DOCSLIB.ORG

Tosefta Berachot

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tosefta Berachot Tosefta Berachot Translated into English with a commentary by Eliyahu Gurevich www.toseftaonline.org Vowelization of the Hebrew Text by Rabbi Levi Sudri www.levisudri.com Published by: Eliyahu Gurevich 848 N Rainbow Blvd. #1744 Las Vegas, NV 89107 USA Website: www.toseftaonline.org Email: [email protected] Copyright © 2010 by Eliyahu Gurevich 1st Edition All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America Paperback ISBN: 978-0-557-38968-1 Hardcover ISBN: 978-0-557-38985-8 Dedicated to my grandfather, Peter Tsypkin, who taught me how to build a bridge across the river and not along it. Посвящено моему деду, Петру Цыпкину, кто научил меня как строить мост поперёк реки, а не вдоль. Table of Contents Introduction to the Tosefta ................................................................................ 6 Who wrote the Tosefta? ................................................................................. 8 The order of the tractates of the Tosefta ....................................................... 9 Printed editions of the Tosefta ..................................................................... 22 Commentaries on the Tosefta ...................................................................... 24 Translations of the Tosefta ........................................................................... 29 Books about the Tosefta ............................................................................... 29 Introduction to this edition of the Tosefta ....................................................... 31 Introduction to Masechta Berachot ................................................................. 35 Berachot, Chapter 1 .......................................................................................... 37 Berachot, Chapter 2 .......................................................................................... 67 Berachot, Chapter 3 ........................................................................................ 107 Berachot, Chapter 4 ........................................................................................ 159 Berachot, Chapter 5 ........................................................................................ 215 Berachot, Chapter 6 ........................................................................................ 312 Greek Words Index ......................................................................................... 433 General Index ................................................................................................. 434 6 Introduction to the Tosefta The Tosefta is a book of Jewish oral law, most probably written in the 3rd century CE. It is a compilation of short passages, called Beraitot (singular: Beraita), each of which states a particular law or point. There is a debate between modern scholars whether the Tosefta was written before or after the Mishna, as there is literary evidence pointing both ways. It is my opinion that the Tosefta was written after the Mishna as its name, Tosefta, implies. Tosefta is an Aramaic term, meaning the same as the Hebrew word, Tosefet, which simply means “addition”. As the name suggests it was compiled as an addition to the Mishna. The Tosefta serves its purpose as an addition to the Mishna in a number of ways: 1. It adds laws that are not mentioned in the Mishna at all. 2. It clarifies some of the laws that are mentioned in the Mishna in a very concise manner by adding additional words to them. 3. It quotes additional or different Tannaim as the sources of the exact laws mentioned in the Mishna. 4. It quotes dissenting opinions from those listed in the Mishna. 