1. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, 14.33 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •amei ha'aretz (non-rabbinic jews), extreme hatred directed against, rabbis originating from amongst Found in books: Kalmin (1998) 47| 14.33. "בְּלֵב נָבוֹן תָּנוּחַ חָכְמָה וּבְקֶרֶב כְּסִילִים תִּוָּדֵעַ׃", | 14.33. "In the heart of him that hath discernment wisdom resteth; But in the inward part of fools it maketh itself known.", |
|
2. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998) 46, 47| 58b. איפכא מסתברא אמר ליה איסמיה,אמר ליה לא הכי קאמר קדשים שחייב באחריותן חייב דאיתרבו מבה' וכחש ושאינו חייב באחריותן פטור דאמעיט מבעמיתו וכחש:,רבי יהודה אומר אף המוכר ספר תורה מרגלית ובהמה אין להם אונאה: תניא רבי יהודה אומר אף המוכר ספר תורה אין לה אונאה לפי שאין קץ לדמיה בהמה ומרגלית אין להם אונאה מפני שאדם רוצה לזווגן,אמרו לו והלא הכל אדם רוצה לזווגן ורבי יהודה הני חשיבי ליה והני לא חשיבי ליה ועד כמה אמר אמימר עד כדי דמיהם,תניא ר' יהודה בן בתירא אומר אף המוכר סוס וסייף וחטיטום במלחמה אין להם אונאה מפני שיש בהן חיי נפש:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כשם שאונאה במקח וממכר כך אונאה בדברים לא יאמר לו בכמה חפץ זה והוא אינו רוצה ליקח אם היה בעל תשובה לא יאמר לו זכור מעשיך הראשונים אם הוא בן גרים לא יאמר לו זכור מעשה אבותיך שנאמר (שמות כב, כ) וגר לא תונה ולא תלחצנו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר (ויקרא כה, יז) לא תונו איש את עמיתו באונאת דברים הכתוב מדבר אתה אומר באונאת דברים או אינו אלא באונאת ממון כשהוא אומר (ויקרא כה, יד) וכי תמכרו ממכר לעמיתך או קנה מיד עמיתך הרי אונאת ממון אמור הא מה אני מקיים (ויקרא כה, יז) לא תונו איש את עמיתו באונאת דברים,הא כיצד אם היה בעל תשובה אל יאמר לו זכור מעשיך הראשונים אם היה בן גרים אל יאמר לו זכור מעשה אבותיך אם היה גר ובא ללמוד תורה אל יאמר לו פה שאכל נבילות וטריפות שקצים ורמשים בא ללמוד תורה שנאמרה מפי הגבורה,אם היו יסורין באין עליו אם היו חלאים באין עליו או שהיה מקבר את בניו אל יאמר לו כדרך שאמרו לו חביריו לאיוב (איוב ד, ו) הלא יראתך כסלתך תקותך ותום דרכיך זכר נא מי הוא נקי אבד,אם היו חמרים מבקשין תבואה ממנו לא יאמר להם לכו אצל פלוני שהוא מוכר תבואה ויודע בו שלא מכר מעולם ר"י אומר אף לא יתלה עיניו על המקח בשעה שאין לו דמים שהרי הדבר מסור ללב וכל דבר המסור ללב נאמר בו ויראת מאלהיך,א"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יוחאי גדול אונאת דברים מאונאת ממון שזה נאמר בו (ויקרא כה, יז) ויראת מאלהיך וזה לא נאמר בו ויראת מאלהיך ור' אלעזר אומר זה בגופו וזה בממונו רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר זה ניתן להישבון וזה לא ניתן להישבון,תני תנא קמיה דרב נחמן בר יצחק כל המלבין פני חבירו ברבים כאילו שופך דמים א"ל שפיר קא אמרת דחזינא ליה דאזיל סומקא ואתי חוורא אמר ליה אביי לרב דימי במערבא במאי זהירי א"ל באחוורי אפי דאמר רבי חנינא הכל יורדין לגיהנם חוץ משלשה,הכל ס"ד אלא אימא כל היורדין לגיהנם עולים חוץ משלשה שיורדין ואין עולין ואלו הן הבא על אשת איש והמלבין פני חבירו ברבים והמכנה שם רע לחבירו מכנה היינו מלבין אע"ג דדש ביה בשמיה,אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן | 58b. b The opposite is reasonable. /b An oath concerning sacrificial animals for which one does not bear responsibility is considered to be a matter related to the Lord even more than an oath concerning a sacrificial animal for which one bears responsibility, as in the latter case it is owned by the person in some respects. The i tanna /i b said to him: Should I delete /b this i baraita /i because it is corrupted?,Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Abba b said to him: No, this is what /b the i baraita /i is b saying: /b For an oath taken concerning b sacrificial /b animals b for which one bears responsibility, /b one is b liable /b to bring an offering for a false oath, b as it is included /b due to the phrase b “against the Lord, and deals falsely.” /b It is derived from this that one is liable for taking a false oath even with regard to an item which belongs, to a certain degree, to the Lord. b And /b with regard to b sacrificial /b animals b for which one does not bear responsibility, /b one is b exempt, as it is excluded /b by the phrase: b With his neighbor and deals falsely. /b It is derived from this that one is liable to bring an offering for a false oath only if it pertained to property that belongs to a layman, i.e., his neighbor, but not for an item that belongs completely to God, as is the case with regard to sacrificial animals for which one does not bear responsibility.,§ The mishna teaches: b Rabbi Yehuda says: Even /b in the case of b one who sells a Torah scroll, a pearl, or an animal, /b those items b are not /b subject to the i halakhot /i of b exploitation. It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda says: Even /b in the case of b one who sells a Torah scroll, /b it b is not /b subject to the i halakhot /i of b exploitation, as there is no limit to its value. /b It is the Torah of God, which is priceless. b An animal and a pearl are not /b subject to the i halakhot /i of b exploitation because a person seeks to pair them. /b An animal is paired with an animal of similar strength so that they can be yoked together to work in the field. A pearl is paired with a similar pearl to fashion jewelry. Since there is a need to obtain a specific variant of these items, one is not particular about the price.,The i baraita /i continues: The Rabbis b said to him: But isn’t /b it the case that with regard to b every item, a person seeks to pair /b them with similar items under certain circumstances? According to your explanation, the i halakhot /i of exploitation would never apply. The Gemara asks: b And /b what does b Rabbi Yehuda /b respond to that question? He claims that b these are significant to /b a person, b but those are not significant to him. /b In other words, it is particularly important to find a precise match for an animal and a pearl. The Gemara continues to analyze Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion. b And up to how much /b can one deviate from the value of items for which exploitation does not apply, as Rabbi Yehuda is clearly not saying that any deviation is acceptable? b Ameimar said: /b One can deviate b up to /b double b their value. /b , b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Even /b in the case b one who sells a horse, or a sword, or a helmet [ i veḥatitom /i ] during wartime, /b these items b are not /b subject to the i halakhot /i of b exploitation, because they /b then b have /b the capacity to preserve b life, /b and a person is willing to pay any price for them., strong MISHNA: /strong b Just as /b there is a prohibition against b exploitation [ i ona’a /i ] in buying and selling, so is there i ona’a /i in statements, /b i.e., verbal mistreatment. The mishna proceeds to cite examples of verbal mistreatment. b One may not say to /b a seller: b For how much /b are you selling b this item, if he does not wish to purchase /b it. He thereby upsets the seller when the deal fails to materialize. The mishna lists other examples: b If one is a penitent, /b another b may not say to him: Remember your earlier deeds. If one is the child of converts, /b another b may not say to him: Remember the deeds of your ancestors, as it is stated: “And a convert shall you neither mistreat, nor shall you oppress him” /b (Exodus 22:20)., strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught: /b It is written: b “And you shall not mistreat [ i tonu /i ] one man his colleague; /b and you shall fear your God, for I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 25:17). The i tanna /i explains: b The verse is speaking with regard to verbal mistreatment. /b The i baraita /i proceeds: Do b you say /b that it is speaking of b verbal mistreatment [ i be’ona’at devarim /i ], or /b perhaps b it is /b speaking b only with regard to monetary exploitation [ i be’ona’at mammon /i ]? When it says /b in a previous verse: b “And if you sell to your colleague an item that is sold, or acquire from your colleague’s hand, /b you shall not exploit [ i tonu /i ] his brother” (Leviticus 25:14), b monetary exploitation is /b explicitly b stated. How /b then b do I realize /b the meaning of the verse: b “And you shall not mistreat one man his colleague”? /b It is b with regard to verbal mistreatment. /b , b How so? If one is a penitent, /b another b may not say to him: Remember your earlier deeds. If one is the child of converts, /b another b may not say to him: Remember the deed of your ancestors. If one is a convert and /b he b came to study Torah, /b one b may not say to him: /b Does the b mouth that ate unslaughtered carcasses and animals that had wounds that would have caused them to die within twelve months [ i tereifot /i ], /b and b repugt creatures, and creeping animals, comes to study Torah that was stated from the mouth of the Almighty? /b , b If torments are afflicting /b a person, b if illnesses are afflicting him, or if he is burying his children, /b