Display of Sefaria's elucidation of Shas Bavli. Facilitation of searches in the elucidated text in either Hebrew/Aramaic or English
| Sefaria Talmud Bavli kiddushin DAF 33 a | ||||
| Sefaria | Masechta | Daf | Line:Word | Content |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BLATT | kiddushin | 33a | 1:2 | מפני שיבה תקום והדרת תקום והדרת פני זקן ומדלא כתב הכי ש"מ חד הוא |
| Before the hoary head of an elder you shall stand and revere; you shall stand and revere the face of an elder. From the fact that the Merciful One did not write this and thereby divide the two concepts, learn from it that "elder” and "hoary head” are together referring to one type of person. | ||||
| BLATT | kiddushin | 33a | 2:8 | אמר מר יכול יהדרנו בממון ת"ל תקום והדרת מה קימה שאין בה חסרון כיס אף הידור שאין בו חסרון כיס וקימה לית בה חסרון כיס מי לא עסקינן דקא נקיב מרגניתא אדהכי והכי קאים מקמיה ובטיל ממלאכתו |
| The Master said previously in the baraita: One might have thought that he should revere him through money, i.e., he is required to give him money in his honor; therefore, the verse states: "You shall stand and you shall revere” . Just as standing includes no monetary loss, so too, reverence is referring to an action that includes no monetary loss. The Gemara asks: And does standing include no monetary loss at all? Are we not dealing with a case where he was piercing pearls, a highly remunerative task, and in the meantime he must stand for the elder and thereby neglect his work, which causes him a loss? | ||||
| BLATT | kiddushin | 33a | 8:1 | אלא אקיש קימה להידור מה הידור שאין בו ביטול אף קימה שאין בה ביטול ואקיש נמי הידור לקימה מה קימה שאין בה חסרון כיס אף הידור שאין בו חסרון כיס מכאן אמרו אין בעלי אומניות רשאין לעמוד מפני תלמידי חכמים בשעה שעוסקין במלאכתם |
| Rather, the verse juxtaposes standing to reverence: Just as reverence does not include neglect of work, so too, standing does not include neglect of work; therefore, one who is engaged in work is not obligated to stand before an elder. And the verse also juxtaposes reverence to standing: Just as standing includes no monetary loss, as standing applies only when it does not entail neglect of work, as explained previously, so too, reverence is referring to an action that includes no monetary loss. From here the Sages stated: Craftsmen are not permitted to stand before Torah scholars when they are engaged in their work. | ||||
| BLATT | kiddushin | 33a | 14:2 | ולא והתנן כל בעלי אומניות עומדים מפניהם ושואלים בשלומם ואומרים להם אחינו אנשי מקום פלוני בואכם לשלום א"ר יוחנן מפניהם עומדים מפני תלמידי חכמים אין עומדים |
| The Gemara asks: And are craftsmen not required to stand before Torah scholars? But didn't we learn in a mishna : When farmers bring their first fruits to Jerusalem, all craftsmen stand before them, and greet them, and say to them: Our brothers from such and such a place, welcome! Since craftsmen would stand even for those engaged in a mitzva, all the more so should they stand for Torah scholars. Rabbi Yochanan says: There is no difficulty here, as indeed they stood before those bringing first fruits, and yet they would not stand before Torah scholars. | ||||
| BLATT | kiddushin | 33a | 17:6 | אמר רבי יוסי בר אבין בוא וראה כמה חביבה מצוה בשעתה שהרי מפניהם עומדים מפני תלמידי חכמים אין עומדים ודלמא שאני התם דא"כ אתה מכשילן לעתיד לבא |
| Based on this Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says: Come and see how beloved is a mitzva performed in its proper time, as the craftsmen stood before those who were fulfilling a mitzva, whereas they did not stand before Torah scholars. The Gemara responds: This does not prove that the same applies to all mitzvot performed in their proper times, as perhaps it is different there, with regard to the bringing of the first fruits; for if so, i.e., if one does not treat those who bring first fruits with such honor, they will not want to come at all, and you will cause them to stumble and sin in the future. Consequently, the Sages instituted that those bringing first fruits should be treated with special honor. This reasoning does not apply to people performing other mitzvot. | ||||
| BLATT | kiddushin | 33a | 20:1 | אמר מר יכול יעמוד מפניו מבית הכסא ומבית המרחץ ולא והא ר' חייא הוה יתיב בי מסחותא וחליף ואזיל רבי שמעון בר רבי ולא קם מקמיה ואיקפד ואתא אמר ליה לאבוה שני חומשים שניתי לו בספר תהלים ולא עמד מפני |
| The Master said previously: One might have thought that one should also stand before an Elder in the lavatory or in the bathhouse; therefore, the verse said: "You shall stand and you shall revere,” which indicates that the mitzva of standing applies only in a place where there is reverence. The Gemara asks: And does one not show honor in a lavatory? But Rabbi Chiyya was sitting in a bathhouse and Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi passed by, and he did not stand before him. And Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi became angry and went and said to his father, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: I taught Rabbi Chiyya two of the five parts of the book of Psalms, and yet he did not stand before me. This indicates that a display of honor is appropriate even in a bathhouse. | ||||
| BLATT | kiddushin | 33a | 23:3 | ותו בר קפרא ואמרי לה ר' שמואל בר ר' יוסי הוה יתיב בי מסחותא על ואזיל ר' שמעון בר רבי ולא קם מקמיה ואיקפד ואתא א"ל לאבוה שני שלישי שליש שניתי לו בתורת כהנים ולא עמד מפני ואמר לו שמא בהן יושב ומהרהר |
| And furthermore, bar Kappara, and some say it was Rabbi Shmuel bar Rabbi Yosei, was sitting in a bathhouse. Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi entered and passed by, and he did not stand before him. Rabbi Shimon became angry and went and said to his father: I taught him two of the nine parts of Torat Kohanim, the halakhic midrash on Leviticus, and yet he did not stand before me. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabbi Shimon: Perhaps he was sitting and contemplating what you taught him and did not see you come in. | ||||
| BLATT | kiddushin | 33a | 26:6 | טעמא דבהן יושב ומהרהר הא לאו הכי לא |
| The Gemara explains the proof: The fact that the reason he might have been exempt was that he was sitting and pondering the lessons indicates that if that were not so, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would not have justified such behavior. One must stand before a Sage even in a bathhouse. | ||||
| BLATT | kiddushin | 33a | 27:1 | לא קשיא הא בבתי גואי הא בבתי בראי |
| The Gemara answers that this is not difficult: This halakha, that one is not required to stand in a bathhouse, applies to the inner rooms, where everyone is naked; standing in a place of this kind certainly does not bestow honor. That halakha, that one is obligated to stand in a bathhouse, applies to the outer rooms, where people are still dressed. Standing is a sign of respect in these rooms. | ||||
| BLATT | kiddushin | 33a | 27:9 | ה"נ מסתברא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן בכל מקום מותר להרהר חוץ מבית המרחץ ומבית הכסא דילמא לאונסיה שאני |
| The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that this is the correct explanation, as Rabba bar bar Chana says that Rabbi Yochanan says: One is permitted to contemplate matters of Torah everywhere, except for the bathhouse and the lavatory. Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi suggested that the student might have been sitting and pondering his studies, it can be assumed that the episode occurred in a location where only some of the halakhot governing one's behavior in a bathhouse apply, i.e., the outer rooms. The Gemara rejects this proof: Perhaps one whose studies are beyond his control is different; it is possible he was so absorbed in Torah study that he forgot that he was in a place where it is prohibited to think about sacred matters. | ||||
| BLATT | kiddushin | 33a | 29:5 | יכול יעצים עיניו כמי שלא ראהו אטו ברשיעי עסקינן |
| It is taught in the same baraita: One might have thought that one may close his eyes like one who does not see the elder; therefore, the verse states: "Before the hoary head you shall stand, and you shall revere the face of an elder, and you shall fear your God” . The Gemara expresses surprise at this statement: Is that to say that we are dealing with wicked people who would intentionally act this way to avoid fulfilling a mitzva? | ||||
| BLATT | kiddushin | 33a | 30:3 | אלא יכול יעצים עיניו מקמי דלימטיה זמן חיובא דכי מטא זמן חיובא הא לא חזי ליה דקאים מקמיה ת"ל תקום ויראת |
| Rather, this means: One might have thought that one may close his eyes before the obligation to stand arrives, i.e., when the elder is still far off. This would mean that when the obligation does arrive he will not see him, such that he would be required to stand before him. In this manner he thinks that he can avoid the obligation altogether. Therefore the verse states: "You shall stand...and you shall fear,” i.e., one should fear He who knows the secrets of one's heart. | ||||
| BLATT | kiddushin | 33a | 31:12 | תנא איזוהי קימה שיש בה הידור הוי אומר זה ד' אמות אמר אביי לא אמרן אלא ברבו שאינו מובהק אבל ברבו המובהק מלא עיניו |
| A Sage taught: What is the type of standing that indicates reverence? You must say that this applies when it is clear that one is standing in the elder's honor, which is within four cubits of him. Abaye said: We said this halakha, that one must stand within four cubits of the elder, only with regard to one who is not his primary teacher; but for his primary teacher he must stand when he is within his range of vision, i.e., as soon as he sees him, even if he is more than four cubits away. | ||||
| BLATT | kiddushin | 33a | 33:7 | אביי מכי הוה חזי ליה לאודניה דחמרא דרב יוסף דאתי הוה קאים אביי הוה רכיב חמרא וקא מסגי אגודא דנהר סגיא יתיב רב משרשיא ורבנן באידך גיסא ולא קמו מקמיה אמר להו ולאו רב מובהק אנא אמרו ליה לאו אדעתין: |
| The Gemara likewise reports that Abaye would stand as soon as he saw the ear of Rav Yosef's donkey coming toward him. The Gemara relates: Abaye was riding a donkey along the bank of the Sagya River. Rav Mesharshiyya and other rabbis were sitting on the other bank of the river, and they did not stand before him. Abaye said to them: Am I not your primary teacher? You are therefore required to stand before me, despite the fact that I am far away. They said to him: That did not enter our minds, i.e., we did not see you at all. | ||||
| BLATT | kiddushin | 33a | 36:9 | ר' שמעון בן אלעזר אומר מנין לזקן שלא יטריח ת"ל זקן ויראת אמר אביי נקטינן דאי מקיף חיי אביי מקיף רבי זירא מקיף |
