1. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 21.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 21.3. אִם־כֹּפֶר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו וְנָתַן פִּדְיֹן נַפְשׁוֹ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יוּשַׁת עָלָיו׃ 21.3. אִם־בְּגַפּוֹ יָבֹא בְּגַפּוֹ יֵצֵא אִם־בַּעַל אִשָּׁה הוּא וְיָצְאָה אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ׃ | 21.3. If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he be married, then his wife shall go out with him." |
|
2. Mishnah, Ketuvot, 4.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 4.11. If he did not write for her, “the female children that I will have from you will dwell in my house and be maintained out of my estate until they are taken in marriage”, he is nevertheless liable, because [this clause] is a condition laid down by the court." |
|
3. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 7 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
|
4. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 52b. אין פודין את השבויין יותר על כדי דמיהם מפני תקון העולם הא בכדי דמיהן פודין אע"ג דפרקונה יותר על כתובתה,ורמינהי נשבית והיו מבקשין ממנו עד עשרה בכתובתה פעם ראשונה פודה מכאן ואילך רצה פודה רצה אינו פודה ר"ש בן גמליאל אומר אם היה פרקונה כנגד כתובתה פודה אם לאו אינו פודה,רבן שמעון בן גמליאל תרי קולי אית ליה:,לקתה חייב לרפאותה: תנו רבנן אלמנה ניזונת מנכסי יתומין וצריכה רפואה הרי היא כמזונות רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר רפואה שיש לה קצבה נתרפאת מכתובתה שאין לה קצבה הרי היא כמזונות,אמר רבי יוחנן עשו הקזת דם בארץ ישראל כרפואה שאין לה קצבה קריביה דרבי יוחנן הוה להו איתת אבא דהות צריכה רפואה כל יומא אתו לקמיה דר' יוחנן אמר להו איזילו קוצו ליה מידי לרופא,אמר רבי יוחנן עשינו עצמינו כעורכי הדיינין מעיקרא מאי סבר ולבסוף מאי סבר מעיקרא סבר (ישעיהו נח, ז) ומבשרך לא תתעלם ולבסוף סבר אדם חשוב שאני:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big לא כתב לה בנין דכרין דיהוו ליכי מינאי אינון ירתון כסף כתובתיך יתר על חולקהון דעם אחוהון חייב שהוא תנאי ב"ד בנן נוקבן דיהוין ליכי מינאי יהוין יתבן בביתי ומיתזנן מנכסי עד דתלקחון לגוברין חייב שהוא תנאי בית דין,את תהא יתבא בביתי ומיתזנא מנכסי כל ימי מיגר אלמנותיך בביתי חייב שהוא תנאי בית דין כך היו אנשי ירושלים כותבין אנשי גליל היו כותבין כאנשי ירושלים אנשי יהודה היו כותבין עד שירצו היורשין ליתן לך כתובתיך לפיכך אם רצו יורשין נותנין לה כתובתה ופוטרין אותה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחאי מפני מה התקינו כתובת בנין דכרין כדי שיקפוץ אדם ויכתוב לבתו כבנו,ומי איכא מידי דרחמנא אמר ברא לירות ברתא לא תירות ואתו רבנן ומתקני דתירות ברתא,הא נמי דאורייתא הוא דכתיב (ירמיהו כט, ו) קחו נשים והולידו בנים ובנות וקחו לבניכם נשים ואת בנותיכם תנו לאנשים בשלמא בנים בידיה קיימי אלא בנתיה מי קיימן בידיה,הא קא משמע לן דנלבשה וניכסה וניתיב לה מידי כי היכי דקפצי עלה ואתו נסבי לה ועד כמה אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו עד לעישור נכסי,ואימא דאב לירות דבעל לא לירות אם כן אב נמי מימנע ולא כתב,ואימא היכא דכתב אב לכתוב בעל היכא דלא כתב אב לא לכתוב בעל לא פלוג רבנן,בת בין הבנים נמי תירות כנחלה שויוה רבנן,בת בין הבנות תירות לא פלוג רבנן ותיגבי ממטלטלי ככתובה שויוה רבנן,תטרוף ממשעבדי ירתון תנן ואימא אף על גב דליכא מותר דינר במקום דקא מיעקרא נחלה דאורייתא לא תקינו רבנן,רב פפא איעסק ליה לבריה בי אבא סוראה אזיל למיכתב לה כתובתה שמע יהודה בר מרימר נפק אתא איתחזי ליה כי מטו לפיתחא הוה קא מפטר מיניה אמר ליה ניעול מר בהדאי | 52b. bOne does not redeem captives at more than their value.This policy is bfor the betterment of the world,because if captives are ransomed at exorbitant prices, this will encourage their captors to kidnap more people. The Gemara notes: This implies that if the captors seek a ransom binaccordance with btheiractual bvalue one does redeemcaptives, beven thoughthis includes a case where a woman’s bredemptionis bmore than her marriage contract. /b, bAndthe Gemara braises a contradictionfrom a different ibaraita /i, which states: If bshe was taken captive andthe captors bwere seeking fromher husband a ransom of bup to ten times the value of her marriage contract,on the bfirst occasionhe must bredeemher. bFrom thispoint bforward,if he bwantsto bhe redeemsher, but if he does not bwantto redeem her, bhe does nothave to bredeemher. bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Ifthe price of bher ransom was equal to her marriage contract he redeemsher. bIf not,i.e., the price of her ransom was greater than the sum of money guaranteed to her in her marriage contract upon divorce or the death of her husband, bhe does nothave to bredeemher. He can suffice with paying her marriage contract.,The Gemara answers: bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel is ofthe opinion that there are btwo leniencieswith regard to the ihalakhotof redemption. First, he maintains that one does not pay more than the general ransom given for such a captive, and second, a husband does not have to pay more than the sum of his wife’s marriage contract.,§ The mishna taught (51a) that if a woman bwas struckwith illness, her husband is bobligated to heal her,i.e., to pay for her medical expenses. bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: In the case of ba widowwho bis sustained from the property ofthe borphans and who requires medical treatment,her medical needs bare likeher bsustece,and the orphans must bear the costs. bRabban Shimon ben Gamlieldisagrees and bsays:With regard to btreatment that has a fixedcost, she bis healed from her marriage contract,i.e., the amount is subtracted from her marriage contract. If it is a treatment bthat does not have a fixedcost, bit isconsidered blike sustece. /b, bRabbi Yoḥa said:The Sages bestablishedthat bin Eretz Yisrael, bloodlettingis considered blike a treatment that does not have a fixedcost, and therefore the heirs must pay for that treatment. The Gemara relates: bThe relatives of Rabbi Yoḥa hadto take care of the bwife of their father, who required treatment every day,and therefore her medical expenses were high. bThey came before Rabbi Yoḥato ask him what to do. bHe said to them: Goand bfixa lump bsum with the doctorfor his services. The treatment would then be considered as having a fixed cost, which is deducted from the marriage contract.,Later bRabbi Yoḥa saidin regret: bWe have made ourselves like legal advisors,who help people with their legal claims. The Gemara asks: bAt the outset, what did he hold and ultimately, what did he hold?The Gemara explains: bAt the outset he heldthat one should act in accordance with the verse b“and that you do not hide yourself from your own flesh”(Isaiah 58:7), which indicates that one must help his relatives. bAnd ultimately he heldthat ban important person is different.If a man of stature offers assistance to his family in a manner that causes a loss to another individual, it appears as though he were unfairly favoring his relatives., strongMISHNA: /strong If the husband bdid not write for herin her marriage contract: Any bmale children you will have from me will inherit the money of your marriage contract in addition to their portionof the inheritance bthatthey receive together bwith their brothers,he bisnevertheless bobligatedas though he had written it, bas it is a stipulation of the courtand therefore takes effect even if it is not explicitly stated. Likewise, if he omitted from the marriage contract the sentence: Any bfemale children you will have from me will sit in my house and be sustained from my property until they are taken by men,i.e., until they are married, he bisnevertheless bobligatedas though he had written it, bas ittoo bis a stipulation of the court. /b,Similarly, if he omitted from the marriage contract the clause: bYou will sit in my house and be sustained from my property all the days you liveas ba widow in my house,he bisnevertheless bobligatedas though he had written it, bas it is a stipulation of the court.The mishna comments: bThe residents of Jerusalem would write in this manner,that a widow may remain in her husband’s house throughout her widowhood, and bthe residents of the Galilee would writein this manner as well, blike the inhabitants of Jerusalem.In contrast, bthe residents of Judea would write: Until the heirs want to give you your marriage contract. Consequently, if the heirs wish, they may give her marriage contract to her and release her,and she must find her own living arrangements and provide for herself., strongGEMARA: /strong bRabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: For what reason didthe Sages benact the marriage document concerning male children?It was enacted bso that a man willbe willing to btake the initiative and writean agreement to give bhis daughtera dowry baslarge as the portion of his possessions