1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 22.1-22.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •bystander Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 155 22.1. לֹא־תִרְאֶה אֶת־שׁוֹר אָחִיךָ אוֹ אֶת־שֵׂיוֹ נִדָּחִים וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ מֵהֶם הָשֵׁב תְּשִׁיבֵם לְאָחִיךָ׃ 22.1. לֹא־תַחֲרֹשׁ בְּשׁוֹר־וּבַחֲמֹר יַחְדָּו׃ 22.2. וְאִם־לֹא קָרוֹב אָחִיךָ אֵלֶיךָ וְלֹא יְדַעְתּוֹ וַאֲסַפְתּוֹ אֶל־תּוֹךְ בֵּיתֶךָ וְהָיָה עִמְּךָ עַד דְּרֹשׁ אָחִיךָ אֹתוֹ וַהֲשֵׁבֹתוֹ לוֹ׃ 22.2. וְאִם־אֱמֶת הָיָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לֹא־נִמְצְאוּ בְתוּלִים לנער [לַנַּעֲרָה׃] 22.3. וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה לַחֲמֹרוֹ וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְשִׂמְלָתוֹ וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְכָל־אֲבֵדַת אָחִיךָ אֲשֶׁר־תֹּאבַד מִמֶּנּוּ וּמְצָאתָהּ לֹא תוּכַל לְהִתְעַלֵּם׃ | 22.1. Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep driven away, and hide thyself from them; thou shalt surely bring them back unto thy brother. 22.2. And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, and thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it home to thy house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother require it, and thou shalt restore it to him. 22.3. And so shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his garment; and so shalt thou do with every lost thing of thy brother’s, which he hath lost, and thou hast found; thou mayest not hide thyself. |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 23.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •bystander Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 155 23.3. מְעַט מְעַט אֲגָרְשֶׁנּוּ מִפָּנֶיךָ עַד אֲשֶׁר תִּפְרֶה וְנָחַלְתָּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ׃ 23.3. וְדָל לֹא תֶהְדַּר בְּרִיבוֹ׃ | 23.3. neither shalt thou favour a poor man in his cause. |
|
3. Aristophanes, Wasps, 1000-1008, 1252-1255, 1292, 1296, 1299-1341, 1345, 1347-1381, 1386, 1389-1391, 1406, 1417-1441, 1449, 1476-1496, 894-999, 1346 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 292 1346. μέλλουσαν ἤδη λεσβιᾶν τοὺς ξυμπότας: | |
|
4. Euripides, Cyclops, 445-446, 507-509, 534-537 (5th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 294 |
5. Lysias, Fragments, 27.58-27.61, 279.6 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •bystander/passer-by Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 54, 60, 91 |
6. Isaeus, Orations, 3.13-3.14, 9.16-9.19 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 33, 51, 76 |
7. Lysias, Orations, 1.4, 1.28, 1.30-1.34, 1.36, 1.47-1.49, 3.1, 3.5, 3.7, 3.9, 3.16, 3.25-3.26, 3.28, 3.45, 4.6 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 49, 51, 54, 91, 114 |
8. Aristophanes, Frogs, 635, 637-673, 636 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 271 636. οὐ καὶ σὺ τύπτει τὰς ἴσας πληγὰς ἐμοί; 636. > | |
|
9. Plato, Phaedrus, 272d-e (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •bystander/passer-by Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 31 |
10. Isocrates, Orations, 18.6, 20.1 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •bystander/passer-by Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 51 |
11. Aristophanes, Lysistrata, 1216-1222, 306-385, 387-403, 386 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 271, 294 |
12. Aristophanes, Women of The Assembly, 664, 663 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 294 |
13. Aristophanes, Acharnians, 1166-1168, 352-355, 980, 356 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 288 356. ὑπὲρ Λακεδαιμονίων ἅπανθ' ὅς' ἂν λέγω: | |
|
14. Lysias, Fragments, 27.58-27.61, 279.6 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •bystander/passer-by Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 54, 60, 91 |
15. Plato, Laws, 874e (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •bystander/passer-by Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 49 |
16. Aristophanes, The Rich Man, 1000-1008, 894-971, 973-999, 972 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 271 |
17. Eubulus, Fragments, 93 (k.-a.), 93.8-10 (k.-a.) (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 288 |
18. Lycurgus, Fragments, 11, 10 (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 76 |
19. Eubulus, Fragments, 93 (k.-a.), 93.8-10 (k.-a.) (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 288 |
20. Menander, Fragments, 4 (kç.), 284 (k.) (4th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 364 |
21. Alexis, Fragments, 160 (k.-a.) (4th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •bystander/passer-by Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 288 |
22. Menander, Epitrepontes, 169-171 (4th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 294 |
23. Menander, Fragments, 4 (kç.), 284 (k.) (4th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 364 |
24. Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1374a11, 1374a12, 1374a13, 1374a14, 1374a15, 1374a32-b1, 1375a6, 1375a7, 375a7, 375a6 (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 49 |
25. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1135b25, 1135b26, 1135b27, 1135b24 (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 49 |
26. Philippides Comicus, Fragments, 26 (edmonds), 27 (k.-a.) (4th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 91 |
27. Demosthenes, Orations, 18.10, 21.5-21.6, 21.217, 25.1.56-25.1.57, 37.33, 40.32-40.33, 40.57, 54.14, 54.20 (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •bystander/passer-by Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 33, 51, 55, 60, 63, 65, 85 | 18.10. To his abusive aspersion of my private life, I have, you will observe, an honest and straightforward reply. I have never lived anywhere but in your midst. If then you know my character to be such as he alleges, do not tolerate my voice, even if all my public conduct has been beyond praise, but rise and condemn me incontinently. But if, in your judgement and to your knowledge, I am a better man and better born than Aeschines, if you know me and my family to be, not to put it offensively, as good as the average of respectable people, then refuse credence to all his assertions, for clearly they are all fictitious, and treat me today with the same goodwill which throughout my life you have shown to me in many earlier contentions. 40.57. For it is not fitting that I, having a daughter of marriageable age, should dwell with men of their sort, who are not only themselves living licentious lives, but who also bring into the house a host of others of like stamp with themselves; nay, by Zeus, I do not deem it safe to live in the same house with them myself. When they have thus openly laid a plot, and got up a charge against me before the Areopagus, do you suppose there is any poisoning or any other such villainy from which they would abstain? 54.14. He will tell you that there are many people in the city, sons of respectable persons, who in sport, after the manner of young men, have given themselves nicknames, such as Ithyphalli or Autolecythi, These words are best left untranslated ( Kennedy , following Auger, renders them Priapi and Sileni ). The former suggests gross licentiousness, and the latter, for which various meanings have been proposed, has been plausibly interpreted by Sandys as indicating one who carried his own oil-flask ( λήκυθος ). He would thus dispense with the customary slave, and be freed from having even such an one as witness to his wanton doings. and that some of them are infatuated with mistresses; that his own son is one of these and has often given and received blows on account of some girl; and that things of this sort are natural for young men. As for me and all my brothers, he will make out that we are not only drunken and insolent fellows, but also unfeeling and vindictive. Conon , the speaker says, will represent us as being as much addicted to drunkenness and violence as himself and his sons, but surly and vindictive in going to law over such trifling matters! |
