DOCSLIB.ORG

Beitza Rosh Hashana

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Beitza Rosh Hashana NOTES Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Th is is not so; rather, both according to me ֲ אַמר ֵל ּיה: ֵּבין ְלִד ִ ידי ֵּבין ְלַר ָּבה ִאית ָלן Apparently, the : ֶּׁשַיְּחפוֹר ְּבֶדֶקר – and according to Rabba we are of the opinion that the ruling is in Then he digs with a shovel conclusion is that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree ְּדַר ִּבי זֵ ָ ירא, ְוָהָכא ְּבָהא ָקא ַּ ִמפְלִגינַן: accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, and here we disagree over whether regular earth in a courtyard is muktze or ַר ָּבה ָסַבר, ִאי ִא ָ ּיכא ָﬠָפר ָּ ְלַמטה – with regard to this matt er: Rabba holds that if there is prepared whether it is considered prepared and may be carried and ִאין, ִאי ָלא – ָלא, ָחְי ׁ ִישינַן ִּדְלָמא earth beneath, yes, in that case one may slaughter an animal, but if used for covering (Rid). It is permitted to use the earth after there is no earth prepared beneath, no, he may not slaughter it at all. the fact, as the positive mitzva by Torah law to cover the ִמְמִל ְיך ְוָלא ָׁשֵחיט. ּוְלִד ִ ידי ( ַאְּדַר ָּבה), Why not? Rabba says: We are concerned that perhaps one will blood overrides the rabbinic prohibition against moving ָהא ֲﬠִד ָ יפא, ְּדִאי ָלא ָׁשֵרית ֵל ּיה ָאֵתי .(reconsider and not slaughter it at all, and he will have dug a hole on muktze objects (Shitta Mekubbetzet ְלִאְמ ּ נוֵﬠי ִּׂ ִמשְמַחת יוֹם טוֹב. וְ הוּא – a Festival unnecessarily. And according to my opinion, on the con- And that is when one has a shovel embedded The mishna alludes to this halakha, as it : ֶׁשֵיּׁש לוֹ ֶּדֶקר נָעוּץ -trary: Th is situation, in which he is permitt ed to dig fi rst, is prefer able, since if you do not permit him to dig in all cases for the pur- does not simply state: He digs and covers the blood, but pose of slaughter, he will be unable to eat meat and will refrain from rather: He digs with a shovel, which indicates that there is a shovel ready for this purpose (Ĥatam Sofer, 2nd ed.). rejoicing on the Festival. An embedded shovel is permitted because to a certain Th at mishna states: And Beit Hillel concede that if one trans- extent it can be considered prepared for this purpose § ּ״ו ִמוֹדים ֶׁשִאם ָׁשַחט ֶּׁשַיְּחפוֹר ְּבֶדֶקר N (Rabbi Aharon HaLevi). gressed and slaughtered an animal, then he digs with a shovel and וִ ַ יכֶּסה״. ָאַמר ַר ִּבי ְזִר ָ יקא ָאַמר ַרב :ְוָהא ָקא ָﬠֵביד ְ ּכִת ׁ ָ ישה – covers the blood. Rabbi Zerika said that Rav Yehuda said: And that But doesn’t he perform crushing יְ ּ הוָדה: וְ הוּא ֶׁשֵיּׁש לוֹ ֶּדֶקר נָעוּץ is the halakha specifi cally when one has a shovel already embeddedN Some commentaries explain that this does not refer to ִמ ְּבעוֹד יוֹם. ְוָהא ָקא ָﬠֵביד ְ ּכִת ׁ ָ ישה! in the ground while it was still day, before the onset of the Festival. the crushing performed afterward, but to the crushing of the earth that occurs when one removes the shovel from ָאַמר ַרב ִחָיּיא ַּבר ַא ִׁשי ָאַמר ַרב: Th e Gemara asks: But what purpose does an embedded shovel serve; the ground (Rabbeinu Ĥananel; see Meiri). doesn’t he still perform the act of crushing,N as one must crush the lumps of earth to make the soil fi t for covering? Rav Ĥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: Perek I Daf 8 Amud a HALAKHA Here it is referring to loose earth that does not require further ְּבָﬠָפר ִּת ּ יחוח. crushing. One who digs a hole…but he needs only its earth – One who digs a hole on : ַה ֵ חוֹפר ּג ָּ וּמא…ְוֵאינוֹ ָצִר ְיך ָ ֶּאלא ַּלֲﬠָפָרה Th e Gemara challenges this: But even in the case of loose earth, one Shabbat only for its earth is exempt by Torah law, as he is ְוָהא ָקא ָﬠֵביד ּג ָּ וּמא! ִ ּכְדַר ִּבי ַא ָּבא, N makes a hole by the very act of removing the earth or the shovel considered to have committed a destructive act (Rambam ְּדָאַמר ַר ִּבי ַא ָּבא: ַה ֵ חוֹפר ּג ָּ וּמא Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Shabbat 1:17). from that place. Th e Gemara answers: Th is ruling is in accordance ְּב ַׁש ָּבת ְוֵאינוֹ ָצִר ְיך ָ ֶּאלא ַּלֲﬠָפָרה – The : ֵאֶפר ִ ּכָירה ּמוָכן הוּא – with the opinion of Rabbi Abba, as Rabbi Abba said: One who digs The ashes of a stove are prepared H N ָּפטוּר ָﬠֶל ָיה. a hole on Shabbat, but he needs only its earth and has no interest ashes from a stove that was ignited on the eve of a Festival in forming a pit, is exempt for that act. Since he has no interest in the are considered prepared for covering the blood, and it is hole, he is considered to have performed a destructive act, and the permitted to rely on them and slaughter animals on the Festival. If the stove was ignited on the Festival itself, its halakha is that one who commits a destructive act is not liable for the ashes are prohibited, unless they are warm enough to be performance of prohibited labor on Shabbat and Festivals. used for minimal cooking, e.g., to roast an egg with them, or even to take the chill off a cold drink (Peri Megadim). If Th e mishna states: Th at the ashes of a stove are prepared. Th e ׁ ֶ ״שֵאֶפר ִכ ָ ירה מוָּכן ּהוא״. ֵאֶפר ִכ ָ ירה one transgresses and slaughters an animal, it is permitted § ּ ּ ,Gemara express puzzlement at this statement: Th e ashes of a stove ַמאן ְּדַכר ְׁשֵמ ּיה? ֲאַמר ַר ָּבה: ָהִכי N to cover its blood with these ashes even if they have cooled who mentioned anything about it? Why does the mishna suddenly off completely. Some authorities, such as the Rema and ָקָאַמר: ְוֵאֶפר ִּכ ָ ירה ּ מוָכן הוּא. speak about the ashes of a stove when it had not previously discussed the Taz, maintain that in that case it is preferable to use an or even mentioned them? Rabba said: Th is is what the tanna said: embedded shovel, if one is available. Others, such as the And the ashesN of a stove are prepared. H N In other words, everyone Magen Avraham and the Vilna Gaon, disagree (Shulĥan agrees that in addition to prepared earth, the ashes of a stove are also Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 498:15). considered prepared, and one may cover the blood with them. It is not necessary to prepare these ashes especially for this purpose the day before. NOTES Digging a hole sake and it is also a destructive act, which is permitted when it explanation should not be understood as a proposed change to :ְוָהא ָקא ָﬠֵביד ּג ָּ וּמא – But one makes a hole inside a house constitutes the prohibited labor of building; is for the purpose of fulfi lling a mitzva (Tziyyun LeNefesh Ĥayya). the text of the mishna. Rather, Rabba is saying that sometimes doing so in a field constitutes the prohibited labor of plowing Tosafot claim that even according to Rabbi Yehuda, it is permit- the term: That, i.e., the prefix letter shin, does not signify an (Meiri). ted in this case, due to the mitzva of rejoicing on the Festival. explanation, but adds to the previous statement, like a vav, Others explain that the ruling here is exempt and permitted which means: And (see Etz Yosef ). -This halakha con : ֵאינוֹ ָצִר ְיך ָ ֶּאלא ַּלֲﬠָפָרה – Needs only its earth because there is a shovel already embedded in the ground (Rid). :ְוֵאֶפר ִ ּכָירה ּמוָכן הוּא – cerning digging a hole is an example of the broader topic of And the ashes of a stove are prepared Some commentaries combine these arguments. prohibited labor performed not for its own sake, which is a case Tosafot ask: But according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, one -Some may not cover blood with ashes even on a weekday. Conse : ַמאן ְּדַכר ְׁשֵמ ּיה – where one performs a prohibited labor for a purpose other than Who mentioned anything about it its primary objective. In that case, Rabbi Shimon rules that one commentaries explain that this cannot refer back to the mish- quently, they explain that the statement that the ashes of a is exempt, and Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable. However, in this na’s earlier statement, as it was already stated that everyone stove are considered prepared for all of one’s needs means that case Rabbi Yehuda would agree that he is exempt because he agrees that one who slaughtered an animal should cover its the ashes do not have the status of muktze; it does not refer to performed a destructive act. blood. Since no