וַיָּבֹ֜אוּ עַד־גֹּ֣רֶן הָאָטָ֗ד אֲשֶׁר֙ בְּעֵ֣בֶר הַיַּרְדֵּ֔ן וַיִּ֨סְפְּדוּ־שָׁ֔ם מִסְפֵּ֛ד גָּד֥וֹל וְכָבֵ֖ד מְאֹ֑ד וַיַּ֧עַשׂ לְאָבִ֛יו אֵ֖בֶל שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִֽים׃
When they came to Goren ha-Atad, which is beyond the Jordan, they held there a very great and solemn lamentation; and he observed a mourning period of seven days for his father.
מְנַיִין לָאֵבֶל מִן הַתּוֹרָה שִׁבְעָה. וַיַּעַ֧שׂ לְאָבִ֛יו אֵבֶ֭ל שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִֽים׃ וּלְמֵידִין דָּבָר קוֹדֶם לְמַתַּן תּוֹרָה? רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי זְעוּרָא שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא. וּפֶ֩תַח֩ אוֹהֶל מוֹעֵ֜ד תֵּֽשְׁב֨וּ יוֹמָ֤ם וָלַ֨יְלָה֙ שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֔ים וּשְׁמַרְתֶּ֛ם אֶת־מִשְׁמֶ֥רֶת מִשְׁכַּן יי֨. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁשִּׁימֵּר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל עוֹלָמוֹ שִׁבְעָה. כָּךְ אַתֵּם שִׁמְרוּ עַל אֲחֵיכֶם שִׁבָעָה. וּמְנַיִין שֶׁשִּׁימֵּר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל עוֹלָמוֹ שִׁבְעָה. וַיְהִ֖י לְשִׁבְעַ֣ת הַיָּמִ֑ים וּמֵ֣י הַמַּבּ֔וּל הָי֖וּ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ. ומִּתְאַבְּלִין קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּמוּת הַמֵּת. אֶלָּא בָשָׂר וָדָם שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ מֶה עָתִיד לִהְיוֹת אֵינוֹ מִתְאַבֵּל עַד שֶׁיָּמוּת הַמֵּת. אֲבָל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ מֶה עָתִיד לִהְיוֹת שִׁימֵּר עַל עוֹלָמוֹ תְּחִילָּה.
From where in the Torah that mourning is seven {days}? He organized seven days of mourning for his father. Can you infer anything from before the giving of the Torah? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira understood it from the following: At the door of the Tent of Meeting you shall sit day and night for seven days, and keep the watch of the Eternal’ s sanctuary. Just as the Holy One, praise to Him, watched over His World for seven {days}, so you shall watch for your brothers for seven {days}. And from where that the Holy One, praise to Him, watched over His World for seven {days}? It was after seven days that the Deluge came over the world. May one mourn before the dying person dies? Only flesh and blood who do not know what will be in the future do not mourn until the dying person dies. But the Holy One, praise to Him, Who knows what will be in the future did first watch for His world. Some want to say, these are the seven days of mourning for Methusela the Just. Rebbi Hoshaia said, for the Eternal’s anointing oil is on you. Just as you were anointed with the anointing oil all of seven, so watch for your brothers all of seven. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: please let her not be like the dead. She shall be locked away. Just as the day of isolation for the dead are seven, so the days of quarantine are seven. One student reported this from Rebbi Joḥanan before Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, who did not accept it. He said, here he uses it for isolation, but there he uses it for making absolute, as Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Yannai, please let her not be like the dead: just as the days of the dead are not counted, so the days of being absolute are not counted. Rebbi Jeremiah and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; Rebbi Abbahu, Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: the days of crying of the mourning for Moses ended. “The days”, seven. “Of crying”, two. “Mourning”, thirty. Some switch, “the days”, two, “of crying”, seven, “mourning”, thirty. Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Ḥiyya, and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish in the name of Rebbi Judah the Patriarch: I shall turn your holiday into mourning. Since the days of Tabernacles are seven, also the days of mourning are seven. Rebbi Immi said to Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Maybe since the days of Tabernacles are eight, also the days of mourning are eight? He answered him, the eighth day is a separate holiday Or since Pentecost is one day, also mourning is one day? He answered him, from here about a deferred information. And it was stated such: Current information requires Seven and Thirty. Deferred information does not require Seven and Thirty.
(א) מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה לְהִתְאַבֵּל עַל הַקְּרוֹבִים. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא י יט) "וְאָכַלְתִּי חַטָּאת הַיּוֹם הַיִּיטַב בְּעֵינֵי ה'". וְאֵין אֲבֵלוּת מִן הַתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא בְּיוֹם רִאשׁוֹן בִּלְבַד שֶׁהוּא יוֹם הַמִּיתָה וְיוֹם הַקְּבוּרָה. אֲבָל שְׁאָר הַשִּׁבְעָה יָמִים אֵינוֹ דִּין תּוֹרָה. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בַּתּוֹרָה (בראשית נ י) "וַיַּעַשׂ לְאָבִיו אֵבֶל שִׁבְעַת יָמִים" נִתְּנָה תּוֹרָה וְנִתְחַדְּשָׁה הֲלָכָה. וּמשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ תִּקֵּן לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי אֲבֵלוּת וְשִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּשְׁתֶּה:
(1) It is a positive commandment to mourn for one's close relatives,1 as implied by Leviticus 10:20: "Were I to partake of a sin offering today, would it find favor in God's eyes?" According to Scriptural Law, the obligation to mourn is only on the first day which is the day of the person's death and burial. The remainder of the seven days of mourning are not required by Scriptural Law. Although the Torah states Genesis 50:10: "And he instituted mourning for his father for seven days," when the Torah was given, the laws were renewed.
