Chullin 77

Printable sources

sources:

1. Gilgamesh XI, Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and  Others, Oxford: Oxford University Press (1989) 110  

Far-sighted Ea swore the oath (of secrecy) with them,  

So he repeated their speech to a reed hut,  “Reed hut, reed hut, brick wall, brick wall,  Listen, reed hut, and pay attention, brick  wall:  

(This is the message:)  

Man of Shuruppak, son of Ubara-Tutu,  Dismantle your house, build a boat.  Leave possessions, search out living 

things.  

Reject chattels and save lives!  

Put aboard the seed of all living things,  

into the boat.  

The boat that you are to build  

Shall have her dimensions in proportion,  Her width and length shall be in harmony,  Roof her like the Apsu.”…

.2 שופטים כא  

וַיֹּֽאמְרוּ֙ זִקְנֵ֣י הָֽעֵדָ֔ה מַה־נַּעֲשֶׂ֥ה לַנּוֹתָרִ֖ים לְנָשִׁ֑ים כִּֽי־נִשְׁמְדָ֥ה מִבִּנְיָמִ֖ן אִשָּֽׁה׃

וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ יְרֻשַּׁ֥ת פְּלֵיטָ֖ה לְבִנְיָמִ֑ן וְלֹא־יִמָּחֶ֥ה שֵׁ֖בֶט מִיִּשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

וַאֲנַ֗חְנוּ לֹ֥א נוּכַ֛ל לָתֵת־לָהֶ֥ם נָשִׁ֖ים מִבְּנוֹתֵ֑ינוּ כִּֽי־נִשְׁבְּע֤וּ בְנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר אָר֕וּר נֹתֵ֥ן אִשָּׁ֖ה לְבִנְיָמִֽן׃ {ס}        

וַיֹּאמְר֡וּ הִנֵּה֩ חַג־יְהֹוָ֨ה בְּשִׁל֜וֹ מִיָּמִ֣ים ׀ יָמִ֗ימָה אֲשֶׁ֞ר מִצְּפ֤וֹנָה לְבֵֽית־אֵל֙ מִזְרְחָ֣ה הַשֶּׁ֔מֶשׁ לִ֨מְסִלָּ֔ה הָעֹלָ֥ה מִבֵּֽית־אֵ֖ל שְׁכֶ֑מָה וּמִנֶּ֖גֶב לִלְבוֹנָֽה׃

(ויצו) [וַיְצַוּ֕וּ] אֶת־בְּנֵ֥י בִנְיָמִ֖ן לֵאמֹ֑ר לְכ֖וּ וַאֲרַבְתֶּ֥ם בַּכְּרָמִֽים׃

וּרְאִיתֶ֗ם וְ֠הִנֵּ֠ה אִם־יֵ֨צְא֥וּ בְנוֹת־שִׁילוֹ֮ לָח֣וּל בַּמְּחֹלוֹת֒ וִֽיצָאתֶם֙ מִן־הַכְּרָמִ֔ים וַחֲטַפְתֶּ֥ם לָכֶ֛ם אִ֥ישׁ אִשְׁתּ֖וֹ מִבְּנ֣וֹת שִׁיל֑וֹ וַהֲלַכְתֶּ֖ם אֶ֥רֶץ בִּנְיָמִֽן׃

וְהָיָ֡ה כִּֽי־יָבֹ֣אוּ אֲבוֹתָם֩ א֨וֹ אֲחֵיהֶ֜ם (לרוב) [לָרִ֣יב ׀] אֵלֵ֗ינוּ וְאָמַ֤רְנוּ אֲלֵיהֶם֙ חׇנּ֣וּנוּ אוֹתָ֔ם כִּ֣י לֹ֥א לָקַ֛חְנוּ אִ֥ישׁ אִשְׁתּ֖וֹ בַּמִּלְחָמָ֑ה כִּ֣י לֹ֥א אַתֶּ֛ם נְתַתֶּ֥ם לָהֶ֖ם כָּעֵ֥ת תֶּאְשָֽׁמוּ׃ {ס}        

