Miszna
Miszna

Talmud do Jewamot 10:2

נִסֵּת עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין, תֵּצֵא, וּפְטוּרָה מִן הַקָּרְבָּן. לֹא נִסֵּת עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין, תֵּצֵא, וְחַיֶּבֶת בַּקָּרְבָּן. יָפֶה כֹּחַ בֵּית דִּין, שֶׁפּוֹטְרָהּ מִן הַקָּרְבָּן. הוֹרוּהָ בֵית דִּין לִנָּשֵׂא, וְהָלְכָה וְקִלְקְלָה, חַיֶּבֶת בַּקָּרְבָּן, שֶׁלֹּא הִתִּירוּהָ אֶלָּא לִנָּשֵׂא:

Jeśli ponownie wyszła za mąż na mocy orzeczenia bet-din, zostawia go i jest zwolniona z ofiary. [Bo jeśli osoba (w przeciwieństwie do kongregacji) działa na podstawie orzeczenia bet-din, jest zwolniona z ofiary (jeśli orzeczenie zostanie później uznane za błędne).] Jeśli nie wyszła ponownie za mąż przez orzeczenie bet-din [ale na podstawie zeznań dwóch świadków] musi odejść i przynieść ofiarę, [bo zgrzeszyła nieświadomie. Halacha nie jest zgodna z tą Miszną, ale niezależnie od tego, czy wyszła ponownie za mąż na mocy orzeczenia bet-din, czy na podstawie zeznań dwóch świadków, ona i jej drugi mąż muszą przynieść ofiarę.] Najwyższa jest mocą betdin, która zwalnia ją z ofiary. Jeśli bet-din orzekł, że może ponownie wyjść za mąż, a ona poszła i zamieszkała w grzesznym związku, musiała przynieść ofiarę; bo pozwolili jej tylko ponownie wyjść za mąż.

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

MISHNAH: If somebody makes a vow that his wife should not have any usufruct from him1Then he cannot fulfill his obligation to feed, clothe, and house his wife., up to thirty days2This can be read to mean that the wife cannot sue for divorce if the husband limits his vow to thirty days. But if his vow is unlimited, the wife can demand an immediate divorce. It might also mean that in no case can the wife sue unless the husband did not provide for her for at least 30 days. he shall appoint a provider3Who provides for her from his own money and only later is repaid by the husband., more than that he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah. Rebbi Jehudah says, if he is an Israel4Who can remarry his divorcee if he found an Elder who dissolves his vow., for one month he should keep her, for two he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah; in the case of the wife of a Cohen5He is given more time to find a way to dissolve his vow since he never could remarry his divorcee, Lev. 21:7. for two months he should keep her, for three he has to divorce her and pay the ketubah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Horayot

MISHNAH: If the Court ruled to uproot an entire subject; if they said, the menstruating woman is not mentioned in the Torah, Sabbath is not mentioned in the Torah, idolatry is not mentioned in the Torah, they are not liable98Since anything written in the Torah is public knowledge and nobody would listen to them.. If they ruled to eliminate part and to confirm part, they are liable. How is that? If they said, the menstruating woman is mentioned in the Torah but one who copulates with one who is watching a day to the next day is not liable99In rabbinic medical theory, the minimum time which must elapse between one menstrual period and the next is the seven days of the niddah(Lev.15:19) followed by another 11 days. If a woman has a discharge on one of these 11 days, she is not classified as niddah but as zavah, whose rules are spelled out in Lev.15:25–30. Since the verse speaks of a discharge of many days, it is concluded that the full rules of zavah only apply after 3 days. For the first and second discharges in that 11 day period, the woman is called “watching one day to the next day”. For a day she is under the rules of niddah(Lev. 15:25) and therefore forbidden to her husband. But since the verse uses the expression all the days of the flow of her impurity shall be like the days of her menstruation, one could think that she is impure only during the day and not during the following night, or that a discharge during the night does not make her impure. This is clearly a matter of rabbinic interpretation.; Sabbath is mentioned in the Torah but one who brings from a private domain to a public domain is not liable100The pentateuchal root of the prohibition to carry from a private to the public domain is Ex. 16:29, nobody should go out from his place, which is explained in Jer. 17:22 by do not move a load from your houses. Since as a matter of principle prophetic utterances should not be used as legal texts, the ruling of the Court could not be dismissed out of hand.; idolatry is mentioned in the Torah but one who prostrates himself is not liable101This is more difficult to understand since Deut. 17:3 clearly defines prostrating oneself in idolatry as a capital crime. Therefore, one has to agree with Maimonides’s Commentary that the Court changed the definition of “prostration”, e. g., ruling that kneeling down, bowing the head to the ground, is not punishable as long as one does not lie on the ground with outstretched hands and feet.; these are liable for it is said102Lev. 4:13. Sifra Wayyiqra 2, Parašah4(7–8). something was hidden, something but not an entire subject.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Poprzedni wersetCały rozdziałNastępny werset