Moses our teacher ordained for the Jewish people the seven days of mourning and the seven days of wedding celebrations.
מצות עשה להתאבל על הקרובים. דעת הגאונים כדעת רבינו וכן דעת הרי"ף והרמב"ן אע"פ שר"ת ור"י חולקין ומ"מ הראיה שהביא רבינו ממה שנאמר ואכלתי חטאת היום הייטב בעיני ה' יש לתמוה עליה שבמקרא לא צוה שיתאבלו אלא שאמר אהרן שלא ייטב בעיני ה' שיאכל חטאת באותו יום ובספר המצות שלו כתב המצוה ל"ז היא שנצטוו הכהנים שיטמאו לקרובים וזה בעצמו הוא מצות איבול כלומר כל איש מישראל חייב להתאבל על קרוביו כלומר ששה מתי מצוה ולחזק חיוב זה ביאר אותו בכהן שהוא מוזהר על הטומאה שיטמא על כל פנים כשאר ישראל כדי שלא יחלש דין אבילות וכבר התבאר שאבילות יום ראשון דאורייתא ובביאור אמרו במועד קטן אינו נוהג אבילות ברגל אי אבילות דמעיקרא היא אתי עשה דרבים ודחי עשה דיחיד הנה כבר התבאר שחיוב אבילות הוא מ"ע אמנם ביום ראשון לבד והשאר דרבנן ואפילו הכהן חייב לנהוג ביום ראשון ויטמא לקרוביו והבן זה עכ"ל. וגם על ראיה זו יש לתמוה שטומאה ענין אחד ואבילות ענין אחר ואם צוה שיטמא לקרוביו אין במשמע זה שיתאבל עליהם:
מאי דרבה בר רב הונא דתניא יום שמועה כיום קבורה למצות שבעה ושלשים ולאכילת פסחים כיום ליקוט עצמות אחד זה ואחד זה טובל ואוכל בקדשים לערב הא גופא קשיא אמרת יום שמועה כיום קבורה למצות שבעה ושלשים ולאכילת פסחים כיום ליקוט עצמות מכלל דיום קבורה אפילו לערב נמי לא אכיל והדר תני אחד זה ואחד זה טובל ואוכל בקדשים לערב אמר רב חסדא תנאי היא רבה בר רב הונא אמר ל"ק כאן ששמע שמועה על מתו סמוך לשקיעת החמה וכן שליקטו לו עצמות סמוך לשקיעת החמה וכן שמת לו מת וקברו סמוך לשקיעת החמה וכאן לאחר שקיעת החמה לאחר שקה"ח מאי דהוה הוה אלא ש"מ אכילת פסחים מעכבא רב אשי אמר מאי אחד זה ואחד זה ה"ק אחד יום שמועה ואחד יום ליקוט טובל ואוכל בקדשים לערב והא דרב אשי בדותא היא מכדי עלה קאי זה וזה מיבעי ליה אלא ש"מ בדותא היא ומאי תנאי דתניא עד מתי מתאונן עליו כל היום רבי אומר כל זמן שלא נקבר במאי עסקינן אילימא ביום מיתה מי איכא דלית ליה דיום מיתה דתפיס לילו מדרבנן ותו רבי אומר כל זמן שלא נקבר הא קברו אישתרי ליה ומי איכא דלית ליה (עמוס ח, י) ואחריתה כיום מר אמר רב ששת איום קבורה קאי מתקיף רב יוסף אלא הא דקתני השומע על מתו כמלקט עצמות טובל ואוכל בקדשים לערב מכלל דיום קבורה אפילו לערב נמי לא אכיל הא מני אלא תריץ עד מתי מתאוננין עליו כל אותו היום ולילו רבי אומר כל זמן שלא נקבר [אבל נקבר] בלא לילו אמרוה קמיה דר' ירמיה אמר גברא רבה כרב יוסף לימא הכי לימא דרבי לקולא והתניא עד מתי מתאונן עליו כל זמן שאינו נקבר אפילו מכאן ועד עשרה ימים דברי רבי וחכ"א אין מתאונן עליו אלא אותו היום בלבד אלא תריץ הכי עד מתי הוא מתאונן עליו כל אותו היום בלא לילו רבי אומר כל זמן שלא נקבר ואם נקבר תופס לילו אמרוה קמיה דרבא מדקאמר רבי יום קבורה תופס לילו מדרבנן מכלל דיום מיתה תופס לילו מדאורייתא וסבר רבי אנינות לילה דאורייתא והתניא (ויקרא י, יט) הן היום אני היום אסור ולילה מותר ולדורות בין ביום ובין בלילה אסור דברי רבי יהודה רבי אומר אנינות לילה אינה מדברי תורה אלא מדברי סופרים לעולם דרבנן היא וחכמים עשו חיזוק לדבריהם יותר משל תורה
What is the statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna that teaches that partaking of the Paschal offering is indispensable? As it is taught in a baraita: The day that a person receives tidings that his relative died is considered as if it were the day of burial with regard to the mitzva of the seven-day mourning period, when he may not bathe or wear shoes, and with regard to the thirty-day period when he may not wear ironed garments. And with regard to partaking of the Paschal offering, the day he receives the tidings is like the day of the gathering of the bones of the deceased after the flesh decomposed (see Pesaḥim 92a). In both this and that case, he immerses and partakes of sacrificial meat in the evening. The Gemara challenges: This baraita itself is difficult. At first you say: The day of tidings is considered as if it were the day of burial for the mitzva of the seven-day and thirty-day mourning periods; and with regard to partaking of the Paschal offering, it is like the day of the gathering of bones, when one may immerse and partake of sacrificial meat in the evening. By inference, one concludes that on the day of burial, he may not partake of the Paschal offering even in the evening, and all the more so other sacrificial meat. And then it is taught: In both this and that case, i.e., on both the day of burial and the day of the gathering of bones, he immerses and partakes of sacrificial meat in the evening. Rav Ḥisda said: Whether it is permitted to partake of sacrificial meat the night after the day of burial is a dispute between tanna’im, as the Gemara will explain. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: This is not difficult. Here, in the latter clause, where the baraita teaches that on both the day of burial and the day of the gathering of bones he immerses and partakes of sacrificial meat in the evening, it is referring to a case where he heard tidings of his dead relative just before sunset, and likewise a case where they gathered the bones for him just before sunset, and likewise a case where his relative died and he buried him just before sunset. But there, in the first clause, from which it is inferred that he may not consume any sacrificial meat the night after the day of burial, the burial occurred after sunset, i.e., on the night of the fifteenth of Nisan itself. The Gemara objects: If so, why not say that even if he gathered bones after sunset, then what was, was? Why did the Sages permit him to partake of the Paschal offering, as opposed to other sacrificial meat? Rather, learn from this baraita that partaking of the Paschal offering is indispensable to fulfilling the obligation, and due to the severity of the mitzva, the Sages suspended their decree prohibiting one from partaking of it. Rav Ashi said there is another resolution to this question: What is meant by the latter clause in the baraita: In both this and that case? It does not mean both the day of burial and the day of the gathering of bones. Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: Both on the day of tidings and on the day of the gathering of bones, the mourner immerses and partakes of sacrificial meat in the evening. But after the day of burial, he may not partake of the Paschal offering, and all the more so of other sacrificial meat, as indicated in the first clause in the baraita. The Gemara notes: And this resolution of Rav Ashi is a mistake, since the tanna is already discussing those two cases and equating them. According to Rav Ashi’s resolution, it is extraneous to say: In both this and that case; the tanna should have simply said: In this and that case. Rather, learn from the language of the baraita that Rav Ashi’s resolution is a mistake. The Gemara returns to discuss Rav Ḥisda’s resolution: And what is the dispute between tanna’im with regard to the night following the day of burial? As it is taught in a baraita: Until when does a person mourn acutely for his relative, such that he is prohibited to partake of sacrificial meat? The entire day. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: As long as his relative has not been buried. The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with? If we say we are dealing with the day of death, is there a tanna who does not hold that the day of death takes hold of its following night, at least by rabbinic law? In accordance with whose opinion is the statement of the first tanna, who says that the acute mourning is only during the day, and not at night? And furthermore, if we are dealing with the day of death, then when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: As long as his relative has not been buried, it indicates that consequently, once he has buried him, it becomes permitted for him to partake of sacrificial meat, even on the day of death itself. But is there a tanna who does not hold that acute mourning extends for the entire day of death, even after burial? The verse states: “And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation; and I will bring up sackcloth upon all loins, and baldness upon every head; and I will make it as the mourning for an only son, and the end thereof as a bitter day” (Amos 8:10). Rav Sheshet said: The tanna of this baraita is discussing the day of burial when it is not the day of death. The tanna’im disagree whether the acute mourning lasts only until the burial, or until the end of the day of burial. Rav Yosef objects to this: But there is that which is taught in a baraita: One who hears tidings of his dead relative is considered as one who gathers his relative’s bones, in that he may immerse and partake of sacrificial meat in the evening. By inference, on the day of burial he may not partake even in the evening. In accordance with whose opinion is this? This is the opinion of neither the first tanna nor Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rather, one must answer that the baraita means: Until when does a person mourn acutely for his relative? That entire day of burial and its following night. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He continues into the night only as long as his relative has not been buried; but once he is buried, the acute mourning lasts only for the rest of the day, without its night. The Sages said this statement of Rav Yosef before Rabbi Yirmeya. Rabbi Yirmeya said in surprise: Would a great man like Rav Yosef say this? Would he say that the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is the more lenient of the two? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Until when does a person mourn acutely for his relative? As long as his relative has not been buried, even if he remains unburied from now until ten days from now. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Sages say: He mourns acutely for his relative only on that same day. The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is more stringent than that of the Sages. Rather, answer like this: Until when does a person mourn acutely for his relative? That entire day of burial, without its night. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The acute mourning continues as long as his relative has not been buried, even for ten days, and once he is buried, that day takes hold of its night. This is the dispute to which Rav Ḥisda referred. The Sages said this statement before Rava. Rava said: Since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the day of burial, when acute mourning is by rabbinic law, takes hold of its night by rabbinic law, by inference, he must hold that the day of death, when acute mourning is by Torah law, takes hold of its night by Torah law. The Sages would not be more stringent with their ordinance than the parallel law of the Torah. The Gemara objects: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hold that acute mourning at night is by Torah law? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: On the last day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, after two of Aaron’s sons died, Aaron said to Moses: “Behold, today…there have befallen me such things as these; and if I had consumed the sin offering today, would it have been good in the eyes of the Lord?” (Leviticus 10:19). The word “today” teaches that Aaron is saying: I am prohibited from partaking today but permitted to partake at night; but for future generations, an acute mourner is prohibited from partaking of sacrificial meat whether during the day or at night. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: For future generations, acute mourning at night is not by Torah law, but rather by rabbinic law. The Gemara answers: Actually, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that acute mourning on the night after death is by rabbinic law, not Torah law. And the same holds for the night after the day of burial, even though the acute mourning of that day itself is by rabbinic law, because the Sages reinforced their pronouncements with greater severity than Torah law.
