כָּל־שֹׁכֵ֥ב עִם־בְּהֵמָ֖ה מ֥וֹת יוּמָֽת׃ (ס)
Ktoby obcował ze zwierzęciem, śmiercią karany będzie.
Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot
He who passes by a pagan temple says (Prov. 15:25): “The Eternal will tear down the house of the haughty.” Rebbi Yose, son of Rebbi Abun, in the name of Rebbi Levi: “If he saw them sacrificing75This is the reading of the Rome manuscript. The Venice print has מזבלין “bringing manure,” meaning the same, but using language of contempt. to an idol, he says (Ex. 22:19): He who sacrifices to gods shall be devoted to destruction.”
Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat
116This paragraph and the next are also in Nazir 6:1 but the origin is here as will be seen in the commentary. The introductory statement is from earlier in the Chapter, Notes 28–30. The text in braces was copied from there and has no place here. Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody sacrificed, burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting, he is guilty for each action separately. Rebbi Joḥanan told him, Babylonian! You crossed three rivers with your hands and were broken. He is guilty only once! {Before he broke it in his hand there is “one” but not “those”; after he broke it in his hand there are “those” but not “one”.} Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked before Rebbi Zeˋira: Should he117The idol worshipper. not be guilty for each action separately? As you say for the Sabbath: Do not perform any work118Ex. 20:8., principle. Do not light fire in any of your dwelling places119Ex. 35:3., a detail. Was not lighting fire subsumed under the principle, but it is mentioned separately from this principle! Since lighting fire is special in that it is the work of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty120A forbidden action on the Sabbath which is executed only by the common effort of several people is not prosecutable. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli 70a appears as R. Nathan.)
Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qamma 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menaḥem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים להתפתחות של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original tannaitic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions. (A different interpretation of the verses is in the Babli 70a).. Also here: Do not worship them121Ex. 20:4., a principle. Do not prostrate yourself121Ex. 20:4., a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the action of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty120A forbidden action on the Sabbath which is executed only by the common effort of several people is not prosecutable. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli 70a appears as R. Nathan.)
Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qamma 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menaḥem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים להתפתחות של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original tannaitic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions. (A different interpretation of the verses is in the Babli 70a).. He answered: For the Sabbath, He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail122In the same sentence. Cf. Babli Pesaḥim 6b, Bava qamma 85a, Menaḥot 55b, Niddah 33a.. He retorted: Is it not written: Do not prostrate yourself before another power123Ex. 34:14.? He who sacrifices to Elohim shall be banned124Ex. 22:19. For this argument the reference to Elohim is taken to apply to idols. The masoretic vocalization applying a definite article must refer to God in His function as Judge, God as Creator, Ruler of the physical world, to Whom propitiatory sacrifices are forbidden; sacrifices are legitimate only if offered to YHWH, God the Merciful and Dispenser of Grace. This is the interpretation adopted at the end of the paragraph. In all of Lev. and Num., there is never any mention of a sacrifice to Elohim.. He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place! He said, since you do [not]125Added from the text in Nazir, needed for an understanding of the text. infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar126Since 34:14 does not teach anything not contained in Ex. 20:5.. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle127If prostrating had been mentioned after worshipping, the 5th hermeneutical principle would imply that the two notions are identical in intent. As the verse stands, it cannot be interpreted as “principle and detail”, therefore the 9th principle does not apply to idolatry since the detail does not follow after the principle.. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He gave the general principle regarding its worship but detailed the works of Heaven128The prohibition refers to performing for idolatry any ceremony commanded for the worship of Heaven. The case of R. Zakkai really has no connection with the argument about the status of the mention of prostrating oneself in the Second Commandment..
Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qamma 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menaḥem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים להתפתחות של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original tannaitic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions. (A different interpretation of the verses is in the Babli 70a).. Also here: Do not worship them121Ex. 20:4., a principle. Do not prostrate yourself121Ex. 20:4., a detail. Was not prostrating itself included in the principle and why was it mentioned separately? To infer, to tell you that prostrating oneself is special in that it is the action of a single individual and one would be guilty for it alone, so everything for which one alone is guilty120A forbidden action on the Sabbath which is executed only by the common effort of several people is not prosecutable. This is an application of the 9th hermeneutical principle of R. Ismael: Any detail which was subsumed under a principle but is mentioned separately in order to instruct, was not mentioned for itself but to explain the entire principle [Sifra Introduction 2; Pereq 1(1)]. In the text this is called “principle and detail”, which in the technical language of the Babli refers to the completely different rule No. 5 [Sifra Introduction (1,7)]. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 347 the argument is attributed to R. Jonathan (who in the Babli 70a appears as R. Nathan.)