previous dispute was recorded with regard to the mitzva of the covering of the blood at all. The Piskei HaRid Although the principle with regard to the prohibitions of the ashes of a stove, the Gemara asks how it can be said that states likewise. Others, however, explain this statement as fol- Shabbat is that exempt means exempt by Torah law but the Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel agree in that case as well (Rav lows: Beit Hillel agree that the ashes of a stove are considered act is prohibited by rabbinic law, according to Rabbi Shimon Yitzĥak Abuhav). prepared for covering blood, and therefore if one has ashes this would be permitted because it is a prohibition based on of a stove available he may slaughter an animal even ab initio .(This (Rashba : ָהִכי ָקָאַמר, ְוֵאֶפר – two rabbinic decrees, as it is a labor performed not for its own This is what he said, and the ashes Beitza · Perek I .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Vayigash 5776
    Vayigash Vayigash, 7 Tevet 5776 “Sending Everyone Out” Harav Yosef Carmel Before Yosef revealed his identity to his brothers, he commanded the members of his court: “Send everyone out from before me” (Bereishit 45:1). We will try to explain why it was so important to Yosef to be alone with his brothers. The midrash (Sechel Tov, Bereishit 45) explains that this was done for the needs of modesty. As Yosef was going to prove his identity by showing he was circumcised, he did not want his assistants to see what was not necessary for them to see. The simple explanation, of course, is that Yosef wanted to protect his brothers from embarrassment at the awkward situation that was to occur, which would include no small amount of explicit or implicit rebuke. Rishonim put stress on the rebuke, including practical ramifications, stemming from it, other than the brothers’ simple embarrassment. The Ramban says that upon hearing of Yosef’s sale, the Egyptians would view the brothers as betrayers and would reason that if that is the way they treated their own brother, they certainly could not be trusted to live in Egypt and visit in its palace. The Da’at Zekeinim echoes this idea but also extends it, in showing how the matter of the sale was a bigger secret than we might assume. They claim that not only did Yaakov not know about the sale, but even Binyamin, who was not with his brothers at the time, did not know about it. In fact, they claim that Yosef broke his speech of revelation into two.
    [Show full text]
  • Daf Ditty Pesachim 78: Korban Pesach Today (?)
    Daf Ditty Pesachim 78: Korban Pesach today (?) Three girls in Israel were detained by the Israeli Police (2018). The girls are activists of the “Return to the Mount” (Chozrim Lahar) movement. Why were they detained? They had posted Arabic signs in the Muslim Quarter calling upon Muslims to leave the Temple Mount area until Friday night, in order to allow Jews to bring the Korban Pesach. This is the fourth time that activists of the movement will come to the Old City on Erev Pesach with goats that they plan to bring as the Korban Pesach. There is also an organization called the Temple Institute that actively is trying to bring back the Korban Pesach. It is, of course, very controversial and the issues lie at the heart of one of the most fascinating halachic debates in the past two centuries. 1 The previous mishnah was concerned with the offering of the paschal lamb when the people who were to slaughter it and/or eat it were in a state of ritual impurity. Our present mishnah is concerned with a paschal lamb which itself becomes ritually impure. Such a lamb may not be eaten. (However, we learned incidentally in our study of 5:3 that the blood that gushed from the lamb's throat at the moment of slaughter was collected in a bowl by an attendant priest and passed down the line so that it could be sprinkled on the altar). Our mishnah states that if the carcass became ritually defiled, even if the internal organs that were to be burned on the altar were intact and usable the animal was an invalid sacrifice, it could not be served at the Seder and the blood should not be sprinkled.