one b may not speak to him in the manner that /b the b friends of Job spoke to him: “Is not your fear of God your confidence, and your hope the integrity of your ways? Remember, I beseech you, whoever perished, being innocent?” /b (Job 4:6–7). Certainly you sinned, as otherwise you would not have suffered misfortune.,Likewise, b if donkey drivers are asking /b to purchase b grain from /b someone, and he has none, b he may not say to them: Go to so-and-so, as he sells grain, if he knows about him that he never sold /b grain at all. He thereby causes the donkey drivers and the would-be seller anguish. b Rabbi Yehuda says: One may not even cast his eyes on the merchandise /b for sale, creating the impression that he is interested, b at a time when he does not have money /b to purchase it. Verbal mistreatment is not typically obvious, and it is difficult to ascertain the intent of the offender, b as the matter is given to the heart /b of each individual, as only he knows what his intention was when he spoke. b And with regard to any matter given to the heart, it is stated: “And you shall fear your God” /b (Leviticus 25:17), as God is privy to the intent of the heart., b Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Greater is /b the transgression of b verbal mistreatment than /b the transgression of b monetary exploitation, as with regard to this, /b verbal mistreatment, b it is stated: “And you shall fear your God.” But with regard to that, /b monetary exploitation, b it is not stated: “And you shall fear your God.” And Rabbi Elazar said /b this explanation: b This, /b verbal mistreatment, affects b one’s body; but that, /b monetary exploitation, affects b one’s money. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: This, /b monetary exploitation, b is given to restitution; but that, /b verbal mistreatment, b is not given to restitution. /b ,The Gemara relates that b the i tanna /i /b who recited i mishnayot /i and i baraitot /i in the study hall b taught /b a i baraita /i b before Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Anyone who humiliates another in public, it is as though he were spilling blood. /b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak b said to him: You have spoken well, as we see that /b after the humiliated person blushes, b the red leaves /b his face b and pallor comes /b in its place, which is tantamount to spilling his blood. b Abaye said to Rav Dimi: In the West, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael, b with regard to what /b mitzva b are they /b particularly b vigilant? /b Rav Dimi b said to him: /b They are vigilant b in /b refraining from b humiliating /b others, b as Rabbi Ḥanina says: Everyone descends to Gehenna except for three. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Does it enter your mind /b that b everyone /b descends to Gehenna? b Rather, say: Anyone who descends to Gehenna /b ultimately b ascends, except for three who descend and do not ascend, and these are they: One who engages in intercourse with a married woman, /b as this transgression is a serious offense against both God and a person; b and one who humiliates another in public; and one who calls /b another b a derogatory name. /b The Gemara asks with regard to b one who calls /b another a derogatory name: b That is /b identical to b one who shames /b him; why are they listed separately? The Gemara answers: b Although /b the victim b grew accustomed to /b being called that name b in /b place of b his name, /b and he is no longer humiliated by being called that name, since the intent was to insult him, the perpetrator’s punishment is severe., b Rabba bar bar Ḥana says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b |
|
3. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998) 46| 63a. קא מדברת אלמנות חיים אמרה ליה אי לדידי ציית יתיב תרי סרי שני אחריני אמר ברשות קא עבידנא הדר אזיל ויתיב תרי סרי שני אחריני בבי רב כי אתא אייתי בהדיה עשרין וארבעה אלפי תלמידי שמעה דביתהו הות קא נפקא לאפיה אמרו לה שיבבתא שאילי מאני לבוש ואיכסאי אמרה להו (משלי יב, י) יודע צדיק נפש בהמתו כי מטיא לגביה נפלה על אפה קא מנשקא ליה לכרעיה הוו קא מדחפי לה שמעיה אמר להו שבקוה שלי ושלכם שלה הוא,שמע אבוה דאתא גברא רבה למתא אמר איזיל לגביה אפשר דמפר נדראי אתא לגביה א"ל אדעתא דגברא רבה מי נדרת א"ל אפילו פרק אחד ואפי' הלכה אחת אמר ליה אנא הוא נפל על אפיה ונשקיה על כרעיה ויהיב ליה פלגא ממוניה ברתיה דר"ע עבדא ליה לבן עזאי הכי והיינו דאמרי אינשי רחילא בתר רחילא אזלא כעובדי אמה כך עובדי ברתא,רב יוסף בריה דרבא שדריה אבוהי לבי רב לקמיה דרב יוסף פסקו ליה שית שני כי הוה תלת שני מטא מעלי יומא דכפורי אמר איזיל ואיחזינהו לאינשי ביתי שמע אבוהי שקל מנא ונפק לאפיה אמר ליה זונתך נזכרת איכא דאמרי אמר ליה יונתך נזכרת איטרוד לא מר איפסיק ולא מר איפסיק:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המורדת על בעלה פוחתין לה מכתובתה שבעה דינרין בשבת ר' יהודה אומר שבעה טרפעיקין עד מתי הוא פוחת עד כנגד כתובתה ר' יוסי אומר לעולם הוא פוחת והולך עד שאם תפול לה ירושה ממקום אחר גובה הימנה וכן המורד על אשתו מוסיפין על כתובתה שלשה דינרין בשבת ר' יהודה אומר שלשה טרפעיקין:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מורדת ממאי רב הונא אמר מתשמיש המטה ר' יוסי ברבי חנינא אמר ממלאכה תנן וכן המורד על אשתו בשלמא למ"ד מתשמיש לחיי אלא למאן דאמר ממלאכה מי משועבד לה אין באומר איני זן ואיני מפרנס,והאמר רב האומר איני זן ואיני מפרנס יוציא ויתן כתובה ולאו לאמלוכי ביה בעי:,מיתבי אחת לי ארוסה ונשואה ואפי' נדה ואפילו חולה ואפי' שומרת יבם,(בשלמא למאן דאמר ממלאכה שפיר אלא למאן דאמר מתשמיש נדה בת תשמיש היא אמר לך אינו דומה מי שיש לו פת בסלו למי שאין לו,איכא דאמרי) בשלמא למאן דאמר מתשמיש היינו דקתני חולה | 63a. b will you lead /b the life of a b widow of a living man, /b living alone while your husband is in another place? b She said to him: If he /b would b listen to me, he would sit /b and study b for another twelve years. /b When Rabbi Akiva heard this b he said: I have permission to do /b this. b He went back and sat for another twelve years in the study hall. When he came /b back b he brought twenty-four thousand students with him. His wife heard and went out /b toward him b to greet him. Her neighbors said: Borrow some clothes and wear them, /b as your current apparel is not appropriate to meet an important person. b She said to them: “A righteous man understands the life of his beast” /b (Proverbs 12:10). b When she came to him she fell on her face and kissed his feet. His attendants pushed her /b away as they did not know who she was, and b he said to them: Leave her /b alone, as b my /b Torah knowledge b and yours is /b actually b hers. /b ,In the meantime b her father heard that a great man came to the town. He said: I will go to him. Maybe he will nullify my vow /b and I will be able to support my daughter. b He came to him /b to ask about nullifying his vow, and Rabbi Akiva b said to him: Did you vow thinking that /b this Akiva b would become a great man? He said to him: /b If I had believed he would know b even one chapter or even one i halakha /i /b I would not have been so harsh. b He said to him: I am he. /b Ben Kalba Savua b fell on his face and kissed his feet and gave him half of his money. /b The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Akiva’s daughter did the same /b thing b for ben Azzai, /b who was also a simple person, and she caused him to learn Torah in a similar way, by betrothing herself to him and sending him off to study. b This /b explains the folk saying b that people say: The ewe follows the ewe; the daughter’s actions are the same as her mother’s. /b ,On the same subject it is related: b Rav Yosef, son of Rava, was sent by his father to the study hall /b to learn b before /b the great Sage b Rav Yosef. /b They b agreed /b that b he /b should sit for b six years /b in the study hall. b When three years had /b passed, b the eve of Yom Kippur arrived /b and b he said: I will go and see the members of my household, /b meaning his wife. b His father heard and took a weapon, /b as if he were going to war, b and went to meet him. /b According to one version b he said to him: Did you remember your mistress, /b as you are abandoning your studies to see a woman? b There are /b those b who say /b that he said to him: b Did you remember your dove? /b Since both father and son were involved in an argument, b they were preoccupied /b and b this Master did not eat the cessation /b meal before Yom Kippur b and that Master /b also b did not eat the cessation /b meal that day., strong MISHNA: /strong A woman b who rebels against her husband /b is fined; b her marriage contract is reduced /b by b seven dinars /b each b week. Rabbi Yehuda says: Seven half-dinars [ i terapa’ikin /i ] /b each week. b Until when does he reduce /b her marriage contract? b Until /b the reductions are b equivalent to her marriage contract, /b i.e., until he no longer owes her any money, at which point he divorces her without any payment. b Rabbi Yosei says: He can always continue to deduct /b from the sum, even beyond that which is owed to her due to her marriage contract, b so that if she will receive an inheritance from another source, he can collect /b the extra amount b from her. And similarly, /b if a man b rebels against his wife, /b he is fined and an extra b three dinars a week are added to her marriage contract. Rabbi Yehuda says: Three i terapa’ikin /i . /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b Against what /b does b she rebel; /b what is the nature of the rebellion discussed in the mishna? b Rav Huna said: Against /b engaging in b marital relations. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Against /b the b tasks /b she is obligated to perform for her husband. The Gemara clarifies this dispute. b The mishna states: Similarly, if /b a man b rebels against his wife. Granted, according to the one who says /b that the rebellion is b against marital relations, it is well, /b as this type of rebellion can apply equally to a husband. b However, according to the one who says /b that she rebels b against /b performing b tasks, is he subjugated to her /b to perform tasks? The Gemara answers: b Yes, /b he is, as the mishna is discussing b someone who says: I will not sustain and I will not support /b my wife.,The Gemara asks: b But didn’t Rav say: One who says: I will not sustain and I will not support /b my wife b must /b immediately b divorce /b her b and give her /b the payment for her b marriage contract? /b What relevance is there to a discussion of a weekly fine? The Gemara answers: b Shouldn’t he be consulted /b to investigate whether he will retract his decision? In the interim, while the court discusses the issue with him and explains that he must divorce his wife if he does not retract his decision, he is fined by the addition of three dinars per week to her marriage contract.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i with regard to a rebellious woman: b It is the same to me, /b i.e., the same i halakha /i applies, if the woman who rebelled is b a betrothed woman, or a married woman, or even a menstruating woman, or even /b if she is b ill, or even /b if she is b a widow waiting for her i yavam /i /b to perform levirate marriage.,The Gemara discusses the i baraita /i . b Granted, according to the one who says /b that her rebelliousness is referring to performing b tasks, it is well. However, according to the one who says /b that she rebels b against /b engaging in b marital relations, /b is b a menstruating woman fit to /b engage in b marital relations? /b She is not, and therefore there would be no significance to her refusal. The Gemara answers: The one who advocates that opinion could have b said to you: One who has bread in his basket, /b i.e., one who has engaged in marital relations with his wife in the past, b is not comparable to one who does not have /b bread in his basket. Since she declares her refusal to engage in marital relations, he suffers from this refusal even when she is menstruating or ill., b There are /b those b who say /b that the objection was phrased differently. b Granted, according to the one who says /b that the rebellion discussed in the mishna is referring to b engaging in marital relations, this /b explanation b is /b consistent with b that which is taught /b with regard to b an ill woman, /b that she be fined as a rebellious woman, as even if she is not capable of working, she can still be rebellious with regard to marital relations. |
|
4. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amei ha'aretz (non-rabbinic jews), extreme hatred directed against, rabbis originating from amongst Found in books: Kalmin (1998) 47| 3a. בנס היו עומדין,אין מהוה הוו ולא הוו ידעי הי באמצע תיבה והי בסוף תיבה ואתו צופים ותקינו פתוחין באמצע תיבה וסתומין בסוף תיבה,סוף סוף אלה המצות שאין נביא עתיד לחדש דבר מעתה אלא שכחום וחזרו ויסדום,וא"ר ירמיה ואיתימא רבי חייא בר אבא תרגום של תורה אונקלוס הגר אמרו מפי ר' אליעזר ור' יהושע תרגום של נביאים יונתן בן עוזיאל אמרו מפי חגי זכריה ומלאכי ונזדעזעה ארץ ישראל ארבע מאות פרסה על ארבע מאות פרסה יצתה בת קול ואמרה מי הוא זה שגילה סתריי לבני אדם,עמד יונתן בן עוזיאל על רגליו ואמר אני הוא שגליתי סתריך לבני אדם גלוי וידוע לפניך שלא לכבודי עשיתי ולא לכבוד בית אבא אלא לכבודך עשיתי שלא ירבו מחלוקת בישראל,ועוד ביקש לגלות תרגום של כתובים יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו דייך מ"ט משום דאית ביה קץ משיח,ותרגום של תורה אונקלוס הגר אמרו והא אמר רב איקא בר אבין אמר רב חננאל אמר רב מאי דכתיב (נחמיה ח, ח) ויקראו בספר תורת האלהים מפורש ושום שכל ויבינו במקרא ויקראו בספר תורת האלהים זה מקרא מפורש זה תרגום,ושום שכל אלו הפסוקין ויבינו במקרא אלו פיסקי טעמים ואמרי לה אלו המסורת שכחום וחזרו ויסדום,מאי שנא דאורייתא דלא אזדעזעה ואדנביאי אזדעזעה דאורייתא מיפרשא מלתא דנביאי איכא מילי דמיפרשן ואיכא מילי דמסתמן דכתיב (זכריה יב, יא) ביום ההוא יגדל המספד בירושלם כמספד הדדרימון בבקעת מגידון,ואמר רב יוסף אלמלא תרגומא דהאי קרא לא ידענא מאי קאמר ביומא ההוא יסגי מספדא בירושלים כמספדא דאחאב בר עמרי דקטל יתיה הדדרימון בן טברימון ברמות גלעד וכמספדא דיאשיה בר אמון דקטל יתיה פרעה חגירא בבקעת מגידו,(דניאל י, ז) וראיתי אני דניאל לבדי את המראה והאנשים אשר היו עמי לא ראו את המראה אבל חרדה גדולה נפלה עליהם ויברחו בהחבא מאן נינהו אנשים אמר ר' ירמיה ואיתימא רבי חייא בר אבא זה חגי זכריה ומלאכי,אינהו עדיפי מיניה ואיהו עדיף מינייהו אינהו עדיפי מיניה דאינהו נביאי ואיהו לאו נביא איהו עדיף מינייהו דאיהו חזא ואינהו לא חזו,וכי מאחר דלא חזו מ"ט איבעיתו אע"ג דאינהו לא חזו מזלייהו חזו,אמר רבינא שמע מינה האי מאן דמיבעית אע"ג דאיהו לא חזי מזליה חזי מאי תקנתיה ליקרי ק"ש ואי קאים במקום הטנופת לינשוף מדוכתיה ארבע גרמידי ואי לא לימא הכי עיזא דבי טבחי שמינא מינאי:,והשתא דאמרת מדינה ומדינה ועיר ועיר לדרשה משפחה ומשפחה למאי אתא אמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא להביא משפחות כהונה ולויה שמבטלין עבודתן ובאין לשמוע מקרא מגילה,דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב כהנים בעבודתן ולוים בדוכנן וישראל במעמדן כולן מבטלין עבודתן ובאין לשמוע מקרא מגילה,תניא נמי הכי כהנים בעבודתן ולוים בדוכנן וישראל במעמדן כולן מבטלין עבודתן ובאין לשמוע מקרא מגילה מכאן סמכו של בית רבי שמבטלין תלמוד תורה ובאין לשמוע מקרא מגילה קל וחומר מעבודה ומה עבודה שהיא חמורה מבטלינן תלמוד תורה לא כל שכן,ועבודה חמורה מתלמוד תורה והכתיב (יהושע ה, יג) ויהי בהיות יהושע ביריחו וישא עיניו וירא והנה איש עומד לנגדו [וגו'] וישתחו (לאפיו),והיכי עביד הכי והאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי אסור לאדם שיתן שלום לחבירו בלילה חיישינן שמא שד הוא שאני התם דאמר ליה כי אני שר צבא ה',ודלמא משקרי גמירי דלא מפקי שם שמים לבטלה,אמר לו אמש בטלתם תמיד של בין הערבים ועכשיו בטלתם תלמוד תורה אמר לו על איזה מהן באת אמר לו עתה באתי מיד (יהושע ח, ט) וילן יהושע בלילה ההוא בתוך העמק אמר רבי יוחנן | 3a. b stood by way of a miracle? /b ,The Gemara answers: b Yes, /b two forms of these letters b did exist /b at that time, b but /b the people b did not know which /b one of them was to be used b in the middle of the word and which at the end of the word, and the Seers came and established /b that b the open /b forms are to used be b in the middle of the word and the closed /b forms b at the end of the word. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Ultimately, /b however, doesn’t the phrase b “these are the commandments” /b (Leviticus 27:34) indicate b that a prophet is not permitted to initiate any matter /b of i halakha /i b from now on? Rather, /b it may be suggested that the final letters already existed at the time of the giving of the Torah, but over the course of time the people b forgot them, /b and the prophets b then /b came and b reestablished them. /b ,§ The Gemara cites another ruling of Rabbi Yirmeya or Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. b Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say /b that it was b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba /b who said: b The /b Aramaic b translation of the Torah /b used in the synagogues b was composed by Onkelos the convert based on /b the teachings of b Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. The /b Aramaic b translation of the Prophets was composed by Yonatan ben Uzziel based on /b a tradition going back to the last prophets, b Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. /b The Gemara relates that when Yonatan ben Uzziel wrote his translation, b Eretz Yisrael quaked /b over an area of b four hundred parasangs [ i parsa /i ] by four hundred parasangs, /b and b a Divine Voice emerged and said: Who is this who has revealed My secrets to mankind? /b , b Yonatan ben Uzziel stood up on his feet and said: I am the one who has revealed Your secrets to mankind /b through my translation. However, b it is revealed and known to You that I did this not for my /b own b honor, and not for the honor of the house of /b my b father, but rather /b it was b for Your honor /b that b I did this, so that discord