1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 12.12, 12.18 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 545| 12.12. "וּשְׂמַחְתֶּם לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אַתֶּם וּבְנֵיכֶם וּבְנֹתֵיכֶם וְעַבְדֵיכֶם וְאַמְהֹתֵיכֶם וְהַלֵּוִי אֲשֶׁר בְּשַׁעֲרֵיכֶם כִּי אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק וְנַחֲלָה אִתְּכֶם׃", 12.18. "כִּי אִם־לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ בַּמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ אַתָּה וּבִנְךָ וּבִתֶּךָ וְעַבְדְּךָ וַאֲמָתֶךָ וְהַלֵּוִי אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְשָׂמַחְתָּ לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכֹל מִשְׁלַח יָדֶךָ׃", | 12.12. "And ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God, ye, and your sons, and your daughters, and your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and the Levite that is within your gates, forasmuch as he hath no portion nor inheritance with you.", 12.18. "but thou shalt eat them before the LORD thy God in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, and the Levite that is within thy gates; and thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God in all that thou puttest thy hand unto.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, 1 Samuel, 30.13 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 549| 30.13. "וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ דָוִד לְמִי־אַתָּה וְאֵי מִזֶּה אָתָּה וַיֹּאמֶר נַעַר מִצְרִי אָנֹכִי עֶבֶד לְאִישׁ עֲמָלֵקִי וַיַּעַזְבֵנִי אֲדֹנִי כִּי חָלִיתִי הַיּוֹם שְׁלֹשָׁה׃", | 30.13. "And David said to him, To whom dost thou belong? and from where dost thou come? And he said, I am a young Miżrian man, servant to an ῾Amaleqite; and my master left me, because three days ago I fell sick.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 58.7 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 544| 58.7. "הֲלוֹא פָרֹס לָרָעֵב לַחְמֶךָ וַעֲנִיִּים מְרוּדִים תָּבִיא בָיִת כִּי־תִרְאֶה עָרֹם וְכִסִּיתוֹ וּמִבְּשָׂרְךָ לֹא תִתְעַלָּם׃", | 58.7. "Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, And that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? When thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, And that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 7.25 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 536| 7.25. "לְמִן־הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר יָצְאוּ אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וָאֶשְׁלַח אֲלֵיכֶם אֶת־כָּל־עֲבָדַי הַנְּבִיאִים יוֹם הַשְׁכֵּם וְשָׁלֹחַ׃", | 7.25. "even since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day; and though I have sent unto you all My servants the prophets, sending them daily betimes and often,", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Nehemiah, 12.10 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 533 | 12.10. "And Jeshua begot Joiakim, and Joiakim begot Eliashib, and Eliashib begot Joiada,", |
|
| 6. Plato, Laws, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 554 |
7. Plato, Phaedo, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 554| 62b. καὶ γὰρ ἂν δόξειεν, ἔφη ὁ Σωκράτης , οὕτω γ’ εἶναι ἄλογον: οὐ μέντοι ἀλλ’ ἴσως γ’ ἔχει τινὰ λόγον. ὁ μὲν οὖν ἐν ἀπορρήτοις λεγόμενος περὶ αὐτῶν λόγος, ὡς ἔν τινι φρουρᾷ ἐσμεν οἱ ἄνθρωποι καὶ οὐ δεῖ δὴ ἑαυτὸν ἐκ ταύτης λύειν οὐδ’ ἀποδιδράσκειν, μέγας τέ τίς μοι φαίνεται καὶ οὐ ῥᾴδιος διιδεῖν: οὐ μέντοι ἀλλὰ τόδε γέ μοι δοκεῖ, ὦ Κέβης , εὖ λέγεσθαι, τὸ θεοὺς εἶναι ἡμῶν τοὺς ἐπιμελουμένους καὶ ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἓν τῶν κτημάτων τοῖς θεοῖς εἶναι. ἢ σοὶ οὐ δοκεῖ οὕτως; ἔμοιγε, φησὶν ὁ Κέβης . | 62b. but perhaps there is some reason in it. Now the doctrine that is taught in secret about this matter, that we men are in a kind of prison and must not set ourselves free or run away, seems to me to be weighty and not easy to understand. But this at least, Cebes, I do believe is sound, that the gods are our guardians and that we men are one of the chattels of the gods. Do you not believe this? Yes, said Cebes, |
|
8. Hebrew Bible, 1 Chronicles, 5.29-5.41 (5th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 533| 5.29. "וּבְנֵי עַמְרָם אַהֲרֹן וּמֹשֶׁה וּמִרְיָם וּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר׃", 5.31. "וַאֲבִישׁוּעַ הוֹלִיד אֶת־בֻּקִּי וּבֻקִּי הוֹלִיד אֶת־עֻזִּי׃", 5.32. "וְעֻזִּי הוֹלִיד אֶת־זְרַחְיָה וּזְרַחְיָה הוֹלִיד אֶת־מְרָיוֹת׃", 5.33. "מְרָיוֹת הוֹלִיד אֶת־אֲמַרְיָה וַאֲמַרְיָה הוֹלִיד אֶת־אֲחִיטוּב׃", 5.34. "וַאֲחִיטוּב הוֹלִיד אֶת־צָדוֹק וְצָדוֹק הוֹלִיד אֶת־אֲחִימָעַץ׃", 5.35. "וַאֲחִימַעַץ הוֹלִיד אֶת־עֲזַרְיָה וַעֲזַרְיָה הוֹלִיד אֶת־יוֹחָנָן׃", 5.36. "וְיוֹחָנָן הוֹלִיד אֶת־עֲזַרְיָה הוּא אֲשֶׁר כִּהֵן בַּבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר־בָּנָה שְׁלֹמֹה בִּירוּשָׁלִָם׃", 5.37. "וַיּוֹלֶד עֲזַרְיָה אֶת־אֲמַרְיָה וַאֲמַרְיָה הוֹלִיד אֶת־אֲחִיטוּב׃", 5.38. "וַאֲחִיטוּב הוֹלִיד אֶת־צָדוֹק וְצָדוֹק הוֹלִיד אֶת־שַׁלּוּם׃", 5.39. "וְשַׁלּוּם הוֹלִיד אֶת־חִלְקִיָּה וְחִלְקִיָּה הוֹלִיד אֶת־עֲזַרְיָה׃", 5.41. "וִיהוֹצָדָק הָלַךְ בְּהַגְלוֹת יְהוָה אֶת־יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלִָם בְּיַד נְבֻכַדְנֶאצַּר׃", | 5.29. "And the children of Amram: Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam. And the sons of Aaron: Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.", 5.30. "Eleazar begot Phinehas, Phinehas begot Abishua;", 5.31. "and Abishua begot Bukki, and Bukki begot Uzzi;", 5.32. "and Uzzi begot Zerahiah, and Zerahiah begot Meraioth;", 5.33. "Meraioth begot Amariah, and Amariah begot Ahitub;", 5.34. "and Ahitub begot Zadok, and Zadok begot Ahimaaz;", 5.35. "and Ahimaaz begot Azariah, and Azariah begot Joha;", 5.36. "and Joha begot Azariah—he it is that executed the priest’s office in the house that Solomon built in Jerusalem—:", 5.37. "and Azariah begot Amariah, and Amariah begot Ahitub;", 5.38. "and Ahitub begot Zadok, and Zadok begot Shallum;", 5.39. "and Shallum begot Hilkiah, and Hilkiah begot Azariah;", 5.40. "and Azariah begot Seraiah, and Seraiah begot Jehozadak;", 5.41. "and Jehozadak went into captivity, when the LORD carried away Judah and Jerusalem by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.", |
|
| 9. Theopompus of Chios, Fragments, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 546 |
| 10. Theophrastus, Characters, 22.10 (4th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 547 |
| 11. Menander, Heros, 13 (4th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 546 |
| 12. Aristotle, Metaphysics, None (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 549, 551 |
| 13. Plautus, Epidicus, 725 (3rd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 544 |
| 14. Plautus, Casina, 293, 705 (3rd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 544 |
| 15. Plautus, Rudens, 112 (3rd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 548 |
| 16. Plautus, Stichus, 550, 60, 420 (3rd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 544 |
17. Cato, Marcus Porcius, On Agriculture, 2 (3rd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 549 | 2. Besides, at Marathon, and again at Plataea, Aristides was only one of ten generals, while Cato was elected one of two consuls out of many competitors, and one of two censors over the heads of seven of the foremost and most illustrious Romans, who stood for the office with him. Furthermore, Aristides was not the foremost man in any one of his victories, but Miltiades has the chief honour of Marathon, Themistocles of Salamis, and at Plataea, Herodotus says it was Pausanias who won that fairest of all victories, while even for second honours Aristides has such rivals as Sophanes, Ameinias, Callimachus, and Cynaegeirus, who displayed the greatest valour in those actions. Cato, on the other hand, was not only chief in the plans and actions of the Spanish war during his own consulate, but also at Thermopylae, when he was but a tribune in the army and another was consul, he got the glory of the victory, opening up great mountain passes for the Romans to rush through upon Antiochus, and swinging the war round into the king's rear, when he had eyes only for what was in front of him. That victory was manifestly the work of Cato, and it not only drove Asia out of Hellas, but made it afterwards accessible to Scipio. It is true that both were always victorious in war, but in politics Aristides got a fall, being driven into a minority and ostracised by Themistocles. Cato, on the contrary, though he had for his antagonists almost all the greatest and ablest men in Rome, and though he kept on wrestling with them up to his old age, never lost his footing. He was involved in countless civil processes, both as plaintiff and defendant; as plaintiff, he often won his case, as defendant, he never lost it, thanks to that bulwark and efficacious weapon of his life, his eloquence. To this, more justly than to fortune and the guardian genius of the man, we may ascribe the fact that he was never visited with disgrace. That was a great tribute which was paid Aristotle the philosopher by Antipater, when he wrote concerning him, after his death, that in addition to all his other gifts, the man had also the gift of persuasion. 2. Near his fields was the cottage which had once belonged to Manius Curius, a hero of three triumphs. To this he would often go, and the sight of the small farm and the mean dwelling led him to think of their former owner, who, though he had become the greatest of the Romans, had subdued the most warlike nations, and driven Pyrrhus out of Italy, nevertheless tilled this little patch of ground with his own hands and occupied this cottage, after three triumphs. Here it was that the ambassadors of the Samnites once found him seated at his hearth cooking turnips, and offered him much gold; but he dismissed them, saying that a man whom such a meal satisfied had no need of gold, and for his part he thought that a more honourable thing than the possession of gold was the conquest of its possessors. Cato would go away with his mind full of these things, and on viewing again his own house and lands and servants and mode of life, would increase the labours of his hands and lop off his extravagancies. When Fabius Maximus took the city of Tarentum, it chanced that Cato, who was then a mere stripling, served under him, and being lodged with a certain Nearchus, of the sect of the Pythagoreans, he was eager to know of his doctrines. When he heard this man holding forth as follows, in language which Plato also uses, condemning pleasure as "the greatest incentive to evil," and the body as "the chief detriment to the soul, from which she can release and purify herself only by such reasonings as most do wean and divorce her from bodily sensations," he fell still more in love with simplicity and restraint. Further than this, it is said, he did not learn Greek till late in life, and was quite well on in years when he took to reading Greek books; then he profited in oratory somewhat from Thucydides, but most from Demosthenes. However, his writings are moderately embellished with Greek sentiments and stories, and many literal translations from the Greek have found a place among his maxims and proverbs. 2. While Cato was still a boy, the Italian allies of the Romans were making efforts to obtain Roman citizenship. One of their number, Pompaedius Silo, a man of experience in war and of the highest position, was a friend of Drusus, and lodged at his house for several days. During this time he became familiar with the children, and said to them once: "Come, beg your uncle to help us in our struggle for citizenship." Caepio, accordingly, consented with a smile, but Cato made no reply and gazed fixedly and fiercely upon the strangers. Then Pompaedius said: "But thou, young man, what sayest thou to us? Canst thou not take the part of the strangers with thy uncle, like thy brother?" And when Cato said not a word, but by his silence and the look on his face seemed to refuse the request, Pompaedius lifted him up through a window, as if he would cast him out, and ordered him to consent, or he would throw him down, at the same time making the tone of his voice harsher, and frequently shaking the boy as he held his body out at the window. But when Cato had endured this treatment for a long time without showing fright or fear, Pompaedius put him down, saying quietly to his friends: "What a piece of good fortune it is for Italy that he is a boy; for if he were a man, I do not think we could get a single vote among the people." At another time a relation of his who was celebrating a birthday, invited Cato and other boys to supper, and the company were diverting themselves at play in a separate part of the house, older and younger together, their play being actions at law, accusations, and the conducting of the condemned persons to prison. Accordingly, one of those thus condemned, a boy of comely looks, was led off by an older boy and shut into a chamber, where he called upon Cato for help. Then Cato, when he understood what was going on, quickly came to the door, pushed aside the boys who stood before it and tried to stop him, led forth the prisoner, and went off home with him in a passion, followed by other boys also. |
|
18. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), None (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 536 | 47.1. And after him Nathan rose up to prophesy in the days of David. 47.1. He gave beauty to the feasts,and arranged their times throughout the year,while they praised Gods holy name,and the sanctuary resounded from early morning. |
|
19. Terence, Andria, 676 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 544| 676. Ego Pamphile hoc tibi pro servitio debeo, | |
|
| 20. Varro, On Agriculture, 1.17.7 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 547 |
21. Terence, Phormio, 43 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 545| 43. Quod ille unciatim vix de demenso suo, | |
|
22. Cicero, On Duties, 1.41, 3.23.89 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 549, 551| 1.41. Ac de bellicis quidem officiis satis dictum est. Meminerimus autem etiam adversus infimos iustitiam esse servandam. Est autem infima condicio et fortuna servorum, quibus non male praecipiunt qui ita iubent uti, ut mercennariis: operam exigendam, iusta praebenda. Cum autem duobus modis, id est aut vi aut fraude, fiat iniuria, fraus quasi vulpeculae, vis leonis videtur; utrumque homine alienissimum, sed fraus odio digna maiore. Totius autem iniustitiae nulla capitalior quam eorum, qui tum, cum maxime fallunt, id agunt, ut viri boni esse videantur. De iustitia satis dictum. | 1.41. With this I will close my discussion of the duties connected with war. But let us remember that we must have regard for justice even towards the humblest. Now the humblest station and the poorest fortune are those of slaves; and they give us no bad rule who bid us treat our slaves as we should our employees: they must be required to work; they must be given their dues. While wrong may be done, then, in either of two ways, that is, by force or by fraud, both are bestial: fraud seems to belong to the cunning fox, force to the lion; both are wholly unworthy of man, but fraud is the more contemptible. But of all forms of injustice, none is more flagrant than that of the hypocrite who, at the very moment when he is most false, makes it his business to appear virtuous. This must conclude our discussion of justice. |
|
| 23. Horace, Sermones, 2.6.65 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 545 |
| 24. Philo of Alexandria, On The Special Laws, 2.18.82 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 549 |
| 25. Lysimachides Historicus, Fragments, 162 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 547 |
26. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 13.293 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho •sadducees, claim antigonus of socho as adherent Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 561 | 13.293. 6. Now there was one Jonathan, a very great friend of Hyrcanus’s, but of the sect of the Sadducees, whose notions are quite contrary to those of the Pharisees. He told Hyrcanus that Eleazar had cast such a reproach upon him, according to the common sentiments of all the Pharisees, and that this would be made manifest if he would but ask them the question, What punishment they thought this man deserved? |
|
27. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, 1.41 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 536 | 1.41. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; |
|
| 28. Pliny The Elder, Natural History, 30.4 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 536 |
29. Mishnah, Bava Metzia, 7.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 548| 7.6. "קוֹצֵץ אָדָם עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ, עַל יְדֵי בְנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַגְּדוֹלִים, עַל יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הַגְּדוֹלִים, עַל יְדֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן דָּעַת. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ קוֹצֵץ עַל יְדֵי בְנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים, וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים, וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי בְהֶמְתּוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן דָּעַת: \n", | 7.6. "One may exact terms for himself and for his son or daughter that are of age, and for his slave or female slave that are of age, and for his wife, since these have understanding. But he may not exact terms for his son and daughter that are not of age, or for his slave or female slave that are not of age, or for his cattle, since these have no understanding.", |
|
