1. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 10.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
2. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 10.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
3. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 2.197, 2.409 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 2.197. The Jews said, “We offer sacrifices twice every day for Caesar, and for the Roman people;” but that if he would place the images among them, he must first sacrifice the whole Jewish nation; and that they were ready to expose themselves, together with their children and wives, to be slain. 2.409. At the same time Eleazar, the son of Aias the high priest, a very bold youth, who was at that time governor of the temple, persuaded those that officiated in the Divine service to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner. And this was the true beginning of our war with the Romans; for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar on this account; |
|
4. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, 2.77 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 2.77. we also offer perpetual sacrifices for them; nor do we only offer them every day at the common expenses of all the Jews, but although we offer no other such sacrifices out of our common expenses, no, not for our own children, yet do we this as a peculiar honor to the emperors, and to them alone, while we do the same to no other person whomsoever. |
|
5. Mishnah, Berachot, 3.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 3.4. One who has had a seminal emission utters the words [of the Shema] in his heart and he doesn’t say a blessing, neither before nor after. Over food he says a blessing afterwards, but not the blessing before. Rabbi Judah says: he blesses both before them and after them." |
|
6. Mishnah, Eduyot, 5.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 5.7. At the time of his death he said to his son, “Retract the four opinions which I used to declare.” He (the said to him, “Why did not you retract them?” He said to him, “I heard them from the mouth of the many, and they heard [the contrary] from the mouth of the many. I stood fast by the tradition which I heard, and they stood fast by the tradition which they heard. But you have heard [my tradition] from the mouth of a single individual and [their tradition] from the mouth of the many. It is better to leave the opinion of the single individual and to hold by the opinion of the many.” He said to him, “Father commend me to your colleagues.” He said to him, “I will not commend you.” He said to him, “Have you found in me any wrong?” He said, “No; your own deeds will cause you to be near, and your own deeds will cause you to be far.”" |
|
7. Mishnah, Hulin, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.7. If one slaughtered for a non-Jew, the slaughtering is valid. Rabbi Eliezer declares it invalid. Rabbi Eliezer said: even if one slaughtered a beast with the intention that a non-Jew should eat [only] its liver, the slaughtering is invalid, for the thoughts of a non-Jew are usually directed towards idolatry. Rabbi Yose said: is there not a kal vehomer argument? For if in the case of consecrated animals, where a wrongful intention can render invalid, it is established that everything depends solely upon the intention of him who performs the service, how much more in the case of unconsecrated animals, where a wrongful intention cannot render invalid, is it not logical that everything should depend solely upon the intention of him who slaughters!" |
|
8. Mishnah, Oholot, 16.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 16.4. One who searches, must search over a square cubit and then leave a cubit, [digging down] until he reaches rock or virgin soil. [A priest] carrying out earth from a place of uncleanness may eat his terumah mixed with hullin. But one who is clearing away a heap of stones, may not eat his terumah mixed with hullin." |
|
