1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 25.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, oral tradition Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 176| 25.3. "אַרְבָּעִים יַכֶּנּוּ לֹא יֹסִיף פֶּן־יֹסִיף לְהַכֹּתוֹ עַל־אֵלֶּה מַכָּה רַבָּה וְנִקְלָה אָחִיךָ לְעֵינֶיךָ׃", | 25.3. "Forty stripes he may give him, he shall not exceed; lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should be dishonoured before thine eyes.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 12.12 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, oral tradition Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 177, 178| 12.12. "וְיֹתֵר מֵהֵמָּה בְּנִי הִזָּהֵר עֲשׂוֹת סְפָרִים הַרְבֵּה אֵין קֵץ וְלַהַג הַרְבֵּה יְגִעַת בָּשָׂר׃", | 12.12. "And furthermore, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.", |
|
3. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 177| 59b. תנו רבנן הרואה חמה בתקופתה לבנה בגבורתה וכוכבים במסילותם ומזלות כסדרן אומר ברוך עושה בראשית ואימת הוי אמר אביי כל כ"ח שנין והדר מחזור ונפלה תקופת ניסן בשבתאי באורתא דתלת נגהי ארבע:,ר' יהודה אומר הרואה הים וכו': לפרקים עד כמה אמר רמי בר אבא א"ר יצחק עד שלשים יום,ואמר רמי בר אבא א"ר יצחק הרואה פרת אגשרא דבבל אומר ברוך עושה בראשית והאידנא דשניוה פרסאי מבי שבור ולעיל רב יוסף אמר מאיהי דקירא ולעיל ואמר רמי בר אבא הרואה דגלת אגשרא דשביסתנא אומר ברוך עושה בראשית,מאי (בראשית ב, יד) חדקל א"ר אשי שמימיו חדין וקלין מאי פרת שמימיו פרין ורבין,ואמר רבא האי דחריפי בני מחוזא משום דשתו מיא דדגלת האי דגיחורי משום דמשמשי ביממא והאי דניידי עינייהו משום דדיירו בבית אפל:,על הגשמים כו': ועל הגשמים הטוב והמטיב מברך והא"ר אבהו ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא מאימתי מברכין על הגשמים משיצא חתן לקראת כלה,מאי מברכין אמר רב יהודה מודים אנחנו לך על כל טפה וטפה שהורדת לנו ורבי יוחנן מסיים בה הכי אילו פינו מלא שירה כים וכו' אין אנו מספיקין להודות לך ה' אלהינו עד תשתחוה בא"י רוב ההודאות,רוב ההודאות ולא כל ההודאות אמר רבא אימא האל ההודאות א"ר פפא הלכך נימרינהו לתרוייהו רוב ההודאות והאל ההודאות,ואלא קשיא ל"ק הא דשמע משמע הא דחזא מחזי,דשמע משמע היינו בשורות טובות ותנן על בשורות טובות אומר ברוך הטוב והמטיב,אלא אידי ואידי דחזי מחזי ולא קשיא הא דאתא פורתא הא דאתא טובא ואב"א הא והא דאתא טובא ולא קשיא הא דאית ליה ארעא הא דלית ליה ארעא,אית ליה ארעא הטוב והמטיב מברך והא (תנן) בנה בית חדש וקנה כלים חדשים אומר ברוך שהחיינו והגיענו לזמן הזה שלו ושל אחרים אומר הטוב והמטיב,לא קשיא הא דאית ליה שותפות הא דלית ליה שותפות והתניא קצרו של דבר על שלו הוא אומר ברוך שהחיינו וקיימנו על שלו ועל של חבירו אומר ברוך הטוב והמטיב,וכל היכא דלית לאחרינא בהדיה לא מברך הטוב והמטיב והתניא אמרו ליה ילדה אשתו זכר אומר ברוך הטוב והמטיב התם נמי דאיכא אשתו בהדיה דניחא לה בזכר,ת"ש מת אביו והוא יורשו בתחלה אומר ברוך דיין האמת ולבסוף הוא אומר ברוך הטוב והמטיב התם נמי דאיכא אחי דקא ירתי בהדיה,ת"ש שינוי יין א"צ לברך שינוי מקום צריך לברך וא"ר יוסף בר אבא א"ר יוחנן אע"פ שאמרו שינוי יין א"צ לברך אבל אומר ברוך הטוב והמטיב התם נמי דאיכא בני חבורה דשתו בהדיה:,בנה בית חדש וקנה כלים חדשים וכו': א"ר הונא לא שנו אלא שאין לו כיוצא בהן אבל יש לו כיוצא בהן א"צ לברך ור' יוחנן אמר אפילו יש לו כיוצא בהן צריך לברך | 59b. b The Sages taught: One who sees the sun in /b the beginning of b its cycle, the moon in its might, the planets in their orbit, or the signs of the zodiac /b aligned b in their order recites: Blessed…Author of creation. /b The Gemara asks: b And when is it /b that the sun is at the beginning of its cycle? b Abaye said: Every twenty-eight years /b when the b cycle /b is complete and b returns /b to its genesis, b and the Nisan, /b vernal, b equinox, /b when the spring days and nights are of equal length, b falls within /b the constellation of b Saturn on the night of the third and eve of the fourth /b day of the week, as then their arrangement returns to be as it was when the constellations were first placed in the heavens.,We learned in the mishna that b Rabbi Yehuda said: One who sees the great sea /b intermittently b recites: /b Blessed…Who has made the great sea. The Gemara asks: b How much /b is b intermittently? Rami bar Abba said /b that b Rav Yitzḥak said: Thirty days. /b , b And Rami bar Abba said /b that b Rav Yitzḥak said: One who sees the Euphrates River near the bridge of Babylonia recites: Blessed…Author of creation. /b The Gemara adds: b And now that the Persians have rerouted /b the course of the river, one only recites the blessing b from Beit Shavor upriver. /b Downriver, it no longer flows as it did at creation, so there one does not recite the blessing: Author of creation. b Rav Yosef said: /b One only recites the blessing b from Ihi Dekira upriver. And Rami bar Abba said: One who sees the Tigris on the bridge of Shabistana recites: Blessed…Author of creation. /b ,The Gemara proceeds to explain the names of these rivers. b What is /b the source of the name b i Ḥidekel /i [ /b Tigris]? b Rav Ashi said: /b Its name is an acronym derived from the fact that b its waters are sharp [ i ḥadin /i ] and light [ i kalin /i ] /b and therefore good for drinking. b What is /b the source of the name b i Perat /i /b [Euphrates]? It is so named b because its waters are fruitful [ i parin /i ] and multiply [ i ravin /i ]; /b there are many fish in it.,As for the Tigris River, b Rava said: The inhabitants /b of the city b Meḥoza are sharp because they drink the water of the Tigris; they are red because they engage in /b conjugal b relations in the daytime; and their eyes move /b constantly b because they live in dark houses. /b ,We learned in our mishna that b over rain /b one recites the blessing: Blessed…Who is good and does good. The Gemara asks: b And over rain /b does b one /b really b recite the blessing: Who is good and does good? Didn’t Rabbi Abbahu say, and some say it was taught in a i baraita /i : From when does one recite the blessing on rain? From when the groom went out to meet the bride. /b In other words, there are puddles of water on the ground. The groom, meaning the raindrops from above, cause the bride, meaning the water below, to splash.,The Gemara asks: b What blessing does one recite? Rav Yehuda said: /b The formula of the blessing is: b We thank You for each and every drop that You have made fall for us. And Rav Yoḥa concludes /b the blessing b as follows: If our mouths were as full of song as the sea…we could not sufficiently praise You O Lord our God, /b and he continues with the formula of i nishmat /i that is recited on Shabbat morning, b until: Shall bow /b before You. b Blessed are You, O Lord, /b to Whom b abundant thanksgivings /b are offered.,The Gemara asks: Does the blessing say: b Abundant thanksgivings, and not: All thanksgivings? /b Certainly all thanksgivings are due to God. b Rava said: /b Emend the formula of the blessing and b say: The God of thanksgivings. Rav Pappa said: Therefore, we will recite them both: Abundant thanksgivings, and: The God of thanksgivings. /b , b However, it is /b still b difficult, /b as apparently the blessing for rain is not: Who is good and does good, as it appears in our mishna. The Gemara responds: This is b not difficult. This, /b which we learned in our mishna, that one recites: Who is good and does good, refers to a case b where one heard /b that rain fell. b This, /b where we learned that one recites: We thank You, etc., refers to a case b where one saw /b the rain fall.,The Gemara asks: b One heard /b that the rain fell; b that is /b a case of b good tidings. And we learned /b in the mishna b that upon /b hearing b good tidings one recites: Who is good and does good. /b Therefore, there is no reason for the mishna to mention rain separately., b Rather, /b the difficulty can be otherwise resolved: b This, /b Rabbi Abbahu’s statement, b and that, /b the mishna, both refer to a case where one saw the rain fall, b and /b this is b not difficult. This, /b Rabbi Abbahu’s statement that one recites We thank You, etc., b refers to /b a case b where a little /b rain b fell, /b while b that, /b the mishna which says that one recites: Who is good and does good, refers to a case b where a lot /b of rain b fell. And if you wish, say /b instead that b this and that /b refer to cases b where a lot /b of rain b fell, and /b this is b not difficult. This, /b the mishna, b refers to /b a case b where one owns land, /b while b that, /b Rabbi Abbahu’s statement that one recites: We thank You, etc., b refers to /b a case b where one does not own land, /b so the rain does not benefit him directly.,The Gemara asks: b One who owns land recites: Who is good and does good? Didn’t we learn /b in the mishna: b One who built a new house or purchased new vessels recites: Blessed…Who has given us life…and brought us to this time. /b However, if the land belonged b to him and others /b in partnership, b he recites: Who is good and does good? /b For rain falling onto land that one owns exclusively, he recites: Who has given us life and not: Who is good and does good.,The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult. This, /b the mishna where we learned that one recites: Who is good and does good, b refers to /b a case b where one /b owns his land b in partnership /b with another; b that, /b Rabbi Abbahu’s statement that one recites: Who has given us life, b refers to /b a case b where one /b owns the land exclusively and b does not have a partnership. And /b indeed, this i halakha /i b was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The gist of the matter is, for /b that which b is /b exclusively b his, he recites: Blessed…Who has given us life and sustained us; for /b that which b belongs to him and to another /b in partnership, b he recites: Who is good and does good. /b ,The Gemara challenges this principle: b And in every case where others are not with him, one does not recite: Who is good and does good? Wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b If they told him that his wife gave birth to a male, he recites: Who is good and does good? /b The Gemara responds: b There too, his wife is with him, as she is also happy that a male /b child was born.,The Gemara challenges further: b Come and hear /b a contradiction from what was taught in a i baraita /i : One whose b father died and he is his heir, initially recites: Blessed…the true Judge, /b upon hearing of his father’s death, b and ultimately, /b upon receiving his inheritance, b he recites: Blessed…Who is good and does good. /b Despite the fact that the son alone benefits, he nevertheless recites: Who is good and