|1. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 21.1 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • academies (yeshivot) • school/academy
Found in books: Brooke et al. (2008), Past Renewals: Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation, and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity, 284; Hirshman (2009), The Stabilization of Rabbinic Culture, 100 C, 61
21.1 אִם־אַחֶרֶת יִקַּח־לוֹ שְׁאֵרָהּ כְּסוּתָהּ וְעֹנָתָהּ לֹא יִגְרָע׃21.1 וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם׃ ' None
21.1 Now these are the ordices which thou shalt set before them.'' None
|2. Hebrew Bible, Nehemiah, 8.4 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • academies (yeshivot) • bet midrash (rabbinic academy), Torah study
Found in books: Hirshman (2009), The Stabilization of Rabbinic Culture, 100 C, 122; Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 344
8.4 וַיַּעֲמֹד עֶזְרָא הַסֹּפֵר עַל־מִגְדַּל־עֵץ אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ לַדָּבָר וַיַּעֲמֹד אֶצְלוֹ מַתִּתְיָה וְשֶׁמַע וַעֲנָיָה וְאוּרִיָּה וְחִלְקִיָּה וּמַעֲשֵׂיָה עַל־יְמִינוֹ וּמִשְּׂמֹאלוֹ פְּדָיָה וּמִישָׁאֵל וּמַלְכִּיָּה וְחָשֻׁם וְחַשְׁבַּדָּנָה זְכַרְיָה מְשֻׁלָּם׃'' None
8.4 And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Uriah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchijah, and Hashum, and Hashbaddanah, Zechariah, and Meshullam.'' None
|3. Plato, Apology of Socrates, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academics, the Academy • Academy
Found in books: Fowler (2014), Plato in the Third Sophistic, 151; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 291
|21a ἐμός τε ἑταῖρος ἦν ἐκ νέου καὶ ὑμῶν τῷ πλήθει ἑταῖρός τε καὶ συνέφυγε τὴν φυγὴν ταύτην καὶ μεθʼ ὑμῶν κατῆλθε. καὶ ἴστε δὴ οἷος ἦν Χαιρεφῶν, ὡς σφοδρὸς ἐφʼ ὅτι ὁρμήσειεν. καὶ δή ποτε καὶ εἰς Δελφοὺς ἐλθὼν ἐτόλμησε τοῦτο μαντεύσασθαι—καί, ὅπερ λέγω, μὴ θορυβεῖτε, ὦ ἄνδρες—ἤρετο γὰρ δὴ εἴ τις ἐμοῦ εἴη σοφώτερος. ἀνεῖλεν οὖν ἡ Πυθία μηδένα σοφώτερον εἶναι. καὶ τούτων πέρι ὁ ἀδελφὸς ὑμῖν αὐτοῦ οὑτοσὶ μαρτυρήσει, ἐπειδὴ ἐκεῖνος τετελεύτηκεν.'' None||21a He was my comrade from a youth and the comrade of your democratic party, and shared in the recent exile and came back with you. And you know the kind of man Chaerephon was, how impetuous in whatever he undertook. Well, once he went to Delphi and made so bold as to ask the oracle this question; and, gentlemen, don’t make a disturbance at what I say; for he asked if there were anyone wiser than I. Now the Pythia replied that there was no one wiser. And about these things his brother here will bear you witness, since Chaerephon is dead.'' None|
|4. Plato, Phaedo, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academy, disagreements over interpretation of Plato’s dialogues • Plato, authority in the Academy
Found in books: Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 13; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 13, 99
|118a ὁ δ’ οὐκ ἔφη. ΦΑΙΔ. καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο αὖθις τὰς κνήμας: καὶ ἐπανιὼν οὕτως ἡμῖν ἐπεδείκνυτο ὅτι ψύχοιτό τε καὶ πήγνυτο. καὶ αὐτὸς ἥπτετο καὶ εἶπεν ὅτι, ἐπειδὰν πρὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ γένηται αὐτῷ, τότε οἰχήσεται. unit="para"/ἤδη οὖν σχεδόν τι αὐτοῦ ἦν τὰ περὶ τὸ ἦτρον ψυχόμενα, καὶ ἐκκαλυψάμενος — ἐνεκεκάλυπτο γάρ — εἶπεν — ὃ δὴ τελευταῖον ἐφθέγξατο — ὦ Κρίτων, ἔφη, τῷ Ἀσκληπιῷ ὀφείλομεν ἀλεκτρυόνα: ἀλλὰ ἀπόδοτε καὶ μὴ ἀμελήσητε. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα, ἔφη, ἔσται, ὁ Κρίτων : ἀλλ᾽ ὅρα εἴ τι ἄλλο λέγεις. ταῦτα ἐρομένου αὐτοῦ οὐδὲν ἔτι ἀπεκρίνατο, ἀλλ’ ὀλίγον χρόνον διαλιπὼν ἐκινήθη τε καὶ ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐξεκάλυψεν αὐτόν, καὶ ὃς τὰ ὄμματα ἔστησεν: ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Κρίτων συνέλαβε τὸ στόμα καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς. ἥδε ἡ τελευτή, ὦ Ἐχέκρατες, τοῦ ἑταίρου ἡμῖν ἐγένετο, ἀνδρός, ὡς ἡμεῖς φαῖμεν ἄν, τῶν τότε ὧν ἐπειράθημεν ἀρίστου καὶ ἄλλως φρονιμωτάτου καὶ δικαιοτάτου.'' None||118a his thighs; and passing upwards in this way he showed us that he was growing cold and rigid. And again he touched him and said that when it reached his heart, he would be gone. The chill had now reached the region about the groin, and uncovering his face, which had been covered, he said—and these were his last words— Crito, we owe a cock to Aesculapius. Pay it and do not neglect it. That, said Crito, shall be done; but see if you have anything else to say. To this question he made no reply, but after a little while he moved; the attendant uncovered him; his eyes were fixed. And Crito when he saw it, closed his mouth and eyes.Such was the end, Echecrates, of our friend, who was, as we may say, of all those of his time whom we have known, the best and wisest and most righteous man.'' None|
|5. Plato, Phaedrus, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academics, the Academy • Academy • Academy, disagreements over interpretation of Plato’s dialogues • Academy, plane tree • Plato, authority in the Academy
Found in books: Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 97; Erler et al. (2021), Authority and Authoritative Texts in the Platonist Tradition, 23, 58; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 291; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 97
|229a ΣΩ. δεῦρʼ ἐκτραπόμενοι κατὰ τὸν Ἰλισὸν ἴωμεν, εἶτα ὅπου ἂν δόξῃ ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ καθιζησόμεθα. ΦΑΙ. εἰς καιρόν, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἀνυπόδητος ὢν ἔτυχον· σὺ μὲν γὰρ δὴ ἀεί. ῥᾷστον οὖν ἡμῖν κατὰ τὸ ὑδάτιον βρέχουσι τοὺς πόδας ἰέναι, καὶ οὐκ ἀηδές, ἄλλως τε καὶ τήνδε τὴν ὥραν τοῦ ἔτους τε καὶ τῆς ἡμέρας. ΣΩ. πρόαγε δή, καὶ σκόπει ἅμα ὅπου καθιζησόμεθα. ΦΑΙ. ὁρᾷς οὖν ἐκείνην τὴν ὑψηλοτάτην πλάτανον; ΣΩ. τί μήν;'245c παρὰ θεῶν ἡ τοιαύτη μανία δίδοται· ἡ δὲ δὴ ἀπόδειξις ἔσται δεινοῖς μὲν ἄπιστος, σοφοῖς δὲ πιστή. δεῖ οὖν πρῶτον ψυχῆς φύσεως πέρι θείας τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνης ἰδόντα πάθη τε καὶ ἔργα τἀληθὲς νοῆσαι· ἀρχὴ δὲ ἀποδείξεως ἥδε. 274b πάσχειν ὅτι ἄν τῳ συμβῇ παθεῖν. ΦΑΙ. καὶ μάλα. ΣΩ. οὐκοῦν τὸ μὲν τέχνης τε καὶ ἀτεχνίας λόγων πέρι ἱκανῶς ἐχέτω. ΦΑΙ. τί μήν; ΣΩ. τὸ δʼ εὐπρεπείας δὴ γραφῆς πέρι καὶ ἀπρεπείας, πῇ γιγνόμενον καλῶς ἂν ἔχοι καὶ ὅπῃ ἀπρεπῶς, λοιπόν. ἦ γάρ; ΦΑΙ. ναί. ΣΩ. οἶσθʼ οὖν ὅπῃ μάλιστα θεῷ χαριῇ λόγων πέρι πράττων ἢ λέγων; ΦΑΙ. οὐδαμῶς· σὺ δέ; ' None||229a Socrates. Let us turn aside here and go along the Ilissus ; then we can sit down quietly wherever we please. Phaedrus. I am fortunate, it seems, in being barefoot; you are so always. It is easiest then for us to go along the brook with our feet in the water, and it is not unpleasant, especially at this time of the year and the day. Socrates. Lead on then, and look out for a good place where we may sit. Phaedrus. Do you see that very tall plane tree? Socrates. What of it?'245c is given by the gods for our greatest happiness; and our proof will not be believed by the merely clever, but will be accepted by the truly wise. First, then, we must learn the truth about the soul divine and human by observing how it acts and is acted upon. And the beginning of our proof is as follows: Every soul is immortal. For that which is ever moving is immortal but that which moves something else or is moved by something else, when it ceases to move, ceases to live. Only that which moves itself, since it does not leave itself, never ceases to move, and this is also 274b noble objects, no matter what happens to us. Phaedrus. Certainly. Socrates. We have, then, said enough about the art of speaking and that which is no art. Phaedrus. Assuredly. Socrates. But we have still to speak of propriety and impropriety in writing, how it should be done and how it is improper, have we not? Phaedrus. Yes. Socrates. Do you know how you can act or speak about rhetoric so as to please God best? Phaedrus. Not at all; do you? ' None|
|6. Plato, Timaeus, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academy • Academy, Early • Academy, disagreements over interpretation of Plato’s dialogues • Academy, exedra • Cicero, Marcus Tullius, Academic Books • Ouranos, in the Early Academy • Plato, authority in the Academy
Found in books: Bartninkas (2023), Traditional and Cosmic Gods in Later Plato and the Early Academy. 217; Brenk and Lanzillotta (2023), Plutarch on Literature, Graeco-Roman Religion, Jews and Christians, 116; Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 94; Erler et al. (2021), Authority and Authoritative Texts in the Platonist Tradition, 56, 108; Fowler (2014), Plato in the Third Sophistic, 277; Frede and Laks (2001), Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath, 55, 64, 66, 68; Leão and Lanzillotta (2019), A Man of Many Interests: Plutarch on Religion, Myth, and Magic, 199, 257; Tsouni (2019), Antiochus and Peripatetic Ethics, 67; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 94
|30b λογισάμενος οὖν ηὕρισκεν ἐκ τῶν κατὰ φύσιν ὁρατῶν οὐδὲν ἀνόητον τοῦ νοῦν ἔχοντος ὅλον ὅλου κάλλιον ἔσεσθαί ποτε ἔργον, νοῦν δʼ αὖ χωρὶς ψυχῆς ἀδύνατον παραγενέσθαι τῳ. διὰ δὴ τὸν λογισμὸν τόνδε νοῦν μὲν ἐν ψυχῇ, ψυχὴν δʼ ἐν σώματι συνιστὰς τὸ πᾶν συνετεκταίνετο, ὅπως ὅτι κάλλιστον εἴη κατὰ φύσιν ἄριστόν τε ἔργον ἀπειργασμένος. οὕτως οὖν δὴ κατὰ λόγον τὸν εἰκότα δεῖ λέγειν τόνδε τὸν κόσμον ζῷον ἔμψυχον ἔννουν τε τῇ ἀληθείᾳ διὰ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ'41b δεθὲν πᾶν λυτόν, τό γε μὴν καλῶς ἁρμοσθὲν καὶ ἔχον εὖ λύειν ἐθέλειν κακοῦ· διʼ ἃ καὶ ἐπείπερ γεγένησθε, ἀθάνατοι μὲν οὐκ ἐστὲ οὐδʼ ἄλυτοι τὸ πάμπαν, οὔτι μὲν δὴ λυθήσεσθέ γε οὐδὲ τεύξεσθε θανάτου μοίρας, τῆς ἐμῆς βουλήσεως μείζονος ἔτι δεσμοῦ καὶ κυριωτέρου λαχόντες ἐκείνων οἷς ὅτʼ ἐγίγνεσθε συνεδεῖσθε. νῦν οὖν ὃ λέγω πρὸς ὑμᾶς ἐνδεικνύμενος, μάθετε. θνητὰ ἔτι γένη λοιπὰ τρία ἀγέννητα· τούτων δὲ μὴ γενομένων οὐρανὸς ἀτελὴς ἔσται· τὰ γὰρ ἅπαντʼ ἐν 48e ἐπικαλεσάμενοι πάλιν ἀρχώμεθα λέγειν. ΤΙ. τὰ μὲν γὰρ δύο ἱκανὰ ἦν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν λεχθεῖσιν, ἓν μὲν ὡς παραδείγματος εἶδος ὑποτεθέν, νοητὸν καὶ ἀεὶ κατὰ ταὐτὰ ὄν, μίμημα δὲ 50c μορφὴν οὐδεμίαν ποτὲ οὐδενὶ τῶν εἰσιόντων ὁμοίαν εἴληφεν οὐδαμῇ οὐδαμῶς· ἐκμαγεῖον γὰρ φύσει παντὶ κεῖται, κινούμενόν τε καὶ διασχηματιζόμενον ὑπὸ τῶν εἰσιόντων, φαίνεται δὲ διʼ ἐκεῖνα ἄλλοτε ἀλλοῖον—τὰ δὲ εἰσιόντα καὶ ἐξιόντα τῶν ὄντων ἀεὶ μιμήματα, τυπωθέντα ἀπʼ αὐτῶν τρόπον τινὰ δύσφραστον καὶ θαυμαστόν, ὃν εἰς αὖθις μέτιμεν. ἐν δʼ οὖν τῷ παρόντι χρὴ γένη διανοηθῆναι τριττά, τὸ μὲν 52b ἕδραν δὲ παρέχον ὅσα ἔχει γένεσιν πᾶσιν, αὐτὸ δὲ μετʼ ἀναισθησίας ἁπτὸν λογισμῷ τινι νόθῳ, μόγις πιστόν, πρὸς ὃ δὴ καὶ ὀνειροπολοῦμεν βλέποντες καί φαμεν ἀναγκαῖον εἶναί που τὸ ὂν ἅπαν ἔν τινι τόπῳ καὶ κατέχον χώραν τινά, τὸ δὲ μήτʼ ἐν γῇ μήτε που κατʼ οὐρανὸν οὐδὲν εἶναι. ταῦτα δὴ πάντα καὶ τούτων ἄλλα ἀδελφὰ καὶ περὶ τὴν ἄυπνον καὶ ἀληθῶς φύσιν ὑπάρχουσαν ὑπὸ ταύτης τῆς ὀνειρώξεως 90a διὸ φυλακτέον ὅπως ἂν ἔχωσιν τὰς κινήσεις πρὸς ἄλληλα συμμέτρους. τὸ δὲ δὴ περὶ τοῦ κυριωτάτου παρʼ ἡμῖν ψυχῆς εἴδους διανοεῖσθαι δεῖ τῇδε, ὡς ἄρα αὐτὸ δαίμονα θεὸς ἑκάστῳ δέδωκεν, τοῦτο ὃ δή φαμεν οἰκεῖν μὲν ἡμῶν ἐπʼ ἄκρῳ τῷ σώματι, πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἐν οὐρανῷ συγγένειαν ἀπὸ γῆς ἡμᾶς αἴρειν ὡς ὄντας φυτὸν οὐκ ἔγγειον ἀλλὰ οὐράνιον, ὀρθότατα λέγοντες· ἐκεῖθεν γάρ, ὅθεν ἡ πρώτη τῆς ψυχῆς γένεσις ἔφυ, τὸ θεῖον τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ ῥίζαν ἡμῶν ' None||30b none that is irrational will be fairer, comparing wholes with wholes, than the rational; and further, that reason cannot possibly belong to any apart from Soul. So because of this reflection He constructed reason within soul and soul within body as He fashioned the All, that so the work He was executing might be of its nature most fair and most good. Thus, then, in accordance with the likely account, we must declare that this Cosmos has verily come into existence as a Living Creature endowed with soul and reason owing to the providence of God.'41b yet to will to dissolve that which is fairly joined together and in good case were the deed of a wicked one. Wherefore ye also, seeing that ye were generated, are not wholly immortal or indissoluble, yet in no wise shall ye be dissolved nor incur the doom of death, seeing that in my will ye possess a bond greater and more sovereign than the bonds wherewith, at your birth, ye were bound together. Now, therefore, what I manifest and declare unto you do ye learn. Three mortal kinds still remain ungenerated; but if these come not into being the Heaven will be imperfect; for it will not contain within itself the whole sum of the hinds of living creatures, yet contain them it must if 48e to a conclusion based on likelihood, and thus begin our account once more. Tim. For our former exposition those two were sufficient, one of them being assumed as a Model Form, intelligible and ever uniformly existent, 50c the same account must be given. It must be called always by the same name; for from its own proper quality it never departs at all for while it is always receiving all things, nowhere and in no wise does it assume any shape similar to any of the things that enter into it. For it is laid down by nature as a molding-stuff for everything, being moved and marked by the entering figures, and because of them it appears different at different times. And the figures that enter and depart are copies of those that are always existent, being stamped from them in a fashion marvellous and hard to describe, which we shall investigate hereafter. 52b which admits not of destruction, and provides room for all things that have birth, itself being apprehensible by a kind of bastard reasoning by the aid of non-sensation, barely an object of belief; for when we regard this we dimly dream and affirm that it is somehow necessary that all that exists should exist in some spot and occupying some place, and that that which is neither on earth nor anywhere in the Heaven is nothing. So because of all these and other kindred notions, we are unable also on waking up to distinguish clearly the unsleeping and truly subsisting substance, owing to our dreamy condition, 90a wherefore care must be taken that they have their motions relatively to one another in due proportion. And as regards the most lordly kind of our soul, we must conceive of it in this wise: we declare that God has given to each of us, as his daemon, that kind of soul which is housed in the top of our body and which raises us—seeing that we are not an earthly but a heavenly plant up from earth towards our kindred in the heaven. And herein we speak most truly; for it is by suspending our head and root from that region whence the substance of our soul first came that the Divine Power ' None|
|7. None, None, nan (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academy, disagreements over interpretation of Plato’s dialogues • Academy, division of presbyteroi and neaniskoi • Academy, purpose • Plato, authority in the Academy
Found in books: Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 81; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 81
|8. None, None, nan (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academics, the Academy • Academy
Found in books: Erler et al. (2021), Authority and Authoritative Texts in the Platonist Tradition, 82; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 294
|9. None, None, nan (4th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academy
Found in books: Brenk and Lanzillotta (2023), Plutarch on Literature, Graeco-Roman Religion, Jews and Christians, 145; Frede and Laks (2001), Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath, 42, 73
|10. None, None, nan (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academy, disagreements over interpretation of Plato’s dialogues • Plato, authority in the Academy
Found in books: Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 93, 94; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 93, 94
|11. None, None, nan (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academy, disagreements over interpretation of Plato’s dialogues • Plato, authority in the Academy
Found in books: Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 88; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 88
|12. None, None, nan (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academy, disagreements over interpretation of Plato’s dialogues • Plato, authority in the Academy
Found in books: Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 95; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 95
|13. None, None, nan (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academy, disagreements over interpretation of Plato’s dialogues • Plato, authority in the Academy
Found in books: Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 94; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 94
|14. None, None, nan (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academy, disagreements over interpretation of Plato’s dialogues • Plato, authority in the Academy
Found in books: Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 96; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 96
|15. None, None, nan (4th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academy, disagreements over interpretation of Plato’s dialogues • Plato, authority in the Academy
Found in books: Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 97; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 97
|16. None, None, nan (4th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academy • Academy, Early
Found in books: Erler et al. (2021), Authority and Authoritative Texts in the Platonist Tradition, 20; Frede and Laks (2001), Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath, 71
|17. None, None, nan (3rd cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academics, the Academy • Academy, The (of Plato) • Cicero, Academic scepticism • scepticism, Academic
Found in books: Cohen (2010), The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism, 546; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 223; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 245
|18. Cicero, On Divination, 1.7, 1.9, 2.1-2.2, 2.4, 2.8, 2.15, 2.28, 2.70, 2.86-2.87, 2.96, 2.148-2.150 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academic philosophy • Academic philosophy, attitude towards auctoritas • Academic scepticism/sceptics, New Academy/New Academic • Academics, the Academy • Academy • Academy (Plato’s philosophical school) • Cicero, Academic scepticism • Cicero, Marcus Tullius, and Academic scepticism • Cicero, shift to Academic Skepticism • New Academy • scepticism, Academic • skepticism, Academic
Found in books: Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 280, 285; Frede and Laks (2001), Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath, 266; Leão and Lanzillotta (2019), A Man of Many Interests: Plutarch on Religion, Myth, and Magic, 89; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 131, 139, 285, 287, 288, 289; Long (2019), Immortality in Ancient Philosophy, 105; Maso (2022), CIcero's Philosophy, 80; Rosa and Santangelo (2020), Cicero and Roman Religion: Eight Studies, 142; Santangelo (2013), Roman Frugality: Modes of Moderation from the Archaic Age to the Early Empire and Beyond, 12, 79; Tsouni (2019), Antiochus and Peripatetic Ethics, 30, 31, 38; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 280, 284, 285, 286; Williams (2012), The Cosmic Viewpoint: A Study of Seneca's 'Natural Questions', 315, 316; Wynne (2019), Horace and the Gift Economy of Patronage, 227, 268
1.7 Sed haec quidem laus Academiae praestantissumi philosophi iudicio et testimonio conprobata est. Etenim nobismet ipsis quaerentibus, quid sit de divinatione iudicandum, quod a Carneade multa acute et copiose contra Stoicos disputata sint, verentibusque, ne temere vel falsae rei vel non satis cognitae adsentiamur, faciendum videtur, ut diligenter etiam atque etiam argumenta cum argumentis comparemus, ut fecimus in iis tribus libris, quos de natura deorum scripsimus. Nam cum omnibus in rebus temeritas in adsentiendo errorque turpis est, tum in eo loco maxime, in quo iudicandum est, quantum auspiciis rebusque divinis religionique tribuamus; est enim periculum, ne aut neglectis iis impia fraude aut susceptis anili superstitione obligemur.
1.9 Eius rationi non sane desidero quid respondeam; satis enim defensa religio est in secundo libro a Lucilio, cuius disputatio tibi ipsi, ut in extremo tertio scribis, ad veritatem est visa propensior. Sed, quod praetermissum est in illis libris (credo, quia commodius arbitratus es separatim id quaeri deque eo disseri), id est de divinatione, quae est earum rerum, quae fortuitae putantur, praedictio atque praesensio, id, si placet, videamus quam habeat vim et quale sit. Ego enim sic existimo, si sint ea genera dividi vera, de quibus accepimus quaeque colimus, esse deos, vicissimque, si di sint, esse qui divinent.' 2.1 Quaerenti mihi multumque et diu cogitanti, quanam re possem prodesse quam plurimis, ne quando intermitterem consulere rei publicae, nulla maior occurrebat, quam si optimarum artium vias traderem meis civibus; quod conpluribus iam libris me arbitror consecutum. Nam et cohortati sumus, ut maxime potuimus, ad philosophiae studium eo libro, qui est inscriptus Hortensius, et, quod genus philosophandi minime adrogans maximeque et constans et elegans arbitraremur, quattuor Academicis libris ostendimus. 2.2 Cumque fundamentum esset philosophiae positum in finibus bonorum et malorum, perpurgatus est is locus a nobis quinque libris, ut, quid a quoque, et quid contra quemque philosophum diceretur, intellegi posset. Totidem subsecuti libri Tusculanarum disputationum res ad beate vivendum maxime necessarias aperuerunt. Primus enim est de contemnenda morte, secundus de tolerando dolore, de aegritudine lenienda tertius, quartus de reliquis animi perturbationibus, quintus eum locum conplexus est, qui totam philosophiam maxime inlustrat; docet enim ad beate vivendum virtutem se ipsa esse contentam.
2.4 Cumque Aristoteles itemque Theophrastus, excellentes viri cum subtilitate, tum copia, cum philosophia dicendi etiam praecepta coniunxerint, nostri quoque oratorii libri in eundem librorum numerum referendi videntur. Ita tres erunt de oratore, quartus Brutus, quintus orator. Adhuc haec erant; ad reliqua alacri tendebamus animo sic parati, ut, nisi quae causa gravior obstitisset, nullum philosophiae locum esse pateremur, qui non Latinis litteris inlustratus pateret. Quod enim munus rei publicae adferre maius meliusve possumus, quam si docemus atque erudimus iuventutem? his praesertim moribus atque temporibus, quibus ita prolapsa est, ut omnium opibus refreda atque coe+rcenda sit.
2.8 Nam cum de divinatione Quintus frater ea disseruisset, quae superiore libro scripta sunt, satisque ambulatum videretur, tum in bibliotheca, quae in Lycio est, adsedimus. Atque ego: Adcurate tu quidem, inquam, Quinte, et Stoice Stoicorum sententiam defendisti, quodque me maxime delectat, plurimis nostris exemplis usus es, et iis quidem claris et inlustribus. Dicendum est mihi igitur ad ea, quae sunt a te dicta, sed ita, nihil ut adfirmem, quaeram omnia, dubitans plerumque et mihi ipse diffidens. Si enim aliquid certi haberem, quod dicerem, ego ipse divinarem, qui esse divinationem nego.
2.15 Potestne igitur earum rerum, quae nihil habent rationis, quare futurae sint, esse ulla praesensio? Quid est enim aliud fors, quid fortuna, quid casus, quid eventus, nisi cum sic aliquid cecidit, sic evenit, ut vel aliter cadere atque evenire potuerit? Quo modo ergo id, quod temere fit caeco casu et volubilitate fortunae, praesentiri et praedici potest?
2.28 Ut ordiar ab haruspicina, quam ego rei publicae causa communisque religionis colendam censeo. Sed soli sumus; licet verum exquirere sine invidia, mihi praesertim de plerisque dubitanti. Inspiciamus, si placet, exta primum. Persuaderi igitur cuiquam potest ea, quae significari dicuntur extis, cognita esse ab haruspicibus observatione diuturna? Quam diuturna ista fuit? aut quam longinquo tempore observari potuit? aut quo modo est conlatum inter ipsos, quae pars inimica, quae pars familiaris esset, quod fissum periculum, quod commodum aliquod ostenderet? An haec inter se haruspices Etrusci, Elii, Aegyptii, Poeni contulerunt? At id, praeterquam quod fieri non potuit, ne fingi quidem potest; alios enim alio more videmus exta interpretari, nec esse unam omnium disciplinam.
2.86 Eodemque tempore in eo loco, ubi Fortunae nunc est aedes, mel ex olea fluxisse dicunt, haruspicesque dixisse summa nobilitate illas sortis futuras, eorumque iussu ex illa olea arcam esse factam, eoque conditas sortis, quae hodie Fortunae monitu tolluntur. Quid igitur in his potest esse certi, quae Fortunae monitu pueri manu miscentur atque ducuntur? quo modo autem istae positae in illo loco? quis robur illud cecidit, dolavit, inscripsit? Nihil est, inquiunt, quod deus efficere non possit. Utinam sapientis Stoicos effecisset, ne omnia cum superstitiosa sollicitudine et miseria crederent! Sed hoc quidem genus divinationis vita iam communis explosit; fani pulchritudo et vetustas Praenestinarum etiam nunc retinet sortium nomen, atque id in volgus.
2.87 Quis enim magistratus aut quis vir inlustrior utitur sortibus? ceteris vero in locis sortes plane refrixerunt. Quod Carneadem Clitomachus scribit dicere solitum, nusquam se fortunatiorem quam Praeneste vidisse Fortunam. Ergo hoc divinationis genus omittamus. Ad Chaldaeorum monstra veniamus; de quibus Eudoxus, Platonis auditor, in astrologia iudicio doctissimorum hominum facile princeps, sic opinatur, id quod scriptum reliquit, Chaldaeis in praedictione et in notatione cuiusque vitae ex natali die minime esse credendum.
2.96 Quid? illudne dubium est, quin multi, cum ita nati essent, ut quaedam contra naturam depravata haberent, restituerentur et corrigerentur ab natura, cum se ipsa revocasset, aut arte atque medicina? ut, quorum linguae sic inhaererent, ut loqui non possent, eae scalpello resectae liberarentur. Multi etiam naturae vitium meditatione atque exercitatione sustulerunt, ut Demosthenem scribit Phalereus, cum rho dicere nequiret, exercitatione fecisse, ut planissume diceret. Quodsi haec astro ingenerata et tradita essent, nulla res ea mutare posset. Quid? dissimilitudo locorum nonne dissimilis hominum procreationes habet? quas quidem percurrere oratione facile est, quid inter Indos et Persas, Aethiopas et Syros differat corporibus, animis, ut incredibilis varietas dissimilitudoque sit.
2.148 Explodatur igitur haec quoque somniorum divinatio pariter cum ceteris. Nam, ut vere loquamur, superstitio fusa per gentis oppressit omnium fere animos atque hominum inbecillitatem occupavit. Quod et in iis libris dictum est, qui sunt de natura deorum, et hac disputatione id maxume egimus. Multum enim et nobismet ipsis et nostris profuturi videbamur, si eam funditus sustulissemus. Nec vero (id enim diligenter intellegi volo) superstitione tollenda religio tollitur. Nam et maiorum instituta tueri sacris caerimoniisque retinendis sapientis est, et esse praestantem aliquam aeternamque naturam, et eam suspiciendam admirandamque hominum generi pulchritudo mundi ordoque rerum caelestium cogit confiteri.
2.149 Quam ob rem, ut religio propaganda etiam est, quae est iuncta cum cognitione naturae, sic superstitionis stirpes omnes eligendae. Instat enim et urget et, quo te cumque verteris, persequitur, sive tu vatem sive tu omen audieris, sive immolaris sive avem aspexeris, si Chaldaeum, si haruspicem videris, si fulserit, si tonuerit, si tactum aliquid erit de caelo, si ostenti simile natum factumve quippiam; quorum necesse est plerumque aliquid eveniat, ut numquam liceat quieta mente consistere.'' None
1.7 As briefly as I could, I have discussed divination by means of dreams and frenzy, which, as I said, are devoid of art. Both depend on the same reasoning, which is that habitually employed by our friend Cratippus: The human soul is in some degree derived and drawn from a source exterior to itself. Hence we understand that outside the human soul there is a divine soul from which the human soul is sprung. Moreover, that portion of the human soul which is endowed with sensation, motion, and carnal desire is inseparable from bodily influence; while that portion which thinks and reasons is most vigorous when it is most distant from the body.
1.7 At any rate, this praiseworthy tendency of the Academy to doubt has been approved by the solemn judgement of a most eminent philosopher. 4 Accordingly, since I, too, am in doubt as to the proper judgement to be rendered in regard to divination because of the many pointed and exhaustive arguments urged by Carneades against the Stoic view, and since I am afraid of giving a too hasty assent to a proposition which may turn out either false or insufficiently established, I have determined carefully and persistently to compare argument with argument just as I did in my three books On the Nature of the Gods. For a hasty acceptance of an erroneous opinion is discreditable in any case, and especially so in an inquiry as to how much weight should be given to auspices, to sacred rites, and to religious observances; for we run the risk of committing a crime against the gods if we disregard them, or of becoming involved in old womens superstition if we approve them. 5
1.9 However, I am really at no loss for a reply to his reasoning; for in the second book Lucilius has made an adequate defence of religion and his argument, as you yourself state at the end of the third book, seemed to you nearer to the truth than Cottas. But there is a question which you passed over in those books because, no doubt, you thought it more expedient to inquire into it in a separate discussion: I refer to divination, which is the foreseeing and foretelling of events considered as happening by chance. Now let us see, if you will, what efficacy it has and what its nature is. My own opinion is that, if the kinds of divination which we have inherited from our forefathers and now practise are trustworthy, then there are gods and, conversely, if there are gods then there are men who have the power of divination. 6
1.9 Nor is the practice of divination disregarded even among uncivilized tribes, if indeed there are Druids in Gaul — and there are, for I knew one of them myself, Divitiacus, the Aeduan, your guest and eulogist. He claimed to have that knowledge of nature which the Greeks call physiologia, and he used to make predictions, sometimes by means of augury and sometimes by means of conjecture. Among the Persians the augurs and diviners are the magi, who assemble regularly in a sacred place for practice and consultation, just as formerly you augurs used to do on the Nones.
2.1 Book IIAfter serious and long continued reflection as to how I might do good to as many people as possible and thereby prevent any interruption of my service to the State, no better plan occurred to me than to conduct my fellow-citizens in the ways of the noblest learning — and this, I believe, I have already accomplished through my numerous books. For example, in my work entitled Hortensius, I appealed as earnestly as I could for the study of philosophy. And in my Academics, in four volumes, I set forth the philosophic system which I thought least arrogant, and at the same time most consistent and refined.
2.1 The same rule applies in literature and in other departments of learning. And do you really believe that those who are credited with powers of divining, can, for that reason, tell whether the sun is larger than the earth, and whether it is as big as it seems to be? Or whether the moon shines by its own light or by that of the sun? Or do you think that they understand the motions of the sun and moon and of the five stars, which are called planets? Your reputed diviners do not claim that they can answer any of these questions; nor will they profess to tell whether geometrical figures are correctly drawn or not, for that is the business of mathematicians, not of seers.4 Now let us consider matters within the purview of philosophy: When the question is as to what is morally right, or morally wrong, or as to what is neither the one nor the other, do we usually have our doubts resolved by diviners? In fact, do we often consult them in such a case?
2.1 There remain the two kinds of divination which we are said to derive from nature and not from art — vaticination and dreams, — these, my dear Quintus, if agreeable to you, let us now discuss.Delighted, I assure you, said he, for I am in entire accord with the views which you have so far expressed. To be quite frank, your argument has merely strengthened the opinion which I already had, for my own reasoning had convinced me that the Stoic view of divination smacked too much of superstition. I was more impressed by the reasoning of the Peripatetics, of Dicaearchus, of ancient times, and of Cratippus, who still flourishes. According to their opinion there is within the human soul some sort of power — oracular, I might call it — by which the future is foreseen when the soul is inspired by a divine frenzy, or when it is released by sleep and is free to move at will. I should like very much to learn your views of these two classes of divination and by what arguments you disprove them. 49 2.2 And, since the foundation of philosophy rests on the distinction between good and evil, I exhaustively treated that subject in five volumes and in such a way that the conflicting views of the different philosophers might be known. Next, and in the same number of volumes, came the Tusculan Disputations, which made plain the means most essential to a happy life. For the first volume treats of indifference to death, the second of enduring pain, the third of the alleviation of sorrow, the fourth of other spiritual disturbances; and the fifth embraces a topic which sheds the brightest light on the entire field of philosophy since it teaches that virtue is sufficient of itself for the attainment of happiness. 2.2 of what advantage to me is divination if everything is ruled by Fate? On that hypothesis what the diviner predicts is bound to happen. Hence I do not know what to make of the fact that an eagle recalled our intimate friend Deiotarus from his journey; for if he had not turned back he must have been sleeping in the room when it was destroyed the following night, and, therefore, have been crushed in the ruins. And yet, if Fate had willed it, he would not have escaped that calamity; and vice versa. Hence, I repeat, what is the good of divination? Or what is it that lots, entrails, or any other means of prophecy warn me to avoid? For, if it was the will of Fate that the Roman fleets in the First Punic War should perish — the one by shipwreck and the other at the hands of the Carthaginians — they would have perished just the same even if the sacred chickens had made a tripudium solistimum in the consulship of Lucius Junius and Publius Claudius! On the other hand, if obedience to the auspices would have prevented the destruction of the fleets, then they did not perish in accordance with Fate. But you insist that all things happen by Fate; therefore there is no such thing as divination.
2.4 And they can laugh with the better grace because Epicurus, to make the gods ridiculous, represents them as transparent, with the winds blowing through them, and living between two worlds (as if between our two groves) from fear of the downfall. He further says that the gods have limbs just as we have, but make no use of them. Hence, while he takes a roundabout way to destroy the gods, he does not hesitate to take a short road to destroy divination. At any rate Epicurus is consistent, but the Stoics are not; for his god, who has no concern for himself or for anybody else, cannot impart divination to men. And neither can your Stoic god impart divination, although he rules the world and plans for the good of mankind.
2.4 Inasmuch as Aristotle and Theophrastus, too, both of whom were celebrated for their keenness of intellect and particularly for their copiousness of speech, have joined rhetoric with philosophy, it seems proper also to put my rhetorical books in the same category; hence we shall include the three volumes On Oratory, the fourth entitled Brutus, and the fifth called The Orator.2 I have named the philosophic works so far written: to the completion of the remaining books of this series I was hastening with so much ardour that if some most grievous cause had not intervened there would not now be any phase of philosophy which I had failed to elucidate and make easily accessible in the Latin tongue. For what greater or better service can I render to the commonwealth than to instruct and train the youth — especially in view of the fact that our young men have gone so far astray because of the present moral laxity that the utmost effort will be needed to hold them in check and direct them in the right way?
2.8 After my brother Quintus had delivered his views on divination, as set out in the preceding volume, and we had walked as much as we wished, we took our seats in the library in my Lyceum, and I remarked:Really, my dear Quintus, you have defended the Stoic doctrine with accuracy and like a Stoic. But the thing that delights me most is the fact that you illustrated your argument with many incidents taken from Roman sources — incidents, too, of a distinguished and noble type. I must now reply to what you said, but I must do so with great diffidence and with many misgivings, and in such a way as to affirm nothing and question everything. For if I should assume anything that I said to be certain I should myself be playing the diviner while saying that no such thing as divination exists!
2.8 Then dismiss Romuluss augural staff, which you say the hottest of fires was powerless to burn, and attach slight importance to the whetstone of Attus Navius. Myths would have no place in philosophy. It would have been more in keeping with your rôle as a philosopher to consider, first, the nature of divination generally, second, its origin, and third, its consistency. What, then, is the nature of an art which makes prophets out of birds that wander aimlessly about — now here, now there — and makes the action or inaction of men depend upon the song or flight of birds? and why was the power granted to some birds to give a favourable omen when on the left side and to others when on the right? Again, however, when, and by whom, shall we say that the system was invented? The Etruscans, it is true, find the author of their system in the boy who was ploughed up out of the ground; but whom have we? Attus Navius? But Romulus and Remus, both of whom, by tradition, were augurs, lived many years earlier. Are we to say that it was invented by the Pisidians, Cilicians, or Phrygians? It is your judgement, then, that those devoid of human learning are the authors of a divine science! 39
2.15 Can there, then, be any foreknowledge of things for whose happening no reason exists? For we do not apply the words chance, luck, accident, or casualty except to an event which has so occurred or happened that it either might not have occurred at all, or might have occurred in any other way. How, then, is it possible to foresee and to predict an event that happens at random, as the result of blind accident, or of unstable chance?
2.15 Sleep is regarded as a refuge from every toil and care; but it is actually made the fruitful source of worry and fear. In fact dreams would be less regarded on their own account and would be viewed with greater indifference had they not been taken under the guardianship of philosophers — not philosophers of the meaner sort, but those of the keenest wit, competent to see what follows logically and what does not — men who are considered well-nigh perfect and infallible. Indeed, if their arrogance had not been resisted by Carneades, it is probable that by this time they would have adjudged the only philosophers. While most of my war of words has been with these men, it is not because I hold them in especial contempt, but on the contrary, it is because they seem to me to defend their own views with the greatest acuteness and skill. Moreover, it is characteristic of the Academy to put forward no conclusions of its own, but to approve those which seem to approach nearest to the truth; to compare arguments; to draw forth all that may be said in behalf of any opinion; and, without asserting any authority of its own, to leave the judgement of the inquirer wholly free. That same method, which by the way we inherited from Socrates, I shall, if agreeable to you, my dear Quintus, follow as often as possible in our future discussions.Nothing could please me better, Quintus replied.When this was said, we arose.
2.28 In discussing separately the various methods of divination, I shall begin with soothsaying, which, according to my deliberate judgement, should be cultivated from reasons of political expediency and in order that we may have a state religion. But we are alone and for that reason we may, without causing ill-will, make an earnest inquiry into the truth of soothsaying — certainly I can do so, since in most things my philosophy is that of doubt. In the first place, then, if you please, let us make an inspection of entrails! Now can anybody be induced to believe that the things said to be predicted by means of entrails were learned by the soothsayers through long-continued observation? How long, pray, did the observations last? How could the observations have continued for a long time? How did the soothsayers manage to agree among themselves what part of the entrails was unfavourable, and what part favourable; or what cleft in the liver indicated danger and what promised some advantage? Are the soothsayers of Etruria, Elis, Egypt, and of Carthage in accord on these matters? Apart from such an agreement being impossible in fact, it is impossible even to imagine; and, moreover, we see some nations interpreting entrails in one way and some in another; hence there is no uniformity of practice.
2.86 There is a tradition that, concurrently with the finding of the lots and in the spot where the temple of Fortune now stands, honey flowed from an olive-tree. Now the soothsayers, who had declared that those lots would enjoy an unrivalled reputation, gave orders that a chest should be made from the tree and lots placed in the chest. At the present time the lots are taken from their receptacle if Fortune directs. What reliance, pray, can you put in these lots, which at Fortunes nod are shuffled and drawn by the hand of a child? And how did they ever get in that rock? Who cut down the oak-tree? and who fashioned and carved the lots? Oh! but somebody says, God can bring anything to pass. If so, then I wish he had made the Stoics wise, so that they would not be so pitiably and distressingly superstitious and so prone to believe everything they hear! This sort of divining, however, has now been discarded by general usage. The beauty and age of the temple still preserve the name of the lots of Praeneste — that is, among the common people,
2.87 for no magistrate and no man of any reputation ever consults them; but in all other places lots have gone entirely out of use. And this explains the remark which, according to Clitomachus, Carneades used to make that he had at no other place seen Fortune more fortunate than at Praeneste. Then let us dismiss this branch of divination.42 Let us come to Chaldean manifestations. In discussing them Platos pupil, Eudoxus, whom the best scholars consider easily the first in astronomy, has left the following opinion in writing: No reliance whatever is to be placed in Chaldean astrologers when they profess to forecast a mans future from the position of the stars on the day of his birth.
2.96 Furthermore, is it not a well-known and undoubted fact that many persons who were born with certain natural defects have been restored completely by Nature herself, after she had resumed her sway, or by surgery or by medicine? For example, some, who were so tongue-tied that they could not speak, have had their tongues set free by a cut from the surgeons knife. Many more have corrected a natural defect by intelligent exertion. Demosthenes is an instance: according to the account given by Phalereus, he was unable to pronounce the Greek letter rho, but by repeated effort learned to articulate it perfectly. But if such defects had been engendered and implanted by a star nothing could have changed them. Do not unlike places produce unlike men? It would be an easy matter to sketch rapidly in passing the differences in mind and body which distinguish the Indians from the Persians and the Ethiopians from the Syrians — differences so striking and so pronounced as to be incredible.
2.148 Then let dreams, as a means of divination, be rejected along with the rest. Speaking frankly, superstition, which is widespread among the nations, has taken advantage of human weakness to cast its spell over the mind of almost every man. This same view was stated in my treatise On the Nature of the Gods; and to prove the correctness of that view has been the chief aim of the present discussion. For I thought that I should be rendering a great service both to myself and to my countrymen if I could tear this superstition up by the roots. But I want it distinctly understood that the destruction of superstition does not mean the destruction of religion. For I consider it the part of wisdom to preserve the institutions of our forefathers by retaining their sacred rites and ceremonies. Furthermore, the celestial order and the beauty of the universe compel me to confess that there is some excellent and eternal Being, who deserves the respect and homage of men.
