| 1. Septuagint, Deuteronomy, None (th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 180 |
2. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, 8.26 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seven Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 42| 8.26. "עַד־לֹא עָשָׂה אֶרֶץ וְחוּצוֹת וְרֹאשׁ עָפְרוֹת תֵּבֵל׃", | 8.26. "While as yet He had not made the earth, nor the fields, Nor the beginning of the dust of the world.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 16.18, 17.15, 29.18 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seven •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 28, 42, 45, 180| 16.18. "שֹׁפְטִים וְשֹׁטְרִים תִּתֶּן־לְךָ בְּכָל־שְׁעָרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ לִשְׁבָטֶיךָ וְשָׁפְטוּ אֶת־הָעָם מִשְׁפַּט־צֶדֶק׃", 17.15. "שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ לֹא תוּכַל לָתֵת עָלֶיךָ אִישׁ נָכְרִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא־אָחִיךָ הוּא׃", 29.18. "וְהָיָה בְּשָׁמְעוֹ אֶת־דִּבְרֵי הָאָלָה הַזֹּאת וְהִתְבָּרֵךְ בִּלְבָבוֹ לֵאמֹר שָׁלוֹם יִהְיֶה־לִּי כִּי בִּשְׁרִרוּת לִבִּי אֵלֵךְ לְמַעַן סְפוֹת הָרָוָה אֶת־הַצְּמֵאָה׃", | 16.18. "Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, tribe by tribe; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.", 17.15. "thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose; one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother.", 29.18. "and it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying: ‘I shall have peace, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart—that the watered be swept away with the dry’;", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Ruth, 4.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seven •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 24, 25| 4.2. "וַיִּקַּח עֲשָׂרָה אֲנָשִׁים מִזִּקְנֵי הָעִיר וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁבוּ־פֹה וַיֵּשֵׁבוּ׃", 4.2. "וְעַמִּינָדָב הוֹלִיד אֶת־נַחְשׁוֹן וְנַחְשׁוֹן הוֹלִיד אֶת־שַׂלְמָה׃", | 4.2. "And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said: ‘Sit ye down here.’ And they sat down.", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 4.13-4.21 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 37| 4.13. "וְאִם כָּל־עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁגּוּ וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר מֵעֵינֵי הַקָּהָל וְעָשׂוּ אַחַת מִכָּל־מִצְוֺת יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־תֵעָשֶׂינָה וְאָשֵׁמוּ׃", 4.14. "וְנוֹדְעָה הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר חָטְאוּ עָלֶיהָ וְהִקְרִיבוּ הַקָּהָל פַּר בֶּן־בָּקָר לְחַטָּאת וְהֵבִיאוּ אֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃", 4.15. "וְסָמְכוּ זִקְנֵי הָעֵדָה אֶת־יְדֵיהֶם עַל־רֹאשׁ הַפָּר לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְשָׁחַט אֶת־הַפָּר לִפְנֵי יְהוָה׃", 4.16. "וְהֵבִיא הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ מִדַּם הַפָּר אֶל־אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃", 4.17. "וְטָבַל הַכֹּהֵן אֶצְבָּעוֹ מִן־הַדָּם וְהִזָּה שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֵת פְּנֵי הַפָּרֹכֶת׃", 4.18. "וּמִן־הַדָּם יִתֵּן עַל־קַרְנֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְאֵת כָּל־הַדָּם יִשְׁפֹּךְ אֶל־יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה אֲשֶׁר־פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃", 4.19. "וְאֵת כָּל־חֶלְבּוֹ יָרִים מִמֶּנּוּ וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחָה׃", 4.21. "וְהוֹצִיא אֶת־הַפָּר אֶל־מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְשָׂרַף אֹתוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׂרַף אֵת הַפָּר הָרִאשׁוֹן חַטַּאת הַקָּהָל הוּא׃", | 4.13. "And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err, the thing being hid from the eyes of the assembly, and do any of the things which the LORD hath commanded not to be done, and are guilty:", 4.14. "when the sin wherein they have sinned is known, then the assembly shall offer a young bullock for a sin-offering, and bring it before the tent of meeting.", 4.15. "And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the LORD; and the bullock shall be killed before the LORD.", 4.16. "And the anointed priest shall bring of the blood of the bullock to the tent of meeting.", 4.17. "And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the LORD, in front of the veil.", 4.18. "And he shall put of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the LORD, that is in the tent of meeting, and all the remaining blood shall he pour out at the base of the altar of burnt-offering, which is at the door of the tent of meeting.", 4.19. "And all the fat thereof shall he take off from it, and make it smoke upon the altar.", 4.20. "Thus shall he do with the bullock; as he did with the bullock of the sin-offering, so shall he do with this; and the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven.", 4.21. "And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bullock; it is the sin-offering for the assembly.", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, 1 Samuel, 20.25 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 45| 20.25. "וַיֵּשֶׁב הַמֶּלֶךְ עַל־מוֹשָׁבוֹ כְּפַעַם בְּפַעַם אֶל־מוֹשַׁב הַקִּיר וַיָּקָם יְהוֹנָתָן וַיֵּשֶׁב אַבְנֵר מִצַּד שָׁאוּל וַיִּפָּקֵד מְקוֹם דָּוִד׃", | 20.25. "And the king sat upon his seat, as at other times, upon a seat by the wall: and Yehonatan, arose, and Avner sat by Sha᾽ul’s side, and David’s place was empty.", |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 7.19 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seven •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 24| 7.19. "הַחָכְמָה תָּעֹז לֶחָכָם מֵעֲשָׂרָה שַׁלִּיטִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ בָּעִיר׃", | 7.19. "Wisdom is a stronghold to the wise man more than ten rulers that are in a city.", |
|
8. Hebrew Bible, 2 Chronicles, 19.11 (5th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seven Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 42| 19.11. "וְהִנֵּה אֲמַרְיָהוּ כֹהֵן הָרֹאשׁ עֲלֵיכֶם לְכֹל דְּבַר־יְהוָה וּזְבַדְיָהוּ בֶן־יִשְׁמָעֵאל הַנָּגִיד לְבֵית־יְהוּדָה לְכֹל דְּבַר־הַמֶּלֶךְ וְשֹׁטְרִים הַלְוִיִּם לִפְנֵיכֶם חִזְקוּ וַעֲשׂוּ וִיהִי יְהוָה עִם־הַטּוֹב׃", | 19.11. "And, behold, Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of the LORD; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, in all the king’s matters; also the officers of the Levites before you. Deal courageously, and the LORD be with the good.’", |
|
| 9. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Community, 1.9-1.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 63 |
| 10. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Community, 1.9-1.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 63 |
| 11. Dead Sea Scrolls, of Discipline, 8.2-8.10 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seven •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 25 |
| 12. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 1.9-1.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 63 |
| 13. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 3.16, 10.1, 15.5-15.13 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 36, 63, 180 |
| 14. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 6.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 28 |
| 15. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 3.16, 10.1, 15.5-15.13 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 36, 63, 180 |
16. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 1.3, 3.1, 4.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seven •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 42, 63, 180| 1.3. "סְמִיכַת זְקֵנִים וַעֲרִיפַת עֶגְלָה, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בַּחֲמִשָּׁה. הַחֲלִיצָה וְהַמֵּאוּנִין, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. נֶטַע רְבָעִי וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁאֵין דָּמָיו יְדוּעִין, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. הַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. הָעֲרָכִין הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֶחָד מֵהֶן כֹּהֵן. וְהַקַּרְקָעוֹת, תִּשְׁעָה וְכֹהֵן. וְאָדָם, כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶן: \n", 3.1. "דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. זֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד וְזֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד, וּשְׁנֵיהֶן בּוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, שְׁנֵי דַיָּנִין בּוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד. זֶה פּוֹסֵל דַּיָּנוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְזֶה פּוֹסֵל דַּיָּנוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמֵּבִיא עֲלֵיהֶן רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבִין אוֹ פְסוּלִין, אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ כְשֵׁרִים אוֹ מֻמְחִין, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן. זֶה פּוֹסֵל עֵדָיו שֶׁל זֶה וְזֶה פּוֹסֵל עֵדָיו שֶׁל זֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא עֲלֵיהֶם רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבִים אוֹ פְסוּלִים. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ כְשֵׁרִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן: \n", 4.4. "וְשָׁלֹשׁ שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים יוֹשְׁבִין לִפְנֵיהֶם, כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מַכִּיר אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ. הָיוּ צְרִיכִין לִסְמֹךְ, סוֹמְכִין מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁנִיָּה בָּא לוֹ לָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁלִישִׁית בָּא לוֹ לַשְּׁנִיָּה, וּבוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד מִן הַקָּהָל וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בַשְּׁלִישִׁית. וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹשֵׁב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן, אֶלָּא יוֹשֵׁב בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לוֹ: \n", | 1.3. "The laying on of the elders’ hands and the breaking of the heifer’s neck [are decided upon] by three, according to Rabbi Shimon. But Rabbi Judah says: “By five.” The rites of halitzah and “refusal” [are performed] before three. The fruit of fourth year plantings and Second Tithes whose value is not known [are redeemed] before three. Things dedicated to the Temple [are redeemed] before three. Vows of evaluation to be redeemed with movable property, [are evaluated] before three. Rabbi Judah says: “One must be a priest.” [Vows of evaluation], [to be redeemed] with land [are evaluated] before nine and a priest. And similarly [for the evaluation] of a man.", 3.1. "Cases concerning property [are decided] by three [judges].This [litigant] chooses one and this [litigant] chooses one and then the two of them choose another, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “The two judges choose the other judge.” This [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, and this [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid and experts, he cannot invalidate them. This [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses and this [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid, he cannot invalidate them.", 4.4. "And there were three rows of disciples of the Sages who sat before them, and each knew his proper place. If they needed to appoint [another as a judge] they appointed him from the first row, and one from the second row came into the first row, and one from the third row came into the second row, and they chose another from the congregation and set him in the third row. He did not sit in the place of the former, but he sat in the place that was proper for him.", |
|
17. Mishnah, Horayot, 1.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 36, 37| 1.4. "הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין, וְיָדַע אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁטָּעוּ, וְאָמַר לָהֶן טוֹעִין אַתֶּם, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה מֻפְלָא שֶׁל בֵּית דִּין שָׁם, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אַחַד מֵהֶן גֵּר אוֹ מַמְזֵר אוֹ נָתִין אוֹ זָקֵן שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה לוֹ בָנִים, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן עֵדָה (ויקרא ד) וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (במדבר לה) עֵדָה, מָה עֵדָה הָאֲמוּר לְהַלָּן עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כֻלָּם רְאוּיִין לְהוֹרָאָה, אַף עֵדָה הָאֲמוּרָה כָאן עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כֻלָּם רְאוּיִים לְהוֹרָאָה. הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין שׁוֹגְגִים וְעָשׂוּ כָל הַקָּהָל שׁוֹגְגִין, מְבִיאִין פָּר. מְזִידִין וְעָשׂוּ שׁוֹגְגִין, מְבִיאִין כִּשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה. שׁוֹגְגִין וְעָשׂוּ מְזִידִין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין: \n", | 1.4. "If the court ruled and one of them knew that they had erred and said to the others, “You are making a mistake”, or if the mufla of the court was not there, or if one of them was a proselyte or a mamzer or a nathin or an elder who did not have children, they are exempt, for it says here (Lev 4:13) “congregation” and it says later on (Num 35:24) “congregation”; just as the “congregation” further on must be fit to issue rulings, so too the “congregation” mentioned here must be fit to issue rulingsIf the court issued a [wrong] decision unwittingly and all the people acted unwittingly, they bring a bull. [If the court ruled wrong] intentionally and [the people] acted unwillingly, they bring a lamb or a goat. [If the court ruled] unwittingly and [the people] acted willingly accordingly, they are exempt.", |
