1. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 19.11 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 41| 19.11. "הַנֶּחֱמָדִים מִזָּהָב וּמִפַּז רָב וּמְתוּקִים מִדְּבַשׁ וְנֹפֶת צוּפִים׃", | 19.11. "More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.", |
|
| 2. Plato, Republic, 25 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 41 |
| 3. Cicero, Republic, 22.211 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 355 |
| 4. Cicero, De Oratore, 1.24.158 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 234 |
| 5. Mishnah, Hulin, 3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 16 |
6. Mishnah, Gittin, 4.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 177| 4.4. "עֶבֶד שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה וּפְדָאוּהוּ, אִם לְשׁוּם עֶבֶד, יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. אִם לְשׁוּם בֶּן חוֹרִין, לֹא יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. עֶבֶד שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ רַבּוֹ אַפּוֹתִיקִי לַאֲחֵרִים וְשִׁחְרְרוֹ, שׁוּרַת הַדִּין, אֵין הָעֶבֶד חַיָּב כְּלוּם. אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם, כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל דָּמָיו. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ כוֹתֵב אֶלָּא מְשַׁחְרֵר: \n", | 4.4. "A [non-Jewish] slave [of a Jew] was taken captive and then ransomed [by a third party]: If [he is ransomed] to be a slave he goes back to slavery, If [he is ransomed] as a free man he does not go back to slavery. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: in either case he goes back to slavery. If a man makes his slave a pledge [for a debt] to another man and then he emancipates him, according to the “letter of the law” the slave is not liable to do anything. But because of tikkun olam we force his [second] master to emancipate him and he [the slave] writes a document for his purchase price. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that the slave does not write the document but rather the one who emancipates him.", |
|
7. Mishnah, Bava Batra, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 178| 3.1. חֶזְקַת הַבָּתִּים וְהַבּוֹרוֹת וְהַשִּׁיחִין וְהַמְּעָרוֹת וְהַשּׁוֹבָכוֹת וְהַמֶּרְחֲצָאוֹת וּבֵית הַבַּדִּין וּבֵית הַשְּׁלָחִין וְהָעֲבָדִים וְכָל שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה פֵרוֹת תָּדִיר, חֶזְקָתָן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם. שְׂדֵה הַבַּעַל, חֶזְקָתָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, וְאֵינָהּ מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁלֹשָׁה בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה וּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ בָאֶמְצַע, הֲרֵי שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, חֹדֶשׁ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וְחֹדֶשׁ בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה וּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ בָּאֶמְצַע, הֲרֵי אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בִּשְׂדֵה לָבָן. אֲבָל בִּשְׂדֵה אִילָן, כָּנַס אֶת תְּבוּאָתוֹ, מָסַק אֶת זֵיתָיו, כָּנַס אֶת קֵיצוֹ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. | 3.1. "The legal period of possession [in order to establish ownership] for houses, cisterns, trenches, caves, dovecotes, bath-houses, olive-presses, irrigated fields and slaves and anything which continually produces a yield is three complete years. The legal period of possession [in order to establish ownership] for a field irrigated by rain water is three years and they need not be completed. Rabbi Yishmael says: “Three months during the first year, and three months during the last year and twelve months during the middle year, which makes eighteen months.” Rabbi Akiva says: “One month during the first year and one month during the last year and twelve months during the middle year, which makes fourteen months.” Rabbi Yishmael said: “When does this apply? With regards to a sown field, but with tree plantation, if he brought in his produce (grapes), collected the olives and gathered in his fig harvest, this counts as three years.”", |
|
8. Tosefta, Kiddushin, 1.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 178| 1.5. "ספינה נקנית במשיכה ר' נתן אומר ספינה ואותיות נקנות במשיכה ובשטר איזו היא משיכה בין שמשך בין שהנהיג בין שקרא לה ובאת אחריו ה\"ז משיכה איזו היא מסירה כל שמסר לו פרומביא ומוסרה ה\"ז מסירה אימתי אמרו מטלטלין נקנין במשיכה ברשות הרבים או בחצר שאינה של שניהם ברשות הלוקח כיון שקבל עליו קנה ברשות המוכר עד שיגביה או עד שיוציא מרשות הבעלים ברשות זה המופקדים אצלו עד שיקבל עליו או עד שישכיר לו את [מקומו].", | 1.5. "A ship is acquired with drawing (meshikhah). Rabbi Natan says: A ship and documents are acquired with drawing and with a contract. Which is drawing? Whether he drew [the animal], whether he drove [it], whether he called to it and it came after him—this is drawing. Which is handing over (mesirah)? Anyone who handed over to him the halter and he took it—this is handing over. In what cases did they say that moveable property is acquired with drawing? In the public road or in a courtyard which doesn't belong to either [party in the transaction]. On the property of the buyer, whenever he accepts it, he acquires. On the property of the seller, when he lifts it or until he takes it out of the owner's property. On the property of the one with whom he deposited [the animal], until he [the bailee] accepts it [the responsibility of looking after the item for the buyer] or until he [the buyer] rents the place [where the item is stored with the bailee].", |
|
9. Tosefta, Terumot, 2.1-2.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 177| 2.1. "המוכר פירות לחבירו ואמר לו פירות שמכרתי לך טבלים הן בשר בכור הוא יין נסך הוא שורת הדין אין נאמן ר' יהודה אומר לא נחשדו ישראל על כן אלא הכל לפי מה שהוא איש.", 2.1. "ישראל ונכרי שקנו שדה בסוריא הרי [הן כטבל וכמעשר] שנתערבו זה בזה דברי רבי רשב\"ג אומר חלקו של ישראל חייב חלקו של נכרי פטור ישראל שקנה שדה בסוריא אע\"פ שחזר ומכרה לנכרי חייבת [במעשר ובשביעית שכבר נתחייבה אבל האריסין והחכירות ובתי אבות נכרי] שמשכן שדהו לישראל אע\"פ שעשה [לו] ישראל נימוסות עליה פטורה מן המעשרות [ופטורה מן השמטה].", 2.2. "היה מקריב עמו זבחים ואמר לו נתפגלו היה עושה עמו טהרות ואמר לו נטמאו לא נחשדו ישראל על כן אבל אמר לו זבחים שהקרבתי עמך באותו היום נטמאו שורת הדין אין נאמן ר' יהודה אומר לא נחשדו ישראל על כן אלא הכל לפי מה שהוא איש.", 2.3. "השוחט את הפסח על בני [חבורה] ואמר שלא לשמו שחטתיו שורת הדין אין נאמן ר' יהודה אומר עד שלא [יתחיל] בו נאמן משהתחיל בו אינו נאמן.", | |
|
10. Tosefta, Pesahim, 4.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 177| 4.7. "השוחט את הפסח לאוכלו בי\"ד כשר לאוכלו נא [שלוק] ומבושל כשר השוחט את הפסח על בני [חבורה] ואמר שלא לשמו שחטתיו שורת הדין אין נאמן ר' יהודה אומר עד שלא [יתחילו] בו נאמן משהתחילו בו אינו נאמן.", | |
|
| 11. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 2.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 229 |
12. Anon., Deuteronomy Rabbah, 5.3 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 178| 5.3. זֶה שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב (משלי כא, ג): עֲשׂה צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט נִבְחָר לַה' מִזָּבַח, כְּזֶבַח אֵין כְּתִיב אֶלָּא מִזָּבַח, כֵּיצַד, הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת לֹא הָיוּ קְרֵבִין נוֹהֲגוֹת אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, אֲבָל הַצְּדָקָה וְהַדִּינִים נוֹהֲגוֹת בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת אֵין מְכַפְּרִין אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹגֵג, וְהַצְּדָקָה וְהַדִּינִין מְכַפְּרִים בֵּין לְשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין לְמֵזִיד. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת אֵין נוֹהֲגִים אֶלָּא בַּתַּחְתּוֹנִים, וְהַצְּדָקָה וְהַדִּינִין נוֹהֲגִין בֵּין בָּעֶלְיוֹנִים וּבֵין בַּתַּחְתּוֹנִים. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת אֵין נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, וְהַצְּדָקָה וְהַדִּינִין נוֹהֲגִין בֵּין בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה בֵּין בָּעוֹלָם הַבָּא. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְנָתָן (דברי הימים א יז, ד ה): לֵךְ וְאָמַרְתָּ אֶל דָּוִיד עַבְדִּי כֹּה אָמַר ה' לֹא אַתָּה תִּבְנֶה לִי הַבַּיִת לָשָׁבֶת. כִּי לֹא יָשַׁבְתִּי בְּבַיִת מִן הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלֵיתִי אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וָאֶהְיֶה [מתהלך] מֵאֹהֶל אֶל אֹהֶל וּמִמִּשְׁכָּן. כָּל מִי שֶׁהָיָה מְבַקֵּשׁ לְקַלֵּל אֶת דָּוִד מָה הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה הָיָה אוֹמֵר לוֹ טוֹב שֶׁיִּבָּנֶה הַבַּיִת. תֵּדַע לְךָ, מַה דָּוִד אוֹמֵר (תהלים קכב, א): שָׂמַחְתִּי בְּאֹמְרִים לִי בֵּית ה' נֵלֵךְ, מְבַקְּשִׁים לִי דְּבָרִים לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה בּוֹנֶה, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, חַיֶּיךָ, שָׁעָה אַחַת מֵחַיֶּיךָ אֵין אֲנִי מְחַסֵּר, מִנַּיִן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמואל ב ז, יב): כִּי יִמְלְאוּ יָמֶיךָ וְשָׁכַבְתָּ אֶת אֲבֹתֶיךָ וַהֲקִימֹתִי אֶת זַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מִמֵּעֶיךָ וַהֲכִינֹתִי אֶת מַמְלַכְתּוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הַצְּדָקָה וְהַדִּינִין שֶׁאַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה חֲבִיבִין עָלַי מִבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, מִנַּיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמואל ב ח, טו): וַיְהִי דָּוִד עֹשֶׂה מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה. מַהוּ מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה לְכָל עַמּוֹ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַב נַחְמָן חַד אָמַר הָיָה דָן אֶת הַדִּין מְזַכֶּה אֶת הַזַּכַּאי וּמְחַיֵּב אֶת הַחַיָּב, אִם לֹא הָיָה לַחַיָּב לִתֵּן, הָיָה דָּוִד נוֹתֵן מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. הֱוֵי מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה. אָמַר לוֹ רַב נַחְמָן אִם כֵּן נִמְצֵאתָ מֵבִיא אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לִידֵי רַמָּיּוּת, וּמַהוּ מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה, הָיָה דָן אֶת הַדִּין מְזַכֶּה אֶת הַזַּכַּאי וּמְחַיֵּב אֶת הַחַיָּב, הֱוֵי מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה, שֶׁהָיָה מוֹצִיא אֶת הַגָּזֵל מִיָּדוֹ, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בָּנַי, הוֹאִיל וְכָךְ הַדִּינִין חֲבִיבִים לְפָנַי, הֱווּ זְהִירִין בָּהֶם. | 5.3. "This is what Scripture says. \"To do what is right and just is more desired by the Lord than sacrifice.\" (Prov. 21:3) Scripture does not say, \"as much as sacrifice\", but \"more than sacrifice.\" How so?Whereas sacrifices could only function inside the Temple, to do what is right and just is mandated inside and outside the Temple. Another opinion: whereas sacrifices could only atone for unintentional, accidental sins, acts of righteousness and justice atone even for intentional sins. Another opinion: whereas sacrifices are offered only by humanity, even God is obligated to practice justice and righteousness. Another opinion: whereas sacrifices are significant only in this world, righteousness and justice will remain a cornerstone in the Coming World. Rabbi Shmuel ben Nachmani said: When the Holy One of Blessing said to Natan (I Chronicles 17:3-5): \"Go and tell David My servant: Thus saith the LORD: Thou shalt not build Me a house to dwell in for I have not dwelt in a house since the day that I brought up Israel, unto this day; but have [gone] from tent to tent, and from one tabernacle [to another]\" If a person wanted to curse David, what would he do? He would say to David: It would be good if you built the House. You should know what David's answer was: (Ps. 122) 'I was glad when they said to me, let's go to the House of Hashem'.", |
|
| 13. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 177 |
| 14. Lucian, Zeus Catechized, None (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 177 |
| 15. Palestinian Talmud, Kiddushin, 1.3 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 178 |
16. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 41| 30b. כל יומא דשבתא הוה יתיב וגריס כולי יומא ההוא יומא דבעי למינח נפשיה קם מלאך המות קמיה ולא יכיל ליה דלא הוה פסק פומיה מגירסא אמר מאי אעביד ליה הוה ליה בוסתנא אחורי ביתיה אתא מלאך המות סליק ובחיש באילני נפק למיחזי הוה סליק בדרגא איפחית דרגא מתותיה אישתיק ונח נפשיה,שלח שלמה לבי מדרשא אבא מת ומוטל בחמה וכלבים של בית אבא רעבים מה אעשה שלחו ליה חתוך נבלה והנח לפני הכלבים ואביך הנח עליו ככר או תינוק וטלטלו ולא יפה אמר שלמה (קהלת ט, ד) כי לכלב חי הוא טוב מן האריה המת ולענין שאילה דשאילנא קדמיכון נר קרויה נר ונשמתו של אדם קרויה נר מוטב תכבה נר של בשר ודם מפני נרו של הקב"ה:,אמר רב יהודה בריה דרב שמואל בר שילת משמיה דרב בקשו חכמים לגנוז ספר קהלת מפני שדבריו סותרין זה את זה ומפני מה לא גנזוהו מפני שתחילתו דברי תורה וסופו דברי תורה תחילתו דברי תורה דכתיב (קהלת א, ג) מה יתרון לאדם בכל עמלו שיעמול תחת השמש ואמרי דבי ר' ינאי תחת השמש הוא דאין לו קודם שמש יש לו סופו דברי תורה דכתיב (קהלת יב, יג) סוף דבר הכל נשמע את האלהים ירא ואת מצותיו שמור כי זה כל האדם מאי כי זה כל האדם אמר רבי (אליעזר) כל העולם כולו לא נברא אלא בשביל זה ר' אבא בר כהנא אמר שקול זה כנגד כל העולם כולו שמעון בן עזאי אומר ואמרי לה שמעון בן זומא אומר לא נברא כל העולם כולו אלא לצוות לזה,ומאי דבריו סותרין זה את זה כתיב (קהלת ז, ג) טוב כעס משחוק וכתיב (קהלת ב, ב) לשחוק אמרתי מהלל כתיב (קהלת ח, טו) ושבחתי אני את השמחה וכתיב (קהלת ב, ב) ולשמחה מה זה עושה לא קשיא טוב כעס משחוק טוב כעס שכועס הקב"ה על הצדיקים בעוה"ז משחוק שמשחק הקב"ה על הרשעים בעולם הזה ולשחוק אמרתי מהלל זה שחוק שמשחק הקב"ה עם הצדיקים בעולם הבא,ושבחתי אני את השמחה שמחה של מצוה ולשמחה מה זה עושה זו שמחה שאינה של מצוה ללמדך שאין שכינה שורה לא מתוך עצבות ולא מתוך עצלות ולא מתוך שחוק ולא מתוך קלות ראש ולא מתוך שיחה ולא מתוך דברים בטלים אלא מתוך דבר שמחה של מצוה שנאמר (מלכים ב ג, טו) ועתה קחו לי מנגן והיה כנגן המנגן ותהי עליו יד ה' אמר רב יהודה וכן לדבר הלכה אמר רבא וכן לחלום טוב,איני והאמר רב גידל אמר רב כל תלמיד חכם שיושב לפני רבו ואין שפתותיו נוטפות מר תכוינה שנאמר (שיר השירים ה, יג) שפתותיו שושנים נוטפות מור עובר אל תקרי מור עובר אלא מר עובר אל תקרי שושנים אלא ששונים לא קשיא הא ברבה והא בתלמיד ואיבעית אימא הא והא ברבה ולא קשיא הא מקמי דלפתח הא לבתר דפתח כי הא דרבה מקמי דפתח להו לרבנן אמר מילתא דבדיחותא ובדחי רבנן לסוף יתיב באימתא ופתח בשמעתא,ואף ספר משלי בקשו לגנוז שהיו דבריו סותרין זה את זה ומפני מה לא גנזוהו אמרי ספר קהלת לאו עיינינן ואשכחינן טעמא הכא נמי ליעיינן ומאי דבריו סותרים זה את זה כתיב (משלי כו, ד) אל תען כסיל כאולתו וכתיב (משלי כו, ה) ענה כסיל כאולתו לא קשיא הא בדברי תורה הא במילי דעלמא,כי הא דההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי אמר ליה אשתך אשתי ובניך בני אמר ליה רצונך שתשתה כוס של יין שתה ופקע ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי חייא אמר ליה אמך אשתי ואתה בני אמר ליה רצונך שתשתה כוס של יין שתה ופקע אמר רבי חייא אהניא ליה צלותיה לרבי דלא לשווייה בני ממזירי דרבי כי הוה מצלי אמר יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהינו שתצילני היום מעזי. פנים ומעזות פנים,בדברי תורה מאי היא כי הא דיתיב רבן גמליאל וקא דריש עתידה אשה שתלד בכל יום שנאמר (ירמיהו לא, ח) הרה ויולדת יחדיו ליגלג עליו אותו תלמיד אמר אין כל חדש תחת השמש א"ל בא ואראך דוגמתן בעוה"ז נפק אחוי ליה תרנגולת,ותו יתיב רבן גמליאל וקא דריש עתידים אילנות שמוציאין פירות בכל יום שנאמר (יחזקאל יז, כג) ונשא ענף ועשה פרי מה ענף בכל יום אף פרי בכל יום ליגלג עליו אותו תלמיד אמר והכתיב אין כל חדש תחת השמש א"ל בא ואראך דוגמתם בעולם הזה נפק אחוי ליה צלף,ותו יתיב רבן גמליאל וקא דריש עתידה ארץ ישראל שתוציא גלוסקאות וכלי מילת שנאמר (תהלים עב, טז) יהי פסת בר בארץ ליגלג עליו אותו תלמיד ואמר אין כל חדש תחת השמש אמר ליה בא ואראך דוגמתן בעולם הזה נפק אחוי ליה כמיהין ופטריות ואכלי מילת נברא בר קורא:,. ת"ר לעולם יהא אדם ענוותן כהלל ואל יהא קפדן כשמאי מעשה בשני בני אדם | 30b. What did David do? b Every Shabbat he would sit and learn all day /b long to protect himself from the Angel of Death. On b that day on which /b the Angel of Death b was supposed to put his soul to rest, /b the day on which David was supposed to die, b the Angel of Death stood before him and was unable /b to overcome him because b his mouth did not pause from study. /b The Angel of Death b said: What shall I do to him? David had a garden [ i bustana /i ] behind his house; the Angel of Death came, climbed, and shook the trees. /b David b went out to see. /b As b he climbed the stair, the stair broke beneath him. /b He was startled and b was silent, /b interrupted his studies for a moment, b and died. /b ,Since David died in the garden, b Solomon sent /b the following question b to the study hall: Father died and is lying in the sun, and the dogs of father’s house are hungry. /b There is room for concern lest the dogs come and harm his body. What shall