי אית להו בבואה דחזו ליה בבואה דבבואה ודלמא לדידהו אית להו בבואה דבבואה אמר רבי חנינא אמר לי יונתן שידא בבואה אית להו בבואה דבבואה לית להו,ודלמא צרה הואי תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל בשעת הסכנה כותבין ונותנין אף על פי שאין מכירין:, big strongמתני' /strong /big אמר רבי עקיבא כשירדתי לנהרדעא לעבר השנה מצאתי נחמיה איש בית דלי אמר לי שמעתי שאין משיאין את האשה בארץ ישראל על פי עד אחד אלא יהודה בן בבא ונומיתי לו כן הדברים אמר לי אמור להם משמי אתם יודעים שהמדינה משובשת בגייסות מקובלני מר"ג הזקן שמשיאין את האשה על פי עד אחד,וכשבאתי והרציתי הדברים לפני ר"ג שמח לדברי ואמר מצאנו חבר לרבי יהודה בן בבא,מתוך הדבר נזכר ר"ג שנהרגו הרוגים בתל ארזא והשיא ר"ג נשותיהן על פי עד אחד והוחזקו להיות משיאין עד מפי עד מפי עבד מפי אשה מפי שפחה ר' אליעזר ורבי יהושע אומרים אין משיאין את האשה על פי עד אחד ר' עקיבא אומר לא ע"פ אשה ולא על פי עבד ולא על פי שפחה ולא על פי קרובים:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big וסבר רבי עקיבא ע"פ אשה לא והתניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משום רבי עקיבא אשה נאמנת להביא גיטה מק"ו ומה נשים שאמרו חכמים אין נאמנות לומר מת בעלה נאמנות להביא גיטיהן זו שנאמנת לומר מת בעלה אינו דין שנאמנת להביא גיטה,נשים שאמרו חכמים הוא דלא מהימני אשה בעלמא מהימנא לא קשיא כאן קודם שהחזיקו כאן לאחר שהחזיקו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אמרו לו מעשה בבני לוי שהלכו לצוער עיר התמרים וחלה אחד מהם והביאוהו בפונדק ובחזרתם אמרו לפונדקית איה חברנו נומית להם מת וקברתיו והשיאו את אשתו ולא תהא כהנת כפונדקית,אמר להו לכשתהא כפונדקית נאמנת הפונדקית הוציאה להם מקלו ותרמילו וספר תורה שהיה בידו: | 122a. for bthreepilgrim bFestivals,on which the Sages gather together to study, but he could not resolve this uncertainty on any of those occasions. bRav Adda bar Ahava said to her: Go before Rav Yosef, whose knife is sharp,i.e., he has keen insight into halakhic matters, and ask him to decide your case., bShe went before himand bhe resolvedthe case bbased on this ibaraita /i:With regard to ba gentile who was selling fruit at the market and said: These fruits are from the first three years of the tree’s growth [ iorla /i];or bthey are from Azeka,i.e., land tilled on the Sabbatical Year, the produce of which it is prohibited to eat; or they bare fourth-year produce,which it is prohibited to eat outside of Jerusalem, bhehas bsaid nothingof consequence. His statement is not deemed credible, since it is possible that bhe intended only to enhancethe reputation of bhis goods,as he thought that his produce would fetch a higher price if he described it in that fashion. Rav Yosef derived from this ibaraitathat in the case of the missing Jew, the gentile’s statement could not be relied upon, as he may have stated it only to promote his own agenda., bAbba Yudan of Sidon said: An incidentoccurred binvolving a Jew and a gentile who traveled on the road, andlater bthe gentile came and said: Alas for the Jew who was with me on the road, for he died, and I buried him. Andthe Sages relied upon this statement and ballowed his wife to marry. /b, bAndthere was banother incident involvinga group of bpeople whohad been taken prisoner, each of whom was shackled bwith a collar [ ikolar /i]around his neck, and they bwere walking to Antokhya. Andsome time later ba certain gentile came and said: Alas for thegroup of bcollared people, for they died, and I buried them. Andthe Sages ballowed their wives to marry. Andthere was yet banother incident involving sixty people who were walking to the siege [ ikarkom /i] of Beitar, andlater ba gentile came and said: Alas for those sixty people who were walking on the roadto bBeitar, for they died, and I buried them. Andthe Sages ballowed their wives to marry. /b, strongMISHNA: /strong Witnesses bmay testifythat an individual died even if they saw his corpse only bby candlelight or by moonlight. Andthe court bmay allowa woman bto marry based onthe statement of ba disembodied voiceproclaiming that her husband died. There was ban incident with regard to a certainindividual bwho stood at the top of a mountain and said: So-and-so, son of so-and-so, from such and such a place died. They went and found no person there, buteven so btheyrelied upon the statement and ballowed the wife ofthe individual declared dead bto marry. /b,And there was banother incident in Tzalmon,a city in the Galilee, bwhere a particularman bsaid: I am so-and-so, son of so-and-so. A snake bit me and I am dying. And they wentand found his corpse bbut could not recognize him,yet bthey wentahead band allowed his wife to marrybased on what he said in his dying moments., strongGEMARA: /strong bRabba bar Shmuel said:It was btaughtin a ibaraitathat bBeit Shammai say:The judges of a court bmay not allowa woman bto marry based onthe statement of ba disembodied voice;they require actual testimony. bAnd Beit Hillel say:The judges bmay allowa woman bto marry based onthe statement of ba disembodied voice.The Gemara asks: bWhat isRabba bar Shmuel bteaching ushere? bThis issimply bour mishna,since the decisive ruling follows Beit Hillel’s opinion. The Gemara answers that he bteaches us this: That if an anonymousmishna or ibaraita bis foundthat states bthatthe judges bmay not allowa woman bto marryunder such circumstances, bit issimply the opinion of bBeit Shammai,and is not the accepted ruling.,With regard to the incident where btheyheard a disembodied voice but