    [Show full text]
  • The Truth About Yom Tov Sheini
    EIGHTH DAY PESACH READING Rabbi Dr. Aharon Adler The Truth About Yom Tov Sheini he Biblical commandment to observance today conforms to the cat- for them. He graciously agreed, on the organize the halachic calendar, egory of minhag. Broadly stated, if an condition that I come to this Seder via the judicial act of lunar sanc- individual is a temporary resident in, or with my guitar and play live music. Ttification, caused much difficulty for visitor to, a second location with plans Rav Amital refused to respond Amen the burgeoning Jewish communities of to return to the original location, he/she to the two boys’ many berachot at this Babylon during the Second Temple era. must observe the minhag of the origi- seder. Instead, he mumbled: od beracha The over two-week delay in receiving nal location. However, if one relocates levatala – another blessing in vain! this critical information from the Holy permanently to the second location, the Complicating matters, Rav Shmuel Land regarding precisely which day was original location’s minhag is no longer Salant (19th century Chief Rabbi of sanctified as Rosh Chodesh meant that binding upon him, and he assumes the Jerusalem) agreed, in principle, with the the Diaspora communities were unin- new location’s minhag immediately. Ritba’s position. However, in deference formed as to when the festivals would Hence, one may conclude that a tour- to Rav Yosef Karo, he recommended fall out. This triggered the rabbinic ist in Israel today should observe the that on Yom Tov Sheini in Eretz Yisrael, institution to observe “Yom Tov Sheini” full Yom Tov Sheini.
    [Show full text]
  • Moshe Raphael Ben Yehoshua (Morris Stadtmauer) O”H Tzvi Gershon Ben Yoel (Harvey Felsen) O”H
    6 Tishrei 5781 Eiruvin Daf 46 Sept. 24, 2020 Daf Notes is currently being dedicated to the neshamot of Moshe Raphael ben Yehoshua (Morris Stadtmauer) o”h Tzvi Gershon ben Yoel (Harvey Felsen) o”h May the studying of the Daf Notes be a zechus for their neshamot and may their souls find peace in Gan Eden and be bound up in the Bond of life Abaye sat at his studies and discoursed on this subject the ocean? — Rabbi Yitzchak replied: Here we are dealing when Rav Safra said to him: Is it not possible that we are with a case where the clouds were formed on the eve of dealing here with a case where the rain fell near a town the festival. But is it not possible that those moved away and the townspeople relied on that rain? — This, the other and these are others? — It is a case where one can replied, cannot be entertained at all. For we learned: A recognize them by some identification mark. And if you cistern belonging to an individual person is on a par with prefer I might reply: This is a matter of doubt in respect of that individual's feet, and one belonging to a town is on a a Rabbinical law and in any such doubt a lenient ruling is par with the feet of the people of that town, and one used adopted. But why shouldn’t the water acquire its place for by the Babylonian pilgrims is on a par with the feet of any the Shabbos in the clouds? May it then be derived from man who draws the water.
    [Show full text]
  • Beitza Rosh Hashana
    As far as the sanctity of the Festival is concerned, however, the ַ וֲאַמר ָרָבא: ִהְלְכָתא ְ ּכָוֵת ּיה ְּדַרב ְּבָהֵני second day was also treated as sacred, which proves that when two ְּ תָלת, ֵּבין ְלקו ָ ּּלא ֵּבין ְל ּ חוְמָרא. days were observed in Eretz Yisrael, they were considered a single sanctity rather than two. And Rava said in summary: Th e halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav in these three cases, whether the ruling is lenient, or whether the ruling is stringent. Perek I Daf 6 Amud a PERSONALITIES Rava said: If one died on the fi rst day of a Festival,H gentiles § ָאַמר ָרָבא: ֵמת ְּביוֹם טוֹב ִר ׁאשוֹן – The Gemara in tractate : ְנַהְרְּדֵﬠי – The Sages of Neharde’a should att end to his burial. If he died on the second day of a ִיְתַﬠ ְּס ּקו ּבוֹ ֲﬠָמִמים, ֵמת ְּביוֹם טוֹב Sanhedrin explains that this is a reference to Rav Ĥama, a N N Festival, Jews should att end to his burial. And even with regard ֵׁשִני – ִיְתַﬠ ְּס ּקו ּבוֹ ִי ְׂשָרֵאל, ַוֲאִפ ּילוּ fourth-generation Babylonian amora. He apparently lived to the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana, the halakha is that the ִּב ְׁשֵני ָיִמים ִטוֹבים ֶׁשל רֹ ׁאש ׁ ָּ ַהשנָה, a long life, as his discussions with Sages of the previous generation are recorded in the Talmud. Since he served for legal status of the two days is like that of the two days of the Festivals; however, that is not so with regard to an egg that was laid on the ַמה ׁ ֶּ שֵאין ֵ ּכן ְּבֵב ָ יצה.
