1. Hebrew Bible, Job, 40.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103| 40.2. "כִּי־בוּל הָרִים יִשְׂאוּ־לוֹ וְכָל־חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה יְשַׂחֲקוּ־שָׁם׃", 40.2. "הֲרֹב עִם־שַׁדַּי יִסּוֹר מוֹכִיחַ אֱלוֹהַּ יַעֲנֶנָּה׃", | 40.2. "Shall he that reproveth contend with the Almighty? He that argueth with God, let him answer it.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 17.6, 19.15-19.16, 28.58 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 86, 103, 133| 17.6. "עַל־פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים יוּמַת הַמֵּת לֹא יוּמַת עַל־פִּי עֵד אֶחָד׃", 19.15. "לֹא־יָקוּם עֵד אֶחָד בְּאִישׁ לְכָל־עָוֺן וּלְכָל־חַטָּאת בְּכָל־חֵטְא אֲשֶׁר יֶחֱטָא עַל־פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים אוֹ עַל־פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה־עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר׃", 19.16. "כִּי־יָקוּם עֵד־חָמָס בְּאִישׁ לַעֲנוֹת בּוֹ סָרָה׃", 28.58. "אִם־לֹא תִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת־כָּל־דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת הַכְּתוּבִים בַּסֵּפֶר הַזֶּה לְיִרְאָה אֶת־הַשֵּׁם הַנִּכְבָּד וְהַנּוֹרָא הַזֶּה אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ׃", | 17.6. "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.", 19.15. "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be establishment", 19.16. "If an unrighteous witness rise up against any man to bear perverted witness against him;", 28.58. "If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and awful Name, the LORD thy God;", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 12.4, 21.29 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69, 86| 12.4. "וּמוֹשַׁב בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָשְׁבוּ בְּמִצְרָיִם שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה׃", 12.4. "וְאִם־יִמְעַט הַבַּיִת מִהְיֹת מִשֶּׂה וְלָקַח הוּא וּשְׁכֵנוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ בְּמִכְסַת נְפָשֹׁת אִישׁ לְפִי אָכְלוֹ תָּכֹסּוּ עַל־הַשֶּׂה׃", 21.29. "וְאִם שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא מִתְּמֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם וְהוּעַד בִּבְעָלָיו וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל וְגַם־בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת׃", | 12.4. "and if the household be too little for a lamb, then shall he and his neighbour next unto his house take one according to the number of the souls; according to every man’s eating ye shall make your count for the lamb.", 21.29. "But if the ox was wont to gore in time past, and warning hath been given to its owner, and he hath not kept it in, but it hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 21.25 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103| 21.25. "וְהוֹכִחַ אַבְרָהָם אֶת־אֲבִימֶלֶךְ עַל־אֹדוֹת בְּאֵר הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר גָּזְלוּ עַבְדֵי אֲבִימֶלֶךְ׃", | 21.25. "And Abraham reproved Abimelech because of the well of water, which Abimelech’s servants had violently taken away.", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Hosea, 4.4 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103| 4.4. "אַךְ אִישׁ אַל־יָרֵב וְאַל־יוֹכַח אִישׁ וְעַמְּךָ כִּמְרִיבֵי כֹהֵן׃", | 4.4. "Yet let no man strive, neither let any man reprove; For thy people are as they that strive with the priest.", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 5.1, 5.25, 21.8, 27.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period •second commonwealth period, second temple, destruction of Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 35, 86, 119, 204| 5.1. "וְנֶפֶשׁ כִּי־תֶחֱטָא וְשָׁמְעָה קוֹל אָלָה וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם־לוֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲוֺנוֹ׃", 5.1. "וְאֶת־הַשֵּׁנִי יַעֲשֶׂה עֹלָה כַּמִּשְׁפָּט וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן מֵחַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר־חָטָא וְנִסְלַח לוֹ׃", 5.25. "וְאֶת־אֲשָׁמוֹ יָבִיא לַיהוָה אַיִל תָּמִים מִן־הַצֹּאן בְּעֶרְכְּךָ לְאָשָׁם אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן׃", 21.8. "וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ כִּי־אֶת־לֶחֶם אֱלֹהֶיךָ הוּא מַקְרִיב קָדֹשׁ יִהְיֶה־לָּךְ כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אֲנִי יְהוָה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם׃", 27.3. "וְהָיָה עֶרְכְּךָ הַזָּכָר מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וְעַד בֶּן־שִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה וְהָיָה עֶרְכְּךָ חֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ׃", 27.3. "וְכָל־מַעְשַׂר הָאָרֶץ מִזֶּרַע הָאָרֶץ מִפְּרִי הָעֵץ לַיהוָה הוּא קֹדֶשׁ לַיהוָה׃", | 5.1. "And if any one sin, in that he heareth the voice of adjuration, he being a witness, whether he hath seen or known, if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity;", 5.25. "And he shall bring his forfeit unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to thy valuation, for a guilt-offering, unto the priest.", 21.8. "Thou shalt sanctify him therefore; for he offereth the bread of thy God; he shall be holy unto thee; for I the LORD, who sanctify you, am holy.", 27.3. "then thy valuation shall be for the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.", |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Ruth, 4.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 24| 4.2. "וַיִּקַּח עֲשָׂרָה אֲנָשִׁים מִזִּקְנֵי הָעִיר וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁבוּ־פֹה וַיֵּשֵׁבוּ׃", 4.2. "וְעַמִּינָדָב הוֹלִיד אֶת־נַחְשׁוֹן וְנַחְשׁוֹן הוֹלִיד אֶת־שַׂלְמָה׃", | 4.2. "And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said: ‘Sit ye down here.’ And they sat down.", |
|
8. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 5.6-5.8, 30.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103, 119| 5.6. "דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ אוֹ־אִשָּׁה כִּי יַעֲשׂוּ מִכָּל־חַטֹּאת הָאָדָם לִמְעֹל מַעַל בַּיהוָה וְאָשְׁמָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא׃", 5.7. "וְהִתְוַדּוּ אֶת־חַטָּאתָם אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת־אֲשָׁמוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וַחֲמִישִׁתוֹ יֹסֵף עָלָיו וְנָתַן לַאֲשֶׁר אָשַׁם לוֹ׃", 5.8. "וְאִם־אֵין לָאִישׁ גֹּאֵל לְהָשִׁיב הָאָשָׁם אֵלָיו הָאָשָׁם הַמּוּשָׁב לַיהוָה לַכֹּהֵן מִלְּבַד אֵיל הַכִּפֻּרִים אֲשֶׁר יְכַפֶּר־בּוֹ עָלָיו׃", 30.15. "וְאִם־הַחֲרֵשׁ יַחֲרִישׁ לָהּ אִישָׁהּ מִיּוֹם אֶל־יוֹם וְהֵקִים אֶת־כָּל־נְדָרֶיהָ אוֹ אֶת־כָּל־אֱסָרֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ הֵקִים אֹתָם כִּי־הֶחֱרִשׁ לָהּ בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ׃", | 5.6. "Speak unto the children of Israel: When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to commit a trespass against the LORD, and that soul be guilty;", 5.7. "then they shall confess their sin which they have done; and he shall make restitution for his guilt in full, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him in respect of whom he hath been guilty.", 5.8. "But if the man have no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, the restitution for guilt which is made shall be the LORD’S, even the priest’s; besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him.", 30.15. "But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day, then he causeth all her vows to stand, or all her bonds, which are upon her; he hath let them stand, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them.", |
|
9. Hebrew Bible, Amos, 5.10 (8th cent. BCE - 6th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103 | 5.10. "They hate him that reproveth in the gate, And they abhor him that speaketh uprightly.", |
|
10. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 29.21 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103| 29.21. "מַחֲטִיאֵי אָדָם בְּדָבָר וְלַמּוֹכִיחַ בַּשַּׁעַר יְקֹשׁוּן וַיַּטּוּ בַתֹּהוּ צַדִּיק׃", | 29.21. "That make a man an offender by words, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, And turn aside the just with a thing of nought.", |
|
11. Hebrew Bible, Ezra, 9.6-9.15 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131| 9.6. "וָאֹמְרָה אֱלֹהַי בֹּשְׁתִּי וְנִכְלַמְתִּי לְהָרִים אֱלֹהַי פָּנַי אֵלֶיךָ כִּי עֲוֺנֹתֵינוּ רָבוּ לְמַעְלָה רֹּאשׁ וְאַשְׁמָתֵנוּ גָדְלָה עַד לַשָּׁמָיִם׃", 9.7. "מִימֵי אֲבֹתֵינוּ אֲנַחְנוּ בְּאַשְׁמָה גְדֹלָה עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וּבַעֲוֺנֹתֵינוּ נִתַּנּוּ אֲנַחְנוּ מְלָכֵינוּ כֹהֲנֵינוּ בְּיַד מַלְכֵי הָאֲרָצוֹת בַּחֶרֶב בַּשְּׁבִי וּבַבִּזָּה וּבְבֹשֶׁת פָּנִים כְּהַיּוֹם הַזֶּה׃", 9.8. "וְעַתָּה כִּמְעַט־רֶגַע הָיְתָה תְחִנָּה מֵאֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ לְהַשְׁאִיר לָנוּ פְּלֵיטָה וְלָתֶת־לָנוּ יָתֵד בִּמְקוֹם קָדְשׁוֹ לְהָאִיר עֵינֵינוּ אֱלֹהֵינוּ וּלְתִתֵּנוּ מִחְיָה מְעַט בְּעַבְדֻתֵנוּ׃", 9.9. "כִּי־עֲבָדִים אֲנַחְנוּ וּבְעַבְדֻתֵנוּ לֹא עֲזָבָנוּ אֱלֹהֵינוּ וַיַּט־עָלֵינוּ חֶסֶד לִפְנֵי מַלְכֵי פָרַס לָתֶת־לָנוּ מִחְיָה לְרוֹמֵם אֶת־בֵּית אֱלֹהֵינוּ וּלְהַעֲמִיד אֶת־חָרְבֹתָיו וְלָתֶת־לָנוּ גָדֵר בִּיהוּדָה וּבִירוּשָׁלִָם׃", 9.11. "אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתָ בְּיַד עֲבָדֶיךָ הַנְּבִיאִים לֵאמֹר הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם בָּאִים לְרִשְׁתָּהּ אֶרֶץ נִדָּה הִיא בְּנִדַּת עַמֵּי הָאֲרָצוֹת בְּתוֹעֲבֹתֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר מִלְאוּהָ מִפֶּה אֶל־פֶּה בְּטֻמְאָתָם׃", 9.12. "וְעַתָּה בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם אַל־תִּתְּנוּ לִבְנֵיהֶם וּבְנֹתֵיהֶם אַל־תִּשְׂאוּ לִבְנֵיכֶם וְלֹא־תִדְרְשׁוּ שְׁלֹמָם וְטוֹבָתָם עַד־עוֹלָם לְמַעַן תֶּחֶזְקוּ וַאֲכַלְתֶּם אֶת־טוּב הָאָרֶץ וְהוֹרַשְׁתֶּם לִבְנֵיכֶם עַד־עוֹלָם׃", 9.13. "וְאַחֲרֵי כָּל־הַבָּא עָלֵינוּ בְּמַעֲשֵׂינוּ הָרָעִים וּבְאַשְׁמָתֵנוּ הַגְּדֹלָה כִּי אַתָּה אֱלֹהֵינוּ חָשַׂכְתָּ לְמַטָּה מֵעֲוֺנֵנוּ וְנָתַתָּה לָּנוּ פְּלֵיטָה כָּזֹאת׃", 9.14. "הֲנָשׁוּב לְהָפֵר מִצְוֺתֶיךָ וּלְהִתְחַתֵּן בְּעַמֵּי הַתֹּעֵבוֹת הָאֵלֶּה הֲלוֹא תֶאֱנַף־בָּנוּ עַד־כַּלֵּה לְאֵין שְׁאֵרִית וּפְלֵיטָה׃", 9.15. "יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל צַדִּיק אַתָּה כִּי־נִשְׁאַרְנוּ פְלֵיטָה כְּהַיּוֹם הַזֶּה הִנְנוּ לְפָנֶיךָ בְּאַשְׁמָתֵינוּ כִּי אֵין לַעֲמוֹד לְפָנֶיךָ עַל־זֹאת׃", | 9.6. "and I said: ‘O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to Thee, my God; for our iniquities are increased over our head, and our guiltiness is grown up unto the heavens.", 9.7. "Since the days of our fathers we have been exceeding guilty unto this day; and for our iniquities have we, our kings, and our priests, been delivered into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, and to spoiling, and to confusion of face, as it is this day.", 9.8. "And now for a little moment grace hath been shown from the LORD our God, to leave us a remt to escape, and to give us a nail in His holy place, that our God may lighten our eyes, and give us a little reviving in our bondage.", 9.9. "For we are bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the ruins thereof, and to give us a fence in Judah and in Jerusalem.", 9.10. "And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken Thy commandments,", 9.11. "which Thou hast commanded by Thy servants the prophets, saying: The land, unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land through the uncleanness of the peoples of the lands, through their abominations, wherewith they have filled it from one end to another with their filthiness.", 9.12. "Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their prosperity for ever; that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.", 9.13. "And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great guilt, seeing that Thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such a remt,", 9.14. "shall we again break Thy commandments, and make marriages with the peoples that do these abominations? wouldest not Thou be angry with us till Thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remt, nor any to escape?", 9.15. "O LORD, the God of Israel, Thou art righteous; for we are left a remt that is escaped, as it is this day; behold, we are before Thee in our guiltiness; for none can stand before Thee because of this.’", |
|
12. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 7.19 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 24| 7.19. "הַחָכְמָה תָּעֹז לֶחָכָם מֵעֲשָׂרָה שַׁלִּיטִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ בָּעִיר׃", | 7.19. "Wisdom is a stronghold to the wise man more than ten rulers that are in a city.", |
|
| 13. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 1.2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 35 |
| 14. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Community, 1.2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 35 |
| 15. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Community, 1.2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 35 |
| 16. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 9.1, 9.10-9.12, 9.16-9.23, 10.1, 15.1-15.5, 16.10-16.12 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69, 86, 103, 136, 138 |
| 17. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 9.1, 9.10-9.12, 9.16-9.23, 10.1, 15.1-15.5, 16.10-16.12 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69, 86, 103, 136, 138 |
18. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 47.18 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 133 | 47.18. In the name of the Lord God,who is called the God of Israel,you gathered gold like tin and amassed silver like lead. |
|
| 19. Dead Sea Scrolls, of Discipline, 5.14, 5.15, 5.16, 5.17, 6.25, 6.26, 6.27-7.2, 6.27, 7.2161, 8.17-9.2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 172 |
20. Mishnah, Bava Metzia, 4.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131| 4.8. "חֲמִשָּׁה חֻמְשִׁין הֵן. הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה, וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי, וְהַחַלָּה, וְהַבִּכּוּרִים מוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ. וְהַפּוֹדֶה נֶטַע רְבָעִי וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁלּוֹ, מוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ. הַפּוֹדֶה אֶת הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ, מוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ. הַנֶּהֱנֶה בְשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, מוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ. וְהַגּוֹזֵל אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה וְנִשְׁבַּע לוֹ, מוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ: \n", | 4.8. "There are five cases in which one must add a fifth:One who eats terumah, or the terumah taken from the tithe, or the terumah from a tithe taken from doubtfully tithed produce, or dough offering, or first fruits, must add a fifth [to the value of the principle when he makes restitution]. One that redeems [the fruit of] a fourth year plant, or his second tithe, must add a fifth. One that redeems that which he dedicated [to the Temple] must add a fifth. One that derives a perutah’s worth of benefit from that which belongs to the sanctuary must add a fifth [when he makes restitution]. One who steals that which is worth a perutah from his fellow must add a fifth [when he makes restitution].", |
|
21. Mishnah, Bava Qamma, 9.11-9.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 119, 131| 9.11. "הַגּוֹזֵל אֶת הַגֵּר וְנִשְׁבַּע לוֹ, וּמֵת, הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחֹמֶשׁ לַכֹּהֲנִים וְאָשָׁם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ה) וְאִם אֵין לָאִישׁ גֹּאֵל לְהָשִׁיב הָאָשָׁם אֵלָיו, הָאָשָׁם הַמּוּשָׁב לַה' לַכֹּהֵן, מִלְּבַד אֵיל הַכִּפֻּרִים אֲשֶׁר יְכַפֶּר בּוֹ עָלָיו. הָיָה מַעֲלֶה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף וְאֶת הָאָשָׁם, וּמֵת, הַכֶּסֶף יִנָּתֵן לְבָנָיו, וְהָאָשָׁם יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב, וְיִמָּכֵר וְיִפְּלוּ דָמָיו לִנְדָבָה: \n", 9.12. "נָתַן הַכֶּסֶף לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר, וּמֵת, אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁים יְכוֹלִין לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן לַכֹּהֵן לוֹ יִהְיֶה. נָתַן הַכֶּסֶף לִיהוֹיָרִיב וְאָשָׁם לִידַעְיָה, יָצָא. אָשָׁם לִיהוֹיָרִיב וְכֶסֶף לִידַעְיָה, אִם קַיָּם הָאָשָׁם, יַקְרִיבוּהוּ בְנֵי יְדַעְיָה, וְאִם לֹא, יַחֲזִיר וְיָבִיא אָשָׁם אַחֵר, שֶׁהַמֵּבִיא גְזֵלוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ, יָצָא. הֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא גְזֵלוֹ, לֹא יָצָא. נָתַן אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא נָתַן אֶת הַחֹמֶשׁ, אֵין הַחֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב: \n", | 9.11. "If a man stole from a convert and swore [falsely] to him, and the convert died, he must repay the value and the added fifth to the priests, and the Guilt-offering to the altar, as it says: “If the man has no kinsman to whom restitution can be made, the amount which is repaid shall go to the priest in addition to the ram of atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him” (Numbers 5:8). If he brought the money and the Guilt-offering and then died, the money shall be given to his sons, and the Guilt-offering shall be left to pasture until it suffers a blemish, when it shall be sold, and its value falls to the Temple treasury.", 9.12. "If he [who had stolen from the convert] gave the money to the men of the priestly watch and then died, his inheritors cannot recover it from their [the priests] hands, as it says, “Whatsoever a man gives to a priest shall be his” (Numbers 5:10). If he gave the money to Yehoyariv, and the Guilt-offering to Yedayah, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he gave the Guilt-offering to Yehoyariv and the money to Yedayah: if the Guilt-offering still remains, the sons of Yedayah shall offer it; otherwise, he must bring another Guilt-offering. For if a man brought what he had stolen before he offered his Guilt-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation. But if he brought his Guilt-offering before he brought what he had stolen, he has not yet fulfilled his obligation. If he gave the value but not the [added] fifth, the [added] fifth does not prevent [him from offering the Guilt-offering].", |
|
22. Mishnah, Nedarim, 10.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103| 10.8. "הֲפָרַת נְדָרִים, כָּל הַיּוֹם. יֵשׁ בַּדָּבָר לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחֲמִיר. כֵּיצַד. נָדְרָה בְּלֵילֵי שַׁבָּת, יָפֵר בְּלֵילֵי שַׁבָּת וּבְיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת עַד שֶׁתֶּחְשָׁךְ. נָדְרָה עִם חֲשֵׁכָה, מֵפֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא תֶחְשַׁךְ. שֶׁאִם חָשְׁכָה וְלֹא הֵפֵר, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר: \n", | 10.8. "The annulment of vows is the whole day. This may result in a stringency or in a leniency. How is this so? If she vowed on the eve of the Sabbath, he can annul on the eve of the sabbath and on the Sabbath day until nightfall. If she vowed just before nightfall, he can annul only until nightfall: for if night fell and he had not annulled it, he can no longer annul it.", |
|
23. Mishnah, Niddah, 5.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69| 5.9. "בַּת עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, תָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהִיא בַת עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וְהִיא אַיְלוֹנִית, לֹא חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, יָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהוּא בֶן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וְהוּא סָרִיס, לֹא חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא מְיַבֵּם, אֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, זֶה וָזֶה בְּנֵי שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, הַזָּכָר כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל, וְהַנְּקֵבָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי, שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה מְמַהֶרֶת לָבֹא לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ:", | 5.9. "If a woman at the age of twenty did not bring forth two hairs, she must bring evidence that she is twenty years of age and she is an aylonit, she doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum. If a man at the age of twenty years did not produce two hairs, he must bring evidence that he is twenty years old and he becomes confirmed as a saris and he doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum, the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai says: with both of them at the age of eighteen. Rabbi Eliezer says: In the case of the male, according to the words of Bet Hillel, while in that of the female, in accordance with the words of Bet Shammai, since a woman matures earlier than a man.", |
|
24. Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah, 1.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69| 1.8. "אֵלּוּ הֵן הַפְּסוּלִין, הַמְשַׂחֵק בְּקֻבְיָא, וּמַלְוֵי בְרִבִּית, וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים, וְסוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית, וַעֲבָדִים. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל עֵדוּת שֶׁאֵין הָאִשָּׁה כְשֵׁרָה לָהּ, אַף הֵן אֵינָן כְּשֵׁרִים לָהּ: \n", | 1.8. "And these are they which are not qualified [to be witnesses or judges]: A dice player, a usurer, pigeon racers, or traffickers in Seventh Year produce, and slaves. This is the general rule: any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they too are not qualified.", |
|
25. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 1.4, 3.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69, 86| 1.4. "דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, שֶׁנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא כ) וְהָרַגְתָּ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה, וְאוֹמֵר (שם) וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה תַּהֲרֹגוּ. שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא) הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל וְגַם בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת, כְּמִיתַת בְּעָלִים כָּךְ מִיתַת הַשּׁוֹר. הַזְּאֵב וְהָאֲרִי, הַדֹּב וְהַנָּמֵר וְהַבַּרְדְּלָס וְהַנָּחָשׁ, מִיתָתָן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם לְהָרְגָן, זָכָה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, מִיתָתָן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה: \n", 3.3. "וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַפְּסוּלִין, הַמְשַׂחֵק בְּקֻבְיָא, וְהַמַּלְוֶה בְרִבִּית, וּמַפְרִיחֵי יוֹנִים, וְסוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, בִּתְחִלָּה הָיוּ קוֹרִין אוֹתָן אוֹסְפֵי שְׁבִיעִית, מִשֶּׁרַבּוּ הָאַנָּסִין, חָזְרוּ לִקְרוֹתָן סוֹחֲרֵי שְׁבִיעִית. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אֻמָּנוּת אֶלָּא הִיא, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהֶן אֻמָּנוּת שֶׁלֹּא הִיא, כְּשֵׁרִין: \n", | 1.4. "Cases concerning offenses punishable by death [are decided] by twenty three. A beast that has sexual relations with a woman or with a man is [judged] by twenty three, as it says, “You shall execute the woman and the beast” (Lev. 20:16) and it says, “You shall execute the beast”. The ox that is stoned [is judged] by twenty three., as it says, “The ox shall be stoned and also its owner shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:29), as is the death of the owner, so too is the death of the ox. The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther, or serpent [that have killed a human being] their death is [adjudicated] by twenty three. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Anyone who kills them before they come to court merits.” But Rabbi Akiva says: “Their death must be [adjudicated] by twenty three.", 3.3. "And these are they which are not qualified [to be witnesses or judges]:A dice player, a usurer, pigeon racers, or traffickers in Seventh Year produce. Rabbi Shimon said: “In the beginning they called them ‘gatherers’ of Seventh Year produce, but after the oppressors grew many they changed this and called them ‘traffickers’ of Seventh Year produce.” Rabbi Judah said: “This applies only if they have no other trade, but if they have some other trade other than that, they are not disqualified.”", |
|
