1. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 19.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Hayes (2015) 280| 19.2. "זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּה יְהוָה לֵאמֹר דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה אֲשֶׁר אֵין־בָּהּ מוּם אֲשֶׁר לֹא־עָלָה עָלֶיהָ עֹל׃", 19.2. "וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יִטְמָא וְלֹא יִתְחַטָּא וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִתּוֹךְ הַקָּהָל כִּי אֶת־מִקְדַּשׁ יְהוָה טִמֵּא מֵי נִדָּה לֹא־זֹרַק עָלָיו טָמֵא הוּא׃", | 19.2. "This is the statute of the law which the LORD hath commanded, saying: Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer, faultless, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 9.20 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Geljon and Runia (2013) 36, 176 | 9.20. "And Noah, the man of the land, began and planted a vineyard.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 15.1-15.2, 15.20 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Geljon and Runia (2013) 176| 15.1. "אָז יָשִׁיר־מֹשֶׁה וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאת לַיהוָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֵאמֹר אָשִׁירָה לַיהוָה כִּי־גָאֹה גָּאָה סוּס וְרֹכְבוֹ רָמָה בַיָּם׃", 15.1. "נָשַׁפְתָּ בְרוּחֲךָ כִּסָּמוֹ יָם צָלֲלוּ כַּעוֹפֶרֶת בְּמַיִם אַדִּירִים׃", 15.2. "עָזִּי וְזִמְרָת יָהּ וַיְהִי־לִי לִישׁוּעָה זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי וַאֲרֹמְמֶנְהוּ׃", 15.2. "וַתִּקַּח מִרְיָם הַנְּבִיאָה אֲחוֹת אַהֲרֹן אֶת־הַתֹּף בְּיָדָהּ וַתֵּצֶאןָ כָל־הַנָּשִׁים אַחֲרֶיהָ בְּתֻפִּים וּבִמְחֹלֹת׃", | 15.1. "Then sang Moses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spoke, saying: I will sing unto the LORD, for He is highly exalted; The horse and his rider hath He thrown into the sea.", 15.2. "The LORD is my strength and song, And He is become my salvation; This is my God, and I will glorify Him; My father’s God, and I will exalt Him.", 15.20. "And Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a timbrel in her hand; and all the women went out after her with timbrels and with dances.", |
|
4. Philo of Alexandria, On The Sacrifices of Cain And Abel, 69 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Geljon and Runia (2013) 176 | 69. But Pharaoh, the squanderer of all things, not being able himself to receive the conception of virtues unconnected with time, inasmuch as he was mutilated as to the eyes of his soul, by which alone incorporeal natures are comprehended, would not endure to be benefited by virtues unconnected with time; but being weighed down by soulless opinions, I mean here by the frogs, animals which utter a sound and noise wholly void and destitute of reality, when Moses says, "appoint a time to me when I may pray for you and for your servants that God will make the frogs to Disappear," though he ought, as he was in very imminent necessity, to have said, Pray this moment, nevertheless postponed it, saying, "Pray to-morrow," in order that he might in every case preserve the folly of his impiety. |
|
| 5. Tosefta, Kiddushin, 5.21 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Hayes (2015) 265, 274 |
| 6. Tosefta, Qiddushin, 5.21 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Hayes (2015) 265, 274 |
| 7. Mishnah, Makkot, a b c d\n0 3.18 (15) 3.18 (15) 3 18 (15) (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Hayes (2015) 271 |
8. Mishnah, Berachot, 5.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Hayes (2015) 270| 5.3. "הָאוֹמֵר עַל קַן צִפּוֹר יַגִּיעוּ רַחֲמֶיךָ, וְעַל טוֹב יִזָּכֵר שְׁמֶךָ, מוֹדִים מוֹדִים, מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. הָעוֹבֵר לִפְנֵי הַתֵּיבָה וְטָעָה, יַעֲבֹר אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, וְלֹא יְהֵא סָרְבָן בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה. מִנַּיִן הוּא מַתְחִיל, מִתְּחִלַּת הַבְּרָכָה שֶׁטָּעָה בָהּ: \n", | 5.3. "The one who says, “On a bird’s nest may Your mercy be extended,” [or] “For good may Your name be blessed” or “We give thanks, we give thanks,” they silence him. One who was passing before the ark and made a mistake, another should pass in his place, and he should not be as one who refuses at that moment. Where does he begin? At the beginning of the blessing in which the other made a mistake.", |
|
| 9. Anon., Sifre Numbers, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Hayes (2015) 268 |
| 10. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 114 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Hayes (2015) 271 |
| 11. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 267 |
| 12. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 271 |
13. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 13.3, 35.5-35.6 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Hayes (2015) 271| 13.3. דָּבָר אַחֵר, זֹאת הַבְּהֵמָה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (משלי ל, ה): כָּל אִמְרַת אֱלוֹהַּ צְרוּפָה, רַב אָמַר לֹא נִתְּנוּ הַמִּצְווֹת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֶלָּא לְצָרֵף בָּהֶן אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת, וְכָל כָּךְ לָמָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ל, ה): מָגֵן הוּא לְכָל הַחֹסִים בּוֹ, אָמַר רַבִּי יוּדָן בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כָּל בְּהֵמוֹת וְלִוְיָתָן הֵן קֶנִיגִין שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, וְכָל מִי שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה קֶנִיגִין שֶׁל אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, זוֹכֶה לִרְאוֹתָהּ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, כֵּיצַד הֵם נִשְׁחָטִים, בְּהֵמוֹת נוֹתֵץ לַלִּוְיָתָן בְּקַרְנָיו וְקוֹרְעוֹ, וְלִוְיָתָן נוֹתֵץ לַבְּהֵמוֹת בִּסְנַפִּירָיו וְנוֹחֲרוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים זוֹ שְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה הִיא, וְלֹא כָּךְ תָּנִינַן הַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין וּבַכֹּל שׁוֹחֲטִין וּלְעוֹלָם שׁוֹחֲטִין חוּץ מִמַּגַּל קָצִיר, וְהַמְגֵרָה, וְהַשִּׁנַּיִם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן חוֹנְקִין. אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין בַּר כַּהֲנָא אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא (ישעיה נא, ד): תּוֹרָה חֲדָשָׁה מֵאִתִּי תֵצֵא, חִדּוּשׁ תּוֹרָה מֵאִתִּי תֵצֵא. אָמַר רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יִצְחָק אֲרִיסְטוֹן עָתִיד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לַעֲשׂוֹת לַעֲבָדָיו הַצַּדִּיקִים לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא וְכָל מִי שֶׁלֹּא אָכַל נְבֵלוֹת בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה זוֹכֶה לִרְאוֹתוֹ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ויקרא ז, כד): וְחֵלֶב נְבֵלָה וְחֵלֶב טְרֵפָה יֵעָשֶׂה לְכָל מְלָאכָה וְאָכֹל לֹא תֹאכְלֻהוּ, בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתֹּאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, לְפִיכָךְ משֶׁה מַזְהִיר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאוֹמֵר לָהֶם (ויקרא יא, ב): זֹאת הַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכֵלוּ. 35.5. רַבִּי לֵוִי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר חֻקִּים שֶׁהֵם חֲקוּקִים עַל יֵצֶר הָרָע, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ישעיה י, א): הוֹי הַחֹקְקִים חִקְקֵי אָוֶן, אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי מָשָׁל לִמְקוֹם אַדְרִימוֹן שֶׁהוּא מְשֻׁבָּשׁ בִּגְיָסוֹת, מֶה עָשָׂה הַמֶּלֶךְ הוֹשִׁיב בּוֹ קוֹסְטְרַיְנוֹס בִּשְׁבִיל לְשָׁמְרוֹ, כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא תּוֹרָה קְרוּיָה אֶבֶן וְיֵצֶר הָרָע קָרוּי אֶבֶן, תּוֹרָה קְרוּיָה אֶבֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כד, יב): אֶת לֻחֹת הָאֶבֶן וְהַתּוֹרָה וְהַמִּצְוָה. יֵצֶר הָרָע קָרוּי אֶבֶן, דִּכְתִיב (יחזקאל לו, כו): וַהֲסִרֹתִי אֶת לֵב הָאֶבֶן מִבְּשַׂרְכֶם. תּוֹרָה אֶבֶן, יֵצֶר הָרָע אֶבֶן, הָאֶבֶן תִּשְׁמֹר אֶת הָאָבֶן. 35.6. אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בֶּן אֶלְיָשִׁיב חֻקִּים שֶׁמְבִיאִים אֶת הָאָדָם לְחַיֵּי הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ישעיה ד, ג): וְהָיָה הַנִּשְׁאָר בְּצִיּוֹן וְהַנּוֹתָר בִּירוּשָׁלִַם קָדוֹשׁ יֵאָמֶר לוֹ כָּל הַכָּתוּב לַחַיִּים בִּירוּשָׁלִָם, הוּא שֶׁעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה, שֶׁהוּא עֵץ חַיִּים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ג, יח): עֵץ חַיִּים הִיא. תָּנֵי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַסַּיִּף וְהַסֵּפֶר נִתְּנוּ מְכֹרָכִין מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם, אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אִם שְׁמַרְתֶּם מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בְּסֵפֶר זֶה הֲרֵי אַתֶּם נִצּוֹלִים מִן הַסַּיִּף, וְאִם לָאו סוֹף שֶׁהוּא הוֹרֵג אֶתְכֶם, וְהֵיכָן הוּא מַשְׁמָעָן שֶׁל דְּבָרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ג, כט): וַיְגָרֶשׁ אֶת הָאָדָם לִשְׁמֹר אֶת דֶּרֶךְ עֵץ הַחַיִּים, אֶת דֶּרֶךְ, זוֹ דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ עֵץ הַחַיִּים, זוֹ תּוֹרָה. תָּנֵי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי הַכִּכָּר וְהַמַּקֵּל נִתְּנוּ מְכֹרָכִין מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם, אָמַר לָהֶם אִם שְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה הֲרֵי כִּכָּר לֶאֱכֹל, וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי מַקֵּל לִלְקוֹת בּוֹ, הֵיכָן הוּא מַשְׁמָעוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר (ישעיה א, יט כ): אִם תֹּאבוּ וּשְׁמַעְתֶּם טוּב הָאָרֶץ תֹּאכֵלוּ, וְאִם תְּמָאֲנוּ וּמְרִיתֶם חֶרֶב תְּאֻכְּלוּ, חֲרוּבִין תֹּאכֵלוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא צְרִיכִים יִשְׂרָאֵל לְחָרוּבָא עֲבַדּוּן תָּתוֹבָא, אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא יָאָה מִסְכֵּנוּתָא לִבְרַתֵּיהּ דְּיַעֲקֹב כְּעַרְקָא סוּמְקָא בְּרֵישָׁא דְּסוּסְיָא חִוָרָא. | 35.6. "R’ Aba ben Elyashiv said: the statutes (chukkim) which bring a man to the life of the world to come, as it is written “And it shall come to pass that every survivor shall be in Zion, and everyone who is left, in Jerusalem; \"holy\" shall be said of him, everyone inscribed for life in Jerusalem.” (Isaiah 4:3) Those who are occupied with Torah, which is the tree of life…", |
|
14. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 17.8, 43.9, 44.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Hayes (2015) 271| 17.8. שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִישׁ יוֹצֵא פָּנָיו לְמַטָּה, וְאִשָּׁה יוֹצֵאת פָּנֶיהָ לְמַעְלָה, אָמַר לָהֶם הָאִישׁ מַבִּיט לִמְקוֹם בְּרִיָּתוֹ, וְאִשָּׁה מַבֶּטֶת לִמְקוֹם בְּרִיָּתָהּ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִשָּׁה צְרִיכָה לְהִתְבַּשֵֹּׂם וְאֵין הָאִישׁ צָרִיךְ לְהִתְבַּשֵֹּׂם, אָמַר לָהֶם אָדָם נִבְרָא מֵאֲדָמָה וְהָאֲדָמָה אֵינָהּ מַסְרַחַת לְעוֹלָם, וְחַוָּה נִבְרֵאת מֵעֶצֶם, מָשָׁל אִם תַּנִּיחַ בָּשָׂר שְׁלשָׁה יָמִים בְּלֹא מֶלַח מִיָּד הוּא מַסְרִיחַ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִשָּׁה קוֹלָהּ הוֹלֵךְ וְלֹא הָאִישׁ, אָמַר לָהֶם מָשָׁל אִם תְּמַלֵּא קְדֵרָה בָּשָׂר אֵין קוֹלָהּ הוֹלֵךְ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁתִּתֵּן לְתוֹכָהּ עֶצֶם מִיָּד קוֹלָהּ הוֹלֵךְ. מִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִישׁ נוֹחַ לְהִתְפַּתּוֹת וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נוֹחָה לְהִתְפַּתּוֹת, אָמַר לָהֶן אָדָם נִבְרָא מֵאֲדָמָה וְכֵיוָן שֶׁאַתָּה נוֹתֵן עָלֶיהָ טִפָּה שֶׁל מַיִם מִיָּד הִיא נִשְׁרֵית, וְחַוָּה נִבְרֵאת מֵעֶצֶם וַאֲפִלּוּ אַתָּה שׁוֹרֶה אוֹתוֹ כַּמָּה יָמִים בַּמַּיִם אֵינוֹ נִשְׁרֶה. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִישׁ תּוֹבֵעַ בְּאִשָּׁה וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה תּוֹבַעַת בְּאִישׁ, אָמַר לָהֶן מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה לְאֶחָד שֶׁאָבַד אֲבֵדָה הוּא מְבַקֵּשׁ אֲבֵדָתוֹ וַאֲבֵדָתוֹ אֵינָהּ מְבַקְשַׁתּוֹ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִישׁ מַפְקִיד זֶרַע בָּאִשָּׁה וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מַפְקֶדֶת זֶרַע בָּאִישׁ, אָמַר לָהֶם דּוֹמֶה לְאֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה בְּיָדוֹ פִּקָּדוֹן וּמְבַקֵּשׁ אָדָם נֶאֱמָן שֶׁיַּפְקִידֶנוּ אֶצְלוֹ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הָאִישׁ יוֹצֵא רֹאשׁוֹ מְגֻלֶּה וְהָאִשָּׁה רֹאשָׁהּ מְכֻסֶּה, אָמַר לָהֶן לְאֶחָד שֶׁעָבַר עֲבֵרָה וְהוּא מִתְבַּיֵּשׁ מִבְּנֵי אָדָם, לְפִיכָךְ יוֹצֵאת וְרֹאשָׁהּ מְכֻסֶּה. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה הֵן מְהַלְּכוֹת אֵצֶל הַמֵּת תְּחִלָּה, אָמַר לָהֶם עַל יְדֵי שֶׁגָּרְמוּ מִיתָה לָעוֹלָם, לְפִיכָךְ הֵן מְהַלְּכוֹת אֵצֶל הַמֵּת תְּחִלָּה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (איוב כא, לג): וְאַחֲרָיו כָּל אָדָם יִמְשׁוֹךְ. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה נִתַּן לָהּ מִצְוַת נִדָּה, עַל יְדֵי שֶׁשָּׁפְכָה דָּמוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, לְפִיכָךְ נִתַּן לָהּ מִצְוַת נִדָּה. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה נִתַּן לָהּ מִצְוַת חַלָּה, עַל יְדֵי שֶׁקִּלְקְלָה אֶת אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁהָיָה גְּמַר חַלָּתוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, לְפִיכָךְ נִתַּן לָהּ מִצְוַת חַלָּה. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה נִתַּן לָהּ מִצְוַת נֵר שַׁבָּת, אָמַר לָהֶן עַל יְדֵי שֶׁכִּבְּתָה נִשְׁמָתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, לְפִיכָךְ נִתַּן לָהּ מִצְוַת נֵר שַׁבָּת. 43.9. וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם אֶל אַבְרָם תֶּן לִי הַנֶּפֶשׁ וגו' וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם אֶל מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם הֲרִמֹתִי יָדִי וגו' (בראשית יד, כא כב), רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה וְרַבָּנָן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר עֲשָׂאָן תְּרוּמָה, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (במדבר יח, כו): וַהֲרֵמֹתֶם מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת ה'. וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אָמַר עֲשָׂאָן שְׁבוּעָה, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (דניאל יב, ז): וַיָּרֶם יְמִינוֹ וּשְׂמֹאלוֹ אֶל הַשָּׁמַיִם וַיִּשָּׁבַע בְּחֵי הָעוֹלָם. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי עֲשָׂאָן שִׁירָה, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (שמות טו, ב): זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי וַאֲרֹמְמֶנְהוּ. רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה וְרַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ וְרַבִּי אַמִּי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמְרוּ אָמַר משֶׁה בְּלָשׁוֹן שֶׁאָמַר אַבָּא שִׁירָה, הֲרִמֹתִי יָדִי אֶל ה', בּוֹ בַּלָּשׁוֹן אֲנִי אוֹמֵר שִׁירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי וַאֲרוֹמְמֶנְהוּ, אִם מִחוּט (בראשית יד, כג), אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מַמָּל אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אַתְּ אֲמַרְתְּ אִם מִחוּט, חַיֶּיךָ שֶׁאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לְבָנֶיךָ מִצְוַת צִיצִית, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (במדבר טו, לח): וְנָתְנוּ עַל צִיצִת הַכָּנָף פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת, וּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן חוּטָא דִתְכֶלְתָּא. (בראשית יד, כג): וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ נַעַל, חַיֶּיךָ שֶׁאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לְבָנֶיךָ מִצְוַת יְבָמָה, הָאֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (דברים כה, ט): וְחָלְצָה נַעֲלוֹ מֵעַל רַגְלוֹ. דָּבָר אַחֵר, אִם מִחוּט, זֶה הַמִּשְׁכָּן, שֶׁהוּא מְצֻיָּר בִּתְכֵלֶת וְאַרְגָּמָן. וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ נַעַל, אֵלּוּ עוֹרוֹת הַתְּחָשִׁים. דָּבָר אַחֵר, אִם מִחוּט, אֵלּוּ הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת, כְּהַהִיא דִּתְנַן וְחוּט שֶׁל סִיקְרָא חוֹגְרוֹ בָּאֶמְצַע לְהַבְדִּיל בֵּין דָּמִים הָעֶלְיוֹנִים לְדָמִים הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים. וְעַד שְׂרוֹךְ נַעַל, אֵלּוּ פַּעֲמֵי רְגָלִים, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמֵר (שיר השירים ז, ב): מַה יָּפוּ פְעָמַיִךְ בַּנְּעָלִים. בִּלְעָדַי רַק אֲשֶׁר אָכְלוּ הַנְּעָרִים (בראשית יד, כד), הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמואל א ל, כב כה): 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. וַיֹּאמֶר דָּוִד לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ כֵן אֶחָי אֵת אֲשֶׁר נָתַן ה' לָנוּ וַיִּשְׁמֹר אֹתָנוּ וַיִּתֵּן אֶת הַגְּדוּד הַבָּא עָלֵינוּ בְּיָדֵינוּ. וּמִי יִשְׁמַע לָכֶם לַדָּבָר הַזֶּה כִּי כְּחֵלֶק הַיֹּרֵד בַּמִּלְחָמָה וּכְחֵלֶק הַיּשֵׁב עַל הַכֵּלִים יַחְדָּו יַחֲלֹקוּ. וַיְהִי מֵהַיּוֹם הַהוּא וָמָעְלָה וַיְשִׂמֶהָ לְחֹק וּלְמִשְׁפָּט לְיִשְׂרָאֵל עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוּדָן וָהָלְאָה אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן אֶלָּא וָמָעְלָה, וּמִמִּי לָמַד מֵאַבְרָהָם זְקֵנוֹ, שֶׁאָמַר: בִּלְעָדַי רַק אֲשֶׁר אָכְלוּ הַנְּעָרִים וְחֵלֶק הָאֲנָשִׁים וגו'. 44.1. אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה הָיָה דְבַר ה' אֶל אַבְרָם בַּמַּחֲזֶה לֵאמֹר וגו' (בראשית טו, א), (תהלים יח, לא): הָאֵל תָּמִים דַּרְכּוֹ אִמְרַת ה' צְרוּפָה מָגֵן הוּא לְכֹל הַחוֹסִים בּוֹ, אִם דְּרָכָיו תְּמִימִים, הוּא עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה, רַב אָמַר לֹא נִתְּנוּ הַמִּצְווֹת אֶלָּא לְצָרֵף בָּהֶן אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת, וְכִי מָה אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמִי שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הַצַּוָּאר אוֹ מִי שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הָעֹרֶף, הֱוֵי לֹא נִתְּנוּ הַמִּצְווֹת אֶלָּא לְצָרֵף בָּהֶם אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הָאֵל תָּמִים דַּרְכּוֹ, זֶה אַבְרָהָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (נחמיה ט, ח): וּמָצָאתָ אֶת לְבָבוֹ נֶאֱמָן לְפָנֶיךָ. אִמְרַת ה' צְרוּפָה, שֶׁצֵּרְפוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּכִבְשַׁן הָאֵשׁ. מָגֵן הוּא לְכֹל הַחוֹסִים בּוֹ, (בראשית טו, א): אַל תִּירָא אַבְרָם אָנֹכִי מָגֵן לָךְ. 44.1. וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם הֵן לִי לֹא נָתַתָּ זָרַע (בראשית טו, ג), אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק הַמַּזָּל דּוֹחְקֵנִי וְאוֹמֵר לִי אַבְרָם אֵין אַתְּ מוֹלִיד. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הֵן כִּדְבָרֶיךָ, אַבְרָם לֹא מוֹלִיד אַבְרָהָם מוֹלִיד. (בראשית יז, טו): שָׂרַי אִשְׁתְּךָ לֹא תִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ שָׂרָי, שָׂרַי לֹא תֵלֵד, שָׂרָה תֵּלֵד. | 44.1. "After these things the word of Hashem came to Abram in a vision, saying, etc. (Psalms 18:31) \"As for God — His ways are perfect; the Word of Hashem is tried; a shield is He for all who take refuge in Him.\" If His way is perfect, how much more is He Himself! Rav said: Were not the mitzvot given so that man might be refined by them? . Do you really think that The Holy One of Blessing cares if an animal is slaughtered by front or by the back of the neck? Therefore, mitzvot were only given to make humans better.", |
|
15. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Hayes (2015) 271| 39a. בא למדוד נפט אומר לו מדוד אתה לעצמך בא למדוד אפרסמון אומר לו המתן לי עד שאמדוד עמך כדי שנתבסם אני ואתה,תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל עבירה מטמטמת לבו של אדם שנאמר (ויקרא יא, מג) ולא תטמאו בהם ונטמתם בם אל תקרי ונטמאתם אלא ונטמטם,תנו רבנן (אל) תטמאו בהם ונטמתם בם אדם מטמא עצמו מעט מטמאין אותו הרבה מלמטה מטמאין אותו מלמעלה בעולם הזה מטמאין אותו לעולם הבא,תנו רבנן (ויקרא יא, מד) והתקדשתם והייתם קדושים אדם מקדש עצמו מעט מקדשין אותו הרבה מלמטה מקדשין אותו מלמעלה בעולם הזה מקדשין אותו לעולם הבא, br br big strongהדרן עלך אמר להם הממונה /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongטרף /strong /big בקלפי והעלה שני גורלות אחד כתוב עליו לשם ואחד כתוב עליו לעזאזל הסגן בימינו וראש בית אב משמאלו אם של שם עלה בימינו הסגן אומר לו אישי כהן גדול הגבה ימינך ואם של שם עלה בשמאלו ראש בית אב אומר לו אישי כ"ג הגבה שמאלך,נתנן על שני השעירים ואומר לה' חטאת רבי ישמעאל אומר לא היה צריך לומר חטאת אלא לה' והן עונין אחריו ברוך שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big למה לי טרף בקלפי כי היכי דלא ניכוין ולישקול,אמר רבא קלפי של עץ היתה ושל חול היתה ואינה מחזקת אלא שתי ידים,מתקיף לה רבינא בשלמא אינה מחזקת אלא שתי ידים כי היכי דלא ליכוין ולישקול אלא של חול נקדשה אם כן הוה לה כלי שרת של עץ וכלי שרת דעץ לא עבדינן ונעבדה דכסף ונעבדה דזהב התורה חסה על ממונן של ישראל,מתניתין דלא כי האי תנא דתניא רבי יהודה אומר משום רבי אליעזר הסגן וכהן גדול מכניסין ידן בקלפי אם בימינו של כהן גדול עולה הסגן אומר לו אישי כהן גדול הגבה ימינך ואם בימינו של סגן עולה ראש בית אב אומר לו לכהן גדול דבר מילך,ונימא ליה סגן כיון דלא סליק בידיה חלשא דעתיה,במאי קא מיפלגי מר סבר ימינא דסגן עדיף משמאליה דכהן גדול ומר סבר כי הדדי נינהו,ומאן האי תנא דפליג עליה דרבי יהודה רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים הוא דתניא רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים אומר למה סגן מימינו שאם אירע בו פסול בכהן גדול נכנס סגן ומשמש תחתיו,תנו רבנן ארבעים שנה ששמש שמעון הצדיק היה גורל עולה בימין מכאן ואילך פעמים עולה בימין פעמים עולה בשמאל והיה לשון של זהורית מלבין מכאן ואילך פעמים מלבין פעמים אינו מלבין והיה נר מערבי דולק מכאן ואילך פעמים דולק פעמים כבה,והיה אש של מערכה מתגבר ולא היו כהנים צריכין להביא עצים למערכה חוץ משני גזירי עצים כדי לקיים מצות עצים מכאן ואילך פעמים מתגבר פעמים אין מתגבר ולא היו כהנים נמנעין מלהביא עצים למערכה כל היום כולו,ונשתלחה ברכה בעומר ובשתי הלחם ובלחם הפנים וכל כהן שמגיעו כזית יש אוכלו ושבע ויש אוכלו ומותיר מכאן ואילך נשתלחה מאירה בעומר ובשתי הלחם ובלחם הפנים וכל כהן מגיעו כפול הצנועין מושכין את ידיהן והגרגרנין נוטלין ואוכלין ומעשה באחד שנטל חלקו וחלק חבירו והיו קורין אותו בן | 39a. In the case of one who b comes to measure /b and purchase b naphtha, /b the merchant b says to him: Measure /b it b for yourself, /b as I prefer to keep my distance from the foul odor. With regard to one who b comes to measure /b and purchase b balsam, /b the merchant b says to him: Wait for me until I /b can b measure /b it b with you, so that you and I will /b both b be perfumed. /b Similarly, with regard to sin God merely provides an opening, whereas with regard to mitzvot God assists the individual in their performance.,In b the school of Rabbi Yishmael it was taught: Sin stupefies the heart of a person /b who commits it, b as it is stated: “And do not impurify yourselves with them, so that you should not be thereby impurified” /b (Leviticus 11:43) b Do not read /b that term as: b “And be impurified [ i venitmetem /i ]”; rather, /b read it as: b And your /b hearts will b be stupefied /b [ b i venitamtem /i ]. /b , b The Sages taught /b the following with regard to the verse: b “And do not impurify yourselves with them, so that you should not be thereby impurified”; a person who impurifies himself a bit, they impurify him greatly. /b If a person impurifies himself of his own volition b below, /b on earth, b they impurify him /b even more so b above, /b in Heaven. If a person impurifies himself b in this world, they impurify him in the World-to-Come. /b ,Conversely, b the Sages taught /b the following with regard to the verse: b “Sanctify yourselves and you will be sanctified” /b (Leviticus 11:44); b a person /b who b sanctifies himself a bit, they sanctify him /b and assist him b greatly. /b If a person sanctifies himself b below, they sanctify him above. /b If a person sanctifies himself b in this world, they sanctify him in the World-to-Come. /b ,, strong MISHNA: /strong The High Priest b would mix /b the lots b in the /b lottery b receptacle /b used to hold them b and draw /b the b two lots /b from it, one in each hand. b Upon one was written: For God. And upon /b the other b one was written: For Azazel. The deputy /b High Priest would stand b to /b the High Priest’s b right, and the head of the patrilineal family /b would stand b to his left. If /b the lot b for the name /b of God b came up in his right /b hand, b the Deputy would say to him: My master, High Priest, raise your right /b hand so that all can see with which hand the lot for God was selected. b And if /b the lot for the b name /b of God b came up in his left /b hand, b the head of the patrilineal family would say to him: My master, High Priest, raise your left /b hand.,Then b he would place /b the two lots b upon the two goats, /b the lot that arose in his right hand on the goat standing to his right side and the lot in his left hand on the goat to his left. b And /b upon placing the lot for God upon the appropriate goat, b he would say: For God, /b as b a sin-offering. Rabbi Yishmael says: He need not say: /b As b a sin-offering. Rather, /b it is sufficient to say: b For God. And /b upon saying the name of God, the priests and the people b respond after him: Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever and all time. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Why do I /b need the High Priest to have b mixed /b the lots in b a receptacle /b before he draws the lots? b In order that he not /b be able to b intentionally take /b the lot for God specifically with his right hand. Since it is a fortuitous omen for the lot for God to arise in his right hand, there is a concern that he might force the result, in contravention of the requirement that the designation of the goats be made through a random lottery., b Rava said: /b The b receptacle was /b made out b of wood and /b did not have the status of a sacred vessel. Rather, it b was unconsecrated, and it had enough /b space inside b only for /b the High Priest’s b two hands. /b , b Ravina strongly objects to this: Granted, /b it was constructed so that it b had enough /b space inside it b only for /b the High Priest’s b two hands. /b This was done so that he could not maneuver his hands inside the box to feel and examine the lots, b in order that he not /b be able to b intentionally take /b the lot for God specifically with his right hand. b But /b why was the receptacle b unconsecrated? Let it be consecrated /b as a sacred vessel. b If so, /b if it were to be consecrated, b it would be a sacred vessel /b made b of wood, and /b the i halakha /i is that b we do not make a sacred vessel from wood. /b But if this is the only issue, b let it be made /b out b of silver /b or b let it be made /b out b of gold. /b However, b the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people /b and did not want to burden them with the expense of having to make the receptacle from expensive materials. Therefore, it is made from wood, and as such it is precluded from being a sacred vessel.,The Gemara comments: b The mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b this i tanna /i /b whose opinion b was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: The Deputy and the High Priest insert their hands into the receptacle. If /b the lot for God b comes up in the High Priest’s right /b hand, b the Deputy says to him: My master, High Priest, raise your right /b hand. b And if /b the lot for God b comes up in the right /b hand b of the Deputy, the head of the patrilineal family says to the High Priest: Speak your word /b and declare the goat to your left side to be the sin-offering for God.,The Gemara asks: Why should the head of the patrilineal family instruct the High Priest to speak? b Let the Deputy say /b this b to him. /b The Gemara answers: b Since the lot /b for God b did not come up in /b the High Priest’s b hand, /b rather in the Deputy’s, b he /b might b be discouraged /b if the Deputy himself instructs him to speak, as it may appear that he is mocking him., b With regard to what do /b the i tanna’im /i of the mishna and i baraita /i b disagree? /b One b Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the i baraita /i , b holds /b that b the Deputy’s right /b hand b is preferable to the High Priest’s left /b hand. As such, the ideal way for the lots to be drawn is for both the Deputy and High Priest to use their right hands. b And /b the other b Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the mishna, b holds they are equivalent. /b Therefore, there is no reason for the Deputy to be involved, and the entire process is performed by the High Priest., b And who is this i tanna /i who argues with Rabbi Yehuda? It is Rabbi Ḥanina, the Deputy of the priests, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Ḥanina, the Deputy of the priests, says: Why /b did the b Deputy /b remain b at the /b High Priest’s b right /b side throughout the day’s service? b Because if some disqualification befalls the High Priest, the Deputy can step in and serve in his stead. /b It is apparent from Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement that as long as the High Priest remains qualified, the Deputy has no role in the day’s service, which disputes Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion.,§ b The Sages taught: /b During all b forty years that Shimon HaTzaddik served /b as High Priest, b the lot /b for God arose in b the right /b hand. b From then onward, sometimes it arose in the right /b hand and b sometimes it arose in the left /b hand. Furthermore, during his tenure as High Priest, b the strip of crimson /b wool that was tied to the head of the goat that was sent to Azazel b turned white, /b indicating that the sins of the people had been forgiven, as it is written: “Though your sins be as crimson, they shall be white as snow” (Isaiah 1:18). b From then onward, it sometimes turned white /b and b sometimes it did not turn white. /b Furthermore, b the western lamp /b of the candelabrum b would burn /b continuously as a sign that God’s presence rested upon the nation. b From then onward, it sometimes burned /b and b sometimes it went out. /b , b And /b during the tenure of Shimon HaTzaddik, b the fire on the arrangement /b of wood on the altar b kept going strongly, /b perpetually by itself, b such that the priests did not need to bring /b additional b wood to the arrangement /b on a daily basis, b except for the two logs /b that were brought b in order to fulfill the mitzva of /b placing b wood /b upon the arrangement. b From then onward, /b the fire b sometimes kept going strongly /b and b sometimes it did not, and so the priests could not avoid bringing wood to the arrangement throughout the entire day. /b , b And a blessing was sent upon the /b offering of the b i omer /i ; and to the /b offering of b the two loaves /b from the new wheat, which was sacrificed on i Shavuot /i ; b and to the shewbread, /b which was placed on the table in the Temple. b And /b due to that blessing, b each priest that received an olive-bulk /b of them, b there were those /b who b ate it and were satisfied, and there were those /b who b ate /b only a part b of it and left over /b the rest because they were already satisfied from such a small amount. b From then onward, a curse was sent upon the i omer /i , and to the two loaves, and to the shewbread, /b that there were not sufficient quantities to give each priest a full measure. Therefore, b each priest received /b just an amount the b size of a bean; the discreet, /b pious b ones would withdraw their hands, /b a bean-bulk being less that the quantity needed to properly fulfill the mitzva, b and /b only b the voracious ones would take and eat /b it. b And an incident occurred with one who took his portion and that of his fellow, and they called him: Son of /b |
|
16. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 265| 23a. ואימא פרט לחייבי לאוין אמר רב פפא חייבי לאוין תפשי בהו קדושין,דכתיב (דברים כא, טו) כי תהיין לאיש שתי נשים האחת אהובה והאחת שנואה וכי יש אהובה לפני המקום ויש שנואה לפני המקום אלא אהובה אהובה בנישואיה שנואה שנואה בנישואיה ואמר רחמנא כי תהיין,ואימא פרט לחייבי כריתות אמר רבא אמר קרא (ויקרא יח, ט) ערות אחותך בת אביך או בת אמך מולדת בית או מולדת חוץ בין שאומרים לו לאביך קיים בין שאומרים לו לאביך הוצא ואמר רחמנא אחותך היא,אימא בין שאומר לו אביך קיים בין שאומר לו אביך הוצא ואמר רחמנא אחותך היא לרבות אחותו משפחה ועובדת כוכבים אמר קרא בת אשת אביך מי שיש לו אישות לאביך בה פרט לאחותו משפחה ועובדת כוכבים,ומה ראית מסתברא חייבי כריתות הוה ליה לרבות שכן תפסי בהן קדושין לעלמא,אדרבה שפחה ועובדת כוכבים הוה ליה לרבות דאי מגיירה לדידיה נמי תפסי בה קדושין לכי מגיירה גופא אחרינא היא,ורבנן למעוטי שפחה ועובדת כוכבים מנא להו נפקא להו (שמות כא, ד) מהאשה וילדיה תהיה לאדוניה,ורבי יוסי בר' יהודה חד בשפחה וחד בעובדת כוכבים וצריכי דאי אשמעינן שפחה משום דאין לה חייס אבל עובדת כוכבים דאית לה חייס אימא לא,ואי אשמעינן עובדת כוכבים משום דלא שייכא במצות אבל שפחה דשייכא במצות אימא לא צריכא,ורבנן אשכחן שפחה עובדת כוכבים מנא להו וכ"ת נילף משפחה הנהו מצרך צריכי,א"ר יוחנן משום ר' שמעון בן יוחי אמר קרא (דברים ז, ד) כי יסיר את בנך מאחרי בנך מישראלית קרוי בנך ואין בנך הבא מן העובדת כוכבים קרוי בנך אלא בנה,אמר רבינא ש"מ בן בתך הבא מן העובד כוכבים קרוי בנך לימא קסבר רבינא עובד כוכבי' ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד כשר נהי דממזר לא הוי כשר נמי לא הוי ישראל פסול מיקרי,האי בשבעה אומות כתיב כי יסיר לרבות כל המסירים,הניחא לרבי שמעון דדריש טעמא דקרא אלא לרבנן מנא להו מאן תנא דפליג עליה דרבי יוסי ברבי יהודה רבי שמעון היא: | 23a. The Gemara raises a challenge: b And say /b that the verse: “The daughter of your father’s wife” comes to b exclude /b women who were forbidden, as they are b liable /b for violating b prohibitions /b but were nevertheless married to his father, such as a i mamzeret /i . If so, his sister from such a union would not be considered his sister. b Rav Pappa said: Betrothal comes into effect with /b women who are forbidden, and one would be b liable /b for violating b prohibitions /b despite the fact that union with them is forbidden, and so she is called the wife of your father.,This is derived from the verse in b which it is written: “If a man has two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated” /b (Deuteronomy 21:15). b Is there one /b who is b loved by the Omnipresent and one /b who is b hated by the Omnipresent? Rather, “beloved” /b means b her marriage is beloved, /b as it was permitted for her to be married, in accordance with i halakha /i , and b “hated” /b means b her marriage is hated /b because it was not permitted for her to be married, according to i halakha /i . b And the Merciful One states: “If /b a man b has /b two wives,” meaning that both are considered to be married.,The Gemara asks: b Say /b that this verse comes to b exclude /b a union between one’s father and a woman that is forbidden to him as they are b liable /b to receive b i karet /i , /b and that since betrothal does not come into effect with her there is no marriage bond. Perhaps a sister born of such a woman would not be prohibited as the daughter of one’s father’s wife. b Rava said /b that b the verse states: “The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or born outside” /b (Leviticus 18:9). This includes all daughters, b whether /b from a woman b for whom /b the Sages b tell your father: Maintain /b her within your home, or b whether /b the Sages b tell your father /b she is a woman who is forbidden to him and therefore: b Send her out /b of your home. b And the Merciful One states /b that nevertheless: b “She is your sister.” /b Even the daughter of a woman who was forbidden to your father such that both parties are liable to receive i karet /i is called your sister.,The Gemara asks: b Say that whether /b the Sages b say /b to your b father: Maintain /b her, b or whether /b they b say /b to your father: b Send her out, and the Merciful One states /b that b “she is your sister,” /b this comes b to include /b the additional cases of b his sister from /b a Canaanite b maidservant or a gentile woman. /b The Gemara rejects this: b The verse states: “The daughter of your father’s wife,” /b and this means b whoever can enter a marriage bond with your father. /b This b excludes his sister from /b a Canaanite b maidservant or gentile woman, /b with whom no marital bond is possible.,The Gemara asks: Since the verse rendering his sister forbidden both includes and excludes cases, b what did you see /b as a reason to include a daughter from a woman who is forbidden and both parties are liable to receive i karet /i , and to exclude the daughter of a Canaanite maidservant or gentile woman? The Gemara answers: b It stands to reason /b that those relationships that are forbidden because they render both parties b liable /b to receive b i karet /i should be included, since in general betrothal can come into effect with them. /b This is because although this woman is forbidden to his father, she is nevertheless permitted to other men.,The Gemara rejects this: b On the contrary, it should include /b a Canaanite b maidservant or a gentile woman, as, if she converts, betrothal can come into effect with /b the father b himself. /b The Gemara answers: b When she converts, she is /b considered like b a different body, /b i.e., a new person, but when she was a gentile there was no possibility of marital relations with her. Therefore, the verse excludes her.,The Gemara asks: b And /b with regard to b the Rabbis, /b who infer a different matter from the verse “your father’s wife’s nakedness,” b from where do they /b derive the i halakha /i b to exclude /b one’s sister from a Canaanite b maidservant or gentile woman? /b The Gemara answers: b They derive it /b from that which was said with regard to a Canaanite maidservant who was married to a Hebrew slave: b “The wife and her children shall be her master’s” /b (Exodus 21:4). From here they learn that the lineage of the maidservant’s children is connected only to their mother and not at all connected to their Jewish father.,The Gemara asks: b And /b why does b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, /b not learn this from here? The Gemara responds: b One /b verse was necessary to teach the case of a Canaanite b maidservant, and one /b verse was necessary to teach the case of b a gentile woman. And /b both verses b are necessary, as, if /b the Torah b taught us /b only about a Canaanite b maidservant, /b one could say she is excluded only b because she does not have a pedigree, /b since the Torah ascribes no family relationships to maidservants, b but /b with regard to b a gentile woman who does have a pedigree, say no. /b It was therefore necessary to say that one’s daughter by a gentile woman does not have the legal status of a daughter.,Conversely, b if it would teach us /b only the case of b a gentile woman, /b one might say that this is b because she does not have any connection with the mitzvot /b and therefore her children are in no way Jewish. b But /b since a Canaanite b maidservant /b has a b connection with the mitzvot, /b as she is obligated to observe the prohibitions in the same way as a Jewish woman, b say no, /b i.e., her children should be considered children of their Jewish father. Therefore, this additional proof b is necessary. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b according to the opinion of b the Rabbis, we found /b a source that the children of a Canaanite b maidservant /b are not considered the children of their Jewish father, but b from where /b do we derive that children born to a Jewish father by b a gentile woman /b are not considered his children? b And if you say: Let us derive /b it b from /b the case of the Canaanite b maidservant, /b it has already been shown that b these are /b both b necessary, /b and one cannot be derived from the other.,The Gemara answers: b Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: /b The b verse states: /b “Neither shall you make marriages with them: Your daughter you shall not give unto his son, nor his daughter shall you take unto your son, b for he will turn away your son from following Me” /b (Deuteronomy 7:3–4). This teaches that b your son /b born b from a Jewish woman is called your son, but your son /b born b from a gentile woman is not called your son, but her son. /b The verse teaches that since the son of a gentile woman is her son alone, he is not considered related at all to his Jewish father., b Ravina said: Conclude from here /b that b the son of your daughter by a gentile /b father b is /b nevertheless b called your son, /b i.e., grandson. The Gemara asks: b Shall we say that Ravina holds that /b if b a gentile or slave engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is /b of b unflawed /b lineage? The Gemara answers: There is no conclusive proof from here, because b granted, she is not a i mamzer /i , /b but nevertheless b she is still not /b of b unflawed /b lineage; rather, b she is called a Jew who is unfit /b to marry into the priesthood.,The Gemara asks with regard to Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning: Was b this /b verse not b written in /b relation to b the seven nations /b who inhabited the land of Canaan when Joshua entered Eretz Yisrael but not with regard to other nations? The Gemara responds that the words b “He will turn away” comes to include all those who would turn /b one’s grandson b away /b from God, i.e., any gentile.,The Gemara asks: b This works out well for Rabbi Shimon, who interprets the rationale /b behind the mitzva b in the verse /b and draws halakhic conclusions based on that interpretation. Although the verse is stated with regard to the seven nations, the reason for the verse applies to all other gentile nations. b However, according to the /b opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who do not draw inferences from the rationale of the verse to apply this ruling to all other nations, b from where /b do they derive b this /b i halakha /i ? The Gemara answers: b Who is the i tanna /i who disagrees with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? It is Rabbi Shimon, /b who applies the rationale of the verse to all other nations. |
|
17. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Hayes (2015) 272| 42b. כולהו נמי טענת אחרים והודאת עצמו נינהו,אלא בדרבה קמיפלגי דאמר רבה מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה מקצת הטענה ישבע חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו והאי בכולי' בעי דליכפריה והאי דלא כפריה משום דאינו מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו,ובכוליה בעי דלודי ליה והאי דלא אודי ליה אישתמוטי הוא דקא משתמיט מיניה סבר עד דהוי לי זוזי ופרענא ליה ורחמנא אמר רמי שבועה עילויה כי היכי דלודי ליה בכוליה,ר' אליעזר בן יעקב סבר לא שנא בו ולא שנא בבנו אינו מעיז והלכך לאו משיב אבידה הוא ורבנן סברי בפניו הוא דאינו מעיז אבל בפני בנו מעיז ומדלא מעיז משיב אבידה הוא,מי מצית מוקמת לה כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב הא קתני רישא מנה לאבא בידך אין לך בידי אלא חמשים דינר פטור מפני שמשיב אבידה הוא התם דלא אמר ברי לי הכא דאמר ברי לי,שמואל אמר לקטן ליפרע מנכסי קטן להקדש ליפרע מנכסי הקדש,לקטן ליפרע מנכסי קטן תנינא מנכסי יתומים לא יפרע אלא בשבועה תרתי למה לי,הא קמשמע לן כדאביי קשישא דתני אביי קשישא יתומין שאמרו גדולים ואין צריך לומר קטנים בין לשבועה בין לזיבורית,להקדש ליפרע מנכסי הקדש תנינא מנכסים משועבדים לא יפרעו אלא בשבועה ומה לי משועבדים להדיוט ומה לי משועבדים לגבוה,איצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא הדיוט הוא דאדם עושה קנוניא על הדיוט אבל הקדש דאין אדם עושה קנוניא על הקדש קא משמע לן,והאמר רב הונא שכיב מרע שהקדיש כל נכסיו ואמר מנה לפלוני בידי נאמן חזקה אין אדם עושה קנוניא על הקדש אמרי ה"מ שכיב מרע דאין אדם חוטא ולא לו אבל גבי בריא ודאי חיישינן:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ואלו דברים שאין נשבעין עליהן העבדים והשטרות והקרקעות וההקדשות אין בהן תשלומי כפל ולא תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה שומר חנם אינו נשבע נושא שכר אינו משלם,ר' שמעון אומר קדשים שחייב באחריותן נשבעין עליהן ושאינו חייב באחריותן אין נשבעין עליהן,רבי מאיר אומר יש דברים שהן בקרקע ואינן כקרקע ואין חכמים מודים לו כיצד עשר גפנים טעונות מסרתי לך והלה אומר אינן אלא חמש רבי מאיר מחייב שבועה וחכ"א כל המחובר לקרקע הרי הוא כקרקע,אין נשבעין אלא על דבר שבמדה ושבמשקל ושבמנין כיצד בית מלא מסרתי לך וכיס מלא מסרתי לך והלה אומר איני יודע אלא מה שהנחת אתה נוטל פטור זה אומר עד הזיז וזה אומר עד החלון חייב:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תשלומי כפל מנלן דתנו רבנן (שמות כב, ח) על כל דבר פשע כלל על שור ועל חמור ועל שה ועל שלמה פרט על כל אבדה חזר וכלל,כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון אף כל דבר המטלטל וגופו ממון,יצאו קרקעות שאין מטלטלין יצאו עבדים שהוקשו לקרקעות יצאו שטרות שאע"פ שהן מטלטלין אין גופן ממון הקדש רעהו כתיב:,(ולא תשלומי כפל) ולא ארבעה וחמשה: מ"ט תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה אמר רחמנא ולא תשלומי שלשה וארבעה:,שומר חנם אינו נשבע: מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן | 42b. The Gemara challenges: b All /b other cases where the defendant is required to take an oath due to a partial admission are b also /b cases of b a claim of others and his own admission. /b Yet in the i baraita /i Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov introduces his opinion with the term: There are times, indicating that the case to which he is referring, of one taking an oath on the basis of his own claim, is not the standard case of an oath due to a partial admission.,The Gemara answers: b Rather, /b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the Rabbis b disagree with regard to /b the statement b of Rabba, as Rabba says: For what /b reason b did the Torah say /b that one who b admits to a part of the claim must take an oath? /b It is because there is b a presumption /b that b a person does not exhibit insolence /b by lying b in the presence of his creditor, /b who did him a favor by lending money to him. b And this /b person who denies part of the claim actually b wants to deny all of /b the debt, so as to be exempt, b and this /b fact, i.e., b that he does not deny /b all of b it, /b is b because a person does not exhibit insolence in the presence of his creditor. /b ,Rabba continues: b And /b in order not to exhibit insolence, he b wants to admit to /b the creditor b with regard to all of /b the debt; b and this /b fact, i.e., b that he did not admit /b the entire debt b to him, /b is because he may be temporarily b avoiding /b paying b him. /b He b rationalizes /b doing so by saying to himself: I am avoiding him only b until /b the time b that I have /b enough b money, and /b then b I will repay him. And /b therefore, b the Merciful One says /b in the Torah: b Impose an oath on him in order /b to induce the debtor b to admit the entire /b debt b to him. /b ,With regard to this principle, b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov maintains: /b It b is no different with regard to /b the creditor b himself, and /b it b is no different with regard to his son; /b the debtor b would not exhibit insolence /b and deny the debt. b And therefore, he is not /b deemed as b one returning a lost item /b on his own initiative; rather, this is an ordinary case where one admits to a part of a claim and is therefore required to take an oath. b And the Rabbis maintain: It is in the presence of /b the original creditor b that /b one b would not exhibit insolence; but in the presence of his son, /b who did not lend him the money, he would b exhibit insolence /b and deny the claim entirely. b And since /b this debtor b is not exhibiting insolence, /b as he could have denied the loan completely but instead is opting to admit to part of the claim, b he is /b deemed as b one returning a lost item, /b and his claim is accepted without his taking an oath.,The Gemara asks: b Can you interpret /b the mishna b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov? Isn’t it taught /b in b the former clause /b that if the claimant said: My late b father had one hundred dinars in your possession, /b and the defendant responded: b You have only fifty dinars in my possession, /b he is b exempt /b from taking an oath, b as he is /b like b one returning a lost item? /b The Gemara answers: b There, /b it is referring to a case b where /b the claimant b did not say: I am certain /b that you owe my father this money, but rather made an uncertain claim. In such a case, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov agrees that the defendant is like one returning a lost item. b Here, /b by contrast, it is a case b where he said: I am certain /b that you owe him.,Returning to the Gemara’s question with regard to the last clause of the mishna, which states that one takes an oath to a minor, or to a representative of the Temple treasury, b Shmuel said /b a different answer: When the mishna spoke about taking an oath b to a minor, /b it was referring to a case where the debtor died; the creditor must take an oath to the minor heir attesting that he was not repaid in order b to collect from /b the b minor’s property. /b Similarly, if one’s debtor consecrated his property, he takes an oath b to /b a representative of b the Temple /b treasury in order b to collect from the consecrated property. /b ,The Gemara challenges: The i halakha /i that one takes an oath b to a minor /b in order b to collect from a minor’s property /b is one that b we learn /b in the mishna (45a): A woman who comes to collect the payment for her marriage contract b from the property of orphans collects only by means of an oath. Why do I /b need b two /b i mishnayot /i to teach this i halakha /i ?,The Gemara answers: By mentioning this i halakha /i twice, the Mishna b teaches us this: /b The i halakha /i applies with regard to both minor and adult orphans, b in accordance with /b the statement b of Abaye the Elder; as Abaye the Elder taught: /b The b orphans of which /b the Sages b spoke /b are b adult /b orphans, b and needless to say, /b the same i halakha /i also applies to b minor /b orphans. This principle applies b with regard to both /b the i halakha /i that a debt can be collected from the property of an orphan only by means of b an oath, and to /b the i halakha /i that a debt can be collected from the property of an orphan only from b inferior-quality /b land.,With regard to Shmuel’s explanation of the mishna that one takes an oath b to /b a representative of b the Temple /b treasury in order b to collect /b a debt b from consecrated property, /b the Gemara asks: b We learn /b this i halakha /i in the mishna (45a): b From liened property /b that has been sold one b collects /b a debt b only by means of an oath. And what /b difference is it b to me /b whether the property was b liened to an ordinary /b person, b and what /b difference is it b to me /b whether the property was b liened to the Most High, /b i.e., it was consecrated?,The Gemara answers: It b was necessary /b for this i halakha /i to be stated separately with regard to collecting a debt from the Temple treasury. Otherwise it might b enter your mind to say /b that b it is /b specifically in order to collect a debt from b an ordinary /b person that one is required to take an oath, b as a person /b is liable to b collude /b with another b against an ordinary /b person who purchased property, by producing a promissory note for a debt that was already repaid in order to collect property from the purchasers of land that had been liened to that debt. b But /b one might have thought that in order to collect a debt from the b Temple /b treasury, a person is not required to take an oath, b as a person does not collude /b with another b against /b the b Temple /b treasury. Therefore, the mishna b teaches us /b that one is required to take an oath even in order to collect