1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 26.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •fiction, legal, and conversion •identity, jewish, and conversion as legal fiction Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 215| 26.3. "וּבָאתָ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְאָמַרְתָּ אֵלָיו הִגַּדְתִּי הַיּוֹם לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ כִּי־בָאתִי אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע יְהוָה לַאֲבֹתֵינוּ לָתֶת לָנוּ׃", | 26.3. "And thou shalt come unto the priest that shall be in those days, and say unto him: ‘I profess this day unto the LORD thy God, that I am come unto the land which the LORD swore unto our fathers to give us.’", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 44.22 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •fiction, legal, and conversion •identity, jewish, and conversion as legal fiction Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 216| 44.22. "וְאַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה לֹא־יִקְחוּ לָהֶם לְנָשִׁים כִּי אִם־בְּתוּלֹת מִזֶּרַע בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָאַלְמָנָה אֲשֶׁר תִּהְיֶה אַלְמָנָה מִכֹּהֵן יִקָּחוּ׃", | 44.22. "Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away; but they shall take virgins of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that is the widow of a priest.", |
|
3. Tosefta, Sotah, 7.15 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fiction, legal, and conversion •identity, jewish, and conversion as legal fiction Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 217| 7.15. "יש יוצאין וחוזרין יוצאין ואין חוזרין ויש שאין יוצאין כל עיקר כל אלו שאמרו יוצאין וחוזרין נותנין [פסי] העיר ומספקין מים ומזון למלחמה ומתקנים את הדרכים ושאר כולן אין חוזרין כל אלו שאמרו אין יוצאין כל עיקר הבונה בית וחנכו ולא שהה שנים עשר חדש נטע כרם וחללו ולא שהה שנים עשר חדש ארס אשה ולקחה ולא שהה שנים עשר חדש הללו אין נותנין פסי העיר ואין מספקין מים ומזון למלחמה ואין מתקנים את הדרכים ר' יהודה היה קורא למלחמת הרשות מלחמת מצוה אבל מלחמת חובה הכל יוצא אפי' חתן מחדרו וכלה מחופתה. ", | |
|
4. Mishnah, Bikkurim, 1.4-1.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fiction, legal, and conversion •identity, jewish, and conversion as legal fiction Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 215| 1.4. "אֵלּוּ מְבִיאִין וְלֹא קוֹרִין, הַגֵּר מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא, שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע ה' לַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ לָתֵת לָנוּ (דברים כ״ו:ג׳). וְאִם הָיְתָה אִמּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מִתְפַּלֵּל בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ, אוֹמֵר, אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּכְשֶׁהוּא בְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת, אוֹמֵר, אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם. וְאִם הָיְתָה אִמּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, אוֹמֵר, אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵינוּ: \n", 1.5. "רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, אִשָּׁה בַת גֵּרִים לֹא תִנָּשֵׂא לַכְּהֻנָּה, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא אִמָּהּ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. אֶחָד גֵּרִים וְאֶחָד עֲבָדִים מְשֻׁחְרָרִים, וַאֲפִלּוּ עַד עֲשָׂרָה דוֹרוֹת, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא אִמָּן מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס וְהַשָּׁלִיחַ וְהָעֶבֶד וְהָאִשָּׁה וְטֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, מְבִיאִין וְלֹא קוֹרִין, שֶׁאֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לוֹמַר (דברים כ״ו:י׳) אֲשֶׁר נָתַתָּה לִּי ה': \n", | 1.4. "These bring [bikkurim] but do not read the declaration:The convert, since he cannot say: “Which the Lord has sworn to our fathers, to give to us” (Deuteronomy 26:3). If his mother was an Israelite, then he brings bikkurim and recites. When he prays privately, he says: “God of the fathers of Israel,” but when he is in the synagogue, he should say: “The God of your fathers.” But if his mother was an Israelite, he says: “The God of our fathers’.", 1.5. "Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: a woman who is a daughter of a convert may not marry a priest unless her mother was herself an Israelite. [This law applies equally to the offspring] whether of proselytes or freed slaves, even to ten generations, unless their mother is an Israelite. A guardian, an agent, a slave, a woman, one of doubtful sex, or a hermaphrodite bring the bikkurim, but do not recite, since they cannot say: “Which you, O Lord, have given to me” (Deuteronomy 26:10).", |