30. Mishnah, Avot, 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.17-2.4, 2.5-2.8, 4.5, 4.10, 6.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 548, 549, 550, 551, 552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557, 558, 559, 560, 561, 562| 1.3. "אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אִישׁ סוֹכוֹ קִבֵּל מִשִּׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אַל תִּהְיוּ כַעֲבָדִים הַמְשַׁמְּשִׁין אֶת הָרַב עַל מְנָת לְקַבֵּל פְּרָס, אֶלָּא הֱווּ כַעֲבָדִים הַמְשַׁמְּשִׁין אֶת הָרַב שֶׁלֹּא עַל מְנָת לְקַבֵּל פְּרָס, וִיהִי מוֹרָא שָׁמַיִם עֲלֵיכֶם: \n", | 1.3. "Antigonus a man of Socho received [the oral tradition] from Shimon the Righteous. He used to say: do not be like servants who serve the master in the expectation of receiving a reward, but be like servants who serve the master without the expectation of receiving a reward, and let the fear of Heaven be upon you.", |
|
31. Mishnah, Eduyot, 1.4-1.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 558| 1.4. "וְלָמָּה מַזְכִּירִין אֶת דִּבְרֵי שַׁמַּאי וְהִלֵּל לְבַטָּלָה, לְלַמֵּד לַדּוֹרוֹת הַבָּאִים שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא אָדָם עוֹמֵד עַל דְּבָרָיו, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֲבוֹת הָעוֹלָם לֹא עָמְדוּ עַל דִּבְרֵיהֶם: \n", 1.5. "וְלָמָּה מַזְכִּירִין דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד בֵּין הַמְרֻבִּין, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין הֲלָכָה אֶלָּא כְדִבְרֵי הַמְרֻבִּין. שֶׁאִם יִרְאֶה בֵית דִּין אֶת דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד וְיִסְמֹךְ עָלָיו, שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דִּבְרֵי בֵית דִּין חֲבֵרוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן. הָיָה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה אֲבָל לֹא בְמִנְיָן, בְּמִנְיָן אֲבָל לֹא בְחָכְמָה, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דְּבָרָיו, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן: \n", | 1.4. "And why do they record the opinions of Shammai and Hillel for naught? To teach the following generations that a man should not [always] persist in his opinion, for behold, the fathers of the world did not persist in their opinion.", 1.5. "And why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many, when the halakhah must be according to the opinion of the many? So that if a court prefers the opinion of the single person it may depend on him. For no court may set aside the decision of another court unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. If it was greater than it in wisdom but not in number, in number but not in wisdom, it may not set aside its decision, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number.", |
|
32. Mishnah, Eruvin, 8.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 544| 8.2. "כַּמָּה הוּא שִׁעוּרוֹ, מְזוֹן שְׁתֵּי סְעוּדוֹת לְכָל אֶחָד. מְזוֹנוֹ לְחֹל וְלֹא לְשַׁבָּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לְשַׁבָּת וְלֹא לְחֹל. וְזֶה וָזֶה מִתְכַּוְּנִין לְהָקֵל. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה אוֹמֵר, מִכִּכָּר בְּפֻנְדְּיוֹן, מֵאַרְבַּע סְאִין בְּסֶלַע. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁתֵּי יָדוֹת לְכִכָּר מִשָּׁלֹשׁ לְקָב. חֶצְיָהּ לְבַיִת הַמְנֻגָּע, וַחֲצִי חֶצְיָהּ לִפְסֹל אֶת הַגְּוִיָּה: \n", | 8.2. "What is the minimum measure [for Shabbat border eruvin]?Food for two meals for each person, for weekdays and not for Shabbat, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: for Shabbat and not for weekdays. And both intended to give a leniency. Rabbi Yoha ben Beroka says: not less than a loaf that is purchased for a pondium when the price of wheat is four se’ah for a sela. Rabbi Shimon says: two thirds of a loaf, when three [loaves] are made from a kav [of wheat]. Half of this loaf is the size prescribed for a leprous house, and half of its half is the size that disqualifies one’s body [from eating terumah].", |
|
33. Mishnah, Gittin, 1.6, 4.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 545, 550| 1.6. "הָאוֹמֵר, תֵּן גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי וּשְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי, אִם רָצָה לַחֲזֹר בִּשְׁנֵיהֶן, יַחֲזֹר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בְּגִטֵּי נָשִׁים, אֲבָל לֹא בְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים, לְפִי שֶׁזָּכִין לָאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו וְאֵין חָבִין לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּפָנָיו. שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה שֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן אֶת עַבְדּוֹ, רַשַּׁאי. וְשֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֵינוֹ רַשָּׁאי. אָמַר לָהֶם, וַהֲרֵי הוּא פוֹסֵל אֶת עַבְדּוֹ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא פוֹסֵל אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קִנְיָנוֹ. הָאוֹמֵר, תְּנוּ גֵט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי, וּשְׁטָר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי, וּמֵת, לֹא יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. תְּנוּ מָנֶה לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, וּמֵת, יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה: \n", 4.5. "מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, עוֹבֵד אֶת רַבּוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד, דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, תִּקַּנְתֶּם אֶת רַבּוֹ, וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ לֹא תִקַּנְתֶּם. לִשָּׂא שִׁפְחָה אִי אֶפְשָׁר, שֶׁכְּבָר חֶצְיוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין. בַּת חוֹרִין אִי אֶפְשָׁר, שֶׁכְּבָר חֶצְיוֹ עָבֶד. יִבָּטֵל, וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לִפְרִיָּה וְלִרְבִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה מה) לֹא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ, לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ. אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם, כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל חֲצִי דָמָיו. וְחָזְרוּ בֵית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמָּאי: \n", | 1.6. "If a man says: “Give this get to my wife or this writ of emancipation to my slave”, if he wants he may change his mind on either document, the words of Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: he may change his mind in the case of the get but not in the case of the writ of emancipation, since a benefit may be conferred on a person not in his presence but a disability may be imposed on him only in his presence; for if he does not want to maintain his slave he is permitted, but if he does not want to maintain his wife he is not permitted. Rabbi Meir said to them: behold, he disqualifies his slave from eating terumah [by emancipating him] in the same way that he disqualifies his wife [by divorcing her]? They said to him: [the slave is disqualified] because he is the priest’s property. If a man says, “Give this get to my wife or this writ of emancipation to my slave”, and dies [before they are given], they do not give [the documents] after his death. [If he said], “Give a maneh to so-and-so” and died, the money should be given after his death.", 4.5. "One who is half a slave and half free works for his master one day and for himself one day, the words of Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai said to them: you have set things right for the master but you have not set things right for the slave. He cannot marry a female slave because he is already half free, and he cannot marry a free woman because he is half a slave. Shall he then decease [from having children]? But wasn’t the world only made to be populated, as it says, “He did not create it as a waste, he formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18)? Rather because of tikkun olam we compel his master to emancipate him and he writes a document for half his purchase price. Beth Hillel retracted [their opinion and] ruled like Beth Shammai.", |
|
34. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 557| 4.3. "בּוֹ בַיּוֹם אָמְרוּ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב, מַה הֵן בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. גָּזַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, מַעְשַׂר עָנִי. וְגָזַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, עָלֶיךָ רְאָיָה לְלַמֵּד, שֶׁאַתָּה מַחְמִיר, שֶׁכָּל הַמַּחְמִיר, עָלָיו רְאָיָה לְלַמֵּד. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָחִי, אֲנִי לֹא שִׁנִּיתִי מִסֵּדֶר הַשָּׁנִים, טַרְפוֹן אָחִי שִׁנָּה, וְעָלָיו רְאָיָה לְלַמֵּד. הֵשִׁיב רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, מִצְרַיִם חוּץ לָאָרֶץ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב חוּץ לָאָרֶץ, מַה מִּצְרַיִם מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית, אַף עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית. הֵשִׁיב רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, בָּבֶל חוּץ לָאָרֶץ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב חוּץ לָאָרֶץ, מַה בָּבֶל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית, אַף עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית. אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, מִצְרַיִם שֶׁהִיא קְרוֹבָה, עֲשָׂאוּהָ מַעְשַׂר עָנִי, שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל נִסְמָכִים עָלֶיהָ בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, אַף עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב, שֶׁהֵם קְרוֹבִים, נַעֲשִׂים מַעְשַׂר עָנִי, שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל נִסְמָכִים עֲלֵיהֶם בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, הֲרֵי אַתָּה כִמְהַנָּן מָמוֹן, וְאֵין אַתָּה אֶלָּא כְמַפְסִיד נְפָשׁוֹת. קוֹבֵעַ אַתָּה אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם מִלְּהוֹרִיד טַל וּמָטָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ג), הֲיִקְבַּע אָדָם אֱלֹהִים כִּי אַתֶּם קֹבְעִים אֹתִי וַאֲמַרְתֶּם בַּמֶּה קְבַעֲנוּךָ הַמַּעֲשֵׂר וְהַתְּרוּמָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, הֲרֵינִי כְמֵשִׁיב עַל טַרְפוֹן אָחִי, אֲבָל לֹא לְעִנְיַן דְּבָרָיו. מִצְרַיִם מַעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ, וּבָבֶל מַעֲשֶׂה יָשָׁן, וְהַנִּדּוֹן שֶׁלְּפָנֵינוּ מַעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ. יִדּוֹן מַעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ מִמַּעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ, וְאַל יִדּוֹן מַעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ מִמַּעֲשֶׂה יָשָׁן. מִצְרַיִם מַעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים, וּבָבֶל מַעֲשֵׂה נְבִיאִים, וְהַנִּדּוֹן שֶׁלְּפָנֵינוּ מַעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים. יִדּוֹן מַעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים מִמַּעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים, וְאַל יִדּוֹן מַעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים מִמַּעֲשֵׂה נְבִיאִים. נִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מְעַשְּׂרִין מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. וּכְשֶׁבָּא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן דֻּרְמַסְקִית אֵצֶל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּלוֹד, אָמַר לוֹ, מַה חִדּוּשׁ הָיָה לָכֶם בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ הַיּוֹם. אָמַר לוֹ, נִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מְעַשְּׂרִים מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. בָּכָה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְאָמַר, סוֹד ה' לִירֵאָיו וּבְרִיתוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם (תהלים כה). צֵא וֶאֱמֹר לָהֶם, אַל תָּחֹשּׁוּ לְמִנְיַנְכֶם. מְקֻבָּל אֲנִי מֵרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, שֶׁשָּׁמַע מֵרַבּוֹ, וְרַבּוֹ מֵרַבּוֹ עַד הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי, שֶׁעַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מְעַשְּׂרִין מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית: \n", | 4.3. "On that day they said: what is the law applying to Ammon and Moab in the seventh year? Rabbi Tarfon decreed tithe for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah decreed second tithe. Rabbi Ishmael said: Elazar ben Azariah, you must produce your proof because you are expressing the stricter view and whoever expresses a stricter view has the burden to produce the proof. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the sequence of years, Tarfon, my brother, has deviated from it and the burden is upon him to produce the proof. Rabbi Tarfon answered: Egypt is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Egypt must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Babylon must give second tithe in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give second tithe in the seventh year. Rabbi Tarfon said: on Egypt which is near, they imposed tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel might be supported by it during the seventh year; so on Ammon and Moab which are near, we should impose tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Behold, you are like one who would benefit them with gain, yet you are really as one who causes them to perish. Would you rob the heavens so that dew or rain should not descend? As it is said, \"Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you: How have we robbed You? In tithes and heave-offerings\" (Malakhi 3:8). Rabbi Joshua said: Behold, I shall be as one who replies on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not in accordance with the substance of his arguments. The law regarding Egypt is a new act and the law regarding Babylon is an old act, and the law which is being argued before us is a new act. A new act should be argued from [another] new act, but a new act should not be argued from an old act. The law regarding Egypt is the act of the elders and the law regarding Babylon is the act of the prophets, and the law which is being argued before us is the act of the elders. Let one act of the elders be argued from [another] act of the elders, but let not an act of the elders be argued from an act of the prophets. The votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab should give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. And when Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit visited Rabbi Eliezer in Lod he said to him: what new thing did you have in the house of study today? He said to him: their votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: \"The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covet, to make them know it\" (Psalms 25:14). Go and tell them: Don't worry about your voting. I received a tradition from Rabbi Yoha ben Zakkai who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.", |
|
35. New Testament, Luke, 12.42, 17.8-17.10 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 544, 545, 546, 553| 12.42. καὶ εἶπεν ὁ κύριος Τίς ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ πιστὸς οἰκονόμος, ὁ φρόνιμος, ὃν καταστήσει ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς θεραπείας αὐτοῦ τοῦ διδόναι ἐν καιρῷ [τὸ] σιτομέτριον; 17.8. ἀλλʼ οὐχὶ ἐρεῖ αὐτῷ Ἑτοίμασον τί δειπνήσω, καὶ περιζωσάμενος διακόνει μοι ἕως φάγω καὶ πίω, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα φάγεσαι καὶ πίεσαι σύ; 17.9. μὴ ἔχει χάριν τῷ δούλῳ ὅτι ἐποίησεν τὰ διαταχθέντα; 17.10. οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς, ὅταν ποιήσητε πάντα τὰ διαταχθέντα ὑμῖν, λέγετε ὅτι Δοῦλοι ἀχρεῖοί ἐσμεν, ὃ ὠφείλομεν ποιῆσαι πεποιήκαμεν. | 12.42. The Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his lord will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the right times? 17.8. and will not rather tell him, 'Prepare my supper, clothe yourself properly, and serve me, while I eat and drink. Afterward you shall eat and drink?' 17.9. Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded? I think not. 17.10. Even so you also, when you have done all the things that are commanded you, say, 'We are unworthy servants. We have done our duty.'" |
|
36. New Testament, Matthew, 1.17 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 533| 1.17. Πᾶσαι οὖν αἱ γενεαὶ ἀπὸ Ἀβραὰμ ἕως Δαυεὶδ γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες, καὶ ἀπὸ Δαυεὶδ ἕως τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες, καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος ἕως τοῦ χριστοῦ γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες. | 1.17. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the exile to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon to the Christ, fourteen generations. |
|
37. Mishnah, Arakhin, 8.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 550| 8.4. "מַחֲרִים אָדָם מִצֹּאנוֹ וּמִבְּקָרוֹ, מֵעֲבָדָיו וּמִשִּׁפְחוֹתָיו הַכְּנַעֲנִים, וּמִשְּׂדֵה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ. וְאִם הֶחֱרִים אֶת כֻּלָּן, אֵינָן מֻחְרָמִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, מָה אִם לַגָּבֹהַּ, אֵין אָדָם רַשַּׁאי לְהַחֲרִים אֶת כָּל נְכָסָיו, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם חַיָּב לִהְיוֹת חָס עַל נְכָסָיו: \n", | 8.4. "A man may proscribe [part] of his flock or of his herd, of his Canaanite slaves or female slaves or of his field of possession. But if he proscribed all of them, they are not considered [validly] proscribed, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said: just as when it comes to the Highest One, one is not permitted to proscribe all of his possessions, how much more so should one be careful with his property.", |
|
38. Mishnah, Hagigah, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 559| 2.2. "יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, נִתַּאי הָאַרְבֵּלִי אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. יְהוּדָה בֶּן טַבַּאי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. שְׁמַעְיָה אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. אַבְטַלְיוֹן אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ. הִלֵּל וּמְנַחֵם לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ. יָצָא מְנַחֵם, נִכְנַס שַׁמַּאי. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הָיוּ נְשִׂיאִים, וּשְׁנִיִּים לָהֶם אַב בֵּית דִּין: \n", | 2.2. "Yose ben Yoezer says that [on a festival] the laying of the hands [on the head of a sacrifice] may not be performed. Yosef ben Joha says that it may be performed. Joshua ben Perahia says that it may not be performed. Nittai the Arbelite says that it may be performed. Judah ben Tabai says that it may not be performed. Shimon ben Shetah says that it may be performed. Shamayah says that it may be performed. Avtalyon says that it may not be performed. Hillel and Menahem did not dispute. Menahem went out, Shammai entered. Shammai says that it may not be performed. Hillel says that it may be performed. The former [of each] pair were patriarchs and the latter were heads of the court.", |
