1. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 19.14 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 104| 19.14. "זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה אָדָם כִּי־יָמוּת בְּאֹהֶל כָּל־הַבָּא אֶל־הָאֹהֶל וְכָל־אֲשֶׁר בָּאֹהֶל יִטְמָא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים׃", | 19.14. "This is the law: when a man dieth in a tent, every one that cometh into the tent, and every thing that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 13.2, 17.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 221, 222| 13.2. "וְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה מַרְאֶהָ שָׁפָל מִן־הָעוֹר וּשְׂעָרָהּ הָפַךְ לָבָן וְטִמְּאוֹ הַכֹּהֵן נֶגַע־צָרַעַת הִוא בַּשְּׁחִין פָּרָחָה׃", 13.2. "אָדָם כִּי־יִהְיֶה בְעוֹר־בְּשָׂרוֹ שְׂאֵת אוֹ־סַפַּחַת אוֹ בַהֶרֶת וְהָיָה בְעוֹר־בְּשָׂרוֹ לְנֶגַע צָרָעַת וְהוּבָא אֶל־אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אוֹ אֶל־אַחַד מִבָּנָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים׃", 17.15. "וְכָל־נֶפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה בָּאֶזְרָח וּבַגֵּר וְכִבֶּס בְּגָדָיו וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעֶרֶב וְטָהֵר׃", | 13.2. "When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it become in the skin of his flesh the plague of leprosy, then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests.", 17.15. "And every soul that eateth that which dieth of itself, or that which is torn of beasts, whether he be home-born or a stranger, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even; then shall he be clean.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 3.23 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 222| 3.23. "וְהַגִּלְיֹנִים וְהַסְּדִינִים וְהַצְּנִיפוֹת וְהָרְדִידִים׃", | 3.23. "and the gauze robes, and the fine linen, and the turbans, and the mantles.", |
|
| 4. Dead Sea Scrolls, Temple Scroll, 50.4-50.7 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 221 |
| 5. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Qmmt, None (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 219 |
6. Tosefta, Megillah, 1.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 219| 1.11. "אין בין זב הרואה שתי ראיות לרואה שלש אלא קרבן אין בין זב לזבה אלא שהזב טעון ביאת מים חיים זבה אין טעונה ביאת מים חיים [אין בין זבה לנדה אלא קרבן אין בין קרבן זבה ליולדת אלא הבאת קרבן אין בין נדה לשומרת יום כנגד יום אלא ספירת שבעה בלבד].", | 1.11. "There is no difference between a one who sees two unnatural discharges and one who sees three except for the obligation to bring a sacrifice. There is no difference between a male and a female who have unnatural discharges except that the male must immerse in living waters, whereas a female doesn't need to immerse in living waters. There is no difference between a female with an unnatural discharge and a menstruating female except for the bringing of an offering [which the menstruant does not have to do]. There is no difference between the sacrifice of the woman who has an unnatural discharge and one who has given birth except for the type of offering (?). There is no difference between a menstruating woman and one who is waiting one day after one day of abnormal discharge except for the counting of seven days. ", |
|
7. Mishnah, Eduyot, 1.7, 6.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 117, 219, 221| 1.7. "בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, רֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת מִן הָעֲצָמִים, בֵּין מִשְּׁנַיִם בֵּין מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, רֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת מִן הַגְּוִיָּה, מֵרֹב הַבִּנְיָן אוֹ מֵרֹב הַמִּנְיָן. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ מֵעֶצֶם אֶחָד: \n", 6.3. "כַּזַּיִת בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֵבָר מִן הַחַי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַמֵּא, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא מְטַהֲרִים. עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֵבָר מִן הַחַי, רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא מְטַמֵּא, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מְטַהֲרִין. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מָה רָאִיתָ לְטַמֵּא כַזַּיִת בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֵבָר מִן הַחַי. אָמַר לָהֶם, מָצִינוּ אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי כְּמֵת שָׁלֵם. מַה הַמֵּת, כַּזַּיִת בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ טָמֵא, אַף אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, כַּזַּיִת בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ יִהְיֶה טָמֵא. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא, אִם טִמֵּאתָ כַזַּיִת בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַמֵּת, שֶׁכֵּן טִמֵּאתָ עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ, תְּטַמֵּא כַזַּיִת בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֵבָר מִן הַחַי, שֶׁכֵּן טִהַרְתָּ עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ הֵימֶנּוּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא, מָה רָאִיתָ לְטַמֵּא עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֵבָר מִן הַחַי. אָמַר לָהֶם, מָצִינוּ אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי כְּמֵת שָׁלֵם. מַה הַמֵּת, עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ טָמֵא, אַף אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ יִהְיֶה טָמֵא. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא, אִם טִמֵּאתָ עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַמֵּת, שֶׁכֵּן טִמֵּאתָ כַזַּיִת בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ, תְּטַמֵּא עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֵבָר מִן הַחַי, שֶׁכֵּן טִהַרְתָּ כַזַּיִת בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מָה רָאִיתָ לַחֲלֹק מִדּוֹתֶיךָ, אוֹ טַמֵּא בִשְׁנֵיהֶם אוֹ טַהֵר בִּשְׁנֵיהֶם. אָמַר לָהֶם, מְרֻבָּה טֻמְאַת הַבָּשָׂר מִטֻּמְאַת הָעֲצָמוֹת, שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר נוֹהֵג בַּנְּבֵלוֹת וּבַשְּׁרָצִים, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בָּעֲצָמוֹת. דָּבָר אַחֵר, אֵבֶר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי, מְטַמֵּא בְמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא וּבְאֹהֶל. חָסֵר הַבָּשָׂר, טָמֵא. חָסֵר הָעֶצֶם, טָהוֹר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא, מָה רָאִיתָ לַחֲלֹק מִדּוֹתֶיךָ, אוֹ טַמֵּא בִשְׁנֵיהֶם אוֹ טַהֵר בִּשְׁנֵיהֶם. אָמַר לָהֶם, מְרֻבָּה טֻמְאַת הָעֲצָמוֹת מִטֻּמְאַת הַבָּשָׂר, שֶּׁהַבָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַחַי טָהוֹר, וְאֵבָר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ, וְהוּא כִבְרִיָּתוֹ, טָמֵא. דָּבָר אַחֵר, כַּזַּיִת בָּשָׂר מְטַמֵּא בְמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא וּבְאֹהֶל, וְרֹב עֲצָמוֹת מְטַמְּאִים בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא וּבְאֹהֶל. חָסֵר הַבָּשָׂר, טָהוֹר. חָסֵר רֹב עֲצָמוֹת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁטָּהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא בְאֹהֶל, מְטַמֵּא בְמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא. דָּבָר אַחֵר, כָּל בְּשַׂר הַמֵּת, שֶׁהוּא פָחוֹת מִכַּזַּיִת, טָהוֹר. רֹב בִּנְיָנוֹ וְרֹב מִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁל מֵת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם רֹבַע, טְמֵאִין. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, מָה רָאִיתָ לְטַהֵר בִּשְׁנֵיהֶם. אָמַר לָהֶם, לֹא, אִם אֲמַרְתֶּם בַּמֵּת, שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ רֹב וְרֹבַע וְרָקָב, תֹּאמְרוּ בַחַי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רֹב וְרֹבַע וְרָקָב: \n", | 1.7. "Beth Shammai says: “A quarter-kav of any bones, even from two limbs or from three.” And Beth Hillel says: “A quarter-kav of bones from a corpse, either from [the bones which form] the greater portion of the [body’s] build, or from the greater portion of the number [of the body’s bones]. Shammai says: “Even from a single bone.”", 6.3. "An olive's size of flesh that separated from the limb of a living person: Rabbi Eliezer declares impure, and Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Nechunya declare pure. A barley-grain's size of bone that separates from a limb of a living person: Rabbi Nechunya declares impure, and Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua declare pure. They said to Rabbi Eliezer: Why did you see [fit] to declare an olive's worth of flesh that separated from the limb of a living person impure? He said to them: We find that the limb of a living person is like a complete dead person. Just like an olive's size of flesh that separates from a dead person is impure, so too an olive's size of flesh that separated from the limb of a living person is impure. They said to him: No. If you say that an olive's size of flesh that separated from a dead person is impure, as is a barley-grain's size of bone that separates from [a dead person], [how] will you also declare an olive's size of flesh that separated from the limb of a living person impure when you declare pure a barley-grain's size of bone that separates from [the limb of a living person]? [You yourself do not appear to judge these cases as parallel to each other, so how can you claim that to be your reasoning?] They said to Rabbi Nechunya: Why did you see fit to declare a barley-grain's size of bone that separated from the limb of a living person impure? He said to them: We find that the limb of a living person is like a complete dead person. Just like a barley-grain's worth of flesh that separates from a dead person is impure, so too a barley-grain's worth of bone that separated from the limb of a living person is impure. They said to him: No. If you say that a barley-grain's worth of bone that separated from a dead person is impure, as is an olive's size of flesh that separates from [a dead person], [how] will you also declare a barley-grain's size of bone that separated from the limb of a living person impure when you declare pure an olive's worth of flesh that separates from [a living person]? [You yourself do not appear to judge these cases as parallel to each other, so how can you claim that to be your reasoning?] They said to Rabbi Eliezer: Why did you see fit to divide your method [and be inconsistent in your reasoning]? Either they are both pure, or they are both impure! He said to them: [There are] more [chances for] flesh [to become] impure than [there are chances] for bones [to become] impure, for flesh applies to carcasses and insects, which is not so for bones. Another answer: A limb that has enough flesh on it [that were it still attached to a human being, it would be viable] imparts impurity by touching, carrying, and being under its [same] roof-space. If one diminishes the flesh [of the limb], it remains impure. If one diminishes the bone [of the limb], it [becomes] pure. They said to Rabbi Nechunya: Why did you see fit to divide your method [and be inconsistent in your reasoning]? Either they are both pure, or they are both impure! He said to them: [There are] more [chances for] bones [to become] impure than [there are chances] for flesh to become impure, for flesh separated from a living man is pure, but a limb that is separated from [a living man], and it is full [with flesh, bone, and sinews], it is impure. Another answer: An olive's worth of flesh [severed from a corpse] imparts impurity by touching, carrying, and being under its roof-space, and bones create a majority in making impure by touching, carrying, and being under its [same] roof-space, and a majority of a corpse's bones impart impurity by touching, carrying, and being under their [same] roof-space. If one diminishes [the] flesh [that has been severed from a corpse], it [becomes] pure. If one diminishes the majority of bone, even though they [now become] pure [and can no longer impart impurity on whatever is] under their same roof-space, they [still] impart impurity by touching and carrying. Another answer: Any flesh of a dead person which is less than an olive's worth is pure. But [bones that makes up] the majority of a dead person's build or [constitute] a majority of his [bone] count, even if they are only a quarter [ i kav /i (a measure)], they are impure. They said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Why did you see fit to declare both [bone and flesh from a dead person] pure? [Is not Rabbi Nechunya's reasoning correct?] He said to them: No. If you say about a corpse [that it is impure, it is because of] the laws of majority, quarter [ i kav /i ], and decay [that apply to it], but [how can you] also say about a living person [that he is impure], [if] he does not have the laws of majority, quarter [ i kav /i ], and decay [apply to him]? [You cannot compare that which was separated from a corpse with that which was separated from the limb of a living person, because the limbs severed from a living person are less likely to impart impurity than the corpse.]", |
|
