1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 18.4 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 18.4. רֵאשִׁית דְּגָנְךָ תִּירֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ וְרֵאשִׁית גֵּז צֹאנְךָ תִּתֶּן־לּוֹ׃ | 18.4. The first-fruits of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the first of the fleece of thy sheep, shalt thou give him." |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 32.8, 32.28 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 32.8. סָרוּ מַהֵר מִן־הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִם עָשׂוּ לָהֶם עֵגֶל מַסֵּכָה וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲווּ־לוֹ וַיִּזְבְּחוּ־לוֹ וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֵלֶּה אֱלֹהֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלוּךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם׃ 32.28. וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְנֵי־לֵוִי כִּדְבַר מֹשֶׁה וַיִּפֹּל מִן־הָעָם בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא כִּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אַלְפֵי אִישׁ׃ | 32.8. they have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them; they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed unto it, and said: This is thy god, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.’" 32.28. And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses; and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men." |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 26.5 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 26.5. עֵקֶב אֲשֶׁר־שָׁמַע אַבְרָהָם בְּקֹלִי וַיִּשְׁמֹר מִשְׁמַרְתִּי מִצְוֺתַי חֻקּוֹתַי וְתוֹרֹתָי׃ | 26.5. because that Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.’" |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 22.1-22.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 22.1. וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃ 22.1. וְכָל־זָר לֹא־יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ תּוֹשַׁב כֹּהֵן וְשָׂכִיר לֹא־יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ׃ 22.2. דַּבֵּר אֶל־אַהֲרֹן וְאֶל־בָּנָיו וְיִנָּזְרוּ מִקָּדְשֵׁי בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת־שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי אֲשֶׁר הֵם מַקְדִּשִׁים לִי אֲנִי יְהוָה׃ 22.2. כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ מוּם לֹא תַקְרִיבוּ כִּי־לֹא לְרָצוֹן יִהְיֶה לָכֶם׃ 22.3. בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יֵאָכֵל לֹא־תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד־בֹּקֶר אֲנִי יְהוָה׃ 22.3. אֱמֹר אֲלֵהֶם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם כָּל־אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרַב מִכָּל־זַרְעֲכֶם אֶל־הַקֳּדָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר יַקְדִּישׁוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לַיהוָה וְטֻמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִלְּפָנַי אֲנִי יְהוָה׃ 22.4. אִישׁ אִישׁ מִזֶּרַע אַהֲרֹן וְהוּא צָרוּעַ אוֹ זָב בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא יֹאכַל עַד אֲשֶׁר יִטְהָר וְהַנֹּגֵעַ בְּכָל־טְמֵא־נֶפֶשׁ אוֹ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־תֵּצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת־זָרַע׃ 22.5. אוֹ־אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכָל־שֶׁרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יִטְמָא־לוֹ אוֹ בְאָדָם אֲשֶׁר יִטְמָא־לוֹ לְכֹל טֻמְאָתוֹ׃ 22.6. נֶפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תִּגַּע־בּוֹ וְטָמְאָה עַד־הָעָרֶב וְלֹא יֹאכַל מִן־הַקֳּדָשִׁים כִּי אִם־רָחַץ בְּשָׂרוֹ בַּמָּיִם׃ 22.7. וּבָא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְטָהֵר וְאַחַר יֹאכַל מִן־הַקֳּדָשִׁים כִּי לַחְמוֹ הוּא׃ 22.8. נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה לֹא יֹאכַל לְטָמְאָה־בָהּ אֲנִי יְהוָה׃ 22.9. וְשָׁמְרוּ אֶת־מִשְׁמַרְתִּי וְלֹא־יִשְׂאוּ עָלָיו חֵטְא וּמֵתוּ בוֹ כִּי יְחַלְּלֻהוּ אֲנִי יְהוָה מְקַדְּשָׁם׃ 22.11. וְכֹהֵן כִּי־יִקְנֶה נֶפֶשׁ קִנְיַן כַּסְפּוֹ הוּא יֹאכַל בּוֹ וִילִיד בֵּיתוֹ הֵם יֹאכְלוּ בְלַחְמוֹ׃ 22.12. וּבַת־כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר הִוא בִּתְרוּמַת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא תֹאכֵל׃ 22.13. וּבַת־כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וְזֶרַע אֵין לָהּ וְשָׁבָה אֶל־בֵּית אָבִיהָ כִּנְעוּרֶיהָ מִלֶּחֶם אָבִיהָ תֹּאכֵל וְכָל־זָר לֹא־יֹאכַל בּוֹ׃ 22.14. וְאִישׁ כִּי־יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה וְיָסַף חֲמִשִׁיתוֹ עָלָיו וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן אֶת־הַקֹּדֶשׁ׃ 22.15. וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת־קָדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת אֲשֶׁר־יָרִימוּ לַיהוָה׃ 22.16. וְהִשִּׂיאוּ אוֹתָם עֲוֺן אַשְׁמָה בְּאָכְלָם אֶת־קָדְשֵׁיהֶם כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָה מְקַדְּשָׁם׃ | 22.1. And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:" 22.2. Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, which they hallow unto Me, and that they profane not My holy name: I am the LORD." 22.3. Say unto them: Whosoever he be of all your seed throughout your generations, that approacheth unto the holy things, which the children of Israel hallow unto the LORD, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me: I am the LORD." 22.4. What man soever of the seed of Aaron is a leper, or hath an issue, he shall not eat of the holy things, until he be clean. And whoso toucheth any one that is unclean by the dead; or from whomsoever the flow of seed goeth out;" 22.5. or whosoever toucheth any swarming thing, whereby he may be made unclean, or a man of whom he may take uncleanness, whatsoever uncleanness he hath;" 22.6. the soul that toucheth any such shall be unclean until the even, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he bathe his flesh in water." 