MISHNAH: Four kinds of vows did the Sages dissolve: Speeding-up vows, exaggeration vows, vows in error, and vows about acts of God. What are speeding-up vows? One who has something to sell says, a qônām if I sell for less. that I shall not reduce the price below a tetradrachma, and the other one says, a qônām that I shall not increase my bid to more than a sheqel; both of them intend three denarii. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, also one who wants by a vow to get his neighbor to eat at his place. If he says to himself: any vow which I make in the future shall be void, [it is void] if he remembers at the moment he makes the vow.
HALAKHAH: “Four kinds of vows did the Sages dissolve,” etc. Do not the Sages permit all kinds of vows? It is written 30:2 . : “Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes.” He referred the paragraph to the heads of the tribes that they should dissolve the people’s vows. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel 30:3 . The same argument in the Babli, Ḥagigah 10a , in response to Mishnah 1:8: Dissolutions of vows “hang in the air” (have no biblical basis). This is the only argument accepted in the Babli. : “He shall not profane his word.” He cannot profane his word; this implies that others can profane his words. Who is that? That is the Sage who dissolves the vow. Ḥananiah the nephew of Rebbi Joshua said 119:106 . Also in the Babli, Ḥagigah 10a . In Nedarim 8a , the verse is interpreted to authorize vows to keep commandments of the Torah. In Sadducee theory (Damascus Document CD XVI 7–8), the consequence of such a vow is that the corresponding commandment cannot be broken even under extreme pain, which in pharisaic theory applies only to idolatry, incest and adultery, and murder. , “I swore and I shall keep it.” Sometimes I keep it. Rebbi Joshua said 95:11 . Also in the Babli, Ḥagigah 10a . , “What I swore in my rage:” In my rage I swore; I change my mind.
Do the Sages permit all kinds of vows? “Four kinds of vows did the Sages dissolve”! Rebbi Eleazar in the name of the elder Rebbi Ḥiyya: Those do not need the permission of a Sage. need the permission of a Sage. Rav and Samuel both say: they do not need the permission of a Sage.” It is obvious that this cannot be the Yerushalmi text since דְּאָֽמְרֵי תְּרַװַייהוּ is pure Babylonian Aramaic. Rav and Samuel both say that these need the permission of a Sage. Issy objected: Did we not find an opening for vows from there only? Samuel said to him, bind a rope on it. A Mishnah disagrees with Issy: “This one also can dissolve his vow without asking a Sage.” He explains it, that all vows need an opening from another place but these have their openings in themselves. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, that is, if they do not insist. But if they did insist they need the permission of a Sage. If one did insist but the other did not insist, since this one’s is invalid, the other one’s also should be invalid. A student of Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Julianus said [after] Rebbi Yudan: If one asked a tetradrachma, one was ready to give him three, and another one said a sheqel. (Does he insist?) Since he renounces one denar for this one he may renounce another one for the other one and give it to him for two.
Rebbi Immi said, who is the Tanna of speeding-up vows? Rebbi Tarphon 5:5 , and in Tosephta Nazir 3:19 R. Jehudah in his name ( Mishnah Ṭahorot 4:12 in his own name), that a vow of nezirut is only valid if it is unquestionable. One then assumes that all other vows follow the same rule. (The Tosephta is quoted another 6 times in the Babli.) In the Babli, 21a , this is quoted by R. Ammi in the name of R. Jehudah Neśia. ! For he explains it for those who insist. Rebbi Abba said, explain it according to everybody for those who do not insist. If you say for those who insist, one should have stated that Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob and Rebbi Tarphon say the same thing. Some Tannaїm say, “one who wants”; some Tannaïm say, “also one who wants”. He who says “one who wants” supports Rebbi Abba; he who says “also one who wants”, supports Rebbi Immi. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: who is the Tanna of speeding-up vows? Rebbi Tarphon!
So is the Mishnah: “Any vow which I make in the future shall be void, [it is void] if he remembers at the moment he makes the vow,” if he did not stipulate a reservation. But if he stipulated a reservation, then even if he does not remember. That is for vows; but for oaths? There are reservations for vows, there are no reservations for oaths, as it was stated about oaths imposed by judges 7:1, Note 27 . : “According to our understanding, not according to your understanding.” Rebbi Jehudah said, he makes him swear according to his understanding. Why does he stipulate with him? Because of the uneducated, lest they say that there may be mental reservations for oaths.