|
28. Menander, Dyscolus, 230-232 (4th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 294 |
29. Alexis, Fragments, 160 (k.-a.) (3rd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •bystander/passer-by Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 288 |
30. Mishnah, Bava Metzia, 2.2-2.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bystander Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 155 2.2. וְאֵלוּ חַיָּב לְהַכְרִיז, מָצָא פֵרוֹת בִּכְלִי אוֹ כְלִי כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא, מָעוֹת בְּכִיס אוֹ כִיס כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא, צִבּוּרֵי פֵרוֹת, צִבּוּרֵי מָעוֹת, שְׁלשָׁה מַטְבְּעוֹת זֶה עַל גַּב זֶה, כְּרִיכוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, וְכִכָּרוֹת שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וְגִזֵּי צֶמֶר הַלְּקוּחוֹת מִבֵּית הָאֻמָּן, כַּדֵּי יַיִן וְכַדֵּי שֶׁמֶן, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּב לְהַכְרִיז: 2.3. מָצָא אַחַר הַגַּפָּה אוֹ אַחַר הַגָּדֵר גּוֹזָלוֹת מְקֻשָּׁרִין, אוֹ בִשְׁבִילִין שֶׁבַּשָּׂדוֹת, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִגַּע בָּהֶן. מָצָא כְלִי בָּאַשְׁפָּה, אִם מְכֻסֶּה, לֹא יִגַּע בּוֹ, אִם מְגֻלֶּה, נוֹטֵל וּמַכְרִיז. מָצָא בְגַל אוֹ בְכֹתֶל יָשָׁן, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. מָצָא בְכֹתֶל חָדָשׁ, מֵחֶצְיוֹ וְלַחוּץ, שֶׁלּוֹ, מֵחֶצְיוֹ וְלִפְנִים, שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבָּיִת. אִם הָיָה מַשְׂכִּירוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים, אֲפִלּוּ בְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ: | 2.2. And these must be proclaimed: if a man found fruit in a vessel, or an empty vessel; or money in a bag, or an empty bag; piles of fruit or piles of money; three coins one on top of the other; small sheaves in the private domain; home-made loaves of bread; wool shearings as they come from the craftsman’s shop; jugs of wine or jugs of oil, these must be proclaimed. 2.3. If a man found pigeons tied together behind a fence or a hedge or on footpaths in the fields, he may not touch them. If he found an object in the dungheap and it was covered up he may not touch it, but if it was exposed he should take it and proclaim. If he found it in a pile of stones or in an old wall it belongs to him. If he found it in a new wall and it was on the outside [of the wall] it belongs to him. If it was on the inner side it belongs to the householder. But if the house had been hired to others, even if a man found something within the house, it belongs to him. |
|
31. Plutarch, Alcibiades, 7.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bystander/passer-by Found in books: Riess, Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens (2012) 55 7.1. τὴν δὲ παιδικὴν ἡλικίαν παραλλάσσων ἐπέστη γραμματοδιδασκάλῳ καὶ βιβλίον ᾔτησεν Ὁμηρικόν. εἰπόντος δὲ τοῦ διδασκάλου μηδὲν ἔχειν Ὁμήρου, κονδύλῳ καθικόμενος αὐτοῦ παρῆλθεν. ἑτέρου δὲ φήσαντος ἔχειν Ὅμηρον ὑφʼ αὑτοῦ διωρθωμένον, εἶτʼ, ἔφη, γράμματα διδάσκεις, Ὅμηρον ἐπανορθοῦν ἱκανὸς ὤν; οὐχὶ τοὺς νέους παιδεύεις; | 7.1. Once, as he was getting on past boyhood, he accosted a school-teacher, and asked him for a book of Homer. The teacher replied that he had nothing of Homer's, whereupon Alcibiades fetched him a blow with his fist, and went his way. Another teacher said he had a Homer which he had corrected himself. "What!" said Alcibiades, "are you teaching boys to read when you are competent to edit Homer? You should be training young men." |
|
32. Tosefta, Bava Metzia, 2.7, 2.10 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bystander Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 155 |
33. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, 3.1, 6a, 6b (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 154 |
34. Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan, 25a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bystander Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 154 25a. 25a. And is this the case even if the deceased was a Torah Sage? But isn’t it taught otherwise in a baraita: When a Torah scholar dies, everyone is his relative.,The Gemara clarifies: Does it enter your mind to say that everyone is his relative? Rather, this baraita should be understood as follows: Everyone is considered to be like his relative in the sense that everyone rends his garment in anguish over him, and everyone bares his shoulder over him in mourning, and everyone eats the mourner’s meal over him in the public square as mourners do. The death of a Torah scholar is a personal loss for every Jew. So why is the mishna limited to only relatives? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in a case where the deceased is not a Torah scholar.,The Gemara asks: And if the deceased was an upright person who feared Heaven and performed good deeds, then aren’t all those present at his death obligated to rend their garments over his death? As it is taught in a baraita: For what reason do a person’s sons and daughters die when they are young? They die so that he will cry and mourn over the death of an upright person.,The Gemara questions the formulation: They die so that he will cry and mourn? Is security, i.e., his children, taken from him in advance to ensure that in the future he will mourn over the death of an upright person? Rather the baraita means as follows: His children died because he did not cry or mourn over an upright person who died. As with regard to anyone who cries and mourns over an upright person who died, they forgive him for all his transgressions because of the honor he accorded to the deceased. If this is the case, one also rends his clothes over an upright person. The Gemara answers: Rather, the mishna is referring only to one who was not an upright person.,The Gemara challenges: But if one was standing there at the time of the soul’s departure, i.e., at the time of death, he is also obligated to rend his clothes. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: One who stands over the deceased at the time of the soul’s departure is obligated to rend his clothes. To what may this be likened? To a Torah scroll that is burned, for which anyone present is obligated to rend his clothes.,The Gemara answers: The mishna must be referring to a person who was not standing there at the time of the soul’s departure but who heard that someone who is not a close relative died, and the deceased was neither a Torah scholar nor an upright person.,§ The Gemara relates that when Rav Safra passed away the other Sages did not rend their garments over him. They said: We did not learn from him, as he did not disseminate his Torah knowledge to the public. Abaye berated them and said to them: Is it taught in the baraita: If one’s teacher died? It is taught: If a Torah scholar died, and Rav Safra was certainly a Torah scholar. And furthermore, every day his teachings are in our mouths in the study hall, so that even if we did not learn directly from him, we should still be considered his students.,The other Sages thought that what was done was done, and it was now too late for them to rend their garments. Abaye said to them: We learned: With regard to a Torah scholar, as long as they are engaged in eulogizing him, then people are obligated to rend their garments, even after the time of his death. They then thought to rend their garments immediately. Abaye said to them: It is taught in a baraita: A Torah scholar’s honor is at the time of his eulogy, and so you should wait until the time of the eulogy before rending your garments.,§ The Gemara relates another incident: When Rav Huna died they thought to place a Torah scroll on his bier, as was commonly done after the death of a Torah scholar, as if to say that the deceased fulfilled everything written in the scroll. Rav Ḥisda said to them: This is a practice that he did not hold with during his lifetime; now should we stand up and do it for him when he is dead? As Rav Taḥlifa said: I myself saw Rav Huna, who wished to sit on his bed, and there was a Torah scroll placed on it. And he turned a jug over and placed the Torah scroll on it so that he could then sit on the bed. Apparently he holds that it is prohibited to sit on a bed upon which a Torah scroll lies. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to lay a Torah scroll next to his body after he died.,When they tried to remove his corpse from his house for the burial, the bier would not fit through the narrow door. They then thought to lower the bier from the roof. Rav Ḥisda said to them: This I learned from him, Rav Huna himself: A scholar’s honor is for him to be taken out through the main opening, and not in any other manner.,They then thought to move him from his bier to a narrower bier so that it would fit through the door. But Rav Ḥisda said to them: I learned from him, Rav Huna himself, as follows: A scholar’s honor is for him to be taken out on the first bier. As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: From where is it derived that a scholar’s honor is for him to be taken out on the first bier? As it is stated: “And they set the Ark of God upon a new cart” (II Samuel 6:3). When taking the Ark to Jerusalem, King David had it placed back on the cart upon which it had been returned by the Philistines, and a Torah scholar is considered to be similar to the Ark of the Covet. When they saw that there was nothing else that they could do, they broke the doorway and took him out through it.,Rabbi Abba opened his eulogy for him: Our Rabbi was worthy that the Divine Presence should rest upon him, except for the fact that Babylonia caused it not to rest. In other words, it was only because he lived in Babylonia and not in Eretz Yisrael that the Divine Presence did not rest upon him.,Rav Naḥman bar Ḥisda raised an objection against this, and some say that it was Rav Ḥa bar Ḥisda: Is it not stated: “The word of the Lord came [hayo haya] to Ezekiel the priest, son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans” (Ezekiel 1:3), thereby implying that a prophet can prophesy outside of Eretz Yisrael?,His father tapped him with his sandal on his foot, thereby hinting to him that he should be quiet. He said to him: Have I not told you not to trouble everyone with questions in the middle of a eulogy? The Gemara answers the question: What is the meaning of the doubling of the word “came [hayo haya]”? It implies that it had already come before, i.e., that Ezekiel had already begun to prophesy in Eretz Yisrael, and his prophecy in Babylonia was merely a continuation of that prophecy.,§ The Gemara relates that when they took Rav Huna there, to Eretz Yisrael, for burial they said to Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi: Rav Huna has come, and they misunderstood and thought that he was still alive. They said: When we were there, in Babylonia, we did not have strength to lift our heads before him. Now that we have come here, has he come after us?,They said to them: His coffin has come. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi went out to meet his funeral procession. Rabbi Ila and Rabbi Ḥanina did not go out. Some say that Rabbi Ila went out, but Rabbi Ḥanina did not go out.,The Gemara asks: Those who went out, what is the reason that they went? As it is taught in a baraita: When a coffin is passing from place to place, the people stand in a line to show respect for the deceased, and they recite the mourners’ blessing and the consolation of the mourners over it. Those who did not go out, what is the reason that they did not? As it is taught in another baraita: When a coffin is passing from place to place, they do not stand in a line to show respect for the deceased, and they do not recite the mourners’ blessing or the consolation of the mourners for him.,The Gemara asks: If so, these two tannaitic statements contradict each other. The Gemara answers: It is not difficult: Here, the baraita is referring to a case where the skeleton of the deceased is still intact, and the mourning practices must be observed. And there the baraita is referring to a case where the skeleton of the deceased is no longer intact, and it is not necessary to observe the customs of mourning. And Rav Huna’s skeleton was still intact. The reason that the one Sage did not go out was that they did not confirm for him that the skeleton was still intact.,The Sages of Eretz Yisrael said: Where shall we bury him? They concluded: Rav Huna disseminated Torah to the people of Israel, and similarly Rabbi Ḥiyya disseminated Torah to the people of Israel; therefore, it is appropriate to bury Rav Huna next to Rabbi Ḥiyya.,They asked: Who will take him in to Rabbi Ḥiyya’s burial cave, as few are fit to enter it? Rav Ḥagga said to them: I will take him into the cave, for I presented my studies before him when I was just eighteen, never having experienced a seminal emission. And so too I attended to him and knew his great deeds. For example, one day one of the straps of his phylacteries turned around, the unpainted side being turned outward, and he observed forty fasts for this, as he had acted negligently, allowing the black side to face inward.,Rav Ḥagga took him in. The body of Rabbi Ḥiyya’s son Yehuda lay buried to the right of his father, and the body of his other son Ḥizkiyya lay to his left. The spirit of Yehuda said to the spirit of Ḥizkiyya: Rise from your place, as it is not proper conduct to remain lying when the body of Rav Huna is standing here. When Ḥizkiyya’s corpse stood up, a pillar of fire rose with him. When Rabbi Ḥagga saw this, he was frightened by what he saw, and so he stood up Rav Huna’s coffin and went away. The Gemara comments: And he was not punished or harmed by this pillar of fire because he set up Rav Huna’s coffin as protection for himself.,§ The Gemara relates another story about the burial of one of the Sages: When Rav Ḥisda died they thought to place a Torah scroll on his bier. Rabbi Yitzḥak said to them: This is a practice that this Rabbi did not hold with during his lifetime; should we stand up and do it for him now that he is dead?,They then thought not to tack, i.e., sew up, the tears that they had made in their clothes. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Ami said to them: When the deceased is a Torah Sage, they may tack the tears once they turn their faces from the bier.,The Gemara relates that when Rabba bar Huna and Rav Hamnuna died, they took them both up there, to Eretz Yisrael. | |
|
35. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, 60a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bystander Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 157 60a. מכלל דכי קנה וחזר וקנה דברי הכל אין צריך לברך,וא"ד אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא שלא קנה וחזר וקנה אבל קנה וחזר וקנה אין צריך לברך ור' יוחנן אמר אפילו קנה וחזר וקנה צריך לברך מכלל דכי יש לו וקנה דברי הכל צריך לברך,מיתיבי בנה בית חדש ואין לו כיוצא בו קנה כלים חדשים ואין לו כיוצא בהם צריך לברך יש לו כיוצא בהם אין צריך לברך דברי ר"מ ר' יהודה אומר בין כך ובין כך צריך לברך,בשלמא ללישנא קמא רב הונא כר"מ ורבי יוחנן כרבי יהודה אלא ללישנא בתרא בשלמא רב הונא כרבי יהודה אלא רבי יוחנן דאמר כמאן לא כר"מ ולא כרבי יהודה,אמר לך רבי יוחנן הוא הדין דלרבי יהודה קנה וחזר וקנה נמי צריך לברך והא דקא מיפלגי ביש לו וקנה להודיעך כחו דר"מ דאפי' קנה ויש לו אין צריך לברך וכל שכן קנה וחזר וקנה דאין צריך לברך,וליפלגו בקנה וחזר וקנה דאין צריך לברך להודיעך כחו דר' יהודה כח דהתירא עדיף ליה:,מברך על הרעה כו':,היכי דמי כגון דשקל בדקא בארעיה אף על גב דטבא היא לדידיה דמסקא ארעא שירטון ושבחא השתא מיהא רעה היא:,ועל הטובה כו':,היכי דמי כגון דאשכח מציאה אף על גב דרעה היא לדידיה דאי שמע בה מלכא שקיל לה מיניה השתא מיהא טובה היא:,היתה אשתו מעוברת ואמר יהי רצון שתלד כו' הרי זו תפלת שוא:,ולא מהני רחמי מתיב רב יוסף (בראשית ל, כא) ואחר ילדה בת ותקרא את שמה דינה מאי ואחר אמר רב לאחר שדנה לאה דין בעצמה ואמרה י"ב שבטים עתידין לצאת מיעקב ששה יצאו ממני וארבעה מן השפחות הרי עשרה אם זה זכר לא תהא אחותי רחל כאחת השפחות מיד נהפכה לבת שנא' ותקרא את שמה דינה אין מזכירין מעשה נסים,ואיבעית אימא מעשה דלאה בתוך ארבעים יום הוה כדתניא שלשה ימים הראשונים יבקש אדם רחמים שלא יסריח משלשה ועד ארבעים יבקש רחמים שיהא זכר מארבעים יום ועד שלשה חדשים יבקש רחמים שלא יהא סנדל משלשה חדשים ועד ששה יבקש רחמים שלא יהא נפל מששה ועד תשעה יבקש רחמים שיצא בשלום,ומי מהני רחמי והא"ר יצחק בריה דרב אמי איש מזריע תחלה יולדת נקבה אשה מזרעת תחלה יולדת זכר שנאמר (ויקרא יב, ב) אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהזריעו שניהם בבת אחת:,היה בא בדרך:,ת"ר מעשה בהלל הזקן שהיה בא בדרך ושמע קול צוחה בעיר אמר מובטח אני שאין זה בתוך ביתי ועליו הכתוב אומר (תהלים קיב, ז) משמועה רעה לא יירא נכון לבו בטוח בה' אמר רבא כל היכי דדרשת להאי קרא מרישיה לסיפיה מדריש מסיפיה לרישיה מדריש מרישיה לסיפיה מדריש משמועה רעה לא יירא מה טעם נכון לבו בטוח בה' מסיפיה לרישיה מדריש נכון לבו בטוח בה' משמועה רעה לא יירא,ההוא תלמידא דהוה קא אזיל בתריה דרבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי בשוקא דציון חזייה דקא מפחיד אמר ליה חטאה את דכתיב (ישעיהו לג, יד) פחדו בציון חטאים אמר ליה והכתיב (משלי כח, יד) אשרי אדם מפחד תמיד אמר ליה ההוא בדברי תורה כתיב,יהודה בר נתן הוה שקיל ואזיל בתריה דרב המנונא אתנח אמר ליה יסורים בעי ההוא גברא לאתויי אנפשיה דכתיב (איוב ג, כה) כי פחד פחדתי ויאתיני ואשר יגורתי יבא לי והא כתיב אשרי אדם מפחד תמיד ההוא בדברי תורה כתיב:,הנכנס לכרך:,תנו רבנן בכניסתו מהו אומר יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהי שתכניסני לכרך זה לשלום נכנס אומר מודה אני לפניך ה' אלהי שהכנסתני לכרך זה לשלום בקש לצאת אומר יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהי ואלהי אבותי שתוציאני מכרך זה לשלום יצא אומר מודה אני לפניך ה' אלהי שהוצאתני מכרך זה לשלום וכשם שהוצאתני לשלום כך תוליכני לשלום ותסמכני לשלום ותצעידני לשלום ותצילני מכף כל אויב ואורב בדרך,אמר רב מתנא ל"ש אלא בכרך שאין דנין והורגין בו אבל בכרך שדנין והורגין בו לית לן בה,א"ד אמר רב מתנא אפילו בכרך שדנין והורגין בו זימנין דלא מתרמי ליה אינש דיליף ליה זכותא,ת"ר הנכנס לבית המרחץ אומר יהי רצון מלפניך יי' אלהי שתצילני מזה ומכיוצא בו ואל יארע בי דבר קלקלה ועון ואם יארע בי דבר קלקלה ועון תהא מיתתי כפרה לכל עונותי,אמר אביי לא לימא אינש הכי דלא לפתח פומיה לשטן דאמר ר"ל וכן תנא משמיה דר' יוסי לעולם אל יפתח אדם פיו לשטן,אמר רב יוסף מאי קראה דכתיב (ישעיהו א, ט) כמעט כסדום היינו לעמורה דמינו מאי אהדר להו נביא שמעו דבר יי' קציני סדום וגו',כי נפיק מאי אומר א"ר אחא מודה אני לפניך יי' אלהי שהצלתני מן האור,ר' אבהו על לבי בני אפחית בי בני מתותיה אתרחיש ליה ניסא קם על עמודא שזיב מאה וחד גברי בחד אבריה אמר היינו דר' אחא,דאמר רב אחא הנכנס להקיז דם אומר יהי רצון מלפניך יי' אלהי שיהא עסק זה לי לרפואה ותרפאני כי אל רופא נאמן אתה ורפואתך אמת לפי שאין דרכן של בני אדם לרפאות אלא שנהגו,אמר אביי לא לימא אינש הכי דתני דבי רבי ישמעאל (שמות כא, יט) ורפא ירפא מכאן שניתנה רשות לרופא לרפאות,כי קאי מאי אומר אמר רב אחא ברוך רופא חנם | 60a. The Gemara deduces: This proves by inference that if he purchases a new object and then purchases a similar object, everyone agrees that he is not required to recite a blessing, as he has already recited a blessing over the purchase of that type of item.,Some say a different version of this dispute: Rav Huna said: They only taught that one recites the blessing: Who has given us life, on a new vessel if he did not purchase that item in the past and purchased the item now, for the first time. However, if he purchased that item in the past and purchased the item again, he need not recite a blessing. And Rabbi Yoḥa said: Even if one purchased that item in the past and purchased a similar item again, he must recite a blessing. This proves by inference that if one already has a vessel and then purchased similar vessels, everyone agrees that he must recite a blessing.,The Gemara raises an objection based on what was taught in a baraita: One who built a new house and does not already own a similar house, or purchased new vessels and does not already own similar vessels, must recite a blessing. However, if he already owns a similar one, he need not recite a blessing, this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda, on the other hand, says: In either case, he must recite a blessing.,The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the first version of the dispute between Rav Huna and Rabbi Yoḥa, one could say that Rav Huna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and that Rabbi Yoḥa holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. However, according to the latter version of the dispute, granted, Rav Huna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but in accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Yoḥa state his opinion? His statement is neither in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir nor in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.,The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥa could have said to you: The same is true according to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion; in a case where one has purchased an item in the past and purchased a similar item again, he must recite a blessing. The fact that they only disagreed with regard to a case where he already owned similar vessels and he purchased new ones does not indicate that this is their only disagreement. The dispute was presented in this way to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Meir’s opinion; even in a case where one purchased an item while owning a similar item, he need not recite a blessing; all the more so in a case where he purchased an item and then purchased a similar item again, he need not recite a blessing.,The Gemara asks: And if that is the reason for presenting the dispute in this manner, let them disagree with regard to a case where one purchased an item in the past and then purchased a similar item again, where according to Rabbi Meir one need not recite a blessing, in order to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion; as Rabbi Yehuda requires a blessing in that case. The Gemara responds: The Gemara preferred the version before us in order to demonstrate the extent to which Rabbi Meir was lenient in not requiring a blessing because the strength of leniency is preferable.,We learned in the mishna: One recites a blessing for the bad that befalls him just as he does for the good. This is to say that one recites the blessing appropriate for the present situation even if it is bad, despite the fact that it may develop into a positive situation in the future.,The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? The Gemara explains: In a case where a dam was breached and water flowed onto one’s land, despite the fact that this will ultimately be beneficial for him, for his land will be covered with sediment from the flowing water which will enhance the quality of his soil, it is nonetheless bad at present.,One must recite a blessing for the good that befalls him just as for the bad.,The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? The Gemara explains: In a case where one found a lost object, despite the fact that it is ultimately bad for him because if the king heard about it, he would certainly take it from