1. Hebrew Bible, Song of Songs, 1.16, 3.1, 5.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Abba Ḥannin • Shimon ben Abba, Rabbi • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Influence on Divine Realms • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Soul of • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Suffering of
Found in books: Fishbane (2003) 176, 322, 365; Kaplan (2015) 166, 167; Poorthuis Schwartz and Turner (2009) 74
1.16. הִנְּךָ יָפֶה דוֹדִי אַף נָעִים אַף־עַרְשֵׂנוּ רַעֲנָנָה׃
3.1. עַל־מִשְׁכָּבִי בַּלֵּילוֹת בִּקַּשְׁתִּי אֵת שֶׁאָהֲבָה נַפְשִׁי בִּקַּשְׁתִּיו וְלֹא מְצָאתִיו׃
3.1. עַמּוּדָיו עָשָׂה כֶסֶף רְפִידָתוֹ זָהָב מֶרְכָּבוֹ אַרְגָּמָן תּוֹכוֹ רָצוּף אַהֲבָה מִבְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם׃
5.2. אֲנִי יְשֵׁנָה וְלִבִּי עֵר קוֹל דּוֹדִי דוֹפֵק פִּתְחִי־לִי אֲחֹתִי רַעְיָתִי יוֹנָתִי תַמָּתִי שֶׁרֹּאשִׁי נִמְלָא־טָל קְוֻּצּוֹתַי רְסִיסֵי לָיְלָה׃''. None | 1.16. Behold, thou art fair, my beloved, yea, pleasant; Also our couch is leafy.
3.1. By night on my bed I sought him whom my soul loveth; I sought him, but I found him not.
5.2. I sleep, but my heart waketh; Hark! my beloved knocketh: ‘Open to me, my sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled; For my head is filled with dew, My locks with the drops of the night.’''. None |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 32.18 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Abba Hilkia • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Huna b. R. Ḥanina (R.) • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Influence on Divine Realms • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Intercession of • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Righteous among • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Suffering of • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Wicked among
Found in books: Fishbane (2003) 181, 182, 188, 189, 363, 380, 384; Ruzer (2020) 85
32.18. צוּר יְלָדְךָ תֶּשִׁי וַתִּשְׁכַּח אֵל מְחֹלְלֶךָ׃''. None | 32.18. of the Rock that begot thee thou wast unmindful, And didst forget God that bore thee. .''. None |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 12.11, 13.21, 30.10, 30.12 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Abba Tachanah • Abba Ḥannin • Or, Abba • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Influence on Divine Realms • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Intercession of • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Righteous among • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Wicked among
Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 237; Cain (2016) 154; Fishbane (2003) 185, 339, 373; Kaplan (2015) 166, 167
12.11. וְכָכָה תֹּאכְלוּ אֹתוֹ מָתְנֵיכֶם חֲגֻרִים נַעֲלֵיכֶם בְּרַגְלֵיכֶם וּמַקֶּלְכֶם בְּיֶדְכֶם וַאֲכַלְתֶּם אֹתוֹ בְּחִפָּזוֹן פֶּסַח הוּא לַיהוָה׃
13.21. וַיהוָה הֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם יוֹמָם בְּעַמּוּד עָנָן לַנְחֹתָם הַדֶּרֶךְ וְלַיְלָה בְּעַמּוּד אֵשׁ לְהָאִיר לָהֶם לָלֶכֶת יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה׃' '
30.12. כִּי תִשָּׂא אֶת־רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְקֻדֵיהֶם וְנָתְנוּ אִישׁ כֹּפֶר נַפְשׁוֹ לַיהוָה בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם וְלֹא־יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם׃''. None | 12.11. And thus shall ye eat it: with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste—it is the LORD’s passover.
13.21. And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; that they might go by day and by night:
30.10. And Aaron shall make atonement upon the horns of it once in the year; with the blood of the sin-offering of atonement once in the year shall he make atonement for it throughout your generations; it is most holy unto the LORD.’
30.12. ’When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel, according to their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.''. None |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 1.26, 33.18 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Abba • Abba Tachanah • Or, Abba • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Influence on Divine Realms • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Righteous among
Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 239; Cain (2016) 197; Fishbane (2003) 342; Ruzer (2020) 86
1.26. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל־הָאָרֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל־הָאָרֶץ׃
33.18. וַיָּבֹא יַעֲקֹב שָׁלֵם עִיר שְׁכֶם אֲשֶׁר בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן בְּבֹאוֹ מִפַּדַּן אֲרָם וַיִּחַן אֶת־פְּנֵי הָעִיר׃''. None | 1.26. And God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’
33.18. And Jacob came in peace to the city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Paddan-aram; and encamped before the city.''. None |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 74.19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Daniel, Abba • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Suffering of
Found in books: Cain (2016) 155; Fishbane (2003) 66
74.19. אַל־תִּתֵּן לְחַיַּת נֶפֶשׁ תּוֹרֶךָ חַיַּת עֲנִיֶּיךָ אַל־תִּשְׁכַּח לָנֶצַח׃''. None | 74.19. O deliver not the soul of Thy turtle-dove unto the wild beast; Forget not the life of Thy poor for ever.''. None |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Daniel, 7.13 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Abba • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Influence on Divine Realms
Found in books: Fishbane (2003) 86; Ruzer (2020) 86
7.13. חָזֵה הֲוֵית בְּחֶזְוֵי לֵילְיָא וַאֲרוּ עִם־עֲנָנֵי שְׁמַיָּא כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ אָתֵה הֲוָה וְעַד־עַתִּיק יוֹמַיָּא מְטָה וּקְדָמוֹהִי הַקְרְבוּהִי׃''. None | 7.13. I saw in the night visions, And, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven One like unto a son of man, And he came even to the Ancient of days, And he was brought near before Him.''. None |
|
7. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Abba Yudan of Sidon • Hiyya Bar Abba
Found in books: Lavee (2017) 281, 282; Porton (1988) 161
|
8. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Abba Yudan of Sidon • R. hiyya bar Abba
Found in books: Levine (2005) 458; Porton (1988) 158, 162
|
9. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 33.3 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Abba Benjamin • R. hiyya bar Abba • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Influence on Divine Realms • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Righteous among • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Wicked among
Found in books: Fishbane (2003) 100, 125, 183; Levine (2005) 486, 495
33.3. טוֹב ה' לַכֹּל וְרַחֲמָיו עַל כָּל מַעֲשָׂיו (תהלים קמה, ט), אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי טוֹב ה' לַכֹּל, עַל הַכֹּל, שֶׁהוּא מַעֲשָׂיו. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל טוֹב ה' לַכֹּל וְרַחֲמָיו עַל הַכֹּל שֶׁהֵן מִדּוֹתָיו הוּא מְרַחֵם. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּסִכְנִין בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר טוֹב ה' לַכֹּל, וּמֵרַחֲמָיו הוּא נוֹתֵן לִבְרִיּוֹתָיו. רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא וְרַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר אָבִין בְּשֵׁם רַב אַחָא לְמָחָר שְׁנַת בַּצֹּרֶת בָּאָה וְהַבְּרִיּוֹת מְרַחֲמִין אֵלּוּ עַל אֵלּוּ, וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִתְמַלֵּא עֲלֵיהֶן רַחֲמִים. בְּיוֹמֵי דְּרַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא הָיוּ צְרִיכִין יִשְׂרָאֵל לְתַעֲנִית, אָתוֹן לְגַבֵּיהּ אָמְרִין לֵיהּ רַבִּי גְּזָר תַּעֲנִיתָא, גָּזַר תַּעֲנִיתָא יוֹם קַדְמָאי יוֹם ב' יוֹם ג' וְלָא נְחַת מִטְרָא, עָאל וְדָרַשׁ לְהוֹן אֲמַר לְהוֹן בָּנַי הִתְמַלְּאוּ רַחֲמִים אֵלּוּ עַל אֵלּוּ וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִתְמַלֵּא עֲלֵיכֶם רַחֲמִים. עַד שֶׁהֵן מְחַלְּקִין צְדָקָה לַעֲנִיֵּיהֶם רָאוּ אָדָם אֶחָד נוֹתֵן מָעוֹת לִגְרוּשָׁתוֹ, אָתוֹן לְגַבֵּיהּ וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ, רַבִּי מָה אֲנַן יָתְבִין הָכָא וַעֲבֵרְתָּא הָכָא. אֲמַר לָהֶן מָה רְאִיתֶם, אָמְרוּ לוֹ רָאִינוּ אָדָם פְּלוֹנִי נוֹתֵן מָעוֹת לִגְרוּשָׁתוֹ, שְׁלַח בַּתְרֵיהוֹן וְאַיְיתִינוֹן לְגוֹ צִבּוּרָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ מָה הִיא לָךְ זוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ גְּרוּשָׁתִי הִיא. אָמַר לוֹ מִפְּנֵי מָה נָתַתָּ לָהּ מָעוֹת, אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי רָאִיתִי אוֹתָהּ בְּצָרָה וְהִתְמַלֵּאתִי עָלֶיהָ רַחֲמִים. בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה הִגְבִּיהַּ רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא פָּנָיו כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וְאָמַר רִבּוֹן כָּל הָעוֹלָמִים מָה אִם זֶה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ עָלָיו מְזוֹנוֹת רָאָה אוֹתָהּ בְּצָרָה וְנִתְמַלֵּא עָלֶיהָ רַחֲמִים, אַתָּה שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּךָ (תהלים קמה, ח): חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם, וְאָנוּ בְּנֵי יְדִידֶיךָ בְּנֵי אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁתִּתְמַלֵּא עָלֵינוּ רַחֲמִים, מִיָּד יָרְדוּ גְּשָׁמִים וְנִתְרַוָּה הָעוֹלָם. רַבֵּנוּ הֲוָה יָתֵיב לָעֵי בְּאוֹרַיְתָא קַמֵּי כְּנִשְׁתָּא דְּבַבְלָאי בְּצִפּוֹרִין, עֲבַר חַד עֵגֶל קוֹדָמוֹי, אָזֵל לְמִתְנְכָסָה וְשָׁרֵי גָּעֵי כְּמֵימַר שֵׁיזִבְנִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וּמָה אֲנִי יָכוֹל לְמֶעְבַּד לָךְ לְכָךְ נוֹצַרְתָּ, וְחָשַׁשׁ רַבִּי אֶת שִׁנָּיו שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין כָּל אוֹתָן שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה שֶׁהָיָה חוֹשֵׁשׁ רַבִּי אֶת שִׁנָּיו, לֹא הִפִּילָה עֻבָּרָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְלֹא נִצְטַעֲרוּ הַיּוֹלְדוֹת, בָּתַר יוֹמִין עֲבַר חַד שֶׁרֶץ קַמֵּי בְּרַתֵּיהּ וּבְעָא לְמִקְטְלָא, אֲמַר לָהּ בְּרַתִּי שַׁבְקֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: וְרַחֲמָיו עַל כָּל מַעֲשָׂיו. רַבֵּנוּ הֲוָה עִנְוָתָן סַגֵּי, וַהֲוָה אֲמַר כָּל מַה דְּיֹאמַר לִי בַּר נַשׁ אֲנָא עָבֵיד חוּץ מִמַּה שֶּׁעָשׂוּ בְּנֵי בְתֵירָא לִזְקֵנִי, שֶׁיָּרְדוּ מִגְדֻלָּתָן וְהֶעֱלוּ אוֹתוֹ, וְאִין סָלֵיק רַב הוּנָא רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא לְהָכָא, אֲנָא קָאֵים לִי מִן קֳדָמוֹהִי, לָמָּה דְּהוּא מִן יְהוּדָה וַאֲנָא מִן בִּנְיָמִין, וְהוּא מִן דִּכְרַיָא דִּיהוּדָה וַאֲנָא מִן נֻקְבְתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה וַהֲרֵי הוּא עוֹמֵד בַּחוּץ, נִתְכַּרְכְּמוּ פָּנָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי וְכֵיוָן שֶׁרָאָה שֶׁנִּתְכַּרְכְּמוּ פָּנָיו אָמַר לוֹ אֲרוֹנוֹ הוּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ פּוֹק חֲזֵי מַאן בָּעֵי לָךְ לְבָרָא, נָפַק וְלָא אַשְׁכַּח בַּר נָשׁ, וְיָדַע דְּהוּא נָזוּף וְאֵין נְזִיפָה פְּחוּתָה מִשְּׁלשִׁים יוֹם. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי אָבִין כָּל אוֹתָן שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה נָזוּף מֵרַבֵּנוּ, אַלֵּיף לְרַב בַּר אֲחָתֵיהּ כָּל כְּלָלֵי דְאוֹרַיְתָא, וְאִלֵּין אִינוּן כְּלָלַיָיא דְאוֹרַיְתָא הִלְכְתָא דְּבַבְלָאֵי. לְסוֹף תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין אָתָא אֵלִיָּהוּ זָכוּר לַטּוֹב בִּדְמוּתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה אֵצֶל רַבֵּנוּ וִיְהַב יְדֵיהּ עַל שִׁנֵּיהּ וְאִתְּסֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּאָתָא רַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה לְגַבֵּי רַבֵּנוּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָה עֲבַדְתְּ בְּשִׁנָּךְ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מִן עוֹנָתָא דִּיהַבְתְּ יְדָךְ עִלּוֹהִי אִתְנְשֵׁימַת, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לֵית אֲנָא הֲוָה יָדַע מָה הוּא. כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁמַע כֵּן שָׁרֵי נָהֵיג בֵּיהּ יְקָרָא, וְקָרַב תַּלְמִידִים וּמְעַיֵּיל לֵיהּ מִלְּגַאו. אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְלִפְנִים מִמֶּנִּי, אָמַר לֵיהּ חַס וְשָׁלוֹם לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה כֵן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. רַבֵּנוּ הֲוָה מְתַנֵּי שִׁבְחֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אָמַר לֵיהּ אָדָם גָּדוֹל, אָדָם קָדוֹשׁ. חַד זְמַן חֲמִיתֵיהּ בֵּי בָנֵי וְלָא אִתְכְּנַע מִנֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַהוּא תַּלְמִידָךְ דַּהֲוַת מִשְׁתַּבַּח בֵּיהּ חֲמִיתֵּיהּ בֵּי בָנֵי וְלָא אִתְכְּנַע מִנָּאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָמָּה לָא אִתְכְּנָעַת מִנֵּיהּ, אָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּא מִסְתַּכֵּל הָיִיתִי בְּאַגָּדַת תְּהִלִּים, כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁמַע כֵּן מְסַר לֵיהּ תְּרֵין תַּלְמִידוֹי וַהֲווֹ עָיְילִין עִמֵּיהּ לַאֲשׁוּנָה, דְּלָא יִשְׁהֵי וְתִזְעַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ. דָּבָר אַחֵר, טוֹב ה' לַכֹּל וגו', וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ וגו', אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמֵנִי אוֹי לָהֶם לָרְשָׁעִים שֶׁהֵם הוֹפְכִים מִדַּת רַחֲמִים לְמִדַּת הַדִין, בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ה', מִדַּת רַחֲמִים, (שמות לד, ו): ה' ה' אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן, וּכְתִיב (בראשית ו, ה): וַיַּרְא ה' כִּי רַבָּה רָעַת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ, (בראשית ו, ו): וַיִּנָּחֶם ה' כִּי עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם (בראשית ו, ז): וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶמְחֶה וגו', אַשְׁרֵיהֶם הַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁהֵן הוֹפְכִים מִדַּת הַדִּין לְמִדַּת רַחֲמִים. בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֱלֹהִים הוּא מִדַּת הַדִּין (שמות כב, כז): אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְקַלֵּל, (שמות כב, ח): עַד הָאֱלֹהִים יָבֹא דְּבַר שְׁנֵיהֶם, וּכְתִיב (שמות ב, כד): וַיִּשְׁמַע אֱלֹהִים אֶת נַאֲקָתָם וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת בְּרִיתוֹ וגו' (בראשית ל, כב): וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת רָחֵל וגו', וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ, מַה זְּכִירָה נִזְכַּר לוֹ שֶׁזָּן וּפִרְנֵס אוֹתָם כָּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ בַּתֵּבָה, וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ, וְהַדִּין נוֹתֵן מִזְּכוּת הַטְּהוֹרִים שֶׁהִכְנִיס עִמּוֹ בַּתֵּבָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר לְשֵׁם קָרְבָּנוֹ נִקְרָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ח, כא): וַיָּרַח ה' אֶת רֵיחַ הַנִּיחֹחַ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא לְשֵׁם נַחַת הַתֵּבָה נִקְרָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ח, ד): וַתָּנַח הַתֵּבָה בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי וגו'. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר (בראשית ח, כב): לֹא יִשְׁבֹּתוּ, מִכְּלַל שֶׁשָּׁבָתוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֹא שִׁמְשׁוּ מַזָּלוֹת כָּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, אָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן שִׁמְשׁוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹא הָיָה רִשּׁוּמָן נִכָּר."". None | 33.3. " |
|
10. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Abba bar Nathan • Hiyya Bar Abba • Hiyya bar Abba
Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 98; Lavee (2017) 123
|
11. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Abba Arekha • Hiyya Bar Abba
Found in books: Lavee (2017) 37, 244, 278; Sigal (2007) 72
47b. (במדבר יח, כח) מכל מעשרותיכם תרימו ומה ראית האי אידגן והאי לא אידגן:,מעשר שני והקדש שנפדו: פשיטא הב"ע כגון שנתן את הקרן ולא נתן את החומש והא קמ"ל דאין חומש מעכב:,השמש שאכל כזית: פשיטא מהו דתימא שמש לא קבע קמ"ל:,והכותי מזמנין עליו: אמאי לא יהא אלא עם הארץ ותניא אין מזמנין על ע"ה,אביי אמר בכותי חבר רבא אמר אפילו תימא בכותי ע"ה והכא בע"ה דרבנן דפליגי עליה דר\' מאיר עסקינן דתניא איזהו ע"ה כל שאינו אוכל חוליו בטהרה דברי ר"מ וחכמים אומרים כל שאינו מעשר פירותיו כראוי והני כותאי עשורי מעשרי כדחזי דבמאי דכתיב באורייתא מזהר זהירי דאמר מר כל מצוה שהחזיקו בה כותים הרבה מדקדקין בה יותר מישראל,ת"ר איזהו ע"ה כל שאינו קורא ק"ש ערבית ושחרית דברי ר\' אליעזר רבי יהושע אומר כל שאינו מניח תפילין בן עזאי אומר כל שאין לו ציצית בבגדו ר\' נתן אומר כל שאין מזוזה על פתחו ר\' נתן בר יוסף אומר כל שיש לו בנים ואינו מגדלם לת"ת אחרים אומרים אפי\' קרא ושנה ולא שמש ת"ח הרי זה ע"ה א"ר הונא הלכה כאחרים,רמי בר חמא לא אזמין עליה דרב מנשיא בר תחליפא דתני ספרא וספרי והלכתא כי נח נפשיה דרמי בר חמא אמר רבא לא נח נפשיה דרמי בר חמא אלא דלא אזמין ארב מנשיא בר תחליפא והתניא אחרים אומרים אפילו קרא ושנה ולא שמש ת"ח הרי זה ע"ה שאני רב מנשיא בר תחליפא דמשמע להו לרבנן ורמי בר חמא הוא דלא דק אבתריה ל"א דשמע שמעתתא מפומייהו דרבנן וגריס להו כצורבא מרבנן דמי:,אכל טבל ומעשר וכו\': טבל פשיטא לא צריכא בטבל טבול מדרבנן ה"ד בעציץ שאינו נקוב:,מעשר ראשון כו\': פשיטא לא צריכא כגון שהקדימו בכרי מהו דתימא כדאמר ליה רב פפא לאביי קמ"ל כדשני ליה:,מעשר שני וכו\': פשיטא לא צריכא שנפדו ולא נפדו כהלכתן מעשר שני כגון שפדאו על גבי אסימון ורחמנא אמר (דברים יד, כה) וצרת הכסף בידך כסף שיש (לו) עליו צורה הקדש שחללו על גבי קרקע ולא פדאו בכסף ורחמנא אמר (ויקרא כז, יט) ונתן הכסף וקם לו:,והשמש שאכל פחות מכזית: פשיטא איידי דתנא רישא כזית תנא סיפא פחות מכזית:,והנכרי אין מזמנין עליו: פשיטא הכא במאי עסקינן בגר שמל ולא טבל דאמר רבי זירא א"ר יוחנן לעולם אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול וכמה דלא טבל נכרי הוא:,נשים ועבדים וקטנים אין מזמנין עליהן: אמר רבי יוסי קטן המוטל בעריסה מזמנין עליו,והא תנן נשים ועבדים וקטנים אין מזמנין עליהם,הוא דאמר כרבי יהושע בן לוי דאמר ריב"ל אף על פי שאמרו קטן המוטל בעריסה אין מזמנין עליו אבל עושין אותו סניף לעשרה,ואמר ריב"ל תשעה ועבד מצטרפין מיתיבי מעשה ברבי אליעזר שנכנס לבית הכנסת ולא מצא עשרה ושחרר עבדו והשלימו לעשרה שחרר אין לא שחרר לא תרי אצטריכו שחרר חד ונפיק בחד,והיכי עביד הכי והאמר רב יהודה כל המשחרר עבדו עובר בעשה שנאמר (ויקרא כה, מו) לעולם בהם תעבודו לדבר מצוה שאני מצוה הבאה בעבירה היא מצוה דרבים שאני,ואמר ריב"ל לעולם ישכים אדם לבית הכנסת כדי שיזכה וימנה עם עשרה הראשונים שאפילו מאה באים אחריו קבל עליו שכר כולם שכר כולם סלקא דעתך אלא אימא נותנין לו שכר כנגד כולם,אמר רב הונא תשעה וארון מצטרפין א"ל רב נחמן וארון גברא הוא אלא אמר רב הונא תשעה נראין כעשרה מצטרפין אמרי לה כי מכנפי ואמרי לה כי מבדרי,אמר רבי אמי שנים ושבת מצטרפין אמר ליה רב נחמן ושבת גברא הוא אלא אמר רבי אמי שני תלמידי חכמים המחדדין זה את זה בהלכה מצטרפין מחוי רב חסדא כגון אנא ורב ששת מחוי רב ששת כגון אנא ורב חסדא,א"ר יוחנן קטן פורח מזמנין עליו תנ"ה קטן שהביא שתי שערות מזמנין עליו ושלא הביא שתי שערות אין מזמנין עליו ואין מדקדקין בקטן הא גופא קשיא אמרת הביא שתי שערות אין לא הביא לא והדר תני אין מדקדקין בקטן לאתויי מאי לאו''. None | 47b. “From all of that is given to you, you shall set apart that which is the Lord’s teruma” (Numbers 18:29). God’s teruma, teruma gedola, must be taken from all of the Levites’ gifts. The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to require teruma gedola from first tithe that was taken from grain in piles and not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks? Abaye answers: This, after it was threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and has become grain, and that, which remained on the stalk, did not yet become grain. The verse regarding teruma gedola states: “The first of your grain” (Deuteronomy 18:4), is given to the priest. Once it is considered grain, the right of the priest takes effect and the Levite is required to separate teruma gedola.,The mishna states that if, among the diners, one ate second tithe and consecrated food that were redeemed, he may be included in a zimmun.The Gemara remarks: It is obvious that if these items were redeemed that one could participate in a zimmun. The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the consecrated property was not completely redeemed, i.e., where one gave payment for the principal, the value of the tithe, but he did not give payment for the fifth that he must add when redeeming items that he consecrated; and the mishna teaches us that failure to add the fifth does not invalidate the redemption.,We learned in the mishna: The waiter who ate at least an olive-bulk from the meal may join in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious. Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the waiter who stands and serves the diners did not establish himself as a participant in the meal and, therefore, cannot join the zimmun, the mishna teaches us that even the waiter is considered to have established himself as a participant in the meal.,The mishna states that a Samaritan Kuti may be included in a zimmun. The Gemara asks: Why? Even if you consider him a member of the Jewish people, let him be merely an am ha’aretz, one who is not scrupulous in matters of ritual purity and tithes, and it was taught in a baraita: An am ha’aretz may not be included in a zimmun.,The Gemara offers several answers: Abaye said: The mishna is referring to a Kuti who is a ḥaver, one who is scrupulous in those areas. Rava said: Even if you say that the mishna refers to a Kuti who is an am ha’aretz, and here the prohibition to include an am ha’aretz in a zimmun refers to an am ha’aretz as defined by the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir, as it was taught in a baraita: Who is an am ha’aretz? Anyone who does not eat non-sacred food in a state of ritual purity. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: An am ha’aretz is anyone who does not appropriately tithe his produce. And these Kutim tithe their produce appropriately, as they are scrupulous with regard to that which is written in the Torah, as the Master said: Any mitzva that the Kutim embraced and accepted upon themselves, they are even more exacting in its observance than Jews.,The Gemara cites a baraita with additional opinions with regard to the defining characteristics of an am ha’aretz: The Sages taught: Who is an am ha’aretz? One who does not recite Shema in the evening and morning. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua says: An am ha’aretz is one who does not don phylacteries. Ben Azzai says: An am ha’aretz is one who does not have ritual fringes on his garment. Rabbi Natan says: An am ha’aretz is one who does not have a mezuza on his doorway. Rabbi Natan bar Yosef says: An am ha’aretz is one who has children but who does not want them to study Torah, so he does not raise them to engage in Torah study. Aḥerim say: Even if one read the Bible and studied Mishna and did not serve Torah scholars to learn from them the meaning of the Torah that he studied, that is an am ha’aretz. Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Aḥerim.,The Gemara relates: Rami bar Ḥama did not include Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa, who studied Sifra, Sifrei, and halakhot, in a zimmun because he had merely studied and did not serve Torah scholars. When Rami bar Ḥama passed away, Rava said: Rami bar Ḥama died only because he did not include Rabbi Menashya bar Taḥlifa in a zimmun. The Gemara asks: Was it not taught in a baraita: Aḥerim say: Even if one read the Bible and studied mishna and did not serve Torah scholars, that is an am ha’aretz? Why, then, was Rami bar Ḥama punished? The Gemara answers: Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa is different, as he served the Sages. And it was Rami bar Ḥama who was not precise in his efforts to check after him to ascertain his actions. Another version of the Gemara’s answer: Anyone who hears halakhot from the mouths of Sages and studies them is considered a Torah scholar.,The mishna states that one who ate untithed produce and first tithe etc. is not included in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious as one is forbidden to eat untithed produce. The Gemara responds: It was only necessary to teach this halakha with regard to a case where it is only considered untithed produce by rabbinic law, although by Torah law it was permitted. What are the circumstances? Where the produce grew in an unperforated flowerpot, as anything grown disconnected from the ground is not considered produce of the ground and is exempt by Torah law from tithing. It is only by rabbinic law that it is considered untithed.,We learned in the mishna that one who ate first tithe from which its teruma was not separated may not be included in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious. The Gemara responds: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this with regard to a case where the Levite preceded the priest after the kernels of grain were placed in a pile. Lest you say as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, that in that case, too, the produce should be exempt from the obligation to separate teruma gedola, the tanna of the mishna teaches us as Abaye responded to Rav Pappa, that there is a difference between the case when the grain was on the stalks and the case when the grain was in a pile.,We also learned in the mishna that if one ate second tithe and consecrated food that had not been redeemed, he may not be included in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious? Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha? The Gemara responds: It was only necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha with regard to a case where they were redeemed, but not redeemed properly, i.e., second tithe that was redeemed with an unminted coin asimon, a silver bullion that had not been engraved. And the Torah says: “And bind up vetzarta the money in your hand” (Deuteronomy 14:25), which the Sages interpreted as follows: Vetzarta refers to money that has a form tzura engraved upon it. Consecrated property; in a case where he redeemed it by exchanging it for land instead of money, and the Torah states: “He will give the money and it will be assured to him” (Leviticus 27:19).,The mishna states that a waiter who ate less than an olive-bulk may not join a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious. Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha? The Gemara answers: Since the first clause of the mishna taught the halakha with regard to a waiter who ate an olive-bulk, the latter clause taught the halakha with regard to a waiter who ate less than an olive-bulk. Although it is obvious, in the interest of arriving at a similar formulation in the two parts of the mishna, it was included.,The mishna further states that a gentile is not included in a zimmun. The Gemara remarks: It is obvious. Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha? The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case of a convert who was circumcised but did not yet immerse himself in a ritual bath, as Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: One is never considered a proselyte until he is circumcised and immerses himself. As long as he did not immerse himself, he is a gentile.,We also learned in the mishna that women, slaves, and minors are not included in a zimmun. Rabbi Yosei said: A minor lying in a cradle is included in a zimmun.,The Gemara objects: Didn’t we learn in the mishna that women, slaves, and minors are not included in a zimmun?,The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yosei stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Although a minor lying in a cradle is not included in a zimmun, one may make him an adjunct to complete an assembly of ten people, enabling them to invoke God’s name in a zimmun.,On the subject of completing a zimmun, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Nine Jews and a slave join together to form a zimmun of ten. The Gemara raises an objection: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who entered a synagogue and did not find a quorum of ten, and he liberated his slave and he completed the quorum of ten. From this we may infer that if he freed his slave, yes, he may join the quorum of ten, but if he did not free him, no, he may not join the quorum of ten. The Gemara responds: In that case, two were required to complete the quorum; Rabbi Eliezer freed one and fulfilled his obligation with another one, who completed the quorum of ten without being freed.,With regard to this incident, the Gemara asks: How did he do that? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say: Anyone who frees his Canaanite slave violates a positive mitzva, as it is stated with regard to Canaanite slaves: “You will keep them as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold as a possession; they will serve as bondsmen for you forever” (Leviticus 25:46)? How, then, could Rabbi Eliezer have freed his slave? The Gemara answers: The case of a mitzva is different. The Gemara asks: It is a mitzva that comes through a transgression, and a mitzva fulfilled in that manner is inherently flawed. The Gemara responds: A mitzva that benefits the many is different, and one may free his slave for that purpose.,In praise of a quorum of ten, the Gemara states that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One should always rise early to go to the synagogue in order to have the privilege and be counted among the first ten to complete the quorum, as even if one hundred people arrive after him, he receives the reward of them all, as they are all joining that initial quorum. The Gemara is perplexed: Does it enter your mind that he receives the reward of them all? Why should he take away their reward? Rather, emend the statement and say: He receives a reward equivalent to the reward of them all.,With regard to the laws of joining a quorum, Rav Huna said: Nine plus an ark in which the Torah scrolls are stored join to form a quorum of ten. Rav Naḥman said to him: Is an ark a man, that it may be counted in the quorum of ten? Rather, Rav Huna said: Nine who appear like ten may join together. There was disagreement over this: Some said this halakha as follows: Nine appear like ten when they are gathered. And some said this halakha as follows: Nine appear like ten when they are scattered, the disagreement being which formation creates the impression of a greater number of individuals.,Similarly, Rav Ami said: Two people and Shabbat join to form a zimmun. Rav Naḥman said to him: Is Shabbat a person, that it may be counted in a zimmun? Rather, Rav Ami said: Two Torah scholars who hone each other’s intellect in halakhic discourse join together and are considered three. The Gemara relates: Rav Ḥisda pointed to an example of two such Torah scholars who hone each other’s intellect: For example, me and Rav Sheshet. Similarly, Rav Sheshet pointed: For example, me and Rav Ḥisda.,With regard to a minor’s inclusion in a zimmun, Rabbi Yoḥa said: A mature minor, i.e., one who is still a minor in terms of age, but is displaying signs of puberty, is included in a zimmun. That opinion was also taught in a baraita: A minor who grew two pubic hairs, a sign of puberty, is included in a zimmun; and one who did not grow two hairs is not included in a zimmun. And one is not exacting with regard to a minor. The Gemara comments: This baraita itself is difficult. You said that a minor who grew two hairs, yes, he is included, one who did not grow two hairs, no, he is not included, and then it taught that one is not exacting with regard to a minor. What does this last clause come to include? Is it not''. None |
|
12. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • R. hiyya bar Abba • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Intercession of • Ḥiyya bar Abba (R.), Suffering of
Found in books: Fishbane (2003) 364, 371; Levine (2005) 398
58a. קצוצי תפילין נמצאו בראשי הרוגי ביתר רבי ינאי ברבי ישמעאל אמר שלש קופות של ארבעים ארבעים סאה במתניתא תנא ארבעים קופות של שלש שלש סאין,ולא פליגי הא דרישא הא דדרעא,אמר רבי אסי ארבעה קבין מוח נמצאו על אבן אחת עולא אמר תשעת קבין אמר רב כהנא ואיתימא שילא בר מרי מאי קראה (תהלים קלז, ח) בת בבל השדודה אשרי שישלם לך וגו\' אשרי שיאחז ונפץ את עולליך אל הסלע:,(איכה ד, ב) בני ציון היקרים המסולאים בפז מאי מסולאים בפז אילימא דהוו מחפי בפיזא והאמרי דבי רבי שילא תרתי מתקלי איסתירי פיזא נחות בעלמא חדא ברומי וחדא בכולי עלמא אלא שהיו מגנין את הפז ביופיין,מעיקרא חשיבי דרומאי הוו נקטי בליונא דגושפנקא ומשמשי ערסייהו מכאן ואילך מייתו בני ישראל ואסרי בכרעי דפורייהו ומשמשי,אמר ליה חד לחבריה הא היכא כתיבא אמר ליה (דברים כח, סא) גם כל חלי וכל מכה אשר לא כתוב בספר התורה הזאת אמר כמה מרחיקנא מדוכתא פלן אמר ליה אינגד פוסתא ופלגא אמר ליה אי מטאי לגביה לא איצטריכי לך,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל משום רבן שמעון בן גמליאל מאי דכתיב (איכה ג, נא) עיני עוללה לנפשי מכל בנות עירי ארבע מאות בתי כנסיות היו בכרך ביתר ובכל אחת ואחת היו בה ארבע מאות מלמדי תינוקות וכל אחד ואחד היו לפניו ארבע מאות תינוקות של בית רבן,וכשהיה אויב נכנס לשם היו דוקרין אותן בחוטריהן וכשגבר אויב ולכדום כרכום בספריהם והציתום באש:,ת"ר מעשה ברבי יהושע בן חנניה שהלך לכרך גדול שברומי אמרו לו תינוק אחד יש בבית האסורים יפה עינים וטוב רואי וקווצותיו סדורות לו תלתלים הלך ועמד על פתח בית האסורים אמר (ישעיהו מב, כד) מי נתן למשיסה יעקב וישראל לבוזזים ענה אותו תינוק ואמר הלא ה\' זו חטאנו לו ולא אבו בדרכיו הלוך ולא שמעו בתורתו,אמר מובטחני בו שמורה הוראה בישראל העבודה שאיני זז מכאן עד שאפדנו בכל ממון שפוסקין עליו אמרו לא זז משם עד שפדאו בממון הרבה ולא היו ימים מועטין עד שהורה הוראה בישראל ומנו רבי ישמעאל בן אלישע,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מעשה בבנו ובבתו של ר\' ישמעאל בן אלישע שנשבו לשני אדונים לימים נזדווגו שניהם במקום אחד זה אומר יש לי עבד שאין כיופיו בכל העולם וזה אומר יש לי שפחה שאין בכל העולם כולו כיופיה,אמרו בוא ונשיאם זה לזה ונחלק בוולדות הכניסום לחדר זה ישב בקרן זוית זה וזו ישבה בקרן זוית זה זה אומר אני כהן בן כהנים גדולים אשא שפחה וזאת אומרת אני כהנת בת כהנים גדולים אנשא לעבד ובכו כל הלילה,כיון שעלה עמוד השחר הכירו זה את זה ונפלו זה על זה וגעו בבכיה עד שיצאה נשמתן ועליהן קונן ירמיה (איכה א, טז) על אלה אני בוכיה עיני עיני יורדה מים,אמר ריש לקיש מעשה באשה אחת וצפנת בת פניאל שמה צפנת שהכל צופין ביופיה בת פניאל בתו של כהן גדול ששימש לפני ולפנים,שנתעלל בה שבאי כל הלילה למחר הלבישה שבעה חלוקים והוציאה למוכרה בא אדם אחד שהיה מכוער ביותר אמר לו הראני את יופיה אמר לו ריקא אם אתה רוצה ליקח קח שאין כיופיה בכל העולם כולו,אמר לו אף על פי כן הפשיטה ששה חלוקים ושביעי קרעתה ונתפלשה באפר אמרה לפניו רבונו של עולם אם עלינו לא חסת על קדושת שמך הגבור למה לא תחוס,ועליה קונן ירמיה (ירמיהו ו, כו) בת עמי חגרי שק והתפלשי באפר אבל יחיד עשי לך מספד תמרורים כי פתאום יבא השודד עלינו עליך לא נאמר אלא עלינו כביכול עלי ועליך בא שודד,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מאי דכתיב (מיכה ב, ב) ועשקו גבר וביתו ואיש ונחלתו מעשה באדם אחד שנתן עיניו באשת רבו ושוליא דנגרי הוה,פעם אחת הוצרך (רבו) ללות אמר לו שגר אשתך אצלי ואלונה שיגר אשתו אצלו שהה עמה שלשה ימים קדם ובא אצלו אמר לו אשתי ששיגרתי לך היכן היא אמר לו אני פטרתיה לאלתר ושמעתי שהתינוקות נתעללו בה בדרך,אמר לו מה אעשה אמר לו אם אתה שומע לעצתי גרשה אמר לו כתובתה מרובה אמר לו אני אלווך ותן לה כתובתה עמד זה וגרשה הלך הוא ונשאה,כיון שהגיע זמנו ולא היה לו לפורעו אמר לו בא ועשה עמי בחובך והיו הם יושבים ואוכלים ושותין והוא היה עומד ומשקה עליהן והיו דמעות נושרות מעיניו ונופלות בכוסיהן ועל אותה שעה נתחתם גזר דין ואמרי לה על שתי פתילות בנר אחד:,לקח מן הסיקריקון וכו\': אמר רב לא שנו אלא דאמר לו לך חזק וקני אבל בשטר קנה ושמואל אמר אף בשטר נמי לא קנה עד שיכתוב לו אחריות''. None | 58a. of phylactery boxes were found on the heads of those killed in Beitar. Rabbi Yannai, son of Rabbi Yishmael, says: There were found three large baskets each holding forty se’a of phylactery boxes. And it was taught in a baraita: There were forty large baskets each holding three se’a.,The Gemara notes: And these Sages do not disagree: This Sage is referring to phylacteries of the head, whereas this Sage is referring to phylacteries of the arm, for owing to the different manners in which they are fashioned, they are also different in size.,Rabbi Asi says: Four kav of brains from children whose skulls were smashed were found on one stone. Ulla says: Nine kav. Rav Kahana said, and some say that it was Sheila bar Mari who said: What is the verse from which it is derived? “O daughter of Babylon, marked for devastation; happy is he who shall repay you your recompense for what you have done to us. Happy is he who shall seize and dash your little ones against the rock” (Psalms 137:8–9).,§ The verse states: “The precious sons of Zion, comparable to fine gold” (Lamentations 4:2). What is the meaning of the expression “comparable to fine gold”? If we say that it means they were covered in fine gold piza, this is difficult; but didn’t the school of Rabbi Sheila say: Two istira weights of fine gold came down into the world, one in Rome and one in all the rest of the world. If so, it is certainly impossible to cover the inhabitants of Jerusalem with fine gold, as there is not enough of it in the entire world to do so. Rather, this means that they would be so attractive that they would disgrace fine gold because of their beauty.,The Gemara relates that initially the noblemen of Rome would keep an image imprinted on a seal by their beds and engage in sexual intercourse opposite that image, so that they would beget children of similar beauty. From this point forward, from the time of the Great Revolt, they would bring Jewish children, tie them to the foot of their beds, and engage in sexual intercourse across from them, because they were so handsome.,It is related that it once happened that they did this to two children, and one of them said to the other: Where is this affliction written in the Torah? The other said to him: As it is written: “Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this Torah” (Deuteronomy 28:61). The first one said: How far am I in my studies from this, i.e., how much more would I have had to learn in order to reach this verse? The other said: Had you gone on one and a half columns pusta, you would have reached this. The first child said to the other: Had I reached this verse, I would not have needed you, as I would have known on my own that the verse was speaking about this.,Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: What is the meaning of that which is written: “My eye affects my soul because of all the daughters of my city” (Lamentations 3:51)? There were four hundred synagogues in the city of Beitar, and in each and every one of them there were four hundred schoolteachers, and each and every one of these teachers had four hundred schoolchildren.,And when the enemy entered there, these schoolchildren stabbed them with their pens beḥotreihen. And when the enemy prevailed and caught them, they wrapped the children in their scrolls and lit them on fire.,The Sages taught another baraita (Tosefta, Horayot 2:5) relating to the fate of the Jewish children: There was an incident involving Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya who once went to the great city of Rome, where they said to him: There is a child in prison with beautiful eyes and an attractive appearance, and his curly hair is arranged in locks. Rabbi Yehoshua went and stood by the entrance to the prison. He said, as if speaking to himself: “Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers?” (Isaiah 42:24). That child answered by reciting the continuation of the verse: “Did not the Lord, He against Whom we have sinned, and in Whose ways they would not walk, neither were they obedient to His law?”,Rabbi Yehoshua said: I am certain that, if given the opportunity, this child will issue halakhic rulings in Israel, as he is already exceedingly wise. He said: I take an oath by the Temple service that I will not move from here until I ransom him for whatever sum of money they set for him. They said that he did not move from there until he ransomed him for a great sum of money, and not even a few days had passed when this child then issued halakhic rulings in Israel. And who was this child? This was Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha.,Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving the son and the daughter of Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha the High Priest, who were taken captive and sold into slavery to two different masters. After some time the two masters met in a certain place. This master said: I have a male slave whose beauty is unmatched in all of the world, and that master said: I have a female slave whose beauty is unmatched in all of the world.,The two masters said: Come, let us marry these two slaves to one another and divide the children born to them between us, as they will certainly be very beautiful. They secluded them in a room. This one, the son, sat in one corner, and that one, the daughter, sat in the other corner. He said: I am a priest and the descendant of High Priests. Shall I marry a female slave? And she said: I am the daughter of a priest and the descendant of High Priests. Shall I be married to a male slave? And they wept all through the night.,When dawn arrived they recognized each other and saw that they were brother and sister. They fell on each other and burst into tears until their souls departed due to their great distress. And with regard to them and others like them, Jeremiah lamented: “For these things I weep; my eye, my eye runs down with water” (Lamentations 1:16).,Reish Lakish says: There was an incident involving a certain woman named Tzafenat bat Peniel. And why was she called this? She was called Tzafenat because they would all gaze tzofin at her beauty, and she was called bat Peniel because she was the daughter bat of the High