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



10979
Tosefta, Shekalim, 3.22
NaN


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

6 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 15.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

15.15. הַקָּהָל חֻקָּה אַחַת לָכֶם וְלַגֵּר הַגָּר חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם כָּכֶם כַּגֵּר יִהְיֶה לִפְנֵי יְהוָה׃ 15.15. As for the congregation, there shall be one statute both for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you, a statute for ever throughout your generations; as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD."
2. Mishnah, Bekhorot, 8.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

8.1. There is one who is [counted as] a firstborn [with respect to] inheritance but not with respect to redemption from a priest; a firstborn with respect to redemption from a priest but not a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance; a firstborn [with respect to both] inheritance and redemption from a priest; and a firstborn [in respect] to neither inheritance nor redemption from a priest. Which is a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance but not to redemption from a priest? One which follows one which was not viable whose head came forth alive, or one born in the ninth month whose head came out dead, or when a woman aborts something that looks like an animal, beast or bird, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: [it is not considered an opening of the womb] until [the abortion] has the form of a human being. If [a woman] aborts a sandal or a placenta or a fetus having an articulated shape, or if an embryo came out by pieces, [the infant] which follows after them is a first-born [with respect] to inheritance but not a first-born for redemption from a priest. If one who never had children married a woman who had already given birth, even if she had given birth when she was a slave but is now free, or [had given birth] when she was a non-Jew but has since converted, if after coming to the Israelite she gave birth, [the infant] is considered a first-born [with respect] to inheritance but not a first-born for redemption from a priest. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: [the infant] is a firstborn [with respect] to inheritance and for redemption from a priest, as it says: “Whatever opens the womb in Israel” (Exodus 13:2), meaning only if it opens the womb in Israel. If one had children already and married a woman who had never given birth previously Or if she converted when pregt, or if she was freed when pregt, and she gave birth; If she and a priestess gave birth, she and a Levite’s daughter, she and a woman who had already given birth; And similarly [if a woman] who did not wait three months after her husband's death, married and gave birth and it is not known if the infant was born in the ninth month since the death of the first [husband] or in the seventh month since she married the second, it is a firstborn for redemption from a priest but not a first-born [with respect] to inheritance. Which is a firstborn both [in respect] of inheritance and for redemption from a priest? If [a woman] miscarries a sac full of blood or full of water or full of pieces of flesh; or if [a woman] miscarries something with the shape of fish or locusts or reptiles, or creeping things, or if she discharges on the fortieth day [of conception], [the infant] which follows after [these discharges] is a firstborn both [in respect] of inheritance and for redemption from a priest."
3. Tosefta, Avodah Zarah, 8.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

4. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 18.5 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

18.5. עַל כֵּן יַעֲזָב אִישׁ (בראשית ב, כד), תַּנְיָא גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּיר וְהָיָה נָשׂוּי לַאֲחוֹתוֹ בֵּין מִן הָאָב בֵּין מִן הָאֵם, יוֹצִיא, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים מִן הָאֵם יוֹצִיא מִן הָאָב יְקַיֵּם, שֶׁאֵין אָב לְעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים. אֲתִיבוּן לֵיהּ וְהָא כְתִיב (בראשית כ, יב): וְגַם אָמְנָה אֲחֹתִי בַת אָבִי הִיא וגו', אָמַר לָהֶן בְּשִׁיטָתָן הֵשִׁיבָן. אֲתֵיב לְהוֹן רַבִּי מֵאִיר עַל כֵּן יַעֲזָב אִישׁ אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אִמּוֹ, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וּפָשְׁטוּ לֵיהּ עַל כֵּן יַעֲזָב אִישׁ אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אִמּוֹ הַסָּמוּךְ לְאָבִיו הַסָּמוּךְ לְאִמּוֹ. אֲתֵיב רַבִּי אַבָּהוּ וְהָכְתִיב (שמות ו, כ): וַיִּקַּח עַמְרָם אֶת יוֹכֶבֶד דֹּדָתוֹ, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּהוּ מֵעַתָּה אֲפִלּוּ כִּבְנֵי נֹחַ לֹא הָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹהֲגִים קֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה, אֶתְמְהָא. אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי וּפָשְׁטוּ לֵיהּ עַל כֵּן יַעֲזָב אִישׁ וגו', הַסָּמוּךְ לוֹ מֵאָבִיו הַסָּמוּךְ לוֹ מֵאִמּוֹ. רַבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר בְּנֵי נֹחַ עַל הַנְּשׂוּאוֹת חַיָּבִין וְעַל הָאֲרוּסוֹת פְּטוּרִין. רַבִּי יוֹנָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר זוֹנָה שֶׁהִיא עוֹמֶדֶת בַּשּׁוּק וּבָאוּ עָלֶיהָ שְׁנַיִם, הָרִאשׁוֹן פָּטוּר וְהַשֵּׁנִי חַיָּב מִשּׁוּם בְּעוּלַת בַּעַל, וְכִי נִתְכַּוֵּן הָרִאשׁוֹן לִקְנוֹתָהּ בִּבְעִילָה, הָדָא אֲמַר בְּעִילָה בִּבְנֵי נֹחַ קוֹנֶה שֶׁלֹא כַּדָּת. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם גֵּרוּשִׁין, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי סִימוֹן וְרַבִּי חָנִין בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם גֵּרוּשִׁין אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם מְגָרְשִׁין זֶה אֶת זֶה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אִשְׁתּוֹ מְגָרַשְׁתּוֹ וְנוֹתֶנֶת לוֹ דּוֹפוֹרוֹן. תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּא עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁגֵּרַשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְנִשַֹּׂאת לְאַחֵר וְהָלְכוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם וְנִתְגַיְּרוּ, אֵינִי קוֹרֵא עָלָיו (דברים כד, ד): לֹא יוּכַל בַּעֲלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר שִׁלְחָהּ וגו', רַבִּי אַחָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר פָּפָּא אָמַר בְּכָל סֵפֶר מַלְאָכִי כְּתִיב ה' צְבָאוֹת, וּבְכָאן כְּתִיב אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ב, טז): כִּי שָׂנֵא שַׁלַּח אָמַר ה' אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, כִּבְיָכוֹל לֹא יָחוּל שְׁמוֹ אֶלָּא עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּלְבָד. אָמַר רַבִּי חַגַּי בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעָלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הַגּוֹלָה, נִתְפַּחֲמוּ פְּנֵי הַנָּשִׁים מִן הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וְהִנִּיחוּ אוֹתָן וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם וְנָשְׂאוּ נָשִׁים עֲמוֹנִיּוֹת, וְהָיוּ מַקִּיפוֹת אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וּבוֹכוֹת, הוּא שֶׁמַּלְאָכִי אוֹמֵר (מלאכי ב, יג): וְזֹאת שֵׁנִית תַּעֲשׂוּ, שְׁנִיָּה לְשִׁטִּים. (מלאכי ב, יג): כַּסּוֹת דִּמְעָה אֶת מִזְבַּח ה' בְּכִי וַאֲנָקָה, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַאן קַבֵּל מֵהֶם, בְּכִי וַאֲנָקָה, מִשֶּׁגָּזַלְתָּ וְחָמַסְתָּ וְנָטַלְתָּ יָפְיָהּ מִמֶּנָּהּ אַתָּה מְשַׁלְּחָהּ, אֶתְמְהָא. וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁהֵן מֻזְהָרִין עַל גִּלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ב, כד): וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ, וְלֹא בְּאֵשֶׁת חֲבֵרוֹ, וְלֹא בְּזָכוּר, וְלֹא בִּבְהֵמָה. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל וְרַבִּי אַבָּהוּ וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמְרוּ בֶּן נֹחַ שֶׁבָּא עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹא כְּדַרְכָּהּ חַיָּב מִיתָה. אָמַר רַבִּי אַסֵּי כָּל אִסּוּר שֶׁכָּתוּב בִּבְנֵי נֹחַ לֹא בַּעֲשֵׂה, וְלֹא בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, אֶלָּא בְּמִיתָה, וְהֵיאַךְ עֲבִידָא (בראשית ב, כד): וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד לְמָקוֹם שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם עוֹשִׂים בָּשָׂר אֶחָד. 18.5. \"Therefore a man will abandon.\" It was taught: a convert that converted and was married to his sister, whether from the mother or the father - it is acceptable, according to Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: from the mother it is acceptable, from the father, it must be established that he does not worship idols. A refutation arose: does it not say: \"And moreover, she is my sister, the daughter of my father...\" (Genesis 20:12)! He said to them: reply to them by their own reasoning. Rabbi Meir refuted: \"Therefore a man will abandon his father and his mother\" (Genesis 2:24). Rabbi Yocha said: they explained this verse \"therefore a man will abandon his father and his mother\" the one who supports his father, the one who supports his mother. Rabbi Abahu refuted: does it not say: \"And Amram took Yocheved his cousin\" (Exodus 6:20)! Rabbi Shimon the son of Rabbi Abahu said: from here would we learn that at the time of the children of Noah, Israel acted differently, before the giving of the Torah!? Rabbi Levi said: we explain the verse \"therefore a man will abandon...