Talmud do Jewamot 4:11
אַרְבָּעָה אַחִין נְשׂוּאִין אַרְבַּע נָשִׁים, וָמֵתוּ, אִם רָצָה הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶם לְיַבֵּם אֶת כֻּלָּן, הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ. מִי שֶׁהָיָה נָשׂוּי לִשְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, וָמֵת, בִּיאָתָהּ אוֹ חֲלִיצָתָהּ שֶׁל אַחַת מֵהֶן פּוֹטֶרֶת צָרָתָהּ. הָיְתָה אַחַת כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאַחַת פְּסוּלָה, אִם הָיָה חוֹלֵץ, חוֹלֵץ לַפְּסוּלָה. וְאִם הָיָה מְיַבֵּם, מְיַבֵּם לַכְּשֵׁרָה:
Jeśli czterech braci było żonaty z czterema kobietami i umarli —jeśli najstarszy brat chce przyjąć je wszystkie w yibum, może to zrobić. [To samo dotyczy większej liczby. Jeśli może je wszystkie utrzymać, może je wszystkie zabrać. „Czterech” jest określane jako „dobra rada”, a mianowicie. Cztery, a nie więcej, aby mógł wypełniać swoje małżeństwo przynajmniej raz w miesiącu.] Jeśli jeden był żonaty z dwiema kobietami i umarł, mieszkając z jedną z nich lub danie jej chalicy zwalnia jej carę [i nie bierze obu w yibum, jest napisane (Księga Powtórzonego Prawa 25: 9): „… kto by nie zbudował domu swego brata”—buduje jeden dom, a nie dwa. I nie daje chalicy obojgu, bo kto nie podlega yibum, nie podlega chalice. A ponieważ oboje razem nie podlegają yibum (jak stwierdzono: „On buduje jeden dom itd.”), Oni również nie podlegają chalicy]. Jeśli jedna z kobiet była kaserą (dla kapłaństwa), a inne, nieodpowiednie—jeśli daje chalicę, to daje ją temu, kto jest niezdolny [aby nie zdyskwalifikować nadającego się z kapłaństwa (małżeństwa). Albowiem chaluca nie nadaje się do kapłaństwa. „Niech nie wylewa wody ze swojej studni, jeśli inni ich potrzebują”], a jeśli wybierze yibum, bierze tego, który jest w dobrej kondycji.
Jerusalem Talmud Beitzah
A calf born on a holiday is permitted since it permits itself by slaughter21An unborn calf inside its mother does not need separate slaughter; its mother’s slaughter also permits the calf which is considered part of its mother’s body. But once it is born, it must be slaughtered to become food. Since the birth on the holiday introduces the duty of slaughtering, an action to satisfy this duty removes also the rabbinic prohibition of moving the animal.. Rebbi Ze`ira asked, in that case an animal kept outside should be permitted since it permits itself by slaughter22A domestic animal kept all year outside, far from permanent human dwellings, may not be cared for on the holiday (Mishnah 5:7), therefore certainly it is not prepared to be food of the holiday. This seems to contradict the earlier statement., deer should be permitted since it permits itself by slaughter23Since one is prohibited from catching deer, it cannot possibly be holiday food unless caught before the holiday.. Rebbi Ze`ira came back and said, a calf is fully formed the day before, but here24In the case of the chicken egg. it was born on the day it was fully formed. Rebbi Abba said, this follows him who said that an animal gives birth after split months; but what is for him who said, an animal gives birth after a fixed number of months25Babli Bekhorot 21a, a disagreement whether cattle gives birth after a full 9 months or not. If the number of days of gestation is not fixed, the owner of the pregnant animal cannot have the intention to use the unborn calf as food on the holiday since he could not know the prospective date of birth.? Think of it, that he knew when a male had mounted it26In this case it might be possible to compute the day of birth in advance and the calf would be food if that day is a holiday.. A pigeon chick born on a holiday is permitted since it permits itself by slaughter28An egg is permitted only if no chick developed. A fully formed chick in an egg still is not considered a chick but a forbidden egg; even if a human takes away the shell and slaughters the chick it is the slaughter of an egg which cannot possibly permit any food which was forbidden.; did we not state, an egg which had started to develop, and chicks which do not yet have wings are forbidden as abomination, but one does not whip because of carcass meat? And Rebbi Ḥaggai said, even if he slaughtered them28An egg is permitted only if no chick developed. A fully formed chick in an egg still is not considered a chick but a forbidden egg; even if a human takes away the shell and slaughters the chick it is the slaughter of an egg which cannot possibly permit any food which was forbidden.. Rebbi Abun said, explain it about those born with wings29For these the argument of Note 21 applies..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Niddah