|
| 39. Seneca The Younger, De Beneficiis, 3.18, 3.21.2, 3.22.3 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 544, 547, 549, 551 |
| 40. Seneca The Younger, Letters, 47.2, 47.15, 80.7-80.8, 107.10 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 545, 547, 554 |
| 41. Suetonius, Claudius, 25 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 549 |
42. Tosefta, Arakhin, 3.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 550| 3.8. "חייבי נדרים ונדבות והערכין והדמים והקדשות בית דין ממשכנין אותן. ואם מתו היורשין [חייבים] להביא. חייבי חטאות ואשמות והדמים אין ב\"ד ממשכנין אותן ואם מתו אין היורשין חייבין להביא והדמים שנישומו הרי הן כערכין עולות הבאות עם חטאות ב\"ד ממשכנין אותן ואם מתו היורשין חייבין להביא. הביא חטאתו ולא הביא עולתו ב\"ד ממשכנין עליה ואם מתו על היורשין להביא ראיה הביא עולתו ולא הביא חטאתו אין ב\"ד ממשכנין עליה ואם מתו אין היורשין חייבין להביא.", | |
|
43. Tosefta, Gittin, 1.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 545| 1.3. "המביא גט ממדה\"י ולא נכתב [בפניו] ולא נחתם בפניו ה\"ז מחזירו למקומו ועושה לו ב\"ד ומקיימו בחותמיו ומביאו [ואומר] שליח ב\"ד אני בא\"י שליח עושה שליח רשב\"ג אומר אין [השליח] עושה שליח בגיטין.", | |
|
| 44. Epictetus, Discourses, 3.26.29, 4.1.37 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 551, 554 |
45. Tosefta, Yadayim, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 557| 2.6. "ר\"ש בן מנסיא אומר שיר השירים מטמאה את הידים מפני שנאמרה ברוח הקדש. וקהלת אינה מטמאה את הידים שאינה אלא מחכמתו של שלמה. אמרו לו וכי לא כתב אלא זו בלבד הרי הוא אומר (מלכים א ה׳:י״ב) וידבר שלשת אלפים משל ואומר (משלי ל׳:ו׳) אל תוסף על דבריו.", | |
|
46. Plutarch, Cato The Elder, 5.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 549| 5.2. καίτοι τὴν χρηστότητα τῆς δικαιοσύνης πλατύτερον τόπον ὁρῶμεν ἐπιλαμβάνουσαν νόμῳ μὲν γὰρ καὶ τῷ δικαίῳ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους μόνον χρῆσθαι πεφύκαμεν, πρὸς εὐεργεσίας δὲ καὶ χάριτας ἔστιν ὅτε καὶ μέχρι τῶν ἀλόγων ζῴων ὥσπερ ἐκ πηγῆς πλουσίας ἀπορρεῖ τῆς ἡμερότητος. καὶ γὰρ ἵππων ἀπειρηκότων ὑπὸ χρόνου τροφαὶ καὶ κυνῶν οὐ σκυλακεῖαι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ γηροκομίαι τῷ χρηστῷ προσήκουσιν. | 5.2. |
|
| 47. Clement of Alexandria, Christ The Educator, None (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 553 |
| 48. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 558 |
| 49. Cassius Dio, Roman History, 76.10.5 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 549 |
| 50. Athenaeus, The Learned Banquet, None (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 544, 548 |
| 51. Palestinian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 546, 550 |
| 52. Palestinian Talmud, Gittin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 550 |
| 53. Palestinian Talmud, Taanit, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 546 |
| 54. Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, 1.14 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 555 |
| 55. Lucian, Hermotimus, Or Sects, 77 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 536 |
56. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 546| 25b. אין גזעו מחליף אף צדיק ח"ו אין גזעו מחליף לכך נאמר ארז אילו נאמר ארז ולא נאמר תמר הייתי אומר מה ארז אין עושה פירות אף צדיק ח"ו אין עושה פירות לכך נאמר תמר ונאמר ארז,וארז גזעו מחליף והתניא הלוקח אילן מחבירו לקוץ מגביהו מן הקרקע טפח וקוצץ בסדן השקמה שני טפחים בבתולת השקמה שלשה טפחים בקנים ובגפנים מן הפקק ולמעלה בדקלים ובארזים חופר למטה ומשריש לפי שאין גזעו מחליף,הכא במאי עסקינן בשאר מיני ארזים כדרבה בר הונא דאמר רבה בר הונא עשרה מיני ארזים הן שנאמר (ישעיהו מא, יט) אתן במדבר ארז שיטה והדס וגו',ת"ר מעשה ברבי אליעזר שגזר שלש עשרה תעניות על הצבור ולא ירדו גשמים באחרונה התחילו הצבור לצאת אמר להם תקנתם קברים לעצמכם געו כל העם בבכיה וירדו גשמים,שוב מעשה בר' אליעזר שירד לפני התיבה ואמר עשרים וארבע ברכות ולא נענה ירד רבי עקיבא אחריו ואמר אבינו מלכנו אין לנו מלך אלא אתה אבינו מלכנו למענך רחם עלינו וירדו גשמים הוו מרנני רבנן יצתה בת קול ואמרה לא מפני שזה גדול מזה אלא שזה מעביר על מדותיו וזה אינו מעביר על מדותיו,ת"ר עד מתי יהו הגשמים יורדין והצבור פוסקין מתעניתם כמלא ברך המחרישה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים בחרבה טפח בבינונית טפחיים בעבודה שלשה טפחים,תניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אין לך טפח מלמעלה שאין תהום יוצא לקראתו שלשה טפחים והא תניא טפחיים לא קשיא כאן בעבודה כאן בשאינה עבודה,א"ר אלעזר כשמנסכין את המים בחג תהום אומר לחבירו אבע מימיך קול שני ריעים אני שומע שנאמר (תהלים מב, ח) תהום אל תהום קורא לקול צנוריך וגו',אמר רבה לדידי חזי לי האי רידיא דמי לעיגלא (תלתא) ופירסא שפוותיה וקיימא בין תהומא תתאה לתהומא עילאה לתהומא עילאה א"ל חשור מימיך לתהומא תתאה א"ל אבע מימיך שנא' (שיר השירים ב, יב) הנצנים נראו בארץ וגו':,היו מתענין וירדו גשמים קודם הנץ החמה כו': ת"ר היו מתענין וירדו להם גשמים קודם הנץ החמה לא ישלימו לאחר הנץ החמה ישלימו דברי ר' מאיר ר' יהודה אומר קודם חצות לא ישלימו לאחר חצות ישלימו,רבי יוסי אומר קודם ט' שעות לא ישלימו לאחר ט' שעות ישלימו שכן מצינו באחאב מלך ישראל שהתענה מתשע שעות ולמעלה שנאמר (מלכים א כא, כט) הראית כי נכנע אחאב וגו',ר' יהודה נשיאה גזר תעניתא וירדו להם גשמים לאחר הנץ החמה סבר לאשלומינהו א"ל רבי אמי קודם חצות ואחר חצות שנינו שמואל הקטן גזר תעניתא וירדו להם גשמים קודם הנץ החמה כסבורין העם לומר שבחו של צבור הוא,אמר להם אמשול לכם [משל] למה הדבר דומה לעבד שמבקש פרס מרבו אמר להם תנו לו ואל אשמע קולו,שוב שמואל הקטן גזר תעניתא וירדו להם גשמים לאחר שקיעת החמה כסבורים העם לומר שבחו של צבור הוא אמר להם שמואל לא שבח של צבור הוא אלא אמשול לכם משל למה הדבר דומה לעבד שמבקש פרס מרבו ואמר להם המתינו לו עד שיתמקמק ויצטער ואחר כך תנו לו,ולשמואל הקטן שבחו של צבור היכי דמי אמר משיב הרוח ונשב זיקא אמר מוריד הגשם ואתא מיטרא:,מעשה וגזרו תענית בלוד כו': ונימא הלל מעיקרא אביי ורבא דאמרי תרווייהו לפי שאין אומרים הלל | 25b. b its shoots do not replenish /b themselves when its stump is cut down, b so too, Heaven forbid, /b with regard to b a righteous person, his shoots will not replenish /b themselves, i.e., he will be unable to recover from misfortune. b Therefore, it is stated “cedar” /b in the verse. Just as the cedar grows new shoots after its stump is cut down, so too, a righteous individual will thrive again. Conversely, b were it stated “cedar” and were it not stated “palm tree,” I would say /b that b just as /b in the case of b a cedar, it does not produce fruit, so too, a righteous man, God forbid, does not produce fruit, /b i.e., he will have no reward in the World-to-Come. b Therefore, it is stated “palm tree” and it is /b also b stated “cedar.” /b ,§ The Gemara asks: b And /b do b a cedar’s shoots /b really b replenish /b themselves? b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b one who bought a tree from another to chop /b it down for wood, without acquiring total ownership of the tree, he must b lift /b his ax b a handbreadth and chop /b there, so as to allow the tree to grow back? However, b in /b a case where he purchased b a large sycamore, /b he must leave b two handbreadths. In /b the case of b an untrimmed sycamore, /b he must leave b three handbreadths. In /b a situation where one b bought reeds or grapevines, /b he may chop only b from the /b first b knot and above. In /b the case of b palms or cedars, /b one may b dig down and uproot /b it, b as its shoots /b will b not replenish /b themselves. This i baraita /i indicates that cedars will not grow new shoots after they have been cut down.,The Gemara answers: b With what are we dealing here? With other species of cedars. /b This is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabba bar Huna, as Rabba bar Huna said: There are ten species of cedars, as it is stated: “I will plant in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia tree and myrtle /b and the oil tree; I will set in the desert cypress, the plane tree and the larch together” (Isaiah 41:19). The seven species mentioned in this verse are all called cedars, as are three additional species., b The Sages taught: An incident /b occurred b involving Rabbi Eliezer, who decreed /b a complete cycle of b thirteen fasts upon the congregation, but rain did not fall. At /b the end of b the last /b fast, b the congregation began to exit /b the synagogue. b He said to them: Have you prepared graves for yourselves? /b If rain does not fall, we will all die of hunger. b All the people burst into tears, and rain fell. /b ,There was b another incident involving /b Rabbi Eliezer, b who descended /b to serve as prayer leader b before the ark /b on a fast day. b And he recited twenty-four blessings, but he was not answered. Rabbi Akiva descended before the ark /b after him b and said: Our Father, our King, we have no king other /b than b You. Our Father, our King, for Your sake, have mercy on us. And rain /b immediately b fell. The Sages were whispering /b among themselves that Rabbi Akiva was answered while his teacher, Rabbi Eliezer, was not. b A Divine Voice emerged and said: /b It is b not because this /b Sage, Rabbi Akiva, b is greater than that one, /b Rabbi Eliezer, b but that this one is forgiving, and that one is not forgiving. /b God responded to Rabbi Akiva’s forgiving nature in kind by sending rain.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b How much rain must fall for the community to cease their fast /b for rain? If the rain penetrates the soil b by the full /b depth of the blade of b a plow /b until the spot where it b bends, /b they may cease fasting; this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say /b a different measurement: If the earth is completely b dry, /b the soil must become moist to the depth of a single b handbreadth. /b For b average /b soil, they must wait until the moisture reaches a depth of b two handbreadths. /b If it is b worked /b soil, i.e., soil that has been plowed, the moisture must reach to a depth of b three handbreadths. /b , b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: There is no handbreadth /b of rain b from above toward which /b the water of b the deep does not rise three handbreadths. /b The Gemara raises an objection: b But isn’t it taught /b in another i baraita /i that the water of the deep rises b two handbreadths? /b The Gemara explains: This is b not difficult. Here, /b in first i baraita /i , it is referring b to worked /b land, which water penetrates faster, whereas b there, /b in the second i baraita /i , it is referring b to unworked /b land, which water does not penetrate as easily, and therefore the water of the deep rises only two handbreadths., b Rabbi Elazar said: When the water /b libation b was poured during the festival /b of i Sukkot /i , these waters of the b deep say to the other /b waters of the deep: b Let your water flow, as I hear the voices of two /b of our b friends, /b the wine libation and the water libation, which are both poured on the altar. b As it is stated: “Deep calls to deep at the sound of your channels, /b all Your waves and Your billows are gone over me” (Psalms 42:8), i.e., the upper waters of the deep call to the lower waters of the deep when they hear the sound of the libations., b Rabba said: I have seen this /b angel in charge of water, b Ridya, in the form of a calf whose lips were parted, standing between the lower /b waters of the b deep and the upper /b waters of the b deep. To the upper /b waters of the b deep, he said: Distill your water /b and let it rain. b To the lower /b waters of the b deep, he said: Let your water flow /b from below, b as it is stated: “The flowers appear on the earth; /b the time of the singing has come, and the voice of the turtledove [ i tur /i ] is heard in our land” (Song of Songs 2:12). The appearance of flowers in this verse alludes to the libations, as both the blooming of flowers and pouring of these libations are annual events. The time of the singing is referring to the singing of the Festival. Finally, the term i tur /i in Aramaic can also mean an ox; in this context, it is interpreted as a reference to the angel Ridya.,§ The mishna teaches: If b they were fasting /b for rain b and rain fell for them before sunrise, /b they need not complete their fast until the evening. b The Sages taught: /b If b they were fasting /b for rain b and rain fell for them before sunrise, /b they need b not complete /b their fast, as the obligation to fast does not come into effect until sunrise. However, if rain fell b after sunrise, they /b must b complete /b their fast. This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If rain fell b before midday, /b they need b not complete /b their fast; however, if it rains b after midday, they /b must b complete /b their fast.,Rabbi Yosei says: If rain falls b before the ninth hour, /b three hours into the afternoon, they need b not complete /b their fast; if it rains b after the ninth hour /b of the day, they must b complete /b their fast, b as we found with regard to Ahab, king of Israel, who fasted from the ninth hour and onward, /b as it b is stated: /b “And it came to pass, when Ahab heard these words, that he rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly. And the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite saying: b Do you see how Ahab humbles himself before Me?” /b (I Kings 21:27–29). According to tradition, this occurred in the ninth hour., b Rabbi Yehuda Nesia decreed a fast, and rain fell for them after sunrise. He thought to complete /b the fast, but b Rabbi Ami said to him /b that b we learned: Before noon and after noon, /b i.e., the i halakha /i is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. b Shmuel HaKatan decreed a fast, and rain fell for them before sunrise. The people thought to say: /b This b is /b a sign of b the praiseworthiness of the community, /b as we merited rainfall even before we prayed., b He said to them: I will tell you a parable. To what is this matter comparable? To /b a situation where there is b a slave who requests a reward from his master, /b either food or livelihood, b and /b the master b says to /b his ministers: b Give him /b what he asks for b and let me not hear his voice, /b as I would rather not have to listen to him. Here, too, evidently God has no desire to hear our prayers., b Again, /b on another occasion, b Shmuel HaKatan decreed a fast, and rain fell for them after sunset. /b Based on his previous response, b the people thought to say: /b This b is /b a sign of b the praiseworthiness of the community, /b as God listened to our prayers all day. b Shmuel /b HaKatan b said to them: It is not /b a sign of b the praiseworthiness of the community. Rather, I will tell you a parable. To what is this matter comparable? To /b a situation where there is b a slave who requests a reward from his master, and /b the master b says to /b his ministers: b Wait until he pines away and suffers, and afterward give /b it b to him. /b Here too, the delay is not to the congregation’s credit.,The Gemara asks: b But /b if so, b according to /b the opinion of b Shmuel HaKatan, /b what is considered b the praiseworthiness of the community; what are the circumstances /b in which approval is shown from Heaven? The Gemara explains: When the prayer leader b recites: He Who makes the wind blow, and the wind blows; /b and when b he recites: /b And b the rain fall, and rain falls. /b ,The mishna teaches: b An incident /b occurred in b which /b the court b decreed a fast in Lod, /b and when rain fell they ate and drank, and afterward they recited i hallel /i . The Gemara asks: b And let us recite i hallel /i at the outset, /b without delay. Why did they first go home and eat? b Abaye and Rava both said: Because one recites i hallel /i /b |
|
57. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 558| 88b. בן סורר ומורה שרצו אביו ואמו למחול לו מוחלין לו,זקן ממרא שרצו בית דינו למחול לו מוחלין לו וכשבאתי אצל חבירי שבדרום על שנים הודו לי על זקן ממרא לא הודו לי כדי שלא ירבו מחלוקת בישראל תיובתא,תניא אמר רבי יוסי מתחילה לא היו מרבין מחלוקת בישראל אלא בית דין של שבעים ואחד יושבין בלשכת הגזית ושני בתי דינין של עשרים ושלשה אחד יושב על פתח הר הבית ואחד יושב על פתח העזרה ושאר בתי דינין של עשרים ושלשה יושבין בכל עיירות ישראל,הוצרך הדבר לשאול שואלין מבית דין שבעירן אם שמעו אמרו להן ואם לאו באין לזה שסמוך לעירן אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו באין לזה שעל פתח הר הבית אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו באין לזה שעל פתח העזרה,ואומר כך דרשתי וכך דרשו חבירי כך למדתי וכך למדו חבירי אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו אלו ואלו באין ללשכת הגזית ששם יושבין מתמיד של שחר עד תמיד של בין הערבים,ובשבתות ובימים טובים יושבין בחיל נשאלה שאלה בפניהם אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו עומדין למנין רבו המטמאים טמאו רבו המטהרין טהרו,משרבו תלמידי שמאי והלל שלא שמשו כל צרכן רבו מחלוקת בישראל ונעשית תורה כשתי תורות,משם כותבין ושולחין בכל מקומות כל מי שהוא חכם ושפל ברך ודעת הבריות נוחה הימנו יהא דיין בעירו משם מעלין אותו להר הבית משם לעזרה משם ללשכת הגזית,שלחו מתם איזהו בן העולם הבא ענוותן ושפל ברך שייף עייל שייף ונפיק וגריס באורייתא תדירא ולא מחזיק טיבותא לנפשיה יהבו ביה רבנן עינייהון ברב עולא בר אבא:,חזר לעירו ושנה: ת"ר אינו חייב עד שיעשה כהוראתו או שיורה לאחרים ויעשו כהוראתו,בשלמא יורה לאחרים ויעשו כהוראתו מעיקרא לאו בר קטלא הוא והשתא בר קטלא הוא אלא שיעשה כהוראתו מעיקרא נמי בר קטלא הוא התינח היכא דאורי בחלב ודם דמעיקרא לאו בר קטלא הוא והשתא בר קטלא הוא אלא היכא דאורי בחייבי מיתות ב"ד מעיקרא נמי בר קטלא הוא,מעיקרא בעי התראה השתא לא בעי התראה,מסית דלא בעי התראה מאי איכא למימר מעיקרא אי אמר טעמא מקבלינן מיניה השתא אי אמר טעמא לא מקבלינן מיניה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big חומר בדברי סופרים מבדברי תורה האומר אין תפילין כדי לעבור על ד"ת פטור חמש טוטפות להוסיף על דברי סופרים חייב:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר ר' אלעזר אמר ר' אושעיא אינו חייב אלא על דבר שעיקרו מדברי תורה ופירושו מדברי סופרים ויש בו להוסיף ואם הוסיף גורע ואין לנו אלא תפילין אליבא דרבי יהודה,והאיכא לולב דעיקרו מדברי תורה ופירושו מדברי סופרים ויש בו להוסיף ואם הוסיף גורע,בלולב מאי סבירא לן אי סבירא לן דלולב אין צריך אגד האי לחודיה קאי והאי לחודיה קאי ואי סבירא לן דצריך אגד גרוע ועומד הוא,והאיכא ציצית דעיקרו מדברי תורה ופירושו מדברי סופרים ויש בו להוסיף ואם הוסיף גורע,בציצית מאי סבירא לן אי סבירא לן דקשר העליון לאו דאורייתא האי לחודיה קאי והאי לחודיה קאי ואי סבירא לן | 88b. The second matter is that in the case of b a stubborn and rebellious son whose father and mother sought to forgive him /b for his gluttonous and drunken conduct and decided not to bring him to court, b they /b can b forgive him. /b ,The third is that in the case of b a rebellious elder whom his court sought to forgive /b for his deviation from their ruling, b they /b can b forgive him. And when I came to my colleagues in the South, with regard to two /b of the cases b they agreed with me, /b but b with regard to a rebellious elder they did not agree with me, so that discord /b would b not proliferate in Israel. /b This supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and is b a conclusive refutation /b of the opinion of Rav Kahana., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yosei said: Initially, discord would not proliferate among Israel. Rather, the court of seventy-one /b judges b would sit in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. And /b there were b two /b additional b courts /b each consisting b of twenty-three /b judges; b one /b would b convene at the entrance to the Temple Mount, and one /b would b convene at the entrance to the /b Temple b courtyard. And all the other courts /b consisting b of twenty-three /b judges would b convene in all cities /b inhabited by the b Jewish people. /b ,If b the matter /b was unclear and it b was necessary to ask /b and clarify it, those uncertain of the i halakha /i would b ask the court that is in their city. If /b the members of the court b heard /b a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, b they said /b it b to them, and if not, they /b would b come to /b a court b that is adjacent to their city. If /b the members of the court b heard /b a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, b they said /b it b to them, and if not, they /b would b come to the court at the entrance to the Temple Mount. If /b the members of the court b heard /b a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, b they said /b it b to them, and if not, they /b would b come to the court at the entrance to the /b Temple b courtyard. /b , b And /b the elder whose ruling deviated from the ruling of his colleagues b says: This /b is what b I interpreted and that /b is what b my colleagues interpreted; this /b is what b I taught and that /b is what b my colleagues taught. If /b the members of the court b heard /b a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, b they said /b it b to them, and if not, these /b judges b and those /b judges would b come to the Chamber of Hewn Stone, where /b the Sanhedrin would be b convened from /b the time that b the daily morning offering /b is sacrificed b until /b the time that b the daily afternoon offering /b is sacrificed., b And on i Shabbatot /i and Festivals, /b when court is not in session, the members of the court b would sit at the rampart. /b When b a question was asked before them, if /b the members of the court b heard /b a clear halakhic ruling with regard to that matter, b they would say /b it b to them, and if not they would stand for a vote /b on the matter. If the judges b who deemed /b the item in question b ritually impure outnumbered /b those who deemed it pure, the court b would deem /b the item b impure. /b If the judges b who deemed /b the item in question b ritually pure outnumbered /b those who deemed it impure, the court b would deem /b the item b pure. /b , b From /b the time b that the disciples of Shammai and Hillel grew in number, /b and they were disciples b who did not attend /b to their masters b to the requisite /b degree, b dispute proliferated among the Jewish people and the Torah became like two Torahs. /b Two disparate systems of i halakha /i developed, and there was no longer a halakhic consensus with regard to every matter.,The i baraita /i continues its discussion of the workings of the Sanhedrin: b From there, /b the Sanhedrin b writes and dispatches /b the following statement b to all places: Anyone who is wise and humble and the minds of people are at ease with him shall be a judge in his city. /b If he is successful in his city, b from there, they promote him to the /b court at the entrance to b the Temple Mount /b if there is a vacant seat on the court, and b from there /b they promote him to the court at the entrance b to the /b Temple b courtyard, /b and b from there to the /b court in the b Chamber of Hewn Stone. /b ,Apropos the appointment of judges, the Gemara relates that b they sent /b the following statement b from there, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael: b Who is /b the one b destined /b to receive a place in b the World-to-Come? /b It is one who is b modest and humble, /b who b bows /b and b enters /b and b bows /b and b exits, and /b who b studies Torah regularly, and /b who b does not take credit for himself. The Sages cast their eyes on Rav Ulla bar Abba, /b as they perceived him as the embodiment of all these characteristics.,The mishna teaches: If the rebellious elder b returned to his city and he taught /b in the manner that he was teaching previously, he is exempt from punishment, unless he instructs others to act on the basis of his ruling. b The Sages taught: He is not liable unless he acts in accordance with his ruling, or he instructs others and they act in accordance with his ruling. /b ,The Gemara challenges: b Granted, /b if b he instructs others and they act in accordance with his ruling /b there is a novel element in the fact that he is liable to be executed, as b initially, /b before he was deemed a rebellious elder, he is b not liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty for instructing others to perform the transgression, b and now, /b he is b to /b receive the b death /b penalty. b But /b if b he acts in accordance with his ruling, initially, /b before he was deemed a rebellious elder, he is b also liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty for performing that action. The Gemara clarifies the difficulty: b This works out well /b in a case b where he ruled with regard to /b forbidden b fat and blood, as initially he /b would b not /b have been b liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty; rather, he would have been liable to receive i karet /i , b and now he is liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty. b But /b in a case b where he ruled with regard to /b a transgression for which one is b liable /b to receive b a court /b -imposed b death /b penalty, b initially, /b he b is also liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty.,The Gemara explains: There is a novel element even in a case where he acts in accordance with his ruling, as b initially, /b before he is deemed a rebellious elder, b he requires forewarning /b in order to be executed; b now, he does not require forewarning /b in order to be executed.,The Gemara asks: If the rebellious elder’s ruling was with regard to one who b instigates /b others to engage in idol worship, b who does not require forewarning, what is there to say? /b Both before and after he is deemed a rebellious elder he is executed without forewarning. The Gemara answers: b Initially, /b before the rebellious elder ruled that instigating others to engage in idol worship is permitted, b if /b after he instigated others, he b stated a reason /b why he thought that it is permitted, b we accept /b his explanation b from him /b and exempt him. b Now, /b after he issued the divergent ruling, b if he stated a reason, we do not accept /b the explanation b from him, /b since he already indicated that he holds that instigating others to engage in idol worship incitement is permitted and that is the reason that he engaged in instigation., strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to the rulings of the rebellious elder the mishna states: There is greater b stringency with regard to /b traditional b rabbinic interpretations /b of the Torah b than with regard to matters of Torah. /b If b one states: /b There is b no /b mitzva to don b phylacteries, /b and his intention is b in order to /b have others b violate matters of Torah, /b he is b exempt /b from punishment as a rebellious elder. One who disputes matters written explicitly in the Torah is not considered an elder and a Torah scholar, and therefore does not assume the status of a rebellious elder. If, however, he disputed a matter based on rabbinic tradition, e.g., he stated that there should be b five compartments /b in the phylacteries of the head, in order b to add /b an extra compartment b to /b the four established according to traditional b rabbinic interpretations /b of the Torah, he is b liable. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Rabbi Elazar says /b that b Rabbi Oshaya says: One is liable only for /b issuing a ruling with regard to b a matter whose essence, /b whose basic obligation, b is from matters of Torah and whose explanation is from /b traditional b rabbinic interpretations /b of the Torah b and which includes /b the possibility b to add /b to it, b and if one added /b to it, b one compromises /b his fulfillment of the mitzva and does not satisfy his obligation. b And we have only /b the mitzva to don b phylacteries /b that meets those criteria. b And /b Rabbi Oshaya’s statement is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yehuda, /b who says: A rebellious elder is liable only for a matter whose essence is from matters of Torah and whose explanation is from traditional rabbinic interpretations of the Torah.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t there /b the mitzva of b i lulav /i /b and the other species that one takes on the festival of i Sukkot /i , b whose essence is from matters of Torah, and whose explanation is from /b traditional b rabbinic interpretations /b that establish the identity and the number of the four species enumerated in the Torah, b and which includes /b the possibility b to add /b other species to it, b and if one added /b to it, b one compromises /b his fulfillment of the mitzva and does not satisfy his obligation?,The Gemara rejects this possibility: That is not the case, as b with regard to /b the mitzva of b i lulav /i , what do we hold? If we hold that /b fundamentally b a i lulav /i does not require binding /b of the species together in order to fulfill the mitzva, then adding an additional species is inconsequential, as b these /b species with which he fulfills the mitzva b stand alone and that /b additional species b stands alone. /b It is as though he were holding the species of the mitzva and an additional unrelated item that does not affect fulfillment of the mitzva. b And if we hold /b that b a i lulav /i requires binding /b of the four species together in order to fulfill the mitzva, fulfillment of the mitzva b is already compromised /b from the outset. The rebellious elder is liable only when the object of the mitzva was as it should be and the addition compromised that object and disqualifies it. In this case, the object was never as it should be.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t there /b the mitzva of b ritual fringes, whose essence is from matters of Torah, and whose explanation is from /b traditional b rabbinic interpretations /b that establish the number of fringes enumerated in the Torah and the number of threads in each fringe, b and which includes /b the possibility b to add /b fringes or threads to it, b and if one added /b to it, b one compromises /b his fulfillment of the mitzva and does not satisfy his obligation?,The Gemara rejects this possibility: That is not the case, as b with regard to ritual fringes, what do we hold? If we hold that the upper knot is not /b mandated b by Torah law, /b and one fulfills his obligation by placing the threads on the corner of the garment, b these /b threads with which he fulfills the mitzva b are independent and that /b additional thread b is independent /b and does not compromise fulfillment of the mitzva. The additional string is not considered as joined to the required strings. b And if we hold /b |
|
58. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 550| 43a. ומודה בקנס פטור ורבנן סברי כי קא תבע בושת ופגם קא תבע,במאי קא מיפלגי א"ר פפא ר"ש סבר לא שביק איניש מידי דקיץ ותבע מידי דלא קיץ ורבנן סברי לא שביק איניש מידי דכי מודי ביה לא מיפטר ותבע מידי דכי מודה ביה מיפטר,בעא מיניה רבי אבינא מרב ששת בת הניזונת מן האחין מעשה ידיה למי,במקום אב קיימי מה התם מעשה ידיה לאב ה"נ מעשה ידיה לאחין או דלמא לא דמי לאב התם מדידיה מיתזנא הכא לאו מדידהו מיתזנא,א"ל תניתוה אלמנה ניזונת מנכסי יתומים ומעשה ידיה שלהן,מי דמי אלמנתו לא ניחא ליה בהרווחה בתו ניחא ליה בהרווחה,למימרא דבתו עדיפא ליה מאלמנתו והאמר רבי אבא א"ר יוסי עשו אלמנה אצל הבת כבת אצל אחין בנכסין מועטין,מה הבת אצל אחין הבת ניזונת והאחין ישאלו על הפתחים אף אלמנה אצל הבת אלמנה ניזונת והבת תשאל על הפתחים לענין זילותא אלמנתו עדיפא ליה לענין הרווחה בתו עדיפא ליה,מתיב רב יוסף מעשה ידיה ומציאתה אע"פ שלא גבתה מת האב הרי הן של אחין טעמא דבחיי האב הא לאחר מיתת האב לעצמה מאי לאו בניזונת לא בשאינה ניזונת,אי בשאינה ניזונת מאי למימרא אפילו למ"ד יכול הרב לומר לעבד עשה עמי ואיני זנך ה"מ בעבד כנעני דלא כתיב ביה עמך,אבל עבד עברי דכתיב ביה (דברים טו, יג) עמך לא כל שכן בתו,אמר רבה בר עולא לא נצרכה אלא להעדפה אמר רבא גברא רבה כרב יוסף לא ידע דאיכא העדפה וקמותיב תיובתא,אלא אמר רבא רב יוסף מתני' גופא קשיא ליה דקתני מעשה ידיה ומציאתה אע"פ שלא גבתה מציאתה ממאן גביא,אלא לאו הכי קאמר מעשה ידיה כמציאתה מה מציאתה בחיי האב לאב לאחר מיתת האב לעצמה אף מעשה ידיה נמי בחיי האב לאב לאחר מיתת האב לעצמה ש"מ,איתמר נמי א"ר יהודה אמר רב בת הניזונת מן האחין מעשה ידיה לעצמה אמר רב כהנא מ"ט דכתיב (ויקרא כה, מו) והתנחלתם אותם לבניכם אחריכם אותם לבניכם ולא בנותיכם לבניכם מגיד שאין אדם מוריש זכות בתו לבנו,מתקיף לה רבה ואימא בפיתוי הבת וקנסות וחבלות הכתוב מדבר וכן תנא רב חנינא בפתוי הבת וקנסות וחבלות הכתוב מדבר,חבלות צערא דגופא נינהו אמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא | 43a. b And /b the principle is that b one who admits /b that he is liable to pay b a fine is exempt. /b Since the man would not have been liable to pay even if he had admitted his guilt, his denial of guilt is not considered a denial of monetary liability, and even if he swears falsely that he is not liable, he still does not become liable to bring an offering. b And the Rabbis hold /b that b when /b the father b claims /b payment in court, it is the compensation for the b humiliation and degradation /b that b he claims. /b His main focus is not on the fine, and therefore the denial refers to a regular monetary claim.,The Gemara asks: If this explanation is correct, b with regard to what do /b the i tanna’im /i b disagree? Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Shimon holds /b that b a person does not leave /b aside b something that /b is b fixed, /b e.g., a fine, b and claim something that /b is b not fixed, /b e.g., the compensation for humiliation and degradation, which need to be assessed by the court. Consequently, a claim of rape is essentially a demand for the fine. b And /b conversely, b the Rabbis hold /b that b a person does not leave /b aside b something that, if /b the defendant b admits to it, he is not exempt /b from payment, e.g., humiliation and degradation, b and claim something that, if /b the defendant b admits to it, he is exempt /b from payment. Consequently, they contend that the lawsuit is mainly focused on the compensation for the humiliation and degradation.,§ b Rabbi Avina raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: /b With regard to b a daughter who is sustained by /b her b brothers, /b i.e., an orphan whose brothers provide her with her sustece from their father’s estate, in accordance with the stipulation in the marriage contract between their parents that requires the father to pay for his daughter’s sustece from his property, b to whom do her earnings /b belong?,Rabbi Avina explains the sides of the dilemma. One might say that the brothers b stand in place of /b the b father: Just as there, /b if their father is alive, b her earnings /b go b to the father, here too her earnings /b go b to the brothers. Or perhaps /b this is b not similar /b to the case of a living b father. /b Why not? Because b there, she is sustained from his /b own property, and therefore he is entitled to receive her earnings, whereas b here, she is not sustained from their /b possessions but from the estate of their father, and consequently they should not receive her earnings.,Rav Sheshet b said to him: You /b already b learned /b the answer to this dilemma from a mishna ( i Ketubot /i 81a): b A widow is sustained from the property of the orphans, and her earnings are theirs. /b This indicates that although a widow receives her sustece from the estate of her deceased husband, in accordance with the stipulations of the marriage contract, the orphans are nevertheless entitled to her earnings. The same reasoning should apply to an orphan sustained by her brothers.,The Gemara refutes this argument: b Are /b the two situations b comparable? /b In the case of b his widow, /b the deceased b is not /b necessarily b amenable /b to b her /b living b in comfort. /b Consequently, she is entitled only to the minimum guaranteed to her in the marriage contract, while her earnings go to his heirs. Conversely, with regard to b his daughter, he is amenable /b and is interested b in her /b living in b comfort, /b and therefore he allows her to retain her earnings so that she can have the extra money.,The Gemara asks: b Is that to say that /b the welfare of b his daughter is /b more b preferable to him than /b that of b his widow? But didn’t Rabbi Abba say /b that b Rabbi Yosei said: /b The Sages b established /b the i halakha /i of b a widow with regard to the daughter, /b who is also entitled to sustece from the estate, b like /b the i halakha /i of b a daughter with regard to /b the b brothers