MISHNAH: Exaggeration vows: If he said for me if … , if I did not see on this road [crowds] like those who left Egypt. 12:37 . ; if I did not see a snake [as thick] as the beam of the olive press. Vows in error how? If he said, if I ate or drank, and he remembers that he had eaten or drunk, that I shall not eat or shall not drink, and he forgot and ate or drank. If he said, a qônām that my wife cannot enjoy anything from me because she stole my wallet or hit my son, and it turns out that she did not hit him or became known that she did not steal. If he saw people eating [his] figs and said to them, these are for you as qorbān , but the persons turned out to be his father or brothers with others. The House of Shammai say, these are permitted, those with them forbidden. But the House of Hillel say, these and those are permitted.
HALAKHAH: “Vows of exaggeration,” etc. 3:9–11. Is it impossible that crowds like those who left Egypt went by? But we are dealing with one look. Was it not the case that when Emperor Julianus went there, 1‘200‘000 [men] went with him? But we must be dealing with one look.
Did not the snake of king Sapor swallow camels and carts 29a . There, the story of the snake is discussed by Samuel, which shows that the reference is to Sapor I. ? When they wanted to kill it, they filled camel bags 24:9 פָּחֲלָץ. with straw and put glowing coals inside; it swallowed them and died. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, I saw a snake skin which filled the space between two columns. Rebbi Samuel bar Jacob said, I saw a snake skin which covered the genii. But cf. Note 41. of government. Samuel said, square. Could you say it was not square וְאִם בִּמְרוּבַּע “if square, why must it be large?” , why must it be large? Even if it was small! Rebbi Mattaniah said, it is the way of this Tanna to speak only about large things. You should know that it is so, for we have stated 3:8, example of something impossible. : “A flying camel”. Could he not have stated “a flying rat”?
5:7, fol. 52a, with variants and commentary in Notes 122–129 . The text is also in Šebuot 3:9 (fol. 34d). It was stated: “Rabban Gamliel says, there is nothing square from the six days of Creation.” Rebbi Berekhiah objected: Did we not state: “The body of baheret is like a square Italian grit.” Rebbi Bisna said, that in itself says that there is no square. Why did we state that? That he should square it. But there are lice! They are full of knots. But there is the knee of a mountain goat! It is round below. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel spoke only about animals. It was stated so: There is square in foods, there is no square in animals.
“Vain” and “untruth” both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. 20:16 and Deut . 5:17 , both are Sinaitic versions which had been said in parallel and were written serially. . “Remember” and “keep”. 20:8 and Deut . 5:12 . The first two examples are also in the Babli, Šebuot 20b , this example only in Babli Roš Haššanah 27a , Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai 20:5 (p. 148). A parallel text from here to the end of the Halakhah is Sifry Deut . 233; Midrash Tannaïm p. 138 ( Midrash Haggadol Deut. 22:11 ), Mekhilta dR. Ismael Yitro Chap. 7. both were said together, which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. “Its desecrator shall be put to death” and “two unblemished one year old sheep. 3; a radically different one in Babli Ḥulin 109b , where Yalta, Rav Naḥman’s wife, holds that all of Sinaitic legislation has exceptions (in contrast to the commandments given to Noah which represent Natural Law and are without exceptions). ” both were said together. 31:14 on the observation of the Sabbath, the second is Num . 28:9 on the Sabbath sacrifice which requires many actions which if performed outside the Temple on a Sabbath would be capital crimes. , which is impossible for the mouth to say and the ear to hear. “The nakedness of your brother’s wife you shall not uncover. 18:16 . ”, “her brother-in-law shall come to her. 25:5 ; cf. Introduction to Tractate Yebamot . ”, both were said together. “You shall not move real property from one tribe to another,” “any daughter inheriting real property,” both together. 36:8–9 , say the same, viz., that an heiress may marry only a man of her own tribe. The explanation is given in Babli Baba batra 111b , where it is shown that the entire chapter 36 only refers to the daughters of Ṣelofḥad; for all others only the rules of Num . 27:7–11 are applicable without restrictions. In this case, Num . 36:8–9 is the exception from Num. 27:8 . . “Fringes you shall make for yourself,” “do not wear sha‘ṭnez ”, both were said together. 22:11 , wearing wool and linen together is forbidden. In v. 12, any garment, including linen ones, is required to have fringes, which according to Num . 15:38 must contain a dark blue woolen thread. . And so it says. 62:12 . , “God spoke once, two I heard from this.” And it is written: “Is not my word like fire, says the Eternal, and like a hammer which shatters a rock.”
