1. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 6.1-6.21, 19.10-19.16, 20.5, 31.19-31.23 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 210, 211, 216, 217, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229| 6.1. "וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃", 6.1. "וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי יָבִא שְׁתֵּי תֹרִים אוֹ שְׁנֵי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן אֶל־פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃", 6.2. "דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אִישׁ אוֹ־אִשָּׁה כִּי יַפְלִא לִנְדֹּר נֶדֶר נָזִיר לְהַזִּיר לַיהוָה׃", 6.2. "וְהֵנִיף אוֹתָם הַכֹּהֵן תְּנוּפָה לִפְנֵי יְהוָה קֹדֶשׁ הוּא לַכֹּהֵן עַל חֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה וְעַל שׁוֹק הַתְּרוּמָה וְאַחַר יִשְׁתֶּה הַנָּזִיר יָיִן׃", 6.3. "מִיַּיִן וְשֵׁכָר יַזִּיר חֹמֶץ יַיִן וְחֹמֶץ שֵׁכָר לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה וְכָל־מִשְׁרַת עֲנָבִים לֹא יִשְׁתֶּה וַעֲנָבִים לַחִים וִיבֵשִׁים לֹא יֹאכֵל׃", 6.4. "כֹּל יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר יֵעָשֶׂה מִגֶּפֶן הַיַּיִן מֵחַרְצַנִּים וְעַד־זָג לֹא יֹאכֵל׃", 6.5. "כָּל־יְמֵי נֶדֶר נִזְרוֹ תַּעַר לֹא־יַעֲבֹר עַל־רֹאשׁוֹ עַד־מְלֹאת הַיָּמִם אֲשֶׁר־יַזִּיר לַיהוָה קָדֹשׁ יִהְיֶה גַּדֵּל פֶּרַע שְׂעַר רֹאשׁוֹ׃", 6.6. "כָּל־יְמֵי הַזִּירוֹ לַיהוָה עַל־נֶפֶשׁ מֵת לֹא יָבֹא׃", 6.7. "לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ לְאָחִיו וּלְאַחֹתוֹ לֹא־יִטַּמָּא לָהֶם בְּמֹתָם כִּי נֵזֶר אֱלֹהָיו עַל־רֹאשׁוֹ׃", 6.8. "כֹּל יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ קָדֹשׁ הוּא לַיהוָה׃", 6.9. "וְכִי־יָמוּת מֵת עָלָיו בְּפֶתַע פִּתְאֹם וְטִמֵּא רֹאשׁ נִזְרוֹ וְגִלַּח רֹאשׁוֹ בְּיוֹם טָהֳרָתוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי יְגַלְּחֶנּוּ׃", 6.11. "וְעָשָׂה הַכֹּהֵן אֶחָד לְחַטָּאת וְאֶחָד לְעֹלָה וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא עַל־הַנָּפֶשׁ וְקִדַּשׁ אֶת־רֹאשׁוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא׃", 6.12. "וְהִזִּיר לַיהוָה אֶת־יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ וְהֵבִיא כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן־שְׁנָתוֹ לְאָשָׁם וְהַיָּמִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים יִפְּלוּ כִּי טָמֵא נִזְרוֹ׃", 6.13. "וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת הַנָּזִיר בְּיוֹם מְלֹאת יְמֵי נִזְרוֹ יָבִיא אֹתוֹ אֶל־פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃", 6.14. "וְהִקְרִיב אֶת־קָרְבָּנוֹ לַיהוָה כֶּבֶשׂ בֶּן־שְׁנָתוֹ תָמִים אֶחָד לְעֹלָה וְכַבְשָׂה אַחַת בַּת־שְׁנָתָהּ תְּמִימָה לְחַטָּאת וְאַיִל־אֶחָד תָּמִים לִשְׁלָמִים׃", 6.15. "וְסַל מַצּוֹת סֹלֶת חַלֹּת בְּלוּלֹת בַּשֶּׁמֶן וּרְקִיקֵי מַצּוֹת מְשֻׁחִים בַּשָּׁמֶן וּמִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם׃", 6.16. "וְהִקְרִיב הַכֹּהֵן לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְעָשָׂה אֶת־חַטָּאתוֹ וְאֶת־עֹלָתוֹ׃", 6.17. "וְאֶת־הָאַיִל יַעֲשֶׂה זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים לַיהוָה עַל סַל הַמַּצּוֹת וְעָשָׂה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת־מִנְחָתוֹ וְאֶת־נִסְכּוֹ׃", 6.18. "וְגִלַּח הַנָּזִיר פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד אֶת־רֹאשׁ נִזְרוֹ וְלָקַח אֶת־שְׂעַר רֹאשׁ נִזְרוֹ וְנָתַן עַל־הָאֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר־תַּחַת זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים׃", 6.19. "וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן אֶת־הַזְּרֹעַ בְּשֵׁלָה מִן־הָאַיִל וְחַלַּת מַצָּה אַחַת מִן־הַסַּל וּרְקִיק מַצָּה אֶחָד וְנָתַן עַל־כַּפֵּי הַנָּזִיר אַחַר הִתְגַּלְּחוֹ אֶת־נִזְרוֹ׃", 6.21. "זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַנָּזִיר אֲשֶׁר יִדֹּר קָרְבָּנוֹ לַיהוָה עַל־נִזְרוֹ מִלְּבַד אֲשֶׁר־תַּשִּׂיג יָדוֹ כְּפִי נִדְרוֹ אֲשֶׁר יִדֹּר כֵּן יַעֲשֶׂה עַל תּוֹרַת נִזְרוֹ׃", 19.11. "הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּמֵת לְכָל־נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם וְטָמֵא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים׃", 19.12. "הוּא יִתְחַטָּא־בוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי יִטְהָר וְאִם־לֹא יִתְחַטָּא בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי לֹא יִטְהָר׃", 19.13. "כָּל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּמֵת בְּנֶפֶשׁ הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר־יָמוּת וְלֹא יִתְחַטָּא אֶת־מִשְׁכַּן יְהוָה טִמֵּא וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל כִּי מֵי נִדָּה לֹא־זֹרַק עָלָיו טָמֵא יִהְיֶה עוֹד טֻמְאָתוֹ בוֹ׃", 19.14. "זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה אָדָם כִּי־יָמוּת בְּאֹהֶל כָּל־הַבָּא אֶל־הָאֹהֶל וְכָל־אֲשֶׁר בָּאֹהֶל יִטְמָא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים׃", 19.15. "וְכֹל כְּלִי פָתוּחַ אֲשֶׁר אֵין־צָמִיד פָּתִיל עָלָיו טָמֵא הוּא׃", 19.16. "וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יִגַּע עַל־פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה בַּחֲלַל־חֶרֶב אוֹ בְמֵת אוֹ־בְעֶצֶם אָדָם אוֹ בְקָבֶר יִטְמָא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים׃", 20.5. "וְלָמָה הֶעֱלִיתֻנוּ מִמִּצְרַיִם לְהָבִיא אֹתָנוּ אֶל־הַמָּקוֹם הָרָע הַזֶּה לֹא מְקוֹם זֶרַע וּתְאֵנָה וְגֶפֶן וְרִמּוֹן וּמַיִם אַיִן לִשְׁתּוֹת׃", 31.19. "וְאַתֶּם חֲנוּ מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים כֹּל הֹרֵג נֶפֶשׁ וְכֹל נֹגֵעַ בֶּחָלָל תִּתְחַטְּאוּ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי אַתֶּם וּשְׁבִיכֶם׃", 31.21. "וַיֹּאמֶר אֶלְעָזָר הַכֹּהֵן אֶל־אַנְשֵׁי הַצָּבָא הַבָּאִים לַמִּלְחָמָה זֹאת חֻקַּת הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּה יְהוָה אֶת־מֹשֶׁה׃", 31.22. "אַךְ אֶת־הַזָּהָב וְאֶת־הַכָּסֶף אֶת־הַנְּחֹשֶׁת אֶת־הַבַּרְזֶל אֶת־הַבְּדִיל וְאֶת־הָעֹפָרֶת׃", 31.23. "כָּל־דָּבָר אֲשֶׁר־יָבֹא בָאֵשׁ תַּעֲבִירוּ בָאֵשׁ וְטָהֵר אַךְ בְּמֵי נִדָּה יִתְחַטָּא וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָבֹא בָּאֵשׁ תַּעֲבִירוּ בַמָּיִם׃", | 6.1. "And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:", 6.2. "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: When either man or woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to consecrate himself unto the LORD,", 6.3. "he shall abstain from wine and strong drink: he shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat fresh grapes or dried.", 6.4. "All the days of his Naziriteship shall he eat nothing that is made of the grape-vine, from the pressed grapes even to the grapestone.", 6.5. "All the days of his vow of Naziriteship there shall no razor come upon his head; until the days be fulfilled, in which he consecrateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow long.", 6.6. "All the days that he consecrateth himself unto the LORD he shall not come near to a dead body.", 6.7. "He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die; because his consecration unto God is upon his head.", 6.8. "All the days of his Naziriteship he is holy unto the LORD.", 6.9. "And if any man die very suddenly beside him, and he defile his consecrated head, then he shall shave his head in the day of his cleansing, on the seventh day shall he shave it.", 6.10. "And on the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, to the priest, to the door of the tent of meeting.", 6.11. "And the priest shall prepare one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering, and make atonement for him, for that he sinned by reason of the dead; and he shall hallow his head that same day.", 6.12. "And he shall consecrate unto the LORD the days of his Naziriteship, and shall bring a he-lamb of the first year for a guilt-offering; but the former days shall be void, because his consecration was defiled. .", 6.13. "And this is the law of the Nazirite, when the days of his consecration are fulfilled: he shall abring it unto the door of the tent of meeting;", 6.14. "and he shall present his offering unto the LORD, one he-lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt-offering, and one ewe-lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin-offering, and one ram without blemish for peace-offerings,", 6.15. "and a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and their meal-offering, and their drink-offerings.", 6.16. "And the priest shall bring them before the LORD, and shall offer his sin-offering, and his burnt-offering.", 6.17. "And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace-offerings unto the LORD, with the basket of unleavened bread; the priest shall offer also the meal-offering thereof, and the drink-offering thereof.", 6.18. "And the Nazirite shall shave his consecrated head at the door of the tent of meeting, and shall take the hair of his consecrated head, and put it on the fire which is under the sacrifice of peace-offerings.", 6.19. "And the priest shall take the shoulder of the ram when it is sodden, and one unleavened cake out of the basket, and one unleavened wafer, and shall put them upon the hands of the Nazirite, after he hath shaven his consecrated head.", 6.20. "And the priest shall wave them for a wave-offering before the LORD; this is holy for the priest, together with the breast of waving and the thigh of heaving; and after that the Nazirite may drink wine.", 6.21. "This is the law of the Nazirite who voweth, and of his offering unto the LORD for his Naziriteship, beside that for which his means suffice; according to his vow which he voweth, so he must do after the law of his Naziriteship.", 19.10. "And he that gathereth the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even; and it shall be unto the children of Israel, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among them, for a statute for ever.", 19.11. "He that toucheth the dead, even any man’s dead body, shall be unclean seven days;", 19.12. "the same shall purify himself therewith on the third day and on the seventh day, and he shall be clean; but if he purify not himself the third day and the seventh day, he shall not be clean.", 19.13. "Whosoever toucheth the dead, even the body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself—he hath defiled the tabernacle of the LORD—that soul shall be cut off from Israel; because the water of sprinkling was not dashed against him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.", 19.14. "This is the law: when a man dieth in a tent, every one that cometh into the tent, and every thing that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.", 19.15. "And every open vessel, which hath no covering close-bound upon it, is unclean.", 19.16. "And whosoever in the open field toucheth one that is slain with a sword, or one that dieth of himself, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.", 20.5. "And wherefore have ye made us to come up out of Egypt, to bring us in unto this evil place? it is no place of seed, or of figs, or of vines, or of pomegranates; neither is there any water to drink.’", 31.19. "And encamp ye without the camp seven days; whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify yourselves on the third day and on the seventh day, ye and your captives.", 31.20. "And as to every garment, and all that is made of skin, and all work of goats’hair, and all things made of wood, ye shall purify.’", 31.21. "And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war that went to the battle: ‘This is the statute of the law which the LORD hath commanded Moses:", 31.22. "Howbeit the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,", 31.23. "every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make to go through the fire, and it shall be clean; nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of sprinkling; and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make to go through the water.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 11.24-11.40, 13.1-13.3, 15.16, 17.10, 17.15, 18.19, 20.18, 21.1, 27.30 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 209, 210, 213, 216, 221, 222, 224, 232| 11.24. "וּלְאֵלֶּה תִּטַּמָּאוּ כָּל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּנִבְלָתָם יִטְמָא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃", 11.25. "וְכָל־הַנֹּשֵׂא מִנִּבְלָתָם יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃", 11.26. "לְכָל־הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר הִוא מַפְרֶסֶת פַּרְסָה וְשֶׁסַע אֵינֶנָּה שֹׁסַעַת וְגֵרָה אֵינֶנָּה מַעֲלָה טְמֵאִים הֵם לָכֶם כָּל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּהֶם יִטְמָא׃", 11.27. "וְכֹל הוֹלֵךְ עַל־כַּפָּיו בְּכָל־הַחַיָּה הַהֹלֶכֶת עַל־אַרְבַּע טְמֵאִים הֵם לָכֶם כָּל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּנִבְלָתָם יִטְמָא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃", 11.28. "וְהַנֹּשֵׂא אֶת־נִבְלָתָם יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעָרֶב טְמֵאִים הֵמָּה לָכֶם׃", 11.29. "וְזֶה לָכֶם הַטָּמֵא בַּשֶּׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל־הָאָרֶץ הַחֹלֶד וְהָעַכְבָּר וְהַצָּב לְמִינֵהוּ׃", 11.31. "אֵלֶּה הַטְּמֵאִים לָכֶם בְּכָל־הַשָּׁרֶץ כָּל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּהֶם בְּמֹתָם יִטְמָא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃", 11.32. "וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יִפֹּל־עָלָיו מֵהֶם בְּמֹתָם יִטְמָא מִכָּל־כְּלִי־עֵץ אוֹ בֶגֶד אוֹ־עוֹר אוֹ שָׂק כָּל־כְּלִי אֲשֶׁר־יֵעָשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בָּהֶם בַּמַּיִם יוּבָא וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעֶרֶב וְטָהֵר׃", 11.33. "וְכָל־כְּלִי־חֶרֶשׂ אֲשֶׁר־יִפֹּל מֵהֶם אֶל־תּוֹכוֹ כֹּל אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹכוֹ יִטְמָא וְאֹתוֹ תִשְׁבֹּרוּ׃", 11.34. "מִכָּל־הָאֹכֶל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל אֲשֶׁר יָבוֹא עָלָיו מַיִם יִטְמָא וְכָל־מַשְׁקֶה אֲשֶׁר יִשָּׁתֶה בְּכָל־כְּלִי יִטְמָא׃", 11.35. "וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יִפֹּל מִנִּבְלָתָם עָלָיו יִטְמָא תַּנּוּר וְכִירַיִם יֻתָּץ טְמֵאִים הֵם וּטְמֵאִים יִהְיוּ לָכֶם׃", 11.36. "אַךְ מַעְיָן וּבוֹר מִקְוֵה־מַיִם יִהְיֶה טָהוֹר וְנֹגֵעַ בְּנִבְלָתָם יִטְמָא׃", 11.37. "וְכִי יִפֹּל מִנִּבְלָתָם עַל־כָּל־זֶרַע זֵרוּעַ אֲשֶׁר יִזָּרֵעַ טָהוֹר הוּא׃", 11.38. "וְכִי יֻתַּן־מַיִם עַל־זֶרַע וְנָפַל מִנִּבְלָתָם עָלָיו טָמֵא הוּא לָכֶם׃", 11.39. "וְכִי יָמוּת מִן־הַבְּהֵמָה אֲשֶׁר־הִיא לָכֶם לְאָכְלָה הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּנִבְלָתָהּ יִטְמָא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃", 13.1. "וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל־אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר׃", 13.1. "וְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה שְׂאֵת־לְבָנָה בָּעוֹר וְהִיא הָפְכָה שֵׂעָר לָבָן וּמִחְיַת בָּשָׂר חַי בַּשְׂאֵת׃", 13.2. "וְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן וְהִנֵּה מַרְאֶהָ שָׁפָל מִן־הָעוֹר וּשְׂעָרָהּ הָפַךְ לָבָן וְטִמְּאוֹ הַכֹּהֵן נֶגַע־צָרַעַת הִוא בַּשְּׁחִין פָּרָחָה׃", 13.2. "אָדָם כִּי־יִהְיֶה בְעוֹר־בְּשָׂרוֹ שְׂאֵת אוֹ־סַפַּחַת אוֹ בַהֶרֶת וְהָיָה בְעוֹר־בְּשָׂרוֹ לְנֶגַע צָרָעַת וְהוּבָא אֶל־אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן אוֹ אֶל־אַחַד מִבָּנָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים׃", 13.3. "וְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת־הַנֶּגַע וְהִנֵּה מַרְאֵהוּ עָמֹק מִן־הָעוֹר וּבוֹ שֵׂעָר צָהֹב דָּק וְטִמֵּא אֹתוֹ הַכֹּהֵן נֶתֶק הוּא צָרַעַת הָרֹאשׁ אוֹ הַזָּקָן הוּא׃", 13.3. "וְרָאָה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת־הַנֶּגַע בְּעוֹר־הַבָּשָׂר וְשֵׂעָר בַּנֶּגַע הָפַךְ לָבָן וּמַרְאֵה הַנֶּגַע עָמֹק מֵעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ נֶגַע צָרַעַת הוּא וְרָאָהוּ הַכֹּהֵן וְטִמֵּא אֹתוֹ׃", 15.16. "וְאִישׁ כִּי־תֵצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת־זָרַע וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם אֶת־כָּל־בְּשָׂרוֹ וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃", 17.15. "וְכָל־נֶפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל נְבֵלָה וּטְרֵפָה בָּאֶזְרָח וּבַגֵּר וְכִבֶּס בְּגָדָיו וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעֶרֶב וְטָהֵר׃", 18.19. "וְאֶל־אִשָּׁה בְּנִדַּת טֻמְאָתָהּ לֹא תִקְרַב לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָתָהּ׃", 20.18. "וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יִשְׁכַּב אֶת־אִשָּׁה דָּוָה וְגִלָּה אֶת־עֶרְוָתָהּ אֶת־מְקֹרָהּ הֶעֱרָה וְהִיא גִּלְּתָה אֶת־מְקוֹר דָּמֶיהָ וְנִכְרְתוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם מִקֶּרֶב עַמָּם׃", 21.1. "וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה אֱמֹר אֶל־הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם לְנֶפֶשׁ לֹא־יִטַּמָּא בְּעַמָּיו׃", 21.1. "וְהַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל מֵאֶחָיו אֲשֶׁר־יוּצַק עַל־רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וּמִלֵּא אֶת־יָדוֹ לִלְבֹּשׁ אֶת־הַבְּגָדִים אֶת־רֹאשׁוֹ לֹא יִפְרָע וּבְגָדָיו לֹא יִפְרֹם׃", | 11.24. "And by these ye shall become unclean; whosoever toucheth the carcass of them shall be unclean until even.", 11.25. "And whosoever beareth aught of the carcass of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.", 11.26. "Every beast which parteth the hoof, but is not cloven footed, nor cheweth the cud, is unclean unto you; every one that to toucheth them shall be unclean.", 11.27. "And whatsoever goeth upon its paws, among all beasts that go on all fours, they are unclean unto you; whoso toucheth their carcass shall be unclean until the even.", 11.28. "And he that beareth the carcass of them shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even; they are unclean unto you.", 11.29. "And these are they which are unclean unto you among the swarming things that swarm upon the earth: the weasel, and the mouse, and the great lizard after its kinds,", 11.30. "and the gecko, and the land-crocodile, and the lizard, and the sand-lizard, and the chameleon.", 11.31. "These are they which are unclean to you among all that swarm; whosoever doth touch them, when they are dead, shall be unclean until the even.", 11.32. "And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherewith any work is done, it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even; then shall it be clean.", 11.33. "And every earthen vessel whereinto any of them falleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean, and it ye shall break.", 11.34. "All food therein which may be eaten, that on which water cometh, shall be unclean; and all drink in every such vessel that may be drunk shall be unclean.", 11.35. "And every thing whereupon any part of their carcass falleth shall be unclean; whether oven, or range for pots, it shall be broken in pieces; they are unclean, and shall be unclean unto you.", 11.36. "Nevertheless a fountain or a cistern wherein is a gathering of water shall be clean; but he who toucheth their carcass shall be unclean.", 11.37. "And if aught of their carcass fall upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, it is clean.", 11.38. "But if water be put upon the seed, and aught of their carcass fall thereon, it is unclean unto you.", 11.39. "And if any beast, of which ye may eat, die, he that toucheth the carcass thereof shall be unclean until the even.", 11.40. "And he that eateth of the carcass of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even; he also that beareth the carcass of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.", 13.1. "And the LORD spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying:", 13.2. "When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it become in the skin of his flesh the plague of leprosy, then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests.", 13.3. "And the priest shall look upon the plague in the skin of the flesh; and if the hair in the plague be turned white, and the appearance of the plague be deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is the plague of leprosy; and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean.", 15.16. "And if the flow of seed go out from a man, then he shall bathe all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even.", 17.10. "And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that eateth any manner of blood, I will set My face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.", 17.15. "And every soul that eateth that which dieth of itself, or that which is torn of beasts, whether he be home-born or a stranger, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even; then shall he be clean.", 18.19. "And thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness.", 20.18. "And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness—he hath made naked her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood—both of them shall be cut off from among their people.", 21.1. "And the LORD said unto Moses: Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them: There shall none defile himself for the dead among his people;", 27.30. "And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD’S; it is holy unto the LORD.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 4.37, 7.6-7.7, 10.15, 12.2, 14.21, 21.5, 26.19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 224, 232| 4.37. "וְתַחַת כִּי אָהַב אֶת־אֲבֹתֶיךָ וַיִּבְחַר בְּזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו וַיּוֹצִאֲךָ בְּפָנָיו בְּכֹחוֹ הַגָּדֹל מִמִּצְרָיִם׃", 7.6. "כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּךָ בָּחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְעַם סְגֻלָּה מִכֹּל הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר עַל־פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה׃", 7.7. "לֹא מֵרֻבְּכֶם מִכָּל־הָעַמִּים חָשַׁק יְהוָה בָּכֶם וַיִּבְחַר בָּכֶם כִּי־אַתֶּם הַמְעַט מִכָּל־הָעַמִּים׃", 10.15. "רַק בַּאֲבֹתֶיךָ חָשַׁק יְהוָה לְאַהֲבָה אוֹתָם וַיִּבְחַר בְּזַרְעָם אַחֲרֵיהֶם בָּכֶם מִכָּל־הָעַמִּים כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה׃", 12.2. "כִּי־יַרְחִיב יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת־גְּבוּלְךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר־לָךְ וְאָמַרְתָּ אֹכְלָה בָשָׂר כִּי־תְאַוֶּה נַפְשְׁךָ לֶאֱכֹל בָּשָׂר בְּכָל־אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר׃", 12.2. "אַבֵּד תְּאַבְּדוּן אֶת־כָּל־הַמְּקֹמוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָבְדוּ־שָׁם הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם יֹרְשִׁים אֹתָם אֶת־אֱלֹהֵיהֶם עַל־הֶהָרִים הָרָמִים וְעַל־הַגְּבָעוֹת וְתַחַת כָּל־עֵץ רַעֲנָן׃", 14.21. "לֹא תֹאכְלוּ כָל־נְבֵלָה לַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר־בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ תִּתְּנֶנָּה וַאֲכָלָהּ אוֹ מָכֹר לְנָכְרִי כִּי עַם קָדוֹשׁ אַתָּה לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לֹא־תְבַשֵּׁל גְּדִי בַּחֲלֵב אִמּוֹ׃", 21.5. "וְנִגְּשׁוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי לֵוִי כִּי בָם בָּחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְשָׁרְתוֹ וּלְבָרֵךְ בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה וְעַל־פִּיהֶם יִהְיֶה כָּל־רִיב וְכָל־נָגַע׃", 26.19. "וּלְתִתְּךָ עֶלְיוֹן עַל כָּל־הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לִתְהִלָּה וּלְשֵׁם וּלְתִפְאָרֶת וְלִהְיֹתְךָ עַם־קָדֹשׁ לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֵּר׃", | 4.37. "And because He loved thy fathers, and chose their seed after them, and brought thee out with His presence, with His great power, out of Egypt,", 7.6. "For thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be His own treasure, out of all peoples that are upon the face of the earth.", 7.7. "The LORD did not set His love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people—for ye were the fewest of all peoples—", 10.15. "Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and He chose their seed after them, even you, above all peoples, as it is this day.", 12.2. "Ye shall surely destroy all the places, wherein the nations that ye are to dispossess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every leafy tree.", 14.21. "Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself; thou mayest give it unto the stranger that is within thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto a foreigner; for thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk.", 21.5. "And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near—for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto Him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and according to their word shall every controversy and every stroke be.", 26.19. "and to make thee high above all nations that He hath made, in praise, and in name, and in glory; and that thou mayest be a holy people unto the LORD thy God, as He hath spoken.", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 3.23 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 222| 3.23. "וְהַגִּלְיֹנִים וְהַסְּדִינִים וְהַצְּנִיפוֹת וְהָרְדִידִים׃", | 3.23. "and the gauze robes, and the fine linen, and the turbans, and the mantles.", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Ezra, 9.2, 9.10 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 225| 9.2. "כִּי־נָשְׂאוּ מִבְּנֹתֵיהֶם לָהֶם וְלִבְנֵיהֶם וְהִתְעָרְבוּ זֶרַע הַקֹּדֶשׁ בְּעַמֵּי הָאֲרָצוֹת וְיַד הַשָּׂרִים וְהַסְּגָנִים הָיְתָה בַּמַּעַל הַזֶּה רִאשׁוֹנָה׃", | 9.2. "For they have taken of their daughters for themselves and for their sons; so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the peoples of the lands; yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been first in this faithlessness.’", 9.10. "And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken Thy commandments,", |
|
6. Anon., Jubilees, 22.16-22.22 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 225 | 22.16. May nations serve thee, And all the nations bow themselves before thy seed. 22.17. Be strong in the presence of men, And exercise authority over all the seed of Seth. Then thy ways and the ways of thy sons will be justified, So that they shall become a holy nation. 22.18. May the Most High God give thee all the blessings Wherewith he hath blessed me And wherewith He blessed Noah and Adam; May they rest on the sacred head of thy seed from generation to generation for ever. 22.19. And may He cleanse thee from all unrighteousness and impurity, That thou mayest be forgiven all (thy) transgressions; (and) thy sins of ignorance. 22.20. And may He strengthen thee, And bless thee. And mayest thou inherit the whole earth, br And may He renew His covet with thee, That thou mayest be to Him a nation for His inheritance for all the ages, 22.21. And that He may be to thee and to thy seed a God in truth and righteousness throughout all the days of the earth. 22.22. And do thou, my son Jacob, remember my words, And observe the commandments of Abraham, thy father: |
|
| 7. Dead Sea Scrolls, Temple Scroll, 50.4-50.7 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 221 |
| 8. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Qmmt, None (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 219 |
| 9. Philo of Alexandria, On The Special Laws, a b c d\n0 3.. 3.. 3 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 216 |
10. Tosefta, Oholot, 1.4, 2.2, 2.5-2.6, 3.2-3.3, 4.2, 4.5, 4.7, 5.2, 14.6, 15.13, 16.2, 16.12 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 223, 225, 232| 2.2. "מלא תרווד רקב שאמרו ישנו מעיקר אצבעותיו ולמעלה דברי ר\"מ וחכ\"א מלא חפניו ואיזהו מת שיש לו רקב הנקבר ערום בארון של אבן על גבי הרצפה ועל גבי הטבלא של שיש אבל הנקבר בכסותו ובארון של עץ על גבי עפר אין לו רקב ונוטלה עפר מתחתיו וזהו עפר קברות מלא תרווד ועוד. תבוסה שנמצאת בקבר ואין ידועה מה טיבה זהו עפר קברות מלא תרווד ועוד פירש ר\"א ברבי צדוק בורר את הצרורות ואת הקיסמין והודאין נוטל את הודאין ומניח את הספק וזהו עפר קברות מלא תרווד ועוד.", 2.5. "כזית בשר הפורש מאבר מן החי ר\"א מטמא השיבו את ר' אליעזר שלש תשובות לא אם אמרת במת שיש בו רוב רובע רקב תאמר באבר מן החי שאין בו רובע הקב. דבר אחר מי תלוי במי אבר תלוי בבשר או בשר תלוי באבר הבשר תלוי באבר אפשר שהבשר מטמא במגע ובמשא ובאהל והאבר יהיה טהור אמר ר\"ש תמה אני אם טימא ר' אליעזר לא טימא אלא בזמן שיש באבר בשר כראוי שיהא זה וזה מטמא במגע ובמשא ובאהל.", 2.6. "עצם כשעורה הפורש מן החי ר' נחוניא מטמא השיבו את ר' נחוניא שלש תשובות לא אם אמרת במת שיש בו רובע רקב תאמר באבר מן החי שאין בו רוב רובע רקב דבר אחר מי תלוי במי אבר תלוי בעצם או עצם תלוי באבר העצם תלוי באבר אפשר שהעצם מטמא במגע ובמשא והאבר יהא טהור אמר ר\"ש תמה אני אם טימא ר' נחוניא לא טימא אלא בזמן שיש באבר עצם כשעורה שיהא זה וזה מטמא במגע ובמשא השיב ר' יהושע על דברי שניהן ומה החי שיש בו רמ\"ח אברים עצם ובשר הפורשין ממנו טהורין אבר שאין רמ\"ח אינו דין שיהא העצם ובשר הפורשין ממנו טהורים השיב רבי על דברי ר' יהושע לא אם אמרת בפורשין מן החי שכן פרשו מדבר טהור תאמר בפורשין מן האבר שכן פרשו מדבר טמא. ", 3.2. "אבא שאול אומר רביעית תחלת דמו של קטן. דם הקטן שיצא כולו ואין בו רביעית ר\"ע אומר כל שהוא. וחכמים אומרים רביעית שר\"ע אומר טומאה בדם וטומאה בעצמות מה עצמות אע\"פ שאין בהן רובע טמאין אף דם אע\"פ שאין בו רביעית טמא. השיבו את ר\"ע שלש תשובות לא אם אמרת בעצמות שרובו טמא בלא רובע תאמר בדם שאינו טמא אלא רביעית. דבר אחר לא אם אמרת בעצמות שמיעט עצמות טמא ועצם כשעורה הפורש מהן טמא תאמר בדם שאינו טמא אלא רביעית. דבר אחר לא אם אמרת בעצמות שבידוע שכולן לפניך תאמר בדם שאנו אומרים שאם נשתיירה הימנה טפה כל שהוא טהור אמר להן אף אני לא אמרתי אלא בזמן שיצא כולו אמרו לו אי אפשר לכן.", 3.3. "רובע עצמות מרוב הגויה בגודל ועצמות אע\"פ שאין בהן רובע טמאין רובע עצמות מרוב הגויה בבנין ועצמות רוב הגויה בבנין אע\"פ שאין בהן רובע טמאין. ר' יהודה אומר לשון אחר ב\"ש רובע עצמות מן הגויה מרוב הבנין או מרוב המנין רוב בנינו ורוב מנינו של מת אע\"פ שאין בהם רובע טמאין ואיזהו בנינו השוקים והירכים והצלעות והשדרה ואיזהו מנינו אצבע ידים ורגלים בלבד שיהא בו עשרים וחמשה. אמר ר' יהושע יכול אני לעשות דברי ב\"ש וב\"ה אחד משוקים ומירכים נמצא רוב בנינו בגודל וחצי רוב בנינו וחצי רוב מנינו אינן מצטרפין כחצי זית בשר וכחצי זית נצל מצטרפין זה עם זה ושאר כל הטמאות שבמת אין מצטרפות זו עם זו מפני שלא שוו בשעוריהם.", 4.2. "אמר ר' יהודה ששה דברים היה ר\"ע מטמא וחזר בו. מעשה שהביאו קופות של עצמות מכפר טביא והניחום באויר ביהכ\"נ בלוד ונכנס תיאודריס הרופא וכל הרופאין עמו ואמרו אין כאן שדרה ממת אחד ולא גולגולת ממת אחד אמרו הואיל ויש כן מטמאים ויש כן מטהרין נעמוד למנין התחילו מר\"ע וטיהר אמרו לו הואיל ואתה שהיתה מטמא טהרת יהו טהורין אמר ר\"ש ועד יום מיתתו של ר\"ע היה מטמא ואם משמת חזר בו איני יודע.", 4.5. "כל משקה המת טהורין חוץ מדמו וכל מראה דמים במת הרי אלו טמאין.", 4.7. "אמר ר\"א בראשונה היו זקנים חלוקין מקצתן אומרים רביעית דם ורובע עצמות ומקצתן אומרים חצי קב עצמות וחצי לוג דם בית דין שאחריהן אמרו רביעית דם ורובע עצמות לתרומות ולקדשים חצי קב עצמות וחצי לוג דם לנזיר ולמקדש. אמר ר\"א כשהלכתי לאדסקיס מצאתי את ר\"מ ואת רבי יהודה בן פתירוש שהיו יושבין ודנין בהלכה יהודה בן פתירוש אומר רביעית דם אין הנזיר מגלח עליה ואין חייבין עליה על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו. אמר לו ר\"מ תהא זו קלה מן השרץ מה שרץ הקל נזיר מגלח עליו חייבין על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו רביעית דם חמורה אין דין שיהא נזיר מגלח עליה וחייבין עליה על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו שתק יהודה בן פתירוש נמתי לו ר\"מ אל תבוז לי בקי היה לך מיהושע בן ממל נם לי הן ובעל מלאכות היה נמתי לי בלשון הזה אמר לי משם ר' יהושע כל טומאה מן המת שהנזיר מגלח עליה חייבין על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו וכל מן המת שאין הנזיר מגלח עליה אין חייבין עליה על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו. ", 5.2. "ביב שהיא קמור תחת הביב יש בו ארבעה טפחים ויש ביציאתו ארבעה טפחים ונפל בתוכו הבית טהור נפל בבית מה שבתוכו טהור יש בו ארבעה טפחים ואין ביציאתו ארבעה טפחים נפל בתוכו הבית טמא נפל בבית מה שבתוכו טהור אין בו ארבעה טפחים ואין ביציאתו ארבעה טפחים נפל בתוכו הבית טמא נפל בבית מה שבתוכו טמא. רחב מבפנים וצר מבחוץ טומאה ברחב הבית טמא בצר נידון מחצה על מחצה טמאה בין ברחב בין בצר הבית טמאה בבית. כלים שברחב טהורין ושבצר טמאין מודה ר' יהודה בשקיפין ובסלעין שאע\"פ שאינן כאהל אבל חשובין כאהל.", 14.6. "עשבים שתלשן והניחן בחלון או שעלו מאליהן והעוף ששכן בחלון והמטלית שהיא פחותה משלש על שלש והאבר והבשר המדולדלין בבהמה ובחיה ובעופות והעובד כוכבים והבהמה ובן שמונה וכלי חרס והאוכלין והמשקין וספר תורה והמלח הרי אלו ממעטין אבל השלג והברד והכפור והגליד והמים אין ממעטין.", 16.2. "אחד המוציא שלשה מתים ואחד המוציא שלשה כוכין ואחד המוציא כוך בקוע ומהרה ואחד מצא עשרה ואין ביניהן מארבע אמות ועד שמונה יש להם תפיסה ואין להן שכונה קברות דברי ר\"ש וחכ\"א רואה את האמצעיים כאילו אינן והחיצונים מצטרפין מארבע אמות ועד שמנה. מצא ראשו בצד מרגלותיו אין לו תפיסה ואין לו שכונת קברות ראשו של זה בצד מרגלותיו של זה וראשו של זה בצד מרגלותיו של זה יש להן תפיסה ואין להן שכונת קברות. והחסר אין לו תפיסה ואין לו שכונת קברות ואי זהו חסר כל שניטל מן החי וימות. מצא שנים בתחלה ואחד ידוע יש להן תפיסה ואין להן שכונת קברות. מעשה בר' ישבב שבדק ומצא שנים בתחלה ואחד היה ידוע עשה להן תפישה עשה להן שכונת קברות כשבא אצל ר\"ע אמר כל שיגעת לריק אף אתה היית צריך לבדוק כל קברי ארץ ישראל הידועין ולא אמרו המוצא שלש כתחלה.", | |
|
| 11. Tosefta, Hagigah, 3.22-3.24 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 230 |
| 12. Tosefta, Demai, 2.17 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 234 |
13. Tosefta, Niddah, 1.9, 2.8, 4.3-4.6, 5.3, 6.17, 7.3, 9.14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 225, 227, 232| 4.3. "צורת פנים שאמרו אחד מכל צורת פנים חוץ מאתים וסנדל שאמרו דומה לסנדל דג שבים ר\"ש בן גמליאל אומר דומה ללשון של שור רבותינו אמרו עד שיהא בו מצורת אדם. ולא אמרו סנדל והלא אין סנדל שאין עמו ולד אלא שמא תפיל עמו זכר ותהא מקולקלת לנקבה או שמא תפיל <עמו> שנים אחד לפני שקיעת החמה נמצאת מונה תחלת נדה לראשון ותחלת לנדה אחרון. שליא שאמרו תחלתה כחוט הערב וראשה כתורמוס וחלולה כחצוצרת ואין שליא פחותה מטפח. רשב\"ג אומר דומה לקורקבן של תרנגול. ולמה אמרו שליא והלא אין שליא שאין עמה ולד.", 4.4. "הטיבור חיבור באדם עד טפח ליטמא ולטמא אבל בבהמה חיבור עור היוצא מעור פניו של אדם בין חיי בין מת ה\"ז טהור ומותר בהנאה. ואיזו שפיר מרוקם אבא שאול אומר תחלת ברייתו בראשו שתי עיניו כשתי טיפין של זבוב. שני חוטמיו כשני טיפין של זבוב. פיו מתוח כשערה וגוייתו כעדשה ואם היתה נקבה גויתה כשערה לארכה. פיו פתוח ידים ורגלים אין בו. ועליו מפורש בקבלה (איוב י׳:י׳) הלא כחלב תתיכני וגו'.", 4.5. "אין משערין במים מפני שהמים עזין ומבערין אותו ואין משערין אותו אלא בשמן מפני שהשמן רך ומזכך ואין רואין אותו אלא בחמה. המפלת שפיר שאינו מרוקם ר' יהושע אומר ולד וחכ\"א אינו ולד ור' שמעון בר' יוסי אומר משם אביו קורעין אותו אם יש בו דם הרי זה נדה והבשר ה\"ז ולד.", 4.6. "השליא בבית הבית טמא דברי ר\"מ. רבי יוסי ור' יהודה ור' שמעון אומרים הבית טהור. אמרו לר\"מ אי אתה מודה שאם הוציאה בספל בבית החיצון שהוא טהור אמר להם מפני שבטל בחיצון. אמרו לו כשם שבטל בחיצון כך בפנימי אינו. יצא מחותך או מסורס אינו ולד עד שיצא רובו רבי יוסי אומר עד שיצא כדרכו יצא כדרכו עד שיצא ראשו רבי יוסי אומר רוב ראשו ואי זו רוב ראשו זו פדחתו.", 5.3. "דם עובדת כוכבים ודם טהרה של מצורעת בש\"א כדם מגפתה דם יולדת שלא טבלה מטמא לח ואין מטמא יבש <דברי ר\"מ> ר' יהודה [אומר] מטמא לח ויבש ר' אליעזר אומר מקולי ב\"ש ומחומרי ב\"ה <ב\"ש אומרים מטמא לח ואין מטמא יבש וב\"ה אומרים מטמא לח ויבש>. אמרו ב\"ש לב\"ה אי אתם מודים <בנדה> שאם הגיעה זמנה לטבול ולא טבלה שהיא טמאה אמרו להן ב\"ה לב\"ש לא אמרתם בנדה שאם תטבול היום ותראה למחר שהיא טהורה אמרו להן ב\"ה יולדות בזוב תוכיח אמרו להן ב\"ש הוא הדין והוא התשובה. יולדת בזוב זיבתה עולין לה מתוך ימי לידתה.", 7.3. "שתים שהיו טוחנות בריחים <של יד> נמצא על הרגל הפנימי שתיהן טמאות. על הרגל החיצונה היא טמאה וחבירתה טהורה. נמצא ביניהן זה היה מעשה ונמצא על שפתו של אפטי ועל עלי זית שמסקת בהן את התנור ובא מעשה לפני חכמים וטמאום רבי נחמיה אומר [על דבר] שאינו מקבל טומאה טהור רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אם הרגה מאכולת תולה ואם לאו אינה תולה. אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אני אומר דבר אחד והם אמרו דבר אחד לדברי אין סוף ולדבריהם אין סוף. לדברי אין סוף אלא אשה טהורה אין לך מטה שאין עליה מאכולת. לדבריהם אין סוף אין לך אשה שהיא טמאה ואין לך סדין שאין עליה טיפי דמים. אבל רואה אני את דברי ר' חנינא בן גמליאל מדברי ומדבריהם שהיה אומר תולה במאכולת עד כגריס של פול אע\"פ שלא הרגה <תולה בבנה ובבעלה> וכדבריהם אנו מורים.", | |
|
14. Mishnah, Arakhin, 2.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 234| 2.1. "אֵין בָּעֲרָכִין פָּחוּת מִסֶּלַע, וְלֹא יָתֵר עַל חֲמִשִּׁים סָלַע. כֵּיצַד, נָתַן סֶלַע וְהֶעֱשִׁיר, אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן כְּלוּם. פָּחוֹת מִסֶּלַע וְהֶעֱשִׁיר, נוֹתֵן חֲמִשִּׁים סָלַע. הָיָה בְיָדָיו חָמֵשׁ סְלָעִים, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ נוֹתֵן אֶלָּא אֶחָת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, נוֹתֵן אֶת כֻּלָּם. אֵין בָּעֲרָכִין פָּחוּת מִסֶּלַע, וְלֹא יָתֵר עַל חֲמִשִּׁים סֶלַע. אֵין פֶּתַח בַּטּוֹעָה פָּחוּת מִשִּׁבְעָה, וְלֹא יָתֵר עַל שִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר. אֵין בַּנְּגָעִים פָּחוּת מִשָּׁבוּעַ אֶחָד, וְלֹא יָתֵר עַל שְׁלשָׁה שָׁבוּעוֹת: \n", | 2.1. "There is no evaluation less than one sela, nor more than fifty selas. How so? If one paid a sela and became rich, he need not give any [more]. But if he gave less than a sela and became rich, he must pay fifty selas. If he had five selas in his possession: Rabbi Meir says: he need not give more than one; The sages say he must give them all. There is no evaluation less than one sela, nor more than fifty selas. If a woman makes a mistake in her reckoning there is no re-opening for her [of the niddah count] earlier than seven, nor later than after seventeen days. No signs of leprosy are shut up for less than one week and none more than two weeks.", |
|
15. Mishnah, Avodah Zarah, 3.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 210| 3.5. "הַגּוֹיִם הָעוֹבְדִים אֶת הֶהָרִים וְאֶת הַגְּבָעוֹת, הֵן מֻתָּרִין וּמַה שֶּׁעֲלֵיהֶם אֲסוּרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ז) לֹא תַחְמֹד כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב עֲלֵיהֶם וְלָקַחְתָּ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, (שם יב) אֱלֹהֵיהֶם עַל הֶהָרִים, וְלֹא הֶהָרִים אֱלֹהֵיהֶם. אֱלֹהֵיהֶם עַל הַגְּבָעוֹת, וְלֹא הַגְּבָעוֹת אֱלֹהֵיהֶם. וּמִפְּנֵי מָה אֲשֵׁרָה אֲסוּרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ תְּפִיסַת יָד אָדָם, וְכֹל שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ תְּפִיסַת יְדֵי אָדָם אָסוּר. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אֲנִי אוֹבִין וְאָדוּן לְפָנֶיךָ. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא הַר גָּבוֹהַּ וְגִבְעָה נִשָּׂאָה וְעֵץ רַעֲנָן, דַּע שֶׁיֶּשׁ שָׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה:", | 3.5. "If idolaters worship mountains and hills these are permitted; but what is upon them is prohibited, as it is says, “you shall not covet the silver or the gold that is on them and take them” (Deut. 7:25). Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: [it says] “their gods on the mountains” (Deut. 12:, not their mountains which are their gods; “their gods on the hills” (ibid.), not their hills which are their gods. And why is an asherah prohibited? Because there was manual labour connected with it, and whatever has manual labour connected with it is prohibited. Rabbi Akiba said: let me expound and decide [the interpretation] before you: wherever you find a high mountain or elevated hill or green tree, know that an idolatrous object is there.", |
|
16. Mishnah, Bava Qamma, 4.6, 10.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 213, 221| 4.6. "שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה מִתְחַכֵּךְ בְּכֹתֶל וְנָפַל עַל הָאָדָם, נִתְכַּוֵּן לַהֲרֹג אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם, לְנָכְרִי וְהָרַג אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לִנְפָלִים וְהָרַג בֶּן קְיָמָא, פָּטוּר: \n", 10.2. "נָטְלוּ מוֹכְסִין אֶת חֲמוֹרוֹ וְנָתְנוּ לוֹ חֲמוֹר אַחֵר, גָּזְלוּ לִסְטִים אֶת כְּסוּתוֹ וְנָתְנוּ לוֹ כְסוּת אַחֶרֶת, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַבְּעָלִים מִתְיָאֲשִׁין מֵהֶן. הַמַּצִּיל מִן הַנָּהָר אוֹ מִן הַגַּיִס אוֹ מִן הַלִּסְטִים, אִם נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. וְכֵן נָחִיל שֶׁל דְּבוֹרִים, אִם נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה, נֶאֱמֶנֶת אִשָּׁה אוֹ קָטָן לוֹמַר, מִכָּאן יָצָא נָחִיל זֶה. וּמְהַלֵּךְ בְּתוֹךְ שְׂדֵה חֲבֵרוֹ לְהַצִּיל אֶת נְחִילוֹ. וְאִם הִזִּיק, מְשַׁלֵּם מַה שֶּׁהִזִּיק. אֲבָל לֹא יָקֹץ אֶת סוֹכוֹ עַל מְנָת לִתֵּן אֶת הַדָּמִים. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר, אַף קוֹצֵץ וְנוֹתֵן אֶת הַדָּמִים: \n", | 4.6. "If an ox was rubbing itself against a wall and it fell on a person; or if it intended to kill an animal and it killed a man; or if it intended to kill a gentile and it killed an Israelite; or if it intended to kill an untimely birth and it killed a viable infant, it is exempt [from death by stoning].", 10.2. "If excise collectors took his donkey and gave him another donkey, or if bandits robbed a man of his coat and gave him another coat, they are his own, since the original owners gave up hope of recovering them. If a man saved something from a flood or from marauding troops or from bandits: if the owner gave up hope of recovering [the item], it belongs to him. So too with a swarm of bees: if the owner gave up hope of recovering [the swarm], it belongs to him. Rabbi Yocha ben Baroka said: “A woman or child may be believed if they say, ‘The swarm of bees went away from here.’” A man may go into his fellow’s field to save his swarm and if he causes damage he must pay for the damage that he has caused; but he may not cut off a branch of the tree [to save his swarm] even on condition that he pay its value. Rabbi Yishmael, the son of Rabbi Yocha ben Baroka, says: “He may even cut off [the branch] and repay the value.”", |
|
17. Mishnah, Demai, 2.2-2.3, 3.4, 6.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 231| 2.2. "הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לִהְיוֹת נֶאֱמָן, מְעַשֵּׂר אֶת שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל, וְאֶת שֶׁהוּא מוֹכֵר, וְאֶת שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֵחַ, וְאֵינוֹ מִתְאָרֵחַ אֵצֶל עַם הָאָרֶץ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף הַמִּתְאָרֵחַ אֵצֶל עַם הָאָרֶץ נֶאֱמָן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, עַל עַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן, כֵּיצַד יְהֵא נֶאֱמָן עַל שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים: \n", 2.3. "הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לִהְיוֹת חָבֵר, אֵינוֹ מוֹכֵר לְעַם הָאָרֶץ לַח וְיָבֵשׁ, וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֵחַ מִמֶּנּוּ לַח, וְאֵינוֹ מִתְאָרֵח אֵצֶל עַם הָאָרֶץ, וְלֹא מְאָרְחוֹ אֶצְלוֹ בִּכְסוּתוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף לֹא יְגַדֵּל בְּהֵמָה דַקָּה, וְלֹא יְהֵא פָרוּץ בִּנְדָרִים וּבִשְׂחוֹק, וְלֹא יְהֵא מִטַּמֵּא לְמֵתִים, וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא בָאוּ אֵלּוּ לַכְּלָל: \n" 3.4. "הַמּוֹלִיךְ חִטִּים לְטוֹחֵן כּוּתִי אוֹ לְטוֹחֵן עַם הָאָרֶץ, בְּחֶזְקָתָן לַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת וְלַשְּׁבִיעִית. לְטוֹחֵן עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים, דְּמַאי. הַמַּפְקִיד פֵּרוֹתָיו אֵצֶל הַכּוּתִי אוֹ אֵצֶל עַם הָאָרֶץ, בְּחֶזְקָתָן לַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת וְלַשְּׁבִיעִית. אֵצֶל הָעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים, כְּפֵרוֹתָיו. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, דְּמָאי: \n", 6.9. "חָבֵר וְעַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ אֶת אֲבִיהֶם עַם הָאָרֶץ, יָכוֹל הוּא לוֹמַר לוֹ, טֹל אַתָּה חִטִּים שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וַאֲנִי חִטִּים שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, אַתָּה יַיִן שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי וַאֲנִי יַיִן שֶׁבְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. אֲבָל לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ, טֹל אַתָּה חִטִּים וַאֲנִי שְׂעוֹרִים, טֹל אַתָּה הַלַּח וַאֲנִי אֶטֹּל אֶת הַיָּבֵשׁ:", | 2.2. "One who accepts upon himself to be trustworthy (ne’eman), must tithe whatever he eats and whatever he sells and whatever he buys, and he may not be the guest of an am haaretz. Rabbi Judah says: even one who is the guest of an am haaretz can still be considered trustworthy. They said to him: He is not trustworthy in respect of himself! How can he be considered trustworthy in respect of others?", 2.3. "One who takes upon himself to become a “chaver” may not sell to an am haaretz either moist or dry [produce], nor may he buy from him moist [produce], nor may he be the guest of an am haaretz, nor may he host an am haaretz as a guest while [the am haaretz] is wearing his own garment. Rabbi Judah says: he may not also raise small animals, nor may make a lot of vows or merriment, nor may he defile himself by contact with the dead. Rather he should be an attendant at the house of study. They said to him: these [requirements] do not come within the general rule [of being a chaver]." 3.4. "One who takes his wheat to a Samaritan miller or to an am haaretz miller, [the wheat when ground] retains its former status in respect of tithes and the law of seventh year produce. [But if he carried it] to a Gentile miller, [the wheat when ground has the status of] demai. One who deposited his produce with a Samaritan or am haaretz, [the produce] retains its former status in respect of tithes and the law of seventh year produce. [But if he left it] with a Gentile, it is like the produce of the Gentile. Rabbi Shimon says: [it becomes] demai.", 6.9. "A chaver (rabbinic associate) and an am haaretz who inherited [the property of] their father who was an am haaretz, he (the chaver) may say to him (the am haaretz): “You take the wheat which is in this place and I will take the wheat which is in that place.” Or, “You take the wine which is in this place and I will take the wine which is in that place.” But he may not say to him: “You take the wheat and I will take the barley,” or, “You take the wine and I will take the oil,” or: “You take the moist produce and I will take the dry produce.”", |
|
18. Mishnah, Eduyot, 1.7, 1.14, 4.12, 6.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 209, 217, 219, 221, 230| 1.7. "בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, רֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת מִן הָעֲצָמִים, בֵּין מִשְּׁנַיִם בֵּין מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, רֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת מִן הַגְּוִיָּה, מֵרֹב הַבִּנְיָן אוֹ מֵרֹב הַמִּנְיָן. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ מֵעֶצֶם אֶחָד: \n", 1.14. "כְּלִי חֶרֶס מַצִּיל עַל הַכֹּל, כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. וּבֵית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ מַצִּיל אֶלָּא עַל הָאֳכָלִין וְעַל הַמַּשְׁקִין וְעַל כְּלֵי חָרֶס. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל, מִפְּנֵי מָה. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא טָמֵא עַל גַּב עַם הָאָרֶץ, וְאֵין כְּלִי טָמֵא חוֹצֵץ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל, וַהֲלֹא טִהַרְתֶּם אֳכָלִים וּמַשְׁקִין שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, כְּשֶׁטִּהַרְנוּ אֳכָלִים וּמַשְׁקִין שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ, לְעַצְמוֹ טִהַרְנוּ. אֲבָל כְּשֶׁטִּהַרְתָּ אֶת הַכְּלִי, טִהַרְתָּ לְךָ וָלוֹ. חָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי: \n", 4.12. "אָדָם שֶׁהוּא נָתוּן תַּחַת הַסֶּדֶק, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֶת הַטֻּמְאָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אָדָם חָלוּל הוּא, וְהַצַּד הָעֶלְיוֹן מֵבִיא אֶת הַטֻּמְאָה: \n", 6.3. "כַּזַּיִת בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֵבָר מִן הַחַי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַמֵּא, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְרַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא מְטַהֲרִים. עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֵבָר מִן הַחַי, רַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא מְטַמֵּא, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מְטַהֲרִין. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מָה רָאִיתָ לְטַמֵּא כַזַּיִת בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֵבָר מִן הַחַי. אָמַר לָהֶם, מָצִינוּ אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי כְּמֵת שָׁלֵם. מַה הַמֵּת, כַּזַּיִת בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ טָמֵא, אַף אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, כַּזַּיִת בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ יִהְיֶה טָמֵא. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא, אִם טִמֵּאתָ כַזַּיִת בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַמֵּת, שֶׁכֵּן טִמֵּאתָ עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ, תְּטַמֵּא כַזַּיִת בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֵבָר מִן הַחַי, שֶׁכֵּן טִהַרְתָּ עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ הֵימֶנּוּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא, מָה רָאִיתָ לְטַמֵּא עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֵבָר מִן הַחַי. אָמַר לָהֶם, מָצִינוּ אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי כְּמֵת שָׁלֵם. מַה הַמֵּת, עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ טָמֵא, אַף אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ יִהְיֶה טָמֵא. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא, אִם טִמֵּאתָ עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַמֵּת, שֶׁכֵּן טִמֵּאתָ כַזַּיִת בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ, תְּטַמֵּא עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵאֵבָר מִן הַחַי, שֶׁכֵּן טִהַרְתָּ כַזַּיִת בָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מָה רָאִיתָ לַחֲלֹק מִדּוֹתֶיךָ, אוֹ טַמֵּא בִשְׁנֵיהֶם אוֹ טַהֵר בִּשְׁנֵיהֶם. אָמַר לָהֶם, מְרֻבָּה טֻמְאַת הַבָּשָׂר מִטֻּמְאַת הָעֲצָמוֹת, שֶׁהַבָּשָׂר נוֹהֵג בַּנְּבֵלוֹת וּבַשְּׁרָצִים, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בָּעֲצָמוֹת. דָּבָר אַחֵר, אֵבֶר שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי, מְטַמֵּא בְמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא וּבְאֹהֶל. חָסֵר הַבָּשָׂר, טָמֵא. חָסֵר הָעֶצֶם, טָהוֹר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי נְחוּנְיָא, מָה רָאִיתָ לַחֲלֹק מִדּוֹתֶיךָ, אוֹ טַמֵּא בִשְׁנֵיהֶם אוֹ טַהֵר בִּשְׁנֵיהֶם. אָמַר לָהֶם, מְרֻבָּה טֻמְאַת הָעֲצָמוֹת מִטֻּמְאַת הַבָּשָׂר, שֶּׁהַבָּשָׂר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִן הַחַי טָהוֹר, וְאֵבָר הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ, וְהוּא כִבְרִיָּתוֹ, טָמֵא. דָּבָר אַחֵר, כַּזַּיִת בָּשָׂר מְטַמֵּא בְמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא וּבְאֹהֶל, וְרֹב עֲצָמוֹת מְטַמְּאִים בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא וּבְאֹהֶל. חָסֵר הַבָּשָׂר, טָהוֹר. חָסֵר רֹב עֲצָמוֹת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁטָּהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא בְאֹהֶל, מְטַמֵּא בְמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא. דָּבָר אַחֵר, כָּל בְּשַׂר הַמֵּת, שֶׁהוּא פָחוֹת מִכַּזַּיִת, טָהוֹר. רֹב בִּנְיָנוֹ וְרֹב מִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁל מֵת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם רֹבַע, טְמֵאִין. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, מָה רָאִיתָ לְטַהֵר בִּשְׁנֵיהֶם. אָמַר לָהֶם, לֹא, אִם אֲמַרְתֶּם בַּמֵּת, שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ רֹב וְרֹבַע וְרָקָב, תֹּאמְרוּ בַחַי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רֹב וְרֹבַע וְרָקָב: \n", | 1.7. "Beth Shammai says: “A quarter-kav of any bones, even from two limbs or from three.” And Beth Hillel says: “A quarter-kav of bones from a corpse, either from [the bones which form] the greater portion of the [body’s] build, or from the greater portion of the number [of the body’s bones]. Shammai says: “Even from a single bone.”", 1.14. "A vessel of earthenware can protect everything [in it from contracting impurity], according to Beth Hillel. But Beth Shammai says: “It protects only food and liquids and [other] vessels of earthenware.” Beth Hillel said to them: “Why?” Beth Shammai said to them: “Because it is [itself] impure with respect to an ignoramus, and no impure vessel can screen [against impurity].” Beth Hillel said to them: “And did you not pronounce pure the food and liquids inside it?” Beth Shammai said to them: “When we pronounced pure the food and liquids inside it, we pronounced them pure for him [the ignoramus] only, but when you pronounced the vessel pure you pronounced it pure for yourself and for him.” Then Beth Hillel changed their mind and taught according to the opinion of Beth Shammai.", 4.12. "A man who was set beneath the gap: Beth Shammai says: he does not cause the impurity to pass over. But Beth Hillel says: a man is hollow, and the upper side causes the impurity to pass over.", 6.3. "An olive's size of flesh that separated from the limb of a living person: Rabbi Eliezer declares impure, and Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Nechunya declare pure. A barley-grain's size of bone that separates from a limb of a living person: Rabbi Nechunya declares impure, and Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua declare pure. They said to Rabbi Eliezer: Why did you see [fit] to declare an olive's worth of flesh that separated from the limb of a living person impure? He said to them: We find that the limb of a living person is like a complete dead person. Just like an olive's size of flesh that separates from a dead person is impure, so too an olive's size of flesh that separated from the limb of a living person is impure. They said to him: No. If you say that an olive's size of flesh that separated from a dead person is impure, as is a barley-grain's size of bone that separates from [a dead person], [how] will you also declare an olive's size of flesh that separated from the limb of a living person impure when you declare pure a barley-grain's size of bone that separates from [the limb of a living person]? [You yourself do not appear to judge these cases as parallel to each other, so how can you claim that to be your reasoning?] They said to Rabbi Nechunya: Why did you see fit to declare a barley-grain's size of bone that separated from the limb of a living person impure? He said to them: We find that the limb of a living person is like a complete dead person. Just like a barley-grain's worth of flesh that separates from a dead person is impure, so too a barley-grain's worth of bone that separated from the limb of a living person is impure. They said to him: No. If you say that a barley-grain's worth of bone that separated from a dead person is impure, as is an olive's size of flesh that separates from [a dead person], [how] will you also declare a barley-grain's size of bone that separated from the limb of a living person impure when you declare pure an olive's worth of flesh that separates from [a living person]? [You yourself do not appear to judge these cases as parallel to each other, so how can you claim that to be your reasoning?] They said to Rabbi Eliezer: Why did you see fit to divide your method [and be inconsistent in your reasoning]? Either they are both pure, or they are both impure! He said to them: [There are] more [chances for] flesh [to become] impure than [there are chances] for bones [to become] impure, for flesh applies to carcasses and insects, which is not so for bones. Another answer: A limb that has enough flesh on it [that were it still attached to a human being, it would be viable] imparts impurity by touching, carrying, and being under its [same] roof-space. If one diminishes the flesh [of the limb], it remains impure. If one diminishes the bone [of the limb], it [becomes] pure. They said to Rabbi Nechunya: Why did you see fit to divide your method [and be inconsistent in your reasoning]? Either they are both pure, or they are both impure! He said to them: [There are] more [chances for] bones [to become] impure than [there are chances] for flesh to become impure, for flesh separated from a living man is pure, but a limb that is separated from [a living man], and it is full [with flesh, bone, and sinews], it is impure. Another answer: An olive's worth of flesh [severed from a corpse] imparts impurity by touching, carrying, and being under its roof-space, and bones create a majority in making impure by touching, carrying, and being under its [same] roof-space, and a majority of a corpse's bones impart impurity by touching, carrying, and being under their [same] roof-space. If one diminishes [the] flesh [that has been severed from a corpse], it [becomes] pure. If one diminishes the majority of bone, even though they [now become] pure [and can no longer impart impurity on whatever is] under their same roof-space, they [still] impart impurity by touching and carrying. Another answer: Any flesh of a dead person which is less than an olive's worth is pure. But [bones that makes up] the majority of a dead person's build or [constitute] a majority of his [bone] count, even if they are only a quarter [ i kav /i (a measure)], they are impure. They said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Why did you see fit to declare both [bone and flesh from a dead person] pure? [Is not Rabbi Nechunya's reasoning correct?] He said to them: No. If you say about a corpse [that it is impure, it is because of] the laws of majority, quarter [ i kav /i ], and decay [that apply to it], but [how can you] also say about a living person [that he is impure], [if] he does not have the laws of majority, quarter [ i kav /i ], and decay [apply to him]? [You cannot compare that which was separated from a corpse with that which was separated from the limb of a living person, because the limbs severed from a living person are less likely to impart impurity than the corpse.]", |