in /b a case of b a small estate /b that is insufficient for the livelihoods of both the girl and her brothers?,Rabbi Abba explains: b Just as /b in the case of b a daughter with regard to /b the b brothers, /b the i halakha /i is that b the daughter is sustained /b from the father’s estate, b and /b if b the brothers /b have nothing to eat they must go and b beg /b for charity b at /b people’s b doors, so too, /b in the case of b a widow with regard to the daughter, the widow is sustained and the daughters beg /b for charity b at /b people’s b doors. /b This indicates that a man is more concerned for his widow than his daughter. The Gemara explains: The two cases are not comparable. b With regard to degradation, one’s widow is preferable to him, /b i.e., if one of them must be forced to go around requesting handouts, a man would rather it be his daughter than his widow. By contrast, b with regard to comfort, /b the comfort of b his daughter is /b more b preferable to him /b than that of his widow., b Rav Yosef raised an objection /b to Rav Sheshet’s conclusion that the orphan girl’s earnings belong to the brothers, from the mishna: With regard to b her earnings and /b the lost b items /b that b she /b has b found, although she has not collected /b them, if b the father died, they /b belong to b her brothers. /b Rav Yosef infers: b The reason /b for this i halakha /i is that she acquired her earnings b in /b her b father’s lifetime, /b which indicates that the money she earns b after the father’s death /b belongs b to her. What, is it not /b referring even b to /b a daughter b who is sustained /b from his estate? The Gemara refutes this claim: b No, /b it deals b with /b a daughter b who is not sustained /b from his property but who sustains herself through her own earnings.,The Gemara asks: b If /b the mishna is speaking b of /b one b who is not sustained /b from his estate, b what /b is the purpose b of stating /b this? It is obvious that this is the i halakha /i , as b even according to the one who said /b that b a master can say to /b his b slave: Work for me but I will not feed you, /b i.e., a master is not legally obligated to provide sustece to his slave, b this applies only to a Canaanite slave, with regard to whom it is not written /b in the Torah: b “With you,” /b and therefore his master is not obligated to feed him., b However, /b in the case of b a Hebrew slave, as it is written with regard to him: “With you” /b (Deuteronomy 15:16), which indicates that he is entitled to live with his master as an equal, the master b may not /b compel the slave to serve him unless he feeds him. b All the more so /b concerning b his daughter, /b it cannot be the case that this young woman has to work and give her wages to the brothers if they are not obligated to sustain her at the same time., b Rabba bar Ulla said: /b It is b necessary only for the surplus. /b The mishna is not stating that the brothers take her earnings and do not sustain her, leaving her with nothing. Rather, the question concerns a young woman whose earnings provide her with more than she needs for her sustece, leaving her with a surplus. It is this surplus that belongs to her brothers. b Rava said /b in response to Rabba bar Ulla’s explanation: Is it possible that b a man /b as b great as Rav Yosef does not know that there is /b an explanation according to which the mishna is referring to the b surplus, and /b in his ignorance b he raises a refutation /b against Rav Sheshet? This certainly cannot be the case., b Rather, Rava said: The mishna itself /b poses b a difficulty to /b the opinion of Rav Sheshet, and this difficulty led b Rav Yosef /b to his conclusion. This is b as /b the mishna b teaches: Her earnings and /b the lost b items /b that b she /b has b found, although she has not collected /b them. Rava analyzes this statement: With regard to b items /b that b she /b has b found, from whom does she collect /b them? The concept of collecting is inappropriate in this case., b Rather, is it not /b the case that b this is what /b the mishna b said: Her earnings /b are b like items she /b has b found: Just as items she /b has b found in /b her b father’s lifetime /b belong b to /b her b father, /b and b after the father’s death /b they belong b to her, so too, /b the same rule applies to b her earnings as well: In the father’s lifetime, /b they go b to the father, /b and b after the father’s death /b they belong b to her, /b even when she is sustained from the inheritance. The Gemara concludes: We can b learn from this /b inference that the mishna deals with her earnings themselves, not their surplus, in contrast to the interpretation of Rav Sheshet.,This i halakha /i b was also stated /b by i amora’im /i , as b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: /b In the case of b a daughter who is sustained by the brothers, her earnings /b nevertheless belong b to her. Rav Kahana said: What is the reason /b for this? b As it is written /b with regard to slaves: b “And you may make them an inheritance for your sons after you” /b (Leviticus 25:46), from which it is inferred: It is b them, /b slaves alone, that you bequeath b to your sons, and /b you do b not /b bequeath b your daughters to your sons. /b This verse b teaches that a man does not bequeath a right /b that he has over his b daughter to his son. /b All the rights a man possesses over his daughter are personal rights, which are not transferable by inheritance., b Rabba /b strongly b objects to this /b explanation that the verse is referring to a man’s rights to his daughter’s earnings: b But /b one can b say /b that b the verse is speaking of the /b fine that a father is paid in the case of the b seduction of /b his b daughter, and /b the b fines /b paid to him if she is raped, b and /b compensation due to him for b injuries /b that she suffered, and the verse indicates that these rights are not bequeathed to his heirs. b And Rav Ḥanina likewise /b explicitly b taught /b that b the verse is speaking of /b payments a father is paid in the case of b the seduction of /b his b daughter, and /b the b fines /b due to him if she is raped, b and /b compensation for b injuries /b she has suffered.,The Gemara questions this interpretation: With regard to b injuries, they are /b the result of b her bodily pain, /b and the guiding principle is that any compensation for a daughter’s physical pain does not belong to her father, who merely keeps it in trust for her. If so, the category of injuries should not have been included in this list. b Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: /b |
|
59. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 550| 12a. דלמא לא היא עד כאן לא קאמר ר' אליעזר התם אלא דמיגו דאי בעי מפקר להו לנכסיה והוי עני וחזי ליה ומיגו דזכי ליה לנפשיה זכי לחבריה אבל הכא לא,ועד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן התם אלא דכתיב (ויקרא כג, כב) לא תלקט לעני לא תלקט לו לעני אבל הכא לא,ור"א האי לא תלקט מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה להזהיר לעני על שלו:,שאם ירצה שלא לזון כו': שמעת מינה יכול הרב לומר לעבד עשה עמי ואיני זנך,הכא במאי עסקינן דא"ל צא מעשה ידיך למזונותיך,דכוותה גבי אשה דאמר לה צאי מעשה ידיך במזונותיך אשה אמאי לא אשה בדלא ספקה,עבד נמי בדלא ספיק עבדא דנהום כרסיה לא שויא למריה ולמרתיה למאי מיתבעי,תא שמע עבד שגלה לערי מקלט אין רבו חייב לזונו ולא עוד אלא שמעשה ידיו לרבו ש"מ יכול הרב לומר לעבד עשה עמי ואיני זנך הכא במאי עסקינן דאמר לו צא מעשה ידיך למזונותיך,אי הכי מעשה ידיו אמאי לרבו להעדפה,העדפה פשיטא מהו דתימא כיון דכי לית ליה לא יהיב ליה כי אית ליה נמי לא לישקול מיניה קמ"ל,ומ"ש לערי מקלט סד"א (דברים ד, מב) וחי עביד ליה חיותא טפי קמ"ל,והא מדקתני סיפא אבל אשה שגלתה לערי מקלט בעלה חייב במזונותיה מכלל דלא אמר לה דאי אמר לה בעלה אמאי חייב,ומדסיפא דלא אמר לה רישא נמי דלא אמר ליה,לעולם דאמר ליה ואשה בדלא ספקה,והא מדקתני סיפא ואם אמר לה צאי מעשה ידיך במזונותיך רשאי מכלל דרישא דלא אמר לה ה"ק ואם מספקת ואמר לה צאי מעשה ידיך במזונותיך רשאי,מספקת מאי למימרא מהו דתימא (תהלים מה, יד) כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה קמ"ל,לימא כתנאי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר יכול העבד לומר לרבו בשני בצורת או פרנסני או הוציאני לחירות וחכמים אומרים הרשות ביד רבו,מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר יכול ומר סבר אינו יכול,ותיסברא האי או פרנסני או הוציאני לחירות או פרנסני או תן לי מעשה ידי בפרנסתי מיבעי ליה ועוד מאי שנא בשני בצורת,אלא הכא במאי עסקינן דאמר לו צא מעשה ידיך למזונותיך ובשני בצורת לא ספק,רשב"ג סבר או פרנסני או הוציאני לחירות כי היכי דחזו לי אינשי ומרחמין עלי ורבנן סברי מאן דמרחם אבני חרי אעבד נמי רחומי מרחם,ת"ש דאמר רב המקדיש ידי עבדו אותו העבד לוה ואוכל ועושה ופורע ש"מ יכול הרב לומר לעבד עשה עמי ואיני זנך,הכא במאי עסקינן במעלה לו מזונות א"ה למאי | 12a. b Perhaps /b that b is not so. /b Perhaps this is not the point of dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. There are two ways to explain why this might not be the case. First, it is possible that b Rabbi Eliezer states his opinion only there, /b when the person took possession of the i pe’a /i despite not being eligible to collect it for himself, b since if /b the one who collected the produce b desired, he /b could b declare his property ownerless and become a poor person, and /b then the produce would have been b fit for him /b to retain for himself. b And since /b he could have b acquired /b the i pe’a /i b for himself, /b he can likewise b acquire /b it b for another /b as well. b However, here, /b where he seizes property on behalf of a creditor, he cannot seize this property for himself. Consequently, Rabbi Eliezer does b not /b rule that he can do so when it is against the interests of another person.,Second, one can argue from the opposite perspective: b The Rabbis state /b their opinion b only there, /b that one cannot acquire on behalf of the poor person, b as it is written: /b “The corner of your field you shall not reap and the gleaning of your harvest b you shall not gather; for the poor /b you shall leave them” (Leviticus 23:22), and the Sages expounded this verse by reading it as though there were no break in the middle: b You shall not gather for the poor, /b i.e., the poor person must collect the produce for himself. b However, here, /b where one seizes property on behalf of a creditor, this verse does not apply, and therefore the Rabbis did b not /b rule that the action of the third party is ineffective. Consequently, it is possible that the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis is not with regard to the issue of whether one can seize property on behalf of a creditor in a case where it is to the detriment of others.,The Gemara asks: b And /b as for b Rabbi Eliezer, /b with regard to b this /b verse: b “You shall not gather,” what does he do with it? /b How does he interpret this phrase, from which the Rabbis derived that one may not collect i pe’a /i on behalf of a poor person? The Gemara answers: b He requires it to warn a poor person with regard to his own /b field, i.e., if a poor person had a field of his own he is not permitted to gather i pe’a /i from it for himself, his poverty notwithstanding.,§ The mishna taught: b As, if /b the master b wishes not to sustain /b his slave he is allowed to act accordingly. The Gemara comments: b Conclude from /b the mishna that b the master is /b legally b able to say to /b his b slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you. /b ,The Gemara rejects this claim: This is not a conclusive proof, as b with what are we dealing here, /b in the mishna? We are dealing with a case b where he said to /b the slave: b Spend your earnings to sustain yourself. /b In other words, I will not provide for you; rather, you must work and earn money for your sustece on your own. However, this does not mean that a master can force his slave to work for him without providing him with sustece.,The Gemara asks: If so, b in the corresponding /b situation in the mishna b with regard to a wife, /b will one explain b that he /b could have b said to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself? /b The mishna rules that one cannot exempt himself from his obligation to provide sustece for his wife. In the case of b a wife, why /b may he b not /b do so? It is certainly permitted for a husband to stipulate with his wife that she will keep her earnings and not receive sustece from him, yet it is clear in the mishna that there is a difference between a slave and a wife with regard to his ability to refuse to provide sustece. The Gemara answers: The b wife /b mentioned in the mishna is one whose earnings b are not sufficient /b for her sustece, and in that case the husband may not stipulate in this manner.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the case of the b slave also /b is referring to a situation where his earnings b are not sufficient /b for his sustece, and he is unable to sustain himself. Nevertheless, his master can refuse to sustain him. Therefore, one can conclude from the mishna that a master can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you. The Gemara explains: b A slave who is not worth the bread that he consumes, for what is he needed by his master or his mistress? /b If the value of his labor does not even pay for the cost of his sustece why is he needed at all? The mishna certainly does not refer to a case of this kind. By contrast, with regard to a wife, the marriage does not depend on her ability to provide for herself by means of her earnings. Consequently, one cannot prove from the mishna that a master can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you.,The Gemara suggests another proof: b Come /b and b hear /b a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Makkot /i 2:8): With regard to b a slave who /b unintentionally killed someone and b was exiled to /b one of the b cities of refuge, his master is not required to sustain him. And not only that, but his earnings /b in his city of refuge belong b to his master. Conclude from /b the i baraita /i that b a master can say to /b his b slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you, /b as in the case of a slave exiled to a city of refuge the master is entitled to his earnings despite not providing for him. The Gemara answers: b With what are we dealing here? /b With a case b where /b the master b said to him: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b If so, /b if the master said this to the slave, then b why do his earnings /b belong b to his master? /b After all, his master stipulated that he should sustain himself. The Gemara answers: This i halakha /i is referring b to /b his b surplus /b earnings, i.e., if the slave works and earns more than the cost of his sustece, his surplus income belongs to the master.,The Gemara asks: b Isn’t /b it b obvious /b that any b surplus /b belongs to the master, as he owns the slave? The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary, b lest you say that since, when he does not /b work enough the master does b not give him /b all he needs to eat, then b when he has /b a surplus from his work the master b should also not take it. /b Therefore, the i baraita /i b teaches us /b that despite this consideration the surplus belongs to the master.,The Gemara asks: b And what is different /b with regard to a slave who was exiled b to /b one of the b cities of refuge, /b concerning whom the i baraita /i was stated? According to this reasoning, the surplus should belong to the master no matter where the slave is located. The Gemara answers: It might b enter your mind to say /b that as the verse states with regard to one who is exiled to a city of refuge: “And that fleeing to one of these cities b he might live” /b (Deuteronomy 4:42), one should b act for him /b so that he has b extra life, /b i.e., in this specific case the slave should be allowed to retain any additional amount he earns. Therefore, the i baraita /i b teaches us /b that no special obligation of this kind applies even if the slave had been exiled to a city of refuge.,The Gemara raises another difficulty: b But from /b the fact b that the latter clause /b of that i baraita /i b teaches: However, /b with regard to b a woman who was exiled to /b one of the b cities of refuge, her husband is obligated in her sustece, by inference /b the i baraita /i is dealing with a case b where he did not say to her: /b Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, which is why he must sustain her. b As, if he said /b this b to her, why is her husband obligated /b to provide her with sustece?, b And from /b the fact b that the latter clause /b of the i baraita /i is speaking about a case b where he did not say /b this b to her, /b it may be inferred that the b first clause /b is b also /b dealing with a situation b where he did not say to /b the slave: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself. The two clauses of the i baraita /i must be referring to similar cases or they would not be taught together.,The Gemara rejects this claim: b Actually, /b the i baraita /i is referring to a case b where /b the master b said to /b the slave: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, and the husband issued a similar statement to his wife. However, in the case of b a woman /b it is referring to a situation b when /b her earnings are b not sufficient /b for her sustece.,The Gemara raises an objection: b But from /b the fact b that the last clause teaches: And if /b the husband b said to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, he is permitted /b to act accordingly, b it may be inferred that the first /b half of the last b clause /b is referring to a case b where he did not say /b this b to her. /b The Gemara explains that b this is what /b the i baraita /i b is saying: And if /b her earnings b suffice /b to pay for her sustece, b and he said to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, it is permitted /b for him to say that.,The Gemara asks: If the i baraita /i is referring to a case where her earnings b suffice, what /b is the purpose b of stating /b this i halakha /i with regard to one who was exiled to a city of refuge? The same i halakha /i applies to all wives. The