1. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 12.24, 29.28 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68| 12.24. "וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לְחָק־לְךָ וּלְבָנֶיךָ עַד־עוֹלָם׃", 29.28. "וְהָיָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו לְחָק־עוֹלָם מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי תְרוּמָה הוּא וּתְרוּמָה יִהְיֶה מֵאֵת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל מִזִּבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵיהֶם תְּרוּמָתָם לַיהוָה׃", | 12.24. "And ye shall observe this thing for an ordice to thee and to thy sons for ever.", 29.28. "And it shall be for Aaron and his sons as a due for ever from the children of Israel; for it is a heave-offering; and it shall be a heave-offering from the children of Israel of their sacrifices of peace-offerings, even their heave-offering unto the LORD.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 1.26, 1.39, 1.43, 9.23, 17.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 53, 70, 176| 1.26. "וְלֹא אֲבִיתֶם לַעֲלֹת וַתַּמְרוּ אֶת־פִּי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם׃", 1.39. "וְטַפְּכֶם אֲשֶׁר אֲמַרְתֶּם לָבַז יִהְיֶה וּבְנֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדְעוּ הַיּוֹם טוֹב וָרָע הֵמָּה יָבֹאוּ שָׁמָּה וְלָהֶם אֶתְּנֶנָּה וְהֵם יִירָשׁוּהָּ׃", 1.43. "וָאֲדַבֵּר אֲלֵיכֶם וְלֹא שְׁמַעְתֶּם וַתַּמְרוּ אֶת־פִּי יְהוָה וַתָּזִדוּ וַתַּעֲלוּ הָהָרָה׃", 9.23. "וּבִשְׁלֹחַ יְהוָה אֶתְכֶם מִקָּדֵשׁ בַּרְנֵעַ לֵאמֹר עֲלוּ וּרְשׁוּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לָכֶם וַתַּמְרוּ אֶת־פִּי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וְלֹא הֶאֱמַנְתֶּם לוֹ וְלֹא שְׁמַעְתֶּם בְּקֹלוֹ׃", 17.2. "לְבִלְתִּי רוּם־לְבָבוֹ מֵאֶחָיו וּלְבִלְתִּי סוּר מִן־הַמִּצְוָה יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאול לְמַעַן יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים עַל־מַמְלַכְתּוֹ הוּא וּבָנָיו בְּקֶרֶב יִשְׂרָאֵל׃", 17.2. "כִּי־יִמָּצֵא בְקִרְבְּךָ בְּאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ אִישׁ אוֹ־אִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֶת־הָרַע בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה־אֱלֹהֶיךָ לַעֲבֹר בְּרִיתוֹ׃", | 1.26. "Yet ye would not go up, but rebelled against the commandment of the LORD your God;", 1.39. "Moreover your little ones, that ye said should be a prey, and your children, that this day have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.", 1.43. "So I spoke unto you, and ye hearkened not; but ye rebelled against the commandment of the LORD, and were presumptuous, and went up into the hill-country.", 9.23. "And when the LORD sent you from Kadesh-barnea, saying: ‘Go up and possess the land which I have given you’; then ye rebelled against the commandment of the LORD your God, and ye believed Him not, nor hearkened to His voice.", 17.2. "If there be found in the midst of thee, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that doeth that which is evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing His covet,", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 2.9, 21.23 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 70, 176| 2.9. "וַיַּצְמַח יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים מִן־הָאֲדָמָה כָּל־עֵץ נֶחְמָד לְמַרְאֶה וְטוֹב לְמַאֲכָל וְעֵץ הַחַיִּים בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן וְעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע׃", 21.23. "וְעַתָּה הִשָּׁבְעָה לִּי בֵאלֹהִים הֵנָּה אִם־תִּשְׁקֹר לִי וּלְנִינִי וּלְנֶכְדִּי כַּחֶסֶד אֲשֶׁר־עָשִׂיתִי עִמְּךָ תַּעֲשֶׂה עִמָּדִי וְעִם־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר־גַּרְתָּה בָּהּ׃", | 2.9. "And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.", 21.23. "Now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son’s son; but according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned.’", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 5.1, 5.4, 5.24, 6.11, 6.15, 7.34, 10.15, 18.19, 19.17, 24.9, 25.30 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68, 70, 102, 130, 176, 178| 5.1. "וְנֶפֶשׁ כִּי־תֶחֱטָא וְשָׁמְעָה קוֹל אָלָה וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם־לוֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲוֺנוֹ׃", 5.1. "וְאֶת־הַשֵּׁנִי יַעֲשֶׂה עֹלָה כַּמִּשְׁפָּט וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן מֵחַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר־חָטָא וְנִסְלַח לוֹ׃", 5.4. "אוֹ נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תִשָּׁבַע לְבַטֵּא בִשְׂפָתַיִם לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵיטִיב לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יְבַטֵּא הָאָדָם בִּשְׁבֻעָה וְנֶעְלַם מִמֶּנּוּ וְהוּא־יָדַע וְאָשֵׁם לְאַחַת מֵאֵלֶּה׃", 5.24. "אוֹ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יִשָּׁבַע עָלָיו לַשֶּׁקֶר וְשִׁלַּם אֹתוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וַחֲמִשִׁתָיו יֹסֵף עָלָיו לַאֲשֶׁר הוּא לוֹ יִתְּנֶנּוּ בְּיוֹם אַשְׁמָתוֹ׃", 6.11. "כָּל־זָכָר בִּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן יֹאכֲלֶנָּה חָק־עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם מֵאִשֵּׁי יְהוָה כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יִגַּע בָּהֶם יִקְדָּשׁ׃", 6.15. "וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָהּ חָק־עוֹלָם לַיהוָה כָּלִיל תָּקְטָר׃", 7.34. "כִּי אֶת־חֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה וְאֵת שׁוֹק הַתְּרוּמָה לָקַחְתִּי מֵאֵת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל מִזִּבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵיהֶם וָאֶתֵּן אֹתָם לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וּלְבָנָיו לְחָק־עוֹלָם מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃", 10.15. "שׁוֹק הַתְּרוּמָה וַחֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה עַל אִשֵּׁי הַחֲלָבִים יָבִיאוּ לְהָנִיף תְּנוּפָה לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְהָיָה לְךָ וּלְבָנֶיךָ אִתְּךָ לְחָק־עוֹלָם כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה׃", 18.19. "וְאֶל־אִשָּׁה בְּנִדַּת טֻמְאָתָהּ לֹא תִקְרַב לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָתָהּ׃", 19.17. "לֹא־תִשְׂנָא אֶת־אָחִיךָ בִּלְבָבֶךָ הוֹכֵחַ תּוֹכִיחַ אֶת־עֲמִיתֶךָ וְלֹא־תִשָּׂא עָלָיו חֵטְא׃", 24.9. "וְהָיְתָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו וַאֲכָלֻהוּ בְּמָקוֹם קָדֹשׁ כִּי קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לוֹ מֵאִשֵּׁי יְהוָה חָק־עוֹלָם׃", | 5.1. "And if any one sin, in that he heareth the voice of adjuration, he being a witness, whether he hath seen or known, if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity;", 5.4. "or if any one swear clearly with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly with an oath, and it be hid from him; and, when he knoweth of it, be guilty in one of these things;", 5.24. "or any thing about which he hath sworn falsely, he shall even restore it in full, and shall add the fifth part more thereto; unto him to whom it appertaineth shall he give it, in the day of his being guilty.", 6.11. "Every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it, as a due for ever throughout your generations, from the offerings of the LORD made by fire; whatsoever toucheth them shall be holy.", 6.15. "And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall offer it, it is a due for ever; it shall be wholly made to smoke unto the LORD.", 7.34. "For the breast of waving and the thigh of heaving have I taken of the children of Israel out of their sacrifices of peace-offerings, and have given them unto Aaron the priest and unto his sons as a due for ever from the children of Israel.", 10.15. "The thigh of heaving and the breast of waving shall they bring with the offerings of the fat made by fire, to wave it for a wave-offering before the LORD; and it shall be thine, and thy sons’with thee, as a due for ever; as the LORD hath commanded.’", 18.19. "And thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness.", 19.17. "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him.", 24.9. "And it shall be for Aaron and his sons; and they shall eat it in a holy place; for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, a perpetual due.’", 25.30. "And if it be not redeemed within the space of a full year, then the house that is in the walled city shall be made sure in perpetuity to him that bought it, throughout his generations; it shall not go out in the jubilee.", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Ruth, 1.21 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 102| 1.21. "אֲנִי מְלֵאָה הָלַכְתִּי וְרֵיקָם הֱשִׁיבַנִי יְהוָה לָמָּה תִקְרֶאנָה לִי נָעֳמִי וַיהוָה עָנָה בִי וְשַׁדַּי הֵרַע לִי׃", | 1.21. "I went out full, and the LORD hath brought me back home empty; why call ye me Naomi, seeing the LORD hath testified against me, and the Almighty hath afflicted me?’", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 44.18, 60.10, 89.34, 108.10, 109.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 102, 176, 178| 44.18. "כָּל־זֹאת בָּאַתְנוּ וְלֹא שְׁכַחֲנוּךָ וְלֹא־שִׁקַּרְנוּ בִּבְרִיתֶךָ׃", 89.34. "וְחַסְדִּי לֹא־אָפִיר מֵעִמּוֹ וְלֹא־אֲשַׁקֵּר בֶּאֱמוּנָתִי׃", 109.16. "יַעַן אֲשֶׁר לֹא זָכַר עֲשׂוֹת חָסֶד וַיִּרְדֹּף אִישׁ־עָנִי וְאֶבְיוֹן וְנִכְאֵה לֵבָב לְמוֹתֵת׃", | 44.18. "All this is come upon us; yet have we not forgotten Thee, neither have we been false to Thy covet.", 60.10. "Moab is my washpot; Upon Edom do I cast my shoe; Philistia, cry aloud because of me!", 89.34. "But My mercy will I not break off from him, Nor will I be false to My faithfulness.", 108.10. "Moab is my washpot; Upon Edom do I cast my shoe; Over Philistia do I cry aloud.", 109.16. "Because that he remembered not to do kindness, But persecuted the poor and needy man, And the broken in heart he was ready to slay.", |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 1.2, 5.8, 8.14, 18.8, 18.19, 18.1157, 19.9, 19.13, 19.20-19.21, 30.16, 31.17, 31.23 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68, 70, 102, 130, 176, 178| 1.2. "וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי־רְאוּבֵן בְּכֹר יִשְׂרָאֵל תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם כָּל־זָכָר מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא׃", 1.2. "שְׂאוּ אֶת־רֹאשׁ כָּל־עֲדַת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת כָּל־זָכָר לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם׃", 5.8. "וְאִם־אֵין לָאִישׁ גֹּאֵל לְהָשִׁיב הָאָשָׁם אֵלָיו הָאָשָׁם הַמּוּשָׁב לַיהוָה לַכֹּהֵן מִלְּבַד אֵיל הַכִּפֻּרִים אֲשֶׁר יְכַפֶּר־בּוֹ עָלָיו׃", 8.14. "וְהִבְדַּלְתָּ אֶת־הַלְוִיִּם מִתּוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָיוּ לִי הַלְוִיִּם׃", 18.8. "וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־אַהֲרֹן וַאֲנִי הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לְךָ אֶת־מִשְׁמֶרֶת תְּרוּמֹתָי לְכָל־קָדְשֵׁי בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לְךָ נְתַתִּים לְמָשְׁחָה וּלְבָנֶיךָ לְחָק־עוֹלָם׃", 18.19. "כֹּל תְּרוּמֹת הַקֳּדָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לַיהוָה נָתַתִּי לְךָ וּלְבָנֶיךָ וְלִבְנֹתֶיךָ אִתְּךָ לְחָק־עוֹלָם בְּרִית מֶלַח עוֹלָם הִוא לִפְנֵי יְהוָה לְךָ וּלְזַרְעֲךָ אִתָּךְ׃", 19.9. "וְאָסַף אִישׁ טָהוֹר אֵת אֵפֶר הַפָּרָה וְהִנִּיחַ מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה בְּמָקוֹם טָהוֹר וְהָיְתָה לַעֲדַת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִשְׁמֶרֶת לְמֵי נִדָּה חַטָּאת הִוא׃", 19.13. "כָּל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּמֵת בְּנֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר־יָמוּת וְלֹא יִתְחַטָּא אֶת־מִשְׁכַּן יְהוָה טִמֵּא וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל כִּי מֵי נִדָּה לֹא־זֹרַק עָלָיו טָמֵא יִהְיֶה עוֹד טֻמְאָתוֹ בוֹ׃", 19.21. "וְהָיְתָה לָּהֶם לְחֻקַּת עוֹלָם וּמַזֵּה מֵי־הַנִּדָּה יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְהַנֹּגֵעַ בְּמֵי הַנִּדָּה יִטְמָא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃", 30.16. "וְאִם־הָפֵר יָפֵר אֹתָם אַחֲרֵי שָׁמְעוֹ וְנָשָׂא אֶת־עֲוֺנָהּ׃", 31.17. "וְעַתָּה הִרְגוּ כָל־זָכָר בַּטָּף וְכָל־אִשָּׁה יֹדַעַת אִישׁ לְמִשְׁכַּב זָכָר הֲרֹגוּ׃", 31.23. "כָּל־דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר־יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ תַּעֲבִירוּ בָאֵשׁ וְטָהֵר אַךְ בְּמֵי נִדָּה יִתְחַטָּא וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָבֹא בָּאֵשׁ תַּעֲבִירוּ בַמָּיִם׃", | 1.2. "’Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers’houses, according to the number of names, every male, by their polls;", 5.8. "But if the man have no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, the restitution for guilt which is made shall be the LORD’S, even the priest’s; besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him.", 8.14. "Thus shalt thou separate the Levites from among the children of Israel; and the Levites shall be Mine.", 18.8. "And the LORD spoke unto Aaron: ‘And I, behold, I have given thee the charge of My heave-offerings; even of all the hallowed things of the children of Israel unto thee have I given them for a consecrated portion, and to thy sons, as a due for ever.", 18.19. "All the heave-offerings of the holy things, which the children of Israel offer unto the LORD, have I given thee, and thy sons and thy daughters with thee, as a due for ever; it is an everlasting covet of salt before the LORD unto thee and to thy seed with thee.’", 19.9. "And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of sprinkling; it is a purification from sin.", 19.13. "Whosoever toucheth the dead, even the body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself—he hath defiled the tabernacle of the LORD—that soul shall be cut off from Israel; because the water of sprinkling was not dashed against him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.", 19.20. "But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the LORD; the water of sprinkling hath not been dashed against him: he is unclean.", 19.21. "And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them; and he that sprinkleth the water of sprinkling shall wash his clothes; and he that toucheth the water of sprinkling shall be unclean until even.", 30.16. "But if he shall make them null and void after that he hath heard them, then he shall bear her iniquity.", 31.17. "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.", 31.23. "every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make to go through the fire, and it shall be clean; nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of sprinkling; and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make to go through the water.", |
|
8. Hebrew Bible, 1 Samuel, 12.14, 30.22 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 53, 102| 12.14. "אִם־תִּירְאוּ אֶת־יְהוָה וַעֲבַדְתֶּם אֹתוֹ וּשְׁמַעְתֶּם בְּקֹלוֹ וְלֹא תַמְרוּ אֶת־פִּי יְהוָה וִהְיִתֶם גַּם־אַתֶּם וְגַם־הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר מָלַךְ עֲלֵיכֶם אַחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם׃", 30.22. "וַיַּעַן כָּל־אִישׁ־רָע וּבְלִיַּעַל מֵהָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר הָלְכוּ עִם־דָּוִד וַיֹּאמְרוּ יַעַן אֲשֶׁר לֹא־הָלְכוּ עִמִּי לֹא־נִתֵּן לָהֶם מֵהַשָּׁלָל אֲשֶׁר הִצַּלְנוּ כִּי־אִם־אִישׁ אֶת־אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֶת־בָּנָיו וְיִנְהֲגוּ וְיֵלֵכוּ׃" | 12.14. "If you will fear the Lord, and serve him, and obey his voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the Lord, and if both you and also the king that reigns over you will follow the Lord your God –", 30.22. "Then answered all the bad and worthless men among the men who went with David, and said, Because they went not with us, we will not give them of the spoil that we have recovered, save to every man his wife and his children, that they may lead them away, and depart." |
|
9. Hebrew Bible, 1 Kings, 13.21 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 53| 13.21. "וַיִּקְרָא אֶל־אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר־בָּא מִיהוּדָה לֵאמֹר כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה יַעַן כִּי מָרִיתָ פִּי יְהוָה וְלֹא שָׁמַרְתָּ אֶת־הַמִּצְוָה אֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ׃", | 13.21. "And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying: ‘Thus saith the LORD: Forasmuch as thou hast rebelled against the word of the LORD, and hast not kept the commandment which the LORD thy God commanded thee,", |
|
10. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 7.15-7.16 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 70| 7.15. "חֶמְאָה וּדְבַשׁ יֹאכֵל לְדַעְתּוֹ מָאוֹס בָּרָע וּבָחוֹר בַּטּוֹב׃", 7.16. "כִּי בְּטֶרֶם יֵדַע הַנַּעַר מָאֹס בָּרָע וּבָחֹר בַּטּוֹב תֵּעָזֵב הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה קָץ מִפְּנֵי שְׁנֵי מְלָכֶיהָ׃", | 7.15. "Curd and honey shall he eat, when he knoweth to refuse the evil, and choose the good.", 7.16. "Yea, before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land whose two kings thou hast a horror of shall be forsaken.", |
|
11. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 5.22, 25.8, 29.10, 35.16 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68, 70, 102| 5.22. "הַאוֹתִי לֹא־תִירָאוּ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָה אִם מִפָּנַי לֹא תָחִילוּ אֲשֶׁר־שַׂמְתִּי חוֹל גְּבוּל לַיָּם חָק־עוֹלָם וְלֹא יַעַבְרֶנְהוּ וַיִּתְגָּעֲשׁוּ וְלֹא יוּכָלוּ וְהָמוּ גַלָּיו וְלֹא יַעַבְרֻנְהוּ׃", 25.8. "לָכֵן כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת יַעַן אֲשֶׁר לֹא־שְׁמַעְתֶּם אֶת־דְּבָרָי׃", 35.16. "כִּי הֵקִימוּ בְּנֵי יְהוֹנָדָב בֶּן־רֵכָב אֶת־מִצְוַת אֲבִיהֶם אֲשֶׁר צִוָּם וְהָעָם הַזֶּה לֹא שָׁמְעוּ אֵלָי׃", | 5.22. "Fear ye not Me? saith the LORD; Will ye not tremble at My presence? Who have placed the sand for the bound of the sea, An everlasting ordice, which it cannot pass; And though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; Though they roar, yet can they not pass over it.", 25.8. "Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts: Because ye have not heard My words,", 29.10. "For thus saith the LORD: After seventy years are accomplished for Babylon, I will remember you, and perform My good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.", 35.16. "Because the sons of Jonadab the son of Rechab have performed the commandment of their father which he commanded them, but this people hath not hearkened unto Me;", |
|
12. Hebrew Bible, Judges, 21.11 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 70| 21.11. "וְזֶה הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשׂוּ כָּל־זָכָר וְכָל־אִשָּׁה יֹדַעַת מִשְׁכַּב־זָכָר תַּחֲרִימוּ׃", | 21.11. "And this is the thing that you shall do, you shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that has lain with a man.", |
|
13. Hebrew Bible, Joshua, 1.18 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 53| 1.18. "כָּל־אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יַמְרֶה אֶת־פִּיךָ וְלֹא־יִשְׁמַע אֶת־דְּבָרֶיךָ לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר־תְּצַוֶּנּוּ יוּמָת רַק חֲזַק וֶאֱמָץ׃", | 1.18. "Whosoever he be that shall rebel against thy commandment, and shall not hearken unto thy words in all that thou commandest him, he shall be put to death; only be strong and of good courage.’", |
|
14. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 12.12, 16.43 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 102| 12.12. "וְהַנָּשִׂיא אֲשֶׁר־בְּתוֹכָם אֶל־כָּתֵף יִשָּׂא בָּעֲלָטָה וְיֵצֵא בַּקִּיר יַחְתְּרוּ לְהוֹצִיא בוֹ פָּנָיו יְכַסֶּה יַעַן אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יִרְאֶה לַעַיִן הוּא אֶת־הָאָרֶץ׃", 16.43. "יַעַן אֲשֶׁר לֹא־זכרתי [זָכַרְתְּ] אֶת־יְמֵי נְעוּרַיִךְ וַתִּרְגְּזִי־לִי בְּכָל־אֵלֶּה וְגַם־אֲנִי הֵא דַּרְכֵּךְ בְּרֹאשׁ נָתַתִּי נְאֻם אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה וְלֹא עשיתי [עָשִׂית] אֶת־הַזִּמָּה עַל כָּל־תּוֹעֲבֹתָיִךְ׃", | 12.12. "And the prince that is among them shall bear upon his shoulder, and go forth in the darkness; they shall dig through the wall to carry out thereby; he shall cover his face, that he see not the ground with his eyes.", 16.43. "Because thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, but hast fretted Me in all these things; lo, therefore I also will bring thy way upon thy head, saith the Lord GOD; or hast thou not committed this lewdness above all thine abominations?", |
|
15. Hebrew Bible, Ezra, 10.3 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 102| 10.3. "וּמִבְּנֵי פַּחַת מוֹאָב עַדְנָא וּכְלָל בְּנָיָה מַעֲשֵׂיָה מַתַּנְיָה בְצַלְאֵל וּבִנּוּי וּמְנַשֶּׁה׃", 10.3. "וְעַתָּה נִכְרָת־בְּרִית לֵאלֹהֵינוּ לְהוֹצִיא כָל־נָשִׁים וְהַנּוֹלָד מֵהֶם בַּעֲצַת אֲדֹנָי וְהַחֲרֵדִים בְּמִצְוַת אֱלֹהֵינוּ וְכַתּוֹרָה יֵעָשֶׂה׃", | 10.3. "Now therefore let us make a covet with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of the LORD, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.", |
|
| 16. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 5.5, 6.20, 9.18, 14.20, 15.4, 15.6-15.11, 20.2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68, 102, 130, 176 |