9. Mishnah, Yevamot, 16.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 16.7. Rabbi Akiva said: When I went down to Nehardea to intercalate the year, I met Nehemiah of Bet D’li who said to me, “I heard that in the land of Israel no one, permits a [married] woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness, except Rabbi Judah ben Bava”. “That is so”, I told him. He said to me, “Tell them in my name: ‘You know that this country is in confusion because of marauders. I have received a tradition from Rabban Gamaliel the Elder: that they allow a [married] woman to remarry on the evidence of one witness’”. And when I came and recounted the conversation in the presence of Rabban Gamaliel he rejoiced at my words and exclaimed, “We have found a match for Rabbi Judah ben Bava!” As a result of this talk Rabban Gamaliel remembered that some men were once killed at Tel Arza, and that Rabban Gamaliel the Elder had allowed their wives to marry again on the evidence of one witness, and the law was established that they allow a woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness, and on the testimony of one [who states that he has heard] from another witness, from a slave, from a woman or from a female slave. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua say: a woman is not be allowed to remarry on the evidence of one witness. Rabbi Akiva ruled: [a woman is not allowed to marry again] on the evidence of a woman, on that of a slave, on that of a female slave or on that of relatives. They said to him: It once happened that a number of Levites went to Tsoar, the city of palms, and one of them became ill on the way, and they left him in an inn. When they returned they asked the [female] innkeeper, “Where is our friend?” And she replied, “He is dead and I buried him”, and they allowed his wife to remarry. Should not then a priest’s wife [be believed at least as much] as an innkeeper!” He answered them: When she will [give such evidence] as the innkeeper [gave] she will be believed, for the innkeeper had brought out to them [the dead man’s] staff, his bag and the Torah scroll which he had with him." |
|
10. Mishnah, Zevahim, 2.2-2.3, 4.5-4.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.2. One who slaughters a sacrifice [intending]: To sprinkle its blood outside [the Temple] or part of its blood outside; To burn its innards or part of its innards outside; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh outside, Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of the fat-tail outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One he slaughters a sacrifice intending]: To sprinkle its blood or part of its blood the next day, To burn its innards or part of its innards on the next day; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh on the next day; Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of its fat-tail on the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth." 2.3. This is the general rule: anyone who slaughters or receives [the blood], or carries [it] or sprinkles [it] [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the sacrifice] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law." 4.5. The sacrifices of non-Jews: one is not liable on their account for piggul, remt, or defilement, and if [a priest] slaughters them outside [the Temple], he is not liable, the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yose declares him liable. The things for which one is not liable on account of piggul, one is liable on account of remt and defilement except blood. Rabbi Shimon declares one liable for anything which is normally eaten, but for wood, frankincense and incense, one is not liable for [transgressions involving] defilement." 4.6. The sacrifice is slaughtered for the sake of six things:For the sake of the sacrifice, For the sake of the sacrificer, For the sake of the [Divine] Name, For the sake of fire-offerings, For the sake of fragrance, For the sake of pleasing; And a hatat and an asham for the sake of sin. Rabbi Yose said: even if one did not have any of these purposes in his heart, it is valid, because it is a regulation of the court. Since the intention is determined only by the worshipper." |
