| 1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, a b c d\n0 21 21 21 None\n1 23 23 23 None\n2 22 22 22 None\n3 20 20 20 None\n4 9 9 9 None\n5 1 1 1 None\n6 . . \n7 2 2 2 None\n8 3 3 3 None\n9 - None\n10 9.1 9.1 9 1 \n11 19 19 19 None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 29 |
2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 15.26, 34.27 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 278; Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 88| 15.26. "וַיֹּאמֶר אִם־שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמַע לְקוֹל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ וְהַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו תַּעֲשֶׂה וְהַאֲזַנְתָּ לְמִצְוֺתָיו וְשָׁמַרְתָּ כָּל־חֻקָּיו כָּל־הַמַּחֲלָה אֲשֶׁר־שַׂמְתִּי בְמִצְרַיִם לֹא־אָשִׂים עָלֶיךָ כִּי אֲנִי יְהוָה רֹפְאֶךָ׃", 34.27. "וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה כְּתָב־לְךָ אֶת־הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה כִּי עַל־פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה כָּרַתִּי אִתְּךָ בְּרִית וְאֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל׃", | 15.26. "and He said: ‘If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in His eyes, and wilt give ear to His commandments, and keep all His statutes, I will put none of the diseases upon thee, which I have put upon the Egyptians; for I am the LORD that healeth thee.’", 34.27. "And the LORD said unto Moses: ‘Write thou these words, for after the tenor of these words I have made a covet with thee and with Israel.’", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, a b c d\n0 26.5 26.5 26 5 \n1 8 8 8 None\n2 48 48 48 None\n3 . . \n4 5 5 5 None\n5 9 9 9 None\n6 4 4 4 None\n7 3 3 3 None\n8 2 2 2 None\n9 47 47 47 None\n10 50 50 50 None\n11 49 49 49 None\n12 46 46 46 None\n13 49.33 49.33 49 33 \n14 35.29 35.29 35 29 \n15 - None\n16 6 6 6 None\n17 25.8 25.8 25 8 \n18 0 0 0 None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 95, 96| 26.5. "עֵקֶב אֲשֶׁר־שָׁמַע אַבְרָהָם בְּקֹלִי וַיִּשְׁמֹר מִשְׁמַרְתִּי מִצְוֺתַי חֻקּוֹתַי וְתוֹרֹתָי׃", | 26.5. "because that Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.’", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 23.10-23.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 93| 23.11. "וְהֵנִיף אֶת־הָעֹמֶר לִפְנֵי יְהוָה לִרְצֹנְכֶם מִמָּחֳרַת הַשַּׁבָּת יְנִיפֶנּוּ הַכֹּהֵן׃", 23.12. "וַעֲשִׂיתֶם בְּיוֹם הֲנִיפְכֶם אֶת־הָעֹמֶר כֶּבֶשׂ תָּמִים בֶּן־שְׁנָתוֹ לְעֹלָה לַיהוָה׃", 23.13. "וּמִנְחָתוֹ שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרֹנִים סֹלֶת בְּלוּלָה בַשֶּׁמֶן אִשֶּׁה לַיהוָה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ וְנִסְכֹּה יַיִן רְבִיעִת הַהִין׃", 23.14. "וְלֶחֶם וְקָלִי וְכַרְמֶל לֹא תֹאכְלוּ עַד־עֶצֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה עַד הֲבִיאֲכֶם אֶת־קָרְבַּן אֱלֹהֵיכֶם חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם בְּכֹל מֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם׃", 23.15. "וּסְפַרְתֶּם לָכֶם מִמָּחֳרַת הַשַּׁבָּת מִיּוֹם הֲבִיאֲכֶם אֶת־עֹמֶר הַתְּנוּפָה שֶׁבַע שַׁבָּתוֹת תְּמִימֹת תִּהְיֶינָה׃", | 23.10. "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: When ye are come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring the sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest unto the priest.", 23.11. "And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you; on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.", 23.12. "And in the day when ye wave the sheaf, ye shall offer a he-lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt-offering unto the LORD.", 23.13. "And the meal-offering thereof shall be two tenth parts of an ephah of fine flour mingled with oil, an offering made by fire unto the LORD for a sweet savour; and the drink-offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of a hin.", 23.14. "And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this selfsame day, until ye have brought the offering of your God; it is a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.", 23.15. "And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the day of rest, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the waving; seven weeks shall there be complete;", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 25.14 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic constructions of,vs. prophetic authority •priests, prophecy as authority, vs. rabbinic •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 79; Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 80| 25.14. "סוֹד יְהוָה לִירֵאָיו וּבְרִיתוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם׃", | 25.14. "The counsel of the LORD is with them that fear Him; And His covet, to make them know it.", |
|
| 6. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, a b c d\n0 . . \n1 1 1 1 None\n2 0 0 0 None\n3 3 3 3 None\n4 30.1 30.1 30 1 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 31, 32 |
| 7. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, a b c d\n0 1 1 1 None\n1 . . \n2 1.1 1.1 1 1 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 33 |
8. Anon., Jubilees, 6.17 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 78 | 6.17. And this testimony is written concerning you that you should observe it continually, so that you should not eat on any day any blood of beasts or birds or cattle during all the days of the earth, |
|
| 9. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q418, None (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic constructions of,vs. prophetic authority •priests, prophecy as authority, vs. rabbinic Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 78 |
| 10. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 6.6-6.7 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic constructions of,vs. prophetic authority •priests, prophecy as authority, vs. rabbinic Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 78 |
| 11. Dead Sea Scrolls, Temple Scroll, None (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 29, 37, 38 |
| 12. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, a b c d\n0 13.2 13.2 13 2 \n1 13.3 13.3 13 3 \n2 7 7 7 None\n3 8 8 8 None\n4 9 9 9 None\n5 10 10 10 None\n6 11 11 11 None\n7 None\n8 5.2 5.2 5 2 \n9 5.3 5.3 5 3 \n10 None\n11 None\n12 1 1 1 None\n13 - None\n14 3 3 3 None\n15 0 0 0 None\n16 . . \n17 5 5 5 None\n18 2 2 2 None\n19 6 6 6 None\n20 16.4 16.4 16 4 \n21 16.3 16.3 16 3 \n22 4 4 4 None (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 80; Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 37, 38 |
| 13. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 13.2-13.3 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic constructions of,vs. priestly authority •authority, rabbinic constructions of,vs. prophetic authority Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 80 |
| 14. Mishnah, Qiddushin, 4.14 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 95 |
| 15. New Testament, Matthew, , , , 5, 6, 6 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 29 |
16. New Testament, Mark, 7.5-7.8 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic (in practice), material evidence for rabbinic practices Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 24| 7.5. —καὶ ἐπερωτῶσιν αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς Διὰ τί οὐ περιπατοῦσιν οἱ μαθηταί σου κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, ἀλλὰ κοιναῖς χερσὶν ἐσθίουσιν τὸν ἄρτον; 7.6. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Καλῶς ἐπροφήτευσεν Ἠσαίας περὶ ὑμῶν τῶν ὑποκριτῶν, ὡς γέγραπται ὅτι Οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ· 7.7. μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων· 7.8. ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. | 7.5. The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why don't your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?" 7.6. He answered them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, But their heart is far from me. 7.7. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' 7.8. "For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men -- the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things." |
|
17. New Testament, Luke, 11.3 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic (in practice), material evidence for rabbinic practices Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 24| 11.3. τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ καθʼ ἡμέραν· | 11.3. Give us day by day our daily bread. |
|
18. Mishnah, Zavim, 5.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 94| 5.12. "אֵלּוּ פוֹסְלִים אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה. הָאוֹכֵל אֹכֶל רִאשׁוֹן, וְהָאוֹכֵל אֹכֶל שֵׁנִי, וְהַשּׁוֹתֶה מַשְׁקִין טְמֵאִין, וְהַבָּא רֹאשׁוֹ וְרֻבּוֹ בְּמַיִם שְׁאוּבִין, וְטָהוֹר שֶׁנָּפְלוּ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ וְעַל רֻבּוֹ שְׁלשָׁה לֻגִּין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִין, וְהַסֵּפֶר, וְהַיָּדַיִם, וּטְבוּל יוֹם, וְהָאֳכָלִים וְהַכֵּלִים שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ בְמַשְׁקִים: \n", | 5.12. "The following disqualify terumah:One who eats foods with first degree uncleanness; Or one who eats food with second degree uncleanness; And who drinks unclean liquids. And the one who has immersed his head and the greater part of him in drawn water; And a clean person upon whose head and greater part of him there fell three logs of drawn water; And a scroll [of Holy Scriptures], And [unwashed] hands; And one that has had immersion that same day; And foods and vessels which have become defiled by liquids.", |
|
19. Mishnah, Yadayim, a b c d\n0 4.3 4.3 4 3 \n1 3.5 3.5 3 5 \n2 3 3 3 None\n3 . . \n4 5 5 5 None (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 80, 82| 4.3. "בּוֹ בַיּוֹם אָמְרוּ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב, מַה הֵן בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. גָּזַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, מַעְשַׂר עָנִי. וְגָזַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי. אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, עָלֶיךָ רְאָיָה לְלַמֵּד, שֶׁאַתָּה מַחְמִיר, שֶׁכָּל הַמַּחְמִיר, עָלָיו רְאָיָה לְלַמֵּד. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָחִי, אֲנִי לֹא שִׁנִּיתִי מִסֵּדֶר הַשָּׁנִים, טַרְפוֹן אָחִי שִׁנָּה, וְעָלָיו רְאָיָה לְלַמֵּד. הֵשִׁיב רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, מִצְרַיִם חוּץ לָאָרֶץ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב חוּץ לָאָרֶץ, מַה מִּצְרַיִם מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית, אַף עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית. הֵשִׁיב רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, בָּבֶל חוּץ לָאָרֶץ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב חוּץ לָאָרֶץ, מַה בָּבֶל מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית, אַף עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי בַשְּׁבִיעִית. אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, מִצְרַיִם שֶׁהִיא קְרוֹבָה, עֲשָׂאוּהָ מַעְשַׂר עָנִי, שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל נִסְמָכִים עָלֶיהָ בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, אַף עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב, שֶׁהֵם קְרוֹבִים, נַעֲשִׂים מַעְשַׂר עָנִי, שֶׁיִּהְיוּ עֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל נִסְמָכִים עֲלֵיהֶם בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, הֲרֵי אַתָּה כִמְהַנָּן מָמוֹן, וְאֵין אַתָּה אֶלָּא כְמַפְסִיד נְפָשׁוֹת. קוֹבֵעַ אַתָּה אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם מִלְּהוֹרִיד טַל וּמָטָר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ג), הֲיִקְבַּע אָדָם אֱלֹהִים כִּי אַתֶּם קֹבְעִים אֹתִי וַאֲמַרְתֶּם בַּמֶּה קְבַעֲנוּךָ הַמַּעֲשֵׂר וְהַתְּרוּמָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, הֲרֵינִי כְמֵשִׁיב עַל טַרְפוֹן אָחִי, אֲבָל לֹא לְעִנְיַן דְּבָרָיו. מִצְרַיִם מַעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ, וּבָבֶל מַעֲשֶׂה יָשָׁן, וְהַנִּדּוֹן שֶׁלְּפָנֵינוּ מַעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ. יִדּוֹן מַעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ מִמַּעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ, וְאַל יִדּוֹן מַעֲשֶׂה חָדָשׁ מִמַּעֲשֶׂה יָשָׁן. מִצְרַיִם מַעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים, וּבָבֶל מַעֲשֵׂה נְבִיאִים, וְהַנִּדּוֹן שֶׁלְּפָנֵינוּ מַעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים. יִדּוֹן מַעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים מִמַּעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים, וְאַל יִדּוֹן מַעֲשֵׂה זְקֵנִים מִמַּעֲשֵׂה נְבִיאִים. נִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מְעַשְּׂרִין מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. וּכְשֶׁבָּא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן דֻּרְמַסְקִית אֵצֶל רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּלוֹד, אָמַר לוֹ, מַה חִדּוּשׁ הָיָה לָכֶם בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ הַיּוֹם. אָמַר לוֹ, נִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ, עַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מְעַשְּׂרִים מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. בָּכָה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְאָמַר, סוֹד ה' לִירֵאָיו וּבְרִיתוֹ לְהוֹדִיעָם (תהלים כה). צֵא וֶאֱמֹר לָהֶם, אַל תָּחֹשּׁוּ לְמִנְיַנְכֶם. מְקֻבָּל אֲנִי מֵרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, שֶׁשָּׁמַע מֵרַבּוֹ, וְרַבּוֹ מֵרַבּוֹ עַד הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי, שֶׁעַמּוֹן וּמוֹאָב מְעַשְּׂרִין מַעְשַׂר עָנִי בַּשְּׁבִיעִית: \n", | 4.3. "On that day they said: what is the law applying to Ammon and Moab in the seventh year? Rabbi Tarfon decreed tithe for the poor. And Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah decreed second tithe. Rabbi Ishmael said: Elazar ben Azariah, you must produce your proof because you are expressing the stricter view and whoever expresses a stricter view has the burden to produce the proof. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Ishmael, my brother, I have not deviated from the sequence of years, Tarfon, my brother, has deviated from it and the burden is upon him to produce the proof. Rabbi Tarfon answered: Egypt is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Egypt must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah answered: Babylon is outside the land of Israel, Ammon and Moab are outside the land of Israel: just as Babylon must give second tithe in the seventh year, so must Ammon and Moab give second tithe in the seventh year. Rabbi Tarfon said: on Egypt which is near, they imposed tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel might be supported by it during the seventh year; so on Ammon and Moab which are near, we should impose tithe for the poor so that the poor of Israel may be supported by it during the seventh year. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said to him: Behold, you are like one who would benefit them with gain, yet you are really as one who causes them to perish. Would you rob the heavens so that dew or rain should not descend? As it is said, \"Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you: How have we robbed You? In tithes and heave-offerings\" (Malakhi 3:8). Rabbi Joshua said: Behold, I shall be as one who replies on behalf of Tarfon, my brother, but not in accordance with the substance of his arguments. The law regarding Egypt is a new act and the law regarding Babylon is an old act, and the law which is being argued before us is a new act. A new act should be argued from [another] new act, but a new act should not be argued from an old act. The law regarding Egypt is the act of the elders and the law regarding Babylon is the act of the prophets, and the law which is being argued before us is the act of the elders. Let one act of the elders be argued from [another] act of the elders, but let not an act of the elders be argued from an act of the prophets. The votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab should give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. And when Rabbi Yose ben Durmaskit visited Rabbi Eliezer in Lod he said to him: what new thing did you have in the house of study today? He said to him: their votes were counted and they decided that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year. Rabbi Eliezer wept and said: \"The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear him: and his covet, to make them know it\" (Psalms 25:14). Go and tell them: Don't worry about your voting. I received a tradition from Rabbi Yoha ben Zakkai who heard it from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, and so back to a halachah given to Moses from Sinai, that Ammon and Moab must give tithe for the poor in the seventh year.", |
|
20. Mishnah, Toharot, 4.7, 4.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 94, 95| 4.7. "אֵלּוּ סְפֵקוֹת שֶׁטִּהֲרוּ חֲכָמִים. סְפֵק מַיִם שְׁאוּבִים לַמִּקְוֶה. סְפֵק טֻמְאָה צָפָה עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. סְפֵק מַשְׁקִין, לִטָּמֵא, טָמֵא, וּלְטַמֵּא, טָהוֹר. סְפֵק יָדַיִם, לִטָּמֵא וּלְטַמֵּא וְלִטַּהֵר, טָהוֹר. סְפֵק רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. סְפֵק דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. סְפֵק הַחֻלִּין. סְפֵק שְׁרָצִים. סְפֵק נְגָעִים. סְפֵק נְזִירוּת. סְפֵק בְּכוֹרוֹת. וּסְפֵק קָרְבָּנוֹת: \n", 4.11. "סְפֵק יָדַיִם לִטָּמֵא וּלְטַמֵּא וְלִטָּהֵר, טָהוֹר. סְפֵק רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, טָהוֹר. סְפֵק דִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, אָכַל אֳכָלִים טְמֵאִים, שָׁתָה מַשְׁקִים טְמֵאִים, בָּא רֹאשׁוֹ וְרֻבּוֹ בְמַיִם שְׁאוּבִין, אוֹ שֶׁנָּפְלוּ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ וְרֻבּוֹ שְׁלשָׁה לֻגִּין מַיִם שְׁאוּבִים, סְפֵקוֹ טָהוֹר. אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא אַב הַטֻּמְאָה וְהוּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, סְפֵקוֹ טָמֵא: \n", | 4.7. "These are the cases of doubtful uncleanness that the sages declared to be clean:A doubt concerning drawn water for a mikveh, A doubt concerning an object of uncleanness that floated upon the water. A doubt concerning liquids as to whether they have contracted uncleanness it is deemed unclean, but if it was whether uncleanness has been conveyed it is deemed clean. A doubt concerning the hands as to whether they have contracted uncleanness, have conveyed uncleanness or have attained cleanness, they are deemed clean. A doubt that arose in a public domain; A doubt concerning an ordice of the scribes; A doubt concerning non-sacred food; A doubt concerning a sheretz; A doubt concerning negaim; A doubt concerning a nazirite vow; A doubt concerning a first-born; A doubt concerning sacrifices.", 4.11. "\"If there is doubt concerning the hands as to whether they have contracted uncleanness, have conveyed uncleanness or have attained cleanness, they are deemed clean.\" \"Any doubt that arose in a public domain is deemed clean. \"A condition of doubt concerning an ordice of the scribes\": [For instance, he is uncertain whether] he ate unclean food or drank unclean liquids, whether he immersed his head and the greater part of his body in drawn water, or whether there fell on his head and the greater part of his body three log of drawn water, such a condition of doubt is deemed clean. But if a condition of doubt arose concerning a father of uncleanness even though it was only rabbinical, it is deemed unclean.", |
|
21. Mishnah, Yoma, 8.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic authority Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 32| 8.7. "מִי שֶׁנָּפְלָה עָלָיו מַפֹּלֶת, סָפֵק הוּא שָׁם סָפֵק אֵינוֹ שָׁם, סָפֵק חַי סָפֵק מֵת, סָפֵק נָכְרִי סָפֵק יִשְׂרָאֵל, מְפַקְּחִין עָלָיו אֶת הַגַּל. מְצָאוּהוּ חַי, מְפַקְּחִין עָלָיו. וְאִם מֵת, יַנִּיחוּהוּ: \n", | 8.7. "If an avalanche fell on someone, and it is doubtful whether or not he is there, or whether he is alive or dead, or whether he is an Israelite or a non-Jew, they remove the debris from above him [even on Shabbat]. If they find him alive they remove the debris, but if dead they should leave him there [until Shabbat is over].", |
|
22. Mishnah, Taanit, 3.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic, rational •authority, rabbinic constructions of,transmission from moses at sinai Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 481; Simon-Shushan (2012), Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna, 150| 3.8. "עַל כָּל צָרָה שֶׁלֹּא תָבֹא עַל הַצִּבּוּר, מַתְרִיעִין עֲלֵיהֶן, חוּץ מֵרוֹב גְּשָׁמִים. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁאָמְרוּ לוֹ לְחוֹנִי הַמְעַגֵּל, הִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁיֵּרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים. אָמַר לָהֶם, צְאוּ וְהַכְנִיסוּ תַנּוּרֵי פְסָחִים, בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא יִמּוֹקוּ. הִתְפַּלֵּל, וְלֹא יָרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים. מֶה עָשָׂה, עָג עוּגָה וְעָמַד בְּתוֹכָהּ, וְאָמַר לְפָנָיו, רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, בָּנֶיךָ שָׂמוּ פְנֵיהֶם עָלַי, שֶׁאֲנִי כְבֶן בַּיִת לְפָנֶיךָ. נִשְׁבָּע אֲנִי בְשִׁמְךָ הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵינִי זָז מִכָּאן, עַד שֶׁתְּרַחֵם עַל בָּנֶיךָ. הִתְחִילוּ גְּשָׁמִים מְנַטְּפִין. אָמַר, לֹא כָךְ שָׁאַלְתִּי, אֶלָּא גִּשְׁמֵי בוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת. הִתְחִילוּ לֵירֵד בְּזָעַף. אָמַר, לֹא כָךְ שָׁאַלְתִּי, אֶלָּא גִּשְׁמֵי רָצוֹן, בְּרָכָה וּנְדָבָה. יָרְדוּ כְתִקְנָן, עַד שֶׁיָּצְאוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִירוּשָׁלַיִם לְהַר הַבַּיִת מִפְּנֵי הַגְּשָׁמִים. בָּאוּ וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהִתְפַּלַלְתָּ עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁיֵּרְדוּ כָּךְ הִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁיֵּלְכוּ לָהֶן. אָמַר לָהֶן, צְאוּ וּרְאוּ אִם נִמְחֵת אֶבֶן הַטּוֹעִים. שָׁלַח לוֹ שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח, אִלְמָלֵא חוֹנִי אַתָּה, גּוֹזְרַנִי עָלֶיךָ נִדּוּי. אֲבָל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לְּךָ, שֶׁאַתָּה מִתְחַטֵּא לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם וְעוֹשֶׂה לְךָ רְצוֹנְךָ כְּבֵן שֶׁהוּא מִתְחַטֵּא עַל אָבִיו וְעוֹשֶׂה לוֹ רְצוֹנוֹ. וְעָלֶיךָ הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר (משלי כג), יִשְׂמַח אָבִיךָ וְאִמֶּךָ וְתָגֵל יוֹלַדְתֶּךָ: \n", | 3.8. "For every trouble that should not come upon the community they sound a blast except on account of too much rain. It happened that they said to Honi the circle drawer: “Pray for rain to fall.” He replied: “Go and bring in the pesah ovens so that they do not dissolve.” He prayed and no rain fell. What did he do? He drew a circle and stood within it and exclaimed before Him: “Master of the universe, Your children have turned their faces to me because I am like one who was born in Your house. I swear by Your great name that I will not move from here until You have mercy upon Your children.” Rain then began to drip, and he exclaimed: “I did not request this but rain [which can fill] cisterns, ditches and caves. The rain then began to come down with great force, and he exclaimed: “I did not request this but pleasing rain of blessing and abudance.” Rain then fell in the normal way until the Jews in Jerusalem had to go up Temple Mount because of the rain. They came and said to him: “In the same way that you prayed for [the rain] to fall pray [now] for the rain to stop.” He replied: “Go and see if the stone of people claiming lost objects has washed away.” Rabbi Shimon ben Shetah sent to him: “Were you not Honi I would have excommunicated you, but what can I do to you, for you are spoiled before God and he does your will like a son that is spoiled before his father and his father does his request. Concerning you it is written, “Let your father and your mother rejoice, and let she that bore you rejoice” (Proverbs 23:25).", |
|
23. Mishnah, Sukkah, 3.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic, and stories, etiological Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012), Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna, 195| 3.12. "בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה לוּלָב נִטָּל בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ שִׁבְעָה, וּבַמְּדִינָה יוֹם אֶחָד. מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, הִתְקִין רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי שֶׁיְּהֵא לוּלָב נִטָּל בַּמְּדִינָה שִׁבְעָה, זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָשׁ. וְשֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹם הָנֵף כֻּלּוֹ אָסוּר: \n", | 3.12. "In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only. When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yoha ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for seven days in memory of the Temple, [He also decreed] that on the whole of the day of waving it be forbidden [to eat the new produce].", |
|