|
5. Mishnah, Niddah, 1.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fiction, legal, and conversion •identity, jewish, and conversion as legal fiction Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 218| 1.1. "שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַנָּשִׁים דַּיָּן שְׁעָתָן. הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, וַאֲפִלּוּ לְיָמִים הַרְבֵּה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לֹא כְדִבְרֵי זֶה וְלֹא כְדִבְרֵי זֶה, אֶלָּא מֵעֵת לְעֵת מְמַעֵט עַל יַד מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה מְמַעֶטֶת עַל יַד מֵעֵת לְעֵת. כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֶּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת, דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ. וְהַמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בְּעִדִּים, הֲרֵי זוֹ כִפְקִידָה, וּמְמַעֶטֶת עַל יַד מֵעֵת לְעֵת וְעַל יַד מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה: \n", | 1.1. "Shammai says: for all women it suffices [to reckon] their [period of uncleanness from their time [of discovering the flow]. Hillel ruled: [their period of uncleanness is to be reckoned retroactively] from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, even if this was many days. The sages say: [the law is] not like the words of these or the words of those, but [the women are deemed to have been unclean] during [the preceding] twenty-four hours when this lessens the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, and during the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination when this lessens the period of twenty-four hours. For any woman who has a regular period it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow. And if a woman uses rags when she has marital intercourse, this is like an examination which lessens either the period of the [past] twenty-four hours or the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination.", |
|
| 6. Mishnah, Qiddushin, 4.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fiction, legal, and conversion •identity, jewish, and conversion as legal fiction Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 216, 217 |
| 7. Mishnah, Sotah, a b c d\n0 7.11 (8) 7.11 (8) 7 11 (8) (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fiction, legal, and conversion •identity, jewish, and conversion as legal fiction Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 217 |
| 8. Palestinian Talmud, Sotah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 9. Palestinian Talmud, Bikkurim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
10. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fiction, legal, and conversion •identity, jewish, and conversion as legal fiction Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 217| 41b. מאתחלתא דמועד,וחזן הכנסת נוטל ס"ת ונותנו לראש הכנסת שמעת מינה חולקין כבוד לתלמיד במקום הרב אמר אביי כולה משום כבודו דמלך,והמלך עומד ומקבל וקורא יושב אגריפס המלך עמד וקיבל וקרא עומד עומד מכלל דיושב והאמר מר אין ישיבה בעזרה אלא למלכי בית דוד בלבד שנא' (שמואל ב ז, יח) ויבא המלך דוד וישב לפני ה' ויאמר וגו' כדאמר רב חסדא בעזרת נשים הכא נמי בעזרת נשים,ושבחוהו חכמים שבחוהו מכלל דשפיר עבד האמר רב אשי אפי' למ"ד נשיא שמחל על כבודו כבודו מחול מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול שנא' (דברים יז, טו) שום תשים עליך מלך שתהא אימתו עליך,מצוה שאני,וכשהגיע ללא תוכל לתת תנא משמיה דרבי נתן באותה שעה נתחייבו שונאי ישראל כלייה שהחניפו לו לאגריפס,אמר ר' שמעון בן חלפתא מיום שגבר אגרופה של חנופה נתעוותו הדינין ונתקלקלו המעשים ואין אדם יכול לומר לחבירו מעשי גדולים ממעשיך,דרש ר' יהודה בר מערבא ואיתימא ר' שמעון בן פזי מותר להחניף לרשעים בעולם הזה שנאמר (ישעיהו לב, ה) לא יקרא עוד לנבל נדיב ולכילי לא יאמר שוע מכלל דבעולם הזה שרי,ר' שמעון בן לקיש אמר מהכא (בראשית לג, י) כראות פני אלהים ותרצני,ופליגא דרבי לוי דאמר רבי לוי משל של יעקב ועשו למה הדבר דומה לאדם שזימן את חבירו והכיר בו שמבקש להורגו אמר לו טעם תבשיל זה שאני טועם כתבשיל שטעמתי בבית המלך אמר ידע ליה מלכא מיסתפי ולא קטיל ליה,אמר רבי אלעזר כל אדם שיש בו חנופה מביא אף לעולם שנא' (איוב לו, יג) וחנפי לב ישימו אף ולא עוד אלא שאין תפלתו נשמעת שנאמר (איוב לו, יג) לא ישועו כי אסרם,סימן א"ף עוב"ר גיהנ"ם ביד"ו ניד"ה גול"ה,ואמר