|
11. Mishnah, Toharot, 7.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 7.8. One who was clean and had given up the thought of eating [pure food]: Rabbi Judah says that it remains clean, since it is usual for unclean persons to keep away from it. But the sages say that it is deemed unclean. If his hands were clean and he had given up the thought of eating [pure food], even though he says, \"I know that my hands have not become unclean,\" his hands are unclean, since the hands are always busy." |
|
12. New Testament, 2 Corinthians, 1.12, 5.11 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
|
13. New Testament, Romans, 2.15, 13.5 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 2.15. in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying with them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or else excusing them) 13.5. Therefore you need to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience' sake. |
|
14. Tosefta, Oholot, 16.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
15. Tosefta, Zevahim, 5.6, 5.13 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
16. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 25.5 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
| 25.5. מִי שָׁת בַּטֻּחוֹת חָכְמָה (איוב לח, לו), מַהוּ בַּטֻחוֹת, בַּטָּוָיָא, (איוב לח, לו): אוֹ מִי נָתַן לַשֶּׂכְוִי בִינָה, הֲדָא תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי בַּעֲרָבְיָא צָוְחִין לְתַרְנְגוֹלְתָּא שֶׂכְוִיא, הֲדָא תַּרְנְגוֹלְתָּא כַּד אֶפְרוֹחֶיהָ דַּקִּיקִין הִיא מְכַנְשָׁא לְהוֹן וְיַהֲבַת לְהוֹן תְּחוֹת אֲגַפַּיָּא וּמְשַׁחֲנָה לְהוֹן וּמַעֲדַרְנָה קֳדָמֵיהוֹן, וְכַד אִינוּן רַבְיָה חַד מִנְהוֹן בָּעֵי לְמִקְרַב לְוָתֵיהּ וְהִיא נָקְרָה לֵיהּ בְּגוֹ רֵישֵׁיהּ, וַאֲמָרַת לֵיהּ זִיל עֲדוֹר בְּקוּקַלְתָּךְ, כָּךְ כְּשֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה הָיָה הַמָּן יוֹרֵד וְהַבְּאֵר עוֹלֶה לָהֶן וְהַשְּׂלָיו מָצוּי לָהֶן, וְעַנְנֵי כָבוֹד מַקִּיפוֹת אוֹתָן, וְעַמּוּד עָנָן מַסִּיעַ לִפְנֵיהֶם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לָאָרֶץ אָמַר לָהֶם משֶׁה כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מִכֶּם יִטְעוֹן מַכּוּשֵׁיהּ וְיִפּוֹק וְיִנְצוֹב לֵיהּ נְצִיבִין, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל הָאָרֶץ וּנְטַעְתֶּם. אַדְרִיָּנוּס שְׁחִיק טְמַיָּא הֲוָה עָבַר בְּאִלֵּין שְׁבִילַיָיא דִּטְבֶרְיָא וְחָמָא חַד גְּבַר סַב קָאֵים וְחָצֵיב חֲצוּבָן לְמִנְצַב נְצִיבִין, אֲמַר לֵיהּ סָבָא סָבָא אִי קָרַצְתְּ לָא חֲשַׁכְתְּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ קְרִיצַת וַחֲשִׁיכַת, וּמַה דְּהַנֵּי לְמָרֵי שְׁמַיָא עֲבֵיד, אֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּחַיֶּיךָ סָבָא בַּר כַּמָּה שְׁנִין אַתְּ יוֹמָא דֵין, אֲמַר לֵיהּ בַּר מְאָה שְׁנִין, אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְאַתְּ בַּר מְאָה שְׁנִין וְקָאֵים וְחָצֵיב חֲצוּבִין לְמִנְצַב נְצִיבִין, סָבַר דְּאַתְּ אָכֵיל מִנְּהוֹן, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִין זָכִית אֲכָלִית, וְאִם לָאו כְּשֵׁם שֶׁיָּגְעוּ לִי אֲבָהָתִי, כָּךְ אֲנִי יָגֵעַ לְבָנַי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּחַיָּיךְ, אִם זָכִית אָכוֹל מִנְהוֹן תֶּהֱוֵה מוֹדַע לִי. לְסוֹף יוֹמִין עָבְדִין תְּאֵנַיָא, אֲמַר הָא עָנָתָה נוֹדַע לְמַלְכָּא, מָה עֲבַד מְלָא קַרְטְלָא תְּאֵינִין וְסָלַק וְקָם לֵיהּ עַל תְּרַע פָּלָטִין, אָמְרִין לֵיהּ מָה עִסְקָךְ, אֲמַר לוֹן עֲלוֹן קֳדָם מַלְכָּא, כֵּיוָן דְּעָל אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָה עִסְקָךְ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֲנָא סָבָא דַּעֲבַרְתְּ עָלַי וַאֲנָא חָצֵיב חֲצִיבִין לְמִנְצַב נְצִיבִין, וַאֲמַרְתְּ לִי אִין זָכִית תֵּיכוֹל מִנְּהוֹן תְּהֵא מוֹדַע לִי, הָא זָכִיתִי וַאֲכֵילִית מִנְּהוֹן וְהֵילֵין תְּאֵינַיָא מִן פֵּרֵיהוֹן. אֲמַר אַדְרִיָּנוּס בְּהַהִיא שַׁעְתָּא קְלָווֹנִין אֲנָא תִּתְּנוּן סֵילוֹן דְּדַהֲבָא וִיתֵיב לֵיהּ, אֲמַר קְלַווֹנִין אֲנָא דִּתְפַנּוּן הָדֵין קַרְטַל דִּידֵיהּ וּתְמַלּוּן יָתֵיהּ דִּינָרִין. אָמְרִין