    [Show full text]
  • Shabbat Volume 1.Indb
    Perek III Daf 36 Amud b NOTES With regard to a stove that was litN on Shabbat eve A stove that was lit – : The early מתניפ ִ ּ כי ָ אה שׁ ֶ ִ ה ִּ ס י ּ ו ָה ַ ּ ב ַ ּ שׁ ִ ּכי ָ אה שׁ ֶ הִ סִּ י ּ ו הָ with straw or with rakings, scraps collected from -Mishna commentaries explained this issue in differ וּבַ ּג אְבָבָ – נֹותְנִים עָלֶ יהָ ּתַבְשׁ ִ ילד בַּ ֶּג ֶ ׳ת the field, one mayplace a pot of cooked food atop it on Shabbat. The fire ent ways. Many of the ge’onim and those who וּבָעֵצִ ים – לֹא ּןֵ יִת דעַ ֶ שׁ ּיִגְ אֹוב, אֹו דעַ ֶ שׁ ּיִ ֵּ תן in this stove was certainly extinguished while it was still day, as both straw adopted their approach state that this mishna : and rakings are materials that burn quickly. However, if the stove was lit and those that follow are not discussing the אֶ ת הָאֵ ֶ׳אד בֵּ ית שׁ ַ ַּ מאי אֹומְ ִ אים, חַ ִּ מין לו .with pomace, pulp that remains from sesame seeds, olives, and the like question of inserting the pot into the stove אֲבָל לֹא ּתַבְשִׁיל וּבֵית הִ ֵלּל אֹומְ ִ אים, after the oil is squeezed from them, and if it was lit with wood,H one may Rather, they are discussing a case where the חַ ִּ מין וְתַבְשׁ ִ ילד בֵּ ית שׁ ַ ַ ּמאי אֹומְ ִ אים, not place a pot atop it on Shabbat until he sweepsN the coals from the pot is suspended over the stove.
    [Show full text]
  • Overviewof the Daf Distictive INSIGHT REVIEW and Remember
    ט"ז שבט תשע “ ו Tuesday, January 26 2016 גיטין מ “ ד OVERVIEW of the Daf Distictive INSIGHT 1) Clarifying the Mishnah (cont.) The penalty for financial misdeeds כוון מלאכתו במועד ומת לא קנסו את בנו אחריו Another resolution to the contradiction between two Beraisos is presented. 2) A slave taken forcibly from a Jew O ur Gemara cites two examples of a person who acted im- A Baraisa rules that a slave taken as payment for a loan or by properly in order to gain financially. One is where a person in order not to , בכור an extortionist does not go free. intentionally inflicted a blemish onto a This ruling is unsuccessfully challenged. have to give the animal to the kohen and thereby keep it for Another unsuccessful challenge to this ruling is presented. himself, and the other is where a person sold his non - Jewish Rav rules that a slave that was sold to a blackmailer goes free. slave to a non - Jew. In both cases, the person is penalized. In The rationale for penalizing the owner is explained. the first case, the owner is not allowed to slaughter the animal 3) Selling a slave to a non - Jew based upon this particular wound, and in the second case, the R’ Yirmiyah asks a series of questions related to the ruling that slave must be redeemed, even at high cost. one who sells his slave to a non - Jew is obligated to set him free. The Mishnah in Moed Kattan (12b) teaches that although The Gemara answers only some of R’ Yirmiyah’s questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Perek III Daf 9 Amud A
    Perek III Daf 9 Amud a BACKGROUND Th is is a measure that was used in the past, but no longer in ַה ְי ׁ ָש ָנה. ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ָיוֹח ָנן: ָה ֵדין ִ ּד ַידן ,Cups were made of various materials, including silver : ּכוֹס – the present. Rabbi Yoĥanan said: Th is is our measure today and Cup gold, glass, and clay. The cup is the smallest drinking vessel and ּהוא, ְו ָל ָּמה ָקֵרי ֵל ּיה ַﬠ ִּת ָיקה ִמן ְּב ִגין .it is not so old. Th e Gemara asks: Why does the tanna of the can hold about a quarter-log of liquid ַ ּד ֲהָוה ְּב ֵיוֹמי? baraita call this measure old when it was still being used in his day? -Th e Gemara answers: Some say that this measure was origi ִאית ְ ּד ָא ְמִרי: ַ ּד ֲהַות ְז ֵﬠ ָירא ְוַר ְּב ְּתָיא, nally small and it was made larger, and some say that aft er ְו ִאית ְ ּד ָא ְמִרי: ְ ּד ַאְז ִﬠ ָירא, ְו ָלא ַאְז ִﬠ ָירא it was enlarged it was again made smaller, but not as small as ְּכ ָמה ַ ּד ֲהַות. it had been originally. Since this measure was not of the same size at all times, the tanna of the baraita was precise when he said that a quarter-log is equal to the old measure of one-eighth. So