Home About Network of subjects Linked subjects heatmap Book indices included Search by subject Search by reference Browse subjects Browse texts

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database



10958
Tosefta, Negaim, 8.9
NaN


Intertexts (texts cited often on the same page as the searched text):

10 results
1. Hippocrates, The Sacred Disease, 2 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)

2. Septuagint, 2 Maccabees, 12.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)

12.8. But learning that the men in Jamnia meant in the same way to wipe out the Jews who were living among them,'
3. Philo of Alexandria, On The Special Laws, 1.261, 1.274, 3.89, 3.205 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

1.261. The body then, as I have already said, he purifies with ablutions and bespringklings, and does not allow a person after he has once washed and sprinkled himself, at once to enter within the sacred precincts, but bids him wait outside for seven days, and to be besprinkled twice, on the third day and on the seventh day; and after this it commands him to wash himself once more, and then it admits him to enter the sacred precincts and to share in the sacred ministrations.XLIX. 1.274. for one is made of stones, carefully selected so to fit one another, and unhewn, and it is erected in the open air, near the steps of the temple, and it is for the purpose of sacrificing victims which contain blood in them. And the other is made of gold, and is erected in the inner part of the temple, within the first veil, and may not be seen by any other human being except those of the priests who keep themselves pure, and it is for the purpose of offering incense upon; 3.89. Or shall we say that to those who have done no wrong the temple is still inaccessible until they have washed themselves, and sprinkled themselves, and purified themselves with the accustomed purifications; but that those who are guilty of indelible crimes, the pollution of which no length of time will ever efface, may approach and dwell among those holy seats; though no decent person, who has any regard for holy things would even receive them in his house?XVI.
4. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 12.145-12.146, 18.94 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

12.145. 4. And these were the contents of this epistle. He also published a decree through all his kingdom in honor of the temple, which contained what follows: “It shall be lawful for no foreigner to come within the limits of the temple round about; which thing is forbidden also to the Jews, unless to those who, according to their own custom, have purified themselves. 12.146. Nor let any flesh of horses, or of mules, or of asses, he brought into the city, whether they be wild or tame; nor that of leopards, or foxes, or hares; and, in general, that of any animal which is forbidden for the Jews to eat. Nor let their skins be brought into it; nor let any such animal be bred up in the city. Let them only be permitted to use the sacrifices derived from their forefathers, with which they have been obliged to make acceptable atonements to God. And he that transgresseth any of these orders, let him pay to the priests three thousand drachmae of silver.” 18.94. and seven days before a festival they were delivered to them by the captain of the guard, when the high priest having purified them, and made use of them, laid them up again in the same chamber where they had been laid up before, and this the very next day after the feast was over. This was the practice at the three yearly festivals, and on the fast day;
5. Mishnah, Hagigah, 2.5-2.6, 3.6 (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." 2.6. If he immersed for unconsecrated [food], and was presumed to be fit to eat unconsecrated [food], he is prohibited from [eating second] tithe. If he immersed for [second] tithe, and was presumed to be fit to eat [second] tithe, he is prohibited from [eating] terumah. If he immersed for terumah, and was presumed to be fit to eat terumah, he is prohibited from [eating] holy things. If he immersed for holy things, and was presumed to be fit to eat holy things he is prohibited from [touching the waters of] purification. If one immersed for something possessing a stricter [degree of holiness], one is permitted [to have contact with] something possessing a lighter [degree of holiness]. If he immersed but without special intention, it is as though he had not immersed." 3.6. Tax-collectors who entered a house, and similarly thieves who restored [stolen] vessels are believed if they say, “We have not touched [anything].” And in Jerusalem they are believed in regard to sacred things, and during a festival also in regard to terumah."
6. Mishnah, Keritot, 2.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