לֵיהּ עַבְדוֹהִי כָּל הָדֵין מוֹקְרָא תְּיַקְרִינֵיהּ לְהָדֵין סָבָא דִּיהוּדָאֵי, אֲמַר לְהוֹן בָּרְיֵה אוֹקְרֵיא וַאֲנָא לָא אֲנָא מוֹקַר לֵיהּ. אִנְתְּתֵיהּ דִּמְגֵירָא הֲוַת בְּרַת פַּחִין, אָמְרָה לְבַעְלָהּ בַּר קַבָּלוּי חָמֵי דַּהֲדָא מַלְכָּא רַחֲמָא תֵּינִין וּמְפַרְגָּא בְּדִינָרִין, מָה עֲבַד מְלָא מַרְעֲלֵיהּ תֵּינִין וַאֲזַל וְקָם קֳדָם פָּלָטִין, אֲמָרוּן לֵיהּ מָה עִסְקָךְ, אֲמַר לוֹן שְׁמָעֵית דְּמַלְכָּא רַחֲמָא תֵּינִין וּמְפַרְגָּא בְּדִינָרִין, עָלוֹן וְאָמְרִין לְמַלְכָּא חַד סָבָא קָאֵים עַל תְּרַע פָּלָטִין טָעֵין מְלָא מַרְעֲלֵיהּ תֵּינִין, וַאֲמַרְנָא לֵיהּ מָה עִסְקָךְ אֲמַר לָן שְׁמָעֵית דְּמַלְכָּא רַחֲמָא תֵּינִין וּמְפַרְגָּא בְּדִינָרִין, אֲמַר קְלָווֹנִין אֲנָא דִּתְקִימוּן יָתֵיהּ קֳדָם תְּרַע פָּלָטִין וְכָל מַאן דְּעָיֵיל וְנָפֵיק יְהֵי טָרֵי עַל אַפֵּיהּ. בְּאַפְתֵּי רַמְשָׁא פַּנּוּן יָתֵיהּ וַאֲזַל לְבֵיתֵיהּ, אֲמַר לְאִנְתְּתֵיהּ כְּכָל הָדֵין יְקָרָא אֲנָא שְׁלִים לָךְ, אֲמַרָה אָזֵיל גְּלוֹג לְאִמָּךְ דַּהֲווֹן אִינוּן תֵּינִין וְלָא הֲווֹן אֶתְרוֹגִין, דַּהֲווֹן בְּשִׁילָן וְלָא פְגִינָן. | |
|
17. Tosefta, Kelim Baba Metsia, 5.1 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
18. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 22a. משמשת וראתה נדה אינה צריכה טבילה אבל בעל קרי גרידא מחייב לא תימא מברך אלא מהרהר,ומי אית ליה לרבי יהודה הרהור והתניא בעל קרי שאין לו מים לטבול קורא קריאת שמע ואינו מברך לא לפניה ולא לאחריה ואוכל פתו ומברך לאחריה ואינו מברך לפניה אבל מהרהר בלבו ואינו מוציא בשפתיו דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר בין כך ובין כך מוציא בשפתיו,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק עשאן ר' יהודה כהלכות דרך ארץ,דתניא (דברים ד, ט) והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וכתיב בתריה יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב מה להלן באימה וביראה וברתת ובזיע אף כאן באימה וביראה וברתת ובזיע,מכאן אמרו הזבים והמצורעים ובאין על נדות מותרים לקרות בתורה ובנביאים ובכתובים לשנות במשנה וגמרא ובהלכות ובאגדות אבל בעלי קריין אסורים,רבי יוסי אומר שונה הוא ברגיליות ובלבד שלא יציע את המשנה רבי יונתן בן יוסף אומר מציע הוא את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא רבי נתן בן אבישלום אומר אף מציע את הגמרא ובלבד שלא יאמר אזכרות שבו רבי יוחנן הסנדלר תלמידו של רבי עקיבא משום ר"ע אומר לא יכנס למדרש כל עיקר ואמרי לה לא יכנס לבית המדרש כל עיקר ר' יהודה אומר שונה הוא בהלכות דרך ארץ,מעשה ברבי יהודה שראה קרי והיה מהלך על גב הנהר אמרו לו תלמידיו רבינו שנה לנו פרק אחד בהלכות דרך ארץ ירד וטבל ושנה להם אמרו לו לא כך למדתנו רבינו שונה הוא בהלכות דרך ארץ אמר להם אע"פ שמיקל אני על אחרים מחמיר אני על עצמי:,תניא ר' יהודה בן בתירא היה אומר אין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה מעשה בתלמיד אחד שהיה מגמגם למעלה מרבי יהודה בן בתירא אמר ליה בני פתח פיך ויאירו דבריך שאין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה שנאמר (ירמיהו כג, כט) הלא כה דברי כאש נאם ה' מה אש אינו מקבל טומאה אף דברי תורה אינן מקבלין טומאה,אמר מר מציע את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא מסייע ליה לרבי אלעאי דאמר רבי אלעאי אמר ר' אחא בר יעקב משום רבינו הלכה מציע את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא כתנאי מציע את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה בן גמליאל אומר משום רבי חנינא בן גמליאל זה וזה אסור ואמרי לה זה וזה מותר,מ"ד זה וזה אסור כרבי יוחנן הסנדלר מ"ד זה וזה מותר כרבי יהודה בן בתירא,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק נהוג עלמא כהני תלת סבי כרבי אלעאי בראשית הגז כרבי יאשיה בכלאים כרבי יהודה בן בתירא בד"ת,כרבי אלעאי בראשית הגז דתניא רבי אלעאי אומר ראשית הגז אינו נוהג אלא בארץ,כרבי יאשיה בכלאים כדכתיב (דברים כב, ט) (כרמך) לא תזרע [כרמך] כלאים רבי יאשיה אומר לעולם אינו חייב עד שיזרע חטה ושעורה וחרצן במפולת יד,כרבי יהודה בן בתירא בדברי תורה דתניא רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר אין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה,כי אתא זעירי אמר בטלוה לטבילותא ואמרי לה בטלוה לנטילותא מאן דאמר בטלוה לטבילותא כרבי יהודה בן בתירא מאן דאמר בטלוה לנטילותא כי הא דרב חסדא לייט אמאן דמהדר אמיא בעידן צלותא:,תנו רבנן בעל קרי שנתנו עליו תשעה קבין מים טהור נחום איש גם זו לחשה לרבי