1. Hebrew Bible, Malachi, 3.24 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •abba arekha Found in books: Sigal (2007) 72| 3.24. "וְהֵשִׁיב לֵב־אָבוֹת עַל־בָּנִים וְלֵב בָּנִים עַל־אֲבוֹתָם פֶּן־אָבוֹא וְהִכֵּיתִי אֶת־הָאָרֶץ חֵרֶם׃ br small[הנה אנכי שלח לכם את אליה הנביא לפני בוא יום יהוה הגדול והנורא] /small", | 3.24. "And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers; lest I come and smite the land with utter destruction. br small [Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD.] /small ", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 25.11 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •abba arekha Found in books: Sigal (2007) 72| 25.11. "פִּינְחָס בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן־אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן הֵשִׁיב אֶת־חֲמָתִי מֵעַל בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקַנְאוֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִי בְּתוֹכָם וְלֹא־כִלִּיתִי אֶת־בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקִנְאָתִי׃", | 25.11. "’Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned My wrath away from the children of Israel, in that he was very jealous for My sake among them, so that I consumed not the children of Israel in My jealousy.", |
|
3. Philo of Alexandria, On The Virtues, 116, 121, 125, 134, 140, 164-165, 97, 99, 81 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Sigal (2007) 72 | 81. for, according to him, gentleness and humanity have not their habitation only in the communion of society which takes place among men, but also of his great liberality and bounty he diffuses it exceedingly, and extends it even to the irrational animals, and to the different species of wholesome trees. And what ordices he established with respect to each of these things we must proceed to enumerate separately, making our beginning with men. XIV. |
|
4. New Testament, Matthew, 11.14 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •abba arekha Found in books: Sigal (2007) 72| 11.14. καὶ εἰ θέλετε δέξασθαι, αὐτός ἐστιν Ἠλείας ὁ μέλλων ἔρχεσθαι. | 11.14. If you are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, who is to come. |
|
5. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 44.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •abba arekha Found in books: Sigal (2007) 72| 44.1. אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה הָיָה דְבַר ה' אֶל אַבְרָם בַּמַּחֲזֶה לֵאמֹר וגו' (בראשית טו, א), (תהלים יח, לא): הָאֵל תָּמִים דַּרְכּוֹ אִמְרַת ה' צְרוּפָה מָגֵן הוּא לְכֹל הַחוֹסִים בּוֹ, אִם דְּרָכָיו תְּמִימִים, הוּא עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה, רַב אָמַר לֹא נִתְּנוּ הַמִּצְווֹת אֶלָּא לְצָרֵף בָּהֶן אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת, וְכִי מָה אִיכְפַּת לֵיהּ לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמִי שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הַצַּוָּאר אוֹ מִי שֶׁשּׁוֹחֵט מִן הָעֹרֶף, הֱוֵי לֹא נִתְּנוּ הַמִּצְווֹת אֶלָּא לְצָרֵף בָּהֶם אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הָאֵל תָּמִים דַּרְכּוֹ, זֶה אַבְרָהָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (נחמיה ט, ח): וּמָצָאתָ אֶת לְבָבוֹ נֶאֱמָן לְפָנֶיךָ. אִמְרַת ה' צְרוּפָה, שֶׁצֵּרְפוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא בְּכִבְשַׁן הָאֵשׁ. מָגֵן הוּא לְכֹל הַחוֹסִים בּוֹ, (בראשית טו, א): אַל תִּירָא אַבְרָם אָנֹכִי מָגֵן לָךְ. 44.1. וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם הֵן לִי לֹא נָתַתָּ זָרַע (בראשית טו, ג), אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק הַמַּזָּל דּוֹחְקֵנִי וְאוֹמֵר לִי אַבְרָם אֵין אַתְּ מוֹלִיד. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הֵן כִּדְבָרֶיךָ, אַבְרָם לֹא מוֹלִיד אַבְרָהָם מוֹלִיד. (בראשית יז, טו): שָׂרַי אִשְׁתְּךָ לֹא תִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ שָׂרָי, שָׂרַי לֹא תֵלֵד, שָׂרָה תֵּלֵד. | 44.1. "After these things the word of Hashem came to Abram in a vision, saying, etc. (Psalms 18:31) \"As for God — His ways are perfect; the Word of Hashem is tried; a shield is He for all who take refuge in Him.\" If His way is perfect, how much more is He Himself! Rav said: Were not the mitzvot given so that man might be refined by them? . Do you really think that The Holy One of Blessing cares if an animal is slaughtered by front or by the back of the neck? Therefore, mitzvot were only given to make humans better.", |
|
6. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •abba arekha Found in books: Sigal (2007) 72| 94a. דמאספורק בית שמאי אוסרין וב"ה מתירין מאי טעמיה דבית שמאי אמר קרא (דברים כג, יט) גם שניהם לרבות שינוייהם ובית הלל אמר קרא הם ולא שינוייהם,ובית שמאי הא כתיב הם ההוא מיבעי ליה הם ולא ולדותיהם ובית הלל תרתי שמעת מינה הם ולא שינוייהם הם ולא ולדותיהם,ובית הלל נמי הכתיב גם גם לב"ה קשיא,רבי אליעזר בן יעקב מאי היא,דתניא ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר הרי שגזל סאה של חטין טחנה לשה ואפאה והפריש ממנה חלה כיצד מברך אין זה מברך אלא מנאץ ועל זה נאמר (תהלים י, ג) בוצע ברך נאץ ה',ר' שמעון בן אלעזר מאי היא דתניא כלל זה אמר ר' שמעון בן אלעזר כל שבח שהשביח גזלן ידו על העליונה רצה נוטל שבחו רצה אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך,מאי קאמר אמר רב ששת ה"ק השביחה נוטל שבחו כחש אומר לו הרי שלך לפניך דשינוי במקומו עומד,אי הכי אפילו השביח נמי אמרי מפני תקנת השבים,ר' ישמעאל מאי היא דתניא מצות פאה להפריש מן הקמה לא הפריש מן הקמה מפריש מן העומרים לא הפריש מן העומרים מפריש מן הכרי עד שלא מרחו,מרחו מעשר ונותן לו משום ר' ישמעאל אמרו אף מפריש מן העיסה ונותן לו,א"ל רב פפא לאביי איכפל כל הני תנאי לאשמועינן כב"ש א"ל הכי קאמרי לא נחלקו בית שמאי וב"ה בדבר זה,אמר רבא ממאי דלמא עד כאן לא קאמר רבי שמעון בן יהודה התם אלא בצבע הואיל ויכול להעבירו על ידי צפון,ועד כאן לא קאמרי ב"ש התם אלא לגבוה משום דאימאיס,ועד כאן לא קאמר ר' אליעזר בן יעקב התם אלא לענין ברכה משום דהוה ליה מצוה הבאה בעבירה,ועד כאן לא קאמר ר"ש בן אלעזר התם אלא בהכחשה דהדר,ועד כאן לא קאמר ר' ישמעאל התם אלא לענין פאה משום דכתיב (ויקרא כג, כב) תעזוב יתירא וכי תימא ליגמר מיניה מתנות עניים שאני,כדבעי ר' יונתן דבעי ר' יונתן מאי טעמא דר' ישמעאל משום דקסבר שינוי אינו קונה או דלמא בעלמא קסבר שינוי קונה והכא משום דכתיב תעזוב יתירא,ואם תמצי לומר טעמא דר' ישמעאל משום דקסבר שינוי אינו קונה תעזוב יתירא דכתב רחמנא למה לי ותו לרבנן תעזוב יתירא דכתב רחמנא למה לי,מבעי ליה לכדתניא המפקיר כרמו והשכים לבקר ובצרו חייב בפרט ובעוללות ובשכחה ובפאה ופטור מן המעשר,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר,ומי אמר שמואל הכי והאמר שמואל אין שמין לא לגנב ולא לגזלן אלא לנזקין,בשלמא לרבא דאמר כי קאמר ר' שמעון בן אלעזר התם בהכחשה דהדר לא קשיא כי קאמר הלכה כרבי שמעון בן אלעזר דשינוי במקומו עומד בהכחשה דהדר וכי קאמר שמואל התם אין שמין לא לגנב ולא לגזלן אלא לנזקין בהכחשה דלא הדר,אלא לאביי דאמר כי קאמר רשב"א בהכחשה דלא הדר קאמר מאי איכא למימר,אביי מתני הכי אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל | 94a. b of Asporak: Beit Shammai prohibit /b sacrificing