| 1. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 22 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •av bet din Found in books: Levine (2005) 641 |
2. Hebrew Bible, 2 Kings, 2.12, 6.21 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •av bet din Found in books: Levine (2005) 429| 2.12. "וֶאֱלִישָׁע רֹאֶה וְהוּא מְצַעֵק אָבִי אָבִי רֶכֶב יִשְׂרָאֵל וּפָרָשָׁיו וְלֹא רָאָהוּ עוֹד וַיַּחֲזֵק בִּבְגָדָיו וַיִּקְרָעֵם לִשְׁנַיִם קְרָעִים׃", 6.21. "וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל־אֱלִישָׁע כִּרְאֹתוֹ אוֹתָם הַאַכֶּה אַכֶּה אָבִי׃", | 2.12. "And Elisha saw it, and he cried: ‘My father, my father, the chariots of Israel and the horsemen thereof! ’ And he saw him no more; and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces.", 6.21. "And the king of Israel said unto Elisha, when he saw them: ‘My father, shall I smite them? shall I smite them?’", |
|
3. Septuagint, 2 Maccabees, 14.37 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •av bet din Found in books: Levine (2005) 429 | 14.37. A certain Razis, one of the elders of Jerusalem, was denounced to Nicanor as a man who loved his fellow citizens and was very well thought of and for his good will was called father of the Jews.' |
|
4. Tosefta, Avodah Zarah, 6.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •av bet din Found in books: Levine (2005) 338| 6.3. "מוקצה שלו אסור ושל חברו מותר לפני הקדישו אסור לאחר הקדישו מותר מאימתי נקרא מוקצה משנעשה בו מעשה איזהו נעבד כל שעובדין אותו בין בשגגה בין במזיד איזה הוא מוקצה מקצה לעבודת כוכבים אבל אמר שור זה לעבודת כוכבים לא אמר כלום לפי שאין הקדש לעבודת כוכבים. ", | |
|
| 5. Tosefta, Megillah, 3.35 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •av bet din Found in books: Levine (2005) 458 |
6. Tosefta, Terumot, 2.13 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •av bet din Found in books: Levine (2005) 458| 2.13. "אבל ערלה וכלאי הכרם שוין לנכרים בארץ ישראל בסוריא ובחוצה לארץ אלא שר' יהודה אומר אין לנכרי כרם רבעי בסוריא וחכ\"א יש לו אמר ר' יהודה מעשה בשביון ראש בית הכנסת של כזיב שלקח נכרי רבעי בסוריא ונתן לו דמיו ובא ושאל את רבן גמליאל שהיה עובר ממקום למקום ואמר לו המתן עד שנהיה בהלכה אמר לו משם ראיה אף הוא שלח לו ביד שליח חרש מה שעשית עשית אבל לא [תשנה] לעשות כן.", | |
|
7. Mishnah, Miqvaot, 2.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •av bet din Found in books: Levine (2005) 429| 2.10. "מִקְוֶה שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה מַיִם וָטִיט, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, מַטְבִּילִין בַּמַּיִם וְאֵין מַטְבִּילִין בַּטִּיט. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, בַּמַּיִם וּבַטִּיט. בְּאֵיזֶה טִיט מַטְבִּילִין. בְּטִיט שֶׁהַמַּיִם צָפִים עַל גַּבָּיו. הָיוּ הַמַּיִם מִצַּד אֶחָד, מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁמַּטְבִּילִין בַּמַּיִם וְאֵין מַטְבִּילִין בַּטִּיט. בְּאֵיזֶה טִיט אָמְרוּ. בְּטִיט שֶׁהַקָּנֶה יוֹרֵד מֵאֵלָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין קְנֵה הַמִּדָּה עוֹמֵד. אַבָּא אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן דּוֹלְעַאי אוֹמֵר, מְקוֹם שֶׁהַמִּשְׁקֹלֶת יוֹרֶדֶת. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, הַיּוֹרֵד בְּפִי חָבִית. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, הַנִּכְנָס בִּשְׁפוֹפֶרֶת הַנּוֹד. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר צָדוֹק אוֹמֵר, הַנִּמְדָּד בַּלֹּג: \n", | 2.10. "A mikveh which contains forty seahs of water and mud [combined]: Rabbi Eliezer says: one may immerse objects in the water but one may not immerse them in the mud. But Rabbi Joshua says: in the water and also in the mud. In what kind of mud may objects be immersed? Mud over which water floats. If the water was on one side only, Rabbi Joshua agrees that objects may be immersed in the water but may not be immersed in the mud. of what kind of mud have they spoken? Mud into which a reed will sink of itself, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: [mud] in which a measuring-rod will not stand upright. Abba Elazar ben Dulai says: [mud] into which a plummet will sink. Rabbi Eliezer says: such as will go down into the mouth of a jar. Rabbi Shimon says: such as will enter into the tube of a water- skin. Rabbi Elazar bar Zadok says: such as can be measured in a log measure.", |
|
8. Mishnah, Middot, 2.5-2.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •av bet din Found in books: Levine (2005) 429| 2.5. "עֶזְרַת הַנָּשִׁים הָיְתָה אֹרֶךְ מֵאָה וּשְׁלשִׁים וְחָמֵשׁ עַל רֹחַב מֵאָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וְחָמֵשׁ. וְאַרְבַּע לְשָׁכוֹת הָיוּ בְאַרְבַּע מִקְצוֹעוֹתֶיהָ, שֶׁל אַרְבָּעִים אַרְבָּעִים אַמָּה. וְלֹא הָיוּ מְקוֹרוֹת. וְכָךְ הֵם עֲתִידִים לִהְיוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יחזקאל מו), וַיּוֹצִיאֵנִי אֶל הֶחָצֵר הַחִיצוֹנָה וַיַּעֲבִירֵנִי אֶל אַרְבַּעַת מִקְצוֹעֵי הֶחָצֵר וְהִנֵּה חָצֵר בְּמִקְצֹעַ הֶחָצֵר, חָצֵר בְּמִקְצֹעַ הֶחָצֵר, בְּאַרְבַּעַת מִקְצֹעוֹת הֶחָצֵר חֲצֵרוֹת קְטֻרוֹת. וְאֵין קְטֻרוֹת אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵינָן מְקוֹרוֹת. וּמֶה הָיוּ מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת. דְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית, הִיא הָיְתָה לִשְׁכַּת הַנְּזִירִים, שֶׁשָּׁם הַנְּזִירִים מְבַשְּׁלִין אֶת שַׁלְמֵיהֶן, וּמְגַלְּחִין אֶת שְׂעָרָן, וּמְשַׁלְּחִים תַּחַת הַדּוּד. מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית, הִיא הָיְתָה לִשְׁכַּת הָעֵצִים, שֶׁשָּׁם הַכֹּהֲנִים בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין מַתְלִיעִין הָעֵצִים. וְכָל עֵץ שֶׁנִּמְצָא בוֹ תוֹלַעַת, פָּסוּל מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. צְפוֹנִית מַעֲרָבִית, הִיא הָיְתָה לִשְׁכַּת מְצֹרָעִים. מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית, אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, שָׁכַחְתִּי מֶה הָיְתָה מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, שָׁם הָיוּ נוֹתְנִין יַיִן וָשֶׁמֶן, הִיא הָיְתָה נִקְרֵאת לִשְׁכַּת בֵּית שְׁמַנְיָה. וַחֲלָקָה הָיְתָה בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, וְהִקִּיפוּהָ כְצוֹצְרָה, שֶׁהַנָּשִׁים רוֹאוֹת מִלְמַעְלָן, וְהָאֲנָשִׁים מִלְּמַטָּן, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מְעֹרָבִין. וַחֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מַעֲלוֹת עוֹלוֹת מִתּוֹכָהּ לְעֶזְרַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, כְּנֶגֶד חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מַעֲלוֹת שֶׁבַּתְּהִלִּים, שֶׁעֲלֵיהֶן הַלְוִיִּם אוֹמְרִים בַּשִּׁיר. לֹא הָיוּ טְרוּטוֹת, אֶלָּא מֻקָּפוֹת כַּחֲצִי גֹרֶן עֲגֻלָּה: \n", 2.6. "וּלְשָׁכוֹת הָיוּ תַחַת עֶזְרַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּפְתוּחוֹת לְעֶזְרַת הַנָּשִׁים, שֶׁשָּׁם הַלְוִיִּם נוֹתְנִים כִּנּוֹרוֹת וּנְבָלִים וּמְצִלְתַּיִם וְכָל כְּלֵי שִׁיר. עֶזְרַת יִשְׂרָאֵל הָיְתָה אֹרֶךְ מֵאָה אַמָּה וּשְׁלשִׁים וְחָמֵשׁ עַל רֹחַב אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה. וְכֵן עֶזְרַת כֹּהֲנִים הָיְתָה אֹרֶךְ מֵאָה וּשְׁלשִׁים וְחָמֵשׁ עַל רֹחַב אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה. וְרָאשֵׁי פִסְפָּסִין מַבְדִּילִין בֵּין עֶזְרַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְעֶזְרַת הַכֹּהֲנִים. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, מַעֲלָה הָיְתָה שָׁם, וּגְבוֹהָה אַמָּה, וְהַדּוּכָן נָתוּן עָלֶיהָ, וּבָהּ שָׁלשׁ מַעֲלוֹת שֶׁל חֲצִי חֲצִי אַמָּה. נִמְצֵאת עֶזְרַת הַכֹּהֲנִים גְּבוֹהָה מֵעֶזְרַת יִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה. כָּל הָעֲזָרָה הָיְתָה אֹרֶךְ מֵאָה וּשְׁמוֹנִים וָשֶׁבַע עַל רֹחַב מֵאָה וּשְׁלשִׁים וְחָמֵשׁ. וּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיוֹת הָיוּ שָׁם. אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶן חָנָן אוֹמֵר, כְּנֶגֶד שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר שְׁעָרִים. שְׁעָרִים דְּרוֹמִיִּים סְמוּכִים לַמַּעֲרָב, שַׁעַר הָעֶלְיוֹן, שַׁעַר הַדֶּלֶק, שַׁעַר הַבְּכוֹרוֹת, שַׁעַר הַמָּיִם, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ שַׁעַר הַמַּיִם. שֶׁבּוֹ מַכְנִיסִין צְלוֹחִית שֶׁל מַיִם שֶׁל נִסּוּךְ בֶּחָג. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, וּבוֹ הַמַּיִם מְפַכִּים, וַעֲתִידִין לִהְיוֹת יוֹצְאִין מִתַּחַת מִפְתַּן הַבָּיִת. וּלְעֻמָּתָן בַּצָּפוֹן סְמוּכִים לַמַּעֲרָב, שַׁעַר יְכָנְיָה, שַׁעַר הַקָּרְבָּן, שַׁעַר הַנָּשִׁים, שַׁעַר הַשִּׁיר. וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ שַׁעַר יְכָנְיָה, שֶׁבּוֹ יָצָא יְכָנְיָה בְּגָלוּתוֹ. שֶׁבַּמִּזְרָח, שַׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר. וּשְׁנֵי פִשְׁפָּשִׁים הָיוּ לוֹ, אֶחָד מִימִינוֹ וְאֶחָד מִשְּׂמֹאלוֹ. וּשְׁנַיִם בַּמַעֲרָב, לֹא הָיָה לָהֶם שֵׁם: \n", | 2.5. "The courtyard of the women was a hundred and thirty-five cubits long by a hundred and thirty-five wide. It had four chambers in its four corners, each of which was forty cubits. They were not roofed, and so they will be in the time to come, as it says, “Then he brought me forth into the outer court, and caused me to pass by the four corners of the court, and behold in every corner of the court there was a court. In the four corners of the court there were keturot courts” (Ezekiel 46:21-22) and keturot means that they were not roofed. For what were they used? The southeastern one was the chamber of the Nazirites where the Nazirites used to boil their shelamim and shave their hair and throw it under the pot. The northeastern one was the wood chamber where priests with physical defects used to pick out the wood which had worms, every piece with a worm in it being unfit for use on the altar. The northwestern one was the chamber of those with skin disease. The southwestern one: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: I forget what it was used for. Abba Shaul says: they used to store there wine and oil, and it was called the chamber of oil. It [the courtyard of the women] had originally been smooth [without protrusions in the walls] but subsequently they surrounded it with a balcony so that the women could look on from above while the men were below, and they should not mix together. Fifteen steps led up from it to the courtyard of Israel, corresponding to the fifteen [songs of] ascents mentioned in the Book of Psalms, and upon which the Levites used to sing. They were not rectangular but circular like the half of a threshing floor.", 2.6. "There were chambers underneath the Court of Israel which opened into the Court of Women, where the Levites used to keep lyres and lutes and cymbals and all kinds of musical instruments. The Court of Israel was a hundred and thirty-five cubits in length by eleven in breadth. Similarly the Court of the Priests was a hundred and thirty-five cubits in length by eleven in breadth. And a row of mosaic stones separated the Court of Israel from the Court of the Priests. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: there was a step a cubit high on which a platform was placed, and it had three steps each of half a cubit in height. In this way the Court of the Priests was made two and a half cubits higher than that of Israel. The whole of the Court was a hundred and eighty-seven cubits in length by a hundred and thirty-five in breadth. And thirteen prostrations were made there. Abba Yose ben Ha says: they were made facing the thirteen gates. On the south beginning from the west there were the upper gate, the gate of burning, the gate of the firstborn, and the water gate. And why was it called the water gate? Because they brought in through it the pitcher of water for libation on the festival. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: in it the water welled up, and in the time to come from there it will come out from under the threshold of the Temple. Corresponding to them in the north beginning in the west were the gate of Yehoniah, the gate of the offering, the women's gate, the gate of song. Why was it called the gate of Yehoniah? Because Yehoniah went forth into captivity through it. On the east was the gate of Nicanor; it had two doors, one on its right and one on its left (10 +. There were further two gates in the west which had no special name (12 +.", |
|
9. Mishnah, Beitzah, 3.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •av bet din Found in books: Levine (2005) 429| 3.8. "אוֹמֵר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ, מַלֵּא לִי כְלִי זֶה, אֲבָל לֹא בַמִּדָּה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם הָיָה כְלִי שֶׁל מִדָּה, לֹא יְמַלְאֶנּוּ. מַעֲשֶׂה בְאַבָּא שָׁאוּל בֶּן בָּטְנִית, שֶׁהָיָה מְמַלֵּא מִדּוֹתָיו מֵעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב וְנוֹתְנָן לַלָּקוֹחוֹת בְּיוֹם טוֹב. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, אַף בַּמּוֹעֵד עוֹשֶׂה כֵן, מִפְּנֵי בֵרוּרֵי הַמִּדּוֹת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אַף בְּחֹל עוֹשֶׂה כֵן, מִפְּנֵי מִצּוּי הַמִּדּוֹת. הוֹלֵךְ אָדָם אֵצֶל חֶנְוָנִי הָרָגִיל אֶצְלוֹ, וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ, תֵּן לִי בֵּיצִים וֶאֱגוֹזִים בְּמִנְיָן, שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת לִהְיוֹת מוֹנֶה בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ: \n", | 3.8. "A man may say [on Yom Tov] to his fellow, “Fill me this vessel,” but not in a specific measure. Rabbi Judah says: if it was a measuring-vessel he may not fill it. It happened that Abba Shaul ben Batnit used to fill up his measures on the eve of Yom Tov and give them to his customers on Yom Tov. Abba Shaul says: he used to do so even during hol hamoed (the intermediate days of the festival), on account of clarifying the measures. But the sages say: he used also to do so on an ordinary day for the sake of the draining of the measures. A man may go to a shopkeeper to whom he generally goes and say to him, “Give me [so many] eggs and nuts” since this is the way of a householder to reckon in his own home.", |
|