Gemara answers: It is necessary, b lest you say /b that in light of the verse: b “All glorious is the king’s daughter within the palace” /b (Psalms 45:14), from which it is derived that it is improper for a wife to spend too much time outside her home, this woman’s husband should be concerned that while his wife is in a city of refuge she should not work out of the home, but only in the home. Therefore, the i baraita /i b teaches us /b that there is no need to be concerned about this matter, and her husband may say to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, even in a city of refuge.,With regard to the question of whether a master can decide to cease providing sustece for his slave while the slave continues to serve him, the Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that this matter is the b subject of /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i , /b as it was taught that b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A slave can say to his master in years of famine: Either sustain me /b from your property b or emancipate me. And the Rabbis say: His master has permission to /b retain his ownership over him without sustaining him., b What, is it not /b correct to say that b they disagree /b about b this /b issue, b that /b one b Sage, /b the Rabbis, b holds /b that a master b can /b say to his slave that he should work for him and he will not sustain him. Consequently, he is not required to emancipate him even when he cannot provide for him. b And /b one b Sage, /b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, b holds /b that the master b cannot /b say this, and therefore he is required to free him.,The Gemara responds: b And can you understand /b the dispute that way? If so, b this /b expression: b Either sustain me or emancipate me, /b is inaccurate, as the i baraita /i b should have /b said: b Either sustain me or give me my earnings for my sustece. And furthermore, /b if the dispute concerns this general issue, b what is different about years of famine? /b The same dispute should apply in all years., b Rather, with what are we dealing here? /b This i baraita /i is referring to a case where the master b said to /b the slave: b Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, and /b subsequently, b during years of famine, /b the slave’s earnings do b not suffice /b to provide himself with sustece, as prices are higher than usual.,And b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds /b that in this case the slave can say to his master: b Either sustain me or emancipate me, so that people will see me /b in my helpless state, b and they will have mercy on me /b and provide me with charity. b And the Rabbis hold /b that this is not a justification for emancipating a slave, as b those who have mercy on freemen will also have mercy on a slave. /b Consequently, it is not necessary for the slave to be emancipated for him to receive help from generous people. According to this interpretation, the i baraita /i has no bearing on the question as to whether a master can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you.,The Gemara offers another suggestion: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof from a statement b that Rav said: /b In the case of b one who consecrates the hands of his slave, /b so that all the work he does becomes Temple property, preventing the slave from working on his own behalf, then b that slave borrows and eats, and /b afterward b performs /b work b and repays /b what he borrowed, as will be explained. b Conclude from /b Rav’s statement that b the master is able to say to /b his b slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you. /b In this case the master has prevented his slave from working for himself, and yet he is not required to provide for him.,The Gemara answers: b With what are we dealing here? /b This is referring to a case b where /b the master b provides sustece for him. /b The Gemara raises a difficulty: b If so, for what /b reason |
|
| 60. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, 138 (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 558 |
61. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 550| 93a. הניחא למאן דאמר אין הרב יכול לומר לעבד עשה עמי ואיני זנך שפיר אלא למאן דאמר יכול הרב לומר לעבד עשה עמי ואיני זנך מאי איכא למימר,אלא אידי ואידי בשאין מעלה להן מזונות ובהא פליגי דמר סבר יכול ומר סבר אין יכול ורבי יוחנן דאמר יכול הרב שביק מתניתין ועביד כברייתא,אלא דכולי עלמא משל שמים הוא אוכל ולא מצי קציץ ומאי קוצץ דאמר רבי הושעיא מזונות,דכוותיה גבי בהמתו תבן נקוץ לה אלא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר משלו הוא אוכל ומר סבר משל שמים הוא אוכל:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big קוצץ אדם על ידי עצמו על ידי בנו ובתו הגדולים על ידי עבדו ושפחתו הגדולים על ידי אשתו מפני שיש בהן דעת אבל אינו קוצץ על ידי בנו ובתו הקטנים ולא על ידי עבדו ושפחתו הקטנים ולא על ידי בהמתו מפני שאין בהן דעת,השוכר את הפועלים לעשות בנטע רבעי שלו הרי אלו לא יאכלו אם לא הודיען פודה ומאכילן נתפרסו עגוליו נתפתחו חביותיו הרי אלו לא יאכלו אם לא הודיען מעשר ומאכילן,שומרי פירות אוכלין מהלכות מדינה אבל לא מן התורה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big שומרי פירות אמר רב לא שנו אלא שומרי גנות ופרדסין אבל שומרי גיתות וערימות אוכלין מן התורה קסבר משמר כעושה מעשה דמי,ושמואל אמר לא שנו אלא שומרי גיתות וערימות אבל שומרי גנות ופרדסים אינן אוכלים לא מן התורה ולא מהלכות מדינה קא סבר משמר לאו כעושה מעשה דמי,מתיב רב אחא בר רב הונא המשמר את הפרה מטמא בגדים ואי אמרת משמר לאו כעושה מעשה דמי אמאי מטמא בגדים אמר רבה בר עולא גזירה שמא יזיז בה אבר,מתיב רב כהנא המשמר ארבע וחמש מקשאות הרי זה לא ימלא כריסו מאחד מהן אלא מכל אחד ואחד אוכל לפי חשבון ואי אמרת משמר לאו כעושה מעשה דמי אמאי אוכל,אמר רב שימי בר אשי בעקורין שנו עקורין והלא נגמרה מלאכתן למעשר שלא ניטל פיקס שלהם,אמר רב אשי כוותיה דשמואל מסתברא דתנן ואלו אוכלין מן התורה העושה במחובר לקרקע בשעת גמר מלאכה ובתלוש כו' מכלל דאיכא דלא קא אכיל מן התורה אלא מהלכות מדינה,אימא סיפא ואלו שאינן אוכלין מאי אינן אוכלין אילימא שאין אוכלין מן התורה אלא מהלכות מדינה היינו רישא אלא לאו שאין אוכלין לא מן התורה ולא מהלכות מדינה ומאי ניהו עושה במחובר לקרקע בשעה שאין גמר מלאכה וכל שכן שומרי גנות ופרדסות:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ארבעה שומרים הן שומר חנם והשואל נושא שכר והשוכר שומר חנם נשבע על הכל והשואל משלם את הכל,ונושא שכר והשוכר נשבעים על השבורה ועל השבויה ועל המתה ומשלמין את האבידה ואת הגניבה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מאן תנא ארבעה שומרים אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה רבי מאיר היא אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן מי איכא דלית ליה ארבעה שומרין אמר ליה הכי קאמינא לך מאן תנא שוכר כנושא שכר רבי מאיר היא,והא רבי מאיר איפכא שמעינן ליה דתניא שוכר כיצד משלם ר' מאיר אומר כשומר חנם ר' יהודה אומר כשומר שכר רבה בר אבוה איפכא קתני,אי הכי ארבעה שלשה נינהו אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ד' שומרין ודיניהם שלשה,ההוא רעיא דהוה קא רעי חיותא אגודא דנהר פפא שריג חדא מינייהו ונפלת למיא אתא לקמיה דרבה ופטריה אמר מאי הו"ל למעבד | 93a. b This works out well according to the one who says /b that b a master cannot say to a slave: Work for me and I will not feed you, /b i.e., he is obligated to provide the slave with a livelihood. For the purposes of the case at hand, this means that the master cannot stipulate that he is relinquishing his slaves’ right to eat while performing labor, and therefore it works out b well. But according to the one who says /b that b a master can say to a slave: Work for me and I will not feed you, what can be said? /b He should be able to stipulate to that effect with regard to his minor slave, as he is entitled to all profits that result from the slaves’ labor., b Rather, /b according to this opinion one must accept a different explanation: Both b this /b mishna b and that /b i baraita /i are referring to a case b when he does not provide /b the slaves b with food, and /b the two tannaitic sources b disagree with regard to that /b very issue. b As /b one b Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the i baraita /i , b holds /b that a master b can /b say to a slave: Work for me and I will not feed you, b and /b one b Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the mishna, b holds /b that b he cannot /b do so. The Gemara is puzzled by this response: If so, b Rabbi Yoḥa, who says /b that b a master can /b say to his slave that he will not feed him, has b left /b aside b the mishna and acted /b and ruled b in accordance with the i baraita /i . /b , b Rather, /b the Gemara retracts the previous explanation in favor of another: b Everyone agrees /b that a laborer b eats from /b the property b of Heaven, and /b even if a father or master provides his child or slave with food b he cannot stipulate /b that the child or slave should not eat when performing labor, as the father or master has no rights over that which they consume. b And what is /b the meaning of: b Stipulates, that Rabbi Hoshaya says /b in the i baraita /i ? That does not mean, as in the mishna, that the master relinquishes the slaves’ right to food; rather, he stipulates that they should eat b food /b before they work, so that they will be too full to eat at a later stage.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, b in the corresponding /b situation, b with regard to his animal, /b there should b likewise /b be no discussion at all because b he can stipulate /b in this manner and distribute b straw for it /b before it starts work, as everyone agrees that this is permitted. b Rather, /b the Gemara retracts this interpretation and says that in fact b they disagree with regard to this: That /b one b Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the mishna, b holds /b that a laborer b eats from his own /b property, b and /b one b Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the i baraita /i , b holds /b that a laborer b eats from /b the property b of Heaven. /b This proves that this issue is in fact a dispute between i tanna’im /i ., strong MISHNA: /strong b A man can stipulate on his own behalf /b that he receive a certain increase in his wages instead of eating the produce with which he works, and similarly, he can stipulate this b on behalf of his adult son or daughter, on behalf of his adult /b Canaanite b slave or /b Canaanite b maidservant, or on behalf of his wife, /b with their agreement, b because they have /b the basic level of mental b competence, /b i.e., they are legally competent and can therefore waive their rights. b But he cannot stipulate /b this b on behalf of his minor son or daughter, nor on behalf of his minor /b Canaanite b slave or /b Canaanite b maidservant, nor on behalf of his animal, as they do not /b have the basic level of mental b competence. /b ,In the case of b one who hires a laborer to perform /b labor b with his fourth-year fruit, /b such laborers b may not eat /b the fruit. And b if he did not inform them /b beforehand that they were working with fourth-year fruit, he must b redeem /b the fruit b and feed them. /b If b his /b fig b cakes broke apart /b and crumbled, so that they must be preserved again, or if b his barrels /b of wine b opened /b and he hired workers to reseal them, b these /b laborers b may not eat, /b as the work of the figs or wine had already been completed with regard to tithes, from which point a laborer may not eat them. And b if he did not inform them, he must tithe /b the food b and feed them. /b ,The mishna adds: b Watchmen of produce may eat /b the produce of the field or vineyard b by local regulations, /b i.e., in accordance with the ordices accepted by the residents of that place, b but not by Torah law. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna mentions b watchmen of produce. Rav says: They taught /b this i halakha /i b only /b with regard to b watchmen of gardens and orchards, /b in which the produce is still attached to the ground, and therefore the watchman would have no legal right to it were it not for the local custom. b But watchmen of winepresses and piles /b of detached produce b may eat /b from them b by Torah law, /b as the decisive factor is whether or not the produce is attached to the ground. Evidently, Rav b maintains /b that one b who safeguards is considered like one who performs labor, /b and therefore he has the status of a laborer., b And /b conversely, b Shmuel says /b that the Sages b taught /b the i halakha /i of the mishna, that they may eat by local regulations, b only /b with regard to b watchmen of winepresses and piles /b of detached produce. b But watchmen of gardens and orchards may not eat, neither by Torah law nor by local regulations. /b This shows that Shmuel b holds /b that b one who safeguards is not considered like one who performs labor, /b and therefore no watchman is entitled to eat by Torah law. In the particular case of detached produce, there is a local custom to allow a watchman of detached produce to eat from it., b Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna raises an objection /b to this reasoning from a i baraita /i : b One who safeguards the /b red b heifer /b after it has been burned b renders /b his b garments impure, /b in accordance with i halakha /i concerning all those who take part in the ritual of the red heifer. The Torah decrees that all those who take part in the ritual of the red heifer contract impurity (Numbers, chapter 19). It is therefore necessary to establish which people are considered to have taken part in this ritual. b And if you say /b that b one who safeguards is not considered like one who performs labor, why /b does he b render /b his b garments impure? /b He has not performed any labor. b Rabba bar Ulla said: /b He does not render them impure due to his work as a watchman; rather, this is a rabbinic b decree, lest he move a limb /b of the heifer., b Rav Kahana raises an objection: /b With regard to b one who safeguards four or five cucumber fields, /b which contain various types of cucumbers and gourds belonging to different people, b this one may not fill his stomach from /b any single b one of them. Rather, /b he must eat b from each and every one by a proportionate /b amount. b But if you say /b that b one who safeguards is not considered like one who performs labor, why /b is he allowed to b eat /b at all?, b Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: They taught this /b i halakha /i b with regard to uprooted /b cucumbers, concerning which even Shmuel agrees that a watchman may eat them by local regulations. The Gemara raises a difficulty: b Uprooted? But /b at that stage b hasn’t their work /b already b been completed with regard to tithes, /b and therefore no laborer should be permitted to eat them? The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case b when their blossom had not /b yet b been removed. /b Since the cucumbers still require work, they are not yet subject to tithes., b Rav Ashi said: It stands to reason /b that the i halakha /i is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Shmuel, as we learned /b in a mishna (87a): b And these /b laborers b may eat by Torah law: /b A laborer b who performs /b labor b with /b produce b attached to the ground at the time of the completion of /b its b work, /b e.g., harvesting produce; b and /b a laborer who performs labor b with /b produce b detached /b from the ground before the completion of its work. The mishna’s phrase: By Torah law, proves b by inference that /b with regard to detached produce b there is one who does not eat by Torah law but by local regulations. /b ,The Gemara continues its proof: Now, b say the latter clause /b of that mishna: b And these may not eat. What is /b the meaning of: b May not eat? If we say /b this means b that they may not eat by Torah law but by local regulations, this is /b the same as b the first clause. Rather, is it not /b correct to say that it means b they may not eat /b at all, b neither by Torah law nor by local regulations? And who are /b the people included in this list? They are b one who performs /b labor b with /b produce b attached to the ground at a time when it /b has b not /b reached b the completion of /b its b work, and all the more so watchmen of gardens and orchards, /b who do not perform any significant action., strong MISHNA: /strong b There are four /b types of b bailees, /b to whom different i halakhot /i apply. They are as follows: b An unpaid bailee, /b who receives no compensation for safeguarding the item; b and the borrower /b of an item for his own use; b a paid bailee, /b who is provided with a salary for watching over an item; b and a renter, /b i.e., a bailee who pays a fee for the use of a vessel or animal. If the item was stolen, lost, or broken, or if the animal died in any manner, their i halakhot /i are as follows: b An unpaid bailee takes an oath over every /b outcome; whether the item was lost, stolen, or broken, or if the animal died, the unpaid bailee must take an oath that it happened as he described, and he is then exempt from payment. b The borrower /b does not take an oath, but b pays /b for b every /b outcome, even in a circumstance beyond his control., b And /b the i halakhot /i of b a paid bailee and a renter /b are the same: They b take an oath over an injured /b animal, b over a captured /b animal, b and over a dead /b animal, attesting that the mishaps were caused by circumstances beyond their control, and they are exempt, b but they must pay /b for b loss or theft. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b Who is the i tanna /i /b who taught this mishna about b four /b types of b bailees? Rav Naḥman said /b that b Rabba bar Avuh said: It is Rabbi Meir. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Is there /b any Sage b who does not /b accept the i halakha /i concerning b four /b types of b bailees? /b All of the Sages agree that the Torah spoke of these four types of bailees. Rav Naḥman b said to him: This is what I am saying to you, /b i.e., I mean as follows: b Who is the i tanna /i /b who maintains that the i halakha /i of b a renter /b is b like /b that of b a paid bailee? It is Rabbi Meir. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But didn’t we hear /b that b Rabbi Meir /b said b the opposite, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b a renter, /b whose i halakha /i is not stated in the Torah, b how does he pay, /b i.e., in which cases is he liable to pay? b Rabbi Meir says: /b He pays in the same cases b as an unpaid bailee; Rabbi Yehuda says /b he pays in the same cases b as a paid bailee. /b The Gemara explains: b Rabba bar Avuh teaches /b this i baraita /i in the b opposite /b manner to the version here.,The Gemara asks a question with regard to the accepted number of bailees: b If so, /b that the same i halakha /i applies to a renter and a paid bailee, why does the i tanna /i say that there are b four /b bailees? b They are /b only b three. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said /b that the mishna should be understood as follows: There are b four /b types of b bailees, whose i halakhot /i are three. /b ,§ The Gemara relates: There was b a certain shepherd who was herding animals on the bank of the Pappa River, /b when b one of them slipped and fell into the water /b and drowned. b He came before Rabba, and /b Rabba b exempted him /b from payment. Rabba b stated /b the following reasoning in support of his ruling: b What could he have done? /b A drowning of this kind is a circumstance beyond his control, and although a shepherd is a paid bailee he is exempt from liability in circumstances beyond his control. |
