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

   Search:  
validated results only / all results

and or

Filtering options: (leave empty for all results)
By author:     
By work:        
By subject:
By additional keyword:       



Results for
Please note: the results are produced through a computerized process which may frequently lead to errors, both in incorrect tagging and in other issues. Please use with caution.
Due to load times, full text fetching is currently attempted for validated results only.
Full texts for Hebrew Bible and rabbinic texts is kindly supplied by Sefaria; for Greek and Latin texts, by Perseus Scaife, for the Quran, by Tanzil.net

For a list of book indices included, see here.





19 results for "fetha"
1. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 12.4 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •fetha naghast Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69
12.4. "וּמוֹשַׁב בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָשְׁבוּ בְּמִצְרָיִם שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה׃", 12.4. "וְאִם־יִמְעַט הַבַּיִת מִהְיֹת מִשֶּׂה וְלָקַח הוּא וּשְׁכֵנוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ בְּמִכְסַת נְפָשֹׁת אִישׁ לְפִי אָכְלוֹ תָּכֹסּוּ עַל־הַשֶּׂה׃", 12.4. "and if the household be too little for a lamb, then shall he and his neighbour next unto his house take one according to the number of the souls; according to every man’s eating ye shall make your count for the lamb.",
2. Dead Sea Scrolls, of Discipline, 5.14, 5.15, 5.16, 5.17, 8.17-9.2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69
3. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 10.1 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •fetha naghast Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69
4. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 10.1 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •fetha naghast Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69
5. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 3.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •fetha naghast Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69
3.3. "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַפְּסוּלִין, הַמְשַׂחֵק בְּקֻבְיָא, וְהַמַּלְוֶה בְרִבִּית, וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים, וְסוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, בִּתְחִלָּה הָיוּ קוֹרִין אוֹתָן אוֹסְפֵי שְׁבִיעִית, מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הָאַנָּסִין, חָזְרוּ לִקְרוֹתָן סוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אֻמָּנוּת אֶלָּא הִיא, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהֶן אֻמָּנוּת שֶׁלֹּא הִיא, כְּשֵׁרִין: \n", 3.3. "And these are they which are not qualified [to be witnesses or judges]:A dice player, a usurer, pigeon racers, or traffickers in Seventh Year produce. Rabbi Shimon said: “In the beginning they called them ‘gatherers’ of Seventh Year produce, but after the oppressors grew many they changed this and called them ‘traffickers’ of Seventh Year produce.” Rabbi Judah said: “This applies only if they have no other trade, but if they have some other trade other than that, they are not disqualified.”",
6. Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah, 1.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •fetha naghast Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69
1.8. "אֵלּוּ הֵן הַפְּסוּלִין, הַמְשַׂחֵק בְּקֻבְיָא, וּמַלְוֵי בְרִבִּית, וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים, וְסוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית, וַעֲבָדִים. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל עֵדוּת שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה כְשֵׁרָה לָהּ, אַף הֵן אֵינָן כְּשֵׁרִים לָהּ: \n", 1.8. "And these are they which are not qualified [to be witnesses or judges]: A dice player, a usurer, pigeon racers, or traffickers in Seventh Year produce, and slaves. This is the general rule: any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they too are not qualified.",
7. Mishnah, Niddah, 5.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •fetha naghast Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69
5.9. "בַּת עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, תָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהִיא בַת עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וְהִיא אַיְלוֹנִית, לֹא חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, יָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהוּא בֶן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וְהוּא סָרִיס, לֹא חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא מְיַבֵּם, אֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, זֶה וָזֶה בְּנֵי שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, הַזָּכָר כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל, וְהַנְּקֵבָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי, שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה מְמַהֶרֶת לָבֹא לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ:", 5.9. "If a woman at the age of twenty did not bring forth two hairs, she must bring evidence that she is twenty years of age and she is an aylonit, she doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum. If a man at the age of twenty years did not produce two hairs, he must bring evidence that he is twenty years old and he becomes confirmed as a saris and he doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum, the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai says: with both of them at the age of eighteen. Rabbi Eliezer says: In the case of the male, according to the words of Bet Hillel, while in that of the female, in accordance with the words of Bet Shammai, since a woman matures earlier than a man.",
8. Tosefta, Hagigah, 1.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •fetha naghast Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69
1.2. "יוחנן בן דהבאי אומר משום ר' יהודה אף הסומא [שנאמר יראה פרט לסומא השיב רבי על דברי יוחנן בן דהבאי הכריעו חכמים לסייע דברי רבי יהודה] (שמואל א א׳:כ״ב) וחנה לא עלתה כי אמרה לאשה עד יגמל וגו'.",
9. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 5.2, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •fetha naghast Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69
5.2. "משחק בקוביא זו משחק בפסיפסין אחד המשחק בפסיפסין ואחד המשחק בקליפי אגוזים ובקליפי רמונים לעולם אין יכול לחזור בו עד שישבר את פסיפסין ויחזור בו חזרה גמורה המלוה ברבית אין יכול לחזור בו עד שיקרע שטרותיו ויחזור בו חזרה גמורה מפריחי יונים זה הממרה את היונין אחד ממרה את היונין ואחד ממרה שאר בהמה חיה ועוף לעולם אין יכול לחזור בו עד שישבור את פיגמיו ויחזור בו חזרה גמורה סוחרי שביעית זה היושב ובטל בשאר שני שבוע כיון שהגיע שנת השמטה התחיל מפשיט ידיו ורגליו ונושא ונותן בפירות עבירה לעולם אין יכול לחזור בו עד שתגיע שמטה אחרת וידבק ויחזור בו חזרה גמורה רבי נחמיה אומר חזרת ממון ולא חזרת דברים כיצד אמר מאתים דינר אלו כנסתי מפירות עבירה חלקו אותן לעניים ר\"מ היה קורא אותן אוספי שביעית רבי יהודה היה קורא אותן סוחרי שביעית אר\"ש מקיים אני דבר שניהן הא כיצד עד שלא רבו האונסין היו קורין אוספי שביעית ומשרבו האונסין היו קורין אותן סוחרי שביעית ובכולן היה רבי יהודה אומר בזמן שיש להן אומנות אחרות הרי אלו פסולין חזרו בהן הרי כשרים וחכמים אומרים אף בזמן שיש להן אומנות הרי אלו פסולין בד\"א בקדוש החדש ובעיבור שנה בדיני ממונות ובדיני נפשות אבל עדות שהאשה כשרה לה הן כשרין לה.", 5.5. "הוסיפו עליהן הרועין והגזלנין החמסנין וכל החשודין על הממון עדותן פסולה לעולם.",
10. Palestinian Talmud, Shevuot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •fetha naghast Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69
11. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 58.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •fetha naghast Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69
58.1. וַיִּהְיוּ חַיֵּי שָׂרָה מֵאָה שָׁנָה (בראשית כג, א), (תהלים לז, יח): יוֹדֵעַ ה' יְמֵי תְמִימִם וְנַחֲלָתָם לְעוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהֵן תְּמִימִים כָּךְ שְׁנוֹתָם תְּמִימִים, בַּת עֶשְׂרִים כְּבַת שֶׁבַע לְנוֹי, בַּת מֵאָה כְּבַת עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה לְחֵטְא. דָּבָר אַחֵר, יוֹדֵעַ ה' יְמֵי תְמִימִם, זוֹ שָׂרָה שֶׁהָיְתָה תְּמִימָה בְּמַעֲשֶׂיהָ, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כַּהֲדָא עֶגְלְתָא תְּמִימָה, וְנַחֲלָתָם לְעוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיִּהְיוּ חַיֵּי שָׂרָה, מַה צֹּרֶךְ לוֹמַר שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי שָׂרָה בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה, לוֹמַר לְךָ שֶׁחָבִיב חַיֵּיהֶם שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְלָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.