10. Mishnah, Avot, 2.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •av bet din Found in books: Levine (2005) 429| 2.8. "רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי קִבֵּל מֵהִלֵּל וּמִשַּׁמָּאי. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אִם לָמַדְתָּ תוֹרָה הַרְבֵּה, אַל תַּחֲזִיק טוֹבָה לְעַצְמְךָ, כִּי לְכָךְ נוֹצָרְתָּ. חֲמִשָּׁה תַלְמִידִים הָיוּ לוֹ לְרַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן הוֹרְקְנוֹס, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַכֹּהֵן, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן נְתַנְאֵל, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ. הוּא הָיָה מוֹנֶה שִׁבְחָן. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן הוֹרְקְנוֹס, בּוֹר סוּד שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְאַבֵּד טִפָּה. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָה, אַשְׁרֵי יוֹלַדְתּוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַכֹּהֵן, חָסִיד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן נְתַנְאֵל, יְרֵא חֵטְא. וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ, מַעְיָן הַמִּתְגַּבֵּר. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אִם יִהְיוּ כָל חַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכַף מֹאזְנַיִם, וֶאֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן הוֹרְקְנוֹס בְּכַף שְׁנִיָּה, מַכְרִיעַ אֶת כֻּלָּם. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר מִשְּׁמוֹ, אִם יִהְיוּ כָל חַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכַף מֹאזְנַיִם וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן הוֹרְקְנוֹס אַף עִמָּהֶם, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲרָךְ בְּכַף שְׁנִיָּה, מַכְרִיעַ אֶת כֻּלָּם:", | 2.8. "Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai received [the oral tradition] from Hillel and Shammai.He used to say: if you have learned much torah, do not claim credit for yourself, because for such a purpose were you created. Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai had five disciples and they were these: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, Rabbi Joshua ben Haiah, Rabbi Yose, the priest, Rabbi Shimon ben Nethaneel and Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach. He [Rabbi Joha] used to list their outstanding virtues: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus is a plastered cistern which loses not a drop; Rabbi Joshua ben Haiah happy is the woman that gave birth to him; Rabbi Yose, the priest, is a pious man; Rabbi Simeon ben Nethaneel is one that fears sin, And Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach is like a spring that [ever] gathers force. He [Rabbi Yoha] used to say: if all the sages of Israel were on one scale of the balance and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus on the other scale, he would outweigh them all. Abba Shaul said in his name: if all the sages of Israel were on one scale of the balance, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus also with them, and Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach on the other scale, he would outweigh them all.", |
|
| 11. Palestinian Talmud, Yevamot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 12. Palestinian Talmud, Moed Qatan, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 13. Palestinian Talmud, Hagigah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan nan nan |
| 14. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 16 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •av bet din Found in books: Levine (2005) 458 |
15. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 81.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •av bet din Found in books: Levine (2005) 458| 81.1. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל יַעֲקֹב קוּם עֲלֵה וגו' (בראשית לה, א), (משלי כ, כה): מוֹקֵשׁ אָדָם יָלַע קֹדֶשׁ וְאַחַר נְדָרִים לְבַקֵּר, תָּבוֹא מְאֵרָה לָאָדָם שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל קֳדָשִׁים בְּלוֹעוֹ. תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּא תָּבוֹא מְאֵרָה לָאָדָם שֶׁהוּא נֶהֱנֶה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְאֵין הֶקְדֵּשׁ אֶלָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ירמיה ב, ג): קֹדֶשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל לַה' וגו'. וְאַחַר נְדָרִים לְבַקֵּר, אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי אִחֵר אָדָם אֶת נִדְרוֹ נִתְבַּקְּרָה פִּנְקָסוֹ. | |
|
| 16. Palestinian Talmud, Peah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 17. Palestinian Talmud, Bikkurim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 18. Palestinian Talmud, Sheviit, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
19. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •av bet din Found in books: Levine (2005) 458| 21a. הן תהוי ארכא לשלותיך וכתיב (דניאל ד, כה) כלא מטא על נבוכדנצר מלכא וכתיב (דניאל ד, כו) לקצת ירחין תרי עשר,לעולם רבי ישמעאל ואשכח קרא דאמר ותני דכתיב (עמוס א, יא) כה אמר ה' על שלשה פשעי אדום,ומאי אע"פ שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר דלמא שאני עובדי כוכבים דלא מפקיד דינא עלייהו,ויש זכות תולה ג' שנים כו' זכות דמאי אילימא זכות דתורה הא אינה מצווה ועושה היא אלא זכות דמצוה,זכות דמצוה מי מגנא כולי האי והתניא את זו דרש רבי מנחם בר יוסי (משלי ו, כג) כי נר מצוה ותורה אור תלה הכתוב את המצוה בנר ואת התורה באור את המצוה בנר לומר לך מה נר אינה מגינה אלא לפי שעה אף מצוה אינה מגינה אלא לפי שעה,ואת התורה באור לומר לך מה אור מגין לעולם אף תורה מגינה לעולם ואומר (משלי ו, כב) בהתהלכך תנחה אותך וגו' בהתהלכך תנחה אותך זה העוה"ז בשכבך תשמור עליך זו מיתה והקיצות היא תשיחך לעתיד לבא,משל לאדם שהיה מהלך באישון לילה ואפילה ומתיירא מן הקוצים ומן הפחתים ומן הברקנים ומחיה רעה ומן הליסטין ואינו יודע באיזה דרך מהלך,נזדמנה לו אבוקה של אור ניצל מן הקוצים ומן הפחתים ומן הברקנים ועדיין מתיירא מחיה רעה ומן הליסטין ואינו יודע באיזה דרך מהלך כיון שעלה עמוד השחר ניצל מחיה רעה ומן הליסטין ועדיין אינו יודע באיזה דרך מהלך הגיע לפרשת דרכים ניצל מכולם,ד"א עבירה מכבה מצוה ואין עבירה מכבה תורה שנאמר (שיר השירים ח, ז) מים רבים לא יוכלו לכבות את האהבה,א"ר יוסף מצוה בעידנא דעסיק בה מגנא ומצלא בעידנא דלא עסיק בה אגוני מגנא אצולי לא מצלא תורה בין בעידנא דעסיק בה ובין בעידנא דלא עסיק בה מגנא ומצלא,מתקיף לה רבה אלא מעתה דואג ואחיתופל מי לא עסקי בתורה אמאי לא הגינה עלייהו אלא אמר רבא תורה בעידנא דעסיק בה מגנא ומצלא בעידנא דלא עסיק בה אגוני מגנא אצולי לא מצלא מצוה בין בעידנא דעסיק בה בין בעידנא דלא עסיק בה אגוני מגנא אצולי לא מצלא,רבינא אמר לעולם זכות תורה ודקאמרת אינה מצווה ועושה נהי דפקודי לא מפקדא באגרא דמקרין ומתניין בנייהו ונטרן להו לגברייהו עד דאתו מבי מדרשא מי לא פלגאן בהדייהו,מאי פרשת דרכים א"ר חסדא זה ת"ח ויום מיתה רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר זה ת"ח ויראת חטא מר זוטרא אמר זה ת"ח דסלקא ליה שמעתתא אליבא דהלכתא,ד"א עבירה מכבה מצוה ואין עבירה מכבה תורה א"ר יוסף דרשיה רבי מנחם בר יוסי להאי קרא כי סיני ואילמלא דרשוה דואג ואחיתופל הכי לא רדפו בתר דוד דכתיב (תהלים עא, יא) לאמר אלהים עזבו וגו',מאי דרוש (דברים כג, טו) ולא יראה בך ערות דבר וגו' והן אינן יודעין שעבירה מכבה מצוה ואין עבירה מכבה תורה,מאי (שיר השירים ח, ז) בוז יבוזו לו אמר עולא לא כשמעון אחי עזריה ולא כר' יוחנן דבי נשיאה,אלא כהלל ושבנא דכי אתא רב דימי אמר הלל ושבנא אחי הוו הלל עסק בתורה שבנא עבד עיסקא לסוף א"ל תא נערוב וליפלוג יצתה בת קול ואמרה (שיר השירים ח, ז) אם יתן איש את כל הון ביתו וגו' | 21a. b and then there shall be an extension to your tranquility” /b (Daniel 4:24). b And it is written: “All this came upon King Nebuchadnezzar” /b (Daniel 4:25), b and it is written /b in the following verse that this occurred: b “At the end of twelve months” /b (Daniel 4:26). None of the opinions in the i baraita /i are in accordance with the mishna’s statement that merit can delay punishment for up to three years.,The Gemara answers: b Actually, /b the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael, /b who states that merit delays punishment for one year, b and he found a verse which states and repeats /b the possibility that punishment can be delayed, indicating that merit can delay punishment up to three times, b as it is written: “Thus says the Lord: For three transgressions of Edom, /b yes, but for four, I will not reverse it” (Amos 1:11). Punishment can therefore be delayed for three consecutive periods of one year.,The Gemara asks: b And what /b does Rabbi Yishmael mean by stating: b Although there is no /b explicit b proof for the concept /b of merit delaying punishment for twelve months, there is b an allusion to the concept? /b The verses he cites state explicitly that punishment can be delayed for twelve months. The Gemara answers: The proof is not explicit, as b perhaps gentiles are different, as /b swift b judgment is not administered upon them /b as readily as it is upon the Jewish people, with whom God is more precise in executing judgment.,§ The mishna states: b And there is a merit /b that b delays /b punishment for b three years. /b The Gemara asks: b Which merit /b can delay the punishment of a i sota /i ? b If we say /b it is the b merit of /b the b Torah /b that she has studied; b but /b a woman who studies Torah b is /b one who is b not commanded /b to do so b and performs /b a mitzva, whose reward is less than that of one who is obligated? Therefore, it would be insufficient to suspend her punishment. b Rather, /b perhaps it is the b merit of a mitzva /b that she performed.,The Gemara asks: b Does /b the b merit of a mitzva protect /b one b so much /b as to delay her punishment? b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei interpreted this /b verse b homiletically: “For the mitzva is a lamp and the Torah is light” /b (Proverbs 6:23). b The verse associates the mitzva with a lamp and the Torah with /b the b light /b of the sun. b The mitzva /b is associated b with a lamp /b in order b to say to you: Just as a lamp does not protect /b one by its light extensively but b only temporarily, /b while the lamp is in one’s hand, b so too, a mitzva protects /b one b only temporarily, /b i.e., while one is performing the mitzva., b And the Torah /b is associated b with light /b in order b to say to you: Just as /b the b light /b of the sun b protects /b one b forever, so too, /b the b Torah /b one studies b protects /b one b forever; and it states /b in the previous verse with regard to the Torah: b “When you walk, it shall lead you; /b when you lie down, it shall watch over you; and when you awake, it shall talk with you” (Proverbs 6:22). The Gemara explains: b “When you walk, it shall lead you”; this is /b referring to when one is in b this world. “When you lie down, it shall watch over you”; this is /b referring to the time of b death, /b when one lies in his grave. b “And when you awake, it shall talk with you”; /b this is referring b to the time to come /b after the resurrection of the dead. The Torah that one studies protects and guides him both in this world and in the next world.,This can be illustrated by b a parable, /b as it is comparable b to a man who is walking in /b the b blackness of night and the darkness, and he is afraid of the thorns, and of the pits, and of the thistles, /b which he cannot see due to the darkness. b And /b he is also afraid b of /b the b wild animals and of the bandits /b that lurk at night, b and he does not know which way he is walking. /b ,If b a torch of fire comes his way, /b which is analogous to a mitzva, b he is safe from the thorns and from the pits and from the thistles, but he is still afraid of /b the b wild animals and of the bandits, and /b still b does not know which way he is walking. Once the light of dawn rises, /b which is analogous to Torah study, b he is safe from /b the b wild animals and from the bandits, /b which no longer roam the roads, b but he still does not know which way he is walking. /b If b he arrives at a crossroads /b and recognizes the way, b he is saved from all of them. /b , b Alternatively, /b the verse associates the mitzva with a lamp and the Torah with the light of the sun in order to teach that b a transgression extinguishes /b the merit of b a mitzva /b one performed, b but a transgression does not extinguish /b the merit of the b Torah /b one studied, b as it is stated: “Many waters cannot extinguish the love, /b neither can the floods drown it” (Song of Songs 8:7). The Torah is compared to love several times in the Song of Songs. One can conclude from the i baraita /i that the merit of performing a mitzva is insufficient to suspend punishment., b Rav Yosef said /b that with regard to b a mitzva, at the time when one is engaged in its /b performance it b protects /b one from misfortune b and saves /b one from the evil inclination; b at the time when one is not engaged in its /b performance, it b protects /b one from misfortune but it b does not save /b one from the evil inclination. With regard to b Torah /b study, b both at the time when one is engaged in it and at the time when one is not engaged in it, /b it b protects /b one from misfortune b and saves /b one from the evil inclination. Therefore, the merit of the woman’s mitzvot does protect her from misfortune and delay her punishment., b Rabba objects to this /b explanation: b If that is so, /b then with regard to b Doeg /b (see I Samuel, chapters 21–22) b and Ahithophel /b (see II Samuel, chapter 16), who were both wise scholars despite their wickedness, b did they not engage in the /b study of b Torah? Why did /b it b not protect them /b from sinning? b Rather, Rava said: /b With regard to b Torah /b study, b at the time when one is engaged in it, it protects and saves; at the time when one is not engaged in it, it protects /b one from misfortune but b it does not save /b one from the evil inclination. With regard to b a mitzva, both at the time when one is engaged in its /b performance b and at the time when one is not engaged in its /b performance, b it protects /b one from misfortune but it b does not save /b one from the evil inclination., b Ravina said: Actually, /b the merit that delays the punishment of the i sota /i is the b merit of Torah /b study, b and /b with regard to that b which you say, /b i.e., that b she is not commanded /b to do so b and performs /b a mitzva, the mishna is not referring to the merit of her own Torah study. b Granted, she is not commanded /b to study Torah herself; however, b in reward for causing their sons to read /b the Written Torah b and to learn /b the Mishna, b and /b for b waiting for their husbands until they come /b home b from the study hall, don’t they share /b the reward b with their /b sons and husbands? Therefore, if the i sota /i enabled her sons and husband to study Torah, the merit of their Torah study can protect her and delay her punishment.,With regard to the aforementioned parable, the Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of the b crossroads, /b which provide clarity? b Rav Ḥisda says: This /b is referring to b a Torah scholar and /b his b day of death. /b Due to his continued commitment to the Torah, when the time comes for him to die, it is clear to him that he will go to the place of his eternal reward. b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: This is a Torah scholar /b who has also acquired b fear of sin, /b as his fear of sin guides him to the correct understanding of the Torah. b Mar Zutra says: This is a Torah scholar who reaches /b conclusions from b his discussion in accordance with the i halakha /i , /b as that is an indication that he is following the right path.,The i baraita /i states: b Alternatively: A transgression extinguishes /b the merit of b a mitzva, but a transgression does not extinguish /b the merit of the b Torah. Rav Yosef says: Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei interpreted this verse as /b it was given on Mount b Sinai, and had Doeg and Ahithophel only interpreted it in this way they would not have pursued David, as it is written: /b “For my enemies speak concerning b me…saying, God has forsaken him; /b pursue and take him, for there is none to deliver” (Psalms 71:10–11). Doeg and Ahithophel incorrectly thought that since David had sinned, his sins had extinguished his merits and God had forsaken him.,The Gemara asks: b What /b verse b did /b Doeg and Ahithophel b interpret /b incorrectly, causing them to err? They interpreted this verse: “For the Lord your God walks in the midst of your camp…to give up your enemies before you… b that He see no licentious matter in you, /b and turn away from you” (Deuteronomy 23:15), to indicate that God turns away from one who engaged in forbidden relations, and since David had sinned with Bathsheba God must have turned away from him. b But they did not know that a transgression extinguishes /b the merit of b a mitzva, but a transgression does not extinguish /b the merit of the b Torah. /b ,The Gemara interprets the continuation of the verse cited by the i baraita /i with regard to Torah study: b What /b is the meaning of: “Many waters cannot extinguish the love…if a man would give all the fortune of his house for love, b he would utterly be condemned” /b (Song of Songs 8:7)? The Torah is compared to love several times in the Song of Songs. Therefore, the verse indicates that one cannot acquire a share in the reward for Torah study with money. b Ulla says: /b The verse is b not /b speaking of individuals b like Shimon, brother of Azarya, /b whose brother Azarya supported him and enabled him to study Torah. b And /b it is b not /b speaking of individuals b like Rabbi Yoḥa of the house of the i Nasi /i , /b whom the i Nasi /i supported so that he could study Torah., b Rather, /b it is speaking of individuals b like Hillel and Shevna, as when Rav Dimi came /b to Babylonia b he said: Hillel and Shevna were brothers; Hillel engaged in Torah /b study and remained impoverished, whereas b Shevna entered into a /b business b venture /b and became wealthy. b In the end, /b Shevna b said to /b Hillel: b Come, let us join /b our wealth b together and divide /b it between us; I will give you half of my money and you will give me half of the reward for your Torah study. In response to this request b a Divine Voice issued forth and said: “If a man would give all the fortune of his house /b for love, he would utterly be condemned” (Song of Songs 8:7). |