רבי אלעזר כל אדם שיש בו חנופה אפילו עוברין שבמעי אמן מקללין אותו שנא' (משלי כד, כד) אומר לרשע צדיק אתה יקבוהו עמים יזעמוהו לאומים ואין קוב אלא קללה שנא' (במדבר כג, ח) לא קבה אל ואין לאום אלא עוברין שנא' (בראשית כה, כג) ולאום מלאום יאמץ,ואמר רבי אלעזר כל אדם שיש בו חנופה נופל בגיהנם שנא' (ישעיהו ה, כ) הוי האומרים לרע טוב ולטוב רע וגו' מה כתיב אחריו לכן כאכל קש לשון אש וחשש להבה ירפה וגו',ואמר רבי אלעזר כל המחניף לחבירו סוף נופל בידו ואם אינו נופל בידו נופל ביד בניו ואם אינו נופל ביד בניו נופל ביד בן בנו שנא' (ירמיהו כח, ה) ויאמר ירמיה לחנניה אמן כן יעשה ה' יקם ה' את דבריך וכתי' | 41b. implying that the assembly takes place b at the beginning of the Festival, /b when the entire Jewish people comes to Jerusalem.,§ It is taught in the mishna: b And the synagogue attendant takes a Torah scroll and gives it to the head of the synagogue, /b until it is eventually passed to the king. The Gemara suggests: b You can learn from /b the fact that all of these dignitaries receive the Torah scroll before the king that b honor may be given to a student in the presence of the teacher. Abaye said: /b A proof may not be adduced from here, as the b entire /b process b is for the honor of the king, /b to show that he is removed from ordinary people by many ranks.,It is taught in the mishna: b And the king stands, and receives /b the Torah scroll, b and reads /b from it while b sitting. King Agrippa arose, and received /b the Torah scroll, b and read /b from it while b standing. /b The Gemara asks: b By inference, /b until that point he had been b sitting. But didn’t the Master say /b ( i Tosefta /i , i Sanhedrin /i 4:4) that b sitting in the /b Temple b courtyard /b is permitted b only for kings from the house of David, as it is stated: “Then King David went in, and sat before the Lord; and he said: /b Who am I?” (II Samuel 7:18). The Gemara answers: b As Rav Ḥisda said /b in a similar context: This took place not in the Israelite courtyard, where the prohibition against sitting applies, but b in the women’s courtyard. Here too, /b the assembly was b in the women’s courtyard. /b ,It is stated in the mishna that King Agrippa read from the Torah while standing, b and the Sages praised him /b for this. The Gemara asks: b From the fact /b that b they praised him, /b can it be concluded b that he acted appropriately? Didn’t Rav Ashi say: Even according to the one who says /b with regard to b a i Nasi /i who relinquished /b the b honor /b due b him, his honor is relinquished, /b i.e., he may do so, with regard to b a king who relinquished /b the b honor /b due b him, his honor is not relinquished, as it is stated: “You shall place a king over you” /b (Deuteronomy 17:15). This is interpreted to mean b that his awe shall be upon you. /b The Torah establishes that awe is an essential component of kingship, and it is not the prerogative of the king to relinquish it.,The Gemara answers: Since he relinquished his honor for the sake of b a mitzva, /b this situation b is different /b and does not dishonor him.,The mishna continues: b And when /b Agrippa b arrived at /b the verse: b “You may not appoint /b a foreigner over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), tears flowed from his eyes because he was a descendant of the house of Herod and was not of Jewish origin. The entire nation said to him: You are our brother. It is b taught in the name of Rabbi Natan: At that moment the enemies of the Jewish people, /b a euphemism for the Jewish people, b were sentenced to destruction for flattering Agrippa. /b , b Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta says: From the day that the power of flattery prevailed, the judgment has become corrupted, and /b people’s b deeds have become corrupted, and a person cannot say to another: My deeds are greater than your deeds, /b as everyone flatters one another and people no longer know the truth., b Rabbi Yehuda of the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, b and some say Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, taught: It is permitted to flatter wicked people in this world, as it is stated /b concerning the future: b “The vile person shall no longer be called generous, nor shall the churl be said to be noble” /b (Isaiah 32:5). b By inference, /b this indicates b that in this world it is permitted /b to flatter them., b Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said /b that this can be proven b from