| 1. Septuagint, Deuteronomy, None (th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •food ration Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 180 |
2. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, 11.13, 20.19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •food ration Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 189| 11.13. "הוֹלֵךְ רָכִיל מְגַלֶּה־סּוֹד וְנֶאֱמַן־רוּחַ מְכַסֶּה דָבָר׃", 20.19. "גּוֹלֶה־סּוֹד הוֹלֵךְ רָכִיל וּלְפֹתֶה שְׂפָתָיו לֹא תִתְעָרָב׃", | 11.13. "He that goeth about as a talebearer revealeth secrets; But he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth a matter.", 20.19. "He that goeth about as a talebearer revealeth secrets; therefore meddle not with him that openeth wide his lips.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 13.1-14.32, 15.19, 15.20, 19.16, 19.18 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 109| 19.18. "לֹא־תִקֹּם וְלֹא־תִטֹּר אֶת־בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ אֲנִי יְהוָה׃", | 19.18. "Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 19.15, 22.30 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •menstruants/niddah, food preparation •food ration Found in books: Cohen (2010) 405; Schiffman (1983) 184| 19.15. "וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־הָעָם הֱיוּ נְכֹנִים לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים אַל־תִּגְּשׁוּ אֶל־אִשָּׁה׃", | 19.15. "And he said unto the people: ‘Be ready against the third day; come not near a woman.’", 22.30. "And ye shall be holy men unto Me; therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 21.14, 29.18, 32.43 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •food ration Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 109, 180| 21.14. "וְהָיָה אִם־לֹא חָפַצְתָּ בָּהּ וְשִׁלַּחְתָּהּ לְנַפְשָׁהּ וּמָכֹר לֹא־תִמְכְּרֶנָּה בַּכָּסֶף לֹא־תִתְעַמֵּר בָּהּ תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנִּיתָהּ׃", 29.18. "וְהָיָה בְּשָׁמְעוֹ אֶת־דִּבְרֵי הָאָלָה הַזֹּאת וְהִתְבָּרֵךְ בִּלְבָבוֹ לֵאמֹר שָׁלוֹם יִהְיֶה־לִּי כִּי בִּשְׁרִרוּת לִבִּי אֵלֵךְ לְמַעַן סְפוֹת הָרָוָה אֶת־הַצְּמֵאָה׃", 32.43. "הַרְנִינוּ גוֹיִם עַמּוֹ כִּי דַם־עֲבָדָיו יִקּוֹם וְנָקָם יָשִׁיב לְצָרָיו וְכִפֶּר אַדְמָתוֹ עַמּוֹ׃", | 21.14. "And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast humbled her.", 29.18. "and it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying: ‘I shall have peace, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart—that the watered be swept away with the dry’;", 32.43. "Sing aloud, O ye nations, of His people; For He doth avenge the blood of His servants, And doth render vengeance to His adversaries, And doth make expiation for the land of His people.", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 5.1-5.4, 12.1 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Cohen (2010) 400; Schiffman (1983) 189| 5.1. "וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃", 5.1. "וְאִישׁ אֶת־קֳדָשָׁיו לוֹ יִהְיוּ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יִתֵּן לַכֹּהֵן לוֹ יִהְיֶה׃", 5.2. "וְאַתְּ כִּי שָׂטִית תַּחַת אִישֵׁךְ וְכִי נִטְמֵאת וַיִּתֵּן אִישׁ בָּךְ אֶת־שְׁכָבְתּוֹ מִבַּלְעֲדֵי אִישֵׁךְ׃", 5.2. "צַו אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וִישַׁלְּחוּ מִן־הַמַּחֲנֶה כָּל־צָרוּעַ וְכָל־זָב וְכֹל טָמֵא לָנָפֶשׁ׃", 5.3. "מִזָּכָר עַד־נְקֵבָה תְּשַׁלֵּחוּ אֶל־מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה תְּשַׁלְּחוּם וְלֹא יְטַמְּאוּ אֶת־מַחֲנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי שֹׁכֵן בְּתוֹכָם׃", 5.3. "אוֹ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲבֹר עָלָיו רוּחַ קִנְאָה וְקִנֵּא אֶת־אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהֶעֱמִיד אֶת־הָאִשָּׁה לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְעָשָׂה לָהּ הַכֹּהֵן אֵת כָּל־הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת׃", 5.4. "וַיַּעֲשׂוּ־כֵן בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיְשַׁלְּחוּ אוֹתָם אֶל־מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה כֵּן עָשׂוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃", 12.1. "וְהֶעָנָן סָר מֵעַל הָאֹהֶל וְהִנֵּה מִרְיָם מְצֹרַעַת כַּשָּׁלֶג וַיִּפֶן אַהֲרֹן אֶל־מִרְיָם וְהִנֵּה מְצֹרָעַת׃", 12.1. "וַתְּדַבֵּר מִרְיָם וְאַהֲרֹן בְּמֹשֶׁה עַל־אֹדוֹת הָאִשָּׁה הַכֻּשִׁית אֲשֶׁר לָקָח כִּי־אִשָּׁה כֻשִׁית לָקָח׃", | 5.1. "And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:", 5.2. "’Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is unclean by the dead;", 5.3. "both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camp, in the midst whereof I dwell.’", 5.4. "And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp; as the LORD spoke unto Moses, so did the children of Israel.", 12.1. "And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married; for he had married a Cushite woman.", |
|
7. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 4.20, 4.22 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •food ration Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 109 | 4.22. Do not show partiality, to your own harm,or deference, to your downfall. |
|
| 8. Dead Sea Scrolls, Temple Scroll, 45.7-45.17, 46.16-46.18, 48.14-48.17 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •menstruants/niddah, food preparation Found in books: Cohen (2010) 400 |
| 9. Dead Sea Scrolls, of Discipline, 1.3, 4.6, 5.8, 5.24, 6.1, 6.22, 6.24, 6.25, 6.25-7.16, 6.26, 6.27, 7.3, 7.4, 7.8, 7.15, 7.16, 7.17, 7.25, 8.15, 8.16, 8.17, 8.18, 8.19, 8.20-9.2, 8.21, 8.22, 8.23, 8.24, 9.1, 9.2, 9.16, 9.17, 9.18 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 109 |
| 10. Dead Sea Scrolls, Hodayot, 17.12 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •food ration Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 184 |
| 11. Dead Sea Scrolls, Hodayot, 17.12 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •food ration Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 184 |
| 12. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 3.16, 9.2-9.8, 10.13, 12.3-12.6, 13.4-13.6, 14.22, 15.2, 15.9, 15.12, 16.2, 20.4-20.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •food ration Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 96, 109, 180, 184, 189 |
| 13. Dead Sea Scrolls, War Scroll, 10.6 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •food ration Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 184 |
| 14. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 3.16, 9.2-9.8, 10.13, 12.3-12.6, 13.4-13.6, 14.22, 15.2, 15.9, 15.12, 16.2, 20.4-20.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •food ration Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 96, 109, 180, 184, 189 |
15. Mishnah, Berachot, 3.1-3.2, 3.4-3.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •menstruants/niddah, food preparation Found in books: Cohen (2010) 405| 3.1. "מִי שֶׁמֵּתוֹ מוּטָל לְפָנָיו, פָּטוּר מִקְּרִיאַת שְׁמַע, מִן הַתְּפִלָּה וּמִן הַתְּפִלִּין. נוֹשְׂאֵי הַמִּטָּה וְחִלּוּפֵיהֶן וְחִלּוּפֵי חִלּוּפֵיהֶן, אֶת שֶׁלִּפְנֵי הַמִּטָּה וְאֶת שֶׁלְּאַחַר הַמִּטָּה, אֶת שֶׁלַּמִּטָּה צֹרֶךְ בָּהֶן פְּטוּרִים, וְאֶת שֶׁאֵין לַמִּטָּה צֹרֶךְ בָּהֶן חַיָּבִין. אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ פְּטוּרִים מִן הַתְּפִלָּה: \n", 3.2. "קָבְרוּ אֶת הַמֵּת וְחָזְרוּ, אִם יְכוֹלִין לְהַתְחִיל וְלִגְמֹר עַד שֶׁלֹּא יַגִּיעוּ לַשּׁוּרָה, יַתְחִילוּ. וְאִם לָאו, לֹא יַתְחִילוּ. הָעוֹמְדִים בַּשּׁוּרָה, הַפְּנִימִים פְּטוּרִים, וְהַחִיצוֹנִים חַיָּבִין: \n", 3.4. "בַּעַל קֶרִי מְהַרְהֵר בְּלִבּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ, לֹא לְפָנֶיהָ וְלֹא לְאַחֲרֶיהָ. וְעַל הַמָּזוֹן מְבָרֵךְ לְאַחֲרָיו, וְאֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ לְפָנָיו. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מְבָרֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם וּלְאַחֲרֵיהֶם: \n", 3.5. "הָיָה עוֹמֵד בַּתְּפִלָּה, וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁהוּא בַעַל קְרִי, לֹא יַפְסִיק, אֶלָּא יְקַצֵּר. יָרַד לִטְבֹּל, אִם יָכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת וּלְהִתְכַּסּוֹת וְלִקְרוֹת עַד שֶׁלֹּא תָנֵץ הַחַמָּה, יַעֲלֶה וְיִתְכַּסֶּה וְיִקְרָא. וְאִם לָאו, יִתְכַּסֶּה בַמַּיִם וְיִקְרָא. אֲבָל לֹא יִתְכַּסֶּה, לֹא בַמַּיִם הָרָעִים וְלֹא בְמֵי הַמִּשְׁרָה, עַד שֶׁיַּטִּיל לְתוֹכָן מָיִם. וְכַמָּה יַרְחִיק מֵהֶם וּמִן הַצּוֹאָה, אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת: \n", 3.6. "זָב שֶׁרָאָה קְרִי, וְנִדָּה שֶׁפָּלְטָה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, וְהַמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שֶׁרָאֲתָה נִדָּה, צְרִיכִין טְבִילָה, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹטֵר: \n", | 3.1. "One whose dead [relative] lies before him is exempt from the recital of the Shema and from the tefillah and from tefillin. The bearers of the bier and their replacements, and their replacements’ replacement, both those in front of the bier and those behind the bier those needed to carry the bier, are exempt; but those not needed to carry the bier are exempt. Both, however, are exempt from [saying] the tefillah.", 3.2. "When they have buried the dead and returned [from the grave], if they have time to begin and finish [the Shema] before they get to the row, they should begin, but if not they should not begin. Those who stand in the row, those on the inside are exempt, but those on the outside are liable.", 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.", 3.5. "If a man was standing saying the tefillah and he remembers that he is one who has had a seminal emission, he should not stop but he should abbreviate [the blessings]. If he went down to immerse, if he is able to come up and cover himself and recite the Shema before the rising of the sun, he should go up and cover himself and recite, but if not he should cover himself with the water and recite. He should not cover himself either with foul water or with steeping water until he pours fresh water into it. How far should he remove himself from it and from excrement? Four cubits.", 3.6. "A zav who has had a seminal emission and a niddah from whom semen escapes and a woman who becomes niddah during intercourse require a mikveh. Rabbi Judah exempts them.", |
|
16. Mishnah, Niddah, 7.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •menstruants/niddah, food preparation Found in books: Cohen (2010) 400| 7.4. "כָּל הַכְּתָמִים הַנִּמְצְאִים בְּכָל מָקוֹם, טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מִן הַנִּמְצְאִים בַּחֲדָרִים וּבִסְבִיבוֹת בֵּית הַטֻּמְאוֹת. בֵּית הַטֻּמְאוֹת שֶׁל כּוּתִים מְטַמְּאִין בְּאֹהֶל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵם קוֹבְרִין שָׁם אֶת הַנְּפָלִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לֹא הָיוּ קוֹבְרִין אֶלָּא מַשְׁלִיכִין, וְחַיָּה גוֹרַרְתָּן: \n", | 7.4. "All bloodstains, wherever they are found are clean except those that are found in rooms or in a house for unclean women. A house for unclean Samaritan women conveys uncleanness by overshadowing because they bury miscarriages there. Rabbi Judah says: they did not bury them but threw them away and the wild beasts dragged them off.", |
|
17. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 4.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •food ration Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 180| 4.4. "וְשָׁלֹשׁ שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים יוֹשְׁבִין לִפְנֵיהֶם, כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מַכִּיר אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ. הָיוּ צְרִיכִין לִסְמֹךְ, סוֹמְכִין מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁנִיָּה בָּא לוֹ לָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁלִישִׁית בָּא לוֹ לַשְּׁנִיָּה, וּבוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד מִן הַקָּהָל וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בַשְּׁלִישִׁית. וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹשֵׁב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן, אֶלָּא יוֹשֵׁב בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לוֹ: \n", | 4.4. "And there were three rows of disciples of the Sages who sat before them, and each knew his proper place. If they needed to appoint [another as a judge] they appointed him from the first row, and one from the second row came into the first row, and one from the third row came into the second row, and they chose another from the congregation and set him in the third row. He did not sit in the place of the former, but he sat in the place that was proper for him.", |
|
18. New Testament, Luke, 8.40-8.56 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •menstruants/niddah, food preparation Found in books: Cohen (2010) 400| 8.40. Ἐν δὲ τῷ ὑποστρέφειν τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπεδέξατο αὐτὸν ὁ ὄχλος, ἦσαν γὰρ πάντες προσδοκῶντες αὐτόν. 8.41. Καὶ ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν ἀνὴρ ᾧ ὄνομα Ἰάειρος, καὶ οὗτος ἄρχων τῆς συναγωγῆς ὑπῆρχεν, καὶ πεσὼν παρὰ τοὺς πόδας Ἰησοῦ παρεκάλει αὐτὸν εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ, 8.42. ὅτι θυγάτηρ μονογενὴς ἦν αὐτῷ ὡς ἐτῶν δώδεκα καὶ αὐτὴ ἀπέθνησκεν. Ἐν δὲ τῷ ὑπάγειν αὐτὸν οἱ ὄχλοι συνέπνιγον αὐτόν. 8.43. καὶ γυνὴ οὖσα ἐν ῥύσει αἵματος ἀπὸ ἐτῶν δώδεκα, ἥτις οὐκ ἴσχυσεν ἀπʼ οὐδενὸς θεραπευθῆναι, 8.44. προσελθοῦσα ὄπισθεν ἥψατο τοῦ κρασπέδου τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ, καὶ παραχρῆμα ἔστη ἡ ῥύσις τοῦ αἵματος αὐτῆς. 8.45. καὶ εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς Τίς ὁ ἁψάμενός μου; ἀρνουμένων δὲ πάντων εἶπεν ὁ Πέτρος Ἐπιστάτα, οἱ ὄχλοι συνέχουσίν σε καὶ ἀποθλίβουσιν. 8.46. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν Ἥψατό μού τις, ἐγὼ γὰρ ἔγνων δύναμιν ἐξεληλυθυῖαν ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ. 8.47. ἰδοῦσα δὲ ἡ γυνὴ ὅτι οὐκ ἔλαθεν τρέμουσα ἦλθεν καὶ προσπεσοῦσα αὐτῷ διʼ ἣν αἰτίαν ἥψατο αὐτοῦ ἀπήγγειλεν ἐνώπιον παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ ὡς ἰάθη παραχρῆμα. 8.48. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῇ Θυγάτηρ, ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε· πορεύου εἰς εἰρήνην. 8.49. Ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἔρχεταί τις παρὰ τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου λέγων ὅτι Τέθνηκεν ἡ θυγάτηρ σου, μηκέτι σκύλλε τὸν διδάσκαλον. 8.50. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἀκούσας ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ Μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευσον, καὶ σωθήσεται. 8.51. ἐλθὼν δὲ εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν οὐκ ἀφῆκεν εἰσελθεῖν τινὰ σὺν αὐτῷ εἰ μὴ Πέτρον καὶ Ἰωάνην καὶ Ἰάκωβον καὶ τὸν πατέρα τῆς παιδὸς καὶ τὴν μητέρα. 8.52. ἔκλαιον δὲ πάντες καὶ ἐκόπτοντο αὐτήν. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Μὴ κλαίετε, οὐ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν ἀλλὰ καθεύδει. 8.53. καὶ κατεγέλων αὐτοῦ, εἰδότες ὅτι ἀπέθανεν. 8.54. αὐτὸς δὲ κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῆς ἐφώνησεν λέγων Ἡ παῖς, ἔγειρε. 8.55. καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτῆς, καὶ ἀνέστη παραχρῆμα, καὶ διέταξεν αὐτῇ δοθῆναι φαγεῖν. 8.56. καὶ ἐξέστησαν οἱ γονεῖς αὐτῆς· ὁ δὲ παρήγγειλεν αὐτοῖς μηδενὶ εἰπεῖν τὸ γεγονός. | 8.40. It happened, when Jesus returned, that the multitude welcomed him, for they were all waiting for him. 8.41. Behold, there came a man named Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue. He fell down at Jesus' feet, and begged him to come into his house, 8.42. for he had an only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she was dying. But as he went, the multitudes thronged him. 8.43. A woman who had a flow of blood for twelve years, who had spent all her living on physicians, and could not be healed by any, 8.44. came behind him, and touched the fringe of his cloak, and immediately the flow of her blood stopped. 8.45. Jesus said, "Who touched me?"When all denied it, Peter and those with him said, "Master, the multitudes press and jostle you, and you say, 'Who touched me?'" 8.46. But Jesus said, "Someone did touch me, for I perceived that power has gone out of me." 8.47. When the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling, and falling down before him declared to him in the presence of all the people the reason why she had touched him, and how she was healed immediately. 8.48. He said to her, "Daughter, cheer up. Your faith has made you well. Go in peace." 8.49. While he still spoke, one from the ruler of the synagogue's house came, saying to him, "Your daughter is dead. Don't trouble the Teacher." 8.50. But Jesus hearing it, answered him, "Don't be afraid. Only believe, and she will be healed." 8.51. When he came to the house, he didn't allow anyone to enter in, except Peter, John, James, the father of the girl, and her mother. 8.52. All were weeping and mourning her, but he said, "Don't weep. She isn't dead, but sleeping." 8.53. They laughed him to scorn, knowing that she was dead. 8.54. But he put them all outside, and taking her by the hand, he called, saying, "Little girl, arise!" 8.55. Her spirit returned, and she rose up immediately. He commanded that something be given to her to eat. 8.56. Her parents were amazed, but he charged them to tell no one what had been done. |
