Talmud do Berachot 7:1

שְׁלשָׁה שֶׁאָכְלוּ כְאֶחָד, חַיָּבִין לְזַמֵּן. אָכַל דְּמַאי, וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁנִּטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ, וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ, וְהַשַּׁמָּשׁ שֶׁאָכַל כַּזַּיִת, וְהַכּוּתִי, מְזַמְּנִין עֲלֵיהֶם. אֲבָל אָכַל טֶבֶל, וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְרוּמָתוֹ, וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ, וְהַשַּׁמָּשׁ שֶׁאָכַל פָּחוֹת מִכַּזַּיִת, וְהַנָּכְרִי, אֵין מְזַמְּנִין עֲלֵיהֶם:

Trzech, którzy jedli razem chayavin lezamen. [Muszą "zgrupować" (lehizdamen) razem, aby błogosławić w liczbie mnogiej: "Pobłogosławmy tego, za którego pożywienia jedliśmy."] Zimun (taka grupa) jest zrobiona (nawet) jeśli ktoś zjadł: demai, [ owoce am ha'aretz (osoby niewykształconej) nazywane są „demai”, tj. „da mai?” "Co to jest?" Dziesięcina czy bez tytułu? Albowiem amei ha'aretz są podejrzani w odniesieniu do dziesięcin. Mędrcy zabronili spożywania ich owoców, dopóki nie otrzymają dziesięciny. Ale jeśli ktoś zjadł z nich bez dziesięciny, błogosławieństwo (łaska) jest mimo wszystko recytowane i nie jest uważane za „micwę przechodzącą przez przestępstwo”, ponieważ większość amei ha'aretz robi dziesięcinę], a ma'aser rishon ( pierwsza dziesięcina), której terumah została zabrana [chociaż terumah gedolah („wielki terumah”) nie została z niej zabrana. To znaczy: Lewita poprzedził Coheina i zabrał swojego ma'aser w łodygi, zanim Cohein zajął terumah gedolah. Cohein miał zająć terumah gedolah, jedną pięćdziesiątą, najpierw, Tora nazywając ją „reshith” („pierwsza”). Okazuje się więc, że terumah gedolah z Cohein znajduje się w tym ma'aser— jedną pięćdziesiątą tego —Oprócz terumath ma'aser, na Lewicie spoczywa obowiązek oddzielenia terumah od jego ma'aser. Nasza Miszna powiadamia nas, że Lewita nie musi oddzielać terumah gedolah od niej, jest napisane (Lb 18:26): „Wtedy wy (Lewici) oddzielicie od niej terumah dla L-rd, ma'aser od ma” aser ”—ma'aser od ma'aser, a nie terumah gedolah i terumath ma'aser of the ma'aser.] i ma'aser sheni (druga dziesięcina) i hekdesh (poświęcone przedmioty), które zostały odkupione, [jak wtedy, gdy on podał główny, ale nie piąty (właściciele dodają piątą), tanna ostrzega nas, że (brak) piątego nie stoi na drodze (błogosławieństwa).] i (zimun jest wykonany z) kelner, który zjadł oliwkowy rozmiar. [bo myślelibyśmy, że skoro kelner nie ma stałego miejsca, ale przychodzi i odchodzi, nie robi się z nim zimun; dlatego też powiedziano nam inaczej. We wszystkich tych przypadkach dowiadujemy się, że chociaż są one podobne do tego, co jest zabronione, nie stanowią one „błogosławieństwa wynikającego z przestępstwa”], a (wraz z) Kuthite [jedną z sekty bałwochwalców, którą przyniósł król Ashur z Cutha iz innych krajów i osiadł w miastach Szomron. Zostali prozelitami ze strachu przed lwami, które zaczęły ich pożerać, jak wyjaśniono w 2 Księdze Królewskiej (17), i przestrzegali spisanego Prawa, będąc bardziej wybredni niż sami Żydzi w przestrzeganiu każdej micwy, którą trzymali. Dlatego ufano im w odniesieniu do pewnych micwotów, dopóki nie odkryto, że umieścili wizerunek gołębicy na szczycie góry Garizim, której służyli. Od tego czasu byli uważani za absolutnych bałwochwalców pod każdym względem, z tego powodu dzisiaj nie robi się zimun z Cuthite.] Ale zimun nie jest robiony, jeśli ktoś zjadł tevel [Ziarno, z którego nie wzięto terumah i ma'aser nazywa się „tevel” („tav lo” - „To nie jest dobre”). I nie tylko (jest oczywiste), że zimun nie jest zrobiony na tym, co jest tevel według Pisma, ale nawet na tym, co jest tevel na mocy rozporządzenia rabinicznego, takiego jak ziarno wyhodowane w nieperforowanej doniczce.], I ma'aser rishon, którego terumah nie został zabrany. [„Terumah” tutaj nie jest terumath ma'aser, ponieważ byłby to absolutny tevel, ale wspomniany przypadek dotyczy tego, w którym Lewita poprzedzał Coheina na stosie po tym, jak został wykończony i stał się poddany terumah zgodnie z Torę i najpierw wziął ma'aser riszon. Jedna pięćdziesiąta z tego podlega terumah gedolah Coheina; tak długo, jak terumah gedolah nie zostanie oddzielona, nawet jeśli terumah ma'aser zostanie oddzielona, nie zostanie nad nim utworzony zimun. (Gdyby Lewita poprzedził Coheina i wziął swojego ma'asera w łodygi, przed wykończeniem stosu, nie byłoby potrzeby oddzielania terumah gedolah, jak wyjaśniono powyżej).], I ma'aser sheni i hekdesh które nie zostały odkupione [Nie trzeba mówić, że (nie jest zrobiony zimun), gdyby w ogóle nie zostały odkupione; bo to jest oczywiste. Odniesienie jest raczej do przypadku, w którym został odkupiony, ale nie według halachy, jak wtedy, gdy ma'aser sheni jest odkupiony za pomocą fragmentów srebra lub monety, która nie ma na sobie żadnego wzoru, co Pismo stwierdza ( Powtórzonego Prawa 14:25): „Vetzarta pieniądze”—pieniądze z tzurą (wzór na nim); i tak jak wtedy, gdy hekszesz jest wykupiony ziemią zamiast pieniędzmi, Pismo mówi (Kapłańska 27:19): „Wtedy doda jedną piątą pieniędzy”], a kelner, który zjadł mniej niż oliwę -rozmiar. [To jest zbędna Miszna; ale ponieważ większość (z wyżej wymienionych przypadków) jest powtarzana dla koniecznej nauki, to również się powtarza] i jest bałwochwalcą. [Jest to odniesienie do prozelity, który przeszedł obrzezanie, ale nie poddał się rytualnemu zanurzeniu; Miszna informuje nas, że dopóki nie poddał się rytualnemu zanurzeniu, nadal jest bałwochwalcą, nie uważany za prozelitę, dopóki nie przeszedł zarówno obrzezania, jak i zanurzenia rytualnego. ]