these items b and Beit Hillel permit /b doing so. The Gemara clarifies: b What is the reason of Beit Shammai? /b The Gemara answers: b The verse states: /b “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the House of the Lord your God for any vow; for b even both of these /b are an abomination unto the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19). The word “even” is an amplification, which serves b to include /b in the prohibition these items in b their changed /b form. b And /b what is the reason of b Beit Hillel? The verse states “these” /b to emphasize that the prohibition applies only to these items in their initial form, b but not /b in b their changed /b form.,The Gemara asks: b And /b according to b Beit Shammai, isn’t /b the word b “these” written /b in the verse, indicating an exclusion? The Gemara responds: Beit Shammai b requires that /b word to indicate that b “these” /b items are forbidden, b but not /b the b offspring /b of animals given as payment to the prostitute. The Gemara asks: b And /b according to b Beit Hillel, /b what is the source of that i halakha /i ? The Gemara answers: According to Beit Hillel, b you learn two /b i halakhot /i b from this /b word, as follows: b “These” /b items are forbidden in their initial form b but not /b in b their changed /b form, and b “these” /b items are forbidden b but not their offspring. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b according to b Beit Hillel as well, isn’t /b the word b “even” written /b in the verse, indicating an amplification? The Gemara answers: Indeed, the word b “even” is difficult for Beit Hillel. /b It is not clear how they would interpret that word.,The Gemara continues: b What is /b the source that indicates that b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov /b holds that an item that undergoes a change is still considered to have the same status that it had before the change?,The Gemara answers: b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: /b In the case of one b who robbed /b another of b a i se’a /i of wheat, /b then b ground it, kneaded it, and baked it, and /b he then b separated i ḥalla /i from it, /b i.e., he separated the portion of the dough that one is required to separate and then give to a priest, b how /b can he b recite the blessing /b over the separation of i ḥalla /i ? b This /b individual is b not reciting a blessing, /b but b rather /b he is b blaspheming. And with regard to this it is stated: “The robber who recites a blessing blasphemes the Lord” /b (Psalms 10:3), which is referring to a robber who recites a blessing upon performing a mitzva with an item he stole. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, although this wheat has been significantly changed, it is still considered a stolen item.,The Gemara continues: b What is /b the source that indicates that b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar /b holds that an item that undergoes a change is still considered to have the same status that it had before the change? b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 10:2) that b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated this principle: /b With regard to b any enhancement /b to the stolen animal in b that /b it b was enhanced /b by the actions of the b robber, he has the advantage /b when repaying the owner. If b he desires, he takes his enhancement, /b i.e., when he returns the animal, the robbery victim must pay the difference between its value at the time of the robbery and its current value, and b if he desires /b he can return it to the owner and b say to him: That which is yours is before you. /b ,The Gemara expresses surprise: b What is he saying? /b If the robber has a right to demand compensation for the enhancement to the animal, why would he ever return it without stating this demand? b Rav Sheshet said /b that b this is /b what he b is saying: /b If the robber b enhanced it, he takes his enhancement. /b If the animal was b weakened, /b the robber b says to him: That which is yours is before you, /b and no further compensation is required. This is b because /b despite b a change, /b the changed item b remains in its place. /b Since the robber has not acquired it, he simply returns the item to the robbery victim.,The Gemara asks: b If so, /b i.e., if the robber has not acquired it, then b even if he enhanced it /b that should be the i halakha /i b as well. /b The item should still belong to the robbery victim and the robber should not be entitled to compensation. The Sages b say /b in response: The fact that the robber has a right to demand compensation for the enhancement is b due to an ordice /b instituted b for the penitent. /b In order to ease the burden of one who desires to repent, the Sages instituted that the robber be reimbursed for the increase in the value of the animal. Otherwise, a robber might refrain from returning a stolen item.,The Gemara continues: b What is /b the source that indicates that b Rabbi Yishmael /b holds that an item that undergoes a change is still considered to have the same status that it had before the change? The Gemara answers: b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The ideal way to fulfill the b mitzva of produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [ i pe’a /i ], /b is b to separate /b it b from the standing /b grain, i.e., grain that has not been harvested. If b one did not separate /b it b from the standing /b grain, he b separates /b it b from the sheaves /b of grain that have already been harvested. If he b did not separate /b it b from the sheaves, /b he b separates /b it b from the pile /b of grain, b as long as /b he b has not /b yet b smoothed /b the pile.,If he b smoothed /b the pile of grain, activating the obligation to tithe the produce, he first b tithes /b the grain b and /b then b gives /b a portion of the tithed produce b to /b the poor as i pe’a /i , so that the poor will not have to tithe what they receive. Additionally, b they said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: /b If he did not separate i pe’a /i during any of the aforementioned stages and he made a dough from the grain, b he separates /b i pe’a /i b even from the dough and gives it to /b the poor. This indicates that even if the grain was changed, one is not exempt from the obligation of i pe’a /i .,The Gemara has now clarified the sources Abaye alluded to when he listed all the i tanna’im /i who hold that despite a change, the changed item remains in its place. b Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Did all these i tanna’im /i go to /b so much trouble in b an effort [ i ikhpal /i ] to teach us /b a i halakha /i b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Beit Shammai, /b which is presumably not accepted as normative? Abaye b said to /b Rav Pappa: b This is what they are saying: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not engage in a dispute with regard to this matter. /b All of the aforementioned i tanna’im /i hold that even Beit Hillel agree that a change in the form of an item does not impact its status., b Rava said: From where /b can it be proven that all of the aforementioned i tanna’im /i hold that an item that undergoes a change is still considered to have the same status that it had before the change? One can say that the reasons for their statements are due to other factors. b Perhaps Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda states /b his opinion, that it is not a significant change, b there, /b in the case of the first of the sheared wool, b only with regard to dye, /b which is a reversible change, b since one is able to remove it with soap. /b , b And /b perhaps b Beit Shammai state /b their opinion b there, /b in the case of a harlot, b only /b with regard to an offering b to the Most High, because /b of the fact b that /b the item b has become repugt, /b in being used as payment for the services of a prostitute, and therefore it cannot be used for an offering even if its form has changed., b And /b perhaps b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov states /b his opinion b there, /b where one robbed another of wheat, b only with regard to a blessing, because this is a mitzva /b that b is performed through /b commission of b a transgression, /b but this does not indicate that a change is insignificant with regard to other matters., b And /b perhaps b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar states /b his opinion b there, /b where the condition of the animal changed, b only with regard to weakening /b of the animal b that is reversible. /b Since the animal’s value can be restored by fattening it, the weakening is not deemed a significant change., b And /b perhaps b Rabbi Yishmael states /b his opinion b there, /b where one separated i pe’a /i at a late stage, b only with regard to i pe’a /i , because it is written: “You shall leave /b them for the poor” b an additional /b time. It is mentioned twice, in Leviticus 19:10 and Leviticus 23:22. One of these terms is superfluous, indicating that i pe’a /i must be given to the poor under all circumstances, even if the grain was changed and made into dough. b And if you would say: Let us derive from /b i pe’a /i that in other halakhic domains the status of an item is not affected by its undergoing a change, i pe’a /i cannot function as a source because b gifts to the poor are different /b from other i halakhot /i .,The Gemara notes: Rava’s claim that no definitive conclusion with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael concerning a changed item is supported by the statement of another i amora /i is b like the dilemma raised by Rabbi Yonatan, as Rabbi Yonatan raises a dilemma: What is the reason /b for the ruling b of Rabbi Yishmael? /b Is it b because he holds /b that b change does not /b cause one to b acquire /b an item? b Or perhaps he generally holds /b that b change /b does cause one to b acquire /b an item, b but here, /b in the case of i pe’a /i , it is different b because /b the term b “You shall leave” is written an additional /b time.,Having quoted Rabbi Yonatan’s dilemma, the Gemara asks: b And if you say /b that b the reason /b for the ruling b of Rabbi Yishmael is that he holds that change does not /b cause one to b acquire /b an item, b why do I /b need the b additional /b term b “You shall leave,” which the Merciful One writes /b in the Torah? b And furthermore, according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who hold that i pe’a /i may not be taken from dough, b why do I /b need b the additional /b term b “You shall leave” that the Merciful One writes? /b ,The Gemara responds: This additional term b is necessary for that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who renounced ownership of his vineyard and arose early in the morning /b before anyone else took possession of it b and harvested it is obligated in /b the mitzva of b individual fallen /b grapes left for the poor b [ i peret /i ], and in /b the mitzva of b incompletely formed clusters /b of grapes left for the poor b [ i olelot /i ], and in /b the mitzva of b forgotten /b clusters of grapes left for the poor b and in /b the mitzva of b i pe’a /i . /b These are the four gifts to the poor that the Torah requires one to give from a vineyard. b But he is exempt from the /b mitzva to b tithe /b his produce, because this requirement does not apply to an ownerless field. The obligation to give gifts to the poor in this case is derived from the additional mention of the term “You shall leave.”,§ The Gemara returns to the discussion of a stolen item that underwent a change. b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Shmuel says: /b The b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, /b who says that even if the stolen animal deteriorated, it is returned to the owner in its current state.,The Gemara expresses surprise: b But did Shmuel /b actually b say this? But doesn’t Shmuel say: One does not appraise /b the change in value, b neither for a thief nor for a robber. Rather, /b they keep the stolen animal and pay back the victim with their own money; one appraises the change only for one obligated to pay b for damage? /b , b Granted, according to /b the opinion of b Rava, who said /b earlier in response to Abaye: b When Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar states /b his opinion b there, /b he stated it only b with regard to weakening /b of the animal b that is reversible, /b this is b not difficult: When /b Shmuel b says /b that the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, /b who holds b that /b despite b a change, /b the changed item b remains in its place, /b he stated this b with regard to weakening /b of the animal b which is reversible, /b in which case the change is insignificant. b And when Shmuel says there: One does not appraise /b the change in value, b neither for a thief nor for a robber, /b but rather one appraises the change b only /b for one obligated to pay b for damage, /b he stated this b with regard to weakening /b of the animal b that is irreversible. /b , b But according to Abaye, who said /b that b when Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar states /b his opinion, b he states it /b even b with regard to weakening /b of the animal b which is irreversible, what can be said? /b ,The Gemara responds: b Abaye taught /b the statement of Shmuel b like this: Rav Yehuda says /b that b Shmuel says: /b |
|
7. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •abba arekha Found in books: 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 | 47b. b “From all of that is given to you, you shall set apart /b that which is the Lord’s i teruma /i ” (Numbers 18:29). God’s i teruma /i , i teruma gedola /i , must be taken from all of the Levites’ gifts. The Gemara asks: b And what did you see /b that led you to require i teruma gedola /i from first tithe that was taken from grain in piles and not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks? Abaye answers: b This, /b after it was threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and b has become grain, and that, /b which remained on the stalk, b did not /b yet b become grain. /b The verse regarding i teruma gedola /i 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 i teruma gedola /i .,The mishna states that if, among the diners, one ate b second tithe and consecrated food that were redeemed, /b he may be included in a i zimmun /i .The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious /b that if these items were redeemed that one could participate in a i zimmun /i . The Gemara responds: b With what are we dealing here? /b We are dealing with b a case /b where the consecrated property was not completely redeemed, i.e., b where one gave /b payment for b the principal, /b the value of the tithe, b but he did not give /b payment for b the fifth /b that he must add when redeeming items that he consecrated; b and /b the mishna b teaches us /b that failure to add b the fifth does not invalidate /b the redemption.,We learned in the mishna: b The waiter who ate /b at least b an olive-bulk /b from the meal may join in a i zimmun /i . The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious. /b Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i ? The Gemara answers: b Lest you say that the waiter /b who stands and serves the diners b did not establish /b himself as a participant in the meal and, therefore, cannot join the i zimmun /i , the mishna b teaches us /b that even the waiter is considered to have established himself as a participant in the meal.,The mishna states that b a Samaritan [ i Kuti /i ] may be included in a i zimmun /i . /b The Gemara asks: b Why? /b Even if you consider him a member of the Jewish people, b let him be merely an i am ha’aretz /i , /b one who is not scrupulous in matters of ritual purity and tithes, b and it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b An i am ha’aretz /i may not be included in a i zimmun /i . /b ,The Gemara offers several answers: b Abaye said: /b The mishna is referring to a b i Kuti /i who is a i ḥaver /i , /b one who is scrupulous in those areas. b Rava said: Even if you say /b that the mishna refers to b a i Kuti /i /b who is an b i am ha’aretz /i , and here /b the prohibition to include an i am ha’aretz /i in a i zimmun /i refers to an b i am ha’aretz /i /b as defined by b the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Who is an i am ha’aretz /i ? Anyone who does not eat non-sacred food in /b a state of b ritual purity. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: /b An i am ha’aretz /i is b anyone who does not appropriately tithe his produce. And these i Kutim /i tithe /b their produce b appropriately, as they are scrupulous with regard to that which is written in the Torah, as the Master said: Any mitzva that the i Kutim /i embraced /b and accepted upon themselves, b they are /b even b more exacting in its /b observance b than Jews. /b ,The Gemara cites a i baraita /i with additional opinions with regard to the defining characteristics of an i am ha’aretz /i : b The Sages taught: Who is an i am ha’aretz /i ? One who does not recite i Shema /i in the evening and morning. This is b the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. /b Rabbi Yehoshua says: /b An i am ha’aretz /i is b one who does not don phylacteries. Ben Azzai says: /b An i am ha’aretz /i is b one who does not have ritual fringes on his garment. Rabbi Natan says: /b An i am ha’aretz /i is b one who does not have a i mezuza /i on his doorway. Rabbi Natan bar Yosef says: /b An i am ha’aretz /i is b one who has children but /b who does not want them to study Torah, so he b does not raise them to /b engage in b Torah study. i Aḥerim /i say: Even if one read the Bible and studied Mishna and did not serve Torah scholars /b to learn from them the meaning of the Torah that he studied, b that is an i am ha’aretz /i . Rav Huna said: The i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b i Aḥerim /i . /b ,The Gemara relates: b Rami bar Ḥama did not include Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa, who studied i Sifra /i , i Sifrei, /i and i halakhot, /i in a i zimmun /i /b because he had merely studied and did not serve Torah scholars. b When Rami bar Ḥama passed away, Rava said: Rami bar Ḥama died only because he did not include Rabbi Menashya bar Taḥlifa in a i zimmun /i . /b The Gemara asks: b Was it not taught /b in a i baraita /i : b i Aḥerim /i say: Even if one read the Bible and studied mishna and did not serve Torah scholars, that is an i am ha’aretz /i ? /b Why, then, was Rami bar Ḥama punished? The Gemara answers: b Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa is different, as he served the Sages. And it was Rami bar Ḥama who was not precise /b in his efforts to check b after him /b to ascertain his actions. b Another version /b of the Gemara’s answer: Anyone b who hears i halakhot /i from the mouths of Sages and studies them is considered a Torah scholar. /b ,The mishna states that b one who ate untithed produce and /b first b tithe etc. /b is not included in a i zimmun /i . The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious /b as one is forbidden to eat untithed produce. The Gemara responds: b It was only necessary /b to teach this i halakha /i with regard to a case where it is only considered b untithed produce by rabbinic law, /b although by Torah law it was permitted. b What are the circumstances? /b Where the produce grew b in an unperforated flowerpot, /b 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 b first tithe /b from which its i teruma /i was not separated may not be included in a i zimmun /i . The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious. /b The Gemara responds: b It was only necessary /b for the mishna to teach this with regard to a case b where /b the Levite b preceded /b the priest after the kernels of grain were placed b in a pile. Lest you say as Rav Pappa said to Abaye, /b that in that case, too, the produce should be exempt from the obligation to separate i teruma gedola /i , the i tanna /i of the mishna b teaches us as /b Abaye b responded /b 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 b second tithe /b and consecrated food that had not been redeemed, he may not be included in a i zimmun /i . The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious? /b Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i ? The Gemara responds: b It was only necessary /b for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i with regard to a case b where they were redeemed, but not redeemed properly, i.e., second tithe that was redeemed with an unminted coin [ i asimon /i ], /b a silver bullion that had not been engraved. b And the Torah says: “And bind up [ i vetzarta /i ] the money in your hand” /b (Deuteronomy 14:25), which the Sages interpreted as follows: i Vetzarta /i refers to b money that has a form [ i tzura /i ] /b engraved b upon it. Consecrated property; /b in a case b where he redeemed it /b by exchanging it b for land instead of money, and the Torah states: “He will give the money and it will be assured to him” /b (Leviticus 27:19).,The mishna states that b a waiter who ate less than an olive-bulk /b may not join a i zimmun /i . The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious. /b Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i ? The Gemara answers: b Since the first clause /b of the mishna b taught /b the i halakha /i with regard to a waiter who ate b an olive-bulk, the latter clause taught /b the i halakha /i with regard to a waiter who ate b less than an olive-bulk. /b 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 b a gentile is not included in a i zimmun /i . /b The Gemara remarks: b It is obvious. /b Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this i halakha /i ? The Gemara answers: b With what are we dealing here? /b We are dealing b with /b a case of b a convert who was circumcised but /b did b not /b yet b immerse /b himself in a ritual bath, b as Rabbi Zeira said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: One is never /b considered b a proselyte until he is circumcised and immerses /b himself. b As long as he did not immerse /b himself, b he is a gentile. /b ,We also learned in the mishna that b women, slaves, and minors are not included in a i zimmun /i . Rabbi Yosei said: A minor lying in a cradle is included in a i zimmun /i . /b ,The Gemara objects: b Didn’t we learn /b in the mishna b that women, slaves, and minors are not included in a i zimmun /i ? /b ,The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yosei b stated /b his opinion b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Although a minor lying in a cradle is not included in a i zimmun /i , one may make him an adjunct to /b complete an assembly of b ten /b people, enabling them to invoke God’s name in a i zimmun /i .,On the subject of completing a i zimmun /i , b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Nine /b Jews b and a slave join together /b to form a i zimmun /i of ten. The Gemara b raises an objection: /b There was an b incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who entered a synagogue and did not find /b a quorum of b ten, and he liberated his slave and he completed the /b quorum of b ten. /b From this we may infer that if he b freed /b his slave, b yes, /b he may join the quorum of ten, but if he b did not free /b him, b no, /b he may not join the quorum of ten. The Gemara responds: In that case, b two were required /b to complete the quorum; Rabbi Eliezer b freed one and fulfilled his obligation with /b another b one, /b who completed the quorum of ten without being freed.,With regard to this incident, the Gemara asks: b How did he do that? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say: Anyone who frees his /b Canaanite b slave violates a positive mitzva, as it is stated /b with regard to Canaanite slaves: “You will keep them as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold as a possession; b they will serve as bondsmen for you forever” /b (Leviticus 25:46)? How, then, could Rabbi Eliezer have freed his slave? The Gemara answers: The case of b a mitzva is different. /b The Gemara asks: b It is a mitzva that comes through a transgression, /b and a mitzva fulfilled in that manner is inherently flawed. The Gemara responds: b A mitzva /b that benefits b the many is different, /b and one may free his slave for that purpose.,In praise of a quorum of ten, the Gemara states that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One should always rise early /b to go b to the synagogue in order to have the privilege and be counted among the first ten /b to complete the quorum, b as even if one hundred /b people b arrive after him, he receives the reward of them all, /b as they are all joining that initial quorum. The Gemara is perplexed: b Does it enter your mind /b that he receives b the reward of them all? /b Why should he take away their reward? b Rather, /b emend the statement and b say: He receives a reward equivalent to /b the reward of b them all. /b ,With regard to the laws of joining a quorum, b Rav Huna said: Nine plus an ark /b in which the Torah scrolls are stored b join /b to form a quorum of ten. b Rav Naḥman said to him: Is an ark a man, /b that it may be counted in the quorum of ten? b Rather, Rav Huna said: Nine who appear like ten may join together. /b There was disagreement over this: b Some said this /b i halakha /i as follows: Nine appear like ten b when they are gathered. And some said this /b i halakha /i as follows: Nine appear like ten b when they are scattered, /b the disagreement being which formation creates the impression of a greater number of individuals.,Similarly, b Rav Ami said: Two /b people b and Shabbat join /b to form a i zimmun /i . b Rav Naḥman said to him: Is Shabbat a person, /b that it may be counted in a i zimmun /i ? b Rather, Rav Ami said: Two Torah scholars who hone each other’s /b intellect b in halakhic /b discourse b join together /b and are considered three. The Gemara relates: b Rav Ḥisda pointed /b to an example of two such Torah scholars who hone each other’s intellect: b For example, me and Rav Sheshet. /b Similarly, b Rav Sheshet pointed: For example, me and Rav Ḥisda. /b ,With regard to a minor’s inclusion in a i zimmun /i , b Rabbi Yoḥa said: A mature minor, /b i.e., one who is still a minor in terms of age, but is displaying signs of puberty, b is included in a i zimmun /i . That /b opinion b was also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A minor who grew two /b pubic b hairs, /b a sign of puberty, b is included in a i zimmun /i ; and one who did not grow two hairs is not included in a i zimmun /i . And one is not exacting with regard to a minor. /b The Gemara comments: b This /b i baraita /i b itself is difficult. You said that /b a minor b who grew two hairs, yes, /b he is included, b one who did not grow /b two hairs, b no, /b he is not included, b and then it taught that one is not exacting with regard to a minor. What /b does this last clause come b to include? Is it not /b |
|
8. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •abba arekha Found in books: Sigal (2007) 72| 6b. נגמר הדין אי אתה רשאי לבצוע:,סרמ"ש בנק"ש סימן: ר"א בנו של רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר אסור לבצוע וכל הבוצע ה"ז חוטא וכל המברך את הבוצע הרי זה מנאץ ועל זה נאמר (תהלים י, ג) בוצע ברך נאץ ה',אלא יקוב הדין את ההר שנאמר (דברים א, יז) כי המשפט לאלהים הוא וכן משה היה אומר יקוב הדין את ההר אבל אהרן אוהב שלום ורודף שלום ומשים שלום בין אדם לחבירו שנאמר (מלאכי ב, ו) תורת אמת היתה בפיהו ועולה לא נמצא בשפתיו בשלום ובמישור הלך אתי ורבים השיב מעון,ר' אליעזר אומר הרי שגזל סאה של חטים וטחנה ואפאה והפריש ממנה חלה כיצד מברך אין זה מברך אלא מנאץ ועל זה נאמר ובוצע ברך נאץ ה',רבי מאיר אומר לא נאמר בוצע אלא כנגד יהודה שנאמר (בראשית לז, כו) ויאמר יהודה אל אחיו מה בצע כי נהרוג את אחינו וכל המברך את יהודה הרי זה מנאץ ועל זה נאמר ובוצע ברך נאץ ה',רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר מצוה לבצוע שנאמר (זכריה ח, טז) אמת ומשפט שלום שפטו בשעריכם והלא במקום שיש משפט אין שלום ובמקום שיש שלום אין משפט אלא איזהו משפט שיש בו שלום הוי אומר זה ביצוע,וכן בדוד הוא אומר (שמואל ב ח, טו) ויהי דוד עושה משפט וצדקה והלא כל מקום שיש משפט אין צדקה וצדקה אין משפט אלא איזהו משפט שיש בו צדקה הוי אומר זה ביצוע,אתאן לת"ק דן את הדין זיכה את הזכאי וחייב את החייב וראה שנתחייב עני ממון ושלם לו מתוך ביתו זה משפט וצדקה,משפט לזה וצדקה לזה משפט לזה שהחזיר לו ממון וצדקה לזה ששילם לו מתוך ביתו (וכן בדוד הוא אומר ויהי דוד עושה משפט וצדקה לכל עמו משפט לזה שהחזיר לו את ממונו וצדקה לזה ששילם לו מתוך ביתו),קשיא ליה לרבי האי לכל עמו לעניים מיבעי ליה אלא (רבי אומר) אע"פ שלא שילם מתוך ביתו זהו משפט וצדקה משפט לזה וצדקה לזה משפט לזה שהחזיר לו ממונו וצדקה לזה שהוציא גזילה מתחת ידו,רבי שמעון בן מנסיא אומר שנים שבאו לפניך לדין עד שלא תשמע דבריהן או משתשמע דבריהן ואי אתה יודע להיכן דין נוטה אתה רשאי לומר להן צאו ובצעו משתשמע דבריהן ואתה יודע להיכן הדין נוטה אי אתה רשאי לומר להן צאו ובצעו שנאמר (משלי יז, יד) פוטר מים ראשית מדון ולפני התגלע הריב נטוש קודם שנתגלע הריב אתה יכול לנטשו משנתגלע הריב אי אתה יכול יכול לנטשו,(וריש לקיש) אמר שנים שבאו לדין אחד רך ואחד קשה עד שלא תשמע דבריהן או משתשמע דבריהן ואי אתה יודע להיכן דין נוטה אתה רשאי לומר להם אין אני נזקק לכם שמא נתחייב חזק ונמצא חזק רודפו משתשמע דבריהן ואתה יודע להיכן הדין נוטה אי אתה יכול לומר להן איני נזקק לכם שנא' (דברים א, יז) לא תגורו מפני איש,ר' יהושע בן קרחה אומר מניין לתלמיד שיושב לפני רבו וראה זכות לעני וחובה לעשיר מניין שלא ישתוק שנאמר לא תגורו מפני איש רבי חנין אומר לא תכניס דבריך מפני איש ויהו עדים יודעים את מי הן מעידין ולפני מי הן מעידין ומי עתיד ליפרע מהן שנא' (דברים יט, יז) ועמדו שני האנשים אשר להם הריב לפני ה',ויהו הדיינין יודעין את מי הן דנין ולפני מי הן דנין ומי עתיד ליפרע מהן שנא' (תהלים פב, א) אלהים נצב בעדת אל וכן ביהושפט הוא אומר (דברי הימים ב יט, ו) ויאמר אל השופטים ראו מה אתם עושים כי לא לאדם תשפטו כי (אם) לה' שמא יאמר הדיין מה לי בצער הזה ת"ל עמכם בדבר משפט אין לו לדיין אלא מה שעיניו רואות,היכי דמי גמר דין אמר רב יהודה אמר רב איש פלוני אתה חייב איש פלוני אתה זכאי אמר רב הלכה כרבי יהושע בן קרחה איני והא רב הונא תלמידיה דרב הוה כי הוה אתו לקמיה דרב הונא אמר להו אי דינא בעיתו אי פשרה בעיתו מאי מצוה נמי דקאמר רבי יהושע בן קרחה | 6b. Once b the /b verdict of the b judgment has been issued, /b it b is not permitted /b for b you to mediate /b a dispute.,The Gemara presents b a mnemonic /b device alluding to the names of i tanna’im /i in the coming discussion: b i Samekh /i , i reish /i , i mem /i , i shin /i ; i beit /i , i nun /i , i kuf /i , i shin /i . /b The i Tosefta /i cites several statements of i tanna’im /i related to compromise and the term i botze’a /i . b Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, says: /b It is b prohibited to mediate /b a dispute; b and anyone who mediates [ i habotze’a /i ] /b a dispute b is a sinner; and anyone who blesses the mediator is cursing /b God. b And of this, it is stated: /b “And b the covetous [ i botze’a /i ] blesses himself, though he despises the Lord” /b (Psalms 10:3)., b Rather, /b the judge must assure that b the /b true b judgment will /b prevail at all costs and metaphorically b pierce the mountain, as it is stated: “For the judgment is God’s” /b (Deuteronomy 1:17). b And similarly, Moses would say: Let the judgment pierce the mountain. But /b by contrast, b Aaron, /b whose role was not that of a judge, was b a lover of peace and a pursuer of peace, and /b he b would apply peace between /b one b person and the other, as it is stated: “The law of truth was in his mouth, and unrighteousness was not found in his lips; he walked with Me in peace and uprightness, and turned many away from iniquity” /b (Malachi 2:6).,The i Tosefta /i cites several other interpretations of the above-mentioned verse from Psalms. b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b If b one stole a i se’a /i of wheat and ground it and baked it and separated i ḥalla /i from it, /b i.e., separated the portion of the dough that must be given to the priests, b how can he /b possibly b recite the blessing /b on the mitzva of i ḥalla /i ? b He is not blessing; rather, /b he is b cursing /b God. b And of this /b offense b it is stated: “And the covetous [ i uvotze’a /i ] blesses himself, though he despises the Lord,” /b interpreted homiletically as: And whoever blesses upon breaking [ i botze’a /i ] the bread despises the Lord., b Rabbi Meir says: /b The term b i botze’a /i /b employed in that verse b was stated only with regard to Judah, as it is stated: “And Judah said to his brothers: What profit [ i betza /i ] is it if we slay our brother /b and conceal his blood? Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmaelites” (Genesis 37:26–27). b And /b consequently, b anyone who blesses Judah /b for this act b is cursing /b God, b and of this it is stated: “And the covetous [ i uvotze’a /i ] blesses himself, though he despises the Lord,” /b interpreted homiletically as: “And whoever blesses the profiteer [ i botze’a /i ] despises the Lord.”, b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: /b It is b a mitzva to mediate /b a dispute, b as it is stated: “Execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates” /b (Zechariah 8:16). b Is it not that in the place where there is /b strict b judgment there is no /b true b peace, and in a place where there is /b true b peace, there is no /b strict b judgment? Rather, which is the judgment that has peace within it? You must say: This is mediation, /b as both sides are satisfied with the result., b And similarly, with regard to David, it says: “And David executed justice and charity /b to all his people” (II Samuel 8:15). b And is it not /b that b wherever there is /b strict b justice, there is no charity, and /b wherever there is b charity, there is no /b strict b justice? Rather, which is the justice that has within it charity? You must say: This is mediation. /b ,The Gemara cites an alternative interpretation of David’s method of judgment, in which b we