וַיַּֽעֲשׂוּ־כֵן֙ בְּנֵ֣י בִנְיָמִ֔ן וַיִּשְׂא֤וּ נָשִׁים֙ לְמִסְפָּרָ֔ם מִן־הַמְּחֹלְל֖וֹת אֲשֶׁ֣ר גָּזָ֑לוּ וַיֵּלְכ֗וּ וַיָּשׁ֙וּבוּ֙ אֶל־נַ֣חֲלָתָ֔ם וַיִּבְנוּ֙ אֶת־הֶ֣עָרִ֔ים וַיֵּשְׁב֖וּ בָּהֶֽם׃

וַיִּתְהַלְּכ֨וּ מִשָּׁ֤ם בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּעֵ֣ת הַהִ֔יא אִ֥ישׁ לְשִׁבְט֖וֹ וּלְמִשְׁפַּחְתּ֑וֹ וַיֵּצְא֣וּ מִשָּׁ֔ם אִ֖ישׁ לְנַחֲלָתֽוֹ׃ {פ}

21:16 Then the elders of the congregation said: ‘How shall we do for wives for them that remain,  seeing the women are destroyed out of  Benjamin?’ 17 And they said: ‘They that are  escaped must be as an inheritance for Benjamin,  that a tribe be not blotted out from Israel. 18  Howbeit we may not give them wives of our  daughters.’ For the children of Israel had sworn,  saying: ‘Cursed be he that giveth a wife to  Benjamin.’ {S} 19 And they said: ‘Behold, there is  the feast of the LORD from year to year in Shiloh,  which is on the north of Beth-el, on the east side  of the highway that goeth up from Beth-el to  Shekhem, and on the south of Lebonah.’ 20 And  they commanded the children of Benjamin,  saying: ‘Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; 21 and  see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come  out to dance in the dances, then come ye out of  the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife  of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of  Benjamin. 22 And it shall be, when their fathers or  their brethren come to strive with us, that we will  say unto them: Grant them graciously unto us;  because we took not for each man of them his  

Greco-Roman Context

3. Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics 5.10  

This is the essential nature of the equitable: it is a rectification of law where law is defective  because of its generality…it is then right, where the law’s pronouncement because of its  absoluteness is defective and erroneous, to rectify the defect by deciding as the lawgiver would  himself decide if he were present on the occasion, and would have enacted if he had been  cognizant of the case in question.  

4. Fraus Legi: Justinian’s Digest 1.3.29-30  

29. Paulus, On the Lex Cincia: To do what the law prohibits violates the law, and anyone who  evades the meaning of the law without disobeying its words, is guilty of fraud against it.  

30. Ulpianus, On the Edict, Book IV: Fraud is committed against the law when something is done  which the law did not wish to be done, but did not absolutely prohibit; and the difference  between fraud against the law and violation of the same is that between speech and opinion.  To do what the law prohibits violates the law, and anyone who evades the meaning of the law  

5. Justinian’s Digest 40.9.7.1  

Injustice often arises also through chicanery, that is, through an oversubtle and even fraudulent  construction of the law. This it is that gave rise to the now familiar saying, “More law, less justice.”  Through such interpretation also a great deal of wrong is committed in transactions between state and  state; thus, when a truce had been made with the enemy for thirty days, a famous general went to  ravaging their fields by night, because, he said, the truce stipulated “days,” not nights…  

Back to Chazal: Cunning and Prudent?

1 

²מערימים על מעשר שני כיצד הילך את המעות האילו 

או’ אדם לבנו ולבתו הגדולים לעבדו ולשפחתו העברים 

3 

ופדה לך את המעשר הזה אבל לא יאמר כן לבנו ולבתו הקטנים לעבדו ולשפחתו הכנענים מפני שידן כידו  

[We/they may] act prudently/cunningly regarding the secondary tithe. How? One says to his adult  son or daughter or to his Hebrew man-servant or maid, “Take these coins and use them to redeem  this tithe.” However, one may not say this to one’s minor son or daughter, or to one’s Canaanite  man-servant or maid, for their hand is like his. 