2.149 Wherefore, just as it is a duty to extend the influence of true religion, which is closely associated with the knowledge of nature, so it is a duty to weed out every root of superstition. For superstition is ever at your heels to urge you on; it follows you at every turn. It is with you when you listen to a prophet, or an omen; when you offer sacrifices or watch the flight of birds; when you consult an astrologer or a soothsayer; when it thunders or lightens or there is a bolt from on high; or when some so‑called prodigy is born or is made. And since necessarily some of these signs are nearly always being given, no one who believes in them can ever remain in a tranquil state of mind.' ' None
|19. Cicero, De Finibus, 1.6-1.7, 2.2, 3.74, 4.36, 4.61, 5.7, 5.9-5.12, 5.14, 5.19, 5.23-5.26 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academic philosophy, attitude towards auctoritas • Academic scepticism/sceptics • Academic scepticism/sceptics, New Academy/New Academic • Academics, the Academy • Academy • Academy (Plato’s philosophical school) • Academy, • Academy, New or Skeptical • Academy, Sceptical • Academy, and Aristippus • Cicero, Academic scepticism • Cicero, Marcus Tullius, Academic Books • Cicero, Marcus Tullius, and Academic scepticism • Cicero, on Academic sceptics • New Academy • Old Academy • scepticism, Academic
Found in books: Atkins (2021), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero's Philosophy 84; Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 265; Frede and Laks (2001), Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath, 47, 50; Gilbert, Graver and McConnell (2023), Power and Persuasion in Cicero's Philosophy. 31; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 107, 110, 285, 288, 291; Motta and Petrucci (2022), Isagogical Crossroads from the Early Imperial Age to the End of Antiquity, 34; Tsouni (2019), Antiochus and Peripatetic Ethics, 31, 44, 45, 48, 53, 55, 58, 63, 64, 71, 90, 91, 181, 186; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 265, 267, 268, 269, 271, 272, 273, 293; Wolfsdorf (2020), Early Greek Ethics, 407
3.74 \xa0"However I\xa0begin to perceive that I\xa0have let myself be carried beyond the requirements of the plan that I\xa0set before me. The fact is that I\xa0have been led on by the marvellous structure of the Stoic system and the miraculous sequence of its topics; pray tell me seriously, does it not fill you with admiration? Nothing is more finished, more nicely ordered, than nature; but what has nature, what have the products of handicraft to show that is so well constructed, so firmly jointed and welded into one? Where do you find a conclusion inconsistent with its premise, or a discrepancy between an earlier and a later statement? Where is lacking such close interconnexion of the parts that, if you alter a single letter, you shake the whole structure? Though indeed there is nothing that it would be possible to alter. <' "
4.36 \xa0But as a matter of fact the creature whose Chief Good we are seeking is man. Surely then our course is to inquire what has been achieved in the whole of man's nature. All are agreed that the duty and function of Wisdom is entirely centred in the work of perfecting man; but then some thinkers (for you must not imagine that I\xa0am tilting at the Stoics only) produce theories which place the Chief Good in the class of things entirely outside our control, as though they were discussing some creature devoid of a mind; while others on the contrary ignore everything but mind, just as if man had no body; and that though even the mind is not an empty, impalpable something (a\xa0conception to me unintelligible), but belongs to a certain kind of material substance, and therefore even the mind is not satisfied with virtue alone, but desires freedom from pain. In fact, with each school alike it is just as if they should ignore the left side of their bodies and protect the right, or, in the mind, like Erillus, recognize cognition but leave the practical faculty out of account. They pick and choose, pass over a great deal and fasten on a single aspect; so all their systems are oneâ\x80\x91sided. The full and perfect philosophy was that which, investigating the Chief Good of man, left no part either of his mind or body uncaredâ\x80\x91for. <" 4.61 \xa0What if those pupils of Plato were to come to life again, and their pupils again in succession, and were to address you in this fashion? \'As we listened, Marcus Cato, to so devoted a student of philosophy, so just a man, so upright a judge, so scrupulous a witness as yourself, we marvelled what reason could induce you to reject us for the Stoics, whose views on good and evil were the views that Zeno learnt from Polemo here, but who expressed those views in terms at first sight startling but upon examination ridiculous. If you accepted those views on their merits, why did you not hold them under their own terminology? or if you were swayed by authority, could you prefer that nobody to all of us, even to Plato himself? especially when you aspired to play a leading part in the state, and we were the very persons to arm and equip you to protect the state with the highest honour to yourself. Why, it is we who invented political philosophy; and reduced it to a system; its nomenclature, its principles are our creation; on all the various forms of government, their stability, their revolutions, the laws, institutions and customs of states, we have written exhaustively. Oratory again is the proudest distinction of the statesman, and in it you, we are told, are preâ\x80\x91eminent; but how vastly you might have enriched your eloquence from the records of our genius.\' What answer, pray, could you give to these words from such men as those?" <
5.7 \xa0"Perhaps," said Piso, "it will not be altogether easy, while our friend here" (meaning me) "is by, still I\xa0will venture to urge you to leave the present New Academy for the Old, which includes, as you heard Antiochus declare, not only those who bear the name of Academics, Speusippus, Xenocrates, Polemo, Crantor and the rest, but also the early Peripatetics, headed by their chief, Aristotle, who, if Plato be excepted, I\xa0almost think deserves to be called the prince of philosophers. Do you then join them, I\xa0beg of you. From their writings and teachings can be learnt the whole of liberal culture, of history and of style; moreover they include such a variety of sciences, that without the equipment that they give no one can be adequately prepared to embark on any of the higher careers. They have produced orators, generals and statesmen. To come to the less distinguished professions, this factory of experts in all the sciences has turned out mathematicians, poets, musicians and physicians." <
5.9 \xa0Accordingly Piso spoke as follows: "About the educational value of the Peripatetic system I\xa0have said enough, in the briefest possible way, a\xa0few moments ago. Its arrangement, like that of most other systems, is threefold: one part deals with nature, the second with discourse, and the third with conduct. Natural Philosophy the Peripatetics have investigated so thoroughly that no region in sky or sea or land (to speak poetically) has been passed over. Nay more, in treating of the elements of being and the constitution of the universe they have established much of their doctrine not merely by probable arguments but by conclusive mathematical demonstration, applying a quantity of material derived from facts that they have themselves investigated to the discovery of other facts beyond the reach of observation. < 5.10 \xa0Aristotle gave a complete account of the birth, nutrition and structure of all living creatures, Theophrastus of the natural history of plants and the causes and constitution of vegetable organisms in general; and the knowledge thus attained facilitated the investigation of the most obscure questions. In Logic their teachings include the rules of rhetoric as well as of dialectic; and Aristotle their founder started the practice of arguing both pro and contra upon every topic, not like Arcesilas, always controverting every proposition, but setting out all the possible arguments on either side in every subject. < 5.11 \xa0The third division of philosophy investigates the rules of human well-being; this too was treated by the Peripatetics, so as to comprise not only the principles of individual conduct but also of the government of states. From Aristotle we learn the manners, customs and institutions, and from Theophrastus the laws also, of nearly all the states not only of Greece but of the barbarians as well. Both described the proper qualifications of a statesman, both moreover wrote lengthy treatises on the best form of constitution; Theophrastus treated the subject more fully, discussing the forces and occasions of political change, and their control as circumstances demand. Among the alternative ideals of conduct they gave the highest place to the life of retirement, devoted to contemplation and to study. This was pronounced to be most worthy of the Wise Man, as most nearly resembling the life of the gods. And these topics they handle in a style as brilliant as it is illuminating. < 5.12 \xa0"Their books on the subject of the Chief Good fall into two classes, one popular in style, and this class they used to call their exoteric works; the other more carefully wrought. The latter treatises they left in the form of note-books. This distinction occasionally gives them an appearance of inconsistency; but as a matter of fact in the main body of their doctrine there is no divergence, at all events among the philosophers I\xa0have mentioned, nor did they disagree among themselves. But on the chief object of inquiry, namely Happiness, and the one question which philosophy has to consider and to investigate, whether this lies entirely within the control of the Wise Man, or whether it can be impaired or destroyed by adversity, here there does appear sometimes to exist among them some divergence and uncertainty. This effect is chiefly produced by Theophrastus\'s book On\xa0Happiness, in which a very considerable amount of importance is assigned to fortune; though if this be correct, wisdom alone could not guarantee happiness. This theory seems to me to be, if I\xa0may so call it, too enervating and unmanly to be adequate to the force and dignity of virtue. Hence we had better keep to Aristotle and his son Nicomachus; the latter\'s elaborate volumes on Ethics are ascribed, it is true, to Aristotle, but I\xa0do not see why the son should not have been capable of emulating the father. Still, we may use Theophrastus on most points, so long as we maintain a larger element of strength and solidity in virtue than he did. <
5.14 \xa0"I\xa0pass over a\xa0number of writers, including the learned and entertaining Hieronymus. Indeed I\xa0know no reason for calling the latter a Peripatetic at all; for he defined the Chief Good as freedom from pain: and to hold a different view of the Chief Good is to hold a different system of philosophy altogether. Critolaus professed to imitate the ancients; and he does in fact come nearest to them in weight, and has a flowing style; all the same, even he is not true to the principles of his ancestors. Diodorus, his pupil, couples with Moral Worth freedom from pain. He too stands by himself; differing about the Chief Good he cannot correctly be called a Peripatetic. Our master Antiochus seems to me to adhere most scrupulously to the doctrine of the ancients, which according to his teaching was common to Aristotle and to Polemo. <
5.19 \xa0"Now, from whichever Prudence decides to be the object of the primary natural impulses, will arise a theory of right and of Moral Worth which may correspond with one or other of the three objects aforesaid. Thus Morality will consist either in aiming all our actions at pleasure, even though one may not succeed in attaining it; or at absence of pain, even though one is unable to secure it; or at getting the things in accordance with nature, even though one does not attain any of them. Hence there is a divergence between the different conceptions of the Ends of Goods and Evils, precisely equivalent to the difference of opinion as to the primary natural objects. â\x80\x94 Others again starting from the same primary objects will make the sole standard of right action the actual attainment of pleasure, freedom from pain, or the primary things in accordance with nature, respectively. <
5.23 \xa0"The calmness or tranquillity of mind which is the Chief Good of Democritus, euthumia as he calls it, has had to be excluded from this discussion, because this mental tranquillity is in itself the happiness in question; and we are inquiring not what happiness is, but what produces it. Again, the discredited and abandoned theories of Pyrrho, Aristo and Erillus cannot be brought within the circle we have drawn, and so we have not been concerned to consider them at all. For the whole of this inquiry into the Ends or, so to speak, the limits of Goods and Evils must begin from that which we have spoken of as adapted and suited to nature and which is the earliest object of desire for its own sake; now this is entirely done away with by those who maintain that, in the sphere of things which contain no element of Moral Worth or baseness, there is no reason why any one thing should be preferred to any other, and who consider these things to be absolutely indifferent; and Erillus also, if he actually held that there is nothing good but knowledge, destroyed every motive of rational action and every clue to right conduct. "Thus we have eliminated the views of all the other philosophers; and no other view is possible; therefore this doctrine of the Ancients must hold good. Let us then follow the practice of the old philosophers, adopted also by the Stoics, and start as follows. < 5.24 \xa0"Every living creature loves itself, and from the moment of birth strives to secure its own preservation; because the earliest impulse bestowed on it by nature for its life-long protection is the instinct for self-preservation and for the maintece of itself in the best condition possible to it in accordance with its nature. At the outset this tendency is vague and uncertain, so that it merely aims at protecting itself whatever its character may be; it does not understand itself nor its own capacities and nature. When, however, it has grown a little older, and has begun to understand the degree in which different things affect and concern itself, it now gradually commences to make progress. Self-consciousness dawns, and the creature begins to comprehend the reason why it possesses the instinctive appetition aforesaid, and to try to obtain the things which it perceives to be adapted to its nature and to repel their opposites. Every living creature therefore finds its object of appetition in the thing suited to its nature. Thus arises The End of Goods, namely to live in accordance with nature and in that condition which is the best and most suited to nature that is possible. < 5.25 \xa0At the same time every animal has its own nature; and consequently, while for all alike the End consists in the realization of their nature (for there is no reason why certain things should not be common to all the lower animals, and also to the lower animals and man, since all have a common nature), yet the ultimate and supreme objects that we are investigating must be differentiated and distributed among the different kinds of animals, each kind having its own peculiar to itself and adapted to the requirements of its individual nature. < 5.26 \xa0Hence when we say that the End of all living creatures is to live in accordance with nature, this must not be construed as meaning that all have one and the same end; but just as it is correct to say that all the arts and sciences have the common characteristic of occupying themselves with some branch of knowledge, while each art has its own particular branch of knowledge belonging to it, so all animals have the common End of living according to nature, but their natures are diverse, so that one thing is in accordance with nature for the horse, another for the ox, and another for man, and yet in all the Supreme End is common, and that not only in animals but also in all those things upon which nature bestows nourishment, increase and protection. Among these things we notice that plants can, in a sense, perform on their own behalf a\xa0number of actions conducive to their life and growth, so that they may attain their End after their kind. So that finally we may embrace all animate existence in one broad generalization, and say without hesitation, that all nature is self-preserving, and has before it the end and aim of maintaining itself in the best possible condition after its kind; and that consequently all things endowed by nature with life have a similar, but not an identical, End. This leads to the inference, that the ultimate Good of man is life in accordance with nature, which we may interpret as meaning life in accordance with human nature developed to its full perfection and supplied with all its needs. <' ' None
|20. Cicero, On The Ends of Good And Evil, 1.6-1.7, 2.2-2.3, 3.74, 4.3, 4.36, 4.61, 5.1-5.4, 5.7-5.14, 5.19, 5.23-5.26, 5.87-5.88 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academic Sceptics • Academic philosophy, attitude towards auctoritas • Academic scepticism/sceptics • Academic scepticism/sceptics, New Academy/New Academic • Academics • Academics, the Academy • Academy • Academy (Plato’s philosophical school) • Academy Road • Academy xiii, • Academy, • Academy, Early • Academy, New or Skeptical • Academy, Old (i.e., Antiochus’) • Academy, Sceptical • Academy, and Aristippus • Academy, plane tree • Academy, sceptical • Cicero, Academic scepticism • Cicero, Marcus Tullius, Academic Books • Cicero, Marcus Tullius, and Academic scepticism • Cicero, on Academic sceptics • New Academy • Old Academy • Skepticism, Academic • gymnasia, Academy • scepticism, Academic
Found in books: Atkins (2021), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero's Philosophy 84; Bett (2019), How to be a Pyrrhonist: The Practice and Significance of Pyrrhonian Scepticism, 54; Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 265; Erler et al. (2021), Authority and Authoritative Texts in the Platonist Tradition, 40, 58, 71, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 105, 106, 110; Fowler (2014), Plato in the Third Sophistic, 180; Frede and Laks (2001), Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath, 47, 50; Gilbert, Graver and McConnell (2023), Power and Persuasion in Cicero's Philosophy. 31; Henderson (2020), The Springtime of the People: The Athenian Ephebeia and Citizen Training from Lykourgos to Augustus, 163; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 107, 110, 285, 288, 289, 291; Long (2019), Immortality in Ancient Philosophy, 110; Motta and Petrucci (2022), Isagogical Crossroads from the Early Imperial Age to the End of Antiquity, 34; Tsouni (2019), Antiochus and Peripatetic Ethics, 3, 4, 21, 26, 31, 41, 42, 44, 45, 48, 53, 55, 58, 63, 64, 71, 90, 91, 145, 181, 186; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 265, 267, 268, 269, 271, 272, 273, 293; Wolfsdorf (2020), Early Greek Ethics, 407
2.2 sed et illum, quem nominavi, et ceteros sophistas, ut e Platone intellegi potest, lusos videmus a Socrate. is enim percontando percontando A 2 percun- tando NV percunctando A 1 BE per cunctando R atque interrogando elicere solebat eorum opiniones, quibuscum disserebat, ut ad ea, ea haec R quae ii ii hi BER hii A hij NV respondissent, si quid videretur, diceret. qui mos cum a posterioribus non esset retentus, Arcesilas archesilas A acesilaos N achesilas V eum revocavit instituitque ut ii, qui se audire vellent, non de se quaererent, sed ipsi dicerent, quid sentirent; quod cum dixissent, ille contra. sed eum eum om. RNV qui audiebant, quoad poterant, defendebant sententiam suam. apud ceteros autem philosophos, qui quaesivit aliquid, tacet; quod quidem iam fit etiam etiam om. BER in Academia. ubi enim is, qui audire vult, ita dixit: 'Voluptas mihi videtur esse summum bonum', perpetua oratione contra disputatur, ut facile intellegi possit eos, qui aliquid sibi videri sibi aliquid (aliquit E) videri BE aliquid videri sibi V dicant, non ipsos in ea sententia esse, sed audire velle contraria. Nos commodius agimus." '2.3 non enim solum Torquatus dixit quid sentiret, sed etiam cur. ego autem arbitror, quamquam admodum delectatus sum eius oratione perpetua, tamen commodius, cum in rebus singulis insistas et intellegas quid quisque concedat, quid abnuat, ex rebus concessis concludi quod velis et ad exitum perveniri. cum enim fertur quasi torrens oratio, quamvis multa cuiusque modi rapiat, nihil tamen teneas, nihil apprehendas, reprehendas BE nusquam orationem rapidam cœrceas. Omnis autem in quaerendo, quae via quadam et ratione habetur, oratio praescribere primum debet ut quibusdam in formulis ea res agetur, ut, inter quos disseritur, conveniat quid sit id, de quo disseratur.' "
3.74 Sed iam sentio me esse longius provectum, quam proposita ratio postularet. verum admirabilis compositio disciplinae incredibilisque rerum me rerum me R me rerum BE rerum ANV traxit ordo; quem, per deos inmortales! nonne miraris? quid enim aut in natura, qua nihil est aptius, nihil descriptius, aut in operibus manu factis tam compositum tamque compactum et coagmentatum coagmentatum ed. princ. Colon. cocicmentatum A cociom tatū R coaugmentatum BEN coagumentatum V inveniri potest? quid posterius priori non convenit? quid sequitur, quod non respondeat superiori? quid non sic aliud ex alio nectitur, ut, si ut si ' aliquis apud Bentl. ' Mdv. ut non si ABERN aut non si V ullam litteram moveris, labent omnia? nec tamen quicquam est, quod quod BE quo moveri possit." 4.3 Existimo igitur, inquam, Cato, veteres illos Platonis auditores, auditores Platonis BE Speusippum, Aristotelem, Xenocratem, deinde eorum, Polemonem, Theophrastum, satis et copiose et eleganter habuisse constitutam disciplinam, ut non esset causa Zenoni, cum Polemonem audisset, cur et ab eo ipso et a superioribus dissideret. quorum fuit haec institutio, in qua animadvertas velim quid mutandum putes nec expectes, dum ad omnia dicam, quae a te a te ed. princ. Rom. ante dicta sunt; universa enim illorum ratione cum tota vestra confligendum puto.
4.36 nunc de hominis summo bono quaeritur; queritur bono BE quid igitur igitur BERNV dubitamus in tota eius natura quaerere quid sit effectum? cum enim constet inter omnes omne officium munusque sapientiae in hominis cultu esse occupatum, alii—ne me existimes contra Stoicos solum dicere—eas sententias afferunt, ut summum bonum in eo genere pot, quod sit extra nostram potestatem, tamquam de iimo aliquo iimo aliquo Mdv. in animali quo B in annali quo E animali quo R iimali quo N iimato aliquo V loquantur, alii contra, quasi corpus nullum sit hominis, ita praeter animum nihil curant, cum praesertim ipse quoque animus non ie nescio quid sit—neque enim enim om. BER id possum intellegere—, sed in quodam genere corporis, ut ne is quidem virtute una contentus sit, sed appetat vacuitatem doloris. quam ob rem utrique idem faciunt, ut si laevam partem neglegerent, dexteram dextram RN tuerentur, aut ipsius animi, ut fecit Erillus, cognitionem amplexarentur, actionem relinquerent. eorum enim omnium multa praetermittentium, dum eligant aliquid, quod sequantur, quasi curta sententia; at vero illa perfecta atque plena eorum, qui cum de hominis summo bono quaererent, nullam in eo neque animi neque corporis partem vacuam tutela reliquerunt.
4.61 quid, si reviviscant Platonis illi et deinceps qui eorum auditores fuerunt, et tecum ita loquantur? Nos cum te, M. Cato, studiosissimum philosophiae, iustissimum virum, optimum iudicem, religiosissimum testem, audiremus, admirati sumus, quid esset cur nobis Stoicos anteferres, qui de rebus bonis et malis sentirent ea, quae ab hoc Polemone Zeno cognoverat, nominibus uterentur iis, quae prima specie admirationem, re explicata risum moverent. tu autem, si tibi illa probabantur, cur non propriis verbis ea ea NV eas R illa BE tenebas? sin te auctoritas commovebat, nobisne omnibus et Platoni ipsi nescio quem illum anteponebas? praesertim cum in re publica princeps esse velles ad eamque tuendam cum summa tua dignitate maxime a nobis ornari atque instrui posses. a nobis enim ista quaesita, a nobis descripta, notata, add. Lamb. praecepta sunt, omniumque rerum publicarum rectionis rectionis Mdv. rectiones BERN rectores V genera, status, mutationes, leges etiam et leges etiam et ERN leges et etiam B et etiam leges et V instituta ac mores civitatum perscripsimus. eloquentiae vero, quae et principibus maximo ornamento maximo ornamento RV maximo e ornamento B maximo cornamento E maxime (e ex corr. m. alt. ) ornamento N est, et qua te audimus audivimus RV valere plurimum, et qua te ... plurimum om. N quantum tibi ex monumentis monimentis RV nostris addidisses! Ea cum dixissent, quid tandem talibus viris responderes?' 5.1 Cum audissem audivissem ER Antiochum, Brute, ut solebam, solebam Vict. solebat cum M. Pisone in eo gymnasio, quod Ptolomaeum vocatur, unaque nobiscum Q. frater et T. Pomponius Luciusque Cicero, frater noster cognatione patruelis, amore germanus, constituimus inter nos ut ambulationem postmeridianam conficeremus in Academia, maxime quod is locus ab omni turba id temporis vacuus esset. itaque ad tempus ad Pisonem omnes. inde sermone vario sex illa a Dipylo stadia confecimus. cum autem venissemus in Academiae non sine causa nobilitata spatia, solitudo erat ea, quam volueramus. 5.2 tum Piso: Naturane nobis hoc, inquit, datum dicam an errore quodam, ut, cum ea loca videamus, in quibus memoria dignos viros acceperimus multum esse versatos, magis moveamur, quam si quando eorum ipsorum aut facta audiamus aut scriptum aliquod aliquid R legamus? velut ego nunc moveor. venit enim mihi Platonis in mentem, quem accepimus primum hic disputare solitum; cuius etiam illi hortuli propinqui propinqui hortuli BE non memoriam solum mihi afferunt, sed ipsum videntur in conspectu meo ponere. hic Speusippus, hic Xenocrates, hic eius auditor Polemo, cuius illa ipsa sessio fuit, quam videmus. Equidem etiam curiam nostram—Hostiliam dico, non hanc novam, quae minor mihi esse esse mihi B videtur, posteaquam est maior—solebam intuens Scipionem, Catonem, Laelium, nostrum vero in primis avum cogitare; tanta vis admonitionis inest in locis; ut non sine causa ex iis memoriae ducta sit disciplina. 5.3 Tum Quintus: Est plane, Piso, ut dicis, inquit. nam me ipsum huc modo venientem convertebat ad sese Coloneus ille locus, locus lucus Valckenarius ad Callimach. p. 216 cf. Va. II p. 545 sqq. cuius incola Sophocles ob oculos versabatur, quem scis quam admirer quamque eo delecter. me quidem ad altiorem memoriam Oedipodis huc venientis et illo mollissimo carmine quaenam essent ipsa haec hec ipsa BE loca requirentis species quaedam commovit, iiter scilicet, sed commovit tamen. Tum Pomponius: At ego, quem vos ut deditum Epicuro insectari soletis, sum multum equidem cum Phaedro, quem unice diligo, ut scitis, in Epicuri hortis, quos modo praeteribamus, praeteribamus edd. praeteriebamus sed veteris proverbii admonitu vivorum memini, nec tamen Epicuri epicureum Non. licet oblivisci, si cupiam, cuius imaginem non modo in tabulis nostri familiares, sed etiam in poculis et in anulis nec tamen ... anulis habent Non. p. 70 anulis anellis Non. anelis R ambus anulis V habent. habebant Non. 5.4 Hic ego: Pomponius quidem, inquam, noster iocari videtur, et fortasse suo iure. ita enim se Athenis collocavit, ut sit paene unus ex Atticis, ut id etiam cognomen videatur habiturus. Ego autem tibi, Piso, assentior usu hoc venire, ut acrius aliquanto et attentius de claris viris locorum admonitu admonitum Non. cogitemus. ut acrius...cogitemus Non. p. 190, 191 scis enim me quodam tempore Metapontum venisse tecum neque ad hospitem ante devertisse, devertisse Lambini vetus cod. in marg. ed. rep. ; divertisse quam Pythagorae ipsum illum locum, ubi vitam ediderat, sedemque viderim. hoc autem tempore, etsi multa in omni parte Athenarum sunt in ipsis locis indicia summorum virorum, tamen ego illa moveor exhedra. modo enim fuit Carneadis, Carneadis Mdv. carneades quem videre videor—est enim nota imago—, a sedeque ipsa tanta tanti RN ingenii magnitudine orbata desiderari illam vocem puto.' "
5.7 Tum Piso: Etsi hoc, inquit, fortasse non poterit poterit 'emendavisse videtur Aldus' Mdv. poteris sic abire, cum hic assit—me autem dicebat—, tamen audebo te ab hac Academia nova ad veterem illam illam veterem BE vocare, in qua, ut dicere Antiochum audiebas, non ii ii edd. hi R hij BENV soli solum R numerantur, qui Academici vocantur, Speusippus, Xenocrates, Polemo, Crantor ceterique, sed etiam Peripatetici veteres, quorum princeps principes R Aristoteles, quem excepto Platone haud scio an recte dixerim principem philosophorum. ad eos igitur converte te, converte te NV convertere R convertere te BE quaeso. ex eorum enim scriptis et institutis cum omnis doctrina liberalis, omnis historia, omnis sermo elegans sumi potest, tum varietas est tanta artium, ut nemo sine eo instrumento ad ullam rem illustriorem satis ornatus possit accedere. ab his oratores, ab his imperatores ac rerum publicarum principes extiterunt. ut ad minora veniam, mathematici, poe+tae, musici, medici denique ex hac tamquam omnium artificum artificiū R officina profecti sunt. Atque ego: At ego R Et ego V" '5.8 Scis me, inquam, istud idem sentire, Piso, sed a te oportune facta mentio est. studet enim meus audire Cicero quaenam sit istius veteris, quam commemoras, Academiae de finibus bonorum Peripateticorumque sententia. sed a te ... Peripat. sententia Non. p. 91 est sed et enim Non. censemus autem facillime te id explanare posse, quod et Staseam Staseam dett. stans eam Neapolitanum multos annos habueris apud te et complures iam menses Athenis haec ipsa te ex Antiocho videamus exquirere. Et ille ridens: Age, age, inquit,—satis enim scite me videtur legenduim : in me nostri sermonis principium esse voluisti—exponamus adolescenti, si quae forte possumus. dat enim id nobis solitudo, quod si qui deus diceret, numquam putarem me in Academia tamquam philosophum disputaturum. sed ne, dum huic obsequor, vobis molestus sim. Mihi, inquam, qui te id ipsum rogavi? Tum, Quintus et Pomponius cum idem se velle dixissent, Piso exorsus est. cuius oratio attende, quaeso, Brute, satisne videatur Antiochi complexa esse sententiam, quam tibi, qui fratrem eius Aristum frequenter audieris, maxime probatam existimo. 5.9 Sic est igitur locutus: Quantus ornatus in Peripateticorum disciplina sit satis est a me, ut brevissime potuit, paulo ante dictum. sed est forma eius disciplinae, sicut fere ceterarum, triplex: una pars est naturae, naturae edd. natura ( etiam B) disserendi altera, vivendi tertia. Natura sic ab iis investigata est, ut nulla pars caelo, mari, terra, ut poe+tice loquar, praetermissa sit; quin etiam, cum de rerum initiis omnique mundo locuti essent, ut multa non modo probabili argumentatione, sed etiam necessaria mathematicorum ratione concluderent, maximam materiam ex rebus per se investigatis ad rerum occultarum cognitionem attulerunt.
5.10 persecutus est est N 2 om. BERN 1 V Non. p. 232 Aristoteles animantium omnium ortus, victus, figuras, Theophrastus autem stirpium naturas omniumque fere rerum, quae e terra gignerentur, causas atque rationes; qua ex cognitione facilior facta est investigatio rerum occultissimarum. Disserendique ab isdem non dialectice solum, sed etiam oratorie praecepta sunt tradita, ab Aristoteleque principe de singulis rebus in utramque partem dicendi exercitatio est instituta, ut non contra omnia semper, sicut Arcesilas, diceret, et tamen ut in omnibus rebus, quicquid ex utraque parte dici posset, expromeret. exprimeret R
5.11 Cum autem tertia pars bene vivendi praecepta quaereret, ea quoque est ab isdem non solum ad privatae vitae rationem, sed etiam ad rerum publicarum rectionem relata. omnium fere civitatum non Graeciae solum, sed etiam barbariae ab Aristotele mores, instituta, disciplinas, a Theophrasto leges etiam cognovimus. cumque uterque eorum docuisset qualem in re publica principem esse conveniret, add. Ascens. 1511 pluribus praeterea conscripsisset cum scripsisset NV qui esset optimus rei publicae status, hoc amplius Theophrastus: quae essent in re publica status ... in re publica om. BER rerum inclinationes et momenta temporum, quibus esset moderandum, utcumque res postularet. vitae autem degendae elegendae E eligendae B ratio maxime quidem illis illis quidem BE placuit quieta, in contemplatione et cognitione posita rerum, quae quia deorum erat vitae vite erat BE simillima, sapiente visa est dignissima. atque his de rebus et splendida est eorum et illustris oratio.
5.12 De summo autem bono, quia duo genera librorum sunt, unum populariter scriptum, quod e)cwteriko/n appellabant, alterum limatius, quod in commentariis reliquerunt, non semper idem dicere videntur, nec in summa tamen ipsa aut varietas est ulla apud hos quidem, quos nominavi, aut inter ipsos dissensio. sed cum beata vita quaeratur idque sit unum, quod philosophia philosophia dett. philosophiam spectare et sequi debeat, sitne ea tota sita in potestate sapientis an possit aut labefactari aut eripi rebus adversis, in eo non numquam variari inter eos inter eos variari R et dubitari videtur. quod maxime efficit Theophrasti de beata vita liber, in quo multum admodum fortunae datur. quod si ita se habeat, non possit beatam praestare vitam vitam praestare BE sapientia. Haec mihi videtur delicatior, delicatior videtur NV ut ita dicam, molliorque ratio, quam virtutis vis gravitasque postulat. quare teneamus Aristotelem et eius filium Nicomachum, cuius accurate scripti de moribus libri dicuntur illi quidem esse Aristoteli, sed non video, cur non potuerit patri similis esse filius. Theophrastum tamen adhibeamus ad pleraque, dum modo plus in virtute teneamus, quam ille tenuit, firmitatis et roboris. Simus igitur contenti his.
5.13 namque horum posteri meliores illi quidem mea sententia quam reliquarum philosophi disciplinarum, sed ita degenerant, ut ipsi ex se nati esse videantur. primum Theophrasti, Strato, physicum se voluit; in quo etsi est magnus, tamen nova pleraque et perpauca de moribus. huius, Lyco, lyco V lico R lisias et N 2 ( versu ultra marg. continuato; ex priore script. lic cognosci posse videtur ); om. BE spatio vacuo rel. oratione locuples, rebus ipsis ipsi rebus R ieiunior. concinnus deinde et elegans huius, Aristo, sed ea, quae desideratur a magno philosopho, gravitas, in eo non fuit; scripta sane et multa et polita, sed nescio quo pacto auctoritatem oratio non habet.
5.14 praetereo multos, in his doctum hominem et suavem, Hieronymum, quem iam cur Peripateticum appellem nescio. summum enim bonum exposuit vacuitatem doloris; qui autem de summo bono dissentit de tota philosophiae ratione dissentit. Critolaus imitari voluit antiquos, et quidem est gravitate proximus, et redundat oratio, ac tamen ne is is his R quidem in patriis institutis add. Brem. manet. Diodorus, eius auditor, adiungit ad honestatem vacuitatem doloris. hic hic his R quoque suus est de summoque bono dissentiens dici vere Peripateticus non potest. antiquorum autem sententiam Antiochus noster mihi videtur persequi diligentissime, quam eandem Aristoteli aristotilis R, N ( fort. corr. ex aristotili), V fuisse et Polemonis docet.
5.19 ex eo autem, quod statuerit esse, quo primum natura moveatur, existet recti etiam ratio atque honesti, quae cum uno aliquo aliquo uno BE ex tribus illis congruere possit, possit. u aut non dolendi ita sit ut quanta ( v. 19 ) R rell. om. ut aut id honestum sit, facere omnia aut voluptatis causa, etiam si eam secl. Mdv. non consequare, aut non dolendi, etiam etiam N 2 in ras., aut BEV si id assequi nequeas, aut eorum, quae secundum naturam sunt, adipiscendi, etiam si nihil consequare. ita ita N 2 aut non dolendi ita R ( cf. ad v. 14 ), N 1 V; aut nichil dolendi ita BE fit ut, quanta differentia est in principiis naturalibus, tanta sit in finibus bonorum malorumque dissimilitudo. alii rursum isdem a principiis omne officium referent aut ad voluptatem aut ad non dolendum aut ad prima illa secundum naturam optinenda.
