| 1. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 9.27-10.12, 31.35 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 68 |
| 2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, -, 1, 14, 3, 4, 13 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 171 |
3. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 15.13 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 165| 15.13. "כָּל־הָאֶזְרָח יַעֲשֶׂה־כָּכָה אֶת־אֵלֶּה לְהַקְרִיב אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ־נִיחֹחַ לַיהוָה׃", | 15.13. "All that are home-born shall do these things after this manner, in presenting an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.", |
|
| 4. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 164 |
5. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 14.1 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 171; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 171| 14.1. "כֻּלָּם יַעֲנוּ וְיֹאמְרוּ אֵלֶיךָ גַּם־אַתָּה חֻלֵּיתָ כָמוֹנוּ אֵלֵינוּ נִמְשָׁלְתָּ׃", 14.1. "כִּי יְרַחֵם יְהוָה אֶת־יַעֲקֹב וּבָחַר עוֹד בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִנִּיחָם עַל־אַדְמָתָם וְנִלְוָה הַגֵּר עֲלֵיהֶם וְנִסְפְּחוּ עַל־בֵּית יַעֲקֹב׃", | 14.1. "For the LORD will have compassion on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land; and the stranger shall join himself with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Judges, 1.11 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav Found in books: Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 63| 1.11. "וַיֵּלֶךְ מִשָּׁם אֶל־יוֹשְׁבֵי דְּבִיר וְשֵׁם־דְּבִיר לְפָנִים קִרְיַת־סֵפֶר׃", | 1.11. "And from there he went against the inhabitants of Devir: and the name of Devir before was Qiryat-sefer:", |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Daniel, 3.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein (2018), The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World. 216| 3.8. "כָּל־קֳבֵל דְּנָה בֵּהּ־זִמְנָא קְרִבוּ גֻּבְרִין כַּשְׂדָּאִין וַאֲכַלוּ קַרְצֵיהוֹן דִּי יְהוּדָיֵא׃", | 3.8. "Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and brought accusation against the Jews.", |
|
8. Mishnah, Sotah, 1.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav, identity of Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 128| 1.4. "הָיוּ מַעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וּמְאַיְּמִין עָלֶיהָ כְדֶרֶךְ שֶׁמְּאַיְּמִין עַל עֵדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. וְאוֹמְרִים לָהּ, בִּתִּי, הַרְבֵּה יַיִן עוֹשֶׂה, הַרְבֵּה שְׂחוֹק עוֹשֶׂה, הַרְבֵּה יַלְדוּת עוֹשָׂה, הַרְבֵּה שְׁכֵנִים הָרָעִים עוֹשִׂים. עֲשִׂי לִשְׁמוֹ הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּקְדֻשָּׁה, שֶׁלֹּא יִמָּחֶה עַל הַמָּיִם. וְאוֹמְרִים לְפָנֶיהָ דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָהּ כְּדַאי לְשׁוֹמְעָן, הִיא וְכָל מִשְׁפַּחַת בֵּית אָבִיהָ: \n", | 1.4. "They bring her up to the great court which is in Jerusalem, and [the judges] solemnly admonish her in the same way that they admonish witnesses in capital cases. And they say to her, “My daughter, much is done by wine does much, much is done by frivolity, much is done by youth, much is done by bad neighbors. For the sake of His great name which is written in holiness do it so that it may not be rubbed out on the water.” And they say to her matters which neither she nor all the family of her father's house is worthy to hear.", |
|
9. Mishnah, Shekalim, 6.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 165| 6.5. "שְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר שׁוֹפָרוֹת הָיוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְכָתוּב עֲלֵיהֶם, תִּקְלִין חַדְתִין וְתִקְלִין עַתִּיקִין, קִנִּין וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה, עֵצִים, וּלְבוֹנָה, זָהָב לַכַּפֹּרֶת. שִׁשָּׁה, לִנְדָבָה. תִּקְלִין חַדְתִּין, שֶׁבְּכָל שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה. עַתִּיקִין, מִי שֶׁלֹּא שָׁקַל אֶשְׁתָּקַד, שׁוֹקֵל לְשָׁנָה הַבָּאָה. קִנִּין, הֵם תּוֹרִים. וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה, הֵן בְּנֵי יוֹנָה. וְכֻלָּן עוֹלוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, קִנִּין, אֶחָד חַטָאת וְאֶחָד עוֹלָה. וְגוֹזְלֵי עוֹלָה, כֻּלָּן עוֹלוֹת:", | 6.5. "There were thirteen chests in the Temple and on them was inscribed [respectively]:“new shekels”;“New shekels” those for each year; “old shekels”;“Old shekels” whoever has not paid his shekel in the past year may pay it in the coming year; “bird-offerings”;“Bird-offerings” these are turtle-doves; “young pigeons for burnt-offerings”;“Young pigeons for burnt-offerings” these are young pigeons. “wood”; “frankincense”; “gold for the kapporet”; and on six, “freewill offerings”. Both [these two chests] are for burnt-offerings, the words of Rabbi Judah. But the sages say: “bird-offerings” one [half] is for sin-offerings and the other [half] for burnt-offerings, but “young pigeons for burnt-offerings” all goes to burnt-offerings.", |
|
| 10. Palestinian Talmud, Sheviit, 5.4 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav, identity of Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 128 |
| 11. Palestinian Talmud, Sheqalim, 6.4 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 165 |
| 12. Palestinian Talmud, Sotah, 1.4 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav, identity of Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 128 |
| 13. Palestinian Talmud, Shabbat, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav, identity of Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 128 |
| 14. Palestinian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav, identity of Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 128 |
| 15. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav, identity of Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 128 |
| 16. Palestinian Talmud, Gittin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav, identity of Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 128 |
| 17. Palestinian Talmud, Megillah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 18. Palestinian Talmud, Moed Qatan, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein (2018), The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World. 74 |
19. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 1.1, 11.4, 44.12 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav •ashi, rav, identity of Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein (2018), The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World. 293; Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 128| 1.1. רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה רַבָּה פָּתַח (משלי ח, ל): וָאֶהְיֶה אֶצְלוֹ אָמוֹן וָאֶהְיֶה שַׁעֲשׁוּעִים יוֹם יוֹם וגו', אָמוֹן פַּדְּגוֹג, אָמוֹן מְכֻסֶּה, אָמוֹן מֻצְנָע, וְאִית דַּאֲמַר אָמוֹן רַבָּתָא. אָמוֹן פַּדְּגוֹג, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (במדבר יא, יב): כַּאֲשֶׁר יִשָֹּׂא הָאֹמֵן אֶת הַיֹּנֵק. אָמוֹן מְכֻסֶּה, הֵיאַךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (איכה ד, ה): הָאֱמֻנִים עֲלֵי תוֹלָע וגו'. אָמוֹן מֻצְנָע, הֵיאַךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (אסתר ב, ז): וַיְהִי אֹמֵן אֶת הֲדַסָּה. אָמוֹן רַבָּתָא, כְּמָא דְתֵימָא (נחום ג, ח): הֲתֵיטְבִי מִנֹּא אָמוֹן, וּמְתַרְגְּמִינַן הַאַתְּ טָבָא מֵאֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָא רַבָּתָא דְּיָתְבָא בֵּין נַהֲרוֹתָא. דָּבָר אַחֵר אָמוֹן, אֻמָּן. הַתּוֹרָה אוֹמֶרֶת אֲנִי הָיִיתִי כְּלִי אֻמְנוּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, בְּנֹהַג שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם מֶלֶךְ בָּשָׂר וָדָם בּוֹנֶה פָּלָטִין, אֵינוֹ בּוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ מִדַּעַת עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת אֻמָּן, וְהָאֻמָּן אֵינוֹ בּוֹנֶה אוֹתָהּ מִדַּעַת עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא דִּפְתְּרָאוֹת וּפִנְקְסָאוֹת יֵשׁ לוֹ, לָדַעַת הֵיאךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה חֲדָרִים, הֵיאךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה פִּשְׁפְּשִׁין. כָּךְ הָיָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַבִּיט בַּתּוֹרָה וּבוֹרֵא אֶת הָעוֹלָם, וְהַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים. וְאֵין רֵאשִׁית אֶלָּא תּוֹרָה, הֵיאַךְ מָה דְּאַתְּ אָמַר (משלי ח, כב): ה' קָנָנִי רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכּוֹ. 1.1. רַבִּי יוֹנָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר, לָמָּה נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם בְּב', אֶלָּא מַה ב' זֶה סָתוּם מִכָּל צְדָדָיו וּפָתוּחַ מִלְּפָנָיו, כָּךְ אֵין לְךָ רְשׁוּת לוֹמַר, מַה לְּמַטָּה, מַה לְּמַעְלָה, מַה לְּפָנִים, מַה לְּאָחוֹר, אֶלָּא מִיּוֹם שֶׁנִּבְרָא הָעוֹלָם וּלְהַבָּא. בַּר קַפָּרָא אָמַר (דברים ד, לב): כִּי שְׁאַל נָא לְיָמִים רִאשֹׁנִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ לְפָנֶיךָ, לְמִן הַיּוֹם שֶׁנִּבְרְאוּ אַתָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ, וְאִי אַתָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ לִפְנִים מִכָּאן. (דברים ד, לב): וּלְמִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם וְעַד קְצֵה הַשָּׁמָיִם, אַתָּה דּוֹרֵשׁ וְחוֹקֵר, וְאִי אַתָּה חוֹקֵר לִפְנִים מִכָּאן. דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן פָּזִי בְּמַעֲשֵׂה בְרֵאשִׁית בַּהֲדֵיהּ דְּבַר קַפָּרָא, לָמָּה נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם בְּב', לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ שֶׁהֵן שְׁנֵי עוֹלָמִים, הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. דָּבָר אַחֵר, וְלָמָּה בְּב' שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן בְּרָכָה, וְלָמָּה לֹא בְּאָלֶ"ף שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן אֲרִירָה. דָּבָר אַחֵר, לָמָּה לֹא בְּאָלֶ"ף שֶׁלֹא לִתֵּן פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לָאֶפִּיקוֹרְסִין לוֹמַר הֵיאַךְ הָעוֹלָם יָכוֹל לַעֲמֹד שֶׁהוּא נִבְרָא בִּלְשׁוֹן אֲרִירָה, אֶלָּא אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הֲרֵי אֲנִי בּוֹרֵא אוֹתוֹ בִּלְשׁוֹן בְּרָכָה, וְהַלְּוַאי יַעֲמֹד. דָּבָר אַחֵר, לָמָּה בְּב' אֶלָּא מַה ב' זֶה יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁנֵי עוֹקְצִין, אֶחָד מִלְּמַעְלָה וְאֶחָד מִלְּמַטָּה מֵאֲחוֹרָיו, אוֹמְרִים לַב' מִי בְּרָאֲךָ, וְהוּא מַרְאֶה בְּעוּקְצוֹ מִלְּמַעְלָה, וְאוֹמֵר זֶה שֶׁלְּמַעְלָה בְּרָאָנִי. וּמַה שְּׁמוֹ, וְהוּא מַרְאֶה לָהֶן בְּעוּקְצוֹ שֶׁל אַחֲרָיו, וְאוֹמֵר ה' שְׁמוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר חֲנִינָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֲחָא, עֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁשָּׁה דוֹרוֹת הָיְתָה הָאָלֶ"ף קוֹרֵא תִּגָּר לִפְנֵי כִסְאוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, אָמְרָה לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, אֲנִי רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל אוֹתִיּוֹת וְלֹא בָּרָאתָ עוֹלָמְךָ בִּי, אָמַר לָהּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הָעוֹלָם וּמְלוֹאוֹ לֹא נִבְרָא אֶלָּא בִּזְכוּת הַתּוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ג, יט): ה' בְּחָכְמָה יָסַד אָרֶץ וגו', לְמָחָר אֲנִי בָּא לִתֵּן תּוֹרָה בְּסִינַי וְאֵינִי פּוֹתֵחַ תְּחִלָה אֶלָּא בָּךְ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כ, ב): אָנֹכִי ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ. רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא אוֹמֵר לָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ אָלֶ"ף, שֶׁהוּא מַסְכִּים מֵאָלֶ"ף, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קה, ח): דָּבָר צִוָּה לְאֶלֶף דּוֹר. 11.4. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר, מִפְּנֵי אִיסְטְנִיסִים בֵּרְכוֹ בְּמַטְעַמִּים. רַבֵּנוּ עָשָׂה סְעוּדָה לְאַנְטוֹנִינוּס בְּשַׁבָּת, הֵבִיא לְפָנָיו תַּבְשִׁילִין שֶׁל צוֹנֵן אָכַל מֵהֶם וְעָרַב לוֹ, עָשָׂה לוֹ סְעוּדָה בַּחוֹל הֵבִיא לְפָנָיו תַּבְשִׁילִין רוֹתְחִין, אָמַר לוֹ אוֹתָן עָרְבוּ לִי יוֹתֵר מֵאֵלּוּ. אָמַר לוֹ תֶּבֶל אֶחָד הֵן חֲסֵרִין. אָמַר לוֹ וְכִי יֵשׁ קֵילָרִין שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ חָסֵר כְּלוּם, אָמַר לוֹ שַׁבָּת הֵן חֲסֵרִין, אִית לָךְ שַׁבָּת. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי שַׁיְלֵיהּ לְרַבִּי, אָמַר לוֹ בְּנֵי בָּבֶל בִּזְכוּת מָה הֵן חַיִּים, אָמַר לוֹ בִּזְכוּת הַתּוֹרָה. וּבְנֵי אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּזְכוּת מָה, אָמַר לוֹ בִּזְכוּת מַעַשְׂרוֹת. וְאַנְשֵׁי חוּצָה לָאָרֶץ בִּזְכוּת מָה, אָמַר לוֹ בִּזְכוּת שֶׁהֵן מְכַבְּדִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּא בַּר אַבָּא פַּעַם אַחַת זִמְנַנִי אָדָם אֶחָד בְּלוּדְקִיָא וְהֵבִיא לְפָנֵינוּ דְּיוֹסְקוּס אֶחָד טָעוּן בְּי"ו מוֹטוֹת, וּבוֹ מִכָּל מַה שֶּׁנִּבְרָא בְּשֵׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְרֵאשִׁית, וְתִינוֹק אֶחָד הָיָה יוֹשֵׁב בְּאֶמְצָעִיתוֹ, וְהָיָה מַכְרִיז וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים כד, א): לַה' הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ תֵּבֵל וְישְׁבֵי בָהּ, כָּל כָּךְ לָמָּה שֶׁלֹא תָּזוּחַ דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת עָלָיו. אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ בְּנִי מֵהֵיכָן זָכִיתָ לְכָל הַכָּבוֹד הַזֶּה. אָמַר לִי, טַבָּח הָיִיתִי, וְכָל בְּהֵמָה יָפָה שֶׁהָיִיתִי רוֹאֶה כָּל יְמוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת הָיִיתִי מַפְרִישָׁהּ לְשַׁבָּת. וְאָמַרְתִּי לוֹ לֹא עַל מַגָּן זָכִיתָ. אָמַר רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא, עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בְּרוֹמִי בַּעֲרוֹבַת צוֹמָא רַבָּה, וַהֲוָה תַּמָּן חַד חַיָּט וַאֲזַל דְּיִזְדַּבַּן לֵיהּ חַד נוּן, אִשְׁתְּכַח הוּא וְטַלְיָא דְּאִיפַּרְכוֹס קָיְימִין עִילָוֵיהּ, הֲוָה הָדֵין מַסֵּיק לֵיהּ בְּטִימֵי וְהָדֵין מַסֵּיק לֵיהּ בְּטִימֵי, עַד דְּמָטְיָא לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר דִּינָרִין, וּנְסָבֵא הַהוּא חַיָּטָא. בְּעָנָתָא דַּאֲרִיסְטוֹן אֲמַר אִיפַּרְכוֹס לְטַלְיָה לָמָּה לָא אַיְתֵית לִי נוּן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ, מָרִי מָה לִכְפֹּר מִינָךְ, אֲזַלִּית וְלָא הֲוָה תַּמָּן אֶלָּא חַד נוּן, וְאִשְׁתְּכָחִית אֲנָא וְחַד יְהוּדָאי קָיְימִין עִילָוֵיהּ, וַהֲוָה הוּא מַסֵּיק לֵיהּ בְּטִימֵי וַאֲנָא מַסֵּיק לֵיהּ בְּטִימֵי, עַד דְּמָטְיָא לִשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר דִּנָּרִין, מָה הֲוַת בְּעָא דְּנַיְיתָא לָךְ נוּן בִּתְרֵי עֲשַׂר דִּנָּרִין, אֶתְמְהָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָאן הוּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ בַּר נָשׁ פְּלַן, שְׁלַח בַּתְרֵיהּ וַאֲתָא לְגַבֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָה חֲמֵית חַיָּט יְהוּדָאי דַּאֲכַלְתְּ נוּן בִּתְרֵי עֲשַׂר דִּנָּרִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָרִי אִית לָן חַד יוֹם, בְּכָל חוֹבִין דַּאֲנַן עָבְדִין כָּל יוֹמֵי שַׁתָּא, הוּא מְכַפֵּר עֲלֵינַן. וְכַד הוּא אֲתָא לֵית אֲנַן צְרִיכִין לְיַקּוּרֵי יָתֵיהּ. אֲמַר כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֵבֵאתָ רְאָיָה לִדְבָרֶיךָ הֲרֵי אַתָּה פָּטוּר. מַה פָּרַע לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, הָלַךְ וְקָרַע אוֹתָהּ וְזִמֵּן לוֹ בְּתוֹכָהּ מַרְגָּלִיּוֹת טוֹבָה, וְהָיָה מִתְפַּרְנֵס הֵימֶנָּהּ כָּל יָמָיו. 44.12. וַיּוֹצֵא אֹתוֹ הַחוּצָה (בראשית טו, ה), רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּסִכְנִין בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי וְכִי מִחוּץ לָעוֹלָם הוֹצִיאוֹ, שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב: וַיּוֹצֵא אֹתוֹ הַחוּצָה, אֶלָּא אַחְוֵי לֵיהּ שׁוֹקְקֵי שְׁמַיָא, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (משלי ח, כו): עַד לֹא עָשָׂה אֶרֶץ וְחוּצוֹת, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הֶעֱלָה אוֹתוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִכִּפַּת הַרָקִיעַ, הוּא דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ (בראשית טו, ה): הַבֶּט נָא הַשָּׁמַיְמָה, אֵין הַבָּטָה אֶלָּא מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה. רַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי נָבִיא אַתְּ וְאֵין אַתְּ אַסְטְרוֹלוֹגוֹס, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית כ, יז): וְעַתָּה הָשֵׁב אֵשֶׁת הָאִישׁ כִּי נָבִיא הוּא. בִּימֵי יִרְמְיָהוּ בִּקְּשׁוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לָבוֹא לִידֵי מִדָּה זוֹ, וְלֹא הִנִּיחַ לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ירמיה י, ב): כֹּה אָמַר ה' אֶל דֶּרֶךְ הַגּוֹיִם אַל תִּלְמָדוּ וּמֵאֹתוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם אַל תֵּחָתּוּ וגו', כְּבָר אַבְרָהָם אֲבִיכֶם בִּקֵּשׁ לָבוֹא לִידֵי מִדָּה זוֹ וְלֹא הִנַּחְתִּי אוֹתוֹ. וְאָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי עַד דְּסַנְדְּלָא בְּרַגְלִיךְ דְּרִיס כּוּבָא, וְכָל מִי שֶׁהוּא נָתוּן לְמַטָּה מֵהֶם הוּא מִתְיָרֵא מֵהֶם, אֲבָל אַתְּ שֶׁאַתְּ נָתוּן לְמַעְלָה מֵהֶם דָּיְישֵׁם. רַבִּי יוּדָן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים מְבַטְּלִים גְּזֵרוֹת רָעוֹת, וְאֵלּוּ הֵם, תְּפִלָּה וּצְדָקָה וּתְשׁוּבָה, וּשְׁלָשְׁתָּן נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּפָסוּק אֶחָד, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (דברי הימים ב ז, יד): וְיִכָּנְעוּ עַמִּי אֲשֶׁר נִקְרָא שְׁמִי עֲלֵיהֶם וְיִתְפַּלְּלוּ, זוֹ תְּפִלָּה. (דברי הימים ב ז, יד): וִיבַקְּשׁוּ פָנַי, הֲרֵי צְדָקָה, כְּמָא דְאַתְּ אָמַר (תהלים יז, טו): אֲנִי בְּצֶדֶק אֶחֱזֶה פָנֶיךָ. (דברי הימים ב ז, יד): וְיָשֻׁבוּ מִדַּרְכֵיהֶם הָרָעִים, זוֹ תְּשׁוּבָה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ (דברי הימים ב ז, יד) וְאֶסְלַח לְחַטָּאתָם וְאֶרְפָּא אֶת אַרְצָם. רַבִּי הוּנָא בַּר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר אַף שִׁנּוּי שֵׁם וּמַעֲשֶׂה טוֹב, שִׁנּוּי הַשֵּׁם, מֵאַבְרָהָם (בראשית יז, ה): וְלֹא יִקָּרֵא עוֹד אֶת שִׁמְךָ אַבְרָם. מַעֲשֶׂה טוֹב, מֵאַנְשֵׁי נִינְוֵה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יונה ג, י): וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם כִּי שָׁבוּ וגו'. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים אַף שִׁנּוּי מָקוֹם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית יב, א): וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל אַבְרָם לֶךְ לְךָ. רַבִּי מוּנָא אָמַר אַף הַתַּעֲנִית, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים כ, ב): יַעַנְךָ ה' בְּיוֹם צָרָה וגו'. רָבָא בַּר מַחְסֵיָא וְרַבִּי חָמָא בֶּן גּוּרְיוֹן בְּשֵׁם רַב אָמַר יָפָה תַּעֲנִית לַחֲלוֹם כָּאֵשׁ בִּנְעֹרֶת. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף וּבוֹ בַּיּוֹם, וַאֲפִלּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת. | 1.1. "The great Rabbi Hoshaya opened [with the verse (Mishlei 8:30),] \"I [the Torah] was an amon to Him and I was a plaything to Him every day.\" Amon means \"pedagogue\" (i.e. ny). Amon means \"covered.\" Amon means \"hidden.\" And there is one who says amon means \"great.\" Amon means \"ny,\" as in (Bamidbar 11:12) “As a ny (omein) carries the suckling child.\" Amon means \"covered,\" as in (Eichah 4:5) \"Those who were covered (emunim) in scarlet have embraced refuse heaps.\" Amon means \"hidden,\" as in (Esther 2:7) \"He hid away (omein) Hadassah.\" Amon means \"great,\" as in (Nahum 3:8) \"Are you better than No-amon [which dwells in the rivers]?\" which the Targum renders as, \"Are you better than Alexandria the Great (amon), which dwells between the rivers?\" Alternatively, amon means \"artisan.\" The Torah is saying, \"I was the artisan's tool of Hashem.\" In the way of the world, a king of flesh and blood who builds a castle does not do so from his own knowledge, but rather from the knowledge of an architect, and the architect does not build it from his own knowledge, but rather he has scrolls and books in order to know how to make rooms and doorways. So too Hashem gazed into the Torah and created the world. Similarly the Torah says, \"Through the reishis Hashem created [the heavens and the earth],\" and reishis means Torah, as in \"Hashem made me [the Torah] the beginning (reishis) of His way\" (Mishlei 8:22).", 11.4. "...Bless it (the day) with delicacies. Rabbeinu (Rabbi Yehudah/Rebbi) made a feast for Antoninus on the Shabbat. They brought before him prepared foods that were cold. He ate from them and found them very tasty. He (Rebbi) made a feast for him (Antoninus) on a weekday and brought before him steaming foods. He (Antoninus) said to him (Rebbi) those (the cold food on Shabbat) tasted better to me than these (warm foods). He (Rebbi) explained that the warm weekday food was missing a single spice. He (Antoninus) said to him, ‘and is there anything in the king’s treasury that is lacking? He (Rebbi) said that the food was missing Shabbat, Do you have Shabbat?", |
|
| 20. Palestinian Talmud, Nedarim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 21. Palestinian Talmud, Pesahim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein (2018), The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World. 74 |
| 22. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 68 |
23. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 128| 59b. ויכול למחות פחות מטפח אין לו חזקה ואין יכול למחות: , big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רבי אסי אמר רבי מני ואמרי לה אמר רבי יעקב אמר רבי מני החזיק בטפח החזיק בד' מאי קאמר אמר אביי ה"ק החזיק רוחב טפח במשך ארבע החזיק ברוחב ארבע:,פחות מטפח אין לו חזקה ואינו יכול למחות: אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא בעל הגג בבעל החצר אבל בעל החצר בבעל הגג יכול למחות ורב יהודה אמר אפילו בעל חצר בבעל הגג אינו יכול למחות,לימא בהיזק ראיה קמיפלגי דמר סבר שמיה היזק ומר סבר לאו שמיה היזק,לא דכולי עלמא שמיה היזק ושאני הכא דאמר ליה לתשמישתא לא חזי למאי חזי למתלא ביה מידי מהדרנא אפאי ותלינא ביה,ואידך אמר ליה זימנין דבעיתת: , big strongמתני׳ /strong /big לא יפתח אדם חלונותיו לחצר השותפין לקח בית בחצר אחרת לא יפתחנה בחצר השותפין בנה עלייה על גבי ביתו לא יפתחנה לחצר השותפין אלא אם רצה בונה את החדר לפנים מביתו ובונה עלייה על גבי ביתו ופותחה לתוך ביתו: , big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מאי איריא לחצר השותפין אפילו לחצר חבירו נמי לא,לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא לחצר חברו דלא אבל לחצר השותפין דא"ל סוף סוף הא קא בעית אצטנועי מינאי בחצר קא משמע לן דאמר ליה עד האידנא בחצר הוה בעינא אצטנועי מינך השתא אפילו בבית נמי בעינא אצטנועי מינך,תנו רבנן מעשה באדם אחד שפתח חלוניו לחצר השותפין ובא לפני ר' ישמעאל בר רבי יוסי אמר לו החזקת בני החזקת ובא לפני רבי חייא אמר יגעת ופתחת יגע וסתום,אמר רב נחמן | 59b. b and /b the owner of the courtyard b can protest /b its construction. If it protrudes b less than a handbreadth, /b the owner of the house b has no /b means to establish b an acquired privilege for its /b use, b and /b the owner of the courtyard b cannot protest /b its construction., strong GEMARA: /strong b Rabbi Asi says /b that b Rabbi Mani says, and some say /b that b Rabbi Ya’akov says /b that b Rabbi Mani says: /b If one b established an acquired privilege with regard to /b a projection of b a handbreadth, /b he has b established an acquired privilege with regard to four /b handbreadths. The Gemara asks: b What is he saying? Abaye said /b that b this /b is what he b is saying: /b If one b established an acquired privilege /b with regard to a projection that measures b one handbreadth wide by four /b handbreadths b long, /b he has b established an acquired privilege with regard to /b extending the projection to b a width /b of b four /b handbreadths.,The mishna teaches that if the projection protrudes b less than a handbreadth /b the owner of the house b has no /b means to establish b an acquired privilege for its /b use, b and /b the owner of the courtyard b cannot protest. Rav Huna says: They taught only /b that the b owner of the roof /b cannot protest the actions b of /b the b owner of the courtyard, /b i.e., he may not demand that the owner of the courtyard refrain from construction that interferes with the former’s use of the projection. b But /b the b owner of the courtyard can protest /b the actions b of /b the b owner of the roof, /b and demand that the latter not build a projection of any size, even less than a handbreadth. He can also demand that the owner of the roof not use an existing projection, since it leads to damage caused by sight. b And Rav Yehuda says: Even /b the b owner of the courtyard cannot protest /b the actions b of /b the b owner of the roof. /b ,The Gemara suggests: b Shall we say that /b they b disagree with regard to damage /b caused by b sight? As /b one b Sage, /b Rav Huna, b holds /b that b it is considered /b to be b damage, /b and therefore the owner of the courtyard can protest, since the owner of the roof has the means to see into the other’s courtyard when using this projection, b and /b one b Sage, /b Rav Yehuda, b holds /b that b it is not considered /b to be b damage. /b ,The Gemara rejects this: b No, everyone /b agrees that damage caused by sight b is considered /b to be b damage. And /b Rav Yehuda holds it b is different here, as /b the owner of the roof can b say to /b the owner of the courtyard: The projection b is not suitable for use, /b since it is too small for me to stand upon and look into the courtyard. b For what /b purpose b is it suitable? To hang items on it, /b and nothing more. b I will turn my face /b away b and hang /b items b on it /b without looking into your courtyard., b And the other /b i amora /i , Rav Huna, holds that the owner of the courtyard can b say to /b the owner of the roof: There may be b times when you are frightened /b due to the height of the projection, and you will look into my courtyard while using it., strong MISHNA: /strong b A person may not open his windows, /b i.e., build an opening in a wall to use as a window, b into a courtyard belonging to partners, /b i.e., a courtyard in which he is a partner. If he b purchased a house in another, /b adjacent b courtyard, /b he b may not open /b the house b into a courtyard belonging to partners. /b If he b built a loft on top of his house, he may not open it into a courtyard belonging to partners. Rather, if he desired /b to build a loft, he may b build a room within his house, or /b he may b build a loft on top of his house, and open it into his house, /b not directly into the courtyard., strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the mishna’s ruling that one may not open a window into a courtyard that he co-owns, the Gemara asks: b Why /b did the mishna b specifically /b render it prohibited for one to open a window b into a courtyard belonging to partners? /b One may b not /b open a window b into another’s courtyard either, /b as it will lead to damage caused by sight.,The Gemara replies that the mishna b is speaking /b utilizing the style of: b It is not necessary, /b as follows: b It is not necessary /b to say b that /b it is b not /b permitted for one to open a window b into another’s courtyard, /b where he is certainly not allowed to look; b but /b where one wants to open a window b into a courtyard belonging to partners, where /b the owner of the window can b say to /b the other partner: b Ultimately, /b since b you need to conceal /b yourself b from me /b and conduct yourself modestly b in the courtyard /b where I too am a partner and have the right to be present, why does it bother you if I open a window into there? Therefore, the mishna b teaches us that /b the partner may b say to him: Until now I needed to conceal /b myself b from you /b only when we were both b in the courtyard. Now I will need to conceal /b myself b from you even in the house, /b as you can see into my house from your window., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : There was b an incident involving a person who opened his windows into a courtyard belonging to partners and came before Rabbi Yishmael bar Rabbi Yosei, /b who b said to him: You have established an acquired privilege, my son; you have established an acquired privilege, /b and you may not be prevented from using the windows. b And he came before Rabbi Ḥiyya, /b who b said /b to him: b You toiled and opened /b the windows; you must b toil and seal /b them, as the partners have the right to prevent you from using these windows., b Rav Naḥman said: /b |
|
24. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein (2018), The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World. 216, 220| 86a. חכים יתקרי ורבי לא יתקרי ואסו דרבי על ידו תהא רבי ור' נתן סוף משנה רב אשי ורבינא סוף הוראה,וסימנך (תהלים עג, יז) עד אבוא אל מקדשי אל אבינה לאחריתם,אמר רב כהנא אישתעי לי רב חמא בר ברתיה דחסא רבה בר נחמני אגב שמדא נח נפשיה אכלו ביה קורצא בי מלכא אמרו איכא חד גברא ביהודאי דקא מבטל תריסר אלפי גברי מישראל ירחא בקייטא וירחא בסתוא מכרגא דמלכא,שדרו פריסתקא דמלכא בתריה ולא אשכחיה ערק ואזל מפומבדיתא לאקרא מאקרא לאגמא ומאגמא לשחין ומשחין לצריפא ומצריפא לעינא דמים ומעינא דמים לפומבדיתא בפומבדיתא אשכחיה איקלע פריסתקא דמלכא לההוא אושפיזא דרבה קריבו תכא קמיה ואשקוהו תרי כסי ודליוה לתכא מקמיה הדר פרצופיה לאחוריה,אמרו ליה מאי נעביד ליה גברא דמלכא הוא אמר להו קריבו תכא לקמיה ואשקיוהו חד כסא ודליוהו לתכא מקמיה ולתסי עבדו ליה הכי ואתסי אמר מידע ידענא דגברא דקא בעינא הכא הוא בחיש אבתריה ואשכחיה אמר אזלינא מהא אי מקטל קטלו לההוא גברא לא מגלינא ואי נגידי מנגדין ליה מגלינא,אתיוהו לקמיה עייליה לאדרונא וטרקיה לבבא באנפיה בעא רחמי פרק אשיתא ערק ואזיל לאגמא הוה יתיב אגירדא דדקולא וקא גריס קא מיפלגי במתיבתא דרקיעא אם (ויקרא יג, ב) בהרת קודמת לשער לבן טמא ואם שער לבן קודם לבהרת טהור,ספק הקב"ה אומר טהור וכולהו מתיבתא דרקיעא אמרי טמא ואמרי מאן נוכח נוכח רבה בר נחמני דאמר רבה בר נחמני אני יחיד בנגעים אני יחיד באהלות,שדרו שליחא בתריה לא הוה מצי מלאך המות למקרב ליה מדלא הוה קא פסיק פומיה מגרסיה אדהכי נשב זיקא ואויש ביני קני סבר גונדא דפרשי הוא אמר תינח נפשיה דההוא גברא ולא ימסר בידא דמלכותא,כי הוה קא ניחא נפשיה אמר טהור טהור יצאת בת קול ואמרה אשריך רבה בר נחמני שגופך טהור ויצאתה נשמתך בטהור נפל פתקא מרקיעא בפומבדיתא רבה בר נחמני נתבקש בישיבה של מעלה נפקו אביי ורבא וכולהו רבנן לאיעסוקי ביה לא הוו ידעי דוכתיה אזלו לאגמא חזו צפרי דמטללי וקיימי אמרי שמע מינה התם הוא,ספדוהו תלתא יומי ותלתא לילותא נפל פתקא כל הפורש יהא בנידוי ספדוהו שבעה יומי נפל פתקא לכו לביתכם לשלום,ההוא יומא דנח נפשיה דלייה זעפא ודרי לההוא טייעא כי רכיב גמלא מהאי גיסא דנהר פפא ושדייה בהך גיסא אמר מאי האי אמרי ליה נח נפשיה דרבה בר נחמני אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם כולי עלמא דידך הוא ורבה בר נחמני דידך את דרבה ורבה דידך אמאי קא מחרבת ליה לעלמא נח זעפא,רבי שמעון בן חלפתא בעל בשר הוה יומא חד הוה חמימא ליה הוה סליק ויתיב אשינא דטורא אמר לה לברתיה בתי הניפי עלי במניפא ואני אתן ליך ככרין דנרד אדהכי נשבא זיקא אמר כמה ככרין דנרד למרי דיכי,הכל כמנהג המדינה וכו' הכל לאתויי מאי לאתויי באתרא דנהיגי מכרך ריפתא ומשתה אנפקא דאי אמר להו קדימו ואייתי לכו אמרו לו לא כל כמינך,מעשה ברבן יוחנן בן מתיא שאמר לבנו צא ושכור וכו' מעשה לסתור חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני ואם פסק להן מזונות | 86a. b shall be called a wise [ i ḥakim /i ] /b physician, b but he shall not be called rabbi, and Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi’s b convalescence shall be through him. /b I also saw written there: b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b and Rabbi Natan /b are b the end of the Mishna, /b i.e., the last of the i tanna’im /i , the redactors of the Mishna. b Rav Ashi and Ravina /b are b the end of instruction, /b i.e., the end of the period of the i amora’im /i , the redacting of the Talmud, which occurred after the period of the i tanna’im /i ., b And your mnemonic /b to remember that Rav Ashi and Ravina redacted the Talmud is the verse: b “Until I entered into the sanctuary [ i mikdashei /i ] of God, and considered [ i avina /i ] their end” /b (Psalms 73:17). The sanctuary, i mikdashei /i , alludes to Rav Ashi, while the term i avina /i alludes to Ravina, which is a contraction of Rav Avina. The phrase: Their end, is interpreted as a reference to the redacting of the Talmud.,§ The Gemara relates another story discussing the greatness of the Sages. b Rav Kahana said: Rav Ḥama, son of the daughter of Ḥasa, told me /b that b Rabba bar Naḥmani died due to /b the fear of a decree of religious b persecution. /b The Gemara explains: His enemies b accused him [ i akhalu beih kurtza /i ] /b of disloyalty b in the king’s palace, /b as they b said: There is one man from /b among b the Jews who exempts twelve thousand Jewish men from the king’s head tax /b two months a year, b one month in the summer and one month in the winter. /b Since many people would study in Rabba’s study hall during the months of Adar and Elul, he was being blamed for preventing those people from working during those months., b They sent a messenger [ i peristaka /i ] of the king after him, but he /b was b not /b able to b find him. /b Rabba bar Naḥmani b fled and went from Pumbedita to Akra, from Akra to Agma, from Agma to Shiḥin, from Shiḥin to Tzerifa, from Tzerifa to Eina Demayim, and from Eina Demayim /b back b to Pumbedita. /b Ultimately, b he was found in Pumbedita, /b as b the king’s messenger arrived /b by chance b at that same inn where Rabba /b bar Naḥmani was hiding. The inn attendants b placed a tray before /b the messenger b and gave him two cups to drink. They /b then b removed the tray from before him and his face was /b miraculously b turned backward. /b ,The attendants b said to /b Rabba bar Naḥmani: b What should we do with him? He is the king’s man, /b and we cannot leave him like this. Rabba bar Naḥmani b said to them: Place a tray before him and give him one cup to drink, and /b then b remove the tray from before him and he will be healed. They did this, and he was healed. /b The