I do? b They sent /b an answer b to him: Cut up an /b animal b carcass and place it before the dogs. /b Since the dogs are hungry, handling the animal carcass to feed them is permitted. b And /b with regard to b your father, /b it is prohibited to move his body directly. b Place a loaf /b of bread b or an infant on top of him, and /b you can b move him /b into the shade due to the bread or the infant. b And /b is it b not appropriate /b what b Solomon said: “ /b F b or a living dog is better than a dead lion.” /b The ultimate conclusion of this discussion is that life is preferable to death. b And /b now, b with regard to the question that I asked before you; /b Rav Tanḥum spoke modestly, as, actually, they had asked him the question. b A lamp is called i ner /i and a person’s soul is /b also b called i ner /i , /b as it is written: “The spirit of man is the lamp [ i ner /i ] of the Lord” (Proverbs 20:27). b It is preferable /b that b the lamp of /b a being of b flesh and blood, /b an actual lamp, b will be extinguished in favor of the lamp of the Holy One, Blessed be He, /b a person’s soul. Therefore, one is permitted to extinguish a flame for the sake of a sick person.,Since contradictions in Ecclesiastes were mentioned, the Gemara cites additional relevant sources. b Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: The Sages sought to suppress the book of Ecclesiastes /b and declare it apocryphal b because its statements contradict each other /b and it is liable to confuse its readers. b And why did they not suppress it? Because its beginning /b consists of b matters of Torah and its end /b consists of b matters of Torah. /b The ostensibly contradictory details are secondary to the essence of the book, which is Torah. The Gemara elaborates: b Its beginning /b consists of b matters of Torah, as it is written: “What profit has man of all his labor which he labors under the sun?” /b (Ecclesiastes 1:3), b and /b the Sages of b the school /b of b Rabbi Yannai said: /b By inference: b Under the sun is where /b man b has no /b profit from his labor; however, b before the sun, /b i.e., when engaged in the study of Torah, which preceded the sun, b he does have /b profit. b Its ending /b consists of b matters of Torah, as it is written: “The end of the matter, all having been heard: Fear God, and keep His mitzvot; for this is the whole man” ( /b Ecclesiastes 12:13). With regard to this verse, the Gemara asks: b What is /b the meaning of the phrase: b For this is the whole man? Rabbi Eliezer said: The entire world was only created for this /b person. b Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: This /b person b is equivalent to the entire world. Shimon ben Azzai says and some say /b that b Shimon ben Zoma says: The entire world was only created as companion to this /b man, so that he will not be alone., b And /b to the essence of the matter, the Gemara asks: b What is /b the meaning of: b Its statements /b that b contradict each other? It is written: “Vexation is better than laughter” /b (Ecclesiastes 7:3), b and it is written: “I said of laughter: It is praiseworthy” /b (Ecclesiastes 2:2), which is understood to mean that laughter is commendable. Likewise in one verse b it is written: “So I commended mirth” /b (Ecclesiastes 8:15), b and /b in another verse b it is written: “And of mirth: What does it accomplish?” /b (Ecclesiastes 2:2). The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult, /b as the contradiction can be resolved. b Vexation is better than laughter /b means: The b vexation /b of b the Holy One, Blessed be He, toward the righteous in this world is preferable to the laughter which the Holy One, Blessed be He, laughs with the wicked in this world /b by showering them with goodness. b I said of laughter: It is praiseworthy, that is /b the b laughter which the Holy One, Blessed be He, laughs with the righteous in the World-to-Come. /b ,Similarly, “ b So I commended mirth,” /b that is b the joy of a mitzva. “And of mirth: What does it accomplish?” that is joy that is not /b the joy b of a mitzva. /b The praise of joy mentioned here is b to teach you that the Divine Presence rests /b upon an individual b neither from /b an atmosphere of b sadness, nor from /b an atmosphere of b laziness, nor from /b an atmosphere of b laughter, nor from /b an atmosphere of b frivolity, nor from /b an atmosphere of b idle conversation, nor from /b an atmosphere of b idle chatter, but rather from /b an atmosphere imbued with b the joy of /b a b mitzva. As it was stated /b with regard to Elisha that after he became angry at the king of Israel, his prophetic spirit left him until he requested: b “But now bring me a minstrel; and it came to pass, when the minstrel played, that the hand of the Lord came upon him” /b (II Kings 3:15). b Rav Yehuda said: And, so /b too, one should be joyful before stating b a matter of i halakha /i . Rava said: And, so too, /b one should be joyful before going to sleep in order b to /b have a b good dream. /b ,The Gemara asks: Is b that so, /b that one should introduce matters of i halakha /i joyfully? b Didn’t Rav Giddel say /b that b Rav said: Any Torah scholar who sits before his teacher and his lips are not dripping with myrrh /b due to fear of his teacher, those lips b shall be burnt, /b as b it is stated: “His lips are as lilies, dripping with flowing myrrh [ i shoshanim notefot mor over /i ]” /b (Song of Songs 5:13)? He interpreted homiletically: b Do not read i mor over /i , flowing myrrh; rather, /b read b i mar over /i , flowing bitterness. /b Likewise, b do not read i shoshanim /i , lilies; rather, /b read b i sheshonim /i , that are studying, /b meaning that lips that are studying Torah must be full of bitterness. The Gemara explains: This is b not difficult, /b there is no contradiction here, as b this, /b where it was taught that one should introduce matters of i halakha /i joyfully, is referring b to a rabbi, and that, /b where it was taught that one must be filled with bitterness, is referring b to a student, /b who must listen to his teacher with trepidation. b And if you wish, say /b instead that b this and that /b are referring b to a rabbi, and /b it is b not difficult. This, /b where it was taught that he must be joyful, is b before /b he b begins /b teaching, whereas b that, /b where it was taught that he must be filled with bitterness and trepidation, is b after /b he already b began /b teaching i halakha /i . That explanation is b like that which Rabba /b did. b Before he began /b teaching i halakha /i b to the Sages, he would say something humorous and the Sages would be cheered. Ultimately, he sat in trepidation and began /b teaching the i halakha /i ., b And, /b the Gemara continues, the Sages b sought to suppress the book of Proverbs as well /b because b its statements contradict each other. And why did they not suppress it? They said: /b In the case of b the book of Ecclesiastes, didn’t we analyze it and find an explanation /b that its statements were not contradictory? b Here too, let us analyze it. And what is /b the meaning of: b Its statements contradict each other? /b On the one hand, b it is written: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, /b lest you also be like him” (Proverbs 26:4), b and /b on the other hand, b it is written: “Answer a fool according to his folly, /b lest he be wise in his own eyes” (Proverbs 26:5). The Gemara resolves this apparent contradiction: This is b not difficult, /b as b this, /b where one should answer a fool, is referring to a case where the fool is making claims b about Torah matters; /b whereas b that, /b where one should not answer him, is referring to a case where the fool is making claims b about mundane matters. /b ,The Gemara relates how Sages conducted themselves in both of those circumstances. b As in /b the case b of that /b man b who came before Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi and b said to him: Your wife /b is b my wife and your children /b are b my children, /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b said to him: /b Would b you like to drink a cup of wine? He drank and burst /b and died. Similarly, the Gemara relates: b There was that man who came before Rabbi Ḥiyya and said to him: Your mother /b is b my wife, and you /b are b my son. He said to him: /b Would b you like to drink a cup of wine? He drank and burst /b and died. b Rabbi Ḥiyya said /b with regard to the incident involving Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi’s b prayer /b that b his children will not be rendered i mamzerim /i , /b children of illicit relations, b was effective for him. As when Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b would pray, he said /b after his prayer: b May it be Your will, O Lord, my God, that You will deliver me today from impudent people and from insolence. /b Insolence, in this case, refers to i mamzerut /i . It was due to his prayer that that man burst and was unsuccessful in disparaging Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s children., b In matters of Torah, what is /b the case with regard to which the verse said that one should respond to a fool’s folly? b As in /b the case b where Rabban Gamliel was sitting and he interpreted /b a verse b homiletically: In the future, /b in the World-to-Come, b a woman will give birth every day, as it says: “The woman with child and her that gives birth together” /b (Jeremiah 31:7), explaining that birth will occur on the same day as conception. b A certain student scoffed at him /b and b said: /b That cannot be, as it has already been stated: b “There is nothing new under the sun” /b (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Rabban Gamliel b said to him: Come and I will show you an example /b of this b in this world. He took him outside and showed him a chicken /b that lays eggs every day., b And furthermore: Rabban Gamliel sat and interpreted /b a verse b homiletically: In the future, /b in the World-to-Come, b trees will produce fruits every day, as it is stated: “And it shall bring forth branches and bear fruit” /b (Ezekiel 17:23); b just as a branch /b grows b every day, so too, fruit /b will be produced b every day. A certain student scoffed at him /b and b said: Isn’t it written: There is nothing new under the sun? He said to him: Come and I will show you an example /b of this b in this world. He went outside and showed him a caper bush, /b part of which is edible during each season of the year., b And furthermore: Rabban Gamliel sat and interpreted /b a verse b homiletically: In the future, /b the World-to-Come, b Eretz Yisrael will produce cakes and /b fine b wool garments /b that will grow in the ground, b as it is stated: “Let abundant grain be in the land /b .” b A certain student scoffed at him and said: There is nothing new under the sun. He said to him: Come and I will show you an example in this world. He went outside /b and b showed him truffles and mushrooms, /b which emerge from the earth over the course of a single night and are shaped like a loaf of bread. b And with regard to wool garments, /b he showed him b the covering of a heart of palm, /b a young palm branch, which is wrapped in a thin net-like covering.,Since the Gemara discussed the forbearance of Sages, who remain silent in the face of nonsensical comments, it cites additional relevant examples. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A person should always be patient like Hillel and not impatient like Shammai. /b The Gemara related: There was b an incident /b involving b two people /b |
|
17. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 234| 13b. ונמלך ומצאו בן עירו ואמר שמך כשמי ושם אשתך כשם אשתי פסול לגרש בו,הכי השתא התם (דברים כד, א) וכתב לה כתיב בעינן כתיבה לשמה הכא ועשה לה כתיב בעינן עשייה לשמה עשייה דידה מחיקה היא,א"ר אחא בר חנינא גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שאין בדורו של רבי מאיר כמותו ומפני מה לא קבעו הלכה כמותו שלא יכלו חביריו לעמוד על סוף דעתו שהוא אומר על טמא טהור ומראה לו פנים על טהור טמא ומראה לו פנים,תנא לא ר"מ שמו אלא רבי נהוראי שמו ולמה נקרא שמו ר"מ שהוא מאיר עיני חכמים בהלכה ולא נהוראי שמו אלא רבי נחמיה שמו ואמרי לה רבי אלעזר בן ערך שמו ולמה נקרא שמו נהוראי שמנהיר עיני חכמים בהלכה,אמר רבי האי דמחדדנא מחבראי דחזיתיה לר' מאיר מאחוריה ואילו חזיתיה מקמיה הוה מחדדנא טפי דכתיב (ישעיהו ל, כ) והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך,א"ר אבהו א"ר יוחנן תלמיד היה לו לר"מ וסומכוס שמו שהיה אומר על כל דבר ודבר של טומאה ארבעים ושמונה טעמי טומאה ועל כל דבר ודבר של טהרה ארבעים ושמונה טעמי טהרה,תנא תלמיד ותיק היה ביבנה שהיה מטהר את השרץ במאה וחמשים טעמים,אמר רבינא אני אדון ואטהרנו ומה נחש שממית ומרבה טומאה טהור שרץ שאין ממית ומרבה טומאה לא כ"ש,ולא היא מעשה קוץ בעלמא קעביד,א"ר אבא אמר שמואל שלש שנים נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו יצאה בת קול ואמרה אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הן והלכה כב"ה,וכי מאחר שאלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים מפני מה זכו ב"ה לקבוע הלכה כמותן מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו ושונין דבריהן ודברי ב"ש ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי ב"ש לדבריהן,כאותה ששנינו מי שהיה ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית בית שמאי פוסלין וב"ה מכשירין אמרו ב"ה לב"ש לא כך היה מעשה שהלכו זקני ב"ש וזקני ב"ה לבקר את ר' יוחנן בן החורנית ומצאוהו יושב ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית אמרו להן בית שמאי (אי) משם ראיה אף הן אמרו לו אם כך היית נוהג לא קיימת מצות סוכה מימיך,ללמדך שכל המשפיל עצמו הקב"ה מגביהו וכל המגביה עצמו הקב"ה משפילו כל המחזר על הגדולה גדולה בורחת ממנו וכל הבורח מן הגדולה גדולה מחזרת אחריו וכל הדוחק את השעה שעה דוחקתו וכל הנדחה מפני שעה שעה עומדת לו,ת"ר שתי שנים ומחצה נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא והללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שנברא יותר משלא נברא נמנו וגמרו נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא עכשיו שנברא יפשפש במעשיו ואמרי לה ימשמש במעשיו, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big הקורה שאמרו רחבה כדי לקבל אריח ואריח חצי לבנה של שלשה טפחים דייה לקורה שתהא רחבה טפח כדי לקבל אריח לרחבו,רחבה כדי לקבל אריח ובריאה כדי לקבל אריח רבי יהודה אומר רחבה אף על פי שאין בריאה היתה של קש ושל קנים רואין אותה כאילו היא של מתכת,עקומה רואין אותה כאילו היא פשוטה עגולה רואין אותה כאילו היא מרובעת כל שיש בהיקיפו שלשה טפחים יש בו רוחב טפח: | 13b. b but /b later b reconsidered /b and did not divorce her, b and a resident of his city found him and said: Your name is /b the same b as my name, and your wife’s name is /b the same b as my wife’s name, /b and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce, and I will use it to divorce my wife, then this document b is invalid to divorce with it? /b Apparently, a man may not divorce his wife with a bill of divorce written for another woman, and the same should apply to the scroll of a i sota /i .,The Gemara rejects this argument: b How can you compare /b the two cases? b There, /b with regard to a bill of divorce, b it is written: “And he shall write for her” /b (Deuteronomy 24:1), and therefore b we require writing /b it b in her name, /b specifically for her; whereas b here, /b with regard to a i sota /i , b it is written: “And he shall perform with her /b all this ritual” (Numbers 5:30), and therefore b we require performance in her name. /b In b her /b case, the b performance is erasure; /b however, writing of the scroll need not be performed specifically for her.,On the topic of Rabbi Meir and his Torah study, the Gemara cites an additional statement. b Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that in the generation of Rabbi Meir there was no /b one of the Sages who is b his equal. Why /b then b didn’t /b the Sages b establish the i halakha /i in accordance with his /b opinion? It is b because his colleagues were unable to ascertain the profundity of his opinion. /b He was so brilliant that he could present a cogent argument for any position, even if it was not consistent with the prevalent i halakha /i . b As he /b would b state with regard to /b a ritually b impure /b item that it is b pure, and display justification /b for that ruling, and likewise he would state b with regard to /b a ritually b pure /b item that it is b impure, and display justification /b for that ruling. The Sages were unable to distinguish between the statements that were i halakha /i and those that were not., b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Meir was not his name; rather, Rabbi Nehorai was his name. And why was he called /b by the b name Rabbi Meir? /b It was b because he illuminates [ i meir /i ] the eyes of the