5. It interprets obscure passages in the Mishna. Throughout my commentary I have pointed out different passages in the Tosefta which imply it being written after the Mishna. Of course, this does not mean that all of the Tosefta has been written after the Mishna. There are individual Toseftot that have been formulated long before the 3rd century CE, just like there are individual Mishnayot that have been formulated way before the Mishna as a whole was written down. These passages were passed orally from generation to generation until they were written down into the book of the Tosefta. As I came across such passages I have pointed out their most probable date of compilation. The Tosefta follows the same order of tractates (Masechtot) as the Mishna, although the number of chapters, as well as the location of individual Toseftot 7 within a chapter, differs from the Mishna. It should be noted that four Masechtot of the Mishna are omitted from the Tosefta: Avot, Kinnim, Middot and Tamid. It is not known why particular laws have not been included in the Mishna and have only been included in the Tosefta. It is a common belief that the author of the Mishna, Rebbi Yehudah Hanassi (135 – 220 CE), felt that these laws were not as important as others and therefore did not include them into the Mishna. However there are multiple examples throughout the Tosefta that show that this belief is simply not true. The Tosefta often quotes such important laws that are not mentioned anywhere else that without them the Torah simply would not be able to be kept. I would like to point out one such example. There is a law in the Torah of a ritual impurity (Tumah) called a Zav, for a man, and a Zavah, for a woman. See Vayikra 15:2-15. The impurity is associated with some kind of a flow of a liquid out of the human body which renders the person impure (Tameh). However the Torah itself does not explain what kind of flow this is. The Mishna dedicates a whole Masechta to the laws of a Zav and a Zavah, called Zavim. However, it also does not explain when this flow occurs. It assumes that this as a known fact. The only source which explains what kind of flow the Torah is talking about is the Tosefta. The Tosefta (Zavim Tosefta 2:2) states as follows: And what is the difference between the flow [of a Zav] and a [regular] seminal emission? The flow [of a Zav] comes from dead flesh (i.e. non-erect penis), [where as] a [regular] seminal emission comes from live flesh (i.e. erect penis).The flow [of a Zav] is watery, like the white of a fertile egg [of a chicken] and a [regular] seminal emission is cohesive, like the white of a non- fertile egg [of a chicken]. A [regular] seminal emission is reddish and the woman may assign [the red stain on her garment, not upon her own menstruation, but rather upon] it (i.e. her husband’s semen that leaked out of her vagina after sex, which would not make her impure (Tmeah) as a Niddah). Most importantly this Tosefta describes the cause of the flow of a Zav, which is a discharge from a non-erect penis, most probably due to a sexually 8 transmitted disease, gonorrhea. Since the discharge from the penis during gonorrhea is essentially pus, or a discharge the looks like pus, it is a lot less sticky than semen, and therefore the Tosefta accurately describes it being watery, as opposed to being cohesive like semen. The Tosefta’s last statement is referring to a common condition known as hematospermia, which is the presence of blood in the semen, which gives it a reddish color. Often this condition is benign although sometimes it is indicative of some kind of a problem. During gonorrhea there is generally no blood emitted from the penis together with the pus and therefore it can serve as another distinction between the two emissions. It should be clear by now that without this Tosefta the laws of a Zav would remain completely obscure as there would be no clear definition of what kind of a flow causes the Tumah of a Zav. This proves that in no way Rebbi Yehudah Hanassi could have thought that this law is somehow not important enough to be included in the Mishna. Therefore the reason behind the exclusion of various critical laws (Halachot) from the Mishna remains a mystery. Who wrote the Tosefta? The author of the Tosefta is not clearly known. Rav Sherira Gaon writes in his famous letter (Iggeret Rav Sherira Gaon 34), around 976 CE, that he is sure that Rebbi Chiya (circa 180 – 230 CE), the student of Rebbi Yehudah Hanassi, wrote it. The only thing he is not sure about is whether he wrote it during the lifetime of Rebbi Yehudah Hanassi or after his death (in 220 CE), because the year of Rebbi Chiya’s death is not clear. This has been the traditional opinion ever since. However, modern scholarship has shown that it is also possible that Rebbi Oshiya (also known as Rebbi Hoshiya) may have written it, either