تروموت — تلمود یروشلمی

تروموت

تروموت — تلمود یروشلمی در Beth HaMidrash: متن عبری و ترجمهٔ فارسی‌اش، با راشی و مفسران بزرگ. رایگان، آنلاین.

משנה: חֲמִשָּׁה לֹא יִתְרוֹמוּ וְאִם תָּרְמוּ אֵין תְּרוּמָתָן תְּרוּמָה. הַחֵרֵשׁ וְהַשּׁוֹטֶה וְהַקָּטָן וְהַתּוֹרֵם אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ. נָכְרִי שֶׁתָּרַם אֶת שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲפִילוּ בִרְשׁוּתוֹ אֵין תְּרוּמָתָן תְּרוּמָה. חֵרֵשׁ הַמְּדַבֵּר וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ לֹא יִתְרוֹם וְאִם תָּרַם תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְרוּמָה. חֵרֵשׁ שֶׁדִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ לֹא שׁוֹמֵעַ וְלֹא מְדַבֵּר. קָטָן שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְרוּמָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לְעוֹנַת נְדָרִים אֵין תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְרוּמָה. וּמִשֶׁבָּא לְעוֹנַת נְדָרִים תְּרוּמָתוֹ תְרוּמָה.MISHNAH: Five [persons] cannot give heave and if they gave it is not heave: the deaf and dumb, the insane, the minor, and one who gives heave from what is not his. The Gentile who gave heave for a Jew’s property, even with the latter’s authorization his heave is not heave.A deaf person who speaks but cannot hear should not give heave, but if he did, his heave is heave. A “deaf person” mentioned anywhere by the Sages is a deaf-mute.Rebbi Jehudah says, the heave given by a minor who has not yet grown two pubic hairs is heave. Rebbi Yose says, before he came to the time of vows 5:6: “The vows of a girl 11 years and one day of age are investigated (one inquires whether she understands the notion and severity of vows; if she does, her vows are valid.) If she is 12 years and one day old, her vows are prima facie valid but one investigates them during all of her thirteenth year. The vows of a boy 12 years and one day old are investigated; if he is 13 years and one day old, his vows are prima facie valid but one investigates them during all of his fourteenth year. Before that time, even if they say we know before Whom we made the vow and to Whom we dedicated a sacrifice, their vows are not vows and their dedications not dedications.” According to Rashi, “the time of vows” is when the vows are investigated; according to Maimonides [in his Code (Nedarim 11:3) and in the first and third versions of his Mishnah Commentary] it is the time when all vows are automatically valid. {Rashi’s opinion and the similar one of Maimonides in the second version of his Commentary are the only ones compatible with the Yerushalmi; Maimonides’s other opinion can be justified by the Babli, Niddah 46b–47a.}, his heave is not heave. After he has reached the time of vows, his heave is heave.

הלכה: חֲמִשָּׁה לֹא יִתְרוֹמוּ כו׳. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן שָׁמַע לְכוֹלְהוֹן מִן הָכָא דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְרוּמָה. פְּרָט לְגוֹי. מֵאֵת כָּל אִישׁ פְּרָט לְקָטָן. אֲשֶׁר יִדְּבֶנּוּ לִבּוֹ פְּרָט לְחֵרֵשׁ וּלְשׁוֹטֶה. וְזֹאת הַתְּרוּמָה אֲשֶׁר תִּקְחוּ מֵאִתָּם פְּרָט לְתוֹרֵם אֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ.HALAKHAH: “Five [persons] cannot give heave,” etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman understood all of these from here (Ex. 25:2–3), Chapter 1, Note 70) and, therefore, is under the same restrictions.: “Speak to the Children of Israel that they should give heave for Me”, excluding the Gentile, “from every man”, excluding the minor, “whose intention is to volunteer”, excluding the deaf-mute and the insane. “The following is the heave you shall accept from them”, except from one who gives heave for what is not his.