3  

¹ The parallel tosefta explicitly states החומש מן לפוטרו. Tosefta may preserve the older text that was shortened by the  mishnah, or the mishnah may preserve the older text which was then clarified by the tosefta. For a discussion about which  preserves more ancient text generally, Mishnah or Tosefta, see Shamma Friedman, Tosefta ‘Attiqta. This will be quite  relevant to our discussion of the following ha‘arama regarding the animal firstling.  

² Some point out that the idea of a Hebrew indentured maid redeeming secondary tithes is surprising, given that all Hebrew  maids are minors (they are freed at age 12). Therefore, Ra’avad and the meyuhas la’Rosh suggest that there must have  been a Sinaitic tradition that a person may redeem tithes from the age of 9 and 1 day; Maimonides (Laws of Secondary  Tithes 5:8-9) suggests instead that even minors may redeem tithes according to rabbinic law.  

³ This term לך indicates that the recipient of the money was meant to keep it and in return be willing to allow the  consecration of the fruit to devolve upon the money. Thus, the money would only be permitted to be used for Temple  purposes. According to Lieberman, the word לך is absent in a Geniza MS of the Mishna; it is likewise absent from all extant  Tosefta MSS, the parallel PT sugya, and bGit. 65a. Therefore, Lieberman argues that this word was not in the original  version of the mishnah but was emended based on the discussion in the PT which clarifies:  

מה נן קיימין, אם בשאמר לו צא ופדה לי שלוחו הוא. צא ופדה לך שלו הן. אלא כי נן קיימין: בשאמר לו  

פדה לך משלך, פדה לך משלי, ותני כן פדה לך משלך, פדה לך משלי אינו מוסיף חומש. א”ר יוחנן כל מעשר שאינו הוא ופדיונו משלו אינו מוסיף חומש. (Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-fshuta, ad loc. 766).  

Additionally, the parallel tosefta in all extant MSS adds בהן

אותו ואת בנו שנפלו לבור ר’ אליעזר אומ’ מעלה את הראשון על מנת לשוחטו ואינו שוחטו והשיני עושה לו  פרנסה במקומו בשביל שלא ימות ר’ יהושע אומ’ מעלה את הראשון על מנת לשוחטו ואינו שוחטו ומערים  

⁵ רצה שלא לשחוט את אחד מהם הרשות בידו 

⁴ ומעלה את השיני 

If an animal and its offspring fell into a pit on a festival day, R. Eliezer says, “One raises up the  first on condition to slaughter it but does not slaughter it, and, for the second, one provides  food while it is in its present location, so that it does not die.” R. Joshua says, “One raises up the  first on condition to slaughter it but does not slaughter it, and, acting cunningly/prudently, one  then raises up the second. [If] he wanted to slaughter neither one of them, he has the right [to  refrain].”  

8. משלי א:א-ד 

מִ֭

שְׁלֵי שְׁלֹמֹ֣ה בֶן־דָּוִ֑ד מֶ֝֗לֶךְ יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃

לָדַ֣עַת חׇכְמָ֣ה וּמוּסָ֑ר לְ֝הָבִ֗ין אִמְרֵ֥י בִינָֽה׃

לָ֭קַחַת מוּסַ֣ר הַשְׂכֵּ֑ל צֶ֥דֶק וּ֝מִשְׁפָּ֗ט וּמֵשָׁרִֽים׃

לָתֵ֣ת לִפְתָאיִ֣ם עׇרְמָ֑ה לְ֝נַ֗עַר דַּ֣עַת וּמְזִמָּֽה׃

The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel; to know wisdom and instruction; to  comprehend the words of understanding; to receive the discipline of wisdom, justice and right, and  equity; to give prudence to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.  