A vain oath, if one swears to change what is known to men; a false oath if he swears and changes 3:8. . What is vain and what is false? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it is known to two persons, that is a false oath, to three, it is vain. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: If it is known to two persons and another one at the end of the earth knows about it, that is a vain oath 29a , Ulla (= R. Hila) simply states that 3 people have to know to make an oath vain, without discussion whether they have to be together or not. . What is the difference between them? If he was untrue before two [persons], threw it 3:8) of a stone that it was gold. into the sea, and they had warned him because of a vain oath 8:1, Note 9 . , in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is not whipped, in the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar he is whipped. If they had warned him because of a false oath, in the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan he is whipped, in the opinion of Rebbi Eleazar he is not whipped. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah: Even an egg and a pearl 3:8, the first explanation is more likely to be the correct one. . What means even ? But, for example an egg and a pearl.
It was stated: “Just as vows of exaggeration are permitted so oaths of exaggeration are permitted.” But was it not stated: Vows of exaggeration are forbidden? Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Here about those who insist, there about those who do not insist. Rebbi Abba said, you may even say in either case if they insist or if they do not insist; here about one who intends that his oath should fall on his property, “an oath that my property [should be forbidden] to me.” Then his property is forbidden [to him]. But in the matter of whipping, he cannot be whipped deal with the same case; “permitted” means that the maker of such a vow, even if he uttered it after due warning, cannot be prosecuted; but what he forbade on himself remains forbidden. As noted by Rashba ( Novellae to 24b), this contradicts the position of the Babli in the reading of most mss. . Just as speeding-up vows are permitted so speeding-up oaths are permitted. It is the same case; if he intends that his oath should fall on his property then his property is forbidden [to him]. But concerning the matter of whipping, he cannot be whipped.
22 (ed. M. Friedmann p. 113a). Ḥizqiah said, he who swears that two are two is whipped for a vain oath. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who saw rain falling and said: “O Lord, inundate with much water, the reading is קוּרִי פָּלֻּי בּרֶיכּסוֹן which N. Brüll (Jahrbuch für jüdische Geschichte und Literatur 1, p. 130) reads as κύριε πολὺ βρέξον “o Lord, give abundant water”, as first verse of a prayer for rain. S. Lieberman, in a full discussion of this text (יונית ויונות בארץ ישראל, Jerusalem 1962, pp. 25–27), points out that the invocation of God’s name in a vain prayer is forbidden by the Third Commandment and that the characterization as “vow” is only a reference to that Commandment. ”, is whipped for a vain oath. Rebbi Onias, Rebbi Jacob bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: 24 city councils were in Judea and they all were destroyed because of true vain oaths, as it is written. 2:30 . Another version in Tanḥuma Maṭṭot 1, Vayiqra 7. : “For the vain did I hit your sons.”
3:11 but it is not a copy. There, we have stated 3:7, reads: “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, an oath that I shall not eat it, an oath that I shall not eat it, he is guilty only once” if he ate the loaf. This parallels Mishnah Nedarim 2:3 which explains that repeated vows are separate vows but repeated oaths are one and the same oath. : “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf.” Something which would be forbidden for vows and is permitted for oaths. Not on that it was said but on the following 3:5. An oath can refer to others; e. g., he swears to give a certain sum to another person. : “Whether it was for himself or for others.” Rebbi Abba said in Samuel’s name: An oath that X gave a mina to Y. If it turns out that he had not given [a mina], since it is not in his hand for the future, it is not in his hand for the past.
is no longer a parallel. It was found stated about both cases: It is more restrictive for oaths than for vows that an erroneous oath is forbidden but an erroneous vow is permitted 28b , states the opposite: Both erroneous vows and oaths are permitted. . Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked before Rebbi [ ] does Rebbi Aqiba add to the words of the House of Hillel?” However this is not more than a weak conjecture since R. Abba I belongs to the generation of the students of R. Joḥanan. Probably the question was asked before R. Yannai, as most of R. Simeon ben Laqish’s other questions. , does Rebbi Aqiba add to the words of the House of Hillel? As we have stated there, “until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that a vow of which any part was permitted is totally permitted.” He said to him, if you say that there, in the case of a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage, you say that a vow of which any part was invalidated is totally invalidated, here, where it does not need investigation by a Sage, so much more! Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Because of an erroneous vow; if I had known that my father and my brothers were there I would not have made the vow.
