DOCSLIB.ORG

Sota Book.Indb

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sota Book.Indb Perek V Daf 29 Amud a NOTES as the Torah has already rendered an uncertain case of a ׁ ֶש ֲהֵרי ָﬠ ָׂשה ָּב ּה ְס ֵפק ָזוֹנה ְּכ ָזוֹנה, ְּת ּרו ָמה woman who has engaged in sexual intercourse with a man ְו ַחד ִל ְכ ּהו ָּנה ְו ַחד – One to priesthood and one to teruma ַנ ִמי ָלא ִּת ָּיב ֵﬠי ְקָרא, ׁ ֶש ֲהֵרי ָﬠ ָׂשה ָּב ּה ְס ֵפק Tosafot ask: Why doesn’t the Gemara suggest that : ִל ְת ּרו ָמה forbidden to her by the Torah [zona] as though she is certainly ָזוֹנה ְּכ ָזוֹנה! once the verse deems a sota defiled with regard to her husband, it should follow that she is disqualified from ever a zona, since a sota is forbidden to her husband aft er seclusion marrying a priest or form partaking of teruma if her husband even though there are no witnesses that she committ ed adultery, is a priest, as she is assumed to have committed adultery? and therefore it should be prohibited for her to marry a priest They answer, somewhat cryptically, that absent the addi- just like any zona, then with regard to her prohibition against tional verses one could have said that a sota is considered partaking of teruma a verse should also not be necessary, as it defiled only with regard to her husband, as there could be is prohibited for a zona to partake of teruma. Th erefore, the court-imposed capital punishment because of him. The Eshel Avraham explains that Tosafot mean that even if the wife had Torah renders an uncertain zona like a certain zona. not in fact committed adultery, her improper behavior will Rather, it must be explained that according to Rabbi Akiva, the ֶא ָּלא, ְלַר ִּבי ֲﬠ ִק ָיבא ַאְר ָּב ָﬠה ְקָר ֵאי ְּכ ִת ִיבי: eventually lead to her doing so, which will render her liable equivalent of four verses worthy of exposition are writt en with ַחד ַל ַּב ַﬠל, ְו ַחד ַל ּב ֵוֹﬠל, ְו ַחד ִל ְכ ּהו ָּנה ְו ַחד to receive court-imposed capital punishment, in the event -regard to the defi lement of a sota, as he maintains that an addi ִל ְת ּרו ָמה; .that she is caught in the act in the presence of witnesses Therefore, it is preferable that she become forbidden to her tional halakha should be derived from the superfl uous prefi x vav husband until she drinks the bitter water, and she is forbidden in the verse: “And is defi led [venitma’a]” (Numbers :). Th ere- to her husband in order that he will be more likely to make fore, one verse is writt en to forbid her to her husband, and one her drink the bitter water. However, this should not be taken is to forbid her to her paramour, and one is to forbid her to as an indication that the verse regards her as having been marry into the priesthood, and one is to forbid her to partake defiled, and as such, one cannot assume that she will become N forbidden to a priest or to partake of teruma. of teruma. Keren Ora suggests another explanation as to why the And Rabbi Yishmael disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, as he does ְוַר ִּבי ִי ׁ ְש ָמ ֵﬠאל ְּת ָל ָתא ְקָר ֵאי ְּכ ִת ִיבי: ַחד halakha that a sota is forbidden to her husband does not not expound on the superfl uous vav, and therefore maintains ַל ַּב ַﬠל, ְו ַחד ַל ּב ֵוֹﬠל ְו ַחד ִל ְת ּרו ָמה, ּו ְכ ּהו ָּנה :serve as proof with regard to teruma and marrying a priest The reason she is