by himself or together with Rebbi Chiya. See Michael Higger, “A Yerushalmi View of the Authorship of the Tosefta”, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 11 (1941), pp. 43-46. It should be noted that Rebbi Chiya himself is mentioned in the Tosefta (Beitza 1:4 and Negaim 8:7) implying that another person did the final editing. Rebbi Oshiya is not mentioned in the Tosefta and therefore it makes more sense that he would be the final editor. As I already mentioned, parts of the Tosefta were clearly compiled long time before Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Oshiya as evident from the context. Talmud 9 Yerushalmi (Shabbat 8:1, Daf 54b) mentions a story in which Rebbi Abahu says that he learned an ancient Tosefta. Rebbi Abahu lived during the 3rd century and was a contemporary of Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Oshiya, although younger than they were. It is hard to believe that he would call the Tosefta “ancient” if it was
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Women As Shelihot Tzibur for Hallel on Rosh Hodesh
    MilinHavivinEng1 7/5/05 11:48 AM Page 84 William Friedman is a first-year student at YCT Rabbinical School. WOMEN AS SHELIHOT TZIBBUR FOR HALLEL ON ROSH HODESH* William Friedman I. INTRODUCTION Contemporary sifrei halakhah which address the issue of women’s obligation to recite hallel on Rosh Hodesh are unanimous—they are entirely exempt (peturot).1 The basis given by most2 of them is that hallel is a positive time-bound com- mandment (mitzvat aseh shehazman gramah), based on Sukkah 3:10 and Tosafot.3 That Mishnah states: “One for whom a slave, a woman, or a child read it (hallel)—he must answer after them what they said, and a curse will come to him.”4 Tosafot comment: “The inference (mashma) here is that a woman is exempt from the hallel of Sukkot, and likewise that of Shavuot, and the reason is that it is a positive time-bound commandment.” Rosh Hodesh, however, is not mentioned in the list of exemptions. * The scope of this article is limited to the technical halakhic issues involved in the spe- cific area of women’s obligation to recite hallel on Rosh Hodesh as it compares to that of men. Issues such as changing minhag, kol isha, areivut, and the proper role of women in Jewish life are beyond that scope. 1 R. Imanu’el ben Hayim Bashari, Bat Melekh (Bnei Brak, 1999), 28:1 (82); Eliyakim Getsel Ellinson, haIsha vehaMitzvot Sefer Rishon—Bein haIsha leYotzrah (Jerusalem, 1977), 113, 10:2 (116-117); R. David ben Avraham Dov Auerbakh, Halikhot Beitah (Jerusalem, 1982), 8:6-7 (58-59); R.
    [Show full text]
  • Foreword, Abbreviations, Glossary
    FOREWORD, ABBREVIATIONS, GLOSSARY The Soncino Babylonian Talmud TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH NOTES Reformatted by Reuven Brauner, Raanana 5771 1 FOREWORDS, ABBREVIATIONS, GLOSSARY Halakhah.com Presents the Contents of the Soncino Babylonian Talmud TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH NOTES, GLOSSARY AND INDICES UNDER THE EDITORSHIP OF R AB B I D R . I. EPSTEIN B.A., Ph.D., D. Lit. FOREWORD BY THE VERY REV. THE LATE CHIEF RABBI DR. J. H. HERTZ INTRODUCTION BY THE EDITOR THE SONCINO PRESS LONDON Original footnotes renumbered. 2 FOREWORDS, ABBREVIATIONS, GLOSSARY These are the Sedarim ("orders", or major There are about 12,800 printed pages in the divisions) and tractates (books) of the Soncino Talmud, not counting introductions, Babylonian Talmud, as translated and indexes, glossaries, etc. Of these, this site has organized for publication by the Soncino about 8050 pages on line, comprising about Press in 1935 - 1948. 1460 files — about 63% of the Soncino Talmud. This should in no way be considered The English terms in italics are taken from a substitute for the printed edition, with the the Introductions in the respective Soncino complete text, fully cross-referenced volumes. A summary of the contents of each footnotes, a master index, an index for each Tractate is given in the Introduction to the tractate, scriptural index, rabbinical index, Seder, and a detailed summary by chapter is and so on. given in the Introduction to the Tractate. SEDER ZERA‘IM (Seeds : 11 tractates) Introduction to Seder Zera‘im — Rabbi Dr. I Epstein INDEX Foreword — The Very Rev. The Chief Rabbi Israel Brodie Abbreviations Glossary 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Rosh Hashanah Jewish New Year
