1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 4.7, 23.3, 26.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 202, 215, 238| 4.7. "כִּי מִי־גוֹי גָּדוֹל אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ אֱלֹהִים קְרֹבִים אֵלָיו כַּיהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ בְּכָּל־קָרְאֵנוּ אֵלָיו׃", 23.3. "לֹא־יָבֹא מַמְזֵר בִּקְהַל יְהוָה גַּם דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי לֹא־יָבֹא לוֹ בִּקְהַל יְהוָה׃", 26.3. "וּבָאתָ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְאָמַרְתָּ אֵלָיו הִגַּדְתִּי הַיּוֹם לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ כִּי־בָאתִי אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע יְהוָה לַאֲבֹתֵינוּ לָתֶת לָנוּ׃", | 4.7. "For what great nation is there, that hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is whensoever we call upon Him?", 23.3. "A bastard shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of the LORD.", 26.3. "And thou shalt come unto the priest that shall be in those days, and say unto him: ‘I profess this day unto the LORD thy God, that I am come unto the land which the LORD swore unto our fathers to give us.’", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 81.5, 104.19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 202, 237| 81.5. "כִּי חֹק לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא מִשְׁפָּט לֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב׃", 104.19. "עָשָׂה יָרֵחַ לְמוֹעֲדִים שֶׁמֶשׁ יָדַע מְבוֹאוֹ׃", | 81.5. "For it is a statute for Israel, an ordice of the God of Jacob.", 104.19. "Who appointedst the moon for seasons; The sun knoweth his going down.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 6.9, 11.34, 15.19, 22.32, 23.2, 23.4 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 200, 201, 221, 233| 6.9. "וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת מִמֶּנָּה יֹאכְלוּ אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו מַצּוֹת תֵּאָכֵל בְּמָקוֹם קָדֹשׁ בַּחֲצַר אֹהֶל־מוֹעֵד יֹאכְלוּהָ׃", 11.34. "מִכָּל־הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל אֲשֶׁר יָבוֹא עָלָיו מַיִם יִטְמָא וְכָל־מַשְׁקֶה אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁתֶה בְּכָל־כְּלִי יִטְמָא׃", 15.19. "וְאִשָּׁה כִּי־תִהְיֶה זָבָה דָּם יִהְיֶה זֹבָהּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תִּהְיֶה בְנִדָּתָהּ וְכָל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּהּ יִטְמָא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃", 22.32. "וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ אֶת־שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲנִי יְהוָה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם׃", 23.2. "וְהֵנִיף הַכֹּהֵן אֹתָם עַל לֶחֶם הַבִּכּוּרִים תְּנוּפָה לִפְנֵי יְהוָה עַל־שְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׂים קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַיהוָה לַכֹּהֵן׃", 23.2. "דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם מוֹעֲדֵי יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר־תִּקְרְאוּ אֹתָם מִקְרָאֵי קֹדֶשׁ אֵלֶּה הֵם מוֹעֲדָי׃", 23.4. "וּלְקַחְתֶּם לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר כַּפֹּת תְּמָרִים וַעֲנַף עֵץ־עָבֹת וְעַרְבֵי־נָחַל וּשְׂמַחְתֶּם לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם שִׁבְעַת יָמִים׃", 23.4. "אֵלֶּה מוֹעֲדֵי יְהוָה מִקְרָאֵי קֹדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר־תִּקְרְאוּ אֹתָם בְּמוֹעֲדָם׃", | 6.9. "And that which is left thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat; it shall be eaten without leaven in a holy place; in the court of the tent of meeting they shall eat it.", 11.34. "All food therein which may be eaten, that on which water cometh, shall be unclean; and all drink in every such vessel that may be drunk shall be unclean.", 15.19. "And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be in her impurity seven days; and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.", 22.32. "And ye shall not profane My holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the LORD who hallow you,", 23.2. "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: The appointed seasons of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are My appointed seasons.", 23.4. "These are the appointed seasons of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their appointed season.", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 44.22 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 216| 44.22. "וְאַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה לֹא־יִקְחוּ לָהֶם לְנָשִׁים כִּי אִם־בְּתוּלֹת מִזֶּרַע בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָאַלְמָנָה אֲשֶׁר תִּהְיֶה אַלְמָנָה מִכֹּהֵן יִקָּחוּ׃", | 44.22. "Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away; but they shall take virgins of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that is the widow of a priest.", |
|
| 5. Dead Sea Scrolls, Pesher On Habakkuk, 1.14-1.15 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 200 |
6. New Testament, Mark, 7.1-7.23 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229| 7.1. Καὶ συνἄγονται πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καί τινες τῶν γραμματέων ἐλθόντες ἀπὸ Ἰεροσολύμων 7.2. καὶ ἰδόντες τινὰς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ὅτι κοιναῖς χερσίν, τοῦτʼ ἔστιν ἀνίπτοις, ἐσθίουσιν τοὺς ἄρτους. 7.3. —οἱ γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐὰν μὴ πυγμῇ νίψωνται τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, κρατοῦντες τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, 7.4. καὶ ἀπʼ ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν μὴ ῥαντίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν, βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων. 7.5. —καὶ ἐπερωτῶσιν αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς Διὰ τί οὐ περιπατοῦσιν οἱ μαθηταί σου κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, ἀλλὰ κοιναῖς χερσὶν ἐσθίουσιν τὸν ἄρτον; 7.6. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Καλῶς ἐπροφήτευσεν Ἠσαίας περὶ ὑμῶν τῶν ὑποκριτῶν, ὡς γέγραπται ὅτι Οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ· 7.7. μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων· 7.8. ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 7.9. καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς Καλῶς ἀθετεῖτε τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν τηρήσητε· 7.10. Μωυσῆς γὰρ εἶπεν Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου, καί Ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητερα θανάτῳ τελευτάτω· 7.11. ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε Ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί Κορβάν, ὅ ἐστιν Δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, 7.12. οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί, 7.13. ἀκυροῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ παραδόσει ὑμῶν ᾗ παρεδώκατε· καὶ παρόμοια τοιαῦτα πολλὰ ποιεῖτε. 7.14. Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος πάλιν τὸν ὄχλον ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς Ἀκούσατέ μου πάντες καὶ σύνετε. 7.15. οὐδὲν ἔστιν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὃ δύναται κοινῶσαι αὐτόν· ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενά ἐστιν τὰ κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 7.16. 7.17. Καὶ ὅτε εἰσῆλθεν εἰς οἶκον ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου, ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ τὴν παραβολήν. 7.18. καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι, 7.19. ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλʼ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται; —καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα. 7.20. ἔλεγεν δὲ ὅτι Τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκεῖνο κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον· 7.21. ἔσωθεν γὰρ ἐκ τῆς καρδίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων οἱ διαλογισμοὶ οἱ κακοὶ ἐκπορεύονται, πορνεῖαι, κλοπαί, φόνοι, 7.22. μοιχεῖαι, πλεονεξίαι, πονηρίαι, δόλος, ἀσέλγεια, ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός, βλασφημία, ὑπερηφανία, ἀφροσύνη· 7.23. πάντα ταῦτα τὰ πονηρὰ ἔσωθεν ἐκπορεύεται καὶ κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. | 7.1. Then the Pharisees, and some of the scribes gathered together to him, having come from Jerusalem. 7.2. Now when they saw some of his disciples eating bread with defiled, that is, unwashed, hands, they found fault. 7.3. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, don't eat unless they wash their hands and forearms, holding to the tradition of the elders. 7.4. They don't eat when they come from the marketplace, unless they bathe themselves, and there are many other things, which they have received to hold to: washings of cups, pitchers, bronze vessels, and couches.) 7.5. The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why don't your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?" 7.6. He answered them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, But their heart is far from me. 7.7. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' 7.8. "For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men -- the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things." 7.9. He said to them, "Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 7.10. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother;' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' 7.11. But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to say, given to God;"' 7.12. then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother, 7.13. making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this." 7.14. He called all the multitude to himself, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand. 7.15. There is nothing from outside of the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man. 7.16. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!" 7.17. When he had entered into a house away from the multitude, his disciples asked him about the parable. 7.18. He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Don't you perceive that whatever goes into the man from outside can't defile him, 7.19. because it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus making all foods clean?" 7.20. He said, "That which proceeds out of the man, that defiles the man. 7.21. For from within, out of the hearts of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual sins, murders, thefts, 7.22. covetings, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness. 7.23. All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." |
|
7. Mishnah, Zevahim, a b c d\n0 1.1 1.1 1 1 \n1 1.4 1.4 1 4 \n2 1.6(4) 1.6(4) 1 6(4)\n3 2.2204-5 2.2204 2 2204\n4 207 207 207 0 \n5 209-10 209 209 0 \n6 211 211 211 0 \n7 2.3 2.3 2 3 \n8 3.6209-10 3.6209 3 6209\n9 212 212 212 0 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 207| 1.1. "כָּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִזְבְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, כְּשֵׁרִים, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה. חוּץ מִן הַפֶּסַח וּמִן הַחַטָּאת. הַפֶּסַח בִּזְמַנּוֹ, וְהַחַטָּאת, בְּכָל זְמָן. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אַף הָאָשָׁם. הַפֶּסַח בִּזְמַנּוֹ, וְהַחַטָּאת וְהָאָשָׁם, בְּכָל זְמָן. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הַחַטָּאת בָּאָה עַל חֵטְא, וְהָאָשָׁם בָּא עַל חֵטְא. מַה חַטָּאת פְּסוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, אַף הָאָשָׁם פָּסוּל שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ:", | 1.1. "All sacrifices slaughtered not in their own name are valid, except that they do not count in fulfilling their owners’ obligation, with the exception of the pesah and the hatat (sin-offering). [This is true for] a pesah in its proper time and a hatat at all times. Rabbi Eliezer says: also the asham (guilt-offering). [This is true for] a pesah in its proper time and a hatat and an asham at all times. Rabbi Eliezer said: the hatat comes on account of sin, and the asham comes on account of sin: just as a hatat [slaughtered] not in its own name is invalid, so the asham is invalid if [slaughtered] not in its own name.", |
|
8. Mishnah, Yevamot, 10.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 233| 10.1. "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעְלָהּ לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם, וּבָאוּ וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ, מֵת בַּעְלֵךְ, וְנִסֵּת, וְאַחַר כָּךְ בָּא בַעְלָהּ, תֵּצֵא מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, וּצְרִיכָה גֵט מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. וְאֵין לָהּ כְּתֻבָּה וְלֹא פֵרוֹת וְלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת וְלֹא בְלָאוֹת, לֹא עַל זֶה וְלֹא עַל זֶה. אִם נָטְלָה מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה, תַּחֲזִיר. וְהַוָּלָד מַמְזֵר מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. וְלֹא זֶה וָזֶה מִטַּמְּאִין לָהּ, וְלֹא זֶה וָזֶה זַכָּאִין לֹא בִמְצִיאָתָהּ וְלֹא בְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, וְלֹא בַהֲפָרַת נְדָרֶיהָ. הָיְתָה בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, נִפְסְלָה מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה, וּבַת לֵוִי מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר, וּבַת כֹּהֵן מִן הַתְּרוּמָה. וְאֵין יוֹרְשִׁים שֶׁל זֶה וְיוֹרְשִׁים שֶׁל זֶה יוֹרְשִׁים אֶת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. וְאִם מֵתוּ, אָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה וְאָחִיו שֶׁל זֶה חוֹלְצִין וְלֹא מְיַבְּמִין. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, כְּתֻבָּתָהּ עַל נִכְסֵי בַעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, הָרִאשׁוֹן זַכַּאי בִּמְצִיאָתָהּ וּבְמַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ, וּבַהֲפָרַת נְדָרֶיהָ. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, בִּיאָתָהּ אוֹ חֲלִיצָתָהּ מֵאָחִיו שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ, וְאֵין הַוָּלָד מִמֶּנּוּ מַמְזֵר. וְאִם נִסֵּת שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת, מֻתֶּרֶת לַחֲזֹר לוֹ: \n", | 10.1. "A woman whose husband had gone to a country beyond the sea and they came and told her, “Your husband died”, married, and then her husband returned: She must leave this one and that one, and she also requires a get from this one and that one. She has no ketubah, no usufruct, no support money or worn clothes, neither from this one nor from that one. If she has taken anything from this one or that one, she must return it. The child from this one or that one is a mamzer. Neither this one nor that one may impurify himself for her. Neither this one and that one has a claim to whatever she may find, nor what she makes with her hands, nor to invalidate her vows. If she was the daughter of an Israelite, she becomes disqualified from marrying a priest; if the daughter of a Levite, from the eating of tithe; and if the daughter of a priest, from the eating of terumah. Neither the heirs of this one nor the heirs of that one are entitled to inherit her ketubah. And if [the husbands] die, the brother of the one and the brother of the other must perform halitzah, but may not contract yibbum. Rabbi Yose said: her ketubah remains a charge upon the estate of her first husband. Rabbi Elazar said: the first husband is entitled to whatever she may find, and what she makes with her hands, and also has the right to invalidate her vows. Rabbi Shimon said: intercourse or halitzah with the brother of the first husband exempts her rival, and the child from him is not a bastard. If she married without an authorization, she may return to him.", |
|
| 9. Mishnah, Sotah, a b c d\n0 7.11 (8) 7.11 (8) 7 11 (8) (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 217 |
| 10. Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah, a b c d\n0 3.(6)7 3.(6)7 3 (6)7\n1 2.8-12(8-9) 2.8 2 8 \n2 2.9 2.9 2 9 \n3 2.10 2.10 2 10 \n4 2.12 2.12 2 12 \n5 2.11 2.11 2 11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 204 |
| 11. Mishnah, Qiddushin, a b c d\n0 4.1 4.1 4 1 \n1 3.17(13) 3.17(13) 3 17(13) (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 216, 217 |
12. Mishnah, Niddah, 1.1, 2.4, 7.4, 8.1-8.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 240, 241, 242| 1.1. "שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַנָּשִׁים דַּיָּן שְׁעָתָן. הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, וַאֲפִלּוּ לְיָמִים הַרְבֵּה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לֹא כְדִבְרֵי זֶה וְלֹא כְדִבְרֵי זֶה, אֶלָּא מֵעֵת לְעֵת מְמַעֵט עַל יַד מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה, וּמִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה מְמַעֶטֶת עַל יַד מֵעֵת לְעֵת. כָּל אִשָּׁה שֶׁיֶּשׁ לָהּ וֶסֶת, דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ. וְהַמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בְּעִדִּים, הֲרֵי זוֹ כִפְקִידָה, וּמְמַעֶטֶת עַל יַד מֵעֵת לְעֵת וְעַל יַד מִפְּקִידָה לִפְקִידָה: \n", 2.4. "כָּל הַנָּשִׁים בְּחֶזְקַת טָהֳרָה לְבַעֲלֵיהֶן. הַבָּאִין מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ, נְשֵׁיהֶן לָהֶן בְּחֶזְקַת טָהֳרָה. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, צְרִיכָה שְׁנֵי עִדִּים עַל כָּל תַּשְׁמִישׁ וְתַשְׁמִישׁ, אוֹ תְשַׁמֵּשׁ לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, דַּיָּהּ בִּשְׁנֵי עִדִּים כָּל הַלָּיְלָה: \n", 7.4. "כָּל הַכְּתָמִים הַנִּמְצְאִים בְּכָל מָקוֹם, טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מִן הַנִּמְצְאִים בַּחֲדָרִים וּבִסְבִיבוֹת בֵּית הַטֻּמְאוֹת. בֵּית הַטֻּמְאוֹת שֶׁל כּוּתִים מְטַמְּאִין בְּאֹהֶל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵם קוֹבְרִין שָׁם אֶת הַנְּפָלִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לֹא הָיוּ קוֹבְרִין אֶלָּא מַשְׁלִיכִין, וְחַיָּה גוֹרַרְתָּן: \n", 8.1. "הָרוֹאָה כֶתֶם עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתֻּרְפָּה טְמֵאָה. וְשֶׁלֹּא כְנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתֻּרְפָּה, טְהוֹרָה. עַל עֲקֵבָהּ וְעַל רֹאשׁ גּוּדָלָהּ, טְמֵאָה. עַל שׁוֹקָהּ וְעַל פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ, מִבִּפְנִים, טְמֵאָה. מִבַּחוּץ, טְהוֹרָה. וְעַל הַצְּדָדִין מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן, טְהוֹרָה. רָאֲתָה עַל חֲלוּקָהּ, מִן הַחֲגוֹר וּלְמַטָּה, טְמֵאָה. מִן הַחֲגוֹר וּלְמַעְלָה, טְהוֹרָה. רָאֲתָה עַל בֵּית יָד שֶׁל חָלוּק, אִם מַגִּיעַ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתֻּרְפָּה, טְמֵאָה. וְאִם לָאו, טְהוֹרָה. הָיְתָה פוֹשַׁטְתּוֹ וּמִתְכַּסָּה בוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה, כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּמְצָא בוֹ כֶתֶם, טְמֵאָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא חוֹזֵר. וְכֵן בַּפַּלְיוֹם: \n", 8.2. "וְתוֹלָה בְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁהִיא יְכוֹלָה לִתְלוֹת. שָׁחֲטָה בְהֵמָה, חַיָּה וָעוֹף, נִתְעַסְּקָה בִכְתָמִים אוֹ שֶׁיָּשְׁבָה בְצַד הָעֲסוּקִים בָּהֶן, הָרְגָה מַאֲכֹלֶת, הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלָה בָהּ. עַד כַּמָּה הִיא תוֹלָה. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר, עַד כַּגְּרִיס שֶׁל פּוֹל, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָרְגָה. וְתוֹלָה בִבְנָהּ אוֹ בְּבַעְלָהּ. אִם יֶשׁ בָּהּ מַכָּה וְהִיא יְכוֹלָה לְהִגָּלַע וּלְהוֹצִיא דָם, הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלָה בָהּ: \n", 8.3. "מַעֲשֶׂה בְאִשָּׁה אַחַת שֶׁבָּאת לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אָמְרָה לוֹ, רָאִיתִי כָתֶם. אָמַר לָהּ, שֶׁמָּא מַכָּה הָיְתָה בִיךְ. אָמְרָה לוֹ, הֵן, וְחָיְתָה. אָמַר לָהּ, שֶׁמָּא יְכוֹלָה לְהִגָּלַע וּלְהוֹצִיא דָם. אָמְרָה לוֹ, הֵן. וְטִהֲרָהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רָאָה תַלְמִידָיו מִסְתַּכְּלִין זֶה בָזֶה. אָמַר לָהֶם, מַה הַדָּבָר קָשֶׁה בְעֵינֵיכֶם. שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים הַדָּבָר לְהַחְמִיר אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טו), וְאִשָּׁה כִּי תִהְיֶה זָבָה דָּם יִהְיֶה זֹבָהּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ, דָּם וְלֹא כָתֶם: \n", | 1.1. "Shammai says: for all women it suffices [to reckon] their [period of uncleanness from their time [of discovering the flow]. Hillel ruled: [their period of uncleanness is to be reckoned retroactively] from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, even if this was many days. The sages say: [the law is] not like the words of these or the words of those, but [the women are deemed to have been unclean] during [the preceding] twenty-four hours when this lessens the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination, and during the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination when this lessens the period of twenty-four hours. For any woman who has a regular period it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow. And if a woman uses rags when she has marital intercourse, this is like an examination which lessens either the period of the [past] twenty-four hours or the period from the [previous] examination to the [last] examination.", 2.4. "All women are in the presumption of being pure for their husband. For those who return from a journey, their wives are in the presumption of being pure. Bet Shammai says: a woman needs two testing-rags for every time she has intercourse, or she must have relations in the light of a lamp. Bet Hillel says: two testing-rags suffice her for the whole night.", 7.4. "All bloodstains, wherever they are found are clean except those that are found in rooms or in a house for unclean women. A house for unclean Samaritan women conveys uncleanness by overshadowing because they bury miscarriages there. Rabbi Judah says: they did not bury them but threw them away and the wild beasts dragged them off.", 8.1. "If a woman observed a bloodstain on her body: If it was opposite her genital area she is unclean; But if it was not near the genital are she remains clean. If it was on her heel or on the tip of her large toe, she is unclean. On her thigh or on her feet: If on the inner side, she is unclean; If on their outer side, she remains clean. And if on the front and back sides she remains clean. If she observed it on her garment: Below the belt, she is unclean, But if above the belt, she remains clean. If she observed it on the sleeve of her shirt: If it can reach as low as her genital area, she is unclean, But if it cannot, she remains clean. If she takes it off and covers herself with it in the night, she is unclean wherever the stain is found, since it can turn about. And the same law applies to a pallium.", 8.2. "[A woman] may attribute [a bloodstain] to any [external] cause to which she can possibly attribute it. If [for instance] she had slaughtered a beast, a wild animal or a bird, Or if she was handling bloodstains or if she sat beside those who handled them. Or if she killed a louse, she may attribute the bloodstain to it. How large a stain may be attributed to a louse? Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: one up to the size of a split bean; And even if she did not kill it. She may also attribute it to her son or to her husband. If she herself had a wound that could open again and bleed she may attribute it to it.", 8.3. "It happened that a woman came in front of Rabbi Akiva and said. She said to him: I have seen a bloodstain. He said to her: Perhaps you had a wound? She said to him: Yes, but it has healed. He said to her: Perhaps it could have opened again and let out some blood.\" She said to him: Yes. And Rabbi Akiva declared her clean. He saw his disciples looked at each other in astonishment. He said to them: Why do you find this difficult, for the sages did not say this rule in order to be stringent but rather to be lenient, for it is said, \"And if a woman have issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood\" blood but not a bloodstain.", |
|
13. Mishnah, Kelim, 22.2, 25.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 204, 207, 208| 22.2. "הַשֻּׁלְחָן שֶׁנִּטְּלָה אַחַת מֵרַגְלָיו, טָהוֹר. נִטְּלָה שְׁנִיָּה, טָהוֹר. נִטְּלָה הַשְּׁלִישִׁית, טָמֵא כְּשֶׁיַּחְשֹׁב עָלָיו. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֵין צָרִיךְ מַחֲשָׁבָה. וְכֵן הַדְּלֻפְקִי: \n", 25.9. "כְּלֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ אֵין לָהֶם אֲחוֹרַיִם וָתוֹךְ, וְאֵין לָהֶם בֵּית צְבִיעָה. וְאֵין מַטְבִּילִים כֵּלִים בְתוֹךְ כֵּלִים לְקֹדֶשׁ. כָּל הַכֵּלִים יוֹרְדִין לִידֵי טֻמְאָתָן בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה, וְאֵינָן עוֹלִים מִידֵי טֻמְאָתָן אֶלָּא בְשִׁנּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁהַמַּעֲשֶׂה מְבַטֵּל מִיַּד הַמַּעֲשֶׂה וּמִיַּד מַחֲשָׁבָה, וּמַחֲשָׁבָה אֵינָהּ מְבַטֶּלֶת לֹא מִיַּד מַעֲשֶׂה וְלֹא מִיַּד מַחֲשָׁבָה: \n", | 22.2. "A table one of whose legs was removed is clean. If a second leg was removed it is still clean. But if a third was removed it becomes unclean where the owner has the intention of using it. Rabbi Yose says: no intention is necessary. The same law applies also to the side-board.", 25.9. "Holy vessels do not have outer and inner sides or a part by which they are held. One may not immerse vessels within one another for sacred use. All vessels become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but they cannot be rendered insusceptible except by a change-effecting act, for an act annuls an earlier act as well as an earlier intention, but an intention annuls neither an earlier act nor an earlier intention.", |
|
14. Mishnah, Berachot, 2.1, 4.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 204, 206| 2.1. "הָיָה קוֹרֵא בַתּוֹרָה, וְהִגִּיעַ זְמַן הַמִּקְרָא, אִם כִּוֵּן לִבּוֹ, יָצָא. וְאִם לָאו, לֹא יָצָא. בַּפְּרָקִים שׁוֹאֵל מִפְּנֵי הַכָּבוֹד וּמֵשִׁיב, וּבָאֶמְצַע שׁוֹאֵל מִפְּנֵי הַיִּרְאָה וּמֵשִׁיב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בָּאֶמְצַע שׁוֹאֵל מִפְּנֵי הַיִּרְאָה, וּמֵשִׁיב מִפְּנֵי הַכָּבוֹד, בַּפְּרָקִים שׁוֹאֵל מִפְּנֵי הַכָּבוֹד, וּמֵשִׁיב שָׁלוֹם לְכָל אָדָם: \n", 4.5. "הָיָה רוֹכֵב עַל הַחֲמוֹר, יֵרֵד. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לֵירֵד, יַחֲזִיר אֶת פָּנָיו, וְאִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהַחֲזִיר אֶת פָּנָיו, יְכַוֵּן אֶת לִבּוֹ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית קֹדֶשׁ הַקָּדָשִׁים:", | 2.1. "If one was reading in the Torah [the section of the Shema] and the time for its recital arrived, if he directed his heart [to fulfill the mitzvah] he has fulfilled his obligation. In the breaks [between sections] one may give greeting out of respect and return greeting; in the middle [of a section] one may give greeting out of fear and return it, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: in the middle one may give greeting out of fear and return it out of respect, in the breaks one may give greeting out of respect and return greeting to anyone.", 4.5. "If he is riding on a donkey, he gets down [and prays.] If he is unable to get down he should turn his face [towards Jerusalem], and if he cannot turn his face, he should direct his heart to the Holy of Holies.", |