Priest who served in the innermost sanctum lifnai velefnim of the Temple.,And it happened that she was taken captive and her captor abused and raped her all night. The next day he dressed her in seven garments and took her out to sell her. A certain man who was especially ugly came and said to the man who was selling her: Show me her beauty. He said to him: Good-for-nothing, if you wish to buy her then buy her, for there is no beauty like hers in all of the world.,The potential buyer said to the seller: Even so, I wish to see for myself. He removed the six outermost garments, and she herself tore the seventh, and rolled in ashes. She said before God: Master of the Universe, even if You have shown no pity to us, and have allowed us to be disgraced in this way, why have You not shown pity to the sanctity of Your mighty name by which we are called?,And with regard to her and others like her, Jeremiah lamented: “O daughter of My people, gird yourself with sackcloth and roll in ashes; make you mourning as for an only son, most bitter lamentation, for the spoiler shall suddenly come upon us” (Jeremiah 6:26). It is not stated: Upon you, but rather “upon us,” for the spoiler shall come, as it were, both over Me and over you. God Himself shares this pain and His name is also disgraced.,§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And they covet fields, and take them by violence; and houses, and take them away; so they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage” (Micah 2:2)? There was an incident involving a certain man who set his eyes on his master’s wife, and he was a carpenter’s apprentice shulya.,One time his master needed to borrow some money, and his apprentice said to him: Send your wife to me and I will lend her the money. He sent his wife to him, and the apprentice stayed with her for three days. He then went back to his master before she did, and the master said to him: Where is my wife whom I sent to you? The apprentice said to him: I sent her back immediately, but I heard that the youth abused and raped her on the way.,The master said to his apprentice: What shall I do? The apprentice said to him: If you listen to my advice, divorce her. He said to him: But her marriage contract is large and I do not have the money to pay it. The apprentice said to him: I will lend you the money, and you will give her payment of her marriage contract. The master arose and divorced her, and the apprentice went and married her.,When the time came that the debt was due, and he did not have the means with which to repay it, the apprentice said to his master: Come and work off your debt with me. And they, the apprentice and his wife, would sit and eat and drink, while he, the woman’s first husband, would stand over them and serve them their drinks. And tears would drop from his eyes and fall into their cups, and at that time the Jewish people’s sentence was sealed, for remaining silent in the face of this injustice. And some say that the Jewish people were punished for two wicks in one lamp, a euphemism for the sin of adultery committed by this couple while the master was still married to the woman.,The Gemara returns to the mishna, which states: If one first purchased land from a Sicarius, and afterward returned and purchased the same field from the prior landowner, so that he will be considered the legal owner of the field, his purchase is void. Rav says: They taught that the purchase is void only in a case where the prior owner says to the buyer when he came to acquire the field from him: Go, take possession of the field and thereby acquire it, as in such a case the prior owner can say that he did not actually mean to sell him the field. But if he sold it to him with a bill of sale, the buyer acquires the field. And Shmuel says: Even if he sold it to him with a bill of sale, the buyer does not acquire it unless the prior owner writes him a guarantee that if the field is repossessed by a creditor of the prior owner, the prior owner, who sold him the field, will compensate him for his loss, as by writing this guarantee he demonstrates that this is a true sale.''. None |
|
13. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • R. hiyya bar Abba • Rav (Abba Arikha)
Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 193; Levine (2005) 458
21a. הן תהוי ארכא לשלותיך וכתיב (דניאל ד, כה) כלא מטא על נבוכדנצר מלכא וכתיב (דניאל ד, כו) לקצת ירחין תרי עשר,לעולם רבי ישמעאל ואשכח קרא דאמר ותני דכתיב (עמוס א, יא) כה אמר ה\' על שלשה פשעי אדום,ומאי אע"פ שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר דלמא שאני עובדי כוכבים דלא מפקיד דינא עלייהו,ויש זכות תולה ג\' שנים כו\' זכות דמאי אילימא זכות דתורה הא אינה מצווה ועושה היא אלא זכות דמצוה,זכות דמצוה מי מגנא כולי האי והתניא את זו דרש רבי מנחם בר יוסי (משלי ו, כג) כי נר מצוה ותורה אור תלה הכתוב את המצוה בנר ואת התורה באור את המצוה בנר לומר לך מה נר אינה מגינה אלא לפי שעה אף מצוה אינה מגינה אלא לפי שעה,ואת התורה באור לומר לך מה אור מגין לעולם אף תורה מגינה לעולם ואומר (משלי ו, כב) בהתהלכך תנחה אותך וגו\' בהתהלכך תנחה אותך זה העוה"ז בשכבך תשמור עליך זו מיתה והקיצות היא תשיחך לעתיד לבא,משל לאדם שהיה מהלך באישון לילה ואפילה ומתיירא מן הקוצים ומן הפחתים ומן הברקנים ומחיה רעה ומן הליסטין ואינו יודע באיזה דרך מהלך,נזדמנה לו אבוקה של אור ניצל מן הקוצים ומן הפחתים ומן הברקנים ועדיין מתיירא מחיה רעה ומן הליסטין ואינו יודע באיזה דרך מהלך כיון שעלה עמוד השחר ניצל מחיה רעה ומן הליסטין ועדיין אינו יודע באיזה דרך מהלך הגיע לפרשת דרכים ניצל מכולם,ד"א עבירה מכבה מצוה ואין עבירה מכבה תורה שנאמר (שיר השירים ח, ז) מים רבים לא יוכלו לכבות את האהבה,א"ר יוסף מצוה בעידנא דעסיק בה מגנא ומצלא בעידנא דלא עסיק בה אגוני מגנא אצולי לא מצלא תורה בין בעידנא דעסיק בה ובין בעידנא דלא עסיק בה מגנא ומצלא,מתקיף לה רבה אלא מעתה דואג ואחיתופל מי לא עסקי בתורה אמאי לא הגינה עלייהו אלא אמר רבא תורה בעידנא דעסיק בה מגנא ומצלא בעידנא דלא עסיק בה אגוני מגנא אצולי לא מצלא מצוה בין בעידנא דעסיק בה בין בעידנא דלא עסיק בה אגוני מגנא אצולי לא מצלא,רבינא אמר לעולם זכות תורה ודקאמרת אינה מצווה ועושה נהי דפקודי לא מפקדא באגרא דמקרין ומתניין בנייהו ונטרן להו לגברייהו עד דאתו מבי מדרשא מי לא פלגאן בהדייהו,מאי פרשת דרכים א"ר חסדא זה ת"ח ויום מיתה רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר זה ת"ח ויראת חטא מר זוטרא אמר זה ת"ח דסלקא ליה שמעתתא אליבא דהלכתא,ד"א עבירה מכבה מצוה ואין עבירה מכבה תורה א"ר יוסף דרשיה רבי מנחם בר יוסי להאי קרא כי סיני ואילמלא דרשוה דואג ואחיתופל הכי לא רדפו בתר דוד דכתיב (תהלים עא, יא) לאמר אלהים עזבו וגו\',מאי דרוש (דברים כג, טו) ולא יראה בך ערות דבר וגו\' והן אינן יודעין שעבירה מכבה מצוה ואין עבירה מכבה תורה,מאי (שיר השירים ח, ז) בוז יבוזו לו אמר עולא לא כשמעון אחי עזריה ולא כר\' יוחנן דבי נשיאה,אלא כהלל ושבנא דכי אתא רב דימי אמר הלל ושבנא אחי הוו הלל עסק בתורה שבנא עבד עיסקא לסוף א"ל תא נערוב וליפלוג יצתה בת קול ואמרה (שיר השירים ח, ז) אם יתן איש את כל הון ביתו וגו\'''. None | 21a. and then there shall be an extension to your tranquility” (Daniel 4:24). And it is written: “All this came upon King Nebuchadnezzar” (Daniel 4:25), and it is written in the following verse that this occurred: “At the end of twelve months” (Daniel 4:26). None of the opinions in the baraita are in accordance with the mishna’s statement that merit can delay punishment for up to three years.,The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who states that merit delays punishment for one year, and he found a verse which states and repeats the possibility that punishment can be delayed, indicating that merit can delay punishment up to three times, as it is written: “Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of Edom, yes, but for four, I will not reverse it” (Amos 1:11). Punishment can therefore be delayed for three consecutive periods of one year.,The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yishmael mean by stating: Although there is no explicit proof for the concept of merit delaying punishment for twelve months, there is an allusion to the concept? The verses he cites state explicitly that punishment can be delayed for twelve months. The Gemara answers: The proof is not explicit, as perhaps gentiles are different, as swift judgment is not administered upon them as readily as it is upon the Jewish people, with whom God is more precise in executing judgment.,§ The mishna states: And there is a merit that delays punishment for three years. The Gemara asks: Which merit can delay the punishment of a sota? If we say it is the merit of the Torah that she has studied; but a woman who studies Torah is one who is not commanded to do so and performs a mitzva, whose reward is less than that of one who is obligated? Therefore, it would be insufficient to suspend her punishment. Rather, perhaps it is the merit of a mitzva that she performed.,The Gemara asks: Does the merit of a mitzva protect one so much as to delay her punishment? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei interpreted this verse homiletically: “For the mitzva is a lamp and the Torah is light” (Proverbs 6:23). The verse associates the mitzva with a lamp and the Torah with the light of the sun. The mitzva is associated with a lamp in order to say to you: Just as a lamp does not protect one by its light extensively but only temporarily, while the lamp is in one’s hand, so too, a mitzva protects one only temporarily, i.e., while one is performing the mitzva.,And the Torah is associated with light in order to say to you: Just as the light of the sun protects one forever, so too, the Torah one studies protects one forever; and it states in the previous verse with regard to the Torah: “When you walk, it shall lead you; when you lie down, it shall watch over you; and when you awake, it shall talk with you” (Proverbs 6:22). The Gemara explains: “When you walk, it shall lead you”; this is referring to when one is in this world. “When you lie down, it shall watch over you”; this is referring to the time of death, when one lies in his grave. “And when you awake, it shall talk with you”; this is referring to the time to come after the resurrection of the dead. The Torah that one studies protects and guides him both in this world and in the next world.,This can be illustrated by a parable, as it is comparable to a man who is walking in the blackness of night and the darkness, and he is afraid of the thorns, and of the pits, and of the thistles, which he cannot see due to the darkness. And he is also afraid of the wild animals and of the bandits that lurk at night, and he does not know which way he is walking.,If a torch of fire comes his way, which is analogous to a mitzva, he is safe from the thorns and from the pits and from the thistles, but he is still afraid of the wild animals and of the bandits, and still does not know which way he is walking. Once the light of dawn rises, which is analogous to Torah study, he is safe from the wild animals and from the bandits, which no longer roam the roads, but he still does not know which way he is walking. If he arrives at a crossroads and recognizes the way, he is saved from all of them.,Alternatively, the verse associates the mitzva with a lamp and the Torah with the light of the sun in order to teach that a transgression extinguishes the merit of a mitzva one performed, but a transgression does not extinguish the merit of the Torah one studied, as it is stated: “Many waters cannot extinguish the love, neither can the floods drown it” (Song of Songs 8:7). The Torah is compared to love several times in the Song of Songs. One can conclude from the baraita that the merit of performing a mitzva is insufficient to suspend punishment.,Rav Yosef said that with regard to a mitzva, at the time when one is engaged in its performance it protects one from misfortune and saves one from the evil inclination; at the time when one is not engaged in its performance, it protects one from misfortune but it does not save one from the evil inclination. With regard to Torah study, both at the time when one is engaged in it and at the time when one is not engaged in it, it protects one from misfortune and saves one from the evil inclination. Therefore, the merit of the woman’s mitzvot does protect her from misfortune and delay her punishment.,Rabba objects to this explanation: If that is so, then with regard to Doeg (see I\xa0Samuel, chapters 21–22) and Ahithophel (see II\xa0Samuel, chapter 16), who were both wise scholars despite their wickedness, did they not engage in the study of Torah? Why did it not protect them from sinning? Rather, Rava said: With regard to Torah study, at the time when one is engaged in it, it protects and saves; at the time when one is not engaged in it, it protects one from misfortune but it does not save one from the evil inclination. With regard to a mitzva, both at the time when one is engaged in its performance and at the time when one is not engaged in its performance, it protects one from misfortune but it does not save one from the evil inclination.,Ravina said: Actually, the merit that delays the punishment of the sota is the merit of Torah study, and with regard to that which you say, i.e., that she is not commanded to do so and performs a mitzva, the mishna is not referring to the merit of her own Torah study. Granted, she is not commanded to study Torah herself; however, in reward for causing their sons to read the Written Torah and to learn the Mishna, and for waiting for their husbands until they come home from the study hall, don’t they share the reward with their sons and husbands? Therefore, if the sota enabled her sons and husband to study Torah, the merit of their Torah study can protect her and delay her punishment.,With regard to the aforementioned parable, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the crossroads, which provide clarity? Rav Ḥisda says: This is referring to a Torah scholar and his day of death. Due to his continued commitment to the Torah, when the time comes for him to die, it is clear to him that he will go to the place of his eternal reward. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: This is a Torah scholar who has also acquired fear of sin, as his fear of sin guides him to the correct understanding of the Torah. Mar Zutra says: This is a Torah scholar who reaches conclusions from his discussion in accordance with the halakha, as that is an indication that he is following the right path.,The baraita states: Alternatively: A transgression extinguishes the merit of a mitzva, but a transgression does not extinguish the merit of the Torah. Rav Yosef says: Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei interpreted this verse as it was given on Mount Sinai, and had Doeg and Ahithophel only interpreted it in this way they would not have pursued David, as it is written: “For my enemies speak concerning me…saying, God has forsaken him; pursue and take him, for there is none to deliver” (Psalms 71:10–11). Doeg and Ahithophel incorrectly thought that since David had sinned, his sins had extinguished his merits and God had forsaken him.,The Gemara asks: What verse did Doeg and Ahithophel interpret incorrectly, causing them to err? They interpreted this verse: “For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp…to give up your enemies before you…that He see no licentious matter in you, and turn away from you” (Deuteronomy 23:15), to indicate that God turns away from one who engaged in forbidden relations, and since David had sinned with Bathsheba God must have turned away from him. But they did not know that a transgression extinguishes the merit of a mitzva, but a transgression does not extinguish the merit of the Torah.,The Gemara interprets the continuation of the verse cited by the baraita with regard to Torah study: What is the meaning of: “Many waters cannot extinguish the love…if a man would give all the fortune of his house for love, he would utterly be condemned” (Song of Songs 8:7)? The Torah is compared to love several times in the Song of Songs. Therefore, the verse indicates that one cannot acquire a share in the reward for Torah study with money. Ulla says: The verse is not speaking of individuals like Shimon, brother of Azarya, whose brother Azarya supported him and enabled him to study Torah. And it is not speaking of individuals like Rabbi Yoḥa of the house of the Nasi, whom the Nasi supported so that he could study Torah.,Rather, it is speaking of individuals like Hillel and Shevna, as when Rav Dimi came to Babylonia he said: Hillel and Shevna were brothers; Hillel engaged in Torah study and remained impoverished, whereas Shevna entered into a business venture and became wealthy. In the end, Shevna said to Hillel: Come, let us join our wealth together and divide it between us; I will give you half of my money and you will give me half of the reward for your Torah study. In response to this request a Divine Voice issued forth and said: “If a man would give all the fortune of his house for love, he would utterly be condemned” (Song of Songs 8:7).''. None |