does good. The Gemara responds: b There, too, /b it refers to a case b where he has brothers who inherit along with him. /b ,The Gemara cites an additional challenge: b Come and hear /b a contradiction based on what was taught in a i baraita /i : In the case of b a change in /b the type of b wine /b during a meal, b one need not recite the blessing: /b Who creates fruit of the vine, a second time. However, in the case of b a change in place, one must recite a /b second b blessing /b over the wine. b And Rabbi Yosef bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Although /b the Sages b said that /b in the case of b a change in /b the type of b wine one need not recite a /b second b blessing /b over the wine, b he does recite: Blessed…Who is good and does good. /b The Gemara responds: b There, too, /b it refers to a case where he is not alone, but where b members of the group are drinking with him. /b ,We learned in the mishna: One who b built a new house or purchased new vessels /b recites: Blessed…Who has given us life, sustained us and brought us to this time. With regard to this blessing, b Rav Huna said: They only taught /b that one recites: Who has given us life, upon purchasing a new vessel when b he does not /b already b have something similar, /b i.e., something he inherited. b However, if he /b already b has something similar he need not recite a blessing, /b as it is not new to him. b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Even /b if b one /b already b has something similar /b that he inherited, b he must recite a blessing /b because he never before purchased a vessel of that kind. |
|
4. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 179| 84a. וליפרקינהו וליכסינהו בעינן העמדה והערכה,וכמאן אי כר"מ דאמר הכל היו בכלל העמדה והערכה האמר שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה,אי כר' שמעון דאמר שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה האמר לא היו בכלל העמדה והערכה,אמר רב יוסף רבי היא ונסיב לה אליבא דתנאי בשחיטה שאינה ראויה סבר לה כר' שמעון בהעמדה והערכה סבר לה כר"מ,ואיבעית אימא כולה ר"ש היא ושאני הכא דאמר קרא (ויקרא יז, יג) ושפך וכסה מי שאינו מחוסר אלא שפיכה וכסוי יצא זה שמחוסר שפיכה פדייה וכסוי,והשתא דאתית להכי אפילו תימא קדשי מזבח מי שאינו מחוסר אלא שפיכה וכסוי יצא זה שמחוסר שפיכה גרירה וכסוי,מר בר רב אשי אמר אמר קרא (ויקרא יז, יג) חיה או עוף מה חיה אינה קדש אף עוף אינו קדש,אי מה חיה שאין במינו קדש אף עוף שאין במינו קדש אוציא תורין ובני יונה שיש במינן קדש,לא כחיה מה חיה לא חלקת בה אף עוף לא תחלוק בו,אמר ליה יעקב מינאה לרבא קי"ל חיה בכלל בהמה לסימנין אימא נמי בהמה בכלל חיה לכסוי,אמר ליה עליך אמר קרא (דברים יב, טז) על הארץ תשפכנו כמים מה מים לא בעי כסוי אף האי נמי לא בעי כסוי,אלא מעתה יטבילו בו אמר קרא (ויקרא יא, לו) אך מעין ובור מקוה מים יהיה טהור הני אין מידי אחרינא לא,ואימא ה"מ למעוטי שאר משקין דלא איקרו מים אבל דם דאיקרי מים ה"נ,תרי מיעוטי כתיבי מעין מים ובור מים,אימא אידי ואידי למעוטי שאר משקין חד למעוטי זוחלין וחד למעוטי מכונסין,תלתא מיעוטי כתיבי מעין מים ובור מים מקוה מים,ת"ר (ויקרא יז, יג) אשר יצוד אין לי אלא אשר יצוד נצודין ועומדין מאליהן מנין כגון אווזין ותרנגולים,ת"ל ציד מ"מ א"כ מה ת"ל אשר יצוד למדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא יאכל אדם בשר אלא בהזמנה הזאת,ת"ר (דברים יב, כ) כי ירחיב ה' אלהיך את גבולך למדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא יאכל אדם בשר אלא לתאבון,יכול יקח אדם מן השוק ויאכל ת"ל (דברים יב, כא) וזבחת מבקרך ומצאנך יכול יזבח כל בקרו ויאכל כל צאנו ויאכל ת"ל מבקרך ולא כל בקרך מצאנך ולא כל צאנך,מכאן אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מי שיש לו מנה יקח לפסו ליטרא ירק עשרה מנה יקח לפסו ליטרא דגים חמשים מנה יקח לפסו ליטרא בשר מאה מנה ישפתו לו קדרה בכל יום ואינך אימת מערב שבת לערב שבת,אמר רב צריכין אנו לחוש לדברי זקן א"ר יוחנן אבא ממשפחת בריאים הוה אבל כגון אנו מי שיש לו פרוטה בתוך כיסו יריצנה לחנווני א"ר נחמן כגון אנו לווין ואוכלין,(משלי כז, כו) כבשים ללבושך מגז כבשים יהא מלבושך (משלי כז, כו) ומחיר שדה עתודים לעולם ימכור אדם שדה ויקח עתודים ואל ימכור אדם עתודים ויקח שדה (משלי כז, כז) ודי חלב עזים דיו לאדם שיתפרנס מחלב גדיים וטלאים שבתוך ביתו,(משלי כז, כז) ללחמך ללחם ביתך לחמך קודם ללחם ביתך (משלי כז, כז) וחיים לנערותיך אמר מר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן תן חיים לנערותיך מיכן למדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא ילמד אדם את בנו בשר ויין,אמר רבי יוחנן | 84a. The Gemara challenges: b But /b even if the mishna is dealing with birds consecrated for Temple maintece, b let one redeem them /b after they were slaughtered b and /b then b cover their /b blood. The Gemara responds: This is not feasible, because in order to redeem a consecrated animal b we require setting and valuating, /b i.e., the animal must be stood before a priest in order to evaluate it and only then is it redeemed (see Leviticus 27:11–12). A slaughtered bird cannot be stood before the priest; consequently, it cannot be redeemed.,The Gemara asks: b But /b if the mishna is dealing with birds consecrated for Temple maintece, b in accordance with whose /b opinion is the mishna? b If /b one suggests the mishna is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, who says: Everything, /b i.e., animals consecrated both for the altar and for Temple maintece, b was included in /b the requirement of b setting and valuating, /b and therefore the slaughtered birds may not be redeemed, this cannot be so. b Doesn’t he /b also b say /b that b slaughter that is not fit /b to render the meat permitted b is /b nevertheless b considered /b a halakhic act of b slaughter /b that requires the covering of the blood? If so, one should be obligated to cover the blood of the bird even if it is not redeemed.,The Gemara continues: And b if /b one suggests the mishna is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, who says: Slaughter that is not fit /b to render the meat permitted b is not considered /b a halakhic act of b slaughter /b and therefore the bird would require redemption in order to cover its blood, this cannot be so. b Doesn’t /b he also b say /b that animals consecrated for Temple maintece b were not included in /b the requirement of b setting and valuating? /b If so, let one redeem the slaughtered birds and cover their blood., b Rav Yosef said /b in reconciliation of this dilemma: The mishna’s ruling b is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b and he formulates /b the mishna b in accordance with /b the opinions of different b i tanna’im /i : With regard to /b the status of an act of b slaughter that is not fit /b to render the meat permitted b he holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, /b while b with regard to /b the requirement of b setting and valuating he holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir. /b Therefore, since one cannot redeem a bird that was consecrated for Temple maintece once it has been slaughtered, there is no obligation to cover its blood, as the slaughter was not fit to render the meat permitted., b And if you wish, say /b instead that b the entire /b mishna b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, /b who holds that birds consecrated for Temple maintece may be redeemed even after their slaughter. b And /b although it would seem that their slaughter is fit to render the meat permitted and that one should therefore be obligated in the mitzva of covering the blood, it is b different here, as the verse states: “And he shall pour out /b its blood b and cover /b it” (Leviticus 17:13). By juxtaposing “pour out” to “cover,” the verse indicates that the obligation to cover the blood applies only to blood b that is lacking only pouring and covering, /b without any intervening step. b Excluded /b is b this /b blood of birds consecrated for Temple maintece, b which is lacking pouring, redeeming, and covering. /b ,The Gemara notes: b And now that you have arrived at this /b explanation, b you /b may b even say /b that the mishna is referring to birds b consecrated for the altar. /b As for the question asked earlier: Why not let one scrape the blood from the altar and then cover it? The verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it,” indicating that the obligation to cover the blood applies only to blood that is b lacking only pouring and covering, /b without any intervening step. b Excluded /b is b this /b blood of bird offerings, b which is lacking pouring, scraping, and covering. /b ,The Gemara cites another source for the exclusion of consecrated animals from the requirement of covering their blood: b Mar bar Rav Ashi said /b that b the verse states /b with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood: b “An undomesticated animal or bird” /b (Leviticus 17:13). The juxtaposition of these two species intimates an analogy between them: b Just as /b the b undomesticated animal /b referred to in the verse b is not consecrated, /b as undomesticated animals are never fit for sacrifice, b so too, /b the b bird /b referred to in the verse b is not consecrated. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If /b it is so that the i halakhot /i of slaughtering a bird are derived from those of an undomesticated animal, then say: b Just as /b the verse is referring to b an undomesticated animal, whose species cannot be consecrated /b as an offering, b so too, /b the verse is referring only to b a bird whose species cannot be consecrated /b as an offering. Therefore, b I will exclude /b even non-sacred b doves and pigeons, whose species can be consecrated. /b ,The Gemara rejects this possibility: b No, /b the juxtaposition indicates that the i halakha /i with regard to the slaughter of birds is entirely b like /b that of b an undomesticated animal. /b Therefore, b just as /b in the case of b an undomesticated animal, you did not differentiate /b between its various species and all non-sacred animals are included in the mitzva, b so too, /b with regard to the b bird /b mentioned in the verse, b you should not differentiate /b between its various species.,§ Concerning the i halakha /i that covering the blood does not apply to a domesticated animal, the Gemara says that b Ya’akov the heretic said to Rava: We maintain /b that b an undomesticated animal, /b e.g., a deer, is b included /b in the category of b a domesticated animal with regard to /b the b characteristics /b necessary to determine whether the animal is kosher, i.e., it chews its cud and has split hooves (see Deuteronomy 14:4–6). If so, b I will also say /b that b a domesticated animal is included /b in the category of b an undomesticated animal with regard to /b the mitzva of b covering /b the blood.,Rava b said to him: With regard to your /b claim, b the verse states /b in reference to the blood of a domesticated animal: “You may slaughter of your cattle and of your sheep…but be strong not to eat the blood… b you shall pour it out on the ground, like water” /b (Deuteronomy 12:21–24). Accordingly, b just as water does not require covering, so too, this /b blood of a domesticated animal b does not require covering. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If that is so, /b that the verse equates the blood of a domesticated animal with water, then let one b immerse /b ritually impure items b in it /b to purify them, just as he can immerse them in water. The Gemara responds: b The verse states: “But a spring or a cistern, or a gathering of water shall be pure” /b (Leviticus 11:36). The exclusionary term: “But,” indicates that only concerning b these /b bodies of water, b yes, /b they render pure an impure item, while b something else, /b e.g., blood, does b not. /b ,The Gemara challenges: b But /b perhaps one can b say /b that b this matter, /b i.e., the exclusionary term in the verse, serves only b to exclude other liquids that are not called water. But /b with regard to b blood, which is called water, /b as the verse states: “You shall pour it out on the ground, like water,” one may b indeed /b immerse ritually impure items in it.,The Gemara responds: b Two exclusions are written /b in the verse discussing ritually purifying waters: b A spring of water, and: A cistern of water. /b The term “water” is understood as being attached to each of the bodies mentioned in the verse. The additional exclusion serves to exclude blood.,The Gemara challenges: b Say /b that both b this /b phrase, a spring of water, b and that /b phrase, a cistern of water, serve b to exclude other liquids, /b and not blood, whereby b one /b phrase is b to exclude flowing /b liquids that are not water from having the status of a spring, which renders an item ritually pure even when it is flowing; b and one /b phrase serves b to exclude gathered /b liquids that are not water from having the status of a ritual bath, which renders an item pure only when the water in the ritual bath is gathered.,The Gemara responds: b Three exclusions are written /b in the verse: b A spring of water, /b to exclude flowing liquids; b and: A cistern of water, /b to exclude gathered liquids; b and: A gathering of water, /b to exclude blood.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states with regard to covering the blood: “And any man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, b who traps /b a trapping of an undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth” (Leviticus 17:13). b I have /b derived b only /b that one is obligated to cover the blood of an undomesticated animal or bird b that one traps. From where /b is it derived that undomesticated animals or birds that are b already /b considered b trapped on their own, such as geese and chickens /b that do not roam freely, are also included in the mitzva of covering the blood?, b The verse states “a trapping” /b to indicate that b in any case, /b one is obligated to cover the blood of an undomesticated animal. b If so, what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: “Who traps,” /b if it is not to be understood literally? The i baraita /i explains: b The Torah taught /b that it is b a desired mode of behavior that a person should consume meat only with this mode of preparation. /b That is, just as the meat that one traps is not readily available, so too, one should not become accustomed to consuming meat.,In a similar vein, b the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i that the verse states: b “When the Lord, your God, expands your /b boundary…according to every craving of your soul you may eat meat” (Deuteronomy 12:20). b The Torah taught /b that it is b a desired mode of behavior that a person should consume meat due only to appetite. /b That is, one should consume meat only when he feels a need to eat it.,The i baraita /i continues: One b might /b have thought that b a person may purchase /b meat b from the marketplace and consume /b it. Therefore, b the /b next b verse states: “And you may slaughter of your cattle and of your flock,” /b indicating that one should consume the meat of animals of his own flock, not those purchased in the marketplace. One b might /b have thought that a person b may slaughter all of his cattle, /b i.e., his only cow, b and consume /b the meat, or slaughter b all of his flock, /b i.e., his only sheep, b and consume /b the meat. Therefore, b the verse states: “of your cattle,” /b indicating some, b but not all of, your cattle; “of your flock,” but not all of your flock. /b , b From here, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria said: One who has one hundred /b dinars b should purchase a i litra /i of vegetables for his stewpot [ i lefaso /i ]; /b one who has b one thousand /b dinars b should purchase a i litra /i of fish for his stewpot; /b one who has b five thousand /b dinars b should purchase a i litra /i of meat for his stewpot; /b and if one has b ten thousand /b dinars, his servants b should place a pot /b of meat on the stove b for him every day. /b The Gemara asks: b And /b with regard to b these /b other individuals mentioned by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, b when, /b i.e., how often, should they consume meat? The Gemara responds: b Every Shabbat eve. /b , b Rav says: We must be concerned for the statement of the elder, /b i.e., Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, and be thrifty with our expenditure on food items. b Rabbi Yoḥa says: Abba, /b i.e., Rav, b was from a family of /b particularly b healthy /b individuals, and was able to subsist on the modest diet suggested by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria. b But /b with regard to people b such as us, /b who are not as healthy, b one who has /b even b one i peruta /i in his pocket should hasten /b with b it to the storekeeper /b and purchase food. Two generations later, b Rav Naḥman said: /b With regard to people b such as us, /b who are physically weaker than those in previous generations, not only do we not delay the purchase of food items, we even b borrow /b money to purchase food b and eat. /b ,The Gemara continues its discussion with regard to one’s livelihood: The verse states: “The lambs will be for your clothing, and goats the worth of a field. And there will be goats’ milk enough for your food, for the food of your household; and sustece for your maidens” (Proverbs 27:26–27). b “The lambs will be for your clothing” /b indicates that b your clothing should be /b produced b from the shearings of lambs, /b i.e., purchase lambs from whose wool you can produce clothing. b “And goats the worth of a field” /b indicates that b a person should always /b seek to b sell a field and purchase goats /b in order to benefit from their milk, wool, and offspring, b and a person should not sell goats and purchase a field /b instead. b “And there will be goats’ milk enough” /b indicates that b it is sufficient for a person that he be sustained from the milk of kids and lambs that are in his house. /b , b “For your food, for the food of your household” /b indicates that b your food comes before the food of your household, /b i.e., one must first ensure that he has food for himself before providing for others. With regard to the phrase: b “And sustece for your maidens,” Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said: /b The verse indicates that you must b give sustece to your youth, /b i.e., to your children. b From here, the Torah taught /b that it is b a desired mode of behavior that a person should not accustom his son /b to eat b meat and /b drink b wine; /b rather, he should teach his children to eat less expensive foods., b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b |
|
5. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, oral tradition Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 176, 179| 22b. ואמדו שאין יכול לקבל ארבעים פטור אמדוהו לקבל שמונה עשרה ומשלקה אמדו שיכול הוא לקבל ארבעים פטור:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מ"ט אי כתיב ארבעים במספר הוה אמינא ארבעים במניינא השתא דכתיב במספר ארבעים מנין שהוא סוכם את הארבעים אמר רבא כמה טפשאי שאר אינשי דקיימי מקמי ספר תורה ולא קיימי מקמי גברא רבה דאילו בס"ת כתיב ארבעים ואתו רבנן בצרו חדא:,רבי יהודה אומר ארבעים שלימות וכו' [בין כתפיו]: אמר ר' יצחק מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה דכתיב (זכריה יג, ו) מה המכות האלה בין ידיך ואמר אשר הכתי בית מאהבי ורבנן ההוא בתינוקות של בית רבן הוא דכתיב:,אין אומדין אלא במכות הראויות וכו': לקה אין לא לקה לא,ורמינהו אמדוהו לקבל ארבעים וחזרו ואמדו שאין יכול לקבל ארבעים פטור אמדוהו לקבל שמונה עשרה וחזרו ואמדוהו שיכול לקבל ארבעים פטור,אמר רב ששת לא קשיא הא דאמדוהו ליומי הא דאמדוהו למחר וליומא אוחרא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big עבר עבירה שיש בה שני לאוין אמדוהו אומד אחד לוקה ופטור ואם לאו לוקה ומתרפא וחוזר ולוקה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big והתניא אין אומדין אומד אחד לשני לאוין,אמר רב ששת לא קשיא הא דאמדוהו לארבעים וחדא הא דאמדוהו לארבעים ותרתי:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כיצד מלקין אותו כופה שתי ידיו על העמוד הילך והילך וחזן הכנסת אוחז בבגדיו אם נקרעו נקרעו ואם נפרמו נפרמו עד שהוא מגלה את לבו והאבן נתונה מאחריו חזן הכנסת עומד עליו ורצועה בידו של עגל כפולה אחד לשנים ושנים לארבעה ושתי רצועות של חמור עולות ויורדות בה ידה טפח ורחבה טפח וראשה מגעת על פי כריסו,ומכה אותו שליש מלפניו ושתי ידות מלאחריו ואינו מכה אותו לא עומד ולא יושב אלא מוטה שנאמר (דברים כה, ב) והפילו השופט,והמכה מכה בידו אחת בכל כחו והקורא קורא (דברים כח, נח) אם לא תשמור לעשות וגו' והפלא ה' את מכותך ואת מכות וגו' וחוזר לתחלת המקרא (דברים כט, ח) ושמרתם את דברי הברית הזאת וגו' וחותם (תהלים עח, לח) והוא רחום יכפר עון וגו' וחוזר לתחלת המקרא,ואם מת תחת ידו פטור הוסיף לו עוד רצועה אחת ומת הרי זה גולה על ידו נתקלקל בין בריעי בין במים פטור רבי יהודה אומר האיש בריעי והאשה במים: | 22b. b and /b then b they assessed /b him again and concluded b that he cannot receive forty /b lashes and survive, he is b exempt /b from the additional lashes. If the doctors initially b assessed /b concerning b him /b that he is able b to receive /b only b eighteen /b lashes, b and once he was flogged /b