1. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 19.19, 22.27 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Neis, When a Human Gives Birth to a Raven: Rabbis and the Reproduction of Species (2012) 146; Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 19.19. אֶת־חֻקֹּתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ בְּהֶמְתְּךָ לֹא־תַרְבִּיעַ כִּלְאַיִם שָׂדְךָ לֹא־תִזְרַע כִּלְאָיִם וּבֶגֶד כִּלְאַיִם שַׁעַטְנֵז לֹא יַעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ׃ 22.27. שׁוֹר אוֹ־כֶשֶׂב אוֹ־עֵז כִּי יִוָּלֵד וְהָיָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תַּחַת אִמּוֹ וּמִיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי וָהָלְאָה יֵרָצֶה לְקָרְבַּן אִשֶּׁה לַיהוָה׃ | 19.19. Ye shall keep My statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed; neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together. 22.27. When a bullock, or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam; but from the eighth day and thenceforth it may be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the LORD. |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 1.27 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Neis, When a Human Gives Birth to a Raven: Rabbis and the Reproduction of Species (2012) 146 1.27. וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם׃ | 1.27. And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 14.4-14.5, 14.7 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 14.4. זֹאת הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכֵלוּ שׁוֹר שֵׂה כְשָׂבִים וְשֵׂה עִזִּים׃ 14.5. אַיָּל וּצְבִי וְיַחְמוּר וְאַקּוֹ וְדִישֹׁן וּתְאוֹ וָזָמֶר׃ 14.7. אַךְ אֶת־זֶה לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמַּעֲלֵי הַגֵּרָה וּמִמַּפְרִיסֵי הַפַּרְסָה הַשְּׁסוּעָה אֶת־הַגָּמָל וְאֶת־הָאַרְנֶבֶת וְאֶת־הַשָּׁפָן כִּי־מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הֵמָּה וּפַרְסָה לֹא הִפְרִיסוּ טְמֵאִים הֵם לָכֶם׃ | 14.4. These are the beasts which ye may eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat, 14.5. the hart, and the gazelle, and the roebuck, and the wild goat, and the pygarg, and the antelope, and the mountain-sheep. 14.7. Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that only have the hoof cloven: the camel, and the hare, and the rock-badger, because they chew the cud but part not the hoof, they are unclean unto you; |
|
4. Aristotle, History of Animals, 1.1 488a 31-32 (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Neis, When a Human Gives Birth to a Raven: Rabbis and the Reproduction of Species (2012) 107 |
5. Tosefta, Bikkurim, 2.5-2.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Yose, Rabbi, on the koy •koy Found in books: Neis, When a Human Gives Birth to a Raven: Rabbis and the Reproduction of Species (2012) 125, 252 2.5. דרכים ששוה [בהן] לאנשים ולנשים חייבין על נזקו [בין איש בין אשה] ההורגו במזיד נהרג בשוגג גולה לערי מקלט [אמו יושבת עליו בדם טוהר כאנשים] וכנשים ומביאה עליו קרבן כאנשים וכנשים [ונוחל בכל נחלות כאנשים וכנשים חולק בקדשי הגבול כאנשים וכנשים ואם אמר הריני נזיר שזה איש ואשה הרי זה נזיר]. 2.6. דרכים [שלא] שוה [בהן לא] לאנשים [ולא לנשים] אין חייבין על [חטאתו] ואין שורפין על טומאתו ואין נערך לא כאנשים [ולא כנשים] אין נמכר לעבד עברי לא כאנשים [ולא כנשים] אם אמר הריני נזיר שאין זה איש ואשה הרי זה נזיר ר' יוסי אומר אנדרוגינוס בריה [לעצמו ולא יכלו חכמים להכריע עליו] אם איש הוא [אם] אשה [הוא] אבל טומטום אינו כן אלא או ספק איש או [ספק] אשה. | |
|
6. New Testament, Matthew, 6.14 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Neis, When a Human Gives Birth to a Raven: Rabbis and the Reproduction of Species (2012) 146 6.14. Ἐὰν γὰρ ἀφῆτε τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν, ἀφήσει καὶ ὑμῖν ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος· | 6.14. "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. |
|
7. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 11.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Neis, When a Human Gives Birth to a Raven: Rabbis and the Reproduction of Species (2012) 237 11.3. חֹמֶר בְּדִבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים מִבְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה, הָאוֹמֵר אֵין תְּפִלִּין, כְּדֵי לַעֲבֹר עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, פָּטוּר. חֲמִשָּׁה טוֹטָפוֹת, לְהוֹסִיף עַל דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, חַיָּב: | 11.3. There is greater stringency in respect to the teachings of the scribes than in respect to the torah: [thus,] if [a rebellious elder] says, there is no commandment of tefillin, so that a biblical law may be transgressed, he is exempt. [But if he rules that the tefillin must contain] five compartments, thus adding to the words of the scribes, he is liable. |
|
8. Mishnah, Kilayim, 8.1-8.2, 8.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •koy •Yose, Rabbi, on the koy Found in books: Neis, When a Human Gives Birth to a Raven: Rabbis and the Reproduction of Species (2012) 125, 236, 237 8.5. הַפְּרוּטִיּוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת, וְהָרַמָּךְ מֻתָּר. וְאַדְנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה, חַיָּה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, מְטַמְּאוֹת בָּאֹהֶל כָּאָדָם. הַקֻּפָּד וְחֻלְדַּת הַסְּנָיִים, חַיָּה. חֻלְדַּת הַסְּנָיִים, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, מְטַמֵּא כַזַּיִת בְּמַשָּׂא, וְכָעֲדָשָׁה בְּמַגָּע: | 8.5. Mules of uncertain parentage are forbidden [one with another,] And a ramakh is permitted. Wild man-like creatures are [in the category of] hayyah. Rabbi Yose says: they cause impurity in a tent like a human being. The hedgehog and the bush-mole are [in the category of] hayyah. The bush-mole: Rabbi Yose says in the name of Bet Shammai: an olive's size [of its carcass] renders a person carrying it unclean, and a lentil’s size [of its carcass] renders a person touching it unclean. |
|
9. Mishnah, Hulin, 7.2, 7.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 |
10. Mishnah, Bikkurim, 2.8, 2.10-2.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Babylonian Talmud (Bavli), koy in •koy •Yose, Rabbi, on the koy Found in books: Neis, When a Human Gives Birth to a Raven: Rabbis and the Reproduction of Species (2012) 124, 125, 236, 237 |
11. Mishnah, Avodah Zarah, 1.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Neis, When a Human Gives Birth to a Raven: Rabbis and the Reproduction of Species (2012) 237 1.6. מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִמְכֹּר בְּהֵמָה דַקָּה לְגוֹיִם, מוֹכְרִין. מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִמְכֹּר, אֵין מוֹכְרִין. וּבְכָל מָקוֹם אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם בְּהֵמָה גַסָּה, עֲגָלִים וּסְיָחִים, שְׁלֵמִים וּשְׁבוּרִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר בִּשְׁבוּרָה. וּבֶן בְּתֵירָה מַתִּיר בְּסוּס: | 1.6. In a place where it is the custom to sell small domesticated animals to non-Jews, such sale is permitted; but where the custom is not to sell, such sale is not permitted. In no place however is it permitted to sell large animals, calves or foals, whether whole or maimed. Rabbi Judah permits in the case of a maimed one. And Ben Bateira permits in the case of a horse. |
|
12. Pliny The Elder, Natural History, a b c d\n0 8.79 215 8.79 215 8 79 215 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Neis, When a Human Gives Birth to a Raven: Rabbis and the Reproduction of Species (2012) 107 |
13. Tosefta, Kilayim, 1.6, 1.9, 5.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Yose, Rabbi, on the koy •koy Found in books: Neis, When a Human Gives Birth to a Raven: Rabbis and the Reproduction of Species (2012) 107, 125 |
14. Anon., Sifra, qedoshim 2.2 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Neis, When a Human Gives Birth to a Raven: Rabbis and the Reproduction of Species (2012) 237 |
15. Palestinian Talmud, Bikkurim, 2.7 65b (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 |
16. Palestinian Talmud, Pesahim, 2.1 28c (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 |