24. Mishnah, Shabbat, 1.4, 2.1-2.7, 3.4, 16.8, 19.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic •authority, rabbinic constructions of,transmission from moses at sinai •authority, rabbinic constructions of,in mishnaic aggada •rabbinic authority Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 85; Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 481, 485, 486; Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 81, 82| 1.4. "וְאֵלּוּ מִן הַהֲלָכוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ בַעֲלִיַּת חֲנַנְיָה בֶן חִזְקִיָּה בֶן גֻּרְיוֹן כְּשֶׁעָלוּ לְבַקְּרוֹ. נִמְנוּ וְרַבּוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי עַל בֵּית הִלֵּל, וּשְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר דְּבָרִים גָּזְרוּ בוֹ בַיּוֹם: \n", 2.1. "בַּמֶּה מַדְלִיקִין וּבַמָּה אֵין מַדְלִיקִין. אֵין מַדְלִיקִין לֹא בְלֶכֶשׁ, וְלֹא בְחֹסֶן, וְלֹא בְכָלָךְ, וְלֹא בִפְתִילַת הָאִידָן, וְלֹא בִפְתִילַת הַמִּדְבָּר, וְלֹא בִירוֹקָה שֶׁעַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. וְלֹא בְזֶפֶת, וְלֹא בְשַׁעֲוָה, וְלֹא בְשֶׁמֶן קִיק, וְלֹא בְשֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵפָה, וְלֹא בְאַלְיָה, וְלֹא בְחֵלֶב. נַחוּם הַמָּדִי אוֹמֵר, מַדְלִיקִין בְּחֵלֶב מְבֻשָּׁל. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֶחָד מְבֻשָּׁל וְאֶחָד שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְבֻשָּׁל, אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בּוֹ: \n", 2.2. "אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בְּשֶׁמֶן שְׂרֵפָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בְּעִטְרָן, מִפְּנֵי כְבוֹד הַשַּׁבָּת. וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין בְּכָל הַשְּׁמָנִים, בְּשֶׁמֶן שֻׁמְשְׁמִין, בְּשֶׁמֶן אֱגוֹזִים, בְּשֶׁמֶן צְנוֹנוֹת, בְּשֶׁמֶן דָּגִים, בְּשֶׁמֶן פַּקּוּעוֹת, בְּעִטְרָן וּבְנֵפְט. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֵין מַדְלִיקִין אֶלָּא בְשֶׁמֶן זַיִת בִּלְבָד: \n", 2.3. "כָּל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הָעֵץ אֵין מַדְלִיקִין בּוֹ אֶלָּא פִשְׁתָּן. וְכָל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הָעֵץ אֵינוֹ מִטַּמֵּא טֻמְאַת אֹהָלִים אֶלָּא פִשְׁתָּן. פְּתִילַת הַבֶּגֶד שֶׁקִּפְּלָהּ וְלֹא הִבְהֲבָהּ, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, טְמֵאָה, וְאֵין מַדְלִיקִין בָּהּ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, טְהוֹרָה, וּמַדְלִיקִין בָּהּ: \n", 2.4. "לֹא יִקֹּב אָדָם שְׁפוֹפֶרֶת שֶׁל בֵּיצָה וִימַלְאֶנָּה שֶׁמֶן וְיִתְּנֶנָּה עַל פִּי הַנֵּר בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתְּהֵא מְנַטֶּפֶת, אֲפִלּוּ הִיא שֶׁל חֶרֶס. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר. אֲבָל אִם חִבְּרָהּ הַיּוֹצֵר מִתְּחִלָּה, מֻתָּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְלִי אֶחָד. לֹא יְמַלֵּא אָדָם אֶת הַקְּעָרָה שֶׁמֶן וְיִתְּנֶנָּה בְצַד הַנֵּר וְיִתֵּן רֹאשׁ הַפְּתִילָה בְתוֹכָהּ, בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתְּהֵא שׁוֹאֶבֶת. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר: \n", 2.5. "הַמְכַבֶּה אֶת הַנֵּר מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מִתְיָרֵא מִפְּנֵי גוֹיִם, מִפְּנֵי לִסְטִים, מִפְּנֵי רוּחַ רָעָה, וְאִם בִּשְׁבִיל הַחוֹלֶה שֶׁיִּישַׁן, פָּטוּר. כְּחָס עַל הַנֵּר, כְּחָס עַל הַשֶּׁמֶן, כְּחָס עַל הַפְּתִילָה, חַיָּב. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי פּוֹטֵר בְּכֻלָּן חוּץ מִן הַפְּתִילָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא עוֹשָׂהּ פֶּחָם: \n", 2.6. "עַל שָׁלשׁ עֲבֵרוֹת נָשִׁים מֵתוֹת בִּשְׁעַת לֵדָתָן, עַל שֶׁאֵינָן זְהִירוֹת בַּנִּדָּה וּבַחַלָּה וּבְהַדְלָקַת הַנֵּר: \n", 2.7. "שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים צָרִיךְ אָדָם לוֹמַר בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת עִם חֲשֵׁכָה. עִשַּׂרְתֶּם. עֵרַבְתֶּם. הַדְלִיקוּ אֶת הַנֵּר. סָפֵק חֲשֵׁכָה סָפֵק אֵין חֲשֵׁכָה, אֵין מְעַשְּׂרִין אֶת הַוַּדַּאי, וְאֵין מַטְבִּילִין אֶת הַכֵּלִים, וְאֵין מַדְלִיקִין אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת, אֲבָל מְעַשְּׂרִין אֶת הַדְּמַאי, וּמְעָרְבִין, וְטוֹמְנִין אֶת הַחַמִּין: \n", 3.4. "מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁעָשׂוּ אַנְשֵׁי טְבֶרְיָא וְהֵבִיאוּ סִלּוֹן שֶׁל צוֹנֵן לְתוֹךְ אַמָּה שֶׁל חַמִּין. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן חֲכָמִים, אִם בְּשַׁבָּת, כְּחַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ בְשַׁבָּת, אֲסוּרִין בִּרְחִיצָה וּבִשְׁתִיָּה; בְּיוֹם טוֹב, כְּחַמִּין שֶׁהוּחַמּוּ בְיוֹם טוֹב, אֲסוּרִין בִּרְחִיצָה וּמֻתָּרִין בִּשְׁתִיָּה. מוּלְיָאר הַגָּרוּף, שׁוֹתִין הֵימֶנּוּ בְשַׁבָּת. אַנְטִיכִי, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁגְּרוּפָה, אֵין שׁוֹתִין מִמֶּנָּה:", 16.8. "נָכְרִי שֶׁהִדְלִיק אֶת הַנֵּר, מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ לְאוֹרוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאִם בִּשְׁבִיל יִשְׂרָאֵל, אָסוּר. מִלֵּא מַיִם לְהַשְׁקוֹת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ, מַשְׁקֶה אַחֲרָיו יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאִם בִּשְׁבִיל יִשְׂרָאֵל, אָסוּר. עָשָׂה גוֹי כֶּבֶשׁ לֵירֵד בּוֹ, יוֹרֵד אַחֲרָיו יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאִם בִּשְׁבִיל יִשְׂרָאֵל, אָסוּר. מַעֲשֶׂה בְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּזְקֵנִים שֶׁהָיוּ בָאִין בִּסְפִינָה, וְעָשָׂה גוֹי כֶּבֶשׁ לֵירֵד בּוֹ, וְיָרְדוּ בוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּזְקֵנִים: \n", 19.4. "מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי תִינוֹקוֹת, אֶחָד לָמוּל אַחַר הַשַּׁבָּת וְאֶחָד לָמוּל בְּשַׁבָּת, וְשָׁכַח וּמָל אֶת שֶׁל אַחַר הַשַּׁבָּת בְּשַׁבָּת, חַיָּב. אֶחָד לָמוּל בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְאֶחָד לָמוּל בְּשַׁבָּת, וְשָׁכַח וּמָל אֶת שֶׁל עֶרֶב שַׁבָּת בְּשַׁבָּת, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵּב חַטָּאת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר: \n", | 1.4. "And these are of halakhot which they stated in the upper chamber of Haiah ben Hezekiah ben Gurion, when they went up to visit him. They took a count, and Bet Shammai outnumbered Beth Hillel and on that day they enacted eighteen measures.", 2.1. "With what may they kindle [the Shabbat light] and with what may they not kindle them?They may not kindle with cedar fiber, uncarded flax, a raw silk, a desert wick, or seaweed, And not with pitch, wax, castor oil, [terumah] oil [which must be] burnt, tail fat, or tallow. Nahum the Mede says: they may kindle with melted tallow. And the sages say: whether melted or not, they may not kindle with it.", 2.2. "They may not kindle [the Shabbat light] with [terumah] oil [which must be] burnt on festivals. Rabbi Ishmael says: they may not light with tar, because of the honor of the Shabbat. But the sages permit with all oils: with sesame oil, nut oil, radish oil, fish oil, gourd oil, tar and naphtha. Rabbi Tarfon says: they don’t light with anything but olive oil.", 2.3. "Whatever comes from a tree they may not light [the Shabbat light] except for flax. And whatever comes from a tree cannot be defiled with tent-uncleanness except linen. A wick made of cloth which was twisted but not singed: Rabbi Eliezer says: it is unclean, and one may not light with it; Rabbi Akiva says: it is clean and one may light with it.", 2.4. "One may not pierce an egg shell, fill it with oil, and place it over the mouth of a lamp, in order that it should drip, and even if it is of clay. And Rabbi Judah permits it. But if the potter connects it beforehand it is permitted, because it is one utensil. One may not fill a dish of oil, place it at the side of a lamp, and put the wick end in it in order that it should draw. And Rabbi Judah permits it.", 2.5. "One who extinguishes the lamp because he is afraid of non-Jews, robbers, or an evil spirit, or so that a sick person may sleep, he is exempt. If [he does so because] he wants to spare the lamp, the oil, or the wick, he is liable. Rabbi Yose exempts in all cases, except for the wick, because he makes charcoal.", 2.6. "For three sins women die in childbirth: because they are not observant of [the laws of] niddah, hallah, and the kindling of the [Shabbat] lights.", 2.7. "A person must say three things in his house on the eve of Shabbat just before night: Have you separated tithes? Have you prepared the ‘eruv? Kindle the [Shabbat] lamp. If it is doubtful, whether it is night or not, they do not tithe that which is certainly [untithed], they do not immerse utensils, and they do not kindle the lights. But they can tithe doubtfully tithed produce, and they can set up an eruv, and they can store hot food.", 3.4. "It once happened that the people of Tiberias conducted a pipe of cold water through an arm of the hot springs. The sages said to them: if this happened on the Shabbat, it is like hot water heated on the Shabbat, and is forbidden both for washing and for drinking; If on a festival, it is like water heated on a festival, which is forbidden for washing but permitted for drinking. A miliarum which is cleared of its ashes--they may drink from it on Shabbat. An antiki even if its ashes have been cleared--they may not drink from it.", 16.8. "If a Gentile lights a lamp, an Israelite may make use of its light. But if [he does it] for the sake of the Israelite, it is forbidden. If he draws water to give his own animal to drink, an Israelite may water his [animal] after him. But if [he draws it] for the Israelite’s sake, it is forbidden. If a Gentile makes a plank to descend [off a ship by] it, an Israelite may descend after him; But if on the Israelite’s account, it is forbidden. It once happened that Rabban Gamaliel and the elders were traveling in a ship, when a Gentile made a plank for getting off, and Rabban Gamaliel, and the elders descended by it.", 19.4. "If a man has two infants, one to circumcise after Shabbat and the other to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgets and circumcises the one who should be circumcised after Shabbat on the Shabbat, he is liable. [If he has] one to circumcise on the eve of Shabbat and another to circumcise on Shabbat, and he forgets and circumcises the one who should be circumcised on the eve of Shabbat on Shabbat: Rabbi Eliezer holds [him] liable to a sin-offering, but Rabbi Joshua exempts [him].", |
|
25. Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah, 2.8-2.9, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic, calendar court (yavne) •authority, rabbinic, and learning •authority, rabbinic, and power •authority, rabbinic, sources of •authority, rabbinic, and stories, etiological Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012), Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna, 185, 186, 191, 192, 195| 2.8. "דְּמוּת צוּרוֹת לְבָנוֹת הָיוּ לוֹ לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בַּטַּבְלָא וּבַכֹּתֶל בַּעֲלִיָּתוֹ, שֶׁבָּהֶן מַרְאֶה אֶת הַהֶדְיוֹטוֹת וְאוֹמֵר, הֲכָזֶה רָאִיתָ אוֹ כָזֶה. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְאָמְרוּ, רְאִינוּהוּ שַׁחֲרִית בַּמִּזְרָח וְעַרְבִית בַּמַּעֲרָב. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, עֵדֵי שֶׁקֶר הֵם. כְּשֶׁבָּאוּ לְיַבְנֶה קִבְּלָן רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. וְעוֹד בָּאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְאָמְרוּ, רְאִינוּהוּ בִזְמַנּוֹ, וּבְלֵיל עִבּוּרוֹ לֹא נִרְאָה, וְקִבְּלָן רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי דוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס, עֵדֵי שֶׁקֶר הֵן, הֵיאָךְ מְעִידִין עַל הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיָּלְדָה, וּלְמָחָר כְּרֵסָהּ בֵּין שִׁנֶּיהָ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דְּבָרֶיךָ:", 2.9. "שָׁלַח לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, גּוֹזְרַנִי עָלֶיךָ שֶׁתָּבֹא אֶצְלִי בְּמַקֶּלְךָ וּבִמְעוֹתֶיךָ בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹנְךָ. הָלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מֵצֵר, אָמַר לוֹ, יֶשׁ לִי לִלְמוֹד שֶׁכָּל מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל עָשׂוּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כג), אֵלֶּה מוֹעֲדֵי יְיָ מִקְרָאֵי קֹדֶשׁ, אֲשֶׁר תִּקְרְאוּ אֹתָם, בֵּין בִּזְמַנָּן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִזְמַנָּן, אֵין לִי מוֹעֲדוֹת אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ. בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל רַבִּי דוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס, אָמַר לוֹ, אִם בָּאִין אָנוּ לָדוּן אַחַר בֵּית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, צְרִיכִין אָנוּ לָדוּן אַחַר כָּל בֵּית דִּין וּבֵית דִּין שֶׁעָמַד מִימוֹת משֶׁה וְעַד עַכְשָׁיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כד), וַיַּעַל משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא וְשִׁבְעִים מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְלָמָּה לֹא נִתְפָּרְשׁוּ שְׁמוֹתָן שֶׁל זְקֵנִים, אֶלָּא לְלַמֵּד, שֶׁכָּל שְׁלשָׁה וּשְׁלשָׁה שֶׁעָמְדוּ בֵית דִּין עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, הֲרֵי הוּא כְבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל משֶׁה. נָטַל מַקְלוֹ וּמְעוֹתָיו בְּיָדוֹ, וְהָלַךְ לְיַבְנֶה אֵצֶל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּיוֹם שֶׁחָל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לִהְיוֹת בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹ. עָמַד רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּנְשָׁקוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ, בֹּא בְשָׁלוֹם, רַבִּי וְתַלְמִידִי, רַבִּי בְחָכְמָה, וְתַלְמִידִי שֶׁקִּבַּלְתָּ דְּבָרָי:", 4.3. "בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיָה הַלּוּלָב נִטָּל בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ שִׁבְעָה, וּבַמְּדִינָה יוֹם אֶחָד. מִשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, הִתְקִין רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי שֶׁיְהֵא לוּלָב נִטָּל בַּמְּדִינָה שִׁבְעָה זֵכֶר לַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְשֶׁיְּהֵא יוֹם הָנֵף כֻּלּוֹ אָסוּר: \n", | 2.8. "Rabban Gamaliel had diagrams of the moon on a tablet [hung] on the wall of his upper chamber, and he used to show them to the unlearned and say, “Did it look like this or this?” It happened that two witnesses came and said, “We saw it in the morning in the east and in the evening in the west.” Rabbi Yoha ben Nuri said: they are lying witnesses. When they came to Yavneh Rabban Gamaliel accepted them. On another occasion two witnesses came and said, “We saw it at its proper time, but on the night which should have been the new moon it was not seen,” and Rabban Gamaliel accepted their evidence. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: they are lying witnesses. How can they testify that a woman has given birth when on the next day her belly is between her teeth (swollen)? Rabbi Joshua to him: I see your argument.", 2.9. "Rabban Gamaliel sent to him: I order you to appear before me with your staff and your money on the day which according to your count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabbi Akiva went and found him in distress. He said to him: I can teach that whatever Rabban Gamaliel has done is valid, because it says, “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at their appointed times” (Leviticus 23:4), whether they are [proclaimed] at their proper time or not at their proper time, I have no other appointed times save these. He [Rabbi Joshua] then went to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. He said to him: if we call in question the court of Rabban Gamaliel we must call in question the decisions of every court which has existed since the days of Moses until now. As it says, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up” (Exodus 24:9). Why were the names of the elders not mentioned? To teach that every group of three which has acted as a court over Israel, behold it is like the court of Moses. He [Rabbi Joshua] took his staff and his money and went to Yavneh to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which according to his count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabban Gamaliel rose and kissed him on his head and said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student my teacher in wisdom and my student because you have accepted my decision.", 4.3. "In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only. When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yoha ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for seven days in memory of the Temple, [He also decreed] that on the whole of the day of waving it be forbidden [to eat the new produce].", |
|
26. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 2.137-2.139, 2.150-2.151 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic (in practice), material evidence for rabbinic practices Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 24 | 2.137. 7. But now, if anyone hath a mind to come over to their sect, he is not immediately admitted, but he is prescribed the same method of living which they use, for a year, while he continues excluded; and they give him also a small hatchet, and the fore-mentioned girdle, and the white garment. 2.138. And when he hath given evidence, during that time, that he can observe their continence, he approaches nearer to their way of living, and is made a partaker of the waters of purification; yet is he not even now admitted to live with them; for after this demonstration of his fortitude, his temper is tried two more years; and if he appear to be worthy, they then admit him into their society. 2.139. And before he is allowed to touch their common food, he is obliged to take tremendous oaths, that, in the first place, he will exercise piety towards God, and then that he will observe justice towards men, and that he will do no harm to any one, either of his own accord, or by the command of others; that he will always hate the wicked, and be assistant to the righteous; 2.150. 10. Now after the time of their preparatory trial is over, they are parted into four classes; and so far are the juniors inferior to the seniors, that if the seniors should be touched by the juniors, they must wash themselves, as if they had intermixed themselves with the company of a foreigner. 2.151. They are long-lived also, insomuch that many of them live above a hundred years, by means of the simplicity of their diet; nay, as I think, by means of the regular course of life they observe also. They condemn the miseries of life, and are above pain, by the generosity of their mind. And as for death, if it will be for their glory, they esteem it better than living always; |
|
27. Mishnah, Avot, a b c d\n0 1.7 1.7 1 7 \n1 1.6 1.6 1 6 \n2 1.1 1.1 1 1 \n3 1.9 1.9 1 9 \n4 1.8 1.8 1 8 \n5 1.4 1.4 1 4 \n6 1.5 1.5 1 5 \n7 1.1-2.8 1.1 1 1 \n8 1.10 1.10 1 10 \n9 1.11 1.11 1 11 \n10 1.12 1.12 1 12 \n11 1 1 1 None\n12 2 2 2 None\n13 . . (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 80| 1.7. "נִתַּאי הָאַרְבֵּלִי אוֹמֵר, הַרְחֵק מִשָּׁכֵן רָע, וְאַל תִּתְחַבֵּר לָרָשָׁע, וְאַל תִּתְיָאֵשׁ מִן הַפֻּרְעָנוּת: \n", | 1.7. "Nittai the Arbelite used to say: keep a distance from an evil neighbor, do not become attached to the wicked, and do not abandon faith in [divine] retribution.", |
|
28. Mishnah, Bava Metzia, 1.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic authority Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 32| 1.1. "שְׁנַיִם אוֹחֲזִין בְּטַלִּית, זֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ וְזֶה אוֹמֵר אֲנִי מְצָאתִיהָ, זֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי, זֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָהּ, וְזֶה יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָּחוֹת מֵחֶצְיָהּ, וְיַחֲלֹקוּ. זֶה אוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי וְזֶה אוֹמֵר חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלִּי, הָאוֹמֵר כֻּלָּהּ שֶׁלִּי, יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלשָׁה חֲלָקִים, וְהָאוֹמֵר חֶצְיָהּ שֶׁלִּי, יִשָּׁבַע שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָהּ פָּחוֹת מֵרְבִיעַ. זֶה נוֹטֵל שְׁלשָׁה חֲלָקִים, וְזֶה נוֹטֵל רְבִיעַ: \n", | 1.1. "If two people are grasping a cloak: One says, “I found it” and the other says, “I found it”, or one says “It’s all mine”, and the other says, “It’s all mine”, they each swear that they don’t own more than half of the cloak and they split the cloak. one says, “It’s all mine” and the other says, “It’s half mine”, the one who says, “It’s all mine” swears that he doesn’t own less than ¾ and the one who says “It’s half mine” swears that he doesn’t own less than ¼, and the former takes ¾ and the latter takes ¼.", |
|
29. Mishnah, Berachot, 1.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic authority Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 87| 1.1. "מֵאֵימָתַי קוֹרִין אֶת שְׁמַע בְּעַרְבִית. מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִים לֶאֱכֹל בִּתְרוּמָתָן, עַד סוֹף הָאַשְׁמוּרָה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, עַד חֲצוֹת. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּאוּ בָנָיו מִבֵּית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה, אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לֹא קָרִינוּ אֶת שְׁמַע. אָמַר לָהֶם, אִם לֹא עָלָה עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר, חַיָּבִין אַתֶּם לִקְרוֹת. וְלֹא זוֹ בִּלְבַד, אֶלָּא כָּל מַה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים עַד חֲצוֹת, מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר. הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים וְאֵבָרִים, מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר. וְכָל הַנֶּאֱכָלִים לְיוֹם אֶחָד, מִצְוָתָן עַד שֶׁיַּעֲלֶה עַמּוּד הַשָּׁחַר. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים עַד חֲצוֹת, כְּדֵי לְהַרְחִיק אֶת הָאָדָם מִן הָעֲבֵרָה: \n", | 1.1. "From what time may one recite the Shema in the evening? From the time that the priests enter [their houses] in order to eat their terumah until the end of the first watch, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. The sages say: until midnight. Rabban Gamaliel says: until dawn. Once it happened that his sons came home [late] from a wedding feast and they said to him: we have not yet recited the [evening] Shema. He said to them: if it is not yet dawn you are still obligated to recite. And not in respect to this alone did they so decide, but wherever the sages say “until midnight,” the mitzvah may be performed until dawn. The burning of the fat and the pieces may be performed till dawn. Similarly, all [the offerings] that are to be eaten within one day may be eaten till dawn. Why then did the sages say “until midnight”? In order to keep a man far from transgression.", |
|
30. Mishnah, Eduyot, 1.5-1.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 79, 95| 1.5. "וְלָמָּה מַזְכִּירִין דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד בֵּין הַמְרֻבִּין, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין הֲלָכָה אֶלָּא כְדִבְרֵי הַמְרֻבִּין. שֶׁאִם יִרְאֶה בֵית דִּין אֶת דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד וְיִסְמֹךְ עָלָיו, שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דִּבְרֵי בֵית דִּין חֲבֵרוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן. הָיָה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה אֲבָל לֹא בְמִנְיָן, בְּמִנְיָן אֲבָל לֹא בְחָכְמָה, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דְּבָרָיו, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בְחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן: \n", 1.6. "אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, אִם כֵּן לָמָּה מַזְכִּירִין דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד בֵּין הַמְרֻבִּין לְבַטָּלָה. שֶׁאִם יֹאמַר הָאָדָם כָּךְ אֲנִי מְקֻבָּל, יֵאָמֵר לוֹ, כְּדִבְרֵי אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי שָׁמָעְתָּ: \n", | 1.5. "And why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many, when the halakhah must be according to the opinion of the many? So that if a court prefers the opinion of the single person it may depend on him. For no court may set aside the decision of another court unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. If it was greater than it in wisdom but not in number, in number but not in wisdom, it may not set aside its decision, unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number.", 1.6. "Rabbi Judah said: “If so, why do they record the opinion of a single person among the many to set it aside? So that if a man shall say, ‘Thus have I received the tradition’, it may be said to him, ‘According to the [refuted] opinion of that individual did you hear it.’”", |
|
31. Mishnah, Hagigah, 1.8, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 80, 85, 86, 93, 95| 1.8. "הֶתֵּר נְדָרִים פּוֹרְחִין בָּאֲוִיר, וְאֵין לָהֶם עַל מַה שֶּׁיִּסְמֹכוּ. הִלְכוֹת שַׁבָּת, חֲגִיגוֹת וְהַמְּעִילוֹת, הֲרֵי הֵם כַּהֲרָרִים הַתְּלוּיִין בְּשַׂעֲרָה, שֶׁהֵן מִקְרָא מֻעָט וַהֲלָכוֹת מְרֻבּוֹת. הַדִּינִין וְהָעֲבוֹדוֹת, הַטָּהֳרוֹת וְהַטֻּמְאוֹת וַעֲרָיוֹת, יֵשׁ לָהֶן עַל מַה שֶּׁיִּסְמֹכוּ. הֵן הֵן גּוּפֵי תּוֹרָה: \n", 2.2. "יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, נִתַּאי הָאַרְבֵּלִי אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. יְהוּדָה בֶּן טַבַּאי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. שְׁמַעְיָה אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. אַבְטַלְיוֹן אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ. הִלֵּל וּמְנַחֵם לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ. יָצָא מְנַחֵם, נִכְנַס שַׁמַּאי. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הָיוּ נְשִׂיאִים, וּשְׁנִיִּים לָהֶם אַב בֵּית דִּין: \n", | 1.8. "[The laws concerning] the dissolution of vows hover in the air and have nothing to rest on. The laws concerning Shabbat, hagigot, and trespassing are as mountains hanging by a hair, for they have scant scriptural basis but many halakhot. [The laws concerning] civil cases and [Temple] worship, purity and impurity, and the forbidden relations have what to rest on, and they that are the essentials of the Torah.", 2.2. "Yose ben Yoezer says that [on a festival] the laying of the hands [on the head of a sacrifice] may not be performed. Yosef ben Joha says that it may be performed. Joshua ben Perahia says that it may not be performed. Nittai the Arbelite says that it may be performed. Judah ben Tabai says that it may not be performed. Shimon ben Shetah says that it may be performed. Shamayah says that it may be performed. Avtalyon says that it may not be performed. Hillel and Menahem did not dispute. Menahem went out, Shammai entered. Shammai says that it may not be performed. Hillel says that it may be performed. The former [of each] pair were patriarchs and the latter were heads of the court.", |
|
32. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 11.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 79| 11.6. "הַמִּתְנַבֵּא בְשֵׁם עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְאוֹמֵר, כָּךְ אָמְרָה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אֲפִלּוּ כִוֵּן אֶת הַהֲלָכָה, לְטַמֵּא אֶת הַטָּמֵא וּלְטַהֵר אֶת הַטָּהוֹר. הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לִרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל לַנִּשּׂוּאִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִבְעֲלָה, הַבָּא עָלֶיהָ הֲרֵי זֶה בְחֶנֶק. וְזוֹמְמֵי בַת כֹּהֵן וּבוֹעֲלָהּ, שֶׁכָּל הַזּוֹמְמִין מַקְדִּימִין לְאוֹתָהּ מִיתָה, חוּץ מִזּוֹמְמֵי בַת כֹּהֵן וּבוֹעֲלָהּ: \n", | 11.6. "“He who prophesies in the name of an idol”: this is one who says, “Thus has the idol declared” even if he directed the teaching to declare the unclean, unclean, or the clean, clean. “One who has sexual relations with a married woman” after her entry into her husband’s home for marriage, though she did not have sexual relations with her husband, the one who has relations with her is strangled. “Witnesses who testified falsely [to the adultery of] a priest’s daughter, and the one who has had sexual relations with her”, for all false witnesses are led forth to meet the same death [which they sought to impose,] save witnesses who testified falsely [to the adultery of] a priest’s daughter, and the one who has had sexual relations with her.", |
|
33. Mishnah, Niddah, 4.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heresy, rabbinic judaism, authority as unbroken chain from moses Found in books: Cohen (2010), The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism, 539| 4.2. "בְּנוֹת צְדוֹקִין, בִּזְמַן שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לָלֶכֶת בְּדַרְכֵי אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן, הֲרֵי הֵן כְּכוּתִיּוֹת. פֵּרְשׁוּ לָלֶכֶת בְּדַרְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, הֲרֵי הֵן כְּיִשְׂרְאֵלִית. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם הֵן כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, עַד שֶׁיִּפְרְשׁוּ לָלֶכֶת בְּדַרְכֵי אֲבוֹתֵיהֶן: \n", | 4.2. "The daughters of the Sadducees, so long as they are accustomed to walking in the paths of their fathers, are to be regarded as Samaritan women. If they left those paths to walk in the paths of Israel, they are to be regarded as Israelite women. Rabbi Yose says: they are always regarded as Israelite women unless they leave the paths of Israel to walk in the paths of their fathers.", |
|
34. Mishnah, Oholot, 1.3, 3.5, 16.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 79, 94; Simon-Shushan (2012), Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna, 244| 1.3. "כֵּיצַד אַרְבָּעָה. כֵּלִים נוֹגְעִין בְּמֵת, וְאָדָם בַּכֵּלִים, וְכֵלִים בָּאָדָם, טְמֵאִין טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה. הָרְבִיעִי, בֵּין אָדָם בֵּין כֵּלִים, טָמֵא טֻמְאַת עָרֶב. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, יֶשׁ לִי חֲמִישִׁי, הַשַּׁפּוּד הַתָּחוּב בָּאֹהֶל, הָאֹהֶל וְהַשַּׁפּוּד וְאָדָם הַנּוֹגֵעַ בַּשַּׁפּוּד וְכֵלִים בָּאָדָם, טְמֵאִין טֻמְאַת שִׁבְעָה. הַחֲמִישִׁי, בֵּין אָדָם בֵּין כֵּלִים, טָמֵא טֻמְאַת עָרֶב. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵין הָאֹהֶל מִתְחַשֵּׁב: \n", 3.5. "אֵיזֶהוּ דַם תְּבוּסָה. הַמֵּת שֶׁיָּצָא מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁמִינִית בְּחַיָּיו וּשְׁמִינִית בְּמוֹתוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, רְבִיעִית בְּחַיָּיו וּרְבִיעִית בְּמוֹתוֹ, נִטַּל מִזֶּה וּמִזֶּה רְבִיעִית. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, זֶה וָזֶה כַמָּיִם. אֵיזֶהוּ דַם תְּבוּסָה. צָלוּב שֶׁדָּמוֹ שׁוֹתֵת וְנִמְצָא תַחְתָּיו רְבִיעִית דָּם, טָמֵא. אֲבָל הַמֵּת שֶׁדָּמוֹ מְנַטֵּף וְנִמְצָא תַחְתָּיו רְבִיעִית דָּם, טָהוֹר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא הַשּׁוֹתֵת, טָהוֹר. וְהַמְנַטֵּף, טָמֵא: \n", 16.1. "כָּל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין מְבִיאִין אֶת הַטֻּמְאָה כָּעֳבִי הַמַּרְדֵּעַ. אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, אֲקַפַּח אֶת בָּנַי שֶׁזּוֹ הֲלָכָה מְקֻפַּחַת, שֶׁשָּׁמַע הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ, וְטָעָה, שֶׁהָאִכָּר עוֹבֵר וְהַמַּרְדֵּעַ עַל כְּתֵפוֹ, וְהֶאֱהִיל צִדּוֹ אֶחָד עַל הַקֶּבֶר, וְטִמְּאוּהוּ מִשּׁוּם כֵּלִים הַמַּאֲהִילִים עַל הַמֵּת. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, אֲנִי אֲתַקֵּן שֶׁיְּהוּ דִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים קַיָּמִין, שֶׁיְּהוּ כָל הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין מְבִיאִין אֶת הַטֻּמְאָה עַל אָדָם הַנּוֹשְׂאָן בָּעֳבִי הַמַּרְדֵּעַ, וְעַל עַצְמָן בְּכָל שֶׁהֵן, וְעַל שְׁאָר אָדָם וְכֵלִים בְּפוֹתֵחַ טָפַח: \n", | 1.3. "What is the case of four? Vessels touching a corpse, a person [touching these] vessels, and [other] vessels [touching this] person, are defiled with seven days' defilement. The fourth, whether a person or vessels, is defiled with a defilement [lasting until the] evening. Rabbi Akiva said: I have a fifth, [if] a peg was fixed in a tent, the tent, the peg, a person touching the peg and vessels [touching] the person are defiled with seven days' defilement. The fifth, whether a person or vessels, is defiled with a defilement [lasting until the] evening. They said to him: the tent does not count.", 3.5. "What is ‘mixed blood? The blood of a corpse of which an eighth [of a log] came out during his lifetime and an eighth after death, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Ishmael says: a quarter [of a log] during his lifetime and a quarter after death. [If] a quarter [of a log] is taken from both of these: Rabbi Elazar bar Judah says: both of these are as water. What then is ‘mixed blood’? It is that of a crucified person whose blood is streaming forth and under whom is found a quarter [of a log] of blood it is unclean. However a corpse whose blood drips forth and under whom is found a quarter [of a log] of blood, [the blood] is clean. Rabbi Judah says: not so, but that which streams forth is clean and that which drips forth is unclean.", 16.1. "All movable things convey uncleanness when they are of the thickness of an ox-goad. Rabbi Tarfon said: May I [see the] demise of my sons if this is [not] a demised halakhah which someone heard and misunderstood. For a farmer was passing by and over his shoulder was an ox-goad, and one end overshadowed a grave. He was declared unclean on account of vessels that were overshadowing a corpse. Rabbi Akiva said: I can fix [the halakhah] so that the words of the sages can exist [as they are]: All movable things convey uncleanness to come upon a person carrying them, when they are of the thickness of an ox-goad; Upon themselves when they are of whatever thickness; And upon other men or vessels [which they overshadow] when they are one handbreadth wide.", |