\" the one who is supported by his father, or by his mother. Rabbi Abahu in the name of Rabbi Yocha said: the children of Noah, in matters of marriage are obligated, in matters of engagement are not. Rabbi Yonah in the name of Rabbi Shmuel said: if a whore is in the marketplace, and two men come to her, the first is exempt and the second is liable, because he was sleeping with a married woman. Did the first one intend to acquire her [as a wife]?! It is said: intercourse at the time of the children of Noah acquires, even not in the way of [later] Judaism. And how do we know that they did not divorce? Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Simon and Rabbi Chanin in the name of Rabbi Yocha said: they did not divorce, or they both divorced each other. Rabbi Yocha said: his wife divorced him and gave him a bill of divorce. Rabbi Hiyya taught: an idol-worshipper that divorced his wife, and she went and married someone else, and then they both went and converted to Judaism, I do not apply to them the verse \"The first husband that sent her away cannot...\" (Deuteronomy 24:4). Rabbi Aha in the name of Rabbi Hanina bar Pappa said: in the whole book of Malachi it is written 'Hashem, Lord of Hosts' but here it is written 'the God of Israel' as it says: \"For I hate sending away, said Hashem, God of Israel\" (Malachi 2:16) - as if to say, God's name only rests on Israel. Rabbi Haggai said: When Israel was exiled, the women's faces were blackened from the sun, and they were left and the men went and married Amonite women. They went and circled the altar, crying, as Malachi says: \"And this do a second time\" (Malachi 2:13) - a second time in relation to Shittim. \"Cover with tears the altar of Hashem with wailing and sighing\" (ibid.), the Holy One Blessed be He said: who will accept these tears and wailing, since you stole and did violence to and took it's beauty from her, now you will send her away? And how do we know that they were fastidious about sexual impropriety like Israel? As it says: \"And he cleaved to his wife\" (Genesis 2:24) and not the wife of his friend, or another man, or an animal. Rabbi Shmuel and Rabbi Abahu and Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Hanina said: a child of Noah who comes to his wife unnaturally is liable for the death penalty. Rabbi Assi said: every crime written about the children of Noah is not judged on the metric of positive and negative commandments; rather, they all require the death penalty. How do we know this? \"And he cleaved to his wife and they became as one flesh\" (ibid.)."
5. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

46a. עובד כוכבים גופא לא קני ליה מאי דקני ליה הוא דמקני ליה לישראל וכיון דקדם וטבל לשם בן חורין אפקעיה לשעבודיה,כדרבא דאמר רבא הקדש חמץ ושחרור מפקיעין מידי שעבוד,מתיב רב חסדא מעשה בבלוריא הגיורת שקדמו עבדיה וטבלו לפניה ובא מעשה לפני חכמים ואמרו קנו עצמן בני חורין לפניה אין לאחריה לא,אמר רבא לפניה בין בסתם בין במפורש לאחריה במפורש אין בסתם לא,אמר רב אויא לא שנו אלא בלוקח מן העובד כוכבים אבל עובד כוכבים גופיה קני,דכתיב (ויקרא כה, מה) וגם מבני התושבים הגרים עמכם מהם תקנו אתם קונים מהם ולא הם קונים מכם ולא הם קונים זה מזה,ולא הם קונים מכם למאי אילימא למעשה ידיו אטו עובד כוכבים לא קני ליה לישראל למעשה ידיו והכתיב (ויקרא כה, מז) או לעקר משפחת גר ואמר מר משפחת גר זה העובד כוכבים אלא לאו לגופיה וקאמר רחמנא אתם קונין מהם אפילו גופיה,פריך רב אחא אימא בכספא ובטבילה קשיא,אמר שמואל וצריך לתקפו במים,כי האי דמנימין עבדיה דרב אשי בעא לאטבולי מסריה ניהלייהו לרבינא ולרב אחא ברי' דרבא אמר להו חזו דמינייכו קבעית ליה רמו ליה ארויסא בצואריה ארפו ליה וצמצמו ליה,ארפו ליה כי היכי דלא להוי חציצה צמצמו ליה כי היכי דלא לקדים ולימא להו לשם בן חורין אני טובל בהדי דדלי רישיה ממיא אנחו ליה זולטא דטינא ארישיה ואמרו ליה זיל אמטי לבי מרך,א"ל רב פפא לרבא חזי מר הני דבי פפא בר אבא דיהבי זוזי לאינשי לכרגייהו ומשעבדי בהו כי נפקי צריכי גיטא דחירותא או לא,א"ל איכו שכיבי לא אמרי לכו הא מילתא הכי א"ר ששת מוהרקייהו דהני בטפסא דמלכא מנח ומלכא אמר מאן דלא יהיב כרגא משתעבד למאן דיהיב כרגא,ר' חייא בר אבא איקלע לגבלא חזא בנות ישראל דמעברן מגרים שמלו ולא טבלו וחזא חמרא דישראל דמזגי עובדי כוכבים ושתו ישראל וחזא תורמוסין דשלקי עובדי כוכבים ואכלי ישראל ולא אמר להו ולא מידי,אתא לקמיה דר' יוחנן א"ל צא והכרז על בניהם שהם ממזרים ועל יינם משום יין נסך ועל תורמוסן משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים לפי שאינן בני תורה,על בניהן שהם ממזרים ר' יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר ר' חייא בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן לעולם אין גר עד שימול ויטבול וכיון דלא טביל עובד כוכבים הוא ואמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד ממזר,ועל יינם משום יין נסך משום לך לך אמרין נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב,ועל תורמוסן משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים לפי שאינן בני תורה הא בני