a debt from the Temple treasury, as one is suspected of collusion in this case as well.,The Gemara asks: b But doesn’t Rav Huna say /b that in the case of b a person on his deathbed who consecrated all of his property, and said: So-and-so has one hundred dinars in my possession, /b his statement is b deemed credible, /b as the b presumption /b is that b a person does not collude /b with another b against /b the b Temple /b treasury? The Sages b said /b in response: b That statement /b applies only in the case of b a person on his deathbed, as a person sins only for his own /b benefit. One is not suspected of deceiving the Temple treasury for the benefit of his heirs. b But with regard to a healthy person, we are certainly concerned /b about collusion, even against the Temple treasury., strong MISHNA: /strong b And these are items concerning which one does not take an oath /b by Torah law: Canaanite b slaves, and /b ficial b documents, and land, and consecrated /b property. b In /b a case where b these /b items are stolen, b there is no payment of double /b the principal, b nor is there payment of four or five /b times the principal in a case where one stole a consecrated animal and slaughtered or sold it. b An unpaid bailee /b who lost one of these items b does not take an oath /b that he was not negligent in safeguarding it, and b a paid bailee does not pay /b for the loss or theft of one of these items., b Rabbi Shimon says /b there is a distinction between different types of consecrated property: With regard to b consecrated /b property b for which /b one b bears /b the ficial b responsibility /b to compensate the Temple treasury in the event b of their /b loss, such as in a case where he vowed to bring an offering and then set aside an animal to be sacrificed in fulfillment of the vow, b one takes an oath concerning them, /b as they are considered his own property. b But /b with regard to consecrated property b for which /b he b does not bear /b the ficial b responsibility for their /b loss, b one does not take an oath concerning them. /b , b Rabbi Meir says: There are /b certain b items that are /b physically b on the land but are not /b treated b like land /b from a halakhic perspective, b and the Rabbis do not concede to him /b concerning this point. b How so? /b If one makes the claim: b I assigned you ten grapevines laden /b with fruit to safeguard, b and the other one says: They are only five /b vines, b Rabbi Meir deems /b the defendant b liable /b to take b an oath, /b as he admitted to a part of the claim, and although the claim concerned grapevines, the primary aspect of the claim was the grapes. b And the Rabbis say: /b The halakhic status of b anything that is attached to the land is like the land /b itself, and therefore he is exempt from taking an oath., b One takes an oath only concerning an item that is /b defined b by size, by weight, or by number. How so? /b If the claimant says: b I transferred to you a house full /b of produce, b or: I transferred to you a pouch full /b of money, b and the other /b person b says: I do not know /b how much you gave me, b but what you left /b in my possession b you may take, /b and the amount in the house or pouch at that time is less than that claimed by the claimant, the defendant is b exempt /b from taking an oath, as the amounts in the claim and the admission are undefined. But if b this /b party b says /b that the house was full b up to the ledge, and that /b party b says /b that it was full b up to the window, /b the defendant is b liable /b to take an oath, as the dispute relates to a defined amount., strong GEMARA: /strong b From where do we /b derive that one is exempt from the b payment of double /b the principal with regard to the items mentioned in the mishna? It is b as the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse that discusses double payment: “For every matter of trespass, whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for clothing, or for any manner of lost thing…he shall pay double to his neighbor” (Exodus 22:8). This verse is expounded in the following manner: The phrase b “for every matter of trespass” is a generalization; /b the phrase b “whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for clothing” is a detail; /b and when the verse states: b “Or for any manner of lost thing,” it then generalized again. /b ,Consequently, this verse contains b a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, /b and one of the thirteen principles of exegesis states that in such a case b you may deduce /b that the verse is referring b only /b to items b similar to the detail. /b Applying this principle here, one may conclude that b just as /b each of the items mentioned in the b detail /b is clearly b defined as an item that is movable /b property b and has intrinsic monetary /b value, b so too, anything that is movable /b property b and has intrinsic monetary /b value is subject to double payment., b Land is /b therefore b excluded, as it is not movable property. /b Canaanite b slaves are /b also b excluded, as they are compared to land /b in many areas of i halakha /i . Ficial b documents are excluded, since although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary /b value. The value of the paper itself is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof of monetary claims. Finally, b consecrated /b property is excluded because it b is written /b in the verse: “He shall pay double to b his neighbor,” /b i.e., to his fellow man, but not to a representative of the Temple treasury.,The mishna teaches: b And there is no payment of double /b the principal, b nor /b is there payment of b four or five /b times the principal for stealing consecrated animals. The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b for the exclusion of the payment of four or five times the principal? The Gemara answers: Since payment of double the principal is excluded, that leaves, in a case where one steals and then slaughters or sells a consecrated animal, a total payment of only three or four times the principal, as the payment of double the principal is included in the larger payment for selling or slaughtering it. Therefore, since b the Merciful One states /b in the Torah b fourfold or fivefold payment, and not threefold or fourfold payment, /b one who steals a consecrated animal and slaughters it or sells it is exempt from the additional payments.,§ The mishna teaches: b An unpaid bailee /b who lost one of the excluded items b does not take an oath. /b The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? The Gemara answers that it is b as the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : |
|
18. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Hayes (2015) 272| 3a. ואיכא למימר כולה למר ואיכא למימר כולה למר אמר סומכוס ממון המוטל בספק חולקין בלא שבועה הכא דליכא דררא דממונא דאיכא למימר דתרוייהו היא לא כ"ש,אפילו תימא סומכוס שבועה זו מדרבנן היא כדרבי יוחנן דאמר ר' יוחנן שבועה זו תקנת חכמים היא שלא יהא כל אחד ואחד הולך ותוקף בטליתו של חבירו ואומר שלי הוא,לימא מתניתין דלא כרבי יוסי דאי כרבי יוסי הא אמר א"כ מה הפסיד רמאי אלא הכל יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו,אלא מאי רבנן כיון דאמרי רבנן השאר יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו הא נמי כשאר דמי דספיקא היא,האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא רבנן התם דודאי האי מנה דחד מינייהו הוא אמרי רבנן יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו הכא דאיכא למימר דתרוייהו הוא אמרי רבנן פלגי בשבועה,אלא אי אמרת ר' יוסי היא השתא ומה התם דבודאי איכא מנה למר ואיכא מנה למר אמר ר' יוסי יהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו הכא דאיכא למימר דחד מינייהו הוא לא כ"ש,אפי' תימא ר' יוסי התם ודאי איכא רמאי הכא מי יימר דאיכא רמאי אימא תרוייהו בהדי הדדי אגבהוה,אי נמי התם קניס ליה רבי יוסי לרמאי כי היכי דלודי הכא מאי פסידא אית ליה דלודי,תינח מציאה מקח וממכר מאי איכא למימר אלא מחוורתא כדשנין מעיקרא,בין לרבנן ובין לר' יוסי התם גבי חנוני על פנקסו דקתני זה נשבע ונוטל וזה נשבע ונוטל,מ"ש דלא אמרינן נפקיה לממונא מבעה"ב ויהא מונח עד שיבא אליהו דהא בודאי איכא רמאי,אמרי התם היינו טעמא דאמר ליה חנוני לבעה"ב אנא שליחותא דידך קא עבדינא מאי אית לי גבי שכיר אע"ג דקא משתבע לי לא מהימן לי בשבועה את האמנתיה דלא אמרת לי בסהדי הב ליה,ושכיר נמי א"ל לבעה"ב אנא עבדי עבידתא גבך מאי אית לי גבי חנוני אע"ג דמשתבע לי לא מהימן לי הלכך תרוייהו משתבעי ושקלי מבעל הבית:,תני רבי חייא מנה לי בידך והלה אומר אין לך בידי כלום והעדים מעידים אותו שיש לו חמשים זוז נותן לו חמשים זוז וישבע על השאר,שלא תהא הודאת פיו גדולה מהעדאת עדים מק"ו,ותנא תונא שנים אוחזין בטלית זה אומר אני מצאתיה וכו' והא הכא כיון דתפיס אנן סהדי דמאי דתפיס האי דידיה הוא ומאי דתפיס האי דידיה הוא וקתני ישבע,מאי שלא תהא הודאת פיו גדולה מהעדאת עדי' מק"ו שלא תאמר הודאת פיו הוא דרמיא רחמנא שבועה עליה כדרבה,דאמר רבה מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה מקצת הטענה ישבע חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בע"ח והאי בכוליה בעי דנכפריה והא דלא כפריה משום דאין אדם מעיז פניו | 3a. b and there is /b room b to say /b that b it /b belongs b entirely to one /b of them, b and there is /b also room b to say /b that b it /b belongs b entirely to /b the other b one, /b and nevertheless b Sumakhos says /b that since it is b property of uncertain ownership they divide /b it b without /b taking b an oath, /b then b here, where /b the litigants have b no ficial association /b with the item, b as there is /b room b to say that it /b belongs to b both of them, all the more so /b is it b not /b clear that they should divide it without taking an oath?,The Gemara answers: b You may even say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b Sumakhos: This oath is /b instituted b by rabbinic /b law b in accordance with /b the statement b of Rabbi Yoḥa. As Rabbi Yoḥa says: This oath, /b administered in the case of two people holding a garment, b is an ordice /b instituted b by the Sages so that everyone will not go and seize the garment of another and say: It is mine. /b ,§ The Gemara suggests: b Let us say that the mishna /b is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei. As, if /b you say that the ruling is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei, doesn’t he say /b that a case cannot be decided in a manner in which there is no deterrent for one taking a false claim to court (37a)? He says this with regard to a case where two people deposited money with the same person. One deposited one hundred dinars and one deposited two hundred, and the bailee forgot which of them deposited the larger sum. Subsequently, each claimed ownership of the larger sum and was prepared to take an oath to that effect. The Rabbis say that each should receive the smaller sum and the remainder should be held until Elijah the prophet prophetically resolves the uncertainty. Rabbi Yosei says: b If so, what did /b the b swindler lose? Rather, the entire /b deposit b will be placed /b in a safe place b until Elijah comes. /b ,The Gemara counters: b Rather, what /b is suggested? Is it suggested that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who disagree with Rabbi Yosei? b Since the Rabbis say /b there: b The remainder is placed /b in a safe place b until Elijah comes, this /b case of the mishna concerning the garment b is also comparable to the remainder /b in the case of the deposit, b as it is uncertain /b to whom the entire garment belongs. It should therefore be placed in a safe place until the matter is resolved.,The Gemara answers: b What /b is b this /b comparison? b Granted, if you say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis there, /b in the case of the depositors, b where these one hundred dinars certainly belong to /b only b one of them /b and b the Rabbis say /b that b it is placed /b in a safe place b until Elijah comes, here, /b in the case of this mishna, b where there is /b room b to say that it belongs to both of them, the Rabbis say /b that b they divide /b it b with /b the proviso that they take b an oath. /b , b But if you say /b that the mishna b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei, /b there is a difficulty. b Now /b consider, b if there, /b in a case b where it is certain that there are one hundred dinars /b that belong b to one /b of the litigants b and there are one hundred dinars /b that belong b to /b the other b one, /b nevertheless, b Rabbi Yosei says /b that the entire sum b is placed /b in a safe place b until Elijah comes, here, where there is /b room b to say that it /b all b belongs to /b only b one of them, all the more so /b is it b not /b clear that it should be placed in a safe place until Elijah comes, as one of the claims may be entirely fraudulent?,The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b You may even say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei: There, /b in the case of the deposit, b there is certainly a swindler /b between the two depositors. By contrast, b here, /b in the case of the mishna, b who is to say that there is a swindler? Say /b that b both of them lifted /b the garment b at the same time, /b and therefore there is no reason to penalize them by placing the garment in a safe place., b Alternatively, /b there is room to distinguish between the cases: b There, Rabbi Yosei penalizes /b the b swindler /b by confiscating his deposit b so that he will admit /b that he lied in order to receive his original deposit of one hundred dinars from the bailee. b Here, /b in the case of the garment, b what loss /b would a swindler b incur that /b would prompt him to b admit /b that he is lying? If the item is placed in a safe place, he loses nothing.,The Gemara rejects this alternative explanation: This distinction b works out well /b in the case of b a found item /b where he did not pay anything for it. Consequently, he has no incentive to admit that he lied. But in a case of b buying and selling, what is there to say? /b Both parties paid for the item and prefer to receive the item. b Rather, /b the distinction b is clearly as we explained initially. /b The difference between the cases is that in the mishna, there is no certainty that one of them is lying.,The Gemara asks: b Both according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis and according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei, there, with regard to /b the case of b a storekeeper /b relying b on his ledger, /b it is unclear why the money is not held until the matter is clarified. This is referring to a case where an employer tells a storekeeper to give food to his laborer in lieu of his salary, and later the storekeeper claims that he gave it to him but the laborer claims that he did not receive it. Both parties therefore claim payment from the employer. b As /b the mishna ( i Shevuot /i 45a) b teaches /b that b this /b one, the storekeeper, b takes an oath /b that he gave the food to the laborer b and receives /b payment from the employer, b and that /b one, the laborer, b takes an oath /b that he was not given the food b and takes /b his salary from the employer., b What is different /b in that case, b that we do not say: Appropriate the money from the employer, and it is placed /b in a safe place b until Elijah comes? /b Apparently, we should say this b because there is certainly a swindler /b among the litigants, since it is impossible that both the storekeeper and the laborer are telling the truth.,The Sages b say /b in response: b There, this is the reason /b that the money is not set aside: b Because the storekeeper can say to the employer: I carried out your agency /b to give the food to the laborer, and I have dealings only with you. b What /b business b do I have with the hired laborer? Even if he takes an oath to me /b that he did not receive the food, he is b not trustworthy to me by /b virtue of his b oath. You /b are the one who b trusted him, as you did not say to me: Give him /b the food b in /b the presence of b witnesses. /b Therefore, you are obligated to pay me. If you have a grievance, settle it with your employee., b And /b the b hired laborer can also say to the employer: I worked for you. What /b relationship b do I have with the storekeeper? Even if he takes an oath to me /b that he gave me the change, he is b not trustworthy to me /b by virtue of his oath. b Therefore, both /b parties b take an oath and take /b payment b from the employer. /b ,§ b Rabbi Ḥiyya taught /b a i baraita /i : If one says to another: b I /b have b one hundred dinars [ i maneh /i ] in your possession /b that you borrowed from me and did not repay, b and the other /b party b says: Nothing of yours /b is b in my possession, and the witnesses testify that he has fifty dinars /b that he owes the claimant, b he gives him fifty dinars and takes an oath about the remainder, /b i.e., that he did not borrow the fifty remaining dinars from him.,This ruling is derived b via an i a fortiori /i /b inference from the i halakha /i that one who admits to part of a claim that is brought against him is obligated to take an oath that he owes no more than the amount that he admits to have borrowed. The inference is: b As the admission of one’s /b own b mouth should not /b carry b greater /b weight b than the testimony of witnesses. /b Since in this case witnesses testify that he owes an amount equal to part of the claim, he is all the more so obligated to take an oath with regard to the rest of the sum.,The Gemara comments: b And /b the b i tanna /i /b of the mishna also b taught /b a similar i halakha /i : In a case of b two /b people who came to court b holding a garment, /b where b this /b one b says: I found it, /b and the other one says: I found it, each litigant takes an oath and they divide the garment. b And here, /b in the case of a found item, b since /b each litigant b is holding /b part of the garment, b it is clear to us that what /b is in b this one’s grasp is his, and what /b is in b that one’s grasp is his. /b This is tantamount to witnesses testifying that part of the claim of each litigant is legitimate. b And /b the mishna b teaches /b that each of them b takes an oath. /b ,The Gemara clarifies: For b what /b reason is it necessary to have the b i a fortiori /i /b inference: b As the admission of one’s /b own b mouth should not /b carry b greater /b weight b than the testimony of witnesses? /b Isn’t the comparison to the case of an admission to part of a claim self-evident? The Gemara answers: It is necessary so b that you will not say /b that b it is /b only in a case of b the admission of one’s /b own b mouth that the Merciful One imposes an oath upon him, in accordance with /b the explanation b of Rabba. /b , b As Rabba says: For what /b reason b did the Torah say /b that one who b admits to part of the claim must take an oath? /b It is because there is b a presumption /b that b a person does not exhibit insolence /b by lying b in the presence of his creditor, /b who had done him a favor by lending money to him. b And this /b person who denies part of the claim actually b wants to deny all of /b the debt, so as to be exempt, b and this /b fact b that he does not deny /b all of b it /b is b because a person does not exhibit insolence. /b |
|
19. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 272| 107a. עירוב פרשיות כתוב כאן וכי כתיב (שמות כב, ח) כי הוא זה אמלוה הוא דכתיב ומאי שנא מלוה,כדרבה דאמר רבה מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה במקצת הטענה ישבע חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו והאי בכולי בעי דנכפריה והאי דלא כפריה משום דאין אדם מעיז פניו,ובכולי בעי דלודי ליה והאי דכפר ליה במקצת סבר אי מודינא ליה בכוליה תבע לי בכוליה אישתמיט לי מיהא השתא אדהוו לי זוזי ופרענא הלכך רמא רחמנא שבועה עילויה כי היכי דלודי ליה בכוליה,וגבי מלוה הוא דאיכא למימר הכי אבל גבי פקדון מעיז ומעיז,תני רמי בר חמא ארבעה שומרין | 107a. b A merging of /b Torah b portions is written here, /b and the i halakha /i written in this passage is in fact meant to be applied to a different passage. b And when it is written: “This is it,” /b from which the i halakha /i of a partial admission is derived, b it is written concerning a loan, /b not a deposit. The Gemara asks: b And what is different /b about b a loan /b that this i halakha /i would apply only there?,The Gemara answers: It is b in accordance with /b the statement b of Rabba, as Rabba says: For what /b reason b did the Torah say /b that one who b admits to a part of the claim must take an oath? /b It is because there is b a presumption /b that b a person does not exhibit insolence /b by lying b in the presence of his creditor, /b who had done him a favor by lending money to him. b And this /b person who denies part of the claim actually b wants to deny all of /b the debt, so as to be exempt, b and this /b fact b that he does not deny /b all of b it /b is b because a person does not exhibit insolence. /b ,Rabba continues: b And /b in order not to exhibit insolence, he b wants to admit to /b the creditor b with regard to all of /b the debt, b and this /b fact b that he denies /b owing b him in part /b is because he b reasons: If I admit to him with regard to all of /b the debt, b he will lodge a claim against me with regard to all of it, /b and right now I do not have the money to pay. b I will evade him at least /b for b now until I have money, and /b then b I will pay /b him all of it. This rationalization enables one to falsely deny part of a claim. b Therefore, the Merciful One imposes an oath on him, in order /b to ensure b that he will admit to him with regard to all of /b the debt.,The Gemara completes its answer: b And it is with regard to a loan that this can be said, /b as the basis for this explanation is that one will not exhibit insolence before his creditor, who did him a favor by lending him money; b but with regard to a deposit, one will certainly exhibit insolence, /b as the claimant did him no favor. Therefore, there is no reason to say that one who completely denies a claim concerning a deposit is deemed credible any more than one who admitted to part of it, and he is obligated to take an oath in either case.,§ b Rami bar Ḥama teaches /b this i baraita /i : All b four /b types of b bailees /b |
|
20. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Hayes (2015) 265| 62a. תניא אמר רבי עקיבא פעם אחת נכנסתי אחר ר' יהושע לבית הכסא ולמדתי ממנו ג' דברים למדתי שאין נפנין מזרח ומערב אלא צפון ודרום ולמדתי שאין נפרעין מעומד אלא מיושב ולמדתי שאין מקנחין בימין אלא בשמאל אמר ליה בן עזאי עד כאן העזת פניך ברבך א"ל תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך,תניא בן עזאי אומר פעם אחת נכנסתי אחר רבי עקיבא לבית הכסא ולמדתי ממנו ג' דברים למדתי שאין נפנין מזרח ומערב אלא צפון ודרום ולמדתי שאין נפרעין מעומד אלא מיושב ולמדתי שאין מקנחין בימין אלא בשמאל אמר לו ר' יהודה עד כאן העזת פניך ברבך אמר לו תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך,רב כהנא על גנא תותיה פורייה דרב שמעיה דשח ושחק ועשה צרכיו אמר ליה דמי פומיה דאבא כדלא שריף תבשילא א"ל כהנא הכא את פוק דלאו אורח ארעא אמר לו תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך,מפני מה אין מקנחין בימין אלא בשמאל אמר רבא מפני שהתורה ניתנה בימין שנאמר (דברים לג, ב) מימינו אש דת למו רבה בר בר חנה אמר מפני שהיא קרובה לפה ור' שמעון בן לקיש אמר מפני שקושר בה תפילין רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר מפני שמראה בה טעמי תורה,כתנאי רבי אליעזר אומר מפני שאוכל בה ר' יהושע אומר מפני שכותב בה ר' עקיבא אומר מפני שמראה בה טעמי תורה,א"ר תנחום בר חנילאי כל הצנוע בבית הכסא נצול משלשה דברים מן הנחשים ומן העקרבים ומן המזיקין ויש אומרים אף חלומותיו מיושבים עליו,ההוא בית הכסא דהוה בטבריא כי הוו עיילי ביה בי תרי אפי' ביממא מתזקי רבי אמי ורבי אסי הוו עיילי ביה חד וחד לחודיה ולא מתזקי אמרי להו רבנן לא מסתפיתו אמרי להו אנן קבלה גמירינן קבלה דבית הכסא צניעותא ושתיקותא קבלה דיסורי שתיקותא ומבעי רחמי,אביי מרביא ליה [אמיה] אמרא למיעל בהדיה לבית הכסא ולרביא ליה גדיא שעיר בשעיר מיחלף,רבא מקמי דהוי רישא מקרקשא ליה בת רב חסדא אמגוזא בלקנא בתר דמלך עבדא ליה כוותא ומנחא ליה ידא ארישיה,אמר עולא אחורי הגדר נפנה מיד ובבקעה כל זמן שמתעטש ואין חברו שומע איסי בר נתן מתני הכי אחורי הגדר כל זמן שמתעטש ואין חברו שומע ובבקעה כל זמן שאין חברו רואהו,מיתיבי יוצאין מפתח בית הבד ונפנין לאחורי הגדר והן טהורין,בטהרות הקלו,ת"ש כמה ירחקו ויהיו טהורין כדי שיהא רואהו שאני אוכלי טהרות דאקילו בהו רבנן,רב אשי אמר מאי כל זמן שאין חברו רואה דקאמר איסי בר נתן כל זמן שאין חברו רואה את פרועו אבל לדידיה חזי ליה,ההוא ספדנא דנחית קמיה דרב נחמן אמר האי צנוע באורחותיו הוה א"ל רב נחמן את עיילת בהדיה לבית הכסא וידעת אי צנוע אי לא דתניא אין קורין צנוע אלא למי שצנוע בבית הכסא,ורב נחמן מאי נפקא ליה מיניה משום דתניא כשם שנפרעין מן המתים כך נפרעין מן הספדנין ומן העונין אחריהן,תנו רבנן איזהו צנוע זה הנפנה בלילה במקום שנפנה ביום,איני והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם ינהיג אדם את עצמו שחרית וערבית כדי שלא יהא צריך להתרחק ותו רבא ביממא הוה אזיל עד מיל ובליליא א"ל לשמעיה פנו לי דוכתא ברחובה דמתא וכן אמר ליה רבי זירא לשמעיה חזי מאן דאיכא אחורי בית חבריא דבעינא למפני לא תימא במקום אלא אימא כדרך שנפנה ביום,רב אשי אמר אפילו תימא במקום לא נצרכה אלא לקרן זוית,גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם ינהיג אדם את עצמו שחרית וערבית כדי שלא יהא צריך להתרחק,תניא נמי הכי בן עזאי אומר השכם וצא הערב וצא כדי שלא תתרחק משמש ושב ואל תשב ותמשמש שכל היושב וממשמש אפי' עושין כשפים באספמיא באין עליו,ואי אנשי ויתיב ואח"כ משמש מאי תקנתיה כי קאי לימא הכי לא לי לא לי לא תחים ולא תחתים לא הני ולא מהני לא חרשי דחרשא ולא חרשי דחרשתא | 62a. b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i in tractate i Derekh Eretz /i that b Rabbi Akiva said: I once entered the bathroom after /b my teacher b Rabbi Yehoshua, and I learned three things from /b observing b his /b behavior: b I learned that one should not defecate /b while facing b east and west, but rather /b while facing b north and south; I learned that one should not uncover himself /b while b standing, but /b while b sitting, /b in the interest of modesty; b and I learned that one should not wipe with his right /b hand, b but with his left. Ben Azzai, /b a student of Rabbi Akiva, b said to him: You were impertinent to your teacher to that extent /b that you observed that much? b He replied: It is Torah, and I must learn. /b ,Similarly, b we learned /b in a i baraita /i : b Ben Azzai said: I once entered a bathroom after Rabbi Akiva, and I learned three things from /b observing b his /b behavior: b I learned that one should not defecate /b while facing b east and west, but rather /b while facing b north and south; I learned that one should not uncover himself /b while b standing, but /b while b sitting; and I learned that one should not wipe with his right /b hand, b but with his left. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: You were impertinent to your teacher to that extent? He replied: It is Torah, and I must learn. /b ,On a similar note, the Gemara relates that b Rav Kahana entered and lay beneath Rav’s bed. He heard /b Rav b chatting and laughing /b with his wife, b and seeing to his needs, /b i.e., having relations with her. Rav Kahana b said to /b Rav: b The mouth /b of b Abba, /b Rav, b is like /b one whom b has never eaten a cooked dish, /b i.e., his behavior was lustful. Rav b said to him: Kahana, you are here? Leave, as /b this b is an undesirable mode of behavior. /b Rav Kahana b said to him: It is Torah, and I must learn. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Why must one not wipe /b himself b with his right /b hand, b but with his left? Rava said: Because the Torah was given with the right /b hand, b as it is stated: “At His right hand was a fiery law unto them” /b (Deuteronomy 33:2). b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Because /b the right hand b is close to the mouth, /b i.e., people eat with the right hand. b And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Because one ties the phylacteries /b onto his left hand b with /b his right hand. b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Because one points to the /b cantillation b notes of the Torah with /b his right hand.,The Gemara notes that this is b parallel to a tannaitic /b dispute: b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b One is forbidden to wipe himself with his right hand b because he eats with it. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Because he writes with it. Rabbi Akiva says: Because he points to the notes of the Torah with it. /b , b Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai said: Anyone who is modest in the bathroom will be saved from three things: From snakes, from scorpions and from demons. And some say /b that b even his dreams will be settling for him. /b ,The Gemara relates: b There was a particular bathroom in /b the city of b Tiberias, where, when two would enter it, even during the day, they would be harmed /b by demons. When b Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would each enter alone, they were not harmed. The Sages said to them: Aren’t you afraid? /b Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi b said to them: We have learned /b through tradition: The b tradition /b to avoid danger in the b bathroom /b is to conduct oneself with b modesty and silence. The tradition /b to end b suffering /b is with b silence and prayer. /b ,Because fear of demons in bathrooms was pervasive, the Gemara relates: b Abaye’s mother raised a lamb to accompany him to the bathroom. /b The Gemara objects: She should have b raised a goat for him. /b The Gemara responds: b A goat /b could be b interchanged with a goat-demon. /b Since both the demon and the goat are called i sa’ir /i , they were afraid to bring a goat to a place frequented by demons., b Before Rava became the head of the yeshiva, /b his wife, b the daughter of Rav Ḥisda, would rattle a nut in a copper vessel for him. /b This was in order to fend off demons when he was in the bathroom. b After /b he was chosen to b preside /b as head of the yeshiva, he required an additional degree of protection, so b she constructed a window for him, /b opposite where he would defecate, b and placed her hand upon his head. /b ,With regard to where one may or may not go to defecate, b Ulla said: Behind a fence, one /b need not distance himself from people and b may defecate immediately. In a valley /b or open field, one must distance himself b sufficiently so that if he passes wind, no one will hear him. Isi bar Natan taught as follows: Behind a fence /b one must distance himself b sufficiently so that if he passes wind another does not hear him, and in a valley, /b one must distance himself b sufficiently so that no one can see him. /b ,The Gemara b raises an objection /b based on what we learned in a mishna in i Teharot /i : Physical laborers, who usually fall into the category of i am ha’aretz /i and are not generally cautious with regard to the laws of ritual purity, b exit from the entrance of the olive press, defecate behind the fence, and are ritually pure. /b There is no reason to be concerned that they might become impure in the interim. This indicates that a greater distance is unnecessary.,The Gemara responds: b With regard to /b the laws of b ritual purity, they were lenient. /b To ensure maintece of purity, they were lenient and did not require a greater distance., b Come and hear /b from what we learned: b How far /b may workers b distance themselves, and /b the fruit and oil b will /b remain b pure? /b They may distance themselves only b so far that he /b still b sees him. /b This contradicts the opinion of Isi bar Natan, who required them to distance themselves sufficiently that they may not be seen. The Gemara responds: Those b who eat in purity are different, as the Sages were lenient with them. /b , b Rav Ashi said: What is /b the meaning of: b So long as another does not see him, which /b was the standard that b Isi bar Natan said? Sufficient that another person cannot see his nakedness, although he does see him. /b ,The Gemara relates: b There was a particular eulogizer who went /b to eulogize an important person b in the presence of Rav Naḥman. /b of the deceased, b he said: This /b man b was modest in his ways. Rav Naḥman said to him: Did you go to the bathroom with him and know whether or not he was modest? As we learned /b in a i baraita /i : b One can only describe as modest one who is modest /b even b in the bathroom, /b when no one else is there.,The Gemara asks: b And what difference /b did it make b to Rav Naḥman, /b that he was so insistent upon the details of whether or not this man was modest? The Gemara answers: b Because it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Just as the deceased are punished, so too are the eulogizers and those who answer after them. /b The deceased are punished for transgressions committed in their lifetimes. The eulogizers and those who answer are punished for accepting the attribution of virtues that the deceased did not possess., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Who is a modest person? One who defecates at night where he defecates during the day, /b i.e., who distances himself at night, in order to relieve himself, no less than he distances himself during the day.,The Gemara challenges: b Is that so? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say /b that b Rav said: One must always accustom himself /b to defecate b in the morning and at night, /b when it is dark, b so that he will not need to distance himself? Moreover, during the day, Rava would go up to a i mil /i /b outside the city, b and at night he would tell his servant: Clear a place for me in the city street. And so too, Rabbi Zeira told his servant: See who is behind the study hall, as I need to defecate. /b These Sages did not defecate at night in the same place where they defecated during the day. b Rather, /b emend the statement and b say /b as follows: b In the manner that one defecates during the day, /b i.e. he should conduct himself at night with the same degree of modesty with which he removes his clothing when defecating during the day., b Rav Ashi said: Even if you say /b that the text can remain as it was: b Where he defecates during the day, /b it b was only necessary in /b the case of b a corner, /b where one may conceal himself. In the interest of modesty, he should go around the corner at night, just as he does during the day.,The Gemara discusses b the matter itself. Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: One must always accustom himself /b to defecate early b in the morning and /b late b at night so that he will not need to distance himself. /b , b That /b opinion b was also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Ben Azzai said: Rise early /b in the morning b and go /b defecate, wait for b evening and go /b defecate, b so that you will not /b need to b distance yourself. /b He also said: b Touch /b around the anus first to assist in the opening of orifices b and /b then b sit; do not sit and /b then b touch, for anyone who sits and /b then b touches, even if sorcery is performed in /b a distant place like b Aspamia, /b the sorcery b will come upon him. /b ,The Gemara says: b And if one forgets and sits and then touches, what is his remedy? When /b he b stands, /b he should b recite the following /b incantation: b Not for me, not for me, neither i taḥim /i nor i taḥtim /i , /b types of sorcery, b neither these nor from these, neither the sorcery of a sorcerer nor the sorcery of a sorceress. /b |
|
21. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 265| 49b. תניא בהדיא (שמות כב, ד) מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם מיטב שדהו של ניזק ומיטב כרמו של ניזק דברי רבי ישמעאל רע"א מיטב שדהו של מזיק ומיטב כרמו של מזיק,רבינא אמר לעולם מתני' ר"ע היא דאמר מדאורייתא בדמזיק שיימינן ור"ש היא דדריש טעמא דקרא ומה טעם קאמר מה טעם הניזקין שמין להן בעידית מפני תיקון העולם,דתניא אמר ר"ש מפני מה אמרו הניזקין שמין להן בעידית מפני הגזלנים ומפני החמסנין כדי שיאמר אדם למה אני גוזל ולמה אני חומס למחר ב"ד יורדין לנכסי ונוטלין שדה נאה שלי וסומכים על מה שכתוב בתורה מיטב שדהו ומיטב כרמו ישלם לפיכך אמרו הניזקין שמין להן בעידית,מפני מה אמרו בעל חוב בבינונית כדי שלא יראה אדם לחבירו שדה נאה ודירה נאה ויאמר אקפוץ ואלונו כדי שאגבנו בחובי לפיכך אמרו בע"ח בבינונית,אלא מעתה יהא בזיבורית א"כ אתה נועל דלת בפני לווין,כתובת אשה בזיבורית דברי ר' יהודה ר"מ אומר בבינונית אמר ר"ש מפני מה אמרו כתובת אשה בזיבורית שיותר ממה שהאיש רוצה לישא האשה רוצה לינשא,דבר אחר אשה יוצאה לרצונה ושלא לרצונה והאיש אינו מוציאה אלא לרצונו,מאי דבר אחר וכ"ת כי היכי דכי מפיק לה איהו תקינו לה רבנן כתובה מיניה כי נפקא איהי נמי ליתקני ליה רבנן כתובה מינה ת"ש אשה יוצאה לרצונה ושלא לרצונה והאיש אינו מוציא אלא לרצונו אפשר דמשהי לה בגיטא:,כתובת אשה בזיבורית: אמר מר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן לא אמרן אלא מיתמי אבל מיניה דידיה בבינונית,מיתמי מאי איריא כתובת אשה אפילו כל מילי נמי דהא תנן אין נפרעים מנכסי יתומים אלא מן הזיבורית אלא לאו מיניה,לעולם מיתמי וכתובת אשה איצטריכא ליה ס"ד אמינא משום חינא אקילו רבנן גבה קמ"ל,אמר רבא ת"ש ר"מ אומר כתובת אשה בבינונית ממאן אילימא מיתמי לית ליה לר"מ הא דתנן אין נפרעים מנכסי יתומים אלא מן הזיבורית אלא לאו מיניה מכלל דרבנן סברי בזבורית,לא לעולם מיתמי ושאני כתובת אשה משום חינא,אמר אביי ת"ש הניזקין שמין להן בעידית ובעל חוב בבינונית וכתובת אשה בזיבורית ממאן אילימא מיתמי מאי איריא כתובת אשה אפילו כל הני נמי אלא לאו מיניה,אמר רב אחא בר יעקב הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שנעשה ערב לנזקי בנו לבעל חוב בנו ולכתובת כלתו,והאי כי דיניה והאי כי דיניה ניזקין ובעל חוב דמחיים גבו איהו נמי כי מגבי כמחיים מגבי כתובת אשה דלאחר מיתה גביא ולאחר מיתה ממאן גביא מיתמי איהו נמי כי מגבי כלאחר מיתה מגבי,ותיפוק ליה דערב דכתובה לא משתעבד בקבלן,הניחא למאן דאמר קבלן אף על גב דלית ליה נכסי ללוה משתעבד שפיר אלא למאן דאמר אי אית ליה משתעבד אי לית ליה לא משתעבד מאי איכא למימר,איבעית אימא בדהוו ליה ואישתדוף,ואיבעית אימא כל לגבי בריה שעבודי משעבד נפשיה,איתמר ערב דכתובה דברי הכל לא משתעבד | 49b. It is b taught explicitly /b in a i baraita /i : The verse: b “of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he pay” /b (Exodus 22:4), teaches that the appraisal is of b the best of the fields of the injured /b party, b and /b of b the best of the vineyards of the injured /b party. This is b the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: /b The appraisal is of b the best of the fields of the one who caused the damage, and /b of b the best of the vineyards of the one who caused the damage. /b This clearly indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva compensation is collected from the superior-quality land belonging to the one who caused the damage., b Ravina said: Actually, the mishna is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva, who said: By Torah law, we appraise /b the property b of the one who caused the damage. And it is /b also in accordance with the principle of b Rabbi Shimon, who expounds the reason /b underlying b the verse /b as a basis for drawing halakhic conclusions. b And /b the mishna b is saying: What is the reason /b for the i halakha /i taught in the mishna? The mishna should be understood as follows: b What is the reason /b that the court b appraises land of superior-quality for payment to injured /b parties? This is b for the betterment of the world. /b That is to say, the words: For the betterment of the world, do not indicate a rabbinic enactment. Rather, they provide a reason for the Torah law.,This is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Ketubot /i 12:2) that b Rabbi Shimon said: For what /b reason b did /b the Sages b say /b that the court b appraises land of superior-quality for payment to injured /b parties? It is b due to the robbers and due to those who take /b that which is not theirs b by force [ i ḥamsanin /i ]. /b How so? b So that a person will say: Why should I rob and why should I take by force? Tomorrow the court will come down to my property and take my finest field /b in order to compensate the victim for what I have robbed or taken by force. b And /b the Sages b rely on what is written in the Torah: “of the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he pay” /b (Exodus 22:4). b Consequently, they said /b that the court b appraises land of superior-quality for payment to injured /b parties.,The i baraita /i continues: b For what /b reason b did /b the Sages b say that a creditor /b collects his debt b from intermediate-quality land? /b It is b so that a person should not see another’s fine field or fine house and say: I will jump /b in b and lend /b him money b so that /b later b I will collect /b the field or house b for my debt, /b if the borrower does not have enough money to repay the loan. b Therefore, /b the Sages b said /b that b a creditor /b collects his debt only b from intermediate-quality land, /b and he would not receive that fine field that would have prompted him to extend the loan in the first place.,The Gemara asks: b If it is so /b that the objective is that people not be tempted to lend money for the purpose of acquiring the borrower’s property should he default on the loan, then the i halakha /i governing a creditor b should be /b to collect his debt b from inferior-quality land. /b The Gemara answers: b If so, /b then b you would be locking the door before /b potential b borrowers, /b as no one would be willing to lend them money.,The i baraita /i continues: Payment of b a woman’s marriage contract /b is collected b from inferior-quality land; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: /b It can be collected b from intermediate-quality land. Rabbi Shimon said: For what /b reason b did /b the Sages b say that a woman’s marriage contract /b is collected b from inferior-quality land? /b It is b because more than a man wants to marry /b a woman, b a woman wants to become married /b to a man. Consequently, she will agree to marry even if she knows that she will not be able to collect payment of the marriage contract from superior-quality land., b Alternatively, /b it is because b a woman is sent out /b from her husband b with her consent or without her consent, but a man sends /b his wife b out /b from his house b only with his consent. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the reason that he mentions b an alternative /b explanation? What problem is there with the first explanation? The Gemara answers: The alternative explanation does not explain why she collects from inferior-quality land, but serves to explain a different matter. Since the Sages instituted a marriage contract in order to strengthen the institution of marriage, it is possible to ask: b And if you would say /b that b just as when /b a man b divorces /b his wife b the Sages instituted a marriage contract for her from him, /b so too, b when she leaves him they should similarly institute a marriage contract for him from her; /b then b come /b and b hear: A woman is sent out /b from her husband b with her consent or without her consent, but a man sends /b his wife b out /b from his house b only with his consent. /b Even if she instigates a quarrel with him to bait him into divorcing her, it is nevertheless b possible /b for the husband b to keep her waiting for a bill of divorce. /b A man gives his wife a bill of divorce only when he wishes to do so, and so in essence the divorce depends solely on him.,§ The mishna teaches that payment of b a woman’s marriage contract /b is collected b from inferior-quality land. Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said: We said /b that a woman collects her marriage contract from inferior-quality land b only /b when her husband died and she collects payment b from /b the b orphans /b who inherit his estate. b But /b if she was divorced and she collects payment b from /b the husband b himself, /b then she collects it b from intermediate-quality land. /b ,The Gemara asks: If the mishna is referring to collecting b from orphans, /b then b why /b discuss b specifically a woman’s marriage contract? Even all matters, /b such as payment for damage, should b also /b be collected from inferior-quality land when it is collected from orphans, b as didn’t we learn /b in the mishna: If one who owed money died and his children inherited his property, the father’s debt b can be collected from the property of the orphans only from inferior-quality land. Rather, is it not /b that the mishna is referring to a case where the woman collects her marriage contract b from /b the husband b himself? /b ,The Gemara rejects this argument: b Actually, /b the mishna is referring to a case where the woman collects her marriage contract b from /b the b orphans /b who inherit their father’s estate. b And it was necessary for /b the mishna to teach the i halakha /i specifically with regard to b a woman’s marriage contract. /b As b it could enter your mind to say /b that b the Sages were /b more b lenient with her for the sake of desirability, /b so that she would be a more desirable partner should she want to remarry, and consequently they allowed her to collect payment of her marriage contract from intermediate-quality land even from orphans, the mishna b teaches us /b that even payment for a woman’s marriage contract is not collected from the intermediate-quality land of orphans, but only from their inferior-quality land., b Rava said: Come /b and b hear /b a proof from a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Meir says: /b Payment for b a woman’s marriage contract /b is collected b from intermediate-quality land. /b The Gemara attempts to clarify the case: b From whom /b does she collect payment of her marriage contract in this case? b If we say /b that she is collecting b from /b the b orphans, /b it is possible to ask: b Does Rabbi Meir not agree with that which we learned /b in the mishna: The father’s debt b can be collected from the property of the orphans only from inferior-quality land? Rather, is it not /b that the woman collects payment of her marriage contract b from /b her husband b himself? /b And since Rabbi Meir maintains that she collects from intermediate-quality land, one can learn b by inference that the Rabbis hold /b that she collects b from inferior-quality land, /b contrary to the opinion of Mar Zutra.,The Gemara rejects this argument: b No, actually /b it is possible to explain that the i baraita /i is referring to a case where the woman collects her marriage contract b from /b the b orphans /b who inherit their father’s estate. b And /b payment of b a woman’s marriage contract is different /b from other debts collected from orphans, which can be collected only from inferior-quality land. The Sages were more lenient with her b for the sake of desirability; /b consequently, Rabbi Meir ruled that she may collect her marriage contract from intermediate-quality land even if she is collecting it from orphans., b Abaye said: Come /b and b hear /b a proof from what is taught in the mishna: The court b appraises land of superior-quality for payment to injured /b parties. b And a creditor /b collects his debt b from /b the debtor’s b intermediate-quality land. And /b payment of b a woman’s marriage contract /b is collected b from /b her husband’s b inferior-quality land. /b The Gemara attempts to clarify the case: b From whom /b is the collection being made? b If we say /b that in all of these cases collection is being made b from /b the b orphans, why /b mention b specifically a woman’s marriage contract? Even all of these, /b i.e., even injured parties and creditors, should b also /b collect only from inferior-quality land when collecting from orphans. b Rather, is it not /b that the mishna is referring to a case where the woman collects her marriage contract b from /b the husband b himself, /b and it rules that she collects from inferior-quality land, contrary to the opinion of Mar Zutra?, b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: /b No proof can be brought from the mishna against the opinion of Mar Zutra, as the mishna can be understood as follows: b With what are we dealing here? /b We are dealing with a case b where /b one b became a guarantor /b for compensation b for his son’s damages, /b and similarly b for /b repayment to b his son’s creditor, and /b similarly b for /b payment of b his daughter-in-law’s marriage contract, /b and his son died. Since the guarantor stands in place of his son, collection is made from him as if it were being made from his son., b And /b payment is made in b this /b case b in accordance with its i halakha /i and /b payment is made in b this /b case b in accordance with its i halakha /i . /b Since b an injured /b party b and a creditor /b ordinarily b collect /b from those who owe them money b while they are alive, when /b the guarantor b pays /b the debt, b he too pays /b the debt b as though /b the one who caused the damage or borrowed the money b were /b still b alive. /b Therefore, in these cases collection is made from superior-quality or intermediate-quality land. But in this case, where the father serves as a guarantor for his son, payment of b a woman’s marriage contract is /b only b after /b her husband’s b death, and after /b his b death from whom does she collect? From the orphans. /b Consequently, b when /b the guarantor b pays /b the debt, b he too pays /b the debt b as though /b it were being paid by the orphans b after /b the husband’s b death. /b Accordingly, payment for her marriage contract is made from inferior-quality land.,The Gemara asks: b But let him derive /b this i halakha /i from another i halakha /i that states that b the guarantor /b of a marriage contract b does not become responsible /b for the payment of the marriage contract from his own property. The signature that he adds to the marriage contract serves merely as additional support but does not turn him into a true guarantor. Therefore, even if a collection is made, it is only from inferior-quality land. The Gemara answers: We are dealing here b with an unconditional guarantor, /b i.e., one who accepted unconditional responsibility for the obligation, allowing his daughter-in-law to collect payment of her marriage contract either from his son or from him, as she so desires.,The Gemara asks: b This works out well according to the one who says /b that b an unconditional guarantor becomes responsible /b for repayment of the loan b even if the borrower does not have property /b of his own. Therefore, it works out b well /b to explain the case in this manner. b But according to the one who says /b that b if /b the borrower b has /b property of his own at the time of the loan, then the unconditional guarantor b becomes responsible, /b but b if /b the borrower b does not have /b property of his own at the time of the loan, then the unconditional guarantor b does not become responsible, what is there to say /b in a case where the son did not have any property at the time of the marriage? In such a case, the father never became responsible for his son’s obligations.,The Gemara answers: b If you wish, say /b that it is a case b where /b the son b had /b property of his own at the outset, b but /b afterward b it was blighted. /b Since the son had his own property, the father accepted responsibility for the obligation, and now that the property has no value, the daughter-in-law can collect payment for her marriage contract from the father., b And if you wish say: /b With respect to b anything relating to his son, /b it is common for a father to b pledge himself /b absolutely, even when the son has no property of his own.,§ Apropos a guarantor for a marriage contract, the Gemara notes: It b was stated /b that b everyone agrees /b that b a guarantor /b who signs b a marriage contract does not /b thereby b become responsible /b for the payment of the marriage contract from his own property. |