Rebbi Hoshaia stated: If [a woman] gave birth and then converted, she has no period of purity. Rebbi Yose said, this is correct. If Rebbi Hoshaia had not stated this, would it have been a problem for us? Since she has no period of impurity104Living Gentiles cannot be impure by biblical standards; all their impurity is rabbinical. The biblical status of the impurity of Gentile corpses is a matter of dispute. Since the period of purity follows the period of impurity caused by birthing, the fact that the woman was still a Gentile when giving birth eliminates the period of impurity and with it the period of purity., she cannot have a period of purity. 105From here to the end of the paragraph, the text (with some significant changes) is from Yebamot 4:11, Notes 167–171. In the variant readings, the Leiden ms. of Yebamot is noted by י, the Ashkenazic ms. fragments [Qobez al yad XII (XXII)] by א. It was stated: The proselyte, the captive, and the slave woman who were redeemed, or converted, or freed, have to wait three months, the words of Rebbi Judah. Rebbi Yose says, they do not have to wait. Their blood, Rebbi Jehudah says, is timed exactly; Rebbi Yose says, it makes impure 24 hours retroactively. Rebbi said, the words of Rebbi Yose are reasonable for the blood, and the words of Rebbi Judah for the child. But Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Yoḥanan, practice follows Rebbi Yose. Rebbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rebbi Yose: For if it were not so, what could we say? Between Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Yose, practice does not follow Rebbi Yose? But because Rebbi said, “they are reasonable”. Did not Rebbi Abba say in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira, every time Rebbi taught “they are reasonable”, the disagreement is unresolved except in the case of the fig cake where each party to the controversy accepts the opposition’s argument. Rebbi Yose said, I stated a difficulty before Rebbi Ḥanina ben Rebbi Abbahu: Even if it is certain that they had sex? He said to him, is a normal Gentile not like one who had sex?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jerusalem Talmud Avodah Zarah
HALAKHAH: “If libation wine fell into a cistern,” etc. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of ben Bathyra: If libation wine fell into a cistern, all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine178The lenient ruling of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel is a traditional Babylonian one.. Rebbi Samuel bar Nathan in the name of Rebbi Ḥama: practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel179In the Babli, 74a, this is a ruling of the prestigious Rav Naḥman. Here it is quoted in the name of obscure authorities because it is not unquestionable.. Rebbi Yasa said, one of the rabbis came out from the house of assembly and said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. One said, practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, and one said, practice does not follow Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, but Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel agrees that as wine for cooking it is forbidden180As explained in Note 177, even for Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel libation wine remains forbidden even in the most minute amount; it is only that the mixture does not entirely become forbidden for all usufruct.. Rebbi Bun in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel if it was an amphora among amphoras that all of it shall be sold to a Gentile except for the value of libation wine181This is Rav’s interpretation of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s ruling in the Babli 74a. If an amphora in a storage facility with at least two other amphoras was contaminated with libation wine and it can no longer be identified, all amphoras can be sold to Gentiles since for each single one the probability that it was the forbidden one is less than 50% which makes the sale acceptable by biblical standards.. Rebbi Ze`ira said before Rebbi Immi: Before this was said did we not know that it was so182That even a person rejecting the opinion of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel could agrees with the ruling.? Was it said that the Sages agree with Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, or perhaps was only said that Rabban Gamliel agrees with the Sages? Rebbi Yudan said, Rebbi Ze`ira knew that it was so, but he is like a person who hears something and objects to it183He does not question that practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel in all cases, also of a single cistern or a single amphora, following Samuel in the Babli 74a. He only makes it clear that this is a practical ruling without theoretical underpinning..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy