limb

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba in the name of the rabbis there: If he slaughtered it and wolves ate its intestines it is qualified, for the presumption of intestines is qualification. Should one not worry that maybe they were punctured? The presumption of intestines is that they are qualified. It was stated: But one may bring it on its hide. What does he do? He leaves one limb on it and brings it together with it.

HALAKHAH: “He who transports wine jugs,” etc. Rebbi Ḥanin bar Levi said, the Mishnah is about these little flasks of which one carries two or three in a hand. If it is one big one, in front of him it is usual, on the back it is usual. Just as you are saying, he brings it with its hide, similarly he brings it with its jar. Just as you are saying, he brings it limb by limb, similarly he brings it vial by vial.

HALAKHAH: “He who transports wine jugs,” etc. Rebbi Ḥanin bar Levi said, the Mishnah is about these little flasks of which one carries two or three in a hand. If it is one big one, in front of him it is usual, on the back it is usual. Just as you are saying, he brings it with its hide, similarly he brings it with its jar. Just as you are saying, he brings it limb by limb, similarly he brings it vial by vial.

One verse says: “For swelling of the belly and shrinking of the genitals,” another verse says “her belly will swell and her genitals shrink”, and another verse says “when the Eternal will make your genitals shrink and your belly swell.” Does one verse weigh more than two verses? Rebbi Mana said, here for the act, there conditional. Rebbi Abin said, you may even say in both cases for the act, in both cases as a condition. “For swelling of the belly and shrinking of the genitals” for the adulterer. “Her belly will swell and her genitals shrink”, for the woman. Reason decides, “the genitals were first in sin and after that the belly; the genitals should be punished first and then the belly, while the remainder of the body does not escape.” Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappeus used this as conclusion of a sermon: Since for [heavenly] punishment, which is meted out sparingly, one limb is smitten and all limbs hurt, in the case of [heavenly] benefices, which are given out in abundance, [may we] not [expect] so much more!

Would missing limbs disable it? That would not be even like sacrifices of the descendants of Noah! Did not Rebbi Yasa say that Rebbi Eleazar explained to the colleagues: “From all living, from all flesh,” that they should be complete in their limbs? There, some were for the altar, but here, the altar has no part. Rebbi Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Jeremiah: Since you say, purgation is written there as for sacrifices, it is as if some of it were for the altar. Does ṭerefa disable it? Since you say, it is as if some of it were for the altar, in that it should be clear to you that ṭerefa disables it. If its foot was undeveloped, as a donkey’s foot, how do you treat that? If you treat it as if missing a limb, can it be enabled? If you treat it as a bodily defect, can it be disabled? Does its blood prepare? Since Rebbi Ḥiyya stated that its blood is impure, its blood prepares.

HALAKHAH: “For how long does one reduce? Up to the amount of her ketubah”, etc. Here you say seven, and there you say three? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina said, since she is obligated for seven, he deducts seven; he, since he is obligated for three, has to add three. Think of it, if she brought him slaves, she is not obligated for anything! Think of it, if he stipulated [that he is not obligated for] either šĕ‘ēr, or dress, or ‘onāh, he is not obligated for anything! What is it? Following Rebbi Joḥanan, that the suffering of the male is greater than that of the female. That is what is written: “It was when she had nagged him day after day and pressured him.” What means “and pressured him”? Rebbi Isaac ben Eleazar said, that she slipped away from under him. “He felt badly, to die”. He felt badly, ready to die, but she did not feel badly, to die. But some say that she fulfilled her needs with others. So much more she should have wanted, since Rebbi Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Naḥman: This human limb, if you starved it you satisfied it, if you satisfied it you starved it.