17. Palestinian Talmud, Orlah, 3.1 62d (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 |
18. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 27.6 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 |
19. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, 6.1, 9.5 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 |
20. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, 84a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •Yose, Rabbi, on the koy •corpses, of koy •koy Found in books: Neis, When a Human Gives Birth to a Raven: Rabbis and the Reproduction of Species (2012) 170 84a. כי האי מעשה לידיה פגע ביה אליהו,אמר ליה עד מתי אתה מוסר עמו של אלהינו להריגה אמר ליה מאי אעביד הרמנא דמלכא הוא אמר ליה אבוך ערק לאסיא את ערוק ללודקיא,כי הוו מקלעי ר' ישמעאל ברבי יוסי ור' אלעזר בר' שמעון בהדי הדדי הוה עייל בקרא דתורי בינייהו ולא הוה נגעה בהו,אמרה להו ההיא מטרוניתא בניכם אינם שלכם אמרו לה שלהן גדול משלנו כל שכן איכא דאמרי הכי אמרו לה (שופטים ח, כא) כי כאיש גבורתו איכא דאמרי הכי אמרו לה אהבה דוחקת את הבשר,ולמה להו לאהדורי לה והא כתיב (משלי כו, ד) אל תען כסיל כאולתו שלא להוציא לעז על בניהם,א"ר יוחנן איבריה דר' ישמעאל [בר' יוסי] כחמת בת תשע קבין אמר רב פפא איבריה דרבי יוחנן כחמת בת חמשת קבין ואמרי לה בת שלשת קבין דרב פפא גופיה כי דקורי דהרפנאי,אמר רבי יוחנן אנא אישתיירי משפירי ירושלים האי מאן דבעי מחזי שופריה דרבי יוחנן נייתי כסא דכספא מבי סלקי ונמלייה פרצידיא דרומנא סומקא ונהדר ליה כלילא דוורדא סומקא לפומיה ונותביה בין שמשא לטולא ההוא זהרורי מעין שופריה דר' יוחנן,איני והאמר מר שופריה דרב כהנא מעין שופריה דרבי אבהו שופריה דר' אבהו מעין שופריה דיעקב אבינו שופריה דיעקב אבינו מעין שופריה דאדם הראשון ואילו ר' יוחנן לא קא חשיב ליה שאני ר' יוחנן דהדרת פנים לא הויא ליה,ר' יוחנן הוה אזיל ויתיב אשערי טבילה אמר כי סלקן בנות ישראל מטבילת מצוה לפגעו בי כי היכי דלהוו להו בני שפירי כוותי גמירי אורייתא כוותי,אמרו ליה רבנן לא מסתפי מר מעינא בישא אמר להו אנא מזרעא דיוסף קאתינא דלא שלטא ביה עינא בישא דכתיב (בראשית מט, כב) בן פורת יוסף בן פורת עלי עין ואמר ר' אבהו אל תקרי עלי עין אלא עולי עין,ר' יוסי בר חנינא אמר מהכא (בראשית מח, טז) וידגו לרוב בקרב הארץ מה דגים שבים מים מכסים אותם ואין העין שולטת בהן אף זרעו של יוסף אין העין שולטת בהן,יומא חד הוה קא סחי ר' יוחנן בירדנא חזייה ריש לקיש ושוור לירדנא אבתריה אמר ליה חילך לאורייתא אמר ליה שופרך לנשי א"ל אי הדרת בך יהיבנא לך אחותי דשפירא מינאי קביל עליה בעי למיהדר לאתויי מאניה ולא מצי הדר,אקרייה ואתנייה ושוייה גברא רבא יומא חד הוו מפלגי בי מדרשא הסייף והסכין והפגיון והרומח ומגל יד ומגל קציר מאימתי מקבלין טומאה משעת גמר מלאכתן,ומאימתי גמר מלאכתן רבי יוחנן אמר משיצרפם בכבשן ריש לקיש אמר משיצחצחן במים א"ל לסטאה בלסטיותיה ידע אמר ליה ומאי אהנת לי התם רבי קרו לי הכא רבי קרו לי אמר ליה אהנאי לך דאקרבינך תחת כנפי השכינה,חלש דעתיה דרבי יוחנן חלש ריש לקיש אתאי אחתיה קא בכיא אמרה ליה עשה בשביל בני אמר לה (ירמיהו מט, יא) עזבה יתומיך אני אחיה עשה בשביל אלמנותי אמר לה (ירמיהו מט, יא) ואלמנותיך עלי תבטחו,נח נפשיה דר' שמעון בן לקיש והוה קא מצטער ר' יוחנן בתריה טובא אמרו רבנן מאן ליזיל ליתביה לדעתיה ניזיל רבי אלעזר בן פדת דמחדדין שמעתתיה,אזל יתיב קמיה כל מילתא דהוה אמר רבי יוחנן אמר ליה תניא דמסייעא לך אמר את כבר לקישא בר לקישא כי הוה אמינא מילתא הוה מקשי לי עשרין וארבע קושייתא ומפריקנא ליה עשרין וארבעה פרוקי וממילא רווחא שמעתא ואת אמרת תניא דמסייע לך אטו לא ידענא דשפיר קאמינא,הוה קא אזיל וקרע מאניה וקא בכי ואמר היכא את בר לקישא היכא את בר לקישא והוה קא צוח עד דשף דעתיה [מיניה] בעו רבנן רחמי עליה ונח נפשיה | 84a. Elijah the prophet encountered him,and said to him: Until when will you inform on the nation of our God to be sentenced to execution? Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to Elijah: What should I do? It is the king’s edict that I must obey. Elijah said to him: Faced with this choice, your father fled to Asia. You should flee to Laodicea rather than accept this appointment.,§ With regard to these Sages, the Gemara adds: When Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would meet each other, it was possible for a pair of oxen to enter and fit between them, under their bellies, without touching them, due to their excessive obesity.,A certain Roman noblewoman [matronita] once said to them: Your children are not really your own, as due to your obesity it is impossible that you engaged in intercourse with your wives. They said to her: Theirs, i.e., our wives’ bellies, are larger than ours. She said to them: All the more so you could not have had intercourse. There are those who say that this is what they said to her: “For as the man is, so is his strength” (Judges 8:21), i.e., our sexual organs are proportionate to our bellies. There are those who say that this is what they said to her: Love compresses the flesh.,The Gemara asks: And why did they respond to her audacious and foolish question? After all, it is written: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him” (Proverbs 26:4). The Gemara answers: They answered her in order not to cast aspersions on the lineage of their children.,The Gemara continues discussing the bodies of these Sages: Rabbi Yoḥa said: The organ of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, was the size of a jug of nine kav. Rav Pappa said: The organ of Rabbi Yoḥa was the size of a jug of five kav, and some say it was the size of a jug of three kav. Rav Pappa himself had a belly like the baskets [dikurei] made in Harpanya.,With regard to Rabbi Yoḥa’s physical features, the Gemara adds that Rabbi Yoḥa said: I alone remain of the beautiful people of Jerusalem. The Gemara continues: One who wishes to see something resembling the beauty of Rabbi Yoḥa should bring a new, shiny silver goblet from the smithy and fill it with red pomegranate seeds [partzidaya] and place a diadem of red roses upon the lip of the goblet, and position it between the sunlight and shade. That luster is a semblance of Rabbi Yoḥa’s beauty.,The Gemara asks: Is that so? Was Rabbi Yoḥa so beautiful? But doesn’t the Master say: The beauty of Rav Kahana is a semblance of the beauty of Rabbi Abbahu; the beauty of Rabbi Abbahu is a semblance of the beauty of Jacob, our forefather; and the beauty of Jacob, our forefather, is a semblance of the beauty of Adam the first man, who was created in the image of God. And yet Rabbi Yoḥa is not included in this list. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥa is different from these other men, as he did not have a beauty of countece, i.e., he did not have a beard.,The Gemara continues to discuss Rabbi Yoḥa’s beauty. Rabbi Yoḥa would go and sit by the entrance to the ritual bath. He said to himself: When Jewish women come up from their immersion for the sake of a mitzva, after their menstruation, they should encounter me first, so that they have beautiful children like me, and sons learned in Torah like me. This is based on the idea that the image upon which a woman meditates during intercourse affects the child she conceives.,The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yoḥa: Isn’t the Master worried about being harmed by the evil eye by displaying yourself in this manner? Rabbi Yoḥa said to them: I come from the offspring of Joseph, over whom the evil eye does not have dominion, as it is written: “Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a fountain [alei ayin]” (Genesis 49:22); and Rabbi Abbahu says: Do not read the verse as saying: “By a fountain [alei ayin]”; rather, read it as: Those who rise above the evil eye [olei ayin]. Joseph’s descendants are not susceptible to the influence of the evil eye.,Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said that this idea is derived from here: “And let them grow [veyidgu] into a multitude in the midst of the earth” (Genesis 48:16). Just as with regard to fish [dagim] in the sea, the water covers them and the evil eye therefore has no dominion over them, as they are not seen, so too, with regard to the offspring of Joseph, the evil eye has no dominion over them.,The Gemara relates: One day, Rabbi Yoḥa was bathing in the Jordan River. Reish Lakish saw him and jumped into the Jordan, pursuing him. At that time, Reish Lakish was the leader of a band of marauders. Rabbi Yoḥa said to Reish Lakish: Your strength is fit for Torah study. Reish Lakish said to him: Your beauty is fit for women. Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: If you return to the pursuit of Torah, I will give you my sister in marriage, who is more beautiful than I am. Reish Lakish accepted upon himself to study Torah. Subsequently, Reish Lakish wanted to jump back out of the river to bring back his clothes, but he was unable to return, as he had lost his physical strength as soon as he accepted the responsibility to study Torah upon himself.,Rabbi Yoḥa taught Reish Lakish Bible, and taught him Mishna, and turned him into a great man. Eventually, Reish Lakish became one of the outstanding Torah scholars of his generation. One day the Sages of the study hall were engaging in a dispute concerning the following baraita: With regard to the sword, the knife, the dagger [vehapigyon], the spear, a hand sickle, and a harvest sickle, from when are they susceptible to ritual impurity? The baraita answers: It is from the time of the completion of their manufacture, which is the halakha with regard to metal vessels in general.,These Sages inquired: And when is the completion of their manufacture? Rabbi Yoḥa says: It is from when one fires these items in the furnace. Reish Lakish said: It is from when one scours them in water, after they have been fired in the furnace. Rabbi Yoḥa said to Reish Lakish: A bandit knows about his banditry, i.e., you are an expert in weaponry because you were a bandit in your youth. Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥa: What benefit did you provide me by bringing me close to Torah? There, among the bandits, they called me: Leader of the bandits, and here, too, they call me: Leader of the bandits. Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: I provided benefit to you, as I brought you close to God, under the wings of the Divine Presence.,As a result of the quarrel, Rabbi Yoḥa was offended, which in turn affected Reish Lakish, who fell ill. Rabbi Yoḥa’s sister, who was Reish Lakish’s wife, came crying to Rabbi Yoḥa, begging that he pray for Reish Lakish’s recovery. She said to him: Do this for the sake of my children, so that they should have a father. Rabbi Yoḥa said to her the verse: “Leave your fatherless children, I will rear them” (Jeremiah 49:11), i.e., I will take care of them. She said to him: Do so for the sake of my widowhood. He said to her the rest of the verse: “And let your widows trust in Me.”,Ultimately, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, Reish Lakish, died. Rabbi Yoḥa was sorely pained over losing him. The Rabbis said: Who will go to calm Rabbi Yoḥa’s mind and comfort him over his loss? They said: Let Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat go, as his statements are sharp, i.e., he is clever and will be able to serve as a substitute for Reish Lakish.,Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat went and sat before Rabbi Yoḥa. With regard to every matter that Rabbi Yoḥa would say, Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat would say to him: There is a ruling which is taught in a baraita that supports your opinion. Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: Are you comparable to the son of Lakish? In my discussions with the son of Lakish, when I would state a matter, he would raise twenty-four difficulties against me in an attempt to disprove my claim, and I would answer him with twenty-four answers, and the halakha by itself would become broadened and clarified. And yet you say to me: There is a ruling which is taught in a baraita that supports your opinion. Do I not know that what I say is good? Being rebutted by Reish Lakish served a purpose; your bringing proof to my statements does not.,Rabbi Yoḥa went around, rending his clothing, weeping and saying: Where are you, son of Lakish? Where are you, son of Lakish? Rabbi Yoḥa screamed until his mind was taken from him, i.e., he went insane. The Rabbis prayed and requested for God to have mercy on him and take his soul, and Rabbi Yoḥa died. |
|
21. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, 7.7, 79b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Neis, When a Human Gives Birth to a Raven: Rabbis and the Reproduction of Species (2012) 237 79b. שכירות דמטלטלין מטלטלי בני שטרא נינהו אמר רב חסדא שכירות דקרקע:,אמר ר' אלעזר ראוהו שהטמין בחורשין וטבח ומכר משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה אמאי הא לא משך א"ר חסדא שהכישה במקל,אמרי וכיון דראוהו גזלן הוא כיון דקא מטמרי מנייהו גנב הוא,ואלא גזלן היכי דמי אמר ר' אבהו כגון בניהו בן יהוידע שנאמר (שמואל ב כג, כא) ויגזל את החנית מיד המצרי ויהרגהו בחניתו,ר' יוחנן אמר כגון בעלי שכם שנאמר (שופטים ט, כה) וישימו לו בעלי שכם מארבים על ראשי ההרים ויגזלו [את] כל אשר יעבר עליהם בדרך,ור' אבהו מאי טעמא לא אמר מהאי אמר לך כיון דמטמרי איטמורי לא גזלני נינהו ור' יוחנן הא דקא מטמרי דלא ניחזינהו אינשי וניערקו מנייהו,שאלו תלמידיו את רבן יוחנן בן זכאי מפני מה החמירה תורה בגנב יותר מגזלן אמר להן זה השוה כבוד עבד לכבוד קונו וזה לא השוה כבוד עבד לכבוד קונו,כביכול עשה עין של מטה כאילו אינה רואה ואוזן של מטה כאילו אינה שומעת שנאמר (ישעיהו כט, טו) הוי המעמיקים מה' לסתיר עצה והיה במחשך מעשיהם וגו' וכתיב (תהלים צד, ז) ויאמרו לא יראה יה ולא יבין אלהי יעקב וכתיב (יחזקאל ט, ט) כי [אמרו] עזב ה' את הארץ ואין ה' רואה,(תניא) אמר ר' מאיר משלו משל משום רבן גמליאל למה הדבר דומה לשני בני אדם שהיו בעיר ועשו משתה אחד זימן את בני העיר ולא זימן את בני המלך ואחד לא זימן את בני העיר ולא זימן את בני המלך איזה מהן עונשו מרובה הוי אומר זה שזימן את בני העיר ולא זימן את בני המלך,אמר רבי מאיר בא וראה כמה גדול כח של מלאכה שור שביטלו ממלאכתו חמשה שה שלא ביטלו ממלאכתו ארבעה,אמר רבן יוחנן בן זכאי בא וראה כמה גדול כבוד הבריות שור שהלך ברגליו חמשה שה שהרכיבו על כתיפו ארבעה:, 79b. it is speaking of the rental of movable property, is movable property subject to the writing of a deed? Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: It is referring to the rental of land.,§ Rabbi Elazar says: If people saw a thief who was hiding in the woods near a herd of grazing animals, and that individual emerged and slaughtered or sold one of the animals from the herd, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. The Gemara asks: Why is the thief liable to the fourfold or fivefold payment? But he did not pull the animal. Rabbi Elazar is apparently describing a case where the thief emerged from the forest and slaughtered one of the animals without first moving it, and there is no fourfold or fivefold payment unless the thief first steals the animal. Rav Ḥisda says: This is referring to a case where he hit the animal with a stick, causing it to move.,With regard to Rabbi Elazar’s statement, the Sages say: But since people saw him doing all this, he is a robber, not a thief, and the fourfold or fivefold payment applies only to thieves. A thief is one who sneaks into a house or other private property; one who commits his act brazenly, in public, is classified as a robber. The Gemara answers: Since he was hiding from them, he is considered a thief, despite the fact that they saw him.,The Gemara asks: But if so, what are the circumstances of a robber? Rabbi Abbahu said: Robbers are like the case of Benaiah ben Jehoiada, as it is stated concerning him: “He slew an Egyptian, a goodly man; and the Egyptian had a spear in his hand; but he went down to him with a staff, and he robbed the spear out of the Egyptian’s hand, and slew him with his own spear” (II Samuel 23:21).,Rabbi Yoḥa said: A different example of a robber is a case like that of the men of Shechem, as it is stated: “And the men of Shechem set ambushers for him on the tops of the mountains, and they robbed all that came along that way by them” (Judges 9:25).,The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rabbi Abbahu did not say the example from this verse, which discusses the men of Shechem? He could have said to you: Since the men of Shechem were hiding in ambush, they are not considered robbers but thieves. And how would Rabbi Yoḥa respond to this claim? This fact that they were hiding was not because they were hesitant to steal in view of the public. Rather, they acted in this manner so that the travelers should not see them in advance and flee from them.,§ The Gemara concludes its discussion of theft with several aggadic statements. His students asked Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai: For what reason was the Torah stricter with a thief than with a robber? Only a thief is required to pay the double, fourfold, or fivefold payment, not a robber. Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai said to them in response: This one, the robber, equated the honor of the servant to the honor of his Master, and that one, the thief, did not equate the honor of the servant to the honor of his Master. The robber fears neither God nor people, as he is not afraid to rob in public. The thief does not fear God but he does fear other people, which demonstrates that he is more concerned about humans than God.,As it were, the thief establishes the eye below, i.e., God’s eye, as though it does not see, and the ear below, i.e., God’s ear, as though it does not hear. The Gemara cites verses that describe people who imagine that God does not see their actions, as it is stated: “Woe to them who seek deeply to hide their counsel from the Lord, and their works are in the dark, and they say: Who sees us, and who knows us?” (Isaiah 29:15). And it is written: “And they say: The Lord will not see, neither will the God of Jacob give heed” (Psalms 94:7). And it is written: “For they say: The Lord has forsaken the land, and the Lord does not see” (Ezekiel 9:9).,It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir said: To illustrate the severity of a thief over a robber, as per Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai’s explanation, they stated a parable in the name of Rabban Gamliel. To what is this matter comparable? To two people who were living in the same city, and both of them prepared a feast. One of them invited the people of the city to his feast but he did not invite the king’s sons. And the other did not invite the people of the city and also did not invite the king’s sons. Which of them deserves a greater punishment? You must say that it is this one who invited the people of the city but did not invite the king’s sons. Likewise, both the thief and the robber show disdain for God, but the robber does not display more respect for people.,The Gemara discusses why there is a fourfold payment for a sheep but a fivefold payment for an ox. Rabbi Meir said: Come and see how great the power of labor is. The theft of an ox, which was forced by the thief to cease its labor, leads to a fivefold payment; whereas the theft of a sheep, which was not forced by the thief to cease its labor, as a sheep performs no labor, leads to only a fourfold payment.,Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai said: Come and see how great human dignity is. The theft of an ox, which walked on its own legs as the thief stole it, leads to a fivefold payment, whereas the theft of a sheep, which the thief carried on his shoulder as he walked, thereby causing himself embarrassment, leads to only a fourfold payment.,One may not raise small domesticated animals, i.e., sheep and goats, in settled areas of Eretz Yisrael, as they graze on people’s crops. But one may raise them in Syria, despite the fact that with regard to many other halakhot Syria is treated like Eretz Yisrael, and in the wilderness of Eretz Yisrael.,One may not raise chickens in Jerusalem, due to the sacrificial meat that is common there. There is a concern that chickens will pick up garbage that imparts ritual impurity and bring it into contact with sacrificial meat, thereby rendering it ritually impure. And priests may not raise chickens anywhere in Eretz Yisrael, because of the many foods in a priest’s possession that must be kept ritually pure, e.g., teruma.,Furthermore, one may not raise pigs anywhere, and a person may not raise a dog unless it is tied with chains. One may spread out traps [nishovim] for pigeons only if this was performed at a distance of at least thirty ris, which is 8,000 cubits, from any settled area, to ensure that privately owned pigeons are not caught in the traps.,The Sages taught in a baraita: One may not raise small domesticated animals, i.e., sheep and goats, in settled areas of Eretz Yisrael. But one may raise them in the forests of Eretz Yisrael. In Syria, it is permitted to do so even in a settled area. And, needless to say, it is permitted to do so outside of Eretz Yisrael.,It is taught in another baraita: One may not raise small domesticated animals in settled areas of Eretz Yisrael. But one may raise them in the wilderness that is in Judea and in the wilderness that is on the border near Akko. And even though the Sages said that one may not raise small domesticated animals, nevertheless, one may raise large, domesticated animals, i.e., cattle, because the Sages issue a decree upon the public only if a majority of the public is able to abide by it.,This difference is that it is possible for someone to bring small domesticated animals from outside of Eretz Yisrael in the event that they are needed. But it is not possible for someone to bring large, domesticated animals from outside of Eretz Yisrael whenever he needs one, since there is a constant need for them as beasts of burden. Therefore, the Sages did not issue a decree with regard to these types of animals.,The baraita continues: And even though they said that one may not raise small domesticated animals, however, one may keep these animals on his premises for thirty days before a pilgrimage Festival, and thirty days before the wedding feast of one’s son, when many animals are needed for food, provided that he does not leave the last one, i.e., the animal which he purchased immediately before the Festival, for thirty days.,The Gemara clarifies the final line of the baraita: The baraita needs to state this ruling as it might enter your mind to say that if the pilgrimage Festival has passed and thirty days have not yet elapsed from the time when he bought the animal until now, he may keep the animal until thirty days have elapsed. To counter this, the baraita teaches that we do not say: It is permitted to keep it for a total of thirty days. Rather, once the pilgrimage Festival has passed, he should not keep it any longer. | |
|
22. Babylonian Talmud, Betzah, 12a, 12b, 8b, 8a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 |
23. Babylonian Talmud, Bekhorot, 6b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 |
24. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, 47b, 22a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 |
25. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, 101b, 59a, 59b, 60b, 79b, 42a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 |
26. Babylonian Talmud, Keritot, 21a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 |
27. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, 21b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 |
28. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, 74b, 74a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 |
29. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, 102b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 102b. ומי איכא כי האי גוונא אין דחזיוה רבנן לרב יהודה דנפק בחמשא זוזי מוקי לשוקא,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב יבמה שהגדילה בין האחין מותרת לינשא לאחד מן האחין ואין חוששין שמא חלצה סנדל לאחד מהן טעמא דלא חזינן הא חזינן חיישינן,והא תניא בין שנתכוון הוא ולא נתכוונה היא בין שנתכוונה היא ולא נתכוון הוא חליצתה פסולה עד שיתכוונו שניהם כאחד הכי קאמר אע"ג דחזינן אין חוששין שמא כוונו,ואיכא דאמרי טעמא דלא חזינן הא חזינן חוששין ודקא תנא בעי כוונה הני מילי לאישתרויי לעלמא אבל לאחין מיפסלא,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב סנדל התפור בפשתן אין חולצין בו שנאמר (יחזקאל טז, י) ואנעלך תחש ואימא תחש אין מידי אחרינא לא נעל נעל ריבה,אי נעל נעל ריבה אפי' כל מילי נמי אם כן תחש מאי אהני ליה,בעא מיניה רבי אלעזר מרב הוא של עור ותריסיותיו של שער מהו אמר ליה מי לא קרינן ביה ואנעלך תחש אי הכי כולו של שער נמי ההוא קרקא מקרי,אמר ליה רב כהנא לשמואל ממאי דהאי וחלצה נעלו מעל רגלו מישלף הוא דכתיב (ויקרא יד, מ) וחלצו את האבנים אשר בהן הנגע,ואימא זרוזי הוא דכתיב (במדבר לא, ג) החלצו מאתכם אנשים לצבא התם נמי שלופי מביתא לקרבא,והכתיב (איוב לו, טו) יחלץ עני בעניו בשכר עניו יחלצו מדינה של גיהנם,אלא הא דכתיב (תהלים לד, ח) חונה מלאך ה' סביב ליראיו ויחלצם בשכר יראיו יחלצם מדינה של גיהנם,אלא הא דכתיב (ישעיהו נח, יא) ועצמותיך יחליץ ואמר רבי אלעזר זו מעולה שבברכות ואמר רבא זרוזי גרמי אין משמע הכי ומשמע הכי דהכא אי ס"ד זרוזי הוא א"כ לכתוב רחמנא וחלצה נעלו ברגלו,אי כתב רחמנא ברגלו ה"א ברגלו אין בשוקו לא כתב רחמנא מעל רגלו דאפילו בשוקו א"כ לכתוב רחמנא במעל רגלו מאי מעל רגלו ש"מ מישלף הוא,אמר ליה ההוא מינא לר"ג עמא דחלץ ליה מריה מיניה דכתיב (הושע ה, ו) בצאנם ובבקרם ילכו לבקש את ה' ולא ימצאו חלץ מהם,אמר ליה שוטה מי כתיב חלץ להם חלץ מהם כתיב ואילו יבמה דחלצו לה אחין מידי מששא אית ביה:,באנפיליא חליצתה פסולה כו': למימרא דאנפיליא לאו מנעל הוא,ותנן נמי אין התורם נכנס לא בפרגוד חפות ולא באנפיליא ואין צריך לומר במנעל וסנדל לפי שאין נכנסין במנעל וסנדל לעזרה,ורמינהו אחד מנעל וסנדל ואנפיליא לא יטייל בהן לא מבית לבית ולא ממטה למטה,אמר אביי דאית ביה כתיתי ומשום תענוג אמר ליה רבא ומשום תענוג בלא מנעל ביום הכפורים מי אסירי והא רבה בר רב הונא כריך סודרא אכרעיה ונפיק אלא אמר רבא לא קשיא כאן באנפיליא של עור כאן באנפיליא של בגד,ה"נ מסתברא דאי לא תימא הכי קשיא יום הכפורים איום הכפורים דתניא לא יטייל אדם בקורדקיסין בתוך ביתו אבל מטייל הוא באנפילין בתוך ביתו אלא לאו ש"מ כאן באנפיליא של עור כאן באנפיליא של בגד ש"מ,תניא כוותיה דרבא חלצה במנעל הנפרם שחופה את רוב הרגל בסנדל הנפחת שמקבל את רוב הרגל בסנדל של שעם ושל סיב בקב הקיטע במוק בסמיכת הרגלים באנפיליא של עור והחולצת מן הגדול | 102b. The Gemara asks: Is there really a case like this where people wear one shoe on top of another? The Gemara answers: Yes, for the Sages saw Rav Yehuda, who went out once to the market wearing five pairs of shoes, which were similar to slippers, one on top of another.,Rav Yehuda said another halakha that Rav said: An underage yevama who grew up among her husband’s brothers before any ḥalitza was performed is permitted to marry one of the brothers through levirate marriage, and we are not concerned about the possibility that during the time she was in the company of her yevamin she removed a sandal from one of them, and thereby she would have already performed ḥalitza. The Gemara infers from this statement: The reason it is permitted to perform levirate marriage now is specifically that we did not see her remove one of their shoes, but if in fact we did see her do so, we are concerned and treat her as a yevama who already performed ḥalitza and is thereby forbidden to all the brothers.,The Gemara challenges: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Whether he intended to perform ḥalitza and she did not intend to, or whether she intended to perform ḥalitza and he did not intend to, the ḥalitza is invalid, unless they both intended it as one to perform a proper act of ḥalitza? The Gemara answers: This is what Rav said: Even if we did see that she removed a shoe from one of them, we are not concerned that perhaps they intended to perform ḥalitza.,And there are those who say the inference from Rav’s statement should be made in the opposite manner: The reason it is permitted for her to perform levirate marriage now is specifically that we did not see her remove a shoe from one of the brothers. But if we did see, we would be concerned and would treat her as a yevama who already performed ḥalitza, despite our knowledge that she did not intend to perform ḥalitza. And with regard to that which was taught in the baraita, that intention is required, this applies only as far as validating the act of ḥalitza in order to permit her to marry a stranger. But performing an act of ḥalitza even without intention is sufficient to disqualify her for the brothers, rendering prohibited an act of levirate marriage afterward.,Rav Yehuda also said that Rav said: One may not perform ḥalitza using a sandal that was sewn together with threads made of flax, as it is stated: “And I made you shoes of taḥash skin” (Ezekiel 16:10), which is the skin of an animal, implying that a shoe is something made entirely of leather. The Gemara challenges: If the source is “taḥash,” let us say: A shoe made of taḥash skin, yes, it is valid; but if made of anything else, no. The Gemara rejects this: Because “shoe” and “shoe” are written in the Torah multiple times, this amplifies and includes all types of shoes crafted from leather skins as valid for performing ḥalitza.,The Gemara asks: If the inclusion of the words “shoe” and “shoe” amplifies, then should one include as valid for performing ḥalitza shoes crafted from even any other materials as well, including those not produced from leather at all? The Gemara answers: If so, what purpose does “taḥash” serve, as nothing is learned from it? Rather, from the word taḥash it is derived that the shoe must be crafted entirely of leather, but all types of leather are included because the word “shoe” is repeated in the Torah numerous times.,Rabbi Elazar asked Rav: What is the status of the following type of sandal used for performing ḥalitza? In a case where it, the shoe itself, is made of leather, and the sections that hold its straps [tereisiyyot] are made of hair, as they were woven together with goat’s hair, what is the halakha? He said to him: Do we not refer to such a sandal as: “And I made you shoes of taḥash”? Since it is crafted from material that comes from an animal it is valid. The Gemara asks: If that is so, i.e., that anything derived from an animal is valid, then even if it is fashioned entirely of hair it should also be valid. The Gemara answers: That would be called a slipper, not a shoe.,Rav Kahana said to Shmuel: From where is it known that this phrase: “And she shall remove [ḥaltza] his shoe from on his foot” (Deuteronomy 25:9), means to remove? As it is written: “Then the priest shall command, and they shall take out [ḥiltzu] the stones in which the plague is” (Leviticus 14:40), indicating that the word ḥaltza means that they shall remove the stones from their place.,The Gemara asks whether the word ḥaltza can be interpreted differently based upon its apparent meaning in other contexts: But could you say it is a term for strengthening, as it is written: “Arm [heḥaletzu] men from among you for the army” (Numbers 31:3), meaning that men among you will be strengthened and take up arms to prepare for battle? The Gemara answers: There too, the meaning of the word is referring to taking something from its place, as it means removing people from their houses in order to go out to war.,The Gemara challenges: But isn’t it written: “He delivers [yeḥaletz] the afflicted by His affliction [be’onyo]” (Job 36:15)? This indicates that the afflicted one becomes stronger due to his affliction, as, if the intention was to deliver him from his affliction, it should have said: From His affliction, rather than “by His affliction.” The Gemara answers that the verse should be interpreted as follows: Be’onyo, in other words, as reward for his suffering from affliction, He shall deliver him from the judgment of Gehenna, as is understood from the term be’onyo, through the reward due to his affliction.,The Gemara challenges further: But with regard to that it is written: “The angel of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him and delivers them [vayeḥaltzem]” (Psalms 34:8), doesn’t vayeḥaltzem rather mean: He shall strengthen them? The Gemara answers: The verse means: As a reward for those that fear Him, He shall deliver them from the judgment of Gehenna. Therefore, the Gemara interprets vayeḥaltzem as “delivers them,” not as: Strengthens them.,The Gemara challenges further: But with regard to that which is written: “And the Lord will guide you, and satisfy your soul in drought, and