5.23 de illis, cum volemus. Democriti autem securitas, quae est animi tamquam tamquam (tanquā R) tranquillitas RN tranquillitas tamquam BE tranquillitas ( om. tamquam) V tranquillitas, quam appellant eu)qumi/an, eo separanda fuit ab hac disputatione, quia ista animi tranquillitas ea ipsa secl. Se. est est ipsa BE beata vita; quaerimus autem, non quae sit, sit ( utroque loco ) dett. sint sed unde sit. Iam explosae eiectaeque sententiae Pyrrhonis, Aristonis, Erilli quod in hunc orbem, quem circumscripsimus, incidere non possunt, adhibendae omnino non fuerunt. nam cum omnis haec quaestio de finibus et quasi de extremis bonorum et malorum ab eo proficiscatur, quod diximus diximus p. 163, 16 sqq. naturae esse aptum et accommodatum, quodque ipsum per se primum appetatur, hoc totum et ii tollunt, qui in rebus iis, in quibus nihil quod non aut honestum aut turpe sit, negant esse del. Lamb. ullam causam, cur aliud alii anteponatur, nec inter eas res quicquam quicquam quitquid BE omnino putant interesse, et Erillus, si ita sensit, nihil esse bonum praeter scientiam, omnem consilii capiendi causam inventionemque officii sustulit. Sic exclusis sententiis reliquorum cum praeterea nulla esse possit, haec antiquorum valeat necesse est. ergo ergo igitur BE instituto veterum, quo etiam Stoici utuntur, hinc capiamus exordium. 5.24 Omne animal se ipsum diligit ac, simul et ortum est, id agit, se ut ut se BE conservet, quod hic ei primus ad omnem vitam tuendam appetitus a natura datur, se ut conservet atque ita sit affectum, ut optime secundum naturam affectum esse possit. hanc initio institutionem confusam habet et incertam, ut tantum modo se tueatur, qualecumque sit, sed nec quid sit nec quid possit nec quid ipsius natura sit intellegit. cum autem processit paulum et quatenus quicquid se attingat ad seque pertineat perspicere coepit, tum sensim incipit progredi seseque agnoscere et intellegere quam ob ob N 2 ad causam habeat habeat Lamb. habet eum, quem diximus, animi appetitum coeptatque et ea, quae naturae sentit apta, appetere et propulsare contraria. ergo omni animali illud, quod appetit, positum est in eo, quod naturae nature V natura ( etiam B) est accommodatum. ita finis bonorum existit secundum naturam vivere sic affectum, ut optime affici possit ad naturamque que ER et NV om. B accommodatissime. 5.25 Quoniam Quoniam Q uo R autem sua cuiusque animantis natura est, necesse est finem quoque omnium hunc esse, ut natura expleatur—nihil enim prohibet quaedam esse et inter se animalibus reliquis et cum bestiis homini communia, quoniam omnium est natura communis—, sed extrema illa et summa, quae quaerimus, inter animalium genera distincta et dispertita sint sunt RNV et sua cuique propria et ad id apta, quod cuiusque natura desideret. desiderat RNV' "5.26 quare cum dicimus omnibus animalibus extremum esse secundum naturam vivere, non ita accipiendum est, quasi dicamus unum esse omnium extremum, sed ut omnium artium recte dici potest commune esse, ut in aliqua scientia versentur, scientiam autem suam cuiusque artis esse, sic commune animalium omnium secundum naturam vivere, sed naturas esse diversas, ut aliud equo sit e natura, aliud bovi, aliud homini. et tamen in omnibus est est V om. BERN 'Vellem in transitu ab infinita oratione ad finitam scriberetur : summa communis est et quidem cet.' Mdv. summa communis, et quidem non solum in animalibus, sed etiam in rebus omnibus iis, quas natura alit, auget, tuetur, in quibus videmus ea, quae gignuntur e terra, multa quodam modo efficere ipsa sibi per se, quae ad vivendum crescendumque valeant, ut ut ( ante suo) Bentl. et in suo genere 'in suo genere scribendum videtur' C.F. W. Mue. in adn. crit. perveniant ad extremum; ut iam liceat una comprehensione omnia complecti non dubitantemque dicere omnem naturam esse servatricem conservatricem R sui idque habere propositum quasi finem et extremum, se ut custodiat quam in optimo sui generis statu; ut necesse sit omnium rerum, quae natura vigeant, similem esse finem, non eundem. ex quo intellegi debet homini id esse in bonis ultimum, secundum naturam vivere, quod ita interpretemur: vivere ex hominis natura undique perfecta et nihil requirente." 5.87 quare hoc hoc atque hoc Non. videndum est, possitne nobis hoc ratio philosophorum dare. pollicetur certe. nisi enim id faceret, cur Plato Aegyptum peragravit, ut a sacerdotibus barbaris numeros et caelestia acciperet? cur post Tarentum ad Archytam? cur ad reliquos Pythagoreos, Echecratem, Timaeum, Arionem, Locros, ut, cum Socratem expressisset, adiungeret Pythagoreorum disciplinam eaque, quae Socrates repudiabat, addisceret? cur ipse Pythagoras et Aegyptum lustravit et Persarum magos adiit? cur tantas regiones barbarorum pedibus obiit, tot maria transmisit? cur haec eadem Democritus? qui —vere falsone, quaerere mittimus quaerere mittimus Se. quereremus BER queremus V quae- rere nolumus C.F.W. Mue. —dicitur oculis se se oculis BE privasse; privavisse R certe, ut quam minime animus a cogitationibus abduceretur, patrimonium neglexit, agros deseruit incultos, quid quaerens aliud nisi vitam beatam? beatam vitam R quam si etiam in rerum cognitione ponebat, tamen ex illa investigatione naturae consequi volebat, bono ut esset animo. id enim ille id enim ille R ideo enim ille BE id ille V id est enim illi summum bonum; eu)qumi/an cet. coni. Mdv. summum bonum eu)qumi/an et saepe a)qambi/an appellat, id est animum terrore liberum.' "5.88 sed haec etsi praeclare, nondum tamen perpolita. pauca enim, neque ea ipsa enucleate, ab hoc ab hoc enucleate BE de virtute quidem dicta. post enim haec in hac urbe primum a Socrate quaeri coepta, deinde in hunc locum delata sunt, nec dubitatum, dubium R quin in virtute omnis ut bene, sic etiam beate vivendi spes poneretur. quae cum Zeno didicisset a nostris, ut in actionibus praescribi solet, ' de eadem re fecit alio modo '. hoc tu del. P. Man. nunc in illo probas. scilicet vocabulis rerum mutatis inconstantiae crimen ille effugit, nos effugere non possumus! ille Metelli vitam negat beatiorem quam Reguli, praeponendam tamen, nec magis expetendam, sed magis sumendam et, si optio esset, eligendam Metelli, Reguli reiciendam; ego, quam ille praeponendam et magis eligendam, beatiorem hanc appello nec ullo minimo minimo RV omnino BE momento plus ei vitae tribuo quam Stoici."" None
2.2 \xa0But we read how Socrates made fun of the aforesaid Gorgias, and the rest of the Sophists also, as we can learn from Plato. His own way was to question his interlocutors and by a process of cross-examination to elicit their opinions, so that he might express his own views by way of rejoinder to their answers. This practice was abandoned by his successors, but was afterwards revived by Arcesilas, who made it a rule that those who wished to hear him should not ask him questions but should state their own opinions; and when they had done so he argued against them. But whereas the pupils of Arcesilas did their best to defend their own position, with the rest of the philosophers the student who has put a question is then silent; and indeed this is nowadays the custom even in the Academy. The wouldâ\x80\x91be learner says, for example, 'The Chief Good in my opinion is pleasure,' and the contrary is then maintained in a formal discourse; so that it is not hard to realize that those who say they are of a certain opinion do not actually hold the view they profess, but want to hear what can be argued against it. <" '2.3 \xa0We are adopting a more profitable mode of procedure, for Torquatus has not only told us his own opinion but also his reasons for holding it. Still, for my part, though I\xa0enjoyed his long discourse very much, I\xa0believe all the same that it is better to stop at point after point, and make out what each person is willing to admit and what he denies, and then to draw such inferences as one desires from these admissions and so arrive at one\'s conclusion. When the exposition goes rushing on like a mountain stream in spate, it carries along with it a vast amount of miscellaneous material, but there is nothing one can take hold of or rescue from the flood; there is no point at which one can stem the torrent of oratory. "However, in philosophical investigation a methodical and systematic discourse must always begin by formulating a preamble like that which occurs in certain forms of process at law, \'The issue shall be as follows\'; so that the parties to the debate may be agreed as to what the subject is about which they are debating. \xa0<
3.74 \xa0"However I\xa0begin to perceive that I\xa0have let myself be carried beyond the requirements of the plan that I\xa0set before me. The fact is that I\xa0have been led on by the marvellous structure of the Stoic system and the miraculous sequence of its topics; pray tell me seriously, does it not fill you with admiration? Nothing is more finished, more nicely ordered, than nature; but what has nature, what have the products of handicraft to show that is so well constructed, so firmly jointed and welded into one? Where do you find a conclusion inconsistent with its premise, or a discrepancy between an earlier and a later statement? Where is lacking such close interconnexion of the parts that, if you alter a single letter, you shake the whole structure? Though indeed there is nothing that it would be possible to alter. <
4.3 \xa0"My view, then, Cato," I\xa0proceeded, "is this, that those old disciples of Plato, Speusippus, Aristotle and Xenocrates, and afterwards their pupils Polemo and Theophrastus, had developed a doctrine that left nothing to be desired either in fullness or finish, so that Zeno on becoming the pupil of Polemo had no reason for differing either from his master himself or from his master\'s predecessors. The outline of their theory was as follows â\x80\x94 but I\xa0should be glad if you would call attention to any point you may desire to correct without waiting while I\xa0deal with the whole of your discourse; for I\xa0think I\xa0shall have to place their entire system in conflict with the whole of yours. <' "
4.36 \xa0But as a matter of fact the creature whose Chief Good we are seeking is man. Surely then our course is to inquire what has been achieved in the whole of man's nature. All are agreed that the duty and function of Wisdom is entirely centred in the work of perfecting man; but then some thinkers (for you must not imagine that I\xa0am tilting at the Stoics only) produce theories which place the Chief Good in the class of things entirely outside our control, as though they were discussing some creature devoid of a mind; while others on the contrary ignore everything but mind, just as if man had no body; and that though even the mind is not an empty, impalpable something (a\xa0conception to me unintelligible), but belongs to a certain kind of material substance, and therefore even the mind is not satisfied with virtue alone, but desires freedom from pain. In fact, with each school alike it is just as if they should ignore the left side of their bodies and protect the right, or, in the mind, like Erillus, recognize cognition but leave the practical faculty out of account. They pick and choose, pass over a great deal and fasten on a single aspect; so all their systems are oneâ\x80\x91sided. The full and perfect philosophy was that which, investigating the Chief Good of man, left no part either of his mind or body uncaredâ\x80\x91for. <" 4.61 \xa0What if those pupils of Plato were to come to life again, and their pupils again in succession, and were to address you in this fashion? \'As we listened, Marcus Cato, to so devoted a student of philosophy, so just a man, so upright a judge, so scrupulous a witness as yourself, we marvelled what reason could induce you to reject us for the Stoics, whose views on good and evil were the views that Zeno learnt from Polemo here, but who expressed those views in terms at first sight startling but upon examination ridiculous. If you accepted those views on their merits, why did you not hold them under their own terminology? or if you were swayed by authority, could you prefer that nobody to all of us, even to Plato himself? especially when you aspired to play a leading part in the state, and we were the very persons to arm and equip you to protect the state with the highest honour to yourself. Why, it is we who invented political philosophy; and reduced it to a system; its nomenclature, its principles are our creation; on all the various forms of government, their stability, their revolutions, the laws, institutions and customs of states, we have written exhaustively. Oratory again is the proudest distinction of the statesman, and in it you, we are told, are preâ\x80\x91eminent; but how vastly you might have enriched your eloquence from the records of our genius.\' What answer, pray, could you give to these words from such men as those?" <' "
5.1 \xa0My dear Brutus, â\x80\x94 Once I\xa0had been attending a lecture of Antiochus, as I\xa0was in the habit of doing, with Marcus Piso, in the building called the School of Ptolemy; and with us were my brother Quintus, Titus Pomponius, and Lucius Cicero, whom I\xa0loved as a brother but who was really my first cousin. We arranged to take our afternoon stroll in the Academy, chiefly because the place would be quiet and deserted at that hour of the day. Accordingly at the time appointed we met at our rendezvous, Piso's lodgings, and starting out beguiled with conversation on various subjects the three-quarters of a\xa0mile from the Dipylon Gate. When we reached the walks of the Academy, which are so deservedly famous, we had them entirely to ourselves, as we had hoped. <" '5.2 \xa0Thereupon Piso remarked: "Whether it is a natural instinct or a mere illusion, I\xa0can\'t say; but one\'s emotions are more strongly aroused by seeing the places that tradition records to have been the favourite resort of men of note in former days, than by hearing about their deeds or reading their writings. My own feelings at the present moment are a case in point. I\xa0am reminded of Plato, the first philosopher, so we are told, that made a practice of holding discussions in this place; and indeed the garden close at hand yonder not only recalls his memory but seems to bring the actual man before my eyes. This was the haunt of Speusippus, of Xenocrates, and of Xenocrates\' pupil Polemo, who used to sit on the very seat we see over there. For my own part even the sight of our senate-house at home (I\xa0mean the Curia Hostilia, not the present new building, which looks to my eyes smaller since its enlargement) used to call up to me thoughts of Scipio, Cato, Laelius, and chief of all, my grandfather; such powers of suggestion do places possess. No wonder the scientific training of the memory is based upon locality." < 5.3 \xa0"Perfectly true, Piso," rejoined Quintus. "I\xa0myself on the way here just now noticed yonder village of Colonus, and it brought to my imagination Sophocles who resided there, and who is as you know my great admiration and delight. Indeed my memory took me further back; for I\xa0had a vision of Oedipus, advancing towards this very spot and asking in those most tender verses, \'What place is this?\' â\x80\x94 a\xa0mere fancy no doubt, yet still it affected me strongly." "For my part," said Pomponius, "you are fond of attacking me as a devotee of Epicurus, and I\xa0do spend much of my time with Phaedrus, who as you know is my dearest friend, in Epicurus\'s Gardens which we passed just now; but I\xa0obey the old saw: I\xa0\'think of those that are alive.\' Still I\xa0could not forget Epicurus, even if I\xa0wanted; the members of our body not only have pictures of him, but even have his likeness on their drinking-cups and rings." < 5.4 \xa0"As for our friend Pomponius," I\xa0interposed, "I\xa0believe he is joking; and no doubt he is a licensed wit, for he has so taken root in Athens that he is almost an Athenian; in fact I\xa0expect he will get the surname of Atticus! But I, Piso, agree with you; it is a common experience that places do strongly stimulate the imagination and vivify our ideas of famous men. You remember how I\xa0once came with you to Metapontum, and would not go to the house where we were to stay until I\xa0had seen the very place where Pythagoras breathed his last and the seat he sat in. All over Athens, I\xa0know, there are many reminders of eminent men in the actual place where they lived; but at the present moment it is that alcove over there which appeals to me, for not long ago it belonged to Carneades. I\xa0fancy I\xa0see him now (for his portrait is familiar), and I\xa0can imagine that the very place where he used to sit misses the sound of his voice, and mourns the loss of that mighty intellect." <
5.7 \xa0"Perhaps," said Piso, "it will not be altogether easy, while our friend here" (meaning me) "is by, still I\xa0will venture to urge you to leave the present New Academy for the Old, which includes, as you heard Antiochus declare, not only those who bear the name of Academics, Speusippus, Xenocrates, Polemo, Crantor and the rest, but also the early Peripatetics, headed by their chief, Aristotle, who, if Plato be excepted, I\xa0almost think deserves to be called the prince of philosophers. Do you then join them, I\xa0beg of you. From their writings and teachings can be learnt the whole of liberal culture, of history and of style; moreover they include such a variety of sciences, that without the equipment that they give no one can be adequately prepared to embark on any of the higher careers. They have produced orators, generals and statesmen. To come to the less distinguished professions, this factory of experts in all the sciences has turned out mathematicians, poets, musicians and physicians." < 5.8 \xa0"You know that I\xa0agree with you about that, Piso," I\xa0replied; "but you have raised the point most opportunely; for my cousin Cicero is eager to hear the doctrine of the Old Academy of which you speak, and of the Peripatetics, on the subject of the Ends of Goods. We feel sure you can expound it with the greatest ease, for you have had Staseas from Naples in your household for many years, and also we know you have been studying this very subject under Antiochus for several months at Athens." "Here goes, then," replied Piso, smiling, "(for you have rather craftily arranged for our discussion to start with me), let me see what I\xa0can do to give the lad a lecture. If an oracle had foretold that I\xa0should find myself discoursing in the Academy like a philosopher, I\xa0should not have believed it, but here I\xa0am, thanks to our having the place to ourselves. Only don\'t let me bore the rest of you while I\xa0am obliging our young friend." "What, bore me?" said\xa0I. "Why, it is\xa0I who asked you to speak." Thereupon Quintus and Pomponius having declared that they wished it too, Piso began. And I\xa0will ask you, Brutus, kindly to consider whether you think his discourse a satisfactory summary of the doctrine of Antiochus, which I\xa0believe to be the system which you most approve, as you have often attended the lectures of his brother Aristus. < 5.9 \xa0Accordingly Piso spoke as follows: "About the educational value of the Peripatetic system I\xa0have said enough, in the briefest possible way, a\xa0few moments ago. Its arrangement, like that of most other systems, is threefold: one part deals with nature, the second with discourse, and the third with conduct. Natural Philosophy the Peripatetics have investigated so thoroughly that no region in sky or sea or land (to speak poetically) has been passed over. Nay more, in treating of the elements of being and the constitution of the universe they have established much of their doctrine not merely by probable arguments but by conclusive mathematical demonstration, applying a quantity of material derived from facts that they have themselves investigated to the discovery of other facts beyond the reach of observation. <
5.10 \xa0Aristotle gave a complete account of the birth, nutrition and structure of all living creatures, Theophrastus of the natural history of plants and the causes and constitution of vegetable organisms in general; and the knowledge thus attained facilitated the investigation of the most obscure questions. In Logic their teachings include the rules of rhetoric as well as of dialectic; and Aristotle their founder started the practice of arguing both pro and contra upon every topic, not like Arcesilas, always controverting every proposition, but setting out all the possible arguments on either side in every subject. <
5.11 \xa0The third division of philosophy investigates the rules of human well-being; this too was treated by the Peripatetics, so as to comprise not only the principles of individual conduct but also of the government of states. From Aristotle we learn the manners, customs and institutions, and from Theophrastus the laws also, of nearly all the states not only of Greece but of the barbarians as well. Both described the proper qualifications of a statesman, both moreover wrote lengthy treatises on the best form of constitution; Theophrastus treated the subject more fully, discussing the forces and occasions of political change, and their control as circumstances demand. Among the alternative ideals of conduct they gave the highest place to the life of retirement, devoted to contemplation and to study. This was pronounced to be most worthy of the Wise Man, as most nearly resembling the life of the gods. And these topics they handle in a style as brilliant as it is illuminating. <
5.12 \xa0"Their books on the subject of the Chief Good fall into two classes, one popular in style, and this class they used to call their exoteric works; the other more carefully wrought. The latter treatises they left in the form of note-books. This distinction occasionally gives them an appearance of inconsistency; but as a matter of fact in the main body of their doctrine there is no divergence, at all events among the philosophers I\xa0have mentioned, nor did they disagree among themselves. But on the chief object of inquiry, namely Happiness, and the one question which philosophy has to consider and to investigate, whether this lies entirely within the control of the Wise Man, or whether it can be impaired or destroyed by adversity, here there does appear sometimes to exist among them some divergence and uncertainty. This effect is chiefly produced by Theophrastus\'s book On\xa0Happiness, in which a very considerable amount of importance is assigned to fortune; though if this be correct, wisdom alone could not guarantee happiness. This theory seems to me to be, if I\xa0may so call it, too enervating and unmanly to be adequate to the force and dignity of virtue. Hence we had better keep to Aristotle and his son Nicomachus; the latter\'s elaborate volumes on Ethics are ascribed, it is true, to Aristotle, but I\xa0do not see why the son should not have been capable of emulating the father. Still, we may use Theophrastus on most points, so long as we maintain a larger element of strength and solidity in virtue than he did. <' "
5.13 \xa0Let us then limit ourselves to these authorities. Their successors are indeed in my opinion superior to the philosophers of any other school, but are so unworthy of their ancestry that one might imagine them to have been their own teachers. To begin with, Theophrastus's pupil Strato set up to be a natural philosopher; but great as he is in this department, he is nevertheless for the most part an innovator; and on ethics he has hardly anything. His successor Lyco has a copious style, but his matter is somewhat barren. Lyco's pupil Aristo is polished and graceful, but has not the authority that we expect to find in a great thinker; he wrote much, it is true, and he wrote well, but his style is somehow lacking in weight. <" 5.14 \xa0"I\xa0pass over a\xa0number of writers, including the learned and entertaining Hieronymus. Indeed I\xa0know no reason for calling the latter a Peripatetic at all; for he defined the Chief Good as freedom from pain: and to hold a different view of the Chief Good is to hold a different system of philosophy altogether. Critolaus professed to imitate the ancients; and he does in fact come nearest to them in weight, and has a flowing style; all the same, even he is not true to the principles of his ancestors. Diodorus, his pupil, couples with Moral Worth freedom from pain. He too stands by himself; differing about the Chief Good he cannot correctly be called a Peripatetic. Our master Antiochus seems to me to adhere most scrupulously to the doctrine of the ancients, which according to his teaching was common to Aristotle and to Polemo. <
5.19 \xa0"Now, from whichever Prudence decides to be the object of the primary natural impulses, will arise a theory of right and of Moral Worth which may correspond with one or other of the three objects aforesaid. Thus Morality will consist either in aiming all our actions at pleasure, even though one may not succeed in attaining it; or at absence of pain, even though one is unable to secure it; or at getting the things in accordance with nature, even though one does not attain any of them. Hence there is a divergence between the different conceptions of the Ends of Goods and Evils, precisely equivalent to the difference of opinion as to the primary natural objects. â\x80\x94 Others again starting from the same primary objects will make the sole standard of right action the actual attainment of pleasure, freedom from pain, or the primary things in accordance with nature, respectively. <
5.23 \xa0"The calmness or tranquillity of mind which is the Chief Good of Democritus, euthumia as he calls it, has had to be excluded from this discussion, because this mental tranquillity is in itself the happiness in question; and we are inquiring not what happiness is, but what produces it. Again, the discredited and abandoned theories of Pyrrho, Aristo and Erillus cannot be brought within the circle we have drawn, and so we have not been concerned to consider them at all. For the whole of this inquiry into the Ends or, so to speak, the limits of Goods and Evils must begin from that which we have spoken of as adapted and suited to nature and which is the earliest object of desire for its own sake; now this is entirely done away with by those who maintain that, in the sphere of things which contain no element of Moral Worth or baseness, there is no reason why any one thing should be preferred to any other, and who consider these things to be absolutely indifferent; and Erillus also, if he actually held that there is nothing good but knowledge, destroyed every motive of rational action and every clue to right conduct. "Thus we have eliminated the views of all the other philosophers; and no other view is possible; therefore this doctrine of the Ancients must hold good. Let us then follow the practice of the old philosophers, adopted also by the Stoics, and start as follows. < 5.24 \xa0"Every living creature loves itself, and from the moment of birth strives to secure its own preservation; because the earliest impulse bestowed on it by nature for its life-long protection is the instinct for self-preservation and for the maintece of itself in the best condition possible to it in accordance with its nature. At the outset this tendency is vague and uncertain, so that it merely aims at protecting itself whatever its character may be; it does not understand itself nor its own capacities and nature. When, however, it has grown a little older, and has begun to understand the degree in which different things affect and concern itself, it now gradually commences to make progress. Self-consciousness dawns, and the creature begins to comprehend the reason why it possesses the instinctive appetition aforesaid, and to try to obtain the things which it perceives to be adapted to its nature and to repel their opposites. Every living creature therefore finds its object of appetition in the thing suited to its nature. Thus arises The End of Goods, namely to live in accordance with nature and in that condition which is the best and most suited to nature that is possible. < 5.25 \xa0At the same time every animal has its own nature; and consequently, while for all alike the End consists in the realization of their nature (for there is no reason why certain things should not be common to all the lower animals, and also to the lower animals and man, since all have a common nature), yet the ultimate and supreme objects that we are investigating must be differentiated and distributed among the different kinds of animals, each kind having its own peculiar to itself and adapted to the requirements of its individual nature. < 5.26 \xa0Hence when we say that the End of all living creatures is to live in accordance with nature, this must not be construed as meaning that all have one and the same end; but just as it is correct to say that all the arts and sciences have the common characteristic of occupying themselves with some branch of knowledge, while each art has its own particular branch of knowledge belonging to it, so all animals have the common End of living according to nature, but their natures are diverse, so that one thing is in accordance with nature for the horse, another for the ox, and another for man, and yet in all the Supreme End is common, and that not only in animals but also in all those things upon which nature bestows nourishment, increase and protection. Among these things we notice that plants can, in a sense, perform on their own behalf a\xa0number of actions conducive to their life and growth, so that they may attain their End after their kind. So that finally we may embrace all animate existence in one broad generalization, and say without hesitation, that all nature is self-preserving, and has before it the end and aim of maintaining itself in the best possible condition after its kind; and that consequently all things endowed by nature with life have a similar, but not an identical, End. This leads to the inference, that the ultimate Good of man is life in accordance with nature, which we may interpret as meaning life in accordance with human nature developed to its full perfection and supplied with all its needs. <
5.87 \xa0On this your cousin and\xa0I are agreed. Hence what we have to consider is this, can the systems of the philosophers give us happiness? They certainly profess to do so. Whether it not so, why did Plato travel through Egypt to learn arithmetic and astronomy from barbarian priests? Why did he later visit Archytas at Tarentum, or the other Pythagoreans, Echecrates, Timaeus and Arion, at Locri, intending to append to his picture of Socrates an account of the Pythagorean system and to extend his studies into those branches which Socrates repudiated? Why did Pythagoras himself scour Egypt and visit the Persian magi? why did he travel on foot through those vast barbarian lands and sail across those many seas? Why did Democritus do the same? It is related of Democritus (whether truly or falsely we are not concerned to inquire) that he deprived himself of eyesight; and it is certain that in order that his mind should be distracted as little as possible from reflection, he neglected his paternal estate and left his land uncultivated, engrossed in the search for what else but happiness? Even if he supposed happiness to consist in knowledge, still he designed that his study of natural philosophy should bring him cheerfulness of mind; since that is his conception of the Chief Good, which he entitles euthumia, or often athambia, that is freedom from alarm. <' "5.88 \xa0But what he said on this subject, however excellent, nevertheless lacks the finishing touches; for indeed about virtue he said very little, and that not clearly expressed. For it was later that these inquiries began to be pursued at Athens by Socrates, first in the city, and afterwards the study was transferred to the place where we now are; and no one doubted that all hope alike of right conduct and of happiness lay in virtue. Zeno having learnt this doctrine from our school proceeded to deal with 'the same matter in another manner,' as the common preamble to an indictment has it. You now approve of this procedure on his part. He, no doubt, can change the names of things and be acquitted of inconsistency, but we cannot! He denies that the life of Metellus was happier than that of Regulus, yet calls it 'preferable'; not more desirable, but 'more worthy of adoption'; and given the choice, that of Metellus is 'to be selected' and that of Regulus 'rejected.' Whereas the life he called 'preferable' and 'more worthy to be selected' I\xa0term happier, though I\xa0do not assign any the minutest fraction more value to that life than do the Stoics. <" " None
|21. Cicero, On The Nature of The Gods, 1.1, 1.6, 1.10-1.11, 1.16-1.17, 1.19-1.41, 1.61, 1.73, 1.79, 1.81, 1.123, 2.168, 3.5-3.6, 3.28, 3.44, 3.47, 3.95 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academia/Academician • Academic Sceptics • Academic philosophy • Academic philosophy, attitude towards auctoritas • Academic scepticism/sceptics • Academic scepticism/sceptics, New Academy/New Academic • Academic scepticism/sceptics, unity of the Academy and the Peripatos • Academics • Academics, the Academy • Academy • Academy, • Academy, Early • Cicero, Academic scepticism • Cicero, on Academic sceptics • New Academy • Old Academy • scepticism, Academic • skepticism, Academic
Found in books: Atkins (2021), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero's Philosophy 29, 30, 118, 124, 129, 130, 141, 212; Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 265, 280; Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 55; Edelmann-Singer et al. (2020), Sceptic and Believer in Ancient Mediterranean Religions, 4, 6; Erler et al. (2021), Authority and Authoritative Texts in the Platonist Tradition, 17, 71, 108; Frede and Laks (2001), Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath, 108, 111, 187; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 116, 117, 288, 289, 291, 293, 304; Long (2019), Immortality in Ancient Philosophy, 82; Maso (2022), CIcero's Philosophy, 80, 139; Rosa and Santangelo (2020), Cicero and Roman Religion: Eight Studies, 138, 139; Tsouni (2019), Antiochus and Peripatetic Ethics, 35, 70; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 264, 265, 270, 280, 283, 286; Wynne (2019), Horace and the Gift Economy of Patronage, 35, 113, 165, 268
1.1 There are a number of branches of philosophy that have not as yet been by any means adequately explored; but the inquiry into the nature of the gods, which is both highly interesting in relation to the theory of the soul, and fundamentally important for the regulation of religion, is one of special difficulty and obscurity, as you, Brutus, are well aware. The multiplicity and variety of the opinions held upon this subject by eminent scholars are bound to constitute a strong argument for the view that philosophy has its origin and starting-point in ignorance, and that the Academic School were well-advised in "withholding assent" from beliefs that are uncertain: for what is more unbecoming than ill‑considered haste? and what is so ill‑considered or so unworthy of the dignity and seriousness proper to a philosopher as to hold an opinion that is not true, or to maintain with unhesitating certainty a proposition not based on adequate examination, comprehension and knowledge?
1.6 I observe however that a great deal of talk has been current about the large number of books that I have produced within a short space of time, and that such comment has not been all of one kind; some people have been curious as to the cause of this sudden outburst of philosophical interest on my part, while others have been eager to learn what positive opinions I hold on the various questions. Many also, as I have noticed, are surprised at my choosing to espouse a philosophy that in their view robs the world of daylight and floods it with a darkness as of night; and they wonder at my coming forward so unexpectedly as the champion of a derelict system and one that has long been given up. As a matter of fact however I am no new convert to the study of philosophy. From my earliest youth I have devoted no small amount of time and energy to it, and I pursued it most keenly at the very periods when I least appeared to be doing so, witness the philosophical maxims of which my speeches are full, and my intimacy with the learned men who have always graced my household, as well as those eminent professors, Diodotus, Philo, Antiochus and Posidonius, who were my instructors. ' "
1.10 Those however who seek to learn my personal opinion on the various questions show an unreasonable degree of curiosity. In discussion it is not so much weight of authority as force of argument that should be demanded. Indeed the authority of those who profess to teach is often a positive hindrance to those who desire to learn; they cease to employ their own judgement, and take what they perceive to be the verdict of their chosen master as settling the question. In fact I am not disposed to approve the practice traditionally ascribed to the Pythagoreans, who, when questioned as to the grounds of any assertion that they advanced in debate, are said to have been accustomed to reply 'He himself said so, he himself' being Pythagoras. So potent was an opinion already decided, making authority prevail unsupported by reason. " 1.11 To those again who are surprised at my choice of a system to which to give my allegiance, I think that a sufficient answer has been given in the four books of my Academica. Nor is it the case that I have come forward as the champion of a lost cause and of a position now abandoned. When men die, their doctrines do not perish with them, though perhaps they suffer from the loss of their authoritative exponent. Take for example the philosophical method referred to, that of a purely negative dialectic which refrains from pronouncing any positive judgement. This, after being originated by Socrates, revived by Arcesilas, and reinforced by Carneades, has flourished right down to our own period; though I understand that in Greece itself it is now almost bereft of adherents. But this I ascribe not to the fault of the Academy but to the dullness of mankind. If it is a considerable matter to understand any one of the systems of philosophy singly, how much harder is it to master them all! Yet this is the task that confronts those whose principle is to discover the truth by the method of arguing both for and against all the schools.
1.16 "Well, I too," I replied, "think I have come at the right moment, as you say. For here are you, three leaders of three schools of philosophy, met in congress. In fact we only want Marcus Piso to have every considerable school represented." "Oh," rejoined Cotta, "if what is said in the book which our master Antiochus lately dedicated to our good Balbus here is true, you have no need to regret the absence of your friend Piso. Antiochus holds the view that the doctrines of the Stoics, though differing in form of expression, agree in substance with those of the Peripatetics. I should like to know your opinion of the book, Balbus." "My opinion?" said Balbus, "Why, I am surprised that a man of first-rate intellect like Antiochus should have failed to see what a gulf divides the Stoics, who distinguish expediency and right not in name only but in essential nature, from the Peripatetics, who class the right and the expedient together, and only recognize differences of quantity or degree, not of kind, between them. This is not a slight verbal discrepancy but a fundamental difference of doctrine.
1.17 However we can discuss this some other time. For the moment we will, if you please, continue the topic which we had begun." "Agreed," cried Cotta; "but to let the newcomer know what is the subject of discussion" — here he glanced at me — "I will explain that we were debating the nature of the gods: a question which seemed to me, as it always does, an extremely obscure one, and upon which I was therefore inquiring of Velleius as to the opinion of Epicurus. So if you do not mind, Velleius," he continued, "please resume the exposition that you had begun." "I will do so," replied Velleius, "although it is not I but you who have been reinforced by an ally — since both of you," he said, with a smile in our direction, "are disciples of Philo, and have learned from him to know nothing." "What we have learned," I rejoined, "shall be Cotta\'s affair; but pray don\'t think I have come to act as his ally, but as a listener, and an impartial and unprejudiced listener too, under no sort of bond or obligation willy nilly to uphold some fixed opinion."
1.19 What power of mental vision enabled your master Plato to descry the vast and elaborate architectural process which, as he makes out, the deity adopted in building the structure of the universe? What method of engineering was employed? What tools and levers and derricks? What agents carried out so vast an undertaking? And how were air, fire, water and earth enabled to obey and execute the will of the architect? How did the five regular solids, which are the basis of all other forms of matter, come into existence so nicely adapted to make impressions on our minds and produce sensations? It would be a lengthy task to advert upon every detail of a system that is such as to seem the result of idle theorizing rather than of real research; ' "1.20 but the prize example is that the thinker who represented the world not merely as having had an origin but even as almost made by hand, also declared that it will exist for ever. Can you suppose that a man can have even dipped into natural philosophy if he imagines that anything that has come into being can be eternal? What composite whole is not capable of dissolution? What thing is there that has a beginning but not an end? While as for your Stoic Providence, Lucilius, if it is the same thing as Plato's creator, I repeat my previous questions, what were its agents and instruments, and how was the entire undertaking planned out and carried though? If on the contrary it is something different, I ask why it made the world mortal, and not everlasting as did Plato's divine creator? " '1.21 Moreover I would put to both of you the question, why did these deities suddenly awake into activity as world-builders after countless ages of slumber? for though the world did not exist, it does not follow that ages did not exist — meaning by ages, not periods made up of a number of days and nights in annual courses, for ages in this sense I admit could not have been produced without the circular motion of the firmament; but from the infinite past there has existed an eternity not measured by limited divisions of time, but of a nature intelligible in terms of extension; since it is inconceivable that there was ever a time when time did not exist. 1.22 Well then, Balbus, what I ask is, why did your Providence remain idle all through that extent of time of which you speak? Was it in order to avoid fatigue? But god cannot know fatigue; and also there was no fatigue in question, since all the elements, sky, fire, earth and sea, were obedient to the divine will. Also, why should god take a fancy to decorate the firmament with figures and illuminations, like an aedile? If it was to embellish his own abode, then it seems that he had previously between dwelling for an infinite time in a dark and gloomy hovel! And are we to suppose that thenceforward the varied beauties which we see adorning earth and sky have afforded him pleasure? How can a god take pleasure in things of this sort? And if he did, he could not have dispensed with it so long. ' "1.23 Or were these beauties designed for the sake of men, as your school usually maintains? For the sake of wise men? If so, all this vast effort of construction took place on account of a handful of people. For the sake of fools then? But in the first place there was no reason for god to do a service to the wicked and secondly, what good did he do? inasmuch as all fools are beyond question extremely miserable, precisely because they are fools (for what can be mentioned more miserable than folly?), and in the second place because there are so many troubles in life that, though wise men can assuage them by balancing against them life's advantages, fools can neither avoid their approach nor endure their presence. Those on the other hand who said that the world is itself endowed with life and with wisdom, failed entirely to discern what shape the nature of an intelligent living being could conceivably possess. I will touch on this a little later; " "1.24 for the present I will confine myself to expressing my surprise at their stupidity in holding that a being who is immortal and also blessed is of a spherical shape, merely on the ground that Plato pronounces a sphere to be the most beautiful of all figures. For my own part, on the score of appearance I prefer either a cylinder or a cube or a cone or a pyramid. Then, what mode of existence is assigned to their spherical deity? Why, he is in a state of rotation, spinning round with a velocity that surpasses all powers of conception. But what room there can be in such an existence for steadfastness of mind and for happiness, I cannot see. Also, why should a condition that is painful in the human body, if even the smallest part of it is affected, be supposed to be painless in the deity? Now clearly the earth, being a part of the world, is also a part of god. Yet we see that vast portions of the earth's surface are uninhabitable deserts, being either scorched by the sun's proximity, or frost-bound and covered with snow owing to its extreme remoteness. But if the world is god, these, being parts of the world, must be regarded as limbs of god, undergoing the extremes of heat and cold respectively. " '1.25 "So much, Lucilius, for the doctrines of your school. To show what the older systems are like, I will trace their history from the remotest of your predecessors. Thales of Miletus, who was the first person to investigate these matters, said that water was the first principle of things, but that god was the mind that moulded all things out of water — supposing that gods can exist without sensation; and why did he make mind an adjunct of water, if mind can exist by itself, devoid of body? The view of Anaximander is that the gods are not everlasting but are born and perish at long intervals of time, and that they are worlds, countless in number. But how we conceive of god save as living for ever? 1.26 Next, Anaximenes held that air is god, and that it has a beginning in time, and is immeasurable and infinite in extent, and is always in motion; just as if formless air could be god, especially seeing that it is proper to god to possess not merely some shape but the most beautiful shape; or as if anything that has had a beginning must not necessarily be mortal. Then there is Anaxagoras, the successor of Anaximenes; he was the first thinker to hold that the orderly disposition of the universe is designed and perfected by the rational power of an infinite mind. But in saying this he failed to see that there can be no such thing as sentient and continuous activity in that which is infinite, and that sensation in general can only occur when the subject itself becomes sentient by the impact of a sensation. Further, if he intended his infinite mind to be a definite living creature, it must have some inner principle of life to justify the name. But mind is itself the innermost principle. Mind therefore will have an outer integument of body. 1.27 But this Anaxagoras will not allow; yet mind naked and simple, without any material adjunct to serve as an organ of sensation, seems to elude the capacity of our understanding. Alcmaeon of Croton, who attributed divinity to the sun, moon and other heavenly bodies, and also to the soul, did not perceive that he was bestowing immortality on things that are mortal. As for Pythagoras, who believed that the entire substance of the universe is penetrated and pervaded by a soul of which our souls are fragments, he failed to notice that this severance of the souls of men from the world-soul means the dismemberment and rending asunder of god; and that when their souls are unhappy, as happens to most men, then a portion of god is unhappy; which is impossible. 1.28 Again, if the soul of man is divine, why is it not omniscient? Moreover, if the Pythagorean god is pure soul, how is he implanted in, or diffused throughout, the world? Next, Xenophanes endowed the universe with mind, and held that, as being infinite, it was god. His view of mind is as open to objection as that of the rest; but on the subject of infinity he incurs still severer criticism, for the infinite can have no sensation and no contact with anything outside. As for Parmenides, he invents a purely fanciful something resembling a crown — stephanè is his name for it —, an unbroken ring of glowing lights, encircling the sky, which he entitles god; but no one can imagine this to possess divine form, or sensation. He also has many other portentous notions; he deifies war, strife, lust and the like, things which can be destroyed by disease or sleep or forgetfulness or lapse of time; and he also deifies the stars, but this has been criticized in another philosopher and need not be dealt with now in the case of Parmenides. ' "1.29 Empedocles again among many other blunders comes to grief most disgracefully in his theology. He assigns divinity to the four substances which in his system are the constituent elements of the universe, although manifestly these substances both come into and pass out of existence, and are entirely devoid of sensation. Protagoras also, who declares he has no clear views whatever about the gods, whether they exist or do not exist, or what they are like, seems to have no notion at all of the divine nature. Then in what a maze of error is Democritus involved, who at one moment ranks as gods his roving 'images,' at another the substance that emits and radiates these images, and at another again the scientific intelligence of man! At the same time his denial of immutability and therefore of eternity, to everything whatsoever surely involves a repudiation of deity so absolute as to leave no conception of a divine be remaining! Diogenes of Apollonia makes air a god; but how can air have sensation, or divinity in any shape? " '1.30 The inconsistencies of Plato are a long story. In the Timaeus he says that it is impossible to name the father of this universe; and in the Laws he deprecates all inquiry into the nature of the deity. Again, he holds that god is entirely incorporeal (in Greek, asomatos); but divine incorporeity is inconceivable, for an incorporeal deity would necessarily be incapable of sensation, and also of practical wisdom, and of pleasure, all of which are attributes essential to our conception of deity. Yet both in the Timaeus and the Laws he says that the world, the sky, the stars, the earth and our souls are gods, in addition to those in whom we have been taught to believe; but it is obvious that these propositions are both inherently false and mutually destructive. 1.31 Xenophon also commits almost the same errors, though in fewer words; for in his memoir of the sayings of Socrates he represents Socrates as arguing that it is wrong to inquire about the form of god, but also as saying that both the sun and the soul are god, and as speaking at one moment of a single god and at another of several: utterances that involve almost the same mistakes as do those which we quoted from Plato. 1.32 Antisthenes also, in his book entitled The Natural Philosopher, says that while there are many gods of popular belief, there is one god in nature, so depriving divinity of all meaning or substance. Very similarly Speusippus, following his uncle Plato, and speaking of a certain force that governs all things and is endowed with life, does his best to root out the notion of deity from our minds altogether. 1.33 And Aristotle in the Third Book of his Philosophy has a great many confused notions, not disagreeing with the doctrines of his master Plato; at one moment he assigns divinity exclusively to the intellect, at another he says that the world is itself a god, then again he puts some other being over the world, and assigns to this being the rôle of regulating and sustaining the world-motion by means of a sort of inverse rotation; then he says that the celestial heat is god — not realizing that the heavens are a part of that world which elsewhere he himself has entitled god. But how could the divine consciousness which he assigns to the heavens persist in a state of such rapid motion? Where moreover are all the gods of accepted belief, if we count the heavens also as a god? Again, in maintaining that god is incorporeal, he robs him entirely of sensation, and also of wisdom. Moreover, how is motion possible for an incorporeal being, and how, if he is always in motion, can he enjoy tranquillity and bliss? 1.34 Nor was his fellow-pupil Xenocrates any wiser on this subject. His volumes On the Nature of the Gods give no intelligible account of the divine form; for he states that there are eight gods: five inhabiting the planets, and in a state of motion; one consisting of all the fixed stars, which are to be regarded as separate members constituting a single deity; seventh he adds the sun, and eighth the moon. But what sensation of bliss these things can enjoy it is impossible to conceive. Another member of the school of Plato, Heracleides of Pontus, filled volume after volume with childish fictions; at one moment he deems the world divine, at another the intellect; he also assigns divinity to the planets, and holds that the deity is devoid of sensation and mutable of form; and again in the same volume he reckons earth and sky as gods. 1.35 Theophrastus also is intolerably inconsistent; at one moment he assigns divine pre‑eminence to mind, at another to the heavens, and then again to the constellations and stars in the heavens. Nor is his pupil, Strato, surnamed the Natural Philosopher, worthy of attention; in his view the sole repository of divine power is nature, which contains in itself the causes of birth, growth and decay, but is entirely devoid of sensation and of form. 1.36 "Lastly, Balbus, I come to your Stoic school. Zeno\'s view is that the law of nature is divine, and that its function is to command what is right and to forbid the opposite. How he makes out this law to be alive passes our comprehension; yet we undoubtedly expect god to be a living being. In another passage however Zeno declares that the aether is god — if there is any meaning in a god without sensation, a form of deity that never presents itself to us when we offer up our prayers and supplications and make our vows. And in other books again he holds the view that a \'reason\' which pervades all nature is possessed of divine power. He likewise attributes the same powers to the stars, or at another time to the years, the months and the seasons. Again, in his interpretation of Hesiod\'s Theogony (or Origin of the Gods) he does away with the customary and received ideas of the gods altogether, for he does not reckon either Jupiter, Juno or Vesta as gods, or any being that bears a personal name, but teaches that these names have been assigned allegorically to dumb and lifeless things. ' "1.37 Zeno's pupil Aristo holds equally mistaken views. He thinks that the form of the deity cannot be comprehended, and he denies the gods sensation, and in fact is uncertain whether god is a living being at all. Cleanthes, who attended Zeno's lectures at the same time as the last-named, at one moment says that the world itself is god, at another gives this name to the mind and soul of the universe, and at another decides that the most unquestionable deity is that remote all‑surrounding fiery atmosphere called the aether, which encircles and embraces the universe on its outer side at an exceedingly lofty altitude; while in the books that he wrote to combat hedonism he babbles like one demented, now imagining gods of some definite shape and form, now assigning full divinity to the stars, now pronouncing that nothing is more divine than reason. The result is that the god whom we apprehend by our intelligence, and desire to make to correspond with a mental concept as a seal tallies with its impression, has utterly and entirely vanished. " '1.38 Persaeus, another pupil of Zeno, says that men have deified those persons who have made some discovery of special utility for civilization, and that useful and health-giving things have themselves been called by divine names; he did not even say that they were discoveries of the gods, but speaks of them as actually divine. But what could be more ridiculous than to award divine honours to things mean and ugly, or to give the rank of gods to men now dead and gone, whose worship could only take the form of lamentation? 1.39 Chrysippus, who is deemed to be the most skilful interpreter of the Stoic dreams, musters an enormous mob of unknown gods — so utterly unknown that even imagination cannot guess at their form and nature, although our mind appears capable of visualizing anything; for he says that divine power resides in reason, and in the soul and mind of the universe; he calls the world itself a god, and also the all‑pervading world-soul, and again the guiding principle of that soul, which operates in the intellect and reason, and the common and all‑embracing nature of things; beside this, the fire that I previously termed aether; and also the power of Fate, and the Necessity that governs future events; and also all fluid and soluble substances, such as water, earth, air, the sun, moon and stars, and the all‑embracing unity of things; and even those human beings who have attained immortality. 1.40 He also argues that the god whom men call Jupiter is the aether, and that Neptune is the air which permeates the sea, and the goddess called Ceres the earth; and he deals in the same way with the whole series of the names of the other gods. He also identifies Jupiter with the mighty Law, everlasting and eternal, which is our guide of life and instructress in duty, and which he entitles Necessity or Fate, and the Everlasting Truth of future events; none of which conceptions is of such a nature as to be deemed to possess divinity. 1.41 This is what is contained in his Nature of the Gods, Book I. In Book II he aims at reconciling the myths of Orpheus, Musaeus, Hesiod and Homer with his own theology as enunciated in Book I, and so makes out that even the earliest poets of antiquity, who had no notion of these doctrines, were really Stoics. In this he is followed by Diogenes of Babylon, who in his book entitled Minerva rationalizes the myth of the birth of the virgin goddess from Jove by explaining it as an allegory of the processes of nature.
1.61 But as for your master Epicurus (for I prefer to join issue with him rather than with yourself), which of his utterances is, I do not say worthy of philosophy, but compatible with ordinary common sense? "In an inquiry as to the nature of the gods, the first question that we ask is, do the gods exist or do they not? \'It is difficult to deny their existence.\' No doubt it would be if the question were to be asked in a public assembly, but in private conversation and in a company like the present it is perfectly easy. This being so, I, who am a high priest, and who hold it to be a duty most solemnly to maintain the rights and doctrines of the established religion, should be glad to be convinced of this fundamental tenet of the divine existence, not as an article of faith merely but as an ascertained fact. For many disturbing reflections occur to my mind, which sometimes make me think that there are no gods at all. ' "
1.73 However Epicurus pours endless scorn on this Platonist, so afraid is he of appearing ever to have learnt anything from a teacher. He stands convicted in the case of Nausiphanes, a follower of Democritus, whom he does not deny he heard lecture, but whom nevertheless he assails with every sort of abuse. Yet if he had not heard from him these doctrines of Democritus, what had he heard? for what is there in Epicurus's natural philosophy that does not come from Democritus? Since even if he introduced some alterations, for instance the swerve of the atoms, of which I spoke just now, yet most of his system is the same, the atoms, the void, the images, the infinity of space, and the countless number of worlds, their births and their destructions, in fact almost everything that is comprised in natural science. " "
1.79 Yes, and every ant like an ant! Still, the question is, like what man? How small a percentage of handsome people there are! When I was at Athens, there was scarcely one to be found in each platoon of the training-corps — I see why you smile, but the fact is all the same. Another point: we, who with the sanction of the philosophers of old are fond of the society of young men, often find even their defects agreeable. Alcaeus 'admires a mole upon his favourite's wrist'; of course a mole is a blemish, but Alcaeus thought it a beauty. Quintus Catulus, the father of our colleague and friend to‑day, was warmly attached to your fellow-townsman Roscius, and actually wrote the following verses in his honour: By chance abroad at dawn, I stood to pray To the uprising deity of day; When lo! upon my left — propitious sight — Suddenly Roscius dawned in radiance bright. Forgive me, heavenly pow'rs, if I declare, Meseem'd the mortal than the god more fair. To Catulus, Roscius was fairer than a god. As a matter of fact he had, as he has to‑day, a pronounced squint; but no matter — in the eyes of Catulus this in itself gave him piquancy and charm. " 1.81 "Furthermore, Velleius, what if your assumption, that when we think of god the only form that presents itself to us is that of a man, be entirely untrue? will you nevertheless continue to maintain your absurdities? Very likely we Romans do imagine god as you say, because from our childhood Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Neptune, Vulcan and Apollo have been known to us with the aspect with which painters and sculptors have chosen to represent them, and not with that aspect only, but having that equipment, age and dress. But they are not so known to the Egyptians or Syrians, or any almost of the uncivilized races. Among these you will find a belief in certain animals more firmly established than is reverence for the holiest sanctuaries and images of the gods with us.
1.123 Epicurus is making fun of us, though he is not so much a humorist as a loose and careless writer. For how can holiness exist if the gods pay no heed to man\'s affairs? Yet what is the meaning of an animate being that pays no heed to anything? "It is doubtless therefore truer to say, as the good friend of us all, Posidonius, argued in the fifth book of his On the Nature of the Gods, that Epicurus does not really believe in the gods at all, and that he said what he did about the immortal gods only for the sake of deprecating popular odium. Indeed he could not have been so senseless as really to imagine god to be like a feeble human being, but resembling him only in outline and surface, not in solid substance, and possessing all man\'s limbs but entirely incapable of using them, an emaciated and transparent being, showing no kindness or beneficence to anybody, caring for nothing and doing nothing at all. In the first place, a being of this nature is an absolute impossibility, and Epicurus was aware of this, and so actually abolishes the gods, although professedly retaining them.
2.168 "These are more or less the things that occurred to me which I thought proper to be said upon the subject of the nature of the gods. And for your part, Cotta, would you but listen to me, you would plead the same cause, and reflect that you are a leading citizen and a pontife, and you would take advantage of the liberty enjoyed by your school of arguing both pro and contra to choose to espouse my side, and preferably to devote to this purpose those powers of eloquence which your rhetorical exercises have bestowed upon you and which the Academy has fostered. For the habit of arguing in support of atheism, whether it be done from conviction or in pretence, is a wicked and impious practice."
3.5 "Very well," rejoined Cotta, "let us then proceed as the argument itself may lead us. But before we come to the subject, let me say a few words about myself. I am considerably influenced by your authority, Balbus, and by the plea that you put forward at the conclusion of your discourse, when you exhorted me to remember that I am both a Cotta and a pontife. This no doubt meant that I ought to uphold the beliefs about the immortal gods which have come down to us from our ancestors, and the rites and ceremonies and duties of religion. For my part I always shall uphold them and always have done so, and no eloquence of anybody, learned or unlearned, shall ever dislodge me from the belief as to the worship of the immortal gods which I have inherited from our forefathers. But on any question of el I am guided by the high pontifes, Titus Coruncanius, Publius Scipio and Publius Scaevola, not by Zeno or Cleanthes or Chrysippus; and I have Gaius Laelius, who was both an augur and a philosopher, to whose discourse upon religion, in his famous oration, I would rather listen than to any leader of the Stoics. The religion of the Roman people comprises ritual, auspices, and the third additional division consisting of all such prophetic warnings as the interpreters of the Sybil or the soothsayers have derived from portents and prodigies. While, I have always thought that none of these departments of religion was to be despised, and I have held the conviction that Romulus by his auspices and Numa by his establishment of our ritual laid the foundations of our state, which assuredly could never have been as great as it is had not the fullest measure of divine favour been obtained for it. 3.6 There, Balbus, is the opinion of a Cotta and a pontife; now oblige me by letting me know yours. You are a philosopher, and I ought to receive from you a proof of your religion, whereas I must believe the word of our ancestors even without proof." "What proof then do you require of me, Cotta?" replied Balbus. "You divided your discourse under four heads," said Cotta; "first you designed to prove the existence of the gods; secondly, to describe their nature; thirdly, to show that the world is governed by them; and lastly, that they care for the welfare of men. These, if I remember rightly, were the headings that you laid down." "You are quite right," said Balbus; "but now tell me what it is that you want to know." ' "
3.28 And so I fully agreed with the part of your discourse that dealt with nature's punctual regularity, and what you termed its concordant interconnexion and correlation; but I could not accept your assertion that this could not have come about were it not held together by a single divine breath. On the contrary, the system's coherence and persistence is due to nature's forces and not to drive power; she does possess that 'concord' (the Greek term is sympatheia) of which you spoke, but the greater this is as a spontaneous growth, the less possible is it to suppose that it was created by divine reason. " "
3.44 No, you say, we must draw the line at that; well then, orcus is not a god either; what are you to say about his brothers then?' These arguments were advanced by Carneades, not with the object of establishing atheism (for what could less befit a philosopher?) but in order to prove the Stoic theology worthless; accordingly he used to pursue his inquiry thus: 'Well now,' he would say, 'if these brothers are included among the gods, can we deny the divinity of their father Saturation, who is held in the highest reverence by the common people in the west? And if he is a god, we must also admit that his father Caelus is a god. And if so, the parents of Caelus, the Aether and the Day, must be held to be gods, and their brothers and sisters, whom the ancient genealogists name Love, Guile, Dear, Toil, Envy, Fate, Old Age, Death, Darkness, Misery, Lamentation, Favour, Fraud, Obstinacy, the Parcae, the Daughters of Hesperus, the Dreams: all of these are fabled to be the children of erebus and Night.' Either therefore you must accept these monstrosities or you must discard the first claimants also." "
3.47 And if it is the nature of the gods to intervene in man's affairs, the Birth-Spirit also must be deemed divine, to whom it is our custom to offer sacrifice when we make the round of the shrines in the Territory of Ardea: she is named Natio from the word for being born (nasci), because she is believed to watch over married women in travail. If she is divine, so are all those abstractions that you mentioned, Honour, Faith, Intellect, Concord, and therefore also Hope, the Spirit of Money and all the possible creations of our own imagination. If this supposition is unlikely, so also is the former one, from which all these instances flow. Then, if the traditional gods whom we worship are really divine, what reason can you give why we should not include Isis and Osiris in the same category? And if we do so, why should we repudiate the gods of the barbarians? We shall therefore have to admit to the list of gods oxen and horses, ibises, hawks, asps, crocodiles, fishes, dogs, wolves, cats and many beasts besides. Or if we reject these, we shall also reject those others from whom their claim springs. " 3.95 "I on my side," replied Cotta, "only desire to be refuted. My purpose was rather to discuss the doctrines I have expounded than to pronounce judgement upon them, and I am confident that you can easily defeat me." "Oh, no doubt," interposed Velleius; "why, he thinks that even our dreams are sent to us by Jupiter — though dreams themselves are not so unsubstantial as a Stoic disquisition on the nature of the gods." Here the conversation ended, and we parted, Velleius thinking Cotta\'s discourse to be the truer, while I felt that that of Balbus approximated more nearly to a semblance of the truth. '' None
|22. Cicero, On Duties, 1.4, 1.6, 2.7, 2.31 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academic philosophy, attitude towards auctoritas • Academics, the Academy • Academy, • Cicero, Academic scepticism • scepticism, Academic
Found in books: Atkins (2021), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero's Philosophy 19, 92, 116; Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 288; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 288, 298, 314; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 288
2.7 Occurritur autem nobis, et quidem a doctis et eruditis quaerentibus, satisne constanter facere videamur, qui, cum percipi nihil posse dicamus, tamen et aliis de rebus disserere soleamus et hoc ipso tempore praecepta officii persequamur. Quibus vellem satis cognita esset nostra sententia. Non enim sumus ii, quorum vagetur animus errore nec habeat umquam, quid sequatur. Quae enim esset ista mens vel quae vita potius non modo disputandi, sed etiam vivendi ratione sublata? Nos autem, ut ceteri alia certa, alia incerta esse dicunt, sic ab his dissentientes alia probabilia, contra alia dicimus.