Rebbi [Yose] said to the colleagues: You should know that Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree: If somebody split a limb from a living animal and ate it, everybody agrees that he is free from prosecution. Where do they disagree? If he split it in his mouth before he ate it. Rebbi Joḥanan considers his mouth as inside, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish considers his mouth as outside. They asked him, what do you say? He answered them, I informed you that mighty mountains disagree, and you ask this? If it is so, even if he split it outside and then ate, he should be guilty! Why? That is how one eats. If somebody split an ant in his mouth and ate it, that is the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. Rebbi Maisha asked Rebbi Ze‘ira: If he split a grape in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? He answered, there it is something for which there is a prohibition and impurity. In a circumstance in which its impurity disappeard, its prohibition disappeared. But here is a prohibition and no impurity. Rebbi Abba ben Rebbi Mamal asked: If he split an olive-sized bit of mazzah in his mouth and ate it, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, in the other cases, his palate did not enjoy an olive sized bit. The rabbis of Caesarea said that Rebbi Nisa asked: If he split in his mouth pomegranate berries which are ‘orlah and ate them, is that the disagreement of Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? Where do we hold? If because of fluids, we already did state: “Nothing makes impure as a drink except what comes from olives and grapes.” The rabbis of Caesarea said, explain it if he swallowed them.

Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarti asked: Then one who eats a limb from a kosher living animal should be guilty on two counts, because of “you shall not eat any carcass meat;” and because of “you shall not eat of life with the flesh.” Does one argue from kosher abour non-kosher animals? But did not Rebbi Eleazar argue from kosher about non-kosher animals? Then one who eats a limb from a non-kosher living animal should be guilty on three counts, because of “you shall not eat any carcass meat;” and because of “you shall not eat of life with the flesh”; and because of “you shall not eat from their flesh.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If somebody ate five ants together, in one forgetting, he is guilty for each one separately because of “creature”. If he fragmented and ate them, he is guilty only once, if together they amount to the volume of an olive. If he ate of the fragments in the volume of an olive, he is guilty; if he ate of the fragments in the volume of an olive and an ant, he is guilty twice. If this is correct, then if he ate of the fragments less than the volume of an olive and an ant completed the volume of an olive, is he guilty twice? If this is correct, if the ate an ant the size of an olive, is he guilty twice? The same rule applies to combinations of a nazir. If he ate of the combinations in the volume of an olive, he is guilty. If he ate of the combinations in the volume of an olive and a grape berry, is he guilty twice? If this is correct, then if he ate a grape berry for the volume ofan olive, is he guilty twice? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All [food] prohibitions combine together to be whipped for the volume of an olive, but for an ant one is guilty twice. Then if he ate prohibited food and an ant completed the volume of an olive, he is guilty twice. Then if he ate an ant the volume of an olive, he is guilty twice.

Rebbi Samuel bar Sosarti asked: Then one who eats a limb from a kosher living animal should be guilty on two counts, because of “you shall not eat any carcass meat;” and because of “you shall not eat of life with the flesh.” Does one argue from kosher abour non-kosher animals? But did not Rebbi Eleazar argue from kosher about non-kosher animals? Then one who eats a limb from a non-kosher living animal should be guilty on three counts, because of “you shall not eat any carcass meat;” and because of “you shall not eat of life with the flesh”; and because of “you shall not eat from their flesh.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: If somebody ate five ants together, in one forgetting, he is guilty for each one separately because of “creature”. If he fragmented and ate them, he is guilty only once, if together they amount to the volume of an olive. If he ate of the fragments in the volume of an olive, he is guilty; if he ate of the fragments in the volume of an olive and an ant, he is guilty twice. If this is correct, then if he ate of the fragments less than the volume of an olive and an ant completed the volume of an olive, is he guilty twice? If this is correct, if the ate an ant the size of an olive, is he guilty twice? The same rule applies to combinations of a nazir. If he ate of the combinations in the volume of an olive, he is guilty. If he ate of the combinations in the volume of an olive and a grape berry, is he guilty twice? If this is correct, then if he ate a grape berry for the volume ofan olive, is he guilty twice? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: All [food] prohibitions combine together to be whipped for the volume of an olive, but for an ant one is guilty twice. Then if he ate prohibited food and an ant completed the volume of an olive, he is guilty twice. Then if he ate an ant the volume of an olive, he is guilty twice.

Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: Just as one defiles himself for a corpse of obligation, so one defiles himself for a limb of a corpse of obligation. Rebbi Joḥanan answered him: Is that so? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Explain it if he returns. It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, nobody has to defile himself for a limb from his living father, but one has to defile himself for bone the size of a barley corn from his father. Rebbi Jehudah says, just as one has to defile himself for bone the size of a barley corn from his father, so one has to defile himself for a limb from his living father. “It happened that Yose ben Paxas developed a growth on his foot. When the surgeon came to remove it, he told him to inform him when only a hair’s breadth was left. He cut until only a hair’s breadth was left, and informed him. He addressed his son Onias and told him, Onias my son, up to now you had to care for me, but leave now since nobody has to defile himself for a limb from his living father. When this came before the Sages, they said, about him it was said: “It happens that a just man is lost in his merit;” the just is lost and his merit accompanies him.

Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: Just as one defiles himself for a corpse of obligation, so one defiles himself for a limb of a corpse of obligation. Rebbi Joḥanan answered him: Is that so? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Explain it if he returns. It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, nobody has to defile himself for a limb from his living father, but one has to defile himself for bone the size of a barley corn from his father. Rebbi Jehudah says, just as one has to defile himself for bone the size of a barley corn from his father, so one has to defile himself for a limb from his living father. “It happened that Yose ben Paxas developed a growth on his foot. When the surgeon came to remove it, he told him to inform him when only a hair’s breadth was left. He cut until only a hair’s breadth was left, and informed him. He addressed his son Onias and told him, Onias my son, up to now you had to care for me, but leave now since nobody has to defile himself for a limb from his living father. When this came before the Sages, they said, about him it was said: “It happens that a just man is lost in his merit;” the just is lost and his merit accompanies him.

Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: Just as one defiles himself for a corpse of obligation, so one defiles himself for a limb of a corpse of obligation. Rebbi Joḥanan answered him: Is that so? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Explain it if he returns. It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, nobody has to defile himself for a limb from his living father, but one has to defile himself for bone the size of a barley corn from his father. Rebbi Jehudah says, just as one has to defile himself for bone the size of a barley corn from his father, so one has to defile himself for a limb from his living father. “It happened that Yose ben Paxas developed a growth on his foot. When the surgeon came to remove it, he told him to inform him when only a hair’s breadth was left. He cut until only a hair’s breadth was left, and informed him. He addressed his son Onias and told him, Onias my son, up to now you had to care for me, but leave now since nobody has to defile himself for a limb from his living father. When this came before the Sages, they said, about him it was said: “It happens that a just man is lost in his merit;” the just is lost and his merit accompanies him.

Rebbi Yasa stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: Just as one defiles himself for a corpse of obligation, so one defiles himself for a limb of a corpse of obligation. Rebbi Joḥanan answered him: Is that so? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze‘ira: Explain it if he returns. It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, nobody has to defile himself for a limb from his living father, but one has to defile himself for bone the size of a barley corn from his father. Rebbi Jehudah says, just as one has to defile himself for bone the size of a barley corn from his father, so one has to defile himself for a limb from his living father. “It happened that Yose ben Paxas developed a growth on his foot. When the surgeon came to remove it, he told him to inform him when only a hair’s breadth was left. He cut until only a hair’s breadth was left, and informed him. He addressed his son Onias and told him, Onias my son, up to now you had to care for me, but leave now since nobody has to defile himself for a limb from his living father. When this came before the Sages, they said, about him it was said: “It happens that a just man is lost in his merit;” the just is lost and his merit accompanies him.

MISHNAH: The nazir shaves for the following impurities: For a corpse, for flesh in the volume of an olive of a corpse, and for the volume of an olive of decayed matter from a corpse, and for a spoonful of decay, for the spine and for the skull, for a limb from a corpse or a limb from the living on which there is sufficient flesh, for half a qab of bones, and for half a log of blood, if they are touched, or carried, or under a tent. Also for a bone in the volume of a barley grain if it is touched, or carried, (or under a tent.) For these, the nazir shaves, he sprinkles on the third and seventh [days], he disregards the preceding days and starts to count only after he purifies himself and brings all his sacrifices.

MISHNAH: The nazir shaves for the following impurities: For a corpse, for flesh in the volume of an olive of a corpse, and for the volume of an olive of decayed matter from a corpse, and for a spoonful of decay, for the spine and for the skull, for a limb from a corpse or a limb from the living on which there is sufficient flesh, for half a qab of bones, and for half a log of blood, if they are touched, or carried, or under a tent. Also for a bone in the volume of a barley grain if it is touched, or carried, (or under a tent.) For these, the nazir shaves, he sprinkles on the third and seventh [days], he disregards the preceding days and starts to count only after he purifies himself and brings all his sacrifices.