22.7. And when the sun is down, he shall be clean; and afterward he may eat of the holy things, because it is his bread." 22.8. That which dieth of itself, or is torn of beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith: I am the LORD." 22.9. They shall therefore keep My charge, lest they bear sin for it, and die therein, if they profane it: I am the LORD who sanctify them." 22.10. There shall no acommon man eat of the holy thing; a tet of a priest, or a hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing." 22.11. But if a priest buy any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it; and such as are born in his house, they may eat of his bread." 22.12. And if a priest’s daughter be married unto a common man, she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the holy things." 22.13. But if a priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father’s house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s bread; but there shall no common man" 22.14. And if a man eat of the holy thing through error, then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it, and shall give unto the priest the holy thing." 22.15. And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they set apart unto the LORD;" 22.16. and so cause them to bear the iniquity that bringeth guilt, when they eat their holy things; for I am the LORD who sanctify them." |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 18.9-18.11, 19.15-19.16, 19.18 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 18.9. זֶה־יִהְיֶה לְךָ מִקֹּדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים מִן־הָאֵשׁ כָּל־קָרְבָּנָם לְכָל־מִנְחָתָם וּלְכָל־חַטָּאתָם וּלְכָל־אֲשָׁמָם אֲשֶׁר יָשִׁיבוּ לִי קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים לְךָ הוּא וּלְבָנֶיךָ׃ 18.11. וְזֶה־לְּךָ תְּרוּמַת מַתָּנָם לְכָל־תְּנוּפֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְךָ נְתַתִּים וּלְבָנֶיךָ וְלִבְנֹתֶיךָ אִתְּךָ לְחָק־עוֹלָם כָּל־טָהוֹר בְּבֵיתְךָ יֹאכַל אֹתוֹ׃ 19.15. וְכֹל כְּלִי פָתוּחַ אֲשֶׁר אֵין־צָמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו טָמֵא הוּא׃ 19.16. וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יִגַּע עַל־פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה בַּחֲלַל־חֶרֶב אוֹ בְמֵת אוֹ־בְעֶצֶם אָדָם אוֹ בְקָבֶר יִטְמָא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים׃ 19.18. וְלָקַח אֵזוֹב וְטָבַל בַּמַּיִם אִישׁ טָהוֹר וְהִזָּה עַל־הָאֹהֶל וְעַל־כָּל־הַכֵּלִים וְעַל־הַנְּפָשׁוֹת אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ־שָׁם וְעַל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בַּעֶצֶם אוֹ בֶחָלָל אוֹ בַמֵּת אוֹ בַקָּבֶר׃ | 18.9. This shall be thine of the most holy things, reserved from the fire: every offering of theirs, even every meal-offering of theirs, and every sin-offering of theirs, and every guilt-offering of theirs, which they may render unto Me, shall be most holy for thee and for thy sons." 18.10. In a most holy place shalt thou eat thereof; every male may eat thereof; it shall be holy unto thee." 18.11. And this is thine: the heave-offering of their gift, even all the wave-offerings of the children of Israel; I have given them unto thee, and to thy sons and to thy daughters with thee, as a due for ever; every one that is clean in thy house may eat thereof." 19.15. And every open vessel, which hath no covering close-bound upon it, is unclean." 19.16. And whosoever in the open field toucheth one that is slain with a sword, or one that dieth of himself, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days." 19.18. And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched the bone, or the slain, or the dead, or the grave." |
|
6. Anon., Jubilees, 16.28-16.29, 23.16 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
| 16.28. and he was the first to celebrate the feast of tabernacles on the earth. brAnd during these seven days he brought each day to the altar a burnt-offering to the Lord 16.29. two oxen, two rams, seven sheep, one he-goat, for a sin-offering, that he might atone thereby for himself and for his seed. 23.16. and behold, he did not complete four jubilees in his life, when he had grown old by reason of the wickedness and was full of his days. |
|
7. Philo of Alexandria, On The Life of Abraham, 275 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
| 275. Thus much is sufficient to say on this subject. But God, adding to the multitude and magnitude of the praises of the wise man one single thing as a crowning point, says that "this man fulfilled the divine law, and all the commandments of God," not having been taught to do so by written books, but in accordance with the unwritten law of his nature, being anxious to obey all healthful and salutary impulses. And what is the duty of man except most firmly to believe those things which God asserts? |
|
8. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 2.409 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 2.409. At the same time Eleazar, the son of Aias the high priest, a very bold youth, who was at that time governor of the temple, persuaded those that officiated in the Divine service to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner. And this was the true beginning of our war with the Romans; for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar on this account; |
|
9. Mishnah, Avodah Zarah, 2.3-2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 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. 2.4. Skin-bottles or flasks of non-Jews in which wine of a Jew is kept are forbidden and the prohibition extends to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say that the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit. Grape seeds and grape-skins of non-Jews are forbidden, the prohibition extending to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, when fresh they are forbidden but when dry they are permitted. Fish brine and Bithynian cheese of the non-Jews are forbidden, the prohibition extending to any benefit that may be derived from them, this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say that the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit." 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).”" 2.6. The following articles of non-Jews are prohibited but the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit from them: 1. milk which a non-Jew milked without an israelite watching him, 2. their bread and oil (Rabbi and his court permitted the oil) 3. stewed and pickled things into which they are accustomed to put wine or vinegar, 4. pickled herring which had been minced, 5. brine in which there is no kalbith-fish floating, 6. helek, 7. pieces of asa foetida 8. and sal-conditum. Behold these are prohibited but the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit from them." 2.7. The following are permitted to be eaten [by an israelite]:milk which a non-Jew milked with a Jew watching him; honey, grape-clusters even though these secrete moisture the law which renders food susceptible to defilement by a liquid does not apply to them preserves into which they are not accustomed to put wine or vinegar, pickled herring which has not been minced, brine containing fish, a leaf of asafoetida, and rolled olive-cakes. Rabbi Yose says: those olives having pits ready to drop out are prohibited. Locusts which come out of [a shopkeeper’s] basket are prohibited, but if from storage they are permitted. The same rule applies to terumah." |
|
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, 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!" |
|
13. Mishnah, Kelim, 1.1-1.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.1. The fathers of impurity are a: sheretz, semen, [an Israelite] who has contracted corpse impurity, a metzora during the days of his counting, and the waters of purification whose quantity is less than the minimum needed for sprinkling. Behold, these convey impurity to people and vessels by contact and to earthenware by presence within their airspace, But they do not convey impurity by being carried." 1.2. Above them are nevelah and waters of purification whose quantity is sufficient to be sprinkled, for these convey impurity to a person [even] by being carried so that he in turn conveys impurity to clothing by contact. Clothing, however, is free from impurity where there was contact alone." 1.3. Above them is one who had intercourse with a menstruant, for he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding]. Above them is the issue of a zav, his spit, his semen and his urine, and the blood of a menstruant, for they convey impurity both by contact and by carrying. Above them is an object on which one can ride, for it conveys impurity even when it lies under a heavy stone. Above the object on which one can ride is that on which one can lie, for contact is the same as its carrying. Above the object on which one can lie is the zav, for a zav conveys impurity to the object on which he lies, while the object on which he lies cannot convey the same impurity to that upon which it lies." |
|
14. Mishnah, Miqvaot, 2.10, 4.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.10. A mikveh which contains forty seahs of water and mud [combined]: Rabbi Eliezer says: one may immerse objects in the water but one may not immerse them in the mud. But Rabbi Joshua says: in the water and also in the mud. In what kind of mud may objects be immersed? Mud over which water floats. If the water was on one side only, Rabbi Joshua agrees that objects may be immersed in the water but may not be immersed in the mud. of what kind of mud have they spoken? Mud into which a reed will sink of itself, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: [mud] in which a measuring-rod will not stand upright. Abba Elazar ben Dulai says: [mud] into which a plummet will sink. Rabbi Eliezer says: such as will go down into the mouth of a jar. Rabbi Shimon says: such as will enter into the tube of a water- skin. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: such as can be measured in a log measure." 4.1. If one put vessels under a water-spout, whether they be large vessels or small vessels or even vessels of dung, vessels of stone or earthen vessels, they make the mikveh invalid. It is all alike whether they were put there [purposely] or were [merely] forgotten, the words of Bet Shammai. But Bet Hillel declare it clean in the case of one who forgets. Rabbi Meir said: they voted and Bet Shammai had a majority over Bet Hillel. Yet they agree in the case of one who forgets [and leaves vessels] in a courtyard that the mikveh remains clean. Rabbi Yose said: the controversy still remains as it was." |
