1. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 5.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Bowls • Bowls, Libation • Magic, Babylonian bowls
Found in books: Hasan Rokem (2003), Tales of the Neighborhood Jewish Narrative Dialogues in Late Antiquity, 63; Levison (2023), The Greek Life of Adam and Eve. 829
sup>
5.15 וְהֵבִיא הָאִישׁ אֶת־אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן וְהֵבִיא אֶת־קָרְבָּנָהּ עָלֶיהָ עֲשִׂירִת הָאֵיפָה קֶמַח שְׂעֹרִים לֹא־יִצֹק עָלָיו שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא־יִתֵּן עָלָיו לְבֹנָה כִּי־מִנְחַת קְנָאֹת הוּא מִנְחַת זִכָּרוֹן מַזְכֶּרֶת עָוֺן׃'' None | sup>
5.15 then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, and shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is a meal-offering of jealousy, a meal-offering of memorial, bringing iniquity to remembrance.'' None |
|
2. New Testament, Apocalypse, 5.8 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Bowls • bowl
Found in books: Estes (2020), The Tree of Life, 192; Levison (2023), The Greek Life of Adam and Eve. 832
sup>
5.8 Καὶ ὅτε ἔλαβεν τὸ βιβλίον, τὰ τέσσερα ζῷα καὶ οἱ εἴκοσι τέσσαρες πρεσβύτεροι ἔπεσαν ἐνώπιον τοῦ ἀρνίου, ἔχοντες ἕκαστος κιθάραν καὶ φιάλας χρυσᾶς γεμούσαςθυμιαμάτων,αἵ εἰσιναἱ προσευχαὶτῶν ἁγίων·'' None | sup>
5.8 Now when he had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.'' None |
|
3. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • bowls, Aramaic incantation
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 40, 164; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 40, 164
| 17b אין פרץ שלא תהא סיעתנו כסיעתו של דוד שיצא ממנו אחיתופל ואין יוצאת שלא תהא סיעתנו כסיעתו של שאול שיצא ממנו דואג האדומי ואין צוחה שלא תהא סיעתנו כסיעתו של אלישע שיצא ממנו גחזי ברחובותינו שלא יהא לנו בן או תלמיד שמקדיח תבשילו ברבים: (ישעיהו מו, יב),שמעו אלי אבירי לב הרחוקים מצדקה רב ושמואל ואמרי לה רבי יוחנן ורבי אלעזר חד אמר כל העולם כולו נזונין בצדקה והם נזונין בזרוע וחד אמר כל העולם כולו נזונין בזכותם והם אפילו בזכות עצמן אין נזונין כדרב יהודה אמר רב,דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב בכל יום ויום בת קול יוצאת מהר חורב ואומרת כל העולם כולו נזונין בשביל חנינא בני וחנינא בני די לו בקב חרובין מערב שבת לערב שבת,ופליגא דרב יהודה דאמר רב יהודה מאן אבירי לב גובאי טפשאי אמר רב יוסף תדע דהא לא איגייר גיורא מינייהו,אמר רב אשי בני מתא מחסיא אבירי לב נינהו דקא חזו יקרא דאורייתא תרי זמני בשתא ולא קמגייר גיורא מינייהו:,חתן אם רוצה לקרות וכו\':,למימרא דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל חייש ליוהרא ורבנן לא חיישי ליוהרא והא איפכא שמעינן להו דתנן מקום שנהגו לעשות מלאכה בתשעה באב עושין מקום שנהגו שלא לעשות אין עושין וכל מקום תלמידי חכמים בטלים רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לעולם יעשה כל אדם את עצמו כתלמיד חכם,קשיא דרבנן אדרבנן קשיא דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל אדרבן שמעון בן גמליאל,אמר רבי יוחנן מוחלפת השיטה רב שישא בריה דרב אידי אמר לעולם לא תחליף דרבנן אדרבנן לא קשיא ק"ש כיון דכ"ע קא קרו ואיהו נמי קרי לא מיחזי כיוהרא הכא כיון דכולי עלמא עבדי מלאכה ואיהו לא קא עביד מיחזי כיוהרא,דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל אדרבן שמעון בן גמליאל לא קשיא התם בכונה תליא מילתא ואנן סהדי דלא מצי לכווני דעתיה אבל הכא הרואה אומר מלאכה הוא דאין לו פוק חזי כמה בטלני איכא בשוקא:,58a אמר רבי ירמיה בן אלעזר נתקללה בבל נתקללו שכניה נתקללה שומרון נתברכו שכניה נתקללה בבל נתקללו שכניה דכתיב (ישעיהו יד, כג) ושמתיה למורש קפוד ואגמי מים נתקללה שומרון נתברכו שכניה דכתיב (מיכה א, ו) ושמתי שומרון לעי השדה למטעי כרם וגו\',ואמר רב המנונא הרואה אוכלוסי ישראל אומר ברוך חכם הרזים אוכלוסי עובדי כוכבים אומר (ירמיהו נ, יב) בושה אמכם וגו\',ת"ר הרואה אוכלוסי ישראל אומר ברוך חכם הרזים שאין דעתם דומה זה לזה ואין פרצופיהן דומים זה לזה בן זומא ראה אוכלוסא על גב מעלה בהר הבית אמר ברוך חכם הרזים וברוך שברא כל אלו לשמשני,הוא היה אומר כמה יגיעות יגע אדם הראשון עד שמצא פת לאכול חרש וזרע וקצר ועמר ודש וזרה וברר וטחן והרקיד ולש ואפה ואח"כ אכל ואני משכים ומוצא כל אלו מתוקנין לפני וכמה יגיעות יגע אדם הראשון עד שמצא בגד ללבוש גזז ולבן ונפץ וטוה וארג ואחר כך מצא בגד ללבוש ואני משכים ומוצא כל אלו מתוקנים לפני כל אומות שוקדות ובאות לפתח ביתי ואני משכים ומוצא כל אלו לפני,הוא היה אומר אורח טוב מהו אומר כמה טרחות טרח בעל הבית בשבילי כמה בשר הביא לפני כמה יין הביא לפני כמה גלוסקאות הביא לפני וכל מה שטרח לא טרח אלא בשבילי אבל אורח רע מהו אומר מה טורח טרח בעל הבית זה פת אחת אכלתי חתיכה אחת אכלתי כוס אחד שתיתי כל טורח שטרח בעל הבית זה לא טרח אלא בשביל אשתו ובניו,על אורח טוב מהו אומר (איוב לו, כד) זכור כי תשגיא פעלו אשר שוררו אנשים על אורח רע כתיב (איוב לז, כד) לכן יראוהו אנשים וגו\',(שמואל א יז, יב) והאיש בימי שאול זקן בא באנשים אמר רבא ואיתימא רב זביד ואיתימא רב אושעיא זה ישי אבי דוד שיצא באוכלוסא ונכנס באוכלוסא ודרש באוכלוסא אמר עולא נקיטינן אין אוכלוסא בבבל תנא אין אוכלוסא פחותה מששים רבוא,ת"ר הרואה חכמי ישראל אומר ברוך שחלק מחכמתו ליראיו חכמי עובדי כוכבים אומר ברוך שנתן מחכמתו לבריותיו הרואה מלכי ישראל אומר ברוך שחלק מכבודו ליראיו מלכי עובדי כוכבים אומר ברוך שנתן מכבודו לבריותיו,א"ר יוחנן לעולם ישתדל אדם לרוץ לקראת מלכי ישראל ולא לקראת מלכי ישראל בלבד אלא אפי\' לקראת מלכי עובדי כוכבים שאם יזכה יבחין בין מלכי ישראל למלכי עובדי כוכבים,רב ששת סגי נהור הוה הוו קאזלי כולי עלמא לקבולי אפי מלכא וקם אזל בהדייהו רב ששת אשכחיה ההוא צדוקי אמר ליה חצבי לנהרא כגני לייא אמר ליה תא חזי דידענא טפי מינך חלף גונדא קמייתא כי קא אוושא אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי אתא מלכא אמר ליה רב ששת לא קאתי חלף גונדא תניינא כי קא אוושא אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי השתא קא אתי מלכא אמר ליה רב ששת לא קא אתי מלכא חליף תליתאי כי קא שתקא אמר ליה רב ששת ודאי השתא אתי מלכא,אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי מנא לך הא אמר ליה דמלכותא דארעא כעין מלכותא דרקיעא דכתיב (מלכים א יט, יא) צא ועמדת בהר לפני ה\' והנה ה\' עובר ורוח גדולה וחזק מפרק הרים ומשבר סלעים לפני ה\' לא ברוח ה\' ואחר הרוח רעש לא ברעש ה\' ואחר הרעש אש לא באש ה\' ואחר האש קול דממה דקה,כי אתא מלכא פתח רב ששת וקא מברך ליה אמר ליה ההוא צדוקי למאן דלא חזית ליה קא מברכת ומאי הוי עליה דההוא צדוקי איכא דאמרי חברוהי כחלינהו לעיניה ואיכא דאמרי רב ששת נתן עיניו בו ונעשה גל של עצמות,ר\' שילא נגדיה לההוא גברא דבעל מצרית אזל אכל ביה קורצי בי מלכא אמר איכא חד גברא ביהודאי דקא דיין דינא בלא הרמנא דמלכא שדר עליה פריסתקא כי אתא אמרי ליה מה טעמא נגדתיה להאי אמר להו דבא על חמרתא אמרי ליה אית לך סהדי אמר להו אין אתא אליהו אדמי ליה כאיניש ואסהיד אמרי ליה אי הכי בר קטלא הוא אמר להו אנן מיומא דגלינן מארעין לית לן רשותא למקטל אתון מאי דבעיתון עבידו ביה,עד דמעייני ביה בדינא פתח ר\' שילא ואמר (דברי הימים א כט, יא) לך ה\' הגדולה והגבורה וגו\' אמרי ליה מאי קאמרת אמר להו הכי קאמינא בריך רחמנא דיהיב מלכותא בארעא כעין מלכותא דרקיעא ויהב לכו שולטנא ורחמי דינא אמרו חביבא עליה יקרא דמלכותא כולי האי יהבי ליה קולפא אמרו ליה דון דינא,כי הוה נפיק אמר ליה ההוא גברא עביד רחמנא ניסא לשקרי הכי אמר ליה רשע לאו חמרי איקרו דכתיב (יחזקאל כג, כ) אשר בשר חמורים בשרם חזייה דקאזיל למימרא להו דקרינהו חמרי אמר האי רודף הוא והתורה אמרה אם בא להרגך השכם להרגו מחייה בקולפא וקטליה,אמר הואיל ואתעביד לי ניסא בהאי קרא דרשינא ליה לך ה\' הגדולה זו מעשה בראשית וכן הוא אומר (איוב ט, י) עושה גדולות עד אין חקר והגבורה זו יציאת מצרים שנאמר (שמות יד, לא) וירא ישראל את היד הגדולה וגו\' והתפארת זו חמה ולבנה שיעמדו לו ליהושע שנאמר (יהושע י, יג) וידום השמש וירח עמד וגו\' והנצח זו מפלתה של רומי וכן הוא אומר (ישעיהו סג, ג) ויז נצחם על בגדי וגו\' וההוד זו מלחמת נחלי ארנון שנאמר (במדבר כא, יד) על כן יאמר בספר מלחמות ה\' את והב בסופה וגו\' כי כל בשמים ובארץ זו מלחמת סיסרא שנאמר (שופטים ה, כ) מן שמים נלחמו הכוכבים ממסלותם וגו\' לך ה\' הממלכה זו מלחמת עמלק וכן הוא אומר (שמות יז, טז) כי יד על כס יה והמתנשא זו מלחמת גוג ומגוג וכן הוא אומר (יחזקאל לח, ג) הנני אליך גוג נשיא ראש משך ותובל לכל לראש אמר רב חנן בר רבא אמר ר\' יוחנן אפילו ריש גרגיתא מן שמיא מנו ליה,במתניתא תנא משמיה דרבי עקיבא לך ה\' הגדולה זו קריעת ים סוף והגבורה זו מכת בכורות והתפארת זו מתן תורה והנצח זו ירושלים וההוד זו בית המקדש: ' None | 17b “There is no breach”; that our faction of Sages should not be like the faction of David, from which Ahitophel emerged, who caused a breach in the kingdom of David. r“And no going forth”; that our faction should not be like the faction of Saul, from which Doeg the Edomite emerged, who set forth on an evil path. r“And no outcry”; that our faction should not be like the faction of Elisha, from which Geihazi emerged. r“In our open places”; that we should not have a child or student who overcooks his food in public, i.e., who sins in public and causes others to sin, as in the well-known case of Jesus the Nazarene.,Having cited a dispute with regard to the interpretation of a verse where we are uncertain whether the dispute is between Rav and Shmuel or Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Elazar, the Gemara cites another verse with regard to which there is a similar dispute. It is said: “Hear Me, stubborn-hearted who are far from charity” (Isaiah 46:12). While both agree that the verse refers to the righteous, Rav and Shmuel, and some say Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Elazar, disagreed as to how to interpret the verse. One said: The entire world is sustained by God’s charity, not because it deserves to exist, while the righteous who are far from God’s charity are sustained by force, as due to their own good deeds they have the right to demand their sustece. And one said: The entire world is sustained by the merit of their righteousness, while they are not sustained at all, not even by their own merit, in accordance with the statement that Rav Yehuda said that Rav said.,As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Every day a Divine Voice emerges from Mount Horeb and says: The entire world is sustained by the merit of Ḥanina ben Dosa, my son, and for Ḥanina, my son, a kav of carobs is sufficient to sustain him for an entire week, from one Shabbat eve to the next Shabbat eve.,And this exegesis disagrees with the opinion of Rav Yehuda, as Rav Yehuda said, who are the stubborn-hearted? They are the foolish heathens of Gova’ei. Rav Yosef said: Know that this is so, as no convert has ever converted from their ranks.,Similarly, Rav Ashi said: The heathen residents of the city Mata Meḥasya are the stubborn-hearted, as they witness the glory of the Torah twice a year at the kalla gatherings in Adar and Elul, when thousands of people congregate and study Torah en masse, yet no convert has ever converted from their ranks.,We learned in our mishna that if a groom wishes to recite Shema on the first night of his marriage, he may do so, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel prohibited doing so because of the appearance of presumptuousness.,The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is concerned about presumptuousness and the Rabbis are not concerned about presumptuousness? Didn’t we learn that they say the opposite? As we learned in a mishna: A place where they were accustomed to perform labor on Ninth of Av, one may perform labor. A place where they were accustomed not to perform labor on Ninth of Av, one may not perform labor. And everywhere, Torah scholars are idle and do not perform labor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: With regard to performing labor on the Ninth of Av, one should always conduct himself as a Torah scholar.,If so, there is a contradiction between the statement of the Rabbis here and the statement of the Rabbis there. And, there is a contradiction between the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel here and the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel there.,Rabbi Yoḥa said: The attribution of the opinions is reversed in one of the sources in the interest of avoiding contradiction. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: Actually, you need not reverse the opinions, as the contradiction between the statement of the Rabbis here and the statement of the Rabbis there is not difficult. In the case of the recitation of Shema on his wedding night, since everyone is reciting Shema and he is also reciting Shema, he is not conspicuous and it does not appear as presumptuousness. Here, in the case of the Ninth of Av, however, since everyone is performing labor and he is not performing labor, his idleness is conspicuous and appears as presumptuousness.,So too, the contradiction between the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel here and the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel there is not difficult. There, in the case of the recitation of Shema on his wedding night, the matter is dependent upon his capacity to concentrate, and it is clear to all that he is unable to concentrate. Reciting Shema under those circumstances is a display of presumptuousness. But here, in the case of the Ninth of Av, one who sees him idle says: It is because he has no labor to perform. Go out and see how many idle people there are in the marketplace, even on days when one is permitted to work. Consequently, his idleness is not conspicuous.,,One whose deceased relative is laid out unburied before him is exempt from the recitation of Shema, from the Amida prayer, and from the mitzva to don phylacteries, as well as all positive mitzvot mentioned in the Torah, until the deceased has been buried.,With regard to the pallbearers and their replacements and the replacements of their replacements, those located before the bier who have not yet carried the deceased and those located after the bier. Those before the bier who are needed to carry the bier are exempt from reciting Shema; while those after the bier, even if they are still needed to carry it, since they have already carried the deceased, they are obligated to recite Shema. However, both these and those are exempt from reciting the Amida prayer, since they are preoccupied and are