1. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 34.6 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Aha bar Huna • Huna • Huna bar Joshua • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Huna b. Abin (R.)
Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 24; Fishbane (2003), Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, 374
sup>
34.6 וַיַּעֲבֹר יְהוָה עַל־פָּנָיו וַיִּקְרָא יְהוָה יְהוָה אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן אֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב־חֶסֶד וֶאֱמֶת'' None | sup>
34.6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed: ‘The LORD, the LORD, God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth;'' None |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 1.28 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Huna • Huna, Rav
Found in books: Kosman (2012), Gender and Dialogue in the Rabbinic Prism, 207; Rubenstein (2018), The Land of Truth: Talmud Tales, Timeless Teachings, 49
sup>
1.28 וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ וְכִבְשֻׁהָ וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְכָל־חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל־הָאָרֶץ׃'' None | sup>
1.28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.’'' None |
|
3. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: nan
Found in books: nan nan
|
4. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Huna the Exilarch • Huna, R.
Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 192
|
5. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Huna • Huna (the Babylonian), Rav • Huna b. Joshua/Yehoshua
Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 151, 156, 158, 160, 161, 162, 167; Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 74
22a קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ומודה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ברוכלין המחזירין בעיירות דלא מצי מעכב דאמר מר עזרא תקן להן לישראל שיהו רוכלין מחזירין בעיירות כדי שיהו תכשיטין מצויין לבנות ישראל,והני מילי לאהדורי אבל לאקבועי לא ואי צורבא מרבנן הוא אפילו לאקבועי נמי כי הא דרבא שרא להו לר\' יאשיה ולרב עובדיה לאקבועי דלא כהלכתא מאי טעמא כיון דרבנן נינהו אתו לטרדו מגירסייהו,הנהו דיקולאי דאייתו דיקלאי לבבל אתו בני מתא קא מעכבי עלויהו אתו לקמיה דרבינא אמר להו מעלמא אתו ולעלמא ליזבנו והני מילי ביומא דשוקא אבל בלא יומא דשוקא לא וביומא דשוקא נמי לא אמרינן אלא לזבוני בשוקא אבל לאהדורי לא,הנהו עמוראי דאייתו עמרא לפום נהרא אתו בני מתא קא מעכבי עלויהו אתו לקמיה דרב כהנא אמר להו דינא הוא דמעכבי עלייכו אמרו ליה אית לן אשראי אמר להו זילו זבנו שיעור חיותייכו עד דעקריתו אשראי דידכו ואזליתו,רב דימי מנהרדעא אייתי גרוגרות בספינה א"ל ריש גלותא לרבא פוק חזי אי צורבא מרבנן הוא נקיט ליה שוקא א"ל רבא לרב אדא בר אבא פוק תהי ליה בקנקניה,נפק אזל בעא מיניה פיל שבלע כפיפה מצרית והקיאה דרך בית הרעי מהו לא הוה בידיה א"ל מר ניהו רבא טפח ליה בסנדליה א"ל בין דידי לרבא איכא טובא מיהו על כרחך אנא רבך ורבא רבה דרבך,לא נקטו ליה שוקא פסיד גרוגרות דידיה אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף א"ל חזי מר מאי עבדו לי אמר ליה מאן דלא שהייה לאוניתא דמלכא דאדום לא נשהייה לאוניתיך דכתיב (עמוס ב, א) כה אמר ה\' על שלשה פשעי מואב ועל ארבעה לא אשיבנו על שרפו עצמות מלך אדום לסיד,נח נפשיה דרב אדא בר אבא רב יוסף אמר אנא ענישתיה דאנא לטייתיה רב דימי מנהרדעא אמר אנא ענישתיה דאפסיד גרוגרות דידי אביי אמר אנא ענישתיה דאמר להו לרבנן אדמגרמיתו גרמי בי אביי תו אכלו בישרא שמינא בי רבא ורבא אמר אנא ענישתיה דכי הוה אזיל לבי טבחא למשקל אומצא אמר להו לטבחי אנא שקילנא בישרא מיקמי שמעיה דרבא דאנא עדיפנא מיניה,רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אנא ענישתיה דרב נחמן בר יצחק ריש כלה הוה כל יומא מיקמי דניעול לכלה מרהיט בהדיה רב אדא בר אבא לשמעתיה והדר עייל לכלה,ההוא יומא נקטוה רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרב אדא בר אבא משום דלא הוו בסיומא אמרו ליה אימא לן הני שמעתתא דמעשר בהמה היכי אמרינהו רבא אמר להו הכי אמר רבא והכי אמר רבא אדהכי נגה ליה לרב נחמן בר יצחק (ולא אתי רב אדא בר אבא),אמרו ליה רבנן לרב נחמן בר יצחק קום דנגה לן למה יתיב מר אמר להו יתיבנא וקא מנטרא לערסיה דרב אדא בר אבא אדהכי נפק קלא דנח נפשיה דרב אדא בר אבא ומסתברא דרב נחמן בר יצחק ענשיה: ,| 22a Jealousy among teachers increases wisdom.,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who said that townspeople can bar craftsmen who come from other cities, concedes with regard to perfume salesmen who travel from one town to another that the townspeople cannot prevent them from entering their town. As the Master said: Ezra instituted an ordice for the Jewish people that perfume salesmen shall travel from town to town so that cosmetics will be available to Jewish women. Since this ordice was instituted on behalf of Jewish women, the Sages ruled that these peddlers could not be barred from entering a town.,The Gemara continues: And this matter applies only to one who seeks to travel from town to town as a salesman. But if he wants to establish a shop, this ruling was not stated, and the townspeople can prevent him from doing so. And if he is a Torah scholar he may even establish a shop as a perfume salesman. This is like that incident in which Rava permitted Rabbi Yoshiya and Rav Ovadya to establish a shop not in accordance with the halakha. What is the reason for this ruling? The reason is that since they are rabbis, they are likely to be distracted from their studies should they be required to travel from place to place.,§ The Gemara relates: There were these basket sellers who brought baskets to Babylonia. The townspeople came and prevented them from selling there. The two parties came before Ravina for a ruling. Ravina said to them: The basket sellers came from outside the town, and they sell to those from outside the town, i.e., to guests who are not residents of the town. The Gemara comments: And this statement applies only on a market day, when people from other towns come to shop, but they may not sell their wares on non-market days. And even with regard to market days, we say so only with regard to selling in the market, but this halakha does not apply to circulating around the town.,The Gemara further relates: There were these wool sellers who brought wool to the city of Pum Nahara. The townsfolk came and prevented them from selling it. The two parties came before Rav Kahana for a ruling. Rav Kahana said to them: The halakha is that they may prevent you from selling your wares. The wool sellers said to him: We have debts to collect in the city, and we must sell our wares in the meantime to sustain ourselves until we are paid. Rav Kahana said to them: Go and sell the amount needed to sustain yourselves until you have collected your debts, and then leave.,§ The Gemara relates: Rav Dimi of Neharde’a brought dried figs on a ship to sell them. The Exilarch said to Rava: Go and see; if he is a Torah scholar, reserve the market for him, i.e., declare that he has the exclusive right to sell dried figs. Rava said to his student Rav Adda bar Abba: Go and smell his jar, i.e., determine whether or not Rav Dimi is a Torah scholar.,Rav Adda bar Abba went and asked Rav Dimi a question: With regard to an elephant that swallowed a wicker basket and excreted it intact along with its waste, what is the halakha? Is the vessel still susceptible to ritual impurity or is it considered digested and not susceptible to impurity? An answer was not available to Rav Dimi. Rav Dimi said to Rav Adda bar Abba: Is the Master Rava, i.e., are you Rava, as you have asked me such a difficult question? Rav Adda bar Abba struck him on his shoe in a disparaging way and said to him: There is a great difference between me and Rava; but I am perforce your teacher, and Rava is your teacher’s teacher.,Based on this exchange, Rav Adda bar Abba decided that Rav Dimi was not a great Torah scholar, and therefore he did not reserve the market for him, and Rav Dimi lost his dried figs, as they rotted. Rav Dimi came before Rav Yosef to complain, and said to him: The Master should see what they did to me. Rav Yosef said to him: He Who did not delay retribution for the humiliation of the King of Edom should not delay His response to your humiliation, but should punish whoever distressed you, as it is written: “So says the Lord: For three transgressions of Moab, indeed for four I will not reverse for him, because he burned the bones of the King of Edom into lime” (Amos 2:1).,The Gemara reports that Rav Adda bar Abba died. Rav Yosef said: I punished him, i.e., I am to blame for his death, as I cursed him. Rav Dimi from Neharde’a said: I punished him, as he caused my loss of dried figs. Abaye said: I punished him, i.e., he was punished on my account because he did not exhibit the proper respect for me. As Rav Adda bar Abba said to the Sages: Instead of gnawing the bones in the school of Abaye, you would do better to eat fatty meat in the school of Rava, i.e., it is preferable to study with Rava than with Abaye. And Rava said: I punished him, as when he would go to the butcher to buy a piece of meat, he would say to the butchers: I will take meat before Rava’s servant, as I am greater than he is.,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: I punished him, i.e., he was punished because of me, as Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was the head of the kalla lectures, the gatherings for Torah study during Elul and Adar. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak would teach the students immediately following the lesson taught by the head of the academy. Every day, before he went in for the kalla lecture, he reviewed his lecture with Rav Adda bar Abba, and then he would enter the study hall for the kalla lecture.,On that day Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, seized Rav Adda bar Abba, because they had not been present at the conclusion of Rava’s lecture. They said to him: Tell us how Rava stated these halakhot of animal tithe. Rav Adda bar Abba said to them: Rava said this and Rava said that. Meanwhile, it grew late for Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, and Rav Adda bar Abba had not yet arrived.,The Sages said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Arise and teach us, as it is late for us. Why does the Master sit and wait? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to them: I am sitting and waiting for the bier of Rav Adda bar Abba, who has presumably died. Meanwhile, a rumor emerged that Rav Adda bar Abba had indeed died. The Gemara comments: And so too, it is reasonable to conclude that Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak punished him, i.e., he died as a result of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement, as the unfortunate event occurred just as he announced that Rav Adda bar Abba’s bier was on its way.,One whose wall was close to the wall of another may not build another wall close to the neighbor’s wall unless he distances it four cubits from the wall of the neighbor. And one who desires to build a wall opposite the windows of a neighbor’s house must distance the wall four cubits from the windows, whether above, below, or opposite.,And with regard to the first man, how did he place his wall close to the neighbor’s wall in the first place? Rav Yehuda said that this is what the tanna is saying:'' None | |
|
6. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Rabba b. Rav Huna
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 155, 201; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 155, 201
| 11a בשמות מובהקין,היכי דמי שמות מובהקין אמר רב פפא כגון הורמיז ואבודינא בר שיבתאי ובר קידרי ובאטי ונקים אונא,אבל שמות שאין מובהקים מאי לא אי הכי אדתני סיפא לא הוזכרו אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט לפלוג וליתני בדידה בד"א בשמות מובהקין אבל שמות שאין מובהקין לא,הכי נמי קאמר בד"א בשמות מובהקין אבל בשמות שאין מובהקין נעשה כמי שנעשו בהדיוט ופסולין,ואיבעית אימא סיפא אתאן לגיטי ממון והכי קאמר לא הוזכרו גיטי ממון דפסולים אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט,תניא אמר ר\' אלעזר בר\' יוסי כך אמר ר"ש לחכמים בצידן לא נחלקו ר"ע וחכמים על כל השטרות העולין בערכאות של עובדי כוכבי\' שאע"פ שחותמיהן עובדי כוכבים כשרים ואפי\' גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים לא נחלקו אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט שר"ע מכשיר וחכמים פוסלים חוץ מגיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים,רשב"ג אומר אף אלו כשירין במקום שאין ישראל חותמין אבל במקום שישראל חותמין לא,מקום שאין ישראל חותמין נמי ליגזור אטו מקום שישראל חותמין שמא בשמא מחליף אתרא באתרא לא מחליף,רבינא סבר לאכשורי בכנופיאתה דארמאי א"ל רפרם ערכאות תנן,אמר רבא האי שטרא פרסאה דמסריה ניהליה באפי סהדי ישראל מגבינן ביה מבני חרי,והא לא ידעי למיקרא בדידעי,והא בעינא כתב שאינו יכול לזייף וליכא בדאפיצן והא בעינא צריך שיחזיר מענינו של שטר בשיטה אחרונה וליכא בדמהדר,א"ה ממשעבדי נמי לית ליה קלא,בעא מיניה ריש לקיש מר\' יוחנן' 36a דמדרינן ליה ברבים הניחא למאן דאמר נדר שהודר ברבים אין לו הפרה אלא למאן דאמר יש לו הפרה מאי איכא למימר,דמדרינן ליה על דעת רבים דאמר אמימר הלכתא אפילו למאן דאמר נדר שהודר ברבים יש לו הפרה על דעת רבים אין לו הפרה,והני מילי לדבר הרשות אבל לדבר מצוה יש לו הפרה כי ההוא מקרי דרדקי דאדריה רב אחא על דעת רבים דהוה פשע בינוקי ואהדריה רבינא דלא אישתכח דדייק כוותיה:,והעדים חותמין על הגט מפני תיקון העולם: מפני תיקון העולם דאורייתא הוא דכתיב (ירמיהו לב, מד) וכתוב בספר וחתום,אמר רבה לא צריכא לרבי אלעזר דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי תקינו רבנן עדי חתימה מפני תיקון העולם דזמנין דמייתי סהדי אי נמי זימנין דאזלי למדינת הים,רב יוסף אמר אפי' תימא לר' מאיר התקינו שיהא עדים מפרשין שמותיהן בגיטין מפני תיקון העולם,כדתניא בראשונה היה כותב אני פלוני חתמתי עד אם כתב ידו יוצא ממקום אחר כשר ואם לאו פסול,אמר רבן גמליאל תקנה גדולה התקינו שיהיו מפרשין שמותיהן בגיטין מפני תיקון העולם,ובסימנא לא והא רב צייר כורא ורבי חנינא צייר חרותא רב חסדא סמך ורב הושעיא עין רבה בר רב הונא צייר מכותא שאני רבנן דבקיאין סימנייהו,מעיקרא במאי אפקעינהו בדיסקי:,הלל התקין פרוסבול וכו': תנן התם פרוסבול אינו משמט זה אחד מן הדברים שהתקין הלל הזקן שראה את העם שנמנעו מלהלוות זה את זה ועברו על מה שכתוב בתורה (דברים טו, ט) השמר לך פן יהיה דבר עם לבבך בליעל וגו' עמד והתקין פרוסבול,וזה הוא גופו של פרוסבול מוסרני לכם פלוני דיינין שבמקום פלוני שכל חוב שיש לי אצל פלוני שאגבנו כל זמן שארצה והדיינים חותמים למטה או העדים,ומי איכא מידי דמדאורייתא משמטא שביעית והתקין הלל דלא משמטא אמר אביי בשביעית בזמן הזה ורבי היא,דתניא רבי אומר (דברים טו, ב) וזה דבר השמיטה שמוט בשתי שמיטות הכתוב מדבר אחת שמיטת קרקע ואחת שמיטת כספים בזמן שאתה משמט קרקע אתה משמט כספים בזמן שאי אתה משמט קרקע אי אתה משמט כספים" '" None | 11a We are dealing with unambiguous gentile names, in which case there is no need to be concerned that people might rely on these individuals as witnesses for the transfer, as it is evident that they are gentiles.,The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of unambiguous gentile names? Rav Pappa said: This is referring to names such as Hurmiz, and Abbudina, bar Shibbetai, and bar Kidri, and Bati, and Nakim Una.,The Gemara infers: However, if the bill of divorce or manumission was signed by gentile witnesses with ambiguous names, what is the halakha? Is this not a valid document? If so, instead of teaching in the latter clause of the mishna: These two types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, not in court, let him distinguish and teach the distinction within the case of gentile courts itself, as follows: In what case is this statement, that gentile signatures are valid for a bill of divorce or manumission, said? With regard to unambiguous names. However, in a case of ambiguous names, no, gentile witnesses are not valid.,The Gemara answers: That is also what he is saying, i.e., Rabbi Shimon’s statement that these bills of divorce and bills of manumission are also valid should be understood in this very manner: In what case is this statement said? With regard to unambiguous names. However, with regard to ambiguous names, the document becomes like one that was prepared by a common person, and therefore such documents are invalid.,And if you wish, say a different answer: In the last clause of the mishna, which states: These types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, we are no longer discussing bills of divorce; rather, we arrive at the case of ficial documents. Furthermore, this clause of the mishna is not a continuation of Rabbi Shimon’s statement, as it returns to the opinion of the first tanna. And this is what the mishna is saying: Ficial documents were mentioned as invalid only when they were prepared by a common person, whereas if they were produced by a court they are valid.,It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:4): Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said that Rabbi Shimon said this to the Sages in the city of Tzaidan: Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis did not disagree with regard to all documents produced in gentile courts, that even though their signatories are gentiles, these documents are valid, even in the case of bills of divorce and bills of manumission. They disagreed only when they were prepared by a common person, outside a court, as Rabbi Akiva deems a document of this kind valid, and the Rabbis deem it invalid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission.,Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even these, bills of divorce and manumission, are valid in a place where Jews do not sign. In other words, the halakha that a document with gentile signatories is valid applies only in a place where Jews are not allowed to sign, as everyone knows that gentile documents are not signed by Jews. However, in a place where Jews sign, no, these documents are not valid either, as people might mistakenly think that Jews signed this bill of divorce. Therefore there is a concern that one might deliver this bill of divorce in the presence of those witnesses, who are actually gentiles, which would render the bill of divorce invalid.,The Gemara suggests: Let us also decree in a place where Jews do not sign due to a place where Jews do sign. The Gemara answers: One might confuse one name with another name. It is possible that one might think that a certain name is that of a Jew when it is actually that of a gentile. However, one is not likely to confuse one place with another place. Since everyone knows that all of the signatures in certain places belong to gentiles, they are careful not to transfer a bill of divorce in the presence of the witnesses who signed it, unless they are certain that the witnesses are Jews.,§ The Gemara relates that Ravina thought to deem valid a document that was written by a group of gentiles arma’ei. Rafram said to him that we learned: Gentile courts, in the mishna, i.e., these documents are valid only if they were produced in an important court, not by every group of gentiles.,Similarly, Rava said: With regard to this Persian document shetara parsa’a written by the Persian authorities that was transferred to the recipient in the presence of Jewish witnesses, he can collect with it non-liened property, i.e., property that is unencumbered by a mortgage. Although this is not considered a proper document by means of which one can collect from any land sold by the debtor, nevertheless, the facts in the document are considered accurate, and therefore one may at least collect non-liened property with it.,The Gemara asks: But the witnesses for the transmission of this document do not know how to read Persian, as most Jews did not read that language. If so, how can they serve as witnesses? The Gemara answers: Rava is referring to a situation where the witnesses know how to read Persian.,The Gemara questions how the court can rely upon such a document: But I require that the document be written in a manner that cannot be forged, and it is not so in this document, as the Persians were not particular about preparing their documents in this manner when writing their legal documents. The Gemara explains: Rava’s statement applies in a case where the paper of the documents was processed with gall. Consequently, it is not possible to forge the writing (see 19b). But I require that a document review the essential topic of the document in its last line, and it is not so in the case of Persian documents. The Gemara answers: Rava’s statement applies in a case where it returned to review the essential topic of the document in the final line.,The Gemara asks: If so, he should be able to collect from liened property as well, as this document is equivalent to one written by a Jew. Why doesn’t Rava say that it can be used to collect from liened property as well? The Gemara answers: The reason is that this document does not generate publicity, i.e., a legal matter that is performed in a Persian court will not become publicized among Jews. Therefore, this case is similar to a loan by oral agreement, where the transaction is not publicized. In this case the lender can collect only from non-liened property, as purchasers from the debtor would not have been aware of his debt and consequently taken sufficient measures to ensure that the money would not be claimed from their purchase.,Reish Lakish raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥa:' 36a The Gemara answers that we administer the vow to the priest in public. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that a vow that was taken in public has no possibility of nullification by a halakhic authority, but according to the one who says it has the possibility of nullification, what can be said?,The Gemara answers that we administer the vow to the priest based on the consent of the public, making it a type of vow that cannot be dissolved without their consent. As Ameimar said, the halakha is as follows: Even according to the one who says that a vow that was taken in public has the possibility of nullification, if it was taken based on the consent of the public, it has no possibility of nullification.,The Gemara comments: And this matter applies only to when the nullification of a vow is in order to enable one to perform an optional matter, but to enable one to perform a matter of a mitzva, it has the possibility of nullification. This is like the incident involving a certain teacher of children, upon whom Rav Aḥa administered a vow based on the consent of the public to cease teaching, as he was negligent with regard to the children by hitting them too much. And Ravina had his vow nullified and reinstated him, as they did not find another teacher who was as meticulous as he was.,§ The mishna taught: And the witnesses sign the bill of divorce for the betterment of the world. The Gemara asks: Is the reason that the witnesses sign the bill of divorce for the betterment of the world? It is by Torah law that they must sign, as it is written: “And subscribe the deeds, and sign them, and call witnesses” (Jeremiah 32:44).,Rabba said: No, it is necessary according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says: Witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce, and not the witnesses who sign the bill of divorce, and by Torah law it does not need to be signed. Nevertheless, the Sages instituted signatory witnesses for the betterment of the world, as sometimes it occurs that the witnesses who witnessed the transmission of the bill of divorce die, or sometimes it occurs that they go overseas, and the validity of the bill of divorce may be contested. Since they are not present, there are no witnesses who can ratify the bill of divorce. Once the Sages instituted that the witnesses’ signatures appear on the bill of divorce, then the bill of divorce can be ratified by authenticating their signatures.,Rav Yosef said: You can even say that it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that signatory witnesses on the bill of divorce effect the divorce, and the mishna should be understood as follows: They instituted that the witnesses must specify their full names on bills of divorce and not merely sign the document, for the betterment of the world.,As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:13): At first, the witness would write only: I, so-and-so, signed as a witness, but they did not state their full names. Therefore, the only way to identify the witness was to see if an identical signature could be found on a different document that had been ratified in court. Therefore, if another copy of a witness’s signature is produced from elsewhere, i.e., another court document, it is valid, but if not, then the bill of divorce is invalid even though it is possible that he was a valid witness, and as a result of this women were left unable to remarry.,Rabban Gamliel said: They instituted a great ordice that the witnesses must specify their full names on bills of divorce, stating that they are so-and-so, son of so-and-so, and other identifying features, for the betterment of the world. This made it possible to easily clarify who the witnesses were and to ratify the bill of divorce by finding acquaintances of the witnesses who recognized their signatures.,The Gemara asks: But is it not sufficient to sign with a pictorial mark? But Rav drew a fish instead of a signature, and Rabbi Ḥanina drew a palm branch ḥaruta; Rav Ḥisda drew the letter samekh, and Rav Hoshaya drew the letter ayin; and Rabba bar Rav Huna drew a sail makota. None of these Sages would sign their actual names. The Gemara answers: The Sages are different, as everyone is well versed in their pictorial marks.,The Gemara asks: Initially, with what did they publicize these marks, as they could not use them in place of signatures before people were well versed in them? The Gemara answers: They initially used their marks in letters, where there is no legal requirement to sign their names. Once it became known that they would use these marks as their signatures, they were able to use them as signatures even on legal documents.,§ The mishna taught that Hillel the Elder instituted a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt prosbol. We learned in a mishna there (Shevi’it 10:3): If one writes a prosbol, the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate debt. This is one of the matters that Hillel the Elder instituted because he saw that the people of the nation were refraining from lending to one another around the time of the Sabbatical Year, as they were concerned that the debtor would not repay the loan, and they violated that which is written in the Torah: “Beware that there be not a base thought in your heart, saying: The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and your eye be evil against your needy brother, and you give him nothing” (Deuteronomy 15:9). He arose and instituted the prosbol so that it would also be possible to collect those debts in order to ensure that people would continue to give loans.,And this is the essence of the text of the prosbol: I transfer to you, so-and-so the judges, who are in such and such a place, so that I will collect any debt that I am owed by so-and-so whenever I wish, as the court now has the right to collect the debts. And the judges or the witnesses sign below, and this is sufficient. The creditor will then be able to collect the debt on behalf of the court, and the court can give it to him.,The Gemara asks about the prosbol itself: But is there anything like this, where by Torah law the Sabbatical Year cancels the debt but Hillel instituted that it does not cancel the debt? Abaye said: The baraita is referring to the Sabbatical Year in the present, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.,As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states in the context of the cancellation of debts: “And this is the manner of the abrogation: He shall abrogate” (Deuteronomy 15:2). The verse speaks of two types of abrogation: One is the release of land and one is the abrogation of monetary debts. Since the two are equated, one can learn the following: At a time when you release land, when the Jubilee Year is practiced, you abrogate monetary debts; at a time when you do not release land, such as the present time, when the Jubilee Year is no longer practiced, you also do not abrogate monetary debts. ' None |
|
7. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Huna (the Babylonian), Rav • R. Huna
Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 74; Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 188
| 26b למישתא ביה שיכרא שפיר דמי,רבינא הוה ליה ההוא תילא דבי כנישתא אתא לקמיה דרב אשי אמר ליה מהו למיזרעה אמר ליה זיל זבניה משבעה טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר וזרעה,רמי בר אבא הוה קא בני בי כנישתא הוה ההיא כנישתא עתיקא הוה בעי למיסתריה ולאתויי ליבני וכשורי מינה ועיולי להתם יתיב וקא מיבעיא ליה הא דרב חסדא דאמר רב חסדא לא ליסתור בי כנישתא עד דבני בי כנישתא אחריתי התם משום פשיעותא כי האי גוונא מאי אתא לקמיה דרב פפא ואסר ליה לקמיה דרב הונא ואסר ליה,אמר רבא האי בי כנישתא חלופה וזבונה שרי אוגורה ומשכונה אסור מאי טעמא בקדושתה קאי,ליבני נמי חלופינהו וזבונינהו שרי אוזופינהו אסור הני מילי בעתיקתא אבל בחדתא לית לן בה,ואפילו למאן דאמר הזמנה מילתא היא ה"מ כגון האורג בגד למת אבל הכא כטווי לאריג דמי וליכא למאן דאמר,מתנה פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אסר וחד שרי מאן דאסר בהאי תפקע קדושתה ומאן דשרי אי לאו דהוה ליה הנאה מיניה לא הוה יהיב ליה הדר הוה ליה מתנה כזביני,ת"ר תשמישי מצוה נזרקין תשמישי קדושה נגנזין ואלו הן תשמישי מצוה סוכה לולב שופר ציצית ואלו הן תשמישי קדושה דלוסקמי ספרים תפילין ומזוזות ותיק של ס"ת ונרתיק של תפילין ורצועותיהן,אמר רבא מריש הוה אמינא האי כורסיא תשמיש דתשמיש הוא ושרי כיון דחזינא דמותבי עלויה ס"ת אמינא תשמיש קדושה הוא ואסור,ואמר רבא מריש הוה אמינא האי פריסא תשמיש דתשמיש הוא כיון דחזינא דעייפי ליה ומנחי סיפרא עלויה אמינא תשמיש קדושה הוא ואסור,ואמר רבא האי תיבותא דאירפט מיעבדה תיבה זוטרתי שרי כורסייא אסיר ואמר רבא האי פריסא דבלה למיעבדיה פריסא לספרי שרי לחומשין אסיר,ואמר רבא הני זבילי דחומשי וקמטרי דספרי תשמיש קדושה נינהו ונגנזין פשיטא מהו דתימא הני לאו לכבוד עבידן לנטורי בעלמא עבידי קמ"ל,ההוא בי כנישתא דיהודאי רומאי דהוה פתיח לההוא אידרונא דהוה מחית ביה מת והוו בעו כהני למיעל לצלויי התם אתו אמרו ליה לרבא אמר להו דלו תיבותא אותבוה דהוה ליה כלי עץ העשוי לנחת וכלי עץ העשוי לנחת אינו מקבל טומאה וחוצץ בפני הטומאה,אמרו ליה רבנן לרבא והא זמנין דמטלטלי ליה כי מנח ספר תורה עלויה והוה ליה מיטלטלא מלא וריקם אי הכי לא אפשר,אמר מר זוטרא מטפחות ספרים שבלו עושין אותן תכריכין למת מצוה וזו היא גניזתן,ואמר רבא ספר תורה שבלה גונזין אותו אצל תלמיד חכם ואפילו שונה הלכות אמר רב אחא בר יעקב ובכלי חרס שנאמר (ירמיהו לב, יד) ונתתם בכלי חרש למען יעמדו ימים רבים,(ואמר) רב פפי משמיה דר\' מבי כנישתא לבי רבנן שרי מבי רבנן לבי כנישתא אסיר ורב פפא משמיה דרבא מתני איפכא אמר רב אחא'' None | 26b to drink beer with the proceeds seems well and is permitted. The seven representatives have the authority to annul the sanctity of the synagogue, and therefore the proceeds of its sale do not retain any sanctity.,The Gemara relates: Ravina had a certain piece of land on which stood a mound of the ruins of a synagogue. He came before Rav Ashi and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to sowing the land? He said to him: Go, purchase it from the seven representatives of the town in an assembly of the residents of the town, and then you may sow it.,Rami bar Abba was once building a synagogue. There was a certain old synagogue that he wished to demolish, and bring bricks and beams from it, and bring them to there, to construct a new synagogue. He sat and considered that which Rav Ḥisda said, as Rav Ḥisda said: One should not demolish a synagogue until one has built another synagogue. Rami bar Abba reasoned that Rav Ḥisda’s ruling there is due to a concern of negligence, as perhaps after the first synagogue is demolished, people will be negligent and a new one will never be built. However, in a case like this, where the new synagogue is to be built directly from the materials of the old one, what is the halakha? He came before Rav Pappa to ask his opinion, and he prohibited him from doing so. He then came before Rav Huna, and he also prohibited him from doing so.,Rava said: With regard to this synagogue, exchanging it for a different building or selling it for money is permitted, but renting it out or mortgaging it is prohibited. What is the reason for this? When a synagogue is rented out or mortgaged, it remains in its sacred state. Therefore, it is prohibited to rent it out or mortgage it, because it will then be used for a non-sacred purpose. However, if it is exchanged or sold, its sanctity is transferred to the other building or to the proceeds of the sale, and therefore the old synagogue building may be used for any purpose.,The same halakha is also true of the bricks of a synagogue; exchanging them or selling them is permitted, but renting them out is prohibited. The Gemara comments: This applies to old bricks that have already been part of a synagogue, but as for new bricks that have only been designated to be used in a synagogue, we have no problem with it if they are rented out for a non-sacred purpose.,And even according to the one who said that mere designation is significant, i.e., although a certain object was not yet used for the designated purpose, the halakhic ramifications of using it for that purpose already take hold, this applies only in a case where it was created from the outset for that purpose, for example, one who weaves a garment to be used as shrouds for a corpse. However, here the bricks are comparable to already spun thread that was then designated to be used to weave burial shrouds. Concerning such designation, where nothing was specifically created for the designated purpose, there is no one who said that the designation is significant.,Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree about whether it is permitted to give away a synagogue as a gift to then be used for a non-sacred purpose. One of them prohibited it, and the other one permitted it. The one who prohibits it says: Is it possible that with this act of giving alone its sanctity is removed? This cannot be the case. Since the synagogue was not exchanged for anything else, there is nothing to which the sanctity may be transferred. Consequently, the synagogue remains sacred. And the one who permitted it does so because he reasons that if the donor did not receive any benefit from giving the synagogue, he would not have given it. Therefore, the gift has reverted to being like a sale, and the sanctity is transferred to the benefit received.,§ The Sages taught in a baraita: Articles used in the performance of a mitzva may be thrown out after use. Although these items were used in the performance of a mitzva, they are not thereby sanctified. However, articles associated with the sanctity of God’s name, i.e. articles on which God’s name is written, and articles that serve an article that has God’s name written on it, even after they are no longer used, must be interred in a respectful manner. And these items are considered articles of a mitzva: A sukka; a lulav; a shofar; and ritual fringes. And these items are considered articles of sanctity: Cases of scrolls, i.e. of Torah scrolls; phylacteries; and mezuzot; and a container for a Torah scroll; and a cover for phylacteries; and their straps.,Rava said: Initially, I used to say that this lectern in the synagogue upon which the Torah is read is only an article of an article of sanctity, as the Torah scroll does not rest directly upon the lectern but rather upon the cloth that covers it. And the halakha is that once an article of an article of sanctity is no longer used, it is permitted to throw it out. However, once I saw that the Torah scroll is sometimes placed directly upon the lectern without an intervening cloth. I said that it is an article used directly for items of sanctity, and as such it is prohibited to simply discard it after use.,And Rava similarly said: Initially, I used to say that this curtain, which is placed at the opening to the ark as a decoration, is only an article of an article of sanctity, as it serves to beautify the ark but is not directly used for the Torah scroll. However, once I saw that sometimes the curtain is folded over and a Torah scroll is placed upon it. I said that it is an article used directly for items of sanctity and as such it is prohibited to simply discard it after use.,And Rava further said: With regard to this ark that has fallen apart, constructing a smaller ark from its materials is permitted, as both have the same level of sanctity, but to use the materials to construct a lectern is prohibited because the lectern has a lesser degree of sanctity. And Rava similarly said: With regard to this curtain used to decorate an ark that has become worn out, to fashion it into a wrapping cloth for Torah scrolls is permitted, but to fashion it into a wrapping cloth for a scroll of one of the five books of the Torah is prohibited.,And Rava also said: With regard to these cases for storing scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah and sacks for storing Torah scrolls, they are classified as articles of sanctity. Therefore, they are to be interred when they are no longer in use. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since these items are not made for the honor of the scrolls but rather are made merely to provide protection, they should not be classified as articles of sanctity, Rava therefore teaches us that although they are indeed made to protect the scrolls, they also provide honor and are therefore to be classified as articles of sanctity.,The Gemara relates: There was a certain synagogue of the Jews of Rome that opened out into a room in which a corpse was lying, thereby spreading the ritual impurity of the corpse throughout the synagogue. And the priests wished to enter the synagogue in order to pray there. However, it was prohibited for them to do so because a priest may not come in contact with ritual impurity of a corpse. They came and spoke to Rava, about what to do. He said to them: Lift up the ark and put it down in the opening between the two rooms, as it is a wooden utensil that is designated to rest in one place and not be moved from there, and the halakha is that a wooden utensil that is designated to rest is not susceptible to ritual impurity, and therefore it serves as a barrier to prevent ritual impurity from spreading.,The Rabbis said to Rava: But isn’t the ark sometimes moved when a Torah scroll is still resting inside it, and therefore it is a utensil that is moved both when it is full and when it is empty; such a utensil is susceptible to ritual impurity and cannot prevent ritual impurity from spreading. He said to them: If so, if it is as you claim, then it is not possible to remedy the situation.,Mar Zutra said: With regard to wrapping cloths of Torah scrolls that have become worn out, they may be made into shrouds for a corpse with no one to bury it met mitzva, and this is their most appropriate manner for being interred.,And Rava said: A Torah scroll that became worn out is interred and buried next to a Torah scholar, and in this regard, a Torah scholar is defined even as one who only studies the halakhot in the Mishna and the baraitot but is not proficient in their analysis. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: And when it is buried, it is first placed in an earthenware vessel, as it is stated: “And put them in an earthenware vessel, that they may last for many days” (Jeremiah 32:14).,§ And Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: To convert a building from a synagogue into a study hall is permitted, but from a study hall into a synagogue is prohibited, as he holds that a study hall has a higher degree of sanctity than a synagogue. And Rav Pappa in the name of Rava teaches the opposite, as he holds that a synagogue has a higher degree of sanctity than a study hall. Rav Aḥa said:'' None |