8. Mishnah, Hulin, 3.1, 4.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 115, 221| 3.1. "אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת בַּבְּהֵמָה. נְקוּבַת הַוֶּשֶׁט, וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת, נִקַּב קְרוּם שֶׁל מֹחַ, נִקַּב הַלֵּב לְבֵית חֲלָלוֹ, נִשְׁבְּרָה הַשִּׁדְרָה וְנִפְסַק הַחוּט שֶׁלָּהּ, נִטַּל הַכָּבֵד וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּר הֵימֶנּוּ כְלוּם, הָרֵאָה שֶׁנִּקְּבָה, אוֹ שֶׁחָסְרָה, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁתִּנָּקֵב לְבֵית הַסִּמְפּוֹנוֹת. נִקְּבָה הַקֵּבָה, נִקְּבָה הַמָּרָה, נִקְּבוּ הַדַּקִּין, הַכֶּרֶס הַפְּנִימִית שֶׁנִּקְּבָה, אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְרַע רֹב הַחִיצוֹנָה, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, הַגְּדוֹלָה טֶפַח, וְהַקְּטַנָּה בְּרֻבָּהּ. הַמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת שֶׁנִּקְּבוּ לַחוּץ, נָפְלָה מִן הַגַּג, נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ רֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ, וּדְרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, דְּרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב בַּדַּקָּה, וּדְרוּסַת אֲרִי בַּגַּסָּה, דְּרוּסַת הַנֵּץ בָּעוֹף הַדַּק, וּדְרוּסַת הַגַּס בָּעוֹף הַגָּס. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין כָּמוֹהָ חַיָּה, טְרֵפָה: \n", 4.6. "בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּחְתְּכוּ רַגְלֶיהָ מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַטָּה, כְּשֵׁרָה. מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה, פְּסוּלָה. וְכֵן שֶׁנִּטַּל צֹמֶת הַגִּידִין. נִשְׁבַּר הָעֶצֶם, אִם רֹב הַבָּשָׂר קַיָּם, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ. וְאִם לָאו, אֵין שְׁחִיטָתוֹ מְטַהַרְתּוֹ: \n", | 3.1. "The following [defects] render cattle terefah:If the esophagus was pierced; If the windpipe severed; If the membrane of the brain was pierced; If the heart was pierced as far as its cavity thereof; If the spine was broken and the cord severed; If the liver was gone and none of it remained; If the lung was pierced, Or if part of it was missing Rabbi Shimon says: only if it was pierced as far as the main bronchi; If the stomach, If the gall-bladder was pierced, If the intestines were pierced; If the innermost stomach was pierced, If the greater part of the outer stomach was pierced. Rabbi Judah says: in a large animal [if it was torn] to the extent of a handbreadth, and in a small animal the greater part. If the omasum (the third stomach of a rumit) [was pierced]; of if the second stomach was pierced on the outside; If the animal fell from the roof; If most of its ribs were fractured; Or if it was mauled by a wolf Rabbi Judah says: small animals [are terefah] if mauled by a wolf, large cattle if mauled by a lion; small fowl if mauled by a hawk, large fowl if mauled by a falcon. This is the rule: if an animal with a similar defect could not continue to live, it is terefah.", 4.6. "If the hind legs of an animal were cut off below the joint, it is permitted; If above the joint, it is terefah. So too if the juncture of the tendons was gone, [it is terefah]. If the bone was broken but the greater part of the flesh [around the fracture] remained, it is rendered clean by the slaughtering; Otherwise it is not rendered clean by the slaughtering.", |
|
9. Mishnah, Kelim, 1.4-1.5, 26.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222| 1.4. "לְמַעְלָה מִן הַזָּב, זָבָה, שֶׁהִיא מְטַמְּאָה אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ. לְמַעְלָה מִן הַזָּבָה, מְצֹרָע, שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא בְּבִיאָה. לְמַעְלָה מִן הַמְּצֹרָע, עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה, שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה. חָמוּר מִכֻּלָּם, הַמֵּת, שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא בְאֹהֶל, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֻּלָּם מְטַמְּאִין: \n", 1.5. "עֶשֶׂר טֻמְאוֹת פּוֹרְשׁוֹת מִן הָאָדָם. מְחֻסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, אָסוּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וּמֻתָּר בַּתְּרוּמָה וּבַמַּעֲשֵׂר. חָזַר לִהְיוֹת טְבוּל יוֹם, אָסוּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וּבַתְּרוּמָה וּמֻתָּר בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר. חָזַר לִהְיוֹת בַּעַל קֶרִי, אָסוּר בִּשְׁלָשְׁתָּן. חָזַר לִהְיוֹת בּוֹעֵל נִדָּה, מְטַמֵּא מִשְׁכָּב תַּחְתּוֹן כָּעֶלְיוֹן. חָזַר לִהְיוֹת זָב שֶׁרָאָה שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת, מְטַמֵּא מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב, וְצָרִיךְ בִּיאַת מַיִם חַיִּים, וּפָטוּר מִן הַקָּרְבָּן. רָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ, חַיָּב בַּקָּרְבָּן. חָזַר לִהְיוֹת מְצֹרָע מֻסְגָּר, מְטַמֵּא בְּבִיאָה, וּפָטוּר מִן הַפְּרִיעָה וּמִן הַפְּרִימָה וּמִן הַתִּגְלַחַת וּמִן הַצִּפֳּרִים. וְאִם הָיָה מֻחְלָט, חַיָּב בְּכֻלָּן. פֵּרַשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ אֵבָר שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי, מְטַמֵּא בְמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְאֹהֶל. וְאִם יֵשׁ עָלָיו בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי, מְטַמֵּא בְמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא וּבְאֹהֶל. שִׁעוּר בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי, כְּדֵי לְהַעֲלוֹת אֲרוּכָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם יֵשׁ בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד כְּדֵי לְהַקִּיפוֹ בְחוּט עֵרֶב, יֶשׁ בּוֹ לְהַעֲלוֹת אֲרוּכָה: \n", 26.8. "עוֹרוֹת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְשֶׁל עַבְּדָן, אֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְשֶׁל גַּנָּב, מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְשֶׁל גַּזְלָן, אֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, חִלּוּף הַדְּבָרִים, שֶׁל גַּזְלָן, מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְשֶׁל גַּנָּב, אֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים: \n", | 1.4. "Above the zav is the zavah, for she conveys impurity to the man who has intercourse with her. Above the zavah is the metzora, for he conveys impurity by entering into a house. Above the metzora is a [human] bone the size of a barley grain, for it conveys impurity for seven days. More strict than all these is a corpse, for it conveys impurity by ohel (tent) whereby all the others convey no impurity.", 1.5. "There are ten [grades of] impurity that emanate from a person:A person before the offering of his obligatory sacrifices is forbidden to eat holy things but permitted to eat terumah and [second] tithe. If he is a tevul yom he is forbidden to eat holy things and terumah but permitted to eat [second] tithe. If he emitted semen he is forbidden to eat any of the three. If he had intercourse with a menstruant he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding]. If he is a zav who has seen two discharges he conveys impurity to that on which he lies or sits and is required to undergo immersion in running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. If he saw three discharges he must bring the sacrifice. If he is a metzora that was only enclosed he conveys impurity by entry [into an ohel] but is exempt from loosening his hair, from rending his clothes, from shaving and from the birds offering. But if he was a confirmed metzora, he is liable for all these. If a limb on which there was not the proper quantity of flesh was severed from a person, it conveys impurity by contact and by carriage but not by ohel. But if it has the proper quantity of flesh it conveys impurity by contact, by carriage and by ohel. A \"proper quantity of flesh\" is such as is capable of healing. Rabbi Judah says: if in one place it has flesh sufficient to surround it with [the thickness of] a thread of the woof it is capable of healing.", 26.8. "The hides of a householder become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but those that belong to a tanner do not become susceptible by mere intention. Those taken by a thief become susceptible by intention, but those taken by a robber do not become susceptible by mere intention. Rabbi Shimon says: the rule is to be reversed; those taken by a robber become susceptible by mere intention, but those taken by a thief do not become susceptible by intention, since in the latter case the owner does not abandon hope for recovery.", |
|
10. Mishnah, Bava Qamma, 4.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 221| 4.6. "שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה מִתְחַכֵּךְ בְּכֹתֶל וְנָפַל עַל הָאָדָם, נִתְכַּוֵּן לַהֲרֹג אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם, לְנָכְרִי וְהָרַג אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לִנְפָלִים וְהָרַג בֶּן קְיָמָא, פָּטוּר: \n", | 4.6. "If an ox was rubbing itself against a wall and it fell on a person; or if it intended to kill an animal and it killed a man; or if it intended to kill a gentile and it killed an Israelite; or if it intended to kill an untimely birth and it killed a viable infant, it is exempt [from death by stoning].", |
|
11. Mishnah, Nazir, 2.8, 7.2-7.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 218, 220, 221| 2.8. "הִפִּילָה אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, יֹאמַר, אִם הָיָה בֶן קְיָמָא, הֲרֵי אֲנִי נְזִיר חוֹבָה. וְאִם לָאו, הֲרֵי אֲנִי נְזִיר נְדָבָה. חָזְרָה וְיָלְדָה, הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, יֹאמַר, אִם הָרִאשׁוֹן בֶּן קְיָמָא, הָרִאשׁוֹן חוֹבָה וְזוֹ נְדָבָה. וְאִם לָאו, הָרִאשׁוֹן נְדָבָה וְזוֹ חוֹבָה: \n", 7.2. "עַל אֵלּוּ טֻמְאוֹת הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ, עַל הַמֵּת, וְעַל כַּזַּיִת מִן הַמֵּת, וְעַל כַּזַּיִת נֶצֶל וְעַל מְלֹא תַרְוָד רָקָב, עַל הַשִּׁדְרָה וְעַל הַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת וְעַל אֵבֶר מִן הַמֵּת וְעַל אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי, וְעַל חֲצִי קַב עֲצָמוֹת וְעַל חֲצִי לֹג דָּם, עַל מַגָּעָן וְעַל מַשָּׂאָן וְעַל אָהֳלָן, וְעַל עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה, עַל מַגָּעוֹ וְעַל מַשָּׂאוֹ. עַל אֵלּוּ הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ וּמַזֶּה בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי, וְסוֹתֵר אֶת הַקּוֹדְמִין, וְאֵינוֹ מַתְחִיל לִמְנוֹת אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁיִּטְהַר וּמֵבִיא אֶת קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו: \n", 7.3. "אֲבָל הַסְּכָכוֹת, וְהַפְּרָעוֹת, וּבֵית הַפְּרָס, וְאֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים, וְהַגּוֹלֵל, וְהַדּוֹפֵק, וּרְבִיעִית דָּם, וְאֹהֶל, וְרֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת, וְכֵלִים הַנּוֹגְעִים בְּמֵת, וִימֵי סָפְרוֹ, וִימֵי גָמְרוֹ, עַל אֵלּוּ אֵין הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ, וּמַזֶּה בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי, וְאֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר אֶת הַקּוֹדְמִין, וּמַתְחִיל וּמוֹנֶה מִיָּד, וְקָרְבָּן אֵין לוֹ. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ, יְמֵי הַזָּב וְהַזָּבָה וִימֵי הֶסְגֵּרוֹ שֶׁל מְצֹרָע, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עוֹלִין לוֹ: \n", 7.4. "אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, כָּל טֻמְאָה מִן הַמֵּת שֶׁהַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ עָלֶיהָ, חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ. וְכָל טֻמְאָה מִן הַמֵּת שֶׁאֵין הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ עָלֶיהָ, אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, לֹא תְהֵא זוֹ קַלָּה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דַּנְתִּי לִפְנֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מָה אִם עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אָדָם בְּאֹהֶל, הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ עַל מַגָּעוֹ וְעַל מַשָּׂאוֹ. רְבִיעִית דָּם שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא אָדָם בְּאֹהֶל, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ עַל מַגָּעָהּ וְעַל מַשָּׂאָהּ. אָמַר לִי, מַה זֶה עֲקִיבָא, אֵין דָּנִין כָּאן מִקַּל וָחֹמֶר. וּכְשֶׁבָּאתִי וְהִרְצֵיתִי אֶת הַדְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אָמַר לִי, יָפֶה אָמַרְתָּ, אֶלָּא כֵּן אָמְרוּ הֲלָכָה: \n", | 2.8. "If his wife miscarries, he does not become a nazirite. Rabbi Shimon says: [in this case] he should say, “If it was a viable child, behold, I am a nazirite from obligation; otherwise behold, I am a voluntary nazirite.” If [his wife] later bears a child, he then becomes a nazirite. Rabbi Shimon says: he should say, “If the first was a viable child, the first [naziriteship] was obligatory, and this one is voluntary; otherwise, the first one was voluntary, and the present one is obligatory.”", 7.2. "For which types of defilement must the nazirite shave?For [defilement contracted from] a corpse, or an olive’s bulk of [the flesh of] a corpse, or an olive’s bulk of corpse ooze, or a ladleful of corpse-mould; Or the spinal column, or the skull, or any limb [severed] from a corpse, or any limb [severed] from a living body that is still properly covered with flesh, or a half-kav of bones, or a half-log of blood. Whether [the defilement was contracted] from contact with them, from carrying them, or from overshadowing them. For [defilement contracted from] a barley-grain’s bulk of bone, whether by contact or carrying. On account of these, a nazirite must shave and be sprinkled on the third and seventh days, and such [defilement] annuls the previously served period, and he does not begin to count a new [naziriteship] until he has become clean and brought his sacrifices.", 7.3. "But for [defilement contracted by] overhanging branches, or protruding stones, or a field that may have once been a cemetery, or land of the Gentiles, or the stone which covers the tomb or the supporting stone of a tomb, or a quarter-log of blood, or a tent, or a quarter-kav of bones, or utensils that have been in contact with a corpse, or on account of the days of counting [after contracting scale disease] or the days during which he is certified unclean [because of scale disease]; For all these the nazirite is not required to shave, but they do sprinkle him on the third and seventh [days], and [the defilement] does not annul the formerly served period, and he begins to resume counting [his naziriteship] immediately [after purification] and there is no sacrifice. In fact they said: the days of [defilement of] a male or female sufferer from gonorrhea and the days that a leper is shut up as a leper count toward his [naziriteship].", 7.4. "Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Joshua: for every defilement [conveyed] by a corpse on account of which a nazirite must shave, people are liable for entering the sanctuary, and for every defilement [conveyed] by a corpse on account of which a nazirite does not shave, people are not liable for one entering the sanctuary. Rabbi Meir said: such [defilement] should not be less serious than [defilement through] a dead creeping thing. Rabbi Akiba said: I argued in the presence of Rabbi Eliezer: Now if on account of a barley-corn’s bulk of bone which does not defile a man by overshadowing, a nazirite shaves should he touch it or carry it, then surely a quarter-log of blood which defiles a man by overshadowing, should cause a nazirite to shave should he touch it or carry it? He replied: What is this Akiva! We do not make here an ‘all the more so’ (a kal vehomer) argument. When I afterwards went and recounted these words to Rabbi Joshua, he said to me, “You spoke well, but thus they have ruled the halakhah.”", |
|