unable to focus and pray with the appropriate intent.,After they buried the deceased and returned, if they have sufficient time to begin to recite Shema and conclude before they arrive at the row, formed by those who attended the burial, through which the bereaved family will pass in order to receive consolation, they should begin. If they do not have sufficient time to conclude reciting the entire Shema, then they should not begin.,And those standing in the row, those in the interior row, directly before whom the mourners will pass and who will console them, are exempt from reciting Shema, while those in the exterior row, who stand there only to show their respect, are obligated to recite Shema. Women, slaves and minors are exempt from the recitation of Shema and from phylacteries, but are obligated in prayer, mezuza and Grace after Meals.,Shema and other positive mitzvot. The Gemara deduces: When the corpse is laid out before him, yes, he is exempt, but when the corpse is not physically laid out before him, no, he is not exempt from these mitzvot.,The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: One whose deceased relative is laid out before him eats in another room. If he does not have another room, he eats in the house of a friend. If he does not have a friend’s house available, he makes a partition between him and the deceased and eats. If he does not have material with which to make a partition, he averts his face from the dead and eats. And in any case, he does not recline while he eats, as reclining is characteristic of a festive meal. Furthermore, he neither eats meat nor drinks wine, and does not recite a blessing before eating, and does not recite the formula to invite the participants in the meal to join together in the Grace after Meals zimmun, i.e., he is exempt from the obligation of Grace after Meals.'58a With regard to Babylonia, the Gemara cites what Rabbi Yirmeya ben Elazar said: When Babylonia was cursed, its neighbors were cursed along with it. When Samaria was cursed, its neighbors were blessed. When Babylonia was cursed its neighbors were cursed along with it, as it is written: “I will also make it a possession for the bittern, a wading bird, and pools of water” (Isaiah 14:23); not only will it be destroyed, but the site will become a habitat for destructive, environmentally harmful creatures. When Samaria was cursed, however, its neighbors were blessed, as it is written: “Therefore I will make Samaria a heap in the field, a place for the planting of vineyards” (Micah 1:6); although destroyed, it will serve a beneficial purpose.,And Rav Hamnuna said: One who sees multitudes of Israel, six hundred thousand Jews, recites: Blessed…Who knows all secrets. One who sees multitudes of gentiles recites: “Your mother shall be sore ashamed, she that bore you shall be confounded; behold, the hindermost of the nations shall be a wilderness, a dry land, and a desert” (Jeremiah 50:12).,The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One who sees multitudes of Israel recites: Blessed…Who knows all secrets. Why is this? He sees a whole nation whose minds are unlike each other and whose faces are unlike each other, and He Who knows all secrets, God, knows what is in each of their hearts. The Gemara relates: Ben Zoma once saw a multitude okhlosa of Israel while standing on a stair on the Temple Mount. He immediately recited: Blessed…Who knows all secrets and Blessed…Who created all these to serve me.,Explaining his custom, he would say: How much effort did Adam the first man exert before he found bread to eat: He plowed, sowed, reaped, sheaved, threshed, winnowed in the wind, separated the grain from the chaff, ground the grain into flour, sifted, kneaded, and baked and only thereafter he ate. And I, on the other hand, wake up and find all of these prepared for me. Human society employs a division of labor, and each individual benefits from the service of the entire world. Similarly, how much effort did Adam the first man exert before he found a garment to wear? He sheared, laundered, combed, spun and wove, and only thereafter he found a garment to wear. And I, on the other hand, wake up and find all of these prepared for me. Members of all nations, merchants and craftsmen, diligently come to the entrance of my home, and I wake up and find all of these before me.,Ben Zoma would say: A good guest, what does he say? How much effort did the host expend on my behalf, how much meat did the host bring before me. How much wine did he bring before me. How many loaves geluskaot did he bring before me. All the effort that he expended, he expended only for me. However, a bad guest, what does he say? What effort did the host expend? I ate only one piece of bread, I ate only one piece of meat and I drank only one cup of wine. All the effort that the home owner expended he only expended on behalf of his wife and children.,With regard to a good guest, what does he say? “Remember that you magnify his work, whereof men have sung” (Job 36:24); he praises and acknowledges those who helped him. With regard to a bad guest it is written: “Men do therefore fear him; he regards not any who are wise of heart” (Job 37:24).,On the topic of multitudes, the Gemara cites another verse: “And the man in the days of Saul was old, and came among men” (I Samuel 17:12). Rava, and some say Rav Zevid, and some say Rav Oshaya, said: This refers to Yishai, father of David, who always went out with multitudes, and entered with multitudes, and taught Torah with multitudes. Ulla said: We hold there is no multitude in Babylonia. The Sage taught: A multitude is no fewer than six hundred thousand people.,The Sages taught: One who sees the Sages of Israel recites: Blessed…Who has shared of His wisdom with those who revere Him. One who sees Sages of the nations of the world recites: Blessed…Who has given of His wisdom to flesh and blood. One who sees kings of Israel recites: Blessed…Who has shared of His glory with those who revere Him. One who sees kings of the other nations of the world recites: Blessed…Who has given of His glory to flesh and blood.,Rabbi Yoḥa said: One should always strive to run toward kings of Israel to greet them. And not only should he run toward kings of Israel, but also toward kings of the nations of the world, so that if he will be privileged to witnesses the glory of the Messiah (Rashi) and the World-to-Come, he will distinguish between the kings of Israel and the kings of the nations of the world.,The Gemara relates: Rav Sheshet was blind. Everyone was going to greet the king and Rav Sheshet stood up and went along with them. This heretic found him there and said to him: The intact jugs go to the river, where do the broken jugs go? Why is a blind person going to see the king? Rav Sheshet said to him: Come see that I know more than you do. The first troop passed, and when the noise grew louder, this heretic said to him: The king is coming. Rav Sheshet said to him: The king is not coming. The second troop passed, and when the noise grew louder, this heretic said to him: Now the king is coming. Rav Sheshet said to him: The king is not coming. The third troop passed, and when there was silence, Rav Sheshet said to him: Certainly now the king is coming.,This heretic said to him: How do you know this? Rav Sheshet said to him: Royalty on earth is like royalty in the heavens, as it is written with regard to God’s revelation to Elijah the Prophet on Mount Horeb: r“And He said: Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord.rAnd, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord;rbut the Lord was not in the wind;rand after the wind an earthquake;rbut the Lord was not in the earthquake;rand after the earthquake a fire;rbut the Lord was not in the fire;rand after the fire a still small voice.rAnd it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out, and stood in the entrance of the cave” (I Kings 19:11–13). God’s revelation was specifically at the moment of silence.,When the king came, Rav Sheshet began to bless him. The heretic mockingly said to him: Do you bless someone you do not see? The Gemara asks: And what ultimately happened to this heretic? Some say that his friends gouged out his eyes, and some say that Rav Sheshet fixed his gaze upon him, and the heretic became a pile of bones.,As for the connection between divine and earthly royalty, the Gemara cites another story: Rabbi Sheila ordered that a man who had relations with a gentile woman be flogged. That man went to inform the king and said: There is one man among the Jews who renders judgment without the king’s authority harmana. The king sent a messenger peristaka for Rabbi Sheila to bring him to trial. When Rabbi Sheila came, they said to him: Why did you order flogging for this man? He said to them: Because he had relations with a female donkey. According to Persian law this was an extremely heinous crime, so they said to him: Do you have witnesses that he did so? He replied: Yes, and Elijah the prophet came and appeared as a person and testified. They said to Rabbi Sheila: If so, he is liable for the death penalty; why did you not sentence him to death? He replied: Since the day we were exiled from our land we do not have the authority to execute, but you, do with him as you wish.,As they considered the sentence, Rabbi Sheila praised God for saving him from danger: “Yours, O Lord, is the greatness, power, glory, triumph, and majesty; for all that is in heaven and on earth is Yours; Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and You are exalted as head above all” (I Chronicles 29:11). They asked him: What did you say? He told them: This is what I said: Blessed is Merciful One who grants kingdom on earth that is a microcosm of the kingdom in heaven, and granted you dominion and love of justice. They said to him: Indeed, the honor of royalty is so dear to you. They gave him a staff to symbolize his license to sit in judgment and said to him: Judge.,As he was leaving, that man said to Rabbi Sheila: Does God perform such miracles for liars? He replied: Scoundrel! Aren’t gentiles called donkeys? As it is written: “Whose flesh is as the flesh of donkeys” (Ezekiel 23:20). Rabbi Sheila saw that he was going to tell the Persian authorities that he called them donkeys. He said: This man has the legal status of a pursuer. He seeks to have me killed. And the Torah said: If one comes to kill you, kill him first. He struck him with the staff and killed him.,Rabbi Sheila said: Since a miracle was performed on my behalf with this verse that I cited, I will interpret it homiletically: Yours, O Lord, is the greatness; that is the act of creation, and so it says: “Who does great things past finding out” (Job 9:10); rAnd the power; that is the exodus from Egypt, as it is stated: “And Israel saw the great work which the Lord did to the Egyptians” (Exodus 14:31);rAnd the glory; that is the sun and the moon that stood still for Joshua, as it is stated: “And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies” (Joshua 10:13);rAnd the triumph; that is the downfall of Rome, and so it says describing the downfall of Edom, whom the Sages identified as the forefather of Rome: “Their lifeblood is dashed against My garments and I have stained all My raiment” (Isaiah 63:3);rAnd the majesty; this is the war of the valleys of Arnon, as it is stated: “Wherefore it is said in the book of the Wars of the Lord: Vahev in Sufa, and the valleys of Arnon” (Numbers 21:14);rFor all that is in the heaven and in the earth is Yours; this is the war of Sisera, as it is stated: “They fought from heaven, the stars in their courses fought against Sisera” (Judges 5:20).rYours is the kingdom, O Lord; this is the war of Amalek, and so it says: “And he said: The hand upon the throne of the Lord: the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation” (Exodus 17:16), as then God will sit on His throne.rAnd you are exalted; this is the war of Gog and Magog, and so it says: “I am against you, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshekh and Tubal” (Ezekiel 38:3); and:rAs head above all; Rav Ḥa bar Rava said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: All leadership and authority, even the most insignificant, the one responsible for distributing water, is appointed by heaven.,It was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Akiva: rYours, O Lord, is the greatness; this is the splitting of the Red Sea;rthe power; this is the plague of the firstborn;rthe glory; this is the giving of the Torah;rthe triumph; this is Jerusalem; rand the majesty; this is the Temple. ' None |
|
4. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • bowls, Aramaic incantation • bowls, magic • incantation bowls
Found in books: Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 296; Kalmin (2014), Migrating tales: the Talmud's narratives and their historical context, 96, 122, 123, 125, 128, 129; Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 38, 40; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 38, 40
