1. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 25.1-25.19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 173; Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 58| 25.1. "וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃", 25.1. "וַיֵּשֶׁב יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּשִּׁטִּים וַיָּחֶל הָעָם לִזְנוֹת אֶל־בְּנוֹת מוֹאָב׃", 25.2. "וַתִּקְרֶאןָ לָעָם לְזִבְחֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶן וַיֹּאכַל הָעָם וַיִּשְׁתַּחֲוּוּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶן׃", 25.3. "וַיִּצָּמֶד יִשְׂרָאֵל לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר וַיִּחַר־אַף יְהוָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל׃", 25.4. "וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה קַח אֶת־כָּל־רָאשֵׁי הָעָם וְהוֹקַע אוֹתָם לַיהוָה נֶגֶד הַשָּׁמֶשׁ וְיָשֹׁב חֲרוֹן אַף־יְהוָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל׃", 25.5. "וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה אֶל־שֹׁפְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הִרְגוּ אִישׁ אֲנָשָׁיו הַנִּצְמָדִים לְבַעַל פְּעוֹר׃", 25.6. "וְהִנֵּה אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בָּא וַיַּקְרֵב אֶל־אֶחָיו אֶת־הַמִּדְיָנִית לְעֵינֵי מֹשֶׁה וּלְעֵינֵי כָּל־עֲדַת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהֵמָּה בֹכִים פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃", 25.7. "וַיַּרְא פִּינְחָס בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן־אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וַיָּקָם מִתּוֹךְ הָעֵדָה וַיִּקַּח רֹמַח בְּיָדוֹ׃", 25.8. "וַיָּבֹא אַחַר אִישׁ־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל־הַקֻּבָּה וַיִּדְקֹר אֶת־שְׁנֵיהֶם אֵת אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת־הָאִשָּׁה אֶל־קֳבָתָהּ וַתֵּעָצַר הַמַּגֵּפָה מֵעַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃", 25.9. "וַיִּהְיוּ הַמֵּתִים בַּמַּגֵּפָה אַרְבָּעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים אָלֶף׃", 25.11. "פִּינְחָס בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן־אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן הֵשִׁיב אֶת־חֲמָתִי מֵעַל בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקַנְאוֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִי בְּתוֹכָם וְלֹא־כִלִּיתִי אֶת־בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּקִנְאָתִי׃", 25.12. "לָכֵן אֱמֹר הִנְנִי נֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת־בְּרִיתִי שָׁלוֹם׃", 25.13. "וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ וּלְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו בְּרִית כְּהֻנַּת עוֹלָם תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר קִנֵּא לֵאלֹהָיו וַיְכַפֵּר עַל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃", 25.14. "וְשֵׁם אִישׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל הַמֻּכֶּה אֲשֶׁר הֻכָּה אֶת־הַמִּדְיָנִית זִמְרִי בֶּן־סָלוּא נְשִׂיא בֵית־אָב לַשִּׁמְעֹנִי׃", 25.15. "וְשֵׁם הָאִשָּׁה הַמֻּכָּה הַמִּדְיָנִית כָּזְבִּי בַת־צוּר רֹאשׁ אֻמּוֹת בֵּית־אָב בְּמִדְיָן הוּא׃", 25.16. "וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃", 25.17. "צָרוֹר אֶת־הַמִּדְיָנִים וְהִכִּיתֶם אוֹתָם׃", 25.18. "כִּי צֹרְרִים הֵם לָכֶם בְּנִכְלֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר־נִכְּלוּ לָכֶם עַל־דְּבַר־פְּעוֹר וְעַל־דְּבַר כָּזְבִּי בַת־נְשִׂיא מִדְיָן אֲחֹתָם הַמֻּכָּה בְיוֹם־הַמַּגֵּפָה עַל־דְּבַר־פְּעוֹר׃", | 25.1. "And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moab.", 25.2. "And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods; and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.", 25.3. "And Israel joined himself unto the Baal of Peor; and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.", 25.4. "And the LORD said unto Moses: ‘Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them up unto the LORD in face of the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may turn away from Israel.’", 25.5. "And Moses said unto the judges of Israel: ‘Slay ye every one his men that have joined themselves unto the Baal of Peor.’", 25.6. "And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, while they were weeping at the door of the tent of meeting.", 25.7. "And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from the midst of the congregation, and took a spear in his hand.", 25.8. "And he went after the man of Israel into the chamber, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.", 25.9. "And those that died by the plague were twenty and four thousand.", 25.10. "And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:", 25.11. "’Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned My wrath away from the children of Israel, in that he was very jealous for My sake among them, so that I consumed not the children of Israel in My jealousy.", 25.12. "Wherefore say: Behold, I give unto him My covet of peace;", 25.13. "and it shall be unto him, and to his seed after him, the covet of an everlasting priesthood; because he was jealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel.’", 25.14. "Now the name of the man of Israel that was slain, who was slain with the Midianitish woman, was Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a fathers’house among the Simeonites.", 25.15. "And the name of the Midianitish woman that was slain was Cozbi, the daughter of Zur; he was head of the people of a fathers’house in Midian.", 25.16. "And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:", 25.17. "’Harass the Midianites, and smite them;", 25.18. "for they harass you, by their wiles wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of the prince of Midian, their sister, who was slain on the day of the plague in the matter of Peor.’", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 16.9, 19.3, 23.41 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 225| 16.9. "וְהִקְרִיב אַהֲרֹן אֶת־הַשָּׂעִיר אֲשֶׁר עָלָה עָלָיו הַגּוֹרָל לַיהוָה וְעָשָׂהוּ חַטָּאת׃", 19.3. "אֶת־שַׁבְּתֹתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ וּמִקְדָּשִׁי תִּירָאוּ אֲנִי יְהוָה׃", 19.3. "אִישׁ אִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו תִּירָאוּ וְאֶת־שַׁבְּתֹתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם׃", 23.41. "וְחַגֹּתֶם אֹתוֹ חַג לַיהוָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים בַּשָּׁנָה חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי תָּחֹגּוּ אֹתוֹ׃", | 16.9. "And Aaron shall present the goat upon which the lot fell for the LORD, and offer him for a sin-offering.", 19.3. "Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and ye shall keep My sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.", 23.41. "And ye shall keep it a feast unto the LORD seven days in the year; it is a statute for ever in your generations; ye shall keep it in the seventh month.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 17.13 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 187| 17.13. "הִמּוֹל יִמּוֹל יְלִיד בֵּיתְךָ וּמִקְנַת כַּסְפֶּךָ וְהָיְתָה בְרִיתִי בִּבְשַׂרְכֶם לִבְרִית עוֹלָם׃", | 17.13. "He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised; and My covet shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covet.", |
|
| 4. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 13 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 187 |
5. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 4.2, 26.3, 34.10-34.12 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 215; Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 3| 4.2. "וְאֶתְכֶם לָקַח יְהוָה וַיּוֹצִא אֶתְכֶם מִכּוּר הַבַּרְזֶל מִמִּצְרָיִם לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְעַם נַחֲלָה כַּיּוֹם הַזֶּה׃", 4.2. "לֹא תֹסִפוּ עַל־הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם וְלֹא תִגְרְעוּ מִמֶּנּוּ לִשְׁמֹר אֶת־מִצְוֺת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם׃", 26.3. "וּבָאתָ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְאָמַרְתָּ אֵלָיו הִגַּדְתִּי הַיּוֹם לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ כִּי־בָאתִי אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע יְהוָה לַאֲבֹתֵינוּ לָתֶת לָנוּ׃", 34.11. "לְכָל־הָאֹתוֹת וְהַמּוֹפְתִים אֲשֶׁר שְׁלָחוֹ יְהוָה לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם לְפַרְעֹה וּלְכָל־עֲבָדָיו וּלְכָל־אַרְצוֹ׃", 34.12. "וּלְכֹל הַיָּד הַחֲזָקָה וּלְכֹל הַמּוֹרָא הַגָּדוֹל אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה לְעֵינֵי כָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל׃", | 4.2. "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.", 26.3. "And thou shalt come unto the priest that shall be in those days, and say unto him: ‘I profess this day unto the LORD thy God, that I am come unto the land which the LORD swore unto our fathers to give us.’", 34.10. "And there hath not arisen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face;", 34.11. "in all the signs and the wonders, which the LORD sent him to do in the land of Egypt, to Pharaoh, and to all his servants, and to all his land;", 34.12. "and in all the mighty hand, and in all the great terror, which Moses wrought in the sight of all Israel.", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Lamentations, 5.21 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 3| 5.21. "הֲשִׁיבֵנוּ יְהוָה אֵלֶיךָ ונשוב [וְנָשׁוּבָה] חַדֵּשׁ יָמֵינוּ כְּקֶדֶם׃", | 5.21. "Turn Thou us unto Thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned; Renew our days as of old.", |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Judges, 8.23 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 58| 8.23. "וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵהֶם גִּדְעוֹן לֹא־אֶמְשֹׁל אֲנִי בָּכֶם וְלֹא־יִמְשֹׁל בְּנִי בָּכֶם יְהוָה יִמְשֹׁל בָּכֶם׃", | 8.23. "And Gid῾on said to them, I will not rule over you, neither shall my son rule over you: the Lord shall rule over you.", |
|
8. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 31.31-31.34 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 3| 31.31. "הִנֵּה יָמִים בָּאִים נְאֻם־יְהוָה וְכָרַתִּי אֶת־בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת־בֵּית יְהוּדָה בְּרִית חֲדָשָׁה׃", 31.32. "לֹא כַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר כָּרַתִּי אֶת־אֲבוֹתָם בְּיוֹם הֶחֱזִיקִי בְיָדָם לְהוֹצִיאָם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם אֲשֶׁר־הֵמָּה הֵפֵרוּ אֶת־בְּרִיתִי וְאָנֹכִי בָּעַלְתִּי בָם נְאֻם־יְהוָה׃", 31.33. "כִּי זֹאת הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר אֶכְרֹת אֶת־בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרֵי הַיָּמִים הָהֵם נְאֻם־יְהוָה נָתַתִּי אֶת־תּוֹרָתִי בְּקִרְבָּם וְעַל־לִבָּם אֶכְתֲּבֶנָּה וְהָיִיתִי לָהֶם לֵאלֹהִים וְהֵמָּה יִהְיוּ־לִי לְעָם׃", 31.34. "וְלֹא יְלַמְּדוּ עוֹד אִישׁ אֶת־רֵעֵהוּ וְאִישׁ אֶת־אָחִיו לֵאמֹר דְּעוּ אֶת־יְהוָה כִּי־כוּלָּם יֵדְעוּ אוֹתִי לְמִקְטַנָּם וְעַד־גְּדוֹלָם נְאֻם־יְהוָה כִּי אֶסְלַח לַעֲוֺנָם וּלְחַטָּאתָם לֹא אֶזְכָּר־עוֹד׃", | 31.31. "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covet with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah;", 31.32. "not according to the covet that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; forasmuch as they broke My covet, although I was a lord over them, saith the LORD.", 31.33. "But this is the covet that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people;", 31.34. "and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: ‘Know the LORD’; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.", |
|
9. Hebrew Bible, 1 Samuel, 11.14, 12.12 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 3, 58| 11.14. "וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁמוּאֵל אֶל־הָעָם לְכוּ וְנֵלְכָה הַגִּלְגָּל וּנְחַדֵּשׁ שָׁם הַמְּלוּכָה׃", 12.12. "וַתִּרְאוּ כִּי־נָחָשׁ מֶלֶךְ בְּנֵי־עַמּוֹן בָּא עֲלֵיכֶם וַתֹּאמְרוּ לִי לֹא כִּי־מֶלֶךְ יִמְלֹךְ עָלֵינוּ וַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם מַלְכְּכֶם׃", | 11.14. "Then said Shemu᾽el to the people, Come, and let us go to Gilgal, and renew the kingdom there.", 12.12. "And when you saw that Naĥash the king of the children of ῾Ammon came against you, you said to me, No; but a king shall reign over us: when the Lord your God was your king.", |
|
10. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 44.22 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 216| 44.22. "וְאַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה לֹא־יִקְחוּ לָהֶם לְנָשִׁים כִּי אִם־בְּתוּלֹת מִזֶּרַע בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהָאַלְמָנָה אֲשֶׁר תִּהְיֶה אַלְמָנָה מִכֹּהֵן יִקָּחוּ׃", | 44.22. "Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away; but they shall take virgins of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that is the widow of a priest.", |
|
11. Hebrew Bible, 2 Chronicles, 24.4 (5th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 3| 24.4. "וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵיכֵן הָיָה עִם־לֵב יוֹאָשׁ לְחַדֵּשׁ אֶת־בֵּית יְהוָה׃", | 24.4. "And it came to pass after this, that Joash was minded to restore the house of the LORD.", |
|
12. Septuagint, 1 Maccabees, 2.1-2.70 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 58 | 2.1. In those days Mattathias the son of John, son of Simeon, a priest of the sons of Joarib, moved from Jerusalem and settled in Modein. 2.2. He had five sons, John surnamed Gaddi, 2.3. Simon called Thassi, 2.4. Judas called Maccabeus, 2.5. Eleazar called Avaran, and Jonathan called Apphus. 2.6. He saw the blasphemies being committed in Judah and Jerusalem, 2.7. and said, "Alas! Why was I born to see this,the ruin of my people, the ruin of the holy city,and to dwell there when it was given over to the enemy,the sanctuary given over to aliens? 2.8. Her temple has become like a man without honor; 2.9. her glorious vessels have been carried into captivity. Her babes have been killed in her streets,her youths by the sword of the foe. 2.10. What nation has not inherited her palaces and has not seized her spoils? 2.11. All her adornment has been taken away;no longer free, she has become a slave. 2.12. And behold, our holy place, our beauty,and our glory have been laid waste;the Gentiles have profaned it. 2.13. Why should we live any longer?" 2.14. And Mattathias and his sons rent their clothes, put on sackcloth, and mourned greatly. 2.15. Then the kings officers who were enforcing the apostasy came to the city of Modein to make them offer sacrifice. 2.16. Many from Israel came to them; and Mattathias and his sons were assembled. 2.17. Then the kings officers spoke to Mattathias as follows: "You are a leader, honored and great in this city, and supported by sons and brothers. 2.18. Now be the first to come and do what the king commands, as all the Gentiles and the men of Judah and those that are left in Jerusalem have done. Then you and your sons will be numbered among the friends of the king, and you and your sons will be honored with silver and gold and many gifts." 2.19. But Mattathias answered and said in a loud voice: "Even if all the nations that live under the rule of the king obey him, and have chosen to do his commandments, departing each one from the religion of his fathers, 2.20. yet I and my sons and my brothers will live by the covet of our fathers. 2.21. Far be it from us to desert the law and the ordices. 2.22. We will not obey the kings words by turning aside from our religion to the right hand or to the left." 2.23. When he had finished speaking these words, a Jew came forward in the sight of all to offer sacrifice upon the altar in Modein, according to the kings command. 2.24. When Mattathias saw it, be burned with zeal and his heart was stirred. He gave vent to righteous anger; he ran and killed him upon the altar. 2.25. At the same time he killed the kings officer who was forcing them to sacrifice, and he tore down the altar. 2.26. Thus he burned with zeal for the law, as Phinehas did against Zimri the son of Salu. 2.27. Then Mattathias cried out in the city with a loud voice, saying: "Let every one who is zealous for the law and supports the covet come out with me!" 2.28. And he and his sons fled to the hills and left all that they had in the city. 2.29. Then many who were seeking righteousness and justice went down to the wilderness to dwell there, 2.30. they, their sons, their wives, and their cattle, because evils pressed heavily upon them. 2.31. And it was reported to the kings officers, and to the troops in Jerusalem the city of David, that men who had rejected the kings command had gone down to the hiding places in the wilderness. 2.32. Many pursued them, and overtook them; they encamped opposite them and prepared for battle against them on the sabbath day. 2.33. And they said to them, "Enough of this! Come out and do what the king commands, and you will live." 2.34. But they said, "We will not come out, nor will we do what the king commands and so profane the sabbath day." 2.35. Then the enemy hastened to attack them. 2.36. But they did not answer them or hurl a stone at them or block up their hiding places, 2.37. for they said, "Let us all die in our innocence; heaven and earth testify for us that you are killing us unjustly." 2.38. So they attacked them on the sabbath, and they died, with their wives and children and cattle, to the number of a thousand persons. 2.39. When Mattathias and his friends learned of it, they mourned for them deeply. 2.40. And each said to his neighbor: "If we all do as our brethren have done and refuse to fight with the Gentiles for our lives and for our ordices, they will quickly destroy us from the earth." 2.41. So they made this decision that day: "Let us fight against every man who comes to attack us on the sabbath day; let us not all die as our brethren died in their hiding places." 2.42. Then there united with them a company of Hasideans, mighty warriors of Israel, every one who offered himself willingly for the law. 2.43. And all who became fugitives to escape their troubles joined them and reinforced them. 2.44. They organized an army, and struck down sinners in their anger and lawless men in their wrath; the survivors fled to the Gentiles for safety. 2.45. And Mattathias and his friends went about and tore down the altars; 2.46. they forcibly circumcised all the uncircumcised boys that they found within the borders of Israel. 2.47. They hunted down the arrogant men, and the work prospered in their hands. 2.48. They rescued the law out of the hands of the Gentiles and kings, and they never let the sinner gain the upper hand. 2.49. Now the days drew near for Mattathias to die, and he said to his sons: "Arrogance and reproach have now become strong; it is a time of ruin and furious anger. 2.50. Now, my children, show zeal for the law, and give your lives for the covet of our fathers. 2.51. Remember the deeds of the fathers, which they did in their generations; and receive great honor and an everlasting name. 2.52. Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness? 2.53. Joseph in the time of his distress kept the commandment, and became lord of Egypt. 2.54. Phinehas our father, because he was deeply zealous, received the covet of everlasting priesthood. 2.55. Joshua, because he fulfilled the command, became a judge in Israel. 2.56. Caleb, because he testified in the assembly, received an inheritance in the land. 2.57. David, because he was merciful, inherited the throne of the kingdom for ever. 2.58. Elijah because of great zeal for the law was taken up into heaven. 2.59. Haniah, Azariah, and Mishael believed and were saved from the flame. 2.60. Daniel because of his innocence was delivered from the mouth of the lions. 2.61. And so observe, from generation to generation, that none who put their trust in him will lack strength. 2.62. Do not fear the words of a sinner, for his splendor will turn into dung and worms. 2.63. Today he will be exalted, but tomorrow he will not be found, because he has returned to the dust, and his plans will perish. 2.64. My children, be courageous and grow strong in the law, for by it you will gain honor. 2.65. Now behold, I know that Simeon your brother is wise in counsel; always listen to him; he shall be your father. 2.66. Judas Maccabeus has been a mighty warrior from his youth; he shall command the army for you and fight the battle against the peoples. 2.67. You shall rally about you all who observe the law, and avenge the wrong done to your people. 2.68. Pay back the Gentiles in full, and heed what the law commands." 2.69. Then he blessed them, and was gathered to his fathers. 2.70. He died in the one hundred and forty-sixth year and was buried in the tomb of his fathers at Modein. And all Israel mourned for him with great lamentation. |
|
13. Septuagint, Judith, 12.7 (2nd cent. BCE - 0th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 311 | 12.7. So Holofernes commanded his guards not to hinder her. And she remained in the camp for three days, and went out each night to the valley of Bethulia, and bathed at the spring in the camp. |
|
| 14. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Document, 6.19 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 3 |
| 15. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Document, 6.19 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 3 |
16. Philo of Alexandria, On The Special Laws, 1.97 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 313 | 1.97. There is also a third symbol contained in this sacred dress, which it is important not to pass over in silence. For the priests of other deities are accustomed to offer up prayers and sacrifices solely for their own relations, and friends, and fellow citizens. But the high priest of the Jews offers them up not only on behalf of the whole race of mankind, but also on behalf of the different parts of nature, of the earth, of water, of air, and of fire; and pours forth his prayers and thanksgivings for them all, looking upon the world (as indeed it really i |
|
17. Tosefta, Hagigah, 2.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 75| 2.3. "כל המסתכל בארבעה דברים ראוי לו [כאלו לא] בא לעולם מה למעלה מה למטה מה לפנים ומה לאחור [יכול] קודם למעשה בראשית תלמוד לומר (דברים ד) למן היום אשר ברא אלהים אדם על הארץ יכול [עד שלא נבראו סדרי תקופות תלמוד לומר (שם) ולמקצה השמים ועד קצה השמים מה תלמוד לומר למן היום אשר ברא אלהים אדם על הארץ מן היום אשר ברא אלהים אדם על הארץ אתה דורש ואי אתה דורש] מה למעלה מה למטה מה היה ומה עתיד להיות.", | |
|
18. Tosefta, Berachot, 5.17 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 171| 5.17. "מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין אינו מוציא לא [את] מינו ולא [את] שאינו מינו.", | |
|
19. Tosefta, Bava Batra, 1.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 171| 1.4. "לשכנו אין יכולין לכופו רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לשכנו יכולין לכופו. יש לו חנות ברשות הרבים ומבקש לפותחה לחצר השותפין יכולין לעכב על ידיו מפני שמרבה עליהן את הדרך יש לו בית בחצר השותפין ומבקש לחלקו ולהקרות בו את התינוקות יכולין לעכב על ידיו מפני שמרבה עליהם את הדרך יש לו גג ברשות הרבים ומבקש לבנות על גבו עלייה לפותחה לחצר השותפין יכולין לעכב על ידיו מפני שמרבה עליהן את הדרך כיצד הוא עושה עושה לו לולו ופותחה לתוך ביתו.", | |
|
| 20. Seneca The Younger, Phaedra, 35.1-35.26 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 313 |
| 21. New Testament, Matthew, 23 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 173 |
22. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 1.14-1.23, 4.150-4.164, 4.180-4.183, 5.232, 6.91, 8.125-8.129, 8.314, 10.277-10.281, 12.265-12.285, 13.171-13.173, 13.297, 16.398, 17.41-17.45, 17.170, 17.354, 18.4-18.25, 18.127, 19.16, 20.17-20.53 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 307; Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 41, 50, 58 | 1.14. Upon the whole, a man that will peruse this history, may principally learn from it, that all events succeed well, even to an incredible degree, and the reward of felicity is proposed by God; but then it is to those that follow his will, and do not venture to break his excellent laws: and that so far as men any way apostatize from the accurate observation of them, what was practicable before becomes impracticable; and whatsoever they set about as a good thing is converted into an incurable calamity. 1.15. And now I exhort all those that peruse these books, to apply their minds to God; and to examine the mind of our legislator, whether he hath not understood his nature in a manner worthy of him; and hath not ever ascribed to him such operations as become his power, and hath not preserved his writings from those indecent fables which others have framed, 1.16. although, by the great distance of time when he lived, he might have securely forged such lies; for he lived two thousand years ago; at which vast distance of ages the poets themselves have not been so hardy as to fix even the generations of their gods, much less the actions of their men, or their own laws. 1.17. As I proceed, therefore, I shall accurately describe what is contained in our records, in the order of time that belongs to them; for I have already promised so to do throughout this undertaking; and this without adding any thing to what is therein contained, or taking away any thing therefrom. 1.18. 4. But because almost all our constitution depends on the wisdom of Moses, our legislator, I cannot avoid saying somewhat concerning him beforehand, though I shall do it briefly; I mean, because otherwise those that read my book may wonder how it comes to pass, that my discourse, which promises an account of laws and historical facts, contains so much of philosophy. 1.19. The reader is therefore to know, that Moses deemed it exceeding necessary, that he who would conduct his own life well, and give laws to others, in the first place should consider the divine nature; and, upon the contemplation of God’s operations, should thereby imitate the best of all patterns, so far as it is possible for human nature to do, and to endeavor to follow after it: 1.20. neither could the legislator himself have a right mind without such a contemplation; nor would any thing he should write tend to the promotion of virtue in his readers; I mean, unless they be taught first of all, that God is the Father and Lord of all things, and sees all things, and that thence he bestows a happy life upon those that follow him; but plunges such as do not walk in the paths of virtue into inevitable miseries. 1.21. Now when Moses was desirous to teach this lesson to his countrymen, he did not begin the establishment of his laws after the same manner that other legislators did; I mean, upon contracts and other rights between one man and another, but by raising their minds upwards to regard God, and his creation of the world; and by persuading them, that we men are the most excellent of the creatures of God upon earth. Now when once he had brought them to submit to religion, he easily persuaded them to submit in all other things: 1.22. for as to other legislators, they followed fables, and by their discourses transferred the most reproachful of human vices unto the gods, and so afforded wicked men the most plausible excuses for their crimes; 1.23. but as for our legislator, when he had once demonstrated that God was possessed of perfect virtue, he supposed that men also ought to strive after the participation of it; and on those who did not so think, and so believe, he inflicted the severest punishments. 4.150. 12. Now when Zimri had said these things, about what he and some others had wickedly done, the people held their peace, both out of fear of what might come upon them, and because they saw that their legislator was not willing to bring his insolence before the public any further, or openly to contend with him; 4.151. for he avoided that, lest many should imitate the impudence of his language, and thereby disturb the multitude. Upon this the assembly was dissolved. However, the mischievous attempt had proceeded further, if Zimri had not been first slain, which came to pass on the following occasion:— 4.152. Phineas, a man in other respects better than the rest of the young men, and also one that surpassed his contemporaries in the dignity of his father, (for he was the son of Eleazar the high priest, and the grandson of [Aaron] Moses’s brother,) who was greatly troubled at what was done by Zimri, he resolved in earnest to inflict punishment on him, before his unworthy behavior should grow stronger by impunity, and in order to prevent this transgression from proceeding further, which would happen if the ringleaders were not punished. 4.153. He was of so great magimity, both in strength of mind and body, that when he undertook any very dangerous attempt, he did not leave it off till he overcame it, and got an entire victory. So he came into Zimri’s tent, and slew him with his javelin, and with it he slew Cozbi also, 4.154. Upon which all those young men that had a regard to virtue, and aimed to do a glorious action, imitated Phineas’s boldness, and slew those that were found to be guilty of the same crime with Zimri. Accordingly many of those that had transgressed perished by the magimous valor of these young men; 4.155. and the rest all perished by a plague, which distemper God himself inflicted upon them; so that all those their kindred, who, instead of hindering them from such wicked actions, as they ought to have done, had persuaded them to go on, were esteemed by God as partners in their wickedness, and died. Accordingly there perished out of the army no fewer than fourteen [twenty-four] thousand at this time. 4.156. 13. This was the cause why Moses was provoked to send an army to destroy the Midianites, concerning which expedition we shall speak presently, when we have first related what we have omitted; for it is but just not to pass over our legislator’s due encomium, on account of his conduct here, 4.157. because, although this Balaam, who was sent for by the Midianites to curse the Hebrews, and when he was hindered from doing it by Divine Providence, did still suggest that advice to them, by making use of which our enemies had well nigh corrupted the whole multitude of the Hebrews with their wiles, till some of them were deeply infected with their opinions; yet did he do him great honor, by setting down his prophecies in writing. 4.158. And while it was in his power to claim this glory to himself, and make men believe they were his own predictions, there being no one that could be a witness against him, and accuse him for so doing, he still gave his attestation to him, and did him the honor to make mention of him on this account. But let every one think of these matters as he pleases. 4.159. 1. Now Moses sent an army against the land of Midian, for the causes forementioned, in all twelve thousand, taking an equal number out of every tribe, and appointed Phineas for their commander; of which Phineas we made mention a little before, as he that had guarded the laws of the Hebrews, and had inflicted punishment on Zimri when he had transgressed them. 4.160. Now the Midianites perceived beforehand how the Hebrews were coming, and would suddenly be upon them: so they assembled their army together, and fortified the entrances into their country, and there awaited the enemy’s coming. 4.161. When they were come, and they had joined battle with them, an immense multitude of the Midianites fell; nor could they be numbered, they were so very many: and among them fell all their kings, five in number, viz. Evi, Zur, Reba, Hur, and Rekem, who was of the same name with a city, the chief and capital of all Arabia, which is still now so called by the whole Arabian nation, Arecem, from the name of the king that built it; but is by the Greeks called —Petra. 4.162. Now when the enemies were discomfited, the Hebrews spoiled their country, and took a great prey, and destroyed the men that were its inhabitants, together with the women; only they let the virgins alone, as Moses had commanded Phineas to do, 4.163. who indeed came back, bringing with him an army that had received no harm, and a great deal of prey; fifty-two thousand beeves, seventy-five thousand six hundred sheep, sixty thousand asses, with an immense quantity of gold and silver furniture, which the Midianites made use of in their houses; for they were so wealthy, that they were very luxurious. There were also led captive about thirty-two thousand virgins. 4.164. So Moses parted the prey into parts, and gave one fiftieth part to Eleazar and the two priests, and another fiftieth part to the Levites; and distributed the rest of the prey among the people. After which they lived happily, as having obtained an abundance of good things by their valor, and there being no misfortune that attended them, or hindered their enjoyment of that happiness. 4.180. O children of Israel! there is but one source of happiness for all mankind, the favor of God for he alone is able to give good things to those that deserve them, and to deprive those of them that sin against him; towards whom, if you behave yourselves according to his will, and according to what I, who well understand his mind, do exhort you to, you will both be esteemed blessed, and will be admired by all men; and will never come into misfortunes, nor cease to be happy: you will then preserve the possession of the good things you already have, and will quickly obtain those that you are at present in want of,— 4.181. only do you be obedient to those whom God would have you to follow. Nor do you prefer any other constitution of government before the laws now given you; neither do you disregard that way of divine worship which you now have, nor change it for any other form: and if you do this, you will be the most courageous of all men, in undergoing the fatigues of war, and will not be easily conquered by any of your enemies; 4.182. for while God is present with you to assist you, it is to be expected that you will be able to despise the opposition of all mankind; and great rewards of virtue are proposed for you, if you preserve that virtue through your whole lives. Virtue itself is indeed the principal and the first reward, and after that it bestows abundance of others; 4.183. o that your exercise of virtue towards other men will make your own lives happy, and render you more glorious than foreigners can be, and procure you an undisputed reputation with posterity. These blessings you will be able to obtain, in case you hearken to and observe those laws which, by divine revelation, I have ordained for you; that is, in case you withal meditate upon the wisdom that is in them. 5.232. 7. Hereupon Gideon would have laid down the government, but was over-persuaded to take it, which he enjoyed forty years, and distributed justice to them, as the people came to him in their differences; and what he determined was esteemed valid by all. And when he died, he was buried in his own country of Ophrah. 6.91. What madness therefore possessed you to fly from God, and to desire to be under a king?—yet have I ordained him for king whom he chose for you. However, that I may make it plain to you that God is angry and displeased at your choice of kingly government, I will so dispose him that he shall declare this very plainly to you by strange signals; for what none of you ever saw here before, I mean a winter storm in the midst of harvest, I will entreat of God, and will make it visible to you.” 8.125. So when they had brought the ark into the temple, and had seen its greatness, and how fine it was, and had been partakers of the many sacrifices that had been offered, and of the festivals that had been solemnized, they every one returned to their own cities. But a dream that appeared to the king in his sleep informed him that God had heard his prayers; 8.126. and that he would not only preserve the temple, but would always abide in it; that is, in case his posterity and the whole multitude would be righteous. And for himself, it said, that if he continued according to the admonitions of his father, he would advance him to an immense degree of dignity and happiness, and that then his posterity should be kings of that country, of the tribe of Judah, for ever; 8.127. but that still, if he should be found a betrayer of the ordices of the law, and forget them, and turn away to the worship of strange gods, he would cut him off by the roots, and would neither suffer any remainder of his family to continue, nor would overlook the people of Israel, or preserve them any longer from afflictions, but would utterly destroy them with ten thousand wars and misfortunes; would cast them out of the land which he had given their fathers, and make them sojourners in strange lands; 8.128. and deliver that temple which was now built to be burnt and spoiled by their enemies, and that city to be utterly overthrown by the hands of their enemies; and make their miseries deserve to be a proverb, and such as should very hardly be credited for their stupendous magnitude, 8.129. till their neighbors, when they should hear of them, should wonder at their calamities, and very earnestly inquire for the occasion, why the Hebrews, who had been so far advanced by God to such glory and wealth, should be then so hated by him? and that the answer that should be made by the remainder of the people should be, by confessing their sins, and their transgression of the laws of their country. Accordingly we have it transmitted to us in writing, that thus did God speak to Solomon in his sleep. 8.314. 6. Now by these events we may learn what concern God hath for the affairs of mankind, and how he loves good men, and hates the wicked, and destroys them root and branch; for many of these kings of Israel, they and their families, were miserably destroyed, and taken away one by another, in a short time, for their transgression and wickedness; but Asa, who was king of Jerusalem, and of the two tribes, attained, by God’s blessing, a long and a blessed old age, for his piety and righteousness, and died happily, when he had reigned forty and one years; 10.277. All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God honored Daniel; and may thence discover how the Epicureans are in an error, 10.278. who cast Providence out of human life, and do not believe that God takes care of the affairs of the world, nor that the universe is governed and continued in being by that blessed and immortal nature, but say that the world is carried along of its own accord, without a ruler and a curator; 10.279. which, were it destitute of a guide to conduct it, as they imagine, it would be like ships without pilots, which we see drowned by the winds, or like chariots without drivers, which are overturned; so would the world be dashed to pieces by its being carried without a Providence, and so perish, and come to nought. 10.280. So that, by the forementioned predictions of Daniel, those men seem to me very much to err from the truth, who determine that God exercises no providence over human affairs; for if that were the case, that the world went on by mechanical necessity, we should not see that all things would come to pass according to his prophecy. 10.281. Now as to myself, I have so described these matters as I have found them and read them; but if any one is inclined to another opinion about them, let him enjoy his different sentiments without any blame from me. 12.265. 1. Now at this time there was one whose name was Mattathias, who dwelt at Modin, the son of John, the son of Simeon, the son of Asamoneus, a priest of the order of Joarib, and a citizen of Jerusalem. 12.266. He had five sons; John, who was called Gaddis, and Simon, who was called Matthes, and Judas, who was called Maccabeus, and Eleazar, who was called Auran, and Jonathan, who was called Apphus. 12.267. Now this Mattathias lamented to his children the sad state of their affairs, and the ravage made in the city, and the plundering of the temple, and the calamities the multitude were under; and he told them that it was better for them to die for the laws of their country, than to live so ingloriously as they then did. 12.268. 2. But when those that were appointed by the king were come to Modin, that they might compel the Jews to do what they were commanded, and to enjoin those that were there to offer sacrifice, as the king had commanded, they desired that Mattathias, a person of the greatest character among them, both on other accounts, and particularly on account of such a numerous and so deserving a family of children, would begin the sacrifice, 12.269. because his fellow citizens would follow his example, and because such a procedure would make him honored by the king. But Mattathias said he would not do it; and that if all the other nations would obey the commands of Antiochus, either out of fear, or to please him, yet would not he nor his sons leave the religious worship of their country. 12.270. But as soon as he had ended his speech, there came one of the Jews into the midst of them, and sacrificed, as Antiochus had commanded. At which Mattathias had great indignation, and ran upon him violently, with his sons, who had swords with them, and slew both the man himself that sacrificed, and Apelles the king’s general, who compelled them to sacrifice, with a few of his soldiers. He also overthrew the idol altar, and cried out, 12.271. “If,” said he, “any one be zealous for the laws of his country, and for the worship of God, let him follow me.” And when he had said this, he made haste into the desert with his sons, and left all his substance in the village. 12.272. Many others did the same also, and fled with their children and wives into the desert, and dwelt in caves. But when the king’s generals heard this, they took all the forces they then had in the citadel at Jerusalem, and pursued the Jews into the desert; 12.273. and when they had overtaken them, they in the first place endeavored to persuade them to repent, and to choose what was most for their advantage, and not put them to the necessity of using them according to the law of war. 12.274. But when they would not comply with their persuasions, but continued to be of a different mind, they fought against them on the Sabbath day, and they burnt them as they were in the caves, without resistance, and without so much as stopping up the entrances of the caves. And they avoided to defend themselves on that day, because they were not willing to break in upon the honor they owed the Sabbath, even in such distresses; for our law requires that we rest upon that day. 12.275. There were about a thousand, with their wives and children, who were smothered and died in these caves; but many of those that escaped joined themselves to Mattathias, and appointed him to be their ruler, 12.276. who taught them to fight, even on the Sabbath day; and told them that unless they would do so, they would become their own enemies, by observing the law [so rigorously], while their adversaries would still assault them on this day, and they would not then defend themselves, and that nothing could then hinder but they must all perish without fighting. 12.277. This speech persuaded them. And this rule continues among us to this day, that if there be a necessity, we may fight on Sabbath days. 12.278. So Mattathias got a great army about him, and overthrew their idol altars, and slew those that broke the laws, even all that he could get under his power; for many of them were dispersed among the nations round about them for fear of him. He also commanded that those boys which were not yet circumcised should be circumcised now; and he drove those away that were appointed to hinder such their circumcision. 12.279. 3. But when he had ruled one year, and was fallen into a distemper, he called for his sons, and set them round about him, and said, “O my sons, I am going the way of all the earth; and I recommend to you my resolution, and beseech you not to be negligent in keeping it, 12.280. but to be mindful of the desires of him who begat you, and brought you up, and to preserve the customs of your country, and to recover your ancient form of government, which is in danger of being overturned, and not to be carried away with those that, either by their own inclination, or out of necessity, betray it, 12.281. but to become such sons as are worthy of me; to be above all force and necessity, and so to dispose your souls, as to be ready, when it shall be necessary, to die for your laws; as sensible of this, by just reasoning, that if God see that you are so disposed he will not overlook you, but will have a great value for your virtue, and will restore to you again what you have lost, and will return to you that freedom in which you shall live quietly, and enjoy your own customs. 12.282. Your bodies are mortal, and subject to fate; but they receive a sort of immortality, by the remembrance of what actions they have done. And I would have you so in love with this immortality, that you may pursue after glory, and that, when you have undergone the greatest difficulties, you may not scruple, for such things, to lose your lives. 12.283. I exhort you, especially, to agree one with another; and in what excellency any one of you exceeds another, to yield to him so far, and by that means to reap the advantage of every one’s own virtues. Do you then esteem Simon as your father, because he is a man of extraordinary prudence, and be governed by him in what counsels he gives you. 12.284. Take Maccabeus for the general of your army, because of his courage and strength, for he will avenge your nation, and will bring vengeance on your enemies. Admit among you the righteous and religious, and augment their power.” 12.285. 4. When Mattathias had thus discoursed to his sons, and had prayed to God to be their assistant, and to recover to the people their former constitution, he died a little afterward, and was buried at Modin; all the people making great lamentation for him. Whereupon his son Judas took upon him the administration of public affairs, in the hundred forty and sixth year; 13.171. 9. At this time there were three sects among the Jews, who had different opinions concerning human actions; the one was called the sect of the Pharisees, another the sect of the Sadducees, and the other the sect of the Essenes. 13.172. Now for the Pharisees, they say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate, but are not caused by fate. But the sect of the Essenes affirm, that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination. 13.173. And for the Sadducees, they take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose that all our actions are in our own power, so that we are ourselves the causes of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly. However, I have given a more exact account of these opinions in the second book of the Jewish War. 13.297. but of these matters we shall speak hereafter. What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers. 16.398. wherefore I suppose it will be sufficient to compare this notion with that other, which attribute somewhat to ourselves, and renders men not unaccountable for the different conducts of their lives, which notion is no other than the philosophical determination of our ancient law. 17.41. For there was a certain sect of men that were Jews, who valued themselves highly upon the exact skill they had in the law of their fathers, and made men believe they were highly favored by God, by whom this set of women were inveigled. These are those that are called the sect of the Pharisees, who were in a capacity of greatly opposing kings. A cunning sect they were, and soon elevated to a pitch of open fighting and doing mischief. 17.42. Accordingly, when all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good-will to Caesar, and to the king’s government, these very men did not swear, being above six thousand; and when the king imposed a fine upon them, Pheroras’s wife paid their fine for them. 17.43. In order to requite which kindness of hers, since they were believed to have the foreknowledge of things to come by divine inspiration, they foretold how God had decreed that Herod’s government should cease, and his posterity should be deprived of it; but that the kingdom should come to her and Pheroras, and to their children. 17.44. These predictions were not concealed from Salome, but were told the king; as also how they had perverted some persons about the palace itself; so the king slew such of the Pharisees as were principally accused, and Bagoas the eunuch, and one Carus, who exceeded all men of that time in comeliness, and one that was his catamite. He slew also all those of his own family who had consented to what the Pharisees foretold; 17.45. and for Bagoas, he had been puffed up by them, as though he should be named the father and the benefactor of him who, by the prediction, was foretold to be their appointed king; for that this king would have all things in his power, and would enable Bagoas to marry, and to have children of his own body begotten. 