bwent and found noperson there, which is mentioned in the mishna, the Gemara asks: bPerhaps it was a demon. Rav Yehuda saidthat bRav said: They saw that he had the form of a person,so they knew it was not a demon. The Gemara asks: bThey,i.e., demons, balso appear similarto people. The Gemara answers: bThey saw that he had a shadow. /b,The Gemara asks: bBut they also have a shadow.The Gemara answers: It was a case bwhere they saw that he had a shadow of a shadow.The Gemara asks: bBut perhaps they also have a shadow of a shadow? Rabbi Ḥanina said: Yonatan the demonexpert bsaid to me: They have a shadow,but bthey do not have a shadow of a shadow. /b,The Gemara asks: bAnd perhaps it was a rivalwife, or some other enemy of that man’s wife, who cried out that her husband was dead and then fled, in order to trick her into disgracing herself by remarrying while her husband was still alive? The Gemara answers: bThe school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: During a period of danger, one may write and givea bill of divorce to a woman, balthoughthe witnesses bdo not knowthe husband, because we do not raise many suspicions at such a time. This case was similar to a period of danger in that they did not find witnesses that her husband died, and therefore the court did not require further clarification., strongMISHNA: /strong bRabbi Akiva said: When I descended to Neharde’a,in Babylonia, bto intercalate the year, I foundthe Sage bNeḥemya of Beit D’li. He said to me: I heard thatthe Sages bin Eretz Yisrael do not allow a woman to remarry based onthe testimony of ba single witness, except for Yehuda ben Bava. And I told him: That is so. He said to me: Tellthe Sages bin my name: You know that the country is confounded byarmy btroops,and I cannot come myself. I declare that bI received this tradition from Rabban Gamliel the Elder, thatthe court bmay allow a woman to remarry based onthe testimony of ba single witness. /b,Rabbi Akiva continues: bAnd when I came and presented the matter before Rabban Gamlielof Yavne, the grandson of Rabban Gamliel the Elder, bhe rejoiced at my words and said: We have found a companionwho agrees bwith Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava,and since his lenient opinion is no longer the opinion of a lone Sage, it may now be relied upon., bAs a result of this event, Rabban Gamliel remembered that people were murdered in Tel Arza, and Rabban Gamlielthen ballowed their wives to remarry based ononly bone witness. Andfrom then onward bthey establishedas protocol bto allowa woman bto remarry based on hearsay testimony, a slave’s testimony, a woman’s testimony,or ba maidservant’s testimony. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua say:The court bmay not allow a woman to remarry based ononly bone witness. Rabbi Akiva says:The court may bnotallow a woman to marry bbased onthe testimony of ba woman, nor based onthe testimony of ba slave, nor based onthe testimony of ba maidservant, nor based onthe testimony of bclose relatives. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: bDoes Rabbi Akiva holdthat the court may bnotallow a woman to remarry bbased onanother bwoman’s testimony? But isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: A woman is trusted to bring herown bbill of divorceand affirm in court that it was written and signed properly, and that trust is bbased onthe following ia fortiori /iinference: bIf women,e.g., a rival wife, bwhom the Sages said are not deemed credible to saythat another woman’s bhusband died, arenevertheless btrusted to bringtheir bbills of divorce,then bis it not logical that thiswoman herself, bwho is deemed credible to saythat bher husband died, should be trusted to bring herown bbill of divorce? /b,This statement indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva, bit isspecifically bthe women who the Sages mentioned who are not deemed credible. In general, a woman is deemed credible,and another woman is permitted to remarry on the basis of her testimony. The Gemara answers: bThisis bnot difficult. Here,where Rabbi Akiva disqualified the testimony of a woman, it was bbefore they establishedthe protocol that a woman may be permitted to remarry on the basis of another woman’s testimony. bThere,where he allowed it, it was bafter they establishedthat protocol., strongMISHNA: /strong bThey said toRabbi Akiva: Do we not rely upon a woman’s testimony? After all, ban incident occurred involving Levites who traveled to Tzoar, the city of date palms. And one of them became ill, and they brought him to an inn [ ipundak /i]to rest, while they continued on their travels. bUpon their returnto the inn bthey said to the innkeeper,who was a woman: bWhere is our friend? She told them: He died, and I buried him. Andbased on her testimony bthey allowed his wife to remarry. And shouldn’t a priestess,or any Jewish woman who testifies that a man died, bbedeemed as credible bas an innkeeper? /b,Rabbi Akiva bsaid to them: Whena woman bwill be asconvincing as bthe innkeeper,then bshe shallalso bbe deemed credible. The innkeeper brought them his staff, and his bag, and the Torah scroll that was in his possession,thereby providing supporting evidence to reinforce her claim. |
|
37. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan A, 26 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE)
|