|
19. New Testament, Mark, 5.21-5.43 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •menstruants/niddah, food preparation Found in books: Cohen (2010) 400| 5.21. Καὶ διαπεράσαντος τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ πάλιν εἰς τὸ πέραν συνήχθη ὄχλος πολὺς ἐπʼ αὐτόν, καὶ ἦν παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν. 5.22. Καὶ ἔρχεται εἷς τῶν ἀρχισυναγώγων, ὀνόματι Ἰάειρος, 5.23. καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὸν πίπτει πρὸς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ καὶ παρακαλεῖ αὐτὸν πολλὰ λέγων ὅτι Τὸ θυγάτριόν μου ἐσχάτως ἔχει, ἵνα ἐλθὼν ἐπιθῇς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῇ ἵνα σωθῇ καὶ ζήσῃ. 5.24. καὶ ἀπῆλθεν μετʼ αὐτοῦ. Καὶ ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ὄχλος πολύς, καὶ συνέθλιβον αὐτόν. 5.25. καὶ γυνὴ οὖσα ἐν ῥύσει αἵματος δώδεκα ἔτη 5.26. καὶ πολλὰ παθοῦσα ὑπὸ πολλῶν ἰατρῶν καὶ δαπανήσασα τὰ παρʼ αὐτῆς πάντα καὶ μηδὲν ὠφεληθεῖσα ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον εἰς τὸ χεῖρον ἐλθοῦσα, 5.27. ἀκούσασα τὰ περὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ἐλθοῦσα ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ ὄπισθεν ἥψατο τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ· 5.28. ἔλεγεν γὰρ ὅτι Ἐὰν ἅψωμαι κἂν τῶν ἱματίων αὐτοῦ σωθήσομαι. 5.29. καὶ εὐθὺς ἐξηράνθη ἡ πηγὴ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτῆς, καὶ ἔγνω τῷ σώματι ὅτι ἴαται ἀπὸ τῆς μάστιγος. 5.30. καὶ εὐθὺς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐπιγνοὺς ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὴν ἐξ αὐτοῦ δύναμιν ἐξελθοῦσαν ἐπιστραφεὶς ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ ἔλεγεν Τίς μου ἥψατο τῶν ἱματίων; 5.31. καὶ ἔλεγον αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ Βλέπεις τὸν ὄχλον συνθλίβοντά σε, καὶ λέγεις Τίς μου ἥψατο; 5.32. καὶ περιεβλέπετο ἰδεῖν τὴν τοῦτο ποιήσασαν. 5.33. ἡ δὲ γυνὴ φοβηθεῖσα καὶ τρέμουσα, εἰδυῖα ὃ γέγονεν αὐτῇ, ἦλθεν καὶ προσέπεσεν αὐτῷ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν. 5.34. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῇ Θυγάτηρ, ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε· ὕπαγε εἰς εἰρήνην, καὶ ἴσθι ὑγιὴς ἀπὸ τῆς μάστιγός σου. 5.35. Ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἔρχονται ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου λέγοντες ὅτι Ἡ θυγάτηρ σου ἀπέθανεν· τί ἔτι σκύλλεις τὸν διδάσκαλον; 5.36. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς παρακούσας τὸν λόγον λαλούμενον λέγει τῷ ἀρχισυναγώγῳ Μὴ φοβοῦ, μόνον πίστευε. 5.37. καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκεν οὐδένα μετʼ αὐτοῦ συνακολουθῆσαι εἰ μὴ τὸν Πέτρον καὶ Ἰάκωβον καὶ Ἰωάνην τὸν ἀδελφὸν Ἰακώβου. 5.38. καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ ἀρχισυναγώγου, καὶ θεωρεῖ θόρυβον καὶ κλαίοντας καὶ ἀλαλάζοντας πολλά, 5.39. καὶ εἰσελθὼν λέγει αὐτοῖς Τί θορυβεῖσθε καὶ κλαίετε; τὸ παιδίον οὐκ ἀπέθανεν ἀλλὰ καθεύδει. 5.40. καὶ κατεγέλων αὐτοῦ. αὐτὸς δὲ ἐκβαλὼν πάντας παραλαμβάνει τὸν πατέρα τοῦ παιδίου καὶ τὴν μητέρα καὶ τοὺς μετʼ αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἰσπορεύεται ὅπου ἦν τὸ παιδίον· 5.41. καὶ κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς τοῦ παιδίου λέγει αὐτῇ Ταλειθά κούμ, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον Τὸ κοράσιον, σοὶ λέγω, ἔγειρε. 5.42. καὶ εὐθὺς ἀνέστη τὸ κοράσιον καὶ περιεπάτει, ἦν γὰρ ἐτῶν δώδεκα. καὶ ἐξέστησαν εὐθὺς ἐκστάσει μεγάλῃ. 5.43. καὶ διεστείλατο αὐτοῖς πολλὰ ἵνα μηδεὶς γνοῖ τοῦτο, καὶ εἶπεν δοθῆναι αὐτῇ φαγεῖν. | 5.21. When Jesus had crossed back over in the boat to the other side, a great multitude was gathered to him; and he was by the sea. 5.22. Behold, one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name, came; and seeing him, he fell at his feet, 5.23. and begged him much, saying, "My little daughter is at the point of death. Please come and lay your hands on her, that she may be made healthy, and live." 5.24. He went with him, and a great multitude followed him, and they pressed upon him on all sides. 5.25. A certain woman, who had an issue of blood for twelve years, 5.26. and had suffered many things by many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better, but rather grew worse, 5.27. having heard the things concerning Jesus, came up behind him in the crowd, and touched his clothes. 5.28. For she said, "If I just touch his clothes, I will be made well." 5.29. Immediately the flow of her blood was dried up, and she felt in her body that she was healed of her affliction. 5.30. Immediately Jesus, perceiving in himself that the power had gone out from him, turned around in the crowd, and asked, "Who touched my clothes?" 5.31. His disciples said to him, "You see the multitude pressing against you, and you say, 'Who touched me?'" 5.32. He looked around to see her who had done this thing. 5.33. But the woman, fearing and trembling, knowing what had been done to her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth. 5.34. He said to her, "Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace, and be cured of your disease." 5.35. While he was still speaking, they came from the synagogue ruler's house saying, "Your daughter is dead. Why bother the Teacher any more?" 5.36. But Jesus, when he heard the message spoken, immediately said to the ruler of the synagogue, "Don't be afraid, only believe." 5.37. He allowed no one to follow him, except Peter, James, and John the brother of James. 5.38. He came to the synagogue ruler's house, and he saw an uproar, weeping, and great wailing. 5.39. When he had entered in, he said to them, "Why do you make an uproar and weep? The child is not dead, but is asleep." 5.40. They laughed him to scorn. But he, having put them all out, took the father of the child and her mother and those who were with him, and went in where the child was lying. 5.41. Taking the child by the hand, he said to her, "Talitha cumi;" which means, being interpreted, "Young lady, I tell you, get up." 5.42. Immediately the young lady rose up, and walked, for she was twelve years old. They were amazed with great amazement. 5.43. He strictly ordered them that no one should know this, and commanded that something should be given to her to eat. |
|
20. New Testament, Matthew, 5.22, 9.18-9.26 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •food ration •menstruants/niddah, food preparation Found in books: Cohen (2010) 400; Schiffman (1983) 109| 5.22. Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει· ὃς δʼ ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ Ῥακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ· ὃς δʼ ἂν εἴπῃ Μωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός. 9.18. Ταῦτα αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος αὐτοῖς ἰδοὺ ἄρχων [εἷς] προσελθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγων ὅτι Ἡ θυγάτηρ μου ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν· ἀλλὰ ἐλθὼν ἐπίθες τὴν χεῖρά σου ἐπʼ αὐτήν, καὶ ζήσεται. 9.19. καὶ ἐγερθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ. 9.20. Καὶ ἰδοὺ γυνὴ αἱμορροοῦσα δώδεκα ἔτη προσελθοῦσα ὄπισθεν ἥψατο τοῦ κρασπέδου τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ· 9.21. ἔλεγεν γὰρ ἐν ἑαυτῇ Ἐὰν μόνον ἅψωμαι τοῦ ἱματίου αὐτοῦ σωθήσομαι. 9.22. ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς στραφεὶς καὶ ἰδὼν αὐτὴν εἶπεν Θάρσει, θύγατερ· ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε. καὶ ἐσώθη ἡ γυνὴ ἀπὸ τῆς ὥρας ἐκείνης. 9.23. Καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ ἄρχοντος καὶ ἰδὼν τοὺς αὐλητὰς καὶ τὸν ὄχλον θορυβούμενον 9.24. ἔλεγεν Ἀναχωρεῖτε, οὐ γὰρ ἀπέθανεν τὸ κοράσιον ἀλλὰ καθεύδει· καὶ κατεγέλων αὐτοῦ. 9.25. ὅτε δὲ ἐξεβλήθη ὁ ὄχλος, εἰσελθὼν ἐκράτησεν τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῆς, καὶ ἠγέρθη τὸ κοράσιον. 9.26. Καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ἡ φήμη αὕτη εἰς ὅλην τὴν γῆν ἐκείνην. | 5.22. But I tell you, that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council; and whoever shall say, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of the fire of Gehenna. 9.18. While he told these things to them, behold, a ruler came and worshiped him, saying, "My daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live." 9.19. Jesus got up and followed him, as did his disciples. 9.20. Behold, a woman who had an issue of blood for twelve years came behind him, and touched the tassels of his garment; 9.21. for she said within herself, "If I just touch his garment, I will be made well." 9.22. But Jesus, turning around and seeing her, said, "Daughter, cheer up! Your faith has made you well." And the woman was made well from that hour. 9.23. When Jesus came into the ruler's house, and saw the flute players, and the crowd in noisy disorder, 9.24. he said to them, "Make room, because the girl isn't dead, but sleeping."They were ridiculing him. 9.25. But when the crowd was put out, he entered in, took her by the hand, and the girl arose. 9.26. The report of this went out into all that land. |
|
| 21. Tosefta, Shabbat, 1.14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •menstruants/niddah, food preparation Found in books: Cohen (2010) 401 |
22. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 11.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •food ration Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 109| 11.1. "ושאר חייבי מיתות ב\"ד אין ממיתין אותם אלא על פי עדים והתראה עד שיודיעוהו שחייב מיתה בב\"ד ר' יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר עד שיודיעוהו באיזה מיתה הוא מת בין שהתרו בו כל עדיו ובין שהתרו בו מקצת עדיו חייב ורבי יוסי פוטר עד שהתרו בו כל עדיו שנא' (דברים י״ז:ו׳) על פי שנים עדים או שלשה עדים עד שיהיו פי שני עדים מתרין בו כאחד מודים חכמים לר' יוסי שאם התרה בו <את> הראשון והלך לו הב' והלך לו שהוא פטור מתרין בו ושותקים מתרין בו ומרכין בראשו אע\"פ שאמר יודע אני פטור עד שיאמר יודע אני וע\"מ כך אני עושה כיצד ראוהו שמחלל את השבת ואומרים לו הוי יודע שהשבת מחלליה מות יומת אע\"פ שאמר יודע אני פטור עד שיאמר יודע אני וע\"מ כך אני עושה כיצד שהורג את הנפש ואומר הוי יודע שהוא בן ברית ונאמר (בראשית ט׳:ו׳) שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך וגו' אע\"פ שאמר יודע אני פטור עד שיאמר יודע אני וע\"מ כן אני עושה רבי יוסי אומר הוא שיתודה בעצמו פטור שנא' (דברים י״ט:ט״ז) לענות בו סרה שיחזרו בו אחרים ולא שיתודה הוא בעצמו.", | |
|
23. Tosefta, Berachot, 2.12 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •menstruants/niddah, food preparation Found in books: Cohen (2010) 405| 2.12. "הזבין והזבות והנדות והיולדות מותרין לקרות בתורה ולשנות במשנה במדרש בהלכות ובאגדות ובעלי קריין אסורין בכולן ר' יהודה אומר <אבל> שונה הוא בהלכות הרגילות ובלבד שלא יציע את המשנה.", | |
|
| 24. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •food ration Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 189 |
| 25. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •food ration Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 109 |
| 26. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Cohen (2010) 401 |
| 27. Galen, On The Powers of Simple Remedies, a b c d\n0 1.27(11.428 1.27(11.428 1 27(11\n1 1.11(11.400 1.11(11.400 1 11(11\n2 1.27(11.429 1.27(11.429 1 27(11\n3 3.12(11.570 3.12(11.570 3 12(11 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: van der EIjk (2005) 287 |
| 28. Palestinian Talmud, Taanit, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •menstruants/niddah, food preparation Found in books: Cohen (2010) 405 |
| 29. Galen, On The Powers of Foods, (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: van der EIjk (2005) 287 |
| 30. Palestinian Talmud, Peah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •food ration Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 189 |
| 31. Galen, On Temperaments, a b c d\n0 3.1(1.652 3.1(1.652 3 1(1\n1 3.1(1.651 3.1(1.651 3 1(1 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: van der EIjk (2005) 287 |
| 32. Palestinian Talmud, Yoma, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •menstruants/niddah, food preparation Found in books: Cohen (2010) 405 |
33. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Cohen (2010) 401| 13a. מיתיבי רשב"ג אומר התינוקות של בית רבן היו מסדרין פרשיו' וקורין לאור הנר אי בעית אימא ראשי פרשיותיו ואי בעית אימא שאני תינוקות הואיל ואימת רבן עליהן לא אתי לאצלויי:,כיוצא בו לא יאכל הזב: תניא ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר בוא וראה עד היכן פרצה טהרה בישראל שלא שנינו לא יאכל הטהור עם הטמאה אלא לא יאכל הזב עם הזבה מפני הרגל עבירה כיוצא בו לא יאכל זב פרוש עם זב עם הארץ שמא ירגילנו אצלו,וכי מרגילו אצלו מאי הוי אלא אימא שמא יאכילנו דברים טמאין אטו זב פרוש לאו דברים טמאין אכיל אמר אביי גזירה שמא יאכילנו דברים שאינן מתוקנין ורבא אמר רוב עמי הארץ מעשרין הן אלא שמא יהא רגיל אצלו ויאכילנו דברים טמאין בימי טהרתו,איבעיא להו נדה מהו שתישן עם בעלה היא בבגדה והוא בבגדו אמר רב יוסף ת"ש העוף עולה עם הגבינה על השלחן ואינו נאכל דברי ב"ש ב"ה אומר לא עולה ולא נאכל שאני התם דליכא דיעות,ה"נ מסתברא דהיכא דאיכא דיעות שאני דקתני סיפא רשב"ג אומר שני אכסניים אוכלין על שלחן אחד זה אוכל בשר וזה אוכל גבינה ואין חוששין ולאו אתמר עלה אמר רב חנין בר אמי אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא שאין מכירין זה את זה אבל מכירין זה את זה אסורים וה"נ מכירין זה את זה נינהו הכי השתא התם דיעות איכא שינוי ליכא הכא איכא דיעות ואיכא שינוי,איכא דאמרי ת"ש רשב"ג אומר שני אכסניים אוכלין על שלחן אחד זה בשר וזה גבינה ואתמר עלה אמר רב חנין בר אמי אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא שאין מכירין זה את זה אבל מכירין זה את זה אסור והני נמי מכירין זה את זה נינהו התם דיעות איכא שינוי ליכא הכא איכא דיעות ואיכא שינוי,ת"ש לא יאכל הזב עם הזבה משום הרגל עבירה ה"נ דיעות איכא שינוי ליכא,ת"ש (יחזקאל יח, ו) אל ההרים לא אכל ועיניו לא נשא אל גלולי בית ישראל ואת אשת רעהו לא טמא ואל אשה נדה לא יקרב מקיש אשה נדה לאשת רעהו מה אשת רעהו הוא בבגדו והיא בבגדה אסור אף אשתו נדה הוא בבגדו והיא בבגדה אסור ש"מ,ופליגא דר' פדת דאמר ר' פדת לא אסרה תורה אלא קורבה של גלוי עריות בלבד שנאמר (ויקרא יח, ו) איש איש אל כל שאר בשרו לא תקרבו לגלות ערוה,עולא כי הוי אתי מבי רב הוה מנשק להו לאחוותיה אבי חדייהו ואמרי לה אבי ידייהו ופליגא דידיה אדידיה דאמר עולא אפי' שום קורבה אסור משום לך לך אמרי נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב:,תני דבי אליהו מעשה בתלמיד א' ששנה הרבה וקרא הרבה ושימש תלמידי חכמים הרבה ומת בחצי ימיו והיתה אשתו נוטלת תפיליו ומחזרתם בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות ואמרה להם כתיב בתורה (דברים ל, כ) כי הוא חייך ואורך ימיך בעלי ששנה הרבה וקרא הרבה | 13a. The Gemara b raises an objection /b from that which was taught in a i Tosefta /i : b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The schoolchildren would organize the sections and read /b the book b by candlelight. /b Apparently, it is permitted to read by candlelight on Shabbat. The Gemara answers: b If you wish, say /b that the i Tosefta /i is only referring to b the beginning of the sections. And if you wish, say /b instead that b children are different /b in this regard. b Since the fear of their teacher is upon them, they will not come to adjust /b the wick. Even on a weekday, fear of their teacher will prevent them from tending to the lamp during their study.,We learned in the mishna: b Similar /b to this decree of Shabbat, the Sages issued a decree that b the i zav /i may not eat /b with his wife, the i zava, /i