עקיבא ורבי עקיבא לחשה לבן עזאי ובן עזאי יצא ושנאה לתלמידיו בשוק פליגי בה תרי אמוראי במערבא רבי יוסי בר אבין ורבי יוסי בר זבידא חד תני שנאה וחד תני לחשה,מאן דתני שנאה משום בטול תורה ומשום בטול פריה ורביה ומאן דתני לחשה שלא יהו תלמידי חכמים מצויים אצל נשותיהם כתרנגולים,אמר רבי ינאי שמעתי שמקילין בה ושמעתי שמחמירין בה וכל המחמיר בה על עצמו מאריכין לו ימיו ושנותיו,אמר ריב"ל מה טיבן של טובלי שחרין מה טיבן הא איהו דאמר בעל קרי אסור בדברי תורה הכי קאמר מה טיבן בארבעים סאה אפשר בתשעה קבין מה טיבן בטבילה אפשר בנתינה,אמר רבי חנינא גדר גדול גדרו בה דתניא מעשה באחד שתבע אשה לדבר עבירה אמרה לו ריקא יש לך ארבעים סאה שאתה טובל בהן מיד פירש,אמר להו רב הונא לרבנן רבותי מפני מה אתם מזלזלין בטבילה זו אי משום צינה אפשר במרחצאות,אמר ליה רב חסדא וכי יש טבילה בחמין אמר ליה רב אדא בר אהבה קאי כוותך,רבי זירא הוה יתיב באגנא דמיא בי מסותא אמר ליה לשמעיה זיל ואייתי לי תשעה קבין ושדי עלואי אמר ליה רבי חייא בר אבא למה ליה למר כולי האי והא יתיב בגווייהו אמר ליה כארבעים סאה מה ארבעים סאה בטבילה ולא בנתינה אף תשעה קבין בנתינה ולא בטבילה,רב נחמן תקן חצבא בת תשעה קבין כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי עקיבא ורבי יהודה גלוסטרא אמרו לא שנו אלא לחולה לאונסו אבל לחולה המרגיל ארבעים סאה,אמר רב יוסף אתבר חצביה דרב נחמן כי אתא רבין אמר באושא הוה עובדא | 22a. that ba woman who engaged in intercourse and saw menstrualblood bis not required to immerse herself, but one who experienced a seminal emission alone,with no concurrent impurity, bis required to do so?If so, we must interpret Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna that one recites a blessing both beforehand and thereafter as follows: bDo not saythat one brecites a blessingorally, but rather he means that bone contemplatesthose blessings in his heart.,The Gemara challenges this explanation: bAnd does Rabbi Yehuda maintain thatthere is validity to bcontemplatingin his heart? bWasn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bOne who experienced a seminal emission and who has no water to immerseand purify himself brecites iShemaand neither recites the blessingsof iShema bbeforehand nor thereafter? Andwhen bhe eats his bread, he recites the blessing thereafter,Grace after Meals, bbut does not recite the blessing:Who brings forth bread from the earth, bbeforehand. However,in the instances where he may not recite the blessing, bhe contemplatesit bin his heart rather than utterit bwith his lips,this is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir.However bRabbi Yehuda says: In either case, he uttersall of the blessings bwith his lips.Rabbi Yehuda does not consider contemplating the blessings in his heart a solution and permits them to be recited., bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna should be interpreted in another way. bRabbi Yehuda renderedthe blessings blike iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i,which according to some Sages were not considered to be in the same category as all other matters of Torah and therefore, one is permitted to engage in their study even after having experienced a seminal emission., bAs it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: It is written: b“And you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children”(Deuteronomy 4:9), band it is written thereafter: “The day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb”(Deuteronomy 4:10). bJust as below,the Revelation at Sinai was bin reverence, fear, quaking, and trembling, so too here,in every generation, Torah must be studied with a sense of breverence, fear, quaking, and trembling. /b, bFrom herethe Sages bstated: iZavim /i, lepers, and those who engaged in intercourse with menstruating women,despite their severe impurity, bare permitted to read the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, and to study Mishna and Gemara and ihalakhotand iaggada /i. However, those who experienced a seminal emission are prohibitedfrom doing so. The reason for this distinction is that the cases of severe impurity are caused by ailment or other circumstances beyond his control and, as a