| It was further stated in the baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: From where is it derived that an elder should not trouble others to honor him? The verse states: "And you shall revere the face of an elder, and you shall fear your God.” Abaye said: We have a tradition that if a Sage circumnavigates an area so that people will not have to stand before him, he will live a long life. The Gemara relates that Abaye would circumnavigate an area, and likewise Rabbi Zeira would circumnavigate an area. | ||||
| BLATT | kiddushin | 33a | 38:7 | רבינא הוה יתיב קמיה דר' ירמיה מדיפתי חלף ההוא גברא קמיה ולא מיכסי רישא אמר כמה חציף הא גברא א"ל דלמא ממתא מחסיא ניהו דגיסי בה רבנן |
| The Gemara cites another incident involving honor one demonstrates for his teacher. Once, when Ravina was sitting before Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti, a certain man passed before him and did not cover his head. Ravina said: How rude is this man, who does not show respect by covering his head in honor of a rabbi. Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said to him: Perhaps he is from the city of Mata Mechasya, where rabbis are common and the people living there are consequently not as careful to display honor as those in other places. | ||||
| BLATT | kiddushin | 33a | 40:9 | איסי בן יהודה אומר מפני שיבה תקום ואפילו כל שיבה במשמע אמר ר' יוחנן הלכה כאיסי בן יהודה ר' יוחנן הוה קאי מקמי סבי דארמאי אמר כמה הרפתקי עדו עלייהו דהני רבא מיקם לא קאי הידור עבד להו |
| It was stated previously that Isi ben Yehuda says that as the verse states: "Before the hoary head you shall stand,” it indicates that even anyone of hoary head is included, not only a Torah scholar. Rabbi Yochanan said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Isi ben Yehuda. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yochanan himself would stand before Aramean, i.e., gentile, elders. He said: How many experiences [harpatkei] have occurred to these individuals. It is appropriate to honor them, due to the wisdom they have garnered from their long lives. Rava would not stand before them, but he displayed reverence to them. | ||||
| BLATT | kiddushin | 33a | 43:12 | אביי יהיב ידא לסבי רבא משדר שלוחיה רב נחמן משדר גוזאי אמר אי לאו תורה כמה נחמן בר אבא איכא בשוקא |
| Abaye would extend a hand to elders so that they could lean on him. Rava would send his agent to help them. Rav Nachman would send officers [goza'ei], his servants, to assist elders. He said: If not for the Torah, how many people named Nachman bar Abba would there be in the marketplace? In other words, I am not permitted to treat my Torah study lightly by assisting them myself, as I can perform this mitzva through others. | ||||
| BLATT | kiddushin | 33a | 45:9 | א"ר אייבו אמר ר' ינאי |
| Rabbi Aivu says that Rabbi Yannai says: | ||||
| search BLATT סומכין Times Found:41 | ||||
| Sefaria | Masechta | Daf | Line:Word | Content |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BLATT | berachos | 50b | 23:2 | ת"ר ד' דברים נאמרו בפת אין מניחין בשר חי על הפת ואין מעבירין כוס מלא על הפת ואין זורקין את הפת ואין סומכין את הקערה בפת | The Gemara continues to discuss the topic of using food. The Sages taught: Four things were said with regard to bread: One may not place raw meat on bread so the blood will not drip onto the bread and render it inedible; and one may not pass a full cup of wine over bread lest the wine drip on it and ruin the bread; and one may not throw bread; and one may not prop up a dish with a piece of bread. The basis for these laws is the need to treat bread with respect. |
| BLATT | berachos | 51a | 22:4 | תנו רבנן ששה דברים נאמרו באספרגוס אין שותין אותו אלא כשהוא חי ומלא מקבלו בימין ושותהו בשמאל ואין משיחין אחריו ואין מפסיקין בו ואין מחזירין אותו אלא למי שנתנו לו ורק אחריו ואין סומכין אותו אלא במינו | The Sages taught: Six things were said with regard to asparagus: One only drinks it undiluted and from a full cup; he receives it from the attendant in his right hand and drinks it with his left hand; one should not converse after drinking it and one does not stop while drinking it, but should drink it all at once; one only returns it to the one who gave it to him; and he spits after drinking it; and one may only supplement it with its own kind, meaning that after drinking asparagus, one should only eat something that is used to make similar beverages, e.g., dates after date beer, etc. |
| BLATT | berachos | 51a | 27:7 | והתניא אין סומכין אותו אלא בפת לא קשיא הא בדחמרא הא בדשכרא | The Gemara challenges: Wasn't it taught in a baraita that one may only supplement asparagus with bread? The Gemara responds: That is not difficult. This baraita, in which it was taught that one supplements it with bread, refers to asparagus made of wine, while that baraita, in which it was taught that one supplements it, refers to asparagus made of beer. |
| BLATT | shabbos | 37a | 44:11 | תא שמע דאמר רב ספרא אמר רב חייא קטמה ונתלבתה סומכין לה ומקיימין עליה ונוטלין ממנה ומחזירין לה שמע מינה לסמוך נמי קטמה אין לא קטמה לא ולטעמיך נוטלין ממנה דקתני קטמה אין לא קטמה לא אלא תנא נוטלין משום מחזירין הכא נמי תנא סומכין משום מקיימין | Come and hear another resolution to this dilemma from that which Rav Safra said that Rav Chiyya said: If there is a stove whose coals one covered with ashes on Shabbat eve and it subsequently reignited on Shabbat, one may lean a pot against it, and leave cooked food on it, and remove food from it, and even return food to it. Conclude from this the following with regard to leaning, as well: If he covered them with ashes, yes, if he did not cover them with ashes, no, as the Gemara is speaking about a stove whose ashes were covered properly during the day. The Gemara rejects this proof too. And according to your opinion, that which was taught: One may remove the food from it, would you say there too that if he covered them, yes, and if he did not cover them, no? Everyone agrees that it is permitted to take the pot off of the stove even if it is not swept or covered with ashes. Rather, it must be understood that he taught permission to remove the pot due to the fact that it taught permission to return it. Here too, it taught permission to lean the pot due to the fact that it taught permission to leave the pot on the stove. Consequently, a conclusion cannot be drawn that leaning a pot on an unswept stove is prohibited. |
| BLATT | shabbos | 37a | 48:8 | הכי השתא התם נוטלין ומחזירין בחד מקום הוא תנא נוטלין משום מחזירין אלא הכא סומכין בחד מקום הוא ומקיימין בחד מקום הוא | The Gemara is astonished by this comparison. How can you compare them? There, one removes the pot from and returns it to one and the same place. Therefore, it taught removing due to returning, as one cannot return a pot before he removes it. However, here, where one leans the pot is in one place and where one leaves the pot is in one, another, place, there is no connection between the two. If the tanna did not intend to teach that leaning is permitted only on a swept stove, there would be no reason to mention permission to lean in conjunction with permission to leave. In any event, this is not an absolute proof, and the dilemma has not been resolved. |
| BLATT | shabbos | 37a | 50:5 | מאי הוי עלה ת"ש כירה שהסיקוה בגפת ובעצים סומכין לה ואין מקיימין אא"כ גרופה וקטומה גחלים שעממו או שנתן עליה נעורת של פשתן דקה הרי היא כקטומה | The Gemara asks: What conclusion was reached with regard to this dilemma? Come and hear a resolution to this from that which was taught in the Tosefta: With regard to a stove that was lit with pomace or with wood, one may lean a pot of cooked food against it; however, one may not leave a pot inside it unless the stove is swept out or covered with ashes. Coals that dimmed or on which a strip of thinly beaten flax was placed and the fire did not ignite, it is as if it were covered with ashes, and one need not add more ashes to it. In any case, the conclusion is drawn from here that one is permitted to lean a dish of cooked food against a stove, even though it is not covered with ashes or swept out. |
| BLATT | shabbos | 38b | 39:1 | אמר רב אדא בר אהבה הכא בכופח גרוף וקטום ותנור גרופה וקטומה עסקינן הרי הוא כתנור דאע"ג דגרוף וקטום על גביו אסור דאי ככירה כי גרופה וקטומה שפיר דמי: תניא כוותיה דאביי תנור שהסיקוהו בקש ובגבבא אין סומכין לו ואין צריך לומר על גביו ואין צריך לומר לתוכו ואין צריך לומר בגפת ובעצים כופח שהסיקוהו בקש ובגבבא סומכין לו ואין נותנין על גביו בגפת ובעצים אין סומכין לו | Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Here we are dealing with the cases of a kupach that is swept and covered with ashes and an oven that is swept and covered with ashes, and the mishna is to be understood as follows: It is like an oven in the sense that, although it is swept and covered with ashes, it is prohibited to place a pot atop it; as, if its legal status were like that of a stove, when it is swept and covered it may well be done. The Gemara comments that there is a baraita that taught in accordance with the opinion of Abaye: An oven that one lit with straw and with rakings, one may not lean a pot against it, and needless to say one may not place a pot atop it, and needless to say one may not place a pot inside it, and, needless to say if it was lit with pomace or with wood it is prohibited. While with regard to a kupach that was lit with straw or with rakings, one may lean a pot against it, but he may not place a pot atop it. If it was lit with pomace or with wood, one may not lean a pot against it. |
| BLATT | shabbos | 43a | 2:7 | וכן קורה שנשברה סומכין אותה בספסל ובארוכות המטה בכשורי חדתי דעבידי דפקעי | And it is likewise difficult from a mishna: The beam of a roof that broke, one may support it with a bench and with the lengths of a bed frame so that it will not fall. Even though this is an uncommon case of preservation, it is permitted. Rabba answered: This is a case of new beams, which commonly break. This too is a common case of preservation. |
| BLATT | shabbos | 43a | 13:2 | וכן קורה שנשברה סומכין אותה בספסל או בארוכות המטה דרפי דאי בעי שקיל ליה | And he also raised another objection from a mishna: A beam that broke, one may support it with a bench and with the lengths of a bed frame so that it will not fall. By doing so, he negates the preparedness of the bench or bed frame. He answered: This is a case in which the bench is loosely supporting the beam and not supporting its entire weight. If one wants to do so, he can take the bench. Therefore, the preparedness of the bench is not negated. |