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

“A Samaritan.” That follows him who said, a Samaritan is a like full Jew. But for him who says that a Samaritan is like a Gentile, it is not so. As they disagreed²⁰Cf. Demay 3:4, Note 98; Berakhot 7:1, Note 59.: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, a Samaritan is like a Jew in every respect. Even if you say, a Samaritan is like a Gentile, why are Samaritans disqualified? Not because of a Gentile and a slave²¹Since 2K.17, 24ff. clearly states that the settlers from Babylon, Kuta, etc. at the start were idolators; if they intermarried with the remainders of the Israelite populations there, their descendants all acquired the status of descendants of Gentiles (or slaves) from Israelite mothers.? If a Gentile or a slave has intercourse with a Jewish woman, the child is a bastard²²This is the argument of R. Joḥanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish in Yebamot 7:6, Note 129; it is rejected there since the child of a Jewish woman from a Gentile, together with her mother, is disqualified from priesthood but not a bastard (Notes 130,131).. But a bastard girl can claim a fine! For restrictions or family relations you consider him a Gentile or a slave who had intercourse with a Jewish woman; the child is a bastard. But for a fine you consider this as a Jew having intercourse with a Gentile woman, in which case the child is a Gentile²³The separation from Samaritans is purely one of practice, with no theoretical basis, and disapproved of by the Mishnah. In the Babli, 29b/30a, the argument (attributed to R. Meïr) is rejected, in order not to reward a sinner (the rapist or seducer.).

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin

Samuel said, if two men acted as judges, their judgment stands, but they are called an insolent court³⁶Babli 3a,5b,30a,87b; Ketubot 22a. Cf. Berakhot 7:1, Note 18.. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both are instructing: Even³⁷Even if the parties accepted them as judges. if two men acted as judges, their judgment is no judgment³⁸In the Babli, this opinion is represented by Rava (5b) and R. Abbahu (87b), the student of R. Johanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish.. There, we have stated³⁹Mishnah Bekhorot 4:4. The Mishnah refers to a person who did not pass the required examinations and was not formally qualified as a judge.: “If he rendered judgment, acquitted the guilty and condemned the innocent, declared the pure impure or the impure pure, what he did is done but he has to pay from his own pocket.” Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: if they told him, we accept you as if you were two⁴⁰Since R. Abbahu follows his teachers and holds that any judgment passed by a court of two judges is void, as well as from the following quote, it is clear that one has to read “three” in place of “two”.. What are we dealing with? If his error was that he judged them on his discretion⁴¹If there exists no clear precedent for the case; different schools promulgate different rules and he followed a minority opinion because it seemed to him to be the correct one, his judgment is valid but there is no reason why he should have to pay. The Babli, 33a, declares a judgment against a clear majority of opinions as an error in law., then what he did is done. If his error was that he judged them by Torah law⁴²If his judgment contradicted a Mishnah or a clear precedent, in Israel a judgment of the Patriarch’s court or in Babylonia a concurrent judgment of both Yeshivot, his judgment is void (cf. Ketubot 9:2, Note 100). If any money changed hands as a consequence of the erroneous judgment, it has to be returned., why should he pay from his own pocket? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: if they told him, we accept you as if you were three on condition that you judge us by Torah law. He erred and judged them on his discretion. What he did is done, but since he erred and judged them on his discretion, he has to pay from his own pocket⁴³As a fine. because he was presumptuous to judge alone by Torah law, as we have stated⁴⁴Mishnah Avot 4:8.: “Do not judge sitting alone, for only One judges sitting alone.”

