שירת נשים - קול באשה ערוה?
1א
הדף מאת: דב חיון / מדרשת הכרמל - קהילת מוריה
2ב
עיון בסוגיית שירת נשים בהקשר התלמודי, שם היא עלתה לראשונה. נברר את המושג 'קול באשה ערוה' ואת משמעותו, ונבדוק את השאלה המרכזית - האם המקורות אוסרים על שירת נשים?
3ג
קול באשה ערוה
אמר רבי יצחק: טפח באשה ערווה [ערווה במשמעות של עירום, חוסר צניעות].
[התלמוד נושא ונותן במימרא זו ומסיק כי זהו איסור מצומצם בלבד:] אלא באשתו, ולקריאת שמע.
אמר רב חסדא: שוק באשה ערווה, שנאמר [ישעיהו מז, ב] "גלי שוק עברי נהרות", וכתיב [שם, פסוק ג] "תגל ערוותך וגם תראה חרפתך".
אמר שמואל: קול באשה ערווה, שנאמר [שיר השירים ב, יד] "כי קולך ערב ומראך נאווה".
אמר רב ששת: שער באשה ערווה, שנאמר [שם, ד, א] "שערך כעדר העזים".

הסברים
  • הסוגיה כאן היא ארוכה ועניינה היכן אין לומר קריאת שמע, כגון כאשר שני גברים או בני משפחה ישנים באותה מיטה או למשל כאשר בגדיו של גבר קרועים ואינם מכסים את מבושיו. הקטע כאן הוא המשכה של אותה סוגיה.
Because whatever offers more protection is preferable even at the cost of deprecation. And where under his head does he place them? Rabbi Yirmeya said: He places them between the pillow and the mattress, not directly aligned with his head but rather a bit to the side. The Gemara asks: Didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach a baraita that in that case he places them in a pouch used for phylacteries, directly under his head? The Gemara replies: He does so in a manner that the bulge in the pouch, where the phylacteries are, protrudes out and is not beneath his head. On this note, the Gemara relates that Bar Kappara would tie them in his bed curtain and project their bulge outward. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, would place them on a bench and spread a cloth over them. Rav Hamnuna, son of Rav Yosef, said: I was once standing before Rava and he told me: Go and bring me my phylacteries. And I found them in his bed, between the mattress and the pillow, not aligned with his head. And I knew that it was the day of his wife’s immersion in the ritual bath for purification from the ritual impurity of a menstruating woman, and he certainly engaged in marital relations in order to fulfill the mitzva, and he did so, he sent me to bring him his phylacteries, to teach us the practical halakha in that case. Rav Yosef, son of Rav Neḥunya, who raised a dilemma above, raised a dilemma before Rav Yehuda: Two individuals sleeping in a single bed, given that it was standard practice to sleep without clothing, what is the halakha; is it permissible for this one to turn his head aside and recite Shema and for that one turns his head and recites Shema; or is it prohibited because they are unclothed and are considered unfit to recite Shema even though they are covered with a blanket? He said to him: Shmuel said as follows: This is permitted even if his wife is in bed with him. Rav Yosef strongly objects to this response: You say that he is permitted to recite Shema in bed with his wife, and needless to say he is permitted to do so when in bed with another. On the contrary, since his wife is like his own flesh, and he will not have lustful thoughts of her, it is permitted; another is not like his own flesh and it is prohibited. The Gemara raises an objection to this from the resolution of an apparent contradiction between two baraitot. It was taught in one baraita: Two unclothed individuals who are sleeping in a single bed, this one turns his head aside and recites Shema and that one turns his head aside and recites Shema. And it was taught in another baraita: One who is sleeping in bed and his unclothed children and members of his household are beside him, may not recite Shema unless a garment separates between them. If his children and the members of his household were minors, it is permitted to recite Shema even without a garment separating between them. Granted, according to Rav Yosef, the apparent contradiction between the two baraitot is not difficult, as this baraita is referring to a case where his wife is in the bed with him, while this other baraita is referring to a case where another person is in bed with him and there is concern lest he will have lustful thoughts. However, according to Shmuel, who permits one to recite Shema regardless of who is in bed with him, it is indeed difficult. How would he interpret the baraita that prohibits? The Gemara replies: Shmuel could have said to you: And according to Rav Yosef’s opinion, does it work out well? Wasn’t it taught in that same baraita that one who is sleeping in bed and his children and members of his household are beside him, may not recite Shema unless a garment separates between them? Doesn’t Rav Yosef hold that his wife is like his own flesh and no separation is necessary? Rather, what have you to say in response? Rav Yosef holds that there is a tannaitic dispute in the case of one’s wife; I, too, hold that it is a tannaitic dispute, and I accept the ruling of one of the baraitot. The Gemara reverts to clarify something mentioned above. The Master said in a baraita: This one turns his head aside and recites Shema. The Gemara notes a difficulty: Aren’t there bare buttocks? This supports the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: Buttocks do not constitute nakedness. Let us say that the following mishna supports Rav Huna’s opinion: A woman sits and separates her ḥalla naked, despite the fact that she must recite a blessing over the separation of the ḥalla, because she can cover her face, a euphemism for her genitals, in the ground, but a male, whose genitals are not covered when he sits, may not do so. The mishna teaches that exposed buttocks do not constitute nakedness. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak interpreted the mishna as referring to a case where her face, genitals, was completely covered in the ground such that her posterior was covered by the ground. Therefore, proof for Rav Huna’s opinion cannot be brought from this mishna. The Master said in a baraita: If his children and the members of his household were minors, even though they are unclothed, it is permitted to recite Shema even without a garment separating between them. The Gemara asks: Until what age is one still considered a minor? Rav Ḥisda said: A girl until she is three years and one day old, and a boy until he is nine years and one day old, for these are the ages from which a sexual act in which they participate is considered a sexual act. Some say: A girl eleven years and one day old and a boy of twelve years and one day old, as that is the age at which they are considered adults in this regard. This age is only approximate, as the age of majority for both this, the boy, and that, the girl, is at the onset of puberty in accordance with the verse: “Your breasts were formed and your hair was grown” (Ezekiel 16:7). Rav Kahana said to Rav Ashi: There, with regard to the law of phylacteries, Rava said: Despite a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Shmuel, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. Here, what is the ruling? He said to him: Were all of them woven in the same act of weaving? Are there no distinctions between different cases? Rather, where it is stated, it is stated, and where it is not stated, it is not stated, and there is no comparison. Rav Mari said to Rav Pappa: Does it constitute nakedness if one’s pubic hair protruded from his garment? Rav Pappa said about him: A hair, a hair. You are splitting hairs and being pedantic over trivialities. Rabbi Yitzḥak stated: An exposed handbreadth in a woman constitutes nakedness. The Gemara asks: Regarding which halakha was this said? If you say that it comes to prohibit looking at an exposed handbreadth in her, didn’t Rav Sheshet say: Why did the verse enumerate “anklets and bracelets, rings, earrings and girdles” (Numbers 31:50), jewelry that is worn externally, over her clothing, e.g., bracelets, together with jewelry worn internally, beneath her clothing, near her nakedness, e.g., girdles? This was to