תניא אמרו לו לר' יהודה וכי נאמר על כן לא יאכלו בני יעקב והלא לא נאמר אלא בני ישראל ולא נקראו בני ישראל עד סיני אלא בסיני נאמר אלא שנכתב במקומו לידע מאיזה טעם נאסר להם מתיב רבא (בראשית מו, ה) וישאו בני ישראל את יעקב אביהם לאחר מעשה אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי מההיא שעתא ליתסר אמר ליה וכי תורה פעמים פעמים ניתנה ההוא שעתא לאו שעת מעשה הואי ולא שעת מתן תורה הואי
It is taught in a baraita that the Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: But is it stated in the verse: Therefore the children of Jacob do not eat the sciatic nerve? Isn’t it true that it is stated only that: “Therefore the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve?” And the Jewish people were not called “the children of Israel” until they received the Torah at Mount Sinai. Rather, this terminology indicates that the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve was stated to the Jewish people at Sinai, but was written in its place, after the incident of Jacob wrestling with the angel, to allow the Jewish people to know the reason the sciatic nerve was forbidden to them. Since the prohibition came into effect only at Sinai, there is no proof that it ever applied with regard to non-kosher animals. Rava raises an objection to this baraita: The verse states: “And Jacob rose up from Beersheba; and the children of Israel carried Jacob their father, and their little ones, and their wives in the wagons that Pharaoh had sent to carry him” (Genesis 46:5). This occurred before the Torah was given at Sinai, and therefore proves that the title “the children of Israel” was in use before the Torah was given. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, this occurred after the incident, i.e., after Jacob wrestled with the angel and after the prophetic vision in which God changed Jacob’s name to Israel (Genesis 35:10). Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: In that case, the sciatic nerve should be understood as having become forbidden to them from that time when they were first called the children of Israel. Since this was before the giving of the Torah, this would be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and not that of the Rabbis. Rav Ashi said to him: Was the Torah given piecemeal, on numerous different occasions? It was given at Sinai. Rather, that time when the title “children of Israel” was first used was not the time when the incident of Jacob wrestling with the angel occurred and also was not the time of the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that the prohibition took effect at that time.
הלכה: אֵין נוֹשְׂאִין נָשִׁים בַּמּוֹעֵד. שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִפְּנֵי בִיטּוּל פִּרְייָה וְרִבְייָה. בְּעוֹן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָה. הָעֶבֶד מָהוּ שֶׁיִּשָּׂא בַמּוֹעֵד. אָמַר לוֹן. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין. וְאָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר בָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מִפְּנֵי בִיטּוּל פִּרְייָה וְרִבְייָה. הָדָא אָֽמְרָה שֶׁהָעֶבֶד מְצוּוֶה עַל פִּרְייָה וְרִבְייָה. וְכָל־שֶׁהוּא מְצֻוֶּה עַל פִּירְייָה וְרִיבְייָה אָסוּר לוֹ לִישָּׂא בַמּוֹעֵד. רִבִּי אִילָא רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. עַל שֵׁם שֶׂאֵין מְעָֽרְבִין שִׂמְחָה בְשִׂמְחָה. רִבִּי לָא שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא כִּ֣י ׀ חֲנוּכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּ֗חַ עָשׂוּ֙ שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֔ים וְהֶחָ֖ג שִׁבְעַ֥ת יָמִֽים׃ רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא מַלֵּ֖א שְׁבוּעַ זֹ֑את. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מִפְּנֵי הַטּוֹרַח. תַּנֵּי אֲבָל מִתְכַּוֵּין הוּא וְנוֹשֵׂא מֵעֶרֶב הָרֶגֶל. לֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. לֵית הָדָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וַאֲפִילוּ עַל רִבִּי חֲנִינָה לֵית הִיא פְלִיגָא. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. עֲלַת כַּלְּתָא נַפְקַת טִרְחוּתָא.