11a בשמות מובהקין,היכי דמי שמות מובהקין אמר רב פפא כגון הורמיז ואבודינא בר שיבתאי ובר קידרי ובאטי ונקים אונא,אבל שמות שאין מובהקים מאי לא אי הכי אדתני סיפא לא הוזכרו אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט לפלוג וליתני בדידה בד"א בשמות מובהקין אבל שמות שאין מובהקין לא,הכי נמי קאמר בד"א בשמות מובהקין אבל בשמות שאין מובהקין נעשה כמי שנעשו בהדיוט ופסולין,ואיבעית אימא סיפא אתאן לגיטי ממון והכי קאמר לא הוזכרו גיטי ממון דפסולים אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט,תניא אמר ר\' אלעזר בר\' יוסי כך אמר ר"ש לחכמים בצידן לא נחלקו ר"ע וחכמים על כל השטרות העולין בערכאות של עובדי כוכבי\' שאע"פ שחותמיהן עובדי כוכבים כשרים ואפי\' גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים לא נחלקו אלא בזמן שנעשו בהדיוט שר"ע מכשיר וחכמים פוסלים חוץ מגיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים,רשב"ג אומר אף אלו כשירין במקום שאין ישראל חותמין אבל במקום שישראל חותמין לא,מקום שאין ישראל חותמין נמי ליגזור אטו מקום שישראל חותמין שמא בשמא מחליף אתרא באתרא לא מחליף,רבינא סבר לאכשורי בכנופיאתה דארמאי א"ל רפרם ערכאות תנן,אמר רבא האי שטרא פרסאה דמסריה ניהליה באפי סהדי ישראל מגבינן ביה מבני חרי,והא לא ידעי למיקרא בדידעי,והא בעינא כתב שאינו יכול לזייף וליכא בדאפיצן והא בעינא צריך שיחזיר מענינו של שטר בשיטה אחרונה וליכא בדמהדר,א"ה ממשעבדי נמי לית ליה קלא,בעא מיניה ריש לקיש מר\' יוחנן' 88b אמר רב אחא בר יעקב שמע מינה מהרה דמרי עלמא תמני מאה וחמשין ותרתי הוא:,| 11a We are dealing with unambiguous gentile names, in which case there is no need to be concerned that people might rely on these individuals as witnesses for the transfer, as it is evident that they are gentiles.,The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances of unambiguous gentile names? Rav Pappa said: This is referring to names such as Hurmiz, and Abbudina, bar Shibbetai, and bar Kidri, and Bati, and Nakim Una.,The Gemara infers: However, if the bill of divorce or manumission was signed by gentile witnesses with ambiguous names, what is the halakha? Is this not a valid document? If so, instead of teaching in the latter clause of the mishna: These two types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, not in court, let him distinguish and teach the distinction within the case of gentile courts itself, as follows: In what case is this statement, that gentile signatures are valid for a bill of divorce or manumission, said? With regard to unambiguous names. However, in a case of ambiguous names, no, gentile witnesses are not valid.,The Gemara answers: That is also what he is saying, i.e., Rabbi Shimon’s statement that these bills of divorce and bills of manumission are also valid should be understood in this very manner: In what case is this statement said? With regard to unambiguous names. However, with regard to ambiguous names, the document becomes like one that was prepared by a common person, and therefore such documents are invalid.,And if you wish, say a different answer: In the last clause of the mishna, which states: These types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, we are no longer discussing bills of divorce; rather, we arrive at the case of ficial documents. Furthermore, this clause of the mishna is not a continuation of Rabbi Shimon’s statement, as it returns to the opinion of the first tanna. And this is what the mishna is saying: Ficial documents were mentioned as invalid only when they were prepared by a common person, whereas if they were produced by a court they are valid.,It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:4): Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said that Rabbi Shimon said this to the Sages in the city of Tzaidan: Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis did not disagree with regard to all documents produced in gentile courts, that even though their signatories are gentiles, these documents are valid, even in the case of bills of divorce and bills of manumission. They disagreed only when they were prepared by a common person, outside a court, as Rabbi Akiva deems a document of this kind valid, and the Rabbis deem it invalid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission.,Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even these, bills of divorce and manumission, are valid in a place where Jews do not sign. In other words, the halakha that a document with gentile signatories is valid applies only in a place where Jews are not allowed to sign, as everyone knows that gentile documents are not signed by Jews. However, in a place where Jews sign, no, these documents are not valid either, as people might mistakenly think that Jews signed this bill of divorce. Therefore there is a concern that one might deliver this bill of divorce in the presence of those witnesses, who are actually gentiles, which would render the bill of divorce invalid.,The Gemara suggests: Let us also decree in a place where Jews do not sign due to a place where Jews do sign. The Gemara answers: One might confuse one name with another name. It is possible that one might think that a certain name is that of a Jew when it is actually that of a gentile. However, one is not likely to confuse one place with another place. Since everyone knows that all of the signatures in certain places belong to gentiles, they are careful not to transfer a bill of divorce in the presence of the witnesses who signed it, unless they are certain that the witnesses are Jews.,§ The Gemara relates that Ravina thought to deem valid a document that was written by a group of gentiles arma’ei. Rafram said to him that we learned: Gentile courts, in the mishna, i.e., these documents are valid only if they were produced in an important court, not by every group of gentiles.,Similarly, Rava said: With regard to this Persian document shetara parsa’a written by the Persian authorities that was transferred to the recipient in the presence of Jewish witnesses, he can collect with it non-liened property, i.e., property that is unencumbered by a mortgage. Although this is not considered a proper document by means of which one can collect from any land sold by the debtor, nevertheless, the facts in the document are considered accurate, and therefore one may at least collect non-liened property with it.,The Gemara asks: But the witnesses for the transmission of this document do not know how to read Persian, as most Jews did not read that language. If so, how can they serve as witnesses? The Gemara answers: Rava is referring to a situation where the witnesses know how to read Persian.,The Gemara questions how the court can rely upon such a document: But I require that the document be written in a manner that cannot be forged, and it is not so in this document, as the Persians were not particular about preparing their documents in this manner when writing their legal documents. The Gemara explains: Rava’s statement applies in a case where the paper of the documents was processed with gall. Consequently, it is not possible to forge the writing (see 19b). But I require that a document review the essential topic of the document in its last line, and it is not so in the case of Persian documents. The Gemara answers: Rava’s statement applies in a case where it returned to review the essential topic of the document in the final line.,The Gemara asks: If so, he should be able to collect from liened property as well, as this document is equivalent to one written by a Jew. Why doesn’t Rava say that it can be used to collect from liened property as well? The Gemara answers: The reason is that this document does not generate publicity, i.e., a legal matter that is performed in a Persian court will not become publicized among Jews. Therefore, this case is similar to a loan by oral agreement, where the transaction is not publicized. In this case the lender can collect only from non-liened property, as purchasers from the debtor would not have been aware of his debt and consequently taken sufficient measures to ensure that the money would not be claimed from their purchase.,Reish Lakish raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥa:' 88b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Learn from this numerical value that soon mehera for the Master of the World is eight hundred and fifty-two years, as it is stated in the verse in Deuteronomy: “You will soon maher utterly perish.” Since the Jewish people dwelled in Eretz Yisrael for almost this amount of time, it is apparently considered soon.,a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled by the court to write and give his wife, if he was compelled by a Jewish court it is valid, but if he was compelled by gentiles it is invalid. But with regard to gentiles they may beat him at the request of the Jewish court and say to him: Do what the Jews are telling you, and it is a valid divorce.,Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: With regard to a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled by a Jewish court to give his wife, if they did so lawfully, as the halakha obligated the husband to divorce his wife, it is valid. This is referring to cases where sexual intercourse is forbidden or specific cases where the Sages instituted that the husband is obligated to divorce his wife. If they did so unlawfully, the bill of divorce is invalid, but it is not considered entirely invalid, as it disqualifies the wife from marrying a priest after her husband’s death.,And in a case where the husband was compelled by gentiles, if he was compelled lawfully, the bill of divorce is invalid, but it also disqualifies the wife from marrying a priest. But if he was compelled unlawfully it does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce, and the wife is not even disqualified from marrying a priest.,The Gemara raises an objection: With regard to the statement that if the husband was compelled by gentiles the divorce is invalid but it also disqualifies the wife from marrying a priest, whichever way you look at it, the statement is difficult. If gentiles are legally capable of compulsion, it should be rendered valid with regard to the woman’s permission to remarry as well. If they are not legally capable of compulsion, it should not disqualify her either.,Rav Mesharshiyya says: By Torah law a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled by gentiles to write and give his wife is valid, and what is the reason the Sages said that it is invalid? It is so that each and every woman will not go and depend on a gentile to compel her husband to divorce her through temptation or bribery, and thereby she will release herself from her husband unlawfully.,The Gemara asks: If that is so, that where the husband was compelled by gentiles the bill of divorce is valid by Torah law, why did Shmuel rule that if he was compelled unlawfully it does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce? Let a bill of divorce that the husband was compelled unlawfully by gentiles to give his wife be compared to a case where he was compelled unlawfully by Jews, and disqualify the wife from marrying a priest as well.,Rather, that statement of Rav Mesharshiyya, that by Torah law a bill of divorce is valid even if the husband was compelled by gentiles to write it and give it to his wife, is a mistake. In principle it does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce, even if the husband is required by law to divorce his wife.,And what is the reason that the wife is disqualified from marrying a priest in this case? It is because the case where the husband was compelled lawfully by gentiles can be confused with a case where he was compelled lawfully by Jews. If a bill of divorce that gentiles compelled the husband to write and give to his wife carries no weight, people might think that this is likewise the halakha with regard to a case where Jews compelled the husband to do so. Therefore, the Sages issued a decree that even if the husband was compelled by gentiles the wife is disqualified from marrying a priest. By contrast, the case where the husband was compelled unlawfully by gentiles cannot be confused with a case where he was compelled lawfully by Jews, as they are too dissimilar. Therefore, a bill of divorce that gentiles unlawfully compelled the husband to write and give his wife is entirely invalid.,§ Abaye found Rav Yosef sitting in court as the judge and compelling husbands to give their wives bills of divorce. He said to him: But aren’t we ordinary people, not ordained judges? And it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Tarfon would say: With regard to any place where you find gentile courts agoriot, even if their laws are like Jewish laws, you may not attend them, as it is stated: “Now these are the ordices which you shall set before them” (Exodus 21:1). It is derived from here that one may go to court only before them, i.e., Jewish judges, and not before gentiles. Alternatively, it is derived that one may go to court before them, i.e., ordained judges, and not before ordinary people. Since we are not ordained judges, how can you perform a distinctly judicial act?,Rav Yosef said to him: We see ourselves as agents of the ordained judges in Eretz Yisrael, and we are performing our task as judges on the basis of their agency, just as is the case with regard to cases of admissions and loans, which we attend to on the same basis.,The Gemara asks: If so, why is the halakha that judges living outside Eretz Yisrael do not judge in cases of robbery and personal injury? They should judge in these cases as well. The Gemara answers: When we perform our tasks as judges on the basis of their agency, it is with regard to common matters, e.g., cases that pertain to the halakhot of admissions and loans, which arise frequently between people. But with regard to uncommon matters, e.g., cases of robbery or personal injury, we do not perform our tasks as judges on the basis of their agency.,a rumor circulated in the city that an unmarried woman is betrothed, she is considered to be betrothed. Similarly, if a rumor circulated that a married woman is divorced, she is divorced, provided there is no valid alternative explanation amatla for the rumor.,What is considered a valid explanation? For example, it is a case where there is a rumor that so-and-so divorced his wife but that the bill of divorce was given to her conditionally. It is therefore possible that the condition was not fulfilled and she is not actually divorced. Similarly, if there is a rumor that a woman was betrothed but that the man threw her betrothal, i.e., the money or document of betrothal, to her, and it is uncertain whether it was closer to her and uncertain whether it was closer to him, and therefore the status of their betrothal is likewise uncertain, this is considered a valid explanation.,do we render her forbidden to her husband if she is married to a priest? But didn’t Rav Ashi say that we are not concerned about any rumor that circulates after marriage? Accordingly, a woman should not be compelled to leave her husband merely on the basis of a rumor.,The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: If a rumor circulated in the city that a woman is betrothed, she is betrothed, and she may not marry another man until she receives a bill of divorce from the man to whom she is rumored to be betrothed. If she is rumored to have been betrothed to a certain man and subsequently divorced from him, ' None | |