not increase among the Jewish people. /b In the absence of an accepted translation, people will disagree about the meaning of obscure verses, but with a translation, the meaning will be clear., b And /b Yonatan ben Uzziel b also sought to reveal a translation of the Writings, /b but b a Divine Voice emerged and said to him: It is enough for you /b that you translated the Prophets. The Gemara explains: b What is the reason /b that he was denied permission to translate the Writings? b Because it has in it /b a revelation of b the end, /b when the b Messiah /b will arrive. The end is foretold in a cryptic manner in the book of Daniel, and were the book of Daniel translated, the end would become manifestly revealed to all.,The Gemara asks: b Was the translation of the Torah /b really b composed by Onkelos the convert? Didn’t Rav Ika bar Avin say /b that b Rav Ḥael said /b that b Rav said: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written /b with respect to the days of Ezra: b “And they read in the book, the Torah of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, and they caused them to understand the reading” /b (Nehemiah 8:8)? The verse should be understood as follows: b “And they read in the book, the Torah of God,” this is the /b scriptural b text; “distinctly,” this is the translation, /b indicating that they immediately translated the text into Aramaic, as was customary during public Torah readings., b “And they gave the sense,” these are /b the divisions of the text into separate b verses. “And they caused them to understand the reading,” these are the cantillation notes, /b through which the meaning of the text is further clarified. b And some say /b that b these are the /b Masoretic b traditions /b with regard to the manner in which each word is to be written. This indicates that the Aramaic translation already existed at the beginning of the Second Temple period, well before the time of Onkelos. The Gemara answers: b The /b ancient Aramaic translation b was forgotten and then /b Onkelos came and b reestablished it. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is different /b about the translation of Prophets? Why is it that when Onkelos revealed the translation b of the Torah, /b Eretz Yisrael b did not quake, and /b when he revealed the translation b of the Prophets, it quaked? /b The Gemara explains: b The /b meaning of b matters /b discussed b in the Torah is clear, /b and therefore its Aramaic translation did not reveal the meaning of passages that had not been understood previously. Conversely, in b the Prophets, there are matters that are clear and there are matters that are obscure, /b and the Aramaic translation revealed the meaning of obscure passages. The Gemara cites an example of an obscure verse that is clarified by the Aramaic translation: b As it is written: “On that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon” /b (Zechariah 12:11)., b And /b with regard to that verse, b Rav Yosef said: Were it not for the /b Aramaic b translation of this verse, we would not have known what it is saying, /b as the Bible does not mention any incident involving Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. The Aramaic translation reads as follows: b On that day, the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Ahab, son of Omri, who was slain by Hadadrimmon, son of Tavrimon, in Ramoth-Gilead, and like the mourning for Josiah, son of Amon, who was slain by Pharaoh the lame in the valley of Megiddon. /b The translation clarifies that the verse is referring to two separate incidents of mourning, and thereby clarifies the meaning of this verse.,§ The Gemara introduces another statement from the same line of tradition. The verse states: b “And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me did not see the vision; but a great trembling fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves” /b (Daniel 10:7). b Who were these men? /b The term “men” in the Bible indicates important people; who were they? b Rabbi Yirmeya said, and some say /b that it was b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba /b who said: b These are /b the prophets b Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. /b ,The Gemara comments: In certain ways b they, /b the prophets, b were greater than him, /b Daniel, and in certain ways b he, /b Daniel, b was greater than them. They were greater than him, as they were prophets and he was not a prophet. /b Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were sent to convey the word of God to the Jewish people, while Daniel was not sent to reveal his visions to others. In another way, however, b he was greater than them, as he saw /b this vision, b and they did not see /b this vision, indicating that his ability to perceive obscure and cryptic visions was greater than theirs.,The Gemara asks: b Since they did not see /b the vision, b what is the reason that they were frightened? /b The Gemara answers: b Even though they did not see /b the vision, b their guardian angels saw /b it, and therefore they sensed that there was something fearful there and they fled., b Ravina said: Learn from /b this incident that with regard to b one who is frightened /b for no apparent reason, b although he does not see /b anything menacing, b his guardian angel sees /b it, and therefore he should take steps in order to escape the danger. The Gemara asks: b What is his remedy? He should recite i Shema /i , /b which will afford him protection. b And if he is standing in a place of filth, /b where it is prohibited to recite verses from the Torah, b he should distance himself four cubits from his /b current b location /b in order to escape the danger. b And if /b he is b not /b able to do so, b let him say the following /b incantation: b The goat of the slaughterhouse is fatter than I am, /b and if a calamity must fall upon something, it should fall upon it.,§ After this digression, the Gemara returns to the exposition of a verse cited above. b Now /b that b you have said /b that the phrases b “every province” and “every city” /b appear b for /b the purposes of midrashic b exposition, for what /b exposition do the words b “every family” /b appear in that same verse (Esther 9:28)? b Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: /b These words come b to include the priestly and Levitical families, /b and indicate b that they cancel their service /b in the Temple b and come to hear the reading of the Megilla. /b , b As Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: The priests at their /b Temple b service, the Levites on their platform /b in the Temple, where they sung the daily psalm, b and the Israelites at their watches, /b i.e., the group of Israelites, corresponding to the priestly watches, who would come to Jerusalem and gather in other locations as representatives of the entire nation to observe or pray for the success of the Temple service, b all cancel their service and come to hear the reading of the Megilla. /b , b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The priests at their service, the Levites on the platform, and the Israelites at their watches, all cancel their service and come to hear the reading of the Megilla. /b The Sages of b the house of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b relied /b upon the i halakha /i stated b here /b and determined b that one cancels his Torah study and comes to hear the reading of the Megilla. /b They derived this principle by means of b an i a fortiori /i /b inference b from the /b Temple b service: Just as /b one who is engaged in performing b service /b in the Temple, b which is /b very b important, cancels /b his service in order to hear the Megilla, is it b not all the more so /b obvious that one who is engaged in b Torah study /b cancels his study to hear the Megilla?,The Gemara asks: b Is the /b Temple b service more important than Torah study? Isn’t it written: “And it came to pass when Joshua was by Jericho that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man stood over against him /b with his sword drawn in his hand. And Joshua went over to him and said to him: Are you for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, No, but I am captain of the host of the Lord, I have come now. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, b and bowed down” /b (Joshua 5:13–14).,The Gemara first seeks to clarify the incident described in the verse. b How did /b Joshua b do this, /b i.e., how could he bow to a figure he did not recognize? b Didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: It is prohibited for a person to greet his fellow at night /b if he does not recognize him, as b we are concerned that perhaps it is a demon? /b How did Joshua know that it was not a demon? The Gemara answers: b There it was different, as /b the visitor b said to him: But I am captain of the host of the Lord. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Perhaps /b this was a demon b and he lied? /b The Gemara answers: It b is learned /b as a tradition that demons b do not utter the name of Heaven for naught, /b and therefore since the visitor had mentioned the name of God, Joshua was certain that this was indeed an angel.,As for the angel’s mission, the Gemara explains that the angel b said to /b Joshua: b Yesterday, /b i.e., during the afternoon, b you neglected the afternoon daily offering /b due to the impending battle, b and now, /b at night, b you have neglected Torah study, /b and I have come to rebuke you. Joshua b said to him: For which of these /b sins b have you come? He said to him: I have come now, /b indicating that neglecting Torah study is more severe than neglecting to sacrifice the daily offering. Joshua b immediately /b determined to rectify the matter, as the verses states: b “And Joshua lodged that night” /b (Joshua 8:9) b “in the midst of the valley /b [ b i ha’emek /i /b ]” (Joshua 8:13), and b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b |