messenger b said: I am certain that the man I seek is here, /b as this unnatural event must have befallen me on his account. b He searched for /b Rabba bar Naḥmani b and found /b out where he was. The messenger b said /b that they should tell Rabba bar Naḥmani: b I will leave this /b inn and will not disclose your location. Even b if they will kill that man, /b i.e., me, b I will not disclose /b your location. b But if they will beat him, /b me, b I will disclose /b your whereabouts, as I cannot bear being tortured.,With that guarantee, b they brought /b Rabba bar Naḥmani b before /b the messenger. b They took him into /b a small b vestibule [ i le’idrona /i ] and closed the door before him. /b Rabba bar Naḥmani b prayed for mercy, /b and b the wall crumbled. He fled and went to /b hide in b a swamp. He was sitting on the stump of a palm /b tree b and studying /b Torah alone. At that moment, the Sages b in the heavenly academy were disagreeing /b with regard to a i halakha /i of leprosy. In general, a leprous spot includes two signs of impurity, a bright white spot and a white hair. The basic i halakha /i is that b if /b the b snow-white leprous sore [ i baheret /i ] preceded the white hair /b then the afflicted person is b ritually impure, but if the white hair preceded the i baheret /i , /b he is b pure. /b ,The heavenly debate concerned a case of b uncertainty /b as to which came first, the spot or the hair. b The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: /b The individual is b pure, but every /b other member of b the heavenly academy says: /b He is b impure. And they said: Who can arbitrate /b in this dispute? They agreed that b Rabba bar Naḥmani /b should b arbitrate, as Rabba bar Naḥmani /b once b said: I am preeminent in /b the i halakhot /i of b leprosy /b and b I am preeminent in /b the i halakhot /i of ritual impurity imparted by b tents. /b , b They sent a messenger /b from heaven b after him /b to take his soul up to the heavenly academy, but b the Angel of Death was unable to approach /b Rabba bar Naḥmani, b as his mouth did not cease from his /b Torah b study. In the meantime, a wind blew and howled between the branches. /b Rabba bar Naḥmani b thought /b that the noise was due to b an infantry battalion [ i gunda /i ] /b about to capture him. b He said: Let that man, /b i.e., me, b die and not be given over to the hands of the government. /b The Angel of Death was therefore able to take his soul., b As he was dying, he said /b in response to the dispute in heaven: It is b pure; /b it is b pure. A Divine Voice emerged /b from heaven b and said: Happy are you, Rabba bar Naḥmani, as your body is pure and your soul left /b you b with /b the word: b Pure. A note [ i pitka /i ] fell from heaven /b and landed b in /b the academy of b Pumbedita. /b The note read: b Rabba bar Naḥmani was summoned to the heavenly academy, /b i.e., he has died. b Abaye and Rava and all of the /b other b Rabbis went out to tend to his /b burial; however, b they did not know the location of his /b body. b They went to the swamp /b and b saw birds forming a shade and hovering /b over a certain spot. The Rabbis b said: /b We can b conclude from this /b that b he is there. /b ,The Rabbis b lamented him for three days and three nights. A note fell /b from heaven, upon which was written: b Anyone who removes himself /b from the lamentations b shall be ostracized. /b Accordingly, b they lamented him /b for b seven days. /b Another b note fell /b from heaven, stating: b Go to your homes in peace. /b ,On b that day when /b Rabba bar Naḥmani b died, a hurricane lifted a certain Arab [ i taya’a /i ] /b merchant b while he was riding /b his b camel. /b The hurricane carried him b from one side of the Pappa River and threw him onto the other side. He said: What is this? /b Those present b said to him: Rabba bar Naḥmani has died. He said before /b God: b Master of the Universe! The entire world is Yours and Rabba bar Naḥmani is /b also b Yours. You are to Rabba and Rabba is to You, /b i.e., you are beloved to each other. If so, b why are You destroying the world /b on his account? b The storm subsided. /b ,The Gemara concludes its earlier discussion of obese Sages (84a). b Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta was obese. One day he was /b particularly b hot /b and b went and sat on a mountain boulder /b to cool himself off. b He said to his daughter: My daughter, fan me with a fan, and /b as a gift b I will give you packages of spikenard. In the meantime, /b a strong b wind blew. He said: How many packages of spikenard /b do I owe b to the overseers of this /b wind?,§ The Gemara returns to its discussion of the mishna (83a), which teaches that an employer must provide his laborers with sustece, b all in accordance with the regional custom. /b The Gemara asks: b What is added /b by the inclusive term: b All? /b The Gemara answers: This serves b to include a place where it is customary /b for the laborers to b eat bread and drink a quarter- /b i log /i b [ i anpaka /i ] of wine. As, if /b in such a case the employer were to b say to them: Arise early /b in the morning b and I will bring you /b this sustece, so as not to waste work time, b they may say to him: It is not in your power /b to compel us to do so.,§ The mishna teaches that there was b an incident involving Rabbi Yoḥa ben Matya, who said to his son: Go out and hire /b laborers for us. His son hired the laborers and stipulated that he would provide sustece for them. The Gemara asks: After the mishna has stated that all practices are in accordance with the regional custom, how can it cite this b incident, /b which seems b to contradict /b the previous ruling, as Rabbi Yoḥa ben Matya and his son did not follow the regional custom? The Gemara answers: The mishna b is incomplete and this /b is what it b is teaching: /b All practices are in accordance with the regional custom, b but if /b the employer pledged to provide sustece for them, |
|
25. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein (2018), The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World. 16| 15b. המית שורי את פלוני או שורו של פלוני הרי זה משלם על פי עצמו,מאי לאו בתם,לא במועד אבל תם מאי הכי נמי דאין משלם על פי עצמו אי הכי אדתני סיפא המית שורי את עבדו של פלוני אין משלם על פי עצמו לפלוג וליתני בדידיה,בד"א במועד אבל בתם אינו משלם על פי עצמו,כולה במועד קמיירי,תא שמע זה הכלל כל המשלם יותר על מה שהזיק אינו משלם על פי עצמו מאי לאו הא פחות ממה שהזיק משלם,לא הא כמה שהזיק משלם,אבל פחות מאי הכי נמי דלא משלם אי הכי אדתני זה הכלל כל המשלם יותר על מה שהזיק אינו משלם על פי עצמו ליתני זה הכלל כל שאינו משלם כמה שהזיק דמשמע פחות ומשמע יותר תיובתא,והלכתא פלגא נזקא קנסא,תיובתא והלכתא,אין טעמא מאי הויא תיובתא משום דלא קתני כמו שהזיק,לא פסיקא ליה כיון דאיכא חצי נזק צרורות דהלכתא גמירא לה דממונא הוא משום הכי לא קתני,והשתא דאמרת פלגא נזקא קנסא האי כלבא דאכל אימרי ושונרא דאכלה תרנגולא משונה הוא ולא מגבינן בבבל,והני מילי ברברבי אבל בזוטרי אורחיה הוא,ואי תפס לא מפקינן מיניה,ואי אמר קבעו לי זימנא דאזלינא לארעא דישראל קבעינן ליה ואי לא אזיל משמתינן ליה,ובין כך ובין כך משמתינן ליה עד דמסלק הזיקא,מדרבי נתן דתניא רבי נתן אומר מניין שלא יגדל אדם כלב רע בתוך ביתו ואל יעמיד סולם רעוע בתוך ביתו ת"ל (דברים כב, ח) לא תשים דמים בביתך, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big חמשה תמין וחמשה מועדין,הבהמה אינה מועדת לא ליגח ולא ליגוף ולא לשוך ולא לרבוץ ולא לבעוט,השן מועדת לאכול את הראוי לה הרגל מועדת לשבור בדרך הילוכה ושור המועד ושור המזיק ברשות הניזק והאדם,הזאב והארי והדוב והנמר והברדלס והנחש הרי אלו מועדין רבי אלעזר אומר בזמן שהן בני תרבות אינן מועדין והנחש מועד לעולם, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מדקתני השן מועדת לאכול מכלל דבחצר הניזק עסקינן וקתני בהמה אינה מועדת לשלם כוליה אבל חצי נזק משלמת,מני רבנן היא דאמרי משונה קרן בחצר הניזק חצי נזק הוא דמשלם,אימא סיפא שור המועד ושור המזיק ברשות הניזק והאדם אתאן לרבי טרפון דאמר משונה קרן בחצר הניזק נזק שלם הוא דמשלם,רישא רבנן וסיפא רבי טרפון,אין דהאמר ליה שמואל לרב יהודה שיננא שבוק מתני' ותא אבתראי רישא רבנן וסיפא רבי טרפון,רבי אלעזר משמיה דרב אמר | 15b. If one admits: b My ox killed so-and-so, or /b my ox killed b so-and-so’s ox, /b then b this /b person b pays based on his own /b admission.,The Gemara analyzes the mishna: b What, is /b the i halakha /i of the mishna b not /b stated b with regard to an innocuous ox? /b If so, this mishna proves that one is required to pay for half the cost of the damage even based on one’s own admission, which demonstrates that the payment is monetary restitution and not a fine.,The Gemara rejects the proof: b No, /b the i halakha /i of the mishna is stated b with regard to a forewarned /b ox. The Gemara asks: b But /b according to this explanation, if it had been an b innocuous /b ox that gored, b what /b would be the i halakha /i ? Would one say that b indeed, he does not pay based on his own /b admission? But b if so, rather than teaching /b in b the latter clause /b of the mishna in i Ketubot /i : If one admits: b My ox killed so-and-so’s /b Canaanite b slave, he does not pay based on his own /b admission, b let /b the mishna b differentiate and teach /b the distinction b with regard to /b the case raised in the first clause b itself. /b The reason for the distinction between the cases when one’s ox kills a Jew or a Canaanite slave is that in the first one pays monetary restitution, while in the second one pays a fine. If the mishna wishes to demonstrate the difference between a fine and monetary restitution with regard to admission, then instead of introducing a new case, the mishna would have modified the case of the previous clause.,The mishna would have continued: b In what /b case b is this statement /b in the first clause b said? /b It is said b with regard to a forewarned /b ox, b but with regard to /b an admission that one’s b innocuous /b ox gored, b he does not pay based on his own /b admission. The fact that the mishna does not do so suggests that in fact one is required to pay for half the cost of the damage based on one’s own admission that his innocuous ox gored. Evidently, the payment is considered to be monetary restitution.,The Gemara rejects this: The reason the mishna did not raise the distinction between an innocuous and a forewarned ox is not because that distinction is not a valid one, but because the b entire /b mishna b speaks /b only b of /b cases of b a forewarned /b ox. Accordingly, no proof can be adduced from the mishna.,The Gemara suggests further: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof from the concluding clause of the mishna just cited: b This is the principle: Anyone who pays more than /b the cost of b that which he damaged does not pay based on his own /b admission. The Gemara infers: b What, is it not /b that were he liable to pay b less than /b the cost of b that which he damaged, he would pay /b based on his own admission? Since when an innocuous ox gores, its owner is liable to pay more than the cost of the damage, the payment is clearly not monetary restitution, and this is why it is not payable based on one’s own admission.,The Gemara rejects the inference: b No, /b one should infer only that were he liable to pay b as much as /b the cost of b that which he damaged, he pays /b based on his own admission. If the sum to be paid is more or less than the cost of that which he damaged, he would not pay based on his own admission.,The Gemara asks. b But /b according to that opinion, where one is liable to pay b less /b than the cost of the damage, b what /b would be the i halakha /i ? Would one say that, b indeed, he does not pay /b based on his own admission? b If so, instead of teaching: This is the principle: Anyone who pays more than /b the cost of b that which he damaged does not pay based on his own /b admission, b let /b the mishna b teach /b instead: b This is the principle: Anyone who does not pay as much as /b the cost of b that which he damaged /b does not pay based on his own admission. b As /b that statement b indicates /b cases where one is liable to pay b more /b than the cost of that which he damaged b and it /b also b indicates /b cases where one is liable to pay b less /b than the cost of that which he damaged. Evidently, the mishna holds that where one’s liability is for less than the cost of the damage, it is payable based on one’s own admission. This therefore provides b a conclusive refutation /b of the opinion that the payment for half the cost of the damage is a fine.,The Gemara adds: b And the i halakha /i /b is that the payment for b half /b the cost of b the damage is a fine. /b ,The Gemara notes the obvious inconsistency: How can it be that the Gemara offers b a conclusive refutation /b of the opinion that the payment for half the cost of the damage is a fine b and /b then state that b the i halakha /i /b is in accordance with that opinion?,The Gemara explains: b Yes, /b the i halakha /i may be in accordance with that opinion because of the following resolution of the refutation. b What is the reason /b that the Gemara held that b there is a conclusive refutation /b of the opinion that the payment for half the cost of the damage is a fine? b Because /b the mishna b does not teach: /b Anyone who does not pay b as much as /b the cost of b that which he damaged /b does not pay based on his own admission. This is not, in fact, a conclusive refutation, as even if one holds that the payment of half the cost of the damage for an innocuous ox is considered monetary restitution, one can still explain why the mishna doesn’t discuss cases where one is liable for less than the cost of the damage.,This is because the i tanna /i b cannot make an absolute /b statement about such cases, that one never pays based on one’s own admission. b Since there is /b an obligation for one to pay for b half /b the cost of b the damage /b resulting from b pebbles /b inadvertently propelled by the foot of a walking animal, b which, through tradition it is learned that /b this payment b is monetary restitution, /b and it is b due to that /b reason that the mishna b does not teach /b cases where one’s liability is valued at less than the cost of the damage.,The Gemara considers the ramifications of this i halakha /i : b And now that you have said /b that the i halakha /i is that the payment of b half the /b cost of the b damage is a fine, /b with regard to b this /b innocuous b dog that ate lambs or /b this innocuous b cat that ate a chicken, /b which b is atypical /b behavior for dogs and cats, b we do not collect /b the payment for these acts in the courts b in Babylonia. /b Since it is not common for these animals to eat those animals, these acts are classified as Goring, irrespective of the fact that the animal gained pleasure from the damage, for which it would normally be classified in the category of Eating. Therefore, in cases where these animals had not performed this act of damaging before, and were therefore considered innocuous, the owner is liable for only half the cost of the damage, which is a fine. Since the collection of fines may be imposed only by judges who have been ordained, and ordination is given only in Eretz Yisrael, these payments are not collected in Babylonia.,The Gemara adds: b And this matter /b applies only b where /b they attacked b large /b animals, as it is atypical behavior for them; b but where /b they attacked b small /b animals, since that b is their /b typical b manner /b of behavior, it is classified as Eating, for which the owner pays the full cost of the damage, which is certainly considered monetary restitution. Accordingly, the payment is collected by the courts in Babylonia., b And /b even in a case where the payment is considered a fine, b if /b the injured party b seized /b the property of the owner of the belligerent animal in order to cover his loss, b we do not reclaim /b it b from him /b since he is entitled to it., b And /b also, b if /b the injured party b said /b to the court: b Fix a time for me to go to Eretz Yisrael /b to present the case before ordained judges, b we fix /b a time b for him /b and require the owner of the belligerent animal to go to the court in Eretz Yisrael at that time. b And /b if b he does not go, we excommunicate him /b for disobeying the orders of the court., b And either way, we excommunicate /b the owner of the belligerent animal b until he removes the danger, /b e.g., by killing the animal or otherwise neutralizing the danger.,The justification for this is b from /b the ruling b of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Natan says: From where /b is it derived b that one may not raise a vicious dog in his house, and one may not set up an unstable ladder in his house? The verse states: “You shall not bring blood into your house” /b (Deuteronomy 22:8), i.e., one may not allow a hazardous situation or item to remain in one’s house. As long as the hazard remains, the owner is in violation of this verse and therefore the court may excommunicate him for failing to remove the danger., strong MISHNA: /strong There are b five /b damage-causing acts that an animal can perform twice and remain b innocuous /b even when its owner was warned each time to prevent it from doing so. After the third time, the animal is rendered forewarned. In such cases, the owner is liable to pay only half of the damages. b And /b there are b five /b damage-causing acts for which an animal is considered b forewarned, /b at times even if it had never caused damage in that manner. In such cases the owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage., b An animal is not /b considered b forewarned /b with regard to Goring, i.e., b not for goring /b with its horns, b nor for pushing /b with its body, b nor for biting, nor for crouching /b upon items in order to damage them, b nor for kicking. /b In these cases the animal is considered to be innocuous and its owner is liable for only half of the damages.,Concerning acts of damage performed with b the tooth, /b the animal is considered b forewarned with regard to eating that which is fitting for it /b to eat. Concerning acts of damage performed with b the foot, /b the animal is considered b forewarned with regard to breaking /b items b while walking. And /b there is b a forewarned ox, /b which gored three times and each time his owner was warned to safeguard his ox from doing so. b And /b there is b an ox that causes damage /b to the property of the injured party while b on the property of the injured /b party. b And /b there is b the person, /b i.e., any damage done by a person. In all of these cases the one who caused the damage is considered to be forewarned, resulting in the obligation to pay the full cost of the damage.,The mishna presents the i halakha /i for wild animals: b The wolf; the lion; the bear; the leopard; the i bardelas /i , /b the meaning of which the Gemara will discuss; b and the snake. These are /b considered b forewarned /b even if they had never previously caused damage. b Rabbi Elazar says: When these /b animals b are domesticated they are not /b considered b forewarned. But the snake is always /b considered b forewarned. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b From /b the fact b that /b the mishna b teaches /b in its latter clause: Concerning acts of damage performed with b the tooth, /b the animal is considered b forewarned with regard to eating /b that which is fitting for it to eat, we learn, b by inference, that we are dealing /b throughout the mishna b with /b cases of damage done b in the courtyard of the injured /b party, as one is exempt from liability for acts of damage classified as Eating if they occur in the public domain. b And /b yet the first clause b teaches: An animal is not /b considered b forewarned /b with regard to Goring. Stating that it is not forewarned indicates that the liability of its owner is limited only b with regard to paying the full /b cost b of /b the damage, b but /b the owner b pays half /b the cost of b the damage. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Who is /b it that holds that when damage classified as Goring is done within the property of the injured party the owner of the belligerent animal is liable for only half of the damages? b It is the Rabbis, who say: /b The i halakha /i of cases of b Goring /b performed by an innocuous animal, which is b atypical /b behavior, done b in the courtyard of the injured /b party, is that the owner of the ox b pays half /b the cost of b the damage. /b ,But then b say, /b and try to explain accordingly, the next part of b the latter clause /b of the mishna: b And /b there is b a forewarned ox /b that gored three times, and each time his owner was warned to safeguard his ox from doing so. b And /b there is b an ox that causes damage /b to the property of the injured party while b on the property of the injured /b party. b And /b there is b the person. /b In these cases, the responsible party pays full damages. With this clause b we arrive at /b the opinion of b Rabbi Tarfon, who says: /b The i halakha /i of cases of b Goring /b performed by an innocuous animal, which is b atypical, /b done b in the courtyard of the injured /b party, is that the owner of the ox b pays /b the b full /b cost of the b damage /b even if the ox is innocuous.,The Gemara asks: Could it be that b the first /b part of the latter b clause /b of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the b Rabbis and /b the next part of b the latter clause is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Tarfon? /b ,The Gemara answers: b Yes, as Shmuel said to Rav Yehuda: Large-toothed one, leave the mishna and follow after me /b and my interpretation that b the first /b part of the latter b clause /b of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the b Rabbis and /b the next part of b the latter clause is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Tarfon. /b ,The Gemara presents a different interpretation of the mishna: b Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rav: /b |
|
26. Babylonian Talmud, Betzah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein (2018), The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World. 73| 36a. התם תנן אבל לא את האוצר ואמר שמואל מאי אבל לא את האוצר אבל לא יגמור את האוצר כולו דלמא אתי לאשויי גומות הכא מאי,התם הוא בשבת דאסור משום דחמיר אבל יום טוב דקיל שפיר דמי או דלמא התם דאיכא בטול בית המדרש אמרת לא הכא דליכא בטול בית המדרש לא כל שכן,והכא תנן משילין פירות דרך ארובה ביו'ט ואמר רב נחמן לא שנו אלא באותו הגג אבל מגג לגג לא ותניא נמי הכי אין מטלטלין מגג לגג אפי' כשגגותיהן שוין,התם מאי (כל שכן שבת דחמירא או דלמא) הכא הוא דאסור משום יום טוב דקיל ואתי לזלזולי ביה אבל שבת דחמירא ולא אתי לזלזולי בה שפיר דמי,או דלמא מה הכא דאיכא הפסד פירות אמרת לא התם דליכא הפסד פירות לא כל שכן,הכא (תנן) לא ישלשלם בחבל בחלונות ולא יורידם דרך סולמות התם מאי הכא ביום טוב הוא דאסור דליכא בטול בית המדרש אבל שבת דאיכא בטול בית המדרש שפיר דמי,או דלמא הכא דאיכא הפסד פירות אמרת לא התם דליכא הפסד פירות לא כל שכן תיקו:,ומכסין את הפירות: אמר עולא ואפילו אוירא דלבני ר' יצחק אמר פירות הראוין ואזדא ר' יצחק לטעמיה דאמר ר' יצחק אין כלי ניטל אלא לדבר הניטל בשבת,תנן מכסין את הפירות בכלים פירות אין אוירא דלבני לא הוא הדין דאפי' אוירא דלבני ואיידי דתנא רישא משילין פירות תנא סיפא נמי מכסין את הפירות,תנן וכן כדי יין וכן כדי שמן הכא במאי עסקינן בטיבלא,הכי נמי מסתברא דאי סלקא דעתך כדי יין וכדי שמן דהתירא הא תנא ליה רישא פירות,כדי יין וכדי שמן אצטריכא ליה סלקא דעתך אמינא להפסד מרובה חששו להפסד מועט לא חששו קמ"ל,תנן נותנין כלי תחת הדלף בשבת בדלף הראוי,תא שמע פורסין מחצלת על גבי לבנים בשבת דאייתור מבנינא דחזי למזגא עלייהו,תא שמע פורסין מחצלת על גבי אבנים בשבת באבנים מקורזלות דחזיין לבית הכסא,תא שמע פורסין מחצלת על גבי כורת דבורים בשבת בחמה מפני החמה ובגשמים מפני הגשמים ובלבד שלא יתכוין לצוד התם נמי דאיכא דבש,אמר ליה רב עוקבא ממישן לרב אשי התינח בימות החמה דאיכא דבש בימות הגשמים מאי איכא למימר לא נצרכא אלא לאותן שתי חלות אותן שתי חלות מוקצות הן הכא במאי עסקינן שחשב עליהם,אבל לא חשב עליהם מאי אסור אדתני ובלבד שלא יתכוין לצוד לפלוג ולתני בדידה במה דברים אמורים שחשב עליהן אבל לא חשב עליהם אסור,הכי קאמר אע"פ שחשב עליהן ובלבד שלא יתכוין לצוד,במאי אוקימתא כרבי יהודה דאית ליה מוקצה אימא סיפא ובלבד שלא יתכוין לצוד אתאן לרבי שמעון דאמר דבר שאין מתכוין מותר,ותסברא דרבי שמעון והא אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו מודה רבי שמעון בפסיק רישיה ולא ימות,לעולם כולה רבי יהודה היא והכא במאי עסקינן דאית ביה כוי ולא תימא לרבי יהודה ובלבד שלא יתכוין לצוד | |
|
27. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 128| 45b. דניחא להו דמקבע להו בחובה (מעיקרא),ת"ש נשים מזמנות לעצמן ועבדים מזמנים לעצמן נשים ועבדים וקטנים אם רצו לזמן אין מזמנין (והא נשים אפילו מאה) והא מאה נשי כתרי גברי דמיין וקתני נשים מזמנות לעצמן ועבדים מזמנין לעצמן,שאני התם דאיכא דעות,א"ה אימא סיפא נשים ועבדים אם רצו לזמן אין מזמנין אמאי לא והא איכא דעות,שאני התם משום פריצותא,תסתיים דרב דאמר אם רצו לזמן אין מזמנין דאמר רב דימי בר יוסף אמר רב שלשה שאכלו כאחת ויצא אחד מהם לשוק קוראין לו ומזמנין עליו טעמא דקוראין לו הא לא קוראין לו לא,שאני התם דאקבעו להו בחובה מעיקרא,אלא תסתיים דר' יוחנן הוא דאמר אם רצו לזמן אין מזמנין דאמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן שנים שאכלו כאחת אחד מהן יוצא בברכת חבירו,והוינן בה מאי קא משמע לן תנינא שמע ולא ענה יצא ואמר רבי זירא לומר שאין ברכת המזון ביניהם תסתיים,א"ל רבא בר רב הונא לרב הונא והא רבנן דאתו ממערבא אמרי אם רצו לזמן מזמנין מאי לאו דשמיע להו מר' יוחנן לא דשמיע להו מרב מקמי דנחית לבבל:,גופא אמר רב דימי בר יוסף אמר רב שלשה שאכלו כאחת ויצא אחד מהם לשוק קוראין לו ומזמנין עליו אמר אביי והוא דקרו ליה ועני,אמר מר זוטרא ולא אמרן אלא בשלשה אבל בעשרה עד דנייתי,מתקיף לה רב אשי אדרבה איפכא מסתברא תשעה נראין כעשרה שנים אין נראין כשלשה,והלכתא כמר זוטרא מ"ט כיון דבעי לאדכורי שם שמים בציר מעשרה לאו אורח ארעא,אמר אביי נקיטינן שנים שאכלו כאחת מצוה ליחלק תניא נמי הכי שנים שאכלו כאחת מצוה ליחלק במה דברים אמורים כששניהם סופרים אבל אחד סופר ואחד בור סופר מברך ובור יוצא:,אמר רבא הא מילתא אמריתא אנא ואיתמרה משמיה דרבי זירא כוותי שלשה שאכלו כאחת אחד מפסיק לשנים ואין שנים מפסיקין לאחד, ולא והא רב פפא אפסיק ליה לאבא מר בריה איהו וחד שאני רב פפא דלפנים משורת הדין הוא דעבד,יהודה בר מרימר ומר בר רב אשי ורב אחא מדפתי כרכי ריפתא בהדי הדדי לא הוה בהו חד דהוה מופלג מחבריה לברוכי להו (יתבי וקא מיבעיא להו) הא דתנן שלשה שאכלו כאחת חייבין לזמן הני מילי היכא דאיכא אדם גדול אבל היכא דכי הדדי נינהו חלוק ברכות עדיף,בריך איניש לנפשיה אתו לקמיה דמרימר אמר להו ידי ברכה יצאתם ידי זימון לא יצאתם וכי תימרו ניהדר ונזמן אין זימון למפרע,בא ומצאן כשהן מברכים מהו אומר אחריהם רב זביד אמר ברוך ומבורך רב פפא אמר עונה אמן,ולא פליגי הא דאשכחינהו דקא אמרי נברך והא דאשכחינהו דקא אמרי ברוך אשכחינהו דקא אמרי נברך אומר ברוך ומבורך אשכחינהו דקא אמרי ברוך עונה אמן,תני חדא העונה אמן אחר ברכותיו הרי זה משובח ותניא אידך הרי זה מגונה,לא קשיא הא בבונה ירושלים הא בשאר ברכות,אביי עני ליה בקלא כי היכי דלשמעו פועלים וליקומו דהטוב והמטיב לאו דאורייתא רב אשי עני ליה בלחישא כי היכי דלא נזלזלו בהטוב והמטיב | 45b. in the case of a waiter, b because from the outset, they prefer to establish /b their i zimmun /i b as an obligation /b rather than as an option.,The Gemara cites yet another proof. b Come and hear: Women form a i zimmun /i for themselves and slaves form a i zimmun /i for themselves; /b however, b women, slaves, and minors, /b even b if they wish to form a i zimmun /i /b together, b they may not form a i zimmun /i . b But aren’t one hundred women /b considered b the equivalent of two men, /b in that they cannot constitute a prayer quorum? b And /b yet, the i baraita /i b teaches /b that b women form a i zimmun /i for themselves and /b Canaanite b slaves form a i zimmun /i for themselves /b . Apparently, like women, two men can form a i zimmun /i on their own. /b ,The Gemara rejects this: b There it is different because, /b although women cannot constitute a prayer quorum, since b there are /b three individual b minds, /b i.e., people, three women can fulfill the verse: “Praise God with me, and we will exalt His name together.” Two men cannot.,The Gemara objects: b If so, say the latter clause /b of this i baraita /i : b Women and slaves, if they wish to form a i zimmun /i , they may not form a i zimmun /i . Why not? Aren’t /b they individual b minds, /b which should enable the collective praise of God?,The Gemara responds: That is not the reason that women and slaves were prohibited from forming a i zimmun /i together. Rather, b it is different there, /b as the Sages were concerned with regard to women and slaves joining together b due to promiscuity. /b ,In the dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yoḥa, it is unclear which i amora /i held which opinion. The Gemara seeks to resolve this: b Conclude that Rav /b is the one who b said: If they wanted to join together, they may not form a i zimmun /i . As Rav Dimi bar Yosef said /b that b Rav said: Three /b people b who ate as one and one of them went out to the marketplace, they call him and include him in the i zimmun /i . The reason is because they call him; /b by inference, b if they do not call him, no, /b they cannot form a i zimmun /i .,The Gemara rejects this proof: b It is different there, /b in the case of three who ate together and one of them left, because b from the outset, they established themselves as /b a group of three who were b obligated /b to form a i zimmun /i . That is why they need to call him and include him in their i zimmun /i .,The Gemara now attempts to prove the opposite: b Rather, conclude that Rabbi Yoḥa is the one who said: If they wanted to join together, they may not form a i zimmun /i , as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Two /b people b who ate as one, one fulfills his obligation /b to recite a blessing b with the /b recitation of the b blessing of the other. /b ,The Gemara comments: b And we discussed it /b in an attempt to clarify the i halakha /i . b What is he teaching us? We /b already b learned this /b i halakha /i explicitly: b One who heard /b a blessing b and did not respond, /b nevertheless b he fulfilled /b his obligation b And Rabbi Zeira said: /b Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement teaches us that b there is no blessing of i zimmun /i among them. /b Indeed, b conclude /b that Rabbi Yoḥa is the i amora /i who held that two may not form a i zimmun /i .,With regard to this, b Rava bar Rav Huna said to /b his father b Rav Huna: Didn’t the Sages who came from the West, /b from Eretz Yisrael, b say that /b two individuals who ate together, b if they wanted to join together, they may form a i zimmun /i ? What, is it not that they heard /b it b from Rabbi Yoḥa, /b who was from Eretz Yisrael? Rav Huna answered: b No, /b this is not a proof, as it is possible b that they heard /b this i halakha /i b from Rav before he /b left Eretz Yisrael and b descended to Babylonia. /b ,The Gemara now explains b the matter /b of Rav’s statement b itself: Rav Dimi bar Yosef said /b that b Rav said: Three /b people b who ate as one and one of them went out to the marketplace, they call him and include him in the i zimmun /i , /b even if he is not beside them. And b Abaye said: This is /b only in a case b that they call him and he responds, /b but if he is too far away to answer he cannot be included., b Mar Zutra said: We only said /b this, that it is sufficient to hear and answer, b with regard to /b a i zimmun /i of b three; but, with regard to /b a quorum of b ten, /b they may not form a i zimmun /i which includes mention of God’s name b until /b the one who left b comes /b and sits with them., b Rav Ashi strongly objects to this: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable. Nine /b people who ate together b appear like ten, /b so even if one is missing, the quorum does not seem to be incomplete. b Two /b people who ate together b do not appear like three, /b so it would be reasonable to require the actual presence of the third.,The Gemara concludes: b And the i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Mar Zutra. b What /b is b the reason? Because /b in b /b a i zimmun /i of ten b they need to mention the Name of Heaven, /b and b /b it is b not proper conduct /b to invoke the Name of Heaven with b fewer than ten /b people present. /b ,With regard to the i halakhot /i of i zimmun /i , b Abaye said /b that b we have a tradition: Two /b people b who ate as one, it is a mitzva /b for them b to separate /b and for each to recite a blessing for himself. b This was also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Two /b people b who ate as one, it is a mitzva /b for them b to separate /b The i baraita /i , however, adds: b In what /b case b are these matters stated? /b Specifically b when both /b individuals b are learned people [ i soferim /i ] /b and capable of reciting prayers and blessings. b However, /b if b one of them was a learned person and the other an ignoramus, the learned person recites the blessing /b and b the ignoramus thereby fulfills /b his obligation., b Rava said: This is a statement that I said and it was stated in the name of Rabbi Zeira in accordance with my /b opinion: b Three /b people b who ate as one /b but did not conclude their meals together, b one interrupts /b his meal in order b to /b join the other b two /b in a i zimmun /i , b but two do not interrupt /b their meal b to /b join the other b one /b in a i zimmun /i .,The Gemara challenges: b And /b do two really b not /b interrupt their meal to join the other one in a i zimmun /i ? b Didn’t Rav Pappa interrupt /b his meal b to /b enable b Abba Mar, his son, /b to recite the i zimmun /i blessing; and, in that case, it was Rav Pappa b and one /b other person? The Gemara responds: The case of b Rav Pappa is different, as /b he b acted beyond the letter of the law. /b ,The Gemara relates that three Sages, b Yehuda bar Mareimar, Mar bar Rav Ashi and Rav Aḥa of Difti ate bread together. None among them was greater than the other /b in either age or wisdom, rendering him the obvious choice to b recite the blessing on their behalf. They sat down and raised a dilemma: That which we learned /b in our mishna: b Three /b people b who ate as one are required to join together /b and recite Grace after Meals, does b that apply only when there is a great man /b among them, b but where they are on a par with each other, /b perhaps b separating /b and reciting independent b blessings is preferable? /b ,Indeed, that is what they did, and b each person recited the blessing for himself. /b Later, b they came before Mareimar /b to ask him if they had acted correctly. Mareimar b said to them: /b Although b you fulfilled your /b obligation to recite a b blessing /b over your food, b you did not fulfill /b your obligation to form a b i zimmun /i . And if you say: Let us go back and form a i zimmun /i , there is no retroactive i zimmun /i . /b Once the blessing over the meal has been recited, one can no longer recite the i zimmun /i .,The Gemara discusses another question: b One who came and found them reciting the /b i zimmun /i b blessing, what does he say after them /b in response to the i zimmun /i . b Rav Zevid said /b that he says: b Blessed /b is He b and blessed /b is His Name for ever and all time ( i Tosafot /i ). b Rav Pappa said: He answers amen. /b ,The Gemara explains that Rav Zevid and Rav Pappa b do not disagree. This is /b in a case b where he found them saying: Let us bless; and that is /b in a case b where he found them saying: Blessed be. /b The Gemara specifies: b Where he found them saying: Let us bless, he says: Blessed /b is He b and blessed /b is His Name for ever and all time; b where he found them saying: Blessed be, he answers amen. /b ,A similar explanation resolves a difficulty in a related topic. b One /b i baraita /i b taught: One who answers amen after his /b own b blessings, it is praiseworthy. Another /b i baraita /i b taught: It is reprehensible. /b ,The Gemara resolves this apparent contradiction: This is b not difficult. This, /b where the first i baraita /i says that it is praiseworthy to answer amen after his own blessing, b is in /b the blessing: b Who builds Jerusalem; this, /b where the second i baraita /i deems it offensive, b is in other blessings. /b ,The Gemara relates: b Abaye would answer /b amen b aloud /b after reciting the blessing: Who builds Jerusalem, b so the workers would hear and stand /b to return to work, b as /b the ensuing blessing: b Who is good and does good, is not /b required b by Torah law, /b so the laborers working for the homeowner need not recite it. b Rav Ashi, /b on the other hand, would b answer /b amen b in a whisper, so that /b those who heard him b would not relate to /b the blessing: b Who is good and does good, with contempt. /b |