| BLATT | shabbos | 124a | 31:11 | והא דתנן אין סומכין את הקדירה בבקעת וכן בדלת והא בקעת דביום טוב דבר שמלאכתו להיתר הוא אלמא דבר שמלאכתו להיתר בין לצורך גופו בין לצורך מקומו אסור התם מאי טעמא כיון דבשבת דבר שמלאכתו לאיסור הוא גזירה יו"ט אטו שבת | And Abaye raised another objection with regard to that which we learned in a mishna: One may not prop a pot with a piece of wood, and so too, one may not prop a door on a piece of wood. Isn't a piece of wood on a Festival an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, since it is permitted to move it to light an oven? Apparently, there is an opinion that moving an object whose primary function is for a permitted use, both for the purpose of utilizing the object itself and for the purpose of utilizing its place is prohibited, and according to Rabba, even Rabbi Nechemya does not hold that this is so. Rava answers: There, what is the reason for the prohibition? It is because on Shabbat it is an object whose primary function is for a prohibited use. Since the wood is set aside from use on Shabbat, the Sages issued a decree prohibiting moving it on a Festival, due to Shabbat. |
| BLATT | shabbos | 151b | 1:2 | שימתין קושרין את הלחי לא שיעלה אלא שלא יוסיף וכן קורה שנשברה סומכין אותה בספסל או בארוכות המטה לא שתעלה אלא שלא תוסיף: | to delay its decomposition. Similarly, one may tie the jaw of a corpse that is in the process of opening. One may not move it directly so that it will rise back to its original position, but so that it will not continue to open. And similarly, if one has a roof beam that has broken on Shabbat, one may support it with a bench or with long poles from a bed. One may not move it so that the beam will rise back to its original place, but so that it will not continue to fall. |
| BLATT | eiruvin | 71b | 12:6 | רב יוסף אמר ר"א בן תדאי ורבנן בסומכין על שיתוף במקום עירוב קמיפלגי | Rav Yosef said that this dispute should be understood differently, as Rabbi Eliezer ben Taddai and the Rabbis disagree about whether one may rely on a merging of an alleyway instead of an eiruv, i.e., whether the merging of an alleyway to permit carrying in the alleyway, exempts the courtyards that open into the alleyway from having to establish an eiruv for the purpose of carrying from one courtyard to the other. |
| BLATT | eiruvin | 71b | 14:4 | דמר סבר אין סומכין ומר סבר סומכין | As one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer ben Taddai, holds that one may not rely on it in that case, as carrying in the courtyards requires specifically an eiruv, and the merging of alleyways is insufficient. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, maintains that one may rely on and use the merging of alleyways to permit carrying between the courtyards as well. |
| BLATT | eiruvin | 73a | 23:1 | ת"ש דרב בי רבי חייא אמר אין אנו צריכין לערב שהרי אנו סומכין על שולחנו של רבי חייא ורבי חייא בי רבי אמר אין אנו צריכין לערב שהרי אנו סומכין על שולחנו של רבי | Come and hear a resolution to this question: As Rav, when he was in the school of Rabbi Chiyya, said: We do not need to establish an eiruv, as we are dependent upon the table of Rabbi Chiyya. And similarly, Rabbi Chiyya himself, when he was in the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said: We do not need to establish an eiruv, as we are dependent upon the table of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. |
| BLATT | eiruvin | 85b | 39:1 | אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בני חבורה שהיו מסובין וקדש עליהן היום פת שעל השלחן סומכין עליהן משום עירוב ואמרי לה משום שיתוף | Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: If there were a group of people who were dining together on Shabbat eve, and the day became sanctified for them, i.e., Shabbat began while they were eating, they may rely upon the bread on the table for an eiruv of courtyards, so that they are all permitted to carry in the courtyard. And some say they may rely on the bread for a merging of the alleyway. |
| BLATT | eiruvin | 96b | 18:5 | ולא ר' יהודה סבר לה כר' יוסי דתניא (ויקרא א, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל וסמך בני ישראל סומכין ואין בנות ישראל סומכות רבי יוסי ור"ש אומרים נשים סומכות רשות | Nor does Rabbi Yehuda hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as it was taught in the Sifra, the halakhic midrash on Leviticus. The verse states: "Speak to the sons of Israel...and he shall place his hands on the head of the burnt-offering" (Leviticus 1:2–4). By inference, the sons of Israel place their hands, but the daughters of Israel do not place their hands. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: It is optional for women to place their hands on the head of a sacrificial animal before it is slaughtered. |
| BLATT | rosh_hashana | 33a | 12:7 | דתניא (ויקרא א, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל בני ישראל סומכין ואין בנות ישראל סומכות דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי ורבי שמעון אומרים נשים סומכות רשות: | As it is taught in a baraita: "Speak to the children of Israel...and he shall place his hands upon the head of the burnt-offering" (Leviticus 1:2–4). The phrase "children of Israel" literally means sons of Israel, and this teaches that the sons of Israel place their hands upon offerings, but the daughters of Israel do not place their hands upon offerings; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon say: It is optional for women to place their hands on the head of an offering before it is slaughtered, although they are not obligated to do so. Apparently, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon, if a woman wishes to perform any mitzva that is not obligatory for her, she is permitted to do so. Here too, one does not prevent a woman from sounding the shofar. |
| BLATT | beitzah | 19a | 18:6 | מתני ב"ש אומרים מביאין שלמים ואין סומכין עליהן אבל לא עולות ובית הלל אומרים מביאין שלמים ועולות וסומכין עליהן: | MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: One may bring peace-offerings on a Festival, but one may not place his hands on them, as this is considered using animals, which is prohibited on a Festival by rabbinic decree. However, one may not bring burnt-offerings, apart from the obligatory daily and additional offerings of the day, because burnt-offerings are consumed entirely on the altar and not by people, and slaughter is permitted on a Festival only for the purpose of human consumption. And Beit Hillel say: One may bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings, and one may even place his hands on them. |
| BLATT | beitzah | 32b | 28:8 | ואין מקיפין שתי חביות לשפות עליהן את הקדרה ואין סומכין את הקדרה בבקעת וכן בדלת ואין מנהיגין את הבהמה במקל ביום טוב ורבי אלעזר בר' שמעון מתיר: | And one may not draw two barrels together in order to place a pot on them, so that its contents will be cooked by a fire lit between the barrels. And one may not prop a pot that does not stand straight with a piece of wood, in order to prevent it from falling. And similarly, with a door. And one may not lead an animal with a stick in the public domain on a Festival; and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, permits it. |
| BLATT | beitzah | 33a | 2:1 | ואין סומכין את הקדרה בבקעת וכן בדלת בדלת ס"ד אלא אימא וכן הדלת: תנו רבנן אין סומכין את הקדרה בבקעת וכן הדלת לפי שלא נתנו עצים אלא להסקה ורבי שמעון מתיר | It was taught in the mishna: And one may not prop a pot with a piece of wood, and similarly a door. The Gemara asks: With regard to a door, can this enter your mind? Is it possible to prop a pot by means of a door? Rather, say and correct the wording as follows: And similarly, one may not prop a door with a piece of wood. The Sages taught: One may not prop a pot with a piece of wood, and similarly a door, as wood is to be used only for kindling. With regard to any use other than kindling, wood is considered muktze. And Rabbi Shimon, who does not accept the prohibition of muktze, permits it. |
| BLATT | megillah | 5a | 36:7 | מני ב"ש היא דתנן [ב"ש אומרים] מביאין שלמים ביו"ט ואין סומכין עליהן | The Gemara adds: Whose opinion is reflected in the mishna according to Rav Oshaya's explanation? It is the opinion of Beit Shammai, as we learned in a mishna (Beitza 19a) that Beit Shammai say: One may bring peace-offerings on a Festival day to be sacrificed in the Temple. Most portions of a peace-offering are eaten by the priests and the individual who brought the offering. Consequently, its slaughter is considered food preparation, which is permitted on a Festival day. And one may not place his hands on the head of the offering, as that includes leaning with all one's might upon the animal, which is prohibited on a Festival. |
| BLATT | megillah | 5a | 37:7 | אבל לא עולות וב"ה אומרים מביאין שלמים ועולות וסומכין עליהן | However, burnt-offerings may not be brought at all on the Festival. Since they are not eaten, their slaughter is not considered food preparation, and it therefore constitutes a prohibited labor on the Festival. Beit Hillel disagree and say: One may bring both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings on a Festival day, and one may even place his hands on them. |
| BLATT | chagigah | 7b | 20:1 | דתנן בית שמאי אומרים מביאין שלמים ואין סומכין עליהן אבל לא עולות ובית הלל אומרים מביאין שלמים ועולות וסומכין עליהן | As we learned in a mishna (Beitza 19a) that Beit Shammai say: One brings peace-offerings on a Festival, but one does not place his hands on them, as placing one's hands on an animal on a Festival is prohibited by rabbinic law. However, one may not sacrifice burnt-offerings at all, as they are not eaten, and slaughtering is permitted on a Festival only for human needs. And Beit Hillel say: One brings both peace-offerings and burnt-offerings, and one does place his hands on them. It is unlikely that an anonymous mishna would follow the opinion of Beit Shammai, whose rulings are not accepted as halakha. |
| BLATT | chagigah | 16b | 44:7 | מיתיבי (ויקרא א, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל וסמך בני ישראל סומכין ואין בנות ישראל סומכות רבי יוסי ור' (ישמעאל) [שמעון] אומרים בנות ישראל סומכות רשות | The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: "Speak to the children of [benei] Israel" (Leviticus 1:2). The word benei literally means: Sons of. And it states nearby: "And he shall place his hand on the head of the burnt-offering" (Leviticus 1:4), from which we learn that the sons of Israel place their hands, but the daughters of Israel do not place them. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yishmael say: It is optional for the daughters of Israel to place their hands. They may place their hands if they so choose, although they are not obligated to do so. |
