1. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 1.1, 18.25-18.27 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood, bottom feeders Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 151| 1.1. "אַשְׁרֵי־הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָלַךְ בַּעֲצַת רְשָׁעִים וּבְדֶרֶךְ חַטָּאִים לֹא עָמָד וּבְמוֹשַׁב לֵצִים לֹא יָשָׁב׃", 18.25. "וַיָּשֶׁב־יְהוָה לִי כְצִדְקִי כְּבֹר יָדַי לְנֶגֶד עֵינָיו׃", 18.26. "עִם־חָסִיד תִּתְחַסָּד עִם־גְּבַר תָּמִים תִּתַּמָּם׃", 18.27. "עִם־נָבָר תִּתְבָּרָר וְעִם־עִקֵּשׁ תִּתְפַּתָּל׃", | 1.1. "HAPPY IS the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of the scornful.", 18.25. "Therefore hath the LORD recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in His eyes.", 18.26. "With the merciful Thou dost show Thyself merciful, with the upright man Thou dost show Thyself upright;", 18.27. "With the pure Thou dost show Thyself pure; and with the crooked Thou dost show Thyself subtle.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 11.13-11.23, 11.29-11.30, 11.41-11.42 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 13, 151| 11.13. "וְאֶת־אֵלֶּה תְּשַׁקְּצוּ מִן־הָעוֹף לֹא יֵאָכְלוּ שֶׁקֶץ הֵם אֶת־הַנֶּשֶׁר וְאֶת־הַפֶּרֶס וְאֵת הָעָזְנִיָּה׃", 11.14. "וְאֶת־הַדָּאָה וְאֶת־הָאַיָּה לְמִינָהּ׃", 11.15. "אֵת כָּל־עֹרֵב לְמִינוֹ׃", 11.16. "וְאֵת בַּת הַיַּעֲנָה וְאֶת־הַתַּחְמָס וְאֶת־הַשָּׁחַף וְאֶת־הַנֵּץ לְמִינֵהוּ׃", 11.17. "וְאֶת־הַכּוֹס וְאֶת־הַשָּׁלָךְ וְאֶת־הַיַּנְשׁוּף׃", 11.18. "וְאֶת־הַתִּנְשֶׁמֶת וְאֶת־הַקָּאָת וְאֶת־הָרָחָם׃", 11.19. "וְאֵת הַחֲסִידָה הָאֲנָפָה לְמִינָהּ וְאֶת־הַדּוּכִיפַת וְאֶת־הָעֲטַלֵּף׃", 11.21. "אַךְ אֶת־זֶה תֹּאכְלוּ מִכֹּל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף הַהֹלֵךְ עַל־אַרְבַּע אֲשֶׁר־לא [לוֹ] כְרָעַיִם מִמַּעַל לְרַגְלָיו לְנַתֵּר בָּהֵן עַל־הָאָרֶץ׃", 11.22. "אֶת־אֵלֶּה מֵהֶם תֹּאכֵלוּ אֶת־הָאַרְבֶּה לְמִינוֹ וְאֶת־הַסָּלְעָם לְמִינֵהוּ וְאֶת־הַחַרְגֹּל לְמִינֵהוּ וְאֶת־הֶחָגָב לְמִינֵהוּ׃", 11.23. "וְכֹל שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ אַרְבַּע רַגְלָיִם שֶׁקֶץ הוּא לָכֶם׃", 11.29. "וְזֶה לָכֶם הַטָּמֵא בַּשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל־הָאָרֶץ הַחֹלֶד וְהָעַכְבָּר וְהַצָּב לְמִינֵהוּ׃", 11.41. "וְכָל־הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל־הָאָרֶץ שֶׁקֶץ הוּא לֹא יֵאָכֵל׃", 11.42. "כֹּל הוֹלֵךְ עַל־גָּחוֹן וְכֹל הוֹלֵךְ עַל־אַרְבַּע עַד כָּל־מַרְבֵּה רַגְלַיִם לְכָל־הַשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל־הָאָרֶץ לֹא תֹאכְלוּם כִּי־שֶׁקֶץ הֵם׃", | 11.13. "And these ye shall have in detestation among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are a detestable thing: the great vulture, and the bearded vulture, and the ospray;", 11.14. "and the kite, and the falcon after its kinds;", 11.15. "every raven after its kinds;", 11.16. "and the ostrich, and the night-hawk, and the sea-mew, and the hawk after its kinds;", 11.17. "and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl;", 11.18. "and the horned owl, and the pelican, and the carrion-vulture;", 11.19. "and the stork, and the heron after its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat.", 11.20. "All winged swarming things that go upon all fours are a detestable thing unto you.", 11.21. "Yet these may ye eat of all winged swarming things that go upon all fours, which have jointed legs above their feet, wherewith to leap upon the earth;", 11.22. "even these of them ye may eat: the locust after its kinds, and the bald locust after its kinds, and the cricket after its kinds, and the grasshopper after its kinds.", 11.23. "But all winged swarming things, which have four feet, are a detestable thing unto you.", 11.29. "And these are they which are unclean unto you among the swarming things that swarm upon the earth: the weasel, and the mouse, and the great lizard after its kinds,", 11.30. "and the gecko, and the land-crocodile, and the lizard, and the sand-lizard, and the chameleon.", 11.41. "And every swarming thing that swarmeth upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten.", 11.42. "Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, and whatsoever goeth upon all fours, or whatsoever hath many feet, even all swarming things that swarm upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are a detestable thing.", |
|
3. Philo of Alexandria, On The Special Laws, 4.113-4.117 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood •scales, seafood, bottom feeders Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 66, 151 | 4.113. And adhering to the same general idea the lawgiver asserts that those reptiles which have no feet, and which crawl onwards, dragging themselves along the ground on their bellies, or those which have four legs, or many feet, are all unclean as far as regards their being eaten. And here, again, when he mentions reptiles he intimates under a figurative form of expression those who are devoted to their bellies, gorging themselves like cormorants, and who are continually offering up tribute to their miserable belly, tribute, that is, of strong wine, and confections, and fish, and, in short, all the superfluous delicacies which the skill and labour of bakers and confectioners are able to devise, inventing all sorts of rare viands, to stimulate and set on fire the insatiable and unappeasable appetites of man. And when he speaks of animals with four legs and many feet, he intends to designate the miserable slaves not of one single passion, appetite, but of all the passions; the genera of which were four in number; but in their subordinate species they are innumerable. Therefore, the despotism of one is very grievous, but that of many is most terrible, and as it seems intolerable. 4.114. Again, in the case of those reptiles who have legs above their feet, so that they are able to take leaps from the ground, those Moses speaks of as clean; as, for instance, the different kinds of locusts, and that animal called the serpentfighter, here again intimating by figurative expressions the manners and habits of the rational soul. For the weight of the body being naturally heavy, drags down with it those who are but of small wisdom, strangling it and pressing it down by the weight of the flesh. 4.115. But blessed are they to whose lot it has fallen, inasmuch as they have been well and solidly instructed in the rules of sound education, to resist successfully the power of mere strength, so as to be able, by reason of what they have learnt, to spring up from the earth and all low things, to the air and the periodical revolutions of the heaven, the very sight of which is to be admired and earnestly striven for by those who come to it of their own accord with no indolence or indifference.CONCERNING FLYING Creature 4.116. Having, therefore, in his ordices already gone through all the different kinds of land animals and of those who live in the water, and having distinguished them in his code of laws as accurately as it was possible, Moses begins to investigate the remaining class of animals in the air; the innumerable kinds of flying creatures, rejecting all those which prey upon one another or upon man, all carnivorous birds, in short, all animals which are venomous, and all which have any power of plotting against others. 4.117. But doves, and pigeons, and turtle-doves, and all the flocks of cranes, and geese, and birds of that kind, he numbers in the class of domestic, and tame, and eatable creatures, allowing every one who chooses to partake of them with impunity. |
|
| 4. Pliny The Elder, Natural History, 9.45 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood •scales, seafood, bottom feeders Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 150 |
| 5. Tosefta, Hulin, 3.26 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood •scales, seafood, bottom feeders Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 150 |
6. New Testament, Matthew, 13.47-13.48 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood •scales, seafood, bottom feeders Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 150| 13.47. Πάλιν ὁμοία ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν σαγήνῃ βληθείσῃ εἰς τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ ἐκ παντὸς γένους συναγαγούσῃ· 13.48. ἣν ὅτε ἐπληρώθη ἀναβιβάσαντες ἐπὶ τὸν αἰγιαλὸν καὶ καθίσαντες συνέλεξαν τὰ καλὰ εἰς ἄγγη, τὰ δὲ σαπρὰ ἔξω ἔβαλον. | 13.47. "Again, the Kingdom of Heaven is like a dragnet, that was cast into the sea, and gathered some fish of every kind, 13.48. which, when it was filled, they drew up on the beach. They sat down, and gathered the good into containers, but the bad they threw away. |
|
7. Mishnah, Niddah, 6.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood •scales, seafood, bottom feeders Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 150| 6.9. "כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ קַשְׂקֶשֶׂת, יֶשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ סְנַפִּיר וְאֵין לוֹ קַשְׂקֵשֶׂת. כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ קַרְנַיִם, יֶשׁ לוֹ טְלָפַיִם. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ טְלָפַיִם וְאֵין לוֹ קַרְנָיִם: \n", | 6.9. "Whatever has scales has fins, But there are fish that have fins and no scales. Whatever has horns has [split] hooves; But there are animals that have [split] hooves and no horns.", |
|
8. Mishnah, Hulin, 8.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 122| 8.1. "כָּל הַבָּשָׂר אָסוּר לְבַשֵּׁל בְּחָלָב, חוּץ מִבְּשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים. וְאָסוּר לְהַעֲלוֹתוֹ עִם הַגְּבִינָה עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן, חוּץ מִבְּשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים. הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַבָּשָׂר, מֻתָּר בִּבְשַׂר דָּגִים וַחֲגָבִים. הָעוֹף עוֹלֶה עִם הַגְּבִינָה עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל, דִּבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, לֹא עוֹלֶה וְלֹא נֶאֱכָל. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, זוֹ מִקֻּלֵּי בֵית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחֻמְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. בְּאֵיזֶה שֻׁלְחָן אָמְרוּ, בַּשֻּׁלְחָן שֶׁאוֹכֵל עָלָיו. אֲבָל בַּשֻּׁלְחָן שֶׁסּוֹדֵר עָלָיו אֶת הַתַּבְשִׁיל, נוֹתֵן זֶה בְצַד זֶה וְאֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ: \n", | 8.1. "Every kind of flesh is forbidden to be cooked in milk, except for the flesh of fish and of locusts. And it is also forbidden to place it upon the table with cheese, except for the flesh of fish and of locusts. Fowl may be placed upon the table together with cheese but may not be eaten with it, the words of Bet Shammai. Bet Hillel say: it may neither be placed [upon the table together with cheese] nor eaten with it. Rabbi Yose said: this is one of the leniencies of Bet shammai and the stringencies of Bet Hillel . Concerning what table did they speak? Concerning the table upon which one eats; but on the table whereon the food is set out one may place the one beside the other, and not be concerned.", |
|
| 9. Anon., Epistle of Barnabas, 10 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood •scales, seafood, bottom feeders Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 150, 151 |
| 10. Palestinian Talmud, Bikkurim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 122 |
| 11. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 122 |
| 12. Novatianus, On The Jewish Foods, 3 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood •scales, seafood, bottom feeders Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 150, 151 |
13. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 20 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood, bottom feeders Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 151 | 20. Justin: Moreover, you were commanded to abstain from certain kinds of food, in order that you might keep God before your eyes while you ate and drank, seeing that you were prone and very ready to depart from His knowledge, as Moses also affirms: 'The people ate and drank, and rose up to play.' Exodus 32:6 And again: 'Jacob ate, and was satisfied, and grew fat; and he who was beloved kicked: he grew fat, he grew thick, he was enlarged, and he forsook God who had made him.' Deuteronomy 32:15 For it was told you by Moses in the book of Genesis, that God granted to Noah, being a just man, to eat of every animal, but not of flesh with the blood, which is dead. And as he was ready to say, as the green herbs, I anticipated him: Why do you not receive this statement, 'as the green herbs,' in the sense in which it was given by God, to wit, that just as God has granted the herbs for sustece to man, even so has He given the animals for the diet of flesh? But, you say, a distinction was laid down thereafter to Noah, because we do not eat certain herbs. As you interpret it, the thing is incredible. And first I shall not occupy myself with this, though able to say and to hold that every vegetable is food, and fit to be eaten. But although we discriminate between green herbs, not eating all, we refrain from eating some, not because they are common or unclean, but because they are bitter, or deadly, or thorny. But we lay hands on and take of all herbs which are sweet, very nourishing and good, whether they are marine or land plants. Thus also God by the mouth of Moses commanded you to abstain from unclean and improper and violent animals: when, moreover, though you were eating manna in the desert, and were seeing all those wondrous acts wrought for you by God, you made and worshipped the golden calf. Hence he cries continually, and justly, 'They are foolish children, in whom is no faith.' Deuteronomy 32:6, 20 |
|
14. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 22.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 122| 22.1. אִישׁ אִישׁ מִבֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט שׁוֹר אוֹ כֶשֶׂב אוֹ עֵז (ויקרא יז, ג), הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (קהלת ה, ח): וְיִתְרוֹן אֶרֶץ בַּכֹּל הִיא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר אֲפִלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאַתֶּם רוֹאִים יִתְרוֹן לָעוֹלָם, אַף הֵן בִּכְלַל הֲנָיָיתוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם הֵן, סִיבָא לְמֶעֱבַד חַבְלָא, סִיבָא לִמְסוֹךְ גַּנַּיָא, (קהלת ה, ח): מֶלֶךְ לְשָׂדֶה נֶעֱבָד, אֲפִלּוּ הוּא מֶלֶךְ וְהוּא שַׁלִּיט מִסּוֹף הָעוֹלָם וְעַד סוֹפוֹ, לְשָׂדֶה נֶעֱבָד, עֲבָדַת אַרְעָא עָבֵיד, לָא עֲבָדַת אַרְעָא וְלָא כְלוּם, לְפִיכָךְ (קהלת ה, ט): אֹהֵב כֶּסֶף לֹא יִשְׂבַּע כֶּסֶף, אוֹהֵב מָמוֹן לֹא יִשְׂבַּע מָמוֹן, (קהלת ה, ט): וְאֹהֵב בֶּהָמוֹן לֹא תְבוּאָה וגו', שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁהוֹמֶה וּמְהַמֶּה אַחַר הַמָּמוֹן וְקַרְקַע אֵין לוֹ מָה הֲנָאָה יֵשׁ לוֹ. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי תַּנְחוּם וְרַבִּי חָנִין בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, כְּתִיב (יחזקאל כז, כט): וְיָרְדוּ מֵאֳנִיּוֹתֵיהֶם וגו' [על] [אל] הָאָרֶץ יַעֲמֹדוּ, וְכִי אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁעַל הָאָרֶץ הָיוּ עוֹמְדִין, אֶלָּא הֲרֵי שֶׁשָּׁקְעָה סְפִינָתוֹ שֶׁל אֶחָד בַּיָּם וְיֵשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע עַל הָאָרֶץ יַעֲמֹד אִם אֵין לוֹ קַרְקַע אֵין לְךָ הֶבֶל גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אָמַר וְיִתְרוֹן אֶרֶץ בַּכֹּל הִיא, אֲפִלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁאַתָּה רוֹאֶה אוֹתָן יִתְרוֹן לְמַתַּן תּוֹרָה, כְּגוֹן הִלְכוֹת צִיצִית תְּפִלִּין וּמְזוּזָה, אַף הֵן בִּכְלַל מַתַּן תּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ט, י): וַיִּתֵּן ה' אֵלַי אֶת שְׁנֵי לוּחֹת הָאֲבָנִים כְּתֻבִים בְּאֶצְבַּע אֱלֹהִים וַעֲלֵיהֶם כְּכָל הַדְּבָרִים. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר וַעֲלֵיהֶם כְּכָל הַדְּבָרִים, וּכְתִיב (דברים ח, א): כָּל הַמִּצְוָה אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי וגו', כָּל כְּכָל, דְּבָרִים הַדְּבָרִים, מִצְוָה הַמִּצְוָה, מִקְרָא מִשְׁנָה הֲלָכוֹת תַּלְמוּד תּוֹסֶפְתּוֹת אַגָּדוֹת וַאֲפִלּוּ מַה שֶּׁתַּלְמִיד וָתִיק עָתִיד לוֹמַר לִפְנֵי רַבּוֹ, כֻּלָּן נֶאֶמְרוּ לְמשֶׁה בְּסִינַי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (קהלת א, י): יֵשׁ דָּבָר שֶׁיֹּאמַר רְאֵה זֶה חָדָשׁ הוּא, חֲבֵרוֹ מֵשִׁיב עָלָיו (קהלת א, י): כְּבָר הָיָה לְעוֹלָמִים. מֶלֶךְ לְשָׂדֶה נֶעֱבָד, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: מֶלֶךְ זֶה בַּעַל תַּלְמוּד, לְשָׂדֶה נֶעֱבָד זֶה בַּעַל מִשְׁנָה, שֶׁהוּא סוֹדֵר הֲלָכָה לְפָנָיו. וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר מֶלֶךְ זֶה בַּעַל מִשְׁנָה, לְשָׂדֶה נֶעֱבָד זֶה בַּעַל תַּלְמוּד, שֶׁהוּא מְקַבֵּל הֲלָכָה לְפָנָיו, לְפִיכָךְ אֹהֵב כֶּסֶף לֹא יִשְׂבַּע כֶּסֶף, אוֹהֵב תּוֹרָה לֹא יִשְׂבַּע תּוֹרָה, וְאֹהֵב בֶּהָמוֹן וגו', שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁהוֹמֶה וּמְהַמֶּה אַחֲרֵי תוֹרָה וְתַלְמוּד אֵין לוֹ, מָה הֲנָאָה יֵשׁ לוֹ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי אַבָּא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אַחָא אוֹמֵר לָמַד וְלֹא לִמֵּד אֵין לְךָ הֶבֶל גָּדוֹל מִזֶּה. 22.1. דָּבָר אַחֵר, אִישׁ אִישׁ מִבֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (תהלים קמו, ז): עֹשֶׂה מִשְׁפָּט לַעֲשׁוּקִים, אֵלּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, דִּכְתִיב בְּהוֹן (ירמיה נ, לג): כֹּה אָמַר ה' צְבָאוֹת עֲשׁוּקִים בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבְנֵי יְהוּדָה. (תהלים קמו, ז): נֹתֵן לֶחֶם לָרְעֵבִים, אֵלּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, דִּכְתִיב (דברים ח, ג): וַיְעַנְךָ וַיַרְעִיבֶךָ. (תהלים קמו, ז): ה' מַתִּיר אֲסוּרִים, מַה שֶּׁאָסַרְתִּי לְךָ הִתַּרְתִּי לְךָ, אָסַרְתִּי לְךָ חֵלֶב בְּהֵמָה וְהִתַּרְתִּי לְךָ בְּחַיָּה, אָסַרְתִּי לְךָ גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה בְּחַיָּה וְהִתַּרְתִּי לְךָ בְּעוֹף, אָסַרְתִּי לְךָ שְׁחִיטָה בְּעוֹפוֹת וְהִתַּרְתִּי לְךָ בְּדָגִים. רַבִּי אַבָּא וְרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר יוֹתֵר מִמַּה שֶּׁאָסַרְתִּי לְךָ הִתַּרְתִּי לָךְ, דַּם הַנִּדָּה אָסַרְתִּי לְךָ הִתַּרְתִּי לְךָ דַּם בְּתוּלִים, אָסַרְתִּי לְךָ אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ הִתַּרְתִּי לְךָ אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיָה. אֵשֶׁת אָח הִתַּרְתִּי לְךָ יְבָמָה, אִשָּׁה וְאֶת אֲחוֹתָהּ בְּחַיֵּיהֶם הִתַּרְתִּי לְךָ לְאַחַר מִיתָה, לְבִישַׁת כִּלְאַיִם הִתַּרְתִּי לְךָ סָדִין בְּצִיצִית, בְּשַׂר חֲזִיר הִתַּרְתִּי לְךָ דָּג שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ שִׁבּוּטָא, אֶת הַחֵלֶב הִתַּרְתִּי לְךָ אֶת הַשֻּׁמָּן, אֶת הַדָּם הִתַּרְתִּי לְךָ טְחוֹל, בָּשָׂר בְּחָלָב הִתַּרְתִּי לְךָ אֶת הַכְּחָל. רַבִּי מְנַחֲמָא וְרַבִּי בֵּבַי וְרַבִּי אַחָא וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אָמְרוּ תַּחַת מַה שֶּׁאָסַרְתִּי לְךָ הִתַּרְתִּי לָךְ, תַּחַת אִסּוּר דָּגִים לִוְיָתָן דָּג טָהוֹר, תַּחַת אִסּוּר עוֹפוֹת זִיז עוֹף טָהוֹר הוּא, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (תהלים נ, יא): יָדַעְתִּי כָּל עוֹף הָרִים וְזִיז שָׂדַי עִמָּדִי. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי סִימוֹן בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא פּוֹרֵשׂ אֶת כְּנָפָיו מַכְּהֶה גַּלְגַּל חַמָּה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (איוב לט, כו): הֲמִבִּינָתְךָ יַאֲבֶר נֵץ יִפְרֹשׂ כְּנָפָו לְתֵימָן, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ זִיז, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ כַּמָּה מִינֵי טַעַם מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה. תַּחַת אִסּוּר בְּהֵמוֹת (תהלים נ, י): בְּהֵמוֹת בְּהַרְרֵי אָלֶף, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ וְרַבָּנָן, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר בְּהֵמָה אַחַת הִיא וּרְבוּצָה עַל אֶלֶף הָרִים וְאֶלֶף הָרִים מְגַדְּלִין לָהּ כָּל מִינֵי עֲשָׂבִים וְהִיא אוֹכֶלֶת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב מ, כ): כִּי בוּל הָרִים יִשְׂאוּ לוֹ. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר בְּהֵמָה אַחַת הִיא רְבוּצָה עַל אֶלֶף הָרִים וְאֶלֶף הָרִים מְגַדְּלִין לָהּ מַאֲכָל לַאֲכִילָתָן שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים, וְהִיא אוֹכֶלֶת, מַאי טַעְמָא (ישעיה סה, י): וְהָיָה הַשָּׁרוֹן לִנְוֵה צֹאן. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי בְּהֵמָה אַחַת הִיא וּרְבוּצָה עַל אֶלֶף הָרִים וְאֶלֶף הָרִים מְגַדְּלִין לָהּ מִינֵי בְּהֵמוֹת, וְהִיא אוֹכֶלֶת, מַאי טַעְמָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב מ, כ): וְכָל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה יְשַׂחֲקוּ שָׁם, וְאֶפְשָׁר כֵּן אִית בְּעִיר אָכֵיל בְּעִיר, אָמַר רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא גְּדוֹלִים הֵם מַעֲשֵׂה הָאֱלֹהִים מַה מְּשֻׁנִּין הֵם מַעֲשָׂיו שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, וּמֵהֵיכָן הוּא שׁוֹתֶה, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר כָּל מַה שֶּׁהַיַּרְדֵּן מַכְנִיס אַחַת לְשִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים הוּא עוֹשֶׂה גְּמִיעָה אֶחָת, מַאי טַעְמָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב מ, כג): הֵן יַעֲשֹׁק נָהָר וְלֹא יַחְפּוֹז. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר כָּל מַה שֶּׁהַיַּרְדֵּן מַכְנִיס לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֳדָשִׁים הוּא עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ גְּמִיעָה אַחַת, מַאי טַעְמָא (איוב מ, כג): יִבְטַח כִּי יָגִיחַ יַרְדֵּן אֶל פִּיהוּ, וְיֵשׁ בָּהֶם לִכְלוּךְ פֶּה, רַב הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר אֵין בָּהֶם לִכְלוּךְ פֶּה, וּמֵהֵיכָן הוּא שׁוֹתֶה, תָּנֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי נָהָר יוֹצֵא מֵעֵדֶן וּשְׁמוֹ יוּבַל וּמִשָּׁם הוּא שׁוֹתֶה, מַאי טַעְמָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ירמיה יז, ח): וְעַל יוּבַל יְשַׁלַּח שָׁרָשָׁיו. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר (איוב יב, ז): וְאוּלָם שְׁאַל נָא בְהֵמוֹת וְתֹרֶךָּ, זֶה בְּהֵמוֹת, (איוב יב, ז): וְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וְיַגֶּד לָךְ, זֶה זִיז שָׂדָי, (איוב יב, ח): אוֹ שִׂיחַ לָאָרֶץ וְתֹרֶךָּ, זֶה גַּן עֵדֶן, (איוב יב, ח): וִיסַפְּרוּ לְךָ דְּגֵי הַיָּם, זֶה לִוְיָתָן, (איוב יב, ט): מִי לֹא יָדַע בְּכָל אֵלֶּה כִּי יַד ה' עָשְׂתָה זֹאת. | |
|
15. Tertullian, Against Marcion, 2.2 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood •scales, seafood, bottom feeders Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 150 | 2.2. We have now, then, cleared our way to the contemplation of the Almighty God, the Lord and Maker of the universe. His greatness, as I think, is shown in this, that from the beginning He made Himself known: He never hid Himself, but always shone out brightly, even before the time of Romulus, to say nothing of that of Tiberius; with the exception indeed that the heretics, and they alone, know Him not, although they take such pains about Him. They on this account suppose that another god must be assumed to exist, because they are more able to censure than deny Him whose existence is so evident, deriving all their thoughts about God from the deductions of sense; just as if some blind man, or a man of imperfect vision, chose to assume some other sun of milder and healthier ray, because he sees not that which is the object of sight. There is, O man, but one sun which rules this world and even when you think otherwise of him, he is best and useful; and although to you he may seem too fierce and baneful, or else, it may be, too sordid and corrupt, he yet is true to the laws of his own existence. Unable as you are to see through those laws, you would be equally impotent to bear the rays of any other sun, were there one, however great and good. Now, you whose sight is defective in respect of the inferior god, what is your view of the sublimer One? Really you are too lenient to your weakness; and set not yourself to the proof of things, holding God to be certainly, undoubtedly, and therefore sufficiently known, the very moment you have discovered Him to exist, though you know Him not except on the side where He has willed His proofs to lie. But you do not even deny God intelligently, you treat of Him ignorantly; nay, you accuse Him with a semblance of intelligence, whom if you did but know Him, you would never accuse, nay, never treat of. You give Him His name indeed, but you deny the essential truth of that name, that is, the greatness which is called God; not acknowledging it to be such as, were it possible for it to have been known to man in every respect, would not be greatness. Isaiah even so early, with the clearness of an apostle, foreseeing the thoughts of heretical hearts, asked, Who has known the mind of the Lord? For who has been His counsellor? With whom took He counsel?...or who taught Him knowledge, and showed to Him the way of understanding? With whom the apostle agreeing exclaims, Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! Romans 11:33 His judgments unsearchable, as being those of God the Judge; and His ways past finding out, as comprising an understanding and knowledge which no man has ever shown to Him, except it may be those critics of the Divine Being, who say, God ought not to have been this, and He ought rather to have been that; as if any one knew what is in God, except the Spirit of God. 1 Corinthians 2:11 Moreover, having the spirit of the world, and in the wisdom of God by wisdom knowing not God, 1 Corinthians 1:21 they seem to themselves to be wiser than God; because, as the wisdom of the world is foolishness with God, so also the wisdom of God is folly in the world's esteem. We, however, know that the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1:25 Accordingly, God is then especially great, when He is small to man; then especially good, when not good in man's judgment; then especially unique, when He seems to man to be two or more. Now, if from the very first the natural man, not receiving the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Corinthians 2:14 has deemed God's law to be foolishness, and has therefore neglected to observe it; and as a further consequence, by his not having faith, even that which he seems to have has been taken from him - such as the grace of paradise and the friendship of God, by means of which he might have known all things of God, if he had continued in his obedience- what wonder is it, if he, reduced to his material nature, and banished to the toil of tilling the ground, has in his very labour, downcast and earth-gravitating as it was, handed on that earth-derived spirit of the world to his entire race, wholly natural and heretical as it is, and not receiving the things which belong to God? Or who will hesitate to declare the great sin of Adam to have been heresy, when he committed it by the choice of his own will rather than of God's? Except that Adam never said to his fig-tree, Why have you made me thus? He confessed that he was led astray; and he did not conceal the seducer. He was a very rude heretic. He was disobedient; but yet he did not blaspheme his Creator, nor blame that Author of his being, Whom from the beginning of his life he had found to be so good and excellent, and Whom he had perhaps made his own judge from the very first. |
|
16. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 122| 18a. ומודה רבי מאיר שאם יש בין נסר לנסר כמלא נסר שמניח פסל ביניהם וכשרה,בשלמא למ"ד בין באמצע בין מן הצד בד אמות משום הכי כשרה אלא למאן דאמר באמצע בארבעה אמאי כשרה,אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע הכא בסוכה דלא הויא אלא שמנה מצומצמות עסקינן ויהיב נסר ופסל ונסר ופסל ונסר ופסל מהאי גיסא ונסר ופסל ונסר ופסל ונסר ופסל מהאי גיסא,דהוו להו שני פסלין באמצע ואיכא הכשר סוכה באמצע,אמר אביי אויר שלשה בסוכה גדולה ומיעטו בין בקנים בין בשפודין הוי מיעוט בסוכה קטנה בקנים הוי מיעוט בשפודין לא הוי מיעוט,והני מילי מן הצד אבל באמצע פליגי בה רב אחא ורבינא חד אמר יש לבוד באמצע וחד אמר אין לבוד באמצע,מ"ט דמ"ד יש לבוד באמצע דתניא קורה היוצאה מכותל זה ואינה נוגעת בכותל אחר וכן שתי קורות אחת יוצאה מכותל זה ואחת יוצאה מכותל אחר ואינן נוגעות זו בזו פחות משלשה אינו צריך להביא קורה אחרת שלשה צריך להביא קורה אחרת,ואידך שאני קורות דרבנן,מאי טעמא דמאן דאמר אין לבוד באמצע דתנן ארובה שבבית ובה פותח טפח טומאה בבית כולו טמא מה שכנגד ארובה טהור טומאה כנגד ארובה כל הבית כולו טהור,אין בארובה פותח טפח טומאה בבית כנגד ארובה טהור טומאה כנגד ארובה כל הבית כולו טהור,ואידך שאני הלכות טומאה דהכי גמירי להו,דרש רבי יהודה בר אלעאי בית שנפחת וסיכך על גביו כשרה אמר לפניו ר' ישמעאל ברבי יוסי רבי פריש כך פירש אבא ארבע אמות פסולה פחות מארבע אמות כשרה,דרש רבי יהודה בר אלעאי אברומא שריא אמר לפניו רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי רבי פריש כך אמר אבא של מקום פלוני אסורה של מקום פלוני מותרת,כי הא דאמר אביי האי צחנתא דבב נהרא שריא מאי טעמא אילימא משום דרדיפי מיא והאי דג טמא כיון דלית ליה חוט השדרה לא מצי קאים והא קא חזינן דקאי,אלא משום דמליחי מיא והאי דג טמא כיון דלית ליה קילפי לא מצי קאי והא קא חזינן דקאי אלא משום דלא מרבה טינייהו דג טמא אמר רבינא והאידנא דשפכי נהר איתן ונהר גמדא להתם אסירא,אתמר סיכך על גבי אכסדרה שיש לה פצימין כשרה שאין לה פצימין אביי אמר כשרה ורבא אמר פסולה אביי אמר כשרה | 18a. b And Rabbi Meir concedes that if /b there is b between /b one b board /b and another b board /b a gap the b complete /b width b of a board, /b then b one places /b fit roofing from the b waste /b of the threshing floor and the winepress, b and /b the i sukka /i b is fit. /b ,The Gemara clarifies: b Granted, according to the one who said: Both along the side and in the center /b a i sukka /i is rendered unfit b with /b a measure of b four cubits /b of unfit roofing, it is b due to that /b reason that the i sukka /i under discussion is b fit, /b as none of the boards is four cubits wide. b However, according to the one who said /b that a i sukka /i is rendered unfit b with /b a measure of b four /b handbreadths of unfit roofing b in the center, why /b is the i sukka /i b fit? /b Each board is capable on its own of rendering the i sukka /i unfit., b Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Here, we are dealing with a i sukka /i that is exactly eight /b cubits, i.e., forty-eight handbreadths, wide, and one began placing the roofing from the side. b And he places /b a four-handbreadth b board and /b then four handbreadths of b waste, and /b another b board and waste, and a board and waste, from this side, /b so that the total measure of roofing from that side is twenty-four handbreadths. b And /b then b a beam and waste, a beam and waste, and a beam and waste, from that side, /b so that the total measure of roofing from that side is twenty-four handbreadths.,The result is b that /b the i sukka /i b has two /b four-handbreadth stretches of b waste in the middle /b of the i sukka /i , totaling eight handbreadths. In that case, b there is /b the minimum measure of fit roofing required for b fitness of a i sukka /i in the middle, /b and everyone agrees that the unfit roofing in the rest of the i sukka /i cannot render it unfit. Since the unfit roofing measures less than four cubits on either side, the i sukka /i is fit both according to the principle of curved wall and according to the opinion that unfit roofing renders the i sukka /i unfit with four cubits.,§ b Abaye said: /b If there is b space /b measuring b three /b handbreadths b in a large i sukka /i , /b which is defined as one larger than seven by seven handbreadths, b and one diminished /b the space, b whether /b he did so b with branches, /b fit for roofing, or b whether /b he did so b with /b metal b skewers, /b unfit roofing, b it is /b an effective b diminution, /b as there is neither sufficient space nor sufficient unfit roofing to render the i sukka /i unfit. However, b in a small i sukka /i , /b if one diminished the space b with branches it is /b an effective b diminution; /b if he diminished the space b with skewers, it is not /b an effective b diminution /b and the i sukka /i is unfit. The three handbreadths of skewers, while insufficient to render the i sukka /i unfit, diminish the fit area of the i sukka /i to the point that the measure that remains does not constitute a fit i sukka /i .,The Gemara notes: b And this applies only /b if the space is b along the side /b of the i sukka /i , in which case the principle of i lavud /i applies. b However, /b if the space is b in the center /b of the i sukka /i , b Rav Aḥa and Ravina disagree /b with regard to the ruling. b One said: /b The principle of b i lavud /i is /b applied even b in the center /b of the i sukka /i . b And one said: /b The principle of b i lavud /i is not /b applied b in the center /b of the i sukka /i . Even if one diminished the space, the two sides of the roofing are not considered joined.,The Gemara explains: b What is the rationale /b for the opinion b of the one who said: /b The principle of b i lavud /i is /b applied even b in the center /b of the i sukka /i ? It is b as it is taught /b in the i Tosefta /i : With regard to a cross b beam /b of the merging of alleyways b that projects from this wall /b of an alleyway b but does not touch the other /b opposite b wall, and similarly, /b with regard to b two /b cross b beams, one projecting from this wall and one projecting from the other /b opposite b wall and they do not touch each other, /b if there is a gap of b less than three /b handbreadths between the beam and the wall or between the two beams respectively, b one need not bring another /b cross b beam /b to render the alleyway fit for one to carry within it, as they are considered joined based on the principle of i lavud /i . However, if there is a gap of b three /b handbreadths, b one must bring another /b cross b beam. /b Apparently, the principle of i lavud /i is applied even in the center.,The Gemara asks: b And the other /b Sage, who holds that i lavud /i does not apply in the center, how would he explain the i Tosefta /i ? The Gemara clarifies that he would say that b beams are different /b because the prohibition against carrying in an alleyway is a decree b by rabbinic /b law, and it is a rabbinic ordice that beams may be placed at the entrance to the alleyway to permit carrying therein, the Sages were lenient. Therefore, proof cannot be cited from the case of the beams with regard to other situations., b What is the reason /b for the opinion b of the one who said: /b The principle of b i lavud /i does not /b apply b in the center? /b It is b as we learned /b in a mishna: In the case of b a skylight in the /b roof of a b house whose opening is one /b square b handbreadth, /b if there is a source of b ritual impurity /b imparted by a corpse b inside the house, /b all the objects in b the entire /b house become b ritually impure, /b as the legal status of the roof is that of a tent over a corpse. However, the objects b that are /b directly b opposite the skylight are ritually pure, /b as the roof does not cover that part of the house. If the source of b ritual impurity /b is itself situated b aligned with the skylight, /b all the objects in b the entire house are ritually pure, /b as there is no roof over the source of impurity., b If the skylight does not have /b an opening of b a square handbreadth /b and b there is ritual impurity in the house, /b the objects b opposite the skylight /b remain b ritually pure. /b If the source of b ritual impurity is aligned with the skylight, /b the objects in b the entire house are ritually pure. /b Apparently, the principle of i lavud /i is not applied in the center; if it were, all the objects in the house would become ritually impure regardless of the location of the source of impurity. The opening of the skylight should be considered closed, as the distance between the two sides of its opening is less than three handbreadths.,The Gemara asks: b And the other /b Sage, who holds that i lavud /i applies in the center, how would he explain the mishna? The Gemara answers: b The i halakhot /i of ritual impurity are different, as that /b is the way b they learned them /b through tradition. The i halakhot /i of tents and ritual impurity are i halakhot /i transmitted to Moses from Sinai. Therefore, their details are unique, and other areas of i halakha /i cannot be derived from them.,§ b Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai taught: A house that was breached and one roofed over it /b is a b fit /b i sukka /i . b Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: My teacher, explain /b your opinion. Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai said that b this is how /b my b father explained /b it: If the ceiling between the wall and the breach is b four cubits /b long, the i sukka /i is b unfit. /b If it is b less than four cubits, /b the i sukka /i is b fit. /b , b Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai taught: /b With regard to the b abramis [ i avroma /i ], /b it is b permitted /b to eat it, despite the fact that it is a very small fish that is typically caught in a net with many similar, non-kosher, fish, and it is difficult to distinguish between them. b Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to him: My teacher, explain /b your opinion. Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai said that b this is how /b my b father explained it: /b The abramis found in the rivers b of place so-and-so, /b where there are also non-kosher fish, is b prohibited; /b however, the abramis b of /b a different b place so-and-so, /b where there are no non-kosher fish, is b permitted. /b ,The Gemara notes that this is b similar /b to b that which Abaye said: These small fish [ i tzaḥanta /i ] of the Bav River are permitted. /b The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that Abaye unequivocally permitted eating these fish and was not concerned about the potential presence of non-kosher fish among them? b If we say /b that it is b due to /b the fact b that the water flows rapidly, and these non-kosher fish, since they do not have a spinal cord, are not able to exist /b in that water, as the current carries the non-kosher fish out of the Bav River, and consequently all the remaining fish are kosher, that is not the case. b Don’t we see that /b non-kosher fish b exist /b in rivers with strong currents?, b Rather, /b perhaps Abaye permitted it b because the water is salty, and these non-kosher fish are not able to exist /b in that water b because they do not have scales. /b This, too, is not the case, as b don’t we see that /b non-kosher fish b exist /b in salty water? b Rather, /b Abaye permitted the small fish in the Bav River b because the mud in that /b river b is not /b suited for b non-kosher fish to reproduce. /b The conditions in the river render it an unproductive habitat for non-kosher fish. b Ravina said: And today, since /b the government built canals between the rivers, and the b Eitan River and /b the b Gamda River spill into /b the Bav, it is b prohibited /b to eat the small fish without thorough inspection.,§ b It was stated /b that the i amora’im /i disagree: b If one roofed a portico that has posts /b on its open side, the i sukka /i is b fit. /b If one roofed a portico b that does not have posts /b on its open side, b Abaye said: /b The i sukka /i is b fit, /b and b Rava said: /b The i sukka /i is b unfit. /b The Gemara elaborates: b Abaye said: /b The i sukka /i is b fit, /b |
|
17. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 122| 24a. ואם אינו ענין לאכילה תנהו ענין לאיסור הנאה,אי מה כאן בשריפה אף כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה אמר קרא (ויקרא ו, כג) בקדש באש תשרף בקדש בשריפה ואין כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה,והאי בקדש באש תשרף להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדרבי שמעון דתניא רבי שמעון אומר בקדש באש תשרף לימד על חטאת ששורפין אותה בקדש ואין לי אלא זו בלבד פסולי קדשי קדשים ואמורי קדשים קלים מנין תלמוד לומר (וכל) בקדש באש תשרף,אמר ליה רבי יונתן רבך מהאי קרא קאמר לה (שמות כט, לד) ואם יותר מבשר המלואים ומן הלחם עד הבקר וגו' שאין תלמוד לומר לא יאכל ומה תלמוד לומר לא יאכל אם אינו ענין לגופיה דהא כתיב (שמות כט, לד) ושרפת את הנותר באש תנהו ענין לשאר איסורין שבתורה ואם אינו ענין לאכילה תנהו ענין לאיסור הנאה,אי מה כאן בשריפה אף כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה אמר קרא ושרפת את הנותר נותר בשריפה ואין כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה,והאי לא יאכל להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדרבי אלעזר דאמר ר' אלעזר לא יאכל כי קדש הוא כל שבקדש פסול בא הכתוב ליתן לא תעשה על אכילתו,אמר אביי לעולם מקרא קמא ואיפוך דליכתוב באש תשרף ולא בעי לא תאכל מה תלמוד לומר לא תאכל אם אינו ענין לגופו דנפקא ליה מדרבי אלעזר תנהו ענין לכל איסורין שבתורה ואם אינו ענין לאכילה תנהו ענין לאיסור הנאה,אי מה כאן בשריפה אף כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה אמר קרא הנותר הנותר בשריפה ואין כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה,אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי ואימא ליחודי ליה לאו לגופיה הוא דאתא דאי מדרבי אלעזר אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות,אלא אמר רב פפא מהכא (ויקרא ז, יט) והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל באש ישרף שאין תלמוד לומר לא יאכל מה תלמוד לומר לא יאכל,אם אינו ענין לגופו דהא נפקא ליה מקל וחומר ממעשר הקל ומה מעשר הקל אמרה תורה (דברים כו, יד) לא בערתי ממנו בטמא בשר קדש חמור לא כל שכן,וכי תימא אין מזהירין מן הדין הקישא הוא דכתיב (דברים יב, יז) לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך ובכורות בקרך וגו',מה תלמוד לומר לא יאכל אם אינו ענין לגופו תנהו ענין לכל איסורין שבתורה ואם אינו ענין לאכילה תנהו ענין להנאה,אי מה כאן בשריפה אף כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה אמר קרא הנותר הנותר בשריפה ואין כל איסורין שבתורה בשריפה,אמר לי' רבינא לרב אשי ואימא לעבור עליו בשני לאוין לאו מי אמר אביי אכל פוטיתא לוקה ארבע,נמלה לוקה חמש | 24a. b And if it does not /b apply to b the matter of /b the prohibition against b eating, /b as the prohibition against eating these items has already been mentioned, b apply it to the matter of the prohibition of /b deriving b benefit. /b ,The Gemara continues: b Lest /b one say that the verse indicates that b just as here, /b the sin-offering is disposed of b with burning, so too, all the prohibited /b items b in the Torah /b must be disposed of b with burning, /b therefore b the verse said: “In the sacred place…shall be burnt with fire” /b (Leviticus 6:23). This indicates that only that which is disqualified b in the sacred place /b is disposed of b with burning, but all /b other b prohibited /b items b in the Torah /b need b not /b be disposed of b with burning. /b ,Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani asked: b And did this /b verse: b “In the sacred place…shall be burnt with fire,” come to /b teach b this /b i halakha /i ? b It is needed /b to teach b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon says: “In the sacred place…shall be burnt with fire”; /b this b taught that one /b must b burn a /b disqualified b sin-offering in the sacred place, /b and not outside the Temple. b And I have only /b derived b this, /b meaning the sin-offering. b From where do I derive that disqualified offerings of the most sacred order and portions consumed /b on the altar, such as the fats b of offerings of minor sanctity /b that become impure, are burned in the Temple courtyard? b The verse states: “In the sacred place…shall be burnt with fire.” /b This indicates that any disqualified offering must be burned in the sacred place.,The Sage who taught this i halakha /i to Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani b said to him: Rabbi Yonatan, your teacher, said that /b same i halakha /i b from this verse: “And if the flesh of the consecration /b offering, b or of the bread, remains until the morning, /b then you shall burn the leftover with fire; it shall not be eaten, because it is sacred” (Exodus 29:34). b As /b there is b no /b need for b the verse to state: “It shall not be eaten,” what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: “It shall not be eaten”? If it does not refer to the /b subject b matter itself, as it is /b already b written /b explicitly: b “Then you shall burn the leftover with fire,” /b which indicates that one may not eat it, b refer it to the matter of the other prohibitions in the Torah. And if it does not refer to the matter of /b the prohibition against b eating, /b as eating these items is explicitly prohibited, b refer it to the matter of the prohibition of /b deriving b benefit. /b This indicates that it is prohibited for one to derive benefit from any item that it is prohibited for him to eat.,The Gemara continues: b Lest /b one say that the verse indicates that b just as here, /b the sin-offering is disposed of b with burning, so too, all the prohibited /b items b in the Torah, /b from which one may not benefit, must be disposed of b with burning, /b therefore b the verse said: “You shall burn the leftover,” /b indicating that the b leftover /b sacrificial meat must be disposed of b with burning; however, all /b other b prohibitions in the Torah /b need b not /b be disposed of b with burning, /b despite the fact that it is prohibited to derive benefit from them.,The Gemara challenges: b And did this /b phrase: b “It shall not be eaten,” come /b to teach b this /b prohibition against deriving benefit? b This /b phrase b is needed /b to teach b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar said /b with regard to the statement in the verse: b “It shall not be eaten, because it is sacred,” /b that b the verse comes to place a negative /b mitzva of b eating on whatever has been /b rendered b disqualified in the sacred place. /b In other words, this verse teaches a general i halakha /i that one who eats from offerings that have been disqualified in the Temple transgresses a negative mitzva and is liable to be flogged. It teaches nothing with regard to a prohibition against deriving benefit., b Abaye said: Actually, /b derive this i halakha /i b from the first verse /b cited by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: “And any sin-offering, of which any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the sacred place, shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire” (Leviticus 6:23). b And reverse /b the construct of his exposition. b Let /b the verse b write: “It shall be burnt with fire,” and it /b will b not need /b to write: b “Shall not be eaten.” /b For b what /b purpose then does b the verse state: “It shall not be eaten”? If it does not apply to /b the subject b matter itself, as that was /b already b derived from /b the statement of b Rabbi Elazar /b that whatever has been rendered disqualified in the sacred place may not be eaten, b apply it to all /b other b prohibitions in the Torah, /b including leavened bread on Passover and a stoned ox. b And if it does not /b apply to the prohibition against b eating, /b which is written explicitly, then b apply it to the prohibition of /b deriving b benefit. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Lest /b one say that the verse indicates that b just as here, /b the leftover sacrificial meat is disposed of b with burning, so too, all the prohibited /b items b in the Torah, /b from which one may not benefit, must be disposed of b with burning, /b therefore b the verse said: /b “You shall burn b the leftover,” /b indicating that the b leftover /b sacrificial meat must b be /b disposed of b with burning; however, all /b other b prohibited /b items b in the Torah /b need b not /b be disposed of b with burning. /b , b Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And /b why do you hold that the phrase: “You shall not eat,” describing the sin-offering that was sacrificed inside the Sanctuary, is not needed for other purposes? b Say /b that this expression b comes /b in order b to designate a negative /b mitzva for this prohibition b itself. As, if /b this prohibition were derived only b from /b the source quoted by b Rabbi Elazar, /b there will be a prohibition to eat the meat of the sin-offering whose blood was brought into the sanctuary; however, one would not be liable to be flogged for violating it, because b one is not flogged for /b violating b a negative /b mitzva b stated in general terms. /b One is not flogged for violating a negative mitzva that contains several different prohibitions, such as this one, which refers to all disqualified offerings. This is because the negative mitzva is formulated too broadly. Therefore, it is possible to say that when the Torah states: “You shall not eat” with regard to this issue, it is teaching that there is a particular prohibition here and that one is flogged for violating it. If so, the verse cannot indicate a general prohibition against deriving benefit., b Rather, /b this suggestion should be rejected, and b Rav Pappa said /b that one derives this i halakha /i b from here: “And the flesh that touches any impure thing shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire. /b And as for the flesh, every one that is pure may eat of it” (Leviticus 7:19). b As /b there is b no /b need for b the verse to state: “It shall not be eaten,” what /b does it mean when b the verse states: “It shall not be eaten”? /b , b If it does not /b refer to the subject b matter itself, as that /b can be b derived by /b means of b an i a fortiori /i /b inference b from /b the second b tithe, /b the i halakhot /i of b which /b are more b lenient /b than those of offerings, then it must refer to something else. As it is possible to say: b If /b with regard to the second b tithe, which is /b more b lenient /b because it does not have the status of an offering, b the Torah said /b that when one recites the confession over the tithes, when destroying the tithes remaining in one’s possession that had not yet been given to the appropriate recipient, he says: “I have not eaten from it in my mourning, b neither have I removed it while impure” /b (Deuteronomy 26:14), indicating that it is prohibited for one to remove tithes while impure, then with regard to b consecrated meat, /b which is more b stringent, all the more so /b is it b not /b clear that it may not be eaten while a person is impure?, b And if you say /b that there is a general principle that b we do not warn, /b i.e., we may not deduce a prohibition, b through logical derivation /b alone, then one could respond that his issue is not only derived through an i a fortiori /i inference; rather, b it is /b also derived from an analogy based on b a juxtaposition. As it is written: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain, or of your wine, or of your oil, or the firstborn of your herd /b or of your flock, nor any of your vows which you have vowed, nor your voluntary offerings, nor the offering of your hand” (Deuteronomy 12:17). Since the verse itself juxtaposes tithes to offerings, it indicates that there is a prohibition with regard to offerings just as there is with regard to tithes.,The Gemara continues explaining Rav Pappa’s opinion: For b what purpose /b then does b the verse state: “It shall not be eaten” /b with regard to impure consecrated meat? b If it does not /b apply to b the /b subject b matter /b of this verse b itself, /b as that prohibition is derived from the second tithe, then b apply it to the matter of all prohibited /b items b in the Torah. And if it does not /b apply to the prohibition against b eating, /b since that is clear, b apply it to the prohibition of /b deriving b benefit. /b ,And if you say: b Lest /b one say that the verse indicates that b just as here, /b the meat that became impure in the Temple is disposed of b with burning, so too, all the prohibited /b items b in the Torah /b must be disposed of b with burning, /b therefore b the verse said: “The leftover,” /b indicating b that the leftover /b sacrificial meat must be disposed of b with burning; however, all /b other b prohibited /b items b in the Torah /b need b not /b be disposed of b with burning. /b , b Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And say /b that this expression: “It shall not be eaten,” comes to teach not the prohibition against deriving benefit, but rather that one who transgresses this negative mitzva b violates two prohibitions. /b And there is precedent for such an explanation, as b didn’t Abaye say /b with regard to a parallel case: b If one ate a small water creature /b [ b i putita /i /b ], b he is flogged /b with b four /b sets of lashes because one violates four prohibitions when eating such a creature? Two of these prohibitions are found in the verse that discusses all types of creeping animals: “You shall not make yourselves detestable with any swarming thing that swarms, neither shall you make yourselves impure with them, that you should be defiled by them” (Leviticus 11:43). A third prohibition applies to creeping animals that live in the water, as the verses say: “And all that have neither fins nor scales…They shall be a detestable thing unto you; you shall not eat of their flesh” (Leviticus 11:10–11). A fourth prohibition is cited in the verse: “And whatever does not have fins and scales you shall not eat; it is impure unto you” (Deuteronomy 14:10).,Similarly, if one ate b an ant, he is flogged /b with b five /b sets of lashes, two sets for the previously mentioned prohibitions of eating a creeping animal, a third based on the verse: “And every creeping thing that swarms upon the earth is a detestable thing; it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41), and a fourth based on the verse: “All creeping things that swarm upon the earth, them you shall not eat; for they are a detestable thing” (Leviticus 11:42). A fifth prohibition is stated in the verse: “You shall not make yourselves impure through every creeping thing that swarms upon the earth” (Leviticus 11:44). |