even though they are both ritually impure, because by eating together they will come to excessive intimacy and become accustomed to sin. b It was taught /b in a i Tosefta /i that b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Come and see to what extent ritual purity was widespread in Israel, as we did not learn: The ritually pure may not eat with the ritually impure /b woman; b but rather, the i zav /i may not eat with the i zava /i , /b although they are both ritually impure, b lest he become accustomed to sin. /b Needless to say, a pure and an impure person certainly would not eat together, as everyone was careful with regard to ritual purity. b On a similar note, /b the Sages said: b A i zav /i who /b generally b distances /b himself from ritual impurity, eats ritually pure food, and is careful about separating tithes, b may not eat with a i zav /i who is an i am ha’aretz /i , /b who does not distance himself from ritual impurity and is not careful about separating tithes, due to the concern b lest /b the i am ha’aretz /i b accustom him /b to frequently spend time b with him, /b by means of a shared meal.,The Gemara wonders: b And if he accustoms him to be with him, what of it, /b what is the problem? b Rather, say: Lest he feed him impure items. /b The Gemara asks: b Is that to say that the i zav /i who /b generally b distances /b himself from ritual impurity b does not eat impure things? /b In his impure state, everything he touches automatically becomes impure, so why would he be concerned with regard to impure items? b Abaye said: /b This prohibition is due to b a decree /b issued by the Sages b lest /b the i am ha’aretz /i b feed him /b food b items that are not tithed. Rava said: /b He needn’t worry about items that are not tithed. Even if his friend was an i am ha’aretz /i , there is a general principle in effect that b most i amei ha’aretz /i tithe /b their fruits. b Rather, /b the Sages were concerned b lest he become accustomed /b to spending time b with /b the i am ha’aretz /i even after the period of his impurity b and he feed him impure items even during the days of his purity. /b ,An additional b dilemma was raised /b before the Sages with regard to the requirement to distance oneself from prohibition and impurity: b What is /b the i halakha /i with regard to b a menstruating woman? May she sleep with her husband /b in one bed while b she /b is b in her clothes and he /b is b in his clothes? Rav Yosef said: Come /b and b hear /b a resolution to this dilemma from what we learned in a mishna: b The fowl is /b permitted to be b placed /b together with b the cheese on the table, /b although b it may not be eaten /b with cheese. This is b the statement of Beit Shammai. Beit Hillel say: /b The fowl b is neither /b permitted to be b placed /b together with the cheese on the table, b nor may it be eaten /b with it. According to the opinion of Beit Hillel, which is the i halakha /i , not only must one distance himself from the sin itself, but one must also make certain that items that are prohibited together are not placed together. The Gemara rejects this: b There it is different as there are not /b several b consciousnesses. /b When the fowl and the cheese are on one person’s table, he is liable to err and eat them both, as there is only one consciousness there, his. That is not the case when there are two people in one bed. In that case, there are two consciousnesses and there is no concern that they will both forget the prohibition.,The Gemara adds: b So too, it is reasonable /b to say b that where there are /b two or more b consciousnesses /b it b is different, as it was taught in the latter clause /b of that mishna, b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two guests /b in one house b may eat on one table this one eating meat and this one eating cheese, and they need not be concerned. /b The Gemara rejects this: That is not a proof. b Was it not said with regard to this /b i halakha /i that b Rabbi Ḥanin bar Ami said /b that b Shmuel said: They only taught /b that the two of them may eat on one table b when they are not familiar with each other; however, /b if b they are familiar with each other it is prohibited /b for them to eat on one table, as there is room for concern that due to their familiarity they will share their food and come to sin. b And, /b if so, b these too, /b the husband and his wife, b are familiar with each other. /b There is room for concern that they will not keep appropriate distance, and therefore they may not sleep together in one bed even if he is wearing his clothes and she is wearing her clothes. The Gemara rejects this: b How can you compare /b these two cases? b There, /b in the case of meat and milk, b there are /b two b consciousnesses; /b however, b there is no /b noticeable b change /b from the norm, as the meat and the cheese are on the table without any obvious indication to remind them not to mix the food items. While, b here, /b in the case of the menstruating woman, b there are /b two b consciousnesses and there is /b also b a /b noticeable b change /b from the norm, as it is unusual for people to sleep in their clothes. The fact that they are both dressed constitutes a change., b Others /b cite the previous passage as proof for Rav Yosef’s opinion and then reject it and b say: Come /b and b hear, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Two guests may eat on one table, this /b one eating b meat and this /b one eating b cheese. And it was stated with regard to this /b i halakha /i that b Rabbi Ḥanin bar Ami said /b that b Shmuel said: They only taught /b that the two of them may eat on one table b when they are not familiar with each other; however, /b if b they are familiar with each other it is prohibited /b for them to eat on one table, as there is room for concern that due to their familiarity they will share their food and come to sin. b And, /b if so, b these too, /b the husband and his wife b are familiar with each other. /b There is room for concern that they will not act with the appropriate separation, and therefore they cannot sleep together in one bed, even if he is wearing his clothes and she is wearing her clothes. The Gemara distinguishes between the cases: b There, /b in the case of meat and cheese, although b there are /b two b consciousnesses, there is no /b noticeable b change. /b The meat and the cheese are on the table with no obvious indication to remind them not to mix the food items. While b here, /b in the case of the menstruating woman, b there are /b two b consciousnesses and there is /b also b a /b noticeable b change. /b , b Come /b and b hear /b a resolution to the dilemma from what we learned in our mishna: b The i zav /i may not eat with the i zava /i /b due to concern that excessive intimacy will lead them to b become accustomed /b to sin. Even eating together is prohibited. The Gemara answers: b Here, too, /b although b there are /b two b consciousnesses, there is no /b noticeable b change. /b , b Come /b and b hear /b a different resolution from that which was taught in a i baraita /i : It is stated: b “And he has not eaten upon the mountains, neither has he lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, neither has he defiled his neighbor’s wife, neither has he come near to a woman in her impurity” /b (Ezekiel 18:6). This verse b juxtaposes a menstruating woman to his neighbor’s wife. Just as /b lying together with b his neighbor’s wife, /b even when b he /b is b in his clothes and she /b is b in her clothes, is prohibited, so too, /b lying with b his wife /b when she is b menstruating, /b even when b he /b is b in his clothes and she /b is b in her clothes, is prohibited. /b ,The Gemara comments: b And /b this conclusion b disagrees with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Pedat, as Rabbi Pedat said: The Torah only prohibited intimacy that /b involves b engaging in prohibited sexual relations, /b as it b is stated: “None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness” /b (Leviticus 18:6). The prohibition of intimacy in the Torah applies exclusively to relations, and all other kinds of intimacy that do not include actual relations are not included in the prohibition. When there is separation, they did not issue a decree.,The Gemara relates that b Ulla, when he would come from the house of his teacher, would kiss his sisters on their chests. And some say: On their hands. /b Ulla was not concerned about violating the prohibition of displaying affection toward a relative forbidden to him, as his intention was not to have relations with them. The Gemara adds that b his /b action b was in contradiction to /b a saying of b his, as Ulla said: Even any intimacy is prohibited /b with a woman with whom he is forbidden to engage in sexual relations b due to /b the reason formulated as an adage: b Go around, go around, and /b do not approach b the vineyard, they say to the nazirite. /b They advise the nazirite, who is forbidden to consume any product of a vine, that he should not even approach the vineyard. The same is true with regard to the prohibition of forbidden relations. According to Ulla, one must distance himself from them to whatever degree possible., b The /b Sage in the b school of Eliyahu taught /b a i baraita /i that deals with this i halakha /i : There was b an incident involving one student who studied much /b Mishna b and read much /b Bible, b and served Torah scholars /b extensively, studying Torah from them, b and, /b nevertheless, b died at half his days, /b half his life expectancy. b His wife /b in her bitterness b would take his phylacteries and go around with them to synagogues and study halls, and she said to /b the Sages: b It is written in the Torah: “For it is your life and the length of your days” /b (Deuteronomy 30:20). If so, b my husband who studied much /b Mishna, b and read much /b Bible, |
|
34. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 189| 31a. גברא אגברא קא רמית,נהרדעי אמרי אפילו אחד אומר מנה שחור ואחד אומר מנה לבן מצטרפים,כמאן כרבי יהושע בן קרחה אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי יהושע בן קרחה היכא דלא מכחשו אהדדי היכא דמכחשי אהדדי מי אמר,אלא הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא אמר ר' שמעון בן אלעזר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על שתי כיתי עדים שאחת אומרת מאתים ואחת אומרת מנה שיש בכלל מאתים מנה,על מה נחלקו על כת אחת שבית שמאי אומרים נחלקה עדותן ובית הלל אומרים יש בכלל מאתים מנה,אחד אומר חבית של יין ואחד אומר חבית של שמן הוה עובדא ואתי לקמיה דרבי אמי חייביה רבי אמי לשלומי ליה חביתא דחמרא מיגו חביתא דמשחא,כמאן כר"ש בן אלעזר אימר דאמר ר"ש [ב"א] היכא דיש בכלל מאתים מנה כי האי גוונא מי אמר,לא צריכא לדמי,אחד אומר בדיוטא העליונה ואחד אומר בדיוטא התחתונה אמר רבי חנינא מעשה בא לפני רבי וצירף עדותן:,ומניין לכשיצא כו': תנו רבנן מניין לכשיצא לא יאמר הריני מזכה וחבירי מחייבין אבל מה אעשה שחבירי רבו עלי תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יט, טז) לא תלך רכיל בעמך ואומר (משלי יא, יג) הולך רכיל מגלה סוד,ההוא תלמידא דנפיק עליה קלא דגלי מילתא דאיתמר בי מדרשא בתר עשרין ותרתין שנין אפקיה רב אמי מבי מדרשא אמר דין גלי רזיא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כל זמן שמביא ראיה סותר את הדין אמר לו כל ראיות שיש לך הבא מיכן עד שלשים יום מצא בתוך שלשים יום סותר לאחר שלשים יום אינו סותר,אמר רשב"ג מה יעשה זה שלא מצא בתוך שלשים ומצא לאחר שלשים,אמר לו הבא עדים ואמר אין לי עדים אמר הבא ראיה ואמר אין לי ראיה ולאחר זמן הביא ראיה ומצא עדים הרי זה אינו כלום,אמר רשב"ג מה יעשה זה שלא היה יודע שיש לו עדים ומצא עדים לא היה יודע שיש לו ראיה ומצא ראיה,ראה שמתחייב בדין ואמר קרבו פלוני ופלוני ויעידוני או שהוציא ראיה מתחת פונדתו הרי זה אינו כלום:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רבה בר רב הונא הלכה כרשב"ג ואמר רבה בר רב הונא אין הלכה כדברי חכמים,פשיטא כיון דאמר הלכה כרשב"ג ממילא ידענא דאין הלכה כחכמים,מהו דתימא הני מילי לכתחילה אבל דיעבד שפיר דמי קמ"ל דאי עביד מהדרינן ליה:,אמר לו הבא עדים כו' אמר רשב"ג כו': אמר רבה בר רב הונא א"ר יוחנן הלכה כדברי חכמים ואמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר רבי יוחנן אין הלכה כרשב"ג,פשיטא כיון דאמר הלכה כדברי חכמים ממילא ידענא דאין הלכה כרשב"ג,הא קמ"ל דבההיא אין הלכה כרשב"ג הא בכולהו הלכה כרשב"ג,לאפוקי מהא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן כל מקום ששנה רשב"ג במשנתנו הלכה כמותו חוץ מערב וצידן וראיה אחרונה,ההוא ינוקא דתבעוהו לדינא קמיה דרב נחמן א"ל אית לך סהדי א"ל לא אית לך ראיה א"ל לא חייביה רב נחמן,הוה קא בכי ואזיל שמעוהו הנך אינשי אמרו ליה אנן ידעינן במילי דאבוך אמר רב נחמן בהא אפילו רבנן מודו דינוקא במילי דאבוה לא ידע,ההיא איתתא דנפק שטרא מתותי ידה אמרה ליה ידענא בהאי שטרא דפריע הוה הימנה רב נחמן,אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן כמאן כרבי דאמר אותיות נקנות במסירה,אמר ליה שאני הכא דאי בעיא קלתיה,איכא דאמרי לא הימנה רב נחמן אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן והא אי בעיא | 31a. The Gemara answers: b Are you setting /b the statement of one b man against /b the statement of another b man? /b Rav Ḥisda holds that a contradiction with regard to secondary details does not disqualify the testimony even in capital law, and Rav Yehuda holds that it does disqualify the testimony. Neither Sage is bound by the statement of the other.,The Sages b of Neharde’a say: Even /b if b one says /b that it was b a black coin and /b the other b one says /b that it was b a white coin /b their testimonies b are combined. /b ,The Gemara asks: b In accordance with whose /b opinion is this? Is it b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, /b that as long as both witnesses testify that the defendant owes the plaintiff the same sum, the testimonies are combined? b Say that you heard Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa /b saying that two testimonies are combined in a case b where they do not contradict each other; /b but in a case b where they contradict each other, did he say /b that they are combined?, b Rather, /b the Sages of Neharde’a b stated /b their opinion b in accordance with /b the opinion of b that i tanna /i , as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree with regard to /b a case of b two sets of witnesses, where one /b set b says /b that the plaintiff lent the defendant b two hundred /b dinars, b and /b the other b one says /b that he lent him b one hundred dinars. /b Both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai agree that this is not considered a contradiction, and the testimony is accepted concerning the amount of one hundred dinars, b as one hundred dinars is /b subsumed b within two hundred, /b i.e., testimony concerning a large amount includes testimony concerning a smaller amount., b With regard to what /b case b do they disagree? /b They disagree b over /b the case of b one set /b of two witnesses, where one witness testifies that the defendant owes the plaintiff two hundred dinars, and the other witness says that he owes him one hundred. b As Beit Shammai say /b that b their testimony is divided. /b Since they are not testifying about the same amount, the entire testimony is disqualified. b And Beit Hillel say: One hundred dinars is /b subsumed b within two hundred. /b Apparently, according to Beit Hillel’s opinion, as transmitted by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, although the testimonies are not identical, since both attest to the defendant’s liability to pay a certain amount of money, they are combined and accepted to that effect. This is the source for the opinion of the Sages of Neharde’a.,With regard to a case where b one /b witness b says /b that the plaintiff gave the defendant b a barrel of wine, and /b the other b one says /b that he gave him b a barrel of oil, there was /b actually such b an incident, and it came before Rabbi Ami. /b Since wine was cheaper than oil, b Rabbi Ami deemed /b the defendant b liable to pay /b the plaintiff only the value of b a barrel of wine out of /b the value of b a barrel of oil, /b an amount both witnesses agreed that he owed.,The Gemara asks: b In accordance with whose /b opinion is this ruling? Is it b in accordance with /b the opinion transmitted by b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar? Say that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said /b that