תורה שרי והאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק משמי' דרב כל הנאכל כמות שהוא חי אין בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים והא תורמוס אינו נאכל כמות שהוא חי ויש בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים,ר' יוחנן כאידך לישנא סבירא ליה דאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק משמי' דרב כל שאין עולה על שולחן מלכים לאכול בו את הפת אין בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים וטעמא דאינן בני תורה הא בני תורה שרי,ת"ר גר שמל ולא טבל ר"א אומר הרי זה גר שכן מצינו באבותינו שמלו ולא טבלו טבל ולא מל ר' יהושע אומר הרי זה גר שכן מצינו באמהות שטבלו ולא מלו וחכמים אומרים טבל ולא מל מל ולא טבל אין גר עד שימול ויטבול,ורבי יהושע נמי נילף מאבות ור"א נמי נילף מאמהות וכי תימא אין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר,והתניא ר"א אומר מנין לפסח דורות שאין בא אלא מן החולין נאמר פסח במצרים ונאמר פסח בדורות מה פסח האמור במצרים אין בא אלא מן החולין אף פסח האמור לדורות אין בא אלא מן החולין,א"ל ר' עקיבא וכי דנין אפשר משאי אפשר א"ל אע"פ שאי אפשר ראיה גדולה היא ונלמד הימנה,אלא 46a. His previous bgentileowner bdid not have ownership of theslave’s bbody,since a gentile is unable to have ownership of another’s body; rather, he had rights to only the slave’s labor. And only bthat which he owned in him was heable to bsell tothe bJew.Therefore, before immersion, the Jew had rights to only the slave’s labor, but not ownership of his body, bandtherefore, boncethe slave bpreemptedhis owner band immersed for the sake ofconversion to make him ba freeman, he abrogateshis master’s blienupon him.,The Gemara notes: This explanation is bin accordance withthe opinion bof Rava, as Rava said: Consecrationof an item to the Temple, the prohibition of bleavened breadtaking effect upon a leavened food, bandthe bemancipationof a slave babrogateany blienthat exists upon them., bRav Ḥisda raised an objectionfrom a ibaraita /i: There was ban incident involving Beloreya the female convert in which her slaves preemptedher band immersed before herown immersion for her own conversion. bAndthe details of the bincident came before the Sages, and they said:The slaves bacquired themselvesand became bfreemen.Rav Ḥisda explains how the ibaraitaposes a challenge: The ibaraitaimplies that only because the slaves immersed bbefore her,while she was still a gentile, that byes,they became freemen; however, had they immersed bafter her,i.e., after she had already converted, then bno,they would not have become freemen. The reason for this is presumably that upon her conversion she attains the rights to her slaves’ bodies, and therefore their immersion for the sake of becoming freemen would be ineffective. However, this contradicts the Gemara’s explanation above that when a Jew gains ownership of a slave from a gentile, he has a right to only the slave’s labor.,To resolve the challenge bRava said:When the ibaraitasays that because they immersed bbefore herthey acquired themselves, that is bwhetherthey immersed bwithout a specifiedintention bor whetherthey immersed bwith explicitintention to convert and become freemen. However, had they immersed bafter her,if they did so bwith explicitintention to convert, then byes,the immersion would achieve that end, but if they did so bwithout a specifiedintention, then bno,their immersion would, by default, be considered for the sake of slavery and they would not become free., bRav Avya said: They taughtthat one acquires only the rights to the slave’s labor bonly with regard toa Jew bwho purchaseda slave bfrom a gentileslave owner, bbutif ba gentilesold bhisown bbodyas a slave directly to a Jew, then the Jew bacquireshis body., bAs it is written: “Moreover, of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them you may acquire”(Leviticus 25:45). The verse states only that byou,i.e., Jews, bcan acquirea slave bfrom them,i.e., a gentile slave, bbut they cannot acquirea slave bfrom you,i.e., a Jewish slave, band they cannot acquirea slave bfrom one another. /b,When it is derived that: bBut they cannot acquireslaves bfrom you, to whattype of acquisition is it referring? bIf we sayit is bfor his labor, is that to saythat ba gentile cannot acquire a Jew for his labor? Isn’t it written:“And if a stranger who is a settler with you becomes rich, and your brother becomes poor beside him, and he sells himself to the stranger who is a settler with you, bor to the offshoot of a stranger’s family”(Leviticus 25:47), band the Master saidin explanation of the phrase b“a stranger’s family”that bthisis referring to ba gentile.If so, the verse explicitly states that a Jew can sell himself as a slave to a gentile. bRather, is it notthat the reference is btoselling bhis body, and the