|
22. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Hayes (2015) 271| 134b. ראשית הגז והמתנות ופדיון הבן ופדיון פטר חמור לפטור,כי אתא רבין אמר קמה אקמה רמי ליה,לוי זרע בכישר ולא הוו עניים למשקל לקט אתא לקמיה דרב ששת אמר ליה (ויקרא יט, י) לעני ולגר תעזוב אותם ולא לעורבים ולא לעטלפים,מיתיבי אין מביאין תרומה לא מגורן לעיר ולא ממדבר לישוב ואם אין שם כהן שוכר פרה ומביאה מפני הפסד תרומה,שאני תרומה דטבלה ולא סגיא דלא מפריש לה,והרי מתנות דלא טבלי ותניא מקום שנהגו למלוג בעגלים לא יפשיט את הזרוע,להפשיט את הראש לא יפשיט את הלחי ואם אין שם כהן מעלין אותן בדמים ואוכלן מפני הפסד כהן,שאני מתנות כהונה דנתינה כתיבא ביה השתא דאתית להכי תרומה נמי נתינה כתיבא ביה,ואלא תעזוב יתירא למה לי,לכדתניא המפקיר את כרמו ולשחר השכים ובצרו חייב בפרט ובעוללות ובשכחה ובפאה ופטור מן המעשרות,ההוא שקא דדינרי דאתא לבי מדרשא קדים רבי אמי וזכה בהן והיכי עביד הכי והא כתיב ונתן ולא שיטול מעצמו רבי אמי נמי לעניים זכה בהן,ואיבעית אימא אדם חשוב שאני דתניא (ויקרא כא, י) והכהן הגדול מאחיו שיהא גדול מאחיו בנוי בחכמה ובעושר,אחרים אומרים מנין שאם אין לו שאחיו הכהנים מגדלין אותו תלמוד לומר והכהן הגדול מאחיו גדלהו משל אחיו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big איזהו הזרוע מן הפרק של ארכובה עד כף של יד והוא של נזיר וכנגדו ברגל שוק ר' יהודה אומר שוק מן הפרק של ארכובה עד סובך של רגל אי זהו לחי מן הפרק של לחי עד פיקה של גרגרת:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר (דברים יח, ג) הזרוע זה זרוע ימין אתה אומר זה זרוע ימין או אינו אלא זרוע שמאל ת"ל הזרוע,מאי תלמודא כדאמר רבא הירך המיומנת שבירך הכא נמי הזרוע המיומן שבזרוע,והלחיים למאי אתא להביא צמר שבראש כבשים ושער שבזקן תיישים והקבה למאי אתא להביא חלב שעל גבי הקבה וחלב שבתוך הקבה דאמר ר' יהושע כהנים נהגו בו עין יפה ונתנוהו לבעלים טעמא דנהגו הא לא נהגו דידיה הוא,דורשי חמורות היו אומרים הזרוע כנגד היד וכן הוא אומר (במדבר כה, ז) ויקח רומח בידו,ולחיים כנגד תפלה וכן הוא אומר (תהלים קו, ל) ויעמוד פנחס ויפלל קבה כמשמעה וכן הוא אומר (במדבר כה, ח) ואת האשה אל קבתה,ותנא מייתי לה מהכא (ויקרא ז, לב) שוק הימין אין לי אלא שוק הימין זרוע מוקדשין מנין ת"ל (ויקרא ז, יד) תרומה זרוע חולין מנין ת"ל תתנו:,איזהו לחי מן הפרק של לחי ועד פיקה של גרגרת: והתניא נוטלה ובית שחיטה עמה,לא קשיא הא רבנן והא רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס,דתניא מוגרמת פסולה העיד רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס על מוגרמת שהיא כשרה,איבעית אימא הא והא רבנן ומאי עמה עמה דבהמה:, br br big strongהדרן עלך הזרוע והלחיים /strong /big br br | |
|
23. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Hayes (2015) 272| 18a. דסתם יהודה וגליל כשעת חירום דמו,וליתני מודה רבי יהושע באומר לחבירו מנה לויתי ממך ופרעתיו לך שהוא נאמן משום דקא בעי למיתני סיפא אם יש עדים שהוא לוה ממנו והוא אומר פרעתיו אינו נאמן והא קיימא לן המלוה את חבירו בעדים אינו צריך לפרעו בעדים,וליתני מודה ר' יהושע באומר לחבירו מנה לאביך בידי והאכלתיו פרס שהוא נאמן,אליבא דמאן אי אליבא דרבנן הא אמרי משיב אבידה הוי אי אליבא דרבי אליעזר בן יעקב הא אמר שבועה בעי,דתניא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר פעמים שאדם נשבע על טענת עצמו כיצד מנה לאביך בידי והאכלתיו פרס הרי זה נשבע וזהו שנשבע על טענת עצמו וחכמים אומרים אינו אלא כמשיב אבידה ופטור,ור' אליעזר בן יעקב לית ליה משיב אבידה פטור אמר רב בטוענו קטן והאמר מר אין נשבעין על טענת חרש שוטה וקטן,מאי קטן גדול ואמאי קרי ליה קטן דלגבי מילי דאביו קטן הוא אי הכי טענת עצמו טענת אחרים היא טענת אחרים והודאת עצמו,כולהי טענתא טענת אחרים והודאת עצמו נינהו,אלא הכא בדרבה קמיפלגי דאמר רבה מפני מה אמרה תורה מודה מקצת הטענה ישבע חזקה אין אדם מעיז פניו בפני בעל חובו והאי בכולה בעי דלכפריה והאי דלא כפר ליה משום דאין אדם מעיז פניו הוא | 18a. The Gemara answers: The reason that the i tanna /i cited specifically a case where each is located in a different land is b that /b the b standard /b situation with regard to travel between b Judea and /b the b Galilee is tantamount to a crisis period, /b as war was commonplace, and there was a strip of Samaritan territory between Judea and the Galilee.,The Gemara asks: b And let /b the i tanna /i b teach /b in the mishna: b And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in /b a case where b one says to another: I borrowed one hundred /b dinars b from you and repaid /b the loan b to you, that he is deemed credible. /b The Gemara answers: The i tanna /i chose not to teach that case of the mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted b due to /b the fact b that /b the i tanna /i b wanted to teach /b in b the latter clause: If there are witnesses that he borrowed /b money b from /b another, b and he says: I repaid /b the loan, b he is not deemed credible. /b However, the i tanna /i would not be able to distinguish between a case where witnesses testify and a case where there are no witnesses, b as don’t we hold /b that in the case of b one who lends /b money to b another in /b the presence of b witnesses, /b the borrower b need not repay /b the loan b in /b the presence of b witnesses? /b Therefore, even if witnesses testify that he took the loan, his claim that he repaid the loan is accepted.,The Gemara asks: b And let /b the i tanna /i b teach /b in the mishna: b And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes in /b a case where b one says to another: Your father has one hundred dinars in my possession /b in the form of a loan, b but I provided him /b with repayment of b half /b that amount, that b his /b claim is b deemed credible. /b ,The Gemara answers: There is a tannaitic dispute with regard to that case and the case that the Gemara suggested does not correspond to either opinion. b In accordance with whose /b opinion would the mishna be taught? b If /b it is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of the Rabbis, didn’t they say /b that in that case b he is /b the equivalent of b one returning a lost article? /b Since the son is unaware that the borrower owes his father money, and the borrower takes the initiative and admits that he owes part of the sum that he borrowed, it is as if he returned a lost article, and clearly his claim is accepted and no oath is required. b And if /b it is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, didn’t he say /b that in that case the borrower is b required /b to take b an oath, /b and only then is his claim accepted?,This dispute is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: /b There are b times when /b although no one claimed that another owes him money, b a person takes an oath on /b the basis of b his own claim. How /b so? If one says to another: b Your father has one hundred dinars in my possession, but I provided him /b with repayment of b half /b that amount, b he /b is required to b take an oath /b that he repaid half, b and that is /b the case of one b who takes an oath on /b the basis of b his own claim. And the Rabbis say: /b In that case b he is merely /b the b equivalent of one returning a lost article, and is exempt /b from taking an oath.,The Gemara asks: b And is Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov not of /b the opinion that b one who returns a lost article is exempt from taking an oath /b that he did not take part of the sum? He returns what he admitted taking without an oath. b Rav says: /b The i baraita /i is referring to a case b where a minor makes a claim /b against b him. /b The lender’s minor son claims that the borrower did not repay any part of the loan to his father. The borrower’s claim comes in response to that claim. Therefore, his admission is not at all comparable to returning a lost article. The Gemara asks: b But didn’t the Master say: One does not take an oath on /b the basis of b the claim of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor? /b Due to their lack of cognition, they are not deemed halakhically competent to require another to take an oath based on their claim.,The Gemara answers: In Rav’s statement, b what /b is the meaning of b minor? /b It means one who reached b majority, /b and is therefore halakhically competent. b And why does /b Rav b call him a minor? /b It is due to the fact b that with regard to his father’s matters, he is /b the equivalent of b a minor, /b as he is uncertain about the particulars of his father’s dealings. b If so, /b i.e., that the son making the claim has already reached majority, the language of the i baraita /i is imprecise. Why does the i tanna /i refer to this case as one taking an oath on the basis of b his own claim? /b This is not his own claim; it b is the claim of others. /b The Gemara answers: The i baraita /i employed that language for the following reason: It b is the claim of others, but /b he is taking an oath on the basis of b his own /b partial b admission. /b ,The Gemara asks: b All claims /b where an oath is required b are /b cases of b a claim of others and his own admission. /b However, in the i baraita /i , Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov introduces his opinion with the phrase: There are times, indicating that the case to which he is referring, that of one taking an oath on the basis of his own claim, is not the standard case of taking an oath., b Rather, /b the Gemara suggests an alternative explanation of the tannaitic dispute. b Here, /b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and the Rabbis b disagree with regard to /b the statement of b Rabba, as Rabba said: Why did the Torah say that /b one who b makes a partial admission /b in response to b the claim /b is required to b take an oath? /b It is because there is a b presumption /b that b a person /b would b not be /b so b insolent in the presence of his creditor /b as to deny his debt. Presumably, b this /b borrower who made a partial admission b would have liked to deny the entire /b loan, b and /b the fact b that he did not deny /b the entire loan b is due to /b the fact b that a person /b would b not be /b so b insolent /b in the presence of his creditor. |
|
24. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 272| 46a. והכהנים אומרים (דברים כא, ח) כפר לעמך ישראל אשר פדית [ה'] ואל תתן דם נקי בקרב עמך ישראל לא היו צריכין לומר ונכפר להם הדם אלא רוח הקודש מבשרתן אימתי שתעשו ככה הדם מתכפר להם, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ויהא מום פוסל בעגלה מקל וחומר ומה פרה שאין השנים פוסלות בה מום פוסל בה עגלה ששנים פוסלות בה אינו דין שיהא מום פוסל בה שאני התם דאמר קרא אשר אין בה מום בה מום פוסל ואין מום פוסל בעגלה,אלא מעתה לא יהו שאר עבודות פוסלות בה,אלמה א"ר יהודה אמר רב הניח עליה עודה של שקין פסולה ובעגלה עד שתמשוך שאני פרה דילפינן (דברים כא, ג) עול (במדבר יט, ב) עול מעגלה,עגלה נמי תיתי עול עול מפרה הא מיעט רחמנא בה,בעגלה נמי כתיב בה ההוא מיבעי ליה למעוטי קדשים דלא פסלה בהו עבודה סלקא דעתך אמינא ליתי בק"ו מעגלה ומה עגלה שאין מום פוסל בה עבודה פוסלת בה קדשים שמום פוסלת בהן אינו דין שעבודה פוסלת בהן,איכא למיפרך מה לעגלה שכן שנים פוסלות בה אטו קדשים מי ליכא דפסלי בהו שנים כי איצטריך קרא להנך קדשים דפסלה בהו שנים,וקדשים דלא פסלה בהו עבודה מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא (ויקרא כב, כב) עורת או שבור או חרוץ או יבלת או גרב או ילפת לא תקריבו אלה לה' אלה אי אתה מקריב אבל אתה מקריב קדשים שנעבדה בהן עבודה איצטריך סד"א ה"מ היכא דעבד בהן עבודת היתר אבל עבודת איסור אימא ליתסרו צריכא,והא נמי מהכא נפקא (ויקרא כב, כה) ומיד בן נכר לא תקריבו את לחם אלהיכם מכל אלה אלה אי אתה מקריב אבל אתה מקריב קדשים שנעבדה בהן עבודה,איצטריך ס"ד אמינא הני מילי היכא דעבד בהן כשהן חולין אבל עבד בהן כשהן קדשים אימא ליתסרו צריכא,גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב הניח עליה עודה של שקין פסולה ובעגלה עד שתמשוך מיתיבי עול אין לי אלא עול שאר עבודות מנין אמרת ק"ו ומה עגלה שאין מום פוסל בה שאר עבודות פוסלות בה פרה שמום פוסל בה אינו דין ששאר עבודות פוסלין בה,ואם נפשך לומר נאמר כאן עול ונאמר להלן עול מה להלן שאר עבודות פוסלות בה אף כאן שאר עבודות פוסלות,מאי אם נפשך לומר וכי תימא איכא למיפרך מה לעגלה שכן שנים פוסלות בה אי נמי קדשים יוכיחו שמום פוסל בהן ואין עבודה פוסלת בהן,נאמר כאן עול ונאמר להלן עול מה להלן שאר עבודות אף כאן שאר עבודות וממקום שבאתה מה להלן עד שתמשוך אף כאן עד שתמשוך,תנאי היא דאיכא דמייתי לה מעגלה איכא דמייתי לה מגופה דפרה,דתניא עול אין לי אלא עול שאר עבודות מנין ת"ל (במדבר יט, ב) אשר לא עלה עליה עול מכל מקום אם כן מה ת"ל עול עול פוסל בין בשעת עבודה בין שלא בשעת עבודה שאר עבודות אין פוסלות אלא בשעת עבודה,ואימא אשר לא עלה עליה כלל עול פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט עול אין מידי אחרינא לא אשר רבויא הוא,ותניא נמי גבי עגלה כי האי גוונא עול אין לי אלא עול שאר עבודות מנין ת"ל (דברים כא, ג) אשר לא עובד בה מ"מ א"כ מה ת"ל עול עול פוסל בין בשעת עבודה בין שלא בשעת עבודה שאר עבודות אין פוסלות אלא בשעת עבודה,ואימא אשר לא עובד בה כלל עול פרט כלל ופרט אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט עול אין מידי אחרינא לא אשר רבויא הוא,א"ר אבהו בעי מיניה מר' יוחנן משיכת עול בכמה א"ל כמלא עול איבעיא להו לארכו או לרחבו אמר להו ההוא מרבנן ור' יעקב שמיה לדידי מפרשא לי מיניה דרבי יוחנן משיכת עול לרחבו טפח,ולימא טפח הא קמ"ל שיעורא דעול טפח הוי למאי נפקא מינה למקח וממכר,א"ר יוחנן בן שאול מפני מה אמרה תורה הביא עגלה בנחל אמר הקב"ה יבא דבר שלא עשה פירות ויערף במקום שאין עושה פירות ויכפר על מי שלא הניחו לעשות פירות מאי פירות אילימא פריה ורביה אלא מעתה אזקן ואסריס ה"נ דלא ערפינן אלא מצות,ומורידין אותה אל נחל איתן איתן כמשמעו קשה תנו רבנן מנין לאיתן שהוא קשה שנאמר | 46a. b And the priests recite: “Forgive, Lord, Your people Israel, whom You have redeemed, and suffer not innocent blood to remain in the midst of Your people Israel” /b (Deuteronomy 21:8). b They did not have to recite /b the conclusion of the verse: b “And the blood shall be forgiven for them,” /b as this is not part of the priests’ statement, b but /b rather b the Divine Spirit informs them: When you shall do so, the blood is forgiven for you. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the mishna’s statement that the heifer is not disqualified by a blemish, the Gemara suggests: b And a blemish should disqualify in /b the case of the b heifer, by /b means of b an i a fortiori /i /b inference: b And if /b in the case of the red heifer, b which is not disqualified /b by b years, /b as it may be of any age, and yet b a blemish disqualifies it, /b then b a heifer /b for this ritual, b which is disqualified by years, /b as it is valid only until two years of age, b is it not logical that a blemish should disqualify it? /b The Gemara answers: It b is different there, /b in the case of the red heifer, b as the verse states: “Wherein [ i bah /i ] has no blemish” /b (Numbers 19:2). This serves as an exclusion and teaches that it is only b with regard to it [ i bah /i ] /b that b a blemish is disqualifying, but a blemish is not disqualifying with regard to /b the b heifer /b of the ritual of the breaking of the neck.,The Gemara asks: b However, if that is so, /b if the word “ i bah /i ” precludes a derivation by an i a fortiori /i inference, then any b other labor /b performed with the red heifer, apart from pulling a yoke, b should not disqualify it. /b While the verse disqualifies a red heifer only if it pulled a yoke, as it states: “And upon which never came a yoke” (Numbers 19:2), a similar i a fortiori /i inference could be learned from the heifer whose neck is to be broken to disqualify a red heifer that has performed any labor. However, since the verse states with regard to the heifer whose neck is to be broken: “That has not been worked with [ i bah /i ]” (Deuteronomy 21:3), this indicates that labor is disqualifying only for “ i bah /i ,” a heifer whose neck is to be broken, but not for a red heifer., b Why, /b then, does b Rav Yehuda say /b that b Rav says: /b If b he placed a bundle [ i uda /i ] of sacks on /b a red heifer b , /b the heifer is immediately b disqualified /b from being used as the red heifer; b and /b as b for the heifer /b whose neck is broken, it is not disqualified by such labor b until it pulls /b and moves the burden, as the verse states: “That has not pulled a yoke” (Deuteronomy 21:3). Why does bearing the weight of the bundle disqualify the red heifer? The Gemara explains: The i halakha /i with regard to the red b heifer is different, as we learn /b by a verbal analogy between the word b “yoke” /b used with regard to the red heifer and the word b “yoke” /b used with regard b to /b the b heifer /b whose neck is broken that any labor disqualifies the former.,The Gemara raises an objection: If there is a verbal analogy between the red heifer and the heifer that will have its neck broken, then the i halakha /i that a blemish should disqualify the heifer whose neck is broken b should also be derived /b from the usage of b “yoke” /b with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken and b from /b the usage of b “yoke” /b with regard b to /b the red b heifer. /b The Gemara answers: b The Merciful One has excluded /b this possibility by placing in the verse the word b “ i bah /i ,” /b which indicates that disqualification due to blemish applies only to the red heifer and not to the heifer whose neck is broken.,The Gemara counters this claim: b In /b the verse concerning b a heifer /b whose neck is broken, the Torah b also writes “ i bah /i ”; /b it should be the case that forms of labor other than pulling a yoke are disqualifying only with regard to it and not with regard to the red heifer. The Gemara answers: b That /b word “ i bah /i ” b is required by /b Rav Yehuda in order b to exclude sacred /b offerings, i.e., b which are not disqualified by labor, /b and one may bring an animal that has been used for labor as an offering. b It might enter your mind to say /b that this b should be derived by an i a fortiori /i /b inference b from a heifer /b whose neck is broken, as follows: b And if /b with regard to b a heifer /b whose neck is broken, b which is not disqualified by a blemish, labor /b nevertheless b disqualifies it, /b then with regard to b sacred /b offerings, b which are disqualified by a blemish, is it not right that labor should disqualify them? /b In order to counter this argument, the word “ i bah /i ” teaches us that a sacred offering is not disqualified by labor.,With regard to this suggested i a fortiori /i inference, the Gemara observes that b it can be refuted /b in the following manner: b What /b about the fact that b a heifer /b whose neck is broken b is disqualified by years, /b as once it reaches two years of age it is no longer classified as a heifer? As it is clear that the heifer whose neck is to be broken carries some restrictions that do not apply to sacred offerings, perhaps being disqualified by labor is another such restriction. The Gemara refutes this argument: b Is that to say that there are no sacred /b offerings b that are disqualified by years? /b There are several offerings that may be brought only in their first or second year, and b where the verse is necessary /b to teach that sacred offerings are not disqualified by labor, it is with regard to b those sacred /b offerings b that are disqualified by years. /b ,The Gemara raises an objection: b But is /b the i halakha /i b that sacred /b offerings b are not disqualified by labor derived from this /b verse? b It is derived from elsewhere. /b The verse states with regard to sacred offerings: b “Blind, or broken, or maimed, or having a wart, or scabbed, or scurvy, you shall not offer these to the Lord” /b (Leviticus 22:22). This verse serves to create an exclusion, teaching that it is b these /b that b you may not sacrifice, but you may sacrifice sacred /b animals b that have been used for labor. /b The Gemara answers: It b was necessary /b to state the i halakha /i twice. b It might enter your mind to say /b that b this /b i halakha /i , that one may sacrifice animals that have been used for labor, b applies only /b in a case where b they were used for permitted labor, but /b if they were used for b prohibited labor, /b e.g., on Shabbat, you might b say that it is prohibited /b to bring b them /b as offerings. In order to refute this argument, it is b necessary /b to state the i halakha /i again.,The Gemara poses another question: b But this /b i halakha /i that prohibited labor does not disqualify offerings b is also derived from here, /b a verse with regard to the sacrifice of blemished animals: b “And from the hand of a stranger you shall not offer the bread of your God from any of these, because… /b there is a blemish in them” (Leviticus 22:25). This verse emphasizes that it is only b “these,” /b i.e., blemished animals, that b you may not sacrifice, but you may sacrifice sacred /b animals b that have been used for labor. /b Since this verse is discussing the possibility of accepting offerings from a gentile, who presumably also performed prohibited labor with the animal, this demonstrates that prohibited labor does not disqualify animals from being sacrificed as offerings.,The Gemara answers: It b was necessary /b to teach this i halakha /i a third time. b It might enter your mind to say: This /b i halakha /i , that labor does not disqualify offerings, b applies /b only where b one performed labor with them when they were non-sacred /b and afterward dedicated them as offerings, b but /b if b one performed labor with them when they were /b already b sacred /b animals, you might b say that it is prohibited /b to bring b them /b as offerings. In order to refute this argument, it is b necessary /b to teach this i halakha /i in three separate places.,§ The Gemara returns to discuss b the /b matter b itself: Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: /b If b one placed a bundle of sacks on /b a red heifer, b it is disqualified. And /b as b for a heifer /b whose neck is broken, it is not disqualified b until it pulls /b a burden. The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : It states with regard to the red heifer: “That upon which never came b a yoke” /b (Numbers 19:2). b I have /b derived b only a yoke; from where /b do I derive that other types of labor also disqualify the animal? b You /b can b say /b the following b i a fortiori /i /b inference: b And if /b with regard to b a heifer /b whose neck is broken, b which is not disqualified by a blemish, other /b types of b labor disqualify it, /b then with regard to a red b heifer, which is disqualified by a blemish, is it not right that other /b types of b labor should disqualify it? /b , b And if it is your wish to say /b that this i a fortiori /i inference is unsound, you can learn this i halakha /i by a verbal analogy: b It is stated here, /b with regard to the red heifer, b “yoke” /b (Numbers 19:2), b and it is stated there, /b with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, b “yoke” /b (Deuteronomy 21:3). b Just as there, other /b types of b labor disqualify it, so too here, /b in the case of the red heifer, b other /b types of b labor disqualify /b it.,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of: b If it is your wish to say? /b What potential problem with the i a fortiori /i inference necessitates the verbal analogy? The Gemara explains: b And perhaps you would say /b that the i a fortiori /i inference b can be refuted /b in the following manner: b What /b is unique b about a heifer /b whose neck is broken is b that it is disqualified by years, /b which is not the case for a red heifer. b Alternatively, /b one could suggest that b sacred /b offerings b will prove /b that this inference should not be made, b as a blemish is disqualifying with regard to them, but labor is not disqualifying with regard to them. /b ,As the i a fortiori /i inference can be refuted in either of these ways, there is a need for the verbal analogy: b It is stated here “yoke,” and it is stated there “yoke.” Just as there, /b in the case of b a heifer /b whose neck is broken, b other /b types of b labor /b disqualify it, b so too, other /b types of b labor /b disqualify a red heifer. The Gemara raises an objection to this verbal analogy: b And from the place that you came /b you can offer an alternative exposition: b Just as below, /b in the case of a heifer whose neck is broken, it is not disqualified by carrying a burden b until it pulls /b the yoke, b so too here, /b a red heifer should not be disqualified b until it pulls /b the yoke, contrary to the statement of Rav.,The Gemara answers the objection to the statement of Rav from the i baraita /i : It b is /b a dispute among b i tanna’im /i , as there are those who cite /b the source of b this /b i halakha /i , that labor disqualifies a red heifer, by verbal analogy b from a heifer /b whose neck is broken, and therefore the red heifer is disqualified only if it pulls the burden. b There are /b also b those who cite /b the source of b this /b i halakha /i b from /b a red b heifer itself, /b and consequently they disqualify the red heifer even if it did not pull the yoke.,This is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to a red heifer: From the term b “yoke” I have /b derived b only /b that b a yoke /b disqualifies a red heifer; b from where /b do I derive the b other /b types of b labor? The verse states: “That upon which never came a yoke” /b (Numbers 19:2). The verse could be read with a pause after the word “came,” which would teach that it is disqualified b in any case, /b no matter what