|
35. Mishnah, Orlah, 3.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 93, 95| 3.9. "סְפֵק עָרְלָה, בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל אָסוּר, וּבְסוּרְיָא מֻתָּר, וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵחַ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִרְאֶנּוּ לוֹקֵט. כֶּרֶם נָטוּעַ יָרָק, וְיָרָק נִמְכָּר חוּצָה לוֹ, בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׁרָאֵל אָסוּר, וּבְסוּרְיָא מֻתָּר, וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ יוֹרֵד וְלוֹקֵט, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִלְקֹט בַּיָּד. הֶחָדָשׁ, אָסוּר מִן הַתּוֹרָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וְהָעָרְלָה, הֲלָכָה. וְהַכִּלְאַיִם, מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים: \n", | 3.9. "Doubtful orlah: in the land of Israel is prohibited, in Syria is permitted, and outside the land one may go down and purchase [from a non-Israelite] as long as he has not seen him gathering it. A vineyard planted with vegetables [which are kilayim], and they [the vegetables] are sold outside of it: in the land of Israel these are prohibited, and in Syria they are permitted; outside the land one may go down and purchase them as long as he does not gather [them] with [one’s own] hand. New [produce] is prohibited by the Torah in all places. And orlah is a halachah. And kilayim are an enactment of the scribes.", |
|
36. Mishnah, Peah, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 80| 2.6. "מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁזָּרַע רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִישׁ הַמִּצְפָּה לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְעָלוּ לְלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית וְשָׁאָלוּ. אָמַר נַחוּם הַלַּבְלָר, מְקֻבָּל אֲנִי מֵרַבִּי מְיָאשָׁא, שֶׁקִּבֵּל מֵאַבָּא, שֶׁקִּבֵּל מִן הַזּוּגוֹת, שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ מִן הַנְּבִיאִים, הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי, בְּזוֹרֵעַ אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ שְׁנֵי מִינֵי חִטִּין, אִם עֲשָׂאָן גֹּרֶן אַחַת, נוֹתֵן פֵּאָה אַחַת. שְׁתֵּי גְרָנוֹת, נוֹתֵן שְׁתֵּי פֵאוֹת: \n", | 2.6. "It happened that Rabbi Shimon of Mitzpah planted his field [with two different kinds] and came before Rabban Gamaliel. They both went up to the Chamber of Hewn Stone and asked [about the law]. Nahum the scribe said: I have a tradition from Rabbi Meyasha, who received it from Abba, who received it from the pairs [of sage], who received it from the prophets, a halakhah of Moses from Sinai, that one who plants his field with two species of wheat, if he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he gives only one peah, but if two threshing-floors, he gives two peahs.", |
|
37. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, a b c d\n0 1.40 1.40 1 40 \n1 1.39 1.39 1 39 \n2 1.38 1.38 1 38 \n3 1.37 1.37 1 37 \n4 1.41 1.41 1 41 \n5 1.42 1.42 1 42 \n6 2.277 2.277 2 277 \n7 1.43 1.43 1 43 \n8 3 3 3 None\n9 4 4 4 None\n10 1 1 1 None\n11 . . \n12 - None\n13 7 7 7 None (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 277; Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 57 | 1.40. but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. |
|
38. Mishnah, Megillah, 3.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 80| 3.5. "בְּפֶסַח קוֹרִין בְּפָרָשַׁת מוֹעֲדוֹת שֶׁל תּוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (ויקרא כב). בַּעֲצֶרֶת, שִׁבְעָה שָׁבֻעוֹת (דברים טז). בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ (ויקרא כג). בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, אַחֲרֵי מוֹת (שם טז). בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חָג קוֹרִין בְּפָרָשַׁת מוֹעֲדוֹת שֶׁבְּתוֹרַת כֹּהֲנִים (ויקרא כג), וּבִשְׁאָר כָּל יְמוֹת הֶחָג בְּקָרְבְּנוֹת הֶחָג (במדבר כט): \n", | 3.5. "On Pesah we read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus (Torat Kohanim) (Leviticus 23:4). On Shavuot, “Seven weeks” (Deuteronomy 16:9). On Rosh Hashanah “On the seventh day on the first of the month” (Leviticus 23:2. On Yom Hakippurim, “After the death” (Leviticus. On the first day of the Festival [of Sukkot] they read from the portion of the festivals in Leviticus, and on the other days of the Festival [of Sukkot] the [sections] on the offerings of the Festival.", |
|
39. Tosefta, Demai, 2.2-2.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic (in practice), material evidence for rabbinic practices Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 24| 2.2. "המקבל עליו ארבעה דברים מקבלין אותו להיות חבר שלא ליתן תרומות ומעשרות לעם הארץ ושלא יעשה טהרות אצל עם הארץ ושיהא אוכל חולין בטהרה.", 2.3. "המקבל עליו להיות נאמן מעשר את שהוא אוכל ואת שהוא מוכר ואת שהוא לוקח ואין מתארח אצל עם הארץ דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים המתארח אצל עם הארץ נאמן אמר להם ר' מאיר על עצמו אינו נאמן יהא נאמן על [אלו] מימיהן של בעלי בתים לא נמנעו מלהיות אוכלין זה אצל זה ואעפ\"כ פירותיהן שבתוך בתיהן מתוקנין.", | |
|
40. Tosefta, Ketuvot, 12.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 82| 12.1. "בראשונה כשהיתה כתובתה אצל אביה היתה קלה בעיניו להוציאה התקין שמעון בן שטח שתהא כתובתה אצל בעלה וכותב לה כל נכסים דאית לי אחראין וערבאין לכתובתיך דא. אין עושין כתובת אשה מן המטלטלין מפני תיקון העולם אמר ר' יוסי וכי מה תקון העולם יש בזו אלא לפי שאין לה קצבה.", 12.1. "אמר ר' יוסי ב\"ר יהודה לא נחלקו אדמון וחכמים על מה שפסק לה אביה שהיא יכולה לומר אבא פסק עלי מה אני יכולה לעשות או כנוס או פטור על מה נחלקו על שפסקה היא לעצמה שאדמון אומר יכולה היא שתאמר סבורה הייתי שאבא נותן לי עכשיו שאין אבא נותן לי מה אני יכולה לעשות או כנוס או פטור אר\"ג רואה אני את דברי אדמון הפוסק מעות לבתו [קטנה] ופשט את הרגל כופין אותו ליתן שזכין [לקטן ואין חבין לו].", | 12.1. "Originally, when her ketubah was with her father, it was light in [her husband's] eyes to divorce her. Shimon ben Shatah decreed that her ketubah should be with her husband and that he should write for her \"All of my property will be mortgaged or pledged for your ketubah\". They do not make a wife's ketubah from moveable items [i.e. they don't make moveable items the thing that she can collect from it, but rather real estate] because of tikkun ha-olam. Said Rabbi Yose: What tikkun ha-olam is there in this!? It is because they [the moveable items] have no fixed value.", |
|
41. Tosefta, Taanit, 2.5, 3.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 82| 2.5. "אנשי משמר ואנשי מעמד אסורין לספר ולכבס בין משחרב הבית ובין עד שלא חרב הבית רבי יוסי אומר משחרב הבית מותרין מפני שאבל הוא להם יום שני וחמישי הוחדו לתענית צבור ובהן בתי דינים יושבין בעיירות ובהן נכנסין לבתי כנסיות וקורין ובהן [מפסיקין] למקרא מגילה.", 3.2. "שמונה משמרות תקן משה לכהונה ושמונה ללוים משעמד דוד ושמואל הרואה עשאום כ\"ד משמרות כהונה וכ\"ד משמרות [לויה] שנאמר (דברי הימים א ט׳:כ״ב) המה יסד דוד ושמואל הרואה באמונתם אלו משמרות כהונה ולויה עמדו נביאים שבירושלים וקבעו שם כ\"ד מעמדות כנגד כ\"ד משמרות כהונה ולויה שנאמר (במדבר כ״ח:ב׳) צו את בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם את קרבני לחמי אי אפשר לומר כל ישראל אלא מלמד ששלוחו של אדם כמותו.", | |
|
42. Tosefta, Sukkah, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 80, 82| 3.1. "לולב דוחה את השבת בתחלתו וערבה בסופו [מעשה וכבשו עליה בייתוסין אבנים גדולים מערב שבת הכירו בהם עמי הארץ ובאו וגררום והוציאום מתחת אבנים בשבת] לפי שאין בייתוסין מודים שחבוט ערבה דוחה שבת.", | 3.1. "The lulav suspends the Sabbath in the beginning of its duty, and the willow in the end of its duty. There is a story that some Boethusians once hid the willows under some great stones on the Sabbath eve; but when this had become known to the common people they came and dragged them out from under the stones on the Sabbath, for the Boethusians do not acknowledge that the beating of the willow suspends the Sabbath.", |
|
| 43. Tosefta, Shabbat, 1.16, 2.14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic •rabbinic authority Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 163; Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 81, 82 |
44. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 7.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 79, 81| 7.1. "אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל בראשונה לא היו חותמים על כתובת נשים כשרות אלא כהנים או לוים או ישראלים המשיאין לכהונה א\"ר יוסי בראשונה לא היה מחלוקת בישראל ב\"ד של שבעים וא' שהיו בלשכת הגזית ושאר בתי דינין של עשרים ושלשה היו בעיירות של ישראל ושני בתי דינין של ג' היו בירושלים אחד בהר הבית ואחד בחיל נצרך אחד מהן הלכה הולך אצל ב\"ד שבעירו אין ב\"ד בעירו הולך לב\"ד הסמוך לעירו אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו הוא והמופלא שבהן באין לב\"ד שבהר הבית אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו הוא והמופלא שבהן באין לבית דין שבחיל אם שמעו אמרו להם ואם לאו אלו ואלו באין לבית דין הגדול שבלשכת הגזית אע\"פ שהוא שבעים ואחד אין פחות מעשרים ושלשה נצרך אחד מהן לצאת רואה אם יש שם עשרים ושלשה יוצא ואם לאו אינו יוצא עד שיהו שם עשרים ושלשה ושם היו יושבין מתמיד של שחר ועד תמיד של בין הערבים בשבתות וימים טובים לא היו נכנסין אלא לבית המדרש שבהר הבית נשאלה שאלה אם שמעו אמרו להם אם לאו עומדין למנין אם רבו מטמאין טימאו רבי מטהרין טיהרו ומשם הלכה רווחת בישראל משרבו תלמידי שמאי והלל שלא שימשו כל צרכן הרבו מחלוקות בישראל ונעשו שתי תורות ומשם שולחין ובודקין כל מי שהוא חכם ועניו ושפל וירא חטא ופרקו טוב ורוח הבריות נוחה עליו עושין אותו דיין בעירו משנעשה דיין בעירו מעלין ומושיבין אותו בהר הבית משם מעלין ומושיבין אותו בחיל משם מעלין ומושיבין בלשכת הגזית ושם יושבין ובודקין את יחסי כהונה ואת יחסי לויה כהן שנמצא בו פסול לובש שחורין ומתעטף שחורין ושלא נמצא בו פסול לובש לבנים ומשמש עם אחיו הכהנים מביא עשירית האיפה משלו ועבודה בידו ואע\"פ שאין המשמר שלו אחד כהן גדול ואחד כהן הדיוט שעבדו עד שלא הביאו העשירית האיפה עבודתו כשרה.", | |
|
| 45. Tosefta, Rosh Hashanah, 2.18 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic, calendar court (yavne) Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012), Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna, 259 |
| 46. Tosefta, Qiddushin, 5.21 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 96 |
47. Tosefta, Parah, 3.7-3.8, 10.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic •rabbinic authority Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 88; Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 67| 3.7. "פקע מעורה ומשערה ומבשרה חוץ לגיתה יחזיר ואם לא החזיר פסול. חוץ ממערכתה הרי זה מרבה עליו ושורפו במקומו ר\"א אומר כזית מעכבת פחות מכזית אין מעכבת. פקע מקרנה ומטלפה ומפרשה א\"צ להחזיר שאין זבח שאין מעכב בחיה אין מעכב בשריפתה ר\"א בר צדוק הוסיף אשליך אשליך אשליך והם אמרו לו הן ג\"פ על כל דבר ודבר. בין שקרעה ביד בין שקרעה בסכין ובין שנקרעה מאליה ובין שהשליך שלשתן זה אחר זה <זה אחר זה> כשרה.", 3.8. "נתנן עד שלא הוצת האור ברובה או משנעשית אפר פסולה. נטל עצם או שחור וקדש בו הרי זה לא עשה כלום אם יש עליו אבק כל שהוא אם מגופה כותשו ומקדש בו וכשר. וחולקין אותו לשלשה חלקים אחד ניתן בחיל ואחד ניתן בהר המשחה ואחד מתחלק לכל המשמרות זה שמתחלק לכל המשמרות היו ישראל מזין הימנו. זה שניתן בהר המשחה היו כהנים מקדשין בו. זה שניתן בחיל היו משמרין שנאמר (במדבר יט) והיתה לעדת בני ישראל למשמרת. ", 10.3. "קלל של חטאת שנתנו על גבי השרץ ר' אליעזר מטהר וחכמים מטמאין במד\"א בזמן שאם ינטל השרץ והקלל עומד ואפילו מת ונבילה נוגעין בו מאחריו טמא נתנו על גבי משכב [ומושב] ועל גבי חרס הטמא טמא. נתנו ע\"ג אוכלין ומשקים ועל גבי ס\"ת ר' יוסי מטהר ור\"מ מטמא העבירו על תנור ועל גבי נבלה ועל גבי השרץ ר' עקיבה מטמא. מודה ר' עקיבה שאם עברה ליה הזאה על גבי משכב ומושב ועל גבי כלי חרס הטמא שהיא טהורה חוץ מכזית מן המת ומן המאהילין שהן טמאין מלמעלה כלמטה.", | |
|
48. Tosefta, Niddah, 1.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 82| 1.5. "תינוקת שלא הגיע זמנה לראות וראתה ראייה ראשונה ושניה דיה שעתה שלישית מטמאה מעת לעת הפסיקה ב' שעות וראתה דיה שעתה או שהגיע זמנה לראות וראתה ראייה ראשונה ושניה מטמאה מעת לעת והשלישית דיה שעתה. הפסיקה ג' שעות וראתה מטמאה מעת לעת. ואימתי ראויה לראות משתביא שתי שערות. אמר רבי אליעזר מעשה בריבה אחת בהיתלו שהגיע זמנה לראות הפסיקה ג' עונות ובא מעשה לפני חכמים ואמרו דיה שעתה אמרו לו הוראת שעה היתה.", | |
|
49. Tosefta, Negaim, 8.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012), Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna, 251| 8.3. "אמר רבי יהודה שבתי היתה והלכתי אצל רבי טרפון בביתו אמר לי יהודה בני תן לי סנדלי ונתתי לו הימנה מקל אמר לי בני בזו טהרתי שלשה מצורעים ולמדתי בה שבע הלכות שהן של אברית וראשה טרוף ארכה אמה ועביה אמה ברבוע כרע המטה חלוק לאחד ושנים לארבעה מזין שנים ומשלשה ומטהרין בפני הבית ושלא בפני הבית ומטהרין בגבולין.", | |
|
| 50. Tosefta, Megillah, a b c d\n0 4.2 4.2 4 2 \n1 4 4 4 None\n2 . . \n3 2 2 2 None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 59 |
| 51. Tosefta, Kiddushin, 5.21 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 96 |
52. Tosefta, Eduyot, 1.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic constructions of,transmission from moses at sinai •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 533; Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 81| 1.1. "חמשה דברים היה ר\"ע דורש כמין אגדה בחמשה דברים אדם זוכה לבן וחכמים אומרים עד הפרק זכה לו מיכן ואילך הוא זוכה לעצמו אמר ר\"ע היכן מצינו שהיו חיגרין עד הפרק וכשהגיע הפרק נתפשטו ושהיו חרשין עד הפרק וכשהגיע הפרק נתפקחו ושהיו סומין עד הפרק כשהגיע הפרק נתפתחו והיאך זוכה לו עד אותה השעה אמרו לו כי מצינו שהיו פשוטים עד הפרק וכשהגיע הפרק נתחגרו ושהיו פקחין עד הפרק וכשהגיע הפרק נתחרשו ושהיו פתוחים עד הפרק וכשהגיע הפרק נסתמו הא אין זוכה לו אלא עד אותה השעה בלבד.", 1.1. "כשנכנסו חכמים לכרם ביבנה אמרו עתידה שעה שיהא אדם מבקש דבר מדברי תורה ואינו מוצא מדברי סופרים ואינו מוצא שנאמר (עמוס ח׳:י״ב) <לכן> הנה ימים באים נאם ה' וגו' ישוטטו לבקש את דבר ה' ולא ימצאו דבר ה' זו נבואה דבר ה' זה הקץ דבר ה' שלא יהא דבר מד\"ת דומה לחברו אמרו נתחיל מהלל ומשמאי שמאי אומר מקב חלה הלל אומר מקבים וחכ\"א לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה אלא קב ומחצה חייב בחלה שנאמר (במדבר ט״ו:כ׳) ראשית עריסותיכם כדי עיסתכם וכמה עיסתכם כדי עיסת מדבר וכמה עיסת מדבר עומר שנאמר (שמות ט״ז:ל״ו) והעומר עשירית האיפה הוא שיערו חכמים שבעה רבעים ועוד מדברית שהן חמשה רבעי צפורית שהן קב ומחצה ירושלמית.", | 1.1. "When the Sages entered the Vineyard in Yavneh, they said, \"In the future, there will come an hour when a person seeks a teaching from the teachings of the Torah and he will not find it, or in the teachings of the Scribes, and he will not find it.\" As it says, \"Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, etc. they will seek out the word of God and they will not find it (Amos 8).\" 'The word of God' refers to prophecy. 'The word of God' refers to the End (of Days). 'The word of God', so that there shall not be one word of Torah similar to its fellow. They said, \"Let us begin from Hillel and Shammai!\"...", |
|
53. Tosefta, Hagigah, 1.9, 2.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 79, 81, 86, 87, 93| 1.9. "אין מביאים תודה בחג המצות מפני החמץ שבה ולא בעצרת מפני שהוא יום [טבוח] אבל מביא בחג הסוכות ויוצא בה ידי חובתו רבי שמעון אומר אין מביאין תודה בחג הסוכות שכל שבא בחג המצות בא בחג השבועות ובחג הסוכות תודה שאינה באה בחג המצות אינה באה לא בחג השבועות ולא בחג הסוכות ר\"א בר\"ש אומר [תודה באה] בחג הסוכות ויוצא בה ידי חובתו משום שמחה ואין יוצא בה [ידי חובה] משום חגיגה.", | |
|
| 54. Tosefta, Yadayim, 2.16 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98 |
| 55. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Jaffee (2001), Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE, 88 |
| 56. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, 8.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic authority Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 88 |
| 57. Palestinian Talmud, Eruvin, 3.7, 7.1, 7.6, 7.10 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic authority Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 88 |
| 58. Palestinian Talmud, Hagigah, 3.3 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic authority Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 88 |
| 59. Palestinian Talmud, Maaser Sheni, 2.4 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic authority Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 88 |
| 60. Palestinian Talmud, Moed Qatan, 3.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 183 |
| 61. Palestinian Talmud, Pesahim, 3.3, 4.4 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic authority Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 88 |
| 62. Anon., Qohelet Rabba, 12.11 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •prophecy as authority, vs. rabbinic, and written vs. oral texts Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 278 |
| 63. Palestinian Talmud, Shabbat, 2.4 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic authority Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 88 |
| 64. Palestinian Talmud, Bikkurim, 1.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 73 |
| 65. Palestinian Talmud, Demai, 7.4 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic authority Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 88 |
| 66. Palestinian Talmud, Terumot, 2.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic authority Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 163 |
| 67. Palestinian Talmud, Peah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heresy, rabbinic judaism, authority as unbroken chain from moses Found in books: Cohen (2010), The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism, 538 |
| 68. Palestinian Talmud, Betzah, 5.2 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic authority Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 88 |
69. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 183| 62b. בני בנים הרי הן כבנים כי תניא ההיא להשלים,מיתיבי בני בנים הרי הם כבנים מת אחד מהם או שנמצא סריס לא קיים פריה ורביה תיובתא דרב הונא תיובתא:,בני בנים הרי הם כבנים: סבר אביי למימר ברא לברא וברתא לברתא וכ"ש ברא לברתא אבל ברתא לברא לא א"ל רבא לשבת יצרה בעיא והא איכא,דכולי עלמא מיהת תרי מחד לא ולא והא אמרי ליה רבנן לרב ששת נסיב איתתא ואוליד בני ואמר להו בני ברתי בני נינהו,התם דחויי קמדחי להו דרב ששת איעקר מפירקיה דרב הונא,אמר ליה רבה לרבא בר מארי מנא הא מילתא דאמור רבנן בני בנים הרי הן כבנים אילימא מדכתיב (בראשית לא, מג) הבנות בנותי והבנים בני אלא מעתה והצאן צאני הכי נמי אלא דקנית מינאי הכא נמי דקנית מינאי,אלא מהכא (דברי הימים א ב, כא) ואחר בא חצרון אל בת מכיר אבי גלעד ותלד לו את שגוב וכתיב (שופטים ה, יד) מני מכיר ירדו מחוקקים וכתיב (תהלים ס, ט) יהודה מחוקקי,מתניתין דלאו כרבי יהושע דתניא רבי יהושע אומר נשא אדם אשה בילדותו ישא אשה בזקנותו היו לו בנים בילדותו יהיו לו בנים בזקנותו שנא' (קהלת יא, ו) בבקר זרע את זרעך ולערב אל תנח ידך כי אינך יודע אי זה יכשר הזה או זה ואם שניהם כאחד טובים,ר"ע אומר למד תורה בילדותו ילמוד תורה בזקנותו היו לו תלמידים בילדותו יהיו לו תלמידים בזקנותו שנא' בבקר זרע את זרעך וגו' אמרו שנים עשר אלף זוגים תלמידים היו לו לרבי עקיבא מגבת עד אנטיפרס וכולן מתו בפרק אחד מפני שלא נהגו כבוד זה לזה,והיה העולם שמם עד שבא ר"ע אצל רבותינו שבדרום ושנאה להם ר"מ ור' יהודה ור' יוסי ורבי שמעון ורבי אלעזר בן שמוע והם הם העמידו תורה אותה שעה,תנא כולם מתו מפסח ועד עצרת אמר רב חמא בר אבא ואיתימא ר' חייא בר אבין כולם מתו מיתה רעה מאי היא א"ר נחמן אסכרה,א"ר מתנא הלכה כרבי יהושע,אמר רבי תנחום א"ר חנילאי כל אדם שאין לו אשה שרוי בלא שמחה בלא ברכה בלא טובה בלא שמחה דכתיב (דברים יד, כו) ושמחת אתה וביתך בלא ברכה דכתיב (יחזקאל מד, ל) להניח ברכה אל ביתך בלא טובה דכתיב (בראשית ב, יח) לא טוב היות האדם לבדו,במערבא אמרי בלא תורה בלא חומה בלא תורה דכתיב (איוב ו, יג) האם אין עזרתי בי ותושיה נדחה ממני בלא חומה דכתיב (ירמיהו לא, כב) נקבה תסובב גבר,רבא בר עולא אמר בלא שלום דכתיב (איוב ה, כד) וידעת כי שלום אהלך ופקדת נוך ולא תחטא,אמר ריב"ל כל היודע באשתו שהיא יראת שמים ואינו פוקדה נקרא חוטא שנאמר וידעת כי שלום אהלך וגו' ואמר ריב"ל חייב אדם לפקוד את אשתו בשעה שהוא יוצא לדרך שנא' וידעת כי שלום אהלך וגו',הא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא ואל אישך תשוקתך מלמד שהאשה משתוקקת על בעלה בשעה שהוא יוצא לדרך א"ר יוסף לא נצרכה אלא סמוך לווסתה,וכמה אמר רבא עונה והני מילי לדבר הרשות אבל לדבר מצוה מיטרידי,ת"ר האוהב את אשתו כגופו והמכבדה יותר מגופו והמדריך בניו ובנותיו בדרך ישרה והמשיאן סמוך לפירקן עליו הכתוב אומר וידעת כי שלום אהלך האוהב את שכיניו והמקרב את קרוביו והנושא את בת אחותו | 62b. b Grandchildren are /b considered b like children. /b This indicates that if one’s children have passed away, he has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply only if they had children of their own, as they are considered like his own children. The Gemara responds: b When that /b i baraita /i b is taught /b it is with regard b to completing /b the required number of children, e.g., if he had only a son, but his son had a daughter, he has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b to the opinion of Rav Huna from another i baraita /i : b Grandchildren are /b considered b like children. /b If b one of /b a man’s children b died or was discovered /b to be b a eunuch, /b the father has b not fulfilled /b the mitzva to be b fruitful and multiply. /b This directly contradicts Rav Huna’s statement that one fulfills the mitzva even if his children die. The Gemara concludes: b The refutation /b of the opinion b of Rav Huna is /b indeed b a conclusive refutation. /b ,§ It was taught in the i baraita /i that b grandchildren are /b considered b like children. Abaye thought to say /b that if one’s children die, he fulfills the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply through grandchildren, provided b a son /b was born b to /b his b son and a daughter to /b his b daughter, and all the more so /b if b a son /b was born b to /b his b daughter, /b as his grandchildren take the place of his children in these cases. b However, /b if b a daughter /b was born b to /b his b son, no, /b she cannot take the place of her father. b Rava said to him: /b We b require /b merely fulfillment of the verse: b “He formed it to be inhabited,” and there is /b fulfillment in this case, as the earth is inhabited by his descendants.,The Gemara comments: b In any event, everyone /b agrees that if one has b two /b grandchildren b from one /b child, b no, /b he has not fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, even if he has both a grandson and a granddaughter. The Gemara asks: b And /b has he b not? Didn’t the Rabbis say to Rav Sheshet: Marry a woman and have sons, /b as you have not yet fathered any sons, b and /b Rav Sheshet b said to them: The sons of my daughter are my sons? /b This indicates that one can fulfill the mitzva through grandchildren even if he did not have a son and daughter of his own.,The Gemara answers: b There, /b Rav Sheshet b was /b merely b putting them off. /b The real reason he did not want to get remarried was b because Rav Sheshet became impotent from Rav Huna’s discourse. /b Rav Huna’s discourses were so lengthy that Rav Sheshet became impotent after waiting for so long without relieving himself., b Rabba said to Rava bar Mari: From where is this matter that the Sages stated /b derived, that b grandchildren are /b considered b like children? If we say /b it is derived b from /b the fact b that it is written /b in Laban’s speech to Jacob: b “The daughters are my daughters and the children are my children” /b (Genesis 31:43), which indicates that Jacob’s children were also considered to be the children of their grandfather Laban, b if /b that is b so, /b does the continuation of Laban’s statement: b “And the flocks are my flocks” /b (Genesis 31:43), indicate that b so too, /b Jacob’s flocks were considered as belonging to Laban? b Rather, /b Laban was saying b that you, /b Jacob, b acquired /b them b from me. Here too, /b with regard to the children, Laban was saying: b You acquired /b them b from me, /b i.e., it is only due to me that you have children., b Rather, /b the proof is b from here: “And afterward Hezron went in to the daughter of Machir, the father of Gilead…and she bore him Segub” /b (I Chronicles 2:21), b and it is written: “Out of Machir came down governors” /b (Judges 5:14), b and it is written: “Judah is my governor” /b (Psalms 60:9). Consequently, the governors, who were from the tribe of Judah, were also called the sons of Machir, who was from the tribe of Manasseh. This must be because they were the children of Machir’s daughter and Hezron, indicating that grandchildren are considered like children.,§ The Gemara comments: b The mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua. As it is taught in a /b i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehoshua says: /b If b a man married a woman in his youth, /b and she passed away, b he should marry /b another b woman in his old age. /b If b he had children in his youth, he should have /b more b children in his old age, as it is stated: “In the morning sow your seed, and in the evening do not withhold your hand; for you do not know which shall prosper, whether this or that, or whether they both alike shall be good” /b (Ecclesiastes 11:6). This verse indicates that a man should continue having children even after he has fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply., b Rabbi Akiva says /b that the verse should be understood as follows: If one b studied Torah in his youth he should study /b more b Torah in his old age; /b if b he had students in his youth he should have /b additional b students in his old age, as it is stated: “In the morning sow your seed, etc.” They said /b by way of example that b Rabbi Akiva had twelve thousand pairs of students /b in an area of land that stretched b from Gevat to Antipatris /b in Judea, b and they all died in one period /b of time, b because they did not treat each other with respect. /b , b And the world was desolate /b of Torah b until Rabbi Akiva came to our Rabbis in the South and taught /b his Torah b to them. /b This second group of disciples consisted of b Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Yehuda, Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua. And these are the very ones /b who b upheld /b the study of b Torah at that time. /b Although Rabbi Akiva’s earlier students did not survive, his later disciples were able to transmit the Torah to future generations.,With regard to the twelve thousand pairs of Rabbi Akiva’s students, the Gemara adds: It is b taught /b that b all of them died /b in the period b from Passover until i Shavuot /i . Rav Ḥama bar Abba said, and some say /b it was b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin: They all died a bad death. /b The Gemara inquires: b What is it /b that is called a bad death? b Rav Naḥman said: Diphtheria. /b , b Rav Mattana said: The i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua, /b