here. /b Jacob said to Esau: “I have seen your face, b as one sees the face of angels, and you were pleased with me” /b (Genesis 33:10). Jacob flattered him by comparing seeing him to seeing a divine vision.,The Gemara notes: b And /b Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, in interpreting Jacob’s statement, b disagrees with Rabbi Levi, as Rabbi Levi says: /b With regard to the interaction between b Jacob and Esau, to what is this matter comparable? To a person who invited another /b to his home b and /b the guest b realized that he wants to kill him. /b The guest b said to him: The flavor of this dish that I taste is like a dish that I tasted in the king’s house. /b The host then b said /b to himself: b The king /b must b know him. /b Therefore, b he was afraid and did not kill him. /b Similarly, when Jacob told Esau that his face is like the face of an angel, he intended to let him know that he had seen angels, in order to instill fear in him so that Esau would not seek to harm him., b Rabbi Elazar says: Any person who has flattery in him brings wrath to the world, as it is stated: “But those with flattery in their hearts bring about wrath” /b (Job 36:13). b And moreover, his prayer is not heard, as it is stated /b in that same verse: b “They do not cry for help when He binds them.” /b ,The Gemara cites b a mnemonic /b device for the statements of Rabbi Elazar: b Wrath, fetus, Gehenna, in his hands, menstruating woman, exiled. /b , b And Rabbi Elazar says: Any person who has flattery in him, even fetuses in their mothers’ wombs curse him, as it is stated: “He who says to the wicked: You are righteous, peoples shall curse him [ i yikkevuhu /i ], nations [ i leummim /i ] shall execrate him” /b (Proverbs 24:24); b and i kov /i , /b the linguistic root of the word i yikkevuhu /i , means b only a curse, as it is stated: /b Balaam explained that he did not curse the Jewish people, as he said: “How can I curse [ i ekkov /i ] b whom God has not cursed [ i kabbo /i ]?” /b (Numbers 23:8). b And i le’om /i /b is homiletically interpreted to mean b only fetuses, as it is stated /b with regard to Jacob and Esau, when they were still in Rebecca’s womb: b “And one people [ i le’om /i ] shall be stronger than the other people [ i le’om /i ]” /b (Genesis 25:23)., b And Rabbi Elazar says: Any person who has flattery in him falls into Gehenna, as it is stated: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” /b (Isaiah 5:20). b What is written afterward? “Therefore, as the tongue of fire devours straw, and as the chaff is consumed by the flame” /b (Isaiah 5:24), meaning that the people described in the earlier verse will end up burning like straw in the fires of Gehenna., b And Rabbi Elazar says: Anyone who flatters another ultimately falls into his hands. And if he does not fall into his hands, he falls into his children’s hands. And if he does not fall into his children’s hands, he falls into his grandchild’s hands, as it is stated: “Then the prophet Jeremiah said to Haiah…Amen, the Lord should do so, the Lord should perform your words” /b (Jeremiah 28:5–6). This was a form of flattery, as Jeremiah did not explicitly say that Haiah was a false prophet. b And it is written: /b |
|
11. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fiction, legal, and conversion •identity, jewish, and conversion as legal fiction Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 216| 62a. משאי אפשר ובית הלל נמי לילפו ממשה אמרי לך משה מדעתיה הוא דעבד דתניא שלשה דברים עשה משה מדעתו והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום פירש מן האשה ושיבר הלוחות והוסיף יום אחד,פירש מן האשה מאי דרש אמר ומה ישראל שלא דברה עמהם שכינה אלא לפי שעה וקבע להם זמן אמרה תורה (שמות יט, טו) אל תגשו אל אשה אני שמיוחד לדבור בכל שעה ושעה ולא קבע לי זמן על אחת כמה וכמה והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום שנאמר (דברים ה, ל) לך אמור להם שובו לכם לאהליכם ואתה פה עמוד עמדי,שיבר את הלוחות מאי דרש אמר ומה פסח שהוא אחד משש מאות ושלש עשרה מצות אמרה תורה (שמות יב, מג) כל בן נכר לא יאכל בו התורה כולה וישראל מומרים על אחת כמה וכמה,והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום דכתיב (שמות לד, א) אשר שברת ואמר ריש לקיש אמר ליה הקב"ה למשה יישר כחך ששברת,הוסיף יום אחד מדעתו מאי דרש דכתיב (שמות יט, י) וקדשתם היום ומחר היום כמחר מה מחר לילו עמו אף היום לילו עמו ולילה דהאידנא נפק ליה ש"מ תרי יומי לבר מהאידנא והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום דלא שריא שכינה עד שבתא,תניא רבי נתן אומר ב"ש אומרים שני זכרים ושתי נקבות ובה"א זכר ונקבה,א"ר הונא מ"ט דרבי נתן אליבא דב"ש דכתיב (בראשית ד, ב) ותוסף ללדת את אחיו את הבל הבל ואחותו קין ואחותו וכתיב (בראשית ד, כה) כי שת לי אלהים זרע אחר תחת הבל כי הרגו קין ורבנן אודויי הוא דקא מודית,תניא אידך ר' נתן אומר ב"ש אומרים זכר ונקבה ובה"א או זכר או נקבה אמר רבא מ"ט דר' נתן אליבא דב"ה שנא' (ישעיהו מה, יח) לא תהו בראה לשבת יצרה והא עבד לה שבת,איתמר היו לו בנים בהיותו עובד כוכבים ונתגייר ר' יוחנן אמר קיים פריה ורביה וריש לקיש אמר לא קיים פריה ורביה רבי יוחנן אמר קיים פריה ורביה דהא הוו ליה וריש לקיש אמר לא קיים פריה ורביה גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי,ואזדו לטעמייהו דאיתמר היו לו בנים בהיותו עובד כוכבים ונתגייר רבי יוחנן אמר אין לו בכור לנחלה דהא הוה ליה ראשית אונו וריש לקיש אמר יש לו בכור לנחלה גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי,וצריכא דאי אשמעינן בההיא קמייתא בההיא קאמר רבי יוחנן משום דמעיקרא נמי בני פריה ורביה נינהו אבל לענין נחלה דלאו בני נחלה נינהו אימא מודי ליה לריש לקיש,ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר ריש לקיש אבל בההיא אימא מודה ליה לר' יוחנן צריכא,איתיביה ר' יוחנן לר"ל (מלכים ב כ, יב) בעת ההיא שלח בראדך בלאדן בן בלאדן מלך בבל וגו' א"ל בהיותן עובדי כוכבים אית להו חייס נתגיירו לית להו חייס,אמר רב הכל מודין בעבד שאין לו חייס דכתיב (בראשית כב, ה) שבו לכם פה עם החמור עם הדומה לחמור מיתיבי (שמואל ב ט, י) ולציבא חמשה עשר בנים ועשרים עבדים אמר רב אחא בר יעקב כפר בן בקר,א"ה ה"נ שאני התם דיחסינהו בשמייהו ובשמא דאבוהון והכא לא מפרש ואיבעית אימא יחסינהו בדוכתא אחריתי באבוהון ובאבא דאבוהון דכתיב (מלכים א טו, יח) וישלחם המלך אסא אל בן הדד בן טברימון בן חזיון מלך ארם היושב בדמשק לאמר,איתמר היו לו בנים ומתו רב הונא אמר קיים פריה ורביה רבי יוחנן אמר לא קיים,רב הונא אמר קיים משום דרב אסי דאמר רב אסי אין בן דוד בא עד שיכלו כל נשמות שבגוף שנאמר (ישעיהו נז, טז) כי רוח מלפני יעטוף וגו' ורבי יוחנן אמר לא קיים פריה ורביה לשבת יצרה בעינן והא ליכא,מיתיבי | 62a. b from /b one that is b not possible. /b Mankind was initially created with a male and female because otherwise reproduction would not have been possible. However, this fact cannot serve as a source that the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply is fulfilled only once one has a son and a daughter. The Gemara asks: b And Beit Hillel, let them also learn from Moses. /b Beit Hillel could b say to you: Moses acted /b based b on his own perception /b when he separated from his wife, but this does not mean that a man is permitted to neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply after fathering two males, b as it is taught in /b a i baraita /i : b Moses did three things /b based b on his own perception, and his perception agreed with the perception of the Omnipresent: He separated from /b his b wife, he broke the tablets, and he added one day /b to the days of separation before the revelation at Sinai.,The Gemara clarifies: When Moses b separated from /b his b wife /b after the revelation at Sinai, b what did he interpret /b that led him to do so? b He said: If /b in the case of b Israel, with whom the Divine Presence spoke only temporarily and for whom /b God b set /b a specific b time for /b revelation, b the Torah stated: “Do not approach a woman” /b (Exodus 19:15), b I, /b Moses, b who am set aside for /b divine b speech all the time and for whom /b God b did not set /b a specific b time, all the more so /b I must separate from my wife. b And his perception agreed with the perception of the Omnipresent, as it is stated /b after the revelation at Sinai: b “Go say to them: Return to your tents; and you, stand here with Me” /b (Deuteronomy 5:26–27). This indicates that whereas others could return to their homes and normal married life after the revelation at Sinai, Moses was to stay with God and not return to his wife.,Moses b broke the tablets /b following the sin of the Golden Calf. b What did he interpret /b that led him to do so? Moses b said: If /b in the case of the b Paschal lamb, which is /b only b one of 613 mitzvot, the Torah states: “No alien shall eat of it” /b (Exodus 12:43), excluding not only gentiles but apostate Jews as well, then here, in the case of the Golden Calf, where the tablets represent b the entire Torah and /b where b the Jewish people /b are b apostates, /b as they are worshipping the calf, b all the more so /b must they be excluded from receiving them., b And his perception agreed with the perception of the