| 17. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 5.5, 6.20, 9.18, 14.20, 15.4, 15.6-15.11, 20.2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68, 102, 130, 176 |
| 18. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 1.10, 1.20, 2.16 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68, 178 |
| 19. Dead Sea Scrolls, of Discipline, 5.3, 5.8, 5.10, 5.14, 5.20, 6.17-6.18, 6.21, 7.20, 7.22, 8.26 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68, 70, 178 |
| 20. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Community, 1.10, 1.20, 2.16 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68, 178 |
| 21. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Community, 1.10, 1.20, 2.16 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68, 178 |
22. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 39.31 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 53 | 39.31. they will rejoice in his commands,and be made ready on earth for their service,and when their times come they will not transgress his word. |
|
23. Mishnah, Avot, 5.21 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68| 5.21. "הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, בֶּן חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים לַמִּקְרָא, בֶּן עֶשֶׂר לַמִּשְׁנָה, בֶּן שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה לַמִּצְוֹת, בֶּן חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה לַתַּלְמוּד, בֶּן שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה לַחֻפָּה, בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים לִרְדֹּף, בֶּן שְׁלשִׁים לַכֹּחַ, בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים לַבִּינָה, בֶּן חֲמִשִּׁים לָעֵצָה, בֶּן שִׁשִּׁים לַזִּקְנָה, בֶּן שִׁבְעִים לַשֵּׂיבָה, בֶּן שְׁמֹנִים לַגְּבוּרָה, בֶּן תִּשְׁעִים לָשׁוּחַ, בֶּן מֵאָה כְּאִלּוּ מֵת וְעָבַר וּבָטֵל מִן הָעוֹלָם: \n", | 5.21. "He used to say: At five years of age the study of Scripture; At ten the study of Mishnah; At thirteen subject to the commandments; At fifteen the study of Talmud; At eighteen the bridal canopy; At twenty for pursuit [of livelihood]; At thirty the peak of strength; At forty wisdom; At fifty able to give counsel; At sixty old age; At seventy fullness of years; At eighty the age of “strength”; At ninety a bent body; At one hundred, as good as dead and gone completely out of the world.", |
|
24. Mishnah, Bava Qamma, 9.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 130| 9.11. "הַגּוֹזֵל אֶת הַגֵּר וְנִשְׁבַּע לוֹ, וּמֵת, הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחֹמֶשׁ לַכֹּהֲנִים וְאָשָׁם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ה) וְאִם אֵין לָאִישׁ גֹּאֵל לְהָשִׁיב הָאָשָׁם אֵלָיו, הָאָשָׁם הַמּוּשָׁב לַה' לַכֹּהֵן, מִלְּבַד אֵיל הַכִּפֻּרִים אֲשֶׁר יְכַפֶּר בּוֹ עָלָיו. הָיָה מַעֲלֶה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף וְאֶת הָאָשָׁם, וּמֵת, הַכֶּסֶף יִנָּתֵן לְבָנָיו, וְהָאָשָׁם יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב, וְיִמָּכֵר וְיִפְּלוּ דָמָיו לִנְדָבָה: \n", | 9.11. "If a man stole from a convert and swore [falsely] to him, and the convert died, he must repay the value and the added fifth to the priests, and the Guilt-offering to the altar, as it says: “If the man has no kinsman to whom restitution can be made, the amount which is repaid shall go to the priest in addition to the ram of atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him” (Numbers 5:8). If he brought the money and the Guilt-offering and then died, the money shall be given to his sons, and the Guilt-offering shall be left to pasture until it suffers a blemish, when it shall be sold, and its value falls to the Temple treasury.", |
|
25. Mishnah, Niddah, 5.9, 6.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68| 5.9. "בַּת עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, תָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהִיא בַת עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וְהִיא אַיְלוֹנִית, לֹא חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, יָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהוּא בֶן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וְהוּא סָרִיס, לֹא חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא מְיַבֵּם, אֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, זֶה וָזֶה בְּנֵי שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, הַזָּכָר כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל, וְהַנְּקֵבָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי, שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה מְמַהֶרֶת לָבֹא לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ:", 6.11. "תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, אוֹ חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתְיַבֶּמֶת, וְחַיֶּבֶת בְּכָל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה. וְכֵן תִּינוֹק שֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, חַיָּב בְּכָל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה. וְרָאוּי לִהְיוֹת בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, מִשֶּׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת עַד שֶׁיַּקִּיף זָקָן, הַתַּחְתּוֹן וְלֹא הָעֶלְיוֹן, אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים בְּלָשׁוֹן נְקִיָּה. תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיִּרְבֶּה הַשָּׁחֹר: \n", | 5.9. "If a woman at the age of twenty did not bring forth two hairs, she must bring evidence that she is twenty years of age and she is an aylonit, she doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum. If a man at the age of twenty years did not produce two hairs, he must bring evidence that he is twenty years old and he becomes confirmed as a saris and he doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum, the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai says: with both of them at the age of eighteen. Rabbi Eliezer says: In the case of the male, according to the words of Bet Hillel, while in that of the female, in accordance with the words of Bet Shammai, since a woman matures earlier than a man.", 6.11. "If a girl has grown two pubic hairs she may perform either halitzah or contract levirate marriage, and she is obligated in all the commandments in the Torah. So too if a boy has grown two pubic hairs, he is obligated in all of the commandments in the Torah. He is fit to become a wayward and rebellious son from the time he has grown two hairs until the time when his beard forms a circle. This refers to the lower, and not to the upper one, but the sages spoke using a euphemism. A girl who has grown two hairs may no longer refuse the marriage. Rabbi Judah says: [she may refuse] until the black [hairs] predominate.", |
|
26. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 7.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 70| 7.6. "הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֶחָד הָעוֹבֵד, וְאֶחָד הַזּוֹבֵחַ, וְאֶחָד הַמְקַטֵּר, וְאֶחָד הַמְנַסֵּךְ, וְאֶחָד הַמִּשְׁתַּחֲוֶה, וְאֶחָד הַמְקַבְּלוֹ עָלָיו לֶאֱלוֹהַּ, וְהָאוֹמֵר לוֹ אֵלִי אָתָּה. אֲבָל הַמְגַפֵּף וְהַמְנַשֵּׁק וְהַמְכַבֵּד וְהַמְּרַבֵּץ וְהַמַּרְחִיץ, הַסָּךְ, הַמַּלְבִּישׁ וְהַמַּנְעִיל, עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. הַנּוֹדֵר בִּשְׁמוֹ וְהַמְקַיֵּם בִּשְׁמוֹ, עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. הַפּוֹעֵר עַצְמוֹ לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר, זוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדָתוֹ. הַזּוֹרֵק אֶבֶן לְמַרְקוּלִיס, זוֹ הִיא עֲבוֹדָתוֹ: \n", | 7.6. "He who engages in idol-worship [is executed]. This includes the one whoserves it, sacrifices, offers incense, makes libations, bows to it, accepts it as a god, or says to it, “You are my god.” But he who embraces, kisses it, sweeps or sprinkles the ground before it, washes it, anoints it, clothes it, or puts shoes on it, he transgresses a negative commandment [but is not executed]. He who vows or swears by its name, violates a negative commandment. He who uncovers himself before Baal-Peor [is guilty and is to be stoned for] this is how it is worshipped. He who casts a stone on Merculis [is guilty and is to be stoned for] this is how it is worshipped.", |
|
27. Mishnah, Sotah, 6.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 70| 6.2. "אָמַר עֵד אֶחָד, אֲנִי רְאִיתִיהָ שֶׁנִּטְמֵאת, לֹא הָיְתָה שׁוֹתָה. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִלּוּ עֶבֶד, אֲפִלּוּ שִׁפְחָה, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנִין אַף לְפָסְלָהּ מִכְּתֻבָּתָהּ. חֲמוֹתָהּ וּבַת חֲמוֹתָהּ וְצָרָתָהּ וִיבִמְתָּהּ וּבַת בַּעְלָהּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נֶאֱמָנוֹת, וְלֹא לְפָסְלָהּ מִכְּתֻבָּתָהּ, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא תִשְׁתֶּה: \n", | 6.2. "If one witness said, “I saw that she was defiled”, she does not drink the water. Not only that, but even a slave, male or female, is believed even to disqualify her from receiving her ketubah. Her mother-in-law, her mother-in-law’s daughter, her rival wife, her sister-in-law, and the daughter of her husband are believed, not to disqualify her from receiving her ketubah, but that she should not drink.", |
|
28. Mishnah, Yevamot, 15.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 70| 15.4. "הַכֹּל נֶאֱמָנִים לַהֲעִידָהּ, חוּץ מֵחֲמוֹתָהּ, וּבַת חֲמוֹתָהּ, וְצָרָתָהּ, וִיבִמְתָּהּ, וּבַת בַּעְלָהּ. מַה בֵּין גֵּט לְמִיתָה, שֶׁהַכְּתָב מוֹכִיחַ. עֵד אוֹמֵר מֵת, וְנִשֵּׂאת, וּבָא אַחֵר וְאָמַר לֹא מֵת, הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תֵצֵא. עֵד אוֹמֵר מֵת, וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא מֵת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת, תֵּצֵא. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים מֵת, וְעֵד אוֹמֵר לֹא מֵת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִשֵּׂאת, תִּנָּשֵׂא: \n", | 15.4. "All are believed to testify for her [concerning her husband’s death] except for her mother-in-law, the daughter of her mother-in-law, her rival wife, her sister-in-law and her husband’s daughter. Why is [the bringing of] a letter of divorce different [from testifying regarding] death?The written document provides the proof. If one witness stated, “he is dead”, and his wife married again, and another came and stated “he is not dead”, she need not leave [her new husband]. If one witness said “he is dead” and two witnesses said “he is not dead”, even if she married again, she must leave him. If two witnesses stated, “he is dead”, and one witness stated, “he is not dead”, even if she had not married, she may do so.", |
|
29. New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 14.34-14.35 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 70| 14.34. Αἱ γυναῖκες ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις σιγάτωσαν, οὐ γὰρ ἐπιτρέπεται αὐταῖς λαλεῖν· ἀλλὰ ὑποτασσέσθωσαν, καθὼς καὶ ὁ νόμος λέγει. 14.35. εἰ δέ τι μανθάνειν θέλουσιν, ἐν οἴκῳ τοὺς ἰδίους ἄνδρας ἐπερωτάτωσαν, αἰσχρὸν γάρ ἐστιν γυναικὶ λαλεῖν ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ. | 14.34. let your wives keepsilent in the assemblies, for it has not been permitted for them tospeak; but let them be in subjection, as the law also says. 14.35. Ifthey desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home,for it is shameful for a woman to chatter in the assembly. |
|
30. Tosefta, Demai, 2.14, 2.16 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68| 2.14. "עם הארץ שאמר לחבר תן לי ככר זה ואוכלנו יין זה ואשתנו לא יתן לו שאין מאכילין טהרות לעם הארץ היה נדור מן הככר ואמר לו תן לי ואוכלנו אבטיח שניקר ואמר [לו] תן לי ואוכלנו יין ונתגלה ואמר לו תן לי ואשתנו לא יתן שאין מאכילין את האדם דבר האסור לו כיוצא בו לא יושיט ישראל אבר מן החי לבני נח ולא כוס יין לנזיר שאין מאכילין את האדם דבר האסור לו ועל כולן אין מברכין עליהן ואין מזמנין עליהן ואין עונין אחריהן אמן.", | |
|
31. Tosefta, Hagigah, 1.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68| 1.3. "קטן שאין צריך לאמו חייב בסוכה קטן שצריך לאמו יוצא בעירוב אמו ושאינו צריך לאמו מערבין עליו מזון שתי סעודות בעירובי תחומין [יודע] לנענע חייב בלולב יודע להתעטף חייב בציצית יודע לדבר אביו מלמדו שמע ותורה ולשון קודש ואם לאו ראוי לו שלא בא לעולם יודע לשמור תפיליו אביו לוקח לו תפילין [כיצד בודקין אותו מטבילין אותו ונותנין לו חולין לשם תרומה] יודע לשמור גופו אוכלין על גופו טהרות יודע לפרוש [חוקו] חולקין לו על הגורן יש בו דעת לישאל ספיקו ברשות היחיד טמא ברשות הרבים טהור יודע לשחוט שחיטתו כשירה יכול לאכול כזית דגן פורשין מצואתו וממימי רגליו ארבע אמות כזית צלי שוחטין עליו [את] הפסח רבי יהודה אומר לעולם אין שוחטין [את] הפסח [עליו] [אא\"כ יודע] הפרש אכילה [אמר לו] איזו הפרש אכילה כל שנותנין לו ביצה ונוטלה אבן וזורקה.", | |
|
32. Tosefta, Niddah, 6.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68| 6.2. "בן תשע ויום אחד שהביא שתי שערות שומא מבן תשע שנים ויום אחד עד בן שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד שהביא שתי שערות שומא ר' יוסי בר\"י אומר סימן. בן שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד עד בן שלש עשרה ויום א' שהביא שתי שערות הרי הוא כאיש לכל דבר בן ארבע עשרה שנה ובן חמש עשרה שהביא שתי שערות הרי הוא כבן תשע ויום אחד לכל דבר בן כ' שנה שלא הביא שתי שערות אע\"פ שהביא אחר מכאן הרי הוא כסריס לכל דבר בת כ' שנה שלא הביאה שתי שערות אע\"פ שהביאה לאחר מכאן הרי היא כאילונית רבי יוסי בן כיפר אומר שנת עשרים שנכנסו ממנו שלשים יום מונין אותה שנה שלמה הורה רבי בלוד על תינוקת בת שמונה עשרה שנכנסו הימנה ל' יום שתהא כתינוקת בת שמונה עשרה ויום אחד לכל דבר.", | |
|
33. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 5.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 70| 5.2. "משחק בקוביא זו משחק בפסיפסין אחד המשחק בפסיפסין ואחד המשחק בקליפי אגוזים ובקליפי רמונים לעולם אין יכול לחזור בו עד שישבר את פסיפסין ויחזור בו חזרה גמורה המלוה ברבית אין יכול לחזור בו עד שיקרע שטרותיו ויחזור בו חזרה גמורה מפריחי יונים זה הממרה את היונין אחד ממרה את היונין ואחד ממרה שאר בהמה חיה ועוף לעולם אין יכול לחזור בו עד שישבור את פיגמיו ויחזור בו חזרה גמורה סוחרי שביעית זה היושב ובטל בשאר שני שבוע כיון שהגיע שנת השמטה התחיל מפשיט ידיו ורגליו ונושא ונותן בפירות עבירה לעולם אין יכול לחזור בו עד שתגיע שמטה אחרת וידבק ויחזור בו חזרה גמורה רבי נחמיה אומר חזרת ממון ולא חזרת דברים כיצד אמר מאתים דינר אלו כנסתי מפירות עבירה חלקו אותן לעניים ר\"מ היה קורא אותן אוספי שביעית רבי יהודה היה קורא אותן סוחרי שביעית אר\"ש מקיים אני דבר שניהן הא כיצד עד שלא רבו האונסין היו קורין אוספי שביעית ומשרבו האונסין היו קורין אותן סוחרי שביעית ובכולן היה רבי יהודה אומר בזמן שיש להן אומנות אחרות הרי אלו פסולין חזרו בהן הרי כשרים וחכמים אומרים אף בזמן שיש להן אומנות הרי אלו פסולין בד\"א בקדוש החדש ובעיבור שנה בדיני ממונות ובדיני נפשות אבל עדות שהאשה כשרה לה הן כשרין לה.", | |
|
34. Tosefta, Shevuot, 3.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 53| 3.6. "והוא עד הכשר לעדות (ויקרא ה) ושמעה להוציא את החרש. או ראה להוציא את הסומא או ידע להוציא את השוטה אם לא יגיד ונשא את עונו להוציא את האלם. אלו דברים הראשונים ר\"ע אומר (דברים י״ג:ט״ו) ודרשת וחקרת וכי יש דורשין לחרשין ויש חוקרין לשוטים ת\"ל (ויקרא כ״ד:כ״ב) משפט אחד יהיה לכם לכם כדיני ממונות כך בדיני נפשות מה דיני נפשות בדרישה וחקירה אף דיני ממונות בדרישה ובחקירה אי מה דיני נפשות לעדיו יכול אף דיני ממונות כן ת\"ל (שמות כא) עין ישלם אי מה דיני נפשות פטר את השוגג יכול אף דיני ממונות פטר ת\"ל עין ישלם אי מה דיני נפשות פרט משזרק והרג יכול אף דיני ממונות כן ת\"ל אבן יד ישלם אי מה דיני נפשות בכ\"ג יכול אף דיני ממונות כן ת\"ל (שמות כ״ב:ז׳) ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלהים ריבה לו הכתוב דיין אחד עד האלהים יבא דבר שניהם ריבה לו הכתוב שני דיינין אשר ירשיעון אלהים ריבה הכתוב ג' דיינין מכאן אמרו דיני ממונות בג' ור' יוסי אומר בחמשה כדי שיגמור הדין בג' יכול אין לי בג' אלא דיני ממונות הקלין מנין לרבות החמורים וחומר בחמורים ת\"ל עין וגו' כויה תחת כויה וגו'.", | |
|
35. New Testament, 1 Timothy, 3.11-3.12 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 70| 3.11. γυναῖκας ὡσαύτως σεμνάς, μὴ διαβόλους, νηφαλίους, πιστὰς ἐν πᾶσιν. 3.12. διάκονοι ἔστωσαν μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρες, τέκνων καλῶς προϊστάμενοι καὶ τῶν ἰδίων οἴκων· | 3.11. Their wives in the same way must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 3.12. Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. |
|
| 36. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 156 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 102 |
37. Tosefta, Tevulyom, 1.3, 1.6 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 178| 1.3. "חומר בידים מטבול יום שהידים תחלה לחטאת מטמאות אחד ופוסלות אחד בקדש ומטמאות התרומה ומטמאות את המשקין לעשותן תחלה באלו הימים וכל שאינו חיבור בטבול יום חיבור בידים. חומר באוכלין שאין במשקין ובמשקין מה שאין באוכלין. שהאוכלין יש להן ידות ואין צריכה מחשבה לאוכלין ומטמאין את המשקין לעשותן תחלה והמשקין מטמאין את האוכלים לעשותן שנים לספקן לטמא את אחרים ואין להן טהרה מטומאתן משא\"כ משקין. חומר במשקין שהמשקין לעולם ומטמא כל שהוא ויש מהן שנעשו באב הטומאה לטמא אדם ומטמא בגדים ולטמא אוכלין ומשקין וכלי מאחוריו וכלי חרס מאוירו משא\"כ באוכלין. חומר במים מה שאין במשקין ובמשקין מה שאין במים שהמים נעשין אב הטומאה לטמא אדם ולטמא בגדים ופוסלין את המקוה בשלשת לוגין ואת הגוף בשלשת לוגין משא\"כ במשקין שהמשקין אין להן טהרה מטומאתן ואין טהורין בגוף ופוסלין את המקוה בשינוי מראה משא\"כ במים.", | |
|
38. Mishna, Tevulyom, 2.2 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 178| 2.2. "קְדֵרָה שֶׁהִיא מְלֵאָה מַשְׁקִים וְנָגַע בָּהּ טְבוּל יוֹם, אִם הָיָה מַשְׁקֵה תְרוּמָה, הַמַּשְׁקִין פְּסוּלִין וְהַקְּדֵרָה טְהוֹרָה. וְאִם הָיָה מַשְׁקֵה חֻלִּין, הַכֹּל טָהוֹר. וְאִם הָיוּ יָדָיו מְסֹאָבוֹת, הַכֹּל טָמֵא. זֶה חֹמֶר בַּיָּדַיִם מִבִּטְבוּל יוֹם. וְחֹמֶר בִּטְבוּל יוֹם מִבַּיָּדַיִם, שֶׁסְּפֵק טְבוּל יוֹם פּוֹסֵל אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה, וְהַיָּדַיִם סְפֵקָן טָהוֹר:", | 2.2. "A pot which was full of liquid and a tevul yom touched it: If it is terumah, the liquid is disqualified, but the pot is clean. But if the liquid is non-sacred [hullin] then all remains clean. If his hands were defiled [and he touched the liquids in the pot], all becomes unclean. This is a case defiled hands are treated more stringently than a tevul yom. But a greater stringency is applied to a tevul yom than to defiled hands, since a doubtful tevul yom disqualifies terumah, but doubts with regard to defiled hands are clean.", |
|
| 39. Palestinian Talmud, Demai, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68 |
40. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 102| 10b. מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה ומלאכת מחשבת לא כתיבא:,חגיגות: מיכתב כתיבן לא צריכא לכדאמר ליה רב פפא לאביי ממאי דהאי וחגותם אותו חג לה' זביחה דלמא חוגו חגא קאמר רחמנא,אלא מעתה דכתיב (שמות ה, א) ויחוגו לי במדבר הכי נמי דחוגו חגא הוא וכי תימא הכי נמי והכתיב (שמות י, כה) ויאמר משה גם אתה תתן בידינו זבחים ועולות,דלמא הכי קאמר רחמנא אכלו ושתו וחוגו חגא קמאי לא סלקא דעתך דכתיב (שמות כג, יח) ולא ילין חלב חגי עד בקר ואי סלקא דעתך דחוגא הוא תרבא לחגא אית ליה,ודלמא הכי קאמר רחמנא חלב הבא בזמן חג לא ילין,אלא מעתה הבא בזמן חג הוא דלא ילין הא דכל השנה כולה ילין (ויקרא ו, ב) כל הלילה עד הבקר כתיב,דלמא אי מההוא הוה אמינא ההוא לעשה כתב רחמנא האי ללאו,ללאו כתב קרא אחרינא (דברים טז, ד) ולא ילין מן הבשר אשר תזבח בערב ביום הראשון לבקר ודלמא לעבור עליו בשני לאוין ועשה,אלא אתיא מדבר מדבר כתיב הכא ויחוגו לי במדבר וכתיב התם (עמוס ה, כה) הזבחים ומנחה הגשתם לי במדבר מה להלן זבחים אף כאן זבחים,ומאי כהררין התלויין בשערה דברי תורה מדברי קבלה לא ילפינן:,מעילות: מיכתב כתיבן אמר רמי בר חמא לא נצרכא אלא לכדתנן השליח שעשה שליחותו בעל הבית מעל לא עשה שליחותו שליח מעל,וכי עשה שליחותו אמאי מעל וכי זה חוטא וזה מתחייב היינו כהררין התלויין בשערה,אמר רבא ומאי קושיא דלמא שאני מעילה דילפא חטא חטא מתרומה מה התם שלוחו של אדם כמותו אף כאן שלוחו של אדם כמותו,אלא אמר רבא לא נצרכא אלא לכדתניא נזכר בעל הבית ולא נזכר שליח שליח מעל שליח עניא מאי קא עביד היינו כהררין התלויין בשערה,אמר רב אשי מאי קושיא דלמא מידי דהוה אמוציא מעות הקדש לחולין,אלא אמר רב אשי לא נצרכא אלא לכדתנן נטל אבן או קורה של הקדש הרי זה לא מעל נתנה לחבירו הוא מעל וחבירו לא מעל מכדי מישקל שקלה מה לי הוא ומה לי חבירו היינו כהררין התלויין בשערה,ומאי קושיא דלמא כדשמואל דאמר שמואל הכא | 10b. The Gemara answers: b The Torah prohibited /b only planned, b creative labor /b on Shabbat. An act of labor that is not intended, or whose result is unintended, or whose consequence is destructive, is not included in this category. Therefore, one who performs labor in this manner is exempt. b And /b limitation of the prohibition against b creative labor is not written /b anywhere in the Torah with regard to the laws of Shabbat. Admittedly, this principle is written in connection with the Tabernacle, and there is an established exegetical link between the building of the Tabernacle and Shabbat. Nevertheless, as this fundamental principle concerning the i halakhot /i of Shabbat does not appear explicitly, it is compared to mountains suspended by a hair.,§ The mishna taught that the i halakhot /i of b Festival peace /b -offerings are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But b they are written /b in the Torah. The Gemara answers: b No, /b it is b necessary /b to say this b in accordance with that which Rav Pappa said to Abaye: From where /b is it derived b that this /b verse: b “And you shall celebrate it as a Festival [ i veḥagotem /i ] to the Lord” /b (Leviticus 23:41), is referring to b an animal offering? Perhaps the Merciful One is /b simply b saying: Celebrate a Festival. /b ,Abaye responded: b However, if that is so, /b consider b that it is written: /b “Let My people go, b that they may hold a feast [ i veyaḥogu /i ] to Me in the wilderness” /b (Exodus 5:1). b So too, /b the meaning of this verse b is that /b they will merely b celebrate a Festival, /b and not bring an offering. b And if you would say that is /b indeed b so, /b that this means that they should celebrate a Festival, b but isn’t it written: “And Moses said: You must also give into our hand sacrifices and burnt- /b offerings, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God” (Exodus 10:25)? This shows that the command is referring to offerings.,The Gemara raises a difficulty. But b perhaps this is what the Merciful One said: /b Slaughter animals so that you can b eat, drink, and celebrate a Festival before Me, /b but no offerings are necessary. The Gemara answers: This b cannot enter your mind, as it is written: “The fat of My Festival feast [ i ḥagi /i ] shall not remain all night until the morning” /b (Exodus 23:18). b And if it enters your mind /b to say b that it is /b referring to a regular b Festival feast /b and not an offering, b does a Festival feast have /b forbidden b fats? /b ,The Gemara asks: b But perhaps this is what the Merciful One states /b in the Torah: The b fats /b of gift offerings b that are brought during a Festival may not remain all night. /b If so, the phrase “My Festival feast” is not referring to a type of offering at all, but to a particular time.,The Gemara answers: b However, if that is so, /b this verse indicates that it is only those fats b that are brought during a Festival that may not remain overnight. /b It may be inferred from here b that /b fats which are brought b throughout the year may remain all night. /b But b it is written /b about burnt-offerings: “On its firewood upon the altar b all night into the morning” /b (Leviticus 6:2). This shows that burnt-offerings must burn upon the altar all night.,The Gemara further asks: b Perhaps if /b this i halakha /i was derived b from that /b verse, b I would say that /b verse serves as the source b of a positive mitzva. /b Therefore, b the Merciful One writes this /b verse: “Shall not remain all night,” b as a prohibition /b as well.,The Gemara responds. With regard b to the prohibition /b against leaving over an offering on a Festival, b another verse was written: “Neither shall any of the flesh, which you sacrifice the first day at evening, remain all night until the morning” /b (Deuteronomy 16:4). The Gemara asks: b But perhaps /b the verse: “Shall not remain all night” comes to teach that one who does so b violates two prohibitions and a positive mitzva. /b , b Rather, /b the Gemara rejects this explanation in favor of the claim that the source for a Festival peace-offering b comes /b from a verbal analogy between the term b “wilderness” /b stated here and the term: b “wilderness” /b stated elsewhere. b It is written here: “They shall make an offering to Me in the wilderness” /b (Exodus 5:1), b and it is written there: “Did you bring to Me sacrifices and offerings /b forty years b in the wilderness, /b house of Israel?” (Amos 5:25). b Just as there /b it is referring to actual b animal offerings, so too here, /b it is referring to b animal offerings, /b not merely the celebration of a Festival.,The Gemara asks: b And /b in light of this verbal analogy, in b what /b way is this i halakha /i b like mountains suspended by a hair? /b The Gemara answers: The textual evidence is not that strong, as generally b one does not derive Torah matters from texts of the tradition, /b i.e., Prophets and Writings. Since the prophets were not permitted to introduce new i halakhot /i , as the Torah is the only authoritative source in that regard, this verbal analogy does not carry the same weight as a i halakha /i derived from the Torah itself.,§ The mishna taught that the details of the i halakhot /i of b misuse /b of consecrated property are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But b they are written /b in the Torah (Leviticus 5:14–16). b Rami bar Ḥama said: /b This statement b is necessary only for that which we learned /b in a mishna ( i Me’ila /i 20a): With regard to b an agent who performs his agency, /b e.g., when a homeowner sends someone to buy an object with consecrated money and the agent does as he was instructed, b the homeowner has misused /b consecrated property and must bring an offering for the actions of the agent performed on his behalf. However, if the agent b did not perform his agency, /b but in some way acted on his own account, b the agent has misused /b consecrated property, and he is the one obligated to bring the offering.,The Gemara explains: b And when he performed his agency, why /b is the owner considered to have b misused /b consecrated property? b And is it /b possible b that this one sins and that one is rendered liable? /b Since this i halakha /i is counterintuitive, it is not apparent from the verses. b This is /b what the mishna was referring to when it said that these i halakhot /i are b like mountains suspended by a hair. /b , b Rava said: And what is /b the logical b difficulty /b with this i halakha /i ? b Perhaps /b the transgression of b misuse /b of consecrated property b is different, as it is derived /b through a verbal analogy from the parallel term b “sin” /b (Leviticus 5:6) and b “sin” /b (Numbers 18:9), b from /b the case of b i teruma /i : Just as there, /b with regard to i teruma /i , the legal status of b a person’s agent is like /b that of b himself, /b and therefore the agent may separate i teruma /i on behalf of the owner of the produce, b so too here, /b with regard to misuse of consecrated property, the legal status of b a person’s agent is like /b that of b himself, /b which means that when the agent properly performs his agency the owner is liable., b Rather, Rava said: /b The mishna’s statement with regard to mountains b is necessary only for that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : If, after he sent an agent to use a consecrated object, b the homeowner remembered /b that it was a consecrated item b and the agent did not remember, the agent has misused /b consecrated property despite the fact that he was merely performing his agency. This is because one is liable for the misuse of consecrated property only if he acted unwittingly. In this instance, b what did the poor agent do? /b He simply performed his agency on behalf of the owner, and yet because the owner remembered about the consecrated object, the agent is liable. b This is /b what the mishna is referring to when it says that these i halakhot /i are b like mountains suspended by a hair. /b , b Rav Ashi said: /b And b what is /b the logical b difficulty /b with this i halakha /i ? b Perhaps /b this b is just as it is with /b regard to b one who spends consecrated money for non-sacred /b purposes. Although this individual did not know that the money was consecrated, he is nevertheless obligated to bring an offering. Here too, once the owner canceled the agency upon realizing the money was consecrated, the agent unwittingly misused consecrated property, and therefore he is liable., b Rather, Rav Ashi said: /b The mishna b is necessary only for that which we learned /b in a mishna ( i Me’ila /i 19b): If one b picked up a consecrated stone or beam, he has not misused /b consecrated property merely by this action. However, if he b gave it to another, he has misused /b consecrated property b and the other /b person b has not misused /b consecrated property. The Gemara analyzes this case: b Since he picked it up, what /b difference b is /b there b to me /b if b he /b keeps it, b and what /b difference b is /b there b to me /b if he gives it to b another? /b What is the basis for the distinction between the two cases? Rather, b this is /b the case the mishna is referring to when it says that these i halakhot /i are b like mountains suspended by a hair. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty. b What is /b the logical b difficulty /b with this i halakha /i ? b Perhaps /b it should be explained b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: Here, /b this mishna is not referring to an ordinary person who picked up a consecrated stone for himself. |
|
41. Babylonian Talmud, Bekhorot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68| 30b. חשוד על המעשר ומאן חכמים ר' יהודה וחד אמר החשוד על המעשר חשוד על השביעית ומאן חכמים ר' מאיר,דתניא עם הארץ שקיבל עליו דברי חבירות ונחשד לדבר אחד נחשד לכל התורה כולה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים אינו נחשד אלא לאותו דבר בלבד,הגר שקיבל עליו דברי תורה אפי' נחשד לדבר אחד הוי חשוד לכל התורה כולה והרי הוא כישראל משומד נפקא מינה דאי קדיש קידושיו קידושין,ת"ר הבא לקבל דברי חבירות חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו עובד כוכבים שבא לקבל דברי תורה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר אפי' דקדוק אחד מדברי סופרים,וכן בן לוי שבא לקבל דברי לויה וכהן שבא לקבל דברי כהונה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו שנאמר (ויקרא ז, לג) המקריב את דם השלמים וגו' העבודה המסורה לבני אהרן כל כהן שאינו מודה בה אין לו חלק בכהונה,ת"ר הבא לקבל דברי חבירות אם ראינוהו שנוהג בצינעה בתוך ביתו מקבלין אותו ואחר כך מלמדין אותו ואם לאו מלמדין אותו ואחר כך מקבלין אותו ר"ש בן יוחי אומר בין כך ובין כך מקבלין אותו והוא למד כדרכו והולך:,ת"ר מקבלין לכנפים ואח"כ מקבלין לטהרות ואם אמר איני מקבל אלא לכנפים מקבלין אותו קיבל לטהרות ולא קיבל לכנפים אף לטהרות לא קיבל:,ת"ר עד כמה מקבלין אותו בית שמאי אומרים למשקין שלשים יום לכסות שנים עשר חודש ובית הלל אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה לשנים עשר חודש,אם כן הוה ליה מקולי בית שמאי ומחומרי בית הלל אלא בית הלל אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה לשלשים:,(סימן חב"ר תלמי"ד תכל"ת מכ"ם חז"ר גבא"י בעצמ"ו),תנו רבנן הבא לקבל דברי חבירות צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים ובניו ובני ביתו אינן צריכין לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף בניו ובני ביתו צריכין לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים לפי שאינו דומה חבר שקיבל לבן חבר שקיבל:,תנו רבנן הבא לקבל דברי חבירות צריך לקבל בפני ג' חבירים ואפילו תלמיד חכם צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים זקן ויושב בישיבה אינו צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים שכבר קיבל עליו משעה שישב אבא שאול אומר אף תלמיד חכם אינו צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים ולא עוד אלא שאחרים מקבלין לפניו,אמר רבי יוחנן בימי בנו של רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס נשנית משנה זו רבי יהודה ור' יוסי איסתפק להו מילתא בטהרות שדרו רבנן לגבי בנו של ר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אזילו אמרו ליה לעיין בה אשכחוה דקא טעין טהרות אותיב רבנן מדידיה לגבייהו וקאי איהו לעיוני בה,אתו אמרי ליה לר' יהודה ור' יוסי אמר להו ר' יהודה אביו של זה ביזה תלמידי חכמים אף הוא מבזה תלמידי חכמים,אמר לו ר' יוסי כבוד זקן יהא מונח במקומו אלא מיום שחרב בית המקדש נהגו כהנים סילסול בעצמן שאין מוסרין את הטהרות לכל אדם:,תנו רבנן חבר שמת אשתו ובניו ובני ביתו הרי הן בחזקתן עד שיחשדו וכן חצר שמוכרין בה תכלת הרי היא בחזקתה עד שתיפסל:,תנו רבנן אשת עם הארץ שנשאת לחבר וכן בתו של עם הארץ שנשאת לחבר וכן עבדו של עם הארץ שנמכר לחבר כולן צריכין לקבל דברי חבירות בתחלה אבל אשת חבר שנשאת לעם הארץ וכן בתו של חבר שנשאת לעם הארץ וכן עבדו של חבר שנמכר לעם הארץ אין צריכין לקבל דברי חבירות בתחלה,ר"מ אומר אף הן צריכין לקבל עליהן דברי חבירות לכתחלה ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר משום ר"מ מעשה באשה אחת שנשאת לחבר והיתה קומעת לו תפילין על ידו נשאת לעם הארץ והיתה קושרת לו קשרי מוכס על ידו: | 30b. is b suspect with regard to tithe. And who /b are the Sages referred to here as b the Rabbis? /b It is b Rabbi Yehuda, /b as in his locale they treated the prohibition of produce of the Sabbatical Year stringently. b And /b the other b one says: One who is suspect with regard to tithe is suspect with regard to /b produce of the b Sabbatical /b Year. b And who /b are the Sages referred to here as b the Rabbis? /b It is b Rabbi Meir. /b , b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Demai /i 2:4): With regard to b an i am ha’aretz /i , /b i.e., one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity and tithes, b who accepts upon himself /b the commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status, /b i.e., that he will be stringent in all matters observed by i ḥaverim /i , including i teruma /i , tithes, and i ḥalla /i , and also undertake to eat only food that is ritually pure, and the Sages accepted him as trustworthy b but /b subsequently he b was suspected with regard to one matter /b in which others saw him act improperly, b he is suspected with regard to the entire Torah. /b This is the b statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He is suspected only with regard to that particular matter. /b ,It is also taught in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Demai /i 2:4): With regard to b a convert who accepted upon himself /b upon his conversion b matters of Torah, /b i.e., all of the mitzvot, b even if he is suspect with regard to one matter /b alone, b he is suspect with regard to the entire Torah, and he is /b considered b like a Jewish transgressor [ i meshummad /i ], /b who habitually transgresses the mitzvot. The Gemara explains that the practical b difference /b resulting from the fact that he is considered like a Jewish transgressor is b that if he betroths /b a woman, b his betrothal is /b a valid b betrothal, /b and they are married. Although he is suspect with regard to the entire Torah, he does not return to his prior gentile status., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of b one who comes to accept upon himself /b the commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status except for one matter, /b which he does not wish to observe, b he is not accepted, /b and he is not trustworthy even with regard to those matters that he does wish to accept upon himself. Likewise, in the case of b a gentile who comes to /b convert and takes upon himself to b accept the words of Torah except for one matter, he is not accepted /b as a convert. b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even /b if he refuses to accept b one detail of rabbinic law, /b he is not accepted.,The i baraita /i continues: b And similarly, /b in the case of b a Levite who comes to accept the matters of a Levite, or a priest who comes to accept the matters of priesthood, except for one matter, he is not accepted. As it is stated: /b “He among the sons of Aaron, b that sacrifices the blood of the peace offerings, /b and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). This means that with regard to b the /b Temple b service, which is handed /b over b to the sons of Aaron, any priest who does not admit to it /b in its entirety b has no share in the priesthood. /b ,The Gemara continues on a similar topic. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of b one who comes to accept upon himself /b a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status, if we have seen that he practices /b such matters b in private, within his home, he is accepted, and afterward he is taught /b the precise details of being a i ḥaver /i . b But if /b we have b not /b seen him act as a i ḥaver /i in his home, b he is taught /b first b and afterward accepted. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Whether /b in b this /b case b or that /b case, b he is /b first b accepted, and he /b then b continues to learn in /b the b usual manner, /b i.e., as a i ḥaver /i he learns from others how to behave., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : An i am ha’aretz /i who wishes to become a i ḥaver /i b is accepted /b first b with regard to hands, /b i.e., he is presumed to be stringent concerning the ritual purity of his hands by making sure to wash his hands before handling pure items, b and afterward he is accepted /b as trustworthy b for purity /b in general. b And if he says: I /b wish to b accept /b purity b only with regard to hands, he is accepted /b for this. If he wishes to b accept /b upon himself the stringencies of a i ḥaver /i b with regard to ritual purity but he does not accept /b upon himself the stringencies b with regard to hands, /b i.e., to wash his hands, which is a simple act, b he is not accepted even for purity /b in general., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Until when is he accepted, /b i.e., how much time must elapse before he is considered trustworthy as a i ḥaver /i ? b Beit Shammai say: With regard to liquids, thirty days. With regard to /b impurity of b clothing, /b about which i ḥaverim /i would be careful as well, b twelve months. And Beit Hillel say: Both /b with regard to b this, /b liquids, b and that, /b clothing, he must maintain the practice b for twelve months /b before he is fully accepted as a i ḥaver /i .,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b If so, this is /b one b of /b the rare cases of b the leniencies of Beit Shammai and of the stringencies of Beit Hillel, /b and yet it is not included in tractate i Eduyyot /i , which lists all of the cases where Beit Shammai are more lenient than Beit Hillel. b Rather, /b the text of the i baraita /i must be emended so that it reads: b Beit Hillel say: Both /b with regard to b this, /b liquids b and that, /b clothing, he must maintain the practice b for thirty /b days before he is fully accepted as a i ḥaver /i .,§ The Gemara provides b a mnemonic /b to remember the topics from here until the end of the chapter: b i Ḥaver /i ; student; sky-blue dye [ i tekhelet /i ]; tax; return; /b tax b collector; by himself. /b , b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who comes to accept upon himself /b a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status must accept /b it b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i . But his children and /b the b members of his household are not required to accept /b the status of i ḥaver /i separately b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i . Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even his children and /b the b members of his household must accept /b the status of i ḥaver /i b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i , because a i ḥaver /i , who accepted it /b himself in the presence of three others, b is not comparable to the son of a i ḥaver /i , /b who b accepted /b that status only due to his father but did not accept it himself explicitly, and their accepting the status not in the presence of three people is insufficient., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who comes to accept upon himself /b a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status must accept /b it b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i , and even a Torah scholar /b who wishes to become a i ḥaver /i b must accept /b the status of i ḥaver /i b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i . /b But b an elder who sits /b and studies Torah b in a yeshiva is not required to accept /b the status of i ḥaver /i b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i , as he already accepted it upon himself from the moment he sat /b and dedicated himself to study Torah in yeshiva. b Abba Shaul says: Even a Torah scholar is not required to accept /b the status of i ḥaver /i b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i ; and not only /b does he have the status of i ḥaver /i without an explicit declaration in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i , b but others /b can b accept /b that they wish to become a i ḥaver /i b in his presence. /b , b Rabbi Yoḥa says: This mishna, /b i.e., the ruling that a Torah scholar must declare his intent to become a i ḥaver /i in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i , b was taught in the days of the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus. /b At that time, b Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei were uncertain about /b a certain b matter of ritual purity. The Sages sent /b a delegation of their students b to the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus /b and told them to b go /b and b tell him to examine /b this matter. The students b found him while he was carrying /b items that were ritually b pure. /b The son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus b seated Sages from his own /b yeshiva b next to /b the students who came to ask the question, because he did not trust these students to keep his items pure. b And he stood and examined /b the matter.,The students returned and b came and told Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei /b that the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus had treated them as though they had the status of i amei ha’aretz /i . b Rabbi Yehuda said to them /b in anger: b This one’s father, /b i.e., Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, b degraded Torah scholars /b by not trusting them with matters of ritual purity. And b he too, /b the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, b degrades Torah scholars. /b , b Rabbi Yosei said to him: Let the honor of the elder, /b i.e., both the father and son, b be left in its place. /b He did not act in this manner to degrade Torah scholars. b Rather, from the day the Temple was destroyed, the priests were accustomed to act with a higher standard for themselves, /b and they decided b that they will not pass ritually pure /b items b to any /b other b person. /b Therefore, the son of Rabbi Ḥanina, as a priest, acted appropriately., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of b a i ḥaver /i that died, his wife and children and members of his household retain their presumptive /b status b until they are suspected /b of engaging in inappropriate deeds. b And similarly, /b in the case of b a courtyard in which one sells sky-blue dye, it retains its presumptive /b status as a place in which fit sky-blue dye is sold b until it is disqualified /b due to the merchant’s unscrupulous behavior., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The /b former b wife an i am ha’aretz /i who /b later b marries a i ḥaver /i , and likewise the daughter of an i am ha’aretz /i who marries a i ḥaver /i , and likewise the slave of an i am ha’aretz /i who is sold to a i ḥaver /i , must all accept /b upon themselves a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status. But /b with regard to b the /b former b wife of a i ḥaver /i who /b later b marries an i am ha’aretz /i , and likewise the daughter of a i ḥaver /i who marries an i am ha’aretz /i , and likewise the slave of a i ḥaver /i who was sold to an i am ha’aretz /i , /b these people b need not accept /b upon themselves a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status i ab initio /i , /b as each of them is already accustomed to behave as a i ḥaver /i .,The i baraita /i continues: b Rabbi Meir says: They too must accept /b upon themselves a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status i ab initio /i . And similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would /b illustrate this point and b say in the name of Rabbi Meir: /b There was b an incident involving a certain woman who married a i ḥaver /i and would tie [ i koma’at /i ] for him phylacteries on his hand, /b and she later b married a tax collector and would tie for him tax seals on his hand, /b which shows that her new husband had a great influence on her level of piety. |