17.170. It was said by those who pretended to divine, and who were endued with wisdom to foretell such things, that God inflicted this punishment on the king on account of his great impiety; 17.354. So Archelaus’s country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people’s effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus. 18.4. Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; 18.5. as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; 18.6. o men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; 18.7. one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; 18.8. whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies’ fire. 18.9. Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal, 18.10. concerning which I will discourse a little, and this the rather because the infection which spread thence among the younger sort, who were zealous for it, brought the public to destruction. 18.11. 2. The Jews had for a great while had three sects of philosophy peculiar to themselves; the sect of the Essenes, and the sect of the Sadducees, and the third sort of opinions was that of those called Pharisees; of which sects, although I have already spoken in the second book of the Jewish War, yet will I a little touch upon them now. 18.12. 3. Now, for the Pharisees, they live meanly, and despise delicacies in diet; and they follow the conduct of reason; and what that prescribes to them as good for them they do; and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason’s dictates for practice. They also pay a respect to such as are in years; nor are they so bold as to contradict them in any thing which they have introduced; 18.13. and when they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit; since their notion is, that it hath pleased God to make a temperament, whereby what he wills is done, but so that the will of man can act virtuously or viciously. 18.14. They also believe that souls have an immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again; 18.15. on account of which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people; and whatsoever they do about divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction; insomuch that the cities give great attestations to them on account of their entire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives and their discourses also. 18.16. 4. But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: That souls die with the bodies; nor do they regard the observation of any thing besides what the law enjoins them; for they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those teachers of philosophy whom they frequent: 18.17. but this doctrine is received but by a few, yet by those still of the greatest dignity. But they are able to do almost nothing of themselves; for when they become magistrates, as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them. 18.18. 5. The doctrine of the Essenes is this: That all things are best ascribed to God. They teach the immortality of souls, and esteem that the rewards of righteousness are to be earnestly striven for; 18.19. and when they send what they have dedicated to God into the temple, they do not offer sacrifices because they have more pure lustrations of their own; on which account they are excluded from the common court of the temple, but offer their sacrifices themselves; yet is their course of life better than that of other men; and they entirely addict themselves to husbandry. 18.20. It also deserves our admiration, how much they exceed all other men that addict themselves to virtue, and this in righteousness; and indeed to such a degree, that as it hath never appeared among any other men, neither Greeks nor barbarians, no, not for a little time, so hath it endured a long while among them. This is demonstrated by that institution of theirs, which will not suffer any thing to hinder them from having all things in common; so that a rich man enjoys no more of his own wealth than he who hath nothing at all. There are about four thousand men that live in this way, 18.21. and neither marry wives, nor are desirous to keep servants; as thinking the latter tempts men to be unjust, and the former gives the handle to domestic quarrels; but as they live by themselves, they minister one to another. 18.22. They also appoint certain stewards to receive the incomes of their revenues, and of the fruits of the ground; such as are good men and priests, who are to get their corn and their food ready for them. They none of them differ from others of the Essenes in their way of living, but do the most resemble those Dacae who are called Polistae [dwellers in cities]. 18.23. 6. But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. 18.24. And since this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain. 18.25. And it was in Gessius Florus’s time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy. 18.127. I have now a mind to describe Herod and his family, how it fared with them, partly because it is suitable to this history to speak of that matter, and partly because this thing is a demonstration of the interposition of Providence, how a multitude of children is of no advantage, no more than any other strength that mankind set their hearts upon, besides those acts of piety which are done towards God; 19.16. because it will afford great assurance of the power of God, and great comfort to those that are under afflictions, and wise caution to those who think their happiness will never end, nor bring them at length to the most lasting miseries, if they do not conduct their lives by the principles of virtue. 20.17. 1. About this time it was that Helena, queen of Adiabene, and her son Izates, changed their course of life, and embraced the Jewish customs, and this on the occasion following: 20.18. Monobazus, the king of Adiabene, who had also the name of Bazeus, fell in love with his sister Helena, and took her to be his wife, and begat her with child. But as he was in bed with her one night, he laid his hand upon his wife’s belly, and fell asleep, and seemed to hear a voice, which bid him take his hand off his wife’s belly, and not hurt the infant that was therein, which, by God’s providence, would be safely born, and have a happy end. 20.19. This voice put him into disorder; so he awaked immediately, and told the story to his wife; and when his son was born, he called him Izates. 20.20. He had indeed Monobazus, his elder brother, by Helena also, as he had other sons by other wives besides. Yet did he openly place all his affections on this his only begotten son Izates, 20.21. which was the origin of that envy which his other brethren, by the same father, bore to him; while on this account they hated him more and more, and were all under great affliction that their father should prefer Izates before them. 20.22. Now although their father was very sensible of these their passions, yet did he forgive them, as not indulging those passions out of an ill disposition, but out of a desire each of them had to be beloved by their father. However, he sent Izates, with many presents, to Abennerig, the king of Charax-Spasini, and that out of the great dread he was in about him, lest he should come to some misfortune by the hatred his brethren bore him; and he committed his son’s preservation to him. 20.23. Upon which Abennerig gladly received the young man, and had a great affection for him, and married him to his own daughter, whose name was Samacha: he also bestowed a country upon him, from which he received large revenues. 20.24. 2. But when Monobazus was grown old, and saw that he had but a little time to live, he had a mind to come to the sight of his son before he died. So he sent for him, and embraced him after the most affectionate manner, and bestowed on him the country called Carra; 20.25. it was a soil that bare amomum in great plenty: there are also in it the remains of that ark, wherein it is related that Noah escaped the deluge, and where they are still shown to such as are desirous to see them. 20.26. Accordingly, Izates abode in that country until his father’s death. But the very day that Monobazus died, queen Helena sent for all the grandees, and governors of the kingdom, and for those that had the armies committed to their command; 20.27. and when they were come, she made the following speech to them: “I believe you are not unacquainted that my husband was desirous Izates should succeed him in the government, and thought him worthy so to do. However, I wait your determination; for happy is he who receives a kingdom, not from a single person only, but from the willing suffrages of a great many.” 20.28. This she said, in order to try those that were invited, and to discover their sentiments. Upon the hearing of which, they first of all paid their homage to the queen, as their custom was, and then they said that they confirmed the king’s determination, and would submit to it; and they rejoiced that Izates’s father had preferred him before the rest of his brethren, as being agreeable to all their wishes: 20.29. but that they were desirous first of all to slay his brethren and kinsmen, that so the government might come securely to Izates; because if they were once destroyed, all that fear would be over which might arise from their hatred and envy to him. 20.30. Helena replied to this, that she returned them her thanks for their kindness to herself and to Izates; but desired that they would however defer the execution of this slaughter of Izates’s brethren till he should be there himself, and give his approbation to it. 20.31. So since these men had not prevailed with her, when they advised her to slay them, they exhorted her at least to keep them in bonds till he should come, and that for their own security; they also gave her counsel to set up some one whom she could put the greatest trust in, as a governor of the kingdom in the mean time. 20.32. So queen Helena complied with this counsel of theirs, and set up Monobazus, the eldest son, to be king, and put the diadem upon his head, and gave him his father’s ring, with its signet; as also the ornament which they call Sampser, and exhorted him to administer the affairs of the kingdom till his brother should come; 20.33. who came suddenly upon hearing that his father was dead, and succeeded his brother Monobazus, who resigned up the government to him. 20.34. 3. Now, during the time Izates abode at Charax-Spasini, a certain Jewish merchant, whose name was Aias, got among the women that belonged to the king, and taught them to worship God according to the Jewish religion. 20.35. He, moreover, by their means, became known to Izates, and persuaded him, in like manner, to embrace that religion; he also, at the earnest entreaty of Izates, accompanied him when he was sent for by his father to come to Adiabene; it also happened that Helena, about the same time, was instructed by a certain other Jew and went over to them. 20.36. But when Izates had taken the kingdom, and was come to Adiabene, and there saw his brethren and other kinsmen in bonds, he was displeased at it; 20.37. and as he thought it an instance of impiety either to slay or imprison them, but still thought it a hazardous thing for to let them have their liberty, with the remembrance of the injuries that had been offered them, he sent some of them and their children for hostages to Rome, to Claudius Caesar, and sent the others to Artabanus, the king of Parthia, with the like intentions. 20.38. 4. And when he perceived that his mother was highly pleased with the Jewish customs, he made haste to change, and to embrace them entirely; and as he supposed that he could not be thoroughly a Jew unless he were circumcised, he was ready to have it done. 20.39. But when his mother understood what he was about, she endeavored to hinder him from doing it, and said to him that this thing would bring him into danger; and that, as he was a king, he would thereby bring himself into great odium among his subjects, when they should understand that he was so fond of rites that were to them strange and foreign; and that they would never bear to be ruled over by a Jew. 20.40. This it was that she said to him, and for the present persuaded him to forbear. And when he had related what she had said to Aias, he confirmed what his mother had said; and when he had also threatened to leave him, unless he complied with him, he went away from him, 20.41. and said that he was afraid lest such an action being once become public to all, he should himself be in danger of punishment for having been the occasion of it, and having been the king’s instructor in actions that were of ill reputation; and he said that he might worship God without being circumcised, even though he did resolve to follow the Jewish law entirely, which worship of God was of a superior nature to circumcision. 20.42. He added, that God would forgive him, though he did not perform the operation, while it was omitted out of necessity, and for fear of his subjects. So the king at that time complied with these persuasions of Aias. 20.43. But afterwards, as he had not quite left off his desire of doing this thing, a certain other Jew that came out of Galilee, whose name was Eleazar, and who was esteemed very skillful in the learning of his country, persuaded him to do the thing; 20.44. for as he entered into his palace to salute him, and found him reading the law of Moses, he said to him, “Thou dost not consider, O king! that thou unjustly breakest the principal of those laws, and art injurious to God himself, [by omitting to be circumcised]; for thou oughtest not only to read them, but chiefly to practice what they enjoin thee. 20.45. How long wilt thou continue uncircumcised? But if thou hast not yet read the law about circumcision, and dost not know how great impiety thou art guilty of by neglecting it, read it now.” 20.46. When the king had heard what he said, he delayed the thing no longer, but retired to another room, and sent for a surgeon, and did what he was commanded to do. He then sent for his mother, and Aias his tutor, and informed them that he had done the thing; 20.47. upon which they were presently struck with astonishment and fear, and that to a great degree, lest the thing should be openly discovered and censured, and the king should hazard the loss of his kingdom, while his subjects would not bear to be governed by a man who was so zealous in another religion; and lest they should themselves run some hazard, because they would be supposed the occasion of his so doing. 20.48. But it was God himself who hindered what they feared from taking effect; for he preserved both Izates himself and his sons when they fell into many dangers, and procured their deliverance when it seemed to be impossible, and demonstrated thereby that the fruit of piety does not perish as to those that have regard to him, and fix their faith upon him only. But these events we shall relate hereafter. 20.49. 5. But as to Helena, the king’s mother, when she saw that the affairs of Izates’s kingdom were in peace, and that her son was a happy man, and admired among all men, and even among foreigners, by the means of God’s providence over him, she had a mind to go to the city of Jerusalem, in order to worship at that temple of God which was so very famous among all men, and to offer her thank-offerings there. So she desired her son to give her leave to go thither; 20.50. upon which he gave his consent to what she desired very willingly, and made great preparations for her dismission, and gave her a great deal of money, and she went down to the city Jerusalem, her son conducting her on her journey a great way. 20.51. Now her coming was of very great advantage to the people of Jerusalem; for whereas a famine did oppress them at that time, and many people died for want of what was necessary to procure food withal, queen Helena sent some of her servants to Alexandria with money to buy a great quantity of corn, and others of them to Cyprus, to bring a cargo of dried figs. 20.52. And as soon as they were come back, and had brought those provisions, which was done very quickly, she distributed food to those that were in want of it, and left a most excellent memorial behind her of this benefaction, which she bestowed on our whole nation. 20.53. And when her son Izates was informed of this famine, he sent great sums of money to the principal men in Jerusalem. However, what favors this queen and king conferred upon our city Jerusalem shall be further related hereafter. |
|
23. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 1.82, 1.593, 2.30, 2.119-2.166, 2.567, 3.11, 4.159, 4.183, 4.200-4.201, 4.242, 4.323, 4.388, 5.16-5.19, 5.100-5.105, 5.201, 5.402, 5.459, 5.566, 6.95, 6.99, 6.110, 6.122, 6.126, 6.250, 6.288-6.315, 7.451-7.453 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 280, 307; Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 41, 50, 58 | 1.82. And as one of those servants that attended him carried out that blood, he, by some supernatural providence, slipped and fell down in the very place where Antigonus had been slain; and so he spilt some of the murderer’s blood upon the spots of the blood of him that had been murdered, which still appeared. Hereupon a lamentable cry arose among the spectators, as if the servant had spilled the blood on purpose in that place; 1.593. Then did the king send for her, and bid her bring to him what she had received immediately. So she came out of her house as if she would bring it with her, but threw herself down from the top of the house, in order to prevent any examination and torture from the king. However, it came to pass, as it seems by the providence of God, when he intended to bring Antipater to punishment, that she fell not upon her head, but upon other parts of her body, and escaped. 2.30. And indeed the purport of his whole discourse was to aggravate Archelaus’s crime in slaying such a multitude about the temple, which multitude came to the festival, but were barbarously slain in the midst of their own sacrifices; and he said there was such a vast number of dead bodies heaped together in the temple, as even a foreign war, that should come upon them [suddenly], before it was denounced, could not have heaped together. 2.119. 2. For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of which are the Pharisees; of the second, the Sadducees; and the third sect, which pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essenes. These last are Jews by birth, and seem to have a greater affection for one another than the other sects have. 2.120. These Essenes reject pleasures as an evil, but esteem continence, and the conquest over our passions, to be virtue. They neglect wedlock, but choose out other persons’ children, while they are pliable, and fit for learning, and esteem them to be of their kindred, and form them according to their own manners. 2.121. They do not absolutely deny the fitness of marriage, and the succession of mankind thereby continued; but they guard against the lascivious behavior of women, and are persuaded that none of them preserve their fidelity to one man. 2.122. 3. These men are despisers of riches, and so very communicative as raises our admiration. Nor is there anyone to be found among them who hath more than another; for it is a law among them, that those who come to them must let what they have be common to the whole order,—insomuch that among them all there is no appearance of poverty, or excess of riches, but every one’s possessions are intermingled with every other’s possessions; and so there is, as it were, one patrimony among all the brethren. 2.123. They think that oil is a defilement; and if anyone of them be anointed without his own approbation, it is wiped off his body; for they think to be sweaty is a good thing, as they do also to be clothed in white garments. They also have stewards appointed to take care of their common affairs, who every one of them have no separate business for any, but what is for the use of them all. 2.124. 4. They have no one certain city, but many of them dwell in every city; and if any of their sect come from other places, what they have lies open for them, just as if it were their own; and they go in to such as they never knew before, as if they had been ever so long acquainted with them. 2.125. For which reason they carry nothing at all with them when they travel into remote parts, though still they take their weapons with them, for fear of thieves. Accordingly, there is, in every city where they live, one appointed particularly to take care of strangers, and to provide garments and other necessaries for them. 2.126. But the habit and management of their bodies is such as children use who are in fear of their masters. Nor do they allow of the change of garments, or of shoes, till they be first entirely torn to pieces or worn out by time. 2.127. Nor do they either buy or sell anything to one another; but every one of them gives what he hath to him that wanteth it, and receives from him again in lieu of it what may be convenient for himself; and although there be no requital made, they are fully allowed to take what they want of whomsoever they please. 2.128. 5. And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for before sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising. 2.129. After this every one of them are sent away by their curators, to exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled, in which they labor with great diligence till the fifth hour. After which they assemble themselves together again into one place; and when they have clothed themselves in white veils, they then bathe their bodies in cold water. And after this purification is over, they every one meet together in an apartment of their own, into which it is not permitted to any of another sect to enter; while they go, after a pure manner, into the dining-room, as into a certain holy temple, 2.130. and quietly set themselves down; upon which the baker lays them loaves in order; the cook also brings a single plate of one sort of food, and sets it before every one of them; 2.131. but a priest says grace before meat; and it is unlawful for anyone to taste of the food before grace be said. The same priest, when he hath dined, says grace again after meat; and when they begin, and when they end, they praise God, as he that bestows their food upon them; after which they lay aside their [white] garments, and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening; 2.132. then they return home to supper, after the same manner; and if there be any strangers there, they sit down with them. Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their house, but they give every one leave to speak in their turn; 2.133. which silence thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery; the cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise, and the same settled measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them, and that such as is abundantly sufficient for them. 2.134. 6. And truly, as for other things, they do nothing but according to the injunctions of their curators; only these two things are done among them at everyone’s own free will, which are to assist those that want it, and to show mercy; for they are permitted of their own accord to afford succor to such as deserve it, when they stand in need of it, and to bestow food on those that are in distress; but they cannot give any thing to their kindred without the curators. 2.135. They dispense their anger after a just manner, and restrain their passion. They are eminent for fidelity, and are the ministers of peace; whatsoever they say also is firmer than an oath; but swearing is avoided by them, and they esteem it worse than perjury for they say that he who cannot be believed without [swearing by] God is already condemned. 2.136. They also take great pains in studying the writings of the ancients, and choose out of them what is most for the advantage of their soul and body; and they inquire after such roots and medicinal stones as may cure their distempers. 2.137. 7. But now, if anyone hath a mind to come over to their sect, he is not immediately admitted, but he is prescribed the same method of living which they use, for a year, while he continues excluded; and they give him also a small hatchet, and the fore-mentioned girdle, and the white garment. 2.138. And when he hath given evidence, during that time, that he can observe their continence, he approaches nearer to their way of living, and is made a partaker of the waters of purification; yet is he not even now admitted to live with them; for after this demonstration of his fortitude, his temper is tried two more years; and if he appear to be worthy, they then admit him into their society. 2.139. And before he is allowed to touch their common food, he is obliged to take tremendous oaths, that, in the first place, he will exercise piety towards God, and then that he will observe justice towards men, and that he will do no harm to any one, either of his own accord, or by the command of others; that he will always hate the wicked, and be assistant to the righteous; 2.140. that he will ever show fidelity to all men, and especially to those in authority, because no one obtains the government without God’s assistance; and that if he be in authority, he will at no time whatever abuse his authority, nor endeavor to outshine his subjects either in his garments, or any other finery; 2.141. that he will be perpetually a lover of truth, and propose to himself to reprove those that tell lies; that he will keep his hands clear from theft, and his soul from unlawful gains; and that he will neither conceal anything from those of his own sect, nor discover any of their doctrines to others, no, not though anyone should compel him so to do at the hazard of his life. 2.142. Moreover, he swears to communicate their doctrines to no one any otherwise than as he received them himself; that he will abstain from robbery, and will equally preserve the books belonging to their sect, and the names of the angels [or messengers]. These are the oaths by which they secure their proselytes to themselves. 2.143. 8. But for those that are caught in any heinous sins, they cast them out of their society; and he who is thus separated from them does often die after a miserable manner; for as he is bound by the oath he hath taken, and by the customs he hath been engaged in, he is not at liberty to partake of that food that he meets with elsewhere, but is forced to eat grass, and to famish his body with hunger, till he perish; 2.144. for which reason they receive many of them again when they are at their last gasp, out of compassion to them, as thinking the miseries they have endured till they came to the very brink of death to be a sufficient punishment for the sins they had been guilty of. 2.145. 9. But in the judgments they exercise they are most accurate and just, nor do they pass sentence by the votes of a court that is fewer than a hundred. And as to what is once determined by that number, it is unalterable. What they most of all honor, after God himself, is the name of their legislator [Moses], whom, if anyone blaspheme, he is punished capitally. 2.146. They also think it a good thing to obey their elders, and the major part. Accordingly, if ten of them be sitting together, no one of them will speak while the other nine are against it. 2.147. They also avoid spitting in the midst of them, or on the right side. Moreover, they are stricter than any other of the Jews in resting from their labors on the seventh day; for they not only get their food ready the day before, that they may not be obliged to kindle a fire on that day, but they will not remove any vessel out of its place, nor go to stool thereon. 2.148. Nay, on theother days they dig a small pit, a foot deep, with a paddle (which kind of hatchet is given them when they are first admitted among them); and covering themselves round with their garment, that they may not affront the Divine rays of light, they ease themselves into that pit, 2.149. after which they put the earth that was dug out again into the pit; and even this they do only in the more lonely places, which they choose out for this purpose; and although this easement of the body be natural, yet it is a rule with them to wash themselves after it, as if it were a defilement to them. 2.150. 10. Now after the time of their preparatory trial is over, they are parted into four classes; and so far are the juniors inferior to the seniors, that if the seniors should be touched by the juniors, they must wash themselves, as if they had intermixed themselves with the company of a foreigner. 2.151. They are long-lived also, insomuch that many of them live above a hundred years, by means of the simplicity of their diet; nay, as I think, by means of the regular course of life they observe also. They condemn the miseries of life, and are above pain, by the generosity of their mind. And as for death, if it will be for their glory, they esteem it better than living always; 2.152. and indeed our war with the Romans gave abundant evidence what great souls they had in their trials, wherein, although they were tortured and distorted, burnt and torn to pieces, and went through all kinds of instruments of torment, that they might be forced either to blaspheme their legislator, or to eat what was forbidden them, yet could they not be made to do either of them, no, nor once to flatter their tormentors, or to shed a tear; 2.153. but they smiled in their very pains, and laughed those to scorn who inflicted the torments upon them, and resigned up their souls with great alacrity, as expecting to receive them again. 2.154. 11. For their doctrine is this: That bodies are corruptible, and that the matter they are made of is not permanent; but that the souls are immortal, and continue forever; and that they come out of the most subtile air, and are united to their bodies as to prisons, into which they are drawn by a certain natural enticement; 2.155. but that when they are set free from the bonds of the flesh, they then, as released from a long bondage, rejoice and mount upward. And this is like the opinions of the Greeks, that good souls have their habitations beyond the ocean, in a region that is neither oppressed with storms of rain or snow, or with intense heat, but that this place is such as is refreshed by the gentle breathing of a west wind, that is perpetually blowing from the ocean; while they allot to bad souls a dark and tempestuous den, full of never-ceasing punishments. 2.156. And indeed the Greeks seem to me to have followed the same notion, when they allot the islands of the blessed to their brave men, whom they call heroes and demigods; and to the souls of the wicked, the region of the ungodly, in Hades, where their fables relate that certain persons, such as Sisyphus, and Tantalus, and Ixion, and Tityus, are punished; which is built on this first supposition, that souls are immortal; and thence are those exhortations to virtue, and dehortations from wickedness collected; 2.157. whereby good men are bettered in the conduct of their life by the hope they have of reward after their death; and whereby the vehement inclinations of bad men to vice are restrained, by the fear and expectation they are in, that although they should lie concealed in this life, they should suffer immortal punishment after their death. 2.158. These are the Divine doctrines of the Essenes about the soul, which lay an unavoidable bait for such as have once had a taste of their philosophy. 2.159. 12. There are also those among them who undertake to foretell things to come, by reading the holy books, and using several sorts of purifications, and being perpetually conversant in the discourses of the prophets; and it is but seldom that they miss in their predictions. 2.160. 13. Moreover, there is another order of Essenes, who agree with the rest as to their way of living, and customs, and laws, but differ from them in the point of marriage, as thinking that by not marrying they cut off the principal part of human life, which is the prospect of succession; nay, rather, that if all men should be of the same opinion, the whole race of mankind would fail. 2.161. However, they try their spouses for three years; and if they find that they have their natural purgations thrice, as trials that they are likely to be fruitful, they then actually marry them. But they do not use to accompany with their wives when they are with child, as a demonstration that they do not marry out of regard to pleasure, but for the sake of posterity. Now the women go into the baths with some of their garments on, as the men do with somewhat girded about them. And these are the customs of this order of Essenes. 2.162. 14. But then as to the two other orders at first mentioned: the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate [or providence], and to God, 2.163. and yet allow, that to act what is right, or the contrary, is principally in the power of men, although fate does cooperate in every action. They say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies,—but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment. 2.164. But the Sadducees are those that compose the second order, and take away fate entirely, and suppose that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil; 2.165. and they say, that to act what is good, or what is evil, is at men’s own choice, and that the one or the other belongs so to every one, that they may act as they please. They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades. 2.166. Moreover, the Pharisees are friendly to one another, and are for the exercise of concord, and regard for the public; but the behavior of the Sadducees one towards another is in some degree wild, and their conversation with those that are of their own party is as barbarous as if they were strangers to them. And this is what I had to say concerning the philosophic sects among the Jews. 2.567. Nor did they neglect the care of other parts of the country; but Joseph the son of Simon was sent as general to Jericho, as was Manasseh to Perea, and John, the Essene, to the toparchy of Thamma; Lydda was also added to his portion, and Joppa, and Emmaus. 3.11. This excursion was led on by three men, who were the chief of them all, both for strength and sagacity; Niger, called the Peraite, Silas of Babylon, and besides them John the Essene. 4.159. and indeed they were Gorian the son of Josephus, and Symeon the son of Gamaliel, who encouraged them, by going up and down when they were assembled together in crowds, and as they saw them alone, to bear no longer, but to inflict punishment upon these pests and plagues of their freedom, and to purge the temple of these bloody polluters of it. 4.183. while some that have been born in this very country, and brought up in our customs, and called Jews, do walk about in the midst of the holy places, at the very time when their hands are still warm with the slaughter of their own countrymen. 4.200. and at the first they only cast stones at each other in the city, and before the temple, and threw their javelins at a distance; but when either of them were too hard for the other, they made use of their swords; and great slaughter was made on both sides, and a great number were wounded. 4.201. As for the dead bodies of the people, their relations carried them out to their own houses; but when any of the zealots were wounded, he went up into the temple, and defiled that sacred floor with his blood, insomuch that one may say it was their blood alone that polluted our sanctuary. 4.242. They are robbers, who by their prodigious wickedness have profaned this most sacred floor, and who are to be now seen drinking themselves drunk in the sanctuary, and expending the spoils of those whom they have slaughtered upon their unsatiable bellies. 4.323. and I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these their great defenders and wellwishers, 4.388. for there was a certain ancient oracle of those men, that the city should then be taken and the sanctuary burnt, by right of war, when a sedition should invade the Jews, and their own hand should pollute the temple of God. Now, while these zealots did not [quite] disbelieve these predictions, they made themselves the instruments of their accomplishment. 5.16. for those darts that were thrown by the engines came with that force, that they went over all the buildings, and reached as far as the altar, and the temple itself, and fell upon the priests, and those that were about the sacred offices; 5.17. insomuch that many persons who came thither with great zeal from the ends of the earth, to offer sacrifices at this celebrated place, which was esteemed holy by all mankind, fell down before their own sacrifices themselves, and sprinkled that altar which was venerable among all men, both Greeks and Barbarians, with their own blood; 5.18. till the dead bodies of strangers were mingled together with those of their own country, and those of profane persons with those of the priests, and the blood of all sorts of dead carcasses stood in lakes in the holy courts themselves. 5.19. And now, “O most wretched city, what misery so great as this didst thou suffer from the Romans, when they came to purify thee from thy intestine hatred! For thou couldst be no longer a place fit for God, nor couldst thou long continue in being, after thou hadst been a sepulchre for the bodies of thy own people, and hadst made the holy house itself a burying-place in this civil war of thine. Yet mayst thou again grow better, if perchance thou wilt hereafter appease the anger of that God who is the author of thy destruction.” 5.100. But John made use of this festival as a cloak for his treacherous designs, and armed the most inconsiderable of his own party, the greater part of whom were not purified, with weapons concealed under their garments, and sent them with great zeal into the temple, in order to seize upon it; which armed men, when they were gotten in, threw their garments away, and presently appeared in their armor. 5.101. Upon which there was a very great disorder and disturbance about the holy house; while the people, who had no concern in the sedition, supposed that this assault was made against all without distinction, as the zealots thought it was made against themselves only. 5.102. So these left off guarding the gates any longer, and leaped down from their battlements before they came to an engagement, and fled away into the subterranean caverns of the temple; while the people that stood trembling at the altar, and about the holy house, were rolled on heaps together, and trampled upon, and were beaten both with wooden and with iron weapons without mercy. 5.103. Such also as had differences with others slew many persons that were quiet, out of their own private enmity and hatred, as if they were opposite to the seditious; and all those that had formerly offended any of these plotters were now known, and were now led away to the slaughter; 5.104. and when they had done abundance of horrid mischief to the guiltless, they granted a truce to the guilty, and let those go off that came out of the caverns. These followers of John also did now seize upon this inner temple, and upon all the warlike engines therein, and then ventured to oppose Simon. 5.105. And thus that sedition, which had been divided into three factions, was now reduced to two. 5.201. 3. Now nine of these gates were on every side covered over with gold and silver, as were the jambs of their doors and their lintels; but there was one gate that was without [the inward court of] the holy house, which was of Corinthian brass, and greatly excelled those that were only covered over with silver and gold. 5.402. You have not avoided so much as those sins that are usually done in secret; I mean thefts, and treacherous plots against men, and adulteries. You are quarreling about rapines and murders, and invent strange ways of wickedness. Nay, the temple itself is become the receptacle of all, and this Divine place is polluted by the hands of those of our own country; which place hath yet been reverenced by the Romans when it was at a distance from them, when they have suffered many of their own customs to give place to our law. 5.459. That yet this temple would be preserved by him that inhabited therein, whom they still had for their assistant in this war, and did therefore laugh at all his threatenings, which would come to nothing, because the conclusion of the whole depended upon God only. These words were mixed with reproaches, and with them they made a mighty clamor. 5.566. And here I cannot but speak my mind, and what the concern I am under dictates to me, and it is this: I suppose, that had the Romans made any longer delay in coming against these villains, the city would either have been swallowed up by the ground opening upon them, or been overflowed by water, or else been destroyed by such thunder as the country of Sodom perished by, for it had brought forth a generation of men much more atheistical than were those that suffered such punishments; for by their madness it was that all the people came to be destroyed. 6.95. and commanded him to say the same things to John that he had said before, that if he had any malicious inclination for fighting, he might come out with as many of his men as he pleased, in order to fight, without the danger of destroying either his city or temple; but that he desired he would not defile the temple, nor thereby offend against God. That he might, if he pleased, offer the sacrifices which were now discontinued by any of the Jews whom he should pitch upon. 6.99. In answer to which, Josephus said thus, with a loud voice:—“To be sure, thou hast kept this city wonderfully pure for God’s sake; the temple also continues entirely unpolluted! Nor hast thou been guilty of any impiety against him, for whose assistance thou hopest! He still receives his accustomed sacrifices! 6.110. And are not both the city and the entire temple now full of the dead bodies of your countrymen? It is God, therefore, it is God himself who is bringing on this fire, to purge that city and temple by means of the Romans, and is going to pluck up this city, which is full of your pollutions.” 6.122. Accordingly, these men rushed upon theseholy places in their armor, that were otherwise unapproachable, and that while their hands were yet warm with the blood of their own people which they had shed; nay, they proceeded to such great transgressions, that the very same indignation which the Jews would naturally have against Romans, had they been guilty of such abuses against them, the Romans now had against Jews, for their impiety in regard to their own religious customs. 6.126. Have not we given you leave to kill such as go beyond it, though he were a Roman? And what do you do now, you pernicious villains? Why do you trample upon dead bodies in this temple? and why do you pollute this holy house with the blood of both foreigners and Jews themselves? 6.250. But as for that house, God had, for certain, long ago doomed it to the fire; and now that fatal day was come, according to the revolution of ages; it was the tenth day of the month Lous, [Ab,] upon which it was formerly burnt by the king of Babylon; 6.288. 3. Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. 6.289. Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. 6.290. Thus also before the Jews’ rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus, [Nisan,] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which light lasted for half an hour. 6.291. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. 6.292. At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. 6.293. Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner [court of the] temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night. 6.294. Now, those that kept watch in the temple came hereupon running to the captain of the temple, and told him of it; who then came up thither, and not without great difficulty was able to shut the gate again. 6.295. This also appeared to the vulgar to be a very happy prodigy, as if God did thereby open them the gate of happiness. But the men of learning understood it, that the security of their holy house was dissolved of its own accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemies. 6.296. So these publicly declared that the signal foreshowed the desolation that was coming upon them. Besides these, a few days after that feast, on the one and twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar], 6.297. a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared: I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, 6.298. and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sunsetting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen 6.299. running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, 6.300. and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, “Let us remove hence.” But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Aus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for everyone to make tabernacles to God in the temple, 6.301. began on a sudden to cry aloud, “A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!” This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. 6.302. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say anything for himself, or anything peculiar to those that chastised him, but still he went on with the same words which he cried before. 6.303. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, 6.304. where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!” 6.305. And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. 6.306. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!” 6.307. Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. 6.308. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; 6.309. for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, “Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!” And just as he added at the last, “Woe, woe to myself also!” there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost. 6.310. 4. Now, if anyone consider these things, he will find that God takes care of mankind, and by all ways possible foreshows to our race what is for their preservation; but that men perish by those miseries which they madly and voluntarily bring upon themselves; 6.311. for the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple foursquare, while at the same time they had it written in their sacred oracles, “That then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become foursquare.” 6.312. But now, what did most elevate them in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how, “about that time, one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth.” 6.313. The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular, and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now, this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. 6.314. However, it is not possible for men to avoid fate, although they see it beforehand. 6.315. But these men interpreted some of these signals according to their own pleasure, and some of them they utterly despised, until their madness was demonstrated, both by the taking of their city and their own destruction. 7.451. 4. But as to Catullus, the emperors were so gentle to him, that he underwent no severe condemnation at this time; yet was it not long before he fell into a complicated and almost incurable distemper, and died miserably. He was not only afflicted in body, but the distemper in his mind was more heavy upon him than the other; 7.452. for he was terribly disturbed, and continually cried out that he saw the ghosts of those whom he had slain standing before him. Whereupon he was not able to contain himself, but leaped out of his bed, as if both torments and fire were brought to him. 7.453. This his distemper grew still a great deal worse and worse continually, and his very entrails were so corroded, that they fell out of his body, and in that condition he died. Thus he became as great an instance of Divine Providence as ever was, and demonstrated that God punishes wicked men. |
|
24. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, 2.179-2.181 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 50 | 2.179. 20. And this very thing it is that principally creates such a wonderful agreement of minds amongst us all; for this entire agreement of ours in all our notions concerning God, and our having no difference in our course of life and manners, procures among us the most excellent concord of these our manners that is any where among mankind; 2.180. for no other people but we Jews have avoided all discourses about God that any way contradict one another, which yet are frequent among other nations; and this is true not only among ordinary persons, according as every one is affected, but some of the philosophers have been insolent enough to indulge such contradictions, while some of them have undertaken to use such words as entirely take away the nature of God, as others of them have taken away his providence over mankind. 2.181. Nor can any one perceive amongst us any difference in the conduct of our lives; but all our works are common to us all. We have one sort of discourse concerning God, which is conformable to our law, and affirms that he sees all things; as also, we have but one way of speaking concerning the conduct of our lives, that all other things ought to have piety for their end; and this any body may hear from our women, and servants themselves. |
|
| 25. Josephus Flavius, Life, 12, 191 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 58 |
26. Tosefta, Kippurim, 2.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 307| 2.4. "[מהו נס שנעשה בהן אמרו כשהיה נקנור מביאו מאלכסנדריא שבמצרים] עמד עליהן נחשול שבים לטבען ונטלו אחד מהן והטילוהו לים [ובקשו להטיל את השני ולא הניחן נקנור אמר להם אם אתם מטילין את השני הטילוני עמו היה מצטער ובא עד שהגיע לנמל של יפו כיון שהגיע לנמילה של יפו היה מבעבע ועולה מתחת הספינה וי\"א אחת מהן חיה שבים בלעה אותה וכיון שהגיע ניקנור לנמילה של יפו פלטתו והטילתו ליבשה ועליהן מפורש בקבלה (שיר השירים א׳:י״ז) קורות בתינו ארזים וגו'].", | |
|
27. New Testament, Mark, 7.1-7.23 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229| 7.1. Καὶ συνἄγονται πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καί τινες τῶν γραμματέων ἐλθόντες ἀπὸ Ἰεροσολύμων 7.2. καὶ ἰδόντες τινὰς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ὅτι κοιναῖς χερσίν, τοῦτʼ ἔστιν ἀνίπτοις, ἐσθίουσιν τοὺς ἄρτους. 7.3. —οἱ γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐὰν μὴ πυγμῇ νίψωνται τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, κρατοῦντες τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, 7.4. καὶ ἀπʼ ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν μὴ ῥαντίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν, βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων. 7.5. —καὶ ἐπερωτῶσιν αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς Διὰ τί οὐ περιπατοῦσιν οἱ μαθηταί σου κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, ἀλλὰ κοιναῖς χερσὶν ἐσθίουσιν τὸν ἄρτον; 7.6. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Καλῶς ἐπροφήτευσεν Ἠσαίας περὶ ὑμῶν τῶν ὑποκριτῶν, ὡς γέγραπται ὅτι Οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ· 7.7. μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων· 7.8. ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 7.9. καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς Καλῶς ἀθετεῖτε τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν τηρήσητε· 7.10. Μωυσῆς γὰρ εἶπεν Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου, καί Ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητερα θανάτῳ τελευτάτω· 7.11. ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε Ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί Κορβάν, ὅ ἐστιν Δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, 7.12. οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί, 7.13. ἀκυροῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ παραδόσει ὑμῶν ᾗ παρεδώκατε· καὶ παρόμοια τοιαῦτα πολλὰ ποιεῖτε. 7.14. Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος πάλιν τὸν ὄχλον ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς Ἀκούσατέ μου πάντες καὶ σύνετε. 7.15. οὐδὲν ἔστιν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὃ δύναται κοινῶσαι αὐτόν· ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενά ἐστιν τὰ κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 7.16. 7.17. Καὶ ὅτε εἰσῆλθεν εἰς οἶκον ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου, ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ τὴν παραβολήν. 7.18. καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι, 7.19. ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλʼ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται; —καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα. 7.20. ἔλεγεν δὲ ὅτι Τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκεῖνο κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον· 7.21. ἔσωθεν γὰρ ἐκ τῆς καρδίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων οἱ διαλογισμοὶ οἱ κακοὶ ἐκπορεύονται, πορνεῖαι, κλοπαί, φόνοι, 7.22. μοιχεῖαι, πλεονεξίαι, πονηρίαι, δόλος, ἀσέλγεια, ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός, βλασφημία, ὑπερηφανία, ἀφροσύνη· 7.23. πάντα ταῦτα τὰ πονηρὰ ἔσωθεν ἐκπορεύεται καὶ κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. | 7.1. Then the Pharisees, and some of the scribes gathered together to him, having come from Jerusalem. 7.2. Now when they saw some of his disciples eating bread with defiled, that is, unwashed, hands, they found fault. 7.3. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, don't eat unless they wash their hands and forearms, holding to the tradition of the elders. 7.4. They don't eat when they come from the marketplace, unless they bathe themselves, and there are many other things, which they have received to hold to: washings of cups, pitchers, bronze vessels, and couches.) 7.5. The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why don't your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?" 7.6. He answered them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, But their heart is far from me. 7.7. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' 7.8. "For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men -- the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things." 7.9. He said to them, "Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 7.10. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother;' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' 7.11. But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to say, given to God;"' 7.12. then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother, 7.13. making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this." 7.14. He called all the multitude to himself, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand. 7.15. There is nothing from outside of the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man. 7.16. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!" 7.17. When he had entered into a house away from the multitude, his disciples asked him about the parable. 7.18. He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Don't you perceive that whatever goes into the man from outside can't defile him, 7.19. because it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus making all foods clean?" 7.20. He said, "That which proceeds out of the man, that defiles the man. 7.21. For from within, out of the hearts of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual sins, murders, thefts, 7.22. covetings, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness. 7.23. All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." |
|
28. Mishnah, Avot, 1.1-2.4, 1.1, 1.3, 1.12, 1.15, 1.16-2.4, 1.16, 2.8-2.14, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.20, 5.17, 5.18, 5.19 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 75, 76| 1.12. "הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, אוֹהֵב שָׁלוֹם וְרוֹדֵף שָׁלוֹם, אוֹהֵב אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת וּמְקָרְבָן לַתּוֹרָה: \n", | 1.12. "Hillel and Shammai received [the oral tradition] from them. Hillel used to say: be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind and drawing them close to the Torah.", |
|
29. Mishnah, Bava Batra, 2.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 171| 2.3. לֹא יִפְתַּח אָדָם חֲנוּת שֶׁל נַחְתּוֹמִין וְשֶׁל צַבָּעִין תַּחַת אוֹצָרוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ. וְלֹא רֶפֶת בָּקָר. בֶּאֱמֶת, בְּיַיִן הִתִּירוּ, אֲבָל לֹא רֶפֶת בָּקָר. חֲנוּת שֶׁבֶּחָצֵר, יָכוֹל לִמְחוֹת בְּיָדוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ, אֵינִי יָכוֹל לִישֹׁן מִקּוֹל הַנִּכְנָסִין וּמִקּוֹל הַיּוֹצְאִין. אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה כֵלִים, יוֹצֵא וּמוֹכֵר בְּתוֹךְ הַשּׁוּק, אֲבָל אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִמְחוֹת בְּיָדוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ, אֵינִי יָכוֹל לִישֹׁן, לֹא מִקּוֹל הַפַּטִּישׁ, וְלֹא מִקּוֹל הָרֵחַיִם, וְלֹא מִקּוֹל הַתִּינוֹקוֹת. | 2.3. "One may not open a bakery or a dyer’s shop under his fellow’s storehouse, nor a cattle stall. In truth, they have permitted these things under a winestore but not a cattle stall. A man may protest against [another that opens] a shop within the courtyard and say to him, “I cannot sleep because of the noise of them that go in and out.” One who makes utensils, should go outside and sell them in the market. But none may protest and say to him, “I cannot sleep because of the noise of the hammer” or “because of the noise of the mill-stones” or “because of the noise of children.”", |
|
30. Mishnah, Bava Metzia, 4.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 171| 4.11. "אֵין מְעָרְבִין פֵּרוֹת בְּפֵרוֹת, אֲפִלּוּ חֲדָשִׁים בַּחֲדָשִׁים, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר חֲדָשִׁים בִּישָׁנִים. בֶּאֱמֶת, בְּיַיִן הִתִּירוּ לְעָרֵב קָשֶׁה בְרַךְ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁבִּיחוֹ. אֵין מְעָרְבִין שִׁמְרֵי יַיִן בְּיַיִן, אֲבָל נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת שְׁמָרָיו. מִי שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב מַיִם בְּיֵינוֹ, לֹא יִמְכְּרֶנּוּ בַחֲנוּת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוֹדִיעוֹ, וְלֹא לְתַגָּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹדִיעוֹ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְרַמּוֹת בּוֹ. מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַטִּיל מַיִם בַּיַּיִן, יַטִּילוּ: \n", | 4.11. "Produce may not be mixed together with other produce, even new produce with new produce, and needless to say new with old. In truth they permitted sharp wine to be mixed with weak wine, since this improves [the taste]. Wine lees may not be mixed with wine, but [the seller] may give [the buyer] the lees that come from the same wine. One whose wine has been mixed with water may not sell it in a store unless he informs [the buyer] and not to a merchant even if he has informed him, since [the merchant would buy it] only to deceive with it. In a place where they are accustomed to put water in wine, they may do so.", |
|
31. Mishnah, Bikkurim, 1.4-1.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 215| 1.4. "אֵלּוּ מְבִיאִין וְלֹא קוֹרִין, הַגֵּר מֵבִיא וְאֵינוֹ קוֹרֵא, שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לוֹמַר אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע ה' לַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ לָתֵת לָנוּ (דברים כ״ו:ג׳). וְאִם הָיְתָה אִמּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מֵבִיא וְקוֹרֵא. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מִתְפַּלֵּל בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין עַצְמוֹ, אוֹמֵר, אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּכְשֶׁהוּא בְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת, אוֹמֵר, אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם. וְאִם הָיְתָה אִמּוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, אוֹמֵר, אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵינוּ: \n", 1.5. "רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר, אִשָּׁה בַת גֵּרִים לֹא תִנָּשֵׂא לַכְּהֻנָּה, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא אִמָּהּ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. אֶחָד גֵּרִים וְאֶחָד עֲבָדִים מְשֻׁחְרָרִים, וַאֲפִלּוּ עַד עֲשָׂרָה דוֹרוֹת, עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא אִמָּן מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. הָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס וְהַשָּׁלִיחַ וְהָעֶבֶד וְהָאִשָּׁה וְטֻמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס, מְבִיאִין וְלֹא קוֹרִין, שֶׁאֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לוֹמַר (דברים כ״ו:י׳) אֲשֶׁר נָתַתָּה לִּי ה': \n", | 1.4. "These bring [bikkurim] but do not read the declaration:The convert, since he cannot say: “Which the Lord has sworn to our fathers, to give to us” (Deuteronomy 26:3). If his mother was an Israelite, then he brings bikkurim and recites. When he prays privately, he says: “God of the fathers of Israel,” but when he is in the synagogue, he should say: “The God of your fathers.” But if his mother was an Israelite, he says: “The God of our fathers’.", 1.5. "Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: a woman who is a daughter of a convert may not marry a priest unless her mother was herself an Israelite. [This law applies equally to the offspring] whether of proselytes or freed slaves, even to ten generations, unless their mother is an Israelite. A guardian, an agent, a slave, a woman, one of doubtful sex, or a hermaphrodite bring the bikkurim, but do not recite, since they cannot say: “Which you, O Lord, have given to me” (Deuteronomy 26:10).", |
|
32. Mishnah, Eduyot, 5.6-5.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 75| 5.6. "עֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל הֵעִיד אַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, עֲקַבְיָא, חֲזֹר בְּךָ בְאַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים שֶׁהָיִיתָ אוֹמֵר וְנַעַשְׂךָ אַב בֵּית דִּין לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר לָהֶן, מוּטָב לִי לְהִקָּרֵא שׁוֹטֶה כָּל יָמַי, וְלֹא לֵעָשׂוֹת שָׁעָה אַחַת רָשָׁע לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם, שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ אוֹמְרִים, בִּשְׁבִיל שְׂרָרָה חָזַר בּוֹ. הוּא הָיָה מְטַמֵּא שְׂעַר הַפְּקֻדָּה וְדַם הַיָּרוֹק. וַחֲכָמִים מְטַהֲרִין. הוּא הָיָה מַתִּיר שְׂעַר בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁנָּשַׁר וְהִנִּיחוֹ בְחַלּוֹן וְאַחַר כָּךְ שְׁחָטוֹ, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹסְרִים. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אֵין מַשְׁקִין לֹא אֶת הַגִּיֹּרֶת וְלֹא אֶת שִׁפְחָה הַמְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, מַשְׁקִין. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מַעֲשֶׂה בְּכַרְכְּמִית, שִׁפְחָה מְשֻׁחְרֶרֶת שֶׁהָיְתָה בִירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְהִשְׁקוּהָ שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן. אָמַר לָהֶם, דֻּגְמָא הִשְׁקוּהָ. וְנִדּוּהוּ, וּמֵת בְּנִדּוּיוֹ, וְסָקְלוּ בֵית דִּין אֶת אֲרוֹנוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם שֶׁעֲקַבְיָא נִתְנַדָּה, שֶׁאֵין עֲזָרָה נִנְעֶלֶת בִּפְנֵי כָל אָדָם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל בְּחָכְמָה וּבְיִרְאַת חֵטְא כַּעֲקַבְיָא בֶּן מַהֲלַלְאֵל. וְאֶת מִי נִדּוּ, אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן חֲנוֹךְ, שֶׁפִּקְפֵּק בְּטָהֳרַת יָדָיִם. וּכְשֶׁמֵּת, שָׁלְחוּ בֵית דִּין וְהִנִּיחוּ אֶבֶן עַל אֲרוֹנוֹ. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכָּל הַמִּתְנַדֶּה וּמֵת בְּנִדּוּיוֹ, סוֹקְלִין אֶת אֲרוֹנוֹ: \n", 5.7. "בִּשְׁעַת מִיתָתוֹ אָמַר לִבְנוֹ, בְּנִי, חֲזֹר בְּךָ בְאַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים שֶׁהָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר. אָמַר לוֹ, וְלָמָּה לֹא חָזַרְתָּ בָּךְ. אָמַר לוֹ, אֲנִי שָׁמַעְתִּי מִפִּי הַמְרֻבִּים, וְהֵם שָׁמְעוּ מִפִּי הַמְרֻבִּים. אֲנִי עָמַדְתִּי בִשְׁמוּעָתִי, וְהֵם עָמְדוּ בִשְׁמוּעָתָן. אֲבָל אַתָּה שָׁמַעְתָּ מִפִּי הַיָּחִיד, וּמִפִּי הַמְרֻבִּין. מוּטָב לְהַנִּיחַ דִּבְרֵי הַיָּחִיד, וְלֶאֱחֹז בְּדִבְרֵי הַמְרֻבִּין. אָמַר לוֹ, אַבָּא, פְּקֹד עָלַי לַחֲבֵרֶיךָ. אָמַר לוֹ, אֵינִי מַפְקִיד. אָמַר לוֹ, שֶׁמָּא עִילָה מָצָאתָ בִי. אָמַר לוֹ, לָאו. מַעֲשֶׂיךָ יְקָרְבוּךָ וּמַעֲשֶׂיךָ יְרַחֲקוּךָ: \n", | 5.6. "Akavia ben Mahalalel testified concerning four things. They said to him: Akavia, retract these four things which you say, and we will make you the head of the court in Israel. He said to them: it is better for me to be called a fool all my days than that I should become [even] for one hour a wicked man before God; So they shouldn’t say: “he withdrew his opinions for the sake of power.” He used to pronounce impure the hair which has been left over [in leprosy], And green (yellow) blood (of vaginal discharge); But the Sages declared them clean. He used to permit the wool of a first-born animal which was blemished and which had fallen out and had been put in a niche, the first-born being slaughtered afterwards; But the sages forbid it. He used to say: a woman proselyte and a freed slave-woman are not made to drink of the bitter waters. But the Sages say: they are made to drink. They said to him: it happened in the case of Karkemith, a freed slave-woman who was in Jerusalem, that Shemaiah and Avtalion made her drink. He said to them: they made her drink an example (and not the real water). Whereupon they excommunicated him; and he died while he was under excommunication, and the court stoned his coffin. Rabbi Judah said: God forbid [that one should say] that Akavia was excommunicated; for the courtyard is never locked for any man in Israel who was equal to Avavia ben Mahalalel in wisdom and the fear of sin. But whom did they excommunicate? Eliezer the son of Hanoch who cast doubt against the laws concerning the purifying of the hands. And when he died the court sent and laid a stone on his coffin. This teaches that whoever is excommunicated and dies while under excommunication, his coffin is stoned.", 5.7. "At the time of his death he said to his son, “Retract the four opinions which I used to declare.” He (the said to him, “Why did not you retract them?” He said to him, “I heard them from the mouth of the many, and they heard [the contrary] from the mouth of the many. I stood fast by the tradition which I heard, and they stood fast by the tradition which they heard. But you have heard [my tradition] from the mouth of a single individual and [their tradition] from the mouth of the many. It is better to leave the opinion of the single individual and to hold by the opinion of the many.” He said to him, “Father commend me to your colleagues.” He said to him, “I will not commend you.” He said to him, “Have you found in me any wrong?” He said, “No; your own deeds will cause you to be near, and your own deeds will cause you to be far.”", |
|
33. Mishnah, Kiddushin, 1.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 187, 225| 1.7. "כָּל מִצְוֹת הַבֵּן עַל הָאָב, אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְכָל מִצְוֹת הָאָב עַל הַבֵּן, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין. וְכָל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ, אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְכָל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין. וְכָל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, בֵּין שֶׁהַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין, חוּץ מִבַּל תַּשְׁחִית וּבַל תַּקִּיף וּבַל תִּטַּמָּא לְמֵתִים: \n", | 1.7. "All obligations of the son upon the father, men are obligated, but women are exempt. But all obligations of the father upon the son, both men and women are obligated. All positive, time-bound commandments, men are obligated and women are exempt. But all positive non-time-bound commandments both men and women are obligated. And all negative commandments, whether time-bound or not time-bound, both men and women are obligated, except for, the prohibition against rounding [the corners of the head], and the prohibition against marring [the corner of the beard], and the prohibition [for a priest] to become impure through contact with the dead.", |
|
34. Mishnah, Kilayim, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 171| 2.2. "בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. תְּבוּאָה בִתְבוּאָה וְקִטְנִית בְּקִטְנִית, תְּבוּאָה בְקִטְנִית וְקִטְנִית בִּתְבוּאָה. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ, זֵרְעוֹנֵי גִנָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין, מִצְטָרְפִין אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע בְּנוֹפֵל לְבֵית סְאָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָמְרוּ לְהַחְמִיר כָּךְ אָמְרוּ לְהָקֵל, הַפִּשְׁתָּן בַּתְּבוּאָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע בְּנוֹפֵל לְבֵית סְאָה: \n", | 2.2. "To what does this refer? To [an mixture of] grain [occurring] with [different] grain, or pulse with [different] pulse, to grain with pulse, and to pulse with grain. However they stated: Seeds from a garden which are not eaten, they add up [with other seeds to form an amount sufficient to prohibit the sowing of a seah] when there is 1/24 of the quantity [of such seed] that is necessary to sow a bet seah. Rabbi Shimon says: just as they ruled to be stringent so too they ruled to be lenient flax [mixed in with] produce, combines when there is 1/24 of the quantity [of such seed] that is necessary to sow a bet seah.", |
|
35. Mishnah, Middot, 1.4, 2.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 307| 1.4. "שִׁבְעָה שְׁעָרִים הָיוּ בָעֲזָרָה, שְׁלשָׁה בַצָּפוֹן וּשְׁלשָׁה בַדָּרוֹם וְאֶחָד בַּמִּזְרָח. שֶׁבַּדָּרוֹם, שַׁעַר הַדֶּלֶק. שֵׁנִי לוֹ, שַׁעַר הַבְּכוֹרוֹת. שְׁלִישִׁי לוֹ, שַׁעַר הַמָּיִם. שֶׁבַּמִּזְרָח, שַׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר, וּשְׁתֵּי לְשָׁכוֹת הָיוּ לוֹ, אַחַת מִימִינוֹ וְאַחַת מִשְּׂמֹאלוֹ, אַחַת לִשְׁכַּת פִּנְחָס הַמַּלְבִּישׁ, וְאַחַת לִשְׁכַּת עוֹשֵׂי חֲבִתִּין: \n", 2.3. "לִפְנִים מִמֶּנּוּ, סוֹרֵג, גָּבוֹהַּ עֲשָׂרָה טְפָחִים. וּשְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה פְרָצוֹת הָיוּ שָׁם, שֶׁפְּרָצוּם מַלְכֵי יָוָן. חָזְרוּ וּגְדָרוּם, וְגָזְרוּ כְנֶגְדָּם שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה הִשְׁתַּחֲוָיוֹת. לִפְנִים מִמֶּנּוּ, הַחֵיל, עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת. וּשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה מַעֲלוֹת הָיוּ שָׁם. רוּם הַמַּעֲלָה חֲצִי אַמָּה, וְשִׁלְחָהּ חֲצִי אַמָּה. כָּל הַמַּעֲלוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם, רוּם מַעֲלָה חֲצִי אַמָּה, וְשִׁלְחָהּ חֲצִי אַמָּה, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל אוּלָם. כָּל הַפְּתָחִים וְהַשְּׁעָרִים שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם, גָּבְהָן עֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה, וְרָחְבָּן עֶשֶׂר אַמּוֹת, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל אוּלָם. כָּל הַפְּתָחִים שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם, הָיוּ לָהֶן דְּלָתוֹת, חוּץ מִשֶּׁל אוּלָם. כָּל הַשְּׁעָרִים שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם, הָיוּ לָהֶן שְׁקוֹפוֹת, חוּץ מִשַּׁעַר טָדִי, שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם שְׁתֵּי אֲבָנִים מֻטּוֹת זוֹ עַל גַּב זוֹ. כָּל הַשְּׁעָרִים שֶׁהָיוּ שָׁם, נִשְׁתַּנּוּ לִהְיוֹת שֶׁל זָהָב, חוּץ מִשַּׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנַּעֲשָׂה בָהֶן נֵס. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנְּחֻשְׁתָּן מַצְהִיב: \n", | 1.4. "There were seven gates in the courtyard: three in the north and three in the south and one in the east. In the south: the Gate of Kindling, and next to it the Gate of the First-borns, and then the Water Gate. In the east: the Gate of Nicanor. It had two chambers, one on its right and one on its left. One was the chamber of Pinchas the dresser and one the other the chamber of the griddle cake makers.", 2.3. "Within it was the Soreg, ten handbreadths high. There were thirteen breaches in it, which had been originally made by the kings of Greece, and when they repaired them they enacted that thirteen prostrations should be made facing them. Within this was the Hel, which was ten cubits [broad]. There were twelve steps there. The height of each step was half a cubit and its tread was half a cubit. All the steps in the Temple were half a cubit high with a tread of half a cubit, except those of the Porch. All the doorways in the Temple were twenty cubits high and ten cubits broad except those of the Porch. All the doorways there had doors in them except those of the Porch. All the gates there had lintels except that of Taddi which had two stones inclined to one another. All the original gates were changed for gates of gold except the gates of Nicanor, because a miracle happened with them. Some say: because their copper gleamed like gold.", |
|
36. Mishnah, Nazir, 7.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 171| 7.3. "אֲבָל הַסְּכָכוֹת, וְהַפְּרָעוֹת, וּבֵית הַפְּרָס, וְאֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים, וְהַגּוֹלֵל, וְהַדּוֹפֵק, וּרְבִיעִית דָּם, וְאֹהֶל, וְרֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת, וְכֵלִים הַנּוֹגְעִים בְּמֵת, וִימֵי סָפְרוֹ, וִימֵי גָמְרוֹ, עַל אֵלּוּ אֵין הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ, וּמַזֶּה בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי, וְאֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר אֶת הַקּוֹדְמִין, וּמַתְחִיל וּמוֹנֶה מִיָּד, וְקָרְבָּן אֵין לוֹ. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ, יְמֵי הַזָּב וְהַזָּבָה וִימֵי הֶסְגֵּרוֹ שֶׁל מְצֹרָע, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עוֹלִין לוֹ: \n", | 7.3. "But for [defilement contracted by] overhanging branches, or protruding stones, or a field that may have once been a cemetery, or land of the Gentiles, or the stone which covers the tomb or the supporting stone of a tomb, or a quarter-log of blood, or a tent, or a quarter-kav of bones, or utensils that have been in contact with a corpse, or on account of the days of counting [after contracting scale disease] or the days during which he is certified unclean [because of scale disease]; For all these the nazirite is not required to shave, but they do sprinkle him on the third and seventh [days], and [the defilement] does not annul the formerly served period, and he begins to resume counting [his naziriteship] immediately [after purification] and there is no sacrifice. In fact they said: the days of [defilement of] a male or female sufferer from gonorrhea and the days that a leper is shut up as a leper count toward his [naziriteship].", |
|
| 37. Mishnah, Qiddushin, 4.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 216 |
38. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 4.5, 10.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j.d. •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 41; Schremer (2010), Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 84| 4.5. "כֵּיצַד מְאַיְּמִין אֶת הָעֵדִים עַל עֵדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן וּמְאַיְּמִין עֲלֵיהֶן. שֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מֵאֹמֶד, וּמִשְּׁמוּעָה, עֵד מִפִּי עֵד וּמִפִּי אָדָם נֶאֱמָן שָׁמַעְנוּ, אוֹ שֶׁמָּא אִי אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין שֶׁסּוֹפֵנוּ לִבְדֹּק אֶתְכֶם בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה. הֱווּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁלֹּא כְדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, אָדָם נוֹתֵן מָמוֹן וּמִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, דָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו תְּלוּיִין בּוֹ עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְקַיִן שֶׁהָרַג אֶת אָחִיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ד) דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ צֹעֲקִים, אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר דַּם אָחִיךָ אֶלָּא דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ, דָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו. דָּבָר אַחֵר, דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ, שֶׁהָיָה דָמוֹ מֻשְׁלָךְ עַל הָעֵצִים וְעַל הָאֲבָנִים. לְפִיכָךְ נִבְרָא אָדָם יְחִידִי, לְלַמֶּדְךָ, שֶׁכָּל הַמְאַבֵּד נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ אִבֵּד עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וְכָל הַמְקַיֵּם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ קִיֵּם עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וּמִפְּנֵי שְׁלוֹם הַבְּרִיּוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ אַבָּא גָדוֹל מֵאָבִיךָ. וְשֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מִינִין אוֹמְרִים, הַרְבֵּה רָשֻׁיּוֹת בַּשָּׁמָיִם. וּלְהַגִּיד גְּדֻלָּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁאָדָם טוֹבֵעַ כַּמָּה מַטְבְּעוֹת בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד וְכֻלָּן דּוֹמִין זֶה לָזֶה, וּמֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא טָבַע כָּל אָדָם בְּחוֹתָמוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן דּוֹמֶה לַחֲבֵרוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד חַיָּב לוֹמַר, בִּשְׁבִילִי נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מַה לָּנוּ וְלַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ה) וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד וְגוֹ'. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מַה לָּנוּ לָחוּב בְּדָמוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (משלי יא) וּבַאֲבֹד רְשָׁעִים רִנָּה: \n", 10.1. "כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה ס) וְעַמֵּךְ כֻּלָּם צַדִּיקִים לְעוֹלָם יִירְשׁוּ אָרֶץ נֵצֶר מַטָּעַי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַי לְהִתְפָּאֵר. וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, הָאוֹמֵר אֵין תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וְאֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם, וְאֶפִּיקוֹרֶס. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אַף הַקּוֹרֵא בַסְּפָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים, וְהַלּוֹחֵשׁ עַל הַמַּכָּה וְאוֹמֵר (שמות טו) כָּל הַמַּחֲלָה אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי בְמִצְרַיִם לֹא אָשִׂים עָלֶיךָ כִּי אֲנִי ה' רֹפְאֶךָ. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, אַף הַהוֹגֶה אֶת הַשֵּׁם בְּאוֹתִיּוֹתָיו: \n", | 4.5. "How did they admonish witnesses in capital cases? They brought them in and admonished them, [saying], “Perhaps you will say something that is only a supposition or hearsay or secondhand, or even from a trustworthy man. Or perhaps you do not know that we shall check you with examination and inquiry? Know, moreover, that capital cases are not like non-capital cases: in non-capital cases a man may pay money and so make atonement, but in capital cases the witness is answerable for the blood of him [that is wrongfully condemned] and the blood of his descendants [that should have been born to him] to the end of the world.” For so have we found it with Cain that murdered his brother, for it says, “The bloods of your brother cry out” (Gen. 4:10). It doesn’t say, “The blood of your brother”, but rather “The bloods of your brother” meaning his blood and the blood of his descendants. Another saying is, “The bloods of your brother” that his blood was cast over trees and stones. Therefore but a single person was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single life to perish from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had caused a whole world to perish; and anyone who saves a single soul from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world. Again [but a single person was created] for the sake of peace among humankind, that one should not say to another, “My father was greater than your father”. Again, [but a single person was created] against the heretics so they should not say, “There are many ruling powers in heaven”. Again [but a single person was created] to proclaim the greatness of the Holy Blessed One; for humans stamp many coins with one seal and they are all like one another; but the King of kings, the Holy Blessed One, has stamped every human with the seal of the first man, yet not one of them are like another. Therefore everyone must say, “For my sake was the world created.” And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be involved with this trouble”, was it not said, “He, being a witness, whether he has seen or known, [if he does not speak it, then he shall bear his iniquity] (Lev. 5:1). And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be guilty of the blood of this man?, was it not said, “When the wicked perish there is rejoicing” (Proverbs 11:10).]", 10.1. "All Israel have a portion in the world to come, for it says, “Your people, all of them righteous, shall possess the land for ever; They are the shoot that I planted, my handiwork in which I glory” (Isaiah 60:2. And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come: He who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, that the torah was not divinely revealed, and an epikoros. Rabbi Akiva says: “Even one who reads non-canonical books and one who whispers [a charm] over a wound and says, “I will not bring upon you any of the diseases which i brought upon the Egyptians: for I the lord am you healer” (Exodus 15:26). Abba Shaul says: “Also one who pronounces the divine name as it is spelled.”", |
|
39. Mishnah, Shabbat, 1.3, 10.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 171| 1.3. "לֹא יֵצֵא הַחַיָּט בְּמַחְטוֹ סָמוּךְ לַחֲשֵׁכָה, שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁכַּח וְיֵצֵא. וְלֹא הַלַּבְלָר בְּקֻלְמוֹסוֹ. וְלֹא יְפַלֶּה אֶת כֵּלָיו, וְלֹא יִקְרָא לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ, הַחַזָּן רוֹאֶה הֵיכָן תִּינוֹקוֹת קוֹרְאִים, אֲבָל הוּא לֹא יִקְרָא. כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ, לֹא יֹאכַל הַזָּב עִם הַזָּבָה, מִפְּנֵי הֶרְגֵּל עֲבֵרָה: \n", 10.4. "הַמִּתְכַּוֵּן לְהוֹצִיא לְפָנָיו וּבָא לוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו, פָּטוּר, לְאַחֲרָיו וּבָא לוֹ לְפָנָיו, חַיָּב. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ, הָאִשָּׁה הַחוֹגֶרֶת בְּסִינָר בֵּין מִלְּפָנֶיהָ וּבֵין מִלְּאַחֲרֶיהָ חַיֶּבֶת, שֶׁכֵּן רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת חוֹזֵר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף מְקַבְּלֵי פִתְקִין:", | 1.3. "A tailor must not go out with his needle near nightfall, lest he forget and go out. Nor a scribe with his quill. And one may not search his garments [for lice or fleas], nor read by the light of a lamp. In truth it was said, the hazzan may see where the children are reading from, but he himself must not read. Similarly, a zav must not eat together with a zavah, because it may lead to sin.", 10.4. "If one intends to carry out [an object] in front of him, but it comes around behind him, he is not liable. Behind him, but it comes around in front of him, he is liable. In truth they said: a woman who wraps herself with an apron whether in front of her or behind her, is liable, because it is normal for it to reverse itself. Rabbi Judah said: also those who receive notes.", |
|
40. Mishnah, Terumot, 2.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 171| 2.1. "אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא. וְאִם תָּרְמוּ, תְּרוּמָתָן תְּרוּמָה. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ, הָעִגּוּל שֶׁל דְּבֵלָה שֶׁנִּטְמָא מִקְצָתוֹ, תּוֹרֵם מִן הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ עַל הַטָּמֵא שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ. וְכֵן אֲגֻדָּה שֶׁל יָרָק, וְכֵן עֲרֵמָה. הָיוּ שְׁנֵי עִגּוּלִים, שְׁתֵּי אֲגֻדּוֹת, שְׁתֵּי עֲרֵמוֹת, אַחַת טְמֵאָה וְאַחַת טְהוֹרָה, לֹא יִתְרֹם מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא: \n", | 2.1. "They may not give terumah from pure [produce] for impure [produce], but if they did give, the terumah is terumah. In truth they said: If a cake of pressed figs had become partly defiled, one may give terumah from the clean part for that part which had become defiled. The same applies to a bunch of vegetables, or a stack of grain. If there were two cakes [of figs], two bunches [of vegetables], two stacks [of grain], one pure and one impure, one should not give terumah from one for the other. Rabbi Eliezer says: one can give terumah from that which is pure for that which is impure.", |
|
41. New Testament, Hebrews, 8.1-8.13 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 3| 8.1. Κεφάλαιον δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις, τοιοῦτον ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα, ὃςἐκάθισεν ἐν δεξιᾶτοῦ θρόνου τῆς μεγαλωσύνης ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, 8.2. τῶν ἁγίων λειτουργὸς καὶτῆς σκηνῆςτῆς ἀληθινῆς,ἣν ἔπηξεν ὁ κύριος,οὐκ ἄνθρωπος. 8.3. πᾶς γὰρ ἀρχιερεὺς εἰς τὸ προσφέρειν δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας καθίσταται· ὅθεν ἀναγκαῖον ἔχειν τι καὶ τοῦτον ὃ προσενέγκῃ. 8.4. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἦν ἐπὶ γῆς, οὐδʼ ἂν ἦν ἱερεύς, ὄντων τῶν προσφερόντων κατὰ νόμον τὰ δῶρα· 8.5. ?̔οἵτινες ὑποδείγματι καὶ σκιᾷ λατρεύουσιν τῶν ἐπουρανίων, καθὼς κεχρημάτισται Μωυσῆς μέλλων ἐπιτελεῖν τὴν σκηνήν,Ὅραγάρ, φησίν,ποιήσεις πάντα gt κατὰ τὸν τύπον τὸν δειχθέντα σοι ἐν τῷ ὄρει· 8.6. ?̓ νῦν δὲ διαφορωτέρας τέτυχεν λειτουργίας, ὅσῳ καὶ κρείττονός ἐστιν διαθήκης μεσίτης, ἥτις ἐπὶ κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις νενομοθέτηται. 8.7. εἰ γὰρ ἡ πρώτη ἐκείνη ἦν ἄμεμπτος, οὐκ ἂν δευτέρας ἐζητεῖτο τόπος· 8.8. μεμφόμενος γὰρ αὐτοὺς λέγει 8.9. 8.10. 8.11. 8.12. 8.13. ἐν τῷ λέγεινΚαινήνπεπαλαίωκεν τὴν πρώτην, τὸ δὲ παλαιούμενον καὶ γηράσκον ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ. | 8.1. Now in the things which we are saying, the main point is this. We have such a high priest, who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, 8.2. a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. 8.3. For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. 8.4. For if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law; 8.5. who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even as Moses was warned by God when he was about to make the tabernacle, for he said, "See, you shall make everything according to the pattern that was shown to you on the mountain." 8.6. But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covet, which has been enacted on better promises. 8.7. For if that first covet had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8.8. For finding fault with them, he said, "Behold, the days come," says the Lord,"That I will make a new covet with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; 8.9. Not according to the covet that I made with their fathers, In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; For they didn't continue in my covet, And I disregarded them," says the Lord. 8.10. "For this is the covet that I will make with the house of Israel . After those days," says the Lord; "I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be to them a God, And they will be to me a people. 8.11. They will not teach every man his fellow citizen, Every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' For all will know me, From the least of them to the greatest of them. 8.12. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more." 8.13. In that he says, "A new covet," he has made the first old. But that which is becoming old and grows aged is near to vanishing away. |
|
| 42. Tosefta, Hulin, 2.24 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 75 |
43. New Testament, Galatians, 3.10-3.15 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j.d. Found in books: Schremer (2010), Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 214| 3.10. Ὅσοι γὰρ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου εἰσὶν ὑπὸ κατάραν εἰσίν, γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι Ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει πᾶσιν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά. 3.11. ὅτι δὲ ἐν νόμῳ οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ θεῷ δῆλον, ὅτιὉ δίκαιος ἐκ πίστεως ζήσεται, 3.12. ὁ δὲ νόμος οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ πίστεως, ἀλλʼὉ ποιήσας αὐτὰ ζήσεται ἐν αὐτοῖς. 3.13. Χριστὸς ἡμᾶς ἐξηγόρασεν ἐκ τῆς κατάρας τοῦ νόμου γενόμενος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κατάρα, ὅτι γέγραπταιἘπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου, 3.14. ἵνα εἰς τὰ ἔθνη ἡ εὐλογία τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ γένηται ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ, ἵνα τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύματος λάβωμεν διὰ τῆς πίστεως. 3.15. Ἀδελφοί, κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω· ὅμως ἀνθρώπου κεκυρωμένην διαθήκην οὐδεὶς ἀθετεῖ ἢ ἐπιδιατάσσεται. | 3.10. For as many as are of the works of the law areunder a curse. For it is written, "Cursed is everyone who doesn'tcontinue in all things that are written in the book of the law, to dothem." 3.11. Now that no man is justified by the law before God isevident, for, "The righteous will live by faith." 3.12. The law is notof faith, but, "The man who does them will live by them." 3.13. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become acurse for us. For it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on atree," 3.14. that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentilesthrough Christ Jesus; that we might receive the promise of the Spiritthrough faith. 3.15. Brothers, I speak like men. Though it is only aman's covet, yet when it has been confirmed, no one makes it void,or adds to it. |
|
| 44. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 8.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j.d. Found in books: Schremer (2010), Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 84 |
45. Tosefta, Shabbat, 13.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j.d. Found in books: Schremer (2010), Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 84| 13.5. "הצד בהמה חיה ועוף מאפר [שברשות אדם] אם היו מחוסרין צידה חייב לאפר [שברשות אדם אע\"פ שמחוסרין] צידה פטור הפורס מצודה ע\"ג בהמה חיה ועוף [אע\"פ שנכנסין לתוכה פטור לבהמה חיה ועוף] אם היו נכנסין לתוכה חייב המפרק בהמה ועוף מן המצודה פטור.", | |
|
46. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 72| 4.8. "אָמַר צְדוֹקִי גְלִילִי, קוֹבֵל אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, פְּרוּשִׁים, שֶׁאַתֶּם כּוֹתְבִין אֶת הַמּוֹשֵׁל עִם משֶׁה בַּגֵּט. אוֹמְרִים פְּרוּשִׁים, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עָלֶיךָ, צְדוֹקִי גְלִילִי, שֶׁאַתֶּם כּוֹתְבִים אֶת הַמּוֹשֵׁל עִם הַשֵּׁם בַּדַּף, וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁאַתֶּם כּוֹתְבִין אֶת הַמּוֹשֵׁל מִלְמַעְלָן וְאֶת הַשֵּׁם מִלְּמַטָּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות ה) וַיֹּאמֶר פַּרְעֹה מִי ה' אֲשֶׁר אֶשְׁמַע בְּקֹלוֹ לְשַׁלַּח אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּכְשֶׁלָּקָה מַהוּ אוֹמֵר (שם ט), ה' הַצַּדִּיק: \n", | 4.8. "A Galilean min said: I complain against you Pharisees, that you write the name of the ruler and the name of Moses together on a divorce document. The Pharisees said: we complain against you, Galilean min, that you write the name of the ruler together with the divine name on a single page [of Torah]? And furthermore that you write the name of the ruler above and the divine name below? As it is said, \"And Pharoah said, Who is the Lord that I should hearken to his voice to let Israel go?\" (Exodus 5:2) But when he was smitten what did he say? \"The Lord is righteous\" (Exodus 9:27).", |
|
47. Tosefta, Sotah, 7.11-7.12 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 175| 7.11. "(דברים כ׳:ו׳) ומיה איש אשר נטע כרם ולא חללו ילך וישוב לביתו אחד הנוטע את הכרם ואחד חמשה אילני מאכל מחמשת המינין אפילו בחמש עיירות ה\"ז חוזר ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר אין לי במשמע אלא כרם.", 7.12. "(דברים כ׳:ז׳) ומי האיש אשר ארש אשה אחד [מארס] ואחד [מייבם] אפילו שומרת יבם לחמשה אחין ואפי' חמשה אחין ששמעו שמת אחיהם במלחמה כולן חוזרין ובאין אין לי אלא בנה ביתו ולא חנכו נטע כרם ולא חללו ארס אשה ולא לקחה בנה בית וחנכו ולא שהה שנים עשר חדש נטע כרם וחללו ולא שהה שנים עשר חדש ארס אשה ולקחה ולא שהה שנים עשר חדש מנין שאין זזין ממקומן ת\"ל (דברים כ״ד:ה׳) כי יקח איש אשה חדשה דבר זה בכלל היה ולמה יצא להקיש אליו מה זה מיוחד שארס אשה ולקחה ולא שהה י\"ב חדש שאין [זזין ממקומן] אף כולן כן.", | 7.11. "A person might think: 'since the Academy of Shammai declares unclean that which the Academy of Hillel declares clean, one prohibits that which the other permits, how, then, can I learn Torah?' This is way Torah repeats: \"words...the words...these are the words...\" All of the words have been given by a single Shepherd, one God fashioned them, one Provider gave them, Source of all deeds, blessed be God, has spoken them. So make for yourself a heart with many rooms, and bring into it the words of the Academy of Shammai and the words of the Academy of Hillel, the words of who declare unclean and those that declare clean. ", |
|
| 48. Tosefta, Kilayim, 1.16 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 171 |
| 49. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 115 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j.d. Found in books: Schremer (2010), Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 181 |
| 50. Palestinian Talmud, Yoma, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 307 |
| 51. Palestinian Talmud, Yevamot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 52. Palestinian Talmud, Taanit, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schremer (2010), Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 214 |
| 53. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 171 |
| 54. Palestinian Talmud, Bikkurim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 55. Palestinian Talmud, Pesahim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 56. Palestinian Talmud, Hagigah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
57. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 26.2 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 175| 26.2. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִמִּלְחַיָא וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּסִכְנִין בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמְרוּ, מָצִינוּ תִּינוֹקוֹת בִּימֵי דָוִד עַד שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲמוּ טַעַם חֵטְא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִין לִדְרשׁ אֶת הַתּוֹרָה מ"ט פָּנִים טָמֵא וּמ"ט פָּנִים טָהוֹר, וַהֲוָה דָּוִד מַצְלֵי עֲלַיְהוּ, הֲדָא הוּא שֶׁדָּוִד אוֹמֵר (תהלים יב, ח): אַתָּה ה' תִּשְׁמְרֵם, אַתָּה ה' נְטַר אוֹרַיְתְהוֹן בְּלִבֵּהוֹן, [עפ"י (תהלים יב, ח)]: תִּנְצְרֵם מִן הַדּוֹר זוּ לְעוֹלָם, מִן הַדּוֹר הַהוּא שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב כְּלָיָה, אַחַר כָּל הַשֶּׁבַח הַזֶּה יוֹצְאִין לַמִּלְחָמָה וְנוֹפְלִין, אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהָיוּ בָּהֶם דֵּילָטוֹרִין הָיוּ נוֹפְלִין, הוּא שֶׁדָּוִד אוֹמֵר (תהלים נז, ה): נַפְשִׁי בְּתוֹךְ לְבָאִם, לְבָאִם זֶה אַבְנֵר וַעֲמָשָׂא שֶׁהָיוּ לְבָאִים בַּתּוֹרָה. (תהלים נז, ה): אֶשְׁכְּבָה לֹהֲטִים, זֶה דּוֹאֵג וַאֲחִיתֹפֶל שֶׁהָיוּ לְהוּטִין אַחַר לָשׁוֹן הָרָע. (תהלים נז, ה): בְּנֵי אָדָם שִׁנֵּיהֶם חֲנִית וְחִצִּים, אֵלּוּ אַנְשֵׁי קְעִילָה דִּכְתִיב בָּהֶם (שמואל א כג, יא): הֲיַסְגִּרֻנִי בַעֲלֵי קְעִילָה בְיָדוֹ. (תהלים נז, ה): וּלְשׁוֹנָם חֶרֶב חַדָּה, אֵלּוּ הַזִּיפִים דִּכְתִיב בְּהוֹן (תהלים נד, ב): בְּבוֹא הַזִּיפִים וַיֹּאמְרוּ לְשָׁאוּל, בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אָמַר דָּוִד וְכִי מָה הַשְּׁכִינָה עוֹשָׂה בָּאָרֶץ (תהלים נז, ב): רוּמָה עַל הַשָּׁמַיִם אֱלֹהִים, סַלֵּק שְׁכִינָתְךָ מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. אֲבָל דּוֹרוֹ שֶׁל אַחְאָב כֻּלָּן עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הָיוּ, וְעַל יְדֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בָּהֶן דֵּילָטוֹרִין הָיוּ יוֹצְאִין לַמִּלְחָמָה וְנוֹצְחִין, הוּא שֶׁעוֹבַדְיָה אָמַר לְאֵלִיָּהוּ (מלכים א יח, יג): הֲלֹא הֻגַּד לַאדֹנִי וגו' וָאֲכַלְכְּלֵם לֶחֶם וָמָיִם, אִם לֶחֶם לָמָּה מָיִם, אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיוּ הַמַּיִם קָשִׁים לוֹ לְהָבִיא יוֹתֵר מִן הַלֶּחֶם, וְאֵלִיָּהוּ מַכְרִיז בְּהַר הַכַּרְמֶל וְאוֹמֵר (מלכים א יח, כב): אֲנִי נוֹתַרְתִּי נָבִיא לַה' לְבַדִּי, וְכָל עַמָּא יָדְעֵי וְלָא מְפַרְסְמֵי לְמַלְכָּא. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמְרוּ לוֹ לַנָּחָשׁ מִפְּנֵי מָה אַתָּה מָצוּי בֵּין הַגְּדֵרוֹת, אָמַר לָהֶם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפָּרַצְתִּי גִּדְרוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם. תָּנֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי הַנָּחָשׁ פָּרַץ גִּדְרוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם תְּחִלָּה לְפִיכָךְ נַעֲשָׂה סְפֶּקָלָטוֹר לְכָל פּוֹרְצֵי גְדֵרוֹת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לָמָּה אַתָּה נוֹשֵׁךְ, מָה אַתָּה מוֹעִיל, אֲרִי דּוֹרֵס וְאוֹכֵל, זְאֵב טוֹרֵף וְאוֹכֵל, וְאַתְּ נוֹשֵׁךְ וּמֵמִית. אָמַר לָהֶם (קהלת י, יא): אִם יִשֹּׁךְ הַנָּחָשׁ בְּלוֹא לָחַשׁ, אֶפְשָׁר דַּאֲנָא עָבֵיד כְּלוּם אֶלָּא אִם מִתְאֲמַר לִי מִן עֲלִיּוּתָא. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לָמָּה אַתָּה נוֹשֵׁךְ בְּאֵבֶר אֶחָד וְאַרְסְךָ מְהַלֵּךְ בְּכָל הָאֵבָרִים, אָמַר לָהֶם וְלִי אַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים (קהלת י, יא): אֵין יִתְרוֹן לְבַעַל הַלָּשׁוֹן, דְּיָתֵיב בְּרוֹמִי וְקָטֵל בְּסוּרְיָא, בְּסוּרְיָא וְקָטֵל בְּרוֹמִי. וְלָמָּה קוֹרֵא שְׁלִישִׁי, שֶׁהוּא הוֹרֵג שְׁלשָׁה, הָאוֹמְרוֹ, הַמְּקַבְּלוֹ וְהַנֶּאֱמַר עָלָיו. עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בִּגְבַר דַּהֲוַת לֵיהּ כַּלָּה בִּישָׁא וַהֲוַת צְמִידָה אֲמָרָה לִשָּׁן בִּישׁ, וַהֲוָה מְפַיֵּס יָתָהּ תְּרֵין זִמְנִין בְּיוֹמָא, חַד בְּרַמְשָׁא וְחַד בְּצַפְרָא, אֲמַר לָהּ אֲנָא בָּעֵי מִינָךְ דְּלָא תֵימְרִין לִשַּׁן בִּישׁ, מָה עֲבָדַת אֲזָלַת וַאֲמָרַת לְבַעֲלָהּ הָדֵין אֲבוּךְ בָּעֵי לְשַׁמָּשָׁא יָתִי, וְאִי לֵית אַתְּ מְהֵימַנְתְּ לִי עוּל אָתֵית לְרַמְשָׁא וְאַתְּ מַשְׁכַּח יָתֵיהּ יָתֵיב וּמְפַיֵּס לִי, אָזַל וּרְצַד עֲלוֹי וְחָמָא יָתֵיהּ קָאֵים גָּחִין וְסָיַח יָתָהּ. אֲמַר כְּבָר מִלָּא קוּשְׁטָן, מָה עֲבַד מְחָא לַאֲבוֹי וּקְטָלֵיהּ. אוֹבִילִין יָתֵיהּ לְדִינָא וְאִתְחַיַּיב קָטוֹלִין, וּלְהַהִיא אִנְתְּתָא דַּאֲמָרַת עַל אֲבוֹי לָשׁוֹן הָרָע וְאִיתְחַיְיבָא קָטוֹלִין, וְאִשְׁתַּכַּח לִשָּׁנָא קָטֵל תְּלָתֵיהוֹן. וּבִימֵי שָׁאוּל הָרַג אַרְבָּעָה, דּוֹאֵג שֶׁאָמַר, שָׁאוּל שֶׁקִּבְּלוֹ, אֲחִימֶלֶךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עָלָיו, אַבְנֵר לָמָּה נֶהֱרַג, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אַבְנֵר נֶהֱרַג עַל שֶׁעָשָׂה דָמָן שֶׁל נְעָרִים שְׂחוֹק, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמואל ב ב, יד): וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְנֵר אֶל יוֹאָב יָקוּמוּ נָא הַנְּעָרִים וִישַׂחֲקוּ לְפָנֵינוּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר עַל שֶׁהִקְדִּים שְׁמוֹ לְשֵׁם דָּוִד, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמואל ב ג, יב): וַיִּשְׁלַח אַבְנֵר מַלְאָכִים אֶל דָּוִד תַּחְתָּיו לֵאמֹר לְמִי אָרֶץ, וְהָכֵי כָּתַב לֵיהּ מֵאַבְנֵר לְדָוִד. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְשָׁאוּל לְהִתְפַּיֵּס בְּדָוִד וְלֹא הִנִּיחוֹ אַבְנֵר, שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ דָּוִד (שמואל א כד, יא): וְאָבִי רְאֵה גַּם רְאֵה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָה אַתְּ בָּעֵי, מִן גְּלַגּוֹי דִּידָךְ בְּסִירָה הוּעֲדָה, כַּד אָתוֹן לַמַּעֲגָל. אָמַר לוֹ (שמואל א כו, יד): הֲלוֹא תַעֲנֶה אַבְנֵר, בַּכָּנָף אָמַרְתָּ בְּסִירָה הוּעֲדָה, חֲנִית וְצַפַּחַת בְּסִירָה הוּעֲדוּ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהָיָה סִפֵּק בְּיָדוֹ לִמְחוֹת בְּשָׁאוּל עַל נוֹב וְלֹא מִחָה. | |