who said that one must attempt to have more children even if he has already fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply.,§ Apropos the discussion with regard to the mitzva to have children, the Gemara cites statements about marriage in general. b Rabbi Tanḥum said /b that b Rabbi Ḥanilai said: Any man who does not have a wife is /b left b without joy, without blessing, without goodness. /b He proceeds to quote verses to support each part of his statement. He is b without joy, as it is written: “And you shall rejoice, you and your household” /b (Deuteronomy 14:26), which indicates that the a man is in a joyful state only when he is with his household, i.e., his wife. He is b without blessing, as it is written: “To cause a blessing to rest in your house” /b (Ezekiel 44:30), which indicates that blessing comes through one’s house, i.e., one’s wife. He is b without goodness, as it is written: “It is not good that man should be alone” /b (Genesis 2:18), i.e., without a wife., b In the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, they b say: /b One who lives without a wife is left b without Torah, /b and b without a wall /b of protection. He is b without Torah, as it is written: “Is it that I have no help in me, and that sound wisdom is driven from me?” /b (Job 6:13), indicating that one who does not have a wife lacks sound wisdom, i.e., Torah. He is b without a wall, as it is written: “A woman shall go round a man” /b (Jeremiah 31:21), similar to a protective wall., b Rava bar Ulla said: /b One who does not have a wife is left b without peace, as it is written: “And you shall know that your tent is in peace; and you shall visit your habitation and shall miss nothing” /b (Job 5:24). This indicates that a man has peace only when he has a tent, i.e., a wife.,On the same verse, b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Whoever knows that his wife fears Heaven /b and she desires him, b and he does not visit her, /b i.e., have intercourse with her, is b called a sinner, as it is stated: And you shall know that your tent is in peace; /b and you shall visit your habitation. b And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A man is obligated to visit his wife /b for the purpose of having intercourse b when he /b is about to b depart on a journey, as it is stated: “And you shall know that your tent is in peace, etc.” /b ,The Gemara asks: Is b this /b last statement b derived from here? /b It is b derived from there: “And your desire shall be to your husband” /b (Genesis 3:16), which b teaches that a wife desires her husband when he is about to depart on a journey. Rav Yosef said: /b The additional derivation cited by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi b is necessary only near /b the time of b her set pattern, /b i.e., when she expects to begin experiencing menstrual bleeding. Although the Sages generally prohibited intercourse at this time due to a concern that the couple might have intercourse after she begins bleeding, if he is about to depart on a journey he must have intercourse with her.,The Gemara asks: b And how much /b before the expected onset of menstrual bleeding is considered near the time of her set pattern? b Rava said: An interval /b of time, i.e., half a daily cycle, either a day or a night. The Gemara comments: b And this /b statement that a man must have intercourse with his wife before he departs on a journey b applies /b only if he is traveling b for an optional matter, but /b if he is traveling in order to attend b to a matter /b pertaining to a b mitzva, /b he is not required to have intercourse with his wife so that he not become b preoccupied /b and neglect the mitzva.,§ b The Sages taught: /b One b who loves his wife as /b he loves b himself, and who honors her more than himself, and who instructs his sons and daughters in an upright path, and who marries them off near the time /b when b they /b reach maturity, b about him the verse states: And you shall know that your tent is in peace. /b As a result of his actions, there will be peace in his home, as it will be devoid of quarrel and sin. One b who loves his neighbors, and who draws his relatives close, and who marries the daughter of his sister, /b a woman he knows and is fond of as a family relative and not only as a wife, |
|
70. 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. 167| 28b. אתיא לאחלופי בראשון הא קא אתי רגל שלישי,ת"ר בראשונה כל מי שמצא אבידה היה מכריז עליה שלשה רגלים ואחר רגל אחרון שבעת ימים כדי שילך שלשה ויחזור שלשה ויכריז יום אחד משחרב בית המקדש שיבנה במהרה בימינו התקינו שיהו מכריזים בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות ומשרבו האנסים התקינו שיהו מודיעין לשכיניו ולמיודעיו ודיו,מאי משרבו האנסין דאמרי אבידתא למלכא רבי אמי אשכח אודייא דדינרי חזייה ההוא בר נש דקא מירתת א"ל זיל שקול לנפשך דלאו פרסאי אנן דאמרי אבידתא למלכא,ת"ר אבן טוען היתה בירושלים כל מי שאבדה לו אבידה נפנה לשם וכל מי שמוצא אבידה נפנה לשם זה עומד ומכריז וזה עומד ונותן סימנין ונוטלה וזו היא ששנינו צאו וראו אם נמחת אבן הטוען:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אמר את האבידה ולא אמר סימניה לא יתן לו והרמאי אע"פ שאמר סימניה לא יתן לו שנאמר (דברים כב, ב) עד דרוש אחיך אותו עד שתדרוש את אחיך אם רמאי הוא אם אינו רמאי:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אתמר רב יהודה אמר אבידתא מכריז ור"נ אמר גלימא מכריז,רב יהודה אמר אבידתא מכריז דאי אמרת גלימא מכריז חיישינן לרמאי,ר"נ אמר גלימא מכריז לרמאי לא חיישינן דא"כ אין לדבר סוף,תנן אמר את האבידה ולא אמר את סימניה ה"ז לא יתן לו אי אמרת בשלמא אבידתא מכריז הא קמ"ל אע"ג דאמר גלימא כי לא אמר סימנין לא מהדרינן ליה אלא אי אמרת גלימא מכריז אמר איהו גלימא ואמר איהו גלימא צריכא למימר כי לא אמר סימנין לא מהדרינן ליה,אמר רב ספרא לעולם גלימא מכריז אמר איהו גלימא ואמר איהו סימנין ומאי לא אמר את סימניה לא אמר סימנין מובהקין דידה:,והרמאי אע"פ שאמר את סימניה ה"ז לא יתן לו: ת"ר בראשונה כל מי שאבדה לו אבידה היה נותן סימנין ונוטלה משרבו הרמאין התקינו שיהו אומרים לו צא והבא עדים דלאו רמאי את וטול,כי הא דאבוה דרב פפא אירכס ליה חמרא ואשכחוה אתא לקמיה דרבה בר רב הונא אמר ליה זיל אייתי סהדי דלאו רמאי את וטול אזל אייתי סהדי אמר להו ידעיתון ביה דרמאי הוא אמרו ליה אין אמר להו אנא רמאה אנא אמרו ליה אנן לאו רמאי את קאמרינן אמר רבה בר רב הונא מסתברא לא מייתי איניש חובתא לנפשיה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כל דבר שעושה ואוכל יעשה ויאכל ודבר שאין עושה ואוכל ימכר שנאמר (דברים כב, ב) והשבותו לו ראה היאך תשיבנו לו,מה יהא בדמים ר"ט אומר ישתמש בהן לפיכך אם אבדו חייב באחריותן ר"ע אומר לא ישתמש בהן לפיכך אם אבדו אין חייב באחריותן:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ולעולם אמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל עד י"ב חדש תניא נמי הכי כל דבר שעושה ואוכל כגון פרה וחמור מטפל בהן עד י"ב חדש מכאן ואילך שם דמיהן ומניחן,עגלים וסייחין מטפל בהן שלשה חדשים מכאן ואילך שם דמיהן ומניחן אווזין ותרנגולין מטפל בהם שלשים יום מכאן ואילך שם דמיהן ומניחן,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק תרנגולת כבהמה גסה תניא נמי הכי תרנגולת ובהמה גסה מטפל בהן שנים עשר חודש מכאן ואילך שם דמיהן ומניחן עגלים וסייחין מטפל בהן ל' יום מכאן ואילך שם דמיהן ומניחן אווזין ותרנגולין וכל דבר שטיפולו מרובה משכרו מטפל בהן שלשה ימים מכאן ואילך שם דמיהן ומניחן,קשיא עגלים וסייחין אעגלים וסייחין אווזין ותרנגולין אאווזין ותרנגולין,עגלים וסייחין אעגלים וסייחין לא קשיא הא דרעיא והא דפטומא,אווזין ותרנגולין אאווזין ותרנגולין נמי לא קשיא הא ברברבי הא בזוטרי:,ושאינו עושה ואוכל: תנו רבנן והשבותו לו ראה היאך תשיבנו לו שלא יאכיל עגל לעגלים וסיח לסייחין אווזא לאווזין ותרנגול לתרנגולין:,מה יהא בדמים רבי טרפון אומר ישתמש וכו': עד כאן לא פליגי | 28b. because perhaps one who hears him will b come to confuse /b it b with the first /b pilgrimage Festival? The Gemara answers: Confusing the second Festival with the first is not a problem, as in any case, b won’t /b the finder b come /b on the b third pilgrimage Festival, /b thereby giving the owner another opportunity to recover his lost item?,§ b The Sages taught: Initially, anyone who found a lost item would proclaim /b his find for b three pilgrimage Festivals and /b for b seven days after the last /b of the three b pilgrimage Festivals, so that /b its owner b will go to his home, /b a trip lasting up to b three /b days, b and will return /b to Jerusalem, a trip lasting up to b three /b days, b and proclaim /b his loss for b one day. /b But b from /b the time b that the Temple was destroyed, may it be rebuilt speedily in our days, /b the Sages b instituted that /b those who find lost items b shall proclaim /b their finds b in synagogues and study halls. And from /b the time b that the oppressors proliferated, /b the Sages b instituted /b an ordice b that /b one who finds a lost item b shall inform his neighbors and acquaintances, and /b that will b suffice for him. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of: b From /b the time b that the oppressors proliferated? /b The Gemara answers: It is from the time b that they say: A lost item /b belongs b to the king. /b The Sages were concerned that any public proclamation would result in confiscation of the lost item. The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Ami found a vessel /b full b of dinars. A certain Roman saw that he was wary /b and hesitant to take it. The Roman b said to him: Go, take it for yourself; as we are not Persians, who say that a lost item /b belongs b to the king. /b , b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b There was a Claimant’s Stone in Jerusalem, /b and b anyone who lost an item would be directed there and anyone who found a lost item would be directed there. This /b finder would b stand and proclaim /b his find b and that /b owner b would stand and provide /b its b distinguishing marks and take /b the item. b And that is /b the place about which b we learned /b in a mishna ( i Ta’anit /i 19a): b Go and see if the Claimant’s Stone has been obscured /b by the rising water., strong MISHNA: /strong If a claimant accurately b stated /b what type of item b the lost item /b that was found by another is, b but did not state, /b i.e., describe, b its distinguishing marks, /b the finder b shall not give /b it b to him. And /b in the case of b a swindler, even though he stated its distinguishing marks, /b the finder b shall not give /b the lost item b to him, as it is stated: /b “And if your brother be not near you, and you know him not, then you shall bring it into your house, and it shall be with you b until your brother claims [ i derosh /i ] it [ i oto /i ], /b and you shall return it to him” (Deuteronomy 22:2). Would it enter your mind that the finder would give it to him before he claims it? How can the finder return it if he does not know the identity of the owner? Rather, the verb i derosh /i is not referring to the claim of the owner; it is referring to the scrutiny performed by the finder. You shall not return the lost item b until /b you b scrutinize [ i shetidrosh /i ] your brother /b to determine b whether /b he, the claimant, b is a swindler /b or b whether he is not a swindler. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b It was stated /b that b Rav Yehuda said: /b One who finds an item b proclaims /b that he found b a lost item /b without specifying its nature. b And Rav Naḥman said: /b He specifies the nature of the item, e.g., b he proclaims /b that he found b a cloak. /b , b Rav Yehuda said: /b One who finds an item b proclaims /b that he found b a lost item, as if you say /b that b he proclaims /b that he found b a cloak, we are concerned about /b the possibility that b a swindler /b may attempt to claim the item. Perhaps the swindler learned that another person lost that item, and he will ascertain its distinguishing marks, provide those distinguishing marks, and claim the item., b Rav Naḥman said: /b The finder b proclaims /b that he found b a cloak, and we are not concerned about /b the possibility that b a swindler /b may attempt to claim the item, b as if so, there is no end to the matter. /b Even if the finder does not specify the nature of the item, perhaps a swindler would be able to guess its nature.,The Gemara cites proof from that which b we learned /b in the mishna: If a claimant accurately b states /b what type of item b the lost item /b that was found by another is, b but did not state its distinguishing marks, /b the finder b shall not give /b it b to him. Granted, if you say /b the finder b proclaims /b that he found an unspecified b lost item, this /b mishna b teaches us /b that b even though /b the claimant indeed b stated /b that the lost item is b a cloak, as /b long as b he did not state /b its b distinguishing marks, we do not return /b it b to him. But if you say /b that the finder b proclaims /b that he found b a cloak, /b if the finder b stated /b that he found b a cloak and /b the claimant b stated /b that he lost b a cloak, /b does it b need to be said /b that b when he did not state /b its b distinguishing marks, we do not return it to him? /b , b Rav Safra said: Actually, /b one could say that the finder b proclaims /b that he found b a cloak, /b and the mishna is referring to a case where the finder b stated /b that he found b a cloak, and /b the claimant b stated /b its b distinguishing marks. And what /b is the meaning of the phrase in the mishna: If he b did not state its distinguishing marks? /b It means: If b he did not state its clear-cut distinguishing marks /b but rather stated distinguishing marks that are not exclusive to the item. Therefore, he does not prove his ownership.,§ The mishna teaches: b And /b in the case of b a swindler, even though he stated its distinguishing marks, /b the finder b shall not give /b the lost item b to him. The Sages taught: Initially, anyone who lost an item would provide /b its b distinguishing marks and take it. /b But b when the swindlers proliferated, /b the Sages b instituted /b an ordice b that /b the finders will b say to him: Go and bring witnesses /b who can testify b that you are not a swindler, and take /b your item.,The Gemara relates: This is b as /b in b that /b incident involving b the father of Rav Pappa, /b who b lost a donkey and /b others b found it. He came before Rabba bar Rav Huna /b to reclaim his donkey. Rabba bar Rav Huna b said /b to the father of Rav Pappa: b Go and bring witnesses /b who can testify b that you are not a swindler, and /b you may b take /b your donkey. The father of Rav Pappa b went and brought witnesses. /b Rabba bar Rav Huna b said to /b the witnesses: b Do you know about him /b that b he is a swindler? /b The witnesses b said: Yes. /b Rav Pappa’s father b said, /b incredulously, b to /b the witnesses: b I am a swindler? /b The witnesses b said to him: We were saying that you are not a swindler. /b They had thought the question was if he was not a swindler, and therefore responded in the affirmative. b Rabba bar Rav Huna said: /b It b is reasonable /b to conclude that the witnesses actually intended to support Rav Pappa’s father, because presumably, b a person does not bring condemnation upon himself; /b Rav Pappa’s father would not have volunteered to provide witnesses who would testify against him., strong MISHNA: /strong If one finds b any /b living b being that works and /b generates enough revenue to cover the costs of the food that it b eats, /b it b shall work and eat /b while in the finder’s possession. b And any /b living b being that does not work but /b it does b eat shall be sold, as it is stated: /b “Then you shall bring it into your house, and it shall be with you until your brother claims it, b and you shall return it to him” /b (Deuteronomy 22:2), indicating that the finder must b see how /b best b to return it to him. /b Since the owner must repay the finder for his expenditures, if feeding the animal costs more than its value, the finder’s keep-ing the animal in his possession will prevent the owner from recovering it., b What shall be /b done b with the money /b received from the sale of the animal? b Rabbi Tarfon says: /b The finder b may use it; therefore, if /b the money b is lost, /b he is b liable /b to pay b restitution /b for b it. Rabbi Akiva says: He may not use /b the money; b therefore, if it is lost, /b he is b not liable /b to pay b restitution /b for b it. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that an animal that generates enough revenue to cover the costs of the food that it eats shall work and eat while in the finder’s possession. The Gemara asks: b And /b must he care for the animal b forever? Rav Naḥman says /b that b Shmuel says: /b He cares for the animal b until twelve months /b pass. b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : If one finds b any /b living b being that works and /b generates enough revenue to cover the costs of the food that it b eats, e.g., a cow or a donkey, /b he b tends to them until twelve months /b pass. b From that /b point b forward, one assesses their value, /b sells them, b and places /b the money aside for the owner.,If one finds b calves and foals, /b which are young and unfit for labor, b he tends to them /b for b three months, /b as they do not earn their keep. b From that /b point b forward, one assesses their value, /b sells them, b and places /b the money aside for the owner. If one finds b geese and roosters, he tends to them /b for b thirty days. From that /b point b forward, one assesses their value, /b sells them, b and places /b the money aside for the owner., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: /b The legal status of b a chicken is like /b that of b a large domesticated animal /b in that the eggs it lays suffice to cover the cost of its food, and therefore the finder keeps it for twelve months. b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : If one finds b a chicken and a large domesticated animal, /b he b tends to them for twelve months. From that /b point b forward, one assesses their value, /b sells them, b and places /b the money aside for the owner. If one finds b calves and foals, he tends to them /b for b thirty days. From that /b point b forward, one assesses their value, /b sells them, b and places /b the money aside for the owner. If one finds b geese and roosters and anything that /b costs b more to tend to than /b the b revenue /b generated by b it, he tends to them /b for b three days. From that /b point b forward, one assesses their value, /b sells them, b and places /b the money aside for the owner.,The Gemara asks: It is b difficult, /b as there is a contradiction between the ruling in the first i baraita /i that the finder keeps b calves and foals /b for three months b and /b the ruling in the second i baraita /i that the finder keeps b calves and foals /b for thirty days; and there is another contradiction between the ruling in the first i baraita /i that the finder keeps b geese and roosters /b for thirty days, b and /b the ruling in the second i baraita /i that the finder keeps b geese and roosters /b for three days.,The Gemara answers: The contradiction between the ruling in the first i baraita /i with regard to b calves and foals and /b the ruling in the second i baraita /i with regard to b calves and foals /b is b not difficult. This /b ruling in the first i baraita /i that the finder keeps them for three months is referring to calves and foals b that graze /b in the pasture, b and that /b ruling in the second i baraita /i that the finder keeps them for thirty days is referring to calves and foals b that /b need to be b fattened /b and therefore require greater exertion on the part of the one who finds them.,The contradiction between the ruling in the first i baraita /i with regard to b geese and roosters and /b the ruling in the second i baraita /i with regard to b geese and roosters /b is b also not difficult. This /b ruling in the first i baraita /i that the finder keeps them for thirty days is referring b to large /b geese and roosters, which do not require great exertion, b and that /b ruling in the second i baraita /i that the finder keeps them for three days is referring b to small /b geese and roosters, which require great exertion.,The mishna teaches: b And /b any living being b that does not work but /b it does b eat /b shall be sold. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “And you shall return it to him” /b (Deuteronomy 22:2), indicating that the finder must b see how /b best b to return it to him, /b meaning b that /b one b shall not feed /b the value of b a calf to /b the lost b calves /b that he is tending, b nor /b the value of b a foal to /b the lost b foals /b that he is tending, b nor /b the value of b a goose to /b the b geese /b that he is tending, b nor /b the value of b a rooster to /b the b roosters /b that he is tending. Were the finder to do so, ultimately, the owner would receive nothing.,§ The mishna teaches: b What shall be /b done b with the money /b received from the sale of the animal? b Rabbi Tarfon says: /b The finder b may use it; /b therefore, if the money is lost, he is liable to pay restitution for its loss. Rabbi Akiva says: He may not use the money. Therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution. The Gemara analyzes the tannaitic dispute: Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva b disagree /b |
|
| 71. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 73 |
72. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic authority 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. |
|
73. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012), Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna, 251| 37a. לא מצא ארבעת מינין יהא יושב ובטל והתורה אמרה בסוכות תשבו שבעת ימים סוכה של כל דבר וכן בעזרא אומר (נחמיה ח, טו) צאו ההר והביאו עלי זית ועלי עץ שמן ועלי הדס ועלי תמרים ועלי עץ עבות (ועשו) סוכות ככתוב,ורבי יהודה סבר הני לדפנות עלי הדס ועלי תמרים ועלי עץ עבות לסכך ותנן מסככין בנסרין ד"ר יהודה אלמא סיב ועיקרא דדיקלא מינא דלולבא הוא ש"מ,ומי אמר ר' יהודה ארבעת מינין אין מידי אחרינא לא והתניא סיככה בנסרים של ארז שיש בהן ד' טפחים ד"ה פסולה אין בהן ד' טפחים רבי מאיר פוסל ורבי יהודה מכשיר ומודה רבי מאיר שאם יש בין נסר לנסר כמלא נסר שמניח פסל ביניהן וכשירה,מאי ארז הדס כדרבה בר רב הונא דאמר רבה בר רב הונא אמרי בי רב עשרה מיני ארזים הן שנא' (ישעיהו מא, יט) אתן במדבר ארז שיטה והדס וגו':,ר' מאיר אומר אפילו במשיחה כו': תניא א"ר מאיר מעשה ביקירי ירושלים שהיו אוגדין את לולביהן בגימוניות של זהב אמרו לו משם ראיה במינו היו אוגדין אותו מלמטה,אמר להו רבה להנהו מגדלי הושענא דבי ריש גלותא בי גדליתו הושענא דבי ריש גלותא שיירי ביה בית יד כי היכי דלא תיהוי חציצה,רבא אמר כל לנאותו אינו חוצץ ואמר רבה לא לינקיט איניש הושענא בסודרא דבעינא לקיחה תמה וליכא ורבא אמר לקיחה על ידי דבר אחר שמה לקיחה,אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דלקיחה על ידי דבר אחר שמה לקיחה דתנן אזוב קצר מספקו בחוט ובכוש וטובל ומעלה ואוחז באזוב ומזה אמאי (במדבר יט, יח) ולקח וטבל אמר רחמנא אלא לאו ש"מ לקיחה על ידי דבר אחר שמה לקיחה,ממאי דלמא שאני התם כיון דחבריה כגופיה דמי אלא מהכא נפל משפופרת לשוקת פסול | 37a. According to your reasoning, if b one did not find /b any of the b four species /b to roof his i sukka /i , b he will sit idly /b and fail to fulfill the mitzva of i sukka /i ; b and the Torah states: “You shall reside in i sukkot /i /b for seven days” (Leviticus 23:42), meaning b a i sukka /i of any material. Likewise, in /b the book of b Ezra, /b which can refer also to the book of Nehemiah, b it says: “Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of a dense-leaved tree, to make i sukkot /i , as it is written” /b (Nehemiah 8:15). Apparently, a i sukka /i may be constructed even with materials other than the four species., b And Rabbi Yehuda holds: These /b olive branches and pine branches mentioned in the verse were b for the walls /b of the i sukka /i , which need not be built from the four species. b Myrtle branches, palm branches, and branches of a dense-leaved tree, /b i.e., again myrtle, all of which are among the four species, were b for the roofing. /b Rabbi Yehuda holds that one may roof the i sukka /i only with the four species. b And we learned /b in a mishna: b One /b may b roof /b the i sukka /i b with boards; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. /b As boards can be produced from one of the four species only if the trunk of the date palm is considered a i lulav /i , b apparently, fibers and the trunk of the date palm are the species of the i lulav /i . /b The Gemara determines: Indeed, b conclude from it /b that this is so.,The Gemara wonders: b And did Rabbi Yehuda say /b with regard to the materials fit for roofing a i sukka /i that b the four species, yes, /b they are fit, but b other materials, no, /b they are not fit? b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : If b one roofed /b the i sukka /i b with cedar [ i erez /i ] boards that have four /b handbreadths b in their /b width, b everyone agrees /b that it is b unfit. /b If b they do not have four /b handbreadths b in their /b width, b Rabbi Meir deems it unfit and Rabbi Yehuda deems it fit. And Rabbi Meir concedes that if there is between /b one b board /b and another b board /b a gap the b complete /b width b of a board, /b then b one places /b fit roofing from the b waste /b of the threshing floor and the winepress b between /b the boards b and /b the i sukka /i b is fit. /b Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda permits one to roof the i sukka /i with cedar wood, which is not one of the four species.,The Gemara responds: b What is /b the b i erez /i /b to which the mishna refers? It is in fact a b myrtle /b tree, b in accordance with /b that b which Rabba bar Rav Huna /b said, b as Rabba bar Rav Huna said /b that b they say in the school of Rav: There are ten types of i erez /i , as it is stated: “I will place in the wilderness the cedar [ i erez /i ], the acacia-tree, the myrtle, /b and pine tree; I will set in the plain the juniper, the box-tree, and the cypress all together” (Isaiah 41:19). All the trees listed in this verse are types of cedar, and the myrtle is one of them.,§ The mishna continues: b Rabbi Meir says: /b One may tie the i lulav /i b even with a cord. It is taught /b in the i Tosefta /i that b Rabbi Meir said: /b There was b an incident involving the prominent /b residents b of Jerusalem who would bind their i lulavim /i with gold rings. /b The Sages b said to him: /b Is there b proof from there? They would bind it with its own species beneath /b the rings, which serve a merely decorative purpose and not a halakhic one., b Rabba said to those who /b would b bind the four species [ i hoshana /i ] of the house of the Exilarch: When you bind the four species of the house of the Exilarch, leave /b room for b a handgrip on it /b where there is neither binding nor decoration b so that there will not be an interposition /b between the i lulav /i and the hand of the person taking it., b Rava said: /b That is unnecessary, as b any /b addition whose purpose is b to beautify does not interpose. And Rabba said: Let a person not take the four species with a cloth [ i sudara /i ] /b around his hand, b since I require a complete taking, and there is none /b in this case due to the interposition between his hand and the i lulav /i . b And Rava said: /b That is not a problem, as b taking by means of another object is considered taking. /b , b Rava said: From where do I say that taking by means of another object is considered taking? /b It is b as we learned /b in a mishna: One undergoing purification from impurity imparted by a corpse must be sprinkled with purification water with the ashes of the red heifer. If the b hyssop /b used to sprinkle the water was b short /b and did not reach the water in the receptacle, b one renders it sufficiently /b long b by /b attaching b a string or a spindle, and /b then he b dips /b the hyssop into the water, b removes /b it, b grasps the hyssop, and sprinkles /b the water on the one undergoing purification. And b why /b may he do so? Doesn’t b the Merciful One say /b in the Torah: b “And /b a ritually pure person shall b take /b hyssop, b and dip /b it in the water, and sprinkle it” (Numbers 19:18), indicating that one must take the hyssop while dipping it? b Rather, /b may one b not conclude from /b this that b taking by means of another object is considered taking? /b ,This proof is rejected: b From where /b can that be proven? b Perhaps it is different there; since he attached /b the string to the hyssop, its legal status b is like /b that of the hyssop b itself. /b However, the legal status of the cloth is not like that of the i lulav /i , since it is not attached to the i lulav /i . b Rather, /b the fact that taking by means of another object is considered taking can be learned b from here: /b If the ashes of the red heifer b fell from the tube /b in which they were held b into the trough /b in which the spring water was located, the water is b unfit, /b since taking the ashes and placing them in the water must be performed intentionally. |