|
42. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68| 47b. הכף,וכן היה רבי שמעון (בן יוחי) אומר שלשה סימנין נתנו חכמים באשה מלמטה וכנגדן מלמעלה פגה מלמעלה בידוע שלא הביאה שתי שערות בוחל מלמעלה בידוע שהביאה שתי שערות צמל מלמעלה בידוע שנתמעך הכף,מאי כף אמר רב הונא מקום תפוח יש למעלה מאותו מקום כיון שמגדלת מתמעך והולך שאלו את רבי הלכה כדברי מי שלח להו כדברי כולן להחמיר,רב פפא ורב חיננא בריה דרב איקא חד מתני אהא וחד מתני אחצר צורית דתנן איזוהי חצר צורית שחייבת במעשר ר"ש אומר חצר הצורית שהכלים נשמרים בתוכה,מאי חצר הצורית אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן שכן בצור מושיבין שומר על פתח החצר ר"ע אומר כל שאחד פותח ואחד נועל פטורה,ר' נחמיה אומר כל שאין אדם בוש לאכול בתוכה חייבת רבי יוסי אומר כל שנכנסים לה ואין אומרים לו מה אתה מבקש פטורה,ר' יהודה אומר שתי חצרות זו לפנים מזו הפנימית חייבת והחיצונה פטורה,שאלו את רבי הלכה כדברי מי אמר להו הלכה כדברי כולן להחמיר, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בת עשרים שנה שלא הביאה שתי שערות תביא ראיה שהיא בת עשרים שנה והיא איילונית לא חולצת ולא מתיבמת,בן עשרים שנה שלא הביא שתי שערות יביאו ראיה שהוא בן עשרים שנה והוא סריס לא חולץ ולא מיבם אלו דברי בית הלל בית שמאי אומרים זה וזה בן שמונה עשרה,ר' אליעזר אומר הזכר כדברי בית הלל והנקבה כדברי בית שמאי שהאשה ממהרת לבא לפני האיש, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ורמינהי אחד לי בן תשע שנים ויום אחד ואחד לי בן עשרים שלא הביא שתי שערות,אמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רב והוא שנולדו בו סימני סריס אמר רבא דיקא נמי דקתני והוא סריס ש"מ,וכי לא נולדו לו סימני סריס עד כמה תני ר' חייא עד רוב שנותיו,כי אתו לקמיה דרבי חייא אי כחיש אמר להו אבריוה אי בריא אמר להו אכחשוה דהני סימנים זימנין דאתו מחמת כחישותא זימנין דאתו מחמת בריאותא,אמר רב הלכתא בכולי פרקא מעת לעת ועולא אמר דתנן תנן ודלא תנן לא תנן,בשלמא לעולא היינו דקתני הכא יום אחד והכא לא קתני אלא לרב ליתני,ועוד תני רבי יוסי בן כיפר אומר משום רבי אליעזר שנת עשרים שיצאו ממנה שלשים יום הרי היא כשנת עשרים לכל דבריה וכן הורה רבי בלוד שנת שמנה עשרה שיצאו ממנה שלשים יום הרי היא כשנת שמנה עשרה לכל דבריה,בשלמא דרבי ודרבי יוסי בן כיפר לא קשיא הא כבית שמאי הא כבית הילל אלא לרב קשיא,תנאי היא דתניא שנה האמורה בקדשים שנה האמורה בבתי ערי חומה שתי שנים שבשדה אחוזה,שש שנים שבעבד עברי וכן שבבן ושבבת כולן מעת לעת,שנה האמורה בקדשים מנא לן אמר רב אחא בר יעקב אמר קרא (ויקרא יב, ו) כבש בן שנתו שנתו שלו ולא שנה של מנין עולם,שנה האמורה בבתי ערי חומה מנלן אמר קרא (ויקרא כה, כט) עד תום שנת ממכרו ממכרו שלו ולא שנת של מנין עולם שתי שנים שבשדה אחוזה מנלן אמר קרא {ויקרא כה } במספר | 47b. of b the protuberance above the womb, /b the mons pubis., b And Rabbi Shimon /b ben Yoḥai b would likewise say: The Sages provided three signs /b indicating puberty b in a woman below, /b i.e., near her vagina, b and /b they stated three b corresponding /b signs b above. /b If a woman has the signs of b an unripe fig above, it is known that she has not grown two /b pubic b hairs; /b if she has the signs of b a ripening fig above, it is known that she has grown two hairs; /b and if she has the signs of b a ripe fig above, it is known that the protuberance has softened. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What /b is this b protuberance? Rav Huna says: There is a swollen place /b in a woman’s body, b above that place, /b a euphemism for the vagina. It is initially hard, but b when /b a girl b grows it increasingly softens. /b The Sages b asked Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi: With regard to the signs of maturity in woman, b in accordance with whose statement is the i halakha /i ? He sent them /b in response: The i halakha /i b is stringent in accordance with all of their statements, /b i.e., if any one of these signs mentioned by the Sages cited above appears in a girl, she must be treated as an adult with regard to all stringent aspects of this classification., b Rav Pappa and Rav Ḥina, son of Rav Ika, /b disagree about the context of this statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the i halakha /i is stringent in accordance with all of the Sages’ statements. b One /b of them b teaches /b it b with regard to this /b matter, of a woman’s signs of puberty, b and /b the other b one teaches /b it b with regard to /b the case of b a Tyrian courtyard, as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Ma’asrot /i 3:5): b What is a Tyrian courtyard, which /b renders food brought inside it to be b required to be tithed? Rabbi Shimon says: A Tyrian courtyard /b is one b inside of which vessels are safe. /b ,The Sages discuss this mishna: b What /b is the meaning of b a Tyrian courtyard? Rabba bar bar Ḥana says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b The courtyard is called by this name b as /b the custom b in /b the city of b Tyre /b is to b place a watchman at the entrance of the courtyard /b to guard the articles inside. Consequently, any courtyard in which vessels are safe is called a Tyrian courtyard. b Rabbi Akiva says: /b In b any /b courtyard b where /b there is no permanent watchman who locks and unlocks it, but rather b one /b of its residents b opens /b the courtyard b and /b another b one locks /b it, e.g., a courtyard shared by several partners, each of whom can do as he chooses without asking the other, the produce inside it is b exempt /b from the obligation of separating tithe, as such a courtyard is not considered one in which vessels are safe., b Rabbi Neḥemya says: Any /b courtyard b which /b is hidden from the gaze of outsiders, and therefore b a person is not ashamed to eat inside it, /b that courtyard renders produce inside it b obligated /b to have tithe separated from it. b Rabbi Yosei says: Any /b courtyard b that /b one who does not live there b can enter it, and /b the residents b do not say to him: What do you want /b here, produce inside such a courtyard is b exempt /b from tithe., b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If there are b two courtyards, one within the other, /b positioned in such a manner that the residents of the inner courtyard cannot enter their houses without passing through the outer courtyard, whereas the residents of the outer courtyard do not traverse the inner one, b the inner /b courtyard renders any produce located inside it b obligated /b to have tithe separated from it, b but /b produce located in b the outer /b courtyard is b exempt /b from tithe. It is not safe, as residents of a different courtyard pass freely through it.,According to the opinion of one of the i amora’im /i mentioned above, i.e., either Rav Pappa or Rav Ḥina, son of Rav Ika, it was with regard to this issue that the Sages b asked Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi: b In accordance with whose statement is the i halakha /i ? He said to them: The i halakha /i is stringent in accordance with all of /b the Sages’ b statements. /b In other words, with regard to any courtyard in which produce must be tithed according to any of these opinions, the i halakha /i is that tithe must be separated from this produce., strong MISHNA: /strong A girl twelve years and one day old who grew two pubic hairs is classified as a young woman. Six months later, she becomes a grown woman. But a woman who is b twenty years old who did not grow two /b pubic b hairs /b and was never classified as a young woman b shall bring proof that she is twenty years old, and /b from that point forward b she /b assumes the status of b a sexually underdeveloped woman [ i ailonit /i ], /b who is incapable of bearing children. If she married and her husband died childless, b she neither performs i ḥalitza /i nor does she enter into levirate marriage, /b as the mitzva of levirate marriage applies only to a woman capable of conceiving a child. An i ailonit /i is excluded from that mitzva.,In the case of a man who is b twenty years old who did not grow two /b pubic b hairs, they shall bring proof that he is twenty years old and he /b assumes the status of b a sexually underdeveloped man [ i saris /i ], /b who is excluded from the mitzva of levirate marriage. Therefore, if his married brother dies childless, b he neither performs i ḥalitza /i nor enters into levirate marriage /b with his i yevama /i . b This is the statement of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say: /b For both b this /b case of a woman b and that /b case of a man, they shall bring proof that they are b eighteen years old, /b and they assume the status of a sexually underdeveloped woman and man respectively., b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b The status of b the male /b is determined b in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, /b i.e., he assumes the status of a sexually underdeveloped man at the age of twenty; b and /b the status of b the female /b is determined b in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai, /b i.e., she assumes the status of a sexually underdeveloped woman at the age of eighteen. The reason is b that the woman is quick to reach /b physical maturity, and reaches that stage b before the man /b reaches physical maturity., strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that a sexually underdeveloped man does not enter into levirate marriage with the widow of his childless brother. b And /b the Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from another mishna ( i Yevamot /i 96b): A boy who is b nine years and one day old, /b who has not developed two hairs, b and /b a man who is b twenty years old who has not grown two hairs, are one and the same to me /b with regard to levirate marriage, in that if they engaged in intercourse with the widow of their childless brother, this levirate marriage is partially effective, to the extent that this woman requires both a bill of divorce and i ḥalitza /i ., b Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak says /b that b Rav says /b in explanation of the ruling of the mishna here: b And this /b i halakha /i applies only in a case b where he developed /b physical b signs of a sexually underdeveloped man /b (see i Yevamot /i 80b) by the age of twenty. By contrast, the mishna in i Yevamot /i is referring to one who did not develop signs of a sexually underdeveloped man. b Rava said: /b The language of the mishna b is also precise, as it teaches: And he is a sexually underdeveloped man, /b which indicates that he had already developed physical signs of such a condition. The Gemara concludes: b Conclude from it /b that this is the correct interpretation of the mishna.,The Gemara asks a question with regard to the i halakha /i itself: b And /b in a case b where he does not develop the signs of a sexually underdeveloped man, until what /b age is he considered a minor? b Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: Until most of his years /b have passed, i.e., until he reaches the age of thirty-five, halfway to seventy, which is the standard length of a person’s life.,The Gemara relates: b When /b people b would come before Rabbi Ḥiyya /b to inquire about someone who had reached the age of puberty but had not yet developed the physical signs of maturity, b if /b the person in question was b thin, he /b would b say to them: Go /b and b fatten him /b up before we decide on his status. b If /b he was b fat, /b Rabbi Ḥiyya would b say to them: Go /b and b make him thin. As these signs /b indicating puberty b sometimes come due to thinness /b and b sometimes they come due to fatness. /b It is therefore possible that after his bodily shape is properly adjusted this individual will develop the signs indicating puberty and will not have the status of a sexually underdeveloped man.,§ b Rav said: The i halakha /i in /b this b entire chapter /b with regard to all of the places where an age is mentioned in years is that even when the phrase: And one day, is not explicitly noted, they are all calculated b from /b the b time /b of year of birth b until /b that same b time /b of year in the age specified. b And Ulla said: /b With regard to cases b where we learned /b in the mishna a quantity of years including the phrase: And one day, b we learned /b that the reference is to full years; b and /b with regard to cases b where we did not learn /b this phrase, i.e., where a quantity of years is mentioned in the mishna without the phrase: And one day, b we did not learn /b it, and part of the final year is equivalent to a whole year.,The Gemara discusses these two opinions. b Granted, according to Ulla, this /b is the reason b that /b the i tanna /i b teaches there, /b in previous i mishnayot /i (44b, 45a, 45b): And b one day; and here, /b in this mishna, the i tanna /i b does not teach /b this phrase. b But according to Rav, let /b the i tanna /i be consistent and b teach /b this phrase in all cases, including the mishna here., b And furthermore, it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yosei ben Keifar says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer /b with regard to the i halakhot /i of a sexually underdeveloped man and a sexually underdeveloped woman: b The twentieth year, of which thirty days have passed, /b i.e., from the age of nineteen and thirty days, b is /b considered b like the twentieth year in all regards; and Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b similarly issued /b a practical b ruling /b of i halakha /i b in /b the city of b Lod, /b that b the eighteenth year of which thirty days have passed is /b considered b like the eighteenth year in all regards. /b , b Granted, /b according to the opinion of Ulla, it is b not difficult that Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi is referring to the eighteenth year whereas b Rabbi Yosei ben Keifar /b discusses the twentieth year, as b this /b statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Beit Shammai /b with regard to the age of a sexually underdeveloped woman, and b that /b statement of Rabbi Yosei ben Keifar is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Beit Hillel. But according to /b the opinion of b Rav, /b who maintains that full years are required for a sexually underdeveloped man or woman, this i baraita /i poses b a difficulty. /b ,The Gemara answers that this matter b is /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i , /b and Rav maintains in accordance with the opinion that full years are required. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : Full years are required with regard to the period of one b year stated with regard to sacrificial /b animals, e.g., “a lamb in its first year” (Leviticus 12:6); the one b year stated with regard to houses of walled cities, /b during which one can redeem a house he has sold in a walled city (see Leviticus 25:29); and the b two years /b stated b with regard to an ancestral field, /b during which one cannot yet redeem an ancestral field he has sold (see Leviticus 25:15).,The b six years /b stated b with regard to a Hebrew slave /b (see Exodus 21:2) b and similarly /b the years b of a son and of a daughter, /b as will be explained, b all of /b these are years b from /b the b time /b of the first year b until /b that same b time /b of year in the year specified, i.e., these periods are units of whole years instead of expiring on predetermined dates, as at the end of the calendar year. This supports the opinion of Rav that the years mentioned with regard to a sexually underdeveloped man or woman are full years.,The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive that the one b year stated with regard to sacrificial /b animals is calculated by whole years and not by calendar years? b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said /b that b the verse states: “A lamb in its first year” /b (Leviticus 12:6). Since the verse does not state: A one-year-old lamb, it means b a year /b based on calculation of b its /b life, b and not a year of the universal count, /b i.e., the calendar year.,The Gemara further asks: b From where do we /b derive the i halakha /i that the one b year stated with regard to houses of walled cities /b is calculated by a whole year and not by calendar year? b The verse states: /b “Then he may redeem it b within a whole year after it is sold, /b for a full year he shall have the right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:29). The verse is referring to a year counted from the day b of its /b own b sale, and not the year of the universal count. From where do we /b derive that the b two years /b stated b with regard to an ancestral field /b are whole years? b The verse states: /b “According the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy from your neighbor, and b according to the number /b |
|
43. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 176| 3a. (במדבר כא, א) וישמע הכנעני מלך ערד מה שמועה שמע שמע שמת אהרן ונסתלקו ענני כבוד וכסבור ניתנה רשות להלחם בישראל והיינו דכתיב (במדבר כ, כט) ויראו כל העדה כי גוע אהרן,וא"ר אבהו אל תקרי ויראו אלא וייראו כדריש לקיש דאמר ר"ל כי משמש בד' לשונות אי דילמא אלא דהא,מי דמי התם כנען הכא סיחון תנא הוא סיחון הוא ערד הוא כנען סיחון שדומה לסייח במדבר כנען על שם מלכותו ומה שמו ערד שמו איכא דאמרי ערד שדומה לערוד במדבר כנען על שם מלכותו ומה שמו סיחון שמו,ואימא ר"ה אייר,לא סלקא דעתך דכתיב (שמות מ, יז) ויהי בחדש הראשון בשנה השנית באחד לחדש הוקם המשכן וכתיב (במדבר י, יא) ויהי בשנה השנית בחדש השני נעלה הענן מעל משכן העדות מדקאי בניסן וקרי לה שנה שנית וקאי באייר וקרי לה שנה שני' מכלל דר"ה לאו אייר הוא,ואימא ר"ה סיון לא ס"ד דכתיב (שמות יט, א) בחדש השלישי לצאת בני ישראל מארץ מצרים ואם איתא בחדש השלישי בשנה השנית לצאת וגו' מיבעי ליה,ואימא תמוז ואימא אב ואימא אדר,אלא אמר ר"א מהכא (ב דברי הימים ג, ב) ויחל לבנות בחדש השני בשני בשנת ארבע למלכותו מאי שני לאו שני לירח שמונין בו למלכותו,מתקיף לה רבינא ואימא שני בחדש א"כ שני בחדש בהדיה הוה כתיב ביה,ואימא בשני בשבת חדא דלא אשכחן שני בשבת דכתיב ועוד מקיש שני בתרא לשני קמא מה שני קמא חדש אף שני בתרא חדש,תניא כוותיה דר' יוחנן מניין שאין מונין להם למלכים אלא מניסן שנא' (מלכים א ו, א) ויהי בשמונים שנה וארבע מאות שנה לצאת בני ישראל מארץ מצרים וגו' וכתיב (במדבר לג, לח) ויעל אהרן הכהן אל הר ההר על פי ה' וגו' [וכתיב (דברים א, ג) ויהי בארבעים שנה בעשתי עשר חדש],וכתיב (דברים א, ד) אחרי הכותו את סיחון וגו' ואומר וישמע הכנעני וגו' ואומר ויראו כל העדה כי גוע אהרן וגו' ואומר ויהי בחדש הראשון בשנה השנית וגו',ואומר ויהי בשנה השנית בחדש השני וגו' ואומר בחדש השלישי לצאת בני ישראל וגו' ואומר ויחל לבנות וגו',א"ר חסדא לא שנו אלא למלכי ישראל אבל למלכי אומות העולם מתשרי מנינן שנא' (נחמיה א, א) דברי נחמיה בן חכליה ויהי בחדש כסליו שנת עשרים וגו' וכתיב (נחמיה ב, א) ויהי בחדש ניסן שנת עשרי' לארתחשסתא וגו',מדקאי בכסליו וקרי ליה שנת עשרים וקאי בניסן וקרי ליה שנת עשרים מכלל דר"ה לאו ניסן הוא,בשלמא היאך מפרש דלארתחשסתא אלא האי ממאי דלארתחשסתא דילמא | 3a. b “And when the Canaanite, the king of Arad, /b who dwelt in the South, b heard /b tell that Israel came by the way of Atharim; and he fought against Israel” (Numbers 21:1). b What report did he hear? He heard that Aaron had died, and that the clouds of glory had withdrawn /b from the Jewish people, b and he thought /b that b he had been granted permission to wage war against the Jewish people. And this is as it is written: “And all the congregation saw that [ i ki /i ] Aaron was dead, /b and they wept for Aaron thirty days, all the house of Israel” (Numbers 20:29).,About this, b Rabbi Abbahu said: Do not read /b the verse as: b “And they saw [ i vayiru /i ]”; rather, /b read it as: b “And they were seen [ i vayeira’u /i ]” /b by others, because the cover of the clouds of glory had been removed from them. b And /b the next word, “that [ i ki /i ],” should be understood as meaning because, b in accordance with /b the statement of b Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish said: /b The word b i ki /i is used /b in the Bible b in four senses: If, perhaps, but, and because. /b Therefore, the verse should be understood as follows: And all the congregation was seen, i.e., revealed, because Aaron had died. This shows that at the time of Aaron’s death Sihon was still alive; perforce, Moses’ oration, which was delivered after he had slain Sihon, must have occurred later.,The Gemara raises an objection against this proof: b Is it comparable? There, /b the verse is speaking of b Canaan, /b king of Arad, whereas b here, /b the verse is speaking of b Sihon. /b What proof, then, can be brought from the one with regard to the other? The Gemara explains: A Sage b taught /b in a i baraita /i : All three names are referring to the same person: b He is Sihon, /b and b he is Arad, /b and b he is /b also b Canaan. /b He was called b Sihon because he was similar /b in his wildness b to a foal [ i seyyaḥ /i ] in the desert; /b and he was called b Canaan after his kingdom, /b as he ruled over the Canaanite people; b and what was his /b real b name? Arad was his name. Some say /b an alternative explanation: He was called b Arad because he was similar to a wild ass [ i arod /i ] in the desert; /b and he was called b Canaan after his kingdom; and what was his /b real b name? Sihon was his name. /b ,The Gemara raises another question: Granted, when counting the years from the exodus from Egypt, Av and the following Shevat are both part of the same year, but it has not been established that the counting of years from the Exodus is specifically from Nisan. b Say /b that the b New Year /b for this purpose b is /b in the following month, the month of b Iyyar. /b ,The Gemara rejects this proposal: b It should not enter your mind /b to say this, b as it is written: “And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the Tabernacle was established” /b (Exodus 40:17), b and it is written: “And it came to pass in the second year, in the second month, /b on the twentieth day of the month, b that the cloud was taken up from over the Tabernacle of the testimony” /b (Numbers 10:11). It may be argued as follows: b From /b the fact b that when /b the Bible b speaks of Nisan, /b which is the first month, b it calls it “the second year,” and when it speaks of /b the following b Iyyar, /b which is the second month, b it /b also b calls it “the second year,” by inference, Rosh HaShana is not /b at the beginning of b Iyyar. /b Were it the case that the New Year begins in Iyyar, Nisan and the following Iyyar would not occur in the same year, as the year would have changed in Iyyar.,The Gemara asks further: b And say /b that the b New Year /b for this purpose b is /b in the third month, the month of b Sivan. /b The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b It should not enter your mind /b to say this, b as it is written: “In the third month, after the children of Israel were gone out of the land of Egypt, /b the same day they came into the wilderness of Sinai” (Exodus 19:1). b And if it is so /b that the New Year is the beginning of Sivan, the verse b should have /b said: b In the third month, in the second year after /b the children of Israel b were gone out /b of the land of Egypt, as a new year had started.,The Gemara continues: b But /b perhaps one could b say /b that the New Year for counting the Exodus is in the fourth month, the month of b Tammuz; or say /b that it is in the fifth month, the month of b Av; or say /b that it is in the twelfth month, the month of b Adar. /b There is no clear refutation that these months are not the New Year., b Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: /b It is b from here /b that it is derived that the years of a king’s rule are counted from Nisan, as it is stated: b “And he began to build in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign” /b (II Chronicles 3:2). b What is /b the meaning of the words b “the second”? Doesn’t it /b mean b second to the month from which /b Solomon’s b reign is counted? /b This is clear proof that the years of a king’s rule are counted from the first month, i.e., the month of Nisan., b Ravina strongly objects to this: /b Why not b say /b that the words “the second” are referring to b the second /b day b of the month? /b The Gemara answers: b If so, it should have explicitly stated: “On the second of the month,” /b as that is the formulation usually used in the Bible to refer to a specific day of the month.,The Gemara raises another objection: Why not b say /b that the words “the second” are referring to the second day b of the week? /b This argument is rejected for two reasons: b First, we have not found the second /b day b of the week /b ever being b written; /b nowhere does the Bible give the day of the week on which a particular event transpired. b And further, /b the verse b juxtaposes the second /b instance of the word b “second” to the first /b instance of the word b “second”: Just as the first “second” /b is referring to b a month, so too, the latter “second” /b is referring to b a month. /b ,It b is taught /b in a i baraita /i b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yoḥa: From where /b is it derived b that one counts /b the years of b kings’ /b reigns b only from /b the month of b Nisan? As it is stated: “And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, /b in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord” (I Kings 6:1). b And it is written: “And Aaron the priest went up to Mount Hor at the commandment of the Lord, /b and died there, in the fortieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fifth month, on the first day of the month” (Numbers 33:38). b And it is /b later b written: “And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, /b on the first of the month, that Moses spoke to the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 1:3)., b And it is written: “After he had slain Sihon, /b the king of the Amorites, who dwelt in Heshbon” (Deuteronomy 1:4). b And it says: “And when the Canaanite, /b the king of Arad, who dwelt in the South, b heard” /b (Numbers 33:40). b And it says: “And all the congregation saw that Aaron was dead, /b and they wept for Aaron thirty days” (Numbers 20:29). b And it says: “And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, /b on the first day of the month, that the Tabernacle was established” (Exodus 40:17)., b And it says: “And it came to pass in the second year, in the second month, /b on the twentieth day of the month, that the cloud was taken up from off the Tabernacle of the testimony” (Numbers 10:11). b And it says: “In the third month, after the children of Israel were gone out /b of the land of Egypt, the same day they came into the wilderness of Sinai” (Exodus 19:1). b And it says: “And he began to build /b in the second month, in the second, in the fourth year of his reign” (II Chronicles 3:2). This list of verses summarizes Rabbi Yoḥa’s explanation.,§ b Rav Ḥisda said: They taught /b that the years of a king’s rule are counted from the first of Nisan b only with regard to the /b Jewish b kings of Israel, but /b the years of b the kings of the /b gentile b nations of the world are counted from Tishrei, as it is stated: “The words of Nehemiah, son of Hachaliah. And it came to pass in the month Kislev, in the twentieth year, /b as I was in Shushan the capital” (Nehemiah 1:1). b And it is written: “And it came to pass in the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes /b the king, that wine was before him, and I took up the wine, and gave it to the king” (Nehemiah 2:1)., b From /b the fact b that when /b the Bible b speaks of /b the month of b Kislev it calls it the twentieth year, and when it speaks of /b the following b Nisan it /b also b calls it the twentieth year, by inference, /b the b New Year /b for gentile kings b does not /b begin in b Nisan. /b Were it the case that the New Year did begin in Nisan, Kislev and the following Nisan would not occur in the same year.,The Gemara raises an objection: b Granted, /b in b this /b second verse b it is explicitly stated /b that the count relates to the years b of Artaxerxes. But /b as for b that /b first verse, b from where /b is it known that the count relates to the years b of Artaxerxes? Perhaps /b |
|
44. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 70| 26b. אמרו ליה משירייתך היכא אמר הדרו בי אמרו ליה אם כן אחוכי קא מחייכת בן נקבוהו בעקביו ותלאוהו בזנבי סוסיהם והיו מגררין אותו על הקוצים ועל הברקנין,אמר רבי אלעזר שבנא בעל הנאה היה כתיב הכא (ישעיהו כב, טו) לך בא אל הסוכן הזה וכתיב התם (מלכים א א, ב) ותהי לו סוכנת,(ואומר) (תהלים יא, ג) כי השתות יהרסון צדיק מה פעל רב יהודה ורב עינא חד אמר אילו חזקיה וסיעתו נהרסים צדיק מה פעל וחד אמר אילו בית המקדש יהרס צדיק מה פעל ועולא אמר אילו מחשבותיו של אותו רשע אינן נהרסות צדיק מה פעל,בשלמא למאן דאמר אילו מחשבותיו של אותו רשע היינו דכתיב כי השתות יהרסון,ולמ"ד בית המקדש נמי דתנן אבן היתה שם מימות נביאים הראשונים ושתייה היתה נקראת,אלא למ"ד חזקיה וסיעתו היכא אשכחן צדיקי דאיקרו שתות,דכתיב (שמואל א ב, ח) כי לה' מצוקי ארץ וישת עליהם תבל ואיבעית אימא מהכא (ישעיהו כח, כט) הפליא עצה הגדיל תושיה,א"ר חנן למה נקרא שמה תושיה מפני שהיא מתשת כחו של אדם דבר אחר תושיה שניתנה בחשאי מפני השטן דבר אחר תושיה דברים של תוהו שהעולם משותת עליהם,אמר עולא מחשבה מועלת אפילו לד"ת שנאמר (איוב ה, יב) מפר מחשבות ערומים ולא תעשינה ידיהם תושיה,אמר רבה אם עסוקין לשמה אינה מועלת שנאמר (משלי יט, כא) רבות מחשבות בלב איש ועצת ה' היא תקום עצה שיש בה דבר ה' היא תקום לעולם:,אמר ר' יהודה אימתי: א"ר אבהו א"ר אלעזר הלכה כרבי יהודה,וא"ר אבהו אמר רבי אלעזר כולן צריכין הכרזה בבית דין,רועה פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אמר בעי הכרזה וחד אמר לא בעי הכרזה,בשלמא למ"ד לא בעי הכרזה היינו דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב סתם רועה פסול אלא למ"ד בעי הכרזה מאי סתם רועה פסול,דבסתמא מכרזינן עליה,ההיא מתנה דהוו חתימי עלה תרין גזלנין סבר רב פפא בר שמואל לאכשורה דהא לא אכרזינן עלייהו,אמר ליה רבא נהי דבעינן הכרזה בגזלן דרבנן בגזלן דאורייתא מי בעינן הכרזה:,סימן דב"ר ועריו"ת גנ"ב:,אמר רב נחמן אוכלי דבר אחר פסולין לעדות,הני מילי בפרהסיא אבל בצינעה לא ובפרהסיא נמי לא אמרן אלא דאפשר ליה לאיתזוני בצינעה וקא מבזי נפשיה בפרהסיא אבל לא אפשר ליה חיותיה הוא,אמר רב נחמן החשוד על העריות כשר לעדות אמר רב ששת עני מרי ארבעין בכתפיה וכשר,אמר רבא ומודה רב נחמן לענין עדות אשה שהוא פסול אמר רבינא ואיתימא רב פפא לא אמרן אלא לאפוקה אבל לעיולה לית לן בה,פשיטא מהו דתימא הא עדיפא ליה דכתיב (משלי ט, יז) מים גנובים ימתקו וגו' קמ"ל דכמה דקיימא הכי שכיחא ליה,ואמר רב נחמן גנב ניסן וגנב תשרי לא שמיה גנב,הני מילי באריסא ודבר מועט ובדבר שנגמרה מלאכתו,איכריה דרב זביד חד גנב קבא דשערי ופסליה וחד גנב קיבורא דאהיני ופסליה,הנהו קבוראי דקבור נפשא ביום טוב ראשון של עצרת שמתינהו רב פפא ופסלינהו לעדות ואכשרינהו רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע,אמר ליה רב פפא והא רשעים נינהו סברי מצוה קא עבדי,והא קא משמתינא להו סברי כפרה קא עבדי לן רבנן:,איתמר | 26b. The Assyrians b said to him: Where is your camp? /b Shebna b said: They backed out on me. They said to him: If so, you are mocking us; /b you led us to believe that behind you stands a large camp of supporters. b They punched holes in his heels and hung him by the tails of their horses, and dragged him on the thorns and on the bristles. /b , b Rabbi Elazar says: Shebna was a hedonist. It is written here: “Go, get yourself to this steward [ i hasokhen /i ], /b to Shebna, who is over the house” (Isaiah 22:15), b and it is written there /b with regard to Abishag the Shunammite: b “And let her be a companion [ i sokhenet /i ] to him; /b and let her lie in your bosom, that my lord the king may get heat” (I Kings 1:2)., b And /b following the aforementioned verse: “For behold, the wicked bend the bow, they have made ready their arrow upon the string,” the next verse b states: “When the foundations are destroyed, what has the Righteous One done?” /b (Psalms 11:3). b Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina /b interpret this verse. b One says: If Hezekiah and his camp are destroyed, what has the Righteous One done? And one says: If the Temple should be destroyed, what has the Righteous One done? And Ulla says: If the intentions of that wicked person, /b Sennacherib, b are not destroyed, what has the Righteous One done? /b ,The Gemara asks: b Granted, according to the one who says /b that the verse means: b If the intentions of that wicked person /b are not destroyed, what has the Righteous One done, b this is /b the reason b that it is written: “When the foundations [ i hashatot /i ] are destroyed,” /b i.e., the intentions of Sennacherib are destroyed, as intentions are called i shatot /i ., b And according to the one who says /b it is referring to b the Temple, /b the word i hashatot /i is b also /b clear, b as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Yoma /i 53b): b There was a stone /b in the Holy of Holies b from the days of the early prophets, /b David and Samuel, who laid the groundwork for construction of the Temple, b and /b this stone b was called /b the b Foundation [ i shetiyya /i ] /b Stone., b But according to the one who says /b that the reference is to b Hezekiah and his camp, where do we find that righteous people are referred to as i shatot /i ? /b ,The Gemara answers: b As it is written: /b “He raises up the poor out of the dust, He lifts up the needy from the dung hill, to make them sit with princes and inherit the throne of glory; b for the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and He has set [ i vayyashet /i ] the world upon them” /b (I Samuel 2:8). Since the righteous are considered the foundations of the world, this verse is interpreted in reference to them. b And if you wish, say /b instead that it is derived b from here: “Wonderful is His counsel, and great His wisdom [ i tushiyya /i ]” /b (Isaiah 28:29). Accordingly, the wise, righteous people are called i shatot /i .,With regard to the latter verse, b Rabbi Ḥa says: Why is /b the Torah b called i tushiyya /i ? Because it weakens [ i matteshet /i ] the strength of a person /b who engages in its study. b Alternatively, i tushiyya /i /b can be interpreted as an abbreviation: b That it was given in secret [ i shenittena beḥashai /i ]. /b This was done b because of the Satan, /b lest he claim that the Jewish people are not worthy of it. b Alternatively, i tushiyya /i /b can be interpreted as an abbreviation for b amorphous [ i tohu /i ] matters that /b seem foreign and strange, but nevertheless b the world is founded [ i meshotat /i ] on them. /b , b Ulla says: Thought, /b i.e., concern, b is effective [ i mo’elet /i ] in /b disturbing b even /b the study of b statements of Torah, as it is stated: “He frustrates the thoughts of the crafty, so that their hands can perform nothing [ i velo…tushiyya /i ]” /b (Job 5:12), and i tushiyya /i is a reference to Torah., b Rabba says: If /b people b engage /b in Torah study b for its own sake, /b concern b is not effective; as it is stated: “There are many devices in a man’s heart; but the counsel of the Lord, that shall stand” /b (Proverbs 19:21). Rabba interprets this to mean that b a counsel that has in it the statement of the Lord shall rise forever /b and cannot be disturbed.,§ The mishna teaches that b Rabbi Yehuda says: When /b are all these people, e.g., gamblers and those who lend with interest, disqualified from bearing witness? It is when they have no occupation other than this one. b Rabbi Abbahu says /b that b Rabbi Elazar says: The i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda. /b , b And Rabbi Abbahu says /b that b Rabbi Elazar says: All of /b these b require a proclamation in the court. /b In other words, one is disqualified only after it is proclaimed in court that he was found guilty of this behavior.,With regard to b a shepherd, /b who is also disqualified from bearing witness, b Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree. One says /b that b he requires a proclamation /b that he is disqualified due to his being a shepherd, b and one says /b that b he does not require a proclamation /b and is disqualified automatically.,The Gemara asks: b Granted, according to the one who says /b that b he does not require a proclamation, this is what Rav Yehuda /b means when he b says /b that b Rav says /b that b an ordinary shepherd is disqualified, /b i.e., he does not require a specific proclamation. b But according to the one who says /b that a shepherd b requires a proclamation, what /b is meant by the statement that b an ordinary shepherd is disqualified? /b ,The Gemara answers: It means b that in an ordinary /b case, the court b proclaims about him /b that he is disqualified for having engaged in shepherding. If the court discovers that he regularly engages in this trade, it proclaims immediately that he is disqualified, and the court does not need to prove that he shepherds his flock in the fields of others.,The Gemara recounts: With regard to b a certain /b deed of b gift on which /b the names of b two robbers were signed, Rav Pappa bar Shmuel thought to deem it valid /b despite the identity of the witnesses, b as /b the court b did not proclaim about them /b that they were disqualified., b Rava said to him: Although we require a proclamation /b in order to disqualify a robber from bearing witness, this is only b with regard to a robber /b who is guilty of stealing b by rabbinic law; with regard to a robber /b who is guilty of stealing b by Torah law, do we require a proclamation? /b He is disqualified automatically.,§ The Gemara states b a mnemonic /b for the following statements with regard to disqualification from testifying: b Something; and forbidden sexual relations; /b and b a thief. /b , b Rav Naḥman says: Those who eat something else, /b a euphemism for pork, b are disqualified from bearing witness. /b This is referring to those who accept charity from gentiles, thereby causing a desecration of God’s name. They are tantamount to wicked people guilty of monetary transgressions, as they are willing to desecrate God’s name for monetary gain.,The Gemara comments: b This statement /b applies with regard to taking charity from gentiles b in public [ i befarhesya /i ], but /b if one takes it b in private /b he is b not /b disqualified. b And even /b if he takes it b in public, we said /b that he is disqualified b only /b in a case b where he can sustain /b himself by accepting charity from gentiles b in private and /b despite this b he disgraces himself /b by taking it b in public. But /b if b he cannot /b support himself in any other manner, he is not disqualified, as b it is his livelihood. /b , b Rav Naḥman says: One who /b due to a rumor b is suspected of /b engaging in b forbidden sexual relations is fit to bear witness. Rav Sheshet said /b to him: b Answer me, my Master: /b The i halakha /i is that one who is rumored to have engaged in forbidden sexual intercourse receives b forty /b lashes b on his shoulders, and /b yet you say b he is fit /b to bear witness?, b Rava said: And Rav Naḥman concedes that he is disqualified with regard to testimony /b about the status of a married b woman, /b as he is clearly under suspicion with regard to this matter. b Ravina says, and some say Rav Pappa /b says: b We said /b he is disqualified b only with regard to /b testimony that b removes her /b status as a married woman, e.g., testimony that her husband died, as he is suspected of wanting her for himself. b But with regard to /b testimony that b establishes her /b in that status, b we have no /b problem b with it. /b ,The Gemara asks: Isn’t that b obvious? /b Why should he be suspected of lying in order to render a woman married? The Gemara answers: b Lest you say /b that if he wants her for himself, b this /b situation, i.e., her being married to another, b is preferable to him; as it is written: “Stolen waters are sweet /b and bread eaten in secret is pleasant” (Proverbs 9:17), i.e., the forbidden is more pleasant than the permitted, Rav Pappa b teaches us /b that this is not the case, b as the way /b the woman b is /b now, being unmarried, b she is /b more b available to him. /b He therefore is not motivated to testify falsely that she is married., b And Rav Naḥman says: A thief of Nisan and a thief of Tishrei, /b i.e., one who steals during the harvest seasons, b is not called a thief /b and is therefore not disqualified from bearing witness.,The Gemara explains: b This statement /b applies specifically b with regard to a tet farmer, and /b it is a situation where he took b a small amount, and in /b a case where it was b an item whose work was completed, /b i.e., that needed no further processing. Since the produce was sufficiently processed, the tet may assume that he deserves additional pay for any further labor and justify taking a small amount of the produce for his effort. Consequently, his theft is not willful.,The Gemara recounts: An incident occurred with b the /b tet b farmers of Rav Zevid. One stole a i kav /i of barley, and /b Rav Zevid b disqualified him /b from bearing witness, b and one stole a cluster of dates, and he disqualified him. /b The reason for their disqualification is that the quantity of produce they stole is not considered a small amount.,The Gemara relates: There were b these gravediggers, who buried a person on the first day of the festival of i Shavuot /i , /b desecrating the Festival. b Rav Pappa excommunicated them and /b then b disqualified them from bearing witness, and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, deemed them fit /b to bear witness., b Rav Pappa said to /b Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua: b But aren’t they wicked people, /b as they violated a Torah prohibition? Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, answered him: b They assumed they were doing a mitzva, /b as they were burying the dead.,Rav Pappa asked: b But didn’t I excommunicate them /b for this? Nevertheless, they continued to bury people on the Festival. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, answered: b They assumed: /b We were not excommunicated for doing something wrong. Rather, since the mitzva of burying the dead involved desecrating the Festival, b the Sages are achieving atonement for us, /b although our behavior was appropriate.,§ A conspiring witness is one who testified that a certain incident occurred at a particular time and place, and then two other witnesses testify that he was elsewhere at that time. The Gemara discusses the disqualification of a conspiring witness from providing testimony in other cases. b It was stated /b |