forbidden to her husband could be that that only three verses are writt en: One is to forbid her to her ָא ְתָיא ְּב ַקל ָו ֶחוֹמר. even if she did not actually engage in sexual intercourse, her husband, and one is to forbid her to her paramour, and one is promiscuous behavior was clearly contrary to her husband’s to forbid her to partake of teruma. And her being prohibited to warning and warranted his disapproval. This unique prohibi- marry into the priesthood is derived through an a fortiori tion for the husband, however, does not apply to the other B matters under discussion. inference, as described in the baraita. Th e Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Yishmael ְוַר ִּבי ִי ׁ ְש ָמ ֵﬠאל, ִמ ַּמאי ְ ּד ִא ְיצ ְטִר ְיך ְקָרא -A matter that can be derived through an a fortiori infer This principle, which : ִמ ְּיל ָתא ְ ּד ָא ְתָיא ְּב ַקל ָו ֶחוֹמר וכו׳ – .ence, etc derive that the verse was necessary to teach the prohibition of ִל ְת ּרו ָמה, ּו ְכ ּהו ָּנה ָא ְתָיא ְּב ַקל ָו ֶחוֹמר? is cited in many places in the Talmud, states that although the a sota to partake of teruma, and her prohibition against marry- ִ ּד ְיל ָמא ִּכי ִא ְצ ְטִר ְיך ִל ְכ ּהו ָּנה, ּו ְת ּרו ָמה Torah will not repeat explicit halakhot more than once if it is ing into the priesthood is derived through an a fortiori infer- ׁ ַשְרָיא! not teaching a specific novelty, the Torah will state a halakha explicitly although it could be derived through an a fortiori ence? Perhaps the verse was necessary in order to teach that it inference. The reason why a halakha that could be derived is prohibited for the woman to marry into the priesthood, but through logical reasoning might be stated explicitly could teruma is permitt ed for her? be either to emphasize the halakha, or to provide it with the :Th e Gemara answers: Rabbi Yishmael could have said to you ָא ַמר ָל ְך: ִמ ְס ַּת ְּבָרא ּד ּו ְמָיא ְ ּד ַב ַﬠל ּו ֵבוֹﬠל, additional power that only halakhot stated explicitly in the It is reasonable to derive from this verse a prohibition that is ַמה ַּב ַﬠל ּו ֵבוֹﬠל ֵמ ַח ִיּים, ַאף ְּת ּרו ָמה ַנ ִמי Torah have, such as the ability of the court to punish one who violates such a halakha. ,.similar to the prohibitions derived from the other verses, i.e ֵמ ַח ִיּים, ְל ַא ּפ ּו ֵקי ְּכ ּהו ָּנה ִ ּד ְל ַא ַחר ִמ ָיתה. that she is forbidden to her husband and her paramour. Just BACKGROUND as she is forbidden to her husband and her paramour even One of the fundamental during the lifetime of her husband, so too, the prohibition : ַקל ָו ֶחוֹמר – An a fortiori inference principles of rabbinic exegesis, a fortiori inference appears in against partaking of teruma applies also during the lifetime all of the standard lists of exegetical principles. In essence, it is a principle of logical argumentation where a comparison of her husband, to the exclusion of her prohibition against is drawn between two cases, one more lenient and the other marrying into the priesthood, which is relevant only aft er the more stringent. The a fortiori inference asserts that if the death of her husband. Th e reason is that if her husband would halakha is stringent in a case where the ruling is usually divorce her it would be prohibited for her to marry a priest lenient, then all the more so will it be stringent in a more anyway. serious