    ROSH HASHANAH JEWISH NEW YEAR “The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the Israelite people thus: In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall observe complete rest, a sacred occasion commemorated with loud blasts. You shall not work at your occupations; and you shall bring an offering by fire to the LORD.” (Lev. 23:23-25) ROSH HASHANAH, the first day of the seventh month (the month of Tishri), is celebrated as “New Year’s Day”. On that day the Jewish people wish one another Shanah Tovah, Happy New Year. ש נ ָׁהָׁטוֹב ָׁה Rosh HaShanah, however, is more than a celebration of a new calendar year; it is a new year for Sabbatical years, a new year for Jubilee years, and a new year for tithing vegetables. Rosh HaShanah is the BIRTHDAY OF THE WORLD, the anniversary of creation—a fourfold event… DAY OF SHOFAR BLOWING NEW YEAR’S DAY One of the special features of the Rosh HaShanah prayer [ רֹאשָׁהַש נה] Rosh HaShanah THE DAY OF SHOFAR BLOWING services is the sounding of the shofar (the ram’s horn). The shofar, first heard at Sinai is [זִכְּ רוֹןָׁתְּ רּועה|יוֹםָׁתְּ רּועה] Zikaron Teruah|Yom Teruah THE DAY OF JUDGMENT heard again as a sign of the .coming redemption [יוֹםָׁהַדִ ין] Yom HaDin THE DAY OF REMEMBRANCE THE DAY OF JUDGMENT It is believed that on Rosh [יוֹםָׁהַזִכְּ רוֹן] Yom HaZikaron HaShanah that the destiny of 1 all humankind is recorded in ‘the Book of Life’… “…On Rosh HaShanah it is written, and on Yom Kippur it is sealed, how many will leave this world and how many will be born into it, who will live and who will die..
    [Show full text]
  • A USER's MANUAL Part 1: How Is Halakhah Organized?
    TORAHLEADERSHIP.ORG RABBI ARYEH KLAPPER HALAKHAH: A USER’S MANUAL Part 1: How is Halakhah Organized? I. How is Halakhah Organized? 4 case studies a. Mishnah Berakhot 1:1, and gemara thereupon b. Support of the poor Peiah, Bava Batra, Matnot Aniyyim, Yoreh Deah) c. Conversion ?, Yevamot, Issurei Biah, Yoreh Deah) d. Mourning Moed Qattan, Shoftim, Yoreh Deiah) Mishnah Berakhot 1:1 From what time may one recite the Shema in the evening? From the hour that the kohanim enter to eat their terumah Until the end of the first watch, in the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The Sages say: Until midnight. Rabban Gamliel says: Until morning. It happened that his sons came from a wedding feast. They said to him: We have not yet recited the Shema. He said to them: If it has not yet morned, you are obligated to recite it. Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 2a What is the context of the Mishnah’s opening “From when”? Also, why does it teach about the evening first, rather than about the morning? The context is Scripture saying “when you lie down and when you arise” (Devarim 6:7, 11:9). what the Mishnah intends is: “The time of the Shema of lying-down – when is it?” Alternatively: The context is Creation, as Scripture writes “There was evening and there was morning”. Mishnah Berakhot 1:1 (continued) Not only this – rather, everything about which the Sages say until midnight – their mitzvah is until morning. The burning of fats and organs – their mitzvah is until morning. All sacrifices that must be eaten in a day – their mitzvah is until morning.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Demai for the Poor
    בס"ד Volume 13. Issue 11 Demai for the Poor The Mishnah (3:1) teaches that one is able to feed that the Rambam explained the leniency was motivated demai produce to the poor. In other words, the to ease the mitzvah of tzedaka. Consequently, the requirement of separating terumot and maasrot from leniency is only afforded to the ani in that context - demai produce is lifted for an ani (poor person). The when one feeds an ani. If, however the ani receives a Mishnah continues that this leniency was also afforded good portion as part of a tzedaka distribution and takes to the achsanya. The Bartenura explains that this refers it home, then he is obligated to separate Demai. He to Jewish soldiers that passed through from town to explains that that is why the Mishnah used to word town. By force of law, the people of each town were “ma’achilin” (feed) and not “ochlin” (eat) when made responsible to feed them. Why are these people teaching this exemption, since it is only in the context excluded from the gezeirah of demai? of feeding the ani that he is exempt. This would also explain why the Mishnah only records the requirement Rashi (Eiruvin 17b) explains that whether or not one is of informing the ani in the case of a tzedaka truly required to separate terumot and maasrot from distribution but not in the case of feeding aniim demai. demai is doubtful – it is a safek. Furthermore, most Amei Haaretz separated everything that was required The Tosfot Yom Tov, however notes that the Rambam anyway.