26. Mishnah, Yoma, 3.8, 4.2, 6.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131| 3.8. "בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל פָּרוֹ, וּפָרוֹ הָיָה עוֹמֵד בֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ, רֹאשׁוֹ לַדָּרוֹם וּפָנָיו לַמַּעֲרָב, וְהַכֹּהֵן עוֹמֵד בַּמִּזְרָח וּפָנָיו לַמַּעֲרָב, וְסוֹמֵךְ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עָלָיו וּמִתְוַדֶּה. וְכָךְ הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, עָוִיתִי פָּשַׁעְתִּי חָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ אֲנִי וּבֵיתִי. אָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, כַּפֶּר נָא לָעֲוֹנוֹת וְלַפְּשָׁעִים וְלַחֲטָאִים, שֶׁעָוִיתִי וְשֶׁפָּשַׁעְתִּי וְשֶׁחָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ אֲנִי וּבֵיתִי, כַּכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת משֶׁה עַבְדֶּךָ (ויקרא טז), כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי יְיָ תִּטְהָרוּ. וְהֵן עוֹנִין אַחֲרָיו, בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד: \n", 4.2. "קָשַׁר לָשׁוֹן שֶׁל זְהוֹרִית בְּרֹאשׁ שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְהֶעֱמִידוֹ כְנֶגֶד בֵּית שִׁלּוּחוֹ, וְלַנִּשְׁחָט כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית שְׁחִיטָתוֹ. בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל פָּרוֹ שְׁנִיָּה, וְסוֹמֵךְ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עָלָיו וּמִתְוַדֶּה. וְכָךְ הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, עָוִיתִי פָּשַׁעְתִּי חָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ אֲנִי וּבֵיתִי וּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן עַם קְדוֹשֶׁיךָ. אָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, כַּפֶּר נָא לָעֲוֹנוֹת וְלַפְּשָׁעִים וְלַחֲטָאִים, שֶׁעָוִיתִי וְשֶׁפָּשַׁעְתִּי וְשֶׁחָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ אֲנִי וּבֵיתִי וּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן עַם קְדוֹשֶׁךָ, כַּכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת משֶׁה עַבְדֶּךָ (ויקרא טז), כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי יְיָ תִּטְהָרוּ. וְהֵן עוֹנִין אַחֲרָיו, בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד: \n", 6.2. "בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְסוֹמֵךְ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עָלָיו וּמִתְוַדֶּה. וְכָךְ הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, עָווּ פָּשְׁעוּ חָטְאוּ לְפָנֶיךָ עַמְּךָ בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָנָּא בַּשֵּׁם, כַּפֶּר נָא לָעֲוֹנוֹת וְלַפְּשָׁעִים וְלַחֲטָאִים, שֶׁעָווּ וְשֶׁפָּשְׁעוּ וְשֶׁחָטְאוּ לְפָנֶיךָ עַמְּךָ בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל, כַּכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת משֶׁה עַבְדֶּךָ לֵאמֹר (ויקרא טז), כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי יְיָ תִּטְהָרוּ. וְהַכֹּהֲנִים וְהָעָם הָעוֹמְדִים בָּעֲזָרָה, כְּשֶׁהָיוּ שׁוֹמְעִים שֵׁם הַמְפֹרָשׁ שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא מִפִּי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, הָיוּ כּוֹרְעִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים וְנוֹפְלִים עַל פְּנֵיהֶם, וְאוֹמְרִים, בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד: \n", | 3.8. "He came to his bull and his bull was standing between the Ulam and the altar, its head to the south and its face to the west. And the priest stands on the eastside facing the west. And he lays both his hands upon it and confesses. And thus he would say: “Please, ‘Hashem’! I have done wrong, I have transgressed, I have sinned before You, I and my house. Please, ‘Hashem’! Forgive the wrongdoings, the transgressions, the sins which I have committed and transgressed and sinned before You, I and my house, as it is written in the torah of Moses Your servant: “For on this day shall atonement be made for you [to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord”] (Leviticus 16:30). And they answered after him: “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!”", 4.2. "He bound a thread of crimson wool on the head of the goat which was to be sent away, and he placed it at the gate where it was later to be sent away, and on the goat that was to be slaughtered [he placed a thread of crimson wool on its neck] at the place of the slaughtering. He came to his bull a second time, pressed his two hands upon it and made confession. And thus he would say: “Please, ‘Hashem’! I have done wrong, I have transgressed, I have sinned before You, I and my house and the sons of Aaron Your holy people. Please, ‘Hashem’! Forgive the wrongdoings, the transgressions, the sins which I have committed and transgressed and sinned before You, I and my house and the sons of Aaron Your holy people, as it is written in the torah of Moses Your servant: “For on this day shall atonement be made for you [to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord”] (Leviticus 16:30). And they answered after him: “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!”", 6.2. "He then came to the scapegoat and laid his two hands upon it and he made confession. And thus he would say: “Please, ‘Hashem’! They have done wrong, they have transgressed, they have sinned before You, Your people the House of Israel. Please, in the name of Hashem (Bashem)! Forgive the wrongdoings, the transgressions, the sins which your people, the House of Israel, have committed and transgressed and sinned before You, as it is written in the torah of Moses Your servant: “For on this day shall atonement be made for you [to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord”] (Leviticus 16:30). And the priests and the people standing in the courtyard, when they would hear God’s name explicated coming out of the high priest’s mouth, would bend their knees, bow down and fall on their faces and say “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!”", |
|
27. Tosefta, Bava Qamma, 10.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131| 10.9. "דרש רבי יוסי הגלילי בגוזל את הגר והיה עולה לירושלים ומעותיו ואשמו בידו ומצאו וזקפו עליו במלוה הביא את אשמו ואח\"כ מת הגר יצא לא הספיק להביא את אשמו עד שמת הגר הרי זה צריך להביא אשם והמעות זכה בהן וחכמים אומרים לא עשה כלום עד שיתנם לו ויחזור ליטלם ממנו. דרש ר' עקיבה כשבא מזפרן בגזל את הגר ונשבע לו והיה עולה לירושלים ומעותיו ואשמו בידו ומת בדרך הכסף ינתן לבניו ואשם ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויפלו דמיו לנדבה שנא' (במדבר ה׳:ח׳) מלבד איל הכפורים אשר יכפר בו עליו מי שצריך כפרה יצא זה שאין צריך כפרה נתן את הכסף לאנשי משמר ומת אין היורשין יכולין להוציא מידם שנא' (שם) איש אשר יתן לכהן לו יהיה נתן הכסף ליהויריב ואשם לידעיה יחזיר הכסף אחר האשם דברי רבי יהודה וחכ\"א אשם אחר הכסף אמר רבי אם כדברי רבי יהודה יקריבו בני יהויריב את האשם לא נתכפר לו אלא אם כן קיים אשם יחזיר הכסף מבני ידעיה אצל בני יהויריב ויקריבו בני יהויריב את האשם ויתכפר לו עבר משמרו של יהויריב יחזיר האשם מבני יהויריב אצל בני ידעיה ויקריבו בני ידעיה את האשם ויתכפר לו הביא אשמו ולא הביא גזלו לא יהא ממרס בדמו עד שיביא גזילו אלא תעובר צורתו ויצא לבית השריפה הביא אשמו ולא הביא מעילתו לא יהא ממרס בדמו עד שיביא מעילתו אלא תעובר צורתו ויצא לבית השריפה. מצורע שהביא חטאתו קודם לאשמו לא יהא ממרס בדמו עד שיביא אשמו אלא תעובר צורתו ותצא לבית השריפה.", | |
|
28. Tosefta, Hagigah, 1.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69| 1.2. "יוחנן בן דהבאי אומר משום ר' יהודה אף הסומא [שנאמר יראה פרט לסומא השיב רבי על דברי יוחנן בן דהבאי הכריעו חכמים לסייע דברי רבי יהודה] (שמואל א א׳:כ״ב) וחנה לא עלתה כי אמרה לאשה עד יגמל וגו'.", | |
|
| 29. Tosefta, Maaser Sheni, 4.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131 |
30. Tosefta, Menachot, 10.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131| 10.3. "כל קרבנות צבור אין בהם סמיכה חוץ מפר הבא על כל המצות ושעירי עבודת כוכבים שהן טעונים סמיכה דברי ר' יהודה ר\"ש אומר שעירי עבודת כוכבים אין טעונין סמיכה מה היה מביא תחתיהן שעיר המשתלח אמר לו ר\"ש והלא אין סמיכה אלא בבעלים. שעיר המשתלח סומכין עליו אהרן ובניו כאחד אמר לו רבי יהודה אף הן מתכפרין בו. כלל אמר רבי שמעון כל הבא על עברות מצוה ידועה ודמו נכנס לפנים טעון סמיכה כל שאין בא על עברות מצוה ידועה ואין דמו נכנס לפנים אין טעון סמיכה היורש ואחד עשר שבמעשר הרי אלו ממירין טעונין סמיכה ונסכים דברי ר\"מ רבי יהודה אומר היורש אינו ממיר ואחד עשר שבמעשר אינו ממיר מפני שהיא תמורה ואין תמורה עושה תמורה אמר לו ר' יהודה אילו היה תמורה היה קרב אלא זבח היה ונסכים היו בפני עצמן כיצד סומך זבח עומד בצפון ופניו במערב סומך במערב ופניו במערב מניח שתי ידיו על גבי קרניו של זבח ולא היה מניח ידיו על גבי זבח ולא היה מניח ידיו זו על גבי זו ולא היה דבר חוצץ בין ידים לקרנות מתודה עליו עון עבירה על חטאת עון חטאת על אשם עון אשמה על עולה עון לקט שכחה ופאה שאין להם וידוי דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי אמר לו רבי עקיבה על מה עולה מכפרת על דברים שיש בהן עונש הרי זה עונש אמור על לא תעשה שלהן אמורה על מה עולה מכפרת על מצות עשה ועל מצות לא תעשה שיש בה קום עשה. סמיכה נוהגת בכהנים ולוים וישראלים וגרים ועבדים משוחררין חללין נתינין וממזרין סריס אדם סריס חמה פצוע דכה וכרות שפכה אין נוהגת לא בעובדי כוכבים ולא בנשים ולא בעבדים ולא בקטנים.", | |
|
31. Tosefta, Nedarim, 1.1, 6.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103, 136| 1.1. "חומר [בנדרים מבשבועות] שהנדרים נוהגין ברשות ובמצוה משא\"כ בשבועות [חומר] בשבועות מבנדרים שהשבועות [נוהגת] בדבר שיש בו ממש ובדבר שאין בו ממש משא\"כ בנדרים בנדרים כיצד אמר קונם סוכה [שאיני] עושה לולב [שאיני] נוטל תפילין [שאיני] נותן [אסור] בנדרים [ומותר בשבועות] כיצד אמר קונם שאני ישן שאני מדבר [שאיני] מהלך [אסור] בשבועות [ומותר בנדרים]. קונם פי מדבר עמך ידי עושה עמך רגלי מהלכת עמך אסור בנדרים [ואסור בשבועות].", 1.1. "האומר ימינה הרי זו שבועה שמאלה הרי זו שבועה בשם ה\"ז שבועה לשם ה\"ז קרבן.", 6.1. "ר' יוסי בר' יהודה ור' אלעזר בר' שמעון [אומר הפרת נדרים] מעת לעת כיצד היו על אשתו חמשה נדרים או שהיו לו חמש נשים ונדרו כולן ואמר כולן מופרין מופר ליך נדר זה לא הופר אלא נדר זה [לא היפר לה אלא נדר זה] מה ראית שתדורי אי אפשי שתדורי אין זה נדר לא אמר כלום מופר מבוטל זה הרי זה בטל קיים ליך יפה עשית אף אני כמותיך אם לא נדרת [מדירך אני] אין יכול להפר.", | |
|
32. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 5.2, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69| 5.2. "משחק בקוביא זו משחק בפסיפסין אחד המשחק בפסיפסין ואחד המשחק בקליפי אגוזים ובקליפי רמונים לעולם אין יכול לחזור בו עד שישבר את פסיפסין ויחזור בו חזרה גמורה המלוה ברבית אין יכול לחזור בו עד שיקרע שטרותיו ויחזור בו חזרה גמורה מפריחי יונים זה הממרה את היונין אחד ממרה את היונין ואחד ממרה שאר בהמה חיה ועוף לעולם אין יכול לחזור בו עד שישבור את פיגמיו ויחזור בו חזרה גמורה סוחרי שביעית זה היושב ובטל בשאר שני שבוע כיון שהגיע שנת השמטה התחיל מפשיט ידיו ורגליו ונושא ונותן בפירות עבירה לעולם אין יכול לחזור בו עד שתגיע שמטה אחרת וידבק ויחזור בו חזרה גמורה רבי נחמיה אומר חזרת ממון ולא חזרת דברים כיצד אמר מאתים דינר אלו כנסתי מפירות עבירה חלקו אותן לעניים ר\"מ היה קורא אותן אוספי שביעית רבי יהודה היה קורא אותן סוחרי שביעית אר\"ש מקיים אני דבר שניהן הא כיצד עד שלא רבו האונסין היו קורין אוספי שביעית ומשרבו האונסין היו קורין אותן סוחרי שביעית ובכולן היה רבי יהודה אומר בזמן שיש להן אומנות אחרות הרי אלו פסולין חזרו בהן הרי כשרים וחכמים אומרים אף בזמן שיש להן אומנות הרי אלו פסולין בד\"א בקדוש החדש ובעיבור שנה בדיני ממונות ובדיני נפשות אבל עדות שהאשה כשרה לה הן כשרין לה.", 5.5. "הוסיפו עליהן הרועין והגזלנין החמסנין וכל החשודין על הממון עדותן פסולה לעולם.", | |
|
| 33. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 223 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131 |
| 34. Palestinian Talmud, Bikkurim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69 |
| 35. Palestinian Talmud, Shevuot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69 |
| 36. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69 |
| 37. Palestinian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69 |
| 38. Palestinian Talmud, Niddah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103 |
| 39. Palestinian Talmud, Nedarim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103 |
| 40. Palestinian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131 |
| 41. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 150, 156, 3-4, 2 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131 |
| 42. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131 |
| 43. Palestinian Talmud, Sheqalim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103 |
44. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 58.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69| 58.1. וַיִּהְיוּ חַיֵּי שָׂרָה מֵאָה שָׁנָה (בראשית כג, א), (תהלים לז, יח): יוֹדֵעַ ה' יְמֵי תְמִימִם וְנַחֲלָתָם לְעוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהֵן תְּמִימִים כָּךְ שְׁנוֹתָם תְּמִימִים, בַּת עֶשְׂרִים כְּבַת שֶׁבַע לְנוֹי, בַּת מֵאָה כְּבַת עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה לְחֵטְא. דָּבָר אַחֵר, יוֹדֵעַ ה' יְמֵי תְמִימִם, זוֹ שָׂרָה שֶׁהָיְתָה תְּמִימָה בְּמַעֲשֶׂיהָ, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן כַּהֲדָא עֶגְלְתָא תְּמִימָה, וְנַחֲלָתָם לְעוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיִּהְיוּ חַיֵּי שָׂרָה, מַה צֹּרֶךְ לוֹמַר שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי שָׂרָה בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה, לוֹמַר לְךָ שֶׁחָבִיב חַיֵּיהֶם שֶׁל צַדִּיקִים לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְלָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. | |
|
| 45. Palestinian Talmud, Demai, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103 |
46. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period, second temple, destruction of Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 204| 87a. הכי השתא התם משתא וברוכי בהדי הדדי לא אפשר הכא אפשר דשחיט בחדא ומכסי בחדא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big שחט ולא כסה וראהו אחר חייב לכסות כסהו ונתגלה פטור מלכסות כסהו הרוח חייב לכסות:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר (ויקרא יז, יג) ושפך וכסה מי ששפך יכסה שחט ולא כסה וראהו אחר מנין שחייב לכסות שנאמר (ויקרא יז, יד) ואומר לבני ישראל אזהרה לכל בני ישראל,תניא אידך ושפך וכסה במה ששפך בו יכסה שלא יכסנו ברגל שלא יהיו מצות בזויות עליו תניא אידך ושפך וכסה מי ששפך הוא יכסנו מעשה באחד ששחט וקדם חבירו וכסה וחייבו רבן גמליאל ליתן לו י' זהובים,איבעיא להו שכר מצוה או שכר ברכה למאי נפקא מינה לברכת המזון אי אמרת שכר מצוה אחת היא ואי אמרת שכר ברכה הויין ארבעים מאי,תא שמע דא"ל ההוא צדוקי לרבי מי שיצר הרים לא ברא רוח ומי שברא רוח לא יצר הרים דכתיב (עמוס ד, יג) כי הנה יוצר הרים ובורא רוח אמר ליה שוטה שפיל לסיפיה דקרא ה' צבאות שמו,אמר ליה נקוט לי זימנא תלתא יומי ומהדרנא לך תיובתא יתיב רבי תלת תעניתא כי הוה קא בעי מיברך אמרו ליה צדוקי קאי אבבא אמר (תהלים סט, כב) ויתנו בברותי רוש וגו',א"ל רבי מבשר טובות אני לך לא מצא תשובה אויבך ונפל מן הגג ומת אמר לו רצונך שתסעוד אצלי אמר לו הן לאחר שאכלו ושתו א"ל כוס של ברכה אתה שותה או ארבעים זהובים אתה נוטל אמר לו כוס של ברכה אני שותה יצתה בת קול ואמרה כוס של ברכה ישוה ארבעים זהובים,אמר רבי יצחק עדיין שנה לאותה משפחה בין גדולי רומי וקוראין אותה משפחת בר לויאנוס:,כסהו ונתגלה: אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי מאי שנא מהשבת אבדה דאמר מר (דברים כב, א) השב אפילו מאה פעמים,אמר ליה התם לא כתיב מיעוטא הכא כתיב מיעוטא וכסהו:,כסהו הרוח: אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא שחזר ונתגלה אבל לא חזר ונתגלה פטור מלכסות וכי חזר ונתגלה מאי הוי הא אידחי ליה אמר רב פפא זאת אומרת אין דיחוי אצל מצות,ומאי שנא מהא דתניא השוחט ונבלע דם בקרקע חייב לכסות התם כשרשומו ניכר:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big דם שנתערב במים אם יש בו מראית דם חייב לכסות נתערב ביין רואין אותו כאילו הוא מים נתערב בדם הבהמה | 87a. The Gemara rejects this: b How can /b these cases b be compared? There, /b in the incident involving the students of Rav, it is b impossible to drink and recite a blessing simultaneously. /b Accordingly, by requesting a cup over which to recite the blessing of Grace after Meals, they demonstrated their desire to cease drinking. b Here, /b when one covers the blood of the undomesticated animal before slaughtering the bird, it is b possible to slaughter /b the bird b with the one /b hand b and cover /b the blood of the undomesticated animal b with the /b other b one. /b Accordingly, the act of covering the blood of the undomesticated animal is not considered an interruption of the acts of slaughter, since they could have been performed simultaneously., strong MISHNA: /strong If one b slaughtered /b an undomesticated animal or bird b and did not cover /b the blood, b and another /b person b saw /b the uncovered blood, the second person is b obligated to cover /b the blood. If one b covered /b the blood b and it was /b then b uncovered, /b he is b exempt from covering it /b again. If b the wind /b blew earth on the blood and b covered it, /b and it was consequently uncovered, he is b obligated to cover /b the blood., strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “And he shall pour out /b its blood b and cover /b it with earth” (Leviticus 17:13), indicating that b the one who poured out /b its blood, i.e., slaughtered the animal, b shall cover it. /b If one b slaughtered /b the animal or bird b and did not cover /b the blood, b and another person saw /b the uncovered blood, b from where /b is it derived b that /b the person who saw the blood b is obligated to cover /b it? It is derived from the following verse, b as it is stated: “Therefore I said to the children of Israel” /b (Leviticus 17:12), which is b a warning to all the children of Israel /b to fulfill the mitzva of covering the blood., b It is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : The verse states: b “And he shall pour out /b its blood b and cover /b it with earth,” indicating that b with that which he poured out /b the blood b he shall cover it, /b i.e., he must use his hand, and b he /b may b not cover it with /b his b foot, so that mitzvot will not be contemptible to him. It is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : The verse states: b “And he shall pour out /b its blood b and cover /b it with earth,” indicating that b the one who poured out /b the blood b shall cover it. An incident /b occurred b involving one who slaughtered /b an undomesticated animal or bird b and another /b individual b preempted /b him b and covered /b the blood, b and Rabban Gamliel deemed him obligated to give ten gold coins to /b the one who performed the act of slaughter., b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: Are these ten gold coins b compensation /b for the stolen b mitzva or /b are they b compensation /b for the stolen b blessing /b recited over the mitzva? The Gemara elaborates: b What is the /b practical b difference? /b The difference is b with regard to /b a similar case involving b Grace after Meals. If you say /b the coins are b compensation for the mitzva, /b then with regard to Grace after Meals, since all its blessings constitute b one /b mitzva, one would be obligated to give only ten gold coins. b But if you say /b they are b compensation for the /b lost b blessing, /b then with regard to Grace after Meals the compensation b is forty /b gold coins, since Grace after Meals comprises four blessings. b What /b is the conclusion?,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof from an incident in b which a certain heretic said to Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi: b He who created mountains did not create wind, and he who created wind did not create mountains; /b rather, each was created by a separate deity, b as it is written: “For behold, He Who forms the mountains and He Who creates the wind” /b (Amos 4:13), indicating that there are two deities: One who forms the mountains and one who creates the wind. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b said to him: Imbecile, go to the end of the verse, /b which states: b “The Lord, the God of hosts, is His name.” /b The verse emphasizes that God is the One Who both forms and creates.,The heretic b said to /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: b Give me three days’ time and I will respond to you /b with b a rebuttal /b of your claim. b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b sat /b and fasted b three /b days of b fasting /b while awaiting the heretic, in order that he would not find a rebuttal. b When /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b wanted to have a meal /b at the conclusion of those three days, b they said to him: /b That b heretic is standing at the doorway. /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b recited /b the following verse about himself: b “They put gall into my food, /b and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink” (Psalms 69:22), i.e., my meal is embittered with the presence of this heretic.,When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi came to the door he saw that it was in fact a different heretic, not the one who asked for three days to prepare a rebuttal. This heretic b said to him: Rabbi, I am a bearer of good tidings for you: Your enemy did not find a response, and he threw himself from the roof and died. /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b said to /b the heretic: Since you have brought me good tidings, b would you like to dine with me? /b The heretic b said to him: Yes. After they ate and drank, /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b said to /b the heretic: Would b you /b like to b drink the cup of blessing, /b i.e., the cup of wine over which the Grace after Meals is recited, b or /b would b you /b like to b take forty gold coins /b instead, and I will recite the Grace after Meals? The heretic b said to him: I /b will b drink the cup of blessing. A Divine Voice emerged and said: The cup of blessing is worth forty gold coins. /b Evidently, each one of the blessings in the Grace after Meals is worth ten gold coins.,The Gemara adds: b Rabbi Yitzḥak says: That family /b of the heretic who dined with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b still exists among the prominent /b families b of Rome, and /b that family b is called: The family of bar Luyyanus. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that if one b covered /b the blood b and it was /b then b uncovered /b he is not obligated to cover it again. b Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is different /b about this case from the mitzva of b returning a lost item, where the Master said: /b The verse states with regard to the obligation to return a lost item: b “You shall return /b them to your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:1), b even one hundred times? /b ,Rav Ashi b said to /b Rav Aḥa: b There, /b in the verse discussing the obligation to return a lost item, b a restriction is not written /b in the verse to limit the obligation. b Here, /b in the verse discussing the obligation to cover the blood, b a restriction is written, /b as the verse states: b “And he shall cover it.” /b The usage of the term “it” indicates that one must cover the blood only one time.,§ The mishna teaches that if b the wind /b blew earth on the blood and b covered it /b one is obligated to cover the blood. b Rabba bar bar Ḥana says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: They taught /b this i halakha /i b only /b if the blood b was again uncovered. But /b if the blood b was not again uncovered /b one is b exempt from /b the obligation b to cover it. /b The Gemara asks: b And when /b the blood b was again uncovered, what of it? Isn’t it /b already b rejected /b from the mitzva of covering since it was covered by the wind? b Rav Pappa said: That is to say /b that b there is no permanent /b rejection b with regard to mitzvot. /b Although the wind covered the blood, the mitzva to cover it was not rendered null; rather, the mitzva simply could not be performed. Consequently, once the blood is again uncovered, the mitzva to cover the blood remains in place.,The Gemara asks: b But /b even if the wind covered the blood and it remained covered, why is one exempt from performing the mitzva of covering the blood? b What is different /b about this case b from that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : In a case where b one slaughters /b an undomesticated animal or a bird b and /b its b blood is absorbed by the ground, /b one is b obligated to cover /b the blood? The Gemara responds: b There, /b the i baraita /i is referring to a case b where the impression /b of the blood b is /b still b recognizable, /b i.e., it was not entirely absorbed in the ground., strong MISHNA: /strong In a case of the b blood /b of an undomesticated animal or bird b that was mixed with water, if there is in /b the mixture b the appearance of blood /b one is b obligated to cover /b it. If the blood b was mixed with wine one views /b the wine b as though it is water, /b and if a mixture with that amount of water would have the appearance of blood one is obligated to cover it. Likewise, if the blood of an undomesticated animal or a bird b was mixed with the blood of a domesticated animal, /b which one does not have to cover, |
|
47. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69| 89b. שפרו ורבו עליה ישראל מדבר סיני שירדה שנאה לעכו"ם עליו ומה שמו חורב שמו ופליגא דר' אבהו דא"ר אבהו הר סיני שמו ולמה נקרא הר חורב שירדה חורבה לעכו"ם עליו:,מנין שקושרין לשון של זהורית וכו': כשנים כשני מיבעי ליה א"ר יצחק אמר להם הקב"ה לישראל אם יהיו חטאיכם כשנים הללו שסדורות ובאות מששת ימי בראשית ועד עכשיו כשלג ילבינו: דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (ישעיה א, יח) לכו נא ונוכחה יאמר ה' לכו נא בואו נא מיבעי ליה יאמר ה' אמר ה' מיבעי ליה לעתיד לבא יאמר להם הקב"ה לישראל לכו נא אצל אבותיכם ויוכיחו אתכם,ויאמרו לפניו רבש"ע אצל מי נלך אצל אברהם שאמרת לו (בראשית טו, יג) ידוע תדע ולא בקש רחמים עלינו אצל יצחק שבירך את עשו (שם כז, מ) והיה כאשר תריד ולא בקש רחמים עלינו אצל יעקב שאמרת לו (שם מו, ד) אנכי ארד עמך מצרימה ולא בקש רחמים עלינו אצל מי נלך עכשיו יאמר ה' אמר להן הקב"ה הואיל ותליתם עצמכם בי אם יהיו חטאיכם כשנים כשלג ילבינו:,א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן מ"ד (ישעיה סג, טז) כי אתה אבינו כי אברהם לא ידענו וישראל לא יכירנו אתה ה' אבינו גואלנו מעולם שמך לעתיד לבא יאמר לו הקב"ה לאברהם בניך חטאו לי אמר לפניו רבש"ע ימחו על קדושת שמך אמר אימר ליה ליעקב דהוה ליה צער גידול בנים אפשר דבעי רחמי עלייהו אמר ליה בניך חטאו אמר לפניו רבש"ע ימחו על קדושת שמך אמר לא בסבי טעמא ולא בדרדקי עצה אמר לו ליצחק בניך חטאו לי אמר לפניו רבש"ע בני ולא בניך בשעה שהקדימו לפניך נעשה לנשמע קראת להם (שמות ד, כב) בני בכורי עכשיו בני ולא בניך,ועוד כמה חטאו כמה שנותיו של אדם שבעים שנה דל עשרין דלא ענשת עלייהו פשו להו חמשין דל כ"ה דלילותא פשו להו כ"ה דל תרתי סרי ופלגא דצלויי ומיכל ודבית הכסא פשו להו תרתי סרי ופלגא אם אתה סובל את כולם מוטב ואם לאו פלגא עלי ופלגא עליך ואת"ל כולם עלי הא קריבית נפשי קמך פתחו ואמרו (כי) אתה אבינו אמר להם יצחק עד שאתם מקלסין לי קלסו להקב"ה ומחוי להו יצחק הקב"ה בעינייהו מיד נשאו עיניהם למרום ואומרים (ישעיה סג, טז) אתה ה' אבינו גואלנו מעולם שמך,א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן ראוי היה יעקב אבינו לירד למצרים בשלשלאות של ברזל אלא שזכותו גרמה לו דכתיב (הושע יא, ד) בחבלי אדם אמשכם בעבותות אהבה ואהיה להם כמרימי עול על לחיהם ואט אליו אוכיל:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המוציא עצים כדי לבשל ביצה קלה תבלין כדי לתבל ביצה קלה ומצטרפין זה עם זה קליפי אגוזין קליפי רמונים איסטיס ופואה כדי לצבוע בהן בגד קטן פי סבכה מי רגלים נתר ובורית קמוליא ואשלג כדי לכבס בגד קטן פי סבכה רבי יהודה אומר כדי להעביר את הכתם:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנינא חדא זימנא קנה כדי לעשות קולמוס אם היה עב או מרוסס כדי לבשל ביצה קלה שבביצים טרופה ונתונה באילפס מהו דתימא התם הוא דלא חזי למידי אבל עצים דחזו לככא דאקלידא אפילו כל שהוא קמ"ל:,תבלין כדי לתבל ביצה קלה: ורמינהו תבלין שנים וג' שמות ממין אחד או משלשה מינין (ושם אחד) אסורין ומצטרפין זה עם זה ואמר חזקיה | 89b. because b the Jewish people were fruitful /b [ b i paru /i /b ] b and multiplied in it; the Sinai Desert, /b because b hatred descended upon the nations of the world on it, /b on the mountain on which the Jewish people received the Torah. b And what is /b the mountain’s true b name? Horeb is its name. And /b that b disputes /b the opinion of b Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu said: Mount Sinai is its name. And why is it called Mount Horeb? /b It is because b destruction [ i ḥurba /i ] of the nations of the world descended upon it. /b ,We learned in the mishna: b From where /b is it derived b that one ties a scarlet strip /b of wool to the scapegoat? As it says: “If your sins be like scarlet [ i kashanim /i ], they will become white like snow” (Isaiah 1:18). The Gemara wonders at this: Why does the verse use the plural form: b i Kashanim /i ? It should have /b used the singular form: b i Kashani /i . Rabbi Yitzḥak said /b that b the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: /b Even b if your sins are /b as numerous b as those years [ i kashanim /i ] that have proceeded continuously from the six days of Creation until now, they will become white like snow. Rava taught: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “Go please and let us reason together, the Lord will say” /b (Isaiah 1:18)? Why does the verse say: b Go please? It should have /b said: b Come please. /b And why does the verse say: b The Lord will say? /b The prophet’s message is based on something that God already said. Therefore, the verse b should have /b said: b God said. /b Rather, the explanation of this verse is that b in the future /b that will surely b come, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will say to the Jewish people: Go please to your Patriarchs, and they will rebuke you. /b , b And /b the Jewish people b will say before Him: Master of the Universe, to whom shall we go? /b Shall we go b to Abraham, to whom You said: “Know certainly /b that your seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years” (Genesis 15:13), b and he did not ask for mercy on our behalf? /b Or perhaps we should go b to Isaac, who blessed Esau /b and said: b “And it shall come to pass when you shall break loose, /b that you shall shake his yoke from off your neck” (Genesis 27:40), b and he did not ask for mercy on our behalf. /b Or perhaps we should go b to Jacob, to whom You said: “I will go down to Egypt with you” /b (Genesis 46:4), b and he did not ask for mercy on our behalf. /b And if so, b to whom shall we go? /b Shall we go to our Patriarchs, who do not have mercy on us? Rather, b now God /b Himself b says /b what punishment we deserve. b The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: Since you made yourselves dependent on Me, “If your sins be like scarlet, they will become white like snow.” /b ,Apropos the Jewish people assessing their forefathers, the Gemara cites a related teaching. b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yonatan said: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “For You are our Father; for Abraham knows us not, and Israel does not acknowledge us; You, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer, everlasting is Your name” /b (Isaiah 63:16). b In the future /b that will surely b come, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will say to Abraham: Your children have sinned against Me. /b Abraham will b say before Him: Master of the Universe, /b if so, b let them be eradicated to sanctify Your name. /b God b said: I will say it to Jacob. /b Since he experienced b the pain of raising children, /b perhaps b he will ask for mercy on their behalf. /b He b said to /b Jacob: b Your children have sinned. /b Jacob b said before Him: Master of the Universe, /b if so, b let them be eradicated to sanctify Your name. /b The Holy One, Blessed be He, b said: There is no reason in elders and no wisdom in youth. /b Neither Abraham nor Jacob knew how to respond properly. He b said to Isaac: Your children have sinned against Me. /b Isaac b said before Him: Master of the Universe, /b are they b my children and not Your children? At /b Sinai, b when they accorded precedence to “We will do” over “We will listen” before You, /b didn’t You b call them, “My son, My firstborn son /b Israel” (Exodus 4:22)? b Now /b that they have sinned, are they b my children and not Your children? /b , b And furthermore, how much did they /b actually b sin? How long is a person’s life? Seventy years. Subtract /b the first b twenty /b years of his life. One b is not punished for /b sins committed then, as in heavenly matters, a person is only punished from age twenty. b Fifty /b years b remain for them. Subtract twenty-five /b years b of nights, /b and b twenty-five /b years b remain for them. Subtract twelve and a half /b years during which b one prays and eats and /b uses b the bathroom, /b and b twelve and a half /b years b remain for them. If You /b can b endure them all /b and forgive the sins committed during those years, b excellent. And if not, half /b of the sins are b upon me /b to bear b and half upon You. And if You say /b that b all of them, /b the sins of all twelve and a half years that remain, are b upon me, I sacrificed my soul before You /b and You should forgive them due to my merit. The Jewish people b began to say /b to Isaac: b You are our father. /b Only Isaac defended the Jewish people as a father would and displayed compassion toward his children. b Isaac said to them: Before you praise me, praise the Holy One, Blessed be He. And Isaac points to the Holy One, Blessed be He, before their eyes. Immediately they lifted their eyes to the heavens and say: “You, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer, everlasting is Your name.” /b ,And since the Gemara mentioned Jacob’s descent to Egypt, the Gemara cites that which b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Our father Jacob should have gone down to Egypt in iron chains /b as would an exile against his will, as decreed by God and related to Abraham. b However, his merit caused him /b to descend without suffering, b as it is written: “I drew them with cords of man, with bands of love, and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I fed them gently” /b (Hosea 11:4)., strong MISHNA: /strong After an extended digression for a discussion of matters unrelated to the i halakhot /i of Shabbat, this mishna resumes treatment of the i halakhot /i of carrying from domain to domain on Shabbat. b One who carries out wood /b on Shabbat is liable for a measure b equivalent /b to the amount of wood necessary b to cook an easily /b cooked b egg. /b The measure that determines liability for carrying out b spices /b is b equivalent /b to that which is used b to season an easily /b cooked b egg. And /b all types of spices b join together with one another /b to constitute the measure for liability. The measure that determines liability for carrying out b nutshells, pomegranate peels, safflower, and madder, /b which are used to produce dyes, is b equivalent /b to the amount that is used b to dye a small garment /b placed b atop a /b woman’s b hairnet. /b The measure that determines liability for carrying out b urine, natron, and i borit /i , cimolian earth [ i Kimoleya /i ], and potash, /b all of which are abrasive materials used for laundry, is b equivalent /b to the amount that is used b to launder a small garment /b placed b atop a /b woman’s b hairnet. And Rabbi Yehuda says: /b The measure that determines liability for these materials is b equivalent /b to that which is used b to remove a stain. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the measure of wood, the Gemara asks: Didn’t b we /b already b learn it once? /b As we learned in a mishna: The measure that determines liability for carrying out b a reed /b is b equivalent /b to that which is used b to make a quill. And if /b the reed b was thick /b and unfit for writing, b or /b if it was b fragmented, /b the measure that determines its liability is b equivalent /b to that which is used b to cook an egg most easily /b cooked, one that is already b beaten and placed in a stew pot. /b The measure of firewood is clearly delineated. The Gemara answers: Still, this mishna is necessary. b You might have said: There, /b the measure of the crushed reed reflects the fact that b it is not suitable for anything /b other than kindling. b However, /b regarding b wood that is suitable to /b be used b as a tooth of a key [ i aklida /i ], /b the measure that determines its liability should be b even any /b small b amount. /b Therefore, b it teaches us /b that wood is typically designated for burning, and that determines the measure for liability for carrying out wood on Shabbat.,We learned in the mishna that all types of b spices /b join together with one another to constitute the measure b equivalent /b to that which is used b to season an easily /b cooked b egg. The /b Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from that which we learned elsewhere: b Spices, /b which are prohibited due to b two or three /b different b prohibitions, /b e.g., one is prohibited due to i orla /i , and one due to the prohibition of untithed produce, and they were all b of a single species /b ( i Tosafot /i ), b or /b if they were b of three /b different b species, are prohibited, and they join together with each other /b to constitute a complete measure. b And Ḥizkiya said: /b |
|
48. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69| 25b. קים לי בנפשאי דידענא טפי אבל תולה בדעת יונו אימא לא,ואי תנא תולה בדעת יונו דאמר בנקשא תליא מילתא ואנא ידענא לנקושי טפי אבל תולה בדעת עצמו אימא לא צריכא,מיתיבי המשחק בקוביא אלו הן המשחקים בפיספסים ולא בפיספסים בלבד אמרו אלא אפילו קליפי אגוזים וקליפי רימונים,ואימתי חזרתן משישברו את פיספסיהן ויחזרו בהן חזרה גמורה דאפילו בחנם לא עבדי,מלוה בריבית אחד המלוה ואחד הלוה ואימתי חזרתן משיקרעו את שטריהן ויחזרו בהן חזרה גמורה אפילו לנכרי לא מוזפי,ומפריחי יונים אלו שממרין את היונים ולא יונים בלבד אמרו אלא אפילו בהמה חיה ועוף ואימתי חזרתן משישברו את פגמיהן ויחזרו בהן חזרה גמורה דאפי' במדבר נמי לא עבדי,סוחרי שביעית אלו שנושאין ונותנין בפירות שביעית ואימתי חזרתן משתגיע שביעית אחרת ויבדלו,וא"ר נחמיה לא חזרת דברים בלבד אמרו אלא חזרת ממון כיצד אומר אני פלוני בר פלוני כינסתי מאתים זוז בפירות שביעית והרי הן נתונין במתנה לעניים,קתני מיהת בהמה בשלמא למאן דאמר אי תקדמיה יונך ליון היינו דמשכחת לה בהמה אלא למ"ד ארא בהמה בת הכי היא,אין בשור הבר וכמאן דאמר שור הבר מין בהמה הוא דתנן שור הבר מין בהמה הוא רבי יוסי אומר מין חיה,תנא הוסיפו עליהן הגזלנין והחמסנין,גזלן דאורייתא הוא לא נצרכא אלא למציאת חרש שוטה וקטן,מעיקרא סבור מציאת חרש שוטה וקטן לא שכיחא אי נמי מפני דרכי שלום בעלמא כיון דחזו דסוף סוף ממונא הוא דקא שקלי פסלינהו רבנן,החמסנין מעיקרא סבור דמי קא יהיב אקראי בעלמא הוא כיון דחזו דקא חטפי גזרו בהו רבנן,תנא עוד הוסיפו עליהן הרועים הגבאין והמוכסין,רועים מעיקרא סבור אקראי בעלמא הוא כיון דחזו דקא מכווני ושדו לכתחילה גזרו בהו רבנן: הגבאין והמוכסין מעיקרא סבור מאי דקיץ להו קא שקלי כיון דחזו דקא שקלי יתירא פסלינהו,אמר רבא רועה שאמרו אחד רועה בהמה דקה ואחד רועה בהמה גסה,ומי אמר רבא הכי והאמר רבא רועה בהמה דקה בא"י פסולין בחוצה לארץ כשרין רועה בהמה גסה אפילו בא"י כשרין ההוא במגדלים איתמר,ה"נ מסתברא מדקתני נאמנין עלי שלשה רועי בקר מאי לאו לעדות,לא לדינא דיקא נמי דקתני שלשה רועי בקר ואי לעדות שלשה למה לי,ואלא מאי לדינא מאי איריא שלשה רועי בקר כל בי תלתא דלא גמרי דינא נמי,הכי קאמר אפילו הני דלא שכיחי ביישוב,א"ר יהודה סתם רועה פסול סתם גבאי כשר,אבוה דר' זירא עבד גביותא תליסר שנין כי הוה אתי ריש נהרא למתא כי הוה חזי רבנן א"ל (ישעיהו כו, כ) לך עמי בא בחדריך כי הוה חזי אינשי דמתא אמר ריש נהרא אתא למתא והאידנא נכיס אבא לפום ברא וברא לפום אבא | 25b. b I am certain of myself that I know better /b than my competitor how to win. b But /b with regard to one who b makes it dependent on the decision of his pigeon, say /b that he is b not /b disqualified from bearing witness, as he is aware that he cannot guarantee the results and therefore resolves to transfer the money if he loses., b And /b conversely, b had /b the mishna b taught /b this i halakha /i only with regard to one who b makes it dependent on the decision of his pigeon, /b one might assume that only this type of gambler is disqualified, b as he /b presumably b says: The matter, /b i.e., the race, b is determined by knocking /b on trees and other objects to speed up the pigeons, b and I know /b how b to knock better /b than my opponent. Therefore, he does not resolve to transfer the money if he loses. b But /b with regard to one who b makes it dependent on his own decision, say /b that he is b not /b disqualified from bearing witness, as the roll of the dice is pure chance. Therefore, it is b necessary /b for the mishna to teach both cases.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b to the opinion that the expression: Those who fly pigeons, refers to an i ara /i , from a i baraita /i : With regard to the expression b one who plays with dice, these are ones who play with i pispasim /i , /b which are dice of marble or other types of stone. b But /b the Sages b did not /b mean to b say /b that b only /b one who plays b with i pispasim /i /b is disqualified from bearing witness, but b rather even /b one who plays with b nutshells or pomegranate shells /b is disqualified., b And when is their repentance /b accepted, so that they may resume being fit to bear witness? b Once they break their i pispasim /i and repent of them completely, /b abandoning this occupation entirely, b where they do not do /b this b even for nothing, /b i.e., they do not play even without betting.,The i baraita /i continues: The expression: b One who lends with interest, /b is referring to b both the lender and the borrower. /b Both are disqualified. b And when is their repentance /b accepted? b Once they tear their /b promissory b notes and repent of them completely, /b abandoning this occupation entirely, where b they do not lend /b with interest b even to a gentile. /b ,The expression: b And /b those b who fly pigeons, /b is referring to b those who induce the pigeons /b to behave in this manner, i.e., they train them. b And /b the Sages b did not /b mean to b say /b that b only /b those who fly b pigeons /b are disqualified; b rather, even /b those who do this with b a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or /b any type of b bird /b are disqualified. b And when is their repentance /b accepted? b Once they break their fixtures [ i pigmeihen /i ] /b upon which they stand the competing animals, b and repent completely, /b abandoning this occupation entirely, b where they do not do /b this b even in the wilderness, /b where there is no one from whom to steal.,The expression: b Merchants /b who trade in the produce b of the Sabbatical /b Year, is referring to b those who do business with /b the b produce of the Sabbatical /b Year. b And when is their repentance /b accepted? b Once another Sabbatical /b Year b occurs and they refrain /b from selling its produce or from assuming ownership of such produce.,The i baraita /i continues: b And Rabbi Neḥemya said: /b The Sages b did not say /b that b verbal repentance alone /b is sufficient for a merchant who traded in the produce of the Sabbatical Year to be reinstated as a valid witness; b rather, returning /b the b money /b is also necessary. b How /b can one return the money he gained from selling produce of the Sabbatical Year? b He says: I, so-and-so the son of so-and-so, gathered, /b i.e., profited, b two hundred dinars /b from trading b in /b the b produce of the Sabbatical /b Year, b and /b as I gained it improperly, this sum is b hereby given as a gift to the poor. /b ,The Gemara explains the objection: b In any event, it is taught /b in the i baraita /i that the status of one who flies pigeons applies to one who uses b a domesticated animal /b in the same manner. b Granted, according to the one who says /b that the term: One who flies pigeons, is referring to those who race pigeons, saying: b If your pigeon reaches /b a certain destination b before my pigeon /b I will give you such and such an amount of money, b this is how you find /b a parallel case of one who races b a domesticated animal /b against another animal. b But according to the one who says /b that the term pigeon flyer means b an i ara /i , is a domesticated animal capable of /b luring other domesticated animals?,The Gemara answers: b Yes, /b the i baraita /i states this b with regard to the wild ox, /b which can be lured away from its owner’s property because it is not a completely domesticated animal. b And /b the i baraita /i states this b according to the one who says /b that b the wild ox is a species of domesticated animal, as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Kilayim /i 8:6): b The wild ox is a species of domesticated animal. /b But b Rabbi Yosei says: /b It is b a species of undomesticated animal. /b ,§ It was b taught /b in a i baraita /i : The Sages b added the robbers and those who force transactions, /b i.e., who compel others to sell to them, b to /b the list of those who are disqualified from bearing witness.,The Gemara asks: b A robber is /b disqualified b by Torah law; /b why is it necessary for the Sages to add such an individual to the list? The Gemara answers: It b is necessary only to /b add one who steals b an item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, /b who acquire those items by rabbinic law only (see i Gittin /i 59b). Since these people are not considered halakhically competent, by Torah law they do not acquire an item that they find, and consequently one who steals such an item from them is not in violation of a prohibition by Torah law.,One possibility is that taking such an item is prohibited by rabbinic law because it constitutes robbery. Nevertheless, b initially /b the Sages did not disqualify such an individual from bearing witness, as they b assumed /b that the case of b an item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is uncommon. /b Therefore, it was not deemed necessary to disqualify one who robs them of such an item. b Alternatively, /b the Sages may have reasoned that taking such an item is prohibited b merely on account of the ways of peace, /b i.e., to foster peace and prevent strife and controversy, and is not considered actual robbery. b When they realized that ultimately /b these people b were taking property /b from others and were likely to perform actual robbery, b the Sages disqualified them. /b ,Similarly, with regard to b those who force transactions, initially /b the Sages did not disqualify them, as b they assumed /b that their behavior could be excused for two reasons: b They would pay money /b for the items they took, and their forcing transactions b was merely occasional; /b it was not a common practice. b When they realized that /b these people b were snatching /b items regularly, b the Sages issued a decree that they /b are disqualified from bearing witness.,§ It is b taught /b in a i baraita /i : The Sages b further added /b the following b to /b the list of those disqualified from bearing witness: b The shepherds, /b who shepherd their animals in the fields of others and are therefore considered like robbers; b the collectors /b of government taxes, who collect more than the amount that people are legally liable to pay; b and the customs officials, /b who collect customs in an illegal manner.,The Gemara explains: b Shepherds /b were not disqualified at first, as the Sages b initially assumed it was merely incidental /b that they would let their animals graze in the fields of others. b When they realized that they would intentionally send /b the animals to the fields of others b from the outset, the Sages issued a decree that they /b are disqualified from bearing witness. b The collectors /b of taxes b and the customs officials /b were not disqualified at first, as the Sages b initially assumed they would take the set amount they /b were instructed to take. b When they realized that /b these officials b were taking more /b than that, b they disqualified them. /b , b Rava says: /b The b shepherd that /b the Sages b said /b is disqualified from bearing witness is referring to b both a shepherd of small livestock and a herder of large livestock. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And does Rava say this? But doesn’t Rava say: Shepherds of small livestock in Eretz Yisrael are disqualified /b from bearing witness, as besides grazing in others’ fields they also ruin the land? b Outside of Eretz /b Yisrael b they are fit /b to bear witness. By contrast, b herders of large livestock, even in Eretz Yisrael, are fit /b to bear witness. The Gemara answers: b That was stated with regard to /b those b who raise /b their animals on their own land, without herding them on land in the public domain.,The Gemara suggests a proof for Rava’s opinion that a herder of large livestock is also disqualified: b This too stands to reason, from /b the fact b that /b the mishna (24a) b teaches /b that a litigant may state: b Three cattle herders are trusted for me /b in court; by inference, cattle herders are generally disqualified. b What, is it not with regard to bearing witness /b that cattle herders are disqualified, in accordance with Rava’s statement?,The Gemara rejects this proof: b No, /b it is b with regard to /b sitting in b judgment. /b The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna b is also precise /b according to this interpretation, b as it teaches: Three cattle herders /b are trusted for me. b And if /b it is b with regard to bearing witness, why do I /b need b three /b witnesses? Two are enough.,The Gemara asks: b But rather, /b with regard to b what /b are cattle herders disqualified? If it is b with regard to /b sitting in b judgment, why /b does the mishna mention b specifically three cattle herders? Any three /b people b who did not study i halakha /i are also /b disqualified from serving as a court.,The Gemara answers: b This /b is what the mishna b is saying: /b The litigants can accept as judges b even those /b cattle herders b who /b dwell in the fields and b do not frequent the settled area, /b and are therefore not proficient in the ways of business., b Rav Yehuda says: An ordinary shepherd /b is b disqualified /b from bearing witness unless the court recognizes him as one who does not let his animals graze in the fields of others. b An ordinary /b tax b collector /b is b fit /b unless the court determines he is one who collects more than people are obligated to pay.,The Gemara relates a story about a tax collector: b The father of Rabbi Zeira collected /b taxes for b thirteen years. When the head /b tax collector of the b river /b region b would come to the city, /b Rabbi Zeira’s father would prepare the residents ahead of time. b When he would see the rabbis, he would say to them /b as a hint: b “Come, my people, enter into your chambers, /b and shut your doors behind you; hide yourself for a little moment until the indignation has passed” (Isaiah 26:20). He said this so that the head tax collector would not see the rabbis, and it would be possible to lower the taxes of the city. b When he would see /b the ordinary b people of the city, he would say /b to them: Beware, as b the head /b tax collector of the b river /b region b is coming to the city, and will now slaughter the father, /b i.e., take one’s money, b before the son, and the son before the father. /b |
|
49. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103| 113a. גזייתא נינהו דשמטי סוסיא ואתו דברי להו,(וא"ל) רב לרב אסי לא תדור במתא דלא צניף בה סוסיא ולא נבח בה כלבא ואל תדור בעיר דריש מתא אסיא ולא תנסיב תרתי אי נסבת תרתי נסיב תלת,א"ל רב לרב כהנא הפוך בנבילתא ולא תיפוך במילי פשוט נבילתא בשוקא ושקיל אגרא ולא תימא כהנא אנא וגברא רבא אנא וסניא בי מלתא סלקת לאיגרא שירותך בהדך מאה קרי במתא בזוזא תותי כנפיך ניהוו,א"ל רב לחייא בריה לא תשתי סמא ולא תשוור ניגרא ולא תעקר ככא ולא תקנא בחיויא ולא תקנא בארמאה,תנו רבנן ג' אין מתקנאין בהן ואלו הן נכרי קטן ונחש קטן ותלמיד קטן מ"ט דמלכותייהו אחורי אודנייהו קאי,א"ל רב לאיבו בריה טרחי בך בשמעתא ולא מסתייע מילתא תא אגמרך מילי דעלמא אדחלא אכרעיך זבינך זבין כל מילי זבין ותחרט בר מחמרא דזבין ולא תחרט,שרי כיסיך פתח שקיך קבא מארעא ולא כורא מאיגרא,תמרא בחלוזך לבית סודנא רהיט ועד כמה אמר רבא עד תלתא סאה אמר רב פפא אי לא דרמאי שכרא לא איעתרי א"ד אמר רב חסדא אי לא דרמאי שכרא לא איעתרי מאי סודנא אמר רב חסדא סוד נאה וגמילות חסדים,אמר רב פפא כל אגב גביא בעי כל אשראי ספק אתי ספק לא אתי ודאתי מעות רעות נינהו,ג' דברים א"ר יוחנן משום אנשי ירושלים כשאתה יוצא למלחמה אל תצא בראשונה אלא תצא באחרונה כדי שתכנס בראשונה ועשה שבתך חול ואל תצטרך לבריות והוי משתדל עם מי שהשעה משחקת לו,(א"ר) שלשה דברים א"ר יהושע בן לוי משום אנשי ירושלים אל תרבה בגנות משום מעשה שהיה בתך בגרה שחרר עבדך ותן לה והוי זהיר באשתך מחתנה הראשון מ"ט רב חסדא אמר משום ערוה רב כהנא אמר משום ממון הא והא איתנהו,אמר רבי יוחנן שלשה מנוחלי העוה"ב אלו הן הדר בא"י והמגדל בניו לתלמוד תורה והמבדיל על היין במוצאי שבתות מאי היא דמשייר מקידושא לאבדלתא,א"ר יוחנן שלשה מכריז עליהן הקב"ה בכל יום על רווק הדר בכרך ואינו חוטא ועל עני המחזיר אבידה לבעליה ועל עשיר המעשר פירותיו בצינעה רב ספרא רווק הדר בכרך הוה | 113a. b are /b found b on the paths [ i gazyata /i ] /b near the city, b as horses /b belonging to the demons b flee /b along those paths, b and /b the demons b come to lead them /b away. Generally, however, demons do not enter inhabited places., b And /b Rav b said to Rav Asi: Do not live in a city where horses do not neigh and where dogs do not bark, /b as these animals provide security and protection. b And do not live in a city where the mayor is a doctor, /b as he will be too busy working to govern properly. b And do not marry two /b women, as they will likely join forces against you. And b if you /b do b marry two, marry a third /b as well. If two of your wives plot against you, the third will inform you of their plans., b Rav said to Rav Kahana: /b It is better for one b to turn over a carcass than to turn over his word, /b i.e., to break his promise. Rav further said: b Skin a carcass in the market and take payment, but do not say: I am a priest, or: I am a great man, and this matter disgusts me. /b It is preferable for one to work, even in menial labor, than to be dependent on others. Rav also advised Rav Kahana: If b you ascend to the roof, /b carry b your food with you. /b One should always carry his sustece with him, even if he goes only on a short trip. If b one hundred pumpkins in the city /b cost b a i zuz /i , place /b them carefully under b the corners /b of your clothes. Treat food respectfully even if it is inexpensive., b Rav said to Ḥiyya, his son: Do not /b get into the habit of b drinking medications, /b lest you develop an addiction. b And do not leap over a ditch, /b as you might hurt yourself in the process. b And do not pull out a tooth, /b but try to heal it if possible. b And do not provoke a snake /b in your house to try to kill it or chase it away. b And do not provoke a gentile, /b as this too is dangerous.,Similarly, b the Sages taught: /b There are b three /b beings b one /b should b not provoke: A small gentile, and a small snake, and a small /b Torah b scholar. What is the reason? Because their authority stands behind their ears. /b They will eventually grow up, assume power, each in his own way, and avenge those who have harassed them., b Rav said to Ayvu, his son: I struggled /b to teach b you i halakha /i but /b my efforts b did not succeed, /b as you did not become a great scholar. b Come /b and b I will teach you /b about b mundane matters: Sell your merchandise while the dust /b from the road is still b on your feet. /b As soon you return from your travels, sell your wares, lest the prices fall in the meantime. Furthermore, it is possible that b anything you sell /b might later cause you to b regret /b the sale, b except for wine, which you /b can b sell without regret. /b Since wine might go bad and be entirely lost, its sale is always advisable.,Rav further advised his son: b Open your purse /b to accept payment, and only then b open your sack /b to deliver the goods, to ensure you will receive payment for your merchandise. It is better to earn b a i kav /i from the ground than a i kor /i from the roof. /b A i kor /i is one hundred and eighty times larger than a i kav /i . This proverb means that it is preferable to earn a small amount from a local, safe transaction than to attempt to earn more through a distant, risky venture.,Rav continued: If there are b dates in your storeroom, run to the brewery /b to sell them. If you wait, there is a good chance the dates will go bad. The Gemara asks: b And how many /b dates should one keep for himself? b Rava said: Up to three i se’a /i . Rav Pappa said: If I were not a beer manufacturer I would not have become wealthy. Some say /b that it was b Rav Ḥisda who said: If I were not a beer manufacturer I would not have become wealthy. /b The Gemara asks: b What is /b the meaning of the word b i sudana /i , /b the Aramaic term for a brewer? b Rav Ḥisda said: A pleasant secret [ i sod na’e /i ] and acts of loving kindness, /b as brewing is a good way to make money and also enables one to perform good deeds.,The Gemara continues to offer advice about mundane matters. b Rav Pappa said: Anything /b you acquire with a document b by means /b of which ownership is transferred, i.e., a bill of acquisition or obligation, b requires collection, /b despite the fact that you are the legal owner. b Any sale on credit is uncertain whether or not /b it b will come /b to fruition. b And /b even b if it /b does b come /b to fruition, b the money is bad. /b These funds are difficult to collect, and they are generally not paid on time., b Rabbi Yoḥa said three matters, citing the people of Jerusalem: When you go to war do not go out first, but go out last. /b The reason is b so that /b if your side is defeated and you need to flee for your life, b you will enter /b the refuge of the city b first. And /b it is better to b make your Shabbat /b like an ordinary b weekday and do not be beholden to /b other b beings. And exert yourself /b to join together b with one upon whom the hour smiles. /b , b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said three matters, citing the people of Jerusalem: Do not indulge in a shameful act /b in public, b because of the incident that occurred /b involving David and Bathsheba (see II Samuel 11–12). If b your daughter has grown up, /b it is better to b free your /b Canaanite b slave and give /b him b to her /b than to leave her to find a husband on her own. b And be careful with your wife with regard to her first son-in-law, /b as she is especially fond of him. b What is the reason /b for this warning? b Rav Ḥisda said: Due to /b the possibility of b licentiousness. Rav Kahana said: Due to /b the fact that she might give him all your b money /b and leave you impoverished. The Gemara comments: Since b either of these /b could b happen, /b it is best to be prudent., b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Three /b people are b among those who inherit the World-to-Come: One who lives in Eretz Yisrael; one who raises his sons to /b engage b in Torah study; and one who recites i havdala /i over wine at the conclusion of Shabbat. /b The Gemara asks: b What is /b the special importance of b that /b mitzva, to recite i havdala /i over wine? The Gemara answers: This is referring to an individual with only a small amount of wine, b who /b nevertheless b leaves some of /b his kiddush wine b for i havdala /i . /b , b Rabbi Yoḥa /b further b said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, proclaims about /b the goodness of b three /b kinds b of people every day, /b as exceptional and noteworthy individuals: b About a bachelor who lives in a city and does not sin /b with women; b about a poor person who returns a lost object to its owners /b despite his poverty; b and about a wealthy person who tithes his produce in private, /b without publicizing his behavior. The Gemara reports: b Rav Safra was a bachelor living in a city. /b |
|
50. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103| 23b. אף אנן נמי תנינא המפלת כמין בהמה חיה ועוף (ולד מעליא הוא) דברי ר"מ וחכ"א עד שיהא בו מצורת אדם,והמפלת סנדל או שליא או שפיר מרוקם והיוצא מחותך הבא אחריו בכור לנחלה ואינו בכור לכהן ואי ס"ד דחיי הבא אחריו בכור לנחלה מי הוי,אמר רבא לעולם דחיי ושאני התם דאמר קרא {דברים כח } ראשית אונו מי שלבו דוה עליו יצא זה שאין לבו דוה עליו,בעא מיניה רב אדא בר אהבה מאביי לרבי מאיר דאמר בהמה במעי אשה ולד מעליא הוא אדם במעי בהמה מאי למאי נפקא מיניה לאשתרויי באכילה,ותפשוט ליה מהא דר' יוחנן דא"ר יוחנן השוחט את הבהמה ומצא בה דמות יונה אסורה באכילה,הכי השתא התם לא פרסות איכא ולא פרסה איכא הכא נהי דפרסות ליכא פרסה מיהא איכא,וחכ"א כל שאין בו כו' אמר רב ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב הכל מודים גופו תייש ופניו אדם אדם גופו אדם ופניו תייש ולא כלום,לא נחלקו אלא שפניו אדם ונברא בעין אחת כבהמה שרבי מאיר אומר מצורת אדם וחכ"א כל צורת אדם,אמר לו לרב ירמיה בר אבא והא איפכא תניא ר"מ אומר כל צורת וחכ"א מצורת אמר להו אי תניא תניא,אמר ר' ירמיה בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן מצח והגבינים והעינים והלסתות וגבות הזקן עד שיהו כולם כאחד רבא אמר חסא מצח והגבן והעין והלסת וגבת הזקן עד שיהו כולם כאחת,ולא פליגי הא כמ"ד כל צורת הא כמ"ד מצורת,מיתיבי צורת פנים שאמרו אפילו פרצוף אחד מן הפרצופין חוץ מן האוזן למימרא דמחד נמי סגי,אמר אביי כי תניא ההיא לעכב תניא וכמ"ד כל צורת ואיבעית אימא לעולם כמ"ד מצורת ומאי אחד אחד אחד,אמר רבא נברא בעין אחת ובירך אחד מן הצד אמו טמאה באמצע אמו טהורה,אמר רבא ושטו נקוב אמו טמאה ושטו אטום אמו טהורה,ת"ר המפלת גוף אטום אין אמו טמאה לידה ואיזהו גוף אטום רבי אומר כדי שינטל מן החי וימות,וכמה ינטל מן החי וימות רבי זכאי אומר | 23b. b We, too, learn /b in a mishna ( i Bekhorot /i 46a) that the fetus of a woman that has the form of an animal cannot survive: In the case of a woman b who /b had previously b discharged a fetus /b with the appearance b similar to /b that b of a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or bird /b before giving birth to any children, and subsequently she gives birth to a son, the son is considered a firstborn with regard to the i halakhot /i of inheritance, but he does not require redemption, as the fetus is considered a full-fledged offspring in that regard. This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: /b The son is not exempted from the requirement of redemption from a priest b unless /b it follows the birth of a fetus b that takes the form of a person; /b otherwise, it is not considered the offspring that “opens the womb” (Exodus 13:2), and the son requires redemption as a firstborn., b And /b in the case of a woman b who discharges /b a fetus in the form of b a sandal fish, or /b from whom b an afterbirth or a gestational sac /b in which b tissue developed /b emerged, b or /b who delivered a fetus b that emerged in pieces, /b the son b that follows them is /b considered b a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to /b redemption from b a priest. /b The Gemara explains the proof: b And if it enters your mind that /b a fetus that has the form of an animal b can survive, is the /b son b that follows it a firstborn with regard to inheritance? /b , b Rava said, /b in rejection of this proof: b Actually, /b it is possible b that /b a fetus shaped like an animal b can survive; but it is different there, /b with regard to inheritance. The son that follows such a fetus has the status of a firstborn, b as the verse states /b with regard to the inheritance of a firstborn: “By giving him a double portion of all that he has; for he is b the first fruits of his strength [ i ono /i ]; /b the right of the firstborn is his” (Deuteronomy 21:17). It is derived from the verse that the status of a firstborn applies only to a son b over whose /b death a father would b mourn. /b The word i ono /i is interpreted homiletically based on its similarity to the word i onen /i , acute mourner. b This /b offspring that has the form of an animal is therefore b excluded, as /b its father b would not mourn over its /b death.,§ b Rav Adda bar Ahava asked Abaye: According to Rabbi Meir, who said /b that an item that is similar to b an animal in the womb of a woman is /b considered b a full-fledged offspring, what /b is the i halakha /i with regard to b a human /b fetus b in the womb of an animal? /b The Gemara explains: b What is the /b practical b difference /b of this inquiry? The difference is b with regard to permitting /b the fetus b in consumption. /b A full-fledged fetus found inside its slaughtered mother is permitted to be eaten, despite the fact that it was not slaughtered itself.,The Gemara suggests: b But /b one can b resolve /b the dilemma b from that /b statement b of Rabbi Yoḥa, as Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b In the case of b one who slaughters an animal and finds in it /b an item that has b the form of a pigeon, /b the pigeon b is prohibited for consumption. /b Evidently, the ritual slaughter of a pregt animal renders its fetus permitted to be eaten only if the fetus is of the same species as the mother. Accordingly, if the fetus has the form of a human, it is prohibited for consumption.,The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b How can /b these cases b be compared? There, /b with regard to a pigeon fetus, b there are no /b split b hooves, and there is not /b even b a hoof /b at all. Since a pigeon is completely different from the slaughtered animal, the fetus is forbidden. By contrast, b here, /b in the case of a human fetus, b although there are no /b split b hooves, there is at least a hoof, /b i.e., solid feet. Therefore, it is possible that the human fetus is permitted for consumption, and the dilemma remains unresolved.,§ The mishna teaches: b And the Rabbis say: Any /b discharged entity b that is not /b of human form does not render the woman impure. b Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says /b that b Rav says: All concede /b that if a woman discharged an entity b whose body is /b that of b a goat and whose face is /b that of b a human, /b it is considered b a human /b offspring, i.e., even the Rabbis rule that the woman is impure in this case. Likewise, if b its body is /b that of b a human and its face is /b that of b a goat, /b Rabbi Meir concedes that b it is nothing, /b and the woman is pure., b They disagree only /b in a case b where its face is /b that of b a human, but it was created with /b one human eye and b one eye like /b that of b an animal. As Rabbi Meir says /b that if the offspring has part b of the form of a human /b face, even if one eye is not like that of a human, it is considered a human offspring, and the woman is impure. b And the Rabbis say /b that it must have b the entire form of a human /b face to be considered a human offspring, and otherwise the woman is not impure.,One of the Sages b said to Rav Yirmeya bar Abba: But isn’t the opposite taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Meir says /b that a woman who discharged is impure if the fetus has b any /b part of the b form /b of a human face, b and the Rabbis say /b that the woman is impure only if the fetus has a recognizable part b of the form of /b a human face, e.g., half of a human face? According to this i baraita /i , Rabbi Meir does not even require that a significant part of it must look human. In his opinion, even if it has only one human eye or one human cheek and the rest of the face is like that of an animal, the woman is impure. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba b said to /b the Sages: b If this /b i baraita /i b is taught, it is taught, /b and I cannot take issue with it. I have my tradition from Rav, and you should rule in accordance with the i baraita /i that you received., b Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b A woman who discharges an entity is impure only if the entire face of the fetus has a human form. This includes its b forehead, and the eyebrows, and the eyes, and the cheeks, and /b its b chin. /b The woman is not impure b unless /b these facial features b all as one /b have the human form. b Rava /b says that b Ḥasa says: /b It is sufficient for the fetus to have the appearance of a human on one side of its face; its b forehead, and /b one b eyebrow, and /b one b eye, and /b one b cheek, and /b its b chin /b are enough. The woman is not impure b unless /b these facial features b all as one /b have the human form., b And /b Rabbi Yoḥa and Ḥasa b do not disagree /b about whether the i halakha /i is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir or that of the Rabbis, as they both accept the opinion of the Rabbis. The difference between them is that b this /b i amora /i , Rabbi Yoḥa, holds b like the one who says /b that the Rabbis require b the entire form of /b the face to be human, and b that /b i amora /i , Ḥasa, holds b like the one who says /b that the Rabbis require only a recognizable part b of the form of /b a human face.,Ḥasa evidently interprets the version of the Rabbis’ statement that only part of a human face is required as referring to half of a human face. The Gemara b raises an objection /b to this interpretation from a i baraita /i : The miscarriage of a fetus with b the form of /b a human b face, which /b the Rabbis b said /b renders the woman impure, includes b even one of the facial features, apart from the ear. /b Apparently, b that is to say that /b even b if /b the fetus has only b one /b facial feature of a human, this b is also sufficient /b to render the woman impure., b Abaye says: When that /b i baraita /i b is taught, it is taught with regard to /b the i halakha /i of b rendering /b all of the facial features b indispensable /b for the fetus to be defined as human, except for the ear. b And /b this ruling b is in accordance with the one who says /b that the Rabbis require that b the entire form of /b the face must be human. b And if you wish, say /b that b actually /b this ruling b is in accordance with the one who says /b that the Rabbis require only a recognizable part b of the form of /b a human face. b And what /b is the meaning of the claim that it is sufficient for the fetus to have b one /b facial feature of a human? It means b one of each /b facial feature of which a human has two, i.e., one eye, one eyebrow, and so on., b Rava says: /b In a case where a fetus b was created with one eye or with one thigh, /b if the eye is located b to the side /b on the middle of the face, or the thigh is located at the side of the hip, where a human eye or thigh is normally located, the fetus is considered human, and b its mother is impure. /b If it appears b in the middle /b of the face or hip, the fetus is not considered human, and b its mother is pure. /b , b Rava says: /b If b its esophagus is punctured, /b although the fetus is considered a i tereifa /i , i.e., one that has a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months, b its mother is impure. /b But if b its esophagus is sealed, /b i.e., it is closed at one end, it does not have the status of a human fetus, and therefore b its mother is pure. /b ,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of a woman b who discharges /b a fetus that has b a sealed body, its mother is not impure /b with the impurity of a woman after b childbirth. And what is a sealed body? Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: /b It is a body which is lacking a limb that b when removed from a living /b person would cause him to b die. /b , b And how much /b of the lower part of a person’s body b when removed from a living /b person would cause him to b die, /b because one cannot survive such a wound? b Rabbi Zakkai says: /b |
|
51. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103| 76a. אימא סיפא אמרו לו לר"א אם מטבילין כלי טמא ליטהר יטבילו כלי לכשיטמא ליטהר שמע מינה חיילין,אמרי רבנן לא קיימי להון בטעמיה דר"א והכי קאמרי ליה מאי סבירא לך אי סבירא לך דחיילין ובטלין תהוי כלי תיובתך אי לא סבירא לך דחיילין תהוי מקוה תיובתך,ת"ש אמר להם ר"א ומה זרעים טמאים כיון שזרען בקרקע טהורין זרועין ועומדים לא כל שכן ש"מ לא חיילין,ורבנן לא דרשי ק"ו והא תניא יכול ימכור אדם את בתו כשהיא נערה אמרת ק"ו מכורה כבר יוצאה אינה מכורה אינו דין שלא תימכר | 76a. The Gemara rejects this conclusion and refers back to the i baraita /i . b Say the latter clause /b of that i baraita /i : b They said to Rabbi Eliezer: If one immerses an impure vessel to purify /b it, b shall one immerse a vessel /b in advance so that b when it will become impure it will /b then b be purified? Learn from /b this clause of the i baraita /i that according to Rabbi Eliezer, vows nullified preemptively b take effect /b momentarily and are then immediately nullified. The Rabbis’ objection is that according to Rabbi Eliezer, prior immersion should purify an item that momentarily became impure.,The Gemara rejects this conclusion: One could b say /b that b the Rabbis could not determine the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer, and this is what /b they b said to him: What do you hold? If you hold that /b preemptively nullified vows b take effect /b momentarily b and are /b then b nullified, /b then the example of b a vessel will be your refutation, /b i.e., will serve to refute your opinion. b If you do not hold that they take effect, /b but rather that they do not take effect at all, then the example of b a ritual bath will be your refutation. /b , b Come /b and b hear: Rabbi Eliezer said to them: And just as ritually impure seeds, once one has sown them in the ground, /b become b pure, /b then with regard to those which b are already sown /b and then come into contact with impurity, should they b not all the more so /b be pure? Similarly, vows that have been preemptively nullified should be nullified, since a husband can nullify vows after they have been taken. b Learn from /b this i baraita /i that according to Rabbi Eliezer preemptively nullified vows b do not take effect /b at all, just as seeds that were already sown do not become impure at all.,The Gemara comments: b And the Rabbis, do they not teach /b i halakhot /i based upon an b i a fortiori /i /b inference of this sort? b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Can a person sell his daughter /b as a maidservant b when she is a young woman? You /b can b say an i a fortiori /i /b inference to show that he cannot: A maidservant who was b already sold goes free /b upon becoming a young woman; with regard to one b who has not been sold, is it not logical that she cannot be sold /b once she already is a young woman? This i baraita /i shows that the Rabbis do utilize similar i a fortiori /i inferences. |
|
52. Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period, second temple, destruction of Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 204| 28b. big strongמתני׳ /strong /big נשים במועד מענות אבל לא מטפחות ר' ישמעאל אומר הסמוכות למטה מטפחות,בראשי חדשים בחנוכה ובפורים מענות ומטפחות בזה וזה לא מקוננות נקבר המת לא מענות ולא מטפחות,איזהו עינוי שכולן עונות כאחת קינה שאחת מדברת וכולן עונות אחריה שנא' (ירמיהו ט, יט) ולמדנה בנותיכם נהי ואשה רעותה קינה,אבל לעתיד לבא הוא אומר (ישעיהו כה, ח) בלע המות לנצח ומחה ה' אלהים דמעה מעל כל פנים וגו':, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מאי אמרן אמר רב ויי לאזלא ויי לחבילא,אמר רבא נשי דשכנציב אמרן הכי ויי לאזלא ויי לחבילא ואמר רבא נשי דשכנציב אמרן גוד גרמא מככא ונמטי מיא לאנטיכי,ואמר רבא נשי דשכנציב אמרן עטוף וכסו טורי דבר רמי ובר רברבי הוא ואמר רבא נשי דשכנציב אמרן שייול אצטלא דמלתא לבר חורין דשלימו זוודיה,ואמר רבא נשי דשכנציב אמרן רהיט ונפיל אמעברא ויזופתא יזיף ואמר רבא נשי דשכנציב אמרן אחנא תגרי אזבזגי מיבדקו ואמר רבא נשי דשכנציב אמרן מותא כי מותא ומרעין חיבוליא,תניא היה ר"מ אומר (קהלת ז, ב) טוב ללכת אל בית אבל וגו' עד והחי יתן אל לבו דברים של מיתה דיספד יספדוניה דיקבר יקברוניה דיטען יטענוניה דידל ידלוניה,ואיכא דאמרי דלא ידל ידלוניה דכתיב (משלי כה, ז) כי טוב אמר לך עלה הנה וגו',ת"ר כשמתו בניו של רבי ישמעאל נכנסו ד' זקנים לנחמו ר' טרפון ור' יוסי הגלילי ור' אלעזר בן עזריה ור"ע אמר להם ר' טרפון דעו שחכם גדול הוא ובקי באגדות אל יכנס אחד מכם לתוך דברי חבירו אמר ר"ע ואני אחרון,פתח רבי ישמעאל ואמר רבו עונותיו תכפוהו אבליו הטריח רבותיו פעם ראשונה ושניה,נענה ר"ט ואמר (ויקרא י, ו) ואחיכם כל בית ישראל יבכו את השריפה והלא דברים ק"ו ומה נדב ואביהוא שלא עשו אלא מצוה אחת דכתיב (ויקרא ט, ט) ויקריבו בני אהרן את הדם אליו כך בניו של ר' ישמעאל על אחת כמה וכמה,נענה ר' יוסי הגלילי ואמר (מלכים א יד, יג) וספדו לו כל ישראל וקברו אותו והלא דברים ק"ו ומה אביה בן ירבעם שלא עשה אלא דבר אחד טוב דכתיב ביה (מלכים א יד, יג) יען נמצא בו דבר טוב כך בניו של ר' ישמעאל על אחת כמה וכמה,מאי דבר טוב ר' זירא ור' חיננא בר פפא חד אמר שביטל משמרתו ועלה לרגל וחד אמר שביטל פרדסאות שהושיב ירבעם אביו על הדרכים שלא יעלו ישראל לרגל,נענה ר' אלעזר בן עזריה ואמר (ירמיהו לד, ה) בשלום תמות ובמשרפות אבותיך המלכים הראשונים [אשר היו לפניך כן] ישרפו לך והלא דברים ק"ו ומה צדקיהו מלך יהודה שלא עשה אלא מצוה אחת שהעלה ירמיה מן הטיט כך בניו של ר' ישמעאל על אחת כמה וכמה,נענה ר"ע ואמר (זכריה יב, יא) ביום ההוא יגדל המספד בירושלם כמספד הדדרימון [בבקעת מגידון] ואמר רב יוסף אלמלא תרגומיה דהאי קרא לא הוה ידענא מאי קאמר,בעידנא ההוא יסגי מספדא בירושלם כמספדא דאחאב בר עמרי דקטל יתיה הדדרימון בר טברימון וכמספד דיאשיה בר אמון דקטל יתיה פרעה חגירא בבקעת מגידו,והלא דברים ק"ו ומה אחאב מלך ישראל שלא עשה אלא דבר אחד טוב דכתיב (מלכים א כב, לה) והמלך היה מעמד במרכבה נכח ארם כך בניו של ר' ישמעאל על אחת כמה וכמה,א"ל רבא לרבה בר מרי כתיב ביה בצדקיהו בשלום תמות וכתיב (ירמיהו לט, ז) ואת עיני צדקיהו עור א"ל הכי א"ר יוחנן שמת נבוכדנאצר בימיו,ואמר רבא לרבה בר מרי כתיב ביה ביאשיהו (מלכים ב כב, כ) לכן הנני אוסיפך על אבותיך ונאספת אל קברותיך בשלום וכתיב (דברי הימים ב לה, כג) ויורו היורים למלך יאשיהו ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב שעשאוהו ככברה,א"ל הכי א"ר יוחנן שלא חרב בית המקדש בימיו,א"ר יוחנן אין מנחמין רשאין לומר דבר עד שיפתח אבל שנאמר (איוב ג, א) אחרי כן פתח איוב את פיהו והדר ויען אליפז התימני,א"ר אבהו מנין לאבל שמיסב בראש שנאמר (איוב כט, כה) אבחר דרכם ואשב ראש ואשכון כמלך בגדוד כאשר אבלים ינחם,ינחם אחריני משמע אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ינחם כתיב,מר זוטרא אמר מהכא (עמוס ו, ז) וסר מרזח סרוחים מרזח נעשה שר לסרוחים,אמר ר' חמא בר חנינא מנין לחתן שמיסב בראש שנאמר (ישעיהו סא, י) כחתן יכהן פאר מה כהן בראש אף חתן בראש,וכהן גופיה מנלן דתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל (ויקרא כא, ח) וקדשתו לכל דבר שבקדושה לפתוח ראשון ולברך ראשון וליטול מנה יפה ראשון,א"ר חנינא קשה יציאת נשמה מן הגוף | 28b. strong MISHNA: /strong b On /b the intermediate days of b a Festival women may wail /b in grief over the deceased, b but they may not clap [ i metapeḥot /i ] /b their hands in mourning. b Rabbi Yishmael says: Those who are close to the bier may clap. /b , b On New Moons, Hanukkah and Purim, /b which are not Festivals by Torah law, the women b may /b both b wail and clap /b their hands in mourning. b On both /b the intermediate days of a Festival b and on /b New Moons, Hanukkah and Purim b they may not lament. /b After b the deceased has been buried they may neither wail nor clap. /b ,The mishna explains: b What is /b considered b wailing? /b This is b when they all wail together /b simultaneously. And what is considered b a lament? /b This is b when one speaks and they all answer after her /b with a repeated refrain, b as it is stated: “And teach your daughters wailing and everyone her neighbor lamentation” /b (Jeremiah 9:19).,In order to conclude on a positive note, the mishna says: b But with regard to the future, /b the verse b states: “He will destroy death forever; and the Lord, God, will wipe away tears from off all faces /b and the reproach of His people He will take away from off all the earth” (Isaiah 25:8)., strong GEMARA: /strong b What do /b the women who wail over the dead b say? Rav said: /b They say: b Woe over him who is /b now b departing; woe over /b him who is now returning b the pledge, /b i.e., his soul, which had been deposited in his hands all the years of his life., b Rava said: The women /b in the city of b Shekhantziv, /b who were known for their wisdom, b would say as follows: Woe over him who is /b now b departing; woe over /b him who is now returning b the pledge. And Rava said: The women of Shekhantziv would say /b about an elderly person: b The bone has been removed from the jaw and the water returns to the kettle. /b , b And Rava said: The women of Shekhantziv would say /b at a time of bereavement: b Wrap and cover the mountains /b in mourning, b as /b the deceased is b the son of the high and distinguished. Rava said: The women of Shekhantziv would say: Lend /b out b a cloak of fine wool /b to serve as a burial shroud b for a free man whose sustece has been depleted. /b In other words, a wealthy person who loses his fortune would rather die than live