|
| 58. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
59. Anon., Lamentations Rabbah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 307, 311, 312, 313| 1.3. הָיְתָה כְּאַלְמָנָה, אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא הֵם לֹא פָּלְשׁוּ אַחַר מִדַּת הַדִּין, וְהִיא לֹא פָּלְשָׁה אַחֲרֵיהֶם. הֵם לֹא פָּלְשׁוּ אַחַר מִדַּת הַדִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יא, א): וַיְהִי הָעָם כְּמִתְאֹנְנִים, מִתְאֹנְנִים אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא כְּמִתְאֹנְנִים. (הושע ה, י): הָיוּ שָׂרֵי יְהוּדָה כְּמַסִּיגֵי גְּבוּל, מַסִּיגֵי אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא כְּמַסִּיגֵי. (הושע ד, טז): כִּי כְּפָרָה סֹרֵרָה, כִּי פָּרָה אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא כְּפָרָה סֹרֵרָה, וּמִדַּת הַדִּין לֹא פָּלְשָׁה אַחֲרֵיהֶם, הָיְתָה כְּאַלְמָנָה, הָיְתָה אַלְמָנָה אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא כְּאַלְמָנָה, כְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעֲלָה לִמְדִינַת הַיָּם וְדַעְתּוֹ לַחֲזֹר אֵלֶיהָ. (איכה ב, ד): דָּרַךְ קַשְׁתּוֹ כְּאוֹיֵב, אוֹיֵב אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא כְּאוֹיֵב. הָיָה ה' כְּאוֹיֵב, אוֹיֵב אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא כְּאוֹיֵב. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הָיְתָה כְּאַלְמָנָה, רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָא וְרַבָּנָן, רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְּבָא אָמַר לְאַלְמָנָה שֶׁהָיְתָה תּוֹבַעַת מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ וְלֹא הָיְתָה תּוֹבַעַת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרִין לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁכָּעַס עַל מַטְרוֹנָה וְכָתַב לָהּ גִּטָּהּ וְעָמַד וַחֲטָפוֹ מִמֶּנָּהּ, וְכָל זְמַן שֶׁהָיְתָה מְבַקֶּשֶׁת לִנָּשֵׂא לְאַחֵר הָיָה אוֹמֵר לָהּ הֵיכָן גִּטֵּךְ, וְכָל זְמַן שֶׁהָיְתָה תּוֹבַעַת מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ הָיָה אוֹמֵר לָהּ וְלֹא כְבָר גֵּרַשְׁתִּיךְ, כָּךְ כָּל זְמַן שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל מְבַקְּשִׁים לַעֲבֹד עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הָיָה אוֹמֵר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא (ישעיה נ, א): אֵי זֶה סֵפֶר כְּרִיתוּת אִמְּכֶם, וְכָל זְמַן שֶׁמְּבַקְּשִׁים לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהֶם נִסִּים כְּבַתְּחִלָּה, אוֹמֵר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא כְּבָר גֵּרַשְׁתִּי אֶתְכֶם, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ירמיה ג, ח): שִׁלַּחְתִּיהָ וָאֶתֵּן אֶת סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻתֶיהָ אֵלֶיהָ. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הָיְתָה כְּאַלְמָנָה, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְרַבָּנָן, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר אַלְמָנָה, וְאַתָּה אוֹמֵר כְּאַלְמָנָה, אֶלָּא אַלְמָנָה מֵעֲשֶׂרֶת הַשְּׁבָטִים וְלֹא מִשֵּׁבֶט יְהוּדָה וּבִנְיָמִין. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרִין אַלְמָנָה מֵאֵלּוּ וּמֵאֵלּוּ, וְלֹא מֵהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ירמיה נא, ה): כִּי לֹא אַלְמָן יִשְׂרָאֵל וִיהוּדָה מֵאֱלֹהָיו. 2.2. אֵיכָה יָעִיב בְּאַפּוֹ ה' אֶת בַּת צִיּוֹן. אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אֵיךְ חַיֵּיב ה' בְּרוּגְזֵיהּ יָת בַּת צִיּוֹן. אִית אַתְרָא דְּצָוְוחִין לְחַיָּיבָא עֲיָיבָא. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר, אֵיךְ כַּיֵּיב ה' בְּרוּגְזֵיהּ. אִית אַתְרָא דְּצַוְוחִין לְכֵיבָא עֵייבָא. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרִין אֵיךְ שַׁיֵּים ה' בְּרוּגְזֵיהּ יָת בַּת צִיּוֹן. הִשְׁלִיךְ מִשָּׁמַיִם אֶרֶץ תִּפְאֶרֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, רַבִּי הוּנָא וְרַבִּי אַחָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַבָּהוּ, מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ בֵּן, בָּכָה וּנְתָנוֹ עַל אַרְכּוּבוֹתָיו, בָּכָה וּנְתָנוֹ עַל זְרוֹעוֹתָיו, בָּכָה וְהִרְכִּיבוֹ עַל כְּתֵפוֹ, טִנֵּף עָלָיו וּמִיָּד הִשְׁלִיכוֹ לָאָרֶץ, וְלָא הֲוַת מְחוּתִיתֵיהּ כִּמְסוּקִיתֵיהּ, מְסוּקִיתֵיהּ צִיבְחַר צִיבְחַר, וּמְחוּתִיתֵיהּ כּוֹלָּא חֲדָא. כָּךְ (הושע יא, ג): וְאָנֹכִי תִרְגַּלְתִּי לְאֶפְרַיִם קָחָם עַל זְרוֹעֹתָיו. וְאַחַר כָּךְ (הושע י, יא): אַרְכִּיב אֶפְרַיִם יַחֲרוֹשׁ יְהוּדָה יְשַׂדֶּד לוֹ יַעֲקֹב. וְאַחַר כָּךְ: הִשְׁלִיךְ מִשָּׁמַיִם אֶרֶץ תִּפְאֶרֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הִשְׁלִיךְ מִשָּׁמַיִם אֶרֶץ תִּפְאֶרֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּרַבִּי נַחְמָן מָשָׁל לִבְנֵי מְדִינָה שֶׁעָשׂוּ עֲטָרָה לַמֶּלֶךְ, הִקְנִיטוּהוּ וּסְבָלָן, הִקְנִיטוּהוּ וּסְבָלָן, אָחַר כָּךְ אָמַר לָהֶם הַמֶּלֶךְ כְּלוּם אַתֶּם מַקְנִיטִין אוֹתִי אֶלָּא בַּעֲבוּר עֲטָרָה שֶׁעִטַּרְתֶּם לִי, הֵא לְכוֹן טְרוֹן בְּאַפֵּיכוֹן, כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, כְּלוּם אַתֶּם מַקְנִיטִין אוֹתִי אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל אִיקוּנִין שֶׁל יַעֲקֹב שֶׁחֲקוּקָה עַל כִּסְאִי, הֵא לְכוֹן טְרוֹן בְּאַפֵּיכוֹן, הֱוֵי: הִשְׁלִיךְ מִשָּׁמַיִם אֶרֶץ וגו'. 4.2. בְּנֵי צִיּוֹן הַיְקָרִים, מֶה הָיְתָה יַקְרוּתָן, עִירוֹנִי שֶׁנָּשָׂא יְרוּשַׁלְמִית הָיָה נוֹתֵן לָהּ מִשְׁקָלָהּ זָהָב, וְכֵן יְרוּשַׁלְמִי שֶׁנָשָׂא עִירוֹנִית, הָיוּ נוֹתְנִין לוֹ מִשְׁקָלוֹ זָהָב. דָּבָר אַחֵר, מֶה הָיְתָה יַקְרוּתָן, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן נוֹשֵׂא אִשָּׁה גְדוֹלָה מִמֶּנּוּ, הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה שֻׁלְחָנוֹת יוֹתֵר מִן הַיְצִיאוֹת, יְרוּדָה מִמֶּנּוּ הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה הוֹצָאוֹת יוֹתֵר מִן הַשֻּׁלְחָנוֹת. דָּבָר אַחֵר, מֶה הָיְתָה יַקְרוּתָן, לֹא הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶם הוֹלֵךְ לִסְעוּדָה עַד שֶׁנִּקְרָא וְנִשְׁנָה. 4.13. יְדֵי נָשִׁים רַחֲמָנִיּוֹת בִּשְׁלוּ יַלְדֵיהֶן. רַבִּי הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לֹא הִנִּיחוּ אוֹתִי לִפְשֹׁט יָדִי בְּעוֹלָמִי, כֵּיצַד, הָיְתָה לְאַחַת מֵהֶן כִּכָּר אַחַת וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁתֹּאכַלְנָה הִיא וּבַעֲלָהּ יוֹם אֶחָד, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁמֵּת בְּנָהּ שֶׁל שְׁכֶנְתָּהּ, הָיְתָה נוֹטֶלֶת אוֹתוֹ הַכִּכָּר וּמְנַחֶמָה אוֹתָהּ בָּהּ, וְהֶעֱלָה עֲלֵיהֶם הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ בִּשְׁלוּ יַלְדֵיהֶן לְמִצְווֹת, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: יְדֵי נָשִׁים רַחֲמָנִיּוֹת בִּשְׁלוּ יַלְדֵיהֶן, וְכָל כָּךְ לָמָּה בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁהָיוּ לְבָרוֹת לָמוֹ. | |
|
| 60. Anon., Qohelet Rabba, 2.13 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j.d. Found in books: Schremer (2010), Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 181 |
| 61. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 62. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 307 |
63. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 307| 30b. לא יהיה בך אביון שלך קודם לשל כל אדם,אלא לזקן ואינו לפי כבודו,אמר רבה הכישה חייב בה אביי הוה יתיב קמיה דרבה חזא להנך עיזי דקיימו שקל קלא ושדא בהו א"ל איחייבת בהו קום אהדרינהו,איבעיא להו דרכו להחזיר בשדה ואין דרכו להחזיר בעיר מהו מי אמרינן השבה מעליא בעינן וכיון דלאו דרכיה להחזיר בעיר לא לחייב או דלמא בשדה מיהת הוא דאיחייב ליה וכיון דאיחייב ליה בשדה איחייב ליה בעיר תיקו,אמר רבא כל שבשלו מחזיר בשל חבירו נמי מחזיר וכל שבשלו פורק וטוען בשל חבירו נמי פורק וטוען,רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי הוה קאזיל באורחא פגע ביה ההוא גברא הוה דרי פתכא דאופי אותבינהו וקא מיתפח א"ל דלי לי אמר ליה כמה שוין א"ל פלגא דזוזא יהיב ליה פלגא דזוזא ואפקרה,הדר זכה בהו הדר יהיב ליה פלגא דזוזא ואפקרה חזייה דהוה קא בעי למיהדר למזכיה בהו א"ל לכולי עלמא אפקרנהו ולך לא אפקרנהו,ומי הוי הפקר כי האי גוונא והתנן בש"א הפקר לעניים הפקר וב"ה אומרים אינו הפקר עד שיהא הפקר לעניים ולעשירים כשמיטה,אלא רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי לכולי עלמא אפקרינהו ובמלתא בעלמא הוא דאוקמיה,והא רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי זקן ואינו לפי כבודו הוה ר' ישמעאל ברבי יוסי לפנים משורת הדין הוא דעבד,דתני רב יוסף (שמות יח, כ) והודעת להם זה בית חייהם את הדרך זו גמילות חסדים [(אשר) ילכו זה ביקור חולים בה זו קבורה ואת המעשה זה הדין אשר יעשון זו לפנים משורת הדין:,אמר מר (אשר) ילכו זה ביקור חולים היינו גמילות חסדים לא נצרכה אלא לבן גילו דאמר מר בן גילו נוטל אחד מששים בחליו ואפי' הכי מבעי ליה למיזל לגביה,בה זו קבורה היינו גמילות חסדים לא נצרכה אלא לזקן ואינו לפי כבודו,אשר יעשון זו לפנים משורת הדין דאמר ר' יוחנן לא חרבה ירושלים אלא על שדנו בה דין תורה אלא דיני דמגיזתא לדיינו אלא אימא שהעמידו דיניהם על דין תורה ולא עבדו לפנים משורת הדין:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אי זו היא אבידה מצא חמור או פרה רועין בדרך אין זו אבידה חמור וכליו הפוכין פרה רצה בין הכרמים הרי זו אבידה החזירה וברחה החזירה וברחה אפי' ארבעה וחמשה פעמים חייב להחזירה שנאמר (דברים כב, א) השב תשיבם,היה בטל מסלע לא יאמר לו תן לי סלע אלא נותן לו שכרו כפועל אם יש שם בית דין מתנה בפני ב"ד אם אין שם ב"ד בפני מי יתנה שלו קודם:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אטו כל הני דאמרינן לאו אבידה הוו אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר אי זו היא כלל אבידה שהוא חייב בה מצא חמור ופרה רועין בדרך אין זו אבידה ולא מיחייב בה חמור וכליו הפוכים פרה ורצה בין הכרמים הרי זו אבידה ומיחייב בה,ולעולם אמר רב יהודה אמר רב עד שלשה ימים היכי דמי אי בלילותא אפי' חדא שעתא נמי אי ביממא אפי' טובא נמי לא,לא צריכא דהוה חזי לה בקדמתא ובחשכתא תלתא יומי אמרינן איתרמויי אתרמי לה ונפקא טפי ודאי אבידה היא,תניא נמי הכי מצא טלית וקרדום | 30b. b there shall be no needy among you” /b (Deuteronomy 15:4). This verse can be understood as a command, indicating that it is incumbent upon each individual to ensure that he will not become needy. Therefore, b your /b assets b take precedence over /b the assets b of any /b other b person. /b ,The Gemara concludes: b Rather, /b the verse is necessary b to /b derive the exemption from returning the lost item in the case where he was b an elderly person and it is not in keeping with his dignity /b to tend to the item., b Rabba says: /b If there was a lost animal and the elderly person began the process of returning it, e.g., if he b struck it /b even once to guide it in a certain direction, he is b obligated /b to tend b to it /b and return it. The Gemara relates: b Abaye was sitting before Rabba /b and b saw these goats standing /b nearby. b He picked up a clod of dirt and threw it at them, /b causing them to move. Rabba b said to him: You have /b thereby b obligated yourself to /b return b them. Arise and return them /b to their owner., b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: In a case of a person for whom it b is his /b typical b manner to return /b an item of that type b in the field, /b where there are fewer onlookers, b but it is not his /b typical b manner to return /b an item of that type b in the city, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Do b we say /b that for one to be obligated to return a lost item b we need an unequivocal /b obligation to b return /b it that applies in all cases, b and since it is not his /b typical b manner to return /b an item of that sort b in the city, let him not be obligated /b to return such an item at all? b Or perhaps, he is obligated in any event /b to return the item b in the field, and once he is obligated /b to return b it in the field, he is /b also b obligated in the city. /b The Gemara concludes: The dilemma b shall stand /b unresolved., b Rava says: /b In b any /b case b where he would recover his own /b item and would consider it to be in keeping with his dignity, he is b also /b obligated to b return another’s /b item. b And any /b case where b he unloads and loads his own /b animal’s burden, he is b also /b obligated to b unload and load /b the burden of b another’s /b animal.,The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, was walking on the road. A certain man encountered him, /b and that man b was carrying a burden /b that consisted of sticks b of wood. He set down /b the wood b and was resting. /b The man b said to him: Lift /b them b for me /b and place them upon me. Since it was not in keeping with the dignity of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, to lift the wood, Rabbi Yishmael b said to him: How much are they worth? /b The man b said to him: A half-dinar. /b Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, b gave him a half-dinar, /b took possession of the wood, b and declared /b the wood b ownerless. /b ,The man b then reacquired /b the wood b and /b again requested that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, lift the wood for him. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, b again gave him a half-dinar, /b again took possession of the wood, b and /b again b declared /b the wood b ownerless. He /b then b saw that /b the man b desired to reacquire /b the sticks of wood. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, b said to him: I declared /b the sticks of wood b ownerless with regard to everyone /b else, b but I did not declare them ownerless with regard to you. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But is /b property b rendered ownerless in a case like this? But didn’t we learn /b in a mishna ( i Pe’a /i 6:1) that b Beit Shammai say: /b Property b declared ownerless for the poor is /b thereby rendered b ownerless. And Beit Hillel say: It is not ownerless, until /b the property b will be ownerless for the poor and for the rich, like /b produce during b the Sabbatical Year, /b which is available for all. As the i halakha /i is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, how could Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, declare the wood ownerless selectively, excluding the prior owner of the wood?, b Rather, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, /b actually b declared /b the wood b ownerless to everyone /b without exception, b and /b it b was with a mere statement that he prevented him /b from reacquiring the wood, i.e., he told the man not to reacquire the wood even though there was no legal impediment to that reacquisition.,The Gemara asks: b But wasn’t Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, an elderly person and it was not in keeping with his dignity /b to tend to the item? Why did he purchase the wood and render it ownerless in order to absolve himself of the obligation to lift the burden if he had no obligation to do so in the first place? The Gemara answers: In the case of b Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, he conducted /b himself b beyond the letter of the law, /b and he could have simply refused the request for help.,The Gemara cites a source for going beyond the letter of the law in the performance of mitzvot. b As Rav Yosef taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: “And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and shall show them the path wherein they shall walk and the action that they must perform” (Exodus 18:20). The i baraita /i parses the various directives in the verse. b “And you shall teach them,” that /b is referring to b the structure of their livelihood, /b i.e., teach the Jewish people trades so that they may earn a living; b “the path,” that /b is referring to b acts of kindness; “they shall walk,” that /b is referring to b visiting the ill; “wherein,” that /b is referring to b burial; “and the action,” that /b is referring to acting in accordance with the letter of the b law; “that they must perform,” that /b is referring to acting b beyond the letter of the law. /b ,The Gemara analyzes the i baraita /i . b The Master said: /b With regard to the phrase b “they shall walk,” that /b is referring to b visiting the ill. /b The Gemara asks: b That is /b a detail of b acts of kindness; /b why does the i baraita /i list it separately? The Gemara answers: The reference to visiting the ill is b necessary only for the contemporary of /b the ill person, b as the Master said: /b When b one who is a contemporary /b of an ill person visits him, he b takes one-sixtieth of his illness. /b Since visiting an ill contemporary involves contracting a bit of his illness, a special derivation is necessary to teach that b even so, he is required to go /b and visit b him. /b ,It was taught in the i baraita /i : With regard to the phrase b “wherein,” that /b is referring to b burial. /b The Gemara asks: b That is /b a detail of b acts of kindness; /b why does the i baraita /i list it separately? The Gemara answers: The reference to burial is b necessary only to /b teach the i halakha /i of b an elderly person, and /b it is in a circumstance where b it is not in keeping with his dignity /b to bury the dead. Therefore, a special derivation is necessary to teach that even so, he is required to participate in the burial.,It was taught in the i baraita /i : b “That they must perform”; that /b is referring to acting b beyond the letter of the law, as Rabbi Yoḥa says: Jerusalem was destroyed only for /b the fact b that they adjudicated /b cases on the basis of b Torah law in /b the city. The Gemara asks: b Rather, /b what else should they have done? b Should they rather have adjudicated /b cases on the basis of b arbitrary decisions [ i demagizeta /i ]? Rather, say: That they established their rulings on /b the basis of b Torah law and did not go beyond the letter of the law. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong b Which is /b the item that is considered b lost property? /b If b one found a donkey or a cow grazing on the path, that is not lost property, /b as presumably the owners are nearby and are aware of the animals’ whereabouts. If one found b a donkey with its accoutrements overturned, or a cow /b that b ran through the vineyards, that is lost property. /b In a case where b one returned /b the lost animal b and it fled, /b and he again b returned it and it fled, even /b if this scenario repeats itself b four or five times, /b he is b obligated to return it /b each time, as it b is stated: /b “You shall not see your brother’s ox or his sheep wandering and disregard them; b you shall return them /b to your brother” (Deuteronomy 22:1).,If in the course of tending to and returning the lost item, the finder b was idle from /b labor that would have earned him b a i sela /i , he shall not say to /b the owner of the item: b Give me a i sela /i /b to compensate me for my lost income. b Rather, /b the owner b gives him his wage as /b if he were b a laborer, /b a payment that is considerably smaller. b If there are /b three men b there /b who can convene as b a court, /b he b may stipulate before the court /b that he will undertake to return the item provided that he receives full compensation for lost income. b If there is no court there before whom can he stipulate /b his condition, b his /b ficial interests b take precedence /b and he need not return the lost item., strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the question in the mishna: Which is the item that is considered lost property, the Gemara asks: b Is that to say that all those other /b cases b that we stated /b in this chapter b are not lost property? Rav Yehuda said /b that b this /b is what the i tanna /i b is saying: What is the principle /b employed in defining b a lost item that one is obligated to /b return? The mishna cites examples to illustrate the principle: If one b found a donkey or a cow grazing on the path, that is not lost property, and he is not obligated to /b return b it. /b But if one found b a donkey with its accoutrements overturned, or a cow that was running through the vineyards, that is lost property, and he is obligated to /b return b it. /b ,With regard to the ruling in the mishna that a donkey and cow grazing on the path are not considered lost property, the Gemara asks: b And /b is that the case even if they graze there untended b forever? Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: Until three days /b pass they are not lost. Thereafter, they are considered lost. The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances? If /b the animal is found grazing b at night, even /b if it is untended for b even one hour /b it can be presumed to be lost, as an owner never grazes his animals untended at night. b If /b the animal is found grazing b during the day, even /b if it is untended for b more /b than three days, it is b also not /b presumed to be lost.,The Gemara answers: b No, /b the measure of three days b is necessary /b only in a case b where one saw /b the animal grazing b in the early /b hours in the morning b and in the dark /b of nightfall. For the first b three days, we say: It happened /b that the animal b went out /b a bit earlier or a bit later than usual, but nevertheless, it was with the owner’s knowledge. Once this is observed for b more /b than three days, it is b certainly a lost item. /b , b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : If b one found a cloak or an ax /b |
|
64. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 313| 33a. מחזיר לו א"ל לאו ואם היית מחזיר לו מה היו עושים לך א"ל היו חותכים את ראשי בסייף א"ל והלא דברים ק"ו ומה אתה שהיית עומד לפני מלך בשר ודם שהיום כאן ומחר בקבר כך אני שהייתי עומד לפני מלך מלכי המלכים הקב"ה שהוא חי וקיים לעד ולעולמי עולמים על אחת כמה וכמה,מיד נתפייס אותו השר ונפטר אותו חסיד לביתו לשלום:,אפי' נחש כרוך על עקבו לא יפסיק: אמר רב ששת לא שנו אלא נחש אבל עקרב פוסק,מיתיבי נפל לגוב אריות אין מעידין עליו שמת נפל לחפירה מלאה נחשים ועקרבים מעידין עליו שמת,שאני התם דאגב איצצא מזקי,א"ר יצחק ראה שוורים פוסק דתני רב אושעיא מרחיקין משור תם חמשים אמה ומשור מועד כמלא עיניו,תנא משמיה דר' מאיר ריש תורא בדקולא סליק לאגרא ושדי דרגא מתותך אמר שמואל הני מילי בשור שחור וביומי ניסן מפני שהשטן מרקד לו בין קרניו, ת"ר מעשה במקום אחד שהיה ערוד והיה מזיק את הבריות באו והודיעו לו לר' חנינא בן דוסא אמר להם הראו לי את חורו הראוהו את חורו נתן עקבו על פי החור יצא ונשכו ומת אותו ערוד, נטלו על כתפו והביאו לבית המדרש אמר להם ראו בני אין ערוד ממית אלא החטא ממית,באותה שעה אמרו אוי לו לאדם שפגע בו ערוד ואוי לו לערוד שפגע בו ר' חנינא בן דוסא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מזכירין גבורות גשמים בתחיית המתים ושאלה בברכת השנים והבדלה בחונן הדעת ר"ע אומר אומרה ברכה רביעית בפני עצמה רבי אליעזר אומר בהודאה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מזכירין גבורות גשמים מאי טעמא,אמר רב יוסף מתוך ששקולה כתחיית המתים לפיכך קבעוה בתחיית המתים,ושאלה בברכת השנים מאי טעמא,אמר רב יוסף מתוך שהיא פרנסה לפיכך קבעוה בברכת פרנסה,הבדלה בחונן הדעת מ"ט,א"ר יוסף מתוך שהיא חכמה קבעוה בברכת חכמה ורבנן אמרי מתוך שהיא חול לפיכך קבעוה בברכת חול,א"ר אמי גדולה דעה שנתנה בתחלת ברכה של חול,וא"ר אמי גדולה דעה שנתנה בין שתי אותיות שנאמר (שמואל א ב, ג) כי אל דעות ה' וכל מי שאין בו דעה אסור לרחם עליו שנאמר (ישעיהו כז, יא) כי לא עם בינות הוא על כן לא ירחמנו עושהו,אמר רבי אלעזר גדול מקדש שנתן בין ב' אותיות שנאמר (שמות טו, יז) פעלת ה' מקדש ה',וא"ר אלעזר כל אדם שיש בו דעה כאילו נבנה בית המקדש בימיו דעה נתנה בין שתי אותיות מקדש נתן בין שתי אותיות,מתקיף לה רב אחא קרחינאה אלא מעתה גדולה נקמה שנתנה בין שתי אותיות שנאמר (תהלים צד, א) אל נקמות ה',אמר ליה אין במילתה מיהא גדולה היא והיינו דאמר עולא שתי נקמות הללו למה אחת לטובה ואחת לרעה לטובה דכתיב (דברים לג, ב) הופיע מהר פארן לרעה דכתיב אל נקמות ה' אל נקמות הופיע:,רבי עקיבא אומר אומרה ברכה רביעית כו':,א"ל רב שמן בר אבא לר' יוחנן מכדי אנשי כנסת הגדולה תקנו להם לישראל ברכות ותפלות קדושות והבדלות נחזי היכן תקון,א"ל בתחלה קבעוה בתפלה העשירו קבעוה על הכוס הענו חזרו וקבעוה בתפלה והם אמרו המבדיל בתפלה צריך שיבדיל על הכוס,איתמר נמי אמר ר' חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן אנשי כנסת הגדולה תקנו להם לישראל ברכות ותפלות קדושות והבדלות בתחלה קבעוה בתפלה העשירו קבעוה על הכוס חזרו והענו קבעוה בתפלה והם אמרו המבדיל בתפלה צריך שיבדיל על הכוס,איתמר נמי רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו המבדיל בתפלה צריך שיבדיל על הכוס,אמר רבא ומותבינן אשמעתין טעה ולא הזכיר גבורות גשמים בתחיית המתים ושאלה בברכת השנים מחזירין אותו והבדלה בחונן הדעת אין מחזירין אותו מפני שיכול לאומרה על הכוס,לא תימא מפני שיכול לאומרה על הכוס אלא אימא מפני שאומרה על הכוס,איתמר נמי אמר רבי בנימין בר יפת שאל ר' יוסי את ר' יוחנן בצידן ואמרי לה ר' שמעון בן יעקב דמן צור את ר' יוחנן ואנא שמעית המבדיל בתפלה צריך שיבדיל על הכוס או לא ואמר ליה צריך שיבדיל על הכוס,איבעיא להו המבדיל על הכוס מהו שיבדיל בתפילה,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק קל וחומר מתפלה ומה תפלה דעיקר תקנתא היא אמרי המבדיל בתפלה צריך שיבדיל על הכוס המבדיל על הכוס דלאו עיקר תקנתא היא לא כ"ש,תני ר' אחא אריכא קמיה דרב חיננא המבדיל בתפלה משובח יותר ממי שיבדיל על הכוס ואם הבדיל בזו ובזו ינוחו לו ברכות על ראשו,הא גופא קשיא אמרת המבדיל בתפלה משובח יותר ממי שיבדיל על הכוס אלמא תפלה לחודה סגי והדר תני אם הבדיל בזו ובזו ינוחו לו ברכות על ראשו וכיון דנפיק ליה בחדא אפטר והויא ברכה שאינה צריכה ואמר רב ואיתימא ר"ל ואמרי לה ר' יוחנן ור"ל דאמרי תרוייהו כל המברך ברכה שאינה צריכה עובר משום (שמות כ, ו) לא תשא,אלא אימא הכי אם הבדיל בזו ולא הבדיל בזו ינוחו לו ברכות על ראשו,בעא מיניה רב חסדא מרב ששת טעה בזו ובזו מהו אמר ליה טעה בזו ובזו חוזר לראש | 33a. The officer b said to him: No. /b br The pious man continued: b And if you would /b greet b him, what would they do to you? /b br The officer b said to him: They would cut /b off b my head with a sword. /b br The pious man b said to him: Isn’t this matter an i a fortiori /i inference? /b br b You who were standing before a king of flesh and blood, /b br of whom your fear is limited b because today he is here but tomorrow he is in the grave, /b br would have reacted in b that /b way; br b I, who was standing /b and praying b before the Supreme King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, /b br b Who lives and endures for all eternity, /b br b all the more so /b that I could not pause to respond to someone’s greeting.,When he heard this, b the officer was immediately appeased and the pious man returned home in peace. /b ,We learned in the mishna that b even if a snake is wrapped around his heel, he may not interrupt /b his prayer. In limiting application of this principle, b Rav Sheshet said: They only taught /b this mishna b with regard to a snake, /b as if one does not attack the snake it will not bite him. b But /b if b a scorpion /b approaches an individual while he is praying, b he stops, /b as the scorpion is liable to sting him even if he does not disturb it.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b based on what was taught in a i Tosefta /i : Those who saw one b fall into a lions’ den /b but did not see what happened to him thereafter, b do not testify that he died. /b Their testimony is not accepted by the court as proof that he has died as it is possible that the lions did not eat him. However, those who saw one b fall into a pit of snakes and scorpions, testify that he died /b as surely the snakes bit him.,The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. b There, /b in the case of one who falls into a pit of snakes, it b is different, as due to the pressure /b of his falling on top of them, the snakes b will harm him, /b but a snake who is not touched will not bite.,The Gemara cites another i halakha /i stating that he must interrupt his prayer in a case of certain danger. b Rabbi Yitzḥak said: One who saw oxen /b coming toward him, b he interrupts /b his prayer, b as Rav Hoshaya taught: One distances himself fifty cubits from an innocuous ox [ i shor tam /i ], /b an ox with no history of causing damage with the intent to injure, b and from a forewarned ox [ i shor muad /i ], /b an ox whose owner was forewarned because his ox has gored three times already, one distances himself until it is beyond b eyeshot. /b ,It was b taught in the name of Rabbi Meir: /b While b the head of the ox is /b still b in the basket /b and he is busy eating, b go up on the roof and kick the ladder out from underneath you. Shmuel said: This applies only with regard to a black ox, and during the days of Nisan, because /b that species of ox is particularly dangerous, and during that time of year b Satan dances between its horns. /b ,With regard to the praise for one who prays and need not fear even a snake, b the Sages taught: /b There was b an incident in one place where an i arvad /i was harming the people. They came and told Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa /b and asked for his help. b He told them: Show me /b the b hole of the i arvad /i . They showed him its hole. He placed his heel over the mouth of the hole /b and the b i arvad /i came out and bit him, and died. /b ,Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa b placed /b the i arvad /i b over his shoulder and brought it to the study hall. He said to /b those assembled there: b See, my sons, it is not /b the b i arvad /i that kills /b a person, b rather transgression kills /b a person. The i arvad /i has no power over one who is free of transgression., b At that moment /b the Sages b said: Woe unto the person who was attacked by an i arvad /i and woe unto the i arvad /i that was attacked by Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong This mishna speaks of additions to the standard formula of the i Amida /i prayer and the blessings in which they are incorporated. b One mentions the might of the rains /b and recites: He makes the wind blow and the rain fall, b in /b the second blessing of the i Amida /i prayer, the blessing of b the revival of the dead. And the request /b for rain: And grant dew and rain as a blessing, b in /b the ninth blessing of the i Amida /i prayer, b the blessing of the years. And the prayer of distinction [ i havdala /i ], /b between the holy and the profane recited in the evening prayer following Shabbat and festivals, b in /b the fourth blessing of the i Amida /i prayer: b Who graciously grants knowledge. Rabbi Akiva says: /b i Havdala /i b is recited /b as b an independent fourth blessing. Rabbi Eliezer says /b that it is recited b in /b the seventeenth blessing of the i Amida /i prayer, the blessing of b thanksgiving. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong We learned in the mishna that b one mentions the might of the rains /b in the second blessing of the i Amida /i prayer, the blessing of the revival of the dead. The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that the might of the rains is mentioned specifically in that blessing?, b Rav Yosef said: Because /b the might of the rains b is equivalent to the resurrection of the dead, /b as rain revives new life in the plant world (Jerusalem Talmud), b therefore it was inserted in /b the blessing of b the revival of the dead. /b , b And /b we also learned in the mishna that the b request /b for rain is added to b the blessing of the years. /b Here, too, the Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that the request for rain is recited specifically in that blessing?, b Rav Yosef said: Because /b rain is a component of b sustece, therefore it was inserted in the blessing of sustece /b as part of our request for bountiful sustece.,We also learned in the mishna that b i havdala /i , /b distinguishing between Shabbat and the weekdays, is added b in /b the blessing of: b Who graciously grants knowledge. /b Here too the Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that i havdala /i is recited specifically in that blessing?, b Rav Yosef said: /b i Havdala /i is recited in that blessing b because it /b requires b wisdom /b to distinguish between two entities, b they established it in the blessing of wisdom. The Rabbis say /b a different reason: b Because /b i havdala /i b is /b the distinction between the sacred and the b profane, /b the Sages b established it in the blessing of weekdays. /b The first three blessings of the i Amida /i prayer are recited both on weekdays and on Shabbat and Festivals. The blessing: Who graciously grants knowledge, is the first of the blessings recited exclusively during the week.,Having mentioned the blessing of wisdom, the Gemara cites that which b Rav Ami said /b with regard to knowledge: b Great is knowledge that was placed at the beginning of the weekday blessings; /b an indication of its significance., b And Rav Ami said /b in praise of knowledge: b Great is knowledge that was placed between two letters, /b two names of God, b as it is stated: “For God of knowledge is the Lord” /b (I Samuel 2:3). b And /b since knowledge is regarded so highly, b anyone without knowledge, it is forbidden to have compassion upon him, as it is stated: “For they are a people of no wisdom, so their Creator will have no compassion upon them /b and their Creator will not be gracious unto them” (Isaiah 27:11). If God shows no mercy for those who lack wisdom, all the more so should people refrain from doing so.,Similarly, b Rabbi Elazar said: Great is the Holy Temple, as /b it too b was placed between two letters, /b two names of God, b as it is stated: /b “The place in which to dwell which b You have made, Lord, the Temple, Lord, /b which Your hands have prepared” (Exodus 15:17).,Noting the parallel between these two ideas, b Rabbi Elazar /b added b and said: Anyone with knowledge, /b it is b as if the Holy Temple was built in his days; knowledge was placed between two letters /b and b the Temple was placed between two letters, /b signifying that they stand together., b Rav Aḥa Karḥina’a strongly objects to this /b approach that being placed between two names of God accords significance: b However, if so, /b the same should hold true for vengeance. b Great /b is b revenge that was placed between two letters, as it is stated: “God of vengeance, Lord, /b God of vengeance shine forth” (Psalms 94:1)., b He said to him: Yes. At least in its place, /b in the appropriate context, b it is great. /b At times it is necessary. b That is that which Ulla said: Why /b are b these two vengeances /b mentioned in a single verse? b One for good and one for evil. /b Vengeance b for good, as it is written: “He shined forth from Mount Paran” /b (Deuteronomy 33:2) with regard to God’s vengeance against the wicked; vengeance b for evil, as it is written: “God of vengeance, Lord, God of vengeance shine forth” /b with regard to the punishment of Israel.,A tannaitic dispute is cited in the mishna with regard to the appropriate blessing in which to recite i havdala /i within the i Amida /i prayer. b Rabbi Akiva says: /b i Havdala /i b is recited /b as an independent b fourth blessing. /b Rabbi Eliezer says that it is recited in the seventeenth blessing of the i Amida /i prayer, the blessing of thanksgiving. The first i tanna /i says that it is recited in the fourth blessing of the i Amida /i prayer: Who graciously grants knowledge.,Regarding this, b Rav Shemen, /b Shimon, b bar Abba said to Rabbi Yoḥa: Now, since /b the eighteen blessings of the i Amida /i prayer and the other prayer formulas for prayer b were instituted for Israel by the members of the Great Assembly /b just like all the other b blessings and prayers, sanctifications and i havdalot /i ; let us see where /b in the i Amida /i prayer the members of the Great Assembly b instituted /b to recite i havdala /i .,Rabbi Yoḥa replied that that would be impossible, as the customs associated with i havdala /i went through several stages. b He said to him: Initially, /b during the difficult, early years of the Second Temple, b they established /b that i havdala /i is to be recited b in the /b i Amida /i b prayer. /b Subsequently, when the people b became wealthy, they established /b that i havdala /i is to be recited b over the cup /b of wine. When the people b became impoverished, they again established /b that b it /b was to be recited b in the /b i Amida /i b prayer. And they said: One who recites i havdala /i in the /b i Amida /i b prayer must, /b if he is able ( i Shitta Mekubbetzet /i , i Me’iri /i ), b recite i havdala /i over the cup /b of wine as well. Due to all these changes, it was not clear when exactly i havdala /i was to be recited., b It was also stated: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: The members of the Great Assembly established for Israel blessings and prayers, sanctifications and i havdalot /i . Initially, they established /b that i havdala /i is to be recited b in the /b i Amida /i b prayer. /b Subsequently, when the people b became wealthy, they established /b that i havdala /i is to be recited b over the cup /b of wine. When the people b again became impoverished, they established /b that b it /b was to be recited b in the /b i Amida /i b prayer. And they said: One who recites i havdala /i in the /b i Amida /i b prayer must recite i havdala /i over the cup /b of wine as well., b It was also stated: Rabba and Rav Yosef who both said: One who recites i havdala /i in the /b i Amida /i b prayer must recite i havdala /i over the cup /b of wine as well., b Rava said: We raise an objection to our i halakha /i /b based on what was taught in a i Tosefta /i : b One who erred and did not mention the might of the rains in /b the second blessing in the i Amida /i , the blessing on b the revival of the dead, and /b one who erred and failed to recite b the request /b for rain b in /b the ninth blessing of the i Amida /i , b the blessing of the years, we require him to return /b to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it. However, one who erred and failed to recite b i havdala /i in /b the blessing: b Who graciously grants knowledge, we do not require him to return /b to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, b as he can recite /b i havdala /i b over the cup /b of wine. Apparently, i havdala /i over the cup of wine is optional, not obligatory, at it says because he can recite and not that he must.,The Gemara answers: b Do not say /b as it appears in the i Tosefta /i : b Because he can recite /b i havdala /i b over the cup /b of wine. b Rather, say: Because he recites /b i havdala /i b over the cup /b of wine.,Proof that one must recite i havdala /i over the cup of wine as well as in the i Amida /i prayer b was also stated: Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said /b that b Rabbi Yosei asked Rabbi Yoḥa in Sidon, and some say that Rabbi Shimon ben Ya’akov from /b the city of b Tyre /b asked b Rabbi Yoḥa, and I, /b Binyamin bar Yefet, b heard: One who /b already b recited i havdala /i in the /b i Amida /i b prayer, must he recite i havdala /i over the cup /b of wine b or not? And /b Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: He must recite i havdala /i over the cup. /b ,Having clarified the question whether one who recited i havdala /i during the i Amida /i prayer must also recite i havdala /i over the cup of wine, b a dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: b One who /b already b recited i havdala /i over the cup /b of wine, b what is /b the ruling as far as his obligation b to recite i havdala /i in the /b i Amida /i b prayer /b is concerned?, b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b This can be derived b i a fortiori /i from /b the established i halakha /i regarding i havdala /i in b the /b i Amida /i b prayer. Just as /b i havdala /i in b the /b i Amida /i b prayer, which is /b where b the principal ordice /b to recite i havdala /i was instituted, the Sages b said /b that it is not sufficient and b one who recited i havdala /i in the /b i Amida /i b prayer must recite i havdala /i over the cup /b of wine as well, b all the more so /b that b one who recited i havdala /i over the cup /b of wine, b which is not /b where b the principal ordice /b to recite i havdala /i was instituted, but was merely a later addition, did not fulfill his obligation and must recite i havdala /i in the i Amida /i prayer., b Rabbi Aḥa Arikha, the tall, taught /b a i baraita /i b before Rav Ḥina: One who recited i havdala /i in the /b i Amida /i b prayer /b is b more praiseworthy than one who recites it over the cup /b of wine, b and if he recited i havdala /i in this, /b the i Amida /i prayer, b and that, /b over the cup of wine, b may blessings rest upon his head. /b , b This /b i baraita /i b is /b apparently b self-contradictory. /b On the one hand, b you said that one who recites i havdala /i in the /b i Amida /i b prayer /b is b more praiseworthy than one who recites i havdala /i over the cup /b of wine, indicating that reciting i havdala /i in b the /b i Amida /i b prayer alone is sufficient. And then it is taught: If one recited i havdala /i in this, /b the i Amida /i prayer, b and that, /b over the cup of wine, b may blessings rest upon his head. And since he fulfilled /b his obligation to recite i havdala /i b with one, /b he is b exempt, and /b the additional recitation of i havdala /i over the cup of wine b is an unnecessary blessing. And Rav, and some say Reish Lakish, and /b still others b say Rabbi Yoḥa and Reish Lakish both said: Anyone who recites an unnecessary blessing violates /b the biblical prohibition: b “Do not take /b the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Exodus 20:7)., b Rather, /b emend this i baraita /i b and say as follows: If one recited i havdala /i in this and not in that, may blessings rest upon his head. /b , b Rav Ḥisda asked Rav Sheshet /b with regard to these blessings: If b one erred /b in i havdala /i both b in this and in that, what is /b the ruling? Rav Sheshet b said to him: One who erred in this, /b the i Amida /i prayer, b and that, /b over the cup of wine, b returns to the beginning /b of both the i Amida /i prayer and the i havdala /i over the cup of wine. |
|
| 65. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229 |
66. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 307| 55b. ומה טעם אמרו נודעה אינה מכפרת שלא יאמרו מזבח אוכל גזילות,בשלמא לעולא היינו דקתני חטאת אלא לרב יהודה מאי איריא חטאת אפי' עולה נמי,לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא עולה דכליל היא אלא אפי' חטאת נמי דחלב ודם הוא דסליק לגבי מזבח ואידך כהנים אכלי ליה אפי' הכי גזור שלא יאמרו מזבח אוכל גזילות,תנן על חטאת הגזולה שלא נודעה לרבים שהיא מכפרת מפני תיקון המזבח בשלמא לעולא ניחא אלא לרב יהודה איפכא מיבעי ליה,הכי נמי קאמר לא נודעה מכפרת נודעה אינה מכפרת מפני תיקון המזבח,מתיב רבא גנב והקדיש ואחר כך טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי כפל ואינו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה ותני עלה בחוץ כי האי גוונא ענוש כרת ואי אמרת יאוש כדי לא קני כרת מאי עבידתיה,אמר רב שיזבי כרת מדבריהם אחיכו עליה כרת מדבריהם מי איכא אמר להו רבא גברא רבה אמר מילתא לא תחוכו עלה כרת שעל ידי דבריהן באתה לו אוקמוה רבנן ברשותיה כי היכי דליחייב עלה,אמר רבא הא וודאי קא מיבעיא לי כי אוקמוה רבנן ברשותיה משעת גניבה או משעת הקדישה למאי נפקא מינה לגיזותיה וולדותיה מאי הדר אמר רבא מסתברא משעת הקדישה שלא יהא חוטא נשכר:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big לא היה סיקריקון ביהודה בהרוגי מלחמה מהרוגי המלחמה ואילך יש בה סיקריקון כיצד לקח מסיקריקון וחזר ולקח מבעל הבית מקחו בטל מבעל הבית וחזר ולקח מסיקריקון מקחו קיים,לקח מן האיש וחזר ולקח מן האשה מקחו בטל מן האשה וחזר ולקח מן האיש מקחו קיים זו משנה ראשונה,ב"ד של אחריהם אמרו הלוקח מסיקריקון נותן לבעלים רביע אימתי בזמן שאין בידן ליקח אבל יש בידן ליקח הן קודמין לכל אדם,רבי הושיב בית דין ונמנו שאם שהתה בפני סיקריקון שנים עשר חדש כל הקודם ליקח זכה אבל נותן לבעלים רביע:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big השתא בהרוגי המלחמה לא היה בה סיקריקון מהרוגי מלחמה ואילך יש בה סיקריקון,אמר רב יהודה לא דנו בה דין סיקריקון קאמר דאמר רבי אסי ג' גזירות גזרו גזרתא קמייתא כל דלא קטיל ליקטלוהו מציעתא כל דקטיל לייתי ארבע זוזי בתרייתא כל דקטיל ליקטלוהו הלכך קמייתא ומציעתא כיון דקטלי אגב אונסיה גמר ומקני,בתרייתא אמרי האידנא לישקול למחר תבענא ליה בדינא:,אמר רבי יוחנן מאי דכתיב (משלי כח, יד) אשרי אדם מפחד תמיד ומקשה לבו יפול ברעה אקמצא ובר קמצא חרוב ירושלים אתרנגולא ותרנגולתא חרוב טור מלכא אשקא דריספק חרוב ביתר,אקמצא ובר קמצא חרוב ירושלים דההוא גברא דרחמיה קמצא ובעל דבביה בר קמצא עבד סעודתא אמר ליה לשמעיה זיל אייתי לי קמצא אזל אייתי ליה בר קמצא,אתא אשכחיה דהוה יתיב אמר ליה מכדי ההוא גברא בעל דבבא דההוא גברא הוא מאי בעית הכא קום פוק אמר ליה הואיל ואתאי שבקן ויהיבנא לך דמי מה דאכילנא ושתינא | 55b. b And what is the reason /b that the Sages b said /b that if b it is known /b that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, b it does not effect atonement? /b It is so that people b not say /b that b the altar consumes stolen property. /b ,The Gemara attempts to clarify the two explanations. b Granted, /b according to the opinion of b Ulla, /b that the concern stems from the fact that the priests will be distraught, b this is the reason that /b the i tanna /i b teaches /b the i halakha /i with regard to b a sin-offering: /b The priests partake of the meat of a sin-offering. If they find out that they ate an animal that was forbidden to them, i.e., an offering slaughtered counter to i halakha /i , they are likely to become distraught. b But according to /b the opinion of b Rav Yehuda, /b that the concern is about the honor of the altar, b why /b does the mishna mention b specifically /b the case of b a sin-offering; /b shouldn’t the same concern apply to b a burnt-offering, as well, /b as it too is burned on the alter?,The Gemara answers: The mishna b is speaking /b utilizing the style of: b It is not necessary, /b and the mishna should be understood as follows: b It is not necessary /b to teach the i halakha /i in the case of b a burnt-offering, which is entirely /b consumed on the altar. In that case, people will certainly say that the altar consumes stolen property. b But even /b in the case of b a sin-offering, where /b only b the fat and the blood go up /b to be consumed b on the altar and the rest is consumed by the priests, even so they issued a decree /b and said that the stolen sin-offering does not effect atonement, b so /b that people b should not say /b that b the altar consumes stolen property. /b ,The Gemara further clarifies the two understandings: b We learned /b in the mishna: Rabbi Yoḥa ben Gudgeda testified b about a sin-offering that /b had been obtained b through robbery /b but b that is not publicly known /b to have been obtained in that manner, and said b that it effects atonement /b for the robber who sacrifices it, b for the benefit of the altar. Granted, according to /b the opinion of b Ulla, /b it b works out well, /b as he understands that the Sages instituted that if it was not publicly known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does effect atonement. b But according to /b the opinion of b Rav Yehuda, it should have /b stated just b the opposite, /b namely, that if it was publicly known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does not effect atonement.,The Gemara answers: b That is also what /b the mishna b is saying: /b If b it is not known /b that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, b it effects atonement, /b but if this b is known, it does not effect atonement, for the benefit of the altar. /b , b Rava raises an objection /b from what was learned in a mishna ( i Bava Kamma /i 74a): If b one stole /b an animal b and consecrated /b it, b and afterward he slaughtered or sold /b it, b he pays double payment /b like a thief (see Exodus 22:3), b but he does not pay fourfold or fivefold payment, /b as one must ordinarily pay when he slaughters or sells an ox or a sheep that he stole from another person (Exodus 21:37). b And it is taught /b in a i baraita /i b with regard to /b this mishna: If one slaughtered an animal b outside /b the Temple b in a case like this, /b he is b punishable by i karet /i /b for having sacrificed an offering outside the Temple. b And if you say /b that the owner’s b despair /b of recovering an item that was stolen from him b does not by itself /b enable the thief to b acquire /b the stolen item, b what is the relevance of /b mentioning b i karet /i ? /b The punishment of i karet /i should not apply, as the thief cannot consecrate an animal that does not belong to him., b Rav Sheizevi said: /b This means that he is liable to receive b i karet /i by rabbinic law. /b Those who heard this b laughed at him. Is there /b such a thing as b i karet /i by rabbinic law? Rava said to them: A great man has spoken, do not laugh at him. /b What Rav Sheizevi means is b i karet /i that comes to him through the words /b of the Sages, who declared that the thief’s consecration is valid. It is b the Sages /b who b placed /b the animal b in his possession, so that he would become liable for it. /b , b Rava said: /b Although I agree with Rav Sheizevi, b this /b matter b is certainly a dilemma for me. When the Sages placed /b the animal b in his possession, /b did they do so b from the time of the theft or from the time of the consecration? What is the difference /b between these possibilities? There is a difference b with regard to its wool and with regard to its offspring. /b If the animal was placed in his possession from the time of the theft, the wool that it grows and the offspring that it births are his, and he is not required to return them to the animal’s owner. But if the animal becomes his only when he consecrates it, he is required to return them. b What /b is the i halakha /i ? b Rava then said, /b in answer to his own question: b It stands to reason /b that the Sages placed the animal in his possession b from the time of the consecration. /b This is b so that the sinner not profit /b from his crime. Otherwise, the thief would benefit from the rabbinic decree that was instituted to increase his liability., strong MISHNA: /strong The law of b Sicarii [ i Sikarikon /i ] did not /b apply b in Judea in the /b time that b people were being killed in the war. From /b the time that b people were being killed in the war and onward, /b the law of b Sicarii did /b apply b there. What /b is this law of Sicarii? If b one /b first b purchased /b land b from a Sicarius, /b who extorted the field from its prior owners with threats, b and /b afterward the buyer b returned and purchased /b the same field a second time b from the /b prior b landowner, his purchase is void. /b The prior owner of the field can say that he did not actually mean to sell him the field. By contrast, if he first acquired the field b from the /b prior b owner and /b afterward b he returned and purchased /b the same field b from a Sicarius, his purchase stands. /b ,Similarly, if b one /b first b purchased from the husband /b the rights to use a field belonging to his wife, b and /b afterward b he returned and purchased /b the same field b from the wife, /b so that if the husband were to predecease or divorce her, the purchaser would then own it fully, b his purchase is void. /b The woman can claim that she did not wish to quarrel with her husband and to object to the transaction but that in truth she did not agree to the sale. By contrast, if he first acquired the field b from the wife, and /b afterward b he returned and purchased /b the same field b from the husband, his purchase stands. This /b is the b initial /b version of this b mishna. /b ,Later, b the court of those /b who came b after /b the Sages who composed that mishna b said: /b With regard to b one who purchased /b a field b from a Sicarius, he must give the /b prior b owner one-fourth /b of the field’s value. b When /b does this apply? b At a time when /b the prior owner b is unable to purchase /b the field himself. b But if he is able to purchase /b it himself, b he precedes anyone /b else., b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi later b convened a court, and they counted /b their votes and determined b that if /b the field b remained before, /b i.e., in the possession of, b the Sicarius /b for b twelve months, whoever first purchases /b the field b acquires possession /b of it, b but he must give the /b prior b owner one-fourth /b of the field’s value., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara challenges the mishna’s assertion that the law of Sicarii did not apply in Judea in the time that people were being killed in the war: b Now /b if b in /b the time that b people were being killed in the war, there were no Sicarii /b stealing land, is it possible that b from /b the time that b people were being killed in the war and onward there were Sicarii? /b , b Rav Yehuda said: /b The mishna b is saying /b that in the time that people were being killed in the war b they did not apply the law of Sicarii, /b but rather they would confirm the purchases of land made from the Sicarii. The reason for this is in accordance with what b Rabbi Asi said: /b The gentile authorities b issued three decrees /b during and in the aftermath of the war that ended in the destruction of the Temple. The b first decree /b was that b anyone who does not kill /b a Jew b should /b himself b be killed. /b The b second /b decree was that b anyone who kills /b a Jew b should pay four dinars /b as a fine. The b last /b decree was that b anyone who kills /b a Jew b should /b himself b be killed. Therefore, /b during the time of the b first and second /b decrees, the time when people were being killed in the war, b since /b the gentile b would kill /b Jews, then the owner of the field, b owing to the danger /b posed to his life, b would fully transfer ownership /b of his field to the Sicarius.,Then, during the time of b the last /b decree, after the time when people were being killed in the war, anybody whose field was stolen by a Sicarius would b say /b to himself: b Now let him take /b the field; b tomorrow I will claim it from him in court. /b Although the gentile had the advantage and could force the owner to give him the field, the assumption is that the owner did not fully transfer possession of the field to him, as he thought that he would still be able to recover it in court.,§ Apropos the war that led to the destruction of the Second Temple, the Gemara examines several aspects of the destruction of that Temple in greater detail: b Rabbi Yoḥa said: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “Happy is the man who fears always, but he who hardens his heart shall fall into mischief” /b (Proverbs 28:14)? b Jerusalem was destroyed on account of Kamtza and bar Kamtza. /b The place known as b the King’s Mountain was destroyed on account of a rooster and a hen. /b The city of b Beitar was destroyed on account of a shaft from a chariot [ i rispak /i ]. /b ,The Gemara explains: b Jerusalem was destroyed on account of Kamtza and bar Kamtza. /b This is b as /b there was b a certain man whose friend /b was named b Kamtza and whose enemy /b was named b bar Kamtza. He /b once b made /b a large b feast /b and b said to his servant: Go bring me /b my friend b Kamtza. /b The servant b went /b and mistakenly b brought him /b his enemy b bar Kamtza. /b ,The man who was hosting the feast b came and found /b bar Kamtza b sitting /b at the feast. The host b said to /b bar Kamtza. b That man is the enemy [ i ba’al devava /i ] of that man, /b that is, you are my enemy. b What /b then b do you want here? Arise /b and b leave. /b Bar Kamtza b said to him: Since I have /b already b come, let me stay and I will give you money /b for b whatever I eat and drink. /b Just do not embarrass me by sending me out. |
|
67. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 307| 14a. קודם שנברא העולם ולא נבראו עמד הקב"ה ושתלן בכל דור ודור והן הן עזי פנים שבדור,ורב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אשר קומטו לברכה הוא דכתיב אלו תלמידי חכמים שמקמטין עצמן על דברי תורה בעולם הזה הקב"ה מגלה להם סוד לעולם הבא שנאמר (איוב כב, טז) נהר יוצק יסודם,אמר ליה שמואל לחייא בר רב בר אריא תא אימא לך מילתא מהני מילי מעליותא דהוה אמר אבוך כל יומא ויומא נבראין מלאכי השרת מנהר דינור ואמרי שירה ובטלי שנאמר (איכה ג, כג) חדשים לבקרים רבה אמונתך ופליגא דר' שמואל בר נחמני דאמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן כל דיבור ודיבור שיוצא מפי הקב"ה נברא ממנו מלאך אחד שנאמר (תהלים לג, ו) בדבר ה' שמים נעשו וברוח פיו כל צבאם,כתוב אחד אומר (דניאל ז, ט) לבושיה כתלג חיור ושער (רישיה) כעמר נקא וכתיב (שיר השירים ה, יא) קוצותיו תלתלים שחורות כעורב לא קשיא כאן בישיבה כאן במלחמה דאמר מר אין לך נאה בישיבה אלא זקן ואין לך נאה במלחמה אלא בחור,כתוב אחד אומר (דניאל ז, ט) כרסיה שביבין דינור וכתוב אחד אומר (דניאל ז, ט) עד די כרסון רמיו ועתיק יומין יתיב לא קשיא אחד לו ואחד לדוד כדתניא אחד לו ואחד לדוד דברי ר' עקיבא אמר לו ר' יוסי הגלילי עקיבא עד מתי אתה עושה שכינה חול אלא אחד לדין ואחד לצדקה,קיבלה מיניה או לא קיבלה מיניה ת"ש אחד לדין ואחד לצדקה דברי רבי עקיבא אמר לו ר"א בן עזריה עקיבא מה לך אצל הגדה כלך מדברותיך אצל נגעים ואהלות אלא אחד לכסא ואחד לשרפרף כסא לישב עליו שרפרף להדום רגליו שנאמר (ישעיהו סו, א) השמים כסאי והארץ הדום רגלי,כי אתא רב דימי אמר שמונה עשרה קללות קילל ישעיה את ישראל ולא נתקררה דעתו עד שאמר להם המקרא הזה (ישעיהו ג, ה) ירהבו הנער בזקן והנקלה בנכבד,שמונה עשרה קללות מאי נינהו דכתיב (ישעיהו ג, א) כי הנה האדון ה' צבאות מסיר מירושלם ומיהודה משען ומשענה כל משען לחם וכל משען מים גבור ואיש מלחמה שופט ונביא וקוסם וזקן שר חמשים ונשוא פנים ויועץ וחכם חרשים ונבון לחש ונתתי נערים שריהם ותעלולים ימשלו בם וגו',משען אלו בעלי מקרא משענה אלו בעלי משנה כגון ר"י בן תימא וחביריו פליגו בה רב פפא ורבנן חד אמר שש מאות סדרי משנה וחד אמר שבע מאות סדרי משנה,כל משען לחם אלו בעלי תלמוד שנאמר (משלי ט, ה) לכו לחמו בלחמי ושתו ביין מסכתי וכל משען מים אלו בעלי אגדה שמושכין לבו של אדם כמים באגדה גבור זה בעל שמועות ואיש מלחמה זה שיודע לישא וליתן במלחמתה של תורה שופט זה דיין שדן דין אמת לאמיתו נביא כמשמעו קוסם זה מלך שנאמר (משלי טז, י) קסם על שפתי מלך זקן זה שראוי לישיבה,שר חמשים אל תקרי שר חמשים אלא שר חומשין זה שיודע לישא וליתן בחמשה חומשי תורה דבר אחר שר חמשים כדרבי אבהו דאמר רבי אבהו מכאן שאין מעמידין מתורגמן על הצבור פחות מחמשים שנה ונשוא פנים זה שנושאין פנים לדורו בעבורו למעלה כגון רבי חנינא בן דוסא למטה כגון רבי אבהו בי קיסר,יועץ שיודע לעבר שנים ולקבוע חדשים וחכם זה תלמיד המחכים את רבותיו חרשים בשעה שפותח בדברי תורה הכל נעשין כחרשין ונבון זה המבין דבר מתוך דבר לחש זה שראוי למסור לו דברי תורה שניתנה בלחש,ונתתי נערים שריהם מאי ונתתי נערים שריהם א"ר אלעזר אלו בני אדם שמנוערין מן המצות,ותעלולים ימשלו בם אמר רב (פפא) בר יעקב תעלי בני תעלי ולא נתקררה דעתו עד שאמר להם ירהבו הנער בזקן (והנקלה בנכבד) אלו בני אדם שמנוערין מן המצות ירהבו במי שממולא במצות כרמון והנקלה בנכבד יבא מי שחמורות דומות עליו כקלות וירהבו במי שקלות דומות עליו כחמורות,אמר רב קטינא אפי' בשעת כשלונה של ירושלים לא פסקו מהם בעלי אמנה שנא' (ישעיהו ג, ו) כי יתפש איש באחיו בית אביו (לאמר) שמלה לך קצין תהיה לנו דברים שבני אדם מתכסין כשמלה ישנן תחת ידך,(ישעיהו ג, ו) והמכשלה הזאת מאי והמכשלה הזאת דברים שאין בני אדם עומדין עליהן אא"כ נכשל בהן ישנן תחת ידך (ישעיהו ג, ז) ישא ביום ההוא לאמר לא אהיה חובש ובביתי אין לחם ואין שמלה לא תשימוני קצין עם ישא אין ישא אלא לשון שבועה שנאמר (שמות כ, ו) לא תשא את שם ה' אלהיך לא אהיה חובש לא הייתי מחובשי בית המדרש ובביתי אין לחם ואין שמלה שאין בידי לא מקרא ולא משנה ולא גמרא,ודלמא שאני התם דאי אמר להו גמירנא אמרי ליה אימא לן הוה ליה למימר גמר ושכח מאי לא אהיה חובש לא אהיה חובש כלל,איני והאמר רבא לא חרבה ירושלים עד שפסקו ממנה בעלי אמנה שנאמר (ירמיהו ה, א) שוטטו בחוצות ירושלם וראו נא ודעו ובקשו ברחובותיה אם תמצאו איש אם יש עושה משפט מבקש אמונה ואסלח לה לא קשיא | 14a. b before the creation of the world, but they were not created. /b The Torah was supposed to have been given a thousand generations after the world was created, as it is written: “He commanded His word for a thousand generations” (Psalms 105:8), but God gave it earlier, after only twenty-six generations, so that nine-hundred and seventy-four generations should have been created but were not. b The Holy One, Blessed be He, acted by planting /b a few of b them in each and every generation, and they are the insolent ones of the generation, /b as they belonged to generations that should not have been created at all., b And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said /b that the verse: b “Who were snatched [ i kumtu /i ]” /b (Job 22:16), b is written for a blessing, /b as the verse is not referring to lowly, cursed people, but to the blessed. b These are Torah scholars, who shrivel [ i mekamtin /i ], /b i.e., humble, b themselves over the words of Torah in this world. The Holy One, Blessed be He, reveals a secret to them in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Whose foundation [ i yesodam /i ] was poured out as a stream” /b (Job 22:16), implying that He will provide them with an abundant knowledge of secret matters [ i sod /i ]., b Shmuel said to Ḥiyya bar Rav: Son of great ones, come and I will tell you something of the great things that your father would say: Each and every day, ministering angels are created from the River Dinur, and they recite song /b to God b and /b then immediately b cease /b to exist, b as it is stated: “They are new every morning; great is Your faithfulness” /b (Lamentations 3:23), indicating that new angels praise God each morning. The Gemara comments: b And /b this opinion b disagrees with /b that b of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yonatan said: /b With b each and every word that emerges from the mouth of the Holy One, Blessed be He, an angel is created, as it is stated: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts” /b (Psalms 33:6). The hosts of heaven are the angels, who, he claims, are created from the mouth of God, rather than from the River Dinur.,§ The Gemara continues to reconcile verses that seem to contradict each other: b One verse states: “His raiment was as white snow, and the hair of his head like pure /b white b wool” /b (Daniel 7:9), b and it is written: “His locks are curled, black as a raven” /b (Song of Songs 5:11). The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult. Here /b the verse in Daniel is referring to when He is b in the /b heavenly b academy, /b while b there /b the verse in Song of Songs speaks of when He is b at war, for the Master said: There is no finer /b individual to study Torah b in an academy than an old man, and there is no finer /b individual to wage war b than a youth. /b A different metaphor is therefore used to describe God on each occasion.,The Gemara poses another question: b One verse states: “His throne was fiery flames” /b (Daniel 7:9), b and /b another phrase in the same b verse states: “Till thrones were placed, and one who was ancient of days sat,” /b implying the existence of two thrones. The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult. One /b throne is b for Him and one /b is b for David, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to this issue: b One /b throne b for Him and one for David; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: Akiva, how long shall you make the Divine Presence profane, /b by presenting it as though one could sit next to Him? b Rather, /b the two thrones are designated for different purposes: b One for judgment and one for righteousness. /b ,The Gemara asks: Did Rabbi Akiva b accept /b this rebuff b from him, or did he not accept /b it b from him? /b The Gemara offers a proof: b Come /b and b hear /b the following teaching of a different i baraita /i : b One /b throne is b for judgment and one /b is b for righteousness; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him: Akiva, what are you doing /b occupying yourself b with /b the study of b i aggada /i ? /b This is not your field of expertise. b Take [ i kelakh /i ] your words to /b the topics of b plagues and tents. /b Meaning, it is preferable that you teach the i halakhot /i of the impurity of leprosy and the impurity of the dead, which are within your field of expertise. b Rather, /b with regard to the two thrones: b One /b throne is b for a seat and one /b is b for a small seat. /b The b seat /b is b to sit on, /b and the b small seat /b is b for His footstool, as it is stated: “The heavens are My seat, and the earth My footstool” /b (Isaiah 66:1).,§ The Gemara stated earlier that one who studies the secrets of Torah must be “a captain of fifty and a man of favor” (Isaiah 3:3), but it did not explain the meaning of these requirements. It now returns to analyze that verse in detail. b When Rav Dimi came /b from Israel to Babylonia, b he said: Isaiah cursed Israel with eighteen curses, and his mind was not calmed, /b i.e., he was not satisfied, b until he said to them the /b great curse of the b following verse: “The child shall behave insolently against the aged, and the base against the honorable” /b (Isaiah 3:5).,The Gemara asks: b What are these eighteen curses? /b The Gemara answers: b As it is written: “For behold, the Master, the Lord of hosts, shall take away from Jerusalem and from Judah support and staff, every support of bread, and every support of water; the mighty man, and the man of war; the judge, and the prophet, and the diviner, and the elder; the captain of fifty, and the man of favor, and the counselor, and the cunning charmer, and the skillful enchanter. And I will make children their princes, and babes shall rule over them” /b (Isaiah 3:1–4). The eighteen items listed in these verses shall be removed from Israel.,The Gemara proceeds to clarify the homiletical meaning of these terms: b “Support”; these are masters of the Bible. “Staff”; these are masters of Mishna, such as Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima and his colleagues. /b The Gemara interjects: b Rav Pappa and the Rabbis disagreed with regard to this. One /b of them b said: /b They were proficient in b six hundred orders of Mishna, and /b the other b one said: /b In b seven hundred orders of Mishna, /b only six of which remain today., b “Every support of bread”; these are masters of Talmud, as it is stated: “Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine that I have mingled” /b (Proverbs 9:5). b “And every support of water”; these are the masters of i aggada /i , who draw people’s hearts like water by /b means of b i aggada /i . “The mighty man”; this is the master of halakhic tradition, /b one who masters the i halakhot /i transmitted to him from his rabbis. b “And the man of war”; this is one who knows how to engage in the discourse of Torah, /b generating novel teachings b in the war of Torah. “A judge”; this is a judge who judges a true judgment truthfully. “A prophet”; as it literally indicates. “A diviner”; this is a king. /b Why is he called a diviner? b For it is stated: “A divine sentence is on the lips of the king” /b (Proverbs 16:10). b “An elder”; this is one fit for /b the position of head of b an academy. /b , b “A captain of fifty,” do not read /b it as b “ i sar ḥamishim /i ,” rather /b read it as b “ i sar ḥumashin /i ”; this is one who knows how to engage in discourse /b with regard to b the five books of [ i ḥamisha ḥumshei /i ] the Torah. Alternatively, “a captain of fifty” /b should be understood b in /b accordance with b Rabbi Abbahu, for Rabbi Abbahu said: From here /b we learn b that one may not appoint a disseminator over the public /b to transmit words of Torah or teachings of the Sages if he is b less than fifty years /b of age. b “And the man of favor”; this is /b one b for whose sake favor is shown to his generation. /b The Gemara provides different examples of this: Some garner favor b above, such as Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa, /b whose prayers for his generation would invariably be answered. Others gain favor b below, for example: Rabbi Abbahu, /b who would plead Israel’s case b in the house of /b the b emperor. /b , b “The counselor”; /b this is referring to one b who knows how to intercalate years and determine months, /b due to his expertise in the phases of the moon and the calculation of the yearly cycle. b “The cunning”; this is a student who makes his rabbis wise /b through his questions. b “Charmer [ i ḥarashim /i ]”; /b this is referring to one so wise b that when he begins speaking matters of Torah, all /b those listening b are as though deaf [ i ḥershin /i ], /b as they are unable to comprehend the profundity of his comments. b “The skillful”; this is one who understands something /b new b from something else /b he has learned. b “Enchanter [ i laḥash /i ]”; this /b is referring to one b who is worthy of having words of the Torah that were given in whispers [ i laḥash /i ], /b i.e., the secrets of the Torah, b transmitted to him. /b ,The Gemara continues to interpret this verse: b “And I will make children their princes” /b (Isaiah 3:4). The Gemara asks: b What is /b the meaning of b “And I will make children [ i ne’arim /i ] their princes”? Rabbi Elazar said: These are people who are devoid [ i menu’arin /i ] of mitzvot; /b such people will become the leaders of the nation., b “And babes [ i ta’alulim /i ] shall rule over them”; Rav Pappa bar Ya’akov said: /b i Ta’alulim /i means b foxes [ i ta’alei /i ], sons of foxes. /b In other words, inferior people both in terms of deeds and in terms of lineage. b And /b the prophet Isaiah’s b mind was not calmed until he said to them: “The child shall behave insolently against the aged, and the base against the honorable” /b (Isaiah 3:5). “The child” [ i na’ar /i ]; b these are people who are devoid of mitzvot, /b who b will behave insolently toward one who is as filled with mitzvot as a pomegranate. “And the base [ i nikleh /i ] against the honorable [ i nikhbad /i ]”; /b this means that b one for whom major [ i kaved /i ] /b transgressions b are like minor ones [ i kalot /i ] in his mind will come and behave insolently with one for whom /b even b minor /b transgressions b are like major ones in his mind. /b ,§ The Gemara continues its explanation of the chapter in Isaiah. b Rav Ketina said: Even at the time of Jerusalem’s downfall, trustworthy men did not cease to exist /b among its people, b as it is stated: “For a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, /b and say: b You have a cloak, be our ruler” /b (Isaiah 3:6). The Gemara explains that they would approach someone and say to him: b Things that people /b are careful to keep b covered as with a cloak, /b i.e., words of Torah that are covered and concealed, b are under your hand, /b as you are an expert with regard to them., b What is /b the meaning of the end of that verse: b “And this stumbling block” /b (Isaiah 3:6)? b Things that people cannot grasp unless they have stumbled over them, /b as they can be understood only with much effort, b are under your hand. Although /b they will approach an individual with these statements, he b “shall swear that day, saying: I will not be a healer, for in my house there is neither bread nor a cloak; you shall not make me ruler of a people” /b (Isaiah 3:7). When the verse states: b “Shall swear [ i yissa /i ],” i yissa /i is none /b other b than an expression of an oath, as it is stated: “You shall not take [ i tissa /i ] the name of the Lord your God /b in vain” (Exodus 20:6). Therefore, the inhabitant of Jerusalem swears: b “I will not be a healer [ i ḥovesh /i ]” /b (Isaiah 3:7), which means: b I was never /b one b of those who sit [ i meḥovshei /i ] in the study hall; “for in my house there is neither bread nor a cloak,” as I possess /b knowledge of b neither /b the b Bible, nor Mishna, nor Gemara. /b This shows that even at Jerusalem’s lowest spiritual ebb, its inhabitants would admit the truth and own up to their complete ignorance.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But perhaps it is different there, for if he had said: I have learned, they would have said to him: Tell us, /b and people do not lie about things that can be easily verified. The Gemara rejects this claim: If he were a liar, b he would have said /b that b he learned and forgot, /b thereby avoiding shame. b What is /b the meaning of b “I will not be a healer,” /b which seems to imply that he had learned in the past? It means: b I will not be a healer at all, /b as I have never learned. Consequently, there were trustworthy men in Jerusalem after all.,The Gemara raises another difficulty: b Is that so? But didn’t Rava say: Jerusalem was not destroyed until trustworthy men ceased to exist in it, as it is stated: “Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now and know, and seek in its broad places, if you can find a man, if there is any that acts justly, that seeks truth, and I will pardon her” /b (Jeremiah 5:1), implying there were no trustworthy people at that time? The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult: /b |
|
68. Babylonian Talmud, Keritot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229| 4a. שפתיו נהוי מעשה גבי מגדף אמר רבא שאני מגדף הואיל וישנו בלב אבל בעלמא עקימת שפתיו הוי מעשה,מתיב רבי זירא יצאו עדים זוממין שאין בו מעשה ואמאי הא על פי כתיב בהן אמר רבא שאני עדים זוממין הואיל וישנן בראייה:,האוכל חלב: ת"ר (ויקרא ז, כג) כל חלב שור וכשב ועז לא תאכלו לחייב על כל אחת ואחת דברי ר' ישמעאל וחכ"א אינו חייב אלא אחת,נימא בהא קמיפלגי דר' ישמעאל סבר לוקין על לאו שבכללות ורבנן סברי אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות,לעולם סבר ר' ישמעאל אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות ושאני הכא דמייתרי ליה קראי נכתוב קרא כל חלב לא תאכלו שור וכשב ועז למה לי ש"מ לחלק,ורבנן אי לא כתיב שור וכשב ועז ה"א אפילו חלב חיה במשמע להכי כתב שור כשב ועז למימרא דחלב שור וכשב ועז הוא דאסור אבל דחיה שרי,שפיר קאמרי ליה אלא היינו טעמא דרבי ישמעאל דקסבר א"כ לכתוב כל חלב שור לא תאכלו כשב ועז למה לי ש"מ לחלק,ורבנן סברי אי כתב רחמנא כל חלב שור ה"א נילף שור שור מסיני,מה גבי סיני חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן אף גבי אכילה חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן להכי כתב רחמנא שור וכשב ועז למימרא דהני דאסור אבל חיה ועוף שרי,שפיר קא"ל אלא היינו טעמא דקסבר נכתוב כל חלב כשב לא תאכלו א"נ כל חלב עז לא תאכלו שור וכשב ועז למה לי ש"מ לחלק,ורבנן סברי אי כתב כל חלב כשב ה"א חלב כשב אסור ושור ועז שרי וכ"ת מאי אולמיה דכשב משום דנתרבה באליה,וכדתנא ר' חנניא למה מנה הכתוב אימורין בשור ואימורים בכשב ואימורים בעז דכתיב (במדבר יח, יז) אך בכור שור וגו',צריכי דאי כתב שור ה"א כשב ועז לא ילפינן מיניה דאיכא למיפרך מה לשור שכן נתרבה בנסכים,נכתוב רחמנא בכשב ונילף שור ועז מכשב איכא למיפרך מה לכשב שכן נתרבה באליה,נכתוב רחמנא עז ונילף שור וכשב מיניה איכא למיפרך מה לעז שכן נתרבה אצל עבודת כוכבים,מן חד לא ילפינן נכתוב תרתי ונילף חדא מתרתי הי דין נילף שור מכשב ועז אית להון פירכא מה לכשב ועז שכן נתרבו אצל הפסח,לא נכתוב כשב ונילף משור ועז אית להון פירכא מה לשור ועז שכן נתרבה אצל עבודת כוכבים,לא נכתוב עז ונילף משור וכשב אית להון פירכא מה לשור וכשב שכן יש בו צד ריבוי הלכך לא ילפי מהדדי,שפיר קא"ל אלא לעולם טעמא דרבי ישמעאל כדאמרינן מעיקרא דאם כן נכתוב כל חלב ולישתוק מאי אמרת האי דכתב שור וכשב ועז למשרי חלב חיה,הא כי כתב קרא בעניינא דקדשים ודבר למד מעניינו,מכלל דרבנן סברי לא ילפינן דבר למד מעניינו לא דכולי עלמא ילפינן דבר הלמד מעניינו והכא בהא פליגי רבי ישמעאל סבר למידין לאו מלאו בין מלאו ובין מלאו דכרת,דכל חלב שור וכשב ועז מלאו (ויקרא ג, יז) דחוקת עולם לדורותיכם בכל מושבותיכם כל חלב וכל דם לא תאכלו דכתיב בעניינא דקדשים ובקדשים לא אית בהון חיה אף כל חלב שור כי כתיב ליה סתמא ליכא לספוקי בחיה הלכך שור וכשב ועז לחלק הוא דאתא לחייב על כל אחת ואחת,וילפינן לאו דכל חלב ולאו דחוקת עולם מכרת (ויקרא ז, כה) דכי כל אוכל חלב מן הבהמה אשר יקריבו ממנה מה ההוא לחלק אף הדין לחלק,ורבנן לאו מלאו ילפינן לאו מכרת לא ילפינן,ואיבעית אימא היינו טעמייהו דרבנן כדאמר ליה רב מרי לרב זביד אלא מעתה אליה דחולין תיתסר אמר ליה עליך אמר קרא (ויקרא ז, כג) כל חלב שור וכשב ועז דבר השוה בשלשתן בעינן וליכא,הלכך כי אתא שור וכשב ועז למישרי אליה דחולין הוא דאתא ור' ישמעאל אמר לך א"כ לימא קרא כל חלב שור וכשב עז למה לי ש"מ לחלק,א"ר חנינא מודה רבי ישמעאל לענין קרבן שאין מביא אלא חטאת אחת מ"ט דלא דמי הדין לאו ללאו דעריות,ת"ר ועשה אחת ועשה הנה לחייב על כל אחת ואחת,שאם אכל חלב וחלב שם אחד בשני העלמות חייב שתים שתי שמות בהעלם אחת חייב שתים,א"ל רמי בר חמא לרב חסדא בשלמא שם אחד בשני העלמות חייב שתים משום דהעלמות מחלקין אלא שני שמות בהעלם אחת אמאי חייב שתים הא בעינן העלמות מוחלקין וליכא,א"ל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דאכל חלב דנותר דמחייב משום נותר ומשום חלב א"ל א"כ ניחייב נמי משום קודש,אלא אמר רב ששת כגון דאכל חלב דהקדש ור' יהודה היא דתניא אכל חלב נבלה אכל חלב מוקדשין חייב שתים ר' יהודה אומר חלב מוקדשין לוקה שלש,מחייכו עלה במערבא ונוקמה כגון חלב דשור וכשב ועז ור' ישמעאל היא דאמר לוקה שלש | 4a. b his lips should be /b considered b an action in /b the case of one who b blasphemes. Rava said: /b The case of one who b blasphemes is different, since it is /b primarily b in the heart. /b In other words, the transgression of blasphemy is not the actual speech but the verbalizing of a sentiment. One is not liable to bring a sin offering for such an action, as it is essentially a matter of the heart. b But in general, the twisting of one’s lips is /b considered b an action. /b , b Rabbi Zeira raises an objection /b from that which is taught in a different context. It is stated in a i baraita /i that all who unwittingly transgress prohibitions punishable by death are liable to bring sin offerings, b except for conspiring witnesses, /b who are not obligated to bring sin offerings, b as /b their transgression b does not involve an action. But why /b is that so? b It is written with regard to /b such witnesses: b “At the mouth /b of two witnesses” (Deuteronomy 17:6). They acted through speech, and the twisting of their lips should be considered an action, as they are liable for what they actually said, not for what was in their hearts. b Rava said: /b The case of b conspiring witnesses is different, since their /b transgression b is /b primarily b through sight, /b i.e., the important part of their testimony is what they saw, which is not an action.,§ The mishna included in its list of those liable to receive i karet /i b one who eats /b forbidden b fat. /b With regard to this, b the Sages taught /b a i baraita /i which deals with the verse: b “You shall eat no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat” /b (Leviticus 7:23). This verse serves b to render one liable /b to receive lashes b for each and every one, /b i.e., one who eats the fat of an ox, and a sheep, and a goat is liable to receive three sets of lashes. This is b the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. And the Rabbis say he is liable /b to receive b only one /b set of lashes.,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis b disagree about this /b matter, b that Rabbi Yishmael maintains one is flogged for /b violating b a general prohibition and the Rabbis maintain one is not flogged for /b violating b a general prohibition. /b This is referring to the violation of a prohibition that includes several different actions, such as this one, which pertains to eating the fat of an ox, sheep, and goat. The Rabbis contend that one does not receive multiple sets of lashes for transgressing each element of such a prohibition.,The Gemara answers: b Actually, Rabbi Yishmael /b also b maintains /b that b one is not flogged for /b violating b a general prohibition, but here it is different, as /b elements of b the verse are superfluous. /b The Gemara explains: b Let the verse write /b only: b You shall eat no fat, /b and all the individual types of fat would be included. b Why do I /b need the additional terms: b “Ox, or sheep, or goat”? Learn from it /b that the verse serves b to separate /b between them and render one liable to receive a separate set of lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat.,The Gemara asks: b And /b as for b the Rabbis, /b how do they respond to this reading of the verse? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis would say that no element of the verse is superfluous, since b if /b it had b not written: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” I would say /b that b even /b the b fat of an undomesticated animal is included /b in the prohibition. b For this /b reason the verse b writes: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” to say that it is /b the b fat of an ox, or a sheep, or a goat that is forbidden, but /b all the fats b of an undomesticated animal are permitted. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty against this interpretation of the dispute: The Rabbis b spoke well to /b Rabbi Yishmael, i.e., their response is persuasive. The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: b Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yishmael, as he holds: If so, /b that the verse serves to exclude the fat of only an undomesticated animal from the prohibition, then b let it write: You shall eat no fat of an ox, /b which would be understood as a paradigm representing every type of domesticated animal. b Why do I /b need the phrase: b “Sheep or goat”? Learn from it /b that the verse serves b to separate /b between them and render one liable to receive a separate set of lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat., b And the Rabbis maintain /b that b if the Merciful One had written /b only: You shall eat no b fat of an ox, I would say: Let us derive /b a verbal analogy b from /b the word b “ox” /b stated here as a paradigm representing every type of domesticated animal [ i behema /i ] and the word b “ox,” /b i.e., i behema /i , stated with regard to a mitzva given in preparation for the revelation at b Sinai: /b “Whether it be animal [ i behema /i ] or man, it shall not live” (Exodus 19:13).,The Gemara explains the meaning of this hypothetical verbal analogy: b Just as with regard to /b the command at b Sinai, undomesticated animals and birds are /b subject to the same prohibition b as /b domesticated animals despite the use of the term i behema /i , b so too, with regard to eating /b their fat, b undomesticated animals and birds are /b subject to the same prohibition b as /b domesticated animals despite the verse employing the example of an ox. b For this /b reason b the Merciful One writes: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” to say that these are forbidden, but /b all the fats of b an undomesticated animal and birds are permitted. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty against this interpretation of the dispute: The Rabbis b spoke well to /b Rabbi Yishmael, i.e., their response is persuasive. How could he say the terms in the verse are superfluous? The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: b Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yishmael, as he holds: Let /b the verse b write: You shall eat no fat of sheep; alternatively, /b let it state: b You shall eat no fat of goat. Why do I /b need the verse to state all three: b “Ox, or sheep, or goat”? Learn from it /b that the verse serves b to separate /b between them and render one liable to receive a separate set of lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat., b And the Rabbis maintain /b that b if /b the Torah b had written /b merely: b You shall eat no fat of sheep, I would say /b it is only b the fat of sheep /b that is b forbidden, but /b the fat of b an ox or a goat /b is b permitted. And if you would say: /b In b what /b way b is /b the category b of sheep stronger, /b i.e., more fitting to have its fats forbidden, than the categories of ox and goats, that one would think the prohibition applies only to sheep? The answer is that one might have thought so b due to /b the fact b that /b there is b an increased /b obligation b with regard to /b a sheep’s b tail, /b as it is sacrificed upon the altar, which is not the case with an ox or a goat., b And /b this is b as Rabbi Ḥanina taught: Why does the verse list /b the obligation to burn the b sacrificial portions /b on the altar b with regard to /b a firstborn b ox, and /b the obligation to burn the b sacrificial portions [ i ve’eimurim /i ] with regard to /b a firstborn b sheep, and /b the obligation to burn the b sacrificial portions with regard to /b a firstborn b goat? As it is written: “But the firstborn of a bull, /b or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are sacred. You shall dash their blood against the altar, and shall make their fat smoke for an offering made by fire” (Numbers 18:17). The “fat” mentioned in this verse is their portions to be burned on the altar.,Rabbi Ḥanina explains: These repetitions b are necessary, as, if /b the Torah b had written /b this obligation only with regard to a firstborn b ox I would say /b that b we do not derive /b the i halakha /i of b a sheep and a goat from it, as /b that derivation b can be refuted: What /b is notable b about an ox? /b It is notable b in that /b an ox b has an increased /b number b of /b wine b libations, /b more than those poured with sheep and goat offerings. Therefore, perhaps the additional obligation to burn the sacrificial portions applies only with regard to an ox.,And likewise, if you were to suggest: b Let the Merciful One write /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions only b with regard to a sheep and we will derive /b the i halakha /i of b an ox and a goat from /b the i halakha /i of b a sheep, /b that derivation b can be refuted: What /b is notable b about a sheep? /b It is notable b in that /b there is b an increased /b obligation b with regard to /b a sheep’s b tail, /b as explained earlier.,And similarly, if you suggest: b Let the Merciful One write /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions only with regard to b a goat, and we will derive /b the i halakha /i of b an ox and a sheep from /b the i halakha /i of a goat, this too b can be refuted: What /b is notable b about a goat? /b It is notable b in that /b a goat b has an increased /b applicability b with regard to idol worship, /b as one who sins unwittingly in the case of idol worship is liable to bring a goat as a sin offering (see Numbers 15:27), unlike one who transgresses other prohibitions unwittingly, for which they are liable to bring a sheep.,Rabbi Ḥanina continues: b We cannot derive /b these i halakhot /i b from /b the i halakha /i of any b one /b of the others, but b let /b the Torah b write two /b of them b and we will derive /b the i halakha /i of b one /b of them b from /b the i halakha /i of the other b two. Which /b is b this /b animal that should not be written? If one suggests b we will derive /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of a firstborn b ox from /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of b a sheep and a goat, /b this derivation b has a refutation: What /b is notable b about a sheep and a goat? /b They are notable b in that /b that b they have increased /b applicability, as they are suitable b for the Paschal offering, /b whereas an ox is not suitable for this purpose.,If one suggests the verse should b not write /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of b a sheep, and we will derive /b its i halakha /i b from /b the i halakha /i of b an ox and a goat, /b this derivation b has a refutation: What /b is notable b about an ox and a goat? /b They are notable b in that they have increased /b applicability as suitable offerings to atone b for /b an unwitting transgression of b idol worship, /b as when a community unwittingly sins with regard to idol worship they bring an ox as a burnt offering and a goat as a sin offering (see Numbers 15:24), while an individual brings a goat but not a sheep.,If one suggests that the verse should b not write /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of b a goat, and we will derive /b its i halakha /i b from /b the i halakha /i of b an ox and a sheep, /b this derivation b has a refutation: What /b is notable b about an ox and a sheep? /b They are notable b in that each /b of them b has an increased aspect /b of applicability with regard to the altar, as the libations for an ox are greater than those for a goat, and the tail of a sheep, but not that of a goat, is burned on the altar. Rabbi Ḥanina concludes: b Therefore, /b all three cases are necessary, as b they cannot be derived from each other. /b ,The Rabbis have explained why all three mentions of an ox, a sheep, and a goat are necessary. Consequently, the Gemara again states: The Rabbis b spoke well to /b Rabbi Yishmael, i.e., their response is persuasive. The Gemara suggests: b Rather, the reason of Rabbi Yishmael /b is b actually as we said at the outset, that if so, /b that one who eats the forbidden fats of all three animals is liable to receive only one set of lashes, b let /b the verse b write: /b You shall eat no b fat, and be silent. What did you say /b in response? That b this /b fact b that /b the verse b writes: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” /b serves b to permit /b the b fat of an undomesticated animal? /b This is not a valid objection.,The Gemara explains: b When the verse /b concerning forbidden fat b is written /b it is b in the context of sacrificial /b animals, since the subsequent verse concerning the prohibition against eating forbidden fat states: “For whoever eats the fat of the animal of which men present an offering of fire to the Lord, even the soul that eats it shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:25). The verse categorizes an animal whose fat one may not eat as an “animal of which men present an offering of fire to the Lord,” i.e., offerings. b And /b one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles is: b A matter /b is b derived from its context, /b i.e., one interprets a verse according to the context in which it is written. Since offerings may be brought only from domesticated, not undomesticated, animals, the prohibition against eating forbidden fat applies only to such animals.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: Can one conclude b by inference that the Rabbis maintain we do not derive /b i halakhot /i by employing the hermeneutical principle of: b A matter /b is b derived from its context? /b This cannot be correct, as it is an accepted basic principle of exegesis. The Gemara answers: b No, everyone /b agrees that b we do derive /b i halakhot /i by employing the hermeneutical principle of: b A matter /b is b derived from its context, and here /b it is b about this /b issue b that they disagree: Rabbi Yishmael maintains /b that b we derive /b the i halakhot /i of one b prohibition from /b the i halakhot /i of another b prohibition, /b and this applies b whether /b it is b from /b a standard b prohibition, /b whose transgression results in the punishment of lashes, b or whether from a prohibition /b whose transgression results in the punishment b of i karet /i . /b ,Accordingly, the prohibition b of: /b “You shall eat b no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat,” /b can be derived b from the prohibition of: “It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither fat nor blood” /b (Leviticus 3:17), b which is written with regard to the matter of sacrificial /b animals. b And there are no undomesticated animals in /b the category of b sacrificial /b animals. b So too, /b with regard to the prohibition of: “You shall eat b no fat of ox, /b or sheep, or goat,” b when /b the verse b writes it without /b further b specification, there is no /b reason b to be uncertain /b whether or not it is referring also b to undomesticated animals. Therefore, /b the phrase b “ox, or sheep, or goat” comes to separate, /b i.e., b to render one liable for /b eating the forbidden fat of b each and every one /b of them.,All this teaches only that a separate prohibition applies to each type of animal. b And /b with regard to the liability to receive lashes for eating each one b we derive the prohibition of: /b “You shall eat b no fat,” and the prohibition of: “It shall be a perpetual statute,” from the /b example of b i karet /i /b stated in the verse: b “For anyone who eats the fat of the domesticated animal, of which people present /b an offering of fire to the Lord, the soul that eats it shall be cut off from its people” (Leviticus 7:25). b Just as that /b verse serves b to separate /b and teach that if one unwittingly ate the fat of an ox, a goat, and a sheep he is liable to bring a sin offering for each one, b so too, this /b verse serves b to separate /b and teach that one is liable to receive lashes for eating the fat of each one., b And the Rabbis /b maintain b we derive /b the i halakhot /i of one standard b prohibition from /b the i halakhot /i of another standard b prohibition, /b but b we do not derive /b the i halakhot /i of a standard b prohibition from /b the i halakhot /i of a prohibition whose transgression results in the punishment of b i karet /i . /b ,The Gemara suggests: b And if you wish, say /b instead that b this is the reason of the Rabbis: As Rav Mari said to Rav Zevid /b when asked about a different issue: b If that is so, /b that a sheep tail is categorized as fat by the verses and is included in the portions of an offering for which one is liable for the misuse of consecrated property, then the b tail of a non-sacred /b animal b should be prohibited /b for consumption as forbidden fat. Rav Zevid b said to /b Rav Mari: b With regard to your /b claim, b the verse states /b concerning forbidden fat: “You shall eat b no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat” /b (Leviticus 7:23). This teaches that for the prohibition against eating forbidden fat to take effect b we require an item that is /b found b equally in all three /b types of animals, an ox, and a sheep, and a goat, b and that is not /b the case here. Since an ox and goat do not have tails, the tail is not prohibited even in the case of a sheep., b Therefore, /b the same applies with regard to the issue at hand: b When /b the verse b “ox, or sheep, or goat” comes, it comes to permit /b consumption of the b tail of a non-sacred /b animal, and one cannot learn from here that a separate prohibition applies to each type of forbidden fat. b And Rabbi Yishmael /b could b say to you /b in response: b If so, let /b the verse b state: /b You shall eat b no fat of ox or sheep; why do I /b need the mention of b a goat? Learn from it /b that the verse serves b to separate /b between them and render one liable to receive lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat., b Rabbi Ḥanina says: /b Although b Rabbi Yishmael /b maintains that one who unwittingly eats the fat of an ox, a sheep, and a goat is liable to receive a separate set of lashes for each one, he b concedes with regard to /b bringing b an offering that /b if he ate those types of forbidden fat in a single lapse of awareness he b brings only one sin offering. What is the reason? /b The reason is b that this prohibition is not similar to the prohibition of those with whom relations are forbidden. /b As derived in the Gemara on 2b, one who unwittingly engages in intercourse with many women to whom he is forbidden is liable to bring a sin offering for each act. In that context the verse states a separate prohibition for each forbidden relative, whereas in this case there is a single prohibition that applies to the forbidden fat of all domesticated animals.,§ With regard to the sin offering required of one who transgresses the prohibition against eating forbidden fat, b the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: A soul that sins in error, from all the commandments of God that may not be performed, and from one of them” (Leviticus 4:2). This phrase should be interpreted as though it states: b And performs one, /b and again states: b And performs them, /b i.e., it serves b to render one liable /b to bring a sin offering b for each and every /b transgression.,The i baraita /i continues: This teaches b that if one ate /b forbidden b fat and /b again ate forbidden b fat, /b if it was from b one category, /b i.e., the same type of forbidden fat, and he ate it b in two lapses of awareness, /b that is, he was made aware of his sin after the first instance of consumption and then again ate unwittingly, he is b liable /b to bring b two /b sin offerings. If he ate forbidden fat from b two categories, /b as the Gemara will soon explain, b in one lapse of awareness, /b he is likewise b liable /b to bring b two /b sin offerings., b Rami bar Ḥama said to Rav Ḥisda: Granted, /b one who ate forbidden fat from b one category in two lapses of awareness /b is b liable /b to bring b two /b sin offerings, as this is b due to /b the fact b that the lapses of awareness separate /b between his transgressions; each time he becomes aware of his transgression he is liable to bring another sin offering. b But /b in a case where he ate forbidden fat from b two categories in one lapse of awareness, why /b is he b liable /b to bring b two /b sin offerings? b We require separate lapses of awareness and that is not /b the case here.,Rav Ḥisda b said to him: Here we are dealing with /b a case b where he ate /b forbidden b fat left over from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption [ i notar /i ], as he is liable due to /b eating b i notar /i and /b is also liable b due to /b eating forbidden b fat. /b These are the two categories mentioned in the i baraita /i . Rami bar Ḥama b said to him: If so, /b that the case involves more than one prohibition, b let him be liable due to /b eating b sacrificial /b food b as well, /b and he should be liable to bring a guilt offering for the unwitting misuse of consecrated property (see Leviticus 5:14–16)., b Rather, Rav Sheshet said: /b Here we are dealing with a case b where he ate /b forbidden b fat of sacrificial /b animals, b and /b this ruling b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b who renders one liable to bring two sin offerings for eating forbidden fat of sacrificial food. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : If one b ate /b forbidden b fat of an animal carcass, /b or if he b ate /b forbidden b fat of sacrificial /b animals, he is b liable /b to receive b two /b sets of lashes, either for transgressing the prohibitions of eating forbidden fat and eating an animal carcass, or for both eating forbidden fat and transgressing the prohibition forbidding a non-priest to partake of sacrificial animals. b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If one b ate /b forbidden b fat of sacrificial /b animals he b is flogged /b with b three /b sets of lashes, because there are two separate prohibitions of forbidden fat in the case of sacrificial animals, as the Gemara will soon explain, in addition to the prohibition forbidding a non-priest to partake of sacrificial animals.,The Gemara comments: b They laughed at this /b suggestion b in the West, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael: b And let us interpret /b this i baraita /i as referring to a case b where /b he ate the forbidden b fat of an ox, and /b of b a sheep, and /b of b a goat, and /b explain that b it is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael, who says /b that he b is flogged /b with b three /b sets of lashes for the different types of fat, if he did so intentionally and was forewarned. |