|
15. Mishnah, Negaim, 13.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 13.12. If he enters a synagogue, a partition ten handbreadths high and four cubits wide must be made for him. He should enter first and come out last. Any vessel that affords protection by having a tightly fitting cover in the tent of a corpse affords protection by a tightly fitting cover in the house of one afflicted by a nega, And whatsoever affords protection when covered in the tent of a corpse affords protection when covered in the house of one afflicted with a nega, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: any vessel that affords protection by having a tightly fitting cover in the tent of a corpse affords protection when covered in the house of one afflicted with a nega; and whatsoever affords protection when covered in the tent of a corpse remains clean even when uncovered in a leprous house." |
|
16. Mishnah, Oholot, 1.1-1.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.1. Two are defiled through a corpse, one being defiled with seven days' defilement and one being defiled with a defilement lasting until the evening. Three are defiled through a corpse, two being defiled with seven days’ defilement and one with a defilement lasting until the evening. Four are defiled through a corpse, three being defiled with seven days’ defilement and one with a defilement lasting until the evening. What [is the case of] two? A person who touches a corpse is defiled with seven days’ defilement and a person who touches him is defiled with a defilement lasting until the evening." 1.2. What [is the case of] three? Vessels touching a corpse and [other] vessels [touching these] vessels are defiled with seven days’ defilement. The third: whether a person or vessels, is defiled with a defilement lasting until the evening." 1.3. What is the case of four? Vessels touching a corpse, a person [touching these] vessels, and [other] vessels [touching this] person, are defiled with seven days' defilement. The fourth, whether a person or vessels, is defiled with a defilement [lasting until the] evening. Rabbi Akiva said: I have a fifth, [if] a peg was fixed in a tent, the tent, the peg, a person touching the peg and vessels [touching] the person are defiled with seven days' defilement. The fifth, whether a person or vessels, is defiled with a defilement [lasting until the] evening. They said to him: the tent does not count." |
|
17. Mishnah, Shabbat, 1.4-1.7, 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." 1.5. Beth Shammai says: ink, dyes and vetch may not be soaked [on Friday afternoon] unless they can be fully soaked while it is yet day; And Bet Hillel permits it." 1.6. Beth Shammai says: bundles of wet flax may not be placed in an oven unless they can begin to steam while it is still day, nor wool in the dyer’s kettle unless it can [absorb the color] such that [the color] is visible. But Bet Hillel permits it. Bet Shammai says: traps for wild beasts, fowl, and fish may not be spread unless they can be caught while it is still day; But Bet Hillel permits it." 1.7. Bet Shammai says: one must not sell [something] to a non-Jew, or help him to load [a donkey], or lift up [an article] upon him unless he can reach a near place [before Shabbat]. But Bet Hillel permits it." 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." |
|
18. Mishnah, Sotah, 5.2-5.3, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 5.2. On that day, Rabbi Akiva expounded, “And every earthen vessel, into which any of them falls, everything in it shall be unclean” (Leviticus 11:33), it does not state tame (is unclean) but yitma’, (shall make unclean). This teaches that a loaf which is unclean in the second degree, makes unclean [food and liquids which come into contact with it] in the third degree. Rabbi Joshua said: who will remove the dust from your eyes, Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai, since you used to say that in the future another generation will pronounce clean a loaf which is unclean in the third degree on the grounds that there is no text in the Torah according to which it is unclean! Has not Rabbi Akiva your student brought a text from the Torah according to which it is unclean, as it is said “everything in it shall be unclean.”" 5.3. On that day Rabbi Akiva expounded, “You shall measure off two thousand cubits outside the town on the east side” (Numbers 35:5). But another verse states, “from the wall of the city outward a thousand cubits around” (vs. It is impossible to say that it was a thousand cubits since it has been already stated two thousand cubits; and it is impossible to say that it was two thousand cubits since it has been already stated a thousand cubits! How then is this so? A thousand cubits for the field [surrounding the city] and two thousand cubits for the Sabbath-limits. Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: a thousand cubits for the field [surrounding the city] and two thousand cubits for fields and vineyards." |