case; likewise, if the halakha is lenient in a case where :And how would Rabbi Akiva respond? Th e Gemara answers ְוַר ִּבי ֲﬠ ִק ָיבא – ּד ּו ְמָיא ְ ּד ַב ַﬠל ּו ֵבוֹﬠל ֵלית the ruling is not usually lenient, then it will certainly be lenient in a less stringent case. A fortiori inferences appear in the Bible, He is not of the opinion that it is more reasonable to derive a ֵל ּיה; and the Sages compiled lists of verses in which they appear. prohibition from the phrase “and is defi led” that is similar to For example: “If you have run with the foot soldiers, and they have wearied you, how can you contend with horses?” the prohibitions involving her husband and her paramour, and (Jeremiah 12:5). therefore he requires two separate derivations; one for teruma and one for the priesthood. Or alternatively, perhaps he accepts the opinion that the ְו ִאי ַנ ִמי ִאית ֵל ּיה, ִמ ְּיל ָתא ְ ּד ָא ְתָיא ְּב ַקל halakha derived from “and is defi led” should be similar to the ָו ֶחוֹמר ָטַרח ְו ָכ ַתב ָל ּה ְקָרא. prohibitions involving the husband and paramour, but never- theless, in certain instances with regard to a matt er that can be derived through an a fortiori inference,N the verse nevertheless takes the trouble and writes explicitly. Th erefore, although unnecessary, two verses are stated, one for teruma and one for the priesthood. פרק ה׳ דף כט. sota . perek V . 29a 176 Th e Gemara continues discussing the baraita. Rav Giddel said ֲא ַמר ַרב ִּג ֵ ּידל ֲא ַמר ַרב: ָ ּד ָבר ׁ ֶש ֵיּ ׁש ּבוֹ that Rav said: Th e halakha with regard to an entity that has ַ ּד ַﬠת ִל ָּׁיש ֵאל ְו ֵאין ּבוֹ ַ ּד ַﬠת ִל ָּׁיש ֵאל – awareness in order for it to be asked and an entity that lacks ֵמ ַהאי ְקָרא ָנ ְפ ָקא: ְ״ו ַה ָּב ָׂשר ֲא ׁ ֶשר ִי ַּגע awareness in order for it to be asked in cases of uncertain ritual impurity is derived from this verse: “And the fl esh that touches ְּב ָכל ָט ֵמא לֹא ֵי ָא ֵכל״ – ַוַ ּדאי ָט ֵמא ּהוא any impure thing shall not be eaten” (Leviticus :).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Perek III Daf 29 Amud A
    Perek III Daf 29 Amud a HALAKHA The Gemara answers:That is referring to a beet that was only הַ הוּא בִּבְשׁ ִ יל וְלָ א בְּשׁ ִ ילד An eiruv may not be made : ְּ ב שׁ ִ י ל ְ ו ָ ל א ְ ּ ב שׁ ִ י ל – partially cooked,H which is dangerous. Partially cooked from beets or other vegetables (Rambam) that were only partially cooked (Rambam Sefer Zemanim, Hilkhot Eiruvin 1:11; There are some who say that Rav Hamnuna said: One may ּאִיכָא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: אֵין B Shulĥan Arukh, Oraĥ Ĥayyim 386:5). :not establish an eiruv with raw beets, as Rav Ĥisda said מְעָרְבִ ין בִּתְרָדִ ין חַ ּיִין, דַּאֲמַ ר רַ ב חִסְדָּ א: כט All ritually : ּ ְ ׳ס וּ ל וִ ּגְ ו ּיָ ה– Raw beet kills a healthy person. The Gemara asks:Don’ t we The disqualification of a priest’s body סִ ילְ אָ חַ ּיָ יא ָ טֵ יל ּג אַבְרָ חַ ּיָ יאד וְהָ א ָ א see people eating it and they do not die? The Gemara an- impure foods combine to complete the measure of half a half- swers: There, it is referring to a beet that was only partially loaf, in order to disqualify one who eats them by imparting a חָ זֵ ינַן דְּ ָ א אָ כְלִ י וְלָ א מָ יְיתִ י! הָתָ ם בִּבְשׁ ִ יל lenient form of ritual impurity. This is true even if one does not ְ ו ָ ל א ְ ּ ב שׁ ִ י ל ד cooked, which is dangerous.