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Parashat Ki Tavo Rabbi David Silverberg Parashat Ki-Tavo Begins
    Parashat Ki Tavo Rabbi David Silverberg Parashat Ki-Tavo begins by discussing the mitzva of bikkurim, which requires a farmer to bring his first fruits each year to Jerusalem as a gift to the officiating kohen. Among the unique features of this mitzva, as the Torah describes, is the mikra bikkurim declaration which the farmer must recite as part of the bikkurim ceremony. This declaration, which the Torah dictates in our parasha (26:5-10), briefly recounts the story of the Exodus, from the time of Yaakov until Benei Yisrael’s departure from Egypt, and then tells of the nation’s entry into the land. Maimonides introduces this obligation in Mishneh Torah (Hilkhot Bikkurim 3:10) by writing, “There is an affirmative command to confess in the Temple over the bikkurim” (“Mitzvat asei le-hitvadot be-Midkash al ha-bikkurim…”). Curiously, Maimonides defines this declaration as a viduy, a “confession.” This term is familiar to us from two other contexts, most obviously the mitzva of teshuva, which Maimonides, in the beginning of Hilkhot Teshuva, defines as essentially an obligation to verbally confess. Additionally, the Sages employed the term viduy also in reference to the second mitzva presented in Parashat Ki-Tavo, a halakha known as viduy ma’aser. This obligation requires a farmer to pronounce a declaration every three years affirming his compliance with the laws of terumot and ma’aserot (the required tithes and other gifts from his agricultural yield). Maimonides, interestingly enough, applies the term viduy also to mikra bikkurim. Many writers have addressed the question as to how the concept of “confession” relates to viduy ma’aser, in which a farmer announces that he has faithfully observed all the laws applying to his agricultural produce.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing the Talmud: the Origins of the Printed Talmudic Page
    Marvin J. Heller The author has published Printing the Talmud: A History of the Earliest Printed Editions of the Talmud. DESIGNING THE TALMUD: THE ORIGINS OF THE PRINTED TALMUDIC PAGE non-biblical Jewish work,i Its redaction was completed at the The Talmudbeginning is indisputablyof the fifth century the most and the important most important and influential commen- taries were written in the middle ages. Studied without interruption for a milennium and a half, it is surprising just how significant an eftèct the invention of printing, a relatively late occurrence, had upon the Talmud. The ramifications of Gutenberg's invention are well known. One of the consequences not foreseen by the early practitioners of the "Holy Work" and commonly associated with the Industrial Revolution, was the introduction of standardization. The spread of printing meant that distinct scribal styles became generic fonts, erratic spellngs became uni- form and sequential numbering of pages became standard. The first printed books (incunabula) were typeset copies of manu- scripts, lacking pagination and often not uniform. As a result, incunabu- la share many characteristics with manuscripts, such as leaving a blank space for the first letter or word to be embellshed with an ornamental woodcut, a colophon at the end of the work rather than a title page, and the use of signatures but no pagination.2 The Gutenberg Bibles, for example, were printed with blank spaces to be completed by calligra- phers, accounting for the varying appearance of the surviving Bibles. Hebrew books, too, shared many features with manuscripts; A. M. Habermann writes that "Conats type-faces were cast after his own handwriting, .