labor was performed with it. b If so, what /b is the meaning when b the verse states “yoke,” /b if all forms of labor disqualify it? It teaches us that b a yoke /b placed on the animal b disqualifies /b it b whether /b the yoke was on the animal b at the time of /b performing b labor /b or b whether /b it was on the animal b not at the time of /b performing b labor, /b i.e., it was merely placed on the animal. However, b other /b types of b labor /b actions b disqualify /b animals b only at the time of /b actually performing b labor. /b Rav ruled in accordance with this opinion.,The Gemara raises an objection: b And /b perhaps one can b say /b a different exposition of the verse: b “That upon which never came” /b is b a generalization /b that disqualifies the animal after any type of labor, while b “yoke” /b is b a detail. /b There is b a generalization and a detail, /b and the principle of halakhic exposition in that case is that b there is nothing in the generalization other /b than b what is in the detail. /b Therefore, with regard to b a yoke, yes, /b it will disqualify an animal from being used as a red heifer; but with regard to b anything else, no, /b it will not disqualify the animal. The Gemara answers: b “That /b upon which never came” b is an amplification, /b and the addition of this term results in this verse not belonging to the category of generalizations and details.,The Gemara comments: b And a case like this is also taught in /b a i baraita /i b with regard to a heifer /b whose neck is broken: From the word b “yoke” I have /b derived b only /b that b a yoke /b disqualifies; b from where /b do I derive the b other /b types of b labor? The /b same b verse states: “That has not been worked with” /b (Deuteronomy 21:3), to teach that it is disqualified b in any case, /b no matter what labor was performed with it. b If so, what /b is the meaning when b the verse states “yoke”? /b It serves to teach us that b a yoke /b placed on the animal b disqualifies /b it b whether /b the yoke was on the animal b at the time of /b performing b labor or whether /b it was on the animal b not at the time of performing labor, /b i.e., it was merely placed on the animal, whereas b other /b types of b labor /b actions b disqualify /b animals b only at the time of /b actually performing b labor. /b ,The Gemara raises an objection: b And /b perhaps one can b say /b a different exposition of the verse: b “That has not been worked with” /b is b a generalization /b that disqualifies the animal after any type of labor, while b “yoke” /b is b a detail. /b There is b a generalization and a detail, /b and the principle of halakhic exposition in that case is that b there is nothing in the generalization other /b than b what is in the detail, /b which means: With regard to b a yoke, yes, /b it will disqualify an animal, but with regard to b anything else, no, /b it will not disqualify it. The Gemara answers: The phrase b “that /b has not been worked with” b is an amplification, /b and the addition of this term results in this verse not belonging to the category of generalizations and details., b Rabbi Abbahu said: I asked of Rabbi Yoḥa: /b This b pulling of a yoke /b that disqualifies a heifer whose neck is broken, b with how much, /b i.e., how far, must the animal pull the yoke for it to be disqualified? b He said to me: Like /b the measure of the size of b a full yoke. A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: Does this mean according b to its length or /b according b to its width? One of the Sages, and Rabbi Ya’akov was his name, said to them: It was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yoḥa himself: The pulling of a yoke is /b according b to its width, /b which is b a handbreadth. /b ,The Gemara poses a question: b And /b since he stated a fixed measurement, b let him /b merely b state: A handbreadth. /b Why was it necessary to add that this is the width of a yoke? The Gemara answers: b This teaches us /b that b the measure /b of b a yoke /b along its width b is a handbreadth. What difference is there /b in knowing this fact? This teaches that b in /b the case of b commercial transactions, /b a buyer may retract his purchase if the yoke he was given is less than a handbreadth wide., b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Shaul says: For what /b reason b did the Torah say /b to b bring a heifer /b whose neck is broken b to a stream? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Let something that did not produce fruit, /b i.e., a heifer that has not given birth, b come and /b have its neck b be broken at /b a stream that flows forcefully, which is b a place that does not produce fruit, and atone for /b the murder of b one who was not given an opportunity to produce fruit. /b The Gemara asks: b What /b is this b fruit /b that he was not given an opportunity to produce? b If we say /b it refers to b being fruitful and multiplying, /b i.e., that the killer prevented him from having more children, b but if that is so, /b in the case b of an elderly person or a eunuch, so too /b will you say b that we do not break /b the heifer’s neck because they could not have had any more children even had they lived? b Rather, /b the fruit are b mitzvot, /b as the killer deprived the victim of the opportunity to perform additional mitzvot.,The mishna taught: b And they bring it down to a stream /b that is b i eitan /i . i Eitan /i /b in this context means b as /b the word generally b indicates, /b forceful. b The Sages taught: From where /b is it derived b that i eitan /i is forceful? /b It is b as /b it b is stated: /b |
|
25. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 271 | 43b. b what do they do with, /b i.e., how do they interpret, b this /b verse: b “With which you cover yourself” /b (Deuteronomy 22:12)? The Gemara answers that the Rabbis b require /b it b for that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The phrase b “on the four corners of your garment” /b (Deuteronomy 22:12) indicates that one is required to attach ritual fringes to a garment that has b four /b corners, b but not /b to one that has b three /b corners.,The i baraita /i continues: b Do you say /b that a garment with b four /b corners is obligated b but not /b a garment with b three /b corners? b Or is it /b teaching b only /b that a garment with b four /b corners is obligated b but not /b a garment that has b five /b corners? b When /b the verse b states: “With which you cover yourself,” /b a garment b with five /b corners b is thereby mentioned /b in the verse as being obligated. Then b how do I realize /b the meaning of: b “On the four /b corners of your garment”? It teaches that this obligation is limited to a garment that has b four /b corners, b but not /b to one that has b three /b corners.,The Gemara asks: b But what did you see /b that led you b to include /b a garment b with five /b corners b and to exclude /b a garment b with three /b corners, rather than including a garment with three corners and excluding a garment with five corners? The Gemara answers: b I include /b a garment b with five /b corners, b as five includes four, and I exclude /b a garment b with three /b corners, b as three does not include four. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b how does b Rabbi Shimon /b derive the i halakha /i that a five-cornered garment is required to have ritual fringes? The Gemara answers: He b derives /b it b from /b the seemingly extraneous word: “With b which [ i asher /i ] /b you cover yourself” (Deuteronomy 22:12). The Gemara asks: b And /b what do b the Rabbis /b derive from this word? The Gemara answers: b They do not learn /b any new i halakhot /i from the word b “which [ i asher /i ].” /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b as for b the Rabbis, what do they do with this /b phrase: b “That you may look upon it” /b (Numbers 15:39), from which Rabbi Shimon derives that a nighttime garment is exempt? The Gemara answers: b They require it for that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse: b “That you may look upon it and remember” /b (Numbers 15:39), teaches that one should b see this mitzva /b of ritual fringes b and remember another mitzva that is contingent on it. And which /b mitzva b is that? It is /b the mitzva of b the recitation of i Shema /i . As we learned /b in a mishna (Berakhot 9b): b From when may one recite i Shema /i in the morning? From when /b one can b distinguish between /b the b sky-blue /b strings b and /b the b white /b strings of his ritual fringes., b And /b it b is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : The phrase b “that you may look upon it and remember” /b teaches that one should b see this mitzva /b of ritual fringes b and remember another mitzva that is adjacent to it /b in the Torah. b And which /b mitzva b is that? It is the mitzva of diverse kinds /b of wool and linen, b as it is written: “You shall not wear diverse kinds, wool and linen together. You shall prepare yourself twisted cords” /b (Deuteronomy 22:11–12).,It b is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : The verse states: b “That you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord” /b (Numbers 15:39). This indicates that b once a person is obligated in this mitzva /b of ritual fringes, b he is obligated in all of the mitzvot. /b The Gemara comments: b And this is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, who says /b that ritual fringes are b a positive, time-bound mitzva, /b and women are exempt from it. Only men are obligated in all mitzvot, including positive, time-bound mitzvot, just as they are obligated in the mitzva of ritual fringes.,It b is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : The verse states: b “That you may look upon it and remember all the commandments of the Lord”; /b this teaches that b this mitzva /b of ritual fringes b is equivalent to all the mitzvot /b of the Torah., b And /b it b is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : The verse states: b “That you may look upon it and remember /b all the commandments of the Lord b and do /b them.” This teaches that b looking /b at the ritual fringes b leads to remembering /b the mitzvot, and b remembering /b them b leads to doing /b them. b And Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai says: Anyone who is diligent in this mitzva /b of ritual fringes b merits receiving the Divine Presence. /b It is b written here: “That you may look upon it [ i oto /i ]” /b (Numbers 15:39), b and it is written there: “You shall fear the Lord your God; and Him [ i oto /i ] shall you serve” /b (Deuteronomy 6:13). Just as i oto /i in that verse is referring to the Divine Presence, so too in this verse it is referring to the Divine Presence., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The Jewish people are beloved, as the Holy One, Blessed be He, surrounded them with mitzvot: /b They have b phylacteries on their heads, and phylacteries on their arms, and ritual fringes on their garments, and a i mezuza /i for their doorways. Concerning them David said: “Seven times a day I praise You, because of Your righteous ordices” /b (Psalms 119:164). This alludes to the two phylacteries, the four ritual fringes, and the i mezuza /i , which total seven., b And when David entered the bathhouse and saw himself standing naked, he said: Woe to me that that I stand naked without /b any b mitzva. But once he remembered the /b mitzva of b circumcision that was in his flesh his mind was put at ease, /b as he realized he was still accompanied by this mitzva. b After he left /b the bathhouse, b he recited a song about /b the mitzva of circumcision, b as it is stated /b in the verse: b “For the leader, on the i Sheminith /i : A Psalm of David” /b (Psalms 12:1). This is interpreted as a psalm b about circumcision, which was given /b to be performed b on the eighth [ i bashemini /i ] /b day of the baby’s life., b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Anyone who has phylacteries on his head, phylacteries on his arm, ritual fringes on his garment, and a i mezuza /i on his doorway is strengthened /b from b all /b sides b so that he will not sin, as it is stated /b in the verse: b “And a threefold cord is not quickly broken” /b (Ecclesiastes 4:12). This is interpreted as an allusion to the three mitzvot of phylacteries, ritual fringes, and i mezuza /i . b And /b the verse b states: “The angel of the Lord encamps round about them that fear Him, and delivers them” /b (Psalms 34:8). This is interpreted to mean that the angel of the Lord surrounds those who fulfill the mitzvot and saves them from sin., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Meir would say: What is different about i tekhelet /i from all /b other b types of colors /b such that it was chosen for the mitzva of ritual fringes? It is b because i tekhelet /i is similar /b in its color b to /b the b sea, and /b the b sea is similar to /b the b sky, and /b the b sky is similar to the Throne of Glory, as it is stated: /b “And they saw the God of Israel; b and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness” /b (Exodus 24:10), indicating that the sky is like a sapphire brickwork. b And it is written: “The likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone” /b (Ezekiel 1:26)., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Meir would say: /b The b punishment for /b not attaching b white /b strings is b greater than the punishment for /b not attaching b sky-blue /b strings, despite the fact that the sky-blue strings are more important. Rabbi Meir illustrates this with b a parable: To what is this matter comparable? /b It is comparable b to a king of flesh and blood who said to his two subjects /b that they must bring him a seal. The king b said to one /b of them: b Bring me a seal of clay, and he said to /b the other b one: Bring me a seal of gold. And both of them were negligent and did not bring /b the seals. b Which of them /b will have b a greater punishment? You must say /b that it is b this /b one b to whom he said: Bring me a seal of clay, and /b despite its availability and low cost, he b did not bring /b it., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Meir would say: A person is obligated to recite one hundred blessings every day, as it is stated /b in the verse: b “And now, Israel, what [ i ma /i ] does the Lord your God require of you” /b (Deuteronomy 10:12). Rabbi Meir interprets the verse as though it said one hundred [ i me’a /i ], rather than i ma /i .,The Gemara relates that b on Shabbat and Festivals, /b when the prayers contain fewer blessings, b Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Avya, made an effort to fill /b this quota of blessings b with /b blessings on b spices [ i be’isparmakei /i ] and sweet fruit, /b of which he would partake in order to recite extra blessings., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Meir would say: A man is obligated to recite three blessings every day /b praising God for His kindnesses, and b these /b blessings b are: Who did not make me a gentile; Who did not make me a woman; /b and b Who did not make me an ignoramus. /b , b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov heard his son reciting the blessing: Who did not make me an ignoramus. /b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov b said to him: /b Is it b in fact /b proper to go b this far /b in reciting blessings? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov’s son b said to him: Rather, what blessing /b should one b recite? /b If you will say that one should recite: b Who did not make me a slave, that is /b the same as b a woman; /b why should one recite two blessings about the same matter? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov answered: Nevertheless, b a slave /b |
|
26. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 274| 119a. זה המכיר מקום חבירו בישיבה איכא דאמרי אמר ר"א זה המקבל פני חבירו בישיבה,מאי למכסה עתיק (יומין) זה המכסה דברים שכיסה עתיק יומין ומאי נינהו סתרי תורה ואיכא דאמרי זה המגלה דברים שכיסה עתיק יומין מאי נינהו טעמי תורה,אמר רב כהנא משום רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי מאי דכתיב (תהלים ד, א) למנצח מזמור לדוד זמרו למי שנוצחין אותו ושמח,בא וראה שלא כמדת הקב"ה מדת בשר ודם בשר ודם מנצחין אותו ועצב אבל הקב"ה נוצחין אותו ושמח שנאמר (תהלים קו, כג) ויאמר להשמידם לולי משה בחירו עמד בפרץ לפניו,אמר רב כהנא משום רבי ישמעאל בר' יוסי אמר ר"ש בן לקיש משום רבי יהודה נשיאה מאי דכתיב (יחזקאל א, ח) וידי אדם מתחת כנפיהם ידו כתיב זה ידו של הקדוש ברוך הוא שפרוסה תחת כנפי החיות כדי לקבל בעלי תשובה מיד מדת הדין,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל כסף וזהב שבעולם יוסף לקטו והביאו למצרים שנאמר (בראשית מז, יד) וילקט יוסף את כל הכסף הנמצא אין לי אלא שבארץ מצרים ושבארץ כנען בשאר ארצות מנין תלמוד לומר (בראשית מא, נז) וכל הארץ באו מצרימה,וכשעלו ישראל ממצרים העלוהו עמהן שנאמר (שמות יב, לו) וינצלו את מצרים רב אסי אמר עשאוה כמצודה זו שאין בה דגן רבי שמעון אמר כמצולה שאין בה דגים,והיה מונח עד רחבעם בא שישק מלך מצרים ונטלו מרחבעם שנאמר (מלכים א יד, כה) ויהי בשנה החמישית למלך רחבעם עלה שישק מלך מצרים [על ירושלים] ויקח את אוצרות בית ה' ואת אוצרות בית המלך בא זרח מלך כוש ונטלו משישק,בא אסא ונטלוהו מזרח מלך כוש ושיגרו להדרימון בן טברימון באו בני עמון ונטלום מהדרימון בן טברימון בא יהושפט ונטלו מבני עמון והיה מונח עד אחז,בא סנחריב ונטלו מאחז בא חזקיה ונטלו מסנחריב והיה מונח עד צדקיה באו כשדיים ונטלוהו מצדקיה באו פרסיים ונטלוהו מכשדיים באו יוונים ונטלוהו מפרסיים באו רומיים ונטלוהו מיד יוונים ועדיין מונח ברומי:,אמר רבי חמא (בר) חנינא שלש מטמוניות הטמין יוסף במצרים אחת נתגלה לקרח ואחת נתגלה לאנטונינוס בן אסוירוס ואחת גנוזה לצדיקים לעתיד לבא,(קהלת ה, יב) עושר שמור לבעליו לרעתו אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש זו עשרו של קרח (שנאמר) (דברים יא, ו) ואת כל היקום אשר ברגליהם א"ר אלעזר זה ממונו של אדם שמעמידו על רגליו א"ר לוי משאוי שלש מאות פרדות לבנות היו מפתחות בית גנזיו של קרח וכולהו אקלידי וקליפי דגלדא:,(דיא"ש אדי"ש כשד"ך מאוד"ך סימן) א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן (תהלים קיח, כא) אודך כי עניתני אמר דוד אבן מאסו הבונים היתה לראש פנה אמר ישי מאת ה' היתה זאת אמרו אחיו זה היום עשה ה' אמר שמואל,אנא ה' הושיעה נא אמרו אחיו אנא ה' הצליחה נא אמר דוד ברוך הבא בשם ה' אמר ישי ברכנוכם מבית ה' אמר שמואל אל ה' ויאר לנו אמרו כולן אסרו חג בעבותים אמר שמואל אלי אתה ואודך אמר דוד אלהי ארוממך אמרו כולן:,תנן התם מקום שנהגו | 119a. b This is one who recognizes his colleague’s place in the yeshiva, /b as he is there often enough to know where everyone sits. b Some say /b that b Rabbi Elazar said /b a different explanation: b This is /b one b who greets his colleague in the yeshiva, /b as he is always there to meet him.,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of the continuation of this verse: b “For stately clothing [ i limekhaseh atik /i ]” This is /b one b who conceals [ i mekhaseh /i ] /b matters b that the Ancient of Days [ i atik yomin /i ], /b i.e., God, b concealed. And what are these? /b These are b the secrets of the Torah, /b the esoteric Act of Creation and the Act of the Divine Chariot, which should remain hidden. b And some say: This /b verse is referring to one b who reveals matters that the Ancient of Days concealed. And what are these? /b These are the b reasons /b for different mitzvot in the b Torah, /b which should be kept secret.,The Gemara cites another statement attributed to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. b Rav Kahana said, citing Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “ i Lamenatzeaḥ /i a psalm of David” /b (e.g., Psalms 13:1)? It means: b Sing to the One who rejoices when conquered [ i shenotzḥin oto /i ]. /b , b Come and see how the characteristics of the Holy One, Blessed be He, are unlike the characteristics of flesh and blood: When a flesh and blood /b person b is conquered, he is sad; however, when the Holy One, Blessed be He, is conquered, He rejoices, as it is stated: “Therefore He said that He would destroy them, had not Moses His chosen stood before Him in the breach, /b to turn back His wrath lest He should destroy them” (Psalms 106:23). In this verse Moses is called “His chosen,” although he defeated God, as it were, by preventing Him from destroying the Jewish people.,Furthermore, b Rav Kahana said, citing Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, /b who said that b Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said, citing Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written /b in the description of the sacred i ḥayyot /i , the angels that carried the Divine chariot: b “And they had the hands of a man under their wings” /b (Ezekiel 1:8)? Although the word is read hands in the plural, actually b “his hand” is written /b in the singular. b This is the hand of the Holy One, Blessed be He, that is spread under the wings of the i ḥayyot /i to accept penitents from /b the claims of b the attribute of justice. /b God accepts sincere penitents, despite the fact that in accordance with the strict attribute of justice they should not be given the opportunity to repent., b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said: Joseph collected all the silver and gold in the world and brought it to Egypt, as it is stated: “And Joseph collected all the money found /b in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan” (Genesis 47:14). b I have /b derived b only /b that he collected the money b that /b was b in the land of Egypt and that /b was b in the Land of Canaan. From where /b do I derive that he also collected all the money b that /b was b in other lands? The verse states “And all the land came to Egypt /b to buy food from Joseph, because the famine was sore in all the earth” (Genesis 41:57)., b And when the Jewish people ascended from Egypt they took /b this treasure b with them, as it is stated: “They despoiled [ i vayenatzlu /i ] Egypt” /b (Exodus 12:36). The Sages explain this term. b Rav Asi said: They made /b Egypt b like this trap [ i metzuda /i ] /b for birds, where grain is usually placed as bait, b in which there is no grain. Rabbi Shimon said: /b They made Egypt b like the depths [ i kimetzula /i ] /b of the sea b in which there are no fish. /b , b And /b this treasure b remained /b in Eretz Yisrael b until /b the time of b Rehoboam, /b at which point b Shishak, king of Egypt, came and took it from Rehoboam, as it is stated: “And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem. And he took the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king’s house; /b and he took away all” (I Kings 14:25–26). b Zerah, king of Kush, /b who ruled over Egypt, later b came and took it from Shishak. /b , b Asa came and took it from Zerah, king of Kush, /b when he defeated him in battle (II Chronicles 14) b and sent it to Hadrimmon ben Tabrimmon, /b king of Aram (see I Kings 15). b The children of Ammon came and took it from Hadrimmon ben Tabrimmon, /b as learned by tradition. b Jehosaphat came and took it from the children of Ammon /b (see II Chronicles 20), b and it remained /b in Eretz Yisrael b until /b the reign of b Ahaz. /b , b Sennacherib came and took it from Ahaz. Hezekiah came and took it from Sennacherib, and it remained /b in Jerusalem b until /b the reign of b Zedekiah. The Chaldeans came and took it from Zedekiah. The Persians came and took it from the Chaldeans. The Greeks came and took it from the Persians. The Romans came and took it from the Greeks, and /b this treasure of silver and gold b still remains in Rome. /b ,With regard to this matter, b Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: Joseph hid three treasures in Egypt. One /b of them b was revealed to Korah, one was revealed to Antoninos ben Asveiros, /b king of Rome, b and one is hidden for the righteous in the future. /b ,With regard to Korah’s wealth, the Gemara cites the verse: b “Riches kept by his owner to his hurt” /b (Ecclesiastes 5:12). b Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: This is the wealth of Korah, /b which caused him to grow arrogant and lead to his destruction. b As it is stated: /b “And what He did to Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, son of Reuben; how the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up, and their households, and their tents, b and all the sustece that was at their feet” /b (Deuteronomy 11:6). b Rabbi Elazar said: This /b is referring to b a person’s money that stands him upon his /b own two b feet. Rabbi Levi said: The keys to Korah’s treasuries were /b a b load of three hundred /b strong b white mules, and they were all keys [ i aklidei /i ] and locks /b made b of leather. /b , b i Dalet, yod, alef, shin, alef, dalet, yod, shin, khaf, shin, dalet, khaf, mem, alef, vav, dalet, khaf /i /b is b a mnemonic /b device for the following passage. Returning to the issue of i hallel /i , the Gemara states that these psalms include choruses in which each section is sung by a different person. b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yonatan said /b that b David recited: “I will give thanks to You, for You have answered me” /b (Psalms 118:21), with regard to the success of his reign. b Yishai recited: “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief keystone” /b (Psalms 118:22). b The brothers of /b David b recited: “This is the Lord’s doing; /b it is marvelous in our eyes” (Psalms 118:23). b Samuel /b the Prophet b recited: “This is the day which the Lord has made; /b we will rejoice and be glad in it” (Psalms 118:24)., b The brothers of /b David b recited: “We beseech You, Lord, save now” /b (Psalms 118:25). b David recited: “We beseech You, Lord, make us prosper now” /b (Psalms 118:25). b Yishai recited: “Blessed be he who comes in the name of the Lord” /b (Psalms 118:26). b Samuel recited: “We bless you out of the house of the Lord” /b (Psalms 118:26). b They all recited: “The Lord is God, and has given us light” /b (Psalms 118:27). b Samuel recited: “Order the Festival procession with boughs, /b even to the horns of the altar” (Psalms 118:27). b David recited: “You are my God, and I will give thanks to You” /b (Psalms 118:28). b They all recited: “You are my God, I will exalt You” /b (Psalms 118:28)., b We learned /b in a mishna b there, /b in i Sukka /i : In b a place where they were accustomed /b |