וְיוֹכִיחַ מַעֲשֶׂה שֶלָּהֶן עַל מַחֲשַׁבְתָּן דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן הֶעֱלוּ חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחִישֵּׁב שֶׁיֵּרֵד עֲלֵיהֶן הַטַּל אֵינָן בְּכִי יוּתָּן מִפְּנֵי שֵׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם מַעֲשֶׂה וְאֵין לָהֶם מַחֲשָׁבָה. וְאֵי זֶהוּ מַעֲשֶׂה שֵׁלָּהֶן. רִבִּי חוּנָא אָמַר בְּתָפוּש בָּהֶן בַּטַּל. וְתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן הוֹרִידָהּ חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחִשֵּׁב שֶׁיּוּדְּחוּ רַגְלֶיהָ אֵין בְּכִי יוּתָּן שֵׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן מַעֲשֶׂה וְאֵין בָּהֶן מַחֲשָׁבָה. וְאֵי זֶהוּ מַעֲשֶׂה שֵׁלָּהֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי חוּנָא בִּמְשַׁפְשֵׁף בָּהֶן בַּמַּיִם. וְאָמַר אַף הָכָא וְיוֹכִיחַ מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁלָּהֶן עַל מַחֲשַׁבְתָּם. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִין וְנֶחְשַׁב לָכֶם תְּרוּמַתְכֶם. אֶת שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ מַחֲשָׁבָה אֵין מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁלּוֹ מוֹכִיחַ עַל מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ. וְאֶת שֶׁאֵין כָּתוּב בּוֹ מַחֲשָׁבָה מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁלּוֹ מוֹכִיחַ עַל מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ. וְכָאן הוֹאִיל וְכָתוּב בּוֹ מַחֲשָׁבָה. אֵין מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁלּוֹ מוֹכִיחַ עַל מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ.Should not their action be proof of their intentions? As we have stated there 6:1: “If somebody brings his produce up to his roof because of worms and dew descended on it, it is not under the category of ‘when given’ but if he intended this {that the produce should be wetted by dew}, it is under the category of ‘when given’. If a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person brought them up, …”. As explained in Demay, Chapter 2, Note 141, produce is not susceptible to impurity unless it came into contact with water (or any other fluid causing impurity, cf. Demay, Chapter 2, Note 136) and that contact was desired, since the verse Lev. 11:38: “If produce got wetted by water … it will be impure” can also be read as: “If water was given on produce …”. It is inferred that the wetting, even if happening by a passive process, must have an active ingredient, viz., that the moistening of the produce must be agreeable to the owner.: “If a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person brought them up, they are not under the category of ‘when given’ because they have action but no intention.” What is their action? Rebbi Ḥuna said, when he grabs it while full of dew 13a, R. Joḥanan explains that he turns the produce over in order to distribute the moisture evenly. This is professional action. R. Simson conjectures that the action envisaged by R. Ḥuna is the same as explained by R. Joḥanan.. We also have stated there 3:8. It is explained in that Chapter that water drawn intentionally will make produce susceptible to impurity even if the contact of the produce with it was unintentional. The example described in Mishnah 8 is that of cattle whose feet have to be washed, either because the animal was used for threshing and now is all dusty, or because of some medical condition. Then the water drops clinging to the animal after it was washed in the river will make produce susceptible to impurity unless the animal was driven to the river by “a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person.” Here again, if the cattle are not only driven to the river but actively washed, intention is clearly shown.: “If a deaf-mute, insane, or minor person brought them down, even if he thought that [his animals’] feet should be doused, it is not under the category of ‘when given’ because they have action but no intention.” What is their action? Rebbi Ḥuna said, when he rubs them with water. We should also say here, let their action be proof of their intentions! Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan; Rebbi Zeïra in the name of the rabbis (Num. 18:27): “Your heave will be credited to you.” When thought is mentioned in the verse, his action cannot prove his intentions; when thought is not mentioned in the verse, his action can prove his intentions. Since here thought is mentioned in the verse, his action cannot prove his intentions.