come to /b the opinion of b the first i tanna /i , /b i.e., Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that it is prohibited to mediate a dispute: If a judge b adjudicated /b a case of monetary b law, /b and he correctly b exonerated the /b party who was b exempt /b from payment b and deemed liable the /b party who was b liable /b to pay, if he then b saw that /b due to his ruling b a poor person became liable /b to pay an amount of b money /b that is beyond his means b and /b therefore the judge himself b paid for him from his /b own b house, this is justice and /b also b charity. /b ,The Gemara continues: It is b justice for this /b one b and charity for that /b one: It is b justice for this /b one, b because /b the judge b restored /b his b money to him; and /b it is b charity for that /b poor person, b because /b the judge b paid for him from his /b own b house. And similarly, with regard to David, it says: “And David executed justice and charity to all his people” /b (II Samuel 8:15). He executed b justice for this /b one, b because /b he b restored his money to him, and charity for that /b one, b because /b he b paid for him from his /b own b house. /b ,This interpretation of the verse is b difficult for Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi. If the word “charity” is meant to demonstrate that David supported the poor defendants, b this /b term: b “To all his people,” /b is incorrect. If the interpretation is correct, b it should have /b stated: Charity b to the poor people. Rather, Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: Although /b he b did not pay from his /b own b house, it is /b still b justice and charity. /b It is b justice for this /b one b and charity for that /b one. It is b justice for this /b one, b because /b the judge b restored his money to him, and charity for that /b one, b because /b the judge b removed /b the b stolen item from his possession. /b By adjudicating the case correctly and compelling the liable party to pay his debt, the judge thereby ensures that the liable party does not illegitimately maintain property to which he is not entitled., b Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: /b If b two /b litigants b come before you for a judgment, before you hear their /b respective b statements /b and claims; b or after you hear their statements but you do not /b yet b know where the judgment is leaning, /b meaning that it is not yet clear to the judge which party is in the right, b you /b are b permitted to say to them: Go out and mediate. /b But b after you hear their statements and you know where the judgment is leaning, you are not permitted to say to them: Go out and mediate, as it is stated: “The beginning of strife is as when one releases water; therefore leave off contention before the quarrel breaks out” /b (Proverbs 17:14). Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya interprets the verse to mean: b Before /b the resolution of b the contention is revealed, you can cast it off. Once /b the resolution of b the contention is revealed, you cannot cast it off. /b , b And Reish Lakish says: /b If b two /b litigants b come for a judgment, /b and b one /b is b flexible /b and agreeable b and one /b is b rigid /b and contentious, b before you hear their /b respective b statements, or after you hear their statements but you do not /b yet b know where the judgment is leaning, /b it b is permitted /b for b you to say to them: I will not submit to /b your request to judge b you. /b The judge may refuse the case out of fear that b perhaps the strong /b and contentious one will b be /b found b liable, and /b it will b turn out /b that b the strong /b one will b pursue /b the judge with intent to harm b him. /b But b once you hear their statements and you know where the judgment is leaning, you may not say to them: I will not submit to /b your request to judge b you, as it is stated: “You shall not be afraid before any man” /b (Deuteronomy 1:17)., b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: From where /b is it derived b that a student who is sitting before his teacher and /b he b sees /b a point of b merit for a poor person or liability for a wealthy person, from where /b is it derived b that he should not be silent? As it is stated: “You shall not be afraid before any man”; /b he should fear neither his teacher nor the wealthy litigant. b Rabbi Ḥanin says: /b The verse intimates: b Do not suppress your statement before /b any b man. And the witnesses should know about whom they are testifying, and before Whom they are testifying, and Who will ultimately exact payment from them, as it is stated: “Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord” /b (Deuteronomy 19:17)., b And the judges should know whom they are judging, and before Whom they are judging, and Who will ultimately exact payment from them, as it is stated: “God stands in the congregation of God” /b (Psalms 82:1). b And similarly, with regard to Jehoshaphat it says: “And he said to the judges: Consider what you do; for you judge not for man, but for the Lord” /b (II Chronicles 19:6). And b lest the judge say: What /b value is there b for me with this suffering? /b Why should I engage in such a burdensome and difficult task? b The verse states: “He is with you in giving judgment,” /b from which it is derived that in rendering his decision, b a judge has only that which his eyes see. /b He is enjoined to render the best judgment possible based on the information he has available, and he is not accountable for anything else.,Earlier, the i Tosefta /i stated that once the verdict has been issued, it is not permitted for the judge to arrange a compromise. The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances /b of b a verdict, /b i.e., what is the formal action that signifies the conclusion of the case? b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: /b It is when the judge says: b So-and-so, you are liable; so-and-so, you are exonerated. Rav says: The i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, /b who said it is a mitzva to mediate a dispute. The Gemara asks: b Is that so? And was it /b not that b Rav Huna was a student of Rav, /b and b when /b litigants b would come before Rav Huna he would say to them: Do you want /b a strict b judgment, /b or b do you want a compromise? /b Evidently, Rav’s student Rav Huna did not hold that it is a mitzva to specifically arrange a compromise. The Gemara clarifies: b What /b does b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa /b mean b that he says /b it is b a mitzva? /b |
|
9. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •abba arekha Found in books: Sigal (2007) 72| 30a. משום דהוה ליה מצוה הבאה בעבירה שנאמר (מלאכי א, יג) והבאתם גזול ואת הפסח ואת החולה גזול דומיא דפסח מה פסח לית ליה תקנתא אף גזול לית ליה תקנתא לא שנא לפני יאוש ולא שנא לאחר יאוש,בשלמא לפני יאוש (ויקרא א, ב) אדם כי יקריב מכם אמר רחמנא ולאו דידיה הוא אלא לאחר יאוש הא קנייה ביאוש אלא לאו משום דהוה ליה מצוה הבאה בעבירה,וא"ר יוחנן משום ר' שמעון בן יוחי מאי דכתיב (ישעיהו סא, ח) כי אני ה' אוהב משפט שונא גזל בעולה משל למלך בשר ודם שהיה עובר על בית המכס אמר לעבדיו תנו מכס למוכסים אמרו לו והלא כל המכס כולו שלך הוא אמר להם ממני ילמדו כל עוברי דרכים ולא יבריחו עצמן מן המכס אף הקב"ה אמר אני ה' שונא גזל בעולה ממני ילמדו בני ויבריחו עצמן מן הגזל,אתמר נמי אמר רבי אמי יבש פסול מפני שאין הדר גזול פסול משום דהוה ליה מצוה הבאה בעבירה,ופליגא דר' יצחק דא"ר יצחק בר נחמני אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא ביום טוב ראשון אבל ביום טוב שני מתוך שיוצא בשאול יוצא נמי בגזול,מתיב רב נחמן בר יצחק לולב הגזול והיבש פסול הא שאול כשר אימת אילימא בי"ט ראשון הא כתיב לכם משלכם והאי לאו דידיה הוא אלא לאו ביום טוב שני וקתני גזול פסול,(רבא אמר) לעולם ביום טוב ראשון ולא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא שאול דלאו דידיה הוא אבל גזול אימא סתם גזילה יאוש בעלים הוא וכדידיה דמי קא משמע לן,אמר להו רב הונא להנהו אוונכרי כי זבניתו אסא מעכו"ם לא תגזזו אתון אלא לגזזוה אינהו ויהבו לכו מאי טעמא סתם עובדי כוכבים גזלני ארעתא נינהו | 30a. It is unfit b because it is a mitzva that comes /b to be fulfilled b by means of a transgression, /b which renders the mitzva unfulfilled, b as it is stated: “And you have brought that which was stolen and the lame, and the sick; /b that is how you bring the offering; should I accept this of your hand? says the Lord” (Malachi 1:13). Based on the juxtaposition in the verse, it is derived that the legal status of b a stolen /b animal is b equivalent to /b that of b a lame /b animal. b Just as a lame /b animal, because it is blemished, b has no remedy /b and is unfit for use, b so too, a stolen /b animal b has no remedy. /b There is b no difference before /b the owners reach a state of b despair /b of recovering the stolen animal, and there is b no difference after despair. /b In both cases there is no remedy.,The Gemara elaborates: b Granted, before /b the b despair /b of the owner, the robber may not sacrifice the animal because the animal does not belong to him. b The Merciful One says: “When a person sacrifices from yours /b an offering” (Leviticus 1:2). The term “from yours” indicates that the animal must belong to the one sacrificing it, b and this /b stolen animal b is not his. However, after /b the b despair /b of the owner, b didn’t /b the robber b acquire /b the animal b with /b the b despair? /b Once the owner despairs, the animal belongs to the robber, despite the fact that he incurs a debt that he must repay the owner. Since the animal is legally his, why is it prohibited for the robber to sacrifice it as an offering? b Rather, is it not because /b the offering b is a mitzva that comes by means of a transgression? /b Since the animal came into his possession by means of a transgression, it is unfit for use in fulfilling a mitzva., b And Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: What is /b the meaning of b that which is written: “For I the Lord love justice, I hate robbery in a burnt-offering” /b (Isaiah 61:8)? The Gemara cites b a parable of a flesh-and-blood king who was passing by a customs house. He said to his servants: Pay the levy to the taxmen. They said to him: Doesn’t all the tax in its entirety belong to you? /b If the taxes will ultimately reach the royal treasury, what is the point of paying the levy? b He said to them: From my /b conduct, b all travelers will learn and will not evade /b payment of b the tax. So too, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: “I the Lord... hate robbery in a burnt-offering.” /b Although the whole world is His and the acquisitions of man have no impact upon Him, God says: b From My /b conduct, b My children will learn and distance themselves from robbery, /b even from robbery unrelated to the needs of offerings., b It was also stated: Rabbi Ami said: A dry i lulav /i is unfit because it /b does b not /b meet the criterion of b beauty, and a stolen /b i lulav /i b is unfit because it is a mitzva that comes by means of a transgression. /b ,The Gemara notes: b And /b Rabbi Ami b disagrees with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzhak bar Naḥmani said /b that b Shmuel said: /b The Sages b taught /b that the i halakha /i that a stolen i lulav /i is unfit applies b only with regard to the first day of the festival /b of i Sukkot /i . b However, /b beginning b on the second day of the Festival, /b there is no longer a Torah requirement to use a i lulav /i from one’s own property. b Since one fulfills his obligation with a borrowed /b i lulav /i , b one fulfills /b his obligation b with a stolen one as well. /b , b Rabbi Naḥman bar Yitzḥak raises an objection /b from the mishna: b A i lulav /i that was stolen or that is /b completely b dry /b is b unfit. /b By inference, one concludes b that a borrowed /b i lulav /i b is fit /b for use. The Gemara asks: b When /b does this i halakha /i apply? b If you say /b that it applies only on b the first day of the Festival, isn’t it written: /b “And you shall take b for yourselves /b on the first day,” indicating that the four species must be taken b from your own /b property, b and this /b borrowed i lulav /i b is not his? /b Clearly, the mishna is not referring to the first day. b Rather, is it not /b that the mishna is referring to b the second day of the Festival, and /b the mishna b teaches that a stolen /b i lulav /i b is unfit /b on this day too, contrary to Shmuel’s opinion?, b Rava said: Actually, /b the mishna can be explained as referring to b the first day of the Festival, /b and the i tanna /i b is stating /b the i halakha /i employing the didactic style: b It was not necessary. It was not necessary /b to state that one does not fulfill his obligation with b a borrowed i lulav /i , as it is not his. However, /b with regard to b a stolen /b i lulav /i , b say: /b Barring extraordinary circumstances, b standard robbery /b is a case that leads to b despair of the owners, and /b despite the fact that a stolen i lulav /i was acquired by means of a transgression, its legal status b is like /b the robber’s own property. Therefore, the mishna b teaches us /b that this is not so. One does not fulfill his obligation with a stolen i lulav /i . The mishna is not a refutation of Shmuel’s opinion.,§ Apropos the unfitness of four species acquired through robbery, the Gemara relates: b Rav Huna said to the merchants [ i avankarei /i ] /b selling the four species: b When you purchase myrtle /b branches b from gentiles, don’t you cut /b them off the tree? b Rather, let the gentiles cut them and give them to you. What is the reason /b for this advice? It is because b typical gentiles are land robbers, /b |
|