Merciful One statesthat byou,i.e., Jews, bcan acquirea slave bfrom them,which means beven his body.Accordingly the verse indicates that a Jew can acquire a gentile slave’s body, but a gentile is unable to acquire ownership of another’s body, even that of another gentile., bRav Aḥa refutesRav Avya’s explanation: bSaythat the verse is referring to acquiring a gentile slave by both purchasing him bwith money andthen bby immersinghim for the purpose of slavery, and only in that case does it teach that a Jew acquires the gentile slave’s body. However, until he has been immersed the acquisition is not fully complete, and therefore if the slave immerses himself with the intention to become free, then his immersion would achieve that end. The Gemara concedes: This is bdifficult. /b, bShmuel said: Andif one wishes to ensure that one’s slave does not declare the immersion to be for the sake of conversion, then bone needs to hold him tightly in the waterin a way that demonstrates the owner’s domice over the slave at that time, thereby defining the immersion as one for the sake of slavery.,That is basdemonstrated bin thisincident binvolving Minyamin, Rav Ashi’s slave:When bhe wished to immersehim, bhe passed him to Ravina and Rav Aḥa, son of Rava,to perform the immersion on his behalf, and bhe said to them: Be aware that I will claimcompensation bfor him from youif you do not prevent my slave from immersing for the sake of conversion. bThey placed a bridle [ iarvisa /i] upon his neck,and at the moment of immersion bthey loosened it andthen immediately btightened itagain while he was still immersed.,The Gemara explains their actions: bTheyinitially bloosened it in order that there should not be any interpositionbetween the slave and the water during the immersion, which would invalidate it. bTheyimmediately btightened itagain bin order thatthe slave bshould not preemptthem band say to them: I am immersing for the sake ofbecoming ba freeman. When he lifted his head from the water they placed a bucket of clay upon his head and said to him: Goand bbringthis bto the house of your master.They did this in order to demonstrate that the immersion had been successful and that he was still a slave., bRav Pappa said to Rava:Has bthe Master seen those of the house of Pappa bar Abba who give moneyto the tax-collectors bon behalf ofpoor bpeople topay bfor their poll tax [ ikarga /i], andas a result bthey would enslave them.Anyone who did not pay the tax would be taken as a slave for the king. By paying for such people’s taxes, the members of the house of Pappa bar Abba essentially purchased those people, who had become the king’s slaves, for themselves. Rav Pappa asked: bWhenthose slaves bgo free, do they require a bill of emancipation,because the members of the house of Pappa bar Abba actually attained ownership of the slaves’ bodies, bor not,as they were owned only for the sake of their labor?, bHe said to him: Were I dead I could not say this matter to you,so it is good that you have asked me while I am still alive, as I know that bthisis what bRav Sheshet saidwith regard to the matter: bThe writ of slavery [ imoharkayehu /i] of theseresidents of the kingdom brests in the treasury [ itafsa /i] of the king,and in fact all the residents of the kingdom are considered to be full slaves of the king, i.e., he owns their bodies, irrespective of whether they pay their taxes. bAndso when bthe king says: One who does not give the poll tax is to be enslaved to the one whodoes bgive the poll taxon his behalf, the king’s decree is fully effective in making those residents full slaves of those who paid for them. As such, they will require a bill of emancipation when they are freed.,§ The Gemara relates: bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Abbaonce bhappenedto come bto Gavla. He saw Jewish womenthere bwho had become pregt from converts who were circumcised but hadstill bnot immersedto complete their conversion process; band he saw wine of Jews that gentiles were pouring, and Jews were drinkingit; band he saw lupines [ iturmusin /i] that gentiles were cooking, and Jews were eatingthem; bbut he did not say anything to them. /b,Later, bhe came before Rabbi Yoḥaand told him what he had witnessed. bRabbi Yoḥa said to him: Go and makea public bdeclaration concerning their children that they are imamzerim /i, and concerning their winethat it is forbidden bbecauseit is like bwine poured as anidolatrous blibation, and concerning their lupinesthat they are forbidden bbecausethey are bfood cooked by gentiles.One should be stringent and make such a declaration bbecause they are notwell-versed bin Torah,and if they are left to be lax in this regard they will