2.1. There are four persons who require a ceremony of atonement, and there are four who bring a sacrifice for willful as well as for inadvertent transgression. The following are those who require a ceremony of atonement: the zav, the zavah, the woman who gave birth and the metzora. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: also a convert is regarded as a person who still requires a ceremony of atonement until the blood has been sprinkled for him; the same applies to the nazirite with reference to wine, haircutting and uncleanness."
7. Mishnah, Yoma, 3.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

3.3. A man may not enter the Temple courtyard or to worship even if he was clean until he immerses himself. Five immersions and ten sanctifications did the high priest perform on that day. And all in sanctity in the Bet Haparvah with the exception of this one alone."
8. New Testament, Acts, 21.26 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

21.26. Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purified himself and went with them into the temple, declaring the fulfillment of the days of purification, until the offering was offered for every one of them.
9. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

92a. והמלקט לו עצמות טובל ואוכל בקדשים,גר שנתגייר בע"פ ב"ש אומרים טובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב וב"ה אומרים הפורש מן הערלה כפורש מן הקבר:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מ"ט קא סבר אנינות דלילה דרבנן וגבי פסח לא העמידו דבריהם במקום כרת גבי קדשים העמידו דבריהם במקום עשה:,השומע על מתו וכו': מלקט עצמות הא בעי הזאת שלישי ושביעי אימא שליקטו לו עצמות:,גר שנתגייר וכו': אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן מחלוקת בערל נכרי,דב"ה סברי גזירה שמא יטמא לשנה הבאה ויאמר אישתקד מי לא טבלתי ואכלתי עכשיו נמי אטבול ואוכל ולא ידע דאשתקד נכרי הוה ולא מקבל טומאה עכשיו ישראל ומקבל טומאה,וב"ש סברי לא גזרינן אבל ערל ישראל דברי הכל טובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב ולא גזרינן ערל ישראל משום ערל נכרי,תניא נמי הכי אמר ר"ש בן אלעזר לא נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה על ערל ישראל שטובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב על מה נחלקו על ערל נכרי שב"ש אומרים טובל ואוכל את פסחו לערב וב"ה אומרים הפורש מן הערלה כפורש מן הקבר:,אמר רבא ערל הזאה ואיזמל העמידו דבריהן במקום כרת אונן ומצורע ובית הפרס לא העמידו דבריהן במקום כרת,ערל הא דאמרן,הזאה דאמר מר הזאה שבות ואינו דוחה את השבת,איזמל דתניא כשם שאין מביאין אותו דרך רשות הרבים כך אין מביאין אותו דרך גגות ודרך חצרות ודרך קרפיפות,אונן הא דאמרן,מצורע מאי היא דתניא מצורע שחל שמיני שלו בערב הפסח וראה קרי בו ביום טובל ואוכל,אמרו חכמים אע"פ שטבול יום אינו נכנס זה נכנס מוטב יבא עשה שיש בו כרת וידחה עשה שאין בו כרת,וא"ר יוחנן דבר תורה אפילו עשה אין בו שנאמר (דברי הימים ב כ, ה) ויעמד יהושפט בקהל יהודה וירושלים בבית ה' לפני החצר החדשה מאי חצר החדשה שחדשו בו דבר ואמרו טבול יום לא יכנס במחנה לויה,בית הפרס דתנן ושוין ב"ש וב"ה 92a. bAnd one who gathersthe bbonesof his parents, who are buried in a temporary location for their flesh to decay and who is moving them to a permanent burial place must also observe a day of acute mourning by rabbinic decree. These mourners bimmerse and eatall types of bsacrificial foodat night. Since in these cases, even during the day, the mourning is by rabbinic decree, the Sages did not extend it into the evening.,With regard to ba convert who converted on Passover eve, Beit Shammai say: He immerses and eats his Paschal lamb in the evening. And Beit Hillel say: One who separates from the foreskinby being circumcised is ritually impure, blike one who separates from the graveafter coming in contact with a corpse. Consequently, he must first observe the seven-day purification process necessary to remove ritual impurity imparted by a corpse. Only then, from the eighth day onward, may he partake of sacrificial meat., strongGEMARA: /strong bWhat is the reasonthat an acute mourner may eat the Paschal lamb in the evening? The itannaof the mishna bholdsthat the observance of bacute mourning at nightafter the day of one’s relative’s death bis a rabbinicprohibition. bAnd