| BLATT | chagigah | 17a | 2:5 | מתני בית שמאי אומרים מביאין שלמים ואין סומכין עליהם אבל לא עולות וב"ה אומרים מביאין שלמים ועולות וסומכין עליהם | MISHNA: Beit Shammai say: One may bring peace-offerings on a Festival because both the owners and the priests partake of them, but one may not place his hands on them, on the peace-offerings before sacrificing them. However, one may not bring burnt-offerings at all because they are not eaten, and labor is permitted on Festivals only for the sake of preparing food for humans. And Beit Hillel say: One may bring peace-offerings and also burnt-offerings, and one places his hands on both of them. |
| BLATT | chagigah | 17b | 5:5 | ומאי קמ"ל דמקרבינן ביומיה הא איפליגו בה חדא זימנא דתנן ב"ש אומרים מביאין שלמים ואין סומכין עליהם אבל לא עולות וב"ה אומרים מביאין שלמים ועולות וסומכין עליהם | The Gemara asks: And what does this teach us; that all offerings are sacrificed on their day? But they have already disputed this once, as we learned in a mishna: Beit Shammai say: One may bring peace-offerings on a Festival but one may not place his hands on them. However, one may not bring burnt-offerings at all; and Beit Hillel say: One may bring peace-offerings and also burnt-offerings, and one places his hands on both of them. Why is it necessary to restate this argument in different terms? |
| BLATT | sanhedrin | 14a | 1:2 | בטלו דיני קנסות מישראל שפעם אחת גזרה מלכות הרשעה גזירה על ישראל שכל הסומך יהרג וכל הנסמך יהרג ועיר שסומכין בה תיחרב ותחומין שסומכין בהן יעקרו | the laws of fines would have ceased to be implemented from among the Jewish people, as they would not have been able to adjudicate cases involving these laws due to a lack of ordained judges. This is because at one time the wicked kingdom of Rome issued decrees of religious persecution against the Jewish people with the aim of abolishing the chain of ordination and the authority of the Sages. They said that anyone who ordains judges will be killed, and anyone who is ordained will be killed, and the city in which they ordain the judges will be destroyed, and the signs identifying the boundaries of the city in which they ordain judges will be uprooted. These measures were intended to discourage the Sages from performing or receiving ordination due to fear for the welfare of the local population. |
| BLATT | sanhedrin | 14a | 27:1 | פשיטא סומכין בחוצה לארץ ונסמכין בארץ הא אמרינן דלא אלא סומכין בארץ ונסמכין בחוצה לארץ מאי | The Gemara comments: It is obvious that if those ordaining the new judges were outside of Eretz Yisrael, and those being ordained were inside Eretz Yisrael, we say that they may not perform the ordination. But if those ordaining the new judges were inside Eretz Yisrael, and those being ordained were outside of Eretz Yisrael, what is the halakha? May ordination be conferred from a distance in this situation? |
| BLATT | sanhedrin | 37a | 1:2 | ושלש שורות של תלמידי חכמים יושבין לפניהן כל אחד ואחד מכיר את מקומו הוצרכו לסמוך סומכין מן הראשונה אחד מן השניה בא לו לראשונה אחד מן השלישית בא לו לשניה בוררים להן עוד אחד מן הקהל ומושיבין אותו בשלישית ולא היה יושב במקומו של ראשון אלא יושב במקום הראוי לו: | And three rows of Torah scholars sit before the judges, and each and every one among those sitting recognizes his place, i.e., they are seated in accordance with their stature. When the court must ordain an additional judge, e.g., if a judge dies during the proceedings or in the case of a court without a decisive majority (see 40a), the court ordains the greatest Torah scholar from the first row. As a seat in the first row is now vacant, one Torah scholar from the second row comes to the first row, and one Torah scholar from the third row comes to the second row, and the court selects another Torah scholar from among the assembled and they seat him in the third row. And this Torah scholar who moves from the second row to the first row would not sit in the place of the first Torah scholar, who joined the court, rather, he would sit in the place appropriate for him, i.e., at the end of that row, in accordance with his stature. |
| BLATT | avodah_zarah | 8b | 48:3 | אלא בטלו דיני קנסות מישראל שגזרה מלכות הרשעה גזרה כל הסומך יהרג וכל הנסמך יהרג ועיר שסומכין בה תחרב ותחום שסומכין בו יעקר | Rather, his intention was to say that the laws of fines would have ceased to be implemented from among the Jewish people, as they would not have been able to adjudicate cases involving these halakhot due to a lack of ordained judges. This is because at one time the wicked kingdom of Rome issued decrees of religious persecution against the Jewish people with the aim of abolishing the chain of ordination and the authority of the Sages. They said that anyone who ordains judges will be killed, and anyone who is ordained will be killed, and the city in which they ordain the judges will be destroyed, and the areas around the boundary of the city in which they ordain judges will be uprooted. These measures were intended to discourage the Sages from performing or receiving ordination due to fear for the welfare of the local population. |
| BLATT | menachos | 92a | 15:3 | אמר לו רבי שמעון והלא אין סמיכה אלא בבעלים וזה אהרן ובניו סומכין בו אמר לו אף זה אהרן ובניו מתכפרין בו | The baraita continues: Rabbi Shimon said to Rabbi Yehuda: How can you include the scapegoat as one of the two cases requiring the placing of hands? Isn't it the halakha that placing hands can be performed only by the offering's owner, i.e., the one who will achieve atonement through the sacrifice of the offering? And with regard to this offering, the scapegoat, it is Aaron the High Priest or whichever of his sons serves as High Priest who places his hands on it, and yet it is not he who achieves atonement through it. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: With regard to this offering as well, that halakha is fulfilled because Aaron and his sons are considered owners, as they also achieve atonement through it together with the rest of the community. |
| BLATT | menachos | 93a | 28:1 | מתני הכל סומכין חוץ מחרש שוטה וקטן וסומא ועובד כוכבים והעבד והשליח והאשה | MISHNA: Everyone who brings an animal offering places hands upon its head, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind person, a gentile, a Canaanite slave, the agent of the owner of the offering who brings the offering on the owner's behalf, and a woman. |
| BLATT | menachos | 93a | 30:4 | על הראש בב' ידים ובמקום שסומכין שוחטין ותכף לסמיכה שחיטה: | The rite of placing hands is performed by leaning on the head of the offering with two hands. And in the same location in the Temple that one places hands, one slaughters the animal. And immediately following the rite of placing hands, the slaughter is performed. |
| BLATT | menachos | 93a | 32:2 | גמ בשלמא חרש שוטה וקטן דלאו בני דעה נינהו עובד כוכבים נמי (ויקרא א, ב) בני ישראל סומכין ואין עובדי כוכבים סומכין אלא סומא מאי טעמא לא | GEMARA: The Gemara explains why certain types of people do not place hands on an offering: Granted, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor do not place their hands on the offering, as they are not mentally competent. The exclusion of a gentile is also understandable, as the verses concerning placing hands are introduced with: "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them" (Leviticus 1:2), which indicates that the children of Israel place hands upon their offerings, but gentiles do not place their hands upon their offerings. But with regard to a blind person, what is the reason that he does not place his hands on his offering? |
| BLATT | menachos | 93b | 50:11 | ובמקום שסומכין שוחטין תכף לסמיכה שחיטה: מאי קאמר הכי קאמר במקום שסומכין שוחטין שתכף לסמיכה שחיטה: | The mishna teaches: And in the same location in the Temple that one places hands, one slaughters the animal. And immediately following the rite of placing hands, the slaughter is performed. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying? The mishna appears to state two distinct rulings. But if so, the first statement is superfluous, because if the slaughter immediately follows the placing of hands, then it is obvious that the animal is slaughtered without changing its location. The Gemara explains that this is what the mishna is saying: In the same location in the Temple that one places hands one slaughters the animal, because immediately following the rite of placing hands, the slaughter is performed. There are not two distinct rulings; rather, the second statement is the explanation of the first. |
| BLATT | menachos | 95a | 3:3 | תניא כמאן דאמר כמין ספינה רוקדת דתניא ארבעה סניפין של זהב היו שם מפוצלין מראשיהן כמין דקרנין היו שסומכין בהן את הלחם שהוא דומה כמין ספינה רוקדת | It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the one who said the shewbread was like a rocking boat, as it is taught in a baraita: There were four gold panels there, on the Table, which split up at their upper ends so that they were like forked reed branches. The panels were forked because the bread, which resembled a type of rocking boat, was supported by them. |
| BLATT | menachos | 96a | 31:7 | וארבעה סניפין של זהב היו שם מפוצלין מראשיהן שהיו סומכין בהם שנים לסדר זה ושנים לסדר זה ועשרים ושמונה קנים כחצי קנה חלול ארבעה עשר לסדר זה וארבעה עשר לסדר זה | The mishna continues to describe the shewbread Table: And there were four panels of gold there, which stood on the ground and rose above the height of the Table, and they split up at their upper ends, above the Table, so that the rods upon which the shewbread was placed could rest upon the panels. In this manner the panels would support the shewbread. There were two panels for this arrangement and two panels for that arrangement, and there were twenty-eight rods, each of which was shaped like half of a hollow reed. There were fourteen rods for this arrangement and fourteen rods for that arrangement. |
| BLATT | chullin | 2b | 4:1 | חייבין לא קאמינא אלא מעתה הכל סומכין אחד האנשים ואחד הנשים הכי נמי דלאו לכתחלה והא כתיב (ויקרא א, ד) וסמך ידו ונרצה | Rav Acha answered: I am not speaking about cases where it is stated: Everyone is obligated, as it goes without saying that fulfilling any obligation is permitted ab initio. Rav Ashi asked: If that is so, that which was stated: Everyone who brings an offering places hands on the animal, both men and women (see Menachot 93a), is that also an expression indicating that it is not permitted ab initio? But isn't it written: "And he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to effect atonement for him" (Leviticus 1:4)? |