in poverty., b And Rava said: The women of Shekhantziv would say: /b A person b runs and tumbles at the ford and /b still b he borrows. And Rava said: The women of Shekhantziv would say: Our brothers, the merchants, will be examined at their places /b of business to see if they are honest businessmen. b And Rava said: The women of Shekhantziv would say: Death is like death, /b as everyone must die, b and suffering is like interest. /b , b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Meir would say /b with regard to the verse b “It is better to go to the house of mourning /b than to go to the house of feasting, for that is the end of all men; b and the living will lay it to his heart” /b (Ecclesiastes 7:2): What should the living lay to his heart? b Matters relating to death. /b And these matters are as follows: He b that eulogizes will be eulogized /b by others. He b that buries /b others b will be buried /b by others. He b that loads /b many words of praise and tribute into the eulogies that he delivers for others b will be /b similarly b treated /b by others. He b that raises /b his voice in weeping over others b will /b have others b raise /b their voices b over him. /b , b And some say: /b One b who does not raise himself /b with pride, but chooses his place among the lowly, b will be raised /b by others, b as it is written: /b “Do not exalt yourself in the king’s presence, and stand not in the place of great men. b For it is better to be told, step up here, /b than to be degraded in the presence of the great” (Proverbs 25:6–7)., b The Sages taught /b the following i baraita /i : b When the sons of Rabbi Yishmael died, four Elders entered to console him: Rabbi Tarfon, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Tarfon said to them: Know that /b Rabbi Yishmael b is a great Sage and well versed in i aggadot /i . Let none of you interrupt the words of another, /b but rather each person should say something novel of his own. b Rabbi Akiva said: And I /b shall speak b last. /b , b Rabbi Yishmael, /b the mourner, b opened and said /b about himself: b Many are his sins. /b Due to this, b his bereavements came in /b quick b succession /b and b he troubled his teachers once and /b then b a second time /b to come and console him.,Having been granted permission to speak, b Rabbi Tarfon answered and said: /b With regard to the death of Aaron’s sons it says: b “But let your brethren, the whole house of Israel, bewail the burning that the Lord has kindled” /b (Leviticus 10:6). b Are /b these b matters not /b inferred b i a fortiori /i : If, with regard to Nadav and Avihu, who had performed only one mitzva /b that is explicitly mentioned in the Bible, b as it is written: “And the sons of Aaron brought the blood to him” /b (Leviticus 9:9), b this /b was nevertheless stated about them, then with regard to b the sons of Rabbi Yishmael, /b who were well known for their performance of many mitzvot, b all the more so /b should the entire Jewish people bewail their death., b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili answered and said: /b With regard to Abijah, son of King Jeroboam, the verse states: b “And all Israel shall mourn for him, and bury him” /b (I Kings 14:13). b Are /b these b matters not /b inferred b i a fortiori /i : If, with regard to Abijah, son of Jeroboam, who did only one good thing, as it is written: “Because in him there is found some good thing /b toward the Lord God of Israel” (I Kings 14:13), i.e., he did only one good thing, and b this /b was his reward, then with regard to b the sons of Rabbi Yishmael all the more so /b should they be rewarded by having the entire Jewish people mourn for them and bury them.,The Gemara asks: b What /b was this b one /b good b thing /b that Abijah did? b Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Ḥina bar Pappa /b disagreed about this issue. b One said: He abandoned his guard post. /b His father, Jeroboam, had assigned him to serve as one of the guards whose mission it was to prevent people from going up to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festivals. b And he /b himself b went up /b to Jerusalem b for the pilgrimage Festival. And one said: He removed the guards [ i pardesaot /i ] that his father, Jeroboam, had placed along the roads so that /b the people of b Israel would not go up /b to Jerusalem b for the pilgrimage Festivals. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya answered and said: /b With regard to King Zedekiah, the verse states: b “But you shall die in peace; and with the burnings of your fathers, the former kings that were before you, so shall they make a burning for you” /b (Jeremiah 34:5). b Are /b these b matters not /b inferred b i a fortiori /i : If, with regard to Zedekiah, king of Judea, who had performed /b only b one mitzva /b that is explicitly mentioned in the Bible, b for he had Jeremiah lifted out of the mire /b (Jeremiah 38:10), b this /b was nevertheless stated about him, then with regard to b the sons of Rabbi Yishmael all the more so /b should they be rewarded by dying in peace., b Rabbi Akiva answered and said: /b The verse states: b “On that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon” /b (Zechariah 12:11). The Gemara comments: With regard to this verse, b Rav Yosef said: Had it not been for the /b Aramaic b translation of this verse, we would not have known what it is saying, /b as nowhere in the Bible do we find this incident involving Hadadrimmon.,The Aramaic translation reads as follows: b At that time the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning over Ahab, son of Omri, who was slain by Hadadrimmon, son of Tabrimmon, and like the mourning over Josiah, son of Amon, who was slain by Pharaoh the lame in the valley of Megiddon. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b Are /b these b matters not /b inferred b i a fortiori /i : If, with regard to Ahab, king of Israel, who did /b only b one good thing /b that is explicitly mentioned in the Bible, b as it is written: “And the king was propped up in his chariot facing Aram” /b (I Kings 22:35), as he did not want the Jewish people to see that he was mortally wounded and flee, and b this, /b that he was greatly mourned, was nevertheless stated about him, then b all the more so /b will b the sons of Rabbi Yishmael /b be greatly mourned.,The Gemara discusses issues in the aforementioned verses: b Rava said to Rabba bar Mari: It is written with regard to Zedekiah: “You shall die in peace,” but /b elsewhere b it is written: “And he put out Zedekiah’s eyes” /b (Jeremiah 39:7). Rabba bar Mari b said to him: Rabbi Yoḥa said as follows: /b The first verse: “You shall die in peace,” means b that Nebuchadnezzar died in /b Zedekiah’s b lifetime /b and consequently the latter died in peace, having seen the death of the wicked., b And Rava /b further b said to Rabba bar Mari: It is written with regard to Josiah: “Behold, therefore I will gather you unto your fathers, and you shall be gathered into your grave in peace” /b (II Kings 22:20), b and /b elsewhere b it is written: “And the archers shot at King Josiah; /b and the king said to his servants, Get me away; for I am grievously wounded” (II Chronicles 35:23). b And /b with regard to this verse b Rabbi Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: /b With their many arrows, b they made /b his body b like a sieve. /b ,Rabba bar Mari b said to him: Rabbi Yoḥa said as follows: /b The words “in peace” stated with regard to King Josiah refer to the fact b that the Temple was not destroyed in his lifetime, /b as the verse itself continues: “And your eyes shall not see all the evil that I will bring upon this place” (II Kings 22:20).,The Gemara returns to examining the i halakhot /i of consolation. b Rabbi Yoḥa said: The consolers are not permitted to speak words /b of consolation b until the mourner opens /b and speaks first. b As it is stated: /b “And they sat down with him upon the ground for seven days and seven nights, and none spoke a word to him; for they saw that his suffering was very great. b After this Job opened his mouth” /b (Job 2:13–3:1). b And afterward: “And Eliphaz the Temanite answered /b and said” (Job 4:1)., b Rabbi Abbahu said: From where /b is it derived that b the mourner reclines at the head [ i rosh /i ] /b of the table? b As it is stated: “I chose out their way, and sat as chief [ i rosh /i ], and dwelt as a king in the army, as one that comforts [ i yenaḥem /i ] the mourners” /b (Job 29:25). This indicates that the mourner sits at the head of the table, as the chief.,The Gemara raises an objection: But the word b i yenaḥem /i means that he comforts others, /b thereby implying that one who comforts the mourners sits at the head of the table. b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b The word b is written /b as b i yinaḥem /i , /b meaning: Will be comforted, and therefore can be understood as referring to the mourner., b Mar Zutra said: /b A proof may be derived b from here: /b The verse b “And the revelry [ i mirzaḥ /i ] of those who stretched themselves out shall pass away [ i sar /i ]” /b (Amos 6:7) means that b i mirzaḥ /i , /b he who is bitter [ i mar /i ] and whose mind is overwrought b [ /b i zaḥ /i b ] /b due to grief, b is made a prince [ i sar /i ] over those who /b sit beside him b stretched out /b below him to comfort him., b Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: From where /b is it derived b that a groom reclines at the head /b of the table? b As it is stated: “As a bridegroom decks himself [ i yekhahen /i ] with a garland” /b (Isaiah 61:10). b Just as a priest [ i kohen /i ] /b is b at the head /b of the table, b so too, a bridegroom /b is b at the head /b of the table.,The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive that b the priest himself /b sits at the head? The Gemara answers: b As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: /b With regard to a priest it says: b “You shall sanctify him, /b for he offers the bread of your God” (Leviticus 21:8), meaning that you are to sanctify him b with regard to all matters of sanctity: To be first to begin /b reading the Torah, b to be first to recite the Grace /b after Meals, b and to be first to take a portion /b during a meal.,§ The Gemara returns to its discussion of death: b Rabbi Ḥanina said: The soul’s departure from the body is as difficult /b |
|
53. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69| 42b. היודע לשחוט אוכלין משחיטתו אמר רב הונא והוא שגדול עומד על גביו,יכול לאכול כזית דגן מרחיקין מצואתו וממימי רגליו ארבע אמות אמר רב חסדא והוא שיכול לאוכלו בכדי אכילת פרס אמר רב חייא בריה דרב ייבא ובגדול אע"פ שאינו יכול לאכול בכדי אכילת פרס דכתיב (קהלת א, יח) ויוסיף דעת יוסיף מכאוב,יכול לאכול כזית צלי שוחטין עליו את הפסח שנאמר (שמות יב, ד) איש לפי אכלו רבי יהודה אומר עד שיכול לברר אכילה כיצד נותנין לו צרור וזורקו אגוז ונוטלו:, br br big strongהדרן עלך לולב הגזול /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongלולב /strong /big וערבה ששה ושבעה ההלל והשמחה שמונה סוכה וניסוך המים שבעה החליל חמשה וששה,לולב שבעה כיצד יו"ט הראשון של חג שחל להיות בשבת לולב שבעה ושאר כל הימים ששה,ערבה שבעה כיצד יום השביעי של ערבה שחל להיות בשבת ערבה שבעה ושאר כל הימים ששה,מצות לולב כיצד (בשבת) יום טוב הראשון של חג שחל להיות בשבת מוליכין את לולביהן להר הבית והחזנין מקבלין מהן וסודרין אותן על גבי איצטבא והזקנים מניחין את שלהן בלשכה ומלמדין אותם לומר כל מי שמגיע לולבי לידו הרי הוא לו במתנה,למחר משכימין ובאין והחזנין זורקין אותם לפניהם והן מחטפין ומכין איש את חבירו וכשראו ב"ד שבאו לידי סכנה התקינו שיהא כל אחד ואחד נוטל בביתו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמאי טלטול בעלמא הוא ולידחי שבת אמר רבה גזרה שמא יטלנו בידו וילך אצל בקי ללמוד | 42b. If he is one b who knows /b how b to slaughter /b an animal, b one may eat from /b animals b that he slaughtered. Rav Huna said: /b That is the i halakha /i b provided that an adult is standing over him /b overseeing the slaughter.,If he is one who b is able to eat an olive-bulk of grain, one distances /b himself b four cubits from his feces and from his urine /b before praying or reciting i Shema /i , as the feces and urine of a child at that stage of development produce offensive odors like those of an adult. b Rav Ḥisda said: /b That is the i halakha /i b provided that /b the minor b can eat /b the olive-bulk of grain b in /b the time it takes b to eat a half-loaf /b of bread. However, if it takes him longer, one need not distance himself before praying. b Rav Ḥiyya, son of Rav Yeiva, said: And with regard to an adult, even if he is unable to eat /b an olive-bulk of grain b in /b the time it takes b to eat a half-loaf /b of bread, one must distance himself from his feces before praying, b as it is written: “And he that increases knowledge, increases sorrow” /b (Ecclesiastes 1:18), meaning that as one grows older he becomes more flawed.,If he is one who b is able to eat an olive-bulk of roasted /b meat, b one slaughters the Paschal lamb on his /b behalf, and he is included in the group assembled to eat the Paschal lamb, b as it is stated: “According to every man’s eating /b you shall make your count for the lamb” (Exodus 12:4). b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b Ability to consume an olive-bulk is insufficient to include him in the group; rather, he is not included b until he is able to discern /b what he is b eating. How /b is that determined? If b one gives him a pebble and he throws it /b away, and if one gives him b a nut and he takes it, /b he may be included in the group for eating the Paschal lamb.,, strong MISHNA: /strong The b i lulav /i /b is taken b and /b the altar is encircled together with the b willow branch /b either b six or seven /b days, depending on which day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat. The obligation to recite b the /b full b i hallel /i and the /b mitzva of b rejoicing, /b i.e., eating the meat of the peace-offering, b is in effect for eight /b days, seven days of i Sukkot /i and the Eighth Day of Assembly. The mitzva of b i sukka /i and /b the ritual of b the water libation /b on the altar b are /b in effect for b seven /b days. b The flute /b is played in the Temple for b five or six /b days, depending on which day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, to enhance the rejoicing on the Festival.,The mishna elaborates: The b i lulav /i /b is taken for b seven /b days. b How /b so? If b the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, /b since the mitzva to take the i lulav /i on the first day is a mitzva by Torah law, it overrides Shabbat and one takes the i lulav /i that day. As a result, the b i lulav /i /b is then taken for b seven /b days. b And /b if the first day occurs on one of the b rest of the days /b of the week and one of the other days of the Festival coincides with Shabbat, the i lulav /i is taken only b six /b days. Since the mitzva to take the i lulav /i is a mitzva by rabbinic law throughout the rest of i Sukkot /i , it does not override Shabbat.,The altar is encircled with the b willow branch /b for b seven /b days. b How /b so? If b the seventh day of /b the mitzva of the b willow branch occurs on Shabbat, /b since on that day it is a mitzva by Torah law, it overrides Shabbat and the mitzva of the b willow branch /b is then performed for b seven /b days. b And /b if the seventh day occurs on one of the b rest of the days /b of the week, and one of the other days of the Festival coincides with Shabbat, since the mitzva of the willow branch is then by rabbinic law and consequently does not override Shabbat, it is performed for only b six /b days., b How is the mitzva of i lulav /i /b fulfilled in the Temple when the first day of the Festival occurs b on Shabbat? /b If b the first day of the Festival occurs on Shabbat, /b all the people b bring their i lulavim /i to the Temple Mount /b on Friday. b The attendants receive /b the i lulavim /i b from them and arrange them on a bench [ i itztaba /i ], while the Elders place their /b i lulavim /i b in the chamber. /b They were given permission to do so due to the concern that they would be injured the following morning in the rush of people in search of their i lulavim /i . b And /b the court b teaches /b the people b to say: /b With regard to b anyone whom my i lulav /i reaches his possession, it is his as a gift. /b They did so to avoid the likely situation where people would inadvertently take i lulavim /i that did not belong to them, as on the first day of the Festival one does not fulfill his obligation with a i lulav /i that does not belong to him., b The next day /b everyone b rises early and comes /b to the Temple, b and the attendants throw /b the i lulavim /i b before them. And /b in the confusion, the people b snatch /b the i lulavim /i b and /b in the process b strike one another. And when the court saw that they came to /b potential b danger, they instituted that each and every /b person b will take /b his i lulav /i b in his house /b and fulfill the mitzva there., strong GEMARA: /strong Apropos the prohibition against taking a i lulav /i on Shabbat, the Gemara asks: b Why /b is this prohibited? After all, taking the i lulav /i b is merely moving /b the object and is prohibited due to the rabbinic prohibition of set-aside. Since the mitzva to take the i lulav /i is a mitzva by Torah law, b let it override /b this relatively minor b Shabbat /b prohibition. b Rabba said: /b This prohibition is b a decree lest one take /b the i lulav /i b in his hand and go to an expert to learn /b how to wave the i lulav /i or how to recite its blessing, |
|
54. Babylonian Talmud, Horayot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period, second temple, destruction of Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 204| 12b. אימא סיפא אין בין כהן משמש לכהן שעבר אלא פר יום הכפורים ועשירית האיפה אתאן לרבי מאיר דתניא אירע בו פסול בכהן גדול ועבר ומינו כהן אחר תחתיו הראשון חוזר לעבודתו והשני כל מצות כהונה עליו דברי ר"מ [רבי יוסי אומר ראשון חוזר לעבודתו ושני אינו ראוי לא לכהן גדול ולא לכהן הדיוט],אמר רבי יוסי מעשה ביוסף בן אילים מצפורי שאירע בו פסול בכהן גדול (ועבר ומינו אחר תחתיו ולא הניחוהו אחיו הכהנים להיות לא כהן גדול ולא כהן הדיוט כהן גדול משום איבה כהן הדיוט משום מעלין בקדש ואין מורידין,רישא רבנן וסיפא ר"מ אמר רב חסדא אין רישא רבנן וסיפא ר"מ רב יוסף אמר רבי היא ונסיב לה אליבא דתנאי,רבא אמר ר"ש היא וסבר לה כר"מ בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא,דתניא דברים שבין כהן גדול לכהן הדיוט אלו הם פר הבא על כל המצות ופר יוה"כ ועשירית האיפה ולא פורע ולא פורם אבל הוא פורם מלמטה וההדיוט מלמעלה ואין מטמא לקרובים ומוזהר על הבתולה ואסור באלמנה ומחזיר את הרוצח,ומקריב אונן ואינו אוכל [ואינו חולק] מקריב חלק בראש ונוטל חלק בראש ומשמש בשמונה כלים וכל עבודת יום הכפורים אינה כשרה אלא בו ופטור על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו,וכולן נוהגין במרובה בגדים חוץ מפר המביא על כל המצות וכולן נוהגין במשיח שעבר חוץ מפר יוה"כ ועשירית האיפה וכולן אין נוהגין במשוח מלחמה חוץ מה' דברים האמורים בפרשה לא פורע ולא פורם ואין מטמא לקרובים ומוזהר על הבתולה ואסור באלמנה ומחזיר את הרוצח דברי רבי יהודה וחכמים אומרים אינו מחזיר,והאי ממאי דר"ש היא א"ר פפא מאן שמעת ליה דאמר פטור על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו ר"ש:,חוץ מה' דברים האמורים בפרשה: מה"מ דת"ר (ויקרא כא, י) והכהן הגדול מאחיו זה כהן גדול אשר יוצק על ראשו שמן המשחה זה משוח מלחמה ומלא את ידו ללבוש את הבגדים זה מרובה בגדים על כולן הוא אומר ראשו לא יפרע ובגדיו לא יפרום ועל כל נפשות מת לא יבא,יכול יהו כולן מקריבין אוננים ת"ל (ויקרא כא, יב) כי נזר שמן משחת אלהיו עליו עליו ולא על חבירו ואחר שחלקו הכתוב יכול לא יהא מצווה על הבתולה ת"ל והוא,כתנאי (ויקרא כא, יג) והוא אשה בבתוליה יקח אחר שחלק הכתוב ריבה דברי רבי ישמעאל רבי עקיבא אומר אין לי אלא שעבר מחמת קריו מחמת מומין מנין ת"ל והוא,בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן משיח שנצטרע מהו באלמנה מידחא דחי או מיפטר פטר לא הוה בידיה,זימנין הוי יתיב רב פפא וקמבעיא ליה א"ל הונא בריה דרב נחמן לרב פפא תנינא אין לי אלא שעבר מחמת קריו עבר מחמת מומין מנין ת"ל והוא קם נשקיה ברישיה ויהיב ליה ברתיה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כהן גדול פורם מלמטה וההדיוט מלמעלה כהן גדול מקריב אונן ולא אוכל וההדיוט לא מקריב ולא אוכל:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר [רב] למטה למטה ממש למעלה למעלה ממש ושמואל אמר למטה למטה מקמי שפה למעלה למעלה מקמי שפה וזה וזה בצואר,מיתיבי על כל המתים כולן רצה מבדיל קמי שפה שלו רצה אינו מבדיל קמי שפה שלו על אביו ועל אמו מבדיל כיון דבעלמא הוי קרע קרי כאן בגדיו לא יפרום,שמואל כרבי יהודה סבירא ליה דאמר כל קרע שאינו מבדיל שפה שלו אינו אלא קרע של תפלות ומי אית ליה לר"י קריעה בכהן גדול,והא תניא אילו נאמר ראש לא יפרע ובגד לא יפרום הייתי אומר בראש ובגד של סוטה הכתוב מדבר ת"ל (ויקרא כא, י) את ראשו לא יפרע ובגדיו לא יפרום שאינו בפריעה ופרימה כל עיקר דברי רבי יהודה רבי ישמעאל אומר אינו פורם כדרך שבני אדם פורמין אלא הוא מלמטה וההדיוט מלמעלה,שמואל סבר לה כר"י בחדא ופליג עליה בחדא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כל התדיר מחבירו קודם את חבירו וכל המקודש מחבירו קודם את חבירו פר המשיח ופר העדה עומדים פר המשיח קודם לפר העדה בכל מעשיו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מנא הני מילי אמר אביי דאמר קרא (במדבר כח, כג) מלבד עולת הבקר אשר לעולת התמיד (למה לי) מכדי כתיב עולת הבקר עולת התמיד למה לי הכי קאמר רחמנא כל דתדירה קדמה:,וכל המקודש מחבירו הוא קודם את חבירו: מנלן דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל וקדשתו לכל דבר שבקדושה לפתוח ראשון ולברך ראשון וליטול מנה יפה ראשון: | 12b. b Say the latter clause: The difference between /b a High b Priest /b currently b serving /b in that capacity b and a former /b High b Priest is only /b with regard to the b bull /b brought by the High Priest on b Yom Kippur and the tenth of an ephah /b meal-offering; but with regard to all other matters the two are equal. In this clause b we arrive at /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : If temporary b disqualification befell the High Priest and he left /b his position b and they appointed another priest in his stead, /b after the cause of his disqualification passes, b the first /b priest b returns to his service /b as High Priest. b And /b with regard to b the second /b priest, b all of the mitzvot of the /b High b Priesthood /b are still incumbent b upon him; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The first returns to his service, and the second is unfit /b to serve in either position; he may serve b neither as a High Priest nor as an ordinary priest. /b ,The i baraita /i continues. b Rabbi Yosei said: /b There was b an incident involving /b the priest b Yosef ben Eilim of Tzippori: When disqualification befell a High Priest and he left /b his position, the priests b appointed another, /b Yosef ben Eilim, b in his stead. And /b after the cause of the disqualification passed, b his brethren the priests did not allow /b Yosef ben Eilim b to /b serve, b neither /b as b a High Priest nor /b as b an ordinary priest. /b The Gemara explains: Neither as b a High Priest, due to enmity, /b jealousy, and bitterness that would be engendered if there were two High Priests with equal standing in the Temple. Nor as b an ordinary priest, because /b the principle is: b One elevates /b to a higher level b in /b matters of b sanctity and one does not downgrade. /b Once he has served as a High Priest he cannot be restored to the position of an ordinary priest.,The Gemara asks: Can it be that b the first clause /b of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who disagree with Rabbi Meir, b and the latter clause /b is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Meir? Rav Ḥisda said: Indeed, the first clause /b of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis and the latter clause /b is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Meir. Rav Yosef said: /b The entire mishna b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b and he formulates /b the mishna b according to /b different b i tanna’im /i . /b It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to a High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to a former High Priest., b Rava said: /b The entire mishna b is /b stating the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, and he holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir with regard to one /b matter b and disagrees with him with regard to one /b matter.,This is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b These are matters /b with regard to b which /b there are differences b between a High Priest and an ordinary priest: /b The High Priest brings b the bull that comes for any of the mitzvot, and the bull of Yom Kippur, and the /b daily b tenth of an ephah /b meal-offering. b And he may not grow /b his hair b long and may not rend /b his garments as expressions of mourning; b but /b he b rends /b his garment b from below /b in an inconspicuous manner, b and the ordinary /b priest rends his garment b from above, /b in the typical manner. b And /b the High Priest b may not render himself impure /b with impurity imparted by a corpse even b in /b the event that one of his b relatives /b dies, b and /b he is b warned to /b marry b a virgin, and /b it is b prohibited /b for him b to /b marry b a widow, and /b when he dies b he restores the /b unwitting b murderer /b to his home from the city of refuge.,The i baraita /i continues: b And /b the High Priest b sacrifices /b offerings even as b an acute mourner /b on the day that a close relative dies, b but he may not partake /b of the offerings on that day b and he does not receive a share /b of those offerings. b He sacrifices a portion at the head /b of the priests, i.e., whenever he chooses, b and takes a portion at the head, /b i.e., he takes a portion from any offering that he chooses. b And he performs /b the Temple service b wearing eight /b priestly b garments, and the entire Yom Kippur service is valid only /b when performed b by him, and he is exempt from /b bringing a sliding-scale offering for the b defiling of /b the b Temple or its sacrificial /b foods.,The i baraita /i continues: b And all /b these i halakhot /i b are in effect with regard to /b the High Priest who is consecrated by donning b multiple garments, except for the