eighteen times b they assessed that he is able to receive forty, /b he is b exempt /b from receiving additional lashes., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara begins with a discussion of the number of lashes. b What is the reason /b that the Rabbis said that he receives forty lashes less one? b If it had been written: Forty by number, I would say /b that it means b forty as /b a precise b sum; now that it is written: “By number, forty,” /b the reference is to b a sum that approaches forty. /b Likewise, b Rava said: How foolish /b are b the rest of the people who stand before a Torah scroll /b that passes before them, b and /b yet b they do not stand before a great man, /b when a Sage passes before them; b as in a Torah scroll, forty is written and the Sages came /b and b subtracted one, /b establishing the number of lashes as thirty-nine. Apparently, the authority of the Sages is so great that they are able to amend an explicit Torah verse.,The mishna teaches: b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b He is flogged with b a full forty /b lashes, with the additional lash administered between his shoulders. b Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the reason /b for the opinion b of Rabbi Yehuda? /b It is b as it is written: “And one shall say to him: What are these wounds between your arms? Then he shall answer: Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends” /b (Zechariah 13:6). Rabbi Yehuda understands that this verse is referring to one with wounds from lashes administered between his arms, indicating that there is one lash administered between the shoulders. b And /b how do b the Rabbis, /b who hold that one is flogged only thirty-nine lashes, explain this verse? They explain that b this /b verse b is written with regard to schoolchildren /b struck by their teacher for laxity in their studies, and is not referring to lashes administered by the court.,The mishna teaches: b One assesses /b the number of lashes that the one being punished is capable of withstanding b only with /b a number of b lashes fit /b to be divided into three equal groups. If doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty lashes and survive, and he is then flogged some of those forty lashes, and they then assessed him again and concluded that he cannot receive forty lashes and survive, he is exempt from any additional lashes. If the doctors initially assessed concerning him that he is able to receive only eighteen lashes, and once he was flogged with eighteen lashes they assessed that he is able to receive forty, he is exempt from receiving further lashes. The Gemara infers: If b he was flogged /b in practice, b yes, /b he is exempt; if b he was not flogged, no, /b he is not exempt from the rest of the forty lashes., b And /b the Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from a i baraita /i : If doctors b assessed /b concerning b him /b that he is able b to receive forty /b lashes and survive, b and they then assessed /b him again and concluded b that he cannot receive forty /b lashes and survive, he is b exempt. /b If the doctors initially b assessed /b concerning b him /b that he is able b to receive /b only b eighteen /b lashes, b and they then assessed that he is able to receive forty, /b he is b exempt. /b Apparently, even if he did not receive any lashes, if the assessment changes, it is as though he was flogged., b Rav Sheshet said: /b This is b not difficult, /b as b this /b case in the mishna is one b where /b doctors b assessed his /b fitness to receive lashes b for /b that b day, /b and there was no change in his condition; rather, it was discovered that the initial assessment was mistaken. He is exempt only if he was already flogged; if not, another assessment is performed. b That /b case in the i baraita /i is one b where /b doctors b assess his /b fitness to receive lashes b for /b the b next day or for a different day. /b In that case, the initial assessment was accurate; it is his condition that changed. Therefore, if it is determined that he is unable to receive lashes, he is exempt., strong MISHNA: /strong If b one performed a transgression that involves two prohibitions, /b and b they assessed /b concerning b him a single assessment /b of the number of lashes that he could withstand in punishment for both transgressions, b he is flogged /b in accordance with their assessment b and /b is b exempt /b from any additional lashes. b And if not, /b if he was assessed with regard to the lashes that he could withstand for one transgression, b he is flogged and /b is allowed to b heal, and then is flogged /b again for violating the second prohibition., strong GEMARA: /strong The case in the mishna is one where there is one assessment performed for two sets of lashes. The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One does not perform one assessment for two prohibitions? /b , b Rav Sheshet said: /b This is b not difficult; this /b ruling in the i baraita /i that one does not perform a single assessment for two prohibitions is in a case b where /b doctors b assessed /b concerning b him /b that he is able b to /b receive b forty-one /b lashes, two lashes beyond a full set. Since those two additional lashes are not divisible by three, which is a requirement based on the previous mishna, he receives only thirty-nine lashes. That constitutes just one set of lashes. He remains liable to receive another set of lashes after he recovers, requiring another assessment and another set of lashes. b That /b ruling in the mishna that one performs a single assessment for two prohibitions is in a case b where /b doctors b assessed /b concerning b him /b that he is able b to /b receive b forty-two /b lashes. In that case, it is possible to ascribe thirty-nine lashes to one prohibition and three additional lashes to the second prohibition. That is tantamount to two separate assessments, although in practice only one assessment was performed., strong MISHNA: /strong b How do they flog him? He ties /b the b two hands /b of the person being flogged b on this /b side b and that /b side b of a post, and the attendant of the congregation takes hold of his garments /b to remove them. b If they were ripped /b in the process, b they were ripped, and if they were unraveled, they were unraveled, /b and he continues b until he bares his chest. And the stone /b upon which the attendant stands when flogging b is situated behind /b the person being flogged. b The attendant of the congregation stands on it with a strap in his hand. /b It is a strap b of calf /b hide, and is b doubled, one into two, and two into four, and two straps of donkey /b hide b go up and down /b the doubled strap of calf hide. The length of b its handle /b is b one handbreadth, /b and the b width /b of the straps is b one handbreadth, and /b the strap must be long enough so that b its end reaches the top of his abdomen, /b i.e., his navel, when he is flogged from behind., b And /b the attendant b flogs him /b with b one-third /b of the lashes b from the front of him, /b on his chest, b and two /b one-third b portions from behind him, /b on his back. b And he does not flog him /b when the one receiving lashes is b standing, nor /b when he is b sitting; rather, /b he flogs him when he is b hunched, as it is stated: “And the judge shall cause him to lie down, /b and strike him” (Deuteronomy 25:2), which indicates that the one receiving lashes must be in a position that approximates lying down., b And the /b attendant b flogging /b the one receiving lashes b flogs [ i makeh /i ] him with one hand with all his strength, and the /b court b crier recites /b the verses: b “If you do not observe to perform /b all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and awesome name, the Lord your God. b And the Lord will make your plagues [ i makkotekha /i ] outstanding, and the plagues /b of your descendants, and even great plagues, and of long continuance, and severe sicknesses, and of long continuance” (Deuteronomy 28:58–59). b And /b then b he returns to the beginning of the verse. /b He also recites: b “And you shall observe the matters of this covet, /b and do them, that you may make all that you do to prosper” (Deuteronomy 29:8), b and concludes /b with the verse: b “And He is merciful and shall atone for transgression, and destroys not; /b and many a time does He turn His anger away, and does not stir up all His wrath” (Psalms 78:38), b and /b then b returns to the beginning of the verse /b that starts: “If you do not observe to perform.”, b If /b the one being flogged b dies at /b the b hand /b of the attendant, the latter is b exempt, /b because he acted at the directive of the court. If the attendant b added for him an additional /b lash with b a strap and he died, /b the attendant b is exiled /b to a city of refuge b on his account, /b as an unwitting murderer. b If /b the one being flogged involuntarily b sullies himself, /b due to fear or pain, b whether with excrement or with urine, /b he is b exempt /b from further lashes. b Rabbi Yehuda says /b that the threshold of shame for men and women is different: b The man /b is exempted if he sullies himself b with excrement, and the woman /b is exempted even b with urine. /b |
|
6. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, oral tradition Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 176| 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 : |
|
7. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, oral tradition Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 165 | 110a. b and swear to the Lord of hosts; /b one shall be called the city of destruction” (Isaiah 19:18). b They went to Alexandria in Egypt and built an altar and sacrificed /b offerings b upon it for the sake of Heaven, as it is stated /b in the following verse: b “In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, /b and a pillar at its border, to the Lord” (Isaiah 19:19).,The verse states: b “One shall be called the city of destruction” /b (Isaiah 19:18). The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of the verse: b “One shall be called the city of destruction”? /b The Gemara answers: b As Rav Yosef translates /b into Aramaic: Concerning b the City of the Sun, which will be destroyed in the future, it will be said that it is one of them. And from where /b is it derived b that /b in the phrase: b “The city of destruction [ i heres /i ],” the term /b i heres /i b is /b referring b to the sun? As it is written: “Who commands the sun [ i ḥeres /i ], and it does not rise; /b and seals up the stars” (Job 9:7).,§ After mentioning the Jewish community in Egypt, the Gemara discusses Jewish communities in other locations. The verse states: “Fear not, for I am with you; I will bring your seed from the east and gather you from the west; I will say to the north: Give up, and to the south: Keep not back, b bring My sons from far, and My daughters from the end of the earth” /b (Isaiah 43:5–6). What is the meaning of b “bring My sons from far”? Rav Huna says: These are the exiles of Babylonia, whose minds are calm, like sons, /b and who can therefore focus properly on Torah study and mitzvot. What is the meaning of b “and My daughters from the end of the earth”? These are the exiles of other countries, whose minds are unsettled, like daughters. /b ,§ b Rabbi Abba bar Rav Yitzḥak says /b that b Rav Ḥisda says, and some say /b that b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: /b The gentiles living b from Tyre to Carthage recognize the Jewish people, /b their religion, b and their Father in Heaven. But /b those living b to the west of Tyre and to the east of Carthage recognize neither the Jewish people nor their Father in Heaven. /b , b Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya raised an objection to /b the statement of b Rav /b from the verse: b “From the rising of the sun until it sets, My name is great among the nations; and in every place offerings are presented to My name, and a pure meal offering; /b for My name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:11). This indicates that God’s name is known across the entire world, even to the west of Tyre and the east of Carthage. Rav b said to him: Shimi, /b is it b you /b who is raising such an objection? The verse does not mean that they recognize God and worship him. Rather, it means b that /b although they worship idols, b they call Him the God of gods. /b ,§ The verse states: “And b in every place offerings are presented to My name, /b and a pure meal offering; for My name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts.” Does it b enter your mind /b to say that it is permitted to sacrifice offerings b in every place? /b Rather, b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says /b that b Rabbi Yonatan says: These are Torah scholars, who engage in Torah /b study b in every place. /b God says: b I ascribe them /b credit b as though they burn and present /b offerings b to My name. /b ,Furthermore, when the verse states: b “And a pure meal offering,” this /b is referring to b one who studies Torah in purity, /b i.e., one who first b marries a woman and afterward studies Torah. /b Since he is married, he is not disturbed by sinful thoughts.,The Gemara cites another verse that praises Torah scholars. b “A Song of Ascents, Behold, bless the Lord, all you servants of the Lord, who stand in the House of the Lord at night” /b (Psalms 134:1). b What /b is the meaning of b “at night,” /b given that the Temple service is not performed at night and all the offerings must be sacrificed during the daytime? b Rabbi Yoḥa says: These are Torah scholars, who engage in Torah /b study b at night. The verse ascribes them /b credit b as though they engage in the /b Temple b service. /b ,§ The Gemara cites another verse that is interpreted in a similar vein. King Solomon said to Hiram of Tyre: “Behold, I am about to build a house for the name of the Lord my God, to dedicate it to Him, and to burn before Him incense of sweet spices, and for the continual shewbread, and for the burnt offerings morning and evening, on the i Shabbatot /i , and on the New Moons, and on the Festivals of the Lord our God. b This is an ordice forever for Israel” /b (II Chronicles 2:3). Since the Temple was eventually destroyed, what did Solomon mean when he said that it is “an ordice forever”? b Rav Giddel says /b that b Rav says: This /b is referring to the b altar /b that remains b built /b in Heaven even after the earthly Temple was destroyed, b and /b the angel b Michael, the great minister, stands and sacrifices an offering upon it. /b , b And Rabbi Yoḥa says /b that there is an alternative explanation of the verse: b These are Torah scholars, who engage in /b studying b the i halakhot /i of /b the Temple b service. The verse ascribes them /b credit b as though the Temple was built in their days /b and they are serving in it.,§ The Gemara cites similar interpretations of verses: b Reish Lakish said: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “This is the law [ i torah /i ] of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, /b and of the consecration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:37)? This teaches that b anyone who engages in Torah /b study is considered b as though he sacrificed a burnt offering, a meal offering, a sin offering, and a guilt offering. /b , b Rava said /b an objection to this interpretation: b This /b verse states: b “of the burnt offering, of the meal offering.” /b If the interpretation of Reish Lakish is correct, the verse b should have /b written: b “Burnt offering and meal offering.” Rather, Rava says /b that the correct interpretation of this verse is: b Anyone who engages in Torah /b study b need not /b bring b a burnt offering, nor a sin offering, nor a meal offering, nor a guilt offering. /b , b Rabbi Yitzḥak said: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “This is the law of the sin offering” /b (Leviticus 6:18), b and: “This is the law of the guilt offering” /b (Leviticus 7:1)? These verses teach that b anyone who engages in /b studying b the law of the sin offering /b is ascribed credit b as though he sacrificed a sin offering, and anyone who engages in /b studying b the law of a guilt offering /b is ascribed credit b as though he sacrificed a guilt offering. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong b It is stated with regard to an animal burnt offering: “A fire offering, an aroma pleasing /b to the Lord” (Leviticus 1:9), b and with regard to a bird burnt offering: “A fire offering, an aroma pleasing /b to the Lord” (Leviticus 1:17), b and with regard to a meal offering: “A fire offering, an aroma pleasing /b to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:2). The repetitive language employed concerning all of these different offerings is b to say to you /b that b one who brings a substantial /b offering b and one who brings a meager /b offering have equal merit, b provided that he directs his heart toward Heaven. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Rabbi Zeira said: What is the verse /b from which this principle is derived? b “Sweet is the sleep of a laboring man, whether he consumes little or much” /b (Ecclesiastes 5:11).The verse is interpreted as referring to one who brings an offering, and teaches that one who brings a substantial offering and one who brings a meager offering can be equally assured that their offering will be accepted., b Rav Adda bar Ahava said /b that the source is b from here: “When goods increase, those who consume them increase; and what advantage is there to the owner, /b except seeing them with his eyes?” (Ecclesiastes 5:10). One who brings a substantial offering, who thereby increases the number of priests who partake of it, does not have more merit than one who brings a meager offering. Rather, the offering that God desires is one where He recognizes, i.e., “seeing them with His eyes,” that its owner has the proper intent.,The Gemara addresses the expression “an aroma pleasing to the Lord” stated in the verses mentioned in the mishna. b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai says: Come and see what is written in the portion of offerings: As /b in these verses, the divine names b i El /i and i Elohim /i are not stated, but /b only b “the Lord.” /b This is b so /b as b not to give a claim to a litigant to argue. /b Only one name of God is used in conjunction with all the various offerings, to prevent heretics from claiming that different offerings are brought to different gods., b And it is stated with regard to a large bull /b offering: b “A fire offering, an aroma pleasing /b to the Lord” (Leviticus 1:9), b and with regard to a small bird /b offering: b “A fire offering, an aroma pleasing /b to the Lord” (Leviticus 1:17), b and with regard to a meal offering: “A fire offering, an aroma pleasing /b to the Lord” (Leviticus 1:9). The repetitive language employed concerning all of these different offerings is b to say to you /b that b one who brings a substantial /b offering b and one who brings a meager /b offering have equal merit, b provided that he directs his heart toward Heaven. /b , b And lest you say /b that God b needs /b these offerings b for consumption, /b in which case a larger offering would be preferable to a smaller one, b the verse states: “If I were hungry, I would not tell you; for the world is Mine, and everything within it” /b (Psalms 50:12). b And it is stated: “For every beast of the forest is Mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains; and the wild beasts of the field are Mine” /b (Psalms 50:10–11). Similarly, it is stated in the following verse: b “Do I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?” /b (Psalms 50:13)., b I did not say to you: Sacrifice /b offerings to me, b so that you will say: I will do His will, /b i.e., fulfill His needs, b and He will do my will. You are not sacrificing to /b fulfill b My will, /b i.e., My needs, b but you are sacrificing to /b fulfill b your will, /b i.e., your needs, in order to achieve atonement for your sins by observing My mitzvot, b as it is stated: /b “And when you sacrifice an offering of peace offerings to the Lord, b you shall sacrifice it so that you may be accepted” /b (Leviticus 19:5)., b Alternatively, /b the verse: “And when you sacrifice an offering of peace offerings to the Lord, b you shall sacrifice it so that you may be accepted [ i lirtzonkhem /i ]” /b (Leviticus 19:5), can be interpreted differently: b Sacrifice willingly [ i lirtzonkhem /i ]; sacrifice intentionally. /b ,This is b as Shmuel asked Rav Huna: From where /b is it derived with regard b to one who acts unawares /b in the case b of consecrated /b items, i.e., if one slaughtered an offering without intending to perform the act of slaughter at all, but rather appeared like one occupied with other matters, b that /b the offering b is disqualified? /b Rav Huna said to Shmuel: It is derived from a verse, b as it is stated: “And he shall slaughter the young bull /b before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:5), teaching that the mitzva is not performed properly b unless the slaughter is for the sake of a young bull, /b i.e., with the knowledge that he is performing an act of slaughter.,Shmuel b said to /b Rav Huna: b We have this /b as an established i halakha /i already, that it is a mitzva to slaughter the offering for the sake of a bull, but b from where /b is it derived that this requirement is b indispensable? /b Rav Huna b said to him /b that the verse states: b “With your will you shall slaughter it” /b (Leviticus 19:5), i.e., b sacrifice intentionally, /b in the form of a purposeful action.,...Y |