2.31 Honore et gloria et benivolentia civium fortasse non aeque omnes egent, sed tamen, si cui haec suppetunt, adiuvant aliquantum cum ad cetera, tum ad amicitias comparandas. Sed de amicitia alio libro dictum est, qui inscribitur Laelius; nunc dicamus de gloria, quamquam ea quoque de re duo sunt nostri libri, sed attingamus, quandoquidem ea in rebus maioribus administrandis adiuvat plurimum. Summa igitur et perfecta gloria constat ex tribus his: si diligit multitudo, si fidem habet, si cum admiratione quadam honore dignos putat. Haec autem, si est simpliciter breviterque dicendum, quibus rebus pariuntur a singulis, eisdem fere a multitudine. Sed est alius quoque quidam aditus ad multitudinem, ut in universorum animos tamquam influere possimus.' ' None
2.7 \xa0But people raise other objections against me\xa0â\x80\x94 and that, too, philosophers and scholars â\x80\x94 asking whether I\xa0think I\xa0am quite consistent in my conduct â\x80\x94 for although our school maintains that nothing can be known for certain, yet, they urge, I\xa0make a habit of presenting my opinions on all sorts of subjects and at this very moment am trying to formulate rules of duty. But I\xa0wish that they had a proper understanding of our position. For we Academicians are not men whose minds wander in uncertainty and never know what principles to adopt. For what sort of mental habit, or rather what sort of life would that be which should dispense with all rules for reasoning or even for living? Not so with us; but, as other schools maintain that some things are certain, others uncertain, we, differing with them, say that some things are probable, others improbable. <
2.31 \xa0All men do not, perhaps, stand equally in need of political honour, fame and the good-will of their fellow-citizens; nevertheless, if these honours come to a man, they help in many ways, and especially in the acquisition of friends. But friendship has been discussed in another book of mine, entitled "Laelius." Let us now take up the discussion of Glory, although I\xa0have published two books on that subject also. Still, let us touch briefly on it here, since it is of very great help in the conduct of more important business. The highest, truest glory depends upon the following three things: the affection, the confidence, and the mingled admiration and esteem of the people. Such sentiments, if I\xa0may speak plainly and concisely, are awakened in the masses in the same way as in individuals. But there is also another avenue of approach to the masses, by which we can, as it were, steal into the hearts of all at once. <' ' None
|23. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academic philosophy, attitude towards auctoritas • Academics, the Academy • Academy • Academy, • Academy, New or Skeptical • Academy, Old • Cicero, Academic scepticism • Cicero, on Academic sceptics • Old Academy • Plato, authority in the Academy • Skepticism, Academic • scepticism, Academic • skepticism, Academic
Found in books: Atkins (2021), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero's Philosophy 77, 88, 106, 110, 111, 114, 118; Bett (2019), How to be a Pyrrhonist: The Practice and Significance of Pyrrhonian Scepticism, 37, 40, 170, 224; Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 3, 245; Fowler (2014), Plato in the Third Sophistic, 180; Gilbert, Graver and McConnell (2023), Power and Persuasion in Cicero's Philosophy. 59; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 96, 110, 112, 231, 288, 289, 293, 294; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 2, 3, 245, 268, 269, 271, 272, 274, 281; Wynne (2019), Horace and the Gift Economy of Patronage, 227, 268
|24. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academic philosophy, attitude towards auctoritas • Cicero, Academic scepticism
Found in books: Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 288; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 288, 290, 293
|25. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academic philosophy, attitude towards auctoritas • Academy, • Cicero, Academic scepticism
Found in books: Atkins (2021), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero's Philosophy 138; Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 292; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 292
|26. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academic Sceptics • Academic philosophy, attitude towards auctoritas • Academics • Academy • Academy, • Academy, Old • Academy, Old (i.e., Antiochus’) • Academy, sceptical • Cicero, Academic scepticism • New Academy • scepticism, Academic
Found in books: Atkins (2021), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero's Philosophy 80; Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 265; Erler et al. (2021), Authority and Authoritative Texts in the Platonist Tradition, 67, 69, 70, 100, 104, 105; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 304; Motta and Petrucci (2022), Isagogical Crossroads from the Early Imperial Age to the End of Antiquity, 94; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 265
|27. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academics, the Academy • Academy, • New Academy • scepticism, Academic
Found in books: Atkins (2021), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero's Philosophy 40, 97; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 289; Maso (2022), CIcero's Philosophy, 92
|28. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academics, the Academy • Academy,
Found in books: Atkins (2021), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero's Philosophy 39, 92; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 298
|29. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academics, the Academy • Academy, • Academy, plane tree
Found in books: Atkins (2021), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero's Philosophy 36, 37; Erler et al. (2021), Authority and Authoritative Texts in the Platonist Tradition, 58; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 291
|30. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academic philosophy, attitude towards auctoritas • Cicero, Academic scepticism
Found in books: Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 292; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 289, 290, 292
|31. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academic philosophy, attitude towards auctoritas • Academy (Plato’s philosophical school) • Academy, • Cicero, Marcus Tullius, and Academic scepticism
Found in books: Atkins (2021), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero's Philosophy 35; Tsouni (2019), Antiochus and Peripatetic Ethics, 8, 31; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 291
|32. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academic philosophy, attitude towards auctoritas • Cicero, Academic scepticism
Found in books: Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 280; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 280
|33. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academic scepticism/sceptics • Academic scepticism/sceptics, New Academy/New Academic • Academy (Plato’s philosophical school) • Cicero, Marcus Tullius, Academic Books • New Academy
Found in books: Maso (2022), CIcero's Philosophy, 25, 55, 57; Tsouni (2019), Antiochus and Peripatetic Ethics, 5, 21, 42, 65, 145
|34. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academics, the Academy • Academy • Academy,
Found in books: Atkins (2021), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero's Philosophy 92; Gilbert, Graver and McConnell (2023), Power and Persuasion in Cicero's Philosophy. 18; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 298
|35. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academic philosophy, attitude towards auctoritas • Cicero, Academic scepticism • New Academy
Found in books: Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 265; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 265
|36. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academic philosophy, attitude towards auctoritas • Academics, the Academy • Academy • Academy, • Academy, New or Skeptical • Academy, Old • Cicero, Academic scepticism • New Academy • scepticism, Academic
Found in books: Atkins (2021), The Cambridge Companion to Cicero's Philosophy 32, 157, 212; Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 265, 281; Gilbert, Graver and McConnell (2023), Power and Persuasion in Cicero's Philosophy. 59, 90; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 65, 285, 288, 291, 303, 304; Long (2019), Immortality in Ancient Philosophy, 108, 110; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 265, 273, 281
|37. Mishnah, Avot, 1.1, 3.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • academies (yeshivot) • academies, rabbinic, elitism in • bet midrash (rabbinic academy), preaching, vs. synagogue • school/academy
Found in books: Brooke et al. (2008), Past Renewals: Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation, and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity, 207; Hirshman (2009), The Stabilization of Rabbinic Culture, 100 C, 122; Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 476; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 124
1.1 משֶׁה קִבֵּל תּוֹרָה מִסִּינַי, וּמְסָרָהּ לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ, וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ לִזְקֵנִים, וּזְקֵנִים לִנְבִיאִים, וּנְבִיאִים מְסָרוּהָ לְאַנְשֵׁי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה. הֵם אָמְרוּ שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים, הֱווּ מְתוּנִים בַּדִּין, וְהַעֲמִידוּ תַלְמִידִים הַרְבֵּה, וַעֲשׂוּ סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה:
1.1 שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. שְׁמַעְיָה אוֹמֵר, אֱהֹב אֶת הַמְּלָאכָה, וּשְׂנָא אֶת הָרַבָּנוּת, וְאַל תִּתְוַדַּע לָרָשׁוּת:' ' None
1.1 Moses received the torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be patient in the administration of justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah.
3.10 He used to say: one with whom men are pleased, God is pleased. But anyone from whom men are displeased, God is displeased. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: morning sleep, midday wine, children’s talk and sitting in the assemblies of the ignorant put a man out of the world.'' None
|38. New Testament, Acts, 17.4, 17.12 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • philosophy (see also Academic philosophy), doing philosophy • women, academy
Found in books: Conybeare (2006), The Irrational Augustine, 106; Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 501
17.4 καί τινες ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐπείσθησαν καὶ προσεκληρώθησαν τῷ Παύλῳ καὶ τῷ Σίλᾳ, τῶν τε σεβομένων Ἑλλήνων πλῆθος πολὺ γυναικῶν τε τῶν πρώτων οὐκ ὀλίγαι.
17.12 πολλοὶ μὲν οὖν ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐπίστευσαν, καὶ τῶν Ἑλληνίδων γυναικῶν τῶν εὐσχημόνων καὶ ἀνδρῶν οὐκ ὀλίγοι.'' None
17.4 Some of them were persuaded, and joined Paul and Silas, of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and not a few of the chief women.
17.12 Many of them therefore believed; also of the Greek women of honorable estate, and not a few men. '' None
|39. New Testament, John, 6.40, 6.47, 6.51, 6.54, 6.58 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academy, Old • women, academy
Found in books: Corrigan and Rasimus (2013), Gnosticism, Platonism and the Late Ancient World, 396; Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 51
6.40 τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πατρός μου ἵνα πᾶς ὁ θεωρῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον, καὶ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν ἐγὼ τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ.
6.47 ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὁ πιστεύων ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
6.51 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς· ἐάν τις φάγῃ ἐκ τούτου τοῦ ἄρτου ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, καὶ ὁ ἄρτος δὲ ὃν ἐγὼ δώσω ἡ σάρξ μου ἐστὶν ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς.
6.54 ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον, κἀγὼ ἀναστήσω αὐτὸν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ·
6.58 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον· ὁ τρώγων τοῦτον τὸν ἄρτον ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.'' None
6.40 This is the will of the one who sent me, that everyone who sees the Son, and believes in him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
6.47 Most assuredly, I tell you, he who believes in me has eternal life.
6.51 I am the living bread which came down out of heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. Yes, the bread which I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."
6.54 He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
6.58 This is the bread which came down out of heaven -- not as our fathers ate the manna, and died. He who eats this bread will live forever."'' None
|40. Plutarch, Cimon, 13.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academy • Academy, grove
Found in books: Erler et al. (2021), Authority and Authoritative Texts in the Platonist Tradition, 47; Gygax and Zuiderhoek (2021), Benefactors and the Polis: The Public Gift in the Greek Cities from the Homeric World to Late Antiquity, 74
13.7 λέγεται δὲ καὶ τῶν μακρῶν τειχῶν, ἃ σκέλη καλοῦσι, συντελεσθῆναι μὲν ὕστερον τὴν οἰκοδομίαν, τὴν δὲ πρώτην θεμελίωσιν εἰς τόπους ἑλώδεις καὶ διαβρόχους τῶν ἔργων ἐμπεσόντων ἐρεισθῆναι διὰ Κίμωνος ἀσφαλῶς, χάλικι πολλῇ καὶ λίθοις βαρέσι τῶν ἑλῶν πιεσθέντων, ἐκείνου χρήματα πορίζοντος καὶ διδόντος.'' None
13.7 '' None
|41. Seneca The Younger, Letters, 22.11, 33.4 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Cicero, Academic scepticism
Found in books: Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 325; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 325
22.11 It is so, my dear Lucilius; there are a few men whom slavery holds fast, but there are many more who hold fast to slavery. If, however, you intend to be rid of this slavery; if freedom is genuinely pleasing in your eyes; and if you seek counsel for this one purpose, – that you may have the good fortune to accomplish this purpose without perpetual annoyance, – how can the whole company of Stoic thinkers fail to approve your course? Zeno, Chrysippus, and all their kind will give you advice that is temperate, honourable, and suitable.
33.4 Suppose we should desire to sort out each separate motto from the general stock; to whom shall we credit them? To Zeno, Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Panaetius, or Posidonius? We Stoics are not subjects of a despot: each of us lays claim to his own freedom. With them,4 on the other hand, whatever Hermarchus says, or Metrodorus, is ascribed to one source. In that brotherhood, everything that any man utters is spoken under the leadership and commanding authority 5 of one alone. We cannot, I maintain, no matter how we try, pick out anything from so great a multitude of things equally good. Only the poor man counts his flock.6 Wherever you direct your gaze, you will meet with something that might stand out from the rest, if the context in which you read it were not equally notable. '' None
|42. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Cicero, Academic scepticism
Found in books: Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 325; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 325
|43. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academics, the Academy • Academy, sceptical • Cicero, on Academic sceptics • New Academy • Platonists, detachment from the Academy • scepticism, Academic
Found in books: Erler et al. (2021), Authority and Authoritative Texts in the Platonist Tradition, 84; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 56, 96, 111; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 186
|44. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academic Sceptics • Neo-Academics • scepticism, Academic
Found in books: Erler et al. (2021), Authority and Authoritative Texts in the Platonist Tradition, 74, 77; Leão and Lanzillotta (2019), A Man of Many Interests: Plutarch on Religion, Myth, and Magic, 146; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 123
|45. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academy • New Academy • Platonists, detachment from the Academy
Found in books: Brenk and Lanzillotta (2023), Plutarch on Literature, Graeco-Roman Religion, Jews and Christians, 6; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 186
|46. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academy • Academy, Old
Found in books: Frede and Laks (2001), Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath, 59, 61; Hankinson (1998), Cause and Explanation in Ancient Greek Thought, 325; Pedersen (2004), Demonstrative Proof in Defence of God: A Study of Titus of Bostra’s Contra Manichaeos. 270
|47. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academic philosophy, attitude towards auctoritas • Cicero, Marcus Tullius, Academic Books
Found in books: Tsouni (2019), Antiochus and Peripatetic Ethics, 53; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 267
|48. Pausanias, Description of Greece, 1.29.2, 1.29.15, 1.30.2 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academy • Academy (of Plato), Academics • Academy Road • Academy xiii, • Academy, Athens • Academy, grove • Academy, plane tree • Plato, his Academy • gymnasia, Academy
Found in books: Ekroth (2013), The Sacrificial Rituals of Greek Hero-Cults in the Archaic to the Early Hellenistic Period, 33, 84; Erler et al. (2021), Authority and Authoritative Texts in the Platonist Tradition, 41; Henderson (2020), The Springtime of the People: The Athenian Ephebeia and Citizen Training from Lykourgos to Augustus, 159, 163; Parker (2005), Polytheism and Society at Athens, 56; Rutledge (2012), Ancient Rome as a Museum: Power, Identity, and the Culture of Collecting, 22; Zanker (1996), The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity, 111, 127, 181, 182, 183, 311
1.29.2 Ἀθηναίοις δὲ καὶ ἔξω πόλεως ἐν τοῖς δήμοις καὶ κατὰ τὰς ὁδοὺς θεῶν ἐστιν ἱερὰ καὶ ἡρώων καὶ ἀνδρῶν τάφοι· ἐγγυτάτω δὲ Ἀκαδημία, χωρίον ποτὲ ἀνδρὸς ἰδιώτου, γυμνάσιον δὲ ἐπʼ ἐμοῦ. κατιοῦσι δʼ ἐς αὐτὴν περίβολός ἐστιν Ἀρτέμιδος καὶ ξόανα Ἀρίστης καὶ Καλλίστης· ὡς μὲν ἐγὼ δοκῶ καὶ ὁμολογεῖ τὰ ἔπη τὰ Πάμφω, τῆς Ἀρτέμιδός εἰσιν ἐπικλήσεις αὗται, λεγόμενον δὲ καὶ ἄλλον ἐς αὐτὰς λόγον εἰδὼς ὑπερβήσομαι. καὶ ναὸς οὐ μέγας ἐστίν, ἐς ὃν τοῦ Διονύσου τοῦ Ἐλευθερέως τὸ ἄγαλμα ἀνὰ πᾶν ἔτος κομίζουσιν ἐν τεταγμέναις ἡμέραις.
1.29.15 τέθαπται δὲ καὶ Κόνων καὶ Τιμόθεος, δεύτεροι μετὰ Μιλτιάδην καὶ Κίμωνα οὗτοι πατὴρ καὶ παῖς ἔργα ἀποδειξάμενοι λαμπρά. κεῖται δὲ καὶ Ζήνων ἐνταῦθα ὁ Μνασέου καὶ Χρύσιππος ὁ Σολεύς, Νικίας τε ὁ Νικομήδου ς ζῷα ἄριστος γράψαι τῶν ἐφʼ αὑτοῦ, καὶ Ἁρμόδιος καὶ Ἀριστογείτων οἱ τὸν Πεισιστράτου παῖδα Ἵππαρχον ἀποκτείναντες, ῥήτορές τε Ἐφιάλτης, ὃς τὰ νόμιμα τὰ ἐν Ἀρείῳ πάγῳ μάλιστα ἐλυμήνατο, καὶ Λυκοῦργος ὁ Λυκόφρονος.
1.30.2 ἐν Ἀκαδημίᾳ δέ ἐστι Προμηθέως βωμός, καὶ θέουσιν ἀπʼ αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὴν πόλιν ἔχοντες καιομένας λαμπάδας· τὸ δὲ ἀγώνισμα ὁμοῦ τῷ δρόμῳ φυλάξαι τὴν δᾷδα ἔτι καιομένην ἐστίν, ἀποσβεσθείσης δὲ οὐδὲν ἔτι τῆς νίκης τῷ πρώτῳ, δευτέρῳ δὲ ἀντʼ αὐτοῦ μέτεστιν· εἰ δὲ μηδὲ τούτῳ καίοιτο, ὁ τρίτος ἐστὶν ὁ κρατῶν· εἰ δὲ καὶ πᾶσιν ἀποσβεσθείη, οὐδείς ἐστιν ὅτῳ καταλείπεται ἡ νίκη. ἔστι δὲ Μουσῶν τε βωμὸς καὶ ἕτερος Ἑρμοῦ καὶ ἔνδον Ἀθηνᾶς, τὸν δὲ Ἡρακλέους ἐποίησαν· καὶ φυτόν ἐστιν ἐλαίας, δεύτερον τοῦτο λεγόμενον φανῆναι.'' None
1.29.2 Outside the city, too, in the parishes and on the roads, the Athenians have sanctuaries of the gods, and graves of heroes and of men. The nearest is the Academy, once the property of a private individual, but in my time a gymnasium. As you go down to it you come to a precinct of Artemis, and wooden images of Ariste (Best) and Calliste (Fairest). In my opinion, which is supported by the poems of Pamphos, these are surnames of Artemis. There is another account of them, which I know but shall omit. Then there is a small temple, into which every year on fixed days they carry the image of Dionysus Eleuthereus.
1.29.15 Here also are buried Conon and Timotheus, father and son, the second pair thus related to accomplish illustrious deeds, Miltiades and Cimon being the first; Zeno too, the son of Mnaseas and Chrysippus Stoic philosophers. of Soli, Nicias the son of Nicomedes, the best painter from life of all his contemporaries, Harmodius and Aristogeiton, who killed Hipparchus, the son of Peisistratus; there are also two orators, Ephialtes, who was chiefly responsible for the abolition of the privileges of the Areopagus 463-1 B.C., and Lycurgus, A contemporary of Demosthenes. the son of Lycophron;
1.30.2 In the Academy is an altar to Prometheus, and from it they run to the city carrying burning torches. The contest is while running to keep the torch still alight; if the torch of the first runner goes out, he has no longer any claim to victory, but the second runner has. If his torch also goes out, then the third man is the victor. If all the torches go out, no one is left to be winner. There is an altar to the Muses, and another to Hermes, and one within to Athena, and they have built one to Heracles. There is also an olive tree, accounted to be the second that appeared.'' None
|49. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academic philosophy, attitude towards auctoritas • Academics, the Academy • Academy • Cicero, on Academic sceptics • New Academy • Old Academy • academic school • scepticism, Academic • skepticism, Academic
Found in books: Despotis and Lohr (2022), Religious and Philosophical Conversion in the Ancient Mediterranean Traditions, 183; Frede and Laks (2001), Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath, 51; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 65, 96, 231; Maso (2022), CIcero's Philosophy, 58; Vogt (2015), Pyrrhonian Skepticism in Diogenes Laertius. 111; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 263, 269; Wynne (2019), Horace and the Gift Economy of Patronage, 227
|50. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academia/Academician • Academy • New Academy • Skepticism, Academic • skepticism, Academic skepticism
Found in books: Bett (2019), How to be a Pyrrhonist: The Practice and Significance of Pyrrhonian Scepticism, 25, 27, 38, 39, 40, 41, 53, 171; Edelmann-Singer et al. (2020), Sceptic and Believer in Ancient Mediterranean Religions, 231; Maso (2022), CIcero's Philosophy, 55; Vogt (2015), Pyrrhonian Skepticism in Diogenes Laertius. 112
|51. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academics, the Academy • Academy, The (of Plato) • Academy, sceptical • scepticism, Academic
Found in books: Cohen (2010), The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism, 546; Erler et al. (2021), Authority and Authoritative Texts in the Platonist Tradition, 68; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 223
|52. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Stammaim, on study-house/academy • rabbinic, academies
Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 36, 37; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 174
|53. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • academies, Christian • academies, rabbinic, and Christian academies • rabbinic, academies
Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 151, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 173
|22a קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ומודה רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ברוכלין המחזירין בעיירות דלא מצי מעכב דאמר מר עזרא תקן להן לישראל שיהו רוכלין מחזירין בעיירות כדי שיהו תכשיטין מצויין לבנות ישראל,והני מילי לאהדורי אבל לאקבועי לא ואי צורבא מרבנן הוא אפילו לאקבועי נמי כי הא דרבא שרא להו לר\' יאשיה ולרב עובדיה לאקבועי דלא כהלכתא מאי טעמא כיון דרבנן נינהו אתו לטרדו מגירסייהו,הנהו דיקולאי דאייתו דיקלאי לבבל אתו בני מתא קא מעכבי עלויהו אתו לקמיה דרבינא אמר להו מעלמא אתו ולעלמא ליזבנו והני מילי ביומא דשוקא אבל בלא יומא דשוקא לא וביומא דשוקא נמי לא אמרינן אלא לזבוני בשוקא אבל לאהדורי לא,הנהו עמוראי דאייתו עמרא לפום נהרא אתו בני מתא קא מעכבי עלויהו אתו לקמיה דרב כהנא אמר להו דינא הוא דמעכבי עלייכו אמרו ליה אית לן אשראי אמר להו זילו זבנו שיעור חיותייכו עד דעקריתו אשראי דידכו ואזליתו,רב דימי מנהרדעא אייתי גרוגרות בספינה א"ל ריש גלותא לרבא פוק חזי אי צורבא מרבנן הוא נקיט ליה שוקא א"ל רבא לרב אדא בר אבא פוק תהי ליה בקנקניה,נפק אזל בעא מיניה פיל שבלע כפיפה מצרית והקיאה דרך בית הרעי מהו לא הוה בידיה א"ל מר ניהו רבא טפח ליה בסנדליה א"ל בין דידי לרבא איכא טובא מיהו על כרחך אנא רבך ורבא רבה דרבך,לא נקטו ליה שוקא פסיד גרוגרות דידיה אתא לקמיה דרב יוסף א"ל חזי מר מאי עבדו לי אמר ליה מאן דלא שהייה לאוניתא דמלכא דאדום לא נשהייה לאוניתיך דכתיב (עמוס ב, א) כה אמר ה\' על שלשה פשעי מואב ועל ארבעה לא אשיבנו על שרפו עצמות מלך אדום לסיד,נח נפשיה דרב אדא בר אבא רב יוסף אמר אנא ענישתיה דאנא לטייתיה רב דימי מנהרדעא אמר אנא ענישתיה דאפסיד גרוגרות דידי אביי אמר אנא ענישתיה דאמר להו לרבנן אדמגרמיתו גרמי בי אביי תו אכלו בישרא שמינא בי רבא ורבא אמר אנא ענישתיה דכי הוה אזיל לבי טבחא למשקל אומצא אמר להו לטבחי אנא שקילנא בישרא מיקמי שמעיה דרבא דאנא עדיפנא מיניה,רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אנא ענישתיה דרב נחמן בר יצחק ריש כלה הוה כל יומא מיקמי דניעול לכלה מרהיט בהדיה רב אדא בר אבא לשמעתיה והדר עייל לכלה,ההוא יומא נקטוה רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרב אדא בר אבא משום דלא הוו בסיומא אמרו ליה אימא לן הני שמעתתא דמעשר בהמה היכי אמרינהו רבא אמר להו הכי אמר רבא והכי אמר רבא אדהכי נגה ליה לרב נחמן בר יצחק (ולא אתי רב אדא בר אבא),אמרו ליה רבנן לרב נחמן בר יצחק קום דנגה לן למה יתיב מר אמר להו יתיבנא וקא מנטרא לערסיה דרב אדא בר אבא אדהכי נפק קלא דנח נפשיה דרב אדא בר אבא ומסתברא דרב נחמן בר יצחק ענשיה: ,||22a Jealousy among teachers increases wisdom.,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, who said that townspeople can bar craftsmen who come from other cities, concedes with regard to perfume salesmen who travel from one town to another that the townspeople cannot prevent them from entering their town. As the Master said: Ezra instituted an ordice for the Jewish people that perfume salesmen shall travel from town to town so that cosmetics will be available to Jewish women. Since this ordice was instituted on behalf of Jewish women, the Sages ruled that these peddlers could not be barred from entering a town.,The Gemara continues: And this matter applies only to one who seeks to travel from town to town as a salesman. But if he wants to establish a shop, this ruling was not stated, and the townspeople can prevent him from doing so. And if he is a Torah scholar he may even establish a shop as a perfume salesman. This is like that incident in which Rava permitted Rabbi Yoshiya and Rav Ovadya to establish a shop not in accordance with the halakha. What is the reason for this ruling? The reason is that since they are rabbis, they are likely to be distracted from their studies should they be required to travel from place to place.,§ The Gemara relates: There were these basket sellers who brought baskets to Babylonia. The townspeople came and prevented them from selling there. The two parties came before Ravina for a ruling. Ravina said to them: The basket sellers came from outside the town, and they sell to those from outside the town, i.e., to guests who are not residents of the town. The Gemara comments: And this statement applies only on a market day, when people from other towns come to shop, but they may not sell their wares on non-market days. And even with regard to market days, we say so only with regard to selling in the market, but this halakha does not apply to circulating around the town.,The Gemara further relates: There were these wool sellers who brought wool to the city of Pum Nahara. The townsfolk came and prevented them from selling it. The two parties came before Rav Kahana for a ruling. Rav Kahana said to them: The halakha is that they may prevent you from selling your wares. The wool sellers said to him: We have debts to collect in the city, and we must sell our wares in the meantime to sustain ourselves until we are paid. Rav Kahana said to them: Go and sell the amount needed to sustain yourselves until you have collected your debts, and then leave.,§ The Gemara relates: Rav Dimi of Neharde’a brought dried figs on a ship to sell them. The Exilarch said to Rava: Go and see; if he is a Torah scholar, reserve the market for him, i.e., declare that he has the exclusive right to sell dried figs. Rava said to his student Rav Adda bar Abba: Go and smell his jar, i.e., determine whether or not Rav Dimi is a Torah scholar.,Rav Adda bar Abba went and asked Rav Dimi a question: With regard to an elephant that swallowed a wicker basket and excreted it intact along with its waste, what is the halakha? Is the vessel still susceptible to ritual impurity or is it considered digested and not susceptible to impurity? An answer was not available to Rav Dimi. Rav Dimi said to Rav Adda bar Abba: Is the Master Rava, i.e., are you Rava, as you have asked me such a difficult question? Rav Adda bar Abba struck him on his shoe in a disparaging way and said to him: There is a great difference between me and Rava; but I am perforce your teacher, and Rava is your teacher’s teacher.,Based on this exchange, Rav Adda bar Abba decided that Rav Dimi was not a great Torah scholar, and therefore he did not reserve the market for him, and Rav Dimi lost his dried figs, as they rotted. Rav Dimi came before Rav Yosef to complain, and said to him: The Master should see what they did to me. Rav Yosef said to him: He Who did not delay retribution for the humiliation of the King of Edom should not delay His response to your humiliation, but should punish whoever distressed you, as it is written: “So says the Lord: For three transgressions of Moab, indeed for four I will not reverse for him, because he burned the bones of the King of Edom into lime” (Amos 2:1).,The Gemara reports that Rav Adda bar Abba died. Rav Yosef said: I punished him, i.e., I am to blame for his death, as I cursed him. Rav Dimi from Neharde’a said: I punished him, as he caused my loss of dried figs. Abaye said: I punished him, i.e., he was punished on my account because he did not exhibit the proper respect for me. As Rav Adda bar Abba said to the Sages: Instead of gnawing the bones in the school of Abaye, you would do better to eat fatty meat in the school of Rava, i.e., it is preferable to study with Rava than with Abaye. And Rava said: I punished him, as when he would go to the butcher to buy a piece of meat, he would say to the butchers: I will take meat before Rava’s servant, as I am greater than he is.,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: I punished him, i.e., he was punished because of me, as Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak was the head of the kalla lectures, the gatherings for Torah study during Elul and Adar. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak would teach the students immediately following the lesson taught by the head of the academy. Every day, before he went in for the kalla lecture, he reviewed his lecture with Rav Adda bar Abba, and then he would enter the study hall for the kalla lecture.,On that day Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, seized Rav Adda bar Abba, because they had not been present at the conclusion of Rava’s lecture. They said to him: Tell us how Rava stated these halakhot of animal tithe. Rav Adda bar Abba said to them: Rava said this and Rava said that. Meanwhile, it grew late for Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, and Rav Adda bar Abba had not yet arrived.,The Sages said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Arise and teach us, as it is late for us. Why does the Master sit and wait? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to them: I am sitting and waiting for the bier of Rav Adda bar Abba, who has presumably died. Meanwhile, a rumor emerged that Rav Adda bar Abba had indeed died. The Gemara comments: And so too, it is reasonable to conclude that Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak punished him, i.e., he died as a result of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement, as the unfortunate event occurred just as he announced that Rav Adda bar Abba’s bier was on its way.,One whose wall was close to the wall of another may not build another wall close to the neighbor’s wall unless he distances it four cubits from the wall of the neighbor. And one who desires to build a wall opposite the windows of a neighbor’s house must distance the wall four cubits from the windows, whether above, below, or opposite.,And with regard to the first man, how did he place his wall close to the neighbor’s wall in the first place? Rav Yehuda said that this is what the tanna is saying:'' None|
|54. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • academies, rabbinic • academies, rabbinic, argumentation in • academies, rabbinic, as organizational innovation • academies, rabbinic, heavenly • argumentation, dialectical, in academies • metivta (study-session, academy) • rabbinic academy • yeshivot (academies sessions)
Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein (2018), The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World. 217; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 22, 29
|86a חכים יתקרי ורבי לא יתקרי ואסו דרבי על ידו תהא רבי ור\' נתן סוף משנה רב אשי ורבינא סוף הוראה,וסימנך (תהלים עג, יז) עד אבוא אל מקדשי אל אבינה לאחריתם,אמר רב כהנא אישתעי לי רב חמא בר ברתיה דחסא רבה בר נחמני אגב שמדא נח נפשיה אכלו ביה קורצא בי מלכא אמרו איכא חד גברא ביהודאי דקא מבטל תריסר אלפי גברי מישראל ירחא בקייטא וירחא בסתוא מכרגא דמלכא,שדרו פריסתקא דמלכא בתריה ולא אשכחיה ערק ואזל מפומבדיתא לאקרא מאקרא לאגמא ומאגמא לשחין ומשחין לצריפא ומצריפא לעינא דמים ומעינא דמים לפומבדיתא בפומבדיתא אשכחיה איקלע פריסתקא דמלכא לההוא אושפיזא דרבה קריבו תכא קמיה ואשקוהו תרי כסי ודליוה לתכא מקמיה הדר פרצופיה לאחוריה,אמרו ליה מאי נעביד ליה גברא דמלכא הוא אמר להו קריבו תכא לקמיה ואשקיוהו חד כסא ודליוהו לתכא מקמיה ולתסי עבדו ליה הכי ואתסי אמר מידע ידענא דגברא דקא בעינא הכא הוא בחיש אבתריה ואשכחיה אמר אזלינא מהא אי מקטל קטלו לההוא גברא לא מגלינא ואי נגידי מנגדין ליה מגלינא,אתיוהו לקמיה עייליה לאדרונא וטרקיה לבבא באנפיה בעא רחמי פרק אשיתא ערק ואזיל לאגמא הוה יתיב אגירדא דדקולא וקא גריס קא מיפלגי במתיבתא דרקיעא אם (ויקרא יג, ב) בהרת קודמת לשער לבן טמא ואם שער לבן קודם לבהרת טהור,ספק הקב"ה אומר טהור וכולהו מתיבתא דרקיעא אמרי טמא ואמרי מאן נוכח נוכח רבה בר נחמני דאמר רבה בר נחמני אני יחיד בנגעים אני יחיד באהלות,שדרו שליחא בתריה לא הוה מצי מלאך המות למקרב ליה מדלא הוה קא פסיק פומיה מגרסיה אדהכי נשב זיקא ואויש ביני קני סבר גונדא דפרשי הוא אמר תינח נפשיה דההוא גברא ולא ימסר בידא דמלכותא,כי הוה קא ניחא נפשיה אמר טהור טהור יצאת בת קול ואמרה אשריך רבה בר נחמני שגופך טהור ויצאתה נשמתך בטהור נפל פתקא מרקיעא בפומבדיתא רבה בר נחמני נתבקש בישיבה של מעלה נפקו אביי ורבא וכולהו רבנן לאיעסוקי ביה לא הוו ידעי דוכתיה אזלו לאגמא חזו צפרי דמטללי וקיימי אמרי שמע מינה התם הוא,ספדוהו תלתא יומי ותלתא לילותא נפל פתקא כל הפורש יהא בנידוי ספדוהו שבעה יומי נפל פתקא לכו לביתכם לשלום,ההוא יומא דנח נפשיה דלייה זעפא ודרי לההוא טייעא כי רכיב גמלא מהאי גיסא דנהר פפא ושדייה בהך גיסא אמר מאי האי אמרי ליה נח נפשיה דרבה בר נחמני אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם כולי עלמא דידך הוא ורבה בר נחמני דידך את דרבה ורבה דידך אמאי קא מחרבת ליה לעלמא נח זעפא,רבי שמעון בן חלפתא בעל בשר הוה יומא חד הוה חמימא ליה הוה סליק ויתיב אשינא דטורא אמר לה לברתיה בתי הניפי עלי במניפא ואני אתן ליך ככרין דנרד אדהכי נשבא זיקא אמר כמה ככרין דנרד למרי דיכי,הכל כמנהג המדינה וכו\' הכל לאתויי מאי לאתויי באתרא דנהיגי מכרך ריפתא ומשתה אנפקא דאי אמר להו קדימו ואייתי לכו אמרו לו לא כל כמינך,מעשה ברבן יוחנן בן מתיא שאמר לבנו צא ושכור וכו\' מעשה לסתור חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני ואם פסק להן מזונות'' None||86a shall be called a wise ḥakim physician, but he shall not be called rabbi, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s convalescence shall be through him. I also saw written there: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Natan are the end of the Mishna, i.e., the last of the tanna’im, the redactors of the Mishna. Rav Ashi and Ravina are the end of instruction, i.e., the end of the period of the amora’im, the redacting of the Talmud, which occurred after the period of the tanna’im.,And your mnemonic to remember that Rav Ashi and Ravina redacted the Talmud is the verse: “Until I entered into the sanctuary mikdashei of God, and considered avina their end” (Psalms 73:17). The sanctuary, mikdashei, alludes to Rav Ashi, while the term avina alludes to Ravina, which is a contraction of Rav Avina. The phrase: Their end, is interpreted as a reference to the redacting of the Talmud.,§ The Gemara relates another story discussing the greatness of the Sages. Rav Kahana said: Rav Ḥama, son of the daughter of Ḥasa, told me that Rabba bar Naḥmani died due to the fear of a decree of religious persecution. The Gemara explains: His enemies accused him akhalu beih kurtza of disloyalty in the king’s palace, as they said: There is one man from among the Jews who exempts twelve thousand Jewish men from the king’s head tax two months a year, one month in the summer and one month in the winter. Since many people would study in Rabba’s study hall during the months of Adar and Elul, he was being blamed for preventing those people from working during those months.,They sent a messenger peristaka of the king after him, but he was not able to find him. Rabba bar Naḥmani fled and went from Pumbedita to Akra, from Akra to Agma, from Agma to Shiḥin, from Shiḥin to Tzerifa, from Tzerifa to Eina Demayim, and from Eina Demayim back to Pumbedita. Ultimately, he was found in Pumbedita, as the king’s messenger arrived by chance at that same inn where Rabba bar Naḥmani was hiding. The inn attendants placed a tray before the messenger and gave him two cups to drink. They then removed the tray from before him and his face was miraculously turned backward.,The attendants said to Rabba bar Naḥmani: What should we do with him? He is the king’s man, and we cannot leave him like this. Rabba bar Naḥmani said to them: Place a tray before him and give him one cup to drink, and then remove the tray from before him and he will be healed. They did this, and he was healed. The messenger said: I am certain that the man I seek is here, as this unnatural event must have befallen me on his account. He searched for Rabba bar Naḥmani and found out where he was. The messenger said that they should tell Rabba bar Naḥmani: I will leave this inn and will not disclose your location. Even if they will kill that man, i.e., me, I will not disclose your location. But if they will beat him, me, I will disclose your whereabouts, as I cannot bear being tortured.,With that guarantee, they brought Rabba bar Naḥmani before the messenger. They took him into a small vestibule le’idrona and closed the door before him. Rabba bar Naḥmani prayed for mercy, and the wall crumbled. He fled and went to hide in a swamp. He was sitting on the stump of a palm tree and studying Torah alone. At that moment, the Sages in the heavenly academy were disagreeing with regard to a halakha of leprosy. In general, a leprous spot includes two signs of impurity, a bright white spot and a white hair. The basic halakha is that if the snow-white leprous sore baheret preceded the white hair then the afflicted person is ritually impure, but if the white hair preceded the baheret, he is pure.,The heavenly debate concerned a case of uncertainty as to which came first, the spot or the hair. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: The individual is pure, but every other member of the heavenly academy says: He is impure. And they said: Who can arbitrate in this dispute? They agreed that Rabba bar Naḥmani should arbitrate, as Rabba bar Naḥmani once said: I am preeminent in the halakhot of leprosy and I am preeminent in the halakhot of ritual impurity imparted by tents.,They sent a messenger from heaven after him to take his soul up to the heavenly academy, but the Angel of Death was unable to approach Rabba bar Naḥmani, as his mouth did not cease from his Torah study. In the meantime, a wind blew and howled between the branches. Rabba bar Naḥmani thought that the noise was due to an infantry battalion gunda about to capture him. He said: Let that man, i.e., me, die and not be given over to the hands of the government. The Angel of Death was therefore able to take his soul.,As he was dying, he said in response to the dispute in heaven: It is pure; it is pure. A Divine Voice emerged from heaven and said: Happy are you, Rabba bar Naḥmani, as your body is pure and your soul left you with the word: Pure. A note pitka fell from heaven and landed in the academy of Pumbedita. The note read: Rabba bar Naḥmani was summoned to the heavenly academy, i.e., he has died. Abaye and Rava and all of the other Rabbis went out to tend to his burial; however, they did not know the location of his body. They went to the swamp and saw birds forming a shade and hovering over a certain spot. The Rabbis said: We can conclude from this that he is there.,The Rabbis lamented him for three days and three nights. A note fell from heaven, upon which was written: Anyone who removes himself from the lamentations shall be ostracized. Accordingly, they lamented him for seven days. Another note fell from heaven, stating: Go to your homes in peace.,On that day when Rabba bar Naḥmani died, a hurricane lifted a certain Arab taya’a merchant while he was riding his camel. The hurricane carried him from one side of the Pappa River and threw him onto the other side. He said: What is this? Those present said to him: Rabba bar Naḥmani has died. He said before God: Master of the Universe! The entire world is Yours and Rabba bar Naḥmani is also Yours. You are to Rabba and Rabba is to You, i.e., you are beloved to each other. If so, why are You destroying the world on his account? The storm subsided.,The Gemara concludes its earlier discussion of obese Sages (84a). Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta was obese. One day he was particularly hot and went and sat on a mountain boulder to cool himself off. He said to his daughter: My daughter, fan me with a fan, and as a gift I will give you packages of spikenard. In the meantime, a strong wind blew. He said: How many packages of spikenard do I owe to the overseers of this wind?,§ The Gemara returns to its discussion of the mishna (83a), which teaches that an employer must provide his laborers with sustece, all in accordance with the regional custom. The Gemara asks: What is added by the inclusive term: All? The Gemara answers: This serves to include a place where it is customary for the laborers to eat bread and drink a quarter-log anpaka of wine. As, if in such a case the employer were to say to them: Arise early in the morning and I will bring you this sustece, so as not to waste work time, they may say to him: It is not in your power to compel us to do so.,§ The mishna teaches that there was an incident involving Rabbi Yoḥa ben Matya, who said to his son: Go out and hire laborers for us. His son hired the laborers and stipulated that he would provide sustece for them. The Gemara asks: After the mishna has stated that all practices are in accordance with the regional custom, how can it cite this incident, which seems to contradict the previous ruling, as Rabbi Yoḥa ben Matya and his son did not follow the regional custom? The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: All practices are in accordance with the regional custom, but if the employer pledged to provide sustece for them,'' None|
|55. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Gamaliel, Rabban, and access to academy • Shekhinah, academies, schools • Tiberias, Great Academy • Tiberias, academy • academies (yeshivot) • academies, Christian scholastic culture • academies, rabbinic • academies, rabbinic, access to • academies, rabbinic, heavenly • academies, rabbinic, hierarchy in • academies, rabbinic, in dreams • academies, rabbinic, leaders of • academies, rabbinic, lineage in • academies, rabbinic, reclusiveness of • hierarchy, academic • lineage (yihus), and academic hierarchy • midrash, instruction in synagogue or academy • rabbinic, academies
Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 201; Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 422; Hirshman (2009), The Stabilization of Rabbinic Culture, 100 C, 90, 114; Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 246, 337, 340, 436; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 30, 97, 139