|
14. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None
Tagged with subjects: • Chiyya bar Abba, Rabbi • Hiyya Bar Abba
Found in books: Lavee (2017) 37, 233, 234; Poorthuis Schwartz and Turner (2009) 109
59a. דא"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יהוצדק מים של רבים אין נאסרין הא דיחיד נאסרין,ותיפוק ליה דהא מחוברין נינהו לא צריכא דתלשינהו גלא,סוף סוף אבני הר שנדלדלו נינהו תסתיים דר\' יוחנן דאמר אסורות,לא צריכא דטפחינהו בידיה,ר\' חייא בר אבא איקלע לגבלא חזא בנות ישראל דמיעברן מעובדי כוכבים שמלו ולא טבלו חזא חמרא דמזגו עובדי כוכבים ושתו ישראל חזא תורמוסא דשלקי להו עובדי כוכבים ואכלי ישראל ולא אמר להו ולא מידי,אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן א"ל צא והכרז על בניהם שהן ממזרים ועל יינן משום יין נסך ועל תורמוסן משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים משום שאינן בני תורה,על בניהם שהם ממזרים ר\' יוחנן לטעמיה דא"ר יוחנן לעולם אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול וכיון דלא טביל עובד כוכבים הוא ואמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד ממזר,וגזור על יינם משום יין נסך משום לך לך אמרין נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב,ועל תורמוסן משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים לפי שאינן בני תורה טעמא דאינן בני תורה הא בני תורה שרי והאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רב כל שנאכל כמות שהוא חי אין בו משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים,ר\' יוחנן כי הך לישנא ס"ל דאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רב כל שאינו עולה לשולחן של מלכים ללפת בו את הפת אין בו משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים טעמא דאינן בני תורה הא בני תורה שרי,בעו מיניה מרב כהנא עובד כוכבים מהו שיוליך ענבים לגת אמר להו אסור משום לך לך אמרין נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב איתיביה רב יימר לרב כהנא עובד כוכבים שהביא ענבים לגת בסלין''. None | 59a. as Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Water that belongs to the public is not rendered prohibited. The Gemara infers that since water that belongs to the public is permitted, therefore, in a case where gentiles bow to water that is owned by an individual it is rendered prohibited.,The Gemara challenges: But Rabbi Yoḥa could derive that even water owned by an individual is permitted, as the water is connected to the ground, and worshipping an object that is connected to the ground does not render it prohibited. The Gemara explains: No, it is necessary to derive this halakha from the fact that the water belongs to the public in a case where a wave raised the water and detached it from the ground. In this case worshipping water owned by an individual would render it prohibited.,The Gemara challenges: Nevertheless, the water ultimately falls into the category of objects that were detached without human involvement, such as boulders of a mountain that dislodged on their own. The Gemara (46a) cites a dispute between Rabbi Yoḥa and the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya with regard to boulders that dislodged without human involvement and were then worshipped, and does not conclude who deems the boulders permitted and who deems them prohibited. May it be concluded from Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement that it is Rabbi Yoḥa who says that the boulders are prohibited?,The Gemara replies: No, even if Rabbi Yoḥa deems the boulders permitted, his ruling with regard to the water is necessary in a case where one struck the water with his hand and thereby detached it. Since it was detached due to human involvement, if the water was owned by an individual it is prohibited.,§ Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba happened to come to Gavla. He saw Jewish women there who were impregnated by gentiles who were in the process of converting and were circumcised but had not yet immersed in a ritual bath. He also saw wine that gentiles diluted with water and Jews then drank the wine. He also saw lupines that gentiles were cooking and Jews were eating. And despite seeing all this, he did not say anything to them to correct their actions.,Later, he came before Rabbi Yoḥa and told him what he had seen. Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: Go and declare about their children that they have the status of children born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship mamzerim. And decree with regard to their wine that it is prohibited as an extension of the prohibition of wine used for a libation. And with regard to their lupines you should declare that they are forbidden due to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles, as they are not people well-versed in Torah, and any leniency would be misunderstood and applied too extensively.,The Gemara explains that with regard to declaring about their children that they have the status of mamzerim, Rabbi Yoḥa conforms to his standard line of reasoning concerning two halakhot. The first is as Rabbi Yoḥa says: One is never deemed to be a convert until he has been circumcised and has immersed. And since the father has not immersed, he is still considered a gentile. And the second halakha is as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥa says: In the case of a gentile or a Canaanite slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspring is a mamzer.,The Gemara continues to explain Rabbi Yoḥa’s second instruction to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: And decree with regard to their wine that it is prohibited as an extension of the prohibition of wine used for a libation. Although the gentile did not touch the wine when he diluted it, it is prohibited due to the maxim: Go, go, we say to a nazirite; go around and go around, but do not come near to the vineyard.,Lastly, Rabbi Yoḥa instructed Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba to decree with regard to their lupines that they are forbidden due to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles, as they are not people well-versed in Torah. The Gemara asks: The reason that the lupines are deemed prohibited is because they are not people well-versed in Torah; but in the case of people who are well-versed in Torah, one can infer that the lupines are permitted. But doesn’t Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak say that Rav says: Anything that is eaten raw is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles, even when cooked by them? Lupines are not eaten raw due to their bitterness, and therefore they are subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles.,The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥa holds in accordance with that other version of Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak’s statement, as Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says that Rav says: Anything that lacks importance and therefore does not appear on the table of kings in order to be eaten together with bread is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by gentiles. Lupines are not sufficiently important to be served on the table of kings, and therefore they are permitted even if cooked by gentiles. Consequently, the reason for prohibiting the residents of Gavla from eating them is because they are not people well-versed in Torah. But in the case of people well-versed in Torah, the lupines are permitted.,§ The Sages asked Rav Kahana: With regard to a gentile, what is the halakha concerning the following question: May he bring grapes to the winepress without doing anything else to them? Rav Kahana said to them: It is prohibited by rabbinic decree due to the maxim: Go, go, we say to a nazirite; go around and go around, but do not come near to the vineyard. Rav Yeimar raised an objection to Rav Kahana from a baraita: With regard to a gentile who brought grapes to the winepress in baskets''. None |
|