with regard to the Paschal lamb,the Sages waived their prohibition because bthey did not uphold their statementprohibiting consumption of sacrificial food bin a situationin which doing so would violate a prohibition that carries the punishment bof ikaret /i,as is the case with one who neglects to offer the Paschal lamb. On the other hand, bwith regard toother bsacrificial food,they maintained the prohibition, because bthey upheld their statement in a situationin which neglecting to eat the sacrificial food entails only the neglect of ba positive mitzva. /b,We learned in the mishna: bOne who hears aboutthe death of bhis deadrelative more than thirty days after the death and one who gathers bones immerse and eat sacrificial food in the evening. The Gemara expresses surprise: Can this apply to bone who gathers bones? Butby doing so he came in contact with the bones of a corpse, and bhe needs sprinkling onthe bthird and seventhdays in order to become ritually pure. The Gemara answers: Emend the teaching of the mishna and instead bsay:One bfor whom they gathered bones,meaning that other people gathered the bones of his parents to transfer them to a new grave but he himself did not touch them, has a rabbinical requirement to observe a day of acute mourning, but he is not ritually impure.,We learned in the mishna: With regard to ba convert who convertedon Passover eve, there is a dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel as to whether he may immerse and eat the Paschal sacrifice in the evening. The Gemara discusses the scope of this dispute: bRabba bar bar Ḥana saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa saidthat bthe dispute is about an uncircumcised gentilethat was circumcised and converted on Passover eve., bBeit Hillel holdthat bthere is a rabbinic decreedue to a concern that bperhaps he will become contaminatedby a corpse bin the following year and he will say: Last year,even though I had come in contact with a corpse previous to Passover, bdid I not immerse and eatthe Paschal lamb without completing the purification process for impurity imparted by a corpse? bNow also, I will immerse and eat. And he does not knowand understand bthat last year,before his conversion on Passover eve, bhe was a gentile andtherefore bhe was not susceptible to ritual impurity,because gentiles do not contract ritual impurity according to Torah law, but bnow he is a Jew and is susceptible to ritual impurity.Therefore, the Sages decreed that he should complete the seven-day purification process for impurity imparted by a corpse before he can partake of sacrificial food in order to avoid such a mistake., bAnd Beit Shammai hold that we do not make a decreedue to this concern. bButwith regard to ban uncircumcised Jewwho for some reason had not been circumcised until Passover eve, ball agree that he may immerse and eat his Paschal lamb in the evening.The concern that he will err the following year does not apply, band we do not decreein the case of an buncircumcised Jewwho was circumcised on Passover eve, bdue toconcern that the case will be confused with that of ban uncircumcised gentilewho was circumcised and converted on Passover eve., bThat was also taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree aboutthe fact that ban uncircumcised Jewwho was circumcised on Passover eve bmay immerse and eat his Paschal lamb in the evening. With regard to what did they disagree? With regard to an uncircumcised gentilewho converted on Passover eve. bBeit Shammai saythat bhe may immerse and eat his Paschal lamb in the evening, and Beit Hillel saythat bone who separates from the foreskin isritually impure blike one who separates from the grave. /b, bRava said:With regard to ban uncircumcisedgentile who converted, bsprinklingthe purification waters to purify impurity imparted by a corpse, banda circumcision bscalpel [ iizmel /i],the Sages bupheld their statementeven bin a situationin which doing so would violate a prohibition that carries the punishment bof ikaret /i.However, with regard to ban acute mourner, a leper, and a ibeit haperas /i,an area in