|
28. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein (2018), The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World. 16| 66a. דרא רבי אבינא לסילתיה ואזל לגבי דרב הונא רביה דאמר רב הונא גיטו כמתנתו מה מתנתו אם עמד חוזר אף גיטו אם עמד חוזר,ומה גיטו אע"ג דלא פריש כיון דאמר כתבו אע"ג דלא אמר תנו אף מתנתו כיון דאמר תנו אע"ג דלא קנו מיניה,מתקיף לה רבי אבא אי מה מתנה ישנה לאחר מיתה אף גט ישנו לאחר מיתה הכי השתא בשלמא מתנה איתה לאחר מיתה אלא גט לאחר מיתה מי איכא,אלא רבי אבא הכי קא קשיא ליה מתנת שכיב מרע במקצת היא ומתנת שכ"מ במקצת בעיא קנין מכלל דרב הונא סבר לא בעיא קנין והא קי"ל דבעיא קנין שאני הכא דמצוה מחמת מיתה הוא,מכלל דר' אבא סבר מצוה מחמת מיתה בעיא קנין והא קי"ל דלא בעי קנין,אלא רבי אבא הכי קא קשיא ליה חמרא לא קאמר דמי חמרא לא קאמר מחמרא קאמר ואידך מחמרא כדי לייפות את כחו שלחו מתם מחמרא כדי לייפות את כחו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מי שהיה מושלך לבור ואמר כל השומע את קולו יכתוב גט לאשתו הרי אלו יכתבו ויתנו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big וליחוש שמא שד הוא א"ר יהודה כשראו לו דמות אדם,אינהו נמי אידמויי אידמו דחזו ליה בבואה אינהו נמי אית להו בבואה דחזו ליה בבואה דבבואה ודלמא אינהו נמי אית להו א"ר חנינא לימדני יונתן בני בבואה אית להו בבואה דבבואה לית להו,ודלמא צרה היא תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל בשעת הסכנה כותבין ונותנין אע"פ שאין מכירין:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big הבריא שאמר כתבו גט לאשתי רצה לשחק בה,מעשה בבריא אחד שאמר כתבו גט לאשתי ועלה לראש הגג ונפל ומת אמר רשב"ג אם מעצמו נפל הרי זה גט אם הרוח דחתו אינו גט:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מעשה לסתור,חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני אם הוכיח סופו על תחילתו הרי זה גט ומעשה נמי בבריא שאמר כתבו גט לאשתי ועלה לראש הגג ונפל ומת ואמר רשב"ג אם מעצמו נפל הרי זה גט אם הרוח דחתו אינו גט,ההוא גברא דעל לבי כנישתא אשכח מקרי ינוקא ובריה דיתבי ויתיב איניש אחרינא גבייהו אמר להו בי תרי מינייכו נכתבו גיטא לדביתהו לסוף שכיב מקרי ינוקא מי משוו אינשי ברא שליחא במקום אבא או לא,רב נחמן אמר לא משוו אינשי ברא שליחא במקום אבא ורב פפי אמר משוו אינשי ברא שליחא במקום אבא אמר רבא הילכתא משוו אינשי ברא שליח' במקום אבא, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אמר לשנים תנו גט לאשתי | 66a. Let b Rabbi Avina lift his basket and go to Rav Huna his teacher, /b as in order to acquire the item he must rely on the opinion of his teacher, b as Rav Huna said: /b The legal status of b one’s bill of divorce /b is b like /b that of b his gift.Just as /b with regard to a b gift /b given by one on b his /b deathbed, b if he /b recovered from his illness and b arose /b from his deathbed, b he revokes /b his gift, b so too, /b with regard to b his bill of divorce /b given by one on his deathbed, b if he /b recovered from his illness and b arose /b from his deathbed, b he revokes /b the bill of divorce., b And just as /b with regard to the b bill of divorce /b of one on b his /b deathbed, b even though he did not specify, once he said: Write /b the bill of divorce, b even though he did not say: Give /b it to my wife, they write and give it to his wife, as it was taught in the mishna. b So too, /b with regard to a b gift /b given by one on b his /b deathbed, b once he said: Give /b the gift, b even though /b the recipients b did not acquire /b the item b from him /b by means of an act of acquisition, the one on his deathbed has given the gift. Based on the parallel drawn by Rav Huna between a bill of divorce and a gift, Rabbi Avina can go and collect the gift given him by Geneiva., b Rabbi Abba objects to /b that conclusion. b If /b that parallel is valid, extend it and say: b Just as a gift is /b valid b after death, so too, a bill of divorce is /b valid b after death. /b The Gemara rejects this: b How can /b these cases b be compared? Granted, a gift is /b valid b after death; however, is a bill of divorce /b valid b after death? /b A bill of divorce severs the bond between husband and wife. After the husband dies, the bill of divorce is pointless. Therefore, the parallel certainly does not extend to after death., b Rather, this is what /b is b difficult /b according b to Rabbi Abba: /b Geneiva’s instruction b is the gift of a person on his deathbed of a portion /b of his estate, b and the gift of a person on his deathbed of a portion /b of his estate b requires an act of acquisition. /b The Gemara asks: Is that to say, b by inference, /b that b Rav Huna, /b according to whose opinion Rabbi Avina acquired the gift, b holds /b that the gift of a person on his deathbed of a portion of his estate b does not require an act of acquisition? But don’t we maintain /b that the gift of a person on his deathbed of a portion of his estate b requires an act of acquisition? /b The Gemara answers: It b is different here, /b as this is not a standard case of the gift of a person on his deathbed. This is a case b where one issues an instruction /b to give the gift b due to his /b imminent b death. /b In that case, the principle: It is a mitzva to fulfill the statement of the deceased, applies even if it is a gift of a portion of his estate.,The Gemara asks: Is that to say b by inference /b that b Rabbi Abba holds /b that b one who issues an instruction /b to give the gift b due to his /b imminent b death requires an act of acquisition? But don’t we maintain that /b one who issues an instruction to give the gift due to his imminent death b does not require an act of acquisition? /b What, then, is difficult for Rabbi Abba?, b Rather, this is what /b is b difficult /b according b to Rabbi Abba: /b Geneiva b did not say /b to give four hundred dinars of b wine /b to Rabbi Avina, and b he did not say: The monetary value /b of four hundred dinars b of wine. He said: /b Four hundred dinars b from wine. /b The question is: What did Geneiva seek to convey with that ambiguous expression? b And the other /b i amora /i , Rabbi Zeira, who does not find this difficult, holds that when Geneiva said: Four hundred dinars b from wine, /b it was b in order to enhance /b Rabbi Avina’s b ability /b to collect the gift. Geneiva sought to give him a gift of value; in order to guarantee that Rabbi Avina would have access to his property and that the heirs would not be able to prevent him from receiving the gift with various claims, he specifically designated from which property Rabbi Avina could collect the gift. The Gemara notes: b They sent /b a message b from there, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael, that the term: b From wine, /b is b in order to enhance /b Rabbi Avina’s b ability /b to collect the gift., strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to b one who was thrown into a pit /b and thought that he would die there, b and he said /b that b anyone who hears his voice should write a bill of divorce for his wife, /b and he specified his name, her name, and all relevant details, b those /b who hear him b should write /b this bill of divorce b and give /b it to his wife, even though they do not see the man and do not know him., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b But let us be concerned /b that b perhaps /b the source of the voice in the pit b is a demon, /b as no one saw the person in the pit. b Rav Yehuda says: /b It is referring to a case b where they saw /b that the being in the pit b has human form. /b ,The Gemara objects: Demons b too /b can b appear /b in human form, and therefore the fact that the being looked human is not a proof that it is not a demon. The Gemara explains: It is a case b where they saw that he has a shadow [ i bavua /i ]. /b The Gemara objects: Demons b also have a shadow. /b The Gemara explains: It is a case b where they saw that he has the shadow of a shadow. /b The Gemara objects: b And perhaps /b demons b too have /b the shadow of a shadow? b Rabbi Ḥanina says: Yonatan my son taught me /b that demons b have a shadow /b but b they do not have the shadow of a shadow. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But perhaps /b the source of the voice in the pit b is a rival wife /b of the woman who is to be divorced. She seeks to cause her rival to receive a bill of divorce under false pretenses, leading her to believe that she is divorced. Based on that mistaken belief, she will remarry without a divorce and will then be forbidden to both her first and second husband. The Gemara answers: A Sage b from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: During a time of danger, /b when there is the likelihood that the wife would assume deserted wife status, b one writes and gives /b a bill of divorce b even though /b the people instructed to do so b are not familiar /b with the man who gave the instructions. Here too, when a voice is heard from a pit, one writes and gives the bill of divorce, as there is no possibility of properly clarifying the issue., strong MISHNA: /strong b A healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, /b but did not say to give it to her, presumably b sought to mock her. /b Since he told them to write the bill of divorce and not to give it, it is not a valid bill of divorce.,The mishna relates: There was b an incident involving a healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, and /b then b ascended to the roof and fell, and died. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If he fell at his own /b initiative, taking his own life, b it is /b a valid b bill of divorce, /b as it is clear that he anticipated his death and instructed those listening to write the bill of divorce with the intent of giving it to her. However, b if the wind forced him /b to fall, b it is not /b a valid b bill of divorce, /b as there was no clear intent to give her the bill of divorce., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: Was b an incident /b cited b to contradict /b the i halakha /i stated in the mishna? The i halakha /i is that in a case where a healthy man said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, the bill of divorce is not valid. From the incident it is clear that under certain circumstances when a healthy man said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, the bill of divorce is valid.,The Gemara answers: The mishna b is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: /b In the case of a healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, but he did not say to give it to her, presumably sought to mock her. However, b if his ultimate /b actions b prove /b the nature of b his initial /b intent, that he seeks to give the bill of divorce because he is about to die, b it is /b a valid b bill of divorce. And /b there was b an incident involving a healthy man who said: Write a bill of divorce for my wife, and /b he then b ascended to the roof and fell and died. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: If he fell at his own /b initiative, b it is /b a valid b bill of divorce. /b However, b if the wind forced him /b to fall, b it is not /b a valid b bill of divorce. /b ,The Gemara relates: There was b a certain man who entered the synagogue and found a schoolteacher and his son who were sitting /b there, b and another person /b also b sat with them. /b The man b said to them: Two of you should write a bill of divorce for my wife. Ultimately, the schoolteacher died. /b The Sages considered the following question: b Do people designate a son /b as b an agent in the presence of /b his b father, /b even though the two of them could not serve together as witnesses because they are relatives, b or not? /b As the man’s intent was to designate two people who could serve as witnesses, the schoolteacher and the other person, the question is whether the son of the schoolteacher and the other person are agents and eligible to write and give the bill of divorce., b Rav Naḥman said: People do not designate a son /b as b an agent in the presence of /b his b father. And Rav Pappi said: People designate a son /b as b an agent in the presence of /b his b father. Rava said /b that b the i halakha /i /b is: b People designate a son /b as b an agent in the presence of /b his b father. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong If a man b said to two /b people: b Give a bill of divorce to my wife, /b |
|
29. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 128| 7a. אלא מקום הניחו לו אבותיו להתגדר בו אף אני מקום הניחו לי אבותי להתגדר בו,מכאן לתלמיד חכם שאמר דבר הלכה שאין מזיחין אותו ואמרי לה אין מזניחין אותו ואמרי לה אין מזחיחין אותו,מאן דאמר מזיחין כדכתיב (שמות כח, כח) ולא יזח החשן ומאן דאמר אין מזניחין דכתיב (איכה ג, לא) כי לא יזנח לעולם ה' ומאן דאמר מזחיחין דתנן משרבו זחוחי הלב רבו מחלוקות בישראל,מתקיף לה יהודה בריה דר' שמעון בן פזי ומי איכא למאן דאמר דבית שאן לאו מארץ ישראל היא והכתיב (שופטים א, כז) ולא הוריש מנשה את בית שאן ואת בנותיה ואת תענך ואת בנותיה,אישתמיטתיה הא דאמר ר' שמעון בן אליקים משום ר' אלעזר בן פדת שאמר משום ר' אלעזר בן שמוע הרבה כרכים כבשום עולי מצרים ולא כבשום עולי בבל,וקסבר קדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה ולא קדשה לעתיד לבא והניחום כדי שיסמכו עליהן עניים בשביעית,אמר ליה ר' ירמיה לרבי זירא והא ר' מאיר עלה בעלמא הוא דאכיל אמר ליה מאגודה אכליה ותנן ירק הנאגד משיאגד,ודלמא לאו אדעתיה השתא בהמתן של צדיקים אין הקב"ה מביא תקלה על ידן צדיקים עצמן לא כל שכן,ודלמא עישר עליהם ממקום אחר לא נחשדו חברים לתרום שלא מן המוקף ודלמא נתן עיניו בצד זה ואכל בצד אחר אמר ליה חזי מאן גברא רבה קמסהיד עליה,מאי בהמתן של צדיקים דרבי פנחס בן יאיר הוה קאזיל לפדיון שבויין פגע ביה בגינאי נהרא,אמר ליה גינאי חלוק לי מימך ואעבור בך אמר ליה אתה הולך לעשות רצון קונך ואני הולך לעשות רצון קוני אתה ספק עושה ספק אי אתה עושה אני ודאי עושה אמר ליה אם אי אתה חולק גוזרני עליך שלא יעברו בך מים לעולם חלק ליה,הוה ההוא גברא דהוה דארי חיטי לפיסחא אמר ליה חלוק ליה נמי להאי דבמצוה עסיק חלק ליה הוה ההוא טייעא דלווה בהדייהו אמר ליה חלוק ליה נמי להאי דלא לימא כך עושים לבני לויה חלק ליה,אמר רב יוסף כמה נפיש גברא ממשה ושתין רבוון דאילו התם חד זימנא והכא תלתא זימנין ודלמא הכא נמי חדא זימנא אלא כמשה ושתין רבוון,אקלע לההוא אושפיזא רמו ליה שערי לחמריה לא אכל | 7a. b Rather, /b it must be that in not eradicating the serpent, b his ancestors left /b Hezekiah b room through which to achieve prominence [ i lehitgader /i ]. I too /b can say that b my ancestors left me room through which to achieve prominence /b by permitting untithed produce from Beit She’an.,The Gemara adds: b From here /b one learns with regard to b a Torah scholar who states /b a new b matter of i halakha /i that one does not move [ i meziḥin /i ] him /b from his position; b and some say: One does not disregard [ i mazniḥin /i ] him; and some say: One does not attribute /b his innovative statement b to his conceit [ i mazḥiḥin /i ]. /b ,The Gemara explains: With regard to b the one who says i meziḥin /i , /b it is b as that which is written: “And the breastplate shall not be loosed [ i yizaḥ /i ] from the ephod” /b (Exodus 28:28). b And /b with regard to b the one who says: One does not disregard [ i mazniḥin /i ], /b it is b as it is written: “For the Lord will not abandon [ i yizaḥ /i ] forever” /b (Lamentations 3:31). b And /b with regard to b the one who says i mazḥiḥin /i , /b it is b as we learned /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Sota /i 14:9): b From /b the time b that those with conceited [ i zeḥuḥei /i ] hearts proliferated, dispute proliferated among the Jewish people. /b , b Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, objects to /b the basic i halakha /i : b And is there anyone who says that Beit She’an is not /b part b of Eretz Yisrael? But isn’t it written: “And Manasseh did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth She’an and its towns, nor of Taanach and its towns” /b (Judges 1:27).,The Gemara answers: b That which Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim says in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat, who says in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, escaped /b the attention of Yehuda: b Many cities were conquered by those who ascended from Egypt /b to Eretz Yisrael, led by Joshua, son of Nun, b and were not conquered by those who ascended from Babylonia /b to Eretz Yisrael in the return to Zion led by Ezra. Among those cities was Beit She’an., b And /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b holds: The initial consecration /b with which Eretz Yisrael was sanctified during the era of Joshua, son of Nun, in terms of the obligation to fulfill land-based mitzvot, b sanctified /b Eretz Yisrael b for its time but did not sanctify /b it b forever. /b Rather, the obligation lapsed with the exile to Babylonia. When those who ascended from Babylonia returned to Eretz Yisrael b and /b sanctified the land, b they left /b certain places unsanctified, b so that the poor would rely upon them /b for sustece b during the Sabbatical /b Year, when produce is not plentiful. Since these areas were not sanctified, it is permitted to sow crops there during the Sabbatical Year, and the poor will not go hungry. Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi discovered that Beit She’an was one of those cities, he exempted it from land-based mitzvot., b Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: /b How did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rely on the testimony of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Zeruz to exempt from i terumot /i and tithes produce that grows in Beit She’an? b But wasn’t it merely a leaf that Rabbi Meir ate? /b It is permitted to eat untithed produce incidentally, not in the framework of a meal. Rabbi Zeira b said to him: He ate /b the leaf b from a bundle, and we learned /b in a mishna ( i Ma’asrot /i 1:5): With regard to b a vegetable that is /b typically b bound /b in a bundle, one is obligated to separate i teruma /i and tithes b from /b the moment b that it is bound. /b From that point, one may not eat from it even incidentally before tithing.,Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: b And perhaps /b it was b not on /b Rabbi Meir’s b mind, /b and his attention was diverted when he ate the leaf. Rabbi Zeira answered: b Now, /b since even with regard to b the animals of the righteous, the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not generate mishaps through them, /b is it b not all the more so /b true that b the righteous themselves /b would not experience mishaps?,Rabbi Yirmeya asked: b And perhaps /b Rabbi Meir b tithed those /b leaves b from /b produce in b another place. /b Rabbi Zeira answered: b i Ḥaverim /i are not suspected of separating i teruma /i from /b produce b that is not proximate /b to the produce for which it is being separated. Rabbi Yirmeya asked: b And perhaps /b Rabbi Meir b set his sight on this side /b of the vegetable with the intent of separating i teruma /i and tithes, b and ate /b a leaf b on the other side. /b Rabbi Zeira b said to him: See who the great man /b is b who is testifying about /b Rabbi Meir. Certainly a man of the stature of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Zeruz accurately observed and reported Rabbi Meir’s actions.,§ The Gemara asks: b What is /b the reference to b animals of the righteous, /b about whom it is stated that God does not generate mishaps through them? It is based on the incident b where Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir was going to /b engage in b the redemption of captives, /b and b he encountered the Ginai River. /b , b He said to /b the river: b Ginai, part your water for me and I will pass through you. /b The river b said to him: You are going to perform the will of your Maker and I am going to perform the will of my Maker, /b to flow in my path. With regard to b you, /b it is b uncertain /b whether you will b perform /b His will successfully, b and /b it is b uncertain /b whether b you /b will b not perform /b His will successfully. b I /b will b certainly perform /b His will successfully. Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir b said to /b the river: b If you do not part, I /b will b decree upon you that water will never flow through you. /b The river b parted for him. /b ,There b was a certain man who was carrying wheat /b for the preparation of i matza /i b for Passover. /b Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir b said to /b the river: b Part /b your waters b for that /b person b too, as he is engaged in /b the performance of b a mitzva. /b The river b parted for him. /b There b was a certain Arab [ i taya’a /i ] who was accompanying them. /b Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir b said to /b the river: b Part /b your waters b for that /b person b too, so that he will not say: Is that /b what b one does to a person who accompanies /b him? The river b parted for him. /b , b Rav Yosef said: How great is this man, /b Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir, greater b than Moses and /b the b six hundred thousand /b who left Egypt, b as there, /b at the Red Sea, the waters parted b one time, and here /b the waters parted b three times. /b The Gemara asks: b And perhaps here too, /b the waters parted b one time, /b and the river began to flow again only after all three of them passed. b Rather, /b this man was as great b as Moses and /b the b six hundred thousand /b children of Israel.,After crossing the river, Rabbi Pineḥas ben Ya’ir b happened /b to come b to a certain inn [ i ushpiza /i ]. /b His hosts b cast barley before his donkey /b for him to eat. The donkey b did not eat /b it. |
|
30. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 72| 106a. האי עשה והאי עשה עשה דכבוד תורה עדיף סלקיה לדינא דיתמי ואחתיה לדיניה כיון דחזא בעל דיניה יקרא דקא עביד ליה איסתתם טענתיה:,רב ענן הוה רגיל אליהו דאתי גביה דהוה מתני ליה סדר דאליהו כיון דעבד הכי איסתלק יתיב בתעניתא ובעא רחמי ואתא כי אתא הוה מבעית ליה בעותי,ועבד תיבותא ויתיב קמיה עד דאפיק ליה סידריה והיינו דאמרי סדר דאליהו רבה סדר אליהו זוטא,בשני דרב יוסף הוה ריתחא אמרי ליה רבנן לרב יוסף ליבעי מר רחמי אמר להו השתא ומה אלישע דכי הוו רבנן מיפטרי מקמיה הוו פיישי תרי אלפן ומאתן רבנן בעידן ריתחא לא הוה בעי רחמי אנא איבעי רחמי,וממאי דפיישי הכי דכתיב (מלכים ב ד, מג) ויאמר משרתו מה אתן זה לפני מאה איש מאי לפני מאה איש אילימא דכולהו לפני מאה איש בשני בצורת טובא הוו אלא דכל חד וחד קמי מאה איש,כי הוו מיפטרי רבנן מבי רב הוו פיישי אלפא ומאתן רבנן מבי רב הונא הוו פיישי תמני מאה רבנן רב הונא הוה דריש בתליסר אמוראי כי הוו קיימי רבנן ממתיבתא דרב הונא ונפצי גלימייהו הוה סליק אבקא וכסי ליה ליומא ואמרי במערבא קמו ליה ממתיבתא דרב הונא בבלאה,כי מיפטרי רבנן מבי רבה ורב יוסף הוו פיישי ארבע מאה רבנן וקרו לנפשייהו יתמי כי הוו מיפטרי רבנן מבי אביי ואמרי לה מבי רב פפא ואמרי לה מבי רב אשי הוו פיישי מאתן רבנן וקרו נפשייהו יתמי דיתמי,א"ר יצחק בר רדיפא א"ר אמי מבקרי מומין שבירושלים היו נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל ת"ח המלמדין הלכות שחיטה לכהנים היו נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה,אמר רב גידל אמר רב ת"ח המלמדים הלכות קמיצה לכהנים נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן מגיהי ספרים שבירושלים היו נוטלין שכרן מתרומת הלשכה,אמר רב נחמן אמר רב נשים האורגות בפרכות נוטלות שכרן מתרומת הלשכה ואני אומר מקדשי בדק הבית הואיל ופרכות תחת בנין עשויות,מיתיבי נשים האורגות בפרכות ובית גרמו על מעשה לחם הפנים ובית אבטינס על מעשה הקטרת כולן היו נוטלות שכרן מתרומת הלשכה,התם בדבבי דאמר רבי זירא אמר רב שלשה עשר פרכות היו במקדש שני שבעה כנגד שבעה שערים אחד לפתחו של היכל ואחד לפתחו של אולם ב' בדביר ב' כנגדן בעליה:,ת"ר נשים המגדלות בניהן לפרה היו נוטלות שכרן מתרומת הלשכה אבא שאול אומר נשים יקרות שבירושלים היו זנות אותן ומפרנסות אותן,בעא מיניה רב הונא מרב | 106a. b This is a positive mitzva, /b for judges to judge cases properly, b and this is a positive mitzva, /b to honor Torah scholars and their families. Rav Naḥman concluded that b the positive mitzva of /b giving b honor to the Torah takes precedence. /b Therefore, b he put aside the case of the orphans and settled down to judge /b the case of that man, under the mistaken assumption that he was a relative of Rav A. b Once the /b other b litigant saw the honor being accorded to /b that man by the judge, he grew nervous until his mouth, i.e., his ability to argue b his claim, became closed, /b and he lost the case. In this manner, justice was perverted by Rav A, albeit unwittingly and indirectly., b Elijah /b the Prophet b was accustomed to come /b and visit b Rav A, as /b the prophet b was teaching him /b the statements that would later be recorded in the volume b i Seder deEliyahu /i , /b the Order of Elijah. b Once /b Rav A b did this /b and caused a miscarriage of justice, Elijah b departed. /b Rav A b sat in /b observance of b a fast and prayed for mercy, and /b Elijah b came /b back. However, b when /b Elijah b came /b after that, b he would scare him, /b as he would appear in frightening forms., b And /b Rav A b made a box /b where he settled himself down b and he sat before /b Elijah b until he took out for him, /b i.e., taught him, all of b his i Seder /i . And this is what /b the Sages mean when b they say: i Seder deEliyahu Rabba /i , /b the Major Order of Elijah, and b i Seder Eliyahu Zuta /i , /b the Minor Order of Elijah, as the first order was taught prior to this incident and the second came after it.,§ The Gemara relates: b In the years of Rav Yosef there was /b a divine b anger, /b manifested by world hunger. b The Sages said to Rav Yosef: Let the Master pray for mercy /b concerning this decree. b He said to them: Now, if /b in the case of the prophet b Elisha, when the Sages would take their leave of him, 2,200 Sages would remain /b behind whom he would support from his own pocket, and yet he b would not pray for mercy at a time of /b divine b anger /b and famine, b should I pray for mercy? /b ,The Gemara asks: b And from where /b is it derived b that this /b number of scholars b would remain /b behind with Elisha? b As it is written: “And his servant said: How should I set this before a hundred men” /b (II Kings 4:43). b What /b is the meaning of b “before a hundred men”? If we say that all of /b the gifts that he had received, i.e., the first fruits, twenty loaves of barley, and fresh ears of corn mentioned in the preceding verse, were meant to be placed b before one hundred men, in years of drought /b and famine b this was a good /b deal of food, which would have sufficed for them. b Rather, /b it must mean b that each and every one /b of the loaves was to be placed b before one hundred men. /b Since he had twenty loaves plus two meals of first-fruits and ears of corn, there must have been 2,200 people present.,§ Incidentally, the Gemara relates: b When the Sages would take their leave from the school /b of b Rav, 1,200 Sages would remain /b behind to continue their studies. When the Sages would take their leave b from the school /b of b Rav Huna, eight hundred Sages would remain /b behind. b Rav Huna would expound /b the lesson b by /b means of b thirteen speakers, /b who would repeat his statements to the crowds that had gathered to hear him. b When the Sages would arise /b from listening to lectures b in the yeshiva of Rav Huna and dust off their cloaks, the dust would rise and block out the sun, /b forming a dust cloud that could be seen from afar. b And they would say in the West, /b in Eretz Yisrael: b The /b scholars b have /b just b arisen in the yeshiva of Rav Huna the Babylonian. /b , b When the Sages would take their leave from the school /b of b Rabba and Rav Yosef, four hundred Sages would remain /b behind, b and they would refer to themselves as orphans, /b as they were the only ones left from the entire crowd. b When the Sages would take their leave from the school /b of b Abaye, and some say from the school /b of b Rav Pappa, and some say from the school /b of b Rav Ashi, two hundred scholars would remain /b behind, b and they would refer to themselves as orphans of orphans. /b ,§ The Gemara returns to the issue of those who receive their wages from public funds. b Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Redifa said /b that b Rabbi Ami said: Inspectors of blemishes /b of consecrated animals b in Jerusalem, /b who would examine all animals brought to be sacrificed in the Temple to verify that they were free of any blemishes that would disqualify them from being sacrificed on the altar, b would take their wages from the collection of the /b Temple treasury b chamber. Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said: Torah scholars who teach the i halakhot /i of slaughter to the priests /b of the Temple b would take their wages from /b the b collection of the chamber. /b , b Rav Giddel said /b that b Rav said: Torah scholars who teach the i halakhot /i of the removal of a handful to the priests would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. /b All these scholars were constantly engaged in work necessary for the functioning of the Temple, and therefore they would receive their wages from the Temple treasury. b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: The proofreaders of /b the Torah b scrolls in Jerusalem would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. /b , b Rav Naḥman said /b that b Rav said: The women who weave the curtains /b that separate the Temple Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies b would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. /b Rav Naḥman added: b But I say /b that they would not be paid from the collection of the chamber; rather, their salary would come b from /b the funds b consecrated for Temple maintece. /b Why? b Since the curtains served in place /b of the solid construction of the b building, /b they were part of the Temple itself. Therefore, any work performed for the curtains should be paid for from money allocated for building purposes, not from the funds collected to pay for offerings and the daily needs of the Temple.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b to this: b The women who weave the curtains, and the house of Garmu, /b who were in charge b of the preparation of the shewbread, and the house of Avtinas, /b who were in charge b of the preparation of the incense, all would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. /b This contradicts Rav Naḥman’s claim.,The Gemara answers: b There, /b it is referring to the curtains b of the gates, /b which were not considered part of the actual Temple building but were decorative in purpose. b As Rabbi Zeira said /b that b Rav said: There were thirteen curtains in the Second Temple, seven opposite, /b i.e., on the inside of, b seven gates, one at the entrance to the Sanctuary, one at the entrance to the Entrance Hall, two /b additional curtains b within the partition, /b in the Holy of Holies in place of the one-cubit partition, b and two corresponding to them /b above b in the upper chamber. /b , b The Sages taught: /b With regard to b the women who raise their children for /b the red b heifer, /b i.e., who would raise their children in special places so that they would live their entire lives up to that point in a state of ritual purity, enabling them to draw the water for the purposes of the ritual of the red heifer, these women b would take their wages from the collection of the chamber. Abba Shaul said: /b Their wages would not come from the collection of the chamber. Instead, wealthy and b prominent women of Jerusalem would sustain them and provide them with a livelihood. /b , b Rav Huna raised a dilemma before Rav: /b |