him. At that time, the law deemed all found objects the property of the king’s treasury and one who did not report such an object would be punished. Nevertheless, it is favorable at present.,We learned in the mishna: One whose wife was pregt and he said: May it be God’s will that my wife will give birth to a male child, it is a vain prayer.,Is a prayer in that case ineffective? Rav Yosef raises an objection based on a baraita: It is stated: “And afterwards she bore a daughter, and called her name Dina” (Genesis 30:21). The Gemara asks: What is meant by the addition of the word: Afterwards? What does the verse seek to convey by emphasizing that after the birth of Zebulun she gave birth to Dina? Rav said: After Leah passed judgment on herself and said: Twelve tribes are destined to descend from Jacob, six came from me and four from the maidservants, that is ten, and if this fetus is male, my sister Rachel will not even be the equivalent of one the maidservants; immediately the fetus was transformed into a daughter, as it is stated: And she called her name Dina; meaning she named her after her judgment [din]. The Gemara rejects this: One does not mention miraculous acts to teach general halakha.,The Gemara introduces an alternative explanation: And if you wish, say instead that the story of Leah and her prayer with regard to the fetus was within forty days of conception. As it was taught in a baraita: During the first three days after intercourse, one should pray that the seed not putrefy, that it will fertilize the egg and develop into a fetus. From the third day until the fortieth, one should pray that it will be male. From the fortieth day until three months, one should pray that it will not be deformed, in the shape of a flat fish, as when the fetus does not develop it assumes a shape somewhat similar to a flat sandal fish. From the third month until the sixth, one should pray that it will not be stillborn. And from the sixth month until the ninth, one should pray that it will be emerge safely. Therefore, during the first forty days from conception, one may still pray to affect the gender of the fetus.,The Gemara asks: Is prayer effective for that purpose? Didn’t Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Ami, say: The tradition teaches that the gender of the fetus is determined at the moment of conception. If the man emits seed first, his wife gives birth to a female; if the woman emits seed first, she gives birth to a male, as it is stated: “When a woman emitted seed and bore a male” (Leviticus 12:2). The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where they both emit seed simultaneously. In that case, the gender is undetermined and prayer may be effectual.,We learned in the mishna: One who was walking along the way and heard a scream from the city, and says: May it be God’s will that this scream will not be from my house, it is a vain prayer.,The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Hillel the Elder, who was coming on the road when he heard a scream in the city. He said: I am certain that the scream is not coming from my house. And of him, the verse says: “He shall not be afraid of evil tidings; his heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord” (Psalms 112:7). Rava said: Any way that you interpret this verse, its meaning is clear. It can be interpreted from beginning to end or it can be interpreted from end to beginning. The Gemara explains: It can be interpreted from beginning to end: Why is it that: He shall not be afraid of evil tidings? Because his heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord. The Gemara continues: And it can be interpreted from end to beginning: One whose heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord is a person who shall not be afraid of evil tidings.,The Gemara relates: This student was once walking after Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, in the marketplace of Zion. Rabbi Yishmael saw that the student was afraid. He said to him: You are a sinner, as it is written: “The transgressors in Zion are afraid, trembling has seized the ungodly” (Isaiah 33:14). The student replied: And is it not written: “Happy is the man that fears always” (Proverbs 28:14)? Rabbi Yishmael said to him: That verse is written with regard to matters of Torah, that one should be afraid lest he forget them. For everything else, one must trust in God.,In a similar vein, the Gemara relates: Yehuda bar Natan was coming and going after Rav Hamnuna. Yehuda bar Natan sighed; Rav Hamnuna said to him: Do you wish to bring suffering upon yourself; as it is stated: “For that which I did fear is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of has overtaken me” (Job 3:25)? He responded: Is it not said: “Happy is the man who fears always”? Rav Hamnuna answered: That verse is written with regard to matters of Torah.,We learned in the mishna: One who enters a large city recites two prayers; Ben Azzai says he recites four prayers.,The Sages taught the details of Ben Azzai’s teaching in a baraita: rUpon his entrance to the city what does he recite? rMay it be Your will, O Lord my God, that You bring me into this city to peace. rAfter he entered the city, he recites: I thank You, O Lord my God, that You brought me into this city to peace. rWhen he seeks to leave the city, he recites: May it be Your will, O Lord my God and God of my ancestors, that You take me out of this city to peace. rAfter he left, he recites: I give thanks before You, O Lord my God, that You took me out of this city to peace; rand just as You took me out to peace, rso too lead me to peace, support me to peace, direct my steps to peace, rand rescue me from the hand of any enemy or those lying in ambush along the way.,Rav Mattana said: This was taught only with regard to a city where criminals are not tried and executed, as in a place like that he may be killed without trial. However, in a city where criminals are tried and executed, these prayers do not apply, as if one is not guilty he will not be harmed.,Some say that Rav Mattana said the opposite: Even in a city where criminals are tried and executed one must pray for mercy, as sometimes he may not encounter a person who will plead in his favor.,The Sages taught: One who enters a Roman bathhouse, where a fire burns beneath the pool of water used for bathing, and where there is the risk of collapse, says: rMay it be Your will, O Lord my God, that you save me from this and similar matters, rand do not let ruin or iniquity befall me, rand if ruin or iniquity does befall me, let my death be atonement for all of my transgressions.,Abaye said: One should not say: If ruin befalls me, so as not to open his mouth to Satan and provoke him. As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said and as it was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Yosei: One should never open his mouth to Satan by raising, at his own initiative, the possibility of mishap or death.,Rav Yosef said: What is the verse that alludes to this? As it is written: “We should have almost been as Sodom, we should have been like unto Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:9), after which what did the prophet reply to them? “Hear the word of the Lord, rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, people of Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:10). After the analogy to Sodom was raised, it was realized.,Returning to the subject of the Roman bathhouse, the Gemara asks: When he emerges from the bathhouse, what does he say? Rav Aḥa said: I give thanks to You, Lord, that You saved me from the fire.,The Gemara relates: Rabbi Abbahu entered a bathhouse when the bathhouse floor collapsed beneath him and a miracle transpired on his behalf. He stood on a pillar