|
8. Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Huna • Huna b. Joshua/Yehoshua • Huna, burial of
Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 148, 149, 150, 151; Kosman (2012), Gender and Dialogue in the Rabbinic Prism, 129
25a | 25a And is this the case even if the deceased was a Torah Sage? But isn’t it taught otherwise in a baraita: When a Torah scholar dies, everyone is his relative.,The Gemara clarifies: Does it enter your mind to say that everyone is his relative? Rather, this baraita should be understood as follows: Everyone is considered to be like his relative in the sense that everyone rends his garment in anguish over him, and everyone bares his shoulder over him in mourning, and everyone eats the mourner’s meal over him in the public square as mourners do. The death of a Torah scholar is a personal loss for every Jew. So why is the mishna limited to only relatives? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in a case where the deceased is not a Torah scholar.,The Gemara asks: And if the deceased was an upright person who feared Heaven and performed good deeds, then aren’t all those present at his death obligated to rend their garments over his death? As it is taught in a baraita: For what reason do a person’s sons and daughters die when they are young? They die so that he will cry and mourn over the death of an upright person.,The Gemara questions the formulation: They die so that he will cry and mourn? Is security, i.e., his children, taken from him in advance to ensure that in the future he will mourn over the death of an upright person? Rather the baraita means as follows: His children died because he did not cry or mourn over an upright person who died. As with regard to anyone who cries and mourns over an upright person who died, they forgive him for all his transgressions because of the honor he accorded to the deceased. If this is the case, one also rends his clothes over an upright person. The Gemara answers: Rather, the mishna is referring only to one who was not an upright person.,The Gemara challenges: But if one was standing there at the time of the soul’s departure, i.e., at the time of death, he is also obligated to rend his clothes. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One who stands over the deceased at the time of the soul’s departure is obligated to rend his clothes. To what may this be likened? To a Torah scroll that is burned, for which anyone present is obligated to rend his clothes.,The Gemara answers: The mishna must be referring to a person who was not standing there at the time of the soul’s departure but who heard that someone who is not a close relative died, and the deceased was neither a Torah scholar nor an upright person.,§ The Gemara relates that when Rav Safra passed away the other Sages did not rend their garments over him. They said: We did not learn from him, as he did not disseminate his Torah knowledge to the public. Abaye berated them and said to them: Is it taught in the baraita: If one’s teacher died? It is taught: If a Torah scholar died, and Rav Safra was certainly a Torah scholar. And furthermore, every day his teachings are in our mouths in the study hall, so that even if we did not learn directly from him, we should still be considered his students.,The other Sages thought that what was done was done, and it was now too late for them to rend their garments. Abaye said to them: We learned: With regard to a Torah scholar, as long as they are engaged in eulogizing him, then people are obligated to rend their garments, even after the time of his death. They then thought to rend their garments immediately. Abaye said to them: It is taught in a baraita: A Torah scholar’s honor is at the time of his eulogy, and so you should wait until the time of the eulogy before rending your garments.,§ The Gemara relates another incident: When Rav Huna died they thought to place a Torah scroll on his bier, as was commonly done after the death of a Torah scholar, as if to say that the deceased fulfilled everything written in the scroll. Rav Ḥisda said to them: This is a practice that he did not hold with during his lifetime; now should we stand up and do it for him when he is dead? As Rav Taḥlifa said: I myself saw Rav Huna, who wished to sit on his bed, and there was a Torah scroll placed on it. And he turned a jug over and placed the Torah scroll on it so that he could then sit on the bed. Apparently he holds that it is prohibited to sit on a bed upon which a Torah scroll lies. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to lay a Torah scroll next to his body after he died.,When they tried to remove his corpse from his house for the burial, the bier would not fit through the narrow door. They then thought to lower the bier from the roof. Rav Ḥisda said to them: This I learned from him, Rav Huna himself: A scholar’s honor is for him to be taken out through the main opening, and not in any other manner.,They then thought to move him from his bier to a narrower bier so that it would fit through the door. But Rav Ḥisda said to them: I learned from him, Rav Huna himself, as follows: A scholar’s honor is for him to be taken out on the first bier. As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: From where is it derived that a scholar’s honor is for him to be taken out on the first bier? As it is stated: “And they set the Ark of God upon a new cart” (II\xa0Samuel 6:3). When taking the Ark to Jerusalem, King David had it placed back on the cart upon which it had been returned by the Philistines, and a Torah scholar is considered to be similar to the Ark of the Covet. When they saw that there was nothing else that they could do, they broke the doorway and took him out through it.,Rabbi Abba opened his eulogy for him: Our Rabbi was worthy that the Divine Presence should rest upon him, except for the fact that Babylonia caused it not to rest. In other words, it was only because he lived in Babylonia and not in Eretz Yisrael that the Divine Presence did not rest upon him.,Rav Naḥman bar Ḥisda raised an objection against this, and some say that it was Rav Ḥa bar Ḥisda: Is it not stated: “The word of the Lord came hayo haya to Ezekiel the priest, son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans” (Ezekiel 1:3), thereby implying that a prophet can prophesy outside of Eretz Yisrael?,His father tapped him with his sandal on his foot, thereby hinting to him that he should be quiet. He said to him: Have I not told you not to trouble everyone with questions in the middle of a eulogy? The Gemara answers the question: What is the meaning of the doubling of the word “came hayo haya”? It implies that it had already come before, i.e., that Ezekiel had already begun to prophesy in Eretz Yisrael, and his prophecy in Babylonia was merely a continuation of that prophecy.,§ The Gemara relates that when they took Rav Huna there, to Eretz Yisrael, for burial they said to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi: Rav Huna has come, and they misunderstood and thought that he was still alive. They said: When we were there, in Babylonia, we did not have strength to lift our heads before him. Now that we have come here, has he come after us?,They said to them: His coffin has come. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi went out to meet his funeral procession. Rabbi Ila and Rabbi Ḥanina did not go out. Some say that Rabbi Ila went out, but Rabbi Ḥanina did not go out.,The Gemara asks: Those who went out, what is the reason that they went? As it is taught in a baraita: When a coffin is passing from place to place, the people stand in a line to show respect for the deceased, and they recite the mourners’ blessing and the consolation of the mourners over it. Those who did not go out, what is the reason that they did not? As it is taught in another baraita: When a coffin is passing from place to place, they do not stand in a line to show respect for the deceased, and they do not recite the mourners’ blessing or the consolation of the mourners for him.,The Gemara asks: If so, these two tannaitic statements contradict each other. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult: Here, the baraita is referring to a case where the skeleton of the deceased is still intact, and the mourning practices must be observed. And there the baraita is referring to a case where the skeleton of the deceased is no longer intact, and it is not necessary to observe the customs of mourning. And Rav Huna’s skeleton was still intact. The reason that the one Sage did not go out was that they did not confirm for him that the skeleton was still intact.,The Sages of Eretz Yisrael said: Where shall we bury him? They concluded: Rav Huna disseminated Torah to the people of Israel, and similarly Rabbi Ḥiyya disseminated Torah to the people of Israel; therefore, it is appropriate to bury Rav Huna next to Rabbi Ḥiyya.,They asked: Who will take him in to Rabbi Ḥiyya’s burial cave, as few are fit to enter it? Rav Ḥagga said to them: I will take him into the cave, for I presented my studies before him when I was just eighteen, never having experienced a seminal emission. And so too I attended to him and knew his great deeds. For example, one day one of the straps of his phylacteries turned around, the unpainted side being turned outward, and he observed forty fasts for this, as he had acted negligently, allowing the black side to face inward.,Rav Ḥagga took him in. The body of Rabbi Ḥiyya’s son Yehuda lay buried to the right of his father, and the body of his other son Ḥizkiyya lay to his left. The spirit of Yehuda said to the spirit of Ḥizkiyya: Rise from your place, as it is not proper conduct to remain lying when the body of Rav Huna is standing here. When Ḥizkiyya’s corpse stood up, a pillar of fire rose with him. When Rabbi Ḥagga saw this, he was frightened by what he saw, and so he stood up Rav Huna’s coffin and went away. The Gemara comments: And he was not punished or harmed by this pillar of fire because he set up Rav Huna’s coffin as protection for himself.,§ The Gemara relates another story about the burial of one of the Sages: When Rav Ḥisda died they thought to place a Torah scroll on his bier. Rabbi Yitzḥak said to them: This is a practice that this Rabbi did not hold with during his lifetime; should we stand up and do it for him now that he is dead?,They then thought not to tack, i.e., sew up, the tears that they had made in their clothes. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Ami said to them: When the deceased is a Torah Sage, they may tack the tears once they turn their faces from the bier.,The Gemara relates that when Rabba bar Huna and Rav Hamnuna died, they took them both up there, to Eretz Yisrael.'' None | |
|
9. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Huna • Huna, R. • Huna, Rav • Rabba b. Rav Huna
Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 88, 95; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 192; Rubenstein (2018), The Land of Truth: Talmud Tales, Timeless Teachings, 49; Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 201; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 201
| 29b כל היכא דליכא אלא חמש סלעים הוא קודם לבנו מאי טעמא מצוה דגופיה עדיפא כי פליגי היכא דאיכא חמש משועבדים וחמש בני חורין,ר\' יהודה סבר מלוה דכתיב בתורה ככתובה בשטר דמיא בהני חמש פריק לבריה ואזיל כהן וטריף ליה לחמש משועבדים לדידיה,ורבנן סברי מלוה דכתיב באורייתא לאו ככתובה בשטר דמיא והילכך מצוה דגופיה עדיף,ת"ר לפדות את בנו ולעלות לרגל פודה את בנו ואחר כך עולה לרגל ר\' יהודה אומר עולה לרגל ואח"כ פודה את בנו שזו מצוה עוברת וזו מצוה שאינה עוברת,בשלמא לר\' יהודה כדקאמר טעמא אלא רבנן מאי טעמייהו דאמר קרא (שמות לד, כ) כל בכור בניך תפדה והדר לא יראו פני ריקם,ת"ר מנין שאם היו לו חמשה בנים מחמש נשים שחייב לפדות כולן ת"ל כל בכור בניך תפדה פשיטא בפטר רחם תלא רחמנא,מהו דתימא נילף בכור בכור מנחלה מה להלן ראשית אונו אף כאן ראשית אונו קמ"ל:,ללמדו תורה: מנלן דכתיב (דברים יא, יט) ולמדתם אותם את בניכם והיכא דלא אגמריה אבוה מיחייב איהו למיגמר נפשיה דכתיב ולמדתם,איהי מנלן דלא מיחייבא דכתיב ולימדתם ולמדתם כל שמצווה ללמוד מצווה ללמד וכל שאינו מצווה ללמוד אינו מצווה ללמד,ואיהי מנלן דלא מיחייבה למילף נפשה דכתיב ולימדתם ולמדתם כל שאחרים מצווין ללמדו מצווה ללמד את עצמו וכל שאין אחרים מצווין ללמדו אין מצווה ללמד את עצמו ומנין שאין אחרים מצווין ללמדה דאמר קרא ולמדתם אותם את בניכם ולא בנותיכם,ת"ר הוא ללמוד ובנו ללמוד הוא קודם לבנו ר\' יהודה אומר אם בנו זריז וממולח ותלמודו מתקיים בידו בנו קודמו כי הא דרב יעקב בריה דרב אחא בר יעקב שדריה אבוה לקמיה דאביי כי אתא חזייה דלא הוה מיחדדין שמעתיה א"ל אנא עדיפא מינך תוב את דאיזיל אנא,שמע אביי דקא הוה אתי הוה ההוא מזיק בי רבנן דאביי דכי הוו עיילי בתרין אפי\' ביממא הוו מיתזקי אמר להו לא ליתיב ליה אינש אושפיזא אפשר דמתרחיש ניסא,על בת בההוא בי רבנן אידמי ליה כתנינא דשבעה רישוותיה כל כריעה דכרע נתר חד רישיה אמר להו למחר אי לא איתרחיש ניסא סכינתין,ת"ר ללמוד תורה ולישא אשה ילמוד תורה ואח"כ ישא אשה ואם א"א לו בלא אשה ישא אשה ואח"כ ילמוד תורה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה נושא אשה ואח"כ ילמוד תורה,ר\' יוחנן אמר ריחיים בצוארו ויעסוק בתורה ולא פליגי הא לן והא להו:,משתבח ליה רב חסדא לרב הונא בדרב המנונא דאדם גדול הוא א"ל כשיבא לידך הביאהו לידי כי אתא חזייה דלא פריס סודרא א"ל מאי טעמא לא פריסת סודרא א"ל דלא נסיבנא אהדרינהו לאפיה מיניה א"ל חזי דלא חזית להו לאפי עד דנסבת,רב הונא לטעמיה דאמר בן עשרים שנה ולא נשא אשה כל ימיו בעבירה בעבירה סלקא דעתך אלא אימא כל ימיו בהרהור עבירה,אמר רבא וכן תנא דבי ר\' ישמעאל עד כ\' שנה יושב הקב"ה ומצפה לאדם מתי ישא אשה כיון שהגיע כ\' ולא נשא אומר תיפח עצמותיו,אמר רב חסדא האי דעדיפנא מחבראי דנסיבנא בשיתסר ואי הוה נסיבנא בארביסר'70b אין שואלין בשלום אשה על ידי בעלה אמר ליה הכי אמר שמואל אין שואלין בשלום אשה כלל שלחה ליה דביתהו שרי ליה תגריה דלא נישוויך כשאר עם הארץ,א"ל מאי שיאטיה דמר הכא אמר ליה טסקא דהזמנותא שדר מר אבתראי אמר ליה השתא שותא דמר לא גמירנא טסקא דהזמנותא משדרנא למר אפיק דיסקא דהזמנותא מבי חדיה ואחזי ליה אמר ליה הא גברא והא דסקא אמר ליה הואיל ואתא מר להכא לישתעי מיליה כי היכי דלא לימרו מחנפי רבנן אהדדי,אמר ליה מאי טעמא שמתיה מר לההוא גברא ציער שליחא דרבנן ונגדיה מר דרב מנגיד על מאן דמצער שלוחא דרבנן דעדיף מיניה עבדי ליה,מאי טעמא אכריז מר עליה דעבדא הוא אמר ליה דרגיל דקרי אינשי עבדי ותני כל הפוסל פסול ואינו מדבר בשבחא לעולם ואמר שמואל במומו פוסל אימר דאמר שמואל למיחש ליה לאכרוזי עליה מי אמר,אדהכי והכי (אתא ההוא בר דיניה מנהרדעי) א"ל ההוא בר דיניה לרב יהודה לדידי קרית לי עבדא דאתינא מבית חשמונאי מלכא אמר ליה הכי אמר שמואל כל דאמר מדבית חשמונאי קאתינא עבדא הוא,א"ל לא סבר לה מר להא דא"ר אבא אמר רב הונא אמר רב כל ת"ח שמורה הלכה ובא אם קודם מעשה אמרה שומעין לו ואם לאו אין שומעין לו אמר ליה הא איכא רב מתנה דקאי כוותי,רב מתנה לא חזייה לנהרדעא תליסר שני ההוא יומא אתא אמר ליה דכיר מר מאי אמר שמואל כי קאי חדא כרעא אגודא וחדא כרעא במברא א"ל הכי אמר שמואל כל דאמר מדבית חשמונאי מלכא קאתינא עבדא הוא דלא אישתיור מינייהו אלא ההיא רביתא דסלקא לאיגרא ורמיא קלא ואמרה כל דאמר מבית חשמונאי אנא עבדא הוא,נפלה מאיגרא ומיתה אכרוז עליה דעבדא הוא,ההוא יומא אקרען כמה כתובתא בנהרדעא כי קא נפיק נפקי אבתריה למירגמיה אמר להו אי שתיקו שתיקו ואי לא מגלינא עלייכו הא דאמר שמואל תרתי זרעייתא איכא בנהרדעא חדא מיקריא דבי יונה וחדא מיקריא דבי עורבתי וסימניך טמא טמא טהור טהור שדיוה לההוא ריגמא מידייהו וקם אטמא בנהר מלכא,מכריז רב יהודה בפומבדיתא אדא ויונתן עבדי יהודה בר פפא ממזירא בטי בר טוביה ברמות רוחא לא שקיל גיטא דחירותא מכריז רבא במחוזא בלאי דנאי טלאי מלאי זגאי כולם לפסול אמר רב יהודה גובאי גבעונאי דורנוניתא דראי נתינאי אמר רב יוסף האי בי כובי דפומבדיתא כולם דעבדי,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל ארבע מאות עבדים ואמרי לה ארבעת אלפים עבדים היו לו לפשחור בן אימר וכולם נטמעו בכהונה וכל כהן שיש בו עזות פנים אינו אלא מהם אמר אביי כולהו יתבן בשורא דבנהרדעא ופליגא דרבי אלעזר דאמר ר\' אלעזר אם ראית כהן בעזות מצח אל תהרהר אחריו שנא\' (הושע ד, ד) ועמך כמריבי כהן,אמר רבי אבין בר רב אדא אמר רב כל הנושא אשה שאינה הוגנת לו כשהקב"ה משרה שכינתו מעיד על כל השבטים ואין מעיד עליו שנאמר (תהלים קכב, ד) שבטי יה עדות לישראל אימתי הוי עדות לישראל בזמן שהשבטים שבטי יה,אמר ר\' חמא ברבי חנינא כשהקב"ה משרה שכינתו אין משרה אלא על משפחות מיוחסות שבישראל שנא\' (ירמיהו לא, א) בעת ההיא נאם ה\' אהיה לאלהים לכל משפחות ישראל לכל ישראל לא נאמר אלא לכל משפחות,והמה יהיו לי לעם אמר רבה בר רב הונא זו מעלה יתירה יש בין ישראל לגרים דאילו בישראל כתיב בהו (יחזקאל לז, כז) והייתי להם לאלהים והמה יהיו לי לעם ואילו בגרים כתיב (ירמיהו ל, כא) מי הוא זה ערב את לבו לגשת אלי נאם ה\' והייתם לי לעם ואנכי אהיה לכם לאלהים,אמר רבי חלבו קשים גרים לישראל כספחת שנאמר (ישעיהו יד, א) ונלוה הגר עליהם ונספחו על בית יעקב כתיב הכא ונספחו וכתיב התם (ויקרא יד, נו) לשאת ולספחת,אמר רבי חמא בר חנינא כשהקדוש ברוך הוא ' None | 29b that anywhere that there are only five sela available, i.e., enough to redeem only one man, and one is obligated to redeem both himself and his son, he, the father, takes precedence over his son. What is the reason? It is that his own mitzva is preferable to one that he performs on behalf of others. When they disagree is in a case where there is land worth five sela that is liened property that has been sold, i.e., he sold this land to other people but it can be reclaimed by his prior creditor, and five sela which is entirely unsold property.,And the reasoning behind the dispute is as follows: Rabbi Yehuda maintains that a loan that is written in the Torah, i.e., any ficial obligation that applies by Torah law, is considered as though it is written in a document, and therefore it can be collected from liened property, like any loan recorded in a document. This means that the liened property worth five sela is available for one’s own redemption, but not for that of his son, as the sale of the property occurred before the birth of his firstborn. Consequently, with these five sela upon which there is no lien he redeems his son, and the priest goes and repossesses the land worth five sela that is liened property for his own redemption. In this manner one can fulfill both mitzvot.,And the Rabbis maintain: A loan that is written in the Torah is not considered as though it is written in a document, since buyers will not be aware of this obligation, so that they should be aware that the land may be repossessed. And therefore there is no advantage for this man to redeem his son with the five sela upon which there is no lien, and his own mitzva is preferable, which means he redeems himself with the free land. With the liened property that is left he cannot redeem his son, as the land was sold before the birth of his firstborn.,The Sages taught: If one has money to redeem his son and to ascend to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival, he redeems his son and then ascends to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival. Rabbi Yehuda says: He ascends to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival and then redeems his son. His reasoning is that this trip to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage Festival is a mitzva whose time soon passes, and this, the redemption of the firstborn son, is a mitzva whose time does not soon pass, as it can be fulfilled later.,The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, it is as he stated in his reasoning, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda provided the rationale for his opinion. But what is the reasoning of the Rabbis, who say that he should first redeem his son? The Gemara answers that the reason is that the verse states: “All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem” (Exodus 34:20), and it then states, in the same verse: “And none shall appear before me empty,” referring to the pilgrimage Festival in Jerusalem. The order of the verse indicates that one should redeem his firstborn son before traveling to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival.,The Sages taught: From where is it derived that if one had five firstborn sons, from five different women, he is obligated to redeem them all? The verse states: “All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem” (Exodus 34:20), and the emphasis of “all” includes any of one’s firstborn sons. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious this is the case? After all, the Merciful One made this mitzva dependent upon the opening of the womb, as it states: “Sanctify to Me all the firstborn, whoever opens the womb” (Exodus 13:2). Since each of these sons is the firstborn of his mother, it is clear that the father is required to redeem each of them.,The Gemara answers that this ruling is necessary lest you say that we should derive a verbal analogy between “firstborn” stated here and “firstborn” from the verses dealing with inheritance: Just as there, the verse describes a firstborn who receives a double portion of the inheritance as: “The first fruit of his strength” (Deuteronomy 21:17), i.e., he is the firstborn son to his father, and not the first child born to his mother; so too here, with regard to the redemption of the firstborn son, it is referring to the first fruit of his strength, which would mean that the father need redeem only his oldest child. Therefore, this baraita teaches us that this is not the case. Rather, every firstborn son to his mother must be redeemed.,§ The baraita teaches that a father is obligated to teach his son Torah. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this requirement? As it is written: “And you shall teach them velimadtem to your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:19). And in a case where his father did not teach him he is obligated to teach himself, as it is written, i.e., the verse can be read with a different vocalization: And you shall study ulmadtem.,From where do we derive that a woman is not obligated to teach her son Torah? As it is written: “And you shall teach velimadtem,” which can be read as: And you shall study ulmadtem. This indicates that whoever is commanded to study Torah is commanded to teach, and whoever is not commanded to study is not commanded to teach. Since a woman is not obligated to learn Torah, she is likewise not obligated to teach it.,The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that she is not obligated to teach herself? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And you shall teach velimadtem,” which can be read as: And you shall study ulmadtem, which indicates that whoever others are commanded to teach is commanded to teach himself, and whoever others are not commanded to teach is not commanded to teach himself. And from where is it derived that others are not commanded to teach a woman? As the verse states: “And you shall teach them to your sons” (Deuteronomy 11:19), which emphasizes: Your sons and not your daughters.,The Sages taught: If one wishes to study Torah himself and his son also wants to study, he takes precedence over his son. Rabbi Yehuda says: If his son is diligent and sharp, and his study will endure, his son takes precedence over him. This is like that anecdote which is told about Rav Ya’akov, son of Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, whose father sent him to Abaye to study Torah. When the son came home, his father saw that his studies were not sharp, as he was insufficiently bright. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said to his son: I am preferable to you, and it is better that I go and study. Therefore, you sit and handle the affairs of the house so that I can go and study.,Abaye heard that Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov was coming. There was a certain demon in the study hall of Abaye, which was so powerful that when two people would enter they would be harmed, even during the day. Abaye said to the people of the town: Do not give Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov lodging ushpiza so that he will be forced to spend the night in the study hall. Since Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov is a righteous man, perhaps a miracle will occur on his behalf and he will kill the demon.,Rav Aḥa found no place to spend the night, and he entered and spent the night in that study hall of the Sages. The demon appeared to him like a serpent with seven heads. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov began to pray, and with every bow that he bowed one of the demon’s heads fell off, until it eventually died. The next day Rav Aḥa said to the townspeople: If a miracle had not occurred, you would have placed me in danger.,The Sages taught: If one has to decide whether to study Torah or to marry a woman, which should he do first? He should study Torah and afterward marry a woman. And if it is impossible for him to be without a wife, he should marry a woman and then study Torah. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is that one should marry a woman and afterward study Torah.,Rabbi Yoḥa says: How can one do this? With a millstone hanging from his neck, i.e., with the responsibility of providing for his family weighing upon him, can he engage in Torah study? The Gemara comments: And the amora’im do not disagree; this is for us and that is for them. In other words, one statement applies to the residents of Babylonia, whereas the other is referring to those living in Eretz Yisrael.,§ With regard to marriage, the Gemara relates: Rav Ḥisda would praise Rav Hamnuna to Rav Huna by saying that he is a great man. Rav Huna said to him: When he comes to you, send him to me. When Rav Hamnuna came before him, Rav Huna saw that he did not cover his head with a cloth, as Torah scholars did. Rav Huna said to him: What is the reason that you do not cover your head with a cloth? Rav Hamnuna said to him: The reason is that I am not married, and it was not customary for unmarried men to cover their heads with a cloth. Rav Huna turned his face away from him in rebuke, and he said to him: See to it that you do not see my face until you marry.,The Gemara notes: Rav Huna conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: If one is twenty years old and has not yet married a woman, all of his days will be in a state of sin concerning sexual matters. The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that he will be in a state of sin all of his days? Rather, say that this means the following: All of his days will be in a state of thoughts of sin, i.e., sexual thoughts. One who does not marry in his youth will become accustomed to thoughts of sexual matters, and the habit will remain with him the rest of his life.,Rava said, and similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Until one reaches the age of twenty years the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and waits for a man, saying: When will he marry a woman? Once he reaches the age of twenty and has not married, He says: Let his bones swell, i.e., he is cursed and God is no longer concerned about him.,Rav Ḥisda said: The fact that I am superior to my colleagues is because I married at the age of sixteen, and if I would have married at the age of fourteen,'70b One may not send greetings to a woman even with a messenger, as this may cause the messenger and the woman to relate to each other inappropriately. Rav Naḥman countered by suggesting that he send his greetings with her husband, which would remove all concerns. Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: One may not send greetings to a woman at all. Yalta, his wife, who overheard that Rav Yehuda was getting the better of the exchange, sent a message to him: Release him and conclude your business with him, so that he not equate you with another ignoramus.,Desiring to release Rav Yehuda, Rav Naḥman said to him: What is the reason that the Master is here? Rav Yehuda said to him: The Master sent me a summons. Rav Naḥman said to him: Now that I have not even learned the Master’s form of speech, as you have demonstrated your superiority to me by reproving me even over such matters, could I have sent a summons to the Master? Rav Yehuda removed the summons from his bosom and showed it to him. While doing so, Rav Yehuda said to him: Here is the man and here is the document. Rav Naḥman said to him: Since the Master has come here, let him present his statement, in order that people should not say: The Sages flatter one another and do not judge each other according to the letter of the law.,Rav Naḥman commenced the deliberation, and said to him: What is the reason that the Master excommunicated that man? Rav Yehuda replied: He caused discomfort to an agent of one of the Sages, and therefore he deserved the punishment of one who causes discomfort to a Torah scholar. Rav Naḥman challenged this answer: If so, let the Master flog him, as Rav would flog one who causes discomfort to an agent of the Sages. Rav Yehuda responded: I punished him more severely than that. Rabbi Yehuda held that excommunication is a more severe punishment than flogging.,Rav Naḥman further inquired: What is the reason that the Master proclaimed about him that he is a slave? Rav Yehuda said to him: Because he is in the habit of calling people slaves, and it is taught: Anyone who disqualifies others by stating that their lineage is flawed, that is a sign that he himself is of flawed lineage. Another indication of his lineage being flawed is that he never speaks in praise of others. And Shmuel said: He disqualifies with his own flaw. Rav Naḥman retorted: You can say that Shmuel said this halakha only to the degree that one should suspect him of being of flawed lineage. But did he actually say this to the extent that one could proclaim about him that he is of flawed lineage?,The Gemara continues the story: Meanwhile, that litigant arrived from Neharde’a. That litigant said to Rav Yehuda: You call me a slave? I, who come from the house of the Hasmonean kings? Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: Anyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmonean kings, is a slave. As will be explained, only slaves remained of their descendants.,Rav Naḥman, who heard this exchange, said to Rav Yehuda: Does the Master not hold in accordance with this halakha that Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: With regard to any Torah scholar who proceeds to teach a ruling of halakha with regard to a particular issue, if he said it before an action that concerns himself occurred, they should listen to him, and his ruling is accepted. But if not, if he quoted the halakha only after he was involved in an incident related to the halakha he is quoting, they do not listen to him, due to his personal involvement? Your testimony with regard to what Shmuel ruled should be ignored, as you stated it only after the incident. Rav Yehuda said to Rav Naḥman: There is Rav Mattana, who stands by my report, since he has also heard this ruling of Shmuel.,The Gemara continues: Rav Mattana had not seen the city of Neharde’a for thirteen years. That very day he arrived. Rav Yehuda said to him: Does the Master remember what Shmuel said when he was standing with one foot on the bank and one foot on the ferry? Rav Mattana said to him: This is what Shmuel said at that time: Anyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmonean kings, is a slave, as none remained of them except for that young girl who ascended to the roof and raised her voice and said: From now on, anyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmonean kings, is a slave. Other than this girl, the only members of the family who remained were descendants of Herod, and he was an Edomite slave.,The girl then fell from the roof and died, leaving only slaves from the Hasmoneans. With the confirmation of the report of the statement of Shmuel, they also publicized in Neharde’a about him, i.e., that man who claimed to come from the Hasmonean kings, that he was a slave.,The Gemara relates: On that day, several marriage contracts were torn up in Neharde’a, as many had their marriages annulled after having discovered that they had married slaves. When Rav Yehuda was leaving Neharde’a, they pursued him, seeking to stone him, as because of him it was publicized that their lineage was flawed. Rav Yehuda said to them: If you are silent, remain silent. And if you will not remain silent, I will reveal about you this statement that Shmuel said: There are two lines of offspring in Neharde’a. One is called the dove’s house, and one is called the raven’s house. And your mnemonic with regard to lineage is: The impure bird, the raven, is impure, meaning flawed, and the pure one, the dove, is pure, meaning unflawed. Upon hearing this, they threw all those stones that they were intending to stone him with from their hands, as they did not want him to reveal who had a flawed lineage. And as a result of all of the stones thrown into the river, a dam arose in the Malka River.,§ The Gemara continues the discussion of those with a flawed lineage: Rav Yehuda proclaimed in Pumbedita: Adda and Yonatan, known residents of that town, are slaves; Yehuda bar Pappa is a mamzer; Bati bar Tuviyya, in his arrogance, did not accept a bill of manumission and is still a slave. Rava proclaimed in his city of Meḥoza: Balla’ai, Danna’ai, Talla’ai, Malla’ai, Zagga’ai: All these families are of flawed lineage. Rav Yehuda likewise says: Gova’ai, the inhabitants of a place called Gova, are in fact Gibeonites, and their name has been corrupted. Similarly, those people known as Dorenunita are from the village of Gibeonites, and they may not marry Jews with unflawed lineage. Rav Yosef says: With regard to this place called Bei Kuvei of Pumbedita, its residents are all descendants of slaves.,Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Four hundred slaves, and some say four thousand slaves, were owned by Pashḥur ben Immer, a priest in the time of Jeremiah, and due to their greatness they were assimilated into the priesthood and became known as priests. And any priest who has the trait of insolence is only from them. Abaye said: They all sit in the rows of honor that are in the city of Neharde’a. The Gemara comments: And this statement disagrees with the statement of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: If you see an insolent priest, do not speculate about him that he may be of flawed lineage, since it is stated: “For your people are as those who strive with a priest” (Hosea 4:4), which indicates that priests had a reputation for being cantankerous.,§ The Gemara discusses an idea raised earlier. Rabbi Avin bar Rav Adda says that Rav says: Concerning anyone who marries a woman who is not suited for him to marry, when the Holy One, Blessed be He, rests His Divine Presence upon the Jewish people, He testifies with regard to all the tribes that they are His people, but He does not testify with regard to he who married improperly, as it is stated: “The tribes of the Lord, as a testimony to Israel” (Psalms 122:4). When is it a testimony to Israel? When the tribes are the tribes of the Lord, but not when their lineage is flawed.,Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, rests His Divine Presence, He rests it only upon families of unflawed lineage among Israel, as it is stated: “At that time, says the Lord, will I be the God of all the families of Israel” (Jeremiah 30:25). of all Israel, is not stated, but “of all the families,” which includes only those of unflawed lineage, the renowned families of Israel.,The verse from Jeremiah ends with the words “And they shall be my people.” Rabba bar Rav Huna says: This is a higher standard that differentiates between those born as Jews and converts, as with regard to those born as Jews it is written about them: “And I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Ezekiel 37:27), whereas with regard to converts it is written: “For who is he that has pledged his heart to approach unto Me? says the Lord. And you shall be My people, and I will be your God” (Jeremiah 30:21–22). This teaches that converts are not drawn close to God, as indicated by the words “And I will be your God,” until they first draw themselves near to God, as indicated by the subsequent phrase “And you shall be my people.”,Rabbi Ḥelbo says: Converts are as difficult for the Jewish people as a scab. The proof is that it is stated: “And the convert shall join himself with them, and they shall cleave venispeḥu to the house of Jacob” (Isaiah 14:1). It is written here “venispeḥu,” and it is written there, among the types of leprosy: “And for a sore and for a scab sappaḥat” (Leviticus 14:56). The use of a term with a similar root indicates that converts are like a scab for the Jewish people.,Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina says: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, ' None |
|
10. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Huna • Huna bar Joshua • Huna the Exilarch • Huna, R. • Huna, Rav
Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 98, 99; Hasan Rokem (2003), Tales of the Neighborhood Jewish Narrative Dialogues in Late Antiquity, 28; Herman, Rubenstein (2018), The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World. 130, 131; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 167