|
20. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Levine (2005) 458| 30b. ודכולי עלמא כרבנן דפליגי עליה דרבי יהושע בן קרחה והכא באקושי הגדה לראיה קא מיפלגי מר סבר מקשינן הגדה לראיה ומר סבר לא מקשינן,רבי שמעון בן אליקים הוה משתקיד עליה דר' יוסי ברבי חנינא למסמכיה ולא קא מיסתייע מילתא יומא חד הוה יתיב קמיה דר' יוחנן,אמר להו מי איכא דידע הלכה כרבי יהושע בן קרחה או לא א"ל רבי שמעון בן אליקים דין ידע אמר ליה לימא איזו אמר ליה ליסמכיה מר ברישא סמכיה,אמר ליה בני אמור לי כיצד שמעת א"ל כך שמעתי שמודה ר' יהושע בן קרחה לרבי נתן,אמר לזה הוצרכתי השתא ומה עיקר ראיה בהדי הדדי אמר ר' יהושע בן קרחה לא בעינן הגדה מיבעיא,א"ל הואיל ועלית לא תרד אמר ר' זירא שמע מינה גברא רבה כיון דסמיך סמיך,א"ר חייא בר אבין אמר רב הלכה כר' יהושע בן קרחה בין בקרקעות בין במטלטלין,עולא אמר הלכה כרבי יהושע בן קרחה בקרקעות אבל לא במטלטלין,א"ל אביי הלכה מכלל דפליגי והאמר ר' אבא א"ר הונא אמר רב מודים חכמים לרבי יהושע בן קרחה בעדות קרקע,ותני רב אידי בר אבין בנזיקין דבי קרנא מודין חכמים לרבי יהושע בן קרחה בעדות בכור ובעדות קרקע ובעדות חזקה וכן שבבן ושבבת,גברא אגברא קא רמית מר סבר פליגי ומר סבר לא פליגי,מאי וכן שבבן ושבבת אילימא אחד אומר אחת בגבה ואחד אומר אחת בכריסה האי חצי דבר וחצי עדות הוא,אלא אחד אומר שתים בגבה ואחד אומר שתים בכריסה,אמר רב יוסף אנא אמינא משמיה דעולא הלכה כרבי יהושע בן קרחה בין בקרקעות בין במטלטלין ורבנן דאתו ממחוזא אמרי אמר ר' זירא משמיה דרב בקרקעות אין אבל לא במטלטלין,רב לטעמיה דאמר רב הודאה אחר הודאה הודאה אחר הלואה מצטרפי,הלואה אחר הלואה הלואה אחר הודאה לא מצטרפי,אשכחיה רב נחמן בר יצחק לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע א"ל מאי שנא הלואה אחר הלואה דלא דמנה דקא חזי האי לא קא חזי האי הודאה אחר הודאה נמי אמנה דקא מודה קמי האי לא מודי קמי האי,דא"ל להאי בתרא בהאי מנה דאודיי ליה קמך אודיי ליה נמי קמי פלוני,אכתי בתרא ידע קמא לא ידע,דהדר אזיל א"ל לקמא האי מנה דאודיי ליה קמך אודיי ליה נמי קמי פלוני א"ל תנוח דעתך שהתנחת את דעתי,א"ל מאי ניחותא דרבא ואיתימא רב ששת שדא בה נרגא לאו היינו הודאה אחר הלואה,אמר ליה היינו דשמיע לי עלייכו דרמיתו דיקלי וזקפיתו להו,נהרדעי אמרי בין הודאה אחר הודאה בין הודאה אחר הלואה בין הלואה אחר הלואה בין הלואה אחר הודאה מצטרפות כמאן כר' יהושע בן קרחה,אמר רב יהודה עדות המכחשת זו את זו בבדיקות כשרה בדיני ממונות,אמר רבא מסתברא מילתיה דרב יהודה באחד אומר בארנקי שחורה ואחד אומר בארנקי לבנה אבל אחד אומר מנה שחור ואחד אומר מנה לבן אין מצטרפין,וארנקי שחורה בדיני נפשות לא והאמר רב חסדא אחד אומר בסייף הרגו ואחד אומר בארירן הרגו אין זה נכון אחד אומר כליו שחורים ואחד אומר כליו לבנים הרי זה נכון | 30b. b and everyone, /b both the first i tanna /i and Rabbi Natan, holds b in accordance with /b the opinion of b the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, /b and derive from this verse that it is necessary that the witnesses see the incident together, i.e., they were both present and observed the incident at the same time. b And here, /b with regard to whether or not the witnesses must testify in court together, b they disagree with regard to /b whether or not the b statement /b of the witnesses, i.e., their testimony in court, b is compared to /b their b observation /b of the incident. One b Sage, /b the first i tanna /i , b holds /b that b we compare /b their b statement to /b their b observation. /b Therefore, just as they must see the incident together, so too, they must testify together in court. b And /b one b Sage, /b Rabbi Natan, b holds /b that b we do not compare /b their statement to their observation.,The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim was striving to ordain Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, and was not successful /b in his attempts. b One day, /b Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim b was sitting before Rabbi Yoḥa /b among Rabbi Yoḥa’s other students.,Rabbi Yoḥa b said to /b his students: b Is there /b anyone b who knows /b whether the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, or not? Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said to him: This /b one, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, b knows. /b Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: If so, let him say. /b Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim b said to him: Let the Master ordain him first; /b since we are all in need of his wisdom, he is fit for ordination. Rabbi Yoḥa then b ordained /b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina.,Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: My son, tell me what you heard. /b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, b said to him: This is what I heard: That Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa concedes to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Natan /b that it is unnecessary for the witnesses to testify together.,Rabbi Yoḥa was disappointed, and b said: For this I needed /b to ordain him? b Now /b that with regard to the b main /b element of testimony, i.e., b observing /b the incident, b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says we do not need /b both witnesses to see it b together, /b with regard to their b statement /b in court, b is /b it b necessary /b to explicate that there is no requirement that they testify together?,Although the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, was unnecessary, Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: Since you ascended, /b i.e., you were ordained, b you will not descend, /b even though it was in error. b Rabbi Zeira said: Conclude from it /b that with regard to b a great man, once he is ordained, /b even if it was due to mistaken judgment, b he is ordained. /b The ordination is not canceled.,As for the i halakha /i in this matter, b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin says /b that b Rav says: /b The b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa /b that it is unnecessary for the two witnesses to observe the incident together, b both with regard to /b cases of b land /b and b with regard to /b cases of b movable property. /b , b Ulla says: /b The b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa with regard to land, /b which is unmovable, and therefore both testimonies are certainly about the same piece of land; b but not with regard to movable property, /b as there is a concern that they are not testifying about the same item., b Abaye said to /b Ulla: If you say that the b i halakha /i /b is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa with regard to land, b by inference /b you hold b that they disagree /b with regard to this matter. b But doesn’t Rabbi Abba say /b that b Rav Huna says /b that b Rav says: The Rabbis concede to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa with regard to testimony /b concerning b land? /b , b And Rav Idi bar Avin teaches in /b the i halakhot /i of b damages /b that were taught b at the school of /b the Sage b Karna: The Rabbis concede to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa /b that the witnesses do not need to see the incident together b with regard to testimony /b concerning a blemish in a male b firstborn /b kosher animal, which renders it permitted to derive benefit from it, b and with regard to testimony /b concerning ownership of b land, and with regard to testimony /b concerning b presumptive ownership /b of land. Since it is clear that they are testifying about the same land, it is unnecessary for them to see it together. b And so /b they concede with regard to testimony over the two pubic hairs b of a boy or of a girl, /b which are a sign of adulthood.,The Gemara rejects Abaye’s question: b Are you setting /b the statement of one b man against /b the statement of another b man? /b One b Sage, /b Ulla, b holds /b that the Rabbis b disagree /b with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa even with regard to land, b and /b one b Sage, /b i.e., Rav and Rav Idi, b holds /b that b they do not disagree. /b ,The Gemara asks tangentially about the statement: b And so /b they concede with regard to testimony over the two pubic hairs b of a boy or of a girl: What /b is this referring to? b If we say /b it is referring to testimony that a girl has reached majority, in which b one /b witness b says /b that he saw b one /b hair b on /b the b her /b lower b back and one /b witness b says /b that he saw b one /b hair b on her /b lower b abdomen, /b that is difficult. A girl is considered to have reached maturity when she has two pubic hairs. In this case, two witnesses separately testify that they have each seen one hair. In b this /b case each testimony is obviously invalid, as it b is half a matter and /b also b half a testimony. /b Not only does each testimony refer to one hair, which is half a matter, it is submitted by one witness, which is half a testimony. Consequently, it is obvious that the girl is not considered to have reached majority in this case., b Rather, /b it must be referring to a case where b one says /b that he saw b two /b hairs b on her /b lower b back, and /b the other b one says /b he saw b two /b hairs b on her /b lower b abdomen. /b Since they each testify that she has reached adulthood, it is unnecessary for them to see the same hairs., b Rav Yosef said: I say in the name of Ulla /b that the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa both with regard to land and with regard to movable property. But the Sages who came from Meḥoza say /b that b Rabbi Zeira says in the name of Rav: With regard to land /b the i halakha /i b is /b in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, b but not with regard to movable property. /b ,The Gemara comments: b Rav /b conforms b to his /b standard line of b reasoning, as Rav says: /b Testimonies of b an admission following an admission /b are combined into one; if one witness testifies that the respondent admitted in his presence that he owes the claimant, and the other witness testifies that the respondent admitted in his presence that he owes the claimant in a separate incident, their testimonies are combined. Likewise, testimonies of b an admission following a loan are combined /b into one; where one witness testifies that the respondent admitted in his presence that he owes the claimant, and the other one testifies that on a previous date the respondent borrowed money from the claimant in his presence, their testimonies are combined.,Rav continues: But testimonies of b a loan following a loan /b are not combined. If one testifies that the claimant lent the respondent one hundred dinars in his presence, and the other testifies that he lent him one hundred dinars in a separate incident in his presence, their testimonies are not combined, as they are clearly testifying about two separate loans. Similarly, testimonies of b a loan following an admission are not combined. /b If one testifies that the claimant lent money to the respondent, and the other one testifies that on an earlier date the respondent admitted to owing the claimant, their testimonies are not combined., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak encountered Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua. He said to him: What is different /b about b a loan following a loan, /b in b which /b case the testimonies are b not /b combined, b as the one hundred dinars that this /b witness b saw, that /b witness b did not see? /b In the case of b an admission following an admission as well, /b perhaps b the one hundred dinars about which /b the respondent b admitted in the presence of this /b witness, b he did not admit in the presence of that /b witness. Perhaps his admissions were in reference to two separate loans, and therefore the testimonies should not be combined.,Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, answered him: The reference is to a case b where /b the respondent b said to this last /b witness: b With regard to the one hundred dinars that I admitted /b to owing b in your presence, I admitted /b to owing b them in the presence of so-and-so, /b the first witness, b as well. /b ,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak asked: b Still, the last /b witness b knows /b that he is testifying about the same loan as the first witness, but b the first /b witness b does not know /b this. Since only one witness testifies that it is the same loan, the testimonies still cannot be combined.,Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, answered: It is a case b where, /b after his admission to the second witness, the respondent b went back /b and b said to the first /b witness: With regard to b those one hundred dinars that I admitted /b to owing b in your presence, I admitted /b owing b them in the presence of so-and-so as well. /b Therefore, both witnesses know that they are testifying about the same loan. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak b said to him: May your mind be settled, as you have settled my mind /b and put it at ease by answering this question that was troubling me.,Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, b said to him: What is settling /b about this explanation? b As Rava, and some say Rav Sheshet, threw an ax at /b my answer, i.e., he rejected my explanation, as follows: According to this interpretation of the case of an admission following an admission, b isn’t this /b the same as b an admission following a loan? /b The case of an admission following an admission is now rendered superfluous, as it adds no new insight on the matter.,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak b said to him: This is what I heard about you /b Sages of Meḥoza, b that you knock down palm trees and erect them, /b i.e., you build and then destroy what you built. After you came up with such an excellent explanation, you ruined it yourselves.,The Sages b of Neharde’a say: Whether /b it is a case of b an admission following an admission, or an admission following a loan, or a loan following a loan, or a loan following an admission, /b in all these cases the testimonies b are combined. In accordance with whose /b opinion is this? It is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, /b who teaches that since both witnesses testify about a debt of one hundred dinars, it is considered like one testimony.,§ b Rav Yehuda says: Testimony /b of two witnesses b who contradict /b the testimony of b each other in /b response to the judges’ b examination /b of the details of the story b is valid in /b cases of b monetary law, /b although a contradiction of this type disqualifies testimony in cases of capital law., b Rava says: The statement of Rav Yehuda is reasonable in /b a case where b one /b witness b says: /b The money was b in a black purse [ i be’arnaki /i ], and /b the other b one says: /b It was b in a white purse. /b Since this is a secondary detail, they may not remember it accurately. b But /b if b one says: /b He lent him b a black coin, /b i.e., the coin was dark, b and /b the other b one says: /b He lent him b a white coin, /b the testimonies b are not combined. /b Since they contradict each other with regard to a characteristic of the money itself, one is probably lying.,The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling: b And /b if witnesses contradict each other with regard to secondary details such as b a black purse in /b cases of b capital law, /b is it the case that their testimony is b not /b accepted? b But doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say: /b In a case where b one /b of the witnesses b says: /b The murderer b killed /b the victim b with a sword, and one /b of the witnesses b says: /b The murderer b killed /b the victim b with an i ariran /i , /b another type of weapon, b this is not congruent /b testimony, as this is a clear contradiction. But if b one /b of the witnesses b says: /b The murderer’s b garments /b were b black, and one /b of the witnesses b says: /b The murderer’s b garments /b were b white, this is congruent /b testimony, as this is not a meaningful discrepancy. |