|
19. Mishnah, Hagigah, 1.8, 2.6, 3.4-3.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 209, 230, 235| 1.8. "הֶתֵּר נְדָרִים פּוֹרְחִין בָּאֲוִיר, וְאֵין לָהֶם עַל מַה שֶּׁיִּסְמֹכוּ. הִלְכוֹת שַׁבָּת, חֲגִיגוֹת וְהַמְּעִילוֹת, הֲרֵי הֵם כַּהֲרָרִים הַתְּלוּיִין בְּשַׂעֲרָה, שֶׁהֵן מִקְרָא מֻעָט וַהֲלָכוֹת מְרֻבּוֹת. הַדִּינִין וְהָעֲבוֹדוֹת, הַטָּהֳרוֹת וְהַטֻּמְאוֹת וַעֲרָיוֹת, יֵשׁ לָהֶן עַל מַה שֶּׁיִּסְמֹכוּ. הֵן הֵן גּוּפֵי תּוֹרָה: \n", 2.6. "הַטּוֹבֵל לְחֻלִּין וְהֻחְזַק לְחֻלִּין, אָסוּר לְמַעֲשֵׂר. טָבַל לְמַעֲשֵׂר וְהֻחְזַק לְמַעֲשֵׂר, אָסוּר לִתְרוּמָה. טָבַל לִתְרוּמָה, וְהֻחְזַק לִתְרוּמָה, אָסוּר לְקֹדֶשׁ. טָבַל לְקֹדֶשׁ וְהֻחְזַק לְקֹדֶשׁ, אָסוּר לְחַטָּאת. טָבַל לְחָמוּר, מֻתָּר לְקַל. טָבַל וְלֹא הֻחְזַק, כְּאִלּוּ לֹא טָבָל: \n", 3.4. "חֹמֶר בַּתְּרוּמָה, שֶׁבִּיהוּדָה נֶאֱמָנִים עַל טָהֳרַת יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן כָּל יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, וּבִשְׁעַת הַגִּתּוֹת וְהַבַּדִּים אַף עַל הַתְּרוּמָה. עָבְרוּ הַגִּתּוֹת וְהַבַּדִּים וְהֵבִיאוּ לוֹ חָבִית שֶׁל יַיִן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, לֹא יְקַבְּלֶנָּה מִמֶּנּוּ, אֲבָל מַנִּיחָהּ לַגַּת הַבָּאָה. וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ, הִפְרַשְׁתִּי לְתוֹכָהּ רְבִיעִית קֹדֶשׁ, נֶאֱמָן. כַּדֵּי יַיִן וְכַדֵּי שֶׁמֶן הַמְדֻמָּעוֹת, נֶאֱמָנִין עֲלֵיהֶם בִּשְׁעַת הַגִּתּוֹת וְהַבַּדִּים, וְקֹדֶם לַגִּתּוֹת שִׁבְעִים יוֹם: \n", 3.5. "מִן הַמּוֹדִיעִית וְלִפְנִים, נֶאֱמָנִין עַל כְּלֵי חֶרֶס. מִן הַמּוֹדִיעִית וְלַחוּץ, אֵין נֶאֱמָנִים. כֵּיצַד, הַקַּדָּר שֶׁהוּא מוֹכֵר הַקְּדֵרוֹת, נִכְנַס לִפְנִים מִן הַמּוֹדִיעִית, הוּא הַקַּדָּר וְהֵן הַקְּדֵרוֹת וְהֵן הַלּוֹקְחִים, נֶאֱמָן. יָצָא, אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן: \n", 3.6. "הַגַּבָּאִין שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וְכֵן הַגַּנָּבִים שֶׁהֶחֱזִירוּ אֶת הַכֵּלִים, נֶאֱמָנִין לוֹמַר, לֹא נָגָעְנוּ. וּבִירוּשָׁלַיִם נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וּבִשְׁעַת הָרֶגֶל אַף עַל הַתְּרוּמָה: \n", 3.7. "הַפּוֹתֵחַ אֶת חָבִיתוֹ, וְהַמַּתְחִיל בְּעִסָּתוֹ עַל גַּב הָרֶגֶל, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, יִגְמֹר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, לֹא יִגְמֹר. מִשֶּׁעָבַר הָרֶגֶל, הָיוּ מַעֲבִירִין עַל טָהֳרַת עֲזָרָה. עָבַר הָרֶגֶל בְּיוֹם שִׁשִּׁי, לֹא הָיוּ מַעֲבִירִין, מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹד הַשַּׁבָּת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף לֹא בְיוֹם חֲמִישִׁי, שֶׁאֵין הַכֹּהֲנִים פְּנוּיִין: \n", | 1.8. "[The laws concerning] the dissolution of vows hover in the air and have nothing to rest on. The laws concerning Shabbat, hagigot, and trespassing are as mountains hanging by a hair, for they have scant scriptural basis but many halakhot. [The laws concerning] civil cases and [Temple] worship, purity and impurity, and the forbidden relations have what to rest on, and they that are the essentials of the Torah.", 2.6. "If he immersed for unconsecrated [food], and was presumed to be fit to eat unconsecrated [food], he is prohibited from [eating second] tithe. If he immersed for [second] tithe, and was presumed to be fit to eat [second] tithe, he is prohibited from [eating] terumah. If he immersed for terumah, and was presumed to be fit to eat terumah, he is prohibited from [eating] holy things. If he immersed for holy things, and was presumed to be fit to eat holy things he is prohibited from [touching the waters of] purification. If one immersed for something possessing a stricter [degree of holiness], one is permitted [to have contact with] something possessing a lighter [degree of holiness]. If he immersed but without special intention, it is as though he had not immersed.", 3.4. "Greater stringency applies to terumah [than to sacred things], for in Judah [the people of the land (amei haaretz)] are trusted in regard to the purity of [sacred] wine and oil throughout the year; and at the season of the wine-presses and olive-presses even in regard to terumah. If [the season of] the wine-presses and olive-presses passed, and they brought to him a jar of wine of terumah, he [the priest] should not accept it from him, but [the am ha-aretz] may leave it for the coming [season] of the wine-press. But if he said to him, “I have set apart a quarter log [of wine] as a sacred thing,” he is believed [in regard to the purity of the whole jug]. [When it comes to] jugs of wine and jugs of oil that are meant for terumah, they are believed during the season of the wine-presses and the olive-vats and prior to [the season of] the wine-presses seventy days.", 3.5. "From Modi’im inwards [the potters] are trusted in regard to [the purity of] earthenware vessels; from Modi'im outwards they are not trusted. How so? A potter who sells the pots entered inwards of Modi'im, then the same potter, the same pots and the same buyers are trusted [to be pure]. But if he went out [from Modi’im outwards] he is not trusted.", 3.6. "Tax-collectors who entered a house, and similarly thieves who restored [stolen] vessels are believed if they say, “We have not touched [anything].” And in Jerusalem they are believed in regard to sacred things, and during a festival also in regard to terumah.", 3.7. "One who opened his jar [of wine] or broke into his dough [to sell them] on account of the festival [and an am haaretz touched the wine or dough]: Rabbi Judah says: he may finish [selling them after the festival]; But the sages say: he may not finish. When the festival was over, they undertook the purification of the Temple court. If the festival ended on Friday, they did not undertake [the purification of the Temple court] because of the honor of the Shabbat. Rabbi Judah said: even not on Thursday, for the priests are not free.", |
|
20. Mishnah, Hulin, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 221| 3.1. "אֵלּוּ טְרֵפוֹת בַּבְּהֵמָה. נְקוּבַת הַוֶּשֶׁט, וּפְסוּקַת הַגַּרְגֶּרֶת, נִקַּב קְרוּם שֶׁל מֹחַ, נִקַּב הַלֵּב לְבֵית חֲלָלוֹ, נִשְׁבְּרָה הַשִּׁדְרָה וְנִפְסַק הַחוּט שֶׁלָּהּ, נִטַּל הַכָּבֵד וְלֹא נִשְׁתַּיֵּר הֵימֶנּוּ כְלוּם, הָרֵאָה שֶׁנִּקְּבָה, אוֹ שֶׁחָסְרָה, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁתִּנָּקֵב לְבֵית הַסִּמְפּוֹנוֹת. נִקְּבָה הַקֵּבָה, נִקְּבָה הַמָּרָה, נִקְּבוּ הַדַּקִּין, הַכֶּרֶס הַפְּנִימִית שֶׁנִּקְּבָה, אוֹ שֶׁנִּקְרַע רֹב הַחִיצוֹנָה, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, הַגְּדוֹלָה טֶפַח, וְהַקְּטַנָּה בְּרֻבָּהּ. הַמְסֵס וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת שֶׁנִּקְּבוּ לַחוּץ, נָפְלָה מִן הַגַּג, נִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ רֹב צַלְעוֹתֶיהָ, וּדְרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, דְּרוּסַת הַזְּאֵב בַּדַּקָּה, וּדְרוּסַת אֲרִי בַּגַּסָּה, דְּרוּסַת הַנֵּץ בָּעוֹף הַדַּק, וּדְרוּסַת הַגַּס בָּעוֹף הַגָּס. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין כָּמוֹהָ חַיָּה, טְרֵפָה: \n", | 3.1. "The following [defects] render cattle terefah:If the esophagus was pierced; If the windpipe severed; If the membrane of the brain was pierced; If the heart was pierced as far as its cavity thereof; If the spine was broken and the cord severed; If the liver was gone and none of it remained; If the lung was pierced, Or if part of it was missing Rabbi Shimon says: only if it was pierced as far as the main bronchi; If the stomach, If the gall-bladder was pierced, If the intestines were pierced; If the innermost stomach was pierced, If the greater part of the outer stomach was pierced. Rabbi Judah says: in a large animal [if it was torn] to the extent of a handbreadth, and in a small animal the greater part. If the omasum (the third stomach of a rumit) [was pierced]; of if the second stomach was pierced on the outside; If the animal fell from the roof; If most of its ribs were fractured; Or if it was mauled by a wolf Rabbi Judah says: small animals [are terefah] if mauled by a wolf, large cattle if mauled by a lion; small fowl if mauled by a hawk, large fowl if mauled by a falcon. This is the rule: if an animal with a similar defect could not continue to live, it is terefah.", |
|
21. Mishnah, Kelim, 1.4-1.5, 1.8, 2.1, 3.3-3.4, 4.4, 8.11, 12.1, 13.4, 14.3, 14.5, 15.1, 16.1-16.2, 16.4, 17.15, 19.9, 20.6, 22.2, 24.8, 24.13, 25.9, 26.7-26.8, 27.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251| 1.4. "לְמַעְלָה מִן הַזָּב, זָבָה, שֶׁהִיא מְטַמְּאָה אֶת בּוֹעֲלָהּ. לְמַעְלָה מִן הַזָּבָה, מְצֹרָע, שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא בְּבִיאָה. לְמַעְלָה מִן הַמְּצֹרָע, עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה, שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה. חָמוּר מִכֻּלָּם, הַמֵּת, שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא בְאֹהֶל, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֻּלָּם מְטַמְּאִין: \n", 1.5. "עֶשֶׂר טֻמְאוֹת פּוֹרְשׁוֹת מִן הָאָדָם. מְחֻסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, אָסוּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וּמֻתָּר בַּתְּרוּמָה וּבַמַּעֲשֵׂר. חָזַר לִהְיוֹת טְבוּל יוֹם, אָסוּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וּבַתְּרוּמָה וּמֻתָּר בַּמַּעֲשֵׂר. חָזַר לִהְיוֹת בַּעַל קֶרִי, אָסוּר בִּשְׁלָשְׁתָּן. חָזַר לִהְיוֹת בּוֹעֵל נִדָּה, מְטַמֵּא מִשְׁכָּב תַּחְתּוֹן כָּעֶלְיוֹן. חָזַר לִהְיוֹת זָב שֶׁרָאָה שְׁתֵּי רְאִיּוֹת, מְטַמֵּא מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב, וְצָרִיךְ בִּיאַת מַיִם חַיִּים, וּפָטוּר מִן הַקָּרְבָּן. רָאָה שָׁלֹשׁ, חַיָּב בַּקָּרְבָּן. חָזַר לִהְיוֹת מְצֹרָע מֻסְגָּר, מְטַמֵּא בְּבִיאָה, וּפָטוּר מִן הַפְּרִיעָה וּמִן הַפְּרִימָה וּמִן הַתִּגְלַחַת וּמִן הַצִּפֳּרִים. וְאִם הָיָה מֻחְלָט, חַיָּב בְּכֻלָּן. פֵּרַשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ אֵבָר שֶׁאֵין עָלָיו בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי, מְטַמֵּא בְמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, וְאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא בְאֹהֶל. וְאִם יֵשׁ עָלָיו בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי, מְטַמֵּא בְמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא וּבְאֹהֶל. שִׁעוּר בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי, כְּדֵי לְהַעֲלוֹת אֲרוּכָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם יֵשׁ בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד כְּדֵי לְהַקִּיפוֹ בְחוּט עֵרֶב, יֶשׁ בּוֹ לְהַעֲלוֹת אֲרוּכָה: \n", 1.8. "לִפְנִים מִן הַחוֹמָה מְקֻדָּשׁ מֵהֶם, שֶׁאוֹכְלִים שָׁם קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. הַר הַבַּיִת מְקֻדָּשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁאֵין זָבִים וְזָבוֹת, נִדּוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת נִכְנָסִים לְשָׁם. הַחֵיל מְקֻדָּשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁאֵין גּוֹיִם וּטְמֵא מֵת נִכְנָסִים לְשָׁם. עֶזְרַת נָשִׁים מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁאֵין טְבוּל יוֹם נִכְנָס לְשָׁם, וְאֵין חַיָּבִים עָלֶיהָ חַטָּאת. עֶזְרַת יִשְׂרָאֵל מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת מִמֶּנָּה, שֶׁאֵין מְחֻסַּר כִּפּוּרִים נִכְנָס לְשָׁם, וְחַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ חַטָּאת. עֶזְרַת הַכֹּהֲנִים מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת מִמֶּנָּה, שֶׁאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל נִכְנָסִים לְשָׁם אֶלָּא בִשְׁעַת צָרְכֵיהֶם, לִסְמִיכָה לִשְׁחִיטָה וְלִתְנוּפָה: \n", 2.1. "כְּלֵי עֵץ, וּכְלֵי עוֹר, וּכְלֵי עֶצֶם, וּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית, פְּשׁוּטֵיהֶן טְהוֹרִים, וּמְקַבְּלֵיהֶן טְמֵאִים. נִשְׁבְּרוּ, טָהָרוּ. חָזַר וְעָשָׂה מֵהֶם כֵּלִים, מְקַבְּלִין טֻמְאָה מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא. כְּלֵי חֶרֶס וּכְלֵי נֶתֶר, טֻמְאָתָן שָׁוָה. מִטַּמְּאִין וּמְטַמְּאִין בַּאֲוִיר, וּמִטַּמְּאִין מֵאֲחוֹרֵיהֶן, וְאֵינָן מִטַּמְּאִין מִגַּבֵּיהֶן, וּשְׁבִירָתָן הִיא טָהֳרָתָן: \n", 3.3. "חָבִית שֶׁנִּקְּבָה וַעֲשָׂאָהּ בְּזֶפֶת, וְנִשְׁבְּרָה, אִם יֵשׁ בִּמְקוֹם הַזֶּפֶת מַחֲזִיק רְבִיעִית, טְמֵאָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא בָטַל שֵׁם כְּלִי מֵעָלֶיהָ. חֶרֶס שֶׁנִּקַּב וַעֲשָׂאוֹ בְזֶפֶת, אַף עַל פִּי מַחֲזִיק רְבִיעִית, טָהוֹר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבָּטַל שֵׁם כְּלִי מֵעָלָיו: \n", 3.4. "חָבִית שֶׁנִּתְרוֹעֲעָה וּטְפָלָהּ בִּגְלָלִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל אֶת הַגְּלָלִים וְהַחֲרָסִים נוֹפְלִים, טְמֵאָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא בָטַל שֵׁם כְּלִי מֵעָלֶיהָ. נִשְׁבְּרָה וְדִבֵּק מִמֶּנָּה חַרְסִית, אוֹ שֶׁהֵבִיא חַרְסִית מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר וּטְפָלָן בִּגְלָלִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא נוֹטֵל הַגְּלָלִים וְהַחֲרָסִין עוֹמְדִים, טְהוֹרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבָּטַל שֵׁם כְּלִי מֵעָלֶיהָ. הָיָה בָהּ חֶרֶס מַחֲזִיק רְבִיעִית, כֻּלָּהּ מִטַּמָּא בְמַגָּע, וּכְנֶגְדּוֹ מִטַּמֵּא בַאֲוִיר: \n", 4.4. "כְּלִי חֶרֶשׂ שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ שְׂפָיוֹת, הַפְּנִימִית עוֹדֶפֶת, הַכֹּל טָהוֹר. הַחִיצוֹנָה עוֹדֶפֶת, הַכֹּל טָמֵא. הָאֶמְצָעִית עוֹדֶפֶת, מִמֶּנָּה וְלִפְנִים, טָמֵא. מִמֶּנָּה וְלַחוּץ, טָהוֹר. הָיוּ שָׁווֹת, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, חוֹלְקִין הָאֶמְצָעִית. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, הַכֹּל טָהוֹר. כְּלֵי חֶרֶס, מֵאֵימָתַי מְקַבְּלִין טֻמְאָה, מִשֶּׁיִּצָּרְפוּ בַכִּבְשָׁן, וְהִיא גְמַר מְלַאכְתָּן: \n", 8.11. "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּטַף חָלָב מִדַּדֶּיהָ וְנָפַל לַאֲוִיר הַתַּנּוּר, טָמֵא, שֶׁהַמַּשְׁקֶה מְטַמֵּא לְרָצוֹן וְשֶׁלֹּא לְרָצוֹן. הָיְתָה גוֹרַפְתּוֹ וְהִכַּתָּהּ הַקּוֹץ וְיָצָא מִמֶּנָּה דָם, אוֹ שֶׁנִּכְוָת וְנָתְנָה אֶצְבָּעָהּ לְתוֹךְ פִּיהָ, נִטְמָא: \n", 12.1. "טַבַּעַת אָדָם, טְמֵאָה. טַבַּעַת בְּהֵמָה וְכֵלִים וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַטַּבָּעוֹת, טְהוֹרוֹת. קוֹרַת הַחִצִּים, טְמֵאָה. וְשֶׁל אֲסִירִין, טְהוֹרָה. הַקּוֹלָר, טְמֵאָה. שַׁלְשֶׁלֶת שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהּ בֵּית נְעִילָה, טְמֵאָה. הָעֲשׂוּיָה לִכְפִיתָה, טְהוֹרָה. שַׁלְשֶׁלֶת שֶׁל סִיטוֹנוֹת, טְמֵאָה, שֶׁל בַּעֲלֵי בָתִּים טְהוֹרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא מַפְתֵּחַ אֶחָד, אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם, אוֹ שֶׁקָּשַׁר חִלָּזוֹן בְּרֹאשָׁהּ, טְמֵאָה: \n", 13.4. "מַגְרֵפָה שֶׁנִּטְּלָה כַפָּהּ, טְמֵאָה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כְקֻרְנָס, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין. מְגֵרָה שֶׁנִּטְּלוּ שִׁנֶּיהָ אַחַת מִבֵּינְתַיִם, טְהוֹרָה. נִשְׁתַּיֵּר בָּהּ מְלֹא הַסִּיט בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, טְמֵאָה. הַמַּעֲצָד וְהָאִזְמֵל וְהַמַּפְסֶלֶת וְהַמַּקְדֵּחַ, שֶׁנִּפְגְּמוּ, טְמֵאִים. נִטַּל חִסּוּמָן, טְהוֹרִין. וְכֻלָּן שֶׁנֶּחְלְקוּ לִשְׁנַיִם, טְמֵאִים, חוּץ מִן הַמַּקְדֵּחַ. וְהָרוּקְנִי בִפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ, טְהוֹרָה: \n", 14.3. "הַקַּנְטָר שֶׁל בַּנַּאי, וְהַדָּקוֹר שֶׁל חָרָשׁ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ טְמֵאִין. יִתְדוֹת אֹהָלִים וְיִתְדוֹת הַמָּשׁוֹחוֹת, טְמֵאוֹת. שַׁלְשֶׁלֶת שֶׁל מָשׁוֹחוֹת, טְמֵאָה. הָעֲשׂוּיָה לָעֵצִים, טְהוֹרָה. שַׁלְשֶׁלֶת דְּלִי גָדוֹל, אַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים. וְשֶׁל קָטָן, עֲשָׂרָה. חֲמוֹר שֶׁל נַפָּחִין, טָמֵא. מְגֵרָה שֶׁעָשָׂה שִׁנֶּיהָ בְתוֹךְ הַחוֹר, טְמֵאָה. עֲשָׂאָהּ מִלְּמַטָּן לְמַעְלָן, טְהוֹרָה. וְכָל הַכְּסוּיִן טְהוֹרִים, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל מֵחָם: \n", 14.5. "הַטְּהוֹרִין שֶׁבָּעֲגָלָה, הָעֹל הַמְצֻפֶּה, כְּנָפַיִם הָעֲשׂוּיוֹת לְנוֹי, וּשְׁפוֹפָרוֹת הַמַּשְׁמִיעוֹת אֶת הַקּוֹל, וְהָאֲבָר שֶׁבְּצַד צַוְּארֵי בְהֵמָה, הַסּוֹבֵב שֶׁל גַּלְגַּל, הַטַּסִּים, וְהַצִּפּוּיִים, וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַמַּסְמְרוֹת, טְהוֹרִין. סַנְדְּלֵי בְהֵמָה שֶׁל מַתָּכוֹת, טְמֵאִין. שֶׁל שַׁעַם, טְהוֹרִין. הַסַּיִף מֵאֵימָתַי מְקַבֵּל טֻמְאָה, מִשֶּׁיְּשׁוּפֶנּוּ. וְהַסַּכִּין, מִשֶּׁיַשְׁחִיזֶנָּה: \n", 15.1. "כְּלֵי עֵץ, כְּלֵי עוֹר, כְּלֵי עֶצֶם, כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית, פְּשׁוּטֵיהֶן טְהוֹרִין, וּמְקַבְּלֵיהֶן טְמֵאִים. נִשְׁבְּרוּ, טָהָרוּ. חָזַר וְעָשָׂה מֵהֶן כֵּלִים, מְקַבְּלִין טֻמְאָה מִכָּאן וּלְהַבָּא. הַשִּׁדָּה, וְהַתֵּבָה, וְהַמִּגְדָּל, כַּוֶּרֶת הַקַּשׁ, וְכַוֶּרֶת הַקָּנִים, וּבוֹר סְפִינָה אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִית, שֶׁיֶּשׁ לָהֶם שׁוּלַיִם, וְהֵן מַחֲזִיקִין אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה בְלַח, שֶׁהֵם כּוֹרַיִם בְּיָבֵשׁ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ טְהוֹרִין. וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַכֵּלִים, בֵּין מְקַבְּלִין, בֵּין אֵינָם מְקַבְּלִין, טְמֵאִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, דַּרְדּוּר עֲגָלָה, וְקֻסְטוֹת הַמְּלָכִים, וַעֲרֵבַת הָעַבְּדָנִין, וּבוֹר סְפִינָה קְטַנָּה, וְהָאָרוֹן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמְּקַבְּלִין, טְמֵאִין, שֶׁאֵינָן עֲשׂוּיִן לִטַּלְטֵל אֶלָּא בְמַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכָן. וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַכֵּלִים, הַמְּקַבְּלִים, טְהוֹרִין, וְשֶׁאֵינָן מְקַבְּלִין, טְמֵאִין. אֵין בֵּין דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֶלָּא עֲרֵבַת בַּעַל הַבָּיִת: \n", 16.1. "כָּל כְּלִי עֵץ שֶׁנֶּחֱלַק לִשְׁנַיִם, טָהוֹר, חוּץ מִשֻּׁלְחָן הַכָּפוּל, וְתַמְחוּי הַמִּזְנוֹן, וְהָאֱפִיפוֹרִין שֶׁל בַּעֲלֵי הַבָּיִת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף הַמָּגֵס, וְקוֹד הַבַּבְלִי כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶן. כְּלֵי עֵץ, מֵאֵימָתַי מְקַבְּלִין טֻמְאָה. הַמִּטָּה וְהָעֲרִיסָה, מִשֶּׁיְּשׁוּפֵם בְּעוֹר הַדָּג. גָּמַר שֶׁלֹּא לָשׁוּף, טְמֵאָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, הַמִּטָּה, מִשֶּׁיְּסָרֵג בָּהּ שְׁלֹשָׁה בָתִּים: \n", 16.2. "הַסַּלִּים שֶׁל עֵץ, מִשֶּׁיַּחְסֹם וִיקַנֵּב. וְשֶׁל תְּמָרָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קִנֵּב מִבִּפְנִים, טָמֵא, שֶׁכֵּן מְקַיְּמִין. כַּלְכָּלָה, מִשֶּׁיַּחְסֹם וִיקַנֵּב וְיִגְמֹר אֶת הַתְּלוֹיָה. בֵּית הַלְּגִינִין, וּבֵית הַכּוֹסוֹת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא קִנֵּב מִבִּפְנִים, טָמֵא, שֶׁכֵּן מְקַיְּמִין: \n", 16.4. "כְּלֵי עוֹר, מֵאֵימָתַי מְקַבְּלִין טֻמְאָה. הַתּוּרְמֵל, מִשֶּׁיַּחְסֹם וִיקַנֵּב וְיַעֲשֶׂה קִיחוֹתָיו. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מִשֶּׁיַּעֲשֶׂה אֶת אָזְנָיו. סְקֹרְטְיָא, מִשֶּׁיַּחְסֹם וִיקַנֵּב וְיַעֲשֶׂה אֶת צִיצָתָהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מִשֶּׁיַּעֲשֶׂה אֶת טַבְּעוֹתֶיהָ. קָטָבוֹלְיָא, מִשֶּׁיַּחְסֹם וִיקַנֵּב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מִשֶּׁיַּעֲשֶׂה אֶת קִיחוֹתֶיהָ. הַכַּר וְהַכֶּסֶת שֶׁל עוֹר, מִשֶּׁיַּחְסֹם וִיקַנֵּב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מִשֶּׁיִּתְפְּרֵם וִישַׁיֵּר בָּהֶם פָּחוֹת מֵחֲמִשָּׁה טְפָחִים: \n", 17.15. "הָעוֹשֶׂה כְלִי קִבּוּל, מִכָּל מָקוֹם, טָמֵא. הָעוֹשֶׂה מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב, מִכָּל מָקוֹם, טָמֵא. הָעוֹשֶׂה כִיס מֵעוֹר הַמַּצָּה, מִן הַנְּיָר, טָמֵא. הָרִמּוֹן, הָאַלּוֹן, וְהָאֱגוֹז, שֶׁחֲקָקוּם הַתִּינוֹקוֹת לָמֹד בָּהֶם אֶת הֶעָפָר אוֹ שֶׁהִתְקִינוּם לְכַף מֹאזְנַיִם, טָמֵא, שֶׁיֶּשׁ לָהֶם מַעֲשֶׂה וְאֵין לָהֶם מַחֲשָׁבָה: \n", 19.9. "תֵּבָה שֶׁפִּתְחָהּ מִצִּדָּהּ, טְמֵאָה מִדְרָס וּטְמֵא מֵת. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵינָהּ גְּבוֹהָה עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים, אוֹ שֶׁאֵין לָהּ לִזְבֵּז טֶפַח. נִפְחֲתָה מִלְמַעְלָן, טְמֵאָה טְמֵא מֵת. נִפְחֲתָה מִלְּמַטָּן, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַמֵּא. וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבָּטַל הָעִקָּר, בָּטְלָה הַטְּפֵלָה:", 20.6. "סָדִין שֶׁהוּא טְמֵא מִדְרָס וַעֲשָׂאוֹ וִילוֹן, טָהוֹר מִן הַמִּדְרָס, אֲבָל טָמֵא טְמֵא מֵת. מֵאֵימָתַי הִיא טָהֳרָתוֹ. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, מִשֶּׁיִּתָּבֵר. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, מִשֶּׁיִּקָּשֵׁר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, מִשֶּׁיִּקָּבֵעַ:", 22.2. "הַשֻּׁלְחָן שֶׁנִּטְּלָה אַחַת מֵרַגְלָיו, טָהוֹר. נִטְּלָה שְׁנִיָּה, טָהוֹר. נִטְּלָה הַשְּׁלִישִׁית, טָמֵא כְּשֶׁיַּחְשֹׁב עָלָיו. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֵין צָרִיךְ מַחֲשָׁבָה. וְכֵן הַדְּלֻפְקִי: \n", 24.8. "שָׁלֹשׁ מִטּוֹת הֵן. הָעֲשׂוּיָה לִשְׁכִיבָה, טְמֵאָה מִדְרָס. שֶׁל זַגָּגִין, טְמֵאָה טְמֵא מֵת. וְשֶׁל סָרָגִין, טְהוֹרָה מִכְּלוּם: \n", 24.13. "שְׁלֹשָׁה סְדִינִין הֵן. הֶעָשׂוּי לִשְׁכִיבָה, טָמֵא מִדְרָס. לְוִילוֹן, טָמֵא טְמֵא מֵת. וְשֶׁל צוּרוֹת, טָהוֹר מִכְּלוּם: \n", 25.9. "כְּלֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ אֵין לָהֶם אֲחוֹרַיִם וָתוֹךְ, וְאֵין לָהֶם בֵּית צְבִיעָה. וְאֵין מַטְבִּילִים כֵּלִים בְתוֹךְ כֵּלִים לְקֹדֶשׁ. כָּל הַכֵּלִים יוֹרְדִין לִידֵי טֻמְאָתָן בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה, וְאֵינָן עוֹלִים מִידֵי טֻמְאָתָן אֶלָּא בְשִׁנּוּי מַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁהַמַּעֲשֶׂה מְבַטֵּל מִיַּד הַמַּעֲשֶׂה וּמִיַּד מַחֲשָׁבָה, וּמַחֲשָׁבָה אֵינָהּ מְבַטֶּלֶת לֹא מִיַּד מַעֲשֶׂה וְלֹא מִיַּד מַחֲשָׁבָה: \n", 26.7. "כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין חֶסְרוֹן מְלָאכָה, מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֶּשׁ חֶסְרוֹן מְלָאכָה, אֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן, אֶלָּא הָעֻצְבָּה: \n", 26.8. "עוֹרוֹת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְשֶׁל עַבְּדָן, אֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְשֶׁל גַּנָּב, מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְשֶׁל גַּזְלָן, אֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, חִלּוּף הַדְּבָרִים, שֶׁל גַּזְלָן, מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן. וְשֶׁל גַּנָּב, אֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה מְטַמֵּאתָן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְיָאֲשׁוּ הַבְּעָלִים: \n", 27.8. "וְכֵן בֶּגֶד שֶׁאָרַג בּוֹ שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ, וְנִטְמָא טְמֵא מֵת, וְהִשְׁלִים עָלָיו אֶת כָּל הַבֶּגֶד, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נָטַל חוּט אֶחָד מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ, טָהוֹר מִטְּמֵא מֵת, אֲבָל טָמֵא מַגַּע טְמֵא מֵת. נָטַל חוּט אֶחָד מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִשְׁלִים עָלָיו אֶת כָּל הַבֶּגֶד, טָהוֹר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ, שָׁלֹשׁ עַל שָׁלֹשׁ שֶׁנִּתְמַעֵט, טָהוֹר. אֲבָל שְׁלֹשָׁה עַל שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁנִּתְמַעֵט, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁטָּהוֹר מִמִּדְרָס, טָמֵא בְכָל הַטֻּמְאוֹת: \n", | 1.4. "Above the zav is the zavah, for she conveys impurity to the man who has intercourse with her. Above the zavah is the metzora, for he conveys impurity by entering into a house. Above the metzora is a [human] bone the size of a barley grain, for it conveys impurity for seven days. More strict than all these is a corpse, for it conveys impurity by ohel (tent) whereby all the others convey no impurity.", 1.5. "There are ten [grades of] impurity that emanate from a person:A person before the offering of his obligatory sacrifices is forbidden to eat holy things but permitted to eat terumah and [second] tithe. If he is a tevul yom he is forbidden to eat holy things and terumah but permitted to eat [second] tithe. If he emitted semen he is forbidden to eat any of the three. If he had intercourse with a menstruant he defiles the bottom [bedding] upon which he lies as he does the top [bedding]. If he is a zav who has seen two discharges he conveys impurity to that on which he lies or sits and is required to undergo immersion in running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. If he saw three discharges he must bring the sacrifice. If he is a metzora that was only enclosed he conveys impurity by entry [into an ohel] but is exempt from loosening his hair, from rending his clothes, from shaving and from the birds offering. But if he was a confirmed metzora, he is liable for all these. If a limb on which there was not the proper quantity of flesh was severed from a person, it conveys impurity by contact and by carriage but not by ohel. But if it has the proper quantity of flesh it conveys impurity by contact, by carriage and by ohel. A \"proper quantity of flesh\" is such as is capable of healing. Rabbi Judah says: if in one place it has flesh sufficient to surround it with [the thickness of] a thread of the woof it is capable of healing.", 1.8. "The area within the wall [of Jerusalem] is holier, for it is there that lesser holy things and second tithe may be eaten. The Temple Mount is holier, for zavim, zavot, menstruants and women after childbirth may not enter it. The chel is holier, for neither non-Jews nor one who contracted corpse impurity may enter it. The court of women is holier, for a tevul yom may not enter it, though he is not obligated a hatat for doing so. The court of the Israelites is holier, for a man who has not yet offered his obligatory sacrifices may not enter it, and if he enters he is liable for a hatat. The court of the priests is holier, for Israelites may not enter it except when they are required to do so: for laying on of the hands, slaying or waving.", 2.1. "Vessels of wood, vessels of leather, vessels of bone or vessels of glass: If they are simple they are clean If they form a receptacle they are unclean. If they were broken they become clean again. If one remade them into vessels they are susceptible to impurity henceforth. Earthen vessels and vessels of sodium carbonate are equal in respect of impurity: they contract and convey impurity through their air-space; they convey impurity through the outside but they do not become impure through their backs; and when broken they become clean.", 3.3. "A jar that had a hole and was mended with pitch and then was broken again: If the fragment that was mended with the pitch can hold a quarter of a log it is unclean, since the designation of a vessel has never ceased to be applied to it. A potsherd that had a hole and was mended with pitch, it is clean though it can contain a quarter of a log, because the designation of a vessel has ceased to be applied to it.", 3.4. "If a jar was about to be cracked but was strengthened with cattle dung, although the potsherds would fall apart were the dung to be removed, it is unclean, because the designation of vessel never ceased to apply. If it was broken and some of its pieces were stuck together again, or if he brought other pieces of clay from elsewhere, and it was also lined with cattle dung, even though the potsherds hold together when the dung is removed, it is clean, because the designation of vessel ceased to apply. If it contained one potsherd that could hold a quarter of a log, all its parts contract impurity by contact, but that potsherd contracts impurity through its air-space.", 4.4. "An earthenware vessel that has three rims: If the innermost one projects above the others, all outside it is not susceptible to impurity. If the outermost one projects above the others all within it is susceptible to impurity; And if the middle one projects above the others, that which is within it is susceptible to impurity, while that which is without it is not susceptible to impurity. If they were equal in height: Rabbi Judah says: the middle one is deemed to be divided. But the sages ruled: all are not susceptible to impurity. When do earthenware vessels become susceptible to impurity? As soon as they are baked in the furnace, that being the completion of their manufacture.", 8.11. "If milk [of an impure woman] dripped from a woman's breasts and fell into the air-space of an oven, the oven becomes unclean, since a liquid conveys impurity regardless of whether one wanted it there or not. If she was sweeping it out and a thorn pricked her and she bled, or if she burnt herself and put her finger into her mouth, the oven becomes unclean.", 12.1. "A man's ring is susceptible to impurity. A ring for cattle or for vessels and all other rings are clean. A beam for arrows is susceptible to impurity, but one for prisoners is clean. A prisoner's collar is susceptible to impurity. A chain that has a lock-piece is susceptible to impurity. But that used for tying up cattle is clean. The chain used by wholesalers is susceptible to impurity. That used by householders is clean. Rabbi Yose said: When is this so? When it attaches to one door, but if it attaches to two doors or if it had a snail[-shaped] piece at its end it is susceptible to impurity.", 13.4. "An ash-shovel whose spoon was missing is still susceptible to impurity, since it is still like a hammer, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages rule that it is clean. A saw whose teeth are missing one in every two is clean. But if a hasit length of consecutive teeth remained it is susceptible to impurity. An adze, scalpel, plane, or drill that was damaged remains susceptible to impurity, but if its steel edge was missing it is clean. In all these cases if it was split into two parts both remain susceptible to impurity, except for the drill. The block of a plane by itself is clean.", 14.3. "A builder's staff and a carpenter's axes are susceptible to impurity. Tent-pegs and surveyors’ pegs are susceptible to impurity. A surveyor's chain is susceptible to impurity, but one used for wood is clean. The chain of a big bucket [is susceptible to impurity to a length of] four handbreadths, and that of a small one [to a length of] ten handbreadths. A blacksmith's jack is susceptible to impurity. A saw whose teeth were made in a hole susceptible to impurity, but if they were turned from below upwards it is clean. All covers are clean except that of a boiler.", 14.5. "The clean parts of a wagon are the following: the yoke that is only plated [with metal], side-pieces made for ornamentation, tubes that give out a noise, the lead at the side of the necks of the cattle, the rim of the wheel, the plates and mountings, and all other nails, all of these are clean. Metal shoes of cattle are susceptible to impurity but those made of cork are clean. When does a sword become susceptible to impurity? When it has been polished. And a knife? When it has been sharpened.", 15.1. "Vessels of wood, leather, bone or glass: those that are flat are clean and those that form a receptacle are susceptible to impurity. If they are broken they become clean again. If one remade them into vessels they are susceptible to impurity henceforth. A chest, a box, a cupboard, a straw basket, a reed basket, or the tank of an Alexandrian ship, that have flat bottoms and can hold a minimum of forty se'ah in liquid measure which represent two kor in dry measure, are clean. All other vessels whether they can contain the minimum or cannot contain it, are susceptible to impurity, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: the tub of a wagon, the food chests of kings, the tanners trough, the tank of a small ship, and an ark, even though they are able to contain the minimum, are susceptible to impurity, since they are intended to be moved about with their contents. As to all other vessels, those that can contain the minimum are clean and those that cannot contain it are susceptible to impurity. There is no difference between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah except a baking trough which belongs to a householder.", 16.1. "A wooden vessel that was broken into two parts becomes clean, except for a folding table, a dish with compartments for [different kinds of] food, and a householder's footstool. Rabbi Judah says: a double dish and a Babylonian drinking vessel are subject to the same law. When do wooden vessels begin to be susceptible to impurity? A bed and a cot, after they are sanded with fishskin. If the owner determined not to sand them over they are susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Meir says: a bed becomes susceptible to impurity as soon as three rows of meshes have been knitted in it.", 16.2. "Wooden baskets [become susceptible to impurity] as soon as their rims are rounded off and their rough ends are smoothed off. But those that are made of palm-branches [become susceptible to impurity] even though their ends were not smoothed off on the inside, since they are allowed to remain in this condition. A basket [of reed-grass becomes susceptible to impurity] as soon as its rim is rounded off, its rough ends are smoothed off, and its hanger is finished. A wicker basket flasks or for cups [is susceptible to impurity] even if the rough ends were not smoothed off on the inside, since these are allowed to remain in this condition.", 16.4. "When do leather vessels become susceptible to impurity?A leather pouch, as soon as its hem has been stitched, its rough ends trimmed and its straps sewn on. Rabbi Judah says: so soon as its ears have been sewn on. A leather apron [becomes susceptible to impurity] as soon as its hem has been stitched, its rough end trimmed and its strings sewn on. Rabbi Judah says: as soon as its loops have been sewn on. A leather bed cover [becomes susceptible] as soon as its hem has been stitched and its rough ends trimmed. Rabbi Judah says: as soon as its straps have been sewn on. A leather cushion or mattress [becomes susceptible] as soon as its hem has been stitched and its rough ends trimmed. Rabbi Judah says: as it has been sew up and less than five handbreadths remained open.", 17.15. "If one made a receptacle whatever its size it is susceptible to uncleanness. If one made a couch or a bed whatever its purpose it is susceptible to uncleanness. If one made a wallet from untanned hide or from papyrus it is susceptible to uncleanness. A pomegranate, an acorn and a nut which children hollowed out to measure dust or fashioned them into a pair of scales, are susceptible to uncleanness, since in the case of children an act is valid though an intention is not.", 19.9. "A box whose opening is at the side is susceptible to both midras uncleanness and corpse uncleanness. Rabbi Yose said: When does this apply? When it is less than ten handbreadths in height or when it does not have a rim one handbreadth deep. If it was damaged above it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness. If it was damaged below: Rabbi Meir rules that it is susceptible to uncleanness. But the sages rule that it is clean because if the primary function ceases the secondary one also ceases.", 20.6. "If a sheet that was susceptible to midras uncleanness made into a curtain, it becomes clean from midras uncleanness but it is still susceptible to corpse uncleanness. When does it become insusceptible to [midras] uncleanness? Bet Shammai says: when the loops have been tied to it. . Bet Hillel says: when it has been attached. Rabbi Akiva says: when it has been fixed.", 22.2. "A table one of whose legs was removed is clean. If a second leg was removed it is still clean. But if a third was removed it becomes unclean where the owner has the intention of using it. Rabbi Yose says: no intention is necessary. The same law applies also to the side-board.", 24.8. "There are three different types of beds:One that is used for lying upon is susceptible to midras uncleanness; One used by glass makers is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And one used by weavers is free from all uncleanness.", 24.13. "There are three different types of sheets:One used for lying upon is susceptible to midras uncleanness; One used as a curtain is susceptible to corpse uncleanness; And one used as a mural decoration is free from all uncleanness.", 25.9. "Holy vessels do not have outer and inner sides or a part by which they are held. One may not immerse vessels within one another for sacred use. All vessels become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but they cannot be rendered insusceptible except by a change-effecting act, for an act annuls an earlier act as well as an earlier intention, but an intention annuls neither an earlier act nor an earlier intention.", 26.7. "Whenever no act is lacking, intention alone causes a vessel to be susceptible to uncleanness, But whenever an act is lacking, intention alone does not render it susceptible to uncleanness, except for a fur cover.", 26.8. "The hides of a householder become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but those that belong to a tanner do not become susceptible by mere intention. Those taken by a thief become susceptible by intention, but those taken by a robber do not become susceptible by mere intention. Rabbi Shimon says: the rule is to be reversed; those taken by a robber become susceptible by mere intention, but those taken by a thief do not become susceptible by intention, since in the latter case the owner does not abandon hope for recovery.", 27.8. "Similarly, if a piece of cloth was woven to the size of three [fingerbreadths] square, and it contracted corpse uncleanness, and afterwards he finished the entire piece, and then he removed a single thread from its original part, it is free from corpse uncleanness but is still unclean from contact with corpse uncleanness. If a thread was removed from the original part and then all the cloth was finished it remains clean, for the sages have ruled: if a piece of three [fingerbreadths] square is lessened it becomes clean. But if one of three handbreadths square is lessened, even though it is released from midras, it is still susceptible to all other forms of uncleanness.", |
|
22. Mishnah, Miqvaot, 4.1, 5.5, 5.6, 7.6, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 9.1, 9.1-10.5, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.7, 10.3, 10.4, 10.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 207, 223| 8.4. "נָכְרִית שֶׁפָּלְטָה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, טְמֵאָה. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁפָּלְטָה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע מִנָּכְרִי, טְהוֹרָה. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁשִּׁמְּשָׁה בֵיתָהּ, וְיָרְדָה וְטָבְלָה, וְלֹא כִבְּדָה אֶת הַבַּיִת, כְּאִלּוּ לֹא טָבְלָה. בַּעַל קֶרִי שֶׁטָּבַל וְלֹא הֵטִיל אֶת הַמַּיִם, כְּשֶׁיָטִיל אֶת הַמַּיִם, טָמֵא. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, בְּחוֹלֶה וּבְזָקֵן, טָמֵא. בְּיֶלֶד וּבְבָרִיא, טָהוֹר:", | 8.4. "If a non-Jewish woman discharged semen from an Israelite, it is unclean. If an Israelite woman discharged semen from a non-Jewish man, it is clean. If a woman had intercourse and then went down and immersed herself but did not sweep out the house, it is as though she had not immersed herself. If a man who had a seminal emission immersed himself but did not first pass urine, he again becomes unclean when he passes urine. Rabbi Yose says: if he was sick or old he is unclean, but if he was young and healthy he remains clean.", |
|
23. Mishnah, Nazir, 2.8, 7.2-7.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 217, 218, 220, 221| 2.8. "הִפִּילָה אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֵינוֹ נָזִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, יֹאמַר, אִם הָיָה בֶן קְיָמָא, הֲרֵי אֲנִי נְזִיר חוֹבָה. וְאִם לָאו, הֲרֵי אֲנִי נְזִיר נְדָבָה. חָזְרָה וְיָלְדָה, הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, יֹאמַר, אִם הָרִאשׁוֹן בֶּן קְיָמָא, הָרִאשׁוֹן חוֹבָה וְזוֹ נְדָבָה. וְאִם לָאו, הָרִאשׁוֹן נְדָבָה וְזוֹ חוֹבָה: \n", 7.2. "עַל אֵלּוּ טֻמְאוֹת הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ, עַל הַמֵּת, וְעַל כַּזַּיִת מִן הַמֵּת, וְעַל כַּזַּיִת נֶצֶל וְעַל מְלֹא תַרְוָד רָקָב, עַל הַשִּׁדְרָה וְעַל הַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת וְעַל אֵבֶר מִן הַמֵּת וְעַל אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי, וְעַל חֲצִי קַב עֲצָמוֹת וְעַל חֲצִי לֹג דָּם, עַל מַגָּעָן וְעַל מַשָּׂאָן וְעַל אָהֳלָן, וְעַל עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה, עַל מַגָּעוֹ וְעַל מַשָּׂאוֹ. עַל אֵלּוּ הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ וּמַזֶּה בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי, וְסוֹתֵר אֶת הַקּוֹדְמִין, וְאֵינוֹ מַתְחִיל לִמְנוֹת אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁיִּטְהַר וּמֵבִיא אֶת קָרְבְּנוֹתָיו: \n", 7.3. "אֲבָל הַסְּכָכוֹת, וְהַפְּרָעוֹת, וּבֵית הַפְּרָס, וְאֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים, וְהַגּוֹלֵל, וְהַדּוֹפֵק, וּרְבִיעִית דָּם, וְאֹהֶל, וְרֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת, וְכֵלִים הַנּוֹגְעִים בְּמֵת, וִימֵי סָפְרוֹ, וִימֵי גָמְרוֹ, עַל אֵלּוּ אֵין הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ, וּמַזֶּה בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי, וְאֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר אֶת הַקּוֹדְמִין, וּמַתְחִיל וּמוֹנֶה מִיָּד, וְקָרְבָּן אֵין לוֹ. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ, יְמֵי הַזָּב וְהַזָּבָה וִימֵי הֶסְגֵּרוֹ שֶׁל מְצֹרָע, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עוֹלִין לוֹ: \n", 7.4. "אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, כָּל טֻמְאָה מִן הַמֵּת שֶׁהַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ עָלֶיהָ, חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ. וְכָל טֻמְאָה מִן הַמֵּת שֶׁאֵין הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ עָלֶיהָ, אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, לֹא תְהֵא זוֹ קַלָּה מִן הַשֶּׁרֶץ. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דַּנְתִּי לִפְנֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מָה אִם עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אָדָם בְּאֹהֶל, הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ עַל מַגָּעוֹ וְעַל מַשָּׂאוֹ. רְבִיעִית דָּם שֶׁהוּא מְטַמֵּא אָדָם בְּאֹהֶל, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵא הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ עַל מַגָּעָהּ וְעַל מַשָּׂאָהּ. אָמַר לִי, מַה זֶה עֲקִיבָא, אֵין דָּנִין כָּאן מִקַּל וָחֹמֶר. וּכְשֶׁבָּאתִי וְהִרְצֵיתִי אֶת הַדְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אָמַר לִי, יָפֶה אָמַרְתָּ, אֶלָּא כֵּן אָמְרוּ הֲלָכָה: \n", | 2.8. "If his wife miscarries, he does not become a nazirite. Rabbi Shimon says: [in this case] he should say, “If it was a viable child, behold, I am a nazirite from obligation; otherwise behold, I am a voluntary nazirite.” If [his wife] later bears a child, he then becomes a nazirite. Rabbi Shimon says: he should say, “If the first was a viable child, the first [naziriteship] was obligatory, and this one is voluntary; otherwise, the first one was voluntary, and the present one is obligatory.”", 7.2. "For which types of defilement must the nazirite shave?For [defilement contracted from] a corpse, or an olive’s bulk of [the flesh of] a corpse, or an olive’s bulk of corpse ooze, or a ladleful of corpse-mould; Or the spinal column, or the skull, or any limb [severed] from a corpse, or any limb [severed] from a living body that is still properly covered with flesh, or a half-kav of bones, or a half-log of blood. Whether [the defilement was contracted] from contact with them, from carrying them, or from overshadowing them. For [defilement contracted from] a barley-grain’s bulk of bone, whether by contact or carrying. On account of these, a nazirite must shave and be sprinkled on the third and seventh days, and such [defilement] annuls the previously served period, and he does not begin to count a new [naziriteship] until he has become clean and brought his sacrifices.", 7.3. "But for [defilement contracted by] overhanging branches, or protruding stones, or a field that may have once been a cemetery, or land of the Gentiles, or the stone which covers the tomb or the supporting stone of a tomb, or a quarter-log of blood, or a tent, or a quarter-kav of bones, or utensils that have been in contact with a corpse, or on account of the days of counting [after contracting scale disease] or the days during which he is certified unclean [because of scale disease]; For all these the nazirite is not required to shave, but they do sprinkle him on the third and seventh [days], and [the defilement] does not annul the formerly served period, and he begins to resume counting [his naziriteship] immediately [after purification] and there is no sacrifice. In fact they said: the days of [defilement of] a male or female sufferer from gonorrhea and the days that a leper is shut up as a leper count toward his [naziriteship].", 7.4. "Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Joshua: for every defilement [conveyed] by a corpse on account of which a nazirite must shave, people are liable for entering the sanctuary, and for every defilement [conveyed] by a corpse on account of which a nazirite does not shave, people are not liable for one entering the sanctuary. Rabbi Meir said: such [defilement] should not be less serious than [defilement through] a dead creeping thing. Rabbi Akiba said: I argued in the presence of Rabbi Eliezer: Now if on account of a barley-corn’s bulk of bone which does not defile a man by overshadowing, a nazirite shaves should he touch it or carry it, then surely a quarter-log of blood which defiles a man by overshadowing, should cause a nazirite to shave should he touch it or carry it? He replied: What is this Akiva! We do not make here an ‘all the more so’ (a kal vehomer) argument. When I afterwards went and recounted these words to Rabbi Joshua, he said to me, “You spoke well, but thus they have ruled the halakhah.”", |
|
24. Mishnah, Negaim, 2.4-2.5, 3.1, 6.7-6.8, 7.1, 11.1, 11.11, 12.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 67, 134, 135, 207, 216, 222, 223, 226, 232| 2.4. "כֵּיצַד רְאִיַּת הַנֶּגַע. הָאִישׁ נִרְאֶה כְעוֹדֵר, וּכְמוֹסֵק זֵיתִים. הָאִשָּׁה כְּעוֹרֶכֶת וּכְמֵנִיקָה אֶת בְּנָהּ, כְּאוֹרֶגֶת בְּעוֹמְדִין לַשֶּׁחִי לַיָּד הַיְמָנִית. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף כְּטוֹוָה בְפִשְׁתָּן לַשְּׂמָאלִית. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּרְאֶה לְנִגְעוֹ, כָּךְ הוּא נִרְאֶה לְתִגְלַחְתּוֹ: \n", 2.5. "כָּל הַנְּגָעִים אָדָם רוֹאֶה, חוּץ מִנִּגְעֵי עַצְמוֹ. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אַף לֹא נִגְעֵי קְרוֹבָיו. כָּל הַנְּדָרִים אָדָם מַתִּיר, חוּץ מִנִּדְרֵי עַצְמוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף לֹא נִדְרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁבֵּינָהּ לְבֵין אֲחֵרִים. כָּל הַבְּכוֹרוֹת אָדָם רוֹאֶה, חוּץ מִבְּכוֹרוֹת עַצְמוֹ: \n", 3.1. "הַכֹּל מִטַּמְּאִין בַּנְּגָעִים, חוּץ מִן הַנָּכְרִים וְגֵר תּוֹשָׁב. הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִים לִרְאוֹת אֶת הַנְּגָעִים, אֶלָּא שֶׁהַטֻּמְאָה וְהַטָּהֳרָה בִידֵי כֹהֵן. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ אֱמֹר טָמֵא, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר טָמֵא. אֱמֹר טָהוֹר, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר טָהוֹר. אֵין רוֹאִים שְׁנֵי נְגָעִים כְּאֶחָד, בֵּין בְּאִישׁ אֶחָד וּבֵין בִּשְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים, אֶלָּא רוֹאֶה אֶת הָאֶחָד וּמַסְגִּירוֹ וּמַחְלִיטוֹ וּפוֹטְרוֹ, וְחוֹזֵר לַשֵּׁנִי. אֵין מַסְגִּירִין אֶת הַמֻּסְגָּר וְלֹא מַחְלִיטִין אֶת הַמֻּחְלָט. אֵין מַסְגִּירִין אֶת הַמֻּחְלָט, וְלֹא מַחְלִיטִין אֶת הַמֻּסְגָּר. אֲבָל בַּתְּחִלָּה, בְּסוֹף שָׁבוּעַ, הַמַּסְגִּיר מַסְגִּיר, וְהַמַּחְלִיט מַחְלִיט, מַסְגִּיר וּפוֹטֵר, מַחְלִיט וּפוֹטֵר: \n", 6.7. "עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִין בָּאָדָם שֶׁאֵינָן מִטַּמְּאִין מִשּׁוּם מִחְיָה, רָאשֵׁי אֶצְבְּעוֹת יָדַיִם וְרַגְלַיִם, וְרָאשֵׁי אָזְנַיִם, וְרֹאשׁ הַחֹטֶם, וְרֹאשׁ הַגְּוִיָּה, וְרָאשֵׁי הַדַּדִּים שֶׁבָּאִשָּׁה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף שֶׁל אִישׁ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אַף הַיַּבָּלוֹת וְהַדִּלְדּוּלִין אֵינָן מִטַּמְּאִין מִשּׁוּם מִחְיָה: \n", 6.8. "אֵלּוּ מְקוֹמוֹת בָּאָדָם שֶׁאֵינָן מִטַּמְּאִין בְּבַהֶרֶת, תּוֹךְ הָעַיִן, תּוֹךְ הָאֹזֶן, תּוֹךְ הַחֹטֶם, תּוֹךְ הַפֶּה, הַקְּמָטִין, וְהַקְּמָטִין שֶׁבַּצַּוָּאר, תַּחַת הַדַּד, וּבֵית הַשֶּׁחִי, כַּף הָרֶגֶל, וְהַצִּפֹּרֶן, הָרֹאשׁ, וְהַזָּקָן, הַשְּׁחִין וְהַמִּכְוָה וְהַקֶּדַח הַמּוֹרְדִין, אֵינָן מִטַּמְּאִין בַּנְּגָעִים, וְאֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִים בַּנְּגָעִים, וְאֵין הַנֶּגַע פּוֹשֶׂה לְתוֹכָן, וְאֵינָן מִטַּמְּאִין מִשּׁוּם מִחְיָה, וְאֵינָן מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַהוֹפֵךְ כֻּלּוֹ לָבָן. חָזַר הָרֹאשׁ וְהַזָּקָן וְנִקְרְחוּ, הַשְּׁחִין וְהַמִּכְוָה וְהַקֶּדַח וְנַעֲשׂוּ צָרֶבֶת, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִטַּמְּאִין בַּנְּגָעִים, וְאֵינָן מִצְטָרְפִין בַּנְּגָעִים, וְאֵין הַנֶּגַע פּוֹשֶׂה לְתוֹכָן, וְאֵינָן מִטַּמְּאִין מִשּׁוּם מִחְיָה, אֲבָל מְעַכְּבִין אֶת הַהוֹפֵךְ כֻּלּוֹ לָבָן. הָרֹאשׁ וְהַזָּקָן עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱלוּ שֵׂעָר, וְהַדִּלְדּוּלִין שֶׁבָּרֹאשׁ וְשֶׁבַּזָּקָן, נִדּוֹנִים כְּעוֹר הַבָּשָׂר: \n", 7.1. "אֵלּוּ בֶהָרוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת. שֶׁהָיוּ בוֹ קֹדֶם לְמַתַּן תּוֹרָה, בְּנָכְרִי וְנִתְגַּיֵּר, בְּקָטָן וְנוֹלַד, בְּקֶמֶט וְנִגְלָה, בָּרֹאשׁ וּבַזָּקָן, בַּשְּׁחִין וּבַמִּכְוָה וְקֶדַח וּבַמּוֹרְדִין. חָזַר הָרֹאשׁ וְהַזָּקָן וְנִקְרְחוּ, הַשְּׁחִין וְהַמִּכְוָה וְהַקֶּדַח וְנַעֲשׂוּ צָרֶבֶת, טְהוֹרִים. הָרֹאשׁ וְהַזָּקָן עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֶעֱלוּ שֵׂעָר, הֶעֱלוּ שֵׂעָר וְנִקְרְחוּ, הַשְּׁחִין וְהַמִּכְוָה וְהַקֶּדַח עַד שֶׁלֹּא נַעֲשׂוּ צָרֶבֶת, נַעֲשׂוּ צָרֶבֶת וְחָיוּ, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב מְטַמֵּא, שֶׁתְּחִלָּתָן וְסוֹפָן טָמֵא. וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִים: \n", 11.1. "כָּל הַבְּגָדִים מִטַּמְּאִין בַּנְּגָעִים, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל נָכְרִים. הַלּוֹקֵחַ בְּגָדִים מִן הַנָּכְרִים, יֵרָאוּ בַתְּחִלָּה. וְעוֹרוֹת הַיָּם אֵינָן מִטַּמְּאִין בַּנְּגָעִים. חִבֵּר לָהֶם מִן הַגָּדֵל בָּאָרֶץ, אֲפִלּוּ חוּט, אֲפִלּוּ מְשִׁיחָה, דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא מְקַבֵּל טֻמְאָה, טָמֵא: \n", 11.11. "כֹּל הָרָאוּי לִטַּמֵּא טְמֵא מֵת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִטַּמֵּא מִדְרָס, מִטַּמֵּא בַנְּגָעִים. כְּגוֹן קֶלַע שֶׁל סְפִינָה, וּוִילוֹן, וְשָׁבִיס שֶׁל סְבָכָה, וּמִטְפָּחוֹת שֶׁל סְפָרִים, וְגַלְגִּלּוֹן, וּרְצוּעוֹת מִנְעָל וְסַנְדָּל שֶׁיֶּשׁ בָּהֶן רֹחַב כַּגְּרִיס, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מִטַּמְּאִין בַּנְּגָעִים. סָגוֹס שֶׁנִּרְאָה בוֹ נֶגַע, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה בָאָרִיג וּבַמּוֹכִין. הַחֵמֶת וְהַתּוּרְמָל נִרְאִין כְּדַרְכָּן, וּפוֹשֶׂה מִתּוֹכוֹ לַאֲחוֹרָיו וּמֵאֲחוֹרָיו לְתוֹכוֹ: \n", 12.1. "כָּל הַבָּתִּים מִטַּמְּאִין בַּנְּגָעִים, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל נָכְרִים. הַלּוֹקֵחַ בָּתִּים מִן הַנָּכְרִים, יֵרָאוּ בַתְּחִלָּה. בַּיִת עָגֹל, בַּיִת טְרִיגוֹן, בַּיִת הַבָּנוּי בִּסְפִינָה אוֹ בְאַסְקַרְיָא, עַל אַרְבַּע קוֹרוֹת, אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא בַנְּגָעִים. וְאִם הָיָה מְרֻבָּע, אֲפִלּוּ עַל אַרְבָּעָה עַמּוּדִים, מִטַּמֵּא:", | 2.4. "What is [the posture] of examining negaim?A man is inspected in the posture of one that hoes or one that gathers olives. And a woman [is inspected in the posture] of one who is arranging dough and one who nurses her child, and one that weaves at an upright loom if the nega was in the right armpit. Rabbi Judah says: also in the posture of one that spins flax if it was within the left armpit. Just as [is the posture] for examining for the nega, so too [is the posture] for shaving hair.", 2.5. "All negaim may be examined by a person, except his own. Rabbi Meir ruled: not even the negaim of his relatives. All vows may be released by a person, except his own. Rabbi Judah says: not even those vows of his wife that affect relationships between her and others. All firstlings may be examined by a person, except his own firstlings.", 3.1. "Everyone can become impure from negaim, except for a non-Jew and a resident alien. All are qualified to inspect negaim, but only a priest may declare them unclean or clean. He is told, \"Say: 'unclean,'\" and he repeats \"unclean,\" or \"Say: 'clean,'\" and he repeats \"clean.\" Two negaim may not be inspected simultaneously whether in one man or in two men; rather he inspects one first and isolates him, certifies him as unclean or pronounces him clean, and then he inspects the second. One who is isolated may not be isolated again nor may one who is certified unclean be certified unclean again. One who is certified unclean may not be isolated nor may one who is isolated be certified unclean. But in the beginning, or at the end of a week, he may isolate on account of the one nega and isolate him on account of another one; he may certify him unclean on account of one sign and also certify him unclean on account of another sign; he may isolated the one sign and declare the other clean, or certify the one unclean and declare the other clean.", 6.7. "There are twenty-four tips of limbs in the human body that do not become unclean on account of quick flesh: the tips of the fingers and the toes, the tips of the ears, the tip of the nose, the tip of the penis; and also the nipples of a woman. Rabbi Judah says: also those of a man. Rabbi Eliezer says: also warts and warts with thin necks do not become unclean on account of quick flesh.", 6.8. "The following places in a person do not become unclean on account of a bright spot: the inside of the eye, the inside of the ear, the inside of the nose and the inside of the mouth, wrinkles, wrinkles in the neck, under the breast and the armpit, the sole of the foot, the nails, the head and the beard; and a boil, a burn and a blister that are festering. All these: Do not become unclean on account of negaim Do not combine with other negaim, A nega is not considered to spread into them, Do not become unclean on account of quick flesh, And they do not act to prevent a person from being considered to have turned completely white. If subsequently a bald spot arose in the head or beard, or if a boil, a burn or a blister formed a scar: They may become unclean by negaim, But they do not combine with other negaim, A nega is not considered to spread into them, And they do not become unclean on account of quick flesh. But they do act to prevent a person from being considered to have all turned white. The head and the beard before they have grown hair, and warts with thin necks on the head or the beard, are treated as the skin of the flesh.", 7.1. "The following bright spots are clean:Those that one had before the Torah was given, Those that a non-Jew had when he converted; Or a child when it was born, Or those that were in a crease and were subsequently uncovered. If they were on the head or the beard, on a boil, a burn or a blister that is festering, and subsequently the head or the beard became bald, and the boil, burn or blister turned into a scar, they are clean. If they were on the head or the beard before they grew hair, and they then grew hair and subsequently became bald, or if they were on the body before the boil, burn or blister before they were festering and then these formed a scar or were healed: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said that they are unclean since at the beginning and at the end they were unclean, But the sages say: they are clean.", 11.1. "All garments can contract the uncleanness of negaim except those of non-Jews. One who buys garments [with signs of negaim] from non-Jews they must be inspected as if the signs had then first appeared. The hides [of animals] of the sea do not contract the uncleanness of negaim. If one joined to them anything which grows on land, even if it is only a thread or a cord, as long as it is something that is susceptible to uncleanness, they also become susceptible to uncleanness.", 11.11. "Any object that is susceptible to corpse uncleanness, though not susceptible to midras uncleanness, is still susceptible to negaim uncleanness. For instance: the sail of a ship, a curtain, the forehead band of a hair-net, the wrappings of scrolls, a coiled belt, the straps of a shoe or sandal that are at least as wide as a split bean, Behold these are susceptible to the uncleanness of negaim. A thick cloak on which a nega appeared: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: unless it appears on the texture and on the stuffing. A skin bottle or a shepherd's leather wallet are inspected in the position in which they are used, and a nega may effectively spread from its inner side to its outer side and from its outer side to its inner side.", 12.1. "All houses may contract negaim uncleanness, except those of non-Jews. If one bought houses from non-Jews, any it must be inspected as if they had then first appeared. A round house, a triangular house, or a house built on a ship, on a raft or on four beams, is not susceptible to negaim uncleanness. But if it was four-sided, even if it was built on four pillars, it is susceptible to uncleanness.", |