12. Mishnah, Niddah, 3.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 220| 3.2. "הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין קְלִפָּה, כְּמִין שַׂעֲרָה, כְּמִין עָפָר, כְּמִין יַבְחוּשִׁים אֲדֻמִּים, תַּטִּיל לַמַּיִם. אִם נִמֹּחוּ, טְמֵאָה. וְאִם לָאו, טְהוֹרָה. הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין דָּגִים, חֲגָבִים, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, אִם יֵשׁ עִמָּהֶם דָּם, טְמֵאָה. וְאִם לָאו, טְהוֹרָה. הַמַּפֶּלֶת מִין בְּהֵמָה, חַיָּה וָעוֹף, בֵּין טְמֵאִין בֵּין טְהוֹרִים, אִם זָכָר, תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר. וְאִם נְקֵבָה, תֵּשֵׁב לִנְקֵבָה. וְאִם אֵין יָדוּעַ, תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מִצּוּרַת אָדָם, אֵינוֹ וָלָד: \n", | 3.2. "If a woman miscarried an object that was like a rind, like a hair, like earth, like red flies, let her put it in water: If it dissolves she is unclean, But if it does not she is clean. If she miscarried an object in the shape of fishes, locusts, or any forbidden things or creeping things: If there was blood with them she is unclean, If not, she is clean. If she miscarried an object in the shape of a beast, a wild animal or a bird, whether clean or unclean: If it was a male she sits in uncleanness as she would for a male; And if it was a female she sits in uncleanness as she would for a female. But if the sex is unknown she sits in uncleanness for both male and female, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: anything that has not the shape of a human being cannot be regarded as a human child.", |
|
13. Mishnah, Oholot, 1.5, 1.8, 2.1-2.6, 3.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 101, 102, 103, 118, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222| 1.5. "אָדָם וּבְגָדִים מִטַּמְּאִים בְּזָב. חֹמֶר בָּאָדָם מִבַּבְּגָדִים, וּבַבְּגָדִים מִבָּאָדָם. שֶׁהָאָדָם הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּזָב מְטַמֵּא בְגָדִים, וְאֵין בְּגָדִים הַנּוֹגְעִין בְּזָב מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים. חֹמֶר בַּבְּגָדִים, שֶׁהַבְּגָדִים הַנּוֹשְׂאִין אֶת הַזָּב מְטַמְּאִין אָדָם, וְאֵין אָדָם הַנּוֹשֵׂא אֶת הַזָּב מְטַמֵּא אָדָם: \n", 1.8. "מָאתַיִם וְאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמֹנָה אֵבָרִים בָּאָדָם, שְׁלשִׁים בְּפִסַּת הָרֶגֶל, שִׁשָּׁה בְכָל אֶצְבַּע, עֲשָׂרָה בַקֻּרְסָל, שְׁנַיִם בַּשּׁוֹק, חֲמִשָּׁה בָאַרְכֻּבָּה, אֶחָד בַּיָּרֵךְ, שְׁלשָׁה בַקַּטְלִית, אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה צְלָעוֹת, שְׁלשִׁים בְּפִסַּת הַיָּד, שִׁשָּׁה בְכָל אֶצְבַּע, שְׁנַיִם בַּקָּנֶה, וּשְׁנַיִם בַּמַּרְפֵּק, אֶחָד בַּזְּרוֹעַ, וְאַרְבָּעָה בַכָּתֵף. מֵאָה וְאֶחָד מִזֶּה וּמֵאָה וְאֶחָד מִזֶּה. וּשְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה חֻלְיוֹת בַּשִּׁדְרָה, תִּשְׁעָה בָרֹאשׁ, שְׁמֹנָה בַצַּוָּאר, שִׁשָּׁה בַמַּפְתֵּחַ שֶׁל לֵב, וַחֲמִשָּׁה בִנְקָבָיו. כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מְטַמֵּא בְמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא וּבְאֹהֶל. אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ עֲלֵיהֶן בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי. אֲבָל אִם אֵין עֲלֵיהֶן בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי, מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, וְאֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּאֹהֶל: \n", 2.1. "אֵלּוּ מְטַמְּאִין בְּאֹהֶל. הַמֵּת, וְכַזַּיִת מִן הַמֵּת, וְכַזַּיִת נֶצֶל, וּמְלֹא תַרְוָד רָקָב, הַשִּׁדְרָה, וְהַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת, אֵבָר מִן הַמֵּת וְאֵבָר מִן הַחַי שֶׁיֵּשׁ עֲלֵיהֶן בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי, רֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת מֵרֹב הַבִּנְיָן אוֹ מֵרֹב הַמִּנְיָן. וְרֹב בִּנְיָנוֹ וְרֹב מִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁל מֵת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם רֹבַע, טְמֵאִין. כַּמָּה הוּא רֹב מִנְיָנוֹ, מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה: \n", 2.2. "רְבִיעִית דָּם, וּרְבִיעִית דַּם תְּבוּסָה מִמֵּת אֶחָד. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, מִשְּׁנֵי מֵתִים. דַּם קָטָן שֶׁיָּצָא כֻלּוֹ, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, כָּל שֶׁהוּא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, רְבִיעִית. כַּזַּיִת רִמָּה, בֵּין חַיָּה בֵּין מֵתָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַמֵּא כִבְשָׂרוֹ, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִים. אֵפֶר שְׂרוּפִים, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, שִׁעוּרוֹ בְרֹבַע, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין. מְלֹא תַרְוָד וְעוֹד עֲפַר קְבָרוֹת, טָמֵא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר. מְלֹא תַרְוָד רָקָב שֶׁגְּבָלוֹ בְמַיִם, אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר לְטֻמְאָה: \n", 2.3. "אֵלּוּ מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא וְאֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין בְּאֹהֶל. עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה, וְאֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים, וּבֵית הַפְּרָס, אֵבָר מִן הַמֵּת, וְאֵבָר מִן הַחַי שֶׁאֵין עֲלֵיהֶן בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי, הַשִּׁדְרָה וְהַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת שֶׁחָסָרוּ. כַּמָּה הוּא חֶסְרוֹן בַּשִּׁדְרָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, שְׁתֵּי חֻלְיוֹת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֲפִלּוּ חֻלְיָה אֶחָת. וּבַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, כִּמְלֹא מַקְדֵּחַ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּנָּטֵל מִן הַחַי וְיָמוּת. בְּאֵיזֶה מַקְדֵּחַ אָמְרוּ, בַּקָּטָן שֶׁל רוֹפְאִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בַּגָּדוֹל שֶׁל לִשְׁכָּה: \n", 2.4. "הַגּוֹלֵל וְהַדּוֹפֵק מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַגָּע וּבְאֹהֶל, וְאֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַשָּׂא. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַשָּׂא. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, אִם יֵשׁ תַּחְתֵּיהֶן עֲפַר קְבָרוֹת, מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַשָּׂא. וְאִם לָאו, אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַשָּׂא. אֵיזֶהוּ הַדּוֹפֵק, אֶת שֶׁהַגּוֹלֵל נִשְׁעָן עָלָיו. אֲבָל דּוֹפֵק דּוֹפְקִין, טָהוֹר: \n", 2.5. "אֵלּוּ שֶׁאִם חָסְרוּ טְהוֹרִין. כַּזַּיִת מִן הַמֵּת, וְכַזַּיִת נֶצֶל, וּמְלֹא תַרְוָד רָקָב, וּרְבִיעִית דָּם, וְעֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה, וְאֵבָר מִן הַחַי שֶׁחָסַר עַצְמוֹ: \n", 2.6. "הַשִּׁדְרָה וְהַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת מִשְּׁנֵי מֵתִים, וּרְבִיעִית דָּם מִשְּׁנֵי מֵתִים, וְרֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי מֵתִים, וְאֵבָר מִן הַמֵּת מִשְּׁנֵי מֵתִים, וְאֵבָר מִן הַחַי מִשְּׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְטַמֵּא, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין: \n", 3.6. "כַּזַּיִת מִן הַמֵּת, פִּתְחוֹ בְטֶפַח, וְהַמֵּת, פִּתְחוֹ בְאַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים, לְהַצִּיל הַטֻּמְאָה עַל הַפְּתָחִים. אֲבָל לְהוֹצִיא הַטֻּמְאָה, בְּפוֹתֵחַ טֶפַח. גָּדוֹל מִכַּזַּיִת, כַּמֵּת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, הַשִּׁדְרָה וְהַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת, כַּמֵּת: \n", | 1.5. "Persons and garments can be defiled by a zav. A greater stringency applies to persons than to garments and a greater stringency applies to garments than to persons. For a person who touches a zav can defile garments, whereas garments that touch a zav cannot defile [other] garments. A greater stringency applies to garments, for garments which form the support of a zav can defile persons, whereas a person who forms the support of a zav cannot defile [other] persons.", 1.8. "There are two hundred and forty-eight limbs in a human body: Thirty in the foot, six for every toe, Ten in the ankle, Two in the shin, Five in the knee, One in the thigh, Three in the hip, Eleven ribs, Thirty in the hand, [that is] six to every finger, Two in the fore-arm, Two in the elbow, One in the upper arm and Four in the shoulder, [For a total of] one hundred and one on the one side [of the body] and one hundred and one on the other. Eighteen vertebrae in the spine, Nine in the head, Eight in the neck, Six in the key of the heart, And five around the genitals. Each one [of these] can defile by contact, carriage or overshadowing. When is this so? When they have upon them the appropriate amount of flesh, But if they do not have the appropriate amount flesh upon them, they can defile by contact and carriage but cannot defile by overshadowing.", 2.1. "These things defile by overshadowing: a corpse, an olive-sized [portion of flesh] of a corpse, an olive-sized [portion] of nezel, a ladleful of corpse-mold, the spine or the skull, [a] full limb of a corpse, or [a full] limb [severed] from a living person with the appropriate amount of flesh, a quarter [of a kav] of bones from the structural majority or numerical majority, and the structural majority or numerical majority [of the bones] of a corpse even though they do not amount to a quarter [of a kab]; [all these] are unclean. How many [bones] form the numerical majority? One hundred and twenty-five.", 2.2. "[The following likewise defile:]A quarter [of a log] of blood, A quarter [of a log] of mixed blood from one corpse. Rabbi Akiva says: [even] from two corpses. [With regard to] the blood of a child that has completely flowed forth: Rabbi Akiva says: [it defiles] in even the smallest quantity, But the sages say: [there must be] a quarter [of a log]. [With regard to] an olive-sized [portion] of [corpse] worms whether alive or dead: Rabbi Eliezer declares [it] unclean, like the flesh, But the sages declare [it] clean. [With regard to] the ashes of burnt persons: Rabbi Eliezer says: the [minimum] quantity [for defilement is] a quarter [of a kav]. But the sages declare [them to be] clean. A ladleful and [a little] more of grave-dust is unclean. Rabbi Shimon declares [it to be] clean. A ladleful of corpse-mold mixed with water is not [regarded as] joined [into one mass] for [the purposes of] defilement.", 2.3. "The following defile by contact and carriage but not by overshadowing: A bone of barleycorn size, Earth from a foreign country, A bet peras, A limb of a corpse, or a limb [severed] from a living person which has no longer its appropriate flesh, A spine or a skull which is deficient. How much is [considered] a deficiency in the spine? Bet Shammai say: two vertebrae, But Bet Hillel say: even one vertebra. And in the skull? Bet Shammai say: [the size of a] hole [made] by a drill, But Bet Hillel say: as much as would be taken from a living person and he would die. of what drill did they speak? of the small one [used] by physicians, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: of the large one in the Temple-chamber.", 2.4. "The covering stone and the buttressing stone [of a grave] defile by contact and overshadowing but not by carriage. Rabbi Eliezer says: they do defile by carriage. Rabbi Joshua says: if there is grave dust beneath them, they defile by carriage, but if not they do not defile by carriage. What is the buttressing stone? That upon which the covering stone is supported. But the stone that serves as buttress to the buttressing stone is clean.", 2.5. "These are clean if they are deficient:An olive-sized [portion] of a corpse; An olive-sized [portion] of nezel, A ladleful of corpse-mold, A quarter [of a log] of blood, A bone of the size of a barley-corn, And a limb [severed] from a living person, the bone of which [limb] is deficient.", 2.6. "A backbone or a skull [made up from the bones] of two corpses, A quarter [of a log] of blood from two corpses, A quarter [of a kav] of bones from two corpses, A limb of a corpse from two corpses, And a limb [severed] from a living person, [such a limb being made up] from two persons, Rabbi Akiva declares [the all] unclean But the sages declare them clean.", 3.6. "For an olive-sized portion of a corpse, an opening [in the room in which it is found] of one handbreadth [square], and for a [whole] corpse, an opening of four handbreadths [square, is enough] to prevent the uncleanness from [spreading to the other] openings; But for allowing the uncleanness to go out, an opening of one handbreadth [square is enough]. [A portion] greater than the size of an olive is as a [whole] corpse. Rabbi Yose says: [only] the spine and the skull are as a [whole] corpse.", |
|
14. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 9.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 221| 9.2. "נִתְכַּוֵּן לַהֲרֹג אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם, לַנָּכְרִי וְהָרַג אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לִנְפָלִים, וְהָרַג בֶּן קְיָמָא, פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹתוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל לִבּוֹ, וָמֵת, פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹתוֹ עַל לִבּוֹ וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל לִבּוֹ וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל מָתְנָיו וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו, וָמֵת, פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית הַגָּדוֹל וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַקָּטָן וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַקָּטָן, וָמֵת, פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַקָּטָן וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַקָּטָן וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַגָּדוֹל וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַגָּדוֹל, וָמֵת, פָּטוּר. אֲבָל נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת עַל מָתְנָיו וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ, וָמֵת, חַיָּב. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַקָּטָן, וָמֵת, חַיָּב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ נִתְכַּוֵּן לַהֲרֹג אֶת זֶה וְהָרַג אֶת זֶה, פָּטוּר: \n", | 9.2. "If he intended to kill an animal but killed a man, or [he intended to kill] a non-Jew and he killed an Israelite, or [if he intended to kill] a prematurely born child [who was bound to die in any case] and he killed a viable child, he is not liable. If he intended to strike him on his loins, and the blow was insufficient to kill [when struck] on his loins, but struck the heart instead, where it was sufficient to kill, and he died he is not liable. If he intended to strike him on the heart, where it was sufficient to kill but struck him on the loins, where it was not sufficient to kill, and yet he died, he is not liable. If he intended to strike an adult, and the blow was insufficient to kill [an adult], but the blow landed on a child, whom it was enough to kill, and he died, he is not liable. If he intended to strike a child with a blow sufficient to kill a child, but struck an adult, for whom it was insufficient to kill, and yet he died, he is not liable. But if he intended to strike his loins with sufficient force to kill, but struck the heart instead, he is liable. If he intended to strike an adult with a blow sufficient to kill an adult, but struck a child instead, and he died, he is liable. Rabbi Shimon said: “Even if he intended to kill one but killed another, he is not liable.", |
|