    [Show full text]
  • Shavuot-Night Print & Learn-Along
    Toco Hills 2020 Shavuot-Night Print & Learn-Along Dear all, Chag Sameach and Happy Zman Matan Torateinu to you and your families! On most years many of us would be spending tonight together, learning Torah in the shul. Unfortu- nately we cannot be physically together again yet, but in the spirit of Har Sinai, where the Jewish people were k’ish echad b’lev echad, we wanted to try and recreate that experience as much as possible. Hence, the learn-along was born, a way for us all to learn together, even while apart. In this packet please find six shiurim, prepared by community members, each in their own particular style and manner, just as they would have given them in shul if they were able. Just print them out before Yom Tov and learn-along at your own pace. Feel free to only “attend” the ones you like, and to sneak out in the middle for some cheesecake and cof- fee. And the best part is, if you do fall asleep in the middle, no one will ever know :) TABLE OF CONTENTS The Residual Holiness of the Beth Jacob Parking Lot & Reflections On My Return to Minyan .................................................................... 3 By Rabbi Nachi Friedman 7 ......................................................................................................................................................................................... כי אם בתורת ה’ חפצו By Ari Leifer One, Two, Skip A Few … Ninety-Nine, One Hundred ......................................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Perek X Daf 117 Amud A
    Th e Gemara asks: Does this prove by inference that Rav Aĥa bar ִמ ְּכ ָלל ְ ּדַרב ַא ָחא ַּבר ַי ֲﬠקֹב ָס ַבר ַמ ָּצה Ya’akov maintains that eating matza nowadays applies by Torah ִּבְז ַמן ַהֶזּה ְ ּד ַאוֹרְי ָיתא? ְו ָהא ַרב ַא ָחא law? But isn’t Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov the one who said that eating ַּבר ַי ֲﬠקֹב ּהוא ְ ּד ָא ַמר: ַמ ָּצה ַּבְזּ ַמן ַהֶזּה matza nowadays applies by rabbinic law? Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov ap- ְ ּדַר ָּב ַנן! ָק ָס ַבר: ּכֹל ְ ּד ַת ּק ּון ַר ָּב ַנן – ְּכ ֵﬠין parently contradicts himself. Th e Gemara answers: Rav Aĥa bar Ya’akov maintains that everything the Sages instituted through ְ ּד ַאוֹרְי ָיתא ִּת ּיק ּון. their decrees, they instituted similar to the model established by Torah law. In other words, although the obligations to eat matza and recite the Haggadah are rabbinic, the stringencies and restric- tions that apply to Torah mitzvot apply here as well. Th erefore, a blind person is exempt from reciting the Haggadah. Th e Gemara asks: According to the opinion of Rav Sheshet and ְלַרב ׁ ֵש ׁ ֶשת ּו ְלַרב ֵיוֹסף ַנ ִמי, ָהא ַוַ ּדאי Rav Yosef too, certainly everything the Sages instituted through ּכֹל ְד ַת ּק ּון ַר ָּב ַנן ְּכ ֵﬠין ְ ּד ַאוֹר ְי ָיתא their decrees, they instituted similar to the model established by ִּת ּיק ּון! Torah law. Why, then, did these blind Sages recite the Haggadah themselves? Th e Gemara rejects this diffi culty: How can these cases, the verses ָה ִכי ָה ׁ ְש ָּתא! ִּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ָה ָתם, ִמַ ּד ֲהָוה -dealing with rebellious son and the Passover Haggadah, be com ֵל ּיה ְל ִמ ְיכ ַּתב ְּ״ב ֵנ ּנו ּהוא״ ּו ְכ ִתיב pared? Granted, there, in the case of the rebellious son, as the verse ְּ״ב ֵנ ּנו ֶזה״ – ׁ ְש ַמע ִמ ָּינ ּה ְּפָרט ְל ּסו ִמין could have writt en: He is our son, and instead it is writt en: “Th is ּהוא ַ ּד ֲא ָתא.