|
25. Mishnah, Niddah, 1.2, 1.7, 2.1, 2.6-2.7, 3.2-3.7, 4.1-4.3, 5.1, 6.14, 7.3, 8.1-8.4, 9.1, 9.3-9.5, 10.3-10.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 207, 220, 223, 226, 227, 230, 232, 234| 1.2. "כֵּיצַד דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ. הָיְתָה יוֹשֶׁבֶת בַּמִּטָּה וַעֲסוּקָה בְטָהֳרוֹת, וּפֵרְשָׁה וְרָאֲתָה, הִיא טְמֵאָה וְכֻלָּן טְהוֹרוֹת. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ, מְטַמְּאָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת, אֵינָהּ מוֹנָה אֶלָּא מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁרָאָתָה: \n", 1.7. "אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ דַּיָּהּ שְׁעָתָהּ, צְרִיכָה לִהְיוֹת בּוֹדֶקֶת, חוּץ מִן הַנִּדָּה וְהַיּוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל דַּם טֹהַר. וּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בְּעִדִּים, חוּץ מִיּוֹשֶׁבֶת עַל דַּם טֹהַר, וּבְתוּלָה שֶׁדָּמֶיהָ טְהוֹרִים. וּפַעֲמַיִם צְרִיכָה לִהְיוֹת בּוֹדֶקֶת, בְּשַׁחֲרִית וּבֵין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהִיא עוֹבֶרֶת לְשַׁמֵּשׁ אֶת בֵּיתָהּ. יְתֵרָה עֲלֵיהֶן כֹּהֲנוֹת, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהֵן אוֹכְלוֹת בַּתְּרוּמָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף בִּשְׁעַת עֲבָרָתָן מִלֶּאֱכֹל בַּתְּרוּמָה: \n", 2.1. "כָּל הַיָּד הַמַּרְבָּה לִבְדֹּק בְּנָשִׁים, מְשֻׁבַּחַת. וּבַאֲנָשִׁים, תִּקָּצֵץ. הַחֵרֶשֶׁת וְהַשּׁוֹטָה וְהַסּוּמָא וְשֶׁנִּטְרְפָה דַעְתָּהּ, אִם יֶשׁ לָהֶן פִּקְחוֹת, מְתַקְּנוֹת אוֹתָן וְהֵן אוֹכְלוֹת בַּתְּרוּמָה. דֶּרֶךְ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל, מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת בִּשְׁנֵי עִדִּים, אֶחָד לוֹ וְאֶחָד לָהּ. הַצְּנוּעוֹת מְתַקְּנוֹת לָהֶן שְׁלִישִׁי, לְתַקֵּן אֶת הַבָּיִת: \n", 2.6. "חֲמִשָּׁה דָמִים טְמֵאִים בָּאִשָּׁה. הָאָדֹם, וְהַשָּׁחֹר, וּכְקֶרֶן כַּרְכּוֹם, וּכְמֵימֵי אֲדָמָה, וּכְמָזוּג. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אַף כְּמֵימֵי תִלְתָּן וּכְמֵימֵי בָשָׂר צָלִי. וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַהֲרִין. הַיָּרֹק, עֲקַבְיָא בֶן מַהֲלַלְאֵל מְטַמֵּא, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִים. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אִם אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם כֶּתֶם, מְטַמֵּא מִשּׁוּם מַשְׁקֶה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, לֹא כָךְ וְלֹא כָךְ: \n", 2.7. "אֵיזֶהוּ אָדֹם, כְּדַם הַמַּכָּה. שָׁחֹר, כַּחֶרֶת. עָמֹק מִכָּן, טָמֵא. דֵּהֶה מִכָּן, טָהוֹר. וּכְקֶרֶן כַּרְכּוֹם, כַּבָּרוּר שֶׁבּוֹ. וּכְמֵימֵי אֲדָמָה, מִבִּקְעַת בֵּית כֶּרֶם, וּמֵצִיף מָיִם. וּכְמָזוּג, שְׁנֵי חֲלָקִים מַיִם וְאֶחָד יַיִן, מִן הַיַּיִן הַשָּׁרוֹנִי: \n", 3.2. "הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין קְלִפָּה, כְּמִין שַׂעֲרָה, כְּמִין עָפָר, כְּמִין יַבְחוּשִׁים אֲדֻמִּים, תַּטִּיל לַמַּיִם. אִם נִמֹּחוּ, טְמֵאָה. וְאִם לָאו, טְהוֹרָה. הַמַּפֶּלֶת כְּמִין דָּגִים, חֲגָבִים, שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים, אִם יֵשׁ עִמָּהֶם דָּם, טְמֵאָה. וְאִם לָאו, טְהוֹרָה. הַמַּפֶּלֶת מִין בְּהֵמָה, חַיָּה וָעוֹף, בֵּין טְמֵאִין בֵּין טְהוֹרִים, אִם זָכָר, תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר. וְאִם נְקֵבָה, תֵּשֵׁב לִנְקֵבָה. וְאִם אֵין יָדוּעַ, תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, כֹּל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מִצּוּרַת אָדָם, אֵינוֹ וָלָד: \n", 3.3. "הַמַּפֶּלֶת שְׁפִיר מָלֵא מַיִם, מָלֵא דָם, מָלֵא גְנוּנִים, אֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְוָלָד. וְאִם הָיָה מְרֻקָּם, תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה: \n", 3.4. "הַמַּפֶּלֶת סַנְדָּל אוֹ שִׁלְיָא, תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה. שִׁלְיָא בַּבַּיִת, הַבַּיִת טָמֵא. לֹא שֶׁהַשִּׁלְיָא וָלָד, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין שִׁלְיָא בְלֹא וָלָד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, נִמּוֹק הַוָּלָד עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָצָא: \n", 3.5. "הַמַּפֶּלֶת טֻמְטוּם, וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה. טֻמְטוּם וְזָכָר, אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס וְזָכָר, תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה. טֻמְטוּם וּנְקֵבָה, אַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס וּנְקֵבָה, תֵּשֵׁב לִנְקֵבָה בִלְבָד. יָצָא מְחֻתָּךְ אוֹ מְסֹרָס, מִשֶּׁיָּצָא רֻבּוֹ, הֲרֵי הוּא כְיָלוּד. יָצָא כְדַרְכּוֹ, עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא רֹב רֹאשׁוֹ. וְאֵיזֶהוּ רֹב רֹאשׁוֹ, מִשֶּׁתֵּצֵא פַדַּחְתּוֹ: \n", 3.6. "הַמַּפֶּלֶת וְאֵין יָדוּעַ מַה הוּא, תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה. אֵין יָדוּעַ אִם וָלָד הָיָה אִם לָאו, תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה וּלְנִדָּה: \n", 3.7. "הַמַּפֶּלֶת לְיוֹם אַרְבָּעִים, אֵינָהּ חוֹשֶׁשֶׁת לְוָלָד. לְיוֹם אַרְבָּעִים וְאֶחָד, תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה וּלְנִדָּה. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, יוֹם אַרְבָּעִים וְאֶחָד, תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וּלְנִדָּה. יוֹם שְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד, תֵּשֵׁב לְזָכָר וְלִנְקֵבָה וּלְנִדָּה, שֶׁהַזָּכָר נִגְמָר לְאַרְבָּעִים וְאֶחָד, וְהַנְּקֵבָה לִשְׁמוֹנִים וְאֶחָד. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֶחָד בְּרִיַּת הַזָּכָר וְאֶחָד בְּרִיַּת הַנְּקֵבָה, זֶה וָזֶה לְאַרְבָּעִים וְאֶחָד: \n", 4.1. "בְּנוֹת כּוּתִים, נִדּוֹת מֵעֲרִיסָתָן. וְהַכּוּתִים מְטַמְּאִים מִשְׁכָּב תַּחְתּוֹן כָּעֶלְיוֹן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן בּוֹעֲלֵי נִדּוֹת, וְהֵן יוֹשְׁבוֹת עַל כָּל דָּם וָדָם. וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ, וְאֵין שׂוֹרְפִין עֲלֵיהֶם אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁטֻּמְאָתָן סָפֵק: \n", 4.2. "בְּנוֹת צְדוֹקִין, בִּזְמַן שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לָלֶכֶת בְּדַרְכֵי אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן, הֲרֵי הֵן כְּכוּתִיּוֹת. פֵּרְשׁוּ לָלֶכֶת בְּדַרְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, הֲרֵי הֵן כְּיִשְׂרְאֵלִית. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם הֵן כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, עַד שֶׁיִּפְרְשׁוּ לָלֶכֶת בְּדַרְכֵי אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן: \n", 4.3. "דַּם נָכְרִית וְדַם טָהֳרָה שֶׁל מְצֹרַעַת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַהֲרִים. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, כְּרֻקָּהּ וּכְמֵימֵי רַגְלֶיהָ. דַּם יוֹלֶדֶת שֶׁלֹּא טָבְלָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, כְּרֻקָּהּ וּכְמֵימֵי רַגְלֶיהָ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, מְטַמֵּא לַח וְיָבֵשׁ. וּמוֹדִים בְּיוֹלֶדֶת בְּזוֹב, שֶׁהִיא מְטַמְּאָה לַח וְיָבֵשׁ: \n", 5.1. "יוֹצֵא דֹפֶן, אֵין יוֹשְׁבִין עָלָיו יְמֵי טֻמְאָה וִימֵי טָהֳרָה, וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו קָרְבָּן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, הֲרֵי זֶה כְיָלוּד. כָּל הַנָּשִׁים מִטַּמְּאוֹת בַּבַּיִת הַחִיצוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא ט״ו:י״ט), דָּם יִהְיֶה זֹבָהּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ. אֲבָל הַזָּב וּבַעַל קֶרִי, אֵינָן מִטַּמְּאִים, עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא טֻמְאָתָן לַחוּץ:", 6.14. "הָרוֹאָה יוֹם אַחַד עָשָׂר בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת, תְּחִלַּת נִדָּה וְסוֹף נִדָּה, תְּחִלַּת זִיבָה וְסוֹף זִיבָה, יוֹם אַרְבָּעִים לַזָּכָר וְיוֹם שְׁמוֹנִים לַנְּקֵבָה, בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת לְכֻלָּן, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ טוֹעוֹת. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, עַד שֶׁאַתֶּם מְתַקְּנִים אֶת הַשּׁוֹטוֹת, תַּקְּנוּ אֶת הַפִּקְחוֹת: \n", 7.3. "כָּל הַכְּתָמִין הַבָּאִים מֵרֶקֶם, טְהוֹרִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְטַמֵּא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵם גֵּרִים וְטוֹעִין. הַבָּאִין מִבֵּין הַגּוֹיִם, טְהוֹרִין. מִבֵּין יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִבֵּין הַכּוּתִים, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַמֵּא. וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלֹּא נֶחְשְׁדוּ עַל כִּתְמֵיהֶן: \n", 8.1. "הָרוֹאָה כֶתֶם עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתֻּרְפָּה טְמֵאָה. וְשֶׁלֹּא כְנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתֻּרְפָּה, טְהוֹרָה. עַל עֲקֵבָהּ וְעַל רֹאשׁ גּוּדָלָהּ, טְמֵאָה. עַל שׁוֹקָהּ וְעַל פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ, מִבִּפְנִים, טְמֵאָה. מִבַּחוּץ, טְהוֹרָה. וְעַל הַצְּדָדִין מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן, טְהוֹרָה. רָאֲתָה עַל חֲלוּקָהּ, מִן הַחֲגוֹר וּלְמַטָּה, טְמֵאָה. מִן הַחֲגוֹר וּלְמַעְלָה, טְהוֹרָה. רָאֲתָה עַל בֵּית יָד שֶׁל חָלוּק, אִם מַגִּיעַ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתֻּרְפָּה, טְמֵאָה. וְאִם לָאו, טְהוֹרָה. הָיְתָה פוֹשַׁטְתּוֹ וּמִתְכַּסָּה בוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה, כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּמְצָא בוֹ כֶתֶם, טְמֵאָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא חוֹזֵר. וְכֵן בַּפַּלְיוֹם: \n", 8.2. "וְתוֹלָה בְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁהִיא יְכוֹלָה לִתְלוֹת. שָׁחֲטָה בְהֵמָה, חַיָּה וָעוֹף, נִתְעַסְּקָה בִכְתָמִים אוֹ שֶׁיָּשְׁבָה בְצַד הָעֲסוּקִים בָּהֶן, הָרְגָה מַאֲכֹלֶת, הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלָה בָהּ. עַד כַּמָּה הִיא תוֹלָה. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר, עַד כַּגְּרִיס שֶׁל פּוֹל, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָרְגָה. וְתוֹלָה בִבְנָהּ אוֹ בְּבַעְלָהּ. אִם יֶשׁ בָּהּ מַכָּה וְהִיא יְכוֹלָה לְהִגָּלַע וּלְהוֹצִיא דָם, הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלָה בָהּ: \n", 8.3. "מַעֲשֶׂה בְאִשָּׁה אַחַת שֶׁבָּאת לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אָמְרָה לוֹ, רָאִיתִי כָתֶם. אָמַר לָהּ, שֶׁמָּא מַכָּה הָיְתָה בִיךְ. אָמְרָה לוֹ, הֵן, וְחָיְתָה. אָמַר לָהּ, שֶׁמָּא יְכוֹלָה לְהִגָּלַע וּלְהוֹצִיא דָם. אָמְרָה לוֹ, הֵן. וְטִהֲרָהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רָאָה תַלְמִידָיו מִסְתַּכְּלִין זֶה בָזֶה. אָמַר לָהֶם, מַה הַדָּבָר קָשֶׁה בְעֵינֵיכֶם. שֶׁלֹּא אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים הַדָּבָר לְהַחְמִיר אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא טו), וְאִשָּׁה כִּי תִהְיֶה זָבָה דָּם יִהְיֶה זֹבָהּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ, דָּם וְלֹא כָתֶם: \n", 8.4. "עֵד שֶׁהוּא נָתוּן תַּחַת הַכַּר וְנִמְצָא עָלָיו דָּם, עָגֹל, טָהוֹר. מָשׁוּךְ, טָמֵא, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר רַבִּי צָדוֹק: \n", 9.1. "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה צְרָכֶיהָ וְרָאֲתָה דָם, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אִם עוֹמֶדֶת, טְמֵאָה. וְאִם יוֹשֶׁבֶת, טְהוֹרָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ, טְהוֹרָה: \n", 9.3. "הִשְׁאִילָה חֲלוּקָהּ לְנָכְרִית אוֹ לְנִדָּה, הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלָה בָהּ. שָׁלשׁ נָשִׁים שֶׁלָּבְשׁוּ חָלוּק אֶחָד אוֹ שֶׁיָּשְׁבוּ עַל סַפְסָל אֶחָד, וְנִמְצָא עָלָיו דָּם, כֻּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת. יָשְׁבוּ עַל סַפְסָל שֶׁל אֶבֶן אוֹ עַל הָאִצְטַבָּא שֶׁל מֶרְחָץ, רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה מְטַהֵר, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר, כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל טֻמְאָה, אֵינוֹ מְקַבֵּל כְּתָמִים: \n", 9.4. "שָׁלשׁ נָשִׁים שֶׁהָיוּ יְשֵׁנוֹת בְּמִטָּה אַחַת וְנִמְצָא דָם תַּחַת אַחַת מֵהֶן, כֻּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת. בָּדְקָה אַחַת מֵהֶן וְנִמְצֵאת טְמֵאָה, הִיא טְמֵאָה וּשְׁתֵּיהֶן טְהוֹרוֹת, וְתוֹלוֹת זוֹ בָזוֹ. וְאִם לֹא הָיוּ רְאוּיוֹת לִרְאוֹת, רוֹאִין אוֹתָן כְּאִלּוּ הֵן רְאוּיוֹת: \n", 9.5. "שָׁלשׁ נָשִׁים שֶׁהָיוּ יְשֵׁנוֹת בְּמִטָּה אַחַת וְנִמְצָא דָם תַּחַת הָאֶמְצָעִית, כֻּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת. תַּחַת הַפְּנִימִית, שְׁתַּיִם הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת טְמֵאוֹת וְהַחִיצוֹנָה טְהוֹרָה. תַּחַת הַחִיצוֹנָה, שְׁתַּיִם הַחִיצוֹנוֹת טְמֵאוֹת וְהַפְּנִימִית טְהוֹרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁעָבְרוּ דֶרֶךְ מַרְגְּלוֹת הַמִּטָּה. אֲבָל אִם עָבְרוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן דֶּרֶךְ עָלֶיהָ, כֻּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת. בָּדְקָה אַחַת מֵהֶן וְנִמְצֵאת טְהוֹרָה, הִיא טְהוֹרָה וּשְׁתַּיִם טְמֵאוֹת. בָּדְקוּ שְׁתַּיִם וּמָצְאוּ טְהוֹרוֹת, הֵן טְהוֹרוֹת וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁית טְמֵאָה. שְׁלָשְׁתָּן וּמָצְאוּ טְהוֹרוֹת, כֻּלָּן טְמֵאוֹת. לְמַה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה, לְגַל טָמֵא שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בֵּין שְׁנֵי גַלִּים טְהוֹרִים, וּבָדְקוּ אַחַד מֵהֶן וּמָצְאוּ טָהוֹר, הוּא טָהוֹר וּשְׁנַיִם טְמֵאִין. שְׁנַיִם וּמָצְאוּ טְהוֹרִים, הֵם טְהוֹרִים וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי טָמֵא. שְׁלָשְׁתָּן וּמָצְאוּ טְהוֹרִים, כֻּלָּן טְמֵאִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא בְחֶזְקַת טֻמְאָה, לְעוֹלָם הוּא בְטֻמְאָתוֹ, עַד שֶׁיִּוָּדַע לְךָ, טֻמְאָה הֵיכָן הִיא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בּוֹדֵק עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לְסֶלַע אוֹ לִבְתוּלָה: \n", 10.3. "הַזָּב וְהַזָּבָה שֶׁבָּדְקוּ עַצְמָן בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן וּמָצְאוּ טָהוֹר, וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וּמָצְאוּ טָהוֹר, וּשְׁאָר יָמִים שֶׁבֵּינְתַיִם לֹא בָדְקוּ, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, הֲרֵי הֵן בְּחֶזְקַת טָהֳרָה. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, אֵין לָהֶם אֶלָּא יוֹם רִאשׁוֹן וְיוֹם שְׁבִיעִי בִלְבָד. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֵין לָהֶם אֶלָּא יוֹם שְׁבִיעִי בִלְבָד: \n", 10.4. "הַזָּב וְהַזָּבָה וְהַנִּדָּה וְהַיּוֹלֶדֶת וְהַמְצֹרָע שֶׁמֵּתוּ, מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַשָּׂא עַד שֶׁיִּמֹּק הַבָּשָׂר. נָכְרִי שֶׁמֵּת, טָהוֹר מִלְּטַמֵּא בְמַשָּׂא. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, כָּל הַנָּשִׁים מֵתוֹת נִדּוֹת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵין נִדָּה אֶלָּא שֶׁמֵּתָה נִדָּה: \n", | 1.2. "How [does the rule that] it suffices [to reckon her period of uncleanness from] the time she discovers the flow work? If she was sitting on a bed and was occupied with ritually clean objects and then she leaves [the bed] and then sees [blood flow] she is unclean but the objects are clean. Even though they have said that she conveys uncleanness for a period of twenty-four hours [retroactively] she counts [the seven days of her menstruation] only from the time she observed the flow.", 1.7. "Although though they said [that for a woman who has a regular period] it suffices to reckon her period of uncleanness from the time she observes a flow, she should nevertheless examine herself [regularly], except for a menstruant or one who is sitting over pure blood. She should also use testing-rags when she has marital intercourse except when she is sitting over pure blood or when she is a virgin whose blood is clean. And twice [daily] she should examine herself: in the morning and at the [evening] twilight, and also when she is about to have sexual relations. Priestly women are subject to an additional restriction [for they should examine themselves] when they are going to eat terumah. Rabbi Judah said: [these must examine themselves] also after they have concluded eating terumah.", 2.1. "Every hand that makes frequent examination: In the case of women is praiseworthy, But in the case of men it ought to be cut off. In the case of a deaf, an person not of sound senses, a blind or an insane woman, if other women of sound senses are available they attend to her, and they may eat terumah. It is the custom of the daughters of Israel to have intercourse using two testing-rags, one for the man and the other for herself. Virtuous women prepare also a third rag to prepare the \"house\" [before intercourse].", 2.6. "Five kinds of blood in a woman are unclean: red, black, like bright crocus, like earthy water, or like diluted wine. Bet Shammai says: also like fenugreek water or the juice of roasted meat. But Bet Hillel declares these clean. One that is yellow: Akavia ben Mahalalel declares unclean And the sages declare clean. Rabbi Meir said: even if it does not convey uncleanness as a bloodstain it conveys uncleanness as a liquid. Rabbi Yose says: it does neither the one nor the other.", 2.7. "What is considered red? Like the red of a wound. Black: Like ink-sediment. Darker than this is impure. Lighter than this is pure. Like bright crocus: like the clearest shade in it. Like earthy water: from the Bet Kerem valley, when water floats over it. Like diluted wine: two parts water, one part wine, from wine of the Sharon.", 3.2. "If a woman miscarried an object that was like a rind, like a hair, like earth, like red flies, let her put it in water: If it dissolves she is unclean, But if it does not she is clean. If she miscarried an object in the shape of fishes, locusts, or any forbidden things or creeping things: If there was blood with them she is unclean, If not, she is clean. If she miscarried an object in the shape of a beast, a wild animal or a bird, whether clean or unclean: If it was a male she sits in uncleanness as she would for a male; And if it was a female she sits in uncleanness as she would for a female. But if the sex is unknown she sits in uncleanness for both male and female, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: anything that has not the shape of a human being cannot be regarded as a human child.", 3.3. "If a woman aborted a sac full of water, full of blood, or full of pieces of flesh, she need not be concerned that it was a birth. But if its limbs were fashioned she must sit for both male and female.", 3.4. "If she aborted a sandal or a placenta she sits in uncleanness for both male and female. If a placenta is in a house, the house is unclean, not because a placenta is a fetus but because generally there can be no placenta without a fetus. Rabbi Shimon says: the child might have been mashed before it came out.", 3.5. "If a woman aborted a tumtum or an androginos, she must sit for a male and a female. [If she gave birth] to a tumtum and a male, or to an androginos and a male, she must sit for a male and a female. [If she gave birth] to a tumtum and a female or an androginos and a female, she must sit only for a female. If the embryo came out in pieces or in a reversed position it is deemed born as soon as its greater part come out. If it came out in the normal way [it is not deemed born] until the greater part of its head came out. And what is meant by the \"greater part of its head\"? Once the forehead comes out.", 3.6. "If a woman miscarried and it is unknown what it was, she sits for both a male child and a female child. If it is unknown whether it was a child or not, she sits for both a male and a female and as a menstruant.", 3.7. "If a woman miscarried on the fortieth day, she need not be concerned that it was a valid childbirth. On the forty-first day, she sits as for both a male and a female and as for a menstruant. Rabbi Ishmael says: [if she miscarried on] the forty-first day she sits as for a male and as for a menstruant, But if on the eighty-first day she sits as for a male and a female and a menstruant, because a male is fully fashioned on the forty-first day and a female on the eighty-first day. But the sages say: the fashioning of the male and the fashioning of the female both take forty-one days.", 4.1. "The daughters of the Samaritans are regarded as menstruants from their cradle. And Samaritans impart uncleanness to a couch underneath as to a cover above, since they have intercourse with menstruants, because [their wives] sit [unclean for seven days] on account of any blood. However, on account of their [uncleanness] no obligation is incurred for entrance into the Temple nor is terumah burned on their account, since their uncleanness is only of a doubtful nature.", 4.2. "The daughters of the Sadducees, so long as they are accustomed to walking in the paths of their fathers, are to be regarded as Samaritan women. If they left those paths to walk in the paths of Israel, they are to be regarded as Israelite women. Rabbi Yose says: they are always regarded as Israelite women unless they leave the paths of Israel to walk in the paths of their fathers.", 4.3. "The blood of a Gentile and the clean blood of a metzoraat (a woman with scale disease): Bet Shammai declares clean. And Bet Hillel holds that it is like her spittle or her urine. The blood of a woman after childbirth who did not immerse [in a mikveh]: Bet Shammai says it is like her spittle or her urine, But Bet Hillel says: it conveys uncleanness both when wet and when dry. They agree that if she gave birth while in zivah, it conveys uncleanness both when wet and when dry.", 5.1. "For a fetus born from its mother's side, she does not sit the prescribed days of uncleanness nor the days of cleanness, nor does one incur on its account the obligation to bring a sacrifice. Rabbi Shimon says: it is regarded as a regular birth. All women are subject to uncleanness [as soon as the blood appears] in the outer chamber, as it says, \"her discharge being blood in her body\" (Leviticus 15:19). But a zav and one who emitted semen convey no uncleanness unless the discharge came out of the body.", 6.14. "If a woman observed [a discharge of blood] on the eleventh day at twilight, at the beginning of a menstruation period and at the end of a menstruation period, at the beginning of a zivah period and at the end of a zivah period; On the fortieth day after the birth of a male or on the eightieth day after the birth of a female, At twilight in all these cases, behold these women have made a mistake [in their reckoning]. Rabbi Joshua said: before you fix the situation for the women who lack intelligence, come and fix the situation for the wise ones.", 7.3. "All bloodstains that come from Rekem are clean. Rabbi Judah declares them unclean, because the people who live there are proselytes though misguided. Those that come from non-Jews are clean. Those that come from Israelites or from Samaritans: Rabbi Meir declares them unclean, But the sages declare them clean because they are not suspected in regard to their stains.", 8.1. "If a woman observed a bloodstain on her body: If it was opposite her genital area she is unclean; But if it was not near the genital are she remains clean. If it was on her heel or on the tip of her large toe, she is unclean. On her thigh or on her feet: If on the inner side, she is unclean; If on their outer side, she remains clean. And if on the front and back sides she remains clean. If she observed it on her garment: Below the belt, she is unclean, But if above the belt, she remains clean. If she observed it on the sleeve of her shirt: If it can reach as low as her genital area, she is unclean, But if it cannot, she remains clean. If she takes it off and covers herself with it in the night, she is unclean wherever the stain is found, since it can turn about. And the same law applies to a pallium.", 8.2. "[A woman] may attribute [a bloodstain] to any [external] cause to which she can possibly attribute it. If [for instance] she had slaughtered a beast, a wild animal or a bird, Or if she was handling bloodstains or if she sat beside those who handled them. Or if she killed a louse, she may attribute the bloodstain to it. How large a stain may be attributed to a louse? Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: one up to the size of a split bean; And even if she did not kill it. She may also attribute it to her son or to her husband. If she herself had a wound that could open again and bleed she may attribute it to it.", 8.3. "It happened that a woman came in front of Rabbi Akiva and said. She said to him: I have seen a bloodstain. He said to her: Perhaps you had a wound? She said to him: Yes, but it has healed. He said to her: Perhaps it could have opened again and let out some blood.\" She said to him: Yes. And Rabbi Akiva declared her clean. He saw his disciples looked at each other in astonishment. He said to them: Why do you find this difficult, for the sages did not say this rule in order to be stringent but rather to be lenient, for it is said, \"And if a woman have issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood\" blood but not a bloodstain.", 8.4. "A testing rag that was placed under a pillow and some blood was found: If it is round it is clean If it is elongated it is unclean, the words of Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok.", 9.1. "A woman who was attending to her needs and observed an issue of blood: Rabbi Meir says: if she was standing she is unclean but if she was sitting she remains clean. Rabbi Yose says: in either case she is clean.", 9.3. "If she lent her shirt to a non-Jewish woman or to a menstruant she may attribute a stain to either. If three women had worn the same shirt or had sat on the same wooden bench and subsequently blood was found on it, all are regarded as unclean. If they had sat on a stone bench or on the projection within the colonnade of a bath House: Rabbi Nehemiah says that they are clean, for Rabbi Nehemiah says: anything that is not susceptible to uncleanness is not susceptible to stains.", 9.4. "Three women who were sleeping in one bed and blood was found under one of them, they are all unclean. If one of them examined herself and was found to be unclean, she alone is unclean while the two others are clean, [for] they may attribute the blood to one another. And if they were [all] not likely to observe blood, they must be regarded as though they were likely to observe one.", 9.5. "If three women slept in one bed, and blood was found under the middle one, they are all unclean. If it was found under the inner one, the two inner ones are unclean while the outer one is clean. If it was found under the outer one, the two outer ones are unclean while the inner one is clean. Rabbi Judah said: when is this so? When they passed by way of the foot of the bed, but if they passed across it, they are all unclean. If one of them examined herself and was found clean, she remains clean while the two others are unclean. If two examined themselves and were found to be clean they remain clean while the third is unclean. If the three examined themselves and were found to be clean, they are all unclean. To what may this be compared? To an unclean heap that was mixed up with two clean heaps: If they examined one of them and found it to be clean, it is clean while the two others are unclean; If they examined two of the heaps and found them to be clean, they are clean while the third one is unclean; And if they examined the three and they were all found to be clean, they are all unclean, the words of Rabbi Meir, For Rabbi Meir used to say: any object that is presumed to be unclean remains unclean until it is known to you where the uncleanness is. But the sages say: one continues the examination of the heap until one reaches bedrock or virgin soil.", 10.3. "If a zav or a zavah examined themselves on the first day and found themselves clean and on the seventh day and found themselves clean, but did not examine themselves during the other intervening, days: Rabbi Eliezer says: they are in a presumptive condition of cleanness. Rabbi Joshua says: they are entitled [to count as clean] only the first day and the seventh day. Rabbi Akiva says: they are entitled to reckon as clean the seventh day alone.", 10.4. "If a zav, a zavah, a niddah, a woman after childbirth or a metzora have died [their corpses] they convey uncleanness by being carried until the flesh has decayed. If a non-Jew has died he does not convey uncleanness. Bet Shammai says: all women die as niddot. But Bet Hillel says: a woman is not regarded as a niddah unless she died while she was in menstruation.", |
|
26. Mishnah, Oholot, 1.1-1.5, 2.1-2.3, 2.5-2.6, 3.6, 5.5, 6.1, 11.3, 16.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 209, 211, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 232| 1.1. "שְׁנַיִם טְמֵאִים בְּמֵת, אֶחָד טָמֵא טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה וְאֶחָד טָמֵא טֻמְאַת עָרֶב. שְׁלשָׁה טְמֵאִין בְּמֵת, שְׁנַיִם טְמֵאִין טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה וְאֶחָד טָמֵא טֻמְאַת עָרֶב. אַרְבָּעָה טְמֵאִין בְּמֵת, שְׁלשָׁה טְמֵאִין טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה וְאֶחָד טָמֵא טֻמְאַת עָרֶב. כֵּיצַד שְׁנַיִם. אָדָם הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּמֵת, טָמֵא טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה. וְאָדָם הַנּוֹגֵע בּוֹ, טָמֵא טֻמְאַת עָרֶב: \n", 1.2. "כֵּיצַד שְׁלשָׁה. כֵּלִים הַנּוֹגְעִים בְּמֵת, וְכֵלִים בַּכֵּלִים, טְמֵאִין טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה. הַשְּׁלִישִׁי, בֵּין אָדָם וּבֵין כֵּלִים, טְמֵאִין טֻמְאַת עָרֶב: \n", 1.3. "כֵּיצַד אַרְבָּעָה. כֵּלִים נוֹגְעִין בְּמֵת, וְאָדָם בַּכֵּלִים, וְכֵלִים בָּאָדָם, טְמֵאִין טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה. הָרְבִיעִי, בֵּין אָדָם בֵּין כֵּלִים, טָמֵא טֻמְאַת עָרֶב. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, יֶשׁ לִי חֲמִישִׁי, הַשַּׁפּוּד הַתָּחוּב בָּאֹהֶל, הָאֹהֶל וְהַשַּׁפּוּד וְאָדָם הַנּוֹגֵעַ בַּשַּׁפּוּד וְכֵלִים בָּאָדָם, טְמֵאִין טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה. הַחֲמִישִׁי, בֵּין אָדָם בֵּין כֵּלִים, טָמֵא טֻמְאַת עָרֶב. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵין הָאֹהֶל מִתְחַשֵּׁב: \n", 1.4. "אָדָם וְכֵלִים מִטַּמְּאִין בְּמֵת. חֹמֶר בָּאָדָם מִבַּכֵּלִים וְכֵלִים מִבָּאָדָם. שֶׁהַכֵּלִים שְׁלשָׁה וְהָאָדָם שְׁנָיִם. חֹמֶר בָּאָדָם, שֶׁכָּל זְמַן שֶׁהוּא בָאֶמְצַע, הֵן אַרְבָּעָה. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ בָאֶמְצַע, הֵן שְׁלשָׁה: \n", 1.5. "אָדָם וּבְגָדִים מִטַּמְּאִים בְּזָב. חֹמֶר בָּאָדָם מִבַּבְּגָדִים, וּבַבְּגָדִים מִבָּאָדָם. שֶׁהָאָדָם הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּזָב מְטַמֵּא בְגָדִים, וְאֵין בְּגָדִים הַנּוֹגְעִין בְּזָב מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים. חֹמֶר בַּבְּגָדִים, שֶׁהַבְּגָדִים הַנּוֹשְׂאִין אֶת הַזָּב מְטַמְּאִין אָדָם, וְאֵין אָדָם הַנּוֹשֵׂא אֶת הַזָּב מְטַמֵּא אָדָם: \n", 2.1. "אֵלּוּ מְטַמְּאִין בְּאֹהֶל. הַמֵּת, וְכַזַּיִת מִן הַמֵּת, וְכַזַּיִת נֶצֶל, וּמְלֹא תַרְוָד רָקָב, הַשִּׁדְרָה, וְהַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת, אֵבָר מִן הַמֵּת וְאֵבָר מִן הַחַי שֶׁיֵּשׁ עֲלֵיהֶן בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי, רֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת מֵרֹב הַבִּנְיָן אוֹ מֵרֹב הַמִּנְיָן. וְרֹב בִּנְיָנוֹ וְרֹב מִנְיָנוֹ שֶׁל מֵת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם רֹבַע, טְמֵאִין. כַּמָּה הוּא רֹב מִנְיָנוֹ, מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים וַחֲמִשָּׁה: \n", 2.2. "רְבִיעִית דָּם, וּרְבִיעִית דַּם תְּבוּסָה מִמֵּת אֶחָד. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, מִשְּׁנֵי מֵתִים. דַּם קָטָן שֶׁיָּצָא כֻלּוֹ, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, כָּל שֶׁהוּא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, רְבִיעִית. כַּזַּיִת רִמָּה, בֵּין חַיָּה בֵּין מֵתָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַמֵּא כִבְשָׂרוֹ, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִים. אֵפֶר שְׂרוּפִים, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, שִׁעוּרוֹ בְרֹבַע, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין. מְלֹא תַרְוָד וְעוֹד עֲפַר קְבָרוֹת, טָמֵא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר. מְלֹא תַרְוָד רָקָב שֶׁגְּבָלוֹ בְמַיִם, אֵינוֹ חִבּוּר לְטֻמְאָה: \n", 2.3. "אֵלּוּ מְטַמְּאִין בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא וְאֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין בְּאֹהֶל. עֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה, וְאֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים, וּבֵית הַפְּרָס, אֵבָר מִן הַמֵּת, וְאֵבָר מִן הַחַי שֶׁאֵין עֲלֵיהֶן בָּשָׂר כָּרָאוּי, הַשִּׁדְרָה וְהַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת שֶׁחָסָרוּ. כַּמָּה הוּא חֶסְרוֹן בַּשִּׁדְרָה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, שְׁתֵּי חֻלְיוֹת. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֲפִלּוּ חֻלְיָה אֶחָת. וּבַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, כִּמְלֹא מַקְדֵּחַ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּנָּטֵל מִן הַחַי וְיָמוּת. בְּאֵיזֶה מַקְדֵּחַ אָמְרוּ, בַּקָּטָן שֶׁל רוֹפְאִים, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בַּגָּדוֹל שֶׁל לִשְׁכָּה: \n", 2.5. "אֵלּוּ שֶׁאִם חָסְרוּ טְהוֹרִין. כַּזַּיִת מִן הַמֵּת, וְכַזַּיִת נֶצֶל, וּמְלֹא תַרְוָד רָקָב, וּרְבִיעִית דָּם, וְעֶצֶם כַּשְּׂעֹרָה, וְאֵבָר מִן הַחַי שֶׁחָסַר עַצְמוֹ: \n", 2.6. "הַשִּׁדְרָה וְהַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת מִשְּׁנֵי מֵתִים, וּרְבִיעִית דָּם מִשְּׁנֵי מֵתִים, וְרֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת מִשְּׁנֵי מֵתִים, וְאֵבָר מִן הַמֵּת מִשְּׁנֵי מֵתִים, וְאֵבָר מִן הַחַי מִשְּׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְטַמֵּא, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין: \n", 3.6. "כַּזַּיִת מִן הַמֵּת, פִּתְחוֹ בְטֶפַח, וְהַמֵּת, פִּתְחוֹ בְאַרְבָּעָה טְפָחִים, לְהַצִּיל הַטֻּמְאָה עַל הַפְּתָחִים. אֲבָל לְהוֹצִיא הַטֻּמְאָה, בְּפוֹתֵחַ טֶפַח. גָּדוֹל מִכַּזַּיִת, כַּמֵּת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, הַשִּׁדְרָה וְהַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת, כַּמֵּת: \n", 5.5. "הָיוּ כְלֵי גְלָלִים, כְּלֵי אֲבָנִים, כְּלֵי אֲדָמָה, הַכֹּל טָהוֹר. הָיָה כְלִי טָהוֹר לַקֹּדֶשׁ וְלַחַטָּאת, הַכֹּל טָהוֹר, שֶׁהַכֹּל נֶאֱמָנִין עַל הַחַטָּאת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַכֵּלִים טְהוֹרִין וּכְלֵי חֶרֶס טְהוֹרִין וּמַצִּילִין עִם דָּפְנוֹת אֹהָלִים: \n", 6.1. "אָדָם וְכֵלִים נַעֲשִׂין אֹהָלִין לְטַמֵּא, אֲבָל לֹא לְטַהֵר. כֵּיצַד. אַרְבָּעָה נוֹשְׂאִין אֶת הַנִּדְבָּךְ, טֻמְאָה תַחְתָּיו, כֵּלִים שֶׁעַל גַּבָּיו טְמֵאִין. טֻמְאָה עַל גַּבָּיו, כֵּלִים שֶׁתַּחְתָּיו טְמֵאִים. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַהֵר. נָתוּן עַל אַרְבָּעָה כֵלִים, אֲפִלּוּ כְלֵי גְלָלִים, כְּלֵי אֲבָנִים, כְּלֵי אֲדָמָה, טֻמְאָה תַחְתָּיו, כֵּלִים שֶׁעַל גַּבָּיו טְמֵאִים. טֻמְאָה עַל גַּבָּיו, כֵּלִים שֶׁתַּחְתָּיו טְמֵאִים. נָתוּן עַל אַרְבָּעָה אֲבָנִים, אוֹ עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים, טֻמְאָה תַחְתָּיו, כֵּלִים שֶׁעַל גַּבָּיו טְהוֹרִין. טֻמְאָה עַל גַּבָּיו, כֵּלִים שֶׁתַּחְתָּיו טְהוֹרִין: \n", 11.3. "סָגוֹס עָבֶה וְכֹפֶת עָבֶה אֵינָן מְבִיאִין אֶת הַטֻּמְאָה עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ גְבוֹהִים מִן הָאָרֶץ פּוֹתֵחַ טֶפַח. קְפוּלִים, זוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי זוֹ, אֵינָן מְבִיאוֹת אֶת הַטֻּמְאָה עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא הָעֶלְיוֹנָה גְבוֹהָה מִן הָאָרֶץ פּוֹתֵחַ טֶפַח. הָיָה אָדָם נָתוּן שָׁם, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא אֶת הַטֻּמְאָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אָדָם חָלוּל הוּא, וְהַצַּד הָעֶלְיוֹן מֵבִיא אֶת הַטֻּמְאָה: \n", 16.1. "כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין מְבִיאִין אֶת הַטֻּמְאָה כָּעֳבִי הַמַּרְדֵּעַ. אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, אֲקַפַּח אֶת בָּנַי שֶׁזּוֹ הֲלָכָה מְקֻפַּחַת, שֶׁשָּׁמַע הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ, וְטָעָה, שֶׁהָאִכָּר עוֹבֵר וְהַמַּרְדֵּעַ עַל כְּתֵפוֹ, וְהֶאֱהִיל צִדּוֹ אֶחָד עַל הַקֶּבֶר, וְטִמְּאוּהוּ מִשּׁוּם כֵּלִים הַמַּאֲהִילִים עַל הַמֵּת. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אֲנִי אֲתַקֵּן שֶׁיְּהוּ דִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים קַיָּמִין, שֶׁיְּהוּ כָל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין מְבִיאִין אֶת הַטֻּמְאָה עַל אָדָם הַנּוֹשְׂאָן בָּעֳבִי הַמַּרְדֵּעַ, וְעַל עַצְמָן בְּכָל שֶׁהֵן, וְעַל שְׁאָר אָדָם וְכֵלִים בְּפוֹתֵחַ טָפַח: \n", | 1.1. "Two are defiled through a corpse, one being defiled with seven days' defilement and one being defiled with a defilement lasting until the evening. Three are defiled through a corpse, two being defiled with seven days’ defilement and one with a defilement lasting until the evening. Four are defiled through a corpse, three being defiled with seven days’ defilement and one with a defilement lasting until the evening. What [is the case of] two? A person who touches a corpse is defiled with seven days’ defilement and a person who touches him is defiled with a defilement lasting until the evening.", 1.2. "What [is the case of] three? Vessels touching a corpse and [other] vessels [touching these] vessels are defiled with seven days’ defilement. The third: whether a person or vessels, is defiled with a defilement lasting until the evening.", 1.3. "What is the case of four? Vessels touching a corpse, a person [touching these] vessels, and [other] vessels [touching this] person, are defiled with seven days' defilement. The fourth, whether a person or vessels, is defiled with a defilement [lasting until the] evening. Rabbi Akiva said: I have a fifth, [if] a peg was fixed in a tent, the tent, the peg, a person touching the peg and vessels [touching] the person are defiled with seven days' defilement. The fifth, whether a person or vessels, is defiled with a defilement [lasting until the] evening. They said to him: the tent does not count.", 1.4. "[Both] persons and vessels can be defiled through a corpse. A greater stringency applies to persons than to vessels and to vessels than to persons. For with vessels [there can be] three [series of defilements], whereas with persons [there can be only] two. A greater stringency applies to persons, for whenever they are in the middle of a [series] there can be four [in the series], whereas when they are not in the middle of a [series] there can be [only] three.", 1.5. "Persons and garments can be defiled by a zav. A greater stringency applies to persons than to garments and a greater stringency applies to garments than to persons. For a person who touches a zav can defile garments, whereas garments that touch a zav cannot defile [other] garments. A greater stringency applies to garments, for garments which form the support of a zav can defile persons, whereas a person who forms the support of a zav cannot defile [other] persons.", 2.1. "These things defile by overshadowing: a corpse, an olive-sized [portion of flesh] of a corpse, an olive-sized [portion] of nezel, a ladleful of corpse-mold, the spine or the skull, [a] full limb of a corpse, or [a full] limb [severed] from a living person with the appropriate amount of flesh, a quarter [of a kav] of bones from the structural majority or numerical majority, and the structural majority or numerical majority [of the bones] of a corpse even though they do not amount to a quarter [of a kab]; [all these] are unclean. How many [bones] form the numerical majority? One hundred and twenty-five.", 2.2. "[The following likewise defile:]A quarter [of a log] of blood, A quarter [of a log] of mixed blood from one corpse. Rabbi Akiva says: [even] from two corpses. [With regard to] the blood of a child that has completely flowed forth: Rabbi Akiva says: [it defiles] in even the smallest quantity, But the sages say: [there must be] a quarter [of a log]. [With regard to] an olive-sized [portion] of [corpse] worms whether alive or dead: Rabbi Eliezer declares [it] unclean, like the flesh, But the sages declare [it] clean. [With regard to] the ashes of burnt persons: Rabbi Eliezer says: the [minimum] quantity [for defilement is] a quarter [of a kav]. But the sages declare [them to be] clean. A ladleful and [a little] more of grave-dust is unclean. Rabbi Shimon declares [it to be] clean. A ladleful of corpse-mold mixed with water is not [regarded as] joined [into one mass] for [the purposes of] defilement.", 2.3. "The following defile by contact and carriage but not by overshadowing: A bone of barleycorn size, Earth from a foreign country, A bet peras, A limb of a corpse, or a limb [severed] from a living person which has no longer its appropriate flesh, A spine or a skull which is deficient. How much is [considered] a deficiency in the spine? Bet Shammai say: two vertebrae, But Bet Hillel say: even one vertebra. And in the skull? Bet Shammai say: [the size of a] hole [made] by a drill, But Bet Hillel say: as much as would be taken from a living person and he would die. of what drill did they speak? of the small one [used] by physicians, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: of the large one in the Temple-chamber.", 2.5. "These are clean if they are deficient:An olive-sized [portion] of a corpse; An olive-sized [portion] of nezel, A ladleful of corpse-mold, A quarter [of a log] of blood, A bone of the size of a barley-corn, And a limb [severed] from a living person, the bone of which [limb] is deficient.", 2.6. "A backbone or a skull [made up from the bones] of two corpses, A quarter [of a log] of blood from two corpses, A quarter [of a kav] of bones from two corpses, A limb of a corpse from two corpses, And a limb [severed] from a living person, [such a limb being made up] from two persons, Rabbi Akiva declares [the all] unclean But the sages declare them clean.", 3.6. "For an olive-sized portion of a corpse, an opening [in the room in which it is found] of one handbreadth [square], and for a [whole] corpse, an opening of four handbreadths [square, is enough] to prevent the uncleanness from [spreading to the other] openings; But for allowing the uncleanness to go out, an opening of one handbreadth [square is enough]. [A portion] greater than the size of an olive is as a [whole] corpse. Rabbi Yose says: [only] the spine and the skull are as a [whole] corpse.", 5.5. "If [lying over the hatch] there were vessels made of dung, vessels of stone, or vessels of [unbaked] earth, everything [in the upper story] remains clean. If it was a vessel known to be clean for holy things or for [the water of] purification, everything remains clean, since everyone is trusted with [regard to matters of] purification. For clean vessels and earthenware vessels that are [known to be] clean protect with the walls of ‘tents'.", 6.1. "Both persons and vessels can form ‘tents’ to bring uncleanness, but not to [protect objects so that they] remain clean. How so? There are four people carrying a chest: If there is uncleanness beneath it, vessels upon it become unclean. If there is uncleanness upon it, vessels beneath it become unclean. Rabbi Eliezer declares them clean. [If the chest] is placed upon four vessels, even if they are vessels made of dung, vessels of stone, or vessels of [unbaked] earth, If there is uncleanness beneath [the chest], vessels upon it become unclean. If there is uncleanness beneath it, vessels upon it become unclean. [If the chest] is placed on four stones or on any living creature, If there is uncleanness beneath it, vessels upon it remain clean. If there is uncleanness upon it vessels beneath it remain clean.", 11.3. "A thick woolen jacket or a thick wooden block does not bring uncleanness until they are one handbreadth high off the ground. If [garments] are folded one above the other they do not bring uncleanness until the uppermost is one handbreadth high off the ground. If a person were placed there [under the split in the portico]: Bet Shammai says: he does not bring the uncleanness. But Bet Hillel says: a person is hollow and his uppermost side brings the uncleanness.", 16.1. "All movable things convey uncleanness when they are of the thickness of an ox-goad. Rabbi Tarfon said: May I [see the] demise of my sons if this is [not] a demised halakhah which someone heard and misunderstood. For a farmer was passing by and over his shoulder was an ox-goad, and one end overshadowed a grave. He was declared unclean on account of vessels that were overshadowing a corpse. Rabbi Akiva said: I can fix [the halakhah] so that the words of the sages can exist [as they are]: All movable things convey uncleanness to come upon a person carrying them, when they are of the thickness of an ox-goad; Upon themselves when they are of whatever thickness; And upon other men or vessels [which they overshadow] when they are one handbreadth wide.", |
|
27. Mishnah, Pesahim, 3.2, 9.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 208, 227| 3.2. "בָּצֵק שֶׁבְּסִדְקֵי עֲרֵבָה, אִם יֵשׁ כַּזַּיִת בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד, חַיָּב לְבַעֵר. וְאִם לֹא, בָּטֵל בְּמִעוּטוֹ. וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן הַטֻּמְאָה, אִם מַקְפִּיד עָלָיו, חוֹצֵץ. וְאִם רוֹצֶה בְקִיּוּמוֹ, הֲרֵי הוּא כָעֲרֵבָה. בָּצֵק הַחֵרֵשׁ, אִם יֵשׁ כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ שֶׁהֶחֱמִיץ, הֲרֵי זֶה אָסוּר: \n", 9.4. "הַפֶּסַח שֶׁבָּא בְטֻמְאָה, לֹא יֹאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ זָבִין וְזָבוֹת נִדּוֹת וְיוֹלְדוֹת. וְאִם אָכְלוּ, פְּטוּרִים מִכָּרֵת. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹטֵר אַף עַל בִּיאַת מִקְדָּשׁ: \n", | 3.2. "[With regard to] the dough in the cracks of the kneading trough: if there is as much as an olive in one place, he must remove [it]; but if not, it is nullified through the smallness of its quantity. And it is likewise in the matter of uncleanness: if he objects to it, it makes a break; but if he desires its preservation, it is like the kneading-trough. [With regard to] “deaf” dough, if there is [a dough] similar to it which has become chametz, it is forbidden.", 9.4. "The pesah which comes in impurity: zavin and zavot, menstruant women and women after childbirth do not eat from it, yet if they did eat they are exempt from karet. Rabbi Eliezer exempts [them] even [of the karet normally incurred] for entering the sanctuary.", |
|
28. Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah, 3.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 227| 3.2. "כָּל הַשּׁוֹפָרוֹת כְּשֵׁרִין חוּץ מִשֶּׁל פָּרָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קֶרֶן. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, וַהֲלֹא כָל הַשּׁוֹפָרוֹת נִקְרְאוּ קֶרֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יהושע ו), בִּמְשֹׁךְ בְּקֶרֶן הַיּוֹבֵל: \n", | 3.2. "All shofars may be used except for that of a cow, because it is a keren. Rabbi Yose said: Are not all shofars called keren as it says, “When they make a long blast with the ram’s keren [horn]?” (Joshua 6:5).", |
|
29. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 9.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 221, 225| 9.2. "נִתְכַּוֵּן לַהֲרֹג אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה וְהָרַג אֶת הָאָדָם, לַנָּכְרִי וְהָרַג אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לִנְפָלִים, וְהָרַג בֶּן קְיָמָא, פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹתוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל לִבּוֹ, וָמֵת, פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹתוֹ עַל לִבּוֹ וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל לִבּוֹ וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל מָתְנָיו וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו, וָמֵת, פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית הַגָּדוֹל וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַקָּטָן וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַקָּטָן, וָמֵת, פָּטוּר. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַקָּטָן וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַקָּטָן וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַגָּדוֹל וְלֹא הָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַגָּדוֹל, וָמֵת, פָּטוּר. אֲבָל נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת עַל מָתְנָיו וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית עַל מָתְנָיו וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ, וָמֵת, חַיָּב. נִתְכַּוֵּן לְהַכּוֹת אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי לְהָמִית אֶת הַגָּדוֹל וְהָלְכָה לָהּ עַל הַקָּטָן, וָמֵת, חַיָּב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ נִתְכַּוֵּן לַהֲרֹג אֶת זֶה וְהָרַג אֶת זֶה, פָּטוּר: \n", | 9.2. "If he intended to kill an animal but killed a man, or [he intended to kill] a non-Jew and he killed an Israelite, or [if he intended to kill] a prematurely born child [who was bound to die in any case] and he killed a viable child, he is not liable. If he intended to strike him on his loins, and the blow was insufficient to kill [when struck] on his loins, but struck the heart instead, where it was sufficient to kill, and he died he is not liable. If he intended to strike him on the heart, where it was sufficient to kill but struck him on the loins, where it was not sufficient to kill, and yet he died, he is not liable. If he intended to strike an adult, and the blow was insufficient to kill [an adult], but the blow landed on a child, whom it was enough to kill, and he died, he is not liable. If he intended to strike a child with a blow sufficient to kill a child, but struck an adult, for whom it was insufficient to kill, and yet he died, he is not liable. But if he intended to strike his loins with sufficient force to kill, but struck the heart instead, he is liable. If he intended to strike an adult with a blow sufficient to kill an adult, but struck a child instead, and he died, he is liable. Rabbi Shimon said: “Even if he intended to kill one but killed another, he is not liable.", |
|
30. Mishnah, Shabbat, 6.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 208| 6.1. "בַּמֶּה אִשָּׁה יוֹצְאָה וּבַמָּה אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה. לֹא תֵצֵא אִשָּׁה לֹא בְחוּטֵי צֶמֶר וְלֹא בְחוּטֵי פִשְׁתָּן וְלֹא בִרְצוּעוֹת שֶׁבְּרֹאשָׁהּ. וְלֹא תִטְבֹּל בָּהֶן עַד שֶׁתְּרַפֵּם. וְלֹא בְטֹטֶפֶת וְלֹא בְסַנְבּוּטִין בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵינָן תְּפוּרִין. וְלֹא בְכָבוּל לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. וְלֹא בְעִיר שֶׁל זָהָב, וְלֹא בְקַטְלָא, וְלֹא בִנְזָמִים, וְלֹא בְטַבַּעַת שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ חוֹתָם, וְלֹא בְמַחַט שֶׁאֵינָהּ נְקוּבָה. וְאִם יָצָאת, אֵינָהּ חַיֶּבֶת חַטָּאת: \n", | 6.1. "With what may a woman go out and with what may she not go out?A woman may not go out with wool ribbons, linen ribbons, or straps around her head; Nor may she immerse while wearing them, until she loosens them. [She may not go out] with frontlets or head-bangles if they are not sewn, Or with a hair-net into the public domain, Or with a golden city, or with a necklace or with ear-rings, or with a finger-ring [even if it has] no signet, or with a needle [even if it] is unpierced. But if she goes out with these, she is not liable to a sin-offering.", |
|
31. Mishnah, Yoma, 1.4-1.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 227| 1.4. "כָּל שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים לֹא הָיוּ מוֹנְעִין מִמֶּנּוּ מַאֲכָל וּמִשְׁתֶּה, עֶרֶב יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים עִם חֲשֵׁכָה, לֹא הָיוּ מַנִּיחִים אוֹתוֹ לֶאֱכֹל הַרְבֵּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהַמַּאֲכָל מֵבִיא אֶת הַשֵּׁנָה: \n", 1.5. "מְסָרוּהוּ זִקְנֵי בֵית דִּין לְזִקְנֵי כְהֻנָּה, וְהֶעֱלוּהוּ לַעֲלִיַּת בֵּית אַבְטִינָס, וְהִשְׁבִּיעוּהוּ וְנִפְטְרוּ וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם. וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ, אִישִׁי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, אָנוּ שְׁלוּחֵי בֵית דִּין, וְאַתָּה שְׁלוּחֵנוּ וּשְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין, מַשְׁבִּיעִין אָנוּ עָלֶיךָ בְּמִי שֶׁשִּׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ בַבַּיִת הַזֶּה, שֶׁלֹּא תְשַׁנֶּה דָבָר מִכָּל מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְנוּ לָךְ. הוּא פוֹרֵשׁ וּבוֹכֶה, וְהֵן פּוֹרְשִׁין וּבוֹכִין: \n", 1.6. "אִם הָיָה חָכָם, דּוֹרֵשׁ. וְאִם לָאו, תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים דּוֹרְשִׁין לְפָנָיו. וְאִם רָגִיל לִקְרוֹת, קוֹרֵא. וְאִם לָאו, קוֹרִין לְפָנָיו. וּבַמֶּה קוֹרִין לְפָנָיו, בְּאִיּוֹב וּבְעֶזְרָא וּבְדִבְרֵי הַיָּמִים. זְכַרְיָה בֶּן קְבוּטָל אוֹמֵר, פְּעָמִים הַרְבֵּה קָרִיתִי לְפָנָיו בְּדָנִיֵּאל: \n", | 1.4. "All seven days they did not withhold food or drink from him. On the eve of Yom HaKippurim near nightfall they would not let him eat much because food brings about sleep.", 1.5. "The elders of the court handed him over to the elders of the priesthood and they took him up to the upper chamber of the house of Avtinas. They adjured him and then left. And they said to him [when leaving]: “Sir, high priest, we are messengers of the court and you are our messenger and the messenger of the court. We adjure you by the one that caused His name dwell in this house that you do not change anything of what we said to you.” He turned aside and wept and they turned aside and wept.", 1.6. "If he was a sage he would expound, and if not, the disciples of the sages would expound before him. If he was familiar with reading [the Scriptures] he would read, if not they would read before him. From what would they read before him? From Job, Ezra and Chronicles. Zechariah ben Kv’utal says: I have often read before him from Daniel.", |
|