tell you: Anyone who gazes upon a woman’s little finger is considered as if he gazed upon her naked genitals, for if his intentions are impure, it makes no difference where he looks or how much is exposed; even less than a handbreadth. Rather, it is referring even to his wife, with regard to the recitation of Shema. One may not recite Shema before an exposed handbreadth of his wife. Along these lines, Rav Ḥisda said: Even a woman’s exposed leg is considered nakedness, as it is stated: “Uncover the leg and pass through the rivers” (Isaiah 47:2), and it is written in the following verse: “Your nakedness shall be revealed and your shame shall be seen” (Isaiah 47:3). Shmuel further stated: A woman’s singing voice is considered nakedness, which he derives from the praise accorded a woman’s voice, as it is stated: “Sweet is your voice and your countenance is alluring” (Song of Songs 2:14). Similarly, Rav Sheshet stated: Even a woman’s hair is considered nakedness, for it too is praised, as it is written: “Your hair is like a flock of goats, trailing down from Mount Gilead” (Song of Songs 4:1). The Gemara resumes its discussion of phylacteries. Rabbi Ḥanina said: I saw Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hang his phylacteries. The Gemara raises an objection: It was taught in a baraita that one who hangs his phylacteries will have his life hang in the balance. Moreover, the Symbolic Interpreters of the Torah said that the verse: “And your life shall hang in doubt before you [minneged]” (Deuteronomy 28:66), that is the punishment of one who hangs his phylacteries. The Gemara replies: This apparent contradiction is not difficult, as this baraita, which condemns one who hangs his phylacteries, refers to one who hangs them by the strap, allowing the leather boxes into which the parchment is placed to dangle in a deprecating way, which is certainly prohibited. That baraita, which relates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would hang his phylacteries and that it is clearly permitted, refers to when one hangs them from the box with the straps dangling. And if you wish, say another explanation instead: There is no difference whether he hangs the phylacteries from the strap and there is no difference whether he hangs the phylacteries from the box; both are prohibited. And when Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hung his phylacteries, he hung them in their pouch. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose to relate that incident? The Gemara replies: Lest you say that phylacteries would require placement atop a surface, as is the custom with a Torah scroll. Therefore, it teaches us that this is unnecessary. Since Rabbi Ḥanina related a story involving Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the Gemara cites another such story. Rabbi Ḥanina said: I saw Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, while he was praying, belch, yawn, sneeze, spit,
4ד
דיון
  • האם ארבעת האמוראים מזכירים את קריאת שמע?
  • למה בדיוק מתייחס האמורא שמואל, לדעתכם?
  • 5ה
    אין לדבר עם אשה
    במסכת קידושין מובא סיפור ארוך על איש מהעיר נהרדעא שהגיע לבקר בעיר פומבדיתא והעליב את רב יהודה. רב יהודה הטיל עליו חרם והכריז עליו שהוא "עבד". האיש הזמין את רב יהודה לדין תורה אצל רב נחמן בנהרדעא. רב יהודה הלך לשם אבל מכיוון שהוא התנגד לכל העניין, הוא תקף כל דבר שרב נחמן אמר ועשה ובהרבה מקרים נעזר בדברי שמואל רבו. והרי המשך הסיפור בתרגום עברי:

    [רב נחמן:] שתבוא דונג בתי ותשקה אותנו?
    [רב יהודה:] כך אמר שמואל: אין משתמשים באשה.
    [רב נחמן:] קטנה היא!
    [רב יהודה:] בפירוש אמר שמואל: אין משתמשים באשה כלל, בין גדולה בין קטנה!
    [רב נחמן:] ישלח אדוני שלום לילתא [אשתי]?
    [רב יהודה:] כך אמר שמואל: קול באשה ערווה [כלומר, אסור לי לדבר איתה].
    [רב נחמן:] אפשר על ידי שליח!
    [רב יהודה:] כך אמר שמואל: אין שואלין בשלום אשה.
    [רב נחמן:] על ידי בעלה!
    [רב יהודה:] כך אמר שמואל: אין שואלין בשלום אשה כלל.
    [ואז אומרת ילתא לבעלה להגיע לעניין העיקרי כדי שרב יהודה יפסיק להעליב אותו.]