and saved one hundred and one men with one arm. He held one or two people in his arm, with others holding on them and so on, so that all were saved. He said: This is confirmation of the statement of Rav Aḥa, who said that one should offer thanks upon leaving the bathhouse safely.,As Rav Aḥa said: One who enters to let blood says: rMay it be Your will, O Lord my God, rthat this enterprise be for healing and that You should heal me. rAs You are a faithful God of healing and Your healing is truth. rBecause it is not the way of people to heal, but they have become accustomed. rRav Aḥa is saying that people should not practice medicine as they lack the ability to heal; rather, healing should be left to God.,Abaye responded and said: One should not say this, as it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael that from the verse, “And shall cause him to be thoroughly healed” (Exodus 21:19), from here we derive that permission is granted to a doctor to heal. The practice of medicine is in accordance with the will of God.,As for bloodletting, the Gemara asks: When one stands after having let blood, what does he say? Rav Aḥa said: He recites in gratitude: Blessed…Who heals without payment. |
|
36. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, 108a, 23b, 25a, 25b, 28b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 167 28b. אתיא לאחלופי בראשון הא קא אתי רגל שלישי,ת"ר בראשונה כל מי שמצא אבידה היה מכריז עליה שלשה רגלים ואחר רגל אחרון שבעת ימים כדי שילך שלשה ויחזור שלשה ויכריז יום אחד משחרב בית המקדש שיבנה במהרה בימינו התקינו שיהו מכריזים בבתי כנסיות ובבתי מדרשות ומשרבו האנסים התקינו שיהו מודיעין לשכיניו ולמיודעיו ודיו,מאי משרבו האנסין דאמרי אבידתא למלכא רבי אמי אשכח אודייא דדינרי חזייה ההוא בר נש דקא מירתת א"ל זיל שקול לנפשך דלאו פרסאי אנן דאמרי אבידתא למלכא,ת"ר אבן טוען היתה בירושלים כל מי שאבדה לו אבידה נפנה לשם וכל מי שמוצא אבידה נפנה לשם זה עומד ומכריז וזה עומד ונותן סימנין ונוטלה וזו היא ששנינו צאו וראו אם נמחת אבן הטוען:, 28b. because perhaps one who hears him will come to confuse it with the first pilgrimage Festival? The Gemara answers: Confusing the second Festival with the first is not a problem, as in any case, won’t the finder come on the third pilgrimage Festival, thereby giving the owner another opportunity to recover his lost item?,§ The Sages taught: Initially, anyone who found a lost item would proclaim his find for three pilgrimage Festivals and for seven days after the last of the three pilgrimage Festivals, so that its owner will go to his home, a trip lasting up to three days, and will return to Jerusalem, a trip lasting up to three days, and proclaim his loss for one day. But from the time that the Temple was destroyed, may it be rebuilt speedily in our days, the Sages instituted that those who find lost items shall proclaim their finds in synagogues and study halls. And from the time that the oppressors proliferated, the Sages instituted an ordice that one who finds a lost item shall inform his neighbors and acquaintances, and that will suffice for him.,The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: From the time that the oppressors proliferated? The Gemara answers: It is from the time that they say: A lost item belongs to the king. The Sages were concerned that any public proclamation would result in confiscation of the lost item. The Gemara relates: Rabbi Ami found a vessel full of dinars. A certain Roman saw that he was wary and hesitant to take it. The Roman said to him: Go, take it for yourself; as we are not Persians, who say that a lost item belongs to the king.,The Sages taught in a baraita: There was a Claimant’s Stone in Jerusalem, and anyone who lost an item would be directed there and anyone who found a lost item would be directed there. This finder would stand and proclaim his find and that owner would stand and provide its distinguishing marks and take the item. And that is the place about which we learned in a mishna (Ta’anit 19a): Go and see if the Claimant’s Stone has been obscured by the rising water.,stated what type of item the lost item that was found by another is, but did not state, i.e., describe, its distinguishing marks, the finder shall not give it to him. And in the case of a swindler, even though he stated its distinguishing marks, the finder shall not give the lost item to him, as it is stated: “And if your brother be not near you, and you know him not, then you shall bring it into your house, and it shall be with you until your brother claims [derosh] it [oto], and you shall return it to him” (Deuteronomy 22:2). Would it enter your mind that the finder would give it to him before he claims it? How can the finder return it if he does not know the identity of the owner? Rather, the verb derosh is not referring to the claim of the owner; it is referring to the scrutiny performed by the finder. You shall not return the lost item until you scrutinize [shetidrosh] your brother to determine whether he, the claimant, is a swindler or whether he is not a swindler.,It was stated that Rav Yehuda said: One who finds an item proclaims that he found a lost item without specifying its nature. And Rav Naḥman said: He specifies the nature of the item, e.g., he proclaims that he found a cloak.,Rav Yehuda said: One who finds an item proclaims that he found a lost item, as if you say that he proclaims that he found a cloak, we are concerned about the possibility that a swindler may attempt to claim the item. Perhaps the swindler learned that another person lost that item, and he will ascertain its distinguishing marks, provide those distinguishing marks, and claim the item.,Rav Naḥman said: The finder proclaims that he found a cloak, and we are not concerned about the possibility that a swindler may attempt to claim the item, as if so, there is no end to the matter. Even if the finder does not specify the nature of the item, perhaps a swindler would be able to guess its nature.,The Gemara cites proof from that which we learned in the mishna: If a claimant accurately states what type of item the lost item that was found by another is, but did not state its distinguishing marks, the finder shall not give it to him. Granted, if you say the finder proclaims that he found an unspecified lost item, this mishna teaches us that even though the claimant indeed stated that the lost item is a cloak, as long as he did not state its distinguishing marks, we do not return it to him. But if you say that the finder proclaims that he found a cloak, if the finder stated that he found a cloak and the claimant stated that he lost a cloak, does it need to be said that when he did not state its distinguishing marks, we do not return it to him?,Rav Safra said: Actually, one could say that the finder proclaims that he found a cloak, and the mishna is referring to a case where the finder stated that he found a cloak, and the claimant stated its distinguishing marks. And what is the meaning of the phrase in the mishna: If he did not state its distinguishing marks? It means: If he did not state its clear-cut distinguishing marks but rather stated distinguishing marks that are not exclusive to the item. Therefore, he does not prove his ownership.,§ The mishna teaches: And in the case of a swindler, even though he stated its distinguishing marks, the finder shall not give the lost item to him. The Sages taught: Initially, anyone who lost an item would provide its distinguishing marks and take it. But when the swindlers proliferated, the Sages instituted an ordice that the finders will say to him: Go and bring witnesses who can testify that you are not a swindler, and take your item.,The Gemara relates: This is as in that incident involving the father of Rav Pappa, who lost a donkey and others found it. He came before Rabba bar Rav Huna to reclaim his donkey. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to the father of Rav Pappa: Go and bring witnesses who can testify that you are not a swindler, and you may take your donkey. The father of Rav Pappa went and brought witnesses. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to the witnesses: Do you know about him that he is a swindler? The witnesses said: Yes. Rav Pappa’s father said, incredulously, to the witnesses: I am a swindler? The witnesses said to him: We were saying that you are not a swindler. They had thought the question was if he was not a swindler, and therefore responded in the affirmative. Rabba bar Rav Huna said: It is reasonable to conclude that the witnesses actually intended to support Rav Pappa’s father, because presumably, a person does not bring condemnation upon himself; Rav Pappa’s father would not have volunteered to provide witnesses who would testify against him.,any living being that works and generates enough revenue to cover the costs of the food that it eats, it shall work and eat while in the finder’s possession. And any living being that does not work but it does eat shall be sold, as it is stated: “Then you shall bring it into your house, and it shall be with you until your brother claims it, and you shall return it to him” (Deuteronomy 22:2), indicating that the finder must see how best to return it to him. Since the owner must repay the finder for his expenditures, if feeding the animal costs more than its value, the finder’s keep-ing the animal in his possession will prevent the owner from recovering it.,What shall be done with the money received from the sale of the animal? Rabbi Tarfon says: The finder may use it; therefore, if the money is lost, he is liable to pay restitution for it. Rabbi Akiva says: He may not use the money; therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution for it.,And must he care for the animal forever? Rav Naḥman says that Shmuel says: He cares for the animal until twelve months pass. This is also taught in a baraita: If one finds any living being that works and generates enough revenue to cover the costs of the food that it eats, e.g., a cow or a donkey, he tends to them until twelve months pass. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner.,If one finds calves and foals, which are young and unfit for labor, he tends to them for three months, as they do not earn their keep. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner. If one finds geese and roosters, he tends to them for thirty days. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner.,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: The legal status of a chicken is like that of a large domesticated animal in that the eggs it lays suffice to cover the cost of its food, and therefore the finder keeps it for twelve months. This is also taught in a baraita: If one finds a chicken and a large domesticated animal, he tends to them for twelve months. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner. If one finds calves and foals, he tends to them for thirty days. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner. If one finds geese and roosters and anything that costs more to tend to than the revenue generated by it, he tends to them for three days. From that point forward, one assesses their value, sells them, and places the money aside for the owner.,The Gemara asks: It is difficult, as there is a contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita that the finder keeps calves and foals for three months and the ruling in the second baraita that the finder keeps calves and foals for thirty days; and there is another contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita that the finder keeps geese and roosters for thirty days, and the ruling in the second baraita that the finder keeps geese and roosters for three days.,The Gemara answers: The contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita with regard to calves and foals and the ruling in the second baraita with regard to calves and foals is not difficult. This ruling in the first baraita that the finder keeps them for three months is referring to calves and foals that graze in the pasture, and that ruling in the second baraita that the finder keeps them for thirty days is referring to calves and foals that need to be fattened and therefore require greater exertion on the part of the one who finds them.,The contradiction between the ruling in the first baraita with regard to geese and roosters and the ruling in the second baraita with regard to geese and roosters is also not difficult. This ruling in the first baraita that the finder keeps them for thirty days is referring to large geese and roosters, which do not require great exertion, and that ruling in the second baraita that the finder keeps them for three days is referring to small geese and roosters, which require great exertion.,The mishna teaches: And any living being that does not work but it does eat shall be sold. The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall return it to him” (Deuteronomy 22:2), indicating that the finder must see how best to return it to him, meaning that one shall not feed the value of a calf to the lost calves that he is tending, nor the value of a foal to the lost foals that he is tending, nor the value of a goose to the geese that he is tending, nor the value of a rooster to the roosters that he is tending. Were the finder to do so, ultimately, the owner would receive nothing.,§ The mishna teaches: What shall be done with the money received from the sale of the animal? Rabbi Tarfon says: The finder may use it; therefore, if the money is lost, he is liable to pay restitution for its loss. Rabbi Akiva says: He may not use the money. Therefore, if it is lost, he is not liable to pay restitution. The Gemara analyzes the tannaitic dispute: Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva disagree | |
|
37. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, 31b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bystander Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 154 31b. ומביאו לחיי העולם הבא,אמר רבי אבהו כגון אבימי ברי קיים מצות כיבוד חמשה בני סמכי הוה ליה לאבימי בחיי אביו וכי הוה אתא רבי אבהו קרי אבבא רהיט ואזיל ופתח ליה ואמר אין אין עד דמטאי התם,יומא חד אמר ליה אשקיין מיא אדאייתי ליה נמנם גחין קאי עליה עד דאיתער איסתייעא מילתיה ודרש אבימי (תהלים עט, א) מזמור לאסף,אמר ליה רב יעקב בר אבוה לאביי כגון אנא דעד דאתינא מבי רב אבא מדלי לי כסא ואמא מזגה לי היכי איעביד א"ל מאמך קביל ומאבוך לא תקבל דכיון דבר תורה הוא חלשה דעתיה,רבי טרפון הוה ליה ההיא אמא דכל אימת דהות בעיא למיסק לפוריא גחין וסליק לה וכל אימת דהות נחית נחתת עלויה אתא וקא משתבח בי מדרשא אמרי ליה עדיין לא הגעת לחצי כיבוד כלום זרקה ארנקי בפניך לים ולא הכלמתה,רב יוסף כי הוה שמע קל כרעא דאמיה אמר איקום מקמי שכינה דאתיא אמר רבי יוחנן אשרי מי שלא חמאן רבי יוחנן כי עברתו אמו מת אביו ילדתו מתה אמו וכן אביי איני והאמר אביי אמרה לי אם ההיא מרבינתיה הואי,רב אסי הוה ליה ההיא אמא זקינה אמרה לי' בעינא תכשיטין עבד לה בעינא גברא נייעין לך בעינא גברא דשפיר כותך שבקה ואזל לארעא דישראל,שמע דקא אזלה אבתריה אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן אמר לי' מהו לצאת מארץ לחוצה לארץ א"ל אסור לקראת אמא מהו א"ל איני יודע [אתרח] פורתא הדר אתא אמר ליה אסי נתרצית לצאת המקום יחזירך לשלום,אתא לקמיה דרבי אלעזר א"ל חס ושלום דלמא מירתח רתח א"ל מאי אמר לך אמר ליה המקום יחזירך לשלום אמר ליה ואם איתא דרתח לא הוה מברך לך אדהכי והכי שמע לארונא דקאתי אמר אי ידעי לא נפקי,ת"ר מכבדו בחייו ומכבדו במותו בחייו כיצד הנשמע בדבר אביו למקום לא יאמר שלחוני בשביל עצמי מהרוני בשביל עצמי פטרוני בשביל עצמי אלא כולהו בשביל אבא,במותו כיצד היה אומר דבר שמועה מפיו לא יאמר כך אמר אבא אלא כך אמר אבא מרי הריני כפרת משכבו והני מילי תוך שנים עשר חדש מכאן ואילך אומר זכרונו