| 20b נזדמן לו אדם אחד שהיה מכוער ביותר אמר לו שלום עליך רבי ולא החזיר לו אמר לו ריקה כמה מכוער אותו האיש שמא כל בני עירך מכוערין כמותך אמר לו איני יודע אלא לך ואמור לאומן שעשאני כמה מכוער כלי זה שעשית כיון שידע בעצמו שחטא ירד מן החמור ונשתטח לפניו ואמר לו נעניתי לך מחול לי אמר לו איני מוחל לך עד שתלך לאומן שעשאני ואמור לו כמה מכוער כלי זה שעשית,היה מטייל אחריו עד שהגיע לעירו יצאו בני עירו לקראתו והיו אומרים לו שלום עליך רבי רבי מורי מורי אמר להם למי אתם קורין רבי רבי אמרו לו לזה שמטייל אחריך אמר להם אם זה רבי אל ירבו כמותו בישראל אמרו לו מפני מה אמר להם כך וכך עשה לי אמרו לו אעפ"כ מחול לו שאדם גדול בתורה הוא,אמר להם בשבילכם הריני מוחל לו ובלבד שלא יהא רגיל לעשות כן מיד נכנס רבי אלעזר בן רבי שמעון ודרש לעולם יהא אדם רך כקנה ואל יהא קשה כארז ולפיכך זכה קנה ליטול הימנה קולמוס לכתוב בו ספר תורה תפילין ומזוזות:,וכן עיר שיש בה דבר או מפולת כו\': תנו רבנן מפולת שאמרו בריאות ולא רעועות שאינן ראויות ליפול ולא הראויות ליפול,הי ניהו בריאות הי ניהו שאינן ראויות ליפול הי ניהו רעועות הי ניהו ראויות ליפול לא צריכא דנפלו מחמת גובהייהו אי נמי דקיימן אגודא דנהרא,כי ההיא אשיתא רעועה דהואי בנהרדעא דלא הוה חליף רב ושמואל תותה אע"ג דקיימא באתרה תליסר שנין יומא חד איקלע רב אדא בר אהבה להתם אמר ליה שמואל לרב ניתי מר נקיף אמר ליה לא צריכנא האידנא דאיכא רב אדא בר אהבה בהדן דנפיש זכותיה ולא מסתפינא,רב הונא הוה ליה ההוא חמרא בההוא ביתא רעיעא ובעי לפנוייה עייליה לרב אדא בר אהבה להתם משכי\' בשמעתא עד דפנייה בתר דנפק נפל ביתא ארגיש רב אדא בר אהבה איקפד,סבר לה כי הא דאמר רבי ינאי לעולם אל יעמוד אדם במקום סכנה ויאמר עושין לי נס שמא אין עושין לו נס ואם תימצי לומר עושין לו נס מנכין לו מזכיותיו אמר רב חנן מאי קרא דכתיב (בראשית לב, יא) קטנתי מכל החסדים ומכל האמת,מאי הוה עובדיה דרב אדא בר אהבה כי הא דאתמר שאלו תלמידיו (את רבי זירא ואמרי לה) לרב אדא בר אהבה במה הארכת ימים אמר להם מימי לא הקפדתי בתוך ביתי ולא צעדתי בפני מי שגדול ממני,ולא הרהרתי במבואות המטונפות ולא הלכתי ד\' אמות בלא תורה ובלא תפילין ולא ישנתי בבית המדרש לא שינת קבע ולא שינת עראי ולא ששתי בתקלת חברי ולא קראתי לחבירי בהכינתו ואמרי לה בחניכתו,אמר ליה רבא לרפרם בר פפא לימא לן מר מהני מילי מעלייתא דהוה עביד רב הונא אמר ליה בינקותיה לא דכירנא בסיבותיה דכירנא דכל יומא דעיבא הוו מפקין ליה בגוהרקא דדהבא וסייר לה לכולה מתא וכל אשיתא דהוות רעיעתא הוה סתר לה אי אפשר למרה בני לה ואי לא אפשר בני לה איהו מדידיה,וכל פניא דמעלי שבתא הוה משדר שלוחא לשוקא וכל ירקא דהוה פייש להו לגינאי זבין ליה ושדי ליה לנהרא וליתביה לעניים זמנין דסמכא דעתייהו ולא אתו למיזבן ולשדייה לבהמה קסבר מאכל אדם אין מאכילין לבהמה,ולא ליזבניה כלל נמצאת מכשילן לעתיד לבא,כי הוה ליה מילתא דאסותא הוי מלי כוזא דמיא ותלי ליה בסיפא דביתא ואמר כל דבעי ליתי ולישקול ואיכא דאמרי מילתא דשיבתא הוה גמיר והוה מנח כוזא דמיא ודלי ליה ואמר כל דצריך ליתי וליעול דלא לסתכן,כי הוה כרך ריפתא הוה פתח לבביה ואמר כל מאן דצריך ליתי וליכול אמר רבא כולהו מצינא מקיימנא לבר מהא דלא מצינא למיעבד'21b ביום אחד או בארבעה ימים אין זה דבר,דרוקרת עיר המוציאה חמש מאות רגלי הוה ויצאו ממנה שלשה מתים ביום אחד גזר רב נחמן בר רב חסדא תעניתא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק כמאן כר"מ,דאמר ריחק נגיחותיו חייב קירב נגיחותיו לא כ"ש,א"ל רב נחמן בר רב חסדא לרב נחמן בר יצחק ליקום מר ליתי לגבן א"ל תנינא רבי יוסי אומר לא מקומו של אדם מכבדו אלא אדם מכבד את מקומו שכן מצינו בהר סיני שכל זמן שהשכינה שרויה עליו אמרה תורה (שמות לד, ג) גם הצאן והבקר אל ירעו אל מול ההר ההוא נסתלקה שכינה ממנו אמרה תורה (שמות יט, יג) במשוך היובל המה יעלו בהר,וכן מצינו באהל מועד שבמדבר שכל זמן שהוא נטוי אמרה תורה (במדבר ה, ב) וישלחו מן המחנה כל צרוע הוגללו הפרוכת הותרו זבין והמצורעים ליכנס שם,אמר ליה אי הכי ניקום אנא לגבי מר אמר ליה מוטב יבא מנה בן פרס אצל מנה בן מנה ואל יבא מנה בן מנה אצל מנה בן פרס,בסורא הוות דברתא בשיבבותיה דרב לא הוות דברתא סברו מיניה משום זכותיה דרב דנפיש איתחזי להו בחילמא רב דנפישא זכותיה טובא הא מילתא זוטרא ליה לרב אלא משום ההוא גברא דשייל מרא וזבילא לקבורה,בדרוקרת הוות דליקתא ובשיבבותיה דרב הונא לא הוות דליקתא סבור מינה בזכותא דרב הונא דנפיש איתחזי להו בחילמא האי זוטרא ליה לרב הונא אלא משום ההיא איתתא דמחממת תנורא ומשיילי לשיבבותיה,אמרו ליה לרב יהודה אתו קמצי גזר תעניתא אמרו ליה לא קא מפסדן אמר להו זוודא אייתו בהדייהו,אמרו ליה לרב יהודה איכא מותנא בחזירי גזר תעניתא נימא קסבר רב יהודה מכה משולחת ממין אחד משולחת מכל המינין לא שאני חזירי דדמיין מעייהו לבני אינשי,אמרו ליה לשמואל איכא מותנא בי חוזאי גזר תעניתא א"ל והא מרחק אמר ליכא מעברא הכא דפסיק ליה,אמרו ליה לרב נחמן איכא מותנא בארעא דישראל גזר תעניתא אמר אם גבירה לוקה שפחה לא כל שכן,טעמא דגבירה ושפחה הא שפחה ושפחה לא והא אמרו ליה לשמואל איכא מותנא בי חוזאי גזר תעניתא שאני התם כיון דאיכא שיירתא דלווי ואתיא בהדיה,אבא אומנא הוה אתי ליה שלמא ממתיבתא דרקיעא כל יומא ולאביי כל מעלי יומא דשבתא לרבא כל מעלי יומא דכיפורי הוה קא חלשא דעתיה דאביי משום דאבא אומנא אמרו ליה לא מצית למיעבד כעובדיה,ומאי הוו עובדיה דאבא אומנא דכי הוה עביד מילתא הוה מחית גברי לחוד ונשי לחוד ואית ליה לבושא דאית ביה קרנא דהוות בזיעא כי כוסילתא כי הוות אתיא ליה איתתא הוה מלביש לה כי היכי דלא ניסתכל בה ואית ליה דוכתא דצניעא דשדי ביה פשיטי דשקיל דאית ליה שדי ביה דלית ליה לא מיכסיף,כי הוה אתרמי ליה צורבא מרבנן אגרא מיניה לא שקיל ובתר דקאי יהיב ליה פשיטי ואמר ליה זיל בריא נפשך יומא חד שדר אביי זוגא דרבנן למיבדקיה אותבינהו ואכלינהו ואשקינהו ומך להו ביסתרקי בליליא ' None | 20b He happened upon an exceedingly ugly person, who said to him: Greetings to you, my rabbi, but Rabbi Elazar did not return his greeting. Instead, Rabbi Elazar said to him: Worthless reika person, how ugly is that man. Are all the people of your city as ugly as you? The man said to him: I do not know, but you should go and say to the Craftsman Who made me: How ugly is the vessel you made. When Rabbi Elazar realized that he had sinned and insulted this man merely on account of his appearance, he descended from his donkey and prostrated himself before him, and he said to the man: I have sinned against you; forgive me. The man said to him: I will not forgive you go until you go to the Craftsman Who made me and say: How ugly is the vessel you made.,He walked behind the man, trying to appease him, until they reached Rabbi Elazar’s city. The people of his city came out to greet him, saying to him: Greetings to you, my rabbi, my rabbi, my master, my master. The man said to them: Who are you calling my rabbi, my rabbi? They said to him: To this man, who is walking behind you. He said to them: If this man is a rabbi, may there not be many like him among the Jewish people. They asked him: For what reason do you say this? He said to them: He did such and such to me. They said to him: Even so, forgive him, as he is a great Torah scholar.,He said to them: For your sakes I forgive him, provided that he accepts upon himself not to become accustomed to behave like this. Immediately, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, entered the study hall and taught: A person should always be soft like a reed and he should not be stiff like a cedar, as one who is proud like a cedar is likely to sin. And therefore, due to its gentle qualities, the reed merited that a quill is taken from it to write with it a Torah scroll, phylacteries, and mezuzot.,§ The mishna taught: And likewise, if a city is afflicted by pestilence or collapsing buildings, that city fasts and sounds the alarm, and all of its surrounding areas fast but they do not sound the alarm. Rabbi Akiva says: They sound the alarm but they do not fast. The Sages taught: These collapsing buildings to which the Sages referred are those of sturdy and not dilapidated walls; they have walls that are not ready to fall, and not those that are ready to fall.,The Gemara expresses puzzlement with regard to the wording of the baraita: What are sound walls; what are walls that are not ready to fall; what are dilapidated walls; what are those that are ready to fall? The elements in each pair of walls are apparently the same, and the baraita is repetitive. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to specify that in the case of walls that fell due to their height, i.e., they are sound but also ready to fall, due to their excessive height. Alternatively, the baraita is referring to a case where the walls were positioned on a riverbank, as they are likely to fall despite the fact that they are not dilapidated, as the riverbank itself is unstable.,The Gemara relates: This is like that dilapidated wall that was in Neharde’a, under which Rav and Shmuel would not pass, although it stood in place thirteen years. One day Rav Adda bar Ahava happened to come there and walked with them. As they passed the wall, Shmuel said to Rav: Come, Master, let us circumvent this wall, so that we do not stand beneath it. Rav said to him: It is not necessary to do so today, as Rav Adda bar Ahava is with us, whose merit is great, and therefore I am not afraid of its collapse.,The Gemara relates another incident. Rav Huna had a certain quantity of wine in a certain dilapidated house and he wanted to move it, but he was afraid that the building would collapse upon his entry. He brought Rav Adda bar Ahava to there, to the ramshackle house, and he dragged out a discussion with him concerning a matter of halakha until they had removed all the wine. As soon as they exited, the building collapsed. Rav Adda bar Ahava realized what had happened and became angry.,The Gemara explains: Rav Adda bar Ahava holds in accordance with this statement, as Rabbi Yannai said: A person should never stand in a place of danger and say: A miracle will be performed for me, and I will escape unharmed, lest a miracle is not performed for him. And if you say that a miracle will be performed for him, they will deduct it from his merits. Rav Ḥa said: What is the verse that alludes to this idea? As it is written: “I have become small from all the mercies and all the truth that You have showed Your servant” (Genesis 32:11). In other words, the more benevolence one receives from God, the more his merit is reduced.,After recounting stories that reflect Rav Adda bar Ahava’s great merit, the Gemara asks: What were the exceptional deeds of Rav Adda bar Ahava? The Gemara reports that they are as it is stated: The students of Rabbi Zeira asked him, and some say that the students of Rav Adda bar Ahava asked him: To what do you attribute your longevity? He said to them: In all my days I did not become angry with my household, and I never walked before someone greater than myself; rather, I always gave him the honor of walking before me.,Rav Adda bar Ahava continued: And I did not think about matters of Torah in filthy alleyways; and I did not walk four cubits without engaging in Torah and without donning phylacteries; and I would not fall asleep in the study hall, neither a deep sleep nor a brief nap; and I would not rejoice in the mishap of my colleague; and I would not call my colleague by his nickname. And some say that he said: I would not call my colleague by his derogatory family name.,§ The Gemara relates another story about the righteous deeds of the Sages involving a dilapidated wall. Rava said to Rafram bar Pappa: Let the Master tell us some of those fine deeds that Rav Huna performed. He said to him: I do not remember what he did in his youth, but the deeds of his old age I remember. As on every cloudy day they would take him out in a golden carriage guharka, and he would survey the entire city. And he would command that every unstable wall be torn down, lest it fall in the rain and hurt someone. If its owner was able to build another, Rav Huna would instruct him to rebuild it. And if he was unable to rebuild it, Rav Huna would build it himself with his own money.,Rafram bar Pappa further relates: And every Shabbat eve, in the afternoon, Rav Huna would send a messenger to the marketplace, and he would purchase all the vegetables that were left with the gardeners who sold their crops, and throw them into the river. The Gemara asks: But why did he throw out the vegetables? Let him give them to the poor. The Gemara answers: If he did this, the poor would sometimes rely on the fact that Rav Huna would hand out vegetables, and they would not come to purchase any. This would ruin the gardeners’ livelihood. The Gemara further asks: And let him throw them to the animals. The Gemara answers: He holds that human food may not be fed to animals, as this is a display of contempt for the food.,The Gemara objects: But if Rav Huna could not use them in any way, he should not purchase the vegetables at all. The Gemara answers: If nothing is done, you would have been found to have caused a stumbling block for them in the future. If the vegetable sellers see that some of their produce is left unsold, the next week they will not bring enough for Shabbat. Therefore, Rav Huna made sure that the vegetables were all bought, so that the sellers would continue to bring them.,Another custom of Rav Huna was that when he had a new medicine, he would fill a water jug with the medicine and hang it from the doorpost of his house, saying: All who need, let him come and take from this new medicine. And there are those who say: He had a remedy against the demon Shivta that he knew by tradition, that one must wash his hands for protection against this evil spirit. And to this end, he would place a water jug and hang it by the door, saying: Anyone who needs, let him come to the house and wash his hands, so that he will not be in danger.,The Gemara further relates: When Rav Huna would eat bread, he would open the doors to his house, saying: Whoever needs, let him come in and eat. Rava said: I can fulfill all these customs of Rav Huna, except for this one, which I cannot do,'21b If all three died on one day or over four days, this is not a plague of pestilence.,In explanation of the counterintuitive ruling that many deaths in one day is not indicative of a plague, the Gemara relates: Drokart was a city that sent out five hundred infantrymen, and three dead were removed from it on one day. Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda decreed a fast on account of the plague. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: In accordance with whose opinion did you declare this fast? It must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.,This is related to the definition of a forewarned ox, an animal that has gored enough times to be considered a dangerous beast that requires careful supervision, as Rabbi Meir said: The owner of an ox is liable to pay full damages if its acts of goring were separated, i.e., if it gored three times on three consecutive days, as claimed by the Rabbis. If its acts of goring were near each other, performed on a single day, is it not all the more so that this animal should be classified as a forewarned ox? However, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak continued, this represents a minority opinion. Just as Rabbi Meir’s reasoning is rejected for halakha in the case of an ox, so too it is rejected with regard to a plague.,Upon hearing this impressive argument, Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Let the Master arise and come to live with us as our community leader. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: We already learned in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: It is not the place of a person that honors him; rather, the person honors his place, as we found with regard to Mount Sinai, that as long as the Divine Presence rested upon it, the Torah said: “Neither let the flocks nor the herds feed before that mount” (Exodus 34:3). Once the Divine Presence departed from the mountain, the Torah said: “When the shofar sounds long they shall come up to the mount” (Exodus 19:13). This indicates that the sanctity was not inherent to the place but was due to the Divine Presence resting there.,And we likewise found with regard to the Tent of Meeting that was in the wilderness, that whenever it was erected, the Torah said: “That they put out of the camp every leper” (Numbers 5:2). Once the curtain was rolled up and the Tent of Meeting was prepared for travel, zavim and lepers were permitted to enter the place where it had stood. The place itself had no intrinsic sanctity; rather, it was sacred only because the Divine Presence was there. Accordingly, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak maintained that there is no reason for him to move places to receive honor.,Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: If so, let me arise and come to the Master, to learn Torah from you. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: It is better that one hundred dinars that is the son of a peras, fifty dinars, should come to one hundred dinars that is the son of one hundred dinars; but one hundred dinars that is the son of one hundred dinars, should not come to one hundred dinars that is the son of a peras. In other words, although Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was a learned scholar, comparable to one hundred dinars, it was nevertheless more appropriate for him to come to Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda. Whereas Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was the son of a peras, an ordinary man, Rav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisda was the son of a scholar.,The Gemara relates another story involving a plague: Once there was a plague of pestilence in Sura, but in the neighborhood of Rav there was no pestilence. The people therefore thought that this was due to Rav’s great merit. However, it was revealed to them in a dream that Rav’s merit was too great and this matter too small for the merit of Rav to be involved. Rather, his neighborhood was spared due to the acts of kindness of a certain man, who would lend his hoe mara and shovel zevila to prepare sites for burial.,The Gemara relates a similar incident. In Drokart there was a fire, but in the neighborhood of Rav Huna there was no fire. The people therefore thought that this was due to Rav Huna’s great merit. It was revealed to them in a dream that this matter was too small for the merit of Rav Huna to have played a role. Rather, it was due to a certain woman who heats her oven and lends it, i.e., the use of her oven, to her neighbors.,They said to Rav Yehuda: Locusts have come to our region. Rav Yehuda decreed a fast. They said to him: They are not destroying anything, as they are eating only a little. He said to them: Have they brought provisions with them, that they have something else to eat? Even if they are not damaging your crops now, they will certainly eat them soon.,On another occasion, they said to Rav Yehuda: There is pestilence among the pigs. Rav Yehuda decreed a fast. The Gemara asks: Let us say that Rav Yehuda maintains that a plague affecting one species will come to affect all species, and that is why he decreed a fast. The Gemara answers: No, in other cases there is no cause for concern. However, pigs are different, as their intestines are similar to those of humans. Consequently, their disease might spread to people.,They said to Shmuel: There is pestilence in the region of Bei Ḥozai, which is quite a distance from Babylonia. Shmuel decreed a fast. They said to him: But it is far from here. He said: There is no crossing here that will stop the pestilence, and therefore there is cause for concern that it will reach us.,They said to Rav Naḥman: There is pestilence in Eretz Yisrael. Rav Naḥman decreed a fast in Babylonia, saying: If the lady of the house, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, is afflicted, is it not all the more so that the maidservant, Babylonia, will be afflicted?,The Gemara asks: The reason for this ruling is apparently only because Eretz Yisrael is a lady in comparison to the Diaspora, which is likened to a maidservant. It may be inferred from this that in a case involving a maidservant and a maidservant, i.e., two places in the Diaspora, there is no reason to fast. But in the previous story, when they said to Shmuel: There is pestilence in the region of Bei Ḥozai, he decreed a fast in Neharde’a, despite the fact that Neharde’a is not considered a lady with respect to Bei Ḥozai. The Gemara answers: It is different there. Since there are caravans that regularly travel from Bei Ḥozai to Neharde’a, the pestilence will join and accompany them in the caravans.,§ Apropos the above stories that deal with the merits of ordinary people, the Gemara relates: Abba the Bloodletter would receive greetings from the yeshiva on High every day, and Abaye would receive these greetings every Shabbat eve, and Rava would receive greetings only once a year on Yom Kippur eve. Abaye was distressed due to Abba the Bloodletter, as he did not understand why Abba received greater honor than he did. They said to him: You are unable to perform what he does, and therefore you do not merit the same honor.,The Gemara asks: And what were these righteous deeds of Abba the Bloodletter? The Gemara explains that when he would perform a matter of bloodletting, he would bring in men separately from women, for reasons of modesty. And he had a special garment that had a slit in the place of the incision kusilta where the bloodletting instrument was inserted. When a woman came to him, he would have her dress in that garment, so that he would not see her exposed. And furthermore, he had a hidden place where he worked, where customers would place the coins peshitei that he would take as his fee. In this manner, one who had money would throw it there, while one who did not have money was not embarrassed.,When a Torah scholar came to him for bloodletting, he would take no pay from him, and after the scholar arose, Abba would give him money and say to him: Go and purchase food with this money to heal yourself, as it is important to eat healthy food after bloodletting. One day, Abaye sent a pair of Sages to investigate the extent of Abba the Bloodletter’s righteousness. Abba the Bloodletter sat them down, and gave them food to eat, and gave them something to drink. And at night he spread out mats bistarkei for them to sleep on. ' None |