which a doubt exists concerning the location of a grave or a corpse, bthey did not uphold their statement in a situationin which doing so would violate a prohibition that carries the punishment bof ikaret /i. /b,The Gemara details all the cases Rava referred to: The case of ban uncircumcisedgentile who converted is bas we have saidpreviously. Beit Hillel disqualify a convert from offering the Paschal lamb, despite the fact that neglecting to do so renders one liable to receive ikaret /i.,The case of bsprinklingthe purification waters to purify impurity imparted by a corpse is bas the Master saidin a mishna: bSprinklingis prohibited on Shabbat due to brabbinic decree, and it does not override Shabbateven on Passover eve, despite the fact that one who requires sprinkling will then be unable to offer the Paschal lamb.,The case of the circumcision bscalpelis bas it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: If a circumcision scalpel was not brought to the location of the baby from before Shabbat, bjust as we may not bring it through a public domainin violation of Torah law, bsotoo bwe may not bring it through roofs, through courtyards, and through enclosures,even though carrying in this manner is prohibited by rabbinic decree. One who has an uncircumcised member of his household may not bring a Paschal lamb and is liable for ikaret /i. The Sages maintained the prohibition of carrying the scalpel in all circumstances, even when doing so would mean the baby would remain uncircumcised on Passover eve, preventing his household from offering a Paschal lamb.,The Gemara lists the cases where the Sages waived their prohibition in the face of a prohibition carrying the punishment of ikaret /i: The case of an bacute mourner is that which we saidin the mishna.,The case of the bleper, what is it?It is bas it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bA leperis ritually impure and must undergo an involved, eight-day purification process, which culminates on the eighth day with the bringing of various offerings in the Temple. If his beighth day occurs on Passover eve,such that it would be possible to bring his offerings and be fit to partake of the Paschal lamb that evening, band he saw an occurrenceof semen bon that day,and one who experiences such a discharge is ritually impure and prohibited from entering the Temple, bhe may immersein order to purify himself from the discharge and then bring his offerings band eatthe Paschal lamb at night., bThe Sages said: Althoughnormally, with regard to ritual impurity from seminal discharge, bone who has immersed on that day may not enterthe Temple until nightfall, bthis one may enter.The reason is that bit is better for a positive mitzva that hasa punishment of ikaret /i,i.e., the bringing of the Paschal lamb, bto come and override a positive mitzva that does not havea punishment of ikaret /i,i.e., the mitzva of “They shall send out from the camp every leper and whoever has had issue, and whoever is unclean by the dead” (Numbers 5:2), which requires the removal from the Temple of one who has immersed that day and will become pure only upon nightfall., bAndfurthermore, bRabbi Yoḥa said: By Torah law, there is not even a positive mitzvathat restricts one who has immersed that day and will become pure only upon nightfall from entering the Temple, bas it is stated: “And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judea and Jerusalem, in the House of the Lord, before the new courtyard”(II Chronicles 20:5). bWhatis indicated by identifying the courtyards as bthe new courtyard?It indicates bthat they innovated something in it, and they said: One who has immersed on that daybut will become pure only upon nightfall bmay not enter the Levite camp,which includes the entire Temple Mount. This suggests that the prohibition is of rabbinic origin and is not a positive mitzva.,The case of a ibeit haperas /i,in which the Sages did not uphold their decree, is bas it was taughtin a mishna: bAnd Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree /b
10. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