15. Mishnah, Yevamot, 16.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 115| 16.4. "נָפַל לְמַיִם, בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן סוֹף, בֵּין שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן סוֹף, אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲסוּרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, מַעֲשֶׂה בְאֶחָד שֶׁנָּפַל לְבוֹר הַגָּדוֹל, וְעָלָה לְאַחַר שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, מַעֲשֶׂה בְסוּמָא שֶׁיָּרַד לִטְבֹּל בִּמְעָרָה, וְיָרַד מוֹשְׁכוֹ אַחֲרָיו, וְשָׁהוּ כְדֵי שֶׁתֵּצֵא נַפְשָׁם, וְהִשִּׂיאוּ נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶם. וְשׁוּב מַעֲשֶׂה בְעַסְיָא בְּאֶחָד שֶׁשִּׁלְשְׁלוּהוּ לַיָּם, וְלֹא עָלָה בְיָדָם אֶלָּא רַגְלוֹ, אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים, מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַעְלָה, תִּנָּשֵׂא. מִן הָאַרְכֻּבָּה וּלְמַטָּה, לֹא תִנָּשֵׂא: \n", | 16.4. "If a man fell into water, whether it had [a visible] end or not, his wife is forbidden [to marry again]. Rabbi Meir said: it once happened that a man fell into a large cistern and came out after three days. Rabbi Yose: it once happened that a blind man descended into a cave to immerse and his guide went down after him; and after waiting long enough for their souls to depart, permission was given to their wives to marry again. Another incident occurred at Asia where a man was lowered into the sea, and only his leg was brought up, and the Sages ruled: [if the recovered leg contained the part] above the knee [the man’s wife] may marry again, [but if it contained only the part] below the knee, she may not marry again.", |
|
16. Tosefta, Shekalim, 1.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 218| 1.5. "כמה הוא קולבון מעה כסף אחד מעשרים וארבעה כסף לסלע דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים חצי מעה [של ארבעה אסרות] קולבנות הללו מה היו עושין להם נופלים לשקלים דברי רבי מאיר רבי אלעזר אומר לנדבה רבי שמעון שזורי אומר רקועי זהב צפוי לבית קדש הקדשים בן עזאי אומר השולחנין באין ונוטלין אותן בשכרן.", | |
|
17. Tosefta, Oholot, 2.2, 2.6, 3.2-3.3, 4.2, 4.5, 4.7, 5.2, 16.2, 16.12 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 119, 120, 218, 219, 220, 221| 2.2. "מלא תרווד רקב שאמרו ישנו מעיקר אצבעותיו ולמעלה דברי ר\"מ וחכ\"א מלא חפניו ואיזהו מת שיש לו רקב הנקבר ערום בארון של אבן על גבי הרצפה ועל גבי הטבלא של שיש אבל הנקבר בכסותו ובארון של עץ על גבי עפר אין לו רקב ונוטלה עפר מתחתיו וזהו עפר קברות מלא תרווד ועוד. תבוסה שנמצאת בקבר ואין ידועה מה טיבה זהו עפר קברות מלא תרווד ועוד פירש ר\"א ברבי צדוק בורר את הצרורות ואת הקיסמין והודאין נוטל את הודאין ומניח את הספק וזהו עפר קברות מלא תרווד ועוד.", 2.6. "עצם כשעורה הפורש מן החי ר' נחוניא מטמא השיבו את ר' נחוניא שלש תשובות לא אם אמרת במת שיש בו רובע רקב תאמר באבר מן החי שאין בו רוב רובע רקב דבר אחר מי תלוי במי אבר תלוי בעצם או עצם תלוי באבר העצם תלוי באבר אפשר שהעצם מטמא במגע ובמשא והאבר יהא טהור אמר ר\"ש תמה אני אם טימא ר' נחוניא לא טימא אלא בזמן שיש באבר עצם כשעורה שיהא זה וזה מטמא במגע ובמשא השיב ר' יהושע על דברי שניהן ומה החי שיש בו רמ\"ח אברים עצם ובשר הפורשין ממנו טהורין אבר שאין רמ\"ח אינו דין שיהא העצם ובשר הפורשין ממנו טהורים השיב רבי על דברי ר' יהושע לא אם אמרת בפורשין מן החי שכן פרשו מדבר טהור תאמר בפורשין מן האבר שכן פרשו מדבר טמא. ", 3.2. "אבא שאול אומר רביעית תחלת דמו של קטן. דם הקטן שיצא כולו ואין בו רביעית ר\"ע אומר כל שהוא. וחכמים אומרים רביעית שר\"ע אומר טומאה בדם וטומאה בעצמות מה עצמות אע\"פ שאין בהן רובע טמאין אף דם אע\"פ שאין בו רביעית טמא. השיבו את ר\"ע שלש תשובות לא אם אמרת בעצמות שרובו טמא בלא רובע תאמר בדם שאינו טמא אלא רביעית. דבר אחר לא אם אמרת בעצמות שמיעט עצמות טמא ועצם כשעורה הפורש מהן טמא תאמר בדם שאינו טמא אלא רביעית. דבר אחר לא אם אמרת בעצמות שבידוע שכולן לפניך תאמר בדם שאנו אומרים שאם נשתיירה הימנה טפה כל שהוא טהור אמר להן אף אני לא אמרתי אלא בזמן שיצא כולו אמרו לו אי אפשר לכן.", 3.3. "רובע עצמות מרוב הגויה בגודל ועצמות אע\"פ שאין בהן רובע טמאין רובע עצמות מרוב הגויה בבנין ועצמות רוב הגויה בבנין אע\"פ שאין בהן רובע טמאין. ר' יהודה אומר לשון אחר ב\"ש רובע עצמות מן הגויה מרוב הבנין או מרוב המנין רוב בנינו ורוב מנינו של מת אע\"פ שאין בהם רובע טמאין ואיזהו בנינו השוקים והירכים והצלעות והשדרה ואיזהו מנינו אצבע ידים ורגלים בלבד שיהא בו עשרים וחמשה. אמר ר' יהושע יכול אני לעשות דברי ב\"ש וב\"ה אחד משוקים ומירכים נמצא רוב בנינו בגודל וחצי רוב בנינו וחצי רוב מנינו אינן מצטרפין כחצי זית בשר וכחצי זית נצל מצטרפין זה עם זה ושאר כל הטמאות שבמת אין מצטרפות זו עם זו מפני שלא שוו בשעוריהם.", 4.2. "אמר ר' יהודה ששה דברים היה ר\"ע מטמא וחזר בו. מעשה שהביאו קופות של עצמות מכפר טביא והניחום באויר ביהכ\"נ בלוד ונכנס תיאודריס הרופא וכל הרופאין עמו ואמרו אין כאן שדרה ממת אחד ולא גולגולת ממת אחד אמרו הואיל ויש כן מטמאים ויש כן מטהרין נעמוד למנין התחילו מר\"ע וטיהר אמרו לו הואיל ואתה שהיתה מטמא טהרת יהו טהורין אמר ר\"ש ועד יום מיתתו של ר\"ע היה מטמא ואם משמת חזר בו איני יודע.", 4.5. "כל משקה המת טהורין חוץ מדמו וכל מראה דמים במת הרי אלו טמאין.", 4.7. "אמר ר\"א בראשונה היו זקנים חלוקין מקצתן אומרים רביעית דם ורובע עצמות ומקצתן אומרים חצי קב עצמות וחצי לוג דם בית דין שאחריהן אמרו רביעית דם ורובע עצמות לתרומות ולקדשים חצי קב עצמות וחצי לוג דם לנזיר ולמקדש. אמר ר\"א כשהלכתי לאדסקיס מצאתי את ר\"מ ואת רבי יהודה בן פתירוש שהיו יושבין ודנין בהלכה יהודה בן פתירוש אומר רביעית דם אין הנזיר מגלח עליה ואין חייבין עליה על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו. אמר לו ר\"מ תהא זו קלה מן השרץ מה שרץ הקל נזיר מגלח עליו חייבין על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו רביעית דם חמורה אין דין שיהא נזיר מגלח עליה וחייבין עליה על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו שתק יהודה בן פתירוש נמתי לו ר\"מ אל תבוז לי בקי היה לך מיהושע בן ממל נם לי הן ובעל מלאכות היה נמתי לי בלשון הזה אמר לי משם ר' יהושע כל טומאה מן המת שהנזיר מגלח עליה חייבין על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו וכל מן המת שאין הנזיר מגלח עליה אין חייבין עליה על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו. ", 5.2. "ביב שהיא קמור תחת הביב יש בו ארבעה טפחים ויש ביציאתו ארבעה טפחים ונפל בתוכו הבית טהור נפל בבית מה שבתוכו טהור יש בו ארבעה טפחים ואין ביציאתו ארבעה טפחים נפל בתוכו הבית טמא נפל בבית מה שבתוכו טהור אין בו ארבעה טפחים ואין ביציאתו ארבעה טפחים נפל בתוכו הבית טמא נפל בבית מה שבתוכו טמא. רחב מבפנים וצר מבחוץ טומאה ברחב הבית טמא בצר נידון מחצה על מחצה טמאה בין ברחב בין בצר הבית טמאה בבית. כלים שברחב טהורין ושבצר טמאין מודה ר' יהודה בשקיפין ובסלעין שאע\"פ שאינן כאהל אבל חשובין כאהל.", 16.2. "אחד המוציא שלשה מתים ואחד המוציא שלשה כוכין ואחד המוציא כוך בקוע ומהרה ואחד מצא עשרה ואין ביניהן מארבע אמות ועד שמונה יש להם תפיסה ואין להן שכונה קברות דברי ר\"ש וחכ\"א רואה את האמצעיים כאילו אינן והחיצונים מצטרפין מארבע אמות ועד שמנה. מצא ראשו בצד מרגלותיו אין לו תפיסה ואין לו שכונת קברות ראשו של זה בצד מרגלותיו של זה וראשו של זה בצד מרגלותיו של זה יש להן תפיסה ואין להן שכונת קברות. והחסר אין לו תפיסה ואין לו שכונת קברות ואי זהו חסר כל שניטל מן החי וימות. מצא שנים בתחלה ואחד ידוע יש להן תפיסה ואין להן שכונת קברות. מעשה בר' ישבב שבדק ומצא שנים בתחלה ואחד היה ידוע עשה להן תפישה עשה להן שכונת קברות כשבא אצל ר\"ע אמר כל שיגעת לריק אף אתה היית צריך לבדוק כל קברי ארץ ישראל הידועין ולא אמרו המוצא שלש כתחלה.", | |
|
18. Tosefta, Nazir, 5.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 218| 5.3. "אמר רבי אלעזר כשהלכתי לערדסקיא מצאתי [את רבי מאיר ואת רבי יהודה בן בתירה שהיו יושבין ודנין בהלכה רבי יהודה בן בתירא אמר רביעית דם אין נזיר מגלח עליה ואין חייבין עליה על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו אמר לו רבי מאיר לא תהא זו קלה מן השרץ מה שרץ הקל חייבין עליו על ביאת מקדש רביעית דם חמורה אינו דין שיהיו חייבין עליה על ביאת מקדש שתק רבי יהודה בן בתירא לפניו נמתי לו מאיר אל תבזו לי בקי היה לך ביהושע בן ממל אמר לי הן ובעל הלכות היה נמתי לו בלשון הזה אמר לי משום רבי יהושע כל טומאה מן המת שנזיר מגלח עליה חייבין עליה על ביאת המקדש וכל טומאה מן המת שאין נזיר מגלח עליה אין חייבין עליה על ביאת המקדש] ורואה אני את דבריו.", | |
|
19. Mishnah, Negaim, 11.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 222| 11.11. "כֹּל הָרָאוּי לִטַּמֵּא טְמֵא מֵת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִטַּמֵּא מִדְרָס, מִטַּמֵּא בַנְּגָעִים. כְּגוֹן קֶלַע שֶׁל סְפִינָה, וּוִילוֹן, וְשָׁבִיס שֶׁל סְבָכָה, וּמִטְפָּחוֹת שֶׁל סְפָרִים, וְגַלְגִּלּוֹן, וּרְצוּעוֹת מִנְעָל וְסַנְדָּל שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהֶן רֹחַב כַּגְּרִיס, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִטַּמְּאִין בַּנְּגָעִים. סָגוֹס שֶׁנִּרְאָה בוֹ נֶגַע, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה בָאָרִיג וּבַמּוֹכִין. הַחֵמֶת וְהַתּוּרְמָל נִרְאִין כְּדַרְכָּן, וּפוֹשֶׂה מִתּוֹכוֹ לַאֲחוֹרָיו וּמֵאֲחוֹרָיו לְתוֹכוֹ: \n", | 11.11. "Any object that is susceptible to corpse uncleanness, though not susceptible to midras uncleanness, is still susceptible to negaim uncleanness. For instance: the sail of a ship, a curtain, the forehead band of a hair-net, the wrappings of scrolls, a coiled belt, the straps of a shoe or sandal that are at least as wide as a split bean, Behold these are susceptible to the uncleanness of negaim. A thick cloak on which a nega appeared: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: unless it appears on the texture and on the stuffing. A skin bottle or a shepherd's leather wallet are inspected in the position in which they are used, and a nega may effectively spread from its inner side to its outer side and from its outer side to its inner side.", |
|
| 20. Palestinian Talmud, Maaser Sheni, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 218 |
| 21. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 127 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 220 |
22. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 15.4 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 222| 15.4. דָּבָר אַחֵר, אָדָם כִּי יִהְיֶה בְעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (משלי יט, כט): נָכוֹנוּ לַלֵּצִים שְׁפָטִים, מוּכָנִים הָיוּ לַלֵּצִים דִּינִים. בְּנֹהַג שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם אָדָם רוֹכֵב עַל הַחֲמוֹר פְּעָמִים שֶׁסּוֹרֵחַ עָלָיו וּמַכֵּהוּ, פְּעָמִים שֶׁשּׂוֹחֵק עָלָיו וּמַכֵּהוּ, בְּרַם הָכָא נָכוֹנוּ לַלֵּצִים שְׁפָטִים וּמַהֲלֻמּוֹת, מָשָׁל לְמַטְרוֹנָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לְתוֹךְ פָּלָטִין שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ, כֵּיוָן דְּחָמֵית מַגְלָבַיָא תָּלָן, דַּחֲלַת, אָמַר לָהּ הַמֶּלֶךְ אַל תִּתְיָרָאִי אֵלּוּ לָעֲבָדִים וְלַשְּׁפָחוֹת, אֲבָל אַתְּ לֶאֱכֹל וְלִשְׁתּוֹת וְלִשְׂמֹחַ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל פָּרָשַׁת נְגָעִים נִתְיָרְאוּ, אָמַר לָהֶם משֶׁה אַל תִּתְיָרְאוּ אֵלּוּ לְאֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם, אֲבָל אַתֶּם לֶאֱכֹל וְלִשְׁתּוֹת וְלִשְׂמֹחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים לב, י): רַבִּים מַכְאֹבִים לָרָשָׁע וְהַבּוֹטֵחַ בַּה' חֶסֶד יְסוֹבְבֶנּוּ. רַבִּי וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִים וְעוֹסְקִים בִּמְגִלַּת קִנּוֹת עֶרֶב תִּשְׁעָה בְּאָב שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁכָה מִן הַמִּנְחָה וּלְמַעְלָה, שִׁיְּרוּ בָהּ אָלֶף בֵּית אֶחָת, אָמְרוּ לְמָחָר אָנוּ גּוֹמְרִין אוֹתָהּ, כְּשֶׁעָלָה רַבִּי נִכְשַׁל בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ הַקְּטַנָּה, קָרָא עַל עַצְמוֹ: רַבִּים מַכְאֹבִים לָרָשָׁע. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אִלּוּ לֹא הָיִינוּ עֲסוּקִין בְּעִנְיַן (איכה ד, כ): רוּחַ אַפֵּינוּ מְשִׁיחַ ה', הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר, עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁאָנוּ עֲסוּקִין, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. כְּשֶׁעָלָה לְבֵיתוֹ נָתַן עָלֶיהָ סְפוֹג יָבֵשׁ וְכָרַךְ עָלֶיהָ גֶּמִי מִבַּחוּץ, אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִדְּבָרָיו לָמַדְנוּ שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים, סְפוֹג לֹא שֶׁהוּא מוֹצֵץ אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁמֵּר אֶת הַמַּכָּה, וְקוֹשֵׁר עָלֶיהָ גֶּמִי מֵהַבַּיִת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מוּכָן, וְאֵין קוֹרִין בְּכִתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ אֶלָּא מִן הַמִּנְחָה וּלְמַעְלָה, אֲבָל שׁוֹנִין בָּהֶן וְֶדוֹרְשִׁין בָּהֶן, אִם צָרִיךְ לְדָבָר לִבְדֹּק, נוֹטֵל וּבוֹדֵק. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר חֶרֶס כָּל שֶׁהוּא גֶּמִי כָּל שֶׁהוּא. תָּנֵי רַבִּי יוּדָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל מְגוּפַת חָבִית וּשְׁבָרֶיהָ מֻתָּר לְטַלְטְלָן בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאִם זְרָקָן לָאַשְׁפָּה אָסוּר לְטַלְטְלָן. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי תַּנְחוּם בַּצְּרוּרַיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אֲפִלּוּ רָשָׁע וְחָזַר בּוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְקַבְּלוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים לב, י): וְהַבּוֹטֵחַ בַּה' חֶסֶד יְסוֹבְבֶנּוּ. | |
|
| 23. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Shimeon Ben Yohai, 21.12 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 221 |
| 24. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 221 |
| 25. Palestinian Talmud, Nazir, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 220 |
26. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 19.6 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 222| 19.6. וַתִּפָּקַחְנָה עֵינֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם (בראשית ג, ז), וְכִי סוּמִים הָיוּ, רַבִּי יוּדָן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי וְרַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אָמַר, מָשָׁל לְעִירוֹנִי שֶׁהָיָה עוֹבֵר לִפְנֵי חֲנוּתוֹ שֶׁל זַגָּג, וְהָיָה לְפָנָיו קֻפָּה מְלֵאָה כּוֹסוֹת וּדְיַטְרוּטִין, וּתְפָשָׂם בְּמַקְלוֹ וְשִׁבְּרָן, עָמַד וּתְפָשׂוֹ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ יָדַע אֲנָא דְּלֵית אֲנָא מֶהֱנֵי מִמָּךְ כְּלוּם, אֶלָּא בּוֹא וְאַרְאֶה לְךָ כַּמָּה טוֹבוֹת אִבַּדְתָּ, כָּךְ הֶרְאָה לָהֶן כַּמָּה דוֹרוֹת אִבְּדוּ. (בראשית ג, ז): וַיֵּדְעוּ כִּי עֵירֻמִּם הֵם, אֲפִלּוּ מִצְוָה אַחַת שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּיָדָן נִתְעַרְטְלוּ הֵימֶנָּהּ. (בראשית ג, ז): וַיִּתְפְּרוּ עֲלֵה תְאֵנָה, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי עָלֶה שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ תּוֹאֲנָה לָעוֹלָם, וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק קִלְקַלְתְּ עוֹבָדָךְ סַב חוּט וְחַיֵּיט. וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם חֲגֹרֹת (בראשית ג, ז), אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא חֲגוֹרָה אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא חֲגֹרֹת, חֲגוֹרֵי חֲגוֹרוֹת, אִסְטִכְיוֹן, גָּלְיוֹן, סְדִינִים, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁעוֹשִׂים לְאִישׁ כָּךְ עוֹשִׂין לְאִשָּׁה, צִלְצְלִין, קוֹלָסִין, סְכָנִין. | |
|