MISHNAH: Vows in connection with acts of God: His friend made him vow that he would eat with him but he or his child fell sick or a river prevented him; these are vows in connection with acts of God.
HALAKHAH: “Vows in connection with acts of God: His friend made him vow,” etc. because he fell ill. Therefore, if he did not fall ill, no. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr said, “he is forbidden until he gives that I shall not have anything from you unless you come and take so and so much grain and wine for your son, he can annul his vow alone by saying, I said that only for my honor and that is my honor. But one who says, a qônām that you will not have anything from me unless you give so and so much grain and wine to my son, R. Meïr says he is forbidden until he gives . But the Sages say, this one also can annul his vow alone by saying, it is as if I received it.” .” Rebbi Yose said, why do we not explain it according to everybody? As my teacher said, they disagree when it was indeterminate. Where do we hold? If each one of them said, because of my honor, everybody agrees that he is forbidden. If one of them said, because of my honor, and the other said, I said it in your honor, everybody agrees he is permitted. Rebbi Hila said, is it the way of people to say χαρίζεσθαι βίᾳ. As Lieberman explains, in Egyptian legal papyri one frequently finds the formula ὁμολογῶ χαρίζεσθαί σοι “I agree that I gave you”. R. Hila asked, would anybody say ὁμολογῶ χαρίζεσθαί σοι βίᾳ “I agree that I gave you by force?” A gift can be given only with the consent of the recipient; in the case of Mishnah 8:11 , a vow involving a gift can be valid only with the agreement of both parties. ?
MISHNAH: One makes a vow to tax assessors (Roman 15 year periods, Byzantine 5 year periods). This reading is confirmed as that of the Babylonian Mishnah by Ravad (R. Abraham ben David of Posquières, Temim De‘im No. 59). Earlier commentators explain הרגים as criminal gangs who kill people unless they deliver to them all their money and/or valuables. and to people who condemn property and to toll collectors 10:1–2, where toll collectors are classified with robbers. that it is heave even though it is not heave, that it is king’s family’s property even though it is not theirs, his slaves and freedmen, whom he uses to administer the empire. Their property would be exempt of taxes and shielded from confiscation. This vow would be valuable also against Gentile claimants. . The House of Shammai say, one vows anything except an oath, but the House of Hillel say, even an oath. The House of Shammai say, one may not offer a vow, but the House of Hillel say, one may offer. The House of Shammai say, only what he prescribes as vow, but the House of Hillel say, even what he does not prescribe. How is this? They said to him, say: a qônām that my wife cannot have any use from me be valid if anything he said was untrue. , and he said: a qônām that my wife and my children cannot have any use from me; the House of Shammai say, his wife is permitted but his children are forbidden; but the House of Hillel say, both are permitted.
HALAKHAH: “One makes a vow to assessors and to people who condemn property,” etc. To assessors in time of indiction (Roman 15 year periods, Byzantine 5 year periods). This reading is confirmed as that of the Babylonian Mishnah by Ravad (R. Abraham ben David of Posquières, Temim De‘im No. 59). Earlier commentators explain הרגים as criminal gangs who kill people unless they deliver to them all their money and/or valuables. ; to condemners in times of expropriations. Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi stated in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was a dangerous situation, it is permitted. Rebbi Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥinena in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If it was civilized, it is forbidden. It was stated: One hangs on Gentiles and government but not on Jews, because the strong-armed will fall and he should not risk that the prior [obligations] fall on him.
If he transgressed and offered [a vow], how is that in the opinion of the House of Shammai? Let us hear from the following: “The House of Shammai say, his wife is permitted but his children are forbidden.” That means, if he transgressed and offered [a vow], in the opinion of the House of Shammai he is permitted. They wanted to say, vows but not oaths. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, “do not swear falsely in My Name,” you may swear to assessors and to people who condemn property and to toll collectors.
MISHNAH: These orchard trees shall be qorbān if they are not cut, this garment be qorbān if it is not burned; these have redemption. These orchard trees shall be qorbān until they are cut, this garment be qorbān until it is burned; these have no redemption.