|
5. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amei ha'aretz (non-rabbinic jews), extreme hatred directed against •amei ha'aretz (non-rabbinic jews), extreme hatred directed against, rabbis originating from amongst Found in books: Kalmin (1998) 45, 46| 49b. ואינו מתקבל:,תנו רבנן לעולם ימכור אדם כל מה שיש לו וישא בת תלמיד חכם לא מצא בת תלמיד חכם ישא בת גדולי הדור לא מצא בת גדולי הדור ישא בת ראשי כנסיות לא מצא בת ראשי כנסיות ישא בת גבאי צדקה לא מצא בת גבאי צדקה ישא בת מלמדי תינוקות ולא ישא בת עמי הארץ מפני שהן שקץ ונשותיהן שרץ ועל בנותיהן הוא אומר (דברים כז, כא) ארור שוכב עם כל בהמה,תניא ר' אומר עם הארץ אסור לאכול בשר (בהמה) שנאמר (ויקרא יא, מו) זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף כל העוסק בתורה מותר לאכול בשר בהמה ועוף וכל שאינו עוסק בתורה אסור לאכול בשר בהמה ועוף:,אמר רבי אלעזר עם הארץ מותר לנוחרו ביום הכיפורים שחל להיות בשבת אמרו לו תלמידיו ר' אמור לשוחטו אמר להן זה טעון ברכה וזה אינו טעון ברכה:,אמר רבי אלעזר עם הארץ אסור להתלוות עמו בדרך שנאמר (דברים ל, כ) כי היא חייך ואורך ימיך על חייו לא חס על חיי חבירו לא כל שכן,אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יוחנן עם הארץ מותר לקורעו כדג אמר רבי שמואל בר יצחק ומגבו:,תניא אמר רבי עקיבא כשהייתי עם הארץ אמרתי מי יתן לי תלמיד חכם ואנשכנו כחמור אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי אמור ככלב אמר להן זה נושך ושובר עצם וזה נושך ואינו שובר עצם:,תניא היה רבי מאיר אומר כל המשיא בתו לעם הארץ כאילו כופתה ומניחה לפני ארי מה ארי דורס ואוכל ואין לו בושת פנים אף עם הארץ מכה ובועל ואין לו בושת פנים:,תניא רבי אליעזר אומר אילמלא אנו צריכין להם למשא ומתן היו הורגין אותנו,תנא רבי חייא כל העוסק בתורה לפני עם הארץ כאילו בועל ארוסתו בפניו שנאמר (דברים לג, ד) תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה אל תקרי מורשה אלא מאורסה,גדולה שנאה ששונאין עמי הארץ לתלמיד חכם יותר משנאה ששונאין עובדי כוכבים את ישראל ונשותיהן יותר מהן: תנא שנה ופירש יותר מכולן,תנו רבנן ששה דברים נאמרו בעמי הארץ אין מוסרין להן עדות ואין מקבלין ממנו עדות ואין מגלין להן סוד ואין ממנין אותן אפוטרופוס על היתומים ואין ממנין אותן אפוטרופוס על קופה של צדקה ואין מתלוין עמהן בדרך ויש אומרים אף אין מכריזין על אבידתו,ותנא קמא זמנין דנפיק מיניה זרעא מעליא ואכיל ליה שנאמר (איוב כז, יז) יכין וצדיק ילבש:,וכן מי שיצא וכו':,למימרא דרבי מאיר סבר כביצה הוא דחשיב ורבי יהודה סבר כזית נמי חשיב ורמינהי עד כמה הן מזמנין עד כזית ורבי יהודה אומר עד כביצה,אמר רבי יוחנן מוחלפת השיטה,אביי אמר לעולם לא תיפוך התם בקראי פליגי הכא בסברא פליגי התם בקראי פליגי רבי מאיר סבר (דברים ח, י) ואכלת זו אכילה ושבעת זו שתיה ואכילה בכזית ורבי יהודה סבר ואכלת ושבעת אכילה שיש בה שביעה ואיזו זו בכביצה,הכא בסברא פליגי דרבי מאיר סבר חזרתו כטומאתו מה טומאתו בכביצה אף חזרתו בכביצה ור' יהודה סבר חזרתו | 49b. b and unacceptable. /b , b The Sages taught: A person should always /b be willing to b sell all he has /b in order to b marry the daughter of a Torah scholar. /b If b he cannot find the daughter of a Torah scholar, he should marry the daughter of /b one of the b great /b people b of the generation, /b who are pious although they are not Torah scholars. If b he cannot find the daughter of /b one of the b great /b people b of the generation, he should marry the daughter of /b one of b the heads of the congregations. /b If b he cannot find the daughter of /b one of b the heads of the congregations, he should marry the daughter of /b one of b the charity collectors. /b If b he cannot find the daughter of /b one of b the charity collectors, he should marry the daughter of /b one of b the schoolteachers. /b However, b he should not marry the daughter of an ignoramus [ i am ha’aretz /i ] because they are vermin and their wives are /b similar to b a creeping animal, /b as their lifestyle involves the violation of numerous prohibitions. b And with regard to their daughters /b the verse b states: “Cursed is he who lies with an animal” /b (Deuteronomy 27:21), as they are similar to animals in that they lack any knowledge or moral sense.,The Gemara continues its discussion with regard to an ignoramus. b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: It is prohibited for an ignoramus to eat meat, as it is stated: “This is the law [ i torah /i ] of the beast and of the fowl” /b (Leviticus 11:46). He expounds: b Anyone who engages in Torah /b study b is permitted to eat the meat of animals and fowl, and anyone who does not engage in Torah /b study b is prohibited to eat the meat of animals or fowl. /b ,The Gemara proceeds to mention some sharply negative statements of the Sages in which they overstated their negative sentiments with regard to ignoramuses, although these ignoramuses were wicked in addition to being boors ( i ge’onim /i ). b Rabbi Elazar said: It is permitted to stab an ignoramus /b to death b on Yom Kippur that occurs on Shabbat. His students said to him: Master, /b at least b say /b that it is permitted b to slaughter him. He said to them: /b I intentionally used the word stab, as b this /b term, slaughtering, b requires a blessing /b when one slaughters an animal, b and that /b term, stabbing, b does not require a blessing /b in any context., b Rabbi Elazar said: It is prohibited to accompany an ignoramus /b while traveling b on the road /b due to concern that the ignoramus might try to harm his traveling partner, b as it is stated /b with regard to Torah: b “For it is your life and the length of your days” /b (Deuteronomy 30:20). An ignoramus has not studied any Torah, indicating that b he is not concerned about his own life; /b with regard b to another’s life, all the more so. /b , b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: It is permitted to tear /b open b an ignoramus like a fish. Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: And /b one may cut him open b from his back /b and thereby cause his immediate death by piercing his spinal cord rather than his stomach., b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Akiva said: When I was an ignoramus I said: Who will give me a Torah scholar /b so that b I will bite him like a donkey? His students said to him: Master, say /b that you would bite him b like a dog! He said to them: /b I specifically used that wording, as b this one, /b a donkey, b bites and breaks bones, and that one, /b a dog, b bites but does not break bones. /b , b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Meir would say: Anyone who marries off his daughter to an ignoramus /b is considered b as though he binds her and places her before a lion. /b Why is this so? b Just as a lion mauls /b its prey b and eats and has no shame, so too, an ignoramus strikes /b his wife b and /b then b engages in sexual relations /b with her without appeasing her first, b and has no shame. /b , b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer says: If we did not need /b the ignoramuses b for business, they would kill us. /b ,The Gemara shifts to a discussion of an ignoramus who has some degree of sensitivity ( i Me’iri /i ). b Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Anyone who engages in Torah /b study b in the presence of an ignoramus, /b causing the ignoramus embarrassment and anguish over his inability to study Torah, b is considered as though he had sexual relations with /b the ignoramus’s b betrothed /b bride b in his presence, as it is stated: “Moses commanded us the Torah, an inheritance /b [ b i morasha /i /b ] for the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4). b Do not read it /b as b inheritance [ i morasha /i ]; rather, /b read it as b betrothed [ i me’orasa /i ]. /b The Torah is compared to the betrothed bride of the Jewish people until one studies it and thereby consummates his marriage with it.,Similarly, he said: b The hatred which ignoramuses have for a Torah scholar is greater than the hatred