    הסברים
    • הסוגיה כאן אינה מתייחסת ישירות לדברי רב שמואל במסכת ברכות, אלא הוא מוזכר אגב הוויכוח של רב יהודה, תלמידו המובהק שמצטט ממנו כמעט 500 פעם בתלמוד הבבלי, אשר מסתמך על דבריו בוויכוח עם ר' נחמן. רב יהודה הבין את דברי שמואל "קול באשה ערווה" כאיסור גורף שלא לדבר עם אישה. הסבר זה מתאים למימרות אחרות בספרות התלמודית שיש להימנע משיחות עם נשים (משנה אבות א,ה; בבלי עירובין נג, ע"ב; נדרים כ, ע"א; חגיגה ה, ע"ב; סנהדרין עה, ע"א; ברכות מג, ע"ב למטה).
    she may not eat. § The mishna teaches that converts and emancipated slaves ascended from Babylonia. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rav Ḥisda says: As the verse states with regard to the eating of the Paschal offering upon the return to Eretz Yisrael: “And the children of Israel who had come back from the exile ate, and all such as had separated themselves to them from the impurity of the nations of the land to seek the Lord, the God of Israel, did eat” (Ezra 6:21), indicating that converts and emancipated slaves who had abandoned “the impurity of the nations of the land,” i.e., idolatry, joined Ezra. The mishna taught that mamzerim were among those who ascended from Babylonia. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And Sanballat the Horonite and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, heard” (Nehemiah 2:19), and elsewhere it is written with regard to Tobiah the Ammonite: “For there were many in Judah sworn to him because he was the son-in-law of Shecaniah the son of Arah; and his son Jehohanan had taken the daughter of Meshullam the son of Berechiah” (Nehemiah 6:18). The Gemara proceeds to explain: This tanna holds that in the case of a gentile or a slave who engaged in sexual intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a mamzer. Since Tobiah the Ammonite, a gentile, married a Jewish woman, as did his son, there were clearly mamzerim among those who ascended. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that in that case the offspring is a mamzer. But according to the one who says that the lineage of the offspring is unflawed and has the status of the mother, what can be said? And furthermore, from where is it clear that Jehohanan had offspring from this wife? Perhaps he did not have offspring, and it is possible that there were no mamzerim. And furthermore, even if they did have offspring, from where is it clear that they had offspring here, in Babylonia, who then ascended to Eretz Yisrael? Perhaps they were there, in Eretz Yisrael, all the time, as they may have been one of the families that was not exiled to Babylonia, and therefore they cannot be used as the proof that mamzerim ascended from Babylonia. Rather, the proof that mamzerim were among those who ascended from Babylonia is from here: “And these were they that ascended from Tel Melah, Tel Harsha, Cherub, Addon, and Immer; but they could not tell their fathers’ houses, nor their offspring, whether they were of Israel” (Nehemiah 7:61). The Gemara explains that these names are to be interpreted as follows: “Tel Melah”; these are people whose licentious actions were similar to the act of Sodom, which was turned into a mound of salt [tel melaḥ]. “Tel Harsha”; this is referring to one who calls a man father, and his mother silences him, as the word ḥarsha is similar to maḥarishto, meaning: Silences him. In any event, the statement that there were those who acted licentiously, as did the people of Sodom, means that there were mamzerim among them. The Gemara continues with its explication of the verse: “But they could not tell their fathers’ houses, nor their offspring, whether they were of Israel”; this is referring to a foundling who is gathered from the marketplace. Such a person does not even know if he is Jewish, as he has no knowledge of his parents. With regard to the names “Cherub, Addon, and Immer,” Rabbi Abbahu says that these terms should be expounded as follows: The Master [Adon], God, said: I said that the Jewish people shall be as important before Me as a cherub, but they made themselves impudent as a leopard [namer]. There are those who say a different version: Rabbi Abbahu said: The Master [Adon] said that although they made themselves as a leopard [namer], they are as important before Me as a cherub. § Explicating the same verse, Rabba bar bar Ḥana says: In the case of anyone who marries a woman who is not