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Demai

MISHNAH: With demay, one may make eruv¹⁹²There are two kinds of eruv (“mixing”) on the Sabbath. If many houses open into a common courtyard, in order to carry from the houses to the courtyard it is necessary to turn the courtyard into common property. This is done by putting into the courtyard some food to which all houses contributed. The second kind is “mixing of domains”, explained in Peah, Chapter 8, Note 56., participate¹⁹³In order to turn a dead-end street into a common domain in which one may carry on the Sabbath, the residents of the courtyards opening into the dead-end street have to participate in giving food for a common meal. Since the rules for the dead-end street are different from those for a courtyard, the word eruv is not used., recite grace¹⁹⁴Even if demay wine has not been put in order and one wants to use it for the cup of blessing. If a transgression of a Biblical commandment were involved, using it for a benediction would constitute blasphemy., and recite grace in a group¹⁹⁵The longer form of Grace with an additional invocation.. One may separate it while naked¹⁹⁶In contrast to separating heave and tithes from certain produce, demay does not require a benediction and no invocation of the Name, and, hence, may be separated while one is naked (Cf. Berakhot Halakhah 8:2). or at twilight¹⁹⁷Friday night after sundown when it is still light but possibly already Sabbath. Certain food cannot be put in order then because this would make it usable now when before it was not at the start of the Sabbath. But demay which in any case is food of the poor, may be put in order during twilight (Mishnah Šabbat 2:7).. And if one lifted the Second Tithe before the First, it is also acceptable¹⁹⁸For untithed food, lifting the Second Tithe before the First is forbidden; here it is permitted. Maimonides points out that in any case the heave of the tithe must be a full one percent of the original amount.. The oil the weaver puts on his hands²⁰⁰Mishnah Šabbat 2:7: “If it is doubtful whether it is night or not, one does not tithe the certain, one does not immerse vessels (to remove impurity), one does not kindle lights, but one may tithe demay, make an eruv, and cover warm food (to keep it warm for the next morning.)” is obligated for demay, that which the carder puts on wool is free from demay.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Demai

Rebbi Taypha the Red⁹⁷An Amora of the fourth generation, student of R. Abbahu and sometimes mentioned in connection with the Amora R. Yose. in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Samaritans can be trusted with deposits. Is that not the Mishnah: “With a Samaritan”? Our Mishnah before they became suspect, he comes to tell us even after they became suspect⁹⁸The Yerushalmi always refers the question whether Samaritans are counted as Jews or as Gentiles to the disagreement between Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel and his son Rebbi, as reported below. However, it is stated in ‘Avodah zarah 5:3, fol. 44d (quoted in Babli Ḥulin 6a) that in the times of Rebbis Ammi, Assi, and Abbahu, Samaritans were found to use Gentile wine (or to adopt Gentile behavior), and from that moment on Samaritans were considered as Gentiles. However it seems from the Yerushalmi that up to the end of the Talmudic period in Galilee, the separation of Jews and Samaritans was not universally accepted. (One also may assume that parts of Jewish Sadducee communities changed to a Samaritan affiliation after the destruction of the Temple.). How is it, should he be trusted to say, I took it and replaced it by other deposits that were put in order? If you believe him in that he took it, you should believe him in what he gave. If you do not believe that he took, do not believe that he gave⁹⁹In the Tosephta (Demay 4:22), this argument is given in reference to deposits with an am haäreẓ.. You believe a Samaritan that he gave¹⁰⁰Grain from another source, but you do not believe him that he exchanged. In the Tosephta (Demay4:24) one reads: “If he says, I took it and replaced it with some that was put in order, one does not worry either about tithes or about the Sabbatical.” and you do not believe that he took. Rebbi Jonah asked: What are we talking about? If he says, they are my own, even an am haäreẓ should not be trusted. If he says, X¹⁰¹A person recognized as a ḥaver. took tithes for me, even the Samaritan should be believed. Rebbi Abba said, explain it according to him who says that a Samaritan is like a Gentile. As they disagreed: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, a Samaritan is like a Jew in every respect.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Shekalim