| BLATT | chullin | 54b | 36:2 | תא שמע הדקין שבכלי חרס הן וקרקרותיהן ודופנותיהם יושבין שלא מסומכין | The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from another mishna (Kelim 2:2): With regard to the smallest of earthenware vessels, if they, or even their broken-off bases or sides, can sit, i.e., remain upright, without being supported, |
| BLATT | chullin | 85a | 1:6 | ורבי יוסי לטעמיה דאמר אשה ודאית נמי תקעה דתניא בני ישראל סומכין ולא בנות ישראל סומכות | The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yosei, who does not accept this refutation, conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says: One who is definitely a woman may also sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana. As it is taught in a baraita concerning the verse that discusses a burnt offering: "Speak to the sons of Israel...and he shall place his hands upon the head of the burnt offering" (Leviticus 1:2–4). The verse indicates that the sons of Israel place their hands upon the head of an offering, but the daughters of Israel do notplace their hands. |
| BLATT | arachin | 2a | 18:5 | הכל סומכין לאתויי מאי לאתויי יורש ודלא כרבי יהודה | The Gemara inquires about similar general expressions that appear in other mishnayot. What is added by the mishna (Menachot 93a): Everyone who brings an offering places hands on the head of the animal? The Gemara answers: This clause serves to add that an heir places hands on the offering of the deceased, and the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that an heir does not place his hands on an offering he inherited. |
| search BLATT ENGLISH diluted Times Found:73 | ||||
| Sefaria | Masechta | Daf | Line:Word | Content |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BLATT | shabbos | 011b | 6:4 | רבא אמר וכן בגת לענין מעשר וכן אמר רב ששת וכן בגת לענין מעשר דתנן שותין על הגת בין על החמין בין על הצונן ופטור דברי ר' מאיר ר' אלעזר בר' צדוק מחייב וחכ"א על החמין חייב על הצונן פטור מפני שהוא מחזיר את המותר |
| Rava said: That which we learned in the mishna: And the same is true in the wine press, is not relevant to the halakhot of Shabbat. It refers to the matter of the halakhot of tithes. And Rav Sheshet also said: That which we learned in the mishna: And the same is true in the wine press, refers to the matter of tithes, as we learned in a mishna: One may ab initio drink grape juice directly on the press without tithing, whether the juice was diluted with hot water, even though he will then be unable to return the leftover wine to the press, as it would ruin all the wine in the press, or whether the juice was diluted with cold water, in which case he could return the leftover wine without ruining the rest, and he is exempt. Drinking that way is considered incidental drinking, and anything that is not a fixed meal is exempt from tithing. That is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, obligates one to separate the tithe in both cases. And the Rabbis say: There is a distinction between these two cases; when the wine was diluted with hot water, since he cannot return what is left of the wine to the press, he is obligated to tithe, as it is like fixed drinking for which one is obligated to tithe. However, when the wine was diluted with cold water, he is exempt, because he returns the leftover wine to the press, and it is incidental drinking, which is exempt from tithing. Our mishna, which says: And the same is true in the press, means that only if his head and most of his body was in the press is he permitted to drink without separating the tithe, and that halakha is not at all related to matters of Shabbat (Rabbeinu Chananel). | ||||
| BLATT | shabbos | 076b | 16:1 | מתני המוציא יין כדי מזיגת הכוס חלב כדי גמיעה דבש כדי ליתן על הכתית שמן כדי לסוך אבר קטן מים כדי לשוף בהם את הקילור ושאר כל המשקין ברביעית וכל השופכין ברביעית ר"ש אומר כולן ברביעית ולא נאמרו כל השיעורין הללו אלא למצניעיהן: |
| MISHNA: One who carries out undiluted wine from a private domain to a public domain or vice versa is liable only for a measure equivalent to the wine typically diluted in a cup. Pure wine was diluted with water. The measure that determines liability for carrying out wine is a measure suitable to be diluted for a significant cup of wine. The measure that determines liability for carrying out milk is equivalent to that which is swallowed in one gulp. The measure that determines liability for carrying out honey is equivalent to that which is used to place on a sore caused by chafing. The measure that determines liability for carrying out oil is equivalent to that which is used to spread on a small limb. The measure that determines liability for carrying out water is equivalent to that which is used to rub and spread on an eye bandage. And the measure that determines liability for carrying out all other liquids is a quarter of a log. And the measure that determines liability for carrying out all waste water is a quarter of a log. Rabbi Shimon says: The measure that determines liability for all liquids is a quarter of a log. He further stated: And all these measures were only stated with regard to those who store them. One indicates that he considers these liquids significant by storing them. One is only liable for carrying out an object that is significant to him. Others, for whom these measures are insignificant, are not liable for carrying them out. | ||||
| BLATT | shabbos | 077a | 1:2 | תנינא המוציא יין כדי מזיגת כוס ותני עלה כדי מזיגת כוס יפה וקתני סיפא ושאר כל המשקין ברביעית ורבא לטעמיה דאמר רבא כל חמרא דלא דרי על חד תלת מיא לאו חמרא הוא |
| learned that in the mishna: One who carries out undiluted wine is only liable if he carries out a measure equivalent to the wine typically diluted for a cup. And it was taught with regard to the mishna: A measure equivalent to the wine diluted for a significant cup of wine. And it was taught in the latter clause of the mishna: And the measure that determines liability for carrying out all other liquids is a quarter of a log. Since a quarter of a log is the significant measure for liquids, that is also the significant measure for diluted wine. And Rava is consistent with his line of reasoning, as Rava said: Any wine that does not hold one part wine diluted by three parts water is not wine. Wine must be sufficiently potent to be capable of being diluted with water three times its measure. | ||||
| BLATT | shabbos | 077a | 5:4 | אמר אביי שתי תשובות בדבר חדא דתנן והמזוג שני חלקי מים ואחד יין מן היין השירוני ועוד מים בכד ומצטרפין |
| Abaye said: There are two possible responses with regard to this matter. One, as we learned in a mishna: Diluted wine, which is used to determine the exact color of red, is two parts water and one part wine from the wine of the Sharon. Apparently, wine constitutes one-third and not one-quarter of the diluted cup. And furthermore: Rava's opinion is that the measure that determines liability for carrying out wine is a measure that, when diluted , would equal a quarter of a log, i.e., a quarter of a quarter of a log of un diluted wine. Is it possible that the water is in the jug and yet joins together with the wine? The wine that he is carrying out is less than the required measure and is not fit for drinking. | ||||
| BLATT | eiruvin | 029b | 14:3 | ובכמה מערבין סבר רב אחא בריה דרב יוסף קמיה דרב יוסף למימר בתרין רבעי שכרא כדתנן המוציא יין כדי מזיגת הכוס ותני עלה כדי מזיגת כוס יפה מאי כוס יפה כוס של ברכה ואמר ר"נ אמר רבה בר אבוה כוס של ברכה צריך שיהא בו רובע רביעית כדי שימזגנו ויעמוד על רביעית וכדרבא דאמר רבא כל חמרא דלא דרי על חד תלת מיא לאו חמרא הוא |
| The Gemara asks: And how much beer is needed to establish an eiruv? Rav Acha, son of Rav Yosef, thought to say before Rav Yosef as follows: Two-quarters of a log of beer. Rav Acha's reasoning is now spelled out in detail. As we learned in a mishna: If one carries out wine on Shabbat from a private domain to a public domain, he is liable if he carries out enough wine for diluting a cup, i.e., enough undiluted wine to fill a cup after it has been diluted with water. And a baraita was taught about this mishna: Enough wine for diluting a fine cup. They inquired: What is meant by a fine cup? They answered: A cup of blessing. And Rav Nachman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: A cup of blessing must contain a quarter of a quarter-log of wine, so that after one dilutes the wine with water, it amounts to a full quarter-log. And this measure is in accordance with the statement of Rava with regard to the strength of wine, as Rava said: Any wine that is not strong enough to require that it be diluted with three parts water to one part wine is not proper wine. | ||||
| BLATT | eiruvin | 099b | 2:7 | דתנן שותין על הגת בין בחמין ובין בצונן ופטור דברי רבי מאיר רבי אליעזר בר צדוק מחייב |
| The Gemara clarifies this statement. As we learned in a mishna: One may drink grape juice directly on the winepress ab initio without tithing, whether the juice was diluted with hot water, even though he will then be unable to return the leftover wine to the press, as it would ruin all the wine in the press, or whether the juice was diluted with cold water, in which case he could return the leftover wine without ruining the rest, and he is exempt. Drinking that way is considered incidental drinking, and anything that is not a fixed meal is exempt from tithing. That is the statement of Rabbi Meir. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok deems one obligated to tithe in both cases. | ||||
| BLATT | eiruvin | 099b | 4:8 | וחכ"א על החמין חייב ועל הצונן פטור מפני שמחזיר את המותר: |
| And the Rabbis say: There is a distinction between these two cases. When the juice is diluted with hot water, since one cannot return what is left of the juice to the press, he is obligated to tithe it, as this drinking is like fixed drinking for which one is obligated to tithe. However, when the juice is diluted with cold water, he is exempt from tithing it, because he can return the leftover juice to the press. Therefore, it is considered incidental drinking, which is exempt from tithing. The teaching of the mishna: The same applies to a winepress, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it teaches that that the leniency to drink without separating tithes applies only if the drinker's head and most of his body are in the winepress. | ||||
| BLATT | pesachim | 040b | 9:6 | תנו רבנן אין מוללין את הקדירה בפסח והרוצה שימלול נותן את הקמח ואח"כ נותן את החומץ ויש אומרים אף נותן את החומץ ואח"כ נותן את הקמח |