71b. מעת לעת,והתני לודאה יום הבראתו כיום הולדו מאי לאו מה יום הולדו לא בעינן מעת לעת אף יום הבראתו לא בעינן מעת לעת,לא עדיף יום הבראתו מיום הולדו דאילו יום הולדו לא בעינן מעת לעת ואילו יום הבראתו בעינן מעת לעת,רב פפא אמר כגון דכאיב ליה עיניה לינוקא ואיתפח ביני וביני,רבא אמר כגון שהיו אביו ואמו חבושין בבית האסורין,רב כהנא בריה דרב נחמיה אמר כגון טומטום שנקרע ונמצא זכר ביני וביני,רב שרביא אמר כגון שהוציא ראשו חוץ לפרוזדור,ומי חיי והתניא כיון שיצא לאויר העולם נפתח הסתום ונסתם הפתוח שאלמלא כן אין יכול לחיות אפילו שעה אחת,הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דזנתיה אישתא אישתא דמאן אילימא אישתא דידיה אי הכי כל שבעה בעי אלא דזנתיה אישתא דאימיה ואיבעית אימא ה"מ היכא דלא מעוי אבל היכא דמעוי מחייא חיי,אמר ר' יוחנן משום רבי בנאה ערל מקבל הזאה שכן מצינו באבותינו שקבלו הזאה כשהן ערלים שנאמר (יהושע ד, יט) והעם עלו מן הירדן בעשור לחדש הראשון,בעשרה לא מהילי משום חולשא דאורחא הזאה אימת עביד להו לאו כשהן ערלים,ודלמא לא עבוד פסח כלל לא ס"ד דכתיב (יהושע ה, י) ויעשו את הפסח,מתקיף לה מר זוטרא ודלמא פסח הבא בטומאה היה א"ל רב אשי תניא בהדיא מלו וטבלו ועשו פסחיהן בטהרה,אמר רבה בר יצחק אמר רב לא ניתנה פריעת מילה לאברהם אבינו שנאמר (יהושע ה, ב) בעת ההיא אמר ה' אל יהושע עשה לך חרבות צורים וגו',ודלמא הנך דלא מהול דכתיב (יהושע ה, ה) כי מולים היו כל העם היוצאים וכל העם הילודים וגו',א"כ מאי שוב אלא לאו לפריעה ומאי שנית,לאקושי סוף מילה לתחלת מילה מה תחלת מילה מעכבת אף סוף מילה מעכבין בו דתנן אלו הן ציצין המעכבין את המילה בשר החופה את [רוב] העטרה ואין אוכל בתרומה,אמר רבינא ואיתימא רב ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב בשר החופה את רוב גובהה של עטרה,ובמדבר מאי טעמא לא מהול איבעית אימא משום חולשא דאורחא 71b. that during the recovery period one must wait bfromthe btimethe seven days began btothe exact same btimeseven days later, i.e., seven complete twenty-four-hour periods. Therefore, if the child recovered in the afternoon of a particular day, one is required to wait until that same time of day a week later, and only then is he circumcised.,The Gemara asks: bDidn’tthe Sage bfrom Lod teachthat bthe day of his healing is like the day of his birth? What, is it notthat bjust aswith regard to bthe day of his birth we need notwait bfromthe btimehe is born btothe same btimeon the eighth day to circumcise him, bso too,with regard to bthe day of his healing we need notwait bfromthe btimehe heals btothe same btimeseven days later?,The Gemara refutes this argument: bNo, the day of his healing is superior to the day of his birth: Whilefrom bthe day of his birthuntil circumcision bwe need notwait bfromthe btimehe is born btothe same btimeon the eighth day to circumcise him, i.e., the child may be circumcised already at the start of the eighth day, from bthe day of his healing we needto wait seven complete days bfromthe btimehe heals btothe same btimeseven days later.,The Gemara suggests other circumstances where a male child may be present at the time of the eating of the Paschal lamb but absent at the time of its preparation. bRav Pappa said:This would take place, bfor example, if the baby’s eye hurt himon the eighth day following his birth, which occurred on the eve of Passover, band he recovered in the meantimebetween the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb and the time of its eating. In the case of a minor ailment such as eye pain, circumcision is not performed as long as the pain persists, but it may be performed as soon as the child has recovered, without first waiting seven days., bRava said:This would occur, bfor example, ifthe infant’s bfather and mother were incarcerated in a prisonat the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb, and they slaughtered their offering by way of an agent, and there was no one available to circumcise the infant, and the parents were released from prison before the time for eating the Paschal lamb arrived., bRav Kahana, son of Rav Neḥemya, said:This would occur, bfor example,if the infant was ba itumtum /i,one whose external sexual organs are indeterminate and it is unclear whether the infant is male or female, and bin the meantimebetween the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb and the time of its eating, bhe was tornopen, his gender was revealed, band he was foundto be ba male,so that the obligation to circumcise him went into effect., bRav Sherevya said:This would occur, bfor example, ifseven days earlier the baby had already bextended his head,but not the rest of his body, bout of the corridorto his mother’s womb. In such a situation he is considered born, but he is fit for circumcision only after his entire body has emerged. If this occurs between the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb and the time of its eating, the child’s father may not eat of the offering until he has circumcised his son.,The Gemara poses a question: bButin a case such as this, bcanthe child blivefor such a long period with only his head outside? bIsn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bOncea baby bemerges into the air of the world,that which had been bclosed,the mouth and nostrils, bopen, andthat which had been bopen,the umbilical cord, from which the child had previously received its sustece, bcloses, as, if thisdid bnotoccur bit could not live for even an hour,as it has no other way to receive nutrition. If so, this child whose head alone emerged from his mother’s womb would certainly starve, as it cannot take in any sustece.,The Gemara answers: bWith whatcase bare we dealing here?It is, bfor example,a case bwhere he was sustained bythe heat of ba feverand therefore did not need to eat. The Gemara asks: bWhose fever? If we sayit