bull the /b High Priest b brings for all the mitzvot. And all /b these i halakhot /i b are in effect with regard to a former anointed /b High Priest, b except for the bull of Yom Kippur and the tenth of an ephah. And all /b these i halakhot /i b are not in effect with regard to /b a priest b anointed for war, except for the five matters stated in the portion /b where the i halakhot /i of the High Priest are enumerated (see Leviticus, chapter 21): b He may not grow /b his hair b long and may not rend /b his garments, b and he may not render himself impure /b with impurity imparted by a corpse even b in /b the event that one of his b relatives /b dies, b and he is warned to /b marry b a virgin, and /b it is b prohibited /b for him b to /b marry b a widow, and /b when he dies b he restores the /b unwitting b murderer /b to his home from the city of refuge; this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: He does not restore the /b unwitting b murderer /b to his home.,The Gemara asks: b And /b with regard to b this /b i baraita /i , b from where /b can it be derived b that /b the i tanna /i b is Rabbi Shimon? Rav Pappa said: Whom did you hear who says: /b A High Priest is b exempt from /b bringing a sliding-scale offering for the b defiling of /b the b Temple or its sacrificial /b foods? It is b Rabbi Shimon. /b He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to a former High Priest, and in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis with regard to the High Priest who is consecrated by donning multiple garments, who does not bring a bull for absence of awareness of the matter with the unwitting performance of an action.,§ The i baraita /i teaches: And all these i halakhot /i are not in effect with regard to a priest anointed for war, b except for the five matters stated in the portion /b where the i halakhot /i of the High Priest are enumerated. The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? The Gemara answers: It is b as the Sages taught: “And the priest who is greater than his brethren” /b (Leviticus 21:10); b this is a High Priest. “Upon whose head the anointing oil is poured”; this is /b the priest b anointed for war. “And who is consecrated to don the garments”; this is /b the High Priest who is consecrated by donning b multiple garments. With regard to all of them, /b the verse b states: “He shall neither let the hair of his head grow, nor rend his garments, neither shall he come upon any dead body” /b (Leviticus 21:10–11).,One b might /b have thought that b all of /b these priests b sacrifice /b offerings as b acute mourners. /b Therefore, b the verse states: “For the consecration of the anointing oil of his God is upon him” /b (Leviticus 21:12), from which it is derived: b “Upon him,” /b the High Priest, b but not upon another /b priest. b And after the verse differentiated /b the priest anointed for war, one b might /b have thought b that he would not be commanded to /b marry b a virgin, /b a mitzva that appears in the following verse. Therefore, b the verse states /b with the letter i vav /i as a prefix: b “And he /b shall take a wife in her virginity” (Leviticus 21:13), which serves to include the priest anointed for war.,The Gemara comments: This is b parallel to /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i /b with regard to the verse b “And he shall take a wife in her virginity.” Once the verse had distinguished /b between a priest anointed for war and a High Priest in terms of bringing offerings as an acute mourner, it b included /b the priest anointed for war with regard to the i halakhot /i that follow; this is b the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: I have /b derived b only /b that the High Priest b who stepped down /b for a brief period b due to his seminal emission /b is commanded to marry a virgin. b From where /b do I derive that a High Priest who stepped down b due to blemishes, /b who will remain disqualified, is commanded to marry a virgin? Therefore, b the verse states: “And he,” /b to include a High Priest who stepped down due to blemishes. According to Rabbi Akiva, there is no source available to include the priest anointed for war., b Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: /b In the case of b an anointed /b High Priest b who was afflicted with leprosy, what is /b the i halakha /i b with regard to /b marrying b a widow? /b Is he temporarily b disqualified /b from service, i.e., does he remain a High Priest and is it therefore prohibited for him marry a widow? b Or /b is he totally b absolved /b of his status as High Priest and therefore it is permitted for him to marry a widow? The answer b was not available to him. /b ,On another b occasion, Rav Pappa was sitting and he raised /b the same b dilemma. Huna, son of Rav Naḥman, said to Rav Pappa: We learn /b in a i baraita /i : b I have /b derived b only /b that the High Priest b who stepped down /b for a brief period b due to his seminal emission /b is commanded to marry a virgin. b From where /b do I derive that a High Priest who stepped down b due to blemishes, /b who will remain disqualified, is commanded to marry a virgin? b The verse states: “And he.” /b Leprosy is an example of a blemish, so it is prohibited for a High priest afflicted with leprosy to marry a widow. When Rav Pappa heard this i baraita /i , b he arose /b and b kissed him on his head and gave him his daughter /b to marry, due to his appreciation for his expertise in Torah study., strong MISHNA: /strong b A High Priest rends /b his garments b from below /b when he is in mourning, b and an ordinary /b priest rends his garments b from above /b like a non-priest. b A High Priest sacrifices /b offerings as b an acute mourner, /b i.e., on the day of the death of one of his close relatives, b but he may not eat /b from those offerings. b And an ordinary /b priest who is an acute mourner b neither sacrifices /b offerings b nor eats /b from those offerings., strong GEMARA: /strong b Rav says: From below, /b written with regard to the High Priest, means b actually from below, /b from the bottom of the garment, and b from above /b means b actually from above, /b from the top of the garment. b And Shmuel said: From below /b means b from below the neckline, and from above /b means b from above the neckline, /b i.e., from the neckline itself, b and /b both b this /b High Priest b and that /b ordinary priest rend their garments b at the neck /b of their garment.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b to the opinion of Shmuel from a i baraita /i : b For all the dead /b relatives for whom one rends his garments, if b he wishes he rends the neckline of his /b garment b asunder; /b if b he wishes he does not rend the neckline of his /b garment b asunder. /b If he is rending his garments b for his father or for his mother he rends /b the neckline b asunder. Since in general, it is a tear /b even without rending the neckline asunder, one can b read here /b with regard to the High Priest: b “Nor rend his garments” /b (Leviticus 21:10). This supports the opinion of Rav that the High Priest does not rend his garments from above like others do; rather, he rends his garments from below.,The Gemara answers: b Shmuel holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, who says: Any tear that does not rend his neckline asunder is only a gratuitous tear /b that serves no purpose. Since according to Rabbi Yehuda rending of garments involves rending the neckline, the High Priest may rend his garment from above provided that he does not rend the neckline. The Gemara asks: b And is Rabbi Yehuda of /b the opinion that there is b rending /b of garments b for a High Priest? /b , b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Had it been stated: He shall neither let the hair of a head grow, nor rend garments, I would have said: /b It is b with regard to the head and the garment of a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [ i sota /i ] /b that b the verse is speaking, /b and it means that the High Priest must not loosen her hair or rend her garments, in the manner that an ordinary priest does to the i sota /i . Therefore, b the verse states: “He shall neither let the hair of his head grow, nor rend his garments” /b (Leviticus 21:10), indicating b that he is not /b included b in /b the mitzva to b grow long /b hair b and rend /b garments b at all; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yishmael says: He does not rend /b his garments b in the manner that people /b typically b rend /b their garments. b Rather, he /b rends his garment b from below and an ordinary /b priest rends his garments b from above. /b Apparently, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the High Priest does not rend his garments at all.,The Gemara answers: b Shmuel holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda with regard to one /b matter, i.e., the way in which garments are rent, b and disagrees with him with regard to one /b matter, as Shmuel holds that the High Priest rends his garments., strong MISHNA: /strong b Any /b mitzva b that is /b more b frequent than another /b mitzva b precedes /b that b other /b mitzva if the opportunity to fulfill one of them coincides with an opportunity to fulfill the other. b And anyone who is /b more b sanctified than another precedes /b that b other /b person. If b the bull of the anointed /b priest b and the bull of the congregation, /b which are brought for absence of awareness of the matter, b are pending, the bull of the anointed priest precedes the bull of the congregation in all its actions, /b i.e., its sacrificial rites., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara questions the statement in the mishna that the more frequent matter takes precedence: b From where are these matters /b derived? b Abaye said: /b It is b as the verse states /b concerning the additional offerings brought on Festivals: b “Beside the burnt-offering of the morning, which is for a daily burnt-offering” /b (Numbers 28:23). b Once it is written: “The burnt-offering of the morning,” why do I /b need: b “A daily burnt-offering”? /b Clearly the reference is to the daily burnt-offering of the morning. b This /b is what b the Merciful One is saying: Any /b matter b that is /b more b frequent takes precedence. /b Since it is a daily offering, it is more frequent. Therefore, it precedes other offerings.,The mishna continues: b And anyone who is /b more b sanctified than another precedes /b that b other /b person. The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive these matters? It is b as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught, /b that from the verse written with regard to a priest: b “And you shall sanctify him, /b as he sacrifices the bread of your God, he shall be holy unto you” (Leviticus 21:8), it is derived that a priest should be esteemed and granted precedence b with regard to any matter of sanctity. /b He should be the one b to open first /b in the reading of the Torah, b and to recite the blessing /b of the i zimmun /i b first, and to take a fine portion first. /b The priest who is more sanctified takes precedence. |
|
55. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69| 65a. כעין דאורייתא תקון,ואידך כי אמרינן כל דתקון רבנן כעין דאורייתא תקון במילתא דאית לה עיקר מה"ת אבל מילתא דלית לה עיקר מן התורה לא,מתיב רב אויא מערימין על מעשר שני כיצד אומר אדם לבנו ובתו הגדולים לעבדו ושפחתו העברים הא לכם מעות הללו ופדו בהן מעשר שני זה (ואוכלו בלא חומש),האי שפחה ה"ד אי דאתיא ב' שערות מאי בעיא גביה אלא לאו דלא אתיא ב' שערות הכא במאי עסקינן במעשר בזמן הזה דרבנן,ואמה העבריה בזמן הזה מי איכא והתניא אין עבד עברי נוהג אלא בזמן שהיובל נוהג אלא בעציץ שאינו נקוב דרבנן,אמר רבא ג' מדות בקטן צרור וזורקו אגוז ונוטלו זוכה לעצמו ואין זוכה לאחרים וכנגדן בקטנה מתקדשת למיאון,הפעוטות מקחן מקח וממכרן ממכר במטלטלין וכנגדן בקטנה מתגרשת בקידושי אביה,הגיעו לעונת נדרים נדריהן נדר והקדשן הקדש וכנגדן בקטנה חולצת ולמכור בנכסי אביו עד שיהא בן עשרים:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big קטנה שאמרה התקבל לי גיטי אינו גט עד שיגיע גט לידה לפיכך אם רצה הבעל לחזור יחזור שאין קטן עושה שליח,ואם אמר לו אביה צא והתקבל לבתי גיטה אם רצה לחזור לא יחזור,האומר תן גט זה לאשתי במקום פלוני ונתנו לה במקום אחר פסול הרי היא במקום פלוני ונתנו לה במקום אחר כשר,האשה שאמרה התקבל לי גיטי במקום פלוני וקיבלו לה במקום אחר פסול ר' אלעזר מכשיר הבא לי גיטי ממקום פלוני והביאו לה ממקום אחר כשר:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ורבי אלעזר מאי שנא רישא דלא פליג ומאי שנא סיפא דפליג,איהו דמדעתיה מגרש קפיד איהי דבעל כרחה מתגרשת מראה מקום היא לו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big הבא לי גיטי אוכלת בתרומה עד שיגיע גט לידה התקבל לי גיטי אסורה לאכול בתרומה מיד התקבל לי גיטי במקום פלוני אוכלת בתרומה עד שיגיע גט לאותו מקום ר"א אוסר מיד:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big וגיטא מיהא הוי והאמרת רישא לא הוי גיטא,לא צריכא דאמרה ליה התקבל לי גיטא במתא מחסיא וזימנין דמשכחת ליה בבבל וה"ק ליה משקל כל היכא דמשכחת ליה שקליה מיניה | 65a. b they instituted parallel to Torah law, /b and they did not innovate novel halakhic models., b And the other /b Sage, Rav Ḥina of Vardonia, why was he silent? He holds that b when we say: All /b ordices b that the Sages instituted, they instituted parallel to Torah law, /b it is b with regard to a matter that is rooted in the Torah, /b and upon which the Sages instituted an ordice. b However, with regard to a matter that is not rooted in the Torah, /b e.g., the i halakhot /i of joining courtyards and merging alleyways, b no, /b they did not institute the ordices parallel to Torah law., b Rav Avya raises /b another b objection /b to Shmuel’s opinion, according to Rav Ḥisda’s explanations, that a minor cannot acquire property on behalf of others, based on a mishna in tractate i Ma’aser Sheni /i (4:4): b One may employ artifice /b to exempt himself from the obligation to add one-fifth to the sum when redeeming b second tithe, /b which the owner of the tithe is required to add. b How so? A person says to his adult son or daughter, /b or b to his Hebrew slave or his maidservant: Here you are, /b take b money and redeem second tithe with it. /b After they redeem the second tithe, they give it to their father or master b and he eats it without /b adding b one-fifth. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances /b of b this maidservant? If she developed two /b pubic b hairs, /b indicating that she reached majority, b what /b is she b doing with /b the owner of the produce? A Hebrew maidservant is emancipated when she reaches puberty. b Rather, is /b the reference here b not /b to a case b where she did not /b yet b develop two /b pubic b hairs? /b Apparently, a minor can also acquire property on behalf of others. The Gemara rejects this proof: b With what are we dealing here? /b It is b with tithes today, /b which is in effect b by rabbinic law, /b and the Sages ruled leniently in matters of rabbinic law.,The Gemara asks: b And is there a Hebrew maidservant today? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : The provision of b a Hebrew slave is in practice only during a period when the Jubilee /b Year b is in practice. /b Therefore, there have been no Hebrew slaves or maidservants since observance of the Jubilee Year ceased, before the destruction of the First Temple. b Rather, /b it must be that the mishna is referring to a case where the produce grew b in an unperforated pot, /b which one is obligated to tithe b by rabbinic law. /b ,Apropos the capacity of minors to acquire property, b Rava says /b that there are b three stages in /b the development of b a minor: /b With regard to a minor who is given b a pebble and he throws it /b away but when given b a nut he takes it, he acquires /b property b for himself but does not acquire /b property b on /b behalf of b others. And with regard to a minor girl with the corresponding /b stage of intellectual development, after the death of her father she can be b betrothed /b by her mother and her brother by rabbinic law, and can opt out of that betrothal b through refusal. /b ,At the next stage of development are young b children /b aged approximately six through eight, whose b purchase is a purchase and whose sale is a sale, with regard to movable property. And with regard to a minor girl with the corresponding /b stage of development, b she is divorced /b by receipt of her bill of divorce, even if it is b from betrothal by her father, /b which is by Torah law.,The third stage of development is when b they have reached the age of vows, /b when b their vows are /b valid b vows and their consecration is /b valid b consecration. And with regard to a minor girl with the corresponding /b stage of development, b she performs i ḥalitza /i /b to free herself from her levirate bond. b And /b with regard b to selling his father’s /b landed b property, /b a minor cannot sell it b until he will /b reach the b age of twenty. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong In the case of b a minor girl who said /b to an agent: b Receive my bill of divorce for me, it is not /b a valid b bill of divorce until the bill of divorce reaches her possession. Therefore, if the husband seeks to retract /b his decision before his wife receives the bill of divorce, b he can retract /b it, b as a minor does not designate an agent. /b Consequently, the agent is not an agent for receipt, and the divorce does not take effect when the husband hands the document to the agent. The agent is an agent for delivery, and the divorce takes effect when the bill of divorce enters the wife’s possession., b And /b if b her father said to /b the agent: b Go out and receive my daughter’s bill of divorce on /b her behalf, then b if /b the husband b seeks to retract /b his decision, b he cannot retract /b it. As a father can receive the bill of divorce on behalf of his minor daughter, he can designate an agent for receipt, and the divorce takes effect when the husband hands the document to the agent.,With regard to b one who says /b to an agent: b Give this bill of divorce to my wife in such and such a place, /b if the agent deviated b and gave it to her in another place /b the divorce is b invalid. /b However, if he said to the agent: Give this bill of divorce to my wife, b she is in such and such a place, /b without explicitly instructing the agent to give her the document there, b and he gave it to her in another place /b the divorce is b valid. /b ,With regard to b the woman who /b when designating her agent for receipt b said /b to her agent: b Receive my bill of divorce for me in such and such a place, and he received it for her in another place, /b the divorce is b invalid; /b and b Rabbi Elazar deems /b it b valid. /b If she said to him: b Bring me my bill of divorce from such and such a place, and he brought it for her from another place, /b it is b valid. /b Because he is an agent for delivery, the woman is not particular where he receives the bill of divorce, as the divorce takes effect only when the bill of divorce reaches her possession., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b And /b according to b Rabbi Elazar, what is different /b in b the first clause, /b where the agent deviated from the husband’s instructions and delivered the bill of divorce in a different place, b where he does not disagree /b with the unattributed opinion of the first i tanna /i that the divorce is invalid, b and what is different /b in b the latter clause, /b where the agent deviated from the wife’s instructions and received the bill of divorce in a different place, b where he disagrees /b with the unattributed opinion of the first i tanna /i and deems the divorce valid?,The Gemara answers: b He, /b the husband, b who divorces /b his wife b of his own volition, insists /b that the divorce be effected in a certain place. However, b she, /b the wife, b who is divorced /b even b against her will, /b is in no position to insist with regard to the manner in which the divorce will be effected, and b is /b merely b indicating a place for him /b to give her the bill of divorce., strong MISHNA: /strong An Israelite woman married to a priest partakes of i teruma /i . If she says to an agent: b Bring me my bill of divorce, /b designating him as an agent for delivery, b she /b continues to b partake of i teruma /i until the bill of divorce reaches her possession. /b However, if she says: b Receive my bill of divorce for me, /b thereby designating him as an agent for receipt, it is b immediately prohibited /b for her b to partake of i teruma /i . /b Since the divorce takes effect when the husband hands the bill of divorce to the agent, the concern is that the agent encountered the husband nearby. If the woman said to the agent: b Receive my bill of divorce for me in such and such a place, /b then even if he received it elsewhere, b she /b continues to b partake of i teruma /i until the bill of divorce reaches that place. Rabbi Elazar prohibits /b her from partaking of i teruma /i b immediately. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong In this mishna, the first i tanna /i apparently states that if the agent for receipt received the bill of divorce in a place other than the place designated by the woman for receipt, the bill of divorce is valid when the agent brings it to the designated place. The Gemara asks: b And in any event, is it /b a valid b bill of divorce? But didn’t you say /b in b the first clause, /b i.e., in the previous mishna, that if the agent received the bill of divorce in another place, b it is not /b a valid b bill of divorce? /b ,The Gemara asks: b No, /b this i halakha /i is b necessary /b with regard to a case b where she said to him: Receive the bill of divorce for me in /b the city of b Mata Meḥasya, and sometimes you /b can b find him in /b the city of b Babylon. And this is what she is saying: /b When b taking /b the bill of divorce, b anywhere that you find him, take it from him, /b |
|
56. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131| 34b. כהן גדול בסוף כל ברכה וברכה והמלך תחלת כל ברכה וברכה וסוף כל ברכה וברכה,אמר רבי יצחק בר נחמני לדידי מפרשא לי מיניה דריב"ל הדיוט כמו שאמרנו כהן גדול תחלת כל ברכה וברכה המלך כיון שכרע שוב אינו זוקף שנאמר (מלכים א ח, נד) ויהי ככלות שלמה להתפלל וגו' קם מלפני מזבח ה' מכרוע על ברכיו:,ת"ר קידה על אפים שנאמר (מלכים א א, לא) ותקד בת שבע אפים ארץ כריעה על ברכים שנאמר מכרוע על ברכיו השתחואה זו פשוט ידים ורגלים שנאמר (בראשית לז, י) הבא נבא אני ואמך ואחיך להשתחות לך ארצה,אמר רב חייא בריה דרב הונא חזינא להו לאביי ורבא דמצלו אצלויי,תני חדא הכורע בהודאה הרי זה משובח ותניא אידך הרי זה מגונה,לא קשיא הא בתחלה הא לבסוף,רבא כרע בהודאה תחלה וסוף אמרי ליה רבנן אמאי קא עביד מר הכי אמר להו חזינא לרב נחמן דכרע וחזינא ליה לרב ששת דקא עבד הכי,והתניא הכורע בהודאה הרי זה מגונה,ההיא בהודאה שבהלל,והתניא הכורע בהודאה ובהודאה של הלל הרי זה מגונה,כי תניא ההיא בהודאה דברכת המזון:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המתפלל וטעה סימן רע לו ואם שליח צבור הוא סימן רע לשולחיו מפני ששלוחו של אדם כמותו אמרו עליו על ר' חנינא בן דוסא שהיה מתפלל על החולים ואומר זה חי וזה מת אמרו לו מנין אתה יודע אמר להם אם שגורה תפלתי בפי יודע אני שהוא מקובל ואם לאו יודע אני שהוא מטורף:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אהייא,א"ר חייא אמר רב ספרא משום חד דבי רבי באבות,איכא דמתני לה אברייתא המתפלל צריך שיכוין את לבו בכולן ואם אינו יכול לכוין בכולן יכוין את לבו באחת,א"ר חייא אמר רב ספרא משום חד דבי רבי באבות,אמרו עליו על רבי חנינא וכו': מנא הני מילי א"ר יהושע בן לוי דאמר קרא (ישעיהו נז, יט) בורא ניב שפתים שלום שלום לרחוק ולקרוב אמר ה' ורפאתיו,א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן כל הנביאים כולן לא נתנבאו אלא למשיא בתו לתלמיד חכם ולעושה פרקמטיא לת"ח ולמהנה ת"ח מנכסיו אבל תלמידי חכמים עצמן (ישעיהו סד, ג) עין לא ראתה אלהים זולתך יעשה למחכה לו,ואמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן כל הנביאים כולן לא נתנבאו אלא לימות המשיח אבל לעולם הבא עין לא ראתה אלהים זולתך,ופליגא דשמואל דאמר שמואל אין בין העוה"ז לימות המשיח אלא שעבוד מלכיות בלבד שנאמר (דברים טו, יא) כי לא יחדל אביון מקרב הארץ,וא"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן כל הנביאים כולן לא נתנבאו אלא לבעלי תשובה אבל צדיקים גמורים עין לא ראתה אלהים זולתך,ופליגא דר' אבהו דא"ר אבהו מקום שבעלי תשובה עומדין צדיקים גמורים אינם עומדין שנאמר (ישעיהו נז, יט) שלום שלום לרחוק ולקרוב לרחוק ברישא והדר לקרוב,ורבי יוחנן אמר לך מאי רחוק שהיה רחוק מדבר עבירה מעיקרא ומאי קרוב שהיה קרוב לדבר עבירה ונתרחק ממנו השתא,מאי עין לא ראתה אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי זה יין המשומר בענביו מששת ימי בראשית רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר זה עדן שלא שלטה בו עין כל בריה,שמא תאמר אדם הראשון היכן היה בגן,ושמא תאמר הוא גן הוא עדן תלמוד לומר (בראשית ב, י) ונהר יוצא מעדן להשקות את הגן גן לחוד ועדן לחוד:,ת"ר מעשה שחלה בנו של ר"ג שגר שני ת"ח אצל רבי חנינא בן דוסא לבקש עליו רחמים כיון שראה אותם עלה לעלייה ובקש עליו רחמים בירידתו אמר להם לכו שחלצתו חמה אמרו לו וכי נביא אתה אמר להן לא נביא אנכי ולא בן נביא אנכי אלא כך מקובלני אם שגורה תפלתי בפי יודע אני שהוא מקובל ואם לאו יודע אני שהוא מטורף ישבו וכתבו וכוונו אותה שעה וכשבאו אצל ר"ג אמר להן העבודה לא חסרתם ולא הותרתם אלא כך היה מעשה באותה שעה חלצתו חמה ושאל לנו מים לשתות,ושוב מעשה ברבי חנינא בן דוסא שהלך ללמוד תורה אצל ר' יוחנן בן זכאי וחלה בנו של ריב"ז אמר לו חנינא בני בקש עליו רחמים ויחיה הניח ראשו בין ברכיו ובקש עליו רחמים וחיה אמר רבי יוחנן בן זכאי אלמלי הטיח בן זכאי את ראשו בין ברכיו כל היום כולו לא היו משגיחים עליו אמרה לו אשתו וכי חנינא גדול ממך אמר לה לאו אלא הוא דומה כעבד לפני המלך ואני דומה כשר לפני המלך:,ואמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן אל יתפלל אדם אלא בבית שיש שם חלונות שנאמר (דניאל ו, יא) וכוין פתיחן ליה בעליתיה (לקבל) [נגד],ירושלם אמר רב כהנא חציף עלי מאן דמצלי בבקתא,ואמר רב כהנא חציף עלי מאן דמפרש חטאיה שנאמר (תהלים לב, א) אשרי נשוי פשע כסוי חטאה:, br br big strongהדרן עלך אין עומדין /strong /big br br | |
|
57. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 69| 156a. ולטעמיך זבין שוי חמשא בשיתא הכי נמי דזביניה זביני,אלא קים להו לרבנן דינוקא מקרבא דעתיה גבי זוזי ואי אמרת זביניה זביני זמנין דמקרקשי ליה זוזי אזיל מזבין לכולהו נכסי דאבוה אבל גבי מתנה אי לאו דהוה ליה הנאה מיניה לא הוה יהיב ליה מתנה אמרו רבנן תיהוי מתנתו מתנה דלעבידו להו מילי,אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל בודקין לקדושין לגרושין ולחליצה ולמיאונין ולמכור בנכסי אביו עד שיהא בן עשרים,וכיון דבדקנא לקדושין לגרושין למה לי לא נצרכא אלא ליבום דתנן בן תשע שנים ויום אחד שבא על יבמתו קנאה ואין נותן גט עד שיגדל,לחליצה לאפוקי מדר' יוסי דאמר איש כתוב בפרשה אבל אשה בין גדולה ובין קטנה קא משמע לן דמקשינן אשה לאיש דלא כר' יוסי,ולמיאונין לאפוקי מדרבי יהודה דאמר עד שירבה שחור קא משמע לן דלא כרבי יהודה,ולמכור בנכסי אביו עד שיהא בן עשרים לאפוקי ממאן דאמר בן שמנה עשרה,והלכתא תוך זמן כלפני זמן והלכתא כגידל בר מנשה,והלכתא כמר זוטרא והלכתא כאמימר והלכתא כרב נחמן אמר שמואל בכולהו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המחלק נכסיו על פיו ר' אלעזר אומר אחד בריא ואחד מסוכן נכסים שיש להן אחריות נקנין בכסף ובשטר ובחזקה ושאין להן אחריות אין נקנין אלא במשיכה | 156a. b And according to your reasoning, /b that the money he receives in exchange for the property is a reason one could consider his sale valid, if b he sold /b property b worth five /b dinars b for six /b dinars, would b his sale also be /b a valid b sale? /b , b Rather, the Sages maintain that a child’s inclination /b is to be b attracted to money. And if you say /b that b his sale is /b a valid b sale, /b there may be b times /b that there are potential buyers b who rattle the dinars /b before b him /b in order to tempt him to sell, and b he will go and sell all of his father’s property. /b That is why the Sages ruled that all of his sales are not valid. b But with regard to a gift, if he did not /b derive b benefit from /b the recipient, b he would not give him a gift. The Sages /b therefore b said: Let the gift /b of an orphan b be /b a valid b gift, so /b that people b will perform /b beneficial b matters for /b the orphans, as the orphan can reciprocate by giving gifts.,§ b Rav Naḥman says /b that b Shmuel says: /b Children who have reached the age of majority, i.e., a boy who is thirteen years old and a girl who is twelve years old, b are examined /b for signs indicating puberty if it is necessary to determine their adulthood b for /b the purpose of b betrothal, for /b the purpose of b divorce, for /b the purpose of b i ḥalitza /i , and /b for the purpose of stating a girl’s b refusal /b to remain married. b But /b in order b to sell from the property that /b one inherited from b his father, /b the seller must be older, and one cannot sell this property b until /b the seller b is twenty /b years b old. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But once I examined /b the boy b for /b the purpose of b betrothal, why do I /b need to examine him again b for /b the purpose of b divorce? /b The Gemara answers: This b is necessary only with regard to /b the b levirate marriage /b of a minor, b as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Nidda /i 45a): A boy who is b nine years and one day old who engaged in intercourse with his i yevama /i , /b i.e., his brother’s widow, b acquired her /b as his wife by means of engaging in the act of intercourse. Although a minor cannot betroth a woman under ordinary circumstances, in the case of levirate marriage the act of intercourse of a nine-year-old with his i yevama /i effects acquisition. b But he cannot give /b her b a bill of divorce until he reaches his majority. /b It is therefore necessary to examine him at the time of the divorce.,The Gemara explains why it is necessary to mention examining a boy b for /b the purpose of b i ḥalitza /i : /b This is mentioned b to the exclusion of that which Rabbi Yosei /b says, b as /b Rabbi Yosei b says: “Man,” /b i.e., an adult man, b is written in the /b Torah b passage /b with regard to i ḥalitza /i , as the verse states: “And if the man does not wish to take his brother’s wife” (Deuteronomy 25:7). b But a woman, whether /b she is b an adult or a minor, /b can be released by i ḥalitza /i , as the verse does not indicate her age. To counter this, Rav Naḥman b teaches us that a woman is juxtaposed to a man /b in this passage, indicating that the i yevama /i must also have reached adulthood, and the i halakha /i is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei. /b ,The Gemara explains why it is necessary to mention examining a person b for /b the purpose of stating her b refusal. /b This is mentioned b to the exclusion of that which Rabbi Yehuda /b says, b as /b Rabbi Yehuda b says /b that a girl whose mother or brother married her off while she was a minor can nullify her marriage by refusing to remain married, and she can state this refusal b until /b she reaches complete maturity, i.e., b when /b the area covered by b black /b pubic hairs b is greater /b than the skin of the genital area. Rav Naḥman therefore b teaches us that /b the i halakha /i is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b and once a girl has developed two pubic hairs she cannot state her refusal.,Rav Naḥman states: b But /b in order b to sell from the property that /b one inherited from b his father, /b the seller must be older, and he cannot sell the property b until he is twenty /b years b old. /b This is mentioned b to the exclusion of /b the opinion of the b one who says /b that the seller can be b eighteen /b years b old. /b ,The Gemara concludes: b And the i halakha /i /b is that with regard to the age when a minor can sell property inherited from his father, b during /b the b time, /b i.e., during his twentieth year, is considered b as before /b the b time /b when it is permitted, and he cannot sell until the end of his twentieth year. b And the i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the ruling that Rava sent to b Giddel bar Menashe, /b that a child who has reached his majority and understands the nature of business negotiations can sell land.,The Gemara continues: b And the i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the statement of b Mar Zutra, /b that one who is not fit to sell land is also not fit to bear witness with regard to land. b And the i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the statement of b Ameimar, /b that an orphan under the age of twenty can bestow gifts from the property he inherited from his father. b And the i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the statement that b Rav Naḥman /b says that b Shmuel says with regard to all /b the matters that he mentioned., strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to b one who divides his property /b between various recipients b by /b means of b verbal /b instruction, b Rabbi Elazar says: /b Both in the case of b one /b who is b healthy and /b in the case of b one /b who is b dangerously ill, /b the i halakha /i is as follows: b Property that serves as a guarantee, /b i.e., land, b is acquired by /b means of b money, by a deed /b of transfer, b or by taking possession /b of it. b And that /b which b does not serve as a guarantee, /b i.e., movable property, b can be acquired only by pulling. /b |
|
58. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131| 109a. בחייו ובמותו אם מת לא ירשנו ויחזיר לבניו או לאחיו ואם אין לו לוה ובעלי חוב באים ונפרעים:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רב יוסף אפילו לארנקי של צדקה אמר רב פפא וצריך שיאמר זה גזל אבי,אמאי נמחליה לנפשיה מי לא תנן מחל לו על הקרן ולא מחל לו על החומש אלמא בר מחילה הוא,אמר רבי יוחנן לא קשיא הא רבי יוסי הגלילי הא רבי עקיבא,דתניא (במדבר ה, ח) ואם אין לאיש גואל להשיב האשם וכי יש אדם בישראל שאין לו גואלים אלא בגזל הגר הכתוב מדבר,הרי שגזל הגר ונשבע לו ושמע שמת הגר והיה מעלה כספו ואשמו לירושלים ופגע באותו הגר וזקפו עליו במלוה ומת זכה הלה במה שבידו דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי ר' עקיבא אומר אין לו תקנה עד שיוציא גזילו מתחת ידו,לרבי יוסי הגלילי לא שנא לנפשיה ל"ש לאחרים מצי מחיל ולרבי עקיבא ל"ש לאחרים ולא שנא לנפשיה לא מצי מחיל,ולר' יוסי הוא הדין דאפי' לא זקפו במלוה והאי דקתני זקפו עליו במלוה להודיעך כחו דרבי עקיבא דאפילו זקפן עליו במלוה אין לו תקנה עד שיוציא גזילה מתחת ידו,מתקיף לה רב ששת אי הכי לרבי יוסי הגלילי לשמעינן לנפשיה וכל שכן לאחרים לרבי עקיבא לשמעינן לאחרים דלא מצי מחיל וכ"ש לנפשיה דלא מצי מחיל,אלא אמר רב ששת הא והא רבי יוסי הגלילי כי קאמר רבי יוסי הגלילי דמצי מחיל לאחרים אבל לנפשיה לא מצי מחיל אלא אמאי זכה הלה במה שבידו משום דזקפן עליו במלוה,רבא אמר הא והא רבי עקיבא כי אמר רבי עקיבא דלא מצי מחיל לנפשיה אבל לאחרים מצי מחיל | 109a. The mishna continues: If the father stated in his vow that his son may not derive benefit from his property b in his life and in his death, /b then even b if /b the father then b dies /b the son b does not inherit /b from b him, /b as the prohibition is still in effect. b And /b instead of taking his inheritance, b he returns /b his portion in the estate b to his sons or to his brothers. And if he does not have /b sufficient funds to subsist without his inheritance, he b borrows /b money in the amount of the value of his share in the inheritance b and /b the b creditors come and are repaid /b from his share., strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the i halakha /i written in the mishna that one who robs his father pays the principal and the additional one-fifth payment to the father’s heirs, b Rav Yosef says: /b One may b even /b put this money b in a charity purse /b if he so chooses. b Rav Pappa says: And /b when giving the money b he must say: This /b is what was b robbed /b from b my father. /b ,§ The Gemara questions the mishna’s ruling that one who robs his father must return the stolen item to others even if he is the sole heir. b Why /b must he do this? b Let him forgive /b the debt b to himself; /b as the heir, to whom payment is due, he should be able to forgive it. b Didn’t we learn /b in a mishna (103a) that in the case of a robber who took a false oath claiming to be innocent and later admitted his liability: If the owner b forgave him concerning the principal, but did not forgive him concerning the /b additional b one-fifth /b payment, he need not pursue him to repay the remaining debt. b Apparently, /b even the principal b is subject to forgiveness, /b so why doesn’t he forgive the obligation to himself?, b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b This is b not difficult. That /b mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, /b who says that this obligation can be forgiven, while b this /b mishna, ruling that a son who robbed his father and is his sole heir cannot forgive the obligation to himself, is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva, /b who holds that this obligation cannot be forgiven.,Rabbi Yoḥa explains: b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 10:16) that the verse states with regard to one who steals from one who then died: b “But if the man has no kinsman /b to whom b restitution may be made for the guilt, /b the restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lord’s, even the priest’s” (Numbers 5:8). The i baraita /i asks: b But is there /b any b Jewish person who has no kinsmen? /b Since every Jew descends from Jacob our forefather, all Jews have relatives to inherit from them. b Rather, /b it must be that b the verse is speaking of robbery of a convert /b who never married or had children as a Jew, and in any case is no longer legally related to his gentile family; he has no heirs. In this situation the Torah instructs one who robbed from a now-deceased convert to return the stolen item to a priest.,The i baraita /i continues: In the case of one b who robbed a convert and took /b a false b oath to him /b saying that he did not rob him, b and /b then b heard that the convert died; and he was bringing his money, /b for the principal and the additional one-fifth payment, b and his guilt-offering up to Jerusalem /b to pay his debt to the priests and sacrifice his offering, b and he encountered that same convert, /b who in fact had not died; b and, /b instead of having the robber pay the money right away the convert b established it as a loan for /b the robber, b and /b then the convert b died, /b leaving his property ownerless, as he had no heirs; b this /b robber b acquires /b all b that /b is b in his possession, /b as it is now a loan, not money to pay back the theft; this is b the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: /b The robber b has no remedy until he will remove his stolen item from his possession. /b ,Rabbi Yoḥa explains their respective opinions. b According to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, /b there b is no difference /b if the one to whom payment is due forgives the return of a stolen item b to himself, /b such as in this case of a convert who died or in the case of the mishna where a son robbed his father who then died, and there b is no difference /b if he forgives the return of a stolen item b to others. /b In either case, he b can forgive /b payment. b And according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva, /b there b is no difference /b if the one to whom payment is due forgives the return of a stolen item b to others /b and there b is no difference /b if he forgives the return of a stolen item b to himself. /b In either case, he b cannot forgive /b payment.,Rabbi Yoḥa continues his analysis: b And according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei /b HaGelili, b the same is true, /b i.e., the i halakha /i would also be, b that /b no liability would remain in the case of the convert b even had he not established /b the robbery debt b as a loan, /b as the robber could forgive the obligation to himself once the convert died. b And /b the fact b that /b the i baraita /i b teaches /b its i halakha /i in a case where he b established it as a loan for /b the robber b is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of /b the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva: That even /b if he b established it as a loan for him, /b in which case it could be considered as though the robber had returned the stolen item and now has a standard loan debt, nevertheless, the robber b has no remedy until he will remove his stolen item from his possession, /b so as to not benefit from his act of robbery., b Rav Sheshet objects to this /b interpretation of the i baraita /i : b If so, /b then b according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, let /b the mishna on 103a, which indicates that one can forgive the principal payment of a robbery, b teach us /b instead that the robbery victim can forgive the obligation b to himself, and /b it would be understood that b all the more so /b one can forgive the obligation b to others. /b And b according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva, /b which Rabbi Yoḥa explains to be the opinion stated in the mishna here, b let it teach us that one cannot forgive /b the obligation b to others, and /b it would be understood b all the more so /b with regard to the robber, b that /b he b cannot forgive /b the obligation b to himself. /b , b Rather, Rav Sheshet said: That /b mishna b and this /b mishna are both in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. When Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is saying that one can forgive /b the return of a stolen item, he meant specifically forgiving the obligation b to others, but /b he b cannot forgive /b the obligation b to himself. /b The Gemara asks: b But /b if that is the i halakha /i , b why did this /b one who robbed a convert who subsequently died b acquire /b all b that /b is b in his possession? Because /b the convert b established it as a loan for him, /b and henceforth it is no longer considered stolen property, but a standard loan debt.,The Gemara offers a different explanation. b Rava said: That /b mishna b and this /b mishna are both in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva. When Rabbi Akiva says that /b he b cannot forgive /b the return of a stolen item he meant specifically forgiving the obligation b to himself, /b as in the case of the convert, b but /b he b can forgive /b the obligation b to others. /b |
|
59. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131| 87b. אתא ר' חייא הדר לרישא עייל בר קפרא הדר לרישא אתא ר"ש ברבי הדר לרישא אתא ר' חנינא (בר) חמא אמר כולי האי נהדר וניזיל לא הדר איקפיד ר' חנינא אזל רב לגביה תליסר מעלי יומי דכפורי ולא איפייס,והיכי עביד הכי והאמר ר' יוסי בר חנינא כל המבקש מטו מחבירו אל יבקש ממנו יותר משלש פעמים רב שאני ור' חנינא היכי עביד הכי והאמר רבא כל המעביר על מדותיו מעבירין לו על כל פשעיו,אלא ר' חנינא חלמא חזי ליה לרב דזקפוהו בדיקלא וגמירי דכל דזקפוהו בדיקלא רישא הוי אמר שמע מינה בעי למעבד רשותא ולא איפייס כי היכי דליזיל ולגמר אורייתא בבבל,ת"ר מצות וידוי ערב יוה"כ עם חשכה אבל אמרו חכמים יתודה קודם שיאכל וישתה שמא תטרף דעתו בסעודה ואע"פ שהתודה קודם שאכל ושתה מתודה לאחר שיאכל וישתה שמא אירע דבר קלקלה בסעודה ואף על פי שהתודה ערבית יתודה שחרית שחרית יתודה במוסף במוסף יתודה במנחה במנחה יתודה בנעילה,והיכן אומרו יחיד אחר תפלתו ושליח צבור אומרו באמצע מאי אמר אמר רב אתה יודע רזי עולם ושמואל אמר ממעמקי הלב ולוי אמר ובתורתך כתוב לאמר ר' יוחנן אמר רבון העולמים,ר' יהודה אמר כי עונותינו רבו מלמנות וחטאתינו עצמו מספר רב המנונא אמר אלהי עד שלא נוצרתי איני כדאי עכשיו שנוצרתי כאילו לא נוצרתי עפר אני בחיי ק"ו במיתתי הרי אני לפניך ככלי מלא בושה וכלימה יהי רצון מלפניך שלא אחטא ומה שחטאתי מרוק ברחמיך אבל לא ע"י יסורין והיינו וידויא דרבא כולה שתא ודרב המנונא זוטא ביומא דכפורי,אמר מר זוטרא לא אמרן אלא דלא אמר אבל אנחנו חטאנו אבל אמר אבל אנחנו חטאנו תו לא צריך דאמר בר המדודי הוה קאימנא קמיה דשמואל והוה יתיב וכי מטא שליחא דצבורא ואמר אבל אנחנו חטאנו קם מיקם אמר שמע מינה עיקר וידוי האי הוא,תנן התם בשלשה פרקים בשנה כהנים נושאין את כפיהן ארבעה פעמים ביום בשחרית במוסף במנחה ובנעילת שערים ואלו הן שלשה פרקים בתעניות ובמעמדות וביום הכפורים,מאי נעילת שערים רב אמר צלותא יתירתא ושמואל אמר מה אנו מה חיינו מיתיבי אור יוה"כ מתפלל שבע ומתודה בשחרית מתפלל שבע ומתודה במוסף מתפלל שבע ומתודה במנחה מתפלל שבע ומתודה בנעילה מתפלל שבע ומתודה,תנאי היא דתניא יום הכפורים עם חשיכה מתפלל שבע ומתודה וחותם בוידוי דברי ר"מ וחכמים אומרים מתפלל שבע ואם רצה לחתום בוידוי חותם תיובתא דשמואל תיובתא,עולא בר רב נחית קמיה דרבא פתח באתה בחרתנו וסיים במה אנו מה חיינו ושבחיה רב הונא בריה דרב נתן אמר ויחיד אומרה אחר תפלתו,אמר רב תפלת נעילה פוטרת את של ערבית רב לטעמיה דאמר צלותא יתירא היא וכיון דצלי ליה תו לא צריך,ומי אמר רב הכי והאמר רב הלכה כדברי האומר תפלת ערבית רשות לדברי האומר חובה קאמר,מיתיבי אור יום הכפורים מתפלל שבע ומתודה שחרית שבע ומתודה מוסף שבע ומתודה בנעילה מתפלל שבע ומתודה ערבית מתפלל שבע מעין שמונה עשרה רבי חנינא בן גמליאל משום אבותיו מתפלל שמונה עשרה שלימות | 87b. b Rabbi Ḥiyya, /b Rav’s uncle and teacher, b came in, /b whereupon Rav b returned to the beginning /b of the portion and began to read it again. Afterward, b bar Kappara came in, /b and Rav b returned to the beginning /b of the portion out of respect for bar Kappara. Then b Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b came in, /b and b he returned /b again b to the beginning /b of the portion. Then, b Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama came in, /b and Rav b said /b to himself: b Shall I go back /b and read b so many times? He did not return /b but continued from where he was. b Rabbi Ḥanina was offended /b because Rav showed that he was less important than the others. b Rav went before /b Rabbi Ḥanina b on Yom Kippur eve /b every year for b thirteen /b years to appease him, b but he would not be appeased. /b ,The Gemara asks: b How could /b Rav b act this way? Didn’t Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina say: Anyone who requests forgiveness from another should not ask more than three times? /b The Gemara answers: b Rav is different, /b since he was very pious and forced himself to act beyond the letter of the law. The Gemara asks: b And how could Rabbi Ḥanina act this way /b and refuse to forgive Rav, though he asked many times? b Didn’t Rava say: /b With regard to b anyone who suppresses his honor /b and forgives someone for hurting him, God b pardons all his sins? /b ,The Gemara explains: b Rather, /b this is what happened: b Rabbi Ḥanina saw in a dream /b that b Rav was being hung on a palm tree, and /b he b learned /b as a tradition that b anyone /b about whom there is a dream in b which he was being hung on a palm tree will become the head /b of a yeshiva. b He said: Learn from this that /b providence has decreed that b he must eventually become the head /b of the yeshiva. Therefore, b I will not be appeased, so that he will have to go and study Torah in Babylonia. /b He was conscious of the principle that one kingdom cannot overlap with another, and he knew that once Rav was appointed leader, he, Rabbi Ḥanina, would have to abdicate his own position or die. Therefore, he delayed being appeased, so that Rav would go to Babylonia and be appointed there as head of the yeshiva. In this way, the dream would be fulfilled, as Rav would indeed be appointed as head of a yeshiva, but since he would be in Babylonia, Rabbi Ḥanina would not lose his own position.,§ b The Sages taught: /b The main b mitzva of confession /b is on b Yom Kippur eve when darkness /b falls. b But the Sages said: /b One should also b confess /b on Yom Kippur eve b before he eats and drinks /b at his last meal before the fast b lest he become confused at the meal, /b due to the abundance of food and drink, and be unable to confess afterward. b And although one confessed before he ate and drank, he confesses /b again b after he eats and drinks, /b as b perhaps he committed some sin during the meal /b itself. b And although one confessed /b during b the evening prayer /b on the night of Yom Kippur, b he /b should b confess /b again during b the morning prayer. /b Likewise, although one confessed during the b morning prayer, he /b should still b confess during /b the b additional prayer. /b Similarly, although one confessed b during /b the b additional prayer, he /b should also b confess during /b the b afternoon prayer; /b and although one confessed b during /b the b afternoon prayer, he /b should b confess /b again b during /b the b closing prayer [ i ne’ila /i ]. /b , b And where /b in the Yom Kippur prayers b does one say /b the confession? b An individual /b says it b after his /b i Amida /i b prayer, and the prayer leader says it in the middle /b of the i Amida /i prayer. The Gemara asks: b What does one say; /b what is the liturgy of the confession? b Rav said: /b One says the prayer that begins: b You know the mysteries of the universe, /b in accordance with the standard liturgy. b And Shmuel said /b that the prayer begins with: b From the depths of the heart. And Levi said /b that it begins: b And in your Torah it is written, saying, /b and one then recites the forgiveness achieved by Yom Kippur as stated in the Torah. b Rabbi Yoḥa said /b that it begins: b Master of the Universe. /b , b Rabbi Yehuda said /b that one says: b For our iniquities are too many to count and our sins are too great to number. Rav Hamnuna said: /b This is the liturgy of the confession: b My God, before I was formed I was unworthy. Now that I have been formed, it is as if I had not been formed. I am dust while alive, how much more so when I am dead. See, I am before You like a vessel filled with shame and disgrace. May it be Your will that I may sin no more, and as for /b the sins b I have committed before You, erase /b them b in Your compassion, but not by suffering. /b The Gemara comments: b This is the confession that Rava /b used b all year /b long; b and /b it was the confession b that Rav Hamnuna Zuta /b used b on Yom Kippur. /b , b Mar Zutra said: We said only /b that one must follow all these versions b when he did not say /b the words: b But we have sinned. However, /b if b he said /b the words: b But we have sinned, he need not /b say b anything further /b because that is the essential part of the confession. b As bar Hamdudei said: I was standing before Shmuel and he was sitting; and when the prayer leader reached /b the words: b But we have sinned, /b Shmuel b stood. /b Bar Hamdudei b said: Learn from here that this is the main /b part of b the confession, /b and Shmuel stood up to emphasize the significance of these words.,§ b We learned /b in a mishna b there, /b in tractate i Ta’anit /i : b At three times in the year, priests raise their hands /b to recite the priestly benediction b four times in /b a single b day: In /b the b morning prayer, in /b the b additional prayer, in /b the b afternoon prayer, and at /b the b closing [ i ne’ila /i ] of the gates. And these are /b the b three times /b in the year: b During /b communal b fasts /b for lack of rain, on which the i ne’ila /i prayer is recited; b and during /b non-priestly b watches [ i ma’amadot /i ], /b when the Israelite members of the guard parallel to the priestly watch come and read the account of Creation (see i Ta’anit /i 26a); b and on Yom Kippur. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is the closing of the gates, /b i.e., the i ne /i ’ i ila /i prayer? b Rav said: /b It is b an added prayer /b of i Amida /i . b And Shmuel said: /b It is not a full prayer but only a confession that begins with the words: b What are we, what are our lives? /b The Gemara b raises an objection /b to this from a i baraita /i , as it was taught: On b the night of Yom Kippur, one prays seven /b blessings in the i Amida /i prayer b and confesses; during /b the b morning prayer, one prays seven /b blessings b and confesses; during /b the b additional prayer, one prays seven /b blessings b and confesses; during /b the b afternoon prayer, one prays seven /b blessings b and confesses; /b and b during /b the b i ne’ila /i prayer, one prays seven /b blessings b and confesses. /b This concurs with Rav’s opinion that i ne’ila /i is an added prayer., b This is /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i /b They all agree that i ne’ila /i is an added prayer but disagree about the obligation to confess at the i ne’ila /i prayer, b as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : At the end of b Yom Kippur, as darkness /b falls, b one prays seven /b blessings of the i Amida /i b and confesses and ends with the confession; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He prays seven /b blessings of the i Amida /i , b and if he wishes to end /b his prayer b with a confession, he ends /b it in this way. The Gemara says: If so, b this is a refutation of /b the opinion of b Shmuel, /b since all agree that i ne’ila /i is a complete prayer. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is b a /b conclusive b refutation. /b ,The Gemara relates: b Ulla bar Rav went down /b to lead the i ne’ila /i prayer b before Rava, /b who was in the synagogue. b He opened /b the prayer b with: You have chosen us, and he concluded with: What are we, what are our lives? And /b Rava b praised him. Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said: And an individual says it after his /b i Amida /i b prayer. /b The individual says the confession after his i Amida /i prayer, not within the i Amida /i prayer as the prayer leader does., b Rav said: The i ne’ila /i prayer exempts /b one from b the evening prayer. /b Since one recited an added prayer after the afternoon prayer, when darkness fell, it serves as the evening prayer. The Gemara comments that b Rav /b conforms b to his /b line of b reasoning /b above, b as he said: It is an added prayer, and since he has prayed it he needs no further /b prayer in the evening.,The Gemara is surprised at this: b And did Rav /b actually b say this? Didn’t Rav say: /b The b i halakha /i is in accordance with the statement of the one who says /b that the b evening prayer is optional? /b If it is optional, why would Rav use the term exempt? One is exempt even if he does not pray the closing prayer. The Gemara answers: b He said this in accordance with the statement of the one who says /b that the evening prayer b is mandatory. /b Even according to the opinion that maintains that the evening prayer is mandatory, if one recites i ne’ila /i , he has fulfilled his obligation to recite the evening prayer.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from that which we learned in a i baraita /i : During the b evening /b after b Yom Kippur, one prays seven /b blessings in the i Amida /i b and confesses; /b during the b morning prayer, /b one prays b seven /b blessings in the i Amida /i b and confesses; /b during the b additional prayer, /b one prays b seven /b blessings in the i Amida /i b and confesses; during i ne’ila /i one prays seven /b blessings in the i Amida /i b and confesses; /b and during b the evening prayer, /b one prays b seven /b blessings b in /b an b abridged /b version of the b eighteen /b blessings of the weekday i Amida /i prayer. One recites the first three blessings, the final three, and a middle blessing that includes an abbreviated form of the other weekday blessings. b Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel /b says b in the name of his ancestors: One prays /b the b full eighteen /b blessings of the weekday i Amida /i prayer as usual, |