32. Mishnah, Zevahim, 2.2, 3.1, 3.3-3.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 235| 2.2. "הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לִזְרֹק דָּמוֹ בַחוּץ אוֹ מִקְצָת דָּמוֹ בַחוּץ, לְהַקְטִיר אֶת אֵמוּרָיו בַּחוּץ אוֹ מִקְצָת אֵמוּרָיו בַּחוּץ, לֶאֱכֹל בְּשָׂרוֹ בַחוּץ אוֹ כַזַּיִת מִבְּשָׂרוֹ בַחוּץ אוֹ לֶאֱכֹל כַּזַּיִת מֵעוֹר הָאַלְיָה בַחוּץ, פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. לִזְרֹק דָּמוֹ לְמָחָר אוֹ מִקְצָת דָּמוֹ לְמָחָר, לְהַקְטִיר אֵמוּרָיו לְמָחָר אוֹ מִקְצָת אֵמוּרָיו לְמָחָר, לֶאֱכֹל בְּשָׂרוֹ לְמָחָר אוֹ כַזַּיִת מִבְּשָׂרוֹ לְמָחָר אוֹ כַּזַּיִת מֵעוֹר הָאַלְיָה לְמָחָר, פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת: \n", 3.1. "כָּל הַפְּסוּלִין שֶׁשָּׁחֲטוּ, שְׁחִיטָתָן כְּשֵׁרָה. שֶׁהַשְּׁחִיטָה כְשֵׁרָה בְּזָרִים, בְּנָשִׁים, וּבַעֲבָדִים, וּבִטְמֵאִים, אֲפִלּוּ בְקָדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ טְמֵאִים נוֹגְעִים בַּבָּשָׂר. לְפִיכָךְ הֵם פּוֹסְלִים בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה. וְכֻלָּן שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ אֶת הַדָּם חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, אִם יֵשׁ דַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ, יַחֲזֹר הַכָּשֵׁר וִיקַבֵּל:", 3.3. "הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לֶאֱכֹל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר, כָּשֵׁר. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל. לֶאֱכֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכֹל וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר, פָּחוֹת מִכַּזַּיִת, כָּשֵׁר. לֶאֱכֹל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וּלְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת, כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה מִצְטָרְפִין:", 3.4. "הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לֶאֱכֹל כַּזַּיִת מִן הָעוֹר, מִן הָרֹטֶב, מִן הַקִּיפָה, מִן הָאָלָל, מִן הָעֲצָמוֹת, מִן הַגִּידִים, מִן הַטְּלָפַיִם, מִן הַקַּרְנַיִם, חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ אוֹ חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, כָּשֵׁר, וְאֵין חַיָּבִים עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא:", 3.5. "הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין לֶאֱכֹל שָׁלִיל אוֹ שִׁלְיָא בַחוּץ, לֹא פִגֵּל. הַמּוֹלֵק תּוֹרִין בִּפְנִים לֶאֱכֹל בֵּיצֵיהֶם בַּחוּץ, לֹא פִגֵּל. חֲלֵב הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁין וּבֵיצֵי תוֹרִין, אֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא:", 3.6. "שְׁחָטוֹ עַל מְנָת לְהַנִּיחַ דָּמוֹ אוֹ אֶת אֵמוּרָיו לְמָחָר, אוֹ לְהוֹצִיאָן לַחוּץ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פוֹסֵל, וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין. שְׁחָטוֹ עַל מְנָת לִתְּנוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ שֶׁלֹּא כְנֶגֶד הַיְסוֹד, לִתֵּן אֶת הַנִּתָּנִין לְמַטָּה, לְמַעְלָה, וְאֶת הַנִּתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה, לְמַטָּה, אֶת הַנִּתָּנִין בִּפְנִים, בַּחוּץ, וְאֶת הַנִּתָּנִין בַּחוּץ, בִּפְנִים, שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּהוּ טְמֵאִים, שֶׁיַּקְרִיבוּהוּ טְמֵאִים, שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּהוּ עֲרֵלִים, שֶׁיַּקְרִיבוּהוּ עֲרֵלִים, לְשַׁבֵּר עַצְמוֹת הַפֶּסַח וְלֶאֱכֹל הֵימֶנּוּ נָא, לְעָרֵב דָּמוֹ בְדַם פְּסוּלִין, כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵין הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה פוֹסֶלֶת אֶלָּא חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, וְהַפֶּסַח וְהַחַטָּאת שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן:", | 2.2. "One who slaughters a sacrifice [intending]: To sprinkle its blood outside [the Temple] or part of its blood outside; To burn its innards or part of its innards outside; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh outside, Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of the fat-tail outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One he slaughters a sacrifice intending]: To sprinkle its blood or part of its blood the next day, To burn its innards or part of its innards on the next day; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh on the next day; Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of its fat-tail on the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth.", 3.1. "All unfit persons who slaughtered, their slaughtering is valid, for slaughtering is valid [even when performed] by non-priests, and by women, and by slaves, and by the unclean, even in the case of most-holy sacrifices, provided that unclean [persons] do not touch the flesh. Therefore they invalidate [the sacrifice] by an [illegitimate] intention. And in all of these cases, if they received the blood [in order to eat the sacrifice] after the prescribed time, or outside of the prescribed place, if there remains [in the animal] life-blood, a fit person should go back and receive the blood.", 3.3. "If one slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat what is not normally eaten, or to burn [on the altar] what is not normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid; But Rabbi Eliezer invalidates [the sacrifice]. [If he slaughters it intending] to eat what is normally eaten and to burn what is normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], [but] less than the size of an olive, it is valid. To eat half as much as an olive and to burn half as much as an olive [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid, because [intentions concerning] eating and burning do not combine.", 3.4. "One who slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat as much as an olive of the skin, or of the juice, or of the jelly, or of the hardened meat, or of the bones, or of the tendons, or of the horns, or of the hoofs, either after time or out of bounds, it is valid, and one is not liable on their account in respect of piggul, remt, or uncleanness.", 3.5. "If one slaughters sacred animals [intending] to eat the fetus or the afterbirth outside [of the place or time where the animal must be eaten], he does not render it piggul. If one plucks off [the necks of] doves, [intending] to eat their eggs outside [of the place or time where the animal must be eaten], he does not render [them] piggul. The milk of sacred animals or the eggs of doves one is not liable for eating them in respect of piggul, remt, or uncleanness.", 3.6. "If he slaughtered it with the intention of leaving its blood or its innards for the next day, or of carrying them outside of their place: Rabbi Judah disqualifies [it], But the sages declare it valid. [If he slaughtered it] with the intention of sprinkling [the blood] on the ascent, [or on the altar] but not against its base; or of applying below [the scarlet line] what should be applied above, or above what should be applied below, or without what should be applied within, or within what should be applied without; [Or with the intention] that unclean [persons] should eat it, [or] that unclean [priests] should offer it; [Or] that uncircumcised [persons] should eat it, [or] that uncircumcised persons should offer it; [Or with the intention] of breaking the bones of the pesah, or eating of it before it is roasted; Or of mingling its blood with the blood of invalid [sacrifices]; [In all of these cases] it is valid, because an [illegitimate] intention does not disqualify [a sacrifice] except when it refers to after its time or outside its prescribed place, and [in the case of] a pesah and a hatat, [the intention to slaughter them] for the sake of their being a different sacrifice.", |
|
33. Mishnah, Shekalim, 8.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 223| 8.1. "כָּל הָרֻקִּין הַנִּמְצָאִים בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם טְהוֹרִין, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל שׁוּק הָעֶלְיוֹן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁבָּאֶמְצַע טְמֵאִין וְשֶׁבַּצְּדָדִין טְהוֹרִין. וּבִשְׁעַת הָרֶגֶל, שֶׁבָּאֶמְצַע טְהוֹרִין וְשֶׁבַּצְּדָדִין טְמֵאִין, שֶׁמִּפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מֻעָטִין מִסְתַּלְּקִין לַצְּדָדִין: \n", | 8.1. "Any spit found in Jerusalem is clean except that which is [found] in the upper market, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: at other times of the year [spit found] in the middle [of the road] is unclean but [spit found] at the sides [of the road] is clean; but at festivals time [spit found] in the middle [of the road] is clean, while [that which is found] at the sides [of the road] is unclean, since they are few in number, they remove themselves to the sides of the road.", |
|
34. Mishnah, Sheviit, 5.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 231| 5.9. "מַשְׁאֶלֶת אִשָּׁה לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ הַחֲשׁוּדָה עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית נָפָה וּכְבָרָה וְרֵחַיִם וְתַנּוּר. אֲבָל לֹא תָבוֹר וְלֹא תִטְחַן עִמָּהּ. אֵשֶׁת חָבֵר מַשְׁאֶלֶת לְאֵשֶׁת עַם הָאָרֶץ נָפָה וּכְבָרָה, וּבוֹרֶרֶת וְטוֹחֶנֶת וּמַרְקֶדֶת עִמָּהּ. אֲבָל מִשֶּׁתַּטִּיל הַמַּיִם, לֹא תִגַּע אֶצְלָהּ, שֶׁאֵין מַחְזִיקִין יְדֵי עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה. וְכֻלָּן לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. וּמַחֲזִיקִין יְדֵי נָכְרִים בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, אֲבָל לֹא יְדֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְשׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹמָן, מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם: \n", | 5.9. "A woman may lend to her neighbor who is suspect of transgressing the laws of the sabbatical year, a sifter, a sieve, a hand-mill, or an oven. But she may not sift or grind with her. The wife of a haver may lend to the wife of an am haaretz a sifter and a sieve and may even sift, grind, or sift flour with her. But once she poured water [over the flour], she may not touch [it] with her, for one may not aid those who commit a transgression. And all these things were only allowed in the interests of peace. They may offer encouragement to Gentiles during the sabbatical year, but not to Jews. In the interests of peace, one may also offer greetings to Gentiles.", |
|
35. Mishnah, Toharot, 3.6, 3.8, 4.3, 5.1-5.6, 5.8-5.9, 6.6, 7.1-7.8, 8.1-8.6, 10.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 212, 213, 223, 225, 230, 231, 232, 233, 235| 3.6. "חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁנִּמְצְאוּ בְמָבוֹי שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ טֻמְאָה, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בְחֶזְקַת טָהֳרָה. וְכָל הַפִּקֵּחַ, בְּחֶזְקַת טֻמְאָה. וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ דַעַת לְהִשָּׁאֵל, סְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר: \n", 3.8. "תִּינוֹק שֶׁנִּמְצָא בְצַד הָעִסָּה וְהַבָּצֵק בְּיָדוֹ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַהֵר. וַחֲכָמִים מְטַמְּאִים, שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ הַתִּינוֹק לְטַפֵּחַ. בָּצֵק שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ נְקִירַת תַּרְנְגוֹלִים, וּמַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין בְּתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, אִם יֵשׁ בֵּין מַשְׁקִין לַכִּכָּרוֹת כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּנַגְּבוּ אֶת פִּיהֶם בָּאָרֶץ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ טְהוֹרִין. וּבְפָרָה וּבְכֶלֶב, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּלַחֲכוּ אֶת לְשׁוֹנָם. וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַבְּהֵמָה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְנַגֵּב. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב מְטַהֵר בְּכֶלֶב, שֶׁהוּא פִקֵּחַ, שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַנִּיחַ אֶת הַמָּזוֹן וְלֵילֵךְ לַמָּיִם: \n", 4.3. "הַשֶּׁרֶץ בְּפִי הַחֻלְדָּה, וְהַנְּבֵלָה בְּפִי הַכֶּלֶב, וְעָבְרוּ בֵין הַטְּהוֹרִים, אוֹ שֶׁעָבְרוּ טְהוֹרִים בֵּינֵיהֶן, סְפֵקָן טָהוֹר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין לַטֻּמְאָה מָקוֹם. הָיוּ מְנַקְּרִין בָּהֶן עַל הָאָרֶץ וְאָמַר, הָלַכְתִּי לַמָּקוֹם הַלָּז וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם נָגַעְתִּי אִם לֹא נָגַעְתִּי, סְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לַטֻּמְאָה מָקוֹם: \n", 5.1. "הַשֶּׁרֶץ וְהַצְּפַרְדֵּעַ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְכֵן כַּזַּיִת מִן הַמֵּת וְכַזַּיִת מִן הַנְּבֵלָה, וְעֶצֶם מִן הַמֵּת וְעֶצֶם מִן הַנְּבֵלָה, וְגוּשׁ מֵאֶרֶץ טְהוֹרָה וְגוּשׁ מִבֵּית הַפְּרָס, גּוּשׁ מֵאֶרֶץ טְהוֹרָה וְגוּשׁ מֵאֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים, שְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין, אֶחָד טָמֵא וְאֶחָד טָהוֹר, הָלַךְ בְּאַחַד מֵהֶם וְאֵין יָדוּעַ בְּאֵיזֶה מֵהֶן הָלַךְ, הֶאֱהִיל עַל אַחַד מֵהֶם וְאֵין יָדוּעַ עַל אֵיזֶה מֵהֶן הֶאֱהִיל, הִסִּיט אֶת אַחַד מֵהֶם וְאֵין יָדוּעַ אֵיזֶה מֵהֶם הִסִּיט, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְטַמֵּא, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִים: \n", 5.2. "אֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר, נָגַעְתִּי בָזֶה וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אִם הוּא טָמֵא וְאִם הוּא טָהוֹר, נָגַעְתִּי וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזֶה מִשְּׁנֵיהֶם נָגַעְתִּי, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְטַמֵּא, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִים. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְטַמֵּא בְכֻלָּן, וּמְטַהֵר בַּשְּׁבִיל, שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לַהֲלֹךְ וְאֵין דַּרְכָּם לִגָּע: \n", 5.3. "שְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִים, אֶחָד טָמֵא וְאֶחָד טָהוֹר, הָלַךְ בְּאַחַד מֵהֶם וְעָשָׂה טָהֳרוֹת וְנֶאֱכְלוּ, הִזָּה וְשָׁנָה וְטָבַל וְטָהַר, וְהָלַךְ בַּשֵּׁנִי וְעָשָׂה טָהֳרוֹת, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ טְהוֹרוֹת. אִם קַיָּמוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת, אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ תְּלוּיוֹת. אִם לֹא טָהַר בֵּינְתַיִם, הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת תְּלוּיוֹת וְהַשְּׁנִיּוֹת יִשָּׂרֵפוּ: \n", 5.4. "הַשֶּׁרֶץ וְהַצְּפַרְדֵּעַ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, נָגַע בְּאַחַד מֵהֶם וְעָשָׂה טָהֳרוֹת וְנֶאֱכְלוּ, טָבַל, נָגַע בַּשֵּׁנִי וְעָשָׂה טָהֳרוֹת, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ טְהוֹרוֹת. אִם קַיָּמוֹת הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת, אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ תְּלוּיוֹת. אִם לֹא טָבַל בֵּינְתַיִם, הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת תְּלוּיוֹת וְהַשְּׁנִיּוֹת יִשָּׂרֵפוּ: \n", 5.5. "שְׁנֵי שְׁבִילִין, אֶחָד טָמֵא וְאֶחָד טָהוֹר, הָלַךְ בְּאַחַד מֵהֶן וְעָשָׂה טָהֳרוֹת, וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְהָלַךְ בַּשֵּׁנִי וְעָשָׂה טָהֳרוֹת, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם נִשְׁאֲלוּ זֶה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, טְהוֹרִין. וְאִם נִשְׁאֲלוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּאֶחָד, טְמֵאִים. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ, טְמֵאִים: \n", 5.6. "שְׁנֵי כִכָּרִים, אֶחָד טָמֵא וְאֶחָד טָהוֹר, אָכַל אֶת אַחַד מֵהֶם וְעָשָׂה טָהֳרוֹת וּבָא חֲבֵרוֹ וְאָכַל אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וְעָשָׂה טָהֳרוֹת, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם נִשְׁאֲלוּ זֶה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ וְזֶה בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, טְהוֹרִין. וְאִם נִשְׁאֲלוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאַחַת, טְמֵאִים. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ, טְמֵאִים: \n", 5.8. "שׁוֹטָה אַחַת בָּעִיר, אוֹ נָכְרִית, אוֹ כוּתִית, כָּל הָרֻקִּים שֶׁבָּעִיר טְמֵאִין. מִי שֶׁדָּרְסָה אִשָּׁה עַל בְּגָדָיו, אוֹ שֶׁיָּשְׁבָה עִמּוֹ בִּסְפִינָה, אִם מַכִּירָתוֹ שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל בַּתְּרוּמָה, כֵּלָיו טְהוֹרִין. וְאִם לָאו, יִשְׁאָלֶנָּה: \n", 5.9. "עֵד אוֹמֵר נִטְמָא, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא נִטְמֵאתִי, טָהוֹר. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים נִטְמֵאתָ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לֹא נִטְמֵאתִי, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַמֵּא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, הוּא נֶאֱמָן עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. עֵד אוֹמֵר נִטְמָא, וּשְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים לֹא נִטְמָא, בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, טָהוֹר. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים נִטְמָא, וְעֵד אוֹמֵר לֹא נִטְמָא, בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד בֵּין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, טָמֵא. עֵד אוֹמֵר נִטְמָא וְעֵד אוֹמֵר לֹא נִטְמָא, אִשָּׁה אוֹמֶרֶת נִטְמָא וְאִשָּׁה אוֹמֶרֶת לֹא נִטְמָא, בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, טָמֵא. בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, טָהוֹר: \n", 6.6. "סְפֵק רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, טָמֵא, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר לֹא נָגַעְתִּי. סְפֵק רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים טָהוֹר, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר נָגַעְתִּי. אֵיזוֹ הִיא רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. שְׁבִילֵי בֵית גִּלְגּוּל, וְכֵן כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶן, רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לְשַׁבָּת, וּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לַטֻּמְאָה. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, לֹא הֻזְכְּרוּ שְׁבִילֵי בֵית גִּלְגּוּל, אֶלָּא שֶׁהֵם רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לְכָךְ וּלְכָךְ. הַשְּׁבִילִים הַמְפֻלָּשִׁים לְבוֹרוֹת וּלְשִׁיחִים וְלִמְעָרוֹת וּלְגִתּוֹת, רְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לְשַׁבָּת וּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לַטֻּמְאָה: \n", 7.1. "הַקַּדָּר שֶׁהִנִּיחַ אֶת קְדֵרוֹתָיו וְיָרַד לִשְׁתּוֹת, הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת, וְהַחִיצוֹנוֹת טְמֵאוֹת. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בְּמֻתָּרוֹת. אֲבָל בַּאֲגוּדוֹת, הַכֹּל טָהוֹר. הַמּוֹסֵר מַפְתְּחוֹ לְעַם הָאָרֶץ, הַבַּיִת טָהוֹר, שֶׁלֹּא מָסַר לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁמִירַת הַמַּפְתֵּחַ: \n", 7.2. "הַמַּנִּיחַ עַם הָאָרֶץ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ עֵר וּמְצָאוֹ עֵר, יָשֵׁן וּמְצָאוֹ יָשֵׁן, עֵר וּמְצָאוֹ יָשֵׁן, הַבַּיִת טָהוֹר, יָשֵׁן וּמְצָאוֹ עֵר, הַבַּיִת טָמֵא, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין טָמֵא אֶלָּא עַד מְקוֹם שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לִפְשֹׁט אֶת יָדוֹ וְלִגָּע: \n", 7.3. "הַמַּנִּיחַ אֻמָּנִים בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, הַבַּיִת טָמֵא, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין טָמֵא אֶלָּא עַד מְקוֹם שֶׁהֵן יְכוֹלִין לִפְשֹׁט אֶת יָדָם וְלִגָּע: \n", 7.4. "אֵשֶׁת חָבֵר שֶׁהִנִּיחָה לְאֵשֶׁת עַם הָאָרֶץ טוֹחֶנֶת בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ, פָּסְקָה הָרֵחַיִם, הַבַּיִת טָמֵא. לֹא פָסְקָה הָרֵחַיִם, אֵין טָמֵא אֶלָּא עַד מְקוֹם שֶׁהִיא יְכוֹלָה לִפְשֹׁט אֶת יָדָהּ וְלִגָּע. הָיוּ שְׁתַּיִם, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ, הַבַּיִת טָמֵא, שֶׁאַחַת טוֹחֶנֶת וְאַחַת מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין טָמֵא אֶלָּא עַד מְקוֹם שֶׁהֵן יְכוֹלִין לִפְשֹׁט אֶת יָדָן וְלִגָּע: \n", 7.5. "הַמַּנִּיחַ עַם הָאָרֶץ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ לְשָׁמְרוֹ, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא רוֹאֶה אֶת הַנִּכְנָסִין וְאֶת הַיּוֹצְאִין, הָאֳכָלִים וְהַמַּשְׁקִים וּכְלֵי חֶרֶס הַפְּתוּחִים, טְמֵאִים. אֲבָל הַמִּשְׁכָּבוֹת וְהַמּוֹשָׁבוֹת וּכְלֵי חֶרֶס הַמֻּקָּפִין צָמִיד פָּתִיל, טְהוֹרִין. וְאִם אֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה לֹא אֶת הַנִּכְנָסִין וְלֹא אֶת הַיּוֹצְאִין, אֲפִלּוּ מוּבָל, אֲפִלּוּ כָפוּת, הַכֹּל טָמֵא: \n", 7.6. "הַגַּבָּאִים שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, הַבַּיִת טָמֵא. אִם יֵשׁ עִמָּהֶן גּוֹי, נֶאֱמָנִים לוֹמַר לֹא נִכְנָסְנוּ, אֲבָל אֵין נֶאֱמָנִים לוֹמַר נִכְנַסְנוּ אֲבָל לֹא נָגָעְנוּ. הַגַּנָּבִים שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, אֵין טָמֵא אֶלָּא מְקוֹם רַגְלֵי הַגַּנָּבִים. וּמַה הֵן מְטַמְּאִין. הָאֳכָלִים וְהַמַּשְׁקִים וּכְלֵי חֶרֶס הַפְּתוּחִין. אֲבָל הַמִּשְׁכָּבוֹת וְהַמּוֹשָׁבוֹת וּכְלֵי חֶרֶס הַמֻּקָּפִין צָמִיד פָּתִיל, טְהוֹרִים. אִם יֵשׁ עִמָּהֶן נָכְרִי אוֹ אִשָּׁה, הַכֹּל טָמֵא: \n", 7.7. "הַמַּנִּיחַ אֶת כֵּלָיו בְּחַלּוֹן שֶׁל אוֹדְיָארִין, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה מְטַהֵר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, עַד שֶׁיִּתֶּן לוֹ אֶת הַמַּפְתֵּחַ אוֹ חוֹתָם אוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה סִימָן. הַמַּנִּיחַ אֶת כֵּלָיו מִגַּת זוֹ לַגַּת הַבָּאָה, כֵּלָיו טְהוֹרִין. וּבְיִשְׂרָאֵל, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּלִבִּי הָיָה לְשָׁמְרָם: \n", 7.8. "מִי שֶׁהָיָה טָהוֹר, וְהִסִּיעַ אֶת לִבּוֹ מִלֶּאֱכֹל, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְטַהֵר, שֶׁדֶּרֶךְ טְמֵאִין פּוֹרְשִׁין מִמֶּנוּ. וַחֲכָמִים מְטַמְּאִים. הָיוּ יָדָיו טְהוֹרוֹת וְהִסִּיעַ אֶת לִבּוֹ מִלֶּאֱכֹל, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁלֹּא נִטְמְאוּ יָדָי, יָדָיו טְמֵאוֹת, שֶׁהַיָּדַיִם עַסְקָנִיּוֹת: \n", 8.1. "הַדָּר עִם עַם הָאָרֶץ בְּחָצֵר, וְשָׁכַח כֵּלִים בֶּחָצֵר, אֲפִלּוּ חָבִיּוֹת מֻקָּפוֹת צָמִיד פָּתִיל, אוֹ תַנּוּר מֻקָּף צָמִיד פָּתִיל, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ טְמֵאִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מְטַהֵר בְּתַנּוּר בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא מֻקָּף צָמִיד פָּתִיל. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אַף הַתַּנּוּר טָמֵא, עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה לוֹ מְחִצָּה גָבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים: \n", 8.2. "הַמַּפְקִיד כֵּלִים אֵצֶל עַם הָאָרֶץ, טְמֵאִים טְמֵא מֵת וּטְמֵאִין מִדְרָס. אִם מַכִּירוֹ שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל בַּתְּרוּמָה, טְהוֹרִין מִטְּמֵא מֵת, אֲבָל טְמֵאִין מִדְרָס. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אִם מָסַר לוֹ תֵבָה מְלֵאָה בְגָדִים, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהִיא רוֹצֶצֶת, טְמֵאִין מִדְרָס. אִם אֵינָהּ רוֹצֶצֶת, טְמֵאִין מַדָּף, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהַמַּפְתֵּחַ בְּיַד הַבְּעָלִים: \n", 8.3. "הַמְאַבֵּד בַּיּוֹם וּמָצָא בַיּוֹם, טָהוֹר. בַּיּוֹם וּמָצָא בַלַּיְלָה, בַּלַּיְלָה וּמָצָא בַיּוֹם, בַּיּוֹם וּמָצָא בַיּוֹם שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו, טָמֵא. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁיַּעֲבֹר עָלָיו הַלַּיְלָה אוֹ מִקְצָתוֹ, טָמֵא. הַשּׁוֹטֵחַ כֵּלִים, בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, טְהוֹרִין. וּבִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, טְמֵאִין. וְאִם הָיָה מְשַׁמְּרָן, טְהוֹרִים. נָפְלוּ וְהָלַךְ לַהֲבִיאָן, טְמֵאִים. נָפַל דָּלְיוֹ לְתוֹךְ בּוֹרוֹ שֶׁל עַם הָאָרֶץ וְהָלַךְ לְהָבִיא בְמַה יַּעֲלֶנּוּ, טָמֵא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֻנַּח בִּרְשׁוּת עַם הָאָרֶץ שָׁעָה אֶחָת: \n", 8.4. "הַמַּנִּיחַ אֶת בֵּיתוֹ פָתוּחַ וּמְצָאוֹ פָתוּחַ, נָעוּל וּמְצָאוֹ נָעוּל, פָּתוּחַ וּמְצָאוֹ נָעוּל, טָהוֹר. נָעוּל וּמְצָאוֹ פָתוּחַ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְטַמֵּא, וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין, שֶׁהָיוּ גַנָּבִים וְנִמְלְכוּ וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶן: \n", 8.5. "אֵשֶׁת עַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁל חָבֵר לְהוֹצִיא בְנוֹ אוֹ בִתּוֹ אוֹ בְהֶמְתּוֹ, הַבַּיִת טָהוֹר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה שֶׁלֹּא בִרְשׁוּת: \n", 8.6. "כְּלָל אָמְרוּ בַטָּהֳרוֹת, כֹּל הַמְיֻחָד לְאֹכֶל אָדָם, טָמֵא, עַד שֶׁיִּפָּסֵל מֵאֹכֶל הַכֶּלֶב. וְכֹל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְיֻחָד לְאֹכֶל אָדָם, טָהוֹר, עַד שֶׁיְּיַחֲדֶנּוּ לְאָדָם. כֵּיצַד. גּוֹזָל שֶׁנָּפַל לְגַת וְחִשַּׁב עָלָיו לְהַעֲלוֹתוֹ לְנָכְרִי, טָמֵא. לְכֶלֶב, טָהוֹר. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי מְטַמֵּא. חִשַּׁב עָלָיו חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, טָהוֹר. אִם הֶעֱלָהוּ, טָמֵא, שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה וְאֵין לָהֶן מַחֲשָׁבָה: \n", 10.3. "הַבַּדָּדִין וְהַבּוֹצְרִין, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִכְנִיסָן לִרְשׁוּת הַמְּעָרָה, דַּיּוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, צָרִיךְ לַעֲמֹד עֲלֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁיִּטְבֹּלוּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אִם טְהוֹרִין לָהֶן, צָרִיךְ לַעֲמֹד עֲלֵיהֶם עַד שֶׁיִּטְבֹּלוּ. אִם טְמֵאִים לָהֶן, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לַעֲמֹד עֲלֵיהֶם עַד שֶׁיִּטְבֹּלוּ: \n", | 3.6. "If a deaf-mute, a person not of sound senses, or a minor was found in an alley way that contained something that was unclean, he is presumed to be clean. But any one of sound senses is presumed to be unclean. And anyone/anything that lacks understanding to be inquired of is in a case of doubtful uncleanness presumed to be clean.", 3.8. "A child was found next to dough with a piece of dough in his hand: Rabbi Meir says that the dough is clean; But the sages say that it is unclean, since it is the nature of a child to slap dough. Dough that bears traces of hens’ pickings and there is unclean liquid in the same house: if there was distance enough between the liquid and the loaves for the hens to dry their mouths on the ground, the dough is clean. And in the case of a cow or a dog, if there was distance enough for it to lick its tongue. And in the case of all other beasts, if there was distance enough for their tongue to dry. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob holds the dough to be clean in the case of a dog who is smart; for it is not its habit to leave food and go after the water.", 4.3. "A weasel that had in its mouth a [dead] sheretz or a dog that had carrion in its mouth and they passed between clean [persons] or if clean persons passed between them, their condition of doubt is deemed clean, since the uncleanness , had no resting place. If they were picking at them while these lay on the ground, and a person stated, \"I went to that place but I do not know whether I did or did not touch it,\"his condition of doubt is deemed unclean, since the uncleanness had a resting place.", 5.1. "A [dead] sheretz and a [dead] frog in a public domain, And so also [if there was there] an olive's bulk of a corpse and an olive's bulk of carrion, A bone of a corpse and a bone of carrion; A clod of clean earth and a clod from a doubtful grave area A clod of clean earth and a clod from the land of the Gentiles, Or if there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man walked through one of them but it is not known which, Or if overshadowed one of them but it is not known which, or he shifted one of them but it is not known which: Rabbi Akiva rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that he is clean.", 5.2. "One who said, \"I touched an object but I do not know whether it was unclean or clean,\" or \"I touched one but I do not know which of the two I touched\": Rabbi Akiva rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that he is clean. Rabbi Yose says that he is unclean in every case and clean only in that of the path, since it is the usual custom for people to walk but it is not their usual practice to touch.", 5.3. "If there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and one walked on one of them and then prepared clean foods which were then eaten and, then he was sprinkled upon once and a second time and he performed immersion and became clean, then he walked on the second path and then prepared clean foods, the latter are clean. If the first foods were still in existence both must be held in suspense. If he had not become clean in the meantime, the first is held in suspense and the second must be burnt.", 5.4. "If there was a sheretz and a frog in a public domain and a man touched one of them and then prepared clean foods which were subsequently consumed; and then he immersed, and then he touched the other and then prepared clean foods, the latter are deemed clean. If the first foods were still in existence both must be held in suspense. If he did not immerse in the meanwhile, the first are held in suspense and the second must be burnt .", 5.5. "If there were two paths, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man walked by one of them and then prepared clean food, and subsequently another man came and walked by the second path and then prepared clean foods: Rabbi Judah rules: if each by himself asked for a ruling they are both to be declared clean. But if they asked for a ruling simultaneously, both are to be declared unclean. Rabbi Yose ruled: in either case they are both unclean.", 5.6. "If there were two loaves, the one unclean and the other clean, and a man ate one of them and then prepared clean food, and afterwards another man came and ate the second loaf and then prepared clean food: Rabbi Judah ruled: if each by himself asked for a ruling they are both to be declared clean, but if they asked simultaneously both are to be declared unclean. Rabbi Yose ruled: in either case they are both unclean.", 5.8. "If there was in the town one who was not of sound sense, a Gentile, or a Samaritan woman, all spit encountered in the town is deemed unclean. If a woman trod on a man's clothes or sat with him in a boat: If she knew that he was one who eats terumah, his clothes remain clean: But if not, he must ask her.", 5.9. "If one witness says, \"You have become unclean,\" but he says, \"I have not become unclean,\" he is regarded as clean. If two witnesses say, \"You have become unclean,\" and he says, \"I have not become unclean,\" Rabbi Meir says: he is unclean. But the sages say: he may be believed on his own evidence. If one witness says, \"You have become unclean,\" and two witnesses say, \"He has not become unclean,\" whether in a private domain or in a public domain, he is regarded as clean. If two witnesses say, \"He has become unclean’, and one witness says, ‘\"He has not become unclean,\" whether in a private domain or in a public domain, he is regarded as unclean. If one witness says, \"He has become unclean,\" and another says, \"He has not become unclean,\" or if one woman says, \"He has become unclean’, and another woman says, \"He has not become unclean,\" he is regarded as unclean if in the private domain, but if in a public domain he is regarded as clean.", 6.6. "A condition of doubt in a private domain is unclean unless he says, \"I did not touch the unclean thing.\" A condition of doubt in a public domain is clean unless he can say, \"I did touch the unclean thing.\" What is regarded as a public domain? The paths of Bet Gilgul and similar places are regarded as a private domain in respect of the laws of Shabbat, and a public domain in respect of those of uncleanness. Rabbi Eliezer says: they only mentioned the paths of Bet Gilgul because they are regarded as a private domain in both respects. Paths that open out towards cisterns, pits, caverns or wine-presses are regarded as a private domain in respect of the laws of Shabbat and as a public domain in respect of those of uncleanness.", 7.1. "A potter who left his pots and went down to drink: the innermost pots remain clean but the outer ones are unclean. Rabbi Yose says: When is this so? When they are not tied together, but when they are tied together, all the pots are clean. One who gave over his key to an \"am haaretz\" the house remains clean, since he only gave him the guarding of the key.", 7.2. "If he left an am haaretz in his house awake and found him awake, or asleep and found him asleep, or awake and found him asleep, the house remains clean. If he left him asleep and found him awake, the house is unclean, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the only part that is unclean is where he can stretch out his hand and touch it.", 7.3. "One who left craftsmen in his house, the house is unclean, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the only part that is unclean is where they can stretch out their hand and touch it.", 7.4. "If the wife of a haver left the wife of an am haaretz grinding grain in her house, if the handmill stopped turning, the house is unclean. But if the handmill did not stop turning, that part of the house which she can stretch out her hand and touch is unclean. If there were two women, the house is unclean in either case, since while the one is grinding, the other can go about touching, the words of Meir. But the sages say: the only part that is unclean is where she can stretch out her hand and touch it.", 7.5. "One who left am haaretz in his house to guard him, if he can see those that enter and leave, only food and liquids and uncovered earthenware are unclean, but couches and seats and earthenware that have tightly fitting covers remain clean. And if he cannot see either those who enter or those who leave, even though the am haaretz has to be led and even though he was bound, all is unclean.", 7.6. "If tax collectors entered a house, the house is unclean. If a Gentile was with them they are believed if they say, \"we did not enter\" but they are not believed if they say \"we didn't touch anything.\" If thieves entered a house, only that part in which the feet of the thieves have stepped is unclean. And what do they cause to be unclean? Food and liquids and open earthenware, but couches and seats and earthenware that have tightly fitting covers remain clean. If a Gentile or a woman was with them, all is unclean.", 7.7. "One who left his clothes in the cubbies of the bath house attendants: Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that they are clean, But the sages say: [they are not clean] unless he gives him the key or the seal or unless he left some sign on them. One who left his clothes from one wine-pressing to the next, his clothes remain clean. If he left them with an Israelite [the clothes are unclean] unless he says, \"I have watched over them carefully.\"", 7.8. "One who was clean and had given up the thought of eating [pure food]: Rabbi Judah says that it remains clean, since it is usual for unclean persons to keep away from it. But the sages say that it is deemed unclean. If his hands were clean and he had given up the thought of eating [pure food], even though he says, \"I know that my hands have not become unclean,\" his hands are unclean, since the hands are always busy.", 8.1. "One who dwells in a courtyard with an am haaretz and forgot some vessels in the courtyard, even though they were jars with tightly fitting lids, or an oven with a tightly fitting cover, they are unclean. Rabbi Judah says that an oven is clean if it has a tightly fitting lid. Rabbi Yose says: even an oven is unclean unless he made for it a partition ten handbreadths high.", 8.2. "One who deposited vessels with an am haaretz they are unclean with corpse uncleanness and with midras uncleanness. If he knew that he eats terumah, they are free from corpse uncleanness but are unclean with midras uncleanness. Rabbi Yose says: if he deposited with him a chest full of clothes, they are deemed to be unclean with midras when they are tightly packed, but if they are not tightly packed they are only unclean with madaf uncleanness, even though the key is in the possession of the owner.", 8.3. "One who loses something during the day and finds it on the same day it remains clean. If it was lost during the daytime and found in the night, or if it was lost in the night and found during the day or if it was lost on one day and found on the next day, it is unclean. This is the general rule: if the night or part of the night has passed over it, it is unclean. One who spreads out his clothes: If in a public domain, they remain clean; But if in a private domain they are unclean. If he kept watch over them, they remain clean. If they fell down and he went to bring them, they are unclean. If one's bucket fell into the cistern of an ‘am ha-arez and he went to bring something to draw it up with, it is unclean, since it was left for a time in the domain of an am haaretz.", 8.4. "One who left his house open and found it open, or locked and found it locked, or open and found it locked, it remains clean. But if he left it closed and found it open: Rabbi Meir says that it is unclean; But the sages say that it remains clean, since, though thieves had been there, they may have changed their mind and gone away.", 8.5. "If the wife of an am haaretz entered a haver's house to take out his son or his daughter or his cattle, the house remains clean, since she had entered it without permission.", 8.6. "They said a general rule with regard to clean food: whatever is designated as food for human consumption is susceptible to uncleanness unless it is rendered unfit to be food for a dog; And whatever is not designated as food for human consumption is not susceptible to uncleanness unless it is designated for human consumption. How so? If a pigeon fell into a wine-press and one intended to pick it out for an idolater, it becomes susceptible to uncleanness; but if he intended it for a dog it is not susceptible to uncleanness. Rabbi Yoha ben Nuri rules that it is susceptible to uncleanness. If a deaf mute, one not of sound senses or a minor intended it as food, it remains insusceptible. But if they picked it up it becomes susceptible; since only an act of theirs is effective while their intention is of no consequence.", 10.3. "If the olive-workers or the grape harvesters were only brought within the domain of the cavern, it is sufficient, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: he should stand over them until they immerse. Rabbi Shimon say: if they regard the vessels as clean, one must stand over them until they immerse; but if they regard them as unclean, it is not necessary to stand over them until they immerse.", |
|
36. Mishnah, Zavim, 1.1-1.6, 2.1-2.3, 4.7, 5.4, 5.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 209, 215, 223, 226, 227, 228| 1.1. "הָרוֹאֶה רְאִיָּה אַחַת שֶׁל זוֹב, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, כְּשׁוֹמֶרֶת יוֹם כְּנֶגֶד יוֹם. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, כְּבַעַל קֶרִי. רָאָה אַחַת, וּבַשֵּׁנִי הִפְסִיק, וּבַשְּׁלִישִׁי רָאָה שְׁתַּיִם אוֹ אַחַת מְרֻבָּה כִשְׁתַּיִם, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, זָב גָּמוּר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, מְטַמֵּא מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב, וְצָרִיךְ בִּיאַת מַיִם חַיִּים, וּפָטוּר מִן הַקָּרְבָּן. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יְהוּדָה, מוֹדִים בֵּית שַׁמַּאי בָּזֶה שֶׁאֵינוֹ זָב גָּמוּר. וְעַל מַה נֶּחְלְקוּ, עַל הָרוֹאֶה שְׁתַּיִם אוֹ אַחַת מְרֻבָּה כִשְׁתַּיִם, וּבַשֵּׁנִי הִפְסִיק, וּבַשְּׁלִישִׁי רָאָה אַחַת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, זָב גָּמוּר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, מְטַמֵּא מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב, וְצָרִיךְ בִּיאַת מַיִם חַיִּים, וּפָטוּר מִן הַקָּרְבָּן: \n", 1.2. "הָרוֹאֶה קֶרִי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי לִסְפִירַת זוֹבוֹ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, סוֹתֵר שְׁנֵי יָמִים שֶׁלְּפָנָיו. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, לֹא סָתַר אֶלָּא יוֹמוֹ. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, הָרוֹאֶה בַשֵּׁנִי, סוֹתֵר אֶת שֶׁלְּפָנָיו. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֶחָד הָרוֹאֶה בַשֵּׁנִי וְאֶחָד הָרוֹאֶה בַשְּׁלִישִׁי, שֶׁבֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, סָתַר שְׁנֵי יָמִים שֶׁלְּפָנָיו. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, לֹא סָתַר אֶלָּא יוֹמוֹ. וּמוֹדִים בְּרוֹאֶה בָרְבִיעִי שֶׁלֹּא סָתַר אֶלָּא יוֹמוֹ, בְּרָאָה קֶרִי. אֲבָל אִם רָאָה זוֹב, אֲפִלּוּ יוֹם שְׁבִיעִי, סָתַר אֶת שֶׁלְּפָנָיו: \n", 1.3. "רָאָה אַחַת הַיּוֹם וּשְׁתַּיִם לְמָחָר, שְׁתַּיִם הַיּוֹם וְאַחַת לְמָחָר, שָׁלשׁ לִשְׁלשָׁה יָמִים אוֹ לִשְׁלשָׁה לֵילוֹת, הֲרֵי זֶה זָב גָּמוּר: \n", 1.4. "רָאָה אַחַת וְהִפְסִיק כְּדֵי טְבִילָה וְסִפּוּג, וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאָה שְׁתַּיִם אוֹ אַחַת מְרֻבָּה כִשְׁתַּיִם, אוֹ רָאָה שְׁתַּיִם אוֹ אַחַת מְרֻבָּה כִשְׁתַּיִם, וְהִפְסִיק כְּדֵי טְבִילָה וְסִפּוּג, וְאַחַר כָּךְ רָאָה אַחַת, הֲרֵי זֶה זָב גָּמוּר: \n", 1.5. "רָאָה אַחַת מְרֻבָּה כְשָׁלשׁ, שֶׁהִיא כְמִין גַּד יוֹן לַשִּׁילוֹחַ, שֶׁהֵן כְּדֵי שְׁתֵּי טְבִילוֹת וְכִשְׁנֵי סִפּוּגִין, הֲרֵי זֶה זָב גָּמוּר. רָאָה אַחַת מְרֻבָּה כִשְׁתַּיִם, מְטַמֵּא מִשְׁכָּב וּמוֹשָׁב, וְצָרִיךְ בִּיאַת מַיִם חַיִּים, וּפָטוּר מִן הַקָּרְבָּן. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, לֹא אָמְרוּ אַחַת מְרֻבָּה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֶשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי שָׁלשׁ: \n", 1.6. "רָאָה אַחַת הַיּוֹם וְאַחַת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת, אַחַת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת וְאַחַת לְמָחָר, אִם יָדוּעַ שֶׁמִּקְצָת הָרְאִיָּה מֵהַיּוֹם וּמִקְצָתָהּ לְמָחָר, וַדַּאי לַקָּרְבָּן וְלַטֻּמְאָה. אִם סָפֵק שֶׁמִּקְצָת הָרְאִיָּה מֵהַיּוֹם וּמִקְצָתָהּ לְמָחָר, וַדַּאי לַטֻּמְאָה וְסָפֵק לַקָּרְבָּן. רָאָה שְׁנֵי יָמִים בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת, סָפֵק לַטֻּמְאָה וְלַקָּרְבָּן. אַחַת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת, סָפֵק לַטֻּמְאָה: \n", 2.1. "הַכֹּל מִטַּמְּאִין בְּזִיבָה, אַף הַגֵּרִים, אַף הָעֲבָדִים, בֵּין מְשֻׁחְרָרִין בֵּין שֶׁאֵינָן מְשֻׁחְרָרִין, חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה, וְקָטָן, סְרִיס אָדָם, סְרִיס חַמָּה. טֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, נוֹתְנִין עֲלֵיהֶן חֻמְרֵי הָאִישׁ וְחֻמְרֵי הָאִשָּׁה, מִטַּמְּאִין בְּדָם כָּאִשָּׁה וּבְלֹבֶן כָּאִישׁ, וְטֻמְאָתָן בְּסָפֵק: \n", 2.2. "בְּשִׁבְעָה דְרָכִים בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הַזָּב עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְקַק לְזִיבָה. בְּמַאֲכָל, בְּמִשְׁתֶּה, וּבְמַשָּׂא, בִּקְפִיצָה, בְּחֹלִי, וּבְמַרְאֶה וּבְהִרְהוּר. הִרְהֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה אוֹ שֶׁרָאָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִרְהֵר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ רָאָה בְהֵמָה, חַיָּה וָעוֹף מִתְעַסְּקִין זֶה עִם זֶה, אֲפִלּוּ רָאָה בִגְדֵי צֶבַע הָאִשָּׁה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ אָכַל כָּל מַאֲכָל, בֵּין רַע בֵּין יָפֶה, וְשָׁתָה כָל מַשְׁקֶה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵין כָּאן זָבִין מֵעָתָּה. אָמַר לָהֶם, אֵין אַחֲרָיוּת זָבִים עֲלֵיכֶם. מִשֶּׁנִּזְקַק לְזִיבָה, אֵין בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. אָנְסוֹ וּסְפֵקוֹ וְשִׁכְבַת זַרְעוֹ טְמֵאִים, שֶׁרַגְלַיִם לַדָּבָר. רָאָה רְאִיָּה רִאשׁוֹנָה, בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. בַּשְּׁנִיָּה, בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית, אֵין בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, אַף בַּשְּׁלִישִׁית בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ, מִפְּנֵי הַקָּרְבָּן: \n", 2.3. "הָרוֹאֶה קֶרִי, אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא בְזִיבָה מֵעֵת לְעֵת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, יוֹמוֹ. נָכְרִי שֶׁרָאָה קֶרִי וְנִתְגַּיֵּר, מִיָּד הוּא מִטַּמֵּא בְזִיבָה. הָרוֹאָה דָם וְהַמַּקְשָׁה, מֵעֵת לְעֵת. וְהַמַּכֶּה אֶת עַבְדּוֹ יוֹם יוֹמַיִם, מֵעֵת לְעֵת. כֶּלֶב שֶׁאָכַל בְּשַׂר הַמֵּת, שְׁלשָׁה יָמִים מֵעֵת לְעֵת, הֲרֵי הוּא כִבְרִיָּתוֹ: \n" 4.7. "הָיָה יוֹשֵׁב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּטָּה וְאַרְבַּע טַלִּיּוֹת תַּחַת אַרְבַּע רַגְלֵי הַמִּטָּה, טְמֵאוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לַעֲמֹד עַל שָׁלשׁ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְטַהֵר. הָיָה רוֹכֵב עַל גַּבֵּי בְהֵמָה וְאַרְבַּע טַלִּיּוֹת תַּחַת אַרְבַּע רַגְלֵי בְהֵמָה, טְהוֹרוֹת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא יְכוֹלָה לַעֲמֹד עַל שְׁלשָׁה. הָיְתָה טַלִּית אַחַת תַּחַת שְׁנֵי יָדַיִם, תַּחַת שְׁנֵי רַגְלַיִם, תַּחַת יָד וָרֶגֶל, טְמֵאָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, הַסּוּס מְטַמֵּא בְרַגְלָיו וְהַחֲמוֹר בְּיָדָיו, שֶׁמִּשְׁעֶנֶת הַסּוּס עַל רַגְלָיו וּמִשְׁעֶנֶת הַחֲמוֹר עַל יָדָיו. יָשַׁב עַל קוֹרַת בֵּית הַבַּד, כֵּלִים שֶׁבָּעֵקֶל טְמֵאִין. עַל הַמַּכְבֵּשׁ שֶׁל כּוֹבֵס, כֵּלִים שֶׁתַּחְתָּיו, טְהוֹרִין. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה מְטַמֵּא: \n", 5.4. "מִקְצָת טָמֵא עַל הַטָּהוֹר וּמִקְצָת טָהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא, חִבּוּרֵי טָמֵא עַל הַטָּהוֹר וְחִבּוּרֵי טָהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא, טָמֵא. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, מִקְצָת טָמֵא עַל הַטָּהוֹר, טָמֵא. וּמִקְצָת טָהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא, טָהוֹר: \n", 5.6. "הַנּוֹגֵעַ בְּזָב, וּבְזָבָה, וּבְנִדָּה, וּבְיוֹלֶדֶת, וּבִמְצֹרָע, בְּמִשְׁכָּב, וּמוֹשָׁב, מְטַמֵּא שְׁנַיִם וּפוֹסֵל אֶחָד. פֵּרַשׁ, מְטַמֵּא אֶחָד וּפוֹסֵל אֶחָד, אֶחָד הַנּוֹגֵעַ וְאֶחָד הַמַּסִּיט וְאֶחָד הַנּוֹשֵׂא וְאֶחָד הַנִּשָּׂא: \n", | 1.1. "If a man has seen one issue of zov: Bet Shammai says: he is to be compared to [a woman] who observes day a for each day. But Bet Hillel says: he is to be compared to one who has had a seminal emission. Should he see [one day] and on the second it stopped, and on the third day he saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two: Bet Shammai says: he is a full zav. But Bet Hillel says: he defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice. Rabbi Elazar ben Yehudah said: Bet Shammai agrees that in such a case he is not real zav. What do they disagree about? The case of one who saw two [issues], or one [issue] that was as copious as two [on one day], and stopped on the second day, and on the third day he saw another [issue]. Bet Shammai says: he is a real zav; But Bet Hillel say: he only defiles those objects on which he sits or lies, and must also go into running water, but he is exempt from the sacrifice.", 1.2. "If one sees an issue of semen on the third day of counting his zov: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; But Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. Rabbi Ishmael says: one who sees it on the second day, it undoes the preceding day. But Rabbi Akiva says: it matters not whether he saw it on the second day or on the third day: Bet Shammai says: it undoes the two preceding days; And Bet Hillel says: it undoes only that day. But they agree that if he saw it on the fourth day [of counting] it undoes only that day. This is if he saw semen; but he saw zov, then even if this had occurred on the seventh day, it undoes all the days that had preceded.", 1.3. "If he saw one issue on one day and two on the next day, or two on one day and one on the next day, or three on three [consecutive] days, or three nights, he is a full zav.", 1.4. "If he saw one [issue] and it stopped long enough for an immersion and a drying, and after that he saw two issues, or one as copious as two; Or if he saw two [issues] or one as copious as two, and it stopped long enough for an immersion and a drying, and after that he again saw an issue, he is a full zav.", 1.5. "If he saw one issue which was as copious as three, lasting as long [as it takes to go] from Gad-Yav to Shiloah, which is the time it would take to bathe and dry twice, he becomes a full zav. If he saw one issue which was as copious as two, he defiles [objects] on which he lies or sits and he must immerse in running water, but he is exempt from bringing a sacrifice. Rabbi Yose said: they have not spoken of \"one issue as copious\" unless there was sufficient to make up three.", 1.6. "If he saw one issue during the day and another at twilight, or one at twilight and the other the next day: If he knew that part of the issue occurred at day-time and part the next day, he is certain with regard to a sacrifice and uncleanness. But if it is in doubt whether part [of the issue] occurred at day-time and part on the next day he is certain with regard to uncleanness, but in one of doubt in with regard a sacrifice. If he had seen issues on two separate days at twilight, he is in doubt both with regard to defilement and with regard to a sacrifice. If [he had seen only] one issue at twilight, he is in doubt [also] with regard to [his] defilement.", 2.1. "All persons become unclean through zivah, even converts, even slaves whether freed or not, a deaf-mute, a person of unsound senses, and a minor, a eunuch whether [he had been castrated] by man, or was a eunuch from [the time of seeing] the sun. With regard to a tumtum and an androgynous [person], they place upon him the stringencies for a man and the stringencies for a woman: they defile through blood like a woman, and through eggy [substance] like a man. Their uncleanness still remains in doubt.", 2.2. "There are seven ways in which a zav is examined as long as he had not become subject to zivah: With regard to food, drink, as [to what] he had carried, whether he had jumped, whether he had been ill, what he had seen, or what he had thought. [It doesn't matter] whether he had thoughts before seeing [a woman], or whether he had seen [a woman] before his thoughts. Rabbi Judah says: even if he had watched beasts, wild animals or birds having intercourse with each other, and even when he had seen a woman's dyed garments. Rabbi Akiva says: even if he had eaten any kind of food, be it good or bad, or had drunk any kind of liquid. They said to him: Then there will be no zavim in the world!’ He replied to them: you are not held responsible for the existence of zavim!’ Once he had become subject to zivah, no further examination takes place. [Zov] resulting from an accident, or that was at all doubtful, or an issue of semen, these are unclean, since there are grounds for the assumption [that it is zivah]. If he had at a first [issue] they examine him; On the second [issue] they examine him, but on the third [issue] they don't examine him. Rabbi Eliezer says: even on the third [issue] they examine him because of the sacrifice.", 2.3. "One who had [a discharge of] semen does not defile due to zivah for a period of twenty-four hours. Rabbi Yose says: [only] that day. A non-Jew who had a discharge of semen and then converted, he immediately becomes unclean due to zivah. [A woman] who had [an issue] of blood, or had experienced difficulty [in childbirth], [the time prescribed] is twenty-four hours. One who strikes his slave, the \"day or two\" is twenty-four hours. A dog that eats a corpse's flesh, for three days from one time of day to the same time of day, it is considered to be in its natural state." 4.7. "If he sat on a bed and there were four cloaks under the four legs of the bed, all become unclean, since the bed cannot stand on three legs; But Rabbi Shimon declares them clean. If he rode on a beast and there were four cloaks under the legs of the beast, they are clean, since the beast can stand upon three legs. If there was one cloak under its two forelegs or its two hindlegs, or under a foreleg and a hindleg, it becomes unclean. Rabbi Yose says: a horse conveys uncleanness through its hindlegs and a donkey through its forelegs, since a horse leans upon its hindlegs and a donkey upon its forelegs. If he sat on a beam of an olive-press, the vessels in the olive-press receptacle are unclean. [If he sat] on a clothing press, the garments beneath it are clean. Rabbi Nehemiah declares them unclean.", 5.4. "If part of an unclean person rests upon a clean person, or part of a clean person upon an unclean person, or if things connected to an unclean person [rest] upon a clean person, or if things connected to a clean person upon one unclean, he becomes unclean. Rabbi Shimon says: if part of an unclean person is upon a clean person, he is unclean; but if part of a clean person is upon one that is unclean, he is clean.", 5.6. "He who touches a zav, or a zavah, a menstruant, or a woman after childbirth, or a metzora, or any object on which these had been sitting or lying, conveys uncleanness at two [removes] and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. If he separated, he still conveys uncleanness at one [remove], and disqualifies [terumah] at one [further remove]. This is true whether he had touched, or had shifted, or had carried, or was carried.", |
|
37. New Testament, Acts, 10.28 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 225| 10.28. ἔφη τε πρὸς αὐτούς Ὑμεῖς ἐπίστασθε ὡς ἀθέμιτόν ἐστιν ἀνδρὶ Ἰουδαίῳ κολλᾶσθαι ἢ προσέρχεσθαι ἀλλοφύλῳ· κἀμοὶ ὁ θεὸς ἔδειξεν μηδένα κοινὸν ἢ ἀκάθαρτον λέγειν ἄνθρωπον· | 10.28. He said to them, "You yourselves know how it is an unlawful thing for a man who is a Jew to join himself or come to one of another nation, but God has shown me that I shouldn't call any man unholy or unclean. |
|
38. New Testament, Galatians, 2.11-2.15 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 225| 2.11. Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν· 2.12. πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινὰς ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν· ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτόν, φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς. 2.13. καὶ συνυπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ [καὶ] οἱ λοιποὶ Ἰουδαῖοι, ὥστε καὶ Βαρνάβας συναπήχθη αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει. 2.14. ἀλλʼ ὅτε εἶδον ὅτι οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσιν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, εἶπον τῷ Κηφᾷ ἔμπροσθεν πάντων Εἰ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐκ Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς, πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις Ἰουδαΐζειν; 2.15. Ἡμεῖς φύσει Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ οὐκ ἐξ ἐθνῶν ἁμαρτωλοί, | 2.11. But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face,because he stood condemned. 2.12. For before some people came fromJames, he ate with the Gentiles. But when they came, he drew back andseparated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 2.13. And the rest of the Jews joined him in his hypocrisy; so that evenBarnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 2.14. But when I sawthat they didn't walk uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, Isaid to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live as theGentiles do, and not as the Jews do, why do you compel the Gentiles tolive as the Jews do? 2.15. "We, being Jews by nature, and not Gentile sinners, |
|
39. New Testament, Romans, 14.14 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 215| 14.14. οἶδα καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ ὅτι οὐδὲν κοινὸν διʼ ἑαυτοῦ· εἰ μὴ τῷ λογιζομένῳ τι κοινὸν εἶναι, ἐκείνῳ κοινόν. | 14.14. I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean of itself; except that to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. |
|
40. Tosefta, Megillah, 1.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 219| 1.11. "אין בין זב הרואה שתי ראיות לרואה שלש אלא קרבן אין בין זב לזבה אלא שהזב טעון ביאת מים חיים זבה אין טעונה ביאת מים חיים [אין בין זבה לנדה אלא קרבן אין בין קרבן זבה ליולדת אלא הבאת קרבן אין בין נדה לשומרת יום כנגד יום אלא ספירת שבעה בלבד].", | 1.11. "There is no difference between a one who sees two unnatural discharges and one who sees three except for the obligation to bring a sacrifice. There is no difference between a male and a female who have unnatural discharges except that the male must immerse in living waters, whereas a female doesn't need to immerse in living waters. There is no difference between a female with an unnatural discharge and a menstruating female except for the bringing of an offering [which the menstruant does not have to do]. There is no difference between the sacrifice of the woman who has an unnatural discharge and one who has given birth except for the type of offering (?). There is no difference between a menstruating woman and one who is waiting one day after one day of abnormal discharge except for the counting of seven days. ", |
|
| 41. Tosefta, Miqvaot, 6.8, 7.8-7.10 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 72, 207, 208, 209 |
42. Tosefta, Berachot, 2.12 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 227| 2.12. "הזבין והזבות והנדות והיולדות מותרין לקרות בתורה ולשנות במשנה במדרש בהלכות ובאגדות ובעלי קריין אסורין בכולן ר' יהודה אומר <אבל> שונה הוא בהלכות הרגילות ובלבד שלא יציע את המשנה.", | |
|
43. Tosefta, Nazir, 5.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 218| 5.3. "אמר רבי אלעזר כשהלכתי לערדסקיא מצאתי [את רבי מאיר ואת רבי יהודה בן בתירה שהיו יושבין ודנין בהלכה רבי יהודה בן בתירא אמר רביעית דם אין נזיר מגלח עליה ואין חייבין עליה על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו אמר לו רבי מאיר לא תהא זו קלה מן השרץ מה שרץ הקל חייבין עליו על ביאת מקדש רביעית דם חמורה אינו דין שיהיו חייבין עליה על ביאת מקדש שתק רבי יהודה בן בתירא לפניו נמתי לו מאיר אל תבזו לי בקי היה לך ביהושע בן ממל אמר לי הן ובעל הלכות היה נמתי לו בלשון הזה אמר לי משום רבי יהושע כל טומאה מן המת שנזיר מגלח עליה חייבין עליה על ביאת המקדש וכל טומאה מן המת שאין נזיר מגלח עליה אין חייבין עליה על ביאת המקדש] ורואה אני את דבריו.", | |