|
21. Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •av bet din Found in books: Levine (2005) 338, 458| 22b. ממעט על אביו ועל אמו ממעט,על כל המתים כולן רצה חולץ רצה אינו חולץ על אביו ועל אמו חולץ,ומעשה בגדול הדור אחד שמת אביו וביקש לחלוץ וביקש גדול הדור אחר שעמו לחלוץ ונמנע ולא חלץ,אמר אביי גדול הדור רבי גדול הדור שעמו ר' יעקב בר אחא ואיכא דאמרי גדול הדור ר' יעקב בר אחא גדול הדור שעמו רבי,בשלמא למ"ד גדול הדור שעמו רבי היינו דנמנע ולא חלץ,אלא למ"ד רבי יעקב בר אחא אמאי נמנע ולא חלץ רשב"ג נשיא הוה וכולי עלמא מיחייבי למיחלץ קשיא,על כל המתים כולן מסתפר לאחר ל' יום על אביו ועל אמו עד שיגערו בו חבריו על כל המתים כולן נכנס לבית השמחה לאחר ל' יום על אביו ועל אמו לאחר י"ב חדש,אמר רבה בר בר חנה ולשמחת מריעות מיתיבי ולשמחה ולמריעות ל' יום קשיא,אמימר מתני הכי אמר רבה בר בר חנה ולשמחת מריעות מותר ליכנס לאלתר והא תניא לשמחה שלשים ולמריעות שלשים,ל"ק הא באריסותא הא בפורענותא,על כל המתים כולן קורע טפח על אביו ועל אמו עד שיגלה את לבו א"ר אבהו מאי קרא (שמואל ב א, יא) ויחזק דוד בבגדיו ויקרעם ואין אחיזה פחות מטפח,על כל המתים כולן אפילו לבוש עשרה חלוקין אינו קורע אלא עליון על אביו ועל אמו קורע את כולן ואפיקרסותו אינה מעכבת,אחד האיש ואחד אשה ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר האשה קורעת את התחתון ומחזירתו לאחוריה וחוזרת וקורעת את העליון,על כל המתים כולן רצה מבדיל קמי שפה שלו רצה אינו מבדיל על אביו ועל אמו מבדיל,רבי יהודה אומר כל קריעה שאינו מבדיל קמי שפה שלו אינו אלא קרע של תיפלות אמר רבי אבהו מ"ט דר' יהודה דכתיב (מלכים ב ב, יב) ויחזק בבגדיו ויקרעם לשנים קרעים ממשמע שנאמר ויקרעם איני יודע שהן לשנים אלא שנראין קרועים כשנים,על כל המתים כולן שולל לאחר שבעה ומאחה לאחר שלשים על אביו ועל אמו שולל לאחר ל' ואינו מאחה לעולם והאשה שוללתו לאלתר מפני כבודה,כי אתא רבין א"ר יוחנן על כל המתים רצה קורע ביד רצה קורע בכלי על אביו ועל אמו ביד,וא"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן על כל המתים כולן מבפנים על אביו ועל אמו קורע מבחוץ אמר רב חסדא וכן לנשיא,מיתיבי לא הושוו לאביו ולאמו אלא לאיחוי בלבד,מאי לאו אפילו לנשיא לא לבר מנשיא,נשיאה שכיב א"ל רב חסדא (לרב חנן בר רבא) כפי אסיתא וקום עלה ואחוי קריעה לעלמא,על חכם חולץ מימין על אב ב"ד משמאל על נשיא מכאן ומכאן,ת"ר חכם שמת בית מדרשו בטל אב ב"ד שמת כל בתי מדרשות שבעירו בטילין ונכנסין לביהכ"נ ומשנין את מקומן היושבין בצפון יושבין בדרום היושבין בדרום יושבין בצפון נשיא שמת בתי מדרשות כולן בטילין ובני הכנסת נכנסין לבית הכנסת | 22b. b reduce /b it. b In /b the case of b his father or mother, /b he must always b reduce /b his business., b With regard to all /b other b deceased /b relatives, if the mourner b wishes, he may remove /b his garment from one of his shoulders, and if b he wishes /b not to remove it, b he need not remove /b it. However, b in /b the case of b his father or mother, he /b must always b remove /b his garment from one of his shoulders.,There was b an incident when the father of a leading authority of /b his b generation died, and /b the authority b wished to remove /b his garment from one shoulder. b Another leading authority of the generation /b also b wished to remove /b his own garment together b with him, /b in order to join him in his mourning, b but /b due to this the first person b refrained and did not remove /b his garment, so that his colleague would not remove his garment as well., b Abaye said: The leading authority of the generation /b mentioned here is b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, and b the leading authority of the generation /b who was b with him /b was b Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa. And some say: The leading authority of the generation /b was b Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa, /b and b the leading authority of the generation /b who was b with him /b was b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi.,The Gemara examines this issue: b Granted, according to the one who said /b that b the leading authority of the generation /b who was b with him was Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b this is /b the reason that b he refrained and did not remove /b his garment from his shoulder. That is to say, Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa refrained from doing so because he did not wish to cause the i Nasi /i to remove his own garment., b But according to the one who said /b that it is b Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa /b who was the leader of the generation with him, b why did /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b refrain and not remove /b his garment from his shoulder? b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, /b the father of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, was also b the i Nasi /i , and everyone is required to remove /b his garment from his shoulder for him, as was the accepted practice. Therefore, Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa would also have been required to bare his shoulder. Why, then, did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prevent him from doing so? The Gemara concludes: Indeed b this /b is b difficult. /b ,§ The Gemara returns to the continuation of the i baraita /i : b With regard to all deceased /b relatives except for parents, b one may cut his hair after thirty days. In /b the case of b one’s father or mother, /b one may not cut his hair b until his colleagues have rebuked him /b for his hair being too long. b With regard to all /b other b deceased /b relatives, b he may enter a place /b where b a joyous /b celebration is taking place b after thirty days; in /b the case of b his father or mother, /b he may enter such a place only b after twelve months. /b , b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: /b The ruling that a mourner may enter a house of joy after thirty days applies specifically b to a joyous social gathering, /b that is to say, to the joyous meals that a group of friends would eat together, each taking a turn hosting. But this ruling does not apply to a large joyous occasion, such as a wedding feast. The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i which adds: b And /b also b for joyous social gatherings, thirty days. /b This implies that when the i baraita /i speaks of joyous celebrations without further specification, it is not referring to joyous social gatherings, but even to weddings and other joyous occasions. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, b it /b is b difficult. /b , b Ameimar taught /b the previous discussion b as follows: Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b an alternative version of the discussion: b For a joyous social gathering one is permitted to enter immediately. /b The Gemara poses a question: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b For joyous celebrations and for joyous social gatherings, /b one must wait b thirty /b days?,The Gemara answers: b This is not difficult. This /b ruling, of the i baraita /i , is referring b to an initial /b gathering, when the mourner is the first in the group of friends to host. The i baraita /i teaches that in such a situation the mourner is required to wait thirty days before doing so. b That /b ruling, of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, is referring b to a reciprocal /b gathering. The mourner’s friends have already hosted these gatherings, and now it is his turn to host. Since he is required to host such a gathering for his colleagues, he need not postpone it. Rather, he may host the group immediately.,The i baraita /i continues: b With regard to all /b other b deceased /b relatives, b one rends /b his garment the length b of a handbreadth, /b and that suffices. b In /b the case of b his father or mother, /b he must rend his garment b until he reveals his heart. Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the verse /b that teaches that the rent must be a handbreadth? b “And David took hold of his clothes and rent them” /b (II Samuel 1:11), b and taking hold cannot /b be done for a garment b less than a handbreadth. /b ,The i baraita /i teaches further: b With regard to all /b other deceased relatives, b even if he is wearing ten garments, /b one on top of the other, b he rends only /b his b outer /b garment. But b in /b the case of b his father or mother, he must rend them all. /b Failure to rend b his undergarment, /b however, b does not invalidate /b the fulfillment of the mitzva., b Both a man and a woman /b are required to rend their garments. b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: A woman /b first b rends /b her b inner /b garment b and turns /b it b around, /b so that the tear is b on her back. And /b only b afterward /b does b she rend /b her b outer /b garment, so that she does not expose her chest., b With regard to all /b other b deceased /b relatives, if b one wishes he may rip apart /b his garment b on the hem, /b rather than merely expanding the neck hole, so that the tear stands out distinctly from the opening of the garment. If he b wishes /b not to do this, b he does not rip apart /b the hem in this manner. That is to say, one may simply enlarge the neck hole, although rending a garment in this way makes the tear less prominent. b In /b the case of b one’s father or mother, /b however, b he must /b always b rip apart /b the hem., b Rabbi Yehuda says: Any rending that does not rip apart /b his garment b on the hem /b of the garment b is nothing other than a frivolous rent /b of no significance, as it must be evident that one has rent his garment in mourning and that the rent is not merely an imperfection in the garment. b Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the reason /b for b Rabbi Yehuda’s /b opinion? b As it is written: “And he took hold of his own clothes and he rent them in two pieces” /b (II Kings 2:12). b From that which is stated: “And he rent,” do I not know that /b he rent them b in two? Rather, /b these words teach b that /b the rent clothes must b appear as if they were torn into two /b pieces, i.e., the tear must be obvious and visible.,The i baraita /i continues: b With regard to all /b other b deceased /b relatives, b one may tack /b the tear with rough stitches b after seven days, and one may join /b the edges more carefully b after thirty /b days. But b in /b the case of b one’s father or mother, he may tack /b the tear only b after thirty days, and he may never /b again b join /b the edges more carefully. b A woman, /b however, b may tack /b the tear b immediately, due to her honor, /b for it would be dishonorable for her to be seen with torn garments., b When Ravin came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, b he said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: With regard to all /b other b deceased /b relatives, b if one wishes, he may rend /b his garment b with /b his b hand; /b and if b he wishes, he may rend /b it b with a utensil /b in a way that will preserve it. But b in /b the case of b his father or mother, /b he must rend his garment b with his hand /b in a manner that will utterly ruin it., b And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: With regard to all /b other b deceased /b relatives, one rends his garment b on the inside, /b meaning, he rends his inner garment and not necessarily his outermost garment. b In /b the case of b one’s father or mother, /b however, b he must rend /b the garment b on the outside, /b i.e., the outermost garment. b Rav Ḥisda said: And likewise, over a i Nasi /i , /b one is required to rend his garment as he does over his father.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i in which it was taught: The i halakhot /i of rending for the death of other people referred to in the i baraita /i , e.g., a i Nasi /i , a president of the court, or one’s teacher, b were likened to /b the i halakhot /i of rending for b one’s father or mother only with regard to /b the issue of carefully b rejoining /b the edges of the rent, as in all of these cases it is prohibited to mend one’s garment with precise stitches., b What, is /b this i baraita /i b not /b also referring b even /b to one who rends his garment b for the i Nasi /i ? /b The Gemara rejects this: b No, /b the i baraita /i is referring to the other people, b aside /b from one who rends his garment for the i Nasi /i , as rending for the i Nasi /i is the same as rending for one’s father with regard to all aspects of the rending.,It was related that the b i Nasi /i died, /b and b Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Ḥa bar Rava: Turn the mortar over and stand on it, and show /b the b rent to everyone. /b Everyone will then rend his garment in this manner, as everyone is required to rend his garment over the death of the i Nasi /i .,§ It was further taught: b For /b mourning b a Sage, one removes /b his garment b from the right /b shoulder. b For /b the b president of the court /b he removes his garment b from the left /b shoulder. b For /b the b i Nasi /i /b he removes his garment b from here and from here, /b from both shoulders., b The Sages taught /b the following i baraita /i : When b a Sage dies, his study hall ceases /b its regular study as a sign of mourning over him. When b the president of the court dies, all of the study halls in his city cease /b their regular study, and everyone b enters the synagogue and changes their places /b there as a sign of mourning over him. b Those who /b ordinarily b sit in the north /b should b sit in the south, and those who /b ordinarily b sit in the south /b should b sit in the north. /b When b a i Nasi /i dies, all study halls cease /b their regular study. On Shabbat, b the members of the synagogue enter the synagogue /b for public Torah reading, which requires a congregation of ten, |