|
74. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 278| 60b. ופרשת שתויי יין ופרשת נרות ופרשת פרה אדומה,א"ר אלעזר תורה רוב בכתב ומיעוט על פה שנא' (הושע ח, יב) אכתוב לו רובי תורתי כמו זר נחשבו ור' יוחנן אמר רוב על פה ומיעוט בכתב שנא' (שמות לד, כז) כי על פי הדברים האלה,ואידך נמי הכתיב אכתוב לו רובי תורתי ההוא אתמוהי קא מתמה אכתוב לו רובי תורתי הלא כמו זר נחשבו,ואידך נמי הכתיב כי על פי הדברים האלה ההוא משום דתקיפי למיגמרינהו,דרש רבי יהודה בר נחמני מתורגמניה דרבי שמעון בן לקיש כתיב (שמות לד, כז) כתוב לך את הדברים האלה וכתיב (שמות לד, כז) כי ע"פ הדברים האלה הא כיצד דברים שבכתב אי אתה רשאי לאומרן על פה דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאומרן בכתב דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא אלה אלה אתה כותב ואי אתה כותב הלכות,א"ר יוחנן לא כרת הקב"ה ברית עם ישראל אלא בשביל דברים שבעל פה שנאמר (שמות לד, כז) כי על פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית ואת ישראל:,מערבין בבית ישן מפני דרכי שלום: מאי טעמא אילימא משום כבוד והא ההוא שיפורא דהוה מעיקרא בי רב יהודה ולבסוף בי רבה ולבסוף בי רב יוסף ולבסוף בי אביי ולבסוף בי רבא,אלא משום חשדא:,בור שהוא קרוב לאמה וכו': איתמר בני נהרא רב אמר תתאי שתו מיא ברישא ושמואל אמר עילאי שתו מיא ברישא,בדמיזל כולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי במיסכר ואשקויי שמואל אמר עילאי שתו מיא ברישא דאמרי אנן מקרבינן טפי ורב אמר תתאי שתו מיא ברישא דאמרי נהרא כפשטיה ליזיל,תנן בור הקרוב לאמה מתמלא ראשון מפני דרכי שלום תרגמה שמואל אליבא דרב באמה המתהלכת ע"פ בורו,אי הכי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא מצי אמרי ליה סכר מיסכר ואשקי בהינדזא קמ"ל,אמר רב הונא בר תחליפא השתא דלא איתמר הלכתא לא כמר ולא כמר כל דאלים גבר,רב שימי בר אשי אתא לקמיה דאביי אמר ליה לותבן מר בעידנא אמר ליה אית לי עידנא לדידי ולותבן מר בליליא א"ל אית לי מיא לאשקויי א"ל אנא משקינא ליה למר מיא ביממא ולותבן מר בליליא א"ל לחיי,אזל לעילאי אמר להו תתאי שתו מיא ברישא אזל לתתאי אמר להו עילאי שתו מיא ברישא אדהכי סכר מיסכר ואשקי כי אתא לקמיה דאביי אמר ליה כבי תרי עבדת לי ולא טעמינהו אביי לפירי דההיא שתא,הנהו בני בי חרמך דאזול כרו ברישא דשנוותא ואהדרוה ושדיוה בשילהי נהרא אתו עילאי לקמיה דאביי אמרו ליה קא מתקיל לנהרין אמר להו כרו בהדייהו טפי פורתא אמרו ליה קא יבשי פירין אמר להו זילו סליקו נפשייכו מהתם:,מצודות חיה ועופות ודגי' יש בהן וכו': באוזלי ואוהרי | 60b. b the section /b dealing with priests who have become b intoxicated with wine /b (Leviticus 10:8–11); b the section of the lamps /b (Numbers 8:1–7); b and the section of the red heifer /b (Numbers, chapter 19), as all of these sections are necessary for service in the Tabernacle.,§ The Gemara continues its discussion concerning the writing of the Torah: b Rabbi Elazar says: The majority of the Torah /b was transmitted b in writing, while the minority /b was transmitted b orally, as it is stated: “I wrote for him the greater part of My Torah; they were reckoned a strange thing” /b (Hosea 8:12), meaning that the majority of the Torah was transmitted in written form. b And Rabbi Yoḥa says: The majority /b of the Torah was transmitted b orally [ i al peh /i ], while the minority /b was transmitted b in writing, as it is stated /b with regard to the giving of the Torah to Moses on Mount Sinai: b “For on the basis of [ i al pi /i ] these matters /b I have made a covet with you and with Israel” (Exodus 34:27), which indicates that the greater part of the Sinaitic covet was taught orally.,The Gemara asks: b And /b according to b the other /b Sage, Rabbi Yoḥa, b as well, isn’t it written: “I wrote for him the greater part of My Torah”? /b How does he understand this verse? The Gemara answers: b This /b verse b is /b not a statement, but rather a rhetorical question expressing b bewilderment: /b For did b I write for him the greater part of My Torah? /b In that case b they, /b the Jewish people, b would be reckoned as strangers, /b meaning that there would be no difference between them and the nations of the world if everything was written down. Rather, the majority of the Torah must remain an oral tradition.,The Gemara asks: b And /b according to b the other /b Sage, Rabbi Elazar, b as well, isn’t it written: “For on the basis of these matters /b I have made a covet with you and with Israel”? How does he understand this verse? The Gemara answers: b That /b verse, which indicates that the covet was based on that which was taught by oral tradition, is stated b due to /b the fact that b it is /b more b difficult to learn /b matters transmitted orally, but not because these matters are more numerous than those committed to writing., b Rabbi Yehuda bar Naḥmani, the disseminator for Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, expounded /b as follows: b It is written: “Write you these matters” /b (Exodus 34:27), b and it is written /b later in that same verse: b “For on the basis of [ i al pi /i ] these matters.” How /b can b these /b texts be reconciled? They mean to teach: b Matters that were written you may not express them orally [ i al peh /i ], /b and b matters that were /b taught b orally you may not express them in writing. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: /b The word b “these” /b in the mitzva recorded in the verse “Write you these matters” is used here in an emphatic sense: b These /b matters, i.e., those recorded in the Written Law, b you may write, but you may not write i halakhot /i , /b i.e., the i mishnayot /i and the rest of the Oral Law., b Rabbi Yoḥa says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, made a covet with the Jewish people only for the sake of the matters that /b were transmitted b orally [ i be’al peh /i ], as it is stated: “For on the basis of [ i al pi /i ] these matters I have made a covet with you and with Israel” /b (Exodus 34:27).,§ The mishna teaches that the Sages enacted that b a joining /b of courtyards [ i eiruv /i ] b is placed in an old house /b where it had regularly been placed b on account of the ways of peace. /b The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b for this? b If we say /b that it is b to /b show b respect /b to the owner of that house, b but wasn’t /b it related about b a certain charity box, /b which was fashioned for the benefit of the community and brought honor to the person in whose house it was placed, b that initially it was /b placed b in Rav Yehuda’s house, and afterward /b it was moved to b Rabba’s house, and afterward /b it was transferred to b Rav Yosef’s house, and afterward /b it was moved to b Abaye’s house, and afterward /b it was moved to b Rava’s house. /b This teaches that there is no issue here of respect, and that such items would ordinarily be moved from place to place., b Rather, /b say instead that the Sages instituted this enactment b to /b avoid arousing b suspicion. /b Since the i eiruv /i had regularly been placed in a particular house, were it to be moved, people might think that the residents of the alleyway suspected that the owner of the house was stealing from them, and therefore they put it somewhere else.,§ The mishna teaches that the Sages enacted that b the pit that is nearest to the irrigation channel /b that supplies water to several pits or fields is filled first on account of the ways of peace. b It was stated /b that the i amora’im /i disagree about the following issue: When b people /b own fields b along a river /b and they irrigate their fields with water that is redirected from it, who among them enjoys first rights to irrigate his field? b Rav said: /b The owners of b the lowermost /b fields b drink the water, /b i.e., irrigate their fields, b first. And Shmuel said: /b The owners of b the uppermost /b fields b drink the water first. /b ,The Gemara explains: b With /b regard to a case where the water b flows /b on its own, b everyone agrees /b that whoever wishes to irrigate may do so as he wishes. b When they disagree, /b it is b with /b regard to a case b where they /b need to b dam /b the river b and irrigate /b through channels. b Shmuel said: /b The owners of b the uppermost /b fields b drink the water first because /b they can b say: We are nearer /b to the river’s headwaters. b And Rav said: /b The owners of b the lowermost /b fields b drink the water first because /b they can b say: Let the river go its /b natural b way /b and after we take what we need, dam it as you please., b We learned /b in the mishna that the Sages enacted that b the pit that is nearest to the irrigation channel /b that supplies water to several pits or fields b is filled first on account of the ways of peace. /b This teaches that the party who is nearest to the water’s source enjoys first rights, and it supports Shmuel’s opinion and is difficult for Rav. b Shmuel interpreted /b the mishna b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rav: /b The mishna refers here to b an irrigation channel that passes the mouth of the pit, /b so that the pit fills with water on its own, even without damming.,The Gemara asks: b If so, what /b is the purpose b of stating /b this? It is obvious. The Gemara answers: b Lest you say /b that the owners of the other fields b can say to /b the owner of the pit: b Dam /b your pit as well so that water not enter it, b and irrigate /b your fields b in proportion [ i hindeza /i ], /b just like the rest of us. The mishna therefore b teaches us /b that the owner of the pit is not required to do this, and consequently his pit is filled first., b Rav Huna bar Taḥalifa said: Now that the i halakha /i was stated neither in accordance with /b the opinion of b this Sage, /b Rav, b nor in accordance with /b the opinion of b that Sage, /b Shmuel, b whoever is stronger prevails. /b Since the i halakha /i has not been decided, the court refuses to judge the case and leaves the claimants to settle the matter themselves, in the hope that the rightful party will exert himself and prevail., b Rav Shimi bar Ashi came before Abaye /b and b said to him: Master, set a time for me /b to study with you. Abaye b said to him: I have /b a set b time for myself, /b and I cannot devote it to you. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: b Master, set /b a time b for me at night, /b and we can study then. Abaye b said to him: I have /b to bring b water /b at night with which b to irrigate /b my fields. Rav Shimi bar Ashi b said to him: I will irrigate for Master during the day, and /b then b Master can set /b a time b for me at night /b to study with him. Abaye b said to him: Very well; /b this is an acceptable arrangement.,What did Rav Shimi bar Ashi do? b He /b first b went to /b the owners of b the uppermost /b fields, and b said to them: /b The owners of b the lowermost /b fields b drink the water first, /b in accordance with the opinion of Rav. b He /b then b went to /b the owners of b the lowermost /b fields, b and said to them: /b The owners of b the uppermost /b fields b drink the water first, /b in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. b In the meantime, /b while the owners of the upper fields and the lower fields were arguing over who has first rights to the water, Rav Shimi bar Ashi b dammed /b the river b and irrigated /b Abaye’s fields. b When he came before Abaye, /b the latter b said to him: You have acted for me in accordance with two /b opposing opinions. b And Abaye would not /b even b taste the produce of that year /b because he thought that the water had reached his field in an unlawful manner.,It is related that there were b certain residents /b of a place called b Bei Ḥarmakh who went /b and b dug /b a channel b at the head of the Shanvata /b River in order to divert the water and allow it to circle their fields, b and then they returned /b the water to the river further b downstream. /b Those who owned fields further b upstream came before Abaye, /b and b said to him: This damages our river, /b as the water is not flowing as it once had. Abaye b said to them: Dig a little deeper with them, /b and that should solve the problem. b They said to him: /b If we do that, b our pits will become dry. /b Once Abaye heard this b he said to /b the residents of Bei Ḥarmakh: b Go remove yourselves from there, /b and dam the diversion that you made for the river.,§ The mishna teaches: Taking b animals, birds, or fish /b that were caught in b traps /b belonging to another person is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. And Rabbi Yosei says that this is full-fledged robbery. The Gemara comments: b With regard to nets [ i uzlei /i ] and /b woven b traps [ i oharei /i ], /b |
|
75. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012), Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna, 114| 39b. ממעשה שעשו אנשי טבריא ואסרי להו רבנן בטלה הטמנה בדבר המוסיף הבל ואפילו מבעוד יום אמר עולא הלכה כאנשי טבריא א"ל רב נחמן כבר תברינהו אנשי טבריא לסילונייהו:,מעשה שעשו אנשי טבריא: מאי רחיצה אילימא רחיצת כל גופו אלא חמין שהוחמו בשבת הוא דאסורין הא חמין שהוחמו מע"ש מותרין והתניא חמין שהוחמו מע"ש למחר רוחץ בהן פניו ידיו ורגליו אבל לא כל גופו אלא פניו ידיו ורגליו,אימא סיפא בי"ט כחמין שהוחמו בי"ט ואסורין ברחיצה ומותרין בשתיה לימא תנן סתמא כבית שמאי דתנן בית שמאי אומרים לא יחם אדם חמין לרגליו אא"כ ראויין לשתיה וב"ה מתירין,א"ר איקא בר חנניא להשתטף בהן כל גופו עסקינן והאי תנא הוא דתניא לא ישתטף אדם כל גופו בין בחמין ובין בצונן דברי ר"מ ר"ש מתיר ר' יהודה אומר בחמין אסור בצונן מותר,אמר רב חסדא מחלוקת בכלי אבל בקרקע דברי הכל מותר והא מעשה דאנשי טבריא בקרקע הוה ואסרי להו רבנן אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר מחלוקת בקרקע אבל בכלי דברי הכל אסור,אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כרבי יהודה א"ל רב יוסף בפירוש שמיע לך או מכללא שמיע לך מאי כללא דאמר רב תנחום א"ר יוחנן א"ר ינאי אמר (רב) כל מקום שאתה מוצא שנים חלוקין ואחד מכריע הלכה כדברי המכריע חוץ מקולי מטלניות שאף על פי שרבי אליעזר מחמיר ורבי יהושע מיקל ור' עקיבא מכריע אין הלכה כדברי המכריע חדא דרבי עקיבא תלמיד הוא ועוד הא | 39b. b From /b this b action performed by the people of Tiberias and the /b fact that the b Sages prohibited them /b from using the water, the conclusion is that the practice of b insulating /b a pot b in something that increases the heat /b over the course of Shabbat was b abolished /b on Shabbat. b And /b not only is it prohibited to do so on Shabbat itself, but it is also prohibited b while it is still day /b before Shabbat. Running pipes of cold water through hot water is similar to insulating water in something that adds heat. b Ulla said: The i halakha /i is in accordance with the people of Tiberias. Rav Naḥman said to him: The people of Tiberias have already broken their pipes. /b Even they reconsidered their position.,We learned in the mishna with regard to the b incident, /b which related b what the people of Tiberias did, /b that the legal status of water that was heated in the Tiberias hot springs is like that of water heated on Shabbat, and it is prohibited for use in bathing. The Gemara clarifies this matter: b What /b type of b bathing /b is this? b If you say /b that it is referring to b bathing one’s entire body, /b that is difficult. That would indicate that only b water heated on Shabbat is prohibited /b for use in bathing one’s entire body; however, bathing one’s entire body in b hot water heated before Shabbat is permitted. /b That cannot be. b Wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : With regard to b hot water that was heated on Shabbat eve, one may /b use b it the next day /b to b wash his face, his hands, and his feet /b incrementally; b however, not /b to wash b his entire body? Rather, /b it must be that the bathing prohibited in the mishna with water heated on Shabbat is, in fact, washing b his face, his hands, and his feet. /b ,However, if so, b say /b the b latter clause /b of the mishna: b On a Festival, /b the legal status of the water is b like /b that of b water that was heated /b by fire b on a Festival, and it is prohibited for bathing and permitted for drinking. /b Even on a Festival, washing one’s face, hands, and feet is prohibited with this hot water. If so, b let us say /b that b we learned the unattributed mishna in accordance with /b the opinion of b Beit Shammai. As we learned /b in a mishna, b Beit Shammai say: A person may not heat water for his feet /b on a Festival b unless it is /b also b fit for drinking, and Beit Hillel permit /b doing so. According to Beit Hillel, it is permitted to heat water on a Festival for the purpose of washing one’s feet. According to the proposed interpretation of the term bathing in the mishna, as referring to washing one’s face, hands, and feet, our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai. This is problematic, as the halakhic opinion of Beit Shammai is rejected and only rarely cited in an unattributed mishna., b Rav Ika bar Ḥaya said: /b In our mishna, b we are dealing with /b water that was heated in order b to rinse one’s entire body with it. /b Rinsing does not have the same legal status as bathing. b And /b that which we learned in the mishna: Water that was heated on Shabbat is prohibited for bathing, from which it can be inferred that water heated before Shabbat is permitted for bathing on Shabbat, b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b this i tanna /i , /b the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the i Tosefta /i . b As it was taught /b in a i Tosefta /i : b One may neither rinse his entire body with hot water, /b even if it was heated before Shabbat, b nor with cold water; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Shimon permits doing so /b even with hot water because it was heated before Shabbat. b Rabbi Yehuda says: With hot water, /b it is b prohibited; with cold water, /b it is b permitted. /b According to Rabbi Shimon, it is completely prohibited to rinse with water that was heated on Shabbat itself. Consequently, our mishna, which does not differentiate between hot and cold water, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon., b Rav Ḥisda said: /b This b dispute /b over washing with water heated before Shabbat is specifically with regard to water b in a vessel, /b as one might mistakenly think that it was heated on Shabbat, and there is then concern lest one permit the use of water heated with fire on Shabbat. b However, /b when the water was collected b in the ground, everyone agrees that it is permitted. /b The Gemara challenges this: b Wasn’t the incident /b involving b the people of Tiberias /b with regard to water b in the ground, and /b nevertheless b the Sages prohibited it? Rather, if this was stated, this is what was stated, /b i.e., this is the correct version of Rav Ḥisda’s statement: This b dispute /b is specifically when the water is collected b in the ground. However, /b when it is b in a vessel, everyone agrees that it is prohibited. /b , b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: The i halakha /i /b in this dispute is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Yosef said to him: /b Did b you learn /b this from Rabbi Yoḥa b explicitly, or /b did b you learn /b it b by inference /b from something else that he said? The Gemara remarks: b What /b was the statement of Rabbi Yoḥa from which this conclusion could be b inferred? As Rav Tanḥum said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said /b that b Rabbi Yannai said /b that b Rav said: Every place that you find two /b who b disagree /b and each one of them establishes his opinion in a series of cases, b and one /b of the Sages, a third one, adopts a b compromise /b opinion and says that in some cases the i halakha /i is in accordance with one, and in some cases the i halakha /i is in accordance with the other, the b i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b the compromiser. /b This principle holds true b except for /b the case of the ritual impurity of b insignificant strips /b of material. In that case, b even though Rabbi Eliezer is stringent, and Rabbi Yehoshua is lenient, and Rabbi Akiva compromises, the i halakha /i is not in accordance with the statement of the compromiser: First, /b because b Rabbi Akiva is a student /b of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua and lacks the authority to decide between the opinions of his rabbis. b And furthermore, didn’t /b |
|
76. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heresy, rabbinic judaism, authority as unbroken chain from moses Found in books: Cohen (2010), The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism, 539| 107b. בחברון מלך שבע שנים ובירושלים מלך שלשים ושלש שנים וכתיב (שמואל ב ה, ה) בחברון מלך על יהודה שבע שנים וששה חדשים וגו' והני ששה חדשים לא קחשיב ש"מ נצטרע,אמר לפניו רבש"ע מחול לי על אותו עון מחול לך (תהלים פו, יז) עשה עמי אות לטובה ויראו שונאי ויבושו כי אתה ה' עזרתני ונחמתני א"ל בחייך איני מודיע אבל אני מודיע בחיי שלמה בנך,בשעה שבנה שלמה את בית המקדש ביקש להכניס ארון לבית קדשי הקדשים דבקו שערים זה בזה אמר עשרים וארבעה רננות ולא נענה אמר (תהלים כד, ז) שאו שערים ראשיכם והנשאו פתחי עולם ויבא מלך הכבוד מי זה מלך הכבוד ה' עזוז וגבור ה' גבור מלחמה ונאמר (תהלים כד, ט) שאו שערים ראשיכם ושאו פתחי עולם ויבא מלך הכבוד וגו' ולא נענה,כיון שאמר (דברי הימים ב ו, מב) ה' אלהים אל תשב פני משיחך זכרה לחסדי דויד עבדך מיד נענה באותה שעה נהפכו פני שונאי דוד כשולי קדירה וידעו כל ישראל שמחל לו הקב"ה על אותו העון,גחזי דכתיב וילך אלישע דמשק להיכא אזל א"ר יוחנן שהלך להחזיר גחזי בתשובה ולא חזר אמר לו חזור בך אמר לו כך מקובלני ממך החוטא ומחטיא את הרבים אין מספיקין בידו לעשות תשובה,מאי עבד איכא דאמרי אבן שואבת תלה לחטאת ירבעם והעמידה בין שמים לארץ ואיכא דאמרי שם חקק בפיה והיתה מכרזת ואומרת אנכי ולא יהיה לך,וא"ד רבנן דחה מקמיה שנאמר (מלכים ב ו, א) ויאמרו בני הנביאים אל אלישע הנה [נא] המקום אשר אנחנו יושבים שם לפניך צר ממנו מכלל דעד השתא לא הוו (פיישי) [צר],תנו רבנן לעולם תהא שמאל דוחה וימין מקרבת לא כאלישע שדחפו לגחזי בשתי ידים [ולא כרבי יהושע בן פרחיה שדחפו ליש"ו בשתי ידים],גחזי דכתיב (מלכים ב ה, כג) ויאמר נעמן הואל וקח ככרים (ויפצר) [ויפרץ] בו ויצר ככרים כסף וגו' ויאמר אליו אלישע מאין גחזי ויאמר לא הלך עבדך אנה ואנה ויאמר אליו לא לבי הלך כאשר הפך איש מעל מרכבתו לקראתך העת לקחת את הכסף ולקחת בגדים וזיתים וכרמים וצאן ובקר ועבדים ושפחות ומי שקל כולי האי כסף ובגדים הוא דשקל,אמר רבי יצחק באותה שעה היה אלישע יושב ודורש בשמונה שרצים נעמן שר צבא מלך ארם היה מצורע אמרה ליה ההיא רביתא דאישתבאי מארעא ישראל אי אזלת לגבי אלישע מסי לך כי אתא א"ל זיל טבול בירדן א"ל אחוכי קא מחייכת בי אמרי ליה הנהו דהוו בהדיה מאי נפקא לך מינה זיל נסי אזל וטבל בירדנא ואיתסי אתא אייתי ליה כל הני דנקיט לא צבי לקבולי מיניה גחזי איפטר מקמיה אלישע אזל שקל מאי דשקל ואפקיד,כי אתא חזייה אלישע לצרעת דהוה פרחא עילויה רישיה א"ל רשע הגיע עת ליטול שכר שמנה שרצים וצרעת נעמן תדבק בך ובזרעך עד עולם ויצא מלפניו מצורע כשלג: (מלכים ב ז, ג) וארבעה אנשים היו מצורעים פתח השער אמר ר' יוחנן גחזי ושלשה בניו,[הוספה מחסרונות הש"ס: רבי יהושע בן פרחיה מאי הוא כדקטלינהו ינאי מלכא לרבנן אזל רבי יהושע בן פרחיה ויש"ו לאלכסנדריא של מצרים כי הוה שלמא שלח לי' שמעון בן שטח מני ירושלים עיר הקודש ליכי אלכסנדרי' של מצרים אחותי בעלי שרוי בתוכך ואנכי יושבת שוממה,קם אתא ואתרמי ליה ההוא אושפיזא עבדו ליה יקרא טובא אמר כמה יפה אכסניא זו אמר ליה רבי עיניה טרוטות אמר ליה רשע בכך אתה עוסק אפיק ארבע מאה שיפורי ושמתיה,אתא לקמיה כמה זמנין אמר ליה קבלן לא הוי קא משגח ביה יומא חד הוה קא קרי קריאת שמע אתא לקמיה סבר לקבולי אחוי ליה בידיה הוא סבר מידחא דחי ליה אזל זקף לבינתא והשתחוה לה אמר ליה הדר בך אמר ליה כך מקובלני ממך כל החוטא ומחטיא את הרבים אין מספיקין בידו לעשות תשובה ואמר מר יש"ו כישף והסית והדיח את ישראל:],תניא א"ר שמעון בן אלעזר יצר תינוק ואשה תהא שמאל דוחה וימין מקרבת,ת"ר ג' חלאים חלה אלישע אחד שגירה דובים בתינוקות ואחד שדחפו לגחזי בשתי ידים ואחד שמת בו [שנא' (מלכים ב יג, יד) ואלישע חלה את חליו וגו'],עד אברהם לא היה זקנה כל דחזי לאברהם אמר האי יצחק כל דחזי ליצחק אמר האי אברהם בעא אברהם רחמי דליהוי ליה זקנה שנאמר (בראשית כד, א) ואברהם זקן בא בימים עד יעקב לא הוה חולשא בעא רחמי והוה חולשא שנאמר (בראשית מח, א) ויאמר ליוסף הנה אביך חולה עד אלישע לא הוה איניש חליש דמיתפח ואתא אלישע ובעא רחמי ואיתפח שנא' (מלכים ב יג, יד) ואלישע חלה את חליו אשר ימות בו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big דור המבול אין להם חלק לעוה"ב ואין עומדין בדין שנא' (בראשית ו, ג) לא ידון רוחי באדם לעולם לא דין ולא רוח דור הפלגה אין להם חלק לעולם הבא שנאמר (בראשית יא, ח) ויפץ ה' אותם משם על פני כל הארץ (וכתיב ומשם הפיצם) ויפץ ה' אותם בעוה"ז ומשם הפיצם ה' לעולם הבא אנשי סדום אין להם חלק לעולם הבא שנא' (בראשית יג, יג) ואנשי סדום רעים וחטאים לה' מאד רעים בעולם הזה וחטאים לעולם הבא אבל עומדין בדין,ר' נחמיה אומר אלו ואלו אין עומדין בדין שנאמר (תהלים א, ה) על כן לא יקומו | 107b. b in Hebron he reigned seven years, and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty-three years” /b (I Kings 2:11). b And it is written: “In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months /b and in Jerusalem he reigned for thirty-three years over all Israel and Judah” (II Samuel 5:5). b And those six months, /b the prophet b did not tally /b them as part of the forty years of King David’s reign. b Conclude from it /b that there were six months that he was not considered king because he b was afflicted with leprosy. /b ,David b said before Him /b after this: b Master of the Universe, pardon me for this sin. /b God said to him: b It is forgiven for you. /b David requested: b “Perform on my behalf a sign for good, that they that hate me may see it and be put to shame” /b (Psalms 86:17); show me a sign in my lifetime so that everyone will know that You have forgiven me. God b said to him: In your lifetime I will not make /b it b known /b that you were forgiven, b but I will make /b it b known in the lifetime of your son, Solomon. /b ,The Gemara explains: b When Solomon built the Temple /b and b sought to bring the Ark into the Holy of Holies, /b the b gates clung together /b and could not be opened. Solomon b uttered twenty-four songs /b of praise, b and /b his prayer b was not answered. He said: “Lift up your heads, you gates, and be you lifted up, you everlasting doors, that the King of glory may come in. Who is the King of glory? The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle” /b (Psalms 24:7–8). b And it is stated: “Lift up your heads, you gates, yea, lift them up, you everlasting doors, that the King of glory may come in. /b Who then is the King of glory? The Lord of hosts; He is the King of glory. Selah” (Psalms 24:9–10), b and he was not answered. /b , b Once he said: “O Lord God, turn not away the face of Your anointed; remember the good deeds of David Your servant” /b (II Chronicles 6:42), b he was immediately answered, /b and the gates opened (II Chronicles 7:1). b At that moment, the faces of all of David’s enemies turned /b dark b like the /b charred b bottom of a pot. And all of the Jewish people knew that the Holy One, Blessed be He, had forgiven him for that sin, /b as it was only by David’s merit that Solomon’s prayer was answered.,§ The mishna states that b Gehazi, /b the attendant of Elisha, has no share in the World-to-Come. The Gemara explains that this is b as it is written: And Elisha went to Damascus /b (see II Kings 8:7). b Where did he go, /b and for what purpose? b Rabbi Yoḥa says: He went to cause Gehazi to repent, but he did not repent. /b Elisha b said to him: Repent. /b Gehazi b said to him: This /b is the tradition that b I received from you: Whoever sins and causes the masses to sin is not given the opportunity to repent. /b , b What did he do /b that caused the masses to sin? b There are /b those b who say /b that b he hung a magnetic rock on Jeroboam’s sin, /b i.e., on the golden calf that Jeroboam established as an idol, so that b he suspended it between heaven and earth, /b i.e., he caused it to hover above the ground. This seemingly miraculous occurrence caused the people to worship it even more devoutly than before. b And there are /b those b who say: He engraved /b the sacred b name /b of God b on its