    [Show full text]
  • Sanhedrin2 Book.Indb
    Perek XI Daf 96 Amud b NOTES -The Gemara asks: And did Nebuchadnezzar ascend to Jeru וּמִ י סְלֵ י נְבוּכַד ּנֶצַר לִירוּשָׁלַיִם? וְהָכְתִ יבד Some understand : שׁ ַ ָ ּ ו ו ר ַ ּ ב ר שׁ ַ ָ ּ ו ו ר – salem? But isn’t it written with regard to Zedekiah: “And they Leaper son of a leaper this, through a slight variation in the vocalization, to ״וַּיַעֲלוּאֹתֹו אֶ ל מֶלֶךְ בָּבֶ ל רִבְלָתָ ה״. וְאָמַ ר took the king, and brought him up to the king of Babylonia, to .(mean: Leap, son of a leaper (Ge’onim רַ בִּ י אַ בָּ ּהוד רֹו אַ נְטֹוכְ יָא! רַ ב חִסְ דָּ א וְרַ ב יִצְ ָח Riblah” (II Kings 25:6), and Rabbi Abbahu says: This place מַחְ ּיֵיה ְבּ ֹו ָ ׳א – called Riblah is a reference to Antioch. Apparently, Nebuchad- Struck with the dull end and it opened בַּ ר אֲ בוּדִ ימִ י. חַ ד אָמַ רד דְּ מוּת דְּ יֹו ְ נֹו הָיְתָ ה צוד Some understood that the reference is to the : וְ אִ י ּ ַ ׳ ּ ַ ת ח ֲח ּוָ ה לֹו עַל מֶרְ ּכַבְ ּתֹו. וְחַ ד אָמַ רד אֵ ימָ ה nezzar was in Antioch, not in Jerusalem. Rav Ĥisda and Rav wooden handle of the ax. Based on that interpretation, Yitzĥak bar Avudimi resolved this apparent contradiction. One the verse could be well understood as meaning: He יְתֵ הירָ ההָיְתָ לֹו מִ ֶּ מּנוּ, וְדֹומֶ ה ּכ יְמִ שֶׁ עֹומֵ ד says: An image of Nebuchadnezzar’s likeness was engraved on became known as the wielder of the wood of an ax לְ ָ ׳נָ י ו .
    [Show full text]
  • 1 on Bamidbar / Shavuos
    the Sinai generation. Indeed later scholars would entertain whether the laws BS"D of conversion were consistently applied to that generation. When this process took place is debated by Rashi and Ramban. Whereas Ramban understands that the text follows in chronological order and that To: [email protected] this covenant took place on the day after Matan Torah, Rashi sees it as a From: [email protected] flashback to the preparatory days leading up to revelation. This is part of Rashi and Ramban’s deliberations on the interpretation and application of the Talmudic principle ain mukdam ume’uchar baTorah, passages in the Torah are not necessarily written in chronological order. Simply put, the rabbis of the Talmud stated that chronology need not be the driving organizer of the Torah narratives. While Rashi applies this INTERNET PARSHA SHEET principle broadly throughout Torah, the Ramban understands that it refers ON BAMIDBAR / SHAVUOS - 5775 to a specific parsha in Bamidbar where the recorded dating clearly indicates that the chronological order of the texts was ignored. Beyond that episode, argues Ramban, almost all the narratives of the Torah text follow in their In our 20th year! To receive this parsha sheet, go to http://www.parsha.net and click natural sequence. Subscribe or send a blank e-mail to [email protected] Please also Thus Ramban explains that this parsha occurred just after the content of copy me at [email protected] A complete archive of previous issues is now available at http://www.parsha.net It is also fully searchable. the entire Parshas Mishpatim was taught.