|
22. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Levine (2005) 4| 29a. מבטלין ת"ת להוצאת המת ולהכנסת הכלה אמרו עליו על ר' יהודה בר' אילעאי שהיה מבטל ת"ת להוצאת המת ולהכנסת הכלה בד"א בשאין שם כל צורכו אבל יש שם כל צורכו אין מבטלין,וכמה כל צורכו אמר רב שמואל בר איניא משמיה דרב תריסר אלפי גברי ושיתא אלפי שיפורי ואמרי לה תריסר אלפי גברי ומינייהו שיתא אלפי שיפורי עולא אמר כגון דחייצי גברי מאבולא עד סיכרא,רב ששת אמר כנתינתה כך נטילתה מה נתינתה בששים ריבוא אף נטילתה בס' ריבוא ה"מ למאן דקרי ותני אבל למאן דמתני לית ליה שיעורא,תניא ר"ש בן יוחי אומר בוא וראה כמה חביבין ישראל לפני הקב"ה שבכל מקום שגלו שכינה עמהן גלו למצרים שכינה עמהן שנאמר (שמואל א ב, כז) הנגלה נגליתי לבית אביך בהיותם במצרים וגו' גלו לבבל שכינה עמהן שנאמר (ישעיהו מג, יד) למענכם שלחתי בבלה ואף כשהן עתידין ליגאל שכינה עמהן שנאמר (דברים ל, ג) ושב ה' אלהיך את שבותך והשיב לא נאמר אלא ושב מלמד שהקב"ה שב עמהן מבין הגליות,בבבל היכא אמר אביי בבי כנישתא דהוצל ובבי כנישתא דשף ויתיב בנהרדעא ולא תימא הכא והכא אלא זמנין הכא וזמנין הכא אמר אביי תיתי לי דכי מרחיקנא פרסה עיילנא ומצלינא התם אבוה דשמואל [ולוי] הוו יתבי בכנישתא דשף ויתיב בנהרדעא אתיא שכינה שמעו קול ריגשא [קמו ונפקו,רב ששת הוה יתיב בבי כנישתא דשף ויתיב בנהרדעא אתיא שכינה] ולא נפק אתו מלאכי השרת וקא מבעתו ליה אמר לפניו רבש"ע עלוב ושאינו עלוב מי נדחה מפני מי אמר להו שבקוהו,(יחזקאל יא, טז) ואהי להם למקדש מעט אמר רבי יצחק אלו בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות שבבבל ור"א אמר זה בית רבינו שבבבל,דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (תהלים צ, א) ה' מעון אתה היית לנו אלו בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות אמר אביי מריש הואי גריסנא בביתא ומצלינא בבי כנשתא כיון דשמעית להא דקאמר דוד (תהלים כו, ח) ה' אהבתי מעון ביתך הואי גריסנא בבי כנישתא,תניא ר"א הקפר אומר עתידין בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות שבבבל שיקבעו בא"י שנאמר (ירמיהו מו, יח) כי כתבור בהרים וככרמל בים יבא והלא דברים ק"ו ומה תבור וכרמל שלא באו אלא לפי שעה ללמוד תורה נקבעים בארץ ישראל בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות שקורין ומרביצין בהן תורה עאכ"ו,דרש בר קפרא מאי דכתיב (תהלים סח, יז) למה תרצדון הרים גבנונים יצתה בת קול ואמרה להם למה תרצו דין עם סיני כולכם בעלי מומים אתם אצל סיני כתיב הכא גבנונים וכתיב התם (ויקרא כא, כ) או גבן או דק אמר רב אשי ש"מ האי מאן דיהיר בעל מום הוא:,אין עושין אותו קפנדריא: מאי קפנדריא אמר רבא קפנדריא כשמה מאי כשמה כמאן דאמר אדמקיפנא אדרי איעול בהא,א"ר אבהו אם היה שביל מעיקרא מותר,אר"נ בר יצחק הנכנס ע"מ שלא לעשות קפנדריא מותר לעשותו קפנדריא וא"ר חלבו אמר ר"ה הנכנס לבהכ"נ להתפלל מותר לעשותו קפנדריא שנא' (יחזקאל מו, ט) ובבא עם הארץ לפני ה' במועדים הבא דרך שער צפון להשתחוות יצא דרך שער נגב:,עלו בו עשבים לא יתלוש מפני עגמת נפש: והתניא אינו תולש ומאכיל אבל תולש ומניח כי תנן נמי מתני' תולש ומאכיל תנן,ת"ר בית הקברות אין נוהגין בהן קלות ראש אין מרעין בהן בהמה ואין מוליכין בהן אמת המים ואין מלקטין בהן עשבים ואם ליקט שורפן במקומן מפני כבוד מתים,אהייא אילימא אסיפא כיון ששורפן במקומן מאי כבוד מתים איכא אלא ארישא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ר"ח אדר שחל להיות בשבת קורין בפרשת שקלים חל להיות בתוך השבת מקדימין לשעבר ומפסיקין לשבת אחרת,בשניה זכור בשלישית פרה אדומה ברביעית החודש הזה לכם בחמישית חוזרין לכסדרן,לכל מפסיקין בראשי חדשים בחנוכה ובפורים בתעניות ובמעמדות וביוה"כ:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנן התם באחד באדר משמיעין על השקלים | 29a. b One interrupts /b his b Torah study to carry out the dead /b for burial b and to escort a bride /b to her wedding. b They said about Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Elai, that he would interrupt /b his b Torah study to carry out the dead /b for burial b and to escort a bride /b to her wedding. The Gemara qualifies this ruling: b In what /b case b is this statement said? /b Only b where there are not sufficient /b numbers of other people available to perform these mitzvot and honor the deceased or the bride appropriately. b However, /b when b there are sufficient /b numbers, additional people b should not interrupt /b their Torah study to participate.,The Gemara asks: b And how many /b people b are /b considered b sufficient? Rav Shmuel bar Inya said in the name of Rav: Twelve thousand men and /b another b six thousand /b men to blow b horns /b as a sign of mourning. b And some say /b a different version: b Twelve thousand men, among whom are six thousand /b men with b horns. Ulla said: For example, /b enough b to make a procession of people /b all the way b from the /b town b gate [ i abbula /i ] to the place of burial. /b , b Rav Sheshet said: As /b the Torah b was given, so it /b should be b taken away, /b i.e., the same honor that was provided when the Torah was given at Mount Sinai should be provided when the Torah is taken through the passing away of a Torah scholar. b Just as /b the Torah b was given in the presence of six hundred thousand /b men, b so too its taking /b should be done b in the presence of six hundred thousand /b men. The Gemara comments: b This applies to someone who read /b the Bible b and studied /b i halakhot /i for himself. b But for someone who taught /b others, b there is no limit /b to the honor that should be shown to him.,§ b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Come and see how beloved the Jewish people are before the Holy One, Blessed be He. As every place they were exiled, the Divine Presence /b went b with them. They were exiled to Egypt, /b and b the Divine Presence /b went b with them, as it is stated: “Did I reveal myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt?” /b (I Samuel 2:27). b They were exiled to Babylonia, /b and b the Divine Presence /b went b with them, as it is stated: “For your sake I have sent to Babylonia” /b (Isaiah 43:14). b So too, when, in the future, they will be redeemed, the Divine Presence will be with them, as it is stated: “Then the Lord your God will return with your captivity” /b (Deuteronomy 30:3). b It does not state: He will bring back, /b i.e., He will cause the Jewish people to return, b but rather /b it says: b “He will return,” /b which b teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, will return /b together b with them from among the /b various b exiles. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Where in Babylonia /b does the Divine Presence reside? b Abaye said: In the /b ancient b synagogue of Huzal and in the synagogue that was destroyed and rebuilt in Neharde’a. And do not say /b that the Divine Presence resided b here and there, /b i.e., in both places simultaneously. b Rather, at times /b it resided b here /b in Huzal b and at times there /b in Neharde’a. b Abaye said: I have /b a blessing b coming to me, for whenever I am /b within b a distance of a parasang /b from one of those synagogues, b I go in and pray there, /b due to the special honor and sanctity attached to them. It was related that b the father of Shmuel and Levi were /b once b sitting in the synagogue that was destroyed and rebuilt in Neharde’a. The Divine Presence came /b and b they heard a loud sound, /b so b they arose and left. /b ,It was further related that b Rav Sheshet was /b once b sitting in the synagogue that was destroyed and rebuilt in Neharde’a, /b and b the Divine Presence came but he did not go out. The ministering angels came and were frightening him /b in order to force him to leave. Rav Sheshet turned to God and b said before Him: Master of the Universe, /b if one is b wretched and /b the other is b not wretched, who should defer to whom? /b Shouldn’t the one who is not wretched give way to the one who is? Now I am blind and wretched; why then do you expect me to defer to the angels? God then turned to the angels and b said to them: Leave him. /b ,The verse states: b “Yet I have been to them as a little sanctuary /b in the countries where they have come” (Ezekiel 11:16). b Rabbi Yitzḥak said: This /b is referring to b the synagogues and study halls in Babylonia. And Rabbi Elazar said: This /b is referring to b the house of our master, /b i.e., Rav, b in Babylonia, /b from which Torah issues forth to the entire world., b Rava interpreted /b a verse b homiletically: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “Lord, You have been our dwelling place /b in all generations” (Psalms 90:1)? b This /b is referring to b the synagogues and study halls. Abaye said: Initially, I used to study /b Torah b in /b my b home and pray in the synagogue. Once I heard /b and understood b that which /b King b David says: “Lord, I love the habitation of Your house” /b (Psalms 26:8), b I would /b always b study /b Torah b in the synagogue, /b to express my love for the place in which the Divine Presence resides., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Elazar HaKappar says: In the future, the synagogues and the study halls in Babylonia will be /b transported and b reestablished in Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated: “Surely, like Tabor among the mountains, and like Carmel by the sea, so shall he come” /b (Jeremiah 46:18). There is a tradition that these mountains came to Sinai at the giving of the Torah and demanded that the Torah should be given upon them. b And are /b these b matters not /b inferred through an b i a fortiori /i /b argument: b Just as Tabor and Carmel, which came only momentarily to study Torah, were /b relocated and b established in Eretz Yisrael /b in reward for their actions, b all the more so /b should b the synagogues and study halls /b in Babylonia, b in which the Torah is read and disseminated, /b be relocated to Eretz Yisrael., b Bar Kappara interpreted /b a verse b homiletically: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “Why do you look askance [ i teratzdun /i ], O high-peaked mountains, /b at the mountain that God has desired for His abode” (Psalms 68:17)? b A Divine Voice issued forth and said to /b all the mountains that came and demanded that the Torah be given upon them: b Why do you seek [ i tirtzu /i ] /b to enter into b a legal dispute [ i din /i ] with /b Mount b Sinai? You are all blemished in comparison to /b Mount b Sinai, /b as b it is written here: “High-peaked [ i gavnunnim /i ]” and it is written there, /b with regard to the blemishes that disqualify a priest: b “Or crookbacked [ i gibben /i ] or a dwarf” /b (Leviticus 21:20). b Rav Ashi said: Learn from /b this that b one who is arrogant is /b considered b blemished. /b The other mountains arrogantly insisted that the Torah should be given upon them, and they were therefore described as blemished.,§ The mishna teaches that even if a synagogue fell into ruin, b it may not be made /b into b a i kappendarya /i . /b The Gemara asks: b What is /b meant by b i kappendarya /i ? Rava said: A shortcut, as /b implied by b its name. /b The Gemara clarifies: b What /b do you mean by adding: b As /b implied by b its name? /b It is b like one who said: Instead of going around the /b entire row of b houses [ i makkifna addari /i ] /b to get to the other side, thereby lengthening my journey, b I will enter this /b house and walk through it to the other side. The word i kappendarya /i sounds like a contraction of i makkifna addari /i . This is what Rava meant by saying: As implied by its name., b Rabbi Abbahu said: If /b a public b path had initially /b passed through that location, before the synagogue was built, b it is permitted /b to continue to use it as a shortcut, for the honor due to a synagogue cannot annul the public’s right of access to the path., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b With regard to b one who enters /b a synagogue b without intending to make it /b into b a shortcut, /b when he leaves b he is permitted to make it /b into b a shortcut /b for himself, by leaving through the exit on the other side of the building. b And Rabbi Ḥelbo said /b that b Rav Huna said: /b With regard to b one who enters a synagogue to pray, he is permitted to make it /b into b a shortcut /b for himself by leaving through a different exit, and it is fitting to do so, b as it is stated: “And when the people of the land shall come before the Lord in the appointed seasons, he that enters by way of the north gate to bow down shall go forth by the way of the south gate” /b (Ezekiel 46:9). This indicates that it is a show of respect not to leave through the same entrance through which one came in; it is better to leave through the other side.,§ The mishna teaches: If b grass sprang up in /b a ruined synagogue, although it is not befitting its sanctity, b one should not pick /b it, b due to /b the b anguish /b that it will cause to those who see it. It will remind them of the disrepair of the synagogue and the need to rebuild it. The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One may not pick /b the grass b and feed /b it to one’s animals, b but he may pick /b it b and leave /b it there? The Gemara answers: b When we learned /b the prohibition against picking the grass in b the mishna as well, we learned /b only that it is prohibited to b pick /b it and b feed /b it to one’s animals, but it is permitted to leave it there., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : In b a cemetery, one may not act with frivolity; one may not graze an animal /b on the grass growing b inside it; and one may not direct a water channel /b to pass b through it; and one may not gather grass inside it /b to use the grass as feed for one’s animals; b and if one gathered /b grass for that purpose, b it should be burnt on the spot, out of respect for the dead. /b ,The Gemara clarifies: With regard to the phrase: Out of respect for the dead, b to which /b clause of the i baraita /i does it refer? b If we say /b it is referring b to the last clause, /b that if one gathered grass that it should be burnt out of respect for the dead, then one could ask: b Since /b the grass b is burnt on the spot, /b and not publicly, b what respect for the dead is there /b in this act? b Rather, /b the phrase must be referring b to the first clause /b of the i baraita /i , and it explains why it is prohibited to act with frivolity., strong MISHNA: /strong On four i Shabbatot /i during and surrounding the month of Adar, a Torah portion of seasonal significance is read. When b the New Moon of Adar occurs on Shabbat, /b the congregation b reads the portion of i Shekalim /i /b on that Shabbat. If the New Moon b occurs during /b the middle of b the week, they advance /b the reading of that portion b to the previous /b Shabbat, b and, /b in such a case, b they interrupt /b the reading of the four portions b on the following Shabbat, /b which would be the first Shabbat of the month of Adar, and no additional portion is read on it., b On the second /b Shabbat, the Shabbat prior to Purim, they read the portion: b “Remember /b what Amalek did” (Deuteronomy 25:17–19), which details the mitzva to remember and destroy the nation of Amalek. b On the third /b Shabbat, they read the portion of b the Red Heifer [ i Para /i ] /b (Numbers 19:1–22), which details the purification process for one who became ritually impure through contact with a corpse. b On the fourth /b Shabbat, they read the portion: b “This month [ i haḥodesh /i ] shall be for you” /b (Exodus 12:1–20), which describes the offering of the Paschal lamb. b On the fifth /b Shabbat, b they resume the /b regular weekly b order /b of readings and no special portion is read., b For all /b special days, the congregation b interrupts /b the regular weekly order of readings, and a special portion relating to the character of the day is read. This applies b on the New Moons, on Hanukkah, and on Purim, on fast days, and on the /b non-priestly b watches, and on Yom Kippur. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b We learned /b in a mishna b there /b ( i Shekalim /i 1:1): b On the first of Adar they make /b a public b announcement concerning /b the forthcoming collection of half- b shekels. /b The money is used for the communal offerings in the Temple in the coming year. |
|
23. Babylonian Talmud, Horayot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •av bet din Found in books: Levine (2005) 458| 10a. ואח"כ חטא מביא פר חטא ואח"כ עבר ממשיחותו צריכא למימר משום דקתני גבי נשיא דכי עבר מנשיאותו ואח"כ חטא כהדיוט מייתי אהכי תני גבי משיח [חטא ואח"כ עבר] מביא פר,מנא ה"מ דתנו רבנן (ויקרא ד, ג) והקריב על חטאתו מלמד שמביא חטאתו משעבר,שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה נשיא שמביא בשגגת מעשה אין מביא חטאתו משעבר משיח שאין מביא בשגגת מעשה אלא על העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה [לא] כ"ש תלמוד לומר והקריב על חטאתו מלמד שמביא על חטאתו משעבר,ונייתי נמי נשיא מק"ו ומה משיח שאין מביא בשגגת מעשה מביא חטאת משעבר נשיא שמביא חטאת בשגגת מעשה אינו דין שמביא חטאתו משעבר תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ד, כב) אשר נשיא יחטא כשהוא נשיא אין כשהוא הדיוט לא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big חטאו עד שלא נתמנו ואח"כ נתמנו הרי אלו כהדיוטות ר"ש אומר אם נודע להם עד שלא נתמנו חייבים ומשנתמנו פטורים,איזהו נשיא זה מלך שנאמר (ויקרא ד, כב) מכל מצות ה' אלהיו שאין על גביו אלא ה' אלהיו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מה"מ דתנו רבנן (ויקרא ד, ג) אם הכהן המשיח יחטא (לאשמת) פרט לקודמות,שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה נשיא שמביא בשגגת מעשה אין מביא על הקודמות משיח שאין מביא אלא על העלם דבר עם שגגת מעשה אינו דין שלא יביא על הקודמות,לא אם אמרת בנשיא שכן אין מביא חטאתו משעבר תאמר במשיח שמביא חטאתו משעבר הואיל ומביא חטאתו משעבר יביא על הקודמות תלמוד לומר המשיח יחטא חטא כשהוא משיח מביא כשהוא הדיוט אינו מביא,ותניא נמי גבי נשיא כה"ג (ויקרא ד, כב) אשר נשיא יחטא פרט לקודמות,שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה משיח שמביא חטאתו משעבר אינו מביא על הקודמות נשיא שאין מביא חטאתו משעבר אינו דין שלא יביא על הקודמות,מה למשיח שכן אין מביא בשגגת מעשה תאמר בנשיא שמביא בשגגת מעשה הואיל ומביא בשגגת מעשה יביא על הקודמות תלמוד לומר אשר נשיא יחטא שחטא והרי הוא נשיא ולא שחטא ועודהו הדיוט:,ת"ר אשר נשיא יחטא יכול גזרה ת"ל אם הכהן המשיח יחטא מה להלן לכשיחטא אף כאן לכשיחטא,אמר מר יכול גזרה גזרה מהיכא תיתי,אמרי אין אשכחן דכתיב (ויקרא יד, לד) ונתתי נגע צרעת בבית ארץ אחוזתכם בשורה היא להם שנגעים באים עליהם דברי רבי יהודה רבי שמעון אומר פרט לנגעי אונסין לאו אמר רבי יהודה בשורה הכא נמי אימא גזרה היא הלכך כתיב אם,ולרבי שמעון נגעי אונסין מי לא מטמו והא תניא (ויקרא יג, ב) אדם כי יהיה מן הדבור ואילך והלא דין הוא טמא בזב וטמא בנגעים מה זב מן הדבור ואילך אף נגעים מן הדבור ואילך,לא אם אמרת בזב שכן אין מטמא באונס תאמר בנגעים שמטמאין באונס תלמוד לומר אדם כי יהיה מן הדבור ואילך רבא אמר פרט לנגעי רוחות רב פפא אמר פרט לנגעי כשפים,תנו רבנן אשר נשיא יחטא פרט לחולה משום דהוה ליה חולה אידחי ליה מנשיאותיה אמר רב אבדימי בר חמא פרט לנשיא שנצטרע שנאמר (מלכים ב טו, ה) וינגע ה' את המלך ויהי מצורע עד יום מותו וישב בבית החפשית ויותם בן המלך על הבית מדקאמר בבית החפשית מכלל דעד השתא עבד הוה,כי הא דר' גמליאל ורבי יהושע הוו אזלי בספינתא בהדי דר' גמליאל הוה פיתא בהדי רבי יהושע הוה פיתא וסולתא שלים פיתיה דר' גמליאל סמך אסולתיה דרבי יהושע אמר ליה מי הוה ידעת דהוה לן עכובא כולי האי דאיתית סולתא אמר ליה כוכב אחד לשבעים שנה עולה ומתעה את (הספינות) [הספנים] ואמרתי שמא יעלה ויתעה [אותנו],אמר ליה כל כך בידך ואתה עולה בספינה א"ל עד שאתה תמה עלי תמה על שני תלמידים שיש לך ביבשה רבי אלעזר חסמא ורבי יוחנן בן גודגדא שיודעין לשער כמה טפות יש בים ואין להם פת לאכול ולא בגד ללבוש נתן דעתו להושיבם בראש,כשעלה שלח להם ולא באו חזר ושלח ובאו אמר להם כמדומין אתם ששררה אני נותן לכם | 10a. b and thereafter sinned brings a bull. /b Does the case of one who b sinned and thereafter moved on from his anointment need to be said? /b It is obvious that he is liable to bring a bull. The Gemara answers: b Due to /b the fact b that /b the i tanna /i b teaches /b the i halakha /i b with regard to a king, that when he moved on from his sovereignty and thereafter sinned he brings. /b an offering b like /b that of b a commoner; therefore, he teaches /b the corresponding i halakha /i b with regard to an anointed /b priest: If b he sinned and thereafter moved on /b from his priesthood, b he brings a bull. /b ,§ With regard to the statement in the mishna concerning an anointed priest who sinned after he was removed from his position, the Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? The Gemara answers: It is b as the Sages taught: /b It is written with regard to the High Priest: b “And he shall sacrifice for his sin [ i ḥattato /i ] /b that he sinned” (Leviticus 4:3); this b teaches that he brings his sin-offering [ i ḥattato /i ] /b even b after he has moved on /b from his priesthood.,This derivation is necessary, as one b might /b have thought: b Could this not /b be derived through an i a fortiori /i b inference? And if a king, who brings /b a goat as his sin-offering b for the unwitting /b performance b of an action, does not bring /b a goat as b his sin-offering from /b the moment b that he has moved on /b from his sovereignty, b an anointed /b priest, b who does not bring /b a sin-offering b for the unwitting /b performance b of an action /b alone; b rather, /b he is liable b only for absence /b of awareness b of the matter /b by the court together b with unwitting /b performance b of an action, /b is it b not all the more so /b that he will not bring a bull for his sin-offering once he has moved on from the High Priesthood? Therefore, b the verse states: “And he shall sacrifice for his sin [ i ḥattato /i ] /b that he sinned”; this b teaches that he brings his sin-offering [ i ḥattato /i ] /b even b after he has moved on /b from his priesthood.,The Gemara asks: b And let a king /b who is no longer king, b too, bring /b a goat as a sin-offering b based on an i a fortiori /i /b inference: b And if an anointed /b priest, b who does not bring /b an offering b for the unwitting /b performance b of an action, brings a sin-offering after he has moved on /b from the priesthood, then with regard to b a king, who brings a sin-offering for the unwitting /b performance b of an action, is it not logical that he /b still b brings his sin-offering once he has moved on /b from his sovereignty? To counter this, b the verse states: “When a king sins” /b (Leviticus 4:22), from which it is derived: If he sins b when he is king, yes, /b he brings his sin-offering; if he sins b when he is a commoner, no, /b he does not bring his sin-offering., strong MISHNA: /strong If a king or High Priest b sinned before they were appointed, and thereafter they were appointed, /b the status of b these /b people is b like /b that of b commoners; /b they bring the sin-offering of an individual. b Rabbi Shimon says: If it became known to them, before they were appointed /b as king or High Priest, that they had sinned, b they are liable /b to bring the sin-offering of an individual, b but /b if it became known to them b after they were appointed /b as king or High Priest b they are /b completely b exempt. /b , b Who is /b the b i nasi /i ? This is a king, as it is stated: /b “When a i nasi /i sins, and performs any one b of all the mitzvot of the Lord his God /b that shall not be performed, unwittingly, and he is guilty” (Leviticus 4:22), referring to one b who has only the Lord his God over him /b and no other authority. That is only the king., strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches: If a king or High Priest sinned before they were appointed, and thereafter they were appointed, the status of these people is like that of commoners. The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? The Gemara answers: It is b as the Sages taught /b with regard to the verse: b “If the anointed priest shall sin to bring guilt” /b (Leviticus 4:3); this serves to b exclude the /b unwitting transgressions he performed b prior /b to his installation as High Priest., b As /b one b might /b have thought: b Could this not /b be derived through an i a fortiori /i b inference? And if a king, who brings /b a goat as his sin-offering b for the unwitting /b performance b of an action, does not bring /b a sin-offering b for the /b unwitting transgressions he performed b prior /b to his coronation, then with regard to b an anointed /b priest, b who brings /b his sin-offering b only for absence /b of awareness b of the matter /b by the court b with the unwitting /b performance b of an action, is it not logical that he will not bring /b his sin-offering b for the prior /b transgressions?,The Gemara rejects this: b No, if you said /b this b with regard to a king, /b that is reasonable, b as he does not bring his /b goat for a b sin-offering once he has moved on /b from his sovereignty, and instead brings the sin-offering of a commoner. b Shall you /b also b say /b this b with regard to an anointed /b priest, b who brings /b a bull for b his sin-offering once he has moved on /b from his priesthood? b Since he brings /b a bull for b his sin-offering /b even b once he has moved on /b from his priesthood, perhaps b he shall bring /b a bull as a sin-offering b for the /b unwitting transgressions he performed b prior /b to his installation as High Priest? Therefore, b the verse states: /b “If b the anointed priest shall sin,” /b from which it is derived: If b he sins when he is /b serving as b an anointed priest he brings /b a bull as his sin-offering; if he sins b when he is an ordinary /b priest b he does not bring /b a bull as his sin-offering., b And it is also taught in this way /b in a i baraita /i b with regard to a king: “When a king sins” /b (Leviticus 4:22); this serves to b exclude the /b unwitting transgressions he performed b prior /b to his coronation as king., b As /b one b might /b have thought: b Could this not /b be derived through an i a fortiori /i b inference? If an anointed /b priest, b who brings /b a bull for b his sin-offering /b even b once he has moved on /b from his priesthood, b does not bring /b his sin-offering b for the /b unwitting transgressions he performed b prior /b to his installation, then with regard to b a king, who does not bring his /b goat for a b sin-offering once he has moved on /b from his sovereignty, b is it not logical that he will not bring /b his sin-offering b for the prior /b transgressions? Apparently, there is no need for the derivation from the verse.,The Gemara notes that this inference can be rejected. b What /b is notable b about an anointed /b priest? He is notable b in that he does not bring /b a sin-offering b for the unwitting /b performance b of an action /b unless it was performed on the basis of an erroneous ruling. b Shall you say /b the same b with regard to a king, who brings /b an offering b for the unwitting /b performance b of an action /b alone, even without an erroneous ruling? b Since he brings /b an offering b for the unwitting /b performance b of an action /b alone, b shall he bring /b a bull as a sin-offering b for the /b unwitting transgressions he performed b prior /b to his coronation? Therefore, b the verse states: “When a king sins,” /b from which it is derived: In a case b where he sins and he is king, /b he brings a bull as his sin-offering, b and not /b in a case b where he sins and he is still a commoner. /b ,§ Apropos a king, b the Sages taught: /b In contrast to other cases where the verse states: If he will sin, it states concerning a king: b “When [ i asher /i ] a king sins.” /b One b might /b have thought that this is b a decree, /b i.e., that it is a given that the king will sin. Therefore, b the verse states: “If the anointed priest shall sin” /b (Leviticus 4:3). b Just as there /b the meaning is: b In the event that /b the priest b shall sin, so too here, /b the meaning is: b In the event that /b the king b shall sin. /b ,The Gemara analyzes the i baraita /i . b The Master said: /b One b might /b have thought that this is b a decree. /b The Gemara asks: b A decree? From where would this be derived? /b Why would it enter one’s mind that there would be a decree that the king must sin?,The Sages b say: Yes, /b there is a basis for that understanding, as b we find /b that type of interpretation elsewhere; b as it is written: /b “When you come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, b and I shall place the mark of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession” /b (Leviticus 14:34). b These are tidings /b informing b them, /b i.e., the Jewish people, b that leprous marks /b will b come upon them /b when they enter Eretz Yisrael; this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: /b This verse serves to teach that leprosy causes ritual impurity only when its origins are divine, b to the exclusion of leprosy /b that results from b circumstances beyond one’s control, /b i.e., those that have a clear physical cause. b Didn’t Rabbi Yehuda say /b that leprosy could be b tidings, /b i.e., that there will definitely be leprosy? b Here too, /b with regard to the king, b say /b that b it is a decree /b that he will sin. b Therefore, it is written: “If /b the anointed priest shall sin,” meaning that the sin is not a given.,The Gemara asks with regard to the i baraita /i : b And according to Rabbi Shimon, do /b leprous b marks /b that result from b circumstances beyond one’s control not cause ritual impurity? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b “When a person shall have /b in the skin of his flesh a wool-white leprous mark or a scab” (Leviticus 13:2); these i halakhot /i apply b from /b this b statement onward, /b i.e., from the time that God gave this mitzva to the Jewish people, and these i halakhot /i do not apply to leprosy that preceded the giving of the mitzva? b And could this not /b be derived through b logical inference: /b The Torah b deemed /b one b impure in /b the case of b a i zav /i , and /b the Torah b deemed /b one b impure in /b the case of leprous b marks. Just as a i zav /i /b is ritually impure only b from the statement onward, so too, /b with regard to leprous b marks, /b there is impurity only b from that statement onward. /b There is no need for a derivation from the verse Leviticus 13:2.,The i baraita /i continues: This inference can be rejected: b No, if you said /b that b with regard to a i zav /i , /b this is reasonable, b as he does not become impure /b if his condition was caused b by circumstances beyond his control. Shall you say /b the same b with regard to /b leprous b marks, which impart ritual impurity /b when caused b by circumstances beyond one’s control? /b Therefore, b the verse states: “When a person shall have,” /b indicating that there is impurity only b from /b that b statement onward. /b In any case, it is clear that leprosy causes impurity even if it was caused by circumstances beyond his control. b Rava says /b in explanation: The phrase “and I shall place the mark of leprosy” serves b to exclude /b leprous b marks /b caused b by /b evil b spirits. Rav Pappa says /b in explanation: That phrase serves b to exclude /b leprous b marks /b caused b by sorcery. /b ,§ Apropos a king, b the Sages taught /b that when the verse states: b “When a king sins” /b (Leviticus 4:22), this serves b to exclude /b a king who is b ill. /b The Gemara asks: b Due to /b the fact b that he is ill, is he removed from his sovereignty? Rav Avdimi bar Ḥama said: /b The reference is not to all illnesses; rather, it is b to exclude a king who is afflicted with leprosy, as it is stated /b concerning King Azariah: b “And the Lord afflicted the king, so that he was a leper until the day of his death, and dwelt in an independent house. And Jotham, son of the king, was over the household, /b judging the people of the land” (II Kings 15:5). Azariah was removed from his sovereignty when he was afflicted with leprosy. The Gemara comments: b From /b the fact b that /b the verse b states: “In an independent house,” by inference /b it may be understood b that until now he was a servant, /b i.e., he was in servitude to the people.,The Gemara notes: This is b similar /b to b that /b incident b where Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua were traveling /b together b on a ship. Rabban Gamliel had /b sufficient b bread /b for the journey. b Rabbi Yehoshua /b also b had /b sufficient b bread, and /b additionally he had b flour. /b The journey lasted longer than expected, and b Rabban Gamliel’s bread was finished. He relied on Rabbi Yehoshua’s flour /b for nourishment. Rabban Gamliel b said to /b Rabbi Yehoshua: b Did you know /b from the outset b that we would have so substantial a delay? /b Is that the reason b that you brought flour /b with you? Rabbi Yehoshua b said to /b Rabban Gamliel: b There is one star that rises once in seventy years and misleads sailors /b at sea, causing their journeys to be extended. b And I said: Perhaps /b that star b will rise /b during our journey b and mislead us. /b ,Rabban Gamliel b said to him: So much /b wisdom is b at your /b disposal, b and you board a ship /b to earn your livelihood? Rabbi Yehoshua b said to him: Before you wonder about me, wonder about two students that you have on dry land, Rabbi Elazar Ḥisma and Rabbi Yoḥa ben Gudgeda, who /b are so wise that they b know /b how b to calculate how many drops /b of water b there are in the sea, and /b yet b they have neither bread to eat nor a garment to wear. /b Rabban Gamliel b made up his mind to seat them at the head /b of the academy., b When /b Rabban Gamliel b ascended /b to dry land, b he sent /b a messenger b to them /b to tell them to come so that he could appoint them b and they did not come. He again sent /b a messenger to them b and they came. /b Rabban Gamliel b said to them: Do you imagine that I am granting you authority, /b and since you did not want to accept the honor you did not come when I sent for you? |
|
24. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •beth din, av Found in books: Nikolsky and Ilan (2014) 11| 59b. וזה הוא תנור של עכנאי מאי עכנאי אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל שהקיפו דברים כעכנא זו וטמאוהו תנא באותו היום השיב רבי אליעזר כל תשובות שבעולם ולא קיבלו הימנו,אמר להם אם הלכה כמותי חרוב זה יוכיח נעקר חרוב ממקומו מאה אמה ואמרי לה ארבע מאות אמה אמרו לו אין מביאין ראיה מן החרוב חזר ואמר להם אם הלכה כמותי אמת המים יוכיחו חזרו אמת המים לאחוריהם אמרו לו אין מביאין ראיה מאמת המים,חזר ואמר להם אם הלכה כמותי כותלי בית המדרש יוכיחו הטו כותלי בית המדרש ליפול גער בהם רבי יהושע אמר להם אם תלמידי חכמים מנצחים זה את זה בהלכה אתם מה טיבכם לא נפלו מפני כבודו של רבי יהושע ולא זקפו מפני כבודו של ר"א ועדיין מטין ועומדין,חזר ואמר להם אם הלכה כמותי מן השמים יוכיחו יצאתה בת קול ואמרה מה לכם אצל ר"א שהלכה כמותו בכ"מ,עמד רבי יהושע על רגליו ואמר (דברים ל, יב) לא בשמים היא מאי לא בשמים היא אמר רבי ירמיה שכבר נתנה תורה מהר סיני אין אנו משגיחין בבת קול שכבר כתבת בהר סיני בתורה (שמות כג, ב) אחרי רבים להטות אשכחיה רבי נתן לאליהו א"ל מאי עביד קוב"ה בההיא שעתא א"ל קא חייך ואמר נצחוני בני נצחוני בני,אמרו אותו היום הביאו כל טהרות שטיהר ר"א ושרפום באש ונמנו עליו וברכוהו ואמרו מי ילך ויודיעו אמר להם ר"ע אני אלך שמא ילך אדם שאינו הגון ויודיעו ונמצא מחריב את כל העולם כולו,מה עשה ר"ע לבש שחורים ונתעטף שחורים וישב לפניו ברחוק ארבע אמות אמר לו ר"א עקיבא מה יום מיומים אמר לו רבי כמדומה לי שחבירים בדילים ממך אף הוא קרע בגדיו וחלץ מנעליו ונשמט וישב על גבי קרקע,זלגו עיניו דמעות לקה העולם שליש בזיתים ושליש בחטים ושליש בשעורים ויש אומרים אף בצק שבידי אשה טפח תנא אך גדול היה באותו היום שבכל מקום שנתן בו עיניו ר"א נשרף,ואף ר"ג היה בא בספינה עמד עליו נחשול לטבעו אמר כמדומה לי שאין זה אלא בשביל ר"א בן הורקנוס עמד על רגליו ואמר רבונו של עולם גלוי וידוע לפניך שלא לכבודי עשיתי ולא לכבוד בית אבא עשיתי אלא לכבודך שלא ירבו מחלוקות בישראל נח הים מזעפו,אימא שלום דביתהו דר"א אחתיה דר"ג הואי מההוא מעשה ואילך לא הוה שבקה ליה לר"א למיפל על אפיה ההוא יומא ריש ירחא הוה ואיחלף לה בין מלא לחסר איכא דאמרי אתא עניא וקאי אבבא אפיקא ליה ריפתא,אשכחתיה דנפל על אנפיה אמרה ליה קום קטלית לאחי אדהכי נפק שיפורא מבית רבן גמליאל דשכיב אמר לה מנא ידעת אמרה ליה כך מקובלני מבית אבי אבא כל השערים ננעלים חוץ משערי אונאה,תנו רבנן המאנה את הגר עובר בשלשה לאוין והלוחצו עובר בשנים,מאי שנא מאנה דכתיבי שלשה לאוין (שמות כב, כ) וגר לא תונה (ויקרא יט, לג) וכי יגור אתך גר בארצכם לא תונו אותו (ויקרא כה, יז) ולא תונו איש את עמיתו וגר בכלל עמיתו הוא לוחצו נמי שלשה כתיבי (שמות כב, כ) ולא תלחצנו (שמות כג, ט) וגר לא תלחץ (שמות כב, כד) ולא תהיה לו כנושה וגר בכלל הוא אלא אחד זה ואחד זה בשלשה,תניא רבי אליעזר הגדול אומר מפני מה הזהירה תורה בל"ו מקומות ואמרי לה במ"ו מקומות בגר מפני שסורו רע,מאי דכתיב וגר לא תונה ולא תלחצנו כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים (תנינא) רבי נתן אומר מום שבך אל תאמר לחברך והיינו דאמרי אינשי דזקיף ליה זקיפא בדיותקיה לא נימא ליה לחבריה זקיף ביניתא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אין מערבין פירות בפירות אפי' חדשים בחדשים | 59b. b And this is /b known as b the oven of i akhnai /i . /b The Gemara asks: b What /b is the relevance of b i akhnai /i , /b a snake, in this context? b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said: /b It is characterized in that manner due to the fact b that /b the Rabbis b surrounded /b it b with /b their b statements like this snake, /b which often forms a coil when at rest, b and deemed it impure. /b The Sages b taught: On that day, /b when they discussed this matter, b Rabbi Eliezer answered all /b possible b answers in the world /b to support his opinion, b but /b the Rabbis b did not accept /b his explanations b from him. /b ,After failing to convince the Rabbis logically, Rabbi Eliezer b said to them: If /b the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with my /b opinion, b this carob /b tree b will prove /b it. The b carob /b tree b was uprooted from its place one hundred cubits, and some say four hundred cubits. /b The Rabbis b said to him: One does not cite /b halakhic b proof from the carob /b tree. Rabbi Eliezer b then said to them: If /b the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with my /b opinion, b the stream will prove /b it. The water in b the stream turned backward /b and began flowing in the opposite direction. b They said to him: One does not cite /b halakhic b proof from a stream. /b ,Rabbi Eliezer b then said to them: If /b the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with my /b opinion, b the walls of the study hall will prove /b it. b The walls of the study hall leaned /b inward and began b to fall. Rabbi Yehoshua scolded /b the walls and b said to them: If Torah scholars are contending /b with b each other in /b matters of b i halakha /i , what /b is the b nature /b of b your /b involvement in this dispute? The Gemara relates: The walls b did not fall because of /b the b deference /b due b Rabbi Yehoshua, but they did not straighten because of /b the b deference /b due b Rabbi Eliezer, and they still remain leaning. /b ,Rabbi Eliezer b then said to them: If /b the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with my /b opinion, b Heaven will prove /b it. b A Divine Voice emerged /b from Heaven b and said: Why are you /b differing b with Rabbi Eliezer, as /b the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b his opinion b in every place /b that he expresses an opinion?, b Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: /b It is written: b “It is not in heaven” /b (Deuteronomy 30:12). The Gemara asks: b What /b is the relevance of the phrase b “It is not in heaven” /b in this context? b Rabbi Yirmeya says: /b Since b the Torah was already given at Mount Sinai, we do not regard a Divine Voice, as You already wrote at Mount Sinai, in the Torah: “After a majority to incline” /b (Exodus 23:2). Since the majority of Rabbis disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion, the i halakha /i is not ruled in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara relates: Years after, b Rabbi Natan encountered Elijah /b the prophet and b said to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do at that time, /b when Rabbi Yehoshua issued his declaration? Elijah b said to him: /b The Holy One, Blessed be He, b smiled and said: My children have triumphed over Me; My children have triumphed over Me. /b ,The Sages b said: /b On b that day, /b the Sages b brought all the ritually pure /b items b deemed pure by /b the ruling of b Rabbi Eliezer /b with regard to the oven b and burned them in fire, and /b the Sages b reached a consensus in his regard and ostracized him. And /b the Sages b said: Who will go and inform him /b of his ostracism? b Rabbi Akiva, /b his beloved disciple, b said to them: I will go, lest an unseemly person go /b and inform him in a callous and offensive manner, b and he would thereby destroy the entire world. /b , b What did Rabbi Akiva do? He wore black and wrapped himself in black, /b as an expression of mourning and pain, b and sat before /b Rabbi Eliezer b at a distance of four cubits, /b which is the distance that one must maintain from an ostracized individual. b Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva, what /b is different about b today from other days, /b that you comport yourself in this manner? Rabbi Akiva b said to him: My teacher, it appears to me that /b your b colleagues are distancing /b themselves b from you. /b He employed euphemism, as actually they distanced Rabbi Eliezer from them. Rabbi Eliezer b too, rent his garments and removed his shoes, /b as is the custom of an ostracized person, b and he dropped /b from his seat b and sat upon the ground. /b ,The Gemara relates: b His eyes shed tears, /b and as a result b the /b entire b world was afflicted: One-third of /b its b olives /b were afflicted, b and one-third of /b its b wheat, and one-third of /b its b barley. And some say /b that b even dough /b kneaded b in a woman’s hands spoiled. /b The Sages b taught: There was great anger on that day, as any place that Rabbi Eliezer fixed his gaze was burned. /b , b And even Rabban Gamliel, /b the i Nasi /i of the Sanhedrin at Yavne, the head of the Sages who were responsible for the decision to ostracize Rabbi Eliezer, b was coming on a boat /b at the time, and b a large wave swelled over him /b and threatened b to drown him. /b Rabban Gamliel b said: It seems to me that this is only for the sake of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, /b as God punishes those who mistreat others. Rabban Gamliel b stood on his feet and said: Master of the Universe, it is revealed and known before You that neither was it for my honor /b that b I acted /b when ostracizing him, b nor was it for the honor of the house of my father /b that b I acted; rather, /b it was b for Your honor, so that disputes will not proliferate in Israel. /b In response, b the sea calmed from its raging. /b ,The Gemara further relates: b Imma Shalom, the wife of Rabbi Eliezer, was the sister of Rabban Gamliel. From that incident forward, she would not allow Rabbi Eliezer to lower his head /b and recite the i taḥanun /i prayer, which includes supplication and entreaties. She feared that were her husband to bemoan his fate and pray at that moment, her brother would be punished. b A certain day was /b around the day of b the New Moon, and she /b inadvertently b substituted a full /b thirty-day month b for a deficient /b twenty-nine-day month, i.e., she thought that it was the New Moon, when one does not lower his head in supplication, but it was not. b Some say /b that b a pauper came and stood at the door, /b and b she took bread out to him. /b The result was that she left her husband momentarily unsupervised.,When she returned, b she found him /b and saw b that he had lowered his head /b in prayer. b She said to him: Arise, you /b already b killed my brother. Meanwhile, /b the sound of b a i shofar /i emerged from the house of Rabban Gamliel /b to announce b that /b the i Nasi /i b had died. /b Rabbi Eliezer b said to her: From where did you know /b that your brother would die? b She said to him: This is /b the tradition that b I received from the house of the father of /b my b father: All the gates /b of Heaven are apt to be b locked, except for the gates /b of prayer for victims b of /b verbal b mistreatment. /b ,§ b The Sages taught: One who /b verbally b mistreats the convert violates three prohibitions, and one who oppresses him /b in other ways b violates two. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is different /b with regard to verbal b mistreatment, that three prohibitions are written /b concerning it: b “And you shall neither mistreat a convert” /b (Exodus 22:20); b “And when a convert lives in your land, you shall not mistreat him” /b (Leviticus 19:33); b “And you shall not mistreat, each man his colleague” /b (Leviticus 25:17), b and a convert is /b included in the category of b colleague? /b With regard to b one who also oppresses /b a convert b as well, three /b prohibitions b are written: /b “And you shall neither mistreat a convert, b nor oppress him” /b (Exodus 22:20); b “And you shall not oppress a convert /b (Exodus 23:9); b “And you shall not be to him like a creditor” /b (Exodus 22:24). This last prohibition is a general prohibition, b in which converts are included. /b Consequently, it is not correct that one who oppresses a convert violates only two prohibitions. b Rather, both this /b one, who verbally mistreats a convert, b and that /b one, who oppresses him, b violate three prohibitions. /b , b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: For what reason did the Torah issue warnings in thirty-six places, and some say in forty-six places, with regard to /b causing any distress to b a convert? /b It is b due to /b the fact b that /b a convert’s b inclination is evil, /b i.e., he is prone to return to his previous way of living., b What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “And you shall not mistreat a convert nor oppress him, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt” /b (Exodus 22:20)? b We learned /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Natan says: A defect that is in you, do not mention /b it b in another. /b Since the Jewish people were themselves strangers, they are not in a position to demean a convert because he is a stranger in their midst. b And this /b explains the adage b that people say: One who has /b a person b hanged in his family [ i bidyotkei /i ], does not say to another /b member of his household: b Hang a fish for me, /b as the mention of hanging is demeaning for that family., strong MISHNA: /strong b One may not intermingle produce /b bought from one supplier b with /b other b produce, even /b if he intermingles b new /b produce b with /b other b new /b produce and ostensibly the buyer suffers no loss from his doing so. |