too, Rabbi Yoĥanan was precise when he said that this was the measure used in his day. Th e Gemara asks: In terms of the measures currently in use, what ַּכ ָּמה ּהוא ׁ ִש ּיעור ׁ ֶשל ּכוֹס? ַר ִּבי ֵיוֹסי B is the measure of a cup that holds a quarter-log? Rabbi Yosei ְּב ׁ ֵשם ַר ִּבי ֵיוֹסי ֶּבן ָּפִזי ְוַר ִּבי ֵיוֹסי ַּבר in the name of Rabbi Yosei ben Pazi and Rabbi Yosei bar ֵּב ָיבי ְּב ׁ ֵשם ַר ִּבי ׁ ְש ּמו ֵאל: ֶא ְצ ָּב ַﬠִיים Beivai in the name of Rabbi Shmuel said: Two fi ngers long by ַﬠל ֶא ְצ ָּב ַﬠִיים ַﬠל ּרום ֶא ְצ ַּבע ּו ֶמ ֱח ָצה two fi ngers wide by the height of one and a half fi ngers and .one-third of a fi nger ּו ׁ ְש ִל ׁיש ֶא ְצ ַּבע.
    [Show full text]
  • Daf Ditty Shekalim 21-Dolabra
    Daf Ditty Shekalim 21:Burial Tools/Dolabra The "Tombs of the Kings", believed to be the tomb of Queen Helene of Adiabene; 19th-century lithograph by William Henry Bartlett رﻮﺒﻗ :Keveri HaMlakhim; Arabic רבק י כלמה םי :The Tombs of the Kings (Hebrew French: Tombeau des Rois) are a rock-cut funerary complex in East ; ﻦﯿطﻼﺴﻟا Jerusalem believed to be the burial site of Queen Helene of Adiabene (died c. AD 50–56). The tomb is mentioned by Josephus who writes about Helena, queen of Adiabene, a small kingdom from Mesopotamia (today part of Kurdistan, northern Iraq) who came to Jerusalem at the end of the Second Temple Period. Her family converted to Judaism and built a palace in the area today known as the City of David. Helena's son Monobaz II had her remains and those of his brother buried "three stadia from Jerusalem." Medieval Europeans mistakenly identified the tomb as belonging to the kings of Judah.1 1 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-france-orthodox-jews-archaeologists-battle-over-e-j-lem-s-tomB- of-the-kings-1.6766370 1 Halakha 1 · MISHNA The mishna discusses the ritual purity of items found either in the Temple or in Jerusalem and its environs, in continuation of the previous chapter’s discussion of found money, animals, or meat. All the spittle that is found in Jerusalem is ritually pure. Since neither ritually impure people nor gentiles were commonly present in Jerusalem, the Sages decreed an exception to the rule that spittle that is found is ritually impure since it presumably comes from one of those groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Several Comments on a Genizah Fragment of Bavli, Eruvin 57B–59A
    HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies ISSN: (Online) 2072-8050, (Print) 0259-9422 Page 1 of 4 Original Research Several comments on a Genizah fragment of Bavli, Eruvin 57B–59A Author: This article refers to a Cairo Genizah fragment related to Bavli, Eruvin tractate 57b–59a, 1 Uri Zur identified as Cambridge, UL T-S F1 (1) 85. FGP No. C 96541. The article begins with a description Affiliation: of the Genizah fragment and presents a reproduction of the fragment itself at the end of the 1Israel Heritage Department, article. Reference is made to the content and several comments are made in an effort to Ariel University, Ariel, Israel characterise the fragment. Corresponding author: Keywords: Genizah; Eruvin; Sugya; Aramaic words; Geographical sites. Uri Zur, [email protected] Dates: Description of the Genizah Fragment Received: 11 Jan. 2019 The Genizah fragment is identified as Cambridge, UL T-S F1 (1) 85, and here I shall discuss one Accepted: 21 May 2019 Published: 12 Nov. 2019 folio (No. C 96541 at the Friedberg Jewish Manuscript Society) selected at random. How to cite this article: The fragment includes approximately 36 lines. The measurements of the folio are 26.5 cm × 32.3 Zur, U., 2019, ‘Several cm. The measurements of the written area are 20.5 cm × 24.5 cm. The page is torn at the edges comments on a Genizah and a considerable part of it is faded and illegible. The legible part of the fragment, which fragment of Bavli, Eruvin 57B–59A’, HTS Teologiese parallels that of the printed version (Vilna), begins with the words ‘…ve-ha at hu de-amrat’ .(59a) (אין, למקום) ’57b) and ends with the words ‘ein, le-makom) (והא את הוא דאמרת) Studies/Theological Studies 75(3), a5381.