    [Show full text]
  • Perek X Daf 106 Amud B
    Perek X Daf 106 Amud b HALAKHA One who washes his hands should not recite kiddushH N aft er ַה ּנ ֵוֹטל ָי ָדיו לֹא ְי ַק ֵ ּד ׁש. ֲא ַמר ְל ּהו -washing, as this would constitute an interruption between wash ַה ּנ ֵוֹטל – One who washes his hands should not recite kiddush ַרב ִי ְצ ָחק ַּבר ׁ ְש ּמו ֵאל ַּבר ָמְר ָתא: -One who washes his hands before kiddush dem :ָי ָדיו לֹא ְי ַקֵ ּד ׁש ing and eating, and he will have to wash again. Instead, he should ַא ַּכ ִּתי ָלא ָנח ַנ ְפ ׁ ֵש ּיה ְ ּדַרב ׁ ְש ַכ ְח ִנ ְינ ּהו onstrates that he prefers bread to wine. Consequently, one who hear kiddush from someone else. Rav Yitzĥak bar Shmuel bar ִל ׁ ְש ַמ ֲﬠ ָת ֵת ּיה! ִז ְמ ִנין ַס ִּג ִיאין ֲהָוה does so should recite kiddush over bread (Rif). Based on the Rosh and Mordekhai, the Rema rules that it is preferable to wash Marta said to them: Not a lot of time has yet passed since Rav died, and we have already forgott en his halakhic rulings. Many ָק ֵא ְימ ָנא ַק ֵּמ ּיה ְ ּדַרב, ִז ְימ ִנין ַ ּד ֲח ִב ָיבא .one’s hands before kiddush and then to recite kiddush over wine times I stood before Rav and saw that sometimes he preferred ֲﬠ ֵל ּיה ִר ְיפ ָּתא – ְמ ַק ֵ ּד ׁש ַאִר ְיפ ָּתא! Several later authorities write that one should act in accordance bread,N and he would recite kiddush over bread.
    [Show full text]
  • Perek I Daf 16 Amud A
    Perek I Daf 16 Amud a NOTES or with saddle cushions [avitin],N or with wheat sheaves, or with בַּעֲבִיטִ ין, בִּשׁ ְלִ י ִ ׳ין, בְּ ָ נִים, בְּ ֹולָ חֹות – The Ra’avad understands boards, or with stalks [kolaĥot],N one may carry within the enclosed :עֲבִיטִ ין – [Cushions [avitin מְטַלְטְלִין בְּ ּתֹוכָה, וּבִלְבַ ד שֶׁ ּלֹא יְהֵ א that in this context the word avitin refers to a kind of area, provided that there is no camel-length gap between one cam- בֵּין ּגָמָ ל לְגָמָ ל ּכִמְ לֹא ּגָמָ ל, וּבֵין ָּאוּכב -bucket. This is its meaning in other contexts in the Tal mud. el and another, or a saddle-length gap between one saddle and -another, or a cushion-length gap between one cushion and an לְ ָּאוּכב ּכִמְ לֹא ָּאוּכב, וּבֵ ין עָבִ יט לְעָבִ יט . Stalks [kolaĥot] – : The Arukh explains that other. Apparently, from this baraita it can be understood that if the ּכִמְ לֹא עָבִ יטד ֹולָ חֹות טז kolaĥot are dry vegetable stalks. breach is equal to the standing segment, it is not a valid enclosure. : ָ ל שׁ ֹ שׁמ ד ִ ּ ֹו ת ַ ּ ב ּ ְ מ ִ ח י ּצ ֹו ת – Three measures for partitions The Gemara rejects this conclusion. Here, too, it is referring to gaps הָכָ א נַמִ י, ּכְשׁ ֶ ּנִכְנָס וְ יֹוצֵ אד -A lengthy discussion of this baraita found in the Jeru salem Talmud concludes that the rules for partitions through which the various objects can easily be inserted and ex- detailed in this baraita apply only to the halakhot of tracted, so that the breached segment is in fact slightly greater than forbidden diverse kinds and not to the halakhot of that of the standing segment.