Whether there is a connection between rules 5 and 9 is left open in the Babli, Baba qamma 85a, decided in the negative in Menaḥot 55b. Menaḥem Cahana, in an exhaustive study of the problem (קווים להתפתחות של מידת כלל ופרט בתקופת התנאים p. 173–216 in: Studies in Talmudic and Midrashic Literature in Memory of Tirzah Lifshitz) holds that the original tannaitic theory knew only of two principles, one which corresponded to the later (Babli, Sifra, Sifry) rules entitled “principle and detail”, “detail and principle”, “principle and detail and principle”; the other one referring to all rules which in Babylonian formulation start with “any detail which was subsumed under a principle”. His arguments support the thesis of the present commentary that Mekhilta, Sifra, Sifry (and Tosephta) in our hands are essentially Babylonian editions. (A different interpretation of the verses is in the Babli 70a).. He answered: For the Sabbath, He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place. For idol worship, the principle is found close to the detail122In the same sentence. Cf. Babli Pesaḥim 6b, Bava qamma 85a, Menaḥot 55b, Niddah 33a.. He retorted: Is it not written: Do not prostrate yourself before another power123Ex. 34:14.? He who sacrifices to Elohim shall be banned124Ex. 22:19. For this argument the reference to Elohim is taken to apply to idols. The masoretic vocalization applying a definite article must refer to God in His function as Judge, God as Creator, Ruler of the physical world, to Whom propitiatory sacrifices are forbidden; sacrifices are legitimate only if offered to YHWH, God the Merciful and Dispenser of Grace. This is the interpretation adopted at the end of the paragraph. In all of Lev. and Num., there is never any mention of a sacrifice to Elohim.. He mentioned the principle at one place and the details at another place! He said, since you do [not]125Added from the text in Nazir, needed for an understanding of the text. infer anything from it close up, you cannot infer anything from afar126Since 34:14 does not teach anything not contained in Ex. 20:5.. The colleagues say, it makes no difference; whether He gave the principle at one place and the detail at another, or gave principle and detail at the same place, it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He first gave the principle and then the detail. For idolatry, He gave the detail and only later the principle127If prostrating had been mentioned after worshipping, the 5th hermeneutical principle would imply that the two notions are identical in intent. As the verse stands, it cannot be interpreted as “principle and detail”, therefore the 9th principle does not apply to idolatry since the detail does not follow after the principle.. Rebbi Yose said, it makes no difference whether He first gave the principle and then the detail or He gave the detail and only later the principle, or He gave principle, detail, and principle; it is a matter of principle and detail. For the Sabbath, He gave a general prohibition of work, followed by details; for idolatry, He gave the general principle regarding its worship but detailed the works of Heaven128The prohibition refers to performing for idolatry any ceremony commanded for the worship of Heaven. The case of R. Zakkai really has no connection with the argument about the status of the mention of prostrating oneself in the Second Commandment..
Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot
Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Tanḥum ben Rebbi Ḥiyya: In the days of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi they wanted to abolish this immersion because of the Galilean women who became sterile173Since in Galilee the immersion was required for everybody, not only for Torah study as in Babylonia, it also applied to women. In winter in upper Galilee, water sometimes freezes and all miqwaöt were cold-water miqwaöt; in a parallel in Babli Berakhot 22a, Rav Huna notes that instead of a miqweh one could use a hot bath in Babylonia. because of the cold. Rebbi Joshua ben Levi told them: Do you want to uproot something that fences Israel off from sin? What means: Fences Israel off from sin? It happened that a watchman of vinyards wanted to have an affair with a married woman. By the time they were preparing a place where they could immerse themselves, passers-by came by and the sin was not committed174A parallel in Babli Berakhot 22a is explicitly designated as a baraita, dating from Mishnaic times, and applying the need for immersion only to the man. [Levi Ginzberg conjectures that the watchman was a bachelor; hence, he could not use the public miqweh (except on holiday eve) without drawing public attention to his unmarried sexual activities. However, it is stated explicitly at the end of this halakhah that a miqweh was not used for this immersion.]. It happened that someone wanted to have an affair with Rebbi’s slave girl. She said to him: If my mistress does not immerse herself, I do not immerse myself175Meaning that as an unmarried woman she does not frequent the miqweh and, therefore, cannot have sex with any man. The slave girl was quite famous for speaking better classical Hebrew than the rabbis.. He said to her: Are you not like an animal176The argument here is not perfectly clear. There is a verse in Ezechiel 23:20, speaking about the heathen, "for the flesh of donkeys is their flesh and the semen of horses is their semen" (where "flesh" as human limb here and elsewhere means the penis, the only boneless limb), but that speaks only about males and, in any case, the slave in a Jewish household is a semi-Jew, becoming a full Jew on manumission without any formality of conversion. Hence, no verse applying to heathen is appropriate here. The real reason seems to be the command given to Adam that "a man shall leave his father and his mother and stick to his wife" (Gen. 2:24); since a slave is not legally able to contract a marriage, he is missing the essential human quality of having to marry. That makes questionable humans out of adults who are bachelors by choice. [The sex life of slaves is not discussed in the Yerushalmi. In the Babli (Niddah 47a) it is stated that slaves may have sex with anybody except a Jew (and a married Gentile woman).]? She said to him: Did you not hear that one who has relations with an animal will be stoned, as it is said (Ex. 22:18): “Anyone lying with an animal shall certainly be executed.”