make your bones strong [yaḥalitz]” (Isaiah 58:11), and Rabbi Elazar said regarding that verse: This is the greatest of blessings, and Rava said it means: Strengthening of bones. This seems to indicate that the root of the word ḥalitza is referring to strengthening. The Gemara answers: Yes, it has this connotation, and it has this connotation, i.e., the root ḥ-l-tz sometimes connotes removal and sometimes connotes strengthening. But here, only one meaning is possible, as, if it enters your mind that ḥalitza here connotes strengthening, then let the Merciful One write in the Torah: She shall strengthen [ḥaletza] his shoe on his foot [beraglo], indicating that she should tighten the shoe on his foot, rather than stating: “From on his foot [me’al raglo],” which indicates that she is removing something from his foot.,The Gemara responds: If the Merciful One had written in the Torah: On his foot [beraglo], I would have said she must strengthen and tighten the shoe on his foot, yes, but on his calf, no; and if his foot were amputated she may no longer perform ḥalitza. Therefore, the Merciful One writes in the Torah: “From on his foot [me’al raglo],” to teach that she may strengthen the shoe even on his calf, which is part of the leg, or regel, above the foot. The Gemara answers: If so, and ḥalitza really means strengthening, let the Merciful One write in the Torah: She shall strengthen his shoe on the upper part of his foot [beme’al raglo], indicating that the shoe can also be tightened on the area of the calf. What then is the meaning of “from on his foot [me’al raglo],” which is written in the verse? Learn from here that in this context the word ḥalitza clearly indicates removal, meaning that the mitzva of ḥalitza is for the yevama to remove the shoe of the yavam and not to tighten it on his foot.,Parenthetical to this discussion, the Gemara relates: A certain heretic said to Rabban Gamliel: You, the children of Israel, are a nation whose Master removed [ḥalatz] Himself from them, for God has left you in much the same way in which a yavam would perform ḥalitza with his yevama, as it is written: “With their flocks and with their herds they shall go to seek the Lord, but they shall not find Him. He has removed [ḥalatz] Himself from them [meihem]” (Hoshea 5:6). The heretic tried to use this verse as scriptural support that God has performed ḥalitza with the Jewish people.,He, Rabban Gamliel, said to him: Imbecile, does it say: He performed ḥalitza to them [lahem]? Rather, it says “ḥalatz from them [meihem],” meaning it is as if they, the Jewish people, performed ḥalitza on Him. But if a yevama had her shoe removed by her yevamin, does this have any significance? Here too, the meaning of the verse is that the nation of Israel abandoned God by removing themselves from Him, and this abandonment has no significance.,The Gemara analyzes the phrase used in the mishna that discusses the types of shoes that can be used for ḥalitza. It was taught in the mishna that if he was wearing a soft shoe [anpileya] made of cloth for ḥalitza, her ḥalitza is invalid. The Gemara explains: That is to say that an anpileya is not considered a shoe.,And we also learned similarly in a mishna (Shekalim 3:2): The one who collects the funds of shekels donated to the Temple from the chamber and puts them it into baskets in order to be used may not enter to collect the funds wearing a garment [pargod] that is cuffed [ḥafut], nor wearing an anpileya, and needless to say that he may not enter wearing a shoe or a sandal, because one may not enter the Temple courtyard wearing a shoe or a sandal. It is prohibited for the one collecting funds from the chamber to enter the chamber wearing a garment or footwear in which money could be hidden, lest people come to suspect that he hid in them funds collected from the chamber. In any case, the wording of the mishna indicates that an anpileya is not considered a type of shoe, since it is permitted to enter the Temple wearing an anpileya when there is no reason for suspicion, unlike a shoe or sandal, which can never be worn in the Temple.,And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita concerning what footwear is permitted on Yom Kippur, which seems to indicate otherwise: The halakha is the same for a soft leather shoe, and a hard leather sandal, and an anpileya, as one may not walk in them from one house to another, nor from one bed to another on Yom Kippur, due to the prohibition against wearing shoes, indicating that at least as far as Yom Kippur is concerned, an anpileya is considered a shoe.,Abaye said: There, with regard to Yom Kippur, it is referring to an anpileya that has cushioning, and this is forbidden due to the pleasure that one derives from cushioned footwear on a day when people are commanded to afflict themselves. Rava said to him: But is footwear that is not considered to be shoes forbidden on Yom Kippur due to the pleasure one derives from wearing them? But Rabba bar Rav Huna would wrap a scarf on his feet and go out on Yom Kippur so his feet would not be injured, implying that there is no prohibition against wearing something comfortable on one’s foot, as long as it is not defined as a shoe. Rather, Rava said: This is not difficult. Here, when they said that an anpileya has the status of a shoe, it is referring to an anpileya made of leather. There, when they do not consider it a shoe, it is referring to an anpileya made of cloth.,The Gemara adds: And so too, it is reasonable to distinguish in this manner, as, if you do not say so, it is difficult to reconcile the seeming contradiction between one statement about Yom Kippur and another statement about Yom Kippur. As it is taught in a baraita: A person shall not walk while wearing slippers [kordakisin] within his house on Yom Kippur, but he may walk while wearing an anpileya within his house. This would imply that wearing an anpileya is permitted, but the baraita quoted above taught that it is prohibited. Rather, must one not conclude from here that here, where it indicates that an anpileya is forbidden, it is referring to an anpileya made of leather, as they are considered like a shoe, and there, where an anpileya is permitted, it is referring to an anpileya made of cloth? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from here that it is so.,It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: If she performed ḥalitza using a shoe whose seams were opened up, which still covered most of the foot; or if she performed ḥalitza with a sandal whose sole was partially opened that still held most of the foot; or if she performed ḥalitza with a sandal made of cork [sha’am], or of fibers from a tree; or with a prosthetic foot of an amputee; or with a felt shoe [muk]; or with a leg blanket that an amputee makes for his feet as a covering in which to put the stumps of his legs, which is not an actual shoe; or with a leather anpileya; and likewise, a woman who performs ḥalitza with her yavam when he is an adult man, |
|
30. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 59b, 59a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 59a. והא דינין קום עשה הוא וקא חשיב קום עשה ושב אל תעשה נינהו,ואמר ר' יוחנן עובד כוכבים שעוסק בתורה חייב מיתה שנאמר (דברים לג, ד) תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה לנו מורשה ולא להם,וליחשבה גבי שבע מצות מ"ד מורשה מיגזל קא גזיל לה מאן דאמר מאורסה דינו כנערה המאורסה דבסקילה,מיתיבי היה ר"מ אומר מניין שאפילו עובד כוכבים ועוסק בתורה שהוא ככהן גדול שנאמר (ויקרא יח, ה) אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם כהנים לוים וישראלים לא נאמר אלא האדם הא למדת שאפילו עובד כוכבים ועוסק בתורה הרי הוא ככהן גדול,התם בשבע מצות דידהו:,ר' חנינא בן גמליאל אומר אף הדם מן החי: ת"ר (בראשית ט, ד) אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו זה אבר מן החי רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אומר אף הדם מן החי,מ"ט דרבי חנינא בן גמליאל קרי ביה בשר בנפשו לא תאכל דמו בנפשו לא תאכל ורבנן ההוא למישרי שרצים הוא דאתא,כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (דברים יב, כג) רק חזק לבלתי אכל הדם כי הדם הוא הנפש וגו' (רק חזק לבלתי אכל הדם זה אבר מן החי כי הדם הוא הנפש זה דם מן החי),ורבנן ההוא לדם הקזה שהנשמה יוצאה בו הוא דאתא,למה לי למיכתב לבני נח ולמה לי למשני בסיני,כדר' יוסי בר' חנינא דא"ר יוסי בר' חנינא כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונשנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה,לבני נח ולא נשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח ואנו אין לנו אלא גיד הנשה ואליבא דר' יהודה,אמר מר כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונשנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה אדרבה מדנשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח,מדאיתני עבודת כוכבים בסיני ואשכחן דענש עובדי כוכבים עילווה ש"מ לזה ולזה נאמרה:,לבני נח ולא נשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח: אדרבה מדלא נישנית בסיני לבני נח נאמרה ולא לישראל ליכא מידעם דלישראל שרי ולעובד כוכבים אסור,ולא והרי יפת תואר התם משום דלאו בני כיבוש נינהו,והרי פחות משוה פרוטה התם משום דלאו בני מחילה נינהו:,כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונישנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה | 59a. The Gemara challenges: But the mitzva of establishing courts of judgment is a mitzva to stand up and take action, and nevertheless he counts it among the seven mitzvot. The Gemara answers: This mitzva contains a requirement to stand up and take action, i.e., the obligation to establish courts and carry out justice, and it also contains a requirement to sit and refrain from action, i.e., the prohibition against doing injustice.,And Rabbi Yoḥa says: A gentile who engages in Torah study is liable to receive the death penalty; as it is stated: “Moses commanded us a law [torah], an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4), indicating that it is an inheritance for us, and not for them.,The Gemara challenges: But if so, let the tanna count this prohibition among the seven Noahide mitzvot. The Gemara explains: According to the one who says that the verse is referring to the Torah as an inheritance, this prohibition is included in the prohibition of robbery, as a gentile who studies Torah robs the Jewish people of it. According to the one who says that the verse is referring to the Torah as betrothed, as the spelling of the Hebrew word for betrothed [me’orasa], is similar to that of the word for inheritance [morasha], the punishment of a gentile who studies Torah is like that of one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, which is execution by stoning.,The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement from a baraita: Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest? It is derived from that which is stated: “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordices, which if a man does he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). The phrase: Which if priests, Levites, and Israelites do they shall live by them, is not stated, but rather: “A man,” which indicates mankind in general. You have therefore learned that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest.,The Gemara answers: There, in the baraita, the reference is to a gentile who engages in the study of their seven mitzvot. It is a mitzva for a gentile to study the halakhot that pertain to the seven Noahide mitzvot, and when he does so he is highly regarded.,§ The baraita that lists the Noahide mitzvot (56a) teaches that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: The descendants of Noah are also commanded concerning the prohibition against consuming the blood from a living animal. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the verse: “Only flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat” (Genesis 9:4), this is the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: The blood from a living animal is also prohibited in this verse.,The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning behind the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel? The Gemara answers: He reads into the verse: Flesh with its life you shall not eat; blood with its life you shall not eat. The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis explain the mention of blood in this verse? After all, in their opinion, blood from a living animal is not forbidden. The Gemara answers: That comes to permit eating limbs from living creeping animals. The verse indicates that the prohibition does not apply to creeping animals, whose blood is not considered separate from their flesh (see 59b).,The baraita continues: Similarly, you can say that according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, blood from a living animal is also forbidden to the Jewish people in particular; as it is stated: “Only be steadfast in not eating blood, as the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23). With regard to the statements: “Only be steadfast in not eating blood,” this is a limb from a living animal; “as the blood is the life,” this is blood from a living animal.,The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, who hold that there is no specific prohibition with regard to blood from a living animal, interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: That verse comes to teach the prohibition against consuming blood spilled in the process of bloodletting, as this is blood through which the soul departs (see Karetot 20b).,The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, why do I need the Torah to write this halakha with regard to descendants of Noah, and why do I need the Torah to repeat it at Sinai with regard to Jews? Aren’t Jews also descendants of Noah?,The Gemara answers that it is to be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina; as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Any mitzva that was first stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was repeated at Sinai was stated for this group and for that group, i.e., it applies to both gentiles and Jews.,But a mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was not repeated at Sinai among the mitzvot given to the Jewish people was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah. And we have only the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve to which this classification applies, and this is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the verse: “Therefore the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve, which is on the hollow of the thigh, until this day” (Genesis 32:32), is referring to the sons of Jacob, who were commanded to observe this prohibition even though they had the status of descendants of Noah.,§ The Master said in a baraita: Any mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was repeated at Sinai was stated for this group and for that group. The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, from the fact that it was repeated at Sinai, clearly it can be derived that it was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah, as if it pertains to the descendants of Noah as well, why repeat it at Sinai? Aren’t the Jewish people are also descendants of Noah?,The Gemara answers: From the fact that the prohibition of idol worship was repeated at Sinai, and we find that God punished gentiles for it, conclude from it that any mitzva that was repeated at Sinai was stated for this group and for that group, and not only for the Jewish people.,It is further stated in the baraita that a mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was not repeated at Sinai was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah. The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, from the fact that it was not repeated at Sinai, clearly it can be derived that it was stated for the descendants of Noah and not for the Jewish people. The Gemara answers: There is nothing that is permitted to a Jew and forbidden to a gentile.,The Gemara asks: And is there not? But isn’t there the permission for a Jew to take a married beautiful woman, who was taken as a prisoner of war, to be his wife? For a gentile to do so is forbidden. The Gemara answers: There, the reason gentiles are prohibited from doing so is because they are not authorized to conquer. It is not permitted for gentiles to wage wars of conquest, and the halakha of marrying a beautiful woman is stated only with regard to a war of conquest. Therefore the fact that a beautiful woman who is a prisoner of war is permitted only to a Jew and not to a gentile does not indicate that gentiles have a higher degree of sanctity.,The Gemara asks: But isn’t stealing less than the value of one peruta prohibited to a gentile and permitted to a Jew? The Gemara answers: There it is because gentiles are not apt to grant forgiveness of debts, even of less than the value of one peruta. Therefore, for a gentile to take even such a minuscule amount is considered robbery. Jews normally forgive such small amounts.,It is stated in the baraita that any mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was repeated at Sinai was stated both for this group and for that group. |