|
69. Babylonian Talmud, Nazir, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229| 42a. הא גדילים תעשה לך מהם:,אמר מר וכולם שגילחו שלא בתער או ששיירו שתי שערות לא עשו ולא כלום אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא זאת אומרת רובו ככולו מדאורייתא,ממאי מדגלי רחמנא גבי נזיר (במדבר ו, ט) ביום השביעי יגלחנו הכא הוא דעד דאיכא כולו הא בעלמא רובו ככולו,מתקיף לה ר' יוסי ברבי חנינא האי בנזיר טמא כתיב מחכו עלה במערבא מכדי נזיר טמא דבתער מנלן מנזיר טהור יליף ליתי נזיר טהור ולילף מנזיר טמא מה טמא כי שייר שתי שערות ולא כלום עבד הכא נמי כי שייר שתי שערות ולא כלום עבד,בעי אביי נזיר שגילח ושייר שתי שערות צמח ראשו וחזר וגילחן מהו מי מעכבי או לא,בעי רבא נזיר שגילח והניח שתי שערות וגילח אחת ונשרה אחת מהו א"ל רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא גילח שערה שערה קא מיבעי ליה לרבא,אלא אימא נשרה אחת וגילח אחת מהו א"ל גילוח אין כאן שער אין כאן אי שער אין כאן גילוח יש כאן ה"ק אע"פ ששער אין כאן מצות גילוח אין כאן:,מתני' נזיר חופף ומפספס אבל לא סורק:,גמ' חופף ומפספס מני ר"ש היא דאמר דבר שאין מתכוין מותר אבל לא סורק אתאן לרבנן,רישא ר"ש וסיפא רבנן אמר רבה כולה ר"ש היא כל הסורק להסיר נימין מדולדלות מתכוין:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big רבי ישמעאל אומר לא יחוף באדמה מפני שמשרת את השער:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big איבעיא להו מפני שהיא משרת את השער תנן או דלמא מפני המשרת תנן למאי נפקא מינה,כגון דאיכא אדמה דלא מתרא אי אמרת מפני שהיא משרת תנן היכא דידעינן דלא מתרא שפיר אלא אי אמרת מפני המשרת כלל כלל לא תיקו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big נזיר שהיה שותה יין כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תשתה אל תשתה והוא שותה חייב על כל אחת ואחת היה מגלח כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תגלח אל תגלח והוא מגלח חייב על כל אחת ואחת היה מטמא למתים כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תטמא אל תטמא והוא מטמא חייב על כל אחת ואחת: | 42a. indicates that fringes in the mitzva stated in the adjacent verse: b “You shall make for yourself fringes” /b (Deuteronomy 22:12), can be b from them, /b wool and linen. By juxtaposing the mitzva of ritual fringes to the prohibition against diverse kinds of cloth, the Torah teaches that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes, which includes dyed blue wool, overrides the prohibition against diverse kinds of cloth, i.e., one may attach woolen ritual fringes to a linen garment. From here one derives the general principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.,§ The Gemara returns to the mishna that teaches that nazirites, lepers, and Levites must shave their hair. b The Master said /b above: b And /b with regard to b all of them, if they shaved with /b an implement b other than a razor, or if they left two hairs /b uncut, b they have done nothing. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: That is to say /b that the principle: b The majority of /b an entity is considered b like all of it, /b applies b by Torah law. /b ,The Gemara asks: b From where /b do we learn this? The Gemara explains: This principle is derived b from /b the fact b that the Merciful One revealed /b in the Torah and specified b with regard to a nazirite: “On the seventh day he shall shave it” /b (Numbers 6:9), despite the fact that the same verse already stated: “And he shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing.” This teaches that b it is /b only in this case b here /b that he does not fulfill the mitzva of shaving b until there is /b the removal b of all of it, /b i.e., shaving part of his head is insufficient. This shows that b in general the majority of /b an entity is b like all of it. /b , b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, objects to this /b assertion. b This /b verse: “On the seventh day he shall shave it,” b is written with regard to a ritually impure nazirite, /b not a pure one, whereas the i halakha /i in the mishna applies even to a pure nazirite. This shows that the above inference is invalid. b They laughed at /b this difficulty b in the West, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael: b After all, from where do we /b derive the i halakha /i that b an impure nazirite /b shaves b with a razor? /b It is b derived from /b the i halakha /i of b a pure nazirite. /b If so, b let /b the case of b a pure nazirite come and derive /b the following i halakha /i b from /b the case of b an impure nazirite: Just as /b with regard to b an impure /b nazirite, b if he leaves two hairs he has done nothing, here too, /b if a pure nazirite b leaves two hairs he has done nothing. /b ,On the same topic, b Abaye raised a dilemma: /b With regard to b a nazirite who shaved and left two hairs, /b which is not considered an act of shaving, if the hairs of b his head grew and he again shaved, /b this time those two hairs alone, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? b Do /b these hairs b invalidate /b the fulfillment of his obligation b or not? /b Has he now completed his initial act of shaving, or is the shaving of two hairs from a head full of hair of no significance, and he must now shave his entire head?,Similarly, b Rava raised a dilemma: /b With regard to b a nazirite who shaved and left two hairs, and /b afterward b shaved one /b of them, b and /b the other b one fell out /b of its own accord, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? Is this considered shaving one’s entire head or not? b Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: Is Rava raising a dilemma /b as to whether one can b shave /b his head one b hair by /b one b hair? /b How does this case differ from that of one who shaves his entire head one hair at a time, which is a fulfillment of his obligation?, b Rather, say /b that the dilemma is as follows: If b one /b hair b fell out and he shaved /b the other b one, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Has he performed the obligation of shaving if there was only one hair left when he came to shave? Ravina b said to him: /b In that case b there is no shaving here; there is no hair here. /b The Gemara expresses surprise at this expression: b If there is no hair here, /b then b there is shaving here, /b as no hair remains. The Gemara explains: b This is what he said: Even though there is no hair here, /b as only one hair remains, nevertheless b there is no /b fulfillment of the b mitzva of shaving here, /b as he failed to shave it all on the first attempt, and the second time he shaved less than the required amount., strong MISHNA: /strong b A nazirite may shampoo [ i ḥofef /i ] /b his head b and separate [ i mefaspes /i ] /b his hairs manually, without concern that hairs might fall out. b However, he may not comb /b his hair., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara clarifies: b Who is /b the i tanna /i who maintains that a nazirite b may shampoo and separate /b his hairs? b It is Rabbi Shimon, who says: An unintentional act is permitted. /b Even if hairs do fall out as a result of this action, as he did not intend this to happen the action is permitted. Yet in the latter clause of the mishna, which states: b However, he may not comb /b his hair, b we have come to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis. /b Although this nazirite also does not intend to tear out any hair when he combs it, it is nevertheless prohibited.,This leads to a surprising conclusion, that b the first clause /b represents the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon and the latter clause /b is the opinion of b the Rabbis. Rabba said: /b The b entire /b mishna b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, /b as he maintains that b anyone who combs /b his hair b intends to remove stray hairs, /b and therefore this is considered an intentional act., strong MISHNA: /strong b Rabbi Yishmael says: /b A nazirite b may not shampoo /b his hair b with earth because /b this b causes the hair to fall out. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: What is the precise wording of the mishna? Do b we learn: Because it removes hair, /b i.e., earth in general removes hair, b or do we perhaps learn: Because of that which removes /b hair. In other words, although some types of earth do not remove hair, it is prohibited to use these as well, due to those types that do remove hair. The Gemara inquires: b What /b is the b difference /b of this textual question?,The Gemara explains: There is a difference in a case b where there is /b a type of b earth that does not remove /b hair. b If you say /b that b we learned /b in the mishna: b Because it removes /b hair, then in a case b where we know that it does not remove /b hair b it is fine /b to shampoo with that substance. b However, if you say /b the text reads: b Because of that which removes /b hair, this indicates that the Sages prohibited using any type of earth, due to the type that removes hair. If so, a nazirite may b not /b shampoo his head with any earth b at all, /b not even if it does not remove hair. No answer was found, and the Gemara says that the dilemma b shall stand /b unresolved., strong MISHNA: /strong b A nazirite who was drinking wine all day is liable /b to receive b only one /b set of lashes. If people b said to him /b during the course of the day: b Do not drink, do not drink, and /b nevertheless b he /b continues to b drink, he is liable for each and every /b time he was warned. If a nazirite b kept shaving all day, he is liable /b to receive b only one /b set of lashes. If b they said to him: Do not shave, do not shave, and he shaves, he is liable for each and every /b time he was warned. If he b became ritually impure from a corpse /b many times b all day, he is liable /b to receive b only one /b set of lashes. If b they said to him: Do not become impure, do not become impure, and he /b continues to b become impure, he is liable for each and every /b time he was warned. |
|
70. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 307 | 27b. to teach b that if one omitted one of the placements /b of blood, b he has done nothing. /b ,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : If the priest b performed the seven sprinklings of /b the blood of b the /b red b heifer /b improperly, b either /b by performing them b not for their /b own b sake or /b performing them b not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting /b of the Tabernacle (Numbers 19:4), which corresponds to the Sanctuary in the Temple, b they are not valid. /b , b But /b with regard to the sprinkling of the blood b that /b takes place b inside /b the Sanctuary, of inner sin offerings, the blood of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, the blood of the bull of the anointed priest, the blood of the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and the blood of the goats of idol worship, which are to be sprinkled “before the Lord, in front of the Curtain of the Sanctuary” (Leviticus 4:6), b and /b the sprinkling of the oil b that /b takes place during the purification b of the leper, /b which is done “seven times before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:16), if these are performed b not for their /b own b sake, /b then b they are not valid. /b But if they are performed b not precisely /b toward the direction where they should be sprinkled, b they are valid. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i b concerning /b the sprinklings of the blood of the red b heifer /b that if they were performed b not for their /b own b sake, they are not valid, /b but if they were performed b not precisely /b toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting or Sanctuary, b they are valid? Rav Ḥisda said: /b This is b not difficult; this /b second i baraita /i is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b whereas b that /b first i baraita /i is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis. /b , b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Kelim /i 1:10): With regard to b those who have not yet /b brought b an atonement /b offering to complete the purification process, and therefore are not permitted to enter the Temple or partake of sacrificial meat, b who entered the /b Temple b courtyard unwittingly, /b they are b liable /b to bring b a sin offering. /b If they entered b intentionally, /b then this is b punishable by i karet /i . And needless to say, /b the same applies to b one /b who was ritually impure b who immersed that day /b and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed b and all the others who are ritually impure /b and have not yet immersed., b And /b with regard to those who are b pure who entered beyond their boundaries, /b i.e., beyond where it is permitted for them to enter, such as a priest who enters the Sanctuary for a purpose other than performing the Temple service, if one entered b any /b part b of the Sanctuary, /b he is liable b to /b receive b forty /b lashes. If he entered b within the Curtain /b separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, i.e., into the Holy of Holies, or he entered the Holy of Holies all the way until he was b before the Ark Cover, /b he is liable b to /b receive b death /b at the hand of Heaven. b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If he entered b any /b part b of the Sanctuary or within the Curtain /b separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, he is liable b to /b receive b forty /b lashes; b but /b if he entered the Holy of Holies all the way until he was b before the Ark Cover, /b he is liable b to /b receive b death /b at the hand of Heaven., b With regard to what /b issue b do /b the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda b disagree? /b They disagree b with regard to /b the proper understanding of b this verse: “And the Lord said to Moses: Speak to Aaron your brother, that he not come at all times into the holy place, within the Curtain, before the Ark Cover which is upon the Ark, that he not die” /b (Leviticus 16:2). b The Rabbis hold /b that entering b into the holy place, /b i.e., the Sanctuary, is b subject to /b the prohibition of: b He shall not come, /b and one who violates it is punished with lashes, whereas entering b within the Curtain /b separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies b and before the Ark Cover /b is b subject to /b the warning of: b He shall not die, /b and entering there is punished by death at the hand of Heaven., b And Rabbi Yehuda holds /b that entering b into the holy place, /b i.e., the Sanctuary, b and within the Curtain /b separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies is b subject to /b the prohibition of: b He shall not come, /b and one who violates it is punished with lashes, whereas entering b before the Ark Cover /b is b subject to /b the warning of: b He shall not die, /b and entering there is punished by death at the of Heaven.,The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b for the interpretation b of the Rabbis? /b The Gemara answers: b If /b it should b enter your mind /b to explain the verse b as Rabbi Yehuda says, /b then b let the Merciful One write: /b That he not come at all times b into the holy place and before the Ark Cover /b that he not die, b and there is no need /b to write b “within the Curtain,” and I would say: /b If one b becomes liable /b to receive lashes for even entering the b Sanctuary, is /b it b necessary /b to teach that one incurs this punishment for entering b within the Curtain? Why do I /b need the phrase b “within the Curtain” that the Merciful One wrote? Learn from /b that seemingly extraneous term that entering the Holy of Holies is punishable b by death /b at the hand of Heaven., b And Rabbi Yehuda /b understands: b If the Merciful One had written /b only that it is prohibited to come b “into the holy place” and did not write “within the Curtain,” I would say: What /b is the b holy place? /b It is b within the Curtain, /b i.e., the Holy of Holies, and one who enters it violates a prohibition, b but /b if one enters the b Sanctuary /b he does b not even /b violate b a prohibition. And the Rabbis /b respond to this claim: b You cannot say that, as the entire Sanctuary is called /b “the b holy place,” as it is stated: “And the Curtain shall divide for you between the holy place and the Holy of Holies” /b (Exodus 26:33)., b And what is the reason /b for the interpretation b of Rabbi Yehuda? /b Why does he hold that one who enters the Holy of Holies violates a prohibition but is not punished with death at the hand of Heaven? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda holds that b if /b it should b enter your mind /b to explain b as the Rabbis say, /b that entering the Holy of Holies is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven, b let the Merciful One write: /b That he not come at all times b into the holy place and within the Curtain /b that he not die, b and there is no need /b to write b “before the Ark Cover.” And I would say: /b If entering b within the Curtain, /b i.e., the Holy of Holies, is punished b with death /b at the hand of Heaven, b is /b it b necessary /b to teach that one incurs this punishment for entering b before the Ark Cover? Why do I /b need the phrase b “before the Ark Cover” that the Merciful One wrote? Learn from /b that seemingly extraneous term that entering b before the Ark Cover /b is punishable b by death /b at the hand of Heaven, but entering b within the Curtain /b merely violates b a prohibition. /b , b And the Rabbis /b understand: b Indeed, /b it is so b that /b in order to teach the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven it b is not necessary /b for the verse to also state “before the Ark Cover.” b And /b the reason b that the Merciful One wrote “before [ i el penei /i ] the Ark Cover” /b was in order b to exclude /b one who entered the Holy of Holies through b a roundabout path, /b as one who did not enter facing the Ark Cover, i.e., from the east, is not punished with death at the hand of Heaven.,This is b as the school of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov taught: /b With regard to the verse: “And he shall sprinkle it with his finger b before [ i el penei /i ] the Ark Cover to the east” /b (Leviticus 16:14), b this established a paradigm /b that b any place /b in the Torah b where it is stated: “Before [ i penei /i ],” /b it is referring to b nothing other than before /b the b eastern /b side.,The Gemara asks: b And /b how does b Rabbi Yehuda /b respond to this, as it is clear that the term “before [ i el penei /i ] the Ark Cover” is necessary to exclude one who entered the Holy of Holies through a roundabout path? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yehuda, if the purpose was for that reason, b let the verse say: Before [ i penei /i ] /b the Ark Cover. b What /b is the purpose of the word b i el /i ? Learn from /b that seemingly extraneous term that one is punished with death at the hand of Heaven b specifically /b if he entered directly b before /b the Ark, but not if he merely entered the Holy of Holies. b And the Rabbis /b hold that the term b “ i el /i ” /b does b not /b mean b specifically /b one who enters directly before the Ark Cover.,The Gemara now returns to its suggestion that the contradiction between the two i baraitot /i with regard to whether the sprinklings of the red heifer are valid or not when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting can be resolved by explaining that one i baraita /i is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and the other is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. b And Rabbi Yehuda, who says /b that the expression b “before [ i el penei /i ] the Ark Cover” /b teaches that the punishment is limited to one who b specifically /b entered directly before the Ark Cover, holds that the expression: b “And sprinkle /b of its blood b toward [ i el /i ] the front” /b (Numbers 19:4), b also /b means that the sprinklings must be performed b specifically /b toward the front of the Sanctuary., b And the Rabbis /b are of the opinion that b from /b the fact b that there /b the term i el /i does b not /b mean b specifically /b that one is liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven only if he enters directly before the Ark Cover, b here too /b they hold that it is b not /b meant b specifically, /b and therefore the sprinklings are valid even when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting., b Rav Yosef objects to this /b explanation: b According to Rabbi Yehuda, from /b the fact b that /b there the term b i el /i /b is used b specifically, /b the verse: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood b before [ i al /i /b i penei /i ] the Ark Cover” (Leviticus 16:14) should b also /b mean that the sprinkling must be performed b specifically /b upon the Ark Cover. b But /b in the time b of the Second Temple, where there was no Ark or Ark Cover, /b would Rabbi Yehuda then say that b indeed /b the b sprinklings were not performed? /b This is clearly not correct, as all agree that the sprinklings were performed in the Second Temple (see i Yoma /i 53b)., b Rabba bar Ulla said /b in response: b The verse states /b with regard to the Yom Kippur service: b “And he shall make atonement for the most holy place [ i mikdash hakodesh /i ]” /b (Leviticus 16:33), which is interpreted as follows: He will sprinkle the blood to make atonement not specifically on the Ark [ i hakodesh /i ], but even on b the place that is dedicated [ i hamkudash /i ] for the Ark [ i lakodesh /i ]. /b ,The Gemara offers another resolution of the contradiction between the i baraitot /i concerning whether the sprinklings of the red heifer are valid or invalid when performed not precisely toward the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. b Rava said: /b Both b this /b i baraita /i b and that /b i baraita /i are in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis: /b |
|
71. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229| 17b. ומה נחש שממית ומרבה טומאה טהור שרץ שאינו ממית ומרבה טומאה אינו דין שיהא טהור ולא היא מידי דהוה אקוץ בעלמא,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל עיר שאין בה שנים לדבר ואחד לשמוע אין מושיבין בה סנהדרי ובביתר הוו שלשה וביבנה ארבעה רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע ור"ע ושמעון התימני דן לפניהם בקרקע,מיתיבי שלישית חכמה רביעית אין למעלה הימנה הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא שניה חכמה שלישית אין למעלה הימנה,למידין לפני חכמים לוי מרבי דנין לפני חכמים שמעון בן עזאי ושמעון בן זומא וחנן המצרי וחנניא בן חכינאי רב נחמן בר יצחק מתני חמשה שמעון שמעון ושמעון חנן וחנניה,רבותינו שבבבל רב ושמואל רבותינו שבארץ ישראל רבי אבא דייני גולה קרנא דייני דארץ ישראל רבי אמי ורבי אסי דייני דפומבדיתא רב פפא בר שמואל דייני דנהרדעא רב אדא בר מניומי סבי דסורא רב הונא ורב חסדא סבי דפומבדיתא רב יהודה ורב עינא חריפי דפומבדיתא עיפה ואבימי בני רחבה אמוראי דפומבדיתא רבה ורב יוסף אמוראי דנהרדעי רב חמא,נהרבלאי מתנו רמי בר ברבי אמרי בי רב רב הונא והאמר רב הונא אמרי בי רב אלא רב המנונא אמרי במערבא רבי ירמיה שלחו מתם ר' יוסי בר חנינא מחכו עלה במערבא ר' אלעזר,והא שלחו מתם לדברי רבי יוסי בר חנינא אלא איפוך שלחו מתם ר' אלעזר מחכו עלה במערבא רבי יוסי בר חנינא:,וכמה יהא בעיר ויהא ראויה לסנהדרין מאה ועשרים וכו': מאה ועשרים מאי עבידתייהו עשרים ושלשה כנגד סנהדרי קטנה ושלש שורות של עשרים ושלשה הרי תשעים ותרתי ועשרה בטלנין של בית הכנסת הרי מאה ותרי,ושני סופרים ושני חזנין ושני בעלי דינין ושני עדים ושני זוממין ושני זוממי זוממין הרי מאה וארביסר,ותניא כל עיר שאין בה עשרה דברים הללו אין תלמיד חכם רשאי לדור בתוכה בית דין מכין ועונשין וקופה של צדקה נגבית בשנים ומתחלקת בשלשה ובית הכנסת ובית המרחץ וביהכ"ס רופא ואומן ולבלר (וטבח) ומלמד תינוקות משום ר' עקיבא אמרו אף מיני פירא מפני שמיני פירא מאירין את העינים:,ר' נחמיה אומר וכו': תניא רבי אומר | 17b. b If a snake, which kills /b other creatures whose carcasses are impure b and /b thereby b increases impurity /b in the world, is itself nevertheless b pure, /b as it is not included in the list of impure creeping animals, then concerning b a creeping animal that does not kill and /b does not b increase impurity, isn’t it logical that it should be pure? /b This argument is rejected: b But it is not so; /b the logic of the i halakha /i of a creeping animal is b just as it is /b concerning the i halakha /i b with regard to an ordinary thorn, /b which can injure people or animals and can even kill and thereby increase impurity, but is nevertheless pure. It is therefore apparent that this consideration is not relevant to the i halakhot /i of impurity.,§ b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: /b With regard to b any city that does not have /b among its residents b two /b men who are able b to speak /b all seventy languages b and one /b additional man who is able b to listen /b to and understand statements made in all the languages, even if he cannot speak all of them, b they do not place /b a lesser b Sanhedrin /b there. The members of the Sanhedrin do not all need to know all of the languages, but there must be at least this minimum number. b And in Beitar there were three /b individuals who were able to speak all seventy languages, b and in Yavne /b there were b four, /b and they were: b Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Akiva, and Shimon HaTimni, /b who was not an ordained Sage, and he would therefore b deliberate before /b the other judges while seated b on the ground, /b not among the rows of Sages.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b to this from a i baraita /i : b A third, /b i.e., a Sanhedrin that has three individuals who can speak all seventy languages, is b a wise /b Sanhedrin, and if it also has b a fourth /b such person, b there is no /b court b above it, /b meaning that there is no need for additional language experts. Apparently the minimum requirement is three people who can speak the languages, not two. The Gemara answers: Rav b states /b his opinion b in accordance with /b the opinion of b the following i tanna /i , as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : A Sanhedrin that has b a second /b language expert b is wise; /b and if it also has b a third, there is no /b court b above it. /b ,§ Since the i baraita /i stated that Shimon HaTimni would deliberate before them on the ground, the Gemara now lists various standard formulations used to introduce the statements of various Sages throughout the generations. If a source says: b It was learned from the Sages, /b the intention is that this was a statement made by the Sage b Levi /b who sat before and learned b from Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi. If it says: They b deliberated before the Sages, /b this is referring to b Shimon ben Azzai, and Shimon ben Zoma, and Ḥa the Egyptian, and Ḥaya ben Ḥakhinai. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak /b would b teach five /b names for this list: b Shimon /b ben Azzai, b Shimon /b ben Zoma, b and Shimon /b HaTimni, b Ḥa /b the Egyptian, b and Ḥaya /b ben Ḥakhinai.,The expression: b Our Rabbis that are in Babylonia, /b is referring to b Rav and Shmuel. /b The expression: b Our Rabbis that are in Eretz Yisrael, /b is referring to b Rabbi Abba. /b The expression: b The judges of the Diaspora, /b is a reference to the Sage b Karna. /b The phrase: b The judges of Eretz Yisrael, /b is a reference to b Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. /b The phrase: b The judges of Pumbedita, /b is referring to b Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, /b who was the head of the court there, and: b The judges of Neharde’a, /b is a reference to the court headed by b Rav Adda bar Minyumi. /b The term: b The Elders of Sura, /b is referring to b Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda, /b and: b The Elders of Pumbedita, /b is referring to b Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina. The sharp ones of Pumbedita /b are b Eifa and Avimi, the sons of Raḥava. /b The expression: b The i amora’im /i of Pumbedita, /b is referring to b Rabba and Rav Yosef, /b and the phrase: b The i amora’im /i of Neharde’a, /b is referring to b Rav Ḥama. /b ,If it says: The Sages b of Neharbela taught, /b this is referring to b Rami bar Berabi, /b and the statement: b They say /b in b the school of Rav, /b is a reference to b Rav Huna. /b The Gemara asks: b But doesn’t Rav Huna /b sometimes b say /b with regard to a given i halakha /i : b They say /b in b the school of Rav? /b From this, it is apparent that a statement introduced by that formula cannot be made by Rav Huna himself, as Rav Huna quotes someone else with that introduction. The Gemara responds: b Rather, /b the expression: They say in the school of Rav, must be referring to b Rav Hamnuna. /b The formula: b They say in the West, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael, is referring to b Rabbi Yirmeya; /b the expression: b They sent /b a message b from there, /b meaning from Eretz Yisrael, is referring to b Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina; /b and the statement: b They laughed at it in the West, /b means that b Rabbi Elazar /b did not accept a particular opinion.,The Gemara asks: b But /b in one instance it is reported that: b They sent /b a message b from there /b that began: b According to the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina. /b This indicates that the expression: They sent from there, is not itself a reference to a statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina. The Gemara answers: b Rather, reverse /b the statements. The phrase: b They sent from there, /b is a reference to b Rabbi Elazar, /b and: b They laughed at it in the West, /b means that b Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina /b did not accept a particular opinion.,§ The mishna teaches: b And how many /b men must b be in the city for /b it b to be eligible for /b a lesser b Sanhedrin? /b The opinion of the first i tanna /i is that there must be b 120 /b men. The Gemara asks: b What is the relevance of /b the number b 120? /b The Gemara explains that b 23 /b are needed to b correspond to /b the number of members of the b lesser Sanhedrin, and /b it is necessary for there to be b three rows of 23 /b students who sit before the lesser Sanhedrin to learn and also to advise them; that b is /b a total of b 92 /b people. b And /b since there also need to be b 10 idlers of the synagogue, /b people who are free from urgent work and are always sitting in the synagogue to take care of its repair and the other needs of the public, that b would be 102. /b , b And /b in addition there are b two scribes /b required for the Sanhedrin, b and two bailiffs, and two litigants /b who will come to be judged. b And /b there are b two witnesses /b for one side, b and two /b witnesses who could render those witnesses b conspiring /b witnesses by testifying that they were elsewhere at the time of the alleged incident, b and two /b additional witnesses could testify against the witnesses who rendered the first witnesses b conspiring /b witnesses, rendering the second pair b conspiring /b witnesses. All of these are necessary in order for a trial to take place, as is described in Deuteronomy 19:15–21. Therefore, b there are /b so far a total of b 114 /b men who must be in the city., b And /b it b is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A Torah scholar is not permitted to reside in any city that does not have these ten things: A court that /b has the authority to b flog and punish /b transgressors; b and /b a charity b fund /b for which monies b are collected by two /b people b and distributed by three, /b as required by i halakha /i . This leads to a requirement for another three people in the city. b And a synagogue; and a bathhouse; and /b a public b bathroom; a doctor; and a bloodletter; and a scribe /b [ b i velavlar /i /b ] to write sacred scrolls and necessary documents; b and /b a ritual b slaughterer; and a teacher of young children. /b With these additional requirements there are a minimum of 120 men who must be residents of the city. b They said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: /b The city must b also /b have b varieties of fruit, because varieties of fruit illuminate the eyes. /b ,The mishna teaches that b Rabbi Neḥemya says: /b There must be 230 men in the city in order for it to be eligible for a lesser Sanhedrin, corresponding to the ministers of tens appointed in the wilderness by Moses at the suggestion of his father-in-law, Yitro (see Exodus 18:21). Each member of the Sanhedrin can be viewed as a judge with responsibility for ten men. It b is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: /b |
|
72. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229| 34b. ועדים רואין אותו מבחוץ מאי,א"ל רב המנונא והלה מה טוען אי אמר לא היו דברים מעולם הוחזק כפרן אי אמר אין שקלי ודידי שקלי כי אתו עדים מאי הוי א"ל המנונא את עול תא,ההוא דא"ל לחבריה מנה מניתי לך בצד עמוד זה א"ל לא עברתי בצד עמוד זה אתו תרי סהדי אסהידו ביה דהשתין מים בצד עמוד זה אמר ר"ל הוחזק כפרן,מתקיף לה ר"נ האי דינא פרסאה הוא מי קאמר מעולם בעסק זה קא"ל,איכא דאמרי ההוא דא"ל לחבריה מנה מניתי לך בצד עמוד זה א"ל לא עברתי בצד עמוד זה מעולם נפקו ביה סהדי דהשתין מים בצד עמוד זה אמר ר"נ הוחזק כפרן,א"ל רבא לר"נ כל מילתא דלא רמיא עליה דאיניש עביד לה ולאו אדעתיה:,ר"ש אומר חייב כאן וחייב בפקדון כו':,מחכו עלה במערבא מאי חוכא,דקתני מה לפקדון שכן לא עשה בו מושבע כנשבע מזיד כשוגג,מכדי מושבע מפי עצמו בעדות לר"ש מנא ליה דגמר מפקדון פקדון נמי מושבע מפי אחרים נגמר מעדות,ומאי חוכא דלמא ר"ש בק"ו מייתי לה מפי אחרים חייב מפי עצמו לא כל שכן,אלא חוכא אמזיד כשוגג דקתני מה לפקדון שכן לא עשה בו מושבע כנשבע מזיד כשוגג,מכדי מזיד גבי עדות מנא ליה דלא כתיב ביה ונעלם ה"נ לא כתיב ביה ונעלם,אמר להו רב הונא ומאי חוכא דלמא מזיד דלאו כשוגג בפקדון ממעילה ר"ש גמר לה,והיינו חוכא אדגמר לה ממעילה נגמר לה מעדות,מסתברא ממעילה הוה ליה למילף שכן מעילה ממעילה,אדרבה מעדות הוה ליה למילף שכן תחטא מתחטא,מסתברא ממעילה הוה ליה למילף שכן מעילה בכל נהנה בקבוע חומש ואשם,אדרבה מעדות ה"ל למילף שכן חטא הדיוט בשבועה תבעיה וכפריה ואואין הנך נפישין,אלא מאי חוכא,כי אתא רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מבי רב אמרי היינו חוכא מכדי ר"ש ג"ש גמיר למה ליה דפריך מה לפקדון שכן לא עשה בו מושבע כנשבע מזיד כשוגג,ומאי חוכא דלמא כי פריך מקמי דתיקום ליה ג"ש בתר דקמא ליה ג"ש לא פריך,ולא והאמר להו רבא בר איתי לרבנן מאן תנא שבועת הפקדון לא ניתן זדונה לכפרה ר"ש היא,דלמא מזיד כשוגג פריך דגמר לה ממעילה דהנך נפישין אבל מושבע כנשבע לא פריך,ותהדר עדות ותגמר לה מפקדון מזיד דלאו כשוגג מה פקדון שוגג אין מזיד לא אף עדות שוגג אין מזיד לא כי היכי דיליף פקדון ממעילה | 34b. b and witnesses see him /b counting the money b from outside, what /b is the i halakha /i ? Is their testimony accepted?, b Rav Hamnuna said to /b Rav Yehuda: b And what does the other /b person b claim /b in response to the demand for repayment? b If he says: /b These b matters never happened, he assumes the presumptive status of a denier /b of the truth, as the witnesses testify that they saw the claimant counting the money and giving it to him. b If he says: Yes, I took /b money from him, b but /b it is b my /b money that b I took, /b then b when /b the b witnesses come /b and testify that they saw the claimant counting the money and giving it to him, b what of it? /b The testimony of the witnesses does not contradict his claim, as the witnesses do not know the circumstances under which the money changed hands. Rav Yehuda b said to him: Are you Hamnuna? Enter /b and b come /b into the study hall, as you make your teacher wiser.,The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was b a certain /b individual b who said to another: I counted for you /b and gave you b one hundred dinars /b as a loan b alongside this column. /b The other person b said to him /b in response: b I did not pass alongside this column. Two witnesses came and testified about him /b that they saw b that he urinated alongside this column. Reish Lakish said: He assumes the presumptive status of a denier /b of the truth, as the testimony of witnesses proves that he passed alongside the column., b Rav Naḥman objects to this: That is a ruling /b characteristic of b a Persian /b court, not a reasonable ruling characteristic of a Jewish court. b Did /b the respondent b say /b that he b never /b passed alongside the column? It was that he did not pass alongside the column b in /b the context of b this matter /b that b he said to him /b that he did not pass the column; therefore, the testimony of the witnesses does not contradict his statement., b There are /b those b who say /b that the incident transpired a bit differently. There was b a certain /b individual b who said to another: I counted for you /b and gave you b one hundred dinars /b as a loan b alongside this column. /b The other person b said to him /b in response: b I never passed alongside this column. Witnesses emerged /b and testified b concerning him that he urinated alongside this column. Rav Naḥman said: He assumes the presumptive status of a denier /b of the truth, as the witnesses contradicted his claim., b Rava said to Rav Naḥman: /b There is no proof from here that he assumes the presumptive status of a denier, as b any matter that is not incumbent upon a person /b to remember, b he performs it and it is not on his mind. /b Therefore, when he denied ever passing alongside the column, it was because there was never any reason for him to remember that he had been there.,§ The Gemara proceeds to cite the opinion cited last in the i baraita /i explaining the source of the i halakha /i that one is liable for taking a false oath of testimony only for a case involving monetary matters. b Rabbi Shimon says: /b The Torah b rendered /b one b liable /b if he takes a false oath b here, /b with regard to an oath of testimony, b and /b the Torah b rendered /b one b liable /b if he takes a false oath b with regard to /b an oath on b a deposit; /b just as there, the verse is speaking of liability only in cases involving monetary claims, so too here, the verse is speaking of liability only in cases involving monetary claims., b They mocked /b this proof b in the West, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asked: b What /b is worthy of b mockery /b in the statement of Rabbi Shimon?,The Gemara explains that they mocked b that /b which the i baraita /i b teaches /b in the continuation, rejecting the i a fortiori /i inference suggested by Rabbi Shimon: b What /b is notable b about /b the case of b a deposit? /b It is notable in b that with regard to /b a deposit the Torah b did not render /b the halakhic status of b one to whom an oath was administered /b by others b like /b that of b one who /b himself b took an oath, /b as one to whom an oath was administered by others is exempt; and the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one who takes b an intentional /b false oath b like /b that of one who takes b an unwitting /b false oath.,This rejection is difficult: b Now, /b with regard to the fact that b one who administered an oath to himself /b is liable b in /b the case of an oath of b testimony, from where /b is it derived b according to Rabbi Shimon? /b Rabbi Shimon b derives /b it by means of a verbal analogy b from /b an oath on b a deposit. /b If so, based on the same verbal analogy, in the case of an oath on b a deposit too, let us derive from /b the case of an oath of b testimony /b the fact that one is liable for a false b oath /b that b was administered by others. /b ,The Gemara rejects this: b And what /b is worthy of b mockery /b in that statement? b Perhaps Rabbi Shimon /b does not derive that one who takes a false oath of testimony on his own is liable by means of a verbal analogy from an oath on a deposit; rather, b he derives it by means of an i a fortiori /i /b inference: If b one is liable /b for a false oath of testimony b administered by others, is it not all the more so /b that he is liable for an oath that he takes b on his own? /b ,The Gemara answers: b Rather, the mockery is with regard to /b the distinction between an oath on a deposit and an oath of testimony in the matter of whether the halakhic status of one who takes b an intentional /b false oath is b like /b that of one who takes b an unwitting /b false oath, b as it teaches /b in the i baraita /i : b What /b is notable b about /b the case of b a deposit? /b It is notable in b that with regard to /b a deposit the Torah b did not render /b the halakhic status of b one to whom an oath was administered /b by others b like /b that of b one who /b himself b took an oath, /b as one to whom an oath was administered by others is exempt; and the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one who takes b an intentional /b false oath b like /b that of one who takes b an unwitting /b false oath., b Now, from where does he /b derive that one who takes b an intentional /b false oath of b testimony /b is liable? He derives it b as it is not written in /b the context of an oath of testimony: b And it is hidden. Here too, it is not written in /b the context of an oath on a deposit: b And it is hidden. /b Therefore, there should be no distinction between intentional and unwitting with regard to an oath on a deposit either., b Rav Huna said to /b the Sages: b And what /b is worthy of b mockery /b in that statement? b Perhaps /b the fact b that /b the halakhic status of one who takes b an intentional /b false oath b is not like /b that of one who takes b an unwitting /b false oath b in /b the case of b a deposit, /b and it is b from /b the i halakhot /i of b misuse /b of consecrated property that b Rabbi Shimon derived it. /b Just as one is liable to bring a guilt-offering for the misuse of consecrated property only if he did so unwittingly, one is liable to bring a guilt-offering for a false oath on a deposit only if he unwittingly took the false oath.,The Gemara answers: b And that is /b what is worthy of b mockery. Instead of deriving /b the lack of liability for an intentional false oath of deposit b from /b the case of b misuse /b of consecrated property, b let him derive /b liability for an intentional false oath on a deposit b from /b the case of an oath of b testimony. /b ,The Gemara rejects this: b It stands to reason /b that b he should have derived /b it b from /b the case of b misuse /b of consecrated property, b as /b that is a derivation of b misuse /b written with regard to an oath on a deposit: “If any one shall sin and commits an act of misuse and dealt falsely with his colleague in a matter of deposit” (Leviticus 5:21), which is derived b from misuse /b written with regard to misuse of consecrated property: “If any one commits an act of misuse and sinned unwittingly from items consecrated to the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15).,The Gemara asks: b On the contrary, he should have derived /b it b from /b the case of an oath of b testimony, as /b that is a derivation of b “shall sin” /b written with regard to an oath on a deposit which is derived b from “shall sin” /b written with regard to an oath of testimony: “And if any one shall sin and he hears the voice of an oath, and he is a witness” (Leviticus 5:1).,The Gemara rejects this: b It stands to reason /b that it is b from /b the case of b misuse /b of consecrated property that b he should have derived /b it, b as /b there are many elements common to an oath on a deposit and misuse of consecrated property represented by the mnemonic: b Misuse, with regard to all, derive benefit, with fixed, one-fifth, and guilt-offering. /b The term misuse is employed in both cases. Both cases are relevant with regard to all individuals and not only those fit to testify. Both involve one deriving benefit from property that is not his. In both cases, one is liable to bring a fixed guilt-offering, as opposed to one who takes a false oath of testimony, who is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. In both cases, one adds one-fifth to the payment of the principal. In both cases, that is the offering with which one gains atonement.,The Gemara rejects this: b On the contrary, he should have derived /b the i halakha /i with regard to an oath on a deposit b from /b the i halakha /i of an oath of b testimony, as /b there are many elements common to both oaths represented by the mnemonic: b Sin, ordinary /b [ b i hedyot /i /b ], b with an oath, claimed /b from b him, denied his /b claim, b and /b multiple instances of the term b “or.” /b The term “shall sin” is written in both contexts. Both oaths relate to the property of ordinary individuals, not to consecrated property. In both cases there is a claim presented by one of the parties and denial of that claim by the one taking the oath. Multiple instances of the term “or” appear in both passages in the Torah. The Gemara responds: b These /b elements common to an oath on a deposit and misuse of consecrated property are more b numerous /b than the elements common to an oath on a deposit and an oath of testimony., b Rather, /b after resolving all the difficulties that were raised against the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the question remains: b What /b did the Sages of Eretz Yisrael find that is worthy of b mockery /b in that i baraita /i ?, b When Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from the study hall of /b their b teacher, they said: This is /b what is worthy of b mockery: Now, /b since ultimately b Rabbi Shimon derives /b the i halakha /i by means of b a verbal analogy /b between the term “shall sin” written with regard to an oath on a deposit and the term “shall sin” written with regard to an oath of testimony, b why /b is it b that he refutes /b the parallel between them by saying: b What /b is notable b about /b the case of b a deposit? /b It is notable in b that with regard to /b a deposit the Torah b did not render /b the halakhic status of b one to whom an oath was administered /b by others b like /b that of b one who /b himself b took an oath, /b as one to whom an oath was administered by others is exempt; and the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one who takes b an intentional /b false oath b like /b that of one who takes b an unwitting /b false oath. Rabbi Shimon should have derived by means of the verbal analogy that all the i halakhot /i of an oath of testimony and all the i halakhot /i of an oath on a deposit are identical.,The Gemara rejects this: b And what /b is worthy of b mockery /b in that statement? b Perhaps when /b Rabbi Shimon b refuted /b the parallel between the two oaths, it was b prior to the verbal analogy being established for him, /b and the derivation was by means of a paradigm. b After the verbal analogy was established for him, he does not refute /b the parallel and holds that in the case of an oath on a deposit one is liable to bring a guilt-offering for false oaths administered by others as well as for intentional false oaths.,The Gemara asks: b And /b does Rabbi Shimon b not /b refute the parallel between the two oaths? b But didn’t Rava bar Ittai say to the Sages: Who /b is the i tanna /i who b taught /b with regard to b an oath on a deposit /b that b atonement /b by means of an offering b is not possible /b for one who takes b an intentional /b false oath? b It is Rabbi Shimon. /b Apparently, Rabbi Shimon concludes that there remains a distinction between intentional and unwitting in the case of an oath on a deposit.,The Gemara suggests: b Perhaps /b with regard to the halakhic status of one who takes b an intentional /b false oath being b like /b that of one who takes b an unwitting /b false oath, Rabbi Shimon b refutes /b the parallel between the two oaths even after the verbal analogy is established for him, b as he derives /b the i halakha /i of an oath on a deposit b from /b the i halakha /i of b misuse /b of consecrated property, where there is a distinction between intentional and unwitting, b as those /b elements common to an oath on a deposit and the misuse of consecrated property are more b numerous /b than the elements common to an oath on a deposit and an oath of testimony. b But he does not refute /b the parallel between the two oaths with the claim that there is a distinction between them with regard to whether the halakhic status of b one to whom an oath was administered /b by others is b like /b that of b one who /b himself b took an oath. /b Once the verbal analogy was established for him, there is no longer a distinction between the two oaths in that regard.,The Gemara asks: If, according to Rabbi Shimon, based on the derivation from the misuse of consecrated property, one who intentionally takes a false oath on a deposit does not bring a guilt-offering like one who took the false oath unwittingly, b let /b the discussion of the case of an oath of b testimony return /b to the verbal analogy b and derive it from /b the case of an oath on b a deposit that /b the halakhic status of one who takes b an intentional /b false oath b is not like /b that of one who takes b an unwitting /b false oath. b Just as /b in the case of an oath on b a deposit, /b one who takes b an unwitting /b false oath, b yes, /b he is liable to bring a guilt-offering, and one who takes b an intentional /b false oath, b no, /b he is not liable, b so too, /b in the case of an oath of b testimony, /b one who takes b an unwitting /b false oath, b yes, /b he is liable to bring a sin-offering, and one who takes b an intentional /b false oath, b no, /b he is not liable, b just as he derives /b the case of an oath on b a deposit from /b the case of b misuse /b of consecrated property. |