eventually transgress Torah prohibitions.,The Gemara explains: With regard to the declaration bconcerning their children that they are imamzerim /i, Rabbi Yoḥaconforms bto hisstandard line of breasoningin two ihalakhot /i: The first is bas Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said:One bis neverconsidered to be ba convert until he has been circumcised and has immersed. And sincethe convert in the case in Gavla bhad not immersed, he isstill considered ba gentile. Andthe second ihalakhais as bRabba bar bar Ḥana saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said:With regard to ba gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspringof that union bis a imamzer /i. /b, bAndthe reason to declare bconcerning their winethat it is forbidden bbecauseit is like bwine poured as anidolatrous blibationis that although their wine was not actually poured as an idolatrous libation, it was prohibited by rabbinic decree bdue tothe maxim that: bGo, go, we say to a nazirite, go around and go around,but bdo not come near to the vineyard.Although a nazirite is prohibited only from eating produce of the vine, he is warned not even to come into close proximity of a vineyard as a protective measure to ensure that he will not transgress this prohibition. So too, in many cases, the Sages decreed certain items and actions to be prohibited because they understood that if people would partake of them, they would eventually transgress Torah prohibitions., bAndthe final declaration bconcerning their lupinesthat they are forbidden bbecausethey are bfood cooked by gentilesis issued bbecause they are notwell versed bin Torah.The Gemara expresses astonishment: Does this imply that bwere they students of the Torahtheir lupines would bbe permitted? Didn’t Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak say in the name of Rav: Anyfood item bthat is eaten as it is, raw, is notsubject btothe prohibition of bfood cooked by gentiles,even when cooked by them? bBut a lupine is not eaten as it is, raw, andtherefore bit is subject tothe prohibition of bfood cooked by gentiles. /b,The Gemara explains that bRabbi Yoḥa holdsin this matter bin accordance withthe opinion of bthe other versionof what bRav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said in the name of Rav: Anyfood item that lacks sufficient importance such that it bdoes not appear on the table of kingsin order bto eat bread with it is notsubject btothe prohibition of bfood cooked by gentiles.Lupines lack importance and are therefore permitted even if cooked by gentiles. bAndconsequently, btheonly breasonto make a declaration prohibiting the residents of Gavla from eating them is bbecause they are notwell versed bin Torah,and if they are left to be lax in this regard they will eventually become lax in actual Torah prohibitions; by inference, to those well versed bin Torah, it is permitted.br§ During their sojourn in Egypt, the children of Israel had the halakhic status of gentiles. At the revelation at Sinai they entered into a national covet with God in which they attained their status of the Jewish people. This transformation was essentially the mass conversion of the people, and so their preparation for the revelation provides a paradigm of the process required for conversion for all generations. The itanna’imdisagree as to which aspects of that original conversion are to be derived for all generations., bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to ba convert who was circumcised but did not immerse, Rabbi Eliezer saysthat bthis is a convert, as so we found with our forefathersfollowing the exodus from Egypt bthat they were circumcised but were not immersed.With regard to one who bimmersed but was not circumcised, Rabbi Yehoshua saysthat bthis is a convert, as so we found with our foremothers that they immersed but were not circumcised. And the Rabbis say:Whether bhe immersed but was not circumcisedor whether bhe was circumcised but did not immerse, he is not a convert until he is circumcised and he immerses. /b,The Gemara questions the opinions in the ibaraita /i: bBut let Rabbi Yehoshua also derivewhat is required for conversion bfromour bforefathers;why didn’t he do so? bAnd let Rabbi Eliezer also derivethe ihalakha bfromour bforemothers;why didn’t he do so? bAnd if you would saythat Rabbi Eliezer did not derive the ihalakhafrom our foremothers because he holds bone cannot derivethe bpossible fromthe bimpossible,i.e., one cannot derive that men do not require circumcision from the ihalakhathat women do not require it, because for women it is a physical impossibility, that claim may be refuted.,It would appear that Rabbi Eliezer does not accept that