is bhis own fever,i.e., the baby himself had a fever, bif so,it should be bnecessaryto wait ba full sevendays after his entire body exits the womb before he can be circumcised, in accordance with the ihalakhagoverning an infant who was ill. bRather,it must be bthat he was sustained by his mother’s fever. And if you wish, saythat bthisprinciple that a child cannot survive in such conditions bapplies only when he does not cry, but when he cries hecan blive,as his crying indicates that he has already started to breathe.,§ bRabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Bena’a: An uncircumcisedman bmay receivethe bsprinklingof the water mixed with the ashes of a red heifer in order to purify himself from ritual impurity imparted by a human corpse, as we do not say that this sprinkling is ineffective as long as he is uncircumcised. bAs we found that our forefathers receivedthe bsprinkling when they were uncircumcised, as it is stated: “And the people came up out of the Jordan on the tenth day of the first month”(Joshua 4:19), and the verses go on to relate that the men were all later circumcised before sacrificing the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth (see Joshua 5:10).,The Gemara clarifies: bOn the tenthday itself bthey did not circumcisethemselves bdue to the wearinesscaused by btheir journey. When,then, bwasthe bsprinkling done to themin order to remove the ritual impurity resulting from contact with a corpse, so that they would be fit to bring the Paschal lamb on the fourteenth? The first sprinkling must have taken place no later than the tenth, as there is a four-day waiting period between the first and second sprinklings. In that case, bwasn’tthe initial sprinkling performed bwhen they werestill buncircumcised?This proves that an one who is uncircumcised may receive the sprinkling of the purification waters.,The Gemara counters: bBut perhaps they did not sacrificethe bPaschal lamb at all.The Gemara answers: bThis cannot enter your mind, as it is written: “And they kept the Passover”(Joshua 5:10), meaning they brought the Paschal lamb., bMar Zutra strongly objects to this: But perhaps it was a Paschal lamb that comes ina state of bimpurity?If the majority of the community is ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, they may all sacrifice their Paschal lambs even though they are ritually impure, and there is no need for any sprinkling. bRav Ashi said to him: It is taught explicitlyin a ibaraitathat bthey circumcisedthemselves, bimmersedin a ritual bath, band performedthe ritual of btheir Paschal lambs ina state of bpurity. /b, bRabba bar Yitzḥak saidthat bRav said: Themitzva of buncoveringthe corona during bcircumcision was not given to our Patriarch Abraham.The command given to Avraham included only the mitzva of circumcision itself, i.e., the removal of the foreskin, but not the uncovering of the corona, i.e., the folding back of the thin membrane that lies under the foreskin. bAs it is stated: “At that time the Lord said to Joshua: Make yourself knives of flint,and circumcise again the children of Israel a second time” (Joshua 5:2). Why was it necessary to circumcise them? Apparently, it is because before the Torah was given on Mount Sinai, some of them had been circumcised in the manner of Abraham, without uncovering the corona, and therefore they needed to be circumcised a second time in accordance with the Torah law that requires uncovering the corona.,The Gemara asks: How may it be inferred that those who were already circumcised required a second circumcision? bPerhapsthe verse is referring to bthose who had not been circumcised at all, as it is written: “For all the people who came out were circumcised; but all the people who were bornin the wilderness…had not been circumcised” (Joshua 5:5)?,The Gemara responds: bIf so,that it was only those who had never been circumcised who required circumcision, bwhat isthe meaning of “circumcise bagain,”which indicates that they had to be circumcised a second time? bRather, is it notreferring bto uncoveringthe corona? bAnd what isthe meaning of b“a second time,”stated in the same verse? This phrase appears redundant, as the verse already stated: “Circumcise again.”,The Gemara explains: It comes bto equate the end of circumcision,when it is necessary to circumcise a second time in order to correct an improperly performed circumcision, bwith the beginning of circumcision: Just asan incomplete performance at bthe beginning of circumcision invalidatesthe circumcision, bso too,incomplete performance at bthe end of circumcision,i.e., the foreskin not being fully removed, binvalidatesthe circumcision. bAs we learnedin a mishna ( iShabbat137a): bThese are the shredsof flesh bthat invalidate the circumcisionif they are not cut. The essential element of circumcision is the removal of bthe flesh that covers most of the corona,and a child who was not circumcised in this manner is considered uncircumcised, band he does not partake of iteruma /i. /b,With regard to this issue bRavina said, and some sayit was bRav Yirmeya bar Abbawho said that bRav said:When the mishna mentioned most of the corona, it meant bthe flesh that covers most of the height of the coronaas well as most of its circumference.,The Gemara returns to the incident involving Joshua. bAnd what is the reasonthat bthey did not circumcisethemselves bin the wildernessafter the Torah had already been given? The Gemara answers: bIf you wish, sayit was bdue to the wearinesscaused by btheir journey.Since they were traveling continuously, they were too weak to undergo circumcision.


Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
antiochus, iii Bickerman and Tropper, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (2007) 361
athens Bickerman and Tropper, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (2007) 361
communitas Poorthuis and Schwartz, A Holy People: Jewish And Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity (2006) 123
hajj Poorthuis and Schwartz, A Holy People: Jewish And Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity (2006) 123
immersion, in m. pesahim, yerushalmi and bavli, as proselyte baptism Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 320
immersion, in m. pesahim, yerushalmi and bavli, as statutory immersion required of all about to enter the temple' Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 320
meal Poorthuis and Schwartz, A Holy People: Jewish And Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity (2006) 123
pharisees Poorthuis and Schwartz, A Holy People: Jewish And Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity (2006) 123
philo of alexandria Poorthuis and Schwartz, A Holy People: Jewish And Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity (2006) 123
priesthood Poorthuis and Schwartz, A Holy People: Jewish And Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity (2006) 123
purity Poorthuis and Schwartz, A Holy People: Jewish And Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity (2006) 123
ritual bath Poorthuis and Schwartz, A Holy People: Jewish And Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity (2006) 123
ritual purity Bickerman and Tropper, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (2007) 361
seleucid monarchy Bickerman and Tropper, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (2007) 361
seleucids, privileges granted jews Bickerman and Tropper, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (2007) 361
temple, herodian warning inscription Bickerman and Tropper, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (2007) 361
temple, mount Poorthuis and Schwartz, A Holy People: Jewish And Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity (2006) 123
temple, purity required of entrants Bickerman and Tropper, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (2007) 361
temple, regulations Bickerman and Tropper, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (2007) 361
temple, seleucid proclamation Bickerman and Tropper, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (2007) 361
temple, structure Bickerman and Tropper, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (2007) 361
temple Poorthuis and Schwartz, A Holy People: Jewish And Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity (2006) 123