|
73. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 312| 49b. כשם שניסוכו בקדושה כך שריפתו בקדושה מאי משמע אמר רבינא אתיא קדש קדש כתיב הכא (במדבר כח, ז) בקדש הסך נסך וכתיב התם (שמות כט, לד) ושרפת את הנותר באש לא יאכל כי קדש הוא,כמאן אזלא הא (דתניא) נסכים בתחילה מועלין בהן ירדו לשיתין אין מועלין בהן לימא רבי אלעזר בר צדוק היא דאי רבנן הא נחתו להו לתהום,אפילו תימא רבנן בדאיקלט,ואיכא דאמרי לימא רבנן היא ולא ר' אלעזר בר צדוק דאי רבי אלעזר אכתי בקדושתייהו קיימי אפילו תימא רבי אלעזר אין לך דבר שנעשה מצותו ומועלין בו אמר ריש לקיש בזמן שמנסכין יין על גבי מזבח פוקקין את השיתין לקיים מה שנאמר בקדש הסך נסך שכר לה',מאי משמע אמר רב פפא שכר לשון שתיה לשון שביעה לשון שכרות אמר רב פפא שמע מינה כי שבע איניש חמרא מגרוניה שבע אמר רבא צורבא מרבנן דלא נפישא ליה חמרא ליגמע גמועי רבא אכסא דברכתא אגמע גמועי,דרש רבא מאי דכתיב (שיר השירים ז, ב) מה יפו פעמיך בנעלים בת נדיב מה יפו פעמותיהן של ישראל בשעה שעולין לרגל בת נדיב בתו של אברהם אבינו שנקרא נדיב שנא' (תהלים מז, י) נדיבי עמים נאספו עם אלהי אברהם אלהי אברהם ולא אלהי יצחק ויעקב אלא אלהי אברהם שהיה תחילה לגרים,תנא דבי רב ענן מאי דכתיב (שיר השירים ז, ב) חמוקי ירכיך למה נמשלו דברי תורה כירך לומר לך מה ירך בסתר אף דברי תורה בסתר,והיינו דא"ר אלעזר מאי דכתיב (מיכה ו, ח) הגיד לך אדם מה טוב ומה ה' דורש ממך כי אם עשות משפט ואהבת חסד והצנע לכת עם אלהיך עשות משפט זה הדין ואהבת חסד זו גמילות חסדים והצנע לכת עם אלהיך זו הוצאת המת והכנסת כלה לחופה והלא דברים ק"ו ומה דברים שדרכן לעשותן בפרהסיא אמרה תורה הצנע לכת דברים שדרכן לעשותן בצנעא על אחת כמה וכמה,א"ר אלעזר גדול העושה צדקה יותר מכל הקרבנות שנאמר (משלי כא, ג) עשה צדקה ומשפט נבחר לה' מזבח וא"ר אלעזר גדולה גמילות חסדים יותר מן הצדקה שנאמר (הושע י, יב) זרעו לכם לצדקה וקצרו לפי חסד אם אדם זורע ספק אוכל ספק אינו אוכל אדם קוצר ודאי אוכל,וא"ר אלעזר אין צדקה משתלמת אלא לפי חסד שבה שנאמר זרעו לכם לצדקה וקצרו לפי חסד,ת"ר בשלשה דברים גדולה גמילות חסדים יותר מן הצדקה צדקה בממונו גמילות חסדים בין בגופו בין בממונו צדקה לעניים גמילות חסדים בין לעניים בין לעשירים צדקה לחיים גמילות חסדים בין לחיים בין למתים,וא"ר אלעזר כל העושה צדקה ומשפט כאילו מילא כל העולם כולו חסד שנאמר (תהלים לג, ה) אוהב צדקה ומשפט חסד ה' מלאה הארץ שמא תאמר כל הבא לקפוץ קופץ ת"ל (תהלים לו, ח) מה יקר חסדך אלהים (חסד ה' מלאה הארץ) וגו' יכול אף ירא שמים כן ת"ל (תהלים קג, יז) וחסד ה' מעולם ועד עולם על יראיו,א"ר חמא בר פפא כל אדם שיש עליו חן בידוע שהוא ירא שמים שנא' חסד ה' מעולם ועד עולם על יראיו וא"ר אלעזר מאי דכתיב (משלי לא, כו) פיה פתחה בחכמה ותורת חסד על לשונה וכי יש תורה של חסד יש תורה שאינה של חסד אלא תורה לשמה זו היא תורה של חסד שלא לשמה זו היא תורה שאינה של חסד איכא דאמרי תורה ללמדה זו היא תורה של חסד שלא ללמדה זו היא תורה שאינה של חסד:,כמעשהו בחול כו': ואמאי נייתי במקודשת אמר זעירי קסבר אין שיעור למים וכלי שרת מקדשין שלא מדעת | 49b. b just as its pouring is in sanctity, so too must its burning be in sanctity. From where /b may it b be inferred /b that this is referring to burning? b Ravina said: It is derived /b by means of a verbal analogy between the term b sanctity /b written with regard to libations and b sanctity /b written with regard to leftover offerings. b It is written here, /b with regard to libations: b “In sanctity shall you pour a libation” /b (Numbers 28:7), b and it is written there, /b with regard to leftover offerings: b “You shall burn the leftovers in fire; they are not to be eaten, for they are sanctity” /b (Exodus 29:34). Through the verbal analogy it is derived that leftover libations must also be burned.,The Gemara notes: b In accordance with whose /b opinion b is that which is taught /b in this mishna? With regard to b libations, initially, /b prior to being poured, b one /b can b misuse consecrated property with them, /b as is the case with all consecrated items. However, once b they descended to the drainpipes, one does not /b violate the prohibition against b misuse /b of b consecrated property with them, /b because the mitzva was already fulfilled. b Let us say /b that the mishna b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, /b who holds that the libations did not descend to the depths but would collect between the ramp and the altar and would be collected once every seventy years. b As, if /b it were in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b how could the libations be misused? b Didn’t they /b already b descend to the depths /b through the drainpipes?,The Gemara rejects this: b Even /b if b you say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b it could be referring b to /b a case b where /b some of the wine landed outside the drainpipes and b was collected /b in the space between the ramp and the altar., b And some say /b a different version of this exchange. b Let us say /b that the mishna b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis and not /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok. As, if /b it were in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar, /b then the wine that collected between the ramp and the altar b remains in its sanctity, /b as it must be burned, and the prohibition against misuse would still apply. The Gemara rejects this: b Even /b if b you say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar, there is no item whose mitzva has been performed with which one /b can violate the prohibition against b misuse of consecrated property. Reish Lakish said: When they pour wine onto the altar, they plug /b the top of b the drainpipes /b so that the wine does not descend to the depths, in order b to fulfill that which is stated: “In sanctity shall you pour a libation of strong drink [ i shekhar /i ] unto the Lord” /b (Numbers 28:7).,The Gemara asks: b From where /b may it b be inferred /b that this is referring to plugging the drainpipes? b Rav Pappa said: i Shekhar /i /b is b an expression of drinking, of satiation, of intoxication. /b In order to underscore all three aspects of the libations, the space between the altar and the ramp would fill with wine. b Rav Pappa said: Conclude from this that when a person is satiated from /b drinking b wine, /b it is b from his throat /b being filled with wine that he is b satiated. /b Unlike food, wine does not satiate a person when it fills his stomach. b Rava said: /b Therefore, b let a young /b Torah b scholar, who does not /b have b much wine, swallow /b his wine b in /b large b swigs, /b filling his throat each time, as he will thereby maximize his enjoyment. And b Rava /b himself, when drinking b a cup of blessing, would swallow /b large b swigs /b so as to drink the wine accompanying the mitzva in an optimal manner.,§ Apropos the homiletic interpretations of the verses from Song of Songs with regard to the drainpipes, the Gemara cites additional interpretations. b Rava taught: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “How beautiful are your steps in sandals, O prince’s daughter” /b (Song of Songs 7:2)? b How beautiful are the feet of the Jewish people at the time when they ascend /b to Jerusalem b for the Festival. “O prince’s daughter”; /b this is referring to b the daughter of Abraham our Patriarch, who was called prince, as it is stated: “The princes of the peoples are gathered, the people of the God of Abraham” /b (Psalms 47:10). The verse calls the Jewish people the people of b the God of Abraham and not the God of Isaac and Jacob. /b Why are the Jewish people associated specifically with Abraham? b Rather /b than referring to the three Patriarchs, the verse is referring to b the God of Abraham, who was first of the converts, /b and therefore it is reasonable for the princes of other nations to gather around him.,In b the school of Rav A /b it was b taught: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “The hidden of your thighs” /b (Song of Songs 7:2)? b Why are matters of Torah likened to a thigh? /b It is b to tell you /b that b just as /b the b thigh is /b always b concealed, /b covered by clothes, so b too, matters of Torah /b are optimal when recited b in private /b and not in public., b And this is what Rabbi Elazar said: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “It has been told you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord does require of you; only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” /b (Micah 6:8)? b “To do justly”; this is justice. “To love mercy”; this is acts of kindness. “To walk humbly with your God”; this is /b referring to b taking the /b indigent b dead out /b for burial b and accompanying /b a poor b bride to /b her b wedding canopy, /b both of which must be performed without fanfare. The Gemara summarizes: b And are /b these b matters not /b inferred b i a fortiori /i ? If, /b with regard to b matters that tend to be conducted in public, /b as the multitudes participate in funerals and weddings, b the Torah says: Walk humbly, /b then in b matters that tend to be conducted in private, /b e.g., giving charity and studying Torah, b all the more so /b should they be conducted privately.,§ b Rabbi Elazar said: One who performs /b acts of b charity is greater than /b one who sacrifices b all /b types of b offerings, as it is stated: “To perform charity and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than an offering” /b (Proverbs 21:3), including all types of offerings. b And Rabbi Elazar said: Acts of kindness, /b assisting someone in need, b are greater than charity, as it is stated: “Sow to yourselves according to charity, and reap according to kindness” /b (Hosea 10:12). This means: b If a person sows, /b it is b uncertain /b whether b he /b will b eat or /b whether b he /b will b not eat, /b since much can go wrong before the seed becomes food. However, if b a person reaps, he certainly eats. /b In this verse, charity is likened to sowing, while acts of kindness are likened to reaping., b And Rabbi Elazar said: /b The reward for b charity is paid /b from Heaven b only in accordance with the kindness /b and generosity included b therein /b and in accordance with the effort and the consideration that went into the giving. It is not merely in accordance with the sum of money, b as it is stated: “Sow to yourselves according to charity, and reap according to kindness.” /b , b The Sages taught /b that b acts of kindness are superior to charity in three respects: Charity /b can be performed only b with one’s money, /b while b acts of kindness /b can be performed b both with his person and with his money. Charity /b is given b to the poor, /b while b acts of kindness /b are performed b both for the poor and for the rich. Charity /b is given to the b living, /b while b acts of kindness /b are performed b both for the living and for the dead. /b , b And Rabbi Elazar said: Anyone who performs charity and justice is /b considered b as though he filled the whole world in its entirety with kindness, as it is stated: “He loves charity and justice; the earth is full of the kindness of the Lord” /b (Psalms 33:5). b Lest you say that anyone who comes to leap /b and perform an act of kindness may simply b leap /b and do so without scrutiny, b the verse states: “How precious is your kindness, O God” /b (Psalms 36:8). It is a precious and rare occurrence to perform an act of kindness properly. One b might /b have thought that b even a God-fearing /b individual does not always encounter the opportunity to perform acts of kindness. Therefore, b the verse states: “But the kindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him” /b (Psalms 103:17)., b Rabbi Ḥama bar Pappa said: /b With regard to b any person who has grace about him, it is certain that he is God-fearing, as it is stated: “But the kindness of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear Him.” /b When one sees that a certain individual is endowed with grace and kindness, one can be certain that he is a God-fearing person. b And Rabbi Elazar said: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “She opens her mouth with wisdom, and a Torah of kindness is on her tongue” /b (Proverbs 31:26)? The Gemara asks: b Is there, then, a Torah of kindness and a Torah that is not of kindness? Rather, /b it is b Torah /b studied b for its own sake that is a Torah of kindness, /b as one studies it wholeheartedly; and it is Torah studied b not for its own sake /b but for some ulterior motive b that is a Torah that is not of kindness. Some say /b that it is b Torah /b studied in order b to teach it /b to others b that is a Torah of kindness; /b it is Torah studied b with /b the intent of b not teaching it /b to others b that is a Torah that is not of kindness. /b ,§ The mishna continues: b As its performance during the week, /b so is its performance on Shabbat, except that on Shabbat one would not draw water. Instead, on Shabbat eve, one would fill a golden barrel that was not consecrated and would place it in the Temple chamber, and water would be drawn from there on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: b And why /b should one do so? b Let /b him b bring /b the water b in a consecrated /b barrel. b Ze’iri said: /b The i tanna /i in the mishna b holds that there is no /b requisite b measure for the water /b to be poured for libation, and therefore more than three i log /i could be consecrated; b and /b that b Temple vessels consecrate /b their content if it is fit to be consecrated, even b without intent /b to consecrate it. |
|
74. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 312| 2a. מתני׳ big strongמאימתי /strong /big מזכירין גבורות גשמים רבי אליעזר אומר מיום טוב הראשון של חג ר' יהושע אומר מיום טוב האחרון של חג,אמר לו ר' יהושע הואיל ואין הגשמים אלא סימן קללה בחג למה הוא מזכיר אמר לו ר' אליעזר אף אני לא אמרתי לשאול אלא להזכיר משיב הרוח ומוריד הגשם בעונתו אמר לו א"כ לעולם יהא מזכיר,אין שואלין את הגשמים אלא סמוך לגשמים ר' יהודה אומר העובר לפני התיבה ביו"ט האחרון של חג האחרון מזכיר הראשון אינו מזכיר ביו"ט הראשון של פסח הראשון מזכיר האחרון אינו מזכיר, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנא היכא קאי דקתני מאימתי תנא התם קאי,דקתני מזכירין גבורות גשמים בתחיית המתים ושואלין בברכת השנים והבדלה בחונן הדעת וקתני מאימתי מזכירין גבורות גשמים,וליתני התם מ"ש דשבקיה עד הכא,אלא תנא מראש השנה סליק דתנן ובחג נידונין על המים ואיידי דתנא ובחג נידונין על המים תנא מאימתי מזכירין גבורות גשמים,וליתני מאימתי מזכירין על הגשמים מאי גבורות גשמים א"ר יוחנן מפני שיורדין בגבורה שנאמר (איוב ה, ט) עושה גדולות עד אין חקר ונפלאות עד אין מספר וכתיב (איוב ה, י) הנותן מטר על פני ארץ ושולח מים על פני חוצות,מאי משמע אמר רבה בר שילא אתיא חקר חקר מברייתו של עולם,כתיב הכא עושה גדולות עד אין חקר וכתיב התם (ישעיהו מ, כח) הלא ידעת אם לא שמעת אלהי עולם ה' בורא קצות הארץ לא ייעף ולא ייגע אין חקר לתבונתו וכתיב (תהלים סה, ז) מכין הרים בכחו נאזר בגבורה,ומנא לן דבתפלה דתניא (דברים יא, יג) לאהבה את ה' אלהיכם ולעבדו בכל לבבכם איזו היא עבודה שהיא בלב הוי אומר זו תפלה וכתיב בתריה (דברים יא, יד) ונתתי מטר ארצכם בעתו יורה ומלקוש,אמר ר' יוחנן ג' מפתחות בידו של הקב"ה שלא נמסרו ביד שליח ואלו הן מפתח של גשמים מפתח של חיה מפתח של תחיית המתים,מפתח של גשמים דכתיב (דברים כח, יב) יפתח ה' לך את אוצרו הטוב את השמים לתת מטר ארצך בעתו מפתח של חיה מנין דכתיב ויזכור אלהים את רחל וישמע | 2a. strong MISHNA: /strong b From when, /b i.e., from which date, b does one /b begin to b mention the might of the rains /b by inserting the phrase: He makes the wind blow and rain fall, in the second blessing of the i Amida /i prayer? b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b The phrase is inserted b from the first Festival day of the festival /b of i Sukkot /i . b Rabbi Yehoshua says: From the last Festival day of the festival /b of i Sukkot /i ., b Rabbi Yehoshua said to /b Rabbi Eliezer: b Since rain is nothing other /b than b a sign of a curse during the festival /b of i Sukkot /i , as rainfall forces Jews to leave their i sukkot /i , b why /b should b one mention /b the might of rain during this period? b Rabbi Eliezer said to him: I too did not say /b that it is proper b to request /b rain at this time, b but /b it is proper only b to mention /b the phrase: b He makes the wind blow and rain fall, in its due time. /b Rabbi Yehoshua b said to him: If so, /b i.e., if reciting the phrase does not constitute a request for rain, b one should always mention /b rain, even in the summer.,The mishna states a general principle: b One requests rain only /b immediately b preceding the rainy season. Rabbi Yehuda says: /b With regard to b the one who passes before the ark /b as prayer leader b on the concluding Festival day of the festival /b of i Sukkot /i , the Eighth Day of Assembly: b The last /b prayer leader, who leads the additional prayer, b mentions /b rain, whereas b the first /b prayer leader, for the morning prayer, b does not mention /b rain. The opposite is the case at the conclusion of the period for mentioning rain b on the first Festival day of Passover: /b Here, b the first /b prayer leader, who leads the morning prayer, b mentions /b rain, while b the last /b prayer leader, who leads the additional prayer, b does not mention /b rain., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b Where does /b the b i tanna /i /b of the mishna b stand, that /b he b teaches: From when? /b The mishna’s opening question indicates that it has already been established that there is an obligation to mention rain at this time of the year. Where is this obligation stated? The Gemara answers: The b i tanna /i is standing there, /b i.e., he bases himself on a mishna in i Berakhot /i ., b As it teaches /b ( i Berakhot /i 33a): b One mentions the might of the rains /b and recites: He makes the wind blow and the rain fall b in /b the second blessing of the i Amida /i prayer, the blessing of b the resurrection of the dead. And the request /b for rain: And grant dew and rain as a blessing, is recited b in /b the ninth blessing of the i Amida /i prayer, b the blessing of the years. And /b the prayer of b distinction [ i havdala /i ] /b between the sacred and the profane, recited in the evening prayer following Shabbat and Festivals, is recited b in /b the fourth blessing of the i Amida /i prayer: b Who graciously grants knowledge. And /b it is based on that mishna, which establishes the obligation to request for rain, b that /b this mishna b teaches: From when does one /b begin to b mention the might of the rains. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But /b if so, b let /b the i tanna /i b teach /b this i halakha /i b there, /b in tractate i Berakhot /i , at the beginning of the order of i Zera’im /i . b What is different /b about this case b that he left it until here, /b toward the end of the order of i Moed /i ? In other words, if this issue is indeed a continuation of the mishna in i Berakhot /i , why did the i tanna /i neglect it until tractate i Ta’anit /i ?,The Gemara answers: b Rather, the i tanna /i interrupted /b a discussion b from /b tractate b i Rosh HaShana /i . As we learned /b in a mishna there: b And on the festival /b of i Sukkot /i all creatures b are judged for water. Since /b the i tanna /i b taught: And on the festival /b of i Sukkot /i all creatures b are judged for water, /b from which it can be inferred that one should request rain near the time of this judgment, he b taught /b here: b From when does one mention the might of the rains. /b ,§ The Gemara asks a question with regard to the language of the mishna: b And let /b the i tanna /i simply b teach: From when does one mention the rains. What is /b the meaning of the phrase: b The might of the rains? Rabbi Yoḥa said: Because /b the rains b fall with might. /b The might of the rain displays God’s power in the world, b as it is stated: “Who does great things beyond comprehension, marvels without number” /b (Job 5:9). b And it is /b also b written: “Who gives rain upon the earth, and sends water upon the fields” /b (Job 5:10).,The Gemara asks: b From where /b may it b be inferred /b that these verses indicate that rainfall is considered a mighty act of God? b Rabba bar Sheila said: /b This is b derived /b by means of a verbal analogy between the term b “comprehension” /b here and the term b “comprehension” from /b a passage that deals with b the creation of the world. /b ,Rabba bar Sheila elaborates on this verbal analogy. b It is written here: “Who does great things that are beyond comprehension,” and it is written there, /b with regard to the creation of the world: b “Have you not known? Have you not heard that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, does not grow faint or weary? His discernment is beyond comprehension” /b (Isaiah 40:28). This shows that both creation and rainfall are beyond comprehension. b And /b concerning the creation of the world, b it is written /b elsewhere: b “Who sets firm the mountains with Your strength; Who is girded with might” /b (Psalms 65:7). From this verse it can be inferred that rainfall, like the creation of the world, reflects God’s might.,The Gemara asks: b And from where do we /b derive that rain must be mentioned specifically b in /b the i Amida /i b prayer? /b The Gemara answers: b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: b “To love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart” /b (Deuteronomy 11:13). b Which is the service /b of God b that is /b performed b in the heart? You must say /b that b this /b is referring to b prayer. And, afterward, it is written: “And I shall give the rain of your land in its due time, the first rain and the last rain” /b (Deuteronomy 11:14). This juxtaposition teaches that it is appropriate to request rain while engaged in the service of the heart, i.e., prayer.,§ The Gemara cites related statements concerning the idea that rainfall provides evidence of God’s might. b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b There are b three keys /b maintained b in the hand of the Holy One, Blessed be He, which were not transmitted to an intermediary, /b i.e., God tends to these matters Himself. b And they are: The key of rain, the key of birthing, and the key of the resurrection of the dead. /b ,Rabbi Yoḥa cites verses in support of his claim. b The key of rain, as it is stated: “The Lord will open for you His good treasure, the heavens, to give the rain of your land in its due time” /b (Deuteronomy 28:12), indicates that rainfall is controlled by God Himself. b From where /b is it derived that b the key of birthing /b is maintained by God? b As it is written: “And God remembered Rachel and listened /b |
|
75. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 307| 18a. ומאי ארבע או חמש לרבנן דאמרי נכנס נוטל שש ויוצא נוטל שש ושכר הגפת דלתות לא משתים עשרה בעי מיפלג בציר חדא מפלגא חמש שקיל,לר' יהודה דאמר נכנס נוטל שבע שתים בשכר הגפת דלתות ויוצא נוטל חמש מעשר בעי מיפלג בציר חדא מפלגא ושקיל ארבע,רבא אמר כולה רבי היא וסבר לה כר' יהודה ואלא מאי ארבע הא חמש בעי למשקל,לא קשיא הא דאיכא משמר המתעכב הא דליכא משמר המתעכב,אי איכא משמר המתעכב משמנה בעי למפלג ושקיל ארבע אי ליכא משמר המתעכב מעשר בעי למפלג ושקיל חמש,אי הכי מאי רבי אומר לעולם חמש קשיא, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מסרו לו זקנים מזקני בית דין וקורין לפניו בסדר היום ואומרים לו אישי כהן גדול קרא אתה בפיך שמא שכחת או שמא לא למדת ערב יום כפורים שחרית מעמידין אותו בשער מזרח ומעבירין לפניו פרים ואילים וכבשים כדי שיהא מכיר ורגיל בעבודה כל שבעת הימים לא היו מונעין ממנו מאכל ומשתה ערב יוה"כ עם חשיכה לא היו מניחין אותו לאכול הרבה מפני שהמאכל מביא את השינה, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big בשלמא שמא שכח לחיי אלא שמא לא למד מי מוקמינן כי האי גוונא,והתניא (ויקרא כא, י) והכהן הגדול מאחיו שיהא גדול מאחיו בכח בנוי בחכמה ובעושר אחרים אומרים מנין שאם אין לו שאחיו הכהנים מגדלין אותו ת"ל והכהן הגדול מאחיו גדלהו משל אחיו,אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא כאן במקדש ראשון כאן במקדש שני דאמר ר' אסי תרקבא דדינרי עיילא ליה מרתא בת בייתוס לינאי מלכא על דאוקמיה ליהושע בן גמלא בכהני רברבי,ערב יום הכפורים שחרית וכו' תנא אף השעירים ותנא דידן מאי טעמא לא תנא שעירים כיון דעל חטא קא אתו חלשא דעתיה,אי הכי פר נמי על חטא הוא דאתי פר כיון דעליו ועל אחיו הכהנים הוא דאתי באחיו הכהנים אי איכא איניש דאית ביה מילתא מידע ידע ליה ומהדר ליה בתשובה בכולהו ישראל לא ידע,אמר רבינא היינו דאמרי אינשי אי בר אחתיך דיילא הוי חזי בשוקא קמיה לא תחליף,כל שבעת הימים לא היו מונעין וכו' תניא רבי יהודה בן נקוסא אומר מאכילין אותו סלתות וביצים כדי למסמסו אמרו לו כל שכן שאתה מביאו לידי חימום,תניא סומכוס אמר משום ר' מאיר אין מאכילין אותו לא אב"י ואמרי לה לא אבב"י ויש אומרים אף לא יין לבן לא אב"י לא אתרוג ולא ביצים ולא יין ישן ואמרי לה לא אבב"י לא אתרוג ולא ביצים ולא בשר שמן ולא יין ישן ויש אומרים אף לא יין לבן מפני שהיין לבן מביא את האדם לידי טומאה,תנו רבנן זב תולין לו במאכל וכל מיני מאכל אלעזר בן פנחס אומר משום רבי יהודה בן בתירא אין מאכילין אותו לא חגב"י ולא גב"ם ולא כל דברים המביאין לידי טומאה לא חגב"י לא חלב ולא גבינה ולא ביצה ולא יין ולא גב"ם מי גריסין של פול ובשר שמן ומרייס,ולא כל דברים המביאין לידי טומאה לאתויי מאי לאתויי הא דת"ר חמשה דברים מביאים את האדם לידי טומאה ואלו הן השום | 18a. b And what /b is the meaning of b four or five; /b i.e., when does the High Priest take four loaves and when does he take five? According b to the Rabbis, who say: /b The priestly watch that is b incoming /b on Shabbat b takes six /b of the loaves, b and /b the b outgoing /b watch b takes six, and /b the incoming watch receives b no /b greater portion as b payment for closing the doors, /b it is b from twelve /b loaves that the High Priest b must divide /b and take his share, but he receives b half /b of the loaves b less one, /b meaning that b he takes five. /b According to the Rabbis, the High Priest receives less than half; however, since it is inappropriate to give him a piece of a loaf, less than half is five whole loaves.,According b to Rabbi Yehuda, who said: /b The priestly watch that is b incoming /b on Shabbat b takes seven /b of the loaves, b two /b of which b are payment for closing the doors; /b and the b outgoing /b watch b takes five /b loaves, it is b from ten /b that b he must divide /b the loaves. Those two of the twelve loaves are a separate payment and are not factored into the tally of those designated for distribution. b Subtract one from half /b of that total, as subtracting less than one loaf would lead to a situation where the High Priest receives a piece of a loaf, which is inappropriate. b And /b therefore, the High Priest b takes four. /b , b Rava said /b that the i baraita /i should be explained differently. The b entire /b i baraita /i b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b and he holds /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda /b that only ten loaves are divided. b Rather, what /b then is the meaning of the statement that the High Priest takes b four /b loaves? According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, b doesn’t he need to take five? /b ,The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult. This /b i halakha /i that the High Priest takes four loaves is in a case b where there is a watch that is detained. /b When the start of a Festival occurs on a Sunday night and one of the priestly watches was forced to arrive before Shabbat to ensure that they would arrive in time for the Festival; or, alternatively, if the Festival ended on a Thursday and one of the priestly watches was detained until the conclusion of Shabbat and only then departed, that priestly watch takes two loaves. b That /b i halakha /i that the High Priest takes five loaves is in a case b where there is not a watch that is detained, /b and the shewbread in divided only between the watch that concludes its service that Shabbat and the watch that begins its service that Shabbat., b If there is a watch that is detained, /b that detained watch takes two loaves, and the outgoing watch takes two loaves as payment for closing the doors. Therefore, it is b from eight /b that the High Priest b must divide /b the loaves, and he b takes four. If there is not a watch that is detained, /b it is b from ten /b that b he must divide /b the loaves and the High Priest b takes five. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If so, /b that even the middle statement of the i baraita /i is attributed to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and it is referring to a watch that is detained, b what /b is the meaning of the last clause in the i baraita /i : b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: /b The High Priest b always /b takes b five /b loaves? That statement indicates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with the middle clause, while according to Rava’s interpretation Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that in certain circumstances the High Priest takes only four loaves. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is b difficult /b to reconcile Rava’s interpretation with the language of the i baraita /i ., strong MISHNA: /strong The Sages b provided /b the High Priest b with Elders /b selected b from the Elders of the court, and they /b would b read before him the order /b of the service b of the day /b of Yom Kippur. b And they /b would b say to him: My Master, High Priest. Read /b the order of the service b with your own mouth, /b as b perhaps you forgot /b this reading b or perhaps you did not learn /b to read. b On Yom Kippur eve /b in the b morning, /b the Elders b stand him at /b the b eastern gate /b of the courtyard b and pass before him bulls and rams and sheep so that he will be familiar /b with the animals b and /b grow b accustomed to the service, /b as these were the animals sacrificed on Yom Kippur. Throughout b all the seven days /b that the High Priest was in the i Parhedrin /i chamber, b they would not withhold from him /b any b food or drink /b that he desired. However, b on Yom Kippur eve at nightfall, they would not allow him to eat a great deal because food induces sleep /b and they did not allow him to sleep, as will be explained., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara wonders about the depiction in the mishna of the Elders questioning the High Priest as to whether he forgot this reading or perhaps did not learn to read. b Granted, perhaps he forgot, /b that is b fine, /b as it is conceivable that he is not accustomed to reading the Torah and might have forgotten this portion. b However, /b is it conceivable that b perhaps /b the High Priest b did not learn /b to read? b Do we appoint /b a High Priest b of that sort /b who never learned the Bible?, b But wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that it is stated: b “And the priest who is greater than his brethren” /b (Leviticus 21:10); this teaches b that he /b must b be greater than his /b priestly b brethren in strength, in beauty, in wisdom, and in wealth. i Aḥerim /i say: /b Wealth is not a prerequisite for selecting a High Priest, but b from where /b is it derived b that if he does not have /b property of his own b that his brethren the priests elevate him /b and render him wealthy from their own property? b The verse states: “And the priest who is greater [ i haggadol /i ] than his brethren”; elevate him [ i gaddelehu /i ] from /b the property b of his brethren. /b In any event, there is a consensus that wisdom is a prerequisite for his selection., b Rav Yosef said: /b This is b not difficult. There, /b the i baraita /i that lists wisdom among the attributes of the High Priest is referring to b the First Temple, /b where this i halakha /i was observed and the High Priests possessed those attributes listed. b Here, /b the mishna is referring to b the Second Temple, /b where this i halakha /i was not observed, so a situation where the High Priest was not well-versed in the Bible was conceivable. b As Rav Asi said: /b The wealthy b Marta, daughter of Baitos, brought a half- i se’a /i of dinars in to King Yannai for /b the fact b that he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla as High Priest. /b This is an example of the appointment of High Priests by means of bribery and gifts. Since that was the practice, a totally ignorant High Priest could have been appointed.,§ It was taught in the mishna: b On Yom Kippur eve /b in the b morning, /b the elders pass different animals before the High Priest. A i tanna /i b taught /b in the i Tosefta /i : b Even goats /b were brought before him. The Gemara asks: b And the i tanna /i /b of b our /b mishna, b what is the reason /b that b he did not teach /b that b goats /b were among the animals that passed before the High Priest? The Gemara answers: b Since /b goats b come /b as atonement b for sins, /b passing them before the High Priest will evoke transgressions and he will b become distraught. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If so, a bull /b should not be passed before him, b as it too comes /b to atone b for sin. /b The Gemara answers that there is a difference in the case of b a bull, since /b it is to atone b for his /b sins b and for /b the sins of b his brethren the priests that it comes; among his brethren the priests, if there is a person who has a /b sinful b matter, /b the High Priest b would know /b about it b and /b lead b him back to /b the path of righteousness b through repentance. /b Therefore, passing a bull before the High Priest will not render him distraught, as it will merely remind him of his responsibility toward his priestly brethren. On the other hand, b with regard to the entire Jewish people, he does not know /b of their sinful matters and is unable to facilitate their repentance. Passing goats before the High Priest will evoke their sins as well as his inability to correct the situation, leaving him distraught.,Apropos the High Priest being privy to the sinful behavior of his fellow priests, b Ravina said /b that b this /b explains the folk saying b that people say: If /b the beloved b son of your /b beloved b sister becomes a policeman [ i dayyala /i ], see /b to it that b in the marketplace you do not pass before him. /b Be wary of him because he knows your sins.,§ We learned in the mishna: Throughout b all the seven days /b that the High Priest was in the i Parhedrin /i chamber, b they would not withhold /b from him any food or drink that he desired. b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda ben Nekosa says: /b On Yom Kippur eve b they feed him fine flour and eggs in order to loosen his /b bowels, so that he will not need to relieve himself on Yom Kippur. b They said to /b Rabbi Yehuda ben Nekosa: In feeding him those foods, b all the more so that you bring him to a state of arousal. /b Feeding him those foods is antithetical to the efforts to prevent the High Priest from becoming impure, as they are liable to cause him to experience a seminal emission., b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Sumakhos said in the name of Rabbi Meir: One does not feed him /b foods represented by the acrostic: b i Alef /i , i beit /i , i yod /i ; and some say /b that one does b not /b feed him foods represented by the acrostic: b i Alef /i , i beit /i , i beit /i , i yod /i ; and some say neither /b does one feed him b white wine. /b The Gemara elaborates: b Not i alef /i , i beit /i , i yod /i /b means b neither i etrog /i , nor eggs [ i beitzim /i ], nor old wine [ i yayin /i ]. And some say: Not i alef /i , i beit /i , i beit /i , i yod /i /b means b neither i etrog /i , nor eggs [ i beitzim /i ], nor fatty meat [ i basar /i ], nor old wine [ i yayin /i ]. And some say neither /b does one feed him b white wine because white wine brings /b a b man to /b the b impurity /b of a seminal emission.,Similarly, b the Sages taught: /b If a man experienced an emission that could render him b a i zav /i , one attributes /b the emission not to his being a i zav /i but perhaps to a different cause, e.g., b to food, or to all kinds of food, /b i.e., he may have eaten too much food, which could have caused the emission. b Elazar ben Pineḥas says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira: /b During the days that a i zav /i is examining himself to determine whether or not he is impure, b one feeds him neither /b foods represented by the acrostic: b i Ḥet /i , i gimmel /i , i beit /i , i yod /i , nor /b foods represented by the acrostic: b i Gimmel /i , i beit /i , i mem /i , nor any /b food b items that /b might b bring him to impurity /b caused by an emission. The Gemara explains: b Not i ḥet /i , i gimmel /i , i beit /i , i yod /i /b means b neither milk [ i ḥalav /i ], nor cheese [ i gevina /i ], nor egg [ i beitza /i ], nor wine [ i yayin /i ]. And not i gimmel /i , i beit /i , i mem /i /b means b neither soup of pounded beans [ i mei gerisin /i ], nor fatty meat [ i basar /i ], nor /b small b fish /b pickled b in brine [ i muryas /i ]. /b ,The Gemara asks about the phrase: b Nor any /b food b items that /b might b bring him to impurity; what does it /b come b to include? It /b comes b to include that which the Sages taught: Five /b food b items bring /b a b man to /b a state of b impurity /b due to emission. b And these are: Garlic, /b |
|
76. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 313| 18a. (הושע ג, ה) אחר ישובו בני ישראל ובקשו את ה' אלהיהם ואת דוד מלכם וכיון שבא דוד באתה תפלה שנאמר (ישעיהו נו, ז) והביאותים אל הר קדשי ושמחתים בבית תפלתי,וכיון שבאת תפלה באת עבודה שנאמר עולותיהם וזבחיהם לרצון על מזבחי וכיון שבאת עבודה באתה תודה שנאמר (תהלים נ, כג) זובח תודה יכבדנני,ומה ראו לומר ברכת כהנים אחר הודאה דכתיב (ויקרא ט, כב) וישא אהרן את ידיו אל העם ויברכם וירד מעשות החטאת והעולה והשלמים,אימא קודם עבודה לא ס"ד דכתיב וירד מעשות החטאת וגו' מי כתיב לעשות מעשות כתיב,ולימרה אחר העבודה לא ס"ד דכתיב זובח תודה,מאי חזית דסמכת אהאי סמוך אהאי מסתברא עבודה והודאה חדא מילתא היא,ומה ראו לומר שים שלום אחר ברכת כהנים דכתיב (במדבר ו, כז) ושמו את שמי על בני ישראל ואני אברכם ברכה דהקב"ה שלום שנאמר (תהלים כט, יא) ה' יברך את עמו בשלום,וכי מאחר דמאה ועשרים זקנים ומהם כמה נביאים תקנו תפלה על הסדר שמעון הפקולי מאי הסדיר שכחום וחזר וסדרום,מכאן ואילך אסור לספר בשבחו של הקב"ה דא"ר אלעזר מאי דכתיב (תהלים קו, ב) מי ימלל גבורות ה' ישמיע כל תהלתו למי נאה למלל גבורות ה' למי שיכול להשמיע כל תהלתו,אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן המספר בשבחו של הקב"ה יותר מדאי נעקר מן העולם שנאמר (איוב לז, כ) היסופר לו כי אדבר אם אמר איש כי יבלע,דרש ר' יהודה איש כפר גבוריא ואמרי לה איש כפר גבור חיל מאי דכתיב (תהלים סה, ב) לך דומיה תהלה סמא דכולה משתוקא כי אתא רב דימי אמר אמרי במערבא מלה בסלע משתוקא בתרין:,קראה על פה לא יצא וכו': מנלן אמר רבא אתיא זכירה זכירה כתיב הכא והימים האלה נזכרים וכתיב התם (שמות יז, יד) כתב זאת זכרון בספר מה להלן בספר אף כאן בספר,וממאי דהאי זכירה קריאה היא דלמא עיון בעלמא לא סלקא דעתך (דכתיב) (דברים כה, יז) זכור יכול בלב כשהוא אומר לא תשכח הרי שכחת הלב אמור הא מה אני מקיים זכור בפה:,קראה תרגום לא יצא וכו': היכי דמי אילימא דכתיבה מקרא וקרי לה תרגום היינו על פה לא צריכא דכתיבה תרגום וקרי לה תרגום:,אבל קורין אותה ללועזות בלעז וכו': והא אמרת קראה בכל לשון לא יצא רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו בלעז יווני,היכי דמי אילימא דכתיבה אשורית וקרי לה יוונית היינו על פה א"ר אחא א"ר אלעזר שכתובה בלעז יוונית,וא"ר אחא א"ר אלעזר מנין שקראו הקב"ה ליעקב אל שנאמר (בראשית לג, כ) ויקרא לו אל אלהי ישראל דאי סלקא דעתך למזבח קרא ליה יעקב אל ויקרא לו יעקב מיבעי ליה אלא ויקרא לו ליעקב אל ומי קראו אל אלהי ישראל,מיתיבי קראה גיפטית עברית עילמית מדית יוונית לא יצא,הא לא דמיא אלא להא גיפטית לגיפטים עברית לעברים עילמית לעילמים יוונית ליוונים יצא,אי הכי רב ושמואל אמאי מוקמי לה למתני' בלעז יוונית לוקמה בכל לעז [אלא מתניתין כברייתא] וכי איתמר דרב ושמואל בעלמא איתמר רב ושמואל דאמרי תרוייהו לעז יווני לכל כשר,והא קתני יוונית ליוונים אין לכולי עלמא לא אינהו דאמור כרשב"ג דתנן רשב"ג אומר אף ספרים לא התירו שיכתבו אלא יוונית,ולימרו הלכה כרשב"ג אי אמרי הלכה כרשב"ג הוה אמינא הני מילי שאר ספרים אבל מגילה דכתיב בה ככתבם אימא לא קמ"ל:,והלועז ששמע אשורית יצא וכו': והא לא ידע מאי קאמרי מידי דהוה אנשים ועמי הארץ,מתקיף לה רבינא אטו אנן האחשתרנים בני הרמכים מי ידעינן אלא מצות קריאה ופרסומי ניסא הכא נמי מצות קריאה ופרסומי ניסא:,קראה סירוגין יצא וכו': לא הוו ידעי רבנן מאי סירוגין שמעוה לאמתא דבי רבי דקאמרה להו לרבנן דהוי עיילי פסקי פסקי לבי רבי עד מתי אתם נכנסין סירוגין סירוגין,לא הוו ידעי רבנן מאי חלוגלוגות שמעוה לאמתא דבי רבי דאמרה ליה לההוא גברא דהוה קא מבדר פרפחיני עד מתי אתה מפזר חלוגלוגך,לא הוו ידעי רבנן מאי (משלי ד, ח) סלסלה ותרוממך שמעוה לאמתא דבי רבי דהוות אמרה לההוא גברא דהוה מהפך במזייה אמרה ליה עד מתי אתה מסלסל בשערך,לא הוו ידעי רבנן מאי (תהלים נה, כג) השלך על ה' יהבך אמר רבה בר בר חנה זימנא חדא הוה אזילנא בהדי ההוא טייעא וקא דרינא טונא ואמר לי שקול יהביך ושדי אגמלאי,לא הוו ידעי רבנן מאי (ישעיהו יד, כג) וטאטאתיה במטאטא השמד שמעוה לאמתא דבי רבי דהוות אמרה לחברתה שקולי טאטיתא וטאטי ביתא,ת"ר קראה סירוגין יצא | 18a. b “Afterward the children of Israel shall return, and seek the Lord their God and David their king” /b (Hosea 3:5), and consequently, the blessing of the kingdom of David follows the blessing of the building of Jerusalem. b And once /b the scion of b David comes, /b the time for b prayer will come, as it is stated: “I will bring them to My sacred mountain and make them joyful in My house of prayer” /b (Isaiah 56:7). Therefore, the blessing of hearing prayer is recited after the blessing of the kingdom of David., b And after prayer comes, the /b Temple b service will arrive, as it is stated /b in the continuation of that verse: b “Their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted on My altar” /b (Isaiah 56:7). The blessing of restoration of the Temple service follows the blessing of hearing prayer. b And when the /b Temple b service comes, /b with it will also b come thanksgiving, as it is stated: “Whoever sacrifices a thanks-offering honors Me” /b (Psalms 50:23), which teaches that thanksgiving follows sacrifice. Therefore, the blessing of thanksgiving follows the blessing of restoration of the Temple service., b And why did they see /b fit to institute that one b says the Priestly Benediction after /b the blessing of b thanksgiving? As it is written: “And Aaron lifted up his hand toward the people and blessed them, and he came down from sacrificing the sin-offering, and the burnt-offering, and the peace-offerings” /b (Leviticus 9:22), teaching that the Priestly Benediction follows the sacrificial service, which includes the thanks-offering.,The Gemara asks: But the cited verse indicates that Aaron blessed the people and then sacrificed the offerings. Should we not then b say /b the Priestly Benediction b before the /b blessing of the Temple b service? /b The Gemara answers: b It should not enter your mind /b to say this, b as it is written: “And he came down from sacrificing the sin-offering.” Is it written /b that he came down b to sacrifice /b the offerings, implying that after blessing the people Aaron came down and sacrificed the offerings? No, b it is written, “from sacrificing,” /b indicating that the offerings had already been sacrificed.,The Gemara asks: If, as derived from this verse, the Priestly Benediction follows the sacrificial service, the Priestly Benediction should be b said /b immediately b after /b the blessing of restoration of b the /b Temple b service, /b without the interruption of the blessing of thanksgiving. The Gemara rejects this argument: b It should not enter your mind /b to say this, b as it is written: “Whoever sacrifices a thanks-offering /b honors Me,” from which we learn that thanksgiving follows sacrifice, as already explained.,The Gemara asks: b What did you see to rely on this /b verse and juxtapose thanksgiving with sacrifice? b Rely /b rather b on the other /b verse, which indicates that it is the Priestly Benediction that should be juxtaposed with the sacrificial service. The Gemara answers: b It stands to reason /b to have the blessing of thanksgiving immediately following the blessing of the sacrificial service, since the sacrificial b service and thanksgiving, /b which are closely related conceptually, b are one matter. /b , b And why did they see /b fit to institute that one b says /b the blessing beginning with the words: b Grant peace, after the Priestly Benediction? As it is written /b immediately following the Priestly Benediction: b “And they shall put My name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them” /b (Numbers 6:27). The Priestly Benediction is followed by God’s blessing, and b the blessing of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is peace, as it is stated: “The Lord blesses His people with peace” /b (Psalms 29:11).,The Gemara returns to the i baraita /i cited at the beginning of the discussion: b Now, since /b the i baraita /i teaches that b a hundred and twenty Elders, including many prophets, established the /b i Amida /i b prayer in its /b fixed b order, what /b is it that b Shimon HaPakuli