two contradicting testimonies can be combined in a case b where one hundred dinars is /b subsumed b within two hundred; /b perhaps one of the witnesses saw only half the loan, and the other one saw it all. But in b a case like this, /b where the testimonies are about completely different items, b did he say /b that they can be combined?,The Gemara answers: b No, /b this is not a case of a direct contradiction. This ruling is b necessary /b only b with regard to monetary value, /b i.e., where one witness says that the defendant owes the value of a barrel of wine, and the second one says that he owes the value of a barrel of oil. Therefore, it is comparable to a case of one hundred dinars and two hundred dinars.,With regard to a case where b one /b witness b says /b that the incident took place b on the upper floor [ i badeyota /i ] and /b the other b one says /b that it occurred b on the lower floor, Rabbi Ḥanina says /b that b an incident /b like this b came before Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b and he combined their testimonies. /b This was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, that since they agree with regard to the matter itself, the secondary details are insignificant.,§ The mishna teaches: b And from where /b is it derived that b when /b the judge b leaves /b the courtroom, he should not say: I deemed you exempt and my colleagues deemed you liable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered me and consequently you were deemed liable? About this it is stated: “You shall not go as a talebearer among your people” (Leviticus 19:16), and it says: “One who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but one who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter” (Proverbs 11:13). b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b From where /b is it derived that b when /b the judge b leaves he should not say: I deemed /b you b exempt and my colleagues deemed /b you b liable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered me /b and consequently you were deemed liable? b The verse states: “You shall not go as a talebearer among your people” /b (Leviticus 19:16), b and it says: “One who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets” /b (Proverbs 11:13).,The Gemara relates: There was b a certain student, about whom a rumor emerged that he revealed a statement that was stated in the study hall /b and should have been kept secret, and the rumor emerged b twenty-two years after /b the time the statement was revealed. b Rav Ami removed him from the study hall /b as a punishment. Rav Ami b said: This is a revealer of secrets /b and he cannot be trusted., strong MISHNA: /strong b Any time /b one of the litigants b brings /b additional b proof, he can overturn the verdict /b that was decided according to previous proofs. If one litigant b said to /b the other: b Bring all the proofs that you have from now until thirty days /b from now, if b he found /b additional proof b within thirty days, he can overturn /b the verdict. If he found it b after thirty days, he cannot overturn /b the verdict anymore., b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: /b He can still overturn the verdict, as b what should this /b litigant, b who /b sought and b did not find /b additional proof b within thirty /b days b but found /b it b after thirty /b days, b have done? /b ,In a case where one litigant b said to /b the other: b Bring witnesses, and /b the latter b said: I have no witnesses, /b and the former b said /b to him: b Bring a proof, and he said: I have no proof, and he later brought a proof or found witnesses, /b in this case, b this /b proof or these witnesses are worth b nothing. /b It is apparently a false proof or false testimony., b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: What should this /b litigant, b who did not know that he has witnesses and /b ultimately b found witnesses, /b or who b did not know that he has a proof and /b ultimately b found proof, have done? /b Therefore, he can still overturn the verdict.,If at the beginning of the discussion in the court one did not bring witnesses or other evidence for his claims, but then b he saw that he /b was about to be b deemed liable /b to pay b in the judgment, and said: Bring so-and-so and so-and-so, and they will testify on my behalf, or he pulled out a proof from under his belt [ i pundato /i ], /b even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds b that this is /b worth b nothing. /b If there was truth in the testimony of these witnesses or in this proof, he would not have hidden it until now., strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the first i halakha /i in the mishna, b Rabba bar Rav Huna says: /b The b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the statement of b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rabba bar Rav Huna /b also b says: /b The b i halakha /i /b is b not in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. /b ,The Gemara asks: Isn’t it b obvious? Since he says /b that the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the statement of b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, we know by ourselves that /b the b i halakha /i /b is b not in accordance with /b the statement of b the Rabbis. /b ,The Gemara answers: b Lest you say /b that b this statement, /b that the i halakha /i is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, applies b i ab initio /i , but after the fact, /b even if the court ruled in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the ruling is b valid, /b as their opinion was not entirely rejected, Rabba bar Rav Huna therefore b teaches us that if /b the court b acts /b in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, b we send /b the case b back /b to court.,§ The mishna teaches that in a case where one litigant b said to /b the other: b Bring witnesses, /b and he admitted that he had none, and he subsequently found witnesses, b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said /b that their testimony is valid. b Rabba bar Rav Huna says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b The b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. And Rabba bar Rav Huna /b also b says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b The b i halakha /i /b is b not in accordance with /b the statement of b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. /b ,The Gemara asks: Isn’t it b obvious? Since he says /b that the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, we know by ourselves that /b the b i halakha /i is not in accordance with /b the statement of b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. /b ,The Gemara answers: b This /b statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna b teaches us that /b specifically b with regard to that /b i halakha /i , the b i halakha /i /b is b not in accordance with /b the statement of b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; but with regard to all /b other statements of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the corpus of the Mishna, the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the statement of b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. /b ,This is b to the exclusion of that which Rabba bar bar Ḥanna says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: Anywhere that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught /b a ruling b in our Mishna, /b the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with his /b opinion, b except for /b the following three cases: The responsibility of the b guarantor, and /b the incident that occurred in the city of b Tzaidan, and /b the dispute with regard to b evidence /b in the b final /b disagreement. Whereas in the former dispute in the mishna here, the i halakha /i is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, in the latter dispute in the mishna here, the i halakha /i is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabba bar Rav Huna, by contrast, maintains that in the case of a guarantor and in the case in Tzaidan, the i halakha /i is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.,The Gemara relates: There was b a certain child who was taken to court before Rav Naḥman. They said to him: Do you have witnesses /b on your behalf? The child b said to them: No. /b They continued to ask: b Do you have evidence? /b The child b said to them: No. Rav Naḥman deemed him liable, /b in accordance with the claim of the other litigant.,The child b was walking and crying. These people heard him, /b and b said to him: We know about the /b monetary b matters of your father /b and can testify on your behalf. When he brought them before Rav Naḥman, b Rav Naḥman said: In /b a case like b this, even the Rabbis concede /b that the testimony is accepted, b as a child does not know about the /b monetary b matters of his father. /b Clearly, when he said that he has no witnesses or proof, he said so out of ignorance and was mistaken; there is no concern about artifice.,The Gemara relates: There was b a certain woman from whose possession /b a promissory b note emerged, /b i.e., she was appointed to hold it. b She said to /b the judge: b I know that this /b promissory b note was repaid. /b The creditor should not use it to collect. b Rav Naḥman deemed her /b testimony b credible /b and did not allow the creditor to collect the debt., b Rava said to Rav Naḥman: In accordance with whose /b opinion is your ruling? Is it b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b who says /b that b letters, /b i.e., the content of a promissory note, b are acquired by /b merely b transferring /b the document? In other words, there is no need to write a deed for the transfer of a monetary document from one individual’s ownership to another. By giving it to the recipient, he becomes the owner of the document. Therefore, since the promissory note is in this woman’s possession, she is considered its legal owner, and her claim that it was repaid is consequently accepted.,Rav Naḥman b said to him: /b That is not the reason for my ruling; rather, b here it is different. /b Here the woman’s claim is accepted in any event, b as, /b since the promissory note was in her possession, b if she had wanted /b to, b she /b could have b burned it. /b Therefore, she is presumably telling the truth., b Some say /b that there is another version of the story, according to which b Rav Naḥman did not deem her /b testimony b credible. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: But if she had wanted /b to, |
|
35. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •menstruants/niddah, food preparation Found in books: Cohen (2010) 402| 111a. חוץ מן המים ור' יוחנן אמר אפילו מים אמר רב פפא לא אמרן אלא חמימי לגו קרירי וקרירי לגו חמימי אבל חמימי לגו חמימי וקרירי לגו קרירי לא,אמר ריש לקיש ארבעה דברים העושה אותן דמו בראשו ומתחייב בנפשו אלו הן הנפנה בין דקל לכותל והעובר בין שני דקלים והשותה מים שאולין והעובר על מים שפוכין ואפילו שפכתו אשתו בפניו,הנפנה בין דקל לכותל לא אמרן אלא דלית ליה ארבע אמות אבל אית ליה ארבע אמות לית לן בה וכי לית ליה ארבע אמות לא אמרן אלא דליכא דירכא אחרינא אבל איכא דירכא אחרינא לית לן בה,והעובר בין שני דקלים לא אמרן אלא דלא פסקינהו רשות הרבים אבל פסקינהו רשות הרבים לית לן בה השותה מים שאולין לא אמרן אלא דשיילינהו קטן אבל גדול לית לן בה,ואפילו שיילינהו קטן נמי לא אמרן אלא בשדה דלא שכיחי אבל בעיר דשכיחי לית לן בה ואפילו בשדה נמי לא אמרן אלא מיא אבל חמרא ושיכרא לית לן בה,והעובר על מים שפוכין לא אמרן אלא דלא אפסקינהו בעפרא ולא תף בהו רוקא אבל אפסקינהו או תף בהו רוקא לית לן בה ולא אמרן אלא דלא עבר עלייהו שימשא ולא עבר עלייהו שיתין ניגרי אבל עבר עלייהו שימשא ועבר עלייהו שיתין ניגרי לית לן בה ולא אמרן אלא דלא רכיב חמרא ולא סיים מסני אבל רכיב חמרא וסיים מסני לית לן בה,וה"מ היכא דליכא למיחש לכשפים אבל היכא דאיכא למיחש לכשפים אע"ג דאיכא כל הני חיישינן (וההוא) גברא דרכיב חמרא וסיים מסני וגמוד מסאניה וצוו כרעיה,ת"ר שלשה אין ממצעין ולא מתמצעין ואלו הן הכלב והדקל והאשה וי"א אף החזיר וי"א אף הנחש,ואי ממצעין מאי תקנתיה אמר רב פפא נפתח באל ונפסיק באל,א"נ נפתח בלא ונפסיק בלא,הני בי תרי דמצעא להו אשה נדה אם תחלת נדתה היא הורגת א' מהן אם סוף נדתה היא מריבה עושה ביניהן מאי תקנתיה נפתח באל ונפסיק באל,הני תרי נשי דיתבן בפרשת דרכים חדא בהאי גיסא דשבילא וחדא באידך גיסא ומכוונן אפייהו להדדי ודאי בכשפים עסיקן מאי תקנתיה אי איכא דירכא אחרינא ליזיל בה ואי ליכא דירכא אחרינא אי איכא איניש אחרינא בהדיה נינקטו לידייהו בהדי הדדי וניחלפו ואי ליכא איניש אחרינא נימא הכי אגרת אזלת אסיא בלוסיא מתקטלא בחיק קבל,האי מאן דפגע באיתתא בעידנא דסלקא מטבילת מצוה אי איהו קדים ומשמש אחדא ליה לדידיה רוח זנונים אי איהי קדמה ומשמשה אחדא לה לדידה רוח זנונים מאי תקנתיה לימא הכי (תהלים קז, מ) שופך בוז על נדיבים ויתעם בתוהו לא דרך,א"ר יצחק מאי דכתיב (תהלים כג, ד) גם כי אלך בגיא צלמות לא אירא רע כי אתה עמדי זה הישן בצל דקל יחידי ובצל לבנה ובצל דקל יחידי לא אמרן אלא דלא נפיל טולא דחבריה עילויה אבל נפל טולא דחבריה עילויה לית לן בה,אלא הא דתניא הישן בצל דקל יחידי בחצר והישן בצל לבנה דמו בראשו היכי דמי אי לימא דלא נפל טולא דחבריה עילויה אפילו בשדה נמי אלא לאו שמע מינה בחצר אף על גב דנפיל טולא דחבריה עילויה שמע מינה,ובצילה של לבנה לא אמרן אלא במערבה אבל במדינחתא לית לן בה | 111a. b except for water. /b If one mixes water with other water, it is not considered diluted and does not count toward the number of cups. b And Rabbi Yoḥa said: Even water /b joins the number of cups. b Rav Pappa said: We said this statement only /b about b hot /b water poured b into cold /b water, b and cold /b water poured b into hot water. /b Rabbi Yoḥa maintains that these cups are considered diluted. b However, /b everyone agrees that b hot /b water poured b into hot /b water b or cold /b water poured b into cold /b water, b no, /b they are not considered diluted.,The Gemara cites more statements concerning superstitions and witchcraft. b Reish Lakish said: /b There are b four matters. The one who performs them, his blood is upon his /b own b head, and /b he is held b liable for his own life, /b due to the evil spirit that rests upon him: b One who relieves himself /b in a spot b between a palm tree and a wall, one who passes between two palm trees, one who drinks borrowed water, and one who passes over spilled water, even if his wife poured it out in front of him. /b ,The Gemara elaborates: With regard to b one who relieves himself between a palm tree and a wall, we said /b that he places himself in danger b only when there are not four cubits /b of space between the two objects. b However, /b if b there are four cubits, we have no /b problem b with it. /b The demons have enough room to pass, and he will not obstruct them. b And /b furthermore, even b when there are not four cubits, we said /b there is a problem b only when /b the demons b have no other route /b besides that one. b However, /b if they b have another route, we have no /b problem b with it. /b , b And /b with regard to b one who passes between two palm trees, we said /b that he is in danger b only if a public domain does not cross between them. However, /b if b a public domain crosses between them, we have no /b problem b with it, /b as demons are not permitted to cause harm in a public place. b And /b with regard to b one who drinks borrowed water, we said /b it is dangerous b only if a minor borrowed it. However, /b if b an adult /b borrowed the water, b we have no /b problem b with it. /b , b And even /b if b a minor borrowed it, we said /b this poses a danger b only /b if it occurred b in a field, where /b water b is not found. However, in a city, where /b water b can be found, we have no /b problem b with it. And even in a field, we said /b there is cause for concern b only /b in a case of borrowed b water; however, /b with regard to b wine and beer, we have no /b problem b with it. /b , b And /b with regard to b one who passes over spilled water, we said /b he places himself in danger b only if no one sprinkled dirt over it and no one spat in it. However, if /b someone b sprinkled dirt over it or spat in it, we have no /b problem b with it. And we said /b this is a concern b only if the sun did not pass over it, /b i.e., it occurred at night, b and sixty steps /b of people walking in the area b have not passed over it. However, /b if