12. Palestinian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69
13. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69
14. Palestinian Talmud, Bikkurim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •fetha naghast Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69
15. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •fetha naghast Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69
89b. שפרו ורבו עליה ישראל מדבר סיני שירדה שנאה לעכו"ם עליו ומה שמו חורב שמו ופליגא דר' אבהו דא"ר אבהו הר סיני שמו ולמה נקרא הר חורב שירדה חורבה לעכו"ם עליו:,מנין שקושרין לשון של זהורית וכו': כשנים כשני מיבעי ליה א"ר יצחק אמר להם הקב"ה לישראל אם יהיו חטאיכם כשנים הללו שסדורות ובאות מששת ימי בראשית ועד עכשיו כשלג ילבינו: דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (ישעיה א, יח) לכו נא ונוכחה יאמר ה' לכו נא בואו נא מיבעי ליה יאמר ה' אמר ה' מיבעי ליה לעתיד לבא יאמר להם הקב"ה לישראל לכו נא אצל אבותיכם ויוכיחו אתכם,ויאמרו לפניו רבש"ע אצל מי נלך אצל אברהם שאמרת לו (בראשית טו, יג) ידוע תדע ולא בקש רחמים עלינו אצל יצחק שבירך את עשו (שם כז, מ) והיה כאשר תריד ולא בקש רחמים עלינו אצל יעקב שאמרת לו (שם מו, ד) אנכי ארד עמך מצרימה ולא בקש רחמים עלינו אצל מי נלך עכשיו יאמר ה' אמר להן הקב"ה הואיל ותליתם עצמכם בי אם יהיו חטאיכם כשנים כשלג ילבינו:,א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן מ"ד (ישעיה סג, טז) כי אתה אבינו כי אברהם לא ידענו וישראל לא יכירנו אתה ה' אבינו גואלנו מעולם שמך לעתיד לבא יאמר לו הקב"ה לאברהם בניך חטאו לי אמר לפניו רבש"ע ימחו על קדושת שמך אמר אימר ליה ליעקב דהוה ליה צער גידול בנים אפשר דבעי רחמי עלייהו אמר ליה בניך חטאו אמר לפניו רבש"ע ימחו על קדושת שמך אמר לא בסבי טעמא ולא בדרדקי עצה אמר לו ליצחק בניך חטאו לי אמר לפניו רבש"ע בני ולא בניך בשעה שהקדימו לפניך נעשה לנשמע קראת להם (שמות ד, כב) בני בכורי עכשיו בני ולא בניך,ועוד כמה חטאו כמה שנותיו של אדם שבעים שנה דל עשרין דלא ענשת עלייהו פשו להו חמשין דל כ"ה דלילותא פשו להו כ"ה דל תרתי סרי ופלגא דצלויי ומיכל ודבית הכסא פשו להו תרתי סרי ופלגא אם אתה סובל את כולם מוטב ואם לאו פלגא עלי ופלגא עליך ואת"ל כולם עלי הא קריבית נפשי קמך פתחו ואמרו (כי) אתה אבינו אמר להם יצחק עד שאתם מקלסין לי קלסו להקב"ה ומחוי להו יצחק הקב"ה בעינייהו מיד נשאו עיניהם למרום ואומרים (ישעיה סג, טז) אתה ה' אבינו גואלנו מעולם שמך,א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן ראוי היה יעקב אבינו לירד למצרים בשלשלאות של ברזל אלא שזכותו גרמה לו דכתיב (הושע יא, ד) בחבלי אדם אמשכם בעבותות אהבה ואהיה להם כמרימי עול על לחיהם ואט אליו אוכיל:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המוציא עצים כדי לבשל ביצה קלה תבלין כדי לתבל ביצה קלה ומצטרפין זה עם זה קליפי אגוזין קליפי רמונים איסטיס ופואה כדי לצבוע בהן בגד קטן פי סבכה מי רגלים נתר ובורית קמוליא ואשלג כדי לכבס בגד קטן פי סבכה רבי יהודה אומר כדי להעביר את הכתם:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנינא חדא זימנא קנה כדי לעשות קולמוס אם היה עב או מרוסס כדי לבשל ביצה קלה שבביצים טרופה ונתונה באילפס מהו דתימא התם הוא דלא חזי למידי אבל עצים דחזו לככא דאקלידא אפילו כל שהוא קמ"ל:,תבלין כדי לתבל ביצה קלה: ורמינהו תבלין שנים וג' שמות ממין אחד או משלשה מינין (ושם אחד) אסורין ומצטרפין זה עם זה ואמר חזקיה 89b. because b the Jewish people were fruitful /b [ b i paru /i /b ] b and multiplied in it; the Sinai Desert, /b because b hatred descended upon the nations of the world on it, /b on the mountain on which the Jewish people received the Torah. b And what is /b the mountain’s true b name? Horeb is its name. And /b that b disputes /b the opinion of b Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu said: Mount Sinai is its name. And why is it called Mount Horeb? /b It is because b destruction [ i ḥurba /i ] of the nations of the world descended upon it. /b ,We learned in the mishna: b From where /b is it derived b that one ties a scarlet strip /b of wool to the scapegoat? As it says: “If your sins be like scarlet [ i kashanim /i ], they will become white like snow” (Isaiah 1:18). The Gemara wonders at this: Why does the verse use the plural form: b i Kashanim /i ? It should have /b used the singular form: b i Kashani /i . Rabbi Yitzḥak said /b that b the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: /b Even b if your sins are /b as numerous b as those years [ i kashanim /i ] that have proceeded continuously from the six days of Creation until now, they will become white like snow. Rava taught: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “Go please and let us reason together, the Lord will say” /b (Isaiah 1:18)? Why does the verse say: b Go please? It should have /b said: b Come please. /b And why does the verse say: b The Lord will say? /b The prophet’s message is based on something that God already said. Therefore, the verse b should have /b said: b God said. /b Rather, the explanation of this verse is that b in the future /b that will surely b come, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will say to the Jewish people: Go please to your Patriarchs, and they will rebuke you. /b , b And /b the Jewish people b will say before Him: Master of the Universe, to whom shall we go? /b Shall we go b to Abraham, to whom You said: “Know certainly /b that your seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years” (Genesis 15:13), b and he did not ask for mercy on our behalf? /b Or perhaps we should go b to Isaac, who blessed Esau /b and said: b “And it shall come to pass when you shall break loose, /b that you shall shake his yoke from off your neck” (Genesis 27:40), b and he did not ask for mercy on our behalf. /b Or perhaps we should go b to Jacob, to whom You said: “I will go down to Egypt with you” /b (Genesis 46:4), b and he did not ask for mercy on our behalf. /b And if so, b to whom shall we go? /b Shall we go to our Patriarchs, who do not have mercy on us? Rather, b now God /b Himself b says /b what punishment we deserve. b The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: Since you made yourselves dependent on Me, “If your sins be like scarlet, they will become white like snow.” /b ,Apropos the Jewish people assessing their forefathers, the Gemara cites a related teaching. b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yonatan said: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “For You are our Father; for Abraham knows us not, and Israel does not acknowledge us; You, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer, everlasting is Your name” /b (Isaiah 63:16). b In the future /b that will surely b come, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will say to Abraham: Your children have sinned against Me. /b Abraham will b say before Him: Master of the Universe, /b if so, b let them be eradicated to sanctify Your name. /b God b said: I will say it to Jacob. /b Since he experienced b the pain of raising children, /b perhaps b he will ask for mercy on their behalf. /b He b said to /b Jacob: b Your children have sinned. /b Jacob b said before Him: Master of the Universe, /b if so, b let them be eradicated to sanctify Your name. /b The Holy One, Blessed be He, b said: There is no reason in elders and no wisdom in youth. /b Neither Abraham nor Jacob knew how to respond properly. He b said to Isaac: Your children have sinned against Me. /b Isaac b said before Him: Master of the Universe, /b are they b my children and not Your children? At /b Sinai, b when they accorded precedence to “We will do” over “We will listen” before You, /b didn’t You b call them, “My son, My firstborn son /b Israel” (Exodus 4:22)? b Now /b that they have sinned, are they b my children