|
18. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood •scales, seafood, bottom feeders Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 122, 150| 51b. והא שבת דמיחייב בפאה ומיחייב במעשר דתנן כל שחייב בפאה חייב במעשר,ומדחייב במעשר מטמא טומאת אוכלין אלמא כל מילי דעביד לטעמא מטמא טומאת אוכלין דהאי שבת לטעמא עבידא,ורמינהי הקושט והחימום וראשי בשמים והתיאה והחלתית והפלפלים וחלת חריע נקחין בכסף מעשר ואין מטמאין טומאת אוכלין דברי רבי עקיבא,אמר לו רבי יוחנן בן נורי אם נקחין בכסף מעשר מפני מה אין מטמאין טומאת אוכלין ואם אינן מטמאין אף הם לא ילקחו בכסף מעשר,וא"ר יוחנן בן נורי נמנו וגמרו שאין נקחין בכסף מעשר ואין מטמאין טומאת אוכלין,אמר רב חסדא כי תניא ההיא בשבת העשויה לכמך,אמר רב אשי אמריתה לשמעתי' קמיה דרב כהנא (אמר) לא תימא בשבת העשויה לכמך הא סתמא לקדרה אלא סתם שבת לכמך עשויה דתנן השבת משנתנה טעם בקדרה אין בה משום תרומה ואינה מטמאה טומאת אוכלין,הא עד שלא נתנה טעם בקדרה יש בה משום תרומה ומטמאה טומאת אוכלין ואי ס"ד סתמא לקדרה כי לא נתנה נמי סתמא לקדרה אלא לאו ש"מ סתמא לכמך עשויה ש"מ, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כל שחייב בראשית הגז חייב במתנות ויש שחייב במתנות ואינו חייב בראשית הגז,כל שיש לו ביעור יש לו שביעית ויש שיש לו שביעית ואין לו ביעור, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big כגון עלה הלוף שוטה והדנדנה יש שיש לו שביעית ואין לו ביעור עיקר הלוף שוטה ועיקר הדנדנה,דכתיב (ויקרא כה, ז) ולבהמתך ולחיה אשר בארצך תהיה כל תבואתה לאכול כל זמן שחיה אוכלת מן השדה אתה מאכיל לבהמתך בבית כלה לחיה מן השדה כלה לבהמתך שבבית והני לא כלו להו, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כל שיש לו קשקשת יש לו סנפיר ויש שיש לו סנפיר ואין לו קשקשת כל שיש לו קרנים יש לו טלפים ויש שיש לו טלפים ואין לו קרנים, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big כל שיש לו קשקשת דג טהור יש שיש לו סנפיר ואין לו קשקשת דג טמא מכדי אנן אקשקשת סמכינן סנפיר דכתב רחמנא למה לי,אי לא כתב רחמנא סנפיר הוה אמינא מאי קשקשת דכתיב סנפיר ואפילו דג טמא כתב רחמנא סנפיר וקשקשת,והשתא דכתב רחמנא סנפיר וקשקשת מנלן דקשקשת לבושא הוא דכתיב (שמואל א יז, ה) ושריון קשקשים הוא לבוש,ולכתוב רחמנא קשקשת ולא בעי סנפיר א"ר אבהו וכן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (ישעיהו מב, כא) יגדיל תורה ויאדיר, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כל הטעון ברכה לאחריו טעון ברכה לפניו ויש שטעון ברכה לפניו ואין טעון ברכה לאחריו, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big לאתויי מאי לאתויי ירק ולרבי יצחק דמברך אירק לאתויי מאי לאתויי מיא,ולרב פפא דמברך אמיא לאתויי מאי לאתויי מצות ולבני מערבא דמברכי בתר דסליקו תפילייהו אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו לשמור חוקיו לאתויי מאי לאתויי | 51b. The Gemara asks: b But /b with regard to b dill, /b from b which /b one is b obligated to /b designate b i pe’a /i , /b as stated in the mishna, one must also b be obligated to /b separate b tithe, /b since if the obligation of i pe’a /i applies then the obligation of tithes likewise applies. b As we learned /b in the mishna (50a): With regard to b any /b produce from b which /b one is b obligated to /b designate b i pe’a /i , /b one is likewise b obligated to /b separate b tithe. /b , b And from /b the fact that with regard to dill one is b obligated to /b separate b tithe, /b it follows that it b becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food. /b As the mishna on 50a states: Any food that is obligated in tithes becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food. b Apparently, any item that is prepared /b in order b to /b add b taste /b to food, such as dill, b becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food, as this dill is prepared /b in order b to /b add b taste /b to food., b And /b the Gemara b raises a contradiction /b to this conclusion from a mishna ( i Okatzin /i 3:5), which deals with the ritual impurity of food: With regard to spices such as b costus, amomum, chief spices, root of crowfoot, asafoetida, peppers, and a cake of safflower, /b although their function is merely to add taste to food, they are considered food for the purposes of the following i halakha /i : They b may be bought with /b second- b tithe money, /b which must be taken to Jerusalem and used to purchase food. b But /b they are not considered food insofar as b they do not become impure with the ritual impurity of food. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Akiva. /b , b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri said to /b Rabbi Akiva: b If /b they are considered food to the extent that b they may be bought with /b second- b tithe money, for what /b reason are b they not /b considered food in terms of b becoming impure with the ritual impurity of food? And if they do not become impure /b with the ritual impurity of food because they are not considered food, then b they should also not be bought with /b second- b tithe money. /b , b And Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri said /b with regard to this i halakha /i : b They counted /b the opinions of the Sages, b and they concluded that /b these spices b may not be bought with /b second- b tithe money, and /b they do b not become impure /b with the ritual b impurity of food. /b This apparently contradicts the previous claim that dill, which is a spice, becomes impure with the ritual impurity of food., b Rav Ḥisda says /b the following resolution of the difficulty: b When that /b i baraita /i , which indicates that dill is considered food and can contract the impurity of food, b is taught, /b it is referring b to dill that is prepared for a spice dish [ i likhmakh /i ], /b i.e., to be ground and placed in a Babylonian spice, i kutaḥ /i , which is used as a dip., b Rav Ashi said: I said this i halakha /i of /b Rav Ḥisda’s b before Rav Kahana, /b and he commented: b Do not say /b that the i baraita /i is referring specifically to a case b where /b the b dill /b was prepared b for a spice dish /b from the outset, which would indicate that if dill is b undesignated /b then it is intended to be an ingredient b in a pot /b of food. b Rather, undesignated dill /b is also b prepared for a spice dish. As we learned /b in a mishna ( i Okatzin /i 3:4): With regard to i teruma /i b dill, once it imparted flavor in a pot /b of food and was removed from the pot, it b is no /b longer b subject to /b the prohibition of a non-priest partaking of b i teruma /i , and it can no /b longer b become impure with the ritual impurity of food. /b ,Rav Kahana explains the proof: It can be inferred from this mishna that b until /b the dill has b imparted flavor in a pot /b of food it b is subject to /b the prohibition of a non-priest partaking of b i teruma /i , and it can become impure with the ritual impurity of food. And if /b it b enters your mind /b that b undesignated /b dill is intended as an ingredient b in a pot /b of food, then b even when /b one did b not place /b the dill in a pot, the same i halakha /i with respect to i teruma /i and impurity should apply, as when it is b undesignated /b the dill is intended as an ingredient b in a pot /b of food. b Rather, /b must one b not conclude from /b the mishna that b undesignated /b dill is b prepared for a spice dish? /b The Gemara concludes: b Learn from /b the mishna that this is the case., strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to b any /b animal, i.e., sheep and rams, from b which one is obligated /b by Torah law (see Deuteronomy 18:4) b to /b give b the first shearing /b of its wool to a priest, he b is obligated to /b have b gifts /b of the priesthood, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, which must be removed from slaughtered animals, taken from it (see Deuteronomy 18:3). b And there are /b animals from b which one is obligated to /b have b gifts /b of the priesthood taken from them, e.g., cattle and goats, b but /b from which b he is not obligated to /b give b the first shearing. /b ,The mishna teaches a similar principle: For b all /b Sabbatical-Year produce b to which there /b applies the obligation of b eradication /b from the house when it ceases to be available to the animals in the field, b there is /b the sanctity of b Sabbatical- /b Year produce upon b it, /b i.e., it may not be used for commerce and is ownerless while it is attached to the ground. b And there /b is produce b for which there is /b the sanctity of b Sabbatical- /b Year produce, b but for /b which b there is no /b obligation of b eradication /b from the house, e.g., produce that is preserved in the ground and does not cease to be available in the field., strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce applies to any produce upon which there is an obligation of eradication, but the converse is not necessarily the case. The Gemara cites an example of plants whose various parts illustrate these i halakhot /i : Plants b such as the wild arum leaf and the ceterach, /b which cease to be available in the field during the rainy season, are subject to eradication and to the sanctity of the Sabbatical Year. Examples of the second i halakha /i of the mishna, that b there is /b produce b for which there is /b the sanctity of b Sabbatical- /b Year produce b but /b for which b there is no /b obligation of b eradication /b from the house, include the b root of the wild arum and the root of the ceterach. /b ,The Gemara explains b that it is written /b in connection to the Sabbatical Year: b “And for the cattle and the beasts that are in your land, all its produce may be eaten” /b (Leviticus 25:7), from which it is derived: b As long as the undomesticated animals eat /b a type of produce b from the field, you may feed /b that type of produce b to your domesticated animal in the house, /b as it still remains in the field. But if that type of produce b has ceased for the undomesticated animals in the field, you must cease /b feeding it b to your domesticated animal in the house. /b This is the obligation of eradication. b And these, /b the root of the wild arum and the ceterach, b have not ceased for undomesticated animals /b in the field, and therefore there is no obligation of eradication., strong MISHNA: /strong It is written: “Whatever has fins and scales in the waters, in the seas, and in the rivers, you may eat them” (Leviticus 11:9). There is a principle with regard to the signs indicating that fish are kosher: b Any /b fish b that has scales has fins; and there are /b fish b that have fins but do not have scales. /b Similarly, with regard to kosher animals it is written: “Whatever parts the hoof, and is wholly cloven-footed, and chews the cud, among the beasts, that you may eat” (Leviticus 11:3). b Any /b animal b that has horns has hooves; and there are /b animals b that have hooves but do not have horns. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that b any /b fish b that has scales /b also has fins and therefore is b a kosher fish. /b The mishna also stated that b there are /b fish b that have fins but do not have scales. /b Such a fish is b a non-kosher fish. /b The Gemara asks: b Since we rely /b exclusively b upon /b the sign of the b scales, /b as a fish that has scales necessarily has fins as well, b why do I /b need the sign of b fins that the Merciful One writes /b in the Torah as one of the criteria of kosher fish?,The Gemara answers: b If the Merciful One /b had b not /b also b written /b the sign of b fins /b in the Torah, b I would say: What /b does the word b i kaskeset /i , /b scales, b that is written /b in the Torah mean? It does not mean scales, but b fins. And /b I would therefore say that b even a non-kosher fish, /b which has fins but no scales, is permitted. Therefore, b the Merciful One writes /b both signs, b fins and scales. /b ,The Gemara further asks: b But now that the Merciful One wrote /b in the Torah b fins and i kaskeset /i , from where do we /b derive that b i kaskeset /i /b denotes b clothing, /b i.e., scales, rather than fins? The Gemara answers: We derive it from a verse, b as it is written /b about Goliath the Philistine: b “And he was clad with a coat of mail [ i kaskasim /i ]” /b (I Samuel 17:5).,The Gemara asks: b But /b if there is proof that i kaskeset /i means scales, the question returns: b Let the Merciful One write /b only b “scales” and /b then there would be b no need /b to write b “fins.” Rabbi Abbahu says, and likewise /b a Sage of b the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, /b that this is in accordance with the verse: “The Lord was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, b to make Torah great and glorious” /b (Isaiah 42:21).In this context, this means that it is fitting for the Torah to state all the characteristics of a kosher animal rather than merely state that which is absolutely necessary., strong MISHNA: /strong This mishna teaches a generalization that is similar to the previous ones: b Anything that requires a blessing after /b one partakes of b it requires a blessing beforehand. And there exist /b items b that require a blessing before but /b do b not require a blessing thereafter. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that there are items that require a blessing before but not after. The Gemara inquires: b What /b case does this i halakha /i in the mishna b add? /b The Gemara answers: It serves b to add /b the case of b vegetables, /b as one recites a blessing before eating them but not afterward. The Gemara asks: b And according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yitzḥak, who /b maintains that one b recites a blessing on vegetables /b after eating them, b what /b case does this i halakha /i in the mishna b add? /b The Gemara answers: It serves b to add /b the case of b water, /b as one recites a blessing before drinking it but not afterward.,The Gemara further asks: b And according to /b the opinion of b Rav Pappa, who /b rules that b one recites a blessing on water /b after drinking it, b what /b case does this i halakha /i in the mishna serve b to add? /b The Gemara answers that the mishna, which does not explicitly mention food, serves b to add mitzvot. /b In other words, one recites a blessing before performing a mitzva, e.g., wearing ritual fringes or taking the i lulav /i and the like, but one does not recite a blessing after its fulfillment. The Gemara asks: b And according to /b the b residents of the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, b who recite /b the following b blessing after they remove their phylacteries: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to keep His laws, what /b does this i halakha /i in the mishna b come to add? /b The Gemara answers: It serves b to add /b the case of |
|
19. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 122| 54b. מי לא מודה רבי עקיבא דצריך אימלוכי איתמר שמעתא קמיה דרבא אמר להון שפיר אמר נחמני,מאן תנא דפליג עליה דרבי עקיבא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל היא דתניא הנודר מן הבשר אסור בכל מיני בשר ואסור בראש וברגלים ובקנה ובכבד ובלב ובעופות ומותר בבשר דגים וחגבים,רשב"ג אומר הנודר מן הבשר אסור בכל מיני בשר ומותר בראש וברגלים ובקנה ובכבד ובלב ובעופות ואין צריך לומר בשר דגים וחגבים וכן היה רשב"ג אומר קרביים לאו בשר ואוכליהן לאו בר אינש אוכליהן כבשר לענין זביני לאו בר אינש,מ"ש בשר עוף לתנא קמא דאסיר דעביד שליחא דמימליך עליה בשר דגים נמי עביד שליחא דאי לא משכח בישרא מימליך עליה דאמר אי לא משכחנא בישרא אייתי דגים וליתסרו,אמר אביי כגון שהקיז דם דלא אכיל דגים אי הכי אפילו עופות נמי לא אכיל דאמר שמואל דמסוכר ואכיל בישרא דצפרא פרח לביה כצפרא ותניא אין מקיזין לא על דגים ולא על עופות ולא על בשר מליח ותניא הקיז דם לא יאכל לא חלב ולא גבינה ולא ביצים ולא שחליים ולא עופות ולא בשר מליח שאני עופות דאפשר על ידי שליקה,אביי אמר כגון דכייבין ליה עיניה דדגים קשין לעינים אי הכי אכיל דגים דהא אמר שמואל נו"ן סמ"ך עי"ן נונא סמא לעינים ההוא סוף אוכלא: | 54b. b doesn’t Rabbi Akiva concede that /b the agent b must consult /b his employer? Because he failed to do so and acted on his own, he is not considered to have performed his mission. This i halakha /i b was stated before Rava. He said to /b those who stated the i halakha /i before him: b Naḥmani, /b i.e., Abaye, b spoke well. /b ,§ The Gemara asks: b Who is the i tanna /i who disagrees with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Akiva /b in the mishna here? The Gemara answers: b It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taught /b in a dispute in the i baraita /i : For b one who vows /b that b meat /b is forbidden b to /b him, it b is prohibited /b to eat b all types of meat, and /b it b is prohibited /b for him to eat meat b of the head, and of the feet, and of the windpipe, and of the liver, and of the heart, /b although people do not typically eat meat from those parts of the body. b And /b it is prohibited for him to eat meat b of birds, /b as it too is popularly called meat. b However, /b it b is permitted /b for him to eat b of the meat of fish and grasshoppers, /b as their flesh is not called meat., b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One who vows /b that b meat /b is forbidden b to /b him, b is forbidden in all types of meat, and is permitted /b to eat meat b of the head, and of the feet, and of the windpipe, and of the liver, and of the heart and of birds, and needless to say /b he may also partake of b fish and grasshoppers. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel would likewise say: Innards are not /b considered b meat, and one who eats them is not a person, /b meaning that the innards are not fit for human consumption. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to b one who eats them, /b in terms of the i halakhot /i related to their consumption, e.g., vows, they are considered b as meat. /b However, b with regard to purchase, /b one who purchases them b is not a person. /b In any case, apparently, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, as he maintains that although if an agent fails to find meat he is required to consult his employer before replacing it with liver, it is not considered meat with regard to vows.,The Gemara asks: b What is different /b about b the meat of a bird according to the first i tanna /i , that he prohibits it /b since it is considered meat, due to the fact b that /b when b the agent /b fails to find meat, b he tends to consult /b his employer b about it? /b The same should be true of the b meat of fish too. If the agent does not find meat, he tends to consult /b his employer b about it, as he says: If I do not find meat, should I bring fish? And /b therefore, b let /b fish also b be forbidden /b according to the first i tanna /i ., b Abaye said: /b This is referring to a case b where he let /b his b blood /b when he vowed, b as /b a person in that condition b does not eat fish. /b It was common knowledge then that eating fish after bloodletting is harmful. The Gemara asks: b If so, he /b would b not eat birds either, as Shmuel said: /b With regard to one b who lets blood and eats the meat of a bird, his heart /b rate accelerates and b flies like a bird. /b Clearly, bird meat too is deleterious for his health. b And it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One neither lets blood before /b eating b fish, nor before /b eating b birds, nor before /b eating b salted meat. And it is taught /b in another i baraita /i : If one b let blood, he may eat neither milk, nor cheese, nor eggs, nor cress, nor birds, nor salted meat. /b The Gemara answers: Meat of b birds is different, as /b it b is possible /b to eat it safely after bloodletting b by means of /b thoroughly b boiling /b it., b Abaye said: /b This is referring to a case b where his eyes hurt him, as fish are harmful for eyes. /b Therefore, meat of birds is permitted, but not fish. The Gemara asks: b If so, /b and he is suffering from eye pain, he should b eat fish, as Shmuel said /b an acronym: b i Nun /i , i samekh /i , i ayin /i , /b which stands for: b i Nuna samma la’einayim /i , /b which means: Fish is a medicine for eyes. The Gemara answers: b That /b statement of Shmuel is referring to the b latter /b stages b of the /b eye b infection. /b |
|
20. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 122| 16b. התם גברא בר תשלומין הוא ושיעבודא דגר הוא דקא פקע,והא איכא פאה דרחמנא אמר (ויקרא כג, כב) לא תכלה פאת וגו' לעני ולגר תעזוב אותם וגו',דמשכחת לה בקיימו ולא קיימו ביטלו ולא ביטלו דתנן מצות פאה להפריש מן הקמה לא הפריש מן הקמה מפריש מן העומרין לא הפריש מן העומרין מפריש מן הכרי עד שלא מירח מירחו מעשר ונותן לו,כדרבי ישמעאל דאמר אף מפריש מן העיסה ולר' ישמעאל נמי משכחת לה דאכל עיסה,אלא זאת ועוד אחרת אהא אבל אונס לא דהיכא אמרינן על דעת רבים אין לו הפרה לדבר הרשות אבל לדבר מצוה יש לו הפרה,כי הא דההוא מקרי דרדקי דהוה פשע בינוקי אדריה רב אחא ואהדריה רבינא דלא אשתכח דדייק כוותיה:,והאוכל נבילות וטריפות שקצים ורמשים וכו': אמר רב יהודה האי מאן דאכל ביניתא דבי כרבא מלקינן ליה משום (ויקרא יא, כט) שרץ השורץ על הארץ ההוא דאכל ביניתא דבי כרבא ונגדיה רב יהודה,אמר אביי אכל פוטיתא לוקה ארבעה,נמלה לוקה חמש משום שרץ השורץ על הארץ,צרעה לוקה שש משום (דברים יד, יט) שרץ העוף,אמר רב אחאי המשהה את נקביו עובר משום (ויקרא כ, כה) לא תשקצו אמר רב ביבי בר אביי האי מאן דשתי בקרנא דאומנא קא עבר משום לא תשקצו,אמר רבא בר רב הונא ריסק תשעה נמלים והביא אחד חי והשלימן לכזית לוקה ו' ה' משום בריה ואחד משום כזית נבילה רבא א"ר יוחנן אפילו שנים והוא רב יוסף אמר אפילו אחד והוא ולא פליגי הא ברברבי והא בזוטרי:,אכל טבל ומעשר ראשון כו': אמר רב אכל טבל של מעשר עני לוקה,כמאן כי האי תנא דתניא אמר ר' יוסי יכול לא יהא חייב אלא על הטבל שלא הורם ממנו כל עיקר הורם ממנו תרומה גדולה ולא הורם ממנו מעשר ראשון מעשר ראשון ולא מעשר שני ואפי' מעשר עני מנין,ת"ל (דברים יב, יז) לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך וגו' ולהלן הוא אומר (דברים כו, יב) ואכלו בשעריך ושבעו מה להלן מעשר עני אף כאן מעשר עני ואמר רחמנא לא תוכל,אמר רב יוסף כתנאי ר"א אומר אין צריך לקרות את השם על מעשר עני של דמאי וחכ"א | 16b. The Gemara answers: b There, the man /b who appropriated the collateral b is liable to /b remit monetary b payment, and it is /b only b that the lien of the convert /b on the property b has lapsed, /b as there is no one to receive payment. Therefore, he is not flogged, based on the principle: One is not both flogged and liable to pay restitution.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t there /b the case of b i pe’a /i , /b where there is a prohibition, b as the Merciful One states: “You shall not wholly reap the corner of /b your field” (Leviticus 23:22), followed by the mitzva: b “To the poor and the convert you shall leave them” /b (Leviticus 23:22)?,And b you find /b one liable to receive lashes b in /b those cases both if the criterion is whether b he fulfilled /b the mitzva b or did not fulfill /b the mitzva, b and /b if the criterion is whether b he nullified /b the mitzva b or he did not nullify it, as we learned /b in a i baraita /i : The b mitzva of i pe’a /i /b is b to separate /b it b from the standing grain /b still growing from the ground. If b he did not separate /b it b from the standing grain, /b but reaped the entire field, b he separates /b a portion b from the sheaves /b as i pe’a /i . If he did b not separate /b it b from the sheaves, he separates /b it b from the pile /b where one places the kernels after threshing, b before he smooths /b the pile. Once he smooths the pile, the produce is considered grain from which one is obligated to separate i terumot /i and tithes. If he already b smoothed /b the pile before designating the i pe’a /i , b he tithes /b the grain in the pile b and /b then b gives /b the i pe’a /i b to /b the poor person. Once he grinds the kernels into flour, he no longer separates i pe’a /i .,Apparently, it is possible to nullify the possibility of fulfilling the mitzva of leaving i pe’a /i by grinding the grain; why, then, did Rabbi Yoḥa omit this case from his list of prohibitions rectified by a positive mitzva for which one is flogged? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥa holds b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yishmael, who says: /b One b separates /b i pe’a /i b even from the dough. /b He maintains that the possibility of fulfilling the mitzva of i pe’a /i is never nullified, as one may separate i pe’a /i even after grinding and kneading. The Gemara challenges: b And /b according b to Rabbi Yishmael, you also find /b a way to nullify the possibility of fulfilling the mitzva, in a case b where one ate /b the b dough. /b , b Rather, /b the Gemara retracts its previous understanding of the statement of Rabbi Yoḥa: We have only this mitzva and another where one would be flogged if not for the relevant mitzva. The term: b This, /b is in reference to the sending away of the mother bird, b and /b the term: b Another, /b is in reference b to this /b i halakha /i of i pe’a /i . b But /b in the case of b a rapist, no, /b the possibility of remarrying the rape victim whom he divorced is not nullified, even if he vows on the basis of the consent of the public. b Where do we say /b that a vow b on /b the basis of b the consent of the public has no nullification? /b It is only in a case where one seeks nullification of the vow b for /b the purpose of b a matter /b that is b optional, /b i.e., not a mitzva; b but /b if one seeks nullification of the vow b for /b the purpose of b a matter /b that is b a mitzva, /b even a vow taken on the basis of the consent of the public b has /b the possibility of b nullification. /b In the case of the rapist, he could seek nullification of his vow to enable him to fulfill the mitzva of remarrying his divorcée, and therefore the vow can be nullified.,The Gemara relates an incident that proves this point. b As /b this happened in b that /b incident b where /b there was b a certain teacher of children who was negligent in /b his supervision of the b children, /b and b Rav Aḥa vowed /b on the basis of the consent of the public that b he /b would no longer be allowed to teach children. b And /b nevertheless b Ravina restored him /b to his position, b because no /b other teacher b was found who was as accurate as he. /b Apparently, even a vow taken on the basis of the consent of the public has the possibility of nullification, if that nullification is sought in order to fulfill a mitzva.,§ The mishna teaches: b And one who eats unslaughtered /b animal or bird b carcasses, or i tereifot /i , /b or b repugt creatures, or creeping animals, /b is liable to receive lashes. b Rav Yehuda says: One who eats a fish- /b like creature found b in /b the furrows of a field formed by b a plow [ i binnita devei kerava /i ], we flog him due to /b violation of the prohibition: b “Creeping animals that creep on the ground… /b shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41). The Gemara relates: There was b a certain /b person b who ate a fish- /b like creature found b in /b the furrows of a field formed by b a plow, and Rav Yehuda flogged him. /b , b Abaye says: /b One who ate b a i putita /i , /b a creeping animal found in the sea, b is flogged /b with b four /b sets of lashes. There are two prohibitions stated with regard to creeping animals in the sea: “And any that do not have fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers…you shall not eat of their flesh” (Leviticus 11:10–11), and: “And any that do not have fins and scales you shall not eat” (Deuteronomy 14:10). In addition, there are two other prohibitions stated with regard to creeping animals in general: “You shall not render yourselves detestable with any creeping animal that creeps, neither shall you render yourselves impure with them” (Leviticus 11:43), for a total of four.,If one ate b an ant, he is flogged /b with b five /b sets of lashes. In addition to the two prohibitions stated with regard to repugt creatures in general, he is also flogged b for /b violating the prohibitions: b “Creeping animals that creep on the ground… /b shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41), and: “And all creeping animals that creep on the ground, you shall not eat them” (Leviticus 11:42), and: “Neither shall you render yourselves impure with any manner of creeping things that crawls upon the ground” (Leviticus 11:44).,If one ate b a wasp, he is flogged /b with b six /b sets of lashes. In addition to the five prohibitions violated by one who eats an ant, he is flogged with an additional set of lashes b due to /b violation of the prohibition with regard to b winged creeping creatures: /b “And all winged creeping creatures are impure for you, they may not be eaten” (Deuteronomy 14:19)., b Rav Aḥai says: One who delays /b relieving himself through b his orifices /b when the need arises b violates /b the prohibition b of: “You shall not make /b your souls b detestable” /b (Leviticus 20:25). b Rav Beivai bar Abaye says: One who drinks from the horn of a bloodletter /b through which blood has passed b violates /b the prohibition b of: “You shall not make /b your souls b detestable.” /b , b Rava bar Rav Huna says: /b If one b crushed nine ants and brought /b another b one /b that was b alive and /b thereby b completed /b their measure b to an olive-bulk /b and ate them, he is b flogged /b with b six /b sets of lashes: b Five for /b eating b an entity /b for which one is flogged five times as stated above with regard to one who eats an ant, b and one for /b eating b an olive-bulk of an unslaughtered carcass /b all together. b Rava /b says that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: Even /b if b he ate two /b crushed ants b and /b the ant that was alive, he is flogged with six sets of lashes. b Rav Yosef says: Even /b if b he ate one /b crushed ant b and /b the ant that was alive. The Gemara comments: b And they do not disagree; this /b case, where Rava and Rav Yosef say that he is flogged for eating one or two crushed ants and one that is alive, is referring b to large /b ants, which together amount to an olive-bulk. b And that /b case, where Rava bar Rav Huna mentions nine ants, is referring b to small /b ants, as a greater number of ants is required to constitute an olive-bulk and render him liable. Consequently, there is no halakhic dispute in this case.,§ The mishna teaches that among those flogged is one who b ate untithed produce or first-tithe /b produce whose i teruma /i of the tithe was not taken. b Rav says: /b If one b ate untithed produce /b from which i teruma /i and first tithe were separated and b poor man’s tithe /b was not separated, he is b flogged. /b ,The Gemara explains: b In accordance with whose /b opinion did Rav issue this ruling? It is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b this i tanna /i , as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yosei says: /b One b might /b have thought b that one is liable for /b eating b only untithed produce from which no /b gifts b were taken at all; /b but if b i teruma gedola /i was taken from /b the produce, b but first tithe was not taken from it, /b or if the b first tithe /b was separated b but not second tithe, or even /b if only b poor man’s tithe /b was not separated, b from where /b is it derived that the halakhic status of the produce is that of untithed produce and one is liable for eating it?,The i baraita /i continues: It is derived as b the verse states: “You may not eat within your gates /b the tithe of your grain or of your wine or of your oil” (Deuteronomy 12:17), b and there it states: /b “And you shall give to the Levite, to the convert, to the orphan, and to the widow, b and they shall eat within your gates and be satisfied” /b (Deuteronomy 26:12). b Just as there, /b with regard to the phrase “and they shall eat within your gates,” it is referring to b poor man’s tithe, here too, /b “you may not eat within your gates” is referring to produce in which there is b poor man’s tithe, /b as it has not yet been separated, b and the Merciful One states /b a prohibition: b You may not /b eat it., b Rav Yosef said: /b This matter is b subject to /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i . Rabbi Eliezer says: One need not /b separate by means of b calling the name upon poor man’s tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [ i demai /i ]. /b With regard to produce purchased from an i am ha’aretz /i , i.e., one who is unreliable with regard to tithes, there is a rabbinic ordice requiring one to separate first and second tithe and i teruma /i of the tithe from it. Nevertheless, one is not required to separate poor man’s tithe from that produce, because poor man’s tithe is a monetary debt owed to the poor, and in a case of uncertainty, the principle is: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Rabbi Eliezer holds that failure to separate poor man’s tithe does not accord the produce the status of untithed produce. b And the Rabbis say: /b |
|
| 21. Babylonian Talmud, Keritot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 122 |
22. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 122| 63b. מכדי משנה תורה לאוסופי הוא דאתא מאי שנא הכא דכתיב דאה ומ"ש הכא דכתיב ראה ולא כתיב דאה אלא ש"מ מין ראה ודאה אחת היא,ואכתי כ"ה הוו אמר אביי כשם שראה ודאה אחת היא כך איה ודיה אחת היא דאי ס"ד תרתי אינון מכדי משנה תורה לאוסופי הוא דאתא מאי שנא הכא דכתיב למינה אאיה ומ"ש התם דכתיב למינה אדיה אלא ש"מ איה ודיה אחת היא,וכי מאחר שאיה ודיה אחת היא למה ליה למיכתב איה ודיה כדתניא רבי אומר אקרא אני איה דיה למה נאמרה כדי שלא תתן פתחון פה לבעל דין לחלוק שלא תהא אתה קורא איה והוא קורא דיה אתה קורא דיה והוא קורא איה לכך כתב במשנה תורה (דברים יד, יג) והראה ואת האיה והדיה למינה,מיתיבי למה נשנו בבהמה מפני השסועה ובעופות מפני הראה מאי לאו מדבהמה דהתם לאוסופי עופות נמי לאוסופי לא התם לאוסופי הכא לפרושי,ופליגא דרבי אבהו דא"ר אבהו ראה זו איה ולמה נקרא שמה ראה שרואה ביותר וכן הוא אומר (איוב כח, ז) נתיב לא ידעו עיט ולא שזפתו עין איה תנא עומדת בבבל ורואה נבלה בארץ ישראל,מדראה היינו איה מכלל דדאה לאו היינו ראה מכדי משנה תורה לאוסופי הוא דאתא מאי שנא הכא דכתיב דאה ומאי שנא התם דלא כתיב דאה אלא לאו ש"מ דאה וראה ואיה אחת היא,ומדראה היינו איה מכלל דדיה לאו היינו איה מאי שנא התם דכתיב למינהו אאיה ומ"ש הכא דלא כתיב למינהו אאיה אלא אדיה אלא ש"מ דאה וראה דיה ואיה אחת היא,תניא איסי בן יהודה אומר מאה עופות טמאין יש במזרח וכולן מין איה הן תני אבימי בריה דר' אבהו ז' מאות מיני דגים הן וח' מאות מיני חגבים ולעופות אין מספר עופות כ"ד הוו אלא ולעופות טהורים אין מספר,תניא רבי אומר גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שבהמה טמאה מרובה מן הטהורות לפיכך מנה הכתוב בטהורה גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שעופות טהורין מרובין על הטמאין לפיכך מנה הכתוב בטמאין,מאי קמ"ל כדרב הונא אמר רב ואמרי לה אמר רב הונא אמר רב משום ר' מאיר לעולם ישנה אדם לתלמידו דרך קצרה,א"ר יצחק עוף טהור נאכל במסורת נאמן הצייד לומר עוף זה טהור מסר לי רבי א"ר יוחנן והוא שבקי בהן ובשמותיהן,בעי ר' זירא רבו חכם או רבו צייד ת"ש דא"ר יוחנן והוא שבקי בהן ובשמותיהן אי אמרת בשלמא רבו צייד שפיר אלא אי אמרת רבו חכם בשלמא שמייהו גמיר להו אלא אינהו מי ידע להו אלא לאו ש"מ רבו צייד ש"מ,ת"ר לוקחין ביצים מן העובדי כוכבים בכל מקום ואין חוששין לא משום נבלות ולא משום טרפות,ודילמא דעוף טמא נינהו אמר אבוה דשמואל באומר של עוף פלוני טהור ולימא של עוף טהור אי הכי אית ליה לאישתמוטי,ולבדוק בסימנין דתניא כסימני ביצים כך סמני דגים סימני דגים ס"ד סנפיר וקשקשת אמר רחמנא אלא אימא כך סימני | 63b. one might ask: b Since /b it is assumed that the list in b Deuteronomy comes to add /b to the list in Leviticus, b what is different here, /b in Leviticus, b that it is written: “ i Da’a /i ,” /b and b what is different here, /b in Deuteronomy, b that it is written: “ i Ra’a /i ,” and i da’a /i is not written? Rather, conclude from /b the presence of each on only one list that the b i ra’a /i and i da’a /i are one species. /b ,The Gemara objects: b But still, there are twenty-five /b birds, not twenty-four. b Abaye said: Just as /b the b i ra’a /i and i da’a /i are one /b species, b so /b too, the b i ayya /i and /b the b i dayya /i , /b the latter of which is mentioned only in Deuteronomy, b are one /b species. b As, if it enters your mind that they are two /b different species, one might ask: b Since /b it is assumed that the list in b Deuteronomy comes to add /b to the list in Leviticus, b what is different here, /b in Leviticus, b that it is written: “After its kinds,” about /b the b i ayya /i , /b prohibiting some other kind of i ayya /i , b and what is different there, /b in Deuteronomy, b that it is written: “After its kinds,” about /b the b i dayya /i ? /b Why is the i ayya /i not mentioned? b Rather, learn from /b the use of the same phrase with regard to the b i ayya /i and i dayya /i /b that they b are one /b species.,The Gemara asks: b And now that /b the b i ayya /i and i dayya /i are one /b species, b why did /b the Torah need b to write /b both b i ayya /i and i dayya /i /b in Deuteronomy? The Gemara responds: b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: /b Given that the two are one species, b I will read i ayya /i /b and know that it is forbidden. b Why is i dayya /i stated? /b It is b so as not to give a claim to a litigant to disagree, /b and b it should not occur /b that b you call /b it b an i ayya /i and he calls /b it b a i dayya /i /b and eats it. Likewise, the Torah did not write only i dayya /i so that it will not occur that b you call /b it b a i dayya /i and he calls /b it b an i ayya /i /b and eats it. b Therefore, /b the Torah b writes in Deuteronomy: “And the i ra’a /i , and the i ayya /i , and the i dayya /i after its kinds” /b (Deuteronomy 14:13). Consequently, both the list in Leviticus and that in Deuteronomy enumerate twenty-four birds, in accordance with the statement attributed to Rav.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : b Why /b is the list b of /b non-kosher b animals /b in Leviticus b repeated? /b It is b due to /b the necessity of adding b the i shesua /i /b (Deuteronomy 14:7), which was not listed in Leviticus. b And /b the list b of /b non-kosher b birds /b is repeated b due to the i ra’a /i . What, is it not /b understood b from /b the fact b that /b the extra list of b animals there, /b in Deuteronomy, is b to add /b animals, that the list of b birds /b is b also /b repeated b to add /b birds? The Gemara responds: b No, there, /b i.e., with regard to animals, the list is repeated b to add, /b but b here, /b with regard to birds, it is repeated only b to explain. /b , b And /b the opinion that the i da’a /i and i ra’a /i are one species, and that the i ayya /i and i dayya /i are another species, b differs from /b the opinion of b Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu says: /b The b i ra’a /i is /b the b i ayya /i . And why is it called /b the b i ra’a /i ? Since it sees [ i ro’ah /i ] most /b vividly. b And so /b the verse b states: “That path no bird of prey knows, neither has the eye of the i ayya /i seen it” /b (Job 28:7). And a Sage b taught: /b The i ra’a /i can b stand in Babylonia and see a carcass in Eretz Yisrael. /b ,The Gemara discusses Rabbi Abbahu’s statement: b Since /b the b i ra’a /i is /b the same as the b i ayya /i , by inference, /b one may conclude b that /b the b i da’a /i is not the /b same as the b i ra’a /i ; /b otherwise, there are not twenty-four non-kosher birds. But b since /b it is assumed that the list in b Deuteronomy comes to add /b to the list in Leviticus, b what is different here, /b in Leviticus, b that it is written: “ i Da’a /i ,” /b and b what is different there, /b in Deuteronomy, b that i da’a /i is not written? Rather, /b must one b not conclude from /b the discrepancy that the two are the same? If so, one must conclude that according to Rabbi Abbahu, the b i da’a /i and i ra’a /i and i ayya /i are /b all b one /b species., b And /b furthermore, b from /b the fact that Rabbi Abbahu holds that the b i ra’a /i is /b the same as the b i ayya /i , by inference, /b one may conclude that the b i dayya /i is not /b the same as the b i ayya /i . /b But if so, one may ask again: b What is different there, /b in Leviticus, b that it is written: “After its kinds,” about /b the b i ayya /i , and what is different here, /b in Deuteronomy, b that it is not written: “After its kinds,” about /b the b i ayya /i but about /b the b i dayya /i ? Rather, /b the i ayya /i and i dayya /i must be one species. And one may b learn from /b the combination of the two disputes that according to Rabbi Abbahu, the b i da’a /i and i ra’a /i , i dayya /i and i ayya /i are /b all b one /b species. Consequently, according to Rabbi Abbahu, there are only twenty-three non-kosher species.,§ With regard to the phrase: “The i ayya /i after its kinds” (Leviticus 11:14), b it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Isi ben Yehuda says: There are one hundred non-kosher birds in the East, and they are all species of i ayya /i . Avimi, son of Rabbi Abbahu, taught: There are seven hundred types of /b non-kosher b fish, and eight hundred types of /b non-kosher b grasshopper, and there are countless birds. /b The Gemara protests: Are there countless non-kosher b birds? /b But b there are /b only b twenty-four /b non-kosher birds mentioned in the Torah. b Rather, /b Avimi must have meant: b And there are countless kosher birds. /b , b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that /b the species of b non-kosher animals are more numerous than the kosher /b ones. b Therefore, the Torah lists the kosher /b animals, teaching that all the rest are non-kosher. On the other hand, b it is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that /b the species of b kosher birds are more numerous than the non-kosher /b ones. b Therefore, the Torah lists the non-kosher /b birds.,The Gemara asks: b What is /b this i baraita /i b teaching us? /b The Gemara responds: b As Rav Huna says /b that b Rav /b says, b and some say /b that b Rav Huna says /b that b Rav says in the name of Rabbi Meir: A person should always teach his student in a concise manner, /b just as the Torah is concise in its language., b Rabbi Yitzḥak says: A kosher bird may be eaten on /b the strength of b a tradition /b that it is kosher, without inspecting for the signs listed in the mishna. And b the hunter is deemed credible to say: My teacher conveyed to me /b that b this bird is kosher. Rabbi Yoḥa said: And this /b is the i halakha /i only b when /b the teacher b is familiar with /b the non-kosher birds b and with their names. /b , b Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: /b Was Rabbi Yoḥa referring to the hunter’s b teacher the Sage, or /b to b his teacher the hunter, /b i.e., the one who taught him how to hunt? The Gemara responds: b Come /b and b hear /b proof from that b which Rabbi Yoḥa said: And this /b applies only b when /b the teacher b is familiar with them and with their names. Granted, if you say /b this is referring to b his teacher the hunter, /b this works out b well. But if you say /b it is referring to b his teacher the Sage, granted, /b a Sage will know b their names, /b since b he has learned them, but does he recognize /b the birds b themselves? Rather, /b must one b not conclude from it /b that Rabbi Yoḥa referred to b his teacher the hunter? /b The Gemara concludes: Indeed, b conclude from it /b that this is so.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One may buy eggs from the gentiles anywhere, and one /b need b not /b be b concerned, neither with regard to carcasses, /b i.e., that the egg may have been removed from a carcass of a bird and therefore forbidden, b nor with regard to /b eggs from b i tereifot /i , /b because neither of these possibilities is likely.,The Gemara objects: b But perhaps they /b are from b a non-kosher bird. Shmuel’s father said: /b The i baraita /i is referring b to /b a case where the gentile b says /b they are b of such and such bird, /b which is known to be b kosher. /b The Gemara challenges: b But /b if the gentile is deemed credible, b let him say /b only that they are b of a kosher bird. /b Why does he need to name the species? The Gemara responds: b If so, /b if he does not name the species, b he has /b the opportunity to b deflect /b scrutiny if he is dishonest; but if he names the species, one can bring other eggs of the same species to compare and validate the claim.,The Gemara asks: b But /b why must one rely on the gentile? b Let him inspect /b the eggs b for signs, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Like the signs of /b kosher b eggs, so /b too are b the signs of fish. /b The Gemara interjects: Can it b enter your mind /b that the i baraita /i is referring to b the signs of fish? The Merciful One states /b them explicitly in the Torah: b “Fins and scales” /b (Leviticus 11:9). b Rather, say: So /b too are b the signs of /b |
|
| 23. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 122 |
24. Babylonian Talmud, Bekhorot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 122| 8a. הדולפנין פרין ורבין כבני אדם מאי דולפנין אמר רב יהודה בני ימא,כל שביציו מבחוץ מוליד וכל שבפנים מטיל ביצים,איני והאמר שמואל אווז ואווז בר כלאים זה בזה והוינן בה מ"ט אמר אביי זה ביציו מבחוץ וזה ביציו מבפנים ותרוייהו מטילי ביצים,אלא כל שזכרותו מבחוץ מוליד מבפנים מטיל ביצים,כל שתשמישו ביום יולד ביום בלילה יולד בלילה כל שתשמישו בין ביום בין בלילה יולד בין ביום בין בלילה,תשמישו ביום יולד ביום תרנגול בלילה יולד בלילה עטלף תשמישו בין ביום בין בלילה יולד בין ביום בין בלילה אדם וכל דדמי ליה,למאי נפקא מינה לכדרב מרי בריה דרב כהנא דאמר רב מרי בריה דרב כהנא בדק בקינה של תרנגולין מערב יו"ט ולא מצא בה ביצה ולמחר השכים ומצא בה ביצה מותרת באכילה ביו"ט אימר לא בדק יפה,והלא בדק יפה אימר יצתה רובה וחזרה הוה וכדרבי יוחנן דא"ר יוחנן ביצה שיצתה רובה מערב יו"ט וחוזרת מותרת לאוכלה ביו"ט,כל שתשמישו ועיבורו שוה יולדים ומגדלים זה מזה הכל משמשין פנים כנגד עורף חוץ משלשה שמשמשין פנים כנגד פנים ואלו הן דג ואדם ונחש,ומ"ש הני תלתא כי אתא רב דימי אמרי במערבא הואיל ודיברה עמהם שכינה,תנא גמל אחור כנגד אחור:,ת"ר תרנגולת לעשרים ואחד יום וכנגדה באילן לוז כלב לחמשים יום וכנגדו באילן תאינה חתול לחמשים ושנים יום וכנגדו באילן תות חזיר לששים יום כנגדו באילן תפוח שועל וכל מיני שרצים ששה חדשים וכנגדם באילן תבואה,בהמה דקה טהורה לחמשה חדשים וכנגדן באילן גפן בהמה גסה טמאה לשנים עשר חודש וכנגדו באילן דקל טהורה לתשעה חדשים וכנגדה באילן זית הזאב והארי והדוב והנמר והברדלס והפיל והקוף והקיפוף לשלש שנים וכנגדן באילן בנות שוח,אפעה לשבעים שנה וכנגדו באילן חרוב חרוב זה משעת נטיעתו עד שעת גמר פירותיו שבעים שנה וימי עיבורו שלש שנים נחש לשבע שנים ולאותו רשע לא מצינו חבר ויש אומרים מוכססים,מנא הני מילי אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ומטו בה משום דר' יהושע בן חנניא שנאמר (בראשית ג, יד) ארור אתה מכל הבהמה ומכל חית השדה אם מבהמה נתקללה מחיה לא כ"ש,אלא לומר לך כשם שנתקללה הבהמה מחיה אחד לשבעה ומאי ניהו חמור מחתול כך נתקלל הוא מבהמה אחת לשבע דהוה ליה שב שני,אימא כשם שנתקללה חיה מבהמה אחת לשלש שנים ומאי ניהו ארי מחמור כך נתקלל הוא מחיה אחת לשלש שנים דהוה ליה תשע שנים | 8a. b The i dulfanin /i reproduce like people. /b The Gemara asks: b What are i dulfanin /i ? Rav Yehuda says: /b They are creatures that are called b sons of the sea. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: In the case of b any /b male animal b whose testicles are external, /b the female b gives birth /b to live offspring, b and /b in the case of b any /b male animal b whose testicles are internal, /b the female b lays eggs. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Is that so? But doesn’t Shmuel say /b that a domestic b goose and a wild goose are /b considered b diverse kinds, /b and one may not mate them b with each other. And we discussed it: What is the reason? Abaye said: /b In the case of b this /b one, the male wild goose, b its testicles are external, and /b in the case of b that /b one, the domestic goose, b its testicles are internal. /b The Gemara comments: b And /b yet b both /b geese b lay eggs. /b Evidently, the fact that the male’s testicles are external does not prove that the female gives birth., b Rather, /b the i baraita /i must mean the following: With regard to b any /b animal b whose male /b reproductive b organ /b is b external, /b the female b gives birth, /b and in the case of any male animal whose reproductive organ is b internal, /b the female b lays eggs. /b Although the testicles of the male wild goose are external, its reproductive organ is internal.,§ The i baraita /i continues to discuss matters of animal procreation: b Any /b species b whose sexual intercourse /b occurs only b during the daytime gives birth /b only b during the daytime; /b any species whose intercourse occurs only b at night gives birth /b only b at night; any /b species b whose intercourse /b occurs b both during the daytime and at night gives birth both during the daytime and at night. /b ,The Gemara elaborates: The statement that any species whose b intercourse /b occurs b during the daytime gives birth during the daytime /b is referring to b a chicken. /b The statement that any species whose intercourse occurs b at night gives birth at night /b is referring to b a bat. /b The statement that any species whose b intercourse /b occurs b both during the daytime and at night gives birth both during the daytime and at night /b is referring to b a human and any /b creature b that is similar to him. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What /b halakhic b difference is /b there whether an animal gives birth during the daytime or at night? The Gemara answers: The difference is b with regard to that which Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, /b said. b As Rav Mari, son of Rav Kahana, said: /b If one b examined a chicken’s nest on a Festival eve and did not find an egg in it, and the following day, /b on the Festival, b he rose early, /b before dawn, b and found an egg in it, consumption /b of the egg is b permitted on the Festival. /b It is not considered an egg that was laid on the Festival, which is forbidden (see i Beitza /i 2a), as chickens do not lay eggs at night. Although he examined the nest before the Festival and failed to find an egg there, one is compelled to b say /b that b he did not examine /b the nest b carefully. /b ,The Gemara challenges: b But he did examine /b the nest b carefully, /b as the i baraita /i states that he examined it. The Gemara explains: One must b say /b that this b was /b a case where b most of /b the egg b emerged /b on the eve of the Festival b and returned /b inside its mother before the examination. b And /b this ruling is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yoḥa, as Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b In a case where b most of the egg emerged on the eve of the Festival and returned /b inside its mother it is b permitted to eat it on the Festival, /b as once most of it emerged it is considered to have been laid already.,§ The i baraita /i continues: b Any /b two animals of different species b whose /b manner of b intercourse and /b time of b gestation are identical can have offspring /b together b and /b can b raise, /b i.e., nurse, the young b of each other. /b With regard to the manner of intercourse, b all /b species b engage in intercourse /b with b the face /b of the male b opposite the back of the neck /b of the female, meaning that the male comes from behind the female, b except for three /b species b that engage in intercourse face-to-face, and they are these: Fish, and humans, and /b the b snake. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And what is different /b about b these three? When Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he reported that b they say in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, the following explanation: They are different b because the Divine Presence spoke with them. /b This occurred when the fish swallowed the prophet Jonah (see Jonah 2:11), when Adam and other prophets were spoken to by God, and when the snake caused Adam and Eve to sin (see Genesis 3:14).,A i tanna /i b taught: A camel /b engages in intercourse b back to back /b with its mate.,§ The Gemara cites a i baraita /i that discusses the length of gestation for various animals. b The Sages taught /b that b a chicken /b hatches b after twenty-one days, and corresponding to it /b in length of gestation b with regard to trees is the almond, /b which ripens twenty-one days after the budding of the flower. b A dog /b gives birth b after fifty days, and corresponding to it with regard to trees is the fig. A cat /b gives birth b after fifty-two days, and corresponding to it with regard to trees is the mulberry. A pig /b gives birth b after sixty days, /b and b corresponding to it with regard to trees is the apple. A fox and all types of creeping animals /b give birth after b six months, and corresponding to them with regard to trees, /b i.e., plants, b is grain. /b , b Small kosher livestock, /b such as sheep or goats, give birth b after five months, and corresponding to them with regard to trees is the grapevine. Large non-kosher livestock, /b such as camels or donkeys, give birth b after twelve months, and corresponding to them with regard to trees is the date palm. /b Large b kosher /b livestock, such as cows, give birth b after nine months, and corresponding to them with regard to trees is the olive. The wolf, and the lion, and the bear, and the leopard, and the i bardelas /i , and the elephant, and the monkey, and the long-tailed ape /b give birth b after three years, and corresponding to them with regard to trees is the white fig. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b A viper /b gives birth b after seventy years, and corresponding to it with regard to trees is the carob. /b In the case of b this carob, /b the period b from the time of its planting until the time of the ripening of its fruit is seventy years, and the length of its gestation is three years. A snake /b is born b after seven years, and for that wicked /b animal b we have not found a counterpart /b among trees. b And some say /b that b i mukhsasim /i /b are the equivalent, as they ripen after seven years.,The Gemara asks: b From where is this matter, /b that the gestation period of a snake is seven years, derived? b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says, and /b some b determined it /b to be b in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya: /b It is derived from b that /b which b is stated /b with regard to the punishment of the snake for causing Adam and Eve to sin: b “Cursed are you from among all animals, and from among all beasts of the field” /b (Genesis 3:14), in that your gestation period should be longer than all of them. Now, why does the verse mention the beasts of the field, i.e., undomesticated animals? b If /b the snake b was cursed /b more b than the domesticated animals, /b then b all the more so /b is it b not /b clear that it was cursed more b than the undomesticated animals? /b The shortest gestation period of domesticated animals, which is five months for a goat, is longer than the shortest gestation period among undomesticated animals, which is fifty-two days for a cat., b Rather, /b the verse mentions the beasts of the field b to tell you: Just as the domesticated animals were cursed /b more b than the undomesticated animals by /b a proportion of b one to seven; /b the Gemara interjects: b And /b with regard to b what /b case b is that? /b It is with regard to b a donkey, /b whose gestation period as mentioned is twelve months, compared b to a cat, /b whose gestation period is fifty-two days. Seven times longer than fifty-two days is 364 days, which means that the gestation period of the donkey, which is one year, is almost exactly seven times longer than that of the cat. Rav Yehuda continues: b So too, /b the snake b was cursed /b more b than domesticated animals, /b i.e., the donkey, in a proportion of b one to seven, which is /b a total of b seven years. /b ,The Gemara challenges: b Say /b that the verse can be interpreted as follows: b Just as the undomesticated animals were cursed /b more b than the domesticated animals /b by a measure of b one /b year b to three years; /b the Gemara interjects: b And /b in b what /b case b is that? /b It is in the case of b a lion, /b whose gestation period is three years, compared b to a donkey, /b whose gestation period is one year. The Gemara continues its challenge: b So too, /b the snake b was cursed /b more b than the undomesticated animals, /b i.e., the lion, by a proportion of b one /b year b to three years, which is nine years. /b |
|
| 25. Origen, Homilies On Leviticus, 7.5.1, 7.7.1-7.7.2 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood •scales, seafood, bottom feeders Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 150, 151 |
26. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 122| 61b. ובעניינא דשכיר כתיב,(ויקרא יט, יא) לא תגנובו דכתב רחמנא למה לי לכדתניא (שמות כ, יב) לא תגנוב על מנת למיקט לא תגנוב על מנת לשלם תשלומי כפל,א"ל רב יימר לרב אשי לאו דכתב רחמנא במשקלות למה לי א"ל לטומן משקלותיו במלח היינו גזל מעליא הוא לעבור עליו משעת עשייה,ת"ר (ויקרא יט, לה) לא תעשו עול במשפט במדה במשקל ובמשורה במדה זו מדידת קרקע שלא ימדוד לאחד בימות החמה ולאחד בימות הגשמים במשקל שלא יטמין משקלותיו במלח ובמשורה שלא ירתיח,והלא דברים ק"ו ומה משורה שהיא אחד משלשים (ושלשה) בלוג הקפידה עליו תורה ק"ו להין וחצי הין ושלישית ההין ורביעית ההין ולוג וחצי לוג ורביעית הלוג,אמר רבא למה לי דכתב רחמנא יציאת מצרים ברבית יציאת מצרים גבי ציצית יציאת מצרים במשקלות,אמר הקב"ה אני הוא שהבחנתי במצרים בין טפה של בכור לטפה שאינה של בכור אני הוא שעתיד ליפרע ממי שתולה מעותיו בנכרי ומלוה אותם לישראל ברבית וממי שטומן משקלותיו במלח וממי שתולה קלא אילן בבגדו ואומר תכלת הוא,רבינא איקלע לסורא דפרת א"ל רב חנינא מסורא דפרת לרבינא יציאת מצרים דכתב רחמנא גבי שרצים למה לי א"ל אמר הקב"ה אני הוא שהבחנתי בין טפה של בכור לטפה שאינה של בכור אני עתיד ליפרע ממי שמערב קרבי דגים טמאין בקרבי דגים טהורין ומוכרן לישראל,אמר ליה אנא המעלה קא קשיא לי מאי שנא הכא המעלה דכתב רחמנא,א"ל לכדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אמר הקב"ה אילמלא (לא) העליתי את ישראל ממצרים אלא בשביל דבר זה שאין מטמאין בשרצים דיי,א"ל ומי נפיש אגרייהו טפי מרבית ומציצית וממשקלות א"ל אע"ג דלא נפיש אגרייהו טפי מאיסי למכלינהו:,ואיזהו תרבית המרבה בפירות כיצד לקח הימנו חטים בדינר זהב וכו': אטו כל הני דאמרינן עד השתא לאו רבית הוא,א"ר אבהו עד כאן של תורה מכאן ואילך של דבריהם וכן אמר רבא עד כאן של תורה מכאן ואילך של דבריהם,ע"כ (איוב כז, יז) יכין רשע וילבש צדיק עד כאן ותו לא אלא אפי' ע"כ יכין רשע וילבש צדיק,ע"כ רבית קצוצה מכאן ואילך אבק רבית,א"ר אלעזר רבית קצוצה יוצאה בדיינין אבק רבית אינה יוצאה בדיינין רבי יוחנן אמר אפילו רבית קצוצה נמי אינה יוצאה בדיינין,א"ר יצחק מ"ט דרבי יוחנן דאמר קרא (יחזקאל יח, יג) בנשך נתן ותרבית לקח וחי לא יחיה את כל התועבות האלה עשה למיתה ניתן ולא להשבון רב אדא בר אהבה אמר אמר קרא (ויקרא כה, לו) אל תקח מאתו נשך ותרבית ויראת מאלהיך למורא ניתן ולא להשבון,רבא אמר מגופיה דקרא שמיע ליה (יחזקאל יח, יג) מות יומת דמיו בו יהיה הוקשו מלוי רבית לשופכי דמים מה שופכי דמים לא ניתנו להשבון אף מלוי רבית לא ניתנו להשבון,אר"נ בר יצחק מ"ט דר"א דאמר קרא | 61b. b and /b this prohibition b is written in /b the context of b the matter of a hired /b laborer: “You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him, and the wages of a hired servant shall not abide with you all night until the morning” (Leviticus 19:13).,The Gemara asks: b Why do I /b need the prohibition: b “You shall not steal” /b (Leviticus 19:11), b that the Merciful One wrote? /b This is yet another prohibition against taking money by illegitimate means, and it could be derived from the other prohibitions mentioned previously. The Gemara answers that it is necessary for the Merciful One to write that prohibition b for that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b “You shall not steal” /b applies in all circumstances, even if you do so only b in order to aggravate /b the victim; b “you shall not steal” /b applies in all circumstances, even if you do so b in order to pay the double payment /b as a gift to the person from whom you stole., b Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: Why do I /b need the b prohibition that the Merciful One wrote with regard to weights: /b “You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in measure, in weight, or in volume” (Leviticus 19:35)? It is merely another form of robbery. Rav Ashi b said to him: /b It is referring b to /b a seller who b buries his weights in salt, /b in order to lighten them. Rav Yeimar said: b That is /b the same as b full-fledged robbery; /b therefore, it should not require a separate derivation. Rav Ashi answered: It is written b to /b establish that he b violates /b the prohibition b from the moment of the act /b of burying them. He violates the prohibition even before he actually deceives a buyer with the buried weights., b The Sages taught: The verse states: “You shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in measure, in weight, or in volume [ i uvamesura /i ]” /b (Leviticus 19:35). b “In measure”; this /b is referring to the b measurement of land, /b e.g., this means b that /b in a case where two people are dividing their jointly owned field, b one may not measure /b the land to be given b to one during the summer and /b measure the land to be given b to the other during the rainy season, /b because the length of the measuring cord is affected by the weather conditions. b “In weight”; this /b is referring b to /b the fact that b he may not bury his measuring weights in salt. And “in volume”; /b this teaches b that one may not froth /b the liquid one is selling, creating the impression that there is more liquid in the vessel than there actually is.,The Gemara adds: b And are /b the following b matters not /b inferred b i a fortiori /i : And if /b with regard to the b i mesura /i /b volume, which equals b one thirty /b - b third of a i log /i , /b the b Torah was fastidious concerning it /b that one may not deceive another, it can be inferred b i a fortiori /i /b that with regard b to a i hin /i , /b which equals twelve i log /i , b and a half- i hin /i , and a third- i hin /i , and a quarter- i hin /i , and a i log /i , and a half- i log /i , and a quarter- i log /i , /b which are all much larger volumes, that one may not deceive another.,§ b Rava says: Why do I /b need b the /b mention of the b exodus from Egypt that the Merciful One wrote in /b the context of the i halakhot /i of the prohibition against b interest /b (see Leviticus 25:37–38), and the mention of b the exodus from Egypt with regard to /b the mitzva to wear b ritual fringes /b (see Numbers 15:39–41), and the mention of b the exodus from Egypt in /b the context of the prohibition concerning b weights /b (see Leviticus 19:35–36)?,Rava explains: b The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I am He Who distinguished in Egypt between /b the b drop /b of seed b that /b became b a firstborn and /b the b drop /b of seed b that /b did b not /b become b a firstborn, /b and I killed only the firstborn. b I am /b also b He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who attributes /b ownership of b his money to a gentile and /b thereby b lends it to a Jew with interest. /b Even if he is successful in deceiving the court, God knows the truth. b And /b I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment b from one who buries his weights in salt, /b as this changes their weight in a manner not visible to the eye. b And /b I am also He Who is destined to exact punishment b from one who hangs /b ritual fringes dyed with b indigo [ i kala ilan /i ] /b dye b on his garment and says it is /b dyed with the b sky-blue dye /b required in ritual fringes. The allusion to God’s ability to distinguish between two apparently like entities is why the exodus is mentioned in all of these contexts.,The Gemara relates: b Ravina happened /b to come b to Sura on the Euphrates. Rav Ḥanina of Sura on the Euphrates said to Ravina: Why do I /b need b the /b mention of the b exodus from Egypt that the Merciful One wrote in /b the context of b creeping animals: /b “Do not make yourselves detestable with all the creeping animals that swarm…for I am the Lord Who brings you up from the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 11:43–45)? Ravina b said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I am He Who distinguished in Egypt between /b the b drop /b of seed b that /b became b a firstborn and /b the b drop /b of seed b that /b did b not /b become b a firstborn, /b and I killed only the firstborn. b I am /b also b He Who is destined to exact punishment from one who intermingles the innards of non-kosher fish with the innards of kosher fish and sells them to a Jew, /b who is unable to distinguish between them.,Rav Ḥanina b said to him: /b I was not asking about the very mention of the exodus. Rather, b I /b was asking about the term b “Who brings you up” /b mentioned in that verse; that is what is b difficult for me. What is different here, that the Merciful One wrote: “Who brings you up /b from the land of Egypt,” as opposed to the other three instances cited by Rava where the exodus is mentioned in the context of mitzvot and prohibitions, where it is written: “Who brought you out”?,Ravina b said to him: /b It is b to /b teach b as it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael. As it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Had I brought the Jewish people up from Egypt only for this matter, /b so b that they /b would b not become impure /b by consuming b creeping animals, it would be sufficient for Me, /b as observance of this mitzva elevates their spiritual stature.,Rav Ḥanina b said to him: And is the reward for /b abstaining from consuming creeping animals b greater than /b the reward for observing the i halakhot /i with regard to b interest and ritual fringes and weights? /b Let the Merciful One write: Who brings you up, in the context of those mitzvot as well. Ravina b said to him: Even though their reward is not greater, /b it is more b repulsive /b for Jews b to eat /b creeping animals. Avoiding those animals brings them up, in the sense that it is praiseworthy and enhances the transcendent nature of the Jews.,§ The mishna teaches: b And which is i tarbit /i ? /b It is the case of b one who /b enters into a transaction that yields b an increase in the produce /b beyond his investment. b How so? /b For example, a case where b one acquired wheat from /b another at the price of one i kor /i of wheat b for /b one b gold dinar, /b with the wheat to be supplied at a later date, and such was the market price of wheat at the time he acquired it. The price of one i kor /i of wheat then increased and stood at thirty dinars. At that point, the buyer said to the seller: Give me all of my wheat now, as I wish to sell it and purchase wine with it. The seller said to him: Since it is ultimately wine that you want, not wheat, each kor of your wheat is considered by me to be worth thirty dinars, and you have the right to collect its value in wine from me. And in this case, the seller did not have wine in his possession. The Gemara asks: b Is that to say /b that b all these /b cases b that we said /b in the mishna b until now are not /b cases of b interest? /b , b Rabbi Abbahu says: Until here, /b i.e., in the first two cases it presents, the mishna is referring to cases of interest b by Torah law, /b and b from this /b point b forward /b the mishna is referring to cases of interest b by rabbinic law. /b If the lender does not explicitly stipulate that the debtor must pay a sum greater than the value of the loan they do not violate the Torah prohibition of interest, but the Sages prohibited doing so. b And so says Rava: Until here /b the mishna is referring to cases of interest b by Torah law, /b and b from this /b point b forward /b the mishna is referring to cases of interest b by rabbinic law. /b ,The Gemara comments: In the cases in the mishna cited b until here /b there is a fulfillment of the verse: b The wicked may prepare and the righteous shall don /b (see Job 27:17), which is interpreted as referring to the case of a wicked father who collects interest from borrowers. Upon inheriting the father’s estate, his righteous son is not obligated to return the interest to the borrower. The Gemara asks: Is this verse applicable only in the cases discussed b until here, and no further? /b It is logical that if the heir does not need to return the interest that was prohibited by Torah law, all the more so the heir should not need to return the interest that was prohibited by rabbinic law. b Rather, /b Rava said: b Even /b in the cases discussed b until here /b one can apply the verse: b The wicked may prepare and the righteous shall don. /b ,The Gemara comments: b Until here /b the i tanna /i cites cases of b fixed interest, /b i.e., where the amount to be paid as interest was fixed at the time of the loan, which is prohibited by Torah law. b From this /b point b forward /b the i tanna /i cites cases with only b a hint of interest, /b prohibited by rabbinic law, as there is no fixed sum paid as interest., b Rabbi Elazar says: Fixed interest /b can be b removed /b from the lender’s possession b by /b means of legal proceedings adjudicated by b judges. /b By contrast, in cases of b a hint of interest, /b prohibited by rabbinic law, the money paid b cannot be removed by /b means of legal proceedings adjudicated by b judges. Rabbi Yoḥa says: Even fixed interest cannot be removed by /b means of legal proceedings adjudicated by b judges. /b , b Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the reason /b for the opinion b of Rabbi Yoḥa? /b It is b as the verse states: “He has given forth with i neshekh /i and he took i tarbit /i , shall he live? He shall not live. He performed all these abominations, /b he shall be executed; his blood shall be upon him” (Ezekiel 18:13). It can be inferred that one who takes interest is b subject to death /b at the hand of Heaven b but not to repayment, /b as the court cannot compel him to repay the interest. Citing a different proof, b Rav Adda bar Ahava said /b that b the verse states: “You shall not take from him i neshekh /i or i tarbit /i ; you shall fear your God /b and your brother shall live with you.” (Leviticus 25:36). It can be inferred that one who does so is b subject to /b shirking the b fear /b of Heaven, b but not to repayment. /b , b Rava said: It can be derived from the verse /b in Ezekiel b itself, /b not by inference, as it is written: b “He shall be executed; his blood shall be upon him” /b (Ezekiel 18:13). In the verse, b lenders /b who charged b interest were juxtaposed with shedders of blood. /b This teaches: b Just as shedders of blood are not subject to repayment, so too, lenders /b who charge b interest are not subject to repayment. /b , b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: What is the reason /b for the opinion b of Rabbi Elazar /b that interest prohibited by Torah law can be reclaimed by means of legal proceedings adjudicated by judges? It is b as the verse /b concerning the prohibition against taking interest b states: /b |