HALAKHAH: “These orchard trees shall be qorbān ,” etc. If he saw the king’s cutting crew coming near, if he saw fire coming near, and he said: These orchard trees shall be qorbān if they are not cut, this garment shall be qorbān if it is not burned or torn. Were they sanctified retroactively or only for the future? What is the difference? If he used them. If you say that they are sanctified retroactively, he committed larceny. If you say for the future, he did not commit larceny.
3:5 (64a, 1. 72). Therefore “there” means here and “here” the text in Qiddušin . Ḥizqiah said, if he redeemed them they revert to their sanctity. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he redeemed them they are redeemed. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “These have no redemption.” He explains thus: After they have been cut they do not need redemption. Rebbi Yose said, what Ḥizqiah said refers to the case that he himself redeemed them. But if another person redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them. The argument of Rebbi Yose is switched: There, he says that if [another] redeemed them, the sanctity is removed from them, but here 3:5 , where the question was raised, what is the status of a woman whose husband gives her some valuables and says that these should serve as qiddušin (preliminary marriage, cf. Yebamot 1:1, Note 63 ) after he will have divorced her. It is obvious that if another man gives qiddušin to a married woman to be valid once she will be divorced, those qiddušin are invalid ( Mishnah Qiddušin 3:5 ) since the divorce depends on a third party (the husband). R. Yose holds that the husband himself can give qiddušin for after a divorce since no third party is involved. Therefore, there is no contradiction in R. Yose’s position here and there. , he says that if she was married to another man the qiddušin [of the first] were not removed! All that is questionable for him is if he gave her two peruṭot , one for the moment and one for after he has divorced her, what is the situation?
MISHNAH: One who makes a vow by the maker of the vow, who then is forbidden any use of X’s property and may not receive any favors from him. away from the seafaring men is permitted the dwellers on dry land; from the dwellers on dry land he is forbidden the seafaring men because the seafaring men are part of the dwellers on dry land. [One speaks] not of those who go from Acco to Jaffa but those who frequently take to the sea.
HALAKHAH: “One who makes a vow away from the seafaring men,” etc. That you should not say, not from those who go from Acco to Jaffa but those who frequently take to the sea. “From the dwellers on dry land he is forbidden the seafaring men,” not only those who go from Acco to Jaffa but even those who frequently take to the sea. But did he not make a vow regarding the dwellers on dry land? This implies that the seafaring men are part of the dwellers on dry land. If he made a vow away from the seafaring men after thirty days but [a certain mariner] became a land dweller, there is a dispute between Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba after 30 days and before the 30 days elapsed she married. R. Ismael holds that the time of the vow is determining, and since she made the vow while on her own, the husband cannot dissolve her vow even though it will start to become active only during marriage. He will hold that any mariner who became a land dweller within 30 days of the vow is forbidden since he was a mariner at the moment the vow was made. R. Aqiba holds that the moment the vow becomes active is determining. Therefore, he holds that the husband can dissolve his wife’s vow and in the case of a vow against mariners, the person who became a dweller on dry land before the vow was activated is permitted. . For Rebbi Ismael says, after the vow, and Rebbi Aqiba says, after the prohibition. And about children it is a problem sense only when he enters a seagoing vessel of his own will? .
MISHNAH: One who makes a vow away from those who see the sun is also forbidden the blind since he intended only that seen by the sun. 7:11 . . One who makes a vow away from those who see the sun is also forbidden the blind since he intended only that seen by the sun. 7:11 . . One who makes a vow away from those who will be born. 1:22 יִלּוֹד clearly means “will be born”. is permitted those who are already born. From those who are born, Rebbi Meïr permits even those who will be born, but the Sages say, he intended only those in whose nature it is to be born.
HALAKHAH: “One who makes a vow away from those who will be born,” etc. What is Rebbi Meïr’s reason? “And now your two sons born to you. 48:5 . ”, and they already were born. What is the Sages’ reason? “Lo, a son is born to the House of David, Josiah his name,. 13:2 . ” and he was not yet born.