לברכה לחיי העולם הבא,תנו רבנן חכם משנה שם אביו ושם רבו תורגמן אינו משנה לא שם אביו ולא שם רבו אבוה דמאן אילימא אבוה דמתורגמן אטו תורגמן לאו בר חיובא הוא,אלא אמר רבא שם אביו של חכם ושם רבו של חכם כי הא דמר בר רב אשי כי הוה דריש בפירקא איהו אמר אבא מרי ואמוריה אמר הכי אמר רב אשי,ת"ר איזהו מורא ואיזהו כיבוד מורא לא עומד במקומו ולא יושב במקומו ולא סותר את דבריו ולא מכריעו כיבוד מאכיל ומשקה מלביש ומכסה מכניס ומוציא,איבעיא להו | 31b. and this action brings him to the life of the World-to-Come.,Rabbi Abbahu said: One such as Avimi, my son, properly fulfilled the mitzva of honoring his parents. The Gemara relates: Avimi had five sons during his father’s lifetime who were ordained to issue halakhic rulings, and he too was ordained. And yet when Rabbi Abbahu, his father, came and called at the gate to enter, Avimi would himself run and go to open the door for him. And before he arrived there, he would already say: Yes, yes, so that his father would not think that he was being ignored.,One day Rabbi Abbahu said to Avimi his son: Give me water to drink. Before he brought him the water, Rabbi Abbahu dozed off. Avimi bent over and stood over him until his father awoke. The performance of this mitzva aided him, i.e., as a reward God helped him in his studies, and Avimi succeeded in homiletically interpreting the psalm: “A song to Asaph” (Psalms 79).,Rav Ya’akov bar Avuh said to Abaye: With regard to one such as I, so beloved by my parents that before I return from the study hall my father brings me a cup and my mother pours for me, how should I act? Is it disrespectful to accept this honor from them? Abaye said to him: Accept it from your mother, but do not accept it from your father, as, since he is a Torah scholar he will be disheartened if his son does not show him the proper level of respect.,The Gemara relates: Rabbi Tarfon had a certain manner of treating his mother, that whenever she wished to ascend into her bed he would bend over and help her to ascend, and whenever she wished to descend from the bed, she would descend onto him. He came and praised himself in the study hall for performing the mitzva of honoring one’s father and mother so thoroughly. They said to him: You still have not reached even half of the honor due to her. Has it ever happened that she threw a purse into the sea in front of you, and you did not embarrass her?,When Rav Yosef heard his mother’s footsteps, he would say: I will stand before the arriving Divine Presence. Rabbi Yoḥa said: Fortunate is one who never saw his father and mother, as it is so difficult to honor them appropriately. The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yoḥa himself never saw his parents. When his mother was pregt with him, his father died; and when she gave birth to him, his mother died. And the same is true of Abaye. The Gemara asks: Is that so, that Abaye never saw his mother? But didn’t Abaye say on many occasions: My mother told me? The Gemara answers: That mother was actually his foster mother, not his birth mother.,Rav Asi had an elderly mother. She said to him: I want jewelry, and he made jewelry for her. She said to him: I want a man whom I can marry, and he said to her: I will seek one for you. She said to him: I want a husband who is as handsome as you. At this point, he realized that she was senile, and that he would be unable to fulfill all her requests. Therefore, he left her and went to Eretz Yisrael.,Rav Asi heard that she was following him to Eretz Yisrael. He came before Rabbi Yoḥa and said to him: What is the halakha with regard to leaving Eretz Yisrael to go outside of Eretz Yisrael? Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: It is prohibited. Rav Asi further asked: If one is going to greet his mother, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: I do not know. Rav Asi waited a little while, and then came back to him. Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: Asi, you are evidently determined to leave. May the Omnipresent return you in peace, and he said no more.,Rav Asi came before Rabbi Elazar, because he did not know how to interpret Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement. He said to Rabbi Elazar: God forbid, perhaps he is angry with me that I wished to leave? Rabbi Elazar said to him: What exactly did he say to you? Rav Asi said to him: May the Omnipresent return you in peace. Rabbi Elazar said to him: If it is so that he was angry, he would not have blessed you. Rabbi Yoḥa certainly gave you permission to leave. In the meantime, while he was traveling to meet her, Rav Asi heard that her coffin was coming, i.e., his mother had died and her coffin was being brought to Eretz Yisrael. He said: Had I known I would not have left, as after his mother’s death he was not obligated to leave Eretz Yisrael to honor her.,The Sages taught: One honors his father in his life and honors him in his death. How does he honor him in his life? One who goes to a place on the command of his father should not say to the people to whom he has been sent, to hurry them along: Send me on my journey on my own behalf, or: Hurry up on my own behalf, or: Allow me to take leave of this business on my own behalf. Rather, he should say all of the above in the following manner: Act in this manner on Father’s behalf, as a mark of respect for his father.,How does he honor him in his death? If he says a matter he heard from his father’s mouth, he should not say: So said Father. Rather, he should say: So said Father, my teacher, may I be an atonement for his resting soul. And this halakha applies within twelve months of his death. From this time onward he says: May his memory be for a blessing, for the life of the World-to-Come.,The Sages taught: A Sage who lectures in public must change the name of his father, i.e., when he quotes his father he should not mention him by name. And similarly, he changes the name of his teacher. The disseminator, who explains the statements of a Sage to the audience, changes neither the name of his father nor the name of his teacher. The Gemara asks: To whose father is this referring? If we say it is referring to the father of the disseminator, whom the Sage mentioned in his lecture, is that to say that the disseminator is not obligated to observe the mitzva of honoring one’s father? How can a disseminator mention his own father by name?,Rather, Rava said: This is referring to the name of the Sage’s father and the name of the Sage’s teacher. This is like that which Mar bar Rav Ashi would do, as when he would teach Torah at his regular lecture and would mention a halakha in the name of his father, Rav Ashi, he would say: So said my father, my teacher; and his disseminator would say: So said Rav Ashi. Although a son may not mention his father’s name, the disseminator of his lecture may do so.,The Sages taught: What is fear and what is honor? Fear of one’s father includes the following: One may not stand in his father’s fixed place, and may not sit in his place, and may not contradict his statements by expressing an opinion contrary to that of his father, and he may not choose sides when his father argues with someone else. What is considered honor? He gives his father food and drink, dresses and covers him, and brings him in and takes him out for all his household needs.,A dilemma was raised before the Sages: |
|
38. Theodosius Ii Emperor of Rome, Theodosian Code, x18.1-3 (5th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •bystander Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 156 |
39. Cicero, Institutes of Justinian, 2.1.39 Tagged with subjects: •bystander Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 156 |
40. Anon., Dnkard, 8.39.14 Tagged with subjects: •bystander Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 157 |