27. Tosefta, Kelim Baba Qamma, 1.4 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 219| 1.4. "חומר בכזית מן המת שכזית מת פתחו בטפח והמת פתחו בארבעה טפחים. רבי נתן אומר להיות טמא מת לטמא שנים לפסול א'.", | |
|
28. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 220, 221 | 1.4. "2) gezeirah shavah (Identity): It is stated in respect to a shomer sachar (a hired watchman) (Shemoth 22:9): \"The oath of the L–rd shall be between both, that he (the watcher) did not send his hand against the deposit of his neighbor,\" and, in respect to a shomer chinam (one who watches gratis) (Shemoth 22:7): \"that he did not send his hand, etc.\" Just as in the instance of a shomer sachar, in which it is written \"that he did not send his hand,\" the heirs (of the watcher) are exempt (from an oath that their father did not send his hand, etc., it being written: \"The oath of the L–rd shall be between both\" [the owner and the watcher — and not between the heirs]), so, in the instance of a shomer chinam, where it is written \"that he did not send his hand,\" the heirs are exempt.", |
|
| 29. Palestinian Talmud, Shabbat, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 222 |
30. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 222| 68b. אבל לא שכחה מאי חייב על כל מלאכה ומלאכה אדתני היודע שהוא שבת ועשה מלאכות הרבה בשבתות הרבה חייב על כל מלאכה ומלאכה ליתני היודע עיקר שבת וכל שכן הא אלא מתניתין כשהכיר ולבסוף שכח ודרב ושמואל נמי כהכיר ולבסוף שכח דמי והכי איתמר רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו אפילו תינוק שנשבה בין הנכרים וגר שנתגייר לבין הנכרים כהכיר ולבסוף שכח דמי וחייב,ורבי יוחנן ורבי שמעון בן לקיש דאמרי תרוייהו דוקא הכיר ולבסוף שכח אבל תינוק שנשבה בין הנכרים וגר שנתגייר לבין הנכרים פטור מיתיבי כלל גדול אמרו בשבת כל השוכח עיקר שבת ועשה מלאכות הרבה בשבתות הרבה אינו חייב אלא אחת כיצד תינוק שנשבה לבין הנכרים וגר שנתגייר בין הנכרים ועשה מלאכות הרבה בשבתות הרבה אינו חייב אלא חטאת אחת וחייב על הדם אחת ועל החלב אחת ועל ע"ז אחת ומונבז פוטר,וכך היה מונבז דן לפני רבי עקיבא הואיל ומזיד קרוי חוטא ושוגג קרוי חוטא מה מזיד שהיתה לו ידיעה אף שוגג שהיתה לו ידיעה אמר לו ר' עקיבא הריני מוסיף על דבריך אי מה מזיד שהיתה הידיעה בשעת מעשה אף שוגג שהיתה לו ידיעה בשעת מעשה,אמר לו הן וכל שכן שהוספת אמר לו לדבריך אין זה קרוי שוגג אלא מזיד,קתני מיהא כיצד תינוק בשלמא לרב ושמואל ניחא אלא לרבי יוחנן ולרבי שמעון בן לקיש קשיא אמרי לך רבי יוחנן וריש לקיש לא מי איכא מונבז דפטר אנן דאמרינן כמונבז,מאי טעמא דמונבז דכתיב (במדבר טו, כט) תורה אחת יהיה לכם לעושה בשגגה וסמיך ליה והנפש אשר תעשה ביד רמה הקיש שוגג למזיד מה מזיד שהיתה לו ידיעה אף שוגג שהיתה לו ידיעה,ורבנן האי תורה אחת מאי עבדי ליה מיבעי להו לכדמקרי ליה ר' יהושע בן לוי לבריה תורה אחת יהיה לכם לעושה בשגגה וכתיב | 68b. The Gemara raises another difficulty: b But /b if b he did not forget /b the essence of Shabbat, and he knows that today is Shabbat, b what /b would the i halakha /i be? Certainly he would be b liable for each and every prohibited labor. /b If so, b instead of teaching /b the i halakha /i : b One who knows that it is Shabbat and performs many labors on multiple i Shabbatot /i is liable for each and every labor, let /b the mishna b teach /b the i halakha /i : b One who knows the essence of Shabbat /b is liable for each and every labor that he performs b and all the more so /b that b one /b who is aware that today is Shabbat would be liable for each labor. b Rather, /b when b our mishna /b refers to forgetting, it is referring to a case b where he knew and ultimately forgot. And /b the case described by b Rav and Shmuel also /b has the same legal status b as one who knew and ultimately forgot. And it was stated as follows: /b It was b Rav and Shmuel who both said: Even a child who was taken captive among the gentiles and a convert who converted among the gentiles /b have the same legal status b as one who knew and ultimately forgot, and /b they are b liable /b to bring a sin-offering for their unwitting transgression, even though they never learned about Shabbat., b And /b it was b Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish who both said: /b He is liable to bring a sin-offering b specifically /b if b he knew /b of the essence of Shabbat b and ultimately forgot. However, a child who was taken captive among the gentiles and a convert who converted among the gentiles /b are b exempt /b from bringing a sin-offering. They have the legal status of one who performed the prohibited labor due to circumstances beyond his control. The Gemara b raises an objection /b from that which was taught in a i baraita /i : b They stated a significant principle with regard to /b the i halakhot /i of b Shabbat: One who forgets the essence of Shabbat, /b i.e., one who does not know that there is a mitzva of Shabbat in the Torah, b and performs many prohibited labors on multiple i Shabbatot /i is liable /b to bring b only one /b sin-offering. b How so? /b With regard to b a child who was taken captive among the gentiles and a convert who converted among the gentiles /b and does not know the essence of Shabbat; b and /b if b he performed many prohibited labors on multiple i Shabbatot, /i he is only liable /b to bring b one sin-offering /b for all his unwitting transgressions. b And he is liable /b to bring b one /b sin-offering b for /b all b the blood /b he unwittingly ate before he learned of the prohibition; b and one /b sin-offering b for /b all b the forbidden fat /b that he ate; b and /b one b for /b all the b idolatry /b that he worshipped. b And Munbaz, /b one of the Sages, b deems /b him b exempt /b from bringing any sacrifice., b And Munbaz deliberated before Rabbi Akiva as follows: Since /b one who commits a transgression b intentionally is called /b a b sinner /b in the Torah b and /b one who commits a transgression b unwittingly is called /b a b sinner, just as /b one who commits the transgression b intentionally /b is liable for punishment only in a case b where he had /b prior b knowledge /b that it was prohibited, b so too, /b one who commits the transgression b unwittingly /b is liable to bring a sin-offering only in a case b where he had /b prior b knowledge. /b However, the action of one who had no prior knowledge at all is not considered unwitting; rather, it has the same legal status as an action performed due to circumstances beyond one’s control, and he is completely exempt. b Rabbi Akiva said to him: I will elaborate upon your statement /b and follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion and thereby test the validity of your reasoning. b If so, just as /b one who commits the transgression b intentionally /b is liable for punishment only in a case b where /b he had b the awareness /b that he was sinning b at the time /b that he performed b the action, so too, /b with regard to one who commits the transgression b unwittingly, /b say that he is only liable to bring a sin-offering in a case b where he had awareness /b that he was sinning b at the time /b that he performed b the action. /b If that is the case, it is no longer an unwitting transgression.,Munbaz b said to him: Yes, /b there is nothing unusual about that. In my opinion it is correct b and all the more so /b now that b you have elaborated /b upon my statement. Awareness at the time that one is performing the action is one of the criteria of my definition of an unwitting transgression, as will be explained below. Rabbi Akiva b said to him: According to your statement, /b since while performing the action one is aware that it is prohibited, his action b is not called unwitting; rather, /b it is a full-fledged b intentional /b transgression.,Returning to our issue: b In any case, /b as an example of one who forgot the essence of Shabbat, b it was taught: How so? A child /b who was taken captive. b Granted, /b according b to /b the opinion of b Rav and Shmuel /b it works out b well, /b as they consider the legal status of a child taken captive equal to that of one who unwittingly forgot the essence of Shabbat. b However, according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, /b who consider the legal status of a child taken captive equal to that of one who committed the action due to circumstances beyond his control and is therefore exempt, b it is difficult /b because he is liable to bring a sin-offering according to the opinion of the Rabbis in the i baraita /i . b Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish /b could have b said to you: Isn’t there /b the opinion of b Munbaz /b who b deemed him exempt /b in that case? b We stated /b our opinion b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Munbaz. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is the rationale for /b the opinion of b Munbaz? /b Is it based entirely upon the fact that the Torah refers to sinners, both intentional and unwitting, as sinners? The Gemara explains that the source for the opinion of Munbaz is b as it is written: /b “The native of the children of Israel, and the stranger who lives among them, b there shall be one law for you, for one who acts unwittingly” /b (Numbers 15:29), b and adjacent to it /b is the verse: b “And the person who acts with a high hand, /b whether a native or a stranger, he blasphemes God, and that soul shall be cut off from the midst of his people” (Numbers 15:30). The Torah b juxtaposes unwitting /b transgression b to intentional /b transgression. b Just as /b one who commits the transgression b intentionally /b is only liable in a case b where he had /b prior b knowledge, so too, /b one who commits the transgression b unwittingly /b is only liable in a case b where he had /b prior b knowledge. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And what do the Rabbis do with /b the juxtaposition derived from b that /b verse: b One law? /b The Gemara answers: b They require it for that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi taught his son. /b It is written: b “There shall be one law for you, for one who acts unwittingly.” And it is written: /b |
|
31. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 221| 27b. פרידה אחת עפר (ונפיל) ליה שיעורא,אלא אמר רבה היינו טעמא דרבי שמעון סופו כתחלתו מה תחלתו נעשה לו דבר אחר גנגילון אף סופו נעשה לו דבר אחר גנגילון,מאי היא דתניא איזהו מת שיש לו רקב ואיזהו מת שאין לו רקב נקבר ערום בארון של שיש או ע"ג רצפה של אבנים זהו מת שיש לו רקב,ואיזהו מת שאין לו רקב נקבר בכסותו או בארון של עץ או ע"ג רצפה של לבנים זהו מת שאין לו רקב ולא אמרו רקב אלא למת בלבד למעוטי הרוג דלא,גופא מלא תרוד רקב שנפל לתוכו עפר כל שהוא טמא ור' שמעון מטהר מלא תרוד רקב שנתפזר בבית הבית טמא ורבי שמעון מטהר,וצריכא דאי אשמעינן קמייתא בההיא קאמרי רבנן משום דמכניף אבל נתפזר אימא מודו לו לרבי שמעון דאין מאהיל וחוזר ומאהיל,ואי אשמעינן בהא בהא אמר רבי שמעון דאין מאהיל וחוזר ומאהיל אבל בהא אימא מודה להו לרבנן צריכא,תניא אידך מלא תרוד ועוד עפר בית הקברות טמא ורבי שמעון מטהר מאי טעמייהו דרבנן לפי שא"א למלא תרוד ועוד עפר בית הקברות שאין בו מלא תרוד רקב,השתא דאמרת טעמא דרבי שמעון משום סופו כתחלתו גבי שליא מאי טעמא אמר רבי יוחנן משום בטול ברוב נגעו בה,ואזדא רבי יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר רבי יוחנן רבי שמעון ור"א בן יעקב אמרו דבר אחד רבי שמעון הא דאמרן רבי אליעזר דתניא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר בהמה גסה ששפעה חררת דם הרי זו תקבר ופטורה מן הבכורה,ותני רבי חייא עלה אינה מטמאה לא במגע ולא במשא ומאחר שאינה מטמאה לא במגע ולא במשא אמאי תקבר כדי לפרסמה שהיא פטורה מן הבכורה,אלמא ולד מעליא הוא ואמאי תני רבי חייא אינה מטמאה לא במגע ולא במשא אמר רבי יוחנן משום בטול ברוב נגעו בה,א"ר אמי אמר רבי יוחנן ומודה רבי שמעון שאמו טמאה לידה,אמר ההוא סבא לרבי אמי אסברא לך טעמא דרבי יוחנן דאמר קרא (ויקרא יב, ב) אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר וגו' אפילו לא ילדה אלא כעין שהזריעה טמאה לידה,ריש לקיש אמר שפיר שטרפוהו במימיו נעשה כמת שנתבלבלה צורתו,אמר ליה רבי יוחנן לריש לקיש מת שנתבלבלה צורתו מנלן דטהור אילימא מהא דאמר רבי שבתאי אמר ר' יצחק מגדלאה ואמרי לה א"ר יצחק מגדלאה א"ר שבתאי מת שנשרף ושלדו קיימת טמא מעשה היה וטמאו לו פתחים גדולים | 27b. b one grain of dirt /b in a certain place in the mixture. That grain of dirt is thereby nullified by the dust of the corpse, b and /b consequently b the measure /b of the dust b increases. /b , b Rather, Rabba said /b that b this is the reason /b for the opinion b of Rabbi Shimon: /b The i halakha /i with regard to a corpse in b its ultimate state /b of dust b is like /b the i halakha /i in b its initial state /b of decomposition: b Just as /b with regard to b its initial state, /b if b another matter /b is mixed with the decomposing corpse it b serves as a nullification [ i gangilon /i ] of /b the corpse’s impurity, as the dust of a decomposed corpse can impart impurity only if it is not mingled with the dust of any other substance, b so too, /b in the corpse’s b ultimate state /b of dust, if b another matter /b is mixed with it, that b serves as a nullification of /b the impurity of the dust.,The Gemara asks: b What is /b the source for the i halakha /i that the dust of a corpse imparts impurity only if it is not mingled with the dust of any other substance? The Gemara answers: b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Which is a corpse that has /b the i halakha /i of b dust, /b i.e., whose dust imparts impurity; b and which is a corpse that does not have /b the i halakha /i of b dust? /b If a corpse b was buried naked in a marble coffin or on a stone floor, that is a corpse that has /b the i halakha /i of b dust /b that imparts impurity. Since any dust found there must have come from the corpse, it imparts impurity., b And what is a corpse that does not have /b the i halakha /i of b dust? /b If a corpse b was buried in its cloak, or in a wooden coffin, or on a brick floor, that is a corpse that does not have /b the i halakha /i of b dust /b that imparts impurity, as it is assumed that some of the dust is from particles of the clothes, wood, or bricks, and the dust from a decomposed corpse imparts impurity only if it is not mingled with the dust of any other substance. The i baraita /i adds another i halakha /i with regard to the impurity of the dust of a corpse: b And /b the Sages b said /b that the b dust /b of a corpse is impure b only with regard to /b the corpse of a person who b died /b naturally, b excluding one who was killed, whose /b dust b is not /b impure.,§ The Gemara returns to discuss b the /b matter b itself, /b i.e., the i baraita /i cited above that clarifies the opinion of Rabbi Shimon: In the case of b a ladleful of dust /b from a corpse b into which any amount of dirt fell, /b the house b is impure; and Rabbi Shimon deems /b it b pure. /b The i baraita /i continues: In the case of b a ladleful