HALAKHAH: Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of refraining from being fruitful and increase. They asked before Rebbi Yose: May a slave marry a woman on a holiday? He told them, let us hear from the following: “One who is half a slave and half a free man.” And Rebbi Simeon bar Abba said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Because of refraining from being fruitful and increase. This implies that a slave is commanded to be fruitful and multiply and anybody commanded to be fruitful and multiply is forbidden to marry on a holiday Rebbi Ila, Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: Because one does not mix one joy with another joy. Rebbi La understood it from the following: For they celebrated the initiation of the altar for seven days and the holiday for seven days. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa understood it from the following: finish the week of this one. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Because of the exertion. It was stated: But one may plan and marry on the eve of a holiday. This does not disagree with Rebbi Eleazar; this does not disagree with Rebbi Joḥanan. And even with Rebbi Ḥanina it does not disagree. Rebbi Abba said, when the bride enters the exertion leaves.
נוֹהֵג בִּטְהוֹרָה, וְאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בִּטְמֵאָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף בִּטְמֵאָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וַהֲלֹא מִבְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב נֶאֱסַר גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, וַעֲדַיִן בְּהֵמָה טְמֵאָה מֻתֶּרֶת לָהֶן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, בְּסִינַי נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ:
The prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies to a kosher animal and does not apply to a non-kosher animal. Rabbi Yehuda says: It applies even to a non-kosher animal. Rabbi Yehuda said in explanation: Wasn’t the sciatic nerve forbidden for the children of Jacob, as it is written: “Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve” (Genesis 32:33), yet the meat of a non-kosher animal was still permitted to them? Since the sciatic nerve of non-kosher animals became forbidden at that time, it remains forbidden now. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: The prohibition was stated in Sinai, but it was written in its place, in the battle of Jacob and the angel despite the fact that the prohibition did not take effect then.
מֹשֶׁה הִתְקִין שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּשְׁתֶּה וְשִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הָאֶבֶל
Moses instituted seven days of a marriage feast and seven days of mourning, but he instituted nothing for the widow. Even though you say that he instituted nothing for the widow, she needs a benediction. From Boaz, as it is written: “And (Boaz) took ten men of the city Elders and said, sit here, and they sat down.” Rebbi Alexander said, from here [one learns that] the lesser person is not permitted to sit down until the more important person tells him to sit down. Rebbi Phineas said, from here [one learns that] this family appoints Elders for their marriage feasts. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, from here [one learns that] the wedding blessing needs ten people [present]. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazy said, not only a bachelor marrying a virgin, but also a widower marrying a widow, since Boaz was a widower and Ruth a widow, as it is written “The entire city was in an uproar because of them.” Is that possible that the entire town was in alarm because of the sorry state of Naomi? But Boaz’s wife had died that very day and when all the people went to the burial, Ruth and Naomi entered. It turned out that when one left, the other entered.
ר' חנינא בן גמליאל אומר אף הדם מן החי: ת"ר (בראשית ט, ד) אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו זה אבר מן החי רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אומר אף הדם מן החי מ"ט דרבי חנינא בן גמליאל קרי ביה בשר בנפשו לא תאכל דמו בנפשו לא תאכל ורבנן ההוא למישרי שרצים הוא דאתא כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (דברים יב, כג) רק חזק לבלתי אכל הדם כי הדם הוא הנפש וגו' (רק חזק לבלתי אכל הדם זה אבר מן החי כי הדם הוא הנפש זה דם מן החי) ורבנן ההוא לדם הקזה שהנשמה יוצאה בו הוא דאתא למה לי למיכתב לבני נח ולמה לי למשני בסיני כדר' יוסי בר' חנינא דא"ר יוסי בר' חנינא כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונשנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה לבני נח ולא נשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח ואנו אין לנו אלא גיד הנשה ואליבא דר' יהודה אמר מר כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונשנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה אדרבה מדנשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח מדאיתני עבודת כוכבים בסיני ואשכחן דענש עובדי כוכבים עילווה ש"מ לזה ולזה נאמרה:
The Gemara answers: There, in the baraita, the reference is to a gentile who engages in the study of their seven mitzvot. It is a mitzva for a gentile to study the halakhot that pertain to the seven Noahide mitzvot, and when he does so he is highly regarded. § The baraita that lists the Noahide mitzvot (56a) teaches that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: The descendants of Noah are also commanded concerning the prohibition against consuming the blood from a living animal. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the verse: “Only flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat” (Genesis 9:4), this is the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: The blood from a living animal is also prohibited in this verse. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning behind the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel? The Gemara answers: He reads into the verse: Flesh with its life you shall not eat; blood with its life you shall not eat. The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis explain the mention of blood in this verse? After all, in their opinion, blood from a living animal is not forbidden. The Gemara answers: That comes to permit eating limbs from living creeping animals. The verse indicates that the prohibition does not apply to creeping animals, whose blood is not considered separate from their flesh (see 59b). The baraita continues: Similarly, you can say that according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, blood from a living animal is also forbidden to the Jewish people in particular; as it is stated: “Only be steadfast in not eating blood, as the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23). With regard to the statements: “Only be steadfast in not eating blood,” this is a limb from a living animal; “as the blood is the life,” this is blood from a living animal. The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, who hold that there is no specific prohibition with regard to blood from a living animal, interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: That verse comes to teach the prohibition against consuming blood spilled in the process of bloodletting, as this is blood through which the soul departs (see Karetot 20b). The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, why do I need the Torah to write this halakha with regard to descendants of Noah, and why do I need the Torah to repeat it at Sinai with regard to Jews? Aren’t Jews also descendants of Noah? The Gemara answers that it is to be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina; as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Any mitzva that was first stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was repeated at Sinai was stated for this group and for that group, i.e., it applies to both gentiles and Jews. But a mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was not repeated at Sinai among the mitzvot given to the Jewish people was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah. And we have only the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve to which this classification applies, and this is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the verse: “Therefore the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve, which is on the hollow of the thigh, until this day” (Genesis 32:32), is referring to the sons of Jacob, who were commanded to observe this prohibition even though they had the status of descendants of Noah. § The Master said in a baraita: Any mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was repeated at Sinai was stated for this group and for that group. The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, from the fact that it was repeated at Sinai, clearly it can be derived that it was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah, as if it pertains to the descendants of Noah as well, why repeat it at Sinai? Aren’t the Jewish people are also descendants of Noah? The Gemara answers: From the fact that the prohibition of idol worship was repeated at Sinai, and we find that God punished gentiles for it, conclude from it that any mitzva that was repeated at Sinai was stated for this group and for that group, and not only for the Jewish people.