|
19. Mishnah, Terumot, 1.6, 2.1, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.6. Five may not give terumah, but if they do, their terumah is terumah.A mute person; A drunken person; One who is naked; A blind person; Or one who has had a seminal emission. They may not give terumah, but if they do their terumah is valid." 2.1. They may not give terumah from pure [produce] for impure [produce], but if they did give, the terumah is terumah. In truth they said: If a cake of pressed figs had become partly defiled, one may give terumah from the clean part for that part which had become defiled. The same applies to a bunch of vegetables, or a stack of grain. If there were two cakes [of figs], two bunches [of vegetables], two stacks [of grain], one pure and one impure, one should not give terumah from one for the other. Rabbi Eliezer says: one can give terumah from that which is pure for that which is impure." 4.3. The amount of terumah: A generous amount: one fortieth. Beth Shammai say: one thirtieth. The average amount: one fiftieth. A stingy amount: one sixtieth. If he gave terumah and discovered that it was only one sixtieth, his terumah is valid and he need not give again. If he does go back and add to it, [the extra amount] is liable to tithes. If he found that it was only one sixty-first it is valid, but he must give terumah again according to his established practice, in measure, weight or number. Rabbi Judah says: even if it be not from produce close by." |
|
20. Mishnah, Toharot, 2.2, 4.7-4.12 (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." 4.7. These are the cases of doubtful uncleanness that the sages declared to be clean:A doubt concerning drawn water for a mikveh, A doubt concerning an object of uncleanness that floated upon the water. A doubt concerning liquids as to whether they have contracted uncleanness it is deemed unclean, but if it was whether uncleanness has been conveyed it is deemed clean. A doubt concerning the hands as to whether they have contracted uncleanness, have conveyed uncleanness or have attained cleanness, they are deemed clean. A doubt that arose in a public domain; A doubt concerning an ordice of the scribes; A doubt concerning non-sacred food; A doubt concerning a sheretz; A doubt concerning negaim; A doubt concerning a nazirite vow; A doubt concerning a first-born; A doubt concerning sacrifices." 4.8. \"A doubt concerning an object of uncleanness that floated upon water:\" [It is clean] whether the water was in vessels or in the ground. Rabbi Shimon says: if in vessels he is deemed unclean but if in the ground he is deemed clean. Rabbi Judah says: if the doubt arose when the man went down into the water he is deemed unclean, but if when he came up he is deemed clean. Rabbi Yose says: even if there is only enough room for a man and the uncleanness the former remains clean." 4.9. \"In the case of a doubt concerning liquids as to whether they have contracted uncleanness it is deemed unclean:\" How so? If an unclean person stretched his foot between clean liquids and there is doubt whether he touched them or not, such a condition of doubt is deemed to be unclean. If a man had an unclean loaf in his hand and he stretched it out between clean liquids, and there is doubt whether it touched them or not, such a condition of doubt is deemed to be unclean. \"But if it was whether uncleanness has been conveyed, it is deemed clean.\" How so? If a man had in his hand a stick on the end of which there was an unclean liquid and he threw it among clean loaves and there is doubt whether it touched them or not, such a condition of doubt is deemed clean." 4.10. Rabbi Yose says: a condition of doubt in the case of liquids is deemed unclean in respect of food and clean in respect of vessels. How so? If there were two jars, the one unclean and the other clean, and he made dough with the contents of one of them and a doubt arose as to whether he prepared it with the contents of the unclean, or of the clean one, such is \"a condition of doubt in the case of liquids [which] is deemed unclean in respect of food and clean in respect of vessels.\"" 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." 4.12. \"A condition of doubt concerning non-sacred food\"--this refers to the cleanness practiced by Pharisees. \"A condition of doubt concerning a sheretz\" –according [to their condition at] the time they are found. \"A condition of doubt concerning negaim\" it is deemed clean in the beginning before it had been determined to be unclean, but after it had been determined to be unclean, a condition of doubt is deemed unclean. \"A condition of doubt concerning a nazirite vow\" [in such a condition of doubt he] is permitted [all that is forbidden to a nazirite]. \"A condition of doubt concerning first-borns\" whether they are human firstborn or firstborn of cattle, whether the firstborn of an unclean beast or a clean one, for the one who wishes to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof." |
|