|
8. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •zoroastrianism, oral tradition Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 176| 66a. ותנשא לאחר,ניסת לאחר וראתה דם מחמת תשמיש משמשת פעם ראשונה ושניה ושלישית מכאן ואילך לא תשמש עד שתתגרש ותנשא לאחר ניסת לאחר וראתה דם מחמת תשמיש משמשת פעם ראשונה ושניה ושלישית מכאן ואילך לא תשמש עד שתבדוק עצמה,כיצד בודקת את עצמה מביאה שפופרת ובתוכה מכחול ומוך מונח על ראשו אם נמצא דם על ראש המוך בידוע שמן המקור הוא בא לא נמצא דם על ראשו בידוע שמן הצדדין הוא בא,ואם יש לה מכה באותו מקום תולה במכתה ואם יש לה וסת תולה בוסתה,ואם היה דם מכתה משונה מדם ראייתה אינה תולה ונאמנת אשה לומר מכה יש לי במקור שממנה דם יוצא דברי רבי,רשב"ג אומר דם מכה הבא מן המקור טמא ורבותינו העידו על דם המכה הבא מן המקור שהוא טהור,מאי בינייהו אמר עולא מקור מקומו טמא איכא בינייהו,שפופרת אפגורי מפגרא לה אמר שמואל בשפופרת של אבר ופיה רצוף לתוכה,אמר ליה ריש לקיש לרבי יוחנן ותבדוק עצמה בביאה שלישית של בעל הראשון אמר ליה לפי שאין כל האצבעות שוות,אמר ליה ותבדוק עצמה בביאה ראשונה של בעל שלישי לפי שאין כל הכחות שוות,ההיא דאתאי לקמיה דרבי אמר ליה לאבדן זיל בעתה אזל בעתה ונפל ממנה חררת דם אמר רבי נתרפאה זאת,ההיא אתתא דאתאי לקמיה דמר שמואל אמר ליה לרב דימי בר יוסף זיל בעתה אזל בעתה ולא נפל ממנה ולא מידי אמר שמואל זו ממלאה ונופצת היא וכל הממלאה ונופצת אין לה תקנה,ההיא דאתאי לקמיה דרבי יוחנן דכל אימת דהות סלקא מטבילת מצוה הות קחזיא דמא א"ל שמא דימת עיריך עלתה ביך לכי והבעלי לו ע"ג הנהר,איכא דאמר אמר לה תגלי לחברותיך כי היכי דתהוו עליך להך גיסא נתהוו עלך להך גיסא ואיכא דאמר אמר לה גלי לחברותיך כי היכי דלבעו עליך רחמים דתניא (ויקרא יג, מה) וטמא טמא יקרא צריך להודיע צערו לרבים ורבים מבקשים עליו רחמים,אמר רב יוסף הוה עובדא בפומבדיתא ואתסי,אמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר רב התקין רבי בשדות ראתה יום אחד תשב ששה והוא,שנים תשב ששה והן שלשה תשב שבעה נקיים,אמר ר' זירא בנות ישראל החמירו על עצמן שאפילו רואות טפת דם כחרדל יושבות עליה שבעה נקיים,אדבריה רבא לרב שמואל ודרש קשתה שני ימים ולשלישי הפילה תשב שבעה נקיים קסבר אין קשוי לנפלים ואי אפשר לפתיחת הקבר בלא דם,א"ל רב פפא לרבא מאי אריא קשתה שני ימים אפילו משהו בעלמא דהא א"ר זירא בנות ישראל החמירו על עצמן שאפילו רואות טפת דם כחרדל יושבות עליה שבעה נקיים,א"ל אמינא לך איסורא ואת אמרת מנהגא היכא דאחמור אחמור היכא דלא אחמור לא אחמור,(תבעוה נתר בחמין לטבול קמטים ע"ג נמל סי') אמר רבא תבעוה לינשא ונתפייסה צריכה שתשב שבעה נקיים,רבינא איעסק ליה לבריה בי רב חנינא א"ל סבר ליה מר למכתב כתובה לארבעה יום א"ל אין כי מטא לארבעה נטר עד ארבעה אחרינא איעכב שבעה יומי בתר ההוא יומא,א"ל מאי האי א"ל לא סבר לה מר להא דרבא דאמר רבא תבעוה לינשא ונתפייסה צריכה לישב שבעה נקיים א"ל אימר דאמר רבא בגדולה דקחזיא דמא אבל בקטנה דלא חזיא דמא מי אמר,א"ל בפירוש אמר רבא ל"ש גדולה לא שנא קטנה גדולה טעמא מאי משום דמחמדא קטנה נמי מחמדא,אמר רבא אשה | 66a. b and is married to another /b man. She is permitted to engage in intercourse with her second husband because it is possible that the bleeding was caused by engaging in intercourse with her first husband, and the issue will not reoccur when she engages in intercourse with a different man.,If b she married another /b man b and /b again b saw blood due to sexual intercourse, she may engage in intercourse /b before the b first time /b this occurs, before the b second /b time this occurs, b and /b before the b third /b time this occurs. b From this /b point b forward she may not engage in intercourse until she is divorced /b from her second husband b and is married to /b yet b another /b man. If b she married another /b man b and /b again b saw blood due to sexual intercourse, she may engage in intercourse /b the b first time /b this occurs, the b second /b time this occurs, b and /b the b third /b time this occurs. b From this /b point b forward /b there is a presumption that she always bleeds due to engaging in intercourse, and therefore b she may not engage in intercourse /b or marry someone else b until she examines herself. /b , b How /b does b she examine herself? She brings a tube, inside of which /b she places a cosmetic b brush /b so that it is long enough to reach deeply into her vagina, b and /b an absorbent b cloth is placed on the tip /b of the brush. She inserts the tube with the brush and cloth within herself and then removes it. b If blood is found on the top of the /b absorbent b cloth, it is known that /b the blood b comes from the uterus /b and she is ritually impure. If b blood is not found on the top /b of the cloth, b it is known that /b the blood b comes from the sides /b of the vaginal walls and she is ritually pure, and she may resume engaging in intercourse with her husband., b And if she has a wound in that place, /b i.e., her vagina, b she attributes /b the blood b to her wound, /b and she is ritually pure, as it is assumed to not be uterine blood. b And if she has a /b fixed menstrual b cycle, /b i.e., she does not bleed every time she engages in intercourse with her husband, but only at fixed times, b she attributes /b the blood b to her /b fixed menstrual b cycle, /b and she is permitted to engage in intercourse at other times., b And if the blood of her wound differed from the blood that she sees /b due to sexual intercourse, b she may not attribute /b the blood to her wound. b And a woman is deemed credible to say: I have a wound in /b my b uterus, from where /b the b blood is emerging. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi., b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Blood of a wound that comes from the uterus is ritually impure /b as a primary category of impurity. Although this blood does not render it prohibited for her to engage in intercourse with her husband, it does render her impure with regard to eating ritually pure food. b But our Sages testified /b that they had a tradition b with regard to /b the b blood of a wound that comes from the uterus, that it is ritually pure. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is /b the difference b between /b the opinion of those Sages and the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? b Ulla said: /b The difference b between them is /b whether the b place of /b a woman’s b uterus is impure, /b which means that any blood that passes through there is impure, even if it is blood from a wound. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, even the blood of a wound becomes impure if it passes through the uterus, whereas those Sages hold that only blood that originates in the uterus is impure.,With regard to the i baraita /i that states that the test for a woman who experiences bleeding due to sexual intercourse is to insert b a tube, /b the Gemara asks: But won’t a tube b scratch her /b and cause her to bleed regardless? b Shmuel said: /b The i baraita /i is referring b to a tube of lead, and the mouth, /b i.e., the end that is inserted, b is folded inward /b so that it will not scratch her.,The i baraita /i says that if a woman experiences bleeding on three occasions due to intercourse with her husband he must divorce her. b Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥa: But let her examine herself after the third /b act of b intercourse with her first husband, /b so that he need not divorce her. Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: /b It is preferable for her not to test herself and risk becoming forbidden to all men and instead to be divorced and remarry another, b because not all fingers, /b i.e., penises, b are equal. /b Since it is possible that sexual intercourse with her second husband might not cause her to bleed, she should not risk becoming forbidden to all men by performing the examination.,Reish Lakish further b said to /b Rabbi Yoḥa: Why does she examine herself only after the third time she experiences bleeding due to sexual intercourse with her third husband? b But let her examine herself after the first /b act of b intercourse with her third husband. /b After the first occurrence this woman already has a presumptive status that all acts of intercourse cause her to bleed. Rabbi Yoḥa answered: She does not perform the examination then, b because not all forces are equal. /b It is possible that the manner in which the couple has intercourse causes her to bleed, and therefore it is only after three times that she has a presumptive status of bleeding after every act of intercourse.,The Gemara relates: There was b a certain /b woman who experienced bleeding due to sexual intercourse b who came before Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi and asked him what she should do. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b said to /b the Sage b Abdon, /b who was present at the time: b Go /b and suddenly b frighten /b this woman. Abdon b went /b and b frightened her, and a mass /b of congealed b blood fell from her /b vagina. b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said: This /b woman is now b cured. /b She will no longer experience bleeding due to sexual intercourse, as this mass of blood was the source of the blood.,The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was b a certain /b woman who experienced bleeding due to sexual intercourse b who came before Shmuel. /b Shmuel b said to Rav Dimi bar Yosef: Go /b and b frighten /b this woman. Rav Dimi b went /b and b frightened her, but nothing fell from her at all. Shmuel said: This /b woman b is filled /b with blood, b which falls /b out of her during intercourse. b And any /b woman who b is filled /b with blood b that falls /b out during intercourse b has no cure. /b ,The Gemara relates another incident: There was b a certain /b woman b who came before Rabbi Yoḥa /b and told him b that every time she emerged from immersion /b in a ritual bath, after completing the b mitzva /b of purifying herself for her husband, b she would see blood /b before she engaged in intercourse with him. Rabbi Yoḥa b said to her: Perhaps the gossip /b of the women b in your city, /b who are jealous of the love between you and your husband, b has reached you, /b and this evil eye causes you to bleed before you engage in intercourse. b Go and /b immerse in the river and b engage in intercourse with /b your husband b on the bank of the river, /b so that the other women will not see you leaving the ritual bath and gossip about you., b Some say /b that Rabbi Yoḥa b said to her: Reveal /b this fact b to your friends, so that /b those women b who were /b against b you on this side, /b and gossiped about you, b will be /b with b you on that side, /b and be kind to you. b And some say /b that Rabbi Yoḥa b said to her: Reveal /b this fact b to your friends, in order that they will pray for mercy for you, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i discussing the verse: “And the leper in whom the mark is, his clothes shall be ripped and the hair of his head shall grow long and he will put a covering upon his upper lip b and will cry: Impure, impure” /b (Leviticus 13:45). The leper publicizes the fact that he is ritually impure, as he b must announce his pain to the masses, and /b then b the masses will pray for mercy on his /b behalf., b Rav Yosef said: There was /b a similar b incident in Pumbedita /b of a woman who experienced bleeding immediately after immersing in a ritual bath, and she followed the advice given by Rabbi Yoḥa b and she was cured. /b ,§ b Rav Yosef says /b that b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b decreed /b that b in the fields, /b i.e., in those distant places where there were no Torah scholars and whose residents were not well versed in the i halakhot /i of menstruating women and did not know how to distinguish between the days of menstruation and the days of i ziva /i , if b she saw /b blood on b one day, she must sit /b and count b six /b days b and that /b first day. She must observe six clean days without a discharge despite the possibility that she might have experienced bleeding only in her period of i ziva /i , in which case she would be impure for only one day.,If she experiences bleeding for b two /b days, b she must sit /b and count b six /b days b and /b both of b those /b first two days, for a total of eight days, in case the first day on which she bled was the last day of i ziva /i , while the next day was the first day of her menstruation period. If she experiences bleeding for b three /b days b she must sit /b and count b seven clean /b days, as she might be a greater i zava /i , who must count seven clean days.,The Gemara cites a related statement. b Rabbi Zeira says: Jewish women were stringent with themselves /b to the extent b that even if they see a drop of blood /b the size b of a mustard /b seed, they b sit seven clean /b days b for it. /b By Torah law, a woman who experiences menstrual bleeding waits seven days in total before immersing, regardless of whether she experienced bleeding on those days. If she experiences bleeding during the eleven days when she is not expected to experience menstrual bleeding, she is a lesser i zava /i and waits one day without bleeding and then immerses. The Jewish women accepted upon themselves the stringency that if they experience any bleeding whatsoever, they treat it as the blood of a greater i zava /i , which obligates one to count seven clean days before immersing (see Leviticus 15:25)., b Rava authorized Rav Shmuel, and he taught: /b If a pregt woman experienced b labor pains /b for b two days, and on the third /b day b she miscarried, she must sit /b and count b seven clean /b days. The Gemara explains that Rava b holds /b that the principle that blood that emerges while the woman experiences b labor pains /b is not ritually impure does b not /b apply b to miscarriages. And /b Rava further maintains that b it is impossible for the womb to open without blood /b emerging. Therefore, when she miscarried she must have experienced a flow of blood, even if she did not notice it., b Rav Pappa said to Rava: /b For b what /b reason did you teach this i halakha /i b specifically /b with regard to a woman who experiences b labor pains /b for b two days? Even /b if she b merely /b discharges b any amount /b of blood she should be impure, b as Rabbi Zeira says: The Jewish women were stringent with themselves /b to the extent b that even if they see a drop of blood of /b the size of b a mustard /b seed, that woman b sits seven clean /b days b for it. /b Since it is impossible for the womb to open without the emergence of blood, when this woman miscarried there must have been blood, and therefore she must count seven clean days.,Rava b said to /b Rav Pappa: b I speak to you /b of b a prohibition, /b i.e., that by Torah law a woman who experiences difficulty in childbirth for two days and on the third miscarries must count seven clean days as a greater i zava /i , b and you speak to me /b of b a custom, /b a mere stringency. The stringency you mention does not apply in this case. b Where /b the Jewish women b were stringent, they were stringent, /b i.e., if they saw a drop of blood the size of a mustard seed. b Where they were not stringent, /b i.e., in a case of blood due to labor, b they were not stringent. /b By contrast, in the case I described the woman is obligated to count seven clean days by Torah law.,The Gemara provides b a mnemonic /b for the following discussions: b One who proposed to her; natron; with hot /b water; b to immerse; folds; on top of; a port. Rava says: /b With regard to b one who proposed marriage to /b a woman b and she accepted it, /b the emotional excitement might have caused her to have a flow of menstrual blood, which would render her ritually impure and prohibit her from engaging in intercourse. Even if she was unaware of any flow, she must consider the possibility that it occurred. Therefore, to purify herself b she must wait seven /b consecutive days that are b clean /b from any flow of menstrual blood and then immerse in a ritual bath. Only after that process may she marry.,The Gemara cites a related incident: b Ravina arranged for his son /b to marry into b the family of Rav Ḥanina, /b i.e., to marry Rav Ḥanina’s daughter. Rav Ḥanina b said to /b Ravina: b Does the Master hold /b that it is appropriate b to write the marriage contract /b as stating that the wedding will take place b in four days, /b i.e., on Wednesday? Ravina b said: Yes. When /b the b fourth /b day, i.e., Wednesday b arrived, he waited until another fourth /b day before marrying her, until the following Wednesday, i.e., b he delayed seven days after that day /b when he had planned to marry her.,Rav Ḥanina b said to /b Ravina: b What is this? /b Why did you delay the wedding by an extra week? Ravina b said to /b Rav Ḥanina: b Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with this /b statement b of Rava, as Rava said: /b With regard to b one who proposed marriage to /b a woman b and she accepted it, she must wait seven /b consecutive days that are b clean /b from any flow of menstrual blood and then immerse in a ritual bath? Rav Ḥanina b said to /b Ravina: One can b say that Rava said /b this statement b with regard to an adult woman, who has seen /b menstrual b blood. But did /b Rava actually b say /b this b with regard to a minor girl, who has not /b yet b seen /b menstrual b blood? /b ,Ravina b said to /b Rav Ḥanina: b Rava said explicitly /b that there is b no difference /b whether she is b an adult woman /b and b no difference /b whether she is b a minor girl. What is the reason /b that b an adult woman /b must wait for seven days? She must wait b because she desires /b to marry her husband, and this might cause her to have a flow of blood. b A minor girl also desires /b to marry her husband, which could cause a flow of blood.,§ b Rava says: A woman /b who is about to immerse herself in a ritual bath for purification |
|
9. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 176| 37b. מה לנו ולצרה הזאת והלא כבר נאמר (ויקרא ה, א) והוא עד או ראה או ידע אם לא יגיד וגו' ושמא תאמרו מה לנו לחוב בדמו של זה והלא כבר נאמר (משלי יא, י) באבוד רשעים רנה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר כיצד מאומד אומר להן שמא כך ראיתם שרץ אחר חבירו לחורבה ורצתם אחריו ומצאתם סייף בידו ודמו מטפטף והרוג מפרפר אם כך ראיתם לא ראיתם כלום,תניא א"ר שמעון בן שטח אראה בנחמה אם לא ראיתי אחד שרץ אחר חבירו לחורבה ורצתי אחריו וראיתי סייף בידו ודמו מטפטף והרוג מפרפר ואמרתי לו רשע מי הרגו לזה או אני או אתה אבל מה אעשה שאין דמך מסור בידי שהרי אמרה תורה (דברים יז, ו) על פי שנים עדים יומת המת היודע מחשבות יפרע מאותו האיש שהרג את חבירו אמרו לא זזו משם עד שבא נחש והכישו ומת,והאי בר נחש הוא והאמר רב יוסף וכן תני דבי חזקיה מיום שחרב בית המקדש אף על פי שבטלה סנהדרי ארבע מיתות לא בטלו לא בטלו והא בטלו אלא דין ארבע מיתות לא בטלו,מי שנתחייב סקילה או נופל מן הגג או חיה דורסתו מי שנתחייב שריפה או נופל בדליקה או נחש מכישו מי שנתחייב הריגה או נמסר למלכות או ליסטין באין עליו מי שנתחייב חנק או טובע בנהר או מת בסרונכי,אמרי ההוא חטא אחריתי הוה ביה דאמר מר מי שנתחייב שתי מיתות ב"ד נידון בחמורה:,מאומד וכו': בדיני נפשות הוא דלא אמדינן הא בדיני ממונות אמדינן כמאן כר' אחא דתניא ר' אחא אומר גמל האוחר בין הגמלים ונמצא גמל הרוג בצידו בידוע שזה הרגו,וליטעמיך עד מפי עד דקתני בדיני נפשות הוא דלא אמרינן הא בדיני ממונות אמרינן והתנן אם אמר הוא אמר לי שאני חייב לו איש פלוני אמר לי שהוא חייב לו לא אמר כלום עד שיאמר בפנינו הודה לו שהוא חייב לו מאתים זוז,אלמא אף על גב דפסילי בדיני ממונות אמרינן להו בדיני נפשות הכא נמי אף על גב דפסילי בדיני ממונות אמרינן להו בדיני נפשות:,הוו יודעים כו': אמר רב יהודה בריה דר' חייא מלמד שעשה קין בהבל אחיו חבורות חבורות פציעות פציעות שלא היה יודע מהיכן נשמה יוצאה עד שהגיע לצוארו,וא"ר יהודה בריה דר' חייא מיום שפתחה הארץ את פיה וקיבלתו לדמו של הבל שוב לא פתחה שנאמר (ישעיהו כד, טז) מכנף הארץ זמירות שמענו צבי לצדיק מכנף הארץ ולא מפי הארץ איתיביה חזקיה אחיו (במדבר טז, לב) ותפתח הארץ את פיה א"ל לרעה פתחה לטובה לא פתחה,וא"ר יהודה בריה דרבי חייא גלות מכפרת עון מחצה מעיקרא כתיב (בראשית ד, יד) והייתי נע ונד ולבסוף כתיב (בראשית ד, טז) וישב בארץ נוד,אמר רב יהודה גלות מכפרת שלשה דברים שנאמר (כה אמר ה' וגו') היושב בעיר הזאת ימות בחרב ברעב ובדבר והיוצא ונפל אל הכשדים הצרים עליכם יחיה והיתה לו נפשו לשלל,ר' יוחנן אמר גלות מכפרת על הכל שנאמר (ירמיהו