that bhis sonwill receive as an inheritance. The marriage document concerning male children ensures that even if one’s daughter dies and her husband inherits her possessions, the dowry will eventually be inherited by her sons when her husband dies. Since the father of the bride knows that his grandchildren will inherit the dowry, he will give a larger dowry.,The Gemara asks: bAnd is there anythingthat justifies a situation bwhere the Merciful One saysthat bthe son inheritsand bthe daughter does not inherit, andyet bthe Sages came and enacted that the daughter should inherit?The practical effect of their decree is that daughters receive a significant portion of their father’s estate, just like sons.,The Gemara answers: bThis alsoapplies bby Torahlaw, bas it is written: “Take wives for yourselves and bear sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands”(Jeremiah 29:6). This verse requires clarification. bGranted, sons are in his hands,i.e., a father can select wives for them, bbut daughters, are they in his powerthat he can select husbands for them? It is not the manner of a woman or her family to court a man.,Rather, the verse bteaches us this, thatthe father bshould dress her and cover her and give her something,i.e., property, bso thatmen bwill take the initiative with her and cometo bmarry her.When the verse instructs fathers to marry off their daughters, it means that they must make efforts to ensure this outcome, including bestowing a dowry. The Gemara asks: bAnd up to how muchmust a father give his daughters? bAbaye and Rava both say: Up to one-tenthof one’s bpropertyshould be handed over to his daughter for her dowry.,The Gemara asks: bButif this is the reason for the institution of the marriage document concerning male children, bsay thatit is only the portion bthebride’s bfathergave as a dowry that her sons bshould inherit,but the money bthe husbandguarantees to pay his wife, they bshould not inherit.The Gemara answers: bIf so,the bride’s bfather will also refrainfrom bwritinga large dowry. If his daughter’s sons will not inherit the husband’s portion of the marriage contract, her father will be reluctant to give generously himself.,The Gemara continues to ask: bButif the concern is that the father will not give, bsaythat in a case bwherethe bfather wrotea large dowry for his daughter, bletthe bhusbandalso bwritethe stipulation in the marriage document concerning male children, and bwhenthe bfather did not writea large dowry, bletthe bhusband not writethis stipulation. The Gemara replies: bThe Sages did not distinguishbetween these cases. Although the main purpose of their enactment was to encourage fathers to provide their daughters with generous dowries, the Sages applied their decree equally to all women, even when the father failed to do so.,The Gemara poses another question: If the aim is to ensure that the money of the marriage contract will remain with the woman’s descendants, in a case when one has ba daughterfrom one woman bamonghis bsonsfrom another woman, the daughter should blikewise inherither mother’s dowry. Why do only male children inherit their mother’s dowry? The Gemara responds: bThe Sages establishedthis enactment as bsimilar tothe ihalakhaof binheritance:Just as a regular inheritance belongs to sons and not daughters, the same applies to the marriage document concerning male children.,The Gemara continues to inquire: Why shouldn’t one at least say that ba daughter among daughters should inherit?If he had a daughter from this wife, and his other children are also daughters, in which case all the daughters divide the inheritance, the daughters of each wife should receive the portion her maternal grandfather gave to her mother. The Gemara again answers: bThe Sages did not distinguishbetween these cases when establishing their decree. The Gemara further asks: bAnd letthe marriage document concerning male children bbe collectedeven bfrom movable property,if that is all the father possesses. The Gemara replies: bThe Sages establishedthis enactment as bsimilar toa regular bmarriage contract,which can be collected only from land.,The Gemara poses yet another question: bLet it be collectedeven bfrom lienedproperty, i.e., property the father sold after he wrote the marriage contract. The Gemara answers that bwe learnedin the mishna: bWill inherit,and one’s heirs do not inherit property that he has sold. The Gemara asks: bButif this is the reason for this enactment, bsaythat it should apply beven though there is no morethan ba dinarbeyond the value of the marriage contract that the father bleft overin his estate. The Sages stated that if no property is left for the inheritance, all the sons share the inheritance equally, in accordance with Torah law. The Gemara answers: bIn a case wheretheir decree bwouldentirely buprootthe ihalakhaof binheritance by Torahlaw, bthe Sages did not enactthe marriage document concerning male children.,The Gemara relates: bRav Pappa,having barranged for his sonto marry into bthe familyof bAbba of Sura, wentto supervise bthe writing ofthe bride’s bmarriage contract. Yehuda bar Mareimar heardthat Rav Pappa was coming, and bcame outto bpresent himself before him,in honor of his arrival. bWhen they came to the entranceof Abba of Sura’s house, Yehuda bar Mareimar btook his leave of him,as he did not wish to enter. Rav Pappa bsaid to him: Let the Master enterinside bwith me. /b |
|
5. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 93a. if the repeated term “his offering” is not needed to counter the ia fortioriinferences, bwhy do Ineed these three bverses?The Gemara explains: One instance of b“his offering”teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, bbut noton ban offering of anotherperson. Another instance of b“his offering”teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, bbut noton ban offering of a gentile.The third instance of b“his offering”serves bto include allthe bowners ofa jointly owned boffering inthe requirement of bplacing hands,i.e., they are all required to place their hands on the offering.,§ The mishna states: If the owner of an offering died, then bthe heiris regarded as the offering’s owner. Therefore, he bplaceshis bhandson the offering and brings the accompanying libations, and he can substitute a non-sacred animal for it. Although it is prohibited to perform an act of substitution, if the owner of an offering does this, his attempt is successful to the extent that the non-sacred animal is thereby consecrated, even though the original offering also remains sacred., bRav Ḥaya taughta ibaraita bin the presence of Rava: An heir does not place handson an offering he inherited, and ban heir cannot substitutea non-sacred animal for an offering he inherited. Rava asked: bBut didn’t we learnin the mishna: bThe heir placeshis bhandson the offering, band bringsthe accompanying blibations, and he can substitutea non-sacred animal for it and thereby consecrate the non-sacred animal?,Rav Ḥaya bsaid toRava: bShould I reversethe current version of the ibaraitato have it be in accordance with the mishna? Rava bsaid to him: No,as bwhoseopinion is expressed in bthe mishna? It isthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda, as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bAn heir places hands,and ban heir can effect substitution. Rabbi Yehuda says: An heir does not place hands,and ban heir cannot effect substitution. /b,The Gemara clarifies: bWhat is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda?He expounds the term b“his offering”as teaching that one places hands only on one’s own offering, bbut noton bone’s father’s offeringthat one inherited. bAndfurthermore, Rabbi Yehuda bderivesthe ihalakhaconcerning who can substitute a non-sacred animal for an offering, which is bthe initial stage of consecration, fromthe ihalakhaconcerning who performs the rite of placing hands on the offering, which is bthe final stage of consecration: Just aswith regard to bthe final stage of consecration, an heir does not placehis bhands, so too,with regard to bthe initial stage of consecration, an heir cannot effect substitution. /b, bAndas for bthe Rabbis,from where do they derive their opinion? The verse states: “If bhe shall substitute [ ihamer yamir /i]animal for animal” (Leviticus 27:10), with the doubled form of ihamer yamirserving bto include the heiras one capable of effecting substitution. bAndfurthermore, bthey derivethe ihalakhaconcerning who performs the rite of placing hands, which is the bfinal stage of consecration, fromthe ihalakhaconcerning who can effect substitution, which is ban initial stage of consecration: Just aswith regard to bthe initial stage of