|
31. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, 24b, 24a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 |
32. Anon., Numbers Rabba, 6.3, 20.5, 21.16 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 21.16. אֶת קָרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי לְאִשַּׁי (במדבר כח, ב), אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה, אֱמֹר לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא שֶׁאֲנִי צָרִיךְ לְקָרְבָּנוֹת, כָּל הָעוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ שֶׁלִּי הוּא, הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁאַתֶּם מַקְרִיבִים אֲנִי בָּרָאתִי אוֹתָהּ, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר (תהלים נ, יב): אִם אֶרְעַב לֹא אֹמַר לָךְ, אֵין לְפָנַי אֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה. אָמַר רַבִּי סִימוֹן שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מִדּוֹת רַחֲמִים כְּתִיב בִּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות לד, ו): וַיַּעֲבֹר ה' עַל פָּנָיו וַיִּקְרָא ה' וגו', וְיֵשׁ רַחֲמָן מוֹסֵר מְזוֹנוֹתָיו לְאַכְזָרִי, הֱוֵי אִם אֶרְעַב לֹא אֹמַר לָךְ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי סִימוֹן אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עֶשֶׂר בְּהֵמוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ שָׁלשׁ הֵן בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ וְשֶׁבַע אֵינָן בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ, וְלֹא הִטְרַחְתִּי עָלֶיךָ שֶׁתְּהֵא מְחַזֵּר בֶּהָרִים לְהָבִיא קָרְבָּן מֵאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵינָן בִּרְשׁוּתְךָ, לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא מֵהַגְּדֵלִים עַל אֲבוּסְךָ, הֱוֵי אִם אֶרְעַב לֹא אֹמַר לָךְ. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק כְּתִיב: אֶת קָרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי, וְכִי יֵשׁ לְפָנָיו אֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה, לְמֹד מִמַּלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת (תהלים קד, ד): מְשָׁרְתָיו אֵשׁ לֹהֵט, מֵהֵיכָן נִזּוֹנִין, רַבִּי יוּדָן אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק מִזִּיו שְׁכִינָה הֵם נִזּוֹנִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי טז, טו): בְּאוֹר פְּנֵי מֶלֶךְ חַיִּים. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּתִיב (במדבר כח, ו): עֹלַת תָּמִיד הָעֲשֻׂיָה בְּהַר סִינַי, אִם תֹּאמַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְפָנַי אֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה, לְמֹד מִמּשֶׁה רְאֵה מַה כְּתִיב בּוֹ (שמות לד, כח): וַיְהִי שָׁם עִם ה' אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לַיְלָה לֶחֶם לֹא אָכַל וגו', אִלּוּ הָיָה לְפָנַי אֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָה הָיָה אוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה, הֱוֵי אִם אֶרְעַב לֹא אֹמַר לָךְ. | 21.16. "16 Another interpretation of (Numb. 27:16) “Let the Lord, appoint”: A parable: A king saw an orphan woman [and] sought to take her for him as a wife. He sent to seek her. She said, “I am not worthy to marry the king.” He sent to seek her seven times, but she did not allow it. In the end she married him. After a time, the king was angry with her and sought to divorce her. She said, “I did not seek to be married to you; you sought me. Since this is so and you have decreed to divorce me and to take another, do not do to that one like what you did to me.” So is it with the Holy One, blessed be He: R. Samuel the son of Nahmani said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, tried for seven days to persuade Moses from the midst of the burning bush, but Moses replied, (in Exod. 4:13), ‘Send please, whomever you will send’; (ibid. 4:10) ‘I am not a man of words, neither yesterday nor the day before.’ This indicates seven days. After time, the Holy One, blessed be He persuaded him; and he went as His agent; and He did all of those miracles through him. In the end, He said to him (in Numb. 20:12), ‘You shall not bring.’ Moses said, ‘Master of the world, (as in Deut. 3:24), “You who let Your servant see the first works of Your greatness, etc.” Since this is so [and] You have decreed against me, do not do like what You did to me to the one that will go in. Rather (as in Numb. 27:17), ‘Who shall go out before them and come in before them.’” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, (in Numb. 27:18) “Take Joshua bin Nun.” And Moses did [it] with a generous eye, as stated (Prov. 22:9), “The generous man is blessed.” A parable: A king said to one of his household, “Give so and so a |
|
33. Anon., Ps.-Matt., 13 Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 |
34. Anon., Pesiqta Rabbati, 16.1, 33.1 Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 |
35. Anon., Esther Rabbah, 4.12 Tagged with subjects: •koy Found in books: Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 116 4.12. וַיִּשְׁלַח סְפָרִים אֶל כָּל מְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ (אסתר א, כב), אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ דַּעַת סְרוּחָה הָיְתָה לוֹ, מִנְהָג שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם אָדָם מְבַקֵּשׁ לֶאֱכֹל עֲדָשִׁים וְאִשְׁתּוֹ מְבַקֶּשֶׁת לֶאֱכֹל אֲפוּנִים, יָכוֹל הוּא לְכוּפָהּ, לָא מַה דְּהִיא בָּעְיָא עָבְדָה. אָמַר רַבִּי פִּנְחָס וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה שְׂחוֹק בָּעוֹלָם, בְּנֹהַג שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם מָדִיִּי נוֹשֵׂא פַּרְסִית וְהִיא מְדַבֶּרֶת בְּלָשׁוֹן מָדִיִּי, פַּרְסִי נוֹשֵׂא מָדִיִּית וְהִיא מְדַבֶּרֶת בְּלָשׁוֹן פַּרְסִי, אֲבָל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא דִּבֶּר עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּלָּשׁוֹן שֶׁלָּמְדוּ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמות כ, ב): אָנֹכִי ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ, לָשׁוֹן יָחֳנָךְ. אָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן דְּבֵית גּוּבְרִין, אַרְבַּע לְשׁוֹנוֹת נָאִין הֵן שֶׁיִּשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עוֹלָם, לַעַז לְזֶמֶר, פַּרְסִי לְאֶלְיָה, עִבְרִי לְדִבּוּר, רוֹמִים לְקָרֵב. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים אַף אַשּׁוּרִית לִכְתָב. עִבְרִית, יֵשׁ לָהּ דִּבּוּר וְאֵין לָהּ כְּתָב. אַשּׁוּרִית. יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתָב וְאֵין לָהּ דִּבּוּר, בָּחֲרוּ לָהֶם כְּתַב אַשּׁוּרִית וְלָשׁוֹן עִבְרִית. בּוּרְגָנִי אֶחָד אָמַר בָּרְרוּ לְהוֹן לָשׁוֹן רוֹמִי מִלָּשׁוֹן יְוָנִי. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי סִימוֹן אָמַר גְּנַאי הוּא לָהּ שֶׁחוֹתֶמֶת שֶׁאֵינָהּ שֶׁלָּה. וְרַב חָנִין בַּר אָדָא אָמַר אַף עַל פִּי כֵן (דניאל ז, יט): וְטִפְרַהּ דִּי נְחָשׁ, אֵינָהּ חוֹתֶמֶת אֶלָּא בִּלְשׁוֹנָהּ. אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן מִכָּאן אָדָם צָרִיךְ לִשְׁנוֹת אֶת פָּרָשִׁיּוֹתָיו, אִלּוּ לֹא שָׁנָה לָנוּ משֶׁה אֶת הַתּוֹרָה מֵהֵיכָן אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין (דברים יד, ז): הַשְּׁסוּעָה, וְאִלּוּ לֹא שָׁנָה לָנוּ דָּנִיֵּאל אֶת הַחֲלוֹם, מֵהֵיכָן אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין וְטִפְרַהּ דִּי נְחָשׁ. | |
|