|
45. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 53| 30a. מתני׳ big strongשבועת /strong /big העדות נוהגת באנשים ולא בנשים ברחוקין ולא בקרובין בכשרין ולא בפסולין ואינה נוהגת אלא בראוין להעיד,בפני בית דין ושלא בפני ב"ד מפי עצמו ומפי אחרים אין חייבין עד שיכפרו בהן בב"ד דברי ר' מאיר וחכמים אומרים בין מפי עצמו ובין מפי אחרים אינן חייבין עד שיכפרו בהן בב"ד,וחייבין על זדון השבועה ועל שגגתה עם זדון העדות ואינן חייבין על שגגתה ומה הן חייבין על זדון השבועה קרבן עולה ויורד:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מנהני מילי דת"ר (דברים יט, יז) ועמדו שני האנשים בעדים הכתוב מדבר,אתה אומר בעדים או אינו אלא בבעלי דינין כשהוא אומר (דברים יט, יז) אשר להם הריב הרי בעלי דינין אמור הא מה אני מקיים ועמדו שני האנשים בעדים הכתוב מדבר ואם נפשך לומר נאמר כאן שני ונאמר להלן (דברים יט, יז) שני מה להלן בעדים אף כאן בעדים,מאי אם נפשך לומר וכי תימא מדלא כתב ואשר להם הריב כוליה קרא בבעלי דינין משתעי נאמר כאן שני ונאמר להלן שני מה להלן בעדים אף כאן בעדים,תניא אידך ועמדו שני האנשים בעדים הכתוב מדבר אתה אומר בעדים או אינו אלא בבעלי דינין אמרת וכי שנים באים לדין שלשה אין באין לדין ואם נפשך לומר נאמר כאן שני ונאמר להלן שני מה להלן בעדים אף כאן בעדים,מאי אם נפשך לומר וכי תימא בתובע ונתבע קא משתעי קרא נאמר כאן שני ונאמר להלן שני מה להלן בעדים אף כאן בעדים,תניא אידך ועמדו שני האנשים בעדים הכתוב מדבר אתה אומר בעדים או אינו אלא בבעלי דינין אמרת וכי אנשים באין לדין נשים אין באות לדין ואם נפשך לומר נאמר כאן שני ונאמר להלן שני מה להלן בעדים אף כאן בעדים,מאי אם נפשך לומר וכי תימא אשה לאו אורחה משום (תהלים מה, יד) כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה נאמר כאן שני ונאמר להלן שני מה להלן בעדים אף כאן בעדים,ת"ר ועמדו שני האנשים מצוה לבעלי דינין שיעמדו אמר ר' יהודה שמעתי שאם רצו להושיב את שניהם מושיבין איזהו אסור שלא יהא אחד עומד ואחד יושב אחד מדבר כל צרכו ואחד אומר לו קצר דבריך,ת"ר (ויקרא יט, טו) בצדק תשפוט עמיתך שלא יהא אחד יושב ואחד עומד אחד מדבר כל צרכו ואחד אומר לו קצר דבריך ד"א בצדק תשפוט עמיתך הוי דן את חבירך לכף זכות,תני רב יוסף בצדק תשפוט עמיתך עם שאתך בתורה ובמצות השתדל לדונו יפה,רב עולא בריה דרב עילאי הוה ליה דינא קמיה דרב נחמן שלח ליה רב יוסף עולא חברנו עמית בתורה ובמצות אמר למאי שלח לי לחנופי ליה הדר אמר למישרא בתיגריה | 30a. strong MISHNA: /strong b The oath of testimony is practiced with regard to men but not with regard to women, with regard to non-relatives /b of the litigants b but not with regard to relatives, with regard to /b those b fit /b to testify b but not with regard to /b those b unfit /b to testify due to a transgression that they performed. b And /b the oath of testimony b is practiced only with regard to /b those b fit to testify. /b ,The oath of testimony is practiced both b in the presence of a court and not in the presence of a court, /b when the potential witness takes the oath b on his own. But /b if the oath is administered b by others /b and those denying that they witnessed the incident in question neither take an oath nor answer amen to the administered oath, b they are not liable until they deny /b any knowledge of the incident in question b in court. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: Whether /b one of the witnesses takes the oath b on his own or whether /b the oath is administered b by others, /b the witnesses b are not liable until they deny /b any knowledge of the incident in question before the litigants b in court. /b , b And one is liable for /b the act of taking a false b oath with intent and for an unwitting /b act of taking a false oath, i.e., he is unaware of the liability for taking a false oath, provided that he takes the oath b with intent /b in terms of b the testimony, /b i.e., he takes an oath that he has no knowledge of the matter even though he knows that he witnessed the incident. b But /b witnesses b are not liable for /b taking the oath if they were b unwitting /b in terms of the testimony, i.e., they believe that they have no knowledge of the matter. b And what are they liable for /b by taking a false b oath with intent? /b They are liable to bring b a sliding-scale offering. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that the oath of testimony is not practiced with regard to women because they are unfit to testify. The Gemara asks: b From where is this matter, /b that women do not testify, derived? The Gemara answers: It is b as the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : When the verse states: “If an unrighteous witness rises up against any man… b then the two men shall stand” /b (Deuteronomy 19:16–17), it is b with regard to witnesses /b that b the verse is speaking. /b Apparently, men, not women, may testify.,The i baraita /i continues: b Do you say /b that it is b with regard to witnesses, or /b perhaps it is b only with regard to litigants /b that the verse is speaking? b When it states: “Between whom the controversy is” /b (Deuteronomy 19:17), b the litigants are /b already b stated /b in the verse. b How do I realize /b the meaning of the phrase b “then the two men shall stand”? /b Apparently, it is b with regard to witnesses /b that b the verse is speaking. And if it is your wish to say /b that this is not a proof, another proof may be cited. b It is stated here: /b “The b two /b men,” b and it is stated there: /b “On the basis of b two /b witnesses” (Deuteronomy 19:15); b just as there, /b it is b with regard to witnesses /b that the verse speaks, b so too here, /b it is b with regard to witnesses /b that the verse speaks.,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of the statement of the i baraita /i : And b if it is your wish to say? /b Why is the initial proof inadequate? The Gemara answers: b And if you would say /b that b from /b the fact b that /b the verse b did not write: /b Then the two men b and those between whom the controversy is /b shall stand, which would indicate that the verse changes its focus from the witnesses to the litigants, perhaps throughout b the entire verse /b it is b with regard to litigants /b that b it is speaking. /b Therefore, the i tanna /i cites an additional proof. b It is stated here: /b “The b two /b men,” b and it is stated there: /b “On the basis of b two /b witnesses”; b just as there, /b it is b with regard to witnesses /b that the verse speaks, b so too here, /b it is b with regard to witnesses /b that the verse speaks., b It is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : When the verse states: b “Then the two men shall stand,” /b it is b with regard to witnesses /b that b the verse is speaking. /b The i baraita /i continues: b Do you say /b that it is b with regard to witnesses, or /b perhaps it is b only with regard to litigants /b that the verse is speaking? The i tanna /i asks: Did b you say /b that? If the reference is to litigants, why does the verse mention two? b Do two /b people b come /b to court b for judgment /b but b three /b people b do not come /b to court b for judgment? And if it is your wish to say /b that this is not a proof, another proof may be cited. b It is stated here: /b “The b two /b men,” b and it is stated there: /b “On the basis of b two /b witnesses”; b just as there, /b it is b with regard to witnesses /b that the verse speaks, b so too here, /b it is b with regard to witnesses /b that the verse speaks.,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of: And b if it is your wish to say? /b Why is the initial proof inadequate? The Gemara answers: b And if you would say /b that even though there are cases where there are more than two litigants, it is b with regard to a plaintiff and a defendant /b that b the verse is speaking. /b Therefore, the i tanna /i cites an additional proof. b It is stated here: /b “The b two /b men,” b and it is stated there: /b “On the basis of b two /b witnesses”; b just as there, /b it is b with regard to witnesses /b that the verse speaks, b so too here, /b it is b with regard to witnesses /b that the verse speaks., b It is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : When the verse states: b “Then the two men shall stand,” /b it is b with regard to witnesses /b that b the verse is speaking. /b The i baraita /i continues: b Do you say /b that it is b with regard to witnesses, or /b perhaps it is b only with regard to litigants /b that the verse is speaking? The i tanna /i asks: Did b you say /b that? If the reference is to litigants, why does the verse mention men? Do b men come /b to court b for judgment /b but b women do not come /b to court b for judgment? And if it is your wish to say /b that this is not a proof, another proof may be cited. b It is stated here: /b “The b two /b men,” b and it is stated there: /b “On the basis of b two /b witnesses”; b just as there, /b it is b with regard to witnesses /b that the verse speaks, b so too here, /b it is b with regard to witnesses /b that the verse speaks.,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of: And b if it is your wish to say? /b Why is the initial proof inadequate? The Gemara answers that it means: b And if you would say /b that with regard to b a woman, it is not /b typical b conduct /b for b her /b to appear in court b due to /b the verse that is stated with regard to women: b “All the glory of the king’s daughter is within” /b (Psalms 45:14), and that is why the verse addressed a situation that is prevalent, i.e., a case where the litigants are men, and there is no proof that women are unfit for testimony. Therefore, the i tanna /i cites an additional proof. b It is stated here: /b “The b two /b men,” b and it is stated there: /b “On the basis of b two /b witnesses”; b just as there, /b it is b with regard to witnesses /b that the verse speaks, b so too here, /b it is b with regard to witnesses /b that the verse speaks.,§ The Gemara cites another interpretation of the verse. b The Sages taught: “Then the two men shall stand”; /b this indicates that there is b a mitzva for the litigants to stand /b during the court proceedings. b Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard that if /b the judges b wished to seat both /b of the litigants, b they may seat /b them. b What, /b then, b is prohibited /b for the judges? They must ensure b that there will not be /b a situation where b one /b litigant b is standing and one /b litigant b is sitting, /b or a situation where b one /b litigant b says everything /b that b he needs /b to say to present his case b and one /b litigant, the judge b says to him: Curtail your statement. /b , b The Sages taught: /b The verse states: b “But in righteousness shall you judge your colleague” /b (Leviticus 19:15), from which it is derived: The court must ensure b that there will not be /b a situation where b one /b litigant b is sitting and one /b litigant b is standing, /b or a situation where b one /b litigant b says everything /b that b he needs /b to say to present his case b and one /b litigant, the judge b says to him: Curtail your statement. Alternatively, /b it is derived from the verse: b “But in righteousness shall you judge your colleague,” /b that you b should judge another favorably, /b and seek to find justification for his actions, even if when interpreted differently his actions could be judged unfavorably., b Rav Yosef teaches /b that from the verse: b “But in righteousness shall you judge your colleague [ i amitekha /i ],” /b it is derived: b With /b regard to one b who is with you [ i im she’itekha /i ] in /b observance of b Torah and in /b fulfillment of b mitzvot, try to judge him favorably, /b in the manner that the Gemara will now explain.,The Gemara relates: b Rav Ulla, son of Rav Ilai, had a trial /b pending b before Rav Naḥman. Rav Yosef sent /b a message b to /b Rav Naḥman: b Ulla our friend /b is b a colleague in Torah and mitzvot, /b with regard to whom the verse states that you should judge him favorably. Rav Naḥman b said: For what /b purpose b did he send /b this message b to me? /b Does he expect me b to grant him preferential /b treatment? Every judgment must be undertaken with righteousness. Rav Naḥman b then said: /b Rav Yosef sent me the message b to /b ensure I would b open with /b Rav Ulla’s b dispute /b in the event that other cases come before me for judgment, in deference to the Torah because he is a Torah scholar. |
|
46. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 176| 9a. (דברים יד, כב) עשר תעשר עשר בשביל שתתעשר,אשכחיה ר' יוחנן לינוקא דריש לקיש אמר ליה אימא לי פסוקיך א"ל עשר תעשר א"ל ומאי עשר תעשר א"ל עשר בשביל שתתעשר אמר ליה מנא לך א"ל זיל נסי,אמר ליה ומי שרי לנסוייה להקב"ה והכתיב (דברים ו, טז) לא תנסו את ה' א"ל הכי אמר רבי הושעיא חוץ מזו שנאמר (מלאכי ג, י) הביאו את כל המעשר אל בית האוצר ויהי טרף בביתי ובחנוני נא בזאת אמר ה' צבאות אם לא אפתח לכם את ארובות השמים והריקותי לכם ברכה עד בלי די,מאי עד בלי די אמר רמי בר חמא אמר רב עד שיבלו שפתותיכם מלומר די א"ל אי הות מטי התם להאי פסוקא לא הוית צריכנא לך ולהושעיא רבך,ותו אשכחיה ר' יוחנן לינוקיה דריש לקיש דיתיב ואמר (משלי יט, ג) אולת אדם תסלף דרכו ועל ה' יזעף לבו,יתיב רבי יוחנן וקא מתמה אמר מי איכא מידי דכתיבי בכתובי דלא רמיזי באורייתא א"ל אטו הא מי לא רמיזי והכתיב (בראשית מב, כח) ויצא לבם ויחרדו איש אל אחיו לאמר מה זאת עשה אלהים לנו,דל עיניה וחזא ביה אתיא אימיה אפיקתיה אמרה ליה תא מקמיה דלא ליעבד לך כדעבד לאבוך,(א"ר יוחנן מטר בשביל יחיד פרנסה בשביל רבים מטר בשביל יחיד דכתיב (דברים כח, יב) יפתח ה' לך את אוצרו הטוב לתת מטר ארצך פרנסה בשביל רבים דכתיב (שמות טז, ד) הנני ממטיר לכם לחם,מיתיבי ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר שלשה פרנסים טובים עמדו לישראל אלו הן משה ואהרן ומרים וג' מתנות טובות ניתנו על ידם ואלו הן באר וענן ומן באר בזכות מרים עמוד ענן בזכות אהרן מן בזכות משה מתה מרים נסתלק הבאר שנאמר (במדבר כ, א) ותמת שם מרים וכתיב בתריה ולא היה מים לעדה וחזרה בזכות שניהן,מת אהרן נסתלקו ענני כבוד שנאמר (במדבר כא, א) וישמע הכנעני מלך ערד מה שמועה שמע שמע שמת אהרן ונסתלקו ענני כבוד וכסבור ניתנה לו רשות להלחם בישראל והיינו דכתיב (במדבר כ, כט) ויראו כל העדה כי גוע אהרן,אמר ר' אבהו אל תקרי ויראו אלא וייראו כדדריש ר"ל דאר"ל כי משמש בארבע לשונות אי דלמא אלא דהא,חזרו שניהם בזכות משה מת משה נסתלקו כולן שנאמר (זכריה יא, ח) ואכחיד את שלשת הרועים בירח אחד וכי בירח אחד מתו והלא מרים מתה בניסן ואהרן באב ומשה באדר אלא מלמד שנתבטלו ג' מתנות טובות שנתנו על ידן ונסתלקו כולן בירח אחד,אלמא אשכחן פרנסה בשביל יחיד שאני משה כיון דלרבים הוא בעי כרבים דמי,רב הונא בר מנוח ורב שמואל בר אידי ורב חייא מווסתניא הוו שכיחי קמיה דרבא כי נח נפשיה דרבא אתו לקמיה דרב פפא כל אימת דהוה אמר להו שמעתא ולא הוה מסתברא להו הוו מרמזי אהדדי חלש דעתיה | 9a. b “A tithe shall you tithe [ i te’aser /i ]” /b (Deuteronomy 14:22)? This phrase can be interpreted homiletically: b Take a tithe [ i asser /i ] so that you will become wealthy [ i titasher /i ], /b in the merit of the mitzva., b Rabbi Yoḥa found /b the b young son of Reish Lakish. He said to /b the boy: b Recite to me your verse, /b i.e., the verse you studied today in school. The boy b said to him: “A tithe shall you tithe.” /b The boy further b said to /b Rabbi Yoḥa: b But /b what is the meaning of this phrase: b “A tithe shall you tithe”? /b Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: /b The verse means: b Take a tithe so that you will become wealthy. /b The boy b said to /b Rabbi Yoḥa: b From where do you /b derive that this is so? Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: Go /b and b test /b it.,The boy b said to him: And is it permitted to test the Holy One, Blessed be He? But isn’t it written: “You shall not test the Lord your God” /b (Deuteronomy 6:16)? Rabbi Yoḥa b said to /b the boy that b Rabbi Hoshaya said as follows: /b It is prohibited to test God in any way, b except in this /b case of tithes, b as it is stated: “Bring the whole tithe into the storeroom, that there may be food in My house, and test Me now by this, said the Lord of hosts, if I will not open for you the windows of heaven, and pour out for you a blessing that there shall be more than sufficiency” /b (Malachi 3:10).,In relation to the above verse, the Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of the phrase: b “That there shall be more than sufficiency [ i ad beli dai /i ]”? Rami bar Ḥama said /b that b Rav said: /b It means that the abundance will be so great b that your lips will be worn out [ i yivlu /i ], /b similar to the word i beli /i , b from saying enough [ i dai /i ]. /b Returning to the above incident, the Gemara adds that the boy b said to /b Rabbi Yoḥa: Your claim appears explicitly in a verse. b If I had arrived there, /b at this verse, b I would not have needed you or Hoshaya your teacher, /b as I could have understood it on my own.,The Gemara relates another story about the precociousness of this child. b And furthermore, /b on a different occasion b Rabbi Yoḥa found /b the b young son of Reish Lakish, when he was sitting /b and studying b and /b he was b reciting /b the verse: b “The foolishness of man perverts his way, and his heart frets against the Lord” /b (Proverbs 19:3). This verse means that when someone sins and every manner of mishap befalls him, he complains and wonders why these things are happening to him., b Rabbi Yoḥa sat down and wondered /b aloud about this verse, b saying: Is there anything that is written in the Writings that is not alluded to in the Torah /b at all? I cannot think of any hint of this idea in the Torah itself. The child b said to him: Is that to say /b that b this /b idea is really b not alluded to /b in the Torah? b But isn’t it written, /b with regard to Joseph’s brothers: b “And their heart failed them and they turned trembling to one to another, saying: What is this that God has done to us?” /b (Genesis 42:28). This verse exemplifies the notion that when one sins and encounters troubles, he wonders why it is happening to him.,Impressed by the youth’s wisdom, Rabbi Yoḥa b raised his eyes and stared at the boy. /b At this point, the boy’s b mother came and took him away, saying to him: Come away from /b Rabbi Yoḥa, b so that he does not do to you as he did to your father. /b Reish Lakish, the boy’s father, died during a heated dispute with Rabbi Yoḥa over a Torah matter. The argument ended with an offended look from Rabbi Yoḥa which caused Reish Lakish’s death, and the boy’s mother was afraid that her son might suffer the same fate.,§ After this brief digression, the Gemara turns to the fifth in the series of statements by Rabbi Yoḥa concerning rain. b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Rain /b falls even b for the sake of an individual, /b in response to the petition of a single person in need of rain, whereas a blessing of b sustece /b comes only b for the sake of many. Rain /b falls even b for the sake of an individual, as it is written: “The Lord will open for you His good treasure, /b the heavens, b to give the rain of your land” /b (Deuteronomy 28:12). The fact that this verse is written in the second person singular demonstrates that rain can fall even for the sake of an individual. Rabbi Yoḥa further proves that b sustece /b comes b for the sake of many, as it is written: “Behold I will cause to rain bread from the heavens for you” /b (Exodus 16:4). Here, God is referring to the people in the plural form.