|
31. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein (2018), The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World. 16| 6b. big strongמתני׳ /strong /big היו שנים רואין אותו מחלון זה ושנים רואין אותו מחלון זה ואחד מתרה בו באמצע בזמן שמקצתן רואין אלו את אלו הרי אלו עדות אחת ואם לאו הרי אלו שתי עדיות לפיכך אם נמצאת אחת מהן זוממת הוא והן נהרגין והשניה פטורה,רבי יוסי אומר לעולם אין נהרגין עד שיהו שני עדיו מתרין בו שנאמר (דברים יז, ו) על פי שנים עדים דבר אחר על פי שנים עדים שלא תהא סנהדרין שומעת מפי התורגמן:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רב זוטרא בר טוביא אמר רב מנין לעדות מיוחדת שהיא פסולה שנאמר (דברים יז, ו) לא יומת על פי עד אחד מאי אחד אילימא עד אחד ממש מרישא שמעינן לה על פי שנים עדים אלא מאי אחד אחד אחד,תניא נמי הכי לא יומת על פי עד אחד להביא שנים שרואים אותו אחד מחלון זה ואחד מחלון זה ואין רואין זה את זה שאין מצטרפין ולא עוד אלא אפילו בזה אחר זה בחלון אחד אין מצטרפין,אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי השתא ומה אחד מחלון זה ואחד מחלון זה דהאי קא חזי כולו מעשה והאי קא חזי כולו מעשה אמרת לא מצטרפי בזה אחר זה דהאי חזי פלגא דמעשה והאי חזי פלגא דמעשה מיבעיא א"ל לא נצרכא אלא לבועל את הערוה,אמר רבא אם היו רואין את המתרה או המתרה רואה אותן מצטרפין אמר רבא מתרה שאמרו אפילו מפי עצמו ואפילו מפי השד,אמר רב נחמן עדות מיוחדת כשירה בדיני ממונות דכתיב לא יומת על פי עד אחד בדיני נפשות הוא דאין כשירה אבל בדיני ממונות כשירה,מתקיף לה רב זוטרא אלא מעתה בדיני נפשות תציל אלמה תנן הוא והן נהרגין קשיא:,רבי יוסי אומר וכו': א"ל רב פפא לאביי ומי אית ליה לרבי יוסי האי סברא והתנן רבי יוסי אומר השונא נהרג מפני שהוא כמועד ומותרה,א"ל ההוא רבי יוסי בר יהודה היא דתניא רבי יוסי בר יהודה אומר חבר אין צריך התראה לפי שלא ניתנה התראה אלא להבחין בין שוגג למזיד:,דבר אחר ע"פ שנים עדים שלא תהא סנהדרין שומעת מפי התורגמן: הנהו לעוזי דאתו לקמיה דרבא אוקי רבא תורגמן בינייהו והיכי עביד הכי והתנן שלא תהא סנהדרין שומעת מפי התורגמן רבא מידע הוה ידע מה דהוו אמרי ואהדורי הוא דלא הוה ידע | 6b. strong MISHNA: /strong In a case where there b were two /b witnesses b observing /b an individual violating a capital transgression b from this window /b in a house, b and two observing him from that window /b in a house, b and one /b person was b forewarning /b the transgressor b in the middle /b between the two sets of witnesses, the i halakha /i depends on the circumstances. In a situation b where some of /b the witnesses observing from the two windows b see each other, /b the testimony of all b these /b witnesses constitutes b one testimony, but if /b they do b not /b see each other, the testimony of b these /b witnesses constitutes b two /b independent b testimonies. Therefore, /b as two independent sets of witnesses, b if one of /b the sets b was found /b to be a set of b conspiring /b witnesses, while the testimony of the other set remained valid, both b he, /b the one accused of violating the capital transgression, b and they, /b the conspiring witnesses, b are executed, and the second /b set, whose testimony remained valid, b is exempt. /b , b Rabbi Yosei says: /b Transgressors b are never executed unless his two witnesses are /b the ones b forewarning him, as it is stated: “At the mouth of two witnesses… /b he who is to be put to death shall die” (Deuteronomy 17:6), from which it is derived that it is from the mouths of the two witnesses that the accused must be forewarned, and forewarning issued by someone else is insufficient. b Alternatively, /b from the phrase b “at the mouth of two witnesses” /b one derives b that /b the judges must hear the testimony directly from the witnesses, and the b Sanhedrin will not hear /b testimony b from the mouth of an interpreter. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Rav Zutra bar Tuvya says /b that b Rav says: From where /b is it derived with regard b to disjointed testimony, /b in which each of the witnesses saw the incident independent of the other, b that it is not valid? /b It is derived from a verse, b as it is stated: “He shall not die at the mouth of one witness” /b (Deuteronomy 17:6). The exposition is as follows: b What /b is the meaning of b “one /b witness”? b If we say /b that it means b one witness literally, we learn it from the first /b portion of the verse: b “At the mouth of two witnesses,” /b indicating that the testimony of fewer than two witnesses is not valid. b Rather, what /b is the meaning of b “one /b witness”? It means that the accused is not executed based on the testimony of people who witnessed an incident with b one /b witness here and b one /b witness elsewhere.,The Gemara notes: b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : It is written: b “He shall not die at the mouth of one witness,” /b from which it is derived b to include /b the i halakha /i that in the case of b two /b witnesses b who observe /b an individual violating a capital transgression, b one from this window and one from that window, and they do not see each other, that they do not join /b to constitute a set of witnesses. b Moreover, even /b if they witnessed the same transgression from the same perspective, watching the incident not at the same time but b one after the other in one window, they do not join /b to constitute a set of witnesses., b Rav Pappa said to Abaye: /b Why is it necessary to mention both cases? b Now if /b in the case where b one /b witness views the incident b from this window and one /b witness views the incident b from that window, where this /b witness b sees the entire incident and that /b witness b sees the entire incident, you say /b that b they do not join /b to testify together as two witnesses, if they see the incident b one after the other, where this /b witness b sees half /b the b incident and that /b witness b sees half /b the b incident, /b is it b necessary /b to say that the witnesses do not join together? Abaye b said to him: /b It b is necessary /b to state this i halakha /i b only /b with regard b to /b a case where they witnessed one who b engages in intercourse with a forbidden relative, /b which is a continuing act, and each of the witnesses saw sufficient behavior to render the transgressor liable. The i tanna /i of the i baraita /i teaches that even in that case, they do not join to constitute a set of witnesses.,Apropos witnesses joining to constitute a set of witnesses, b Rava says: /b Even if the witness in either window is unable to see the witness in the other window, b if /b the witness in each window b sees the one who is forewarning /b the accused, b or /b if b the one who is forewarning /b the accused b could see /b the two disjointed witnesses, b they join /b to constitute a set of witnesses. b Rava says: /b The one b forewarning /b the accused of b whom /b the Sages b spoke /b need not be a third witness, but b even /b if the victim forewarns the murderer b from his own mouth, and even /b if the forewarning emerged b from the mouth of a demon, /b meaning the source of the forewarning is unknown, the forewarning is legitimate., b Rav Naḥman says: Disjointed testimony /b of two witnesses, each of whom observed an incident independent of the other, b is valid in /b cases of b monetary law, as it is written: “He shall not die at the mouth of one witness” /b (Deuteronomy 17:6). This indicates that b it is /b only b with regard to /b cases of b capital law that /b disjointed testimony b is not valid, but with regard to /b cases of b monetary law /b that testimony b is valid. /b , b Rav Zutra objects to this: But if that is so, /b and disjointed testimony is effective in certain cases, b in /b cases of b capital law /b disjointed testimony b should spare /b the accused from execution. Since one must exploit every avenue possible to prevent executions, in a case where some of the disjointed witnesses were rendered conspiring witnesses, the entire testimony should be voided on their account. b Why, /b then, b did we learn /b in the mishna that if one set witnessed the capital transgression from one window and one set from the other window, and one set was found to be a set of conspiring witnesses, b he, /b the accused, b and they, /b the conspiring witnesses, b are executed? /b The Gemara comments: Indeed, that is b difficult /b according to Rav Naḥman.,§ The mishna teaches that b Rabbi Yosei says: /b Perpetrators are never executed unless his two witnesses are the ones forewarning him. b Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And is Rabbi Yosei of /b the opinion that b this /b line of b reasoning /b is correct, and forewarning by the witnesses is indispensable? b But didn’t we learn /b in a mishna (9b): b Rabbi Yosei says: An enemy /b who commits murder cannot claim that he killed the victim unwittingly. Rather, b he is executed /b even if there was no forewarning, b due to /b the fact b that his /b halakhic status is b like /b that of one who is b cautioned and forewarned. /b Apparently, Rabbi Yosei does not always require that there be forewarning.,Abaye b said to him: That /b statement in the mishna you cited that is attributed to Rabbi Yosei b is /b actually the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: A i ḥaver /i does not require forewarning, as forewarning was instituted only to distinguish between /b one who commits a transgression b unwittingly and /b one who does so b intentionally. /b A i ḥaver /i , who is a Torah scholar, does not require forewarning to distinguish between them. Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥalafta, whose opinion is cited in the mishna here, is of the opinion that forewarning is a necessary prerequisite to executing someone who is judged liable, and that forewarning must be issued by the witnesses.,§ The mishna teaches: b Alternatively, /b from the phrase in the verse b “at the mouth of two witnesses” /b one derives b that /b the b Sanhedrin will not hear /b testimony b from the mouth of an interpreter. /b The Gemara relates: There were b certain /b people who spoke b a foreign /b language b who came before Rava /b for judgment. b Rava installed an interpreter between them /b and heard the testimony through the interpreter. The Gemara asks: b And how did he do so? But didn’t we learn /b in the mishna b that /b the b Sanhedrin will not hear /b testimony b from the mouth of an interpreter? /b The Gemara answers: b Rava knew what they were saying, /b as he understood their language, b but he did not know /b how to b respond /b to them in their language. He posed questions through the interpreter but understood the answers on his own, as required by the mishna. |
|
| 32. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (2014), Migrating tales: the Talmud's narratives and their historical context, 80, 81 |
33. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 66 | 7a. b when he returns the handful to its /b former b place /b in the service vessel that contains the meal offering b it should become sanctified, /b as it is now placed inside a service vessel, b and it should /b therefore b become disqualified. /b It should not matter whether the handful was placed in the vessel designated for it, or back in the same vessel it was taken from.,Concerning this challenge, b Rabbi Yoḥa said: That is to say /b that b service vessels sanctify /b items placed in them b only /b when they are placed there b with /b specific b intent /b that they be sanctified by that vessel. Since the priest does not return the handful to the vessel containing the meal offering with such intent, the handful is not disqualified, because the rite was not completed.,The Gemara asks: It may be inferred from this statement that if items are placed into service vessels b with intent, /b the service vessels b sanctify /b them. b But /b didn’t b Reish Lakish raise a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥa: What is /b the i halakha /i with regard to b service vessels, /b i.e., do they b sanctify disqualified /b items to the extent that they may be b sacrificed /b upon the altar b i ab initio /i ? And /b Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him /b that b they do not sanctify /b the items. The Gemara responds: This is what Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: They do not sanctify /b the disqualified items that are placed inside them b to /b the extent that they may be b sacrificed, but they /b do b sanctify /b them b to /b the extent b that /b they b are disqualified. /b , b Rav Amram says: /b Even if service vessels sanctify items without specific intent, it is possible to return the handful to the meal offering without the vessel sanctifying the handful, b such as /b in a case b where he returned it to a heaped bowl [ i levisa /i ], /b i.e., he placed the handful upon the heap of flour in such a manner that the handful did not enter the airspace of the vessel containing the meal offering. Consequently, the handful is not sanctified by the vessel.,The Gemara asks: b But /b if the meal offering was heaped, b how /b was he initially able to b remove a handful /b from it? The handful must initially be removed from within a vessel. b Rather, /b it is possible to return the handful without sanctifying it in a case b where he returned it to a full [ i tefufa /i ] bowl, /b i.e., it was full to the brim but not heaped. When the priest initially removes a handful from such a vessel, he removes it from inside the vessel, but when it is returned, it does not enter the airspace of the vessel.,The Gemara asks: b But once he removed a handful, he formed a furrow /b in the surface of the meal offering, and therefore b when he returns /b the handful to its previous place inside the vessel, b he is /b in fact b returning it to /b a spot b within the vessel, /b i.e., the furrow. If so, the handful should be sanctified to the extent that the vessel disqualifies it. The Gemara responds: b When he returns it /b to the vessel containing the meal offering, he does not place it directly in the furrow. Rather, he b lays it on the wall of the vessel and moves /b the vessel, b and /b the handful b falls by itself /b into the furrow. In this manner, b it is as though a monkey /b rather than a person b returned /b the handful to the furrow, and the handful is therefore not sanctified.,§ The Gemara returns to its discussion of the opinion of ben Beteira. b Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zeira: And let /b one b interpret /b ben Beteira’s ruling as speaking of a case in which the handful is not sanctified by the vessel containing the meal offering, b such as where he returned it to a vessel that is resting upon /b the b ground. Rather, /b the fact that this was not suggested indicates that service vessels sanctify items placed inside them even while resting on the ground. Is it correct to b conclude from /b here that b one may remove a handful /b of a meal offering b from /b a service b vessel that /b is resting b upon /b the b ground? /b Rabbi Zeira b said to him: You have touched upon a dilemma that was /b already b raised before us, when Rabbi Avimi /b was b learning /b tractate b i Menaḥot /i /b in the b study hall of Rav Ḥisda. /b ,The Gemara interrupts this statement with a question: b And /b did Rabbi b Avimi /b really b learn /b in the b study hall of Rav Ḥisda? But didn’t Rav Ḥisda say: I absorbed many blows [ i kulfei /i ] from Avimi /b as a result b of that i halakha /i , /b i.e., Avimi would mock me when I questioned his statements with regard to the sale of orphans’ property by the courts, which were contradictory to the ruling of a particular i baraita /i . Avimi explained to me that if the court b comes to announce /b such a sale on b consecutive /b days, then it is announced for b thirty days, /b in accordance with that i baraita /i . But if it will be announced only on b Monday, Thursday, and Monday, /b then it is announced over the course of b sixty days. /b If so, Rav Ḥisda was in fact the pupil while Rabbi Avimi was his teacher.,The Gemara answers: b Avimi /b was in fact the teacher, but b tractate /b i Menaḥot /i b was uprooted for him, /b i.e., he forgot it, b and /b Avimi b came before /b his student b Rav Ḥisda to /b help him b recall his learning. /b The Gemara asks: If Rav Ḥisda was in fact Avimi’s student, b let /b Avimi b send for him and /b Rav Ḥisda b come to /b Avimi. The Gemara responds: Avimi b thought /b that b this /b would be b more helpful /b in this b matter, /b i.e., that by exerting the effort to travel to his pupil in order to learn from him, he would better retain his studies.,The Gemara returns to the statement of Rabbi Zeira: b Rav Naḥman encountered /b Avimi upon his return from the study hall of Rav Ḥisda. Rav Naḥman b said to him: How /b does one properly b remove a handful /b from a meal offering? Avimi pointed to a vessel that was resting on the ground and b said to him: From this vessel /b one may properly remove a handful. Rav Naḥman b said to him: But may one remove a handful from a vessel that /b is resting b upon /b the b ground? /b Avimi b said to him: /b When I said that such a vessel may be used, I meant b that /b one b priest /b would first b raise it /b from the ground and then another priest would remove a handful from it.,Rav Naḥman proceeded to ask Avimi another question: b How /b does one properly b sanctify the meal offerings? /b Avimi pointed to a vessel that was resting on the ground and b said to him: /b The priest b places it into this vessel. /b Rav Naḥman again said to him: b But can one sanctify /b a meal offering b in a vessel that /b is resting b upon /b the b ground? /b Avimi b said to him: /b When I said that such a vessel may be used, I meant b that /b another b priest /b would initially b raise it /b from the ground, and only then would the meal offering be placed inside it.,Rav Naḥman b said to /b Avimi: b If so, /b then b you require /b the involvement of b three priests, /b i.e., one to raise the vessel, one to sanctify the meal offering, and one to remove the handful from the meal offering. Avimi b said to him: And let it require /b even b thirteen /b priests, b just as /b the service of the b daily /b burnt b offering /b required the involvement of thirteen priests. The need for several priests presents no difficulty.,Rav Naḥman b raised /b another b objection /b to the statement of Avimi from a mishna (12a) that discusses the i halakha /i that improper intentions during the service of a meal offering disqualify it. b This is the principle: /b In the case of b anyone who removes the handful, or places /b the handful b in the vessel, /b or b who conveys /b the vessel with the handful to the altar, b or who burns /b the handful on the altar, with the intent b to partake of an item whose /b typical b manner /b is such that one b partakes /b of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, e.g., the handful or the frankincense, outside its designated area, the meal offering is unfit but there is no liability for excision from the World-to-Come [ i karet /i ].,Rav Naḥman explained his objection: All the rites of a meal offering are taught in the mishna, b and yet raising /b the vessel from the ground b is not taught. /b This indicates that there is no requirement to raise a vessel from the ground in order to use it for the service of a meal offering. Avimi responded: The b i tanna /i cited the order of /b sacrificial b rites, /b i.e., those rites concerning which improper intentions disqualify a meal offering, b but /b he did b not /b cite b the order of the priests, /b i.e., he did not cite the total number of priests involved in the service.,On the same topic, the Sages b raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: What is /b the i halakha /i with regard to the permissibility of b removing a handful from a vessel that /b is resting b upon /b the b ground? /b Is this removal valid? Rav Sheshet b said to /b one of the Sages who raised the dilemma: b Go out /b and b see what they do within /b the Sanctuary when they remove the bowls containing the frankincense that were placed upon the Table of the shewbread in order to burn the frankincense upon the altar. The mishna (99b) states: When the priests would replace the shewbread every Shabbat, b four priests /b would b enter /b the Sanctuary, b two /b with the b two arrangements /b of the new shewbread b in their hands and two /b with the b two bowls /b of frankincense b in their hands. And four /b priests would b precede /b them and enter the Sanctuary b before them, two to remove /b the b two arrangements /b of the old shewbread b and two to remove /b the b two bowls /b of frankincense. |
|
34. Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein (2018), The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World. 220| 28a. אלא חיה אבל שאר נשים מניחין,ר' אלעזר אמר אפילו שאר הנשים דכתיב (במדבר כ, א) ותמת שם מרים ותקבר שם סמוך למיתה קבורה,ואמר ר' אלעזר אף מרים בנשיקה מתה אתיא שם שם ממשה ומפני מה לא נאמר בה על פי ה' מפני שגנאי הדבר לאומרו,א"ר אמי למה נסמכה מיתת מרים לפרשת פרה אדומה לומר לך מה פרה אדומה מכפרת אף מיתתן של צדיקים מכפרת א"ר אלעזר למה נסמכה מיתת אהרן לבגדי כהונה מה בגדי כהונה מכפרין אף מיתתן של צדיקים מכפרת,ת"ר מת פתאום זו היא מיתה חטופה חלה יום אחד ומת זו היא מיתה דחופה ר' חנניא בן גמליאל אומר זו היא מיתת מגפה שנאמר (יחזקאל כד, טז) בן אדם הנני לוקח ממך את מחמד עיניך במגפה וכתיב (יחזקאל כד, יח) ואדבר אל העם בבקר ותמת אשתי בערב,שני ימים ומת זו היא מיתה דחויה ג' גערה ארבעה נזיפה חמשה זו היא מיתת כל אדם,א"ר חנין מאי קרא (דברים לא, יד) הן קרבו ימיך למות הן חד קרבו תרי ימיך תרי הא חמשה הן חד שכן בלשון יוני קורין לאחת הן,מת בחמשים שנה זו היא מיתת כרת חמשים ושתים שנה זו היא מיתתו של שמואל הרמתי ששים זו היא מיתה בידי שמים,אמר מר זוטרא מאי קרא דכתיב (איוב ה, כו) תבא בכלח אלי קבר בכלח בגימטריא שיתין הוו,שבעים שיבה שמונים גבורות דכתיב (תהלים צ, י) ימי שנותינו בהם שבעים שנה ואם בגבורות שמונים שנה אמר רבה מחמשים ועד ששים שנה זו היא מיתת כרת והאי דלא חשיב להו משום כבודו של שמואל הרמתי,רב יוסף כי הוה בר שיתין עבד להו יומא טבא לרבנן אמר נפקי לי מכרת א"ל אביי נהי דנפק ליה מר מכרת דשני מכרת דיומי מי נפיק מר א"ל נקוט לך מיהא פלגא בידך,רב הונא נח נפשיה פתאום הוו קא דייגי רבנן תנא להו זוגא דמהדייב לא שנו אלא שלא הגיע לגבורות אבל הגיע לגבורות זו היא מיתת נשיקה,אמר רבא חיי בני ומזוני לא בזכותא תליא מילתא אלא במזלא תליא מילתא דהא רבה ורב חסדא תרוייהו רבנן צדיקי הוו מר מצלי ואתי מיטרא ומר מצלי ואתי מיטרא,רב חסדא חיה תשעין ותרתין שנין רבה חיה ארבעין בי רב חסדא שיתין הלולי בי רבה שיתין תיכלי,בי רב חסדא סמידא לכלבי ולא מתבעי בי רבה נהמא דשערי לאינשי ולא משתכח,ואמר רבא הני תלת מילי בעאי קמי שמיא תרתי יהבו לי חדא לא יהבו לי חוכמתיה דרב הונא ועותריה דרב חסדא ויהבו לי ענותנותיה דרבה בר רב הונא לא יהבו לי,רב שעורים אחוה דרבא הוה יתיב קמיה דרבא חזייה דהוה קא מנמנם א"ל לימא ליה מר דלא לצערן א"ל מר לאו שושביניה הוא א"ל כיון דאימסר מזלא לא אשגח בי א"ל ליתחזי לי מר איתחזי ליה א"ל הוה ליה למר צערא א"ל כי ריבדא דכוסילתא,רבא הוה יתיב קמיה דר"נ חזייה דקא מנמנם א"ל לימא ליה מר דלא לצערן א"ל מר לאו אדם חשוב הוא א"ל מאן חשיב מאן ספין מאן רקיע,א"ל ליתחזי לי מר אתחזי ליה א"ל ה"ל למר צערא א"ל כמישחל בניתא מחלבא ואי אמר לי הקב"ה זיל בההוא עלמא כד הוית לא בעינא דנפיש בעיתותיה,רבי אלעזר הוה קאכיל תרומה איתחזי ליה א"ל תרומה קא אכילנא ולאו קודש איקרי חלפא ליה שעתא,רב ששת איתחזי ליה בשוקא אמר ליה בשוקא כבהמה איתא לגבי ביתא,רב אשי איתחזי ליה בשוקא א"ל איתרח לי תלתין יומין ואהדרי לתלמודאי דאמריתו אשרי מי שבא לכאן ותלמודו בידו ביום תלתין אתא אמר ליה מאי כולי האי קא דחקא רגליה דבר נתן ואין מלכות נוגעת בחבירתה אפילו כמלא נימא,רב חסדא לא הוה יכיל ליה דלא הוה שתיק פומיה מגירסא סליק יתיב בארזא דבי רב פקע ארזא ושתק ויכיל ליה,ר' חייא לא הוה מצי למיקרבא ליה יומא חד אידמי ליה כעניא אתא טריף אבבא א"ל אפיק לי ריפתא אפיקו ליה א"ל ולאו קא מרחם מר אעניא אההוא גברא אמאי לא קא מרחם מר גלי ליה אחוי ליה שוטא דנורא אמצי ליה נפשיה: | 28a. with regard to b a woman /b who died b in childbirth, /b and therefore continues to bleed. b But /b the biers of b other women may be set down /b in the street., b Rabbi Elazar said: Even /b the biers of b other women /b must not be set down in the street, b as it is written: “And Miriam died there and was buried there” /b (Numbers 20:1), which teaches that b the /b site of her b burial was close to /b the place of her b death. /b Therefore, it is preferable to bury a woman as close as possible to the place where she died.,With regard to that same verse b Rabbi Elazar said /b further: b Miriam also died by /b the divine b kiss, /b just like her brother Moses. What is the source for this? b This is derived /b through a verbal analogy between the word b “there” /b stated with regard to Miriam and the word b “there” /b mentioned b with regard to Moses. /b With regard to Moses it says: “So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab by the mouth of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 34:5). b For what /b reason b was it not /b explicitly b stated with regard to her, /b as it is stated with regard to Moses, that she died b “by the mouth of the Lord”? /b It is b because it would be unseemly to say such a thing, /b that a woman died by way of a divine kiss, and therefore it is not said explicitly., b Rabbi Ami said: Why was /b the Torah portion that describes the b death of Miriam juxtaposed to the portion /b dealing with b the red heifer? To tell you: Just as the red heifer atones /b for sin, b so too, the death of the righteous atones /b for sin. b Rabbi Elazar said: Why was /b the Torah portion that describes the b death of Aaron juxtaposed to /b the portion discussing b the priestly garments? /b This teaches that b just as the priestly garments atone /b for sin, b so too, the death of the righteous atones /b for sin.,§ b The Sages taught /b the following i baraita /i : If one b dies suddenly /b without having been sick, b this is death /b through b snatching. /b If he b became sick for a day and died, this is an expedited death. Rabbi Ḥaya ben Gamliel says: This is death at a stroke, as it is stated: “Son of man, behold, I am about to take away from you the delight of your eyes at a stroke” /b (Ezekiel 24:16). b And /b when this prophecy is fulfilled b it is written: “So I spoke to the people in the morning and at evening my wife died” /b (Ezekiel 24:18).,If he was sick for b two days and died, this is a quickened death. /b If he was sick for b three /b days and died, this is a death of b rebuke. /b If he died after being sick for b four /b days, this is a death of b reprimand. /b If one died after a sickness lasting b five /b days, b this is the /b ordinary b death of all people. /b , b Rabbi Ḥanin said: What is the verse /b from which this is derived? It is stated: b “Behold, your days approach that you must die” /b (Deuteronomy 31:14). This verse is expounded in the following manner: b “Behold [ i hen /i ]” /b indicates b one; “approach [ i karvu /i ],” /b a plural term, indicates b two; “your days [ i yamekha /i ],” /b also a plural term, indicates another b two; /b and therefore in total b this is five. /b How does the word b i hen /i /b indicate b one? Because in the Greek language they call /b the number b one i hen /i . /b ,The Gemara discusses the significance of death at different ages: If one b dies when /b he is b fifty years /b old, b this is death through i karet /i , /b the divine punishment of excision, meted out for the most serious transgressions. If he dies when he is b fifty-two years /b old, b this is the death of Samuel from Ramah. /b If he dies at the age of b sixty, this is death at the hand of Heaven. /b , b Mar Zutra said: What is the verse /b from which this is derived? b As it is written: “You shall come to your grave in a ripe age [ i bekhelaḥ /i ]” /b (Job 5:26). The word b “ripe age” [ i bekhelaḥ /i ] has the numerical value of sixty, /b and it is alluded to there that dying at this age involves a divine punishment.,One who dies at the age of b seventy /b has reached b old age. /b One who dies at the age of b eighty /b dies in b strength, as it is written: “The days of our years are seventy, or if by reason of strength, eighty years” /b (Psalms 90:10). b Rabba said: /b Not only is death at the age of fifty a sign of i karet /i , but even death b from fifty to sixty years /b of age b is death by i karet /i . And /b the reason that b all of these years were not counted /b in connection with i karet /i is b due to the honor of Samuel from Ramah, /b who died at the age of fifty-two.,The Gemara relates that b when Rav Yosef turned sixty he made a holiday for the Sages. /b Explaining the cause for his celebration, b he said: I have passed /b the age of b i karet /i . Abaye said to him: Master, /b even b though you have passed the i karet /i of years, have you, Master, escaped the i karet /i of days? /b As previously mentioned, sudden death is also considered to be a form of i karet /i . b He said to him: Grasp at least half in your hand, /b for I have at least escaped one type of i karet /i .,It was related that b Rav Huna died suddenly, /b and b the Sages were concerned /b that this was a bad sign. The Sage b Zuga from Hadayeiv taught them /b the following: b They taught /b these principles b only when /b the deceased b had not reached /b the age of b strength, /b i.e., eighty. b But if he had reached /b the age of b strength /b and then died suddenly, b this is death by way of a /b divine b kiss. /b , b Rava said: /b Length of b life, children, and sustece do not depend on /b one’s b merit, but rather they depend upon fate. As, Rabba and Rav Ḥisda were both pious Sages; /b one b Sage /b would b pray /b during a drought b and rain would fall, and /b the other b Sage /b would b pray and rain would fall. /b ,And nevertheless, their lives were very different. b Rav Ḥisda lived for ninety-two years, /b whereas b Rabba lived for /b only b forty /b years. b The house of Rav Ḥisda /b celebrated b sixty wedding feasts, /b whereas the b house of Rabba /b experienced b sixty calamities. /b In other words, many fortuitous events took place in the house of Rav Ḥisda and the opposite occurred in the house of Rabba., b In the house of Rav Ḥisda /b there was bread from b the finest flour [ i semida /i ] /b even b for the dogs, and it was not asked after, /b as there was so much food. b In the house of Rabba, /b on the other hand, there was coarse b barley bread /b even b for people, and it was not found /b in sufficient quantities. This shows that the length of life, children, and sustece all depend not upon one’s merit, but upon fate.,Apropos Rav Ḥisda’s great wealth, the Gemara reports that b Rava said: These three things I requested from Heaven, two /b of which b were given to me, /b and b one was not given to me: /b I requested the b wisdom of Rav Huna and the wealth of Rav Ḥisda and they were given to me. /b I also requested the b humility of Rabba bar Rav Huna, /b but b it was not given to me. /b ,The Gemara continues its discussion of the deaths of the righteous. b Rav Seorim, Rava’s brother, sat before Rava, /b and b he saw that /b Rava b was dozing, /b i.e., about to die. Rava b said to /b his brother: b Master, tell him, /b the Angel of Death, b not to torment me. /b Knowing that Rava was not afraid of the Angel of Death, Rav Seorim b said to /b him: b Master, are you not a friend of /b the Angel of Death? Rava b said to him: Since /b my b fate has been handed over /b to him, and it has been decreed that I shall die, the Angel of Death b no longer pays heed to me. /b Rav Seorim b said to /b Rava: b Master, appear to me /b in a dream after your death. And Rava b appeared to him. /b Rav Seorim b said to /b Rava: b Master, did you have pain /b in death? b He said to him: Like the prick /b of the knife b when letting blood. /b ,It was similarly related that b Rava sat before Rav Naḥman, /b and b he saw that /b Rav Naḥman b was dozing, /b i.e., slipping into death. Rav Naḥman b said to /b Rava: b Master, tell /b the Angel of Death b not to torment me. /b Rava b said to him: Master, are you not an important person /b who is respected in Heaven? Rav Naḥman b said to him: /b In the supernal world b who is important? Who is honorable? Who is complete? /b ,Rava b said to /b Rav Naḥman: b Master, appear to me /b in a dream after your death. And b he appeared to him. /b Rava b said to him: Master, did you have pain /b in death? Rav Naḥman b said to him: Like the removal of hair from milk, /b which is a most gentle process. But nevertheless, b were the Holy One, Blessed be He, to say to me: Go /b back b to that world, /b the physical world, b as you were, I would not want to go, for the fear of /b the Angel of Death b is great. /b And I would not want to go through such a terrifying experience a second time.,The Gemara relates that b Rabbi Elazar was /b once b eating i teruma /i , /b when the Angel of Death b appeared to him. He said to /b the Angel of Death: b I am eating i teruma /i ; is it not called sacred? /b It would be inappropriate for me to die now and thereby defile this sacred i teruma /i . The Angel of Death accepted his argument and left him. b The moment passed, /b and he lived for some time afterward.,It was similarly related that the Angel of Death once b appeared to Rav Sheshet in the marketplace. /b Rav Sheshet b said to /b the Angel of Death: Shall I die b in the market like an animal? Come to /b my b house /b and kill me there like a human being.,So too, the Angel of Death b appeared to Rav Ashi in the marketplace. /b Rav Ashi b said to /b the Angel of Death: b Give me thirty days so that I may review my studies, for you say /b above: b Fortunate is he who comes here /b to Heaven b with his learning in his hand. On the thirtieth day /b the Angel of Death b came /b to take him. Rav Ashi b said to /b the Angel of Death: b What is all of this? /b Why are you in such a hurry to take me? Why can you not postpone my death? He said to him: b The foot of /b Rav Huna b bar Natan is pushing /b you, as he is ready to succeed you as the leader of the generation, b and one sovereignty does not overlap with its counterpart, even /b by b one hairbreadth. /b Therefore, you cannot live any longer.,The Angel of Death b was unable /b to take b Rav Ḥisda because his mouth was never silent from study. /b So the Angel of Death b went /b and b sat on the cedar /b column that supported the roof of b the study hall of the Sages. The cedar cracked and /b Rav Ḥisda b was silent /b for a moment, as he was startled by the sound. At that point the Angel of Death was b able to /b take b him. /b ,The Angel of Death b could not come near Rabbi Ḥiyya, /b owing to his righteousness. b One day /b the Angel of Death b appeared to him as a poor person. He came and knocked on the door. He said to /b Rabbi Ḥiyya: b Bring out bread for me, /b and b he took out /b bread b for him. /b The Angel of Death then b said /b to Rabbi Ḥiyya: b Master, do you not have mercy on a poor person? Why, then, do you not have mercy upon that man, /b i.e., upon me, and give me what I want? The Angel of Death then b revealed /b his identity b to him, /b and b showed him a fiery rod /b in order to confirm that he was the Angel of Death. At this point Rav Ḥiyya b surrendered /b himself b to him. /b |