    [Show full text]
  • Pesachim 036.Pub
    י"ב טבת תשפא“ Sun, Dec 27 2020 OVERVIEW of the Daf Distinctive INSIGHT 1) Fulfilling the mitzvah of matzah with tevel (cont.) Matzah cannot be made from Bikkurim אוציא חיטין ושעורין שיש במין ביכורים Ravina offers an alternative explanation to the Baraisa but the Gemara demonstrates that the explanation offered by R’ Sheishes is clearer. T he Gemara brings a Baraisa which teaches that mat- 2) Matzah made from ma’aser sheni grain zah cannot be made from fruits which are brought to A Baraisa is cited that records different sources that do Yerushalayim as Bikkurim. Rabbi Yosi HaGalili learns this not permit the use of ma’aser sheni grain for the mitzvah of from the verse which describes matzah as something that is in all your communities,” which— בכל מושבותיכם “ matzah. eaten An apparent contradiction is noted regarding R’ Akiva’s excludes Bikkurim fruits which can only be eaten in position concerning matzah that was kneaded with liquids Yerushalayim. Rabbi Akiva also determines that the mitz- other than water. vah of matzah cannot be fulfilled from Bikkurim, and he The Gemara resolves the contradiction by distinguishing learns this from the association between matzah and mar- between the first day of Pesach and the remaining days of ror (in the verse Bemidbar 9:11). We know that a person Pesach. cannot fulfill his obligation to eat marror with Bikkurim. 3) Kneading dough in lukewarm water So too, claims Rabbi Akiva, matzah cannot be performed The Gemara questions why the previous Baraisa does not with Bikkurim. permit the use of lukewarm water to make matzah whereas The Gemara then clarifies the analysis of Rabbi Akiva.
    [Show full text]
  • Fooling the Tax Collector
    Schachter, rosh yeshiva of Rabbi Isaac Elchanan In introducing a new metaphor — that Theological Seminary (RIETS) at Yeshiva citizens of a modern democracy are more University. “It is important to note that today like partners than subjects — into formalized the basis for taxation is totally different from Jewish legal thinking, Schachter has taken what it was in talmudic times.” According to a a first important step in opening up an en- contemporary understanding of Jewish law, we tirely new vista from which to think about ought to ground the obligation to pay taxes not the legitimacy of taxes and the responsibility SHMA.COM in the anachronistic notion of dina d’malchuta of partners to participate in public policy dis- dina; rather, we should invoke the talmudic cussions. In this alternative view, it is not us concept of shutfim or partnership. Schachter versus them, but rather “we the people” who concludes, “All people who live in the same must formulate fair tax rules and just public city, state, and country are considered ‘shut- policies. It follows directly from Schachter’s fim’ with respect to the services provided by new formulation that as Jewish partners in that city, state, and country. The purpose be- this process, we have a unique right and obli- hind the taxes is no longer ‘to enrich the king’ gation to bring to our fellow citizens the best in the slightest.” (Torahweb.org) of Jewish legal and ethical thinking. Fooling the Tax Collector: Why the Rabbis Once Approved DAVID BRODSKY abbi Naftali Tzvi Weisz, the Spinka Luke 3:12, 5:27–30, 7:29, 7:34, 15:1, and 18:9– Rebbe of Boro Park, and the great-great- 14), just as the Mishnah associates them with Rgrandson of R.
    [Show full text]
  • 2006 Abstracts
    Works in Progress Group in Modern Jewish Studies Session Many of us in the field of modern Jewish studies have felt the need for an active working group interested in discussing our various projects, papers, and books, particularly as we develop into more mature scholars. Even more, we want to engage other committed scholars and respond to their new projects, concerns, and methodological approaches to the study of modern Jews and Judaism, broadly construed in terms of period and place. To this end, since 2001, we have convened a “Works in Progress Group in Modern Jewish Studies” that meets yearly in connection with the Association for Jewish Studies Annual Conference on the Saturday night preceding the conference. The purpose of this group is to gather interested scholars together and review works in progress authored by members of the group and distributed and read prior to the AJS meeting. 2006 will be the sixth year of a formal meeting within which we have exchanged ideas and shared our work with peers in a casual, constructive environment. This Works in Progress Group is open to all scholars working in any discipline within the field of modern Jewish studies. We are a diverse group of scholars committed to engaging others and their works in order to further our own projects, those of our colleagues, and the critical growth of modern Jewish studies. Papers will be distributed in November. To participate in the Works in Progress Group, please contact: Todd Hasak-Lowy, email: [email protected] or Adam Shear, email: [email protected] Co-Chairs: Todd S.
    [Show 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.).
    [Show full text]