b the sun passed over it and sixty steps passed over it, we have no /b problem b with it. And we said /b this concern b only if he was not riding a donkey and not wearing shoes; however, if he was riding a donkey and wearing shoes, we have no /b problem b with it. /b ,The Gemara comments: b And /b all b this /b applies only b where there is no /b reason for b concern for witchcraft, /b as no one is interested in harming him. b However, where there is /b reason for b concern for witchcraft, even if all of these /b limiting conditions b are /b in place, b we are /b nevertheless b concerned. And /b this is similar to what happened to b a certain man who was riding a donkey and wearing shoes. /b Nevertheless, he passed over water b and his shoes shrank and his feet shriveled up. /b ,The Gemara continues to discuss this issue. b The Sages taught: Three /b objects should b not /b be allowed to b pass between /b two people walking along a road, and people should b not walk between /b two of them: b A dog, a palm tree, and a woman. And some say: Also a pig. And some say: Also a snake. /b All of these were associated with witchcraft.,The Gemara asks: b And if they pass between them, what is the remedy /b to prevent one from harm? b Rav Pappa said: He /b should b begin /b reciting a verse that starts b with /b the word b God and conclude with /b a verse that ends with the word b God. /b In other words, he should recite the passage: “God Who brought them out of Egypt is for them like the lofty horns of the wild ox. For there is no enchantment with Jacob, nor is there any divination with Israel; now is it said of Jacob and of Israel: What has been performed by God” (Numbers 23:22–23). This verse indicates that spells do not affect the Jewish people., b Alternatively, he /b should b open /b with a verse that begins with the word b i lo /i , /b no, b and /b should b conclude /b with the same verse that ends with b i lo /i : /b “No [ i lo /i ] man is God that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent. When He has said will He not do it, or when He has spoken will He not [ i lo /i ] make it good?” (Numbers 23:19).,Similarly, b these two /b men, b between whom a menstruating woman passes, if she is at the beginning of her menstruation she kills one of them, /b i.e., she causes the death of one of the two men. b If she is /b at b the end of her menstruation /b she does not kill, but she b causes a fight between them. What is his remedy? He /b should b open /b with a verse that begins b with /b the word b God and he /b should b conclude with /b a verse that ends with the word b God, /b as explained above.,The Gemara further states: b These two women, who are sitting at a crossroads, one on this side of the road and the other on the other side, and they are facing each other, they are certainly engaging in witchcraft. What is /b the b remedy /b for one who walks by? b If there is another route, he /b should b go by it. And if there is no other route, if there is another person with him, they /b should b hold hands and switch /b places. b And if there is no other person with him, he /b should b say as follows: Iggeret, Azlat, Asiya, Belusiya are killed by arrows. /b These are names of demons invoked by witches.,The Gemara cites a related statement: b One who meets a woman when she is ascending from the ritual immersion of a mitzva, /b after her menstruation, b if he has intercourse /b with any woman b first, a spirit of immorality overtakes him; if she has intercourse first, a spirit of immorality overtakes her. What is his remedy? He /b should b say this: “He pours contempt upon princes, and causes them to wander in the waste, where there is no way” /b (Psalms 107:40)., b Rav Yitzḥak said: What /b is the meaning of that which b is written: “Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for You are with me” /b (Psalms 23:4)? b This is /b a person b who sleeps in the shadow of a single palm tree, and in the shadow of the moon. /b Despite his dangerous position, he trusts God and is not afraid. The Gemara qualifies the previous statement: b And with regard to /b one who sleeps b in the shadow of a single palm tree, we said /b he is in danger b only if the shadow of another /b palm tree b does not fall upon him. However, /b if b the shadow of another /b palm tree b falls upon him, we have no /b problem b with it. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But /b what about b that /b which b was taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to one b who sleeps in the shadow of a single palm tree in a courtyard and one who sleeps in the shadow of the moon, his blood is upon his /b own b head. What are the circumstances? If we say that the shadow of another /b palm tree b does not fall on him, /b he would b also /b be harmed if he were b in a field. Rather, /b must b one not conclude from /b this i baraita /i that if one is in a b courtyard, even if the shadow of another /b tree b fell on him, /b it remains dangerous? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, b learn from it /b that this is so.,The Gemara adds: b And /b with regard b to the shadow of the moon, we said /b it is dangerous to sleep there b only /b at the end of the month when the moon shines in the east, and therefore its shadow is b in the west. However, /b at the start of the month, when the moon shines in the west and its shadow is b in the east, we have no /b problem b with it. /b |
|
36. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 189| 46a. רב פפא אמר מאי בעל לוקה דקתני התם ממון וקרי ליה לממון מלקות אין והא תנן האומר חצי ערכי עלי נותן חצי ערכו רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר לוקה ונותן ערך שלם לוקה אמאי אמר רב פפא לוקה בערך שלם,מאי טעמא גזירה חצי ערכו אטו ערך חציו וערך חציו הוי ליה אבר שהנשמה תלויה בו,ת"ר (דברים כב, יט) וענשו אותו זה ממון (דברים כב, יח) ויסרו זה מלקות,בשלמא וענשו זה ממון דכתיב וענשו אותו מאה כסף ונתנו לאבי הנערה אלא ויסרו זה מלקות מנלן,א"ר אבהו למדנו יסרו מיסרו ויסרו מבן ובן מבן (דברים כה, ב) והיה אם בן הכות הרשע,אזהרה למוציא שם רע מנלן ר' אלעזר אמר (ויקרא יט, טז) מלא תלך רכיל רבי נתן אומר (דברים כג, י) מונשמרת מכל דבר רע,ורבי אלעזר מאי טעמא לא אמר מהאי ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדר' פנחס בן יאיר ונשמרת מכל דבר רע מכאן אמר ר' פנחס בן יאיר אל יהרהר אדם ביום ויבא לידי טומאה בלילה,ור' נתן מאי טעמא לא אמר מהאי ההוא אזהרה לב"ד שלא יהא רך לזה וקשה לזה,לא אמר לעדים בואו והעידוני והן מעידים אותו מאליהן הוא אינו לוקה ואינו נותן מאה סלעים היא וזוממיה מקדימין לבית הסקילה,היא וזוממיה סלקא דעתך אלא או היא או זוממיה מקדימין לבית הסקילה,טעמא דלא אמר להו הא אמר להו אע"ג דלא אגרינהו לאפוקי מדר' יהודה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר אינו חייב עד שישכור עדים,מ"ט דר' יהודה אמר ר' אבהו אתיא שימה שימה כתיב הכא (דברים כב, יד) ושם לה עלילות דברים וכתיב התם (שמות כב, כד) לא תשימון עליו נשך מה להלן ממון אף כאן ממון,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק וכן תני רב יוסף צידוני בי רבי שמעון בן יוחאי אתיא שימה שימה,בעי רבי ירמיה שכרן בקרקע מהו בפחות משוה פרוטה מהו שניהם בפרוטה מהו,בעי רב אשי הוציא שם רע על הנישואין הראשונים מהו על נשואי אחיו מהו,פשוט מיהא חדא דתני ר' יונה (דברים כב, טז) את בתי נתתי לאיש הזה לזה ולא ליבם,מאי רבנן ומאי ר' אליעזר בן יעקב דתניא כיצד הוצאת שם רע בא לבית דין ואמר פלוני לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו יש לה כתובה מנה,אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו יש לה כתובה מנה בת סקילה היא הכי קאמר אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו בסקילה זינתה מעיקרא יש לה כתובה מנה,נמצא ששם רע אינו שם רע הוא לוקה ונותן מאה סלע בין בעל ובין לא בעל רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר לא נאמרו דברים הללו אלא כשבעל בשלמא לרבי אליעזר בן יעקב היינו דכתיב (דברים כב, יג) ובא אליה ואקרב אליה,אלא לרבנן מאי ובא אליה ואקרב אליה ובא אליה בעלילות ואקרב אליה בדברים,בשלמא לרבי אליעזר בן יעקב היינו דכתיב לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים אלא לרבנן מאי לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים לא מצאתי לבתך כשרי בתולים,בשלמא לרבי אליעזר בן יעקב היינו דכתיב ואלה בתולי בתי אלא לרבנן מאי ואלה בתולי בתי ואלה כשרי בתולי בתי,בשלמא לר"א בן יעקב היינו דכתיב ופרשו השמלה אלא לרבנן מאי ופרשו השמלה,אמר רבי אבהו פרשו מה ששם לה כדתניא ופרשו השמלה מלמד שבאין עדים של זה ועדים של זה ובוררין את הדבר כשמלה חדשה רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר דברים ככתבן שמלה ממש,שלח רבי יצחק בר רב יעקב בר גיורי משמיה דרבי יוחנן אע"ג שלא מצינו בכל התורה כולה שחלק הכתוב בין ביאה כדרכה לביאה שלא כדרכה למכות ולעונשין אבל מוציא שם רע חלק אינו חייב עד שיבעול שלא כדרכה ויוציא שם רע כדרכה,כמאן אי כרבנן אף על גב דלא בעל אי כר' אליעזר בן יעקב | 46a. b Rav Pappa said: What /b of the statement b that is taught there, /b in the i baraita /i , that it is only if b he had intercourse /b with her that he is b flogged? /b It is referring to the b money /b of the fine. The Gemara asks: b And /b does one b call monetary /b payment b flogging? /b The Gemara answers: b Yes, and we learned /b in a i baraita /i : b One who says: Half my valuation is upon me, he gives half his valuation, /b in accordance with the sum fixed by the Torah according to sex and age (see Leviticus 27:2–3). b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He is flogged and gives /b his b full valuation. /b The Sages inquired: b Why is he flogged? /b What transgression did he commit? b Rav Pappa said: He is flogged by /b having to pay b a full valuation. /b This proves that monetary payment can be referred to as flogging.,The Gemara clarifies: b What is the reason /b of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? It is a rabbinic b decree /b in the case of one who vows to donate b half of his valuation, due to /b a case where one vowed the b valuation of half of himself. And /b one who vows to donate the b valuation of half of himself has /b effectively vowed to donate the valuation of b a limb upon which /b his b life depends, /b e.g., his head or heart, in which case it is as though he vowed to donate his entire valuation. Consequently, even one who vows to donate half of his valuation must donate his entire valuation.,§ The Gemara continues to discuss the i halakhot /i of the defamer. b The Sages taught /b the following i baraita /i , based upon the following verses: “And the Elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him. And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman” (Deuteronomy 22:18–19). b “And they shall fine [ i ve’anshu /i ] him”; this /b is referring to b money. “And chastise /b him”; b this /b is referring to b flogging. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Granted, /b with regard to the phrase b “and they fine [ i ve’anshu /i ] him,” /b although the word i ve’anshu /i can refer to any punishment, in b this /b case it is referring to b money, as it is written: And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman. However, /b with regard to the statement of the i baraita /i that: b “And chastise /b him”; b this /b is referring to b flogging, from where do we /b derive this?, b Rabbi Abbahu said: We learned /b the meaning of the word b chastise /b in the case of a defamer by verbal analogy b from /b the word b chastise /b stated in the verse “if a man have a stubborn and rebellious son [ i ben /i ], that will not listen to the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and though they chastise him, will not listen to them” (Deuteronomy 21:18). b And /b the implication of the word b chastise /b in that verse is derived b from /b the word b son /b that appears in the same verse. b And /b the implication of the word b son [ i ben /i ] /b with regard to a rebellious son is derived b from /b the word b i bin /i /b in the verse b “Then it shall be if the wicked man deserve [ i bin /i ] to be flogged” /b (Deuteronomy 25:2).,The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive the b warning, /b i.e., the prohibition that serves as the source for the flogging b for a defamer? Rabbi Elazar says /b that the prohibition is derived b from /b the verse b “You shall not go up and down as talebearer” /b (Leviticus 19:16). b Rabbi Natan says /b that it is derived b from: “Then you shall keep yourself from every evil thing [ i davar ra /i ]” /b (Deuteronomy 23:10), which is expounded to mean i dibbur ra /i , evil speech.,The Gemara asks: b And what is the reason /b that b Rabbi Elazar did not state /b that it is derived from b this /b verse quoted by Rabbi Natan? The Gemara answers: b He requires that /b verse b for /b the statement of b Rabbi Pineḥas ben Yair, /b as it was taught: b “Then you shall keep yourself from every evil thing”; from here Rabbi Pineḥas ben Yair said: A person should not think /b impure thoughts b by day and /b thereby b come by night to /b the b impurity /b of an emission.,The Gemara asks the reverse question: b And what is the reason /b that b Rabbi Natan did not state /b that it is derived b from that /b verse cited by Rabbi Elazar? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Natan explains b that /b verse, which includes the term talebearer [ i rakhil /i ], as b a warning to the court that it should not be soft to [ i rakh la /i ] this /b litigant b and harsh to that /b one, but it must treat both sides as equals.,§ The Gemara cites another statement that deals with a defamer: If the husband b did not say to witnesses: Come and testify for me /b that my wife committed adultery, b but they testify /b for b him of their own accord /b and are subsequently discovered to be liars, the husband b is not flogged and does not give /b the b one hundred i sela /i , /b as he did not harm her. b She and her conspiring witnesses are brought early to the place of stoning. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Does it enter your mind /b to say that b she and her conspiring witnesses /b are stoned? If she is liable to be stoned, they are not conspiring witnesses, and conversely, if they are conspiring witnesses, they are stoned and she is exempt. b Rather, /b this must mean: b Either she or her conspiring witnesses are brought early to the place of stoning. /b If they were telling the truth, she is stoned. If they conspired and offered false testimony, they are liable to be stoned.,The Gemara infers from the i baraita /i that the b reason /b the husband is not flogged or fined is b that /b the husband b did not tell them /b to testify, b but /b if b he told them /b to testify, b although he did not hire them /b but merely persuaded them to testify that his wife had committed adultery as a betrothed woman, he is flogged and must pay the fine. This serves b to exclude /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b The husband b is liable /b to the punishments of a defamer b only if he hired witnesses. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b of b Rabbi Yehuda? /b Nowhere does the Torah explicitly state that the husband hired false witnesses. The Gemara answers that b Rabbi Abbahu said: /b It is b derived /b by a verbal analogy between the term b placing, /b written with regard to a defamer, and the term b placing, /b written with regard to the prohibition against charging interest. b It is written here, /b with regard to a defamer: b “And he place wanton charges against her” /b (Deuteronomy 22:14), b and it is written there: “Neither shall you place upon him interest” /b (Exodus 22:24). b Just as below, /b with regard to interest, the verse is referring to b money, so too here, /b in the case of a defamer, it is referring to b money, /b thereby indicating that the husband paid money in order to substantiate his false accusation., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Rav Yosef Tzidoni likewise taught in the school of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: /b It is b derived /b from the verbal analogy between the term b placing, /b written with regard to a defamer, and the term b placing, /b written with regard to the prohibition against charging interest., b Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: /b According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, if the husband b hired /b the false witnesses b with land /b instead of money, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? If he hired them b with less than the value of a i peruta /i , what is /b the i halakha /i ? If he hired b both /b witnesses b with a i peruta /i , what is /b the i halakha /i ? Since this i halakha /i is derived from the case of interest, perhaps, like the prohibition against charging interest, it applies only with regard to money, rather than land, and only with money that is greater than the value of a i peruta /i .,Similarly, b Rav Ashi raised a dilemma /b concerning a defamer: If b he defamed /b his wife b with regard to /b their b first marriage, what is /b the i halakha /i ? In other words, if a man married a woman, divorced her, remarried her, and subsequently defamed her by claiming that she had committed adultery during the period of betrothal before their first marriage, what is the i halakha /i ? Similarly, if he performed levirate marriage and then defamed her b with regard to his brother’s marriage /b to her, b what is /b the i halakha /i ?,The Gemara comments: b Resolve at least one /b of these dilemmas, b as Rabbi Yona taught /b that the verse “And the father of the young woman shall say to the Elders: b I gave my daughter to this man” /b (Deuteronomy 22:16) serves to emphasize: I gave him b to this /b man b and not to the i yavam /i , /b i.e., the brother of the original husband. Consequently, if one defames his i yevama /i with regard to her original marriage to his brother, the unique i halakhot /i of defamation do not apply.,§ In the course of the previous discussion, the Gemara mentioned a dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. The Gemara asks: b What /b is the opinion of b the Rabbis and what /b is the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, /b referred to above (45b)? b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b How /b does the case of b defamation /b proceed? It involves a situation where the husband b came to the court and said /b to the father: b So-and-so, I have not found /b indications of b your daughter’s virginity. If there are witnesses /b who testify b that she committed adultery under his /b authority, i.e., while betrothed to him, b she has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars. /b ,The Gemara interrupts its citation of the i baraita /i , as this last statement is very surprising: b If there are witnesses /b who testify b that she committed adultery under his /b authority, does b she have a marriage contract of one hundred dinars? She is /b punished b by stoning. /b The Gemara explains that b this is what /b the i tanna /i b said: If there are witnesses /b who testify b that she committed adultery under his /b authority, she is liable b to /b receive the punishment of b stoning. /b However, if b she engaged in licentious sexual relations at the outset, /b before her betrothal, when she was still a single woman, she is merely guilty of deceiving her husband with regard to her virginity, and therefore b she has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, /b which is the standard marriage contract of a non-virgin.,The Gemara resumes its quotation of the i baraita /i : If it was b discovered that the bad name is not a bad name, /b i.e., the husband’s accusation was false, b he is flogged and gives /b her father b one hundred i sela /i , whether he had intercourse with her /b or b whether he had not had intercourse with her. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: These matters were stated only /b in a case b where he had intercourse /b with his wife before defaming her. The Gemara asks: b Granted, according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, this is as it is written: /b “If a man take a wife b and go in unto her” /b (Deuteronomy 22:13), and: b “And when I came near to her, /b I did not find in her the tokens of virginity” (Deuteronomy 22:14), as both expressions refer to sexual intercourse., b However, according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, what is /b the meaning of the phrases b “and go in unto her,” /b and b “and when I came near to her,” /b if the couple never engaged in intercourse? The Gemara explains that, according to the Rabbis, b “and go in unto her” /b is referring b to /b the b wanton charges /b the husband leveled against his wife; b “and when I came near to her” /b means that he came near b with words, /b not intercourse.,The Gemara asks: b Granted, according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, this is as it is written: “I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity” /b (Deuteronomy 22:17), as Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov claims that the husband had relations with her and discovered that she was not a virgin. b However, according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, what is /b the meaning of b “I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity,” /b if they did not have intercourse? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis explain that he means: b I did not find for your daughter the fitness of virginity, /b i.e., I have discovered that she was unfaithful.,The Gemara asks further: b Granted, according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, this is as it is written /b that the father replies: b “And these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity” /b (Deuteronomy 22:17). He presents a cloth that proves she was a virgin, in opposition to the husband’s claim. b However, according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, what is /b the meaning of b “And these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity”? /b The Rabbis answer that the father means: b And these are the /b proofs of the b fitness of my daughter’s virginity, /b i.e., he either brings witnesses to counter the testimony of the husband’s witnesses or provides some other proof that his daughter was a virgin at the time of her marriage.,The Gemara poses yet another question on the same lines: b Granted, according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, this is at it is written: “And they shall spread the garment” /b (Deuteronomy 22:17). The father brings the sheet on which the couple had intercourse and shows that it is stained with blood. b However, according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who claim that a husband can defame his wife even if they have not engaged in intercourse, b what is /b the meaning of the phrase b “And they shall spread the garment [ i hasimla /i ]”? /b , b Rabbi Abbahu said /b that the Rabbis interpret this expression as follows: b They shall spread, /b i.e., examine, b that which he placed against her [ i sam la /i ]. /b In other words, they cross-examine the witnesses who testified against her, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b “And they shall spread the garment”; /b this b teaches that the witnesses of this /b husband b come /b forward, b and /b likewise b the witnesses of that /b father come forward, b and /b the court b clarifies the matter like a new garment. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: The matters /b are b as they are written, /b i.e., the verse refers to b an actual cloth. /b ,§ b Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Rav Ya’akov bar Giyyorei sent /b a message from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia b in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa: Although we have not found in the entire Torah that /b any b verse distinguishes between sexual intercourse in a typical manner and sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, /b i.e., anal intercourse, b with regard to flogging or /b any other b punishment. However, /b in the case of the b defamer, /b the Torah b does distinguish /b in this manner, as the husband b is obligated /b to pay the fine b only /b if b he had intercourse /b with his wife, even it was b in an atypical manner, and /b he b defames /b her by claiming that she had previously had intercourse b in a typical manner /b with someone else.,The Gemara asks: In b accordance with whose /b opinion is this ruling of Rabbi Yoḥa? b If /b it is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b the husband should be liable b even if he did not have intercourse /b with his wife. b If /b it is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, /b |
|
37. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •menstruants/niddah, food preparation Found in books: Cohen (2010) 402| 100b. דלא קא עביד איסורא אבל הכא דקא עביד איסורא הכי נמי דירד,תני חדא אחד אילן לח ואחד אילן יבש ותניא אידך בד"א בלח אבל ביבש מותר,אמר רב יהודה ל"ק כאן בשגזעו מחליף כאן בשאין גזעו מחליף,גזעו מחליף יבש קרית ליה אלא לא קשיא כאן בימות החמה כאן בימות הגשמים,בימות החמה הא נתרי פירי בדליכא פירי והא קא נתרי קינסי בגדודא,איני והא רב איקלע לאפסטיא ואסר בגדודא רב בקעה מצא וגדר בה גדר:,אמר רמי בר אבא אמר רב אסי אסור לאדם שיהלך על גבי עשבים בשבת משום שנאמר (משלי יט, ב) ואץ ברגלים חוטא,תני חדא מותר לילך ע"ג עשבים בשבת ותניא אידך אסור ל"ק הא בלחים הא ביבשים,ואי בעית אימא הא והא בלחים ולא קשיא כאן בימות החמה כאן בימות הגשמים,ואיבעית אימא הא והא בימות החמה ול"ק הא דסיים מסאניה הא דלא סיים מסאניה,ואיבעית אימא הא והא דסיים מסאניה ול"ק הא דאית ליה עוקצי הא דלית ליה עוקצי,ואיבעית אימא הא והא דאית ליה עוקצי הא דאית ליה שרכא הא דלית ליה שרכא,והאידנא דקיימא לן כר"ש כולהו שרי:,ואמר רמי בר חמא אמר רב אסי אסור לאדם שיכוף אשתו לדבר מצוה שנאמר ואץ ברגלים חוטא,וא"ר יהושע בן לוי כל הכופה אשתו לדבר מצוה הווין לו בנים שאינן מהוגנין אמר רב איקא בר חיננא מאי קראה (משלי יט, ב) גם בלא דעת נפש לא טוב,תניא נמי הכי גם בלא דעת נפש לא טוב זה הכופה אשתו לדבר מצוה ואץ ברגלים חוטא זה הבועל ושונה,איני והאמר רבא הרוצה לעשות כל בניו זכרים יבעול וישנה ל"ק כאן לדעת כאן שלא לדעת:,א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יוחנן כל אשה שתובעת בעלה לדבר מצוה הווין לה בנים שאפילו בדורו של משה לא היו כמותן דאילו בדורו של משה כתיב (דברים א, יג) הבו לכם אנשים חכמים ונבונים וידועים לשבטיכם וכתיב ואקח את ראשי שבטיכם אנשים חכמים וידועים ואילו נבונים לא אשכח,ואילו גבי לאה כתיב (בראשית ל, טז) ותצא לאה לקראתו ותאמר אלי תבוא כי שכר שכרתיך וכתיב (דברי הימים א יב, לג) ומבני יששכר יודעי בינה לעתים לדעת מה יעשה ישראל ראשיהם מאתים וכל אחיהם על פיהם,איני והאמר רב יצחק בר אבדימי עשר קללות נתקללה חוה דכתיב,(בראשית ג, טז) אל האשה אמר הרבה ארבה אלו שני טפי דמים אחת דם נדה ואחת דם בתולים עצבונך זה צער גידול בנים והרונך זה צער העיבור בעצב תלדי בנים כמשמעו,ואל אישך תשוקתך מלמד שהאשה משתוקקת על בעלה בשעה שיוצא לדרך והוא ימשל בך מלמד שהאשה תובעת בלב והאיש תובע בפה זו היא מדה טובה בנשים,כי קאמרינן דמרציא ארצויי קמיה,הני שבע הווין כי אתא רב דימי אמר עטופה כאבל ומנודה מכל אדם וחבושה בבית האסורין,מאי מנודה מכל אדם אילימא משום דאסיר לה ייחוד איהו נמי אסיר ליה ייחוד אלא דאסירא לבי תרי,במתניתא תנא מגדלת שער כלילית ויושבת ומשתנת מים כבהמה ונעשית כר לבעלה,ואידך הני שבח הוא לה,דא"ר חייא מאי דכתיב (איוב לה, יא) מלפנו מבהמות ארץ ומעוף השמים יחכמנו מלפנו מבהמות זו פרידה שכורעת ומשתנת מים ומעוף השמים יחכמנו זה תרנגול שמפייס ואחר כך בועל,אמר רבי יוחנן אילמלא לא ניתנה תורה היינו למידין צניעות מחתול וגזל מנמלה ועריות מיונה דרך ארץ מתרנגול שמפייס ואחר כך בועל,ומאי מפייס לה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב הכי קאמר לה זביננא ליך זיגא דמטו ליך עד כרעיך לבתר הכי אמר לה לישמטתיה לכרבלתיה דההוא תרנגולא אי אית ליה ולא זביננא ליך: | 100b. b where one does not commit a transgression /b by refraining from action. b However, here, where one commits a transgression /b every additional moment he remains in the tree, b indeed, he /b should b descend /b from it.,The Gemara cites an apparent contradiction: b It was taught /b in b one /b i baraita /i that b both a green tree and a dry tree /b are included in the prohibition against climbing a tree, whereas b it was taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : b In what /b case b are these matters, /b that one may not climb a tree, b stated? With regard to a green /b tree. b But in /b the case of b a dry /b one, b it is permitted /b to climb it., b Rav Yehuda said: /b It is b not difficult. Here, /b the i baraita /i that includes a dry tree in the prohibition is referring to a tree whose b stump sends out new /b shoots when cut; whereas b there, /b the i baraita /i that excludes a dry tree from the prohibition is referring to one whose b stump does not send out new /b shoots.,The Gemara expresses surprise at this answer: b You call /b a tree whose b stump sends out new /b shoots b dry? /b This tree is not dry at all. b Rather, /b it is b not difficult, /b as both i baraitot /i deal with a dry tree whose stump will not send out any new shoots. However, b here, /b the i baraita /i that permits climbing a dry tree, is referring b to the summer, /b when it is evident that the tree is dead; whereas b there, /b the i baraita /i that prohibits climbing the tree is referring b to the rainy season, /b when many trees shed their leaves and it is not obvious which remain alive and which are dead.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b In the summer, the fruit /b of the previous year left on the dry tree b will fall off /b when he climbs it, and climbing the tree should therefore be prohibited lest he come to pick the fruit. The Gemara answers: We are dealing here with a case b where there is no fruit /b on the tree. The Gemara asks: b But small branches will fall off /b when he climbs the tree, and once again this should be prohibited in case he comes to break them off. The Gemara answers: We are dealing here b with a tree that has /b already b been stripped /b of all its small branches.,The Gemara asks: b Is that /b really b so? But Rav arrived at /b a place called b Apsetaya and prohibited /b its residents from climbing even b a tree that had /b already b been stripped of /b all b its branches. /b The Gemara answers: In truth, no prohibition was involved, but b Rav found /b an unguarded b field, /b i.e., a place where transgression was widespread, b and fenced it in. /b He added a stringency as a safeguard and prohibited an action that was fundamentally permitted., b Rami bar Abba said /b that b Rav Asi said: It is prohibited for a person to walk on grass on Shabbat, due to /b the fact b that it is stated: “And he who hastens with his feet sins” /b (Proverbs 19:2). This verse teaches that mere walking occasionally involves a sin, e.g., on Shabbat, when one might uproot the grass on which he walks.,The Gemara cites another apparent contradiction: b It was taught /b in b one /b i baraita /i that b it is permitted to walk on grass on Shabbat, and it was taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i that b it is prohibited /b to do so. The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult. This /b i baraita /i is referring b to green /b grass, which one might uproot, thereby transgressing the prohibition against reaping on Shabbat. b That /b other i baraita /i is referring b to dry /b grass, which has already been cut off from its source of life, and therefore the prohibition of reaping is no longer in effect., b And if you wish, say /b instead that b both /b i baraitot /i are referring b to green /b grass, b and /b yet b there is no difficulty: Here, /b the i baraita /i that prohibits walking on grass is referring b to the summer, /b when the grass includes seeds that might be dislodged by one’s feet, whereas b there, /b the i baraita /i that permits doing so is referring b to the rainy season, /b when this problem does not exist., b And if you wish, say /b instead that b both /b i baraitot /i are referring b to the summer, and /b it is b not difficult: This /b i baraita /i , which permits walking on grass, is referring to a case b where one is wearing his shoes, /b whereas b that /b other i baraita /i , which prohibits it, deals with a situation b where one is not wearing his shoes, /b as the grass might get entangled between his toes and be uprooted., b And if you wish, say /b instead that b both /b i baraitot /i are referring to a case b where one is wearing his shoes, and /b nevertheless this is b not difficult: This /b i baraita /i prohibits walking on grass, as it involves a case b where /b one’s shoe b has a spike /b on which the grass might get caught and be uprooted, whereas b that /b other i baraita /i permits it, because it deals a case b