|
62. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 546| 25a. שעושה אותו גלל: , big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מרחיקין את הנבלות ואת הקברות ואת הבורסקי מן העיר חמשים אמה אין עושין בורסקי אלא למזרח העיר רבי עקיבא אומר לכל רוח הוא עושה חוץ ממערבה ומרחיק חמשים אמה ומרחיקין את המשרה מן הירק ואת הכרישין מן הבצלים ואת החרדל מן הדבורים ורבי יוסי מתיר בחרדל: , big strongגמ׳ /strong /big איבעיא להו ר' עקיבא היכי קאמר לכל רוח הוא עושה וסומך חוץ ממערבה דמרחיק נ' אמה ועושה או דלמא לכל רוח הוא עושה ומרחיק חמשים אמה חוץ ממערבה דאינו עושה כלל,תא שמע דתניא ר"ע אומר לכל רוח הוא עושה ומרחיק חמשים אמה חוץ ממערבה דאינו עושה כל עיקר מפני שהיא תדירא,א"ל רבא לרב נחמן מאי תדירא אילימא תדירא ברוחות והא אמר רב חנן בר אבא אמר רב ד' רוחות מנשבות בכל יום ורוח צפונית עם כולן שאילמלא כן אין העולם מתקיים אפילו שעה אחת ורוח דרומית קשה מכולן ואילמלא בן נץ שמעמידה מחרבת את העולם שנאמר (איוב לט, כו) המבינתך יאבר נץ יפרוש כנפיו לתימן,אלא מאי תדירא תדירא בשכינה דאריב"ל בואו ונחזיק טובה לאבותינו שהודיעו מקום תפלה דכתיב (נחמיה ט, ו) וצבא השמים לך משתחוים,מתקיף לה רב אחא בר יעקב ודלמא כעבד שנוטל פרס מרבו וחוזר לאחוריו ומשתחוה קשיא,ורבי אושעיא סבר שכינה בכל מקום דאמר רבי אושעיא מאי דכתיב (נחמיה ט, ו) אתה הוא ה' לבדך אתה עשית את השמים וגו' שלוחיך לא כשלוחי בשר ודם שלוחי בשר ודם ממקום שמשתלחים לשם מחזירים שליחותן אבל שלוחיך למקום שמשתלחין משם מחזירין שליחותן שנאמר (איוב לח, לה) התשלח ברקים וילכו ויאמרו לך הננו יבואו ויאמרו לא נאמר אלא וילכו ויאמרו מלמד שהשכינה בכל מקום,ואף רבי ישמעאל סבר שכינה בכל מקום דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל מנין ששכינה בכל מקום שנאמר (זכריה ב, ז) הנה המלאך הדובר בי יוצא ומלאך אחר יוצא לקראתו אחריו לא נאמר אלא לקראתו מלמד ששכינה בכל מקום,ואף רב ששת סבר שכינה בכל מקום דא"ל רב ששת לשמעיה לכל רוחתא אוקמן לבר ממזרח ולאו משום דלית ביה שכינה אלא משום דמורו בה מיני,ורבי אבהו אמר שכינה במערב דא"ר אבהו מאי אוריה אויר יה,אמר רב יהודה מאי דכתיב (דברים לב, ב) יערוף כמטר לקחי זו רוח מערבית שבאה מערפו של עולם,תזל כטל אמרתי זו רוח צפונית שמזלת את הזהב וכן הוא אומר (ישעיהו מו, ו) הזלים זהב מכיס,כשעירים עלי דשא זו רוח מזרחית שמסערת את כל העולם כשעיר וכרביבים עלי עשב זו רוח דרומית שהיא מעלה רביבים ומגדלת עשבים,תניא ר"א אומר עולם | 25a. b he turns it /b into b manure, /b i.e., the chaff acts like manure, and an excessive amount of manure damages the seeds., strong MISHNA: /strong b One must distance /b animal b carcasses, and graves, and a tannery [ i haburseki /i ], /b a place where hides are processed, b fifty cubits from the city. One may establish a tannery only on the east side of the city, /b because winds usually blow from the west and the foul smells would therefore be blown away from the residential area. b Rabbi Akiva says: One may establish /b a tannery b on any side /b of a city b except for the west, /b as the winds blowing from that direction will bring the odors into the city, b and one must distance /b it b fifty cubits /b from the city. b One must distance from vegetables water in which flax is steeped, /b because this water ruins them; b and /b likewise one must distance b leeks from onions, and mustard from bees. And Rabbi Yosei permits /b one not to do so in the case b of mustard. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: With regard to b what /b case b is Rabbi Akiva speaking? /b Did he mean that b one may establish /b a tannery b on any side /b of a city, b and /b one may even b place /b the tannery b close /b to the city, b except for the west side, /b where b one must establish it at a distance of fifty cubits? Or perhaps /b he meant that b one may establish /b a tannery b on any side and distance it fifty cubits, except for the west side, /b where one b may not establish /b a tannery b at all. /b ,The Gemara cites a proof: b Come /b and b hear, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Akiva says /b that b one may establish /b a tannery b on any side /b of the city b and distance it fifty cubits, except for the west side, /b where one b may not establish /b a tannery b at all, because /b the western wind is b frequent. /b ,§ With regard to the last statement of the i baraita /i , b Rava said to Rav Naḥman: What /b does b frequent /b mean in this context? b If we say /b it means b frequent among the winds, /b i.e., this wind blows all the time, that is difficult. b But doesn’t Rav Ḥa bar Abba say /b that b Rav says: Four winds blow every day /b from different directions, b and the northern wind /b blows b with each of /b the other three; b as, if this were not so, /b i.e., if it did not blow, b the world would not exist for even one hour, /b as the northern wind is pleasant and tempers the bitter effects of the other winds. b And the southern wind /b is b harsher than all of them, and were it not /b for the angel named b i Ben Netz /i , /b who b stops it /b from blowing even harder, it would b destroy the /b entire b world, as it is stated: “Does the hawk [ i netz /i ] soar by your wisdom, and stretch her wings toward the south?” /b (Job 39:26). This indicates that the northern wind is the most constant, not the western wind., b Rather, what /b is the meaning of b frequent? /b It means b frequent with the Divine Presence, /b i.e., the Divine Presence is found on the western side, and therefore it is inappropriate to set up a tannery there with its foul odors. b As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Come and let us be grateful to our ancestors who revealed /b to us b the place of prayer, as it is written: “And the hosts of heaven bow down to You” /b (Nehemiah 9:6). Since the celestial bodies move from east to west, they bow in that direction, which indicates that the Divine Presence is in the west., b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov objects to this: But perhaps /b the celestial bodies are b like a servant who receives a gift from his master and walks backward /b while b bowing. /b If so, the Divine Presence is in the east and the celestial bodies are moving backward. The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is b difficult, /b i.e., the verse does not provide a definitive proof.,The Gemara comments: b And Rabbi Oshaya holds /b that b the Divine Presence /b is found b in every place, as Rabbi Oshaya says: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “You are the Lord, even You alone, You have made heaven… /b You preserve them all alive and the hosts of heaven bow down to You” (Nehemiah 9:6)? This indicates that b Your messengers are not like the messengers of flesh and blood. The messengers of flesh and blood return to the place from where they were sent /b to report on b their mission. But Your messengers return /b and report on b their mission from the /b very same b place /b to b which they are sent, as it is stated “Can you send forth lightnings, that they may go out and say to you: Here we are?” /b (Job 38:35). The verse b does not state: They will come and say, /b i.e., they do not return to their point of departure, b but: “They may go out and say,” /b which b teaches that the Divine Presence /b is found b in every place. /b ,The Gemara comments: b And Rabbi Yishmael, too, holds /b that b the Divine Presence /b is b in every place, as /b one of the Sages of b the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: From where /b is it derived b that the Divine Presence /b is b in every place? As it is stated: “And behold the angel who spoke with me went forth, and another angel went out to meet him” /b (Zechariah 2:7). Although both angels were coming from the Divine Presence, the verse b does not state: After him, but: “To meet him,” /b which b teaches that the Divine Presence /b is b in every place, /b and therefore the angels depart for their missions from every place., b And Rav Sheshet, too, holds /b that b the Divine Presence /b is b in every place, as Rav Sheshet said to his servant: Set me facing any direction /b to pray b except for the east. /b Rav Sheshet, who was blind, required the assistance of his aide to prepare for prayer. He explained to his servant: b And /b the reason I do not wish to face east is b not because it does not contain the Divine Presence, but because the heretics instruct /b people to pray b in that /b direction., b But Rabbi Abbahu says: The Divine Presence /b is b in the west, as Rabbi Abbahu says: What /b is the meaning of b i oriyya /i , /b which is a name for the west? It means b the air of God [ i avir Yah /i ], /b i.e., this is the place of the Divine Presence.,The Gemara cites a statement connected to the four winds. b Rav Yehuda said: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “My doctrine shall drop as the rain, /b my speech shall distill as the dew; as the small rain upon the tender growth, and as the showers upon the herb” (Deuteronomy 32:2)? “My doctrine shall drop [ i ya’arof /i ] as the rain”; b this is the western wind, which comes from the back of [ i me’orpo /i ] the world, /b as the west is also referred to as the back., b “My speech shall distill [ i tizzal /i ] as the dew”; this is the northern wind, which /b brings dry air that reduces the rain and grain and thereby b devalues [ i mazzelet /i ] gold. /b When grain crops are reduced their price appreciates, and consequently the value of gold decreases. b And in addition, it says: “You who lavish [ i hazzalim /i ] gold out of the bag” /b (Isaiah 46:6)., b “As the small rain [ i kisirim /i ] upon the tender growth”; this is the eastern wind that rages through [ i maseret /i ] the entire world like a demon [ i sa’ir /i ] /b when it blows strongly. b “And as the showers upon the herb”; this is the southern wind, which raises showers and causes herbs to grow. /b , b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b The b world /b |
|
63. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 550| 87b. אמר ליה לא זכתה התורה לאב אלא שבח נעורים בלבד איתיביה החובל בעבד עברי חייב בכולן חוץ מן השבת בזמן שהוא שלו אמר אביי מודה רב בשבת דמעשה ידיה עד שעת בגרות דאבוה הוי,איתיביה החובל בבנו גדול יתן לו מיד בבנו קטן יעשה לו סגולה החובל בבתו קטנה פטור ולא עוד אלא אחרים שחבלו בה חייבין ליתן לאביה ה"נ בשבת:,ובבנו גדול יתן לו מיד ורמינהו החובל בבניו ובבנותיו של אחרים גדולים יתן להם מיד קטנים יעשה להם סגולה בבניו ובבנותיו שלו פטור,אמרי לא קשיא כאן כשסמוכים על שלחנו כאן כשאין סמוכין על שלחנו,במאי אוקימתא לקמייתא בשאין סמוכין על שלחנו אי הכי אימא סיפא החובל בבתו הקטנה פטור ולא עוד אלא אחרים שחבלו בה חייבין ליתן לאביה לדידה בעי למיתב לה דבעיא מזוני,ואפי' למ"ד יכול הרב לומר לעבד עשה עמי ואיני זנך הני מילי בעבד כנעני דאמר ליה עביד עבידתא כולי יומא ולאורתא זיל סחר ואכול אבל עבד עברי דכתיב (דברים טו, טז) כי טוב לו עמך עמך במאכל עמך במשתה לא כל שכן בתו,כדאמר רבא בריה דרב עולא לא נצרכה אלא להעדפה ה"נ לא נצרכה אלא להעדפה,במאי אוקימתא לבתרייתא בסמוכין על שלחנו גדולים יתן להם מיד קטנים יעשה להם סגולה אמאי לאביהם בעי למיתבי,אמרי כי קא קפיד במידי דקא חסר במידי דאתא מעלמא לא קפיד,והא מציאה דמעלמא קאתי להו וקא קפיד אמרי רווחא דקאתי להו מעלמא ולית להו צערא דגופייהו בגווה קפיד אבל חבלה דאית להו צערא דגופייהו ומעלמא קאתי להו לא קפיד,והא התם דאית לה צערא דגופא ומעלמא קאתי לה וקא קפיד דקתני ולא עוד אלא (אפילו) אחרים שחבלו בה חייבין ליתן לאביה,אמרי התם דגברא קפדנא הוא דהא אין סמוכין על שלחנו אפילו במידי דאתי להו מעלמא קפיד הכא דלאו גברא קפדנא הוא דהא סמוכין על שלחנו כי קא קפיד במידי דקא חסר ליה במידי דאתי להו מעלמא לא קפיד,מאי סגולה רב חסדא אמר ספר תורה רבה בר רב הונא אמר דיקלא דאכיל מיניה תמרי,וכן אמר ריש לקיש לא זכתה תורה לאב אלא שבח נעורים בלבד ורבי יוחנן אמר אפילו פציעה,פציעה ס"ד אפילו רבי אלעזר לא קמיבעיא ליה אלא חבלה | 87b. Rav b said to /b Rabbi Elazar in response: b The Torah granted the father only the profits of /b her b youth /b and nothing else. Therefore, compensation for the injury goes to the daughter. Rabbi Elazar b raised an objection to /b Rav’s statement based on the mishna: b One who injures a Hebrew slave /b is b liable for all of /b the five types of indemnity. This is b except for /b compensation for b loss of livelihood /b occurring b during the time that /b the injured slave b belongs to /b the one that injured him. This should be the i halakha /i with regard to a minor daughter as well, that since the father has the right to the earnings of his minor daughter, he should receive the compensation for her loss of livelihood. b Abaye said /b in response: b Rav concedes with regard to /b compensation for her b loss of livelihood /b that it is paid to the father, b since her earnings belong to her father until the time of /b her b adulthood, /b and therefore her inability to work is her father’s loss.,Rabbi Elazar b raised an objection to /b Rav’s statement based on a i baraita /i : b One who injures his adult son /b must b give him /b his compensation b immediately. /b If one injured b his minor son he /b must b make a safe investment [ i segulla /i ] for him /b with the compensation money. b One who injures his minor daughter /b is b exempt, and moreover, /b if there were b others who injured her, /b they are b liable to give /b compensation b to her father. /b The Gemara answers: b So too /b here, the i baraita /i is speaking b with regard to /b the daughter’s b loss of livelihood /b alone, which is paid to the father. The other types of indemnity are paid to the daughter.,The Gemara questions the first ruling of the i baraita /i : b And /b is it so that if a father injured b his adult son he /b must b give him /b his compensation b immediately? And /b the Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from that which is taught in another i baraita /i : In a case of b one who injures the sons or daughters of others, /b if they are b adults he /b must b give them /b their compensation b immediately; /b if they are b minors he /b must b make a safe investment for them. /b If one injures b his own sons or daughters, /b he is b exempt /b from paying them compensation.,The Sages b say /b in response: This is b not difficult. Here, /b where the i baraita /i states that the father is exempt, it is dealing with a case b where /b the children b are dependent on /b their father’s b table /b for support. b There, /b where the i baraita /i states that the father is liable, it is dealing with a case b where /b the children b are not dependent on his table. /b ,The Gemara challenges this resolution of the two i baraitot /i : b In what /b manner b did you interpret the first /b i baraita /i ? You interpreted it as dealing with a case b where /b the children b are not dependent on his table? If so, say the latter clause /b of that i baraita /i : b One who injures his minor daughter /b is b exempt, and moreover, /b if there were b others who injured her, /b they are b liable to give /b compensation b to her father. /b If this is a case where the daughter is not dependent upon her father for support, then the one who injured her would be b required to give /b the compensation b to her, because she needs /b to provide her own b sustece. /b ,The Gemara continues its challenge. b And even according to the one who says /b that b a master can say to /b his b slave: Work for me but I will not feed you, /b i.e., a master is not legally obligated to provide sustece for his slave, b this matter applies /b only b to a Canaanite slave, as /b the master can b say to him: Work /b for me b the entire day, and at night go around, /b beg, b and eat. But /b in the case of b a Hebrew slave, as it is written /b with regard to him: b “Because he fares well with you” /b (Deuteronomy 15:16), indicating that the Hebrew slave must be b “with you” in food /b and b “with you” in drink, /b i.e., the Hebrew slave is entitled to live with his master as an equal, the master may b not /b compel the slave to serve him unless he feeds him. b All the more so /b is it not the case with regard to b his daughter, /b that she is not required to beg for her sustece and should receive the compensation herself?,The Gemara answers: This is b as Rava, son of Rav Ulla, said /b concerning a similar matter ( i Ketubot /i 43a): This i halakha /i is b necessary only for /b the b surplus, /b i.e., money that a woman earns beyond what she needs for her essential sustece. b Here too, /b this i halakha /i is b necessary only for /b the b surplus. /b If the compensation for injury is more than the daughter requires for her sustece, the additional sum is paid to her father.,The Gemara again challenges the resolution of the two i baraitot /i : b In what /b manner b did you interpret the latter /b i baraita /i discussing one who injures the children of another? You interpreted it as dealing with a case b where /b the sons b are dependent on /b their father’s b table. /b But the i baraita /i also stated: If they are b adults, he /b must b give them /b their compensation b immediately; /b if they are b minors, he /b must b make a safe