|
5. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • bowls, Aramaic incantation
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 164; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 164
| 95b מחוור רישא נפל מיניה אזל אייתי סילתא שדא אסיק תרין אמר רב עבדי נמי הכי אסרינהו ניהליה,אמרי ליה רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב דאיסורא שכיחי דהתירא לא שכיחי אמר להו דאיסורא שכיחי טפי,וכי מכללא מאי פרוותא דעובדי כוכבים הואי תדע דקאמר להו דאיסורא שכיחי טפי,אלא רב היכי אכל בשרא בשעתיה דלא עלים עיניה מיניה איבעית אימא בציירא וחתומא ואי נמי בסימנא כי הא דרבה ב"ר הונא מחתך ליה אתלת קרנתא,רב הוה קאזיל לבי רב חנן חתניה חזי מברא דקאתי לאפיה אמר מברא קאתי לאפי יומא טבא לגו,אזל קם אבבא אודיק בבזעא דדשא חזי חיותא דתליא טרף אבבא נפוק אתו כולי עלמא לאפיה אתא טבחי נמי לא עלים רב עיניה מיניה אמר להו איכו השתא ספיתו להו איסורא לבני ברת לא אכל רב מההוא בישרא,מ"ט אי משום איעלומי הא לא איעלים אלא דנחיש,והאמר רב כל נחש שאינו כאליעזר עבד אברהם וכיונתן בן שאול אינו נחש אלא סעודת הרשות הואי ורב לא מתהני מסעודת הרשות,רב בדיק במברא ושמואל בדיק בספרא רבי יוחנן בדיק בינוקא,כולהו שני דרב הוה כתב ליה רבי יוחנן לקדם רבינו שבבבל כי נח נפשיה הוה כתב לשמואל לקדם חבירינו שבבבל אמר לא ידע לי מידי דרביה אנא כתב שדר ליה עיבורא דשיתין שני אמר השתא חושבנא בעלמא ידע,כתב שדר ליה תליסר גמלי ספקי טריפתא אמר אית לי רב בבבל איזיל איחזייה א"ל לינוקא פסוק לי פסוקיך אמר ליה (שמואל א כח, ג) ושמואל מת אמר ש"מ נח נפשיה דשמואל,ולא היא לא שכיב שמואל אלא כי היכי דלא ליטרח רבי יוחנן,תניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר בית תינוק ואשה אף על פי שאין נחש יש סימן,אמר ר\' אלעזר והוא דאיתחזק תלתא זימני דכתיב (בראשית מב, לו) יוסף איננו ושמעון איננו ואת בנימין תקחו,בעא מיניה רב הונא מרב בחרוזין מהו א"ל אל תהי שוטה בחרוזין הרי זה סימן איכא דאמרי אמר רב הונא אמר רב בחרוזין הרי זה סימן,רב נחמן מנהרדעא איקלע לגבי רב כהנא לפום נהרא במעלי יומא דכפורי אתו עורבי שדו כבדי וכוליתא אמר ליה שקול ואכול האידנא דהיתרא שכיח טפי,רב חייא בר אבין איתבד ליה כרכשא (בי דינא) אתא לקמיה דרב הונא אמר ליה אית לך סימנא בגויה א"ל לא אית לך טביעות עינא בגויה אמר ליה אין אם כן זיל שקול,רב חנינא חוזאה איתבד ליה גבא דבשרא אתא לקמיה דרב נחמן אמר ליה אית לך סימנא בגויה אמר ליה לא אית לך טביעות עינא בגויה אמר ליה אין אם כן זיל שקול,רב נתן בר אביי איתבד ליה קיבורא דתכלתא אתא לקמיה דרב חסדא אמר ליה אית לך סימנא בגויה אמר ליה לא אית לך טביעות עינא בגויה אמר ליה אין אם כן זיל שקול,אמר רבא מרישא הוה אמינא סימנא עדיף מטביעות עינא דהא מהדרינן אבידתא בסימנא'' None | 95b cleaning the head of an animal in the river. The head fell from him. He went and brought a basket, cast the basket into the river, and pulled out two animal heads. Rav said to him: Does it commonly happen this way that one loses one item and finds two? Just as one of the animal heads is not the one you dropped, it is possible that neither of them is the one you dropped. Therefore, Rav rendered both of them forbidden to him.,Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: Is forbidden meat common but permitted meat not common? Most of the meat in this general location is kosher, so why did you forbid the two animal heads? He said to them: Forbidden meat is more common. From this incident the Sages derived that according to Rav, meat that has been obscured from sight becomes forbidden due to the possibility that the meat one finds now was actually deposited by ravens, who transported it from a location where the majority of the meat is forbidden.,The Gemara asks: And what does it matter if this opinion of Rav is known by inference based on this incident, rather than by an explicit statement made by Rav? The Gemara answers: There is room to say that this incident cannot serve as a precedent for a general policy, because that location was a port of gentiles, where most of the meat was non-kosher. Know that this is the case, as Rav said to Rav Kahana and Rav Asi: Forbidden meat is more common. Consequently, it is possible that Rav would not have prohibited the meat in a location where the majority of the meat is kosher.,The Gemara asks: But how did Rav ever eat meat if he holds that meat becomes forbidden if it is unsupervised for even a short time? The Gemara answers: Rav ate meat only in its time, i.e., shortly after it was slaughtered, when it had not been obscured from his sight from the time of the slaughter until he ate it. Alternatively, if you wish, say that Rav ate meat that was tied and sealed in a way that proved it had not been swapped for non-kosher meat. Or alternatively, he ate meat that could be recognized by a distinguishing mark, like that practice of Rabba bar Rav Huna, who would cut meat into pieces with three corners, i.e., triangles, before he would send it to his family members.,The Gemara relates that Rav was going to the home of Rav Ḥa, his son-in-law. He saw that the ferry was coming toward him just when he arrived at the riverbank. He said: The ferry is coming toward me even though I did not arrange for it to come now; this is a sign that a good day, i.e., a festive meal, awaits me in the place where I am going.,After crossing the river on the ferry, Rav went and stood at the gate of Rav Ḥa’s home. He looked through a crack in the door and saw an animal that was hanging and ready to be cooked. He knocked on the gate, and everyone went out to greet him, and the butchers also came out to greet him. Rav did not remove his eyes from the meat that the butchers were preparing. He said to them: If you had eaten the meat based upon the supervision you provided now, you would have fed forbidden meat to the sons of my daughter because no one apart from me was watching the meat when you all came out to greet me. And despite the fact that he had kept the meat in his sight Rav did not eat from that meat.,The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rav did not eat the meat? If one suggests that he was concerned because it had been obscured from sight, that cannot be the reason, as Rav kept watching it so that it was not obscured from sight. Rather, Rav did not eat because he divined, i.e., he saw the arrival of the ferry as a good omen. This is prohibited, and therefore Rav penalized himself and abstained from the meat.,The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rav say that any divination that is not like the divination of Eliezer, the servant of Abraham, when he went to seek a bride for Isaac (see Genesis 24:14), or like the divination of Jonathan, son of Saul, who sought an omen as to whether he and his arms bearer would defeat the Philistines (see I\xa0Samuel 14:8–12), is not divination? Since Rav did not rely on the omen in his decision making, he did not violate the prohibition against divination, and there was no reason for him to penalize himself. The Gemara answers: Rather, the reason Rav did not eat the meat is that it was an optional feast, rather than a feast associated with a mitzva, and Rav would not derive pleasure from an optional feast.,Having mentioned Rav’s reaction to the ferry in the incident cited above, the Gemara states that Rav would check whether to travel based upon the ferry; if it came quickly he would take the ferry, but otherwise he would not. And Shmuel would check what would happen to him by opening a scroll and reading from wherever it was open to. Rabbi Yoḥa would check what was in store for him by asking a child to recite the verse he was learning.,The Gemara relates an incident when Rabbi Yoḥa checked his luck based on a child’s verse. During all the years when Rav lived in Babylonia, Rabbi Yoḥa, who lived in Eretz Yisrael, would write to him and begin with the greeting: To our Master who is in Babylonia. When Rav died, Rabbi Yoḥa would write to Shmuel and begin with the greeting: To our colleague who is in Babylonia. Shmuel said: Does Rabbi Yoḥa not know any matter in which I am his master? Shmuel wrote and sent to Rabbi Yoḥa the calculation of the leap years for the next sixty years. Rabbi Yoḥa was not impressed by this and said: Now he has merely demonstrated that he knows mathematics, which does not make him my master.,Shmuel then wrote and sent to Rabbi Yoḥa explications of uncertainties pertaining to tereifot that had to be transported on thirteen camels. Rabbi Yoḥa was impressed by this and said: I have a Master in Babylonia; I will go and see him. Before departing on his journey, Rabbi Yoḥa said to a child: Recite to me your verse that you studied today. The child recited the following verse to Rabbi Yoḥa: “Now Samuel was dead” (I\xa0Samuel 28:3). Rabbi Yoḥa said to himself: Learn from this that Shmuel has died. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥa did not go to see Shmuel.,The Gemara comments: But it was not so; Shmuel had not died. Rather, the reason Rabbi Yoḥa was given this sign was so that Rabbi Yoḥa would not trouble himself to embark on the long and arduous journey from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia.,It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to one who is successful with his first business transaction after he has built a home, after the birth of a child, or after he marries a woman, even though he may not use this as a means of divination to decide upon future courses of action, it is an auspicious sign that he will continue to be successful. Conversely, if his first transaction is not successful he may take that as an inauspicious sign.,Rabbi Elazar said: But this is provided that the sign has been established by repeating itself three times. This is based on a verse, as it is written: “And Jacob their father said to them: Me you have bereaved of my children: Joseph is not, and Simeon is not, and you will take Benjamin away; upon me are all these things come” (Genesis 42:36). If calamity were to befall Benjamin, that would establish a pattern of three tragedies.,§ The Gemara returns to discuss distinguishing marks that prevent meat from being prohibited despite its having been obscured from sight. Rav Huna inquired of Rav: If pieces of meat were strung together and then were obscured from sight, what is the halakha? Rav said to him: Do not be an imbecile; of course if the meat is strung together it is considered to be a distinguishing mark, and the meat is permitted. There are those who say this halakha as follows: Rav Huna said that Rav said: If pieces of meat are strung together it is a distinguishing mark, and the meat remains permitted even if it is obscured from sight.,The Gemara relates that Rav Naḥman of Neharde’a arrived at the home of Rav Kahana in Pum Nahara on the eve of Yom Kippur, which is a day when people commonly eat meat. Ravens came and dropped livers and kidneys. Rav Kahana said to Rav Naḥman: Take these livers and kidneys and eat them, as they are not forbidden, even though they were obscured from sight. This is because at this time permitted meat is more common than forbidden meat, since Jews slaughter many animals on this day.,Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin lost a cut of meat from an animal intestine among the barrels of wine in his wine cellar. When he found it, he came before Rav Huna to ask whether the meat was now prohibited because it had been obscured from sight. Rav Huna said to him: Do you have a distinguishing mark on it so that you can identify it? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: No. Rav Huna asked him: Do you have visual recognition of it? Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to him: Yes. Rav Huna said: If so, go and take it and eat it.,Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a lost a side of meat. When he found it, he came before Rav Naḥman and asked him whether the meat was now prohibited because it had been obscured from sight. Rav Naḥman said to him: Do you have a distinguishing mark on it so that you can identify it? Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a said to him: No. Rav Naḥman asked him: Do you have visual recognition of it? Rav Ḥanina Ḥoza’a said to him: Yes. Rav Naḥman said: If so, go and take it and eat it.,Rav Natan bar Abaye lost a skein of sky-blue wool prepared for use in ritual fringes. He searched for it and found it. He came before Rav Ḥisda to ask whether the wool was now prohibited because it had been obscured from sight and may have become confused with other blue wool that is not valid for ritual fringes. Rav Ḥisda said to him: Do you have a distinguishing mark in it so that you can identify it? Rav Natan bar Abaye said to him: No. Rav Ḥisda asked him: Do you have visual recognition of it? Rav Natan bar Abaye said to him: Yes. Rav Ḥisda said: If so, go and take it, and you may use it for ritual fringes.,Rava said: At first I would say that a distinguishing mark is preferable to visual recognition, because we return a lost item to its owner based on a distinguishing mark,'' None |