Sages in /b matters of b the i halakha /i . And Rabbi Nehorai was not the name /b of the i tanna /i known by that name; b rather, Rabbi Neḥemya was his name, and some say: Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh was his name. And why was he called /b by the b name Rabbi Nehorai? /b It is b because he enlightens [ i manhir /i ] the eyes of the Sages in /b matters of b the i halakha /i . /b ,The Gemara relates that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said: /b The fact b that I am /b more b incisive than my colleagues is /b due to the fact b that I saw Rabbi Meir from behind, /b i.e., I sat behind him when I was his student. b Had I seen him from the front, I would be /b even more b incisive, as it is written: “And your eyes shall see your teacher” /b (Isaiah 30:20). Seeing the face of one’s teacher increases one’s understanding and sharpens one’s mind.,And the Gemara stated that b Rabbi Abbahu said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Rabbi Meir had a disciple, and his name was Sumakhus, who would state with regard to each and every matter of ritual impurity forty-eight reasons /b in support of the ruling of b impurity, and with regard to each and every matter of ritual purity forty-eight reasons /b in support of the ruling of b purity. /b , b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b There was a distinguished disciple at Yavne who could /b with his incisive intellect b purify the creeping animal, /b explicitly deemed ritually impure by the Torah, adducing b one hundred and fifty reasons /b in support of his argument., b Ravina said: I /b too b will deliberate and purify it /b employing the following reasoning: b And just as a snake that kills /b people and animals b and /b thereby b increases ritual impurity /b in the world, as a corpse imparts impurity through contact, through being carried, and by means of a tent, b is ritually pure /b and transmits no impurity, b a creeping animal that does not kill and /b does not b increase impurity /b in the world, b all the more so /b should it be pure.,The Gemara rejects this: b And it is not so; /b that is not a valid i a fortiori /i argument, as it can be refuted. A snake b is performing a mere act of a thorn. /b A thorn causes injury and even death; nevertheless, it is not ritually impure. The same applies to a snake, and therefore this i a fortiori /i argument is rejected., b Rabbi Abba said /b that b Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The i halakha /i is in accordance with our /b opinion, b and these said: The i halakha /i is in accordance with our /b opinion. Ultimately, b a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: /b Both b these and those are the words of the living God. However, the i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Beit Hillel. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to /b have b the i halakha /i established in accordance with their /b opinion? The reason is b that they were agreeable and forbearing, /b showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the i halakha /i they would b teach /b both b their /b own b statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, /b when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, b they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their /b own b statements, /b in deference to Beit Shammai., b As /b in the mishna b that we learned: /b In the case of b one whose head and most of his body were in the i sukka /i , but his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem /b this i sukka /i b invalid; and Beit Hillel deem it valid. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Wasn’t there an incident in which the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoḥa ben HaḤoranit, and they found him sitting /b with b his head and most of his body in the i sukka /i , but his table was in the house? Beit Shammai said to them: From there /b do you seek to adduce b a proof? /b Those visitors, b too, said to him: If that was /b the manner in which b you were accustomed /b to perform the mitzva, b you have never fulfilled the mitzva of i sukka /i in /b all b your days. /b It is apparent from the phrasing of the mishna that when the Sages of Beit Hillel related that the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel visited Rabbi Yoḥa ben HaḤoranit, they mentioned the Elders of Beit Shammai before their own Elders.,This is b to teach you that anyone who humbles himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, exalts him, and anyone who exalts himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, humbles him. Anyone who seeks greatness, greatness flees from him, and, /b conversely, b anyone who flees from greatness, greatness seeks him. And anyone who /b attempts to b force the moment /b and expends great effort to achieve an objective precisely when he desires to do so, b the moment forces him /b too, and he is unsuccessful. b And /b conversely, b anyone who /b is patient and b yields to the moment, the moment stands /b by b his /b side, and he will ultimately be successful., b The Sages taught /b the following i baraita /i : b For two and a half years, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These say: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. And those said: It is preferable for man to have been created than had he not been created. /b Ultimately, b they were counted and concluded: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. /b However, b now that he has been created, he should examine his actions /b that he has performed and seek to correct them. b And some say: He should scrutinize his /b planned b actions /b and evaluate whether or not and in what manner those actions should be performed, so that he will not sin., strong MISHNA: /strong b The /b cross b beam, which /b the Sages b stated /b may be used to render an alleyway fit for one to carry within it, must be b wide enough to receive /b and hold b a small brick. And /b this b small brick /b is b half a large brick, /b which measures b three handbreadths, /b i.e., a handbreadth and a half. b It is sufficient that the /b cross b beam will be a handbreadth in width, /b not a handbreadth and a half, b enough to hold a small brick across its width. /b ,And the cross beam must be b wide enough to hold a small brick /b and also b sturdy enough to hold a small brick /b and not collapse. b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If it is b wide /b enough to hold the brick, b even though it is not sturdy /b enough to actually support it, it is sufficient. Therefore, even if the cross beam b is /b made b of straw or reeds, one considers it as though it were /b made b of metal. /b ,If the cross beam is b curved, /b so that a small brick cannot rest on it, b one considers it as though it were straight; /b if it is b round, one considers it as though it were square. /b The following principle was stated with regard to a round cross beam: b Any /b beam b with a circumference of three handbreadths is a handbreadth in width, /b i.e., in diameter. |
|
18. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 229| 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 b by inference that if he purchases /b a new object b and then purchases /b a similar object, b everyone agrees that he is not required to recite a blessing, /b as he has already recited a blessing over the purchase of that type of item., b Some say /b a different version of this dispute: b Rav Huna said: They only taught /b that one recites the blessing: Who has given us life, on a new vessel b if he did not purchase /b that item in the past b and purchased /b the item now, for the first time. b However, if he purchased /b that item in the past b and purchased /b the item b again, he need not recite a blessing. And Rabbi Yoḥa said: Even if one purchased /b that item in the past b and purchased /b a similar item b again, he must recite a blessing. /b This proves b by inference that if one /b already b has /b a vessel b and /b then b purchased /b similar vessels, b everyone agrees that he must recite a blessing. /b ,The Gemara b raises an objection /b based on what was taught in a i baraita /i : One who b built a new house and does not /b already b own a similar /b house, b or purchased new vessels and does not /b already b own similar /b vessels, b must recite a blessing. /b However, if b he /b already b owns a similar /b one, b he need not recite a blessing, /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda, /b on the other hand, b says: In either case, he must recite a blessing. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Granted, according to the first version /b of the dispute between Rav Huna and Rabbi Yoḥa, one could say that b Rav Huna /b holds b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, and /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa /b holds b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda. However, according to the latter version /b of the dispute, b granted, Rav Huna /b holds b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, but in accordance with whose /b opinion b did Rabbi Yoḥa state /b his opinion? His statement b is neither in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir nor in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda. /b ,The Gemara responds: b Rabbi Yoḥa /b could have b said to you: The same is true according to Rabbi Yehuda’s /b opinion; in a case where b one has purchased /b an item in the past b and purchased /b a similar item b again, he must recite a blessing. /b The fact b that they /b only b disagreed with regard to /b a case b where he /b already b owned /b similar vessels b and he purchased /b new ones does not indicate that this is their only disagreement. The dispute was presented in this way b to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Meir’s /b opinion b ; even /b in a case where b one purchased /b an item b while owning a /b similar item, b he need not recite a blessing; all the more so /b in a case where b he purchased /b an item b and then purchased /b a similar item b again, he need not recite a blessing. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b if that is the reason for presenting the dispute in this manner, b let them disagree with regard to /b a case b where one purchased /b an item in the past b and /b then b purchased /b a similar item b again, /b where according to Rabbi Meir b one need not recite a blessing, in order to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Yehuda’s /b 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 b the strength of leniency is preferable. /b ,We learned in the mishna: b One recites a blessing for the bad /b 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: b What are the circumstances? /b The Gemara explains: b In a case where a dam was breached /b and water flowed b onto one’s land, despite /b the fact b that this will /b ultimately b be beneficial for him, for his land will be covered with sediment /b from the flowing water b which will enhance /b the quality of his soil, b it is /b nonetheless b bad at present. /b ,One must recite a blessing b for the good /b that befalls him just as for the bad.,The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances? /b The Gemara explains: b In a case where one found a lost object, despite /b the fact b that it is /b ultimately b bad for him /b because b if the king heard about it, he would /b certainly b take it from him. /b 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, b it is favorable at present. /b ,We learned in the mishna: b One whose wife was pregt and he said: May it be /b God’s b will that /b my wife b will give birth /b to a male child, b it is a vain prayer. /b , b Is a prayer /b in that case b ineffective? Rav Yosef raises an objection /b based on a i baraita /i : It is stated: b “And afterwards she bore a daughter, and called her name Dina” /b (Genesis 30:21). The Gemara asks: b What is /b meant by the addition of the word: b Afterwards? /b What does the verse seek to convey by emphasizing that after the birth of Zebulun she gave birth to Dina? b 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, /b and b if this /b fetus b is male, my sister /b Rachel b will not /b even b be /b the equivalent b of one the maidservants; immediately /b the fetus b was transformed into a daughter, as it is stated: And she called her name Dina; /b meaning she named her after her judgment [din]. The Gemara rejects this: b One does not mention miraculous acts /b to teach general i halakha /i .,The Gemara introduces an alternative explanation: b And if you wish, say /b instead that the b story of Leah /b and her prayer with regard to the fetus b was within forty days /b of conception. b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : During b the first three days /b after intercourse, b one should pray that /b the seed b not putrefy, /b that it will fertilize the egg and develop into a fetus. b From the third /b day b until the fortieth, one should pray that it will be male. From the fortieth /b day b until three months, one should pray that it will not be /b deformed, in the shape of a b flat fish, /b as when the fetus does not develop it assumes a shape somewhat similar to a flat sandal fish. b From the third month until the sixth, one should pray that it will not be stillborn. /b And b from the sixth /b month b until the ninth, one should pray that it will be emerge safely. /b Therefore, during the first forty days from conception, one may still pray to affect the gender of the fetus.,The Gemara asks: b Is prayer effective /b for that purpose? b Didn’t Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Ami, say: /b The tradition teaches that the gender of the fetus is determined at the moment of conception. If the b man emits seed first, /b his wife b gives birth to a female; /b if the b woman emits seed first, she gives birth to a male, as it is stated: “When a woman emitted seed and bore a male” /b (Leviticus 12:2). The Gemara answers: b With what are we dealing here? /b We are dealing b with a case where they both emit seed simultaneously. /b In that case, the gender is undetermined and prayer may be effectual.,We learned in the mishna: b One who was walking along the way /b 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., b 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 /b the scream b is not /b coming b 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” /b (Psalms 112:7). b Rava said: Any way that you interpret this verse, /b its meaning is clear. b It /b can be b interpreted from beginning to end /b or b it /b can be b interpreted from end to beginning. /b The Gemara explains: b It /b can be b interpreted from beginning to end: Why is it that: He shall not be afraid of evil tidings? /b Because b his heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord. /b The Gemara continues: b And it /b can be b interpreted from end to beginning: /b One whose b heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord /b is a person who b shall not be afraid of evil tidings. /b ,The Gemara relates: b This student was once walking after Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, in the marketplace of Zion. /b Rabbi Yishmael b saw that /b the student b was afraid. He said to him: You are a sinner, as it is written: “The transgressors in Zion are afraid, /b trembling has seized the ungodly” (Isaiah 33:14). The student b replied: And is it not written: “Happy is the man that fears always” /b (Proverbs 28:14)? Rabbi Yishmael b said to him: That /b verse b is written with regard to matters of Torah, /b that one should be afraid lest he forget them. For everything else, one must trust in God.,In a similar vein, the Gemara relates: b Yehuda bar Natan was coming and going after Rav Hamnuna. /b Yehuda bar Natan b sighed; /b Rav Hamnuna b 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” /b (Job 3:25)? He responded: b Is it not said: “Happy is the man who fears always”? /b Rav Hamnuna answered: b That /b verse b is written with regard to matters of Torah. /b , b We learned /b in the mishna: b One who enters a large city /b recites two prayers; Ben Azzai says he recites four prayers., b The Sages taught /b the details of Ben Azzai’s teaching in a i baraita /i : br b Upon his entrance /b to the city b what does he recite? /b br b May it be Your will, O Lord my God, that You bring me into this city to peace. /b br After b he entered /b the city, b he recites: I thank You, O Lord my God /b , b that You brought me into this city