| The Sages taught: One may not stir flour into a pot of food on Passover to absorb the foam that has accumulated during the cooking process. And one who wishes to stir flour should add the flour and afterward add vinegar, which will prevent the flour from becoming leavened. And some say: One may even add vinegar and afterward add the flour, as vinegar prevents flour from becoming leavened even after the flour is diluted in water. | ||||
| BLATT | pesachim | 108b | 9:6 | מיתיבי ד' כוסות הללו צריך שיהא בהן כדי רביעית אחד חי ואחד מזוג אחד חדש ואחד ישן רבי יהודה אומר צריך שיהא בו טעם ומראה יין קתני מיהת כדי רביעית ואת אמרת כוס יפה |
| The Gemara raises an objection to the above rulings from a baraita: These four cups must contain one quarter-log, whether the wine is undiluted or diluted, whether it is new or aged. Rabbi Yehuda says: It must have the taste and appearance of wine. In any event, this baraita is teaching that each cup must contain at least the amount of one quarter-log, and yet you said that each must contain enough for diluting a significant cup. | ||||
| BLATT | pesachim | 108b | 14:1 | אמרי אידי ואידי חד שיעורא הוא מאי כדי מזיגת כוס יפה דקאמר לכל חד וחד דהוי להו כולהו רביעית |
| They say in response that this and that are one and the same measure. The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the expression: Enough for diluting a significant cup, which Shmuel said? He meant that there must be enough undiluted wine for each and every one of the cups, i.e., one quarter-log of diluted wine. This amounts to one quarter-log of undiluted wine for all of them combined. A significant cup contains one quarter-log. This quarter-log is comprised of one quarter undiluted wine and three quarters water. Therefore, each cup must contain at least one quarter of one quarter-log of undiluted wine, so that one consumes a full quarter-log of liquid from each cup. | ||||
| BLATT | pesachim | 111a | 1:2 | חוץ מן המים ור' יוחנן אמר אפילו מים אמר רב פפא לא אמרן אלא חמימי לגו קרירי וקרירי לגו חמימי אבל חמימי לגו חמימי וקרירי לגו קרירי לא |
| except for water. If one mixes water with other water, it is not considered diluted and does not count toward the number of cups. And Rabbi Yochanan said: Even water joins the number of cups. Rav Pappa said: We said this statement only about hot water poured into cold water, and cold water poured into hot water. Rabbi Yochanan maintains that these cups are considered diluted . However, everyone agrees that hot water poured into hot water or cold water poured into cold water, no, they are not considered diluted . | ||||
| BLATT | kesubos | 003b | 29:2 | ואיבעית אימא מאי מחמת האונס כדתני' הרי שהיה פתו אפוי וטבחו טבוח ויינו מזוג ומת אביו של חתן או אמה של כלה מכניסין את המת לחדר ואת החתן ואת הכלה לחופה |
| And if you wish, say instead: What is the meaning of: Due to the coercion? It is as it is taught in a baraita: If one's bread was baked, and his animal slaughtered, and his wine diluted, and all preparations for the wedding feast were complete, and the father of the groom or the mother of the bride died before the wedding, then before burying the deceased, which would trigger the onset of mourning, one moves the corpse into a room, and the bride and groom are ushered to the wedding canopy and they are married. | ||||
| BLATT | kesubos | 004a | 15:2 | תניא כוותיה דרב חסדא הרי שהיה פתו אפויה וטבחו טבוח ויינו מזוג ונתן מים על גבי בשר ומת אביו של חתן או אמה של כלה מכניסין את המת לחדר ואת החתן ואת הכלה לחופה ובועל בעילת מצוה ופורש ונוהג שבעת ימי המשתה ואח"כ נוהג שבעת ימי אבילות וכל אותן הימים הוא ישן בין האנשים ואשתו ישנה בין הנשים |
| The following baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Chisda: If one's bread was baked, and his animal slaughtered, and his wine diluted, and he placed water on the meat, and the father of the groom or the mother of the bride died, one moves the corpse into a room, and the bride and groom are ushered to the wedding canopy, and they are married. The groom then engages in intercourse with the bride to fulfill the mitzva, and he then withdraws from his wife, and the corpse is buried. And the groom then observes the seven days of the wedding feast, and thereafter observes the seven days of mourning. And throughout those days of feast and mourning, the groom sleeps among the men, and his wife sleeps among the women, and they are not permitted to be alone together. | ||||
| BLATT | gittin | 067b | 21:11 | למאי נפקא מינה לקמיעא מאי אסותיה בישרא סומקא אגומרי וחמרא מרקא |
| The Gemara asks: What difference is there? The Gemara answers: The difference is with regard to writing an amulet to prevent harm caused by the demon. The amulet must include the name of the demon. The Gemara asks: What is the remedy for that illness? The Gemara responds: The afflicted person should eat red meat roasted over coals and drink wine diluted [marka] with a large amount of water. | ||||
| BLATT | gittin | 067b | 30:6 | רב עמרם חסידא כי הוה מצערין ליה בי ריש גלותא הוו מגנו ליה אתלגא למחר אמרו ליה מאי ניחא ליה למר דלייתו ליה אמר הני כל דאמינא להו מיפך אפכי אמר להו בישרא סומקא אגומרי וחמרא מרקא אייתו ליה אינהו בישרא שמינא אגומרי וחמרא חייא |
| It was related: When the members of the Exilarch's house would afflict Rav Amram the pious they would make him lie down to sleep all night on the snow. The next day they would say to him: What is preferable for the Master, i.e., Rav Amram, for us to bring him to eat? Rav Amram said to himself: Anything I say to them, they will do the opposite. He said to them: Bring me red meat roasted over coals and diluted wine. They brought him fatty meat roasted over coals and un diluted wine instead, which is what Rav Amram had intended, because this is the remedy for one who suffers from the chills. | ||||
| BLATT | gittin | 069b | 10:2 | לפירחא דליבא ליתי תלת ברושייאתא דשערי ונשטרינהו בכמכא דלא עבר עילויה ארבעין יומין וניכול ונשתי אבתרייהו חמרא מרקא א"ל רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא וכל שכן דפרח ליביה אמר ליה אנא ליוקרא דליבא אמרי |
| As a remedy for palpitations of the heart, i.e., if his heart is beating too fast, let him bring three loaves of barley, and soak them in kamka from which forty days have not yet passed since being made. And let him eat the loaves and drink diluted wine after consuming them. Rav Acha of Difti said to Ravina: All the more so his heart will palpitate from these foods. Ravina said to him: You misheard what I had said; I said this as a remedy for heaviness of the heart. | ||||
| BLATT | gittin | 069b | 44:15 | לרושחתא ליתי אקיקא ואילווא ואספירכא ומרתכא וחומרתא דפילון ושיאפא דחמימתא ונינקט בשחקי דכיתנא בקייטא ודעמר גופנא בסיתוא ואי לא לישתי שיכרא מרקא |
| As a remedy for hemorrhoids, let him bring acacia [akika], and aloe [ilava], and mercury, and silver dross, and a bundle [chumreta] of fragrant herbs [defilon], and feces of pigeons [chamimta]. And let him take it in linen bags in the summer, or cotton bags in the winter, and place them on the afflicted area. And if he is not able to do that, let him drink diluted beer. | ||||
| BLATT | bava_metziah | 060a | 4:4 | מי שנתערב מים ביינו לא ימכרנו בחנות אלא א"כ הודיעו ולא לתגר אע"פ שהודיעו שאינו אלא לרמות בו מקום שנהגו להטיל מים ביין יטילו |
| One who had water mix with his wine may not sell it in the store, unless he informs the buyer that it contains water. And he may not sell it to a merchant, even if he informs him of the mixture, as, although he is aware that there is water mixed with the wine, it will be used for nothing other than deceit because the merchant will likely not inform the buyer that it is diluted. In a place where they are accustomed to place water into the wine to dilute it and everyone is aware of that fact, one may place water in the wine. | ||||
| BLATT | bava_metziah | 060a | 30:2 | מי שנתערב מים ביינו ה"ז לא ימכרנו בחנות אלא א"כ מודיעו וכו': רבא אייתו ליה חמרא מחנותא מזגיה טעמיה לא הוה בסים שדריה לחנותא א"ל אביי והא אנן תנן ולא לתגר אע"פ שהודיעו א"ל מזגא דידי מידע ידיע וכי תימא דטפי ומחייליה ומזבין ליה א"כ אין לדבר סוף: |
| The mishna teaches: One who had water mix with his wine may not sell it in the store, unless he informs the buyer that it contains water. The Gemara relates: They brought wine to Rava from a store. He diluted it with water, tasted it, and it was not tasty. He sent it back to the store, so they could sell it there. Abaye said to him: But didn't we learn in the mishna: And he may not sell it to a merchant, even if he informs him? Rava said to him: My dilution of the wine is evident to all, as I add more water than is typically added. And lest you say that the storekeeper will add wine, and sweeten the mixture, and sell it again, when the dilution is no longer evident, if this is a concern, there is no end to the matter. It should be prohibited to sell any wine to a merchant due to the concern lest he engage in deceit in its resale. | ||||
| BLATT | bava_metziah | 060a | 34:1 | מקום שנהגו להטיל מים ביין יטילו וכו': תנא למחצה לשליש ולרביע אמר רב ובין הגיתות שנו: |
| The mishna teaches: In a place where they are accustomed to place water into the wine to dilute it and everyone is aware of that fact, one may place water in the wine. It was taught: One may dilute the wine by adding water that will constitute one-half, one-third, or one-fourth of the mixture, in accordance with the local custom. Rav says: And it is with regard to the period when the wine is among the winepresses, before the wine ferments, that they taught this halakha. If wine is diluted at a later stage, the dilution will cause the wine to spoil. | ||||
| BLATT | bava_basra | 097b | 7:3 | ואלא למעוטי יין קוסס מזוג מגולה ושל שמרים ושריחו רע דתניא בכולן לא יביא ואם הביא פסול |
| Rather, Rav's statement serves to exclude souring wine, diluted wine, wine that has been left uncovered, as there is a concern that a snake may have injected its venom into it, and wine made from grape pomace, and wine that has a foul odor. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to all of these types of wine, one may not bring them as a libation, and if one brought one of them as a libation, it is disqualified. | ||||
| BLATT | bava_basra | 097b | 11:4 | אי למעוטי מזוג עלויי עלייה דאמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא מודים חכמים לר"א בכוס של ברכה שאין מברכין עליו עד שיתן לתוכו מים |
| If one suggests that Rav's statement serves to exclude diluted wine, why would such wine be disqualified for the sanctification of the Shabbat day? Diluting wine is an improvement of it, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Chanina, says: Even though the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer and hold that over undiluted wine one recites the blessing: Who created the fruit of the vine, nevertheless the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a cup used for a blessing, such as the cup of wine over which Grace after Meals is recited, that one does not recite the blessing over it until he adds water to it to make it palatable. | ||||