mouth, and it would declare and say: “I am /b the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2), b and: “You shall not have /b other gods” (Exodus 20:3). The idol would quote the two prohibitions from the Ten Commandments that prohibit idol worship, causing the people to worship it even more devoutly than before., b And there are /b those b who say: /b Gehazi b pushed the Sages /b away b from /b coming b before him, /b i.e., he prevented them from learning from Elisha, b as it is stated: “And the sons of the prophets said to Elisha, behold this place where we are staying before you is too cramped for us” /b (II Kings 6:1). It may be derived b by inference that until now they were not numerous /b and the place was not b cramped /b for them, as Gehazi would turn people away., b The Sages taught: Always have the left /b hand b drive /b sinners b away and the right draw /b them b near, /b so that the sinner will not totally despair of atonement. This is b unlike Elisha, who pushed away Gehazi with his two hands /b and caused him to lose his share in the World-to-Come, b and unlike Yehoshua ben Peraḥya, who pushed away Jesus the Nazarene with his two hands. /b ,Elisha drove b Gehazi /b away, b as it is written: “And Naaman said: Be content, take two talents. And he urged him, and bound two talents of silver /b in two bags, with two changes of garments” (II Kings 5:23). Naaman offered Gehazi payment for the help Elisha had given him. The verse states: b “And Elisha said to him: Where from, Gehazi? And he said: Your servant went nowhere at all. And he said to him: Went not my heart with you, when the man turned back from his chariot to meet you? Is it the time to receive silver and to receive garments, and olive groves, and vineyards, and sheep and cattle, and menservants and maidservants?” /b (II Kings 5:25–26). The Gemara asks: b And did /b Gehazi b take all that? It is /b merely b silver and garments that he took. /b , b Rabbi Yitzḥak says: /b This was the incident involving Gehazi: b At that moment, Elisha was sitting and teaching /b the i halakhot /i of the b eight /b impure b creeping animals. /b Now b Naaman, the general of the army of Aram, was a leper. A certain young Jewish woman who had been taken captive from Eretz Yisrael said to him: If you go to Elisha, he will heal you. When /b Naaman b came /b to him, Elisha b said to him: Go immerse in the Jordan. /b Naaman b said to him: Are you mocking me /b by suggesting that this will cure me? b Those /b companions b who were with /b Naaman b said to him: What is the difference to you? Go, try /b it. Naaman b went and immersed in the Jordan and was healed. /b Naaman b came /b and b brought to /b Elisha b all those /b items b that he had /b taken with him from Aram, and Elisha b did not agree to receive /b them b from him. Gehazi took leave from before Elisha /b and b went /b and b took /b from Naaman b what he took, and /b he b deposited /b them., b When /b Gehazi b came, Elisha saw the leprosy that had grown on /b Gehazi’s b head. /b Elisha b said to him: Wicked one! The time has arrived to take /b your b reward for /b studying the matter of b the eight creeping animals. /b Since the silver Gehazi received was his reward for studying the matter of the eight creeping animals, Elisha enumerated eight items that Gehazi sought to purchase with the silver that he took. Then Elisha said to Gehazi: b “The leprosy of Naaman shall cleave to you and to your seed forever. And he went out of his presence a leper as white as snow” /b (II Kings 5:27). With regard to the verse: b “And there were four men afflicted with leprosy at the entrance of the gate” /b (II Kings 7:3), b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b These were b Gehazi and his three sons, /b as he and his descendants were cursed.,§ b What is /b the incident involving b Yehoshua ben Peraḥya? /b The Gemara relates: b When King Yannai was killing the Sages, Yehoshua ben Peraḥya and Jesus, /b his student, b went to Alexandria of Egypt. When there was peace /b between King Yannai and the Sages, b Shimon ben Shataḥ sent /b a message b to /b Yehoshua ben Peraḥya: b From me, Jerusalem, the holy city, to you, Alexandria of Egypt: My sister, my husband is located among you and I sit desolate. /b The head of the Sages of Israel is out of the country and Jerusalem requires his return.,Yehoshua ben Peraḥya understood the message, b arose, came, and happened /b to arrive at b a certain inn /b on the way to Jerusalem. b They treated him with great honor. /b Yehoshua ben Peraḥya b said: How beautiful is this inn. /b Jesus, his student, b said to him: /b But b my teacher, the eyes of /b the innkeeper’s wife b are narrow [ i terutot /i ]. /b Yehoshua ben Peraḥya b said to him: Wicked one! /b Do b you involve yourself with regard to that /b matter, the appearance of a married woman? b He produced four hundred i shofarot /i and ostracized him. /b ,Jesus b came before /b Yehoshua ben Peraḥya b several times /b and b said to him: Accept our, /b i.e., my, repentance. Yehoshua ben Peraḥya b took no notice of him. One day /b Yehoshua ben Peraḥya b was reciting i Shema /i /b and Jesus b came before him /b with the same request. Yehoshua ben Peraḥya b intended to accept his /b request, and b signaled him with his hand /b to wait until he completed his prayer. Jesus did not understand the signal and b thought: He is driving me away. He went /b and b stood a brick /b upright to serve as an idol b and he bowed to it. /b Yehoshua ben Peraḥya then b said to /b Jesus: b Repent. /b Jesus b said to him: This /b is the tradition that b I received from you: Whoever sins and causes the masses to sin is not given the opportunity to repent. And the Master says: Jesus performed sorcery, incited /b Jews to engage in idolatry, b and led Israel astray. /b Had Yehoshua ben Peraḥya not caused him to despair of atonement, he would not have taken the path of evil., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: /b With regard to the evil b inclination, /b to b a child, and /b to b a woman, have the left /b hand b drive /b them b away and the right draw /b them b near. /b Total rejection of the evil inclination will lead to inaction, unlike channeling its power in a positive direction. One should not draw them too near, lest they lead him to sin, but one should not drive his wife or his child away completely, lest he cause them to abandon the path of righteousness., b The Sages taught: Elisha fell ill with three illnesses: One /b illness was due to the fact b that he incited bears to /b attack and eat b children /b (see II Kings 2:24–25); b and one /b was due to the fact b that he pushed Gehazi away with two hands /b and caused him to despair of atonement; b and one /b was the illness b from which he died, as it is stated: “And Elisha was fallen ill of his illness /b from which he was to die” (II Kings 13:14), indicating that he had previously suffered other illnesses.,Apropos the death of Elisha, the Gemara says: b Until /b the time of b Abraham there was no aging, /b and the old and the young looked the same. b Anyone who saw Abraham said: That is Isaac, /b and b anyone who saw Isaac said: That is Abraham. Abraham prayed for mercy, that he would undergo aging, as it is stated: “And Abraham was old, well stricken in age” /b (Genesis 24:1). There is no mention of aging before that verse. b Until /b the time of b Jacob there was no weakness, /b i.e., illness. Jacob b prayed for mercy and there was weakness, as it is stated: “And one said to Joseph: Behold, your father is ill” /b (Genesis 48:1). b Until /b the time of b Elisha, there was no ill person who recovered, and Elisha came and prayed for mercy and recovered, as it is stated: “And Elisha was fallen ill of his illness from which he was to die” /b (II Kings 13:14). That is the first mention of a person who was ill and who did not die from that illness.,mishna The members of b the generation of the flood have no share in the World-to-Come and will not stand in judgment /b at the end of days, b as it is stated: “My soul shall not abide [ i yadon /i ] in man forever” /b (Genesis 6:3); b neither /b will they stand in b judgment [ i din /i ] nor /b shall their b souls /b be restored to them. The members of b the generation of the dispersion have no share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And the Lord scattered them from there upon the face of all the earth” /b (Genesis 11:8), b and it is written: “And from there did the Lord scatter them /b upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:9). b “And the Lord scattered them” /b indicates b in this world; “and from there did the Lord scatter them” /b indicates b for the World-to-Come. The people of Sodom have no share in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “And the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly” /b (Genesis 13:13). b “Wicked” /b indicates b in this world; “and sinners” /b indicates b for the World-to-Come. But they will stand in judgment /b and they will be sentenced to eternal contempt., b Rabbi Neḥemya says: /b Both b these, /b the people of Sodom, b and those, /b the members of the generation of the flood, b will not stand in judgment, as it is stated: “Therefore the wicked shall not stand /b |
|
77. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic, calendar court (yavne) Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012), Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna, 259| 25a. וערבית במערב א"ר יוחנן בן נורי עדי שקר הם כשבאו ליבנה קיבלן רבן גמליאל,ועוד באו שנים ואמרו ראינוהו בזמנו ובליל עיבורו לא נראה וקיבלן ר"ג,אמר רבי דוסא בן הורכינס עדי שקר הן היאך מעידים על האשה שילדה ולמחר כריסה בין שיניה אמר לו רבי יהושע רואה אני את דבריך שלח לו ר"ג גוזרני עליך שתבא אצלי במקלך ובמעותיך ביוה"כ שחל להיות בחשבונך,הלך ומצאו ר"ע מיצר אמר לו יש לי ללמוד שכל מה שעשה ר"ג עשוי שנאמר (ויקרא כג, ד) אלה מועדי ה' מקראי קדש אשר תקראו אתם בין בזמנן בין שלא בזמנן אין לי מועדות אלא אלו,בא לו אצל ר' דוסא בן הורכינס אמר לו אם באין אנו לדון אחר בית דינו של ר"ג צריכין אנו לדון אחר כל בית דין ובית דין שעמד מימות משה ועד עכשיו שנאמר (שמות כד, ט) ויעל משה ואהרן נדב ואביהוא ושבעים מזקני ישראל ולמה לא נתפרשו שמותן של זקנים אלא ללמד שכל שלשה ושלשה שעמדו בית דין על ישראל הרי הוא כבית דינו של משה,נטל מקלו ומעותיו בידו והלך ליבנה אצל ר"ג ביום שחל יוה"כ להיות בחשבונו עמד ר"ג ונשקו על ראשו אמר לו בוא בשלום רבי ותלמידי רבי בחכמה ותלמידי שקבלת את דברי:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תניא אמר להם ר"ג לחכמים כך מקובלני מבית אבי אבא פעמים שבא בארוכה ופעמים שבא בקצרה,א"ר יוחנן מ"ט דבי רבי דכתיב (תהלים קד, יט) עשה ירח למועדים שמש ידע מבואו שמש הוא דידע מבואו ירח לא ידע מבואו,רבי חייא חזייא לסיהרא דהוה קאי בצפרא דעשרים ותשעה שקל קלא פתק ביה אמר לאורתא בעינן לקדושי בך ואת קיימת הכא זיל איכסי א"ל רבי לר' חייא זיל לעין טב וקדשיה לירחא ושלח לי סימנא דוד מלך ישראל חי וקים,ת"ר פעם אחת נתקשרו שמים בעבים ונראית דמות לבנה בעשרים ותשעה לחדש כסבורים העם לומר ר"ח ובקשו ב"ד לקדשו אמר להם ר"ג כך מקובלני מבית אבי אבא אין חדושה של לבנה פחותה מעשרים ותשעה יום ומחצה ושני שלישי שעה וע"ג חלקים,ואותו היום מתה אמו של בן זזא והספידה ר"ג הספד גדול לא מפני שראויה לכך אלא כדי שידעו העם שלא קידשו ב"ד את החדש:,הלך ר"ע (ומצאו) מיצר כו': איבעיא להו מי מיצר ר"ע מיצר או רבי יהושע מיצר ת"ש דתניא הלך ר"ע ומצאו לרבי יהושע כשהוא מיצר אמר לו [רבי] מפני מה אתה מיצר אמר לו (רבי) עקיבא ראוי לו שיפול למטה י"ב חדש ואל יגזור עליו גזירה זו,א"ל רבי תרשיני לומר לפניך דבר אחד שלמדתני אמר לו אמור אמר לו הרי הוא אומר (ויקרא כג, ב) אתם אתם אתם ג' פעמים,אתם אפילו שוגגין אתם אפילו מזידין אתם אפילו מוטעין בלשון הזה אמר לו עקיבא נחמתני נחמתני:,בא לו אצל רבי דוסא בן הורכינס כו': ת"ר למה לא נתפרשו שמותם של זקנים הללו שלא יאמר אדם פלוני כמשה ואהרן פלוני כנדב ואביהוא פלוני כאלדד ומידד,ואומר (שמואל א יב, ו) ויאמר שמואל אל העם ה' אשר עשה את משה ואת אהרן ואומר (שמואל א יב, יא) וישלח ה' את ירובעל ואת בדן ואת יפתח ואת שמואל ירובעל זה גדעון ולמה נקרא שמו ירובעל שעשה מריבה עם הבעל בדן זה שמשון ולמה נקרא שמו בדן דאתי מדן יפתח כמשמעו | 25a. b and /b that same day we saw the new moon b in the evening in the west. Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri said: They are false witnesses, /b as it is impossible to see the new moon so soon after the last sighting of the waning moon. However, b when they arrived in Yavne, Rabban Gamliel accepted them /b as witnesses without concern., b And /b there was b another /b incident in which b two /b witnesses b came and said: We saw /b the new moon b at its /b anticipated b time, /b i.e., on the night of the thirtieth day of the previous month; however, b on the /b following b night, /b i.e., the start of the thirty-first, which is often the determit of b a full, /b thirty-day month, b it was not seen. And /b nevertheless b Rabban Gamliel accepted their /b testimony and established the New Moon on the thirtieth day., b Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas /b disagreed and b said: They are false witnesses; how can /b witnesses b testify that a woman gave birth and the next day her belly is between her teeth, /b i.e., she is obviously still pregt? If the new moon was already visible at its anticipated time, how could it not be seen a day later? b Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: I see /b the logic of b your statement; /b the New Moon must be established a day later. Upon hearing that Rabbi Yehoshua had challenged his ruling, b Rabban Gamliel sent /b a message b to him: I decree against you that you /b must b appear before me with your staff and with your money on /b the day on which b Yom Kippur occurs according to your calculation; /b according to my calculation, that day is the eleventh of Tishrei, the day after Yom Kippur., b Rabbi Akiva went and found /b Rabbi Yehoshua b distressed /b that the head of the Great Sanhedrin was forcing him to desecrate the day that he maintained was Yom Kippur. In an attempt to console him, Rabbi Akiva b said to /b Rabbi Yehoshua: b I can learn /b from a verse b that everything that Rabban Gamliel did /b in sanctifying the month b is done, /b i.e., it is valid. b As it is stated: “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, sacred convocations, which you shall proclaim /b in their season” (Leviticus 23:4). This verse indicates that b whether /b you have proclaimed them b at their /b proper b time /b or b whether /b you have declared them b not at their /b proper b time, I have only these Festivals /b as established by the representatives of the Jewish people.,Rabbi Yehoshua then b came to Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas, /b who b said to him: If we come to debate /b and question the rulings of b the court of Rabban Gamliel, we must debate /b and question the rulings of b every court that has stood from the days of Moses until now. As it is stated: “Then Moses went up, and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu, and seventy of the Elders of Israel” /b (Exodus 24:9). b But why were the names of these /b seventy b Elders not specified? Rather, /b this comes b to teach that every /b set of b three /b judges b that stands /b as b a court over the Jewish people /b has the same status b as the court of Moses. /b Since it is not revealed who sat on that court, apparently it is enough that they were official judges in a Jewish court.,When Rabbi Yehoshua heard that even Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas maintained that they must submit to Rabban Gamliel’s decision, b he took his staff and his money in his hand, and went to Yavne to Rabban Gamliel on the day /b on b which Yom Kippur occurred according to his /b own b calculation. /b Upon seeing him, b Rabban Gamliel stood up and kissed him on his head. He said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student. /b You are b my teacher in wisdom, /b as Rabbi Yehoshua was wiser than anyone else in his generation, b and /b you are b my student, as you accepted my statement, /b despite your disagreement., strong GEMARA: /strong b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabban Gamliel said to the Sages, /b in explanation of his opinion that it is possible for the new moon to be visible so soon after the last sighting of the waning moon: b This is /b the tradition that b I received from the house of my father’s father: Sometimes /b the moon b comes by a long /b path b and sometimes it comes by a short /b one., b Rabbi Yoḥa said: What is the reason /b for the opinion b of the house of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, i.e., the house of the heads of the Great Sanhedrin, the source of Rabban Gamliel’s ruling? b As it is written: “Who appointed the moon for seasons; the sun knows its going down” /b (Psalms 104:19). This verse indicates that b it is /b only b the sun /b that b knows its going down, /b i.e., its seasons and the times that it shines are the same every year. In contrast, b the moon does not know its going down, /b as its course is not identical every month.,§ The Gemara relates that b Rabbi Ḥiyya /b once b saw /b the waning b moon standing /b in the sky b on the morning /b of the b twenty-ninth /b of the month. b He took a clump /b of earth and b threw /b it b at /b the moon, b saying: This evening we need to sanctify you, /b i.e., the new moon must be visible tonight so that we may declare the thirtieth of the month as the New Moon, b and you are /b still b standing here? Go /b and b cover yourself /b for now, so that the new moon will be seen only after nightfall. The Gemara further relates that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi once b said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: Go to /b a place called b Ein Tav and sanctify the /b New b Moon /b there, b and send me a sign /b that you have sanctified it. The sign is: b David, king of Israel, lives and endures. /b , b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Once the sky was covered with clouds, and the form of the moon was visible on the twenty-ninth of the month. The people thought to say /b that the day was b the New Moon, and the court sought to sanctify it. /b However, b Rabban Gamliel said to them: This is /b the tradition that b I received from the house of my father’s father: /b The monthly cycle of the b renewal of the moon /b takes b no less than twenty-nine and a half days, plus two-thirds of an hour, plus seventy-three /b of the 1,080 b subsections /b of an hour.,The i baraita /i continues: b And on that day the mother of /b the Sage b ben Zaza died, and Rabban Gamliel delivered a great eulogy /b on b her /b behalf. He did this b not because she was worthy of this /b honor; b rather, /b he eulogized her b so that the people would know that the court had not sanctified the month, /b as eulogies are prohibited on the New Moon.,§ The mishna taught that b Rabbi Akiva went and found him distressed /b that the head of the Great Sanhedrin was forcing him to desecrate the day that he maintained was Yom Kippur. b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: b Who was distressed? /b Was b Rabbi Akiva distressed or /b was b Rabbi Yehoshua distressed? /b The Gemara answers: b Come /b and b hear, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Akiva went and found Rabbi Yehoshua in a state of distress, /b and b he said to him: My teacher, for what /b reason b are you distressed? /b Rabbi Yehoshua b said to him: Rabbi Akiva, it is fitting for /b one b to fall /b sick b in bed for twelve months, rather than to have this decree issued against him /b that he should have to desecrate Yom Kippur.,Rabbi Akiva b said to him: My teacher, allow me to say before you one matter that you /b yourself once b taught me. He said to him: Speak. He said to him: It states /b with respect to the Festivals: “The appointed seasons of the Lord, which you shall proclaim b them [ i otam /i ] /b to be sacred convocations (Leviticus 23:2). And it is written: “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, sacred convocations; you shall proclaim b them [ i otam /i ] /b in their season” (Leviticus 23:4). And it is written: “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord; you shall proclaim b them [ i otam /i ] /b to be sacred convocations” (Leviticus 23:37). b Three times /b the verses use the term: Them [ i otam /i ], which can also be read as you [ i atem /i ], in plural.,This comes to teach: b You /b [ b i atem /i /b ] are authorized to determine the date of the new month, b even /b if you b unwittingly /b establish the New Moon on the wrong day; b you, even /b if you do so b intentionally; you, even /b if you are b misled /b by false witnesses. In all cases, once the court establishes the day as the New Moon, it is sanctified, and God grants His consent. After hearing this, Rabbi Yehoshua b said to him in these words: Akiva, you have consoled me; you have consoled me. /b ,§ The mishna taught that Rabbi Yehoshua next b came to Rabbi Dosa ben Horkinas, /b who proved to him that the court of Rabban Gamliel has the same legal status as the court of Moses. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Why were the names of these /b seventy b Elders /b who sat together with Moses on his court b not specified? /b The reason is so b that a person not say: /b Is b so-and-so /b the judge in my time, b like Moses and Aaron? /b Is b so-and-so like Nadav and Avihu? /b Is b so-and-so like Eldad and Medad? /b Therefore, the names of the other elders were not specified, so that there is no way of knowing the qualifications of the elders in the time of Moses to compare them to later judges., b And /b similarly b it says: “And Samuel said to the people: It is the Lord Who made Moses and Aaron” /b (I Samuel 12:6). b And it says /b further: b “And the Lord sent Jerubaal and Bedan and Jephthah and Samuel” /b (I Samuel 12:11). The Gemara explains: b Jerubaal, this is Gideon. And why is he called Jerubaal? /b The reason is b that he waged a quarrel against Baal. Bedan, this is Samson. And why is he called Bedan? As he came from /b the tribe of b Dan. Jephthah, in accordance with its /b regular b meaning, /b i.e., this is referring to Jephthah himself and is not a nickname. |
|
78. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012), Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna, 244| 74a. מתני׳ big strongכיצד /strong /big צולין את הפסח מביאין שפוד של רמון ותוחבו לתוך פיו עד בית נקובתו ונותן את כרעיו ואת בני מעיו לתוכו דברי ר' יוסי הגלילי ר"ע אומר כמין בישול הוא זה אלא תולין חוצה לו אין צולין את הפסח לא על השפוד ולא על האסכלא א"ר צדוק מעשה בר"ג שאמר לטבי עבדו צא וצלה לנו את הפסח על האסכלא:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big וניתי של מתכת איידי דחם מקצתו חם כולו וקמטוי מחמת השפוד ורחמנא אמר (שמות יב, ח) צלי אש ולא צלי מחמת דבר אחר וניתי של דקל איידי דאית ליה שיבי מפיק מיא והוי כמבושל וניתי של תאנה איידי דמחלחל מפיק מיא והוה ליה כמבושל,וניתי של אלון של חרוב ושל שקמה איידי דאית ביה קיטרי מפיק מיא,של רמון נמי אית ביה קיטרי שיעי קיטרי ואבע"א בנבגא בר שתא דלית ביה קיטרי והא איכא בי פסקיה דמפיק לבי פסקיה לבר,מתני' דלא כרבי יהודה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר כשם ששפוד של עץ אינו נשרף כך שפוד של מתכת אינו מרתיח אמרו לו זה חם מקצתו חם כולו וזה חם מקצתו אינו חם כולו:,ונותן את כרעיו וכו': תניא רבי ישמעאל קוריהו תוך תוך ר"ט קוריהו גדי מקולס,ת"ר איזהו גדי מקולס דאסור לאכול בלילי פסח בזמן הזה כל שצלאו כולו כאחד נחתך ממנו אבר נשלק ממנו אבר אין זה גדי מקולס,השתא יש לומר נחתך ממנו אבר דאף על גב דקא מטוי ליה בהדיה אמרת לא נשלק מיבעיא א"ר ששת ששלקו במחובר,אמר רבה האי מולייתא שריא א"ל אביי והא קא בלע דמא א"ל כבולעה כך פולטה,נימא מסייע ליה נותן את כרעיו ואת בני מעיו לתוכו מ"ט לאו משום דאמרינן כבולעו כך פולטו אמרי שאני התם כיון דאיכא בית השחיטה דמחלחל | 74a. strong MISHNA: /strong b How does one roast the Paschal lamb? One brings a spit [ i shappud /i ] of pomegranate /b wood b and thrusts it into the mouth /b of the lamb b until /b it reaches b its anus, and /b one then b puts its legs and entrails inside it /b and roasts it all together; this is b the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: /b One does not insert its legs and entrails inside it, as b this is a type of cooking. /b Anything placed inside the offering does not get roasted directly by the fire and is considered to have been cooked. b Rather, one suspends /b the legs and entrails from the spit above the animal’s head b outside it. One /b may b not roast the Paschal lamb on the /b metal b spit nor on /b a metal b grill [ i askela /i ]. /b However, b Rabbi Tzadok said: There was an incident with Rabban Gamliel, who said to his slave Tavi: Go and roast the Paschal lamb for us on the grill. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara suggests: b Let them bring a metal /b spit. The Gemara answers: With regard to a metal utensil, b once part of it is hot, it is all hot, and /b the meat is b roasted due to the /b heat of the b spit. And the Merciful One states /b in the Torah that the Paschal lamb must be b roasted in fire and not roasted through something else. /b The Gemara asks why it is necessary to use specifically a spit of pomegranate wood: b Let them bring /b a spit b of palm /b wood. The Gemara answers: b Since /b the palm branch b has grooves /b between the leaves, b it gives off /b a small amount of b water /b from the grooves during roasting. The meat of the offering that touches the spit b is as though it is cooked. /b The Gemara suggests: b Let them bring /b a spit b of fig /b wood. The Gemara answers: b Since it is hollow /b and has sap inside, b it gives off water, and it is as though /b the meat b is cooked. /b ,The Gemara suggests: b Let them bring /b a spit made b from an oak /b or b from a carob /b tree or b from a sycamore, /b which are hard and do not have sap. The Gemara answers: With regard to each one of these trees, b since it has knots /b and one must cut them off in order to smooth the branch, b it gives off water /b from the locations of the cuts during roasting, and the meat is considered cooked.,The Gemara asks: A branch b from a pomegranate /b tree b also has knots. /b The Gemara answers: b Its knots are smooth. /b There is no need to straighten the branch with a knife in order to use it, and therefore it does not emit water. b And if you wish, say /b that the mishna is referring to b a branch /b within its first b year, which does not /b yet b have knots. /b The Gemara asks: b But there is the place it was cut /b from the tree, and water will come from there. The Gemara answers: b One leaves the place it was cut outside /b of the animal rather than inserting that side of the branch into the animal.,The Gemara notes that b the mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda says: Just as /b the part of b a spit of wood /b that is inside the animal b is not burned, /b although it is over the fire, b so /b the part of b a spit of metal /b that is inside the animal b does not become burning hot. /b There is no concern that the meat will be roasted from the heat of the spit. The Rabbis b said to him: /b This is not the case. With regard to b this, /b the metal, when b part of it is hot, it is all hot. And /b with regard to b that, /b the wood, when b part of it is hot, not all of it is hot, /b and therefore the meat is cooked by the heat of the fire and not by the heat of the spit.,It was taught in the mishna that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, b one places the legs /b and entrails inside the lamb’s body and roasts them together. b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yishmael /b would b call /b the Paschal lamb: b i Tokh /i , i tokh /i , /b because when one roasts the legs and entrails inside the lamb they make that sound, like other things that are cooked. b Rabbi Tarfon /b would b call it: Helmeted kid. /b In his opinion, the entrails must be roasted when they are suspended from the spit above the head of the animal, somewhat resembling a helmet., b The Sages taught: Which is the kid roasted whole that it is prohibited to eat on the nights of Passover in modern times, /b so as not appear as though one sacrificed the Paschal lamb outside the Temple? It is b any /b kid b that one roasted all at once /b in the manner that the Paschal lamb was roasted. However, if b one of its limbs is severed /b or b one of its limbs is boiled, it is no /b longer considered b a kid roasted whole. /b ,The Gemara expresses surprise at the formulation of this i baraita /i . b Now, one can say /b that if b one of its limbs is severed, although one roasts it together with /b the rest of the animal, b you said /b that it is b no /b longer considered a kid roasted whole, and it is permitted in modern times. If one of its limbs b is /b severed and b boiled, /b which is not an approved method of preparation of the Paschal lamb, b is /b it b necessary /b to say that that it is not considered roasted whole? b Rav Sheshet said: /b This is referring to a case b where one boiled /b the limb b while it was attached /b to the rest of the animal. The i halakha /i teaches that even if the animal remains whole, if one of its limbs is cooked it is no longer considered a kid roasted whole.,The Gemara raises a general halakhic discussion related to the mishna. b Rabba said: This stuffing /b of raw meat inside another animal that is being roasted b is permitted, /b even if the meat that is stuffed inside has not been salted to remove the blood. b Abaye said to him: But /b the meat of the animal being roasted b absorbs blood /b from the stuffing. b He said to him: As it absorbs it, so it /b then b emits it. /b The heat of the fire causes blood to be released from the meat used as stuffing into the meat of the animal being stuffed, and the heat then draws the blood out of that meat as well.,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say that /b this mishna b supports him: He places its legs and its entrails inside /b the Paschal lamb and roasts them together. b What is the reason /b that it is permitted to do this? Is it b not because we say: As it absorbs it, so it emits it? /b Although Rabbi Akiva disputes this statement, his opinion is due to the unique i halakhot /i of the Paschal lamb. It seems that everyone agrees that there is no concern about the prohibition against consuming blood. The Gemara refutes this proof: b Say it is different there, /b in the case of the Paschal lamb. b Since there is the place of the slaughter, which is hollow /b and open, |
|
79. Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic Found in books: Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 183| 16b. אף דברי תורה בסתר,יצא רבי חייא ושנה לשני בני אחיו בשוק לרב ולרבה בר בר חנה שמע ר' איקפד אתא ר' חייא לאיתחזויי ליה א"ל עייא מי קורא לך בחוץ ידע דנקט מילתא בדעתיה נהג נזיפותא בנפשיה תלתין יומין,ביום תלתין שלח ליה תא הדר שלח ליה דלא ליתי,מעיקרא מאי סבר ולבסוף מאי סבר מעיקרא סבר מקצת היום ככולו ולבסוף סבר לא אמרינן מקצת היום ככולו,לסוף אתא א"ל אמאי אתית א"ל דשלח לי מר דליתי והא שלחי לך דלא תיתי א"ל זה ראיתי וזה לא ראיתי קרי עליה (משלי טז, ז) ברצות ה' דרכי איש גם אויביו ישלים אתו,מ"ט עבד מר הכי א"ל דכתיב (משלי א, כ) חכמות בחוץ תרונה א"ל אם קרית לא שנית ואם שנית לא שילשת ואם שילשת לא פירשו לך,חכמות בחוץ תרונה כדרבא דאמר רבא כל העוסק בתורה מבפנים תורתו מכרזת עליו מבחוץ,והא כתיב (ישעיהו מח, טז) לא מראש בסתר דברתי ההוא ביומי דכלה,ור' חייא האי חמוקי ירכיך מאי עביד לה מוקי לה בצדקה ובגמילות חסדים,אלמא נזיפה דידהו תלתין יומין נזיפת נשיא שאני,ונזיפה דידן כמה הוי חד יומא כי הא דשמואל ומר עוקבא כי הוו יתבי גרס שמעתא הוה יתיב מר עוקבא קמיה דשמואל ברחוק ד' אמות וכי הוו יתבי בדינא הוה יתיב שמואל קמיה דמר עוקבא ברחוק ד' אמות והוו חייקי ליה דוכתא למר עוקבא בציפתא ויתיב עילויה כי היכי דלישתמען מיליה,כל יומא הוה מלוי ליה מר עוקבא לשמואל עד אושפיזיה יומא חד איטריד בדיניה הוה אזיל שמואל בתריה כי מטא לביתיה א"ל לא נגה לך לישרי לי מר בתיגריה ידע דנקט מילתא בדעתיה נהג נזיפותא בנפשיה חד יומא,ההיא איתתא דהוות יתבה בשבילא הוות פשטה כרעה וקא מניפה חושלאי והוה חליף ואזיל צורבא מרבנן ולא איכנעה מקמיה אמר כמה חציפא ההיא איתתא אתאי לקמיה דר"נ אמר לה מי שמעת שמתא מפומיה אמרה ליה לא אמר לה זילי נהוגי נזיפותא חד יומא בנפשיך,זוטרא בר טוביה הוה קפסיק סידרא קמיה דרב יהודה כי מטא להאי פסוקא (שמואל ב כג, א) ואלה דברי דוד האחרונים א"ל אחרונים מכלל דאיכא ראשונים ראשונים מאי נינהו,שתיק ולא אמר ליה ולא מידי הדר א"ל אחרונים מכלל דאיכא ראשונים ראשונים מאי היא א"ל מאי דעתך דלא ידע פירושא דהאי קרא לאו גברא רבה הוא ידע דנקט מילתא בדעתיה נהג נזיפותא בנפשיה חד יומא,ודאתן עלה מיהא אחרונים מכלל דאיכא ראשונים ראשונים מאי היא (שמואל ב כב, א) וידבר דוד לה' את דברי השירה הזאת ביום הציל ה' אותו מכף כל אויביו ומכף שאול,אמר לו הקב"ה לדוד דוד שירה אתה אומר על מפלתו של שאול אלמלי אתה שאול והוא דוד איבדתי כמה דוד מפניו,היינו דכתיב (תהלים ז, א) שגיון לדוד אשר שר לה' על דברי כוש בן ימיני וכי כוש שמו והלא שאול שמו אלא מה כושי משונה בעורו אף שאול משונה במעשיו,כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (במדבר יב, א) על אודות האשה הכושית אשר לקח וכי כושית שמה והלא ציפורה שמה אלא מה כושית משונה בעורה אף ציפורה משונה במעשיה כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (ירמיהו לח, ז) וישמע עבד מלך הכושי וכי כושי שמו והלא צדקיה שמו אלא מה כושי משונה בעורו אף צדקיה משונה במעשיו,כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (עמוס ט, ז) הלא כבני כושיים אתם לי (בית) ישראל וכי כושיים שמן והלא ישראל שמן אלא מה כושי משונה בעורו אף ישראל משונין במעשיהן מכל האומות,א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן מאי דכתיב (שמואל ב כג, א) נאם דוד בן ישי ונאם הגבר הוקם על נאם דוד בן ישי שהקים עולה של תשובה,(שמואל ב כג, ג) אמר אלהי ישראל לי דבר צור ישראל מושל באדם צדיק מושל יראת אלהים מאי קאמר א"ר אבהו ה"ק אמר אלהי ישראל לי דבר צור ישראל אני מושל באדם מי מושל בי צדיק שאני גוזר גזרה ומבטלה,(שמואל ב כג, ח) אלה שמות הגבורים אשר לדוד יושב בשבת וגו' מאי קאמר א"ר אבהו ה"ק ואלה שמות גבורותיו של דוד,יושב בשבת בשעה שהיה יושב בישיבה לא היה יושב על גבי כרים וכסתות אלא על גבי קרקע דכל כמה דהוה רביה עירא היאירי קיים הוה מתני להו לרבנן על גבי כרים וכסתות כי נח נפשיה הוה מתני דוד לרבנן והוה יתיב על גבי קרקע אמרו ליה ליתיב מר אכרים וכסתות לא קביל עליה,תחכמוני אמר רב אמר לו הקב"ה הואיל והשפלת עצמך תהא כמוני שאני גוזר גזרה ואתה מבטלה,ראש השלישים תהא ראש לשלשת אבות הוא עדינו העצני כשהיה יושב ועוסק בתורה היה מעדן עצמו כתולעת ובשעה שיוצא למלחמה היה מקשה עצמו כעץ,על שמונה מאות חלל בפעם אחת שהיה זורק חץ ומפיל שמונה מאות חלל בפעם אחת והיה מתאנח על מאתים דכתיב (דברים לב, ל) איכה ירדף אחד אלף,יצתה בת קול ואמרה (מלכים א טו, ה) רק בדבר אוריה החתי,אמר רבי תנחום בריה דרבי חייא איש כפר עכו אמר רבי יעקב בר אחא אמר ר' שמלאי ואמרי לה אמר ר' תנחום אמר רב הונא ואמרי לה אמר רב הונא לחודיה | 16b. b so too, the words of Torah, /b which are “the work of the hands of an artist,” i.e., God, must remain b hidden /b in the study hall.,Despite Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s decree, b Rabbi Ḥiyya went out and taught his two nephews, Rav and Rabba bar bar Ḥana, in the marketplace. Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b heard /b what he had done and b became angry /b with him. When b Rabbi Ḥiyya came /b at some later date b to visit him, /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi mockingly b said to him: Iyya, who is calling you outside? /b By asking this question Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was intimating that Rabbi Ḥiyya should leave his house. Rabbi Ḥiyya b understood that /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b had taken the matter to heart /b and was insulted, and so b he conducted /b himself as if he had been b admonished, /b as a self-imposed punishment, b for thirty days. /b , b On the thirtieth day, /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b sent him /b a message, saying: b Come /b and visit me. However, b he later /b reversed his opinion and b sent him /b another message, telling him b not to come. /b ,The Gemara asks: b At the outset what did he hold, and ultimately what did he hold? Initially, /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b held that /b the legal status of b part of the day is like /b that b of an entire /b day, and since the thirtieth day already begun, Rabbi Ḥiyya’s time of admonition had ended. b But ultimately he held /b that with regard to this issue b we do not say /b that the legal status of b part of the day is like /b that b of an entire /b day., b In the end /b Rabbi Ḥiyya b came /b on that same day. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b asked him: Why have you come? /b Rabbi Ḥiyya b responded: Because /b you, b Master, sent /b me a message that b I should come. /b He said to him: b But I sent /b you a second message b that you should not come. He responded: This /b messenger that you sent, i.e., the first one, b I saw /b him and I did as he said, b but that /b messenger, i.e., the second one, b I did not see. /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b read /b the verse b about /b Rabbi Ḥiyya: b “When a man’s ways please the Lord, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him” /b (Proverbs 16:7), as it was clear to him that Rabbi Ḥiyya had merited divine assistance.,§ Concerning the issue with which the entire incident had begun, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi asked Rabbi Ḥiyya: b What is the reason that /b you, b the Master, acted as /b you did, ignoring my instructions not to teach Torah in the marketplace? Rabbi Ḥiyya b said to him: As it is written: “Wisdom cries aloud in the streets” /b (Proverbs 1:20), which implies that Torah should be publicized in the streets. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b said to him: If you read /b this verse once, b you /b certainly b did not read /b it b a second time /b in greater depth; b and if you read /b it b a second time, you /b certainly b did not read /b it b a third time; /b and b if you read /b it b a third time, /b then b it was not /b adequately b explained to you, /b as it is clear that you do not understand it properly.,The words: b “Wisdom cries aloud in the streets,” /b should be understood b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rava. As Rava said: /b With regard to b everyone who occupies himself with Torah /b study b inside /b the privacy of his home, b his Torah /b knowledge b will proclaim his /b greatness b outside, /b as it will be revealed to the masses and they will see his greatness.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it written: “From the beginning I have not spoken in secret” /b (Isaiah 48:16), implying that the Torah should be taught and proclaimed in public? The Gemara answers: b That /b verse is referring to b the days of the i kalla /i , /b the gathering for Torah study held during Elul and Adar, when many people come to listen to Torah discourses. During this time, it is not only permitted but even recommended to teach Torah to the masses. In this way, the verse can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.,The Gemara asks: b And what did Rabbi Ḥiyya do with this /b verse: b “Your rounded thighs are like jewels”? /b How did he understand it? This verse implies that the Torah must be kept hidden in the study hall and not publicized in the marketplace. The Gemara explains: b He interprets it /b not as a reference to Torah, but as referring b to /b acts of b charity and loving-kindness, /b which should certainly be performed in private.,This incident demonstrates b that, apparently, admonition of those /b who live in Eretz Yisrael lasts for b thirty days /b and not for seven days. The Gemara answers that this is not a conclusive proof, since Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was the i Nasi /i . b The admonition of the i Nasi /i /b of the Sanhedrin b is different /b i.e., more severe, than the admonition of anyone else.,The Gemara asks: b And how /b long b is our admonition /b in Babylonia? The Gemara answers: It is only b one day, as in /b the case involving b Shmuel and /b the Exilarch b Mar Ukva. When they would sit and study i halakha /i , Mar Ukva would sit before Shmuel at a distance of four cubits /b as a sign of respect. Mar Ukva would conduct himself as though Shmuel were his teacher because Shmuel was much greater than him in Torah matters. b And when they would sit /b together b in judgment, Shmuel would sit before Mar Ukva at a distance of four cubits /b because Mar Ukva was the Exilarch and the chief judge. b But they would lower a place for Mar Ukva in the matting /b upon which he sat, b and he would sit on it so that he could hear /b Shmuel’s b words /b of Torah even when they were engaged in judgment., b Every day, Mar Ukva would accompany Shmuel to his lodgings, /b in the manner that a student would show honor toward his teacher. b One day, /b Mar Ukva b was /b so heavily b preoccupied with a case /b that had been brought before him for judgment that he did not realize that b Shmuel was walking behind him /b to show him respect due to his position as the Exilarch. b When /b Mar Ukva b reached his home, /b Shmuel b said to him: Is it not enough for you /b that I accompanied you until here? b Release me, Master, from my obligation, /b so that I may return home. Mar Ukva b understood that /b Shmuel b had taken the matter to heart /b and was insulted. Therefore, b he conducted /b himself as if he had been b admonished, for one day /b as a self-imposed punishment.,It was related that b a certain woman was sitting alongside a path /b with b her leg extended /b while b she was sifting barley. A Torah scholar passed /b by her on this path, b but she did not yield to him /b and move her leg to make room for him. b He said: How rude is that woman! /b The woman b came before Rav Naḥman /b to ask if this statement should be deemed as excommunication. b He said to her: Did you hear /b the word b excommunication /b explicitly issue b from his mouth? She said to him: No. He said to her: /b If this is the case, then b go and observe an admonition for one day, /b as it appears that the Torah scholar sought only to admonish you.,§ b Zutra bar Toviyya was /b once b reading the portion /b of the Bible b before Rav Yehuda. When he reached the verse: “Now these are the last words of David” /b (II Samuel 23:1), Zutra bar Toviyya b said to /b Rav Yehuda: If it is written that these are the b last /b of David’s words, b by inference there are first /b words as well. If this is the case, b what are these first /b words of David? Prior to this, it mentions only David’s song, but not his words.,Rav Yehuda b remained silent and said nothing to him. /b Zutra bar Toviyya thought that Rav Yehuda did not hear what he had said, so he b then said to him /b a second time: If it is written that these are the b last /b of David’s words, b by inference there are first /b words as well. If this is the case, b what are these first /b words of David? b He said to him: What do you think? /b Do you think that anyone b who does not know the meaning of this verse is not a great man? /b Why are you stressing the fact that I do not know the answer to your question? Zutra bar Toviyya b understood that /b Rav Yehuda b had taken the matter to heart /b and was insulted. Therefore, b he conducted /b himself as if had been b admonished for one day /b as a self-imposed punishment.,The Gemara asks: b But /b now b that we have come /b to discuss this issue, since the verse mentions David’s b last /b words, b by inference there are /b also b first /b words. b What /b then b are these first /b words of David? The Gemara answers: The first words are: b “And David spoke to the Lord the words of this song in the day that the Lord delivered him out of the hand of his enemies, and out of the hand of Saul” /b (II Samuel 22:1), as that song is also referred to as words.,The Gemara elaborates: b The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to David: David, do you recite a song over the fall of Saul? Had you been Saul and he were David, /b then b I would have destroyed many Davids before him. /b Although I decreed that Saul’s kingdom would not continue, as an individual he was far greater and more important than you.,The response to this admonishment b is /b found in the verse, b as it is written: “Shiggaion of David, which he sang to the Lord, concerning the words of Cush the Benjaminite” /b (Psalms 7:1). b Is Cush his name? Saul is his name. Rather, /b this is a designation that indicates: b Just as a Cushite, /b a native of the ancient kingdom of Cush in eastern Africa, b is distinguished by his /b dark b skin, so too, Saul was distinguished by his actions, /b as he was absolutely righteous and performed many good deeds. Therefore, David uses the word i shiggaion /i as an allusion to the error [ i shegia /i ] that he had made when he sang a song of praise over Saul’s downfall.,The Gemara notes: b Similarly, you can explain /b the verse: “And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses b due to the Cushite woman whom he had married, /b for he had taken a Cushite woman” (Numbers 12:1). b But is her name Cushite? Zipporah is her name. Rather, just as a Cushite is distinguished by his /b dark b skin, so too, Zipporah was distinguished by her actions. /b The Gemara continues: b Similarly, you can explain /b the verse: b “Now when Ebed-Melech the Cushite heard” /b (Jeremiah 38:7). b Is his name Cushite? Zedekiah is his name. Rather, just as a Cushite is distinguished by his /b dark b skin, so too, Zedekiah was distinguished by his /b righteous b actions. /b , b Similarly, you can explain /b the verse: b “Are you not as much Mine as the children of the Cushites, O children of Israel?” /b (Amos 9:7). b Is their name Cushite? Israel is their name. Rather, just as a Cushite is distinguished by his /b dark b skin, so too, the Jewish people are distinguished by their actions, /b and they are different b from all the /b other b nations. /b ,§ Having mentioned the last words of David, the Gemara continues to explain other expressions in that passage. b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “The saying of David, son of Yishai, and the saying of the man who was raised up on high [ i al /i ]” /b (II Samuel 23:1)? It means as follows: b The saying of David, son of Yishai, who raised the yoke of [ i ulla /i ] repentance, /b as through his actions he taught the power of repentance. The word i al /i , on high, and the word i ulla /i are comprised of the same consots in Hebrew.,The passage continues: b “The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me, He that rules over men must be righteous, ruling in the fear of God” /b (II Samuel 23:3). The Gemara asks: b What is /b this verse b saying? /b What does it mean? b Rabbi Abbahu said: This is what /b the verse b is saying: The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me: /b Although b I rule over man, who rules over Me? /b It is b a righteous person. /b How is it possible to say that a righteous person rules over God, as it were? b As I, /b God, b issue a decree /b and the righteous person b nullifies it. /b ,Similarly, the verse states there: b “These are the names of David’s warriors; Josheb-Basshebeth /b a Tahchemonite, chief of the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite; he raised his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time” (II Samuel 23:8). The Gemara asks: b What is /b this verse b saying? Rabbi Abbahu said: This is what /b the verse b is saying: These are the names of the mighty actions of David. /b These expressions should not be read as names of people but instead as descriptions of David’s good deeds., b Josheb-Basshebeth [ i yoshev bashevet /i ] /b indicates that b when /b David b would sit [ i yoshev /i ] in the study hall, he would not sit upon pillows and cushions, /b as an important person ordinarily would. b Rather, /b he would sit b on the ground /b like one of the students. b For as long as /b David’s b teacher, Ira the Jairite, was alive, /b Ira b would teach the Sages /b while sitting b on pillows and cushions. When /b Ira b passed away, David would teach the Sages, and he /b did this while b sitting on the ground. They said to him: Master, /b you b should sit upon pillows and blankets. He did not accept /b their suggestions, since in his humility he did not wish to appear as the teacher of the Jewish people.,In this verse, David is described as b “a Tahchemonite [ i taḥkemoni /i ].” Rav said: The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: Since you have humbled yourself, be you /b now b like Me [ i tehe kamoni /i ]. /b How so? b As I issue a decree, and you, /b owing to your righteousness, b may nullify it. /b ,David is also described here as b “chief of the captains [ i rosh hashalishim /i ]” /b because God said to him: b You will be the head [ i rosh /i ] of the three [ i sheloshet /i ] Patriarchs. “The same was Adino the Eznite”; /b this alludes to the fact that b when /b David b would sit and occupy himself with Torah, he would make himself soft [ i me’aden /i ] as a worm, and when he would go out to war, he would make himself hard /b and strong b as a tree [ i etz /i ]. /b ,The expression: b “Against eight hundred people, which he slew at one time,” /b means b that he would throw an arrow /b in the air b and /b with it b kill eight hundred people at one time. And /b David b would sigh over the two hundred /b who were missing from fulfillment of the Torah’s promise, b as it is written: “How should one man chase a thousand” /b (Deuteronomy 32:30)., b A Divine Voice issued forth and said /b by way of explanation as to why the promise was not entirely fulfilled: “Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, and turned not aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, b save only the matter of Uriah the Hittite” /b (I Kings 15:5). Had David not committed this sin, then all of the promises mentioned in the Torah would have been fulfilled in their entirety through him.,The Gemara returns to the i halakhot /i of ostracism and mentions that b Rabbi Tanḥum, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, of the village of Akko, said /b that b Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa said /b that b Rabbi Simlai said, and /b some b say /b that this tradition was transmitted in the following manner: b Rabbi Tanḥum said /b that b Rav Huna said, and /b others b say /b that b Rav Huna himself /b made this statement without the chain of transmission: |
|
80. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic authority Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein (2018), The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World. 16| 16b. יכשל בו דאמר רבא בר מחסיא אמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב בשביל משקל שני סלעים מילת שהוסיף יעקב ליוסף משאר אחיו נתגלגל הדבר וירדו אבותינו למצרים אמר רבי בנימן בר יפת רמז רמז לו שעתיד בן לצאת ממנו שיצא מלפני המלך בחמשה לבושי מלכות שנאמר ומרדכי יצא בלבוש מלכות תכלת וגו',(בראשית מה, יד) ויפול על צוארי בנימן אחיו כמה צוארין הוו ליה לבנימין אמר רבי אלעזר בכה על שני מקדשים שעתידין להיות בחלקו של בנימין ועתידין ליחרב ובנימין בכה על צואריו בכה על משכן שילה שעתיד להיות בחלקו של יוסף ועתיד ליחרב,(בראשית מה, יב) והנה עיניכם רואות ועיני אחי בנימין אמר רבי אלעזר אמר להם כשם שאין בלבי על בנימין אחי שלא היה במכירתי כך אין בלבי עליכם כי פי המדבר אליכם כפי כן לבי,(בראשית מה, כג) ולאביו שלח כזאת עשרה חמורים נושאים מטוב מצרים מאי מטוב מצרים אמר ר' בנימין בר יפת אמר רבי אלעזר שלח לו יין [ישן] שדעת זקנים נוחה הימנו,(בראשית נ, יח) וילכו גם אחיו ויפלו לפניו אמר רבי בנימין בר יפת אמר רבי אלעזר היינו דאמרי אינשי תעלא בעידניה סגיד ליה,תעלא מאי בצירותיה מאחווה אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר (בראשית מז, לא) וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה אמר רבי בנימין בר יפת אמר רבי אלעזר תעלא בעידניה סגיד ליה,(בראשית נ, כא) וינחם אותם וידבר על לבם אמר רבי בנימין בר יפת אמר רבי אלעזר מלמד שאמר להם דברים שמתקבלין על הלב ומה עשרה נרות לא יכלו לכבות נר אחד נר אחד היאך יכול לכבות עשרה נרות,(אסתר ח, טז) ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר אמר רב יהודה אורה זו תורה וכן הוא אומר (משלי ו, כג) כי נר מצוה ותורה אור שמחה זה יום טוב וכן הוא אומר (דברים טז, יד) ושמחת בחגך ששון זו מילה וכן הוא אומר (תהלים קיט, קסב) שש אנכי על אמרתך,ויקר אלו תפלין וכן הוא אומר (דברים כח, י) וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עליך ויראו ממך ותניא רבי אליעזר הגדול אומר אלו תפלין שבראש,ואת פרשנדתא וגו' עשרת בני המן אמר רב אדא דמן יפו עשרת בני המן ועשרת צריך לממרינהו בנשימה אחת מאי טעמא כולהו בהדי הדדי נפקו נשמתייהו אמר רבי יוחנן ויו דויזתא צריך למימתחה בזקיפא כמורדיא דלברות מאי טעמא כולהו בחד זקיפא אזדקיפו,אמר רבי חנינא בר פפא דרש ר' שילא איש כפר תמרתא כל השירות כולן נכתבות אריח על גבי לבינה ולבינה על גבי אריח,חוץ משירה זו ומלכי כנען שאריח על גבי אריח ולבינה על גבי לבינה מ"ט שלא תהא תקומה למפלתן,ויאמר המלך לאסתר המלכה בשושן הבירה הרגו היהודים אמר רבי אבהו מלמד שבא מלאך וסטרו על פיו,ובבאה לפני המלך אמר עם הספר אמר אמרה מיבעי ליה אמר רבי יוחנן אמרה לו יאמר בפה מה שכתוב בספר,דברי שלום ואמת אמר רבי תנחום ואמרי לה אמר רבי אסי מלמד שצריכה שרטוט כאמיתה של תורה,ומאמר אסתר קיים מאמר אסתר אין דברי הצומות לא אמר רבי יוחנן דברי הצומות ומאמר אסתר קיים (את ימי) הפורים האלה,כי מרדכי היהודי משנה למלך אחשורוש וגדול ליהודים ורצוי לרוב אחיו לרוב אחיו ולא לכל אחיו מלמד שפירשו ממנו מקצת סנהדרין,אמר רב יוסף גדול ת"ת יותר מהצלת נפשות דמעיקרא חשיב ליה למרדכי בתר ד' ולבסוף בתר חמשה מעיקרא כתיב (עזרא ב, ב) אשר באו עם זרובבל ישוע נחמיה שריה רעליה מרדכי בלשן ולבסוף כתיב (נחמיה ז, ז) הבאים עם זרובבל ישוע נחמיה עזריה רעמיה נחמני מרדכי בלשן,אמר רב ואיתימא רב שמואל בר מרתא גדול תלמוד תורה יותר מבנין בית המקדש שכל זמן שברוך בן נריה קיים לא הניחו עזרא ועלה,אמר רבה אמר רב יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא גדול תלמוד תורה יותר מכבוד אב ואם שכל אותן שנים שהיה יעקב אבינו בבית עבר לא נענש דאמר מר | 16b. b he /b himself b should stumble /b by showing favoritism to Benjamin? b As Rava bar Meḥaseyya said /b that b Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said /b that b Rav said: Due to /b the weight of b two sela of fine wool that Jacob /b gave to Joseph, which he b added to /b what he gave b Joseph beyond /b what he gave b the rest of his brothers, /b as he made him his special coat, b the story progressed and our forefathers went down to Egypt. /b How then could Joseph have displayed similar favoritism toward Benjamin? b Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said: He /b was not showing favoritism. Rather, he b intimated to him that a descendant was destined to issue from him who would go out from the presence of the king /b wearing b five royal garments, as it is stated: “And Mordecai went forth /b from the presence of the king b in royal apparel of sky blue /b and white, and with a great crown of gold, and with a wrap of fine linen and purple” (Esther 8:15).,The Gemara elaborates on certain elements in the story of Joseph and his brothers. The verse states with regard to Joseph: b “And he fell on his brother Benjamin’s neck [ i tzavarei /i /b ] and wept” (Genesis 45:14). The wording of the verse gives rise to a question, as the word i tzavarei /i is plural, meaning necks: b How many necks did Benjamin have, /b such that the verse should use the plural i tzavarei /i rather than the singular i tzavar /i ? b Rabbi Elazar said: /b This intimates b that /b Joseph b cried over the two Temples that were destined to be in the /b tribal b territory of Benjamin and were destined to be destroyed. /b The same verse continues: b “And Benjamin wept on his neck” /b (Genesis 45:14); b he cried over the tabernacle of Shiloh that was destined to be in the /b tribal b territory of Joseph and was destined to be destroyed. /b ,The verse states: b “And behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin” /b (Genesis 45:12). b Rabbi Elazar said: /b Joseph b said to /b his brothers as follows: b Just as I /b certainly b harbor no /b resentment b in my heart toward my brother Benjamin, for he was not /b even b present when I was sold, so too, I harbor no /b resentment b toward you. /b The verse continues: b “That it is my mouth [ i ki fi /i ] that speaks to you” /b (Genesis 45:12), i.e., b As my mouth [ i kefi /i ] is, so is my heart. /b ,The verse states: b “And to his father he sent after this manner ten donkeys laden with the good things of Egypt” /b (Genesis 45:23). The Gemara asks: b What are “the good things of Egypt” /b that are mentioned but not specified here? b Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said /b that b Rabbi Elazar said: He sent him aged wine, which the elderly find pleasing. /b ,Following Jacob’s death, it states concerning Joseph: b “And his brothers even went and fell down before him” /b (Genesis 50:18). b Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said /b that b Rabbi Elazar said: This /b explains the folk saying b that people say: When the fox is in its hour, bow down to it, /b i.e., if a fox is appointed king, one must bow down before and submit oneself to it.,The Gemara expresses astonishment at the use of this parable: Are you calling Joseph b a fox? What, was he inferior to his brothers /b such that in relation to them you call him a fox? b Rather, if such a statement was stated, it was stated as follows, /b not in connection with this verse, but rather in connection with a different verse. The verse states: b “And Israel bowed himself upon the head of the bed” /b (Genesis 47:31). With regard to this, b Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said /b that b Rabbi Elazar said: When the fox is in its hour, bow down to it, /b as Jacob had to bow down before his son Joseph, who had reached greatness.,It says with regard to Joseph’s remarks to his brothers: b “And he comforted them and spoke to their hearts” /b (Genesis 50:21). b Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said /b that b Rabbi Elazar said: /b This b teaches that he spoke to them words that are acceptable to the heart, /b and alleviated their fears. This is what he said: b If ten lights could not put out one light, /b as all of you were unable to do me harm, b how can one light put out ten lights? /b ,§ The Gemara returns to its explanation of the Megilla. The verse states: b “The Jews had light and gladness, and joy and honor” /b (Esther 8:16). b Rav Yehuda said: “Light”; this /b is referring to the b Torah /b that they once again studied. b And similarly it says: “For the mitzva is a lamp and the Torah is light” /b (Proverbs 6:23). b “Gladness” [ i simḥa /i ]; this /b is referring to b the Festivals /b that they once again observed. b And similarly it says: “And you shall be glad [ i vesamakhta /i ] on your Festival” /b (Deuteronomy 16:14). b “Joy” [ i sasson /i ]; this /b is referring to b circumcision, /b as they once again circumcised their sons. b And similarly it says: “I rejoice [ i sas /i ] at Your word” /b (Psalms 119:162), which the Sages understood as referring to David’s rejoicing over the mitzva of circumcision., b “Honor”; this is /b referring to b phylacteries, /b which they once again donned. b And similarly it says: “And all peoples of the earth will see that you are called by the name of the Lord; and they will be afraid of you” /b (Deuteronomy 28:10). b And it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Eliezer the Great said: This /b is referring to b the phylacteries worn on the head. /b Haman had banned the fulfillment of all the mitzvot mentioned, but upon Haman’s demise the Jews returned to their observance.,The verse states: “And in Shushan the capital the Jews slew and destroyed five hundred men. b And Parshandatha… /b and Vaizatha, b the ten sons of Haman” /b (Esther 9:6–10). b Rav Adda from Jaffa said: /b When reading the Megilla, the names of b the ten sons of Haman and /b the word b “ten” must be said in one breath. What is the reason /b for this? It is that b their souls all departed together. Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b The letter b i vav /i in /b the name b “Vaizatha” /b is a lengthened i vav /i and b must be elongated as a pole, like a steering oar of a ship [ i liberot /i ]. What is the reason /b for this? To indicate that b they were all hanged on one pole. /b , b Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said /b that b Rabbi Sheila, a man of the village of Timarta, interpreted /b a verse b homiletically: All /b of b the songs /b in the Bible b are written /b in the form of b a half brick arranged upon a whole brick and a whole brick arranged upon a half brick, /b i.e., each line of the song is divided into a stitch of text, referred to as a half brick, which is separated by a blank space, referred to as a whole brick, from the concluding stitch of that line of text.,The next line of the song inverts the sequence. b This is the principle for all songs in the Bible except /b for b this song, /b referring to the list of Haman’s sons, b and /b the song listing b the kings of Canaan /b who were defeated by Joshua. These two songs are written in the form of b a half brick arranged upon a half brick and a whole brick arranged upon a whole brick, /b i.e., one stitch of text over another, and one blank space over another. b What is the reason /b that these two songs are written in this anomalous fashion? b So that they should never rise from their downfall. /b Just as a wall that is built in this manner will not stand, so too, these individuals should have no resurgence.,The verse states: b “And the king said to Esther the queen: The Jews have slain /b and destroyed five hundred men b in Shushan the capital, /b and also the ten sons of Haman; what have they done in the rest of the king’s provinces? Now what is your petition and it shall be granted to you; and what more do you request, and it shall be done” (Esther 9:12). b Rabbi Abbahu said: This teaches that an angel came and slapped him on his mouth, /b so that he was unable to finish what he was saying; he started with a complaint about what the Jews were doing, but ended on an entirely different note.,The verse states: b “But when she came before the king, he said with a letter” /b (Esther 9:25). Why does it say: b “He said”? It should have said: “She said,” /b as it was Esther who changed the decree. b Rabbi Yoḥa said: She said to /b Ahasuerus: b Let it be said by /b word of b mouth, /b indicating that b that which is written in the letter /b should also be ordered verbally.,With regard to what is stated: b “Words of peace and truth” /b (Esther 9:30), b Rabbi Tanḥum said, and some say /b that b Rabbi Asi /b said: This b teaches that /b a Megilla scroll b requires scoring, /b i.e., that the lines for the text must be scored onto the parchment, b as the Torah itself, /b i.e., as is done in a Torah scroll.,The verses say: “The matters of the fasts and their cry. b And the decree of Esther confirmed /b these matters of Purim” (Esther 9:31–32). The Gemara asks: Should we say that b “the decree of Esther” indeed /b confirmed these matters of Purim, but b “the matters of the fasts” /b did b not? /b But didn’t the fasts also contribute to the miracle? b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b These two verses, b “The matters of the fasts /b and their cry. b And the decree of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim,” /b should be read as one.,The verse states: b “For Mordecai the Jew was second to the king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted by the majority of his brethren” /b (Esther 10:3). The Gemara comments: The verse indicates that Mordecai was accepted only b “By the majority of his brethren,” but not by all his brethren. /b This b teaches that some /b members b of the Sanhedrin parted from him, /b because he occupied himself with community needs, and was therefore compelled to neglect his Torah study. They felt that this was a mistake and that he should have remained active on the Sanhedrin., b Rav Yosef said: Studying Torah is greater than saving lives, as initially, /b when listing the Jewish leaders who came to Eretz Yisrael, b Mordecai was mentioned after four /b other people, b but at the end /b he was listed b after five. /b This is taken to indicate that his involvement in governmental affairs instead of in Torah study lowered his stature one notch. The Gemara proves this: b At first it is written: “Who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan” /b (Ezra 2:2); b but in the end /b in a later list b it is written: “Who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Azariah, Raamiah, Nahmani, Mordecai, Bilshan” /b (Nehemiah 7:7)., b Rav said, and some say /b that b Rav Shmuel bar Marta /b said: b Studying Torah is greater /b and more important b than building the Temple. /b A proof of this is that b for as long as Baruch ben Neriah was alive /b in Babylonia, b Ezra, /b who was his disciple, b did not leave him and go up /b to Eretz Yisrael to build the Temple., b Rabba said /b that b Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta said: Studying Torah is /b greater and b more /b important b than honoring one’s father and mother, /b and a proof of this is b that for all those years that our father Jacob spent in the house of Eber /b and studied Torah there b he was not punished /b for having neglected to fulfill the mitzva of honoring one’s parents. b As the Master said: /b |
|
81. 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 |
|
82. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, 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, 21| 105b. סולדת בהן אבל היד סולדת בהן אין נוטלין בהן,ואיכא דמתני לה אסיפא אחרונים אין נוטלין אלא בצונן אבל בחמין לא אמר רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי ינאי לא שנו אלא שהיד סולדת בהן אבל אין היד סולדת בהן נוטלין מכלל דראשונים אף על פי שהיד סולדת בהן מותר,אמצעיים רשות אמר רב נחמן לא שנו אלא בין תבשיל לתבשיל אבל בין תבשיל לגבינה חובה,אמר רב יהודה בריה דרבי חייא מפני מה אמרו מים אחרונים חובה שמלח סדומית יש שמסמא את העינים אמר אביי ומשתכח כי קורטא בכורא אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי כל מלחא מאי אמר ליה לא מבעיא,אמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דלא משו מיא בתראי על ארעא משום זוהמא אמר לי מר משום דשריא רוח רעה עלייהו,ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דלא שקיל מידי מפתורא כי נקיט איניש כסא למשתי שמא יארע דבר קלקלה בסעודה אמר לי מר משום דקשי לרוח צרדא,ולא אמרן אלא דשקיל ולא מהדר אבל משקל ואהדורי לית לן בה ולא אמרן אלא חוץ לארבע אמות אבל תוך ארבע אמות לית לן בה ולא אמרן אלא מידי דצריך לסעודתא אבל מידי דלא צריך לסעודתא לית לן בה,מר בר רב אשי קפיד אפילו אאסיתא ובוכנא דתבלי מידי דצריכי לסעודתא,ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דכנשי נשווראה משום מנקירותא אמר לי מר משום דקשי לעניותא,ההוא גברא דהוה מהדר עליה שרא דעניותא ולא הוה יכיל ליה דקא זהיר אנשוורא טובא יומא חד כרך ליפתא איבלי אמר השתא ודאי נפל בידאי בתר דאכיל אייתי מרא עקרינהו ליבלי שדינהו לנהרא שמעיה דקאמר ווי דאפקיה ההוא גברא מביתיה,ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דלא שתי אופיא משום מאיסותא אמר לי מר משום דקשי לכרסם מישתיה קשה לכרסם מינפח ביה קשיא לרישא מדחייה קשיא לעניותא מאי תקנתיה לשקעיה שקועי,לכרסם דחמרא שיכרא דשיכרא מיא דמיא לית ליה תקנתא והיינו דאמרי אינשי בתר עניא אזלא עניותא,ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דלא אכלי ירקא מכישא דאסר גינאה משום דמיחזי כרעבתנותא אמר לי מר משום דקשי לכשפים,רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא הוו קאזלי בארבא אמרה להו ההיא מטרוניתא אותבן בהדייכו לא אותבוה אמרה מלתא אסרתה לארבא אמרו אינהו מילתא שריוה אמרה להו מאי איעביד לכו דלא מקנח לכו בחספא ולא קטיל לכו כינה אמנייכו ולא אכיל לכו ירקא מכישא דאסר גינאה,ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דלא אכלי ירקא דנפל אתכא משום מאיסותא אמר לי מר משום דקשה לריח הפה ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דלא יתבי תותי מרזיבא משום שופכים אמר לי מר משום דשכיחי מזיקין,הנהו שקולאי דהוו דרו חביתא דחמרא בעו לאיתפוחי אותבוה תותי מרזיבא פקעה אתו לקמיה דמר בר רב אשי אפיק שיפורי שמתיה אתא לקמיה אמר ליה אמאי תעביד הכי אמר ליה היכי אעביד כי אותביה באונאי,אמר ליה את בדוכתא דשכיחי רבים מאי בעית את הוא דשנית זיל שלים אמר ליה השתא נמי ליקבע לי מר זימנא ואפרע קבע ליה זימנא כי מטא זימנא איעכב כי אתא אמר ליה אמאי לא אתית בזמנך אמר ליה כל מילי דצייר וחתים וכייל ומני לית לן רשותא למשקל מיניה עד דמשכחינן מידי דהפקרא,ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דשדי מיא מפומא דחצבא משום ציבתא אמר לי מר משום דאיכא מים הרעים,ההוא בר שידא דהוה בי רב פפא אזל לאתויי מיא מנהרא איעכב כי אתא אמרו ליה אמאי איעכבת אמר להו עד דחלפי מים הרעים אדהכי | 105b. b recoil [ i soledet /i ] from /b the water’s heat. b But /b if b the hand recoils from it, one may not wash with it. /b , b And there are those who teach /b a version of b this /b statement b with regard to the latter clause /b of the i baraita /i : For b final /b waters, b one may wash only with cold /b water, b but /b one may b not /b wash b with hot /b water. b Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says /b that b Rabbi Yannai says: They taught /b that one may not use hot water b only /b in a case b where /b the water is so hot that b the hand recoils from it, but if the hand does not recoil from it, one may wash /b with it. The Gemara comments: One can learn b by inference /b from this version of the statement b that /b in the case of b first /b waters, b even if /b the water is so hot that b the hand recoils from it, /b it is b permitted /b to use it for washing.,§ The i baraita /i states that b middle /b waters are b optional. Rav Naḥman says: They taught /b this b only /b with regard to washing the hands b between /b one b cooked dish and /b another b cooked dish /b served at a meal. b But between a cooked dish and cheese /b there is b an obligation /b to wash one’s hands.,§ The i baraita /i further teaches that final waters are an obligation. b Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: For what /b reason did the Sages b say that final waters are an obligation? /b It is b because Sodomite salt is /b sometimes b present, /b a small amount of b which blinds the eyes. /b Since Sodomite salt could remain on one’s hands, one must wash them after eating. b Abaye said: And /b this type of dangerous salt b is present /b in the proportion of b a pinch /b [ b i korta /i /b ] b in /b an entire b i kor /i /b of regular salt. b Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: /b If one b measured salt /b between meals, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? Must he wash his hands afterward? b He said to him: It is not necessary /b to say this; he is certainly obligated to do so.,§ b Abaye said: At first I would say /b that b this /b i halakha /i b that one may not wash /b his hands with b final waters over the ground /b is b due to messiness. /b But the b Master, /b Rabba, b said to me /b that it is b because an evil spirit rests upon /b the water and passersby are liable to be afflicted., b And Abaye /b also b said: At first I would say /b that the reason for b this /b statement of the Sages b that one should not take anything from the table when a person is holding a cup to drink, /b is b lest a mishap occur at the meal, /b i.e., the one holding the cup might have wanted the item that was taken, and since he is unable to speak he will choke in his anger. But b the Master /b subsequently b said to me /b that it is b because it is bad for /b one’s health, causing b a spirit of /b pain in b half /b his head, i.e., a migraine., b And we said /b that this practice is prohibited b only if one takes /b an item from the table b and does not put /b it b back. But /b as for b taking and putting back, we have no /b problem b with it. And /b likewise, b we said /b it is prohibited b only /b if one takes the item b beyond four cubits /b of the table. b But /b if one leaves it b within four cubits, we have no /b problem b with it. And /b furthermore, b we said /b this i halakha /i b only /b with regard to b an item that is necessary for the meal. But /b in the case of b an item that is not necessary for the meal, we have no /b problem b with it. /b ,The Gemara relates that b Mar bar Rav Ashi was particular /b not to remove any object from the table when someone was holding his cup in hand, b even with regard to a mortar [ i asita /i ] and pestle [ i bukhna /i ] for spices, /b like all b items that are necessary for the meal. /b , b And Abaye /b further b said: At first I would say /b that b this /b practice b that /b people b collect the crumbs /b of bread after a meal is b due to cleanliness. /b But b the Master /b subsequently b said to me /b that it is b because /b leaving them b is bad for, /b i.e., it can increase, a person’s vulnerability to b poverty. /b ,The Gemara relates: There was b a certain man who was pursued by the ministering angel of poverty, but /b the angel b was unable to /b impoverish b him, as he was exceptionally careful with regard to crumbs. One day /b that man b broke /b his b bread over grass, /b and some crumbs fell among the blades of grass. The angel b said: Now he will certainly fall into my hands, /b as he cannot collect all the crumbs. b After /b the man b ate, he brought a hoe, uprooted the grass, /b and b threw it into the river. /b He subsequently b heard /b the ministering angel of poverty b say: Woe /b is me, b as that man has removed me from my house, /b i.e., my position of comfort., b And Abaye said: At first I would say /b that b this /b practice b that /b people b do not drink the foam /b from the top of a beverage is followed b because /b it is b repulsive. /b But b the Master said to me /b that it is followed b because it is bad for /b one’s vulnerability to b catarrh. /b The Gemara comments: b Drinking it is bad for catarrh, /b while b blowing /b off the foam from the drink b is bad for head /b pains, and b removing it /b with one’s hand b is bad for poverty. /b If so, b what is its remedy? /b How may one drink? He b should sink /b the foam inside the beverage and then drink it.,The Gemara notes: The treatment b for catarrh /b caused by the foam b of wine /b is b beer; /b the treatment for catarrh caused by the foam b of beer /b is b water; /b and for catarrh caused by the foam b of water there is no remedy. And this /b is in accordance with the adage b that people say: Poverty follows the poor. /b Not only does a pauper have nothing to drink other than water, but there also is no treatment for the disease caused by his beverage., b And Abaye said: At first I would say /b that the reason for b this /b practice b that /b people b do not eat vegetables from a bundle tied by the gardener /b is b because it has the appearance of gluttony, /b as he does not wait to untie the bundle to eat. But b the Master said to me /b that it is b because /b it b is bad for /b one’s vulnerability to b witchcraft. /b ,The Gemara relates: b Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna were traveling on a boat. A certain matron said to them: Seat me together with you /b on the boat, but b they did not seat her /b alongside them. b She said something, /b an incantation, and thereby b tied the boat /b to its spot so that it could not move. b They /b too b said something and /b thereby b released it. /b That matron b said to them: What can I do to you? /b Witchcraft has no power over you, b as /b after attending to your bodily functions, b you do not wipe yourselves with an earthenware shard, and you do not kill a louse /b that you find b on your garments, and you do not eat vegetables from a bundle tied by the gardener. /b , b And Abaye said: At first I would say /b as follows: The reason for b this /b practice b that /b people b do not eat vegetables that fell on the table /b is b because /b it is b replusive. /b But b the Master said to me /b that it is b because it is bad for halitosis. And Abaye said: At first I would say /b that the reason for b this /b practice b that /b people b do not sit under a gutter /b is b because /b of the b waste water /b that pours out of it. But b the Master said to me /b that it is b because demons are /b commonly b found /b there.,The Gemara relates: There were b certain porters who were carrying a barrel of wine. /b When b they wanted to rest, they placed it under a gutter /b and the barrel b burst. They came before Mar bar Rav Ashi, /b who b brought out horns and /b had them blown as he b excommunicated /b the demon of that place. The demon b came before /b Mar bar Rav Ashi, and the Sage b said to it: Why did you do this? /b The demon b said to him: How /b else b should I act, when /b these men b place /b a barrel b on my ear? /b ,Mar bar Rav Ashi b said to it: What are you doing in a place where many /b people b are found? You are the one who deviated /b from the norm; b go /b and b pay /b them the value of the barrel of wine. The demon b said to him: Let the Master now set a time for me, /b so that I can find the money, b and I will pay. /b Mar bar Rav Ashi b set a time for /b his payment. b When /b that b time arrived, /b the demon b delayed /b in coming to pay. b When /b the demon eventually b came, /b Mar bar Rav Ashi b said to it: Why did you not come at /b the b time /b set for b you? /b The demon b said to him: /b With regard to b any item that is tied up, or sealed, or measured, or counted, we have no authority to take it. /b We are unable to obtain money b until we find an ownerless item. /b For this reason, it took him a long time to find enough money to pay for the barrel., b And Abaye said: At first I would say /b that b this /b practice b that /b people b pour out /b a little b water from the mouth of a pitcher /b before drinking from it is followed b because of twigs /b it might contain. But b the Master said to me /b that it is followed b because there are foul waters /b in the pitcher.,The Gemara relates: There was b a certain son of a demon that was in Rav Pappa’s house /b as a servant. It b went to bring water from the river, /b and b it delayed /b in returning. b When it came, /b the members of Rav Pappa’s household b said to it: Why did you delay? It said to them: /b I waited b until the foul waters passed. In the meantime, /b |
|
| 83. Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.4.2 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic (in practice), and patriarch Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 42 |
| 84. Anon., Midrash Psalms, a b c d\n0 90.4 90.4 90 4 \n1 9 9 9 None\n2 0 0 0 None\n3 . . \n4 4 4 4 None (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 59 |
85. Pseudo Clementine Literature, Recognitions, 1.54 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heresy, rabbinic judaism, authority as unbroken chain from moses Found in books: Cohen (2010), The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism, 539 | 1.54. For when the rising of Christ was at hand for the abolition of sacrifices, and for the bestowal of the grace of baptism, the enemy, understanding from the predictions that the time was at hand, wrought various schisms among the people, that, if haply it might be possible to abolish the former sin, the latter fault might be incorrigible. The first schism, therefore, was that of those who were called Sadducees, which took their rise almost in the time of John. These, as more righteous than others, began to separate themselves from the assembly of the people, and to deny the resurrection of the dead, Matthew 22:23 and to assert that by an argument of infidelity, saying that it was unworthy that God should be worshipped, as it were, under the promise of a reward. The first author of this opinion was Dositheus; the second was Simon. Another schism is that of the Samaritans; for they deny the resurrection of the dead, and assert that God is not to be worshipped in Jerusalem, but on Mount Gerizim. They indeed rightly, from the predictions of Moses, expect the one true Prophet; but by the wickedness of Dositheus they were hindered from believing that Jesus is He whom they were expecting. The scribes also, and Pharisees, are led away into another schism; but these, being baptized by John, and holding the word of truth received from the tradition of Moses as the key of the kingdom of heaven, have hid it from the hearing of the people. Luke 11:52 Yea, some even of the disciples of John, who seemed to be great ones, have separated themselves from the people, and proclaimed their own master as the Christ. But all these schisms have been prepared, that by means of them the faith of Christ and baptism might be hindered. |
|
| 86. Justinian, Novellae, 146 (5th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic (in practice), impact beyond immediate circles Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 47 |
| 87. Cosmas Indicopleustes, Topographia Christiana, None (5th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 37 |
| 88. Anon., Abot De Rabbi Nathan, None (7th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heresy, rabbinic judaism, authority as unbroken chain from moses Found in books: Cohen (2010), The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism, 539 |
| 89. Mishna, Hag, 1.8 Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic (constructions of), classification of laws as biblical or rabbinic Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 488, 489 |
90. Anon., 4 Ezra, a b c d\n0 14.43 14.43 14 43 \n1 14.41 14.41 14 41 \n2 14.31 14.31 14 31 \n3 14.32 14.32 14 32 \n4 14.44 14.44 14 44 \n5 14.33 14.33 14 33 \n6 14.34 14.34 14 34 \n7 14.38 14.38 14 38 \n8 14.30 14.30 14 30 \n9 14.29 14.29 14 29 \n10 14.22 14.22 14 22 \n11 14.28 14.28 14 28 \n12 14.25 14.25 14 25 \n13 14.40 14.40 14 40 \n14 14.39 14.39 14 39 \n15 14.26 14.26 14 26 \n16 14.23 14.23 14 23 \n17 14.37 14.37 14 37 \n18 14.36 14.36 14 36 \n19 14.27 14.27 14 27 \n20 14.35 14.35 14 35 \n21 14.24 14.24 14 24 \n22 14.42 14.42 14 42 \n23 14.48 14.48 14 48 \n24 14.45 14.45 14 45 \n25 14.46 14.46 14 46 \n26 14.47 14.47 14 47 \n27 2 2 2 None\n28 1 1 1 None\n29 4 4 4 None\n30 8 8 8 None\n31 - None\n32 . . Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 57 | 14.43. As for me, I spoke in the daytime and was not silent at night. |
|
| 91. Cyril of Alexandria, Ep., a b c d\n0 2 2 2 None\n1 9 9 9 None\n2 . . \n3 9.2 9.2 9 2 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 47 |
| 92. Council of Trullo, Can., None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 38 |
| 93. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q264A (Halakha B), None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 38 |
| 94. Mishna, Shev, 9.9 Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic constructions of,beyond halakhic Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 512 |
| 95. Mishna, Suk, 2.1 Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic constructions of,transmission from moses at sinai Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 481 |
| 96. Mishna, Av, 1.4, 2.10, 5.20 Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic (constructions of), in avot •authority, rabbinic constructions of,transmission from moses at sinai Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 516, 517 |
| 97. Babylonian Talmud, San, None Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic constructions of,vs. royal authority Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 572 |
| 98. Mishna, Dem, 2.2-2.3 Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic (in practice), material evidence for rabbinic practices Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 24 |
| 101. Mishna, Pes, 4.8 Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic constructions of,beyond halakhic Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 512 |
| 102. Mishna, Rh, 2.1, 2.8-2.9, 3.8 Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic constructions of,in mishnaic aggada •authority, rabbinic constructions of,limits of •authority, rabbinic constructions of,transmission from moses at sinai •authority, rabbinic (constructions of), classification of laws as biblical or rabbinic Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 481, 486, 489, 514 |
| 103. Palestinian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 2.8, 58B,, 2.8 Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic, calendar court (yavne) Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012), Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna, 259 |
| 104. Mishna, Ned, 9.10 Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic (constructions of), classification of laws as biblical or rabbinic •authority, rabbinic constructions of,in mishnaic aggada •authority, rabbinic constructions of,transmission from moses at sinai Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 482, 489 |
| 105. Mishna, Yad, 4.3-4.4, 4.6-4.8 Tagged with subjects: •authority, rabbinic constructions of,in mishnaic aggada •authority, rabbinic constructions of,transmission from moses at sinai •authority, rabbinic constructions of,vs. prophetic authority •priests, prophecy as authority, vs. rabbinic •authority, rabbinic constructions of,beyond halakhic Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 78, 79, 509, 512 |