consecration, an heir can effect substitution, so too,with regard to bthe final stage of consecration, an heir placeshis bhands. /b,The Gemara asks: bAndas for bthe Rabbis, what do they do with thisterm: b“His offering”?The Gemara explains how the Rabbis expound each mention of the term. One instance of b“his offering”teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, bbut noton ban offering of a gentile.Another instance of b“his offering”teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, bbut noton ban offering of anotherperson. The third instance of b“his offering”serves bto include allthe bowners ofa jointly owned boffering inthe requirement of bplacing hands,i.e., they are all required to place their hands on the offering.,The Gemara clarifies: bAnd Rabbi Yehuda does not holdthat one of the mentions serves bto include allthe bowners ofa jointly owned boffering inthe requirement of bplacing hands,so he is able to expound it to exclude an heir from the requirement. bAlternatively,if bhe holdsthat one of the mentions serves to include owners of a jointly owned offering, then he must bderivethat one does not place hands on the offering of ba gentile orof banotherperson bfromthe same bonemention in the bverse,which bleaves him twomore mentions in the bverses. Onehe expounds to teach that on b“his offering”he places hands, bbut noton bhis father’s offeringthat he inherited, band the othermention remains bto include allthe bowners ofa jointly owned boffering inthe requirement of bplacing hands. /b,The Gemara asks: bAndas for bRabbi Yehuda, what does he dowith the use of the doubled form bin thisverse: “If bhe shall substitute [ ihamer yamir /i]”?The Gemara answers: bHe requires it to include a womanamong those who can effect substitution. bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bSince the entire matterof substitution bis statedin the Torah bonly in the masculine form, whatis the reason that bwe ultimatelycome bto include a woman? The verse states:“If bhe shall substitute [ ihamer yamir /i],”using a doubled form., bAndas for bthe Rabbis, they derivethat a woman can effect substitution bfromthe term: b“And if”(Leviticus 27:10), in the phrase “and if he shall substitute.” bAnd Rabbi Yehuda does not expoundthe term b“and if”at all., strongMISHNA: /strong bEveryonewho brings an animal offering bplaces handsupon its head, bexcept for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind person, a gentile,a Canaanite bslave, the agentof the owner of the offering who brings the offering on the owner’s behalf, band a woman. /b, bAndthe requirement of bplacing hands is a non-essential mitzva;therefore, failure to place hands does not prevent the owner from achieving atonement.,The rite of placing hands is performed by leaning bon the headof the offering bwith two hands. And in thesame blocationin the Temple bthat one places hands, one slaughtersthe animal. bAnd immediately followingthe rite of bplacing hands,the bslaughteris performed., strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara explains why certain types of people do not place hands on an offering: bGranted, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minordo not place their hands on the offering, bas they are not mentally competent.The exclusion of ba gentileis also understandable, as the verses concerning placing hands are introduced with: “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them” (Leviticus 1:2), which indicates that bthe children of Israel place handsupon their offerings, bbut gentiles do not placetheir bhandsupon their offerings. bButwith regard to ba blind person, what is the reasonthat he does bnotplace his hands on his offering?, bRav Ḥisda and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimidisagree as to the source of the exclusion of a blind person. bOne saidthat it is bderivedfrom a verbal analogy between the mention of bplacing handsin the passage detailing the general requirement to do so, and the mention of bplacing handsstated with regard to the bull offering brought for a community-wide violation perpetrated due to an erroneous ruling of the Sanhedrin, which is performed bbythe bElders ofthe bcongregation,i.e., the judges of the Sanhedrin: Just as the judges may not be blind (see iSanhedrin34b), so too the rite of placing hands is not performed by a blind person., bAndthe other bone saidthat it is bderivedfrom a verbal analogy between the mention of bplacing handsin the passage detailing the general requirement to do so, and the mention of bplacing handsstated with regard to the bburnt offering of appearancebrought by an individual on the pilgrimage Festivals: Just as a blind person is exempt from making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and bringing the offering (see iḤagiga2a), so too he is excluding from the requirement of placing hands.,The Gemara asks: bAnd according to the one who saidthat the exclusion of a blind person is derived bfromthe bburnt offering of appearance, what is the reasonthat bhe does not derivethis bfromthe placing of hands performed by the bElders ofthe bcongregation? /b |
|
6. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 150a. מדוד והבא ואיכא דאמרי שאמרה מאד מאד הביא בלא מדה,(דניאל ד, לג) ורבו יתירה הוספת לי אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ירמיה בר אבא מלמד שרכב על ארי זכר וקשר תנין בראשו לקיים מה שנא' (ירמיהו כז, ו) וגם את חית השדה נתתי לו לעבדו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big לא ישכור אדם פועלים בשבת ולא יאמר אדם לחבירו לשכור לו פועלים אין מחשיכין על התחום לשכור לו פועלים ולהביא פירות אבל מחשיך הוא לשמור ומביא פירות בידו כלל אמר אבא שאול כל שאני זכאי באמירתו רשאי אני להחשיך עליו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big (פשיטא) מ"ש הוא ומ"ש חבירו אמר רב פפא חבר נכרי מתקיף לה רב אשי אמירה לנכרי שבות,אלא אמר רב אשי אפילו תימא חבירו ישראל הא קמ"ל לא יאמר אדם לחבירו שכור לי פועלים אבל אומר אדם לחבירו הנראה שתעמוד עמי לערב ומתני' מני כרבי יהושע בן קרחה דתניא לא יאמר אדם לחבירו הנראה שתעמוד עמי לערב רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר אומר אדם לחבירו הנראה שתעמוד עמי לערב,אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כרבי יהושע בן קרחה ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מ"ט דרבי יהושע בן קרחה דכתיב (ישעיהו נח, יג) ממצוא חפצך ודבר דבר דיבור אסור הרהור מותר,רמי ליה רב אחא בר רב הונא לרבא מי אמר ר' יוחנן דיבור אסור הרהור מותר אלמא הרהור לאו כדיבור דמי והאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן בכל מקום מותר להרהר חוץ מבית המרחץ ומבית הכסא שאני התם דבעינן (דברים כג, טו) והיה מחניך קדוש וליכא,הכא נמי כתיב (דברים כג, טו) ולא יראה בך ערות דבר ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדרב יהודה דאמר רב יהודה עכו"ם ערום אסור לקרות קרית שמע כנגדו,מאי איריא עכו"ם אפי' ישראל נמי לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא ישראל דאסור אבל עכו"ם כיון דכתיב ביה (יחזקאל כג, כ) אשר בשר חמורים בשרם אימא שפיר דמי קמ"ל,אימא הכי נמי אמר קרא (בראשית ט, כג) וערות אביהם לא ראו,ודיבור מי אסיר והא רב חסדא ורב המנונא דאמרי תרוייהו חשבונות של מצוה מותר לחשבן בשבת וא"ר אלעזר פוסקים צדקה לעניים בשבת וא"ר יעקב בר אידי אמר רבי יוחנן מפקחין פיקוח נפש ופיקוח רבים בשבת והולכין לבתי כנסיות לפקח על עסקי רבים בשבת,וא"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יוחנן הולכין לטרטיאות ולקרקסאות ולבסילקאות לפקח על עסקי רבים בשבת ותנא דבי מנשה משדכין על התינוקות ליארס בשבת ועל התינוק ללמדו ספר וללמדו אומנות אמר קרא ממצוא חפצך ודבר דבר חפציך אסורים חפצי שמים מותרין,א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל חשבונות של [מלך] ושל מה בכך מותר לחשבן בשבת תנ"ה חשבונות שעברו ושעתידין להיו' אסור לחשבן של) מלך | 150a. bMeasure and bringa lot of money, bhas ceased. And some saythat the meaning of the statement is that this nation bsaid: Bring very, very much, without measure. /b,The Gemara cites another verse pertaining to Nebuchadnezzar: b“And surpassing greatness was added unto me”(Daniel 4:33), about which bRav Yehuda saidthat bRav Yirmeya bar Abba said: This teaches thatNebuchadnezzar brode atop a male lion and tied a serpent to its head, fulfilling what was saidof him: b“And the beasts of the field I have also given him to serve him”(Jeremiah 27:6)., strongMISHNA: /strong bA person may not hire workers on Shabbatto work for him after Shabbat because even speaking about weekday matters is prohibited on Shabbat. Similarly, ba person may not tell anotheron Shabbat bto hire workers for him. One may noteven bwait for nightfall atthe edge of bthe Shabbat boundaryin order to leave the boundary immediately after Shabbat bto hire workers for himself or to bring producefrom his field. bBut he may wait for nightfallat the edge of the Shabbat boundary in order bto guardhis produce that is outside the Shabbat boundary, bandhe may then bbring produceback bin his hand,since he did not initially intend to wait at the edge of the boundary for this purpose. bAbba Shaul stated ageneral bprinciple:With regard to banything that I am permitted to discusson Shabbat, bI am permitted to wait for nightfallat the edge of the Shabbat boundary bfor its sake. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong The beginning of the mishna taught that one may not hire workers on Shabbat, and one may not tell another to hire workers for him. The Gemara finds this puzzling and states: This is bobvious. What is the difference between him and another?Just as he is prohibited from hiring workers on Shabbat, others are also prohibited from doing so. bRav Pappa said: Anotheris referring to ba gentile. Rav Ashi strongly objects to this:This is itself a prohibition, for btelling a gentileto do something that is prohibited for a Jew on Shabbat violates a brabbinic prohibition. /b, bRather, Rav Ashi said: Even if you saythat it is referring to banother Jew,it can be said that the novel element of this ruling is not the statement itself but what can be derived from it. bThis is what it is teaching us: One may not say to anotherexplicitly on Shabbat: bHire workers for me, but one may say to another: Does it seem that you will join me this evening?This is permitted even though both of them understand that the questioner intends to hire the other person to work for him. bAndin accordance with bwhoseopinion is bthe mishna?It is bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa; as it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bA person may not say to anotheron Shabbat: bDoes it seem that you will join me this evening? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: A person may say to anotheron Shabbat: bDoes it seem that you will join me this evening? /b, bRabba bar bar Ḥana saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said:The ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa. And Rabba bar bar Ḥana saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa’sruling? bAs it is writtenin the verse from which we derive the prohibition to speak on Shabbat about activities that one may not perform on that day: “And you shall honor it by not doing your ways, bnor pursuing your business, nor speaking of it”(Isaiah 58:13). We derive from this verse that bspeaking is prohibited,but merely bcontemplatingthese matters bis permitted. /b, bRav Aḥa bar Rav Huna raised a contradiction to Rava: Did Rabbi Yoḥareally bstateas a general principle that bspeaking is prohibited,but bcontemplating is permitted? Consequently,we can derive from here that bcontemplation is not tantamount to speech. But Rabba bar bar Ḥana saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: It is permitted to thinkabout Torah bin any place except for a bathhouse and a bathroom.This statement indicates that contemplation is tantamount to speech, as even thought is prohibited in these locations. The Gemara answers: bIt is different there, forwith regard to Torah bwe needto fulfill the verse: “For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to give your enemies before you; btherefore, your camp shall be sacredso that He see no unseemly thing in you and turn away from you” (Deuteronomy 23:15); bandthe requirement to be sacred is bnotfulfilled if one thinks about Torah while in the bathhouse or bathroom.,The Gemara challenges this: But bhere, too,with regard to a bathhouse and a bathroom, bit is written: “So that He see no unseemly thing [ idavar /i] in you”(Deuteronomy 23:15). We can infer that this prohibits speech [ idibbur /i] but not contemplation. The Gemara answers: bThatverse is not referring to speech. bIt is needed forthe ruling of bRav Yehuda, for Rav Yehuda said: Opposite a naked gentile, it is prohibited to recite iShema /i,as this is included in the prohibition of unseemly things mentioned above.,The Gemara asks: bWhy didRav Yehuda bteachthis prohibition bparticularlywith regard to ba gentile? Evenin the presence of a naked bJew,reciting iShemais balsoprohibited. The Gemara answers: That ruling bis statedemploying the style of: bThere is no need.The Gemara explains: bThere is no needto state this ihalakhawith regard to ba Jew,as it is certainly bprohibitedto recite iShemain the presence of a naked Jew. bHowever,with regard to ba gentile, since it is written about him: “Whose flesh is as the flesh of donkeys”(Ezekiel 23:20), perhaps his flesh is not considered nakedness, and one may bsay that it seems welland permitted. Therefore, Rav Yehuda bteaches usthat it is also prohibited to recite iShemabefore a naked gentile.,The Gemara asks: Why not bsaythat bit is indeed so,that gentile flesh is not considered nakedness? The Gemara rejects this idea: bThe versealready bsaidwith regard to the sons of Noah: “And they walked backward and covered their father’s nakedness, and their faces were turned backward, band they did not see their father’s nakedness”(Genesis 9:23). The verse uses the term nakedness with regard to Noah, who was a gentile.,The Gemara addresses the basis of the ihalakhamentioned above: bAnd is it speakingabout proscribed activities bprohibitedon Shabbat? bBut Rav Ḥisda and Rav Hamnuna both said: It is permitted to make calculations pertaining to a mitzva on Shabbat, and Rabbi Elazar saidthat this means that bone may apportion charity for the poor on Shabbat. And Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: One may attend toactivities necessary for bsaving a life or for communal needs on Shabbat, and one may go to a synagogue to attend to communal affairs on Shabbat. /b, bAnd Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: One may go to theaters [ itarteiot /i], and circus performances [ ikirkesaot /i], and courthouses [ ibasilkaot /i] to attend to communal affairs on Shabbat. Andone of the Sages in bthe school of Menashe taught: One maymake the necessary arrangements to bpair off childrenso that they will bbe betrothed on Shabbat, andone may likewise make arrangements bfor a childby finding someone bto teach himhow to read bbooks and to teach him a craft.If speaking about monetary matters is prohibited on Shabbat, how is it possible to participate in all these activities? The Gemara answers that although speaking about similar things is generally prohibited on Shabbat, it is permitted in these cases because bthe verse said: “Nor pursuing your business, nor speaking of it”(Isaiah 58:13), which indicates that byour businessmatters bare prohibitedto speak of on Shabbat, but bthe business of Heaven,matters which have religious significance, bis permittedto speak of., bRav Yehuda saidthat bShmuel said:With regard to bcalculations of: What is it to you, [ imallakh /i],calculations that are in no way relevant to the person making them, band of: Whatsignificance bdoes it have [ ima bekhakh /i],calculations that do not have any practical significance, it is bpermitted to make them on Shabbat.This bwas also taughtin the iTosefta /i: bCalculationswith regard to matters bthat have passedor bthat will be in the future may not be calculatedon Shabbat. However, with regard to calculations of: bWhat is it to you, /b |
|
7. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 26a. מעוברת חבירו ומינקת חבירו לא שותות ולא נוטלות כתובה דברי ר' מאיר,שהיה רבי מאיר אומר לא ישא אדם מעוברת חבירו ומינקת חבירו ואם נשא יוציא ולא יחזיר עולמית וחכמים אומרים יוציא וכשיגיע זמנו לכנוס יכנוס,והרובא שנשא עקרה וזקינה ואין לו אשה ובנים מעיקרא לא שותה ולא נוטלת כתובה ר' אלעזר אומר יכול הוא לישא אחרת ולפרות ולרבות הימנה,אבל המקנא לארוסתו ולשומרת יבם שלו ומשכנסה נסתרה או שותה או לא נוטלת כתובה מעוברת ומינקת עצמו או שותה או לא נוטלת כתובתה הרובא שנשא עקרה וזקינה ויש לו אשה ובנים או שותה או לא נוטלת כתובה,אשת ממזר לממזר ואשת נתין לנתין ואשת גר ועבד משוחרר ואיילונית או שותה או לא נוטלת כתובה קתני מיהא איילונית תיובתיה דרב נחמן,אמר לך רב נחמן תנאי היא ואנא דאמרי כי האי תנא דתניא ר' שמעון בן אלעזר אומר איילונית לא שותה ולא נוטלת כתובה שנאמר (במדבר ה, כח) ונקתה ונזרעה זרע מי שדרכה להזריע יצאתה זו שאין דרכה להזריע,ורבנן האי ונקתה ונזרעה זרע מאי עבדי ליה מיבעי להו לכדתניא ונקתה ונזרעה [זרע] שאם היתה עקרה נפקדת דברי ר' עקיבא אמר לו ר' ישמעאל אם כן יסתרו כל העקרות ויפקדו וזו הואיל ולא נסתרה הפסידה,אם כן מה תלמוד לומר ונקתה ונזרעה זרע שאם היתה יולדת בצער יולדת בריוח נקבות יולדת זכרים קצרים יולדת ארוכים שחורים יולדת לבנים,אשת ממזר לממזר פשיטא מהו דתימא אפושי פסולין לא ליפוש קא משמע לן,אשת גר ועבד משוחרר ואיילונית פשיטא,מהו דתימא (במדבר ה, ו) דבר אל בני ישראל ולא גרים קמ"ל ואימא הכי נמי ואמרת רבויא הוא,אשת כהן שותה כו' (אשת כהן. שותה) פשיטא מהו דתימא (במדבר ה, יג) והיא לא