that the nations of the world have for the Jewish people. And /b the b wives /b of the ignoramuses hate Torah scholars b more than /b the ignoramuses themselves. b It was taught /b in the i Tosefta /i that one b who studied /b Torah b and left /b his studies hates Torah scholars b more than all of them. /b , b The Sages taught: Six statements were made with regard to ignoramuses: One may not entrust them with testimony, /b i.e., one may not appoint them as witnesses to a particular event or transaction. Additionally, b one may not accept testimony from them, /b as they are not considered trustworthy, and b one should not reveal a secret to them, /b as they will reveal it. b One may not appoint them as steward [ i apotropos /i ] over /b an estate belonging to b orphans, /b due to concern that they might make improper use of the orphans’ property. Likewise, b one may not appoint them as guardian over a charity fund. /b Finally, b one should not accompany them /b while traveling b on the road, /b due to concern for one’s safety. b And there are those who say: One does not even announce their lost /b items, meaning that if one finds a lost article from such a person, he is allowed to keep it without making an effort to locate the owner ( i Me’iri /i ).,The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of b the first i tanna /i , /b who holds that one must announce having found the lost article of an ignoramus? The Gemara explains: b Sometimes upstanding offspring will come from him and will consume /b the property, b as it is stated: “He may prepare it but the just shall put it on” /b (Job 27:17). It is possible for a wicked person to prepare something for himself that will later be used by a righteous person.,The Gemara returns to explaining the mishna. It was taught: b And so too, one who left /b Jerusalem with sacrificial meat in his possession must return to Jerusalem to burn it, just as one is required to return in order to remove leaven from his possession. According to Rabbi Meir, this i halakha /i applies with regard to an egg-bulk of sacrificial meat or leaven, whereas Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says the minimum amount for both is an olive-bulk.,The Gemara asks: b Is that to say that Rabbi Meir holds /b that b an egg-bulk is /b the minimal amount that is considered b significant, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that an olive-bulk is also /b considered b significant? /b The Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from a mishna in i Berakhot /i : b How much /b food must one eat in order b to obligate /b those with whom he ate b in a i zimmun /i ? An olive-bulk /b of food is sufficient according to the unattributed opinion in the mishna, which is generally that of Rabbi Meir. b And Rabbi Yehuda says: An egg-bulk /b is the minimum measure to obligate those with whom one ate in a i zimmun /i . This seems to contradict the opinions of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda stated in the mishna here., b Rabbi Yoḥa said: The opinions are reversed /b in one of these sources, and must be emended., b Abaye said: Actually, do not reverse /b the opinions. b There, they disagree with regard to /b the interpretation of b verses, /b while b here, they disagree with regard to logical reasoning. /b How so? b There, /b with regard to i zimmun /i , b they disagree with regard to /b the interpretation of b verses. Rabbi Meir holds /b that the verse: “And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:10) should be understood as follows: b “And you shall eat,” that is eating; “and be satisfied,” that is drinking. /b The standard halakhic principle is that b eating /b is defined as the consumption of b an olive-bulk. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: “And you shall eat and you shall be satisfied” /b refers b to eating that includes satisfaction. And what is /b considered eating with satisfaction? It is consumption of b an egg-bulk. /b ,However, b here, /b in the cases of leaven and consecrated food, b they disagree /b not with regard to the interpretation of verses but b with regard to logical reasoning, as Rabbi Meir holds: /b The requirement to b return /b consecrated food b is analogous to its ritual impurity. Just as its /b susceptibility to b ritual impurity is /b only when it is the size of an b egg-bulk, so too, /b the requirement to b return it is /b only when it is the size of an b egg-bulk. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: /b The requirement to b return /b consecrated food |
|
6. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amei ha'aretz (non-rabbinic jews), extreme hatred directed against, rabbis originating from amongst Found in books: Kalmin (1998) 47| 23b. ומפני ביטול עניים שלא יהו עניים יושבין ומשמרין עכשיו מניח בעה"ב פאה ומפני חשד שלא יהיו עוברין ושבין אומרים תבא מארה לאדם שלא הניח פאה בשדהו ומשום (ויקרא יט, ט) בל תכלה אטו כולהו לאו משום בל תכלה נינהו אמר רבא מפני הרמאין:,אמר רב יצחק בר רדיפה א"ר הונא נר שיש לה שני פיות עולה לב' בני אדם אמר רבא מילא קערה שמן והקיפה פתילות כפה עליה כלי עולה לכמה בני אדם לא כפה עליה כלי עשאה כמין מדורה ואפילו לאחד נמי אינה עולה:,אמר רבא פשיטא לי נר ביתו ונר חנוכה נר ביתו עדיף משום שלום ביתו נר ביתו וקידוש היום נר ביתו עדיף משום שלום ביתו בעי רבא נר חנוכה וקידוש היום מהו קידוש היום עדיף דתדיר או דילמא נר חנוכה עדיף משום פרסומי ניסא בתר דאבעיא הדר פשטה נר חנוכה עדיף משום פרסומי ניסא:,אמר רב הונא הרגיל בנר הויין ליה בנים תלמידי חכמים הזהיר במזוזה זוכה לדירה נאה הזהיר בציצית זוכה לטלית נאה הזהיר בקידוש היום זוכה וממלא גרבי יין רב הונא הוה רגיל דהוה חליף ותני אפתחא דרבי אבין נגרא חזא דהוה רגיל בשרגי טובא אמר תרי גברי רברבי נפקי מהכא נפקי מינייהו רב אידי בר אבין ורב חייא בר אבין רב חסדא הוה רגיל דהוה חליף ותני אפיתחא דבי נשא דרב שיזבי חזא דהוה רגיל בשרגי טובא אמר גברא רבא נפק מהכא נפק מינייהו רב שיזבי,דביתהו דרב יוסף הות מאחרה ומדלקת לה אמר לה רב יוסף תניא (שמות יג, כב) לא ימיש עמוד הענן יומם ועמוד האש לילה מלמד שעמוד ענן משלים לעמוד האש ועמוד האש משלים לעמוד הענן סברה לאקדומה אמר לה ההוא סבא תנינא ובלבד שלא יקדים ושלא יאחר:,אמר רבא דרחים רבנן הוו ליה בנין רבנן דמוקיר רבנן הוו ליה חתנוותא רבנן דדחיל מרבנן הוא גופיה הוי צורבא מרבנן ואי לאו בר הכי הוא משתמען מיליה כצורבא מרבנן:,ולא בשמן שריפה וכו': מאי שמן שריפה אמר רבה שמן של תרומה שנטמאה ואמאי קרו לה שמן שריפה הואיל ולשריפה עומד ובשבת מ"ט לא מתוך שמצוה עליו לבערו גזרה שמא יטה א"ל אביי אלא מעתה ביו"ט לישתרי אלמה תנן אין מדליקין בשמן שריפה ביו"ט גזרה י"ט אטו שבת,רב חסדא אמר לשמא יטה לא חיישינן אלא הכא ביו"ט שחל להיות ע"ש עסקינן לפי שאין שורפין קדשים ביו"ט והא מדקתני סיפא אין מדליקין בשמן שרפה ביו"ט מכלל דרישא לאו ביו"ט עסקי' א"ר חנינא מסורא מה טעם קאמר מה טעם אין מדליקין בשמן שריפה ביו"ט לפי שאין שורפין קדשים ביו"ט | 23b. b And due to causing the poor to be idle; /b so that the b poor, /b who have no way of knowing when he is going to cut the grain and where in the field he is going to leave the i pe /i ’ i a /i , b will not be sitting and observing /b until he designates the i pe /i ’ i a /i and constantly saying to themselves: b Now the owner /b of the field b is placing i pe /i ’ i a /i . /b Now that he leaves the i pe /i ’ i a /i in a defined area at the end of his field, and the poor people know exactly where they can receive their portion, they need not waste their time in anticipation. b And due to suspicion; /b if one leaves the i pe /i ’ i a /i in the middle of the field, the poor will come and take their portion immediately when he designates the area of i pe /i ’ i a /i . When the owner then continues to cut and harvest the rest of the grain in the field, the i pe /i ’ i a /i will not be noticeable. Insisting that he leave i pe /i ’ i a /i at the end of the field ensures b that passersby will not say: A person who did not leave i pe /i ’ i a /i in his field should be cursed. /b We learned that the fourth reason is b due to /b the verse: b You shall not wholly reap. /b The Gemara wonders: b Aren’t all of /b these reasons b due to: You shall not wholly reap? /b All of the reasons explain that one may not reap his entire field and must leave i pe /i ’ i a /i at the end of his field. b Rava said: /b The meaning of the last reason is that i pe’a /i is separated that way b due to cheaters. /b There is concern that a person would not leave i pe /i ’ i a /i at all. He would claim that he already separated it in the middle of his field and that the poor already came and took it. In order to bolster the mitzva of i pe /i ’ i a /i , the Sages instituted that it must be separated specifically at the end of one’s field. In terms of the discussion in the Gemara, apparently, the desire to avoid arousing suspicion is a factor taken into consideration in determining i halakha /i ., b Rav Yitzḥak bar Redifa said /b that b Rav Huna said: Lighting an oil lamp that has two spouts, /b with one wick placed in each of the