|6a אמר ר\' יוסי ברבי חנינא זוכה לברכות הללו שנאמר (ישעיהו מח, יח) לוא הקשבת למצותי ויהי כנהר שלומך וצדקתך כגלי הים ויהי כחול זרעך וצאצאי מעיך וגו\':,תניא אבא בנימין אומר אלמלי נתנה רשות לעין לראות אין כל בריה יכולה לעמוד מפני המזיקין,אמר אביי אינהו נפישי מינן וקיימי עלן כי כסלא לאוגיא,אמר רב הונא כל חד וחד מינן אלפא משמאליה ורבבתא מימיניה,אמר רבא האי דוחקא דהוי בכלה מנייהו הוי הני ברכי דשלהי מנייהו הני מאני דרבנן דבלו מחופיא דידהו הני כרעי דמנקפן מנייהו,האי מאן דבעי למידע להו לייתי קיטמא נהילא ונהדר אפורייה ובצפרא חזי כי כרעי דתרנגולא האי מאן דבעי למחזינהו ליתי שלייתא דשונרתא אוכמתא בת אוכמתא בוכרתא בת בוכרתא ולקליה בנורא ולשחקיה ולימלי עיניה מניה וחזי להו ולשדייה בגובתא דפרזלא ולחתמי\' בגושפנקא דפרזלא דילמא גנבי מניה ולחתום פומיה כי היכי דלא ליתזק רב ביבי בר אביי עבד הכי חזא ואתזק בעו רבנן רחמי עליה ואתסי:,תניא אבא בנימין אומר אין תפלה של אדם נשמעת אלא בבית הכנסת שנאמר (מלכים א ח, כח) לשמוע אל הרנה ואל התפלה במקום רנה שם תהא תפלה,אמר רבין בר רב אדא א"ר יצחק מנין שהקב"ה מצוי בבית הכנסת שנאמר (תהלים פב, א) אלהים נצב בעדת אל,ומנין לעשרה שמתפללין ששכינה עמהם שנאמר אלהים נצב בעדת אל,ומנין לשלשה שיושבין בדין ששכינה עמהם שנאמר (תהלים פב, א) בקרב אלהים ישפוט,ומנין לשנים שיושבים ועוסקין בתורה ששכינה עמהם שנאמר (מלאכי ג, טז) אז נדברו יראי ה\' איש אל רעהו ויקשב ה\' וגו\',מאי (מלאכי ג, טז) ולחושבי שמו אמר רב אשי חשב אדם לעשות מצוה ונאנס ולא עשאה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו עשאה,ומנין שאפילו אחד שיושב ועוסק בתורה ששכינה עמו שנאמר (שמות כ, כד) בכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי אבוא אליך וברכתיך,וכי מאחר דאפילו חד תרי מבעיא תרי מכתבן מלייהו בספר הזכרונות חד לא מכתבן מליה בספר הזכרונות,וכי מאחר דאפי\' תרי תלתא מבעיא מהו דתימא דינא שלמא בעלמא הוא ולא אתיא שכינה קמ"ל דדינא נמי היינו תורה,וכי מאחר דאפי\' תלתא עשרה מבעיא עשרה קדמה שכינה ואתיא תלתא עד דיתבי:,א"ר אבין בר רב אדא א"ר יצחק מנין שהקב"ה מניח תפילין שנאמר (ישעיהו סב, ח) נשבע ה\' בימינו ובזרוע עוזו,בימינו זו תורה שנאמר (דברים לג, ב) מימינו אש דת למו ובזרוע עוזו אלו תפילין שנאמר (תהלים כט, יא) ה\' עוז לעמו יתן,ומנין שהתפילין עוז הם לישראל דכתי\' (דברים כח, י) וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה\' נקרא עליך ויראו ממך ותניא ר\' אליעזר הגדול אומר אלו תפילין שבראש,א"ל רב נחמן בר יצחק לרב חייא בר אבין הני תפילין דמרי עלמא מה כתיב בהו א"ל (דברי הימים א יז, כא) ומי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד בארץ,ומי משתבח קוב"ה בשבחייהו דישראל אין דכתיב (דברים כו, יז) את ה\' האמרת היום (וכתיב) וה\' האמירך היום אמר להם הקב"ה לישראל אתם עשיתוני חטיבה אחת בעולם ואני אעשה אתכם חטיבה אחת בעולם,אתם עשיתוני חטיבה אחת בעולם שנאמר (דברים ו, ד) שמע ישראל ה\' אלהינו ה\' אחד ואני אעשה אתכם חטיבה אחת בעולם שנאמר ומי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד בארץ,אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי תינח בחד ביתא בשאר בתי מאי,א"ל (דברים ד, ז) כי מי גוי גדול ומי גוי גדול (דברים לג, כט) אשריך ישראל (דברים ד, לד) או הנסה אלהים (דברים כו, יט)ולתתך עליון,אי הכי נפישי להו טובי בתי אלא כי מי גוי גדול ומי גוי גדול דדמיין להדדי בחד ביתא אשריך ישראל ומי כעמך ישראל בחד ביתא או הנסה אלהים בחד ביתא ולתתך עליון בחד ביתא 27b לא כנגד רבו ולא אחורי רבו,ותניא רבי אליעזר אומר המתפלל אחורי רבו והנותן שלום לרבו והמחזיר שלום לרבו והחולק על ישיבתו של רבו והאומר דבר שלא שמע מפי רבו גורם לשכינה שתסתלק מישראל,שאני רבי ירמיה בר אבא דתלמיד חבר הוה והיינו דקאמר ליה רבי ירמיה בר אבא לרב מי בדלת אמר ליה אין בדילנא ולא אמר מי בדיל מר,ומי בדיל והאמר רבי אבין פעם אחת התפלל רבי של שבת בערב שבת ונכנס למרחץ ויצא ושנה לן פרקין ועדיין לא חשכה אמר רבא ההוא דנכנס להזיע וקודם גזירה הוה,איני והא אביי שרא ליה לרב דימי בר ליואי לכברויי סלי,ההוא טעותא הואי,וטעותא מי הדרא והא אמר אבידן פעם אחת נתקשרו שמים בעבים כסבורים העם לומר חשכה הוא ונכנסו לבית הכנסת והתפללו של מוצאי שבת בשבת ונתפזרו העבים וזרחה החמה,ובאו ושאלו את רבי ואמר הואיל והתפללו התפללו שאני צבור דלא מטרחינן להו:,א"ר חייא בר אבין רב צלי של שבת בערב שבת רבי יאשיה מצלי של מוצאי שבת בשבת רב צלי של שבת בערב שבת אומר קדושה על הכוס או אינו אומר קדושה על הכוס ת"ש דאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל מתפלל אדם של שבת בערב שבת ואומר קדושה על הכוס והלכתא כוותיה,רבי יאשיה מצלי של מוצאי שבת בשבת אומר הבדלה על הכוס או אינו אומר הבדלה על הכוס ת"ש דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מתפלל אדם של מוצאי שבת בשבת ואומר הבדלה על הכוס,אמר ר\' זירא אמר רבי אסי אמר ר\' אלעזר א"ר חנינא אמר רב בצד עמוד זה התפלל ר\' ישמעאל בר\' יוסי של שבת בערב שבת,כי אתא עולא אמר בצד תמרה הוה ולא בצד עמוד הוה ולא ר\' ישמעאל ברבי יוסי הוה אלא ר\' אלעזר בר\' יוסי הוה ולא של שבת בערב שבת הוה אלא של מוצאי שבת בשבת הוה:,תפלת הערב אין לה קבע: מאי אין לה קבע אילימא דאי בעי מצלי כוליה ליליא ליתני תפלת הערב כל הלילה אלא מאי אין לה קבע,כמאן דאמר תפלת ערבית רשות דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל תפלת ערבית רבן גמליאל אומר חובה ר\' יהושע אומר רשות אמר אביי הלכה כדברי האומר חובה ורבא אמר הלכה כדברי האומר רשות.,ת"ר מעשה בתלמיד אחד שבא לפני ר\' יהושע א"ל תפלת ערבית רשות או חובה אמר ליה רשות,בא לפני רבן גמליאל א"ל תפלת ערבית רשות או חובה א"ל חובה א"ל והלא ר\' יהושע אמר לי רשות א"ל המתן עד שיכנסו בעלי תריסין לבית המדרש,כשנכנסו בעלי תריסין עמד השואל ושאל תפלת ערבית רשות או חובה א"ל רבן גמליאל חובה אמר להם רבן גמליאל לחכמים כלום יש אדם שחולק בדבר זה אמר ליה ר\' יהושע לאו א"ל והלא משמך אמרו לי רשות,אמר ליה יהושע עמוד על רגליך ויעידו בך עמד רבי יהושע על רגליו ואמר אלמלא אני חי והוא מת יכול החי להכחיש את המת ועכשיו שאני חי והוא חי היאך יכול החי להכחיש את החי,היה רבן גמליאל יושב ודורש ור\' יהושע עומד על רגליו עד שרננו כל העם ואמרו לחוצפית התורגמן עמוד ועמד,אמרי עד כמה נצעריה וניזיל בר"ה אשתקד צעריה בבכורות במעשה דר\' צדוק צעריה הכא נמי צעריה תא ונעבריה,מאן נוקים ליה נוקמיה לרבי יהושע בעל מעשה הוא נוקמיה לר\' עקיבא דילמא עניש ליה דלית ליה זכות אבות,אלא נוקמיה לר\' אלעזר בן עזריה דהוא חכם והוא עשיר והוא עשירי לעזרא הוא חכם דאי מקשי ליה מפרק ליה והוא עשיר דאי אית ליה לפלוחי לבי קיסר אף הוא אזל ופלח והוא עשירי לעזרא דאית ליה זכות אבות ולא מצי עניש ליה אתו ואמרו ליה ניחא ליה למר דליהוי ריש מתיבתא אמר להו איזיל ואימליך באינשי ביתי אזל ואמליך בדביתהו אמרה ליה'28a דלמא מעברין לך אמר לה לשתמש אינש יומא חדא בכסא דמוקרא ולמחר ליתבר אמרה ליה לית לך חיורתא ההוא יומא בר תמני סרי שני הוה אתרחיש ליה ניסא ואהדרו ליה תמני סרי דרי חיורתא היינו דקאמר ר\' אלעזר בן עזריה הרי אני כבן שבעים שנה ולא בן שבעים שנה,תנא אותו היום סלקוהו לשומר הפתח ונתנה להם רשות לתלמידים ליכנס שהיה ר"ג מכריז ואומר כל תלמיד שאין תוכו כברו לא יכנס לבית המדרש,ההוא יומא אתוספו כמה ספסלי א"ר יוחנן פליגי בה אבא יוסף בן דוסתאי ורבנן חד אמר אתוספו ארבע מאה ספסלי וחד אמר שבע מאה ספסלי הוה קא חלשא דעתיה דר"ג אמר דלמא ח"ו מנעתי תורה מישראל אחזו ליה בחלמיה חצבי חיורי דמליין קטמא ולא היא ההיא ליתובי דעתיה הוא דאחזו ליה,תנא עדיות בו ביום נשנית וכל היכא דאמרינן בו ביום ההוא יומא הוה ולא היתה הלכה שהיתה תלויה בבית המדרש שלא פירשוה ואף ר"ג לא מנע עצמו מבית המדרש אפילו שעה אחת,דתנן בו ביום בא יהודה גר עמוני לפניהם בבית המדרש אמר להם מה אני לבא בקהל,א"ל ר"ג אסור אתה לבא בקהל א"ל ר\' יהושע מותר אתה לבא בקהל א"ל ר"ג והלא כבר נאמר (דברים כג, ד) לא יבא עמוני ומואבי בקהל ה\' א"ל ר\' יהושע וכי עמון ומואב במקומן הן יושבין כבר עלה סנחריב מלך אשור ובלבל את כל האומות שנאמר (ישעיהו י, יג) ואסיר גבולות עמים ועתידותיהם שוסתי ואוריד כאביר יושבים וכל דפריש מרובא פריש,אמר לו ר"ג והלא כבר נאמר (ירמיהו מט, ו) ואחרי כן אשיב את שבות בני עמון נאם ה\' וכבר שבו,אמר לו ר\' יהושע והלא כבר נאמר (עמוס ט, יד) ושבתי את שבות עמי ישראל ועדיין לא שבו מיד התירוהו לבא בקהל,אר"ג הואיל והכי הוה איזיל ואפייסיה לר\' יהושע כי מטא לביתיה חזינהו לאשיתא דביתיה דמשחרן א"ל מכותלי ביתך אתה ניכר שפחמי אתה א"ל אוי לו לדור שאתה פרנסו שאי אתה יודע בצערן של ת"ח במה הם מתפרנסים ובמה הם נזונים,אמר לו נעניתי לך מחול לי לא אשגח ביה עשה בשביל כבוד אבא פייס,אמרו מאן ניזיל ולימא להו לרבנן אמר להו ההוא כובס אנא אזילנא שלח להו ר\' יהושע לבי מדרשא מאן דלביש מדא ילבש מדא ומאן דלא לביש מדא יימר ליה למאן דלביש מדא שלח מדך ואנא אלבשיה אמר להו ר"ע לרבנן טרוקו גלי דלא ליתו עבדי דר"ג ולצערו לרבנן,א"ר יהושע מוטב דאיקום ואיזיל אנא לגבייהו אתא טרף אבבא א"ל מזה בן מזה יזה ושאינו לא מזה ולא בן מזה יאמר למזה בן מזה מימיך מי מערה ואפרך אפר מקלה א"ל ר"ע רבי יהושע נתפייסת כלום עשינו אלא בשביל כבודך למחר אני ואתה נשכים לפתחו,אמרי היכי נעביד נעבריה גמירי מעלין בקדש ואין מורידין נדרוש מר חדא שבתא ומר חדא שבתא אתי לקנאויי אלא לדרוש ר"ג תלתא שבתי וראב"ע חדא שבתא והיינו דאמר מר שבת של מי היתה של ראב"ע היתה ואותו תלמיד ר\' שמעון בן יוחאי הוה:,ושל מוספין כל היום: א"ר יוחנן ונקרא פושע,ת"ר היו לפניו שתי תפלות אחת של מנחה ואחת של מוסף מתפלל של מנחה ואח"כ מתפלל של מוסף שזו תדירה וזו אינה תדירה ר\' יהודה אומר מתפלל של מוסף ואח"כ מתפלל של מנחה שזו מצוה עוברת וזו מצוה שאינה עוברת א"ר יוחנן הלכה מתפלל של מנחה ואח"כ מתפלל של מוסף,ר\' זירא כי הוה חליש מגירסיה הוה אזיל ויתיב אפתחא דבי ר\' נתן בר טובי אמר כי חלפי רבנן אז איקום מקמייהו ואקבל אגרא נפק אתא ר\' נתן בר טובי א"ל מאן אמר הלכה בי מדרשא א"ל הכי א"ר יוחנן אין הלכה כר\' יהודה דאמר מתפלל אדם של מוסף ואח"כ מתפלל של מנחה,א"ל רבי יוחנן אמרה אמר ליה אין תנא מיניה ארבעין זמנין א"ל חדא היא לך או חדת היא לך א"ל חדת היא לי משום דמספקא לי בר\' יהושע בן לוי:,אריב"ל כל המתפלל תפלה של מוספין לאחר שבע שעות לר\' יהודה עליו הכתוב אומר (צפניה ג, יח) נוגי ממועד אספתי ממך היו מאי משמע דהאי נוגי לישנא דתברא הוא כדמתרגם רב יוסף תברא אתי על שנאיהון דבית ישראל על דאחרו זמני מועדיא דבירושלים,א"ר אלעזר כל המתפלל תפלה של שחרית לאחר ארבע שעות לר\' יהודה עליו הכתוב אומר נוגי ממועד אספתי ממך היו מאי משמע דהאי נוגי לישנא דצערא הוא דכתיב (תהלים קיט, כח) דלפה נפשי מתוגה רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר מהכא (איכה א, ד) בתולותיה נוגות והיא מר לה 35b כאן לאחר ברכה,א"ר חנינא בר פפא כל הנהנה מן העוה"ז בלא ברכה כאילו גוזל להקב"ה וכנסת ישראל שנא\' (משלי כח, כד) גוזל אביו ואמו ואומר אין פשע חבר הוא לאיש משחית ואין אביו אלא הקב"ה שנא\' (דברים לב, ו) הלא הוא אביך קנך ואין אמו אלא כנסת ישראל שנא\' (משלי א, ח) שמע בני מוסר אביך ואל תטוש תורת אמך,מאי חבר הוא לאיש משחית א"ר חנינא בר פפא חבר הוא לירבעם בן נבט שהשחית את ישראל לאביהם שבשמים:,ר\' חנינא בר פפא רמי כתיב (הושע ב, יא) ולקחתי דגני בעתו וגו\' וכתיב (דברים יא, יד) ואספת דגנך וגו\',ל"ק כאן בזמן שישראל עושין רצונו של מקום כאן בזמן שאין ישראל עושין רצונו של מקום,ת"ר ואספת דגנך מה ת"ל לפי שנא\' (יהושע א, ח) לא ימוש ספר התורה הזה מפיך יכול דברים ככתבן ת"ל ואספת דגנך הנהג בהן מנהג דרך ארץ דברי ר\' ישמעאל,ר"ש בן יוחי אומר אפשר אדם חורש בשעת חרישה וזורע בשעת זריעה וקוצר בשעת קצירה ודש בשעת דישה וזורה בשעת הרוח תורה מה תהא עליה אלא בזמן שישראל עושין רצונו של מקום מלאכתן נעשית ע"י אחרים שנא\' (ישעיהו סא, ה) ועמדו זרים ורעו צאנכם וגו\' ובזמן שאין ישראל עושין רצונו של מקום מלאכתן נעשית ע"י עצמן שנא\' (דברים יא, יד) ואספת דגנך ולא עוד אלא שמלאכת אחרים נעשית על ידן שנא\' (דברים כח, מח) ועבדת את אויביך וגו\',אמר אביי הרבה עשו כרבי ישמעאל ועלתה בידן כר\' שמעון בן יוחי ולא עלתה בידן,א"ל רבא לרבנן במטותא מינייכו ביומי ניסן וביומי תשרי לא תתחזו קמאי כי היכי דלא תטרדו במזונייכו כולא שתא:,אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן משום רבי יהודה בר\' אלעאי בא וראה שלא כדורות הראשונים דורות האחרונים דורות הראשונים עשו תורתן קבע ומלאכתן עראי זו וזו נתקיימה בידן דורות האחרונים שעשו מלאכתן קבע ותורתן עראי זו וזו לא נתקיימה בידן,ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אר"י משום ר"י בר\' אלעאי בא וראה שלא כדורות הראשונים דורות האחרונים דורות הראשונים היו מכניסין פירותיהן דרך טרקסמון כדי לחייבן במעשר דורות האחרונים מכניסין פירותיהן דרך גגות דרך חצרות דרך קרפיפות כדי לפטרן מן המעשר דא"ר ינאי אין הטבל מתחייב במעשר עד שיראה פני הבית שנא\' (דברים כו, יג) בערתי הקדש מן הבית,ור\' יוחנן אמר אפי\' חצר קובעת שנא\' (דברים כו, יב) ואכלו בשעריך ושבעו:,חוץ מן היין וכו\': מאי שנא יין אילימא משום דאשתני לעלויא אשתני לברכה והרי שמן דאשתני לעלויא ולא אשתני לברכה דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל וכן א"ר יצחק א"ר יוחנן שמן זית מברכין עליו בפה"ע,אמרי התם משום דלא אפשר היכי נבריך נבריך בורא פרי הזית פירא גופיה זית אקרי,ונבריך עליה בורא פרי עץ זית אלא אמר מר זוטרא חמרא זיין משחא לא זיין,ומשחא לא זיין והתנן הנודר מן המזון מותר במים ובמלח והוינן בה מים ומלח הוא דלא אקרי מזון הא כל מילי אקרי מזון,נימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב ושמואל דאמרי אין מברכין בורא מיני מזונות אלא בה\' המינין בלבד וא"ר הונא באומר כל הזן עלי,אלמא משחא זיין אלא חמרא סעיד ומשחא לא סעיד וחמרא מי סעיד והא רבא הוה שתי חמרי כל מעלי יומא דפסחא כי היכי דנגרריה ללביה וניכול מצה טפי טובא גריר פורתא סעיד,ומי סעיד כלל והכתיב (תהלים קד, טו) ויין ישמח לבב אנוש ולחם לבב אנוש יסעד וגו\' נהמא הוא דסעיד חמרא לא סעיד אלא חמרא אית ביה תרתי סעיד ומשמח נהמא מסעד סעיד שמוחי לא משמח,אי הכי נבריך עליה שלש ברכות לא קבעי אינשי סעודתייהו עלויה,א"ל רב נחמן בר יצחק לרבא אי קבע עלויה סעודתיה מאי א"ל לכשיבא אליהו ויאמר אי הויא קביעותא השתא מיהא בטלה דעתו אצל כל אדם:,גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל וכן א"ר יצחק א"ר יוחנן שמן זית מברכין עליו בורא פרי העץ היכי דמי אילימא דקא שתי ליה (משתה) אוזוקי מזיק ליה דתניא השותה שמן של תרומה משלם את הקרן ואינו משלם את החומש הסך שמן של תרומה משלם את הקרן ומשלם את החומש,אלא דקא אכיל ליה על ידי פת אי הכי הויא ליה פת עיקר והוא טפל ותנן זה הכלל כל שהוא עיקר ועמו טפלה מברך על העיקר ופוטר את הטפלה אלא דקא שתי ליה ע"י אניגרון דאמר רבה בר שמואל אניגרון מיא דסלקא אנסיגרון מיא 56a אמר ליה קיסר לר\' יהושע בר\' (חנינא) אמריתו דחכמיתו טובא אימא לי מאי חזינא בחלמאי אמר ליה חזית דמשחרי לך פרסאי וגרבי בך ורעיי בך שקצי בחוטרא דדהבא הרהר כוליה יומא ולאורתא חזא אמר ליה שבור מלכא לשמואל אמריתו דחכמיתו טובא אימא לי מאי חזינא בחלמאי אמר ליה חזית דאתו רומאי ושבו לך וטחני בך קשייתא ברחייא דדהבא הרהר כוליה יומא ולאורתא חזא,בר הדיא מפשר חלמי הוה מאן דיהיב ליה אגרא מפשר ליה למעליותא ומאן דלא יהיב ליה אגרא מפשר ליה לגריעותא אביי ורבא חזו חלמא אביי יהיב ליה זוזא ורבא לא יהיב ליה אמרי ליה אקרינן בחלמין (דברים כח, לא) שורך טבוח לעיניך וגו\' לרבא אמר ליה פסיד עסקך ולא אהני לך למיכל מעוצבא דלבך לאביי א"ל מרווח עסקך ולא אהני לך למיכל מחדוא דלבך,אמרי ליה אקרינן (דברים כח, מא) בנים ובנות תוליד וגו\' לרבא אמר ליה כבישותיה לאביי א"ל בנך ובנתך נפישי ומינסבן בנתך לעלמא ומדמיין באפך כדקא אזלן בשביה,אקריין (דברים כח, לב) בניך ובנותיך נתונים לעם אחר לאביי א"ל בנך ובנתך נפישין את אמרת לקריבך והיא אמרה לקריבה ואכפה לך ויהבת להון לקריבה דהוי כעם אחר לרבא א"ל דביתהו שכיבא ואתו בניה ובנתיה לידי איתתא אחריתי דאמר רבא אמר ר\' ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב מאי דכתיב בניך ובנותיך נתונים לעם אחר זו אשת האב,אקרינן בחלמין (קהלת ט, ז) לך אכול בשמחה לחמך לאביי אמר ליה מרווח עסקך ואכלת ושתית וקרית פסוקא מחדוא דלבך לרבא אמר ליה פסיד עסקך טבחת ולא אכלת ושתית וקרית לפכוחי פחדך,אקרינן (דברים כח, לח) זרע רב תוציא השדה לאביי א"ל מרישיה לרבא א"ל מסיפיה,אקרינן (דברים כח, מ) זיתים יהיו לך בכל גבולך וגו\' לאביי א"ל מרישיה לרבא א"ל מסיפיה,אקרינן (דברים כח, י) וראו כל עמי הארץ וגו\' לאביי א"ל נפק לך שמא דריש מתיבתא הוית אימתך נפלת בעלמא לרבא אמר ליה בדיינא דמלכא אתבר ומתפסת בגנבי ודייני כולי עלמא קל וחומר מינך למחר אתבר בדיינא דמלכא ואתו ותפשי ליה לרבא.,אמרי ליה חזן חסא על פום דני לאביי א"ל עיף עסקך כחסא לרבא א"ל מריר עסקך כי חסא,אמרי ליה חזן בשרא על פום דני לאביי אמר ליה בסים חמרך ואתו כולי עלמא למזבן בשרא וחמרא מינך לרבא אמר ליה תקיף חמרך ואתו כולי עלמא למזבן בשרא למיכל ביה,אמרי ליה חזן חביתא דתלי בדיקלא לאביי אמר ליה מדלי עסקך כדיקלא לרבא אמר ליה חלי עסקך כתמרי,אמרי ליה חזן רומנא דקדחי אפום דני לאביי אמר ליה עשיק עסקך כרומנא לרבא אמר ליה קאוי עסקך כרומנא,אמרי ליה חזן חביתא דנפל לבירא לאביי א"ל מתבעי עסקך כדאמר נפל פתא בבירא ולא אשתכח לרבא א"ל פסיד עסקך ושדי\' ליה לבירא,אמרי ליה חזינן בר חמרא דקאי אאיסדן ונוער לאביי אמר ליה מלכא הוית וקאי אמורא עלך לרבא א"ל פטר חמור גהיט מתפילך א"ל לדידי חזי לי ואיתיה אמר ליה וא"ו דפטר חמור ודאי גהיט מתפילך,לסוף אזל רבא לחודיה לגביה אמר ליה חזאי דשא ברייתא דנפל אמר ליה אשתך שכבא אמר ליה חזיא ככי ושני דנתור א"ל בנך ובנתך שכבן אמר ליה חזאי תרתי יוני דפרחן א"ל תרי נשי מגרשת אמר ליה חזאי תרי גרגלידי דלפתא אמר ליה תרין קולפי בלעת אזל רבא ההוא יומא ויתיב בי מדרשא כוליה יומא אשכח הנהו תרי סגי נהורי דהוו קמנצו בהדי הדדי אזל רבא לפרוקינהו ומחוהו לרבא תרי דלו למחוייה אחריתי אמר מסתיי תרין חזאי,לסוף אתא רבא ויהיב ליה אגרא א"ל חזאי אשיתא דנפל א"ל נכסים בלא מצרים קנית א"ל חזאי אפדנא דאביי דנפל וכסיין אבקיה א"ל אביי שכיב ומתיבתיה אתיא לגבך א"ל חזאי אפדנא דידי דנפיל ואתו כולי עלמא שקיל לבינתא לבינתא א"ל שמעתתך מבדרן בעלמא א"ל חזאי דאבקע רישי ונתר מוקרי א"ל אודרא מבי סדיא נפיק א"ל אקריון הללא מצראה בחלמא א"ל ניסא מתרחשי לך,הוה קא אזיל בהדיה בארבא אמר בהדי גברא דמתרחיש ליה ניסא למה לי בהדי דקא סליק נפל סיפרא מיניה אשכחיה רבא וחזא דהוה כתיב ביה כל החלומות הולכין אחר הפה רשע בדידך קיימא וצערתן כולי האי כולהו מחילנא לך בר מברתיה דרב חסדא יהא רעוא דלמסר ההוא גברא לידי דמלכותא דלא מרחמו עליה,אמר מאי אעביד גמירי דקללת חכם אפילו בחנם היא באה וכ"ש רבא דבדינא קא לייט אמר איקום ואגלי דאמר מר גלות מכפרת עון,קם גלי לבי רומאי אזל יתיב אפתחא דריש טורזינא דמלכא ריש טורזינא חזא חלמא א"ל חזאי חלמא דעייל מחטא באצבעתי א"ל הב לי זוזא ולא יהב ליה לא א"ל ולא מידי א"ל חזאי דנפל תכלא בתרתין אצבעתי א"ל הב לי זוזא ולא יהב ליה ולא א"ל א"ל חזאי דנפל תכלא בכולה ידא א"ל נפל תכלא בכולהו שיראי שמעי בי מלכא ואתיוה לריש טורזינא קא קטלי ליה א"ל אנא אמאי אייתו להאי דהוה ידע ולא אמר אייתוהו לבר הדיא אמרי ליה אמטו זוזא דידך חרבו ' None||6a In terms of this reward, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina said: One who waits in the synagogue for the other to finish his prayer merits the following blessings, as it is stated: “If only you had listened to My mitzvot then your peace would be as a river, and your righteousness as the waves of the sea. Your seed would be as the sand, and the offspring of your body like the grains thereof; his name would be neither cut off nor destroyed from before Me” (Isaiah 48:18–19). The explanation of this passage is based on the etymological similarity between the word mitzva and the word tzevet, which means group. If he keeps the other person company and does not abandon him after his prayer, all of the blessings that appear later in the verse will be fulfilled in him (Talmidei Rabbeinu Yona).,In another baraita it was taught that Abba Binyamin says: If the eye was given permission to see, no creature would be able to withstand the abundance and ubiquity of the demons and continue to live unaffected by them.,Similarly, Abaye said: They are more numerous than we are and they stand over us like mounds of earth surrounding a pit.,Rav Huna said: Each and every one of us has a thousand demons to his left and ten thousand to his right. God protects man from these demons, as it says in the verse: “A thousand may fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand; they will not approach you” (Psalms 91:7).,Summarizing the effects of the demons, Rava said: rThe crowding at the kalla, the gatherings for Torah study during Elul and Adar, is from the demons;rthose knees that are fatigued even though one did not exert himself is from the demons; rthose clothes of the Sages that wear out, despite the fact that they do not engage in physical labor, is from friction with the demons; rthose feet that are in pain is from the demons.,One who seeks to know that the demons exist should place fine ashes around his bed, and in the morning the demons’ footprints appear like chickens’ footprints, in the ash. One who seeks to see them should take the afterbirth of a firstborn female black cat, born to a firstborn female black cat, burn it in the fire, grind it and place it in his eyes, and he will see them. He must then place the ashes in an iron tube sealed with an iron seal gushpanka lest the demons steal it from him, and then seal the opening so he will not be harmed. Rav Beivai bar Abaye performed this procedure, saw the demons, and was harmed. The Sages prayed for mercy on his behalf and he was healed.,It was taught in a baraita that Abba Binyamin said: One’s prayer is only fully heard in a synagogue, as it is stated with regard to King Solomon’s prayer in the Temple: “Yet have You turned toward the prayer of Your servant and to his supplication, Lord my God, to listen to the song and the prayer which Your servant prays before You on this day” (I Kings 8:28). The following verse concludes: “To hear the prayer Your servant directs toward this place” (I Kings 8:29). We see that one’s prayer is heard specifically in the Temple, of which the synagogue is a microcosm (Rav Yoshiyahu Pinto). It may be inferred that in a place of song, a synagogue where God’s praises are sung, there prayer should be.,In explaining Abba Binyamin’s statement, Ravin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is located in a synagogue? As it is stated: “God stands in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges He judges” (Psalms 82:1). The congregation of God is the place where people congregate to sing God’s praises, and God is located among His congregation.,And from where is it derived that ten people who pray, the Divine Presence is with them? As it is stated: “God stands in the congregation of God,” and the minimum number of people that constitute a congregation is a quorum of ten.,From where is it derived that three who sit in judgment, the Divine Presence is with them? It is derived from this same verse, as it is stated: “In the midst of the judges He judges,” and the minimum number of judges that comprises a court is three.,From where is it derived that two who sit and engage in Torah study, the Divine Presence is with them? As it is stated: “Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with the other, and the Lord listened, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that fear the Lord, and that think upon His name” (Malachi 3:16). The Divine Presence listens to any two God-fearing individuals who speak with each other.,With regard to this verse, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase, “And that think upon His name”? Rav Ashi said: If a person intended to perform a mitzva, but due to circumstances beyond his control, he did not perform it, the verse ascribes him credit as if he performed the mitzva, as he is among those that think upon His name.,The Gemara returns to Ravin bar Rav Adda’s statement: And from where is it derived that when even one who sits and engages in Torah study, the Divine Presence is with him? As it is stated: “In every place where I cause My Name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you” (Exodus 20:21); God blesses even a single person who mentions God’s name, a reference to Torah study (Iyyun Ya’akov).,The Gemara asks: Since the Divine Presence rests even upon one who engages in Torah study, was it necessary to say that the Divine Presence rests upon two who study Torah together? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them. Two people, their words of Torah are written in the book of remembrance, as it is stated: “And a book of remembrance was written”; however a single individual’s words of Torah are not written in a book of remembrance.,The Gemara continues: Since the Divine Presence rests even upon two who engage in Torah study, is it necessary to mention three? The Gemara answers: Here too, a special verse is necessary lest you say that judgment is merely to keep the peace among the citizenry, and the Divine Presence does not come and rest upon those who sit in judgment as they are not engaged in Torah study. Ravin bar Rav Adda teaches us that sitting in judgment is also Torah.,The Gemara asks: Since the Divine Presence rests even upon three, is it necessary to mention ten? The Gemara answers: The Divine Presence arrives before a group of ten, as the verse: “God stands in the congregation of God,” indicates that when the ten individuals who comprise a congregation arrive, the Divine Presence is already there. For a group of three judges, however, the Divine Presence does not arrive until they sit and begin their deliberations, as in the midst of the judges He judges. God aids them in their judgment, but does not arrive before them.,The Gemara cites another aggadic statement: Rabbi Avin bar Rav Adda said that Rabbi Yitzḥak said: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, wears phylacteries? As it is stated: “The Lord has sworn by His right hand, and by the arm of His strength” (Isaiah 62:8). Since it is customary to swear upon holy objects, it is understood that His right hand and the arm of His strength are the holy objects upon which God swore.,Specifically, “His right hand” refers to the Torah, as it is stated in describing the giving of the Torah: “From His right hand, a fiery law for His people” (Deuteronomy 33:2). “The arm of His strength,” His left hand, refers to phylacteries, as it is stated: “The Lord gave strength to His nation” (Psalms 29:11), in the form of the mitzva of phylacteries.,The Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that phylacteries provide strength for Israel? As it is written: “And all the nations of the land shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon you, and they will fear you” (Deuteronomy 28:10). It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: This is a reference to the phylacteries of the head, upon which the name of God is written in fulfillment of the verse: “That the name of the Lord is called upon you.”,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin: What is written in the phylacteries of the Master of the world? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin replied: It is written: “Who is like Your people, Israel, one nation in the land?” (I Chronicles 17:21). God’s phylacteries serve to connect Him, in a sense, to the world, the essence of which is Israel.,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak continues: Is the Holy One, Blessed be He, glorified through the glory of Israel? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin answered: Yes, as indicated by the juxtaposition of two verses; as it is stated: “You have affirmed, this day, that the Lord is your God, and that you will walk in His ways and keep His laws and commandments, and listen to His voice.” And the subsequent verse states: “And the Lord has affirmed, this day, that you are His treasure, as He spoke to you, to keep His commandments” (Deuteronomy 26:17–18). From these two verses it is derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel: You have made Me a single entity ḥativa in the world, as you singled Me out as separate and unique. And because of this, I will make you a single entity in the world, and you will be a treasured nation, chosen by God.,You have made Me a single entity in the world, as it is stated that Israel declares God’s oneness by saying: “Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One” (Deuteronomy 6:4). And because of this, I will make you a single entity in the world, unique and elevated with the utterance: “Who is like Your people, Israel, one nation in the land?” Consequently, the Holy One, Blessed be He, is glorified through the glory of Israel whose praises are written in God’s phylacteries.,Rav Aḥa, son of Rava said to Rav Ashi: It works out well with regard to the contents of one of the four compartments of God’s phylacteries of the head. However, all four compartments of Israel’s phylacteries of the head contain portions of the Torah that praise God. What portions in praise of Israel are written in the rest of the compartments of God’s phylacteries of the head?,Rav Ashi said to him: In those three compartments it is written: “For who is a great nation, to whom God is close, like the Lord our God whenever we call upon Him?” (Deuteronomy 4:7); “And who is a great nation, who has righteous statutes and laws, like this entire Torah which I set before you today?” (Deuteronomy 4:8); “Happy are you, Israel, who is like you? A people saved by the Lord, the shield of your help, and that is the sword of your excellence. And your enemies shall dwindle away before you, and you shall tread upon their high places” (Deuteronomy 33:29); “Or has God attempted to go and take for Himself a nation from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs and by wonders” (Deuteronomy 4:34); “And to elevate you above all nations that He has made, in praise, in name and in glory; that you may be a holy people to the Lord, your God, as He has spoken” (Deuteronomy 26:19).,Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, raises an objection: If all of these verses are included in God’s phylacteries of the head, there are too many compartments as more than four verses of praise were listed. Rather, the portions in God’s phylacteries must be arranged as follows: The verses “For who is a great nation” and “And who is a great nation” are included in one compartment, as they are similar. “Happy are you, Israel” and "Who is like your people, Israel" are in one compartment. “Or has God attempted” is in one compartment and “And to elevate you” is in one compartment 27b directly next to his rabbi, presumptuously indicating that he is his rabbi’s equal, and behind his rabbi as it creates the impression that he is bowing to him (Tosafot)?,And it was taught in a baraita, in a more extreme manner, as Rabbi Eliezer says: One who prays behind his rabbi and one who greets his rabbi without waiting for his rabbi to greet him first, one who returns his rabbi’s greeting without saying: Greetings to you, rabbi, one who rivals his rabbi’s yeshiva, i.e., establishes a yeshiva of his own and teaches during his rabbi’s lifetime without his consent (Rambam), and one who says something in the name of his rabbi which he did not hear directly from his rabbi, causes the Divine Presence to withdraw from Israel.,With regard to Rabbi Yirmeya’s conduct, the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba is different, as he was not a mere student of Rav. Rather, he was a disciple-colleague and was, therefore, permitted to act that way. And that is why on one occasion, when Rav prayed the Shabbat prayer early, Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba asked him: Did you distance yourself from labor and accept the sanctity of Shabbat? Rav said to him: Yes, I distanced myself. And Rabbi Yirmeya did not say to him: Did the Master distance himself, as would have been appropriate had he merely been Rav’s student.,Although Rav replied that he distanced himself from labor, did he indeed need to distance himself from labor? Didn’t Rabbi Avin say: Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prayed the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall. He then entered the bathhouse and emerged and taught us our chapters that we had learned, and it was not yet dark. Rava said: That is a case where he had entered the bathhouse to perspire, and it was before the Sages issued a decree prohibiting perspiring in a bathhouse on Shabbat.,The Gemara asks: Is that so, that he was required to refrain from labor? Didn’t Abaye permit Rav Dimi bar Liva’ei to fumigate baskets with sulfur even though he had already recited the Shabbat prayer, indicating that it is permitted to perform labor even after the Shabbat prayer?,The Gemara responds: That was an error, as Rav Dimi did not intend to begin Shabbat early. It was a cloudy day and he mistakenly thought that the sun had set and that was why he prayed. Consequently, even though he prayed, the Shabbat prayer did not obligate him to conduct himself in accordance with the sanctity of Shabbat and he was allowed to perform labor even after his prayer.,The Gemara goes on to ask: Can a mistake be reversed, enabling one to conduct himself as if he had not prayed? Didn’t Avidan, a student of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, say: Once the sky became overcast, leading the people to think that it was the dark of night; they entered the synagogue and recited the evening prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat. And later, the clouds cleared and the sun shone, indicating that it was still day.,And they came and asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi what they should do, and he said: Since they have prayed, they have prayed, and they need not pray again. Although they prayed erroneously, their mistake is not reversible and what was done remains. The Gemara responds: A community is different in that we do not burden them to pray again.,The Gemara continues to discuss the possibility of reciting the evening prayer early, even on Shabbat. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin said: Rav prayed the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall. Rabbi Yoshiya would pray the evening prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat. With regard to the fact that Rav prayed the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall, the dilemma is raised: In those cases, did he recite kiddush over the cup of wine, or did he not recite kiddush over the cup of wine before the stars emerged? Come and hear a resolution to this, as Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: One prays the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall and recites kiddush over the cup of wine. And the halakha is in accordance with his ruling.,A similar dilemma was raised concerning the fact that Rabbi Yoshiya would pray the evening prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat: After praying, while it is still Shabbat, does he recite havdala over the cup of wine or does one not recite havdala over the cup of wine? Come and hear a resolution to this, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One prays the evening prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat and recites havdala over the cup of wine.,Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Ḥanina said that Rav said: Alongside this specific pillar before me, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, prayed the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall.,But when Ulla came from the Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he related a different version of this story. He said that he had heard: This transpired beside a palm tree, not beside a pillar, and it was not Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, but it was Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, and it was not the Shabbat prayer on Shabbat eve before nightfall, rather it was the prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat.,We learned in the mishna: The evening prayer may be recited throughout the night and is not fixed to a specific hour. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of is not fixed? If you say that if one wishes, he may pray throughout the night, then let the mishna teach: The evening prayer may be recited throughout the night. Rather, what is the meaning of not fixed?,It is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said: The evening prayer is optional. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said with regard to the evening prayer. Rabban Gamliel says: It is obligatory. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is optional. Abaye said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who said: The evening prayer is obligatory. Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who said: The evening prayer is optional.,The Sages taught: There was an incident involving a student, who came before Rabbi Yehoshua. The student said to him: Is the evening prayer optional or obligatory? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Optional.,The same student came before Rabban Gamliel and said to him: Is the evening prayer optional or obligatory? Rabban Gamliel said to him: Obligatory. The student said to Rabban Gamliel: But didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua tell me that the evening prayer is optional? Rabban Gamliel said to the student: Wait until the “masters of the shields,” a reference to the Torah scholars who battle in the war of Torah, enter the study hall, at which point we will discuss this issue.,When the masters of the shields entered, the questioner stood before everyone present and asked: Is the evening prayer optional or obligatory? Rabban Gamliel said to him: Obligatory. In order to ascertain whether or not Rabbi Yehoshua still maintained his opinion, Rabban Gamliel said to the Sages: Is there any person who disputes this matter? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, no one disagrees. In deference to the Nasi, he did not wish to argue with him publicly (Tziyyun LeNefesh Ḥayya). Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: But was it not in your name that they told me that the evening prayer is optional?,Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Yehoshua, stand on your feet and they will testify against you. Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: If I were alive and the student were dead, the living can contradict the dead, and I could deny issuing that ruling. Now that I am alive and he is alive, how can the living contradict the living? I have no choice but to admit that I said it.,In the meantime, Rabban Gamliel, as the Nasi, was sitting and lecturing, and Rabbi Yehoshua all the while was standing on his feet, because Rabban Gamliel did not instruct him to sit. He remained standing in deference to the Nasi. This continued for some time, until it aroused great resentment against Rabban Gamliel, and all of the people assembled began murmuring and said to Ḥutzpit the disseminator: Stop conveying Rabban Gamliel’s lecture. And he stopped.,The Gemara relates that in their murmuring they said: How long will Rabban Gamliel continue afflicting him? Last year on Rosh HaShana, he afflicted him; Rabban Gamliel ordered Rabbi Yehoshua to come to him carrying his staff and bag, on the day on which Yom Kippur occurred, according to Rabbi Yehoshua’s calculations. Regarding the firstborn, in the incident involving the question of Rabbi Tzadok, he afflicted him just as he did now, and forced him to remain standing as punishment for his failure to defend his differing opinion. Here too, he is afflicting him. Let us remove him from his position as Nasi.,It was so agreed, but the question arose: Who shall we establish in his place? Shall we establish Rabbi Yehoshua in his place? The Sages rejected that option because Rabbi Yehoshua was party to the incident for which Rabban Gamliel was deposed. Appointing him would be extremely upsetting for Rabban Gamliel. Shall we establish Rabbi Akiva in his place? The Sages rejected that option because Rabbi Akiva, who descended from a family of converts, would be vulnerable. Perhaps due to Rabban Gamliel’s resentment he would cause him to be divinely punished as he lacks the merit of his ancestors to protect him.,Rather, suggested the Sages, let us establish Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya in his place, his outstanding characteristics set him apart from the other candidates. He is wise, rich, and a tenth generation descendant of Ezra. The Gemara explains: He is wise, so if Rabban Gamliel raises a challenge in matters of Torah, he will answer it and not be embarrassed. And he is rich, so if the need arises to pay homage to the Caesar’s court and serve as a representative of Israel to lobby and negotiate, he has sufficient wealth to cover the costs of the long journeys, taxes, and gifts, so he too is able to go and pay homage. And he is a tenth generation descendant of Ezra, so he has the merit of his ancestors, and Rabban Gamliel will be unable to cause him to be punished. They came and said to him: Would the Master consent to being the Head of the Yeshiva? He said to them: I will go and consult with my household. He went and consulted with his wife. She said to him:'28a There is room for concern. Perhaps they will remove you from office just as they removed Rabban Gamliel. He said to her, based on the folk saying: Let a person use an expensive goblet one day and let it break tomorrow. In other words, one should take advantage of an opportunity that presents itself and he need not concern himself whether or not it will last. She said to him: You have no white hair, and it is inappropriate for one so young to head the Sages. The Gemara relates: That day, he was eighteen years old, a miracle transpired for him and eighteen rows of hair turned white. The Gemara comments: That explains that which Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: I am as one who is seventy years old and he did not say: I am seventy years old, because he looked older than he actually was.,It was taught: On that day that they removed Rabban Gamliel from his position and appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya in his place, there was also a fundamental change in the general approach of the study hall as they dismissed the guard at the door and permission was granted to the students to enter. Instead of Rabban Gamliel’s selective approach that asserted that the students must be screened before accepting them into the study hall, the new approach asserted that anyone who seeks to study should be given opportunity to do so. As Rabban Gamliel would proclaim and say: Any student whose inside, his thoughts and feelings, are not like his outside, i.e., his conduct and his character traits are lacking, will not enter the study hall.,The Gemara relates: On that day several benches were added to the study hall to accommodate the numerous students. Rabbi Yoḥa said: Abba Yosef ben Dostai and the Rabbis disputed this matter. One said: Four hundred benches were added to the study hall. And one said: Seven hundred benches were added to the study hall. When he saw the tremendous growth in the number of students, Rabban Gamliel was disheartened. He said: Perhaps, Heaven forbid, I prevented Israel from engaging in Torah study. They showed him in his dream white jugs filled with ashes alluding to the fact that the additional students were worthless idlers. The Gemara comments: That is not the case, but that dream was shown to him to ease his mind so that he would not feel bad.,It was taught: There is a tradition that tractate Eduyyot was taught that day. And everywhere in the Mishna or in a baraita that they say: On that day, it is referring to that day. There was no halakha whose ruling was pending in the study hall that they did not explain and arrive at a practical halakhic conclusion. And even Rabban Gamliel did not avoid the study hall for even one moment, as he held no grudge against those who removed him from office and he participated in the halakhic discourse in the study hall as one of the Sages.,As we learned in a mishna: On that day, Yehuda, the Ammonite convert, came before the students in the study hall and he said to them: What is my legal status in terms of entering into the congregation of Israel, i.e., to marry a Jewish woman?,Rabban Gamliel said to him: You are forbidden to enter into the congregation. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: You are permitted to enter into the congregation. Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Wasn’t it already stated: “An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the congregation of the Lord forever” (Deuteronomy 23:4)? How can you permit him to enter the congregation? Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabban Gamliel: Do Ammon and Moab reside in their place? Sennacherib already came and, through his policy of population transfer, scrambled all the nations and settled other nations in place of Ammon. Consequently, the current residents of Ammon and Moab are not ethnic Ammonites and Moabites, as it is stated in reference to Sennacherib: “I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants” (Isaiah 10:13). And although it is conceivable that this particular convert is an ethnic Ammonite, nevertheless, there is no need for concern due to the halakhic principle: Anything that parts from a group parts from the majority, and the assumption is that he is from the majority of nations whose members are permitted to enter the congregation.,Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: But wasn’t it already stated: “But afterward I will bring back the captivity of the children of Ammon, says the Lord” (Jeremiah 49:6) and they have already returned to their land? Therefore, he is an ethnic Ammonite and he may not convert.,Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabban Gamliel: That is no proof. Wasn’t it already stated in another prophecy: “And I will turn the captivity of My people Israel and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them” (Amos 9:14), and they have not yet returned? In rendering the ruling, only proven facts may be taken into consideration. They immediately permitted him to enter the congregation. This proves that Rabban Gamliel did not absent himself from the study hall that day and participated in the halakhic discourse.,Rabban Gamliel said to himself: Since this is the situation, that the people are following Rabbi Yehoshua, apparently he was right. Therefore, it would be appropriate for me to go and appease Rabbi Yehoshua. When he reached Rabbi Yehoshua’s house, he saw that the walls of his house were black. Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua in wonderment: From the walls of your house it is apparent that you are a blacksmith, as until then he had no idea that Rabbi Yehoshua was forced to engage in that arduous trade in order to make a living. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Woe unto a generation that you are its leader as you are unaware of the difficulties of Torah scholars, how they make a living and how they feed themselves.,Rabban Gamliel said to him: I insulted you, forgive me. Rabbi Yehoshua paid him no attention and did not forgive him. He asked him again: Do it in deference to my father, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who was one of the leaders of Israel at the time of the destruction of the Temple. He was appeased.,Now that Rabbi Yehoshua was no longer offended, it was only natural that Rabban Gamliel would be restored to his position. They said: Who will go and inform the Sages? Apparently, they were not eager to carry out the mission that would undo the previous actions and remove Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya from his position as Nasi. This launderer said to them: I will go. Rabbi Yehoshua sent to the Sages to the study hall: The one who wears the uniform will continue to wear the uniform, the original Nasi will remain in his position so that the one who did not wear the uniform will not say to the one who wears the uniform, remove your uniform and I will wear it. Apparently, the Sages believed that this emissary was dispatched at the initiative of Rabban Gamliel and they ignored him. Rabbi Akiva said to the Sages: Lock the gates so that Rabban Gamliel’s servants will not come and disturb the Sages.,When he heard what happened, Rabbi Yehoshua said: It is best if I go to them. He came and knocked on the door. He said to them with a slight variation: One who sprinkles pure water on those who are ritually impure, son of one who sprinkles water shall continue to sprinkle water. And it is inappropriate that he who is neither one who sprinkles nor son of one who sprinkles will say to one who sprinkles son of one who sprinkles: Your water is cave water and not the running water required to purify one exposed to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse and your ashes are burnt ashes and not the ashes of a red heifer. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Rabbi Yehoshua, have you been appeased? Everything we did was to defend your honor. If you have forgiven him, none of us is opposed. Early tomorrow you and I will go to Rabban Gamliel’s doorway and offer to restore him to his position as Nasi.,The question arose what to do with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya? They said: What shall we do? Remove him from his position. That is inappropriate as we learned a halakha through tradition: One elevates to a higher level of sanctity and does not downgrade. Therefore, one who was the Nasi of the Sanhedrin cannot be demoted. Let one Sage lecture one week and the other Sage one week, they will come to be jealous one of another, as they will be forced to appoint one as the acting head of the Sanhedrin. Rather, Rabban Gamliel will lecture three weeks and Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya will lecture as head of the yeshiva one week. That arrangement was adopted and that is the explanation of the exchange in tractate Ḥagiga: Whose week was it? It was the week of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. One final detail: That student who asked the original question that sparked this entire incident was Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai.,We learned in the mishna: And the additional prayer may be recited all day. Rabbi Yoḥa said: Nevertheless, one who postpones his prayer excessively is called negligent.,The Rabbis taught in a baraita: If the obligation to recite two prayers was before him, one, the afternoon prayer and one, the additional prayer, he recites the afternoon prayer first and the additional prayer thereafter, because this, the afternoon prayer, is recited on a frequent basis, and this one, the additional prayer, is recited on a relatively infrequent basis. Rabbi Yehuda says: He recites the additional prayer first and the afternoon prayer thereafter, because this, the additional prayer, is a mitzva whose time soon elapses, as it may only be recited until the seventh hour and this, the afternoon prayer, is a mitzva whose time does not soon elapse as one may recite it until the midpoint of the afternoon. Rabbi Yoḥa said: The halakha is that he recites the afternoon prayer first and the additional prayer thereafter, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.,The Gemara cites additional sources relating to this issue: When Rabbi Zeira would tire of his studies, he would go and sit in the doorway of Rabbi Natan bar Tovi’s study hall. He said to himself: When the entering and exiting Sages pass, I will rise before them and be rewarded for the mitzva of honoring Torah scholars. Rabbi Natan bar Tovi himself emerged and came to where Rabbi Zeira was seated. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Who just stated a halakha in the study hall? Rabbi Natan bar Tovi said to him: Rabbi Yoḥa just said as follows: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who said: He recites the additional prayer first and the afternoon prayer thereafter.,Rabbi Zeira said to him: Did Rabbi Yoḥa himself say this halakha? Rabbi Natan said to him: Yes. He learned this statement from him forty times, etching it into his memory. Rabbi Natan said to him: Is this halakha so dear to you because it is singular for you, as it is the only halakha that you learned in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa, or is it new to you, as you were previously unaware of this ruling? Rabbi Zeira said to him: It is somewhat new to me, as I was uncertain whether this halakha was said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa or in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. Now it is clear to me that this halakha is in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa.,Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: With regard to anyone who recites the additional prayer after seven hours of the day, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the verse states: “Those who are destroyed nugei far from the Festivals, I shall gather from you, they who carried for you the burden of insult” (Zephaniah 3:18). From where may it be inferred that nugei is an expression of destruction? As Rav Yosef translated the verse into Aramaic: Destruction comes upon the enemies of the house of Israel, a euphemism for Israel itself, for they have delayed the times of the Festivals in Jerusalem. This proves both that nugei means destruction and that destruction comes upon those who fail to fulfill a mitzva at its appointed time.,Similarly, Rabbi Elazar said: Regarding anyone who recites the morning prayer after four hours of the day, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the verse states: “Those who are in sorrow nugei far from the Festivals, I shall gather from you, they who carried for you the burden of insult” (Zephaniah 3:18). From where may it be inferred that nugei is an expression of sorrow? As it is written: “My soul drips in sorrow tuga” (Psalms 119:28). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The proof that nugei indicates suffering is from here: “Her virgins are sorrowed nugot and she is embittered” (Lamentations 1:4). 35b and here, where it says that He gave the earth to mankind refers to after a blessing is recited.,Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said: Anyone who derives benefit from this world without a blessing, it is as if he stole from God and the community of Israel, as it is stated: “Whoever robs his father and his mother and says: It is no transgression, he is the companion of a destroyer” (Proverbs 28:24). The phrase, his father, refers to none other than God, as it is stated: “Is He not your Father Who created you, Who made you and established you” (Deuteronomy 32:6). The phrase his mother refers to none other than the community of Israel, as it is stated: “Hear, my son, the discipline of your father, and do not forsake the Torah of your mother” (Proverbs 1:8). The mention of the Torah as emanating from the mouth of the mother, apparently means that your mother is the community of Israel.,What is the meaning of the continuation of the verse: He is the companion of a destroyer? Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said: He is a companion of Jeroboam ben Nevat, who corrupted Israel before their Father in heaven by sinning and causing others to sin.,On a similar note, the Gemara cites that Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa raised a contradiction: It is written, “I will take back My grain at its time and wine in its season” (Hosea 2:11), and it is written: “And you shall gather your grain, your wine and your oil” (Deuteronomy 11:14). To whom does the grain belong: To God, or to the people?,The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. Here, where God promises Israel that they will gather their grain, the verse refers to a time when they perform God’s will. Here, where the verse indicates that the grain belongs to God, it refers to a time when they do not perform God’s will, as then He will take back the grain, demonstrating that it belongs to Him.,The Sages taught: What is the meaning of that which the verse states: “And you shall gather your grain”? Because it is stated: “This Torah shall not depart from your mouths, and you shall contemplate in it day and night” (Joshua 1:8), I might have thought that these matters are to be understood as they are written; one is to literally spend his days immersed exclusively in Torah study. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall gather your grain, your wine and your oil,” assume in their regard, the way of the world; set aside time not only for Torah, but also for work. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.,Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Is it possible that a person plows in the plowing season and sows in the sowing season and harvests in the harvest season and threshes in the threshing season and winnows in the windy season, as grain is separated from the chaff by means of the wind, and is constantly busy; what will become of Torah? Rather, one must dedicate himself exclusively to Torah at the expense of other endeavors; as when Israel performs God’s will, their work is performed by others, as it is stated: “And strangers will stand and feed your flocks, and foreigners will be your plowmen and your vinedressers” (Isaiah 61:5). When Israel does not perform God’s will, their work is performed by them themselves, as it is stated: “And you shall gather your grain.” Moreover, if Israel fails to perform God’s will, others’ work will be performed by them, as it is stated: “You shall serve your enemy whom God shall send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness and in want of all things” (Deuteronomy 28:48).,Summing up this dispute, Abaye said: Although there is room for both opinions, many have acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, and combined working for a living and learning Torah, and although they engaged in activities other than the study of Torah, were successful in their Torah study. Many have acted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai and were not successful in their Torah study. They were ultimately forced to abandon their Torah study altogether.,Similarly, Rava said to the Sages who would attend his study hall: I implore you; during the months of Nisan and Tishrei, the crucial agricultural periods, do not appear before me. Engage in your agricultural work then so that you will not be preoccupied with your sustece all year.,Summarizing these statements, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of the tanna Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi El’ai: Come and see that the latter generations are not like the earlier generations; rather they are their inferiors. The earlier generations made their Torah permanent and their work occasional, and this, Torah study, and that, their work, were successful for them. However, the latter generations who made their work permanent and their Torah occasional, neither this nor that was successful for them.,Along these lines, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi El’ai: Come and see that the latter generations are not like the earlier generations. In the earlier generations, people would bring their fruits into their courtyards through the main gate in order to obligate them in tithes. However, the latter generations bring their fruits through roofs, through courtyards and through enclosed courtyards, avoiding the main gate in order to exempt them from the mitzva of tithing. As Rabbi Yannai said: Untithed produce is not obligated in the mitzva of tithing until it sees the front of the house through which people enter and exit, and it is brought into the house that way as it is stated in the formula of the confession of the tithes: “I have removed the consecrated from the house” (Deuteronomy 26:13), as the obligation to tithe produce whose purpose has not yet been designated takes effect only when it is brought into the house.,And Rabbi Yoḥa said: Even bringing it into the courtyard determines its status as having completed the production process and obligates the produce to be tithed, as it is written in the confession of the tithes: “And I have given to the Levite, the stranger, the orphan and the widow, and they shall eat in your gates and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 26:12).,We learned in our mishna: Over fruits that grow on a tree one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree, with the exception of wine that even though it originates from fruit of the tree, a separate blessing was established for it: Who creates the fruit of the vine. The Gemara asks: What is different about wine, that a separate blessing was established for it? If you say that because the fruit changed for the better into wine, therefore, the blessing changed. Olive oil changed for the better and nevertheless, its blessing did not change. As Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmuel said, and so too Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: Over olive oil, one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree, just as he does over the fruit itself.,The Sages said: There, in the case of oil, it is because it is impossible to find an appropriate blessing, as how shall we recite the blessing? If we recite the blessing: Who creates fruit of the olive, the fruit itself is called olive and that is what was created. The oil is a man-made product of that fruit, rendering that formula inappropriate. Similarly, reciting a formula parallel to the blessing on wine: Who creates the fruit of the vine, is inappropriate as the grapes themselves are the fruit that was created, as opposed to oil which was not.,The Gemara challenges: Nevertheless, it is still possible to formulate a blessing, as we may recite the blessing: Who creates fruit of the olive tree, which would be parallel to the blessing recited over wine. Rather, Mar Zutra offered a different rationale: The reason that no separate blessing was established over oil is because, as opposed to wine that nourishes, oil does not nourish.,The Gemara asks: And oil does not nourish? Didn’t we learn in a mishna: One who vows that nourishment is forbidden to him is permitted to eat water and salt, as they are not considered nourishment. And we discussed this halakha: By inference, water and salt are not considered nourishment, but all other edible items are considered nourishment.,Let us say that this is a conclusive refutation of Rav and Shmuel, who said: One only recites: Who creates various kinds of nourishment, over the five species of grain alone, as they alone are considered nourishing. And Rav Huna said as a solution that this mishna referred to a case where he vows and says: Anything that nourishes is prohibited to me. That formula includes anything that is at all nourishing and therefore only water and salt are excluded. Olive oil is not excluded.,Apparently, oil nourishes. Rather, there is another distinction between wine and oil: Wine satisfies, oil does not satisfy. Wine not only nourishes, but it is also filling. The Gemara asks: And does wine satisfy? Wouldn’t Rava drink wine all day on the eve of Passover in order to stimulate his heart, i.e., whet his appetite so that he might eat more matza at the seder? Wine does not satisfy, it whets the appetite. The Gemara answers: A lot of wine stimulates, a little satisfies.,Again, the Gemara asks: Does wine satisfy at all? Isn’t it written: “Wine gladdens the heart of man, making the face brighter than oil, and bread fills man’s heart” (Psalms 104:15); bread is that which satisfies, wine does not satisfy. Rather, this verse is not a proof; wine has two advantages, it satisfies and gladdens. Bread, however, satisfies but does not gladden.,Since wine possesses all of these virtues, the Gemara asks: If so, let us recite the three blessings of Grace after Meals over it after drinking, just as we do after eating bread. The Gemara answers: People do not base their meals on wine.,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: If one based his meal on it, what is the ruling? Must he recite the Grace after Meals as he does after bread? He replied: When Elijah comes and says whether or not it can serve as the basis for a meal, this will be resolved. Nevertheless, now, until then, his intention is rendered irrelevant by the opinions of all other men and he is not required to recite the complete Grace after Meals.,Previously, the Gemara cited the halakha that one recites the blessing: Who creates fruit of the tree, over olive oil. The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said, and so too Rabbi Yitzḥak said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: One recites the blessing: Who creates fruit of the tree, over olive oil just as he does over the fruit itself. What are the circumstances? If you say that he drank it plain, it causes damage to the drinker. As it was taught in a baraita: One who drinks oil of teruma, while unaware that it was teruma, pays the principal and does not pay the additional fifth which is the typical penalty for unintentional misuse of consecrated property, as in that case the individual is considered to have only damaged consecrated property without deriving benefit from it. One who anoints his body with the oil of teruma pays the principal and pays the fifth, as he derived benefit from it. Apparently, one who drinks oil derives no benefit and it even causes him damage.,Rather, it is referring to a case where he eats the oil by dipping bread into it. If so, the bread is primary and the oil secondary, and we learned in a mishna: This is the principle: Any food that is primary, and is eaten with food that is secondary, one recites a blessing over the primary food, and that blessing exempts the secondary from the requirement to recite a blessing before eating it. A blessing need only be recited over the bread, not over the oil. Rather, it is referring to a case where he is drinking it by means of an anigeron, as Rabba bar Shmuel said: Anigeron is water in which a beet was boiled, ansigeron is the water 56a On a similar note, the Gemara relates that the Roman emperor said to Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rabbi Ḥaya: You Jews say that you are extremely wise. If that is so, tell me what I will see in my dream. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: You will see the Persians capture you, and enslave you, and force you to herd unclean animals with a golden staff. He thought the entire day about the images described to him by Rabbi Yehoshua and that night he saw it in his dream. King Shapur of Persia said to Shmuel: You Jews say that you are extremely wise. If that is so, tell me what I will see in my dream. Shmuel said to him: You will see the Romans come and take you into captivity and force you to grind date pits in mills of gold. He thought the entire day about the images described to him by Shmuel, and that night he saw it in his dream.,The Gemara relates: Bar Haddaya was an interpreter of dreams. For one who gave him a fee, he would interpret the dream favorably, and for one who did not give him a fee, he would interpret the dream unfavorably. The Gemara relates: There was an incident in which both Abaye and Rava saw an identical dream and they asked bar Haddaya to interpret it. Abaye gave him money and paid his fee, while Rava did not give him money. They said to him: The verse: “Your ox shall be slain before your eyes and you shall not eat thereof” (Deuteronomy 28:31) was read to us in our dream. He interpreted their dream and to Rava he said: Your business will be lost and you will derive no pleasure from eating because of the extreme sadness of your heart. To Abaye he said: Your business will profit and you will be unable to eat due to the joy in your heart.,They said to him: The verse, “You shall beget sons and daughters, but they shall not be yours; for they shall go into captivity” (Deuteronomy 28:41), was read to us in our dream. He interpreted their dreams, and to Rava he said its literal, adverse sense. To Abaye he said: Your sons and daughters will be numerous, and your daughters will be married to outsiders and it will seem to you as if they were taken in captivity.,They said to him: The verse: “Your sons and your daughters shall be given unto another people” (Deuteronomy 28:32), was read to us in our dream. To Abaye he said: Your sons and daughters will be numerous. You say, that they should marry your relatives and your wife says that they should marry her relatives and she will impose her will upon you and they will be given in marriage to her relatives, which is like another nation as far as you are concerned. To Rava he said: Your wife will die and your sons and daughters will come into the hands of another woman. As Rava said that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written in the verse: “Your sons and your daughters shall be given unto another people”? This refers to the father’s wife, the stepmother.,They said to him: The verse: “Go your way, eat your bread with joy, and drink your wine with a merry heart” (Ecclesiastes 9:7) was read to us in our dream. To Abaye he said: Your business will profit and you will eat and drink and read the verse out of the joy of your heart. To Rava he said: Your business will be lost, you will slaughter but not eat, you will drink wine and read passages from the Bible in order to allay your fears.,They said to him: The verse: “You shall carry much seed out into the field, and shall gather little in; for the locust shall consume it” (Deuteronomy 28:38), was read to us in our dream. To Abaye he said from the beginning of the verse, that he will enjoy an abundant harvest. To Rava he said from the end of the verse, that his harvest will be destroyed.,They said to him: The verse: “You shall have olive-trees throughout all your borders, but you shall not anoint yourself with the oil; for your olives shall drop off” (Deuteronomy 28:40), was read to us in our dream. And again, to Abaye he said from the beginning of the verse. To Rava he said from the end of the verse.,They said to him: The verse: “All the peoples of the earth shall see that the name of the Lord is called upon you; and they shall be afraid of you” (Deuteronomy 28:10), was read to us in our dream. To Abaye he said: Your name will become well-known as head of the yeshiva, and you will be feared by all. To Rava he said: The king’s treasury was broken into and you will be apprehended as a thief, and everyone will draw an a fortiori inference from you: If Rava who is wealthy and of distinguished lineage can be arrested on charges of theft, what will become of the rest of us? Indeed, the next day, the king’s treasury was burglarized, and they came and apprehended Rava.,Abaye and Rava said to him: We saw lettuce on the mouth of the barrels. To Abaye he said: Your business will double like lettuce whose leaves are wide and wrinkled. To Rava he said: Your work will be bitter like a lettuce stalk.,They said to him: We saw meat on the mouth of barrels. To Abaye he said: Your wine will be sweet and everyone will come to buy meat and wine from you. To Rava he said: Your wine will spoil, and everyone will go to buy meat in order to eat with it, to dip the meat in your vinegar.,They said to him: We saw a barrel hanging from a palm tree. To Abaye he said: Your business will rise like a palm tree. To Rava he said: Your work will be sweet like dates which are very cheap in Babylonia, indicating that you will be compelled to sell your merchandise at a cheap price.,They said to him: We saw a pomegranate taking root on the mouth of barrels. To Abaye he said: Your business will increase in value like a pomegranate. To Rava he said: Your work will go sour like a pomegranate.,They said to him: We saw a barrel fall into a pit. To Abaye he said: Your merchandise will be in demand as the adage says: Bread falls in a pit and is not found. In other words, everyone will seek your wares and they will not find them due to increased demand. To Rava he said: Your merchandise will be ruined and you will throw it away into a pit.,They said to him: We saw a donkey-foal standing near our heads, braying. To Abaye he said: You will be a king, that is to say, head of the yeshiva, and an interpreter will stand near you to repeat your teachings to the masses out loud. To Rava he said: I see the words peter ḥamor, first-born donkey, erased from your phylacteries. Rava said to him: I myself saw it and it is there. Bar Haddaya said to him: The letter vav of the word peter ḥamor is certainly erased from your phylacteries.,Ultimately, Rava went to bar Haddaya alone. Rava said to him: I saw the outer door of my house fall. Bar Haddaya said to him: Your wife will die, as she is the one who protects the house. Rava said to him: I saw my front and back teeth fall out. He said to him: Your sons and daughters will die. Rava said to him: I saw two doves that were flying. He said to him: You will divorce two women. Rava said to him: I saw two turnip-heads gargelidei. He said to him: You will receive two blows with a club shaped like a turnip. That same day Rava went and sat in the study hall the entire day. He discovered these two blind people who were fighting with each other. Rava went to separate them and they struck Rava two blows. When they raised their staffs to strike him an additional blow, he said: That is enough for me, I only saw two.,Ultimately, Rava came and gave him, bar Haddaya, a fee. And then Rava, said to him: I saw my wall fall. Bar Haddaya said to him: You will acquire property without limits. Rava said to him: I saw Abaye’s house appadna fall and its dust covered me. Bar Haddaya said to him: Abaye will die and his yeshiva will come to you. Rava said to him: I saw my house fall, and everyone came and took the bricks. He said to him: Your teachings will be disseminated throughout the world. Rava said to him: I saw that my head split and my brain fell out. He said to him: A feather will fall out of the pillow near your head. Rava said to him: The Egyptian hallel, the hallel that celebrates the Exodus, was read to me in a dream. He said to him: Miracles will be performed for you.,Bar Haddaya was going with Rava on a ship; bar Haddaya said: Why am I going with a person for whom miracles will be performed, lest the miracle will be that the ship will sink and he alone will be saved. As bar Haddaya was climbing onto the ship a book fell from him. Rava found it and saw: All dreams follow the mouth, written therein. He said to bar Haddaya: Scoundrel. It was dependent on you, and you caused me so much suffering. I forgive you for everything except for the daughter of Rav Ḥisda, Rava’s wife, whom bar Haddaya predicted would die. May it be Your will that this man be delivered into the hands of a kingdom that has no compassion on him.,Bar Haddaya said to himself: What will I do? We learned through tradition that the curse of a Sage, even if baseless, comes true? And all the more so in the case of Rava, as he cursed me justifiably. He said to himself: I will get up and go into exile, as the Master said: Exile atones for transgression.,He arose and exiled himself to the seat of the Roman government. He went and sat by the entrance, where the keeper of the king’s wardrobe stood. The wardrobe guard dreamed a dream. He said to bar Haddaya: I saw in the dream that a needle pierced my finger. Bar Haddaya said to him: Give me a zuz. He did not give him the coin so bar Haddaya said nothing to him. Again, the guard said to him: I saw a worm that fell between my two fingers, eating them. Bar Haddaya said to him: Give me a zuz. He did not give him the coin, so bar Haddaya said nothing to him. Again, the guard said to him: I saw that a worm fell upon my entire hand, eating it. Bar Haddaya said to him: A worm fell upon and ate all the silk garments. They heard of this in the king’s palace and they brought the wardrobe keeper and were in the process of executing him. He said to them: Why me? Bring the one who knew and did not say the information that he knew. They brought bar Haddaya and said to him: Because of your zuz, ruin came upon ' None|
|56. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • academies (yeshivot) • academies, rabbinic, argumentation in • academies, rabbinic, leaders of • argumentation, dialectical, in academies
Found in books: Hirshman (2009), The Stabilization of Rabbinic Culture, 100 C, 112; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 47
|13b ונמלך ומצאו בן עירו ואמר שמך כשמי ושם אשתך כשם אשתי פסול לגרש בו,הכי השתא התם (דברים כד, א) וכתב לה כתיב בעינן כתיבה לשמה הכא ועשה לה כתיב בעינן עשייה לשמה עשייה דידה מחיקה היא,א"ר אחא בר חנינא גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שאין בדורו של רבי מאיר כמותו ומפני מה לא קבעו הלכה כמותו שלא יכלו חביריו לעמוד על סוף דעתו שהוא אומר על טמא טהור ומראה לו פנים על טהור טמא ומראה לו פנים,תנא לא ר"מ שמו אלא רבי נהוראי שמו ולמה נקרא שמו ר"מ שהוא מאיר עיני חכמים בהלכה ולא נהוראי שמו אלא רבי נחמיה שמו ואמרי לה רבי אלעזר בן ערך שמו ולמה נקרא שמו נהוראי שמנהיר עיני חכמים בהלכה,אמר רבי האי דמחדדנא מחבראי דחזיתיה לר\' מאיר מאחוריה ואילו חזיתיה מקמיה הוה מחדדנא טפי דכתיב (ישעיהו ל, כ) והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך,א"ר אבהו א"ר יוחנן תלמיד היה לו לר"מ וסומכוס שמו שהיה אומר על כל דבר ודבר של טומאה ארבעים ושמונה טעמי טומאה ועל כל דבר ודבר של טהרה ארבעים ושמונה טעמי טהרה,תנא תלמיד ותיק היה ביבנה שהיה מטהר את השרץ במאה וחמשים טעמים,אמר רבינא אני אדון ואטהרנו ומה נחש שממית ומרבה טומאה טהור שרץ שאין ממית ומרבה טומאה לא כ"ש,ולא היא מעשה קוץ בעלמא קעביד,א"ר אבא אמר שמואל שלש שנים נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו יצאה בת קול ואמרה אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הן והלכה כב"ה,וכי מאחר שאלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים מפני מה זכו ב"ה לקבוע הלכה כמותן מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו ושונין דבריהן ודברי ב"ש ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי ב"ש לדבריהן,כאותה ששנינו מי שהיה ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית בית שמאי פוסלין וב"ה מכשירין אמרו ב"ה לב"ש לא כך היה מעשה שהלכו זקני ב"ש וזקני ב"ה לבקר את ר\' יוחנן בן החורנית ומצאוהו יושב ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית אמרו להן בית שמאי (אי) משם ראיה אף הן אמרו לו אם כך היית נוהג לא קיימת מצות סוכה מימיך,ללמדך שכל המשפיל עצמו הקב"ה מגביהו וכל המגביה עצמו הקב"ה משפילו כל המחזר על הגדולה גדולה בורחת ממנו וכל הבורח מן הגדולה גדולה מחזרת אחריו וכל הדוחק את השעה שעה דוחקתו וכל הנדחה מפני שעה שעה עומדת לו,ת"ר שתי שנים ומחצה נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא והללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שנברא יותר משלא נברא נמנו וגמרו נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא עכשיו שנברא יפשפש במעשיו ואמרי לה ימשמש במעשיו,||13b but later reconsidered and did not divorce her, and a resident of his city found him and said: Your name is the same as my name, and your wife’s name is the same as my wife’s name, and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce, and I will use it to divorce my wife, then this document is invalid to divorce with it? Apparently, a man may not divorce his wife with a bill of divorce written for another woman, and the same should apply to the scroll of a sota.,The Gemara rejects this argument: How can you compare the two cases? There, with regard to a bill of divorce, it is written: “And he shall write for her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and therefore we require writing it in her name, specifically for her; whereas here, with regard to a sota, it is written: “And he shall perform with her all this ritual” (Numbers 5:30), and therefore we require performance in her name. In her case, the performance is erasure; however, writing of the scroll need not be performed specifically for her.,On the topic of Rabbi Meir and his Torah study, the Gemara cites an additional statement. Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that in the generation of Rabbi Meir there was no one of the Sages who is his equal. Why then didn’t the Sages establish the halakha in accordance with his opinion? It is because his colleagues were unable to ascertain the profundity of his opinion. He was so brilliant that he could present a cogent argument for any position, even if it was not consistent with the prevalent halakha. As he would state with regard to a ritually impure item that it is pure, and display justification for that ruling, and likewise he would state with regard to a ritually pure item that it is impure, and display justification for that ruling. The Sages were unable to distinguish between the statements that were halakha and those that were not.,It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir was not his name; rather, Rabbi Nehorai was his name. And why was he called by the name Rabbi Meir? It was because he illuminates meir the eyes of the Sages in matters of the halakha. And Rabbi Nehorai was not the name of the tanna known by that name; rather, Rabbi Neḥemya was his name, and some say: Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh was his name. And why was he called by the name Rabbi Nehorai? It is because he enlightens manhir the eyes of the Sages in matters of the halakha.,The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The fact that I am more incisive than my colleagues is due to the fact that I saw Rabbi Meir from behind, i.e., I sat behind him when I was his student. Had I seen him from the front, I would be even more incisive, as it is written: “And your eyes shall see your teacher” (Isaiah 30:20). Seeing the face of one’s teacher increases one’s understanding and sharpens one’s mind.,And the Gemara stated that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: Rabbi Meir had a disciple, and his name was Sumakhus, who would state with regard to each and every matter of ritual impurity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of impurity, and with regard to each and every matter of ritual purity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of purity.,It was taught in a baraita: There was a distinguished disciple at Yavne who could with his incisive intellect purify the creeping animal, explicitly deemed ritually impure by the Torah, adducing one hundred and fifty reasons in support of his argument.,Ravina said: I too will deliberate and purify it employing the following reasoning: And just as a snake that kills people and animals and thereby increases ritual impurity in the world, as a corpse imparts impurity through contact, through being carried, and by means of a tent, is ritually pure and transmits no impurity, a creeping animal that does not kill and does not increase impurity in the world, all the more so should it be pure.,The Gemara rejects this: And it is not so; that is not a valid a fortiori argument, as it can be refuted. A snake is performing a mere act of a thorn. A thorn causes injury and even death; nevertheless, it is not ritually impure. The same applies to a snake, and therefore this a fortiori argument is rejected.,Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.,The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai.,As in the mishna that we learned: In the case of one whose head and most of his body were in the sukka, but his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem this sukka invalid; and Beit Hillel deem it valid. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Wasn’t there an incident in which the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoḥa ben HaḤoranit, and they found him sitting with his head and most of his body in the sukka, but his table was in the house? Beit Shammai said to them: From there do you seek to adduce a proof? Those visitors, too, said to him: If that was the manner in which you were accustomed to perform the mitzva, you have never fulfilled the mitzva of sukka in all your days. It is apparent from the phrasing of the mishna that when the Sages of Beit Hillel related that the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel visited Rabbi Yoḥa ben HaḤoranit, they mentioned the Elders of Beit Shammai before their own Elders.,This is to teach you that anyone who humbles himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, exalts him, and anyone who exalts himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, humbles him. Anyone who seeks greatness, greatness flees from him, and, conversely, anyone who flees from greatness, greatness seeks him. And anyone who attempts to force the moment and expends great effort to achieve an objective precisely when he desires to do so, the moment forces him too, and he is unsuccessful. And conversely, anyone who is patient and yields to the moment, the moment stands by his side, and he will ultimately be successful.,The Sages taught the following baraita: For two and a half years, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These say: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. And those said: It is preferable for man to have been created than had he not been created. Ultimately, they were counted and concluded: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. However, now that he has been created, he should examine his actions that he has performed and seek to correct them. And some say: He should scrutinize his planned actions and evaluate whether or not and in what manner those actions should be performed, so that he will not sin.,The cross beam, which the Sages stated may be used to render an alleyway fit for one to carry within it, must be wide enough to receive and hold a small brick. And this small brick is half a large brick, which measures three handbreadths, i.e., a handbreadth and a half. It is sufficient that the cross beam will be a handbreadth in width, not a handbreadth and a half, enough to hold a small brick across its width.,And the cross beam must be wide enough to hold a small brick and also sturdy enough to hold a small brick and not collapse. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is wide enough to hold the brick, even though it is not sturdy enough to actually support it, it is sufficient. Therefore, even if the cross beam is made of straw or reeds, one considers it as though it were made of metal.,If the cross beam is curved, so that a small brick cannot rest on it, one considers it as though it were straight; if it is round, one considers it as though it were square. The following principle was stated with regard to a round cross beam: Any beam with a circumference of three handbreadths is a handbreadth in width, i.e., in diameter.'' None|
|57. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Stammaim, on study-house/academy • rabbinic, academies
Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 27; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 174
|14a קודם שנברא העולם ולא נבראו עמד הקב"ה ושתלן בכל דור ודור והן הן עזי פנים שבדור,ורב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אשר קומטו לברכה הוא דכתיב אלו תלמידי חכמים שמקמטין עצמן על דברי תורה בעולם הזה הקב"ה מגלה להם סוד לעולם הבא שנאמר (איוב כב, טז) נהר יוצק יסודם,אמר ליה שמואל לחייא בר רב בר אריא תא אימא לך מילתא מהני מילי מעליותא דהוה אמר אבוך כל יומא ויומא נבראין מלאכי השרת מנהר דינור ואמרי שירה ובטלי שנאמר (איכה ג, כג) חדשים לבקרים רבה אמונתך ופליגא דר\' שמואל בר נחמני דאמר ר\' שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר\' יונתן כל דיבור ודיבור שיוצא מפי הקב"ה נברא ממנו מלאך אחד שנאמר (תהלים לג, ו) בדבר ה\' שמים נעשו וברוח פיו כל צבאם,כתוב אחד אומר (דניאל ז, ט) לבושיה כתלג חיור ושער (רישיה) כעמר נקא וכתיב (שיר השירים ה, יא) קוצותיו תלתלים שחורות כעורב לא קשיא כאן בישיבה כאן במלחמה דאמר מר אין לך נאה בישיבה אלא זקן ואין לך נאה במלחמה אלא בחור,כתוב אחד אומר (דניאל ז, ט) כרסיה שביבין דינור וכתוב אחד אומר (דניאל ז, ט) עד די כרסון רמיו ועתיק יומין יתיב לא קשיא אחד לו ואחד לדוד כדתניא אחד לו ואחד לדוד דברי ר\' עקיבא אמר לו ר\' יוסי הגלילי עקיבא עד מתי אתה עושה שכינה חול אלא אחד לדין ואחד לצדקה,קיבלה מיניה או לא קיבלה מיניה ת"ש אחד לדין ואחד לצדקה דברי רבי עקיבא אמר לו ר"א בן עזריה עקיבא מה לך אצל הגדה כלך מדברותיך אצל נגעים ואהלות אלא אחד לכסא ואחד לשרפרף כסא לישב עליו שרפרף להדום רגליו שנאמר (ישעיהו סו, א) השמים כסאי והארץ הדום רגלי,כי אתא רב דימי אמר שמונה עשרה קללות קילל ישעיה את ישראל ולא נתקררה דעתו עד שאמר להם המקרא הזה (ישעיהו ג, ה) ירהבו הנער בזקן והנקלה בנכבד,שמונה עשרה קללות מאי נינהו דכתיב (ישעיהו ג, א) כי הנה האדון ה\' צבאות מסיר מירושלם ומיהודה משען ומשענה כל משען לחם וכל משען מים גבור ואיש מלחמה שופט ונביא וקוסם וזקן שר חמשים ונשוא פנים ויועץ וחכם חרשים ונבון לחש ונתתי נערים שריהם ותעלולים ימשלו בם וגו\',משען אלו בעלי מקרא משענה אלו בעלי משנה כגון ר"י בן תימא וחביריו פליגו בה רב פפא ורבנן חד אמר שש מאות סדרי משנה וחד אמר שבע מאות סדרי משנה,כל משען לחם אלו בעלי תלמוד שנאמר (משלי ט, ה) לכו לחמו בלחמי ושתו ביין מסכתי וכל משען מים אלו בעלי אגדה שמושכין לבו של אדם כמים באגדה גבור זה בעל שמועות ואיש מלחמה זה שיודע לישא וליתן במלחמתה של תורה שופט זה דיין שדן דין אמת לאמיתו נביא כמשמעו קוסם זה מלך שנאמר (משלי טז, י) קסם על שפתי מלך זקן זה שראוי לישיבה,שר חמשים אל תקרי שר חמשים אלא שר חומשין זה שיודע לישא וליתן בחמשה חומשי תורה דבר אחר שר חמשים כדרבי אבהו דאמר רבי אבהו מכאן שאין מעמידין מתורגמן על הצבור פחות מחמשים שנה ונשוא פנים זה שנושאין פנים לדורו בעבורו למעלה כגון רבי חנינא בן דוסא למטה כגון רבי אבהו בי קיסר,יועץ שיודע לעבר שנים ולקבוע חדשים וחכם זה תלמיד המחכים את רבותיו חרשים בשעה שפותח בדברי תורה הכל נעשין כחרשין ונבון זה המבין דבר מתוך דבר לחש זה שראוי למסור לו דברי תורה שניתנה בלחש,ונתתי נערים שריהם מאי ונתתי נערים שריהם א"ר אלעזר אלו בני אדם שמנוערין מן המצות,ותעלולים ימשלו בם אמר רב (פפא) בר יעקב תעלי בני תעלי ולא נתקררה דעתו עד שאמר להם ירהבו הנער בזקן (והנקלה בנכבד) אלו בני אדם שמנוערין מן המצות ירהבו במי שממולא במצות כרמון והנקלה בנכבד יבא מי שחמורות דומות עליו כקלות וירהבו במי שקלות דומות עליו כחמורות,אמר רב קטינא אפי\' בשעת כשלונה של ירושלים לא פסקו מהם בעלי אמנה שנא\' (ישעיהו ג, ו) כי יתפש איש באחיו בית אביו (לאמר) שמלה לך קצין תהיה לנו דברים שבני אדם מתכסין כשמלה ישנן תחת ידך,(ישעיהו ג, ו) והמכשלה הזאת מאי והמכשלה הזאת דברים שאין בני אדם עומדין עליהן אא"כ נכשל בהן ישנן תחת ידך (ישעיהו ג, ז) ישא ביום ההוא לאמר לא אהיה חובש ובביתי אין לחם ואין שמלה לא תשימוני קצין עם ישא אין ישא אלא לשון שבועה שנאמר (שמות כ, ו) לא תשא את שם ה\' אלהיך לא אהיה חובש לא הייתי מחובשי בית המדרש ובביתי אין לחם ואין שמלה שאין בידי לא מקרא ולא משנה ולא גמרא,ודלמא שאני התם דאי אמר להו גמירנא אמרי ליה אימא לן הוה ליה למימר גמר ושכח מאי לא אהיה חובש לא אהיה חובש כלל,איני והאמר רבא לא חרבה ירושלים עד שפסקו ממנה בעלי אמנה שנאמר (ירמיהו ה, א) שוטטו בחוצות ירושלם וראו נא ודעו ובקשו ברחובותיה אם תמצאו איש אם יש עושה משפט מבקש אמונה ואסלח לה לא קשיא'' None||14a before the creation of the world, but they were not created. The Torah was supposed to have been given a thousand generations after the world was created, as it is written: “He commanded His word for a thousand generations” (Psalms 105:8), but God gave it earlier, after only twenty-six generations, so that nine-hundred and seventy-four generations should have been created but were not. The Holy One, Blessed be He, acted by planting a few of them in each and every generation, and they are the insolent ones of the generation, as they belonged to generations that should not have been created at all.,And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that the verse: “Who were snatched kumtu” (Job 22:16), is written for a blessing, as the verse is not referring to lowly, cursed people, but to the blessed. These are Torah scholars, who shrivel mekamtin, i.e., humble, themselves over the words of Torah in this world. The Holy One, Blessed be He, reveals a secret to them in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Whose foundation yesodam was poured out as a stream” (Job 22:16), implying that He will provide them with an abundant knowledge of secret matters sod.,Shmuel said to Ḥiyya bar Rav: Son of great ones, come and I will tell you something of the great things that your father would say: Each and every day, ministering angels are created from the River Dinur, and they recite song to God and then immediately cease to exist, as it is stated: “They are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness” (Lamentations 3:23), indicating that new angels praise God each morning. The Gemara comments: And this opinion disagrees with that of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: With each and every word that emerges from the mouth of the Holy One, Blessed be He, an angel is created, as it is stated: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts” (Psalms 33:6). The hosts of heaven are the angels, who, he claims, are created from the mouth of God, rather than from the River Dinur.,§ The Gemara continues to reconcile verses that seem to contradict each other: One verse states: “His raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure white wool” (Daniel 7:9), and it is written: “His locks are curled, black as a raven” (Song of Songs 5:11). The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here the verse in Daniel is referring to when He is in the heavenly academy, while there the verse in Song of Songs speaks of when He is at war, for the Master said: There is no finer individual to study Torah in an academy than an old man, and there is no finer individual to wage war than a youth. A different metaphor is therefore used to describe God on each occasion.,The Gemara poses another question: One verse states: “His throne was fiery flames” (Daniel 7:9), and another phrase in the same verse states: “Till thrones were placed, and one who was ancient of days sat,” implying the existence of two thrones. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. One throne is for Him and one is for David, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to this issue: One throne for Him and one for David; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: Akiva, how long shall you make the Divine Presence profane, by presenting it as though one could sit next to Him? Rather, the two thrones are designated for different purposes: One for judgment and one for righteousness.,The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Akiva accept this rebuff from him, or did he not accept it from him? The Gemara offers a proof: Come and hear the following teaching of a different baraita: One throne is for judgment and one is for righteousness; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him: Akiva, what are you doing occupying yourself with the study of aggada? This is not your field of expertise. Take kelakh your words to the topics of plagues and tents. Meaning, it is preferable that you teach the halakhot of the impurity of leprosy and the impurity of the dead, which are within your field of expertise. Rather, with regard to the two thrones: One throne is for a seat and one is for a small seat. The seat is to sit on, and the small seat is for His footstool, as it is stated: “The heavens are My seat, and the earth My footstool” (Isaiah 66:1).,§ The Gemara stated earlier that one who studies the secrets of Torah must be “a captain of fifty and a man of favor” (Isaiah 3:3), but it did not explain the meaning of these requirements. It now returns to analyze that verse in detail. When Rav Dimi came from Israel to Babylonia, he said: Isaiah cursed Israel with eighteen curses, and his mind was not calmed, i.e., he was not satisfied, until he said to them the great curse of the following verse: “The child shall behave insolently against the aged, and the base against the honorable” (Isaiah 3:5).,The Gemara asks: What are these eighteen curses? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “For behold, the Master, the Lord of hosts, shall take away from Jerusalem and from Judah support and staff, every support of bread, and every support of water; the mighty man, and the man of war; the judge, and the prophet, and the diviner, and the elder; the captain of fifty, and the man of favor, and the counselor, and the cunning charmer, and the skillful enchanter. And I will make children their princes, and babes shall rule over them” (Isaiah 3:1–4). The eighteen items listed in these verses shall be removed from Israel.,The Gemara proceeds to clarify the homiletical meaning of these terms: “Support”; these are masters of the Bible. “Staff”; these are masters of Mishna, such as Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima and his colleagues. The Gemara interjects: Rav Pappa and the Rabbis disagreed with regard to this. One of them said: They were proficient in six hundred orders of Mishna, and the other one said: In seven hundred orders of Mishna, only six of which remain today.,“Every support of bread”; these are masters of Talmud, as it is stated: “Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine that I have mingled” (Proverbs 9:5). “And every support of water”; these are the masters of aggada, who draw people’s hearts like water by means of aggada. “The mighty man”; this is the master of halakhic tradition, one who masters the halakhot transmitted to him from his rabbis. “And the man of war”; this is one who knows how to engage in the discourse of Torah, generating novel teachings in the war of Torah. “A judge”; this is a judge who judges a true judgment truthfully. “A prophet”; as it literally indicates. “A diviner”; this is a king. Why is he called a diviner? For it is stated: “A divine sentence is on the lips of the king” (Proverbs 16:10). “An elder”; this is one fit for the position of head of an academy.,“A captain of fifty,” do not read it as “sar ḥamishim,” rather read it as “sar ḥumashin”; this is one who knows how to engage in discourse with regard to the five books of ḥamisha ḥumshei the Torah. Alternatively, “a captain of fifty” should be understood in accordance with Rabbi Abbahu, for Rabbi Abbahu said: From here we learn that one may not appoint a disseminator over the public to transmit words of Torah or teachings of the Sages if he is less than fifty years of age. “And the man of favor”; this is one for whose sake favor is shown to his generation. The Gemara provides different examples of this: Some garner favor above, such as Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa, whose prayers for his generation would invariably be answered. Others gain favor below, for example: Rabbi Abbahu, who would plead Israel’s case in the house of the emperor.,“The counselor”; this is referring to one who knows how to intercalate years and determine months, due to his expertise in the phases of the moon and the calculation of the yearly cycle. “The cunning”; this is a student who makes his rabbis wise through his questions. “Charmer ḥarashim”; this is referring to one so wise that when he begins speaking matters of Torah, all those listening are as though deaf ḥershin, as they are unable to comprehend the profundity of his comments. “The skillful”; this is one who understands something new from something else he has learned. “Enchanter laḥash”; this is referring to one who is worthy of having words of the Torah that were given in whispers laḥash, i.e., the secrets of the Torah, transmitted to him.,The Gemara continues to interpret this verse: “And I will make children their princes” (Isaiah 3:4). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “And I will make children ne’arim their princes”? Rabbi Elazar said: These are people who are devoid menu’arin of mitzvot; such people will become the leaders of the nation.,“And babes ta’alulim shall rule over them”; Rav Pappa bar Ya’akov said: Ta’alulim means foxes ta’alei, sons of foxes. In other words, inferior people both in terms of deeds and in terms of lineage. And the prophet Isaiah’s mind was not calmed until he said to them: “The child shall behave insolently against the aged, and the base against the honorable” (Isaiah 3:5). “The child” na’ar; these are people who are devoid of mitzvot, who will behave insolently toward one who is as filled with mitzvot as a pomegranate. “And the base nikleh against the honorable nikhbad”; this means that one for whom major kaved transgressions are like minor ones kalot in his mind will come and behave insolently with one for whom even minor transgressions are like major ones in his mind.,§ The Gemara continues its explanation of the chapter in Isaiah. Rav Ketina said: Even at the time of Jerusalem’s downfall, trustworthy men did not cease to exist among its people, as it is stated: “For a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, and say: You have a cloak, be our ruler” (Isaiah 3:6). The Gemara explains that they would approach someone and say to him: Things that people are careful to keep covered as with a cloak, i.e., words of Torah that are covered and concealed, are under your hand, as you are an expert with regard to them.,What is the meaning of the end of that verse: “And this stumbling block” (Isaiah 3:6)? Things that people cannot grasp unless they have stumbled over them, as they can be understood only with much effort, are under your hand. Although they will approach an individual with these statements, he “shall swear that day, saying: I will not be a healer, for in my house there is neither bread nor a cloak; you shall not make me ruler of a people” (Isaiah 3:7). When the verse states: “Shall swear yissa,” yissa is none other than an expression of an oath, as it is stated: “You shall not take tissa the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Exodus 20:6). Therefore, the inhabitant of Jerusalem swears: “I will not be a healer ḥovesh” (Isaiah 3:7), which means: I was never one of those who sit meḥovshei in the study hall; “for in my house there is neither bread nor a cloak,” as I possess knowledge of neither the Bible, nor Mishna, nor Gemara. This shows that even at Jerusalem’s lowest spiritual ebb, its inhabitants would admit the truth and own up to their complete ignorance.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: But perhaps it is different there, for if he had said: I have learned, they would have said to him: Tell us, and people do not lie about things that can be easily verified. The Gemara rejects this claim: If he were a liar, he would have said that he learned and forgot, thereby avoiding shame. What is the meaning of “I will not be a healer,” which seems to imply that he had learned in the past? It means: I will not be a healer at all, as I have never learned. Consequently, there were trustworthy men in Jerusalem after all.,The Gemara raises another difficulty: Is that so? But didn’t Rava say: Jerusalem was not destroyed until trustworthy men ceased to exist in it, as it is stated: “Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now and know, and seek in its broad places, if you can find a man, if there is any that acts justly, that seeks truth, and I will pardon her” (Jeremiah 5:1), implying there were no trustworthy people at that time? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult:'' None|