נתפשה אסורה הא נתפשה מותרת וזו הואיל ונתפשה אסורה אימא לא תשתה קא משמע לן,ומותרת לבעלה פשיטא אמר רב הונא במתנוונה מתנוונה הא בדקוה מיא,במתנוונה דרך אברים מהו דתימא הא זנויי זנאי והא דלא בדקוה מיא כי אורחיה משום דבאונס זנאי ולגבי כהן אסירא קא משמע לן,אשת סריס שותה פשיטא מהו דתימא מבלעדי אישך אמר רחמנא והאי לאו בר הכי הוא קא משמע לן,על ידי כל עריות מקנין פשיטא | 26a. The ibaraitacontinues: bA woman who was pregtwith the child bof anotherman at the time of her marriage band a woman who was nursingthe child bof anotherman at the time of her marriage bneither drinkthe bitter water bnor collectpayment of their bmarriage contracts,as their marriages were prohibited by rabbinic law. This is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. /b,The ibaraitacontinues: The reason for this is bas Rabbi Meir would say: A man may not marry a woman who is pregtwith the child bof anotherman bor a woman who is nursingthe child bof anotherman, until twenty-four months pass after the baby’s birth, so as to ensure that the woman will not become pregt while the child needs to nurse. bAnd if he marriedher, bhe must divorceher band may never remarryher, as the Sages penalized him for transgressing the prohibition. bAnd the Rabbis say: He must divorceher, band when his time to marryher barrives,i.e., twenty-four months after the baby’s birth, bhe can marryher again.,The ibaraitacontinues: In bthecase of a byoung man who married a barren woman or an elderly woman, and he did not have a wife and children beforehand,the woman bneither drinks nor collectspayment of her bmarriage contract,as it is prohibited for him to marry a woman with whom he cannot procreate. bRabbi Elazar says:This marriage is not forbidden, as bhe can marry anotherwoman band procreate through her,and therefore she can drink the bitter water.,The ibaraitacontinues: bHowever,in the case of bone who issued a warning to his betrothed, or to his iyevamawhile she was a bwidow awaiting her iyavam /i, and she secluded herselfwith the other man bafter he consummatedthe marriage, bshe either drinksthe bitter water bor does not collectpayment of her bmarriage contract.If bhis own pregt or nursingwife becomes a isota /i, then despite the concern that the bitter water may harm the fetus, she beither drinksthe bitter water bor does not collectpayment of bher marriage contract.In bthecase of a byoung man who married a barren woman or an elderly woman, and healready bhad a wife and childrenand was therefore permitted to marry his barren or elderly wife, the woman beither drinksthe bitter water bor does not collectpayment of her bmarriage contract. /b,The ibaraitaconcludes: With regard to bthe wife of a imamzer /iwho is married bto a imamzer /iin a permitted marriage, band the wife of a Gibeonitewho is married bto a Gibeonitein a permitted marriage, band the wife of a convert or an emancipated slave, and a sexually underdeveloped woman,if any of these women becomes a isotashe beither drinksthe bitter water bor does not collectpayment of her bmarriage contract,as the marriage is permitted. After citing the entire ibaraita /i, the Gemara explains the difficulty: bIn any event,the ibaraita bteachesthat ba sexually underdeveloped womancan drink the bitter water if the marriage is permitted, and this is ba conclusive refutationof the opinion bof Rav Naḥman. /b,The Gemara answers: bRav Naḥmancould have bsaid to you:There bisa dispute between itanna’im /iwith regard to this matter, band I statemy opinion bin accordance withthe opinion of bthis itanna /i, as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Shimon Ben Elazar says: A sexually underdeveloped woman neither drinks nor collectspayment of her bmarriage contract, as it is stated: “And she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed”(Numbers 5:28), indicating that the isotaritual pertains only to bone whose way is to bear seedand give birth, bexcluding thissexually underdeveloped woman, bwhose way is not to bear seed. /b,The Gemara asks: bAndas for bthe Rabbis, what do they do with thisverse: b“And she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed”?Since they hold that a sexually underdeveloped woman drinks the bitter water, what do they derive from the verse? The Gemara answers: bThey requireit bfor that which is taughtin a ibaraita /i: The verse: b“And she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed”(Numbers 5:28), indicates bthat if she was barren, she will be rememberedand conceive a child; this is bthe statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: If so, all the barren women will seclude themselveswith other men, band they will be rememberedand conceive after drinking the bitter water and being found innocent; bbut thatvirtuous barren woman, who does not transgress the prohibition of seclusion, bsince she does not seclude herselfwith other men, bshe losesthe opportunity to receive this blessing.,Rabbi Yishmael continues: bIf so, whatis the meaning when bthe verse states: “And she shall be cleared, and shall conceive seed”(Numbers 5:28)? This means bthat ifin the past she bwould give birth in pain,from then on bshe will give birth with ease;if she gave birth to bfemales, she willnow bgive birth to males;if her children were bshort, she willnow bgive birth to tallchildren; if her children were bblack, she will give birth to whitechildren.,§ The ibaraitain the iToseftacited above states: bThe wife of a imamzer /iwho is married bto a imamzer /iin a permitted marriage… either drinks the bitter water or does not collect payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: bIsn’tthat bobvious?Since their marriage is permitted, why should the isotaritual not apply? The Gemara answers: It is necessary blest you saythat she should not drink, since if she drinks and is found to be innocent of adultery, she is permitted to her husband. This is undesirable since their offspring are also imamzerim /i, and bwe do not causethe number of individuals bof flawed lineage to proliferate.The ibaraitain the iToseftatherefore bteaches usthat this is not a concern, and the wife of a imamzeris permitted to drink.,The aforementioned ibaraitain the iToseftastates: bThe wife of a convert or an emancipated slave, and a sexually underdeveloped womancan drink the bitter water. The Gemara asks with regard to the wife of a convert or an emancipated slave, who also has the status of a convert: bIsn’tthat bobvious?Since their marriage is permitted, why should the isotaritual not apply?,The Gemara answers: It is necessary blest you saythat she does not drink, as the verse states: b“Speak to the children of Israel,and say unto them: If the wife of any man goes astray, and acts unfaithfully against him” (Numbers 5:12). One might have inferred from this verse that the isotaritual applies only to those born as Jews band notto bconverts;the ibaraitain the iToseftatherefore bteaches usthat this is not so. The Gemara asks: Why not bsaythat bindeedthe verse excludes converts? The Gemara answers: The subsequent term: b“And sayunto them” (Numbers 5:12) bis an amplification,which serves to include converts.,§ The mishna states: bThe wife of a priest drinksthe bitter water, and if she is found to be innocent of adultery she is permitted to her husband. The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna state: bThe wife of a priest drinks? Isn’tthat bobvious?The Gemara answers: It is necessary blest you saythat she does not drink, as the verse states: “And a man lay with bher…neither was she seized”(Numbers 5:13). This indicates that if the isotawas not seized bshe is forbidden; however,if she was bseized,i.e., raped, she is bpermittedto her husband. bAndwith regard to bthiswoman, the wife of a priest, bsinceeven if she was bseizedshe is bforbiddento her husband, as a priest may not remain married to his wife if she was raped while they were married, one might bsaythat the isotaritual does not apply to her, and she bdoes not drink.Therefore, the mishna bteaches usthat she does drink.,§ The mishna states: The wife of a priest drinks, bandif she is found to be innocent of adultery, bshe is permitted to her husband.The Gemara asks: bIsn’tthat bobvious? Rav Huna says:The mishna is referring to a case bwherethe woman’s health bdeterioratesafter she drinks the bitter water, and one might have thought that she is defiled. The Gemara asks: In the case of a woman whose health bdeteriorates, hasn’t thebitter bwateralready bevaluatedthat bshewas unfaithful? The fact that her health deteriorates indicates that she is defiled and forbidden to her husband, and her death is delayed due to her merit in other matters.,The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a