|
15. Mishnah, Bikkurim, 1.4-1.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 215| 1.4. "אֵלּוּ מְבִיאִין וְלֹא קוֹרִין, הַגֵּר מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא, שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע ה' לַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ לָתֵת לָנוּ (דברים כ״ו:ג׳). וְאִם הָיְתָה אִמּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מִתְפַּלֵּל בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ, אוֹמֵר, אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּכְשֶׁהוּא בְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת, אוֹמֵר, אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם. וְאִם הָיְתָה אִמּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, אוֹמֵר, אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵינוּ: \n", 1.5. "רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, אִשָּׁה בַת גֵּרִים לֹא תִנָּשֵׂא לַכְּהֻנָּה, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא אִמָּהּ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. אֶחָד גֵּרִים וְאֶחָד עֲבָדִים מְשֻׁחְרָרִים, וַאֲפִלּוּ עַד עֲשָׂרָה דוֹרוֹת, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא אִמָּן מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס וְהַשָּׁלִיחַ וְהָעֶבֶד וְהָאִשָּׁה וְטֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, מְבִיאִין וְלֹא קוֹרִין, שֶׁאֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לוֹמַר (דברים כ״ו:י׳) אֲשֶׁר נָתַתָּה לִּי ה': \n", | 1.4. "These bring [bikkurim] but do not read the declaration:The convert, since he cannot say: “Which the Lord has sworn to our fathers, to give to us” (Deuteronomy 26:3). If his mother was an Israelite, then he brings bikkurim and recites. When he prays privately, he says: “God of the fathers of Israel,” but when he is in the synagogue, he should say: “The God of your fathers.” But if his mother was an Israelite, he says: “The God of our fathers’.", 1.5. "Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: a woman who is a daughter of a convert may not marry a priest unless her mother was herself an Israelite. [This law applies equally to the offspring] whether of proselytes or freed slaves, even to ten generations, unless their mother is an Israelite. A guardian, an agent, a slave, a woman, one of doubtful sex, or a hermaphrodite bring the bikkurim, but do not recite, since they cannot say: “Which you, O Lord, have given to me” (Deuteronomy 26:10).", |
|
16. Tosefta, Menachot, 5.6, 5.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan| 5.6. "השוחט את החטאת להכניס מדמה לפנים כשרה חטאת שהכניס מדמה אפילו כל שהוא פסולה. הקומץ את המנחה להקטיר מקומצה פחות מכזית למחר כשר הקומץ שחיסר אפילו כל שהוא פסול.", 5.8. "מנחת חוטא ומנחת קנאות שנתן עליה לבונה ילקט את הלבונה וכשרה עד שלא ליקט את הלבונה וחישב עליה בין חוץ לזמנו ובין חוץ למקומו אין בו משום פגול משליקט את הלבונה וחישב עליה חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת חוץ לזמנו פגול וחייבין עליו כרת.", | |
|
| 17. Tosefta, Niddah, 6.17 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 221 |
18. Tosefta, Rosh Hashanah, 2.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 201| 2.1. "אין פוחתין מעשרה מלכיות ומעשרה זכרונות ומעשרה שופרות [אם] אמר שלש מכולם יצא אין מזכירין זכרון ומלכות ושופר של פורענות מתחיל בתורה ומשלים בנביא ר' יוסי אומר אם היתה פורענות של עו\"ג מזכירין אותה בפ\"ע המתחיל מתחיל בשל תורה ומסיים בשל תורה [ואומר] של נביאים ושל כתובים באמצע אין אומרים [מלכיות עם הזכרונות] ולא זכרונות עם השופרות ואם אמר לא אמר כלום וצריך לאומרה שניה.", 2.1. "קדשו את החדש בזמנו ונמצאו עדים זוממין הרי זה מקודש קדשוהו בלילה אינו מקודש קדשוהו אנוסין שוגגין מזידין ומוטעין הרי זה [מקודשת] קדשוהו לפני זמנו או לאחר עיבורו פחות משלשים יום יותר על שלשים יכול יהא [מקודשת] תלמוד לומר (שמות יב) חדש אין פחות משלשים יום לא נראית לבנה לשני ימים יכול יקדשוהו לאחר שני ימים תלמוד לומר יום אין לו אלא יום אחד בלבד.", | |
|
19. Tosefta, Sotah, 7.15 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 217| 7.15. "יש יוצאין וחוזרין יוצאין ואין חוזרין ויש שאין יוצאין כל עיקר כל אלו שאמרו יוצאין וחוזרין נותנין [פסי] העיר ומספקין מים ומזון למלחמה ומתקנים את הדרכים ושאר כולן אין חוזרין כל אלו שאמרו אין יוצאין כל עיקר הבונה בית וחנכו ולא שהה שנים עשר חדש נטע כרם וחללו ולא שהה שנים עשר חדש ארס אשה ולקחה ולא שהה שנים עשר חדש הללו אין נותנין פסי העיר ואין מספקין מים ומזון למלחמה ואין מתקנים את הדרכים ר' יהודה היה קורא למלחמת הרשות מלחמת מצוה אבל מלחמת חובה הכל יוצא אפי' חתן מחדרו וכלה מחופתה. ", | |
|
20. Mishnah, Makhshirin, 1.1, 3.5-3.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 205| 1.1. "כָּל מַשְׁקֶה שֶׁתְּחִלָּתוֹ לְרָצוֹן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין סוֹפוֹ לְרָצוֹן, אוֹ שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לְרָצוֹן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין תְּחִלָּתוֹ לְרָצוֹן, הֲרֵי זֶה בְכִי יֻתַּן. מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִים מְטַמְּאִין לְרָצוֹן וְשֶׁלֹּא לְרָצוֹן: \n", 3.5. "הַמְטַנֵּן בְּטִיט הַנָּגוּב, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אִם יֶשׁ בּוֹ מַשְׁקֶה טוֹפֵחַ, בְּכִי יֻתַּן. וְאִם לָאו, אֵינוֹ בְּכִי יֻתַּן. הַמְרַבֵּץ אֶת גָּרְנוֹ, אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא נָתַן בָּהּ חִטִּים וְטָנְנוּ. הַמְלַקֵּט עֲשָׂבִים כְּשֶׁהַטַּל עֲלֵיהֶם, לְהָטֵן בָּהֶם חִטִּים, אֵינָן בְּכִי יֻתַּן. אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן לְכָךְ, הֲרֵי זֶה בְכִי יֻתַּן. הַמּוֹלִיךְ חִטִּין לִטְחֹן וְיָרְדוּ עֲלֵיהֶן גְּשָׁמִים, אִם שָׂמַח, בְּכִי יֻתַּן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׂמֹחַ, אֶלָּא אִם עָמָד: \n", 3.6. "הָיוּ זֵיתָיו נְתוּנִים בַּגַּג וְיָרְדוּ עֲלֵיהֶן גְּשָׁמִים, אִם שָׂמַח, בְּכִי יֻתַּן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׂמֹחַ, אֶלָּא, אִם פָּקַק אֶת הַצִּנּוֹר אוֹ אִם חִלְחֵל לְתוֹכָן: \n", 3.7. "הַחַמָּרִין שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹבְרִים בַּנָּהָר וְנָפְלוּ שַׂקֵּיהֶם לַמַּיִם, אִם שָׂמְחוּ, בְּכִי יֻתַּן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׂמֹחַ, אֶלָּא, אִם הָפְכוּ. הָיוּ רַגְלָיו מְלֵאוֹת טִיט, וְכֵן רַגְלֵי בְהֶמְתּוֹ, עָבַר בַּנָּהָר, אִם שָׂמַח, בְּכִי יֻתַּן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׂמֹחַ, אֶלָּא, אִם עָמַד וְהֵדִיחַ. בְּאָדָם וּבִבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, לְעוֹלָם טָמֵא: \n", 3.8. "הַמּוֹרִיד אֶת הַגַּלְגַּלִּים וְאֶת כְּלֵי הַבָּקָר בִּשְׁעַת הַקָּדִים לַמַּיִם בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיָּחוּצוּ, הֲרֵי זֶה בְכִי יֻתַּן. הַמּוֹרִיד בְּהֵמָה לִשְׁתּוֹת, הַמַּיִם הָעוֹלִים בְּפִיהָ, בְּכִי יֻתַּן. וּבְרַגְלֶיהָ, אֵינָן בְּכִי יֻתַּן. אִם חָשַׁב שֶׁיּוּדְחוּ רַגְלֶיהָ, אַף הָעוֹלִין בְּרַגְלֶיהָ, בְּכִי יֻתַּן. בִּשְׁעַת הַיַּחַף וְהַדַּיִשׁ, לְעוֹלָם טָמֵא. הוֹרִיד חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחוֹשֵׁב שֶׁיּוּדְחוּ רַגְלֶיהָ, אֵינָן בְּכִי יֻתַּן, שֶׁיֶּשׁ לָהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה וְאֵין לָהֶן מַחֲשָׁבָה: \n", | 1.1. "Any liquid which was desired at the beginning though it was not desired at the end, or which was desired at the end though it was not desired at the beginning, comes under the law of \"if water be put.\" Unclean liquids render unclean whether [their action] is desired or is not desired.", 3.5. "If one moistened [produce] with drying clay: Rabbi Shimon says: if there was still in it dripping liquid, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if there was not, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one sprinkled his threshing-floor with water, he need not be concerned lest wheat be put there and it become moist. If one gathered grass with the dew still on it in order to moisten wheat with it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, But if his intention was for this purpose, it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one carried wheat to be milled and rain came down upon it and he was glad of it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah said: one cannot help being glad of it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he stopped [on his way].", 3.6. "If his olives were put on the roof and rain came down upon them and he was glad of it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah said: one cannot help being glad of it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he plugged up the gutter or if he shook the water [onto the olives].", 3.7. "If donkey-drivers were crossing a river and their sacks [filled with produce] fell into the water and they were happy about it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah says: one cannot help being happy about it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if they turned over [the sacks]. If one's feet were full of clay, similarly, the feet of his beast, and he crossed a river and he was happy about it, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah says: one cannot help being happy about it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he stopped and rinsed off his [feet] or those of his [domesticated] beast. But with an unclean [beast] it always causes susceptibility to uncleanness.", 3.8. "If one lowered wheels or the gear of oxen into water at the time of the hot east wind in order that they might become tightened, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one took down a beast to drink, the water which came up on its mouth comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but that which came up on its feet does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If he intended that its feet should be washed, even the water that came up on its feet comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. At the time of footsoreness or of threshing it always causes susceptibility to uncleanness. If a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor took it down, even though his intention was that its feet should be washed, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because with these the act alone counts, but not the intention.", |
|
| 21. Palestinian Talmud, Bikkurim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 22. Palestinian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 23. Palestinian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 24. Palestinian Talmud, Niddah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 25. Palestinian Talmud, Kiddushin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 26. Palestinian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 27. Palestinian Talmud, Sotah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 28. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 210 |
29. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229, 230| 16b. ללדת עולה לראש ההר כדי שיפול ממנה וימות ואני מזמין לה נשר שמקבלו בכנפיו ומניחו לפניה ואלמלי מקדים רגע אחד או מתאחר רגע אחד מיד מת בין רגע לרגע לא נתחלף לי בין איוב לאויב נתחלף לי,(איוב לט, א) חולל אילות תשמור אילה זו רחמה צר בשעה שכורעת ללדת אני מזמין לה דרקון שמכישה בבית הרחם ומתרפה ממולדה ואלמלי מקדים רגע אחד או מאחר רגע אחד מיד מתה בין רגע לרגע לא נתחלף לי בין איוב לאויב נתחלף לי,(איוב לד, לה) [איוב] לא בדעת ידבר ודבריו לא בהשכל (וכתיב (איוב מב, ז) כי לא דברתם אלי נכונה כעבדי איוב) אמר רבא מכאן שאין אדם נתפס בשעת צערו,(איוב ב, יא) וישמעו שלשת רעי איוב את כל הרעה הזאת הבאה עליו ויבאו איש ממקומו אליפז התימני ובלדד השוחי וצופר הנעמתי ויועדו יחדו לבוא לנוד לו ולנחמו מאי ויועדו יחדו אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מלמד שנכנסו כולן בשער אחד ותנא בין כל אחד ואחד שלש מאות פרסי,מנא הוו ידעי איכא דאמרי כלילא הוה להו ואיכא דאמרי אילני הוה להו וכיון דכמשי הוו ידעי אמר רבא היינו דאמרי אינשי או חברא כחברי דאיוב או מיתותא,(בראשית ו, א) ויהי כי החל האדם לרוב על פני האדמה ובנות יולדו להם רבי יוחנן אמר רביה באה לעולם ריש לקיש אמר מריבה באה לעולם אמר ליה ריש לקיש לרבי יוחנן לדידך דאמרת רבייה באה לעולם מפני מה לא נכפלו בנותיו של איוב,אמר לו נהי דלא נכפלו בשמות אבל נכפלו ביופי דכתיב (איוב מב, יג) ויהי לו שבענה בנים ושלוש בנות ויקרא שם האחת ימימה ושם השנית קציעה ושם השלישית קרן הפוך,ימימה שהיתה דומה ליום קציעה שהיה ריחה נודף כקציעה קרן הפוך אמרי דבי רבי שילא שדומה לקרנא דקרש מחייכו עלה במערבא קרנא דקרש לקותא היא אלא אמר רב חסדא ככורכמא דרישקא במיניה שנאמר (ירמיהו ד, ל) כי תקרעי בפוך,רבי שמעון ברבי איתילידא ליה ברתא הוה קא חלש דעתיה אמר ליה אבוה רביה באה לעולם אמר ליה בר קפרא תנחומין של הבל ניחמך אבוך [דתניא] אי אפשר לעולם בלא זכרים ובלא נקבות אלא אשרי למי שבניו זכרים אוי לו למי שבניו נקבות אי אפשר לעולם בלא בסם ובלא בורסי אשרי מי שאומנותו בוסמי אוי למי שאומנותו בורסי,כתנאי (בראשית כד, א) וה' ברך את אברהם בכל מאי בכל רבי מאיר אומר שלא היתה לו בת רבי יהודה אומר שהיתה לו בת אחרים אומרים בת היתה לו לאברהם ובכל שמה רבי אלעזר המודעי אומר איצטגנינות היתה בלבו של אברהם אבינו שכל מלכי מזרח ומערב משכימין לפתחו רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר אבן טובה היתה תלויה בצוארו של אברהם אבינו שכל חולה הרואה אותו מיד מתרפא ובשעה שנפטר אברהם אבינו מן העולם תלאה הקדוש ברוך הוא בגלגל חמה אמר אביי היינו דאמרי אינשי אידלי יומא אידלי קצירא,דבר אחר שלא מרד עשו בימיו דבר אחר שעשה ישמעאל תשובה בימיו שלא מרד עשו בימיו מנלן דכתיב (בראשית כה, כט) ויבא עשו מן השדה והוא עיף ותנא אותו היום נפטר אברהם אבינו ועשה יעקב אבינו תבשיל של עדשים לנחם את יצחק אביו,[ומ"ש של עדשים] אמרי במערבא משמיה דרבה בר מרי מה עדשה זו אין לה פה אף אבל אין לו פה דבר אחר מה עדשה זו מגולגלת אף אבילות מגלגלת ומחזרת על באי העולם מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו לנחומי בביעי,אמר רבי יוחנן חמש עבירות עבר אותו רשע באותו היום בא על נערה מאורסה והרג את הנפש וכפר בעיקר וכפר בתחיית המתים ושט את הבכורה,בא על נערה מאורסה כתיב הכא (בראשית כה, כט) ויבא עשו מן השדה וכתיב התם (דברים כב, כז) כי בשדה מצאה הרג את הנפש כתיב הכא עיף וכתיב התם (ירמיהו ד, לא) אוי נא לי כי עיפה נפשי להורגים וכפר בעיקר כתיב הכא (בראשית כה, לב) למה זה לי וכתיב התם (שמות טו, ב) זה אלי ואנוהו וכפר בתחיית המתים דכתיב (בראשית כה, לב) הנה אנכי הולך למות ושט את הבכורה דכתיב (בראשית כה, לד) ויבז עשו את הבכורה,ושעשה ישמעאל תשובה בימיו מנלן כי הא דרבינא ורב חמא בר בוזי הוו יתבי קמיה דרבא וקא מנמנם רבא א"ל רבינא לרב חמא בר בוזי ודאי דאמריתו כל מיתה שיש בה גויעה זו היא מיתתן של צדיקים אמר ליה אין והא דור המבול אמר ליה אנן גויעה ואסיפה קאמרינן,והא ישמעאל דכתיב ביה גויעה ואסיפה אדהכי איתער בהו רבא אמר להו דרדקי הכי א"ר יוחנן ישמעאל עשה תשובה בחיי אביו שנאמר (בראשית כה, ט) ויקברו אותו יצחק וישמעאל בניו,ודילמא דרך חכמתן קא חשיב להו אלא מעתה (בראשית לה, כט) ויקברו אותו עשו ויעקב בניו מאי טעמא לא חשיב להו דרך חכמתן אלא מדאקדמיה אדבורי אדבריה ומדאדבריה שמע מינה תשובה עבד בימיו,תנו רבנן שלשה הטעימן הקב"ה בעולם הזה | 16b. b to give birth she ascends to the top of a mountain so that /b the kid b should fall down from her and die. And I summon her an eagle that receives it with his wings and places it before her; and if /b the eagle b reached /b her b one moment early or was one moment late, /b the kid b would immediately die. /b Now, if b I do not confuse one moment with another moment, would I confuse i Iyov /i with i oyev /i ? /b ,Similarly: b “Can you mark when the hinds do calve?” /b (Job 39:1). b The womb of this hind is narrow, /b which makes for a difficult delivery. b When she squats to give birth, I summon her a snake [ i derakon /i ] that bites her at the opening of the womb, which /b then b becomes loose, and she gives birth, and if /b the snake b reached /b her b one moment early or was one moment late, she would immediately die. /b Now, if I b do not confuse one moment with another moment, would I confuse i Iyov /i with i oyev /i ? /b ,The Gemara comments: On the one hand, the text states: b “Job has spoken without knowledge, and his words were without wisdom” /b (Job 34:35). b But /b on the other hand, b it is written /b with regard to Job’s friends: b “You have not spoken of Me the thing that is right, like my servant Job” /b (Job 42:8). b Rava said: From here /b it may be inferred b that a person is not held responsible /b for what he says b when he is in distress. /b Although Job uttered certain words that were wrong and inappropriate, he was not punished for them because he said them at a time of pain and hardship.,The verse states: b “And Job’s three friends heard of all this evil that was come upon him, they came every one from his own place, Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite; for they had made an appointment together to come to mourn with him and to comfort him” /b (Job 2:11). b What /b does b “they had made an appointment together” /b mean? b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: This /b phrase b teaches that they all entered /b through b one gate /b at the same time. b And /b a Sage b taught /b in a i baraita /i : There were b three hundred parasangs between each and every one /b of them, i.e., each one lived three hundred parasangs away from the other.,The Gemara asks: b How did they /b all b know /b at the same time what had happened to Job so that the three of them came together? b There are /b those b who say /b that b they /b each b had a crown /b which displayed certain signs when something happened to one of the others. b And there are /b those b who say they /b each b had trees and when /b the trees b withered they knew /b that sorrow had visited one of them. b Rava said /b that b this /b closeness between Job and his friends explains the adage b that people say: Either a friend like the friends of Job or death. /b If a person lacks close friends, he is better off dead.,The Gemara cites another place where Job is mentioned. b “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply [ i larov /i ] on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them” /b (Genesis 6:1). b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b i Larov /i means that b propagation [ i reviyya /i ] came to the world /b through these daughters. b Reish Lakish says: Strife [ i meriva /i ] came to the world. /b Once daughters were born, the men began to fight among themselves over them. b Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥa: According to you who say /b that due to the daughters b propagation came to the world, for what /b reason b were /b the number of b Job’s daughters not doubled, /b when at the end of the story God doubled everything that Job had lost (see Job 1:3, 42:12)?,Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: Granted, /b the numbers of Job’s daughters b were not doubled in name, /b meaning they did not become twice as many, b but they were doubled in beauty, as it is written: “He had also seven sons and three daughters. And he called the name of the first Jemimah, and the name of the second was Keziah, and the name of the third one was Keren-happuch” /b (Job 42:13–14). All three names relate to the daughters’ beauty., b Jemimah [ i Yemima /i ]; /b in her beauty b she was similar to the day [ i yom /i ]. Keziah; her scent wafted like /b the b cassia [ i ketzia /i ] /b tree. b Keren-happuch; in the school of Rav Sheila they say: She was similar to the horn [ i keren /i ] of a i keresh /i , /b an animal whose horns are particularly beautiful. b They laughed at this in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, since it is considered b a blemish /b when a person resembles b the horn of a i keresh /i . Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: /b She was b like garden saffron [ i kekurkema derishka /i ], /b which is the best b of its kind. /b i Keren /i refers to a garden, and i pukh /i means ornament, b as it is stated: “Though you enlarge /b your eyes b with paint [ i pukh /i ], /b you beautify yourself in vain” (Jeremiah 4:30).,It is reported that b a daughter was born to Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, and b he was upset /b that he did not have a son. b His father said to him: Propagation has come to the world /b through the birth of a daughter. b Bar Kappara said to /b Rabbi Shimon: b Your father has consoled you with meaningless consolation, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The world cannot endure without males and females, /b as both are needed for the perpetuation of humanity. b But fortunate is he whose children are males and woe to him whose children are females. /b Similarly, b the world cannot endure without either a spice dealer /b whose wares are sweet-smelling, b or a tanner [ i bursi /i ], /b who is engaged in a foul-smelling occupation. b Fortunate is he whose occupation is a spice seller, /b and b woe to him whose occupation is a tanner. /b ,The Gemara comments that this disagreement is b parallel to /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i : /b The Torah states: b “And the Lord blessed Abraham with everything [ i bakkol /i ]” /b (Genesis 24:1), and the Sages disagree about b what i bakkol /i /b means. b Rabbi Meir says: /b The blessing is b that he did not have a daughter. Rabbi Yehuda says: /b On the contrary, the blessing was b that he had a daughter. Others say: Abraham had a daughter and her name was Bakkol. Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i says: Abraham our forefather was so knowledgeable in astrology [ i itztagninut /i ] that all the kings of the East and the West would come early to his door /b due to his wisdom. This is the blessing of i bakkol /i , that he possessed knowledge that everybody needed. b Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: A precious stone hung around the neck of Abraham our forefather; any sick person who looked at it would immediately be healed. When Abraham our forefather died, the Holy One, Blessed be He, hung /b this stone b from the sphere of the sun, /b which from that point on brought healing to the sick. b Abaye said: This /b explains the adage b that people say: As the day progresses, sickness is lifted. /b , b Alternatively, /b what is the blessing of i bakkol /i ? b That Esau did not rebel in /b Abraham’s b lifetime, /b that is to say, as long as Abraham lived Esau did not sin. b Alternatively, /b the blessing of i bakkol /i is b that Ishmael repented in /b Abraham’s b lifetime. /b The Gemara explains: b From where do we /b derive that b Esau did not rebel in /b Abraham’s b lifetime? As it is written: /b “And Jacob was cooking a stew b and Esau came in from the field and he was faint” /b (Genesis 25:29), b and /b a i baraita /i b taught: On that day Abraham our forefather passed away, and Jacob our forefather prepared a lentil stew to comfort Isaac, his father, /b as it was customary to serve mourners lentil stew.,The Gemara explains: b And what is different about lentils /b that they in particular are the fare customarily offered to mourners? b They say in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, b in the name of Rabba bar Mari: Just as this lentil has no mouth, /b i.e., it does not have a crack like other legumes, b so too a mourner has no mouth, /b that is, his anguish prevents him from speaking. b Alternatively, just as this lentil is /b completely b round, so too mourning comes around to the inhabitants of the world. /b The Gemara asks: b What is /b the practical difference b between /b the two explanations? The Gemara answers: b There is /b a practical difference b between them /b with regard to whether it is appropriate b to console /b a mourner b with eggs, /b which have no opening but are not completely round., b Rabbi Yoḥa says: That wicked /b Esau b committed five transgressions on that day /b that Abraham died: b He engaged in sexual intercourse with a betrothed maiden, he killed a person, he denied the principle /b of God’s existence, b he denied resurrection of the dead, and he despised the birthright. /b ,The Gemara cites proofs to support these charges. b He engaged in sexual intercourse with a betrothed maiden, /b as b it is written here: “And Esau came in from the field”; and it is written there /b with regard to rape of a betrothed maiden: b “For he found her in a field” /b (Deuteronomy 22:27). b He killed a person, /b as b it is written here: /b “And he was b faint”; and it is written there: “Woe is me, for my soul faints before the slayers” /b (Jeremiah 4:31). b And he denied the principle /b of God’s existence, as b it is written here: “What profit is this to me” /b (Genesis 25:32); b and it is written there: “This is my God and I will glorify Him” /b (Exodus 15:2). When he questioned the profit of “this,” he was challenging the assertion that “this is my God.” b And he denied resurrection of the dead, as it is written: “Behold, I am at the point of death” /b (Genesis 25:32), indicating that he did not believe in resurrection after death. b And he despised the birthright, as it is written: “And Esau despised the birthright” /b (Genesis 25:34)., b And from where do we /b derive b that Ishmael repented in /b Abraham’s b lifetime? From /b the incident involving b Ravina and Rav Ḥama bar Buzi, /b who b were sitting before Rava, and Rava was dozing /b while they were talking. b Ravina said to Rav Ḥama bar Buzi: Is it true that you say /b that b any death with regard to which /b the word b i gevia /i , /b expire, is mentioned b is the death of the righteous? /b Rav Ḥama bar Buzi b said to him: Yes. /b For example: “And Isaac expired [ i vayyigva /i ], and died” (Genesis 35:29). Ravina objected: b But /b with regard to b the generation of the flood /b it states: “And all flesh expired [ i vayyigva /i ]” (Genesis 7:21), and there they died for their wickedness. Rav Ḥama bar Buzi b said to him: We say /b this only when both b i gevia /i and i asifa /i , /b gathering, are used; when these two terms are mentioned together they indicate the death of a righteous person.,Ravina asked: b But isn’t there Ishmael, about whom i gevia /i and i asifa /i are written, /b as it is stated: “And these are the years of the life of Yishmael…and he expired and died [ i vayyigva vayyamot /i ]; and was gathered to his people” (Genesis 25:17)? b Meanwhile Rava, /b who had heard the discussion in his dozed state, fully b awoke /b and b said to them: Children [ i dardekei /i ], this is what Rabbi Yoḥa says: Ishmael repented in the lifetime of his father, as it is stated: “And Isaac and Ishmael, his sons, buried him” /b (Genesis 25:9). The fact that Ishmael allowed Isaac to precede him demonstrates that he had repented and accepted his authority.,The Gemara asks: b But perhaps /b the verse b listed them in the order of their wisdom; /b that is to say, perhaps in fact Ishmael preceded Isaac but the Torah did not list them in that order. The Gemara answers: b But if that is so, /b consider that the verse states: b “And Esau and Jacob, his sons, buried him” /b (Genesis 35:29). b What is the reason /b that the verse there b did not list them in the order of their wisdom? Rather, since /b Ishmael b allowed /b Isaac b to precede him, /b it is clear that he b made /b Isaac b his leader, and since he made him his leader, learn from it that he repented in /b Abraham’s b lifetime. /b ,Incidental to the discussion of the verse “And God blessed Abraham with everything” (Genesis 24:1), the Gemara states that b the Sages taught: /b There were b three /b people b to whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave /b already b in this world /b |