|
| 27. Basil of Caesarea, Homiliae In Hexaemeron, 2.1, 3.11 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood •scales, seafood, bottom feeders Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 150, 151 |
| 28. Methodius of Olympus, Symposium, 5.6 (4th cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood •scales, seafood, bottom feeders Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 150 |
29. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 122| 39a. התם ידיע ממשו הכא לא ידיע ממשן:,וטרית טרופה וציר שאין בה דגה וכו': מאי חילק אמר רב נחמן בר אבא אמר רב זו סולתנית ומפני מה אסורה מפני שערבונה עולה עמה:,תנו רבנן אין לו עכשיו ועתיד לגדל לאחר זמן כגון הסולתנית והעפיץ הרי זה מותר יש לו עכשיו ועתיד להשיר בשעה שעולה מן הים כגון אקונס ואפונס כטספטייס ואכספטייס ואוטנס מותר,אכריז רבי אבהו בקיסרי קירבי דגים ועוברן ניקחין מכל אדם חזקתן אינן באים אלא מפלוסא ואספמיא כי הא דאמר אביי האי צחנתא דבב נהרא שריא,מ"ט אילימא משום דרדיפי מיא והאי דג טמא כיון דלית ליה חוט השדרה בדוכתא דרדיפי מיא לא מצי קאי והא קא חזינן דקאי,אלא משום דמליחי מיא והאי דג טמא כיון דלית ליה קלפי בדוכתא דמליחי מיא לא מצי קאי והא קחזינן דקאי אלא משום דלא מרבה טינא דג טמא אמר רבינא האידנא דקא שפכי ביה נהר גוזא ונהר גמדא אסירי,אמר אביי האי חמרא דימא שרי תורא דימא אסיר וסימניך טמא טהור טהור טמא,אמר רב אשי שפר נונא שרי קדש נונא אסיר וסימניך (שמות טז, כג) קדש לה' איכא דאמרי קבר נונא אסור וסימניך קברי עובדי כוכבים,רבי עקיבא איקלע לגינזק אייתו לקמיה ההוא נונא דהוה דמי לחיפושא חפייה בדיקולא חזא ביה קלפי ושרייה רב אשי איקלע לטמדוריא אייתו לקמיה ההוא נונא דהוה דמי לצלופחא נקטיה להדי יומא חזא דהוה ביה צימחי ושרייה,רב אשי איקלע לההוא אתרא אייתו לקמיה נונא דהוי דמי לשפרנונא חפייה במשיכלי חיורי חזא ביה קלפי ושרייה רבה בר בר חנה איקלע לאקרא דאגמא קריבו ליה צחנתא שמעיה לההוא גברא דהוה קרי ליה באטי,אמר מדקא קרי ליה באטי ש"מ דבר טמא אית ביה לא אכל מיניה לצפרא עיין בה אשכח ביה דבר טמא קרי אנפשיה (משלי יב, כא) לא יאונה לצדיק כל און:,והקורט של חילתית: מ"ט משום דמפסקי ליה בסכינא אע"ג דאמר מר נותן טעם לפגם מותר אגב חורפיה דחילתיתא מחליא ליה שמנוניתא והוה ליה כנותן טעם לשבח ואסור,עבדיה דר' לוי הוה קא מזבין חילתיתא כי נח נפשיה דר' לוי אתו לקמיה דרבי יוחנן אמרו ליה מהו למיזבן מיניה אמר להו עבדו של חבר הרי הוא כחבר,רב הונא בר מניומי זבן תכילתא מאנשי דביתיה דרב עמרם חסידא אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף לא הוה בידיה,פגע ביה חנן חייטא א"ל יוסף עניא מנא ליה בדידי הוה עובדא דזביני תכילתא מאנשי דביתיה דרבנאה אחוה דר' חייא בר אבא ואתאי לקמיה דרב מתנא לא הוה בידיה אתאי לקמיה דרב יהודה מהגרוניא אמר לי נפלת ליד הכי אמר שמואל אשת חבר הרי היא כחבר,תנינא להא דת"ר אשת חבר הרי היא כחבר עבדו של חבר הרי הוא כחבר חבר שמת אשתו ובניו ובני ביתו הרי הן בחזקתן עד שיחשדו וכן חצר שמוכרין בה תכלת הרי הן בחזקתן עד שתיפסל,ת"ר אשת עם הארץ שנשאת לחבר וכן בתו של עם הארץ שנשאת לחבר וכן עבדו של עם הארץ שנמכר לחבר כולן צריכין לקבל דברי חברות אבל אשת חבר שנשאת לעם הארץ וכן בתו של חבר שנשאת לעם הארץ וכן עבדו של חבר שנמכר לעם הארץ אינן צריכין לקבל דברי חברות לכתחלה דברי ר"מ,ר' יהודה אומר אף הן צריכין לקבל דברי חברות לכתחלה וכן היה ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר מעשה באשה אחת שנשאת לחבר והיתה קושרת לו תפילין על ידו נשאת למוכס והיתה קושרת לו קשרי מוכס על ידו,אמר רב חבי"ת אסור בחותם אחד חמפ"ג מותר בחותם אחד חלב בשר יין תכלת | 39a. The Gemara explains: b There, the substance of /b the wine b is a recognizable /b component of the fish stew; b here, its substance is not a recognizable /b component of the pickled vegetables.,§ The mishna teaches: b And minced i tarit /i /b fish, b and brine that does not have /b a i kilbit /i b fish /b floating in it, and i ḥilak /i are all prohibited. The Gemara asks: b What /b is b i ḥilak /i ? Rav Naḥman bar Abba says /b that b Rav says: This is i sultanit /i , /b a type of small fish that is generally caught before its scales have developed. b And for what /b reason b is it prohibited? /b It is b because its /b size causes it to be b intermingled /b with other fish, and as a result i sultanit /i b rises /b out of the water b with /b non-kosher fish when b it /b is caught., b The Sages taught: /b If a fish b does not currently possess /b scales b but will grow /b them b after /b a period of b time, such as the i sultanit /i and i afiyatz /i /b fish, b it is permitted. /b Likewise, if b it has /b scales b now but will shed /b them b when it /b is caught and b rises from the sea, such as i akunas /i and i afuna /i , i ketasfatiyas /i and i akhsaftiyas /i and i otanas /i /b fish, it is b permitted. /b , b Rabbi Abbahu announced in Caesarea: Fish entrails and their eggs may be purchased from any person, /b as b the presumption with regard to them /b is that b they come only from Pelusium [ i Pilusa /i ] and Spain [ i Aspamya /i ], /b and non-kosher fish are not found in those areas. This is b similar to that which Abaye says: These small fish [ i tzaḥanta /i ] of the Bav River are permitted, /b as non-kosher fish are not found in that river.,The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that Abaye unequivocally permitted eating these fish and was not concerned about the potential presence of non-kosher fish among them? b If we say /b that it is b due to /b the fact b that /b the b water flows rapidly, and these non-kosher fish, since they do not have a spinal cord, are not able to exist in a place where the water flows rapidly, /b as the current carries the non-kosher fish out of the Bav River, and consequently all the remaining fish are kosher, that is not the case, b since we see that /b non-kosher fish b exist /b in rivers with strong currents., b Rather, /b perhaps Abaye permitted the fish b because /b the b water is salty, and these non-kosher fish are not able to exist in a place of salty water since they do not have scales. /b This, too, is not the case, b since we see that /b non-kosher fish b exist /b in salty water. b Rather, /b Abaye permitted the small fish in the Bav River b because /b the b mud /b in that river b is not /b suitable for b non-kosher fish /b to b reproduce. /b The conditions in the river render it an unproductive habitat for non-kosher fish. b Ravina says: Nowadays, as /b the government built canals between the rivers, and the b Goza River and /b the b Gamda River spill into /b the Bav and carry non-kosher fish there, it is b prohibited /b to eat the small fish without thorough inspection.,The Gemara cites several other statements of i amora’im /i that concern the halakhic status of fish. b Abaye says: This /b creature known as the b sea donkey [ i ḥamara deyamma /i ] /b is b permitted; /b the creature known as the b sea ox [ i tora deyamma /i ] /b is b prohibited, and your mnemonic /b to remember this i halakha /i is: b Impure is pure, /b and b pure is impure, /b i.e., the name of an animal which is non-kosher on land is kosher in the sea, and that which is kosher on land is non-kosher in the sea., b Rav Ashi said: /b The type of fish known as b i shefar nuna /i /b is b permitted, /b and the type of fish known as b i kadesh nuna /i /b is b prohibited, and your mnemonic /b to remember this i halakha /i is: That which is b holy [ i kodesh /i ] /b is b to the Lord, /b and not for humans. And b some say /b that Rav Ashi said: The type of fish known as b i kevar nuna /i /b is b prohibited, and your mnemonic /b is: The grave [ i kever /i ] is impure like the b graves of gentiles. /b ,The Gemara relates several incidents involving Sages and their rulings with regard to fish. b Rabbi Akiva happened /b to come b to Ginzak /b and b they brought before him a certain fish that was similar to a i ḥippusha /i , /b a non-kosher aquatic creature. When b he enclosed it in a basket he saw /b that b it /b had b scales /b which it shed as it struggled to escape from the basket, b and he permitted it /b on that basis. b Rav Ashi happened /b to come b to Tamduria /b where b they brought before him a certain fish that was similar to an eel [ i tzelofḥa /i ]. He took it out /b and held it b against /b the light of b day /b and b saw that there were thin scales on it, and he permitted it. /b , b Rav Ashi /b also b happened /b to come b to a certain land /b where b they brought before him a fish that was similar to a i shefarnuna /i . He enclosed it in a white vessel /b and b saw /b that b it /b shed dark b scales, /b which he could see against the white background of the container, b and he permitted it. Rabba bar bar Ḥana happened /b to come b to Akra DeAgma /b and b they brought him /b some b i tzaḥanta /i , /b a dish prepared from small fish. b He heard a certain man calling it i batei /i , /b the name of a non-kosher sea creature.,Rabba bar bar Ḥana b said /b to himself: b From /b the fact b that he called it i batei /i , /b I can b conclude from /b here that b there is a non-kosher substance in /b the i tzaḥanta /i . And b he did not eat from it /b that night. b In the morning, he examined /b the dish and in fact b found a non-kosher substance in it. He read /b the following verse b about himself: “No sin shall befall the righteous” /b (Proverbs 12:21).,§ The mishna teaches: b And a sliver of i ḥiltit /i /b may not be consumed, although one may derive benefit from it. The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that it is prohibited? It is b because they slice it with a knife /b on which there is presumably non-kosher residue. And b even though the Master said /b that a prohibited substance that b imparts flavor to /b the b detriment /b of the mixture is b permitted, /b that principle does not apply in this case because b as a result of the sharpness of the i ḥiltit /i , /b the act of slicing it with a knife b sweetens, /b i.e., enhances, the taste of b the /b non-kosher b residue. And /b there-fore b it is like /b a prohibited substance that b imparts flavor to /b the b enhancement /b of the mixture, b and /b it is b prohibited. /b ,The Gemara relates that the gentile b slave of Rabbi Levi would sell i ḥiltit /i , /b and it was permitted to purchase it from him as he was the slave of a Sage. b When Rabbi Levi passed away, they came before Rabbi Yoḥa /b and b said to him: /b Now that Rabbi Levi has passed, b what is /b the i halakha /i with regard to whether or not it is permitted b to purchase /b i ḥiltit /i b from his /b gentile slave? Rabbi Yoḥa b said to them: The slave of a i ḥaver /i , /b one devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially i halakhot /i of ritual purity, i teruma /i , and tithes, b is as a i ḥaver /i /b himself, and therefore it is permitted to buy i ḥiltit /i from him.,The Gemara relates another incident that involves the status of a i ḥaver /i and his household. b Rav Huna bar Minyumi purchased sky-blue dye [ i tekhelta /i ] from the people of the household, /b i.e., the wife, b of Rav Amram the pious. /b One may purchase sky-blue dye for ritual fringes only from a reliable individual, as it is easy to counterfeit it. Rav Huna then b came before Rav Yosef /b to ask if he could rely on her assurance that it was usable for the mitzva. The answer b was not available to /b Rav Yosef.,Later, b Ḥa the tailor happened to /b meet Rav Huna, and b he said to him: From where /b could b poor /b Rav b Yosef /b have known the answer to this question? Ḥa continued: b There was an incident in which I /b was involved, b as I purchased sky-blue dye from the people of the household, /b i.e., the wife, b of Rabena’a, brother of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, and I came before Rav Mattana /b to ask him the same question, and the answer b was not available to him /b either. b I /b then b came before Rav Yehuda of Hagronya, /b who b said to me: You have fallen into /b my b hand, /b i.e., I am the only one who can answer your question. b This /b is what b Shmuel says: The wife of a i ḥaver /i is /b herself considered b like a i ḥaver /i , /b and you may therefore rely on her statement.,The Gemara comments: b We learn /b here b that which the Sages taught /b explicitly in a i baraita /i : b The wife of a i ḥaver /i is like a i ḥaver /i ; the slave of a i ḥaver /i is like a i ḥaver /i . /b Furthermore, with regard to b a i ḥaver /i that died, his wife and children and members of his household remain in their presumptive /b status b until they are suspected /b of engaging in inappropriate deeds. b And similarly, /b with regard to b a courtyard in which they sell sky-blue dye, it remains in its presumptive /b status as a place in which kosher sky-blue dye is sold b until it is disqualified /b due to unscrupulous behavior., b The Sages taught: The wife of one who is not careful to keep the particulars of certain i halakhot /i [ i am ha’aretz /i ], who /b later b marries a i ḥaver /i , and likewise the daughter of an i am ha’aretz /i who marries a i ḥaver /i , and likewise the slave of an i am ha’aretz /i who is sold to a i ḥaver /i , must all accept /b upon themselves the commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status. But the wife of a i ḥaver /i who /b later b marries an i am ha’aretz /i , and likewise the daughter of a i ḥaver /i who marries an i am ha’aretz /i , and likewise the slave of a i ḥaver /i who was sold to an i am ha’aretz /i , /b these people b need not accept /b upon themselves the commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status i ab initio /i . /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. /b , b Rabbi Yehuda says: They too must accept /b upon themselves the commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status i ab initio /i . And similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would /b illustrate this point and b say: /b There was b an incident involving a certain woman who married a i ḥaver /i and would tie for him phylacteries on his hand, /b and she later b married a tax collector and would tie for him tax-seals on his hand, /b which shows that her new husband had a great influence on her level of piety.,§ b Rav says: /b The substances represented by the acronym b i ḥet /i , i beit /i , i yod /i , i tav /i are prohibited /b if they were deposited with a gentile while they were sealed b with /b only b one seal. /b Those represented by the acronym b i ḥet /i , i beit /i , i peh /i , i gimmel /i are permitted /b if they were deposited with a gentile while they were sealed b with one seal. /b The Gemara elaborates: b Milk [ i ḥalav /i ], meat [ i basar /i ], wine [ i yayin /i ], /b and b sky-blue dye [ i tekhelet /i ] /b |
|
| 30. Anon., Pereq Haminim 9 204, 7.28 Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood •scales, seafood, bottom feeders Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 150 |
| 31. Basilius Caesariensis Cappadociae, Canones Poenitentiales, 5.8 Tagged with subjects: •scales, seafood, bottom feeders Found in books: Rosenblum (2016), The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World, 151 |