כב, ל) (כה אמר ה') כתבו את האיש הזה ערירי גבר לא יצלח בימיו כי לא יצלח מזרעו איש יושב על כסא דוד ומושל עוד ביהודה ובתר דגלה כתיב (דברי הימים א ג, יז) ובני יכניה אסיר (בנו) שלתיאל בנו אסיר שעיברתו אמו בבית האסורין שלתיאל ששתלו אל שלא כדרך הנשתלין גמירי שאין האשה מתעברת מעומד | 37b. b Why would we /b want b this trouble? /b Perhaps it would be better not to testify at all. b But /b be aware, as b is it not already stated: “And he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not utter it, /b then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1)? It is a transgression not to testify when one can do so. b And perhaps you will say: Why would we /b want b to be responsible for the blood of this /b person? b But /b be aware, as b is it not already stated: “When the wicked perish, there is song” /b (Proverbs 11:10)?, strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b How does /b the court describe testimony b based on conjecture? /b The court b says to /b the witnesses: b Perhaps you saw /b this man about whom you are testifying b pursuing another into a ruin, and you pursued him and found a sword in his hand, dripping /b with b blood, and the one /b who was ultimately b killed /b was b convulsing. If you saw /b only b this, /b it is as if b you saw nothing, /b and you cannot testify to the murder., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon ben Shataḥ said /b as an oath: b I will /b not b see the consolation /b of Israel b if I did not /b once b see one /b person b pursue another into a ruin, and I pursued him and saw a sword in his hand, dripping /b with b blood, and the one /b who was ultimately b killed /b was b convulsing. And I said to him: Wicked person, who has killed this man? Either you or I. But what can I do, since your blood is not given over to me, as the Torah states: “At the mouth of two witnesses, /b or three witnesses, b shall he that is to die be put to death” /b (Deuteronomy 17:6), and I did not witness you killing him. b The One Who knows /b one’s b thoughts shall punish this man who killed another. /b The Sages b said: They did not move from there before a snake came and bit the /b murderer, b and he died. /b ,The Gemara questions this account: b But was this /b murderer b fit /b to die by being bitten b by a snake? But doesn’t Rav Yosef say, and so the school of Ḥizkiyya /b also b taught: From the day that the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin ceased /b to be extant, the b four /b types of court-imposed b capital punishment have not ceased. /b The Gemara asks: b Have they /b really b not ceased? But they have ceased, /b as court-imposed capital punishment is no longer given. b Rather, /b the intention is that b the i halakha /i of /b the b four /b types of court-imposed b capital punishment has not ceased /b to be applicable.,The Gemara explains: How so? For b one who /b would b be liable /b to be executed by b stoning, either /b he b falls from a roof or an animal mauls him /b and breaks his bones. This death is similar to death by stoning, in which the one liable to be executed is pushed from a platform and his bones break from the impact of the fall. For b one who /b would b be liable /b to be executed by b burning, either /b he b falls into a fire /b and is burned b or a snake bites him, /b as a snakebite causes a burning sensation. For b one who /b would b be liable to /b be executed by b slaying /b through decapitation by the sword, b either /b he b is turned over to the authorities /b and they execute him with a sword, b or robbers come upon him /b and murder him. b One who /b would b be liable /b to be executed by b strangling either drowns in a river /b and is choked by the water b or dies of diphtheria [ i bisronekhi /i ], /b which causes his breathing to become constricted. According to this, a murderer, whose verdict in court would be death by slaying, should not be bitten by a snake.,The Sages b say /b in explanation: b That /b murderer b had another sin /b for which he deserved execution by burning, and b as the Master says: One who is found liable /b by the court b to /b receive b two /b types of b court-imposed capital punishment is sentenced to the harsher /b of the two, and burning is considered a harsher death than slaying (see 50a).,§ The mishna teaches that in cases of capital law the court warns the witnesses not to testify b based on conjecture. /b The Gemara comments: One can infer that it is only b in /b cases of b capital law that we do not /b rule based on b conjecture, but in /b cases of b monetary law, we do /b rule based on b conjecture. In accordance with whose /b opinion is the mishna taught? It is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Aḥa. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Bava Kamma /i 3:6) that b Rabbi Aḥa says: /b If there was b a rutting /b male b camel /b that was rampaging b among /b other b camels, and /b then b a camel was found killed at its side, it is evident that this /b rampaging camel b killed it, /b and the owner must pay for the damage caused. The i baraita /i indicates that Rabbi Aḥa rules that cases of monetary law are decided based on conjecture.,The Gemara asks: b But according to your reasoning, /b with regard to b that /b which the mishna b teaches, /b that the court warns the witnesses not to provide b testimony /b based on b hearsay, /b should one infer that it is b in /b cases of b capital law that we do not say /b that testimony based on hearsay is allowed, b but in /b cases of b monetary law, we do say /b that testimony based on hearsay is allowed? b But didn’t we learn /b in a mishna (29a): b If /b the witness b said: /b The defendant b said to me: /b It is true b that I owe /b the plaintiff, or if he says: b So-and-so said to me that /b the defendant b owes /b the plaintiff, the witness b has said nothing, /b i.e., his testimony is disregarded. These two statements by witnesses are examples of testimony based on hearsay, yet they are not valid in cases of monetary law. A witness’s testimony is not valid testimony b unless he says, /b for example: The defendant b admitted in our presence to /b the plaintiff b that he owes him two hundred dinars, /b as by admitting the debt in the presence of witnesses he rendered himself liable to pay the amount that he mentioned., b Evidently, although /b testimony based on hearsay b is invalid in /b cases of b monetary law, we tell /b the witnesses to be aware of this b in capital law. Here, too, /b with regard to testimony based on conjecture, one can say that b although /b testimony based on conjecture b is invalid in /b cases of b monetary law, we tell /b the witnesses to be aware of this b in /b cases of b capital law. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that the court would say: b You should know /b that cases of capital law are not like cases of monetary law, and would reference the murder of Abel by Cain. b Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: /b By employing the plural term for blood, “The voice of your brother’s blood [ i demei /i ] cries out to Me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10), the verse b teaches that Cain caused multiple wounds /b and b multiple injuries to his brother Abel. As /b Cain b did not know from where the soul departs, /b he struck him multiple times. This continued b until he came to his neck /b and struck him there, whereupon Abel died., b And Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: From the day the earth opened its mouth and received the blood of Abel, /b its mouth b has not opened again, as it is stated: “From the corner of the earth have we heard songs: Glory to the righteous” /b (Isaiah 24:16): One can infer that the songs are heard b “from the corner of the earth,” but not from the mouth of the earth, /b as the earth never again opened its mouth. b Ḥizkiyya, /b Rav Yehuda’s b brother, raised an objection to /b Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya: The verse states concerning Korah and his assembly: b “And the earth opened her mouth /b and swallowed them up, and their households, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods” (Numbers 16:32). Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, b said to him: /b It b opened /b again b for a deleterious /b purpose; it b did not open /b again b for a constructive /b purpose., b And Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: Exile atones /b for b half /b of b a sin. /b As b initially /b it b is written /b in the verse concerning Cain that he said: b “And I shall be a fugitive [ i na /i ] and a wanderer [ i vanad /i ] /b in the earth” (Genesis 4:14), b and ultimately /b it b is written: /b “And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, b and dwelt in the land of Nod” /b (Genesis 4:16). Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, equates “Nod” with “ i nad /i ,” and understands that Cain was given only the punishment of being a wanderer. Exile atoned for half his sin, thereby negating the punishment of being a fugitive., b Rav Yehuda says: Exile atones /b for b three matters, /b i.e., three types of death, b as it is stated: “So says the Lord: /b Behold, I set before you the way of life and the way of death. b He that abides in this city shall die by the sword, and by the famine, and by the pestilence; but he that goes out, and falls away to the Chaldeans that besiege you, he shall survive, and his life shall be for him for a prey” /b (Jeremiah 21:8–9), indicating that exile from Jerusalem will save one from those three deaths., b Rabbi Yoḥa says: Exile atones for all /b transgressions and renders a sinner like a new person, b as it is stated /b concerning the king Jeconiah, a descendant of King David: b “So says the Lord: Write you this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah” /b (Jeremiah 22:30). b And after /b Jeconiah b was exiled it is written: “And the sons of Jeconiah, the same is Assir, Shealtiel his son” /b (I Chronicles 3:17). The verse employs the plural “sons of” although he had only one son, Shealtiel. b “Assir,” /b literally, prisoner, teaches b that his mother conceived him in prison. “Shealtiel,” /b literally, planted by God, teaches b that God planted him in a way atypical of /b most b plants [ i hanishtalin /i ], /b i.e., people. It b is learned /b as a tradition b that a woman does not conceive /b when she is b standing /b during sexual intercourse, |
|
