Citation 1
stringlengths 9
126
| Citation 2
stringlengths 7
158
| Conection Type
stringclasses 19
values | Text 1
stringlengths 5
123
| Text 2
stringlengths 3
155
| Category 1
stringclasses 12
values | Category 2
stringclasses 15
values | Content 1
stringlengths 1
87.3k
⌀ | Content 2
stringlengths 1
141k
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58a:5:2 | Sanhedrin 58a:5 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | ולכתחילה לא יכנוס - מפרש ביבמות בפ' נושאין על האנוסה (יבמות דף צח:) דאהנך דאמרן לעיל יקיים קאמר דלכתחלה לא יכנוס: | With regard to a gentile who married a woman and her daughter and they all converted, he may marry one but must divorce the other one; and he should not marry the second of them ab initio . If his wife, the daughter, died, he is permitted to maintain his mother-in-law as his wife. And some say that he is prohibited from maintaining his mother-in-law. In any event, Rabbi Meir clearly holds that several forbidden relationships for which a Jew is not liable to receive capital punishment, but only karet , are forbidden to descendants of Noah as well, namely, intercourse with one's sister or one's parent's sister. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58a:5:2 | Yevamot 98b:5 | null | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Yevamot | Talmud | Talmud | ולכתחילה לא יכנוס - מפרש ביבמות בפ' נושאין על האנוסה (יבמות דף צח:) דאהנך דאמרן לעיל יקיים קאמר דלכתחלה לא יכנוס: | The Master said: If one married a woman and her daughter and they converted, he may remarry one but must divorce the other one. He should not marry her ab initio . The Gemara asks: Now that he must divorce her, is it necessary to state that he should not marry her ab initio ? The Gemara answers: That statement is standing there, i.e., it is referring to the previous sentence, and this is what it is saying: Those wives that the Sages said that he may maintain, e.g., his paternal half sister, he should not marry them ab initio . |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58a:5:3 | Sanhedrin 58a:5 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | מתה אשתו מותר בחמותו - ואע"פ שקיימה לאשתו משנתגייר דבן נח לא הוזהר על חמותו דנימא באים מקדושה וכו' וחמותו ממש לא הויא אע"ג דנתגיירו דגר שנתגייר וכו' ואין קורבות זה לזה: | With regard to a gentile who married a woman and her daughter and they all converted, he may marry one but must divorce the other one; and he should not marry the second of them ab initio . If his wife, the daughter, died, he is permitted to maintain his mother-in-law as his wife. And some say that he is prohibited from maintaining his mother-in-law. In any event, Rabbi Meir clearly holds that several forbidden relationships for which a Jew is not liable to receive capital punishment, but only karet , are forbidden to descendants of Noah as well, namely, intercourse with one's sister or one's parent's sister. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58a:5:4 | Sanhedrin 58a:5 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | ואיכא דתני אסור בחמותו - התם מפרש במאי פליגי קתני מיהת מותר באשת אביו ואע"פ שב"ד של ישראל ממיתין עליה וכן בחמותו וקתני אסור באחותו ובאחות אביו ואחות אמו ואע"פ שאין ב"ד של ישראל ממיתין עליהם: | With regard to a gentile who married a woman and her daughter and they all converted, he may marry one but must divorce the other one; and he should not marry the second of them ab initio . If his wife, the daughter, died, he is permitted to maintain his mother-in-law as his wife. And some say that he is prohibited from maintaining his mother-in-law. In any event, Rabbi Meir clearly holds that several forbidden relationships for which a Jew is not liable to receive capital punishment, but only karet , are forbidden to descendants of Noah as well, namely, intercourse with one's sister or one's parent's sister. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58a:6:1 | Sanhedrin 58a:6 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | הא ר"מ וכו' - תלמיד של שניהם היה כדאמרי' במס' ביצה (ד' ג:) גבי ליטרא קציעות ר"מ אומר א"ר אליעזר רואין כאילו הן פרודות וכו' ובמס' עירובין בפ"ק (דף יג.) אמר ר"מ שמש את ר"ע. הא דקתני אחותו אסורה לו ואשת אביו מותרת לו ר"מ היא משום ר"א והאי דקתני חייבי מיתות נאסרו להם ולא חייבי כריתות ר"מ היא אליבא דר"ע: | Rav Yehuda says: This is not difficult; this baraita cites the statement of Rabbi Meir according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and that previously mentioned baraita cites the statement of Rabbi Meir according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58a:7:1 | Sanhedrin 58a:7 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | על כן יעזב איש את אביו ואת אמו - לאדם הראשון נאמר: | As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:24), that Rabbi Eliezer says: "His father" is referring to his father's sister, i.e., one must abandon the possibility of marrying his father's sister and marry someone else. "His mother" is referring to his mother's sister. Rabbi Akiva says: "His father" is referring to his father's wife; "his mother" is referring to his mother, literally. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58a:7:2 | Sanhedrin 58a:7 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | אחות אביו - וכ"ש אחותו: | As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh" (Genesis 2:24), that Rabbi Eliezer says: "His father" is referring to his father's sister, i.e., one must abandon the possibility of marrying his father's sister and marry someone else. "His mother" is referring to his mother's sister. Rabbi Akiva says: "His father" is referring to his father's wife; "his mother" is referring to his mother, literally. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58a:8:1 | Sanhedrin 58a:8 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | ודבק ולא בזכר - דליכא דיבוק דמתוך שאין הנשכב נהנה אינו נדבק עמו: | "And shall cleave to his wife," but not to a male; such a relationship is not defined as cleaving. "To his wife," but not to the wife of another man. "And they shall be one flesh" indicates that he should marry one of those with whom he can become one flesh, i.e., they can bear children together. This excludes domesticated and undomesticated animals, with which one is prohibited from engaging in bestiality, as they do not become one flesh. All these are forbidden to the descendants of Noah. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58a:8:2 | Sanhedrin 58a:8 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | שנעשה לבשר אחד - שזרע יוצא מהם שנעשה בשר האם והאב אחד בו: | "And shall cleave to his wife," but not to a male; such a relationship is not defined as cleaving. "To his wife," but not to the wife of another man. "And they shall be one flesh" indicates that he should marry one of those with whom he can become one flesh, i.e., they can bear children together. This excludes domesticated and undomesticated animals, with which one is prohibited from engaging in bestiality, as they do not become one flesh. All these are forbidden to the descendants of Noah. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58a:8:3 | Sanhedrin 58a:8 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | יצאו בהמה וחיה - שאין יולדין מן האדם. הני דר"ע כולהו חייבי מיתות נינהו ומינה יליף לכל חייבי מיתות אבל לרבי אליעזר לית ליה קורבא דאישות ואית ליה קורבה דאחוה: | "And shall cleave to his wife," but not to a male; such a relationship is not defined as cleaving. "To his wife," but not to the wife of another man. "And they shall be one flesh" indicates that he should marry one of those with whom he can become one flesh, i.e., they can bear children together. This excludes domesticated and undomesticated animals, with which one is prohibited from engaging in bestiality, as they do not become one flesh. All these are forbidden to the descendants of Noah. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:11:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:11 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | עבד כנעני - של ישראל: | § Rav Hisda says: A Canaanite slave is permitted to marry his mother, and he is permitted to marry his daughter. This is because he has left the category of a gentile by immersing in a ritual bath for the purpose of becoming a slave to a Jew, and consequently all his previous family relationships are disregarded according to halakha ; but he has not entered the category of a Jew, as evidenced by the fact that he is not obligated to observe all of the mitzvot of male Jews. Therefore, the decree of the Sages prohibiting the maternal relatives of converts does not apply to him. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:11:2 | Sanhedrin 58b:11 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | מותר באמו ובבתו - וכ"ש בשאר עריות של קורבה: | § Rav Hisda says: A Canaanite slave is permitted to marry his mother, and he is permitted to marry his daughter. This is because he has left the category of a gentile by immersing in a ritual bath for the purpose of becoming a slave to a Jew, and consequently all his previous family relationships are disregarded according to halakha ; but he has not entered the category of a Jew, as evidenced by the fact that he is not obligated to observe all of the mitzvot of male Jews. Therefore, the decree of the Sages prohibiting the maternal relatives of converts does not apply to him. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:11:3 | Sanhedrin 58b:11 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | יצא מכלל כותי - ופקע שם בן נח מיניה: | § Rav Hisda says: A Canaanite slave is permitted to marry his mother, and he is permitted to marry his daughter. This is because he has left the category of a gentile by immersing in a ritual bath for the purpose of becoming a slave to a Jew, and consequently all his previous family relationships are disregarded according to halakha ; but he has not entered the category of a Jew, as evidenced by the fact that he is not obligated to observe all of the mitzvot of male Jews. Therefore, the decree of the Sages prohibiting the maternal relatives of converts does not apply to him. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:11:4 | Sanhedrin 58b:11 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | ולכלל ישראל לא בא - דליגזר ליה עליה משום דשמא יאמרו באין מקדושה חמורה לקדושה קלה: | § Rav Hisda says: A Canaanite slave is permitted to marry his mother, and he is permitted to marry his daughter. This is because he has left the category of a gentile by immersing in a ritual bath for the purpose of becoming a slave to a Jew, and consequently all his previous family relationships are disregarded according to halakha ; but he has not entered the category of a Jew, as evidenced by the fact that he is not obligated to observe all of the mitzvot of male Jews. Therefore, the decree of the Sages prohibiting the maternal relatives of converts does not apply to him. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:13:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:13 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | מאימת - חשיב ליה מיוחדת לו: | The Gemara asks: From when is she considered the slave's mate? Rav Nahman says: From the time that she is called so-and-so's girl. The Gemara asks: From when is she released from her relationship with the slave? Rav Huna says: From the time that she exposes her head in the marketplace. Since married women would cover their hair, even among the gentiles, by exposing her hair she proves that she no longer wishes to remain with him. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:13:2 | Sanhedrin 58b:13 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | מדרגיל למיקרי ליה - בנות העיר: | The Gemara asks: From when is she considered the slave's mate? Rav Nahman says: From the time that she is called so-and-so's girl. The Gemara asks: From when is she released from her relationship with the slave? Rav Huna says: From the time that she exposes her head in the marketplace. Since married women would cover their hair, even among the gentiles, by exposing her hair she proves that she no longer wishes to remain with him. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:13:3 | Sanhedrin 58b:13 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | רביתא דפלניא - ילדתו של פלוני עבד: | The Gemara asks: From when is she considered the slave's mate? Rav Nahman says: From the time that she is called so-and-so's girl. The Gemara asks: From when is she released from her relationship with the slave? Rav Huna says: From the time that she exposes her head in the marketplace. Since married women would cover their hair, even among the gentiles, by exposing her hair she proves that she no longer wishes to remain with him. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:13:4 | Sanhedrin 58b:13 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | מאימת התרתה - שלא תקרא מיוחדת לו אם תבא להפקיר עצמה: | The Gemara asks: From when is she considered the slave's mate? Rav Nahman says: From the time that she is called so-and-so's girl. The Gemara asks: From when is she released from her relationship with the slave? Rav Huna says: From the time that she exposes her head in the marketplace. Since married women would cover their hair, even among the gentiles, by exposing her hair she proves that she no longer wishes to remain with him. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:13:5 | Sanhedrin 58b:13 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | משתפרע ראשה בשוק - שהיו רגילות אף הנכריות הנשואות שלא לצאת בראש פרוע: | The Gemara asks: From when is she considered the slave's mate? Rav Nahman says: From the time that she is called so-and-so's girl. The Gemara asks: From when is she released from her relationship with the slave? Rav Huna says: From the time that she exposes her head in the marketplace. Since married women would cover their hair, even among the gentiles, by exposing her hair she proves that she no longer wishes to remain with him. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:14:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:14 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | שלא כדרכה - אין כאן דבק שמתוך שאינה נהנית בדבר אינה נדבקת עמו: | Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Hanina says: A descendant of Noah who engages in intercourse with his wife in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, is liable for engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse, as it is stated: "And shall cleave to his wife" (Genesis 2:24), an expression that indicates natural intercourse, but not intercourse in an atypical manner. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:16:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:16 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | באשתו ולא באשת חבירו - שלא אסרה תורה אלא בדביקה: | Rather, Rava says that the verse is to be understood as follows: A descendant of Noah who engages in intercourse with the wife of another man in an atypical manner is exempt. What is the reason? The verse states: "And shall cleave to his wife," but not to the wife of another. With regard to this prohibition, the verse states: "And shall cleave," indicating vaginal intercourse, and not intercourse in an atypical manner. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:17:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:17 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | ויך את המצרי - משום דהכה איש עברי: | Rabbi Hanina says: A gentile who struck a Jew is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated when Moses saw an Egyptian striking a Hebrew: "And he turned this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he struck the Egyptian and hid him in the sand" (Exodus 2:12). |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:18:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:18 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | מוקש אדם ילע קדש - הנוקש את האדם היינו ישראל שקרויין אדם דכתיב (יחזקאל ל"ד:ל"א) ואתנה צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם אתם קרוין אדם וכו': | And Rabbi Hanina says: One who slaps the cheek of a Jew is considered as though he slapped the cheek of the Divine Presence; as it is stated: "It is a snare [ mokesh ] for a man to rashly say [ yala ]: Holy" (Proverbs 20:25). The verse is interpreted homiletically to mean: One who strikes [ nokesh ] a Jew is considered as though he hurt the cheek [ lo'a ] of the Holy One. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:18:2 | Sanhedrin 58b:18 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | ילע קודש - כאלו לועה את הקדש כלומר כסוטר על לועו. סוטר מכה: | And Rabbi Hanina says: One who slaps the cheek of a Jew is considered as though he slapped the cheek of the Divine Presence; as it is stated: "It is a snare [ mokesh ] for a man to rashly say [ yala ]: Holy" (Proverbs 20:25). The verse is interpreted homiletically to mean: One who strikes [ nokesh ] a Jew is considered as though he hurt the cheek [ lo'a ] of the Holy One. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:1:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:1 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | אביו דומיא דאמו ואמו דומיא דאביו לא משכחת לה אלא באיסור דאחווה - דתרוייהו ממש ליכא למימר דא"כ היינו ודבק ולא בזכר ותרוייהו באישות ליכא למימר דהא אמו לאו משום אישות דא"כ היינו אשת אביו הלכך תרוייהו באחוה: | that the term "his father" should be interpreted in a way that is similar to the term "his mother," and "his mother" should be interpreted in a way that is similar to "his father." You find such an interpretation only with regard to sisterhood, i.e., "his father" is referring to his father's sister, and "his mother" is referring to his mother's sister. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:20:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:20 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | אם לא לקחתי בחזקה - בבני עלי כתיב שהיו תוקפים בבשר הזבחים ואמר אם לא תתן לי אקח בחזקה דהיינו כמרים ידו שהיו מגזמין להכות: | Ze'eiri says that Rabbi Hanina says: One who raises his hand to strike another is called a sinner; as it is stated: "And the priest's lad would come…and would say to him, but you shall give now, and if not, I will take by force" (I Samuel 2:15–16), and it is written with regard to this behavior: "And the sin of the youths was very great" (I Samuel 2:17). |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:21:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:21 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | וזרוע רמה - הרגיל לרום ידו על חבירו: | Rav Huna says: His hand should be cut off, as it is stated: "And the high arm shall be broken" (Job 38:15). If one habitually lifts his arm to strike others, it is better that it be broken. The Gemara relates that Rav Huna cut off the hand of a person who would habitually hit others. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:21:2 | Sanhedrin 58b:21 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | קץ ידא - מאדם אחד שהיה רגיל להכות את חבירו וקנסו בכך כדאמר בפרקין דלעיל (סנהדרין דף מו.) ב"ד היו מכין ועונשין שלא מן התורה לעשות סייג וגדר לדבר: | Rav Huna says: His hand should be cut off, as it is stated: "And the high arm shall be broken" (Job 38:15). If one habitually lifts his arm to strike others, it is better that it be broken. The Gemara relates that Rav Huna cut off the hand of a person who would habitually hit others. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:21:2 | Sanhedrin 46a:11 | null | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | קץ ידא - מאדם אחד שהיה רגיל להכות את חבירו וקנסו בכך כדאמר בפרקין דלעיל (סנהדרין דף מו.) ב"ד היו מכין ועונשין שלא מן התורה לעשות סייג וגדר לדבר: | It is taught in a baraita : Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov says: I heard that the court may administer lashes and capital punishment, even when not required by Torah law. And they may not administer these punishments with the intention of violating the statement of the Torah, i.e., to disregard the punishment stated in the Torah and administer another punishment; rather, they may administer these punishments to erect a fence around the Torah, so that people will fear sinning. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:22:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:22 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | איש זרוע - איש שמניף זרוע לו הארץ מתוקנת לקבורה כלומר ראוי להמיתו ולקוברו: | Rabbi Elazar says: Such a violent person has no remedy but burial, as it is stated: "And as a mighty man [ ve'ish zero'a ], who has the earth" (Job 22:8). The expression ish zero'a literally means: A man of the arm, and the verse is interpreted homiletically to mean that one who habitually strikes others deserves to be buried. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:23:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:23 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | לא נתנה קרקע - כלומר אין ראוי לקנות קרקע אלא לבני זרוע מפני שהתגר רבה ע"י קרקע שבאות בהמות ומפסידות וגנבים באין וגונבין ועוררין עליו וצריך שיהא חזק לעמוד כנגדן: | And Rabbi Elazar states a different interpretation of that verse: The land is given only to mighty men who can protect themselves from all enemies; as it is stated: "And as a mighty man, who has the earth." |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:24:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:24 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | כעבד לאדמה - לעסוק בה תמיד לחרישה והשקאה וניכוש ועידור: | And in connection with that statement, the Gemara notes that Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: "One who works [ oved ] his land shall have plenty of bread" (Proverbs 12:11)? If a person makes himself like a slave [ ke'eved ] to the land, devoting his efforts to it, he will have plenty of bread, but if not, he will not have plenty of bread. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:25:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:25 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | עובד כוכבי' ששבת - ממלאכתו יום שלם חייב מיתה שנא' יום ולילה לא ישבותו וקא דריש ליה לא ישבותו ממלאכה דאבני אדם נמי קאי ולא תימא לא ישבותו אהך ששת עתים דקרא קאי כלומר לא יבטלו ולא יפסקו מלהיות: פשיטא לא גרסי' דהא טובא קמ"ל דאבני אדם קאי: | And Reish Lakish says: A gentile who observed Shabbat is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated: "And day and night shall not cease" (Genesis 8:23), which literally means: And day and night they shall not rest. This is interpreted homiletically to mean that the descendants of Noah may not take a day of rest. And the Master said (57a) that their prohibition is their death penalty, i.e., the punishment for any prohibition with regard to descendants of Noah is execution. Ravina says: If a descendant of Noah observes a day of rest on any day of the week, even one not set aside for religious worship, e.g., on a Monday, he is liable. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:25:2 | Sanhedrin 58b:25 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | אמר רבינא אפי' שני בשבת - לא תימא שביתה דקאמר ר"ל לשום חובה קאמר דלא לכוון לשבות כגון בשבת שהוא יום שביתה לישראל או אחד בשבת ששובתין בו הנוצרים אלא מנוחה בעלמא קא אסר להו שלא יבטלו ממלאכה ואפי' יום שאינו בר שביתה שני בשבת יומא קמא דלאו יום בר שביתה נקט וה"ה דהוה מצי למינקט שלישי ורביעי: | And Reish Lakish says: A gentile who observed Shabbat is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated: "And day and night shall not cease" (Genesis 8:23), which literally means: And day and night they shall not rest. This is interpreted homiletically to mean that the descendants of Noah may not take a day of rest. And the Master said (57a) that their prohibition is their death penalty, i.e., the punishment for any prohibition with regard to descendants of Noah is execution. Ravina says: If a descendant of Noah observes a day of rest on any day of the week, even one not set aside for religious worship, e.g., on a Monday, he is liable. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:26:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:26 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | קום עשה לא חשיב - והאי לא ישבותו קום עשה מלאכה היא: | The Gemara challenges this: But let the tanna count this prohibition among the seven Noahide mitzvot. The Gemara explains: When the tanna counts the seven mitzvot, he counts only those that require one to sit and refrain from action, i.e., those that include a prohibition against performing a certain action. He does not count mitzvot that require one to arise and take action. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:2:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:2 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | ורבי עקיבא מוטב לאוקמא באשת אביו - כמשמעותה דקרא דקרי ליה אביו דכתיב יעזב איש את אביו ואשת אביו אשכחן דקרי בישראל ערות אביו דכתיב (ויקרא י"ח:ח') ערות אביך היא ולאו לאוקמא באחות אביו דקרא לא משמע הכי דאחות אביו שאר אביו הוא דאקרי ערות אחות אביך לא תגלה כי שאר אביך היא (שם): | And Rabbi Akiva holds that it is preferable to interpret the term "his father" as referring to his father's wife, who is referred to as his father's nakedness in the verse: "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's wife; it is your father's nakedness" (Leviticus 18:8), to the exclusion of his father's sister, who is referred to as his father's kin in the verse: "You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father's sister; she is your father's kin" (Leviticus 18:12), and who is not referred to as his father's nakedness. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:3:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:3 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | דודתו - אחות קהת אביו: | Come and hear a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva from the verse: "And Amram took Jochebed his aunt as a wife" (Exodus 6:20). What, was she not his maternal aunt? Presumably, Jochebed was the sister of Kohath, Amram's father, from both of Kohath's parents, and not from his father alone. Evidently, a descendant of Noah may marry his father's sister. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:3:2 | Sanhedrin 58b:3 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | מאי לאו - אחות קהת אף מן האם היתה והותרה לעמרם אלמא אחות אב מן האם מותרת לו קודם מתן תורה: | Come and hear a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva from the verse: "And Amram took Jochebed his aunt as a wife" (Exodus 6:20). What, was she not his maternal aunt? Presumably, Jochebed was the sister of Kohath, Amram's father, from both of Kohath's parents, and not from his father alone. Evidently, a descendant of Noah may marry his father's sister. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:4:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:4 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | לא דודתו מן האב - אחות קהת מן האב היתה ולא מן האם ואחות האב הותרה להם והא דכתיב יעזב איש את אביו ודרשינן אחות אביו (אביו) באחותו מן האם קאמר כדילפינן מוגם אמנה אחותי בת אבי היא: | The Gemara rejects this proof: No, she was his paternal aunt, Kohath's half sister. Since she was not Kohath's sister from his mother's side, she was not forbidden to Amram. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:5:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:5 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | תא שמע וגם אמנה וכו' - מכלל דבת האם אסורה קשיא לר"ע: | Come and hear a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer from what Abraham said to Abimelech with regard to Sarah: "And moreover, she is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and so she became my wife" (Genesis 20:12). By inference, the daughter of the mother of a descendant of Noah is forbidden to him. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:6:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:6 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | אחותו הוה - בתמיהה הא בת אחיו הוה וכיון דהכי לא שנא מן האם ולא שנא מן האב שריא ליה: | The Gemara rejects this proof: But how can you understand that Sarah was Abraham's sister? She was his brother's daughter. By tradition, it is known that Sarah was Haran's daughter Iscah. And since that was so, there is no difference whether they were paternal relatives, and there is no difference whether they were maternal relatives; in any event she was permitted to him, even according to the halakha of Jews. Rather, this is what Abraham was saying to Abimelech there: She is related to me like a sister, as the daughter of my brother is like a sister, and our relationship is from the side of my father but not from the side of my mother. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:6:2 | Sanhedrin 58b:6 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | אלא התם הכי הוה אמר ליה קורבא דאחוה וכו' - בת אחי מן האב היא ולא מן האם ולא משום איסורא והתירא קאמר ליה אלא משום לתקוני דיבורא קמא שאמר אחותי היא קאמר ליה הכי אחותי בת אבי היא דבת אחי בן אבי היא וקרי לה אחותו דבני בנים הרי הם כבנים והרי היא כבת אביו והאי דקאמר אך לא בת אמי לאו משום דאי הוה אחוה מן האם הויא אסורה אלא משום קושטא דמילתא אמר לו: | The Gemara rejects this proof: But how can you understand that Sarah was Abraham's sister? She was his brother's daughter. By tradition, it is known that Sarah was Haran's daughter Iscah. And since that was so, there is no difference whether they were paternal relatives, and there is no difference whether they were maternal relatives; in any event she was permitted to him, even according to the halakha of Jews. Rather, this is what Abraham was saying to Abimelech there: She is related to me like a sister, as the daughter of my brother is like a sister, and our relationship is from the side of my father but not from the side of my mother. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:7:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:7 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | חסד יבנה - תחילתו של עולם נבנה בחסד שצוה אדם הראשון לגמול חסד את בנו ואסרה לו והתירה לקין כדי שיבנה העולם והיינו דכתיב (ויקרא כ':י"ז) (כי יקח איש) את אחותו בת אביו חסד הוא מה שהתרתי לקין חסד גמלתי עמו: | Come and hear a proof from a baraita : For what reason did Adam not marry his daughter? So that Cain would marry his sister and they would procreate immediately, as it is stated: "For I have said: The world shall be built on kindness [ hesed ]" (Psalms 89:3). This verse alludes to the fact that at the beginning of the world's existence it was permitted for men to marry their sisters, which was later forbidden in the verse: "And if a man shall take his sister…it is a shameful thing [ hesed ]" (Leviticus 20:17). The Gemara infers: If it had not been so, if God had not specially permitted Cain to marry his sister, she would have been forbidden to him. This is difficult according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who deems it permitted for a gentile to marry his sister. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 58b:9:1 | Sanhedrin 58b:9 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | כותי מותר בבתו - בין לרבי אליעזר בין לר"ע דקסבר רב הונא לא ילפינן שאר עריות מהנך דכתיבי בהאי קרא מדפרט כל הני שמע מינה דוקא כתבינהו: | Rav Huna says: A gentile is permitted to marry his daughter. And if you say, for what reason did Adam not marry his daughter? It was so that Cain would marry his sister, because it is stated: "The world shall be built on kindness." |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a:10:1 | Sanhedrin 59a:10 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | למה לי למכתב - אבר מן החי בסיני ובבני נח אטו ישראל משום דקבלו תורה יצאו מכלל מצו' הראשונו' בשלמא עבודת כוכבים וגילוי עריות בסיני למילתייהו נשנית לפי שלא פרשו כ"כ בבני נח על אלו עבירות עונשן עליהם וכן בעריות לפרש עונשן אלא אבר מן החי למה לי לאהדורי: | The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel, why do I need the Torah to write this halakha with regard to descendants of Noah, and why do I need the Torah to repeat it at Sinai with regard to Jews? Aren't Jews also descendants of Noah? |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a:11:1 | Sanhedrin 59a:11 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | לזה ולזה נאמרה - כדמפרש לקמן מדנשנית עבודת כוכבים וגילוי עריות בסיני ואשכחן דאיענש עובדי כוכבים עלייהו אף לאחר מתן תורה כדכתיב (דברים יח) לא ימצא בך מעביר בנו ובתו וגו' ובגלל התועבות האלה וכן בעריות (ויקרא יח) כי את כל התועבות האל שמע מיניה כי יהיב קודשא בריך הוא תורה לישראל לא שקלינהו להנך מבני נח וכדקיימי להו קיימי וכל שלא נשנית בסיני נאמר לישראל ולא לבני נח מסיני ואילך אף על גב דעד סיני נצטוו עליה מדלא הדר תנייה בסיני כדאיתא בעבודת כוכבים ובגילו עריות דאשכחן דאיענוש עובדי כוכבים עלייהו שמע מינה ישראל שיצאו לקדושה עמדו באיסורן אבל עובדי כוכבים נטלן מהן ולקמן פריך דילמא להכי לא נשנו דלבני נח הוא דאסירי ולא לישראל ומשני ליכא מידי דלישראל שרי ולעובדי כוכבים אסור שכשיצאו מכלל בני נח להתקדש יצאו ולא להקל עליהם ולזה ולזה ליכא למימר דא"כ אמאי אתני עבודת כוכבים הילכך על כרחיך אותה שלא נשנית אינה בבני נח הילכך אם לא נשנית אבר מן החי הוה אמינא נטלוה מבני נח ממתן תורה ואילך: | The Gemara answers that it is to be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina; as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, says: Any mitzva that was first stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was repeated at Sinai was stated for this group and for that group, i.e., it applies to both gentiles and Jews. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a:12:1 | Sanhedrin 59a:12 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | ואנו אין לנו - אזהרה בבני נח ולא נשנית בסיני אלא גיד הנשה: | But a mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was not repeated at Sinai among the mitzvot given to the Jewish people was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah. And we have only the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve to which this classification applies, and this is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the verse: "Therefore the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve, which is on the hollow of the thigh, until this day" (Genesis 32:32), is referring to the sons of Jacob, who were commanded to observe this prohibition even though they had the status of descendants of Noah. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a:12:2 | Sanhedrin 59a:12 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | ואליבא דרבי יהודה - דאמר בפרק גיד הנשה (חולין דף ק:) מבני יעקב נאסר גיד הנשה שהיו בני נח קודם מתן תורה ורבנן פליגי ואמרו בסיני נאמר ולא להם אלא שנכתב במקומו ואחר מתן תורה כתבו משה במקום המעשה על העתיד לידע מאיזה טעם נאסר להם ולרבי יהודה גופיה לישראל נאמר ולא לשאר בני נח דהא בני ישראל כתיב והא דקאמר הכא דאותן העומדות באיסורן לבני נח לעולם הוצרך לשנותן בסיני לאו משום דאי לא אהדרינהו הוה אמינא נגמר מגיד הנשה דלא נשנית ולישראל נאמר ולא לבני נח דמהא ליכא למיגמר שהרי לא נאסרה אלא לישראל ובעוד שהיו בני נח נמי להם נאסר ולא לאחרים אלא מדאתני עבודת כוכבים הוה גמרינן להו: | But a mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was not repeated at Sinai among the mitzvot given to the Jewish people was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah. And we have only the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve to which this classification applies, and this is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the verse: "Therefore the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve, which is on the hollow of the thigh, until this day" (Genesis 32:32), is referring to the sons of Jacob, who were commanded to observe this prohibition even though they had the status of descendants of Noah. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a:14:1 | Sanhedrin 59a:14 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | ואשכחן דאיענוש עובד כוכבים עלייהו - שבע אומות כדכתיב לא ימצא בך מעביר בנו ובתו באש: | The Gemara answers: From the fact that the prohibition of idol worship was repeated at Sinai, and we find that God punished gentiles for it, conclude from it that any mitzva that was repeated at Sinai was stated for this group and for that group, and not only for the Jewish people. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a:15:1 | Sanhedrin 59a:15 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | אדרבה מדלא נישנית בסיני אימא לבני נח נאמרה - לבני יעקב בעוד שהיו בני נח נאסר להם ולא משבאו לכלל ישראל: | It is further stated in the baraita that a mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was not repeated at Sinai was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah. The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, from the fact that it was not repeated at Sinai, clearly it can be derived that it was stated for the descendants of Noah and not for the Jewish people. The Gemara answers: There is nothing that is permitted to a Jew and forbidden to a gentile. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a:16:1 | Sanhedrin 59a:16 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | והרי יפת תואר - שאסורה להם כדאמר לעיל (סנהדרין דף נז.): | The Gemara asks: And is there not? But isn't there the permission for a Jew to take a married beautiful woman, who was taken as a prisoner of war, to be his wife? For a gentile to do so is forbidden. The Gemara answers: There, the reason gentiles are prohibited from doing so is because they are not authorized to conquer. It is not permitted for gentiles to wage wars of conquest, and the halakha of marrying a beautiful woman is stated only with regard to a war of conquest. Therefore the fact that a beautiful woman who is a prisoner of war is permitted only to a Jew and not to a gentile does not indicate that gentiles have a higher degree of sanctity. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a:16:2 | Sanhedrin 59a:16 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | לאו בני כיבוש נינהו - לא נתנה ארץ לכבוש כי אם לישראל שאף לישראל לא הותר יפת תואר אלא במלחמה ע"י כיבוש: | The Gemara asks: And is there not? But isn't there the permission for a Jew to take a married beautiful woman, who was taken as a prisoner of war, to be his wife? For a gentile to do so is forbidden. The Gemara answers: There, the reason gentiles are prohibited from doing so is because they are not authorized to conquer. It is not permitted for gentiles to wage wars of conquest, and the halakha of marrying a beautiful woman is stated only with regard to a war of conquest. Therefore the fact that a beautiful woman who is a prisoner of war is permitted only to a Jew and not to a gentile does not indicate that gentiles have a higher degree of sanctity. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a:17:1 | Sanhedrin 59a:17 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | משום דלאו בני מחילה נינהו - שאף ישראל נצטוו על הגזל אלא שפחות משוה פרוטה אינו נחשב גזל בעיניהם שעוברין על מדתן שרחמנין הן ומוחלין על דבר קל אבל בני נח אכזרים הם: | The Gemara asks: But isn't stealing less than the value of one peruta prohibited to a gentile and permitted to a Jew? The Gemara answers: There it is because gentiles are not apt to grant forgiveness of debts, even of less than the value of one peruta . Therefore, for a gentile to take even such a minuscule amount is considered robbery. Jews normally forgive such small amounts. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a:1:1 | Sanhedrin 59a:1 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | והא דינין קום עשה - משפט הוא וקא חשיב: | The Gemara challenges: But the mitzva of establishing courts of judgment is a mitzva to stand up and take action, and nevertheless he counts it among the seven mitzvot. The Gemara answers: This mitzva contains a requirement to stand up and take action, i.e., the obligation to establish courts and carry out justice, and it also contains a requirement to sit and refrain from action, i.e., the prohibition against doing injustice. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a:1:2 | Sanhedrin 59a:1 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | ומשני קום עשה ושב אל תעשה הוא - קום עשה משפט ושב ואל תעשה עול אפילו אינו מצוה לעשות משפט והוא יושב ובטל מוזהר הוא שלא לעשות עול ואזהרת לא תעשו עול (ויקרא יט) אינה קום עשה משפט אלא לחודה קיימא שב והבטל מלא תעשה עול אבל אזהרת לא תשבות על כרחיך אינה אלא קום עשה: | The Gemara challenges: But the mitzva of establishing courts of judgment is a mitzva to stand up and take action, and nevertheless he counts it among the seven mitzvot. The Gemara answers: This mitzva contains a requirement to stand up and take action, i.e., the obligation to establish courts and carry out justice, and it also contains a requirement to sit and refrain from action, i.e., the prohibition against doing injustice. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a:2:1 | Sanhedrin 59a:2 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | מורשה לנו - ולא להם ואיכא משום גזל כדמפרש: | And Rabbi Yohanan says: A gentile who engages in Torah study is liable to receive the death penalty; as it is stated: "Moses commanded us a law [ torah ], an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob" (Deuteronomy 33:4), indicating that it is an inheritance for us, and not for them. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a:3:1 | Sanhedrin 59a:3 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | מורשה מאורסה - אמוראי איכא דדרשי בהו גבי עם הארץ בפרק אלו עוברין בפסחים (דף מט:): | The Gemara challenges: But if so, let the tanna count this prohibition among the seven Noahide mitzvot. The Gemara explains: According to the one who says that the verse is referring to the Torah as an inheritance, this prohibition is included in the prohibition of robbery, as a gentile who studies Torah robs the Jewish people of it. According to the one who says that the verse is referring to the Torah as betrothed, as the spelling of the Hebrew word for betrothed [ me'orasa ], is similar to that of the word for inheritance [ morasha ], the punishment of a gentile who studies Torah is like that of one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, which is execution by stoning. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a:3:2 | Sanhedrin 59a:3 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | מיגזל קא גזל לה - והא קא חשיב גזל וכן נערה המאורסה דהא בכלל גילוי עריות הוא: | The Gemara challenges: But if so, let the tanna count this prohibition among the seven Noahide mitzvot. The Gemara explains: According to the one who says that the verse is referring to the Torah as an inheritance, this prohibition is included in the prohibition of robbery, as a gentile who studies Torah robs the Jewish people of it. According to the one who says that the verse is referring to the Torah as betrothed, as the spelling of the Hebrew word for betrothed [ me'orasa ], is similar to that of the word for inheritance [ morasha ], the punishment of a gentile who studies Torah is like that of one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, which is execution by stoning. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a:4:1 | Sanhedrin 59a:4 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | האדם - ר"מ דלית ליה אתם קרוין אדם ולא עובדי כוכבים קרוין אדם ור"ש היא דדרש לה במסכת יבמות (דף סא.): | The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yohanan's statement from a baraita : Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest? It is derived from that which is stated: "You shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinances, which if a man does he shall live by them" (Leviticus 18:5). The phrase: Which if priests, Levites, and Israelites do they shall live by them, is not stated, but rather: "A man," which indicates mankind in general. You have therefore learned that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a:5:1 | Sanhedrin 59a:5 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | בשבע מצות דידהו - עוסקין בהלכות אותן שבע מצות להיות בקיאין בהן: | The Gemara answers: There, in the baraita , the reference is to a gentile who engages in the study of their seven mitzvot. It is a mitzva for a gentile to study the halakhot that pertain to the seven Noahide mitzvot, and when he does so he is highly regarded. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a:6:1 | Sanhedrin 59a:6 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | בשר - בעוד נפשו קיימת לא תאכלו זהו אבר מן החי ודמו לדרשא אחרינא למשרי אבר מן החי דשרצים כדלקמן בשמעתין: | § The baraita that lists the Noahide mitzvot (56a) teaches that Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel says: The descendants of Noah are also commanded concerning the prohibition against consuming the blood from a living animal. The Sages taught in a baraita : With regard to the verse: "Only flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat" (Genesis 9:4), this is the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel says: The blood from a living animal is also prohibited in this verse. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a:8:1 | Sanhedrin 59a:8 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר - שאף ישראל הוזהרו על דם מן החי בסיני ומשום חיות ורבי חנינא קאמר לה: | The baraita continues: Similarly, you can say that according to the opinion of Rabbi Hanina, blood from a living animal is also forbidden to the Jewish people in particular; as it is stated: "Only be steadfast in not eating blood, as the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh" (Deuteronomy 12:23). With regard to the statements: "Only be steadfast in not eating blood," this is a limb from a living animal; "as the blood is the life," this is blood from a living animal. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a:8:2 | Sanhedrin 59a:8 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | כי הדם הוא הנפש ולא תאכל הנפש עם הבשר כו' - כלומר לא תאכל הדם הנזכר בראש המקרא בעוד הנפש עם הבשר: | The baraita continues: Similarly, you can say that according to the opinion of Rabbi Hanina, blood from a living animal is also forbidden to the Jewish people in particular; as it is stated: "Only be steadfast in not eating blood, as the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh" (Deuteronomy 12:23). With regard to the statements: "Only be steadfast in not eating blood," this is a limb from a living animal; "as the blood is the life," this is blood from a living animal. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59a:9:1 | Sanhedrin 59a:9 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | ורבנן ההוא - דסמך דם לאזהרת אבר מן החי לא למסרי משום חיות סמכי' אלא למיסר דם הקזה שהנפש יוצאה בו משום דם הוא דסמכיה דלא תימא אזהרת דם גבי וזבחת מבקרך ומצאנך כתיב (דברים י"ב:כ"א) דם שחיטה הוא דהוי דם אבל דם הקזה לא הוי דם להכי אקשייה לאבר מן החי מה אבר מן החי אסור מחמת איסורו אף דם מן החי מוזהר עלה משום דם ובלבד שיהא דם הנפש אבל דם הקזה שאין הנפש יוצאה בו אינו קרוי דם אבל איסור חיות לא נזכר בו ולא בשום דם ובכריתות (דף כב.) מפרש איזהו דם הקזה שהנפש יוצאה בו מטיפה המשחרת ואילך משהוא מתחיל לצאת שחור: | The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, who hold that there is no specific prohibition with regard to blood from a living animal, interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: That verse comes to teach the prohibition against consuming blood spilled in the process of bloodletting, as this is blood through which the soul departs (see Karetot 20b). |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:10:1 | Sanhedrin 59b:10 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | בני ישמעאל ליחייבו - השתא: | The Gemara challenges: If that is so, the descendants of Ishmael should also be obligated to observe circumcision, as they are also the offspring of Abraham. The Gemara explains: The verse states: "For through Isaac, offspring shall be called yours" (Genesis 21:12), which means that Ishmael's descendants are not called the offspring of Abraham. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:12:1 | Sanhedrin 59b:12 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | בני קטורה - אותן ששה שנולדו לאברהם הן עצמן לא לחייבו ונימא השתא דלא מל אברהם כל בניו שהיו לו בחייו: | Rav Oshaya objects to this: If that is so, the descendants of Keturah, Abraham's second wife, should not be obligated to observe circumcision. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says, and some say that it is Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina who says that the verse: "And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant" (Genesis 17:14) is stated to include the descendants of Keturah in the obligation to observe circumcision. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:12:2 | Sanhedrin 59b:12 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | לרבות בני קטורה - אותם ששה לבדם ולא זרעם אבל אברהם נצטוה לכל הנולדים לו: | Rav Oshaya objects to this: If that is so, the descendants of Keturah, Abraham's second wife, should not be obligated to observe circumcision. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says, and some say that it is Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina who says that the verse: "And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant" (Genesis 17:14) is stated to include the descendants of Keturah in the obligation to observe circumcision. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:13:1 | Sanhedrin 59b:13 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | לא הותר בשר באכילה דכתיב הנה נתתי לכם את כל עשב וגו' - לכם ולחיות נתתי העשבים והאילנות ואת כל ירק עשב לאכלה אבל לא חית הארץ נתונה לכם: | § Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Meat was not permitted to Adam, the first man, for consumption, as it is written: "And God said: Behold, I have given you every herb that brings forth seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree that gives forth seed; for you it shall be for food, and for every animal of the earth, and for every fowl of the air, and for everything that creeps upon the earth, in which there is a living soul, every green herb for food. And it was so" (Genesis 1:29–30). It is derived God told Adam: Eating vegetation is permitted to people and animals, but eating the animals of the earth is not permitted to you. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:14:1 | Sanhedrin 59b:14 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | כירק עשב - שהפקרתי לאדם לאכול נתתי לכם מעכשיו את כל אפי' בהמות וחיות: | But when the children of Noah came, God permitted them to eat meat; as it is stated: "Every moving thing that lives shall be for food for you; as the green herb I have given you all" (Genesis 9:3). One might have thought that accordingly, even the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal does not apply to the descendants of Noah; therefore the verse states: "Only flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat" (Genesis 9:4). One might have thought that the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal applies even to creeping animals; therefore the verse states "only," a term used for exclusion, indicating that creeping animals are not included. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:14:2 | Sanhedrin 59b:14 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | יכול אפילו לשרצים - יהא אבר מן החי אסור להם: | But when the children of Noah came, God permitted them to eat meat; as it is stated: "Every moving thing that lives shall be for food for you; as the green herb I have given you all" (Genesis 9:3). One might have thought that accordingly, even the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal does not apply to the descendants of Noah; therefore the verse states: "Only flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat" (Genesis 9:4). One might have thought that the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal applies even to creeping animals; therefore the verse states "only," a term used for exclusion, indicating that creeping animals are not included. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:14:3 | Sanhedrin 59b:14 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | ת"ל אך - מיעוט וכל אכין ורקין מעוטין: | But when the children of Noah came, God permitted them to eat meat; as it is stated: "Every moving thing that lives shall be for food for you; as the green herb I have given you all" (Genesis 9:3). One might have thought that accordingly, even the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal does not apply to the descendants of Noah; therefore the verse states: "Only flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat" (Genesis 9:4). One might have thought that the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal applies even to creeping animals; therefore the verse states "only," a term used for exclusion, indicating that creeping animals are not included. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:15:1 | Sanhedrin 59b:15 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | מאי תלמודא - היכי משמע דשרצים ממעטי מיניה דילמא בהמה וחיה ממעטינן מיניה ולא שרצים: | The Gemara asks: And what is the derivation? What is the proof that it is creeping animals that are excluded from this prohibition and not another type of animal? Rav Huna says: The term "its blood" indicates that the prohibition pertains to animals whose blood is halakhically considered separate from their flesh. This excludes creeping animals, whose blood is not considered separate from their flesh. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:15:2 | Sanhedrin 59b:15 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | אמר רב הונא דמו - האי דמו יתירה הוא דהוה לי' למכתב בשר בנפשו לא תאכלו דהיינו בעוד שהנפש בו אל תאכלו את בשרו האי בנפשו דמו למה לי וכי לא ידענא דנפש זהו הדם אלא לומר לך מי שדמו חלוק מבשרו שהדם קרוי נפש והבשר בשר יצאו שרצים שאין דמן חלוק מבשרן שאין דמם קרוי דם שכשהוזהרו ישראל על הדם לא הוזהרו על דם שרצים משום דם אלא משום שרצים כבשר והכי אמרינן בכריתות בפ' דם שחיטה (כריתות דף כא:) דם שרצים התרו בו משום שרץ לוקה משום דם אינו לוקה: | The Gemara asks: And what is the derivation? What is the proof that it is creeping animals that are excluded from this prohibition and not another type of animal? Rav Huna says: The term "its blood" indicates that the prohibition pertains to animals whose blood is halakhically considered separate from their flesh. This excludes creeping animals, whose blood is not considered separate from their flesh. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:16:1 | Sanhedrin 59b:16 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | בדגת הים - לאדם הראשון נאמר: | The Gemara raises an objection to the assertion that eating meat was prohibited to Adam, from the verse: "And have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creeps upon the land" (Genesis 1:28). What, is it not stated with regard to consumption, i.e., doesn't this verse mean that people may eat the meat of animals? The Gemara answers: No, the verse is referring to using animals for labor. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:17:1 | Sanhedrin 59b:17 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | הנהיג בעיזא ושיבוטא - קשר קרון לדג שבים ולעז ביבשה על שפת הים ושניהם מנהיגין אותו: | The Gemara asks: But are fish capable of performing labor? The Gemara answers: Yes, they are capable, in accordance with the statement of Rahava; as Rahava asked the following question: If one drove a wagon to which a goat and a shibbuta fish were harnessed together, what is the halakha ? Has he violated the prohibition of diverse kinds, in the same way that one does when plowing with an ox and a donkey together? In any event, Rahava's question indicates that there is a way, albeit far-fetched, for a fish to perform labor. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:17:2 | Sanhedrin 59b:17 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | מהו - לוקה משום מנהיג בכלאים או לא חורש בשור ובחמור לאו דוקא דכל תרי מיני נמי אסירי בב"ק בשור שנגח את הפרה: | The Gemara asks: But are fish capable of performing labor? The Gemara answers: Yes, they are capable, in accordance with the statement of Rahava; as Rahava asked the following question: If one drove a wagon to which a goat and a shibbuta fish were harnessed together, what is the halakha ? Has he violated the prohibition of diverse kinds, in the same way that one does when plowing with an ox and a donkey together? In any event, Rahava's question indicates that there is a way, albeit far-fetched, for a fish to perform labor. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:19:1 | Sanhedrin 59b:19 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | דש באווזין ותרנגולין לרבי יוסי בר' יהודה מהו - בהשוכר את הפועלים תנן היה עושה בידיו אבל לא ברגליו ברגליו אבל לא בידיו הרי זה יאכל כדכתיב כי תבא בכרם רעך וגו' בביאת פועל הכתוב מדבר ר' יוסי בר יהודה אומר אינו אוכל עד שיעשה בידיו וברגליו וקמבעיא ליה לרבה דש באווזין ותרנגולין שאין להם אלא רגלים מהו מי עבר עלייהו משום לא תחסום שור או לא ידיו ורגליו בעינן כשור וליכא או דילמא כל כחו כשור בעינן והא איכא אלמא בני מלאכה נינהו: | The Gemara asks: But are birds capable of performing labor? The Gemara answers: Yes, they are capable, as Rabba bar Rav Huna raises a dilemma: If one threshed with geese and chickens, what is the halakha according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, derives from the verse: "You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads" (Deuteronomy 25:4), that a laborer in a field is entitled to eat from the produce during his work only if his work involves both his hands and his feet, like an ox, which treads with its forelegs as well as its hind legs. Rabba bar Rav Huna raises a dilemma as to whether the prohibition against muzzling an animal while it is being used for labor in the field applies to geese and chickens, which have only two feet. In any event, it is indicated in that dilemma that birds can perform labor. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:1:1 | Sanhedrin 59b:1 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | והרי מילה - לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח דלא חשבה גבי שבע מצות: | The Gemara asks: But isn't there the mitzva of circumcision, which was stated with regard to descendants of Noah, i.e., Abraham and his descendants, who had the status of descendants of Noah at that time? As it is written that God said to Abraham with regard to the mitzva of circumcision: "And as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your offspring after you, throughout their generations" (Genesis 17:9). And it was repeated at Sinai for the Jewish people: "And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised" (Leviticus 12:3), and nevertheless it was stated for the Jewish people alone and not for the descendants of Noah. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:20:1 | Sanhedrin 59b:20 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | ובכל חיה הרומשת - ואי לאו לאכילה חיות בני מלאכה נינהו: | Come and hear a proof from the phrase: "And have dominion… and over every living thing that creeps upon the land." Creeping animals certainly cannot be used for labor. Apparently, the verse is referring to eating them. The Gemara answers: That phrase comes to include the snake, which was capable of performing labor when it was created. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:20:2 | Sanhedrin 59b:20 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | ומשני ההוא לאתויי נחש ולמלאכה דנחש בר מלאכה ניהו קודם שנתקלל לילך על גחון: | Come and hear a proof from the phrase: "And have dominion… and over every living thing that creeps upon the land." Creeping animals certainly cannot be used for labor. Apparently, the verse is referring to eating them. The Gemara answers: That phrase comes to include the snake, which was capable of performing labor when it was created. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:21:1 | Sanhedrin 59b:21 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | חבל - הפסד לשון אהה כל חבל לשון צער וקבל הוא כלומר הפסד בא לעולם ויש לקבול על שמש וכו': | As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Woe over a great attendant that has been lost to the world; as had the snake not been cursed that it should go on its belly, there would have been two fine snakes at the disposal of each and every one of the Jewish people. One he would send to the north, and the other one he would send to the south, to bring him precious sandalbonim , a type of precious stone, and other precious stones and pearls. Moreover, he would attach a strap under his snake's tail like a harness to an animal, and use it to take dirt out to his garden and to rebuild his ruin, as he does with other animals. This demonstrates that the snake was capable of performing labor. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:21:2 | Sanhedrin 59b:21 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | סנדלבונין - שם אבן טוב: | As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Woe over a great attendant that has been lost to the world; as had the snake not been cursed that it should go on its belly, there would have been two fine snakes at the disposal of each and every one of the Jewish people. One he would send to the north, and the other one he would send to the south, to bring him precious sandalbonim , a type of precious stone, and other precious stones and pearls. Moreover, he would attach a strap under his snake's tail like a harness to an animal, and use it to take dirt out to his garden and to rebuild his ruin, as he does with other animals. This demonstrates that the snake was capable of performing labor. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:22:1 | Sanhedrin 59b:22 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | צולין לו בשר - אלמא הותר לו לאכול בהמות וחיות: | The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to the assertion that eating meat was prohibited to Adam: Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima would say: Adam, the first man, would dine in the Garden of Eden, and the ministering angels would roast meat for him and strain wine for him. The snake glanced at him and saw his glory, and was jealous of him, and for that reason the snake incited him to sin and caused his banishment from the Garden. According to this, evidently Adam would eat meat. The Gemara answers: There the reference is to meat that descended from heaven, which was created by a miracle and was not the meat of animals at all. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:23:1 | Sanhedrin 59b:23 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | נהמו לאפיה - לאכלו: | The Gemara asks: Is there such a thing as meat that descends from heaven? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is like this incident: As Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta was walking along the way, he encountered those lions that were roaring at him, intending to eat him. He said: "The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their food from God" (Psalms 104:21), and they deserve to receive food. Two thighs of an animal descended from heaven for him. The lions ate one of these thighs, and they left the other one. He took it and entered the study hall, and inquired about it: Is this thigh a kosher item or a non-kosher item? The Sages said to him: Certainly it is kosher, as a non-kosher item does not descend from heaven. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:24:1 | Sanhedrin 59b:24 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | ירדה דמות חמור מהו - מי אמר הא ודאי דבר טמא הוא ואסור: | In connection to that story, it is related that Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Abbahu: If the likeness of a donkey had descended for him, what would the halakha have been? Would it have been permitted? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Foolish bird [ yarud nala ]. The Sages already said to him that a non-kosher item does not descend from heaven; therefore, it must be kosher. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:24:2 | Sanhedrin 59b:24 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | ירוד נאלא - תנין שוטה עוף ששמו תנין והוא שוטה ובוכה ומספיד תמיד וכל תנין דבמקרא מתרגמינן ירודין: | In connection to that story, it is related that Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Abbahu: If the likeness of a donkey had descended for him, what would the halakha have been? Would it have been permitted? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Foolish bird [ yarud nala ]. The Sages already said to him that a non-kosher item does not descend from heaven; therefore, it must be kosher. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:24:3 | Sanhedrin 59b:24 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | הא אמרו ליה אין דבר טמא יורד מן השמים - ודבר שאינו הוא ואם ישנו טהור הוא: | In connection to that story, it is related that Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Abbahu: If the likeness of a donkey had descended for him, what would the halakha have been? Would it have been permitted? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Foolish bird [ yarud nala ]. The Sages already said to him that a non-kosher item does not descend from heaven; therefore, it must be kosher. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:4:1 | Sanhedrin 59b:4 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | לכל דבר שבמנין - לא נשנית בסיני אלא מפני שאסר להם תשמיש שלשה ימים קודם מתן תורה ולאחר שלשה ימים הוצרך להתיר להם ואע"ג דממילא משתמע התירא דהא שלשה ימים הוא דאסר והרי עברו אשמעינן קרא לכל דבר הנאסר במנין ב"ד אע"פ שקבעו זמן לדבר צריך למנות פעם אחרת להתירו כשעבר הזמן: | The Gemara answers: That verse stated at Sinai is not necessary for the mitzva itself, but rather it comes to teach another halakha : That any matter that was prohibited by an official vote of the Sanhedrin requires another vote to permit it. Even if a rabbinic prohibition is no longer relevant, it is not automatically canceled, but rather a special ruling is required to cancel it. This is derived from the fact that it was necessary for God to issue a declaration (Deuteronomy 5:26) specifically canceling the prohibition that had been issued before the giving of the Torah. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:5:1 | Sanhedrin 59b:5 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | אי הכי - כל שבע מצות שחזרו ונשנו בסיני נימא נמי כל אחת ואחת הוצרכה לשנות על דבר כגון עבודת כוכבים לפרש מיתה ועבודות האסורין בה וכן גלוי עריות לפרש עונשין ונימא דכולהו לא נשנו ולישראל נאסרו ולא לבני נח: | The Gemara asks: If so, let us say with regard to each and every one of the seven Noahide mitzvot that it was repeated because of an additional matter the Torah teaches, and the descendants of Noah are exempt from them all. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:6:1 | Sanhedrin 59b:6 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | אזהרה מהדר ומתנא בה למה לי' - למהדר ומיכתב אזהרה דידהו אלא ש"מ להזהירה לבני נח ולישראל אתא: | The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, is saying: After stating a prohibition with regard to the descendants of Noah, why do I need the Torah to then repeat the prohibition itself for the Jewish people? If the only purpose is to teach an additional halakha , it is unnecessary to repeat it in the form of a prohibition, e.g., "You shall not murder…you shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:13). Therefore, it is derived from the fact that the entire prohibition is repeated, and not just the new details, that it applies both to Jews and to descendants of Noah. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:7:1 | Sanhedrin 59b:7 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | הני נמי - מילה ופריה ורביה הא לא איתנו דהא אמרת למילתא הוא דאיתנו: | It is stated in the baraita : And we have only the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve to which this classification applies, and this is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara asks: But these aforementioned mitzvot also, procreation and circumcision, were not repeated at Sinai in order to teach that they apply to the descendants of Noah as well as to the Jewish people, but rather were mentioned for other purposes, and therefore, they apply only to the Jewish people, similar to the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:8:1 | Sanhedrin 59b:8 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | הא - דגיד הנשה לא איתנו כלל ומשום הכי לא חשיב להו בהדיה ומיהו הנך נמי מן האמורות לבני נח ולא נשנו בסיני הם ולישראל נאמרו ולא לבני נח מסיני ולהלן: | The Gemara answers: These mitzvot were repeated for the sake of teaching some other matter. By contrast, this prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve was not repeated at all; it is mentioned only in Genesis. Therefore, circumcision and procreation are not included in the category of mitzvot that were given to the descendants of Noah and were not repeated at Sinai. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 59b:9:1 | Sanhedrin 59b:9 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | ואיבעית אימא מילה - ודאי מסיני נאמרה לעיקר מצותיה ודקשיא לך הא אמר ר' יוסי כל שנאמרה לבני נח ונשנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה הא דלא חשיב ליה לגבי מצות בני נח משום דמילה לאו לבני נח נאמרה אפי' מקודם סיני אלא לזרע אברהם לחודיה והשתא נמי זרע אברהם דהיינו ישראל הוא דנהיגי בה: | If you wish, say that there is another explanation for the fact that the mitzva of circumcision does not apply to the descendants of Noah despite the fact that it was repeated for the Jewish people: From the outset, it was Abraham, and not all the descendants of Noah, that the Merciful One commanded to perform this mitzva; as He said to him: "And as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your offspring after you, throughout their generations" (Genesis 17:9). The Gemara infers: "You and your offspring," yes; another person, no. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 5a:10:1 | Sanhedrin 5a:10 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | מאי רשותא - דרבה בר חנה: | § What is the specific nature of this permission? The Gemara relates: When Rabba bar Hana descended to Babylonia, his uncle Rabbi Hiyya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: My brother's son is descending to Babylonia. May he teach people and issue rulings with regard to what is prohibited and what is permitted? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may teach. Rabbi Hiyya then asked: May he also adjudicate cases of monetary law, and be absolved from payment if he errs? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may adjudicate. Rabbi Hiyya continued: May he declare a firstborn animal permitted? The male firstborn of a kosher animal may not be eaten, as it is supposed to be offered in the Temple. But if it acquires a permanent blemish it is unfit for an offering, and it may be eaten. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may declare such an animal permitted. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 5a:10:2 | Sanhedrin 5a:10 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | יורה - איסור והיתר אמר להם רבי יורה ולקמן פריך אי גמיר למה ליה רשותא בהוראה: | § What is the specific nature of this permission? The Gemara relates: When Rabba bar Hana descended to Babylonia, his uncle Rabbi Hiyya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: My brother's son is descending to Babylonia. May he teach people and issue rulings with regard to what is prohibited and what is permitted? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may teach. Rabbi Hiyya then asked: May he also adjudicate cases of monetary law, and be absolved from payment if he errs? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may adjudicate. Rabbi Hiyya continued: May he declare a firstborn animal permitted? The male firstborn of a kosher animal may not be eaten, as it is supposed to be offered in the Temple. But if it acquires a permanent blemish it is unfit for an offering, and it may be eaten. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may declare such an animal permitted. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 5a:10:3 | Sanhedrin 5a:10 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | ידין - ברשות ויפטר מלשלם: | § What is the specific nature of this permission? The Gemara relates: When Rabba bar Hana descended to Babylonia, his uncle Rabbi Hiyya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: My brother's son is descending to Babylonia. May he teach people and issue rulings with regard to what is prohibited and what is permitted? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may teach. Rabbi Hiyya then asked: May he also adjudicate cases of monetary law, and be absolved from payment if he errs? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may adjudicate. Rabbi Hiyya continued: May he declare a firstborn animal permitted? The male firstborn of a kosher animal may not be eaten, as it is supposed to be offered in the Temple. But if it acquires a permanent blemish it is unfit for an offering, and it may be eaten. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may declare such an animal permitted. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 5a:10:4 | Sanhedrin 5a:10 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | יתיר בבכורות - יראה במומין ואם קבוע הוא יתירנו לשוחטו דביומיה דרבי אין לבכור תקנה עד שיפול בו מום דאחר חורבן היה: | § What is the specific nature of this permission? The Gemara relates: When Rabba bar Hana descended to Babylonia, his uncle Rabbi Hiyya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: My brother's son is descending to Babylonia. May he teach people and issue rulings with regard to what is prohibited and what is permitted? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may teach. Rabbi Hiyya then asked: May he also adjudicate cases of monetary law, and be absolved from payment if he errs? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may adjudicate. Rabbi Hiyya continued: May he declare a firstborn animal permitted? The male firstborn of a kosher animal may not be eaten, as it is supposed to be offered in the Temple. But if it acquires a permanent blemish it is unfit for an offering, and it may be eaten. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may declare such an animal permitted. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 5a:11:1 | Sanhedrin 5a:11 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | אל יתיר - לקמן מפרש טעמא: | Similarly, when Rav, who was also Rabbi Hiyya's nephew, descended to Babylonia, Rabbi Hiyya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: My sister's son is descending to Babylonia. May he teach people and issue rulings with regard to what is prohibited and what is permitted? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may teach. Rabbi Hiyya then asked: May he also adjudicate cases of monetary law, and be absolved from payment if he errs? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi responded: He may adjudicate. Rabbi Hiyya continued: May he declare a firstborn animal permitted? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: He may not declare such an animal permitted. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 5a:12:1 | Sanhedrin 5a:12 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | איבו - אבוה דרב הוה כדאמרינן באור לארבעה עשר (פסחים דף ד.) א"ל אייבו קיים כו': | This incident raises several questions, which the Gemara asks in sequence. What is different concerning this Sage, Rabba bar Hana, that Rabbi Hiyya called him: My brother's son, and what is different concerning that Sage, Rav, that Rabbi Hiyya called him: My sister's son? And if you would say that this was the situation: Rabba bar Hana was his brother's son and Rav was his sister's son, but doesn't the Master say: Aivu, Rav's father, and Hana, the father of Rabba bar Hana, and Sheila, and Marta, and Rabbi Hiyya, were all sons of Abba bar Aha Karsala from Kafrei? Consequently, Rav would also be Rabbi Hiyya's brother's son. The Gemara answers: Rav was his brother's son who was also his sister's son, as Rabbi Hiyya's half-brother married Rabbi Hiyya's half-sister; while Rabba bar Hana was his brother's son who was not his sister's son. Therefore, he referred to Rav in a manner that emphasized the additional relationship. |
Rashi on Sanhedrin 5a:12:2 | Sanhedrin 5a:12 | commentary | Rashi on Sanhedrin | Sanhedrin | Talmud | Talmud | וחנה - אבוה דרבה: | This incident raises several questions, which the Gemara asks in sequence. What is different concerning this Sage, Rabba bar Hana, that Rabbi Hiyya called him: My brother's son, and what is different concerning that Sage, Rav, that Rabbi Hiyya called him: My sister's son? And if you would say that this was the situation: Rabba bar Hana was his brother's son and Rav was his sister's son, but doesn't the Master say: Aivu, Rav's father, and Hana, the father of Rabba bar Hana, and Sheila, and Marta, and Rabbi Hiyya, were all sons of Abba bar Aha Karsala from Kafrei? Consequently, Rav would also be Rabbi Hiyya's brother's son. The Gemara answers: Rav was his brother's son who was also his sister's son, as Rabbi Hiyya's half-brother married Rabbi Hiyya's half-sister; while Rabba bar Hana was his brother's son who was not his sister's son. Therefore, he referred to Rav in a manner that emphasized the additional relationship. |