|
25. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •av bet din Found in books: Levine (2005) 338| 8b. פדיון שבוים מצוה רבה היא,אמר ליה רבא לרבה בר מרי מנא הא מילתא דאמור רבנן דפדיון שבוים מצוה רבה היא א"ל דכתיב (ירמיהו טו, ב) והיה כי יאמרו אליך אנה נצא ואמרת אליהם כה אמר ה' אשר למות למות ואשר לחרב לחרב ואשר לרעב לרעב ואשר לשבי לשבי ואמר רבי יוחנן כל המאוחר בפסוק זה קשה מחבירו,חרב קשה ממות אי בעית אימא קרא ואי בעית אימא סברא אי בעית אימא סברא האי קא מינוול והאי לא קא מינוול ואי בעית אימא קרא (תהלים קטז, טו) יקר בעיני ה' המותה לחסידיו,רעב קשה מחרב איבעית אימא סברא האי קא מצטער והאי לא קא מצטער איבעית אימא קרא (איכה ד, ט) טובים היו חללי חרב מחללי רעב שבי [קשה מכולם] דכולהו איתנהו ביה:,תנו רבנן קופה של צדקה נגבית בשנים ומתחלקת בשלשה נגבית בשנים שאין עושים שררות על הצבור פחות משנים ומתחלקת בשלשה כדיני ממונות,תמחוי נגבית בשלשה ומתחלקת בשלשה שגבויה וחלוקה שוים תמחוי בכל יום קופה מערב שבת לערב שבת,תמחוי לעניי עולם קופה לעניי העיר ורשאים בני העיר לעשות קופה תמחוי ותמחוי קופה ולשנותה לכל מה שירצו,ורשאין בני העיר להתנות על המדות ועל השערים ועל שכר פועלים ולהסיע על קיצתן,אמר מר אין עושין שררות על הצבור פחות משנים מנא הני מילי אמר רב נחמן אמר קרא (שמות כח, ה) והם יקחו את הזהב וגו',שררות הוא דלא עבדי הא הימוני מהימן מסייע ליה לרבי חנינא דאמר רבי חנינא מעשה ומינה רבי שני אחין על הקופה,מאי שררותא דאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לפי שממשכנין על הצדקה ואפילו בערב שבת איני והא כתיב (ירמיהו ל, כ) ופקדתי על כל לוחציו ואמר ר' יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא משמיה דרב ואפילו על גבאי צדקה,לא קשיא הא דאמיד הא דלא אמיד כי הא דרבא אכפיה לרב נתן בר אמי ושקיל מיניה ארבע מאה זוזי לצדקה,(דניאל יב, ג) והמשכילים יזהירו כזוהר הרקיע וגו' (המשכילים יזהירו כזוהר הרקיע) זה דיין שדן דין אמת לאמתו (דניאל יב, ג) ומצדיקי הרבים ככוכבים לעולם ועד אלו גבאי צדקה,במתניתא תנא והמשכילים יזהירו כזוהר הרקיע זה דיין שדן דין אמת לאמתו וגבאי צדקה ומצדיקי הרבים ככוכבים לעולם ועד אלו מלמדי תינוקות כגון מאן אמר רב כגון רב שמואל בר שילת דרב אשכחיה לרב שמואל בר שילת דהוה קאי בגינתא אמר ליה שבקתיה להימנותך אמר ליה הא תליסר שנין דלא חזיא לי והשתא נמי דעתאי עלויהו,ורבנן מאי אמר רבינא (שופטים ה, לא) ואוהביו כצאת השמש בגבורתו,תנו רבנן גבאי צדקה אינן רשאין לפרוש זה מזה אבל פורש זה לשער וזה לחנות מצא מעות בשוק לא יתנם בתוך כיסו אלא נותנן לתוך ארנקי של צדקה ולכשיבא לביתו יטלם כיוצא בו היה נושה בחבירו מנה ופרעו בשוק לא יתננו לתוך כיסו אלא נותנן לתוך ארנקי של צדקה ולכשיבא לביתו יטלם,תנו רבנן גבאי צדקה שאין להם עניים לחלק פורטין לאחרים ואין פורטין לעצמן גבאי תמחוי שאין להם עניים לחלק מוכרין לאחרים ואין מוכרין לעצמן מעות של צדקה אין מונין אותן שתים אלא אחת אחת,אמר אביי מריש לא הוה יתיב מר אציפי דבי כנישתא כיון דשמעה להא דתניא ולשנותה לכל מה שירצו הוה יתיב אמר אביי מריש הוה עביד מר תרי כיסי חד לעניי דעלמא וחד לעניי דמתא כיון דשמעה להא דאמר ליה שמואל לרב תחליפא בר אבדימי עביד חד כיסא | 8b. that b redeeming captives is a great mitzva. /b , b Rava said to Rabba bar Mari: /b Concerning b this matter that the Sages stated, that redeeming captives is a great mitzva, from where is /b it derived? Rabba bar Mari b said to him: As it is written: “And it shall come to pass, when they say to you: To where shall we depart? Then you shall tell them: So says the Lord: Such as are for death, to death; and such as are for the sword, to the sword; and such as are for famine, to famine; and such as are for captivity, to captivity” /b (Jeremiah 15:2). b And Rabbi Yoḥa says: Whichever /b punishment b is /b written b later in this verse is more severe than the one /b before it.,Rabbi Yoḥa explains: b The sword is worse than death. If you wish, say /b that this is learned from b a verse; if you wish, say /b instead that it is derived by way of b logical reasoning. If you wish, say /b that this is derived by way of b logical reasoning: This /b punishment, i.e., death by sword, b mutilates /b the body, b but that /b punishment, i.e., natural death, b does not mutilate /b it. b And if you wish, say /b that the fact that the sword is worse than death is learned from b a verse: “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His pious ones” /b (Psalms 116:15)., b Famine is worse than the sword. If you wish, say /b that this is derived by way of b logical reasoning: This one, /b who dies of famine, b suffers /b greatly before departing from this world, b but that one, /b who dies by the sword, b does not suffer. If you wish, say /b instead that the fact that famine is worse than the sword is learned from b a verse: “More fortunate were the victims of the sword than the victims of famine” /b (Lamentations 4:9). And b captivity is worse than all of them, as it includes all of them, /b i.e., famine, the sword, and death.,§ In connection with the previous discussion concerning charity distribution, the Gemara cites a i baraita /i in which b the Sages taught: /b Money for b the charity fund is collected by two /b people b and distributed by three /b people. b It is collected by two /b people b because one does not appoint an authority over the community /b composed b of fewer than two /b people. b And it is distributed by three people, like /b the number of judges needed in cases of b monetary law, /b since the distributors determine who receives money and who does not, as well as how much each person receives.,Food for b the charity platter is collected by three /b people b and distributed by three /b people b because its collection and its distribution /b take place on b the same /b day. Food for b the charity platter /b is collected and distributed b every day, /b and therefore a third individual must participate in the collection so that he will be available to take part in the distribution without delay; whereas the money of b the charity fund /b is distributed only once a week, on b each Shabbat eve. /b ,There are additional differences between these two types of charity operations: The food from b the charity platter /b is distributed b to the poor of the world, /b meaning, to any poor individual arriving in the city; the money of b the charity fund /b is allocated exclusively b to the poor of the city. But it is permitted for the residents of the city to use /b money that has been collected for b the charity fund /b to purchase food for b the charity platter /b to feed the poor; b and /b similarly they may use food that had been collected for b the charity platter /b for b the charity fund. /b In general, it is permitted for them b to change /b the purpose toward which charity will be used b to whatever they want, /b in accordance with the needs of the community.,Similarly, b it is permitted for the residents of the city to set the measures /b used in that city, b the prices /b set for products sold there, b and the wages /b paid b to /b its b workers, and to fine /b people b for violating their /b specifications, in order to enforce observance of these i halakhot /i . This marks the end of the i baraita /i , the details of which the Gemara proceeds to analyze., b The Master said /b in the i baraita /i : b One does not appoint an authority over the community /b composed b of fewer than two /b people. The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? b Rav Naḥman says /b that this is derived from a verse referring to those engaged in building the Tabernacle and weaving the priestly vestments, who received the community’s donations. b The verse states: “And they shall take the gold, /b and the sky-blue wool, and the purple wool” (Exodus 28:5). The plural “they” indicates that the collection must be performed by two people.,The Gemara comments: The i baraita /i indicates that b authority may not be exercised /b by less than two people, b but /b even a single individual b is trusted /b to be a treasurer. That is, money for the charity fund is collected by two people, not because a single individual is not trusted not to misappropriate the money, but rather because a single individual should not be given authority over the community. b This supports /b the opinion b of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: There was an incident where Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b appointed two brothers to /b administer b the charity fund. /b Even though the brothers were relatives who are not trusted to testify against each other, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was not concerned and he appointed them.,The Gemara asks: b What authority /b is associated with collecting charity? The Gemara answers: b As Rav Naḥman says /b that b Rabba bar Avuh says: Because they can seize collateral for the charity; /b i.e., they can collect charity by force, b and even on Shabbat eve, /b when people are busy and might claim that they have no time or money. The Gemara objects: b Is that so? But isn’t it written: “I will punish all that oppress them” /b (Jeremiah 30:20), b and Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: And /b punishment will be meted out b even to charity collectors? /b If charity collectors are permitted to force people to contribute charity, why are they counted among Israel’s oppressors?,The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult. This, /b Rabbi Naḥman’s statement, applies b when /b the contributor is b rich, /b in which case the collectors may seize money from him even by force. b That, /b Rabbi Yitzḥak’s statement, applies b when /b he is b not rich, /b in which case the collectors who take money from him by force are termed oppressors of Israel. b This /b right to force contributions from the rich is b like /b what occurred in the incident in which b Rava compelled Rav Natan bar Ami and took four hundred dinars from him for charity. /b ,Having raised the issue of charity collection, the Gemara cites various rabbinic expositions with regard to the matter. The verse states: b “And they who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; /b and they who turn many to righteousness like the stars for ever and ever” (Daniel 12:3). b “And they who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament”; this is a judge who judges an absolutely true judgment, /b as his wisdom and understanding lead him to a correct judgment. b “And they who turn many to righteousness like the stars for ever and ever”; these are the charity collectors, /b who facilitate the giving of charity., b It was taught in a i baraita /i : “And they who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament”; this is a judge who judges an absolutely true judgment and /b also b charity collectors. “And they who turn many to righteousness like the stars for ever and ever”; these are schoolteachers. /b The Gemara asks: b Like whom? /b Certainly not every schoolteacher is worthy of such accolades. b Rav said: For example, Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat. As /b it is told that b Rav /b once b found Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat standing in a garden. /b Rav b said to him: Have you abandoned your trust /b and neglected your students? Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat b said to him: It has been thirteen years /b now b that I have not seen /b my garden, b and even now my thoughts are on /b the children.,In light of the praises heaped upon judges, tax collectors, and schoolteachers, the Gemara asks: b And what /b was said about b the Sages? Ravina said /b that about them it is stated: b “But let them that love Him be as the sun when it comes out in its might” /b (Judges 5:31).,The Gemara resumes its discussion of the i halakhot /i of charity collection: b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Charity collectors may not separate from each other, /b each one collecting in a different place; b but /b in a place where the two can see each other, one collector b may separate /b from the other, e.g., b this /b one going b to the gate /b of a house b and that /b one going b to a store. /b If a charity collector b found coins in the market, he may not put them into his /b own b pocket, but /b rather b he must put them into the charity purse, and /b then later b when he comes home, he may take them /b from there. This is necessary so that people should not suspect him of taking charity money for himself. b Similarly, /b if the charity collector b was owed one hundred dinars by another, and /b the latter b repaid /b his debt b in the market, /b the collector b may not put /b the money he received b into his /b own b pocket, but /b rather b he must put it into the charity purse, and /b then later b when he comes home, he may take it. /b , b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Charity collectors who have no poor people to /b whom they can b distribute /b the money, b may exchange [ i poretin /i ] /b the money, i.e., exchange the copper coins, which tend to rust, for silver dinars, b with other /b people, b but they should not change it /b by b themselves, /b i.e., with their own coins, to avoid any suspicion of wrongdoing. Likewise, b collectors /b of food b for the charity platter who do not have poor people /b to whom b to distribute /b the food b may sell /b the food b to others, but they should not sell it to themselves, /b for a similar reason. b Coins of charity are not counted two /b by two, b but rather one by one, /b to avoid errors in tallying., b Abaye said: At first, /b my b Master, /b Rabba, b would not sit on the mats in the synagogue because /b they had been purchased with charity funds. b Once he heard that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i , that it is permitted for the residents of a city b to change /b the purpose toward which charity will be used b to whatever they want, he did sit /b on them. b Abaye said: At first, /b my b Master, /b Rabba, b would make two purses, one for the poor of /b the rest of b the world, and one for the poor of his city. Once he heard what Shmuel said to Rav Taḥalifa bar Avdimi: Make /b only b one purse, /b |
|
| 26. Anon., Tanhuma, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Levine (2005) 458 |