|58. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Torah study, and academies • academies (yeshivot) • academies, rabbinic • academies, rabbinic, and marriage vs. Torah study • academies, rabbinic, lineage in • academies, rabbinic, vs. disciple circles • disciple circles, vs. rabbinic academies • metivta (study-session, academy) • rabbinic academy
Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein (2018), The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World. 240; Hirshman (2009), The Stabilization of Rabbinic Culture, 100 C, 86, 94; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 17, 103, 153
|62b אכולהו והא ששה חדשים קאמר אינו דומה מי שיש לו פת בסלו למי שאין לו פת בסלו,א"ל רבה בר רב חנן לאביי חמר ונעשה גמל מאי א"ל רוצה אשה בקב ותיפלות מעשרה קבין ופרישות:,הספנים אחת לששה חדשים דברי ר\' אליעזר: אמר רב ברונא אמר רב הלכה כר"א אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אמר רב זו דברי ר\' אליעזר אבל חכמים אומרים התלמידים יוצאין לת"ת ב\' וג\' שנים שלא ברשות אמר רבא סמכו רבנן אדרב אדא בר אהבה ועבדי עובדא בנפשייהו,כי הא דרב רחומי הוה שכיח קמיה דרבא במחוזא הוה רגיל דהוה אתי לביתיה כל מעלי יומא דכיפורי יומא חד משכתיה שמעתא הוה מסכיא דביתהו השתא אתי השתא אתי לא אתא חלש דעתה אחית דמעתא מעינה הוה יתיב באיגרא אפחית איגרא מתותיה ונח נפשיה,עונה של תלמידי חכמים אימת אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מע"ש לע"ש (תהלים א, ג) אשר פריו יתן בעתו אמר רב יהודה ואיתימא רב הונא ואיתימא רב נחמן זה המשמש מטתו מע"ש לע"ש,יהודה בריה דר\' חייא חתניה דר\' ינאי הוה אזיל ויתיב בבי רב וכל בי שמשי הוה אתי לביתיה וכי הוה אתי הוה קא חזי קמיה עמודא דנורא יומא חד משכתיה שמעתא כיון דלא חזי ההוא סימנא אמר להו רבי ינאי כפו מטתו שאילמלי יהודה קיים לא ביטל עונתו הואי (קהלת י, ה) כשגגה שיוצא מלפני השליט ונח נפשיה,רבי איעסק ליה לבריה בי רבי חייא כי מטא למיכתב כתובה נח נפשה דרביתא אמר רבי ח"ו פסולא איכא יתיבו ועיינו במשפחות רבי אתי משפטיה בן אביטל ורבי חייא אתי משמעי אחי דוד,אזיל איעסק ליה לבריה בי ר\' יוסי בן זימרא פסקו ליה תרתי סרי שנין למיזל בבי רב אחלפוה קמיה אמר להו ניהוו שית שנין אחלפוה קמיה אמר להו איכניס והדר איזיל הוה קא מכסיף מאבוה א"ל בני דעת קונך יש בך,מעיקרא כתיב (שמות טו, יז) תביאמו ותטעמו ולבסוף כתיב (שמות כה, ח) ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם,אזיל יתיב תרתי סרי שני בבי רב עד דאתא איעקרא דביתהו אמר רבי היכי נעביד נגרשה יאמרו ענייה זו לשוא שימרה נינסיב איתתא אחריתי יאמרו זו אשתו וזו זונתו בעי עלה רחמי ואיתסיאת:,רבי חנניה בן חכינאי הוה קאזיל לבי רב בשילהי הלוליה דר"ש בן יוחאי א"ל איעכב לי עד דאתי בהדך לא איעכבא ליה אזל יתיב תרי סרי שני בבי רב עד דאתי אישתנו שבילי דמתא ולא ידע למיזל לביתיה,אזל יתיב אגודא דנהרא שמע לההיא רביתא דהוו קרו לה בת חכינאי בת חכינאי מלי קולתך ותא ניזיל אמר ש"מ האי רביתא דידן אזל בתרה הוה יתיבא דביתהו קא נהלה קמחא דל עינה חזיתיה סוי לבה פרח רוחה אמר לפניו רבש"ע ענייה זו זה שכרה בעא רחמי עלה וחייה,רבי חמא בר ביסא אזיל יתיב תרי סרי שני בבי מדרשא כי אתא אמר לא איעביד כדעביד בן חכינאי עייל יתיב במדרשא שלח לביתיה אתא ר\' אושעיא בריה יתיב קמיה הוה קא משאיל ליה שמעתא חזא דקא מתחדדי שמעתיה חלש דעתיה אמר אי הואי הכא הוה לי זרע כי האי,על לביתיה על בריה קם קמיה הוא סבר למשאליה שמעתתא קא בעי אמרה ליה דביתהו מי איכא אבא דקאים מקמי ברא קרי עליה רמי בר חמא (קהלת ד, יב) החוט המשולש לא במהרה ינתק זה ר\' אושעיא בנו של רבי חמא בר ביסא,ר"ע רעיא דבן כלבא שבוע הוה חזיתיה ברתיה דהוה צניע ומעלי אמרה ליה אי מקדשנא לך אזלת לבי רב אמר לה אין איקדשא ליה בצינעה ושדרתיה שמע אבוה אפקה מביתיה אדרה הנאה מנכסיה אזיל יתיב תרי סרי שנין בבי רב כי אתא אייתי בהדיה תרי סרי אלפי תלמידי שמעיה לההוא סבא דקאמר לה עד כמה 103b והושיבו ישיבה לאחר שלשים יום שמעון בני חכם גמליאל בני נשיא חנינא בר חמא ישב בראש:,אל תספדוני בעיירות: סבור מינה משום טרחא הוא דקאמר כיון דחזי דקספדי בכרכים וקאתו כולי עלמא אמרו שמע מינה משום יקרא הוא דקאמר,הושיבו ישיבה לאחר שלשים יום דלא עדיפנא ממשה רבינו דכתיב (דברים לד, ח) ויבכו בני ישראל את משה בערבות מואב שלשים יום תלתין יומין ספדין ביממא וליליא מכאן ואילך ספדו ביממא וגרסי בליליא או ספדו בליליא וגרסי ביממא עד דספדי תריסר ירחי שתא,ההוא יומא דאשכבתיה דרבי נפקא בת קלא ואמרה כל דהוה באשכבתיה דרבי מזומן הוא לחיי העוה"ב ההוא כובס כל יומא הוה אתי קמיה ההוא יומא לא אתא כיון דשמע הכי סליק לאיגרא ונפל לארעא ומית יצתה בת קול ואמרה אף ההוא כובס מזומן הוא לחיי העולם הבא:,שמעון בני חכם: מאי קאמר הכי קאמר אע"פ ששמעון בני חכם גמליאל בני נשיא,אמר לוי צריכא למימר אמר רבי שמעון בר רבי צריכא לך ולמטלעתך מאי קשיא ליה הא קרא קאמר (דברי הימים ב כא, ג) ואת הממלכה נתן ליהורם כי הוא הבכור,ההוא ממלא מקום אבותיו הוה ורבן גמליאל אינו ממלא מקום אבותיו הוה,ורבי מאי טעמא עבד הכי נהי דאינו ממלא מקום אבותיו בחכמה ביראת חטא ממלא מקום אבותיו הוה:,חנינא בר חמא ישב בראש לא קיבל רבי חנינא שהיה ר\' אפס גדול ממנו שתי שנים ומחצה יתיב רבי אפס ברישא ויתיב רבי חנינא אבראי ואתא לוי ויתיב גביה,נח נפשיה דרבי אפס ויתיב רבי חנינא ברישא ולא הוה ליה ללוי איניש למיתב גביה וקאתא לבבל והיינו דאמרי ליה לרב גברא רבה אקלע לנהרדעא ומטלע ודריש כלילא שרי אמר שמע מינה נח נפשיה דרבי אפס ויתיב רבי חנינא ברישא ולא הוה ליה ללוי איניש למיתב גביה וקאתא,ואימא רבי חנינא נח נפשיה ור\' אפס כדיתיב יתיב ולא הוה ליה ללוי איניש למיתב גביה וקאתא איבעית אימא לוי לר\' אפס מיכף הוה כייף ליה,ואי בעית אימא כיון דאמר ר\' חנינא בר חמא ישב בראש לא סגי דלא מליך דכתיב בהו בצדיקים (איוב כב, כח) ותגזר אומר ויקם לך,והא הוה ר\' חייא נח נפשיה והאמר ר\' חייא אני ראיתי קברו של רבי והורדתי עליו דמעות איפוך,והאמר רבי חייא אותו היום שמת רבי בטלה קדושה איפוך,והתניא כשחלה רבי נכנס ר\' חייא אצלו ומצאו שהוא בוכה אמר לו רבי מפני מה אתה בוכה והתניא מת מתוך השחוק סימן יפה לו מתוך הבכי סימן רע לו פניו למעלה סימן יפה לו פניו למטה סימן רע לו פניו כלפי העם סימן יפה לו כלפי הכותל סימן רע לו פניו ירוקין סימן רע לו פניו צהובין ואדומים סימן יפה לו מת בע"ש סימן יפה לו במו"ש סימן רע לו מת בערב יוהכ"פ סימן רע לו במוצאי יוהכ"פ סימן יפה לו מת מחולי מעיים סימן יפה לו מפני שרובם של צדיקים מיתתן בחולי מעיים,א"ל אנא אתורה ומצות קא בכינא,איבעית אימא איפוך ואיבעית אימא לעולם לא תיפוך ר\' חייא עסוק במצות הוה ורבי סבר לא אפגריה,והיינו דכי הוו מינצו ר\' חנינא ור\' חייא א"ל ר\' חנינא לר\' חייא בהדי דידי מינצת דאם חס ושלום נשתכחה תורה מישראל מהדרנא ליה מפלפולי,א"ל ר\' חייא אנא עבדי דלא משתכחה תורה מישראל דאייתינא כיתנא ושדיינא ומגדלנא נישבי וציידנא טביא ומאכילנא בישרא ליתמי ואריכנא מגילתא ממשכי דטביא וסליקנא למתא דלית בה מקרי דרדקי וכתיבנא חמשא חומשי לחמשא ינוקי ומתנינא שיתא סידרי לשיתא ינוקי לכל חד וחד אמרי ליה אתני סידרך לחברך,והיינו דאמר רבי כמה גדולים מעשה חייא א"ל ר"ש ב"ר אפילו ממך א"ל אין א"ל רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי אפילו מאבא א"ל חס ושלום לא תהא כזאת בישראל,אמר להן לבני קטן אני צריך נכנס ר\' שמעון אצלו מסר לו סדרי חכמה,אמר להן לבני גדול אני צריך נכנס רבן גמליאל אצלו ומסר לו סדרי נשיאות אמר לו בני נהוג נשיאותך ברמים זרוק מרה בתלמידים,איני והא כתיב (תהלים טו, ד) ואת יראי ה\' יכבד ואמר מר זה יהושפט מלך יהודה כשהיה רואה תלמיד חכם היה עומד מכסאו ומחבקו ומנשקו וקורא לו רבי רבי מרי מרי,לא קשיא הא בצינעא הא בפרהסיא,תניא רבי מוטל בציפורי ומקום מוכן לו בבית שערים והתניא (דברים טז, כ) צדק צדק תרדף הלך אחר ר\' לבית שערים,ר\' בבית שערים הוה אלא כיון דחלש אמטיוהי לציפורי' ' None||62b the tanna taught us a halakha with regard to all of them, not only a man of leisure or a laborer. He asked him: But with regard to a sailor it said that the set interval for conjugal relations is six months; why, then, should he have to divorce her if he vowed to forbid these relations for only a week? He answered him: It is well known that one who has bread in his basket is not comparable to one who does not have bread in his basket. On a fast day, one who does not have bread available in his basket suffers more than one who does have bread available and knows that he will be able to eat later. In this case as well, when a woman knows that marital relations are forbidden to her due to a vow, her suffering from waiting for her husband to return is increased.,Rabba bar Rav Ha said to Abaye: If a donkey driver who is already married wants to become a camel driver, what is the halakha? Is he permitted to change his profession in order to earn more money from his work, even though this will mean he reduces the frequency with which he engages in conjugal relations with his wife? He answered him: A woman prefers a kav, i.e., modest means, with conjugal relations to ten kav with abstinence. Consequently, he is not allowed to change his profession without her permission.,§ The mishna stated: For sailors, the set interval for conjugal relations is once every six months. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Berona said that Rav said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav said: This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, but the Rabbis say: Students may leave their homes to study Torah for as long as two or three years without permission from their wives. Rava said: The Sages relied on Rabbi Adda bar Ahava’s opinion and performed an action like this themselves, but the results were sometimes fatal.,This is as it is related about Rav Reḥumi, who would commonly study before Rava in Meḥoza: He was accustomed to come back to his home every year on the eve of Yom Kippur. One day he was particularly engrossed in the halakha he was studying, and so he remained in the study hall and did not go home. His wife was expecting him that day and continually said to herself: Now he is coming, now he is coming. But in the end, he did not come. She was distressed by this and a tear fell from her eye. At that exact moment, Rav Reḥumi was sitting on the roof. The roof collapsed under him and he died. This teaches how much one must be careful, as he was punished severely for causing anguish to his wife, even inadvertently.,§ When is the ideal time for Torah scholars to fulfill their conjugal obligations? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The appropriate time for them is from Shabbat eve to Shabbat eve, i.e., on Friday nights. Similarly, it is stated with regard to the verse “that brings forth its fruit in its season” (Psalms 1:3): Rav Yehuda said, and some say that it was Rav Huna, and some say that it was Rav Naḥman: This is referring to one who engages in marital relations, bringing forth his fruit, from Shabbat eve to Shabbat eve.,It is related further that Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya and son-in-law of Rabbi Yannai, would go and sit in the study hall, and every Shabbat eve at twilight he would come to his house. When he would come, Rabbi Yannai would see a pillar of fire preceding him due to his sanctity. One day he was engrossed in the halakha he was studying, and he stayed in the study hall and did not return home. When Rabbi Yannai did not see that sign preceding him, he said to the family: Turn his bed over, as one does at times of mourning, since he must have died, reasoning that if Yehuda were alive he would not have missed his set interval for conjugal relations and would certainly have come home. What he said became “like an error that proceeds from a ruler” (Ecclesiastes 10:5), and Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, died.,It is related further that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi arranged for his son to marry a daughter of the household of Rabbi Ḥiyya. When he came to write the marriage contract, the girl died. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Is there, Heaven forbid, some disqualification in these families, as it appears that God prevented this match from taking place? They sat and looked into the families’ ancestry and found that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was descended from Shefatya ben Avital, the wife of David, whereas Rabbi Ḥiyya was descended from Shimi, David’s brother.,He went and arranged for his son to marry a daughter of the household of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra. They agreed for him that they would support him for twelve years to go to study in the study hall. It was assumed that he would first go to study and afterward get married. They passed the girl in front of the groom and when he saw her he said: Let it be just six years. They passed her in front of him again and he said to them: I will marry her now and then go to study. He was then ashamed to see his father, as he thought he would reprimand him because when he saw the girl he desired her and could not wait. His father placated him and said to him: My son, you have your Maker’s perception, meaning you acted the same way that God does.,The proof for this is that initially it is written: “You bring them and plant them in the mountain of Your inheritance, the place that You, O Lord, have made for You to dwell in” (Exodus 15:17), which indicates that God’s original intention was to build a Temple for the Jewish people after they had entered Eretz Yisrael. And ultimately it is written: “And let them make Me a Sanctuary, that I may dwell among them” (Exodus 25:8), i.e., even while they were still in the desert, which indicates that due to their closeness to God, they enjoyed greater affection and He therefore advanced what would originally have come later.,After his wedding he went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. By the time he came back his wife had become infertile, as a consequence of spending many years without her husband. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: What should we do? If he will divorce her, people will say: This poor woman waited and hoped for naught. If he will marry another woman to beget children, people will say: This one, who bears him children, is his wife and that one, who lives with him, is his mistress. Therefore, her husband pleaded with God to have mercy on her and she was cured.,Rabbi Ḥaya ben Ḥakhinai went to the study hall at the end of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai’s wedding feast. Rabbi Shimon said to him: Wait for me until I can come with you, after my days of celebration are over. However, since he wanted to learn Torah, he did not wait and went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. By the time he came back, all the paths of his city had changed and he did not know how to go to his home.,He went and sat on the bank of the river and heard people calling to a certain girl: Daughter of Ḥakhinai, daughter of Ḥakhinai, fill your pitcher and come up. He said: I can conclude from this that this is our daughter, meaning his own daughter, whom he had not recognized after so many years. He followed her to his house. His wife was sitting and sifting flour. She lifted her eyes up, saw him and recognized him, and her heart fluttered with agitation and she passed away from the emotional stress. Rabbi Ḥaya said before God: Master of the universe, is this the reward of this poor woman? He pleaded for mercy for her and she lived.,Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. When he came back to his house, he said: I will not do what the son of Ḥakhinai, who came home suddenly with tragic consequences for his wife, did. He went and sat in the study hall in his hometown, and sent a message to his house that he had arrived. While he was sitting there his son Rabbi Oshaya, whom he did not recognize, came and sat before him. Rabbi Oshaya asked him questions about halakha, and Rabbi Ḥama saw that the halakhot of Rabbi Oshaya were incisive, i.e., he was very sharp. Rabbi Ḥama was distressed and said: If I had been here and had taught my son I would have had a child like this.,Rabbi Ḥama went in to his house and his son went in with him. Rabbi Ḥama then stood up before him to honor a Torah scholar, since he thought that he wanted to ask him a matter of halakha. His wife said to him: Is there a father who stands up before his son? The Gemara comments: Rami bar Ḥama read the verse about him: “A threefold cord is not quickly broken” (Ecclesiastes 4:12). This is referring to Rabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa, as he represented the third generation of Torah scholars in his family.,The Gemara further relates: Rabbi Akiva was the shepherd of ben Kalba Savua, one of the wealthy residents of Jerusalem. The daughter of Ben Kalba Savua saw that he was humble and refined. She said to him: If I betroth myself to you, will you go to the study hall to learn Torah? He said to her: Yes. She became betrothed to him privately and sent him off to study. Her father heard this and became angry. He removed her from his house and took a vow prohibiting her from benefiting from his property. Rabbi Akiva went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. When he came back to his house he brought twelve thousand students with him, and as he approached he heard an old man saying to his wife: For how long 103b and reconvene the study sessions at the yeshiva after thirty days of mourning. My son Shimon is a Sage. My son Gamliel should be the Nasi. Ḥanina bar Ḥama will sit at the head of the yeshiva.,The Gemara explains the requests of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Do not eulogize me in the small towns. They understood from this statement that he said this due to the trouble that would be caused for many if he were eulogized in every town, since they would have to travel from the outlying villages to take part in the eulogies. However, when they saw that they were eulogizing him in the cities and everyone came despite the trouble, they said: Conclude from here that he said this due to considerations of honor. Had they eulogized him in the towns, the gatherings would have been small and unfitting for a man of his stature. He therefore requested that they arrange things in a way that large crowds would gather.,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi further instructed: Reconvene the study sessions at the yeshiva after thirty days of mourning. This is because I am not better than Moses, our teacher, as it is written: “And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days” (Deuteronomy 34:8), which means that for thirty days they eulogized him by day and night. From this point forward they eulogized him by day and they studied by night, or they eulogized him by night and studied by day, until they eulogized him for twelve months of the year.,The Gemara relates that on the day of the funeral of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, a Divine Voice emerged and said: Whoever was present at the funeral of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is destined for life in the World-to-Come. There was a certain launderer who would come before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi every day. On that particular day, he did not come and was therefore not present at the funeral. When he heard this, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had died, he was so full of grief that he ascended to the roof and fell to the ground and died. A Divine Voice emerged and said: That launderer too is destined for life in the World-to-Come.,§ Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: My son Shimon is a Sage; my son Gamliel should be the Nasi. What was he saying, i.e., what did he mean by these remarks? The Gemara explains: This is what he was saying: Although my son Shimon is a greater Sage, my son Gamliel should be the Nasi.,Levi said: Need this be said? After all, Gamliel was the firstborn. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said: It is necessary for you and for your limp. The Gemara asks: What did Rabbi Shimon find difficult with Levi’s question that caused him to scoff? Doesn’t the verse state: “But the kingdom he gave to Jehoram because he was the firstborn” (II\xa0Chronicles 21:3)? This indicates that the firstborn is the one who inherits his father’s appointment, and so Levi legitimately asked why Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had to leave specific instructions about this.,The Gemara explains: He, Jehoram, filled the place of his fathers, i.e., he was their equal in his personal attributes and leadership capabilities. However, Rabban Gamliel did not fill the place of his fathers, and for this reason Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had to specifically command that he nevertheless be appointed as the Nasi.,The Gemara asks: And if that is so, what is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did this? Why did he choose this son to be his successor if he was unfit for the position? The Gemara answers: Although he did not fill the place of his fathers with regard to wisdom, as he was not as great a Torah scholar as his father, he did fill the place of his fathers with regard to fear of sin and was therefore fit to be appointed as the Nasi.,§ Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi instructed: Ḥanina bar Ḥama will sit at the head of the yeshiva. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ḥanina did not accept this appointment, because Rabbi Afes was older than him by two and a half years and he did not want to precede him in accepting this position. Consequently, Rabbi Afes sat at the head of the yeshiva, and Rabbi Ḥanina sat outside, as it was unbefitting for him to sit as a student before Rabbi Afes. And Levi came and sat and studied with him outside.,Rabbi Afes died, and Rabbi Ḥanina, taking his place, sat at the head of the yeshiva. And Levi did not have anyone to sit and study with, and so he came to Babylonia. And this is the background to the incident in which they said to Rav: A great man came to Neharde’a, and he limps, and he taught: It is permitted for a woman who is wearing a kelila, a tiara-like ornament, to go out into the public domain on Shabbat. Rav then said: Conclude from this that Rabbi Afes died and Rabbi Ḥanina, taking his place, sat at the head of the yeshiva, and Levi did not have anyone to sit and study with, and so he came to Babylonia.,The Gemara asks: How did Rav know that it was Rabbi Afes who died? Say that Rabbi Ḥanina was the one who died, and Rabbi Afes sat as he had sat, i.e., he continued to sit at the head of the yeshiva, and Levi did not have anyone to sit with, and so he came to Babylonia. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Levi was subordinate to Rabbi Afes and would have sat before him as a student had Rabbi Afes still been alive, and the only reason why he sat outside in the first place was in deference to Rabbi Ḥanina, who sat outside because he did not consider himself subordinate to Rabbi Afes.,And if you wish, say instead that since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had said: Ḥanina bar Ḥama will sit at the head of the yeshiva, it is not possible that he will not one day rule the yeshiva. Therefore, it must have been Rabbi Afes who died and Rabbi Ḥanina who took his place, as it is written about the righteous: “You shall also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto you” (Job 22:28).,The Gemara asks: But wasn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya there? Why didn’t Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi appoint him as head of the yeshiva? The Gemara answers: He died before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya say: I saw the grave site of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and I shed tears over it? The Gemara answers: Reverse the names. It was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who said that he saw the grave site of Rabbi Ḥiyya.,The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya say: On that day that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, sanctity ceased? The Gemara answers: Reverse the names. It was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who made this statement about Rabbi Ḥiyya.,The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi fell ill, Rabbi Ḥiyya entered to be with him and found him crying. He said to him: My teacher, for what reason are you crying? Isn’t it taught in a baraita: rIf one dies while laughing, it is a good sign for him; while crying, it is a bad sign for him. rIf one dies with his face upward, it is a good sign for him; with his face downward, it is a bad sign for him. rIf one dies with his face facing the people standing around him, it is a good sign for him; with his face facing the wall, it is a bad sign for him. rIf one’s face is sallow, it is a bad sign for him; if his face is yellow or ruddy, it is a good sign for him. rIf one dies on the Shabbat eve it is a good sign for him, because he is heading straight into the Shabbat rest; if one dies at the conclusion of Shabbat it is a bad sign for him. rIf one dies on the eve of Yom Kippur, it is a bad sign for him, as his sins have not yet been forgiven; if one dies at the conclusion of Yom Kippur it is a good sign for him, because he died after his sins have been forgiven. rIf one dies due to an intestinal disease, it is a good sign for him, because most of the righteous die due to intestinal disease.,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: I am crying for the Torah and the mitzvot that I will be unable to fulfill after I die. This indicates that Rabbi Ḥiyya was present at the time of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s death.,The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that one must reverse the names and that it was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who came to visit Rabbi Ḥiyya prior to his death. And if you wish, say instead that actually we do not need to reverse the names in all of the above statements, but rather explain that Rabbi Ḥiyya was occupied with the performance of mitzvot and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi thought: I will not hold him back from his performance of mitzvot by appointing him head of the yeshiva.,And this is the background to an exchange that took place when Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Ḥiyya argued. Rabbi Ḥanina said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: You are arguing with me? If, Heaven forfend, the Torah would be forgotten from the Jewish people, I would restore it through my analyses, i.e., using my abilities of analysis I would be able to rediscover all that had been lost.,Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi Ḥanina: I am working to ensure that the Torah will not be forgotten from the Jewish people. For I bring flax and I plant it, and I then weave nets from the flax fibers. I then go out and trap deer, and I feed the meat to orphans, and I form scrolls from the skins of the deer. And I go to a town that has no teachers of children in it and I write the five books of the Torah for five children. And I teach the six orders of the Mishna to six children. To each and every one of these children I say: Teach your order to your friends. In this way all of the children will learn the whole of the Torah and the Mishna.,And this is what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi referred to when he said: How great are the actions of Ḥiyya. Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said to his father: Even greater than your works? He said to him: Yes. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: Even greater than the work of Rabbi Yosei, my father? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: Heaven forfend. Such comments should not be made among the Jewish people.,§ The Gemara returns to the narrative of the impending death of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: He said to them: I need my younger son. Rabbi Shimon entered his presence. He transmitted to him the orders of wisdom, including how he should conduct himself and the essential principles of the Torah.,He said to them: I need my older son. Rabban Gamliel entered his presence, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi transmitted to him the procedures of the office of the Nasi. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Rabban Gamliel: My son, conduct your term as Nasi with assertiveness and cast fear upon your students, i.e., treat them in a firm manner so that they will fear you.,The Gemara asks: Is that so that it is correct to behave in such a manner? But isn’t it written: “But he honors those that fear the Lord” (Psalms 15:4), and the Master said: This is referring to Jehoshaphat, king of Judea. When he would see a Torah scholar he would rise from his throne and hug him and kiss him and call to him: My teacher, my teacher, my master, my master. This demonstrates that it is appropriate even for a king to behave with affection toward Torah scholars.,The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This display of affection should be applied in private, when only the teacher and student are present, and that stern demeanor should be applied in public, in order to ensure the teacher’s authority.,It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was lying ill in Tzippori and a burial site was ready for him in Beit She’arim. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: “Justice, justice shall you follow” (Deuteronomy 16:20); follow Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to Beit She’arim, i.e., one should seek to have his case adjudicated by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s court in Beit She’arim. This indicates that Beit She’arim, not Tzippori, was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s place of residence, and therefore he must have been lying ill in Beit She’arim.,The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was in Beit She’arim, but when he became ill they transferred him to Tzippori,' ' None|
|59. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Palestine, academies in • Palestinian sources, academies in • academies, rabbinic • academies, rabbinic, Palestinian • academies, rabbinic, vs. study-houses • rabbinic, academies • study-house (bet midrash), vs. academy
Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 194, 195; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 19
|29b had the leg of the letter heh in the term: “The nation ha’am” (Exodus 13:3), written in his phylacteries, severed by a perforation. He came before his son-in-law Rabbi Abba to clarify the halakha. Rabbi Abba said to him: If there remains in the leg that is attached to the roof of the letter the equivalent of the measure of a small letter, i.e., the letter yod, it is fit. But if not, it is unfit.,The Gemara relates: Rami bar Tamrei, who was the father-in-law of Rami bar Dikkulei, had the leg of the letter vav in the term: “And the Lord slew vayaharog all the firstborn” (Exodus 13:15), written in his phylacteries, severed by a perforation. He came before Rabbi Zeira to clarify the halakha. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Go bring a child who is neither wise nor stupid, but of average intelligence; if he reads the term as “And the Lord slew vayaharog” then it is fit, as despite the perforation the letter is still seen as a vav. But if not, then it is as though the term were: Will be slain yehareg, written without the letter vav, and it is unfit.,§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: When Moses ascended on High, he found the Holy One, Blessed be He, sitting and tying crowns on the letters of the Torah. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, who is preventing You from giving the Torah without these additions? God said to him: There is a man who is destined to be born after several generations, and Akiva ben Yosef is his name; he is destined to derive from each and every thorn of these crowns mounds upon mounds of halakhot. It is for his sake that the crowns must be added to the letters of the Torah.,Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, show him to me. God said to him: Return behind you. Moses went and sat at the end of the eighth row in Rabbi Akiva’s study hall and did not understand what they were saying. Moses’ strength waned, as he thought his Torah knowledge was deficient. When Rabbi Akiva arrived at the discussion of one matter, his students said to him: My teacher, from where do you derive this? Rabbi Akiva said to them: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. When Moses heard this, his mind was put at ease, as this too was part of the Torah that he was to receive.,Moses returned and came before the Holy One, Blessed be He, and said before Him: Master of the Universe, You have a man as great as this and yet You still choose to give the Torah through me. Why? God said to him: Be silent; this intention arose before Me. Moses said before God: Master of the Universe, You have shown me Rabbi Akiva’s Torah, now show me his reward. God said to him: Return to where you were. Moses went back and saw that they were weighing Rabbi Akiva’s flesh in a butcher shop bemakkulin, as Rabbi Akiva was tortured to death by the Romans. Moses said before Him: Master of the Universe, this is Torah and this is its reward? God said to him: Be silent; this intention arose before Me.,§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the crowns on letters of the Torah: Rava says: Seven letters require three crowns ziyyunin, and they are the letters shin, ayin, tet, nun, zayin; gimmel and tzadi. Rav Ashi says: I have seen that the exacting scribes of the study hall of Rav would put a hump-like stroke on the roof of the letter ḥet and they would suspend the left leg of the letter heh, i.e., they would ensure that it is not joined to the roof of the letter.,Rava explains: They would put a hump-like stroke on the roof of the letter ḥet as if to thereby say: The Holy One, Blessed be He, lives ḥai in the heights of the universe. And they would suspend the left leg of the letter heh, as Rabbi Yehuda Nesia asked Rabbi Ami: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Trust in the Lord forever, for in the Lord beYah is God, an everlasting olamim Rock” (Isaiah 26:4)? Rabbi Ami said to him: Anyone who puts their trust in the Holy One, Blessed be He, will have Him as his refuge in this world and in the World-to-Come. This is alluded to in the word “olamim,” which can also mean: Worlds.,Rabbi Yehuda Nesia said to Rabbi Ami: I was not asking about the literal meaning of the verse; this is what poses a difficulty for me: What is different about that which is written: “For in the Lord beYah,” and it is not written: For the Lord Yah?,Rav Ashi responded: It is as Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Elai taught: The verse “For in the Lord beYah is God, an everlasting Rock Tzur olamim” is understood as follows: The term “Tzur olamim” can also mean Creator of worlds. These letters yod and heh that constitute the word yah are referring to the two worlds that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created; one with be the letter heh and one with be the letter yod. And I do not know whether the World-to-Come was created with the letter yod and this world was created with the letter heh, or whether this world was created with the letter yod and the World-to-Come was created with the letter heh.,When the verse states: “These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created behibare’am” (Genesis 2:4), do not read it as behibare’am, meaning: When they were created; rather, read it as beheh bera’am, meaning: He created them with the letter heh. This verse demonstrates that the heaven and the earth, i.e., this world, were created with the letter heh, and therefore the World-to-Come must have been created with the letter yod.,And for what reason was this world created specifically with the letter heh? It is because the letter heh, which is open on its bottom, has a similar appearance to a portico, which is open on one side. And it alludes to this world, where anyone who wishes to leave may leave, i.e., every person has the ability to choose to do evil. And what is the reason that the left leg of the letter heh is suspended, i.e., is not joined to the roof of the letter? It is because if one repents, he is brought back in through the opening at the top.,The Gemara asks: But why not let him enter through that same way that he left? The Gemara answers: That would not be effective, since one requires assistance from Heaven in order to repent, in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “If it concerns the scorners, He scorns them, but to the humble He gives grace” (Proverbs 3:34)? Concerning one who comes in order to become pure, he is assisted from Heaven, as it is written: “But to the humble He gives grace.” Concerning one who comes to become impure, he is provided with an opening to do so. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that the letter heh has a crown on its roof? The Gemara answers: The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: If a sinner returns, repenting for his sin, I tie a crown for him from above.,The Gemara asks: For what reason was the World-to-Come created specifically with the letter yod, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet? The Gemara answers: It is because the righteous of the world are so few. And for what reason is the left side of the top of the letter yod bent downward? It is because the righteous who are in the World-to-Come hang their heads in shame, since the actions of one are not similar to those of another. In the World-to-Come some of the righteous will be shown to be of greater stature than others.,§ Rav Yosef says: Rav states these two matters with regard to scrolls, and in each case a statement is taught in a baraita that constitutes a refutation of his ruling. One is that which Rav says: A Torah scroll that contains two errors on each and every column may be corrected, but if there are three errors on each and every column then it shall be interred.,And a statement is taught in a baraita that constitutes a refutation of his ruling: A Torah scroll that contains three errors on every column may be corrected, but if there are four errors on every column then it shall be interred. A tanna taught in a baraita: If the Torah scroll contains one complete column with no errors, it saves the entire Torah scroll, and it is permitted to correct the scroll rather than interring it. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: And this is the halakha only when the majority of the scroll is written properly and is not full of errors.,Abaye said to Rav Yosef: If that column contained three errors, what is the halakha? Rav Yosef said to him: Since the column itself may be corrected, it enables the correction of the entire scroll. The Gemara adds: And with regard to the halakha that a Torah scroll may not be fixed if it is full of errors, this statement applies when letters are missing and must be added in the space between the lines. But if there were extraneous letters, we have no problem with it, since they can easily be erased. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that a scroll with letters missing may not be corrected? Rav Kahana said: Because it would look speckled if one adds all of the missing letters in the spaces between the lines.,The Gemara relates: Agra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, had many extraneous letters in his scroll. He came before Rabbi Abba to clarify the halakha. Rabbi Abba said to him: We said that one may not correct the scroll only in a case where the letters are missing.'' None|
|60. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian sources, on academic setting • Bavli (Babylonian Talmud), on academic setting • Palestine, academies in • Palestinian sources, on academic setting • Yerushalmi (Palestinian Talmud), on academic setting • academies, rabbinic • academies, rabbinic, Palestinian • academies, rabbinic, vs. study-houses • rabbinic, academies
Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 165; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 26
|31b ומביאו לחיי העולם הבא,אמר רבי אבהו כגון אבימי ברי קיים מצות כיבוד חמשה בני סמכי הוה ליה לאבימי בחיי אביו וכי הוה אתא רבי אבהו קרי אבבא רהיט ואזיל ופתח ליה ואמר אין אין עד דמטאי התם,יומא חד אמר ליה אשקיין מיא אדאייתי ליה נמנם גחין קאי עליה עד דאיתער איסתייעא מילתיה ודרש אבימי (תהלים עט, א) מזמור לאסף,אמר ליה רב יעקב בר אבוה לאביי כגון אנא דעד דאתינא מבי רב אבא מדלי לי כסא ואמא מזגה לי היכי איעביד א"ל מאמך קביל ומאבוך לא תקבל דכיון דבר תורה הוא חלשה דעתיה,רבי טרפון הוה ליה ההיא אמא דכל אימת דהות בעיא למיסק לפוריא גחין וסליק לה וכל אימת דהות נחית נחתת עלויה אתא וקא משתבח בי מדרשא אמרי ליה עדיין לא הגעת לחצי כיבוד כלום זרקה ארנקי בפניך לים ולא הכלמתה,רב יוסף כי הוה שמע קל כרעא דאמיה אמר איקום מקמי שכינה דאתיא אמר רבי יוחנן אשרי מי שלא חמאן רבי יוחנן כי עברתו אמו מת אביו ילדתו מתה אמו וכן אביי איני והאמר אביי אמרה לי אם ההיא מרבינתיה הואי,רב אסי הוה ליה ההיא אמא זקינה אמרה לי\' בעינא תכשיטין עבד לה בעינא גברא נייעין לך בעינא גברא דשפיר כותך שבקה ואזל לארעא דישראל,שמע דקא אזלה אבתריה אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן אמר לי\' מהו לצאת מארץ לחוצה לארץ א"ל אסור לקראת אמא מהו א"ל איני יודע אתרח פורתא הדר אתא אמר ליה אסי נתרצית לצאת המקום יחזירך לשלום,אתא לקמיה דרבי אלעזר א"ל חס ושלום דלמא מירתח רתח א"ל מאי אמר לך אמר ליה המקום יחזירך לשלום אמר ליה ואם איתא דרתח לא הוה מברך לך אדהכי והכי שמע לארונא דקאתי אמר אי ידעי לא נפקי,ת"ר מכבדו בחייו ומכבדו במותו בחייו כיצד הנשמע בדבר אביו למקום לא יאמר שלחוני בשביל עצמי מהרוני בשביל עצמי פטרוני בשביל עצמי אלא כולהו בשביל אבא,במותו כיצד היה אומר דבר שמועה מפיו לא יאמר כך אמר אבא אלא כך אמר אבא מרי הריני כפרת משכבו והני מילי תוך שנים עשר חדש מכאן ואילך אומר זכרונו לברכה לחיי העולם הבא,תנו רבנן חכם משנה שם אביו ושם רבו תורגמן אינו משנה לא שם אביו ולא שם רבו אבוה דמאן אילימא אבוה דמתורגמן אטו תורגמן לאו בר חיובא הוא,אלא אמר רבא שם אביו של חכם ושם רבו של חכם כי הא דמר בר רב אשי כי הוה דריש בפירקא איהו אמר אבא מרי ואמוריה אמר הכי אמר רב אשי,ת"ר איזהו מורא ואיזהו כיבוד מורא לא עומד במקומו ולא יושב במקומו ולא סותר את דבריו ולא מכריעו כיבוד מאכיל ומשקה מלביש ומכסה מכניס ומוציא,איבעיא להו'' None||31b and this action brings him to the life of the World-to-Come.,Rabbi Abbahu said: One such as Avimi, my son, properly fulfilled the mitzva of honoring his parents. The Gemara relates: Avimi had five sons during his father’s lifetime who were ordained to issue halakhic rulings, and he too was ordained. And yet when Rabbi Abbahu, his father, came and called at the gate to enter, Avimi would himself run and go to open the door for him. And before he arrived there, he would already say: Yes, yes, so that his father would not think that he was being ignored.,One day Rabbi Abbahu said to Avimi his son: Give me water to drink. Before he brought him the water, Rabbi Abbahu dozed off. Avimi bent over and stood over him until his father awoke. The performance of this mitzva aided him, i.e., as a reward God helped him in his studies, and Avimi succeeded in homiletically interpreting the psalm: “A song to Asaph” (Psalms 79).,Rav Ya’akov bar Avuh said to Abaye: With regard to one such as I, so beloved by my parents that before I return from the study hall my father brings me a cup and my mother pours for me, how should I act? Is it disrespectful to accept this honor from them? Abaye said to him: Accept it from your mother, but do not accept it from your father, as, since he is a Torah scholar he will be disheartened if his son does not show him the proper level of respect.,The Gemara relates: Rabbi Tarfon had a certain manner of treating his mother, that whenever she wished to ascend into her bed he would bend over and help her to ascend, and whenever she wished to descend from the bed, she would descend onto him. He came and praised himself in the study hall for performing the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother so thoroughly. They said to him: You still have not reached even half of the honor due to her. Has it ever happened that she threw a purse into the sea in front of you, and you did not embarrass her?,When Rav Yosef heard his mother’s footsteps, he would say: I will stand before the arriving Divine Presence. Rabbi Yoḥa said: Fortunate is one who never saw his father and mother, as it is so difficult to honor them appropriately. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yoḥa himself never saw his parents. When his mother was pregt with him, his father died; and when she gave birth to him, his mother died. And the same is true of Abaye. The Gemara asks: Is that so, that Abaye never saw his mother? But didn’t Abaye say on many occasions: My mother told me? The Gemara answers: That mother was actually his foster mother, not his birth mother.,Rav Asi had an elderly mother. She said to him: I want jewelry, and he made jewelry for her. She said to him: I want a man whom I can marry, and he said to her: I will seek one for you. She said to him: I want a husband who is as handsome as you. At this point, he realized that she was senile, and that he would be unable to fulfill all her requests. Therefore, he left her and went to Eretz Yisrael.,Rav Asi heard that she was following him to Eretz Yisrael. He came before Rabbi Yoḥa and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to leaving Eretz Yisrael to go outside of Eretz Yisrael? Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: It is prohibited. Rav Asi further asked: If one is going to greet his mother, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: I do not know. Rav Asi waited a little while, and then came back to him. Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: Asi, you are evidently determined to leave. May the Omnipresent return you in peace, and he said no more.,Rav Asi came before Rabbi Elazar, because he did not know how to interpret Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement. He said to Rabbi Elazar: God forbid, perhaps he is angry with me that I wished to leave? Rabbi Elazar said to him: What exactly did he say to you? Rav Asi said to him: May the Omnipresent return you in peace. Rabbi Elazar said to him: If it is so that he was angry, he would not have blessed you. Rabbi Yoḥa certainly gave you permission to leave. In the meantime, while he was traveling to meet her, Rav Asi heard that her coffin was coming, i.e., his mother had died and her coffin was being brought to Eretz Yisrael. He said: Had I known I would not have left, as after his mother’s death he was not obligated to leave Eretz Yisrael to honor her.,The Sages taught: One honors his father in his life and honors him in his death. How does he honor him in his life? One who goes to a place on the command of his father should not say to the people to whom he has been sent, to hurry them along: Send me on my journey on my own behalf, or: Hurry up on my own behalf, or: Allow me to take leave of this business on my own behalf. Rather, he should say all of the above in the following manner: Act in this manner on Father’s behalf, as a mark of respect for his father.,How does he honor him in his death? If he says a matter he heard from his father’s mouth, he should not say: So said Father. Rather, he should say: So said Father, my teacher, may I be an atonement for his resting soul. And this halakha applies within twelve months of his death. From this time onward he says: May his memory be for a blessing, for the life of the World-to-Come.,The Sages taught: A Sage who lectures in public must change the name of his father, i.e., when he quotes his father he should not mention him by name. And similarly, he changes the name of his teacher. The disseminator, who explains the statements of a Sage to the audience, changes neither the name of his father nor the name of his teacher. The Gemara asks: To whose father is this referring? If we say it is referring to the father of the disseminator, whom the Sage mentioned in his lecture, is that to say that the disseminator is not obligated to observe the mitzva of honoring one’s father? How can a disseminator mention his own father by name?,Rather, Rava said: This is referring to the name of the Sage’s father and the name of the Sage’s teacher. This is like that which Mar bar Rav Ashi would do, as when he would teach Torah at his regular lecture and would mention a halakha in the name of his father, Rav Ashi, he would say: So said my father, my teacher; and his disseminator would say: So said Rav Ashi. Although a son may not mention his father’s name, the disseminator of his lecture may do so.,The Sages taught: What is fear and what is honor? Fear of one’s father includes the following: One may not stand in his father’s fixed place, and may not sit in his place, and may not contradict his statements by expressing an opinion contrary to that of his father, and he may not choose sides when his father argues with someone else. What is considered honor? He gives his father food and drink, dresses and covers him, and brings him in and takes him out for all his household needs.,A dilemma was raised before the Sages:'' None|