of dust /b from a corpse b that was scattered in the house, the house is impure. /b Provided that there is a sufficient amount of dust in the house, the house is impure, even if the dust is scattered. b And Rabbi Shimon deems /b it b pure. /b ,The Gemara comments: b And it is necessary /b for the i baraita /i to state both of these i halakhot /i . b As, if /b the i baraita /i had b taught us /b only b the first /b i halakha /i , with regard to dust from a corpse in which dirt was mixed, one might have thought that it is specifically b in that /b case that b the Rabbis say /b the house is impure, b because /b the dust is b concentrated /b in one place; b but /b if the dust b was scattered, /b one might b say /b that the Rabbis b concede to Rabbi Shimon that /b the house is pure. The reasoning is b that /b if an item b overlies /b a collection of dust of a corpse that is insufficient to render it impure b and also overlies /b another collection of similar size, where together these collections constitute a sufficient amount to render the item and everything under it impure, it b is not /b impure., b And if /b the i baraita /i had b taught us /b the i halakha /i only b with regard to this /b second case, where the dust of the corpse was scattered, one might have thought that it is specifically b in this /b case that b Rabbi Shimon says /b that the house is pure, b as /b an item that b overlies /b an insufficient collection of the dust of a corpse b and also overlies /b another collection, where together these collections constitute a sufficient amount to render the item impure, b is not /b impure. b But in that /b first case, where dirt was mixed with the dust of the corpse, one might b say /b that Rabbi Shimon b concedes to the Rabbis /b that the house is impure. Therefore, it is b necessary /b for the i baraita /i to teach both cases.,There is a different dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis that b is taught /b in b another /b mishna ( i Oholot /i 2:2): If a house contains b a ladleful of dirt from a cemetery and /b slightly b more, /b the house b is impure; and Rabbi Shimon deems /b it b pure. /b The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b for the opinion b of the Rabbis? /b The Gemara answers: They deem the house impure b as it is impossible for /b slightly b more than a ladleful of dirt from a cemetery not to contain a ladleful of dust /b from a corpse.,§ The Gemara asks: b Now that you say /b that b the reason that Rabbi Shimon /b deems the house pure, in a case where it contains dust from a corpse in which dirt was mixed, is b that /b in his opinion the i halakha /i of a corpse in b its ultimate state /b of dust b is like /b the i halakha /i in b its initial state /b of decomposition, then b with regard to /b a case where there is b an afterbirth /b in the house, b what is the reason /b that Rabbi Shimon deems the house pure? b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b The Sages b touched upon it, /b i.e., deemed the house pure, b due to /b the b nullification /b of the disintegrated offspring b by /b the b majority /b of the blood that emerged during the miscarriage, in which the afterbirth was mixed., b And Rabbi Yoḥa follows his /b line of b reasoning /b in this regard, b as Rabbi Yoḥa says: Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov /b both b said the same thing, /b i.e., they both issued rulings based on the same principle. The relevant statement of b Rabbi Shimon /b is b that which we said, /b i.e., that if a woman discharged an afterbirth the house is pure, as the offspring is nullified by the blood that emerged during the miscarriage. b Rabbi Eliezer /b ben Ya’akov said that b which is taught /b in a mishna ( i Bekhorot /i 21a): b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: /b In the case of b a large animal that expelled a mass of /b congealed b blood, that /b mass b must be buried, /b as perhaps there was a male fetus there, which was consecrated as a firstborn when it emerged, b and /b the animal b is exempt from /b having any future offspring being counted b a firstborn. /b , b And Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches /b a i baraita /i b with regard to that /b i halakha /i : The mass of congealed blood b does not impart ritual impurity, neither through /b physical b contact nor through carrying /b it. It does not have the status of an unslaughtered animal carcass, which does impart impurity in such manners. The Gemara asks: b But since /b the mass b does not impart impurity, neither through contact nor through carrying, /b which indicates that it is not considered a fetus, b why /b must it be b buried? /b The Gemara answers: It must be buried b in order to publicize that /b the animal b is exempt from /b having its future offspring being counted b a firstborn. /b ,The Gemara asks: If the animal’s subsequent offspring is not counted a firstborn, b evidently /b the mass b is /b treated like b a full-fledged offspring. But /b if so, b why does Rabbi Ḥiyya teach /b that b it does not impart impurity, neither through /b physical b contact nor through carrying? Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b It is b due to /b the halakhic b nullification /b of a foreign substance b in a majority /b of permitted substances that the Sages b touched upon it, /b to exclude it from impurity through contact or carrying. In other words, the fetus is considered a full-fledged offspring, but it does not impart impurity, because it is nullified by the rest of the congealed mass.,§ The Gemara resumes its discussion of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon that if a woman discharges an afterbirth in a house, the house is pure. b Rabbi Ami says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: And Rabbi Shimon concedes that its mother is impure /b with the impurity of a woman after b childbirth. /b , b A certain elder said to Rabbi Ami: I will explain to you the reason /b for the statement b of Rabbi Yoḥa. As the verse states: “If a woman bears seed and gives birth to a male, /b she shall be impure seven days, as in the days of the menstruation of her sickness she shall be impure” (Leviticus 12:2). This indicates that b even /b if a woman b gives birth to /b an offspring that is b similar only to the seed that she bore, /b i.e., if the offspring liquefied and became similar to semen, the woman is b impure /b with the impurity of a woman after b childbirth. /b ,§ b Reish Lakish says: /b In the case of a fetus in b a gestational sac, that was mashed in its /b amniotic b fluid /b by being shaken violently, b it is rendered like a corpse that was deformed, /b and therefore it does not impart impurity to other items that are under the same roof., b Rabbi Yoḥa said to Reish Lakish: From where do we /b derive b that a corpse that was deformed is pure? If we say /b it is derived b from that which Rabbi Shabbtai says /b that b Rabbi Yitzḥak from Migdal [ i Migdala’a /i ] says, and some say /b from that which b Rabbi Yitzḥak from Migdal says /b that b Rabbi Shabbtai says, /b that cannot be correct. The Gemara cites the relevant statement: With regard to b a corpse that was burned but its form [ i veshildo /i ] /b still b exists, /b i.e., it still has the form of a human corpse, it b is impure. There was an incident /b involving such a corpse, b and /b the Sages b deemed impure /b all items that were under the b large openings /b of the house where the corpse was located, as these openings were fit for the removal of the corpse from the house through them. |
|
32. Babylonian Talmud, Nazir, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 220, 222| 51b. שכבת זרע במעי אשה מהו מי אמרי' כיון דלא איתצר כי גופה דמי או דלמא כיון דמעלמא קאתי לא,בעי רב פפא פירשה מהו כיון דלא מקיימא בדלא אכלה חיותא הוא או דלמא הא נמי מעלמא אתי בעי רב אחא בריה דרב איקא עורו מהו בעי רב הונא בר מנוח כיחו וניעו מהו,א"ל רב שמואל בר אחא לרב פפא ואי ס"ד כל הני דקאמר הוי גלגלין רקב דמטמא היכי משכחת לה דאשקייה מי דקלים וסכיא נשא ושלקו במי טבריא,אמר אביי נקטינן מת שטחנו אין לו רקב איבעיא להו טחנו וחזר והרקיב מהו מידי הוא טעמא אלא דאיכא בשר וגידים ועצמות והאיכא או דלמא כברייתו בעינן וליכא תיקו,תני עולא בר חנינא מת שחסר אין לו רקב ולא תפוסה ולא שכונת קברות,מיתיבי לא אם אמרת במת שיש לו רוב ורובע או מלא תרווד רקב תאמר בחי שאין לו לא רוב ולא רובע ולא מלא תרווד רקב,היכי דמי דארקיב חד אבר דכוותיה גבי מת אפי' חד אבר איכא רקב מי קתני הא מת הא קמ"ל שום מת יש לו רקב שום חי אין לו רקב,בעי רבא הרקיב כשהוא חי וחזר ומת מהו כי גמירי רקב דאירקיב כשהוא מת או דלמא השתא מיהא הא מיית,ת"ש לא אם אמרת במת שיש לו רוב ורובע ומלא תרווד רקב תאמר בחי כו',טעמא משום חי הא מת יש לו רקב מי קתני הא מת הא קא משמע לן דשום מת יש לו רקב שום חי אין לו רקב,בעי רבא נמלה שחסרה מהו שיעורא גמירין לה והא חסר או בריה גמירי לה והאיכא | 51b. with regard to b semen in /b a dead b woman’s womb. What is /b the i halakha /i in this case? Does it form a mixture with respect to the woman’s body? The Gemara explains the two sides of this dilemma: b Do we say /b that b since no /b fetus b was formed /b from the semen, it is b considered like her body? Or, perhaps /b one should argue that b since it comes from outside, /b it is b not /b considered part of her body., b Rav Pappa raised /b a similar b dilemma: /b With regard to b her excrement, /b the food waste that remains in a woman’s intestines, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? Once again, the Gemara explains the two sides of this dilemma: Do we say that b since she cannot subsist without food it is /b considered b her life, /b which means that the food left inside her body is part of her and does not form a mixture with the corpse? b Or perhaps this too comes from outside /b and is therefore not part of her body, and does form a mixture with her corpse. Similarly, b Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, raised a dilemma /b concerning a corpse: With regard to b its skin, what is /b the i halakha /i ? b Rav Huna bar Manoaḥ /b likewise b raised a dilemma: /b With regard to b its phlegm and its spittle, what is /b the i halakha /i ?, b Rav Shmuel bar Aḥa said to Rav Pappa: But if it enters your mind /b that b all these /b cases of b which they spoke /b form b a mixture, /b under b what circumstances /b do b you find /b this case of b dust /b that b imparts impurity? /b Dust from a corpse will always include some components of the aforementioned elements. The Gemara answers: It is possible. For example, b if /b someone b was given palm water [ i mei dekalim /i ], /b a powerful laxative, b to drink /b before he died, b and was rubbed with a depilatory /b agent to remove his hair, b and was boiled /b after death b in the /b hot b waters of Tiberias /b until the skin came off, this would remove all matter that is not part of the corpse itself., b Abaye said: We have a tradition /b that b a corpse that was ground /b into small pieces b has no /b i halakha /i of b dust. A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: If a corpse b was ground /b after death b and /b the remains b later decayed, what is /b the i halakha /i ? The Gemara clarifies the two sides of the dilemma: b Is the i halakha /i /b of dust of a corpse b only /b due to the fact that b there is flesh and sinews and bones, and /b all these b are present /b in this case, so it is impure? b Or perhaps, we require /b the corpse to have decayed from b its initial state, /b before it was ground, b and /b this is b not /b the situation here. As was the case with regard to the previous inquiries, no answer was found, and the Gemara says that the dilemma b shall stand /b unresolved.,§ b Ulla bar Ḥanina teaches: A corpse that lacks /b a part b does not have /b the i halakha /i of b dust, /b which imparts ritual impurity in the amount of a full ladle, b nor /b the i halakha /i of earth that is b caught [ i tefusa /i ] /b and considered part of a corpse. If a deficient corpse is moved, the surrounding earth is not considered part of it and need not be moved together with the body, as must be performed for a whole corpse. b Nor /b does the i halakha /i of b a graveyard /b apply. If three corpses are discovered in close proximity and one of them is deficient in some way, one need not search for more bodies out of concern that the location might have been a cemetery, as must be done if three intact corpses are found. Rather, the bodies are considered isolated corpses.