investment for them. Why /b does he make a safe investment for them? Shouldn’t he be b required to give /b the compensation b to their father? /b ,The Sages b say /b in response: b Where /b the father b is particular /b about receiving money that would go to his child is specifically b in a matter that causes /b him b a loss, /b as in a case where the father himself injured his child and would need to pay compensation. But b in a matter that comes from elsewhere, /b as in a case where someone else injured his child, he b is not particular /b about receiving the money, and it is paid to the child.,The Gemara challenges that response: b But /b isn’t b a found /b item a matter b that comes to /b the children b from elsewhere, and /b the father b is particular /b about receiving it? The Sages b say /b in response: With regard to b profit that comes to /b the children b from elsewhere, and they do not /b suffer b physical pain in /b obtaining b it, /b the father b is particular /b about receiving the money, as he does not feel that the children deserve it. b But /b in the case of b an injury, where they /b suffer b physical pain and it comes to them from elsewhere, /b the father b is not particular /b about receiving the compensation paid to his child.,The Gemara challenges: b But there, /b in the first i baraita /i , isn’t it discussing a case b where /b the daughter suffers b physical pain, and /b it is a matter that b comes to her from elsewhere, and /b the father b is particular /b about receiving the money, b as it teaches: And moreover, /b if there were b others who injured her, /b they are b liable to give /b compensation b to her father? /b ,The Sages b say /b in response: b There, /b the i baraita /i discusses a case b where /b the father b is a captious man, /b which is evident from the case of the i baraita /i itself, b as /b his children b are not dependent on his table. /b A man like this b is particular even about matters that come to them from elsewhere. /b By contrast, b here, /b in the latter i baraita /i , it discusses a case b where /b the father b is not a captious man, /b which is evident from the case of the i baraita /i itself, b as /b his children b are dependent on his table. When he is particular /b about receiving the money, it is b in a matter that causes him a loss, /b but b in a matter that comes to them from elsewhere, /b he b is not particular. /b ,The two i baraitot /i stated that the father makes a safe investment for his minor children with the compensation paid to them. The Gemara asks: b What /b is meant by b a safe investment? Rav Ḥisda says: /b The father should purchase b a Torah scroll /b for his child. b Rabba bar Rav Huna, says: /b The father should purchase b a date palm, from which /b the child b will consume dates. /b ,The Gemara comments that the i amora’im /i of Eretz Yisrael discussed the same issue as did those in Babylonia. b And so says Reish Lakish: The Torah granted the father only the profits of /b her b youth, /b and nothing else. b And Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b The father receives b even /b the compensation for his daughter’s b wound. /b ,The Gemara objects: Does it b enter your mind /b that the father receives compensation for his daughter’s b wound, /b which, unlike an injury, does not diminish his daughter’s value? b Even Rabbi Elazar raised his dilemma only /b with regard to b an injury, /b |
|
| 64. Gregory of Nyssa, In Sextum Psalmum, 5.2 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 553 |
| 65. Ambrose, Homilies On Luke, 8.31 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 553 |
| 66. Pseudo Clementine Literature, Recognitions, 1.54.3 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho •sadducees, claim antigonus of socho as adherent Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 561 |
| 67. Justinian, Digest, 40.8.2 (5th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 549 |
| 68. Justinian, Codex Justinianus, 6.1.3 (5th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 549 |
| 69. Philodemus, De Signis, 1.2.35-1.2.53 Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 536 |
| 70. Ulpianus Domitius, Digesta, 8.1.15.1 Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 549 |
| 72. Epigraphy, Inaq I, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 73. Terence, Heauton Timorumenos, 142 Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 549 |
| 74. Papyri, Ehrenberg-Jones.Documents, 75 Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 545 |
| 75. Simeon Seth, De Alimentorum Facultatibus, 95.21 Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 547 |
76. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •antigonus of socho Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007), Studies in Jewish and Christian History, 547| 19a. אברהם אבינו שלא הלך בעצת אנשי דור הפלגה שרשעים היו שנאמר (בראשית יא, ד) הבה נבנה לנו עיר ובדרך חטאים לא עמד שלא עמד בעמידת סדום שחטאים היו שנאמר (בראשית יג, יג) ואנשי סדום רעים וחטאים לה' מאד,ובמושב לצים לא ישב שלא ישב במושב אנשי פלשתים מפני שלצנים היו שנאמר (שופטים טז, כה) ויהי כטוב לבם ויאמרו קראו לשמשון וישחק לנו,(תהלים קיב, א) אשרי איש ירא את ה' אשרי איש ולא אשרי אשה א"ר עמרם אמר רב אשרי מי שעושה תשובה כשהוא איש ר' יהושע בן לוי אמר אשרי מי שמתגבר על יצרו כאיש,במצותיו חפץ מאד אר"א במצותיו ולא בשכר מצותיו והיינו דתנן הוא היה אומר אל תהיו כעבדים המשמשין את הרב על מנת לקבל פרס אלא היו כעבדים המשמשין את הרב שלא על מנת לקבל פרס,כי אם בתורת ה' חפצו א"ר אין אדם לומד תורה אלא ממקום שלבו חפץ שנאמר (תהלים א, ב) כי אם בתורת ה' חפצו,לוי ור"ש ברבי יתבי קמיה דרבי וקא פסקי סידרא סליק ספרא לוי אמר לייתו [לן] משלי ר"ש ברבי אמר לייתו [לן] תילים כפייה ללוי ואייתו תילים כי מטו הכא כי אם בתורת ה' חפצו פריש רבי ואמר אין אדם לומד תורה אלא ממקום שלבו חפץ אמר לוי רבי נתת לנו רשות לעמוד,אמר ר' אבדימי בר חמא כל העוסק בתורה הקב"ה עושה לו חפציו שנאמר כי אם בתורת ה' חפצו אמר רבא לעולם ילמוד אדם תורה במקום שלבו חפץ שנאמר כי אם בתורת ה' חפצו,ואמר רבא בתחילה נקראת על שמו של הקב"ה ולבסוף נקראת על שמו שנאמר בתורת ה' חפצו ובתורתו יהגה יומם ולילה,ואמר רבא לעולם ילמד אדם תורה ואח"כ יהגה שנאמר בתורת ה' והדר ובתורתו יהגה,ואמר רבא לעולם ליגריס איניש ואע"ג דמשכח ואע"ג דלא ידע מאי קאמר שנאמר (תהלים קיט, כ) גרסה נפשי לתאבה גרסה כתיב ולא כתיב טחנה,רבא רמי כתיב (משלי ט, ג) על גפי וכתיב (משלי ט, יד) על כסא בתחלה על גפי ולבסוף על כסא,כתיב (משלי ח, ב) בראש מרומים וכתיב עלי דרך בתחלה בראש מרומים ולבסוף עלי דרך,עולא רמי כתיב (משלי ה, טו) שתה מים מבורך וכתיב ונוזלים מתוך בארך בתחלה שתה מבורך ולבסוף ונוזלים מתוך בארך,אמר רבא אמר רב סחורה אמר רב הונא מאי דכתיב (משלי יג, יא) הון מהבל ימעט וקובץ על יד ירבה אם עושה אדם תורתו חבילות חבילות מתמעט ואם קובץ על יד ירבה,אמר רבא ידעי רבנן להא מילתא ועברי עלה אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אנא עבידתה וקיים בידי,אמר רב שיזבי משמיה דר"א בן עזריה מאי דכתיב (משלי יב, כז) לא יחרוך רמיה צידו לא יחיה ולא יאריך ימים צייד הרמאי,ורב ששת אמר צייד הרמאי יחרוך כי אתא רב דימי אמר משל לאדם שצד צפרין אם משבר כנפיה של ראשונה כולם מתקיימות בידו ואם לאו אין מתקיימות בידו,(תהלים א, ג) והיה כעץ שתול על פלגי מים אמרי דבי ר' ינאי כעץ שתול ולא כעץ נטוע כל הלומד תורה מרב אחד אינו רואה סימן ברכה לעולם, אמר להו רב חסדא לרבנן בעינא דאימא לכו מלתא ומסתפינא דשבקיתו לי ואזליתו כל הלומד תורה מרב אחד אינו רואה סימן ברכה לעולם שבקוהו ואזול קמיה דרבא אמר להו הני מילי סברא אבל גמרא מרב אחד עדיף כי היכי | 19a. is referring to b our forefather Abraham, who did not walk in the counsel of the members of the generation of the dispersion, who were wicked, as it is stated /b that they said to each other: b “Come, let us build us a city, /b and a tower, with its top in heaven” (Genesis 11:4), a project with a wicked aim. b “Nor stood in the way of sinners” /b (Psalms 1:1); this too is referring to Abraham, b who did not join in the stand of /b the residents of b Sodom, who were sinners, as it is stated: “Now the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners against the Lord exceedingly” /b (Genesis 13:13)., b “Nor sat in the seat of the scornful” /b (Psalms 1:1); this means b that /b Abraham b did not sit in the seat of the Philistines, because they were scorners /b who engaged in jest and buffoonery. b As it is stated /b with regard to the Philistines in a later period: b “And it came to pass, when their hearts were merry, that they said: Call for Samson, that he may make us sport” /b (Judges 16:25).,The Gemara cites an interpretation of a similar verse: b “Happy is the man that fears the Lord, /b that delights greatly in His mitzvot” (Psalms 112:1). The Gemara asks: Is that to say b happy is the man, but not happy is the woman? /b Why is it necessary for the verse to emphasize that it is speaking of a man? b Rav Amram says /b that b Rav says: /b The verse applies to both men and women and is teaching: b Happy is one who repents when he is /b still b a man, /b i.e., before he becomes elderly and his strength dwindles. b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Happy is one who triumphs over his /b evil b inclination like a man, /b i.e., with strength and vigor.,The verse continues: b “He delights greatly in His mitzvot.” Rabbi Elazar says: /b The person delights b in His mitzvot /b themselves b and not in the reward /b for performing b His mitzvot. And this is the same as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Avot /i 1:3): Antigonus of Sokho b would say: Do not be like /b the b servants who serve the master on the condition of receiving a reward; rather, be like /b the b servants who serve the master not on the condition that /b they b receive a reward. /b ,§ The Gemara returns to its interpretation of the verse that was discussed previously: b “But his delight is in the Torah of the Lord” /b (Psalms 1:2). b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: A person can learn Torah only from a place /b in the Torah b that his heart desires, as it is stated: But his delight is in the Torah of the Lord, /b i.e., his delight is in the part of the Torah that he wishes to study.,The Gemara relates: b Levi and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b were sitting before Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b and /b they b were learning the Torah portion. /b When b they finished the book /b that they were learning and were ready to begin a new subject, b Levi said: Let them bring us /b the book of b Proverbs; /b and b Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b said: Let them bring us /b the book of b Psalms. /b He b compelled Levi /b to acquiesce, b and they brought /b a book of b Psalms. When they arrived here, /b at the verse: b “But his delight is in the Torah of the Lord,” Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b explained /b the verse b and said: A person can learn Torah only from a place /b in the Torah b that his heart desires. Levi said: My teacher, you have given us, /b i.e., me, b permission to rise /b and leave, as I wish to study Proverbs, not Psalms.,The Gemara cites other interpretations of this verse. b Rabbi Avdimi bar Ḥama says: /b With regard to b anyone who engages in /b the study of b Torah, the Holy One, Blessed be He, fulfills his desires, as it is stated: “But in the Torah of the Lord is his delight,” /b i.e., if one engages in the study of the Torah of the Lord, he will have his desires met by the Lord. b Rava says, /b in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: b A person should always learn Torah from a place /b in the Torah b that his heart desires, as it is stated: “But his delight is in the Torah of the Lord.” /b , b And Rava /b also b says, /b with regard to this verse: b Initially /b the Torah b is called by the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, but ultimately it is called by the name of /b the one who studies it. b As it is /b first b stated: “His delight is in the Torah of the Lord,” /b and in the continuation of the verse it states: b “And in his Torah he meditates day and night.” /b This teaches that through study one acquires ownership, as it were, of the Torah., b And Rava says /b in reference to this verse: b A person must always study Torah /b and gain a broad knowledge of it, b and /b only b then /b may he b analyze /b and delve into it. b As it is stated: /b “His delight is b in the Torah of the Lord,” /b meaning that he studies the Torah on a basic level, b and /b only b afterward /b does the verse state: b “And in his Torah he meditates,” /b i.e., he analyzes it., b And Rava says /b with regard to Torah study: b A person should always study [ i ligeris /i ] /b and review b even though /b he may afterward b forget, and even though he does not understand what it is saying. As it is stated /b with regard to the study of Torah: b “My soul breaks [ i garesa /i ] for the longing that it has /b for Your ordices at all times” (Psalms 119:20). b It is written: “Breaks,” and it is not written: Grinds, /b demonstrating that the soul is satisfied with breaking apart material, on a basic level, even if it does not have the opportunity to grind and analyze it in greater depth., b Rava raises a contradiction /b between two verses: b It is written /b that the Torah calls to people: b “Upon the highest places /b of the city” (Proverbs 9:3), b and it is written /b far more specifically: b “On a seat /b in the high places of the city” (Proverbs 9:14). He explains: b Initially, /b one who studies Torah does not have a secure place to sit, and therefore he is located merely b upon the highest places, but ultimately, /b as he advances in his learning, he is placed b on a seat /b of honor.,The Gemara mentions a similar contradiction. b It is written /b with regard to the Torah: b “In the top of high places” /b (Proverbs 8:2), b and it is written /b in the continuation of the verse that the Torah is b “by the path.” /b This contradiction is resolved as follows: b Initially, /b a person studies Torah in a private location, b in the top of high places, but ultimately /b he will spread his knowledge, b by the path, /b in the public realm., b Ulla raises a contradiction /b with regard to the following verse. b It is written: “Drink waters out of your own cistern” /b (Proverbs 5:15), b and it is written /b in the continuation of the verse: b “And running waters out of your own well.” /b He explains: b Initially /b one should b “drink waters out of your own cistern,” /b i.e., like the cistern that draws water into one location, learning all existing knowledge; b and ultimately /b one can produce b “running waters out of your own well,” /b i.e., original thought and innovative insights in Torah.,The Gemara cites other statements relating to Torah study. b Rava says /b that b Rav Seḥora says /b that b Rav Huna says: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “Wealth gotten through vanity [ i mehevel /i ] shall be diminished; but he that gathers little by little shall increase” /b (Proverbs 13:11)? b If a person turns his Torah into many bundles [ i ḥavilot /i ], /b by studying large amounts in a short period of time without reviewing, his Torah b will diminish. But if he gathers /b his knowledge b little by little, /b by studying slowly and reviewing, his knowledge b shall increase. /b , b Rava said: The Sages know this, but /b nevertheless b they transgress it, /b i.e., they fail to heed this advice. b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: I did this, /b as I studied little by little and regularly reviewed what I had learned, b and /b my learning b has /b in fact b endured. /b , b Rav Sheizvi said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “The slothful man [ i remiyya /i ] will not roast [ i yaḥarokh /i ] his prey” /b (Proverbs 12:27)? b The deceitful [ i harammai /i ] hunter, /b i.e., one who tricks people into believing that he has acquired vast stores of knowledge by studying new material without reviewing that which he has already learned, b will not live [ i yiḥye /i ] a long [ i ya’arikh /i ] life. /b According to this interpretation, i yaḥarokh /i is a combination of the words i yiḥye /i and i ya’arikh /i ., b And Rav Sheshet says /b that the verse means the opposite: b The cunning [ i harammai /i ] hunter will roast /b his prey to prevent it from escaping, i.e., he reads the verse as a rhetorical question: Will not the hunter roast? b When Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, b he said: This is comparable to a person who is hunting birds; if he breaks the wings of the first /b bird so that it will be unable to fly off, and he proceeds in this manner, b all of /b his prey b will remain in his possession; but if not, /b they b will not remain in his possession, /b as each bird will fly off when the next is captured. In a similar fashion, a clever student reviews that which he learns, to ensure that he retains his knowledge.,§ The Gemara returns to its interpretation of the first verses of Psalms. b “And he shall be like a tree planted [ i shatul /i ] by streams of water” /b (Psalms 1:3). The students of b the school of Rabbi Yannai say: /b The verse states that a Torah scholar b is comparable to a tree /b that has been uprooted from its original location and b replanted [ i shatul /i ] /b somewhere else. It does b not /b say that he b is comparable to a tree that is planted [ i natu’a /i ] /b and remains in one place. This is teaching that b anyone who learns Torah from one teacher /b alone b never sees a sign of blessing, /b as it is necessary to acquire knowledge from many teachers., b Rav Ḥisda said to the Sages /b who were studying with him: b I wish to say something to you, but I am afraid that /b then b you will leave me and go. /b What did he wish to tell them? He wanted to say that b any-one who learns Torah from one teacher /b alone b never sees a sign of blessing. /b When the students heard this, they b did /b in fact b leave him and went /b to learn b from Rava. /b Rav Ḥisda b said to them: That matter /b applies only with regard to b reasoning, /b i.e., in order to come up with sophisticated reasoning it is necessary to hear many different opinions. b But /b with regard to the oral b tradition /b itself, b it is preferable /b to learn b from one teacher so that /b |
|