|61. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academies • Academies, Babylonian • Academies, Palestinian • Temple Mount, academy
Found in books: Fishbane (2003), Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, 196; Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 60
|53a אשה היתה בוררת חטים לאור של בית השואבה:,חסידים ואנשי מעשה כו\': ת"ר יש מהן אומרים אשרי ילדותנו שלא ביישה את זקנותנו אלו חסידים ואנשי מעשה ויש מהן אומרים אשרי זקנותנו שכפרה את ילדותנו אלו בעלי תשובה אלו ואלו אומרים אשרי מי שלא חטא ומי שחטא ישוב וימחול לו,תניא אמרו עליו על הלל הזקן כשהיה שמח בשמחת בית השואבה אמר כן אם אני כאן הכל כאן ואם איני כאן מי כאן הוא היה אומר כן למקום שאני אוהב שם רגלי מוליכות אותי אם תבא אל ביתי אני אבא אל ביתך אם אתה לא תבא אל ביתי אני לא אבא אל ביתך שנאמר (שמות כ, כד) בכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי אבא אליך וברכתיך,אף הוא ראה גלגולת אחת שצפה על פני המים אמר לה על דאטפת אטפוך ומטיפיך יטופון אמר רבי יוחנן רגלוהי דבר איניש אינון ערבין ביה לאתר דמיתבעי תמן מובילין יתיה,הנהו תרתי כושאי דהוו קיימי קמי שלמה (מלכים א ד, ג) אליחרף ואחיה בני שישא סופרים דשלמה הוו יומא חד חזייה למלאך המות דהוה קא עציב א"ל אמאי עציבת א"ל דקא בעו מינאי הני תרתי כושאי דיתבי הכא מסרינהו לשעירים שדרינהו למחוזא דלוז כי מטו למחוזא דלוז שכיבו,למחר חזיא מלאך המות דהוה קבדח א"ל אמאי בדיחת א"ל באתר דבעו מינאי תמן שדרתינהו מיד פתח שלמה ואמר רגלוהי דבר איניש אינון ערבין ביה לאתר דמיתבעי תמן מובילין יתיה,תניא אמרו עליו על רבן שמעון בן גמליאל כשהיה שמח שמחת בית השואבה היה נוטל שמנה אבוקות של אור וזורק אחת ונוטל אחת ואין נוגעות זו בזו וכשהוא משתחוה נועץ שני גודליו בארץ ושוחה ונושק את הרצפה וזוקף ואין כל בריה יכולה לעשות כן וזו היא קידה,לוי אחוי קידה קמיה דרבי ואיטלע והא גרמא ליה והאמר רבי אלעזר לעולם אל יטיח אדם דברים כלפי מעלה שהרי אדם גדול הטיח דברים כלפי מעלה ואיטלע ומנו לוי הא והא גרמא ליה,לוי הוה מטייל קמיה דרבי בתמני סכיני שמואל קמיה שבור מלכא בתמניא מזגי חמרא אביי קמיה (דרבא) בתמניא ביעי ואמרי לה בארבעה ביעי,תניא אמר ר\' יהושע בן חנניה כשהיינו שמחים שמחת בית השואבה לא ראינו שינה בעינינו כיצד שעה ראשונה תמיד של שחר משם לתפלה משם לקרבן מוסף משם לתפלת המוספין משם לבית המדרש משם לאכילה ושתיה משם לתפלת המנחה משם לתמיד של בין הערבים מכאן ואילך לשמחת בית השואבה,איני והאמר רבי יוחנן שבועה שלא אישן שלשה ימים מלקין אותו וישן לאלתר אלא הכי קאמר לא טעמנו טעם שינה דהוו מנמנמי אכתפא דהדדי:,חמש עשרה מעלות: אמר ליה רב חסדא לההוא מדרבנן דהוי קמסדר אגדתא קמיה א"ל שמיע לך הני חמש עשרה מעלות כנגד מי אמרם דוד א"ל הכי אמר רבי יוחנן בשעה שכרה דוד שיתין קפא תהומא ובעי למשטפא עלמא אמר דוד חמש עשרה מעלות והורידן אי הכי חמש עשרה מעלות יורדות מיבעי ליה,אמר ליה הואיל ואדכרתן (מלתא) הכי אתמר בשעה שכרה דוד שיתין קפא תהומא ובעא למשטפא עלמא אמר דוד מי איכא דידע אי שרי למכתב שם'' None||53a It was so bright that a woman would be able to sort wheat by the light of the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water.,§ The mishna continues: The pious and the men of action would dance before the people who attended the celebration. The Sages taught in the Tosefta that some of them would say in their song praising God: Happy is our youth, as we did not sin then, that did not embarrass our old age. These are the pious and the men of action, who spent all their lives engaged in Torah and mitzvot. And some would say: Happy is our old age, that atoned for our youth when we sinned. These are the penitents. Both these and those say: Happy is he who did not sin; and he who sinned should repent and God will absolve him.,It is taught in the Tosefta: They said about Hillel the Elder that when he was rejoicing at the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water he said this: If I am here, everyone is here; and if I am not here, who is here? In other words, one must consider himself as the one upon whom it is incumbent to fulfill obligations, and he must not rely on others to do so. He would also say this: To the place that I love, there my feet take me, and therefore, I come to the Temple. And the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: If you come to My house, I will come to your house; if you do not come to My house, I will not come to your house, as it is stated: “In every place that I cause My name to be mentioned, I will come to you and bless you” (Exodus 20:21).,The Gemara cites another statement of Hillel the Elder. Additionally, he saw one skull that was floating on the water and he said to it: Because you drowned others, they drowned you, and those that drowned you will be drowned. That is the way of the world; everyone is punished measure for measure. Apropos following one’s feet, Rabbi Yoḥa said: The feet of a person are responsible for him; to the place where he is in demand, there they lead him.,The Gemara relates with regard to these two Cushites who would stand before Solomon: “Elihoreph and Ahijah, the sons of Shisha” (I Kings 4:3), and they were scribes of Solomon. One day Solomon saw that the Angel of Death was sad. He said to him: Why are you sad? He said to him: They are asking me to take the lives of these two Cushites who are sitting here. Solomon handed them to the demons in his service, and sent them to the district of Luz, where the Angel of Death has no dominion. When they arrived at the district of Luz, they died.,The following day, Solomon saw that the Angel of Death was happy. He said to him: Why are you happy? He replied: In the place that they asked me to take them, there you sent them. The Angel of Death was instructed to take their lives in the district of Luz. Since they resided in Solomon’s palace and never went to Luz, he was unable to complete his mission. That saddened him. Ultimately, Solomon dispatched them to Luz, enabling the angel to accomplish his mission. That pleased him. Immediately, Solomon began to speak and said: The feet of a person are responsible for him; to the place where he is in demand, there they lead him.,§ It is taught in a baraita: They said about Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that when he would rejoice at the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, he would take eight flaming torches and toss one and catch another, juggling them, and, though all were in the air at the same time, they would not touch each other. And when he would prostrate himself, he would insert his two thumbs into the ground, and bow, and kiss the floor of the courtyard and straighten, and there was not any other creature that could do that due to the extreme difficulty involved. And this was the form of bowing called kidda performed by the High Priest.,The Gemara relates: Levi demonstrated a kidda before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and strained his thigh and came up lame. The Gemara asks: And is that what caused him to be lame? But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: One should never speak impertinently toward God above; as a great person once spoke impertinently toward God above, and even though his prayers were answered, he was still punished and came up lame. And who was this great person? It was Levi. Apparently his condition was not caused by his bow. The Gemara answers: There is no contradiction. Both this and that caused him to come up lame; because he spoke impertinently toward God, he therefore was injured when exerting himself in demonstrating kidda.,Apropos the rejoicing of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel at the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, the Gemara recounts: Levi would walk before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi juggling with eight knives. Shmuel would juggle before King Shapur with eight glasses of wine without spilling. Abaye would juggle before Rabba with eight eggs. Some say he did so with four eggs. All these were cited.,It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Ḥaya said: When we would rejoice in the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, we did not see sleep in our eyes the entire Festival. How so? In the first hour of the day, the daily morning offering was sacrificed and everyone came to watch. From there they proceeded to engage in prayer in the synagogue; from there, to watch the sacrifice of the additional offerings; from there, to the synagogue to recite the additional prayer. From there they would proceed to the study hall to study Torah; from there to the eating and drinking in the sukka; from there to the afternoon prayer. From there they would proceed to the daily afternoon offering in the Temple. From this point forward, they proceeded to the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water.,The Gemara wonders: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say: One who took an oath that I will not sleep three days, one flogs him immediately for taking an oath in vain, and he may sleep immediately because it is impossible to stay awake for three days uninterrupted. Rather, this is what Rabbi Yehoshua is saying: We did not experience the sense of actual sleep, because they would merely doze on each other’s shoulders. In any case, they were not actually awake for the entire week.,§ The mishna continues: The musicians would stand on the fifteen stairs that descend from the Israelites’ courtyard to the Women’s Courtyard, corresponding to the fifteen Songs of the Ascents in Psalms. Rav Ḥisda said to one of the Sages who was organizing aggada before him: Did you hear with regard to these fifteen Songs of Ascents in Psalms, corresponding to what did David say them? He said to him that this is what Rabbi Yoḥa said: At the time that David dug the drainpipes in the foundation of the Temple, the waters of the depths rose and sought to inundate the world. Immediately, David recited the fifteen Songs of the Ascents and caused them to subside. Rav Ḥisda asked: If so, should they be called fifteen Songs of the Ascents? They should have been called Songs of the Descents.,Rav Ḥisda continued and said to him: Since you reminded me of this matter, this is what was originally stated: At the time that David dug the drainpipes, the waters of the depths rose and sought to inundate the world. David said: Is there anyone who knows whether it is permitted to write the sacred name'' None|
|62. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of The Philosophers, 1.16, 3.25, 3.35, 3.37, 3.57, 3.65, 4.2, 4.4, 4.22, 4.29, 4.32-4.33, 4.40, 4.62, 5.2, 5.12, 5.37, 5.51-5.52, 5.54, 7.2, 7.12, 7.25, 7.39-7.40, 7.162, 7.174, 7.177, 9.5, 9.21, 9.61-9.62, 9.87 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academic Sceptics • Academic philosophy, attitude towards auctoritas • Academics • Academics, the Academy • Academy • Academy (Plato’s philosophical school) • Academy (of Plato), Academics • Academy xiii, • Academy, Old • Academy, Old (i.e., Antiochus’) • Academy, The (of Plato) • Academy, and Aristippus • Academy, disagreements over interpretation of Plato’s dialogues • Academy, founding • Academy, purpose • Academy, sceptical • Cicero, Academic scepticism • Cicero, on Academic sceptics • Old Academy • Plato, authority in the Academy • Plato, his Academy • Skepticism, Academic • gymnasia, Academy • scepticism, Academic • skepticism, Academic skepticism • wisdom (sophia), ambiguous relation with the Academy
Found in books: Bett (2019), How to be a Pyrrhonist: The Practice and Significance of Pyrrhonian Scepticism, 24, 27, 37, 38, 171; Brouwer (2013), The Stoic Sage: The Early Stoics on Wisdom, Sagehood and Socrates, 142; Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 3, 79, 82, 96, 245; Cohen (2010), The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism, 77, 80, 546; Erler et al. (2021), Authority and Authoritative Texts in the Platonist Tradition, 44, 48, 68, 71, 82, 95, 105; Frede and Laks (2001), Traditions of Theology: Studies in Hellenistic Theology, its Background and Aftermath, 44; Henderson (2020), The Springtime of the People: The Athenian Ephebeia and Citizen Training from Lykourgos to Augustus, 86, 265; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 57, 97, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 112; Motta and Petrucci (2022), Isagogical Crossroads from the Early Imperial Age to the End of Antiquity, 46, 91; Rutledge (2012), Ancient Rome as a Museum: Power, Identity, and the Culture of Collecting, 22; Tsouni (2019), Antiochus and Peripatetic Ethics, 64; Vogt (2015), Pyrrhonian Skepticism in Diogenes Laertius. 61, 112; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 3, 10, 79, 82, 85, 96, 245, 246, 270; Wolfsdorf (2020), Early Greek Ethics, 407; Zanker (1996), The Mask of Socrates: The Image of the Intellectual in Antiquity, 38, 69, 70, 182
3.25 He was also the first philosopher who controverted the speech of Lysias, the son of Cephalus, which he has set out word for word in the Phaedrus, and the first to study the significance of grammar. And, as he was the first to attack the views of almost all his predecessors, the question is raised why he makes no mention of Democritus. Neanthes of Cyzicus says that, on his going to Olympia, the eyes of all the Greeks were turned towards him, and there he met Dion, who was about to make his expedition against Dionysius. In the first book of the Memorabilia of Favorinus there is a statement that Mithradates the Persian set up a statue of Plato in the Academy and inscribed upon it these words: Mithradates the Persian, the son of Orontobates, dedicated to the Muses a likeness of Plato made by Silanion.
3.35 It is said also that Antisthenes, being about to read publicly something that he had composed, invited Plato to be present. And on his inquiring what he was about to read, Antisthenes replied that it was something about the impossibility of contradiction. How then, said Plato, can you write on this subject? thus showing him that the argument refutes itself. Thereupon he wrote a dialogue against Plato and entitled it Sathon. After this they continued to be estranged from one another. They say that, on hearing Plato read the Lysis, Socrates exclaimed, By Heracles, what a number of lies this young man is telling about me! For he has included in the dialogue much that Socrates never said.
3.37 Nowhere in his writings does Plato mention himself by name, except in the dialogue On the Soul and the Apology. Aristotle remarks that the style of the dialogues is half-way between poetry and prose. And according to Favorinus, when Plato read the dialogue On the Soul, Aristotle alone stayed to the end; the rest of the audience got up and went away. Some say that Philippus of Opus copied out the Laws, which were left upon waxen tablets, and it is said that he was the author of the Epinomis. Euphorion and Panaetius relate that the beginning of the Republic was found several times revised and rewritten, and the Republic itself Aristoxenus declares to have been nearly all of it included in the Controversies of Protagoras.
3.57 Now, says Thrasylus, the genuine dialogues are fifty-six in all, if the Republic be divided into ten and the Laws into twelve. Favorinus, however, in the second book of his Miscellaneous History declares that nearly the whole of the Republic is to be found in a work of Protagoras entitled Controversies. This gives nine tetralogies, if the Republic takes the place of one single work and the Laws of another. His first tetralogy has a common plan underlying it, for he wishes to describe what the life of the philosopher will be. To each of the works Thrasylus affixes a double title, the one taken from the name of the interlocutor, the other from the subject.
3.65 The right interpretation of his dialogues includes three things: first, the meaning of every statement must be explained; next, its purpose, whether it is made for a primary reason or by way of illustration, and whether to establish his own doctrines or to refute his interlocutor; in the third place it remains to examine its truth.And since certain critical marks are affixed to his works let us now say a word about these. The cross × is taken to indicate peculiar expressions and figures of speech, and generally any idiom of Platonic usage; the diple (<) calls attention to doctrines and opinions characteristic of Plato;
4.2 It was said that among those who attended his lectures were the two women who had been pupils of Plato, Lastheneia of Mantinea and Axiothea of Phlius. And at the time Dionysius in a letter says derisively, We may judge of your wisdom by the Arcadian girl who is your pupil. And, whereas Plato exempted from fees all who came to him, you levy tribute on them and collect it whether they will or no. According to Diodorus in the first book of his Memorabilia, Speusippus was the first to discern the common element in all studies and to bring them into connexion with each other so far as that was possible.
4.4 Plutarch in the Lives of Lysander and Sulla makes his malady to have been morbus pedicularis. That his body wasted away is affirmed by Timotheus in his book On Lives. Speusippus, he says, meeting a rich man who was in love with one who was no beauty, said to him, Why, pray, are you in such sore need of him? For ten talents I will find you a more handsome bride.He has left behind a vast store of memoirs and numerous dialogues, among them:Aristippus the Cyrenaic.On Wealth, one book.On Pleasure, one book.On Justice,On Philosophy,On Friendship,On the Gods,The Philosopher,A Reply to Cephalus,Cephalus,Clinomachus or Lysias,The Citizen,of the Soul,A Reply to Gryllus,
4.22 Hence Arcesilaus, who had quitted Theophrastus and gone over to their school, said of them that they were gods or a remt of the Golden Age. They did not side with the popular party, but were such as Dionysodorus the flute-player is said to have claimed to be, when he boasted that no one ever heard his melodies, as those of Ismenias were heard, either on shipboard or at the fountain. According to Antigonus, their common table was in the house of Crantor; and these two and Arcesilaus lived in harmony together. Arcesilaus and Crantor shared the same house, while Polemo and Crates lived with Lysicles, one of the citizens. Crates, as already stated, was the favourite of Polemo and Arcesilaus of Crantor.
4.29 At first, before he left Pitane for Athens, he was a pupil of the mathematician Autolycus, his fellow-countryman, and with him he also travelled to Sardis. Next he studied under Xanthus, the musician, of Athens; then he was a pupil of Theophrastus. Lastly, he crossed over to the Academy and joined Crantor. For while his brother Moereas, who has already been mentioned, wanted to make him a rhetorician, he was himself devoted to philosophy, and Crantor, being enamoured of him, cited the line from the Andromeda of Euripides:O maiden, if I save thee, wilt thou be grateful to me?and was answered with the next line:Take me, stranger, whether for maidservant or for wife.' "
4.32 He also attended the lectures of the geometer Hipponicus, at whom he pointed a jest as one who was in all besides a listless, yawning sluggard but yet proficient in his subject. Geometry, he said, must have flown into his mouth while it was agape. When this man's mind gave way, Arcesilaus took him to his house and nursed him until he was completely restored. He took over the school on the death of Crates, a certain Socratides having retired in his favour. According to some, one result of his suspending judgement on all matters was that he never so much as wrote a book. Others relate that he was caught revising some works of Crantor, which according to some he published, according to others he burnt. He would seem to have held Plato in admiration, and he possessed a copy of his works." '4.33 Some represent him as emulous of Pyrrho as well. He was devoted to dialectic and adopted the methods of argument introduced by the Eretrian school. On account of this Ariston said of him:Plato the head of him, Pyrrho the tail, midway Diodorus.And Timon speaks of him thus:Having the lead of Menedemus at his heart, he will run either to that mass of flesh, Pyrrho, or to Diodorus.And a little farther on he introduces him as saying:I shall swim to Pyrrho and to crooked Diodorus.He was highly axiomatic and concise, and in his discourse fond of distinguishing the meaning of terms. He was satirical enough, and outspoken.
4.40 Once indeed, when at Athens, he stopped too long in the Piraeus, discussing themes, out of friendship for Hierocles, and for this he was censured by certain persons. He was very lavish, in short another Aristippus, and he was fond of dining well, but only with those who shared his tastes. He lived openly with Theodete and Phila, the Elean courtesans, and to those who censured him he quoted the maxims of Aristippus. He was also fond of boys and very susceptible. Hence he was accused by Ariston of Chios, the Stoic, and his followers, who called him a corrupter of youth and a shameless teacher of immorality.' "
4.62 9. CARNEADESCarneades, the son of Epicomus or (according to Alexander in his Successions of Philosophers) of Philocomus, was a native of Cyrene. He studied carefully the writings of the Stoics and particularly those of Chrysippus, and by combating these successfully he became so famous that he would often say:Without Chrysippus where should I have been?The man's industry was unparalleled, although in physics he was not so strong as in ethics. Hence he would let his hair and nails grow long from intense devotion to study. Such was his predomice in philosophy that even the rhetoricians would dismiss their classes and repair to him to hear him lecture." 5.2 He seceded from the Academy while Plato was still alive. Hence the remark attributed to the latter: Aristotle spurns me, as colts kick out at the mother who bore them. Hermippus in his Lives mentions that he was absent as Athenian envoy at the court of Philip when Xenocrates became head of the Academy, and that on his return, when he saw the school under a new head, he made choice of a public walk in the Lyceum where he would walk up and down discussing philosophy with his pupils until it was time to rub themselves with oil. Hence the name Peripatetic. But others say that it was given to him because, when Alexander was recovering from an illness and taking daily walks, Aristotle joined him and talked with him on certain matters.
5.12 but, until Nicanor shall arrive, Aristomenes, Timarchus, Hipparchus, Dioteles and (if he consent and if circumstances permit him) Theophrastus shall take charge as well of Herpyllis and the children as of the property. And when the girl shall be grown up she shall be given in marriage to Nicanor; but if anything happen to the girl (which heaven forbid and no such thing will happen) before her marriage, or when she is married but before there are children, Nicanor shall have full powers, both with regard to the child and with regard to everything else, to administer in a manner worthy both of himself and of us. Nicanor shall take charge of the girl and of the boy Nicomachus as he shall think fit in all that concerns them as if he were father and brother. And if anything should happen to Nicanor (which heaven forbid!) either before he marries the girl, or when he has married her but before there are children, any arrangements that he may make shall be valid.
5.37 Furthermore, he was ever ready to do a kindness and fond of discussion. Casander certainly granted him audience and Ptolemy made overtures to him. And so highly was he valued at Athens that, when Agnonides ventured to prosecute him for impiety, the prosecutor himself narrowly escaped punishment. About 2000 pupils used to attend his lectures. In a letter to Phanias the Peripatetic, among other topics, he speaks of a tribunal as follows: To get a public or even a select circle such as one desires is not easy. If an author reads his work, he must re-write it. Always to shirk revision and ignore criticism is a course which the present generation of pupils will no longer tolerate. And in this letter he has called some one pedant.
5.51 I have also come across his will, couched in the following terms:All will be well; but in case anything should happen, I make these dispositions. I give and bequeath all my property at home to Melantes and Pancreon, the sons of Leon. It is my wish that out of the trust funds at the disposal of Hipparchus the following appropriations should be made. First, they should be applied to finish the rebuilding of the Museum with the statues of the goddesses, and to add any improvements which seem practicable to beautify them. Secondly, to replace in the sanctuary the bust of Aristotle with the rest of the dedicated offerings which formerly were in the sanctuary. Next, to rebuild the small stoa adjoining the Museum at least as handsomely as before, and to replace in the lower stoa the tablets containing maps of the countries traversed by explorers. 5.52 Further, to repair the altar so that it may be perfect and elegant. It is also my wish that the statue of Nicomachus should be completed of life size. The price agreed upon for the making of the statue itself has been paid to Praxiteles, but the rest of the cost should be defrayed from the source above mentioned. The statue should be set up in whatever place seems desirable to the executors entrusted with carrying out my other testamentary dispositions. Let all that concerns the sanctuary and the offerings set up be arranged in this manner. The estate at Stagira belonging to me I give and bequeath to Callinus. All the books I give to Neleus. The garden and the walk and the houses adjoining the garden, all and sundry, I give and bequeath to such of my friends hereinafter named as may wish to study literature and philosophy there in common,
5.54 And according to previous agreement let the charge of attending, after my decease, to the sanctuary and the monument and the garden and the walk be shared by Pompylus in person, living close by as he does, and exercising the same supervision over all other matters as before; and those who hold the property shall watch over his interests. Pompylus and Threpta have long been emancipated and have done me much service; and I think that 2000 drachmas certainly ought to belong to them from previous payments made to them by me, from their own earnings, and my present bequest to them to be paid by Hipparchus, as I stated many times in conversation with Melantes and Pancreon themselves, who agreed with me. I give and bequeath to them the maidservant Somatale.' "
7.2 He was a pupil of Crates, as stated above. Next they say he attended the lectures of Stilpo and Xenocrates for ten years – so Timocrates says in his Dion – and Polemo as well. It is stated by Hecato and by Apollonius of Tyre in his first book on Zeno that he consulted the oracle to know what he should do to attain the best life, and that the god's response was that he should take on the complexion of the dead. Whereupon, perceiving what this meant, he studied ancient authors. Now the way he came across Crates was this. He was shipwrecked on a voyage from Phoenicia to Peiraeus with a cargo of purple. He went up into Athens and sat down in a bookseller's shop, being then a man of thirty." 7.12 Thraso of the deme Anacaea, Philocles of Peiraeus, Phaedrus of Anaphlystus, Medon of Acharnae, Micythus of Sypalettus, and Dion of Paeania have been elected commissioners for the making of the crown and the building.These are the terms of the decree.Antigonus of Carystus tells us that he never denied that he was a citizen of Citium. For when he was one of those who contributed to the restoration of the baths and his name was inscribed upon the pillar as Zeno the philosopher, he requested that the words of Citium should be added. He made a hollow lid for a flask and used to carry about money in it, in order that there might be provision at hand for the necessities of his master Crates.' "
7.25 According to Hippobotus he forgathered with Diodorus, with whom he worked hard at dialectic. And when he was already making progress, he would enter Polemo's school: so far from all self-conceit was he. In consequence Polemo is said to have addressed him thus: You slip in, Zeno, by the garden door – I'm quite aware of it – you filch my doctrines and give them a Phoenician make-up. A dialectician once showed him seven logical forms concerned with the sophism known as The Reaper, and Zeno asked him how much he wanted for them. Being told a hundred drachmas, he promptly paid two hundred: to such lengths would he go in his love of learning. They say too that he first introduced the word Duty and wrote a treatise on the subject. It is said, moreover, that he corrected Hesiod's lines thus:He is best of all men who follows good advice: good too is he who finds out all things for himself." 7.39 Philosophic doctrine, say the Stoics, falls into three parts: one physical, another ethical, and the third logical. Zeno of Citium was the first to make this division in his Exposition of Doctrine, and Chrysippus too did so in the first book of his Exposition of Doctrine and the first book of his Physics; and so too Apollodorus and Syllus in the first part of their Introductions to Stoic Doctrine, as also Eudromus in his Elementary Treatise on Ethics, Diogenes the Babylonian, and Posidonius.These parts are called by Apollodorus Heads of Commonplace; by Chrysippus and Eudromus specific divisions; by others generic divisions. 7.40 Philosophy, they say, is like an animal, Logic corresponding to the bones and sinews, Ethics to the fleshy parts, Physics to the soul. Another simile they use is that of an egg: the shell is Logic, next comes the white, Ethics, and the yolk in the centre is Physics. Or, again, they liken Philosophy to a fertile field: Logic being the encircling fence, Ethics the crop, Physics the soil or the trees. Or, again, to a city strongly walled and governed by reason.No single part, some Stoics declare, is independent of any other part, but all blend together. Nor was it usual to teach them separately. Others, however, start their course with Logic, go on to Physics, and finish with Ethics; and among those who so do are Zeno in his treatise On Exposition, Chrysippus, Archedemus and Eudromus.' "
7.162 After meeting Polemo, says Diocles of Magnesia, while Zeno was suffering from a protracted illness, he recanted his views. The Stoic doctrine to which he attached most importance was the wise man's refusal to hold mere opinions. And against this doctrine Persaeus was contending when he induced one of a pair of twins to deposit a certain sum with Ariston and afterwards got the other to reclaim it. Ariston being thus reduced to perplexity was refuted. He was at variance with Arcesilaus; and one day when he saw an abortion in the shape of a bull with a uterus, he said, Alas, here Arcesilaus has had given into his hand an argument against the evidence of the senses." "
7.174 To the solitary man who talked to himself he remarked, You are not talking to a bad man. When some one twitted him on his old age, his reply was, I too am ready to depart; but when again I consider that I am in all points in good health and that I can still write and read, I am content to wait. We are told that he wrote down Zeno's lectures on oyster-shells and the blade-bones of oxen through lack of money to buy paper. Such was he; and yet, although Zeno had many other eminent disciples, he was able to succeed him in the headship of the school.He has left some very fine writings, which are as follows:of Time.of Zeno's Natural Philosophy, two books.Interpretations of Heraclitus, four books.De Sensu.of Art.A Reply to Democritus.A Reply to Aristarchus.A Reply to Herillus.of Impulse, two books." 7.177 6. SPHAERUSAmongst those who after the death of Zeno became pupils of Cleanthes was Sphaerus of Bosporus, as already mentioned. After making considerable progress in his studies, he went to Alexandria to the court of King Ptolemy Philopator. One day when a discussion had arisen on the question whether the wise man could stoop to hold opinion, and Sphaerus had maintained that this was impossible, the king, wishing to refute him, ordered some waxen pomegranates to be put on the table. Sphaerus was taken in and the king cried out, You have given your assent to a presentation which is false. But Sphaerus was ready with a neat answer. I assented not to the proposition that they are pomegranates, but to another, that there are good grounds for thinking them to be pomegranates. Certainty of presentation and reasonable probability are two totally different things. Mnesistratus having accused him of denying that Ptolemy was a king, his reply was, Being of such quality as he is, Ptolemy is indeed a king.' "
9.5 He was exceptional from his boyhood; for when a youth he used to say that he knew nothing, although when he was grown up he claimed that he knew everything. He was nobody's pupil, but he declared that he inquired of himself, and learned everything from himself. Some, however, had said that he had been a pupil of Xenophanes, as we learn from Sotion, who also tells us that Ariston in his book On Heraclitus declares that he was cured of the dropsy and died of another disease. And Hippobotus has the same story.As to the work which passes as his, it is a continuous treatise On Nature, but is divided into three discourses, one on the universe, another on politics, and a third on theology." 9.21 3. PARMENIDESParmenides, a native of Elea, son of Pyres, was a pupil of Xenophanes (Theophrastus in his Epitome makes him a pupil of Anaximander). Parmenides, however, though he was instructed by Xenophanes, was no follower of his. According to Sotion he also associated with Ameinias the Pythagorean, who was the son of Diochaetas and a worthy gentleman though poor. This Ameinias he was more inclined to follow, and on his death he built a shrine to him, being himself of illustrious birth and possessed of great wealth; moreover it was Ameinias and not Xenophanes who led him to adopt the peaceful life of a student.He was the first to declare that the earth is spherical and is situated in the centre of the universe. He held that there were two elements, fire and earth, and that the former discharged the function of a craftsman, the latter of his material.' "
9.61 11. PYRRHOPyrrho of Elis was the son of Pleistarchus, as Diocles relates. According to Apollodorus in his Chronology, he was first a painter; then he studied under Stilpo's son Bryson: thus Alexander in his Successions of Philosophers. Afterwards he joined Anaxarchus, whom he accompanied on his travels everywhere so that he even forgathered with the Indian Gymnosophists and with the Magi. This led him to adopt a most noble philosophy, to quote Ascanius of Abdera, taking the form of agnosticism and suspension of judgement. He denied that anything was honourable or dishonourable, just or unjust. And so, universally, he held that there is nothing really existent, but custom and convention govern human action; for no single thing is in itself any more this than that." "9.62 He led a life consistent with this doctrine, going out of his way for nothing, taking no precaution, but facing all risks as they came, whether carts, precipices, dogs or what not, and, generally, leaving nothing to the arbitrament of the senses; but he was kept out of harm's way by his friends who, as Antigonus of Carystus tells us, used to follow close after him. But Aenesidemus says that it was only his philosophy that was based upon suspension of judgement, and that he did not lack foresight in his everyday acts. He lived to be nearly ninety.This is what Antigonus of Carystus says of Pyrrho in his book upon him. At first he was a poor and unknown painter, and there are still some indifferent torch-racers of his in the gymnasium at Elis." 9.87 The ninth mode has to do with perpetuity, strangeness, or rarity. Thus earthquakes are no surprise to those among whom they constantly take place; nor is the sun, for it is seen every day. This ninth mode is put eighth by Favorinus and tenth by Sextus and Aenesidemus; moreover the tenth is put eighth by Sextus and ninth by Favorinus.The tenth mode rests on inter-relation, e.g. between light and heavy, strong and weak, greater and less, up and down. Thus that which is on the right is not so by nature, but is so understood in virtue of its position with respect to something else; for, if that change its position, the thing is no longer on the right.' ' None
|63. None, None, nan (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Stammaim, on study-house/academy • academies (yeshivot)
Found in books: Hirshman (2009), The Stabilization of Rabbinic Culture, 100 C, 115; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 174
|64. None, None, nan (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Torah study, and academies • academies, rabbinic • academies, rabbinic, and importance of Torah study • rabbinic, academies
Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 42, 45, 46, 47; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 32
|65. None, None, nan (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academy • Academy, sceptical • Cicero, Academic scepticism
Found in books: Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 245; Erler et al. (2021), Authority and Authoritative Texts in the Platonist Tradition, 68; Fowler (2014), Plato in the Third Sophistic, 180; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 245
|66. None, None, nan (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academics • Skepticism (Academic),
Found in books: Beduhn (2013), Augustine's Manichaean Dilemma, vol. 1, 130, 149; Harrison (2006), Augustine's Way into the Will: The Theological and Philosophical Significance of De libero, 147, 148
|67. None, None, nan (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academics • Academics, the Academy • Academy • Cicero, Academic scepticism • Cicero, on Academic sceptics • Skepticism (Academic), • philosophy (see also Academic philosophy), as general object of study • philosophy (see also Academic philosophy), mundi intellegibilis
Found in books: Beduhn (2013), Augustine's Manichaean Dilemma, vol. 1, 222, 228; Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 245; Conybeare (2006), The Irrational Augustine, 15, 16, 17, 37; Harrison (2006), Augustine's Way into the Will: The Theological and Philosophical Significance of De libero, 148; Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 102; Long (2019), Immortality in Ancient Philosophy, 82; Rohmann (2016), Christianity, Book-Burning and Censorship in Late Antiquity, 169; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 245
|68. None, None, nan (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academics • Skepticism (Academic),
Found in books: Beduhn (2013), Augustine's Manichaean Dilemma, vol. 1, 331, 332, 346, 348; Harrison (2006), Augustine's Way into the Will: The Theological and Philosophical Significance of De libero, 148
|69. None, None, nan (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academics • Skepticism (Academic),
Found in books: Beduhn (2013), Augustine's Manichaean Dilemma, vol. 1, 131, 146; Harrison (2006), Augustine's Way into the Will: The Theological and Philosophical Significance of De libero, 147
|70. None, None, nan (7th cent. CE - 7th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academics • Skepticism (Academic), • philosophy (see also Academic philosophy), as general object of study
Found in books: Beduhn (2013), Augustine's Manichaean Dilemma, vol. 1, 348; Conybeare (2006), The Irrational Augustine, 16; Harrison (2006), Augustine's Way into the Will: The Theological and Philosophical Significance of De libero, 148
|71. Strabo, Geography, 1.15, 13.1.54
Tagged with subjects: • Academics, the Academy • Athens, Plato’s Academy • Cicero, Marcus Tullius, Academic Books • Cicero, on Academic sceptics • Old Academy • scepticism, Academic
Found in books: Long (2006), From Epicurus to Epictetus Studies in Hellenistic and Roman Philosophy, 107; Schliesser et al. (2021), Alexandria: Hub of the Hellenistic World. 16; Tsouni (2019), Antiochus and Peripatetic Ethics, 53; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 246
13.1.54 From Scepsis came the Socratic philosophers Erastus and Coriscus and Neleus the son of Coriscus, this last a man who not only was a pupil of Aristotle and Theophrastus, but also inherited the library of Theophrastus, which included that of Aristotle. At any rate, Aristotle bequeathed his own library to Theophrastus, to whom he also left his school; and he is the first man, so far as I know, to have collected books and to have taught the kings in Egypt how to arrange a library. Theophrastus bequeathed it to Neleus; and Neleus took it to Scepsis and bequeathed it to his heirs, ordinary people, who kept the books locked up and not even carefully stored. But when they heard bow zealously the Attalic kings to whom the city was subject were searching for books to build up the library in Pergamum, they hid their books underground in a kind of trench. But much later, when the books had been damaged by moisture and moths, their descendants sold them to Apellicon of Teos for a large sum of money, both the books of Aristotle and those of Theophrastus. But Apellicon was a bibliophile rather than a philosopher; and therefore, seeking a restoration of the parts that had been eaten through, he made new copies of the text, filling up the gaps incorrectly, and published the books full of errors. The result was that the earlier school of Peripatetics who came after Theophrastus had no books at all, with the exception of only a few, mostly exoteric works, and were therefore able to philosophize about nothing in a practical way, but only to talk bombast about commonplace propositions, whereas the later school, from the time the books in question appeared, though better able to philosophise and Aristotelise, were forced to call most of their statements probabilities, because of the large number of errors. Rome also contributed much to this; for, immediately after the death of Apellicon, Sulla, who had captured Athens, carried off Apellicon's library to Rome, where Tyrannion the grammarian, who was fond of Aristotle, got it in his hands by paying court to the librarian, as did also certain booksellers who used bad copyists and would not collate the texts — a thing that also takes place in the case of the other books that are copied for selling, both here and at Alexandria. However, this is enough about these men." " None
|72. None, None, nan (missingth cent. CE - Unknownth cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Academic philosophy, attitude towards auctoritas • Academy, Old • Old Academy
Found in books: Motta and Petrucci (2022), Isagogical Crossroads from the Early Imperial Age to the End of Antiquity, 17; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 269
|73. None, None, nan
Tagged with subjects: • Academic philosophy, attitude towards auctoritas • Cicero, Academic scepticism • wisdom (sophia), ambiguous relation with the Academy
Found in books: Brouwer (2013), The Stoic Sage: The Early Stoics on Wisdom, Sagehood and Socrates, 143; Bryan (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 245; Wardy and Warren (2018), Authors and Authorities in Ancient Philosophy, 245, 275