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי קַשִׁיָיתָהּ קוֹמֵי שְׁמוּאֵל הֲרֵי גִיטִּין הֲרֵי אֵין כָּתוּב בָּהֶן מַחֲשָׁבָה. וְאֵין מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁלּוֹ מוֹכִיחַ עַל מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ. דְּתַנִּינָן הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁירִין לִכְתּוֹב אֶת הַגֶּט אֲפִילוּ שׁוֹטֶה חֵרֵשׁ וְקָטָן. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא פִּיקֵּחַ עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבָּיו. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי וְהַיְינוֹ וְכָתַב לָהּ לִשְמָהּ. חָזַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְאָמַר תַּמָּן זֶה כוֹתֵב וְזֶה מְגָרֵשׁ. בְּרַם הָכָא הוּא חוֹשֵׁב וְהוּא תוֹרֵם. רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר הָא אִילּוּ כָּתַב הוּא וְגִירֵשׁ הוּא גֶּט הוּא. בְּרַם הָכָא הוּא חוֹשֵׁב וְהוּא תוֹרֵם.Rebbi Yose said, I questioned before Samuel: But with bills of divorce, thought is not written and his action cannot prove his intention! As we have stated 2:5.: “Everybody is permitted to write a bill of divorce, even an insane person, a deaf-mute, and a minor.” Rebbi Huna said, if a sane person directs him. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, is that (Deut. 24:1,3): “he writes for her”, for her personally 2:5. Rebbi Joḥanan points out that the divorce document must be written specifically for the woman in question. If two men with identical names are married to two women who have the same name, and both want to divorce them on the same day, the two divorce documents will have identical wording. Nevertheless, if the husbands switch the documents before they are handed to the respective wives, both divorces will be invalid. In both Talmudim, Samuel narrows down the meaning of the Mishnah in that he allows the incompetent only to write the formulaic portion under the direction of a competent person; but the data which make the document valid, date and names of the two persons involved, must be written by a competent person as agent of the husband. The argument here does not consider this restriction, except that R. Yose (Rav Assi of the first generation Amoraïm in Babylonia) is of the opinion that, since a document containing only date and names cannot be signed by witnesses and is not a divorce document, the writing of the incompetent is necessary for the validity of the document and one has to wonder why this is accepted.? Rebbi Yose came back and said, there one person writes and another person divorces. But here, the same person thinks and takes heave. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there, if he would write himself and divorce, would that not be a divorce? But here, he thinks and takes heave.

רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן חֲלוּקִין עַל הַשּׁוֹנֶה הַזֶּה. מַהוּ כְדוֹן אַתְיָא דְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן דִּתְרוּמוֹת כְּרִבִּי יִשְׁמָעַאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה דְקִידּוּשִׁין. וּדְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּגִיטִּין כְּרַבָּנִין דְּקִידּוּשִׁין. דִּתְנָן חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן שֶׁקִּידְּשׁוּ אֵין קִידּוּשֵׁיהֶן קִידּוּשִׁין. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר בֵּינָן לְבֵין עַצְמָן אֵין קִידּוּשֵׁיהֶן קִידּוּשִׁין. בֵּינָן לְבֵין אֲחֵרִים קִידּוּשֵׁיהֶן קִידּוּשִׁין.Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Ḥiyya, in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One disagrees with this Mishnah teacher. How is that? It turns out that Rebbi Joḥanan concerning heaves parallels Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa concerning sanctification, and Rebbi Joḥanan concerning divorces parallels the rabbis concerning sanctification, as we have stated 5:7 reads: “Everybody is able to sanctify except the deaf-mute, the insane, and the minor; but R. Jehudah approves of the minor. R. Ismael, the son of R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa says that the sanctifications of a deaf-mute person, an insane, and a minor, who sanctified in the presence of others, are valid. The sanctification by a sexless person is invalid, for he is possibly uncircumcised, and an uncircumcized person cannot sanctify. The sanctification by a hermaphrodite is valid but R. Jehudah declares it invalid since he possibly is a woman and a woman does not qualify for holy matters.”All this refers to the purification from the impurity of the dead, which needs sprinkling with fresh water to which a minute amount of the ashes of the red heifer must be added. The act of taking the ashes and putting them into a vessel filled with fresh water is called “sanctification.” It is a sacral act (Num. 19:17) and as such needs the intent of the person executing it. R. Ismael, the son of R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa, applies the principle that for obligations for which “thought” is implied by the verse but not spelled out explicitly, actions may prove intent.{A sexless person is one without testicles or female sex characteristics. He might be a male with undescended testicles. The hermaphrodite has a penis and testicles as well as female breasts and a vagina; he must be circumcised. The exclusion of women by R. Jehudah is rejected by the rabbis; women nevertheless may not sprinkle since the verse (Lev. 19:18) requires this to be done by “a pure male.”}The seeming inconsistency in the positions of R. Joḥanan is not resolved. {If one assumes that R. Joḥanan agrees with the position of Samuel (Note 14) there is no inconsistency since he will agree that the incompetent may write only the inconsequential parts of the divorce document.}: “The sanctifications of a deaf-mute person, an insane, and a minor who sanctified are no sanctifications. Rebbi Ismael, the son of Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, if they are alone, their sanctifications are no sanctifications. Together with others, their sanctifications are sanctifications.”

Jerusalem Talmud Terumot.1.1