|
35. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 66| 47a. חייבת בחלה ואינה נפסלת בטבול יום דברי ר"מ ור' יהודה ר' יוסי ור"ש פוטרין מן החלה,סברוה מאן דאמר תרומה דאורייתא חלה דאורייתא מאן דאמר תרומה דרבנן חלה דרבנן אי אמרת בשלמא קסבר רבי יוסי חלה בזמן הזה דרבנן אתי דמוע דרבנן ומפקע חלה דרבנן,אלא אי אמרת חלה דאורייתא אתי דמוע דרבנן ומפקע חלה דאורייתא,ודלמא קסבר רבי יוסי תרומה בזמן הזה דאורייתא וחלה דרבנן,וכדאהדר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע דאמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אשכחתינהו לרבנן דבי רב דיתבי וקאמרי אפילו למ"ד תרומה בזמן הזה דרבנן חלה דאורייתא,שהרי שבע שכבשו ושבע שחלקו נתחייבו בחלה ולא נתחייבו במעשר,ואמינא להו אנא אפילו למ"ד תרומה בזמן הזה דאורייתא חלה דרבנן דתניא אי בבואכם יכול משנכנסו לה שנים ושלשה מרגלים ת"ל בבואכם בביאת כולכם אמרתי ולא בביאת מקצתכם,וכי אסקינהו עזרא לא כולהו סלוק, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big משל משלו חכמים באשה פגה בוחל וצמל פגה עודה תנוקת בוחל אלו ימי נעוריה,בזו ובזו אמרו אביה זכאי במציאתה ובמעשה ידיה ובהפרת נדריה צמל כיון שבגרה שוב אין לאביה רשות בה,איזהו סימנין ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר משיעלה הקמט תחת הדד ר"ע אומר משיטו הדדים בן עזאי אומר משישחיר הפיטומת רבי יוסי אומר כדי שיהא נותן ידו על העוקץ והוא שוקע ושוהא לחזור, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big פגה עודה תנוקת כדכתיב {שיר השירים ב׳:י״ג } התאנה חנטה פגיה בוחל אלו ימי הנעורים כדתנן התאנים משיבחלו ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רב משילבין ראשיהן,ואיבעית אימא מהכא (זכריה יא, ח) ותקצר נפשי בהם וגם נפשם בחלה בי צמל כמ"ד יצתה מלאה,ואיזהו סימנים ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר משיעלה הקמט אמר שמואל לא משיעלה הקמט ממש אלא כדי שתחזיר ידיה לאחוריה ונראית כמי שיעלה הקמט תחת הדד,שמואל בדק באמתיה ויהב לה ד' זוזי דמי בושתה שמואל לטעמיה דאמר שמואל (ויקרא כה, מו) לעולם בהם תעבודו לעבודה נתתים ולא לבושה,שמואל מייחד להן רב נחמן מחליף להן רב ששת מסר להן לערבי ואמר להן אזדהרו מישראל,רבי יוסי אומר כו' מאי עוקץ אמר שמואל עוקצו של דד,ת"ר אלו הן סימני בגרות ר"א בר' צדוק אומר משיתקשקשו הדדין ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר משיכסיף ראש החוטם משיכסיף אזקונה לה אלא א"ר אשי משיפציל ראש החוטם ר' יוסי אומר משתקיף העטרה ר"ש אומר משנתמעך | 47a. it is b subject to the obligation /b of separating b i ḥalla /i , /b the portion of the dough designated for the priest. b And /b although i teruma /i fell into it, that produce does not have the status of i teruma /i , as the i teruma /i was nullified by a majority of non-sacred produce. Consequently, b it is not rendered unfit /b for consumption, i.e., rendered ritually impure, b by one /b who was ritually impure b who immersed that day /b and is waiting for nightfall for his purification process to be completed. This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon deem /b the dough b exempt from the /b obligation of separating b i ḥalla /i , /b as this obligation does not apply to i teruma /i , and the entire dough is exempt due to the mixture of i teruma /i it contains.,The Sages b assumed /b that b the one who said /b that b i teruma /i /b in the present applies b by Torah law /b maintains that b i ḥalla /i /b likewise applies in the present b by Torah law, /b whereas b the one who said /b that b i teruma /i /b in the present applies b by rabbinic law /b holds that b i ḥalla /i /b also applies b by rabbinic law. /b If so, b granted, if you say /b that b Rabbi Yosei holds /b that b i ḥalla /i in the present /b applies b by rabbinic law, /b one can understand that b a mixture /b which has the status of i teruma /i b by rabbinic law comes and abrogates /b the obligation of separating b i ḥalla /i , /b which also applies b by rabbinic law. /b , b But if you say /b that b i ḥalla /i /b in the present applies b by Torah law, /b can b a mixture /b that has the status of i teruma /i b by rabbinic law come and abrogate /b the mitzva of b i ḥalla /i /b which is b by Torah law? /b Evidently, according to Rabbi Yosei the obligation of separating i ḥalla /i in the present is by rabbinic law, and therefore i teruma /i likewise applies by rabbinic law. If so, Rabbi Yosei does not agree with the opinion he cites in i Seder Olam /i , according to which i teruma /i applies in the present by Torah law.,The Gemara rejects this proof: b But perhaps Rabbi Yosei maintains /b that b i teruma /i in the present /b applies b by Torah law and /b yet b i ḥalla /i /b applies b by rabbinic law, /b and therefore the mixture discussed in the above i baraita /i , which has the status of i teruma /i by Torah law, abrogates the obligation of i ḥalla /i , which is by rabbinic law.,The Gemara adds: b And /b this answer is b as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, responded /b to the statement of the other Sages. b As Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: I /b once b found the Sages of the study hall of Rav sitting and saying: Even according to the one who said /b that b i teruma /i in the present /b applies b by rabbinic law, /b the obligation to separate b i ḥalla /i /b is b by Torah law. /b ,The reason is b that /b during the b seven /b years b that /b the Jewish people b conquered /b Eretz Yisrael led by Joshua b and /b during the b seven /b years b that they divided /b the land, b they were obligated to /b separate b i ḥalla /i but they were not obligated to /b separate i teruma /i and b tithe. /b In the present as well, although there is no obligation to set aside i teruma /i in Eretz Yisrael by Torah law, the obligation to separate i ḥalla /i applies by Torah law.,Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, continued: b And I said to them: /b On the contrary, b even according to the one who said /b that b i teruma /i in the present /b applies b by Torah law, /b the obligation to separate b i ḥalla /i /b applies b by rabbinic law, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states with regard to i ḥalla /i : “When you come into the land where I bring you…from the first of your dough you shall set apart a cake for a gift” (Numbers 15:18–20). b If /b the obligation applies b “when you come” /b into the land, one b might /b have thought that it took effect b from /b the moment b that two or three spies entered /b the land. Therefore b the verse states: “When you come,” /b from which it is derived that the Torah is saying: b I said /b that the obligation applies b when all of you come, and not when some of you come. /b ,According to this i baraita /i , the separation of i ḥalla /i is an obligation by Torah law only when the entire Jewish people come to Eretz Yisrael. b And when Ezra brought /b the Jewish people to Eretz Yisrael at the beginning of the Second Temple period, b not all of them ascended. /b Since the majority of the Jewish people stayed behind, separating i ḥalla /i was not restored to the status of an obligation by Torah law., strong MISHNA: /strong b The Sages stated a parable /b based on the development of the fruit of a fig tree with regard to the three stages of development b in a woman: /b Minority, young womanhood, and grown womanhood. b An unripe fig, a ripening fig, and a ripe fig. An unripe fig /b represents the stage when b she is still a child /b and has not yet developed the signs of puberty; b a ripening fig /b represents b the days of her young womanhood, /b when she reaches twelve years and one day and has developed two pubic hairs.,With regard to the periods both b during this /b stage, minority, b and during that /b stage, young womanhood, the Sages b said /b that b her father is entitled to /b any lost object that b she finds /b that cannot be returned to its owner, b and to her earnings, and to nullification of her vows. A ripe fig /b represents the stage of grown womanhood: b Once she has reached her majority, her father no longer has authority over her. /b He can no longer nullify her vows, and he does not have a claim to lost objects found by her and her earnings belong to her., b What are the signs /b that indicate grown womanhood? b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: /b Grown womanhood begins b from when /b her breast b grows /b sufficiently so that b a fold /b appears b below the breast. Rabbi Akiva says: /b It begins b from when the breasts sag /b onto the chest. b Ben Azzai says: /b It begins b from when the areola /b at the tip of the breast b darkens. Rabbi Yosei says: /b It begins when the breasts have developed to b a size where /b a person b places his hand on the nipple and it depresses and slows to return. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that b an unripe fig [ i paga /i ] /b represents the stage when a woman b is still a child. /b The Gemara explains that the meaning of the word i paga /i is b as it is written: “The fig tree puts forth her green fruits [ i fageha /i ]” /b (Song of Songs 2:13). The mishna further teaches that b a ripening fig [ i boḥal /i ] /b represents b the days of her young womanhood. /b The Gemara explains that the meaning of this word is b as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Ma’asrot /i 1:2): The obligation of tithes applies to b the figs from when they begin to ripen [ i misheyyibaḥalu /i ]; and Rabba bar bar Ḥana says /b that b Rav says /b that this means b from when the heads /b of the figs b whiten. /b ,The Gemara adds: b And if you wish, say /b instead that the source is b from here: “For My soul became impatient of them, and their soul also grew in disgust [ i baḥala /i ] toward Me” /b (Zechariah 11:8). The verse indicates that this word denotes growth. As for the third term in the mishna, b a ripe fig [ i tzemel /i ], /b it is b as one would say: /b A fruit b has come forth complete [ i yatzeta mele’a /i ]. /b ,§ The mishna teaches: b And what are the signs /b that indicate grown womanhood? b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: /b Grown womanhood begins b from when /b her breast b grows /b sufficiently so that b a fold /b appears below the breast. b Shmuel says: /b This does b not literally /b mean b from when /b her breast b grows /b sufficiently so that a permanent b fold /b appears below the breast. b Rather, /b it means that the breast has grown enough b so that /b if she were to b stretch her hand behind her /b back, b it would appear as though /b her breast has b grown /b sufficiently that there is b a fold below the breast. /b ,The Gemara relates that b Shmuel examined /b these stages b in his /b Canaanite b maidservant, and /b subsequently b gave her four dinars /b as b payment for her humiliation. /b The Gemara notes that in this regard b Shmuel /b conforms b to his /b line of b reasoning, as Shmuel said /b that the verse: b “You may enslave them forever” /b (Leviticus 25:46) teaches: b I gave them /b to you b for /b the b service /b of slaves, b but not for humiliation. /b Consequently, if a master humiliated his Canaanite slave, he must pay him damages.,The Gemara further relates, with regard to the attitude toward maidservants, that b Shmuel /b would b designate /b a particular slave b for /b each of his maidservants for intercourse, and he would not allow his slaves to engage in intercourse with whichever maidservant they chose. By contrast, b Rav Naḥman /b would b exchange /b his maidservants between his slaves, while b Rav Sheshet handed /b his maidservants b to an Arab, and said to them: /b You may engage in intercourse with whomever you choose, but b take care /b not to engage in intercourse b with a Jew. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that b Rabbi Yosei says: /b Grown womanhood begins when the breasts have developed to a size where if a person places his hand on the nipple [ i oketz /i ] it depresses and slows to return. The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of b i oketz /i ? Shmuel said: /b It means b the protrusion [ i oketz /i ] of the breast, /b i.e., the nipple., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b What are the signs of maturity? Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: From when the breasts knock against each other, /b due to their size. b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka says: From when the head /b of the protrusion in the center b of the nipple darkens. /b The Gemara asks with regard to this suggestion: b From when it darkens? One /b thereby b renders her old, /b i.e., if one accepts this sign, the beginning of maturity is delayed significantly. b Rather, Rav Ashi said: From when the head of the protrusion splits. Rabbi Yosei says: From when the nipple /b grows to such an extent that it b is surrounded by a circle. Rabbi Shimon says: From when /b there is b a softening /b |
|
36. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein (2018), The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World. 74| 50b. ואל ישנה אדם מפני המחלוקת כיוצא בו המוליך פירות שביעית ממקום שכלו למקום שלא כלו או ממקום שלא כלו למקום שכלו חייב לבער ר' יהודה אומר צא והבא לך אף אתה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מאי איריא ערבי פסחים אפילו ערבי שבתות וערבי ימים טובים נמי דתניא העושה מלאכה בערבי שבתות וימים טובים מן המנחה ולמעלה אינו רואה סימן ברכה לעולם התם מן המנחה ולמעלה הוא דאסור סמוך למנחה לא הכא מחצות אי נמי התם סימן ברכה הוא דלא חזי אבל שמותי לא משמתינן ליה הכא שמותי נמי משמתינן ליה,גופא העושה מלאכה בערבי שבתות ובערבי ימים טובים מן המנחה ולמעלה ובמוצאי שבת ובמוצאי יו"ט ובמוצאי יום הכפורים ובכל מקום שיש שם נידנוד עבירה לאתויי תענית ציבור אינו רואה סימן ברכה לעולם:,ת"ר יש זריז ונשכר ויש זריז ונפסד יש שפל ונשכר ויש שפל ונפסד זריז ונשכר דעביד כולי שבתא ולא עביד במעלי שבתא זריז ונפסד דעביד כולי שבתא ועביד במעלי שבתא שפל ונשכר דלא עביד כולי שבתא ולא עביד במעלי שבתא שפל ונפסד דלא עביד כולי שבתא ועביד במעלי שבתא אמר רבא הני נשי דמחוזא אע"ג דלא עבדן עבידתא במעלי שבתא משום מפנקותא הוא דהא כל יומא נמי לא קא עבדן אפילו הכי שפל ונשכר קרינן להו,רבא רמי כתיב (תהלים נז, יא) כי גדול עד שמים חסדך וכתיב (תהלים קח, ה) כי גדול מעל שמים חסדך הא כיצד כאן בעושין לשמה וכאן בעושין שלא לשמה וכדרב יהודה דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ומצות אף על פי שלא לשמה שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה:,תנו רבנן המצפה לשכר אשתו וריחים אינו רואה סימן ברכה לעולם שכר אשתו מתקולתא ריחייא אגרתא אבל עבדה ומזבנה אישתבוחי משתבח בה קרא דכתיב (משלי לא, כד) סדין עשתה ותמכור:,ת"ר המשתכר בקנים ובקנקנים אינו רואה סימן ברכה לעולם מאי טעמא כיון דנפיש אפחזייהו שלטא בהו עינא: תנו רבנן תגרי סימטא ומגדלי בהמה דקה וקוצצי אילנות טובות ונותנין עיניהן בחלק יפה אינו רואה סימן ברכה לעולם מאי טעמא דתהו ביה אינשי:,ת"ר ד' פרוטות אין בהן סימן ברכה לעולם שכר כותבין ושכר מתורגמנין ושכר יתומים ומעות הבאות ממדינת הים,בשלמא שכר מתורגמנין משום דמיחזי כשכר שבת ומעות יתומים נמי לאו בני מחילה נינהו מעות הבאות ממדינת הים משום דלאו כל יומא מתרחיש ניסא,אלא שכר כותבין מאי טעמא א"ר יהושע בן לוי כ"ד תעניות ישבו אנשי כנסת הגדולה על כותבי ספרים תפילין ומזוזות שלא יתעשרו שאילמלי מתעשרין אין כותבין: ת"ר כותבי ספרים תפילין ומזוזות הן ותגריהן ותגרי תגריהן וכל העוסקין במלאכת שמים לאיתויי מוכרי תכלת אינן רואין סימן ברכה לעולם ואם עוסקין לשמה רואין:,בני ביישן נהוג דלא הוו אזלין מצור לצידון במעלי שבתא אתו בנייהו קמיה דר' יוחנן אמרו לו אבהתין אפשר להו אנן לא אפשר לן אמר להו כבר קיבלו אבותיכם עליהם שנאמר (משלי א, ח) שמע בני מוסר אביך ואל תטוש תורת אמך:,בני חוזאי נהגי דמפרשי חלה מארוזא אתו ואמרו ליה לרב יוסף אמר להו ניכלה זר באפייהו איתיביה אביי דברים המותרים ואחרים נהגו בהן איסור | 50b. The Sages stated a principle: b And a person /b may b not deviate /b from the local custom, b due to /b potential b dispute. Similarly, /b one b who transports Sabbatical /b Year produce b from a place /b where a crop b has ceased /b in the fields b to a place where it has not /b yet b ceased or from a place where it has not /b yet b ceased to a place where it has /b already b ceased is obligated to remove /b the produce from his possession, in accordance with the stringencies of both locations. It is permitted for homeowners to eat Sabbatical Year produce in their houses only as long as that species of fruit remains in the field as ownerless property. However, once that particular fruit is no longer available for animals in the fields, one is required to remove what remains of that species from his home. The statement in the mishna is referring to one who transported fruit from a location where it ceased in the fields to one where it did not, and vice versa. b Rabbi Yehuda says /b that he need not remove the produce, as he can say to a local resident: b You, too, go out and bring /b this produce from a place where it remains in the field., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b Why /b discuss this prohibition b particularly /b with regard to b Passover eves? It /b is prohibited to perform labor b even /b on b Shabbat eves and Festival eves as well, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who performs labor on Shabbat eves and Festival eves from i minḥa /i /b time b onward never sees a sign of blessing /b from this work. The Gemara answers that there is a difference between the two situations: b There, /b in the case of Shabbat and Festivals, performing labor is prohibited b from i minḥa /i /b time b onward; /b it is b not /b prohibited b adjacent to i minḥa /i /b time, i.e., just before it. b Here, /b in the case of Passover eve, it is prohibited b from midday. Alternatively, there, /b on Shabbat eve and Festival eve, it is b a sign of blessing that he does not see; however, /b the Sages b do not excommunicate him /b for performing labor. b Here, /b in the case of Passover eve, the Sages b also excommunicate him /b for performing labor, as it is explicitly prohibited.,The Gemara cites the source of the b matter itself /b in its entirety: b One who performs labor on Shabbat eves or on Festival eves from i minḥa /i /b time b onward, /b and similarly one who works immediately upon b the conclusion of Shabbat, /b or b the conclusion of a Festival, /b or b the conclusion of Yom Kippur, or on any occasion where there is a trace of sin, /b which comes b to include a communal fast, /b e.g., the Ninth of Av or a fast for rain, when it is prohibited to perform labor, b never sees a sign of blessing /b from this work. If one performs labor just before Shabbat or immediately after Shabbat, the concern is that even a slight miscalculation could lead to performance of labor on Shabbat itself, when it is prohibited.,Apropos reward or lack thereof, the Gemara cites th i e Tosefta /i in which b the Sages taught: There is /b one who is b diligent and rewarded /b for his diligence; b and there is /b one who is b diligent and penalized /b due to his diligence; b there is /b one who is b lazy and rewarded; and there is /b one who is b lazy and penalized. /b How so? b Diligent and rewarded /b is referring to one b who works the entire week and does not work on Shabbat eve. Diligent and penalized /b is one who b works all week and works on Shabbat eve. Lazy and rewarded /b is one b who does not work the entire week and does not work on Shabbat eve. Lazy and penalized /b is one who does b not work the entire week and works on Shabbat eve /b to complete the work he neglected to perform during the week. b Rava said: /b With regard to b those women of Meḥoza, even though they do not perform labor on Shabbat eve, it is due to /b excessive b pampering, as neither do they work on any /b other b day. Even so, we call them lazy and rewarded. /b Despite the fact that their laziness is not motivated by piety, their inactivity has a positive aspect to it.,On the topic of reward for a mitzva fulfilled without intent, b Rava raised a contradiction: /b It b is written: “For Your mercy is great unto the heavens, /b and Your truth reaches the skies” (Psalms 57:11); b and it is written /b elsewhere: b “For Your mercy is great above the heavens, /b and Your truth reaches the skies” (Psalms 108:5). b How so? /b How can these verses be reconciled? The Gemara explains: b Here, /b where the verse says that God’s mercy is above the heavens, it is referring to a case where b one performs /b a mitzva b for its own sake; and here, /b where the verse says that God’s mercy reaches the heavens, it is referring to a case where b one performs /b a mitzva b not for its own sake. /b Even a mitzva performed with ulterior motives garners reward, b as Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: A person should always engage in Torah /b study and performance of b mitzvot, even if /b he does so b not for their /b own b sake, as through /b the performance of mitzvot b not for their /b own b sake, /b one gains understanding and b comes /b to perform them b for their /b own b sake. /b , b The Sages taught: One who anticipates /b receiving b the earnings of his wife or /b of b a mill never sees a sign of blessing /b from them. The Gemara explains: b Earnings of his wife /b is referring to a case where she spins thread for others and charges by weight on b a scale /b (Rabbeinu Ḥael). The profit is small and it is demeaning to walk in public to solicit customers. Earnings of the b mill /b is referring to a hand mill for which people pay b rent /b and grind their grain. In that case too, the profits are meager. b However, if a woman works and sells /b the product of her labor, b the verse praises her, as it is written /b about a woman of valor: b “She made a cloak and sold it, /b and delivered a belt to the peddler” (Proverbs 31:24)., b The Sages taught /b with regard to a sign of blessing: b One who earns /b a living b from /b selling b rods or jugs will never see a sign of blessing /b from them. b What is the reason /b for this? b Since their volume /b is great, b the /b evil b eye dominates them. /b People believe that one is selling more than he is actually selling. Similarly, b the Sages taught: Merchants /b who sell their wares b in an alleyway [ i simta /i ] /b adjacent to a thoroughfare, where they are seen by all; b and those who raise small livestock, /b which tend to damage other people’s fields; b and those who chop down good /b fruit b trees, /b even if they were permitted to do so; and b those who direct their eyes to the fine portion /b with the intention of taking that portion for himself when dividing an item with others, will b never see a sign of blessing /b from them. b What is the reason /b for this? It is b that /b due to these actions b people wonder about him /b and pay special attention to his conduct. Due to that attention, his actions will not be blessed.,Similarly b the Sages taught: In four i perutot /i , /b payments, b there is never a sign of blessing: Wages of scribes /b of sacred books; b wages of disseminators, /b who repeat and explain the lectures delivered by the Sages on Shabbat; b payment of orphans, /b which one receives when engaging in a partnership with the executor of an orphan’s estate; b and money that comes from a country overseas. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Granted, /b one will be unsuccessful when receiving b wages of disseminators, as it appears as /b if he is receiving b wages /b for work performed on b Shabbat, /b even though what he is doing is not actually prohibited. b And /b it is also understandable that one will see no blessing from b orphans’ money, /b as minors b are not capable of relinquishing /b property. Minors do not have the legal right to forgive even negligible losses, which partners typically overlook. Therefore, one who in the course of business takes even the smallest amount of money from them beyond the sum to which he is entitled is considered a thief. One sees no blessing from b money that comes from a country overseas, /b because b a miracle does not transpire every day. /b Since the risks involved in shipping cargo on long sea voyages are great, one’s merit is diminished each time his merchandise miraculously arrives intact.,However, b what is the reason /b that one sees no blessing from b wages of scribes? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The members of the Great Assembly observed twenty-four fasts, /b corresponding to the twenty-four priestly watches (Maharsha), b for scribes /b who write Torah b scrolls, phylacteries, and i mezuzot /i , so that they will not become wealthy /b from their craft, b as were they /b to b become wealthy, they /b would no longer b write /b these sacred items. Similarly, b the Sages taught: Scribes /b who write b scrolls, phylacteries, and i mezuzot /i ; /b and b their merchants, /b who buy the sacred scrolls from the scribes to sell them; and b their merchants’ merchants; and all those engaged in the work of Heaven /b and earn their living from it, a phrase that comes b to include those who sell the sky-blue /b dye for ritual fringes, b never see a sign of blessing /b from their labor. b And if they engage /b in these activities b for their own sake, /b to ensure that there will be more sacred items available to the public, then b they /b do b see /b blessing from their labor.,As the mishna discusses the requirement to observe local customs, the Gemara relates: b The residents of Beit She’an were accustomed not to travel from Tyre to /b market day in b Sidon on Shabbat eve. /b In deference to Shabbat, they adopted a stringency and would not interrupt their Shabbat preparations even for a short sea voyage. b Their children came before Rabbi Yoḥa /b to request that he repeal this custom. b They said to him: /b Due to their wealth, it was possible for b our fathers /b to earn a living without traveling to the market on Friday; b however, it is not possible for us /b to do so. b He said to them: Your fathers already accepted /b this virtuous custom b upon themselves, /b and it remains in effect for you, b as it is stated: “My son, hear your father’s rebuke and do not abandon your mother’s teaching” /b (Proverbs 1:8). In addition to adhering to one’s father’s rebuke, i.e., i halakha /i , one is also required to preserve his mother’s teaching, i.e., ancestral customs.,The Gemara relates additional customs: b The residents /b of the city of b Ḥozai were accustomed to separate i ḥalla /i from rice /b dough. b They came and told Rav Yosef /b about this custom. b He said to them: Let a non-priest eat /b this dough b in their presence /b to show them unequivocally that this custom has no legal basis. b Abaye raised an objection to him: /b With regard to b matters /b that are b permitted, but others were accustomed to /b treat b them /b as a b prohibition, /b |
|
37. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein (2018), The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World. 220| 18b. דאמר רב חנא בר ביזנא אמר ר"ש חסידא מאי דכתיב (זכריה ח, יט) כה אמר ה' צבאות צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי יהיה לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה קרי להו צום וקרי להו ששון ושמחה בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה אין שלום צום,אמר רב פפא הכי קאמר בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה יש גזרת המלכות צום אין גזרת המלכות ואין שלום רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין,אי הכי ט"ב נמי אמר רב פפא שאני ט' באב הואיל והוכפלו בו צרות דאמר מר בט' באב חרב הבית בראשונה ובשניה ונלכדה ביתר ונחרשה העיר,תניא אמר ר"ש ארבעה דברים היה ר"ע דורש ואני אין דורש כמותו צום הרביעי זה ט' בתמוז שבו הובקעה העיר שנאמר (ירמיהו נב, ו) (ברביעי) בתשעה לחדש ויחזק הרעב בעיר ולא היה לחם לעם הארץ ותבקע העיר ואמאי קרי ליה רביעי רביעי לחדשים,צום החמישי זה תשעה באב שבו נשרף בית אלהינו ואמאי קרי ליה חמישי חמישי לחדשים צום השביעי זה ג' בתשרי שבו נהרג גדליה בן אחיקם ומי הרגו ישמעאל בן נתניה הרגו ללמדך ששקולה מיתתן של צדיקים כשריפת בית אלהינו ואמאי קרי ליה שביעי שביעי לחדשים,צום העשירי זה עשרה בטבת שבו סמך מלך בבל על ירושלים שנאמר (יחזקאל כד, א) ויהי דבר ה' אלי בשנה התשיעית בחדש העשירי בעשור לחדש לאמר בן אדם כתב לך את שם היום את עצם היום הזה סמך מלך בבל אל ירושלם ואמאי קרי ליה עשירי עשירי לחדשים והלא היה ראוי זה לכתוב ראשון ולמה נכתב כאן כדי להסדיר חדשים כתיקנן,ואני איני אומר כן אלא צום העשירי זה חמשה בטבת שבו באת שמועה לגולה שהוכתה העיר שנאמר (יחזקאל לג, כא) ויהי בשתי עשרה שנה בעשירי בחמשה לחדש לגלותנו בא אלי הפליט מירושלם לאמר הוכתה העיר ועשו יום שמועה כיום שריפה,ונראין דברי מדבריו שאני אומר על ראשון ראשון ועל אחרון אחרון והוא אומר על ראשון אחרון ועל אחרון ראשון אלא שהוא מונה לסדר חדשים ואני מונה לסדר פורעניות,איתמר רב ורבי חנינא אמרי בטלה מגילת תענית רבי יוחנן וריב"ל אמרי לא בטלה מגילת תענית,רב ורבי חנינא אמרי בטלה מגילת תענית הכי קאמר בזמן שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה אין שלום צום והנך נמי כי הני,רבי יוחנן ורבי יהושע בן לוי אמרי לא בטלה מגילת תענית הני הוא דתלינהו רחמנא בבנין בהמ"ק אבל הנך כדקיימי קיימי,מתיב רב כהנא מעשה וגזרו תענית בחנוכה בלוד וירד ר"א ורחץ ורבי יהושע וסיפר ואמרו להם צאו והתענו על מה שהתעניתם,א"ר יוסף שאני חנוכה דאיכא מצוה א"ל אביי ותיבטיל איהי ותיבטל מצותה,אלא אמר רב יוסף שאני חנוכה דמיפרסם ניסא,מותיב רב אחא בר הונא בתלתא בתשרי בטילת אדכרתא מן שטרייא שגזרה מלכות יון גזרה שלא להזכיר שם שמים על פיהם וכשגברה מלכות חשמונאי ונצחום התקינו שיהו מזכירין שם שמים אפילו בשטרות וכך היו כותבים בשנת כך וכך ליוחנן כהן גדול לאל עליון,וכששמעו חכמים בדבר אמרו למחר זה פורע את חובו ונמצא שטר מוטל באשפה וביטלום ואותו היום עשאוהו יו"ט ואי סלקא דעתך בטלה מגילת תענית קמייתא בטול אחרנייתא מוסיפין,הכא במאי עסקינן בזמן שבית המקדש קיים | 18b. b As Rav Ḥana bar Bizna said /b that b Rabbi Shimon Ḥasida said: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “Thus said the Lord of hosts: The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall become times of joy and gladness, /b and cheerful seasons, b to the house of Judah” /b (Zechariah 8:19). b It calls them /b days of b “fast” and it calls them /b “times of b joy and gladness.” /b How so? b When there is peace /b in the world, b they will be /b times of b joy and gladness, /b on which eulogies and fasting are forbidden; but when b there is no peace, /b they are days of b fasting. /b In a time when there is no peace, why are messengers not sent out also for the fourth and tenth months, so that people can know when to observe the fasts?, b Rav Pappa said /b that b this is what it is saying: When there is peace /b in the world and the Temple is standing, these days b will be /b times of b joy and gladness; /b when b there is persecution /b and troubles for the Jewish people, they are days of b fasting; /b and when b there is no persecution but /b still b no peace, /b neither particular troubles nor consolation for Israel, the i halakha /i is as follows: If people b wish, they fast, /b and if b they wish, they do not fast. /b Since there is no absolute obligation to fast, messengers are not sent out for these months.,The Gemara asks: b If so, the Ninth of Av /b should b also /b be like the other fast days, that sometimes it is observed and sometimes not, depending upon the wishes of the community at the time. Why does the mishna state that messengers go out for the month of Av? b Rav Pappa said: The Ninth of Av is different, since the calamities /b that occurred on that day b were multiplied. As the Master said: On the Ninth of Av the Temple was destroyed, /b both b the first /b one b and the second /b one; on this day the city of b Beitar was captured; /b and on this day b the city /b of Jerusalem b was plowed /b over by the enemies of the Jewish people, as a sign that it would never be rebuilt. Consequently, the fast of the Ninth of Av is obligatory, and not optional like the other fasts. Messengers are consequently sent out so that people will know when to fast.,§ The Sages disagreed about the fasts alluded to in the words of the prophet, as b it is taught /b in a i baraita /i . b Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Akiva would expound four verses, but I would not expound /b the texts b as he did. /b One of the disputes relates to the fasts mentioned by Zechariah. Rabbi Akiva would expound the verse as follows: b “The fast of the fourth,” this is the ninth of Tammuz, on which the city /b of Jerusalem b was breached, as it is stated: “And in the fourth month, on the ninth day of the month, the famine was severe in the city, so that there was no bread for the people of the land. Then the city was breached” /b (Jeremiah 52:6–7). b And why does /b the prophet b call it /b the fast of the b fourth? /b Because it is in Tammuz, b the fourth of the months /b when counting from Nisan., b “The fast of the fifth,” this is the Ninth of Av, on which the Temple of our Lord was burnt. And why does he call it /b the fast of the b fifth? /b Because it falls in the b fifth of the months. “The fast of the seventh,” this is the third of Tishrei, on which Gedaliah, son of Ahikam, was killed. And who killed him? Ishmael, son of Nethaniah, killed him /b (see II Kings 25:25; Jeremiah, chapter 41). The Sages established a fast to commemorate Gedaliah’s death b to teach you that the death of the righteous is equivalent to the burning of the Temple of our Lord. And why did /b the prophet b call it /b the fast of the b seventh? /b Because Tishrei is the b seventh of the months. /b , b “The fast of the tenth,” This is the tenth of Tevet, on which the king of Babylonia laid siege to Jerusalem, as it is stated: “And in the ninth year, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month, the word of the Lord came to me, saying: Son of man, write the name of the day, of this same day: The king of Babylonia has laid siege to Jerusalem on this very day” /b (Ezekiel 24:1–2). b And why did he call it /b the fast of the b tenth? /b Because it is in Tevet, which is b the tenth of the months. Wouldn’t it have been fitting to write /b this fast b first, /b as the series of events began with the laying of the siege. b Why was /b it b written here /b at the end of the list? This was done b in order to list the months in /b their b proper /b order, as the prophet began with the fourth month and ended with the tenth month. This is the statement of Rabbi Akiva.,Rabbi Shimon disagreed and said: b I do not say this, but rather /b I expound the verse as follows: b “The fast of the tenth,” this is the fifth of Tevet, on which the report reached the Diaspora that the city had been smitten, as it is stated: “And it came to pass in the twelfth year of our exile, in the tenth month, on the fifth day of the month, that one that had escaped out of Jerusalem came to me, saying: The city is smitten” /b (Ezekiel 33:21); b and they made the day of the report /b of the destruction b like the day of the /b actual b burning /b and decreed a fast on that day.,And Rabbi Shimon added: b And my statement seems /b more convincing b than his statement, as I say about the first /b fast mentioned by the prophet that it marks the event that took place b first, and about the last /b fast that it marks the event that took place b last. /b According to Rabbi Shimon, the fasts are listed in accordance with the chronological order of the events. b But he, /b Rabbi Akiva, b says about the first /b fast mentioned by the prophet that it marks the event that took place b last, and about the last /b fast mentioned that it marks the event that took place b first, only that he lists /b the fasts b in the order of the months, whereas I list /b them also b in the order of the calamities /b that they mark.,§ b It was stated /b that the Sages disagreed about the following matter: b Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina /b both b say: i Megillat Ta’anit /i , /b a listing of days on which fasting and eulogizing are forbidden, b has been nullified, /b as in the present period of exile there is no reason to celebrate the joyous events that these days commemorate. b Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: i Megillat Ta’anit /i has not been nullified. /b ,The Gemara explains: b Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina say /b that b i Megillat Ta’anit /i has been nullified. This is what /b the prophet b is saying: At a time when there is peace /b in the world, the dates listed b will be /b times of b joy and gladness, /b on which eulogies and fasting are forbidden; but when b there is no peace, /b they are days of b fasting. And those /b days mentioned in i Megillat Ta’anit /i b are also like these /b days of fasting, that is to say, the days of joy listed in i Megillat Ta’anit /i are also nullified when there is no peace., b Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say /b that b i Megillat Ta’anit /i has not been nullified, /b and they reason as follows: b It was those /b fast days mentioned in the Bible b that the Merciful One makes contingent on the building of the Temple, but these /b festive days listed in i Megillat Ta’anit /i b remain as they were /b and have not been nullified., b Rav Kahana raised an objection /b against Rav and Rabbi Ḥanina from a i baraita /i : b There was an incident and /b the Sages b decreed a fast on Hanukkah in Lod, and Rabbi Eliezer went down /b on that day b and bathed /b in the bathhouse b and Rabbi Yehoshua went down and cut /b his hair to show that they did not accept the fast. Furthermore, these two Sages b said to /b the others: b Go out and fast /b another fast as an act of penitence b for what you have /b already b fasted, /b as the days of Hanukkah are days of joy, on which fasting is forbidden. Hanukkah is one of the Festivals listed in i Megillat Ta’anit /i . Even after the destruction of the Temple Hanukkah is celebrated, demonstrating that i Megillat Ta’anit /i has not been nullified., b Rav Yosef said: Hanukkah is different, as there is the mitzva /b of lighting candles, and so, unlike the other days listed in i Megillat Ta’anit /i , the festival of Hanukkah was not nullified. b Abaye said to him: /b What is this argument? b Let /b Hanukkah b itself be nullified, and let its mitzva /b of lighting candles b be nullified /b with it., b Rather, Rav Yosef /b retracted his previous explanation and b said: Hanukkah is different, as its miracle is well known, /b and it has become so widely accepted by all the Jewish people that it would be inappropriate to nullify it., b Rav Aḥa bar Huna raised an objection: /b It is stated in i Megillat Ta’anit /i : b On the third of Tishrei the /b ordice requiring the b mention /b of God’s name b in /b legal b documents was abolished, /b and on that day fasting is forbidden. b For the kingdom of Greece had issued a decree /b against the Jews b forbidding them to mention the name of Heaven on their lips. When the Hasmonean kingdom became strong and defeated /b the Greeks, b they instituted that people should mention the name of Heaven even in their /b legal b documents. And therefore they would write: In year such and such of Yoḥa the High Priest of the God Most High. /b , b And when the Sages heard about this they said: Tomorrow this one, /b the borrower, b will repay his debt, /b the lender will no longer need to save the loan document, b the document will be cast on a dunghill, /b and the name of Heaven written there will come to disgrace. b And /b so b they annulled /b the ordice to mention God’s name in documents, b and they made that day into a Festival. And if it enters your mind /b to say that b i Megillat Ta’anit /i has been nullified, /b can you say that b the first /b prohibitions against fasting b they annulled, and /b then b later /b ones b were added? /b ,The Gemara answers: b With what are we dealing here? /b This is referring to a time b when the Temple was standing /b and all the days listed in i Megillat Ta’anit /i were in force. From time to time new days of commemoration were added. When the i amora’im /i stated that i Megillat Ta’anit /i was nullified they were referring to the time after the destruction of the Temple. |
|
38. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein (2018), The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World. 220| 14a. בטלו דיני קנסות מישראל שפעם אחת גזרה מלכות הרשעה גזירה על ישראל שכל הסומך יהרג וכל הנסמך יהרג ועיר שסומכין בה תיחרב ותחומין שסומכין בהן יעקרו,מה עשה יהודה בן בבא הלך וישב לו בין שני הרים גדולים ובין שתי עיירות גדולות ובין שני תחומי שבת בין אושא לשפרעם וסמך שם חמשה זקנים ואלו הן ר"מ ור' יהודה ור' שמעון ור' יוסי ור' אלעזר בן שמוע רב אויא מוסיף אף ר' נחמיה,כיון שהכירו אויביהם בהן אמר להן בניי רוצו אמרו לו רבי מה תהא עליך אמר להן הריני מוטל לפניהם כאבן שאין לה הופכים אמרו לא זזו משם עד שנעצו בו שלש מאות לונביאות של ברזל ועשאוהו ככברה,רבי יהודה בן בבא אחריני הוו בהדיה והאי דלא חשיב להו משום כבודו דרבי יהודה בן בבא ור"מ ר' יהודה בן בבא סמכיה והא אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כל האומר ר"מ לא סמכו ר' עקיבא אינו אלא טועה סמכיה ר' עקיבא ולא קיבלו סמכיה ר' יהודה בן בבא וקיבלו,אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי אין סמיכה בחוצה לארץ מאי אין סמיכה אילימא דלא דייני דיני קנסות כלל בחוצה לארץ והא תנן סנהדרין נוהגת בין בארץ ובין בחוצה לארץ אלא דלא סמכינן בחוצה לארץ,פשיטא סומכין בחוצה לארץ ונסמכין בארץ הא אמרינן דלא אלא סומכין בארץ ונסמכין בחוצה לארץ מאי,ת"ש דרבי יוחנן הוה מצטער עליה דרב שמן בר אבא דלא הוה גבייהו דליסמכיה ר"ש בן זירוד וחד דעימיה ומנו ר' יונתן בן עכמאי ואמרי לה רבי יונתן בן עכמאי וחד דעימיה ומנו ר"ש בן זירוד חד דהוה גבייהו סמכוהו וחד דלא הוה גבייהו לא סמכוהו,ר' חנינא ורבי הושעיא הוה קא משתקיד רבי יוחנן למיסמכינהו לא הוה מסתייעא מילתא הוה קא מצטער טובא אמרו ליה לא נצטער מר דאנן מדבית עלי קאתינן,דא"ר שמואל בר נחמן א"ר יונתן מניין שאין נסמכין לבית עלי שנאמר (שמואל א ב, לב) לא יהיה זקן בביתך כל הימים מאי זקן אילימא זקן ממש והכתיב (שמואל א ב, לג) כל מרבית ביתך ימותו אנשים אלא סמיכה,רבי זירא הוה מיטמר למיסמכיה דאמר רבי אלעזר לעולם הוי קבל וקיים כיון דשמעה להא דא"ר אלעזר אין אדם עולה לגדולה אלא א"כ מוחלין לו על כל עונותיו אמצי ליה אנפשיה,כי סמכוה לר' זירא שרו ליה הכי לא כחל ולא שרק ולא פירכוס ויעלת חן כי סמכוה לרבי אמי ולרבי אסי שרו להו הכי כל מן דין כל מן דין סמוכו לנא לא תסמכו לנא לא מסרמיטין ולא מסרמיסין ואמרי לה לא מחמיסין ולא מטורמיסין,ר' אבהו כי הוה אתי ממתיבתא לבי קיסר נפקי מטרוניתא דבי קיסר ומשריין ליה רבה דעמיה מדברנא דאומתיה בוצינא דנהורא בריך מתייך לשלם:,עריפת עגלה בשלשה: ת"ר (דברים כא, ב) ויצאו זקניך ושופטיך זקניך שנים שופטיך שנים ואין ב"ד שקול מוסיפין עליהן עוד אחד הרי כאן חמשה דברי ר' יהודה רבי שמעון אומר זקניך שנים ואין ב"ד שקול מוסיפין עליהם עוד אחד הרי כאן שלשה,ור"ש האי שופטיך מאי עביד ליה ההוא מיבעי ליה למיוחדין שבשופטיך ור' יהודה מזקני זקניך נפקא,ור"ש אי מזקני הוה אמינא זקני השוק כתב רחמנא זקניך ואי כתיב זקניך הוה אמינא סנהדרי קטנה כתב רחמנא ושופטיך ממיוחדין שבשופטיך ורבי יהודה גמר זקני זקני מוסמכו זקני העדה את ידיהם מה להלן מיוחדין שבעדה אף כאן מיוחדין שבזקניך,אי יליף לילף כולה מהתם זקניך ושופטיך למה לי אלא וי"ו ושופטיך למניינא ורבי שמעון וי"ו לא דריש,אלא מעתה ויצאו שנים ומדדו שנים לרבי יהודה הרי תשעה לרבי שמעון שבעה ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ויצאו הן ולא שלוחן ומדדו שאפילו נמצא | 14a. b the laws of fines would have ceased /b to be implemented b from /b among b the Jewish people, /b as they would not have been able to adjudicate cases involving these laws due to a lack of ordained judges. This is b because /b at b one time the wicked kingdom /b of Rome b issued decrees of religious persecution against the Jewish people /b with the aim of abolishing the chain of ordination and the authority of the Sages. They said b that anyone who ordains /b judges b will be killed, and anyone who is ordained will be killed, and the city in which they ordain /b the judges b will be destroyed, and /b the signs identifying b the boundaries /b of the city b in which they ordain /b judges b will be uprooted. /b These measures were intended to discourage the Sages from performing or receiving ordination due to fear for the welfare of the local population., b What did /b Rabbi b Yehuda ben Bava do? He went and sat between two large mountains, between two large cities, and between two Shabbat boundaries: Between Usha and Shefaram, /b i.e., in a desolate place that was not associated with any particular city so that he not endanger anyone not directly involved, b and there he ordained five elders. And they were: Rabbi Meir, and Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua. Rav Avya adds /b that b Rabbi Neḥemya /b was b also /b among those ordained. This incident indicates that ordination can be performed by a single Sage., b When their enemies discovered them, /b Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava b said to /b the newly ordained Sages: b My sons, run /b for your lives. b They said to him: My teacher, what will be with you? /b Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava was elderly and unable to run. He b said to them: /b In any case, b I am cast before them like a stone that cannot be overturned; /b even if you attempt to assist me I will not be able to escape due to my frailty, but if you do not escape without me you will also be killed. People b say /b about this incident: The Roman soldiers b did not move from there until they had inserted three hundred iron spears /b [ b i lunkhiyot /i /b ] b into him, making him /b appear b like a sieve /b pierced with many holes.,This proof is refuted: There may b have been other /b Sages performing the ordination b with Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, /b who were added in order to reach the quota of three Sages, b and this /b fact b that they were not mentioned is due to the honor of Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, /b who was the greatest among them. The Gemara asks: b And /b with regard to b Rabbi Meir, /b did b Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava /b actually b ordain him? But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: Anyone who says that Rabbi Akiva did not ordain Rabbi Meir is nothing other than mistaken. /b The Gemara answers: b Rabbi Akiva /b in fact b ordained /b Rabbi Meir, b but /b the people b did not accept /b the appointment, as Rabbi Meir was still very young. Therefore, some time later, b Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava ordained him /b a second time, b and they accepted it. /b ,§ b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: There is no ordination outside of Eretz /b Yisrael. The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of: b There is no ordination? If we say that they may not adjudicate /b cases involving b laws of fines at all outside of Eretz /b Yisrael, that is difficult: b Didn’t we learn /b in a mishna ( i Makkot /i 7a): The b Sanhedrin /b and its authority b functions both in Eretz /b Yisrael b and outside of Eretz /b Yisrael? b Rather, /b the intention is b that we do not ordain /b judges b outside of Eretz /b Yisrael.,The Gemara comments: It is b obvious /b that if b those ordaining /b the new judges were b outside of Eretz /b Yisrael, b and those being ordained /b were b inside Eretz /b Yisrael, b we say that /b they may b not /b perform the ordination. b But /b if b those ordaining /b the new judges were b inside Eretz /b Yisrael, b and those being ordained /b were b outside of Eretz /b Yisrael, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? May ordination be conferred from a distance in this situation?,The Gemara clarifies: b Come /b and b hear /b a resolution to the dilemma from the fact b that Rabbi Yoḥa was distressed concerning Rav Shemen bar Abba, as /b the latter b was not with /b the other Sages at the time they received the consent of the i Nasi /i b so that /b Rabbi Yoḥa b could ordain him. /b In addition, concerning b Rabbi Shimon ben Zeirud and one who was with him, /b the Gemara interjects: b And who is he? Rabbi Yoḥa ben Akhmai. And some say /b that it was b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Akhmai and one who was with him; /b the Gemara interjects: b And who is he? Rabbi Shimon ben Zeirud. /b The Gemara continues: Although these two Sages were equal in stature, the Sages b ordained /b only the b one who was with them /b in Eretz Yisrael, b and they did not ordain /b the other b one, who was not with them. /b This indicates that ordination can be granted only in Eretz Yisrael.,The Gemara relates several other incidents with regard to ordination. b Rabbi Yoḥa persistently tried to ordain Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Hoshaya, /b as they were scholars and righteous people. But b he was not successful /b with regard to b the matter, /b as various incidents repeatedly interfered with his plan, and b he was very distressed /b about this. b They said to him: Do not be distressed, /b our b Master, as we come from, /b i.e., are descendants of, b the house of /b the High Priest b Eli. /b , b As Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman says /b that b Rabbi Yonatan says: From where /b is it known b that there /b are b not /b to be b ordained /b Sages b from the house of Eli? As it is stated /b with regard to the house of Eli: b “And there shall not be an elder in your house forever” /b (I Samuel 2:32). The Gemara explains: b What /b is the meaning of b “elder” /b in this verse? b If we say /b it means b an actual elder, /b meaning an old person, b but isn’t it /b already b written: “And all those raised in your house shall die young men” /b (I Samuel 2:33)? b Rather, /b the term “elder” is an honorary term for a Sage, and it means that b ordination /b will not be granted to descendants of the House of Eli.,The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Zeira would /b habitually b hide /b himself b so /b that b they would /b not b ordain him. /b He did this due to the fact b that Rabbi Elazar said: Always be obscure and /b remain b alive, /b meaning the more humble and unknown you make yourself, the longer you will live. b When he heard that /b which b Rabbi Elazar /b also b said: A person does not rise to greatness unless all his sins are forgiven, /b he understood that there are also benefits to greatness, and b he presented himself /b to the i Nasi /i in order that he would ordain him.,The Gemara relates: b When they ordained Rabbi Zeira /b the Sages who were present at the ceremony b sang to him this /b paean of praise traditionally sung to a bride at her wedding: She wears b no blue eye shadow and no rouge /b on her face b and no hair dye, and /b nevertheless b she radiates grace. /b The bride is described as so beautiful that she does not need any cosmetics or adornments, and metaphorically Rabbi Zeira is praised as exceptionally and recognizably qualified for his appointment. Similarly, b when they ordained Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, they sang to them this /b paean of praise: b Anyone like these, anyone like these, ordain for us, /b as they epitomized the ideal candidate for ordination. But b do not ordain for us /b those counted b among the rags [ i misarmitin /i ] or among the distorters [ i misarmisin /i ]. And some say /b that they said: Do b not /b ordain for us those counted b among the robbers [ i meḥamisin /i ] or among the tramplers [ i miturmisin /i ]. /b ,Since the songs composed for various Sages were mentioned, the Gemara also recounts that b when Rabbi Abbahu would come from the yeshiva to the house of the emperor, the ladies from the emperor’s house would go out and sing before him: O great one of his people, leader of his nation, illuminating candle, may your arrival be blessed in peace. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that b the breaking of the heifer’s neck /b is performed b in /b front of a panel of b three /b judges, and that Rabbi Yehuda says there must be five judges. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “And your elders and your judges shall go out /b and they shall measure to the cities that are around the corpse” (Deuteronomy 21:2). b “Your elders” /b is in the plural, which indicates a minimum of b two, /b and b “your judges” /b is also plural, indicating another b two, and /b as b a court may not /b be composed of b an even /b number of judges, b they add an additional one to them, /b so b there are five /b judges b here; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: “Your elders,” /b indicate b two, and /b as b a court may not /b be composed of b an even /b number of judges, b they add an additional one to them, /b so b there are three /b judges b here. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But /b according to b Rabbi Shimon, what does he do with this /b extra expression: b “Your judges”? /b The Gemara answers: b He requires it to /b teach that these judges must be of b the unique ones among your judges, /b meaning that they must be members of the Sanhedrin. The Gemara asks: b And /b how does b Rabbi Yehuda /b derive the i halakha /i that the judges must be members of the Sanhedrin? He b derives /b it b from /b the fact that the verse did not merely state: b “Elders,” /b but rather: b “Your elders,” /b which indicates the elders that are unique to all of the Jewish people, meaning the Sages of the Sanhedrin., b And /b how does b Rabbi Shimon /b respond to this claim? He holds that b had /b the verse written only: b “Elders,” I would say /b that the verse is referring to any b elders /b in b the marketplace /b who are not members of the Sanhedrin. Therefore, b the Merciful One writes: “Your elders.” And if it was written: “Your elders,” I would say /b that it is referring to members of b a lesser Sanhedrin. /b Therefore, b the Merciful One writes: “And your judges,” /b to indicate that they must be of b the unique ones among your judges. And /b how would b Rabbi Yehuda /b respond to this claim? b He learns /b it by means of a verbal analogy b from /b the word b “elders” /b written in this verse and the word b “elders” /b written in the verse: b “And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands /b on the head of the bull” (Leviticus 4:15). b Just as there /b it is referring to b the unique ones of the congregation, so too here, /b it is referring to b the unique ones among your elders. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If he learns /b this verbal analogy, b he should learn all of it, /b i.e., the entire i halakha /i , including the number of judges as well as their rank, b from there, /b i.e., the verse in Leviticus, and if so b why do I /b need the extra expressions: b “Your elders” /b and: b “And your judges”? Rather, /b certainly he does not accept this verbal analogy. Rather, he holds that the additional letter b i vav /i , /b corresponding to the word “and” in the expression: b “And your judges,” /b is there b for the tally, /b meaning that the expression “your judges” teaches that they must be members of the Great Sanhedrin, and the additional i vav /i serves to add an additional two to the number of judges. b And /b how does b Rabbi Shimon /b respond to that? b He does not expound /b the additional letter b i vav /i . /b ,The Gemara asks: b If that is so, /b if the verbs in the plural form are each understood as adding an additional two judges, then the expression: b “And they shall go out,” /b in the continuation of the verse (Deuteronomy 21:2) indicates another b two, /b and the expression: b “And they shall measure,” /b adds another b two, /b meaning that according b to Rabbi Yehuda there /b should be b nine /b judges, and according b to Rabbi Shimon, seven. /b The Gemara answers: b He needs this /b exposition b for that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “And they shall go out,” /b to emphasize that b they /b must go out, b and not their agents, /b and the verse states: b “And they shall measure,” /b to teach that this measurement is itself a mitzva, such b that even /b if the corpse b is found /b |
|
39. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bickart (2022), The Scholastic Culture of the Babylonian Talmud, 135| 52b. טהורות,א"ר יצחק (נפחא) בבאין מנוי אדם לנוי בהמה,ורב יוסף אמר הואיל ואדם מושך בהם את הבהמה מי לא תניא מקל של בהמה של מתכת מקבל טומאה מה טעם הואיל ואדם רודה בהן ה"נ הואיל ואדם מושך בהן:,וטובלן במקומן: והאיכא חציצה,א"ר אמי בשריתכן,לימא ר' אמי כרב יוסף סבירא ליה דאי כר' יצחק (נפחא) דאמר בבאין מנוי אדם לנוי בהמה כיון דריתכן עבד בהו מעשה ופרחה לה טומאה מינייהו,דתנן כל הכלים יורדין לידי טומאתן במחשבה ואין עולין מטומאתן אלא בשינוי מעשה,סבר לה כרבי יהודה דאמר מעשה לתקן לאו מעשה הוא דתניא ר' יהודה אומר לא אמר שינוי מעשה לתקן אלא לקלקל,במתניתא תני במחוללין,שאל תלמיד אחד מגליל העליון את ר"א שמעתי שחולקין בין טבעת לטבעת אמר לו שמא לא שמעת אלא לענין שבת דאי לענין טומאה דא ודא חדא היא,ולענין טומאה דא ודא אחת היא והתנן טבעת אדם טמאה וטבעת בהמה וכלים ושאר כל הטבעות טהורות כי קאמר ליה איהו נמי דאדם קאמר ליה,ודאדם דא ודא אחת היא והתניא טבעת שהתקינה לחגור בה מתניו ולקשר בה בין כתפיו טהורה ולא אמרו טמאה אלא של אצבע בלבד כי קאמר ליה איהו נמי דאצבע קאמר ליה,ודאצבע דא ודא אחת היא והתנן טבעת של מתכת וחותמה של אלמוג טמאה היא של אלמוג וחותמה של מתכת טהורה כי קאמר ליה איהו נמי כולה של מתכת קאמר ליה,ועוד שאל שמעתי שחולקין בין מחט למחט אמר ליה שמא לא שמעת אלא לענין שבת דאי לענין טומאה דא ודא אחת היא,ולענין טומאה דא ודא אחת היא והתנן מחט שניטל חורה או עוקצה טהורה כי קאמר ליה בשלימה,ובשלימה דא ודא אחת היא והתנן מחט שהעלתה חלודה אם מעכב את התפירה טהורה ואם לאו טמאה ואמרי דבי ר' ינאי והוא שרישומה ניכר כי קאמר ליה בשיפא קאמר לי',ובשיפא דא ודא אחת היא והתניא מחט בין נקובה בין אינה נקובה מותר לטלטלה בשבת ולא אמרינן נקובה אלא לענין טומאה בלבד,הא תרגמא אביי אליבא דרבא בגלמי:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big חמור יוצא במרדעת בזמן שהיא קשורה בו זכרים יוצאין לבובין רחלות יוצאות שחוזות כבולות וכבונות העזים יוצאות צרורות רבי יוסי אוסר בכולן חוץ מן הרחלין הכבונות,רבי יהודה אומר עזים יוצאות צרורות ליבש אבל לא לחלב: | 52b. are b ritually pure. /b , b Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said: /b Our mishna is referring to ornaments that were b transformed from /b their original designation for b a person’s adornment to /b an ornament designated for b an animal’s adornment. /b They had once belonged to a person who later affixed them in order to attach a strap to an animal. Their original ritual impurity does not cease when they are attached to the animal., b And Rav Yosef said: /b Animals’ rings can become ritually impure b since a person pulls his animal with them. /b Consequently, they are considered utensils used by people. b Wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The metal animal prod becomes ritually impure? What is the reason /b that it becomes ritually impure even though it is an animal’s utensil? b Since a person subjugates /b his animal b with it, /b it is regarded as a utensil for use by a person; therefore, it can become ritually impure. b Here too /b , with regard to chains, b since a person pulls /b his animal b with them, /b they are regarded as utensils for use by a person.,And we learned in our mishna: If the animals’ chains became ritually impure, b one may immerse them while they are in their place /b on the animal, and they need not first be removed. The Gemara raises a question: b Isn’t this an obstruction /b that renders the immersion invalid? The rings of the chain are firmly attached to the chain, and there is no room for the water of the ritual bath to completely surround the chain., b Rabbi Ami said: /b The mishna is referring to a case where b he struck /b the rings of the chain with a hammer, widening them and thereby creating sufficient space to allow the water to surround the chain on all sides.,The Gemara asks: b Let us say /b that b Rabbi Ami holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Yosef. As, if /b he held b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, /b who b said /b that our mishna is referring to ornaments that were b transformed from /b their original designation for b a person’s adornment /b to an ornament designated for b an animal’s adornment, /b and therefore they can be ritually impure with impurity contracted while it was still a person’s ornament, it is difficult. b Since he struck /b the chain, b he performed an action /b which altered b its /b identity, b and the impurity would have ceased /b even without immersion., b As we learned /b in a mishna: b All vessels descend into their /b state of b ritual impurity by means of thought. /b Even though an unfinished vessel cannot become ritually impure, if the craftsman decided not to complete it, it immediately assumes the legal status of a completed vessel and can become ritually impure. b However, they only ascend from their /b state of b ritual impurity by means of a change /b resulting from an b action. /b A ritually impure vessel, once it undergoes physical change, is no longer ritually impure. Hammering the rings is an action that effects physical change. Therefore, the chain should be ritually pure without immersion.,The Gemara rejects this argument: Actually, Rabbi Ami could interpret the mishna just as Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa did, as he b holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b who b said /b that b an action /b performed b to enhance /b a utensil b is not an action /b capable of ridding that utensil of its ritual impurity, b as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda said: /b He b did not say /b that b an action that effects a /b physical b change /b purifies a utensil of its ritual impurity with regard to an action performed b to enhance /b a utensil; b rather, /b he made his statement with regard to an action performed b to ruin /b the utensil., b It was taught in a i baraita /i : /b The mishna is referring to a case where the rings attached to the chain are well b spaced /b so that the water completely surrounds the rings of the chain with no obstruction.,It was taught in the i Tosefta /i : b A certain disciple from the Upper Galilee asked Rabbi Eliezer: I heard that one distinguishes between /b one type of b ring and /b another type of b ring. /b However, I do not know with regard to what i halakha /i this distinction is made. Rabbi Eliezer b said to him: Perhaps you only heard /b that distinction with regard b to the matter of Shabbat; /b a ring for adornment may be moved on Shabbat and other rings may not. b As, /b with regard b to the matter of ritual impurity, this /b ring b and that /b ring b are one /b and the same, and there is no distinction between them.,The Gemara raises an objection: b And /b with regard b to the matter of ritual impurity, are this and that one /b and the same? b Didn’t we learn /b in a mishna: b A ring /b worn by b a person is ritually impure; however, the ring of an animal, and /b that of b utensils, and all other rings /b not worn by people b are ritually pure? /b Apparently, a distinction is made between different types of rings with regard to the i halakhot /i of ritual impurity as well. The Gemara answers: b When /b Rabbi Eliezer b was saying /b that statement b to /b the disciple, b he too was saying to him /b that with regard to ritual impurity there is no distinction between different types b of /b rings worn by b a person. /b ,The Gemara raises another objection: b And /b with regard b to /b rings worn by b a person /b , b are this and that one /b and the same? b Wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A ring that one fashioned /b into a buckle at the end of a belt b to wear it around his waist, or /b into a clasp b to tie /b garments b between his shoulders, is ritually pure? /b The Sages b only said /b that a ring is b ritually impure /b with regard to a ring b worn on a /b person’s b finger. /b Apparently, there is in fact a distinction between different rings worn by a person. The Gemara answers: b When /b Rabbi Eliezer b was saying /b that statement b to /b the disciple, b he too was saying to him /b that there is no distinction between different types of rings worn on a person’s b finger. /b ,The Gemara raises yet another objection: b And /b with regard b to /b rings worn on a person’s b finger, are this and that one /b and the same? b Didn’t we learn /b in a mishna: b A ring /b made b of metal and its seal /b is made b of coral, is ritually impure? /b The primary component of the ring, metal, is the determining factor, and a metal utensil can become ritually impure. However, a ring that is made b of coral and its seal is /b made b of metal is ritually pure. /b Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of finger rings with regard to ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: b When /b Rabbi Eliezer b was saying /b that statement b to /b the disciple, b he too was saying to him /b that there is no distinction between different types of rings b that /b are made b entirely of metal. /b , b And furthermore, /b that same disciple b asked: I heard that one distinguishes between /b one type of b needle and /b another type of b needle. /b Still, I do not know with regard to what i halakha /i this distinction is made. Rabbi Eliezer b said to him: Perhaps you only heard /b that distinction b with regard to Shabbat. /b With regard to the prohibition of carrying from a private to a public domain, or vice versa, there is a distinction between a needle with an eye, for which one is liable to bring a sin-offering, and one without an eye, for which one is not. b As, if /b you were to suggest that the distinction is b with regard to ritual impurity, this, /b a needle with an eye, b and that, /b a needle without an eye, b are one /b and the same, and there is no distinction between them.,The Gemara raises an objection: b And /b with regard b to the matter of ritual impurity, are this and that one /b and the same? Are all needles alike? b Didn’t we learn /b in a mishna: b A needle whose eye or whose point was removed is ritually pure, /b as it is no longer fit for use? Apparently, there is a distinction between an intact needle and a broken one with regard to the i halakhot /i of ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: b When /b Rabbi Eliezer b was saying /b that statement b to /b the disciple, he was referring b to a whole /b needle. Indeed, there is no distinction between different types of whole needles with regard to the i halakhot /i of ritual impurity.,The Gemara raises another objection: b And with regard to whole /b needles, b are this and that one /b and the same? Is there no distinction between them? b Didn’t we learn /b in a mishna: With regard to b a needle that became rusty /b ; b if /b the rust b inhibits the sewing, /b the needle b is ritually pure; and if /b it does b not /b inhibit the sewing, b it is ritually impure. And the /b Sages b of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: And that is /b the i halakha /i that the needle cannot become ritually impure not only when it is impossible to push the needle through the fabric, but even b when /b the b mark /b of rusty needle is b conspicuous /b in the stitching. Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of whole needles. The Gemara answers: b When /b Rabbi Eliezer b was saying /b that statement b to /b the disciple, b he was saying to him /b that there is no distinction between different types b of /b needles that were b smoothed /b and filed. He was not referring to rusty needles.,The Gemara raises yet another objection: b And with regard to smoothed /b needles, b are this and that one /b and the same? b Wasn’t it taught in /b a i baraita /i : b A needle, whether it has an eye /b and b whether it does not have an eye, may be moved on Shabbat? And we only said /b that a needle b with an eye /b is different b with regard to /b the i halakhot /i of b ritual impurity. /b Apparently, there is a distinction between different types of smoothed needles with regard to the i halakhot /i of ritual impurity.,The Gemara answers: b Didn’t Abaye /b already b interpret /b that i baraita /i b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rava /b as referring b to unfinished /b needles? If a needle is unfinished, and it has not been perforated to create an eye, it cannot become ritually impure because it is not yet a utensil. However, if the needle is finished, whether it has an eye and is used for sewing, or it does not have an eye and is used as a pin, it is regarded as a utensil and therefore can become ritually impure., strong MISHNA: /strong b A donkey may go out /b on Shabbat b with a saddlecloth /b that protects it from the cold b when it is tied to /b the animal, and there is no room for concern lest it fall. b Rams may go out i levuvin /i . Ewes may go out i sheḥuzot, kevulot, /i and i kevunot /i /b . All of these terms are discussed and explained in the Gemara. b She-goats may go out /b with their udders b bound. Rabbi Yosei prohibits /b the animals from going out b with all /b of b these /b items, as he considers them burdens, b except for the ewes that are i kevunot /i . /b , b Rabbi Yehuda says: Goats may go out /b on Shabbat with their udders b bound to dry /b their milk supply and discontinue their lactation, in order to facilitate conception. In that case, they are tied with a tight, permanent knot, and there is no concern lest it fall in the public domain. b However, /b they may b not /b go out with their udders bound b to /b conserve their b milk, /b as in that case they are bound loosely. |
|
40. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav, identity of Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 128| 22a. שקרא ושנה ולא שימש תלמידי חכמים,אתמר קרא ושנה ולא שימש ת"ח ר' אלעזר אומר הרי זה עם הארץ ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמר הרי זה בור ר' ינאי אומר ה"ז כותי,רב אחא בר יעקב אומר הרי זה מגוש אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מסתברא כרב אחא בר יעקב דאמרי אינשי רטין מגושא ולא ידע מאי אמר תני תנא ולא ידע מאי אמר,ת"ר איזהו ע"ה כל שאינו קורא ק"ש שחרית וערבית בברכותיה דברי ר' מאיר וחכ"א כל שאינו מניח תפילין בן עזאי אומר כל שאין לו ציצית בבגדו ר' יונתן בן יוסף אמר כל שיש לו בנים ואינו מגדלן ללמוד תורה אחרים אומרים אפילו קורא ושונה ולא שימש ת"ח זהו ע"ה,קרא ולא שנה הרי זה בור לא קרא ולא שנה עליו הכתוב אומר (ירמיהו לא, כז) וזרעתי את בית ישראל ואת בית יהודה זרע אדם וזרע בהמה,(משלי כד, כא) ירא את ה' בני ומלך ועם שונים אל תתערב אמר רבי יצחק אלו ששונים הלכות פשיטא מהו דתימא שונין בחטא וכדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא כיון שעבר אדם עבירה ושנה בה הותרה לו קמ"ל,תנא התנאים מבלי עולם מבלי עולם ס"ד אמר רבינא שמורין הלכה מתוך משנתן תניא נמי הכי א"ר יהושע וכי מבלי עולם הן והלא מיישבי עולם הן שנאמר (חבקוק ג, ו) הליכות עולם לו אלא שמורין הלכה מתוך משנתן,אשה פרושה וכו' ת"ר בתולה צליינית ואלמנה שובבית וקטן שלא כלו לו חדשיו הרי אלו מבלי עולם,איני והאמר רבי יוחנן למדנו יראת חטא מבתולה וקיבול שכר מאלמנה יראת חטא מבתולה דר' יוחנן שמעה לההיא בתולה דנפלה אאפה וקאמרה רבש"ע בראת גן עדן ובראת גיהנם בראת צדיקים ובראת רשעים יהי רצון מלפניך שלא יכשלו בי בני אדם,קיבול שכר מאלמנה דההיא אלמנה דהואי בי כנישתא בשיבבותה כל יומא הות אתיא ומצלה בי מדרשיה דר' יוחנן אמר לה בתי לא בית הכנסת בשיבבותך אמרה ליה רבי ולא שכר פסיעות יש לי,כי קאמר כגון יוחני בת רטיבי,מאי קטן שלא כלו לו חדשיו הכא תרגימו זה ת"ח המבעט ברבותיו,רבי אבא אמר זה תלמיד שלא הגיע להוראה ומורה דא"ר אבהו אמר רב הונא אמר רב מאי דכתיב (משלי ז, כו) כי רבים חללים הפילה ועצומים כל הרוגיה כי רבים חללים הפילה זה ת"ח שלא הגיע להוראה ומורה ועצומים כל הרוגיה זה ת"ח שהגיע להוראה ואינו מורה | 22a. is one b who read /b the Written Torah b and learned /b the Mishna b but did not serve Torah scholars /b in order to learn the reasoning behind the i halakhot /i . Since he believes himself knowledgeable, he issues halakhic rulings, but due to his lack of understanding he rules erroneously and is therefore considered wicked. His cunning is in his public display of knowledge, which misleads others into considering him a true Torah scholar., b It was stated: /b With regard to one who b read /b the Written Torah b and learned /b the Mishna b but did not serve Torah scholars, Rabbi Elazar says: This /b person b is an ignoramus. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said: This /b person b is a boor. Rabbi Yannai says: This /b person b is /b comparable to b a Samaritan, /b who follows the Written Torah but not the traditions of the Sages., b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: This /b person b is /b comparable to b a sorcerer [ i magosh /i ], /b who uses his knowledge to mislead people. b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is reasonable to /b accept the opinion of b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, as people say /b proverbially: b The sorcerer chants and does not know what he is saying; /b so too, b the i tanna /i teaches /b the Mishna b and does not know what he is saying. /b ,§ b The Sages taught: Who is an ignoramus [ i am ha’aretz /i ]? /b It is b anyone who does not recite i Shema /i /b in the b morning and evening with its blessings; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: /b It is b anyone who does not don phylacteries. Ben Azzai says: /b It is b anyone who does not have ritual fringes on his garment. Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef said: /b It is b anyone who has sons and does not raise them to study Torah. i Aḥerim /i say: Even if one reads /b the Written Torah b and learns /b the Mishna b but does not serve Torah scholars, he is an ignoramus. /b ,If one b read /b the Written Torah b but did not learn /b the Mishna, b he is a boor. With regard to /b one who b did not read and did not learn /b at all, b the verse states: /b “Behold, the days come, says the Lord, b and I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast” /b (Jeremiah 31:26). One who has not studied at all is comparable to a beast.,The verse states: b “My son, fear the Lord and the king; and meddle not with those who are repeating” /b (Proverbs 24:21). b Rabbi Yitzḥak says: These are /b individuals b who repeatedly learn /b the b i halakhot /i /b but do not know the reasons behind them. The Gemara asks: b Isn’t /b that b obvious? /b How else could the verse be understood? The Gemara answers: He states this b lest you say /b that the verse is referring to individuals who b repeatedly /b commit b sins, and /b this is b in accordance with /b the words of b Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: Once a person committed a transgression and repeated it, /b in his eyes b it became permitted for him. /b Since the verse could be interpreted in this manner, Rabbi Yitzḥak b teaches us /b that the verse is referring to those who learn without understanding., b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The i tanna’im /i , /b who recite the tannaitic sources by rote, b are /b individuals b who erode the world. /b The Gemara is puzzled by this statement: b Could /b it b enter your mind /b that they are individuals b who erode the world? Ravina says: /b This statement is referring to those b who issue halakhic rulings based /b on b their /b knowledge of b i mishnayot /i . This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehoshua said: Are they /b individuals b who erode the world? Aren’t they settling the world, as it is stated: “His ways [ i halikhot /i ] are eternal” /b (Habakkuk 3:6)? The Sages read the term i halikhot /i as i halakhot /i , inferring that one who learns i halakhot /i attains eternal life. b Rather, /b this is referring to those b who issue halakhic rulings based /b on b their /b knowledge of b i mishnayot /i . /b ,§ The mishna states that b an abstinent woman /b is among those who erode the world. b The Sages taught: A maiden who prays /b constantly, b and a neighborly [ i shovavit /i ] widow /b who constantly visits her neighbors, b and a child whose months /b of gestation b were not completed, /b all b these are /b people b who erode the world. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say: We learned /b the meaning of b fear of sin from a maiden, and /b the significance of b receiving /b divine b reward from a widow. /b The meaning of b fear of sin /b can be learned b from a maiden, as Rabbi Yoḥa heard a certain maiden who fell on her face /b in prayer, b and she was saying: Master of the Universe, You created the Garden of Eden and You created Gehenna, You created /b the b righteous and You created /b the b wicked. May it be Your will that men shall not stumble because of me /b and consequently go to Gehenna.,The significance of b receiving /b divine b reward /b can be learned b from a widow, as /b there was b a certain widow in whose neighborhood there was a synagogue, /b and despite this b every day she went and prayed in the study hall of Rabbi Yoḥa. /b Rabbi Yoḥa b said to her: My daughter, /b is there b not a synagogue in your neighborhood? She said to him: My teacher, don’t I attain a reward /b for all b the steps /b I take while walking to pray in the distant study hall?,The Gemara answers: b When it is stated /b in the i baraita /i that a maiden who prays constantly is one who erodes the world, it is referring, b for example, /b to b Yoḥani bat Retivi, /b who constantly prayed and pretended to be saintly but actually engaged in sorcery.,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of b a child whose months /b of gestation b were not completed? Here, /b in Babylonia, b they interpreted this /b as alluding to an imperfect, incomplete b Torah scholar who scorns his teachers. /b , b Rabbi Abba says: This is a student who has not /b yet b attained /b the ability b to issue /b halakhic b rulings, and /b yet b he issues rulings /b and is therefore compared to a prematurely born child. This is b as Rabbi Abbahu says /b that b Rav Huna says /b that b Rav says: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “For she has cast down many wounded; and a mighty host are all her slain” /b (Proverbs 7:26)? b “For she has cast down [ i hippila /i ] many wounded”; this /b is referring to b a Torah scholar who has not /b yet b attained /b the ability b to issue rulings, and /b yet b he issues rulings. “And a mighty host [ i ve’atzumim /i ] are all her slain”; this /b is referring to b a Torah scholar who has attained /b the ability b to issue rulings, but does not issue rulings /b and prevents the masses from learning Torah properly. |
|
41. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 128| 23a. בעתם בלילי רביעיות ובלילי שבתות,שכן מצינו בימי שמעון בן שטח שירדו להם גשמים בלילי רביעיות ובלילי שבתות עד שנעשו חטים ככליות ושעורים כגרעיני זיתים ועדשים כדינרי זהב וצררו מהם דוגמא לדורות להודיע כמה החטא גורם שנאמר (ירמיהו ה, כה) עונותיכם הטו אלה וחטאתיכם מנעו הטוב מכם,וכן מצינו בימי הורדוס שהיו עוסקין בבנין בהמ"ק והיו יורדין גשמים בלילה למחר נשבה הרוח ונתפזרו העבים וזרחה החמה ויצאו העם למלאכתן וידעו שמלאכת שמים בידיהם:,מעשה ששלחו לחוני המעגל וכו': ת"ר פעם אחת יצא רוב אדר ולא ירדו גשמים שלחו לחוני המעגל התפלל וירדו גשמים התפלל ולא ירדו גשמים עג עוגה ועמד בתוכה כדרך שעשה חבקוק הנביא שנאמר (חבקוק ב, א) על משמרתי אעמדה ואתיצבה על מצור וגו',אמר לפניו רבונו של עולם בניך שמו פניהם עלי שאני כבן בית לפניך נשבע אני בשמך הגדול שאיני זז מכאן עד שתרחם על בניך התחילו גשמים מנטפין אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי ראינוך ולא נמות כמדומין אנו שאין גשמים יורדין אלא להתיר שבועתך,אמר לא כך שאלתי אלא גשמי בורות שיחין ומערות ירדו בזעף עד שכל טפה וטפה כמלא פי חבית ושיערו חכמים שאין טפה פחותה מלוג אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי ראינוך ולא נמות כמדומין אנו שאין גשמים יורדין אלא לאבד העולם,אמר לפניו לא כך שאלתי אלא גשמי רצון ברכה ונדבה ירדו כתיקנן עד שעלו כל העם להר הבית מפני הגשמים אמרו לו רבי כשם שהתפללת שירדו כך התפלל וילכו להם אמר להם כך מקובלני שאין מתפללין על רוב הטובה,אעפ"כ הביאו לי פר הודאה הביאו לו פר הודאה סמך שתי ידיו עליו ואמר לפניו רבש"ע עמך ישראל שהוצאת ממצרים אינן יכולין לא ברוב טובה ולא ברוב פורענות כעסת עליהם אינן יכולין לעמוד השפעת עליהם טובה אינן יכולין לעמוד יהי רצון מלפניך שיפסקו הגשמים ויהא ריוח בעולם מיד נשבה הרוח ונתפזרו העבים וזרחה החמה ויצאו העם לשדה והביאו להם כמהין ופטריות,שלח לו שמעון בן שטח אלמלא חוני אתה גוזרני עליך נידוי שאילו שנים כשני אליהו שמפתחות גשמים בידו של אליהו לא נמצא שם שמים מתחלל על ידך,אבל מה אעשה לך שאתה מתחטא לפני המקום ועושה לך רצונך כבן שמתחטא על אביו ועושה לו רצונו ואומר לו אבא הוליכני לרחצני בחמין שטפני בצונן תן לי אגוזים שקדים אפרסקים ורמונים ונותן לו ועליך הכתוב אומר (משלי כג, כה) ישמח אביך ואמך ותגל יולדתך,תנו רבנן מה שלחו בני לשכת הגזית לחוני המעגל (איוב כב, כח) ותגזר אומר ויקם לך ועל דרכיך נגה אור,ותגזר אומר אתה גזרת מלמטה והקדוש ברוך הוא מקיים מאמרך מלמעלה ועל דרכיך נגה אור דור שהיה אפל הארת בתפלתך,כי השפילו ותאמר גוה דור שהיה שפל הגבהתו בתפלתך ושח עינים יושיע דור ששח בעונו הושעתו בתפלתך ימלט אי נקי דור שלא היה נקי מלטתו בתפלתך ונמלט בבור כפיך מלטתו במעשה ידיך הברורין,אמר ר' יוחנן כל ימיו של אותו צדיק היה מצטער על מקרא זה (תהלים קכו, א) שיר המעלות בשוב ה' את שיבת ציון היינו כחולמים אמר מי איכא דניים שבעין שנין בחלמא,יומא חד הוה אזל באורחא חזייה לההוא גברא דהוה נטע חרובא אמר ליה האי עד כמה שנין טעין אמר ליה עד שבעין שנין אמר ליה פשיטא לך דחיית שבעין שנין אמר ליה האי [גברא] עלמא בחרובא אשכחתיה כי היכי דשתלי לי אבהתי שתלי נמי לבראי,יתיב קא כריך ריפתא אתא ליה שינתא נים אהדרא ליה משוניתא איכסי מעינא ונים שבעין שנין כי קם חזייה לההוא גברא דהוה קא מלקט מינייהו אמר ליה את הוא דשתלתיה א"ל בר בריה אנא אמר ליה שמע מינה דניימי שבעין שנין חזא לחמריה דאתיילידא ליה רמכי רמכי,אזל לביתיה אמר להו בריה דחוני המעגל מי קיים אמרו ליה בריה ליתא בר בריה איתא אמר להו אנא חוני המעגל לא הימנוהו אזל לבית המדרש שמעינהו לרבנן דקאמרי נהירן שמעתתין כבשני חוני המעגל דכי הוי עייל לבית מדרשא כל קושיא דהוו להו לרבנן הוה מפרק להו אמר להו אנא ניהו לא הימנוהו ולא עבדי ליה יקרא כדמבעי ליה חלש דעתיה בעי רחמי ומית אמר רבא היינו דאמרי אינשי או חברותא או מיתותא,אבא חלקיה בר בריה דחוני המעגל הוה וכי מצטריך עלמא למיטרא הוו משדרי רבנן לגביה ובעי רחמי ואתי מיטרא זימנא חדא איצטריך עלמא למיטרא שדור רבנן זוגא דרבנן לגביה למבעי רחמי דניתי מיטרא אזול לביתיה ולא אשכחוהו אזול בדברא ואשכחוהו דהוה קא רפיק יהבו ליה שלמא | 23a. b “In their season” /b means b on Wednesday eves, /b i.e., Tuesday nights, b and on Shabbat eves, /b i.e., Friday nights, because at these times people are not out in the streets, either due to fear of demonic forces that were thought to wander on Tuesday nights or due to the sanctity of Shabbat., b As we found /b in b the days of Shimon ben Shetaḥ that rain /b invariably b fell for them on Wednesday eves and on Shabbat eves, until wheat grew /b as big b as kidneys, and barley /b as big b as olive pits, and lentils as golden dinars. And they tied /b up some b of /b these crops as b an example [ i dugma /i ] for /b future b generations, to convey /b to them b how much /b damage b sin causes, as it is stated: /b “The Lord our God, Who gives rain, the former rain and the latter rain, in its season that keeps for us the appointed weeks of the harvest. b Your iniquities have turned away these things, and your sins have withheld the good from you” /b (Jeremiah 5:24–25)., b And we likewise found /b that b in the days of Herod /b that b they were occupied in the building of the Temple, and rain would fall at night. And the next day the wind would blow, the clouds would disperse, the sun would shine, and the people would go out to their work. And /b as rain would fall only at a time when it would not interfere with their labor, the nation b knew /b that b the work of Heaven /b was being performed b by their hands. /b ,§ The mishna taught: b An incident /b occurred in b which /b the people b sent /b a message b to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel. /b This event is related in greater detail in the following i baraita /i . b The Sages taught: Once, most of /b the month of b Adar had passed but rain had /b still b not fallen. They sent /b this message b to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel: Pray, and rain will fall. He prayed, but no rain fell. He drew a circle /b in the dust b and stood inside it, in the manner that the prophet Habakkuk did, as it is stated: “And I will stand upon my watch and set myself upon the tower, /b and I will look out to see what He will say to me, and what I shall answer when I am reproved” (Habakkuk 2:1). This verse is taken to mean that Habakkuk fashioned a kind of prison for himself where he sat.,Ḥoni b said before /b God: b Master of the Universe, Your children have turned their faces toward me, as I am like a member of Your household. /b Therefore, b I take an oath by Your great name that I will not move from here until you have mercy upon Your children /b and answer their prayers for rain. b Rain began to trickle /b down, but only in small droplets. b His students said to him: Rabbi, we have seen /b that b you /b can perform great wonders, b but /b this quantity of rain is not enough to ensure that b we will not die. It appears to us that /b a small amount of b rain is falling only /b to enable you b to dissolve your oath, /b but it is not nearly enough to save us.,Ḥoni b said /b to God: b I did not ask for this, but /b for b rain to /b fill the b cisterns, ditches, and caves. /b Rain b began to fall furiously, until each and every drop /b was as big b as the mouth of a barrel, and the Sages estimated that no drop was less than a i log /i /b in size. b His students said to him: Rabbi, we have seen /b that b you /b can call on God to perform miracles b and we will not die, /b but now b it appears to us that rain is falling only to destroy the world. /b ,Ḥoni again b said before /b God: b I did not ask for this /b harmful rain either, b but /b for b rain of benevolence, blessing, and generosity. /b Subsequently, the rains b fell in their standard manner, until all of the people /b sought higher ground and b ascended to the Temple Mount due to the rain. They said to him: Rabbi, just as you prayed that /b the rains b should fall, so too, pray that they should stop. He said to them: This is /b the tradition that b I received, that one does not pray over an excess of good. /b ,Ḥoni continued: b Nevertheless, bring me a bull. /b I will sacrifice it as b a thanks-offering /b and pray at the same time. b They brought him a bull /b for b a thanks-offering. He placed his two hands on its /b head b and said before /b God: b Master of the Universe, Your nation Israel, whom You brought out of Egypt, cannot /b bear b either an excess of good or an excess of punishment. You grew angry with them /b and withheld rain, b and they are unable to bear /b it. b You bestowed upon them /b too much b good, and they were /b also b unable to bear /b it. b May it be Your will that the rain stop and that there be relief for the world. Immediately, the wind blew, the clouds dispersed, the sun shone, and everyone went out to the fields and gathered for themselves truffles and mushrooms /b that had sprouted in the strong rain., b Shimon ben Shetaḥ relayed to /b Ḥoni HaMe’aggel: b If you were not Ḥoni, I would have decreed ostracism upon you. For were /b these b years like the years of Elijah, when the keys of rain /b were entrusted b in Elijah’s hands, /b and he swore it would not rain, b wouldn’t the name of Heaven have been desecrated by your /b oath not to leave the circle until it rained? Once you have pronounced this oath, either yours or Elijah’s must be falsified., b However, what can I do to you, as you nag God and He does your bidding, like a son who nags his father and /b his father b does his bidding. And /b the son b says to /b his father: b Father, take me to be bathed in hot water; wash me with cold water; give me nuts, almonds, peaches, and pomegranates. And /b his father b gives him. About you, the verse states: “Your father and mother will be glad and she who bore you will rejoice” /b (Proverbs 23:25)., b The Sages taught: What /b message did b the members of the Chamber of the Hewn Stone, /b the Great Sanhedrin, b send to Ḥoni HaMe’aggel? /b About you, the verse states: b “You shall also decree a matter, and it shall be established for you; and the light shall shine upon your ways. /b When they cast down, you will say: There is lifting up, for He saves the humble person. He will deliver the one who is not innocent and he will be delivered through the cleanness of your hands” (Job 22:28–30).,They interpreted: b “You shall also decree a matter”; you, /b Ḥoni, b decree from below, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, fulfills your statement from above. “And the light shall shine upon your ways”; a generation that was in darkness, you have illuminated /b it b with your prayer. /b , b “When they cast down, you will say: There is lifting up”; a generation that was cast down, you lifted it up with your prayer. “For He saves the humble person”; a generation that was humble in its transgression, you saved it through your prayer. “He will deliver the one who is not innocent”; a generation that was not innocent, you have delivered it through your prayer. “And he will be delivered through the cleanness of your hands”; you have delivered /b an undeserving generation b through the clean work of your hands. /b ,§ The Gemara relates another story about Ḥoni HaMe’aggel. b Rabbi Yoḥa said: All the days /b of the life b of that righteous man, /b Ḥoni, b he was distressed over /b the meaning of b this verse: “A song of Ascents: When the Lord brought back those who returned to Zion, we were like those who dream” /b (Psalms 126:1). b He said /b to himself: b Is there /b really a person b who can sleep and dream for seventy years? /b How is it possible to compare the seventy-year exile in Babylonia to a dream?, b One day, he was walking along the road /b when b he saw a certain man planting a carob tree. /b Ḥoni b said to him: This /b tree, b after how many years /b will it b bear /b fruit? The man b said to him: /b It will not produce fruit b until seventy years /b have passed. Ḥoni b said to him: Is it obvious to you that you will live seventy years, /b that you expect to benefit from this tree? b He said to him: That man /b himself b found a world /b full b of carob trees. Just as my ancestors planted for me, I too am planting for my descendants. /b ,Ḥoni b sat and ate bread. Sleep overcame him and he slept. A cliff formed around him, and he disappeared from sight and slept for seventy years. When he awoke, he saw a certain man gathering /b carobs from that tree. Ḥoni b said to him: /b Are b you the one who planted /b this tree? The man b said to him: I am his son’s son. /b Ḥoni b said to him: /b I can b learn from this that I /b have b slept for seventy years, /b and indeed b he saw that his donkey had sired several herds /b during those many years.,Ḥoni b went home and said to /b the members of the household: b Is the son of Ḥoni HaMe’aggel alive? They said to him: His son is no /b longer with us, but b his son’s son is /b alive. b He said to them: I am Ḥoni HaMe’aggel. They did not believe him. He went to the study hall, /b where he b heard the Sages say /b about one scholar: b His i halakhot /i are as enlightening /b and as clear b as in the years of Ḥoni HaMe’aggel, for when /b Ḥoni HaMe’aggel b would enter the study hall he would resolve for the Sages any difficulty they had. /b Ḥoni b said to them: I am he, but they did not believe him and did not pay him proper respect. /b Ḥoni b became very upset, prayed for mercy, and died. Rava said: This /b explains the folk saying b that people say: Either friendship or death, /b as one who has no friends is better off dead.,§ The Gemara relates another story, this time about Ḥoni HaMe’aggel’s descendants, who were also renowned for their righteous deeds. b Abba Ḥilkiyya was the son of Ḥoni HaMe’aggel’s son. And when the world was in need of rain they would send Sages to him, and he would pray for mercy, and rain would fall. Once the world was in need of rain, /b and b the Sages sent a pair of Sages to him /b so b that he would pray for mercy and rain would fall. They went to his house but they did not find him /b there. b They went to the field and found him hoeing /b the ground. b They greeted him, /b |
|
42. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 128| 106a. תנו רבנן חליצה מוטעת כשרה אי זו היא חליצה מוטעת אמר ר"ל כל שאומרים לו חלוץ ובכך אתה כונסה,אמר ליה רבי יוחנן אני שונה בין שנתכוון הוא ולא נתכוונה היא בין שנתכוונה היא ולא נתכוון הוא חליצתה פסולה עד שיתכוונו שניהם כאחד ואת אמרת חליצתה כשירה,אלא כל שאומרים לו חלוץ לה ע"מ שתתן לך מאתים זוז תניא נמי הכי חליצה מוטעת כשירה אי זו היא חליצה מוטעת כל שאומרים חלוץ לה על מנת שתתן לך מאתים זוז,ומעשה באשה אחת שנפלה לפני יבם שאין הגון לה ואמרו לו חלוץ לה על מנת שתתן לך מאתים זוז ובא מעשה לפני רבי חייא והכשירה,ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי חייא בר אבא אמר לה בתי עמודי אמרה ליה אימא ישיבתה זו היא עמידתה אמר לה ידעת ליה אמרה ליה אין ממונא הוא דחזא לה וקבעי למיכליה מינה,אמר לה לא ניחא לך אמרה ליה לא אמר ליה חלוץ לה ובכך אתה כונסה לבתר דחלץ לה אמר ליה השתא מינך אפסלא לה חלוץ לה חליצה מעלייתא כי היכי דתישתרי לעלמא,בת חמוה דרב פפא נפלה לפני יבם שאין הגון לה אתא לקמיה דאביי אמר ליה חלוץ לה ובכך אתה כונסה אמר ליה רב פפא לא סבר לה מר להא דאמר רבי יוחנן ואלא היכי אימא ליה,אמר ליה חלוץ לה ע"מ שתתן לך מאתים זוז לבתר דחלץ לה אמר לה זיל הב ליה אמר ליה משטה אני בך עבדה ליה,מי לא תניא הרי שהיה בורח מבית האסורין והיתה מעברא לפניו ואמר ליה טול דינר והעבירני אין לו אלא שכרו,אלמא אמר ליה משטה אני בך הכא נמי משטה אני בך,אמר ליה אבוך היכא א"ל במתא אימך היכא א"ל במתא יהיב בהו עיניה ושכיבן:,ת"ר חליצה מוטעת כשרה גט מוטעה פסול חליצה מעושית פסולה גט מעושה כשר היכי דמי אי דאמר רוצה אני אפי' חליצה נמי ואי לא אמר רוצה אני גט נמי לא,הכי קאמר חליצה מוטעת לעולם כשר וגט מוטעה לעולם פסול חליצה מעושית וגט מעושה זימנין כשר וזימנין פסול הא דאמר רוצה אני הא דלא אמר רוצה אני,דתניא (ויקרא כב, יח) יקריב אותו מלמד שכופין אותו יכול בעל כרחו ת"ל לרצונו הא כיצד כופין אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני וכן אתה מוצא בגיטי נשים כופין אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני,אמר רבא אמר רב סחורה אמר רב הונא חולצין אע"פ שאין מכירין ממאנין אע"פ שאין מכירין,לפיכך אין כותבין גט חליצה אלא אם כן מכירין ואין כותבין גט מיאון אלא אם כן מכירין דחיישינן לבית דין טועין,ורבא דידיה אומר אין חולצין אלא אם כן מכירין ואין ממאנין אא"כ מכירין לפיכך כותבין גט חליצה אף על פי שאין מכירין וכותבין גט מיאון אף על פי שאין מכירין ולא חיישינן לבית דין טועין: | 106a. § b The Sages taught: A mistaken i ḥalitza /i is valid. /b The Gemara asks: b What constitutes a mistaken i ḥalitza /i ? Reish Lakish said: Any /b case b in which they say /b to a i yavam /i who is not well versed in i halakha /i : b Let her remove /b your shoe, b and in doing so you will take her in /b marriage, i.e., the i yavam /i understands that by allowing i ḥalitza /i he will actually be marrying her. Although he actually intended to marry her, having allowed her to remove his shoe validates the i ḥalitza /i . Subsequently it is prohibited for the woman to marry him, and she is permitted to others., b Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: I teach that whether /b in a case where b he had intended /b to perform valid i ḥalitza /i b and she did not intend, or whether she had intended and he did not intend, the i ḥalitza /i is invalid, unless they both intend together as one /b to perform a proper i ḥalitza /i that would permit her to marry others. b And /b yet b you say /b that in that case when he doesn’t have any intention of permitting her to others, and actually intends to marry her through the act of i ḥalitza /i , b her i ḥalitza /i /b is b valid? /b , b Rather, /b a mistaken i ḥalitza /i that is valid refers to b any /b case b in which they say to him: Let her perform i ḥalitza /i on you, /b with the intention of releasing her bond, b on the condition that she will give you two hundred dinars /b afterward, and even if she does not give him the money the i ḥalitza /i is valid, as the stipulated condition is not binding. b This /b idea of Rabbi Yoḥa is b also taught /b in a i baraita /i b , /b which states: b A mistaken i ḥalitza /i is valid. What constitutes a mistaken i ḥalitza /i ? Any /b case b in which they say: Let her perform i ḥalitza /i /b on you b on condition that she will give you two hundred dinars. /b , b And an incident /b occurred b involving a certain woman, who happened before her i yavam /i /b for levirate marriage, b yet he was not suitable for her, and they, /b the judges, b said to him: Let her perform i ḥalitza /i on the condition that she will give you two hundred dinars. /b Afterward, when she did not pay, b the incident came before Rabbi Ḥiyya and he validated that /b i ḥalitza /i ., b One man came before Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba /b with his i yevama /i in order to have the court convince her to perform a levirate marriage. Rabbi Ḥiyya b said to her: My daughter, stand up, /b for we are beginning to discuss your case now, and the participants must stand. b She said to him: Say that her sitting, /b referring to her desire to remain seated as an act of refusal of even contemplating the possibility of performing levirate marriage, b is /b therefore b tantamount to her standing, /b as levirate marriage is not an option for her. In other words, the option that will enable her to remain standing proud in the future is not to enter into levirate marriage with this man. Rabbi Ḥiyya b said to her: /b Are you acquainted with this i yavam /i and b do you know him /b well enough to know why he wants to perform levirate marriage with you although you are not interested? b She said to him: Yes, it is money that he saw in her, /b a euphemism for herself, b and he wants to consume /b it by taking b it from her, /b and therefore he wishes to enter levirate marriage.,Rabbi Ḥiyya b said to her: Is /b he b not amenable to you? She said to him: No, /b I am certain he is not good for me. Rabbi Ḥiyya accepted her wish, but knowing that the i yavam /i was adamant in his desire to marry her, b he said /b to the i yavam /i : b Let her remove /b your shoe, b and in doing so you will take her in /b marriage, for he wanted to mislead him into allowing i ḥalitza /i , which would disqualify a subsequent levirate marriage between them. b After he allowed her to perform i ḥalitza /i , /b Rabbi Ḥiyya b said /b to the i yavam /i : b Now, she is disqualified for you /b forever, since you allowed her to perform i ḥalitza /i . Although you thought it was an act of marriage, she is no longer permitted to marry you, so you have nothing to lose if you permit her to marry others. Therefore, allow her b to perform valid proper i ḥalitza /i , so she will be permitted to others. /b By performing a second i ḥalitza /i , even Rabbi Yoḥa, who disqualified this form of a mistaken i ḥalitza /i , would have no problem permitting her to remarry based on the second i ḥalitza /i .,It is told: b The daughter of Rav Pappa’s father-in-law, /b i.e., his sister-in-law, b happened before her i yavam /i /b for levirate marriage, b yet he was not suitable for her, /b although he wished to perform levirate marriage. The case b came before Abaye. /b Abaye b said to /b the i yavam /i : b Let her remove /b your shoe, b and in doing so you will take her in /b marriage. b Rav Pappa said to him: Does the Master, /b i.e., do you, b not accept what Rabbi Yoḥa said, /b that this type of i ḥalitza /i does not work at all? Abaye said to him: b But what shall I say to him? /b , b He said to /b Abaye that he should say to him as Rabbi Yoḥa himself suggested: b Let her perform i ḥalitza /i on the condition that she will give you two hundred dinars. /b Convince him to allow i ḥalitza /i on the basis that he will profit ficially from it. Abaye told the i yavam /i to do so and he did. b After he let her perform i ḥalitza /i , /b Abaye b said to /b Rav Pappa’s sister-in-law: b Go give him /b the money, for you have agreed to give him two hundred dinars. Rav Pappa b said /b to Abaye on her behalf that a case of: b I was fooling you, /b was what b she did to him. /b She never seriously intended to give him the money when accepting his stipulated condition, and even though the i ḥalitza /i is valid one cannot force her to pay., b Isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who was running away from prison /b and came b upon a ferry. He said to /b the ferry man: b Take a dinar, /b i.e., he offered to pay an amount much larger than the standard fee, b and take me across /b the river. Despite the escapee’s commitment, it is ruled in the i baraita /i that the ferryman b receives nothing other than his usual rate, /b as the escapee is legally exempt from paying the higher amount he had agreed to pay., b Apparently, one /b could have b said /b in such a case: b I was deceiving you /b and never really intended to live up to my side of the agreement, and therefore it is not an actual debt. b Here too, /b she may say to him: b I was fooling you, /b and she is therefore exempt from paying the two hundred dinars. Abaye heard this and agreed.,Abaye was amazed at Rav Pappa’s sharpness, as he was a young man at the time of this incident. Therefore, b he said /b to Rav Pappa: b Where is your father? He said to him: /b He is b in the city. Where is your mother? He said: In the city. /b Abaye, who was orphaned in his youth, felt that a large part of Rav Pappa’s success came because his parents lived in close proximity to him and provided for all his needs, freeing him from any need to get involved in business affairs and enabling him to immerse himself in Torah without distractions. Abaye felt a twinge of jealousy and b set his gaze upon them, /b Rav Pappa’s parents, in the pain that he did not have similarly supportive parents, b and both /b Rav Pappa’s father and mother b died. /b ,§ b The Sages taught: A mistaken i ḥalitza /i is valid, /b while b a mistaken bill of divorce is invalid. A coerced i ḥalitza /i is invalid, /b while b a coerced bill of divorce is valid. /b The Gemara clarifies: b What are the circumstances /b of a coerced bill of divorce? b If /b they force him until b he says: I want to /b give the bill of divorce, b then even /b this type of b i ḥalitza /i also /b should be valid, as although he was initially coerced, he acquiesced. b And if he did not say /b by the end of the giving of the bill of divorce: b I want to /b divorce her, then b even this /b type of coerced b bill of divorce /b should b also not /b be acceptable.,The Gemara answers that b this is what /b the Sage b said: A mistaken i ḥalitza /i is always valid, /b while b a mistaken bill of divorce is always invalid. A coerced i ḥalitza /i and a coerced bill of divorce are sometimes valid and sometimes invalid. /b How so? With regard to b the one who says /b after being coerced: b I want to /b give the bill of divorce, it is effective, although he says this as a result of being under compulsion. With regard to b the one who does not say: I want to /b give the bill of divorce, the divorce is invalid., b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : It is said with regard to some offerings: b “He shall offer it” /b (Leviticus 1:3). This b teaches that they may coerce him /b to bring the offering he owes. b I might have thought this means /b that he brings the offering totally b against his will. Therefore, the /b continuation of that b verse states: “In accordance with his will” /b (Leviticus 1:3). b How /b can b these /b two contradictory expositions b be /b reconciled? b They coerce him /b by imposing fines or penalties b until he says: I want to. And similarly, you find the same /b principle b with respect to bills of divorce for women, /b as it is prohibited for anyone other than the husband to write the bill of divorce, but b they coerce him until he says: I want to /b divorce her, and then write the bill of divorce on his behalf.,§ b Rava said /b that b Rav Seḥora said /b that b Rav Huna said: /b Judges can allow a man and woman to b conduct i ḥalitza /i even if /b the judges b do not recognize /b the participants. In other words, even if they do not have complete testimony before them that proves that these two people are a i yavam /i and a i yevama /i , if two people wish to perform i ḥalitza /i , the judges are not required to check their identities. Likewise, with regard to women b making declarations of refusal: /b If a young woman after reaching majority comes to make a declaration of refusal against her husband, she may do so, b even if /b witnesses b do not recognize /b her and they do not know for sure that she is the wife of the supposed husband., b Therefore, /b in cases where the woman is not identified, although the court may perform i ḥalitza /i and refusals, it b may not write a document of i ḥalitza /i , /b i.e., a document attesting that i ḥalitza /i took place, b unless they, /b the judges, b recognize her. And /b witnesses to the act b may not write a document of a declaration of refusal, /b i.e., a document attesting that a refusal took place, b unless they, /b the judges, b recognize /b the woman, b as we are concerned /b about the possibility b of a mistaken court. /b Perhaps a court will not know that such a document is not complete proof that the action was conducted properly, and will consider it as proof that it was the i yevama /i in this document who removed the shoe, or the wife in this document who made a declaration of refusal. Since the first court can conduct i ḥalitza /i and refusals without accepting witnesses attesting to the identities of the involved parties, a second court cannot rely on these attesting documents alone, but must verify the identities before declaring the women eligible for marriage., b And Rava himself said /b the opposite of what he quoted in the name of others: A court b may not conduct i ḥalitza /i unless they, /b the judges, b recognize /b the participants, b and /b a court b may not convene a declaration of refusal unless they, /b the judges, b recognize /b the young woman. b Therefore, /b witnesses b may write a document of i ḥalitza /i even if they do not recognize /b the women themselves, as one who witnessed a court conduct i ḥalitza /i can be sure that the court already checked the party’s identities thoroughly. b And /b witnesses b may write a document of refusal even if they do not recognize /b the young woman who has refused, relying on the fact that witnesses must have already attested to their identities. b And we need not be concerned about /b the possibility of b a mistaken court, /b as there is no reason to fear that the first court conducted the case without properly identifying the participants. |
|
| 43. Anon., Bundahishn, None (5th cent. CE - 7th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav Found in books: Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 62 |
46. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 164; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 164| 70a. יצרא דיין נסך לא תקיף להו זונה ישראלית ועובדי כוכבים מסובין חמרא אסור מ"ט הואיל וזילה עלייהו בתרייהו גרירא,ההוא ביתא דהוה יתיב ביה חמרא דישראל על עובד כוכבים אחדה לדשא באפיה והוה ביזעא בדשא אישתכח עובד כוכבים דקאי ביני דני אמר רבא כל דלהדי ביזעא שרי דהאי גיסא והאי גיסא אסור,ההוא חמרא דישראל דהוה יתיב בביתא דהוה דייר ישראל בעליונה ועובד כוכבים בתחתונה שמעו קל תיגרא נפקי קדים אתא עובד כוכבים אחדה לדשא באפיה אמר רבא חמרא שרי מימר אמר כי היכי דקדים אתאי אנא קדים ואתא ישראל ויתיב בעליונה וקא חזי לי,ההוא אושפיזא דהוה יתיב ביה חמרא דישראל אישתכח עובד כוכבים דהוה יתיב בי דני אמר רבא אם נתפס עליו כגנב שרי ואי לא אסיר,ההוא ביתא דהוה יתיב ביה חמרא אישתכח עובד כוכבים דהוה קאים בי דני אמר רבא אי אית ליה לאישתמוטי חמרא אסיר ואי לא חמרא שרי מיתיבי ננעל הפונדק או שאמר לו שמור אסור מאי לאו אע"ג דלית ליה לאישתמוטי לא בדאית ליה לאישתמוטי,ההוא ישראל ועובד כוכבים דהוו יתיבי וקא שתו חמרא שמע ישראל קל צלויי בי כנישתא קם ואזל אמר רבא חמרא שרי מימר אמר השתא מדכר ליה לחמריה והדר אתי,ההוא ישראל ועובד כוכבים דהוו יתיבי בארבא שמע ישראל קל שיפורי דבי שימשי נפק ואזל אמר רבא חמרא שרי מימר אמר השתא מדכר ליה לחמריה והדר אתי,ואי משום שבתא האמר רבא אמר לי איסור גיורא כי הוינן בארמיותן אמרינן יהודאי לא מנטרי שבתא דאי מנטרי שבתא כמה כיסי קא משתכחי בשוקא ולא ידענא דסבירא לן כרבי יצחק דא"ר יצחק המוצא כיס בשבת מוליכו פחות פחות מד' אמות,ההוא אריא דהוה נהים במעצרתא שמע עובד כוכבים טשא ביני דני אמר רבא חמרא שרי מימר אמר כי היכי דטשינא אנא איטשא נמי ישראל אחוריי וקא חזי לי,הנהו גנבי דסלקי לפומבדיתא ופתחו חביתא טובא אמר רבא חמרא שרי מ"ט רובא גנבי ישראל נינהו הוה עובדא בנהרדעי ואמר שמואל חמרא שרי,כמאן כרבי אליעזר דאמר ספק ביאה טהור,דתנן הנכנס לבקעה בימות הגשמים וטומאה בשדה פלונית ואמר הלכתי במקום הלז ואיני יודע אם נכנסתי לאותה שדה אם לא נכנסתי ר"א אומר ספק ביאה טהור ספק מגע טמא,לא שאני התם כיון דאיכא דפתחי לשום ממונא הוה ליה ספק ספיקא | 70a. but b the passion for wine /b used for b a libation does not overwhelm their /b judgment, and they will not allow her to use it for a libation. In the case of b a Jewish prostitute and gentiles dining /b with her, b the wine /b is b forbidden. What is the reason? /b It is that b since she is contemptible in their /b eyes, b she is subjugated to them, /b and they use the wine for a libation without consideration for her.,§ The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving b a certain house where Jews’ wine was stored. A gentile entered /b the house, and b he locked the door before /b the Jew, b but there was a crack in the door, /b and b the gentile was found standing between the barrels. Rava said: All /b the barrels b that were opposite the crack /b through which the gentile could be seen are b permitted, /b because he would have been wary about being seen tampering with them. Barrels b on this side and that side /b of the crack, where the gentile could not be seen, are b forbidden, /b as perhaps the gentile used them for a libation.,The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving b a certain Jew’s wine that was stored in /b the lower story of b a house, /b in b which the Jew was living in the upper /b story b and a gentile in the lower /b story, and the wine could be supervised from the upper story. One day the residents b heard a sound of quarreling /b and b went outside. The gentile came /b back in b first /b and b locked the door before /b the Jew. b Rava said: The wine /b is b permitted, /b because the gentile presumably b said /b to himself: b Just as I came /b back in b early, /b perhaps my neighbor the b Jew came /b back in b early and is sitting in the upper /b story b and watching me, /b and therefore he would not use the wine for a libation.,The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving b a certain inn [ i ushpiza /i ] where a Jew’s wine was stored, /b and b a gentile was found sitting among the barrels. Rava said: If he was caught as a thief, /b i.e., if the gentile seemed startled and did not have a good explanation for being there, the wine is b permitted, /b as the gentile was presumably afraid about being caught and would not have used it for a libation. b But if not, /b the wine is b forbidden. /b ,The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving b a certain house where wine was stored. A gentile was found standing among the barrels. Rava said: If he has /b a way b to excuse /b his entrance to where the wine was stored, b the wine /b is b forbidden, but if not, the wine /b is b permitted. /b The Gemara b raises an objection /b to this ruling from a i baraita /i : If b an inn was locked /b and a gentile was inside, b or /b if the Jew b said to /b the gentile: b Safeguard /b my wine, the wine is b forbidden. What, is it not /b forbidden b even if /b the gentile b does not have /b a way b to excuse /b his entrance? The Gemara answers: b No, /b the i baraita /i is referring to a situation b where he does have /b a way b to excuse /b his entrance; otherwise the wine is permitted.,The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving b a certain Jew and /b a certain b gentile who were sitting and drinking wine. /b The b Jew heard the sound of praying at the synagogue. He got up and went /b to pray. b Rava said: The wine /b is b permitted, /b because the gentile presumably b said /b to himself: Any moment b now he will remember his wine and come back. /b ,The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving b a certain Jew and /b a certain b gentile who were sitting on a ship. /b The b Jew heard the sound of the shofar of twilight /b indicating the beginning of Shabbat. b He disembarked and went /b into town to spend Shabbat there. b Rava said: The wine /b is b permitted, /b because the gentile presumably b said /b to himself: Any moment b now he will remember his wine and come back. /b ,The Gemara comments: b And if /b one might object that the gentile is presumably not concerned b because /b he knows that the Jew will not return until the end of b Shabbat, didn’t Rava say: Issur the Convert told me: When we were /b still b gentiles, /b before converting, b we /b used to b say: Jews do not /b actually b observe Shabbat, as, if they observe Shabbat, how many wallets would be found in the marketplace /b that the Jews could not take on Shabbat? b And I did not know that we maintain /b that the i halakha /i is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: One who finds a wallet on Shabbat may carry it /b in increments of b less than four cubits. /b Evidently, gentiles assume that a Jew would violate Shabbat for monetary gain.,The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving b a certain lion who roared in a winepress. A gentile heard /b the roar and was frightened, and b he hid among the barrels /b of wine. b Rava said: The wine /b is b permitted, /b because the gentile presumably b said /b to himself: b Just as I am hiding, a Jew /b might b also /b be b hiding behind me and see me. /b ,The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving b certain thieves who came to Pumbedita and opened many barrels /b of wine. b Rava said: The wine /b is b permitted. What is the reason? Most of the thieves /b in Pumbedita b are Jews, /b and the i halakha /i follows the majority, and therefore the wine is not rendered forbidden. b There was /b a similar b incident in Neharde’a, and Shmuel said: The wine /b is b permitted. /b ,The Gemara asks: b In accordance with whose /b opinion is this? Perhaps it is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer, who says /b with regard to cases of uncertainty concerning ritual purity that if the b uncertainty /b is with regard to a person’s b entry /b into a certain place, he is deemed b pure. /b ,This is b as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Teharot /i 6:5): With regard to b one who enters into a valley during the rainy season, /b i.e., winter, when people generally do not enter this area, b and /b there was b ritual impurity in such and such a field, and /b he b said: /b I know b I walked to that place, /b i.e., I walked in the valley, b but I do not know whether I entered that field /b where the ritual impurity was b or whether I did not /b enter, b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b In a case of b uncertainty /b with regard to b entry, /b i.e., it is uncertain whether he entered the area where the ritual impurity is located, he is b ritually pure. /b But if he certainly entered the area where the ritual impurity is located and the b uncertainty /b pertains to b contact /b with the source of ritual impurity, he is b ritually impure. /b Apparently, the ruling of Shmuel, that in a case where it is uncertain whether gentile thieves entered the house at all the wine is permitted, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.,The Gemara rejects this: b No, /b it b is different there, /b with regard to the wine barrels. b Since there are /b thieves b who open /b barrels b for the sake of /b perhaps finding b money /b in them and are not interested in the wine, b it is /b a case of b compound uncertainty, /b as it is uncertain whether the thieves were gentiles or Jews, and even if they were gentiles, it is uncertain whether or not they touched the wine. In a case of compound uncertainty, everyone agrees that the wine is not forbidden. |
|
51. Babylonian Talmud, Zevahim, None Tagged with subjects: •ashi, rav Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007), The Cambridge Companion to the Talmud and Rabbinic Literature Cambridge Companions to Religion, 181| 19a. כנגד אצילי ידיהן,אמר רב אשי אמר לי הונא בר נתן זימנא חדא הוה קאימנא קמיה דאיזגדר מלכא והוה מדלי לי המיינאי ותיתייה ניהליה ואמר לי (שמות יט, ו) ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש כתיב בכו כי אתאי קמיה דאמימר א"ל אקיים בך (ישעיהו מט, כג) והיו מלכים אומניך:,תנן התם כהן שלקה באצבעו כורך עליה גמי במקדש אבל לא במדינה ואם להוציא ממנה דם כאן וכאן אסור,אמר ר' יהודה בריה דרבי חייא לא שנו אלא גמי אבל צילצול קטן הוי יתור בגדים ורבי יוחנן אמר לא אמרו יתור בגדים אלא במקום בגדים אבל שלא במקום בגדים לא הוי יתור,ותיפוק ליה משום חציצה בשמאל א"נ שלא במקום עבודה,ופליגא דרבא דאמר רבא אמר רב חסדא במקום בגדים אפי' נימא אחת חוצצת שלא במקום בגדים שלש על שלש חוצצות פחות מכאן אינן חוצצות,אדרבי יוחנן ודאי פליגא אדר' יהודה בריה דרבי חייא מי לימא דפליגא,שאני צילצול קטן דחשיב,לישנא אחרינא אמרי לה אמר ר' יהודה בריה דרבי חייא לא שנו אלא גמי אבל צילצול קטן חוצץ ורבי יוחנן אמר לא אמרו חציצה בפחות משלש על שלש אלא במקום בגדים אבל שלא במקום בגדים שלש על שלש חוצצות פחות מיכן אינה חוצצת והיינו דרבא אמר רב חסדא,לימא פליגא אדר' יהודה בריה דרבי חייא שאני צילצול קטן דחשיב,ולר' יוחנן מאי איריא גמי לשמועינן צילצול קטן מילתא אגב אורחיה קמ"ל דגמי מסי,בעי רבא נכנסה לו רוח בבגדו מהו על בשרו בעינן והא ליכא או דלמא דרך לבישה בכך,כינה מהו שתחוץ,מתה לא תבעי לך דודאי חייצא חיה מאי מי אמרינן כיון דאתא ואזלא רביתא היא ולא חייצא או דלמא כיון דקפיד עלה חייצא,עפר מהו שיחוץ עפר ודאי חייץ אלא אבק עפר מהו,בית השחי מהו שיחוץ על בשרו בעינן והא ליכא או דלמא דרך לבישה בכך,הכניס ידו לתוך חיקו מהו גופו מי חייץ או לא,נימא מהו שתחוץ נימא ודאי חייצא אלא נימא מדולדלת מהו,בעי מר בר רב אשי יצא שערו בבגדו מהו שערו כגופו דמי או לאו כגופו דמי,בעי רבי זירא תפילין מהו שיחוצו אליבא דמאן דאמר לילה לאו זמן תפילין הוא לא תבעי לך כיון דלילה חייצי יום נמי חייצי כי תיבעי לך למ"ד לילה זמן תפילין מאי מצוה דגופיה חייץ או לא חייץ,איגלגל מילתא ומטא לקמיה דרבי אמי א"ל תלמוד ערוך הוא בידינו תפילין חוצצות,מיתיבי כהנים בעבודתן ולוים בדוכנן וישראל במעמדן פטורין מן התפלה ומן התפילין מאי לאו אם הניחן אינן חוצצות לא אם הניחן חוצצות,א"ה פטורים אסורים מיבעי ליה כיון דאיכא לוים וישראל דלא מתנו ליה אסור משום הכי תנא פטורין,והתניא אם הניחן אינן חוצצות לא קשיא הא דיד הא דראש,מאי שנא דיד דכתיב (ויקרא ו, ג) ילבש על בשרו שלא יהא דבר חוצץ בינו לבשרו דראש נמי כתיב (שמות כט, ו) ושמת המצנפת על ראשו,תנא שערו היה נראה בין ציץ למצנפת | 19a. b at the level of their elbows. /b , b Rav Ashi says: Huna bar Natan said to me: Once, I was standing before Izgadar, king /b of Persia, b and my belt was raised /b above its appropriate height, b and he lowered it /b into place b and said to me: “A kingdom of priests, and a holy nation” /b (Exodus 19:6), b is written about you; /b therefore, you should always look dignified. b When I came before Ameimar /b and recounted this incident, b he said to me: With regard to you, /b God’s promise to Israel: b “And kings shall be your foster fathers” /b (Isaiah 49:23), b was fulfilled. /b ,§ With regard to the priestly vestments, b we learned /b in a mishna b elsewhere /b ( i Eiruvin /i 103b): b A priest who was injured on his finger /b on Shabbat may temporarily b wrap it with a reed /b so that his wound is not visible while he is serving in the Temple. This leniency applies b in the Temple, but not in /b the rest of b the country, /b as the reed also heals the wound, and medical treatment is prohibited on Shabbat by rabbinic decree. b But if /b his intention is b to draw blood from /b the wound, b it is prohibited /b both b here and there. /b , b Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: They taught only /b that b a reed /b is permitted. b But a small sash [ i tziltzul /i ] /b as a bandage b is /b considered b an extra garment /b and is therefore forbidden, since it is prohibited for a priest to add to the priestly vestments prescribed by the Torah. b And Rabbi Yoḥa says: They said /b that wearing b extra garments /b is prohibited b only /b if the extra garment is worn b in a place /b on the priest’s body where the requisite b vestments /b are worn. b But /b if the sash is b in a place /b on his body where the b vestments /b are b not /b worn, e.g., on his hand, it b is not /b considered b an extra /b garment.,The Gemara challenges: b And let /b Rabbi Yoḥa b derive /b that a sash is prohibited b because /b it acts as b an interposition /b between the priest’s hand and the sacred vessel he grips, which disqualifies the service. The Gemara rejects this: Rabbi Yoḥa is referring to a case where the wound is b on /b the priest’s b left /b hand. Since the entire service is performed exclusively with his right hand, a bandage on his left hand is not an interposition. b Alternatively, /b the wound is on the priest’s right hand, but b not in a place /b used for the b service, /b such that the bandage does not interpose between his hand and the sacred vessel., b And /b Rabbi Yoḥa b disagrees /b with the opinion b of Rava, as Rava says /b that b Rav Ḥisda says: In a place /b on the priest’s body where the b vestments /b are worn, b even one /b extra b thread interposes /b and is prohibited, whereas b in a place /b on his body where the b vestments /b are b not /b worn, if the fabric is b three /b fingerbreadths b by three /b fingerbreadths b it interposes, /b but if it is b less than that it does not interpose. /b ,The Gemara notes: Rava b certainly disagrees with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yoḥa, /b who holds that fabric of any size that is in a place on his body where the vestments are not worn is not considered an interposition. b Shall we say /b that b he /b also b disagrees with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, /b who deems any sash an interposition, even one smaller than three by three fingerbreadths?,The Gemara responds: Even according to Rava, b a small sash is different, as it is significant, /b and it is therefore considered a garment even if it is less than three by three fingerbreadths., b Some say /b that there is b another version /b of the dispute: b Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says /b that b they taught only /b that b a reed /b is permitted, b but a small sash interposes. And Rabbi Yoḥa says: They said /b that an item acts as b an interposition when /b it is b less than three by three /b fingerbreadths b only in a place /b on the priest’s body where the b vestments /b are worn. b But in a place /b on his body where the b vestments /b are b not /b worn, the following distinction applies: If the fabric is b three /b fingerbreadths b by three /b fingerbreadths, b it interposes, /b but if it is b less than this, it does not interpose. And this is /b the same ruling b that Rava /b says that b Rav Ḥisda says. /b ,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that Rava b disagrees with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, /b who deems any sash an interposition, even one smaller than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths. The Gemara rejects this: This is not necessarily so, as b a small sash is different, since it is significant. /b It is therefore like a vestment, even if it is smaller than three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths.,The Gemara raises a question: b And according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yoḥa, why /b does the mishna teach the i halakha /i b specifically /b with regard to b a reed? Let /b the mishna b teach us /b that a priest may wrap his wounded finger with b a small sash, /b since this would teach the greater novelty that although a sash is significant, it does not constitute an interposition. The Gemara responds: b It teaches us a matter in passing, that a reed heals. /b ,§ b Rava raises a dilemma: /b If a gust of b wind entered /b the priest’s b vestment, /b raising it slightly off his body, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? Do b we require /b that the vestment be: b “Upon his body” /b (Leviticus 6:3), in a literal sense, b and this /b is b not /b the case when the wind raises his vestment? b Or perhaps /b the service is valid because b this /b is the normal b manner of wearing /b clothes.,Furthermore, b what is /b the i halakha /i with regard to b a louse /b found under the priest’s vestments? b Does it interpose /b between the vestments and his body, disqualifying the service?,The Gemara clarifies: b Do not raise a dilemma /b with regard to b a dead /b louse, b as /b it b certainly interposes, /b like any other item. Rather, b what /b is the i halakha /i with regard to b a live /b louse? b Do we say /b that b since it comes and goes, /b i.e., it moves around on his body, b it is /b like b a growth and does not interpose? Or perhaps, since he objects to its /b presence, b it interposes? /b ,Furthermore, b what is /b the i halakha /i with regard to b dirt /b found under the priest’s vestments? b Does it interpose? /b The Gemara objects: But b dirt certainly interposes. /b The Gemara clarifies: b Rather, /b the question is: b What is /b the i halakha /i with regard to b dust of dirt, /b i.e., a minute amount of dust?,Furthermore, b what is /b the i halakha /i with regard to the gap between the underarm of the vestment and the priest’s b armpit? Does it interpose? /b Do b we require /b that the vestment is b “upon his body” /b in a literal sense, b and this /b is b not /b the case? b Or perhaps /b the service is valid since b this /b is the normal b manner of wearing /b clothes.,Furthermore, if the priest b inserted his hand into /b his vestments and touched b his chest, what is /b the i halakha /i ? b Does his body interpose or not? /b ,Furthermore, b what is /b the i halakha /i with regard to b a thread [ i nima /i ]? Does it interpose? /b The Gemara interjects: But b a thread certainly interposes. Rather, /b the question is: b What is /b the i halakha /i with regard to b a thread /b that b hangs /b off the vestment itself and will soon fall off? Is such a thread considered as though it has already detached from the vestment, in which case it interposes?, b Mar bar Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: /b If b his hair emerged /b from his head and extended b into his vestment /b and separated it from his skin, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? b Is his hair considered like his body, /b in which case it does not interpose, b or is it not considered like his body? /b , b Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: What is /b the i halakha /i with regard to b phylacteries? Do they interpose? /b The Gemara clarifies: b According to /b the opinion b of one who says /b that b night is not /b an appropriate b time /b to don b phylacteries, do not raise the dilemma. Since they interpose /b at b night, they also interpose /b during the b day. /b Rather, b when you raise the dilemma, /b do so b according to the one who says /b that b night is /b an appropriate b time /b to don b phylacteries. /b According to this opinion, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? b Does a mitzva /b that one fulfills b with his body interpose, or does it not interpose? /b ,This b matter circulated and /b eventually b came before Rabbi Ami, /b who b said to him: It is a settled tradition in our possession /b that b phylacteries interpose. /b ,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : b Priests in their service; and Levites on their platform /b in the Temple, where they recite songs; b and Israelites at their watches, /b where they observe the sacrifice of the daily offering, b are /b all b exempt from prayer and from /b donning b phylacteries. What, is it not /b that the term: Exempt, indicates that b if they donned /b phylacteries anyway, b they do not interpose? /b Apparently, priests may wear phylacteries while performing the Temple service. The Gemara responds: b No, if they donned /b phylacteries, b they interpose. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If so, /b why does the i baraita /i use the word: b Exempt? It should have /b used the word: b Prohibited, /b since wearing phylacteries disqualifies the priests’ service. The Gemara responds: b Since there are /b also b Levites and Israelites /b mentioned in the i baraita /i , b concerning whom /b the i baraita /i could b not teach /b the word: b Prohibited, /b as it is permitted for them to don phylacteries, b due to that /b reason the i baraita /i b taught /b the word: b Exempt, /b which is applicable to all.,The Gemara challenges: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b If /b a priest b donned /b phylacteries b they do not interpose? /b The Gemara responds: That is b not difficult. This /b i baraita /i , which teaches that phylacteries interpose is referring to the phylacteries b of the hand, /b whereas b that /b i baraita /i , which teaches that they do not is referring to the phylacteries b of the head. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is different /b about the phylacteries b of the hand /b that only they interpose? The verse indicates the difference, b as it is written /b with regard to the vestments covering the body: b “Shall he put upon his body” /b (Leviticus 6:3), indicating b that nothing may interpose between /b the vestment b and his body. /b The Gemara challenges: But there is b also /b a verse b written with regard to the head: “And you shall set the mitre upon his head” /b (Exodus 29:6), indicating that there must be no interposition between the mitre and the head. If so, the phylacteries of the head should be considered an interposition as well.,The Gemara responds: The Sages b taught: The hair of /b the High Priest b was visible between the frontplate and the mitre. /b The frontplate was set on the forehead, below the hairline, while the mitre was set above it; |
|