|
11. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Huna • Huna (the Babylonian), Rav • Huna, R. • Huna, Rav • Rav Hiya son of Rav Huna
Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 74; Herman, Rubenstein (2018), The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World. 290; Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 53, 91; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 18; Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 29
| 46b בטבל ולא מל כולי עלמא לא פליגי דמהני כי פליגי במל ולא טבל רבי אליעזר יליף מאבות ורבי יהושע באבות נמי טבילה הוה,מנא ליה אילימא מדכתיב (שמות יט, י) לך אל העם וקדשתם היום ומחר וכבסו שמלותם ומה במקום שאין טעון כבוס טעון טבילה מקום שטעון כבוס אינו דין שטעון טבילה,ודלמא נקיות בעלמא,אלא מהכא (שמות כד, ח) ויקח משה את הדם ויזרוק על העם וגמירי דאין הזאה בלא טבילה,ורבי יהושע טבילה באמהות מנלן סברא הוא דאם כן במה נכנסו תחת כנפי השכינה,א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן לעולם אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול פשיטא יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים,מאן חכמים רבי יוסי,דתניא הרי שבא ואמר מלתי ולא טבלתי מטבילין אותו ומה בכך דברי ר\' יהודה רבי יוסי אומר אין מטבילין,לפיכך מטבילין גר בשבת דברי ר\' יהודה ור\' יוסי אומר אין מטבילין,אמר מר לפיכך מטבילין גר בשבת פשיטא כיון דא"ר יהודה בחדא סגיא היכא דמל לפנינו מטבילין מאי לפיכך,מהו דתימא לרבי יהודה טבילה עיקר וטבילה בשבת לא דקא מתקן גברא קמ"ל דר\' יהודה או הא או הא בעי,ר\' יוסי אומר אין מטבילין פשיטא דכיון דאמר רבי יוסי תרתי בעינן תקוני גברא בשבת לא מתקנינן,מהו דתימא לר\' יוסי מילה עיקר והתם הוא דלא הואי מילה בפנינו אבל היכא דהויא מילה בפנינו אימא ליטבל זה בשבתא קמ"ל דרבי יוסי תרתי בעי,אמר רבה עובדא הוה בי רבי חייא בר רבי ורב יוסף מתני רבי אושעיא בר רבי ורב ספרא מתני ר\' אושעיא בר\' חייא דאתא לקמיה גר שמל ולא טבל א"ל שהי כאן עד למחר ונטבלינך,ש"מ תלת ש"מ גר צריך שלשה וש"מ אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול וש"מ אין מטבילין גר בלילה ונימא ש"מ נמי בעינן מומחין דלמא דאיקלעו,אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן גר צריך ג\' משפט כתיב ביה,ת"ר מי שבא ואמר גר אני יכול נקבלנו ת"ל אתך במוחזק לך בא ועדיו עמו מנין ת"ל (ויקרא יט, לג) וכי יגור אתך גר בארצכם 63b מן החטא מקרי ליה רב יהודה לרב יצחק בריה (קהלת ז, כו) ומוצא אני מר ממות את האשה א"ל כגון מאן כגון אמך,והא מתני ליה רב יהודה לרב יצחק בריה אין אדם מוצא קורת רוח אלא מאשתו ראשונה שנאמר (משלי ה, יח) יהי מקורך ברוך ושמח מאשת נעוריך וא"ל כגון מאן כגון אמך מתקיף תקיפא ועבורי מיעברא במלה,היכי דמי אשה רעה אמר אביי מקשטא ליה תכא ומקשטא ליה פומא רבא אמר מקשטא ליה תכא ומהדרא ליה גבא,אמר רבי חמא בר חנינא כיון שנשא אדם אשה עונותיו מתפקקין שנאמר (משלי יח, כב) מצא אשה מצא טוב ויפק רצון מה\' במערבא כי נסיב אינש איתתא אמרי ליה הכי מצא או מוצא מצא דכתיב מצא אשה מצא טוב מוצא דכתיב ומוצא אני מר ממות את האשה,אמר רבא אשה רעה מצוה לגרשה דכתיב (משלי כב, י) גרש לץ ויצא מדון וישבות דין וקלון ואמר רבא אשה רעה וכתובתה מרובה צרתה בצדה דאמרי אינשי בחברתה ולא בסילתא ואמר רבא קשה אשה רעה כיום סגריר שנאמר (משלי כז, טו) דלף טורד ביום סגריר ואשת מדינים נשתוה,ואמר רבא בא וראה כמה טובה אשה טובה וכמה רעה אשה רעה כמה טובה אשה טובה דכתיב מצא אשה מצא טוב אי בגוה משתעי קרא כמה טובה אשה טובה שהכתוב משבחה אי בתורה משתעי קרא כמה טובה אשה טובה שהתורה נמשלה בה כמה רעה אשה רעה דכתיב ומוצא אני מר ממות את האשה אי בגוה משתעי קרא כמה רעה אשה רעה שהכתוב מגנה אי בגיהנם משתעי קרא כמה רעה אשה רעה שגיהנם נמשלה בה,(ירמיהו יא, יא) הנני מביא רעה אשר לא יוכלו לצאת ממנה אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה זו אשה רעה וכתובתה מרובה (איכה א, יד) נתנני ה\' בידי לא אוכל קום אמר רב חסדא אמר מר עוקבא בר חייא זו אשה רעה וכתובתה מרובה במערבא אמרו זה שמזונותיו תלוין בכספו,(דברים כח, לב) בניך ובנותיך נתונים לעם אחר אמר רב חנן בר רבא אמר רב זו אשת האב (דברים לב, כא) בגוי נבל אכעיסם אמר רב חנן בר רבא אמר רב זו אשה רעה וכתובתה מרובה רבי אליעזר אומר אלו הצדוקים וכן הוא אומר (תהלים יד, א) אמר נבל בלבו אין אלהים וגו\',במתניתא תנא אלו אנשי ברבריא ואנשי מרטנאי שמהלכין ערומים בשוק שאין לך משוקץ ומתועב לפני המקום יותר ממי שמהלך בשוק ערום רבי יוחנן אמר אלו חברים אמרו ליה לר\' יוחנן אתו חברי לבבל שגא נפל אמרו ליה מקבלי שוחדא תריץ יתיב,גזרו על ג\' מפני ג\' גזרו על הבשר מפני המתנות גזרו על המרחצאות מפני הטבילה,קא מחטטי שכבי מפני ששמחים ביום אידם שנאמר (שמואל א יב, טו) והיתה יד ה\' בכם ובאבותיכם אמר רבה בר שמואל זו חטוטי שכבי דאמר מר בעון חיים מתים מתחטטין,א"ל רבא לרבה בר מארי כתיב (ירמיהו ח, ב) לא יאספו ולא יקברו לדומן על פני האדמה יהיו וכתיב (ירמיהו ח, ג) ונבחר מות מחיים אמר ליה נבחר מות לרשעים שלא יחיו בעולם הזה ויחטאו ויפלו בגיהנם,כתוב בספר בן סירא אשה טובה מתנה טובה לבעלה וכתיב טובה בחיק ירא אלהים תנתן אשה רעה צרעת לבעלה מאי תקנתיה יגרשנה ויתרפא מצרעתו אשה יפה אשרי בעלה מספר ימיו כפלים,העלם עיניך מאשת חן פן תלכד במצודתה אל תט אצל בעלה למסוך עמו יין ושכר כי בתואר אשה יפה רבים הושחתו ועצומים כל הרוגיה רבים היו פצעי רוכל המרגילים לדבר ערוה כניצוץ מבעיר גחלת ככלוב מלא עוף כן בתיהם מלאים מרמה,אל תצר צרת מחר כי לא תדע מה ילד יום שמא מחר בא ואיננו נמצא מצטער על העולם שאין שלו מנע רבים מתוך ביתך ולא הכל תביא ביתך רבים יהיו דורשי שלומך גלה סוד לאחד מאלף,אמר רבי אסי אין בן דוד בא עד שיכלו כל הנשמות שבגוף שנאמר (ישעיהו נז, טז) כי רוח מלפני יעטוף ונשמות אני עשיתי תניא רבי אליעזר אומר כל מי שאין עוסק בפריה ורביה כאילו שופך דמים שנאמר (בראשית ט, ו) שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך וכתיב בתריה ואתם פרו ורבו,רבי יעקב אומר כאילו ממעט הדמות שנאמר (בראשית ט, ו) כי בצלם אלהים עשה את האדם וכתיב בתריה ואתם פרו וגו\' בן עזאי אומר כאילו שופך דמים וממעט הדמות שנאמר ואתם פרו ורבו,אמרו לו לבן עזאי יש נאה דורש ונאה מקיים נאה מקיים ואין נאה דורש ואתה נאה דורש ואין נאה מקיים אמר להן בן עזאי ומה אעשה שנפשי חשקה בתורה אפשר לעולם שיתקיים על ידי אחרים,תניא אידך רבי אליעזר אומר כל מי שאין עוסק בפריה ורביה כאילו שופך דמים שנאמר שופך דם האדם וסמיך ליה ואתם פרו וגו\' רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר כאילו ממעט הדמות בן עזאי אומר וכו\' אמרו לו לבן עזאי יש נאה דורש וכו\',ת"ר (במדבר י, לו) ובנחה יאמר שובה ה\' רבבות אלפי ישראל 105b אמר רב יהודה אמר רב זו דברי ר\' מאיר אבל חכמים אומרים אין חליצת קטן כלום:,קטנה שחלצה וכו\': אמר רב יהודה אמר רב זו דברי ר"מ דאמר איש כתוב בפרשה ומקשינן אשה לאיש,אבל חכמים אומרים איש כתיב בפרשה אשה בין גדולה בין קטנה,מאן חכמים רבי יוסי היא דר\' חייא ור\' שמעון בר רבי הוו יתבי פתח חד מינייהו ואמר המתפלל צריך שיתן עיניו למטה שנאמר (מלכים א ט, ג) והיו עיני ולבי שם כל הימים,וחד אמר עיניו למעלה שנאמר (איכה ג, מא) נשא לבבנו אל כפים אדהכי אתא ר\' ישמעאל בר\' יוסי לגבייהו אמר להו במאי עסקיתו אמרו ליה בתפלה אמר להו כך אמר אבא המתפלל צריך שיתן עיניו למטה ולבו למעלה כדי שיתקיימו שני מקראות הללו,אדהכי אתא רבי למתיבתא אינהו דהוו קלילי יתיבו בדוכתייהו רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי אגב יוקריה הוה מפסע ואזיל,אמר ליה אבדן מי הוא זה שמפסע על ראשי עם קדוש אמר ליה אני ישמעאל בר\' יוסי שבאתי ללמוד תורה מרבי אמר ליה וכי אתה הגון ללמוד תורה מרבי,אמר ליה וכי משה היה הגון ללמוד תורה מפי הגבורה אמר ליה וכי משה אתה אמר ליה וכי רבך אלהים הוא אמר רב יוסף שקליה רבי למטרפסיה דקאמר ליה רבך ולא רבי,אדהכי אתיא יבמה לקמיה דרבי אמר ליה רבי לאבדן פוק בדקה לבתר דנפק אמר ליה ר\' ישמעאל כך אמר אבא איש כתוב בפרשה אבל אשה בין גדולה בין קטנה,אמר ליה תא לא צריכת כבר הורה זקן קמפסע אבדן ואתי אמר ליה רבי ישמעאל בר\' יוסי מי שצריך לו עם קדוש יפסע על ראשי עם קדוש מי שאין צריך לו עם קדוש היאך יפסע על ראשי עם קדוש,אמר ליה רבי לאבדן קום בדוכתיך תאנא באותה שעה נצטרע אבדן וטבעו שני בניו ומאנו שתי כלותיו אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק בריך רחמנא דכספיה לאבדן בהאי עלמא,אמר ר\' אמי מדבריו של ברבי נלמוד קטנה חולצת בפעוטות רבא אמר עד שתגיע לעונת נדרים והלכתא עד שתביא שתי שערות:,חלצה בשנים וכו\': אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן אין הלכה כאותו הזוג והא אמר ר"נ חדא זימנא דאמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן חליצה בשלשה,צריכי דאי איתמר הך קמייתא הוה אמינא ה"מ לכתחילה אבל דיעבד אפי\' תרי קמ"ל אין הלכה כאותו הזוג ואי אשמועינן אין הלכה כאותו הזוג אלא כתנא קמא ה"א דיעבד אבל לכתחילה ליבעי חמשה צריכא:,מעשה שחלצו כו\': בינו לבינה מי ידענא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל ועדים רואין אותו מבחוץ,איבעיא להו מעשה שחלצו בינו לבינה אבראי ובא מעשה לפני ר"ע בבית האסורין או דלמא מעשה שחלצו בינו לבינה בבית האסורין אמר רב יהודה אמר רב בבית האסורין היה מעשה ולבית האסורין בא מעשה'' None | 46b With regard to one who immersed but was not circumcised, everyone, i.e., both Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer, agrees that the halakha is derived from the foremothers that immersion alone is effective. Where they disagree is with regard to one who was circumcised but had not immersed; Rabbi Eliezer derives that it is effective from the forefathers, and Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees because he maintains that in the conversion of the forefathers there was also an immersion.,The Gemara asks: From where did he derive this? If we say that he derived it from the fact that it is written that in preparation for the revelation at Sinai, God commanded Moses: “Go unto the people and sanctify them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments” (Exodus 19:10), as Rabbi Yehoshua understands that the washing mentioned in this verse is the ritual immersion of clothes, this leads to the following a fortiori inference: Just as in a case where one became impure through contact with some source of impurity, washing, i.e., immersion, of clothes is not required but immersion of one’s body is required, then in a case where washing of clothes is required, as in the preparation for the revelation at Sinai, isn’t it logical that immersion of one’s body should also be required?,The Gemara rejects the proof: But perhaps when the verse states that they had to wash their clothes, it was merely for cleanliness and not for the sake of ritual purity. If so, no a fortiori inference can be drawn from it to the case of immersion for ritual purity.,Rather, Rabbi Yehoshua derived it from here, where the verse states with regard to the formation of the covet at Sinai: “And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it upon the people” (Exodus 24:8), and it is learned as a tradition that there is no ritual sprinkling without immersion. Therefore, our forefathers also must have immersed at Sinai, and consequently that is also an essential requirement for all conversions.,The Gemara asks: And with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, from where do we derive that also in the case of our foremothers there was immersion? The Gemara answers: It is based on logical reasoning, as, if so, that they did not immerse, then with what were they brought under the wings of the Divine Presence? Therefore, they also must have immersed.,Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: A man is never considered a convert until he is both circumcised and has immersed. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? In all disputes between an individual Sage and many Sages the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many Sages; it is therefore obvious that the halakha is in accordance with the Rabbis.,The Gemara explains: Who are the Rabbis referred to in the baraita? It is Rabbi Yosei. Since Rabbi Yosei is merely an individual Sage, it was necessarily for Rabbi Yoḥa to state explicitly that the halakha is ruled in accordance with his opinion.,Rabbi Yosei’s opinion is as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert who came and said: I was circumcised for the sake of conversion but I did not immerse, the court should immerse him, as what would be the problem with that; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Since in any case the court immerses him, Rabbi Yehuda does not require proof of the convert’s claim that he was circumcised for the sake of conversion because he holds that it is sufficient to be either circumcised or immersed for the sake of conversion. Rabbi Yosei says: The court does not immerse him. He holds that both circumcision and immersion must be performed specifically for the sake of conversion and are indispensable parts of the conversion process. Therefore, since it is impossible to verify the convert’s claim with regard to his circumcision, there is no benefit to having him immerse.,The baraita states a ramification of their dispute: Therefore, the court may immerse a convert who was already circumcised on Shabbat; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Since he holds that circumcision alone effected conversion, the immersion will not effect any further change in his status, and so it is permitted on Shabbat. And Rabbi Yosei says: The court may not immerse him. Since he holds that both circumcision and immersion are necessary to effect a conversion, the immersion will effect a change in his status by making him Jewish. Therefore it is prohibited to do so on Shabbat by rabbinic decree, because it appears similar to preparing a vessel for use.,The Gemara analyzes the latter clause: The Master said in the baraita: Therefore, the court may immerse a convert who was already circumcised on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this an obvious extension of his opinion; since Rabbi Yehuda said that either one of circumcision or immersion is sufficient, where a convert was circumcised in our presence the court may certainly immerse him, even on Shabbat. What, then, is the need for the baraita to include the clause that begins with: Therefore?,The Gemara explains: It is necessary to explicitly teach this ramification lest you say that according to Rabbi Yehuda the immersion is in fact the principal act that effects conversion, and when he said in the first clause that a convert who claims to have been circumcised should be immersed since there is no problem with that, his reasoning was that he holds it is only immersion that effects the conversion. And therefore performing the immersion on Shabbat would not be permitted, as it establishes the person with a new status and so would be prohibited by a rabbinic decree because it appears similar to preparing a vessel for use. The latter clause is therefore necessary to teach us that Rabbi Yehuda requires either this or that, i.e., either immersion or circumcision alone is sufficient to effect a conversion.,The Gemara analyzes the next statement in the baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: The court may not immerse him. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this an obvious extension of his opinion? As, since Rabbi Yosei requires two acts, both circumcision and immersion, to effect conversion, we may certainly not establish that person with a new status on Shabbat by completing his conversion by immersing him.,The Gemara explains: It is necessary to explicitly teach this ramification lest you say that according to Rabbi Yosei circumcision is in fact the principal act that effects conversion, and it is only there, in the first clause of the baraita, where the circumcision was not performed in our presence and so there is no way to verify whether it was done for the sake of conversion, that Rabbi Yosei states that the court should not proceed to immerse him; however, where the circumcision was performed in our presence, one might say that the conversion was already effected by the circumcision, and therefore let us immerse this convert on Shabbat. The latter clause is therefore necessary to teach us that Rabbi Yosei requires two acts, both circumcision and immersion, to effect conversion.,Rabba said: There was an incident in the house of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Rabbi, and as Rav Yosef teaches it, Rabbi Oshaya bar Rabbi was also present, and as Rav Safra teaches it, a third Sage, Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, was also present, in which a convert came before him who was circumcised but had not immersed. He said to the convert: Remain here with us until tomorrow, and then we will immerse you.,Rabba said: Learn from this incident three principles: Learn from it that a convert requires a court of three people to preside over the conversion, as Rav Safra taught that the case involved three Sages. And learn from it that one is not considered to be a convert until he has been both circumcised and immersed. And learn from it that the court may not immerse a convert at night, as they instructed him to remain there until the following day. The Gemara suggests: And let us say that one should also learn from it that we require a court of experts to preside over the conversion, as Rav Safra identified that three expert Sages were present. The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps they simply happened to be there, but in fact three laymen would suffice.,Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: A convert requires a court of three to preside over conversion, because “judgment,” is written with regard to him, as the verse states: “And one judgment shall be both for you and for the convert that sojourns with you” (Numbers 15:16), and legal judgments require a court of three judges.,The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to someone who came and said: I am a convert, one might have thought that we should accept him; therefore, the verse states: “And if a convert sojourns with you in your land, you shall not oppress him” (Leviticus 19:33). The emphasis on “with you” suggests that only someone who was already presumed by you to be a valid convert should be accepted as a convert. If he came and brought witnesses to his conversion with him, from where is it derived that he is to be accepted? It is from the beginning of that verse, which states: “And if a convert sojourns with you in your land.” 63b from sin. We should therefore show our gratitude to them. The Gemara cites a related incident: Rav Yehuda was teaching Torah to Rav Yitzḥak, his son, and they encountered the verse: “And I find more bitter than death the woman” (Ecclesiastes 7:26). His son said to him: For example, whom? His father replied: For example, your mother.,The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rav Yehuda teach Rav Yitzḥak, his son, the following baraita: A man finds peace of mind only with his first wife, as it is stated: “Let your fountain be blessed, and have joy from the wife of your youth” (Proverbs 5:18), and his son said to him: For example, whom, and his father responded in this case as well: For example, your mother. This indicates that Rav Yehuda did find peace of mind with his wife. The Gemara answers: She was aggressive and forceful, but she was easily appeased.,The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances when a woman is considered a bad wife? Abaye said: She arranges a table for him and arranges her mouth for him at the same time. In other words, although she prepares food for him, she verbally abuses him while he eats. Rava said: She arranges a table for him and then turns her back to him, displaying her lack of interest in his company.,Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: Once a man marries a woman his iniquities crumble mitpakekin, as it is stated: “Whoever finds a wife finds good, and obtains veyafek favor of the Lord” (Proverbs 18:22). In the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, when a man married a woman they would say to him as follows: Matza or motze? In other words, they would ask the groom if the appropriate passage for his wife is that verse, which begins with the word matza, as it is written: Whoever finds matza a wife finds good, or whether the more appropriate verse is the one beginning with the word motze, as it is written: “And I find motze more bitter than death the woman” (Ecclesiastes 7:26).,Rava said: It is a mitzva to divorce a bad wife, as it is written: “Cast out the scorner and contention will depart; strife and shame will cease” (Proverbs 22:10). And Rava said: A bad wife whose marriage contract settlement is too large for her husband to pay in the event of a divorce, her rival wife is at her side. In other words, the only way for him to improve matters is to take another wife. As people say in the well-known adage: The way to trouble a woman is with her peer and not with a thorn. And Rava said: A bad wife is as troublesome as a day of heavy rain, as it is stated: “A continual dropping on a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike” (Proverbs 27:15).,And Rava said: Come and see how good a good wife is and how bad a bad wife is. How good is a good wife? As it is written: Whoever finds a wife finds good. If the verse speaks of her, a wife, this demonstrates how good a good wife is, as the Bible praises her. If the verse speaks metaphorically of the Torah, it nevertheless indicates how good a good wife is, as the Torah is compared to her. Conversely, how bad is a bad wife? As it is written: “And I find more bitter than death the woman.” If the verse speaks of her, this demonstrates how bad a bad wife is, as the Bible condemns her. If the verse speaks metaphorically of Gehenna, it still demonstrates how bad a bad wife is, as Gehenna is compared to her.,The Gemara cites further statements on the same issue. The verse states: “Behold, I will bring evil upon them, which they shall not be able to escape” (Jeremiah 11:11). Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: This is a bad wife whose marriage contract is large. Similarly, with regard to the verse: “The Lord has given me into the hands of those against whom I cannot stand” (Lamentations 1:14), Rav Ḥisda said that Mar Ukva bar Ḥiyya said: This is a bad wife whose marriage contract is large. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they said this verse is referring to one whose food is dependent on his money. He is forced to purchase his food with cash, as he does not possess land of his own.,With regard to the verse: “Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people” (Deuteronomy 28:32), Rav Ḥa bar Rava said that Rav said: This is a reference to the children’s father’s wife, their stepmother. With regard to the verse: “I will provoke them with a vile nation” (Deuteronomy 32:21), Rav Ḥa bar Rava said that Rav said: This is a bad wife whose marriage contract is large. Rabbi Eliezer says that these are apostates, and so too the verse states: “The vile man has said in his heart: There is no God, they have dealt corruptly” (Psalms 14:1), which proves that an apostate is called vile.,It was taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “I will provoke them with a vile nation,” that these are the inhabitants of Barbarya and the inhabitants of Martenai, who walk naked in the marketplace, as none is more despised and abominable before the Omnipresent than one who walks naked in the marketplace. Rabbi Yoḥa said: These are the Ḥabbarim, a sect of Persian priests. The Gemara relates: When they said to Rabbi Yoḥa: The Ḥabbarim have come to Babylonia, he shuddered and fell of his chair, out of concern for the Jews living there. They said to him: There is a way to deal with their persecution, as they accept bribes. Upon hearing that not all was lost, he straightened himself and sat in his place once again.,Apropos the Ḥabbarim, the Gemara cites the following statement of the Sages: The Ḥabbarim were able to issue decrees against the Jewish people with regard to three matters, due to three transgressions on the part of the Jewish people. They decreed against meat, i.e., they banned ritual slaughter, due to the failure of the Jewish people to give the priests the gifts of the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw. They decreed against Jews bathing in bathhouses, due to their neglect of ritual immersion.,Third, they exhumed the dead from their graves because the Jews rejoice on the holidays of the gentiles, as it is stated: “Then shall the hand of the Lord be against you and against your fathers” (I\xa0Samuel 12:15). Rabba bar Shmuel said: This verse is referring to exhuming the dead, which upsets both the living and the dead, as the Master said: Due to the iniquity of the living, the dead are exhumed.,Rava said to Rabba bar Mari: It is written: “They shall not be gathered nor buried; they shall be for dung upon the face of the earth” (Jeremiah 8:2), and it is written: “And death shall be chosen rather than life” (Jeremiah 8:3). If death will be so indecent that their bodies will not even be buried, why would people choose death over life? Rabba bar Mari said to him: The latter verse does not refer to the previously described state of affairs, but rather it means: Death is preferable for the wicked, as it is better that they not live in this world and sin and consequently descend into Gehenna.,The Gemara cites more statements concerning women. It is written in the book of Ben Sira: A good wife is a good gift for her husband. And it is written: A good one will be placed in the bosom of a God-fearing man; a bad wife is a plague to her husband. What is his remedy? He should divorce her and he will be cured of his plague. A beautiful wife, happy is her husband; the number of his days are doubled. His pleasure in her beauty makes him feel as though he has lived twice as long.,Turn your eyes from a graceful woman who is married to another man, lest you be caught in her trap. Do not turn to her husband to mix wine and strong drink with him, which can lead to temptation. For on account of the countece of a beautiful woman many have been destroyed, and her slain is a mighty host. Furthermore, many have been the wounded peddlers. This is referring to men who travel from place to place to sell women’s jewelry. Their frequent dealings with women lead their husbands to harm the peddlers. Those who accustom themselves to licentious matters are like a spark that ignites a coal. As a cage is full of birds, so are their houses full of deceit.,The Gemara quotes additional statements from the book of Ben Sira: Do not suffer from tomorrow’s trouble, that is, do not worry about problems that might arise in the future, as you do not know what a day will bring. Perhaps when tomorrow comes, the individual who was so worried will not be among the living, and he was consequently upset over a world that is not his. Prevent a crowd from inside your house, do not let many people enter, and do not even bring all your friends into your house. Make sure, however, that a crowd seeks your welfare, and that you have many allies. Reveal a secret to only one in a thousand, since most people are unable to keep a secret.,Rabbi Asi said: The Messiah, son of David, will not come until all the souls of the body have been finished, i.e., until all souls that are destined to inhabit physical bodies will do so. As it is stated: “For the spirit that enwraps itself is from Me, and the souls that I have made” (Isaiah 57:16). It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who does not engage in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply is considered as though he sheds blood, as it is stated: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6), and it is written immediately afterward: “And you, be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 9:7).,Rabbi Ya’akov says: It is as though he diminishes the Divine Image, as it is stated: “For in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6), and it is written immediately afterward: “And you, be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 9:7). Ben Azzai says: It is as though he sheds blood and also diminishes the Divine Image, as it is stated: “And you, be fruitful and multiply,” after the verse that alludes to both shedding blood and the Divine Image.,They said to ben Azzai: There is a type of scholar who expounds well and fulfills his own teachings well, and another who fulfills well and does not expound well. But you, who have never married, expound well on the importance of procreation, and yet you do not fulfill well your own teachings. Ben Azzai said to them: What shall I do, as my soul yearns for Torah, and I do not wish to deal with anything else. It is possible for the world to be maintained by others, who are engaged in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply.,It is similarly taught in another baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who does not engage in the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply is considered as though he sheds blood, as it is stated: “Whoever sheds the blood of man,” and it is stated near it: “And you, be fruitful and multiply.” Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: It is as though he diminishes the Divine Image. Ben Azzai says: It is as though he both sheds blood and diminishes the Divine Image. They said to ben Azzai: There is a type of scholar who expounds well, etc.,The Sages taught with regard to the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply: “And when it rested, he would say: Return, Lord, to the ten thousands of the thousands of Israel” (Numbers 10:36). 105b Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This teaching of the mishna with regard to a minor is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that such a ḥalitza has significance in that it disqualifies a subsequent levirate marriage, but it is insufficient to permit the woman to marry a stranger. But the Rabbis say: The ḥalitza of a male minor isn’t significant of anything, as she is permitted to one of the brothers in levirate marriage as one who no ḥalitza was performed at all.,§ It was taught in the mishna: If a female minor performed ḥalitza, she must perform ḥalitza a second time once she becomes an adult, and if she does not, her first ḥalitza is invalid. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who said: “Man” is written in the Torah portion about ḥalitza: “And if the man does not wish” (Deuteronomy 25:7), implying an adult must perform ḥalitza, and we juxtapose and compare a woman with a man, indicating that the woman must also be an adult at the time of ḥalitza.,But the Rabbis say: “Man” is written in this Torah portion, which indicates that an adult male must perform ḥalitza, but with respect to the woman who removes the shoe, since the term woman is not used to describe her, but rather the more general term yevama is written, as the continuation of the above-mentioned verse says: “To take his yevama” (Deuteronomy 25:9), she may be either an adult or a female minor.,The Gemara asks: Who are these Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir? The Gemara answers: It is Rabbi Yosei, as it seems from this incident: As, Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi were sitting outside the house of study, immersed in Torah learning. One of them began and said: One who prays must direct his gaze downward while praying, as it is stated by God with regard to the Holy Temple: “And My eyes and My heart shall be there perpetually” (I\xa0Kings 9:3), meaning: The Divine Presence rests in the Eretz Yisrael, and one must direct his gaze to the sacred land when praying.,And one of them said he must direct his eyes upward, because it is stated: “Let us lift our hearts with our hands toward God in Heaven” (Lamentations 3:41). In the meantime, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, came beside them. He said to them: What are you dealing with? They said to him: With prayer, as we are debating the proper posture for prayer. He said to them: My father, Rabbi Yosei, said as follows: One who prays must direct his eyes downward and his heart upward, in order to fulfill both of these verses.,In the meantime, while they were talking, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came to the house of study and everyone quickly went to sit in their assigned places. Those who were light-footed hurried and sat in their places. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, due to his being very heavy, was stepping and walking slowly, as everyone was already sitting in his place on the ground, requiring him to pass over their heads in order to get to his place.,Abdon, the shortened form of the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s student and attendant, Abba Yudan, said to him: Who is that individual stepping over the heads of a sacred people, for it appeared to him as an act of disrespect to those sitting that Rabbi Yishmael stepped over their heads. He said to him: I am Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, who came to learn Torah from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Abdon said to him: But are you fit to learn Torah from Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, for it seems that you are showing disrespect to others in order to accomplish it?,He said to him: Was Moses fit to learn Torah from the mouth of the Almighty? Rather, it is not necessary that the student be as dignified as his teacher. He said to him: And are you Moses? Rabbi Yishmael said to him: And is your teacher God? Rav Yosef said about this part of the story: Here Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi received his retribution mittarpesei for remaining silent during this discussion and not reprimanding his student for humiliating Rabbi Yishmael. And what is his retribution? When Rabbi Yishmael spoke to Abdon, he said your teacher, and not my teacher, implying that he did not accept Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s authority upon himself.,In the meantime, a yevama came before Rabbi, and she was a minor close to the age of maturity who had performed ḥalitza, but it was not clear whether she had already reached the age of maturity necessary to validate her ḥalitza. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Abdon: Go and check to see if she has already reached maturity. After Abdon left, Rabbi Yishmael said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: My father, Rabbi Yosei, said as follows: “Man” is written in the Torah portion of ḥalitza, but the woman may be either an adult woman or a female minor.,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Abdon: Come back. You do not need to check, as the Elder, Rabbi Yosei, has already ruled that a minor can perform ḥalitza, and therefore no further examination is required. Abdon was stepping and coming over the heads of the others in order to return to his place. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: One upon whom a holy people depends may step over the heads of a holy people. But one upon whom a holy people does not depend, as there is no longer a need for Abdon to examination the woman, how can he step over the heads of a holy people?,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Abdon: Stand in your place and do not go any further. It was taught: At that moment Abdon was afflicted with leprosy as a punishment for insulting Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, and two of his sons who were recently married drowned, and his two daughters-in-law, who were minors married to those sons, made declarations of refusal and annulled their marriages. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Blessed is the Merciful One, Who shames Abdon in this world, for this prevents him from being punished further in the World-to-Come, as all his iniquities have been forgiven through this suffering.,Rabbi Ami said: From the words of the great man, Rabbi Yosei, let us learn: A female minor performs ḥalitza even as a young child, at age six or seven. Rava said: She may not perform ḥalitza until she reaches the age of vows as an eleven-year-old, when she has enough intellectual capacity to understand the meaning of a vow. However, the Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: She may not perform ḥalitza until she has two pubic hairs.,It was taught in the mishna: If she performed ḥalitza before two or three people, and one of them is found to be disqualified to serve as a judge, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yoḥa the Cobbler validate it. Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said that Rav Naḥman said: The halakha does not follow this pair who validate such a case. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rav Naḥman already say this same ruling one time before? As Rav Yosef bar Minyumi said that Rav Naḥman said: Ḥalitza must be conducted before three people, indicating that there must be no fewer than three valid judges.,The Gemara answers: Both are necessary, for if only the first one, stating that ḥalitza must be before three judges, were stated, I would say: This applies ab initio, but after the fact even two is acceptable. Therefore, he teaches us that the halakha does not follow this pair of Sages, and her ḥalitza before two people is invalid even after the fact. And vice versa: If he would have told us only that the halakha does not follow this pair, but rather the first tanna, I would say that it is valid if performed before three people only after the fact, but they must require five people ab initio, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. Therefore it is necessary to say both of these statements.,§ A story is told in the mishna about an incident in which a couple once performed ḥalitza between themselves in private while alone in prison, and the case later came before Rabbi Akiva and he validated it. The Gemara asks: How can we know what happened between him and her? There was no testimony to confirm it, and how can we be certain that the ḥalitza was done properly to validate it? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: And the ḥalitza was validated because there were witnesses who saw them from outside the prison, who testified that the ḥalitza was performed properly.,A dilemma was raised before the students in the house of study with regard to the incident recorded in the mishna in which a private ḥalitza performed in a prison was validated: Did the incident in which they performed ḥalitza between him and her privately actually take place outside in a different locale, and the reference to prison is that the case came before Rabbi Akiva when he was confined in prison? Or, perhaps the incident when they performed ḥalitza between him and her took place in prison, and then this case came before Rabbi Akiva? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The ḥalitza incident took place in prison, and also the case came to Rabbi Akiva when he was in prison.'' None |