suited for him to marry due to her lineage, the verse ascribes him blame as though he plowed [ḥarash] all of the entire world and sowed it with salt [melaḥ], as it is stated with regard to those of flawed lineage who ascended from Babylonia: “And these were they that ascended from Tel Melah, Tel Harsha.” Rabba bar Rav Adda says that Rav says: In the case of anyone who marries a woman of flawed lineage only for the sake of money, he will have offspring who will act inappropriately, as it is stated: “They have dealt treacherously against the Lord, for they have begotten strange children; now shall the new moon devour them with their portions” (Hosea 5:7). Rabba bar Rav Adda explains the verse: And lest you say that at least the money that they received as dowry was spared, although they suffer from the acts of their offspring, the verse states: “Now shall the new moon devour them with their portions,” meaning their property shall be consumed in a single month. And lest you say his portion will be lost but not the portion of his wife, the verse states “their portions” in the plural. And lest you say this will occur after a long time, but in the interim he will benefit from the money, the verse states: “The new moon.” The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that their money will be lost immediately? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: A month comes and a month goes, and their money is already lost. In any event, the fact that the punishment they receive is the loss of their portions indicates that the sin in this case was marrying for the sake of money. And Rabba bar Rav Adda says, and some say Rabbi Salla says that Rav Hamnuna says: In the case of anyone who marries a woman who is not suited for him to marry due to her lineage, Elijah binds him in the manner that those liable to receive lashes are bound, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, straps him. And a Sage taught: Concerning all of them, Elijah writes and the Holy One, Blessed be He, signs the following: Woe to he who disqualifies his offspring, and who brings a flaw to his family lineage, and who marries a woman who is not halakhically suited for him to marry. Elijah binds him and the Holy One, Blessed be He, straps him. He further said: And anyone who disqualifies others by stating that their lineage is flawed, that is a sign that he himself is of flawed lineage. Another indication that one’s lineage is flawed is that he never speaks in praise of others. And Shmuel says: If one habitually claims that others are flawed, he disqualifies himself with his own flaw. The flaw he accuses them of having is in fact the one that he has. § The Gemara recounts a related incident: There was a certain man from Neharde’a who entered a butcher shop in Pumbedita. He said to them: Give me meat. They said to him: Wait until the servant of Rav Yehuda bar Yeḥezkel has taken his meat, and then we will give it to you. The man said to them in anger: Who is this Yehuda bar Sheviske’el, a derogatory name for a glutton for meat, that he should precede me, that he should take before me? They went and told Rav Yehuda what the man had said. Rav Yehuda excommunicated him, in accordance with the halakha of one who disparages a Torah scholar. They also said to him that the same man was in the habit of calling people slaves. Rav Yehuda proclaimed about him that he is a slave and may not marry a Jew. The Gemara continues the story: That man went and summoned Rav Yehuda to judgment before Rav Naḥman, who was a judge in Neharde’a. When the summons arrived in Pumbedita, Rav Yehuda went before Rav Huna to seek his council. Rav Yehuda said to him: Should I go or should I not go? Rav Huna said to him: As for the obligation to go, you are not required to go, since you are a great man and therefore are not under the jurisdiction of Rav Naḥman’s court. But due to the honor of the Exilarch’s house, as Rav Naḥman was the son-in-law of the Exilarch, get up and go. Rav Yehuda arrived in Neharde’a and found Rav Naḥman constructing a parapet. Rav Yehuda said to Rav Naḥman: Does the Master not hold in accordance with that halakha that Rav Huna bar Idi says that Shmuel says: Once a person has been appointed a leader of the community, he is prohibited from performing labor before three people, so that he not belittle the honor of his position? Rav Naḥman said to him: It is merely a little fence [gundarita] that I am constructing. Rav Yehuda said to him: Is the term ma’akeh, which is written in the Torah, or the corresponding term meḥitza, which the Sages said, distasteful to you? Why do you use a term that is used by neither the Torah nor the Sages? During their meeting, Rav Naḥman said to him: Let the Master sit on the bench [karfita]. Rav Yehuda said to him: Is the term safsal, which the Sages said, or the word itzteva, which common people say, distasteful to you? Why are you using uncommon terms? Rav Naḥman then said to him: Let the Master eat a citron [etronga]. Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel said: Anyone who says etronga demonstrates one-third of a haughtiness of spirit. Why? He should either say etrog, as the Sages called it, or etroga, as common people say in Aramaic. Saying etronga is a sign of snobbery, as it was employed by the aristocratic class. He subsequently said to him: Let the Master drink a cup [anbaga] of wine. Rav Yehuda said to him: Is the term ispargus, as the Sages called it, or anpak, as common people say, distasteful to you? Later on, Rav Naḥman said to him: Let my daughter Donag come and pour us drinks. Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: One may not make use of a woman for a service such as this. Rav Naḥman replied: She is a minor. Rav Yehuda retorted: Shmuel explicitly says: One may not make use of a woman at all, whether she is an adult or a minor. Later on, Rav Naḥman suggested: Let the Master send greetings of peace to my wife Yalta. Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: A woman’s voice is considered nakedness, and one may not speak with her. Rav Naḥman responded: It is possible to send your regards with a messenger. Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: One may not send greetings to a woman even with a messenger, as this may cause the messenger and the woman to relate to each other inappropriately. Rav Naḥman countered by suggesting that he send his greetings with her husband, which would remove all concerns. Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: One may not send greetings to a woman at all. Yalta, his wife, who overheard that Rav Yehuda was getting the better of the exchange, sent a message to him: Release him and conclude your business with him, so that he not equate you with another ignoramus. Desiring to release Rav Yehuda, Rav Naḥman said to him: What is the reason that the Master is here? Rav Yehuda said to him: The Master sent me a summons. Rav Naḥman said to him: Now that I have not even learned the Master’s form of speech, as you have demonstrated your superiority to me by reproving me even over such matters, could I have sent a summons to the Master? Rav Yehuda removed the summons from his bosom and showed it to him. While doing so, Rav Yehuda said to him: Here is the man and here is the document. Rav Naḥman said to him: Since the Master has come here, let him present his statement, in order that people should not say: The Sages flatter one another and do not judge each other according to the letter of the law. Rav Naḥman commenced the deliberation, and said to him: What is the reason that the Master excommunicated that man? Rav Yehuda replied: He caused discomfort to an agent of one of the Sages, and therefore he deserved the punishment of one who causes discomfort to a Torah scholar. Rav Naḥman challenged this answer: If so, let the Master flog him, as Rav would flog one who causes discomfort to an agent of the Sages. Rav Yehuda responded: I punished him more severely than that. Rabbi Yehuda held that excommunication is a more severe punishment than flogging. Rav Naḥman further inquired: What is the reason that the Master proclaimed about him that he is a slave? Rav Yehuda said to him: Because he is in the habit of calling people slaves, and it is taught: Anyone who disqualifies others by stating that their lineage is flawed, that is a sign that he himself is of flawed lineage. Another indication of his lineage being flawed is that he never speaks in praise of others. And Shmuel said: He disqualifies with his own flaw. Rav Naḥman retorted: You can say that Shmuel said this halakha only to the degree that one should suspect him of being of flawed lineage. But did he actually say this to the extent that one