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a mishna ( i Eduyyot /i 6:3) that addresses the question of whether an olive-bulk of flesh that came from a living person imparts ritual impurity as it would were it to come from a corpse: b No, if you say /b that an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity b with regard to a corpse, whose /b i halakhot /i of impurity are stringent, as b the majority /b of its structure or the majority of the number of its bones, b or a quarter- /b i kav /i of its bones, b or /b even b a full ladle of /b its b dust /b impart impurity, b shall you /b also b say /b that it imparts impurity b with regard to a living /b person, b who does not have /b the i halakha /i of b the majority /b of structure or the majority of the number of its bones, b nor a quarter- /b i kav /i , b nor a full ladle of dust? /b ,The Gemara analyzes this passage: b What are the circumstances /b of that mishna that deals with a limb from a living person? If you say b that one limb /b of a living person b decayed, /b and the mishna is indicating b that in the corresponding /b situation b with regard to a corpse, there is dust even /b from b one limb. /b This shows that the i halakha /i of dust applies to a corpse that is missing a limb and not just to a complete corpse. The Gemara rejects this argument: b Did /b the mishna b teach that this corpse /b in that particular case of an isolated limb has the i halakha /i of dust? That is merely an inference, as it is not stated explicitly in the mishna itself. Rather, the mishna b teaches us this: The name, /b i.e., the category, b of a corpse has dust. /b However, b the name of a living /b person b does not have dust. /b , b Rava raised a dilemma: /b If a limb of a body b decayed when he was alive, and /b that individual b subsequently died, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Do we say that b when /b this b is learned /b as a tradition that b dust /b imparts ritual impurity, this applies only b if /b the body b decayed when he was dead, /b but not when he was alive, and therefore this corpse is considered deficient and its dust does not impart impurity? b Or perhaps, now in any event he is dead, /b and his whole body has decomposed, and consequently its dust does impart impurity.,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b the aforementioned mishna: b No, if you say /b that an olive-bulk of flesh imparts impurity b with regard to a corpse, whose /b i halakhot /i of impurity are stringent, as b the majority /b of its structure or the majority of the number of its bones, b or a quarter- /b i kav /i of its bones, b or /b even b a full ladle of /b its b dust /b imparts impurity, b shall you /b also b say /b that this it imparts impurity b with regard to a living /b person, who does not have the i halakha /i of the majority of structure or the majority of the number of its bones, nor a quarter- i kav /i , nor a full ladle of dust.,The Gemara infers from this passage: b The reason /b the olive-bulk of flesh does not impart impurity b is due to /b the fact that it is from b a living /b person, from which it may be inferred that in a corresponding situation involving b a corpse, /b the corpse b has /b the i halakha /i of b dust, /b even if the limb had decomposed during the deceased’s lifetime. The Gemara rejects this contention as above: b Did /b the mishna b teach that this corpse /b in that particular case of an isolated limb has the i halakha /i of dust? That is merely an inference, as it is not stated explicitly in the mishna itself. Rather, the mishna b teaches us this: The name, /b i.e., the category, b of a corpse has dust. /b However, b the name of a living /b person b does not have dust. /b ,§ In relation to the above discussion concerning a body without a limb, b Rava raised a dilemma: /b If someone eats an entire ant, even if it is less than an olive-bulk in volume, he is liable for eating a creeping animal because it is a whole creature. Rava’s dilemma was as follows: If one eats b an ant that lacks /b a part, e.g., a leg, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? Is this individual liable to receive lashes? The two possibilities are as follows: b Is /b it b learned /b as tradition that b the amount /b for which one is liable is a whole ant, b and this one is lacking? Or /b did b we learn /b that he is punished for a viable b entity, and there is /b a viable entity here, despite the missing limb? |
|
33. Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 218| 5b. קרי עליה (תהלים נ, כג) ושם דרך אראנו בישע אלהים,תנו רבנן אין מציינין לא על כזית מן המת ולא על עצם כשעורה ולא על דבר שאינו מטמא באהל אבל מציינין על השדרה ועל הגולגולת על רוב בנין ועל רוב מנין המת,ואין מציינין על הוודאות אבל מציינין על הספיקות ואלו הן הספיקות סככות ופרעות ובית הפרס ואין מעמידין ציון במקום טומאה שלא להפסיד את הטהרות ואין מרחיקין ציון ממקום טומאה שלא להפסיד את ארץ ישראל,וכזית מן המת אינו מטמא באהל והא (תניא) אלו שמטמאין באהל כזית מן המת,אמר רב פפא הכא בכזית מצומצם עסקינן דסוף סוף מיחסר חסר מוטב ישרפו עליו תרומה וקדשים לפי שעה ואל ישרפו עליו לעולם,ואלו הן הספיקות סככות ופרעות,סככות אילן המיסך על הארץ,פרעות אבנים פרועות היוצאות מן הגדר,בית הפרס כדתנן החורש את הקבר הרי הוא עושה בית הפרס וכמה הוא עושה מלא מענה מאה אמה,ובית הפרס מי מטמא באהל והאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מנפח אדם בית הפרס והולך,ורב יהודה בר אמי משמיה דעולא אמר בית הפרס שנידש טהור,אמר רב פפא לא קשיא כאן בשדה שאבד בה קבר כאן בשדה שנחרש בה קבר,ושדה שנחרש בה קבר בית הפרס קרי ליה אין והתנן שלשה בית הפרס הן שדה שנאבד בה קבר ושדה שנחרש בה קבר ושדה בוכין,מאי שדה בוכין רב יהושע בר אבא משמיה דעולא אמר שדה שמפטירין בה מתים,וטעמא מאי אמר אבימי משום יאוש בעלים נגעו בה,ושדה שנחרש בה קבר לא בעי ציון והא תניא מצא שדה מצויינת ואין ידוע מה טיבה יש בה אילנות בידוע שנחרש בה קבר אין בה אילנות בידוע שאבד בה קבר,ר' יהודה אומר עד שיהא שם זקן או תלמיד לפי שאין הכל בקיאין בדבר,אמר רב פפא כי תניא ההיא בשדה שאבד בה קבר דציינוה יש בה אילנות בידוע שנחרש בה קבר אין בה אילנות בידוע שאבד בה קבר,וליחוש דלמא אילנות מגואי וקבר מבראי,כדאמר עולא בעומדין על הגבולין הכא נמי בעומדין על הגבולין | 5b. Rabbi Yannai b read /b this verse b about him: “And to him who orders his way, I will show the salvation of God” /b (Psalms 50:23), for he considered his conduct and determined when it was inappropriate to challenge his master.,§ With regard to the i halakhot /i of marking graves, b the Sages taught /b the following i baraita /i : The courts b do not mark /b the area b of an olive-bulk of a corpse; nor of a bone /b that is the size of a b barleygrain-bulk; nor of /b any b item that /b imparts impurity only through physical contact but b does not impart ritual impurity by means of a tent /b to an individual or object that it overshadows, or that is overshadowed by it, or that is found together with it under the same structure. b But they do mark /b the area of b the spine /b of a corpse, b the skull, /b or the bones that comprise b the majority of the /b skeletal b structure or the majority of the number /b of bones in the body., b And /b furthermore, b they do not mark /b the area b of certain /b ritual impurity, i.e., a place that is known to all as ritually impure, b but they do mark /b a place b of uncertain /b ritual impurity. b And these are the /b places of b uncertain /b ritual impurity: b Overhanging boughs, protrusions, and a i beit haperas /i . And they do not erect the marker /b directly b over the site of the ritual impurity, so as not to cause a loss of ritually pure /b food items, as one who is carrying such food might inadvertently walk up to the site of ritual impurity and only then notice the marker, after the food has already contracted impurity. b Similarly, they do not distance the marker from the /b actual b site of ritual impurity, so as not to cause a loss of Eretz Yisrael, /b i.e., so as not to increase the area into which individuals refrain from entering.,The Gemara begins to analyze this i baraita /i by asking: b Is it /b really b so that an olive-bulk of a corpse does not impart ritual impurity by means of a tent? But didn’t we learn /b in a mishna ( i Oholot /i 2:1): b These are /b the items b that impart ritual impurity by means of a tent, /b and among other items this list includes b an olive-bulk of a corpse? /b , b Rav Pappa said: Here, we are dealing with /b a case b where /b the piece of flesh b is exactly an olive-bulk, which, /b as it decays, b will ultimately diminish /b in size to less than an olive-bulk. Accordingly, b it is preferable that i teruma /i and consecrated items be burned because of it for the time being, /b in a case where one inadvertently encounters this impurity because it was not marked and consequently one must burn any i teruma /i or consecrated items that became ritually impure, b and not be burned because of it forever /b afterward. After some time the piece of flesh will be less than an olive-bulk, yet if the area is marked, people will continue to burn i teruma /i or consecrated items because of it, as, due to the marking, they will assume that ritual impurity was imparted by means of a tent.,The Gemara continues to explicate the i baraita /i : b And these are the /b places of b uncertain /b ritual impurity: b Overhanging boughs, and protrusions, /b and a i beit haperas /i .,The Gemara explains: b Overhanging boughs /b is referring to b a tree that hangs over the ground /b next to a cemetery, and under one of its branches there might be a corpse. If there is a corpse there, the branch overhanging it creates a tent and therefore imparts ritual impurity to anyone who passes underneath it., b Protrusions /b is referring to b protruding stones that jut out from a wall /b and are not flush with it, under which there might be a corpse. Once again, if the stones protrude over a corpse, they create a tent and impart ritual impurity to anyone who passes underneath.,The definition of a b i beit haperas /i /b is b as we learned /b elsewhere in a mishna ( i Oholot /i 17:1): b One who plows /b a field containing b a grave, /b thereby raising concern that bones may have become strewn throughout the field, b renders /b the field b a i beit haperas /i . And how much /b of the field b does he render /b a i beit haperas /i ? b The full /b length of b a furrow, /b which is b a hundred cubits. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Does a i beit haperas /i /b really b impart ritual impurity by means of a tent? But didn’t Rav Yehuda say /b that b Shmuel said: /b If b a person /b is carrying ritually pure items or wishes to remain ritually pure so that he may consume consecrated items, yet he must cross a i beit haperas /i , he b may blow upon /b the earth in b the i beit haperas /i /b before each step to clear away any small bones that may have become strewn across the field b and /b proceed to b walk /b across the area, thereby remaining ritually pure. This indicates that there is no concern about contracting ritual impurity by means of a tent in a i beit haperas /i ; otherwise, it would be prohibited to cross in this way, as it is possible that in the course of blowing one may already have contracted ritual impurity by leaning over the bones or by passing over bones that are buried beneath the surface.,Similarly, b Rav Yehuda bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: A i beit haperas /i that was trampled, /b i.e., a well-trodden i beit haperas /i , b is ritually pure, /b as passersby have certainly cleared away any bones with their feet. If a i beit haperas /i were to impart ritual impurity by means of a tent, there should be a concern that the bones may have been trampled upon and buried in the ground. Both these sources prove that a i beit haperas /i does not impart impurity by means of tent, posing a contradiction to the mishna., b Rav Pappa said: /b It is b not difficult, /b as a distinction can be made between different types of i beit haperas /i : b Here, /b where the i baraita /i states that a i beit haperas /i must be marked because it imparts tent impurity, it is referring to b a field in which a grave was lost, /b i.e., a field that was known with certainty to contain a grave, though its precise location can no longer be recalled. b There, /b where it ruled that a i beit haperas /i does not convey tent impurity, it is a case of b a field where a grave was plowed /b and it is not at all clear whether there are bones strewn across the field. In that case ritual impurity is not imparted by means of a tent, and so it need not be marked.,The Gemara asks: b But is a field where a grave was plowed called a i beit haperas /i , /b such that one must be concerned about its ritual impurity? The Gemara answers: b Yes, and so we learned /b in a mishna ( i Oholot /i 18:2–4): b There are three /b types of b i beit haperas /i /b through which those who eat i teruma /i and consecrated items are prohibited to walk: b A field in which a grave was lost /b and its precise location is no longer known, b a field in which a grave was plowed /b and bones may have been scattered about, b and a weepers’ field. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is /b meant by b a weepers’ field? Rav Yehoshua bar Abba said in the name of Ulla: A field where /b those escorting the deceased b would take leave of the deceased, /b handing the corpse over to those who would perform the actual interment., b And what is the reason /b that one must be concerned about ritual impurity in a weepers’ field? b Avimi said: /b It is b due to the /b possible b despair by the owners /b of recovering bones that the Sages b touched /b upon b it. /b There is a concern that in transporting the deceased from far away, a loose limb may have fallen from the corpse into the field, and unseen by those transporting the deceased, it was abandoned there. Since over time many corpses passed through this weepers’ field, it is assumed that ritual impurity might be found in many places throughout the field.,The Gemara asks: b And does a field in which a grave was plowed not require marking? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b If one encountered a field that was marked /b due to ritual impurity, b and it is no /b longer b known what the nature of the /b ritual impurity b was, if there are trees in /b the field, b it is known that a grave was plowed in it, /b as it is permitted for one to plant trees in such a field. b If there are no trees in /b the field, b it is known that a grave was lost in it, /b as it is prohibited for one to plant trees in such a field. If a field is suitable for planting trees and yet there are none, clearly it is because a grave was lost in it., b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b We do not rely on these signs b unless there is an Elder or /b a rabbinic b scholar /b who can testify about the subject, b as not all are experts in this matter, /b and perhaps the field was not plowed at all. In any case, this i baraita /i teaches that a field in which a grave was plowed is also marked.,The Gemara answers: b Rav Pappa said: When that /b i baraita /i concerning a marked field b is taught, /b it is taught with regard to b a field where a grave was /b certainly b lost /b and b they /b immediately b marked it. /b However, b if there are trees in /b the field, b it is known that a grave was /b later b plowed in it, /b i.e., it was forgotten that a grave had been lost in the field and so it was inappropriately plowed and prepared for planting. But b if there are no trees in /b the field, b we know that a grave was lost in it /b and it was not later plowed.,The Gemara raises a question about this ruling: b But let us be concerned that perhaps the trees were /b located b inside /b the field b and the grave was /b located b outside /b of it, and the actual site of the grave was never plowed but simply lost? How then can one rely on the presence of trees to indicate that the grave had been plowed in the field?,The Gemara answers: It is b as Ulla said /b elsewhere. This is a case b where /b the trees b are standing along the /b field’s b boundaries, /b next to a public domain, as the grave is certainly not outside the trees in the public domain, since people do not bury a corpse in the public thoroughfare. Rather, the grave must be between the trees, and was therefore plowed. b Here too /b , then, this is a case b where /b the trees b are standing along the borders. /b |
|
34. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 221| 42a. מהו דתימא אם איתא דילדה קלא הוה ליה קא משמע לן אימר אפולי אפיל:, br br big strongהדרן עלך השוחט /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongאלו /strong /big טרפות בבהמה נקובת הוושט ופסוקת הגרגרת ניקב קרום של מוח ניקב הלב לבית חללו נשברה השדרה ונפסק החוט שלה ניטל הכבד ולא נשתייר הימנו כלום,הריאה שניקבה או שחסרה ר"ש אומר עד שתינקב לבית הסמפונות ניקבה הקבה ניקבה המרה ניקבו הדקין הכרס הפנימית שניקבה או שנקרע רוב החיצונה רבי יהודה אומר הגדולה טפח והקטנה ברובה המסס ובית הכוסות שניקבו לחוץ,נפלה מן הגג נשתברו רוב צלעותיה ודרוסת הזאב רבי יהודה אומר דרוסת הזאב בדקה ודרוסת ארי בגסה דרוסת הנץ בעוף הדק ודרוסת הגס בעוף הגס זה הכלל כל שאין כמוה חיה טרפה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big א"ר שמעון בן לקיש רמז לטרפה מן התורה מנין מנין (שמות כב, ל) ובשר בשדה טרפה לא תאכלו אלא רמז לטרפה שאינה חיה מן התורה מנין דקתני סיפא זה הכלל כל שאין כמוה חיה טרפה מכלל דטרפה אינה חיה מנא לן,דכתיב (ויקרא יא, ב) וזאת החיה אשר תאכלו חיה אכול שאינה חיה לא תיכול מכלל דטרפה לא חיה,ולמאן דאמר טרפה חיה מנ"ל נפקא ליה מזאת החיה אשר תאכלו זאת החיה אכול חיה אחרת לא תיכול מכלל דטרפה חיה,ואידך האי זאת מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל זאת החיה אשר תאכלו מלמד שתפס הקב"ה מכל מין ומין והראה לו למשה ואמר לו זאת אכול וזאת לא תיכול,ואידך נמי מבעי ליה לכדתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל אין ה"נ אלא טרפה חיה מנא ליה נפקא ליה מאידך תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל דתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל (ויקרא יא, מז) בין החיה הנאכלת ובין החיה אשר לא תאכל אלו שמונה עשרה טרפות שנאמרו למשה מסיני,ותו ליכא והא איכא בסגר ושב שמעתתא | 42a. The Gemara answers: b Lest you say: If it is so that /b his wife b gave birth, it would have /b generated b publicity /b and been common knowledge; therefore, one might conclude that the slaughter is valid even if he declared that the slaughter is for the sake of the burnt offering of his wife after childbirth, as in fact she did not give birth. To counter this, Rabbi Elazar b teaches us /b that the slaughter is not valid. b Say /b that his wife b miscarried /b and is liable to bring an offering, but it is not common knowledge, because the baby was not born alive. br/ ,, strong MISHNA: /strong b These /b wounds constitute b i tereifot /i in an animal, /b rendering them prohibited for consumption: b A perforated gullet, /b where the perforation goes through the wall of the gullet, b or a cut windpipe. /b If b the membrane of the brain was perforated, /b or if b the heart was perforated to its chamber; /b if b the spinal /b column b was broken and its cord was cut; /b if b the liver was removed and nothing remained of it, /b any of these render the animal a i tereifa /i .,Additionally, b a lung that was perforated or that was missing /b a piece renders the animal a i tereifa /i . b Rabbi Shimon says: /b It is not a i tereifa /i b unless it is perforated /b through b to the bronchi. /b If b the abomasum was perforated, /b or b the gallbladder was perforated, /b or b the small intestines were perforated, /b it is a i tereifa /i . It is also a i tereifa /i in a case b where the internal rumen was perforated or where the majority of the external /b rumen b was torn. Rabbi Yehuda says: /b For b a large /b animal, a tear of b one handbreadth /b renders it a i tereifa /i , while for b a small /b animal, it is a i tereifa /i only if b the majority of it /b was torn. And it is a i tereifa /i where the b omasum [ i hemses /i ] or the reticulum was perforated to the outside, /b i.e., to the abdominal cavity, but not if the perforation was between the two.,Likewise, if an animal b fell from the roof, /b or if b the majority of its ribs were fractured, or /b if it was b clawed by a wolf, /b it is a i tereifa /i . b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If it was b clawed by a wolf in /b the case of b a small /b animal, i.e., a sheep or goat; b or clawed by a lion in /b the case of b a large /b animal, i.e., cattle; or if it was b clawed by a hawk in /b the case of b a small bird; or /b if it was b clawed by a large /b bird of prey b in /b the case of b a large bird, /b then it is a i tereifa /i . b This is the principle: Any /b animal that was injured such b that /b an animal in b a similar /b condition b could not live /b for an extended period is b a i tereifa /i , /b the consumption of which is forbidden by Torah law., strong GEMARA: /strong b Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Where is there an allusion in the Torah to /b the prohibition of b a i tereifa /i ? /b The Gemara interjects: b Where /b is there an allusion? Doesn’t the Torah state explicitly: b “You shall not eat any flesh that is torn of animals [ i tereifa /i ] in the field” /b (Exodus 22:30)? b Rather, /b the question is: b Where is there an allusion in the Torah to /b the principle b that a i tereifa /i cannot live? As /b the mishna b teaches /b in b the last clause: This is the principle: Any /b animal that was injured such b that /b an animal in b a similar /b condition b could not live /b for an extended period is b a i tereifa /i ; /b one learns b by inference that a i tereifa /i cannot live. /b If so, b from where do we /b derive this?,It is derived from a verse, b as it is written: “These are the living things which you may eat /b among all the animals that are on the earth” (Leviticus 11:2). The verse indicates that you may b eat a living /b animal, i.e., one that can survive, but b you may not eat /b an animal b that is not living, /b i.e., one that cannot survive. One learns b by inference that a i tereifa /i cannot live. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And according to the one who says /b that b a i tereifa /i can live, from where /b does b he /b derive this? The Gemara responds: He b derives it from /b the same verse: b “These are the living things which you may eat /b among all the animals.” “These” indicates that you may b eat /b only b these living things, /b but b you may not eat other living things, /b i.e., i tereifot /i . One learns b by inference that a i tereifa /i can live. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b according to b the other /b opinion, that a i tereifa /i cannot live, b what does he do with this /b word b “these”? /b The Gemara responds: b He requires it for that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught /b that the verse: b “These are the living things which you may eat,” teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, seized /b one b of each and every species /b of animal b and showed it to Moses, and said to him: These /b you b may eat, and these you may not eat. /b ,The Gemara objects: b But the other /b opinion b also requires /b the word “these” for b that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. /b The Gemara replies: b Yes, /b it b is indeed so. Rather, from where /b does b he /b derive the principle b that a i tereifa /i can live? /b He b derives it from the other /b i baraita /i that b the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: /b The verse states: “To make a difference… b between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten” /b (Leviticus 11:47). b These /b living things that may not be eaten b are the eighteen i tereifot /i that were stated to Moses at Sinai /b and enumerated in the mishna. The verse, then, makes reference to a i tereifa /i as a living thing.,The Gemara questions the i baraita /i : b And are there no more /b cases of i tereifot /i ? b But aren’t there /b more cases cited in the Mishna and other i baraitot /i , for which a mnemonic is given: b i Beit /i , i samekh /i , i gimmel /i , i reish /i ; and /b aren’t there b seven /b additional b i halakhot /i , /b i.e., cases of i tereifot /i , taught by i amora’im /i ? |
|
| 35. Anon., Sifre Zuta Numbers, 6.9, 19.11, 19.14 Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 105, 218, 219, 220 |
36. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •rot (raqav) impurity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 222| 31b. השולח חבית של יין ביד כותי ושל ציר ושל מורייס ביד עובד כוכבים אם מכיר חותמו וסתמו מותר אם לאו אסור,אמר רבי זירא לא קשיא כאן בעיר כאן בדרך,מתקיף לה רבי ירמיה מידי הנך דעיר לא בדרך אתו אלא אמר רבי ירמיה בין הגיתות שנינו כיון דכולי עלמא אפכי מירתת אמר השתא אי חזי לי מפסדו לי,אתמר מפני מה אסרו שכר של עובדי כוכבים רמי בר חמא אמר רבי יצחק משום חתנות רב נחמן אמר משום גילוי,אגילוי דמאי אילימא גילוי דנזייתא אנן נמי מגלינן ואלא דחביתא אנן נמי מגלינן לא צריכא באתרא דמצלו מיא,אלא מעתה ישן תשתרי דא"ר ישן מותר אין מניחו ליישן החמיץ מותר אין מניחו להחמיץ גזירה ישן אטו חדש,רב פפא מפיקין ליה לאבבא דחנותא ושתי רב אחאי מייתו ליה לביתיה ושתי ותרוייהו משום חתנות רב אחאי עביד הרחקה יתירתא,רב שמואל בר ביסנא איקלע למרגואן אייתו ליה חמרא ולא אשתי אייתו ליה שיכרא ולא אשתי בשלמא חמרא משום שימצא שיכרא משום מאי משום שימצא דשימצא,אמר רב האי שיכרא דארמאה שרי וחייא ברי לא נישתי מיניה מה נפשך אי שרי לכולי עלמא שרי אי אסיר לכולי עלמא אסיר,אלא רב סבר משום גילויא ואזיל מרורא דכשותא וקלי ליה זיהריה ודלקי מלקי ליה טפי וחייא ברי הואיל ולקי לא נישתי מיניה,אמר שמואל כל השרצים יש להן ארס של נחש ממית של שרצים אינו ממית אמר ליה שמואל לחייא בר רב בר אריא תא ואימא לך מילתא מעלייתא דהוה אמר רב אבוך הכי אמר אבוך הני ארמאי זוקאני דהוו שתו גילויא ולא מתו איידי דאכלי שקצים ורמשים חביל גופייהו,אמר רב יוסף | 31b. from the following i baraita /i : With regard to b one who sends a barrel of wine in the hands of a Samaritan, or /b a barrel b of /b fish b brine or /b a barrel b of fish stew in the hands of a gentile, if he recognizes his seal and his /b manner of b closing /b the barrel, it b is permitted; if /b he does b not /b recognize them, it b is prohibited. /b Apparently, a sealed barrel is permitted only when it is recognizable., b Rabbi Zeira said /b that this is b not difficult. Here, /b the first i baraita /i is referring to barrels located b in a city; there, /b the second i baraita /i is referring to barrels that the Samaritan carries b on the road. /b Sealed barrels are permitted in a city because the Samaritan is careful to ensure that gentiles do not touch them in front of anyone, so that he does not forfeit the business of Jews. While traveling he is not concerned, as he assumes that no one will discover that the gentile came into contact with the wine., b Rabbi Yirmeya objects to this: Didn’t these /b barrels located b in the city come by the road /b as well? b Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya says: We learned /b the i baraita /i that permits sealed barrels only in reference to those that are located b between the winepresses. Since everyone is found /b there, the Samaritan b is apprehensive, /b as he b says /b to himself: b Now, if /b someone b sees me /b allowing a gentile to handle the wine b they will cause me to lose /b my profit, as Jews will not purchase it., b It was stated: For what /b reason did the Sages b prohibit the beer of gentiles? Rami bar Ḥama says /b that b Rabbi Yitzḥak says: /b It is b due to /b the concern that Jews will befriend gentiles while drinking with them, which might lead to b marriage /b with gentiles. b Rav Naḥman said: /b It is b due to /b the concern of b exposure. /b ,The Gemara asks: b With regard to what /b form b of exposure /b is there a concern? b If we say /b that the concern is with regard to b exposure of the vat, we too expose /b the vat, and there is no reason to prohibit gentiles’ beer more than that of Jews. b And /b if you say: b Rather, /b the concern is for exposure b of /b the b barrel, we also expose /b barrels. The Gemara answers: b No, /b it is b necessary /b to prohibit the beer b in a place where the water /b used to brew it is allowed to b settle. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If that is so, aged /b beer should b be permitted, as Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: /b A substance that might contain exposed water but has b aged /b is b permitted, /b since the poison b does not allow it to age, /b as it goes bad before it grows old. Similarly, if it b soured /b it is b permitted, /b because the poison impairs the taste but b does not allow it to sour. /b Why, then, is all beer prohibited? The Gemara answers: The Sages issued a rabbinic b decree /b with regard to b aged /b beer b due to /b the concern with regard to b new /b beer.,§ The Gemara cites the opinions of various Sages with regard to beer. b Rav Pappa /b had them b bring out /b the b beer /b belonging to gentiles from the store b to the entrance of the store, and he /b would b drink /b it outside the store. b Rav Aḥai /b had them b bring /b the beer b to his house, and he /b would b drink /b it there. b And both /b of them drank the beer away from the presence of gentiles b due to /b concern about b marriage /b with gentiles. The Gemara notes that b Rav Aḥai established an extreme preventive measure /b for himself beyond what is required by i halakha /i .,The Gemara relates that b Rav Shmuel bar Bisna happened /b to come b to Marguan, /b and b they brought him wine but he did not drink /b it. Next b they brought him beer but he did not drink /b it. The Gemara asks: b Granted, /b he did not drink the b wine due to /b the b trace [ i shimtza /i ] /b of libations, but b due to what /b reason did he refrain from drinking b beer? /b It was b due to /b concern for b the trace of a trace, /b i.e., he did not drink beer due to concern about drinking wine., b Rav says: This Aramean beer is permitted, but my son Ḥiyya does not drink from it. /b The Gemara asks: b Whichever /b way b you /b look at this matter, Rav’s statement is difficult: b If /b the beer is b permitted, /b then it is b permitted to everyone, /b and there is no reason for his son to refrain from drinking it. And b if /b it is b prohibited, /b it is b prohibited to everyone, /b and why would Rav say it is permitted?,The Gemara explains: b Rather, Rav holds /b that the prohibition is b due to exposure, but the bitterness of the hops /b in the beer b goes and impairs the /b snake’s b venom, /b so that it is safe for an average person to drink. b But /b a person of b weak /b constitution b is weakened further /b by the impaired venom, b and /b Rav was saying: In the case of b my son Ḥiyya, since he is weak, he does not drink from it. /b , b Shmuel says: All creeping animals possess venom; /b that b of a snake kills, /b whereas the venom b of /b other b creeping animals does not kill. Shmuel said to Ḥiyya bar Rav: Son of a lion! Come and I will say to you a superior matter that your father, Rav, said. This /b is what b your father said: These Arameans /b are b swollen [ i zukanei /i ] because they drink exposed /b liquids, b but they did not die /b from doing so b since they eat repugt creatures and creeping animals, /b which b heat their bodies /b and thereby render them less susceptible to the venom., b Rav Yosef says: /b |
|