|
6. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • bans, in the Aramaic magic bowls • blasphemy (H RŠ), in the Aramaic magic bowls • bowls, Aramaic incantation • bowls, Aramaic magic • bowls, Aramaic magic, in comparison to Talmudic culture • bowls, Aramaic magic, rabbis referred to in • divorce deeds, in the Aramaic magic bowls • magic bowls • rabbis, Babylonian, culture of, shared with the Aramaic magic bowls
Found in books: Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 141; Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 46, 156; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 46, 156; Swartz (2018), The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism. 125
| 110a מצוה באפי נפשה הוא,לא יעשה צרכיו תרי אמאי נמלך הוא אמר אביי הכי קאמר לא יאכל תרי וישתה תרי ולא יעשה צרכיו אפילו פעם אחת דילמא חליש ומיתרע,ת"ר שותה כפלים דמו בראשו אמר רב יהודה אימתי בזמן שלא ראה פני השוק אבל ראה פני השוק הרשות בידו אמר רב אשי חזינא ליה לרב חנניא בר ביבי דאכל כסא הוה נפיק וחזי אפי שוקא,ולא אמרן אלא לצאת לדרך אבל בביתו לא אמר ר\' זירא ולישן כלצאת לדרך דמי אמר רב פפא ולצאת לבית הכסא כלצאת לדרך דמי ובביתו לא והא רבא מני כשורי,ואביי כי שתי חד כסא מנקיט ליה אימיה תרי כסי בתרי ידיה ורב נחמן בר יצחק כי הוה שתי תרי כסי מנקיט ליה שמעיה חד כסא חד כסא מנקיט ליה תרי כסי בתרי ידיה אדם חשוב שאני,אמר עולא עשרה כוסות אין בהם משום זוגות עולא לטעמיה דאמר עולא ואמרי לה במתניתא תנא עשרה כוסות תיקנו חכמים בבית האבל ואי ס"ד עשרה כוסות יש בהן משום זוגות היכי קיימי רבנן ותקנו מילתא דאתי לידי סכנה אבל תמניא יש בהן משום זוגות,רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא דאמרי תרוייהו שלום לטובה מצטרף לרעה לא מצטרף אבל שיתא יש בהן משום זוגות,רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו ויחונך לטובה מצטרף לרעה לא מצטרף אבל ארבעה יש בהן משום זוגות,אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו וישמרך לטובה מצטרף לרעה לא מצטרף,ואזדא רבא לטעמיה דרבא אפקינהו לרבנן בארבעה כוסות אע"ג דאיתזק רבא בר ליואי לא חש לה למילתא דאמר ההוא משום דאותבן בפירקא הוה,אמר רב יוסף אמר לי יוסף שידא אשמדאי מלכא דשידי ממונה הוא אכולהו זוגי ומלכא לא איקרי מזיק איכא דאמרי לה להאי גיסא אדרבה מלכא רתחנא הוא מאי דבעי עביד שהמלך פורץ גדר לעשות לו דרך ואין מוחין בידו,אמר רב פפא אמר לי יוסף שידא בתרי קטלינן בארבעה לא קטלינן בארבעה מזקינן בתרי בין בשוגג בין במזיד בארבעה במזיד אין בשוגג לא,ואי אישתלי ואיקרי ונפק מאי תקנתיה לינקוט זקפא דידיה דימיניה בידא דשמאליה וזקפא דשמאליה בידא דימיניה ונימא הכי אתון ואנא הא תלתא ואי שמיע ליה דאמר אתון ואנא הא ארבעה נימא ליה אתון ואנא הא חמשה ואי שמיע ליה דאמר אתון ואנא הא שיתא נימא ליה אתון ואנא הא שבעה הוה עובדא עד מאה וחד ופקע שידא,אמר אמימר אמרה לי רישתינהי דנשים כשפניות האי מאן דפגע בהו בנשים כשפניות נימא הכי חרי חמימי בדיקולא בזייא לפומייכו נשי דחרשייא קרח קרחייכי פרח פרחייכי'' None | 110a is a distinct mitzva in its own right. In other words, each cup is treated separately and one is not considered to be drinking in pairs.,The baraita taught that one should not attend to his sexual needs in pairs. The Gemara asks: Why should one be concerned for this; he has changed his mind? One does not plan in advance to engage in marital relations twice, and therefore the two acts should not combine to form a dangerous pair. Abaye said: This is what the tanna is saying, i.e., the baraita should be understood in the following manner: One should not eat in pairs nor drink in pairs, and if he does so he should not attend to his sexual needs right afterward even once, lest he is weakened by the act and will be harmed for having eaten or drunk in pairs.,The Sages taught in another baraita: If one drinks in pairs his blood is upon his head, i.e., he bears responsibility for his own demise. Rav Yehuda said: When is that the case? When one did not leave the house and view the marketplace between cups. However, if he saw the marketplace after the first cup, he has permission to drink another cup without concern. Likewise, Rav Ashi said: I saw Rav Ḥaya bar Beivai follow this policy: Upon drinking each cup, he would leave the house and view the marketplace.,And we said that there is concern for the safety of one who drinks in pairs only when he intends to set out on the road after drinking, but if he intends to remain in his home there is no need for concern. Rabbi Zeira said: And one who plans to sleep is comparable to one who is setting out on the road. He should be concerned that he might be harmed. Rav Pappa said: And going to the bathroom is comparable to setting out on the road. The Gemara asks: And if one intends to remain in his home, is there no cause for concern? But Rava would count the beams of the house to keep track of the number of cups he had drunk so as to ensure that he would not consume an even number.,And likewise Abaye, when he would drink one cup, his mother would immediately place two cups in his two hands so that he would not inadvertently drink only one more cup and thereby expose himself to the danger of drinking in pairs. And similarly, when Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak would drink two cups, his attendant would immediately place one more cup in his hand, and if he would drink one cup, the attendant would place two cups in his two hands. These reports indicate that one should be concerned for his safety after drinking an even number of cups, even when he remains at home. The Gemara answers: An important person is different. The demons focus their attention on him, and he must therefore be more careful than the average person.,Ulla said: Ten cups contain no element of the danger associated with pairs. Ulla rules here in accordance with his reasoning stated elsewhere, as Ulla said, and some say it was taught in a baraita: The Sages instituted that one must drink ten cups of wine in the house of a mourner during the meal of comfort. And if it could enter your mind that ten cups do contain the element of danger associated with pairs, how could the Sages arise and institute something that might bring a person to a state of danger? However, eight cups do contain the element of danger associated with pairs.,Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna both say that eight is also safe from the dangers of pairs, as the number seven, represented by the word shalom, combines with the previous cups for the good but does not combine for the bad. The final verse of the priestly benediction reads: “The Lord lift His countece upon you and give you peace shalom” (Numbers 6:26). The word shalom, the seventh Hebrew word in this verse, has a purely positive connotation. Rav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna therefore maintain that the seventh cup combines with the previous six only for good purposes. After the seventh cup, i.e., from the eighth cup and on, the cups constitute pairs for the good but not for the bad. However, six cups do contain the element of danger associated with pairs.,Rabba and Rav Yosef both say that even drinking six cups is not dangerous. The reason is that the fifth cup, represented by the word viḥuneka in the second verse of the priestly benediction: “The Lord make His face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you viḥuneka” (Numbers 6:25), combines with the previous cups for the good but does not combine for the bad. However, four cups do contain the element of danger associated with pairs.,Abaye and Rava both say that even the number four is not dangerous, as veyishmerekha, the third word in the first verse of the priestly benediction, reads: “The Lord bless you and keep you veyishmerekha” (Numbers 6:24). It combines for the good but does not combine for the bad.,And Rava follows his standard line of reasoning in this regard, as Rava allowed the Sages to leave after having drunk four cups and was not concerned for their safety. Although Rava bar Livai was injured on one such occasion, Rava was not concerned that the matter had been caused by his consumption of an even number of cups, as he said: That injury occurred because Rava bar Livai challenged me during the public lecture. It is improper for a student to raise difficulties against his rabbi during a public lecture, lest the rabbi be embarrassed by his inability to answer.,Rav Yosef said: Yosef the Demon said to me: Ashmedai, the king of the demons, is appointed over all who perform actions in pairs, and a king is not called a harmful spirit. A king would not cause harm. Consequently, there is no reason to fear the harm of demons for having performed an action in pairs. Some say this statement in this manner: On the contrary, he is an angry king who does what he wants, as the halakha is that a king may breach the fence of an individual in order to form a path for himself, and none may protest his action. Similarly, the king of demons has full license to harm people who perform actions in pairs.,Rav Pappa said: Yosef the Demon said to me: If one drinks two cups, we demons kill him; if he drinks four, we do not kill him. But this person who drank four, we harm him. There is another difference between two and four: With regard to one who drinks two, whether he did so unwittingly or intentionally, we harm him. With regard to one who drinks four, if he does so intentionally, yes, he is harmed; if he does so unwittingly, no, he will not be harmed.,The Gemara asks: And if one forgets and it happens that he goes outside after having drunk an even number of cups, what is his solution? The Gemara answers: He should take his right thumb in his left hand, and his left thumb in his right hand, and say as follows: You, my thumbs, and I are three, which is not a pair. And if he hears a voice that says: You and I are four, which makes a pair, he should say to it: You and I are five. And if he hears it say: You and I are six, he should say to it: You and I are seven. The Gemara relates that there was an incident in which someone kept counting after the demon until he reached a hundred and one, and the demon burst in anger.,Ameimar said: The chief of witches said to me: One who encounters witches should say this incantation: Hot feces in torn date baskets in your mouth, witches; may your hairs fall out because you use them for witchcraft; your crumbs, which you use for witchcraft, should scatter in the wind;'' None |
|
7. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • bowls, Aramaic incantation
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 46; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 46
156b דקאי צדק במערב מהדרנא ומוקמינא ליה במזרח והיינו דכתיב (ישעיהו מא, ב) מי העיר ממזרח צדק יקראהו לרגלו,ומדשמואל נמי אין מזל לישראל דשמואל ואבלט הוו יתבי והוו קאזלי הנך אינשי לאגמא א"ל אבלט לשמואל האי גברא אזיל ולא אתי טריק ליה חיויא ומיית א"ל שמואל אי בר ישראל הוא אזיל ואתי אדיתבי אזיל ואתי,קם אבלט שדיה לטוניה אשכח ביה חיויא דפסיק ושדי בתרתי גובי א"ל שמואל מאי עבדת א"ל כל יומא הוה מרמינן ריפתא בהדי הדדי ואכלינן האידנא הוה איכא חד מינן דלא הוה ליה ריפתא הוה קא מיכסף אמינא להו אנא קאימנא וארמינא כי מטאי לגביה שואי נפשאי כמאן דשקילי מיניה כי היכי דלא ליכסיף א"ל מצוה עבדת נפק שמואל ודרש (משלי י, ב) וצדקה תציל ממות ולא ממיתה משונה אלא ממיתה עצמה,ומדר"ע נמי אין מזל לישראל דר"ע הויא ליה ברתא אמרי ליה כלדאי ההוא יומא דעיילה לבי גננא טריק לה חיויא ומיתא הוה דאיגא אמילתא טובא ההוא יומא שקלתה למכבנתא דצתא בגודא איתרמי איתיב בעיניה דחיויא לצפרא כי קא שקלה לה הוה קא סריך ואתי חיויא בתרה,אמר לה אבוה מאי עבדת אמרה ליה בפניא אתא עניא קרא אבבא והוו טרידי כולי עלמא בסעודתא וליכא דשמעיה קאימנא שקלתי לריסתנאי דיהבית לי יהבתיה ניהליה אמר לה מצוה עבדת נפק ר"ע ודרש וצדקה תציל ממות ולא ממיתה משונה אלא ממיתה עצמה,ומדר"נ בר יצחק נמי אין מזל לישראל דאימיה דר"נ בר יצחק אמרי לה כלדאי בריך גנבא הוה לא שבקתיה גלויי רישיה אמרה ליה כסי רישיך כי היכי דתיהוו עלך אימתא דשמיא ובעי רחמי לא הוה ידע אמאי קאמרה ליה יומא חד יתיב קא גריס תותי דיקלא נפל גלימא מעילויה רישיה דלי עיניה חזא לדיקלא אלמיה יצריה סליק פסקיה לקיבורא בשיניה:,| 156b Is it because Jupiter is situated in the west that you cannot have children? I will restore it and establish it in the east. And that is the meaning of that which is written with regard to Abraham: “Who has raised up one from the east, he will call justice tzedek to his steps leraglo. He gives nations before him, and makes him rule over kings; his sword makes them as the dust, his bow as the driven stubble” (Isaiah 41:2). God established Jupiter tzedek in the east on behalf of leraglo Abraham.,And from that which transpired to Shmuel, one can also conclude that there is no constellation for the Jewish people. The Gemara relates that Shmuel and the gentile sage Ablet were sitting, and they saw these people were going to the lake. Ablet said to Shmuel: This person will go and he will not return, because a snake will bite him and he will die. Shmuel said to him: If he is a Jew, he will go and come back. As they were sitting for a while, the person they discussed went away and then returned.,Ablet stood up, threw down the person’s burden, and inside he found a snake cut and cast in two pieces. Shmuel said to him: What did you do to merit being saved from death? The person said to him: Every day we all take bread together and eat from the bread. Today, there was one of us who did not have bread, and when it came time to gather the bread, he was embarrassed because he did not have any to give. I said to the others: I will go and take the bread. When I came to the person who did not have bread, I rendered myself as one who was taking from him so that he would not be embarrassed. Shmuel said to him: You performed a mitzva. Shmuel went out and taught based on this incident that even though it is written: “And charity will save