21. Mishnah, Yadayim, 3.1, 3.4-3.5, 4.2-4.4, 4.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 3.1. If a person puts his hands inside a house with scale disease, his hands have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: his hands have second degree uncleanness. Whoever defiles garments: at the time when he touches [the uncleanness], he defiles hands so that they have first degree uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiba. But the sages say: such that they have second degree of uncleanness. They said to Rabbi Akiba: where do we find anywhere that hands have first degree uncleanness? He said to them: but how is it possible for them to become unclean with first degree uncleanness without his whole body becoming unclean? Only in these cases [can they have first degree uncleanness]. Foods and vessels which have been defiled by liquids convey second degree of uncleanness to the hands, the words of Rabbi Joshua. But the sages say: that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: it happened that a certain woman came before my father and said to him, \"My hands went into the air-space inside an earthenware vessel.\" He said to her: \"My daughter, what was the cause of its uncleanness?\" But I did not hear what she said to him. The sages said: the matter is clear that which has been defiled by a father of uncleanness conveys uncleanness to the hands, but that which has been rendered unclean by an offspring of uncleanness does not defiled the hands." 3.4. The margin on a scroll which is above or below or at the beginning or at the end defiles the hands. Rabbi Judah says: the margin at the end does not render unclean [the hands] until a handle is fastened to it." 3.5. A scroll on which the writing has become erased and eighty-five letters remain, as many as are in the section beginning, \"And it came to pass when the ark set forward\" (Numbers 11:35-36) defiles the hands. A single sheet on which there are written eighty-five letters, as many as are in the section beginning, \"And it came to pass when the ark set forward\", defiles the hands. All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands. The Song of Songs and Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) defile the hands. Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet. Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs. Rabbi Shimon says: [the ruling about] Kohelet is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I have received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the academy that the Song of Songs and Kohelet defile the hands. Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man in Israel disputed that the Song of Songs [saying] that it does not defile the hands. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If they had a dispute, they had a dispute only about Kohelet. Rabbi Yoha ben Joshua the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Akiva said in accordance with the words of Ben Azzai: so they disputed and so they reached a decision." 4.2. On that day they said: all animal sacrifices which have been sacrificed under the name of some other offering are [nevertheless] valid, but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations, with the exception of the pesah and the sin-offering. [This is true of] the pesah in its correct time and the sin-offering at any time. Rabbi Eliezer says: [with the exception] also of the guilt-offering; [so that this refers to] the pesah in its correct time and to the sin- and guilt-offerings at any time. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the college that all animal sacrifices which are eaten and which have not been sacrificed under their own name are nevertheless valid, but they are not accounted to their owners as a fulfillment of their obligations, with the exception of the pesah and the sin-offering. Ben Azzai only added [to these exceptions] the wholly burnt-offering, but the sages did not agree with him." 4.3. On that day they said: what is the law applying to Ammon and Moab in the seventh year? Rabbi Tarfon decreed tithe for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah decreed second tithe. Rabbi Ishmael said: Elazar ben Azariah, you must produce your proof because you are expressing the stricter view and whoever expresses a stricter view has the burden to produce the proof. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the sequence of years, Tarfon, my brother, has deviated from it and the burden is upon him to produce the proof. Rabbi Tarfon answered: Egypt is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Egypt must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Babylon must give second tithe in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give second tithe in the seventh year. Rabbi Tarfon said: on Egypt which is near, they imposed tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel might be supported by it during the seventh year; so on Ammon and Moab which are near, we should impose tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Behold, you are like one who would benefit them with gain, yet you are really as one who causes them to perish. Would you rob the heavens so that dew or rain should not descend? As it is said, \"Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you: How have we robbed You? In tithes and heave-offerings\" (Malakhi 3:8). Rabbi Joshua said: Behold, I shall be as one who replies on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not in accordance with the substance of his arguments. The law regarding Egypt is a new act and the