9. ירושלמי פסחים ג:ג , ל/. ביצה ג:ה, סב. (כ”י ליידן) 

משנה (כ”י קאפמן) כיצד מפרישין חלת טומאה ביום טוב רבי אליעזר או’ אל תקרא לה שם עד שתיאפה בן בתירה או’ תטיל לצונים אמר יהושע לא זה הוא חמץ שמוזהרים עליו בל יראה ובל ימצא אלא מפרשתה ומנחתה עד הערב ואם  החמיצה החמיצה 

גמרא…כיצד יעשה? על דר’ אליעזר מערים ואו’ )וזו אני רוצה לוכל וזו אני רוצה לאכול( ואופה את כולה וכשהוא רודה מערים ואו’ זו אני רוצה ליישן זו א}י{ני רוצה ליישן ומשייר אחת…אותו ואת בנו שנפלו לבור ר’ אליעזר או’ יעלה את  הראשון על מנת לשחוט וישחוט והשיני עושין לו פרנסה שלא ימות. ר’ יושוע או’ יעלה את הראשון על מנת לשחוט ולא  ישחוט ויערים ויעלה את השיני א’ע’פ’ שחישב שלא לשחוט אחד מהן מותר. ר’ בון בר חייה בעי מחלפה שיטתיה דר’  אליעזר תמן הוא אמ’ אסור להערים והכא הוא אמ’ מותר להערים? הכא משום בל ייראה ובל ימצא תמן מה אית לך?  

מחלפה שיטתיה דר’ יהושע תמן הוא אמר מותר להערים והכא הוא אמר אסור להערים? אמ’ ר’ אידי כאן שבות וכאן חיוב חטאת. א”ר יוסה ביר’ בון תמן כדי לחוס על ניכסיהן שלישראל הכא מה אית לך?! 

Mishnah: How [on the Festival] do they set apart the dough-offering [if the dough is in a state of]  uncleanness? R. Eliezer says, “She should not designate [the dough=offering] before it is baked.” R.  

⁴ MS Erfurt, MS London and Venice Ed. add: לשחוט מנת על 

⁵ Thus, MSS Vienna and Erfurt, but MSS Leiden, London, Venice Ed. read: בידו הרשות מהן אחד לשחוט שלא רצה לשחוט רצה) See  also ‘Ittur, Laws of Festivals, Part III, 140; Shibbolei Ha-Leket Ha-Shalem Laws of Festivals chapter 252). PT and BT both read  differently, an issue that will be considered further below. 

Judah b. Betera says, “She should put it into cold water.” Said R. Joshua, “This is not the sort of leaven  concerning which people are warned under the prohibitions, ‘Let it not be seen’ (Ex. 13:7), and ‘Let it  not be found’ (Ex. 12:19). But she separates it and leaves it until evening, and if it ferments, it  ferments.  

Gemara: …How should [a person] act according to R. Eliezer?  

One acts shrewdly and says: “This I want to eat and this I want to eat;” and one bakes all of it, and  when s/he removes it from the oven, s/he acts with shrewdness and says: “This I want to store away  and this,” and leaves one which is then designated as ḥallah in the oven.  

…  

An animal and its offspring that fell into a pit on a festival – R. Eliezer says, “S/he raises up the first with  the plan to slaughter it, and the second; s/he feeds it in the pit so that it does not die.” R. Joshua says,  “S/he raises up the first one with the plan to slaughter it but does not slaughter it and, acting  prudently/cunningly, s/he raises up the second. Even though one does not plan to slaughter either one  of them – this is permitted.  

R. Bun bar Hiyya asked: “Is not R. Eliezer’s logic reversed? There he says it is forbidden to act  prudently/cunningly while here he says it is permitted. Here he is permissive because of the ban on  seeing and finding leaven. There, is there any comparable justification?  

R. Joshua’s logic is reversed. There he says it is permitted to act prudently/cunningly while here he says  it is forbidden. Said R. Idi, “Here it is a matter of a shevut while here there is liability for a sin-offering.  

Said R. Jose b. R. Bun: There, artifice is warranted to show compassion to the property of Israel; here, is  there any such loss justifying the use of an artifice?