לבני נח ולא נשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח: אדרבה מדלא נישנית בסיני לבני נח נאמרה ולא לישראל ליכא מידעם דלישראל שרי ולעובד כוכבים אסור ולא והרי יפת תואר התם משום דלאו בני כיבוש נינהו והרי פחות משוה פרוטה התם משום דלאו בני מחילה נינהו:
It is further stated in the baraita that a mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was not repeated at Sinai was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah. The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, from the fact that it was not repeated at Sinai, clearly it can be derived that it was stated for the descendants of Noah and not for the Jewish people. The Gemara answers: There is nothing that is permitted to a Jew and forbidden to a gentile. The Gemara asks: And is there not? But isn’t there the permission for a Jew to take a married beautiful woman, who was taken as a prisoner of war, to be his wife? For a gentile to do so is forbidden. The Gemara answers: There, the reason gentiles are prohibited from doing so is because they are not authorized to conquer. It is not permitted for gentiles to wage wars of conquest, and the halakha of marrying a beautiful woman is stated only with regard to a war of conquest. Therefore the fact that a beautiful woman who is a prisoner of war is permitted only to a Jew and not to a gentile does not indicate that gentiles have a higher degree of sanctity. The Gemara asks: But isn’t stealing less than the value of one peruta prohibited to a gentile and permitted to a Jew? The Gemara answers: There it is because gentiles are not apt to grant forgiveness of debts, even of less than the value of one peruta. Therefore, for a gentile to take even such a minuscule amount is considered robbery. Jews normally forgive such small amounts.
כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונישנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה והרי מילה שנאמרה לבני נח דכתיב (בראשית יז, ט) ואתה את בריתי תשמור ונשנית בסיני (ויקרא יב, ג) וביום השמיני ימול לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח ההוא למישרי שבת הוא דאתא ביום ואפילו בשבת והרי פריה ורביה שנאמרה לבני נח דכתיב (בראשית ט, ז) ואתם פרו ורבו ונשנית בסיני (דברים ה, כו) לך אמור להם שובו לכם לאהליכם לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח ההוא לכל דבר שבמנין צריך מנין אחר להתירו הוא דאתא אי הכי כל חדא וחדא נמי נימא משום מילתא איתני הכי קאמר אזהרה מיהדר ומיתנא בה למה לי ואין לנו אלא גיד הנשה בלבד ואליבא דר' יהודה הני נמי לא איתני הני איתני לשום מילתא בעלמא הא לא איתני כלל אי בעית אימא מילה מעיקר' לאברהם הוא דקא מזהר ליה רחמנא ואתה את בריתי תשמור אתה וזרעך אחריך לדורותם אתה וזרעך אין איניש אחרינא לא אלא מעתה בני ישמעאל לחייבו (בראשית כא, יב) כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע בני עשו לחייבו ביצחק ולא כל יצחק מתקיף לה רב אושעיא אלא מעתה בני קטורה לא לחייבו האמר ר' יוסי בר אבין ואיתימא ר' יוסי בר חנינא (בראשית יז, יד) את בריתי הפר לרבות בני קטורה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אדם הראשון לא הותר לו בשר לאכילה דכתיב (בראשית א, כט) לכם יהיה לאכלה ולכל חית הארץ ולא חית הארץ לכם וכשבאו בני נח התיר להם שנאמר (בראשית ט, ג) כירק עשב נתתי לכם את כל יכול לא יהא אבר מן החי נוהג בו ת"ל (בראשית ט, ד) אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו יכול אף לשרצים ת"ל אך ומאי תלמודא א"ר הונא דמו מי שדמו חלוק מבשרו יצאו שרצים שאין דמם חלוק מבשרם מיתיבי (בראשית א, כו) ורדו בדגת הים מאי לאו לאכילה לא למלאכה ודגים בני מלאכה נינהו אין כדרחבה דבעי רחבה הנהיג בעיזא ושיבוטא מאי ת"ש (בראשית א, כו) ובעוף השמים מאי לאו לאכילה לא למלאכה ועופות בני מלאכה נינהו אין כדבעי רבה בר רב הונא דש באווזין ותרנגולין לר' יוסי ברבי יהודה מאי תא שמע (בראשית א, כח) ובכל חיה הרומשת על הארץ ההוא לאתויי נחש הוא דאתא דתניא ר"ש בן מנסיא אומר חבל על שמש גדול שאבד מן העולם שאלמלא (לא) נתקלל נחש כל אחד ואחד מישראל היו מזדמנין לו שני נחשים טובים אחד משגרו לצפון ואחד משגרו לדרום להביא לו סנדלבונים טובים ואבנים טובות ומרגליות ולא עוד אלא שמפשילין רצועה תחת זנבו ומוציא בה עפר לגנתו ולחורבתו מיתיבי היה ר' יהודה בן תימא אומר אדם הראשון מיסב בגן עדן היה והיו מלאכי השרת צולין לו בשר ומסננין לו יין הציץ בו נחש וראה בכבודו ונתקנא בו התם בבשר היורד מן השמים מי איכא בשר היורד מן השמים אין כי הא דר"ש בן חלפתא הוה קאזיל באורחא פגעו בו הנך אריותא דהוו קא נהמי לאפיה אמר (תהלים קד, כא) הכפירים שואגים לטרף נחיתו ליה תרתי אטמתא חדא אכלוה וחדא שבקוה אייתיה ואתא לבי מדרשא בעי עלה דבר טמא הוא זה או דבר טהור א"ל אין דבר טמא יורד מן השמים בעי מיניה ר' זירא מר' אבהו ירדה לו דמות חמור מהו א"ל יארוד נאלא הא אמרי ליה אין דבר טמא יורד מן השמים:
It is stated in the baraita that any mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was repeated at Sinai was stated both for this group and for that group. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the mitzva of circumcision, which was stated with regard to descendants of Noah, i.e., Abraham and his descendants, who had the status of descendants of Noah at that time? As it is written that God said to Abraham with regard to the mitzva of circumcision: “And as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your offspring after you, throughout their generations” (Genesis 17:9). And it was repeated at Sinai for the Jewish people: “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3), and nevertheless it was stated for the Jewish people alone and not for the descendants of Noah. The Gemara answers: That verse stated at Sinai is not necessary for the mitzva itself, but rather it comes to permit circumcision on Shabbat. It is derived from the phrase “on the eighth day” that circumcision must always be performed on the eight day, and this is the halakha even if it falls on Shabbat. Therefore the mitzva is not considered to have been repeated at Mount Sinai. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the mitzva of procreation, which was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah? As it is written: “And you, be fruitful and multiply, swarm in the land and multiply in it” (Genesis 9:7). And it was repeated at Sinai, in the verse: “Go say to them: Return to your tents” (Deuteronomy 5:26), when the Jewish men were commanded to resume conjugal relations with their wives after having been commanded to separate from them in preparation for the giving of the Torah. Nevertheless, the mitzva of procreation was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah. The Gemara answers: That verse stated at Sinai is not necessary for the mitzva itself, but rather it comes to teach another halakha: That any matter that was prohibited by an official vote of the Sanhedrin requires another vote to permit it. Even if a rabbinic prohibition is no longer relevant, it is not automatically canceled, but rather a special ruling is required to cancel it. This is derived from the fact that it was necessary for God to issue a declaration (Deuteronomy 5:26) specifically canceling the prohibition that had been issued before the giving of the Torah. The Gemara asks: If so, let us say with regard to each and every one of the seven Noahide mitzvot that it was repeated because of an additional matter the Torah teaches, and the descendants of Noah are exempt from them all. The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, is saying: After stating a prohibition with regard to the descendants of Noah, why do I need the Torah to then repeat the prohibition itself for the Jewish people? If the only purpose is to teach an additional halakha, it is unnecessary to repeat it in the form of a prohibition, e.g., “You shall not murder…you shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:13). Therefore, it is derived from the fact that the entire prohibition is repeated, and not just the new details, that it applies both to Jews and to descendants of Noah. It is stated in the baraita: And we have only the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve to which this classification applies, and this is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara asks: But these aforementioned mitzvot also, procreation and circumcision, were not repeated at Sinai in order to teach that they apply to the descendants of Noah as well as to the Jewish people, but rather were mentioned for other purposes, and therefore, they apply only to the Jewish people, similar to the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve. The Gemara answers: These mitzvot were repeated for the sake of teaching some other matter. By contrast, this prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve was not repeated at all; it is mentioned only in Genesis. Therefore, circumcision and procreation are not included in the category of mitzvot that were given to the descendants of Noah and were not repeated at Sinai. If you wish, say that there is another explanation for the fact that the mitzva of circumcision does not apply to the descendants of Noah despite the fact that it was repeated for the Jewish people: From the outset, it was Abraham, and not all the descendants of Noah, that the Merciful One commanded to perform this mitzva; as He said to him: “And as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your offspring after you, throughout their generations” (Genesis 17:9). The Gemara infers: “You and your offspring,” yes; another person, no. The Gemara challenges: If that is so, the descendants of Ishmael should also be obligated to observe circumcision, as they are also the offspring of Abraham. The Gemara explains: The verse states: “For through Isaac, offspring shall be called yours” (Genesis 21:12), which means that Ishmael’s descendants are not called the offspring of Abraham. The Gemara challenges: Granted, Ishmael’s descendants are not considered the offspring of Abraham, but at least the descendants of Esau, Isaac’s son, should be obligated to observe circumcision. The Gemara explains: Since the term: “Through Isaac [beYitzḥak],” also means: Of Isaac, it is derived that the mitzva applies to only some of Isaac’s offspring, but not all the descendants of Isaac. This serves to exclude the descendants of Esau. Rav Oshaya objects to this: If that is so, the descendants of Keturah, Abraham’s second wife, should not be obligated to observe circumcision. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says, and some say that it is Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina who says that the verse: “And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant” (Genesis 17:14) is stated to include the descendants of Keturah in the obligation to observe circumcision. § Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Meat was not permitted to Adam, the first man, for consumption, as it is written: “And God said: Behold, I have given you every herb that brings forth seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree that gives forth seed; for you it shall be for food, and for every animal of the earth, and for every fowl of the air, and for everything that creeps upon the earth, in which there is a living soul, every green herb for food. And it was so” (Genesis 1:29–30). It is derived God told Adam: Eating vegetation is permitted to people and animals, but eating the animals of the earth is not permitted to you. But when the children of Noah came, God permitted them to eat meat; as it is stated: “Every moving thing that lives shall be for food for you; as the green herb I have given you all” (Genesis 9:3). One might have thought that accordingly, even the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal does not apply to the descendants of Noah; therefore the verse states: “Only flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat” (Genesis 9:4). One might have thought that the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal applies even to creeping animals; therefore the verse states “only,” a term used for exclusion, indicating that creeping animals are not included. The Gemara asks: And what is the derivation? What is the proof that it is creeping animals that are excluded from this prohibition and not another type of animal? Rav Huna says: The term “its blood” indicates that the prohibition pertains to animals whose blood is halakhically considered separate from their flesh. This excludes creeping animals, whose blood is not considered separate from their flesh. The Gemara raises an objection to the assertion that eating meat was prohibited to Adam, from the verse: “And have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creeps upon the land” (Genesis 1:28). What, is it not stated with regard to consumption, i.e., doesn’t this verse mean that people may eat the meat of animals? The Gemara answers: No, the verse is referring to using animals for labor. The Gemara asks: But are fish capable of performing labor? The Gemara answers: Yes, they are capable, in accordance with the statement of Raḥava; as Raḥava asked the following question: If one drove a wagon to which a goat and a shibbuta fish were harnessed together, what is the halakha? Has he violated the prohibition of diverse kinds, in the same way that one does when plowing with an ox and a donkey together? In any event, Raḥava’s question indicates that there is a way, albeit far-fetched, for a fish to perform labor. Come and hear a proof that it was permitted for Adam to eat meat, from the phrase in the aforementioned verse: “And have dominion…and over the fowl of the air.” What, is it not stated with regard to consumption? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to labor. The Gemara asks: But are birds capable of performing labor? The Gemara answers: Yes, they are capable, as Rabba bar Rav Huna raises a dilemma: If one threshed with geese and chickens, what is the halakha according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, derives from the verse: “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads” (Deuteronomy 25:4), that a laborer in a field is entitled to eat from the produce during his work only if his work involves both his hands and his feet, like an ox, which treads with its forelegs as well as its hind legs. Rabba bar Rav Huna raises a dilemma as to whether the prohibition against muzzling an animal while it is being used for labor in the field applies to geese and chickens, which have only two feet. In any event, it is indicated in that dilemma that birds can perform labor. Come and hear a proof from the phrase: “And have dominion…and over every living thing that creeps upon the land.” Creeping animals certainly cannot be used for labor. Apparently, the verse is referring to eating them. The Gemara answers: That phrase comes to include the snake, which was capable of performing labor when it was created. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Woe over a great attendant that has been lost to the world; as had the snake not been cursed that it should go on its belly, there would have been two fine snakes at the disposal of each and every one of the Jewish people. One he would send to the north, and the other one he would send to the south, to bring him precious sandalbonim, a type of precious stone, and other precious stones and pearls. Moreover, he would attach a strap under his snake’s tail like a harness to an animal, and use it to take dirt out to his garden and to rebuild his ruin, as he does with other animals. This demonstrates that the snake was capable of performing labor. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to the assertion that eating meat was prohibited to Adam: Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima would say: Adam, the first man, would dine in the Garden of Eden, and the ministering angels would roast meat for him and strain wine for him. The snake glanced at him and saw his glory, and was jealous of him, and for that reason the snake incited him to sin and caused his banishment from the Garden. According to this, evidently Adam would eat meat. The Gemara answers: There the reference is to meat that descended from heaven, which was created by a miracle and was not the meat of animals at all. The Gemara asks: Is there such a thing as meat that descends from heaven? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is like this incident: As Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta was walking along the way, he encountered those lions that were roaring at him, intending to eat him. He said: “The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their food from God” (Psalms 104:21), and they deserve to receive food. Two thighs of an animal descended from heaven for him. The lions ate one of these thighs, and they left the other one. He took it and entered the study hall, and inquired about it: Is this thigh a kosher item or a non-kosher item? The Sages said to him: Certainly it is kosher, as a non-kosher item does not descend from heaven. In connection to that story, it is related that Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Abbahu: If the likeness of a donkey had descended for him, what would the halakha have been? Would it have been permitted? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Foolish bird [yarud nala]. The Sages already said to him that a non-kosher item does not descend from heaven; therefore, it must be kosher.