    [Show full text]
  • Daf 7 March 28, 2021
    15 Nissan 5781 Shekalim Daf 7 March 28, 2021 Daf Notes is currently being dedicated to the neshamah of Tzvi Gershon Ben Yoel (Harvey Felsen) o”h May the studying of the Daf Notes be a zechus for his neshamah and may his soul find peace in Gan Eden and be bound up in the Bond of life The Mishnah taught: The leftover money gathered by the offering. And even if he had set aside the money for nazir beyond what he needs for his offerings must be used chatas-offerings from the rest of the money designated for voluntary (communal) offerings. On this point, Rav for the offerings, all the money is considered unspecified Chisda said: This is only when his chatas offering was money.3 brought last;1 if, however, his shelamim was offered last, the surplus falls to a shelamim.2 Rabbi Ze’ira says that it And the following Baraisa supports Rav Chisda: A nazir falls to voluntary communal offerings even if the who set aside money for his sacrifices (and did not initially shelamim is offered last. That is because there is a special specify which coins were designated for which sacrifice), Halacha (l’Moshe mi’Sinai) that was said regarding the and then took some of that money and said, “These are monies of a nazir that its surplus falls to voluntary designated for my chatas-offering, and the remainder4 is communal offerings. designated for the rest of my nazir offerings”, and he died before actually purchasing the offerings.5 If one used the The Gemora cites two braisos; one as a proof to Rabbi remaining money for his own purposes he is guilty of Zeira, and one as a proof to Rav Chisda.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Quotes from the Talmud
    Universal quotes from the Talmud Berakoth 17a Abaye was wont to say: One must always be shrewd and utilize every strategy in order to achieve fear of Heaven and performance of commandments. One must fulfill the verse: “A soft answer turns away wrath” (Proverbs 15:1) and take steps to increase peace with one’s brethren and with one’s relatives, and with all people, even with a non- jew in the marketplace, despite the fact that he is of no importance to him and does not know him at all (Me’iri), so that he will be loved above in God’s eyes, pleasant below in the eyes of the people, and acceptable to all of God’s creatures. מרגלא בפומיה דאביי לעולם יהא אדם ערום ביראה מענה רך משיב חמה ומרבה שלום עם אחיו ועם קרוביו ועם כל אדם ואפילו עם גוי בשוק כדי שיהא אהוב למעלה ונחמד למטה ויהא מקובל על הבריות Tangentially, the Gemara mentions that they said about Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai that no one ever preceded him in issuing a greeting, not even a non-jew in the marketplace, as Rabban Yoḥanan would always greet him first. אמרו עליו על רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שלא הקדימו אדם שלום מעולם ואפילו גוי בשוק Shabbat 88b With regard to the revelation at Sinai, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The Lord gives the word; the women that proclaim the tidings are a great host” (Psalms 68:12)? It means that each and every utterance that emerged from the mouth of the Almighty divided into seventy languages, a great host.