could proclaim about him that he is of flawed lineage? The Gemara continues the story: Meanwhile, that litigant arrived from Neharde’a. That litigant said to Rav Yehuda: You call me a slave? I, who come from the house of the Hasmonean kings? Rav Yehuda said to him: This is what Shmuel says: Anyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmonean kings, is a slave. As will be explained, only slaves remained of their descendants. Rav Naḥman, who heard this exchange, said to Rav Yehuda: Does the Master not hold in accordance with this halakha that Rabbi Abba says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: With regard to any Torah scholar who proceeds to teach a ruling of halakha with regard to a particular issue, if he said it before an action that concerns himself occurred, they should listen to him, and his ruling is accepted. But if not, if he quoted the halakha only after he was involved in an incident related to the halakha he is quoting, they do not listen to him, due to his personal involvement? Your testimony with regard to what Shmuel ruled should be ignored, as you stated it only after the incident. Rav Yehuda said to Rav Naḥman: There is Rav Mattana, who stands by my report, since he has also heard this ruling of Shmuel. The Gemara continues: Rav Mattana had not seen the city of Neharde’a for thirteen years. That very day he arrived. Rav Yehuda said to him: Does the Master remember what Shmuel said when he was standing with one foot on the bank and one foot on the ferry? Rav Mattana said to him: This is what Shmuel said at that time: Anyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmonean kings, is a slave, as none remained of them except for that young girl who ascended to the roof and raised her voice and said: From now on, anyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmonean kings, is a slave. Other than this girl, the only members of the family who remained were descendants of Herod, and he was an Edomite slave. The girl then fell from the roof and died, leaving only slaves from the Hasmoneans. With the confirmation of the report of the statement of Shmuel, they also publicized in Neharde’a about him, i.e., that man who claimed to come from the Hasmonean kings, that he was a slave. The Gemara relates: On that day, several marriage contracts were torn up in Neharde’a, as many had their marriages annulled after having discovered that they had married slaves. When Rav Yehuda was leaving Neharde’a, they pursued him, seeking to stone him, as because of him it was publicized that their lineage was flawed. Rav Yehuda said to them: If you are silent, remain silent. And if you will not remain silent, I will reveal about you this statement that Shmuel said: There are two lines of offspring in Neharde’a. One is called the dove’s house, and one is called the raven’s house. And your mnemonic with regard to lineage is: The impure bird, the raven, is impure, meaning flawed, and the pure one, the dove, is pure, meaning unflawed. Upon hearing this, they threw all those stones that they were intending to stone him with from their hands, as they did not want him to reveal who had a flawed lineage. And as a result of all of the stones thrown into the river, a dam arose in the Malka River. § The Gemara continues the discussion of those with a flawed lineage: Rav Yehuda proclaimed in Pumbedita: Adda and Yonatan, known residents of that town, are slaves; Yehuda bar Pappa is a mamzer; Bati bar Tuviyya, in his arrogance, did not accept a bill of manumission and is still a slave. Rava proclaimed in his city of Meḥoza: Balla’ai, Danna’ai, Talla’ai, Malla’ai, Zagga’ai: All these families are of flawed lineage. Rav Yehuda likewise says: Gova’ai, the inhabitants of a place called Gova, are in fact Gibeonites, and their name has been corrupted. Similarly, those people known as Dorenunita are from the village of Gibeonites, and they may not marry Jews with unflawed lineage. Rav Yosef says: With regard to this place called Bei Kuvei of Pumbedita, its residents are all descendants of slaves. Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: Four hundred slaves, and some say four thousand slaves, were owned by Pashḥur ben Immer, a priest in the time of Jeremiah, and due to their greatness they were assimilated into the priesthood and became known as priests. And any priest who has the trait of insolence is only from them. Abaye said: They all sit in the rows of honor that are in the city of Neharde’a. The Gemara comments: And this statement disagrees with the statement of Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: If you see an insolent priest, do not speculate about him that he may be of flawed lineage, since it is stated: “For your people are as those who strive with a priest” (Hosea 4:4), which indicates that priests had a reputation for being cantankerous. § The Gemara discusses an idea raised earlier. Rabbi Avin bar Rav Adda says that Rav says: Concerning anyone who marries a woman who is not suited for him to marry, when the Holy One, Blessed be He, rests His Divine Presence upon the Jewish people, He testifies with regard to all the tribes that they are His people, but He does not testify with regard to he who married improperly, as it is stated: “The tribes of the Lord, as a testimony to Israel” (Psalms 122:4). When is it a testimony to Israel? When the tribes are the tribes of the Lord, but not when their lineage is flawed. Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, rests His Divine Presence, He rests it only upon families of unflawed lineage among Israel, as it is stated: “At that time, says the Lord, will I be the God of all the families of Israel” (Jeremiah 30:25). Of all Israel, is not stated, but “of all the families,” which includes only those of unflawed lineage, the renowned families of Israel. The verse from Jeremiah ends with the words “And they shall be my people.” Rabba bar Rav Huna says: This is a higher standard that differentiates between those born as Jews and converts, as with regard to those born as Jews it is written about them: “And I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Ezekiel 37:27), whereas with regard to converts it is written: “For who is he that has pledged his heart to approach unto Me? says the Lord. And you shall be My people, and I will be your God” (Jeremiah 30:21–22). This teaches that converts are not drawn close to God, as indicated by the words “And I will be your God,” until they first draw themselves near to God, as indicated by the subsequent phrase “And you shall be my people.” Rabbi Ḥelbo says: Converts are as difficult for the Jewish people as a scab. The proof is that it is stated: “And the convert shall join himself with them, and they shall cleave [venispeḥu] to the house of Jacob” (Isaiah 14:1). It is written here “venispeḥu,” and it is written there, among the types of leprosy: “And for a sore and for a scab [sappaḥat]” (Leviticus 14:56). The use of a term with a similar root indicates that converts are like a scab for the Jewish people. Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina says: When the Holy One, Blessed be He,
    6ו
    דיון
  • האם לדעתכם רב שמואל התכוון לאסור זמרת אשה או רק דיבור עם אשה?
  • האם מכאן נלמד שלגבר אסור כלל לדבר עם אשה?
  • 7ז
    תלמוד ירושלמי, מסכת חלה, פרק ב, דף נח טור ג / ה"א
    הלכה ד': הדא אמרה עגבות אין בהן משום ערוה. הדא דאת אמרה לברכה אבל להביט אפילו כל שהוא אסור. כהדא דתני, המסתכל בעקיבה של אשה כמסתכל בבית הרחם, והמסתכל בבית הרחם כילו בא עליה. שמואל אמר קול באשה ערוה מה טעם? 'והיה מקול זנותה ותחנף הארץ' וגו'

    הסברים
    • על פי התורה (במדבר טו, יז-כא)בעת אפיית כיכר לחם או עוגה יש להפריש מהבצק חלק קטן הנמסר לכהן ונקרא 'הפרשת חלה'. היום באין מקדש מפרישים חלה ושורפים את התרומה לאחר אמירת ברכה.
      המשנה במסכת חלה (ב, ג) אומרת שאשה יכולה להפריש חלה ולברך גם כשהיא ערומה, מכיוון שהיא יכולה לכסות את עצמה. התלמוד הירושלמי מעיר (בתרגום): זאת אומרת שעגביה אין בהן משום ערווה. זה שאתה אמרת לעניין ברכה על החלה, אבל להביט עליה, אפילו כל שהוא אסור. כמו ששנינו: "המסתכל בעקיבה של אשה כמסתכל בבית הרחם, והמסתכל בבית הרחם כאילו בא עליה". שמואל אמר: קול באשה ערווה. מה טעם? "והיה מקול זנותה ותחנף הארץ" [ירמיהו ג':ט'].
    • כלומר, בפעם השלישית מצוטטים דברי שמואל אגב דיון אחר בסוגיה תלמודית. הוא לא היה חלק מהדיון הזה ודבריו אינם קשורים ישירות לנושא הסוגיה, שהוא האם אשה ערומה יכולה להפריש חלה. שוב, אין זה ברור מה התכוון שמואל לומר לכתחילה, אבל אין שום רמז שהוא מתייחס לקול זמרה של אשה; סביר יותר להניח שהוא מתייחס לקול דיבורה.
    8ח
    דיון
  • האם לדעתכם הדברים נאמרים כהלכה או כאגדה?
  • אילו היינו צריכים לפסוק הלכה על פי שלוש הסוגיות הנ"ל מהתלמודים, באיזה הקשר היינו מבינים את דברי שמואל והאם היינו יכולים להסיק מהם לעניין שירת נשים?
  • 10 י
    11יא