MISHNAH: One who makes a vow away from those who keep the Sabbath is forbidden Jews and Samaritans, from garlic eaters is forbidden Jews and Samaritans, from those who make pilgrimage to Jerusalem is forbidden Jews but permitted Samaritans. A qônām that I shall not enjoy from the descendants of Noah; he is permitted Jews and forbidden Gentiles. That I shall not enjoy from the descendants of Abraham; he is forbidden Jews and permitted Gentiles. 21:12 ). . That I shall not enjoy from Jews; he buys higher and sells lower. That Jews shall not enjoy from me; he buys lower and sells higher, if they agree. That I shall not enjoy from them nor they from me; he should deal with Gentiles.
HALAKHAH: “A qônām that I shall not enjoy from the descendants of Noah; he is permitted Jews and forbidden Gentiles. That I shall not enjoy from the descendants of Abraham; he is forbidden Jews and permitted Gentiles,” etc. Is Ismael not part of Abraham’s seed? “. 21:12 . The same in the Babli 31a , Sanhedrin 59b .. For in Isaac will be called your seed.” And is not Esaw part of Isaac’s seed? Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom said, “in Isaac,” in part of Isaac. Rebbi Huna said, “ב” are two, the son who will be inheriting two worlds, this world and the world to come. Rebbi Gershom in the name of Rebbi Aḥa, “. 24:17 . a star did step out from Jacob,” from whom did a star step out and will appear in the future? From Jacob! Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ḥuna: In the future world, evil Esaw will put on his prayer shawl and sit with the Just in Paradise, but the Holy One, Praise to Him, draws him away. Why? “. 1:4 . If you climb as high as an eagle or if you would make your nest between stars, from there I would take you down, says the Lord.” But “stars” are only the Just. As you say. 12:3 . , “those who justify the many are like stars, eternally.”
MISHNAH: A qônām that I shall not enjoy from the uncircumcized, he is permitted uncircumcized Jews and forbidden circumcized peoples of the world. That I shall not enjoy from the circumcized, he is forbidden uncircumcized Jews and permitted circumcized peoples of the world, since the prepuce is simply a name for Gentiles as it was said. 9:25 . : “For all Gentiles are uncircumcized and all the House of Israel are uncircumcised of heart.” Rebbi Ismael says, circumcision is great, for its covenant was concluded thirteenfold. Rebbi Yose says, circumcision is great, for it pushes aside the stringencies of the Sabbath. Rebbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, circumcision is great, for it was not suspended even one hour for Moses the Just. Rebbi Neḥemiah says, Rebbi Yose says, circumcision is great, for it pushes aside skin disease. Rebbi says, circumcision is great, for with all the commandments which Abraham fulfilled he was not called whole until he circumcized himself as it is written. 17:1 . : “Walk before me and be perfect.” Another word: Circumcision is great, for without it the Holy One, praise to Him, would not have created his world as it is said. 33:25 . In the Babli, this is mostly explained as referring to the Torah (which has to be studied day and night, Jos . 1:8 ) as blueprint for the world; 32a, Pesaḥim 68b ; Avodah zarah 3a . A similar text is in Tosephta 2:7 . : “So says the Eternal, if it were not for my covenant day and night, I would not have put in place the laws of heaven and earth.” Another word: Circumcision is great, for it is weighty corresponding to all other commandments of the Torah, as it is said. 24:8 . This verse speaks about the Sinaitic covenant; it is used here because in rabbinic and modern Hebrew the word בְּרִית “covenant” is synonymous with “circumcision”. : “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Eternal concluded with you about all these words.”
HALAKHAH: Rebbi Yoḥanan bar Marya said, it is written: “On that day, the Eternal concluded a covenant with Abram as follows,” etc., up to “but my covenant I shall affirm with Isaac,” etc., thirteen covenants. 17:2–21 the word “covenant” appears 12 times. Therefore, Gen . 15:18 is added to reach the lucky number 13, the number of God’s attributes of mercy ( Ex . 34:6–7 ) even though it speaks of a prior covenant; cf. the preceding Note. .