| BLATT | sanhedrin | 070a | 18:4 | ואמר רב חנן בר מולדה אמר רב הונא אינו חייב עד שיאכל בשר חי וישתה יין חי איני והא רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרווייהו אכל בשר חי ושתה יין חי אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה אמר רבינא יין חי מזיג ולא מזיג בשר חי בשיל ולא בשיל כבשר כיבא דאכלי גנבי |
| And Rav Chanan bar Molada says that Rav Huna says: A stubborn and rebellious son is not liable unless he eats raw meat and drinks undiluted wine. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is that so? But don't Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: If he ate raw meat or drank undiluted wine he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son? Ravina said: The two conflicting statements can be reconciled. If he ate totally raw meat or drank totally undiluted wine, he is in fact exempt. The undiluted wine for which he is liable is wine that is diluted but not diluted properly. And the raw meat for which he is liable is meat that is cooked but not cooked properly, like the scorched meat that thieves are wont to eat, due to the hasty manner in which they must prepare their food. | ||||
| BLATT | shevuous | 006a | 29:3 | וכי תימא כי היכי דשמעת ליה בפתוך הכי שמעת ליה בחלוק ובפתוך גופיה מי שמעת ליה והתניא רבי עקיבא אומר אדמדם שבזה ושבזה כיין המזוג במים אלא של בהרת עזה כשלג ושל סיד דיהה הימנה |
| And if you would say that just as you heard Rabbi Akiva express this opinion with regard to a mark that is mixed with red, so too, by logical extension, you have effectively heard Rabbi Akiva express this opinion with regard to different shades of flawless white, as what possible reason is there to differentiate between them, this is difficult. And this suggestion is problematic, as in the case of a mixed reddish-white mark itself, did you ever hear him express this opinion? But isn't it taught otherwise in a mishna (Nega'im 1:2): With regard to the various shades of white that are mixed with red, Rabbi Akiva says the reddish variation of this one, i.e., of a baheret, and of that one, i.e., of a lime-colored mark, are like wine diluted in water, except for the following distinction: That the reddish variation of a baheret is still an intense white, like snow, albeit with a somewhat pinkish hue, but the reddish variation of lime is darker than it. | ||||
| BLATT | makkos | 003b | 46:8 | ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב שלשת לוגין מים שנפל לתוכן קורטוב של יין ומראיהן כמראה יין ונפלו למקוה לא פסלוהו מתקיף לה רב כהנא וכי מה בין זה למי צבע דתנן ר' יוסי אומר מי צבע פוסלין את המקוה בשלשת לוגין א"ל רבא התם מיא דצבעא מקרי הכא חמרא מזיגא מקרי |
| And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: In the case of three log of drawn water into which one sixty-fourth of a log [kortov] of wine fell, and the color of the water is like the color of wine, and that liquid fell into a ritual bath containing less than forty se'a, although the Sages ruled that three log of drawn water invalidate a ritual bath, in this case the liquid does not invalidate it, because the halakhic status of the liquid that fell into the ritual bath is that of wine, and wine does not invalidate a ritual bath. Rav Kahana objects to this: And what is the difference between this case of water into which wine fell and the case of dye water, as we learned in a mishna (Mikvaot 7:3): Rabbi Yosei says: Dye water in the amount of three log invalidates a ritual bath? The wine, like the dye, colors the water. Rava said to him: The difference is that there the mixture is called dye water, where the water maintains the status of water; here it is called diluted wine. | ||||
| BLATT | avodah_zarah | 030a | 29:2 | אמר רב פפא לא אמרן אלא דמזיג טובא אבל מזיג ולא מזיג שתי ומזיג ולא מזיג מי שתי והא רבה בר רב הונא הוה קאזיל בארבא והוה נקיט חמרא בהדיה וחזייה לההוא חיויא דצרי ואתי א"ל לשמעיה סמי עיניה דדין שקיל קלי מיא שדא ביה וסר לאחוריה |
| Rav Pappa said: We said that wine is not subject to the halakha of exposure only in a case where it was well diluted, but where it was only partially diluted a snake might still drink from it, and therefore it is prohibited. The Gemara rejects this claim: And is it correct that a snake drinks partially diluted wine? But wasn't Rabba bar Rav Huna once traveling on a ship while carrying a jug of wine with him, and he saw a certain snake that slithered and approached the wine. He said to his attendant: Remove the eyes of this serpent, i.e., do something that will cause the snake to leave. His attendant took a bit of water and threw it in the wine, and the snake turned away. This indicates that snakes do not drink partially diluted wine. | ||||
| BLATT | avodah_zarah | 030a | 34:10 | אחייא מסר נפשיה אמזיגא לא מסר נפשיה |
| The Gemara rejects this conclusion: For undiluted wine, a snake will risk its life by exposing itself to humans, but for diluted wine, a snake will not risk its life. But in either case, if the wine is left unguarded, a snake will drink from it. | ||||
| BLATT | avodah_zarah | 030a | 35:4 | ואמזיגא לא מסר נפשיה והא רבי ינאי הוה בי עכבורי ואמרי ליה בר הדיא הוה בי עכבורי הוו יתבי והוו קא שתו חמרא מזיגא פש להו חמרא בכובא וצרונהי בפרונקא וחזיא לההוא חיויא דשקיל מיא ורמא בכובא עד דמלא בכובא וסליק חמרא עילויה פרונקא ושתי |
| The Gemara raises a difficulty: And is it true that for diluted wine a snake will not risk its life? But wasn't Rabbi Yannai once in Bei Akhborei, and some say that it was bar Hadaya who was in Bei Akhborei, and others were sitting with him and drinking diluted wine. When they finished, they had some wine left in the container [bekhuva], and they covered it with a cloth. And then they saw a certain snake take water in its mouth and pour it through the cloth into the container until the liquid filled the container and the wine flowed over the cloth, and the snake drank the overflowing wine. This shows that a snake will risk its life to drink diluted wine. | ||||
| BLATT | avodah_zarah | 030a | 39:2 | אמרי דמזיג איהו שתי דמזיגי אחריני לא שתי |
| The Sages say in response: Wine that the snake itself diluted, it does drink. Wine that another diluted, it does not drink. In other words, a snake does not drink diluted wine unless it was diluted by the snake itself. Accordingly, even partially diluted wine is not subject to the halakha of exposure. | ||||
| BLATT | avodah_zarah | 058b | 17:1 | רבי ירמיה איקלע לסבתא חזא חמרא דמזגי עובד כוכבים ואישתי ישראל מיניה ואסר להו משום לך לך אמרין נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב אתמר נמי א"ר יוחנן ואמרי לה א"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן יין שמזגו עובד כוכבים אסור משום לך לך אמרין נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב |
| Rabbi Yirmeya happened to come to Savta. He saw wine that a gentile diluted with water and then a Jew drank from it, and Rabbi Yirmeya then deemed the wine prohibited to them, due to the maxim: Go, go, we say to a nazirite, go around and go around, but do not come near to the vineyard. It was also stated: Rabbi Yochanan says, and some say that Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yochanan says: Wine that a gentile diluted is prohibited, due to the maxim Go, go, we say to a nazirite, go around and go around, but do not come near to the vineyard. | ||||
| BLATT | avodah_zarah | 059a | 6:4 | ר' חייא בר אבא איקלע לגבלא חזא בנות ישראל דמיעברן מעובדי כוכבים שמלו ולא טבלו חזא חמרא דמזגו עובדי כוכבים ושתו ישראל חזא תורמוסא דשלקי להו עובדי כוכבים ואכלי ישראל ולא אמר להו ולא מידי |
| Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba happened to come to Gavla. He saw Jewish women there who were impregnated by gentiles who were in the process of converting and were circumcised but had not yet immersed in a ritual bath. He also saw wine that gentiles diluted with water and Jews then drank the wine. He also saw lupines that gentiles were cooking and Jews were eating. And despite seeing all this, he did not say anything to them to correct their actions. | ||||
| BLATT | avodah_zarah | 059a | 18:2 | וגזור על יינם משום יין נסך משום לך לך אמרין נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב |
| The Gemara continues to explain Rabbi Yochanan's second instruction to Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba: And decree with regard to their wine that it is prohibited as an extension of the prohibition of wine used for a libation. Although the gentile did not touch the wine when he diluted it, it is prohibited due to the maxim: Go, go, we say to a nazirite; go around and go around, but do not come near to the vineyard. | ||||
| BLATT | avodah_zarah | 073b | 14:6 | ומי אית ליה לרבי יוחנן רואין והא בעי מיניה ר' אסי מרבי יוחנן שני כוסות אחד של חולין ואחד של תרומה ומזגן ועירבן זה בזה מהו ולא פשט ליה |
| The Gemara asks: And is Rabbi Yochanan of the opinion that one considers the permitted substance of the same type as though it were nonexistent? But didn't Rabbi Asi ask Rabbi Yochanan the following question: If one had two cups of wine, one non-sacred and one of teruma, and he diluted them with water and mixed them together, and there is sufficient water in each of the cups to nullify the teruma wine, what is the halakha? Is the non-sacred wine, which is the same type of substance as the teruma wine, considered to be nonexistent, and the water in the mixture nullifies the teruma wine, or does the teruma wine render the non-sacred wine forbidden, and the water in both cups is insufficient to nullify the combined wine? And Rabbi Yochanan did not resolve the dilemma for him, indicating that he did not have a set opinion on the matter. | ||||
| BLATT | avodah_zarah | 073b | 18:2 | מעיקרא לא פשט ליה לבסוף פשט ליה אתמר נמי א"ר אמי א"ר יוחנן ואמרי לה א"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן ב' כוסות אחד של חולין ואחד של תרומה ומזגן ועירבן זה בזה רואין את ההיתר כאילו אינו והשאר מים רבין עליו ומבטלין אותו: |
| The Gemara answers: Initially he did not resolve the dilemma for him, but ultimately he resolved for him that the permitted substance of the same type is considered as though it were nonexistent. It was also stated that this was Rabbi Yochanan's ultimate opinion, as Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi Yochanan says, and some say that it is Rabbi Asi who says that Rabbi Yochanan says: If one had two cups of wine, one non-sacred and one of teruma, and he diluted them with water and mixed them together, and there is sufficient water in each of the cups to nullify the teruma wine, one considers the permitted wine as though it were nonexistent, and as for the rest, the teruma wine, the volume of the water is greater than the volume of the wine and nullifies it. | ||||