to peace. /b br When he b seeks to leave /b the city, b 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. /b br After b he left, he recites: I give thanks before You, O Lord my God, that You took me out of this city to peace; /b br b and just as You took me out to peace, /b br b so too lead me to peace, support me to peace, direct my steps to peace, /b br b and rescue me from the hand of any enemy or /b those b lying in ambush along the way. /b , b Rav Mattana said: This was taught only with regard to a city where /b criminals b are not tried and executed, /b as in a place like that he may be killed without trial. b However, in a city where /b criminals b are tried and executed, /b these prayers b do not apply, /b as if one is not guilty he will not be harmed., b Some say /b that b Rav Mattana said /b the opposite: b Even in a city where /b criminals b are tried and executed /b one must pray for mercy, b as sometimes he may not encounter a person who will plead in his favor. /b , b The Sages taught: One who enters a /b Roman b bathhouse, /b where a fire burns beneath the pool of water used for bathing, and where there is the risk of collapse, b says: /b br b May it be Your will, O Lord my God, that you save me from this and similar /b matters, br b and do not let ruin or iniquity befall me, /b br b and if ruin or iniquity does befall me, let my death be atonement for all of my transgressions. /b , b Abaye said: One should not say: /b If ruin befalls me, b so as not to open his mouth to Satan /b and provoke him. b As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said and as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i b in the name of Rabbi Yosei: One should never open his mouth to Satan /b by raising, at his own initiative, the possibility of mishap or death., b Rav Yosef said: What is the verse /b that alludes to this? b As it is written: “We should have almost been as Sodom, we should have been like unto Gomorrah” /b (Isaiah 1:9), after which b what did /b the prophet b reply to them? “Hear the word of the Lord, rulers of Sodom; /b 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: b When he emerges /b from the bathhouse, b what does he say? Rav Aḥa said: I give thanks to You, Lord, that You saved me from the fire. /b ,The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Abbahu entered a bathhouse when the bathhouse /b floor b 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. /b He held one or two people in his arm, with others holding on them and so on, so that all were saved. b He said: This is /b confirmation of the statement b of Rav Aḥa, /b who said that one should offer thanks upon leaving the bathhouse safely., b As Rav Aḥa said: One who enters to let blood says: /b br b May it be Your will, O Lord my God, /b br b that this enterprise be for healing and that You should heal me. /b br b As You are a faithful God of healing and Your healing is truth. /b br b Because it is not the way of people to heal, but they have become accustomed. /b br Rav Aḥa is saying that people should not practice medicine as they lack the ability to heal; rather, healing should be left to God., b Abaye /b responded and b said: One should not say this, as /b it was b taught /b in b the school of Rabbi Yishmael /b that from the verse, b “And shall cause him to be thoroughly healed” /b (Exodus 21:19), b from here /b we derive b that permission is granted to a doctor to heal. /b The practice of medicine is in accordance with the will of God.,As for bloodletting, the Gemara asks: b When one stands /b after having let blood, b what does he say? Rav Aḥa said: /b He recites in gratitude: b Blessed…Who heals without payment. /b |
|
19. Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 178 | 22b. b Had /b the verse b stated: His ear to the door, I would say: He should pierce, opposite his ear, into the door /b alone. In other words, with regard to b the door, yes, /b it should be pierced, but b his ear /b itself, b no, /b it should not be pierced. The Gemara asks: b But /b how could it even be suggested that b his ear /b should b not /b be pierced? b But isn’t it written: “And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl” /b (Exodus 21:6)?, b Rather, I would say /b that the master b should pierce his ear outside, /b i.e., not at the door, b and he should place it /b afterward b on the door, and /b then b he should pierce opposite his ear on the door. /b Therefore, b the verse states: /b “And you shall take the awl and place it b through his ear and into the door” /b (Deuteronomy 15:17). b How so? He bores through /b his ear b until he reaches the door. /b ,The i baraita /i adds: Since the verse states b “door,” I /b would b derive /b that this applies to any door, regardless of b whether /b it is b detached /b from its doorpost or b whether it is not detached. /b Therefore, b the verse states: /b “Then his master shall bring him to the court, and shall bring him to the door, or to the b doorpost” /b (Exodus 21:6): b Just as a doorpost is upright /b and attached, b so too, a door /b must be b upright /b and attached to the doorpost., b Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai would expound this verse as a type of decorative wreath [ i ḥomer /i ], /b i.e., as an allegory: b Why is the ear different from all the other limbs in the body, /b as the ear alone is pierced? b The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: /b This b ear heard My voice on Mount Sinai when I said: “For to Me the children of Israel are slaves” /b (Leviticus 25:55), which indicates: b And /b they should b not /b be b slaves to slaves. And /b yet b this /b man b went and /b willingly b acquired a master for himself. /b Therefore, b let /b this ear b be pierced. /b , b And Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b would /b likewise b expound this verse as a type of decorative wreath: Why are the door and a doorpost different from all other objects in the house, /b that the piercing is performed with them? b The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: The door and the doorpost were witnesses in Egypt when I passed over the lintel and /b when I passed b over the two doorposts /b of houses in which there were Jews (Exodus, chapter 12), b and I said: “For to Me the children of Israel are slaves,” and /b they should b not /b be b slaves to slaves. And I delivered them /b at that time b from slavery to freedom, and /b yet b this /b man b went and acquired a master for himself. /b Therefore, b let him be pierced before them, /b as they are witnesses that he violated God’s will., strong MISHNA: /strong b A Canaanite slave is acquired by /b means of b money, by /b means of b a document, or by /b means of the master b taking possession /b of him. b And he can acquire himself, /b i.e., his freedom, b by /b means of b money /b given b by others, /b i.e., other people can give money to his master, b and by /b means of b a bill /b of manumission if he accepts it b by himself. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: /b The slave can be freed b by /b means of b money /b given b by himself, and by /b means of b a bill /b of manumission if it is accepted b by others, provided that the money /b he gives b belongs to others, /b not to him. This is because the slave cannot possess property, as anything owned by a slave is considered his master’s., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive that these are the modes by which a slave can be acquired? The Gemara answers: b As it is written /b with regard to Canaanite slaves: b “And you shall bequeath them to your children as an ancestral inheritance” /b (Leviticus 25:46). b The verse juxtaposes /b Canaanite slaves b to an ancestral field: Just as an ancestral field can be acquired by /b means of b money, by /b means of b a document, or by /b means of the owner b taking possession /b of it, b so too, a Canaanite slave can be acquired by /b means of b money, by /b means of b a document, or by /b means of the master b taking possession /b of him.,The Gemara asks: b If /b so, perhaps one can interpret this juxtaposition differently: b Just as an ancestral field returns to its owners in the Jubilee /b Year, b so too a Canaanite slave returns to his /b prior b owners in the Jubilee /b Year. Therefore, b the verse