arranged /b in a much later period of time, as related by Rabbi Yoḥa? The Gemara answers: Indeed, the blessings of the i Amida /i prayer were originally arranged by the hundred and twenty members of the Great Assembly, but over the course of time the people b forgot them, and /b Shimon HaPakuli then b arranged them again. /b ,The Gemara comments: These nineteen blessings are a fixed number, and b beyond this it is prohibited /b for one b to declare the praises of the Holy One, Blessed be He, /b by adding additional blessings to the i Amida /i . As b Rabbi Elazar said: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “Who can utter the mighty acts of the Lord? Who can declare all His praise?” /b (Psalms 106:2)? It means: b For whom is it fitting to utter the mighty acts of the Lord? /b Only b for one who can declare all His praise. /b And since no one is capable of declaring all of God’s praises, we must suffice with the set formula established by the Sages., b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b With regard to b one who excessively declares the praises of the Holy One, Blessed be He, /b his fate b is /b to be b uprooted from the world, /b as it appears as if he had exhausted all of God’s praises. b As it is stated: “Shall it be told to Him when I speak? If a man says /b it, b he would be swallowed up” /b (Job 37:20). The Gemara interprets the verse as saying: Can all of God’s praises be expressed when I speak? If a man would say such a thing, he would be “swallowed up” as punishment.,The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Yehuda, a man of Kefar Gibboraya, and some say /b he was b a man of Kefar Gibbor Ĥayil, taught: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “For You silence is praise” /b (Psalms 65:2)? b The /b best b remedy of all is silence, /b i.e., the optimum form of praising God is silence. The Gemara relates: b When Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Israel to Babylonia, b he said: In the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, b they say /b an adage: If b a word is /b worth one b i sela /i , silence is /b worth b two. /b ,§ It is taught in the mishna: b If one read /b the Megilla b by heart he has not fulfilled /b his obligation. The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive this? b Rava said: /b This is b derived /b by means of a verbal analogy between one instance of the term b remembrance /b and another instance of the term b remembrance. It is written here, /b with regard to the Megilla: b “That these days should be remembered” /b (Esther 9:28), b and it is written elsewhere: “And the Lord said to Moses: Write this for a memorial in the book, /b and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: That I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under the heavens” (Exodus 17:14). b Just as there, /b with regard to Amalek, remembrance is referring specifically to something written b in a book, /b as it is stated, “in the book,” b so too here, /b the Megilla remembrance is through being written b in a book. /b ,The Gemara raises a question: b But from where /b do we know b that this remembrance /b that is stated with regard to Amalek and to the Megilla involves b reading /b it out loud from a book? b Perhaps /b it requires b merely looking into /b the book, reading it silently. The Gemara answers: b It should not enter your mind /b to say this, as it was taught in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “Remember /b what Amalek did to you” (Deuteronomy 25:17). One b might /b have thought that it suffices for one to remember this silently, b in his heart. /b But this cannot be, since b when it says /b subsequently: b “You shall not forget” /b (Deuteronomy 25:19), b it is /b already b referring to forgetting from the heart. How, /b then, b do I uphold /b the meaning of b “remember”? /b What does this command to remember add to the command to not forget? Therefore, it means that the remembrance must be expressed out loud, b with the mouth. /b ,§ It was taught further in the mishna: b If one read /b the Megilla b in /b Aramaic b translation he has not fulfilled /b his obligation. The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances /b of this case? b If we say that /b the Megilla b was written in /b the original b biblical text, /b i.e., in Hebrew, b and he read it in /b Aramaic b translation, /b then b this is /b the same as reading it b by heart, /b as he is not reading the words written in the text, and the mishna has already stated that one does not fulfill his obligation by reading the Megilla by heart. The Gemara answers: b No, /b it is b necessary /b to teach this case as well, as it is referring to a case in which the Megilla b was written /b not in the original Hebrew but b in /b Aramaic b translation, and he read it /b as written, b in /b Aramaic b translation. /b ,§ The mishna continues: b However, for those who speak a foreign language, one may read /b the Megilla b in /b that b foreign language. /b The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But didn’t you say /b in the mishna: b If he read it in any /b other b language he has not fulfilled /b his obligation? The Gemara cites the answer of b Rav and Shmuel, who both say: /b When the mishna says: A foreign language, it is referring specifically to b the Greek foreign language, /b which has a unique status with regard to biblical translation.,The Gemara asks: b What are the circumstances /b of the case? b If we say that /b the Megilla b was written in i Ashurit /i , /b i.e., in Hebrew, b and he read it in Greek, this is /b the same as reading it b by heart, /b and the mishna teaches that one does not fulfill his obligation by reading by heart. The Gemara answers: b Rabbi Aḥa said /b that b Rabbi Elazar said: /b The mishna is dealing with a case in which the Megilla b was written in the Greek foreign language /b and was also read in that language.,Apropos statements in this line of tradition, the Gemara adds: b And Rabbi Aḥa /b further b said /b that b Rabbi Elazar said: From where /b is it derived b that the Holy One, Blessed be He, called Jacob El, /b meaning God? b As it is stated: /b “And he erected there an altar, b and he called it El, God of Israel” /b (Genesis 33:20). It is also possible to translate this as: And He, i.e., the God of Israel, called him, Jacob, El. Indeed, it must be understood this way, b as if it enters your mind /b to say that the verse should be understood as saying that b Jacob called the altar El, it should have /b specified the subject of the verb and written: b And Jacob called it /b El. b But /b since the verse is not written this way, the verse must be understood as follows: b He called Jacob El; and who called him El? The God of Israel. /b ,The Gemara returns to discussing languages for reading the Megilla and b raises an objection /b against Rav and Shmuel, who said that one may read the Megilla in Greek but not in other foreign languages. It is taught in a i baraita /i : b If one read /b the Megilla b in Coptic [ i Giptit /i ], i Ivrit /i , Elamite, Median, or Greek, he has not fulfilled /b his obligation, indicating that one cannot fulfill his obligation by reading the Megilla in Greek.,The Gemara answers: The clause in the mishna that teaches that the Megilla may be read in a foreign language to one who speaks that foreign language b is comparable only to that /b which was taught in a different i baraita /i : If one reads the Megilla b in Coptic to Copts, /b in b i Ivrit /i to i Ivrim /i , in Elamite to Elamites, or in Greek to Greeks, he has fulfilled /b his obligation. The Megilla may be read in any language, provided the listener understands that language.,The Gemara asks: But b if so, /b that one who reads the Megilla in a foreign language that he speaks fulfills his obligation, b why did Rav and Shmuel establish the /b ruling of the b mishna as /b referring specifically b to Greek? Let them interpret it /b as referring b to any foreign language /b that one speaks. The Gemara explains: b Rather, the mishna /b is to be understood b like the i baraita /i , /b that one who reads the Megilla in a language that he speaks fulfills his obligation; b and that which was stated /b in the name of b Rav and Shmuel was said /b as a b general /b statement, not relating to the mishna but as an independent ruling, as follows: b Rav and Shmuel both say: The Greek language is acceptable for everyone, /b i.e., anyone who reads the Megilla in Greek has fulfilled his obligation, even if he does not understand Greek.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But doesn’t /b the i baraita /i cited above b teach /b that if one reads the Megilla in b Greek to Greeks /b he has fulfilled his obligation? This implies that reading in Greek, b yes, /b this is acceptable for Greeks, but b for everyone /b else, b no, /b it is not. The Gemara answers: Rav and Shmuel disagree with this statement of the i baraita /i , because they b agree with /b the opinion of b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As we learned /b in a mishna ( i Megilla /i 8b): b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even /b for b books /b of the Bible, the Sages b did not permit them to be written /b in any foreign language b other than Greek, /b indicating that Greek has a special status, and is treated like the original Hebrew.,The Gemara asks: But if this was the intention of Rav and Shmuel, b let them state /b explicitly: b The i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. /b Why did Rav and Shmuel formulate their statement as if they were issuing a new ruling? The Gemara answers: b Had they said /b simply b that the i halakha /i is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, I would have said /b that b this applies /b only b to the other books /b of the Bible, b but /b with regard to b the Megilla, of which it is written: “According to their writing,” I would say /b that one does b not /b fulfill his obligation if he reads it in Greek. Therefore they stated their own opinion to b teach us /b that even in the case of the Megilla one fulfills his obligation if he reads it in Greek.,§ It was taught in the mishna: b And one who speaks a foreign language who heard /b the Megilla being read b in i Ashurit /i , /b i.e., in Hebrew, b has fulfilled /b his obligation. The Gemara asks: b But isn’t /b it so that b he does not understand what they are saying? /b Since he does not understand Hebrew, how does he fulfill his obligation? The Gemara answers: b It is just as it is /b with b women and uneducated people; /b they too understand little Hebrew, but nevertheless they fulfill their obligation when they hear the Megilla read in that language., b Ravina strongly objects to /b the premise of the question raised above, i.e., that someone who does not understand the original, untranslated language of the Megilla cannot fulfill his obligation. b Is that to say /b that even b we, /b the Sages, who are very well acquainted with Hebrew, b know /b for certain the meaning of the obscure words b i ha’aḥashteranim benei haramakhim /i /b (Esther 8:10), often translated as: “Used in the royal service, bred from the stud”? b But /b nevertheless, we fulfill the b mitzva of reading /b the Megilla b and publicizing the miracle /b of Purim by reading these words as they appear in the original text. b Here too, /b one who speaks a foreign language who hears the Megilla being read in Hebrew fulfills the b mitzva of reading /b the Megilla b and publicizing the /b Purim b miracle, /b even if he does not understand the words themselves.,§ The mishna continues: b If one reads /b the Megilla b at intervals /b [ b i seirugin /i /b ] b he has fulfilled /b his obligation. The Gemara relates that b the Sages did not know what is /b meant by the word b i seirugin /i . /b One day b they heard the maidservant in Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi’s b house saying to the Sages who were entering the house intermittently /b rather than in a single group: b How long are you going to enter i seirugin seirugin /i ? /b As she lived in Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s house and certainly heard the most proper Hebrew being spoken, they understood from this that the word i seirugin /i means at intervals.,It is similarly related that b the Sages did not know what is /b meant by the word b i ḥalogelogot /i , /b which appears in various i mishnayot /i and i baraitot /i . One day b they heard the maidservant in Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi’s b house saying to a certain man who was scattering purslane: How long will you go on scattering your i ḥalogelogot /i ? /b And from this they understood that i ḥalogelogot /i is purslane.,Likewise, b the Sages did not know what is /b meant by i salseleha /i in the verse: “Get b i wisdom…salseleha /i and it will exalt you” /b (Proverbs 4:7–8). One day b they heard the maidservant in Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi’s b house talking to a certain man who was twirling his hair, saying to him: How long will you go on twirling /b [ b i mesalsel /i /b ] b your hair? /b And from this they understood that the verse is saying: Turn wisdom around and around, and it will exalt you.,The Gemara relates additional examples: b The Sages did not know what is /b meant by the word i yehav /i in the verse: b “Cast upon the Lord your i yehav /i ” /b (Psalms 55:23). b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: One time I was traveling with a certain Arab /b [ b i Tayya’a /i /b ] b and I was carrying a load, and he said to me: Take your i yehav /i and throw it on my camel, /b and I understood that i yehav /i means a load or burden.,And similarly, b the Sages did not know what is /b meant by the word i matatei /i in the verse: b “And I will i tatei /i it with the i matatei /i of destruction” /b (Isaiah 14:23). One day b they heard the maidservant in Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi’s b house saying to her friend: Take a i tateita /i and i tati /i the house, /b from which they understood that a i matatei /i is a broom, and the verb i tati /i means to sweep.,On the matter of reading the Megilla with interruptions, b the Sages taught /b the following i baraita /i : b If one reads the Megilla at intervals, /b pausing and resuming at intervals, b he has fulfilled /b his obligation. |
|
77. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 216| 62a. משאי אפשר ובית הלל נמי לילפו ממשה אמרי לך משה מדעתיה הוא דעבד דתניא שלשה דברים עשה משה מדעתו והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום פירש מן האשה ושיבר הלוחות והוסיף יום אחד,פירש מן האשה מאי דרש אמר ומה ישראל שלא דברה עמהם שכינה אלא לפי שעה וקבע להם זמן אמרה תורה (שמות יט, טו) אל תגשו אל אשה אני שמיוחד לדבור בכל שעה ושעה ולא קבע לי זמן על אחת כמה וכמה והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום שנאמר (דברים ה, ל) לך אמור להם שובו לכם לאהליכם ואתה פה עמוד עמדי,שיבר את הלוחות מאי דרש אמר ומה פסח שהוא אחד משש מאות ושלש עשרה מצות אמרה תורה (שמות יב, מג) כל בן נכר לא יאכל בו התורה כולה וישראל מומרים על אחת כמה וכמה,והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום דכתיב (שמות לד, א) אשר שברת ואמר ריש לקיש אמר ליה הקב"ה למשה יישר כחך ששברת,הוסיף יום אחד מדעתו מאי דרש דכתיב (שמות יט, י) וקדשתם היום ומחר היום כמחר מה מחר לילו עמו אף היום לילו עמו ולילה דהאידנא נפק ליה ש"מ תרי יומי לבר מהאידנא והסכימה דעתו לדעת המקום דלא שריא שכינה עד שבתא,תניא רבי נתן אומר ב"ש אומרים שני זכרים ושתי נקבות ובה"א זכר ונקבה,א"ר הונא מ"ט דרבי נתן אליבא דב"ש דכתיב (בראשית ד, ב) ותוסף ללדת את אחיו את הבל הבל ואחותו קין ואחותו וכתיב (בראשית ד, כה) כי שת לי אלהים זרע אחר תחת הבל כי הרגו קין ורבנן אודויי הוא דקא מודית,תניא אידך ר' נתן אומר ב"ש אומרים זכר ונקבה ובה"א או זכר או נקבה אמר רבא מ"ט דר' נתן אליבא דב"ה שנא' (ישעיהו מה, יח) לא תהו בראה לשבת יצרה והא עבד לה שבת,איתמר היו לו בנים בהיותו עובד כוכבים ונתגייר ר' יוחנן אמר קיים פריה ורביה וריש לקיש אמר לא קיים פריה ורביה רבי יוחנן אמר קיים פריה ורביה דהא הוו ליה וריש לקיש אמר לא קיים פריה ורביה גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי,ואזדו לטעמייהו דאיתמר היו לו בנים בהיותו עובד כוכבים ונתגייר רבי יוחנן אמר אין לו בכור לנחלה דהא הוה ליה ראשית אונו וריש לקיש אמר יש לו בכור לנחלה גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי,וצריכא דאי אשמעינן בההיא קמייתא בההיא קאמר רבי יוחנן משום דמעיקרא נמי בני פריה ורביה נינהו אבל לענין נחלה דלאו בני נחלה נינהו אימא מודי ליה לריש לקיש,ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר ריש לקיש אבל בההיא אימא מודה ליה לר' יוחנן צריכא,איתיביה ר' יוחנן לר"ל (מלכים ב כ, יב) בעת ההיא שלח בראדך בלאדן בן בלאדן מלך בבל וגו' א"ל בהיותן עובדי כוכבים אית להו חייס נתגיירו לית להו חייס,אמר רב הכל מודין בעבד שאין לו חייס דכתיב (בראשית כב, ה) שבו לכם פה עם החמור עם הדומה לחמור מיתיבי (שמואל ב ט, י) ולציבא חמשה עשר בנים ועשרים עבדים אמר רב אחא בר יעקב כפר בן בקר,א"ה ה"נ שאני התם דיחסינהו בשמייהו ובשמא דאבוהון והכא לא מפרש ואיבעית אימא יחסינהו בדוכתא אחריתי באבוהון ובאבא דאבוהון דכתיב (מלכים א טו, יח) וישלחם המלך אסא אל בן הדד בן טברימון בן חזיון מלך ארם היושב בדמשק לאמר,איתמר היו לו בנים ומתו רב הונא אמר קיים פריה ורביה רבי יוחנן אמר לא קיים,רב הונא אמר קיים משום דרב אסי דאמר רב אסי אין בן דוד בא עד שיכלו כל נשמות שבגוף שנאמר (ישעיהו נז, טז) כי רוח מלפני יעטוף וגו' ורבי יוחנן אמר לא קיים פריה ורביה לשבת יצרה בעינן והא ליכא,מיתיבי | 62a. b from /b one that is b not possible. /b Mankind was initially created with a male and female because otherwise reproduction would not have been possible. However, this fact cannot serve as a source that the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply is fulfilled only once one has a son and a daughter. The Gemara asks: b And Beit Hillel, let them also learn from Moses. /b Beit Hillel could b say to you: Moses acted /b based b on his own perception /b when he separated from his wife, but this does not mean that a man is permitted to neglect the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply after fathering two males, b as it is taught in /b a i baraita /i : b Moses did three things /b based b on his own perception, and his perception agreed with the perception of the Omnipresent: He separated from /b his b wife, he broke the tablets, and he added one day /b to the days of separation before the revelation at Sinai.,The Gemara clarifies: When Moses b separated from /b his b wife /b after the revelation at Sinai, b what did he interpret /b that led him to do so? b He said: If /b in the case of b Israel, with whom the Divine Presence spoke only temporarily and for whom /b God b set /b a specific b time for /b revelation, b the Torah stated: “Do not approach a woman” /b (Exodus 19:15), b I, /b Moses, b who am set aside for /b divine b speech all the time and for whom /b God b did not set /b a specific b time, all the more so /b I must separate from my wife. b And his perception agreed with the perception of the Omnipresent, as it is stated /b after the revelation at Sinai: b “Go say to them: Return to your tents; and you, stand here with Me” /b (Deuteronomy 5:26–27). This indicates that whereas others could return to their homes and normal married life after the revelation at Sinai, Moses was to stay with God and not return to his wife.,Moses b broke the tablets /b following the sin of the Golden Calf. b What did he interpret /b that led him to do so? Moses b said: If /b in the case of the b Paschal lamb, which is /b only b one of 613 mitzvot, the Torah states: “No alien shall eat of it” /b (Exodus 12:43), excluding not only gentiles but apostate Jews as well, then here, in the case of the Golden Calf, where the tablets represent b the entire Torah and /b where b the Jewish people /b are b apostates, /b as they are worshipping the calf, b all the more so /b must they be excluded from receiving them., b And his perception agreed with the perception of the Omnipresent, as it is written: /b “The first tablets b that you broke [ i asher shibbarta /i ]” /b (Exodus 34:1), b and Reish Lakish said: /b The word i asher /i is an allusion to the fact that b the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: May your strength be true [ i yishar koḥakha /i ] that you broke /b the tablets.,When Moses b added one day /b to the days of separation before the revelation at Sinai based b on his /b own b perception, what did he interpret /b that led him to do so? He reasoned b that /b since b it is written: “And sanctify them today and tomorrow” /b (Exodus 19:10), the juxtaposition of the words “today” and “tomorrow” teaches that b today /b is b like tomorrow: Just as tomorrow /b the men and women will separate for that day b and /b the b night /b preceding b it, so too, today /b requires separation for the day b and /b the b night /b preceding b it. /b Since God spoke to him in the morning, b and the night of that day /b already b passed, /b Moses said: b Conclude from /b this that separation must be in effect for b two days aside from now, /b i.e., not including the day of the command. Therefore, he extended the mitzva of separation by one day. b And his perception agreed with the perception of the Omnipresent, as /b the b Divine Presence did not rest /b upon Mount Sinai b until Shabbat /b morning, as Moses had determined.,§ b It is taught in /b a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Natan says /b that b Beit Shammai say: /b The mitzva to be fruitful and multiply is fulfilled with b two males and two females. And Beit Hillel say: A male and a female. /b , b Rav Huna said: What is the reason of Rabbi Natan, in accordance with /b the opinion of b Beit Shammai? /b It is b as it is written: “And again she bore his brother [ i et aḥiv /i ] Abel [ i et Hevel /i ]” /b (Genesis 4:2). The use of the superfluous word “et” indicates that she gave birth to b Abel and his sister, /b in addition to b Cain and his sister. And it states: “For God has appointed me another seed instead of Abel; for Cain slew him” /b (Genesis 4:25). This indicates that one must have at least four children. b And the Rabbis, /b how do they understand this verse? In their opinion, Eve b was thanking God /b for granting her another child, but one is not obligated to have four children., b It is taught in another /b i baraita /i that b Rabbi Natan says /b that b Beit Shammai say: /b The mitzva to be fruitful and multiply is fulfilled with b a male and a female. And Beit Hillel say: Either a male or a female. Rava said: What is the reason of Rabbi Natan in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel? /b It is b as it is stated: “He did not create it a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” /b (Isaiah 45:18), b and one has made /b the earth b inhabited /b to a greater degree by adding even one child to the world.,§ b It was stated /b that i amora’im /i disagreed over the following issue: If a man b had children when he /b was b a gentile and he /b subsequently b converted, Rabbi Yoḥa said: He has /b already b fulfilled /b the mitzva to b be fruitful and multiply, and Reish Lakish said: /b He has b not fulfilled /b the mitzva to b be fruitful and multiply. Rabbi Yoḥa said he has fulfilled /b the mitzva b to be fruitful and multiply, as he /b already b had /b children. b And Reish Lakish said he has not fulfilled /b the mitzva to b be fruitful and multiply, /b as the legal status of b a convert who /b just b converted is like /b that of b a child /b just b born, /b and it is considered as though he did not have children.,The Gemara comments: b And they follow their /b regular line of reasoning, b as it was stated: /b If b one had children /b when b he /b was b a gentile and he /b subsequently b converted, Rabbi Yoḥa said: He does not have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, /b i.e., the first son born to him after his conversion does not inherit a double portion, b as /b this man already b had “the first of his strength” /b (Deuteronomy 21:17), the Torah’s description of the firstborn in this context, before he converted. b And Reish Lakish said: He does have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, /b as the legal status of b a convert who /b just b converted is like /b that of b a child /b just b born. /b ,The Gemara adds: b And /b it is b necessary /b to state their opinions in both cases. b As, had it /b only been b taught /b to b us with regard to that first /b case of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, one might have said that b it is /b only b in that /b case that b Rabbi Yoḥa said /b his opinion, b because from the outset, /b gentiles b are also subject to /b the mitzva to be b fruitful and multiply. However, with regard to inheritance, /b since b they are not subject /b to the i halakhot /i of b inheritance, /b one might b say /b that Rabbi Yoḥa b concedes to Reish Lakish. /b , b And /b conversely, b if /b their dispute b was stated /b only b with regard to this /b issue of inheritance, I would have said that b it is /b only b in this /b case that b Reish Lakish said /b his opinion, as the i halakhot /i of inheritance do not apply to gentiles. b But with regard to that /b case, the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, one might b say /b that b he concedes to Rabbi Yoḥa. /b Consequently, it is b necessary /b for both disputes to be recorded., b Rabbi Yoḥa raises an objection to Reish Lakish /b based upon the verse: b “At that time Berodach-baladan, son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent /b a letter” (II Kings 20:12), which indicates that gentiles are considered to be the children of their parents. Therefore, when they convert, they should already have fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. Reish Lakish b said to /b Rabbi Yoḥa: b When they are gentiles they do have /b family b lineage, /b but when b they convert they do not have lineage, /b as they now belong to the family of the Jewish people and their previous lineage is disregarded., b Rav said: Everyone agrees with regard to /b a Canaanite b slave, that he does not have lineage, as it is written /b that Abraham said to his slaves: b “Remain here with the donkey” /b (Genesis 22:5). This verse is interpreted to mean that they are b a nation comparable to a donkey, /b which has no lineage. The Gemara b raises an objection /b based upon a verse pertaining to Jonathan’s Canaanite slave: b “And Ziba had fifteen sons and twenty servants” /b (II Samuel 9:10), which indicates that a slave’s sons are in fact considered his sons. b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: /b This is b like /b the expression: b A bullock, son of a bull. /b The word son in this context merely denotes progeny, not lineage.,The Gemara asks: b If so, here too, /b with regard to gentiles, there is no proof from the verse about Berodach-baladan that they have family lineage. The Gemara answers: b There it is different, as /b the Bible b identified him by his name and by his father’s name, /b thereby emphasizing the family connection. b But here, /b it does b not specify /b the names of Ziba’s children. b And if you wish, say /b instead that the Bible b identified /b gentiles b elsewhere by their father and their father’s father, as it is written: “And King Asa sent them to Ben-hadad, son of Tabrimmon, son of Hezion, king of Aram, who dwelled in Damascus, saying” /b (I Kings 15:18). This indicates that there is lineage for gentiles.,§ b It was stated /b that i amora’im /i disagreed over the following issue: If a man b had children and they died, Rav Huna said: /b He has b fulfilled /b the mitzva to be b fruitful and multiply /b through these children. b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b He has b not fulfilled /b the mitzva.,The Gemara clarifies the reasons for their opinions: b Rav Huna said /b he has b fulfilled /b the mitzva b due to /b a statement b of Rav Asi, as Rav Asi said /b that the reason for this mitzva is that the Messiah, b son of David, will not come until all the souls of the body have been finished, /b i.e., until all souls that are destined to inhabit physical bodies will do so, b as it is stated: “For the spirit that enwraps itself is from Me, /b and the souls that I have made” (Isaiah 57:16). Consequently, once a child has been born and his soul has entered a body the mitzva has been fulfilled, even if the child subsequently dies. b And Rabbi Yoḥa said /b he has b not fulfilled /b the mitzva, as b we require “He formed it to be inhabited” /b (Isaiah 45:18), b and /b this b is not /b fulfilled when the children have passed away and no longer inhabit the earth.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b with regard to the opinion of Rav Huna based upon the following i baraita /i : |
|
78. Anon., Numbers Rabba, 13.15, 15.22 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 175| 13.15. בַּיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי הִקְרִיב נְתַנְאֵל וגו' (במדבר ז, יח), לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ הִקְרִיב, לְפִי שֶׁבָּא רְאוּבֵן וְעִרְעֵר, אָמַר דַּיִּי שֶׁקְּדָמַנִי יְהוּדָה לַמַּסָּעוֹת אַקְרִיב אֲנִי לַתּוֹלָדוֹת, נָזַף בּוֹ משֶׁה וְאָמַר לוֹ מִפִּי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא נֶאֱמַר לִי הַקְרֵב לַמַּסָּעוֹת. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הִקְרִיב, הִקְרִיבוֹ משֶׁה בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ שֶׁל רְאוּבֵן. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הִקְרִיב, כְּאִלּוּ הִקְרִיב תְּחִלָּה, לָמָּה כֵן, לְפִי שֶׁזָּכָה בַּעֲצַת נְשִׂיאִים הֶעֱלָה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ הוּא הִקְרִיב תְּחִלָּה. אַבָּא חָנָן אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְפִי שֶׁזָּכָה בָּעֵצָה זָכָה שֶׁנִּתַּן בִּינָה בְּשִׁבְטוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברי הימים א יב, לג): וּמִבְּנֵי יִשָֹּׂשכָר יוֹדְעֵי בִינָה לַעִתִּים, וְנֶאֱמַר (שופטים ה, טו): וְשָׂרַי בְּיִשָֹּׂשכָר עִם דְּבֹרָה וגו'. וְכֵן הַכָּתוּב מְסַפֵּר בְּשִׁבְחוֹ בְּבָתֵּי דִינִין בְּמִצְרַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר כו, כד): לְיָשׁוּב מִשְׁפַּחַת הַיָּשֻׁבִי, וְאֵין יָשׁוּב אֶלָּא בָּתֵּי דִינִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יחזקאל לג, לא): וְיָבוֹאוּ אֵלֶיךָ כִּמְבוֹא עָם וְיֵשְׁבוּ לְפָנֶיךָ וגו', (בראשית כה, כז): וְיַעֲקֹב אִישׁ תָּם ישֵׁב אֹהָלִים, וְאוֹמֵר (דברים לג, יח): וְיִשָֹּׂשכָר בְּאֹהָלֶיךָ. (במדבר ז, יט): הִקְרִיב אֶת קָרְבָּנוֹ וגו', אָמַר רַבִּי פִּינְחָס בֶּן יָאִיר לָמָּה הוֹסִיף הִקְרִב, וְחָסֵר יו"ד, אֶלָּא כְּנֶגֶד פָּרָה אֲדֻמָּה שֶׁעָשׂוּ בְּאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם, לְכָךְ הוֹסִיף הִקְרִב חָסֵר יו"ד, וְהֶעֱמִיד הַתֵּבָה עַל אַרְבַּע אוֹתִיּוֹת כְּנֶגֶד אַרְבָּעָה דְבָרִים שֶׁהָיְתָה פָּרָה צְרִיכָה: אֲדֻמָּה, תְּמִימָה, בְּלֹא מוּם, בְּלֹא נְשִׂיאוּת עֹל, כְּמָה דְתֵימָא (במדבר יט, ב): וְיִקְחוּ אֵלֶיךָ פָרָה אֲדֻמָּה תְּמִימָה וגו'. (במדבר ז, יט): קַעֲרַת כֶּסֶף אַחַת, בָּא נְשִׂיא יִשָֹּׂשׂכָר וְהִקְרִיב עַל שֵׁם הַתּוֹרָה, לְפִי שֶׁהֵם אָהֲבוּ אֶת הַתּוֹרָה יוֹתֵר מִכָּל הַשְּׁבָטִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וּמִבְּנֵי יִשָֹּׂשכָר יוֹדְעֵי בִינָה לַעִתִּים וגו', מַהוּ לַעִתִּים, רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא אָמַר לַקָּרָסִין, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר לָעִבּוּרִים. (דברי הימים א יב, לג): לָדַעַת מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה יִשְׂרָאֵל, בְּאֵיזֶה יוֹם יַעֲשׂוּ מוֹעֲדִים. (דברי הימים א יב, לג): רָאשֵׁיהֶם מָאתַיִם, אֵלּוּ מָאתַיִם רָאשֵׁי סַנְהֶדְּרָאוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ שֵׁבֶט יִשָֹּׂשכָר מַעֲמִיד, (דברי הימים א יב, לג): וְכָל אֲחֵיהֶם עַל פִּיהֶם, שֶׁהָיוּ מַסְכִּימִים הֲלָכָה עַל פִיהֶם, וְאוֹמֵר (בראשית מט, טו): וַיֵּט שִׁכְמוֹ לִסְבֹּל, שֶׁהָיוּ סוֹבְלִים עֹל תּוֹרָה. (בראשית מט, טו): וַיְהִי לְמַס עֹבֵד, שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁהָיָה טוֹעֶה בַּהֲלָכָה הָיוּ שׁוֹאֲלִים אוֹתָהּ לְשֵׁבֶט יִשָֹּׂשכָר וְהֵם מְבָאֲרִים אוֹתָהּ לָהֶם. קַעֲרַת כֶּסֶף, כְּנֶגֶד הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁהִיא קְרוּאָה לֶחֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (משלי ט, ה): לְכוּ לַחְמוּ בְלַחְמִי, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים (שמות כה, כט): וְעָשִׂיתָ קְעָרֹתָיו וְכַפֹּתָיו, וּתְנֵינַן קְעָרֹתָיו אֵלּוּ דְפוּסִים, שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹשִׂים לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים בִּדְפוּסִים. (במדבר ז, יט): שְׁלשִׁים וּמֵאָה מִשְׁקָלָהּ, צֵא וַחֲשֹׁב עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה סְפָרִים שֶׁל תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב וּשְׁמוֹנִים מִן מִשְׁנָה שֶׁמַּתְחֶלֶת בְּמ"ם מֵאֵימָתַי קוֹרִין אֶת שְׁמַע וכו' וּמְסַיֶּמֶת בְּמ"ם (תהלים כט, יא): ה' יְבָרֵךְ אֶת עַמּוֹ בַשָּׁלוֹם, מ"ם אַרְבָּעִים וּמ"ם אַרְבָּעִים, הֲרֵי שְׁמוֹנִים, הֲרֵי מֵאָה וְאַרְבָּעִים שֶׁעוֹלִים מִנְיָנָם שֶׁל תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב וְתוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה. דָּבָר אַחֵר שֶׁרָאשֵׁי שִׁשָּׁה סִדְרֵי מִשְׁנָה חֶשְׁבּוֹן רָאשֵׁי אוֹתִיּוֹת הֵן עוֹלִים שְׁמוֹנִים, צֵא וַחֲשֹׁב מ' מִן מֵאֵימָתַי שֶׁל סֵדֶר זְרָעִים, י' מִן יְצִיאוֹת הַשַּׁבָּת שֶׁל סֵדֶר מוֹעֵד, ח' מִן חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה נָשִׁים מִן סֵדֶר נָשִׁים, א' מִן אַרְבָּעָה אֲבוֹת נְזִיקִין מִן סֵדֶר יְשׁוּעוֹת, כ' מִן כָּל הַזְּבָחִים מִן סֵדֶר קָדָשִׁים, א' מִן אֲבוֹת הַטֻּמְאָה מִן סֵדֶר טַהֲרוֹת, הֲרֵי שְׁמוֹנִים. מִכָּאן שֶׁעוֹלִים תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב וְתוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה לְמִנְיַן מֵאָה וְאַרְבָּעָה, וְנִתְּנָה לְעֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁשָּׁה דוֹרוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ מֵאָדָם וְעַד משֶׁה שֶׁנִּתְּנָהּ תּוֹרָה עַל יָדוֹ, הֲרֵי מֵאָה וּשְׁלשִׁים, לְכָךְ הָיָה מִשְׁקַל הַקְּעָרָה מֵאָה וּשְׁלשִׁים. 15.22. אֶסְפָה לִי שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ, זֶה שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב (קהלת יב, יא): דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים כַּדָּרְבֹנוֹת וּכְמַשְׂמְרוֹת נְטוּעִים בַּעֲלֵי אֲסֻפּוֹת נִתְּנוּ מֵרֹעֶה אֶחָד. כַּדּוּר שֶׁל בָּנוֹת, מָה הַכַּדּוּר שֶׁל בָּנוֹת מְזָרְקִין בּוֹ לְכָאן וּלְכָאן, כָּךְ הָיוּ הַדִּבְּרוֹת מֻזְרָקִין בְּסִינַי. דָּבָר אַחֵר, כְּמַשְׂמְרוֹת נְטוּעִים, מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אָסוּר לִקְרוֹת בַּסְּפָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים, שֶׁכָּתוּב נְטוּעִים. מַה מִּשְׁמָרוֹת הַכֹּהֲנִים עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה, אַף הַסְּפָרִים עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה. בַּעֲלֵי אֲסֻפּוֹת, אֵלּוּ סַנְהֶדְּרִין, וְאִם תֹּאמַר זֶה מַתִּיר וְזֶה אוֹסֵר, זֶה פּוֹסֵל וְזֶה מַכְשִׁיר, זֶה מְטַמֵּא וְזֶה מְטַהֵר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מְחַיֵב וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ פּוֹטֵר, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין, לְמִי נִשְׁמַע, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אַף עַל פִּי כֵן כֻּלָּם נִתְּנוּ מֵרֹעֶה אֶחָד. | 15.22. "22 (Numb. 11:16:) “Gather Me seventy men”: This text is related (to Eccl. 12:11), “The words of the wise are like goads ( i kedarbanot /i ) [...].” i Kedarbanot /i [signifies] i kadur shel banot /i (a ball for girls). Just like a ball for girls is thrown here and there, so were the words [of Torah] thrown at Sinai. Another interpretation (of Eccl. 12:11 cont.), “and like implanted nails”: From here the sages have said, “It is forbidden to read in the profane ( i chitzoniot /i ) books.” It is therefore stated (ibid.), “implanted nails.” [“Like nails ( i msmrwt /i )” – this is to teach that] just as the watches ( i mshmrwt /i ) of the priests number twenty-four, so also do the books [of the Bible] number twenty-four.” (Ibid. cont.:) [“(The masters of) collections.”] These [masters] are the Sanhedrin. sup 48 /sup i class=\"footnote\" Gk.: i synedrion. /i /i And if you say, “This person permits what another forbids, this one declares unfit what another declares fit, this one declares unclean what another declares clean, R. Eliezer obligates while R. Joshua exempts, and Bet Shammai prohibits while Bet Hillel permits; to whom should I listen?” [That is why] the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Nevertheless (according to Eccl. 12:11 end) ‘all of them were given from one shepherd.’” ", |
|
| 79. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan B, 3 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j.d. Found in books: Schremer (2010), Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 181 |
| 80. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan A, 5 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 75 |
81. Quran, Quran, 2.59, 5.13 (7th cent. CE - 7th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2019), Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism, 41, 75| 2.59. فَبَدَّلَ الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا قَوْلًا غَيْرَ الَّذِي قِيلَ لَهُمْ فَأَنْزَلْنَا عَلَى الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا رِجْزًا مِنَ السَّمَاءِ بِمَا كَانُوا يَفْسُقُونَ 5.13. فَبِمَا نَقْضِهِمْ مِيثَاقَهُمْ لَعَنَّاهُمْ وَجَعَلْنَا قُلُوبَهُمْ قَاسِيَةً يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَنْ مَوَاضِعِهِ وَنَسُوا حَظًّا مِمَّا ذُكِّرُوا بِهِ وَلَا تَزَالُ تَطَّلِعُ عَلَى خَائِنَةٍ مِنْهُمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا مِنْهُمْ فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ وَاصْفَحْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِينَ | |
|
| 82. Anon., Pesiqta De Rav Kahana, 15.7 Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 307, 311, 312, 313 |
| 86. Anon., Leges Publicae, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 307, 311, 312, 313 |
| 88. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q199, None Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229 |
| 89. Diodorus, De Natura Deorum, 5.71 Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 175 |
90. Babylonian Talmud, Zevahim, None Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229| 15a. אפשר לתקונה או לא אפשר לתקונה,ת"ש קבל הכשר ונתן לפסול יחזיר לכשר,ונהי נמי דיחזור הכשר ויקבלנו אי סלקא דעתך לא אפשר לתקונה איפסלא לה,מי סברת דקאי זר גואי לא דקאי זר בראי,איתמר אמר עולא אמר ר' יוחנן הולכה שלא ברגל פסולה אלמא לא אפשר לתקונה,איתיביה רב נחמן לעולא נשפך מן הכלי על הרצפה ואספו כשר,הכא במאי עסקינן כשיצא לחוץ,לבראי נפיק לגואי לא עייל במקום מדרון איבעית אימא בגומא ואיבעית אימא בסמיכא,ואיכפל תנא לאשמועינן כל הני ועוד אדתני באידך פירקין נשפך על הרצפה ואספו פסול ליפלוג בדידיה במה דברים אמורים כשיצא לחוץ אבל נכנס לפנים פסול תיובתא,אתמר הולכה שלא ברגל מחלוקת ר"ש ורבנן בהולכה רבתי דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דפסולה כי פליגי בהולכה זוטרתי,מחכו עלה במערבא אלא חטאת העוף דפסולה בה מחשבה לר"ש היכי משכחת לה אי דחשיב עלה מקמי דליפוק דם לא כלום היא ואי בתר דנפק דם איתעבידא ליה מצותו,מאי קושיא דלמא מדפריש ועד דמטא למזבח,דהא בעא מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי זירא היה מזה ונקטעה ידו של מזה עד שלא הגיע דם לאויר המזבח מהו וא"ל [פסולה מ"ט] והזה ונתן בעינן,כי אתו רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מבי רב אמרי היינו חוכא ובהולכה רבתי לא פליגי והא כי פליגי בהולכה רבתי פליגי,אלא בהולכה זוטרתי כולי עלמא לא פליגי דלא פסלה כי פליגי בהולכה רבתי,הוליכו זר והחזירו כהן וחזר והוליכו פליגי בה בני רבי חייא ור' ינאי חד אמר כשר וחד אמר פסול מר סבר אפשר לתקונה ומר סבר לא אפשר לתקונה,הוליכו כהן והחזירו וחזר והוליכו זר אמר רב שימי בר אשי לדברי המכשיר פסול לדברי הפוסל מכשיר,רבא אמר אף לדברי הפוסל פסול מאי טעמא דהא צריך | 15a. The Gemara asks: If the blood was conveyed by hand, is it b possible to correct it /b by conveying it again properly, b or /b is it b not possible to correct it, /b and the offering is disqualified permanently?,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b proof from the aforementioned mishna: If a priest b fit /b for Temple service b collected /b the blood in a vessel b and gave /b the vessel b to an unfit /b person standing next to the altar, the latter b should return /b it b to the fit /b priest. Apparently, even after the blood is conveyed in an inappropriate manner, it can be corrected., b And though /b one can b indeed /b explain b that the fit /b priest b should then receive it /b from him, as posited above, b if it enters your mind /b that if the blood is conveyed incorrectly it is b not possible to correct it, /b the offering b was /b already b disqualified /b when the priest gave the blood to the unfit person. Taking it back is of no consequence.,The Gemara rejects this inference: b Do you maintain that /b this is referring to a case where the b non-priest is standing inside, /b between the fit priest and the altar? b No, /b it is a case b where /b the b non-priest is standing outside, /b farther away from the altar than the priest. Therefore, when the priest gave him the blood, he was not conveying it toward the altar at all; he was moving it farther away from the altar., b It was stated: Ulla says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: Conveying /b the blood b not by foot /b renders the offering b unfit. Apparently, it is not possible to correct it, /b as otherwise Rabbi Yoḥa would have merely stated that it is not considered conveying, as in his earlier statement (14b)., b Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Ulla /b from a mishna (32a): If the blood b spilled from the vessel onto the floor and one collected it /b from the floor, it is b fit /b for sacrifice. Apparently, although spilling the blood on the floor constitutes a not valid conveying toward the altar, it can still be corrected after the fact.,The Gemara explains: b Here we are dealing with /b a case b where /b the blood that spilled b went outward, /b i.e., away from the altar, so it did not constitute conveying at all.,The Gemara asks: Can spilled blood b go outward /b and b not come inward? /b Clearly, spilled blood spreads to all sides. The Gemara answers: It is a case where the blood spilled b on an inclined plane, /b and it therefore spilled only outward, away from the altar. And b if you wish, say /b instead that it spilled b into a hole /b in the ground, so it did not spread in any direction. b And if you wish, say /b instead that it is a case b where /b the blood is b thick, /b so it did not spread in all directions.,The Gemara asks: b But did the i tanna /i go to all that trouble [ i ikhpal /i /b ] just b to teach us all these /b unlikely cases? b And furthermore, rather than teaching in another chapter /b (see 25a) that if the blood b spilled /b from the animal’s neck b onto the floor and one collected it /b in a vessel from the floor it is b unfit, let /b the mishna b teach a distinction within /b the case where the blood spilled from the vessel b itself: In what /b case b is this statement, /b that the blood is fit, b said? /b In a case b where /b the spilled blood b went outward, /b away from the altar, b but /b if it b came inward /b it is b unfit. /b The Gemara concludes: This is b a conclusive refutation; /b if the blood is conveyed in a not valid manner, it can be corrected.,§ b It was stated: /b The b dispute /b in the mishna (13a) between b Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis /b as to whether improper intent while conveying the blood disqualifies the offering is only with regard to b conveying /b the blood b not by foot. With regard to greater conveying, /b i.e., conveying the blood by moving the feet, b everyone agrees that /b if one performs it with prohibited intent, the offering is b unfit. When they disagree, /b it is b with regard to lesser conveying, /b i.e., conveying the blood by hand without moving the feet, in a case where the offering was slaughtered next to the altar., b They laughed at /b this statement b in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, saying: b But /b if so, one encounters difficulty with regard to b a bird sin offering, which /b is killed through pinching its nape on the altar and whose blood is sprinkled directly from its neck. It is known that if one sprinkled its blood with prohibited b intent, /b the offering is b unfit. /b And b according to Rabbi Shimon, /b who holds that prohibited intent while conveying the blood by hand does not disqualify the offering, b how can you find these /b circumstances? b If /b the priest b has /b prohibited b intent with regard to /b the offering b before /b the b blood comes out /b of the bird, this intent b is nothing, /b since his waving it is like conveying by hand. b And if /b he has such intent b after the blood came out, its mitzva was /b already b performed, /b as the blood already reached the altar.,The Gemara asks: b What is the difficulty? Perhaps /b the offering is disqualified due to prohibited intent b from /b the moment the blood b leaves /b the bird b until /b the moment b it reaches the altar. /b ,This is b as Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: /b If the priest b was sprinkling /b the blood, b and the hand of the one sprinkling was severed before /b the b blood reached the airspace of the altar, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Is the sprinkling not valid since it was performed by a blemished priest, or is it valid because the blood left the bird before he was blemished? b And /b Rabbi Zeira b said to him: /b It is b not valid. What is the reason? We require /b that the verse: b “And sprinkle /b of the blood” (Leviticus 4:6), be fulfilled in the same manner as the verse that follows it: b “And /b the priest shall b place /b of the blood upon the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:7), namely, that the blood reach the altar. Therefore, the blood can be disqualified anytime until it reaches the altar, whether through the priest becoming blemished or through prohibited intent., b When Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from the study hall, they said: This is /b the reason for b the laughter /b of the scholars of Eretz Yisrael: b With regard to greater conveying, /b i.e., conveying by foot, can one say Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis b do not disagree? /b Clearly, b when they disagree /b in the mishna, b they disagree with regard to greater conveying, /b as Rabbi Shimon reasons that conveying is a dispensable rite. Only conveying by foot is dispensable, since even if the offering is slaughtered next to the altar, the priest will need to move its blood somewhat with his hand., b Rather, /b the statement under discussion should be emended to say: b With regard to lesser conveying, /b i.e., conveying the blood by hand, b everyone agrees that it does not disqualify /b the offering due to prohibited intent. b When they disagree, /b it is b with regard to greater conveying, /b i.e., conveying the blood for a distance by foot. Rabbi Shimon holds that improper intent even then does not disqualify the offering, as the rite is dispensable, and the Rabbis maintain that it does disqualify it.,§ If b a non-priest conveyed /b the blood to the altar, b and a priest returned it /b to its original location, b and /b a priest then b conveyed it again /b to the altar, b the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yannai disagree with regard to /b the i halakha /i . b One says /b that the offering is b fit, and one says /b it is b unfit. /b This is because one b Sage holds /b that if the blood is conveyed improperly, it is b possible to correct it, and /b one b Sage holds /b that it is b not possible to correct it. /b ,If b a priest conveyed it /b to the altar, b and /b then b returned it, and a non-priest /b then b conveyed it again, Rav Shimi bar Ashi says: According to the statement of the one who deems /b the offering b fit /b in the previous case, where a non-priest conveyed it the first time and a priest conveyed it the second time, in this case the offering is b unfit, /b as a non-priest conveyed it the second time. b According to the statement of the one who deems /b the offering b unfit /b in the previous case, as a non-priest conveyed it the first time, in this case, where a priest conveyed it the first time, b he deems /b the offering b fit. /b , b Rava says: Even according to the statement of the one who deems /b the offering b unfit /b in a case where a non-priest conveyed it the first time, it is b unfit /b in this case as well, where a priest conveyed it the first time and a non-priest conveyed it the second time. b What is the reason? Because /b after the blood is returned to its original location, b it is necessary /b |
|
| 91. Anon., Tanhuma, None Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 175 |
| 92. Anon., Pesikta Rabbati, 3 Tagged with subjects: •cohen, shaye j. d. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 175 |