|
30. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 219| 84b. ואפילו הכי לא סמך רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אדעתיה קביל עליה יסורי באורתא הוו מייכי ליה שיתין נמטי לצפרא נגדי מתותיה שיתין משיכלי דמא וכיבא,למחר עבדה ליה דביתהו שיתין מיני לפדא ואכיל להו וברי ולא הות שבקא ליה דביתהו למיפק לבי מדרשא כי היכי דלא לדחקוהו רבנן,באורתא אמר להו אחיי ורעיי בואו בצפרא אמר להו זילו מפני ביטול תורה יומא חד שמעה דביתהו אמרה ליה את קא מייתית להו עילויך כלית ממון של בית אבא אימרדה אזלה לבית נשא,סליקו ואתו הנך [שיתין] ספונאי עיילו ליה שיתין עבדי כי נקיטי שיתין ארנקי ועבדו ליה שיתין מיני לפדא ואכיל להו,יומא חד אמרה לה לברתה זילי בקי באבוך מאי קא עביד האידנא אתיא אמר לה זילי אמרי לאמך שלנו גדול משלהם קרי אנפשיה (משלי לא, יד) היתה כאניות סוחר ממרחק תביא לחמה אכל ושתי וברי נפק לבי מדרשא,אייתו לקמיה שתין מיני דמא טהרינהו הוה קא מרנני רבנן ואמרי סלקא דעתך לית בהו חד ספק אמר להו אם כמותי הוא יהיו כולם זכרים ואם לאו תהא נקבה אחת ביניהם היו כולם זכרים ואסיקו להו ר' אלעזר על שמיה,תניא אמר רבי כמה פריה ורביה ביטלה רשעה זו מישראל,כי הוה קא ניחא נפשיה אמר לה לדביתהו ידענא בדרבנן דרתיחי עלי ולא מיעסקי בי שפיר אוגנין בעיליתאי ולא תידחלין מינאי א"ר שמואל בר נחמני אישתעיא לי אימיה דרבי יונתן דאישתעיא לה דביתהו דרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון לא פחות מתמני סרי ולא טפי מעשרין ותרין שנין אוגניתיה בעיליתא,כי הוה סליקנא מעיננא ליה במזייה כי הוה משתמטא ביניתא מיניה הוה אתי דמא יומא חד חזאי ריחשא דקא נפיק מאוניה חלש דעתאי איתחזי לי בחלמא אמר לי לא מידי הוא יומא חד שמעי בזילותא דצורבא מרבנן ולא מחאי כדבעי לי,כי הוו אתו בי תרי לדינא הוו קיימי אבבא אמר מר מילתיה ומר מילתיה נפיק קלא מעיליתיה ואמר איש פלוני אתה חייב איש פלוני אתה זכאי יומא חד הוה קא מינציא דביתהו בהדי שבבתא אמרה לה תהא כבעלה שלא ניתן לקבורה אמרי רבנן כולי האי ודאי לאו אורח ארעא,איכא דאמרי רבי שמעון בן יוחאי איתחזאי להו בחלמא אמר להו פרידה אחת יש לי ביניכם ואי אתם רוצים להביאה אצלי אזול רבנן לאעסוקי ביה לא שבקו בני עכבריא דכל שני דהוה ניים רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון בעיליתיה לא סליק חיה רעה למתייהו,יומא חד מעלי יומא דכיפורי הוה הוו טרידי שדרו רבנן לבני בירי ואסקוהו לערסיה ואמטיוה למערתא דאבוה אשכחוה לעכנא דהדרא לה למערתא אמרו לה עכנא עכנא פתחי פיך ויכנס בן אצל אביו פתח להו,שלח רבי לדבר באשתו שלחה ליה כלי שנשתמש בו קודש ישתמש בו חול תמן אמרין באתר דמרי ביתא תלא זייניה כולבא רעיא קולתיה תלא שלח לה נהי דבתורה גדול ממני אבל במעשים טובים מי גדול ממני שלחה ליה בתורה מיהא גדול ממך לא ידענא במעשים ידענא דהא קביל עליה יסורי,בתורה מאי היא דכי הוו יתבי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ורבי יהושע בן קרחה אספסלי יתבי קמייהו רבי אלעזר בר' שמעון ורבי אארעא,מקשו ומפרקו אמרי מימיהן אנו שותים והם יושבים על גבי קרקע עבדו להו ספסלי אסקינהו,אמר להן רבן שמעון בן גמליאל פרידה אחת יש לי ביניכם ואתם מבקשים לאבדה הימני אחתוהו לרבי אמר להן רבי יהושע בן קרחה מי שיש לו אב יחיה ומי שאין לו אב ימות אחתוהו נמי לרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון חלש דעתיה אמר קא חשביתו ליה כוותי,עד ההוא יומא כי הוה אמר רבי מילתא הוה מסייע ליה רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון מכאן ואילך כי הוה אמר רבי יש לי להשיב אמר ליה רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון כך וכך יש לך להשיב זו היא תשובתך השתא היקפתנו תשובות חבילות שאין בהן ממש,חלש דעתיה דרבי אתא א"ל לאבוה אמר ליה בני אל ירע לך שהוא ארי בן ארי ואתה ארי בן שועל,והיינו דאמר רבי שלשה ענוותנין הן ואלו הן אבא | 84b. § After this digression, the Gemara returns to the story of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. b And /b although his flesh did not putrefy, b even so Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, /b still b did not rely on his /b own b opinion, /b as he was worried that he may have erred in one of his decisions. b He accepted afflictions upon himself /b as atonement for his possible sins. b At night /b his attendants b would spread out sixty felt /b bed coverings b for him. In the morning, /b despite the bed coverings, b they would remove sixty basins of blood and pus from underneath him. /b , b The following day, /b i.e., every morning, b his wife would prepare for him sixty types of relish [ i lifda /i ] /b made from figs, b and he would eat them and become healthy. His wife, /b concerned for his health, b would not allow him to go to the study hall, so that the Rabbis would not push him /b beyond his limits., b In the evening, he /b would b say to /b his pains: b My brothers and my friends, come! In the morning he /b would b say to them: Go /b away, b due to /b the b dereliction /b of b Torah /b study that you cause me. b One day his wife heard him /b inviting his pains. b She said to him: You are bringing /b the pains b upon yourself. You have diminished the money of /b my b father’s home /b due to the costs of treating your self-imposed afflictions. b She rebelled /b against him and b went /b back b to her father’s home, /b and he was left with no one to care for him.,Meanwhile, there were b these sixty sailors /b who b came and entered /b to visit Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. b They brought him sixty servants, /b each b bearing sixty purses, and prepared him sixty types of relish and he ate them. /b When they had encountered trouble at sea, these sailors had prayed to be saved in the merit of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. Upon returning to dry land, they presented him with these gifts., b One day, /b the wife of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, b said to her daughter: Go /b and b check on your father /b and see b what he is doing now. /b The daughter b came /b to her father, who b said to her: Go /b and b tell your mother /b that b ours is greater than theirs, /b i.e., my current ficial status is greater than that of your father’s household. b He read /b the verse b about himself: “She is like the merchant-ships; she brings her food from afar” /b (Proverbs 31:14). As he was unhindered by his wife from going to the study hall, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, b ate and drank and became healthy and went out to the study hall. /b ,The students b brought sixty /b questionable b samples of blood before him /b for inspection, to determine whether or not they were menstrual blood. b He deemed them /b all b ritually pure, /b thereby permitting the women to engage in intercourse with their husbands. b The Rabbis /b of the academy b were murmuring about /b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, b and saying: /b Can it b enter your mind /b that b there is not one uncertain /b sample b among them? /b He must be mistaken. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, b said to them: If /b the i halakha /i b is /b in accordance with b my /b ruling, b let all /b the children born from these women b be males. And if not, let there be one female among them. /b It turned out that b all /b of the children b were males, and /b they b were called Elazar in his name. /b , b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi lamented and b said /b concerning the wife of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: b How much procreation /b has b this evil woman prevented from the Jewish people. /b She caused women not to have children by preventing her husband from going to the study hall and rendering his halakhic rulings., b As /b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, b was dying, he said to his wife: I know that the Rabbis are angry at me /b for arresting several thieves who are their relatives, b and /b therefore b they will not properly tend to my /b burial. When I die, b lay me in my attic and do not be afraid of me, /b i.e., do not fear that anything will happen to my corpse. b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: Rabbi Yonatan’s mother told me that the wife of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, told her: I laid him in the attic /b for b no less than eighteen /b years b and /b for b no more than twenty-two years. /b ,His wife continued: b When I would go up /b to the attic b I would check his hair, /b and b when a hair would fall out from /b his head, b blood would come /b and appear in its place, i.e., his corpse did not decompose. b One day I saw a worm emerging from his ear, /b and b I became /b very b distressed /b that perhaps his corpse had begun to decompose. My husband b appeared to me in a dream /b and b said to me: It is no matter /b for concern. Rather, this is a consequence for a sin of mine, as b one day I heard a Torah scholar being insulted and I did not protest as I should have. /b Therefore, I received this punishment in my ear, measure for measure.,During this period, b when two /b people b would come for adjudication of /b a dispute, b they would stand by the doorway /b to the home of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. b One /b litigant b would state his /b side of the b matter, and the other /b litigant would state b his /b side of the b matter. A voice would issue forth from his attic, saying: So-and-so, you are guilty; so-and-so, you are innocent. /b The Gemara relates: b One day, the wife of /b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, b was quarreling with a neighbor. /b The neighbor b said to her /b as a curse: This woman b should be like her husband, who was not buried. /b When word spread that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, had not been buried, b the Rabbis said: This much, /b i.e., now that the matter is known, to continue in this state is b certainly not proper conduct, /b and they decided to bury him., b There are /b those b who say /b that the Sages found out that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, had not been buried when b Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, /b his father, b appeared to them in a dream and said to them: I have a single fledgling among you, /b i.e., my son, b and you do not wish to bring it to me /b by burying him next to me. Consequently, b the Sages went to tend to /b his burial. b The residents of Akhbaria, /b the town where the corpse of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was resting, b did not allow /b them to do so, b as /b they realized that b all the years that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, had been resting in his attic, no wild beast had entered their town. /b The townspeople attributed this phenomenon to his merit and they did not want to lose this protection., b One day, /b which b was Yom Kippur eve, /b everyone in the town b was preoccupied /b with preparations for the Festival. b The Rabbis sent /b a message b to the residents of /b the adjacent town b of Biri /b instructing them to help remove the body of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, from the attic, b and they removed his bier and brought it to his father’s /b burial b cave. They found a serpent [ i le’akhna /i ] that /b had placed its tail in its mouth and completely b encircled /b the entrance to b the cave, /b denying them access. b They said to it: Serpent, serpent! Open your mouth to allow a son to enter next to his father. It opened /b its mouth b for them /b and uncoiled, and they buried Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, alongside his father.,The Gemara continues: After this incident, b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b sent /b a messenger b to speak with the wife of /b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and propose marriage. b She sent /b a message b to him /b in response: Shall b a vessel used by /b someone b sacred, /b i.e., Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, b be used by /b someone who is, relative to him, b profane? There, /b in Eretz Yisrael, b they say /b that she used the colloquial adage: b In the location /b where b the master of the house hangs his sword, /b shall b the contemptible shepherd hang his basket [ i kultei /i ]? /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b sent /b a message back b to her: Granted that in Torah he was greater than I, but was /b he b greater than I in pious deeds? She sent /b a message back b to him: Whether /b he was b greater than you in Torah I do not know; /b but b I do know /b that he was greater than you b in /b pious b deeds, as he accepted afflictions upon himself. /b ,The Gemara asks: b With regard to Torah /b knowledge, b what is /b the event that demonstrated the superiority of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, over Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? The Gemara answers: b When Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, /b the leading Sages of the generation, b were sitting on benches [ i asafselei /i ] /b teaching Torah along with the other Sages, the youthful pair b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b would sit before them on the ground /b out of respect.,These two young students would engage in discussions with the Sages, in which they would b raise difficulties and answer /b them brilliantly. Seeing the young scholars’ brilliance, the leading Sages b said: From their waters we drink, /b i.e., we are learning from them, b and they are /b the ones b sitting on the ground? Benches were prepared for /b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, b and they were promoted /b to sit alongside the other Sages., b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to /b the other Sages present: b I have a single fledgling among you, /b i.e., my son Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, b and you are seeking to take it from me? /b By promoting my son to such a prestigious position at such a young age, his chances of being adversely affected by the evil eye are greatly increased. b They demoted Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi to sit on the ground, at his father’s request. b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said to /b the Sages: Should b one who has a father /b to care for him, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, be demoted so that he may b live, while /b the other b one, who does not have a father /b to care for him, i.e., Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, should be allowed to b die? /b Upon hearing his argument, the Sages b also demoted Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, /b without explaining to him the reason for his demotion. b He became offended /b and b said /b to them: b You are equating /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b to me, /b by demoting us together. In fact, I am much greater than he.,As a result of that incident, the relationship of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi changed. Up b until that day, when Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b would state a matter /b of Torah, b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would support him /b by citing proofs for his opinion. b From this /b point b forward, when /b they were discussing a subject and b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b would say: I have /b an argument b to respond, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would /b preempt him by b saying to him: Such and such is what you have to respond, /b and b this is the refutation of your /b claim. b Now /b that you asked these questions, b you have surrounded us with bundles of refutations that have no substance, /b i.e., you have forced us to give unnecessary answers. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would anticipate Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s comments and immediately dismiss them as having no value., b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b became offended. He came /b and b told his father /b what had transpired. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel b said /b to him: b My son, do not let /b his actions b offend /b you, b as he is a lion, son of a lion, and you are a lion, son of a fox. /b Rabbi Elazar’s father, Rabbi Shimon, was a renowned Sage, and therefore Rabbi Elazar’s sagacity is not surprising. In any event, this incident demonstrates the superiority of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with regard to knowledge of Torah.,The Gemara concludes: b This /b incident b is /b the background to a statement b which Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said: There are three /b prototypical b modest /b people, b and they are: Father, /b i.e., Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; |
|
31. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 232| 102b. ליקח לו חטין ולקח מהם שעורין שעורין ולקח מהם חטין תניא חדא אם פחתו פחתו לו ואם הותירו הותירו לו ותני חדא אם פחתו פחתו לו ואם הותירו הותירו לאמצע,אמר רבי יוחנן לא קשיא הא ר"מ והא רבי יהודה,הא ר"מ דאמר שינוי קונה והא רבי יהודה דאמר שינוי אינו קונה,מתקיף לה ר' אלעזר ממאי דלמא עד כאן לא קאמר ר"מ אלא במידי דחזי ליה לגופיה אבל לסחורה לא אמר,אלא א"ר אלעזר הא והא ר' מאיר ולא קשיא כאן לאכילה כאן לסחורה,מחכו עלה במערבא לר' יוחנן אליבא דר' יהודה וכי מי הודיעו לבעל חטין שיקנה חטין לבעל מעות מתקיף לה רב שמואל בר ססרטי אי הכי אפילו חטין וחטין נמי לא,אמר רבי אבהו שאני חטין וחטין דשליחותיה קא עביד וכי בעל הבית דמי,תדע דתנן אחד המקדיש נכסיו ואחד המעריך את עצמו אין לו בכסות אשתו ולא בכסות בניו ולא בצבע שצבע לשמן ולא בסנדלים חדשים שלקחן לשמן,ואמאי לימא הכא נמי מי הודיעו לצבע שיקנה צבעו לאשה אלא לאו משום דאמרינן [דשליחותיה קא עביד וכיד אשתו דמי הכא נמי] שליחותיה קא עביד וכיד בעה"ב דמי,א"ר אבא לא כל המקדיש נכסיו אין דעתו על כסות אשתו ובניו,מתקיף לה רבי זירא וכי דעתו של אדם על תפיליו ותנן המקדיש נכסיו מעלין לו תפילין א"ל אביי אין דעתו של אדם על תפילין המקדיש נכסיו סבר מצוה קא עבידנא ואין דעתו של אדם על כסות אשתו ובניו משום איבה,מתקיף לה רב אושעיא והלא חייבי ערכין שנו כאן ותנן חייבי ערכין ממשכנין אותן,וכי דעתו של אדם על עצמו למשכנו,אלא אמר רבי אבא כל המקדיש נכסיו נעשה כמי שהקנה להן כסות אשתו ובניו מעיקרא,תנו רבנן הלוקח שדה בשם חבירו אין כופין אותו למכור ואם אמר לו על מנת כופין אותו למכור,מאי קאמר אמר רב ששת ה"ק הלוקח שדה מחבירו בשם ריש גלותא אין כופין אותו ריש גלותא למכור ואם אמר על מנת כופין את ריש גלותא למכור,אמר מר הלוקח שדה בשם ריש גלותא אין כופין אותו ריש גלותא למכור מכלל דמקנא קניא ליה לימא פליגא דבני מערבא דאמרי וכי מי הודיעו לבעל חטין שיקנה חטין לבעל הבית,אי משום הא לא קשיא כגון דאודעיה לבעל שדה ואודעינהו לסהדי,אלא אימא סיפא על מנת כופין אותו ריש גלותא למכור אמאי ולימא ריש גלותא לא יקרייכו בעינא ולא זילותייכו בעינא,אלא אמר אביי ה"ק הלוקח שדה בשם חבירו (ריש גלותא) | 102b. b to purchase wheat for him, /b which he plans to sell at a profit, b and /b instead the agent b purchased barley with /b the money, or if he gave his agent money to purchase b barley and /b instead b he purchased wheat with /b the money, two i baraitot /i issue discordant rulings with regard to the i halakha /i . b It is taught /b in b one /b i baraita /i that b if there was a loss, the loss is for /b the agent, b and if there was a profit, /b the b profit is for /b the agent as well, as he is considered to have abrogated his status as an agent by deviating from the instructions. b And it is taught /b in b one /b i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Bava Metzia /i 4:20) that if there was an agreement that both parties would split the profits from the transaction, b if there was a loss, the loss is for /b the agent, b and if there was a profit, /b the b profit /b goes b to the middle, /b i.e., the agent and the investor split the profit.,To reconcile the i baraitot /i , b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b This is b not difficult. This /b first i baraita /i is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, and this /b second i baraita /i is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda. /b ,Rabbi Yoḥa explains his rationale: b This /b first i baraita /i is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, who says /b that b a change /b by an agent that deviates from the terms of his assignment means that the agent b acquires /b the item in question for himself, as in the case of one who was paid to dye wool red but dyed it black. In this case as well, when the agent purchases wheat instead of barley, or vice versa, he acquires the grain for himself. b And this /b second i baraita /i is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, who says /b that b a change /b by an agent which deviates from the terms of his assignment does b not /b mean that the agent b acquires /b the item in question for himself. It is acquired by the one who appointed the agent, and they split the profits as agreed. But the agent is held responsible for any loss incurred, due to his deviation from the instructions., b Rabbi Elazar objects to this /b explanation: b From where /b do you say that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda extends to the case of these i baraitot /i ? b Perhaps Rabbi Meir says /b that a change by an agent from the terms of his assignment results in the acquisition of the item by the agent b only with regard to an item that is fit for /b use by the one who appointed the agent b himself, /b such as wool dyed the wrong color, which is now not usable for its intended purpose. b But /b Rabbi Meir b does not say /b his ruling with regard to an item purchased b for /b subsequent sale as b merchandise, /b since it is intended to be sold for a profit in any event, and the transaction would take effect as agreed upon initially, with the agent held responsible for any loss incurred., b Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: /b Both b this /b i baraita /i b and that /b i baraita /i are written in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, and /b it is b not difficult. Here, /b in the first i baraita /i , it is discussing grain purchased b for eating, /b and since the one who appointed the agent desired wheat, he does not acquire the barley. b There, /b in the second i baraita /i , it is discussing grain purchased b for /b subsequent sale as b merchandise, /b and the transaction takes effect as agreed upon initially, with the agent held responsible for any loss incurred.,The Gemara notes that b they laughed at it in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, at the explanation b of Rabbi Yoḥa, /b who said that b according to /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yehuda, /b a deviation by an agent from the terms of his assignment does not result in the acquisition of the item for the agent himself: b And who informed the owner of the wheat, /b i.e., the seller, b that he should transfer the wheat to the owner of the money? /b If the seller was unaware that the agent was acting on someone else’s behalf, how would the one who appointed the agent acquire the wheat? b Rav Shmuel bar Sasrati objects to this /b rationale: b If so, /b then b even /b in a case where the agent was sent to purchase b wheat and /b he purchased b wheat, /b the one who appointed the agent should b not /b acquire the wheat, since the seller was unaware that the agent was acting on someone else’s behalf., b Rabbi Abbahu said: /b The case of an agent who was assigned to purchase b wheat and /b purchased b wheat is different, as /b the agent b is performing his assignment and, /b as such, b he is like the customer, /b i.e., the one who appointed him, and it is as though the latter has purchased the grain himself.,Rabbi Abbahu further explains: b Know /b that the agent is viewed as an extension of the one who appointed him, b as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Arakhin /i 24a): Concerning both b one who consecrates his property and one who valuates himself /b by donating his fixed value to the Temple, the Temple treasury b does not have /b any rights b with regard to /b the donor’s b wife’s clothing; and not with regard to his children’s clothing; and not with regard to /b new clothes colored with b dye that the /b donor b dyed for /b his wife or children; b and not with regard to new sandals that /b the donor b purchased for /b his wife or children. Presumably, the treasurer has no right to these items because they are for the personal use of the donor’s wife and children, and are considered as if owned by them.,Rabbi Abbahu continues: b And why /b is it so, i.e., why is it that the wife is considered the owner of the dyed clothing for which the husband paid? b Here also, let /b us b say: Who informed the dyer that he should transfer his dye to the wife? Rather, is it not because we say that /b the husband b is performing his assignment and, /b as such, he is b like /b an extension of b his wife’s hand? Here also, /b in the case of one who purchases grain for another, the agent b is performing his assignment, and is like /b an extension of the b customer’s hand. /b ,The Gemara rejects this explanation. b Rabbi Abba said: No, /b the reason for the ruling of the mishna is that b the intention of anyone who consecrates his property is not upon the clothing of his wife and his children, /b i.e., he does not intend to consecrate those items., b Rabbi Zeira objects to /b Rabbi Abba’s explanation: b And is it the intention of a person /b who consecrates his property to do so b upon his phylacteries? /b Presumably not. b And we learned /b in a mishna ( i Arakhin /i 23b) that with regard to b one who consecrates /b all of b his property, /b his b phylacteries are evaluated for him /b and consecrated. Apparently, lack of intent to consecrate a particular item does not prevent its consecration. b Abaye said to /b Rabbi Zeira: b Yes, the intention of a person /b who consecrates his property b is upon /b his b phylacteries, /b because b one who consecrates his property thinks /b to himself: b I am performing a mitzva, /b and he therefore intends to include his phylacteries; b but the intention of a person is not upon the clothing of his wife and his children, due to the enmity /b that would be engendered if he consecrated their clothing., b Rav Oshaya /b also b objects to /b Rabbi Abba’s explanation: b But is it not /b so that the matter of b those who are obligated in valuations was taught here /b in the mishna, b and we learned /b in a mishna ( i Arakhin /i 21a): Concerning b those who are obligated in valuations, /b the Temple treasury b seizes collateral from them /b to force them to fulfill their vow., b And is the intention of a person upon himself /b to allow the treasurer b to seize collateral from him? /b Presumably not. Nevertheless, collateral is seized from him, proving that one’s intention does not prevent consecration. Accordingly, even if it is assumed that he does not intend to consecrate the clothing of his wife or children, the clothing should nevertheless be consecrated. Why, then, is the clothing of his wife or children not consecrated?, b Rather, Rabbi Abba /b also holds that the reason the clothing is not consecrated is not due to his intent, and he b said /b a different explanation: b Anyone who consecrates his property becomes as one who transferred his wife’s and his children’s clothing to them at the outset. /b Therefore, the clothing did not belong to him at the time that he consecrated his property.,§ The Gemara presents another situation in which one makes a purchase involving a third party. b The Sages taught: /b In the case of b one who purchases a field in the name of another, he is not compelled to sell /b it. b But if he said to him /b at the time of the sale: I will purchase the field b on the condition /b that he will sell it to me, b he is compelled to sell /b it.,Noting the ambiguity of this statement, the Gemara asks: b What is it saying? Rav Sheshet said /b that b this /b is what it b is saying: /b With regard to b one who purchases a field from another, /b claiming that he is acting b in the name of the Exilarch /b or another domit figure, so that others will be discouraged from contesting the sale, b the Exilarch is not compelled to sell /b it to him, i.e., the Exilarch is not required to provide the purchaser with documentation that the field belongs to the purchaser. b But if /b the purchaser b said /b to the seller: I will purchase the field b on the condition /b that the Exilarch will provide me with that documentation, b the Exilarch is compelled to sell /b it to him, i.e., to provide him with the documentation.,The Gemara questions Rav Sheshet’s interpretation. b The Master said: /b With regard to b one who purchases a field in the name of the Exilarch, the Exilarch is not compelled to sell /b it to him. Since the i baraita /i teaches only that the Exilarch is not required to provide the purchaser with documentation that the field is his, it can be understood b by inference that /b the purchaser b has /b nevertheless b acquired /b the field b for himself. Let us say that /b this interpretation of the i baraita /i b disagrees with /b the statement of b the residents of the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, b who say: And who informed the owner of the wheat that he should transfer the wheat to the customer? /b Since the seller assumed he was selling the field to the Exilarch, the Sages of Eretz Yisrael would hold that the sale does not take effect.,The Gemara rejects this: b If /b it is b due to this /b inference that it is surmised that the i baraita /i is in conflict with the opinion of the Sages of Eretz Yisrael, it is b not difficult, /b as it can be said that the i baraita /i is discussing a case b where /b the purchaser b informed the owner of the field and informed the witnesses /b that he intends to purchase the field for himself.,The Gemara rejects Rav Sheshet’s interpretation for a different reason. b Rather, say /b that b the latter clause /b is difficult, as it states that if the purchaser said to the seller: I will purchase the field b on the condition /b that the Exilarch will sell it to me, b the Exilarch is compelled to sell /b it to him. b Why /b should the Exilarch be compelled to provide the purchaser with documentation? b But let the Exilarch say: I do not desire your esteem nor do I desire your disgrace, /b i.e., I am not involved in your affairs. Since the Exilarch had not been party to the negotiations, how can a stipulation stated by the purchaser render him obligated?, b Rather, Abaye said: This /b is what the i baraita /i b is saying: /b With regard to b one who purchases a field in the name of his friend, the Exilarch, /b |
|
32. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 217| 41b. מאתחלתא דמועד,וחזן הכנסת נוטל ס"ת ונותנו לראש הכנסת שמעת מינה חולקין כבוד לתלמיד במקום הרב אמר אביי כולה משום כבודו דמלך,והמלך עומד ומקבל וקורא יושב אגריפס המלך עמד וקיבל וקרא עומד עומד מכלל דיושב והאמר מר אין ישיבה בעזרה אלא למלכי בית דוד בלבד שנא' (שמואל ב ז, יח) ויבא המלך דוד וישב לפני ה' ויאמר וגו' כדאמר רב חסדא בעזרת נשים הכא נמי בעזרת נשים,ושבחוהו חכמים שבחוהו מכלל דשפיר עבד האמר רב אשי אפי' למ"ד נשיא שמחל על כבודו כבודו מחול מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול שנא' (דברים יז, טו) שום תשים עליך מלך שתהא אימתו עליך,מצוה שאני,וכשהגיע ללא תוכל לתת תנא משמיה דרבי נתן באותה שעה נתחייבו שונאי ישראל כלייה שהחניפו לו לאגריפס,אמר ר' שמעון בן חלפתא מיום שגבר אגרופה של חנופה נתעוותו הדינין ונתקלקלו המעשים ואין אדם יכול לומר לחבירו מעשי גדולים ממעשיך,דרש ר' יהודה בר מערבא ואיתימא ר' שמעון בן פזי מותר להחניף לרשעים בעולם הזה שנאמר (ישעיהו לב, ה) לא יקרא עוד לנבל נדיב ולכילי לא יאמר שוע מכלל דבעולם הזה שרי,ר' שמעון בן לקיש אמר מהכא (בראשית לג, י) כראות פני אלהים ותרצני,ופליגא דרבי לוי דאמר רבי לוי משל של יעקב ועשו למה הדבר דומה לאדם שזימן את חבירו והכיר בו שמבקש להורגו אמר לו טעם תבשיל זה שאני טועם כתבשיל שטעמתי בבית המלך אמר ידע ליה מלכא מיסתפי ולא קטיל ליה,אמר רבי אלעזר כל אדם שיש בו חנופה מביא אף לעולם שנא' (איוב לו, יג) וחנפי לב ישימו אף ולא עוד אלא שאין תפלתו נשמעת שנאמר (איוב לו, יג) לא ישועו כי אסרם,סימן א"ף עוב"ר גיהנ"ם ביד"ו ניד"ה גול"ה,ואמר רבי אלעזר כל אדם שיש בו חנופה אפילו עוברין שבמעי אמן מקללין אותו שנא' (משלי כד, כד) אומר לרשע צדיק אתה יקבוהו עמים יזעמוהו לאומים ואין קוב אלא קללה שנא' (במדבר כג, ח) לא קבה אל ואין לאום אלא עוברין שנא' (בראשית כה, כג) ולאום מלאום יאמץ,ואמר רבי אלעזר כל אדם שיש בו חנופה נופל בגיהנם שנא' (ישעיהו ה, כ) הוי האומרים לרע טוב ולטוב רע וגו' מה כתיב אחריו לכן כאכל קש לשון אש וחשש להבה ירפה וגו',ואמר רבי אלעזר כל המחניף לחבירו סוף נופל בידו ואם אינו נופל בידו נופל ביד בניו ואם אינו נופל ביד בניו נופל ביד בן בנו שנא' (ירמיהו כח, ה) ויאמר ירמיה לחנניה אמן כן יעשה ה' יקם ה' את דבריך וכתי' | 41b. implying that the assembly takes place b at the beginning of the Festival, /b when the entire Jewish people comes to Jerusalem.,§ It is taught in the mishna: b And the synagogue attendant takes a Torah scroll and gives it to the head of the synagogue, /b until it is eventually passed to the king. The Gemara suggests: b You can learn from /b the fact that all of these dignitaries receive the Torah scroll before the king that b honor may be given to a student in the presence of the teacher. Abaye said: /b A proof may not be adduced from here, as the b entire /b process b is for the honor of the king, /b to show that he is removed from ordinary people by many ranks.,It is taught in the mishna: b And the king stands, and receives /b the Torah scroll, b and reads /b from it while b sitting. King Agrippa arose, and received /b the Torah scroll, b and read /b from it while b standing. /b The Gemara asks: b By inference, /b until that point he had been b sitting. But didn’t the Master say /b ( i Tosefta /i , i Sanhedrin /i 4:4) that b sitting in the /b Temple b courtyard /b is permitted b only for kings from the house of David, as it is stated: “Then King David went in, and sat before the Lord; and he said: /b Who am I?” (II Samuel 7:18). The Gemara answers: b As Rav Ḥisda said /b in a similar context: This took place not in the Israelite courtyard, where the prohibition against sitting applies, but b in the women’s courtyard. Here too, /b the assembly was b in the women’s courtyard. /b ,It is stated in the mishna that King Agrippa read from the Torah while standing, b and the Sages praised him /b for this. The Gemara asks: b From the fact /b that b they praised him, /b can it be concluded b that he acted appropriately? Didn’t Rav Ashi say: Even according to the one who says /b with regard to b a i Nasi /i who relinquished /b the b honor /b due b him, his honor is relinquished, /b i.e., he may do so, with regard to b a king who relinquished /b the b honor /b due b him, his honor is not relinquished, as it is stated: “You shall place a king over you” /b (Deuteronomy 17:15). This is interpreted to mean b that his awe shall be upon you. /b The Torah establishes that awe is an essential component of kingship, and it is not the prerogative of the king to relinquish it.,The Gemara answers: Since he relinquished his honor for the sake of b a mitzva, /b this situation b is different /b and does not dishonor him.,The mishna continues: b And when /b Agrippa b arrived at /b the verse: b “You may not appoint /b a foreigner over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15), tears flowed from his eyes because he was a descendant of the house of Herod and was not of Jewish origin. The entire nation said to him: You are our brother. It is b taught in the name of Rabbi Natan: At that moment the enemies of the Jewish people, /b a euphemism for the Jewish people, b were sentenced to destruction for flattering Agrippa. /b , b Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta says: From the day that the power of flattery prevailed, the judgment has become corrupted, and /b people’s b deeds have become corrupted, and a person cannot say to another: My deeds are greater than your deeds, /b as everyone flatters one another and people no longer know the truth., b Rabbi Yehuda of the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, b and some say Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, taught: It is permitted to flatter wicked people in this world, as it is stated /b concerning the future: b “The vile person shall no longer be called generous, nor shall the churl be said to be noble” /b (Isaiah 32:5). b By inference, /b this indicates b that in this world it is permitted /b to flatter them., b Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said /b that this can be proven b from here. /b Jacob said to Esau: “I have seen your face, b as one sees the face of angels, and you were pleased with me” /b (Genesis 33:10). Jacob flattered him by comparing seeing him to seeing a divine vision.,The Gemara notes: b And /b Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, in interpreting Jacob’s statement, b disagrees with Rabbi Levi, as Rabbi Levi says: /b With regard to the interaction between b Jacob and Esau, to what is this matter comparable? To a person who invited another /b to his home b and /b the guest b realized that he wants to kill him. /b The guest b said to him: The flavor of this dish that I taste is like a dish that I tasted in the king’s house. /b The host then b said /b to himself: b The king /b must b know him. /b Therefore, b he was afraid and did not kill him. /b Similarly, when Jacob told Esau that his face is like the face of an angel, he intended to let him know that he had seen angels, in order to instill fear in him so that Esau would not seek to harm him., b Rabbi Elazar says: Any person who has flattery in him brings wrath to the world, as it is stated: “But those with flattery in their hearts bring about wrath” /b (Job 36:13). b And moreover, his prayer is not heard, as it is stated /b in that same verse: b “They do not cry for help when He binds them.” /b ,The Gemara cites b a mnemonic /b device for the statements of Rabbi Elazar: b Wrath, fetus, Gehenna, in his hands, menstruating woman, exiled. /b , b And Rabbi Elazar says: Any person who has flattery in him, even fetuses in their mothers’ wombs curse him, as it is stated: “He who says to the wicked: You are righteous, peoples shall curse him [ i yikkevuhu /i ], nations [ i leummim /i ] shall execrate him” /b (Proverbs 24:24); b and i kov /i , /b the linguistic root of the word i yikkevuhu /i , means b only a curse, as it is stated: /b Balaam explained that he did not curse the Jewish people, as he said: “How can I curse [ i ekkov /i ] b whom God has not cursed [ i kabbo /i ]?” /b (Numbers 23:8). b And i le’om /i /b is homiletically interpreted to mean b only fetuses, as it is stated /b with regard to Jacob and Esau, when they were still in Rebecca’s womb: b “And one people [ i le’om /i ] shall be stronger than the other people [ i le’om /i ]” /b (Genesis 25:23)., b And Rabbi Elazar says: Any person who has flattery in him falls into Gehenna, as it is stated: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” /b (Isaiah 5:20). b What is written afterward? “Therefore, as the tongue of fire devours straw, and as the chaff is consumed by the flame” /b (Isaiah 5:24), meaning that the people described in the earlier verse will end up burning like straw in the fires of Gehenna., b And Rabbi Elazar says: Anyone who flatters another ultimately falls into his hands. And if he does not fall into his hands, he falls into his children’s hands. And if he does not fall into his children’s hands, he falls into his grandchild’s hands, as it is stated: “Then the prophet Jeremiah said to Haiah…Amen, the Lord should do so, the Lord should perform your words” /b (Jeremiah 28:5–6). This was a form of flattery, as Jeremiah did not explicitly say that Haiah was a false prophet. b And it is written: /b |
|
| 33. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, 21-22 (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229 |
34. Babylonian Talmud, Keritot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229, 230| 4a. שפתיו נהוי מעשה גבי מגדף אמר רבא שאני מגדף הואיל וישנו בלב אבל בעלמא עקימת שפתיו הוי מעשה,מתיב רבי זירא יצאו עדים זוממין שאין בו מעשה ואמאי הא על פי כתיב בהן אמר רבא שאני עדים זוממין הואיל וישנן בראייה:,האוכל חלב: ת"ר (ויקרא ז, כג) כל חלב שור וכשב ועז לא תאכלו לחייב על כל אחת ואחת דברי ר' ישמעאל וחכ"א אינו חייב אלא אחת,נימא בהא קמיפלגי דר' ישמעאל סבר לוקין על לאו שבכללות ורבנן סברי אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות,לעולם סבר ר' ישמעאל אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות ושאני הכא דמייתרי ליה קראי נכתוב קרא כל חלב לא תאכלו שור וכשב ועז למה לי ש"מ לחלק,ורבנן אי לא כתיב שור וכשב ועז ה"א אפילו חלב חיה במשמע להכי כתב שור כשב ועז למימרא דחלב שור וכשב ועז הוא דאסור אבל דחיה שרי,שפיר קאמרי ליה אלא היינו טעמא דרבי ישמעאל דקסבר א"כ לכתוב כל חלב שור לא תאכלו כשב ועז למה לי ש"מ לחלק,ורבנן סברי אי כתב רחמנא כל חלב שור ה"א נילף שור שור מסיני,מה גבי סיני חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן אף גבי אכילה חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן להכי כתב רחמנא שור וכשב ועז למימרא דהני דאסור אבל חיה ועוף שרי,שפיר קא"ל אלא היינו טעמא דקסבר נכתוב כל חלב כשב לא תאכלו א"נ כל חלב עז לא תאכלו שור וכשב ועז למה לי ש"מ לחלק,ורבנן סברי אי כתב כל חלב כשב ה"א חלב כשב אסור ושור ועז שרי וכ"ת מאי אולמיה דכשב משום דנתרבה באליה,וכדתנא ר' חנניא למה מנה הכתוב אימורין בשור ואימורים בכשב ואימורים בעז דכתיב (במדבר יח, יז) אך בכור שור וגו',צריכי דאי כתב שור ה"א כשב ועז לא ילפינן מיניה דאיכא למיפרך מה לשור שכן נתרבה בנסכים,נכתוב רחמנא בכשב ונילף שור ועז מכשב איכא למיפרך מה לכשב שכן נתרבה באליה,נכתוב רחמנא עז ונילף שור וכשב מיניה איכא למיפרך מה לעז שכן נתרבה אצל עבודת כוכבים,מן חד לא ילפינן נכתוב תרתי ונילף חדא מתרתי הי דין נילף שור מכשב ועז אית להון פירכא מה לכשב ועז שכן נתרבו אצל הפסח,לא נכתוב כשב ונילף משור ועז אית להון פירכא מה לשור ועז שכן נתרבה אצל עבודת כוכבים,לא נכתוב עז ונילף משור וכשב אית להון פירכא מה לשור וכשב שכן יש בו צד ריבוי הלכך לא ילפי מהדדי,שפיר קא"ל אלא לעולם טעמא דרבי ישמעאל כדאמרינן מעיקרא דאם כן נכתוב כל חלב ולישתוק מאי אמרת האי דכתב שור וכשב ועז למשרי חלב חיה,הא כי כתב קרא בעניינא דקדשים ודבר למד מעניינו,מכלל דרבנן סברי לא ילפינן דבר למד מעניינו לא דכולי עלמא ילפינן דבר הלמד מעניינו והכא בהא פליגי רבי ישמעאל סבר למידין לאו מלאו בין מלאו ובין מלאו דכרת,דכל חלב שור וכשב ועז מלאו (ויקרא ג, יז) דחוקת עולם לדורותיכם בכל מושבותיכם כל חלב וכל דם לא תאכלו דכתיב בעניינא דקדשים ובקדשים לא אית בהון חיה אף כל חלב שור כי כתיב ליה סתמא ליכא לספוקי בחיה הלכך שור וכשב ועז לחלק הוא דאתא לחייב על כל אחת ואחת,וילפינן לאו דכל חלב ולאו דחוקת עולם מכרת (ויקרא ז, כה) דכי כל אוכל חלב מן הבהמה אשר יקריבו ממנה מה ההוא לחלק אף הדין לחלק,ורבנן לאו מלאו ילפינן לאו מכרת לא ילפינן,ואיבעית אימא היינו טעמייהו דרבנן כדאמר ליה רב מרי לרב זביד אלא מעתה אליה דחולין תיתסר אמר ליה עליך אמר קרא (ויקרא ז, כג) כל חלב שור וכשב ועז דבר השוה בשלשתן בעינן וליכא,הלכך כי אתא שור וכשב ועז למישרי אליה דחולין הוא דאתא ור' ישמעאל אמר לך א"כ לימא קרא כל חלב שור וכשב עז למה לי ש"מ לחלק,א"ר חנינא מודה רבי ישמעאל לענין קרבן שאין מביא אלא חטאת אחת מ"ט דלא דמי הדין לאו ללאו דעריות,ת"ר ועשה אחת ועשה הנה לחייב על כל אחת ואחת,שאם אכל חלב וחלב שם אחד בשני העלמות חייב שתים שתי שמות בהעלם אחת חייב שתים,א"ל רמי בר חמא לרב חסדא בשלמא שם אחד בשני העלמות חייב שתים משום דהעלמות מחלקין אלא שני שמות בהעלם אחת אמאי חייב שתים הא בעינן העלמות מוחלקין וליכא,א"ל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דאכל חלב דנותר דמחייב משום נותר ומשום חלב א"ל א"כ ניחייב נמי משום קודש,אלא אמר רב ששת כגון דאכל חלב דהקדש ור' יהודה היא דתניא אכל חלב נבלה אכל חלב מוקדשין חייב שתים ר' יהודה אומר חלב מוקדשין לוקה שלש,מחייכו עלה במערבא ונוקמה כגון חלב דשור וכשב ועז ור' ישמעאל היא דאמר לוקה שלש | 4a. b his lips should be /b considered b an action in /b the case of one who b blasphemes. Rava said: /b The case of one who b blasphemes is different, since it is /b primarily b in the heart. /b In other words, the transgression of blasphemy is not the actual speech but the verbalizing of a sentiment. One is not liable to bring a sin offering for such an action, as it is essentially a matter of the heart. b But in general, the twisting of one’s lips is /b considered b an action. /b , b Rabbi Zeira raises an objection /b from that which is taught in a different context. It is stated in a i baraita /i that all who unwittingly transgress prohibitions punishable by death are liable to bring sin offerings, b except for conspiring witnesses, /b who are not obligated to bring sin offerings, b as /b their transgression b does not involve an action. But why /b is that so? b It is written with regard to /b such witnesses: b “At the mouth /b of two witnesses” (Deuteronomy 17:6). They acted through speech, and the twisting of their lips should be considered an action, as they are liable for what they actually said, not for what was in their hearts. b Rava said: /b The case of b conspiring witnesses is different, since their /b transgression b is /b primarily b through sight, /b i.e., the important part of their testimony is what they saw, which is not an action.,§ The mishna included in its list of those liable to receive i karet /i b one who eats /b forbidden b fat. /b With regard to this, b the Sages taught /b a i baraita /i which deals with the verse: b “You shall eat no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat” /b (Leviticus 7:23). This verse serves b to render one liable /b to receive lashes b for each and every one, /b i.e., one who eats the fat of an ox, and a sheep, and a goat is liable to receive three sets of lashes. This is b the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. And the Rabbis say he is liable /b to receive b only one /b set of lashes.,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis b disagree about this /b matter, b that Rabbi Yishmael maintains one is flogged for /b violating b a general prohibition and the Rabbis maintain one is not flogged for /b violating b a general prohibition. /b This is referring to the violation of a prohibition that includes several different actions, such as this one, which pertains to eating the fat of an ox, sheep, and goat. The Rabbis contend that one does not receive multiple sets of lashes for transgressing each element of such a prohibition.,The Gemara answers: b Actually, Rabbi Yishmael /b also b maintains /b that b one is not flogged for /b violating b a general prohibition, but here it is different, as /b elements of b the verse are superfluous. /b The Gemara explains: b Let the verse write /b only: b You shall eat no fat, /b and all the individual types of fat would be included. b Why do I /b need the additional terms: b “Ox, or sheep, or goat”? Learn from it /b that the verse serves b to separate /b between them and render one liable to receive a separate set of lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat.,The Gemara asks: b And /b as for b the Rabbis, /b how do they respond to this reading of the verse? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis would say that no element of the verse is superfluous, since b if /b it had b not written: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” I would say /b that b even /b the b fat of an undomesticated animal is included /b in the prohibition. b For this /b reason the verse b writes: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” to say that it is /b the b fat of an ox, or a sheep, or a goat that is forbidden, but /b all the fats b of an undomesticated animal are permitted. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty against this interpretation of the dispute: The Rabbis b spoke well to /b Rabbi Yishmael, i.e., their response is persuasive. The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: b Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yishmael, as he holds: If so, /b that the verse serves to exclude the fat of only an undomesticated animal from the prohibition, then b let it write: You shall eat no fat of an ox, /b which would be understood as a paradigm representing every type of domesticated animal. b Why do I /b need the phrase: b “Sheep or goat”? Learn from it /b that the verse serves b to separate /b between them and render one liable to receive a separate set of lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat., b And the Rabbis maintain /b that b if the Merciful One had written /b only: You shall eat no b fat of an ox, I would say: Let us derive /b a verbal analogy b from /b the word b “ox” /b stated here as a paradigm representing every type of domesticated animal [ i behema /i ] and the word b “ox,” /b i.e., i behema /i , stated with regard to a mitzva given in preparation for the revelation at b Sinai: /b “Whether it be animal [ i behema /i ] or man, it shall not live” (Exodus 19:13).,The Gemara explains the meaning of this hypothetical verbal analogy: b Just as with regard to /b the command at b Sinai, undomesticated animals and birds are /b subject to the same prohibition b as /b domesticated animals despite the use of the term i behema /i , b so too, with regard to eating /b their fat, b undomesticated animals and birds are /b subject to the same prohibition b as /b domesticated animals despite the verse employing the example of an ox. b For this /b reason b the Merciful One writes: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” to say that these are forbidden, but /b all the fats of b an undomesticated animal and birds are permitted. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty against this interpretation of the dispute: The Rabbis b spoke well to /b Rabbi Yishmael, i.e., their response is persuasive. How could he say the terms in the verse are superfluous? The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: b Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yishmael, as he holds: Let /b the verse b write: You shall eat no fat of sheep; alternatively, /b let it state: b You shall eat no fat of goat. Why do I /b need the verse to state all three: b “Ox, or sheep, or goat”? Learn from it /b that the verse serves b to separate /b between them and render one liable to receive a separate set of lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat., b And the Rabbis maintain /b that b if /b the Torah b had written /b merely: b You shall eat no fat of sheep, I would say /b it is only b the fat of sheep /b that is b forbidden, but /b the fat of b an ox or a goat /b is b permitted. And if you would say: /b In b what /b way b is /b the category b of sheep stronger, /b i.e., more fitting to have its fats forbidden, than the categories of ox and goats, that one would think the prohibition applies only to sheep? The answer is that one might have thought so b due to /b the fact b that /b there is b an increased /b obligation b with regard to /b a sheep’s b tail, /b as it is sacrificed upon the altar, which is not the case with an ox or a goat., b And /b this is b as Rabbi Ḥanina taught: Why does the verse list /b the obligation to burn the b sacrificial portions /b on the altar b with regard to /b a firstborn b ox, and /b the obligation to burn the b sacrificial portions [ i ve’eimurim /i ] with regard to /b a firstborn b sheep, and /b the obligation to burn the b sacrificial portions with regard to /b a firstborn b goat? As it is written: “But the firstborn of a bull, /b or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are sacred. You shall dash their blood against the altar, and shall make their fat smoke for an offering made by fire” (Numbers 18:17). The “fat” mentioned in this verse is their portions to be burned on the altar.,Rabbi Ḥanina explains: These repetitions b are necessary, as, if /b the Torah b had written /b this obligation only with regard to a firstborn b ox I would say /b that b we do not derive /b the i halakha /i of b a sheep and a goat from it, as /b that derivation b can be refuted: What /b is notable b about an ox? /b It is notable b in that /b an ox b has an increased /b number b of /b wine b libations, /b more than those poured with sheep and goat offerings. Therefore, perhaps the additional obligation to burn the sacrificial portions applies only with regard to an ox.,And likewise, if you were to suggest: b Let the Merciful One write /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions only b with regard to a sheep and we will derive /b the i halakha /i of b an ox and a goat from /b the i halakha /i of b a sheep, /b that derivation b can be refuted: What /b is notable b about a sheep? /b It is notable b in that /b there is b an increased /b obligation b with regard to /b a sheep’s b tail, /b as explained earlier.,And similarly, if you suggest: b Let the Merciful One write /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions only with regard to b a goat, and we will derive /b the i halakha /i of b an ox and a sheep from /b the i halakha /i of a goat, this too b can be refuted: What /b is notable b about a goat? /b It is notable b in that /b a goat b has an increased /b applicability b with regard to idol worship, /b as one who sins unwittingly in the case of idol worship is liable to bring a goat as a sin offering (see Numbers 15:27), unlike one who transgresses other prohibitions unwittingly, for which they are liable to bring a sheep.,Rabbi Ḥanina continues: b We cannot derive /b these i halakhot /i b from /b the i halakha /i of any b one /b of the others, but b let /b the Torah b write two /b of them b and we will derive /b the i halakha /i of b one /b of them b from /b the i halakha /i of the other b two. Which /b is b this /b animal that should not be written? If one suggests b we will derive /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of a firstborn b ox from /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of b a sheep and a goat, /b this derivation b has a refutation: What /b is notable b about a sheep and a goat? /b They are notable b in that /b that b they have increased /b applicability, as they are suitable b for the Paschal offering, /b whereas an ox is not suitable for this purpose.,If one suggests the verse should b not write /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of b a sheep, and we will derive /b its i halakha /i b from /b the i halakha /i of b an ox and a goat, /b this derivation b has a refutation: What /b is notable b about an ox and a goat? /b They are notable b in that they have increased /b applicability as suitable offerings to atone b for /b an unwitting transgression of b idol worship, /b as when a community unwittingly sins with regard to idol worship they bring an ox as a burnt offering and a goat as a sin offering (see Numbers 15:24), while an individual brings a goat but not a sheep.,If one suggests that the verse should b not write /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of b a goat, and we will derive /b its i halakha /i b from /b the i halakha /i of b an ox and a sheep, /b this derivation b has a refutation: What /b is notable b about an ox and a sheep? /b They are notable b in that each /b of them b has an increased aspect /b of applicability with regard to the altar, as the libations for an ox are greater than those for a goat, and the tail of a sheep, but not that of a goat, is burned on the altar. Rabbi Ḥanina concludes: b Therefore, /b all three cases are necessary, as b they cannot be derived from each other. /b ,The Rabbis have explained why all three mentions of an ox, a sheep, and a goat are necessary. Consequently, the Gemara again states: The Rabbis b spoke well to /b Rabbi Yishmael, i.e., their response is persuasive. The Gemara suggests: b Rather, the reason of Rabbi Yishmael /b is b actually as we said at the outset, that if so, /b that one who eats the forbidden fats of all three animals is liable to receive only one set of lashes, b let /b the verse b write: /b You shall eat no b fat, and be silent. What did you say /b in response? That b this /b fact b that /b the verse b writes: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” /b serves b to permit /b the b fat of an undomesticated animal? /b This is not a valid objection.,The Gemara explains: b When the verse /b concerning forbidden fat b is written /b it is b in the context of sacrificial /b animals, since the subsequent verse concerning the prohibition against eating forbidden fat states: “For whoever eats the fat of the animal of which men present an offering of fire to the Lord, even the soul that eats it shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:25). The verse categorizes an animal whose fat one may not eat as an “animal of which men present an offering of fire to the Lord,” i.e., offerings. b And /b one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles is: b A matter /b is b derived from its context, /b i.e., one interprets a verse according to the context in which it is written. Since offerings may be brought only from domesticated, not undomesticated, animals, the prohibition against eating forbidden fat applies only to such animals.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: Can one conclude b by inference that the Rabbis maintain we do not derive /b i halakhot /i by employing the hermeneutical principle of: b A matter /b is b derived from its context? /b This cannot be correct, as it is an accepted basic principle of exegesis. The Gemara answers: b No, everyone /b agrees that b we do derive /b i halakhot /i by employing the hermeneutical principle of: b A matter /b is b derived from its context, and here /b it is b about this /b issue b that they disagree: Rabbi Yishmael maintains /b that b we derive /b the i halakhot /i of one b prohibition from /b the i halakhot /i of another b prohibition, /b and this applies b whether /b it is b from /b a standard b prohibition, /b whose transgression results in the punishment of lashes, b or whether from a prohibition /b whose transgression results in the punishment b of i karet /i . /b ,Accordingly, the prohibition b of: /b “You shall eat b no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat,” /b can be derived b from the prohibition of: “It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither fat nor blood” /b (Leviticus 3:17), b which is written with regard to the matter of sacrificial /b animals. b And there are no undomesticated animals in /b the category of b sacrificial /b animals. b So too, /b with regard to the prohibition of: “You shall eat b no fat of ox, /b or sheep, or goat,” b when /b the verse b writes it without /b further b specification, there is no /b reason b to be uncertain /b whether or not it is referring also b to undomesticated animals. Therefore, /b the phrase b “ox, or sheep, or goat” comes to separate, /b i.e., b to render one liable for /b eating the forbidden fat of b each and every one /b of them.,All this teaches only that a separate prohibition applies to each type of animal. b And /b with regard to the liability to receive lashes for eating each one b we derive the prohibition of: /b “You shall eat b no fat,” and the prohibition of: “It shall be a perpetual statute,” from the /b example of b i karet /i /b stated in the verse: b “For anyone who eats the fat of the domesticated animal, of which people present /b an offering of fire to the Lord, the soul that eats it shall be cut off from its people” (Leviticus 7:25). b Just as that /b verse serves b to separate /b and teach that if one unwittingly ate the fat of an ox, a goat, and a sheep he is liable to bring a sin offering for each one, b so too, this /b verse serves b to separate /b and teach that one is liable to receive lashes for eating the fat of each one., b And the Rabbis /b maintain b we derive /b the i halakhot /i of one standard b prohibition from /b the i halakhot /i of another standard b prohibition, /b but b we do not derive /b the i halakhot /i of a standard b prohibition from /b the i halakhot /i of a prohibition whose transgression results in the punishment of b i karet /i . /b ,The Gemara suggests: b And if you wish, say /b instead that b this is the reason of the Rabbis: As Rav Mari said to Rav Zevid /b when asked about a different issue: b If that is so, /b that a sheep tail is categorized as fat by the verses and is included in the portions of an offering for which one is liable for the misuse of consecrated property, then the b tail of a non-sacred /b animal b should be prohibited /b for consumption as forbidden fat. Rav Zevid b said to /b Rav Mari: b With regard to your /b claim, b the verse states /b concerning forbidden fat: “You shall eat b no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat” /b (Leviticus 7:23). This teaches that for the prohibition against eating forbidden fat to take effect b we require an item that is /b found b equally in all three /b types of animals, an ox, and a sheep, and a goat, b and that is not /b the case here. Since an ox and goat do not have tails, the tail is not prohibited even in the case of a sheep., b Therefore, /b the same applies with regard to the issue at hand: b When /b the verse b “ox, or sheep, or goat” comes, it comes to permit /b consumption of the b tail of a non-sacred /b animal, and one cannot learn from here that a separate prohibition applies to each type of forbidden fat. b And Rabbi Yishmael /b could b say to you /b in response: b If so, let /b the verse b state: /b You shall eat b no fat of ox or sheep; why do I /b need the mention of b a goat? Learn from it /b that the verse serves b to separate /b between them and render one liable to receive lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat., b Rabbi Ḥanina says: /b Although b Rabbi Yishmael /b maintains that one who unwittingly eats the fat of an ox, a sheep, and a goat is liable to receive a separate set of lashes for each one, he b concedes with regard to /b bringing b an offering that /b if he ate those types of forbidden fat in a single lapse of awareness he b brings only one sin offering. What is the reason? /b The reason is b that this prohibition is not similar to the prohibition of those with whom relations are forbidden. /b As derived in the Gemara on 2b, one who unwittingly engages in intercourse with many women to whom he is forbidden is liable to bring a sin offering for each act. In that context the verse states a separate prohibition for each forbidden relative, whereas in this case there is a single prohibition that applies to the forbidden fat of all domesticated animals.,§ With regard to the sin offering required of one who transgresses the prohibition against eating forbidden fat, b the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: A soul that sins in error, from all the commandments of God that may not be performed, and from one of them” (Leviticus 4:2). This phrase should be interpreted as though it states: b And performs one, /b and again states: b And performs them, /b i.e., it serves b to render one liable /b to bring a sin offering b for each and every /b transgression.,The i baraita /i continues: This teaches b that if one ate /b forbidden b fat and /b again ate forbidden b fat, /b if it was from b one category, /b i.e., the same type of forbidden fat, and he ate it b in two lapses of awareness, /b that is, he was made aware of his sin after the first instance of consumption and then again ate unwittingly, he is b liable /b to bring b two /b sin offerings. If he ate forbidden fat from b two categories, /b as the Gemara will soon explain, b in one lapse of awareness, /b he is likewise b liable /b to bring b two /b sin offerings., b Rami bar Ḥama said to Rav Ḥisda: Granted, /b one who ate forbidden fat from b one category in two lapses of awareness /b is b liable /b to bring b two /b sin offerings, as this is b due to /b the fact b that the lapses of awareness separate /b between his transgressions; each time he becomes aware of his transgression he is liable to bring another sin offering. b But /b in a case where he ate forbidden fat from b two categories in one lapse of awareness, why /b is he b liable /b to bring b two /b sin offerings? b We require separate lapses of awareness and that is not /b the case here.,Rav Ḥisda b said to him: Here we are dealing with /b a case b where he ate /b forbidden b fat left over from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption [ i notar /i ], as he is liable due to /b eating b i notar /i and /b is also liable b due to /b eating forbidden b fat. /b These are the two categories mentioned in the i baraita /i . Rami bar Ḥama b said to him: If so, /b that the case involves more than one prohibition, b let him be liable due to /b eating b sacrificial /b food b as well, /b and he should be liable to bring a guilt offering for the unwitting misuse of consecrated property (see Leviticus 5:14–16)., b Rather, Rav Sheshet said: /b Here we are dealing with a case b where he ate /b forbidden b fat of sacrificial /b animals, b and /b this ruling b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b who renders one liable to bring two sin offerings for eating forbidden fat of sacrificial food. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : If one b ate /b forbidden b fat of an animal carcass, /b or if he b ate /b forbidden b fat of sacrificial /b animals, he is b liable /b to receive b two /b sets of lashes, either for transgressing the prohibitions of eating forbidden fat and eating an animal carcass, or for both eating forbidden fat and transgressing the prohibition forbidding a non-priest to partake of sacrificial animals. b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If one b ate /b forbidden b fat of sacrificial /b animals he b is flogged /b with b three /b sets of lashes, because there are two separate prohibitions of forbidden fat in the case of sacrificial animals, as the Gemara will soon explain, in addition to the prohibition forbidding a non-priest to partake of sacrificial animals.,The Gemara comments: b They laughed at this /b suggestion b in the West, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael: b And let us interpret /b this i baraita /i as referring to a case b where /b he ate the forbidden b fat of an ox, and /b of b a sheep, and /b of b a goat, and /b explain that b it is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael, who says /b that he b is flogged /b with b three /b sets of lashes for the different types of fat, if he did so intentionally and was forewarned. |
|
35. Babylonian Talmud, Nazir, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229, 233| 42a. הא גדילים תעשה לך מהם:,אמר מר וכולם שגילחו שלא בתער או ששיירו שתי שערות לא עשו ולא כלום אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא זאת אומרת רובו ככולו מדאורייתא,ממאי מדגלי רחמנא גבי נזיר (במדבר ו, ט) ביום השביעי יגלחנו הכא הוא דעד דאיכא כולו הא בעלמא רובו ככולו,מתקיף לה ר' יוסי ברבי חנינא האי בנזיר טמא כתיב מחכו עלה במערבא מכדי נזיר טמא דבתער מנלן מנזיר טהור יליף ליתי נזיר טהור ולילף מנזיר טמא מה טמא כי שייר שתי שערות ולא כלום עבד הכא נמי כי שייר שתי שערות ולא כלום עבד,בעי אביי נזיר שגילח ושייר שתי שערות צמח ראשו וחזר וגילחן מהו מי מעכבי או לא,בעי רבא נזיר שגילח והניח שתי שערות וגילח אחת ונשרה אחת מהו א"ל רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא גילח שערה שערה קא מיבעי ליה לרבא,אלא אימא נשרה אחת וגילח אחת מהו א"ל גילוח אין כאן שער אין כאן אי שער אין כאן גילוח יש כאן ה"ק אע"פ ששער אין כאן מצות גילוח אין כאן:,מתני' נזיר חופף ומפספס אבל לא סורק:,גמ' חופף ומפספס מני ר"ש היא דאמר דבר שאין מתכוין מותר אבל לא סורק אתאן לרבנן,רישא ר"ש וסיפא רבנן אמר רבה כולה ר"ש היא כל הסורק להסיר נימין מדולדלות מתכוין:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big רבי ישמעאל אומר לא יחוף באדמה מפני שמשרת את השער:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big איבעיא להו מפני שהיא משרת את השער תנן או דלמא מפני המשרת תנן למאי נפקא מינה,כגון דאיכא אדמה דלא מתרא אי אמרת מפני שהיא משרת תנן היכא דידעינן דלא מתרא שפיר אלא אי אמרת מפני המשרת כלל כלל לא תיקו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big נזיר שהיה שותה יין כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תשתה אל תשתה והוא שותה חייב על כל אחת ואחת היה מגלח כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תגלח אל תגלח והוא מגלח חייב על כל אחת ואחת היה מטמא למתים כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תטמא אל תטמא והוא מטמא חייב על כל אחת ואחת: | 42a. indicates that fringes in the mitzva stated in the adjacent verse: b “You shall make for yourself fringes” /b (Deuteronomy 22:12), can be b from them, /b wool and linen. By juxtaposing the mitzva of ritual fringes to the prohibition against diverse kinds of cloth, the Torah teaches that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes, which includes dyed blue wool, overrides the prohibition against diverse kinds of cloth, i.e., one may attach woolen ritual fringes to a linen garment. From here one derives the general principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.,§ The Gemara returns to the mishna that teaches that nazirites, lepers, and Levites must shave their hair. b The Master said /b above: b And /b with regard to b all of them, if they shaved with /b an implement b other than a razor, or if they left two hairs /b uncut, b they have done nothing. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: That is to say /b that the principle: b The majority of /b an entity is considered b like all of it, /b applies b by Torah law. /b ,The Gemara asks: b From where /b do we learn this? The Gemara explains: This principle is derived b from /b the fact b that the Merciful One revealed /b in the Torah and specified b with regard to a nazirite: “On the seventh day he shall shave it” /b (Numbers 6:9), despite the fact that the same verse already stated: “And he shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing.” This teaches that b it is /b only in this case b here /b that he does not fulfill the mitzva of shaving b until there is /b the removal b of all of it, /b i.e., shaving part of his head is insufficient. This shows that b in general the majority of /b an entity is b like all of it. /b , b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, objects to this /b assertion. b This /b verse: “On the seventh day he shall shave it,” b is written with regard to a ritually impure nazirite, /b not a pure one, whereas the i halakha /i in the mishna applies even to a pure nazirite. This shows that the above inference is invalid. b They laughed at /b this difficulty b in the West, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael: b After all, from where do we /b derive the i halakha /i that b an impure nazirite /b shaves b with a razor? /b It is b derived from /b the i halakha /i of b a pure nazirite. /b If so, b let /b the case of b a pure nazirite come and derive /b the following i halakha /i b from /b the case of b an impure nazirite: Just as /b with regard to b an impure /b nazirite, b if he leaves two hairs he has done nothing, here too, /b if a pure nazirite b leaves two hairs he has done nothing. /b ,On the same topic, b Abaye raised a dilemma: /b With regard to b a nazirite who shaved and left two hairs, /b which is not considered an act of shaving, if the hairs of b his head grew and he again shaved, /b this time those two hairs alone, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? b Do /b these hairs b invalidate /b the fulfillment of his obligation b or not? /b Has he now completed his initial act of shaving, or is the shaving of two hairs from a head full of hair of no significance, and he must now shave his entire head?,Similarly, b Rava raised a dilemma: /b With regard to b a nazirite who shaved and left two hairs, and /b afterward b shaved one /b of them, b and /b the other b one fell out /b of its own accord, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? Is this considered shaving one’s entire head or not? b Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: Is Rava raising a dilemma /b as to whether one can b shave /b his head one b hair by /b one b hair? /b How does this case differ from that of one who shaves his entire head one hair at a time, which is a fulfillment of his obligation?, b Rather, say /b that the dilemma is as follows: If b one /b hair b fell out and he shaved /b the other b one, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Has he performed the obligation of shaving if there was only one hair left when he came to shave? Ravina b said to him: /b In that case b there is no shaving here; there is no hair here. /b The Gemara expresses surprise at this expression: b If there is no hair here, /b then b there is shaving here, /b as no hair remains. The Gemara explains: b This is what he said: Even though there is no hair here, /b as only one hair remains, nevertheless b there is no /b fulfillment of the b mitzva of shaving here, /b as he failed to shave it all on the first attempt, and the second time he shaved less than the required amount., strong MISHNA: /strong b A nazirite may shampoo [ i ḥofef /i ] /b his head b and separate [ i mefaspes /i ] /b his hairs manually, without concern that hairs might fall out. b However, he may not comb /b his hair., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara clarifies: b Who is /b the i tanna /i who maintains that a nazirite b may shampoo and separate /b his hairs? b It is Rabbi Shimon, who says: An unintentional act is permitted. /b Even if hairs do fall out as a result of this action, as he did not intend this to happen the action is permitted. Yet in the latter clause of the mishna, which states: b However, he may not comb /b his hair, b we have come to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis. /b Although this nazirite also does not intend to tear out any hair when he combs it, it is nevertheless prohibited.,This leads to a surprising conclusion, that b the first clause /b represents the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon and the latter clause /b is the opinion of b the Rabbis. Rabba said: /b The b entire /b mishna b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, /b as he maintains that b anyone who combs /b his hair b intends to remove stray hairs, /b and therefore this is considered an intentional act., strong MISHNA: /strong b Rabbi Yishmael says: /b A nazirite b may not shampoo /b his hair b with earth because /b this b causes the hair to fall out. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: What is the precise wording of the mishna? Do b we learn: Because it removes hair, /b i.e., earth in general removes hair, b or do we perhaps learn: Because of that which removes /b hair. In other words, although some types of earth do not remove hair, it is prohibited to use these as well, due to those types that do remove hair. The Gemara inquires: b What /b is the b difference /b of this textual question?,The Gemara explains: There is a difference in a case b where there is /b a type of b earth that does not remove /b hair. b If you say /b that b we learned /b in the mishna: b Because it removes /b hair, then in a case b where we know that it does not remove /b hair b it is fine /b to shampoo with that substance. b However, if you say /b the text reads: b Because of that which removes /b hair, this indicates that the Sages prohibited using any type of earth, due to the type that removes hair. If so, a nazirite may b not /b shampoo his head with any earth b at all, /b not even if it does not remove hair. No answer was found, and the Gemara says that the dilemma b shall stand /b unresolved., strong MISHNA: /strong b A nazirite who was drinking wine all day is liable /b to receive b only one /b set of lashes. If people b said to him /b during the course of the day: b Do not drink, do not drink, and /b nevertheless b he /b continues to b drink, he is liable for each and every /b time he was warned. If a nazirite b kept shaving all day, he is liable /b to receive b only one /b set of lashes. If b they said to him: Do not shave, do not shave, and he shaves, he is liable for each and every /b time he was warned. If he b became ritually impure from a corpse /b many times b all day, he is liable /b to receive b only one /b set of lashes. If b they said to him: Do not become impure, do not become impure, and he /b continues to b become impure, he is liable for each and every /b time he was warned. |
|
36. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 219| 31b. שמשהין עצמן בבטן כדי שיזריעו נשותיהן תחלה שיהו בניהם זכרים מעלה עליהן הכתוב כאילו הם מרבים בנים ובני בנים והיינו דאמר רב קטינא יכולני לעשות כל בני זכרים אמר רבא הרוצה לעשות כל בניו זכרים יבעול וישנה,ואמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי אמי אין אשה מתעברת אלא סמוך לוסתה שנאמר (תהלים נא, ז) הן בעון חוללתי,ורבי יוחנן אמר סמוך לטבילה שנאמר (תהלים נא, ז) ובחטא יחמתני אמי,מאי משמע דהאי חטא לישנא דדכויי הוא דכתיב (ויקרא יד, מט) וחטא את הבית ומתרגמינן וידכי ית ביתא ואי בעית אימא מהכא (תהלים נא, ט) תחטאני באזוב ואטהר,ואמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי אמי כיון שבא זכר בעולם בא שלום בעולם שנאמר (ישעיהו טז, א) שלחו כר מושל ארץ זכר זה כר,ואמר ר' יצחק דבי רבי אמי בא זכר בעולם בא ככרו בידו זכר זה כר דכתיב (מלכים ב ו, כג) ויכרה להם כירה גדולה,נקבה אין עמה כלום נקבה נקייה באה עד דאמרה מזוני לא יהבי לה דכתיב (בראשית ל, כח) נקבה שכרך עלי ואתנה,שאלו תלמידיו את רבי שמעון בן יוחי מפני מה אמרה תורה יולדת מביאה קרבן אמר להן בשעה שכורעת לילד קופצת ונשבעת שלא תזקק לבעלה לפיכך אמרה תורה תביא קרבן,מתקיף לה רב יוסף והא מזידה היא ובחרטה תליא מילתא ועוד קרבן שבועה בעי איתויי,ומפני מה אמרה תורה זכר לשבעה ונקבה לארבעה עשר זכר שהכל שמחים בו מתחרטת לשבעה נקבה שהכל עצבים בה מתחרטת לארבעה עשר,ומפני מה אמרה תורה מילה לשמונה שלא יהו כולם שמחים ואביו ואמו עצבים,תניא היה ר"מ אומר מפני מה אמרה תורה נדה לשבעה מפני שרגיל בה וקץ בה אמרה תורה תהא טמאה שבעה ימים כדי שתהא חביבה על בעלה כשעת כניסתה לחופה,שאלו תלמידיו את רבי דוסתאי ברבי ינאי מפני מה איש מחזר על אשה ואין אשה מחזרת על איש משל לאדם שאבד לו אבידה מי מחזר על מי בעל אבידה מחזיר על אבידתו,ומפני מה איש פניו למטה ואשה פניה למעלה כלפי האיש זה ממקום שנברא וזו ממקום שנבראת,ומפני מה האיש מקבל פיוס ואין אשה מקבלת פיוס זה ממקום שנברא וזו ממקום שנבראת,מפני מה אשה קולה ערב ואין איש קולו ערב זה ממקום שנברא וזו ממקום שנבראת שנאמר {שיר השירים ב } כי קולך ערב ומראך נאוה, br br big strongהדרן עלך המפלת חתיכה /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongבנות /strong /big כותים נדות מעריסתן והכותים מטמאים משכב תחתון כעליון מפני שהן בועלי נדות,והן יושבות על כל דם ודם,ואין חייבין עליהן על ביאת מקדש ואין שורפין עליהם את התרומה מפני שטומאתן ספק, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ה"ד אי דקא חזיין אפילו דידן נמי ואי דלא קחזיין דידהו נמי לא,אמר רבא בריה דרב אחא בר רב הונא אמר רב ששת הכא במאי עסקינן בסתמא דכיון דאיכא מיעוטא דחזיין חיישינן ומאן תנא דחייש למיעוטא | 31b. b they delay /b while b in /b their wives’ b abdomen, /b initially refraining from emitting semen b so that their wives will emit seed first, /b in order b that their children will be male, the verse ascribes them /b credit b as though they have many sons and sons’ sons. And this /b statement b is /b the same as that b which Rav Ketina said: I could have made all of my children males, /b by refraining from emitting seed until my wife emitted seed first. b Rava says /b another method through which one can cause his children to be males: b One who wishes to make all of his children males should engage in intercourse /b with his wife b and repeat /b the act.,§ b And Rabbi Yitzḥak says /b that b Rabbi Ami says: A woman becomes pregt only /b by engaging in intercourse b close to the onset of her /b menstrual b cycle, as it is stated: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity” /b (Psalms 51:7). This iniquity is referring to intercourse close to the woman’s menstrual cycle, when intercourse is prohibited. Accordingly, David is saying that his mother presumably conceived him at this time., b And Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b A woman becomes pregt only by engaging in intercourse b near /b the time of her b immersion /b in a ritual bath, through which she is purified from her status as a menstruating woman, b as it is stated /b in the continuation of the same verse: b “And in sin [ i uvḥet /i ] did my mother conceive me” /b (Psalms 51:7).,The Gemara explains this derivation: b From where may /b it b be inferred that this term “ i ḥet /i ” is /b a reference b to purity? /b The Gemara answers: b As it is written /b with regard to leprosy of houses: b “ i Veḥittei /i the house” /b (Leviticus 14:52), b and we translate /b the verse into Aramaic as: b And he shall purify the house. And if you wish, say /b that the interpretation is derived b from here: “Purge me [ i teḥatte’eni /i ] with hyssop, and I shall be pure” /b (Psalms 51:9). Evidently, the root i ḥet /i , i tet /i , i alef /i refers to purification.,§ b And Rabbi Yitzḥak says /b that b Rabbi Ami says: When a male comes into the world, /b i.e., when a male baby is born, b peace comes to the world, as it is stated: “Send the lambs [ i khar /i ] for the ruler of the land” /b (Isaiah 16:1). This i khar /i , or i kar /i , a gift one sends the ruler, contributes to the stability of the government and peace, and the word b male [ i zakhar /i ] /b can be interpreted homiletically as an abbreviation of: b This is a i kar /i [ i zeh kar /i ]. /b , b And Rabbi Yitzḥak from the school of Rabbi Ami says: When a male comes into the world, his loaf /b of bread, i.e., his sustece, b comes into his possession. /b In other words, a male can provide for himself. This is based on the aforementioned interpretation of the word b male [ i zakhar /i ] /b as an abbreviation of: b This is a i kar /i [ i zeh kar /i ], /b and the term i kar /i refers to sustece, b as it is written: “And he prepared great provision [ i kera /i ] for them” /b (II Kings 6:23).,By contrast, b when a female comes into the world, nothing, /b i.e., no sustece, comes b with her. /b This is derived from the homiletic interpretation of the word b female [ i nekeva /i ] /b as an abbreviation of the phrase: b She comes clean [ i nekiya ba’a /i ], /b i.e., empty. Furthermore, b until she says: /b Give me b sustece, /b people b do not give her, as it is written /b in Laban’s request of Jacob: b “Appoint me [ i nokva /i ] your wages, and I will give it” /b (Genesis 30:28). Laban used the word i nokva /i , similar to i nekeva /i , when he said that he would pay Jacob only if he explicitly demanded his wages., b The students of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai asked him: For what /b reason b does the Torah say /b that b a woman after childbirth brings an offering? He said to them: At the time that /b a woman b crouches to give birth, /b her pain is so great that b she impulsively takes an oath that she will not engage in intercourse with her husband /b ever again, so that she will never again experience this pain. b Therefore, the Torah says /b that b she must bring an offering /b for violating her oath and continuing to engage in intercourse with her husband., b Rav Yosef objects to this /b answer: b But isn’t /b the woman b an intentional violator /b of her oath? b And /b if she wishes that her oath be dissolved, so that she may engage in intercourse with her husband, b the matter depends on /b her b regret /b of her oath. One is obligated to bring an offering for violating an oath of an utterance only if his transgression is unwitting. b And furthermore, /b if the purpose of the offering that a woman brings after childbirth is to atone for violating an oath, then b she /b should be b required to bring /b a female lamb or goat as b an offering, /b which is the requirement of one who violated b an oath, /b rather than the bird offering brought by a woman after childbirth., b And /b the students of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai further inquired of him: b For what /b reason b does the Torah say /b that a woman who gives birth to b a male /b is ritually impure b for seven /b days, b but /b a woman who gives birth to b a female /b is impure b for fourteen /b days? Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai answered them: When a woman gives birth to b a male, over which everyone is happy, she regrets /b her oath, that she will never again engage in intercourse with her husband, already b seven /b days after giving birth. By contrast, after giving birth to b a female, over which everyone is unhappy, she regrets /b her oath only b fourteen /b days after giving birth., b And /b the students further asked him: b For what /b reason b does the Torah say /b that b circumcision /b is performed only b on the eighth /b day of the baby’s life, and not beforehand? He answered them: It is b so that /b there b will not be /b a situation where b everyone /b is b happy /b at the circumcision ceremony b but the father and mother of /b the infant b are unhappy, /b as they are still prohibited from engaging in intercourse., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Meir would say: For what /b reason b does the Torah say /b that b a menstruating woman /b is prohibited from engaging in intercourse with her husband b for seven /b days? It is b because /b if a woman were permitted to engage in intercourse with her husband all the time, her husband would be too b accustomed to her, and /b would eventually be b repulsed by her. /b Therefore, b the Torah says /b that a menstruating woman b shall be ritually impure /b for b seven days, /b during which she is prohibited from engaging in intercourse with her husband, b so that /b when she becomes pure again b she will be dear to her husband as /b at b the time when she entered the wedding canopy /b with him.,§ b The students of Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Yannai, asked him: For what /b reason is it the norm that b a man pursues a woman /b for marriage, b but a woman does not pursue a man? /b Rabbi Dostai answered them by citing b a parable of a person who lost an item. Who searches for what? /b Certainly b the owner of the lost item searches for his item; /b the item does not search for its owner. Since the first woman was created from the body of the first man, the man seeks that which he has lost., b And /b the students of Rabbi Dostai further asked him: b For what /b reason does b a man /b engage in intercourse b facing down, and a woman /b engage in intercourse b facing up toward the man? /b Rabbi Dostai answered them: b This /b man faces b the place from which he was created, /b i.e., the earth, b and that /b woman faces b the place from which she was created, /b namely man., b And /b the students also inquired: b For what /b reason is b a man /b who is angry likely to b accept appeasement, but a woman /b is b not /b as likely to b accept appeasement? /b Rabbi Dostai answered them: It is b because this /b man behaves like b the place from which he was created, /b i.e., the earth, which yields to pressure, b and that /b woman behaves like b the place from which she was created, /b i.e., from bone, which cannot be molded easily.,The students continued to ask Rabbi Dostai: b For what /b reason b is a woman’s voice pleasant, but a man’s voice is not pleasant? /b He answered: b This /b man is similar to b the place from which he was created, /b the earth, which does not issue a sound when it is struck, b and that /b woman is similar to b the place from which she was created, /b a bone, which makes a sound when it is struck. The proof that a woman’s voice is pleasant is b that it is stated /b in Song of Songs that the man says to his beloved: b “For sweet is your voice, and your countece is beautiful” /b (Song of Songs 2:14).,, strong MISHNA: /strong Samaritan b girls /b are considered b menstruating women from /b the time they lie in b their cradle. And the Samaritan /b men b impart ritual impurity /b to the b lower bedding like the upper /b bedding, i.e., all layers of bedding beneath them are impure, and their status is like the bedding above a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [ i zav /i ]: The status of both levels of bedding is that of first-degree ritual impurity, which can impart impurity to food and drink. This is b due to /b the fact b that /b Samaritan men are considered men who b engage in intercourse with menstruating women. /b , b And /b they are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women because Samaritan women b observe /b the seven-day menstrual period of ritual impurity b for each and every /b emission of b blood, /b even for blood that does not render them impure. Accordingly, if a Samaritan woman has an emission of impure blood during the seven-day period, she will nevertheless continue counting seven days from the first emission. It is therefore possible that the Samaritan men will engage in intercourse with their wives while they are still halakhically considered menstruating women, as the seven-day period of impurity should have been counted from the emission of the impure blood., b But /b one who enters the Temple while wearing b those /b garments upon which a Samaritan had lain b is not liable /b to bring an offering b for entering the Temple /b in a status of impurity, b nor does one burn i teruma /i /b that came into contact with b those /b garments, b because their impurity /b is b uncertain. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that Samaritan girls are considered menstruating women from the time they lie in their cradle. The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances /b of this statement? b If /b the mishna is referring to girls b who /b already b see /b menstrual blood, then b even our own, /b i.e., Jewish girls, are b also /b considered menstruating women under such circumstances. b And if /b it is referring to girls b who do not /b yet b see /b menstrual blood, then b their /b girls, i.e., those of the Samaritans, should b also not /b have the status of menstruating women., b Rava, son of Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna, says /b that b Rav Sheshet says: Here we are dealing with an unspecified /b case, i.e., it is unknown whether these girls have experienced their first menstrual period. b Since there is a minority /b of girls b who see /b menstrual blood, b we are concerned /b with regard to each Samaritan girl that she might be from this minority. The Gemara asks: b And who /b is the i tanna /i who b taught that one must be concerned for the minority? /b |
|
37. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 201, 202, 237, 238| 25a. וערבית במערב א"ר יוחנן בן נורי עדי שקר הם כשבאו ליבנה קיבלן רבן גמליאל,ועוד באו שנים ואמרו ראינוהו בזמנו ובליל עיבורו לא נראה וקיבלן ר"ג,אמר רבי דוסא בן הורכינס עדי שקר הן היאך מעידים על האשה שילדה ולמחר כריסה בין שיניה אמר לו רבי יהושע רואה אני את דבריך שלח לו ר"ג גוזרני עליך שתבא אצלי במקלך ובמעותיך ביוה"כ שחל להיות בחשבונך,הלך ומצאו ר"ע מיצר אמר לו יש לי ללמוד שכל מה שעשה ר"ג עשוי שנאמר (ויקרא כג, ד) אלה מועדי ה' מקראי קדש אשר תקראו אתם בין בזמנן בין שלא בזמנן אין לי מועדות אלא אלו,בא לו אצל ר' דוסא בן הורכינס אמר לו אם באין אנו לדון אחר בית דינו של ר"ג צריכין אנו לדון אחר כל בית דין ובית דין שעמד מימות משה ועד עכשיו שנאמר (שמות כד, ט) ויעל משה ואהרן נדב ואביהוא ושבעים מזקני ישראל ולמה לא נתפרשו שמותן של זקנים אלא ללמד שכל שלשה ושלשה שעמדו בית דין על ישראל הרי הוא כבית דינו של משה,נטל מקלו ומעותיו בידו והלך ליבנה אצל ר"ג ביום שחל יוה"כ להיות בחשבונו עמד ר"ג ונשקו על ראשו אמר לו בוא בשלום רבי ותלמידי רבי בחכמה ותלמידי שקבלת את דברי:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תניא אמר להם ר"ג לחכמים כך מקובלני מבית אבי אבא פעמים שבא בארוכה ופעמים שבא בקצרה,א"ר יוחנן מ"ט דבי רבי דכתיב (תהלים קד, יט) עשה ירח למועדים שמש ידע מבואו שמש הוא דידע מבואו ירח לא ידע מבואו,רבי חייא חזייא לסיהרא דהוה קאי בצפרא דעשרים ותשעה שקל קלא פתק ביה אמר לאורתא בעינן לקדושי בך ואת קיימת הכא זיל איכסי א"ל רבי לר' חייא זיל לעין טב וקדשיה לירחא ושלח לי סימנא דוד מלך ישראל חי וקים,ת"ר פעם אחת נתקשרו שמים בעבים ונראית דמות לבנה בעשרים ותשעה לחדש כסבורים העם לומר ר"ח ובקשו ב"ד לקדשו אמר להם ר"ג כך מקובלני מבית אבי אבא אין חדושה של לבנה פחותה מעשרים ותשעה יום ומחצה ושני שלישי שעה וע"ג חלקים,ואותו היום מתה אמו של בן זזא והספידה ר"ג הספד גדול לא מפני שראויה לכך אלא כדי שידעו העם שלא קידשו ב"ד את החדש:,הלך ר"ע (ומצאו) מיצר כו': איבעיא להו מי מיצר ר"ע מיצר או רבי יהושע מיצר ת"ש דתניא הלך ר"ע ומצאו לרבי יהושע כשהוא מיצר אמר לו [רבי] מפני מה אתה מיצר אמר לו (רבי) עקיבא ראוי לו שיפול למטה י"ב חדש ואל יגזור עליו גזירה זו,א"ל רבי תרשיני לומר לפניך דבר אחד שלמדתני אמר לו אמור אמר לו הרי הוא אומר (ויקרא כג, ב) אתם אתם אתם ג' פעמים,אתם אפילו שוגגין אתם אפילו מזידין אתם אפילו מוטעין בלשון הזה אמר לו עקיבא נחמתני נחמתני:,בא לו אצל רבי דוסא בן הורכינס כו': ת"ר למה לא נתפרשו שמותם של זקנים הללו שלא יאמר אדם פלוני כמשה ואהרן פלוני כנדב ואביהוא פלוני כאלדד ומידד,ואומר (שמואל א יב, ו) ויאמר שמואל אל העם ה' אשר עשה את משה ואת אהרן ואומר (שמואל א יב, יא) וישלח ה' את ירובעל ואת בדן ואת יפתח ואת שמואל ירובעל זה גדעון ולמה נקרא שמו ירובעל שעשה מריבה עם הבעל בדן זה שמשון ולמה נקרא שמו בדן דאתי מדן יפתח כמשמעו | 25a. b and /b that same day we saw the new moon b in the evening in the west. Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri said: They are false witnesses, /b as it is impossible to see the new moon so soon after the last sighting of the waning moon. However, b when they arrived in Yavne, Rabban Gamliel accepted them /b as witnesses without concern., b And /b there was b another /b incident in which b two /b witnesses b came and said: We saw /b the new moon b at its /b anticipated b time, /b i.e., on the night of the thirtieth day of the previous month; however, b on the /b following b night, /b i.e., the start of the thirty-first, which is often the determit of b a full, /b thirty-day month, b it was not seen. And /b nevertheless b Rabban Gamliel accepted their /b testimony and established the New Moon on the thirtieth day., b Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas /b disagreed and b said: They are false witnesses; how can /b witnesses b testify that a woman gave birth and the next day her belly is between her teeth, /b i.e., she is obviously still pregt? If the new moon was already visible at its anticipated time, how could it not be seen a day later? b Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: I see /b the logic of b your statement; /b the New Moon must be established a day later. Upon hearing that Rabbi Yehoshua had challenged his ruling, b Rabban Gamliel sent /b a message b to him: I decree against you that you /b must b appear before me with your staff and with your money on /b the day on which b Yom Kippur occurs according to your calculation; /b according to my calculation, that day is the eleventh of Tishrei, the day after Yom Kippur., b Rabbi Akiva went and found /b Rabbi Yehoshua b distressed /b that the head of the Great Sanhedrin was forcing him to desecrate the day that he maintained was Yom Kippur. In an attempt to console him, Rabbi Akiva b said to /b Rabbi Yehoshua: b I can learn /b from a verse b that everything that Rabban Gamliel did /b in sanctifying the month b is done, /b i.e., it is valid. b As it is stated: “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, sacred convocations, which you shall proclaim /b in their season” (Leviticus 23:4). This verse indicates that b whether /b you have proclaimed them b at their /b proper b time /b or b whether /b you have declared them b not at their /b proper b time, I have only these Festivals /b as established by the representatives of the Jewish people.,Rabbi Yehoshua then b came to Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas, /b who b said to him: If we come to debate /b and question the rulings of b the court of Rabban Gamliel, we must debate /b and question the rulings of b every court that has stood from the days of Moses until now. As it is stated: “Then Moses went up, and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy of the Elders of Israel” /b (Exodus 24:9). b But why were the names of these /b seventy b Elders not specified? Rather, /b this comes b to teach that every /b set of b three /b judges b that stands /b as b a court over the Jewish people /b has the same status b as the court of Moses. /b Since it is not revealed who sat on that court, apparently it is enough that they were official judges in a Jewish court.,When Rabbi Yehoshua heard that even Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas maintained that they must submit to Rabban Gamliel’s decision, b he took his staff and his money in his hand, and went to Yavne to Rabban Gamliel on the day /b on b which Yom Kippur occurred according to his /b own b calculation. /b Upon seeing him, b Rabban Gamliel stood up and kissed him on his head. He said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student. /b You are b my teacher in wisdom, /b as Rabbi Yehoshua was wiser than anyone else in his generation, b and /b you are b my student, as you accepted my statement, /b despite your disagreement., strong GEMARA: /strong b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabban Gamliel said to the Sages, /b in explanation of his opinion that it is possible for the new moon to be visible so soon after the last sighting of the waning moon: b This is /b the tradition that b I received from the house of my father’s father: Sometimes /b the moon b comes by a long /b path b and sometimes it comes by a short /b one., b Rabbi Yoḥa said: What is the reason /b for the opinion b of the house of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, i.e., the house of the heads of the Great Sanhedrin, the source of Rabban Gamliel’s ruling? b As it is written: “Who appointed the moon for seasons; the sun knows its going down” /b (Psalms 104:19). This verse indicates that b it is /b only b the sun /b that b knows its going down, /b i.e., its seasons and the times that it shines are the same every year. In contrast, b the moon does not know its going down, /b as its course is not identical every month.,§ The Gemara relates that b Rabbi Ḥiyya /b once b saw /b the waning b moon standing /b in the sky b on the morning /b of the b twenty-ninth /b of the month. b He took a clump /b of earth and b threw /b it b at /b the moon, b saying: This evening we need to sanctify you, /b i.e., the new moon must be visible tonight so that we may declare the thirtieth of the month as the New Moon, b and you are /b still b standing here? Go /b and b cover yourself /b for now, so that the new moon will be seen only after nightfall. The Gemara further relates that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi once b said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: Go to /b a place called b Ein Tav and sanctify the /b New b Moon /b there, b and send me a sign /b that you have sanctified it. The sign is: b David, king of Israel, lives and endures. /b , b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Once the sky was covered with clouds, and the form of the moon was visible on the twenty-ninth of the month. The people thought to say /b that the day was b the New Moon, and the court sought to sanctify it. /b However, b Rabban Gamliel said to them: This is /b the tradition that b I received from the house of my father’s father: /b The monthly cycle of the b renewal of the moon /b takes b no less than twenty-nine and a half days, plus two-thirds of an hour, plus seventy-three /b of the 1,080 b subsections /b of an hour.,The i baraita /i continues: b And on that day the mother of /b the Sage b ben Zaza died, and Rabban Gamliel delivered a great eulogy /b on b her /b behalf. He did this b not because she was worthy of this /b honor; b rather, /b he eulogized her b so that the people would know that the court had not sanctified the month, /b as eulogies are prohibited on the New Moon.,§ The mishna taught that b Rabbi Akiva went and found him distressed /b that the head of the Great Sanhedrin was forcing him to desecrate the day that he maintained was Yom Kippur. b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: b Who was distressed? /b Was b Rabbi Akiva distressed or /b was b Rabbi Yehoshua distressed? /b The Gemara answers: b Come /b and b hear, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Akiva went and found Rabbi Yehoshua in a state of distress, /b and b he said to him: My teacher, for what /b reason b are you distressed? /b Rabbi Yehoshua b said to him: Rabbi Akiva, it is fitting for /b one b to fall /b sick b in bed for twelve months, rather than to have this decree issued against him /b that he should have to desecrate Yom Kippur.,Rabbi Akiva b said to him: My teacher, allow me to say before you one matter that you /b yourself once b taught me. He said to him: Speak. He said to him: It states /b with respect to the Festivals: “The appointed seasons of the Lord, which you shall proclaim b them [ i otam /i ] /b to be sacred convocations (Leviticus 23:2). And it is written: “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, sacred convocations; you shall proclaim b them [ i otam /i ] /b in their season” (Leviticus 23:4). And it is written: “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord; you shall proclaim b them [ i otam /i ] /b to be sacred convocations” (Leviticus 23:37). b Three times /b the verses use the term: Them [ i otam /i ], which can also be read as you [ i atem /i ], in plural.,This comes to teach: b You /b [ b i atem /i /b ] are authorized to determine the date of the new month, b even /b if you b unwittingly /b establish the New Moon on the wrong day; b you, even /b if you do so b intentionally; you, even /b if you are b misled /b by false witnesses. In all cases, once the court establishes the day as the New Moon, it is sanctified, and God grants His consent. After hearing this, Rabbi Yehoshua b said to him in these words: Akiva, you have consoled me; you have consoled me. /b ,§ The mishna taught that Rabbi Yehoshua next b came to Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas, /b who proved to him that the court of Rabban Gamliel has the same legal status as the court of Moses. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Why were the names of these /b seventy b Elders /b who sat together with Moses on his court b not specified? /b The reason is so b that a person not say: /b Is b so-and-so /b the judge in my time, b like Moses and Aaron? /b Is b so-and-so like Nadav and Avihu? /b Is b so-and-so like Eldad and Medad? /b Therefore, the names of the other elders were not specified, so that there is no way of knowing the qualifications of the elders in the time of Moses to compare them to later judges., b And /b similarly b it says: “And Samuel said to the people: It is the Lord Who made Moses and Aaron” /b (I Samuel 12:6). b And it says /b further: b “And the Lord sent Jerubaal and Bedan and Jephthah and Samuel” /b (I Samuel 12:11). The Gemara explains: b Jerubaal, this is Gideon. And why is he called Jerubaal? /b The reason is b that he waged a quarrel against Baal. Bedan, this is Samson. And why is he called Bedan? As he came from /b the tribe of b Dan. Jephthah, in accordance with its /b regular b meaning, /b i.e., this is referring to Jephthah himself and is not a nickname. |
|
38. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229, 230| 17b. ומה נחש שממית ומרבה טומאה טהור שרץ שאינו ממית ומרבה טומאה אינו דין שיהא טהור ולא היא מידי דהוה אקוץ בעלמא,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל עיר שאין בה שנים לדבר ואחד לשמוע אין מושיבין בה סנהדרי ובביתר הוו שלשה וביבנה ארבעה רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע ור"ע ושמעון התימני דן לפניהם בקרקע,מיתיבי שלישית חכמה רביעית אין למעלה הימנה הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא שניה חכמה שלישית אין למעלה הימנה,למידין לפני חכמים לוי מרבי דנין לפני חכמים שמעון בן עזאי ושמעון בן זומא וחנן המצרי וחנניא בן חכינאי רב נחמן בר יצחק מתני חמשה שמעון שמעון ושמעון חנן וחנניה,רבותינו שבבבל רב ושמואל רבותינו שבארץ ישראל רבי אבא דייני גולה קרנא דייני דארץ ישראל רבי אמי ורבי אסי דייני דפומבדיתא רב פפא בר שמואל דייני דנהרדעא רב אדא בר מניומי סבי דסורא רב הונא ורב חסדא סבי דפומבדיתא רב יהודה ורב עינא חריפי דפומבדיתא עיפה ואבימי בני רחבה אמוראי דפומבדיתא רבה ורב יוסף אמוראי דנהרדעי רב חמא,נהרבלאי מתנו רמי בר ברבי אמרי בי רב רב הונא והאמר רב הונא אמרי בי רב אלא רב המנונא אמרי במערבא רבי ירמיה שלחו מתם ר' יוסי בר חנינא מחכו עלה במערבא ר' אלעזר,והא שלחו מתם לדברי רבי יוסי בר חנינא אלא איפוך שלחו מתם ר' אלעזר מחכו עלה במערבא רבי יוסי בר חנינא:,וכמה יהא בעיר ויהא ראויה לסנהדרין מאה ועשרים וכו': מאה ועשרים מאי עבידתייהו עשרים ושלשה כנגד סנהדרי קטנה ושלש שורות של עשרים ושלשה הרי תשעים ותרתי ועשרה בטלנין של בית הכנסת הרי מאה ותרי,ושני סופרים ושני חזנין ושני בעלי דינין ושני עדים ושני זוממין ושני זוממי זוממין הרי מאה וארביסר,ותניא כל עיר שאין בה עשרה דברים הללו אין תלמיד חכם רשאי לדור בתוכה בית דין מכין ועונשין וקופה של צדקה נגבית בשנים ומתחלקת בשלשה ובית הכנסת ובית המרחץ וביהכ"ס רופא ואומן ולבלר (וטבח) ומלמד תינוקות משום ר' עקיבא אמרו אף מיני פירא מפני שמיני פירא מאירין את העינים:,ר' נחמיה אומר וכו': תניא רבי אומר | 17b. b If a snake, which kills /b other creatures whose carcasses are impure b and /b thereby b increases impurity /b in the world, is itself nevertheless b pure, /b as it is not included in the list of impure creeping animals, then concerning b a creeping animal that does not kill and /b does not b increase impurity, isn’t it logical that it should be pure? /b This argument is rejected: b But it is not so; /b the logic of the i halakha /i of a creeping animal is b just as it is /b concerning the i halakha /i b with regard to an ordinary thorn, /b which can injure people or animals and can even kill and thereby increase impurity, but is nevertheless pure. It is therefore apparent that this consideration is not relevant to the i halakhot /i of impurity.,§ b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: /b With regard to b any city that does not have /b among its residents b two /b men who are able b to speak /b all seventy languages b and one /b additional man who is able b to listen /b to and understand statements made in all the languages, even if he cannot speak all of them, b they do not place /b a lesser b Sanhedrin /b there. The members of the Sanhedrin do not all need to know all of the languages, but there must be at least this minimum number. b And in Beitar there were three /b individuals who were able to speak all seventy languages, b and in Yavne /b there were b four, /b and they were: b Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Akiva, and Shimon HaTimni, /b who was not an ordained Sage, and he would therefore b deliberate before /b the other judges while seated b on the ground, /b not among the rows of Sages.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b to this from a i baraita /i : b A third, /b i.e., a Sanhedrin that has three individuals who can speak all seventy languages, is b a wise /b Sanhedrin, and if it also has b a fourth /b such person, b there is no /b court b above it, /b meaning that there is no need for additional language experts. Apparently the minimum requirement is three people who can speak the languages, not two. The Gemara answers: Rav b states /b his opinion b in accordance with /b the opinion of b the following i tanna /i , as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : A Sanhedrin that has b a second /b language expert b is wise; /b and if it also has b a third, there is no /b court b above it. /b ,§ Since the i baraita /i stated that Shimon HaTimni would deliberate before them on the ground, the Gemara now lists various standard formulations used to introduce the statements of various Sages throughout the generations. If a source says: b It was learned from the Sages, /b the intention is that this was a statement made by the Sage b Levi /b who sat before and learned b from Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi. If it says: They b deliberated before the Sages, /b this is referring to b Shimon ben Azzai, and Shimon ben Zoma, and Ḥa the Egyptian, and Ḥaya ben Ḥakhinai. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak /b would b teach five /b names for this list: b Shimon /b ben Azzai, b Shimon /b ben Zoma, b and Shimon /b HaTimni, b Ḥa /b the Egyptian, b and Ḥaya /b ben Ḥakhinai.,The expression: b Our Rabbis that are in Babylonia, /b is referring to b Rav and Shmuel. /b The expression: b Our Rabbis that are in Eretz Yisrael, /b is referring to b Rabbi Abba. /b The expression: b The judges of the Diaspora, /b is a reference to the Sage b Karna. /b The phrase: b The judges of Eretz Yisrael, /b is a reference to b Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. /b The phrase: b The judges of Pumbedita, /b is referring to b Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, /b who was the head of the court there, and: b The judges of Neharde’a, /b is a reference to the court headed by b Rav Adda bar Minyumi. /b The term: b The Elders of Sura, /b is referring to b Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda, /b and: b The Elders of Pumbedita, /b is referring to b Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina. The sharp ones of Pumbedita /b are b Eifa and Avimi, the sons of Raḥava. /b The expression: b The i amora’im /i of Pumbedita, /b is referring to b Rabba and Rav Yosef, /b and the phrase: b The i amora’im /i of Neharde’a, /b is referring to b Rav Ḥama. /b ,If it says: The Sages b of Neharbela taught, /b this is referring to b Rami bar Berabi, /b and the statement: b They say /b in b the school of Rav, /b is a reference to b Rav Huna. /b The Gemara asks: b But doesn’t Rav Huna /b sometimes b say /b with regard to a given i halakha /i : b They say /b in b the school of Rav? /b From this, it is apparent that a statement introduced by that formula cannot be made by Rav Huna himself, as Rav Huna quotes someone else with that introduction. The Gemara responds: b Rather, /b the expression: They say in the school of Rav, must be referring to b Rav Hamnuna. /b The formula: b They say in the West, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael, is referring to b Rabbi Yirmeya; /b the expression: b They sent /b a message b from there, /b meaning from Eretz Yisrael, is referring to b Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina; /b and the statement: b They laughed at it in the West, /b means that b Rabbi Elazar /b did not accept a particular opinion.,The Gemara asks: b But /b in one instance it is reported that: b They sent /b a message b from there /b that began: b According to the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina. /b This indicates that the expression: They sent from there, is not itself a reference to a statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina. The Gemara answers: b Rather, reverse /b the statements. The phrase: b They sent from there, /b is a reference to b Rabbi Elazar, /b and: b They laughed at it in the West, /b means that b Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina /b did not accept a particular opinion.,§ The mishna teaches: b And how many /b men must b be in the city for /b it b to be eligible for /b a lesser b Sanhedrin? /b The opinion of the first i tanna /i is that there must be b 120 /b men. The Gemara asks: b What is the relevance of /b the number b 120? /b The Gemara explains that b 23 /b are needed to b correspond to /b the number of members of the b lesser Sanhedrin, and /b it is necessary for there to be b three rows of 23 /b students who sit before the lesser Sanhedrin to learn and also to advise them; that b is /b a total of b 92 /b people. b And /b since there also need to be b 10 idlers of the synagogue, /b people who are free from urgent work and are always sitting in the synagogue to take care of its repair and the other needs of the public, that b would be 102. /b , b And /b in addition there are b two scribes /b required for the Sanhedrin, b and two bailiffs, and two litigants /b who will come to be judged. b And /b there are b two witnesses /b for one side, b and two /b witnesses who could render those witnesses b conspiring /b witnesses by testifying that they were elsewhere at the time of the alleged incident, b and two /b additional witnesses could testify against the witnesses who rendered the first witnesses b conspiring /b witnesses, rendering the second pair b conspiring /b witnesses. All of these are necessary in order for a trial to take place, as is described in Deuteronomy 19:15–21. Therefore, b there are /b so far a total of b 114 /b men who must be in the city., b And /b it b is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A Torah scholar is not permitted to reside in any city that does not have these ten things: A court that /b has the authority to b flog and punish /b transgressors; b and /b a charity b fund /b for which monies b are collected by two /b people b and distributed by three, /b as required by i halakha /i . This leads to a requirement for another three people in the city. b And a synagogue; and a bathhouse; and /b a public b bathroom; a doctor; and a bloodletter; and a scribe /b [ b i velavlar /i /b ] to write sacred scrolls and necessary documents; b and /b a ritual b slaughterer; and a teacher of young children. /b With these additional requirements there are a minimum of 120 men who must be residents of the city. b They said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: /b The city must b also /b have b varieties of fruit, because varieties of fruit illuminate the eyes. /b ,The mishna teaches that b Rabbi Neḥemya says: /b There must be 230 men in the city in order for it to be eligible for a lesser Sanhedrin, corresponding to the ministers of tens appointed in the wilderness by Moses at the suggestion of his father-in-law, Yitro (see Exodus 18:21). Each member of the Sanhedrin can be viewed as a judge with responsibility for ten men. It b is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: /b |
|
39. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 219| 62b. בני בנים הרי הן כבנים כי תניא ההיא להשלים,מיתיבי בני בנים הרי הם כבנים מת אחד מהם או שנמצא סריס לא קיים פריה ורביה תיובתא דרב הונא תיובתא:,בני בנים הרי הם כבנים: סבר אביי למימר ברא לברא וברתא לברתא וכ"ש ברא לברתא אבל ברתא לברא לא א"ל רבא לשבת יצרה בעיא והא איכא,דכולי עלמא מיהת תרי מחד לא ולא והא אמרי ליה רבנן לרב ששת נסיב איתתא ואוליד בני ואמר להו בני ברתי בני נינהו,התם דחויי קמדחי להו דרב ששת איעקר מפירקיה דרב הונא,אמר ליה רבה לרבא בר מארי מנא הא מילתא דאמור רבנן בני בנים הרי הן כבנים אילימא מדכתיב (בראשית לא, מג) הבנות בנותי והבנים בני אלא מעתה והצאן צאני הכי נמי אלא דקנית מינאי הכא נמי דקנית מינאי,אלא מהכא (דברי הימים א ב, כא) ואחר בא חצרון אל בת מכיר אבי גלעד ותלד לו את שגוב וכתיב (שופטים ה, יד) מני מכיר ירדו מחוקקים וכתיב (תהלים ס, ט) יהודה מחוקקי,מתניתין דלאו כרבי יהושע דתניא רבי יהושע אומר נשא אדם אשה בילדותו ישא אשה בזקנותו היו לו בנים בילדותו יהיו לו בנים בזקנותו שנא' (קהלת יא, ו) בבקר זרע את זרעך ולערב אל תנח ידך כי אינך יודע אי זה יכשר הזה או זה ואם שניהם כאחד טובים,ר"ע אומר למד תורה בילדותו ילמוד תורה בזקנותו היו לו תלמידים בילדותו יהיו לו תלמידים בזקנותו שנא' בבקר זרע את זרעך וגו' אמרו שנים עשר אלף זוגים תלמידים היו לו לרבי עקיבא מגבת עד אנטיפרס וכולן מתו בפרק אחד מפני שלא נהגו כבוד זה לזה,והיה העולם שמם עד שבא ר"ע אצל רבותינו שבדרום ושנאה להם ר"מ ור' יהודה ור' יוסי ורבי שמעון ורבי אלעזר בן שמוע והם הם העמידו תורה אותה שעה,תנא כולם מתו מפסח ועד עצרת אמר רב חמא בר אבא ואיתימא ר' חייא בר אבין כולם מתו מיתה רעה מאי היא א"ר נחמן אסכרה,א"ר מתנא הלכה כרבי יהושע,אמר רבי תנחום א"ר חנילאי כל אדם שאין לו אשה שרוי בלא שמחה בלא ברכה בלא טובה בלא שמחה דכתיב (דברים יד, כו) ושמחת אתה וביתך בלא ברכה דכתיב (יחזקאל מד, ל) להניח ברכה אל ביתך בלא טובה דכתיב (בראשית ב, יח) לא טוב היות האדם לבדו,במערבא אמרי בלא תורה בלא חומה בלא תורה דכתיב (איוב ו, יג) האם אין עזרתי בי ותושיה נדחה ממני בלא חומה דכתיב (ירמיהו לא, כב) נקבה תסובב גבר,רבא בר עולא אמר בלא שלום דכתיב (איוב ה, כד) וידעת כי שלום אהלך ופקדת נוך ולא תחטא,אמר ריב"ל כל היודע באשתו שהיא יראת שמים ואינו פוקדה נקרא חוטא שנאמר וידעת כי שלום אהלך וגו' ואמר ריב"ל חייב אדם לפקוד את אשתו בשעה שהוא יוצא לדרך שנא' וידעת כי שלום אהלך וגו',הא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא ואל אישך תשוקתך מלמד שהאשה משתוקקת על בעלה בשעה שהוא יוצא לדרך א"ר יוסף לא נצרכה אלא סמוך לווסתה,וכמה אמר רבא עונה והני מילי לדבר הרשות אבל לדבר מצוה מיטרידי,ת"ר האוהב את אשתו כגופו והמכבדה יותר מגופו והמדריך בניו ובנותיו בדרך ישרה והמשיאן סמוך לפירקן עליו הכתוב אומר וידעת כי שלום אהלך האוהב את שכיניו והמקרב את קרוביו והנושא את בת אחותו | 62b. b Grandchildren are /b considered b like children. /b This indicates that if one’s children have passed away, he has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply only if they had children of their own, as they are considered like his own children. The Gemara responds: b When that /b i baraita /i b is taught /b it is with regard b to completing /b the required number of children, e.g., if he had only a son, but his son had a daughter, he has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b to the opinion of Rav Huna from another i baraita /i : b Grandchildren are /b considered b like children. /b If b one of /b a man’s children b died or was discovered /b to be b a eunuch, /b the father has b not fulfilled /b the mitzva to be b fruitful and multiply. /b This directly contradicts Rav Huna’s statement that one fulfills the mitzva even if his children die. The Gemara concludes: b The refutation /b of the opinion b of Rav Huna is /b indeed b a conclusive refutation. /b ,§ It was taught in the i baraita /i that b grandchildren are /b considered b like children. Abaye thought to say /b that if one’s children die, he fulfills the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply through grandchildren, provided b a son /b was born b to /b his b son and a daughter to /b his b daughter, and all the more so /b if b a son /b was born b to /b his b daughter, /b as his grandchildren take the place of his children in these cases. b However, /b if b a daughter /b was born b to /b his b son, no, /b she cannot take the place of her father. b Rava said to him: /b We b require /b merely fulfillment of the verse: b “He formed it to be inhabited,” and there is /b fulfillment in this case, as the earth is inhabited by his descendants.,The Gemara comments: b In any event, everyone /b agrees that if one has b two /b grandchildren b from one /b child, b no, /b he has not fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, even if he has both a grandson and a granddaughter. The Gemara asks: b And /b has he b not? Didn’t the Rabbis say to Rav Sheshet: Marry a woman and have sons, /b as you have not yet fathered any sons, b and /b Rav Sheshet b said to them: The sons of my daughter are my sons? /b This indicates that one can fulfill the mitzva through grandchildren even if he did not have a son and daughter of his own.,The Gemara answers: b There, /b Rav Sheshet b was /b merely b putting them off. /b The real reason he did not want to get remarried was b because Rav Sheshet became impotent from Rav Huna’s discourse. /b Rav Huna’s discourses were so lengthy that Rav Sheshet became impotent after waiting for so long without relieving himself., b Rabba said to Rava bar Mari: From where is this matter that the Sages stated /b derived, that b grandchildren are /b considered b like children? If we say /b it is derived b from /b the fact b that it is written /b in Laban’s speech to Jacob: b “The daughters are my daughters and the children are my children” /b (Genesis 31:43), which indicates that Jacob’s children were also considered to be the children of their grandfather Laban, b if /b that is b so, /b does the continuation of Laban’s statement: b “And the flocks are my flocks” /b (Genesis 31:43), indicate that b so too, /b Jacob’s flocks were considered as belonging to Laban? b Rather, /b Laban was saying b that you, /b Jacob, b acquired /b them b from me. Here too, /b with regard to the children, Laban was saying: b You acquired /b them b from me, /b i.e., it is only due to me that you have children., b Rather, /b the proof is b from here: “And afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir, the father of Gilead…and she bore him Segub” /b (I Chronicles 2:21), b and it is written: “Out of Machir came down governors” /b (Judges 5:14), b and it is written: “Judah is my governor” /b (Psalms 60:9). Consequently, the governors, who were from the tribe of Judah, were also called the sons of Machir, who was from the tribe of Manasseh. This must be because they were the children of Machir’s daughter and Hezron, indicating that grandchildren are considered like children.,§ The Gemara comments: b The mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua. As it is taught in a /b i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehoshua says: /b If b a man married a woman in his youth, /b and she passed away, b he should marry /b another b woman in his old age. /b If b he had children in his youth, he should have /b more b children in his old age, as it is stated: “In the morning sow your seed, and in the evening do not withhold your hand; for you do not know which shall prosper, whether this or that, or whether they both alike shall be good” /b (Ecclesiastes 11:6). This verse indicates that a man should continue having children even after he has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply., b Rabbi Akiva says /b that the verse should be understood as follows: If one b studied Torah in his youth he should study /b more b Torah in his old age; /b if b he had students in his youth he should have /b additional b students in his old age, as it is stated: “In the morning sow your seed, etc.” They said /b by way of example that b Rabbi Akiva had twelve thousand pairs of students /b in an area of land that stretched b from Gevat to Antipatris /b in Judea, b and they all died in one period /b of time, b because they did not treat each other with respect. /b , b And the world was desolate /b of Torah b until Rabbi Akiva came to our Rabbis in the South and taught /b his Torah b to them. /b This second group of disciples consisted of b Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua. And these are the very ones /b who b upheld /b the study of b Torah at that time. /b Although Rabbi Akiva’s earlier students did not survive, his later disciples were able to transmit the Torah to future generations.,With regard to the twelve thousand pairs of Rabbi Akiva’s students, the Gemara adds: It is b taught /b that b all of them died /b in the period b from Passover until i Shavuot /i . Rav Ḥama bar Abba said, and some say /b it was b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin: They all died a bad death. /b The Gemara inquires: b What is it /b that is called a bad death? b Rav Naḥman said: Diphtheria. /b , b Rav Mattana said: The i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua, /b who said that one must attempt to have more children even if he has already fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply.,§ Apropos the discussion with regard to the mitzva to have children, the Gemara cites statements about marriage in general. b Rabbi Tanḥum said /b that b Rabbi Ḥanilai said: Any man who does not have a wife is /b left b without joy, without blessing, without goodness. /b He proceeds to quote verses to support each part of his statement. He is b without joy, as it is written: “And you shall rejoice, you and your household” /b (Deuteronomy 14:26), which indicates that the a man is in a joyful state only when he is with his household, i.e., his wife. He is b without blessing, as it is written: “To cause a blessing to rest in your house” /b (Ezekiel 44:30), which indicates that blessing comes through one’s house, i.e., one’s wife. He is b without goodness, as it is written: “It is not good that man should be alone” /b (Genesis 2:18), i.e., without a wife., b In the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, they b say: /b One who lives without a wife is left b without Torah, /b and b without a wall /b of protection. He is b without Torah, as it is written: “Is it that I have no help in me, and that sound wisdom is driven from me?” /b (Job 6:13), indicating that one who does not have a wife lacks sound wisdom, i.e., Torah. He is b without a wall, as it is written: “A woman shall go round a man” /b (Jeremiah 31:21), similar to a protective wall., b Rava bar Ulla said: /b One who does not have a wife is left b without peace, as it is written: “And you shall know that your tent is in peace; and you shall visit your habitation and shall miss nothing” /b (Job 5:24). This indicates that a man has peace only when he has a tent, i.e., a wife.,On the same verse, b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Whoever knows that his wife fears Heaven /b and she desires him, b and he does not visit her, /b i.e., have intercourse with her, is b called a sinner, as it is stated: And you shall know that your tent is in peace; /b and you shall visit your habitation. b And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A man is obligated to visit his wife /b for the purpose of having intercourse b when he /b is about to b depart on a journey, as it is stated: “And you shall know that your tent is in peace, etc.” /b ,The Gemara asks: Is b this /b last statement b derived from here? /b It is b derived from there: “And your desire shall be to your husband” /b (Genesis 3:16), which b teaches that a wife desires her husband when he is about to depart on a journey. Rav Yosef said: /b The additional derivation cited by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi b is necessary only near /b the time of b her set pattern, /b i.e., when she expects to begin experiencing menstrual bleeding. Although the Sages generally prohibited intercourse at this time due to a concern that the couple might have intercourse after she begins bleeding, if he is about to depart on a journey he must have intercourse with her.,The Gemara asks: b And how much /b before the expected onset of menstrual bleeding is considered near the time of her set pattern? b Rava said: An interval /b of time, i.e., half a daily cycle, either a day or a night. The Gemara comments: b And this /b statement that a man must have intercourse with his wife before he departs on a journey b applies /b only if he is traveling b for an optional matter, but /b if he is traveling in order to attend b to a matter /b pertaining to a b mitzva, /b he is not required to have intercourse with his wife so that he not become b preoccupied /b and neglect the mitzva.,§ b The Sages taught: /b One b who loves his wife as /b he loves b himself, and who honors her more than himself, and who instructs his sons and daughters in an upright path, and who marries them off near the time /b when b they /b reach maturity, b about him the verse states: And you shall know that your tent is in peace. /b As a result of his actions, there will be peace in his home, as it will be devoid of quarrel and sin. One b who loves his neighbors, and who draws his relatives close, and who marries the daughter of his sister, /b a woman he knows and is fond of as a family relative and not only as a wife, |
|
40. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229, 231| 26a. חדא מינייהו רב פפא אמרה:,ר' ישמעאל אומר אינו חייב אלא על העתיד לבא: ת"ר (ויקרא ה, ד) להרע או להיטיב אין לי אלא דברים שיש בהן הרעה והטבה שאין בהן הרעה והטבה מנין תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ה, ד) או נפש כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים,אין לי אלא להבא לשעבר מנין תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ה, ד) לכל אשר יבטא האדם בשבועה דברי רבי עקיבא רבי ישמעאל אומר להרע או להיטיב להבא,אמר לו רבי עקיבא אם כן אין לי אלא דברים שיש בהן הטבה והרעה דברים שאין בהן הרעה והטבה מנין אמר לו מרבוי הכתוב אמר לו אם ריבה הכתוב לכך ריבה הכתוב לכך,שפיר קא"ל רבי עקיבא לר' ישמעאל,א"ר יוחנן ר' ישמעאל ששימש את רבי נחוניא בן הקנה שהיה דורש את כל התורה כולה בכלל ופרט איהו נמי דורש בכלל ופרט רבי עקיבא ששימש את נחום איש גם זו שהיה דורש את כל התורה כולה בריבה ומיעט איהו נמי דורש ריבה ומיעט,מאי ר' עקיבא דדריש ריבויי ומיעוטי דתניא או נפש כי תשבע ריבה להרע או להיטיב מיעט לכל אשר יבטא האדם חזר וריבה ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל,מאי ריבה ריבה כל מילי ומאי מיעט מיעט דבר מצוה,ור' ישמעאל דריש כלל ופרט או נפש כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים כלל להרע או להיטיב פרט לכל אשר יבטא האדם חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש להבא אף כל להבא,אהני כללא לאתויי אפי' דברים שאין בהן הרעה והטבה להבא אהני פרטא למעוטי אפילו דברים שיש בהן הרעה והטבה לשעבר,איפוך אנא,א"ר יצחק דומיא דלהרע או להיטיב מי שאיסורו משום (במדבר ל, ג) בל יחל דברו יצאתה זו שאין איסורו משום בל יחל דברו אלא משום בל תשקרו,רב יצחק בר אבין אמר אמר קרא או נפש כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים מי שהשבועה קודמת לביטוי ולא שהביטוי קודמת לשבועה יצא זה אכלתי ולא אכלתי שהמעשה קודם לשבועה,ת"ר (ויקרא ה, ד) האדם בשבועה פרט לאנוס ונעלם פרט למזיד,ממנו שנתעלמה ממנו שבועה יכול שנתעלמה ממנו חפץ ת"ל בשבועה ונעלם על העלם שבועה הוא חייב ואינו חייב על העלם חפץ:,אמר מר האדם בשבועה פרט לאנוס היכי דמי,כדרב כהנא ורב אסי כי הוו קיימי מקמי דרב מר אמר שבועתא דהכי אמר רב ומר אמר שבועתא דהכי אמר רב כי אתו לקמיה דרב אמר כחד מינייהו אמר ליה אידך ואנא בשיקרא אישתבעי,אמר ליה לבך אנסך,ונעלם ממנו שנתעלם ממנו שבועה יכול שנתעלם ממנו חפץ תלמוד לומר בשבועה ונעלם ממנו על העלם שבועה הוא חייב ואינו חייב על העלם חפץ:,מחכו עלי' במערבא בשלמא שבועה משכחת לה בלא חפץ כגון דאמר שבועה שלא אוכל פת חטין וכסבור שאוכל קאמר דשבועתיה אינשי חפצא דכיר אלא חפץ בלא שבועה ה"ד,כגון דאמר שבועה שלא אוכל פת חטין וכסבור של שעורים קאמר דשבועתיה דכיר ליה חפצא אינשי כיון דחפצא אינשי להו היינו העלם שבועה,אלא אמר רבי אלעזר דא ודא אחת היא,מתקיף לה רב יוסף אלמא חפץ בלא שבועה לא משכחת לה והא משכחת לה כגון דאמר שבועה שלא אוכל פת חטין והושיט ידו לסל ליטול פת שעורין ועלתה בידו של חטין וכסבור שעורים היא ואכלה דשבועתיה דכיר ליה חפצא הוא דלא ידע ליה,אמר ליה אביי כלום מחייבת ליה קרבן אלא אמאי דתפיס בידיה העלם שבועה הוא,לישנא אחרינא אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף סוף סוף קרבן דקא מייתי עלה דהאי פת מיהת העלם שבועה הוא,ורב יוסף אמר לך כיון דכי ידע ליה דחטין הוא פריש מיניה העלם חפץ הוא,בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן העלם זה וזה בידו מהו אמר ליה הרי העלם שבועה בידו וחייב אדרבה הרי העלם חפץ בידו ופטור,אמר רב אשי חזינן אי מחמת שבועה קא פריש הרי העלם שבועה בידו וחייב אי מחמת חפץ קא פריש הרי העלם חפץ בידו ופטור,א"ל רבינא לרב אשי כלום פריש משבועה אלא משום חפץ כלום פריש מחפץ אלא משום שבועה אלא לא שנא,בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן | 26a. b Rav Pappa said one of those /b statements, not Abaye.,§ The mishna teaches that b Rabbi Yishmael says: One is liable only /b for an oath on an utterance taken b about the future. The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to an oath on an utterance: From the verse: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips b to do evil, or to do good” /b (Leviticus 5:4), b I have /b derived b only /b that one is liable for an oath on an utterance with regard to b matters to which doing evil and doing good apply. From where /b do I derive that one is liable for an oath on an utterance with regard to b matters to which doing evil and doing good do not apply? The verse states: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips,” /b which includes other matters., b I have /b derived b only /b that one is liable for oaths referring b to the future. From where /b do I derive that one is liable for oaths referring b to the past? The verse /b subsequently b states: “Whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly with an oath” /b (Leviticus 5:4); this is b the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael says: /b The verse states: b “To do evil, or to do good,” /b referring exclusively to oaths b about the future. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b Rabbi Akiva said to him: If so, /b then b I have /b derived b only /b that one is liable for an oath on an utterance with regard to b matters to which doing evil and doing good apply. From where /b do I derive that one is liable for an oath on an utterance with regard to b matters to which doing evil and doing good do not apply? /b Rabbi Yishmael b said to /b Rabbi Akiva in response: It is derived b from an amplification /b of the meaning b of the verse. /b Rabbi Akiva b said to him: If the verse is amplified for this, /b i.e., to extend the i halakha /i of an oath on an utterance to matters that do not involve doing evil or good, b the verse is amplified for that, /b i.e., oaths about the past.,The Gemara questions: b Rabbi Akiva said well /b his critique of the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael. /b Why does Rabbi Yishmael disagree?, b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b It is because b Rabbi Yishmael /b was the one b who served /b as a disciple of b Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana, who would interpret the entire Torah with /b the hermeneutical principle of b a generalization and a detail. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yishmael b also interprets /b the Torah b with /b the method of b a generalization and a detail. Rabbi Akiva /b was one b who served /b as a disciple of b Naḥum of Gam Zo, who would interpret the entire Torah with /b the hermeneutical principle of b amplification and restriction. /b Therefore, Rabbi Akiva b also interprets /b the Torah by b amplification and restriction. /b , b What /b is the specific instance in this context where one finds b that Rabbi Akiva interprets /b with b amplifications and restrictions? /b It is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that when the verse states: b “Or if anyone take an oath /b clearly with his lips” (Leviticus 5:4), it b amplifies /b the range of possible oaths for which one could be liable to bring an offering for an oath on an utterance. When the verse continues: b “To do evil, or to do good,” /b it b restricts /b that range. When it further continues: b “Whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly /b with an oath,” it b then amplifies /b again. According to the hermeneutical principle that when a verse b amplified, and /b then b restricted, and /b then b amplified, it amplified /b the relevant category to include b everything /b except for the specific matter that was excluded by the restriction., b What /b was included when the verse b amplified /b the range of liability? b It amplified /b it to include b all matters /b about which one might take an oath. b And /b in b what /b way did it b restrict /b it when it continued: “To do evil, or to do good”? It b restricted /b the range of liability for an oath on an utterance to exclude an oath that is b a matter /b involving b a mitzva, /b i.e., an oath to refrain from performing a mitzva., b And Rabbi Yishmael interprets /b the verse following the hermeneutical principle of b a generalization and a detail: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips” /b (Leviticus 5:4), is b a generalization; “to do evil, or to do good,” /b is b a detail; “whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly /b with an oath,” the verse b then /b further b generalized. /b There is a hermeneutical principle that when a verse contains b a generalization, and a detail, and /b another b generalization, you may deduce /b that the verse is referring b only /b to items b similar to the detail. Just as the detail /b in the verse is b explicitly /b an oath referring b to the future, so too, all /b the oaths for which one is liable must be referring b to the future. /b , b The generalization serves to include even /b those b matters that do not concern doing evil or doing good /b when they refer b to the future; the detail serves to exclude even matters that concern doing evil or doing good /b when they refer b to the past. /b ,The Gemara challenges: b I will reverse /b it and say that the generalization serves to include oaths concerning the past, and the detail serves to exclude matters that do not involve doing evil or doing good. Why is that not an equally legitimate interpretation of the verse?, b Rabbi Yitzḥak said /b that Rabbi Yishmael understands that liability is extended to one whose oath b is similar to an oath “to do evil, or to do good” /b (Leviticus 5:4). b He whose prohibition is due to /b the verse b : “He shall not break his word” /b (Numbers 30:3), is liable, as liability for an oath about the future entails breaking one’s word. b Excluded is that /b oath b whose prohibition is not due to /b the verse b : “He shall not break his word”; rather, /b it is b due to /b the verse b : “You shall not lie” /b (Leviticus 19:11), since liability for an oath about the past applies when the oath itself was a lie., b Rav Yitzḥak bar Avin says /b that there is a different explanation of Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion: b The verse states: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips /b to do evil, or to do good,” referring to b one whose oath precedes /b its b clarification, /b i.e., the action that breaks it, b and not /b to one who takes an oath b where the clarification, /b i.e., the action prohibited in the oath, b precedes the oath. Excluded is that /b oath where one said, for example: b I ate, or: I did not eat, where the action precedes the oath. /b ,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly with an oath, and it is hidden from him; and, when he knows of it, be guilty in one of these things” (Leviticus 5:4). The phrase b “a man…with an oath” /b serves b to exclude a victim of circumstances beyond his control /b from liability to bring an offering. The term b “and it is hidden” /b serves b to exclude /b from liability one who broke his oath b intentionally, /b as he does not deserve to be able to achieve atonement through bringing an offering.,The i baraita /i continues: The term b “from him” /b teaches that b one who was unaware of /b his b oath, /b i.e., forgot it, and subsequently broke it, is liable to bring an offering. One b might /b have thought that an oath taker is also liable when he broke an oath b because he was unaware /b that a particular item is forbidden as the b object /b of his oath; therefore, b the verse states: “With an oath, and it is hidden from him.” He is liable for lack of awareness of the oath but he is not liable for lack of awareness of the object /b of the oath., b The Master says /b above in the i baraita /i : The phrase b “a man…with an oath” /b serves b to exclude a victim of circumstances beyond his control. /b The Gemara asks: b What are /b such b circumstances? /b ,The Gemara answers: It is b as /b it was b with Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, /b who, b when they were standing up in the presence of Rav, /b their teacher, at the conclusion of a lesson, disagreed with regard to exactly what he said. One b Sage said: /b On my b oath Rav said like this, and /b the other b Sage said: /b On my b oath Rav said like that. When they came before Rav /b to clarify what he had said, b he stated /b his opinion b in accordance with /b what b one of them /b had said. b The other said to /b Rav: b Did I /b then b take a false oath? /b ,Rav b said to him: Your heart compelled you. /b It is not regarded as a false oath, since at the time that you took the oath you were certain that you were telling the truth.,§ The i baraita /i teaches: The phrase b “and it is hidden from him” /b teaches that b one who was unaware of his oath, /b i.e., forgot it, and subsequently broke it, is liable to bring an offering. One b might /b have thought that the oath taker is also liable when he broke the oath b because he was unaware /b that a particular item is forbidden as the b object /b of his oath; therefore, b the verse states: “With an oath, and it is hidden from him.” He is liable for lack of awareness of the oath, but he is not liable for lack of awareness of the object /b of the oath., b They laughed at this in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, and said: b Granted, you find /b lack of awareness of one’s b oath without /b there being lack of awareness of b the object /b of the oath, as in a case b where one said: /b On my b oath I will not eat wheat bread, and he thought he had said: I will eat /b wheat bread, b as /b in that case b his oath is forgotten /b and b the object /b of it b is remembered. But /b under b what circumstances /b is there a case of lack of awareness of b the object /b of the oath b without /b lack of awareness of the b oath /b itself?,The Gemara suggests: It can be found in a case b where he said: /b On my b oath I will not eat wheat bread, and he thought he had said: /b On my oath I will not eat b barley /b bread, b as /b in that case b his oath is remembered by him /b and b the object /b of it b is forgotten. /b The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b Once the object /b of the oath b is forgotten by him, that is /b a case of b lack of awareness of his oath. /b , b Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: /b The distinction made in the i baraita /i between lack of awareness of one’s oath and lack of awareness of the object of one’s oath is not valid, and both b this and that are one /b and the same., b Rav Yosef objects to this. /b Is it b really /b the case that b you do not find /b a case of lack of awareness of b the object /b of an oath b without /b lack of awareness of the b oath? But you find /b it in a case b where he said: /b On my b oath I will not eat wheat bread, and he extended his hand to the basket to take barley bread, and wheat /b bread b came up in his hand, and he thought it was barley /b bread b and ate it. /b That is a case b where his oath is remembered by him, and it is the object /b of the oath b of which he is unaware. /b , b Abaye said to him: Don’t you deem him liable /b to bring b an offering /b for breaking his oath b only for that which he holds in his hand /b and eats? When he eats the bread, that b is lack of awareness of the oath, /b since he thinks that the item in his hand is permitted.,The Gemara presents b another formulation /b of this statement. b Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Ultimately, the offering he brings for this bread is in any event /b due to b lack of awareness of the oath, /b as he thinks that the item in his hand is permitted., b And Rav Yosef /b could b say to you: Since were he to know of it that it is wheat /b bread b he would refrain from /b eating b it, /b this should be regarded as a case of b lack of awareness of the object. /b , b Rava asked of Rav Naḥman: /b In a case where one b has a lack of awareness of this, /b the oath, b and that, /b its object, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? Rav Naḥman b said to him: He /b breaks the oath while b having a lack of awareness of the oath and /b is therefore b liable. /b Rava replied: b On the contrary, he has a lack of awareness of the object /b of the oath b and /b should therefore be b exempt. /b , b Rav Ashi said: We see: If he refrains /b from eating b due to the oath, /b i.e., when he is reminded that he took an oath, b he had a lack of awareness of the oath and is liable. If he refrains due to the object /b of the oath, i.e., when he is reminded what it is he is about to eat, b he had a lack of awareness due to the object, and is exempt. /b , b Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Doesn’t he refrain only from /b breaking the b oath due to /b his recognition of the b object? Doesn’t he refrain from /b the b object due only to /b the b oath? /b In either case, he needs to remember both the oath and its object, and the manner in which he was reminded does not serve to indicate anything. b Rather, there is no difference /b between the two., b Rava asked of Rav Naḥman: /b |
|
41. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 206| 34b. כהן גדול בסוף כל ברכה וברכה והמלך תחלת כל ברכה וברכה וסוף כל ברכה וברכה,אמר רבי יצחק בר נחמני לדידי מפרשא לי מיניה דריב"ל הדיוט כמו שאמרנו כהן גדול תחלת כל ברכה וברכה המלך כיון שכרע שוב אינו זוקף שנאמר (מלכים א ח, נד) ויהי ככלות שלמה להתפלל וגו' קם מלפני מזבח ה' מכרוע על ברכיו:,ת"ר קידה על אפים שנאמר (מלכים א א, לא) ותקד בת שבע אפים ארץ כריעה על ברכים שנאמר מכרוע על ברכיו השתחואה זו פשוט ידים ורגלים שנאמר (בראשית לז, י) הבא נבא אני ואמך ואחיך להשתחות לך ארצה,אמר רב חייא בריה דרב הונא חזינא להו לאביי ורבא דמצלו אצלויי,תני חדא הכורע בהודאה הרי זה משובח ותניא אידך הרי זה מגונה,לא קשיא הא בתחלה הא לבסוף,רבא כרע בהודאה תחלה וסוף אמרי ליה רבנן אמאי קא עביד מר הכי אמר להו חזינא לרב נחמן דכרע וחזינא ליה לרב ששת דקא עבד הכי,והתניא הכורע בהודאה הרי זה מגונה,ההיא בהודאה שבהלל,והתניא הכורע בהודאה ובהודאה של הלל הרי זה מגונה,כי תניא ההיא בהודאה דברכת המזון:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המתפלל וטעה סימן רע לו ואם שליח צבור הוא סימן רע לשולחיו מפני ששלוחו של אדם כמותו אמרו עליו על ר' חנינא בן דוסא שהיה מתפלל על החולים ואומר זה חי וזה מת אמרו לו מנין אתה יודע אמר להם אם שגורה תפלתי בפי יודע אני שהוא מקובל ואם לאו יודע אני שהוא מטורף:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אהייא,א"ר חייא אמר רב ספרא משום חד דבי רבי באבות,איכא דמתני לה אברייתא המתפלל צריך שיכוין את לבו בכולן ואם אינו יכול לכוין בכולן יכוין את לבו באחת,א"ר חייא אמר רב ספרא משום חד דבי רבי באבות,אמרו עליו על רבי חנינא וכו': מנא הני מילי א"ר יהושע בן לוי דאמר קרא (ישעיהו נז, יט) בורא ניב שפתים שלום שלום לרחוק ולקרוב אמר ה' ורפאתיו,א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן כל הנביאים כולן לא נתנבאו אלא למשיא בתו לתלמיד חכם ולעושה פרקמטיא לת"ח ולמהנה ת"ח מנכסיו אבל תלמידי חכמים עצמן (ישעיהו סד, ג) עין לא ראתה אלהים זולתך יעשה למחכה לו,ואמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן כל הנביאים כולן לא נתנבאו אלא לימות המשיח אבל לעולם הבא עין לא ראתה אלהים זולתך,ופליגא דשמואל דאמר שמואל אין בין העוה"ז לימות המשיח אלא שעבוד מלכיות בלבד שנאמר (דברים טו, יא) כי לא יחדל אביון מקרב הארץ,וא"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן כל הנביאים כולן לא נתנבאו אלא לבעלי תשובה אבל צדיקים גמורים עין לא ראתה אלהים זולתך,ופליגא דר' אבהו דא"ר אבהו מקום שבעלי תשובה עומדין צדיקים גמורים אינם עומדין שנאמר (ישעיהו נז, יט) שלום שלום לרחוק ולקרוב לרחוק ברישא והדר לקרוב,ורבי יוחנן אמר לך מאי רחוק שהיה רחוק מדבר עבירה מעיקרא ומאי קרוב שהיה קרוב לדבר עבירה ונתרחק ממנו השתא,מאי עין לא ראתה אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי זה יין המשומר בענביו מששת ימי בראשית רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר זה עדן שלא שלטה בו עין כל בריה,שמא תאמר אדם הראשון היכן היה בגן,ושמא תאמר הוא גן הוא עדן תלמוד לומר (בראשית ב, י) ונהר יוצא מעדן להשקות את הגן גן לחוד ועדן לחוד:,ת"ר מעשה שחלה בנו של ר"ג שגר שני ת"ח אצל רבי חנינא בן דוסא לבקש עליו רחמים כיון שראה אותם עלה לעלייה ובקש עליו רחמים בירידתו אמר להם לכו שחלצתו חמה אמרו לו וכי נביא אתה אמר להן לא נביא אנכי ולא בן נביא אנכי אלא כך מקובלני אם שגורה תפלתי בפי יודע אני שהוא מקובל ואם לאו יודע אני שהוא מטורף ישבו וכתבו וכוונו אותה שעה וכשבאו אצל ר"ג אמר להן העבודה לא חסרתם ולא הותרתם אלא כך היה מעשה באותה שעה חלצתו חמה ושאל לנו מים לשתות,ושוב מעשה ברבי חנינא בן דוסא שהלך ללמוד תורה אצל ר' יוחנן בן זכאי וחלה בנו של ריב"ז אמר לו חנינא בני בקש עליו רחמים ויחיה הניח ראשו בין ברכיו ובקש עליו רחמים וחיה אמר רבי יוחנן בן זכאי אלמלי הטיח בן זכאי את ראשו בין ברכיו כל היום כולו לא היו משגיחים עליו אמרה לו אשתו וכי חנינא גדול ממך אמר לה לאו אלא הוא דומה כעבד לפני המלך ואני דומה כשר לפני המלך:,ואמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן אל יתפלל אדם אלא בבית שיש שם חלונות שנאמר (דניאל ו, יא) וכוין פתיחן ליה בעליתיה (לקבל) [נגד],ירושלם אמר רב כהנא חציף עלי מאן דמצלי בבקתא,ואמר רב כהנא חציף עלי מאן דמפרש חטאיה שנאמר (תהלים לב, א) אשרי נשוי פשע כסוי חטאה:, br br big strongהדרן עלך אין עומדין /strong /big br br | |
|
| 42. Anon., Pesikta Rabbati, 15 Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 202 |
| 43. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q199, None Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229 |
| 44. Anon., Targum Onqelos, Exodus, 49.7 Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 205 |
45. Babylonian Talmud, Zevahim, None Tagged with subjects: •realism, legal, in rabbinic sources Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229, 231| 15a. אפשר לתקונה או לא אפשר לתקונה,ת"ש קבל הכשר ונתן לפסול יחזיר לכשר,ונהי נמי דיחזור הכשר ויקבלנו אי סלקא דעתך לא אפשר לתקונה איפסלא לה,מי סברת דקאי זר גואי לא דקאי זר בראי,איתמר אמר עולא אמר ר' יוחנן הולכה שלא ברגל פסולה אלמא לא אפשר לתקונה,איתיביה רב נחמן לעולא נשפך מן הכלי על הרצפה ואספו כשר,הכא במאי עסקינן כשיצא לחוץ,לבראי נפיק לגואי לא עייל במקום מדרון איבעית אימא בגומא ואיבעית אימא בסמיכא,ואיכפל תנא לאשמועינן כל הני ועוד אדתני באידך פירקין נשפך על הרצפה ואספו פסול ליפלוג בדידיה במה דברים אמורים כשיצא לחוץ אבל נכנס לפנים פסול תיובתא,אתמר הולכה שלא ברגל מחלוקת ר"ש ורבנן בהולכה רבתי דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דפסולה כי פליגי בהולכה זוטרתי,מחכו עלה במערבא אלא חטאת העוף דפסולה בה מחשבה לר"ש היכי משכחת לה אי דחשיב עלה מקמי דליפוק דם לא כלום היא ואי בתר דנפק דם איתעבידא ליה מצותו,מאי קושיא דלמא מדפריש ועד דמטא למזבח,דהא בעא מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי זירא היה מזה ונקטעה ידו של מזה עד שלא הגיע דם לאויר המזבח מהו וא"ל [פסולה מ"ט] והזה ונתן בעינן,כי אתו רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מבי רב אמרי היינו חוכא ובהולכה רבתי לא פליגי והא כי פליגי בהולכה רבתי פליגי,אלא בהולכה זוטרתי כולי עלמא לא פליגי דלא פסלה כי פליגי בהולכה רבתי,הוליכו זר והחזירו כהן וחזר והוליכו פליגי בה בני רבי חייא ור' ינאי חד אמר כשר וחד אמר פסול מר סבר אפשר לתקונה ומר סבר לא אפשר לתקונה,הוליכו כהן והחזירו וחזר והוליכו זר אמר רב שימי בר אשי לדברי המכשיר פסול לדברי הפוסל מכשיר,רבא אמר אף לדברי הפוסל פסול מאי טעמא דהא צריך | 15a. The Gemara asks: If the blood was conveyed by hand, is it b possible to correct it /b by conveying it again properly, b or /b is it b not possible to correct it, /b and the offering is disqualified permanently?,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b proof from the aforementioned mishna: If a priest b fit /b for Temple service b collected /b the blood in a vessel b and gave /b the vessel b to an unfit /b person standing next to the altar, the latter b should return /b it b to the fit /b priest. Apparently, even after the blood is conveyed in an inappropriate manner, it can be corrected., b And though /b one can b indeed /b explain b that the fit /b priest b should then receive it /b from him, as posited above, b if it enters your mind /b that if the blood is conveyed incorrectly it is b not possible to correct it, /b the offering b was /b already b disqualified /b when the priest gave the blood to the unfit person. Taking it back is of no consequence.,The Gemara rejects this inference: b Do you maintain that /b this is referring to a case where the b non-priest is standing inside, /b between the fit priest and the altar? b No, /b it is a case b where /b the b non-priest is standing outside, /b farther away from the altar than the priest. Therefore, when the priest gave him the blood, he was not conveying it toward the altar at all; he was moving it farther away from the altar., b It was stated: Ulla says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: Conveying /b the blood b not by foot /b renders the offering b unfit. Apparently, it is not possible to correct it, /b as otherwise Rabbi Yoḥa would have merely stated that it is not considered conveying, as in his earlier statement (14b)., b Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Ulla /b from a mishna (32a): If the blood b spilled from the vessel onto the floor and one collected it /b from the floor, it is b fit /b for sacrifice. Apparently, although spilling the blood on the floor constitutes a not valid conveying toward the altar, it can still be corrected after the fact.,The Gemara explains: b Here we are dealing with /b a case b where /b the blood that spilled b went outward, /b i.e., away from the altar, so it did not constitute conveying at all.,The Gemara asks: Can spilled blood b go outward /b and b not come inward? /b Clearly, spilled blood spreads to all sides. The Gemara answers: It is a case where the blood spilled b on an inclined plane, /b and it therefore spilled only outward, away from the altar. And b if you wish, say /b instead that it spilled b into a hole /b in the ground, so it did not spread in any direction. b And if you wish, say /b instead that it is a case b where /b the blood is b thick, /b so it did not spread in all directions.,The Gemara asks: b But did the i tanna /i go to all that trouble [ i ikhpal /i /b ] just b to teach us all these /b unlikely cases? b And furthermore, rather than teaching in another chapter /b (see 25a) that if the blood b spilled /b from the animal’s neck b onto the floor and one collected it /b in a vessel from the floor it is b unfit, let /b the mishna b teach a distinction within /b the case where the blood spilled from the vessel b itself: In what /b case b is this statement, /b that the blood is fit, b said? /b In a case b where /b the spilled blood b went outward, /b away from the altar, b but /b if it b came inward /b it is b unfit. /b The Gemara concludes: This is b a conclusive refutation; /b if the blood is conveyed in a not valid manner, it can be corrected.,§ b It was stated: /b The b dispute /b in the mishna (13a) between b Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis /b as to whether improper intent while conveying the blood disqualifies the offering is only with regard to b conveying /b the blood b not by foot. With regard to greater conveying, /b i.e., conveying the blood by moving the feet, b everyone agrees that /b if one performs it with prohibited intent, the offering is b unfit. When they disagree, /b it is b with regard to lesser conveying, /b i.e., conveying the blood by hand without moving the feet, in a case where the offering was slaughtered next to the altar., b They laughed at /b this statement b in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, saying: b But /b if so, one encounters difficulty with regard to b a bird sin offering, which /b is killed through pinching its nape on the altar and whose blood is sprinkled directly from its neck. It is known that if one sprinkled its blood with prohibited b intent, /b the offering is b unfit. /b And b according to Rabbi Shimon, /b who holds that prohibited intent while conveying the blood by hand does not disqualify the offering, b how can you find these /b circumstances? b If /b the priest b has /b prohibited b intent with regard to /b the offering b before /b the b blood comes out /b of the bird, this intent b is nothing, /b since his waving it is like conveying by hand. b And if /b he has such intent b after the blood came out, its mitzva was /b already b performed, /b as the blood already reached the altar.,The Gemara asks: b What is the difficulty? Perhaps /b the offering is disqualified due to prohibited intent b from /b the moment the blood b leaves /b the bird b until /b the moment b it reaches the altar. /b ,This is b as Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: /b If the priest b was sprinkling /b the blood, b and the hand of the one sprinkling was severed before /b the b blood reached the airspace of the altar, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Is the sprinkling not valid since it was performed by a blemished priest, or is it valid because the blood left the bird before he was blemished? b And /b Rabbi Zeira b said to him: /b It is b not valid. What is the reason? We require /b that the verse: b “And sprinkle /b of the blood” (Leviticus 4:6), be fulfilled in the same manner as the verse that follows it: b “And /b the priest shall b place /b of the blood upon the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:7), namely, that the blood reach the altar. Therefore, the blood can be disqualified anytime until it reaches the altar, whether through the priest becoming blemished or through prohibited intent., b When Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from the study hall, they said: This is /b the reason for b the laughter /b of the scholars of Eretz Yisrael: b With regard to greater conveying, /b i.e., conveying by foot, can one say Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis b do not disagree? /b Clearly, b when they disagree /b in the mishna, b they disagree with regard to greater conveying, /b as Rabbi Shimon reasons that conveying is a dispensable rite. Only conveying by foot is dispensable, since even if the offering is slaughtered next to the altar, the priest will need to move its blood somewhat with his hand., b Rather, /b the statement under discussion should be emended to say: b With regard to lesser conveying, /b i.e., conveying the blood by hand, b everyone agrees that it does not disqualify /b the offering due to prohibited intent. b When they disagree, /b it is b with regard to greater conveying, /b i.e., conveying the blood for a distance by foot. Rabbi Shimon holds that improper intent even then does not disqualify the offering, as the rite is dispensable, and the Rabbis maintain that it does disqualify it.,§ If b a non-priest conveyed /b the blood to the altar, b and a priest returned it /b to its original location, b and /b a priest then b conveyed it again /b to the altar, b the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yannai disagree with regard to /b the i halakha /i . b One says /b that the offering is b fit, and one says /b it is b unfit. /b This is because one b Sage holds /b that if the blood is conveyed improperly, it is b possible to correct it, and /b one b Sage holds /b that it is b not possible to correct it. /b ,If b a priest conveyed it /b to the altar, b and /b then b returned it, and a non-priest /b then b conveyed it again, Rav Shimi bar Ashi says: According to the statement of the one who deems /b the offering b fit /b in the previous case, where a non-priest conveyed it the first time and a priest conveyed it the second time, in this case the offering is b unfit, /b as a non-priest conveyed it the second time. b According to the statement of the one who deems /b the offering b unfit /b in the previous case, as a non-priest conveyed it the first time, in this case, where a priest conveyed it the first time, b he deems /b the offering b fit. /b , b Rava says: Even according to the statement of the one who deems /b the offering b unfit /b in a case where a non-priest conveyed it the first time, it is b unfit /b in this case as well, where a priest conveyed it the first time and a non-priest conveyed it the second time. b What is the reason? Because /b after the blood is returned to its original location, b it is necessary /b |
|