HALAKHAH: “The nazir shaves for the following impurities,” etc. An old man asked Rebbi Joḥanan: If the volume of an olive from a corpse makes impure, then certainly all of it also? He said to him, to include the stillbirth which did not reach the volume of an olive. He continued to ask: If a limb of a corpse makes impure, then certainly all of it also? He said to him, to include the stillbirth whose limbs did not yet jell. Rebbi Yose said, was that old man wise? His questions were not wise since after he asked the first question, it was not necessary to ask the second. If he wanted to ask both, he should have asked the second and after that the first. The students of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta asked the second but did not ask the first because it was obvious for them that if he did not reach the volume of an olive it is certain that his limbs did not yet jell. Rebbi Mana bar Ḥizqiah said, do you remember when Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa was here, were not both questions by that old man [asked] about Ahilut that the nazir shaves for them? In addition, from what Rebbi Joḥanan said, I thought that the stillbirths were not Torah. But since he makes his mother sit days of purity, it is implied that [the rules of] stillbirths are Torah.

HALAKHAH: “But for overhanging branches, or protuberances,” etc. What is the status of the undistributed middle? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the undistributed middle is judged leniently. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the undistributed middle is judged restrictively. What is the undistributed middle? That is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently covered by flesh. Rebbi Yose asked: From where [do we infer that] a bone [induces impurity in the size of] a barley grain? Not from that verse, “or a person’s bone”? Here you require a barley grain, there you do not require a barley grain! Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon stated: “A slain one”, anything from a slain person, that is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently covered by flesh.

HALAKHAH: “But for overhanging branches, or protuberances,” etc. What is the status of the undistributed middle? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the undistributed middle is judged leniently. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the undistributed middle is judged restrictively. What is the undistributed middle? That is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently covered by flesh. Rebbi Yose asked: From where [do we infer that] a bone [induces impurity in the size of] a barley grain? Not from that verse, “or a person’s bone”? Here you require a barley grain, there you do not require a barley grain! Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon stated: “A slain one”, anything from a slain person, that is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently covered by flesh.

HALAKHAH: “But for overhanging branches, or protuberances,” etc. What is the status of the undistributed middle? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the undistributed middle is judged leniently. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the undistributed middle is judged restrictively. What is the undistributed middle? That is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently covered by flesh. Rebbi Yose asked: From where [do we infer that] a bone [induces impurity in the size of] a barley grain? Not from that verse, “or a person’s bone”? Here you require a barley grain, there you do not require a barley grain! Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon stated: “A slain one”, anything from a slain person, that is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently covered by flesh.

HALAKHAH: “But for overhanging branches, or protuberances,” etc. What is the status of the undistributed middle? Rebbi Joḥanan said, the undistributed middle is judged leniently. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the undistributed middle is judged restrictively. What is the undistributed middle? That is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently covered by flesh. Rebbi Yose asked: From where [do we infer that] a bone [induces impurity in the size of] a barley grain? Not from that verse, “or a person’s bone”? Here you require a barley grain, there you do not require a barley grain! Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon stated: “A slain one”, anything from a slain person, that is a limb from a corpse or a limb from a living body which is not sufficiently covered by flesh.

MISHNAH: Somebody who rented a donkey to lead it on the mountain but led it in the valley, in the valley but led it on the mountain, even if both ways were ten mil, if it died he has to pay. If he rented a donkey and it developed eye trouble or it was taken to government service, he tells him, here is your property before you. If it died or broke a limb, he has to provide him with another donkey. Somebody rented a donkey to lead it on the mountain but led it in the valley; if it slipped, he is not liable; if it suffered a heat stroke, he is liable. In the valley, but he led it on the mountain; if it slipped, he is liable; if it suffered a heat stroke, he is not liable but if it happened because of the ascent, he is liable. Somebody rented a cow to plough on the mountain but ploughed in the valley, if the plough’s peg broke, he is not liable. In the valley but he ploughed on the mountain, if the plough’s peg broke, he is liable. To thresh legumes but he threshed grain, he is not liable; to thresh grain but he threshed legumes, he is liable, for legumes make [the floor] slippery.