    [Show full text]
  • THE Babylonian Talmud
    o In 2 ° r. ^ rt < c , V Ur T) < 3 o u Hrt 3 c ,_^ ^ -^rt c o .^ ^ fj Xi c u rt o w c *-t tl •t 1 ^ o ^^-^ >. u £^ tx: rt 3 tx c c o cr. t:^ C u ""^ o •n o *-' c .~ ii < rt o .£- s;; o ua V Pi f H'jfllitil Mil £^•0 'boa. 'x'^r^.'^DSn^Os;— ' ^ 3 ^ 5-3 n 2^ — y :::^ e-s' >< ;« 2 C r5JQ3r^_0^^-'_ :i-o ^3 »^ 3 5.= ^^ c 3-^n"-'o Si^.2 = =^ = ~> r- 2 "<*>"< '^ !^ p^ ^ O 3-x 3 O P_^ " r. p -< p « 2 ^ — ^ T I :n X ^^z.^ 3 -5 =^-"" pp:r;y'-'3:35oa.--p3Sr653--^rt 2 ="07: o f* c i^ ^ § I 1 H-,3 crc a.;«r-3~.3n'— 2 3- ,^ rt ^ p j^j:; 4^5. C "< X ^- N -. ° A 2 ^-op =tx>5 3 « <: P 2 -f-r^ 3 r^g. *! /» 3 - o u-n^.r^^'<r> p*^ 3 y. 3:3 Q-3^ =-^:j 5 c« o^c o 3 c 3 p"S -B^; p O 3 rt - ^0'^,5!«3^ --3 - =r?r:4 ~'^ *< --3S _ " c _ O C 2 3 rs C n 3"5 ' C = f"- - ^?r - P i m's3< §3 ^ 5><: ^ r. s ^=0 2 >"3f^:i^^p rt O S* r- 2. s-t" =:o 5-0 •= - • 4 V a :^ -J-. '^ ^ n '-v -^^ C. < r^ r. 3"r» rt 0>?C<3t3C.:^^3 3*0 NEW EDITION OF THE Babylonian Talmud ©rtomal XTest, EMte^, (^orrecte^, fformulateb, ant) Xlranslatet) into 3£nGUsb BY MICHAEL L.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tale of the Last Eight Pesukim
    The Tale of the Last Eight Pesukim Timely Torah, Sep 13th We thank Dr Leslie Honikman who will be sponsoring this shiur in honor of his mother's yahrtzeit, ״עה ,Mrs Rose Honkman, Shaindy bas Eliezer This shiur commemorates the Hachnosas Sefer Torah in honor of our past member Dr. Murray .ע ה״ ,Kohn Ibodlo Lechaim Tovim Uleshalom, it celebrates the Hachnosas Sefer Torah in honor of the 90th נ י״ ,Birthday of Mr. Lenny Kunin 1. Devarim 34:1-12 And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto mount 1 א אל מָוֹאבֶ, ַֹמערבת ֶֹמשְֵׁה ַַַויּעל - ַה ר ,וֹבְ נ ֹר שׁא פַּ ה ִס גְּ ,הָ ֲשׁ א רֶ רֶ ֲשׁ א ,הָ גְּ ִס פַּ ה שׁא ֹר ,וֹבְ נ ר Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. And ַעל - ו;אתְפּנ יי יהיּוּוהֵרחוֹ אה ְְֵֵֶַַָר ְ - ָכּל - ָתץארָהא ֶ ֶ - ָע,דְעִלגַּה ַד - the LORD showed him all the land, even Gilead as far as ָדּ.ן Dan; ,and all Naphtali, and the land of Ephraim and Manasseh 2 ב ָכּל ְוֵאת, - ,פולתּאת ְְִֶַָני - רץֶאפֶאר ְֶ ,ַמםי תה;ְשּׁנִוּ וַכּ ְָלֵֶא - ֶץֶאר ;and all the land of Judah as far as the hinder sea ֲַהאחרוֹן. יּהָם עַָד ְיָהוּדַה, and the South, and the Plain, even the valley of Jericho the 3 ג ְוֶאת - ֶ,בֶגנַּה ְֶתאו - ִבּרכַּהכּ ִתעָק תּעוְֹחרְַי ירֵרַהמ ִיְָםִ -- ַעד - .city of palm-trees, as far as Zoar .ַרעֹצ And the LORD said unto him: 'This is the land which I 4 ד ְָתּלָאברהם ְִנְִַשׁבּעְַי ֲֶאשׁר ֶָהארץ ֹזאָת ָיאול, ְיהָוֵה ַוֹיֶּאמר ְיהָוֵה ָיאול, ֹזאָת ֶָהארץ ֲֶאשׁר ְִנְִַשׁבּעְַי ְָתּלָאברהם swore unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying: I יְלִקחציְל ְֹלז,ַאקרָעְמוּ רֲֵלב ְֲ,תּPאעַֹ ְֶנ ה;ֶהנּ Pביֶתָאר ֶי,Pֵניְִעְִי ֶי,Pֵניְִעְִי Pביֶתָאר ה;ֶהנּ ְֶנ ְֲ,תּPאעַֹ רֲֵלב ְֹלז,ַאקרָעְמוּ יְלִקחציְל will give it unto thy seed; I have caused thee to see it with thine ֲַתֹעבר.
    [Show full text]