1. Mishnah, Ketuvot, 7.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •women, physical inspection of Found in books: Rosen-Zvi (2012), The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash, 227| 7.8. "הָיוּ בָהּ מוּמִין וְעוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ, הָאָב צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁמִּשֶּׁנִּתְאָרְסָה נוֹלְדוּ בָהּ מוּמִין הַלָּלוּ וְנִסְתַּחֲפָה שָׂדֵהוּ. נִכְנְסָה לִרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל, הַבַּעַל צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁעַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְאָרְסָה הָיוּ בָהּ מוּמִין אֵלּוּ וְהָיָה מִקָּחוֹ מֶקַּח טָעוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר. אֲבָל בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן. וְאִם יֵשׁ מֶרְחָץ בְּאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר, אַף מוּמִין שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בוֹדְקָהּ בִּקְרוֹבוֹתָיו: \n", | 7.8. "If she had bodily defects while she was still in her father’s house, her father must produce proof that these defects arose after she had been betrothed and that [consequently] it was the husband’s field that was flooded. If she was brought into her husband’s domain, [and the defects were discovered there] the husband must produce proof that these defects existed before she had been betrothed and [that consequently] his bargain was made in error the words of Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: To what does this apply? Only to concealed defects; but with regard to defects that are exposed he cannot make any claim. And if there was a bath-house in the town he cannot make any claim even about concealed defects, because he [is assumed to have had her] examined by his female relatives.", |
|
2. Mishnah, Niddah, 6.8, 8.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •women, physical inspection of Found in books: Rosen-Zvi (2012), The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash, 227| 6.8. "כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ בִעוּר, יֶשׁ לוֹ שְׁבִיעִית. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁיֶּשׁ לוֹ שְׁבִיעִית וְאֵין לוֹ בִעוּר: \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", | 6.8. "Whatever is subject to the law of removal is also subject to the sabbatical year. But there is [a kind or produce] that is subject to the sabbatical year and is not subject to the law of removal.", 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.", |
|