|
12. None, None, nan (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Huna (the Babylonian), Rav • Huna, R.
Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 72; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 17
|
13. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None
Tagged with subjects: • Huna, Rav • Huna, Rav b. Rav Yehoshua • Huna, Rav b. Rav Yehoshu‘a • Rabba b. Rav Huna
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 102, 201, 202; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 102, 201, 202
39a התם ידיע ממשו הכא לא ידיע ממשן:,וטרית טרופה וציר שאין בה דגה וכו\': מאי חילק אמר רב נחמן בר אבא אמר רב זו סולתנית ומפני מה אסורה מפני שערבונה עולה עמה:,תנו רבנן אין לו עכשיו ועתיד לגדל לאחר זמן כגון הסולתנית והעפיץ הרי זה מותר יש לו עכשיו ועתיד להשיר בשעה שעולה מן הים כגון אקונס ואפונס כטספטייס ואכספטייס ואוטנס מותר,אכריז רבי אבהו בקיסרי קירבי דגים ועוברן ניקחין מכל אדם חזקתן אינן באים אלא מפלוסא ואספמיא כי הא דאמר אביי האי צחנתא דבב נהרא שריא,מ"ט אילימא משום דרדיפי מיא והאי דג טמא כיון דלית ליה חוט השדרה בדוכתא דרדיפי מיא לא מצי קאי והא קא חזינן דקאי,אלא משום דמליחי מיא והאי דג טמא כיון דלית ליה קלפי בדוכתא דמליחי מיא לא מצי קאי והא קחזינן דקאי אלא משום דלא מרבה טינא דג טמא אמר רבינא האידנא דקא שפכי ביה נהר גוזא ונהר גמדא אסירי,אמר אביי האי חמרא דימא שרי תורא דימא אסיר וסימניך טמא טהור טהור טמא,אמר רב אשי שפר נונא שרי קדש נונא אסיר וסימניך (שמות טז, כג) קדש לה\' איכא דאמרי קבר נונא אסור וסימניך קברי עובדי כוכבים,רבי עקיבא איקלע לגינזק אייתו לקמיה ההוא נונא דהוה דמי לחיפושא חפייה בדיקולא חזא ביה קלפי ושרייה רב אשי איקלע לטמדוריא אייתו לקמיה ההוא נונא דהוה דמי לצלופחא נקטיה להדי יומא חזא דהוה ביה צימחי ושרייה,רב אשי איקלע לההוא אתרא אייתו לקמיה נונא דהוי דמי לשפרנונא חפייה במשיכלי חיורי חזא ביה קלפי ושרייה רבה בר בר חנה איקלע לאקרא דאגמא קריבו ליה צחנתא שמעיה לההוא גברא דהוה קרי ליה באטי,אמר מדקא קרי ליה באטי ש"מ דבר טמא אית ביה לא אכל מיניה לצפרא עיין בה אשכח ביה דבר טמא קרי אנפשיה (משלי יב, כא) לא יאונה לצדיק כל און:,והקורט של חילתית: מ"ט משום דמפסקי ליה בסכינא אע"ג דאמר מר נותן טעם לפגם מותר אגב חורפיה דחילתיתא מחליא ליה שמנוניתא והוה ליה כנותן טעם לשבח ואסור,עבדיה דר\' לוי הוה קא מזבין חילתיתא כי נח נפשיה דר\' לוי אתו לקמיה דרבי יוחנן אמרו ליה מהו למיזבן מיניה אמר להו עבדו של חבר הרי הוא כחבר,רב הונא בר מניומי זבן תכילתא מאנשי דביתיה דרב עמרם חסידא אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף לא הוה בידיה,פגע ביה חנן חייטא א"ל יוסף עניא מנא ליה בדידי הוה עובדא דזביני תכילתא מאנשי דביתיה דרבנאה אחוה דר\' חייא בר אבא ואתאי לקמיה דרב מתנא לא הוה בידיה אתאי לקמיה דרב יהודה מהגרוניא אמר לי נפלת ליד הכי אמר שמואל אשת חבר הרי היא כחבר,תנינא להא דת"ר אשת חבר הרי היא כחבר עבדו של חבר הרי הוא כחבר חבר שמת אשתו ובניו ובני ביתו הרי הן בחזקתן עד שיחשדו וכן חצר שמוכרין בה תכלת הרי הן בחזקתן עד שתיפסל,ת"ר אשת עם הארץ שנשאת לחבר וכן בתו של עם הארץ שנשאת לחבר וכן עבדו של עם הארץ שנמכר לחבר כולן צריכין לקבל דברי חברות אבל אשת חבר שנשאת לעם הארץ וכן בתו של חבר שנשאת לעם הארץ וכן עבדו של חבר שנמכר לעם הארץ אינן צריכין לקבל דברי חברות לכתחלה דברי ר"מ,ר\' יהודה אומר אף הן צריכין לקבל דברי חברות לכתחלה וכן היה ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר מעשה באשה אחת שנשאת לחבר והיתה קושרת לו תפילין על ידו נשאת למוכס והיתה קושרת לו קשרי מוכס על ידו,אמר רב חבי"ת אסור בחותם אחד חמפ"ג מותר בחותם אחד חלב בשר יין תכלת'76b גדנפא דלישא אפומא ומליוה מיא וארתחה אמר רבא מאן חכים למעבד כי הא מילתא אי לאו רב עקביה דגברא רבא הוא קסבר כבולעו כך פולטו מה בולעו בנצוצות אף פולטו בנצוצות:,הסכין שפה והיא טהורה: אמר רב עוקבא בר חמא ונועצה עשרה פעמים בקרקע אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ובקרקע שאינה עבודה א"ר כהנא ובסכין יפה שאין בה גומות תניא נמי הכי סכין יפה שאין בה גומות נועצה עשרה פעמים בקרקע אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לאכול בה צונן,כי הא דמר יהודה ובאטי בר טובי הוו יתבי קמיה דשבור מלכא אייתו לקמייהו אתרוגא פסק אכל פסק והב ליה לבאטי בר טובי הדר דצה עשרה זימני בארעא פסק הב ליה למר יהודה א"ל באטי בר טובי וההוא גברא לאו בר ישראל הוא א"ל מר קים לי בגויה ומר לא קים לי בגויה,איכא דאמרי א"ל אידכר מאי עבדת באורתא:,| 39a The Gemara explains: There, the substance of the wine is a recognizable component of the fish stew; here, its substance is not a recognizable component of the pickled vegetables.,§ The mishna teaches: And minced tarit fish, and brine that does not have a kilbit fish floating in it, and ḥilak are all prohibited. The Gemara asks: What is ḥilak? Rav Naḥman bar Abba says that Rav says: This is sultanit, a type of small fish that is generally caught before its scales have developed. And for what reason is it prohibited? It is because its size causes it to be intermingled with other fish, and as a result sultanit rises out of the water with non-kosher fish when it is caught.,The Sages taught: If a fish does not currently possess scales but will grow them after a period of time, such as the sultanit and afiyatz fish, it is permitted. Likewise, if it has scales now but will shed them when it is caught and rises from the sea, such as akunas and afuna, ketasfatiyas and akhsaftiyas and otanas fish, it is permitted.,Rabbi Abbahu announced in Caesarea: Fish entrails and their eggs may be purchased from any person, as the presumption with regard to them is that they come only from Pelusium Pilusa and Spain Aspamya, and non-kosher fish are not found in those areas. This is similar to that which Abaye says: These small fish tzaḥanta of the Bav River are permitted, as non-kosher fish are not found in that river.,The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Abaye unequivocally permitted eating these fish and was not concerned about the potential presence of non-kosher fish among them? If we say that it is due to the fact that the water flows rapidly, and these non-kosher fish, since they do not have a spinal cord, are not able to exist in a place where the water flows rapidly, as the current carries the non-kosher fish out of the Bav River, and consequently all the remaining fish are kosher, that is not the case, since we see that non-kosher fish exist in rivers with strong currents.,Rather, perhaps Abaye permitted the fish because the water is salty, and these non-kosher fish are not able to exist in a place of salty water since they do not have scales. This, too, is not the case, since we see that non-kosher fish exist in salty water. Rather, Abaye permitted the small fish in the Bav River because the mud in that river is not suitable for non-kosher fish to reproduce. The conditions in the river render it an unproductive habitat for non-kosher fish. Ravina says: Nowadays, as the government built canals between the rivers, and the Goza River and the Gamda River spill into the Bav and carry non-kosher fish there, it is prohibited to eat the small fish without thorough inspection.,The Gemara cites several other statements of amora’im that concern the halakhic status of fish. Abaye says: This creature known as the sea donkey ḥamara deyamma is permitted; the creature known as the sea ox tora deyamma is prohibited, and your mnemonic to remember this halakha is: Impure is pure, and pure is impure, i.e., the name of an animal which is non-kosher on land is kosher in the sea, and that which is kosher on land is non-kosher in the sea.,Rav Ashi said: The type of fish known as shefar nuna is permitted, and the type of fish known as kadesh nuna is prohibited, and your mnemonic to remember this halakha is: That which is holy kodesh is to the Lord, and not for humans. And some say that Rav Ashi said: The type of fish known as kevar nuna is prohibited, and your mnemonic is: The grave kever is impure like the graves of gentiles.,The Gemara relates several incidents involving Sages and their rulings with regard to fish. Rabbi Akiva happened to come to Ginzak and they brought before him a certain fish that was similar to a ḥippusha, a non-kosher aquatic creature. When he enclosed it in a basket he saw that it had scales which it shed as it struggled to escape from the basket, and he permitted it on that basis. Rav Ashi happened to come to Tamduria where they brought before him a certain fish that was similar to an eel tzelofḥa. He took it out and held it against the light of day and saw that there were thin scales on it, and he permitted it.,Rav Ashi also happened to come to a certain land where they brought before him a fish that was similar to a shefarnuna. He enclosed it in a white vessel and saw that it shed dark scales, which he could see against the white background of the container, and he permitted it. Rabba bar bar Ḥana happened to come to Akra DeAgma and they brought him some tzaḥanta, a dish prepared from small fish. He heard a certain man calling it batei, the name of a non-kosher sea creature.,Rabba bar bar Ḥana said to himself: From the fact that he called it batei, I can conclude from here that there is a non-kosher substance in the tzaḥanta. And he did not eat from it that night. In the morning, he examined the dish and in fact found a non-kosher substance in it. He read the following verse about himself: “No sin shall befall the righteous” (Proverbs 12:21).,§ The mishna teaches: And a sliver of ḥiltit may not be consumed, although one may derive benefit from it. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that it is prohibited? It is because they slice it with a knife on which there is presumably non-kosher residue. And even though the Master said that a prohibited substance that imparts flavor to the detriment of the mixture is permitted, that principle does not apply in this case because as a result of the sharpness of the ḥiltit, the act of slicing it with a knife sweetens, i.e., enhances, the taste of the non-kosher residue. And there-fore it is like a prohibited substance that imparts flavor to the enhancement of the mixture, and it is prohibited.,The Gemara relates that the gentile slave of Rabbi Levi would sell ḥiltit, and it was permitted to purchase it from him as he was the slave of a Sage. When Rabbi Levi passed away, they came before Rabbi Yoḥa and said to him: Now that Rabbi Levi has passed, what is the halakha with regard to whether or not it is permitted to purchase ḥiltit from his gentile slave? Rabbi Yoḥa said to them: The slave of a ḥaver, one devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes, is as a ḥaver himself, and therefore it is permitted to buy ḥiltit from him.,The Gemara relates another incident that involves the status of a ḥaver and his household. Rav Huna bar Minyumi purchased sky-blue dye tekhelta from the people of the household, i.e., the wife, of Rav Amram the pious. One may purchase sky-blue dye for ritual fringes only from a reliable individual, as it is easy to counterfeit it. Rav Huna then came before Rav Yosef to ask if he could rely on her assurance that it was usable for the mitzva. The answer was not available to Rav Yosef.,Later, Ḥa the tailor happened to meet Rav Huna, and he said to him: From where could poor Rav Yosef have known the answer to this question? Ḥa continued: There was an incident in which I was involved, as I purchased sky-blue dye from the people of the household, i.e., the wife, of Rabena’a, brother of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and I came before Rav Mattana to ask him the same question, and the answer was not available to him either. I then came before Rav Yehuda of Hagronya, who said to me: You have fallen into my hand, i.e., I am the only one who can answer your question. This is what Shmuel says: The wife of a ḥaver is herself considered like a ḥaver, and you may therefore rely on her statement.,The Gemara comments: We learn here that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita: The wife of a ḥaver is like a ḥaver; the slave of a ḥaver is like a ḥaver. Furthermore, with regard to a ḥaver that died, his wife and children and members of his household remain in their presumptive status until they are suspected of engaging in inappropriate deeds. And similarly, with regard to a courtyard in which they sell sky-blue dye, it remains in its presumptive status as a place in which kosher sky-blue dye is sold until it is disqualified due to unscrupulous behavior.,The Sages taught: The wife of one who is not careful to keep the particulars of certain halakhot am ha’aretz, who later marries a ḥaver, and likewise the daughter of an am ha’aretz who marries a ḥaver, and likewise the slave of an am ha’aretz who is sold to a ḥaver, must all accept upon themselves the commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status. But the wife of a ḥaver who later marries an am ha’aretz, and likewise the daughter of a ḥaver who marries an am ha’aretz, and likewise the slave of a ḥaver who was sold to an am ha’aretz, these people need not accept upon themselves the commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status ab initio. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.,Rabbi Yehuda says: They too must accept upon themselves the commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status ab initio. And similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would illustrate this point and say: There was an incident involving a certain woman who married a ḥaver and would tie for him phylacteries on his hand, and she later married a tax collector and would tie for him tax-seals on his hand, which shows that her new husband had a great influence on her level of piety.,§ Rav says: The substances represented by the acronym ḥet, beit, yod, tav are prohibited if they were deposited with a gentile while they were sealed with only one seal. Those represented by the acronym ḥet, beit, peh, gimmel are permitted if they were deposited with a gentile while they were sealed with one seal. The Gemara elaborates: Milk ḥalav, meat basar, wine yayin, and sky-blue dye tekhelet'76b with a rim gedanfa of dough around its rim, and filled it with water and boiled it, so that the water boiled along its rim. Rava said: Who would be clever enough to perform such an action if not Rav Akavya, as he is a great man. He maintains that as it absorbs it so it expels it; just as the rim absorbs the forbidden substance by small drops of it that reach the rim, so too it expels the forbidden substance by small drops of boiling water that reach the rim.,§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the knife, one must polish it and it is rendered pure. Rav Ukva bar Ḥama says: And one must thrust it ten times into the ground. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: And this must be done in untilled earth, i.e., hard earth. Rav Kahana says: And this applies to a good knife that does not have notches, so that the entire surface of the knife is scraped against the ground. This is also taught in a baraita: With regard to a good knife that does not have notches, one can thrust it ten times into the ground. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: This is sufficient for the purpose of eating cold food with it.,This is like that incident involving Mar Yehuda, an important personage of the house of the Exilarch, and Bati bar Tuvi, a wealthy man, who were sitting before King Shapur, the king of Persia. The king’s servants brought an etrog before them. The king cut a slice and ate it, and then he cut a slice and gave it to Bati bar Tuvi. He then stuck the knife ten times in the ground, cut a slice, and gave it to Mar Yehuda. Bati bar Tuvi said to him: And is that man, referring to himself, not Jewish? King Shapur said to him: I am certain of that master, Mar Yehuda, that he is meticulous about halakha; but I am not certain of that master, referring to Bati bar Tuvi, that he is meticulous in this regard.,There are those who say that King Shapur said to him: Remember what you did last night. The Persian practice was to present a woman to each guest, with whom he would engage in intercourse. Mar Yehuda did not accept the woman who was sent to him, but Bati bar Tuvi did, and therefore he was not assumed to be meticulous with regard to eating kosher food., ' None | |
|