Omnipresent, as it is written: /b “The first tablets b that you broke [ i asher shibbarta /i ]” /b (Exodus 34:1), b and Reish Lakish said: /b The word i asher /i is an allusion to the fact that b the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: May your strength be true [ i yishar koḥakha /i ] that you broke /b the tablets.,When Moses b added one day /b to the days of separation before the revelation at Sinai based b on his /b own b perception, what did he interpret /b that led him to do so? He reasoned b that /b since b it is written: “And sanctify them today and tomorrow” /b (Exodus 19:10), the juxtaposition of the words “today” and “tomorrow” teaches that b today /b is b like tomorrow: Just as tomorrow /b the men and women will separate for that day b and /b the b night /b preceding b it, so too, today /b requires separation for the day b and /b the b night /b preceding b it. /b Since God spoke to him in the morning, b and the night of that day /b already b passed, /b Moses said: b Conclude from /b this that separation must be in effect for b two days aside from now, /b i.e., not including the day of the command. Therefore, he extended the mitzva of separation by one day. b And his perception agreed with the perception of the Omnipresent, as /b the b Divine Presence did not rest /b upon Mount Sinai b until Shabbat /b morning, as Moses had determined.,§ b It is taught in /b a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Natan says /b that b Beit Shammai say: /b The mitzva to be fruitful and multiply is fulfilled with b two males and two females. And Beit Hillel say: A male and a female. /b , b Rav Huna said: What is the reason of Rabbi Natan, in accordance with /b the opinion of b Beit Shammai? /b It is b as it is written: “And again she bore his brother [ i et aḥiv /i ] Abel [ i et Hevel /i ]” /b (Genesis 4:2). The use of the superfluous word “et” indicates that she gave birth to b Abel and his sister, /b in addition to b Cain and his sister. And it states: “For God has appointed me another seed instead of Abel; for Cain slew him” /b (Genesis 4:25). This indicates that one must have at least four children. b And the Rabbis, /b how do they understand this verse? In their opinion, Eve b was thanking God /b for granting her another child, but one is not obligated to have four children., b It is taught in another /b i baraita /i that b Rabbi Natan says /b that b Beit Shammai say: /b The mitzva to be fruitful and multiply is fulfilled with b a male and a female. And Beit Hillel say: Either a male or a female. Rava said: What is the reason of Rabbi Natan in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel? /b It is b as it is stated: “He did not create it a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” /b (Isaiah 45:18), b and one has made /b the earth b inhabited /b to a greater degree by adding even one child to the world.,§ b It was stated /b that i amora’im /i disagreed over the following issue: If a man b had children when he /b was b a gentile and he /b subsequently b converted, Rabbi Yoḥa said: He has /b already b fulfilled /b the mitzva to b be fruitful and multiply, and Reish Lakish said: /b He has b not fulfilled /b the mitzva to b be fruitful and multiply. Rabbi Yoḥa said he has fulfilled /b the mitzva b to be fruitful and multiply, as he /b already b had /b children. b And Reish Lakish said he has not fulfilled /b the mitzva to b be fruitful and multiply, /b as the legal status of b a convert who /b just b converted is like /b that of b a child /b just b born, /b and it is considered as though he did not have children.,The Gemara comments: b And they follow their /b regular line of reasoning, b as it was stated: /b If b one had children /b when b he /b was b a gentile and he /b subsequently b converted, Rabbi Yoḥa said: He does not have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, /b i.e., the first son born to him after his conversion does not inherit a double portion, b as /b this man already b had “the first of his strength” /b (Deuteronomy 21:17), the Torah’s description of the firstborn in this context, before he converted. b And Reish Lakish said: He does have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, /b as the legal status of b a convert who /b just b converted is like /b that of b a child /b just b born. /b ,The Gemara adds: b And /b it is b necessary /b to state their opinions in both cases. b As, had