and not Your children? /b , b And furthermore, how much did they /b actually b sin? How long is a person’s life? Seventy years. Subtract /b the first b twenty /b years of his life. One b is not punished for /b sins committed then, as in heavenly matters, a person is only punished from age twenty. b Fifty /b years b remain for them. Subtract twenty-five /b years b of nights, /b and b twenty-five /b years b remain for them. Subtract twelve and a half /b years during which b one prays and eats and /b uses b the bathroom, /b and b twelve and a half /b years b remain for them. If You /b can b endure them all /b and forgive the sins committed during those years, b excellent. And if not, half /b of the sins are b upon me /b to bear b and half upon You. And if You say /b that b all of them, /b the sins of all twelve and a half years that remain, are b upon me, I sacrificed my soul before You /b and You should forgive them due to my merit. The Jewish people b began to say /b to Isaac: b You are our father. /b Only Isaac defended the Jewish people as a father would and displayed compassion toward his children. b Isaac said to them: Before you praise me, praise the Holy One, Blessed be He. And Isaac points to the Holy One, Blessed be He, before their eyes. Immediately they lifted their eyes to the heavens and say: “You, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer, everlasting is Your name.” /b ,And since the Gemara mentioned Jacob’s descent to Egypt, the Gemara cites that which b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Our father Jacob should have gone down to Egypt in iron chains /b as would an exile against his will, as decreed by God and related to Abraham. b However, his merit caused him /b to descend without suffering, b as it is written: “I drew them with cords of man, with bands of love, and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I fed them gently” /b (Hosea 11:4)., strong MISHNA: /strong After an extended digression for a discussion of matters unrelated to the i halakhot /i of Shabbat, this mishna resumes treatment of the i halakhot /i of carrying from domain to domain on Shabbat. b One who carries out wood /b on Shabbat is liable for a measure b equivalent /b to the amount of wood necessary b to cook an easily /b cooked b egg. /b The measure that determines liability for carrying out b spices /b is b equivalent /b to that which is used b to season an easily /b cooked b egg. And /b all types of spices b join together with one another /b to constitute the measure for liability. The measure that determines liability for carrying out b nutshells, pomegranate peels, safflower, and madder, /b which are used to produce dyes, is b equivalent /b to the amount that is used b to dye a small garment /b placed b atop a /b woman’s b hairnet. /b The measure that determines liability for carrying out b urine, natron, and i borit /i , cimolian earth [ i Kimoleya /i ], and potash, /b all of which are abrasive materials used for laundry, is b equivalent /b to the amount that is used b to launder a small garment /b placed b atop a /b woman’s b hairnet. And Rabbi Yehuda says: /b The measure that determines liability for these materials is b equivalent /b to that which is used b to remove a stain. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the measure of wood, the Gemara asks: Didn’t b we /b already b learn it once? /b As we learned in a mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out b a reed /b is b equivalent /b to that which is used b to make a quill. And if /b the reed b was thick /b and unfit for writing, b or /b if it was b fragmented, /b the measure that determines its liability is b equivalent /b to that which is used b to cook an egg most easily /b cooked, one that is already b beaten and placed in a stew pot. /b The measure of firewood is clearly delineated. The Gemara answers: Still, this mishna is necessary. b You might have said: There, /b the measure of the crushed reed reflects the fact that b it is not suitable for anything /b other than kindling. b However, /b regarding b wood that is suitable to /b be used b as a tooth of a key [ i aklida /i ], /b the measure that determines its liability should be b even any /b small b amount. /b Therefore, b it teaches us /b that wood is typically designated for burning, and that determines the measure for liability for carrying out wood on Shabbat.,We learned in the mishna that all types of b spices /b join together with one another to constitute the measure b equivalent /b to that which is used b to season an easily /b cooked b egg. The /b Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from that which we learned elsewhere: b Spices, /b which are prohibited due to b two or three /b different b prohibitions, /b e.g., one is prohibited due to i orla /i , and one due to the prohibition of untithed produce, and they were all b of a single species /b ( i Tosafot /i ), b or /b if they were b of three /b different b species, are prohibited, and they join together with each other /b to constitute a complete measure. b And Ḥizkiya said: /b
16. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •fetha naghast Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69
25b. קים לי בנפשאי דידענא טפי אבל תולה בדעת יונו אימא לא,ואי תנא תולה בדעת יונו דאמר בנקשא תליא מילתא ואנא ידענא לנקושי טפי אבל תולה בדעת עצמו אימא לא צריכא,מיתיבי המשחק בקוביא אלו הן המשחקים בפיספסים ולא בפיספסים בלבד אמרו אלא אפילו קליפי אגוזים וקליפי רימונים,ואימתי חזרתן משישברו את פיספסיהן ויחזרו בהן חזרה גמורה דאפילו בחנם לא עבדי,מלוה בריבית אחד המלוה ואחד הלוה ואימתי חזרתן משיקרעו את שטריהן ויחזרו בהן חזרה גמורה אפילו לנכרי לא מוזפי,ומפריחי יונים אלו שממרין את היונים ולא יונים בלבד אמרו אלא אפילו בהמה חיה ועוף ואימתי חזרתן משישברו את פגמיהן ויחזרו בהן חזרה גמורה דאפי' במדבר נמי לא עבדי,סוחרי שביעית אלו שנושאין ונותנין בפירות שביעית ואימתי חזרתן משתגיע שביעית אחרת ויבדלו,וא"ר נחמיה לא חזרת דברים בלבד אמרו אלא חזרת ממון כיצד אומר אני פלוני בר פלוני כינסתי מאתים זוז בפירות שביעית והרי הן נתונין במתנה לעניים,קתני מיהת בהמה בשלמא למאן דאמר אי תקדמיה יונך ליון היינו דמשכחת לה בהמה אלא למ"ד ארא בהמה בת הכי היא,אין בשור הבר וכמאן דאמר שור הבר מין בהמה הוא דתנן שור הבר מין בהמה הוא רבי יוסי אומר מין חיה,תנא הוסיפו עליהן הגזלנין והחמסנין,גזלן דאורייתא הוא לא נצרכא אלא למציאת חרש שוטה וקטן,מעיקרא סבור מציאת חרש שוטה וקטן לא שכיחא אי נמי מפני דרכי שלום בעלמא כיון דחזו דסוף סוף ממונא הוא דקא שקלי פסלינהו רבנן,החמסנין מעיקרא סבור דמי קא יהיב אקראי בעלמא הוא כיון דחזו דקא חטפי גזרו בהו רבנן,תנא עוד הוסיפו עליהן הרועים הגבאין והמוכסין,רועים מעיקרא סבור אקראי בעלמא הוא כיון דחזו דקא מכווני ושדו לכתחילה גזרו בהו רבנן: הגבאין והמוכסין מעיקרא סבור מאי דקיץ להו קא שקלי כיון דחזו דקא שקלי יתירא פסלינהו,אמר רבא רועה שאמרו אחד רועה בהמה דקה ואחד רועה בהמה גסה,ומי אמר רבא הכי והאמר רבא רועה בהמה דקה בא"י פסולין בחוצה לארץ כשרין רועה בהמה גסה אפילו בא"י כשרין ההוא במגדלים איתמר,ה"נ מסתברא מדקתני נאמנין עלי שלשה רועי בקר מאי לאו לעדות,לא לדינא דיקא נמי דקתני שלשה רועי בקר ואי לעדות שלשה למה לי,ואלא מאי לדינא מאי איריא שלשה רועי בקר כל בי תלתא דלא גמרי דינא נמי,הכי קאמר אפילו הני דלא שכיחי ביישוב,א"ר יהודה סתם רועה פסול סתם גבאי כשר,אבוה דר' זירא עבד גביותא תליסר שנין כי הוה אתי ריש נהרא למתא כי הוה חזי רבנן א"ל (ישעיהו כו, כ) לך עמי בא בחדריך כי הוה חזי אינשי דמתא אמר ריש נהרא אתא למתא והאידנא נכיס אבא לפום ברא וברא לפום אבא 25b. b I am certain of myself that I know better /b than my competitor how to win. b But /b with regard to one who b makes it dependent on the decision of his pigeon, say /b that he is b not /b disqualified from bearing witness, as he is aware that he cannot guarantee the results and therefore resolves to transfer the money if he loses., b And /b conversely, b had /b the mishna b taught /b this i halakha /i only with regard to one who b makes it dependent on the decision of his pigeon, /b one might assume that only this type of gambler is disqualified, b as he /b presumably b says: The matter, /b i.e., the race, b is determined by knocking /b on trees and other objects to speed up the pigeons, b and I know /b how b to knock better /b than my opponent. Therefore, he does not resolve to transfer the money if he loses. b But /b with regard to one who b makes it dependent on his own decision, say /b that he is b not /b disqualified from bearing witness, as the roll of the dice is pure chance. Therefore, it is b necessary /b for the mishna to teach both cases.