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Three good sustainers rose up for the Jewish people /b during the exodus from Egypt, and b they are: Moses, Aaron and Miriam. And three good gifts were given /b from Heaven b through their agency, and these are they: /b The b well /b of water, the pillar of b cloud, and /b the b manna. /b He elaborates: The b well /b was given to the Jewish people b in the merit of Miriam; /b the b pillar of cloud /b was b in the merit of Aaron; /b and the b manna in the merit of Moses. /b When b Miriam died /b the b well disappeared, as it is stated: “And Miriam died there” /b (Numbers 20:1), b and it says thereafter /b in the next verse: b “And there was no water for the congregation” /b (Numbers 20:2). b But /b the well b returned in the merit of both /b Moses and Aaron.,When b Aaron died /b the b clouds of glory disappeared, as it is stated: “And the Canaanite, the king of Arad heard” /b (Numbers 33:40). b What report did he hear? He heard that Aaron had died and the clouds of glory had disappeared, and he thought that /b the Jewish people were no longer protected by Heaven and therefore b he had been given permission to go to war against the Jewish people. And this /b disappearance of the clouds b is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “And all the congregation saw that [ i ki /i ] Aaron was dead” /b (Numbers 20:29)., b Rabbi Abbahu said: Do not read /b the verse as: b “And they saw [ i va’yiru /i ]”; rather, /b read it as: b And they were seen [ i va’yera’u /i ], /b as the clouds which had concealed the Jewish people were temporarily removed. This is b as Reish Lakish taught. As Reish Lakish said: /b The term b i ki /i /b actually b has /b at least b four /b distinct b meanings: If; perhaps; but; because, /b or that. According to this interpretation, the verse would be rendered: And all the congregation was seen, because [ i ki /i ] Aaron was dead.,The i baraita /i continues: b Both /b the well and the clouds of glory b returned in the merit of Moses. /b However, when b Moses died all of them disappeared. As it is stated: “And I cut off the three shepherds in one month” /b (Zechariah 11:8). b But did /b the three shepherds really b die in one month? Didn’t Miriam die in /b the month of b Nisan, and Aaron in Av and Moses in Adar? Rather, /b this verse b teaches /b us b that /b with the death of Moses the b three good gifts that were given through their agency were annulled, and /b all three gifts b disappeared in one month, /b which made it seem as though all three leaders had died at the same time.,The Gemara explains the difficulty from this i baraita /i . b Apparently, we find /b that b sustece /b can come b for the sake of an individual, /b as the i baraita /i states that sustece in the form of manna came for the sake of Moses. The Gemara answers: b Moses is different, since he requested /b the manna b for many, /b and therefore he was considered b like many, /b not as an individual.,The Gemara relates a story concerning the aforementioned verse from Zechariah. b Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ, Rav Shmuel bar Idi, and Rav Ḥiyya from Vastanya were /b often b found before Rava, /b as they were among his most distinguished students. b When Rava died, they came before Rav Pappa /b to learn from him. However, as also they were great Sages, b whenever Rav Pappa would say a i halakha /i that did not /b sound b reasonable to them, they would gesture to each other /b that Rav Pappa was not equal in stature to Rava. Rav Pappa b was offended /b by their behavior. |
|
47. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68| 80a. שלא ראה שעה אחת בכשרותו מנא ידעינן אמר אביי כל המטיל מים ואינו עושה כיפה,ממאי הואי דאפיה אימיה בטיהרא ושתיא שיכרא מרקא אמר רב יוסף היינו דשמענא לאמי דאמר כל שממעי אמו לקוי ולא ידענא מאי ניהו,וליחוש שמא הבריא בינתים כיון דתחלתו וסופו לקוי לא חיישינן,מתיב רב מרי רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר בודקין אותו שלש פעמים בתוך שמונים יום,לחד אבר חיישינן לכוליה גופא לא חיישינן:,רבי אליעזר אומר לא כי וכו': ורמינהו בן עשרים שנה ולא הביא שתי שערות יביאו ראיה שהוא בן עשרים והוא הסריס לא חולץ ולא מייבם בת עשרים ולא הביאה שתי שערות יביאו ראיה שהיא בת עשרים והיא האילונית לא חולצת ולא מתייבמת דברי בית הלל ובית שמאי אומרים זה וזה בני שמנה עשרה,רבי אליעזר אומר הזכר כדברי ב"ה ונקבה כדברי ב"ש מפני שהאשה ממהרת לבא לפני האיש,אמר רמי בר דיקולי אמר שמואל חזר בו ר' אליעזר איבעיא להו מהי הדר ביה תא שמע דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר סריס חמה חולץ וחולצין לאשתו שכן במינן מתרפאין באלכסנדריא של מצרים,רבי אלעזר אומר לעולם לא הדר ביה וכי תנן ההיא לעונשין,איתמר אכל חלב מבן שתים עשרה [ויום אחד] עד בן שמנה עשרה ונולדו בו סימני סריס ולאחר מכאן הביא שתי שערות רב אמר נעשה סריס למפרע ושמואל אמר קטן היה באותה שעה,מתקיף לה רב יוסף לרב אילונית לרבי מאיר יהא לה קנס,אמר ליה אביי מקטנותה יצתה לבגר,א"ל כל כי הני מילי מעלייתא יתאמרו משמאי דתניא אין הסריס נידון כבן סורר ומורה לפי שאין בן סורר ומורה נידון אלא בחתימת זקן התחתון ואין אילונית נידונית כנערה המאורסה שמקטנותה יצתה לבגר,אמר רבי אבהו סימני סריס ואילונית ובן שמנה אין עושין בהן מעשה עד שיהו בן עשרים,ובן שמנה מי קחיי והתניא בן שמנה הרי הוא כאבן ואסור לטלטלו אבל אמו שוחה עליו ומניקתו | 80a. b who never saw a single hour /b of life b in /b a state of b fitness, /b as he was born infertile. The Gemara asks: b How do we know /b that one was born this way and was never capable of having children? b Abaye said: Anyone who passes water and does not form an arch /b with his urine, but rather his urine dribbles out downward, never had sexual capacity.,Incidentally, the Gemara inquires: b From what /b does this defect arise? What is its cause? The Gemara answers: It results from b his mother baking /b bread b at noon and drinking strong beer [ i shikhra marka /i ] /b while pregt. The excessive heating of the mother’s body causes her child to be born with defective reproductive organs. b Rav Yosef said: This is /b the meaning of that b which I heard /b Rabbi b Ami say: Anyone who is impaired from his mother’s womb, and /b at the time b I did not know what /b he was referring to. Now I understand that he was speaking about a man who was infertile from birth.,The Gemara asks: b Let us be concerned that perhaps he was cured /b for some period b in the meantime, /b without our having known about it, in which case he would have had an hour of fitness at some point. The Gemara answers: b Since /b both b his beginning and his end are impaired, /b i.e., he was born with a defect and he presently suffers from the same condition, b we are not concerned /b about such a possibility., b Rav Mari raised an objection /b from the following mishna ( i Bekhorot /i 38b): b Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: One examines /b a firstborn animal that developed a blemish in its eye b three times within eighty days /b to see whether the defect is permanent. This shows that no presumptions are made in such a case; rather, there is concern that the animal may have been cured in the meantime, even if it had the defect at the beginning and at the end of the period.,The Gemara answers: b With respect to /b a blemish affecting b a single organ, /b e.g., an eye, b we are concerned /b that the blemish might have passed and then later redeveloped, but b with regard to /b a defect affecting b the entire body, we are not concerned /b about such a possibility. A eunuch is not impaired in a single organ; rather, he has a defect that affects his entire body. Consequently, there is no concern that, though he was born with the defect and presently suffers from it, he might have regained his potency for some time in the middle.,§ It is taught in the mishna that b Rabbi Eliezer says: No; rather, /b a eunuch by natural causes performs i ḥalitza /i , whereas a eunuch caused by man does not perform i ḥalitza /i . The Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from the following mishna ( i Nidda /i 47b): If b a twenty-year-old /b man b has not grown two /b pubic b hairs, /b a sign of sexual maturity, the relatives of the widow who wish to exempt her from i ḥalitza /i and levirate marriage b must bring proof that he is twenty years old, and he, /b having been established as b a sexually underdeveloped man, does not perform i ḥalitza /i or levirate marriage /b with his i yevama /i . If b a twenty-year-old /b woman b has not grown two /b pubic b hairs, /b the relatives of her deceased husband’s brother b must bring proof that she is twenty years old, and she, /b having been established as b a sexually underdeveloped woman, does not perform i ḥalitza /i or enter into levirate marriage /b with her i yavam /i . This is b the statement of Beit Hillel. And Beit Shammai say: /b With regard to both b this and that, /b males and females, the relevant age is b eighteen years old, /b not twenty.,The mishna continues: b Rabbi Eliezer says /b that for a b male /b the i halakha /i is b in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, and /b for b a female /b the i halakha /i is b in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai, because a woman reaches /b maturity b more quickly than /b does b a man, /b and therefore, if she fails to develop the signs of maturity by the age of eighteen it is assumed that she is a sexually underdeveloped woman. In any case, it is clear from this mishna that even Rabbi Eliezer agrees that one who lacks sexual capacity from birth may neither perform i ḥalitza /i nor enter into levirate marriage., b Rami bar Dikulei said /b that b Shmuel said: Rabbi Eliezer retracted his /b opinion. b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: b Which /b statement b did he retract? /b Did he retract what he said here in the mishna, that a eunuch by natural causes performs i ḥalitza /i with his i yevama /i and his brothers perform i ḥalitza /i with his wife? Alternatively, perhaps the mishna here reflects his final view, after he retracted what he said in the other mishna. The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a resolution to this question, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer says: A eunuch by natural causes performs i ḥalitza /i /b with his i yevama /i b and /b his brothers b perform i ḥalitza /i with his wife, as such type /b of men b are cured in Alexandria of Egypt. /b This additional source and its reasoning suggest that Rabbi Eliezer did not retract what he said in the mishna here. Rather, he retracted his statement with regard to the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai in the other mishna., b Rabbi Elazar says: Actually, he did not retract /b anything at all. b And when we learned /b Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling in b that /b mishna with regard to the age of a sexually underdeveloped individual, that ruling was stated b with regard to punishments, /b i.e., the age at which such an individual is considered an adult so that he is liable to receive punishment, and not with regard to i ḥalitza /i or levirate marriage.,And b it was stated /b that the i amora’im /i disagreed on this issue: With regard to one who b ate /b forbidden b fats /b or performed any other transgression for which one is liable to receive lashes or i karet /i , when he was b between the age of twelve years and one day and the age of eighteen years, and he developed the signs of one who was a eunuch /b by natural causes, as explained below, b and afterward he grew two /b pubic b hairs, Rav said: /b He is b retroactively considered a eunuch /b by natural causes. In other words, these hairs are not viewed as a sign of maturity. Rather, he lacked sexual capacity from the outset, which means he became an adult at the standard age of thirteen and is held liable for his actions from that point in time. b And Shmuel said: /b No, b he was a minor at the time /b he committed his offense, as the two hairs are a sign of his maturity, albeit delayed., b Rav Yosef strongly objects to this: /b If so, b according to Rav, a sexually underdeveloped woman according to Rabbi Meir should be entitled to the fine /b paid by a rapist. Rabbi Meir maintains that a rapist is liable to be fined only if he raped a young woman between the ages of twelve and twelve and a half, but not if he raped a minor. And furthermore, a sexually underdeveloped woman is not entitled to the fine because she is considered a minor, as she never showed the signs of maturity. But according to Rav she should retroactively be viewed as an adult and would therefore be entitled to the fine., b Abaye said to him: /b A sexually underdeveloped woman b passes /b directly b from minority to /b full b adulthood. /b In other words, she is first considered a minor and then immediately an adult, without passing through the intermediate stage of young womanhood, and an adult woman is not entitled to the rapist’s fine.,Greatly impressed with this answer, Rav Yosef b said to /b Abaye: Would that b all such excellent matters be stated in my name. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A sexually underdeveloped man is not judged as a stubborn and rebellious son, as /b a boy is b judged as a stubborn and rebellious son only when /b he has b the mark of /b his b lower beard, /b i.e., when his pubic hair begins to grow in. At that point he has reached the age of maturity but is not yet a fully developed man, a stage that parallels young womanhood for women. A sexually underdeveloped man never passes through this intermediate stage between minority and full adulthood. b And /b similarly, b a sexually underdeveloped woman /b who was betrothed and raped b is not judged /b in accordance with the laws governing b a betrothed young woman /b (see Deuteronomy 22:23–27), b as she passes /b directly b from minority to /b full b adulthood /b without the intermediate stage of young womanhood. Therefore, the i baraita /i fully corroborates Abaye’s view., b Rabbi Abbahu said: /b If one has b the signs of a sexually underdeveloped man; or /b the signs of b a sexually underdeveloped woman; or /b the signs of a child b born during the eighth /b month of pregcy, whose survival is uncertain; b no action is taken in their regard, /b i.e., the sexually underdeveloped male or female is not treated as an adult and the child born during the eighth month is not deemed viable, b until they are twenty /b years old.,The Gemara asks: b Can /b a child b born during the eighth /b month of pregcy b survive? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : A child b born during the eighth /b month b is like a stone /b with regard to the i halakhot /i of set-aside [ i muktze /i ] on Shabbat, and therefore b it is prohibited to move him /b on Shabbat, as it may be presumed that he is not viable at all. b However, his mother may bend over him and nurse him, /b |
|
48. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 176| 90a. והלכתא מותרת לשניהם:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בית שמאי אומרים לא יגרש אדם את אשתו אלא אם כן מצא בה דבר ערוה שנאמר (דברים כד, א) כי מצא בה ערות דבר,ובית הלל אומרים אפילו הקדיחה תבשילו שנאמר כי מצא בה ערות דבר,ר' עקיבא אומר אפי' מצא אחרת נאה הימנה שנאמר (דברים כד, א) והיה אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תניא אמרו בית הלל לבית שמאי והלא כבר נאמר דבר אמרו להם ב"ש והלא כבר נאמר ערות,אמרו להם ב"ה אם נאמר ערות ולא נאמר דבר הייתי אומר משום ערוה תצא משום דבר לא תצא לכך נאמר דבר ואילו נאמר דבר ולא נאמר ערות הייתי אומר משום דבר תנשא לאחר ומשום ערוה לא תנשא לאחר לכך נאמר ערות,וב"ש האי דבר מאי עבדי ליה נאמר כאן דבר ונאמר להלן דבר (דברים יט, טו) על פי שני עדים או על פי שלשה עדים יקום דבר מה להלן בשני עדים אף כאן בשני עדים,וב"ה מי כתיב ערוה בדבר וב"ש מי כתיב או ערוה או דבר,וב"ה להכי כתיב ערות דבר דמשמע הכי ומשמע הכי:,ר"ע אומר אפי' מצא אחרת: במאי קא מיפלגי בדר"ל דאמר ריש לקיש כי משמש בד' לשונות אי דלמא אלא דהא,ב"ש סברי [והיה אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו] כי מצא בה ערות דבר דהא מצא בה ערות דבר ור"ע סבר כי מצא בה ערות דבר אי נמי מצא בה ערות דבר,אמר ליה רב פפא לרבא לא מצא בה לא ערוה ולא דבר מהו,א"ל מדגלי רחמנא גבי אונס (דברים כב, יט) לא יוכל לשלחה כל ימיו כל ימיו בעמוד והחזיר קאי התם הוא דגלי רחמנא אבל הכא מאי דעבד עבד,א"ל רב משרשיא לרבא אם לבו לגרשה והיא יושבת תחתיו ומשמשתו מהו קרי עליה (משלי ג, כט) אל תחרש על רעך רעה והוא יושב לבטח אתך,תניא היה רבי מאיר אומר כשם שהדעות במאכל כך דעות בנשים יש לך אדם שזבוב נופל לתוך כוסו וזורקו ואינו שותהו וזו היא מדת פפוס בן יהודה שהיה נועל בפני אשתו ויוצא,ויש לך אדם שזבוב נופל לתוך כוסו וזורקו ושותהו וזו היא מדת כל אדם שמדברת עם אחיה וקרוביה ומניחה,ויש לך אדם שזבוב נופל לתוך תמחוי מוצצו ואוכלו זו היא מדת אדם רע שרואה את אשתו יוצאה וראשה פרוע וטווה בשוק | 90a. b And the i halakha /i /b is that b she is permitted to both of them. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong b Beit Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife unless he finds /b out b about her /b having engaged in b a matter of forbidden sexual intercourse [ i devar erva /i ], /b i.e., she committed adultery or is suspected of doing so, b as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter [ i ervat davar /i ] in her, /b and he writes her a scroll of severance” (Deuteronomy 24:1)., b And Beit Hillel say: /b He may divorce her b even /b due to a minor issue, e.g., because b she burned /b or over-salted b his dish, as it is stated: “Because he has found some unseemly matter in her,” /b meaning that he found any type of shortcoming in her., b Rabbi Akiva says: /b He may divorce her b even /b if b he found another woman /b who is b better looking than her /b and wishes to marry her, b as it is stated /b in that verse: b “And it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes” /b (Deuteronomy 24:1)., strong GEMARA: /strong It b is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: But isn’t /b the word b “matter” already stated /b in the verse, indicating that any disadvantageous matter is a legitimate reason for divorce? b Beit Shammai said to them: But isn’t /b the word b “unseemly [ i ervat /i ]” already stated? /b , b Beit Hillel said to them: If /b the word b “unseemly” had been stated and /b the word b “matter” had not been stated, I would have said /b that a wife b should leave /b her husband b due to forbidden sexual intercourse, /b but b she should not /b have to b leave /b him b due to /b any other b matter. Therefore, /b the word b “matter” is stated. And if /b the word b “matter” had been stated and /b the word b “unseemly” had not been stated, I would have said /b that if he divorced her merely b due to /b a disadvantageous b matter she may marry another /b man, as the Torah continues: “And she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:2). b But /b if she was divorced b due to /b her engaging in b forbidden sexual intercourse, she may not marry another /b man, as she is prohibited from remarrying. b Therefore, /b the word b “unseemly” is stated, /b indicating that even a wife who is divorced due to adultery is permitted to remarry.,The Gemara asks: b And what do Beit Shammai do with this /b word b “matter”? /b How do they interpret it? It seems superfluous, as in their opinion the verse refers specifically to a wife who engaged in forbidden sexual intercourse. The Gemara answers: The word b “matter” is stated here, /b with regard to divorce, b and /b the word b “matter” is stated there, /b with regard to testimony: b “At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, a matter shall be established” /b (Deuteronomy 19:15). b Just as there, /b it is stated that a matter is established only b through two witnesses, so too here, /b a matter of forbidden sexual intercourse justifies divorce only if it is established b through two witnesses. /b , b And Beit Hillel /b would respond to this analogy in the following manner: b Is it written: /b Because he has found something b unseemly in a matter [ i erva bedavar /i ], /b indicating that it was established through the testimony of two witnesses that she engaged in adultery? b And Beit Shammai /b would respond to Beit Hillel’s interpretation as follows: b Is it written: /b Because he has found b either /b something b unseemly or /b another b matter i [o erva o davar /i ], /b in accordance with Beit Hillel’s understanding?, b And Beit Hillel /b would respond that b for this /b reason the expression b “some unseemly matter [ i ervat davar /i ]” is written, as it indicates that /b interpretation, i.e., that a husband is not obligated to divorce his wife unless there are two witnesses to her having engaged in forbidden sexual intercourse, b and it /b also b indicates this /b interpretation, i.e., that he may divorce her due to any deficiency, be it adultery or any other shortcoming.,§ It is stated in the mishna that b Rabbi Akiva says: /b He may divorce her b even /b if b he found another woman /b who is better looking than her. b With regard to what do they disagree? /b They disagree b with regard to /b the application of b Reish Lakish’s /b statement, b as Reish Lakish said /b that the term b i ki /i /b actually b has /b at least b four /b distinct b meanings: If, perhaps, rather, /b and b because. /b , b Beit Shammai hold /b that the verse b “And it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because [ i ki /i ] he has found some unseemly matter in her” /b means that she did not find favor in his eyes b due to /b the fact that b he has found some unseemly matter in her. And Rabbi Akiva holds /b that the phrase b “because [ i ki /i ] he has found some unseemly matter in her” /b means: b Or if he has found some unseemly matter in her. /b ,§ b Rav Pappa said to Rava: /b According to Beit Hillel, if the husband b found about her neither forbidden sexual intercourse nor /b any other b matter, /b but divorced her anyway, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? Is the divorce valid?,Rava b said to him /b that the answer can be derived b from what the Merciful One reveals /b in the Torah b with regard to a rapist: “He may not send her away all his days” /b (Deuteronomy 22:29), indicating that even if he divorces the woman whom he raped and was subsequently commanded to marry, b all his days he stands /b commanded b to arise and remarry /b her as his wife. Evidently, b specifically there /b the husband is obligated to remarry his divorcée, b as the Merciful One reveals /b as much. b But here, what he did, he did. /b , b Rav Mesharshiyya said to Rava: If he intends to divorce her and she is living with him and serving him, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Rava b read /b the following verse b about /b such a person: b “Devise not evil against your neighbor, seeing he dwells securely by you” /b (Proverbs 3:29).,§ It b is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Sota /i 5:9) that b Rabbi Meir would say: Just as there are /b different b attitudes with regard to food, so too, there are /b different b attitudes with regard to women. /b With regard to food, b you have a person who, /b when b a fly falls into his cup, he throws out /b the wine with the fly b and does not drink it. And this is /b comparable to b the demeanor of Pappos ben Yehuda /b with regard to his wife, b as he would lock /b the door b before his wife and leave /b so that she would not see any other man., b And you have a person who, /b when b a fly falls into his cup, he throws out /b the fly b and drinks /b the wine. b And this is /b comparable to b the demeanor of any /b common b man, whose /b wife b speaks with her siblings and relatives, and he lets her /b do so., b And you have a man who, /b when b a fly falls into /b his b serving bowl, he sucks /b the fly b and eats /b the food. b This is the demeanor of a bad man, who sees his wife going out /b into the street b with her head uncovered, and spinning in the marketplace /b immodestly, |
|
49. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, masoretic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 70| 86b. אמר ר' יוחנן גדולה תשובה שדוחה את לא תעשה שבתורה שנאמר (ירמיהו ג, א) לאמר הן ישלח איש את אשתו והלכה מאתו והיתה לאיש אחר הישוב אליה עוד הלא חנוף תחנף הארץ ההיא ואת זנית רעים רבים ושוב אלי נאם ה',א"ר יונתן גדולה תשובה (שמקרבת) את הגאולה שנאמר (ישעיהו נט, כ) ובא לציון גואל ולשבי פשע ביעקב מה טעם ובא לציון גואל משום דשבי פשע ביעקב,אמר ריש לקיש גדולה תשובה שזדונות נעשות לו כשגגות שנאמר (הושע יד, ב) שובה ישראל עד ה' אלהיך כי כשלת בעונך הא עון מזיד הוא וקא קרי ליה מכשול איני והאמר ריש לקיש גדולה תשובה שזדונות נעשות לו כזכיות שנאמר (יחזקאל לג, יט) ובשוב רשע מרשעתו ועשה משפט וצדקה עליהם (חיה) יחיה לא קשיא כאן מאהבה כאן מיראה,אמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן גדולה תשובה שמארכת שנותיו של אדם שנאמר (יחזקאל יח, כז) ובשוב רשע מרשעתו (חיו) יחיה,אמר ר' יצחק אמרי במערבא משמיה דרבה בר מרי בא וראה שלא כמדת הקדוש ברוך הוא מדת בשר ודם מדת בשר ודם מקניט את חבירו בדברים ספק מתפייס הימנו ספק אין מתפייס הימנו וא"ת מתפייס הימנו ספק מתפייס בדברים ספק אין מתפייס בדברים,אבל הקב"ה אדם עובר עבירה בסתר מתפייס ממנו בדברים שנאמר (הושע יד, ג) קחו עמכם דברים ושובו אל ה' ולא עוד אלא שמחזיק לו טובה שנאמר וקח טוב ולא עוד אלא שמעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו הקריב פרים שנאמר (הושע יד, ג) ונשלמה פרים שפתינו שמא תאמר פרי חובה ת"ל (הושע יד, ה) ארפא משובתם אוהבם נדבה,תניא היה ר"מ אומר גדולה תשובה שבשביל יחיד שעשה תשובה מוחלין לכל העולם כולו שנא' ארפא משובתם אוהבם נדבה כי שב אפי ממנו מהם לא נאמר אלא ממנו,היכי דמי בעל תשובה אמר רב יהודה כגון שבאת לידו דבר עבירה פעם ראשונה ושניה וניצל הימנה מחוי רב יהודה באותה אשה באותו פרק באותו מקום,א"ר יהודה רב רמי כתיב (תהלים לב, א) אשרי נשוי פשע כסוי חטאה וכתיב (משלי כח, יג) מכסה פשעיו לא יצליח לא קשיא הא בחטא מפורסם הא בחטא שאינו מפורסם רב זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב נחמן כאן בעבירות שבין אדם לחבירו כאן בעבירות שבין אדם למקום,תניא ר' יוסי בר יהודה אומר אדם עובר עבירה פעם ראשונה מוחלין לו שניה מוחלין לו שלישית מוחלין לו רביעית אין מוחלין לו שנאמר (עמוס ב, ו) כה אמר ה' על שלשה פשעי ישראל ועל ארבעה לא אשיבנו (ונאמר) (איוב לג, כט) הן כל אלה יפעל אל פעמים שלש עם גבר,מאי ואומר וכי תימא הני מילי בציבור אבל ביחיד לא ת"ש הן כל אלה יפעל אל פעמים שלש עם גבר מכאן ואילך אין מוחלין לו שנאמר על שלשה פשעי ישראל ועל ארבעה לא אשיבנו,ת"ר עבירות שהתודה עליהן יוה"כ זה לא יתודה עליהן יום הכפורים אחר ואם שנה בהן צריך להתודות יוה"כ אחר ואם לא שנה בהן וחזר והתודה עליהן עליו הכתוב אומר (משלי כו, יא) ככלב שב על קיאו כסיל שונה באולתו,רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר כ"ש שהוא משובח שנאמר (תהלים נא, ה) כי פשעי אני אדע וחטאתי נגדי תמיד אלא מה אני מקיים ככלב שב על קיאו וגו' כדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא כיון שעבר אדם עבירה ושנה בה הותרה לו הותרה לו סלקא דעתך אלא אימא נעשית לו כהיתר,וצריך לפרוט את החטא שנאמר (שמות לב, לא) אנא חטא העם הזה חטאה גדולה ויעשו להם אלהי זהב דברי ר' יהודה בן בבא רבי עקיבא אומר אשרי נשוי פשע כסוי חטאה אלא מהו שאמר משה ויעשו להם אלהי זהב כדר' ינאי דאמר ר' ינאי אמר משה לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא רבש"ע כסף וזהב שהרבית להם לישראל עד שאמרו די גרם להם שיעשו אלהי זהב,שני פרנסים טובים עמדו להם לישראל משה ודוד משה אמר יכתב סורחני שנאמר (במדבר כ, יב) יען לא האמנתם בי להקדישני דוד אמר אל יכתב סורחני שנאמר אשרי נשוי פשע כסוי חטאה,משל דמשה ודוד למה הדבר דומה לשתי נשים שלקו בבית דין אחת קלקלה ואחת אכלה פגי שביעית אמרה להן אותה שאכלה פגי שביעית בבקשה מכם הודיעו על מה היא לוקה שלא יאמרו על מה שזו לוקה זו לוקה הביאו פגי שביעית ותלו בצוארה והיו מכריזין לפניה ואומרין על עסקי שביעית היא לוקה,מפרסמין את החנפין מפני חילול השם שנאמר (יחזקאל ג, כ) ובשוב צדיק מצדקו ועשה עול ונתתי מכשול לפניו תשובת המוחלטין מעכבת הפורענות ואע"פ שנחתם עליו גזר דין של פורענות,שלות רשעים סופה תקלה והרשות מקברת את בעליה ערום נכנס לה וערום יצא ממנה ולואי שתהא יציאה כביאה רב כי הוה נפיק למידן דינא אמר הכי בצבו נפשיה לקטלא נפיק וצבו ביתיה לית הוא עביד וריקן לביתיה אזיל ולואי שתהא ביאה כיציאה,רבא כי הוה נפיק לדינא אמר הכי | 86b. § b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Great is repentance, as /b it b overrides /b even b a prohibition of the Torah. /b How so? b As it is stated /b that God said: b “…Saying: If a man sends away his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man’s, may he return to her again? Will not that land be greatly polluted? But you have committed adultery with many lovers; and would you yet return to Me, said the Lord” /b (Jeremiah 3:1). Indeed, the Torah states: “Her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife after she has been made impure” (Deuteronomy 24:4). The relationship between the Jewish people and the Holy One, Blessed be He, is compared to that between a husband and wife. Just as it is prohibited for an adulterous wife to return to her husband, it should be prohibited for the Jewish people to return to God from their sins, yet repentance overrides this prohibition., b Rabbi Yonatan said: Great is repentance, which hastens the redemption, as it is stated: “And a redeemer will come to Zion, and to those who repent from transgression in Jacob” /b (Isaiah 59:20). b What is the reason /b that b a redeemer will come to Zion? /b It is b because /b there are b those who repent from transgression in Jacob. /b , b Reish Lakish said: Great is repentance, as /b the penitent’s b intentional sins are counted for him as unwitting transgressions, as it is stated: “Return, Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled in your iniquity” /b (Hosea 14:2). The Gemara analyzes this: b Doesn’t “iniquity” /b mean b an intentional sin? Yet /b the prophet b calls it stumbling, /b implying that one who repents is considered as though he only stumbled accidentally in his transgression. The Gemara asks: b Is that so? Didn’t Reish Lakish /b himself b say: Great is repentance, as one’s intentional sins are counted for him as merits, as it is stated: “And when the wicked turns from his wickedness, and does that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby” /b (Ezekiel 33:19), and all his deeds, even his transgressions, will become praiseworthy? The Gemara reconciles: This is b not difficult: Here, /b when one repents b out of love, /b his sins become like merits; b there, /b when one repents b out of fear, /b his sins are counted as unwitting transgressions., b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yonatan said: Great is repentance, which lengthens /b the b years of a person’s /b life, b as it is stated: “When the wicked man turns from his wickedness /b that he has committed, and does that which is lawful and right, b he will preserve his life” /b (Ezekiel 18:27).,§ b Rabbi Yitzḥak said: They say in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, b in the name of Rabba bar Mari: Come and see that the attribute of flesh and blood is unlike the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He. /b With b flesh and blood /b people, if one b insults his friend with words, it is uncertain whether /b the victim will b be appeased by him or /b will b not be appeased by him. And if you say he will be appeased, it is /b still b uncertain whether he /b will b be appeased by words /b alone b or /b will b not be appeased by words /b alone, and one must try to appease him in other ways., b But /b with regard to b the Holy One, Blessed be He, /b if b a person commits a transgression in private, /b God b is appeased by words, as it is stated: “Take with you words and return to God” /b (Hosea 14:3). b And not only that, but /b God b considers it /b as though he has done b a favor /b for God by repenting, b as it is stated: “Accept that which is good” /b (Hosea 14:3). b And not only that, but the verse ascribes him /b credit b as though he had sacrificed bulls, as it is stated: “So we will render for bulls the offering of our lips” /b (Hosea 14:3). b Lest you say /b he is considered only like one who offers b obligatory bulls, /b therefore b the verse states: “I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely” /b (Hosea 14:5). Repentance is considered as though it were the sacrifice of a free-will offering., b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Meir would say: Great is repentance because the entire world is forgiven on account of /b one b individual who repents, as it is stated: “I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely; for My anger has turned away from him” /b (Hosea 14:5). b It does not say: From them, /b i.e., from the sinners, b but “from him,” /b i.e., from that individual. Because he repented, everyone will be healed.,§ With regard to repentance, the Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances /b that demonstrate that one b has /b completely b repented? Rav Yehuda said: For example, the prohibited matter came to his hand a first time and a second time, and he was saved from it, /b thereby proving that he has completely repented. b Rav Yehuda demonstrated /b what he meant: If one has the opportunity to sin b with the same woman /b he sinned with previously, b at the same time /b and b the same place, /b and everything is aligned as it was that first time when he sinned, but this time he overcomes his inclination, it proves his repentance is complete, and he is forgiven., b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav raised a contradiction: It is written: “Fortunate is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is hidden” /b (Psalms 32:1), implying that it is inappropriate for one to reveal his sins, b and it is written: “He who hides his transgressions shall not prosper” /b (Proverbs 28:13). He resolved the contradiction as follows: This is b not difficult. Here /b it is referring to b a publicized sin; /b since his sin is public knowledge it is fitting for him to also publicize his repentance. b There, /b it is referring b to a sin that is not publicized, /b in which case it is inappropriate to publicize one’s repentance. b Rav Zutra bar Toviya /b said that b Rav Naḥman said: Here, /b it is referring b to sins a person commits against another; /b he must publicize his repentance so that those who hear him may persuade the other to forgive him. b There, /b it is referring b to sins a person commits against God, /b in which case he need not repent publicly.,§ b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: /b When b a person commits a transgression /b the b first time, he is forgiven; a second /b time, b he is forgiven; a third /b time, b he is forgiven; /b but the b fourth /b time, b he is not forgiven, as it is stated: “Thus said the Lord: For three transgressions of Israel, but for four I will not reverse it” /b (Amos 2:6). b And it says: “All these things does God do twice or three times with a man” /b (Job 33:29).,The Gemara asks: b What is: And it says? /b Why did he need to bring an additional biblical proof when the first verse seems to suffice? The Gemara explains: b Lest you say /b that b this /b statement that the Holy One, Blessed be He, forgives easily the first three times b applies to a community but not to an individual, come /b and b hear /b proof from another verse that states: b “All these things does God do twice or three times with a man,” /b implying that this is so even for an individual. b From this /b point b onward, he is not forgiven, as it is stated: “For three transgressions of Israel, but for four I will not reverse it.” /b ,§ b The Sages taught /b in the i Tosefta /i : With regard to b transgressions that one confessed on this Yom Kippur, he should not confess them on another Yom Kippur, /b since he has already been forgiven. b But if he repeated those /b same transgressions during the year, b he must confess /b them again b on another Yom Kippur. And if he did not repeat them but did confess them again, about him the verse states: “As a dog that returns to its vomit, so is a fool who repeats his folly” /b (Proverbs 26:11), since it is inappropriate to go back and mention one’s earlier sins., b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: /b If one confesses in subsequent years, b all the more so is he praiseworthy, /b as he remembers his earlier sins and is thereby humbled, b as it is stated: “For I know my transgressions; and my sin is ever before me” /b (Psalms 51:5). b But how do I establish the /b meaning of the verse: b “Like a dog that returns to its vomit”? /b It may be established b in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: When a person commits a transgression and repeats it, it is permitted to him. /b The Gemara is surprised at this: b Can it enter your mind that it is permitted to him /b because he has sinned twice? b Rather, say it becomes to him as if /b it were b permitted. /b ,Furthermore, during confession, b one must detail the sin /b he committed and not suffice with a general admission of sin, b as it is stated: /b “And Moses returned to the Lord and said: b Please, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made themselves a god of gold” /b (Exodus 32:31); this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava. Rabbi Akiva says /b that the verse states: b “Fortunate is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is hidden” /b (Psalms 32:1), which teaches that one need not detail his sins. b But what is /b the meaning of that b which Moses said: “And have made themselves a god of gold” /b (Exodus 32:31)? It should be understood b in accordance with /b the statement b of Rabbi Yannai, as Rabbi Yannai said: Moses said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the universe, /b it is the b silver and gold that you gave to the Jewish people in abundance, until they said: Enough, /b which b caused them to make a god of gold. /b Consequently, the phrase: “And have made themselves a god of gold,” is not a description of the sin but an explanation and justification of it.,It is said that b two good leaders arose for the Jewish people: Moses and David. Moses said: Let my disgrace be written, /b i.e., may the sin I committed be written explicitly, b as it is stated: “Because you did not believe in Me, to sanctify Me” /b (Numbers 20:12). In contrast, b David said: Let my disgrace not be written, as it is stated: “Fortunate is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is hidden” /b (Psalms 32:1).,The Gemara explains: b A parable /b with regard to b Moses and David /b shows b to what this may be compared. /b It may be compared b to two women who were flogged in court /b for their sins. b One /b of them b sinned /b by engaging in forbidden relations, b and one ate unripe figs of the Sabbatical Year /b although they are forbidden. b The woman who ate the unripe figs of the Sabbatical Year said to /b the court: b Please publicize /b the sin b for which /b I am being b flogged, so that /b people b will not say /b that b what that /b woman b is being flogged for is /b also b what this /b woman b is being flogged for. They brought unripe figs of the Sabbatical Year, and hung them around her neck, and announced before her, saying: She is receiving lashes on account of the Sabbatical Year. /b Moses requested that his sin be publicized so that people would not think that he committed the same sins as the members of his generation, i.e., the Golden Calf and the report of the spies.,Furthermore, they said: b One exposes the hypocrites due to /b the b desecration of /b God’s b name, /b so others will not think that they are truly righteous and that their deeds bear imitating, b as it is stated: “When a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, I will lay a stumbling block before him” /b (Ezekiel 3:20). That is, when people do not know that someone is wicked to the core, he causes other people to err and this desecrates the name of God when it is revealed. b The repentance of utterly /b wicked b people prevents suffering /b from coming upon them. b And although the sentence of judgment has /b already b been signed /b against them b for suffering, /b their repentance prevents them from being punished., b The tranquility of the wicked is ultimately their destruction, /b as in their contentment they sit and think about forbidden matters. b And authority buries one who owns it. He was naked when he entered /b into power, b and he will be naked when he leaves it, and if only his exit would be like his entrance, /b without sin and added iniquity. The Gemara relates: b When Rav would leave /b his home b to /b go to court to b judge cases, he /b would b say this /b of himself: b of his own will, he goes to die, /b because a judge who misjudges a case is liable to death at the hand of Heaven; b and he does not fulfill the will of his household and he goes empty-handed to his household, /b because a judge does not receive a salary; b and if only his entrance would be like his exit, /b without sin or transgression., b When Rava would go to judge, he would say this /b of himself: |
|