law regarding Babylon is an old act, and the law which is being argued before us is a new act. A new act should be argued from [another] new act, but a new act should not be argued from an old act. The law regarding Egypt is the act of the elders and the law regarding Babylon is the act of the prophets, and the law which is being argued before us is the act of the elders. Let one act of the elders be argued from [another] act of the elders, but let not an act of the elders be argued from an act of the prophets. The votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab should give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. And when Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit visited Rabbi Eliezer in Lod he said to him: what new thing did you have in the house of study today? He said to him: their votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: \"The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covet, to make them know it\" (Psalms 25:14). Go and tell them: Don't worry about your voting. I received a tradition from Rabbi Yoha ben Zakkai who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year." 4.4. On that day Judah, an Ammonite convert, came and stood before them in the house of study. He said to them: Do I have the right to enter into the assembly? Rabban Gamaliel said to him: you are forbidden. Rabbi Joshua said to him: you are permitted. Rabban Gamaliel said to him: the verse says, \"An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord: even to the tenth generation\" (Deuteronomy 23:4). R. Joshua said to him: But are the Ammonites and Moabites still in their own territory? Sanheriv, the king of Assyria, has long since come up and mingled all the nations, as it is said: \"In that I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants\" (Isaiah 10:1. Rabban Gamaliel said to him: the verse says, \"But afterward I will bring back the captivity of the children of Ammon,\" (Jeremiah 49:6) they have already returned. Rabbi Joshua said to him: [another] verse says, \"I will return the captivity of my people Israel and Judah\" (Amos 9:14). Yet they have not yet returned. So they permitted him to enter the assembly." 4.6. The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer do not defile the hands. Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai said: Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this? Behold they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, yet the bones of Yoha the high priest are unclean. They said to him: according to the affection for them, so is their impurity, so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother. He said to them: so also are the Holy Scriptures according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness. The books of Homer which are not precious do not defile the hands." |
|
22. Mishnah, Zavim, 4.1, 5.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 4.1. Rabbi Joshua said: if a menstruant sat in a bed with a clean woman, [even] the cap on her head contracts midras uncleanness. And if she sat in a boat, the vessels on the top of the mast [also] contract midras uncleanness. If there was [on the boat] a tub full of clothes: If their weight was heavy, they become unclean, But if their weight was light, they remain clean. If a zav knocked against a balcony and thereby caused a loaf of terumah to fall down, it remains clean." 5.7. If one touches the discharge of a zav, his spittle, semen or urine, or the blood of a menstruant, he conveys uncleanness at two [removes], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]; If he separated, he defiles at one [remove] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [more remove]. This is the case whether he had touched or moved it. Rabbi Eliezer said: also if he had carried it." |
|
23. New Testament, Romans, 14.14, 14.20 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 14.14. I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself; except that to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 14.20. Don't overthrow God's work for food's sake. All things indeed are clean, however it is evil for that man who creates a stumbling block by eating. |
|
24. 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. |
|
25. 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. |
|
26. Tosefta, Demai, 2.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
27. Tosefta, Pesahim, 1.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
28. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 13.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
29. Tosefta, Shabbat, 1.6-1.7, 1.13-1.17 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
30. Tosefta, Yadayim, 2.16 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
31. 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." |
|
32. Palestinian Talmud, Shabbat, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
|
33. 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 |
|
34. 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. |
|
35. 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 |
|
36. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (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 |
|
37. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan A, 18 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE)
|