spouts, b is considered /b to have fulfilled the obligation of kindling the Hanukkah light b for two people. /b Similarly, b Rava said: One who filled a bowl /b with b oil and placed wicks all around it, /b if b he overturned a vessel on top of it, it is considered /b to have fulfilled the obligation of lighting the Hanukkah light b for several people, /b corresponding to the number of wicks. By overturning a vessel atop the bowl, each wick appears to be burning independently. If b one did not overturn a vessel on top of it, he /b thereby b made it /b appear b like a type of bonfire. /b From afar, the light from all of the flames appear to be a single flame. b And it is not even considered /b to have fulfilled the obligation of lighting the Hanukkah light b for one /b person because the mitzva is specifically to light a flame and not a bonfire., b Rava said: It is obvious to me /b that there is a fixed list of priorities. When a person is poor and must choose between purchasing oil to light b a /b Shabbat b lamp for his home /b or purchasing oil to light b a Hanukkah lamp, /b the Shabbat b lamp for his home takes precedence. /b That is b due to peace /b in b his home; /b without the light of that lamp, his family would be sitting and eating their meal in the dark. Similarly, if there is a conflict between acquiring oil to light b a lamp for his home /b and wine for b the sanctification [ i kiddush /i ] of /b Shabbat b day, the lamp for his home takes precedence due to peace in his home. /b However, b Rava raised a dilemma: /b When the conflict is between oil for b a Hanukkah lamp /b or wine for b i kiddush /i of /b Shabbat b day, what is /b the ruling in that case? Does b i kiddush /i of /b Shabbat b day take priority /b because it is b frequent, /b i.e., it is performed every week, and there is a principle: When there is a conflict between a frequent practice and an infrequent practice, the frequent practice takes precedence? b Or, perhaps the Hanukkah lamp takes precedence due to publicity of the miracle? After he raised the dilemma, he then resolved it /b on his own and he ruled that, in that case, the b Hanukkah lamp takes precedence due to publicity of the miracle. /b , b Rav Huna said: One who is accustomed to /b kindle b lights /b on Shabbat and Hanukkah will be rewarded and b have children who are Torah scholars, /b who will disseminate the light of Torah. b One who is meticulous in /b performing the mitzva of b i mezuza /i merits a beautiful house /b on which to affix his i mezuza /i . b One who is meticulous in /b performing the mitzva of ritual fringes b merits a beautiful garment. One who is meticulous in /b performing the mitzva i of b kiddush /b /i b of the day merits and fills jugs of wine. /b The Gemara relates: b Rav Huna was accustomed to pass by and teach at the entrance of /b the house of b Rabbi Avin the carpenter. He saw that /b Rabbi Avin b was accustomed to /b kindle b many lights /b in honor of Shabbat. Rav Huna b said: Two great men /b will b emerge from here. /b Indeed, b Rav Idi bar Avin and Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin, /b his two oldest sons, b emerged from their /b family. On a similar note, the Gemara relates: b Rav Ḥisda was accustomed to pass by and teach at the entrance of Rav Sheizvi’s /b father’s family home. b He saw that /b Rav Sheizvi’s father b was accustomed /b to kindle b many lights /b in honor of Shabbat. Rav b Ḥisda said: A great person /b will b emerge from here. /b Indeed, b Rav Sheizvi emerged from them. /b ,The Gemara relates that b Rav Yosef’s wife would kindle the /b Shabbat lights b late. Rav Yosef said to her: Wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: b “The pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night, departed not /b from before the people” b ( /b Exodus 13:22), this b teaches that the pillar of cloud would overlap /b with b the pillar of fire? /b The pillar of fire would appear slightly before nightfall. b And the pillar of fire /b would b overlap /b with b the pillar of cloud, /b as well. The pillar of cloud would appear slightly before daybreak. Therefore, in lighting the Shabbat lights it is also appropriate to light earlier, beginning Shabbat slightly before dark on Shabbat eve. b She thought to /b kindle the lights much b earlier, /b on Shabbat eve, long before nightfall. b An Elder said to her, we learned: As long as he neither /b lights too b early nor /b too b late. /b ,Similar to the reward due one who kindles the Shabbat lights, b Rava said: One who loves Sages will have children who are Sages. One who honors Sages will have sons-in-law who are Sages. One who stands in awe of the Sages will himself become a Torah scholar. And if he is not capable /b and lacks the talent to become a Torah scholar, b his statements will be received like /b the statements of b a Torah scholar. /b ,We learned in the mishna that b one may not /b light b with burnt oil /b on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: b What is burnt oil? Rabba said: /b It is b oil of i teruma /i that became ritually impure. And why did they call it burnt oil? Because its burning is imminent, /b as it is prohibited to eat this oil and one is obligated to burn it. The Gemara asks: b And what is the reason /b that one may b not /b light with it b on Shabbat? /b The Gemara explains: b Because it is a mitzva to burn it, /b the Sages issued b a decree lest, /b in doing so, b he /b come to b adjust /b the wick in order to hasten its burning. b Abaye said to him: But if /b what you say b is so, /b that the reason for the prohibition is a concern lest he adjust it, then, b on a Festival, /b when adjusting a wick is permitted, b it should be permitted /b to light with burnt oil. b Why /b then b did we learn /b in the mishna: b One may not light with burnt oil /b even b on a Festival? /b The Gemara answers: It is b a decree /b issued by the Sages prohibiting burning it even on b a Festival, due to /b the prohibition to burn it on b Shabbat. /b , b Rav Ḥisda said: /b The reason for the prohibition against lighting a Shabbat lamp with burnt oil is different, as b we are not concerned lest one /b come to b adjust /b the wick. b Rather, here, /b in our mishna, b we are dealing with a Festival that fell on Shabbat eve, /b in which case he must kindle Shabbat lights on the Festival. One may not light a Shabbat lamp with burnt oil on a Festival b because one may not burn consecrated items on a Festival, /b a prohibition that applies to i teruma /i as well. The Gemara asks: b But from the fact that we learned in the latter clause, /b i.e., the next mishna, that b one may not light with burnt oil on a Festival, by inference, /b in b the first clause /b of the mishna b we are not dealing with a Festival /b but rather with a standard Shabbat. b Rabbi Ḥanina from Sura said: /b This mishna must be understood in the following manner: These are not two distinct i halakhot /i ; rather, this mishna was stated employing the didactic style of b what is the reason. What is the reason /b that b one may not light with burnt oil on a Festival /b or on a Festival that falls on Shabbat eve? It is b because one may not burn consecrated items on a Festival /b at all. |
|
7. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •amei ha'aretz (non-rabbinic jews), extreme hatred directed against, rabbis originating from amongst Found in books: Kalmin (1998) 47| 45b. מנו רב יהודה והא אמר רב יהודה מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין הבא על בת ישראל אותו ולד אין לו תקנה,כי איתמר דרב יהודה כגון דקדיש בת ישראל דנמצא צד עבדות שבו משתמש באשת איש,והאמרי נהרדעי משמיה דרבי יעקב לדברי הפוסל פוסל אפילו בפנויה לדברי המכשיר מכשיר אפי' באשת איש,ושניהם לא למדוה אלא מאשת אב מאן דפסיל סבר מה אשת אב דלא תפסי בה קדושין [הולד ממזר] אף כל דלא תפסי בה קדושין הולד ממזר,ומאן דמכשר סבר מה אשת אב דלדידיה לא תפסי בה קדושין לאחריני תפסי בה קדושין לאפוקי עובד כוכבים ועבד דלא תפסי בהו קדושין כלל,אלא כי איתמר דרב יהודה כגון שבא על אשת איש ונמצא צד חירות שבו משתמש באשת איש,אמר רבינא אמר לי רב גזא איקלע ר' יוסי בר אבין לאתרין והוה עובדא בפנויה ואכשר באשת איש ופסיל א"ר ששת לדידי אמר לי רב גזא לא ר' יוסי בר אבין הוה אלא רבי יוסי ברבי זבידא הוה ואכשר בין בפנויה בין באשת איש א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבה לרבינא איקלע אמימר לאתרין ואכשר בין בפנויה בין באשת איש,והלכתא עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד כשר בין בפנויה בין באשת איש,רבא אכשריה לרב מרי בר רחל ומנייה בפורסי דבבל ואע"ג דאמר מר (דברים יז, טו) שום תשים עליך מלך כל משימות שאתה משים אל יהו אלא מקרב אחיך האי כיון דאמו מישראל מקרב אחיך קרינן ביה,עבדיה דרבי חייא בר אמי אטבלה לההיא עובדת כוכבים לשם אנתתא אמר רב יוסף יכילנא לאכשורי בה ובברתה,בה כדרב אסי דאמר רב אסי מי לא טבלה לנדותה,בברתה עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד כשר,ההוא דהוו קרו ליה בר ארמייתא אמר רב אסי מי