result, they do not necessarily preclude a sense of reverence and awe as he studies Torah. This, however, is not the case with regard to impurity resulting from a seminal emission, which usually comes about due to frivolity and a lack of reverence and awe. Therefore, it is inappropriate for one who experiences a seminal emission to engage in matters of in Torah.,However, there are many opinions concerning the precise parameters of the Torah matters prohibited by this decree. bRabbi Yosei says:One who experiences a seminal emission bstudies imishnayotthat he is baccustomedto study, bas long as he does not expound upon anew bmishnato study it in depth. bRabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says: He expounds upon the mishna but he does not expound upon the Gemara,which is the in-depth analysis of the Torah. bRabbi Natan ben Avishalom says: He may even expound upon the Gemara, as long as he does not utterthe bmentionsof God’s name btherein. Rabbi Yoḥa the Cobbler, Rabbi Akiva’s student, says in the name of Rabbi Akiva:One who experiences a seminal emission bmay not enter into homiletic interpretation [ imidrash /i]of verses bat all. Some saythat he says: bHe may not enter the study hall [ ibeit hamidrash /i] at all. Rabbi Yehuda says: He may studyonly iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i.In terms of the problem raised above, apparently Rabbi Yehuda considers the legal status of the blessings to be parallel to the legal status of iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i, and therefore one may utter them orally.,The Gemara relates ban incident involving Rabbi Yehudahimself, who bexperienced a seminal emission and was walking along the riverbankwith his disciples. bHis disciples said to him: Rabbi, teach us a chapter from iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i,as he maintained that even in a state of impurity, it is permitted. bHe descended and immersed himselfin the river band taught them iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i. bThey said to him: Did you not teach us, our teacher, that he may study iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i? He said to them: Although I am lenient with others,and allow them to study it without immersion, bI am stringent with myself. /b,Further elaborating on the issue of Torah study while in a state of impurity, bit was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira would say: Matters of Torah do not become ritually impureand therefore one who is impure is permitted to engage in Torah study. He implemented this ihalakhain practice. The Gemara relates ban incident involving a student who wasreciting imishnayotand ibaraitot bhesitantly beforethe study hall of bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.The student experienced a seminal emission, and when he was asked to recite he did so in a rushed, uneven manner, as he did not want to utter the words of Torah explicitly. Rabbi Yehuda bsaid to him: My son, open your mouth and let your words illuminate, as matters of Torah do not become ritually impure, as it is stated: “Is not my word like fire, says the Lord”(Jeremiah 23:29). bJust as fire does not become ritually impure, so too matters of Torah do not become ritually impure. /b,In this ibaraita bthe Master saidthat one who is impure because of a seminal emission bexpounds upon the mishna but does not expound upon the Gemara.The Gemara notes: This statement bsupportsthe opinion of bRabbi El’ai,as bRabbi El’ai saidthat bRabbi Aḥa bar Ya’akov said in the name of Rabbeinu,Rav b: The ihalakhais that one who experienced a seminal emission bmay expound upon the mishna but may not expound upon the Gemara.This dispute bis parallel a tannaiticdispute, as it was taught: One who experienced a seminal emission bexpounds upon the mishna but does not expound upon the Gemara;that is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel:Both bthis and that are prohibited. And some saythat he said: Both bthis and that are permitted. /b,Comparing these opinions: bThe one who saidthat both bthis and that are prohibitedholds bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yoḥa the Cobbler; the one who saidthat both bthis and that are permittedholds bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. /b,Summarizing the ihalakha /i, bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The universallyaccepted bpractice is in accordance withthe opinions of bthese three elders: In accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi El’ai with regard tothe ihalakhotof bthe first shearing, in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yoshiya with regard tothe laws of prohibited bdiverse kinds,and bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to matters of Torah. /b,The Gemara elaborates: bIn accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi El’ai with regard to the first shearing, as it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi El’ai says:The obligation to set aside bthe first shearingfrom the sheep for the priest bis only practiced in EretzYisrael and not in the Diaspora, and that is the accepted practice., bIn accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yoshiya with regard to diverse kinds, as it is written: “You shall not sow your vineyard with diverse kinds”(Deuteronomy 22:9). bRabbi Yoshiya says:This means that bonewho sows diverse kinds bis not liableby Torah law buntil he sows wheat and barley and agrape bpit with a single hand motion,meaning that while sowing in the vineyard he violates the prohibition of diverse kinds that applies to seeds and to the vineyard simultaneously., bIn accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard toone who experiences a seminal emission is permitted to engage in bmatters of Torah, as it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Matters of Torah do not become ritually impure. /b,And the Gemara relates: bWhen Ze’iri camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, bhesuccinctly capsulated this ihalakhaand bsaid: They abolished ritual immersion, and some say thathe said: bThey abolished ritual washing of the hands.The Gemara explains: bThe one who saysthat bthey abolished immersionholds in accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteirathat one who experienced a seminal emission is not required to immerse. bAnd the one who saysthat bthey abolished washing of the handsholds bin accordance with that which Rav Ḥisda cursed one whogoes out of his way bto seek water at the time of prayer. /b, bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bOne who experienced a seminal emission who had nine ikavofdrawn bwater poured over him,that is sufficient to render him britually pureand he need not immerse himself in a ritual bath. The Gemara relates: bNaḥum of Gam Zo whisperedthis ihalakhato bRabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Akiva whispered it tohis student bben Azzai, and ben Azzai went out and taught it to his studentspublicly bin the marketplace. Two iamora’imin Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, disagreedas to the correct version of the conclusion of the incident. bOne taught:Ben Azzai btaught itto his students in the market. bAnd the other taught: Ben Azzaialso bwhispered itto his students.,The Gemara explains the rationale behind the two versions of this incident. bTheSage bwho taughtthat ben Azzai btaughtthe law openly in the market held that the leniency was bdue toconcern that the ihalakhotrequiring ritual immersion would promote bderelictionin the study bof Torah.The ruling of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira eases the way for an individual who experienced a seminal emission to study Torah. This was balso due toconcern that the ihalakhotrequiring ritual immersion would promote bthe suspension of procreation,as one might abstain from marital relations to avoid the immersion required thereafter. bAnd theSage, bwho taughtthat ben Azzai only bwhisperedthis ihalakhato his students, held that he did so bin order that Torah scholars would