| BLATT | zevachim | 096b | 38:9 | רבא אמר לא צריכא אלא לדאמר מר במים ולא ביין במים ולא במזוג הא אפי' ביין ואפי' במזוג |
| Rava said: When the verse excludes teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, that is necessary only for that which the Master said: The verse specifies: "It shall be scoured and rinsed in water" (Leviticus 6:21), but the vessel is not to be scoured and rinsed in wine. It must be scoured and rinsed "in water," but not in diluted wine. By contrast, in this case, i.e., the vessel in which teruma was cooked, it may be scoured and rinsed even in wine, and even in diluted wine. | ||||
| BLATT | chullin | 094a | 14:4 | מ"ט איקפד אמר אביי תרנגולת טרפה הואי ויהבה ניהליה במר דשחוטה רבא אמר אנפקא אמר ליה לאשקויי ואשקייה חמרא מזיגא |
| The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Shmuel became angry? Abaye said: The compensation that the attendant gave the ferryman was a chicken that was a tereifa, and he gave it to him as though it were a slaughtered, kosher chicken. Rava said: Shmuel told him to give the ferryman wine for drinking in an anpaka, i.e., a utensil that holds a quarter-log and which was generally used for undiluted wine, but he gave him diluted wine for drinking. According to both Abaye and Rava, Shmuel was upset that his attendant deceived the gentile ferryman. | ||||
| BLATT | chullin | 094a | 19:2 | למ"ד אנפקא א"ל לאשקויי אנפקא חייא משמע |
| Similarly, according to the one who said that Shmuel told him to give the ferryman wine to drink in an anpaka, since anpaka indicates undiluted wine and the attendant gave the ferryman diluted wine, perhaps Shmuel became angry simply because his attendant disobeyed his instruction. | ||||
| BLATT | arachin | 016b | 51:4 | עד היכן תכלית יסורין אמר רבי אלעזר כל שארגו לו בגד ללבוש ואין מתקבל עליו מתקיף לה רבא זעירא ואיתימא רבי שמואל בר נחמני גדולה מזו אמרו אפילו נתכוונו למזוג בחמין ומזגו לו בצונן בצונן ומזגו לו בחמין ואת אמרת כולי האי |
| The Gemara asks: Until where is the minimum limit of suffering? What is the least amount pain that is included in the definition of suffering? Rabbi Elazar says: Anyone for whom they wove a garment to wear and the garment does not suit him, i.e., it does not fit him exactly. Rava the Younger objects to this, and some say Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani objects: The Sages said an even greater statement than this, i.e., that even lesser inconvenience is still considered suffering: Even if people intended that they would dilute his wine with hot water, but they accidentally diluted it for him with cold water, it is considered suffering. Similarly, if he wanted it diluted with cold water, but they diluted it for him with hot water, this too is considered suffering. And you say all this, that it is considered suffering, only if the garment one ordered does not fit? | ||||
| BLATT | kerisos | 013b | 33:12 | אמר ליה והאמר רב הלכה כר' אלעזר ומר הוא דקא רמי ביה מיא אמר ליה הא לא קשיא הא ברביעית הא ביותר מכדי רביעית |
| Rav Acha said to him: But doesn't Rav say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar that if one diluted the wine he drank with water and entered the Temple he is exempt; and the Master is one who puts water into his wine? Rav Ashi said to him: That is not difficult; that ruling of Rabbi Elazar applies in a case where one drank precisely a quarter-log of wine, whereas in this case I drank more than a quarter-log of wine. In such a case one does not maintain a clear mind even if he mixed in a small amount of water. | ||||
| BLATT | niddah | 017a | 9:2 | אמר ר"ש בן יוחי ה' דברים הן שהעושה אותן מתחייב בנפשו ודמו בראשו האוכל שום קלוף ובצל קלוף וביצה קלופה והשותה משקין מזוגין שעבר עליהן הלילה והלן בבית הקברות והנוטל צפרניו וזורקן לרה"ר והמקיז דם ומשמש מטתו |
| Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai further says: There are five actions with regard to which one who performs them is held liable for his own life, and his blood is upon his own head, i.e., he bears responsibility for his own demise. They are as follows: One who eats peeled garlic or a peeled onion or a peeled egg, and one who drinks diluted drinks; all these are referring to items only when they were left overnight. And one who sleeps at night in a cemetery, and one who removes his nails and throws them into a public area, and one who lets blood and immediately afterward engages in intercourse. | ||||
| BLATT | niddah | 017a | 18:3 | והשותה משקין מזוגין שעבר עליהן הלילה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל והוא שלנו בכלי מתכות אמר רב פפא וכלי נתר ככלי מתכות דמו וכן אמר רבי יוחנן והוא שלנו בכלי מתכות וכלי נתר ככלי מתכות דמו |
| Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai further mentions one who drinks diluted drinks that were left overnight. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: And that is dangerous only when they were left overnight in metal vessels. Rav Pappa says: And natron vessels are considered like metal vessels in this regard. And Rabbi Yochanan likewise says: And that is dangerous only when they were left overnight in metal vessels, and natron vessels are considered like metal vessels in this regard. | ||||
| BLATT | niddah | 019a | 4:3 | מתני' חמשה דמים טמאים באשה האדום והשחור וכקרן כרכום וכמימי אדמה וכמזוג בש"א אף כמימי תלתן וכמימי בשר צלי וב"ה מטהרים הירוק עקביא בן מהללאל מטמא וחכמים מטהרין |
| MISHNA: There are five distinct colors of ritually impure blood in a woman: Red, and black, and like the bright color of the crocus [karkom] flower, and like water that inundates red earth, and like diluted wine. Beit Shammai say: Even blood like the water in which a fenugreek plant is soaked, and like the liquid that drips from roast meat, are ritually impure, and Beit Hillel deem blood of those colors ritually pure. With regard to blood that is green, Akavya ben Mahalalel deems it impure and the Rabbis deem it pure. | ||||
| BLATT | niddah | 019a | 12:5 | וכמימי אדמה מבקעת בית כרם ומיצף מים וכמזוג שני חלקים מים ואחד יין מן היין השרוני |
| And what is the color that is like water that inundates red earth that is impure? It is specifically earth from the Beit Kerem Valley and specifically when one inundates the earth with enough water until it pools on the surface. And what is the color that is like diluted wine that is impure? It is specifically when the dilution consists of two parts water and one part wine, and specifically when it is from the wine of the Sharon region in Eretz Yisrael. | ||||
| BLATT | niddah | 020a | 31:2 | בר קפרא אמר וכולן עמוק מכן טמא דיהה מכן טהור חוץ ממזג שעמוק מכן טהור דיהה מכן טהור בר קפרא אדיהו ליה ודכי אעמיקו ליה ודכי אמר רבי חנינא כמה נפיש גברא דלביה כמשמעתיה |
| Bar Kappara says: And with regard to all of them, if the color is deeper than that, the blood is impure; if it is lighter than that, it is pure, except for blood the color of diluted wine, with regard to which if the color is deeper than that, the blood is pure, and if it is lighter than that, it is also pure. The Gemara relates that in an effort to test bar Kappara, the Sages brought before him blood that had the appearance of diluted wine and they lightened it, and bar Kappara deemed it pure. On another occasion they deepened the color of blood that looked like diluted wine, and again bar Kappara deemed it pure. Rabbi Chanina says in astonishment: How great is this man whose heart, which is so sensitive it can distinguish between such similar shades of blood, is in accordance with his ruling of halakha. | ||||
| BLATT | niddah | 020b | 54:3 | וכמזוג שני חלקים כו' תנא |
| The mishna states: And what is the color that is like diluted wine that is impure? It is specifically when the dilution consists of two parts water and one part wine, and specifically when it is from the wine of the Sharon region in Eretz Yisrael. The Sages taught in a baraita | ||||
| BLATT | niddah | 021a | 1:1 | השרוני נידון ככרמלי חי ולא מזוג חדש ולא ישן |
| For the purposes of the examination of blood, the wine of the Sharon region in Eretz Yisrael has the same status as undiluted Carmelite wine and not diluted Carmelite wine, new Carmelite wine and not old Carmelite wine. | ||||
| BLATT | niddah | 021a | 2:2 | אמר רב יצחק בר אבודימי וכולן אין בודקין אותן אלא בכוס טבריא פשוט מאי טעמא אמר אביי של כל העולם כולו מחזיק לוג עושין אותו ממנה שני לוגין עושין אותו ממאתים כוס טבריא פשוט אפי' מחזיק שני לוגין עושין אותו ממנה ואיידי דקליש ידיע ביה טפי |
| Rav Yitzchak bar Avudimi says: And in all cases of blood that has the color of diluted wine, one examines blood only with a simple Tiberian cup. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? Abaye says: Containers are designed according to a universal standard, such that a cup that can contain a log of wine, one fashions it from material weighing one hundred dinars, whereas a cup that can contain two log, one fashions it from material weighing two hundred dinars. By contrast, in the case of a simple Tiberian cup, even one that can contain two log, one fashions it from material weighing one hundred dinars. And since the material from which the cup is made is weak, it is more transparent and therefore the redness of the wine inside is more noticeable. Consequently, one must compare the blood to wine in a cup of this kind. | ||||
| BLATT | niddah | 024b | 41:2 | תניא אבא שאול אומר קובר מתים הייתי והייתי מסתכל בעצמות של מתים השותה יין חי עצמותיו שרופין מזוג עצמותיו סכויין כראוי עצמותיו משוחין וכל מי ששתייתו מרובה מאכילתו עצמותיו שרופין אכילתו מרובה משתייתו עצמותיו סכויין כראוי עצמותיו משוחין |
| With regard to the effect of drinking wine on a person's body, it is taught in a baraita that Abba Shaul says: I used to be a gravedigger, and I would observe the bones of corpses. I discovered that the bones of one who drinks too much undiluted wine during his lifetime look burnt, the bones of one who drinks too much diluted wine are black, and the bones of one who drinks the appropriate amount of wine are fat, i.e., full of marrow. And furthermore, I discovered that the bones of anyone who drinks much more than he eats look burnt, the bones of one who eats much more than he drinks are black, and the bones of one who eats and drinks appropriate amounts are fat. | ||||