from death” (Proverbs 10:2), it does not only mean that it will save a person from an unusual death but even from death itself.,And from that which transpired to Rabbi Akiva as well it can be derived that there is no constellation for the Jewish people, as Rabbi Akiva had a daughter, and Chaldean astrologers told him that on the same day that she enters the wedding canopy, a snake will bite her and she will die. She was very worried about this. On that day, her wedding day, she took the ornamental pin from her hair and stuck it into a hole in the wall for safekeeping, and it happened that it entered directly into the eye of the snake. In the morning, when she took the pin, the snake was pulled and came out with it.,Her father Rabbi Akiva said to her: What did you do to merit being saved from the snake? She told him: In the evening a poor person came and knocked on the door, and everyone was preoccupied with the feast and nobody heard him. I stood and took the portion that you had given me and gave it to him. Rabbi Akiva said to her: You performed a mitzva, and you were saved in its merit. Rabbi Akiva went out and taught based on this incident that even though it is written: “And charity will save from death” (Proverbs 10:2), it does not mean that it will save a person only from an unusual death, but even from death itself.,And from that which transpired to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak as well it can be derived that there is no constellation for the Jewish people, As Chaldean astrologers told Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s mother: Your son will be a thief. She did not allow him to uncover his head. She said to her son: Cover your head so that the fear of Heaven will be upon you, and pray for Divine mercy. He did not know why she said this to him. One day he was sitting and studying beneath a palm tree that did not belong to him, and the cloak fell off of his head. He lifted his eyes and saw the palm tree. He was overcome by impulse and he climbed up and detached a bunch of dates with his teeth. Apparently, he had an inborn inclination to steal, but was able to overcome that inclination with proper education and prayer.,One may cut the pumpkins before an animal on Shabbat, as long as they were picked prior to Shabbat. And likewise one may cut an animal carcass before the dogs on Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it was not already a carcass, i.e., it was not dead, prior to Shabbat, it is prohibited to cut it or even move it on Shabbat because it is not prepared for use on Shabbat.,amora’im with regard to the prohibition of set-aside on Shabbat was stated. Ayin, reish, lamed, shin, ḥet, zayin is a mnemonic for the names of the amora’im who stated the following halakhot. Ulla said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that there is a prohibition of set-aside on Shabbat. And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.,And Rav also holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. From where is it ascertained that this is Rav’s opinion? From that which was taught with regard to the mats that are on ships; Rav prohibited moving them on Shabbat due to the prohibition of set-aside, and Shmuel permitted moving them. And Levi also holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as can be seen from his practice when they would bring a slaughtered animal with regard to which there was concern that it was an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months tereifa, before Levi on a Festival. He would examine it only when he was sitting near a garbage dump, as he said: Perhaps it would not be determined to be kosher and it would not be suited even for dogs, and then it would be prohibited to move the carcass. Apparently, he holds that it is prohibited to move a carcass that was not prepared for use before Shabbat.,And Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that the prohibition of set-aside does not apply on Shabbat. And Ze’eiri also holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned in a mishna: With regard to an animal that died on Shabbat, one may not move it from its place on Shabbat. And Ze’eiri explained: This prohibition only applies to a consecrated animal, as consecrated items may not be fed to dogs in deference to their sanctity; therefore, it is set-aside and may not be moved on Shabbat. However, in the case of a non-sacred animal, one may well move it and use it because it does not have set-aside status. And Rabbi Yoḥa also said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yoḥa really say that? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say: The halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna, and we learned in a mishna:' ' None | |
|
8. None, None, nan (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • bowls, Aramaic incantation
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 46; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 46
|
9. None, None, nan (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • divination, bowl divination • lecanomancy (bowl divination) • magical implements, bowls
Found in books: Bortolani et al. (2019), William Furley, Svenja Nagel, and Joachim Friedrich Quack, Cultural Plurality in Ancient Magical Texts and Practices: Graeco-Egyptian Handbooks and Related Traditions, 99, 118, 125, 127, 129, 137, 142, 143, 145, 147, 172; Johnston (2008), Ancient Greek Divination, 159, 160, 169, 173, 174
|
10. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None
Tagged with subjects: • bowls, Aramaic incantation
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 40, 164; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 40, 164
| 31b השולח חבית של יין ביד כותי ושל ציר ושל מורייס ביד עובד כוכבים אם מכיר חותמו וסתמו מותר אם לאו אסור,אמר רבי זירא לא קשיא כאן בעיר כאן בדרך,מתקיף לה רבי ירמיה מידי הנך דעיר לא בדרך אתו אלא אמר רבי ירמיה בין הגיתות שנינו כיון דכולי עלמא אפכי מירתת אמר השתא אי חזי לי מפסדו לי,אתמר מפני מה אסרו שכר של עובדי כוכבים רמי בר חמא אמר רבי יצחק משום חתנות רב נחמן אמר משום גילוי,אגילוי דמאי אילימא גילוי דנזייתא אנן נמי מגלינן ואלא דחביתא אנן נמי מגלינן לא צריכא באתרא דמצלו מיא,אלא מעתה ישן תשתרי דא"ר ישן מותר אין מניחו ליישן החמיץ מותר אין מניחו להחמיץ גזירה ישן אטו חדש,רב פפא מפיקין ליה לאבבא דחנותא ושתי רב אחאי מייתו ליה לביתיה ושתי ותרוייהו משום חתנות רב אחאי עביד הרחקה יתירתא,רב שמואל בר ביסנא איקלע למרגואן אייתו ליה חמרא ולא אשתי אייתו ליה שיכרא ולא אשתי בשלמא חמרא משום שימצא שיכרא משום מאי משום שימצא דשימצא,אמר רב האי שיכרא דארמאה שרי וחייא ברי לא נישתי מיניה מה נפשך אי שרי לכולי עלמא שרי אי אסיר לכולי עלמא אסיר,אלא רב סבר משום גילויא ואזיל מרורא דכשותא וקלי ליה זיהריה ודלקי מלקי ליה טפי וחייא ברי הואיל ולקי לא נישתי מיניה,אמר שמואל כל השרצים יש להן ארס של נחש ממית של שרצים אינו ממית אמר ליה שמואל לחייא בר רב בר אריא תא ואימא לך מילתא מעלייתא דהוה אמר רב אבוך הכי אמר אבוך הני ארמאי זוקאני דהוו שתו גילויא ולא מתו איידי דאכלי שקצים ורמשים חביל גופייהו,אמר רב יוסף'35a מכלל דאיסורי הנאה שרו פרשייהו,ומדקא"ל מפני שמעמידין אותה בקיבת עגלי עבודת כוכבים וקא מהדר ליה א"כ למה לא אסרוה בהנאה מכלל דעבודת כוכבים אסור פרשייהו,ולהדר ליה משום דליתיה לאיסורא בעיניה,דהא מורייס לרבנן דלא אסרוהו בהנאה מ"ט לאו משום דליתיה לאיסורא בעיניה,אמרי הכא כיון דאוקמיה קא מוקים חשיב ליה כמאן דאיתיה לאיסוריה בעיניה:,השיאו לדבר אחר וכו\': מאי (שיר השירים א, ב) כי טובים דודיך מיין כי אתא רב דימי אמר אמרה כנסת ישראל לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע עריבים עלי דברי דודיך יותר מיינה של תורה,מ"ש האי קרא דשייליה אר"ש בן פזי ואיתימא ר"ש בר אמי מרישיה דקרא קא"ל (שיר השירים א, ב) ישקני מנשיקות פיהו אמר ליה ישמעאל אחי חשוק שפתותיך זו בזו ואל תבהל להשיב,מ"ט אמר עולא ואיתימא רב שמואל בר אבא גזרה חדשה היא ואין מפקפקין בה מאי גזירתא אר"ש בן פזי אמר ריב"ל משום ניקור,ולימא ליה משום ניקור כדעולא דאמר עולא כי גזרי גזירתא במערבא לא מגלו טעמא עד תריסר ירחי שתא דלמא איכא איניש דלא ס"ל ואתי לזלזולי בה,מגדף בה ר\' ירמיה אלא מעתה יבשה תשתרי ישן תשתרי דא"ר חנינא יבש מותר אין מניחו ליבש ישן מותר אין מניחו לישן,א"ר חנינא לפי שא"א לה בלא צחצוחי חלב ושמואל אמר מפני שמעמידין אותה בעור קיבת נבילה,הא קיבה גופא שריא ומי אמר שמואל הכי והתנן קיבת העובד כוכבים ושל נבילה הרי זו אסורה,והוינן בה אטו דעובד כוכבים לאו נבלה היא,ואמר שמואל חדא קתני קיבת שחיטת עובד כוכבים נבלה אסורה,ל"ק 36b (מלאכי ג, ט) במארה אתם נארים ואותי אתם קובעים הגוי כולו אי איכא גוי כולו אין אי לא לא,גופא אמר באלי אמר אבימי נותאה משמיה דרב פיתן ושמנן יינן ובנותיהן כולן משמונה עשר דבר הן בנותיהן מאי היא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק גזרו על בנותיהן נידות מעריסותן,וגניבא משמיה דרב אמר כולן משום עבודת כוכבים גזרו בהן דכי אתא רב אחא בר אדא א"ר יצחק גזרו על פיתן משום שמנן מאי אולמיה דשמן מפת,אלא על פיתן ושמנן משום יינן ועל יינן משום בנותיהן ועל בנותיהן משום דבר אחר ועל דבר אחר משום ד"א,בנותיהן דאורייתא היא דכתיב (דברים ז, ג) לא תתחתן בם דאורייתא ז\' אומות אבל שאר עובדי כוכבים לא ואתו אינהו וגזור אפילו דשאר עובדי כוכבים,ולר"ש בן יוחי דאמר (דברים ז, ד) כי יסיר את בנך מאחרי לרבות כל המסירות מאי איכא למימר אלא דאורייתא אישות דרך חתנות ואתו אינהו גזור אפילו דרך זנות,זנות נמי בבית דינו של שם גזרו דכתיב (בראשית לח, כד) ויאמר יהודה הוציאוה ותשרף,אלא דאורייתא עובד כוכבים הבא על בת ישראל דמשכה בתריה אבל ישראל הבא על העובדת כוכבים לא ואתו אינהו גזור אפי\' ישראל הבא על העובדת כוכבים,ישראל הבא על העובדת כוכבים הלכה למשה מסיני היא דאמר מר הבועל ארמית קנאין פוגעין בו,א"ל דאורייתא בפרהסיא וכמעשה שהיה ואתו אינהו גזור אפילו בצינעא בצינעא נמי בית דינו של חשמונאי גזרו,דכי אתא רב דימי אמר ב"ד של חשמונאי גזרו ישראל הבא על העובדת כוכבים חייב משום נשג"א,כי אתא רבין אמר משום נשג"ז,כי גזרו בית דינו של חשמונאי ביאה אבל ייחוד לא ואתו אינהו גזור אפי\' ייחוד ייחוד נמי בית דינו של דוד גזרו,דאמר רב יהודה באותה שעה גזרו על ייחוד אמרי התם ייחוד דבת ישראל אבל ייחוד דעובדת כוכבים לא ואתו אינהו גזרו אפי\' אייחוד דעובדת כוכבים,ייחוד דבת ישראל דאורייתא היא דאמר ר\' יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יהוצדק רמז לייחוד מן התורה מנין שנאמר (דברים יג, ז) כי יסיתך אחיך בן אמך וכי בן אם מסית בן אב אינו מסית,אלא בן מתייחד עם אמו ואין אחר מתייחד עם כל עריות שבתורה,ייחוד דאורייתא דאשת איש ואתא דוד וגזר אפי\' אייחוד דפנויה ואתו תלמידי בית שמאי ובית הלל גזור אפי\' אייחוד דעובדת כוכבים,מאי על ד"א משום ד"א אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק גזרו על תינוק עובד כוכבים שיטמא בזיבה שלא יהא תינוק ישראל רגיל אצלו במשכב זכור,דא"ר זירא צער גדול היה לי אצל ר\' אסי ור\' אסי אצל ר\' יוחנן ור\' יוחנן אצל ר\' ינאי ור\' ינאי אצל רבי נתן בן עמרם ור"נ בן עמרם אצל רבי תינוק עובד כוכבים מאימתי מטמא בזיבה ואמר לי בן יומו וכשבאתי אצל ר\' חייא אמר לי בן ט\' שנים ויום אחד,וכשבאתי והרציתי דברי לפני רבי אמר לי הנח דברי ואחוז דברי רבי חייא דאמר תינוק עובד כוכבים אימתי מטמא בזיבה בן תשע שנים ויום אחד 70a יצרא דיין נסך לא תקיף להו זונה ישראלית ועובדי כוכבים מסובין חמרא אסור מ"ט הואיל וזילה עלייהו בתרייהו גרירא,ההוא ביתא דהוה יתיב ביה חמרא דישראל על עובד כוכבים אחדה לדשא באפיה והוה ביזעא בדשא אישתכח עובד כוכבים דקאי ביני דני אמר רבא כל דלהדי ביזעא שרי דהאי גיסא והאי גיסא אסור,ההוא חמרא דישראל דהוה יתיב בביתא דהוה דייר ישראל בעליונה ועובד כוכבים בתחתונה שמעו קל תיגרא נפקי קדים אתא עובד כוכבים אחדה לדשא באפיה אמר רבא חמרא שרי מימר אמר כי היכי דקדים אתאי אנא קדים ואתא ישראל ויתיב בעליונה וקא חזי לי,ההוא אושפיזא דהוה יתיב ביה חמרא דישראל אישתכח עובד כוכבים דהוה יתיב בי דני אמר רבא אם נתפס עליו כגנב שרי ואי לא אסיר,ההוא ביתא דהוה יתיב ביה חמרא אישתכח עובד כוכבים דהוה קאים בי דני אמר רבא אי אית ליה לאישתמוטי חמרא אסיר ואי לא חמרא שרי מיתיבי ננעל הפונדק או שאמר לו שמור אסור מאי לאו אע"ג דלית ליה לאישתמוטי לא בדאית ליה לאישתמוטי,ההוא ישראל ועובד כוכבים דהוו יתיבי וקא שתו חמרא שמע ישראל קל צלויי בי כנישתא קם ואזל אמר רבא חמרא שרי מימר אמר השתא מדכר ליה לחמריה והדר אתי,ההוא ישראל ועובד כוכבים דהוו יתיבי בארבא שמע ישראל קל שיפורי דבי שימשי נפק ואזל אמר רבא חמרא שרי מימר אמר השתא מדכר ליה לחמריה והדר אתי,ואי משום שבתא האמר רבא אמר לי איסור גיורא כי הוינן בארמיותן אמרינן יהודאי לא מנטרי שבתא דאי מנטרי שבתא כמה כיסי קא משתכחי בשוקא ולא ידענא דסבירא לן כרבי יצחק דא"ר יצחק המוצא כיס בשבת מוליכו פחות פחות מד\' אמות,ההוא אריא דהוה נהים במעצרתא שמע עובד כוכבים טשא ביני דני אמר רבא חמרא שרי מימר אמר כי היכי דטשינא אנא איטשא נמי ישראל אחוריי וקא חזי לי,הנהו גנבי דסלקי לפומבדיתא ופתחו חביתא טובא אמר רבא חמרא שרי מ"ט רובא גנבי ישראל נינהו הוה עובדא בנהרדעי ואמר שמואל חמרא שרי,כמאן כרבי אליעזר דאמר ספק ביאה טהור,דתנן הנכנס לבקעה בימות הגשמים וטומאה בשדה פלונית ואמר הלכתי במקום הלז ואיני יודע אם נכנסתי לאותה שדה אם לא נכנסתי ר"א אומר ספק ביאה טהור ספק מגע טמא,לא שאני התם כיון דאיכא דפתחי לשום ממונא הוה ליה ספק ספיקא ' None | 31b from the following baraita: With regard to one who sends a barrel of wine in the hands of a Samaritan, or a barrel of fish brine or a barrel of fish stew in the hands of a gentile, if he recognizes his seal and his manner of closing the barrel, it is permitted; if he does not recognize them, it is prohibited. Apparently, a sealed barrel is permitted only when it is recognizable.,Rabbi Zeira said that this is not difficult. Here, the first baraita is referring to barrels located in a city; there, the second baraita is referring to barrels that the Samaritan carries on the road. Sealed barrels are permitted in a city because the Samaritan is careful to ensure that gentiles do not touch them in front of anyone, so that he does not forfeit the business of Jews. While traveling he is not concerned, as he assumes that no one will discover that the gentile came into contact with the wine.,Rabbi Yirmeya objects to this: Didn’t these barrels located in the city come by the road as well? Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya says: We learned the baraita that permits sealed barrels only in reference to those that are located between the winepresses. Since everyone is found there, the Samaritan is apprehensive, as he says to himself: Now, if someone sees me allowing a gentile to handle the wine they will cause me to lose my profit, as Jews will not purchase it.,It was stated: For what reason did the Sages prohibit the beer of gentiles? Rami bar Ḥama says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: It is due to the concern that Jews will befriend gentiles while drinking with them, which might lead to marriage with gentiles. Rav Naḥman said: It is due to the concern of exposure.,The Gemara asks: With regard to what form of exposure is there a concern? If we say that the concern is with regard to exposure of the vat, we too expose the vat, and there is no reason to prohibit gentiles’ beer more than that of Jews. And if you say: Rather, the concern is for exposure of the barrel, we also expose barrels. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to prohibit the beer in a place where the water used to brew it is allowed to settle.,The Gemara asks: If that is so, aged beer should be permitted, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: A substance that might contain exposed water but has aged is permitted, since the poison does not allow it to age, as it goes bad before it grows old. Similarly, if it soured it is permitted, because the poison impairs the taste but does not allow it to sour. Why, then, is all beer prohibited? The Gemara answers: The Sages issued a rabbinic decree with regard to aged beer due to the concern with regard to new beer.,§ The Gemara cites the opinions of various Sages with regard to beer. Rav Pappa had them bring out the beer belonging to gentiles from the store to the entrance of the store, and he would drink it outside the store. Rav Aḥai had them bring the beer to his house, and he would drink it there. And both of them drank the beer away from the presence of gentiles due to concern about marriage with gentiles. The Gemara notes that Rav Aḥai established an extreme preventive measure for himself beyond what is required by halakha.,The Gemara relates that Rav Shmuel bar Bisna happened to come to Marguan, and they brought him wine but he did not drink it. Next they brought him beer but he did not drink it. The Gemara asks: Granted, he did not drink the wine due to the trace shimtza of libations, but due to what reason did he refrain from drinking beer? It was due to concern for the trace of a trace, i.e., he did not drink beer due to concern about drinking wine.,Rav says: This Aramean beer is permitted, but my son Ḥiyya does not drink from it. The Gemara asks: Whichever way you look at this matter, Rav’s statement is difficult: If the beer is permitted, then it is permitted to everyone, and there is no reason for his son to refrain from drinking it. And if it is prohibited, it is prohibited to everyone, and why would Rav say it is permitted?,The Gemara explains: Rather, Rav holds that the prohibition is due to exposure, but the bitterness of the hops in the beer goes and impairs the snake’s venom, so that it is safe for an average person to drink. But a person of weak constitution is weakened further by the impaired venom, and Rav was saying: In the case of my son Ḥiyya, since he is weak, he does not drink from it.,Shmuel says: All creeping animals possess venom; that of a snake kills, whereas the venom of other creeping animals does not kill. Shmuel said to Ḥiyya bar Rav: Son of a lion! Come and I will say to you a superior matter that your father, Rav, said. This is what your father said: These Arameans are swollen zukanei because they drink exposed liquids, but they did not die from doing so since they eat repugt creatures and creeping animals, which heat their bodies and thereby render them less susceptible to the venom.,Rav Yosef says:'35a One can learn by inference from here that with regard to animals from which deriving benefit is prohibited, their excrement, which is the content of their stomach, is permitted. Although deriving benefit from both a burnt-offering and an unslaughtered animal carcass is prohibited, the excrement of each is permitted. Similarly, although deriving benefit from an ox that is to be stoned is prohibited, its excrement is permitted.,And from the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Yishmael: Cheese of gentiles is prohibited because they curdle it with the stomach contents of calves used for idol worship, and that Rabbi Yishmael responded to him: If that is so, why didn’t the Sages prohibit deriving benefit from the cheese, one may learn by inference that with regard to animals of idol worship, their excrement is prohibited. Since the cheese formed with the stomach contents of an animal of idol worship is prohibited, it is evident that the excrement formed in the stomach of such an animal is also prohibited.,The mishna related that rather than addressing Rabbi Yishmael’s final difficulty, Rabbi Yehoshua diverted his attention to another matter. The Gemara inquires: But let him respond to Rabbi Yishmael’s query by explaining that the Sages did not prohibit deriving benefit from cheese curdled in the stomach contents of an animal used for idolatry because there is no substantive prohibited entity in such cheese.,The Gemara reinforces its question: After all, isn’t the halakha with regard to fish stew, according to the opinion of the Rabbis, an application of this rationale, as they did not prohibit deriving benefit from fish stew prepared by a gentile? What is the reason for this leniency? Is it not because there is no substantive prohibited entity in it? Although fish stew may contain the wine of a gentile, deriving benefit from it is not prohibited because the wine is not discernible. Why didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua explain that deriving benefit from cheese of a gentile is similarly permitted because it contains no substantive prohibited entity?,The Gemara rejects this possibility: The Sages say in response that here, with regard to cheese, since the rennet curdles it, it is considered like an item that contains a substantive prohibited entity. Although the prohibited rennet is not discernible in the cheese, it is nevertheless considered a substantive prohibited entity because it is essential to the formation of the cheese.,§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua diverted Rabbi Yishmael’s attention to another matter, and began discussing the verse: “For your love is better than wine” (Song of Songs 1:2). The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the verse: “For your love dodekha is better than wine”? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: The congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, the statements of Your beloved ones dodekha, i.e., the Sages, are more pleasant to me than the wine of the written Torah itself.,The Gemara asks: What is different about this verse that led Rabbi Yehoshua to ask Rabbi Yishmael a question specifically with regard to it? Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said, and some say Rabbi Shimon bar Ami said: He chose that verse because he sought to tell him a message that can be derived from the beginning of the verse: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth” (Song of Songs 1:2). In essence, Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Yishmael, my brother, press your lips one to the other, and do not be so hasty to retort, i.e., do not persist in your questioning.,The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rabbi Yehoshua instructed Rabbi Yishmael not to question him further? Ulla says, and some say Rav Shmuel bar Abba says: The ordice prohibiting the cheese of gentiles was a new decree, and therefore one does not scrutinize its origins. The Gemara asks: What was, in fact, the reason for the Sages’ decree prohibiting the cheese of gentiles? Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: It was due to the concern for puncturing, i.e., the concern that a snake might have deposited its venom in the cheese, as gentiles are not assumed to be careful about this.,The Gemara comments: But if so, let Rabbi Yehoshua simply say to Rabbi Yishmael: It is prohibited due to the concern for puncturing. Why did he choose to avoid answering? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehoshua reasoned in accordance with a statement of Ulla, as Ulla said: When the Sages decreed a decree in the West, Eretz Yisrael, they would not reveal the reason behind it until twelve months of the year had passed, lest there be a person who does not agree with it and will come to treat it with contempt.,Rabbi Yirmeya would ridicule megaddef Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s explanation that the prohibition was due to the concern for puncturing: If that is so, dry cheese should be permitted, and likewise aged cheese should be permitted, as Rabbi Ḥanina says: With regard to exposure, a dry substance is permitted even if it was originally in the form of an uncovered liquid, because a snake’s venom does not let it dry, i.e., congeal. And an aged liquid is permitted, as a snake’s venom does not let it age, as it causes it to spoil instead.,The Gemara presents two alternative reasons for this decree of the Sages. Rabbi Ḥanina says: The cheese is prohibited because it is not possible for it to have been made without containing particles of non-kosher milk. And Shmuel says: The cheese is prohibited because it is curdled with the skin of the stomach of an unslaughtered animal carcass.,The Gemara comments: Shmuel’s statement indicates that only the skin of the animal’s stomach is prohibited, whereas the contents of the stomach, i.e., the rennet itself, is permitted. The Gemara asks: And did Shmuel actually say this? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Ḥullin 116a): With regard to the stomach contents of an animal slaughtered by a gentile and the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal carcass, each of these is prohibited.,And we discussed it and asked: Why does the mishna mention both an animal slaughtered by a gentile and an unslaughtered animal carcass? Is that to say that an animal slaughtered by a gentile is not classified as an animal carcass? By mentioning each of these separately, the mishna indicates that generally they are subject to different halakhot. This is difficult, as an animal slaughtered by a gentile has the halakhic status of an unslaughtered animal carcass.,And in answer to this difficulty, Shmuel says: The mishna is in fact teaching a single halakha, which is that the stomach contents of an animal slaughtered by a gentile are considered to be like the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal carcass and are therefore prohibited. Earlier, Shmuel asserted that only the physical skin of an animal’s stomach is prohibited, which indicates that the stomach contents are permitted. In his explanation of the mishna in Ḥullin, Shmuel posits that the stomach contents of an unslaughtered animal are prohibited.,The Gemara explains that this is not difficult: 36b It is the verse: “You are cursed with the curse, yet you rob Me, even this whole nation” (Malachi 3:9). This teaches that if there is the acceptance of the whole nation, yes, an ordice may be instituted, but if not, no, the ordice may not be instituted.,§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Balei says that Avimi of Nota says in the name of Rav: The prohibitions with regard to gentiles’ bread and their oil, their wine and their daughters, are all from the eighteen matters issued in a single day in the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel. The Gemara asks: With regard to their daughters, what is the decree? Rabbi Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: They decreed upon their daughters that they should be classified as menstruating women from the time they are in their cradle, i.e., they decreed that from when they are young, gentile women are always considered to be menstruating.,The Gemara presents another opinion. And Geneiva says in the name of Rav: Gentiles’ bread, oil, wine, and daughters were all decreed upon due to the concern that Jews might participate in idol worship with gentiles as a result of intermingling with them. As, when Rav Aḥa bar Adda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: They decreed a prohibition upon their bread due to their oil. The Gemara asks: In what way is the prohibition with regard to oil stronger than the prohibition with regard to bread? That is, why does the primary concern relate to the oil of gentiles rather than their bread?,The Gemara offers a different interpretation: Rather, they issued a decree prohibiting their bread and their oil due to their wine. And they issued the decree prohibiting their wine due to the fact that this leads to familiarity, and Jews will come to marry their daughters. And they issued a decree prohibiting their daughters due to something else, idolatry. And they further issued a decree on something else due to something else, which will be explained by the Gemara.,It was stated that the prohibition against marrying the daughters of gentiles was decreed on account of idolatry. The Gemara raises an objection: But the prohibition against marrying their daughters is prescribed by Torah law, as it is written: “Neither shall you make marriages with them” (Deuteronomy 7:3). The Gemara explains: By Torah law intermarriage is prohibited only with the seven Canaanite nations, but intermarriage with the other nations of the world is not prohibited, and the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that intermarriage is prohibited even with the other nations.,The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai, who says that the subsequent verse: “For he will turn away your son from following Me” (Deuteronomy 7:4) serves to include all who turn away one’s son from God, i.e., all gentiles, what is there to say? Rather, by Torah law only sexual relations by way of marriage are prohibited, and they came and decreed that sexual relations are prohibited even by way of licentiousness.,The Gemara raises an objection: Licentious sexual intercourse was also prohibited earlier, as they decreed a prohibition in this regard in the court of Shem, as it is written: “It was told to Judah, saying: Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; and moreover, behold, she is with child by harlotry. And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burned” (Genesis 38:24). This proves that the prohibition against licentious intercourse with a gentile was in force long before the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel.,The Gemara explains: Rather, the prohibition prescribed by Torah law applies to the case of a gentile who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, as she is drawn after him toward idolatry, but the case of a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman is not included in the prohibition by Torah law. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that the prohibition applies even to a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman.,The Gemara rejects this: The prohibition concerning a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai, not a rabbinic ordice. As the Master said: With regard to one who engages in intercourse with an Aramean woman, zealots may attack him, as Pinehas did to Zimri in the wilderness (see Numbers 25:6–8).,He said to him: By Torah law intercourse with a gentile is prohibited in public, and only in situations like the incident that occurred, as described in Numbers, chapter 25. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that the prohibition applies even in private. The Gemara raises another difficulty: This was also prohibited in private, as the court of the Hasmoneans decreed that it is prohibited.,As when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: The court of the Hasmoneans decreed that a Jew who engaged in intercourse with a gentile woman bears liability for transgressing four prohibitions, represented by the mnemonic: Nun, shin, gimmel, alef. These letters stands for: Menstruating woman nidda, maidservant shifḥa, gentile goya, and married woman eshet ish. By rabbinic law, a man who engages in intercourse with a gentile woman is considered to have violated the prohibitions involved in having intercourse with all four of these women.,And when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: He bears liability for four prohibitions represented by the mnemonic: Nun, shin, gimmel, zayin, which stands for: Menstruating woman nidda, maidservant shifḥa, gentile goya, and prostitute zona. In any case, it is apparent that this decree was in force before the time of the students of Shammai and Hillel.,The Gemara answers: When the court of the Hasmoneans decreed, they prohibited only sexual intercourse, but with regard to seclusion with a gentile woman, no, they did not prohibit that. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed that even seclusion with a gentile woman is prohibited. The Gemara raises an objection: Seclusion was also prohibited earlier, as the court of King David decreed that with regard to this matter.,As Rav Yehuda says: At that time, after the incident involving Amnon and Tamar (see II\xa0Samuel 13:1–19), they decreed with regard to seclusion. The Sages said in response to the objection: There, in David’s court, seclusion with a Jewish woman was prohibited, but seclusion with a gentile woman was not prohibited. And the students of Shammai and Hillel came and decreed a prohibition even with regard to seclusion with a gentile woman.,The Gemara raises yet another difficulty: Seclusion with a Jewish woman is prohibited by Torah law, as Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: Where is there an allusion in the Torah to the prohibition against seclusion? As it is stated: “If your brother, the son of your mother, entices you” (Deuteronomy 13:7). And does only a half brother who is the son of a mother entice one to sin, whereas the son of a father does not entice?,Rather, there is a greater concern that a maternal half brother might entice one to sin, as a son secludes himself with his mother, and no other may seclude himself with any of those with whom relations are forbidden by the Torah. Since an individual and his maternal half brother both seclude themselves with their shared mother, they are frequently together in private, and this facilitates enticement. In any case, it is clear that the prohibition against seclusion with a Jewish woman preceded King David.,The Gemara explains: The prohibition against seclusion prescribed by Torah law applies specifically to a married woman, and David came and decreed a prohibition even with regard to seclusion with an unmarried woman. And later the students of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel came and decreed even with regard to seclusion with a gentile woman.,§ It was stated above that they issued a decree prohibiting the daughters of gentiles due to something else, idolatry. And they further issued a decree on something else due to something else. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: And they further issued a decree on something else due to something else? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: They decreed upon a male gentile child that he imparts ritual impurity as though he were a Jew who experienced a gonorrhea-like discharge ziva, so that a Jewish child will not become familiar with him, leading to homosexual intercourse. The Sages employed a euphemism when referring to this decree.,As Rabbi Zeira says: I had great trouble with Rabbi Asi when I asked him the following question, and likewise Rabbi Asi experienced trouble with Rabbi Yoḥa when he posed it to him. And Rabbi Yoḥa had trouble with Rabbi Yannai, and Rabbi Yannai had trouble with Rabbi Natan ben Amram, and Rabbi Natan ben Amram had trouble with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The inquiry was as follows: With regard to a male gentile child, from when, i.e., from what age, does he impart ritual impurity as one who experiences ziva? And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to me: From when he is one day old. And when I came to Rabbi Ḥiyya, he said to me: From when he is nine years and one day old.,And when I came back and relayed Rabbi Ḥiyya’s statement before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, he said to me: Discard my statement, and grasp the statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya, who says: From when does a gentile child impart ritual impurity as one who experiences ziva? From when he is nine years and one day old. 70a but the passion for wine used for a libation does not overwhelm their judgment, and they will not allow her to use it for a libation. In the case of a Jewish prostitute and gentiles dining with her, the wine is forbidden. What is the reason? It is that since she is contemptible in their eyes, she is subjugated to them, and they use the wine for a libation without consideration for her.,§ The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain house where Jews’ wine was stored. A gentile entered the house, and he locked the door before the Jew, but there was a crack in the door, and the gentile was found standing between the barrels. Rava said: All the barrels that were opposite the crack through which the gentile could be seen are permitted, because he would have been wary about being seen tampering with them. Barrels on this side and that side of the crack, where the gentile could not be seen, are forbidden, as perhaps the gentile used them for a libation.,The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain Jew’s wine that was stored in the lower story of a house, in which the Jew was living in the upper story and a gentile in the lower story, and the wine could be supervised from the upper story. One day the residents heard a sound of quarreling and went outside. The gentile came back in first and locked the door before the Jew. Rava said: The wine is permitted, because the gentile presumably said to himself: Just as I came back in early, perhaps my neighbor the Jew came back in early and is sitting in the upper story and watching me, and therefore he would not use the wine for a libation.,The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain inn ushpiza where a Jew’s wine was stored, and a gentile was found sitting among the barrels. Rava said: If he was caught as a thief, i.e., if the gentile seemed startled and did not have a good explanation for being there, the wine is permitted, as the gentile was presumably afraid about being caught and would not have used it for a libation. But if not, the wine is forbidden.,The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain house where wine was stored. A gentile was found standing among the barrels. Rava said: If he has a way to excuse his entrance to where the wine was stored, the wine is forbidden, but if not, the wine is permitted. The Gemara raises an objection to this ruling from a baraita: If an inn was locked and a gentile was inside, or if the Jew said to the gentile: Safeguard my wine, the wine is forbidden. What, is it not forbidden even if the gentile does not have a way to excuse his entrance? The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is referring to a situation where he does have a way to excuse his entrance; otherwise the wine is permitted.,The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain Jew and a certain gentile who were sitting and drinking wine. The Jew heard the sound of praying at the synagogue. He got up and went to pray. Rava said: The wine is permitted, because the gentile presumably said to himself: Any moment now he will remember his wine and come back.,The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain Jew and a certain gentile who were sitting on a ship. The Jew heard the sound of the shofar of twilight indicating the beginning of Shabbat. He disembarked and went into town to spend Shabbat there. Rava said: The wine is permitted, because the gentile presumably said to himself: Any moment now he will remember his wine and come back.,The Gemara comments: And if one might object that the gentile is presumably not concerned because he knows that the Jew will not return until the end of Shabbat, didn’t Rava say: Issur the Convert told me: When we were still gentiles, before converting, we used to say: Jews do not actually observe Shabbat, as, if they observe Shabbat, how many wallets would be found in the marketplace that the Jews could not take on Shabbat? And I did not know that we maintain that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: One who finds a wallet on Shabbat may carry it in increments of less than four cubits. Evidently, gentiles assume that a Jew would violate Shabbat for monetary gain.,The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain lion who roared in a winepress. A gentile heard the roar and was frightened, and he hid among the barrels of wine. Rava said: The wine is permitted, because the gentile presumably said to himself: Just as I am hiding, a Jew might also be hiding behind me and see me.,The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving certain thieves who came to Pumbedita and opened many barrels of wine. Rava said: The wine is permitted. What is the reason? Most of the thieves in Pumbedita are Jews, and the halakha follows the majority, and therefore the wine is not rendered forbidden. There was a similar incident in Neharde’a, and Shmuel said: The wine is permitted.,The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this? Perhaps it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says with regard to cases of uncertainty concerning ritual purity that if the uncertainty is with regard to a person’s entry into a certain place, he is deemed pure.,This is as we learned in a mishna (Teharot 6:5): With regard to one who enters into a valley during the rainy season, i.e., winter, when people generally do not enter this area, and there was ritual impurity in such and such a field, and he said: I know I walked to that place, i.e., I walked in the valley, but I do not know whether I entered that field where the ritual impurity was or whether I did not enter, Rabbi Eliezer says: In a case of uncertainty with regard to entry, i.e., it is uncertain whether he entered the area where the ritual impurity is located, he is ritually pure. But if he certainly entered the area where the ritual impurity is located and the uncertainty pertains to contact with the source of ritual impurity, he is ritually impure. Apparently, the ruling of Shmuel, that in a case where it is uncertain whether gentile thieves entered the house at all the wine is permitted, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.,The Gemara rejects this: No, it is different there, with regard to the wine barrels. Since there are thieves who open barrels for the sake of perhaps finding money in them and are not interested in the wine, it is a case of compound uncertainty, as it is uncertain whether the thieves were gentiles or Jews, and even if they were gentiles, it is uncertain whether or not they touched the wine. In a case of compound uncertainty, everyone agrees that the wine is not forbidden. ' None |
|