“On the eighth day one shall circumcize. 12:2 . ,” even on the Sabbath. How can I confirm “its desecrator shall certainly die. 31:14 . ?” Even for circumcision? How can I confirm “on the eighth day one shall circumcize”? Even on the Sabbath? The verse says “. 12:2 . But on the eighth day one shall circumcize,” even on the Sabbath 132a , Sifra Tazria‘ Pereq 1(4)] the argument for performing circumcision on the Sabbath is based on the expression “on the Sabbath day” and not simply “on the Sabbath”. . In Torah, Prophets, and Hagiographs we find that the Sabbath is as weighty as all other commandments of the Torah 1:8, Note 207 . The text is copied in Ex. rabba 25(16). [taken together]. In the Torah, “until when will you refuse to keep My Commandments and Teachings. 15:28. ,” and it is written: “See that the Eternal gave you the Sabbath. 15:29. The Sabbath is called “commandments and teachings” when no other prohibitions were yet given to the Israelites. .” In Prophets, as is written. 20:21 . : “But the sons rebelled against Me; My Laws they did not follow” etc., and it is written. 20:13 . In Ex. rabba the quote is instead from Ez . 20:21 , where the Sabbath is the only commandment singled out of all “laws and rules”. The word מאד “much” probably should be deleted. : “My Sabbaths they much desecrated.” In Hagiographs, as it is written: “On Mount Sinai You descended. 9:13 . ,” and it is written: “And about Your holy Sabbath You informed them. 9:14 ; again the Sabbath is the only commandment singled out of all “commandments and laws”. ,” etc. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Abuna said, commandment of Sabbath is written plene , to inform you that it is as weighty as all other commandments of the Torah. A parable of two ladies who meet and you do not know which one is of higher standing. If one makes room for the other, you know that the other is of higher standing.
Idolatry is worse than all others: “But if you should err and not fulfill all these commandments.. 15:22 . The rules for purification offerings are given in Lev . 4–5 . The appearance of another set of purification offerings in Num . 15:22–28 is explained by the rule that these offerings are only for expiation of inadvertent idolatry ( Sifry Num . 111). The Babli, Erubin 69b , equates desecration of the Sabbath and idolatry in severity. ” Rebbi Judah bar Pazi said, the desecration of the Name is worse than all others. That is what is written. 20:39 . : “But to you, the House of Israel, so says the Eternal, Israel’s God, go and worship everybody his abominations but My holy Name do not desecrate, etc.
Because Moses was lazy for circumcision, the angel tried to kill kim. That is what is written. 4:24 . : “The Eternal met him and wanted to kill him.” Rebbi Yose said, far be the thought that Moses was lazy for circumcision but he argued on his own: To perform circumcision and leave would be dangerous. To wait, the Holy One, praise to Him, told him: “Go, return to Egypt.” But because he was lazy in preparing for the overnight stay before circumcision; that is what is written. 4:24 . : “It was on the way, at the overnight stay.” Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, far be the thought that the angel wanted to kill Moses; it was the baby. Come and see, who is called ḥātān ? Moses or the baby? There are Tannaïm who state that Moses is called ḥātān . There are Tannaïm who state that the baby is called ḥātān . He who said that Moses is called ḥātān: Ḥātān , blood is required from you. And he said that the baby is called ḥātān: Ḥātān , in blood you are preserved for me. “Ṣippora took a flintstone and cut her son’s prepuce and touched his feet.. 4:25 . ” Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Neḥemiah, and the rabbis. One said, Moses’s feet. Another said, the angel’s feet. Another said, the baby’s feet. He who said Moses’s feet: Here I cut your obligation for you. He who said, the angel’s feet: Here your mission was accomplished. He who said the baby’s feet, she touched the baby’s body. “He left off from him; then she said, a blood ḥātān for circumcisions. 4:26 . .” From here that there are two circumcisions; one for baring the gland and one for the fibers 71b . .
1(4), Babli Šabbat 132b . “The flesh of his prepuce should be circumcized.. 12:3 . ” Even if it has white skin disease. 13:2–28 . . How can I confirm: “Beware of skin disease to watch it carefully and to do …. 24:8 . The injunction to follow all instructions of the priests in matters of impure skin disease is interpreted to mean that it is forbidden to cut out the diseased part of the skin. Then if a baby is born with diseased prepuce, how could it be circumcised? ”? Also at a circumcision. Then how can I confirm: “The flesh of his prepuce should be circumcized”? If there is no white skin disease? The verse says, “the flesh”, even if it has white skin disease. 2:1, Notes 9,10. This is simple in the opinion of Rebbi Jonah, who says that a positive commandment supersedes a prohibition even if they are not written together. But in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, who says that a positive commandment supersedes a prohibition only if they are written together? Since it is written “the flesh of his prepuce,” it is as if it were written together.