לא טבלה לנדותה ההוא דהוו קרו ליה בר ארמאה אמר ריב"ל מי לא טבל לקריו,אמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב הלוקח עבד מן העובד כוכבים וקדם וטבל לשם בן חורין קנה עצמו בן חורין מאי טעמא | 45b. b who is he? /b He is b Rav Yehuda, /b as the Gemara cited above. b But didn’t Rav Yehuda /b himself b say: /b With regard to b one who is a half-slave half-freeman who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, that offspring /b of that union b has no recourse /b to be able to marry? It is apparent, then, that even one who permits the offspring of a slave to marry into the congregation of Israel does not permit the offspring of a half-slave to do so, contrary to Rava’s assertion.,The Gemara resolves the difficulty: b When /b this ruling b of Rav Yehuda was stated, /b it was referring to a case b where /b the half-slave b betrothed a Jewish woman. /b Since a slave’s betrothal does not take effect, the result of that betrothal is that the woman is married to only the free half of the half-slave half-freeman, such b that it emerges /b that when he has relations with her, the b slave side of him is engaging in relations with a married woman /b to whom that side of him is not married, and so the offspring of that union is a i mamzer /i .,The Gemara raises an objection: b But didn’t /b the Sages b of Neharde’a say in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov: According to the statement of the one who renders /b the child of a gentile or slave and a Jewish woman b unfit /b to marry into the congregation of Israel, b he renders /b the child b unfit even when /b the mother is b an unmarried woman. /b And b according to the statement of the one who renders /b the child b fit, he renders /b the child b fit even when /b the mother b is a married woman. /b , b And both of them derived /b their opinions b only from /b the i halakha /i of one’s b father’s wife, /b as follows: b The one who renders /b the child b unfit holds /b that b just as /b with regard to one’s b father’s wife, /b one’s b betrothal of her does not take effect /b even after she is widowed or divorced, and so b the offspring /b of such a union b is a i mamzer /i , so too, /b with regard to b any /b one for whom b betrothal of her does not take effect, /b including a gentile or a slave, b the offspring is a i mamzer /i . /b , b And the one who renders /b the child b fit holds /b that the derivation from the i halakha /i of one’s father’s wife is more limited, and it is derived that the offspring is a i mamzer /i only in a case b just like /b one’s b father’s wife, /b in b that /b although his b betrothal of her does not take effect, with someone else /b his b betrothal /b of her b does take effect. /b This is b to the exclusion of a gentile and a slave, for whom betrothal /b of any Jewish woman b does not take effect at all, /b and so the offspring of such a union will not be a i mamzer /i . It is apparent from this statement of the Sages of Neharde’a that according to the lenient opinion, the offspring of a slave is never a i mamzer /i , irrespective of the marital status of the Jewish woman. Therefore, the Gemara’s resolution is undermined.,The Gemara offers a different resolution: b Rather, when /b this statement b of Rav Yehuda was stated, /b it was referring to a case b where /b the half-slave half-freeman b engaged in intercourse with a married woman /b who was married to someone else, b and it /b therefore b emerges /b that although the woman’s union with the slave side of him will not render the offspring a i mamzer /i , the b free side of him is engaging in relations with a married woman /b to whom he is not married, and due to that side of him the offspring is a i mamzer /i ., b Ravina said: Rav Gazza said to me /b that b Rabbi Yosei bar Avin /b once b happened /b to come b to our place, and there was an incident involving an unmarried woman /b who had engaged in intercourse with a slave, b and /b Rabbi Yosei bar Avin b rendered /b her offspring b fit /b to marry into the congregation of Israel. And there was another incident b involving a married woman /b who had engaged in intercourse with a slave, b and he rendered /b her offspring b unfit /b to marry into the congregation of Israel by ruling the offspring was a i mamzeret /i . b Rav Sheshet said: Rav Gazza told me /b that it was b not Rabbi Yosei bar Avin; rather, it was Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Zevida, and he rendered /b the offspring b fit both in /b the case of b an unmarried woman and in /b the case of b a married woman. Rav Aḥa, son of Rabba, said to Ravina: Ameimar /b once b happened /b to come b to our place and rendered /b the offspring b fit both in /b the case of b an unmarried woman and in /b the case of b a married woman. /b ,The Gemara concludes: b And the i halakha /i /b is that with regard to b a gentile or slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, /b the lineage of b the offspring is unflawed, whether /b she was b an unmarried or a married woman. /b ,The Gemara cites a related i halakha /i : b Rava ruled /b that b Rav Mari bar Raḥel, /b who was the son of a gentile father and a Jewish mother, was b fit /b to marry into the congregation of Israel, b and /b furthermore b he appointed him as one of the officials [ i pursei /i ] of Babylonia. And although the Master said /b that from the verse, b “You shall place a king over you /b whom the Lord your God shall chose; from among your brethren shall you place a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15) it is derived that not only with regard to the kingship but also with regard to b all positions /b of authority b that you appoint, /b the incumbents b may be /b selected b only from among your brethren /b who share your Jewish lineage. Nevertheless, with regard to b this one, /b i.e., Rav Mari bar Raḥel, b since his mother is of Jewish /b lineage, b we call him “from among your brethren,” /b and so he is eligible. br § A gentile slave purchased by a Jew must be circumcised and then immersed in a ritual bath. By being immersed for the sake of slavery, he takes on the status of a full slave, which, among other things, obligates him to keep certain mitzvot. However, if the slave, or any gentile, is immersed for the sake of conversion, he then becomes a full Jew and fully obligated in mitzvot like any other Jew.,The Gemara considers the result of different intentions accompanying an immersion: b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami’s slave immersed a certain gentile woman for the sake of /b having b intimate relations, /b i.e., to purify her from her menstrual impurity. b Rav Yosef said: I am able to render /b both b her and her daughter fit /b to marry into the congregation of Israel., b With regard to her, /b I can render her fit b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rav Asi, as Rav Asi said /b concerning a woman whose status as a convert was unclear but who lived as a part of the Jewish people and acted like all other Jewish women: b Didn’t she immerse for the sake of /b purifying herself from b her menstruation? /b Therefore, even if the original immersion was invalid, her intention in subsequent immersions was sufficient to be considered for the sake of conversion, since ultimately she immersed as an expression of her commitment to Judaism. She is therefore fully Jewish.,And b with regard to her daughter, /b she is the daughter of b a gentile or slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, /b and the i halakha /i is that the lineage of b the offspring is unflawed. /b ,The Gemara details the circumstances of Rav Asi’s ruling: There was b a certain /b man b whom /b people b would call: Son of the Aramean woman, /b as they cast aspersions on the validity of his mother’s conversion. With regard to that case, b Rav Asi said: Didn’t she immerse for the sake of /b purifying herself from b her menstruation? /b A similar incident is recounted: There was b a certain /b man b whom /b people b would call: Son of an Aramean man, /b as they cast aspersions on the validity of his father’s conversion. b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Didn’t he immerse for the sake of /b purifying himself from b his seminal emission? /b That intention is sufficient to consider the immersion an immersion for the sake of conversion., b Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said /b that b Rav said: /b In the case of a Jew b who purchased a slave from a gentile, and /b before he managed to immerse him for the sake of slavery the slave b preempted /b him b and immersed for the sake of /b conversion to render himself b a freeman, he /b thereby b acquired himself /b and becomes b a freeman, /b i.e., his immersion effects a full conversion and he is no longer a slave. b What is the reason /b for this i halakha /i ? |
|