|
| 44. Tosefta, Parah, 12.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 223 |
45. Tosefta, Pesahim, 8.1, 8.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 227| 8.1. "[אלו עושין את השני הזבין והזבות הנדות והיולדות האנוסין והשוגגין והמזידין והמצורעים ובועלי נדות ומי שהיה טמא או בדרך רחוקה] א\"כ למה נאמר (במדבר ט׳:י׳) טמא או בדרך רחוקה [שבא הכתוב] לפטרו מן הכרת רבי עקיבה אומר נאמר טמא [נפש] ונאמר [דרך] רחוקה מה טמא [נפש רוצה לעשות ואין יכול אף דרך רחוקה רצה לעשות ואין יכול] ר\"א אומר נאמר רחוק מקום במעשר ונאמר רחוק מקום בפסח מה רחוק מקום האמור במעשר חוץ למקום אכילתו אף רחוק מקום האמור בפסח חוץ למקום אכילתו רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר חוץ למקום עשייתו א\"ר יוסי לפיכך נקוד על ה' [כלומר] לא מפני שהיא רחוקה ודאי אלא מאסקופת העזרה ולחוץ רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר דרך רחוקה שומע אני מהלך יום אחד או מהלך שני ימים [או ג' ימים] כשהוא אומר ובדרך לא היה הוי מאסקופת העזרה ולחוץ קרוי דרך.", | |
|
| 46. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 11.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 228 |
47. Tosefta, Kippurim, 4.5, 4.20 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 223, 227| 4.5. "מי שאחזו בולמוס מאכילין אותו הקל הקל כיצד היו לפניו טבל ושביעית מאכילין אותו שביעית טבל ונבלה מאכילין אותו נבלה [נבלה] ותרומה מאכילין אותו תרומה תרומה ושביעית מאכילין אותו שביעית עד שיאורו עיניו מניין היו יודעין שיאורו עיניו כדי שיכיר בין יפה לרע.", | |
|
48. Tosefta, Shekalim, 1.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 218| 1.5. "כמה הוא קולבון מעה כסף אחד מעשרים וארבעה כסף לסלע דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים חצי מעה [של ארבעה אסרות] קולבנות הללו מה היו עושין להם נופלים לשקלים דברי רבי מאיר רבי אלעזר אומר לנדבה רבי שמעון שזורי אומר רקועי זהב צפוי לבית קדש הקדשים בן עזאי אומר השולחנין באין ונוטלין אותן בשכרן.", | |
|
49. Tosefta, Toharot, 1.10, 8.12-8.15, 9.4, 9.12 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 213, 230, 231, 235| 9.4. "ע\"ה שקבל עליו והיו לו טהרות ואמר ברי לי שלא נטמאו בזמן שהן עשויות ע\"ג אחרים אסורות לו ואסורות לכל אדם. ע\"ג עצמו מותרות לו ואסורות לכל אדם <אם אסורות לכל אדם> ר\"ע אומר אם מותר לו מותר לכל אדם אסור לו אסור לכל אדם עובד כוכבים שנתגייר והיה לו יי\"נ ואומר ברי לי שלא נטמא בזמן שלא נעשה על גבי אחרים אסור לו אסור לכל אדם ר\"ע אומר אם מותר לו מותר לכל אדם ואם אסור לו אסור לכל אדם.", | |
|
50. Tosefta, Zavim, 2.1, 2.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 223, 227| 2.1. "העובדי כוכבים והגר תושב אינן מטמאין בזיבה ואע\"פ שאינן מטמאין בזיבה טמאין כזבין לכל דבריהם. ושורפין עליהן את התרומה ואין חייבין עליהן על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו. טומטום ואנדרוגינוס שראו בין לובן בין אודם אין שורפין עליהן את התרומה ואין חייבין עליהן על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו ראו לובן או אודם כאחד שורפין עליהן את התרומה ואין חייבין עליהן על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו. הנוגע בלובן ואודם ונכנס למקדש פטור. הוא עצמו שנגע בלובן ואודם ונכנס למקדש פטור. היה מונה ללובן וראה אודם לאודם וראה לובן הרי זה אינו סותר.", 2.4. "עובד כוכבים שראה קרי ונתגייר מיד מטמא בזיבה בד\"א בזמן שנתגייר מהול אבל מל ואח\"כ ראה תולין לו כ\"ז שהוא מצטער בין עובד כוכבים ובין ישראל.", | |
|
51. Mishnah, Makhshirin, 1.1, 1.3, 1.6, 2.2, 2.4, 3.5, 3.7-3.9, 6.1, 6.4-6.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 223, 226, 227, 234| 1.1. "כָּל מַשְׁקֶה שֶׁתְּחִלָּתוֹ לְרָצוֹן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין סוֹפוֹ לְרָצוֹן, אוֹ שֶׁסּוֹפוֹ לְרָצוֹן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין תְּחִלָּתוֹ לְרָצוֹן, הֲרֵי זֶה בְכִי יֻתַּן. מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִים מְטַמְּאִין לְרָצוֹן וְשֶׁלֹּא לְרָצוֹן: \n", 1.3. "הַמַּרְעִיד אֶת הָאִילָן וְנָפַל עַל חֲבֵרוֹ, אוֹ סוֹכָה וְנָפְלָה עַל חֲבֶרְתָּהּ, וְתַחְתֵּיהֶן זְרָעִים אוֹ יְרָקוֹת הַמְחֻבָּרִין לַקַּרְקַע, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, בְּכִי יֻתַּן. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵינָן בְּכִי יֻתַּן. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מִשּׁוּם אַבָּא יוֹסֵי חֲלֵי קוּפְרִי אִישׁ טִבְעוֹן, תְּמַהּ עַצְמְךָ אִם יֵשׁ מַשְׁקֶה טָמֵא בַתּוֹרָה, עַד שֶׁיִּתְכַּוֵּן וְיִתֵּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יא), וְכִי יֻתַּן מַיִם עַל זֶרַע: \n", 1.6. "הַנּוֹפֵחַ בַּעֲדָשִׁים לְבָדְקָן אִם יָפוֹת הֵן, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֵינָן בְּכִי יֻתַּן. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בְּכִי יֻתַּן. וְהָאוֹכֵל שֻׁמְשְׁמִין בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ, מַשְׁקִין שֶׁעַל יָדוֹ, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֵינָן בְּכִי יֻתַּן. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בְּכִי יֻתַּן. הַטּוֹמֵן פֵּרוֹתָיו בַּמַּיִם מִפְּנֵי הַגַּנָּבִים, אֵינָן בְּכִי יֻתַּן. מַעֲשֶׂה בְאַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם שֶׁטָּמְנוּ דְבֵלָתָן בַּמַּיִם מִפְּנֵי הַסִּיקָרִין, וְטִהֲרוּ לָהֶן חֲכָמִים. הַנּוֹתֵן פֵּרוֹתָיו בְּשִׁבֹּלֶת הַנָּהָר לַהֲבִיאָן עִמּוֹ, אֵינָן בְּכִי יֻתַּן: \n", 2.2. "מֶרְחָץ טְמֵאָה, זֵעָתָהּ טְמֵאָה. וּטְהוֹרָה, בְּכִי יֻתַּן. הַבְּרֵכָה שֶׁבַּבַּיִת, הַבַּיִת מַזִּיעַ מֵחֲמָתָהּ, אִם טְמֵאָה, זֵעַת כָּל הַבַּיִת שֶׁמֵּחֲמַת הַבְּרֵכָה, טְמֵאָה: \n", 2.4. "הַטּוֹרֵף אֶת גַּגּוֹ וְהַמְכַבֵּס אֶת כְּסוּתוֹ וְיָרְדוּ עֲלֵיהֶן גְּשָׁמִים, אִם רֹב מִן הַטָּמֵא, טָמֵא. וְאִם רֹב מִן הַטָּהוֹר, טָהוֹר. מֶחֱצָה לְמֶחֱצָה, טָמֵא. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם הוֹסִיפוּ לְנַטֵּף: \n", 3.5. "הַמְטַנֵּן בְּטִיט הַנָּגוּב, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אִם יֶשׁ בּוֹ מַשְׁקֶה טוֹפֵחַ, בְּכִי יֻתַּן. וְאִם לָאו, אֵינוֹ בְּכִי יֻתַּן. הַמְרַבֵּץ אֶת גָּרְנוֹ, אֵינוֹ חוֹשֵׁשׁ שֶׁמָּא נָתַן בָּהּ חִטִּים וְטָנְנוּ. הַמְלַקֵּט עֲשָׂבִים כְּשֶׁהַטַּל עֲלֵיהֶם, לְהָטֵן בָּהֶם חִטִּים, אֵינָן בְּכִי יֻתַּן. אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן לְכָךְ, הֲרֵי זֶה בְכִי יֻתַּן. הַמּוֹלִיךְ חִטִּין לִטְחֹן וְיָרְדוּ עֲלֵיהֶן גְּשָׁמִים, אִם שָׂמַח, בְּכִי יֻתַּן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׂמֹחַ, אֶלָּא אִם עָמָד: \n", 3.7. "הַחַמָּרִין שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹבְרִים בַּנָּהָר וְנָפְלוּ שַׂקֵּיהֶם לַמַּיִם, אִם שָׂמְחוּ, בְּכִי יֻתַּן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׂמֹחַ, אֶלָּא, אִם הָפְכוּ. הָיוּ רַגְלָיו מְלֵאוֹת טִיט, וְכֵן רַגְלֵי בְהֶמְתּוֹ, עָבַר בַּנָּהָר, אִם שָׂמַח, בְּכִי יֻתַּן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׂמֹחַ, אֶלָּא, אִם עָמַד וְהֵדִיחַ. בְּאָדָם וּבִבְהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, לְעוֹלָם טָמֵא: \n", 3.8. "הַמּוֹרִיד אֶת הַגַּלְגַּלִּים וְאֶת כְּלֵי הַבָּקָר בִּשְׁעַת הַקָּדִים לַמַּיִם בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיָּחוּצוּ, הֲרֵי זֶה בְכִי יֻתַּן. הַמּוֹרִיד בְּהֵמָה לִשְׁתּוֹת, הַמַּיִם הָעוֹלִים בְּפִיהָ, בְּכִי יֻתַּן. וּבְרַגְלֶיהָ, אֵינָן בְּכִי יֻתַּן. אִם חָשַׁב שֶׁיּוּדְחוּ רַגְלֶיהָ, אַף הָעוֹלִין בְּרַגְלֶיהָ, בְּכִי יֻתַּן. בִּשְׁעַת הַיַּחַף וְהַדַּיִשׁ, לְעוֹלָם טָמֵא. הוֹרִיד חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחוֹשֵׁב שֶׁיּוּדְחוּ רַגְלֶיהָ, אֵינָן בְּכִי יֻתַּן, שֶׁיֶּשׁ לָהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה וְאֵין לָהֶן מַחֲשָׁבָה: \n", 6.1. "הַמַּעֲלֶה פֵרוֹתָיו לַגַּג מִפְּנֵי הַכְּנִימָה, וְיָרַד עֲלֵיהֶם טַל, אֵינָם בְּכִי יֻתַּן. אִם נִתְכַּוֵּן לְכָךְ, הֲרֵי זֶה בְכִי יֻתַּן. הֶעֱלָן חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחִשַּׁב שֶׁיֵּרֵד עֲלֵיהֶן הַטַּל, אֵינָן בְּכִי יֻתַּן, שֶׁיֶּשׁ לָהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה וְאֵין לָהֶן מַחֲשָׁבָה: \n", 6.4. "שִׁבְעָה מַשְׁקִין הֵן. הַטַּל וְהַמַּיִם, הַיַּיִן וְהַשֶּׁמֶן, וְהַדָּם, וְהֶחָלָב, וּדְבַשׁ דְּבוֹרִים. דְּבַשׁ צְרָעִים, טָהוֹר, וּמֻתָּר בַּאֲכִילָה: \n", 6.5. "תּוֹלָדוֹת לַמַּיִם, הַיּוֹצְאִין מִן הָעַיִן, מִן הָאֹזֶן, מִן הַחֹטֶם, מִן הַפֶּה, מֵי רַגְלַיִם, בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים בֵּין קְטַנִּים, לְדַעְתּוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לְדַעְתּוֹ. תּוֹלָדוֹת לַדָּם, דַּם שְׁחִיטָה. בַּבְּהֵמָה וּבַחַיָּה וּבָעוֹפוֹת הַטְּהוֹרִים, וְדַם הַקָּזָה לִשְׁתִיָּה. מֵי חָלָב, כֶּחָלָב. וְהַמֹּחַל, כַּשֶּׁמֶן, שֶׁאֵין הַמֹּחַל יוֹצֵא מִידֵי שֶׁמֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין עִמּוֹ שָׁמֶן. דַּם הַשֶּׁרֶץ, כִּבְשָׂרוֹ, מְטַמֵּא וְאֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר, וְאֵין לָנוּ כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ: \n", 6.6. "אֵלּוּ מְטַמְּאִין וּמַכְשִׁירִין. זוֹבוֹ שֶׁל זָב, וְרֻקּוֹ, וְשִׁכְבַת זַרְעוֹ, וּמֵימֵי רַגְלָיו, וּרְבִיעִית מִן הַמֵּת, וְדַם הַנִּדָּה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע אֵינָהּ מַכְשֶׁרֶת. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר, דַּם הַנִּדָּה אֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, דַּם הַמֵּת אֵינוֹ מַכְשִׁיר. וְאִם נָפַל עַל הַדְּלַעַת, גּוֹרְדָהּ וְהִיא טְהוֹרָה: \n", 6.7. "אֵלּוּ לֹא מְטַמְּאִין וְלֹא מַכְשִׁירִין. הַזֵּעָה, וְהַלֵּחָה סְרוּחָה, וְהָרְאִי, וְהַדָּם הַיּוֹצֵא עִמָּהֶם, וּמַשְׁקֵה בֶן שְׁמֹנָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, חוּץ מִדָּמוֹ. וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה מֵי טְבֶרְיָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיּוֹצְאִין נְקִיִּים. דַּם שְׁחִיטָה בַּבְּהֵמָה, בַּחַיָּה וּבָעוֹפוֹת הַטְּמֵאִים, וְדַם הַקָּזָה לִרְפוּאָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְטַמֵּא בָאֵלּוּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, חֲלֵב הַזָּכָר, טָהוֹר: \n", 6.8. "חֲלֵב הָאִשָּׁה מְטַמֵּא לְרָצוֹן וְשֶׁלֹּא לְרָצוֹן, וַחֲלֵב הַבְּהֵמָה אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶלָּא לְרָצוֹן. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, קַל וָחֹמֶר הַדְּבָרִים. מָה אִם חֲלֵב הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְיֻחָד אֶלָּא לִקְטַנִּים, מְטַמֵּא לְרָצוֹן וְשֶׁלֹּא לְרָצוֹן, חֲלֵב הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁהוּא מְיֻחָד לִקְטַנִּים וְלִגְדוֹלִים, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּטַמֵּא לְרָצוֹן וְשֶׁלֹּא לְרָצוֹן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא, אִם טִמֵּא חֲלֵב הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁלֹּא לְרָצוֹן, שֶׁדַּם מַגֵּפָתָהּ טָמֵא, יְטַמֵּא חֲלֵב הַבְּהֵמָה שֶׁלֹּא לְרָצוֹן, שֶׁדַּם מַגֵּפָתָהּ טָהוֹר. אָמַר לָהֶם, מַחְמִיר אֲנִי בְּחָלָב מִבְּדָם, שֶׁהַחוֹלֵב לִרְפוּאָה, טָמֵא, וְהַמַּקִּיז לִרְפוּאָה, טָהוֹר. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, סַלֵּי זֵיתִים וַעֲנָבִים יוֹכִיחוּ, שֶׁהַמַּשְׁקִים הַיּוֹצְאִין מֵהֶן לְרָצוֹן, טְמֵאִים, וְשֶׁלֹּא לְרָצוֹן, טְהוֹרִים. אָמַר לָהֶן, לֹא, אִם אֲמַרְתֶּם בְּסַלֵּי זֵיתִים וַעֲנָבִים, שֶׁתְּחִלָּתָן אֹכֶל וְסוֹפָן מַשְׁקֶה, תֹּאמְרוּ בְחָלָב שֶׁתְּחִלָּתוֹ וְסוֹפוֹ מַשְׁקֶה. עַד כָּאן הָיְתָה תְשׁוּבָה. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מִכָּאן וָאֵילָךְ הָיִינוּ מְשִׁיבִין לְפָנָיו, מֵי גְשָׁמִים יוֹכִיחוּ, שֶׁתְּחִלָּתָן וְסוֹפָן מַשְׁקֶה וְאֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין אֶלָּא לְרָצוֹן. אָמַר לָנוּ, לֹא, אִם אֲמַרְתֶּם בְּמֵי גְשָׁמִים, שֶׁאֵין רֻבָּן לָאָדָם, אֶלָּא לָאֲרָצוֹת וְלָאִילָנוֹת, וְרֹב הֶחָלָב, לָאָדָם: \n", | 1.1. "Any liquid which was desired at the beginning though it was not desired at the end, or which was desired at the end though it was not desired at the beginning, comes under the law of \"if water be put.\" Unclean liquids render unclean whether [their action] is desired or is not desired.", 1.3. "If one shook a tree and it fell on another tree, or a branch and it fell on another branch, and under them were seeds or vegetables [still] joined to the ground: Bet Shammai say: this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. But Bet Hillel say: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. R. Joshua said in the name of Abba Yose Holikofri a man of Tivon: Be surprised if there is any liquid that according to the Torah causes susceptibility to uncleanness except one put it on with intention, for it is said: \"If water be put upon the seed.\"", 1.6. "If one blew on lentils in order to test whether they were good: Rabbi Shimon says: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: this does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one ate sesame with his finger, with regard to the liquid that was on his hand: Rabbi Shimon says: this does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. But the sages say: this does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one hid his fruit in water from thieves, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. Once it happened that the men of Jerusalem hid their fig cakes in water from the robbers, and the sages declared that they were not susceptible to uncleanness. If one put his fruit in the stream of a river to make it come down with him, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’.", 2.2. "The sweat of an unclean bath is unclean, But that of a clean bath comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. If there was a pool in a house, the house sweats because of it if the pool was unclean, the sweat of all the house which was caused by the pool is unclean.", 2.4. "If one flattened out his roof or washed his garment and rain came down upon it: If the greater part consisted of the unclean water, it is unclean; If the greater part consisted of the clean water, it is clean; But if there was half of each, it is unclean. Rabbi Judah says: if the dripping increased, [it is clean].", 3.5. "If one moistened [produce] with drying clay: Rabbi Shimon says: if there was still in it dripping liquid, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if there was not, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one sprinkled his threshing-floor with water, he need not be concerned lest wheat be put there and it become moist. If one gathered grass with the dew still on it in order to moisten wheat with it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, But if his intention was for this purpose, it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one carried wheat to be milled and rain came down upon it and he was glad of it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah said: one cannot help being glad of it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he stopped [on his way].", 3.7. "If donkey-drivers were crossing a river and their sacks [filled with produce] fell into the water and they were happy about it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah says: one cannot help being happy about it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if they turned over [the sacks]. If one's feet were full of clay, similarly, the feet of his beast, and he crossed a river and he was happy about it, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah says: one cannot help being happy about it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he stopped and rinsed off his [feet] or those of his [domesticated] beast. But with an unclean [beast] it always causes susceptibility to uncleanness.", 3.8. "If one lowered wheels or the gear of oxen into water at the time of the hot east wind in order that they might become tightened, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one took down a beast to drink, the water which came up on its mouth comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but that which came up on its feet does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If he intended that its feet should be washed, even the water that came up on its feet comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. At the time of footsoreness or of threshing it always causes susceptibility to uncleanness. If a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor took it down, even though his intention was that its feet should be washed, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because with these the act alone counts, but not the intention.", 6.1. "One who carries his produce up to the roof because of maggots, and dew came down upon it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if he intended for this to happen, it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If a deaf-mute, or a person not of sound senses, or a minor carried it up, although he expected that dew should come down upon it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because with these the act alone counts, but not the intention.", 6.4. "There are seven liquids: dew, water, wine, oil, blood, milk and bees’ honey. Hornets’ honey does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness and may be eaten.", 6.5. "Derivatives of water are: the liquids that come from the eye, from the ear, from the nose and from the mouth, and urine, whether of adults or of children, whether [its flow is] conscious or unconscious. Derivatives of blood are: blood from the slaughtering of cattle and wild animals and birds that are clean, and blood from bloodletting for drinking. Whey is like milk, And the sap of olives is deemed like oil, since it is never free from oil, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Meir says: even though it contains no oil. The blood of a sheretz is like its flesh, it causes uncleanness but does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness, and there is nothing else like it.", 6.6. "The following cause uncleanness and also susceptibility [to uncleanness]; The flow of a zav, his spittle, his semen and his urine; A quarter-log of blood from a corpse, and the blood of a menstruant. Rabbi Eliezer says: semen does not cause susceptibility. R. Elazar ben Azariah says: the blood of a menstruant does not cause susceptibility. Rabbi Shimon says: the blood of a corpse does not cause susceptibility, and if it fell on a gourd, he can scrape it off, and it remains clean.", 6.7. "The following cause neither uncleanness nor susceptibility to uncleanness: Sweat, rotten secretion, excrement, blood issuing with any of these, liquid [issuing from a child born in the] eight month. Rabbi Yose says: except its blood. [The discharge from the bowels of] one who drinks the water of Tiberias even though it comes out clean. Blood from the slaughtering of cattle and wild animals and birds that are unclean, and blood from bloodletting for healing. Rabbi Eliezer declares these unclean. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: the milk of a male is clean.", 6.8. "A woman's milk renders unclean whether [its flow is] desired or is not desired, but the milk of cattle renders unclean only if [its flow is] desired. Rabbi Akiva said: there is a kal vehomer argument here: if a woman's milk, which is specifically for infants, can render unclean whether [its flow is] desired or is not desired, all the more should the milk of cattle, which is for infants and adults, should render unclean both when [its flow is] desired and when it is not desired. They said to him: No; a woman's milk renders unclean when [its flow is] not desired, because the blood issuing from her wound is unclean; but how could the milk of cattle render unclean when [its flow is] not desired, seeing that the blood issuing from its wound is clean? He said to them: I am stricter in the case of milk than in the case of blood, for if one milks for healing, [the milk] is unclean, whereas if one lets blood for healing, [the blood] is clean. They said to him: let baskets of olives and grapes prove it; for liquids flowing from them are unclean only when [the flow is] desired, but when [the flow is] not desired they are clean. He said to them: No; if you say [thus] of baskets of olives and grapes which are at first a solid food and at the end become a liquid, could you say [the same] of milk which remains a liquid from beginning to end? Thus far was the argument. Rabbi Shimon said: from here on in we used to argue before him: let rain water prove it, for it remains a liquid from beginning to end, and renders unclean only when [its flow is] desired. But he said to us: No; if you say [thus] of rain water, it is because most of it is intended not for human usage but for the soil and for trees, whereas most milk is intended for human usage.", |
|
| 52. Tosefta, Avodah Zarah, 3.9-3.10 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 231, 234 |
53. Tosefta, Negaim, 6.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 228| 6.1. "בית המנוגע לא היה ולא עתיד להיות למה נכתב אלא לומר דרוש וקבל שכר. ר\"א בר\"ש אומר מקום היה בתחום עזה והיו קורין אותו חורבתא סגירתא. ר\"ש בן יהודה אומר איש כפר עכו מקום היה בגליל והיו מציינין אותו שהיו אומרים אבנים מנוגעות היה בו וירושלים אינה מטמאה בנגעים אמר רבי יהודה אני לא שמעתי אלא בבית המקדש בלבד.", | |
|
| 54. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 213 |
| 55. Palestinian Talmud, Niddah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 227 |
| 56. Palestinian Talmud, Nazir, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 220 |
| 57. Palestinian Talmud, Maaser Sheni, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 218 |
| 58. Palestinian Talmud, Hagigah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 233 |
| 59. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 227 |
| 60. Palestinian Talmud, Shabbat, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 211, 222 |
61. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 15.4 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 222| 15.4. דָּבָר אַחֵר, אָדָם כִּי יִהְיֶה בְעוֹר בְּשָׂרוֹ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (משלי יט, כט): נָכוֹנוּ לַלֵּצִים שְׁפָטִים, מוּכָנִים הָיוּ לַלֵּצִים דִּינִים. בְּנֹהַג שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם אָדָם רוֹכֵב עַל הַחֲמוֹר פְּעָמִים שֶׁסּוֹרֵחַ עָלָיו וּמַכֵּהוּ, פְּעָמִים שֶׁשּׂוֹחֵק עָלָיו וּמַכֵּהוּ, בְּרַם הָכָא נָכוֹנוּ לַלֵּצִים שְׁפָטִים וּמַהֲלֻמּוֹת, מָשָׁל לְמַטְרוֹנָה שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לְתוֹךְ פָּלָטִין שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ, כֵּיוָן דְּחָמֵית מַגְלָבַיָא תָּלָן, דַּחֲלַת, אָמַר לָהּ הַמֶּלֶךְ אַל תִּתְיָרָאִי אֵלּוּ לָעֲבָדִים וְלַשְּׁפָחוֹת, אֲבָל אַתְּ לֶאֱכֹל וְלִשְׁתּוֹת וְלִשְׂמֹחַ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל פָּרָשַׁת נְגָעִים נִתְיָרְאוּ, אָמַר לָהֶם משֶׁה אַל תִּתְיָרְאוּ אֵלּוּ לְאֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם, אֲבָל אַתֶּם לֶאֱכֹל וְלִשְׁתּוֹת וְלִשְׂמֹחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים לב, י): רַבִּים מַכְאֹבִים לָרָשָׁע וְהַבּוֹטֵחַ בַּה' חֶסֶד יְסוֹבְבֶנּוּ. רַבִּי וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָיוּ יוֹשְׁבִים וְעוֹסְקִים בִּמְגִלַּת קִנּוֹת עֶרֶב תִּשְׁעָה בְּאָב שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁכָה מִן הַמִּנְחָה וּלְמַעְלָה, שִׁיְּרוּ בָהּ אָלֶף בֵּית אֶחָת, אָמְרוּ לְמָחָר אָנוּ גּוֹמְרִין אוֹתָהּ, כְּשֶׁעָלָה רַבִּי נִכְשַׁל בְּאֶצְבָּעוֹ הַקְּטַנָּה, קָרָא עַל עַצְמוֹ: רַבִּים מַכְאֹבִים לָרָשָׁע. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אִלּוּ לֹא הָיִינוּ עֲסוּקִין בְּעִנְיַן (איכה ד, כ): רוּחַ אַפֵּינוּ מְשִׁיחַ ה', הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר, עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁאָנוּ עֲסוּקִין, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. כְּשֶׁעָלָה לְבֵיתוֹ נָתַן עָלֶיהָ סְפוֹג יָבֵשׁ וְכָרַךְ עָלֶיהָ גֶּמִי מִבַּחוּץ, אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִדְּבָרָיו לָמַדְנוּ שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים, סְפוֹג לֹא שֶׁהוּא מוֹצֵץ אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא מְשַׁמֵּר אֶת הַמַּכָּה, וְקוֹשֵׁר עָלֶיהָ גֶּמִי מֵהַבַּיִת מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מוּכָן, וְאֵין קוֹרִין בְּכִתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ אֶלָּא מִן הַמִּנְחָה וּלְמַעְלָה, אֲבָל שׁוֹנִין בָּהֶן וְֶדוֹרְשִׁין בָּהֶן, אִם צָרִיךְ לְדָבָר לִבְדֹּק, נוֹטֵל וּבוֹדֵק. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר חֶרֶס כָּל שֶׁהוּא גֶּמִי כָּל שֶׁהוּא. תָּנֵי רַבִּי יוּדָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל מְגוּפַת חָבִית וּשְׁבָרֶיהָ מֻתָּר לְטַלְטְלָן בְּשַׁבָּת, וְאִם זְרָקָן לָאַשְׁפָּה אָסוּר לְטַלְטְלָן. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי תַּנְחוּם בַּצְּרוּרַיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אֲפִלּוּ רָשָׁע וְחָזַר בּוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְקַבְּלוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים לב, י): וְהַבּוֹטֵחַ בַּה' חֶסֶד יְסוֹבְבֶנּוּ. | |
|
| 62. Palestinian Talmud, Peah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 212 |
| 63. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 221 |
64. Tosefta, Kelim Baba Qamma, 1.4, 1.8, 1.14 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 219, 227| 1.4. "חומר בכזית מן המת שכזית מת פתחו בטפח והמת פתחו בארבעה טפחים. רבי נתן אומר להיות טמא מת לטמא שנים לפסול א'.", 1.8. "כל העזרה כשרה לאכילת קדשי קדשים ולשחיטת קדשים קלים והשוחט בתוכה חולין אסורין בהנאה והיא היתה חצר המשכן לפנים מן הקלעים שהיו במדבר. כל הטמאים שנכנסו משער נקנור ולפנים אפילו הן מחוסרי כפרה הרי אלו חייבין על זדונן כרת ועל שגגתן חטאת ואין צריך לומר טבול יום ושאר כל הטמאין שנכנסו לפנים ממחיצותיהן הרי אלו באזהרה נכנסים לקדש הרי אלו חייבים רבי יהודה אומר על פני הקדש במיתה ושאר כל המת באזהרה.", | |
|
65. Tosefta, Kelim Baba Metsia, 5.1, 5.3, 11.1 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 211, 227, 232| 5.1. "כלי גללים וכלי אבנים וכלי אדמה הבאין במדה ר' מאיר אומר הרי הן ככלים וחכמים אומרין הרי הן כאהלין רבי נחמיה אומר קופות גדולות וסוגין הגדולים שיש להן שוליים והן מחזיקין מ' סאין בלח שהם כוריים ביבש אע\"פ שאין מטלטלין במשתייר בהן וכמה הן אמה על אמה על רום שליש ישנן שש מאות ארבעים ושמונה טפח ראיה לדבר ממדת השלחן. ר' יוסי אומר בים שעשה שלמה הוא אומר (דברי הימים ב ד׳:ה׳) מחזיק בתים שלשת אלפים יכיל במקום אחר הוא אומר (מלכים א ז׳:כ״ו) אלפים בת יכיל א\"א לומר אלפים שכבר נאמר שלשת אלפים ואי אפשר לומר שלשת אלפים שכבר נאמר אלפים אמור מעתה אלפים בלח שלשת אלפים ביבש. החזיונות שבטרקלין בעלי בתים האוכלים עליהם שאע\"פ שחולקים כצפורן טמאין מפני שהן כטבלא ומעשה בבעל הבית אחד שהיו לו נצרים בתוך והיו שואלין אותן לבית האבל ולבית המשתה ובא מעשה לפני חכמים וטמאום.", 5.1. "חומר בכלי פפיר מכלי נצרין שאין מקבלין טומאה אלא משתגמר מלאכתן וכלי פפיר כיון שעשה חור אחד על גבי הרחב שלהן טמאין. ", 5.3. "סרוד של צפירה אם יש לו גפים טהור ר\"ש בן אלעזר אומר אע\"פ שאין לו גפים טמא ומפמה של סלתין טמא מפני שהוא מחזירו לכלי ושל בעלי בתים טהור עד שיחזירו לכלי ר\"ש בן יהודה אומר משום ר' שמעון אף של סלתין טהור עד שיחזירו לכלי ר' יהודה אומר של גדלת טמא מושב מפני שעודיהו כלי הבנות יושבות בתוכו וגודלות.", 11.1. "עריבה שהיא פחותה שני לוגין הרי היא כקערה ושעורה בזיתים ומשני לוגין עד ט' קבין אפילו זבין וזבות נדות ויולדות יושבות ושוכבות בתוכה טהורה. נסדקה ואינה מעמדת את <הרגלים אלא> המים כדי להדיח בה אחת מרגלים הרי היא כטמא מת ומקבלת טמאה מדרס דברי ר' יוסי בר' יהודה רבי אומר כשיחשב עליה ר' יוסי אומר [נטמאת ונטהרת] אפי' עשרה פעמים ביום כיצד בגשמים ונתפחה טהורה בקנים טמאה ומטהרת אפילו פעמים ביום נפחתה במיני זתים טהורה מכלל טמאה. חשב עליה רבי מטמא וחכ\"א עד שיעשה בה מעשה יתר על כן שנסדקה אפי' זבין וזבות נדות ויולדות יושבות ושוכבות טהורה נפחתה במוציא רמונים טהורה מכלל הטומאה. חשב עליה ר\"ע מטמא וחכמים מטהרין עד שיקצע א\"ר יוסי מעשה שהביאו מכפר עריס לפני רשב\"ג יותר מששים עריבות והיה משערן גדולה לסאה סאה וקטנה לשני לוגין וקרובים דברים של סאה סאה מחזקת ט' קבין.", | |
|
| 66. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Shimeon Ben Yohai, 21.12 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 221 |
67. Mishna, Oktzin, 3.1-3.6, 3.9 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 213, 214| 3.1. "יֵשׁ צְרִיכִין הֶכְשֵׁר וְאֵינָן צְרִיכִים מַחֲשָׁבָה, מַחֲשָׁבָה וְהֶכְשֵׁר, מַחֲשָׁבָה וְלֹא הֶכְשֵׁר, לֹא הֶכְשֵׁר וְלֹא מַחֲשָׁבָה. כָּל הָאֳכָלִים הַמְיֻחָדִים לָאָדָם צְרִיכִין הֶכְשֵׁר וְאֵינָן צְרִיכִים מַחֲשָׁבָה: \n", 3.2. "הַחוֹתֵךְ מִן הָאָדָם, וּמִן הַבְּהֵמָה, וּמִן הַחַיָּה, וּמִן הָעוֹפוֹת, מִנִּבְלַת הָעוֹף הַטָּמֵא, וְהַחֵלֶב בַּכְּפָרִים, וּשְׁאָר כָּל יַרְקוֹת שָׂדֶה חוּץ מִשְּׁמַרְקָעִים וּפִטְרִיּוֹת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, חוּץ מִכְּרֵשֵׁי שָׂדֶה וְהָרְגִילָה וְנֵץ הֶחָלָב. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, חוּץ מִן הָעַכָּבִיּוֹת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, חוּץ מִן הַכְּלוּסִין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ צְרִיכִין מַחֲשָׁבָה וְהֶכְשֵׁר: \n", 3.3. "נִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם וְנִבְלַת הָעוֹף הַטָּהוֹר בַּכְּפָרִים, צְרִיכִין מַחֲשָׁבָה וְאֵינָן צְרִיכִין הֶכְשֵׁר. נִבְלַת בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם, וְנִבְלַת הָעוֹף הַטָּהוֹר וְהַחֵלֶב בַּשְּׁוָקִים, אֵינָן צְרִיכִין מַחֲשָׁבָה וְלֹא הֶכְשֵׁר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אַף הַגָּמָל וְהָאַרְנֶבֶת וְהַשָּׁפָן וְהַחֲזִיר: \n", 3.4. "הַשֶּׁבֶת, מִשֶּׁנָּתַן טַעְמוֹ בַּקְּדֵרָה, אֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם תְּרוּמָה, וְאֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא טֻמְאַת אֳכָלִים. לוּלְבֵי זְרָדִים וְשֶׁל עֲדָל וַעֲלֵי הַלּוּף הַשּׁוֹטֶה, אֵינָן מִטַּמְּאִין טֻמְאַת אֳכָלִים עַד שֶׁיִּמְתֹּקוּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אַף שֶׁל פַּקּוּעוֹת כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶם: \n", 3.5. "הַקֹּשְׁטְ, וְהַחֶמֶס, וְרָאשֵׁי בְשָׂמִים, הַתִּיאָה, וְהַחִלְתִּית, וְהַפִּלְפְּלִין, וְחַלּוֹת חָרִיעַ, נִלְקָחִים בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר וְאֵינָן מִטַּמְּאִין טֻמְאַת אֳכָלִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, אִם נִלְקָחִים בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר, מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵינָן מִטַּמְּאִין טֻמְאַת אֳכָלִין. וְאִם אֵינָן מִטַּמְּאִין טֻמְאַת אֳכָלִים, אַף הֵם לֹא יִלָּקְחוּ בְכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר: \n", 3.6. "הַפַּגִּין וְהַבֹּסֶר, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מְטַמֵּא טֻמְאַת אֳכָלִין. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר, מִשֶּׁיָּבֹאוּ לְעוֹנַת הַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת. פְּרִיצֵי זֵיתִים וַעֲנָבִים, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַמְּאִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַהֲרִין. הַקֶּצַח, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מְטַהֲרִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מְטַמְּאִין. וְכֵן לַמַּעַשְׂרוֹת: \n", 3.9. "חֵלֶב בְּהֵמָה טְהוֹרָה, אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא טֻמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת, לְפִיכָךְ הוּא צָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר. חֵלֶב בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה, מִטַּמֵּא טֻמְאַת נְבֵלוֹת, לְפִיכָךְ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ הֶכְשֵׁר. דָּגִים טְמֵאִים וַחֲגָבִים טְמֵאִים, צְרִיכִין מַחֲשָׁבָה בַּכְּפָרִים: \n", | 3.1. "Some things need to be rendered susceptible [to uncleanness] but they do not need intention, [Other things need] intention and to be rendered susceptible. [Other things] need intention, but do not need to be rendered susceptible, [And other things] need neither to be rendered susceptible nor intention. Any food that is meant for people need to be rendered susceptible, but does not need intention.", 3.2. "That which has been severed from a human, beast, wild animal, bird, or from the carrion of an unclean bird, and the fat in villages. And all kinds of wild vegetables, except for truffles and mushrooms; Rabbi Judah says, except for field-leeks, purslane and ornithagolum. And Rabbi Shimon says: except for cynara sycaria. Rabbi Yose says: except for muscari comusum. Behold all these need both intention and to be rendered susceptible [to uncleanness].", 3.3. "The carrion of an unclean beast at all places, and of a clean bird in villages, need intention but do not need to be rendered susceptible. The carrion of a clean beast in all places, and that of a clean bird and also fat in the market places, require neither intention nor to be rendered susceptible. Rabbi Shimon says: also [the carrion of] the camel, rabbit, hare or pig.", 3.4. "The aneth stalk after having given its taste to a dish is no longer subject to the laws of terumah, and also no longer imparts food uncleanness. The young sprouts of hawthorn, of lapidum, or leaves of the wild arum, do not impart food uncleanness until they are sweetened. Rabbi Shimon says: also [the leaves of] the colocynth are like them.", 3.5. "Costus, amomum, principal spices, [roots of] crowfoot, asafoetida, pepper and lozenges made of saffron may be bought with tithe money, but they do not convey food uncleanness, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yoha ben Nuri to him: if they may be bought with [second] tithe money, then why should they not impart food uncleanness? And if they do not impart food uncleanness, then they should also not be bought with [second] tithe money?", 3.6. "Unripe figs or grapes: Rabbi Akiva says: they convey food uncleanness; Rabbi Yoha ben Nuri says: [this is only] when they have reached the season when they are liable to tithes. Olives and grapes that have hardened: Bet Shammai says: they are susceptible to uncleanness, Bet Hillel says: they are insusceptible. Black cumin: Bet Shammai says: is not susceptible, Bet Hillel says: it is susceptible. Similarly [they dispute with regard to their liability to] tithes.", 3.9. "The fat [of the carcass] of a clean beast is not regarded as unclean with carrion uncleanness; for this reason it must first be made susceptible. The fat of an unclean beast, however, is regarded as unclean with carrion uncleanness; for this reason it need not be made at first susceptible. As for unclean fish and unclean locusts, intention is required in villages.", |
|
68. Mishna, Challah, 4.8 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 227| 4.8. "רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, שָׁלֹשׁ אֲרָצוֹת לַחַלָּה. מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַד כְּזִיב, חַלָּה אֶחָת. מִכְּזִיב וְעַד הַנָּהָר וְעַד אֲמָנָה, שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת, אַחַת לָאוּר וְאַחַת לַכֹּהֵן. שֶׁל אוּר יֶשׁ לָהּ שִׁעוּר, וְשֶׁל כֹּהֵן אֵין לָהּ שִׁעוּר. מִן הַנָּהָר וְעַד אֲמָנָה וְלִפְנִים, שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת, אַחַת לָאוּר וְאַחַת לַכֹּהֵן. שֶׁל אוּר אֵין לָהּ שִׁעוּר, וְשֶׁל כֹּהֵן יֶשׁ לָהּ שִׁעוּר. וּטְבוּל יוֹם אוֹכְלָהּ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ טְבִילָה. וַאֲסוּרָה לַזָּבִים וְלַזָּבוֹת לַנִּדָּה וְלַיּוֹלְדוֹת, וְנֶאֱכֶלֶת עִם הַזָּר עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן, וְנִתֶּנֶת לְכָל כֹּהֵן: \n", | 4.8. "Rabban Gamaliel says: there are three territories with regard to [liability to] hallah:From the land of Israel to Chezib: one hallah-portion. From Chezib to the river and to Amanah: two hallah-portions. One for the fire and one for the priest. The one for the fire has a minimum measure, and the one for the priest does not have a minimum measure. From the river and from Amanah and inward: two hallah-portions. One for the fire and one for the priest. The one for the fire has no minimum measure, and the one for the priest has a minimum measure. And [a priest] who has immersed himself during the day [and has not waited till sunset for his purification to be complete] may eat it. Rabbi Yose says: he does not require immersion. But it is forbidden to zavim and zavot, to menstruants, and to women after childbirth; It may be eaten with a non-priest at the [same] table; And it may be given to any priest.", |
|
69. Tosefta, Kelim Baba Batra, 1.2-1.3, 7.7 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 211, 232, 233| 1.2. "חולדה שגררה את העירה שהוא עתיד להחזירה והכניסתו לבית שהמת בתוכו אע\"פ שאין באהל אלא כל שהוא הבגד טמא טמא מת. דרס עליה הזב בתוך י' טפחים הבגד טמא מדרס. שתי כל זמן שהוא עתיד לארוג חבור לאריג. גמר מלארוג אינו טמא אלא עד מקום שהוא עתיד לפצוע. הנוגע בפסיקות של שתי ושל ערב הרי זה אינו חבור. ר' יוסי אומר הנוגע בפסיקות של שתי עד ג' אצבעות חבור מפני שחבובים אומן מחלידו לתוכו. הנוגע בצמר שעל גבי האומה ובטווי <שעל גבי הפלך> טהור ובכוש ובעומד טמא. נוגע בשחור שעל גבי השחור טהור אבל אם היה כולו שחור מצד אחד והעבירו ע\"ג לבן או כולו לבן מצד אחד והעבירו על גבי שחור טמא. החרב שפירשה עם יתדות המחרישה הרי זו טמאה מפני שהוא מנקר בה חוליות של באר העיין שבמעצד והעיין שבמחרישה והמסוה שבמעדר בזמן שהן קבועין חבור לטומאה ולהזאה. בזמן שהן בפני עצמן טהורין. המשיחות והרצועות שבמעדר תפורות חבור וקשורות אין חבור. מכבש של נגר בזמן שהוא קבוע חבור לטומאה ולהזאה. ניטל אין חבור לא לטומאה ולא להזאה רבי יהודה אומר אף הנוגע במלבן של מסר הגדול מכאן ומכאן טהור ואינו טמא אלא מקום החיות יד מכאן ומכאן כלפי הברזל.", 1.3. "השלחן והטבלא והדולפקי שנתקסמו ונשתייר בהן טפח טמאים שלחן שגררו התחתון טמא והעליון טהור מתפרק מקבל טומאה מכאן ולהבא טבלא שגררה העליונה טמאה והתחתונה טהורה נתפרקה מקבלת טומאה מכאן ולהבא. טבלא שמלאה עצים ותקעה טהורה חיפה בנסרים טמאה. שלחן שחפהו בשיש להיות אוכל עליו אע\"פ שעשה לו עץ רחב להיות מקבל בו את השיש טהור שלא עשאו אלא לחזוק להיות מקבל בו את השיש. הספסלין שבפונדקאות אע\"פ שנקובין ומכניסין בהם את הרגלים טהורים. קבע במסמר טמאין. הספסלין של מלמדי תינוקות אע\"פ שנקובין ומכניסין בהן טהורין קבען במסמר טמאין ספסל שנתפרק טהור. סירגו במשיחות או בחבלים טמא. טרקיש שעשה לו עץ כמין שירתוע להיות אוכל עליו טהור עשה לו עץ רחב לצרכיו טמא. כסא שקבעו בעריבה כדרך ישיבתו טמא שלא כדרך ישיבתו טהור העשוי בה ב\"ש מטמאין וב\"ה מטהרין דברי ר\"מ ר' יהודה אומר לא נחלקו ב\"ש וב\"ה על העשוי בה שהוא טהור ושמאי היה מטמא על מה נחלקו על שהביא ממקום אחר וקבעו בה שב\"ש מטמאין וב\"ה מטהרין א\"ר יוסי רואה אני את דברי שמאי שאני אומר מלבן אפילו מבית האומן טמא.", | |
|
70. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 19.6 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 222| 19.6. וַתִּפָּקַחְנָה עֵינֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם (בראשית ג, ז), וְכִי סוּמִים הָיוּ, רַבִּי יוּדָן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי וְרַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אָמַר, מָשָׁל לְעִירוֹנִי שֶׁהָיָה עוֹבֵר לִפְנֵי חֲנוּתוֹ שֶׁל זַגָּג, וְהָיָה לְפָנָיו קֻפָּה מְלֵאָה כּוֹסוֹת וּדְיַטְרוּטִין, וּתְפָשָׂם בְּמַקְלוֹ וְשִׁבְּרָן, עָמַד וּתְפָשׂוֹ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ יָדַע אֲנָא דְּלֵית אֲנָא מֶהֱנֵי מִמָּךְ כְּלוּם, אֶלָּא בּוֹא וְאַרְאֶה לְךָ כַּמָּה טוֹבוֹת אִבַּדְתָּ, כָּךְ הֶרְאָה לָהֶן כַּמָּה דוֹרוֹת אִבְּדוּ. (בראשית ג, ז): וַיֵּדְעוּ כִּי עֵירֻמִּם הֵם, אֲפִלּוּ מִצְוָה אַחַת שֶׁהָיְתָה בְּיָדָן נִתְעַרְטְלוּ הֵימֶנָּהּ. (בראשית ג, ז): וַיִּתְפְּרוּ עֲלֵה תְאֵנָה, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי עָלֶה שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ תּוֹאֲנָה לָעוֹלָם, וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק קִלְקַלְתְּ עוֹבָדָךְ סַב חוּט וְחַיֵּיט. וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם חֲגֹרֹת (בראשית ג, ז), אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא חֲגוֹרָה אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא חֲגֹרֹת, חֲגוֹרֵי חֲגוֹרוֹת, אִסְטִכְיוֹן, גָּלְיוֹן, סְדִינִים, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁעוֹשִׂים לְאִישׁ כָּךְ עוֹשִׂין לְאִשָּׁה, צִלְצְלִין, קוֹלָסִין, סְכָנִין. | |
|
| 71. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 14.7 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 213 |
| 72. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 126-127 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 220 |
73. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 214| 22a. וכן ירדן שנטל מזה ונתן לזה מה שנטל נטל ומה שנתן נתן,בשלמא גזלן וירדן דקא חזי להו ומיאש אלא גנב מי קא חזי ליה דמיאש תרגמה רב פפא בלסטים מזוין אי הכי היינו גזלן תרי גווני גזלן,ת"ש שטף נהר קוריו עציו ואבניו ונתנו בתוך שדה חבירו הרי אלו שלו מפני שנתיאשו הבעלים טעמא דנתיאשו הבעלים הא סתמא לא הכא במאי עסקינן כשיכול להציל,אי הכי אימא סיפא אם היו הבעלים מרדפין אחריהם חייב להחזיר אי ביכולין להציל מאי אריא מרדפין אפילו אין מרדפין נמי הכא במאי עסקינן ביכולין להציל על ידי הדחק מרדפין לא אייאוש אין מרדפין אייאושי מיאש,ת"ש כיצד אמרו התורם שלא מדעת תרומתו תרומה הרי שירד לתוך שדה חבירו וליקט ותרם שלא ברשות אם חושש משום גזל אין תרומתו תרומה ואם לאו תרומתו תרומה,ומנין הוא יודע אם חושש משום גזל ואם לאו הרי שבא בעל הבית ומצאו ואמר לו כלך אצל יפות אם נמצאו יפות מהן תרומתו תרומה ואם לאו אין תרומתו תרומה ליקטו הבעלים והוסיפו עליהן בין כך ובין כך תרומתו תרומה,וכי נמצאו יפות מהן תרומתו תרומה אמאי בעידנא דתרם הא לא הוה ידע תרגמה רבא אליבא דאביי דשויה שליח,ה"נ מסתברא דאי ס"ד דלא שוויה שליח מי הויא תרומתו תרומה והא אתם (במדבר יח, כח) גם אתם אמר רחמנא לרבות שלוחכם מה אתם לדעתכם אף שלוחכם לדעתכם,אלא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דשויה שליח וא"ל זיל תרום ולא א"ל תרום מהני וסתמיה דבעל הבית כי תרום מבינונית הוא תרום ואזל איהו ותרם מיפות ובא בעל הבית ומצאו וא"ל כלך אצל יפות אם נמצאו יפות מהן תרומתו תרומה ואם לאו אין תרומתו תרומה,אמימר ומר זוטרא ורב אשי אקלעו לבוסתנא דמרי בר איסק אייתי אריסיה תמרי ורימוני ושדא קמייהו אמימר ורב אשי אכלי מר זוטרא לא אכיל אדהכי אתא מרי בר איסק אשכחינהו וא"ל לאריסיה אמאי לא אייתית להו לרבנן מהנך שפירתא,אמרו ליה אמימר ורב אשי למר זוטרא השתא אמאי לא אכיל מר והתניא אם נמצאו יפות מהן תרומתו תרומה אמר להו הכי אמר רבא לא אמרו כלך אצל יפות אלא לענין תרומה בלבד משום דמצוה הוא וניחא ליה אבל הכא משום כסיפותא הוא דאמר הכי,תא שמע עודהו הטל עליהן ושמח הרי זה (ויקרא יא, לח) בכי יותן נגבו אף על פי ששמח | 22a. b and likewise, /b in the case of the b Jordan /b River or another river b that took /b an item b from this /b person b and gave /b it b to that /b person, in all those cases, b that which /b the person b took, he took, and that which /b the person b gave, he gave. /b Likewise, that which the river took, it took, and that which the river gave, it gave. The person who received the item need not return it.,The Gemara asks: b Granted /b in the cases of the b robber and /b the b Jordan /b River, one could say b that /b the owner b sees them /b take the item b and despairs /b of its recovery; b but /b in the case of the b thief, /b who takes the item surreptitiously, b does /b the owner b see him /b take the item and would b that /b lead him to b despair? /b The Gemara explains: b Rav Pappa interpreted /b the term thief in the i baraita /i to be referring to b armed bandits [ i listim /i ]; /b therefore, the owner is aware that the item was taken and he despairs of its recovery. The Gemara asks: b If so, this is /b the same as b a robber, /b why mention two identical cases? The Gemara answers: The i baraita /i mentioned b two types of robbers; /b in both cases the owner was aware that his item was taken.,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof from a i baraita /i : If b a river swept /b away b one’s beams, one’s wood, or one’s stones and placed them into the field of another, these /b items belong b to /b the owner of the field b due to /b the fact b that the /b respective b owners despaired /b of their recovery. The Gemara infers from the i baraita /i : b The reason /b they belong to the finder is b that the owners despaired; but /b in b an unspecified /b case, where it is not definitively known that the owners despaired, they do b not /b belong to the finder. Apparently, despair that is not conscious is not considered despair. The Gemara rejects the proof: b With what are we dealing here? /b It is a case b where /b the owners are b capable of rescuing /b the beams, wood, or stones; therefore, their decision not to rescue them is a clear indication of despair.,The Gemara asks: b If so, say the latter clause /b of the same i baraita /i : b If the owners were pursuing /b the items, the finder is b obligated to return /b them. b If /b it is a case b where /b the owners are b capable of rescuing /b the items, b why /b did the i baraita /i b specifically /b cite a case where the owners were b pursuing /b the items? b Even /b if they were b not pursuing /b the lost items, the items b also /b remain in their ownership, as they did not despair of their recovery. The Gemara answers: b With what are we dealing here? /b It is a case b where /b the owners are b capable of rescuing /b the items b with difficulty. /b In that case, if the owners b pursue /b the items, it indicates that b they did not despair /b of their recovery, but if the owners b do not pursue /b the items, it indicates that b they despaired /b of their recovery.,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof from a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Terumot /i 1:5): b When did /b the Sages b say /b that in the case where b one separates i teruma /i without /b the owner’s b consent, his i teruma /i is /b considered b i teruma /i ? /b It is in a case where b there was /b someone b who entered another’s field and gathered /b produce from it b and separated i teruma /i without /b the owner’s b permission. If /b the owner is b concerned about /b his actions and view it b as robbery, his i teruma /i is not i teruma /i , but if /b he is b not /b concerned, b his i teruma /i is i teruma /i . /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b And from where would does he know whether /b the owner is b concerned about /b his actions and view it b as robbery or not? /b If b the owner came and found him /b separating i teruma /i b and said to him: /b You should have b gone to /b take the produce of b better /b quality and separate i teruma /i from that, then b if /b produce of b better /b quality b than /b the produce he had separated b is found, his i teruma /i is /b considered b i teruma /i , /b since the owner is assumed to have been sincere and pleased that the other has separated i teruma /i from his produce. b But if not, his i teruma /i is not i teruma /i , /b as it may be assumed that the owner was angry at him and was speaking sarcastically. The i baraita /i adds: If b the owners were gathering and adding /b to the i teruma /i he had separated, indicating that they agree to his act of separation, b either way, /b whether or not better-quality produce was found, b his i teruma /i is /b considered b i teruma /i . /b ,The Gemara questions the ruling of the i baraita /i : b But why /b is that the i halakha /i , that b if /b produce of b better /b quality b than /b the produce he had separated b is found his i teruma /i is i teruma /i ? At the time that he separated the i teruma /i , he did not know /b that the owner would ultimately agree. The i baraita /i states that the i teruma /i is i teruma /i from the moment he separated it, despite the fact that it was only later that he learned that the owner agreed. Apparently, in the case of despair as well, despair that is not conscious is considered despair, contrary to the opinion of Abaye. b Rava interpreted /b the matter b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Abaye: /b This is a case b where /b the owner b designated him /b as b an agent. /b , b So too, it is reasonable, as if it enters your mind that /b the owner b did not designate him /b as b an agent, would his i teruma /i be i teruma /i ? But doesn’t the Merciful One state: /b “So you also shall set apart a gift unto the Lord of all your tithes” (Numbers 18:28)? Once the verse states b “you,” /b the addition of the word “also” in the term b “you also” /b serves b to include an agent. /b Therefore, an agent separating i teruma /i has the same i halakhot /i as an owner separating i teruma /i . b Just as /b when b you, /b the owner, separate i teruma /i , it is b with your knowledge, so too /b when b your agent /b separates i teruma /i , it must be b with your knowledge. /b Evidently, in any event, one needs to be appointed as an agent to be capable of separating i teruma /i for another., b Rather, with what are we dealing here? /b It is a case b where /b the owner b designated him /b as b an agent and said to him: Go and separate i teruma /i , but /b he b did not say to him: Separate i teruma /i from these /b specific crops. b And /b when b the owner’s /b intent is b unspecified, /b and it is unclear which of his crops are meant to be separated b when /b the agent b separates i teruma /i , /b it is b from /b the crops of b intermediate quality /b that b he separates i teruma /i . And /b in this case, the agent b went and separated i teruma /i from higher-quality /b produce, b and the owner /b of the field b came and found him and said to him: /b You should have b gone to /b take the produce of b better /b quality and separate i teruma /i from that. b If /b produce of b better /b quality b than /b the produce he had separated b is found, his i teruma /i is /b considered b i teruma /i . But if not, his i teruma /i is not i teruma /i , /b ,The Gemara digresses with a related incident: b Ameimar, Mar Zutra, and Rav Ashi happened to /b come to b the orchard [ i levustana /i ] of Mari bar Isak. His sharecropper came and placed dates and pomegranates before them. Ameimar and Rav Ashi ate /b the fruit, but b Mar Zutra did not eat /b the fruit due to the concern that the sharecropper had provided them with the fruit without the approval of the owner of the field. b Meanwhile, Mari bar Isak came /b and b found them /b eating his fruit b and said to his sharecropper: Why didn’t you bring the Sages /b fruit b from those higher-quality /b fruits?, b Ameimar and Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: Now why is the Master not eating the fruit? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : In a case where the owner of the field came and found him and said to him: You should have gone to take the produce of better quality and separate i teruma /i from that; b if /b produce of b better /b quality b than /b the produce he had separated b is found, his i teruma /i is /b considered b i teruma /i . /b Here too, it is clear that Mari bar Isak approved of the actions of his sharecropper. Mar Zutra b said to them /b that b this /b is what b Rava said: /b The Sages b said /b that the statement: You should have b gone to /b take the produce of b better /b quality and separate i teruma /i , indicates consent of the owner b only with regard to the matter of i teruma /i , due to /b the fact b that it is a mitzva and /b the owner b is amenable /b to having the mitzva fulfilled. b But here, /b in this incident, it is b due to shame that he said this: /b Why did you not bring these Sages fruit from those higher-quality fruits? He did not really want to give them the fruit.,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b another proof from a i baraita /i with regard to despair that is not conscious. It is written: “And if any part of their carcass falls upon any sowing seed that is to be sown, it is ritually pure. But when water is placed upon the seed, and any part of their carcass falls thereon, it is ritually impure unto you” (Leviticus 11:37–38). Produce becomes susceptible to contracting ritual impurity only after coming into contact with one of seven liquids: Wine, honey, oil, milk, dew, blood, and water. It is taught in the i baraita /i : If b the dew is still upon /b the produce and has not yet dried, and if the owner b was glad /b that the dew moistened the produce and kept it fresh, b that /b produce falls into the category of: “But b when /b water b is placed /b upon the seed,” and the produce is susceptible to contracting ritual impurity. If the produce b had dried /b when the owner found it, then b even though he was glad /b that the dew had moistened the produce, |
|
74. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 214| 59b. מעשה מוציא מיד מעשה ומיד מחשבה מחשבה אין מוציאה לא מיד מעשה ולא מיד מחשבה בשלמא מיד מעשה לא מפקה דלא אתי דיבור ומבטל מעשה אלא מיד מחשבה מיהא תפיק,שאני מחשבה דטומאה דכי מעשה דמי וכדרב פפא דרב פפא רמי כתיב (ויקרא יא, לח) כי יתן וקרינן כי יותן הא כיצד,כי יותן דומיא דכי יתן מה יתן דניחא ליה אף יותן דניחא ליה,רב זביד מתני להא שמעתתא אהא וכן היא שנתנה רשות לשלוחה לקדשה והלכה היא וקדשה את עצמה אם שלה קדמו קידושיה קידושין ואם של שלוחה קדמו אין קידושיה קידושין,לא קדשה את עצמה וחזרה בה מהו רבי יוחנן אמר חוזרת ור"ל אמר אינה חוזרת ר' יוחנן אמר חוזרת אתי דיבור ומבטל דיבור ר"ל אמר אינה חוזרת לא אתי דיבור ומבטל דיבור,איתיביה רבי יוחנן לר"ל ביטל אם עד שלא תרם ביטל אין תרומתו תרומה אמר רבא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שקדם בעל הבית ותרם את כריו דהוה ליה מעשה,איתיביה ריש לקיש כל הכלים יורדים לידי טומאתן במחשבה ואין עולין מטומאתן אלא בשינוי מעשה מעשה מוציא מיד מעשה ומיד מחשבה מחשבה אינה מוציאה לא מיד מעשה ולא מיד מחשבה בשלמא מיד מעשה לא מפקה לא אתי דיבור ומבטל מעשה אלא מיד מחשבה מיהא תפיק,א"ל שאני מחשבה דטומאה דכי מעשה דמי וכדרב פפא דרב פפא רמי כתיב כי יתן וקרינן כי יותן הא כיצד כי יותן דומיא דיתן מה יתן דניחא ליה אף יותן נמי דניחא ליה,איתיביה רבי יוחנן לר"ל השולח גט לאשתו והגיע בשליח או ששלח אחריו שליח ואמר לו גט שנתתי לך בטל הוא הרי זה בטל תיובתא דר"ל תיובתא,והילכתא כוותיה דר"י ואפילו בקמייתא ואע"ג דאיכא למימר שאני נתינת מעות ליד אשה דכמעשה דמי אפילו הכי אתי דיבור ומבטל דיבור,קשיא הילכתא אהילכתא אמרת הילכתא כרבי יוחנן וקיימא לן הילכתא כרב נחמן דאיבעיא להו מהו שיחזור ויגרש בו,רב נחמן אמר חוזר ומגרש בו רב ששת אמר אינו חוזר ומגרש בו וקיימא לן הילכתא כותיה דרב נחמן נהי דבטליה מתורת שליח מתורת גט לא בטליה,מקודשת לשני אמר רב מקודשת לשני לעולם ושמואל אמר מקודשת לשני עד ל' יום לאחר ל' יום פקעי קידושי שני וגמרי קידושי ראשון,יתיב רב חסדא וקא קשיא ליה קידושי שני במאי פקעי אמר ליה רב יוסף מר ארישא מתני לה וקשיא ליה רב יהודה אסיפא מתני לה ולא קשיא ליה,מעכשיו ולאחר שלשים יום וכו' אמר רב מקודשת ואינה מקודשת לעולם ושמואל אמר מקודשת ואינה מקודשת אלא עד ל' יום לאחר ל' פקעי קידושי שני וגמרי קידושי ראשון,לרב מספקא ליה אי תנאה הואי אי חזרה הואי לשמואל פשיטא ליה דתנאה הואי,ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא מהיום ולאחר מיתה גט ואינו גט דברי חכמים רבי אומר כזה גט,ונימא רב הלכה כרבנן ונימא שמואל הלכה כרבי צריכא דאילו אמר רב הלכה כרבנן הוה אמינא התם דלרחוקה קאתי אבל הכא דלקרובה קאתי אימא מודה ליה לשמואל דתנאה הואי,ואי אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי הוה אמינא התם הוא דאין גט לאחר מיתה אבל הכא דיש קידושין לאחר ל' אימא מודי ליה לרב צריכא,אמר אביי ולטעמיה דרב בא אחד ואמר לה הרי את מקודשת לי מעכשיו ולאחר ל' יום ובא אחר ואמר לה הרי את מקודשת לי מעכשיו ולאחר עשרים יום | 59b. b An action /b undertaken to improve the vessel b negates /b both the status created by an earlier b action /b that supposedly completed the vessel b and /b the status created by the b thought /b not to perform more work on the vessel. In that case the vessel cannot contract ritual impurity until the craftsman has finished working on it. By contrast, b a thought /b to improve the vessel b negates neither /b status created by b action nor /b status created by b thought. /b Reish Lakish finds this difficult for the following reason: b Granted, /b thought b does not negate action, as a statement does not come and nullify action. But it should at least offset thought. /b This i halakha /i indicates that a statement does not nullify a previous statement.,The Gemara answers: b Thought /b in the case b of ritual impurity is different, as /b it b is considered like action, and /b this is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rav Pappa. As Rav Pappa raises a contradiction: /b With regard to the i halakha /i that produce must become wet in order for it to contract ritual impurity, the verse states: “But if water is placed [ i vekhi yuttan /i ] upon the seed, and any part of a carcass falls upon it, it is impure” (Leviticus 11:38). The word i yuttan /i is written defective, and b is written /b as if it says b i ki yitten /i . /b Accordingly, this would mean that one must actively place the water on the produce. Yet b we read /b it, based on the tradition as to its correct pronunciation, b “ i ki yuttan /i ,” /b which includes any situation where the produce becomes wet. b How so? /b How can the way the verse is written and the way it is read be reconciled?,Rav Pappa explains that the standard of b “if water is placed [ i ki yuttan /i ]” /b is b similar to: If one places [ i ki yitten /i ]; just as /b the term b places [ i yitten /i ] /b indicates b that /b it is b satisfactory to /b the owner for the produce to become wet, as he himself is placing the water, b so too, /b the term b “is placed [ i yuttan /i ]” /b means b that /b it is b satisfactory to /b the owner that the produce becomes wet, despite the fact that he did not place the water himself. This is proof that thought is equivalent to action with regard to ritual impurity, as if one is satisfied with the produce becoming wet it is considered as though he actively placed the water himself. By the same reasoning, thought which renders a vessel susceptible to ritual impurity is powerful enough to require an action to counteract its effect.,The Gemara presents another version of the discussion: b Rav Zevid taught this /b dispute b with regard to this /b i halakha /i : b And similarly, /b in a case b where she gave permission to her agent to accept betrothal for her and she /b subsequently b went and accepted betrothal herself /b from someone else, b if her /b betrothal b came first, her betrothal is /b a valid b betrothal, but if /b the betrothal b of her agent came first, her betrothal is not a betrothal. /b ,The Sages discuss this i halakha /i : If she did b not accept betrothal herself and retracted /b her appointment of the agent, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? b Rabbi Yoḥa says: She can retract /b her appointment; b and Reish Lakish says: She cannot retract /b her appointment. The Gemara clarifies their respective opinions. b Rabbi Yoḥa said: She can retract /b her appointment, as b a statement comes and nullifies /b a previous b statement, /b by which she appointed the agent. b Reish Lakish said: She cannot retract /b her appointment, as b a statement does not come and nullify /b a previous b statement. /b , b Rabbi Yoḥa raised an objection to Reish Lakish /b from the aforementioned mishna ( i Terumot /i 3:4) with regard to one who appointed an agent to separate i teruma /i on his behalf and subsequently b canceled /b the agency: b If he canceled /b the appointment b before /b the agent b separated i teruma /i , his i teruma /i is not i teruma /i . /b This shows that a statement nullifies a previous statement. b Rava says: With what are we dealing here? /b With a case b where the homeowner preceded /b the agent b and separated i teruma /i /b from b his heap /b himself, b which is an action, /b and an action certainly nullifies a statement., b Reish Lakish raised an objection to /b Rabbi Yoḥa: b All vessels descend into their /b state of contracting b ritual impurity by means of thought. But they ascend from their /b state of b ritual impurity only by means of a change /b resulting from b an action. An action /b undertaken to improve the vessel b negates /b both the status created by an earlier b action /b that supposedly completed the vessel b and /b the status created by the b thought /b not to perform more work on the vessel. By contrast, b a thought /b to improve the vessel b negates neither /b status created by b action nor /b status created by b thought. /b Reish Lakish explains his objection: b Granted, /b thought b does not negate action, /b as b a statement does not come and nullify action. But it should at least offset thought. /b ,Rabbi Yoḥa b said to /b Reish Lakish: b Thought /b in the case b of ritual impurity is different, as /b it b is considered like action, and /b this is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rav Pappa. As Rav Pappa raises a contradiction: /b The word i yuttan /i is written defective, and b is written /b as if it says b i ki yitten /i . /b Yet b we read /b it b “ i ki yuttan /i .” How so? /b The standard of b “if water is placed [ i ki yuttan /i ]” /b is b similar to: If one places [ i ki yitten /i ]; just as /b the term b places [ i yitten /i ] /b indicates b that /b it is b satisfactory to /b the owner for the produce to become wet, as he himself is placing the water, b so too, /b the term b “is placed [ i yuttan /i ]” /b means b that /b it is b satisfactory to /b the owner that the produce becomes wet, despite the fact that he did not place the water himself., b Rabbi Yoḥa raised an objection to Reish Lakish: /b With regard to b one who sends a bill of divorce to his wife, and /b later the husband b encountered the agent or sent /b another b agent after him and /b in this manner b said to him: The bill of divorce that I gave you is nullified, it is thereby nullified. /b This indicates that the appointment of an agent can be nullified even by a statement. The Gemara concludes: b The refutation /b of the opinion b of Reish Lakish is /b in fact b a conclusive refutation. /b ,The Gemara adds: b And the i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yoḥa, and /b this is b even according to the first /b version of their dispute, with regard to a woman who retracts from her betrothal after accepting the money for it. b And even though there is /b room b to say /b that b giving money to a woman /b for betrothal b is different, as it is considered like an action, even so, a statement comes and nullifies /b a previous b statement /b with regard to her consent to the betrothal, provided that the betrothal has yet to take effect.,The Gemara asks: b The i halakha /i /b recorded here is b difficult /b with regard to b the i halakha /i /b recorded elsewhere. b You said /b that b the i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yoḥa, and /b yet b we maintain /b that b the i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Naḥman. As a dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: b What is /b the i halakha /i in the case of a bill of divorce sent by an agent that the husband nullified before it was received by his wife? Can the husband b return and divorce /b his wife b with /b the very same bill of divorce?, b Rav Naḥman says: /b He b can return and divorce /b her b with it, /b and b Rav Sheshet says: He cannot return and divorce /b her b with it. And we maintain /b that b the i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rav Naḥman /b in this case. By contrast, according to the ruling of Rabbi Yoḥa, since the husband has nullified the bill of divorce it should no longer be valid. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as, b although /b the husband b has nullified /b the agent b from his status as an agent, he has not nullified /b the bill of divorce itself b from its status as a bill of divorce. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that if a man betroths a woman and stipulates that the betrothal will take effect in thirty days’ time and another man betroths her within that period, b she is betrothed to the second /b man. b Rav says: She is betrothed to the second forever, /b i.e., the betrothal is fully effective, b and Shmuel says: She is betrothed to the second until /b the b thirty days /b pass. b After thirty days /b have passed, b the betrothal of the second lapses, and the /b earlier b betrothal of the first /b man b is completed. /b , b Rav Ḥisda sat and /b found this b difficult: By what /b means is the b betrothal of the second /b man b abrogated? /b When the second betrothal took effect, the first betrothal was not yet in effect. Why, then, is the second betrothal abrogated? b Rav Yosef said to him: The Master teaches /b this dispute b with regard to the first clause /b of the mishna, b and /b therefore b he /b finds it b difficult, /b whereas b Rav Yehuda teaches /b it with regard b to the latter clause /b of the mishna, b and /b consequently b he does not /b find it b difficult. /b ,Rav Yehuda’s version of the dispute is as follows: The mishna teaches that if the first man says to her: You are hereby betrothed to me b from now and after thirty days, /b and another man betrothed her within those thirty days, there is uncertainty whether she is betrothed or whether she is not betrothed. b Rav says: /b This means that there is uncertainty whether b she is betrothed or /b whether b she is not betrothed forever, /b and her only option is to receive a bill of divorce from both men. b And Shmuel says: /b There is uncertainty whether b she is betrothed or /b whether b she is not betrothed only until thirty days /b have elapsed, whereas b after thirty /b days b the betrothal of the second /b is b abrogated, and the betrothal of the first is completed. /b ,The Gemara explains their respective opinions: b Rav is uncertain /b what the first man meant. b Is it a condition, /b i.e., the man is saying: If I do not change my mind within thirty days, you are betrothed to me from now, or b is it a retraction, /b that is, he immediately retracted after he said: From now, in favor of a betrothal that will take effect only after thirty days have elapsed. This uncertainty remains even after the end of the thirty days. b It is obvious to Shmuel that it is a condition. /b Consequently, the uncertainty whether or not she is betrothed to the second man applies during the thirty-day period, as the first man might yet change his mind. After the completion of thirty days, the betrothal from the first man retroactively takes effect from the moment he gave it, and therefore the betrothal of the second man is abrogated.,The Gemara comments: b And /b Rav and Shmuel disagree b in the dispute between these i tanna’im /i . As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : If one says to his wife upon giving her a bill of divorce that it should take effect: b From today and after /b my b death, /b there is uncertainty whether it b is /b a valid b bill of divorce or /b whether it b is not a /b valid b bill of divorce. /b This is b the statement of the Rabbis. /b The Rabbis are uncertain whether he meant that the bill of divorce should take effect retroactively from that moment, in which case it is valid; or whether he changed his mind and meant for it to take effect only after his death, which would mean that it is not a valid bill of divorce. b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: /b A document b like this /b is a valid b bill of divorce. /b The husband meant his statement as a condition that the bill of divorce should, after his death, take effect retroactively from now, and therefore it is a valid bill of divorce.,The Gemara asks: b And let Rav, /b instead of explaining his own opinion, b say /b that the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, and let Shmuel say /b that the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara answers: It is b necessary /b for Rav and Shmuel to state their disagreement explicitly. b As had Rav /b merely b said /b that the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, I would say: There, /b in the case of a bill of divorce, b when he comes to distance her /b from himself, one can say that he has changed his mind with regard to the divorce. b But here, /b in the case of betrothal, b when he comes to draw her near, /b you might b say /b that Rav b concedes to Shmuel that it is /b certainly b a condition, /b as he wants to betroth her as soon as possible., b And /b conversely, b had Shmuel said /b only that the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b I would say: It is /b in that case b there /b that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said it is a valid bill of divorce, b as there is no bill of divorce after death, /b and therefore it is unlikely that he changed his mind and attempted to give a bill of divorce that will take effect only after the death of the husband. b But here, where there is /b the possibility of b betrothal after thirty /b days, and he might well have intended to retract the betrothal, you might b say /b that b Shmuel concedes to Rav. /b Consequently, it was b necessary /b to state the dispute between Rav and Shmuel concerning betrothal in explicit terms., b Abaye said: And according to the reasoning of Rav, /b if b one /b man b came and said /b the following ambiguous statement b to her: You are hereby betrothed to me from now and after thirty days. And another /b man b came /b during these thirty days b and said to her: You are hereby betrothed to me from now and after twenty days, /b |
|
75. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 227| 13a. מתני׳ big strongכל /strong /big היד המרבה לבדוק בנשים משובחת ובאנשים תקצץ, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מ"ש נשים ומאי שנא אנשים נשים לאו בנות הרגשה נינהו משובחות אנשים דבני הרגשה נינהו תקצץ,אי הכי מאי איריא מרבה כי לא מרבה נמי כי קתני מרבה אנשים,תנא בד"א לענין שכבת זרע אבל לענין זוב אף הוא משובח כנשים,ואפי' לענין שכבת זרע אם בא לבדוק בצרור או בחרס בודק,ובמטלית לא והתניא בודק עצמו במטלית ובכל דבר שרוצה כדאמר אביי במטלית עבה הכא נמי במטלית עבה,והיכא איתמר דאביי אהא דתנן היה אוכל בתרומה והרגיש שנזדעזעו איבריו אוחז באמתו ובולע את התרומה,אוחז והתניא רבי אליעזר אומר כל האוחז באמתו ומשתין כאילו מביא מבול לעולם אמר אביי במטלית עבה,רבא אמר אפילו תימא במטלית רכה כיון דעקר עקר ואביי חייש דלמא אתי לאוסופי ורבא לא חייש דלמא אתי לאוסופי, ולא והתניא הא למה זה דומה לנותן אצבע בעין שכל זמן שאצבע בעין עין מדמעת וחוזרת ומדמעת,ורבא כל אחמומי והדר אחמומי בשעתיה לא שכיח,גופא ר"א אומר כל האוחז באמה ומשתין כאילו מביא מבול לעולם אמרו לו לרבי אליעזר והלא נצוצות נתזין על רגליו ונראה ככרות שפכה ונמצא מוציא לעז על בניו שהן ממזרים,אמר להן מוטב שיוציא לעז על בניו שהן ממזרים ואל יעשה עצמו רשע שעה אחת לפני המקום,תניא אידך אמר להן רבי אליעזר לחכמים אפשר יעמוד אדם במקום גבוה וישתין או ישתין בעפר תיחוח ואל יעשה עצמו רשע שעה אחת לפני המקום,הי אמר להו ברישא אילימא קמייתא אמר להו ברישא בתר דאמר להו איסורא הדר אמר להו תקנתא,אלא הא אמר להו ברישא ואמרו ליה אין לו מקום גבוה ועפר תיחוח מאי אמר להן מוטב שיוציא לעז על בניו ואל יעשה עצמו רשע שעה אחת לפני המקום,וכל כך למה מפני שמוציא שכבת זרע לבטלה דא"ר יוחנן כל המוציא שכבת זרע לבטלה חייב מיתה שנאמר (בראשית לח, י) וירע בעיני ה' (את) אשר עשה וימת גם אותו,רבי יצחק ורבי אמי אמרי כאילו שופך דמים שנאמר (ישעיהו נז, ה) הנחמים באלים תחת כל עץ רענן שוחטי הילדים בנחלים תחת סעיפי הסלעים אל תקרי שוחטי אלא סוחטי,רב אסי אמר כאילו עובד עבודת כוכבים כתיב הכא תחת כל עץ רענן וכתיב התם (דברים יב, ב) על ההרים הרמים ותחת כל עץ רענן,רב יהודה ושמואל הוו קיימי אאיגרא דבי כנישתא דשף ויתיב בנהרדעא אמר ליה רב יהודה לשמואל צריך אני להשתין א"ל שיננא אחוז באמתך והשתן לחוץ,היכי עביד הכי והתניא ר"א אומר כל האוחז באמתו ומשתין כאילו מביא מבול לעולם,אמר אביי עשאו כבולשת דתנן בולשת שנכנס לעיר בשעת שלום חביות פתוחות אסורות סתומות מותרות בשעת מלחמה אלו ואלו מותרות לפי שאין להן פנאי לנסך אלמא דכיון דבעיתי לא אתי לנסוכי הכא נמי כיון דבעיתי לא אתי להרהורי,והכא מאי ביעתותא איכא איבעית אימא ביעתותא דליליא ודאיגרא ואיבעית אימא ביעתותא דרביה ואב"א ביעתותא דשכינה ואיבעית אימא אימתא דמריה עליה דקרי שמואל עליה אין זה ילוד אשה,ואיבעית אימא נשוי הוה דאמר רב נחמן אם היה נשוי מותר,ואיבעית אימא כי הא אורי ליה דתני אבא בריה דרבי בנימין בר חייא אבל מסייע בביצים מלמטה ואיבעית אימא כי הא אורי ליה דאמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן גבול יש לו מעטרה ולמטה מותר | 13a. strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to b any hand that is diligent to examine /b bodily emissions to ascertain ritual impurity, b among women /b such a hand b is praiseworthy. But among men /b such a hand b should be severed, /b as this action is apt to lead to a seminal emission for naught., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b What is different /b about b women and what is different /b about b men, /b that women are praised for examining for bodily emissions while men are castigated for the same? The Gemara answers: b Women are not susceptible to /b sexual b arousal /b by this action, and therefore when a woman is diligent to examine herself she is considered b praiseworthy; /b whereas b men, who are susceptible to /b sexual b arousal /b and may experience a seminal emission as a result of this contact, may not do so, and the hand of a man who conducts frequent examinations for emissions b should be severed. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If so, why /b does the mishna state b specifically /b among men that only the hand that is b diligent /b to examine, i.e., that does so often, should be severed? Even b when /b a man b is not diligent /b to examine, but does so occasionally, this action is b also /b apt to cause a seminal emission. The Gemara answers: b When /b the mishna b teaches: /b Any hand that is b diligent /b to examine, it states this only b with regard to women, /b as men should not examine even occasionally.,The Gemara continues to discuss the examination of men for seminal emissions. It is b taught /b in a i baraita /i : b In what /b case b is this statement, /b that men should not examine themselves, b said? /b It is said b with regard to /b an examination for b semen. But with regard to /b a man who examines himself for gonorrhea-like b discharge [ i zov /i ], he too is praiseworthy /b for examining diligently, b as women /b are. The reason is that a man who experiences two such discharges is ritually impure but is not obligated to bring an offering, whereas one who experiences three such emissions must bring an offering as a i zav /i . Therefore, it is important for a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge to examine and count his emissions carefully.,The i baraita /i adds: b And even with regard to semen, if one wants to examine /b himself b with a rock or with /b a piece of b earthenware, /b which are hard and will not warm the body, b he may examine /b himself in this manner.,The Gemara asks: b And /b may a man b not /b examine himself b with /b a linen b cloth? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : A man b may examine himself with a cloth, /b to see if he has emitted semen, b or with any /b similar b item that he wants? /b The Gemara answers: Just b as Abaye said, /b with regard to a different issue, that it is referring b to a coarse cloth, /b which will not warm one’s body, b here too, /b the i baraita /i is referring b to a coarse cloth, /b which will not lead to a seminal emission.,The Gemara asks: b And where was /b this statement b of Abaye stated? /b It was stated b with regard to that which we learned /b in a mishna (40a): If a priest b was eating i teruma /i and he sensed that his limbs quaked, /b indicating that a seminal emission was imminent, he should firmly b hold his penis /b to prevent the emission from leaving his body, b and swallow the i teruma /i /b while ritually pure.,A difficulty was raised with regard to this mishna: May he actually b hold /b his penis? b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b With regard to b anyone who holds his penis and urinates, /b it is considered b as though he is bringing a flood to the world, /b as masturbation was one of the sins that led to the flood ( i Sanhedrin /i 108b)? b Abaye says /b in resolution of this difficulty that the mishna is referring to one who holds his penis b with a coarse cloth. /b , b Rava says /b with regard to that mishna: b You /b may b even say /b that it is referring to a priest who holds his penis b with a soft cloth, /b and the reason it is permitted is that b once /b the semen b has /b already been b uprooted /b from his body, it is b uprooted, /b and his subsequent holding of the penis, even with a soft cloth, does not increase the emission of semen. b And Abaye /b prohibits the use of a soft cloth even here, as he is b concerned /b that b perhaps /b due to the contact of this cloth one might b come to increase /b the emission of semen. b But Rava is not concerned /b that b perhaps /b one might b come to increase /b the emission.,The Gemara asks: b And /b is Rava b not /b concerned for this possibility? b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b To what is this /b repeated examination of a man b comparable? To /b one who b places a finger in /b his b eye, for as long as /b the b finger /b is b in the eye, /b the b eye will tear and continue to tear. /b Here too, the priest’s action will lead to an increased emission of semen.,The Gemara answers: b And Rava /b would claim that if the priest’s limbs were not quaking and the semen was coming out in drops, there is indeed a concern that an examination might increase the emission. But when he feels his limbs quaking, this concern does not apply. The reason is that with regard to b any warming /b of the body that leads to a seminal emission b and /b that is b then /b followed by another b warming at the time /b when the semen is being uprooted, it is b uncommon /b for the latter warming to increase the emission. Consequently, in this case the priest may hold his penis even with a soft cloth.,The Gemara discusses b the /b matter b itself. Rabbi Eliezer says: /b With regard to b anyone who holds /b his b penis and urinates, /b it is considered b as though he is bringing a flood to the world. /b The Rabbis b said to Rabbi Eliezer: But /b if one does not hold his penis, b small drops are sprayed on his legs, and he appears as one whose penis has been severed. /b A man with that affliction is incapable of fathering children. People who see urine on his legs might suspect that he is suffering from that condition b and as a result /b they will b cast aspersions about his children /b and say b that they are children born from a forbidden relationship [ i mamzerim /i ]. /b ,Rabbi Eliezer b said to them: It is preferable that /b people b cast aspersions about his children that they are i mamzerim /i , and he should not render himself wicked /b even b one moment before the Omnipresent. /b ,With regard to the same issue, it b is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer said to /b the other b Rabbis /b in response: It is b possible /b for one to avoid spraying urine on his legs. How so? b Let a person stand on an elevated place and urinate /b downward, b or urinate into /b an area where there is b loose soil, /b which absorbs the urine, so that it does not ricochet upward, b and he should not render himself wicked /b even b one moment before the Omnipresent. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Which /b of these replies b did /b Rabbi Eliezer b say to /b the Rabbis b first? If we say /b that it was the b first /b statement, i.e., that one should not hold his penis even if people might cast aspersions about his children, that he b said to /b the Rabbis b first, /b and subsequently he told them that there was a way to avoid urine being sprayed on his legs, this is difficult; b after saying to them /b that it is b a prohibition, would he then say to them /b a practical b remedy? /b By saying that one can avoid urine being sprayed on his legs, Rabbi Eliezer indicated that if one cannot do so he may hold his penis, which contradicts his other statement., b Rather, /b clearly b he said this /b practical solution b to /b the Rabbis b first, and they /b then b said to him: /b If b one does not have an elevated place or loose earth /b upon which he can urinate, b what /b should he do? In response to this question, b he said to them: It is preferable /b that people b cast aspersions about his children that they are i mamzerim /i , and he should not render himself wicked /b even b one moment before the Omnipresent. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b why must one refrain b to that extent /b from holding his penis? b Because /b as the result of holding his penis b he /b might b emit semen for naught. As Rabbi Yoḥa says: Anyone who emits semen for naught is liable /b to receive the punishment of b death /b at the hand of Heaven, b as it is stated /b with regard to O, son of Judah: “And it came to pass, when he engaged in intercourse with his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother. b And the thing that he did was evil in the eyes of the Lord, and He slew him also” /b (Genesis 38:9–10)., b Rabbi Yitzḥak and Rabbi Ami say: /b One who emits semen for naught is considered b as though he sheds blood, as it is stated: /b “But draw near here, you sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the harlot…Are you not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood, b you that inflame yourselves among the terebinths, under every leafy tree, that slay [ i shoḥatei /i ] the children in the valleys, under the clefts of the rocks?” /b (Isaiah 57:3–5). b Do not read /b this word as b i shoḥatei /i ; rather, /b read it as b i soḥatei /i , /b i.e., one who squeezes out [ i soḥet /i ] semen is considered to have shed the blood of the children who could have been born from that seed., b Rav Asi says: /b It is considered b as though he worships idols, /b as b it is written here: “Under every leafy tree,” and it is written there, /b with regard to the mitzva of eradicating idols from Eretz Yisrael: “You shall destroy all the places, where the nations that you are to dispossess worshipped their gods, b upon the high mountains, /b and upon the hills, b and under every leafy tree” /b (Deuteronomy 12:2).,§ With regard to the issue of holding one’s penis for the purpose of urinating, the Gemara relates that b Rav Yehuda and Shmuel were standing on the roof of the synagogue that was destroyed and rebuilt in Neharde’a. Rav Yehuda said to Shmuel: /b What can I do? b I need to urinate. /b Shmuel b said to him: i Shina /i , hold your penis, /b so that the water does not fall onto the synagogue roof, b and urinate outward, /b away from the synagogue.,The Gemara asks: b How could /b Rav Yehuda b do so? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b With regard to b anyone who holds his penis and urinates, /b it is considered b as though he is bringing a flood to the world? /b , b Abaye says: /b The Sages b rendered /b the halakhic status of this situation b like /b that of b a troop of marauders, as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Avoda Zara /i 70b): With regard to b a troop of marauders that entered a town, /b if they did so b in a time of peace, open casks /b of wine b are forbidden, /b in case the marauders used the wine for libations in idol worship, whereas b sealed /b casks b are permitted. In a time of war, /b both b these and those are permitted, because /b the marauders b do not have leisure to pour libations. Evidently, since /b these marauders b are afraid, they will not come to pour libations. Here too, /b in this incident involving Rav Yehuda, b since he is afraid he will not come to have /b sexual b thoughts. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And what fear is there here, /b in the case of Rav Yehuda? The Gemara explains: b If you wish, say /b that there is b the fear of the night and of the roof, /b i.e., that he might fall. b And if you wish, say /b that b the awe of his teacher, /b Shmuel, is upon him. b And if you wish, say /b that b the awe of the Divine Presence /b that dwells in the synagogue is upon Rav Yehuda. b And if you wish, say /b that b the awe of his Master, /b God, is upon him. Rav Yehuda was renowned for his fear of Heaven, b as Shmuel declared about /b him: b This one is not born of a woman, /b but is like an angel., b And if you wish, say /b a different answer, that Rav Yehuda was allowed to hold his penis while urinating because he b was married; as Rav Naḥman said: If one is married, /b it is b permitted /b for him to hold his penis while urinating, as his improper sexual urges are not as strong., b And if you wish, say /b that Shmuel b ruled for /b Rav Yehuda b in accordance with this /b i baraita /i , b which Abba, son of Rabbi Binyamin bar Ḥiyya, teaches: /b One may not hold the penis itself while urinating, b but /b a man who wishes to urinate b may assist /b the process b by /b holding the b testicles from below. /b Shmuel instructed Rav Yehuda to act in this manner. b And if you wish, say /b that b Shmuel ruled /b for Rav Yehuda b in accordance with that which Rabbi Abbahu said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: There is /b a clear b demarcation /b in the prohibition against holding one’s penis while urinating: b From the corona and below, /b toward the tip of the penis, it is b permitted /b to hold, as this will not lead to arousal. |
|
76. Babylonian Talmud, Nazir, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 226| 61b. יצא עובד כוכבים שאין לו טומאה מנלן דלית להו טומאה דאמר קרא (במדבר יט, כ) ואיש אשר יטמא ולא יתחטא ונכרתה הנפש ההיא מתוך הקהל במי שיש לו קהל יצא זה שאין לו קהל,ממאי דלמא כרת הוא דלא מיחייב אבל איטמויי מיטמו אמר קרא (במדבר יט, יט) והזה הטהור על הטמא כל שיש לו טהרה יש לו טומאה וכל שאין לו טהרה אין לו טומאה,ואימא טהרה הוא דלא הויא ליה טומאה הויא ליה א"ק ואיש אשר יטמא ולא יתחטא,רב אחא בר יעקב אמר שאני הכא דא"ק (ויקרא כה, מו) והתנחלתם אותם לבניכם אחריכם,כל שיש לו נחלה יש לו טומאה וכל שאין לו נחלה אין לו טומאה אי הכי עבדים נמי לא,אלא אמר רבא בשלמא גבי ערכין שנאמר (ויקרא כז, ב) בני ישראל בני ישראל מעריכין ואין העובדי כוכבים מעריכין יכול לא יהו נערכין ת"ל איש [איש],הכא בני ישראל נוזרין ומביאין קרבן ואין העובדי כוכבים נוזרין ומביאין קרבן יכול אף לא יהו נזירין כלל ת"ל איש,אמרי אי משום קרבן לאו מהכא נפקא ליה אלא מהתם לעולה פרט לנזירות דברי ר' יוסי הגלילי,אימא בני ישראל נוזרין נזירות עולם ואין העובדי כוכבים נוזרים נזירות עולם יכול לא יהו נזירים תלמוד לומר איש א"ר יוחנן מי כתיב נזיר עולם,אימא בני ישראל מדירין בניהם בנזיר ואין העובדי כוכבים מדירין בניהם בנזיר יכול לא יהו נזירים ת"ל איש האמר רבי יוחנן הלכה היא בנזיר,אימא בני ישראל מגלחין על נזירות אביהן ואין העובדי כוכבים מגלחין על נזירות אביהן | 61b. which b excludes a gentile, who has no /b potential to become b ritually impure. /b A gentile is not rendered impure even if he touches a corpse. An individual of this kind cannot become a nazirite. The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive b that /b gentiles b do not have /b the ability to become b ritually impure? /b It is b as the verse states /b with regard to one who enters the Temple in a state of impurity: b “But the man who shall be impure and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly” /b (Numbers 19:20). This indicates that the i halakhot /i of ritual impurity apply only b to one who has /b membership in the b assembly /b of the Jewish people and b excludes this /b gentile, b who has no /b membership in the b assembly, /b i.e., he is not part of the Jewish people.,The Gemara asks: b From where /b is it derived that this verse teaches that ritual impurity does not apply to a gentile at all? b Perhaps /b the verse b is /b referring merely to b excision from the World-to-Come [ i karet /i ], /b i.e., it is teaching b that he is not liable /b to receive i karet /i for entering the Temple when impure, b but /b that perhaps a gentile b does become impure. /b The Gemara answers that b the /b previous b verse states: “And the pure /b person b shall sprinkle upon the impure”; /b this indicates that b anyone who has /b the possibility of attaining b ritual purity /b by means of the waters of purification also b has /b the potential for b ritual impurity, and anyone who does not have /b the possibility of attaining b purity /b by means of the waters of purification b does not have /b the potential for b impurity /b either.,The Gemara asks: b But /b one can b say /b that b it is /b only b purity /b by means of the waters of purification b that he does not have, /b but b he does have /b the potential for b impurity. /b The Gemara answers: It is for this reason that b the verse states: “But the man who shall be impure and shall not purify himself” /b (Numbers 19:20), to teach that these two statuses are interdependent. One who cannot be purified by the waters of purification cannot become impure in the first place., b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said /b a different reason why a gentile cannot become a nazirite, despite the fact that the term “man” does include gentiles in the case of valuations. b Here, /b with regard to naziriteship, it b is different, as /b the verse prohibits a nazirite from becoming impure for his father and mother. This prohibition is not relevant for gentiles because b the verse states: “And you shall make them an inheritance for your children after you” /b (Leviticus 25:46). This verse establishes a child as one to whom a person can bequeath his slaves, the subject of this verse.,Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov explains: This verse teaches that b anyone who has inheritance, /b i.e., he has the ability to bequeath his slaves to his children, also b has /b the status of a father with regard to b impurity, /b and the verse prohibiting a nazirite from becoming impure to bury his father can be addressing him. b But anyone who does not have inheritance does not have /b the status of a father with regard to b impurity. /b Since a gentile cannot bequeath slaves to his child (see i Gittin /i 38a), the status of a father with regard to impurity also does not apply to him. Consequently, the verse prohibiting a nazirite from becoming impure to bury his father cannot be addressing him. The Gemara asks: b If so, slaves should also not /b be included in the i halakhot /i of ritual impurity or naziriteship, as they too cannot bequeath slaves to their children., b Rather, Rava said /b a different reason why a gentile cannot become a nazirite, even though he is included in the i halakhot /i of valuations, and despite the fact that the term “man” appears in both passages. b Granted, with regard to valuations, as it is stated: /b “Speak to b the children of Israel” /b (Leviticus 27:2), one can derive that b the children of Israel can take a valuation vow but gentiles cannot take a valuation vow. /b One b might /b have thought that gentiles b cannot be valuated /b either. Therefore, b the verse states: “Man” /b (Leviticus 27:2), so as to include a gentile in only one aspect of the i halakhot /i of valuations, i.e., that a gentile can be the subject of a valuation. This does not negate the derivation from “the children of Israel” that gentiles are generally excluded.,Rava continues his explanation: However, b here, /b in the case of naziriteship, there is no possibility of interpreting the word “man” to include a gentile in only one aspect of the i halakhot /i of naziriteship. Rava explains: If one would suggest the following derivation: From the phrase “the children of Israel” (Numbers 6:2) derive that b the children of Israel can /b both b take a vow /b of b naziriteship and bring /b the nazirite b offering, but gentiles cannot /b both b take a vow /b of b naziriteship and bring /b the nazirite b offering, /b one b might /b have thought that gentiles b cannot be nazirites at all; /b therefore, b the verse states: “Man,” /b which includes gentiles in one aspect of the i halakhot /i of naziriteship, i.e., that they can become nazirites.,Rava continues his explanation: However, the Sages would b say /b in response to this suggestion: b If /b the phrase “the children of Israel” is written b due to /b the need to exclude a gentile from bringing a nazirite b offering, one does not /b need to b derive /b this i halakha /i b from here, and /b this is because it is already derived b from there, /b as a i baraita /i teaches that the verse: “Any man from the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, who sacrifices his offering, whether it be any of their vows, or any of their gift offerings, which are sacrificed to the Lord b as a burnt-offering” /b (Leviticus 22:18), b excludes /b a gentile from the offering of b naziriteship; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. /b Therefore, the phrase “the children of Israel” must exclude gentiles from the entire passage of naziriteship, and not just from bringing the offerings.,The Gemara asks: But it can still be argued that “the children of Israel” is excluding a gentile from only some aspects of naziriteship, as one can b say /b that this phrase teaches that b the children of Israel can take a vow /b of b permanent naziriteship, but gentiles cannot take a vow /b of b permanent naziriteship, /b and one b might /b have thought that gentiles b cannot be nazirites /b at all. b The verse /b therefore b states: “Man,” /b to teach that they can become nazirites. The Gemara answers: b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Is it written: A permanent nazirite? /b Since the verse does not specify a particular type of naziriteship, it excludes gentiles from all types.,The Gemara offers another suggestion: But it can still be argued that “the children of Israel” is excluding a gentile from only some aspects of naziriteship, as one can b say /b that this phrase teaches that b “the children of Israel” can vow /b that b their /b minor b sons be nazirites, but gentiles cannot vow /b that b their /b minor b sons be nazirites; /b and one b might /b have thought that gentiles b cannot be nazirites /b at all. b The verse /b therefore b states: “Man,” /b to teach that they can become nazirites. The Gemara answers: b Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say /b that the fact that a father can take a vow that his minor son will be a nazirite b is a i halakha /i /b transmitted to Moses at Sinai b with regard to a nazirite? /b Since this i halakha /i is not stated in the Torah, it cannot be excluded by a verse.,The Gemara offers another suggestion: But it can still be argued that “the children of Israel” is excluding a gentile from only some aspects of naziriteship, as one can b say /b that this phrase teaches that b “the children of Israel” can shave /b and cut their hair b by /b means of the offerings of b their fathers’ naziriteships, but gentiles cannot shave /b and cut their hair b by /b means of b their fathers’ naziriteships. /b In other words, if the father of a nazirite, who was himself a nazirite, died after having separated his nazirite offerings, the son is able to bring those offerings at the close of his own naziriteship. |
|
77. Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 218| 5b. קרי עליה (תהלים נ, כג) ושם דרך אראנו בישע אלהים,תנו רבנן אין מציינין לא על כזית מן המת ולא על עצם כשעורה ולא על דבר שאינו מטמא באהל אבל מציינין על השדרה ועל הגולגולת על רוב בנין ועל רוב מנין המת,ואין מציינין על הוודאות אבל מציינין על הספיקות ואלו הן הספיקות סככות ופרעות ובית הפרס ואין מעמידין ציון במקום טומאה שלא להפסיד את הטהרות ואין מרחיקין ציון ממקום טומאה שלא להפסיד את ארץ ישראל,וכזית מן המת אינו מטמא באהל והא (תניא) אלו שמטמאין באהל כזית מן המת,אמר רב פפא הכא בכזית מצומצם עסקינן דסוף סוף מיחסר חסר מוטב ישרפו עליו תרומה וקדשים לפי שעה ואל ישרפו עליו לעולם,ואלו הן הספיקות סככות ופרעות,סככות אילן המיסך על הארץ,פרעות אבנים פרועות היוצאות מן הגדר,בית הפרס כדתנן החורש את הקבר הרי הוא עושה בית הפרס וכמה הוא עושה מלא מענה מאה אמה,ובית הפרס מי מטמא באהל והאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מנפח אדם בית הפרס והולך,ורב יהודה בר אמי משמיה דעולא אמר בית הפרס שנידש טהור,אמר רב פפא לא קשיא כאן בשדה שאבד בה קבר כאן בשדה שנחרש בה קבר,ושדה שנחרש בה קבר בית הפרס קרי ליה אין והתנן שלשה בית הפרס הן שדה שנאבד בה קבר ושדה שנחרש בה קבר ושדה בוכין,מאי שדה בוכין רב יהושע בר אבא משמיה דעולא אמר שדה שמפטירין בה מתים,וטעמא מאי אמר אבימי משום יאוש בעלים נגעו בה,ושדה שנחרש בה קבר לא בעי ציון והא תניא מצא שדה מצויינת ואין ידוע מה טיבה יש בה אילנות בידוע שנחרש בה קבר אין בה אילנות בידוע שאבד בה קבר,ר' יהודה אומר עד שיהא שם זקן או תלמיד לפי שאין הכל בקיאין בדבר,אמר רב פפא כי תניא ההיא בשדה שאבד בה קבר דציינוה יש בה אילנות בידוע שנחרש בה קבר אין בה אילנות בידוע שאבד בה קבר,וליחוש דלמא אילנות מגואי וקבר מבראי,כדאמר עולא בעומדין על הגבולין הכא נמי בעומדין על הגבולין | 5b. Rabbi Yannai b read /b this verse b about him: “And to him who orders his way, I will show the salvation of God” /b (Psalms 50:23), for he considered his conduct and determined when it was inappropriate to challenge his master.,§ With regard to the i halakhot /i of marking graves, b the Sages taught /b the following i baraita /i : The courts b do not mark /b the area b of an olive-bulk of a corpse; nor of a bone /b that is the size of a b barleygrain-bulk; nor of /b any b item that /b imparts impurity only through physical contact but b does not impart ritual impurity by means of a tent /b to an individual or object that it overshadows, or that is overshadowed by it, or that is found together with it under the same structure. b But they do mark /b the area of b the spine /b of a corpse, b the skull, /b or the bones that comprise b the majority of the /b skeletal b structure or the majority of the number /b of bones in the body., b And /b furthermore, b they do not mark /b the area b of certain /b ritual impurity, i.e., a place that is known to all as ritually impure, b but they do mark /b a place b of uncertain /b ritual impurity. b And these are the /b places of b uncertain /b ritual impurity: b Overhanging boughs, protrusions, and a i beit haperas /i . And they do not erect the marker /b directly b over the site of the ritual impurity, so as not to cause a loss of ritually pure /b food items, as one who is carrying such food might inadvertently walk up to the site of ritual impurity and only then notice the marker, after the food has already contracted impurity. b Similarly, they do not distance the marker from the /b actual b site of ritual impurity, so as not to cause a loss of Eretz Yisrael, /b i.e., so as not to increase the area into which individuals refrain from entering.,The Gemara begins to analyze this i baraita /i by asking: b Is it /b really b so that an olive-bulk of a corpse does not impart ritual impurity by means of a tent? But didn’t we learn /b in a mishna ( i Oholot /i 2:1): b These are /b the items b that impart ritual impurity by means of a tent, /b and among other items this list includes b an olive-bulk of a corpse? /b , b Rav Pappa said: Here, we are dealing with /b a case b where /b the piece of flesh b is exactly an olive-bulk, which, /b as it decays, b will ultimately diminish /b in size to less than an olive-bulk. Accordingly, b it is preferable that i teruma /i and consecrated items be burned because of it for the time being, /b in a case where one inadvertently encounters this impurity because it was not marked and consequently one must burn any i teruma /i or consecrated items that became ritually impure, b and not be burned because of it forever /b afterward. After some time the piece of flesh will be less than an olive-bulk, yet if the area is marked, people will continue to burn i teruma /i or consecrated items because of it, as, due to the marking, they will assume that ritual impurity was imparted by means of a tent.,The Gemara continues to explicate the i baraita /i : b And these are the /b places of b uncertain /b ritual impurity: b Overhanging boughs, and protrusions, /b and a i beit haperas /i .,The Gemara explains: b Overhanging boughs /b is referring to b a tree that hangs over the ground /b next to a cemetery, and under one of its branches there might be a corpse. If there is a corpse there, the branch overhanging it creates a tent and therefore imparts ritual impurity to anyone who passes underneath it., b Protrusions /b is referring to b protruding stones that jut out from a wall /b and are not flush with it, under which there might be a corpse. Once again, if the stones protrude over a corpse, they create a tent and impart ritual impurity to anyone who passes underneath.,The definition of a b i beit haperas /i /b is b as we learned /b elsewhere in a mishna ( i Oholot /i 17:1): b One who plows /b a field containing b a grave, /b thereby raising concern that bones may have become strewn throughout the field, b renders /b the field b a i beit haperas /i . And how much /b of the field b does he render /b a i beit haperas /i ? b The full /b length of b a furrow, /b which is b a hundred cubits. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Does a i beit haperas /i /b really b impart ritual impurity by means of a tent? But didn’t Rav Yehuda say /b that b Shmuel said: /b If b a person /b is carrying ritually pure items or wishes to remain ritually pure so that he may consume consecrated items, yet he must cross a i beit haperas /i , he b may blow upon /b the earth in b the i beit haperas /i /b before each step to clear away any small bones that may have become strewn across the field b and /b proceed to b walk /b across the area, thereby remaining ritually pure. This indicates that there is no concern about contracting ritual impurity by means of a tent in a i beit haperas /i ; otherwise, it would be prohibited to cross in this way, as it is possible that in the course of blowing one may already have contracted ritual impurity by leaning over the bones or by passing over bones that are buried beneath the surface.,Similarly, b Rav Yehuda bar Ami said in the name of Ulla: A i beit haperas /i that was trampled, /b i.e., a well-trodden i beit haperas /i , b is ritually pure, /b as passersby have certainly cleared away any bones with their feet. If a i beit haperas /i were to impart ritual impurity by means of a tent, there should be a concern that the bones may have been trampled upon and buried in the ground. Both these sources prove that a i beit haperas /i does not impart impurity by means of tent, posing a contradiction to the mishna., b Rav Pappa said: /b It is b not difficult, /b as a distinction can be made between different types of i beit haperas /i : b Here, /b where the i baraita /i states that a i beit haperas /i must be marked because it imparts tent impurity, it is referring to b a field in which a grave was lost, /b i.e., a field that was known with certainty to contain a grave, though its precise location can no longer be recalled. b There, /b where it ruled that a i beit haperas /i does not convey tent impurity, it is a case of b a field where a grave was plowed /b and it is not at all clear whether there are bones strewn across the field. In that case ritual impurity is not imparted by means of a tent, and so it need not be marked.,The Gemara asks: b But is a field where a grave was plowed called a i beit haperas /i , /b such that one must be concerned about its ritual impurity? The Gemara answers: b Yes, and so we learned /b in a mishna ( i Oholot /i 18:2–4): b There are three /b types of b i beit haperas /i /b through which those who eat i teruma /i and consecrated items are prohibited to walk: b A field in which a grave was lost /b and its precise location is no longer known, b a field in which a grave was plowed /b and bones may have been scattered about, b and a weepers’ field. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is /b meant by b a weepers’ field? Rav Yehoshua bar Abba said in the name of Ulla: A field where /b those escorting the deceased b would take leave of the deceased, /b handing the corpse over to those who would perform the actual interment., b And what is the reason /b that one must be concerned about ritual impurity in a weepers’ field? b Avimi said: /b It is b due to the /b possible b despair by the owners /b of recovering bones that the Sages b touched /b upon b it. /b There is a concern that in transporting the deceased from far away, a loose limb may have fallen from the corpse into the field, and unseen by those transporting the deceased, it was abandoned there. Since over time many corpses passed through this weepers’ field, it is assumed that ritual impurity might be found in many places throughout the field.,The Gemara asks: b And does a field in which a grave was plowed not require marking? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b If one encountered a field that was marked /b due to ritual impurity, b and it is no /b longer b known what the nature of the /b ritual impurity b was, if there are trees in /b the field, b it is known that a grave was plowed in it, /b as it is permitted for one to plant trees in such a field. b If there are no trees in /b the field, b it is known that a grave was lost in it, /b as it is prohibited for one to plant trees in such a field. If a field is suitable for planting trees and yet there are none, clearly it is because a grave was lost in it., b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b We do not rely on these signs b unless there is an Elder or /b a rabbinic b scholar /b who can testify about the subject, b as not all are experts in this matter, /b and perhaps the field was not plowed at all. In any case, this i baraita /i teaches that a field in which a grave was plowed is also marked.,The Gemara answers: b Rav Pappa said: When that /b i baraita /i concerning a marked field b is taught, /b it is taught with regard to b a field where a grave was /b certainly b lost /b and b they /b immediately b marked it. /b However, b if there are trees in /b the field, b it is known that a grave was /b later b plowed in it, /b i.e., it was forgotten that a grave had been lost in the field and so it was inappropriately plowed and prepared for planting. But b if there are no trees in /b the field, b we know that a grave was lost in it /b and it was not later plowed.,The Gemara raises a question about this ruling: b But let us be concerned that perhaps the trees were /b located b inside /b the field b and the grave was /b located b outside /b of it, and the actual site of the grave was never plowed but simply lost? How then can one rely on the presence of trees to indicate that the grave had been plowed in the field?,The Gemara answers: It is b as Ulla said /b elsewhere. This is a case b where /b the trees b are standing along the /b field’s b boundaries, /b next to a public domain, as the grave is certainly not outside the trees in the public domain, since people do not bury a corpse in the public thoroughfare. Rather, the grave must be between the trees, and was therefore plowed. b Here too /b , then, this is a case b where /b the trees b are standing along the borders. /b |
|
78. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 211| 2b. ואימא צוה [צוה] דיום הכפורים דכתיב (ויקרא טז, לד) ויעש כאשר צוה ה' את משה דנין צוה דלפני עשיה מצוה דלפני עשיה ואין דנין צוה דלאחר עשיה מצוה דלפני עשיה,ואימא צוה דקרבנות דכתיב (ויקרא ז, לח) ביום צותו את בני ישראל דנין צוה מצוה ואין דנין צותו מצוה,ומאי נפקא מינה והתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (ויקרא יד, לט) ושב הכהן ובא הכהן זו היא שיבה זו היא ביאה,הני מילי היכא דליכא דדמי ליה אבל היכא דאיכא דדמי ליה מדדמי ליה ילפינן,לכפר אלו מעשה יום הכפורים ואימא כפרה דקרבנות,מי ידעינן הי כהן מתרמי דבעי ליה פרישה אמרי אלמה לא ניבעי ליה פרישה לכוליה משמרת בית אב דנין דבר שקבוע לו זמן מדבר שקבוע לו זמן לאפוקי קרבנות דכל יומא איתנהו,ואימא רגלים דנין דבר שנוהג פעם אחת בשנה מדבר הנוהג פעם אחת בשנה לאפוקי רגלים דלאו פעם אחת בשנה נינהו,ואימא רגל אחד וכי תימא לא ידעינן הי מינייהו אי חג המצות הואיל ופתח בו הכתוב תחלה אי חג הסוכות הואיל ומרובה מצותו,אלא דנין פרישת שבעה ליום אחד מפרישת שבעה ליום אחד ואין דנין פרישת שבעה לשבעה מפרישת שבעה ליום אחד,ואימא שמיני דפרישת שבעה ליום אחד הוא דנין דבר שאין קדושה לפניו מדבר שאין קדושה לפניו ואין דנין דבר שיש קדושה לפניו מדבר שאין קדושה לפניו,ולאו קל וחומר הוא השתא דבר שאין קדושה לפניו בעי פרישה דבר שיש קדושה לפניו לא כל שכן אמר רב משרשיא לא הזה כתיב כזה,רב אשי אמר מי איכא מידי דעיקר רגל לא בעי פרישה טפל דידיה בעי פרישה ואפילו למאן דאמר שמיני רגל בפני עצמו הוא הני מילי לענין | 2b. The Gemara asks: b And say /b that there is indeed a verbal analogy; however, it is not between the red heifer and the inauguration of the priests, but between the term b commanded /b in the context of the inauguration and the term b commanded /b in the context b of Yom Kippur, as it is written: /b “And this will be an everlasting statute for you, to atone for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year; b and he did as the Lord commanded Moses” /b (Leviticus 16:34). In that case, only the sequestering prior to Yom Kippur can be derived. The Gemara rejects this, as a verbal analogy is derived only between functionally similar phrases. b One derives commanded that is /b stated b before performance, /b as in the portion of the heifer, b from commanded that is /b stated b before performance /b in the portion of the inauguration; b and one does not derive commanded that is /b stated b after performance /b in the portion of Yom Kippur b from commanded that is /b stated b before performance. /b ,Again the Gemara asks: b And say /b that there is a verbal analogy between the term commanded in the context of the inauguration and the term b commanded /b with regard to b offerings, as it is written: “On the day that He commanded [ i tzavoto /i ] the children of Israel /b to sacrifice their offerings” (Leviticus 7:38). The result would be that any priest sacrificing a communal offering would require sequestering for seven days. The Gemara rejects this: b One derives /b the term b commanded from /b the identical term b commanded, and one does not derive /b the term b that he commanded [ i tzavoto /i ] from /b the term b commanded [ i tziva /i ]. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b What is the practical difference /b between the two terms? b Didn’t the school of Rabbi Yishmael teach /b a verbal analogy with regard to leprosy of houses between the verse: b “And the priest shall return [ i veshav /i ]” /b (Leviticus 14:39) and the verse: b “And the priest shall come [ i uva /i ]” /b (Leviticus 14:44)? From that verbal analogy it is derived that b this is /b the i halakha /i with regard to b returning, /b i.e., it is after seven days; and b this is /b the same i halakha /i with regard to b coming, /b i.e., it is also after seven days. Obviously, the less pronounced difference in grammatical forms between i tziva /i and i tzavoto /i should not prevent the teaching of a verbal analogy.,The Gemara rejects this argument: b This applies /b only b where there are no /b terms b that are identical to it; however, where there are terms that are identical to it, we derive /b the verbal analogy b from /b terms b that are identical to it, /b rather than from terms that are merely similar.,§ The Gemara analyzes the verbal analogy from which the sequestering of the High Priest is derived. The Gemara states with regard to the phrase b “to make atonement,” /b written in the context of the inauguration: b These are the actions /b performed on b Yom Kippur. /b The Gemara suggests: b And say /b that it refers to b the atonement of offerings /b in general, such that any priest engaged in sacrificing atonement offerings must be sequestered seven days beforehand.,The Gemara seeks to reject this suggestion from a practical perspective. b Do we know /b in advance b which priest will happen /b to sacrifice a given offering, and b who /b would consequently b require sequestering? /b The Sages b say: Why not? /b There are certainly ways to do so. Each of the twenty-four priestly watches has set weeks during which it serves in the Temple, and the patrilineal families that constitute that watch have set days during that week on which each serves in the Temple. b We could require sequestering for the entire patrilineal family of the /b priestly b watch /b designated to serve on that day the following week. The Gemara rejects the suggestion that all priests should be sequestered prior to sacrificing an atonement offering. b We derive a matter that has a fixed time /b during the year, Yom Kippur, b from a matter that /b also b has a fixed time, /b the inauguration of the priests for service in the Tabernacle, b to the exclusion of offerings that are /b sacrificed b every day. /b ,Again the Gemara asks: b And say /b that one derives from the phrase “to make atonement” the principle of sequestering prior to sacrificing atonement offerings on the b Festivals, /b which have fixed times. The Gemara rejects this: b We derive a matter that is performed once a year, /b the service of Yom Kippur, b from a matter that is performed once a year, /b like the inauguration, which was a one-time event, b to the exclusion of /b the service on the b Festivals, which is not /b performed b once a year; /b rather, it is performed three times a year.,The Gemara asks: b And say /b that the service on b one Festival /b of the three, which is performed once a year, should require sequestering. b And if you say: We do not know which of them /b is the most significant and requires sequestering, since one could suggest that it is b Passover, with which the verse opened, /b as the Torah always lists it first among the Festivals; b or /b one could suggest that it is b i Sukkot /i , since its mitzva /b is to bring b numerous /b offerings, many more than the number brought on the other Festivals., b Rather, /b the Gemara rejects this possibility and explains: b One derives sequestering for seven days /b prior to performing a service b for one day, /b Yom Kippur, b from sequestering for seven days /b prior to performing a service b for one day, /b the inauguration. b And one does not derive sequestering for seven days /b prior to performing a service b for seven /b days, a Festival, b from sequestering for seven days /b prior to performing a service b for one day, /b the inauguration. Therefore, atonement offerings on Festivals are not derived from the inauguration.,The Gemara asks: b And say /b that the sequestering for seven days is prior to the festival of the b Eighth /b Day of Assembly, as that would also be b sequestering for seven days /b prior to performing a service b for one day. /b The Gemara rejects this: b One derives a matter before which there is not sanctity, /b Yom Kippur, which is preceded by weekdays, b from a matter before which there is not sanctity, /b the day of the inauguration, which was also preceded by weekdays. b And we do not derive a matter before which there is sanctity, /b the Eighth Day of Assembly, which is preceded by the seven days of i Sukkot /i , b from a matter before which there is not sanctity. /b ,The Gemara challenges this: b And is it not an i a fortiori /i inference? Now, /b if b a matter before which there is not sanctity requires sequestering, /b due to its sanctity, then with regard to b a matter before which there is sanctity, all the more so /b is it b not /b clear that it should require sequestering? b Rav Mesharshiyya said /b in rejection of this challenge: b No, /b there is no i a fortiori /i inference here, as the verse: “As has been done b this /b day, so the Lord has commanded to do, to make atonement for you” (Leviticus 8:34), b is written /b to emphasize specifically a day b like this /b day; precisely as it was for the inauguration, and not in any other situation., b Rav Ashi said: /b There is another reason why it could not be that sequestering is required prior to the Eighth Day of Assembly. Is b there /b any b matter where the primary Festival, /b the first day of i Sukkot /i , b does not require sequestering, /b as was already proven, while that which is b secondary to it requires sequestering? /b Since the Eighth Day of Assembly is an addendum to i Sukkot /i , could its sanctity and stringency be greater than that which is associated with the primary Festival? b And even according to the one who said: The Eighth /b Day of Assembly b is a Festival in and of itself /b and is not part of the festival of i Sukkot /i , b that applies only to the matter of /b |