case bwhere herhealth bdeteriorates,but not in the manner of a isota /i, who is afflicted in her belly and thighs (see Numbers 5:27). Rather, she is afflicted bby way ofother blimbs. Lest you say: Thiswoman bengaged in licentious intercourse, andthe fact bthat thebitter bwater did not evaluate her inthe busual manneris bbecause she engaged in licentious intercourse under duress, and with regard to a priest,even rape brenders her forbidden to herto her husband, the mishna therefore bteaches usthat the woman’s deteriorating health does not indicate anything.,§ The mishna states: bThe wife of a eunuch drinks.The Gemara asks: bIsn’tthat bobvious?Since their marriage is permitted, why should the isotaritual not apply? The Gemara replies: It is necessary blest you saythat she does not drink, since bthe Merciful One stateswith regard to the isota /i: “But if you have gone astray while under your husband, and if you are defiled, and some man has lain with you bbesides your husband”(Numbers 5:20). This indicates that her husband had lain with her, band thishusband, the eunuch, bis not capable of that.The mishna therefore bteaches usthat the wife of a eunuch does drink the bitter water.,§ The mishna states: A husband bcan issue a warningto his wife bwith regard to all those with whom relations are forbidden,e.g., her father or brother. The Gemara asks: bIsn’tthat bobvious? /b |
|
8. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 64b. חוצבתם ואל מקבת בור נוקרתם וכתיב (ישעיהו נא, ב) הביטו אל אברהם אביכם ואל שרה תחוללכם,אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה שרה אמנו אילונית היתה שנאמר (בראשית יא, ל) ותהי שרי עקרה אין לה ולד אפי' בית ולד אין לה,אמר רב יהודה בריה דרב שמואל בר שילת משמיה דרב לא שנו אלא בדורות הראשונים ששנותיהן מרובות אבל בדורות האחרונים ששנותיהן מועטות שתי שנים ומחצה כנגד שלשה עיבורים רבה אמר רב נחמן שלש שנים כנגד שלש פקידות דאמר מר בר"ה נפקדו שרה רחל וחנה,אמר רבה ליתנהו להני כללי מכדי מתני' מאן תקין רבי והא בימי דוד אימעוט שני דכתיב (תהלים צ, י) ימי שנותינו בהם שבעים שנה,והאי שמא לא זכה להבנות הימנה ודלמא איהי דלא זכיא איהי כיון דלא מפקדא אפריה ורביה לא מיענשה,איני והא אמרו ליה רבנן לר' אבא בר זבדא נסיב איתתא ואוליד בני ואמר להו אי זכאי הוו לי מקמייתא התם דחוי קא מדחי להו לרבנן דר' אבא בר זבדא איעקר מפרקיה דרב הונא,רב גידל איעקר מפרקיה דרב הונא רבי חלבו איעקר מפרקיה דרב הונא רב ששת איעקר מפרקיה דרב הונא רב אחא בר יעקב אחדתיה סוסכינתא תליוה בארזא דבי רב ונפק מיניה כהוצא ירקא אמר רב אחא בר יעקב שיתין סבי הוינא וכולהו איעקור מפרקיה דרב הונא לבר מאנא דקיימי בנפשאי (קהלת ז, יב) החכמה תחיה בעליה:,גירשה מותרת וכו': שני אין שלישי לא,מתניתין מני רבי היא דתניא מלה הראשון ומת שני ומת שלישי לא תמול דברי רבי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר שלישי תמול רביעי לא תמול,והתניא איפכא הי מינייהו אחריניתא,ת"ש דאמר ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן מעשה בארבע אחיות בצפורי שמלה ראשונה ומת שניה ומת שלישית ומת רביעית באת לפני רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אמר לה אל תמולי,ודלמא אי אתיא שלישית נמי הוה אמר לה א"כ מאי אסהדותיה דר' חייא בר אבא ודלמא הא קמ"ל דאחיות מחזקות,אמר רבא השתא דאמרת אחיות מחזקות לא ישא אדם אשה לא ממשפחת נכפין ולא ממשפחת מצורעים והוא דאתחזק תלתא זימני,מאי הוה עלה כי אתא רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר עובדא הוה קמיה דר' יוחנן בכנישתא דמעון ביוה"כ שחל להיות בשבת ומלה ראשונה ומת שניה ומת שלישית באה לפניו אמר לה לכי ומולי,א"ל אביי חזי דקשרית איסורא וסכנתא,סמך עלה אביי ואזל נסבה לחומה ברתא דאיסי בריה דרב יצחק בריה דרב יהודה דנסבה רחבא דפומבדיתא ושכיב רב יצחק בריה דרבה בר בר חנה ושכיב ונסבה הוא ושכיב,אמר רבא ומי איכא דעביד עובדא בנפשיה כי האי והא איהו דאמר אבין דסמכא יצחק סומקא לאו בר סמכא אבין ישנו בחזרה יצחק סומקא אינו בחזרה ועוד אימר דפליגי לענין מילה בנישואין מי פליגי,אין והתניא ניסת לראשון ומת לשני ומת לשלישי לא תנשא דברי רבי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לשלישי תנשא לרביעי לא תנשא,בשלמא גבי מילה איכא משפחה דרפי דמא ואיכא משפחה דקמיט דמא אלא נישואין מ"ט א"ל רב מרדכי לרב אשי הכי אמר אבימי מהגרוניא משמיה דרב הונא מעין גורם ורב אשי אמר מזל גורם,מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דאירסה ומית אי נמי דנפל מדיקלא ומית,א"ל רב יוסף בריה דרבא לרבא בעי מיניה מרב יוסף הלכה כרבי ואמר לי אין הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל ואמר לי אין אחוכי אחיך בי,א"ל לא סתמי היא ופשיט לך נישואין ומלקיות כרבי וסתות ושור המועד כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל,נישואין הא דאמרן מלקיות דתנן מי שלקה ושנה ב"ד כונסין אותו לכיפה ומאכילין אותו שעורים עד שתהא כריסו נבקעת וסתות דתנן אין האשה | 64b. bfrom where you were hewn, and to the hole of the pit from where you were dug”(Isaiah 51:1), band it is writtenin the next verse: b“Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you”(Isaiah 51:2), which indicates that sexual organs were fashioned for them, signified by the words hewn and dug, over the course of time., bRav Naḥman saidthat bRabba bar Avuh said: Our mother Sarah wasinitially a bsexually underdeveloped woman [ iaylonit /i], as it is stated: “And Sarah was barren; she had no child”(Genesis 11:30). The superfluous words: “She had no child,” indicate that bshe did not have even a place,i.e., a womb, bfor a child. /b, bRav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: They taughtthat he waits ten years bonlywith regard to the people who lived bin former generations, whose yearswere bnumerous,i.e., they lived longer. bHowever,with regard to the people who live bin later generations, whose years are few,he waits only btwo and half yearsbefore divorcing her, bcorresponding tothe time period of bthree pregcies. Rabba saidin the name of bRav Naḥman:He waits bthree years, corresponding tothe bthree remembrancesof barren women by God, bas the Master said: On Rosh HaShana Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah were remembered,i.e., God gave them children. Since God determines on Rosh HaShana whether barren women will conceive that year, one may remain married until three such opportunities have passed.,However, bRabbahimself bsaid: These principles are notaccepted as ihalakha /i. Why not? bNowconsider, bwho establishedthe content of the bmishna? RabbiYehuda HaNasi. Yet, bin the days ofKing bDavid,many years before the time of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, bthe yearsof an average lifespan bwerealready bdiminished, as it is written: “The days of our years are seventy years,and if with strength eighty years” (Psalms 90:10). Consequently, if Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi included in the mishna the statement that one remains married for ten years, that must apply even nowadays.,The Gemara asks about the language of the ibaraita /i. bAndwhat about bthisexpression: bPerhaps he did not merit to be built from her; perhapsit was bshe who did not meritto build a family. The Gemara answers: bShe, since she is not commandedto be bfruitful and multiply, is not punished.Their worthiness therefore depends on him, not her.,The Gemara challenges the mishna’s statement that if one did not have children after ten years he should marry a different woman. bIs that so? Didn’t the Sages say to Rabbi Abba bar Zavda: Marry a woman and have children, and he said to them: If I had merited, I wouldalready bhavechildren bfrommy bfirstwife? This indicates that there is no obligation to remarry if one did not have children with his first wife. The Gemara answers: bThere,Rabbi Abba bar Zavda bwasmerely bputting the Rabbis offwith an excuse, basthe real reason why he would not marry was because bRabbi Abba bar Zavda became impotent from Rav Huna’s discourse.Rav Huna’s students would hold back from relieving themselves until his lengthy sermons were finished, which caused them to become sterile.,The Gemara similarly relates that bRav Giddel became impotent from Rav Huna’s discourse, Rav Ḥelbo became impotent from Rav Huna’s discourse,and bRav Sheshet became impotent from Rav Huna’s discourse.The Gemara relates: bRav Aḥa bar Ya’akov was afflicted by isuskhinta /i,a disease caused by holding back from urinating. bThey suspended him from the cedarcolumn that supported bthe study hall, anda substance that was as bgreenas a palm bleaf emerged from him,and he was healed. bRav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: We were sixty elderspresent at the time, band they all became impotent from Rav Huna’s discourse, aside from me, as I fulfilled with regard to myselfthe verse: b“Wisdom preserves the life of he who has it”(Ecclesiastes 7:12). I used the above cure to avoid becoming impotent.,§ It was taught in the mishna that if a man bdivorcedhis wife after ten years without children, bshe is permittedto marry a second man, who may remain married to her for ten