    [Show full text]
  • Daf Ditty Eruvin 46: the Leniency of Grief (And Eruvin)
    Daf Ditty Eruvin 46: The leniency of Grief (and Eruvin) Under the wide and starry sky, Dig the grave and let me lie. Glad did I live and gladly die, And I laid me down with a will. This be the verse you grave for me: Here he lies where he longed to be; Home is the sailor, home from sea, And the hunter home from the hill. Robert Louis Stevenson 1 Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, that one who was asleep at the beginning of Shabbat may travel two thousand cubits in every direction. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi: Did you hear this halakha explicitly from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, or did you understand it by inference from some other ruling that he issued? Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said to him: I heard it explicitly from him. 2 The Gemara asks: From what other teaching could this ruling be inferred? The Gemara explains: From that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv. The Gemara asks: Why do I need both? Why was it necessary for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to state both the general ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the lenient opinion with regard to an eiruv, and also the specific ruling that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri on this issue? Rabbi Zeira said: Both rulings were necessary, as had he informed us only that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, I would have said that the 3 halakha is in accordance with him whether this is a leniency, i.e., that a sleeping person acquires residence and may walk two thousand cubits in every direction, or whether it is a stringency, i.e., that ownerless utensils acquire residence and can be carried only two thousand cubits from that place.
    [Show full text]
  • Bal Tashchit : the Jewish Prohibition Against Needless Destruction Wolff, K.A
    Bal Tashchit : the Jewish prohibition against needless destruction Wolff, K.A. Citation Wolff, K. A. (2009, December 1). Bal Tashchit : the Jewish prohibition against needless destruction. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/1887/14448 Version: Corrected Publisher’s Version Licence agreement concerning inclusion of doctoral thesis in the License: Institutional Repository of the University of Leiden Downloaded from: https://hdl.handle.net/1887/14448 Note: To cite this publication please use the final published version (if applicable). BAL TASHCHIT: THE JEWISH PROHIBITION AGAINST NEEDLESS DESTRUCTION Copyright © 2009 by K. A. Wolff All rights reserved Printed in Jerusalem BAL TASHCHIT: THE JEWISH PROHIBITION AGAINST NEEDLESS DESTRUCTION Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van Doctor aan de Universiteit Leiden, op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. mr P.F. van der Heijden, volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties te verdedigen op dinsdag 1 december 2009 klokke 15:00 uur door Keith A. Wolff geboren te Fort Lauderdale (Verenigde Staten) in 1957 Promotiecommissie Promotores: Prof. Dr F.A. de Wolff Prof. Dr A. Wijler, Rabbijn, Jerusalem College of Technology Overige leden: Prof. Dr J.J. Boersema, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Prof. Dr A. Ellian Prof. Dr R.W. Munk, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Prof. Dr I.E. Zwiep, Universiteit van Amsterdam To my wife, our children, and our parents Preface This is an interdisciplinary thesis. The second and third chapters focus on classic Jewish texts, commentary and legal responsa, including the original Hebrew and Aramaic, along with translations into English. The remainder of the thesis seeks to integrate principles derived from these Jewish sources with contemporary Western thought, particularly on what might be called 'environmental' themes.
    [Show full text]