|
79. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 225| 61a. קברי עובדי כוכבים אינן מטמאין באהל שנא' (יחזקאל לד, לא) ואתן צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם אתם קרויין אדם ואין העובדי כוכבים קרויין אדם,מיתיבי (במדבר לא, מ) ונפש אדם ששה עשר אלף משום בהמה,(יונה ד, יא) אשר יש בה הרבה משתים עשרה רבוא אדם אשר לא ידע בין ימינו לשמאלו (ובהמה רבה) משום בהמה,(במדבר לא, יט) כל הורג נפש וכל נוגע בחלל תתחטאו דלמא איקטיל חד מישראל ורבנן לא נפקד ממנו איש ור' שמעון בן יוחי לא נפקד ממנו איש לעבירה,רבינא אמר נהי דמעטינהו קרא מאטמויי באהל דכתיב (במדבר יט, יד) אדם כי ימות באהל ממגע ומשא מי מעטינהו קרא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אירס את האלמנה ונתמנה להיות כהן גדול יכנוס ומעשה ביהושע בן גמלא שקדש את מרתא בת ביתוס ומנהו המלך להיות כה"ג וכנסה שומרת יבם שנפלה לפני כהן הדיוט ונתמנה להיות כה"ג אע"פ שעשה בה מאמר הרי זה לא יכנוס:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר מנין שאם אירס את האלמנה ונתמנה להיות כהן גדול שיכנוס ת"ל (ויקרא כא, יד) יקח אשה א"ה שומרת יבם נמי אשה ולא יבמה:,מעשה ביהושע וכו': מנהו אין נתמנה לא אמר רב יוסף קטיר קחזינא הכא דאמר רב אסי תרקבא דדינרי עיילה ליה מרתא בת ביתוס לינאי מלכא עד דמוקי ליה ליהושע בן גמלא בכהני רברבי:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כהן גדול שמת אחיו חולץ ולא מייבם:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big קא פסיק ותני לא שנא מן האירוסין ולא שנא מן הנשואין בשלמא מן הנשואין עשה ולא תעשה הוא ואין עשה דוחה ל"ת ועשה אלא מן האירוסין יבא עשה וידחה את לא תעשה,גזירה ביאה ראשונה אטו ביאה שניה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כהן הדיוט לא ישא אילונית אלא א"כ יש לו אשה ובנים רבי יהודה אומר אע"פ שיש לו אשה ובנים לא ישא אילונית שהיא זונה האמורה בתורה וחכמים אומרים אין זונה אלא גיורת ומשוחררת ושנבעלה בעילת זנות:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big א"ל ריש גלותא לרב הונא מ"ט משום פריה ורביה אפריה ורביה כהנים הוא דמפקדי וישראל לא מפקדי אמר ליה משום דקא בעי למיתני סיפא רבי יהודה אומר אע"פ שיש לו אשה | 61a. b The graves of gentiles do not render /b items b impure though a tent, as it is stated: “And you My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are men [ i adam /i ]” /b (Ezekiel 34:31), from which it is derived that b you, /b the Jewish people, b are called men [ i adam /i ] but gentiles are not called men [ i adam /i ]. /b Since the Torah introduces the i halakha /i of ritual impurity of a tent with the words: “When a man [ i adam /i ] dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14), this i halakha /i applies only to corpses of Jews but not those of gentiles.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b based upon the verse with regard to captives taken during the war against Midian: b “And the persons [ i nefesh adam /i ] were sixteen thousand” /b (Numbers 31:40), which indicates that gentiles are also referred to as i adam /i . The Gemara answers: They are given this title b due to /b the need to distinguish the people taken captive from the b animals /b that were taken as spoils of war.,The Gemara raises another difficulty based upon a verse with regard to the city of Nineveh: b “Wherein are more than one hundred and twenty thousand men [ i adam /i ] that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand, and also much cattle” /b (Jonah 4:11). The Gemara answers: There, too, the gentiles are given this title b due to /b the need to distinguish them from the b animals /b mentioned in the verse.,The Gemara continues to question Rabbi Shimon’s ruling based upon a verse pertaining to the war against Midian: b “Whoever has killed anyone, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves” /b (Numbers 31:19). This indicates that gentile corpses convey ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: b Perhaps a Jew was killed, /b and the concern was for impurity caused by his corpse. b And the Rabbis /b reply that the verse attests: b “Not one man of us is missing” /b (Numbers 31:49). No Jewish soldiers fell in battle, and therefore the concern for impurity must have been due to the corpses of gentiles. b And Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai /b responds: The intent of that verse is that b not one man of us is missing /b due to b transgression, /b i.e., none of them sinned., b Ravina said /b that the explanation above is unnecessary: b Granted, the verse excluded /b gentiles b from rendering /b items b impure through a tent, as it is written: “When a man [ i adam /i ] dies in a tent” /b (Numbers 19:14); but b did the verse exclude them from /b rendering items impure via b touching and carrying? /b Since gentile corpses convey impurity in these ways, they could have rendered impure the Jews involved in the war with Midian, even according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai., strong MISHNA: /strong If a priest b betrothed a widow and was /b subsequently b appointed to be High Priest, he may marry /b her. b And /b there was b an incident with Yehoshua ben Gamla, who betrothed Marta bat Baitos, /b a widow, b and the king /b subsequently b appointed him to be High Priest, and /b he nevertheless b married her. /b Conversely, in the case of b a widow waiting for her i yavam /i who happened before a common priest, /b i.e., the priest was her i yavam /i , b and he was /b subsequently b appointed to be High Priest, /b then b even if he /b had already b performed levirate betrothal with her, he may not marry her, /b because she is a widow., strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught: From where /b is it derived b that if /b a priest b betrothed a widow and was /b subsequently b appointed to be High Priest, that he may marry /b her? b The verse states: “Shall he take for a wife” /b (Leviticus 21:14), an inclusive phrase that indicates that he may marry her in this situation despite the general prohibition for a High Priest to marry a widow. The Gemara asks: b If so, a widow waiting for her i yavam /i /b should b also /b be permitted to a High Priest. The Gemara answers: The word b “wife” /b indicates that this does b not /b include b a i yevama /i , /b who was not initially his wife but his brother’s.,The mishna related b an incident with Yehoshua /b ben Gamla. The Gemara notes that the mishna states that the king b appointed him, yes, /b but b not /b that he b was /b worthy of being b appointed. Rav Yosef said: I see a conspiracy here, /b as this was clearly not a proper appointment by the priests and the Sanhedrin but rather a political appointment, b as Rav Asi said: Marta bat Baitos brought /b a vessel the size of b a half- i se’a /i [ i tarkav /i ] /b full b of dinars to King Yannai until he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla High Priest. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong b A High Priest whose brother died /b without children b performs i ḥalitza /i and he does not perform levirate marriage, /b as he may not marry a widow., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara comments: The mishna b teaches /b this i halakha /i b categorically, /b indicating that b it is no different /b if she is his brother’s widow b from betrothal, and it is no different /b if she is his widow b from marriage. /b The Gemara analyzes this i halakha /i : b Granted, /b she is forbidden to him if she was widowed b from marriage, as, /b if he were to marry her, b it /b would be a violation of both the b positive mitzva /b that the High Priest marry a virgin b and /b the b prohibition /b for him to marry a widow. b And a positive mitzva, /b i.e., levirate marriage, b does not override a prohibition and a positive /b mitzva together. b However, /b if she was a widow b from betrothal /b and is therefore still a virgin, b the positive mitzva /b of levirate marriage b should come and override the prohibition /b for a High Priest to marry a widow.,The Gemara answers: By Torah law, levirate marriage is permitted in this case. However, there is a rabbinic b decree /b prohibiting their b first /b act of b intercourse due to /b their b second /b act of b intercourse. /b After they have engaged in intercourse once, they have fulfilled the mitzva of levirate marriage, and any subsequent act of intercourse would constitute a violation of the prohibition without the fulfillment of a mitzva., strong MISHNA: /strong b A common priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman [ i aylonit /i ], /b who is incapable of bearing children, b unless he /b already b has a wife and children. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even /b if b he has a wife and children, he may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman, as she is the i zona /i /b about whom it is b stated in the Torah /b that a priest may not marry her. Intercourse with her is considered a licentious act because she is incapable of bearing children. b And the Rabbis say: The only /b women in the category of b i zona /i , /b who are therefore forbidden to a priest, are b a female convert, a freed /b maidservant, b and /b any woman b who engaged in licentious sexual intercourse /b with a man she is prohibited from marrying., strong GEMARA: /strong b The Exilarch said to Rav Huna: What is the reason /b for the i halakha /i that a priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman? It is b because /b he is obligated to fulfill the mitzva to b be fruitful and multiply. Is it /b only b priests who were commanded to be fruitful and multiply, but Israelites were not commanded? /b Why does the mishna specify that a priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman? Rav Huna b said to him: /b This i halakha /i does in fact apply even to Israelites, and the i tanna /i mentions priests b because he wants to teach /b it in a way that would parallel b the latter clause /b of the mishna, which states that b Rabbi Yehuda says: Even /b if b he has a wife /b |
|
80. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 220| 32a. ראשית קראתי אתכם על עסקי ראשית הזהרתי אתכם נשמה שנתתי בכם קרויה נר על עסקי נר הזהרתי אתכם אם אתם מקיימים אותם מוטב ואם לאו הריני נוטל נשמתכם,ומ"ש בשעת לידתן אמר רבא נפל תורא חדד לסכינא אביי אמר תפיש תירוס אמתא בחד מחטרא ליהוי רב חסדא אמר שבקיה לרויא דמנפשיה נפיל מר עוקבא אמר רעיא חגרא ועיזי ריהטן אבב חוטרא מילי ואבי דרי חושבנא רב פפא אמר אבב חנואתא נפישי אחי ומרחמי אבב בזיוני לא אחי ולא מרחמי,וגברי היכא מיבדקי אמר ריש לקיש בשעה שעוברים על הגשר גשר ותו לא אימא כעין גשר רב לא עבר במברא דיתיב ביה עכו"ם אמר דילמא מיפקיד ליה דינא עליה ומתפיסנא בהדיה שמואל לא עבר אלא במברא דאית ביה עכו"ם אמר שטנא בתרי אומי לא שליט,ר' ינאי בדיק ועבר ר' ינאי לטעמיה דאמר לעולם אל יעמוד אדם במקום סכנה לומר שעושין לו נס שמא אין עושים לו נס ואם עושין לו נס מנכין לו מזכיותיו אמר רבי חנין מאי קראה (בראשית לב, יא) קטנתי מכל החסדים ומכל האמת רבי זירא ביומא דשותא לא נפיק לביני דיקלא,אמר ר' יצחק בריה דרב יהודה לעולם יבקש אדם רחמים שלא יחלה שאם יחלה אומרים לו הבא זכות והפטר אמר מר עוקבא מאי קראה (דברים כב, ח) כי יפול הנופל ממנו ממנו להביא ראיה תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל כי יפול הנופל ממנו (ממנו) ראוי זה ליפול מששת ימי בראשית שהרי לא נפל והכתוב קראו נופל אלא שמגלגלין זכות על ידי זכאי וחובה על ידי חייב.,ת"ר מי שחלה ונטה למות אומרים לו התודה שכן כל המומתין מתודין אדם יוצא לשוק יהי דומה בעיניו כמי שנמסר לסרדיוט חש בראשו יהי דומה בעיניו כמי שנתנוהו בקולר עלה למטה ונפל יהי דומה בעיניו כמו שהעלוהו לגרדום לידון שכל העולה לגרדום לידון אם יש לו פרקליטין גדולים ניצול ואם לאו אינו ניצול,ואלו הן פרקליטין של אדם תשובה ומעשים טובים ואפי' תשע מאות ותשעים ותשעה מלמדים עליו חובה ואחד מלמד עליו זכות ניצול שנאמר (איוב לג, כג) אם יש עליו מלאך מליץ אחד מני אלף להגיד לאדם ישרו ויחננו ויאמר פדעהו מרדת שחת וגו': ר' אליעזר בנו של ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר אפילו תשע מאות ותשעים ותשעה באותו מלאך לחובה ואחד לזכות ניצול שנאמר מליץ אחד מני אלף:,תנו רבנן על שלש עבירות נשים מתות יולדות רבי אלעזר אומר נשים מתות ילדות ר' אחא אומר בעון שמכבסות צואת בניהם בשבת וי"א על שקורין לארון הקודש ארנא.,תניא ר' ישמעאל בן אלעזר אומר בעון שני דברים עמי . הארצות מתים על שקורין לארון הקודש ארנא ועל שקורין לבית הכנסת בית עם תניא ר' יוסי אומר שלשה בדקי מיתה נבראו באשה ואמרי לה שלשה דבקי מיתה נדה וחלה והדלקת הנר חדא כר' אלעזר וחדא כרבנן,תניא רשב"ג אומר הלכות הקדש תרומות ומעשרות הן הן גופי תורה | 32a. b I called you first, /b as it is stated: “Israel is the Lord’s hallowed portion, His first fruits of the increase” (Jeremiah 2:3) b and I warned you about matters of the first: /b “of the first of your dough you shall set apart i ḥalla /i for a gift” (Numbers 15:20). b The soul that I have placed in you is called i ner /i : /b “The spirit of man is the lamp [ i ner /i ] of the Lord” (Proverbs 20:27), and b I warned you about matters of the /b Shabbat b lamp. If you fulfill these /b mitzvot, b fine, and if not, then I will take your soul. /b , b And, /b if so, b what is different during childbirth? /b Why does the divine attribute of judgment punish them for dereliction in fulfillment of these mitzvot specifically then? The Gemara cites several folk sayings expressing the concept that when a person is in danger, he is punished for his sins. b Rava said: /b If b the ox fell, sharpen the knife /b to slaughter it. b Abaye said: /b If b the maidservant’s insolence abounds, she will be struck by a single blow /b as punishment for all her sins. So too, when a woman is giving birth and her suffering is great due to Eve’s sin of eating from the Tree of Knowledge, all the punishments for her own sins are added to that suffering. b Rav Ḥisda said: Leave the drunk, as /b he b falls on his own. /b Similarly, the time of birth is a time of danger, and if the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not come to her assistance at that time, that is sufficient to cause her death. b Mar Ukva said: The shepherd is crippled, and the goats are running, /b and he cannot catch them. However, b next to the gate, /b he speaks harsh b words, and inside the pen /b he settles the b account. /b Similarly, as long as a woman is in a healthy state, her sins are in abeyance, and she is not held accountable for them. However, when she is giving birth, which is a time of danger, she is held accountable for her sins and a calculation is made whether or not she is worthy of a miracle. b Rav Pappa said: At the entrance to the stores, /b during a time of prosperity, b brothers and loved ones abound. /b When a person is prospering ficially, everyone acts like his brother or friend. However, b at the gate of disgrace, /b during a time of loss and poverty, he has b no brothers and no loved ones; /b everyone abandons him.,And the Gemara asks: b And where /b are b men examined? /b When are men vulnerable to judgment and held accountable for their actions? b Reish Lakish said: When they are crossing a bridge. /b The Gemara wonders: Only when they are crossing b a bridge and at no other /b time? Rather, b say: /b Anything b like a bridge, /b any place where danger is commonplace. On a similar note, the Gemara relates: b Rav would not cross /b a river b in a ferry in which a gentile sat. He said /b to himself: b Perhaps a judgment will be reckoned with him, and I will be caught together with him /b when he is punished. Whereas, b Shmuel would only cross in a ferry if there was a gentile in it. He said: Satan does not have dominion over two nations. /b He settles his accounts with people from each nationality separately., b Rabbi Yannai would examine /b the ferry b and cross. /b The Gemara comments that b Rabbi Yannai /b acted b in accordance with his reasoning /b stated elsewhere, as b he said: A person should never stand in a place of danger saying that they /b on High b will perform a miracle for him, lest /b in the end b they do not perform a miracle for him. And, /b moreover, even b if they do perform a miracle for him, they will deduct it from his merits. Rabbi Ḥanin said: What is the verse /b that alludes to this? When Jacob said: b “I am not worthy of all the mercies, and of all the truth, /b which You have shown unto Your servant” (Genesis 32:11), and he explains: Since You have bestowed upon me so much kindness and truth, my merits have been diminished. Similarly, the Gemara relates that b Rabbi Zeira would not go out /b and walk b among the palm trees on a day when there was a southern wind /b blowing due to the fear that the trees might fall on him.,In a similar vein, b Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, said: A person should always pray that he will not become ill, as if he becomes ill they say to him: Bring /b proof of your b virtue and exempt yourself. /b It is preferable for a person not to be forced to prove that he merits staying alive, as he might not be able to prove it. b Mar Ukva said: What is the verse /b that alludes to this? As it says: “When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you bring not blood upon your house, b if the fallen falls i mimenu /i ” /b (Deuteronomy 22:8). He explains: b i Mimenu /i , from him proof must be brought. /b When one falls from his previous situation, it is his own responsibility to prove his innocence and emerge unharmed. b The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: /b What is the meaning of the phrase: b If the fallen falls from it? This /b person b was destined to fall /b from that roof b from the six days of Creation, /b it was ingrained into nature. b As, /b although b he did not /b yet b fall, the verse calls him fallen. Nevertheless, /b the owner of the house is indicted for this, as b merit is engendered by means of /b the b innocent and guilt by means of /b the b guilty. /b , b The Sages taught: One who became ill and tended toward death, they say to him: Confess, as all those executed /b by the courts b confess. /b Even if he is dying of natural causes, it is worthwhile for him to consider his death atonement for his sins. The Sages said: When b a person goes out to the marketplace /b where there are fights and disputes, b he should consider himself as someone who has been handed over to a soldier [ i seradiyot /i ]. /b If b his head hurt, he should consider it as if they placed him in a chain [ i kolar /i ] /b around his neck. If b he climbed into bed and fell ill, he should consider himself as if they took him up to the gallows to be judged, as /b with regard to b anyone who goes up to the gallows to be judged, if he has great advocates [ i peraklitin /i ], he is spared, and if not, he is not spared. /b , b And /b with regard to divine judgment, b these are a person’s advocates: Repentance and good deeds. /b The Gemara comments: b And even /b if there are b nine hundred ninety-nine asserting his guilt and /b only b one /b asserting his b innocence, he is spared, /b as b it is stated: “If there be for him an angel, an advocate, one among a thousand, to vouch for a man’s uprightness; then He is gracious unto him, and says: Deliver him from going down to the pit, /b I have found a ransom” (Job 33:23–24). b Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says: Even /b if there are b nine hundred ninety-nine /b portions b within that same angel accusing /b him, b and one /b portion asserting b his innocence, he is spared, as it stated: “An advocate, one among a thousand.” /b Even when the advocate who asserts his innocence finds only one-tenth of one percent of innocence in this man, even then, he is gracious unto him, and says: Deliver him from going down to the pit, I have found a ransom., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b For three transgressions women die in childbirth [ i yoledot /i ]. Rabbi Elazar /b has a different version and b says /b that b women die /b when they are b young [ i yeladot /i ]. /b These transgressions are those enumerated in the mishna: The i halakhot /i of a menstruating woman, i ḥalla /i , and Shabbat lights. b Rabbi Aḥa says /b they are punished b for the sin of laundering their children’s feces /b from clothing b on Shabbat. And some say: Because they call the Holy Ark /b simply b ark. /b ,Similarly, b we learned /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yishmael ben Elazar says: On account of two sins, ignoramuses [ i amei ha /i ’ i aretz /i ] die /b young (Rav Ya’akov Emden): b Because they call the Holy Ark /b simply b ark, and because they call the synagogue the house of the people. It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yosei says: Three crucibles /b potentially leading to b death were created in the woman, and some say: Three accelerants of death. /b They are: b Menstruation, i ḥalla /i , and lighting the Shabbat lights. /b The Gemara explains that b one /b version, accelerants of death, is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar, /b who said that women die young. b And /b the other b one, /b crucibles of death, is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who said that women die in childbirth.,Similarly, b it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: The i halakhot /i of consecrated items, i terumot /i , and tithes are themselves /b the b essence of Torah /b and are extremely severe, |
|
81. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 211 | 69b. b like dung vessels /b and b like earth vessels, and /b these b are not susceptible to ritual impurity, as the Master said: Stone vessels and dung vessels and earth vessels are not susceptible to ritual impurity, neither by Torah law nor by rabbinic law? Or perhaps /b this is b not /b considered b digestion, /b as these palm leaves remained intact, and therefore the vessel prepared from them is susceptible to ritual impurity like any other wooden vessel.,The Gemara suggests: b Resolve /b the dilemma b from that which Ulla says in the name of Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak: An incident /b occurred in which b wolves swallowed two children /b and excreted them b on /b the east b bank of the Jordan, and /b the b incident came before the Sages /b for a ruling. They were asked whether the remains of the children were ritually impure even after they had passed through the animal’s digestive tract, b and they deemed the flesh ritually pure, /b as it is no longer considered human flesh but wolf excrement. Similarly, the swallowed palm leaves should be considered like elephant dung and therefore the basket made from them should not be susceptible to ritual impurity.,The Gemara rejects this resolution: That case of b flesh is different, as /b flesh b is soft /b and digestible. Palm leaves, by contrast, are hard and not easily digested. The Gemara suggests: b But /b in that case, b let us resolve /b the dilemma b from the last clause /b of the account of that incident: The Sages ruled that flesh was ritually pure, b but /b they b deemed /b the intact b bones ritually impure. /b The bones, which are a harder substance than the flesh, are not considered digested. Likewise, the hard palm leaves should also not be considered digested, and the wicker basket fashioned from them should be susceptible to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: The case of b bones is different, as they are harder. /b Therefore, one cannot cite a proof from here with regard to palm leaves, which are a comparatively softer substance.,§ b Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: /b With regard to b wheat that fell from the clouds, what is /b the i halakha /i ? The Gemara asks: b With regard to what /b issue was this dilemma raised? b If /b it is referring to using this wheat b for meal offerings, why not? /b There should be no problem with using the wheat, since wheat for meal offerings does not have to come from Eretz Yisrael. b Rather, /b the dilemma is whether this wheat can be used b for the /b offering of the b two loaves /b on i Shavuot /i . b What /b is the i halakha /i ?,The Gemara explains the two possibilities. The verse states: “You shall bring out of your dwellings two wave-loaves of two-tenths of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baked with leaven, for first fruits to the Lord” (Leviticus 23:17). When b the Merciful One states: “Out of your dwellings,” /b does this serve b to exclude /b wheat b that /b came b from outside Eretz /b Yisrael, teaching b that /b it may b not /b be used for the two loaves; b but /b wheat that fell b from /b the b clouds /b is b permitted? Or perhaps /b the verse means b specifically: “Out of your dwellings,” /b i.e., only from Eretz Yisrael; b and /b if so, b even /b wheat that fell b from /b the b clouds /b is b also not /b acceptable.,With regard to this dilemma, the Gemara asks: b But is there a case like this? /b Is it possible for wheat to fall from the clouds? The Gemara answers: b Yes, as in /b an incident involving b Adi the Arab [ i taya’a /i ], /b about whom it is related that it rained b down on him wheat /b of b a height of one handbreadth /b spread b over /b an area of b three parasangs. /b ,§ b Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi raises a dilemma: /b In a case where one had b an ear /b of grain b that reached one-third /b of its growth b prior to the /b bringing of b the i omer /i /b offering, b and /b then he b uprooted it and planted /b it again b after the i omer /i , and /b then b it added /b to its growth, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? b Do we follow the original /b growth, which was b permitted /b by b the i omer /i /b offering, and therefore the additional growth is also permitted? b Or perhaps we follow the additional /b growth, which was not permitted by the i omer /i , as it grew afterward. b And /b if so, it will remain prohibited b until the next i omer /i /b offering b is brought. /b ,The Gemara suggests: b Resolve /b the dilemma b from /b that b which Rabbi Abbahu says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b With regard to b a young /b vine within three years of its planting, whose fruits are prohibited as i orla /i , b that one grafted onto an old, /b permitted vine, b and there were fruits on /b the younger vine, b even /b if the older vine b added two hundred /b parts of growth to the existing fruit, it is still b prohibited. /b The two hundred permitted parts, which are generally sufficient to nullify one part of i orla /i , are ineffective in this case, because the subsequent additional growth is considered subordinate to the original prohibited growth. This proves that we follow the original growth, and therefore in Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi’s case the original growth that was permitted by the i omer /i should render the entire plant, including the subsequent growth, permitted in consumption.,The Gemara cites another proof from a similar case. b And /b likewise b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says /b that b Rabbi Yonatan says: /b With regard to b an onion that one planted in a vineyard, /b creating a forbidden mixture of food crops in a vineyard, b and the vineyard was /b subsequently b uprooted, /b so that most of the onion grew in a permitted manner, b even /b if the onion b added two hundred /b parts of growth, the onion is b prohibited. /b The reason the entire onion is prohibited is apparently because we follow the original growth, which is forbidden.,The Gemara states that these proofs are inconclusive, as b that itself is /b what Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi b raises /b as b a dilemma: /b Is it entirely b obvious to the Sages that we follow the main /b growth, and there is b no difference whether /b this leads b to a leniency or whether /b it leads b to a stringency? Or perhaps they are uncertain /b about the matter, b and /b therefore they rule that when it leads b to a stringency, /b e.g., prohibiting the additional growth of i orla /i fruit or the additional growth of an onion that had grown in a vineyard, b we say /b that we follow the original growth, but when it leads b to a leniency, /b such as allowing the consumption of grain after the i omer /i , b we do not say /b that we follow the original growth. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma b shall stand /b unresolved.,§ In connection to the previous discussion with regard to an ear of grain that had grown one-third prior to the i omer /i and was subsequently uprooted and replanted, b Rabba raises a dilemma: With regard to /b the obligation to b tithe, what /b is the i halakha /i of such grain? The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances? /b The circumstances involve a case b where /b |
|
82. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 227| 28b. ואין ניאותין בהם ואין מטיילין בהם ואין נכנסין בהן בחמה מפני החמה ובגשמים מפני הגשמים ואין מספידין בהן הספד של יחיד אבל קורין בהן ושונין בהן ומספידין בהן הספד של רבים,א"ר יהודה אימתי בישובן אבל בחורבנן מניחין אותן ועולין בהן עשבים ולא יתלוש מפני עגמת נפש,עשבים מאן דכר שמייהו חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני ומכבדין אותן ומרביצין אותן כדי שלא יעלו בהן עשבים א"ר יהודה אימתי בישובן אבל בחורבנן מניחין אותן לעלות עלו בהם עשבים לא יתלוש מפני עגמת נפש,א"ר אסי בתי כנסיות שבבבל על תנאי הן עשויין ואעפ"כ אין נוהגין בהן קלות ראש ומאי ניהו חשבונות,אמר רב אסי בהכ"נ שמחשבין בו חשבונות מלינין בו את המת מלינין סלקא דעתך לא סגי דלאו הכי אלא לסוף שילינו בו מת מצוה:,ואין ניאותין בהן: אמר רבא חכמים ותלמידיהם מותרין דאמר ריב"ל מאי בי רבנן ביתא דרבנן:,ואין נכנסין בהן בחמה מפני החמה ובגשמים מפני הגשמים: כי הא דרבינא ורב אדא בר מתנה הוו קיימי ושאלי שאילתא מרבא אתא זילחא דמיטרא עיילי לבי כנישתא אמרי האי דעיילינן לבי כנישתא לאו משום מיטרא אלא משום דשמעתא בעא צילותא כיומא דאסתנא,א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי אי אצטריך ליה לאיניש למיקרי גברא מבי כנישתא מאי א"ל אי צורבא מרבנן הוא לימא הלכתא ואי תנא הוא לימא מתני' ואי קרא הוא לימא פסוקא ואי לא לימא ליה לינוקא אימא לי פסוקיך א"נ נישהי פורתא וניקום:,ומספידין בהן הספד של רבים: ה"ד הספידא דרבים מחוי רב חסדא כגון הספידא דקאי ביה רב ששת מחוי רב ששת כגון הספידא דקאי ביה רב חסדא,רפרם אספדה לכלתיה בבי כנישתא אמר משום יקרא דידי ודמיתא אתו כוליה עלמא ר' זירא ספדיה לההוא מרבנן בבי כנישתא אמר אי משום יקרא דידי אי משום יקרא דידיה דמיתא אתו כולי עלמא,ריש לקיש ספדיה לההוא צורבא מרבנן דשכיח בארעא דישראל דהוי תני הלכתא בכ"ד שורתא אמר ווי חסרא ארעא דישראל גברא רבה,ההוא דהוי תני הלכתא סיפרא וסיפרי ותוספתא ושכיב אתו ואמרו ליה לרב נחמן ליספדיה מר אמר היכי נספדיה הי צנא דמלי סיפרי דחסר,תא חזי מה בין תקיפי דארעא דישראל לחסידי דבבל,תנן התם ודאשתמש בתגא חלף תני ריש לקיש זה המשתמש במי ששונה הלכות כתרה של תורה,ואמר עולא לשתמש איניש במאן דתני ארבעה ולא לשתמש במאן דמתני ארבעה כי הא דריש לקיש הוה אזיל באורחא מטא עורקמא דמיא אתא ההוא גברא ארכביה אכתפיה וקא מעבר ליה א"ל קרית אמר ליה קרינא תנית תנינא ארבעה סידרי משנה א"ל פסלת לך ארבעה טורי וטענת בר לקיש אכתפך שדי בר לקישא במיא,אמר ליה ניחא לי דאשמעינן למר אי הכי גמור מיני הא מלתא דאמר ר' זירא בנות ישראל הן החמירו על עצמן שאפילו רואות טיפת דם כחרדל יושבות עליו שבעה נקיים,תנא דבי אליהו כל השונה הלכות מובטח לו שהוא בן עולם הבא שנאמר (חבקוק ג, ו) הליכות עולם לו אל תקרי הליכות אלא הלכות,ת"ר | 28b. b and one may not adorn oneself inside them; nor may one wander about inside them; nor may one enter them in the sun /b for protection b from the sun, or in the rain /b to find shelter b from the rain; nor may one offer a eulogy inside them for an individual, /b which is a private event. b However, one may read /b the Bible b inside them, and one may study /b i halakhot /i b inside them, and one may offer a eulogy inside them for /b a Torah scholar, if b the public /b attends the eulogy., b Rabbi Yehuda said: When /b does this apply? b When /b the synagogues are b occupied /b by the people using them. b But when they are in /b a state of b ruin, they should be left alone /b so that b grass will sprout up inside them. And /b that grass b should not be picked /b and removed, b due to /b the b anguish /b that it will bring to those who see it. It will remind them of the disrepair of the synagogue and the need to rebuild it.,The Gemara asks: Why did Rabbi Yehuda discuss the i halakha /i about b grass? Who mentioned /b anything b about it? /b The Gemara explains: The text of the i baraita /i b is incomplete and is teaching the following: And /b among the other things that may be done in synagogues, b they should /b also be sure to b sweep them and /b to b sprinkle /b their floors with water, b in order that grass not sprout up in them. Rabbi Yehuda said: When /b does this apply? b When /b the synagogues are b occupied /b by the people using them, b but when they are in /b a state of b ruin, they should be left alone /b so that grass b will sprout up inside them. /b If b grass did sprout up, it should not be removed, due to /b the b anguish /b that this will bring to those who see it., b Rav Asi said: Synagogues in Babylonia are built /b from the outset b with a stipulation /b that they not have the full sanctity of a synagogue, in order that it be permitted to use them for the community’s general needs. b But nevertheless, /b one b should not act inside them with frivolity. /b The Gemara explains: b What is /b meant by b this? /b One should not make business b calculations /b in a synagogue., b Rav Asi said: /b With regard to b a synagogue in which /b people b make /b business b calculations, they will /b eventually b keep a corpse inside it overnight. /b The Gemara questions the wording of this dictum: b Can it /b really b enter your mind /b to say that b they will /b ever actually b keep a corpse inside it overnight? /b Could it really be that b there will not be any other alternative? Rather, /b Rav Asi means that as a punishment for acting with frivolity people in the community will die, including those who have no family, and so b ultimately they will /b have to b keep a corpse with no one to bury it [ i met mitzva /i ] overnight /b in the synagogue.,§ The i baraita /i taught: b And one may not adorn oneself inside them. Rava said: /b The prohibition applies only to laypeople, but b Torah scholars and their disciples are permitted /b to do so, b as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What /b is the meaning of the term: b i Bei /i of the Sages, /b which is used to describe a study hall? It is a shortened form of b house [ i beita /i ] of the Sages. /b In order to facilitate the constant presence of the Torah scholars in the study hall, it is permitted for them to use the hall as though it were their home.,The i baraita /i continued: b And nor may one enter them in the sun /b for protection b from the sun, or in the rain /b to find shelter b from the rain. /b The Gemara explains: This b is similar to that /b case of b Ravina and Rav Adda bar Mattana. They were standing and asking a question of Rava, /b when b a shower [ i zilḥa /i ] of rain began /b to fall upon them. b They /b all b entered the synagogue, saying: Our having entered the synagogue is not due to the rain, /b that we stay dry; b rather, it is due to /b the fact that b the i halakha /i /b we were discussing b requires clarity like the day the north wind [ i istena /i ] /b blows and the sky is perfectly clear. Therefore, we are entering the synagogue for the sake of studying Torah, which is certainly permitted., b Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If a person needs to summon an individual from /b inside b a synagogue, what /b should he do, since it is not permitted to enter a synagogue just for that purpose? Rav Ashi b said to him: If he is a young Torah scholar, let him recite a i halakha /i /b upon entering the synagogue; b and if he is a i tanna /i /b who memorizes large numbers of i mishnayot /i , b let him recite /b various b i mishnayot /i ; and if he is an expert in /b the b Bible, let him recite a verse; and if /b he is b not /b able to do even this, b let him say to a child: Recite for me a verse /b that you have learned today. b Alternatively, he should remain /b in the synagogue b for a short /b time b and /b only afterward b stand up /b and leave.,The i baraita /i continues: b And one may offer a eulogy inside them for /b a Torah scholar if b the public /b attends the eulogy. The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances of a eulogy for the public? Rav Ḥisda depicted /b a case: b For example, a eulogy /b for a Torah scholar b at which Rav Sheshet is present. /b Owing to his presence, many people will come. b Rav Sheshet /b himself b depicted /b another case: b For example, a eulogy at which Rav Ḥisda is present. /b ,The Gemara offers another example: b Rafram /b once b eulogized his daughter-in-law inside a synagogue. He said: Due to my honor and /b the honor b of the deceased, everyone will come /b to the eulogy. It will consequently be a public event, and it is therefore permitted to hold it in a synagogue. Similarly, b Rabbi Zeira /b once b eulogized a certain Sage inside a synagogue. He said: Whether due to my honor, or whether due to the honor of the deceased, everyone will come /b to the eulogy., b Reish Lakish /b once b eulogized a certain young Torah scholar who was frequently /b present b in Eretz Yisrael and who used to study i halakha /i in the twenty-fourth row /b of the study hall. He sat so far back because he was not one of the principal scholars. Nevertheless, when he died, Reish Lakish b said: Alas, Eretz Yisrael has lost a great man. /b ,In contrast, there was b a certain man who used to study i halakha /i , the i Sifra /i , and the i Sifrei /i , and the i Tosefta /i , and he died. /b People b came and said to Rav Naḥman: Let the Master eulogize him. He said /b to them: b How can I eulogize him? /b Should I say: b Alas, a basket filled with books is lost? /b This would not be true. Although the man studied many areas of Torah, he was not proficient in them.,The Gemara compares the conduct of Reish Lakish in Eretz Yisrael to that of Rav Naḥman in Babylonia. b Come /b and b see what /b the difference is b between the harsh /b scholars b of Eretz Yisrael and the saintly ones of Babylonia. /b Although Reish Lakish was known for his harsh nature, he was still more respectful than Rav Naḥman, who was known for his saintliness., b We learned /b in a mishna b there /b ( i Avot /i 1:13): b And one who makes use of the crown [ i taga /i ] /b of Torah learning b will perish /b from the world. b Reish Lakish taught: This /b is referring to b one who /b allows himself to be b served by one who studies i halakhot /i , /b which is b the crown of the Torah. /b , b And Ulla said: /b It is better that b a person should be served by one who studies four /b orders of the Mishna, b and he should not /b allow himself to b be served by one who teaches /b to others b four /b orders of the Mishna, b as in that /b case b of Reish Lakish. He was traveling along the road /b when b he reached /b a deep b puddle of water. A certain man came /b and b placed him upon his shoulders and /b began b transferring him /b to the other side. Reish Lakish b said to him: Have you read /b the Bible? b He said to him: I have read /b it. He then asked: b Have you studied /b the Mishna? He answered him: b I have studied four orders of the Mishna. /b Reish Lakish then b said to him: You have hewn /b these b four mountains and /b yet b you bear the weight of the son of Lakish upon your shoulders? /b It is inappropriate for you to carry me; b throw the son of Lakish into the water. /b ,The man b said to /b Reish Lakish: b It is pleasing for me to serve the Master /b in this way. Reish Lakish said to him: b If so, learn from me this matter that Rabbi Zeira said. /b In this way you will be considered my disciple, and it will then be appropriate for you to serve me. b Jewish women were strict upon themselves in that even if they see a spot of /b menstrual b blood /b that is only the size b of a mustard seed they wait on its account seven clean /b days before immersing themselves in a ritual bath to purify themselves., b The school of Eliyahu taught: Anyone who studies i halakhot /i /b every day, b he is guaranteed that he is destined for the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “His ways [ i halikhot /i ] are eternal” /b (Habakkuk 3:6): b Do not read /b the verse as b i halikhot /i [ways]; rather, /b read it as b i halakhot /i . /b Consequently, the verse indicates that the study of the i halakhot /i brings one to eternal life., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : |
|
83. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 221| 42a. מהו דתימא אם איתא דילדה קלא הוה ליה קא משמע לן אימר אפולי אפיל:, br br big strongהדרן עלך השוחט /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongאלו /strong /big טרפות בבהמה נקובת הוושט ופסוקת הגרגרת ניקב קרום של מוח ניקב הלב לבית חללו נשברה השדרה ונפסק החוט שלה ניטל הכבד ולא נשתייר הימנו כלום,הריאה שניקבה או שחסרה ר"ש אומר עד שתינקב לבית הסמפונות ניקבה הקבה ניקבה המרה ניקבו הדקין הכרס הפנימית שניקבה או שנקרע רוב החיצונה רבי יהודה אומר הגדולה טפח והקטנה ברובה המסס ובית הכוסות שניקבו לחוץ,נפלה מן הגג נשתברו רוב צלעותיה ודרוסת הזאב רבי יהודה אומר דרוסת הזאב בדקה ודרוסת ארי בגסה דרוסת הנץ בעוף הדק ודרוסת הגס בעוף הגס זה הכלל כל שאין כמוה חיה טרפה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big א"ר שמעון בן לקיש רמז לטרפה מן התורה מנין מנין (שמות כב, ל) ובשר בשדה טרפה לא תאכלו אלא רמז לטרפה שאינה חיה מן התורה מנין דקתני סיפא זה הכלל כל שאין כמוה חיה טרפה מכלל דטרפה אינה חיה מנא לן,דכתיב (ויקרא יא, ב) וזאת החיה אשר תאכלו חיה אכול שאינה חיה לא תיכול מכלל דטרפה לא חיה,ולמאן דאמר טרפה חיה מנ"ל נפקא ליה מזאת החיה אשר תאכלו זאת החיה אכול חיה אחרת לא תיכול מכלל דטרפה חיה,ואידך האי זאת מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל זאת החיה אשר תאכלו מלמד שתפס הקב"ה מכל מין ומין והראה לו למשה ואמר לו זאת אכול וזאת לא תיכול,ואידך נמי מבעי ליה לכדתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל אין ה"נ אלא טרפה חיה מנא ליה נפקא ליה מאידך תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל דתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל (ויקרא יא, מז) בין החיה הנאכלת ובין החיה אשר לא תאכל אלו שמונה עשרה טרפות שנאמרו למשה מסיני,ותו ליכא והא איכא בסגר ושב שמעתתא | 42a. The Gemara answers: b Lest you say: If it is so that /b his wife b gave birth, it would have /b generated b publicity /b and been common knowledge; therefore, one might conclude that the slaughter is valid even if he declared that the slaughter is for the sake of the burnt offering of his wife after childbirth, as in fact she did not give birth. To counter this, Rabbi Elazar b teaches us /b that the slaughter is not valid. b Say /b that his wife b miscarried /b and is liable to bring an offering, but it is not common knowledge, because the baby was not born alive. br/ ,, strong MISHNA: /strong b These /b wounds constitute b i tereifot /i in an animal, /b rendering them prohibited for consumption: b A perforated gullet, /b where the perforation goes through the wall of the gullet, b or a cut windpipe. /b If b the membrane of the brain was perforated, /b or if b the heart was perforated to its chamber; /b if b the spinal /b column b was broken and its cord was cut; /b if b the liver was removed and nothing remained of it, /b any of these render the animal a i tereifa /i .,Additionally, b a lung that was perforated or that was missing /b a piece renders the animal a i tereifa /i . b Rabbi Shimon says: /b It is not a i tereifa /i b unless it is perforated /b through b to the bronchi. /b If b the abomasum was perforated, /b or b the gallbladder was perforated, /b or b the small intestines were perforated, /b it is a i tereifa /i . It is also a i tereifa /i in a case b where the internal rumen was perforated or where the majority of the external /b rumen b was torn. Rabbi Yehuda says: /b For b a large /b animal, a tear of b one handbreadth /b renders it a i tereifa /i , while for b a small /b animal, it is a i tereifa /i only if b the majority of it /b was torn. And it is a i tereifa /i where the b omasum [ i hemses /i ] or the reticulum was perforated to the outside, /b i.e., to the abdominal cavity, but not if the perforation was between the two.,Likewise, if an animal b fell from the roof, /b or if b the majority of its ribs were fractured, or /b if it was b clawed by a wolf, /b it is a i tereifa /i . b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If it was b clawed by a wolf in /b the case of b a small /b animal, i.e., a sheep or goat; b or clawed by a lion in /b the case of b a large /b animal, i.e., cattle; or if it was b clawed by a hawk in /b the case of b a small bird; or /b if it was b clawed by a large /b bird of prey b in /b the case of b a large bird, /b then it is a i tereifa /i . b This is the principle: Any /b animal that was injured such b that /b an animal in b a similar /b condition b could not live /b for an extended period is b a i tereifa /i , /b the consumption of which is forbidden by Torah law., strong GEMARA: /strong b Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Where is there an allusion in the Torah to /b the prohibition of b a i tereifa /i ? /b The Gemara interjects: b Where /b is there an allusion? Doesn’t the Torah state explicitly: b “You shall not eat any flesh that is torn of animals [ i tereifa /i ] in the field” /b (Exodus 22:30)? b Rather, /b the question is: b Where is there an allusion in the Torah to /b the principle b that a i tereifa /i cannot live? As /b the mishna b teaches /b in b the last clause: This is the principle: Any /b animal that was injured such b that /b an animal in b a similar /b condition b could not live /b for an extended period is b a i tereifa /i ; /b one learns b by inference that a i tereifa /i cannot live. /b If so, b from where do we /b derive this?,It is derived from a verse, b as it is written: “These are the living things which you may eat /b among all the animals that are on the earth” (Leviticus 11:2). The verse indicates that you may b eat a living /b animal, i.e., one that can survive, but b you may not eat /b an animal b that is not living, /b i.e., one that cannot survive. One learns b by inference that a i tereifa /i cannot live. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And according to the one who says /b that b a i tereifa /i can live, from where /b does b he /b derive this? The Gemara responds: He b derives it from /b the same verse: b “These are the living things which you may eat /b among all the animals.” “These” indicates that you may b eat /b only b these living things, /b but b you may not eat other living things, /b i.e., i tereifot /i . One learns b by inference that a i tereifa /i can live. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b according to b the other /b opinion, that a i tereifa /i cannot live, b what does he do with this /b word b “these”? /b The Gemara responds: b He requires it for that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught /b that the verse: b “These are the living things which you may eat,” teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, seized /b one b of each and every species /b of animal b and showed it to Moses, and said to him: These /b you b may eat, and these you may not eat. /b ,The Gemara objects: b But the other /b opinion b also requires /b the word “these” for b that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. /b The Gemara replies: b Yes, /b it b is indeed so. Rather, from where /b does b he /b derive the principle b that a i tereifa /i can live? /b He b derives it from the other /b i baraita /i that b the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: /b The verse states: “To make a difference… b between the living thing that may be eaten and the living thing that may not be eaten” /b (Leviticus 11:47). b These /b living things that may not be eaten b are the eighteen i tereifot /i that were stated to Moses at Sinai /b and enumerated in the mishna. The verse, then, makes reference to a i tereifa /i as a living thing.,The Gemara questions the i baraita /i : b And are there no more /b cases of i tereifot /i ? b But aren’t there /b more cases cited in the Mishna and other i baraitot /i , for which a mnemonic is given: b i Beit /i , i samekh /i , i gimmel /i , i reish /i ; and /b aren’t there b seven /b additional b i halakhot /i , /b i.e., cases of i tereifot /i , taught by i amora’im /i ? |
|
84. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 209| 19a. כאן למעשר ומנא תימרא דחולין לא בעו כוונה דתנן גל שנתלש ובו ארבעים סאה ונפל על האדם ועל הכלים טהורין קתני אדם דומיא דכלים מה כלים דלא מכווני אף אדם דלא מכוין,וממאי דלמא ביושב ומצפה אימתי יתלש הגל עסקינן וכלים דומיא דאדם מה אדם דבר כוונה אף כלים דמכוין להו,וכי תימא ביושב ומצפה מאי למימרא,סלקא דעתך אמינא ליגזור דלמא אתי למיטבל בחרדלית של גשמים א"נ נגזור ראשין אטו כיפין קמ"ל דלא גזרינן,ומנא תימרא דלא מטבילין בכיפין דתניא מטבילין בראשין ואין מטבילין בכיפין לפי שאין מטבילין באויר,אלא מהא דתנן פירות שנפלו לתוך אמת המים ופשט מי שידיו טמאות ונטלן ידיו טהורות ופירות אינן בכי יותן,ואם בשביל שיודחו ידיו ידיו טהורות והפירות הרי הן בכי יותן,איתיביה רבה לרב נחמן הטובל לחולין והוחזק לחולין אסור למעשר הוחזק אין לא הוחזק לא,ה"ק אע"פ שהוחזק לחולין אסור למעשר,איתיביה טבל ולא הוחזק כאילו לא טבל מאי לאו כאילו לא טבל כלל,לא כאילו לא טבל למעשר אבל טבל לחולין הוא סבר דחי קא מדחי ליה נפק דק ואשכח דתניא טבל ולא הוחזק אסור למעשר ומותר לחולין,אר"א טבל ועלה מחזיק עצמו לכל מה שירצה,מיתיבי עודהו רגלו אחת במים הוחזק לדבר קל מחזיק עצמו לדבר חמור עלה שוב אינו מחזיק,מאי לאו אינו מחזיק כלל,לא עודהו אע"פ שהוחזק מחזיק עלה אם לא הוחזק מחזיק ואם הוחזק אינו מחזיק,מאן תנא עודהו רגלו אחת במים א"ר פדת ר' יהודה היא דתנן מקוה שנמדד ויש בו ארבעים סאה מכוונות וירדו שנים וטבלו זה אחר זה הראשון טהור והשני טמא אמר רבי יהודה אם היו רגליו של ראשון נוגעות במים אף השני טהור,אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה מחלוקת במעלות דרבנן אבל מטומאה לטהרה דברי הכל (אף) השני טמא והיינו דרבי פדת,איכא דאמרי אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה מחלוקת מטומאה לטהרה אבל במעלות דרבנן דברי הכל אף השני טהור ופליגא דרבי פדת,אמר עולא בעי מיניה מרבי יוחנן לרבי יהודה מהו להטביל מחטין וצינוריות בראשו של ראשון,גוד אחית אית ליה לרבי יהודה גוד אסיק לית ליה או דלמא גוד אסיק נמי אית ליה,א"ל תניתוה שלש גממיות בנחל העליונה התחתונה והאמצעית העליונה והתחתונה של עשרים עשרים סאה והאמצעית של ארבעים סאה וחרדלית של גשמים עוברת ביניהן רבי יהודה אומר מאיר היה אומר מטביל בעליונה,והתניא רבי יהודה אומר | 19a. whereas b here, /b the first i baraita /i is referring b to tithes, /b for which intention to purify oneself is required. b And from where do you say /b this, b that non-sacred /b food b does not require /b the b intention /b that one is purifying himself for the sake of eating it? b As we learned /b in a mishna ( i Mikvaot /i 5:6): If b a wave containing forty i se’a /i /b of water b became detached /b from the sea b and fell on a person or on vessels, they are ritually pure. /b The mishna b teaches that a person is similar to vessels: Just as vessels do not intend /b to be purified, as they obviously harbor no intentions, b so too, /b the case of b a person /b is referring to a situation b in /b which b he does not intend /b to purify himself, thereby implying that people can be ritually purified even without intention.,The Gemara rejects this proof: b And from where /b is it clear that this is the meaning of the mishna? b Perhaps we are dealing with /b one who b is sitting and awaiting /b for b when a wave will detach /b and fall on the vessels, and the implication is the opposite: b Vessels are similar /b to b a person: Just as a person /b is b capable of intention /b to ritually purify himself, b so too /b the case of the b vessels /b mentioned in the mishna is referring to a situation b where one intends on their behalf /b that they be purified., b And if you would say /b that the mishna is indeed is referring b to /b one who b is sitting and awaiting, what /b is the purpose b of stating /b this? Such a i halakha /i would not appear to offer a novelty; why would it be necessary to state it?,The Gemara responds: It nevertheless provides a novel teaching, as b it might enter your mind to say that it should be decreed /b that a detached wave does not affect purification, b lest one come to immerse in a flow of rainwater /b whose volume is forty i se’a /i . In other words, one might think that immersion in a flood of rainwater effects purification, whereas the i halakha /i is that rainwater purifies only if it is gathered in one location. b Alternatively, /b you might think that b it should be decreed /b that purification by means of b the edges /b of the waves that comes in contact with the ground should be ineffective b due to /b the upper b arcs /b of the waves. The mishna therefore b teaches us that we do not /b so b decree. /b , b And from where do you say that one may not immerse in the arcs? As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One may immerse in the edges /b of waves, b but one may not immerse in /b their b arcs, because one may not immerse in air. /b The area under the arc of a wave is considered mere air, despite the fact that the individual is surrounded by water on all sides., b Rather, /b the proof that the purification with regard to non-sacred produce does not require intention is b from that which we learned /b in a mishna ( i Makhshirin /i 4:7): In the verse that is referring to the preconditions required for fruit and seeds to be susceptible to ritual impurity, it is stated: “If water be put on seeds, and any of their carcasses fall there, it shall be impure to you” (Leviticus 11:38). b If fruit fell into a water channel, and one whose hands were ritually impure extended his hands and lifted them up /b with the goal of removing them from the water channel, b his hands are ritually pure, /b as he has purified them by inserting them into the water channel, b and /b these b fruits are not /b included b in /b the category of b “if /b water b be put /b on seeds.” The verse is referring only to fruit that has intentionally been brought into contact with water. Since the fruit in this case was not intentionally made wet, it cannot as yet contract impurity., b And if /b he put his hands into the water channel b in order to wash his hands, his hands are ritually pure, and the fruit is /b included b in /b the category of b “if /b water b be put /b on seeds.” Since he intended to wet his hands, the contact of the fruit with this water renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. In any case, the mishna teaches that his hands are ritually pure in either situation, indicating that no special intention is required for purification., b Rabba raised an objection to Rav Naḥman /b from the mishna here: b One who immersed for /b the purpose of eating b non-sacred /b food b and assumes a presumptive status /b of ritual purity b for non-sacred /b food b is /b still b prohibited /b from eating b tithes. The Gemara infers: If one /b immersed with the intention of b assuming a presumptive status /b of ritual purity for non-sacred food, b yes, /b he assumes that status; b if he did not /b immerse with the intention of b assuming that presumptive status, no, he does not /b assume that status. This proves that even for the sake of non-sacred produce, one must intend to assume the appropriate status of ritual purity.,Rav Naḥman refutes this proof: b This is what /b the mishna b is saying: Even though he assumes a presumptive status /b of ritual purity b for non-sacred /b produce, b he is prohibited from /b eating b tithes. /b In other words, the mishna does not teach that intention is required for eating non-sacred food in a state of ritual purity. Rather, it teaches that even if one intended to purify himself for non-sacred food, he is not purified with regard to tithes., b He, /b Rabba, b raised an objection to him /b from another teaching of our mishna: With regard to one who b immersed without /b intending to b assume a presumptive status of ritual purity, /b it is b as if he has not immersed. What, is it not /b teaching that it is b as if he had not immersed at all? /b ,Rav Naḥman rejected this proof as well: b No, /b it means that it is b as if he has not immersed for tithes, but he is /b considered to have b immersed for non-sacred /b produce, for which no intention is necessary. The Gemara comments: b He, /b i.e., Rabba, b thought /b that Rav Naḥman b was /b merely b refuting his /b proof by saying that the wording of the mishna does not conclusively prove his case, but he did not actually think that the mishna should be understood differently. However, he subsequently b went /b and b examined /b the sources b and found that /b a i baraita /i b was /b explicitly b taught /b in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman: One who b immersed and /b did not intend to b assume a presumptive status /b of ritual purity b is prohibited from /b eating b tithes, but is permitted to /b eat b non-sacred /b produce, even if he eats non-sacred produce only when ritually pure.,§ With regard to assuming a presumptive status of ritual purity, b Rabbi Elazar said: /b If one b immersed /b without any particular intention b and ascended /b from his immersion, b he may assume a presumptive status /b of ritual purity after his immersion b for whatever he wishes. /b In his opinion, there is no need to have a definite intention in mind at the actual moment of immersion.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b to this from the following i baraita /i : In a case where one has immersed and is ascending, b and one of his feet is still in the water, if he /b had originally intended to b assume presumptive status /b of ritual purity b for a minor matter, he may /b still intend to b assume presumptive status for a major matter. /b But if he has fully b ascended, he may no longer /b intend to b assume a presumptive status /b for any other matter.,The Gemara infers from this i baraita /i : b What, is it not /b teaching that if one has ascended b he may not /b intend to b assume a presumptive status /b of ritual purity b at all, /b which proves that one may do so only if he is still at least partially in the water?,The Gemara rejects this inference: b No, /b it should be understood as follows: If b he is still /b in the water, then although b he /b previously intended to b assume a presumptive status /b of ritual purity for a minor matter, b he may /b now intend to b assume a presumptive status /b of ritual purity for whatever purpose he wishes, since one can adjust his intention during his immersion. Once he has already b ascended, if he did not /b intend to b assume a presumptive status /b of ritual purity at all, but immersed without any intention, b he may /b intend to b assume a presumptive status /b of ritual purity for whatever he wishes even after ascending from the ritual bath; b but if he did /b intend to b assume a presumptive status /b of ritual purity for a minor matter, b he may not /b intend to b assume a presumptive status /b of ritual purity for a major matter, as his intention was fixed when he ascended from the ritual bath.,In relation to the above, the Gemara explains: b Who /b is the i tanna /i who b taught /b that one b whose foot is still in the water /b is considered to be still immersing himself? b Rabbi Pedat said: It is /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Mikvaot /i 7:6): In the case of b a ritual bath that was measured and /b found to b contain exactly forty i se’a /i /b of water, b and /b then b two /b individuals b descended and immersed one after the other, the first one is ritually pure, /b since he immersed in a valid ritual bath, b but the second is ritually impure. /b Because a small amount of water clings to the first individual, the ritual bath subsequently holds less than the requisite amount. Therefore, it does not purify the second individual. b Rabbi Yehuda said: If the feet of the first one were /b still b touching the water, /b so that he had not yet exited the ritual bath entirely while the second one immersed, b the second is also ritually pure. /b This teaches that Rabbi Yehuda is of the opinion that one who still has a foot in the water is considered to be inside the ritual bath., b Rav Naḥman said /b that b Rabba bar Avuh said: /b This b dispute /b between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda pertains b to higher standards of ritual purity /b established b by the Sages, /b where the obligation to immerse is due to a rabbinical ordice. b However, /b when the purpose of the immersion is to transition b from /b full-fledged b ritual impurity to purity, everyone agrees /b that b the second /b individual b is impure. And this is /b in accordance with the statement b of Rabbi Pedat /b on this topic, who asserts that only Rabbi Yehuda maintains that one may assume a presumptive ritually pure status if one of his feet is still in the ritual bath., b There are /b those b who say /b a different version of this statement: b Rav Naḥman said /b that b Rabba bar Avuh said: /b This b dispute /b is referring only to one who is obligated to immerse in order to transition b from ritual impurity to purity, but with regard to higher standards of ritual purity /b established b by the Sages, everyone agrees /b that b even the second /b individual b is ritually pure /b if the foot of the first is still in contact with the water. b And /b consequently, this opinion b disagrees /b with the statement b of Rabbi Pedat, /b since, according to this version, all agree that with regard to higher standards of ritual purity, the immersion continues as long as a single foot remains in the water.,With regard to the discussion above, b Ulla said: I asked Rabbi Yoḥa: According to Rabbi Yehuda, what is /b the i halakha /i with regard to b immersing /b small vessels, such as b needles and knitting needles, on the head of the first /b individual immersing himself? Since Rabbi Yehuda maintains that one whose foot is still in the water is considered as immersed in the ritual bath, does this mean that his body and even his wet hair can serve as part of the ritual bath?,The Gemara clarifies the dilemma raised by this question: Does b Rabbi Yehuda accept /b only the principle of b lowering the partition, /b meaning that an item positioned above another item is considered as if it continued downward, and therefore the water on the body of the one immersing is viewed as descending into the ritual bath, so that the bath retains its requisite size; but b he does not accept /b the concept of b raising the partition, /b so that the water in the ritual bath is not considered to rise up to one’s head, making him part of the ritual bath as well? b Or, perhaps he also accepts /b the principle of b raising the partition, /b which means that one is indeed considered part of the ritual bath?,Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: You /b already b learned /b it in the i Tosefta /i ( i Mikvaot /i 3:3): If there are b three depressions in /b the bed of b a stream that /b are not completely dry, b an upper one, a lower one, and a middle one; /b and b the upper and lower ones /b hold b twenty i se’a /i each, while the middle one /b contains b forty i se’a /i , and a flow of rain runs between them, /b thereby linking the depressions one to another, b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b My colleague, Rabbi b Meir, would say: /b One may b immerse in the upper one. /b This indicates that Rabbi Meir holds that the waters of the middle depression, which contains the requisite amount of water for a ritual bath, are considered to have ascended by means of the rainwater into the higher depression. Since Rabbi Yehuda cites his colleague’s statement without comment, he evidently accepts the principle of raising the partition.,Ulla raised a difficulty: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b |
|
85. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 227| 31a. אייתי כסא דמוקרא בת ארבע מאה זוזי ותבר קמייהו ואעציבו,רב אשי עבד הלולא לבריה חזנהו לרבנן דהוו קא בדחי טובא אייתי כסא דזוגיתא חיורתא ותבר קמייהו ואעציבו,אמרו ליה רבנן לרב המנונא זוטי בהלולא דמר בריה דרבינא לישרי לן מר אמר להו ווי לן דמיתנן ווי לן דמיתנן אמרי ליה אנן מה נעני בתרך א"ל הי תורה והי מצוה דמגנו עלן,א"ר יוחנן משום רשב"י אסור לאדם שימלא שחוק פיו בעולם הזה שנאמר (תהלים קכו, ב) אז ימלא שחוק פינו ולשוננו רנה אימתי בזמן שיאמרו בגוים הגדיל ה' לעשות עם אלה אמרו עליו על ר"ל שמימיו לא מלא שחוק פיו בעוה"ז מכי שמעה מר' יוחנן רביה:,ת"ר אין עומדין להתפלל לא מתוך דין ולא מתוך דבר הלכה אלא מתוך הלכה פסוקה,והיכי דמי הלכה פסוקה,אמר אביי כי הא דר' זירא דאמר ר' זירא בנות ישראל החמירו על עצמן שאפילו רואות טיפת דם כחרדל יושבת עליה שבעה נקיים,רבא אמר כי הא דרב הושעיא דאמר רב הושעיא מערים אדם על תבואתו ומכניסה במוץ שלה כדי שתהא בהמתו אוכלת ופטורה מן המעשר,ואב"א כי הא דרב הונא דא"ר הונא א"ר זעירא המקיז דם בבהמת קדשים אסור בהנאה ומועלין בו,רבנן עבדי כמתניתין רב אשי עביד כברייתא.,ת"ר אין עומדין להתפלל לא מתוך עצבות ולא מתוך עצלות ולא מתוך שחוק ולא מתוך שיחה ולא מתוך קלות ראש ולא מתוך דברים בטלים אלא מתוך שמחה של מצוה,וכן לא יפטר אדם מחברו לא מתוך שיחה ולא מתוך שחוק ולא מתוך קלות ראש ולא מתוך דברים בטלים אלא מתוך דבר הלכה שכן מצינו בנביאים הראשונים שסיימו דבריהם בדברי שבח ותנחומים,וכן תנא מרי בר בריה דרב הונא בריה דר' ירמיה בר אבא אל יפטר אדם מחבירו אלא מתוך דבר הלכה שמתוך כך זוכרהו,כי הא דרב כהנא אלוייה לרב שימי בר אשי מפום נהרא עד בי צניתא דבבל כי מטא להתם א"ל מר ודאי דאמרי אינשי הני צניתא דבבל איתנהו מאדם הראשון ועד השתא,א"ל אדכרתן מילתא דרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא דאמר ר' יוסי ברבי חנינא מאי דכתיב (ירמיהו ב, ו) בארץ אשר לא עבר בה איש ולא ישב אדם שם וכי מאחר דלא עבר היאך ישב אלא לומר לך כל ארץ שגזר עליה אדם הראשון לישוב נתישבה וכל ארץ שלא גזר עליה אדם הראשון לישוב לא נתישבה,רב מרדכי אלוייה לרב שימי בר אשי מהגרוניא ועד בי כיפי ואמרי לה עד בי דורא:,ת"ר המתפלל צריך שיכוין את לבו לשמים אבא שאול אומר סימן לדבר (תהלים י, יז) תכין לבם תקשיב אזנך,תניא א"ר יהודה כך היה מנהגו של ר"ע כשהיה מתפלל עם הצבור היה מקצר ועולה מפני טורח צבור וכשהיה מתפלל בינו לבין עצמו אדם מניחו בזוית זו ומוצאו בזוית אחרת וכל כך למה מפני כריעות והשתחויות:,א"ר חייא בר אבא לעולם יתפלל אדם בבית שיש בו חלונות שנאמר (דניאל ו, יא) וכוין פתיחן ליה וגו',יכול יתפלל אדם כל היום כלו כבר מפורש על ידי דניאל (דניאל ו, יא) וזמנין תלתא וגו',יכול משבא לגולה הוחלה כבר נאמר (דניאל ו, יא) די הוא עבד מן קדמת דנא,יכול יתפלל אדם לכל רוח שירצה ת"ל (דניאל ו, יא) (לקבל) [נגד] ירושלם,יכול יהא כוללן בבת אחת כבר מפורש ע"י דוד דכתיב (תהלים נה, יח) ערב ובקר וצהרים וגו',יכול ישמיע קולו בתפלתו כבר מפורש על ידי חנה שנאמר (שמואל א א, יג) וקולה לא ישמע,יכול ישאל אדם צרכיו ואח"כ יתפלל כבר מפורש על ידי שלמה שנאמר (מלכים א ח, כח) לשמוע אל הרנה ואל התפלה רנה זו תפלה תפלה זו בקשה אין אומר דבר (בקשה) אחר אמת ויציב אבל אחר התפלה אפי' כסדר וידוי של יה"כ אומר איתמר,נמי אמר רב חייא בר אשי אמר רב אע"פ שאמרו שואל אדם צרכיו בשומע תפלה אם בא לומר אחר תפלתו אפילו כסדר יום הכפורים אומר:, אמר רב המנונא כמה הלכתא גברוותא איכא למשמע מהני קראי דחנה (שמואל א א, יג) וחנה היא מדברת על לבה מכאן למתפלל צריך שיכוין לבו רק שפתיה נעות מכאן למתפלל שיחתוך בשפתיו וקולה לא ישמע מכאן שאסור להגביה קולו בתפלתו ויחשבה עלי לשכורה מכאן ששכור אסור להתפלל,ויאמר אליה עלי עד מתי תשתכרין וגו' א"ר אלעזר מכאן לרואה בחברו | 31a. b He brought a valuable cup worth four hundred i zuz /i and broke it before them and they became sad. /b ,The Gemara also relates: b Rav Ashi made a wedding /b feast b for his son /b and b he saw the Sages, who were excessively joyous. He brought a cup of /b extremely valuable b white glass and broke it before them, and they became sad. /b ,Similarly, the Gemara relates: b The Sages said to Rav Hamnuna Zuti at the wedding /b feast b of Mar, son of Ravina: Let the Master sing for us. /b Since he believed that the merriment had become excessive, b he said to them, /b singing: b Woe unto us, for we shall die, woe unto us, for we shall die. They said to him: What shall we respond after you? /b What is the chorus of the song? b He said to them, /b you should respond: b Where is Torah and where is mitzva that protect us? /b ,In a similar vein, b Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: One is forbidden to fill his mouth with mirth in this world, /b as long as we are in exile ( i ge’onim /i ), b as it is stated: /b “When the Lord returns the captivity of Zion we will be as dreamers” (Psalms 126:1). Only b “then will our mouths fill with laughter and our lips with song” /b (Psalms 126:2). b When /b will that joyous era arrive? When b “they will say among nations, the Lord has done great things with these” /b (Psalms 126:2). b They said about Reish Lakish that throughout his life he did not fill his mouth with laughter in this world once he heard this /b statement b from his teacher, Rabbi Yoḥa. /b ,We learned in the mishna that it is appropriate to stand and begin to pray from an atmosphere of gravity. Regarding this, b the Sages taught: One /b may b neither stand /b and begin to pray, directly b from /b involvement in b judgment nor /b directly b from /b deliberation over the ruling in a b matter of i halakha /i , /b as his preoccupation with the judgment or the halakhic ruling will distract him from prayer. b Rather /b it is appropriate to pray directly b from /b involvement in the study of b a /b universally accepted b conclusive i halakha /i /b that leaves no room for further deliberation and will not distract him during prayer., b And /b the Gemara asks: b What is an example /b of a b conclusive i halakha /i ? /b ,The Gemara offers several examples: b Abaye said: /b One b like this /b i halakha /i b of Rabbi Zeira, /b as b Rabbi Zeira said: The daughters of Israel were stringent with themselves; /b to the extent b that even if they see a drop of blood corresponding to /b the size of b a mustard /b seed b she sits seven clean /b days b for it. /b By Torah law, a woman who witnesses the emission of blood during the eleven days following her fixed menstrual period is not considered a menstruating woman; rather she immerses herself and is purified the next day. However, the women of Israel accepted the stringency upon themselves that if they see any blood whatsoever, they act as it if were the blood of a i zava /i , which obligates her to count seven more clean days before becoming ritually pure (see Leviticus 15:25).,Citing an additional example of a conclusive i halakha /i , b Rava said: /b One b like this /b i halakha /i b of Rav Hoshaya, as Rav Hoshaya said: A person may employ artifice /b to circumvent obligations incumbent b upon /b him in dealing with b his grain and bring it into /b the courtyard b in its chaff so that his animal will eat /b from it, b and /b the grain b is exempt /b from b tithes. /b i Halakha /i dictates that one is obligated to tithe grain that has been threshed and piled, regardless of the ultimate purpose for which the grain was intended. By Torah law, one is exempt from tithing grain that was not threshed and is therefore still in its chaff. By rabbinic law, one is prohibited from eating this grain in the framework of a meal. Feeding animals is permitted without first tithing that grain., b And if you wish, say /b instead yet another example of a conclusive i halakha /i , which is the recommended prelude to prayer. One b like this /b i halakha /i b of Rav Huna, /b as b Rav Huna said /b that b Rabbi Zeira said: One who lets blood from a consecrated animal /b that was consecrated as a sacrifice; deriving b benefit /b from that blood b is prohibited. /b Although blood of an offering that was sprinkled on the altar is not considered Temple property, nevertheless, deriving benefit from the blood of a living, consecrated animal is considered prohibited use of Temple property. In so doing, b one misuses /b property consecrated to the Temple, and as in any other case of misusing Temple property, if he did so unwittingly, he is liable to bring a guilt-offering.,It is related that b the Sages acted in accordance with /b the opinion of b our mishna /b and rose to pray from an atmosphere of gravity; b Rav Ashi acted in accordance with /b the opinion of b the i baraita /i /b and preceded his prayer with a conclusive i halakha /i .,On the topic of proper preparation for prayer, b the Sages taught: One may neither stand to pray from /b an atmosphere of b sorrow nor from /b an atmosphere of b laziness, nor from /b an atmosphere of b laughter, nor from /b an atmosphere of b conversation, nor from /b an atmosphere of b frivolity, nor from /b an atmosphere of b purposeless matters. Rather, /b one should approach prayer b from /b an atmosphere imbued with b the joy of a mitzva. /b , b Similarly, a person should neither take leave of another from /b an atmosphere of b conversation, nor from /b an atmosphere of b laughter, nor from /b an atmosphere of b frivolity, nor from /b an atmosphere of b purposeless matters. Rather, /b one should take leave of another b from /b involvement in a b matter of i halakha /i . As we found in /b the books of the Bible dealing with b the early prophets, that they would conclude their talks with words of praise and consolation. /b , b And so Mari, the grandson of Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba, taught in a i baraita /i : One should only take leave of another from /b involvement in a b matter of i halakha /i , so that, consequently, he will remember him; /b whenever he recalls the one from whom he took leave, he will think well of him because of the new i halakha /i that he taught him ( i Eliyahu Zuta /i )., b As /b in the incident related by the Gemara b that Rav Kahana accompanied Rav Shimi bar Ashi from /b the town of b Pum Nahara to the palm grove /b in b Babylonia. When he arrived there, /b Rav Kahana b said to /b Rav Shimi bar Ashi: b Master, what is meant by that which people say: These palm trees /b of b Babylonia have been /b in this place from the time of b Adam the first /b man b until now? /b ,Rav Shimi bar Ashi b said to him: You reminded me of something that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, /b said, b as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: What is /b the meaning of b that which is written: “In a land through which no man has passed and where no person [ i adam /i ] has settled” /b (Jeremiah 2:6)? This verse is difficult; b since it is /b a land through which b no /b person b has passed, how /b could anyone b have settled /b there permanently? The statement that “no person has settled there” is redundant. b Rather, /b this verse comes b to teach /b that b every land /b through b which Adam the first /b man passed and b decreed that it would be settled was settled, and every land /b through b which /b Adam passed and b decreed that it would not be settled was not settled. /b Based on this, what people say is true, and the palm trees of Babylonia are from the time of Adam, meaning that from the time of Adam this land was decreed to be suitable for growing palm trees ( i Me’iri /i ). The Gemara cited an example of how one who parts from another with Torah learns something new.,Having mentioned the mitzva for a student to accompany his Rabbi, the Gemara relates that b Rav Mordekhai accompanied /b his mentor, b Rav Shimi bar Ashi, /b a great distance, b from /b the city of b Hagronya to Bei Keifei; and some say /b that he accompanied from Hagronya b to Bei Dura. /b ,Returning to the topic of preparation for prayer, b the Sages taught /b in the i Tosefta /i : b One who prays must focus his heart toward Heaven. Abba Shaul says: An indication of /b the importance of this b matter /b is stated in the verse: “The desire of the humble You have heard, Lord; b direct their hearts, Your ear will listen” /b (Psalms 10:17). In other words, if one focuses his heart in prayer as a result of God directing his heart, his prayer will be accepted as God’s ear will listen.,With regard to one’s intent during prayer, b it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda said: This was the custom of Rabbi Akiva, when he would pray with the congregation he would shorten /b his prayer b and go up, due to /b his desire to avoid being an b encumbrance on the congregation /b by making them wait for him to finish his prayer. b But when he prayed by himself /b he would extend his prayers to an extent that b a person would leave /b Rabbi Akiva alone b in one corner /b of the study hall b and /b later b find him /b still praying b in another corner. And why /b would Rabbi Akiva move about b so much? Because of his bows and prostrations. /b Rabbi Akiva’s enthusiasm in prayer was so great, that as a result of his bows and prostrations, he would unwittingly move from one corner to the other (Rav Hai Gaon).,Many i halakhot /i are derived from evoking the prayers of biblical characters. b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: One should always pray in a house with windows, as it is stated /b regarding Daniel: “And when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went to his house. In his attic b there were open windows /b facing Jerusalem, and three times a day he knelt upon his knees and prayed and gave thanks before his God, just as he had done before” (Daniel 6:11).,In the i Tosefta /i , additional i halakhot /i were derived from Daniel’s prayer. I b might have /b thought b that one could pray /b as many times as he wishes b throughout the entire day; it has already been articulated by Daniel, /b with regard to whom it is stated: b “And three times /b a day he knelt upon his knees and prayed.” This teaches that there are fixed prayers., b I might have thought that this /b practice of fixed prayer b began /b only b when he came to /b the Babylonian b exile; it was stated: /b “Just b as he had done before.” /b ,Further, I b might have /b thought b that one may pray /b facing b any direction he wishes; the verse states: /b The appropriate direction for prayer is b “facing Jerusalem.” /b ,Daniel does not describe how these three prayers are distributed during the day. I b might have /b thought b that one may include all /b three prayers b at one time; it has already been articulated by David /b that one may not do so, b as it is written: “Evening and morning and noon, /b I pray and cry aloud and He hears my voice” (Psalms 55:18).,Furthermore, b I might have /b thought b that one may make his voice heard in his /b i Amida /i b prayer; it has already been articulated by Hannah /b in her prayer, b as it is stated: /b “And Hannah spoke in her heart, only her lips moved b and her voice could not be heard” /b (I Samuel 1:13)., i Halakhot /i regarding the order of the prayers were also learned from the prayers of biblical characters. I b might have /b thought b that one should request his own needs first, and afterwards recite prayers /b of thanksgiving and praise; b it has already been articulated by Solomon /b that this is not so, as in Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the Holy Temple b it is stated: “To hear the song and the prayer /b that Your servant prays before You today” (I Kings 8:28). In this verse, b song is prayer /b in the sense of thanks and praise, and b prayer is /b one’s b request /b of his personal needs. Therefore, one who is praying b does not speak matters of request after /b he began to recite b i emet veyatziv /i /b prior to the i Amida /i prayer, which is the essence of prayer. Rather, he begins with praise in the first three blessings of the i Amida /i prayer, and only thereafter does he include requests for his needs. b But after the /b i Amida /i b prayer /b there is no limit. If he desires to recite b even the equivalent of the order of the confession of Yom Kippur, /b he may b recite /b it.,This b was also stated /b by an i amora /i ; b Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said /b that b Rav said: Although /b the Sages b said /b that b one requests his /b personal b needs in /b the blessing: b Who listens to prayer, /b that is with regard to one who wishes to do so as part of the i Amida /i prayer. b If he comes /b to add b and recite /b additional requests b after /b completing b his /b i Amida /i b prayer, even /b if his personal requests are b the equivalent of the order of the confession of Yom Kippur, /b he may b recite /b them., b Rav Hamnuna said: How many significant /b i halakhot /i b can be derived from these verses /b of the prayer b of Hannah? /b As it says: “And Hannah spoke in her heart, only her lips moved and her voice could not be heard, so Eli thought her to be drunk” (I Samuel 1:13). The Gemara elaborates: b From /b that which is stated b here: “And Hannah spoke in her heart,” /b the i halakha /i that b one who prays must focus his heart /b on his prayer is derived. And b from /b that which is stated b here: “Only her lips moved,” /b the i halakha /i that b one who prays must enunciate /b the words b with his lips, /b not only contemplate them in his heart, is derived. b From /b that which is written b here: “And her voice could not be heard,” /b the i halakha /i that b one is forbidden to raise his voice in his /b i Amida /i b prayer /b as it must be recited silently. b From /b the continuation of the verse b here: “So Eli thought her to be drunk,” /b the i halakha /i that b a drunk person is forbidden to pray. /b That is why he rebuked her.,On the subject of Eli’s rebuke of Hannah, as it is stated: b “And Eli said to her: How long will you remain drunk? /b Remove your wine from yourself” (I Samuel 1:14); b Rabbi Elazar said: From here /b the i halakha /i that b one who sees in another /b |
|
86. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 213| 114a. אפומא דחד ולא אמרן אלא חד אבל בתרי לא וחד נמי לא אמרן אלא בדיני דמגיסתא אבל בי דוואר אינהו נמי חד אמומתא שדו ליה,אמר רב אשי כי הוינא בי רב הונא איבעיא לן אדם חשוב דסמכי עליה כבי תרי מפקי ממונא אפומיה ולא איבעי ליה לאסהודי או דלמא כיון דאדם חשוב הוא לא מצי משתמיט להו ומצי לאסהודי תיקו,אמר רב אשי האי בר ישראל דזבין ליה ארעא לעובד כוכבים אמצרא דבר ישראל חבריה משמתינן ליה מאי טעמא אי נימא משום דינא דבר מצרא והאמר מר זבין מעכו"ם וזבין לעכו"ם ליכא משום דינא דבר מצרא,אלא דאמרי' ליה ארבעית לי אריא אמצראי משמתינן ליה עד דקביל עליה כל אונסא דאתי מחמתיה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big נטלו מוכסין את חמורו ונתנו לו חמור אחר נטלו לסטים את כסותו ונתנו לו כסות אחרת הרי אלו שלו מפני שהבעלים מתייאשין מהן: המציל מן הנהר או מן הגייס או מן הלסטין אם נתייאשו הבעלים הרי אלו שלו וכן נחיל של דבורים אם נתייאשו הרי אלו שלו,א"ר יוחנן בן ברוקה נאמנת אשה או קטן לומר מכאן יצא נחיל זה ומהלך בתוך שדה חבירו להציל את נחילו ואם הזיק משלם מה שהזיק אבל לא יקוץ את סוכו על מנת ליתן את הדמים ר' ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר אף קוצץ ונותן את הדמים:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנא אם נטל מחזיר לבעלים הראשונים קסבר יאוש כדי לא קני ומעיקרא באיסורא אתא לידיה,ואיכא דאמרי אם בא להחזיר יחזיר לבעלים ראשונים מ"ט יאוש כדי קני מיהו אי אמר אי אפשי בממון שאינו שלי מחזיר לבעלים הראשונים:,הרי אלו שלו מפני שהבעלים כו': אמר רב אשי לא שנו אלא לסטים עובד כוכבים אבל ליסטים ישראל לא סבר למחר נקיטנא ליה בדינא,מתקיף לה רב יוסף אדרבה איפכא מסתברא עכו"ם דדייני בגיתי לא מייאש ישראל כיון דאמרי מימר מייאש,אלא אי איתמר אסיפא איתמר המציל מן העכו"ם ומן הלסטים אם נתייאשו הבעלים אין סתמא לא,לא שנו אלא עכו"ם משום דדייני בגיתי אבל לסטים ישראל כיון דאמרי מימר מייאש,תנן התם עורות של בעל הבית מחשבה מטמאתן,ושל עבדן אין מחשבה מטמאתן,של גזלן אין מחשבה מטמאתן ושל גנב מחשבה מטמאתן,ר"ש אומר חילוף הדברים של גזלן מחשבה מטמאתן של גנב אין מחשבה מטמאתן לפי שלא נתייאשו הבעלים,אמר עולא מחלוקת בסתם אבל בידוע דברי הכל יאוש קני רבה אמר בידוע נמי מחלוקת,א"ל אביי לרבה לא תיפלוג עליה דעולא דתנן במתני' כוותיה לפי שלא נתייאשו הבעלים טעמא דלא נתייאשו הבעלים אבל נתייאשו הבעלים הרי אלו שלו,אמר ליה אנן לפי שאין יאוש לבעלים מתנינן לה,תנן נטלו מוכסין חמורו כו' מני,אי רבנן קשיא גזלן אי ר"ש קשיא גנב,בשלמא לעולא דאמר בידוע קני הכא נמי בידוע ודברי הכל,אלא לרבה דאמר בידוע נמי מחלוקת הא מני לא רבנן ולא ר"ש בלסטים מזויין ור"ש היא,אי הכי היינו גזלן תרי גווני גזלן,ת"ש הגנב והגזלן והאנס הקדשן הקדש ותרומתן תרומה ומעשרותן מעשר,מני אי רבנן קשיא גזלן אי ר"ש קשיא גנב,בשלמא לעולא דאמר בידוע קני הכא נמי בידוע ודברי הכל היא אלא לרבה דאמר בידוע נמי מחלוקת הא מני לא רבנן ולא ר"ש,הכא נמי בלסטים מזויין ור' שמעון היא אי הכי היינו גזלן תרי גווני גזלן,ואי בעית אימא הא מתניתא רבי היא דתניא רבי אמר גנב כגזלן | 114a. based b on the word of one /b witness, which is insufficient evidence according to Jewish law. b And we said /b that this is so b only /b when b one /b individual testifies alone against his fellow Jew, b but when two /b witnesses testify against a Jew, we do b not /b excommunicate them, as their testimony is sufficient evidence according to Jewish law as well, and they have not caused the defendant any unjustified ficial loss even according to i halakha /i . b And /b in a case of b a single /b witness b also, we said /b that we excommunicate him b only /b if he testified b in a court of villagers [ i demagista /i ], but /b if he testified in b the /b official government b courthouse [ i bei davar /i ], /b he is not excommunicated. This is because b they also prescribe an oath to /b the defendant based on the testimony of b a single /b witness, but they do not expropriate money, in accordance with Jewish law.,The Gemara relates that b Rav Ashi said: When I was in the academy of Rav Huna, /b the following b dilemma was raised before us: /b What is the i halakha /i with regard to an b important person, /b whose testimony b is relied upon /b by the gentile courts b as /b if it were the testimony of b two /b witnesses? Since the gentile court will b expropriate money /b based b on his word, /b should the i halakha /i be that b he should not testify? Or perhaps, since he is an important person, he cannot escape /b the authorities who demand his testimony, b and he may /b therefore b testify. /b The Gemara concludes: The dilemma b shall stand /b unresolved.,§ The Gemara cites another situation where a Jew is excommunicated for causing harm to another Jew. b Rav Ashi said: /b In the case of b a Jewish man who sells a gentile /b a plot of b land /b that is b on the border of /b the property of b his fellow Jew, we excommunicate him. What is the reason? If we say /b it is b because /b he has ignored b the right of one /b whose field b borders /b the field of his neighbor to be the first one offered the purchase of the field, b but doesn’t the Master say: /b With regard to b one who purchases /b land b from a gentile, and one who sells /b land b to a gentile, there is no right of one /b whose field b borders /b the field of his neighbor to be the first one offered the purchase of the field?, b Rather, /b it is b because we say to him /b on behalf of the owner of the adjacent field: b You have placed a lion, /b i.e., a dangerous individual, b on my border, /b as the gentile might now cause me harm. Consequently, b we excommunicate him until he accepts upon himself /b responsibility for b all harm that comes /b upon the neighbor b due to /b the gentile’s activities., strong MISHNA: /strong If b customs collectors took one’s donkey and gave him a different donkey /b that was taken from another Jew in its stead, or if b bandits took his garment and gave him a different garment /b that was taken from a Jew in its stead, b these /b items b are /b now b his because the owners despaired of /b retrieving b them /b when they were stolen, and they may therefore be acquired by another. In a case of b one who salvages /b items b from a river, or from a troop [ i hagayis /i ] /b of soldiers, b or from bandits, if the owners /b of the items b despaired /b of retrieving them, b they are his, /b i.e., they belong to the one who salvaged them. b And so too, /b with regard to b a swarm of bees, if /b the owners b despaired /b of retrieving the bees, b they are his, /b i.e., they belong to the one who found them., b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka said: A woman or a minor, /b whose testimony is not generally accepted by the court, b is deemed credible to say: /b It was b from here that this swarm emerged, /b and it therefore belongs to a certain individual. b And /b one b may walk into another’s field /b in order b to salvage his /b own b swarm /b of bees that has relocated there, b and if he damaged /b some property in the process, b he must pay /b for b what he has damaged. But /b if the bees settled on a branch of a tree, b he may not cut /b off the other’s b branch /b in order to take the bees, even b on the condition /b that he will later b give him the money /b for it. b Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka, says: He may even cut /b off the branch b and /b later b give /b him b the money /b for it as compensation., strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that one who is given an item by a customs collector or a bandit may keep the item. It was b taught /b in a i baraita /i : b If he took /b a donkey from the customs collector, b he /b must b return /b it b to the original owners. /b The Gemara explains: The i tanna /i of this i baraita /i b holds /b that b despair alone does not effect /b legal b acquisition. /b Consequently, the customs collector did not acquire the donkey, b and it initially came into the possession /b of the individual to whom the customs collector gave it b illegally, /b and he is therefore required to return it to the original owner., b And there are /b those b who say /b that the i baraita /i means that b if he /b wants to act beyond the letter of the law and b comes to return it /b voluntarily, he should b return it to the original owners, /b but he is not required to return it. b What is the reason /b that he is not required to return it? It is because b despair alone effects /b legal b acquisition /b and the donkey was, therefore, acquired by the Jew when the customs collector gave it to him. b Nevertheless, if he said: I do not want /b to accept b money that is not mine, he returns /b it b to the original owners. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that if customs collectors or bandits replaced one’s item with one taken from another Jew, b these /b items b are /b now b his because the owners /b despaired of retrieving them when they were stolen. In this regard, b Rav Ashi says: They taught /b that the owners certainly despaired of recovering their property b only /b when it was stolen by b a gentile bandit, but /b if it was taken by b a Jewish bandit, no, /b the owner did not necessarily despair of recovering it. This is because the victim of the theft might b reason: Tomorrow, I will take him to court /b and force him to return what he stole., b Rav Yosef objects to this: On the contrary, the opposite is /b more b reasonable: /b When dealing with b gentiles, who judge /b a case and impose their verdicts b with force, he does not despair /b because he realizes that the gentile court will enforce the law. By contrast, when dealing with b a Jew, since /b Jewish courts merely b pronounce a verbal /b decision but do not have the authority to enforce it, the victim b despairs /b of recovering his property., b Rather, if /b Rav Ashi’s distinction b was stated, it was stated with regard to the latter clause /b of the mishna, which states: In the case of b one who salvages /b an item b from gentiles or from bandits, /b if the owners despaired of retrieving it, the one who finds it may keep it. The Gemara infers: b If /b it is known that b the owners despaired /b of retreating it, b yes, /b the finder may keep the item; but in b an unspecified /b situation, where it is not known whether the owners despaired, the finder may b not /b keep the item.,Concerning this, Rav Ashi said: b They taught /b this b only /b when the item was stolen by b a gentile /b bandit, b because /b the gentile court b judges /b a case and imposes its verdict b with force, /b and therefore it cannot be assumed that the owners despair. b But /b if the robbery was committed by b a Jewish bandit, since /b Jewish courts merely b pronounce a verbal /b decision but do not have the authority to enforce it, the victim b despairs /b of recovering his property.,§ Apropos the discussion with regard to an owner’s despair of retrieving a lost or stolen item, the Gemara notes that b we learned /b in a mishna b there /b ( i Kelim /i 26:8): With regard to b hides /b that are tanned by the b owner /b himself, b thought renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. /b Hides and leather are susceptible to contracting impurity only if they are in a finished state. If a private individual uses a piece of hide or leather for a certain purpose, e.g., as a cot or a table top, and decides that this will be its fixed purpose, it is considered a finished product and is susceptible to contracting impurity., b But /b with regard to hides b belonging to a leatherworker, thought does not render them susceptible to ritual impurity. /b Since this individual sells leather to others, when he uses a piece of leather for a household purpose and decides that this will be its fixed purpose, it is not considered a finished state, as he is likely to change his mind and sell the leather to one who will process it further and put it to a different use.,The mishna continues: If the hides are those b of a thief, /b who has stolen them from another, the thief’s b thought renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. /b If they are those b of a robber, /b his b thought does not render them susceptible to ritual impurity, /b because he is not considered the owner of the hide. The difference is that unlike the case of a thief, who steals items stealthily, the identity of a robber, who takes the item openly, is known to the owner, and he harbors hope of finding him and getting the item back. Consequently, he does not despair of recovering his property., b Rabbi Shimon says /b that b the matters are reversed: /b In the case b of a robber, /b the robber’s b thought renders them susceptible to ritual impurity. /b If the hides are those b of a thief, thought does not render them susceptible to ritual impurity, because the owners have not despaired /b of recovering them and the thief has not acquired the hide. Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning is that a robber, who seizes items brazenly, is a more difficult criminal to apprehend and bring to justice than a thief.,The Gemara analyzes the scope of the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and the first i tanna /i . b Ulla says: The dispute /b is only with regard b to an unspecified /b case, where it is unknown whether or not the owners despaired, b but where it is known /b that the owners despaired, b all agree /b that their b despair /b effects legal b acquisition. /b By contrast, b Rabba says: /b Even in cases b where it is known /b that the owners despaired, there is b also a dispute, /b because although the owner may have expressed despair verbally, he may still hope to retrieve the item., b Abaye said to Rabba: Do not disagree with Ulla, as /b the formulation of the i halakha /i that b we learned in the mishna /b is b in accordance with his /b opinion. The mishna states that according to Rabbi Shimon, thought does not render the hides of a thief susceptible to ritual impurity b because the owners did not despair /b of retrieving them, and therefore the hides do not belong to the thief. This indicates that b the reason /b the thought of the thief does not render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity b is that the owners did not despair /b of retrieving them. b But /b if b the owners /b had b despaired /b of retrieving them, then b these /b items would be b his, /b and his thoughts would render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity.,Rabba b said to him: We learned /b the mishna as saying: A thief cannot render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity b because there is no /b true b despair for owners /b of stolen goods, even if they state they have despaired., b We learned /b in the mishna here that if b customs collectors took one’s donkey /b and replaced it with a donkey taken from another Jew, or if bandits took his garment and replaced it with a garment taken from another Jew, he may keep these items because the owners despaired of retrieving them when they were stolen. The Gemara asks: b Whose /b opinion is expressed in this mishna?, b If /b it is in accordance with b the Rabbis, /b who hold that the owner despairs only in the case of a thief who steals secretly, it b is difficult, /b because the mishna indicates that the victim of b a robber /b also despairs of retrieving his property, as in the case of a customs collector. And b if /b it is in accordance with b Rabbi Shimon, /b who holds that the owner despairs only in the case of a robber, it b is difficult, /b because the mishna indicates that the victim of b a thief /b also despairs of retrieving his property, as in the case of bandits., b Granted, according to Ulla, who says /b that all agree that if b it is known /b that the owners despaired, the individual in possession of the items b acquires /b them, b here too /b it is possible to explain that the mishna is discussing a case b where it is known /b that the owners despaired, b and all agree /b that the recipient of the stolen property may keep it., b But according to Rabba, who says /b that even in cases b where it is known /b that the owners despaired, there is b also a dispute, /b in accordance with b whose /b opinion b is this /b mishna written? b It is not /b in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, and it is not /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon. /b The Gemara answers that the mishna is discussing a case of b an armed bandit, /b who is similar to a robber in that he steals using force and aggression. b And it is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, /b who holds that the victim of a robber despairs of recovering his property.,The Gemara asks: b If so, this is /b identical to the case of b a robber, /b i.e., the customs collector, and there is no reason for the mishna to teach the same i halakha /i twice. The Gemara answers that the mishna in fact teaches the i halakha /i with regard to b two /b different b types /b of b robbers, /b the customs collector and the armed bandit.,The Gemara suggests another proof with regard to the dispute between Ulla and Rabba. b Come /b and b hear /b the following i baraita /i : With regard to b a thief, a robber, and one who forces /b another to sell him some-thing, b their consecrated items are /b considered b consecrated, and their i teruma /i , /b the portion of the produce designated for the priest, b is /b considered b i teruma /i , and their tithes are /b considered b tithes. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Whose /b opinion is expressed in this i baraita /i ? b If /b it is in accordance with b the Rabbis, /b it b is difficult /b because the i baraita /i assumes that even the victim of b a robber /b despairs of retrieving his property, as seen from the i halakha /i that the robber’s act of consecration or separation of i teruma /i or tithes is valid. This contradicts the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that the thoughts of a robber do not render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity, because he is not considered the owner of the hides. Conversely, b if /b it is in accordance with b Rabbi Shimon, /b it b is difficult /b because the i baraita /i assumes that the victim of b a thief /b despairs of retrieving his property, as seen from the i halakha /i that the thief's act of consecration or separation of i teruma /i or tithes is valid. This contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as he holds that the thoughts of a thief do not render the hides susceptible to ritual impurity, because he is not considered the owner of the hides., b Granted, according to Ulla, who says /b that b all agree /b that if b it is known /b that the owners despaired of recovering their property, the individual in possession of the items b acquires /b them, b here too, /b it is possible to explain that the mishna is discussing a case b where it is known /b that the owners despaired. b But according to Rabba, who says /b that even in cases b where it is known /b that the owners despaired, there is b also a dispute, /b in accordance with b whose /b opinion b is this /b i baraita /i written? It is b not /b written in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, and /b it is b not /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon. /b ,The Gemara answers: b Here too, /b when the i baraita /i mentions a thief it is actually referring to b an armed bandit, /b who is considered a robber because he steals using force and aggression. b And it is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, /b who holds that the victim of a robber despairs of recovering his property. The Gemara asks: b If so, this /b case of a thief b is /b identical to the case of b a robber, /b and there is no reason for the i baraita /i to teach the same i halakha /i twice. The Gemara answers that the i baraita /i wishes to teach the i halakha /i with regard to b two /b different b types /b of b robbers. /b ,The Gemara offers an alternative explanation: b And if you wish, say /b instead that b this i baraita /i /b is referring to an actual thief, and b it is /b written in accordance the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said: A thief /b is b like a robber. /b |
|
| 88. Anon., Sifre Zuta Numbers, 6.9, 19.11, 19.14-19.15 Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 211, 216, 218, 219, 220 |
89. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •visibility, implications of for im/purity Found in books: Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 222| 31b. השולח חבית של יין ביד כותי ושל ציר ושל מורייס ביד עובד כוכבים אם מכיר חותמו וסתמו מותר אם לאו אסור,אמר רבי זירא לא קשיא כאן בעיר כאן בדרך,מתקיף לה רבי ירמיה מידי הנך דעיר לא בדרך אתו אלא אמר רבי ירמיה בין הגיתות שנינו כיון דכולי עלמא אפכי מירתת אמר השתא אי חזי לי מפסדו לי,אתמר מפני מה אסרו שכר של עובדי כוכבים רמי בר חמא אמר רבי יצחק משום חתנות רב נחמן אמר משום גילוי,אגילוי דמאי אילימא גילוי דנזייתא אנן נמי מגלינן ואלא דחביתא אנן נמי מגלינן לא צריכא באתרא דמצלו מיא,אלא מעתה ישן תשתרי דא"ר ישן מותר אין מניחו ליישן החמיץ מותר אין מניחו להחמיץ גזירה ישן אטו חדש,רב פפא מפיקין ליה לאבבא דחנותא ושתי רב אחאי מייתו ליה לביתיה ושתי ותרוייהו משום חתנות רב אחאי עביד הרחקה יתירתא,רב שמואל בר ביסנא איקלע למרגואן אייתו ליה חמרא ולא אשתי אייתו ליה שיכרא ולא אשתי בשלמא חמרא משום שימצא שיכרא משום מאי משום שימצא דשימצא,אמר רב האי שיכרא דארמאה שרי וחייא ברי לא נישתי מיניה מה נפשך אי שרי לכולי עלמא שרי אי אסיר לכולי עלמא אסיר,אלא רב סבר משום גילויא ואזיל מרורא דכשותא וקלי ליה זיהריה ודלקי מלקי ליה טפי וחייא ברי הואיל ולקי לא נישתי מיניה,אמר שמואל כל השרצים יש להן ארס של נחש ממית של שרצים אינו ממית אמר ליה שמואל לחייא בר רב בר אריא תא ואימא לך מילתא מעלייתא דהוה אמר רב אבוך הכי אמר אבוך הני ארמאי זוקאני דהוו שתו גילויא ולא מתו איידי דאכלי שקצים ורמשים חביל גופייהו,אמר רב יוסף | 31b. from the following i baraita /i : With regard to b one who sends a barrel of wine in the hands of a Samaritan, or /b a barrel b of /b fish b brine or /b a barrel b of fish stew in the hands of a gentile, if he recognizes his seal and his /b manner of b closing /b the barrel, it b is permitted; if /b he does b not /b recognize them, it b is prohibited. /b Apparently, a sealed barrel is permitted only when it is recognizable., b Rabbi Zeira said /b that this is b not difficult. Here, /b the first i baraita /i is referring to barrels located b in a city; there, /b the second i baraita /i is referring to barrels that the Samaritan carries b on the road. /b Sealed barrels are permitted in a city because the Samaritan is careful to ensure that gentiles do not touch them in front of anyone, so that he does not forfeit the business of Jews. While traveling he is not concerned, as he assumes that no one will discover that the gentile came into contact with the wine., b Rabbi Yirmeya objects to this: Didn’t these /b barrels located b in the city come by the road /b as well? b Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya says: We learned /b the i baraita /i that permits sealed barrels only in reference to those that are located b between the winepresses. Since everyone is found /b there, the Samaritan b is apprehensive, /b as he b says /b to himself: b Now, if /b someone b sees me /b allowing a gentile to handle the wine b they will cause me to lose /b my profit, as Jews will not purchase it., b It was stated: For what /b reason did the Sages b prohibit the beer of gentiles? Rami bar Ḥama says /b that b Rabbi Yitzḥak says: /b It is b due to /b the concern that Jews will befriend gentiles while drinking with them, which might lead to b marriage /b with gentiles. b Rav Naḥman said: /b It is b due to /b the concern of b exposure. /b ,The Gemara asks: b With regard to what /b form b of exposure /b is there a concern? b If we say /b that the concern is with regard to b exposure of the vat, we too expose /b the vat, and there is no reason to prohibit gentiles’ beer more than that of Jews. b And /b if you say: b Rather, /b the concern is for exposure b of /b the b barrel, we also expose /b barrels. The Gemara answers: b No, /b it is b necessary /b to prohibit the beer b in a place where the water /b used to brew it is allowed to b settle. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If that is so, aged /b beer should b be permitted, as Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: /b A substance that might contain exposed water but has b aged /b is b permitted, /b since the poison b does not allow it to age, /b as it goes bad before it grows old. Similarly, if it b soured /b it is b permitted, /b because the poison impairs the taste but b does not allow it to sour. /b Why, then, is all beer prohibited? The Gemara answers: The Sages issued a rabbinic b decree /b with regard to b aged /b beer b due to /b the concern with regard to b new /b beer.,§ The Gemara cites the opinions of various Sages with regard to beer. b Rav Pappa /b had them b bring out /b the b beer /b belonging to gentiles from the store b to the entrance of the store, and he /b would b drink /b it outside the store. b Rav Aḥai /b had them b bring /b the beer b to his house, and he /b would b drink /b it there. b And both /b of them drank the beer away from the presence of gentiles b due to /b concern about b marriage /b with gentiles. The Gemara notes that b Rav Aḥai established an extreme preventive measure /b for himself beyond what is required by i halakha /i .,The Gemara relates that b Rav Shmuel bar Bisna happened /b to come b to Marguan, /b and b they brought him wine but he did not drink /b it. Next b they brought him beer but he did not drink /b it. The Gemara asks: b Granted, /b he did not drink the b wine due to /b the b trace [ i shimtza /i ] /b of libations, but b due to what /b reason did he refrain from drinking b beer? /b It was b due to /b concern for b the trace of a trace, /b i.e., he did not drink beer due to concern about drinking wine., b Rav says: This Aramean beer is permitted, but my son Ḥiyya does not drink from it. /b The Gemara asks: b Whichever /b way b you /b look at this matter, Rav’s statement is difficult: b If /b the beer is b permitted, /b then it is b permitted to everyone, /b and there is no reason for his son to refrain from drinking it. And b if /b it is b prohibited, /b it is b prohibited to everyone, /b and why would Rav say it is permitted?,The Gemara explains: b Rather, Rav holds /b that the prohibition is b due to exposure, but the bitterness of the hops /b in the beer b goes and impairs the /b snake’s b venom, /b so that it is safe for an average person to drink. b But /b a person of b weak /b constitution b is weakened further /b by the impaired venom, b and /b Rav was saying: In the case of b my son Ḥiyya, since he is weak, he does not drink from it. /b , b Shmuel says: All creeping animals possess venom; /b that b of a snake kills, /b whereas the venom b of /b other b creeping animals does not kill. Shmuel said to Ḥiyya bar Rav: Son of a lion! Come and I will say to you a superior matter that your father, Rav, said. This /b is what b your father said: These Arameans /b are b swollen [ i zukanei /i ] because they drink exposed /b liquids, b but they did not die /b from doing so b since they eat repugt creatures and creeping animals, /b which b heat their bodies /b and thereby render them less susceptible to the venom., b Rav Yosef says: /b |
|