years. The Gemara comments: bA secondhusband, byes,but ba thirdone, bno.Once she has been married to two men without children for ten years each, it is presumed that she is unable to have children.,The Gemara comments: bWho isthe itannaof bthe mishna? It is RabbiYehuda HaNasi, who holds that a legal presumption [ iḥazaka /i] is established after two occurrences. bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: If a woman bcircumcisedher bfirstson band he diedas a result of the circumcision, and she circumcised her bsecondson band healso bdied, she should not circumciseher bthirdson, as the deaths of the first two produce a presumption that this woman’s sons die as a result of circumcision. This is bthe statement of RabbiYehuda HaNasi. bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: She should circumciseher bthirdson, as there is not considered to be a legal presumption that her sons die from circumcision, but bshe should not circumciseher bfourthson if her first three sons died from circumcision.,The Gemara asks: bIsn’t the reverse taughtin a ibaraita /i, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the woman’s third son must be circumcised and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that he is not circumcised? bWhich of themwas composed blaterand is therefore presumed to be more reliable?,The Gemara suggests: bComeand bhear, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: An incidentoccurred binvolving four sisters in Tzippori, thatthe bfirstsister bcircumcisedher son band he died,and the bsecondsister circumcised her son band he died,and the bthirdone circumcised her son band hetoo bdied.The bfourthsister bcame before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,who bsaid to her: Do not circumcisehim. This indicates that according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel a presumption is established only after three occurrences.,The Gemara refutes this proof: bPerhaps ifthe bthirdsister had bcomebefore him bhe would also have said to herthe same ruling. The Gemara asks: bIf so, what isthe purpose bof Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s testimony?Why would he have related this incident if it does not teach us anything? The Gemara answers: bPerhapshe comes to bteach us that sisters establish a presumptionin a case like this even though the children who died were not from the same mother., bRava said: Now that you have saidthat bsisters establish a presumption, a man should not marry a woman from a family of epileptics or from a family of lepers,as these diseases might be hereditary. The Gemara adds: bAnd thisapplies only if it bwas established three times,i.e., three members of the family are afflicted with the disease.,The Gemara asks: bWhichhalakhic conclusion bwas about thismatter? Is a presumption established after two occurrences or only after three? bWhen Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef camefrom Eretz Yisrael, bhe said: An incident occurred before Rabbi Yoḥa in the synagogue ofthe town of bMaon ona bYom Kippur that occurred on Shabbat.The bfirstsister had bcircumcisedher son band he died;the bsecondsister circumcised her son band healso bdied.The bthirdsister bcame before him,and he bsaid to her: Go and circumciseyour son, as a presumption is not established after only two occurrences., bAbaye said toRav Yitzḥak: bSeeto it that your report is accurate, bas you are permittingan action that would otherwise constitute ba prohibition and a danger.If the third baby should not be circumcised, doing so would be a prohibited labor and would endanger the life of the child.,The Gemara comments: bAbaye relied on thisreport band wentand bmarried Ḥuma, the daughter of Isi, son of Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda.Ḥuma bhadpreviously bmarried Raḥava of Pumbedita, and he died,and then she married bRav Yitzḥak, son of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, and he died; and he,Abaye, bmarried hernevertheless, without concern that she had been established to be a woman whose husbands die; band he diedas well while married to her., bRava said: Is thereanyone bwho performs an action like thisand endangers bhimselfby marrying such a woman? bWasn’t it he,Abaye, bwho saidthat bAvin is reliablebut bYitzḥak the Red,i.e., Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef, bis not reliable?He proceeds to explain the difference between them: bAvin returnsto Eretz Yisrael and hears whether the Sages there rescind their previous rulings, whereas bYitzḥak the Red does not returnto Eretz Yisrael and never finds out if the Sages there rescind their rulings. bAnd furthermore, say that they disagree with regard towhether a presumption is established by two or by three deaths due to bcircumcision,but bdothey necessarily bargue with regard to marriage? /b,The Gemara responds: bYes, and it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: If a woman bwas married toher bfirsthusband band he died, to a secondone band healso bdied, she may not get married to a thirdhusband. This is bthe statement of RabbiYehuda HaNasi. bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: She may get married to a thirdhusband, but if he also dies, bshe may not get married to a fourthhusband.,The Gemara asks: bGranted with regard to circumcisiona presumption of death due to circumcision can be established because bthere are families whose blood is thinand does not clot well, band there are families whose blood clots. However,in the case of bmarriage, what is the reasonfor concern that a subsequent husband will die? bRav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: Avimi of Hagron-ya said in the name of Rav Huna as follows:Her bspringis the bcause.In other words, the woman has some sort of condition that causes those who have intercourse with her to die. bAnd Rav Ashi saidthat her bconstellationis the bcauseof her husbands’ deaths.,The Gemara asks: bWhat isthe practical difference bbetween them?The Gemara answers: bThere isa difference bbetween themin a case bwherea man bbetrothed her and diedbefore the wedding; balternatively,in a case bwhere he fell off a palm tree and died.If the concern is due to intercourse, then in these cases the husband’s death cannot be attributed to his wife. Conversely, if the concern is due to her bad fortune, the husband’s death can be attributed to his wife even in these cases., bRav Yosef, son of Rava, said to Rava: I inquired of Rav Yosefwhether the ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbiYehuda HaNasi, band he said to me: Yes.I subsequently asked him if the ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and he said to me: Yes. Was he mocking meby issuing contradictory rulings?,Rava bsaid to him: No, there are unattributed imishnayotin accordance with each opinion, band he resolved for youthat the ihalakhais in accordance with each opinion in particular cases. With regard to bmarriage and lashingsthe ihalakhais bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbiYehuda HaNasi that two occurrences are sufficient for a presumption. Concerning bset patternsof menstrual bleeding band a forewarned ox,the ihalakhais bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabban Shimon ben Gamlielthat a presumption is established after three occurrences.,The Gemara identifies the aforementioned ihalakhot /i. bMarriageis referring to bthat which we saidwith regard to a woman whose husbands have died. The case of blashingsis bas we learnedin a mishna ( iNidda63b): bOne who was floggedfor transgressing a Torah law, band repeatedthe same transgression and was flogged again, if he then repeats the sin a third time, the bcourt places him in anarrow, bvaulted chamber and they feed him barley until his stomach bursts.Once he has sinned and been flogged twice he has established a presumption of wickedness, and when he sins again he is caused to die so that he will not continue to sin. The case of bset patternsof menstrual bleeding is bas we learnedin a mishna ( iNidda63b): bA woman does not /b |
|
9. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 81b. הוא גופיה שבת איקרי דכתיב תשבתו שבתכם בשלמא רב פפא לא אמר כרב אחא בר יעקב דקרא דכתיב בגופיה עדיף אלא רב אחא בר יעקב מאי טעמא לא אמר כרב פפא,מיבעי ליה לכדתניא (ויקרא כג, לב) ועניתם את נפשותיכם בתשעה לחודש יכול יתחיל ויתענה בתשעה ת"ל בערב אי בערב יכול משתחשך ת"ל בתשעה הא כיצד מתחיל ומתענה מבעוד יום מכאן שמוסיפין מחול על הקודש,ואין לי אלא בכניסתו ביציאתו מנין ת"ל (ויקרא כג, לב) מערב עד ערב ואין לי אלא יוה"כ (ימים טובים) מניין ת"ל (ויקרא כג, לב) תשבתו אין לי אלא (ימים טובים שבתות) מנין ת"ל (ויקרא כג, לב) שבתכם הא כיצד כל מקום שנאמר שבות (מכאן שמוסיפין) מחול על הקודש,ותנא דעצם עצם האי בתשעה לחודש מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתני חייא בר רב מדיפתי דתני חייא בר רב מדיפתי ועניתם את נפשותיכם בתשעה וכי בתשעה מתענין והלא בעשור מתענין אלא לומר לך כל האוכל ושותה בתשיעי מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו התענה תשיעי ועשירי,אכל אוכלין שאין ראוין לאכילה אמר רבא כס פלפלי ביומא דכפורי פטור כס זנגבילא ביומא דכפורי פטור,מיתיבי היה רבי מאיר אומר ממשמע שנאמר (ויקרא יט, כג) וערלתם ערלתו את פריו איני יודע שעץ מאכל הוא אלא מה תלמוד לומר עץ מאכל עץ שטעם עצו ופריו שוה הוי אומר זה פלפלין ללמדך שהפלפלין חייבין בערלה ואין ארץ ישראל חסרה כלום שנא' (דברים ח, ט) לא תחסר כל בה,ל"ק הא ברטיבתא והא ביבישתא,א"ל רבינא למרימר והאמר רב נחמן האי הימלתא דאתי מבי הנדואי שריא ומברכינן עליה בורא פרי האדמה לא קשיא הא ברטיבתא והא ביבישתא,ת"ר אכל עלי קנים פטור לולבי גפנים חייב אלו הן לולבי גפנים אמר רבי יצחק מגדלאה כל שלבלבו מר"ה ועד יוה"כ ורב כהנא אמר כל שלשים יום תניא כוותיה דר' יצחק מגדלאה אכל עלי קנים פטור ולולבי גפנים חייב אלו הן לולבי גפנים כל שלבלבו מר"ה ועד יוה"כ,שתה ציר או מורייס פטור הא חומץ חייב מתני' מני רבי היא דתניא ר' אומר חומץ משיב את הנפש,דרש רב גידל בר מנשה מבירי דנרש אין הלכה כרבי לשנה נפקי כולי עלמא מזגו ושתו חלא שמע רב גידל ואיקפד אמר אימר דאמרי אנא דיעבד לכתחלה מי אמרי אימר דאמרי אנא פורתא טובא מי אמרי אימר דאמרי אנא חי מזוג מי אמרי | 81b. Yom Kippur bitself is called “Shabbat,” as it is written:“From evening until evening, byou shall rest on your Shabbat”(Leviticus 23:32). The Gemara compares the various opinions. bGranted, Rav Pappa did not say as Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akovdid because ba verse that is written about the matter itself is preferableto a verbal analogy. bBut what is the reasonthat bRav Aḥa bar Ya’akov did not statehis opinion bin accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa? /b,The Gemara answers: bHe requires thisverse of “keep your Shabbat” bfor that which was taughtin a ibaraita /i: The verse states: b“And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the monthat evening, from evening until evening, you shall rest on your Shabbat” (Leviticus 23:32). One bmighthave thought that bone should start to afflict oneself on the ninthof Tishrei; therefore, bthe verse states “at evening.” Ifthe Torah had stated only b“at evening,”one bmighthave thought that the fast starts only bwhen darkness falls;therefore, bthe verse states “on the ninth,”implying that one begins to fast on the ninth of Tishrei. bHowcan these verses be reconciled? bOne begins to fast while it is still daytime; from hereit is derived bthat onesanctifies and bextends fromthe bnon-sacredweekday btothe bsacredday of Yom Kippur., bI havederived bonlythat one must add time bat the beginningof Yom Kippur. bFrom wheredo I derive that one adds time bat the conclusion ofYom Kippur? bThe verse states: “From evening until evening”(Leviticus 23:32), implying that one adds at the end as well, just as he does at the beginning. bAnd Ihave derived bonlythe mitzva of adding to bYom Kippur; from whereis it derived that one must also sanctify and append time before and after bFestivals? The verse states: “You shall rest”(Leviticus 23:32), to teach that this rule applies even to Festivals, on which one is commanded to rest. bI havederived bonlythat one adds an extension to bFestivals; from wheredo I derive that one must also sanctify and append to iShabbatot /i? The verse states: “Your Shabbat”(Leviticus 23:32). bHow so? Every place the term: Rest [ ishevut /i] is stated,it teaches bfrom here that onesanctifies and bappends fromthe bnon-sacredweekday btothe bsacred. /b,The Gemara asks: bAnd the itanna /iwho learns a verbal analogy from the words “that bsameday,” “that bsameday,” bwhat does he do withthe phrase: b“On the ninth day of the month”?The Gemara answers: bHe requires it, in accordance withthat bwhich Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught. As Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught:It states: b“And you shall afflict your souls on the ninthday of the month” (Leviticus 23:32). bBut does one afflict oneself on the ninthof Tishrei? bDoesn’t onein fact bafflict oneself on the tenthof Tishrei? bRather,the verse comes bto tell you: Anyone who eats and drinks on the ninthof Tishrei and then fasts on the tenth, bthe verse ascribes himcredit bas though he fasted onboth the bninth and the tenth.The verse alludes to this when it states that the fast is on the ninth.,§ It was taught in the mishna: If one bate food that isnot bfit for eating,he is exempt. bRava said:If bone chewsraw bpepper on Yom Kippur, he is exempt,since this is not considered eating. Similarly, if bone chews ginger [ izangvila /i] on Yom Kippur, he is exempt. /b,The Gemara braises an objectionto this. bRabbi Meir would sayabout the verse: “And when you shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then you shall count the fruit of it as forbidden [ iorla /i]; three years it shall be forbidden to you, it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 19:23). bFrom the implication of what is stated: “Then you shall count the fruit of it as forbidden,” do I not know thatthe verse is referring to b“trees for food,”since it uses the word “fruit”? bRather, whatis the meaning when bthe verse states “trees for food”?It includes ba tree whose wood and fruit taste the same,i.e., a tree that is itself eaten in addition to its fruit. One bmust saythat bthisis referring to bpepperthat grows on a tree, bto teach you thateven bpepper is subject tothe ihalakha bof iorla /i. Andthis also teaches that bEretz Yisrael lacks nothing,as even pepper can grow there, bas it is statedamong the listed praises of Eretz Yisrael: b“You will not lack anything in it”(Deuteronomy 8:9). In any event, it has been derived that pepper is called food, which contradicts Rava’s statement.,The Gemara answers: bThisis bnot difficult. Thisstatement about edible pepper is referring btofresh pepper, which is bmoist; and that ihalakhapertaining to Yom Kippur is referring to bdrypepper, which is not considered food., bRavina said to Mareimar: But didn’t Rav Naḥman saythat bit is permittedto eat bthis cooked ginger [ ihimalta /i] that comes from India,and there is no concern that gentiles may have cooked it. bAnd we recite the blessing: Who creates the fruit of the ground, over it.Apparently, ginger is edible. The Gemara answers: bThisis bnot difficult: Thisstatement is referring bto wetginger, which is considered food; band thatearlier statement pertaining to Yom Kippur, which maintained that ginger is not food, is referring bto dryginger., bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: If bone ate leaves of reedson Yom Kippur, bhe is exempt,but if one ate bgrapevine shoots he is liable.The Gemara clarifies: bWhat are these grapevine shoots? Rabbi Yitzḥak fromthe city of bMigdal said: Allshoots bthat sprouted between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippurand are still very soft are considered food. bAnd Rav Kahana said:All shoots that sprouted up to bthirty daysbefore Yom Kippur are considered food. The Gemara comments: bIt was taughtin a ibaraita bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yitzḥak from Migdal:If bone ate leaves of reeds he is exempt, butif one ate bgrapevine shoots he is liable. What are these grapevine shoots?They are ball those that sprouted between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur. /b,It was taught in the mishna that if on Yom Kippur one bdrank fish brine orthe briny bliquidin which fish are pickled, bhe is exempt.The Gemara comments: From the language of the mishna it may be inferred that bif one drank vinegar, he is liable. Who isthe itannaof bthe mishna? It is RabbiYehuda HaNasi, bas it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays: Vinegar revives the spiritand is therefore considered a beverage.,The Gemara relates: bRav Giddel bar Menashe fromthe town of bBirei DeNeresh taughtin a public lecture that the ihalakhais not in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbiYehuda HaNasi, and vinegar is not considered a beverage. bThenext byear everyone went out and mixedvinegar with water band drank vinegaron Yom Kippur. bRav Giddel heardthis band became angrywith them for their actions. bHe said: Say that I saidone is not liable for drinking vinegar bonly after the fact;however, bdid I sayit is permitted to drink it iab initio /i?Furthermore: bSay that I saidmy statement with regard to one who drinks ba little,but bdid I sayit is permitted to drink ba lot?Furthermore: bSay that I saidmy statement in reference to bpurevinegar, which is very strong, bbut did I sayanything about bdilutedvinegar? That is certainly prohibited. |
|