“One does not accept from the Non-Jew and the Samaritan.” Rebbi Abba said, explain it¹²⁵On the face of it, the equation of Samaritans with Gentiles is unintelligible. The baraita shows that up to the time of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, Rebbi’s father, the Samaritans were simply Sadducee Jews, the only Sadducee sect to survive after the destruction of the Temple. The Mishnah here reproduces Rebbi’s opinion. The paragraph also is in Berakhot7:1 (Note 59, ב). following him who said, a Samaritan is like a Gentile, as they disagreed: A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a Samaritan is like a Jew in all respects.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, only from the place of masculinity²⁴³Here starts the discussion of the last sentence in this Mishnah, the assertion of R. Eleazar ben Shamua (in the Babli, R. Eliezer) that for the definition of homosexuality an hermaphrodite is a full male. The position of R. Joḥanan here is an explicit statement of R. Eleazar (ben Shamua) in Tosephta 10:2.. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: even from the female place²⁴⁴For him, heterosexual intercourse of a male with an hermaphrodite is still homosexuality. In the Babli, 83b, that is the opinion of Rav.. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi in the name of Rebbi Abbahu: Rebbi Joshua ben Levi retracted this, from the following verse²⁴⁵Lev. 18:22. As the Babli explains, on the face of it, the verse seems to support the first opinion of R. Joshua ben Levi, but a second look shows that the prohibition is to lie with a male, i. e., the male aspect of the hermaphrodite.: “And with a male you should not lie in the way of a woman’s beddings”, one who may lie in two ways, including the female. Who is that? That is the hermaphrodite. Rebbi said, I looked for but did not find words of Ben Shamua about the hermaphrodite, for the entire group ganged up on me²⁴⁶Babli 84a; there, “the students of R. Eleazar ben Shamua ganged up on him like chickens in a chicken coop.”. Why? Not to make it public or because he was not worth it? What difference does it make? He usually made public. If you say, it was not to make it public²⁴⁷The uncommon form לגלע instead of the common לגלות seems so be an Arabism, from جلع “to uncover indecently”. It seems that the teachings of R. Eleazar ben Shamua’s students were esoteric., the publicity is already in his hand. The reason must be that he was not worth it. What could he made public? He inherits²⁴⁸If there are 2 children, a hermaphrodite and a daughter, at the death of the father the daughter has a claim on the estate for a dowry but the only heir is the hermaphrodite.
The Babli, 83b, which attributes the Mishnah to R. Eliezer, proves from parallel statements that the hermaphrodite is considered a full male only in respect to homosexuality. In all other respects, it is considered a case of doubt whether he is male or female., he testifies²⁴⁹He can testify formally in cases where a male witness is required (such as the validity of certain legal acts.), his grain offering is burnt completely²⁵⁰The grain offering of a Cohen is burned completely (Lev. 6:16); the grain offering of the daughter of a Cohen is treated like the offering of an Israel and most of it is eaten by the Cohanim in the Temple precinct., one says grace with him as with a male.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Demai

It was stated¹⁷⁹Tosephta Demai 5:2: “A Gentile who was calling out, ‘come and buy fruits, they are from Azeqa, from an orlah tree, from a vineyard in its fourth year,’ cannot be believed because he intends to advertise. But if he says, ‘I bought them from a certain Gentile,’ he is to be trusted for restrictions, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, he cannot be trusted since the words of a Gentile are irrelevant.”: “A Gentile who was calling out, ‘come and buy fruits from me, they are from an orlah tree¹⁸⁰A tree in the first three years after planting, when its fruits are forbidden for all use (Lev. 19:23)., they are from a vineyard in its fourth year¹⁸¹See Peah 7:6.,’ cannot be believed. If he says, ‘I brought them from a certain Gentile,’ he may be trusted for restrictions¹⁸²He can be believed in that the produce is untithed; he cannot be believed that the produce is not subject to heave and tithes., the words of Rebbi. The Sages say, the words of a Gentile are irrelevant¹⁸³As far as Jewish religious obligations are concerned..” Rebbi Judan asked, what if he calls out when he is uninformed¹⁸⁴If he never heard of Jewish restrictions, or calls out in a place without any Jewish inhabitants. The questions are not answered, so they must be answered in a restrictive sense.? Rebbi Judan asked, what if one holds that a Samaritan is like a Gentile, since they disagreed: “A Samaritan is like a Gentile, the words of Rebbi. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, a Samaritan is like a Jew in all respects¹⁸⁵Cf. Demay 3:4, Berakhot 7:1.”?

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Cały rozdział Następny werset