where /b one’s shoe b does not have a spike. /b , b And if you wish, say /b instead that b both /b are referring to a case b where /b the shoe b has a spike, /b and it is not difficult: b This /b i baraita /i , which prohibits walking on grass, is referring to a case b where /b the grass is b long and entangled, /b and it can easily get caught on the shoe, whereas b that /b other i baraita /i is referring to a case b where /b the grass b is not long and entangled. /b ,The Gemara concludes: b And now, when we maintain /b that the i halakha /i is b in accordance with the opinion /b of b Rabbi Shimon, /b who maintains that there is no liability for a prohibited act committed unwittingly during the performance of a permitted act, b all of these /b scenarios b are permitted, /b as here too, one’s intention is merely to walk and not to uproot grass on Shabbat.,The Gemara cites another i halakha /i derived from the verse mentioned in the previous discussion. b Rami bar Ḥama said /b that b Rav Asi said: It is prohibited for a man to force his wife in the /b conjugal b mitzva, /b i.e., sexual relations, b as it is stated: “And he who hastens with his feet sins” /b (Proverbs 19:2). The term his feet is understood here as a euphemism for intercourse., b And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Anyone who forces his wife to /b perform b the /b conjugal b mitzva will have unworthy children /b as a consequence. b Rav Ika bar Ḥina said: What is the verse /b that alludes to this? b “Also, that the soul without knowledge is not good” /b (Proverbs 19:2). If intercourse takes place without the woman’s knowledge, i.e., consent, the soul of the offspring will not be good., b That was also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b “Also, without knowledge the soul is not good”; this is one who forces his wife to /b perform b the /b conjugal b mitzva. “And he who hastens with his feet sins”; this is one who has intercourse /b with his wife b and repeats /b the act in a manner that causes her pain or distress.,The Gemara is surprised by this teaching: b Is that so? But didn’t Rava say: One who wants all his children to be males /b should b have intercourse /b with his wife b and repeat /b the act? The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult: Here, /b where Rava issued this advice, he was referring to a husband who acts b with /b his wife’s b consent. There, /b the i baraita /i that condemns this behavior is referring to one who proceeds b without /b her b consent. /b ,Apropos relations between husband and wife, the Gemara cites that b Rav Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Any woman who demands /b of b her husband that /b he fulfill his conjugal b mitzva will have sons the likes of whom did not exist even in Moses’ generation. With regard to Moses’ generation, it is written: “Get you, wise men, and understanding, and well-known from each one of your tribes, and I will make them head over you” /b (Deuteronomy 1:13), b and it is /b later b written: “So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men, and well-known, /b and made them heads over you” (Deuteronomy 1:15). b However, /b men possessing b understanding, /b which is a more lofty quality than wisdom, Moses b could not find /b any of these., b While with regard to Leah, it is written: “And Leah went out to meet him, and said, You must come in to me, for indeed I have hired you /b with my son’s mandrakes” (Genesis 30:16). Her reward for demanding that Jacob fulfill the conjugal mitzva with her was the birth of Issachar, b and it is written: “And of the children of Issachar, men who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do; the heads of them were two hundred, and all their brethren were at their commandment” /b (I Chronicles 12:33).,The Gemara poses a question: b Is that so? /b Is it proper for a woman to demand her conjugal rights from her husband? b But didn’t Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi say: Eve was cursed with ten curses, /b due to the sin of the Tree of Knowledge, as b it is written: /b “To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your pain and your travail; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and yet your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16)?,Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi b proceeds to /b explain this verse. b “To the woman He said: I will greatly multiply [ i harba arbe /i ]”; these are /b the b two drops of blood /b unique to a woman, which cause her suffering, b one the blood of menstruation and /b the other b one the blood of virginity. “Your pain”; this is the pain of raising children. “And your travail”; this is the pain of pregcy. “In sorrow you shall bring forth children”; in accordance with its /b plain b meaning, /b i.e., the pain of childbirth., b “And yet your desire shall be to your husband” teaches that the woman desires her husband, /b e.g., b when he sets out on the road; “and he shall rule over you” teaches that the woman demands /b her husband b in /b her b heart /b but is too shy to voice her desire, b but the man demands /b his wife b verbally. /b Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi adds: b This is a good trait in women, /b that they refrain from formulating their desire verbally. Apparently, it is improper for a woman to demand her conjugal rights from her husband.,The Gemara answers: b When we say /b that a woman who demands her conjugal rights from her husband is praiseworthy, it does not mean she should voice her desires explicitly. Rather, it means b that she /b should b make herself pleasing to him, /b and he will understand what she wants on his own.,The Gemara analyzes the above statement with regard to Eve’s ten curses: Are they in fact ten? b They are /b only b seven. When Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, b he said /b that the other curses are: A woman is b wrapped like a mourner, /b i.e., she must cover her head; and she is b ostracized from all people and incarcerated within a prison, /b as she typically spends all her time in the house.,The Gemara asks: b What is the meaning of ostracized from all people? If you say /b this is b because it is forbidden for her to seclude herself /b with a man, b it is also forbidden /b for a man b to seclude himself /b with women. b Rather, /b it means b that it is forbidden /b for her b to /b marry b two /b men, whereas a man can marry two women., b It was taught in a i baraita /i /b that the three additional curses are: b She grows /b her b hair /b long b like Lilit, /b a demon; b she sits and urinates, like an animal; and serves as a pillow for her husband /b during relations., b And /b why doesn’t b the other /b Sage include these curses? The Gemara answers: He maintains that b these are praise for her, /b not pain, either because they are modest practices, e.g., urinating in a seated position, or because they add to her comfort, e.g., her bottom position during relations., b As Rabbi Ḥiyya said: What is /b the meaning of b that which is written: “Who teaches us by the beasts of the earth, and makes us wiser by the birds of the sky” /b (Job 35:11)? He explains: b “Who teaches us by the beasts of the earth”; this is the female mule, which crouches and urinates /b and from which we learn modesty. b “And makes us wiser by the birds of the sky”; this is the rooster, which /b first b cajoles /b the hen b and then mates /b with it.,Similarly, b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Even if the Torah had not been given, we would /b nonetheless b have learned modesty from the cat, /b which covers its excrement, b and /b that b stealing /b is objectionable b from the ant, /b which does not take grain from another ant, b and forbidden relations from the dove, /b which is faithful to its partner, b and proper relations from the rooster, which /b first b appeases /b the hen b and then mates /b with it., b What does /b the rooster do to b appease /b the hen? b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: /b Prior to mating, it spreads its wings as if to b say this: I will buy you a coat that will reach /b down to b your feet. After /b mating, the rooster bends its head as if to b say this: May the crest of this rooster fall off if he has /b the wherewithal b and does not buy you one. /b I simply have no money to do so. |
|
38. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •menstruants/niddah, food preparation Found in books: Cohen (2010) 405| 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 b a woman who engaged in intercourse and saw menstrual /b blood b is not required to immerse herself, but one who experienced a seminal emission alone, /b with no concurrent impurity, b is required to do so? /b If so, we must interpret Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna that one recites a blessing both beforehand and thereafter as follows: b Do not say /b that one b recites a blessing /b orally, but rather he means that b one contemplates /b those blessings in his heart.,The Gemara challenges this explanation: b And does Rabbi Yehuda maintain that /b there is validity to b contemplating /b in his heart? b Wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who experienced a seminal emission and who has no water to immerse /b and purify himself b recites i Shema /i and neither recites the blessings /b of i Shema /i b beforehand nor thereafter? And /b when b he eats his bread, he recites the blessing thereafter, /b Grace after Meals, b but does not recite the blessing: /b Who brings forth bread from the earth, b beforehand. However, /b in the instances where he may not recite the blessing, b he contemplates /b it b in his heart rather than utter /b it b with his lips, /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. /b However b Rabbi Yehuda says: In either case, he utters /b all of the blessings b with his lips. /b Rabbi Yehuda does not consider contemplating the blessings in his heart a solution and permits them to be recited., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna should be interpreted in another way. b Rabbi Yehuda rendered /b the blessings b like i Hilkhot Derekh Eretz /i , /b 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., b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : It is written: b “And you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children” /b (Deuteronomy 4:9), b and it is written thereafter: “The day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb” /b (Deuteronomy 4:10). b Just as below, /b the Revelation at Sinai was b in reverence, fear, quaking, and trembling, so too here, /b in every generation, Torah must be studied with a sense of b reverence, fear, quaking, and trembling. /b , b From here /b the Sages b stated: i Zavim /i , lepers, and those who engaged in intercourse with menstruating women, /b despite their severe impurity, b are permitted to read the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, and to study Mishna and Gemara and i halakhot /i and i aggada /i . However, those who experienced a seminal emission are prohibited /b from 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. b Rabbi Yosei says: /b One who experiences a seminal emission b studies /b i mishnayot /i that he is b accustomed /b to study, b as long as he does not expound upon a /b new b mishna /b to study it in depth. b Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says: He expounds upon the mishna but he does not expound upon the Gemara, /b which is the in-depth analysis of the Torah. b Rabbi Natan ben Avishalom says: He may even expound upon the Gemara, as long as he does not utter /b the b mentions /b of God’s name b therein. Rabbi Yoḥa the Cobbler, Rabbi Akiva’s student, says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: /b One who experiences a seminal emission b may not enter into homiletic interpretation [ i midrash /i ] /b of verses b at all. Some say /b that he says: b He may not enter the study hall [ i beit hamidrash /i ] at all. Rabbi Yehuda says: He may study /b only b i Hilkhot Derekh Eretz /i . /b 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 i Hilkhot Derekh Eretz /i , and therefore one may utter them orally.,The Gemara relates b an incident involving Rabbi Yehuda /b himself, who b experienced a seminal emission and was walking along the riverbank /b with his disciples. b His disciples said to him: Rabbi, teach us a chapter from i Hilkhot Derekh Eretz /i , /b as he maintained that even in a state of impurity, it is permitted. b He descended and immersed himself /b in the river b and taught them /b i Hilkhot Derekh Eretz /i . b They said to him: Did you not teach us, our teacher, that he may study i Hilkhot Derekh Eretz /i ? He said to them: Although I am lenient with others, /b and allow them to study it without immersion, b I am stringent with myself. /b ,Further elaborating on the issue of Torah study while in a state of impurity, b it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira would say: Matters of Torah do not become ritually impure /b and therefore one who is impure is permitted to engage in Torah study. He implemented this i halakha /i in practice. The Gemara relates b an incident involving a student who was /b reciting i mishnayot /i and i baraitot /i b hesitantly before /b the study hall of b Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. /b 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 b said 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” /b (Jeremiah 23:29). b Just as fire does not become ritually impure, so too matters of Torah do not become ritually impure. /b ,In this i baraita /i b the Master said /b that one who is impure because of a seminal emission b expounds upon the mishna but does not expound upon the Gemara. /b The Gemara notes: This statement b supports /b the opinion of b Rabbi El’ai, /b as b Rabbi El’ai said /b that b Rabbi Aḥa bar Ya’akov said in the name of Rabbeinu, /b Rav b : The /b i halakha /i is that one who experienced a seminal emission b may expound upon the mishna but may not expound upon the Gemara. /b This dispute b is parallel a tannaitic /b dispute, as it was taught: One who experienced a seminal emission b expounds upon the mishna but does not expound upon the Gemara; /b that is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: /b Both b this and that are prohibited. And some say /b that he said: Both b this and that are permitted. /b ,Comparing these opinions: b The one who said /b that both b this and that are prohibited /b holds b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yoḥa the Cobbler; the one who said /b that both b this and that are permitted /b holds b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. /b ,Summarizing the i halakha /i , b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The universally /b accepted b practice is in accordance with /b the opinions of b these three elders: In accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi El’ai with regard to /b the i halakhot /i of b the first shearing, in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yoshiya with regard to /b the laws of prohibited b diverse kinds, /b and b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to matters of Torah. /b ,The Gemara elaborates: b In accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi El’ai with regard to the first shearing, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi El’ai says: /b The obligation to set aside b the first shearing /b from the sheep for the priest b is only practiced in Eretz /b Yisrael and not in the Diaspora, and that is the accepted practice., b In accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yoshiya with regard to diverse kinds, as it is written: “You shall not sow your vineyard with diverse kinds” /b (Deuteronomy 22:9). b Rabbi Yoshiya says: /b This means that b one /b who sows diverse kinds b is not liable /b by Torah law b until he sows wheat and barley and a /b grape b pit with a single hand motion, /b meaning that while sowing in the vineyard he violates the prohibition of diverse kinds that applies to seeds and to the vineyard simultaneously., b In accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to /b one who experiences a seminal emission is permitted to engage in b matters of Torah, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Matters of Torah do not become ritually impure. /b ,And the Gemara relates: b When Ze’iri came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, b he /b succinctly capsulated this i halakha /i and b said: They abolished ritual immersion, and some say that /b he said: b They abolished ritual washing of the hands. /b The Gemara explains: b The one who says /b that b they abolished immersion /b holds in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira /b that one who experienced a seminal emission is not required to immerse. b And the one who says /b that b they abolished washing of the hands /b holds b in accordance with that which Rav Ḥisda cursed one who /b goes out of his way b to seek water at the time of prayer. /b , b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who experienced a seminal emission who had nine i kav /i of /b drawn b water poured over him, /b that is sufficient to render him b ritually pure /b and he need not immerse himself in a ritual bath. The Gemara relates: b Naḥum of Gam Zo whispered /b this i halakha /i to b Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Akiva whispered it to /b his student b ben Azzai, and ben Azzai went out and taught it to his students /b publicly b in the marketplace. Two i amora’im /i in Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, disagreed /b as to the correct version of the conclusion of the incident. b One taught: /b Ben Azzai b taught it /b to his students in the market. b And the other taught: Ben Azzai /b also b whispered it /b to his students.,The Gemara explains the rationale behind the two versions of this incident. b The /b Sage b who taught /b that ben Azzai b taught /b the law openly in the market held that the leniency was b due to /b concern that the i halakhot /i requiring ritual immersion would promote b dereliction /b in the study b of Torah. /b The ruling of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira eases the way for an individual who experienced a seminal emission to study Torah. This was b also due to /b concern that the i halakhot /i requiring ritual immersion would promote b the suspension of procreation, /b as one might abstain from marital relations to avoid the immersion required thereafter. b And the /b Sage, b who taught /b that ben Azzai only b whispered /b this i halakha /i to his students, held that he did so b in order that Torah scholars would not be with their wives like roosters. /b 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, b Rabbi 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. /b The i halakha /i in this matter was never conclusively established b and anyone who /b accepts b upon himself to be stringent with regard to it, they prolong for him his days and years. /b ,The Gemara relates that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the essence of those who immerse themselves in the morning? /b The Gemara retorts: How can one ask b what is their essence? Isn’t he /b the one b who said /b that b one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited from /b engaging in b matters of Torah /b and is required to immerse himself in the morning? Rather, b this is /b what b he /b meant to b say: What is the essence of /b immersion in a ritual bath of b forty i se’a /i /b of water when b it is possible /b to purify oneself b with nine i kav /i ? /b Furthermore, b what is the essence of immersion /b when b it is /b also b possible /b to purify oneself by b pouring /b water?,Regarding this, b Rabbi Ḥanina said: They established a massive fence /b protecting one from sinning with their decree that one must immerse himself in forty i se’a /i of water. b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : There was b an incident involving one who solicited a woman to /b commit b a sinful act. She said to him: Good-for-nothing. Do you have forty i se’a /i in which to immerse /b and purify b yourself /b afterwards? He b immediately desisted. /b The obligation to immerse oneself caused individuals to refrain from transgression., b Rav Huna said to the Sages: Gentlemen, why do you disdain this immersion? If it is because /b it is difficult for you to immerse in the b cold /b waters of the ritual bath, b it is possible /b to purify oneself by immersing oneself in the heated b bathhouses, /b which are unfit for immersion for other forms of ritual impurity but are fit for immersion in this case., b Rabbi Ḥisda said to him: Is there ritual immersion in hot water? /b Rav Huna b said to him: /b Indeed, doubts with regard to the fitness of baths have been raised, and b Rav Adda bar Ahava holds in accordance with your /b opinion. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that it is permitted.,The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Zeira was sitting in a tub of water in the bathhouse. He said to his attendant: Go and get nine i kav /i /b of water b and pour /b it b over me /b so that I may purify myself from the impurity caused by a seminal emission. b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Why does my master /b require b all of this? Aren’t you seated in /b at least nine i kav /i of water in the tub. b He said to him: /b The law of nine i kav /i b parallels /b the law of b forty i se’a /i , /b in that their i halakhot /i are exclusive. b Just as forty i se’a /i /b can only purify an individual through b immersion and not through pouring, so too nine i kav /i /b can only purify one who experienced a seminal emission b through pouring and not through immersion. /b ,The Gemara relates that b Rav Naḥman prepared a jug /b with a capacity b of nine i kav /i /b so that his students could pour water over themselves and become pure. b When Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, b he said: Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda Gelostera said: /b The i halakha /i that one who experienced a seminal emission can be purified by pouring nine i kav /i b was only taught for a sick person /b who experienced the emission b involuntarily. However, a sick person /b who experienced a b normal /b seminal emission in the course of marital relations, is required to immerse himself in b forty i se’a /i . /b , b Rav Yosef said: /b In that case, b Rav Naḥman’s jug is broken, /b meaning it is no longer of any use, as few people fall into the category of sick people who experienced seminal emissions. Nevertheless, b when Ravin came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia b he said: In Usha there was an incident /b |
|
39. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •menstruants/niddah, food preparation Found in books: Cohen (2010) 405| 82a. והא כי אתא ר' אבין א"ר יוחנן אחד אילן הנוטה לתוך שדה חבירו ואחד אילן הסמוך למצר מביא וקורא שעל מנת כן הנחיל יהושע לישראל את הארץ,אלא מאן תנא עשרה תנאין שהתנה יהושע ר' יהושע בן לוי הוא רב גביהה מבי כתיל מתני לה בהדיא ר' תנחום ור' ברייס אמרי משום זקן אחד ומנו ר' יהושע בן לוי עשרה תנאין התנה יהושע:,עשרה תקנות תיקן עזרא שקורין במנחה בשבת וקורין בשני ובחמישי ודנין בשני ובחמישי ומכבסים בחמישי בשבת ואוכלין שום בערב שבת ושתהא אשה משכמת ואופה ושתהא אשה חוגרת בסינר ושתהא אשה חופפת וטובלת ושיהו רוכלין מחזירין בעיירות ותיקן טבילה לבעלי קריין:,שיהו קוראין במנחה בשבת משום יושבי קרנות:,ושיהו קוראין בשני ובחמישי עזרא תיקן והא מעיקרא הוה מיתקנא דתניא (שמות טו, כב) וילכו שלשת ימים במדבר ולא מצאו מים דורשי רשומות אמרו אין מים אלא תורה שנאמר (ישעיהו נה, א) הוי כל צמא לכו למים,כיון שהלכו שלשת ימים בלא תורה נלאו עמדו נביאים שביניהם ותיקנו להם שיהו קורין בשבת ומפסיקין באחד בשבת וקורין בשני ומפסיקין שלישי ורביעי וקורין בחמישי ומפסיקין ערב שבת כדי שלא ילינו ג' ימים בלא תורה,מעיקרא תקנו חד גברא תלתא פסוקי אי נמי תלתא גברי תלתא פסוקי כנגד כהנים לוים וישראלים אתא הוא תיקן תלתא גברי ועשרה פסוקי כנגד עשרה בטלנין:,ודנין בשני ובחמישי דשכיחי דאתו למקרא בסיפרא:,ושיהו מכבסין בחמישי בשבת משום כבוד שבת:,ושיהו אוכלין שום בע"ש משום עונה דכתיב (תהלים א, ג) אשר פריו יתן בעתו וא"ר יהודה ואיתימא רב נחמן ואיתימא רב כהנא ואיתימא ר' יוחנן זה המשמש מטתו מע"ש לע"ש,ת"ר חמשה דברים נאמרו בשום משביע ומשחין ומצהיל פנים ומרבה הזרע והורג כנים שבבני מעיים וי"א מכניס אהבה ומוציא את הקנאה:,ושתהא אשה משכמת ואופה כדי שתהא פת מצויה לעניים:,ושתהא אשה חוגרת בסינר משום צניעותא:,ושתהא אשה חופפת וטובלת דאורייתא היא,דתניא (ויקרא יד, ט) ורחץ את בשרו במים שלא יהא דבר חוצץ בין בשרו למים את בשרו את הטפל לבשרו ומאי ניהו שער,אמרי דאורייתא לעיוני דלמא מיקטר אי נמי מאוס מידי משום חציצה | 82a. The Gemara further questions the number of Joshua’s stipulations: b But when Rabbi Avin came /b from Eretz Yisrael he said that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b With regard to b both a tree that leans into the field of another and a tree that is close to a boundary /b with another field, the owner of the tree b brings /b the first fruits of the tree b and recites /b the accompanying declaration, as described in Deuteronomy 26:5–10, b as /b it was b on this condition /b that b Joshua apportioned Eretz /b Yisrael b to the Jewish people. /b This is an additional stipulation by Joshua, which means that there are more than ten.,The Gemara answers: b Rather, who /b is the one who b taught /b the i baraita /i that deals with the b ten conditions that Joshua stipulated? It is Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, /b an i amora /i . Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥa, another i amora /i , can disagree with it. b Rav Geviha from Bei Katil teaches /b this b explicitly /b in his version of the i baraita /i : b Rabbi Tanḥum and Rabbi Berayes say in the name of a certain elder, and who is that /b elder? It is b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: Joshua stipulated ten conditions. /b ,§ The Sages taught that b Ezra /b the Scribe b instituted ten ordices: /b He instituted b that /b communities b read /b the Torah b on Shabbat in the afternoon; and they /b also b read /b the Torah b on /b every b Monday and Thursday; and /b the courts convene and b judge /b every b Monday and Thursday; and one does laundry on Thursday; and one eats garlic on Shabbat eve. And /b Ezra further instituted b that a woman should rise early and bake /b bread on those days when she wants to bake; b and that a woman should don a breechcloth; and that a woman should /b first b comb /b her hair b and /b only then b immerse /b in a ritual bath after being ritually impure; b and that peddlers /b of cosmetics and perfumes b should travel around through /b all b the towns. And /b Ezra further b instituted /b the requirement of b immersion for those who experienced a seminal emission. /b ,The Gemara analyzes these ordices, the first of which is b that /b communities b shall read /b the Torah b on Shabbat afternoon. /b This Gemara explains that this ordice was instituted b due to those who sit /b idly on street b corners, /b who do not attend the synagogue during the week.,The Gemara discusses the second of Ezra’s ordices: b And that they should read /b the Torah b on /b every b Monday and Thursday. /b The Gemara asks: b Did Ezra institute /b this practice? b But it was instituted from the beginning, /b i.e., long before his time. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: “And Moses led Israel onward from the Red Sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; b and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water” /b (Exodus 15:22). b Those who interpret verses /b metaphorically b said /b that b water /b here is referring to b nothing other than Torah, as it is stated /b metaphorically, concerning those who desire wisdom: b “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water” /b (Isaiah 55:1).,The i baraita /i continues: The verse means that b since /b the Jews b traveled for three days without /b hearing any b Torah they became weary, /b and therefore the b prophets among them arose and instituted for them that they should read /b from the Torah each b Shabbat, and pause /b on b Sunday, and read /b again on b Monday, and pause /b on b Tuesday and Wednesday, and read /b again on b Thursday, and pause /b on b Shabbat eve, so they would not tarry three days without /b hearing the b Torah. /b Evidently this practice predates Ezra.,The Gemara answers: b Initially they instituted /b that b one man /b read b three verses; /b or b alternatively, /b that b three men /b read b three verses. /b Either way, the number three b corresponds to /b the three types of Jews: b Priests, Levites, and Israelites. /b Ezra later b came /b and b instituted /b that b three men /b always read, b and /b that b ten verses /b altogether be read by them, b corresponding to the ten idlers /b in a city, i.e., the ten men who are paid to spend their time dealing with synagogue and communal matters.,The next ordice of Ezra is: b And /b the courts convene and b judge /b every b Monday and Thursday. /b The Gemara explains that the reason for this ordice is b that /b many people are b found /b in a city on these days, b as they come /b from the countryside b for the reading of the /b holy b book, /b the Torah, which is performed on Mondays and Thursdays, as stated above.,The i baraita /i teaches: b And that one should do laundry on Thursday. /b This was instituted b due to /b the need to have clean garments in b deference to Shabbat. /b ,The Gemara explains the next listed ordice: b And that one should eat garlic Shabbat eve. /b This is b due to /b the fact that garlic enhances sexual potency, and Friday night is an appropriate time for b conjugal relations. As it is written /b concerning the righteous: “And he shall be like a tree planted by streams of water, b who brings forth his fruit in his season” /b (Psalms 1:3); b and Rabbi Yehuda says, and some say /b it was b Rav Naḥman, and some say /b it was b Rav Kahana, and some say /b it was b Rabbi Yoḥa /b who said: b This /b is referring to b one who engages in sexual intercourse every Shabbat eve. /b , b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i that b five matters were stated with regard to garlic: It satisfies; it warms /b the body; b it causes /b one’s b countece to shine; it increases /b one’s b sperm, and it kills lice that are in the intestines. And some say /b that it also b instills love /b into those who eat it b and removes jealousy /b from them.,The next ordice is: b And that a woman should rise early and bake /b bread on those days when she bakes. This Gemara explains that this was instituted b so that bread should be available for poor people, /b who go begging for bread in the mornings.,The i baraita /i further teaches: b And that a woman should don a breechcloth [ i sinar /i ]. /b This ordice was instituted b due to /b reasons of b modesty. /b ,The i baraita /i adds: b And that a woman should /b first b comb /b her hair b and /b only then b immerse /b in a ritual bath. This is to ensure that there is no dirt or other substance in the hair that would invalidate the immersion. The Gemara questions this: b This is /b required b by Torah law, /b Ezra did not institute this., b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i , concerning a verse that discusses one who must undergo ritual immersion: b “And he shall bathe his flesh [ i et besaro /i ] in water” /b (Leviticus 14:9). This verse teaches b that no substance should interpose between his flesh and the water. /b When the verse states this in the expanded form of b “ i et /i his flesh,” /b using the term “ i et /i ,” this teaches that the water must come into contact even with b that which is subordinate to his flesh. And what is that? /b It is one’s b hair. /b Accordingly, the Torah itself states that there may not be any interposing substance in the hair at the time of immersion. What, then, did Ezra add?,The Sages b say /b in response: b By Torah law /b one is required b to inspect /b his or her hair before immersion, as b perhaps /b some hairs are b knotted /b together, preventing contact with water at that spot, b or /b perhaps there is some b repulsive substance /b in his hair. One must perform this inspection b because /b these would constitute b an interposition. /b |
|