it /b only been b taught /b to b us with regard to that first /b case of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, one might have said that b it is /b only b in that /b case that b Rabbi Yoḥa said /b his opinion, b because from the outset, /b gentiles b are also subject to /b the mitzva to be b fruitful and multiply. However, with regard to inheritance, /b since b they are not subject /b to the i halakhot /i of b inheritance, /b one might b say /b that Rabbi Yoḥa b concedes to Reish Lakish. /b , b And /b conversely, b if /b their dispute b was stated /b only b with regard to this /b issue of inheritance, I would have said that b it is /b only b in this /b case that b Reish Lakish said /b his opinion, as the i halakhot /i of inheritance do not apply to gentiles. b But with regard to that /b case, the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, one might b say /b that b he concedes to Rabbi Yoḥa. /b Consequently, it is b necessary /b for both disputes to be recorded., b Rabbi Yoḥa raises an objection to Reish Lakish /b based upon the verse: b “At that time Berodach-baladan, son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent /b a letter” (II Kings 20:12), which indicates that gentiles are considered to be the children of their parents. Therefore, when they convert, they should already have fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Reish Lakish b said to /b Rabbi Yoḥa: b When they are gentiles they do have /b family b lineage, /b but when b they convert they do not have lineage, /b as they now belong to the family of the Jewish people and their previous lineage is disregarded., b Rav said: Everyone agrees with regard to /b a Canaanite b slave, that he does not have lineage, as it is written /b that Abraham said to his slaves: b “Remain here with the donkey” /b (Genesis 22:5). This verse is interpreted to mean that they are b a nation comparable to a donkey, /b which has no lineage. The Gemara b raises an objection /b based upon a verse pertaining to Jonathan’s Canaanite slave: b “And Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants” /b (II Samuel 9:10), which indicates that a slave’s sons are in fact considered his sons. b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: /b This is b like /b the expression: b A bullock, son of a bull. /b The word son in this context merely denotes progeny, not lineage.,The Gemara asks: b If so, here too, /b with regard to gentiles, there is no proof from the verse about Berodach-baladan that they have family lineage. The Gemara answers: b There it is different, as /b the Bible b identified him by his name and by his father’s name, /b thereby emphasizing the family connection. b But here, /b it does b not specify /b the names of Ziba’s children. b And if you wish, say /b instead that the Bible b identified /b gentiles b elsewhere by their father and their father’s father, as it is written: “And King Asa sent them to Ben-hadad, son of Tabrimmon, son of Hezion, king of Aram, who dwelled in Damascus, saying” /b (I Kings 15:18). This indicates that there is lineage for gentiles.,§ b It was stated /b that i amora’im /i disagreed over the following issue: If a man b had children and they died, Rav Huna said: /b He has b fulfilled /b the mitzva to be b fruitful and multiply /b through these children. b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b He has b not fulfilled /b the mitzva.,The Gemara clarifies the reasons for their opinions: b Rav Huna said /b he has b fulfilled /b the mitzva b due to /b a statement b of Rav Asi, as Rav Asi said /b that the reason for this mitzva is that the Messiah, b son of David, will not come until all the souls of the body have been finished, /b i.e., until all souls that are destined to inhabit physical bodies will do so, b as it is stated: “For the spirit that enwraps itself is from Me, /b and the souls that I have made” (Isaiah 57:16). Consequently, once a child has been born and his soul has entered a body the mitzva has been fulfilled, even if the child subsequently dies. b And Rabbi Yoḥa said /b he has b not fulfilled /b the mitzva, as b we require “He formed it to be inhabited” /b (Isaiah 45:18), b and /b this b is not /b fulfilled when the children have passed away and no longer inhabit the earth.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b with regard to the opinion of Rav Huna based upon the following i baraita /i : |
|