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b to the opinion that the expression: Those who fly pigeons, refers to an i ara /i , from a i baraita /i : With regard to the expression b one who plays with dice, these are ones who play with i pispasim /i , /b which are dice of marble or other types of stone. b But /b the Sages b did not /b mean to b say /b that b only /b one who plays b with i pispasim /i /b is disqualified from bearing witness, but b rather even /b one who plays with b nutshells or pomegranate shells /b is disqualified., b And when is their repentance /b accepted, so that they may resume being fit to bear witness? b Once they break their i pispasim /i and repent of them completely, /b abandoning this occupation entirely, b where they do not do /b this b even for nothing, /b i.e., they do not play even without betting.,The i baraita /i continues: The expression: b One who lends with interest, /b is referring to b both the lender and the borrower. /b Both are disqualified. b And when is their repentance /b accepted? b Once they tear their /b promissory b notes and repent of them completely, /b abandoning this occupation entirely, where b they do not lend /b with interest b even to a gentile. /b ,The expression: b And /b those b who fly pigeons, /b is referring to b those who induce the pigeons /b to behave in this manner, i.e., they train them. b And /b the Sages b did not /b mean to b say /b that b only /b those who fly b pigeons /b are disqualified; b rather, even /b those who do this with b a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or /b any type of b bird /b are disqualified. b And when is their repentance /b accepted? b Once they break their fixtures [ i pigmeihen /i ] /b upon which they stand the competing animals, b and repent completely, /b abandoning this occupation entirely, b where they do not do /b this b even in the wilderness, /b where there is no one from whom to steal.,The expression: b Merchants /b who trade in the produce b of the Sabbatical /b Year, is referring to b those who do business with /b the b produce of the Sabbatical /b Year. b And when is their repentance /b accepted? b Once another Sabbatical /b Year b occurs and they refrain /b from selling its produce or from assuming ownership of such produce.,The i baraita /i continues: b And Rabbi Neḥemya said: /b The Sages b did not say /b that b verbal repentance alone /b is sufficient for a merchant who traded in the produce of the Sabbatical Year to be reinstated as a valid witness; b rather, returning /b the b money /b is also necessary. b How /b can one return the money he gained from selling produce of the Sabbatical Year? b He says: I, so-and-so the son of so-and-so, gathered, /b i.e., profited, b two hundred dinars /b from trading b in /b the b produce of the Sabbatical /b Year, b and /b as I gained it improperly, this sum is b hereby given as a gift to the poor. /b ,The Gemara explains the objection: b In any event, it is taught /b in the i baraita /i that the status of one who flies pigeons applies to one who uses b a domesticated animal /b in the same manner. b Granted, according to the one who says /b that the term: One who flies pigeons, is referring to those who race pigeons, saying: b If your pigeon reaches /b a certain destination b before my pigeon /b I will give you such and such an amount of money, b this is how you find /b a parallel case of one who races b a domesticated animal /b against another animal. b But according to the one who says /b that the term pigeon flyer means b an i ara /i , is a domesticated animal capable of /b luring other domesticated animals?,The Gemara answers: b Yes, /b the i baraita /i states this b with regard to the wild ox, /b which can be lured away from its owner’s property because it is not a completely domesticated animal. b And /b the i baraita /i states this b according to the one who says /b that b the wild ox is a species of domesticated animal, as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Kilayim /i 8:6): b The wild ox is a species of domesticated animal. /b But b Rabbi Yosei says: /b It is b a species of undomesticated animal. /b ,§ It was b taught /b in a i baraita /i : The Sages b added the robbers and those who force transactions, /b i.e., who compel others to sell to them, b to /b the list of those who are disqualified from bearing witness.,The Gemara asks: b A robber is /b disqualified b by Torah law; /b why is it necessary for the Sages to add such an individual to the list? The Gemara answers: It b is necessary only to /b add one who steals b an item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, /b who acquire those items by rabbinic law only (see i Gittin /i 59b). Since these people are not considered halakhically competent, by Torah law they do not acquire an item that they find, and consequently one who steals such an item from them is not in violation of a prohibition by Torah law.,One possibility is that taking such an item is prohibited by rabbinic law because it constitutes robbery. Nevertheless, b initially /b the Sages did not disqualify such an individual from bearing witness, as they b assumed /b that the case of b an item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is uncommon. /b Therefore, it was not deemed necessary to disqualify one who robs them of such an item. b Alternatively, /b the Sages may have reasoned that taking such an item is prohibited b merely on account of the ways of peace, /b i.e., to foster peace and prevent strife and controversy, and is not considered actual robbery. b When they realized that ultimately /b these people b were taking property /b from others and were likely to perform actual robbery, b the Sages disqualified them. /b ,Similarly, with regard to b those who force transactions, initially /b the Sages did not disqualify them, as b they assumed /b that their behavior could be excused for two reasons: b They would pay money /b for the items they took, and their forcing transactions b was merely occasional; /b it was not a common practice. b When they realized that /b these people b were snatching /b items regularly, b the Sages issued a decree that they /b are disqualified from bearing witness.,§ It is b taught /b in a i baraita /i : The Sages b further added /b the following b to /b the list of those disqualified from bearing witness: b The shepherds, /b who shepherd their animals in the fields of others and are therefore considered like robbers; b the collectors /b of government taxes, who collect more than the amount that people are legally liable to pay; b and the customs officials, /b who collect customs in an illegal manner.,The Gemara explains: b Shepherds /b were not disqualified at first, as the Sages b initially assumed it was merely incidental /b that they would let their animals graze in the fields of others. b When they realized that they would intentionally send /b the animals to the fields of others b from the outset, the Sages issued a decree that they /b are disqualified from bearing witness. b The collectors /b of taxes b and the customs officials /b were not disqualified at first, as the Sages b initially assumed they would take the set amount they /b were instructed to take. b When they realized that /b these officials b were taking more /b than that, b they disqualified them. /b , b Rava says: /b The b shepherd that /b the Sages b said /b is disqualified from bearing witness is referring to b both a shepherd of small livestock and a herder of large livestock. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And does Rava say this? But doesn’t Rava say: Shepherds of small livestock in Eretz Yisrael are disqualified /b from bearing witness, as besides grazing in others’ fields they also ruin the land? b Outside of Eretz /b Yisrael b they are fit /b to bear witness. By contrast, b herders of large livestock, even in Eretz Yisrael, are fit /b to bear witness. The Gemara answers: b That was stated with regard to /b those b who raise /b their animals on their own land, without herding them on land in the public domain.,The Gemara suggests a proof for Rava’s opinion that a herder of large livestock is also disqualified: b This too stands to reason, from /b the fact b that /b the mishna (24a) b teaches /b that a litigant may state: b Three cattle herders are trusted for me /b in court; by inference, cattle herders are generally disqualified. b What, is it not with regard to bearing witness /b that cattle herders are disqualified, in accordance with Rava’s statement?,The Gemara rejects this proof: b No, /b it is b with regard to /b sitting in b judgment. /b The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna b is also precise /b according to this interpretation, b as it teaches: Three cattle herders /b are trusted for me. b And if /b it is b with regard to bearing witness, why do I /b need b three /b witnesses? Two are enough.,The Gemara asks: b But rather, /b with regard to b what /b are cattle herders disqualified? If it is b with regard to /b sitting in b judgment, why /b does the mishna mention b specifically three cattle herders? Any three /b people b who did not study i halakha /i are also /b disqualified from serving as a court.,The Gemara answers: b This /b is what the mishna b is saying: /b The litigants can accept as judges b even those /b cattle herders b who /b dwell in the fields and b do not frequent the settled area, /b and are therefore not proficient in the ways of business., b Rav Yehuda says: An ordinary shepherd /b is b disqualified /b from bearing witness unless the court recognizes him as one who does not let his animals graze in the fields of others. b An ordinary /b tax b collector /b is b fit /b unless the court determines he is one who collects more than people are obligated to pay.,The Gemara relates a story about a tax collector: b The father of Rabbi Zeira collected /b taxes for b thirteen years. When the head /b tax collector of the b river /b region b would come to the city, /b Rabbi Zeira’s father would prepare the residents ahead of time. b When he would see the rabbis, he would say to them /b as a hint: b “Come, my people, enter into your chambers, /b and shut your doors behind you; hide yourself for a little moment until the indignation has passed” (Isaiah 26:20). He said this so that the head tax collector would not see the rabbis, and it would be possible to lower the taxes of the city. b When he would see /b the ordinary b people of the city, he would say /b to them: Beware, as b the head /b tax collector of the b river /b region b is coming to the city, and will now slaughter the father, /b i.e., take one’s money, b before the son, and the son before the father. /b
17. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •fetha naghast Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69
65a. כעין דאורייתא תקון,ואידך כי אמרינן כל דתקון רבנן כעין דאורייתא תקון במילתא דאית לה עיקר מה"ת אבל מילתא דלית לה עיקר מן התורה לא,מתיב רב אויא מערימין על מעשר שני כיצד אומר אדם לבנו ובתו הגדולים לעבדו ושפחתו העברים הא לכם מעות הללו ופדו בהן מעשר שני זה (ואוכלו בלא חומש),האי שפחה ה"ד אי דאתיא ב' שערות מאי בעיא גביה אלא לאו דלא אתיא ב' שערות הכא במאי עסקינן במעשר בזמן הזה דרבנן,ואמה העבריה בזמן הזה מי איכא והתניא אין עבד עברי נוהג אלא בזמן שהיובל נוהג אלא בעציץ שאינו נקוב דרבנן,אמר רבא ג' מדות בקטן צרור וזורקו אגוז ונוטלו זוכה לעצמו ואין זוכה לאחרים וכנגדן בקטנה מתקדשת למיאון,הפעוטות מקחן מקח וממכרן ממכר במטלטלין וכנגדן בקטנה מתגרשת בקידושי אביה,הגיעו לעונת נדרים נדריהן נדר והקדשן הקדש וכנגדן בקטנה חולצת ולמכור בנכסי אביו עד שיהא בן עשרים:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big קטנה שאמרה התקבל לי גיטי אינו גט עד שיגיע גט לידה לפיכך אם רצה הבעל לחזור יחזור שאין קטן עושה שליח,ואם אמר לו אביה צא והתקבל לבתי גיטה אם רצה לחזור לא יחזור,האומר תן גט זה לאשתי במקום פלוני ונתנו לה במקום אחר פסול הרי היא במקום פלוני ונתנו לה במקום אחר כשר,האשה שאמרה התקבל לי גיטי במקום פלוני וקיבלו לה במקום אחר פסול ר' אלעזר מכשיר הבא לי גיטי ממקום פלוני והביאו לה ממקום אחר כשר:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ורבי אלעזר מאי שנא רישא דלא פליג ומאי שנא סיפא דפליג,איהו דמדעתיה מגרש קפיד איהי דבעל כרחה מתגרשת מראה מקום היא לו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big הבא לי גיטי אוכלת בתרומה עד שיגיע גט לידה התקבל לי גיטי אסורה לאכול בתרומה מיד התקבל לי גיטי במקום פלוני אוכלת בתרומה עד שיגיע גט לאותו מקום ר"א אוסר מיד:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big וגיטא מיהא הוי והאמרת רישא לא הוי גיטא,לא צריכא דאמרה ליה התקבל לי גיטא במתא מחסיא וזימנין דמשכחת ליה בבבל וה"ק ליה משקל כל היכא דמשכחת ליה שקליה מיניה 65a. b they instituted parallel to Torah law, /b and they did not innovate novel halakhic models., b And the other /b Sage, Rav Ḥina of Vardonia, why was he silent? He holds that b when we say: All /b ordices b that the Sages instituted, they instituted parallel to Torah law, /b it is b with regard to a matter that is rooted in the Torah, /b and upon which the Sages instituted an ordice. b However, with regard to a matter that is not rooted in the Torah, /b e.g., the i halakhot /i of joining courtyards and merging alleyways, b no, /b they did not institute the ordices parallel to Torah law., b Rav Avya raises /b another b objection /b to Shmuel’s opinion, according to Rav Ḥisda’s explanations, that a minor cannot acquire property on behalf of others, based on a mishna in tractate i Ma’aser Sheni /i (4:4): b One may employ artifice /b to exempt himself from the obligation to add one-fifth to the sum when redeeming b second tithe, /b which the owner of the tithe is required to add. b How so? A person says to his adult son or daughter, /b or b to his Hebrew slave or his maidservant: Here you are, /b take b money and redeem second tithe with it. /b After they redeem the second tithe, they give it to their father or master b and he eats it without /b adding b one-fifth. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances /b of b this maidservant? If she developed two /b pubic b hairs, /b indicating that she reached majority, b what /b is she b doing with /b the owner of the produce? A Hebrew maidservant is emancipated when she reaches puberty. b Rather, is /b the reference here b not /b to a case b where she did not /b yet b develop two /b pubic b hairs? /b Apparently, a minor can also acquire property on behalf of others. The Gemara rejects this proof: b With what are we dealing here? /b It is b with tithes today, /b which is in effect b by rabbinic law, /b and the Sages ruled leniently in matters of rabbinic law.,The Gemara asks: b And is there a Hebrew maidservant today? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : The provision of b a Hebrew slave is in practice only during a period when the Jubilee /b Year b is in practice. /b Therefore, there have been no Hebrew slaves or maidservants since observance of the Jubilee Year ceased, before the destruction of the First Temple. b Rather, /b it must be that the mishna is referring to a case where the produce grew b in an unperforated pot, /b which one is obligated to tithe b by rabbinic law. /b ,Apropos the capacity of minors to acquire property, b Rava says /b that there are b three stages in /b the development of b a minor: /b With regard to a minor who is given b a pebble and he throws it /b away but when given b a nut he takes it, he acquires /b property b for himself but does not acquire /b property b on /b behalf of b others. And with regard to a minor girl with the corresponding /b stage of intellectual development, after the death of her father she can be b betrothed /b by her mother and her brother by rabbinic law, and can opt out of that betrothal b through refusal. /b ,At the next stage of development are young b children /b aged approximately six through eight, whose b purchase is a purchase and whose sale is a sale, with regard to movable property. And with regard to a minor girl with the corresponding /b stage of development, b she is divorced /b by receipt of her bill of divorce, even if it is b from betrothal by her father, /b which is by Torah law.,The third stage of development is when b they have reached the age of vows, /b when b their vows are /b valid b vows and their consecration is /b valid b consecration. And with regard to a minor girl with the corresponding /b stage of development, b she performs i ḥalitza /i /b to free herself from her levirate bond. b And /b with regard b to selling his father’s /b landed b property, /b a minor cannot sell it b until he will /b reach the b age of twenty. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong In the case of b a minor girl who said /b to an agent: b Receive my bill of divorce for me, it is not /b a valid b bill of divorce until the bill of divorce reaches her possession. Therefore, if the husband seeks to retract /b his decision before his wife receives the bill of divorce, b he can retract /b it, b as a minor does not designate an agent. /b Consequently, the agent is not an agent for receipt, and the divorce does not take effect when the husband hands the document to the agent. The agent is an agent for delivery, and the divorce takes effect when the bill of divorce enters the wife’s possession., b And /b if b her father said to /b the agent: b Go out and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce on /b her behalf, then b if /b the husband b seeks to retract /b his decision, b he cannot retract /b it. As a father can receive the bill of divorce on behalf of his minor daughter, he can designate an agent for receipt, and the divorce takes effect when the husband hands the document to the agent.,With regard to b one who says /b to an agent: b Give this bill of divorce to my wife in such and such a place, /b if the agent deviated b and gave it to her in another place /b the divorce is b invalid. /b However, if he said to the agent: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, b she is in such and such a place, /b without explicitly instructing the agent to give her the document there, b and he gave it to her in another place /b the divorce is b valid. /b ,With regard to b the woman who /b when designating her agent for receipt b said /b to her agent: b Receive my bill of divorce for me in such and such a place, and he received it for her in another place, /b the divorce is b invalid; /b and b Rabbi Elazar deems /b it b valid. /b If she said to him: b Bring me my bill of divorce from such and such a place, and he brought it for her from another place, /b it is b valid. /b Because he is an agent for delivery, the woman is not particular where he receives the bill of divorce, as the divorce takes effect only when the bill of divorce reaches her possession., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b And /b according to b Rabbi Elazar, what is different /b in b the first clause, /b where the agent deviated from the husband’s instructions and delivered the bill of divorce in a different place, b where he does not disagree /b with the unattributed opinion of the first i tanna /i that the divorce is invalid, b and what is different /b in b the latter clause, /b where the agent deviated from the wife’s instructions and received the bill of divorce in a different place, b where he disagrees /b with the unattributed opinion of the first i tanna /i and deems the divorce valid?,The Gemara answers: b He, /b the husband, b who divorces /b his wife b of his own volition, insists /b that the divorce be effected in a certain place. However, b she, /b the wife, b who is divorced /b even b against her will, /b is in no position to insist with regard to the manner in which the divorce will be effected, and b is /b merely b indicating a place for him /b to give her the bill of divorce., strong MISHNA: /strong An Israelite woman married to a priest partakes of i teruma /i . If she says to an agent: b Bring me my bill of divorce, /b designating him as an agent for delivery, b she /b continues to b partake of i teruma /i until the bill of divorce reaches her possession. /b However, if she says: b Receive my bill of divorce for me, /b thereby designating him as an agent for receipt, it is b immediately prohibited /b for her b to partake of i teruma /i . /b Since the divorce takes effect when the husband hands the bill of divorce to the agent, the concern is that the agent encountered the husband nearby. If the woman said to the agent: b Receive my bill of divorce for me in such and such a place, /b then even if he received it elsewhere, b she /b continues to b partake of i teruma /i until the bill of divorce reaches that place. Rabbi Elazar prohibits /b her from partaking of i teruma /i b immediately. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong In this mishna, the first i tanna /i apparently states that if the agent for receipt received the bill of divorce in a place other than the place designated by the woman for receipt, the bill of divorce is valid when the agent brings it to the designated place. The Gemara asks: b And in any event, is it /b a valid b bill of divorce? But didn’t you say /b in b the first clause, /b i.e., in the previous mishna, that if the agent received the bill of divorce in another place, b it is not /b a valid b bill of divorce? /b ,The Gemara asks: b No, /b this i halakha /i is b necessary /b with regard to a case b where she said to him: Receive the bill of divorce for me in /b the city of b Mata Meḥasya, and sometimes you /b can b find him in /b the city of b Babylon. And this is what she is saying: /b When b taking /b the bill of divorce, b anywhere that you find him, take it from him, /b
18. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •fetha naghast Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69
156a. ולטעמיך זבין שוי חמשא בשיתא הכי נמי דזביניה זביני,אלא קים להו לרבנן דינוקא מקרבא דעתיה גבי זוזי ואי אמרת זביניה זביני זמנין דמקרקשי ליה זוזי אזיל מזבין לכולהו נכסי דאבוה אבל גבי מתנה אי לאו דהוה ליה הנאה מיניה לא הוה יהיב ליה מתנה אמרו רבנן תיהוי מתנתו מתנה דלעבידו להו מילי,אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל בודקין לקדושין לגרושין ולחליצה ולמיאונין ולמכור בנכסי אביו עד שיהא בן עשרים,וכיון דבדקנא לקדושין לגרושין למה לי לא נצרכא אלא ליבום דתנן בן תשע שנים ויום אחד שבא על יבמתו קנאה ואין נותן גט עד שיגדל,לחליצה לאפוקי מדר' יוסי דאמר איש כתוב בפרשה אבל אשה בין גדולה ובין קטנה קא משמע לן דמקשינן אשה לאיש דלא כר' יוסי,ולמיאונין לאפוקי מדרבי יהודה דאמר עד שירבה שחור קא משמע לן דלא כרבי יהודה,ולמכור בנכסי אביו עד שיהא בן עשרים לאפוקי ממאן דאמר בן שמנה עשרה,והלכתא תוך זמן כלפני זמן והלכתא כגידל בר מנשה,והלכתא כמר זוטרא והלכתא כאמימר והלכתא כרב נחמן אמר שמואל בכולהו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המחלק נכסיו על פיו ר' אלעזר אומר אחד בריא ואחד מסוכן נכסים שיש להן אחריות נקנין בכסף ובשטר ובחזקה ושאין להן אחריות אין נקנין אלא במשיכה 156a. b And according to your reasoning, /b that the money he receives in exchange for the property is a reason one could consider his sale valid, if b he sold /b property b worth five /b dinars b for six /b dinars, would b his sale also be /b a valid b sale? /b , b Rather, the Sages maintain that a child’s inclination /b is to be b attracted to money. And if you say /b that b his sale is /b a valid b sale, /b there may be b times /b that there are potential buyers b who rattle the dinars /b before b him /b in order to tempt him to sell, and b he will go and sell all of his father’s property. /b That is why the Sages ruled that all of his sales are not valid. b But with regard to a gift, if he did not /b derive b benefit from /b the recipient, b he would not give him a gift. The Sages /b therefore b said: Let the gift /b of an orphan b be /b a valid b gift, so /b that people b will perform /b beneficial b matters for /b the orphans, as the orphan can reciprocate by giving gifts.,§ b Rav Naḥman says /b that b Shmuel says: /b Children who have reached the age of majority, i.e., a boy who is thirteen years old and a girl who is twelve years old, b are examined /b for signs indicating puberty if it is necessary to determine their adulthood b for /b the purpose of b betrothal, for /b the purpose of b divorce, for /b the purpose of b i ḥalitza /i , and /b for the purpose of stating a girl’s b refusal /b to remain married. b But /b in order b to sell from the property that /b one inherited from b his father, /b the seller must be older, and one cannot sell this property b until /b the seller b is twenty /b years b old. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But once I examined /b the boy b for /b the purpose of b betrothal, why do I /b need to examine him again b for /b the purpose of b divorce? /b The Gemara answers: This b is necessary only with regard to /b the b levirate marriage /b of a minor, b as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Nidda /i 45a): A boy who is b nine years and one day old who engaged in intercourse with his i yevama /i , /b i.e., his brother’s widow, b acquired her /b as his wife by means of engaging in the act of intercourse. Although a minor cannot betroth a woman under ordinary circumstances, in the case of levirate marriage the act of intercourse of a nine-year-old with his i yevama /i effects acquisition. b But he cannot give /b her b a bill of divorce until he reaches his majority. /b It is therefore necessary to examine him at the time of the divorce.,The Gemara explains why it is necessary to mention examining a boy b for /b the purpose of b i ḥalitza /i : /b This is mentioned b to the exclusion of that which Rabbi Yosei /b says, b as /b Rabbi Yosei b says: “Man,” /b i.e., an adult man, b is written in the /b Torah b passage /b with regard to i ḥalitza /i , as the verse states: “And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife” (Deuteronomy 25:7). b But a woman, whether /b she is b an adult or a minor, /b can be released by i ḥalitza /i , as the verse does not indicate her age. To counter this, Rav Naḥman b teaches us that a woman is juxtaposed to a man /b in this passage, indicating that the i yevama /i must also have reached adulthood, and the i halakha /i is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei. /b ,The Gemara explains why it is necessary to mention examining a person b for /b the purpose of stating her b refusal. /b This is mentioned b to the exclusion of that which Rabbi Yehuda /b says, b as /b Rabbi Yehuda b says /b that a girl whose mother or brother married her off while she was a minor can nullify her marriage by refusing to remain married, and she can state this refusal b until /b she reaches complete maturity, i.e., b when /b the area covered by b black /b pubic hairs b is greater /b than the skin of the genital area. Rav Naḥman therefore b teaches us that /b the i halakha /i is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b and once a girl has developed two pubic hairs she cannot state her refusal.,Rav Naḥman states: b But /b in order b to sell from the property that /b one inherited from b his father, /b the seller must be older, and he cannot sell the property b until he is twenty /b years b old. /b This is mentioned b to the exclusion of /b the opinion of the b one who says /b that the seller can be b eighteen /b years b old. /b ,The Gemara concludes: b And the i halakha /i /b is that with regard to the age when a minor can sell property inherited from his father, b during /b the b time, /b i.e., during his twentieth year, is considered b as before /b the b time /b when it is permitted, and he cannot sell until the end of his twentieth year. b And the i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the ruling that Rava sent to b Giddel bar Menashe, /b that a child who has reached his majority and understands the nature of business negotiations can sell land.,The Gemara continues: b And the i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the statement of b Mar Zutra, /b that one who is not fit to sell land is also not fit to bear witness with regard to land. b And the i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the statement of b Ameimar, /b that an orphan under the age of twenty can bestow gifts from the property he inherited from his father. b And the i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the statement that b Rav Naḥman /b says that b Shmuel says with regard to all /b the matters that he mentioned., strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to b one who divides his property /b between various recipients b by /b means of b verbal /b instruction, b Rabbi Elazar says: /b Both in the case of b one /b who is b healthy and /b in the case of b one /b who is b dangerously ill, /b the i halakha /i is as follows: b Property that serves as a guarantee, /b i.e., land, b is acquired by /b means of b money, by a deed /b of transfer, b or by taking possession /b of it. b And that /b which b does not serve as a guarantee, /b i.e., movable property, b can be acquired only by pulling. /b
19. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •fetha naghast Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69
42b. היודע לשחוט אוכלין משחיטתו אמר רב הונא והוא שגדול עומד על גביו,יכול לאכול כזית דגן מרחיקין מצואתו וממימי רגליו ארבע אמות אמר רב חסדא והוא שיכול לאוכלו בכדי אכילת פרס אמר רב חייא בריה דרב ייבא ובגדול אע"פ שאינו יכול לאכול בכדי אכילת פרס דכתיב (קהלת א, יח) ויוסיף דעת יוסיף מכאוב,יכול לאכול כזית צלי שוחטין עליו את הפסח שנאמר (שמות יב, ד) איש לפי אכלו רבי יהודה אומר עד שיכול לברר אכילה כיצד נותנין לו צרור וזורקו אגוז ונוטלו:, br br big strongהדרן עלך לולב הגזול /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongלולב /strong /big וערבה ששה ושבעה ההלל והשמחה שמונה סוכה וניסוך המים שבעה החליל חמשה וששה,לולב שבעה כיצד יו"ט הראשון של חג שחל להיות בשבת לולב שבעה ושאר כל הימים ששה,ערבה שבעה כיצד יום השביעי של ערבה שחל להיות בשבת ערבה שבעה ושאר כל הימים ששה,מצות לולב כיצד (בשבת) יום טוב הראשון של חג שחל להיות בשבת מוליכין את לולביהן להר הבית והחזנין מקבלין מהן וסודרין אותן על גבי איצטבא והזקנים מניחין את שלהן בלשכה ומלמדין אותם לומר כל מי שמגיע לולבי לידו הרי הוא לו במתנה,למחר משכימין ובאין והחזנין זורקין אותם לפניהם והן מחטפין ומכין איש את חבירו וכשראו ב"ד שבאו לידי סכנה התקינו שיהא כל אחד ואחד נוטל בביתו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמאי טלטול בעלמא הוא ולידחי שבת אמר רבה גזרה שמא יטלנו בידו וילך אצל בקי ללמוד 42b. If he is one b who knows /b how b to slaughter /b an animal, b one may eat from /b animals b that he slaughtered. Rav Huna said: /b That is the i halakha /i b provided that an adult is standing over him /b overseeing the slaughter.,If he is one who b is able to eat an olive-bulk of grain, one distances /b himself b four cubits from his feces and from his urine /b before praying or reciting i Shema /i , as the feces and urine of a child at that stage of development produce offensive odors like those of an adult. b Rav Ḥisda said: /b That is the i halakha /i b provided that /b the minor b can eat /b the olive-bulk of grain b in /b the time it takes b to eat a half-loaf /b of bread. However, if it takes him longer, one need not distance himself before praying. b Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Yeiva, said: And with regard to an adult, even if he is unable to eat /b an olive-bulk of grain b in /b the time it takes b to eat a half-loaf /b of bread, one must distance himself from his feces before praying, b as it is written: “And he that increases knowledge, increases sorrow” /b (Ecclesiastes 1:18), meaning that as one grows older he becomes more flawed.,If he is one who b is able to eat an olive-bulk of roasted /b meat, b one slaughters the Paschal lamb on his /b behalf, and he is included in the group assembled to eat the Paschal lamb, b as it is stated: “According to every man’s eating /b you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4). b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b Ability to consume an olive-bulk is insufficient to include him in the group; rather, he is not included b until he is able to discern /b what he is b eating. How /b is that determined? If b one gives him a pebble and he throws it /b away, and if one gives him b a nut and he takes it, /b he may be included in the group for eating the Paschal lamb.,, strong MISHNA: /strong The b i lulav /i /b is taken b and /b the altar is encircled together with the b willow branch /b either b six or seven /b days, depending on which day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat. The obligation to recite b the /b full b i hallel /i and the /b mitzva of b rejoicing, /b i.e., eating the meat of the peace-offering, b is in effect for eight /b days, seven days of i Sukkot /i and the Eighth Day of Assembly. The mitzva of b i sukka /i and /b the ritual of b the water libation /b on the altar b are /b in effect for b seven /b days. b The flute /b is played in the Temple for b five or six /b days, depending on which day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, to enhance the rejoicing on the Festival.,The mishna elaborates: The b i lulav /i /b is taken for b seven /b days. b How /b so? If b the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, /b since the mitzva to take the i lulav /i on the first day is a mitzva by Torah law, it overrides Shabbat and one takes the i lulav /i that day. As a result, the b i lulav /i /b is then taken for b seven /b days. b And /b if the first day occurs on one of the b rest of the days /b of the week and one of the other days of the Festival coincides with Shabbat, the i lulav /i is taken only b six /b days. Since the mitzva to take the i lulav /i is a mitzva by rabbinic law throughout the rest of i Sukkot /i , it does not override Shabbat.,The altar is encircled with the b willow branch /b for b seven /b days. b How /b so? If b the seventh day of /b the mitzva of the b willow branch occurs on Shabbat, /b since on that day it is a mitzva by Torah law, it overrides Shabbat and the mitzva of the b willow branch /b is then performed for b seven /b days. b And /b if the seventh day occurs on one of the b rest of the days /b of the week, and one of the other days of the Festival coincides with Shabbat, since the mitzva of the willow branch is then by rabbinic law and consequently does not override Shabbat, it is performed for only b six /b days., b How is the mitzva of i lulav /i /b fulfilled in the Temple when the first day of the Festival occurs b on Shabbat? /b If b the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, /b all the people b bring their i lulavim /i to the Temple Mount /b on Friday. b The attendants receive /b the i lulavim /i b from them and arrange them on a bench [ i itztaba /i ], while the Elders place their /b i lulavim /i b in the chamber. /b They were given permission to do so due to the concern that they would be injured the following morning in the rush of people in search of their i lulavim /i . b And /b the court b teaches /b the people b to say: /b With regard to b anyone whom my i lulav /i reaches his possession, it is his as a gift. /b They did so to avoid the likely situation where people would inadvertently take i lulavim /i that did not belong to them, as on the first day of the Festival one does not fulfill his obligation with a i lulav /i that does not belong to him., b The next day /b everyone b rises early and comes /b to the Temple, b and the attendants throw /b the i lulavim /i b before them. And /b in the confusion, the people b snatch /b the i lulavim /i b and /b in the process b strike one another. And when the court saw that they came to /b potential b danger, they instituted that each and every /b person b will take /b his i lulav /i b in his house /b and fulfill the mitzva there., strong GEMARA: /strong Apropos the prohibition against taking a i lulav /i on Shabbat, the Gemara asks: b Why /b is this prohibited? After all, taking the i lulav /i b is merely moving /b the object and is prohibited due to the rabbinic prohibition of set-aside. Since the mitzva to take the i lulav /i is a mitzva by Torah law, b let it override /b this relatively minor b Shabbat /b prohibition. b Rabba said: /b This prohibition is b a decree lest one take /b the i lulav /i b in his hand and go to an expert to learn /b how to wave the i lulav /i or how to recite its blessing,