|
60. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131| 54b. ש"מ חומשו כמותו ש"מ,אמר רבא גבי גזל כתיב (ויקרא ה, טז) וחמישיתיו יוסף עליו ותנן נתן לו את הקרן ונשבע לו על החומש הרי זה מוסיף חומש על חומש עד שיתמעט הקרן פחות משוה פרוטה,גבי תרומה כתיב (ויקרא כב, יד) איש כי יאכל קדש בשגגה ויסף חמישיתו עליו ותנן האוכל תרומה בשוגג משלם קרן וחומש אחד האוכל ואחד השותה ואחד הסך אחד תרומה טהורה ואחד תרומה טמאה משלם חומשה וחומשא דחומשא ואילו גבי מעשר לא מכתב כתיב ולא מיתנא תנא ולא איבעויי איבעיא לן,גבי הקדש כתיב (ויקרא כז, טו) ואם המקדיש יגאל את ביתו ויסף חמישית כסף ערכך ותנן הפודה את הקדשו מוסיף חומש חומשא תנן חומשא דחומשא לא תנן מאי גבי תרומה כתיב ויסף גבי קדש נמי הא כתיב ויסף,או דלמא גבי תרומה כתיב ויסף אי שקלת ליה לוי"ו דויסף ושדית ליה על חמישיתו הוה ליה חמישיתיו גבי הקדש כתיב ויסף חמישית אע"ג דכי שקלת ליה לוי"ו דויסף ושדית ליה על חמישית סוף סוף הוה ליה חמישיתו,ותיפוק ליה דהוה ליה הקדש שני ואמר רבי יהושע בן לוי אהקדש ראשון מוסיף חומש על הקדש שני אין מוסיף חומש אמר ליה רב פפי לרבינא הכי אמר רבא חומש כתחילת הקדש דמי,מאי הוי עלה אמר רב טביומי משמיה דאביי אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, טו) ויסף חמישית כסף ערכך מקיש חומשו לכסף ערכו מה כסף ערכו מוסיף חומש אף כסף חומשו נמי מוסיף חומש,גופא א"ר יהושע בן לוי על הקדש ראשון מוסיף חומש ועל הקדש שני אין מוסיף חומש אמר רבא מ"ט דרבי יהושע בן לוי אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, טו) ואם המקדיש יגאל את ביתו המקדיש ולא המתפיס,תני תנא קמיה דרבי אלעזר (ויקרא כז, כז) ואם בבהמה הטמאה ופדה בערכך מה בהמה טמאה מיוחדת שתחילתה הקדש וכולה לשמים ומועלין בה אף כל שתחילתה הקדש וכולה לשמים מועלין בה,אמר ליה ר' אלעזר לתנא בשלמא כולה לשמים למעוטי קדשים קלים כיון דאית להו לבעלים בגוייהו לית בהו מעילה אלא תחילת הקדש למעוטי מאי תחילת הקדש הוא דאית ביה מעילה סוף הקדש לית ביה מעילה דלמא לענין חומש קאמרת וכרבי יהושע בן לוי אמר ליה אין הכי קאמינא,אמר ליה רב אשי לרבינא בהמה טמאה בתחילת הקדש איתא | 54b. b Learn from it /b that the legal status of b its one-fifth /b payment is b like /b that of the principal b itself, /b in that it must be paid from non-sacred property. The Gemara affirms: b Learn from it /b that it is so.,§ b Rava said: With regard to robbery, it is written: /b “And he shall restore the robbed item that he robbed… b and he shall add its one-fifth payments to it” /b (Leviticus 5:23–24), b and we learned /b in a mishna ( i Bava Kamma /i 103a): If the robber b gave /b the robbery victim b the principal and took /b a false b oath to him concerning the /b additional b one-fifth /b payment, asserting that he had already paid it, then the additional one-fifth is considered a new principal obligation. b This /b robber b adds /b an additional b one-fifth /b payment b apart from /b the additional b one-fifth /b payment about which he had taken a false oath. If he then takes a false oath concerning the second one-fifth payment, he is assessed an additional one-fifth payment for that oath, b until the principal, /b i.e., the additional one-fifth payment about which he has most recently taken the false oath, b is reduced to less than the value of one i peruta /i . /b ,Rava continues: b With regard to i teruma /i /b too, b it is written: “If a man eats that which is sacred unwittingly, then he shall add its one-fifth payment to it” /b (Leviticus 22:14), b and as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Terumot /i 6:1): b One who partakes of i teruma /i unwittingly pays /b the b principal and /b an additional b one-fifth. /b This is the i halakha /i b whether /b it concerns b one who partakes of /b i teruma /i , b or one who drinks /b it, b or one who applies /b oil to himself; or b whether /b it is b ritually pure i teruma /i or ritually impure i teruma /i . He pays its one-fifth /b payment, b and /b if he partook of that one-fifth, he pays b one-fifth of its one-fifth. /b Rava concludes: b While with regard to /b second b tithe, /b it b is neither written /b in the Torah, b nor taught /b in b a mishna, nor raised as a dilemma before us /b by the i amora’im /i .,The Gemara pursues a similar line of inquiry: b With regard to consecrated /b property b it is written: “And if he who consecrated it will redeem his house, then he shall add one-fifth of the money of your valuation /b unto it, and it shall be his” (Leviticus 27:15), b and we learned /b in a mishna (55b): b One who redeems his /b own b consecrated /b property that he consecrated himself b adds one-fifth /b to the sum of the redemption. b We learned one-fifth; we did not learn one-fifth of the one-fifth. What /b is the i halakha /i ? The Gemara elaborates: b With regard to i teruma /i it is written: “Then he shall add,” /b and b with regard to consecrated /b property b too, isn’t it written: “Then he shall add”? /b Apparently, in a case of consecrated property one also pays one-fifth of the one-fifth., b Or perhaps /b we should learn the i halakha /i as follows: b With regard to i teruma /i it is written: “Then he shall add [ i veyasaf /i ],” /b and the i halakha /i of one-fifth of the one-fifth is derived in this manner: b If you take the /b letter b i vav /i of /b the word b i veyasaf /i , and cast it to /b the end of the word b i ḥamishito /i , /b its one-fifth payment, b it /b then b becomes /b the plural b i ḥamishitav /i , /b its one-fifths payments, as it is written in the case of robbery, indicating that one pays one-fifth of one-fifth. b With regard to consecrated /b property, b it is written: “Then he shall add [ i veyasaf /i ] one-fifth [ i ḥamishit /i ].” Even when you take the i vav /i of i veyasaf /i and cast it to /b the end of the word b i ḥamishit /i , ultimately it is /b only b i ḥamishito /i , /b in the singular, indicating payment of only a single one-fifth. What is the i halakha /i ?,The Gemara suggests: b And why not derive /b the i halakha /i of consecrated property from the fact b that it is /b tantamount to b a second consecration. /b When one redeems consecrated property with another item, although that item is thereby consecrated, not all the i halakhot /i of consecrated property apply to it. b And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: For /b redemption of b first consecration one adds one-fifth; for /b redemption of b second consecration one does not add one-fifth. Rav Pappi said to Ravina /b that b this /b is what b Rava said: /b The legal status of the additional b one-fifth is like /b that b of initial consecration, /b not like that of second consecration.,The Gemara asks: b What /b halakhic conclusion b was /b reached b about /b this dilemma? b Rav Tavyumei said in the name of Abaye /b that b the verse states /b with regard to one who redeems a house that he consecrated: b “Then he shall add one-fifth of the money of your valuation /b unto it” (Leviticus 27:15). The Torah b juxtaposes its /b payment of b one-fifth to the money of its valuation, /b i.e., the consecrated house: b Just as /b when redeeming b the money of its valuation one adds one-fifth, so too, /b when redeeming b the money of its one-fifth, one adds one-fifth as well. /b ,§ The Gemara analyzes b the /b matter b itself. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: For /b redemption of b first consecration one adds one-fifth; for /b redemption of b second consecration one does not add one-fifth. Rava said: What is the reason /b for the opinion b of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? /b It is as b the verse states: “And if he who consecrated it will redeem his house, /b then he shall add one-fifth of the money of your valuation unto it” (Leviticus 27:15), from which it may be inferred that when b he who consecrates /b the house redeems it, he adds one-fifth, b but /b this is b not /b so with regard to b one who associates /b an item with an existing sanctity, as in this case, where the sanctity of the one-fifth is derived from its association with the sanctity of the house.,The Gemara relates that b the i tanna /i /b who recited i mishnayot /i and i baraitot /i in the study hall b taught /b a i baraita /i b before Rabbi Elazar. /b It is written: b “And if it is of a non-kosher animal, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation” /b (Leviticus 27:27). This verse teaches that b just as a non-kosher animal /b that was consecrated b is unique /b in b that it is /b an example of b initial consecration and it is /b devoted b entirely to Heaven, /b as neither the owner nor anyone else may derive benefit from it after its consecration, b and one /b violates the prohibition against b misuse /b of consecrated property b by /b using b it /b after it was consecrated, b so too, /b with regard to b any /b item that both undergoes b initial consecration and is /b devoted b entirely to Heaven, one /b violates the prohibition against b misuse /b of consecrated property b by /b using b it /b after it was consecrated., b Rabbi Elazar said to the i tanna /i : Granted, /b the statement: b It is /b devoted b entirely to Heaven, /b serves b to exclude offerings of lesser sanctity, /b e.g., peace-offerings. b Since the owners have /b a share b in them, /b as they may partake of those offerings, b they are not subject to /b the prohibition against b misuse /b of consecrated property. b But what /b does the mention of b initial consecration /b in the i baraita /i serve b to exclude? /b Is it that b initial consecration is subject to /b the prohibition against b misuse /b of consecrated property and b ultimate consecration is not subject to /b the prohibition against b misuse /b of consecrated property? Even the property consecrated last in a series of redemptions is full-fledged consecrated property. b Perhaps /b it is with regard b to /b the b matter of /b the payment of b one-fifth /b that b you are saying /b this, b and /b it is b in accordance with /b the statement of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? /b The i tanna /i b said to him: Yes, that is /b what b I am saying. /b ,Apropos that i baraita /i , b Rav Ashi said to Ravina: /b Is it so that b a non-kosher animal is /b subject b to initial consecration /b |
|
61. Babylonian Talmud, Arakhin, None (6th cent. CE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 35| 18b. כענין שנאמר (ויקרא יג, יב) מראשו ועד רגליו ראשו ולא ראשו בכלל רגליו ולא רגליו בכלל,ת"ל (שמות יב, יח) עד יום האחד ועשרים לחודש בערב רבי אומר אינו צריך ראשון וראשון בכלל שביעי ושביעי בכלל,אפי' תימא רבי שקולי משקלי קראי מכדי כתיב (ויקרא כז, ו) מבן חודש ועד בן חמש שנים תו מבן חמש (ועד בן כ') למה לי הילכך אישתקלו להו,אמר מר ראשו ולא ראשו בכלל רגליו ולא רגליו בכלל מנלן איבעית אימא שאני סימנים דגופו מסימנים דראשו איבעית אימא (ויקרא יג, יב) לכל מראה עיני הכהן:,ר"א אומר עד שיהו יתירות על השנים חודש ויום אחד: תניא ר"א אומר נאמר כאן למעלה ונאמר להלן (במדבר ג, טו) חודש ומעלה מה להלן מבן חודש ויום אחד אף כאן (מבן) חודש ויום אחד,ואימא כי התם מה התם חד יומא אף כאן חד יומא א"כ ג"ש מאי אהני,ת"ר שנה האמורה בקדשים שנה האמורה בבתי ערי חומה שתי שנים שבשדה אחוזה ושש שנים שבעבד עברי וכן שבבן ושבבת כולן מעת לעת,שנה האמורה בקדשים מנלן אמר רב אחא בר יעקב אמר קרא (ויקרא יב, ו) כבש בן שנתו שנתו שלו ולא של מנין עולם,שנה האמורה בבתי ערי חומה דכתיב (ויקרא כה, כט) עד תום שנת ממכרו ממכרו שלו ולא שנה למנין עולם,שתי שנים שבשדה אחוזה דכתיב (ויקרא כה, טו) במספר שני תבואות ימכר לך פעמים שאדם אוכל שלש תבואות בשתי שנים,שש שבעבד עברי דכתיב (שמות כא, ב) שש שנים יעבוד ובשביעית זימנין דבשביעית נמי יעבוד,ושבבן ושבבת כולן מעת לעת למאי הילכתא אמר רב גידל אמר רב לערכין רב יוסף אמר לפרקין דיוצא דופן,א"ל אביי לרב יוסף מי פלגיתו א"ל לא אנא אמרי חדא והוא אמר חדא הכי נמי מסתברא דאי ס"ד פליגי מ"ד לערכין לא אמר ליוצא דופן והאמר רב הילכתא בכולה פירקא מעת לעת,ואלא למאן דאמר לערכין מ"ט לא אמר ליוצא דופן דומיא דהנך מה הנך דכתיבא אף הנך דכתיבא,ואידך אי סלקא דעתך דכתיבא האי שבבן ושבבת | 18b. This is b similar to the matter that is stated /b with regard to a leper: “And the leprosy covers all the skin of him who has the mark b from his head to his feet, /b as far as the priest can see…it is all turned white: He is pure” (Leviticus 13:12–13). This verse is understood as follows: The mark reaches from b his head, but his head is not included; /b it reaches to b his feet, but his feet are not included. /b Therefore, one might have thought the prohibition against consuming leaven on the festival of Passover likewise does not apply to the endpoints mentioned in the verse.,Therefore, b the verse states: /b “You shall eat unleavened bread, b until the twenty-first day of the month in the evening” /b (Exodus 12:18). This proves that the seventh day of the Festival is included. b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: It is not necessary /b to cite this verse, as the prohibition against consuming leaven is from the b first /b day of Passover, b and /b the b first /b day b is included; /b and the ban continues until the b seventh /b day, b and /b the b seventh /b day b is included. /b Accordingly, with regard to valuations, even without a verbal analogy Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should maintain that the twentieth year is included in the preceding period.,The Gemara answers: b You /b may b even say /b that the opinion in the mishna is in accordance with that of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, as b the verses offset each other, /b and therefore their meaning is unclear without the verbal analogy. The Gemara elaborates: b Since it is written: “From one month old until five years old” /b (Leviticus 27:6), this ostensibly includes the fifth year within the stated category. If so, b why do I /b need b this /b mention of five years b as well: /b “And if it is b from five years old until twenty years old, /b then your valuation shall be for the male twenty shekels” (Leviticus 27:5)? b Therefore, /b with regard to the fifth year, as both verses mention that year, b the /b verses b offset each other. /b Consequently, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the verbal analogy is necessary., b The Master said /b above, with regard to a leper: The mark reaches from b his head, but his head is not included; /b it reaches to b his feet, but his feet are not included. /b The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive this interpretation? b If you wish, say /b that it is deduced logically: The b signs /b of leprosy b of his body are different from /b the b signs /b of leprosy b of his head /b with regard to the different colors of hair that indicate leprosy. Alternatively, b if you wish, say /b instead that it is derived from the phrase in that verse: b “As far as the priest can see.” /b This excludes a leprous mark on the head, which is obscured from the priest’s view by the hair, as well as leprous marks between the toes.,§ The mishna teaches that b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b Their halakhic status remains like that of the period preceding it, b until they will be /b aged one b month and one day beyond the /b respective b years. /b With regard to this opinion, it b is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here, /b with regard to valuations, b “upward” /b (Leviticus 27:7), b and it is stated there, /b with regard to the census of the Levites in the wilderness: “From b one month old and upward /b you shall number them” (Numbers 3:15). b Just as there, /b in the case of the census, the verse means: b From one month and one day old, so too here, /b with regard to valuations, the verse means that each respective category is counted b from /b one b month and one day old /b beyond the stated ages of five years, twenty years, or sixty years.,The Gemara asks: b And /b why doesn’t Rabbi Eliezer b say /b that the verse dealing with valuation should be understood b like /b the verse written b there, /b with regard to the census, in the following manner: b Just as there /b it is b one day /b more than the enumerated age of thirty days, b so too here, /b it should be b one day /b more than the enumerated ages of five years, twenty years, and sixty years. Why does Rabbi Eliezer add a month? The Gemara answers: b If so, /b that only one day should be added, b what purpose does /b this b verbal analogy /b from the census b serve? /b Even without any connection to the verse dealing with the census, it would be understood in the case of valuations that the new period begins from the day after the respective year is fully completed.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to the period of one b year stated with regard to sacrificial /b animals, e.g., “sheep in their first year” (Numbers 28:3); and the one b year stated with regard to houses of walled cities, /b during which time it is permitted to redeem a sold house in a walled city (Leviticus 25:29); and the b two years /b stated b with regard to an ancestral field, /b during which one may not yet redeem an ancestral field he has sold (Leviticus 25:15); b and /b the b six years /b stated b with regard to a Hebrew slave /b (Exodus 21:2); b and similarly, /b the years stated b with regard to a son and with regard to a daughter, /b as explained below; b all of /b these are calculated b from /b the b time /b of day at the start of the period b to /b the b time /b of day at the end of the period, i.e., these periods are units of whole years; they do not expire on predetermined dates, such as at the end of the calendar year.,The Gemara asks: With regard to the one b year stated with regard to sacrificial /b animals, b from where do we /b derive that it is calculated by whole years rather than calendar years? b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says /b that b the verse states: “A sheep in its first year” /b (Leviticus 12:6). Since the verse does not state: A sheep in the first year, it means b a year /b based on the calculation of b its /b own life, b and not /b a year based b on the counting of the world, /b i.e., the calendar year.,The Gemara continues clarifying the i baraita /i : The i halakha /i that the one b year stated with regard to houses of walled cities /b is calculated by a whole year and not a calendar year is derived from the fact b that it is written: /b “Then he may redeem it b within a whole year after it is sold, /b for a full year he shall have the right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:29). The verse is referring to a year counted from the day b of its /b own b sale, and not /b the b year of the counting of the world. /b ,The Gemara states: Concerning the b two years /b stated b with regard to an ancestral field, /b this is derived from the fact b that it is written: “According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you” /b (Leviticus 25:15). The plural form of both “years” and “crops” indicates that the number of years does not necessarily correspond to the quantity of crops. Consequently, there are b times when a person /b might b eat three /b yields of b crops in two years. /b If one purchased a field at the end of the calendar year when its yield had not yet been harvested, and he harvested that yield and subsequently grew and harvested two more crops before the completion of two whole years from the sale, he would have eaten three yields in less than two years. This is not possible if one follows the calendar years, as a new year would start soon after the purchase.,The Gemara states: The i halakha /i that the b six years /b stated b with regard to a Hebrew slave /b is calculated by whole years, not calendar years, is derived from the fact b that it is written: “Six years he shall work; and in the seventh /b he shall go out free for nothing” (Exodus 21:2). The word “and” in the phrase: “And in the seventh,” teaches that b sometimes /b it turns out b that he shall also work /b in the seventh calendar year, if six full years have not passed from when he was sold. For example, if he was sold in the month of Nisan, although five years and six months have passed when Tishrei, the first month of the seventh year, arrives, since he has not yet completed six years of service he must work in this seventh calendar year as well, until the day of the month in which he was sold.,The i baraita /i also teaches: The years stated b with regard to a son and with regard to a daughter /b are among these terms calculated from the time at the start of the period to the time at the end of the period. The Gemara asks: b With regard to what i halakha /i /b is this stated? b Rav Giddel said /b that b Rav said: With regard to valuations, /b i.e., that the age of a valuated male or female is calculated in whole years from the date of their birth, not by calendar years. b Rav Yosef said: /b The i halakha /i is stated b with regard to /b the matters taught in the fifth b chapter of /b tractate i Nidda /i , which is called after its opening words: b i Yotze Dofen /i , /b i.e., an animal born by caesarean section. In other words, when a mishna in that chapter, which deals with various matters related to the ages of sons and daughters, mentions years, it means full years, even when it does not state this explicitly., b Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do you /b and Rav b dispute /b this matter, i.e., when you apply the mention of a son and a daughter to different cases, do each of you reject the opinion of the other? Rav Yosef b said to /b Abaye: b No, /b we do not disagree; b I said one /b matter b and he said one /b different matter. The Gemara adds: b This too stands to reason, as if it enters your mind /b that they b disagree /b on this matter, then with regard to b the one who says /b full years are required b for /b determining b valuations, /b does he b not /b also b say /b that full years are used b for /b the i halakhot /i of b i Yotze Dofen /i ? But doesn’t Rav say, /b like Rav Yosef, that b the i halakha /i in /b that b entire chapter /b is that the ages of the sons and daughters are determined b from /b the b time /b at the start of the period b to /b the b time /b at the end of the period, not by calendar years?,The Gemara asks: b But /b if that is the case, then b according to the one who says /b that the reference to full years mentioned in the i baraita /i is b for /b determining b valuations, /b i.e., Rav, b what is the reason /b he b did not say /b that the i baraita /i is referring b to /b the i halakhot /i of b i Yotze Dofen /i ? /b The Gemara answers: Rav would claim that the years of a son and a daughter in the i baraita /i are b similar to these /b other cases mentioned in the i baraita /i : b Just as /b those numbers of years b are /b explicitly b written /b in the Torah, b so too these /b years of the sons and daughters are referring to matters b where /b the years b are written /b in the Torah, i.e., the years of valuations, unlike the topics discussed in i Yotze Dofen /i , where the years are not mentioned expressly in the Torah.,The Gemara asks: b And /b with regard to b the other, /b Rav Yosef, how would he respond to this contention? He would maintain that b if it enters your mind /b that the i baraita /i is referring to the years of valuations, b which are written /b in the Torah, then b this /b phrase in the i baraita /i : b With regard to a son and with regard to a daughter, /b is unsuitable. |
|
| 62. Anon., Sifre Zuta, None Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103 |
| 63. Anon., Num., None Tagged with subjects: •second commonwealth period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103 |