principle, as bisn’t it taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Eliezer says: From whereis it derived with regard btothe bPaschal lambbrought throughout the bgenerations that it may be brought only from non-sacredanimals? bA Paschal lamb is statedin the Torah binreference to the lamb that the Jewish people brought prior to the exodus from bEgypt, and a Paschal lamb is stated inreference to the yearly obligation throughout the bgenerations.The association between them teaches that bjust as the Paschal lamb stated inreference to bEgypt was only brought from non-sacredanimals, since prior to the giving of the Torah there was no possibility to consecrate property, bso too,with regard to bthe Paschal lamb statedin reference btothe obligation throughout the bgenerations, it may be brought only from non-sacredanimals., bRabbi Akiva said to him: But can one derivethe bpossible,i.e., the ihalakhafor the Paschal lamb throughout the generations, where a possibility exists to bring it from consecrated animals, bfromthe bimpossible,i.e., from the Paschal lamb in Egypt, where it was not a possibility? Rabbi Eliezer bsaid to him: Although it was impossibleto bring the Paschal lamb in Egypt from consecrated animals, nevertheless, bit isstill ba great proof, and we may learn from it.It is apparent, then, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one can derive the possible from the impossible. Therefore the original question stands: Why didn’t Rabbi Eliezer derive from the foremothers that circumcision is not essential for conversion?,The Gemara concedes: bRather,the ibaraitamust be reinterpreted as follows:
6. Anon., Gerim, 1.1-1.2, 2.5



Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
babylonian mini-tractate of conversion (immersion and conversion), fifth (protocol of the conversion procedure) Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 190
babylonian mini-tractate of conversion (immersion and conversion), second (circumcision without immersion) Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 190, 257
babylonian mini-tractate of conversion (immersion and conversion), sixth (suffering of converts) Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 190
babylonian mini-tractate of conversion (immersion and conversion), third (acceptance of someone who claims to be a convert) Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 190
babylonian mini-tractate of conversion (immersion and conversion) Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 252, 254, 255, 256, 257
circumcision, banning of Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 190
circumcision, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 190, 257
circumcision, with immersion Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 252, 254
circumcision, without immersion Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 257
commandments Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 252
conversion, mini-tractate on (bt yevamot, annotated texts Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 252, 254, 255, 256, 257
conversion procedure, fifth baraita (protocol of the conversion procedure in the bavli) Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 190
dominantization Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 190
eliezer ben yaakov Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 252, 255, 256
governing voice, bavli Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 254, 256
harmonization, babylonian Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 190, 252, 254, 255, 256, 257
immersion, as being mentioned in the mishna' Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 328
immersion, baraita (first) (circumcision and immersion) Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 252, 254, 255, 256, 257
immersion, baraita (second) (circumcision without immersion) Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 190, 257
incest, prohibitions Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 190
paschal sacrifice (offering) Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 254
rabbi yehudah ha-nasi Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 257
shimeon ben yehuda Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 252, 256
sinai, conversion and Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 257
statutory language Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 190
sugiah (sugiot) Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 256
talmud yerushalmi Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 254, 257
yaakov Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 252
yoḥanan ben zakkai Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 256, 257