|
27. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 265| 68a. אפילו נדה נמי אלמה אמר אביי הכל מודים בבא על הנדה ועל הסוטה שאין הולד ממזר אמר חזקיה אמר קרא (ויקרא טו, כד) ותהי נדתה עליו אפילו בשעת נדתה תהא בה הויה,מכדי איכא לאקושה לנדה ואיכא לאקושה לאחות אשה מאי חזית דמקשת להו לאחות אשה אקשה לנדה קולא וחומרא לחומרא מקשינן,רב אחא בר יעקב אמר אתיא בק"ו מיבמה ומה יבמה שהיא בלאו לא תפסי בה קידושין חייבי מיתות וחייבי כריתות לא כל שכן אי הכי שאר חייבי לאוין נמי,אמר רב פפא חייבי לאוין בהדיא כתיב בהו (דברים כא, טו) כי תהיין לאיש שתי נשים האחת אהובה והאחת שנואה וכי יש שנואה לפני המקום ואהובה לפני המקום אלא אהובה אהובה בנישואיה שנואה שנוא' בנישואיה וקאמר רחמנא כי תהיין,ולר"ע דאמר אין קידושין תופסין בחייבי לאוין כי תהיין במאי מוקים באלמנה לכ"ג וכר' סימאי,דתניא רבי סימאי אומר מן הכל היה ר"ע עושה ממזר חוץ מאלמנה לכהן גדול שהרי אמרה תורה (ויקרא כא, ו) לא יחלל חילולים עושה ואין עושה ממזרות,ולר' ישבב דאמר בואו ונצווח על עקיבא בן יוסף שהיה אומר כל שאין לו ביאה בישראל הולד ממזר הניחא לר' ישבב אי לאפוקי מדר' סימאי קאתי שפיר,אלא אי טעמא דנפשיה קאמר ואפי' חייבי עשה במאי מוקים לה,בבעולה לכ"ג ומאי שנא משום דהוי ליה עשה שאין שוה בכל,ורבנן אדמוקי לה בחייבי לאוין נוקמא בחייבי עשה,הני חייבי עשה במאי נינהו אי שתיהן מצריות שתיהן שנואות אי אחת מצרית ואחת ישראלית שתי נשים מעם אחד בעינן אי בעולה לכהן גדול מי כתיב תהיין לכהן,ורבי עקיבא בעל כורחיך שבקיה לקרא דהוי דחיק ומוקי אנפשיה,וכל מי שאין לה עליו וכו' שפחה כנענית מנלן אמר רב הונא אמר קרא (בראשית כב, ה) שבו לכם פה עם החמור עם הדומה לחמור אשכחן דלא תפסי בה קדושי | 68a. then b even /b if he betrothed b a menstruating woman as well, /b his betrothal should not be effective and the offspring should be a i mamzer /i , as a menstruating woman is included in the list in that chapter of those with whom sexual intercourse is forbidden. If so, b why /b did b Abaye say: All concede with regard to one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman or with a i sota /i , /b a woman forbidden to her husband on suspicion of being unfaithful to him, b that the offspring is not a i mamzer /i ? Ḥizkiyya said: /b In the case of a menstruating woman, b the verse states: “And her impurity be [ i ut’hi /i ] upon him” /b (Leviticus 15:24), from which it is derived that b even at the time of her impurity, /b the type of b becoming [ i havaya /i ] /b stated with regard to betrothal (see Deuteronomy 24:2) b should /b apply b to her. /b The Gemara is interpreting the connection between the words i ut’hi /i and i havaya /i , as both share the same Hebrew root.,The Gemara asks: b After all, there is /b the possibility b of juxtaposing /b all other forbidden relatives b to a menstruating woman, and there is /b also the possibility b of juxtaposing /b them b to a wife’s sister. What did you see that you juxtaposed them to a wife’s sister? /b Why not b juxtapose them /b instead b to a menstruating woman? /b The Gemara answers: When there is an option of juxtaposing a case in a manner that leads to b a leniency, or /b juxtaposing it to a i halakha /i that entails b a stringency, we juxtapose /b it in a fashion that leads b to a stringency. /b , b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said /b that there is a different source for the i halakha /i that betrothal is ineffective with forbidden relatives: This principle b is derived by /b means of b an i a fortiori /i /b inference b from /b the case of b a i yevama /i : Just as a i yevama /i , /b before she is released from the i yavam /i through i ḥalitza /i , b is /b forbidden b by /b a mere b prohibition, /b which entails lashes, and yet b betrothal is not effective with her, /b with regard to b those /b people with whom sexual intercourse renders one b liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty b or liable to /b be punished with b i karet /i , /b is it b not all the more so /b the case that betrothal should not be effective in these cases? The Gemara asks: b If so, /b meaning that this is the source, one should b also /b derive that betrothal is ineffective with any b other /b people with whom one b is /b only b liable /b for violating b a prohibition /b of engaging in intercourse, by means of the same analogy.,Rav Pappa says: It b is written explicitly /b in the Torah that a man can betroth women b with whom he is liable /b for violating ordinary b prohibitions /b of intercourse. The Torah states in a different context: b “If a man has two wives, the one beloved and the one hated” /b (Deuteronomy 21:15). Rav Pappa asks rhetorically: b But is there one who is hated before the Omnipresent and one who is beloved before the Omnipresent? Rather, “beloved” /b means b beloved in her marriage, /b i.e., her marriage is permitted; b “hated” /b means b hated in her marriage, /b i.e., her marriage involves the violation of a prohibition. b And /b despite the fact that the latter marriage is between a man and a woman who are forbidden to one another, their union still has the status of a marriage, as b the Merciful One states: “If a man has /b two wives,” i.e., he is married to both of them.,The Gemara asks: b And according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva, who says: Betrothal does not take effect /b even b with /b those women with whom one b is /b only b liable /b for violating b a prohibition /b of engaging in intercourse, b with regard to what /b case b does he establish /b the verse: b “If a man has /b two wives”? The Gemara answers: He explains that this verse is referring b to a widow /b married b to a High Priest, and /b this is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Simai. /b , b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Simai says: From all /b relationships that involve prohibitions, b Rabbi Akiva would render /b the offspring b a i mamzer /i , except for /b the marriage of b a widow to a High Priest, as the Torah said: “And he shall not profane [ i yeḥallel /i ]” /b (Leviticus 21:15), which teaches that b he renders them profane [ i ḥillulim /i ], /b i.e., his children from this marriage are i ḥalalim /i , b but he does not render /b them labeled with b i mamzer /i status. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b what can be said b according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yeshevav, who says: Come, let us shout at Akiva ben Yosef, who would say: /b In b every /b case where b a Jew may not engage in intercourse /b with a particular woman, and he does so, b the offspring /b that results from this union b is a i mamzer /i , /b even the child of a widow and a High Priest? b This works out well /b even b according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yeshevav if he comes to exclude the reason of Rabbi Simai, /b i.e., if he means to take issue with the ruling of Rabbi Akiva in the specific case mentioned by Rabbi Simai, that of a widow married to a High Priest, then Rabbi Yeshevav too concedes that according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, betrothal does take effect in a case where a positive mitzva is violated by the betrothal. Accordingly, one can establish the phrase “and the one hated” (Deuteronomy 21:15) as referring to those whose marriage entailed the violation of a positive mitzva., b But if /b he states b a reasoning of his own, /b i.e., he states an independent statement critical of Rabbi Akiva’s ruling that the child of any illicit union is a i mamzer /i , b and /b it is a categorical statement that applies to all illicit unions, b even those liable /b for violating b a positive mitzva, /b i.e., Rabbi Akiva holds that even the offspring of this relationship is a i mamzer /i , b with regard to what /b case b does he interpret /b the “hated” woman of the above verse?,The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yeshevav would say that the verse is referring b to a non-virgin /b married b to a High Priest, /b as there is a positive mitzva that a High Priest should marry a virgin. The Gemara asks: b And /b in b what /b way b is /b this case b different from /b the previous ones? If Rabbi Yeshevav holds that a child born of any act of intercourse prohibited by a positive mitzva is a i mamzer /i , the marriage of a non-virgin to a High Priest likewise involves the violation of a positive mitzva. The Gemara answers: b Because it is a positive mitzva that is not equally applicable to all, /b and since this command applies only to a High Priest and not to other Jews, its violation is considered less severe than that of other positive mitzvot.,The Gemara asks: b And /b with regard to b the Rabbis, /b who disagree with Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, b rather than establishing /b the verse: “If a man has two wives, the one beloved and the one hated” (Deuteronomy 21:15), as referring b to /b those who are b liable for /b violating b prohibitions, let them establish it /b as referring b to those liable for /b violating b a positive mitzva. /b In other words, betrothal should not be effective if it involves the violation of a prohibition. And as for the “hated” woman whose marriage is nevertheless valid, mentioned in that verse, this is referring to one whose engaging in sexual intercourse violates a positive mitzva.,The Gemara responds: b These /b cases where they are b liable /b for violating b a positive mitzva, what are they? If /b you say that b both /b wives are b Egyptian /b converts, b they are both hated, /b as both marriages are prohibited. b If /b you claim that b one is an Egyptian woman and the other a Jewish woman /b of unflawed lineage, this cannot be the case, as b we require “two wives” from the same nation, /b since the Torah equates the two women. b If /b the hated one is b a non-virgin /b married b to a High Priest, /b this too is problematic, as, b is it written: If a priest has /b two wives? The verse merely says: “If a man has two wives.” Consequently, the verse cannot be interpreted as referring to those who are liable for violating a positive mitzva.,The Gemara asks: b But /b according to the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva, /b that betrothal that involves a prohibition does not take effect, this verse can be referring only to a non-virgin who marries a High Priest, or marriage to a female Egyptian convert, which involve the violation of positive mitzvot. Can the verse really be interpreted as concerning such unlikely cases? The Gemara answers: b You are forced to leave this verse /b aside, b as it establishes itself as /b dealing with b a difficult /b case. In other words, as Rabbi Akiva claims that betrothal is ineffective if any prohibition is involved, he has no choice but to explain the verse that says: “If a man has two wives,” in this forced manner.,§ The mishna teaches: b And /b in b any /b case b where /b a woman b cannot /b join in betrothal b with him /b or with others, the offspring is like her. This ruling refers specifically to a Canaanite maidservant or a gentile woman. The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive that betrothal with b a Canaanite maidservant /b is ineffective? b Rav Huna says: The verse states /b that Abraham commanded his slaves: b “You abide here with [ i im /i ] the donkey” /b (Genesis 22:5), which alludes to the fact that his slaves belong to b a nation [ i am /i ] similar to a donkey; /b just as betrothal is ineffective with animals, it is likewise ineffective with Canaanite maidservants. The Gemara comments: b We have found that betrothal is ineffective with /b a Canaanite maidservant; |
|
| 28. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Hayes (2015) 272 |
29. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 265, 274| 21b. על הייחוד ועל הפנויה,יחוד דאורייתא הוא דאמר ר' יוחנן משום ר' שמעון בן יהוצדק רמז לייחוד מן התורה מניין שנאמר (דברים יג, ז) כי יסיתך אחיך בן אמך וכי בן אם מסית בן אב אינו מסית אלא לומר לך בן מתייחד עם אמו ואין אחר מתייחד עם כל עריות שבתורה,אלא אימא גזרו על ייחוד דפנויה,(מלכים א א, ה) ואדניה בן חגית מתנשא לאמר אני אמלוך אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מלמד שביקש להולמו ולא הולמתו,(מלכים א א, ה) ויעש לו רכב ופרשים וחמשים איש רצים לפניו מאי רבותא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כולן נטולי טחול וחקוקי כפות רגלים היו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big לא ירבה לו סוסים אלא כדי מרכבתו וכסף וזהב לא ירבה לו מאד אלא כדי ליתן אספניא וכותב לו ס"ת לשמו יוצא למלחמה מוציאה עמה נכנס הוא מכניסה עמו יושב בדין היא עמו מיסב היא כנגדו שנאמר (דברים יז, יט) והיתה עמו וקרא בו כל ימי חייו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנו רבנן (דברים יז, טז) לא ירבה לו סוסים יכול אפילו כדי מרכבתו ופרשיו תלמוד לומר לו לו אינו מרבה אבל מרבה הוא כדי רכבו ופרשיו הא מה אני מקיים סוסים סוסים הבטלנין מניין שאפילו סוס א' והוא בטל שהוא בלא ירבה ת"ל (דברים יז, טז) למען הרבות סוס,וכי מאחר דאפילו סוס אחד והוא בטל קאי בלא ירבה סוסים למה לי לעבור בל"ת על כל סוס וסוס,טעמא דכתב רחמנא לו הא לאו הכי ה"א אפילו כדי רכבו ופרשיו נמי לא לא צריכא לאפושי:,וכסף וזהב לא ירבה לו אלא כדי ליתן אספניא: ת"ר (דברים יז, יז) וכסף וזהב לא ירבה לו יכול אפילו כדי ליתן אספניא ת"ל לו לו אינו מרבה אבל מרבה הוא כדי ליתן אספניא,טעמא דכתב רחמנא לו הא לאו הכי הוה אמינא אפילו כדי ליתן אספניא נמי לא לא צריכא להרווחה,השתא דאמרת לו לדרשה (דברים יז, יז) לא ירבה לו נשים מאי דרשת ביה למעוטי הדיוטות,רב יהודה רמי כתיב (מלכים א ה, ו) ויהי לשלמה ארבעים אלף ארוות סוסים למרכבתו וכתיב (דברי הימים ב ט, כה) ויהי לשלמה ארבעת אלפים (ארוות) סוסים הא כיצד אם ארבעים אלף איצטבלאות היו כל אחד ואחד היו בו ד' אלפים ארוות סוסים ואם ד' אלפים איצטבלאות היו כל אחד ואחד היו בו ארבעים אלף ארוות סוסים,(רבי) יצחק רמי כתיב (דברי הימים ב ט, כ) אין כסף נחשב בימי שלמה למאומה וכתיב (מלכים א י, כז) ויתן) שלמה את הכסף בירושלים כאבנים לא קשיא כאן קודם שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה כאן לאחר שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה,אמר רבי יצחק בשעה שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה ירד גבריאל ונעץ קנה בים והעלה שירטון ועליו נבנה כרך גדול שברומי,ואמר ר' יצחק מפני מה לא נתגלו טעמי תורה שהרי שתי מקראות נתגלו טעמן נכשל בהן גדול העולם כתיב (דברים יז, יז) לא ירבה לו נשים אמר שלמה אני ארבה ולא אסור וכתיב (מלכים א יא, ד) ויהי לעת זקנת שלמה נשיו הטו את לבבו,וכתיב (דברים יז, טז) לא ירבה לו סוסים ואמר שלמה אני ארבה ולא אשיב וכתיב (מלכים א י, כט) ותצא מרכבה ממצרים בשש וגו':,וכותב ספר תורה לשמו: תנא ובלבד שלא יתנאה בשל אבותיו,אמר (רבא) אף על פי שהניחו לו אבותיו לאדם ספר תורה מצוה לכתוב משלו שנאמר (דברים לא, יט) ועתה כתבו לכם את השירה איתיביה אביי וכותב לו ספר תורה לשמו שלא יתנאה בשל אחרים מלך אין הדיוט לא,לא צריכא לשתי תורות וכדתניא (דברים יז, יח) וכתב לו את משנה וגו' כותב לשמו שתי תורות אחת שהיא יוצאה ונכנסת עמו ואחת שמונחת לו בבית גנזיו,אותה שיוצאה ונכנסת עמו (עושה אותה כמין קמיע ותולה בזרועו שנאמר (תהלים טז, ח) שויתי ה' לנגדי תמיד כי מימיני בל אמוט) אינו נכנס בה לא לבית המרחץ ולא לבית הכסא שנאמר (דברים יז, יט) והיתה עמו וקרא בו מקום הראוי לקראות בו,אמר מר זוטרא ואיתימא מר עוקבא בתחלה ניתנה תורה לישראל בכתב עברי ולשון הקודש חזרה וניתנה להם בימי עזרא בכתב אשורית ולשון ארמי ביררו להן לישראל כתב אשורית ולשון הקודש והניחו להדיוטות כתב עברית ולשון ארמי,מאן הדיוטות אמר רב חסדא כותאי מאי כתב עברית אמר רב חסדא כתב ליבונאה,תניא רבי יוסי אומר ראוי היה עזרא שתינתן תורה על ידו לישראל אילמלא (לא) קדמו משה במשה הוא אומר (שמות יט, ג) ומשה עלה אל האלהים בעזרא הוא אומר (עזרא ז, ו) הוא עזרא עלה מבבל מה עלייה האמור כאן תורה אף עלייה האמור להלן תורה,במשה הוא אומר (דברים ד, יד) ואותי צוה ה' בעת ההיא ללמד אתכם חקים ומשפטים בעזרא הוא אומר (עזרא ז, י) כי עזרא הכין לבבו לדרוש את תורת ה' (אלהיו) ולעשות וללמד בישראל חוק ומשפט ואף על פי שלא ניתנה תורה על ידו נשתנה על ידו הכתב שנאמר | 21b. b about seclusion, /b that a man should not be secluded with women who are forbidden to him, b and about a single woman. /b ,The Gemara objects: b Seclusion /b with a woman forbidden by familial ties b is /b prohibited b by Torah /b law, and was not a rabbinic decree issued in the time of David. b As Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: From where /b is there b an allusion to /b the i halakha /i that b seclusion /b is forbidden b by Torah /b law? b As it is stated: “If your brother, the son of your mother, entices you” /b (Deuteronomy 13:7). One can ask: b But does the son of a mother entice, and does the son of a father not entice? /b Why mention only the son of a mother? b Rather, /b this verse serves b to tell you /b that only b a son /b may b be secluded with his mother. /b Sons are frequently with their mother, and two half-brothers of one mother consequently have the opportunity to grow close to one another. b But another /b individual b may not be secluded with those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah, /b including a stepmother. Therefore, half-brothers of one father spend less time together.,Since seclusion, then, is prohibited by Torah law, how did Rav say that it was prohibited by a decree issued in King David’s time? b Rather, say /b that b they decreed against seclusion /b of a man b with a single woman, /b to prevent occurrences like that of Amnon and Tamar.,Apropos Amnon, the Gemara cites traditions about another son of David: b “Now Adonijah, son of Haggith, exalted himself, saying: I will be king” /b (I Kings 1:5). b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: /b The term “exalted himself” b teaches that he sought /b for the monarchy b to fit him, but it did not fit him. /b ,The verse continues: b “And he prepared for himself chariots and riders and fifty people to run before him” /b (I Kings 1:5). The Gemara asks: b What is the novelty /b of these actions, since other wealthy people do the same, even if they are not the sons of kings, with designs on the throne? b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: /b What was unique was that the runners b all had /b their b spleens removed and had the soles of their feet hollowed, /b removing the flesh of their feet, and these two procedures enhanced their speed., strong MISHNA: /strong The king b “shall not accumulate many horses for himself” /b (Deuteronomy 17:16), but b only /b enough b for his chariot /b in war and in peace. b “Neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold for himself” /b (Deuteronomy 17:17), but b only enough to provide /b his b soldiers’ sustece [ i aspanya /i ]. And /b the king b writes himself a Torah scroll for his sake, /b as stipulated in Deuteronomy 17:18. When b he goes out to war, he brings it out with him. /b When b he comes in /b from war, b he brings it in with him. /b When b he sits in judgment, it is with him. /b When b he reclines /b to eat, b it is opposite him, as it is stated: “And it shall be with him and he shall read it all the days of his life” /b (Deuteronomy 17:19)., strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: b “He shall not accumulate many horses [ i susim /i ] for himself /b nor return the people to Egypt for the sake of accumulating horses [ i sus /i ]” (Deuteronomy 17:16): One b might /b have thought that he shall not have b even /b enough horses b for his chariot and riders. /b Therefore, b the verse states: “For himself,” /b teaching that only if the horses are b for himself, /b for personal pleasure, b he shall not accumulate /b them, b but he may accumulate /b horses b for his chariot and riders. How, then, do I realize /b the meaning of b “horses [ i susim /i ]” /b in the verse? It is referring to b idle horses, /b which serve no purpose other than glorifying the king. b From where /b is it derived b that even /b if the king has b one horse that is idle, that he /b transgresses b “he shall not accumulate”? The verse states: “For the sake of accumulating horses [ i sus /i ],” /b with the term for horses written in the singular.,The Gemara asks: b But once /b the verse taught b that even one horse that is idle stands /b to be included in the prohibition of b “he shall not accumulate,” why do I /b need the plural form b “horses” /b in the first clause of the verse? The Gemara responds: Its purpose is b to /b teach that a king would b transgress /b the b prohibition /b an additional time b for each and every /b idle b horse. /b ,The Gemara questions this ruling: The specific b reason /b for limiting the prohibition to idle horses is b that the Merciful One writes: /b “He shall not accumulate b for himself,” /b which indicates, b consequently, /b that if the Torah had b not /b written b this, I would say /b that b even /b enough horses b for his chariot and riders /b are b not /b permitted; and this is unreasonable, since the king needs an army. The Gemara responds: b No, /b the term “for himself” is b necessary /b to teach that it is permitted for the king b to add /b a reasonable number of horses beyond the necessary minimum, and it is only strictly personal use that is prohibited.,The mishna teaches: b “Neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold for himself” /b (Deuteronomy 17:17), but b only enough to provide /b his b soldiers’ sustece. The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : From the command b “neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold for himself,” /b one b might /b have thought that he should not have b even enough to provide /b his b soldiers’ sustece. /b To counter this, b the verse states: “For himself,” /b teaching that only if the silver and gold is b for himself, /b for personal pleasure, b he shall not accumulate /b it, b but he may accumulate enough /b silver and gold b to provide /b his b soldiers’ sustece. /b ,The Gemara questions this ruling: The specific b reason /b for limiting the prohibition to personal wealth accumulation is b that the Merciful One writes: /b “Neither shall he greatly accumulate silver and gold b for himself,” /b which indicates, b consequently, /b that if the Torah had b not /b written b this, I would say /b that it b is not /b permitted for the king to accumulate b even enough /b silver and gold b to provide /b his b soldiers’ sustece; /b this is unreasonable, since the king needs an army. The Gemara responds: b No, /b the term “for himself” is b necessary /b to teach that the king is permitted b to /b allow for b a liberal appropriation /b to the military budget, so that the army has a comfortable ficial cushion.,The Gemara asks: b Now that you have said /b that the term b “for himself” /b in the verse is stated b for /b the purpose of b a derivation /b for practical i halakha /i , which limits and narrows the verse’s scope, b what do you derive from /b the next phrase in the verse: b “He shall not add many wives for himself”? /b The Gemara answers: That usage of “for himself” serves b to exclude ordinary /b people, to specify that only the king is restricted from having many wives, but a civilian may marry as many women as he wants, provided he can support them ficially.,§ b Rav Yehuda raises a contradiction: It is written /b in one verse: b “And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots” /b (I Kings 5:6), b and it is written /b in another verse: b “And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses /b and chariots” (II Chronicles 9:25). b How /b can b these /b texts be reconciled? b If there were forty thousand large stables [ i itztablaot /i ], each and every one /b of them b had in it four thousand stalls, /b or rows, b for horses. And /b alternatively, b if there were four thousand large stables, each and every one had in it forty thousand stalls for horses. /b Therefore the two verses are reconciled., b Rabbi Yitzḥak raises a contradiction: It is written /b in one verse: b “Silver was not worth anything in the days of Solomon” /b (II Chronicles 9:20), b and it is written /b in another verse: b “And the king made silver in Jerusalem as stones” /b (I Kings 10:27), i.e., gems. The Gemara responds: It is b not difficult: Here, /b where silver was worthless, this was b before Solomon /b sinfully b married Pharaoh’s daughter. There, /b where the silver was valuable, this was b after Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter. /b , b Rabbi Yitzḥak says: When Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter, /b the angel b Gabriel descended /b from Heaven b and implanted a pole in the sea. And /b it gradually b raised up a sandbar [ i sirton /i ] /b around it, creating new, dry land, b and on it the great city of Rome was built. /b This shows that the beginning of the Jewish people’s downfall to Rome came with Solomon’s marriage to Pharaoh’s daughter., b And Rabbi Yitzḥak says: For what /b reason b were the rationales of Torah /b commandments b not revealed? /b It was b because the rationales of two verses were revealed, /b and b the greatest in the world, /b King Solomon, b failed in /b those matters. b It is written /b with regard to a king: b “He shall not add many wives for himself, /b that his heart should not turn away” (Deuteronomy 17:17). b Solomon said: I will add many, but I will not turn away, /b as he thought that it is permitted to have many wives if one is otherwise meticulous not to stray. b And /b later, b it is written: “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart /b after other gods” (I Kings 11:4)., b And it is /b also b written: /b “Only b he shall not accumulate many horses for himself /b nor return the people to Egypt for the sake of accumulating horses” (Deuteronomy 17:16), b and Solomon said: I will accumulate many, but I will not return. And it is written: “And a chariot /b came up b and went out of Egypt for six /b hundred shekels of silver” (I Kings 10:29), teaching that not only did Solomon violate the Torah, but he also failed in applying the rationale given for its commandments. This demonstrates the wisdom in the Torah’s usual silence as to the rationale for its mitzvot, as individuals will not mistakenly rely on their own wisdom to reason that the mitzvot are inapplicable in some circumstances.,§ The mishna teaches that the king b writes a Torah scroll for his sake. /b The Sages b taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 4:4): The king fulfills the mitzva b provided that he does not beautify himself with /b the Torah scroll b of his ancestors /b for this purpose, i.e., he must write his own scroll., b Rava says: /b With regard to the mitzva for every Jew to write himself a Torah scroll, b even if a person’s ancestors left him a Torah scroll, /b it is b a mitzva to write /b a scroll b of one’s own, as it is stated: “Now, therefore, write for yourselves /b this b song /b and teach it to the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 31:19). b Abaye raised an objection to him /b from a i baraita /i concerning the king’s Torah scroll: b And he writes himself a Torah scroll for his sake, so that he does not beautify himself with /b the Torah scroll b of others. /b Read precisely, this indicates that b a king, yes, /b he is included in the i halakha /i not to have a scroll inherited from his ancestors suffice, but b an ordinary /b person is b not. /b ,The Gemara dismisses Abaye’s objection: b No, /b the ruling of that i baraita /i is b necessary /b to teach that the king is commanded to write b two Torah /b scrolls; he writes one scroll as does any Jew, and he writes an additional scroll because he is king. b And /b this is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “That he shall write for himself a second /b Torah in a scroll, out of that which is before the priests the Levites” (Deuteronomy 17:18). This teaches that b he writes for his sake two Torah /b scrolls, b one that goes out and comes in with him /b at all times, b and one that is placed in his treasury. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: With regard to b the one that goes out and comes in with him, he makes it /b very small, b like an amulet, and he hangs /b it b on his arm, as it is stated: “I have set the Lord always before me; He is at my right hand, that I shall not be moved” /b (Psalms 16:8). This alludes to the small Torah scroll that is always on his right hand. b He does not go into the bathhouse with it, nor into the bathroom, as it is stated: “And it shall be with him and he shall read from it” /b (Deuteronomy 17:19), meaning, it shall remain in b a place that is appropriate for reading from it. /b ,§ b Mar Zutra says, and some say /b that it is b Mar Ukva /b who says: b Initially, /b the b Torah was given to the Jewish people in i Ivrit /i script, /b the original form of the written language, b and the sacred tongue, /b Hebrew. b It was given to them again in the days of Ezra in i Ashurit /i script and /b the b Aramaic tongue. The Jewish people selected i Ashurit /i script and the sacred tongue /b for the Torah scroll b and left i Ivrit /i script and /b the b Aramaic tongue for the commoners. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Who are /b these b commoners? Rav Ḥisda said: The Samaritans [ i Kutim /i ]. /b The Gemara asks: b What is i Ivrit /i script? Rav Ḥisda says: i Libona’a /i script. /b , b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 4:5): b Rabbi Yosei says: Ezra was suitable, /b given his greatness, b for /b the b Torah to be given by him to the Jewish people, had Moses not come first /b and received the Torah already. b With regard to Moses /b the verse b states: “And Moses went up to God” /b (Exodus 19:3), and b with regard to Ezra /b the verse b states: “This Ezra went up from Babylon /b and he was a ready scribe in the Torah of Moses, which the Lord, the God of Israel, had given” (Ezra 7:6). b Just as /b the b going up stated here, /b with regard to Moses, is for the b Torah, /b which he received from God and transmitted to the Jewish people, b so too, /b the b going up stated there, /b with regard to Ezra, is for the b Torah, /b as he taught Torah to the Jewish people and was suitable to have originally merited to give it.,The i baraita /i continues: b With regard to Moses /b the verse b states: “And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordices” /b (Deuteronomy 4:14), and b with regard to Ezra /b the verse b states: “For Ezra had set his heart to seek the Torah of the Lord his God and to do it and to teach in Israel statutes and ordices” /b (Ezra 7:10). b And even though /b the b Torah was not given /b literally b by him, the script /b of the Torah b was changed by him, as it is stated: /b |
|
30. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Hayes (2015) 272| 31b. שמשהין עצמן בבטן כדי שיזריעו נשותיהן תחלה שיהו בניהם זכרים מעלה עליהן הכתוב כאילו הם מרבים בנים ובני בנים והיינו דאמר רב קטינא יכולני לעשות כל בני זכרים אמר רבא הרוצה לעשות כל בניו זכרים יבעול וישנה,ואמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי אמי אין אשה מתעברת אלא סמוך לוסתה שנאמר (תהלים נא, ז) הן בעון חוללתי,ורבי יוחנן אמר סמוך לטבילה שנאמר (תהלים נא, ז) ובחטא יחמתני אמי,מאי משמע דהאי חטא לישנא דדכויי הוא דכתיב (ויקרא יד, מט) וחטא את הבית ומתרגמינן וידכי ית ביתא ואי בעית אימא מהכא (תהלים נא, ט) תחטאני באזוב ואטהר,ואמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי אמי כיון שבא זכר בעולם בא שלום בעולם שנאמר (ישעיהו טז, א) שלחו כר מושל ארץ זכר זה כר,ואמר ר' יצחק דבי רבי אמי בא זכר בעולם בא ככרו בידו זכר זה כר דכתיב (מלכים ב ו, כג) ויכרה להם כירה גדולה,נקבה אין עמה כלום נקבה נקייה באה עד דאמרה מזוני לא יהבי לה דכתיב (בראשית ל, כח) נקבה שכרך עלי ואתנה,שאלו תלמידיו את רבי שמעון בן יוחי מפני מה אמרה תורה יולדת מביאה קרבן אמר להן בשעה שכורעת לילד קופצת ונשבעת שלא תזקק לבעלה לפיכך אמרה תורה תביא קרבן,מתקיף לה רב יוסף והא מזידה היא ובחרטה תליא מילתא ועוד קרבן שבועה בעי איתויי,ומפני מה אמרה תורה זכר לשבעה ונקבה לארבעה עשר זכר שהכל שמחים בו מתחרטת לשבעה נקבה שהכל עצבים בה מתחרטת לארבעה עשר,ומפני מה אמרה תורה מילה לשמונה שלא יהו כולם שמחים ואביו ואמו עצבים,תניא היה ר"מ אומר מפני מה אמרה תורה נדה לשבעה מפני שרגיל בה וקץ בה אמרה תורה תהא טמאה שבעה ימים כדי שתהא חביבה על בעלה כשעת כניסתה לחופה,שאלו תלמידיו את רבי דוסתאי ברבי ינאי מפני מה איש מחזר על אשה ואין אשה מחזרת על איש משל לאדם שאבד לו אבידה מי מחזר על מי בעל אבידה מחזיר על אבידתו,ומפני מה איש פניו למטה ואשה פניה למעלה כלפי האיש זה ממקום שנברא וזו ממקום שנבראת,ומפני מה האיש מקבל פיוס ואין אשה מקבלת פיוס זה ממקום שנברא וזו ממקום שנבראת,מפני מה אשה קולה ערב ואין איש קולו ערב זה ממקום שנברא וזו ממקום שנבראת שנאמר {שיר השירים ב } כי קולך ערב ומראך נאוה, br br big strongהדרן עלך המפלת חתיכה /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongבנות /strong /big כותים נדות מעריסתן והכותים מטמאים משכב תחתון כעליון מפני שהן בועלי נדות,והן יושבות על כל דם ודם,ואין חייבין עליהן על ביאת מקדש ואין שורפין עליהם את התרומה מפני שטומאתן ספק, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ה"ד אי דקא חזיין אפילו דידן נמי ואי דלא קחזיין דידהו נמי לא,אמר רבא בריה דרב אחא בר רב הונא אמר רב ששת הכא במאי עסקינן בסתמא דכיון דאיכא מיעוטא דחזיין חיישינן ומאן תנא דחייש למיעוטא | 31b. b they delay /b while b in /b their wives’ b abdomen, /b initially refraining from emitting semen b so that their wives will emit seed first, /b in order b that their children will be male, the verse ascribes them /b credit b as though they have many sons and sons’ sons. And this /b statement b is /b the same as that b which Rav Ketina said: I could have made all of my children males, /b by refraining from emitting seed until my wife emitted seed first. b Rava says /b another method through which one can cause his children to be males: b One who wishes to make all of his children males should engage in intercourse /b with his wife b and repeat /b the act.,§ b And Rabbi Yitzḥak says /b that b Rabbi Ami says: A woman becomes pregt only /b by engaging in intercourse b close to the onset of her /b menstrual b cycle, as it is stated: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity” /b (Psalms 51:7). This iniquity is referring to intercourse close to the woman’s menstrual cycle, when intercourse is prohibited. Accordingly, David is saying that his mother presumably conceived him at this time., b And Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b A woman becomes pregt only by engaging in intercourse b near /b the time of her b immersion /b in a ritual bath, through which she is purified from her status as a menstruating woman, b as it is stated /b in the continuation of the same verse: b “And in sin [ i uvḥet /i ] did my mother conceive me” /b (Psalms 51:7).,The Gemara explains this derivation: b From where may /b it b be inferred that this term “ i ḥet /i ” is /b a reference b to purity? /b The Gemara answers: b As it is written /b with regard to leprosy of houses: b “ i Veḥittei /i the house” /b (Leviticus 14:52), b and we translate /b the verse into Aramaic as: b And he shall purify the house. And if you wish, say /b that the interpretation is derived b from here: “Purge me [ i teḥatte’eni /i ] with hyssop, and I shall be pure” /b (Psalms 51:9). Evidently, the root i ḥet /i , i tet /i , i alef /i refers to purification.,§ b And Rabbi Yitzḥak says /b that b Rabbi Ami says: When a male comes into the world, /b i.e., when a male baby is born, b peace comes to the world, as it is stated: “Send the lambs [ i khar /i ] for the ruler of the land” /b (Isaiah 16:1). This i khar /i , or i kar /i , a gift one sends the ruler, contributes to the stability of the government and peace, and the word b male [ i zakhar /i ] /b can be interpreted homiletically as an abbreviation of: b This is a i kar /i [ i zeh kar /i ]. /b , b And Rabbi Yitzḥak from the school of Rabbi Ami says: When a male comes into the world, his loaf /b of bread, i.e., his sustece, b comes into his possession. /b In other words, a male can provide for himself. This is based on the aforementioned interpretation of the word b male [ i zakhar /i ] /b as an abbreviation of: b This is a i kar /i [ i zeh kar /i ], /b and the term i kar /i refers to sustece, b as it is written: “And he prepared great provision [ i kera /i ] for them” /b (II Kings 6:23).,By contrast, b when a female comes into the world, nothing, /b i.e., no sustece, comes b with her. /b This is derived from the homiletic interpretation of the word b female [ i nekeva /i ] /b as an abbreviation of the phrase: b She comes clean [ i nekiya ba’a /i ], /b i.e., empty. Furthermore, b until she says: /b Give me b sustece, /b people b do not give her, as it is written /b in Laban’s request of Jacob: b “Appoint me [ i nokva /i ] your wages, and I will give it” /b (Genesis 30:28). Laban used the word i nokva /i , similar to i nekeva /i , when he said that he would pay Jacob only if he explicitly demanded his wages., b The students of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai asked him: For what /b reason b does the Torah say /b that b a woman after childbirth brings an offering? He said to them: At the time that /b a woman b crouches to give birth, /b her pain is so great that b she impulsively takes an oath that she will not engage in intercourse with her husband /b ever again, so that she will never again experience this pain. b Therefore, the Torah says /b that b she must bring an offering /b for violating her oath and continuing to engage in intercourse with her husband., b Rav Yosef objects to this /b answer: b But isn’t /b the woman b an intentional violator /b of her oath? b And /b if she wishes that her oath be dissolved, so that she may engage in intercourse with her husband, b the matter depends on /b her b regret /b of her oath. One is obligated to bring an offering for violating an oath of an utterance only if his transgression is unwitting. b And furthermore, /b if the purpose of the offering that a woman brings after childbirth is to atone for violating an oath, then b she /b should be b required to bring /b a female lamb or goat as b an offering, /b which is the requirement of one who violated b an oath, /b rather than the bird offering brought by a woman after childbirth., b And /b the students of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai further inquired of him: b For what /b reason b does the Torah say /b that a woman who gives birth to b a male /b is ritually impure b for seven /b days, b but /b a woman who gives birth to b a female /b is impure b for fourteen /b days? Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai answered them: When a woman gives birth to b a male, over which everyone is happy, she regrets /b her oath, that she will never again engage in intercourse with her husband, already b seven /b days after giving birth. By contrast, after giving birth to b a female, over which everyone is unhappy, she regrets /b her oath only b fourteen /b days after giving birth., b And /b the students further asked him: b For what /b reason b does the Torah say /b that b circumcision /b is performed only b on the eighth /b day of the baby’s life, and not beforehand? He answered them: It is b so that /b there b will not be /b a situation where b everyone /b is b happy /b at the circumcision ceremony b but the father and mother of /b the infant b are unhappy, /b as they are still prohibited from engaging in intercourse., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Meir would say: For what /b reason b does the Torah say /b that b a menstruating woman /b is prohibited from engaging in intercourse with her husband b for seven /b days? It is b because /b if a woman were permitted to engage in intercourse with her husband all the time, her husband would be too b accustomed to her, and /b would eventually be b repulsed by her. /b Therefore, b the Torah says /b that a menstruating woman b shall be ritually impure /b for b seven days, /b during which she is prohibited from engaging in intercourse with her husband, b so that /b when she becomes pure again b she will be dear to her husband as /b at b the time when she entered the wedding canopy /b with him.,§ b The students of Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Yannai, asked him: For what /b reason is it the norm that b a man pursues a woman /b for marriage, b but a woman does not pursue a man? /b Rabbi Dostai answered them by citing b a parable of a person who lost an item. Who searches for what? /b Certainly b the owner of the lost item searches for his item; /b the item does not search for its owner. Since the first woman was created from the body of the first man, the man seeks that which he has lost., b And /b the students of Rabbi Dostai further asked him: b For what /b reason does b a man /b engage in intercourse b facing down, and a woman /b engage in intercourse b facing up toward the man? /b Rabbi Dostai answered them: b This /b man faces b the place from which he was created, /b i.e., the earth, b and that /b woman faces b the place from which she was created, /b namely man., b And /b the students also inquired: b For what /b reason is b a man /b who is angry likely to b accept appeasement, but a woman /b is b not /b as likely to b accept appeasement? /b Rabbi Dostai answered them: It is b because this /b man behaves like b the place from which he was created, /b i.e., the earth, which yields to pressure, b and that /b woman behaves like b the place from which she was created, /b i.e., from bone, which cannot be molded easily.,The students continued to ask Rabbi Dostai: b For what /b reason b is a woman’s voice pleasant, but a man’s voice is not pleasant? /b He answered: b This /b man is similar to b the place from which he was created, /b the earth, which does not issue a sound when it is struck, b and that /b woman is similar to b the place from which she was created, /b a bone, which makes a sound when it is struck. The proof that a woman’s voice is pleasant is b that it is stated /b in Song of Songs that the man says to his beloved: b “For sweet is your voice, and your countece is beautiful” /b (Song of Songs 2:14).,, strong MISHNA: /strong Samaritan b girls /b are considered b menstruating women from /b the time they lie in b their cradle. And the Samaritan /b men b impart ritual impurity /b to the b lower bedding like the upper /b bedding, i.e., all layers of bedding beneath them are impure, and their status is like the bedding above a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [ i zav /i ]: The status of both levels of bedding is that of first-degree ritual impurity, which can impart impurity to food and drink. This is b due to /b the fact b that /b Samaritan men are considered men who b engage in intercourse with menstruating women. /b , b And /b they are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women because Samaritan women b observe /b the seven-day menstrual period of ritual impurity b for each and every /b emission of b blood, /b even for blood that does not render them impure. Accordingly, if a Samaritan woman has an emission of impure blood during the seven-day period, she will nevertheless continue counting seven days from the first emission. It is therefore possible that the Samaritan men will engage in intercourse with their wives while they are still halakhically considered menstruating women, as the seven-day period of impurity should have been counted from the emission of the impure blood., b But /b one who enters the Temple while wearing b those /b garments upon which a Samaritan had lain b is not liable /b to bring an offering b for entering the Temple /b in a status of impurity, b nor does one burn i teruma /i /b that came into contact with b those /b garments, b because their impurity /b is b uncertain. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that Samaritan girls are considered menstruating women from the time they lie in their cradle. The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances /b of this statement? b If /b the mishna is referring to girls b who /b already b see /b menstrual blood, then b even our own, /b i.e., Jewish girls, are b also /b considered menstruating women under such circumstances. b And if /b it is referring to girls b who do not /b yet b see /b menstrual blood, then b their /b girls, i.e., those of the Samaritans, should b also not /b have the status of menstruating women., b Rava, son of Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna, says /b that b Rav Sheshet says: Here we are dealing with an unspecified /b case, i.e., it is unknown whether these girls have experienced their first menstrual period. b Since there is a minority /b of girls b who see /b menstrual blood, b we are concerned /b with regard to each Samaritan girl that she might be from this minority. The Gemara asks: b And who /b is the i tanna /i who b taught that one must be concerned for the minority? /b |
|
31. Anon., Exodus Rabbah, 30.13 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Hayes (2015) 271| 30.13. דָּבָר אַחֵר, וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים, הֲדָא הוּא דִּכְתִיב (משלי כט, ד): מֶלֶךְ בְּמִשְׁפָּט יַעֲמִיד אָרֶץ, זֶה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁבָּרָא אֶת עוֹלָמוֹ בַּדִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית א, א): בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, בָּרָא ה' לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא אֱלֹהִים. וַיֹּאמֶר ה' יְהִי רָקִיעַ אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר, אֶלָּא אֱלֹהִים, וְכֵן כֻּלְּהוֹן. וְכֵן דָּוִד אוֹמֵר (תהלים עה, ח): כִּי אֱלֹהִים שֹׁפֵט, לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁבַּדִּין נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם. (משלי כט, ד): וְאִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת יֶהֶרְסֶנָּה, זֶה אָדָם, מַה דַּרְכָּהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִיא מְבַקֶּשֶׁת לְהַפְרִישׁ חַלָּתָהּ, מְגַבֶּלֶת אֶת הַקֶּמַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ נוֹטֶלֶת חַלָּה, כָּךְ עָשָׂה הָאֱלֹהִים, גִּבֵּל אֶת הָעוֹלָם וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָטַל אָדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ב, ו): וְאֵד יַעֲלֶה מִן הָאָרֶץ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ (בראשית ב, ז): וַיִּיצֶר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁחָטָא אָמַר לוֹ הָאֱלֹהִים (בראשית ג, יז): אֲרוּרָה הָאֲדָמָה בַּעֲבוּרֶךָ, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: וְאִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת. דָּבָר אַחֵר, מֶלֶךְ בְּמִשְׁפָּט יַעֲמִיד אָרֶץ, זֶה יְהוֹשָׁפָט, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברי הימים ב יט, ו): וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוֹשָׁפָט אֶל הַשֹּׁפְטִים רְאוּ מָה אַתֶּם עֹשִׂים. וְאִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת יֶהֶרְסֶנָּה, זֶה חָכָם, שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ הֲלָכוֹת וּמִדְרָשׁוֹת וְאַגָּדוֹת, וְיָתוֹם וְאַלְמָנָה הוֹלְכִין אֶצְלוֹ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה דִּין בֵּינֵיהֶן, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לָהֶן עָסוּק אֲנִי בְּמִשְׁנָתִי אֵינִי פָּנוּי, וְאָמַר לוֹ הָאֱלֹהִים מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עָלֶיךָ כְּאִלּוּ הֶחֱרַבְתָּ אֶת הָעוֹלָם, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: וְאִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת יֶהֶרְסֶנָה. דָּבָר אַחֵר, מֶלֶךְ בְּמִשְׁפָּט יַעֲמִיד אָרֶץ, אֵלּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יט, ו): וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ לִי מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים. וְאִישׁ תְּרוּמוֹת יֶהֶרְסֶנָּה, אֵלּוּ דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל שֶׁלֹא הָיוּ עוֹשִׂין אֶת הַדִּין, רְאֵה מַה כְּתִיב בָּהֶם (איוב כד, ג ד): חֲמוֹר יְתוֹמִים יִנְהָגוּ יַטּוּ אֶבְיֹנִים מִדָּרֶךְ. אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בִּקֵּשׁ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לִתֵּן לָהֶם אַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים, תּוֹרָה וְיִסּוּרִין וַעֲבוֹדַת קָרְבָּנוֹת וּתְפִלָּה, וְלֹא בִקְּשׁוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב כא, יד): וַיֹּאמְרוּ לָאֵל סוּר מִמֶּנּוּ, אֵלּוּ הַיִּסּוּרִין. (איוב כא, יד): וְדַעַת דְּרָכֶיךָ לֹא חָפַצְנוּ, זֶה תּוֹרָה. (איוב כא, טו): וּמַה שַּׁדַּי כִּי נַעַבְדֶנּוּ, אֵלּוּ הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת. (איוב כא, טו): וּמַה נּוֹעִיל כִּי נִפְגַע בּוֹ, זֶה תְּפִלָּה. אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִי גָרַם לָכֶם שֶׁתֹּאבְדוּ מִן הָעֶרֶב שֶׁל הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וּמִן הַבֹּקֶר שֶׁל הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹא קִבַּלְתֶּם אֶת הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ דִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב ד, כ): מִבֹּקֶר לָעֶרֶב יֻכַּתּוּ, לָמָּה, מִבְּלִי מֵשִׂים לָנֶצַח יֹאבֵדוּ, וְאֵין מֵשִׂים אֶלָּא דִינִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם. | |
|
32. Anon., Numbers Rabba, 9.15 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Hayes (2015) 272| 9.15. בִּכְלִי חֶרֶשׂ (במדבר ה, יז), אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא הִשְׁקַתְּהוּ יַיִן מְשֻׁבָּח בְּכוֹסוֹת מְשֻׁבָּחִין, לְפִיכָךְ כֹּהֵן מַשְׁקֶה אוֹתָהּ הַמַּיִם הַמָּרִים בְּמַקֵּדָה שֶׁל חֶרֶס. (במדבר ה, יז): וּמִן הֶעָפָר, מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה הָבֵא עָפָר לַסּוֹטָה, זָכְתָה יוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּהּ בֵּן כְּאַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ (בראשית יח, כז): וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר, לֹא זָכְתָה תַּחְזֹר לַעֲפָרָהּ. רַבּוֹתֵינוּ אָמְרוּ בִּשְׂכַר שֶׁאָמַר אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ וְאָנֹכִי עָפָר וָאֵפֶר, זָכוּ בָנָיו לִשְׁתֵּי מִצְווֹת אֵפֶר פָּרָה וַעֲפַר סוֹטָה, אֲבָל עֲפַר כִּסּוּי לֹא מָנָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא הֶכְשֵׁר מִצְוָה וְאֵין מִמֶּנּוּ הֲנָאָה. לָמָּה הָיָה בּוֹדְקָה בְּמַיִם וּבְעָפָר, לְפִי שֶׁהָאָדָם נִבְרָא מִן הֶעָפָר וְהִיא נוֹצְרָה בַּמַּיִם, לְכָךְ הִיא נִבְדֶקֶת בַּמַּיִם וּבֶעָפָר אִם טְהוֹרָה כִּבְרִיָּתָהּ. וּמִן הֶעָפָר אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה, יָכוֹל יַתְקִין בַּחוּץ וְיַכְנִיס, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן, אִי בְּקַרְקַע הַמִּשְׁכָּן, יָכוֹל יַחְפֹּר בְּדֶקֶר, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה, הָא כֵיצַד, יֵשׁ שָׁם הָבֵא, אֵין שָׁם תֵּן שָׁם. (במדבר ה, יז): יִקַּח הַכֹּהֵן וְנָתַן אֶל הַמַּיִם, תָּנֵי שְׁלשָׁה צְרִיכִין שֶׁיֵּרָאוּ, עֲפַר סוֹטָה וְאֵפֶר פָּרָה וְרֹק יְבָמָה, מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמְרוּ אַף דַּם צִפּוֹר שֶׁל מְצֹרָע. | |
|
| 33. Anon., Pesiqta De Rav Kahana, 4.7 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015) 280 |
| 34. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Qdb, None Tagged with subjects: •heinemann, isaac Found in books: Hayes (2015) 272 |