not be with their wives like roosters.If the purification process was that simple, Torah scholars would engage in sexual activity constantly, which would distract them from their studies.,With regard to this ritual immersion, bRabbi Yannai said: I heard that there are those who are lenient with regard to it and I have heard that there are those who are stringent with regard to it.The ihalakhain this matter was never conclusively established band anyone whoaccepts bupon himself to be stringent with regard to it, they prolong for him his days and years. /b,The Gemara relates that bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the essence of those who immerse themselves in the morning?The Gemara retorts: How can one ask bwhat is their essence? Isn’t hethe one bwho saidthat bone who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited fromengaging in bmatters of Torahand is required to immerse himself in the morning? Rather, bthis iswhat bhemeant to bsay: What is the essence ofimmersion in a ritual bath of bforty ise’a /iof water when bit is possibleto purify oneself bwith nine ikav /i?Furthermore, bwhat is the essence of immersionwhen bit isalso bpossibleto purify oneself by bpouringwater?,Regarding this, bRabbi Ḥanina said: They established a massive fenceprotecting one from sinning with their decree that one must immerse himself in forty ise’aof water. bAs it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: There was ban incident involving one who solicited a woman tocommit ba sinful act. She said to him: Good-for-nothing. Do you have forty ise’ain which to immerseand purify byourselfafterwards? He bimmediately desisted.The obligation to immerse oneself caused individuals to refrain from transgression., bRav Huna said to the Sages: Gentlemen, why do you disdain this immersion? If it is becauseit is difficult for you to immerse in the bcoldwaters of the ritual bath, bit is possibleto purify oneself by immersing oneself in the heated bbathhouses,which are unfit for immersion for other forms of ritual impurity but are fit for immersion in this case., bRabbi Ḥisda said to him: Is there ritual immersion in hot water?Rav Huna bsaid to him:Indeed, doubts with regard to the fitness of baths have been raised, and bRav Adda bar Ahava holds in accordance with youropinion. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that it is permitted.,The Gemara relates: bRabbi Zeira was sitting in a tub of water in the bathhouse. He said to his attendant: Go and get nine ikav /iof water band pourit bover meso that I may purify myself from the impurity caused by a seminal emission. bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Why does my masterrequire ball of this? Aren’t you seated inat least nine ikavof water in the tub. bHe said to him:The law of nine ikav bparallelsthe law of bforty ise’a /i,in that their ihalakhotare exclusive. bJust as forty ise’a /ican only purify an individual through bimmersion and not through pouring, so too nine ikav /ican only purify one who experienced a seminal emission bthrough pouring and not through immersion. /b,The Gemara relates that bRav Naḥman prepared a jugwith a capacity bof nine ikav /iso that his students could pour water over themselves and become pure. bWhen Rav Dimi camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, bhe said: Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda Gelostera said:The ihalakhathat one who experienced a seminal emission can be purified by pouring nine ikav bwas only taught for a sick personwho experienced the emission binvoluntarily. However, a sick personwho experienced a bnormalseminal emission in the course of marital relations, is required to immerse himself in bforty ise’a /i. /b, bRav Yosef said:In that case, bRav Naḥman’s jug is broken,meaning it is no longer of any use, as few people fall into the category of sick people who experienced seminal emissions. Nevertheless, bwhen Ravin camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia bhe said: In Usha there was an incident /b |
|
