המקורות שציטטו חכמי הגמרא

it is fit as a utensil for its usual purpose, i.e., it can be used as footwear. However, here it is not fit as a utensil for its usual purpose. The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Yoḥanan in fact say that the halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who says that if the outer strap broke the sandal becomes pure? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: The halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna? And we learned in a mishna: A sandal that became ritually impure with impurity imparted by the treading of a zav , and one of its ears broke and he repaired it, this sandal is still impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading, since a broken ear does not render the sandal useless and it remains a utensil. If the second ear broke and he repaired it, it is ritually pure in the sense that it no longer renders other objects ritually impure in the same way a vessel that became a primary source of ritual impurity by means of impurity imparted by treading does, since when both ears tear it is no longer a utensil. However, it is itself ritually impure with ritual impurity imparted by treading due to contact with a vessel that is impure, i.e., contact with itself. Since the sandal now has only one torn ear, it is still considered a utensil which is capable of contracting impurity, and it is as if it contracted impurity from itself in its previous state. Is this statement not an indication that the…

And he bathed at the time when the wagons [ kerona ] were traveling through Tzippori, i.e., on the market day, when the public would know about it, on the seventeenth of Tammuz, to show that bathing is permitted on that day. And he sought to abolish the fast of the Ninth of Av. And with respect to the Ninth of Av, the Sages did not agree with him. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda said to Rabbi Elazar: My teacher, the incident did not occur in this fashion. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi never sought to abolish the fast of the Ninth of Av. Rather, it was a year when the Ninth of Av occurred on Shabbat, and they postponed it until after Shabbat. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said about that case: Since it has already been deferred from its usual time, let it be altogether deferred this year. And the Rabbis did not agree with him. Rabbi Elazar read the verse about Rabbi Abba bar Zavda: “Two are better than one” (Ecclesiastes 4:9), meaning, it is good that you were here to provide an accurate report about that incident. The Gemara asks: And how could Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi plant a sapling on Purim? Didn’t Rav Yosef teach with regard to the verse: “Therefore the Jews of the villages, who dwell in the unwalled towns, make the fourteenth day of the month of Adar a day of gladness and feasting, and a good day [ yom tov ]” (Esther 9:19), that the term “gladness” teaches that it is prohibited to eulogize on Purim; “fea…

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that only the relatives of the deceased rend their clothes. The Gemara asks: And is this the case even if the deceased was a Torah Sage? But isn’t it taught otherwise in a baraita : When a Torah scholar dies, everyone is his relative. The Gemara clarifies: Does it enter your mind to say that everyone is his relative? Rather, this baraita should be understood as follows: Everyone is considered to be like his relative in the sense that everyone rends his garment in anguish over him, and everyone bares his shoulder over him in mourning, and everyone eats the mourner’s meal over him in the public square as mourners do. The death of a Torah scholar is a personal loss for every Jew. So why is the mishna limited to only relatives? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in a case where the deceased is not a Torah scholar. The Gemara asks: And if the deceased was an upright person who feared Heaven and performed good deeds, then aren’t all those present at his death obligated to rend their garments over his death? As it is taught in a baraita : For what reason do a person’s sons and daughters die when they are young? They die so that he will cry and mourn over the death of an upright person. The Gemara questions the formulation: They die so that he will cry and mourn? Is security, i.e., his children, taken from him in adva…

The Gemara addresses another case in which the court forces a man to divorce his wife who has not had children after ten years. If he said: You miscarried within the ten years of our marriage, and since less than ten years have elapsed since that time he should not have to divorce her, and she said: I did not miscarry, Rabbi Ami said: Even in this case she is believed, because if it is so that she miscarried she would not establish herself as barren through denying his claim. If she miscarried, and then miscarried again, and miscarried again, she has been established to be a woman who is prone to miscarriages, and her husband must divorce her so that he can have children with another woman. If he said she miscarried twice, and she said it occurred three times, Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar said: There was an incident of this kind that was adjudicated in the study hall and they said that she is believed, because if it is so that she had not miscarried a third time she would not establish herself as one who is prone to miscarriages. MISHNA: A man is commanded with regard to the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, but not a woman. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says that a woman is also commanded, as the verse states with regard to both of them: “And God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). GEMARA: From where are these matters derived, that a woman is…