states: “of them you may take your slaves forever” /b (Leviticus 25:46), which indicates that the sale is permanent.,A Sage b taught /b in a i baraita /i that a Canaanite slave can b also /b be acquired b by /b means of symbolic b exchange, /b i.e., a i pro forma /i act of acquisition performed by the giving of an item, usually a kerchief, effecting the transfer of ownership of an article. The Gemara asks: b And /b why doesn’t b the i tanna /i of our /b mishna mention acquisition through symbolic exchange? The Gemara answers: He b teaches /b only the effectiveness of b modes /b of acquisition b which are not /b effective in transferring the ownership b of movable property, /b as it is a novelty that these are effective, as one may have thought that a slave can be acquired only in the same manner as movable property is acquired. He does b not teach /b the effectiveness of b modes /b of acquisition b which are /b effective in transferring the ownership b of movable property, /b as it is not a novelty that a slave can be acquired in that manner., b Shmuel says: A Canaanite slave can be acquired by /b means of b pulling, /b as can movable property. b How /b is pulling performed in the case of a slave? If the master b took him by force and /b the slave b came to him, he has /b thereby b acquired him. /b But if the master b called him and he came to him /b willingly, b he has not acquired him. /b ,The Gemara comments: b Granted, according to /b the opinion of b the i tanna /i of our /b mishna, it is clear why he did not list pulling as a mode of acquisition, as b he /b does b not teach /b the effectiveness of b modes /b of acquisition b that are /b effective in transferring the ownership b of movable property; /b he b teaches /b only the effectiveness of b modes /b of acquisition b that are not /b effective in transferring the ownership b of movable property. /b Pulling is effective with movable property. b But according to /b the opinion of b the i tanna /i of the i baraita /i , /b who taught the mode of symbolic exchange, b let him teach pulling /b as well. The Gemara answers: b When he teaches /b his i baraita /i , which includes acquisition through symbolic exchange, he teaches the effectiveness of b modes /b of acquisition b that are /b effective in transferring the ownership of b both land and movable property. He does not teach /b the effectiveness of b pulling, which is /b effective in transferring the ownership b of movable property /b but b is not /b effective in transferring the ownership b of land. /b ,The Gemara returns to analyze Shmuel’s statement: b How /b does one acquire a slave through pulling? If the master b took him by force and he came to him, /b he has b acquired him. /b If b he called him and he came to him, /b he has b not acquired him. /b The Gemara asks: b And /b has he b not /b acquired him if b he called him? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b How /b is an animal acquired b through passing? /b If b he grabbed it by its hoof, /b or b by its hair, /b or b by the saddle on it, /b or b by the load [ i shalif /i ] on it, /b or b by the bit [ i bifrumbiya /i ] in its mouth, /b or b by the bell on its neck, he has acquired it. /b , b How /b is an animal acquired b by pulling? /b If b he calls it and it comes, or he /b if b hits it with a stick and it runs before him, once it lifts a foreleg and a hind leg /b from where it was standing, he b acquires it. Rabbi Asi, and some say Rabbi Aḥa, says: /b It is not enough if the animal lifts its feet. Rather, one does not acquire it b until it walks /b the distance of b its full height in the presence of /b the one acquiring it. In any event, this indicates that calling is an effective use of the mode of pulling.,The Sages b say /b in response that there is a difference between the acquisition of a slave and that of an animal. b An animal walks by the will of its owner, /b as it is domesticated and follows the orders of its master. Consequently, if it comes when called it is as though it was pulled. By contrast, b a slave walks by his own will. /b Consequently, even if a slave comes when called, this cannot be considered acquisition through pulling, as the master has performed no act of acquisition. b Rav Ashi said: A slave who is a minor is considered like an animal. /b Since he has no will of his own, he can be acquired through calling, like an animal.,§ b The Sages taught /b ( i Tosefta /i 1:5): b How /b does one acquire a slave b though possession? /b If the slave b removes /b the master’s b shoe, /b or b carries his garments after him to the bathhouse, /b or b undresses him, /b or b bathes him, /b or b anoints him, /b or b scrubs /b the oil off him, or b dresses him, /b or b puts on his shoes, or lifts him, /b the master b acquires him. Rabbi Shimon says: /b Acquisition through the mode of b possession should not be considered greater than /b acquisition using the mode of b lifting, as lifting acquires /b property b in any situation. /b With regard to this last statement the Gemara asks: b What is /b Rabbi Shimon b saying /b here? The first i tanna /i also said that a slave can be acquired by lifting., b Rav Ashi says /b that one can infer from the statement of the first i tanna /i : If a slave b lifts his master, /b the master b acquires him, /b as he is performing labor for the master. But if b his master lifts /b the slave, the master b does not acquire him, /b as the slave has not performed labor for his master. With regard to this b Rabbi Shimon says: /b Acquisition through b possession should not be greater than /b acquisition through b lifting, as lifting acquires /b property b in any situation. /b Consequently, one can acquire a slave even by lifting him.,The Gemara asks: b Now that you said /b that if a slave b lifts his master, /b the master b acquires him, /b consider the following ramification of this ruling: b If that is so, let a Canaanite maidservant be acquired by /b means of b sexual intercourse /b with the master, as it is possible to claim she lifts him during the act of intercourse. The Gemara answers: b When we say /b that one acquires a slave through the labor the slave performs for him, that applies to a situation where b this /b master b benefits and that /b slave b suffers. /b In this manner the master exercises his authority over the slave. b Here, /b with regard to sexual intercourse, b it is /b a case where b this /b master b benefits and this /b Canaanite maidservant likewise b benefits. /b Since both sides derive benefit, it cannot be seen as an act of acquisition.,The Gemara asks: If he engages in intercourse b in an atypical manner, /b i.e., anal intercourse, with her, b what can be said? /b In that case the woman does not benefit from the intercourse. b Rav Aḥai bar Adda of /b the place called b Aḥa said: Who will tell us, /b i.e., it is not obvious, b that there is no benefit for both of them, /b i.e., there is benefit only for the man, when they engage in intercourse in an atypical manner? b And furthermore, it is written: “Lyings with a woman” /b (Leviticus 18:22). The plural form indicates that there are two ways of engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman: In this manner b the verse compares typical /b sexual intercourse b to /b intercourse in b an atypical manner. /b ,§ The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Yehuda from India was a convert who had no heirs. /b When b he became ill Mar Zutra entered to ask /b about his health. When he b saw that his condition intensified, /b i.e., that he was about to die, Mar Zutra b said to /b Rabbi Yehuda’s b slave: Remove my shoes and take them to my house. /b He wanted to acquire the slave upon the death of his master, as when a convert without heirs dies, the first person to claim his property acquires it. The Gemara comments: b There are /b those b who say /b that this slave b was an adult man, /b |
|
| 20. Anon., Ruthrabbah, 2 Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 177 |
| 21. Anon., Pesiqta De Rav Kahana, 9 Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 178 |
| 22. Nilus, De Mon. Ex., 35 Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 41 |
| 23. Anon., Sifra Shemini, Milu’Im, 142 Tagged with subjects: •cohen, boaz Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 178 |