“If it died or broke a limb, he has to provide him with a donkey.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, if [the lessee] requested “a donkey” without specifications. But if he requested “this donkey”, [the lessor] may tell him, you wanted this one, bring it before us. Rav Ḥuna said, he has to deal with it on place. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, if he can get enough from his effort to lease a small donkey, he does not need to provide him with another donkey. Otherwise, he has to provide him with another donkey. Rebbi Ḥuna said, if the cadaver is worth enough to buy a small donkey, he does not need to provide him with another donkey. Otherwise, he has to provide him with another donkey.

HALAKHAH: “The following are the holidays of the Gentiles,” etc. Rav said ‘edehen and Samuel said `edehen. He who said ‘edehen, they are their witnesses. He who said `edehen, for the day of their misfortune is near. Rav said me`abberim, and Samuel said me‘abberin. He who said me`abberin, one adds a limb to it. He who said me‘abberin, like a pregnant woman. Rav said ye`utu, and Samuel said, ye‘utu. He who said ye`utu, but with this we shall be agreeable to you. He who said ye‘utu, to know, to inform the weary of wisdom.

If somebody finds an idol, Rav said, he breaks it limb by limb and it becomes insignificant, but Samuel said, it never can become insignificant.

If somebody finds an idol, Rav said, he breaks it limb by limb and it becomes insignificant, but Samuel said, it never can become insignificant.

Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: At every occasion where dibbur is said, there is a new biblical commandment. But is it not written, God spoke (etc., repetition) [to Noah(and his sons with him as follows)? What new biblical commandment is there? He newly introduced limb of a living animal. But is it not written, Abram fell on his face and God spoke to him as follows? What new biblical commandment is there? He newly introduced circumcision. But is it not written, a word the Eternal sent to Jacob? What new biblical commandment is there? He newly introduced … But is it not written, God spoke to Moses and said to him, I am the Eternal? What new biblical commandment is there? He newly introduced Sanctification of the Name. But is it not written, the Eternal spoke to Joshua as follows? What new biblical commandment is there? If you want to say the six cities of refuge, were they not already given to Moses at Sinai? But even to him was spoken what was not said to Moses: He shall flee to one of these cities and stand at the gate etc., and they shall give him a place that he stay with them.] What means that he stay with them? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Shila: If he is a scholar, they make him a house of assembly.

R. Joshua b. Levi said : Who beholds men smitten with a leprous eruption says, "Blessed... Who variest the forms of Thy creatures." It is quoted in objection : Who beholds a negro, a red-spotted or white-spotted person, a hunchback, dwarfed or dropsical person says, "Blessed... Who variest the forms of Thy creatures" ; but [on beholding] a person with an amputated limb, or blind, or flat-headed, or lame, or smitten with boils or a leprous eruption he says, "Blessed be the true Judge" !

There is no contradiction ; the former refers to one suffering thus from his mother's womb, the other to one suffering thus after birth. This is also proved from the fact that he teaches that [the man afflicted with leprous eruption] is like the person with an amputated limb. Deduce from this [that the leper referred to in the Baraita is one who became diseased after birth].

R. Simeon asked, What of a child that is lame, according to the words of the house of Shammai, or one that is blind, according to the words of both of them? Explain this. If we are to speak of the case of a lame person, who cannot stretch out his limb, or a blind person, who cannot open his eye, see now, an adult is free, why should we ask about a child? It is not necessary to discuss such a case. But in the case of a lame person, who can stretch out his limb, or a blind person who can open his eye, what of this case? Abai said, Wherever the adult is bound according to the Law, we educate the child in it also according to our Rabbis, and wherever the adult is free according to the Law, the child also is free according to the Rabbis.

R. Simeon asked, What of a child that is lame, according to the words of the house of Shammai, or one that is blind, according to the words of both of them? Explain this. If we are to speak of the case of a lame person, who cannot stretch out his limb, or a blind person, who cannot open his eye, see now, an adult is free, why should we ask about a child? It is not necessary to discuss such a case. But in the case of a lame person, who can stretch out his limb, or a blind person who can open his eye, what of this case? Abai said, Wherever the adult is bound according to the Law, we educate the child in it also according to our Rabbis, and wherever the adult is free according to the Law, the child also is free according to the Rabbis.