|
18. Mishnah, Megillah, 4.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seven Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 42| 4.4. "הַקּוֹרֵא בַּתּוֹרָה לֹא יִפְחֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה פְסוּקִים. לֹא יִקְרָא לַמְּתֻרְגְּמָן יוֹתֵר מִפָּסוּק אֶחָד, וּבַנָּבִיא שְׁלֹשָׁה. הָיוּ שְׁלָשְׁתָּן שָׁלֹשׁ פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת, קוֹרִין אֶחָד אֶחָד. מְדַלְּגִין בַּנָּבִיא וְאֵין מְדַלְּגִין בַּתּוֹרָה. וְעַד כַּמָּה הוּא מְדַלֵּג, עַד כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִפְסֹק הַמְּתֻרְגְּמָן:", | 4.4. "One who reads the Torah [in public] may not read les than three verses. And he should not read to the translator more than one verse [at a time], but [if reading from the book of a] prophet [he may read to him] three at a time. If the three verses constitute three separate paragraphs, he must read them [to the translator] one by one. They may skip [from place to place] in a prophet but not in the Torah. How far may he skip [in the prophet]? [Only] so far that the translator will not have stopped [before he finds his place].", |
|
19. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 7.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 36| 7.5. "בדיני ממונות אומרין נזדקק הדין בדיני נפשות אין אומרין נזדקק הדין והגדול שבדיינים אומר נזדקק הדין אין שואלין מעומד ואין משיבין מעומד לא מגבוה ולא מרחוק ולא מאחורי הזקנים אין שואלין אלא בענין ואין משיבין אלא במדע ולא ישאל השואל בענין יתיר משלש הלכות אחד שואל ואחד אומר שלא לשאול נזקקין לשואל והשואל מעשה צריך שיאמר מעשה אני שואל והשואל כענין והשואל שלא כענין משיבין את השואל כענין והשואל שלא כענין צריך שיאמר שלא כענין שאלתי דברי ר\"מ וחכ\"א א\"צ שכל התורה ענין אחד. ענין ושאינו ענין נזקקין לענין מעשה ושאינו מעשה נזקקין למעשה הלכה ומדרש נזקקין להלכה מדרש ואגדה נזקקין למדרש מדרש וק\"ו נזקקין לק\"ו ק\"ו וגזירה שוה נזקקין לק\"ו חכם ותלמיד נזקקין לחכם תלמיד ועם הארץ נזקקין לתלמיד היו שניהם חכמים ושניהם תלמידים ושניהם עמי הארץ שתי הלכות ושתי שאלות ושתי תשובות ושני מעשים הרשות ביד התורגמן מעתה כשהנשיא נכנס כל העם עומדים והן ישבו עד שאמר להם שבו כשאב ב\"ד נכנס עושים לו שתי שורות מכאן ומכאן עד שנכנס וישב במקומו חכם שנכנס אחד עומד ואחד יושב עד שנכנס וישב במקומו בני חכמים ותלמידי חכמים בזמן שהרבים צריכים להם מקפצן אפילו על ראשי העם ואע\"פ שאמרו אין שבח לתלמיד שיכנס באחרונה יצא לצורך נכנס ויושב במקומו בני חכמים תלמידי חכמים בזמן שיש בהם דעת לשמוע הופכין את פניהם כלפי אביהם אין בהם דעת לשמוע הופכין את פניהם כלפי העם ר' אלעזר בר' צדוק אומר בבית המשתה עושים אותן סניפין חכם שנכנס אין שואלין אותו עד שתתישב דעתו נכנס ומצאם כשהם עוסקים בהלכה לא יהא קופץ לתוך דבריהם עד שיודע באיזה ענין הן עוסקים ואם עשה כן על זה נאמר שבעה דברים בגולם. שבע מדות דרש הלל לפני זקני בתירה ק\"ו וגזרה שוה ובנין אב וכתוב אחד ובנין אב ושני כתובים וכלל ופרט וכלל וכיוצא בו ממקום אחר דבר הלמד מענינו אלו שבע מדות שדרש הלל הזקן לפני זקני בתירה. ", | 7.5. "...Hillel the elder expounded seven hermeneutical principles before the elders of Betheira: kal vachomer, gezeirah shavah, shnei kethuvim, kllal ufrat, kayotze bo bemakom acher (\"the same applies elsewhere\" — i.e., binyan av), davar halamed me'inyano (and davar halamed misofo)." |
|
| 20. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 15, 153, 144 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 42 |
| 21. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 95 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 45 |
| 22. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 36 |
23. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 45| 86b. לכהן לכהן ולא ללוי אימא אף לכהן מאי טעמא דר' עקיבא דכתיב (במדבר יח, כו) ואל הלוים תדבר ואמרת אליהם בלוים קא משתעי קרא ואידך כדר' יהושע ב"ל דאמר ר' יהושע ב"ל בעשרים וארבעה מקומות נקראו כהנים לוים וזה אחד מהם (יחזקאל מד, טו) והכהנים הלוים בני צדוק,ור"ע הכא לא מצית אמרת דכתיב (במדבר יח, לא) ואכלתם אותו בכל מקום מי שיכול לאוכלו בכל מקום יצא כהן שאין יכול לאוכלו בבית הקברות ואידך כל היכא דבעי דלא בעי חומה ואי אכיל ליה בטומאת הגוף לא לקי,ההיא גינתא דהוה שקיל רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מעשר ראשון מינה אזל ר"ע אהדריה לפתחא לבי קברי אמר עקיבא בתרמילו ואנא חיי,איתמר מפני מה קנסו לוים במעשר פליגי בה רבי יונתן וסביא חד אמר שלא עלו בימי עזרא וח"א כדי שיסמכו כהנים עליו בימי טומאתן,בשלמא למאן דאמר שלא עלו משום הכי קנסינהו אלא למ"ד כדי שיסמכו עליו כהנים בימי טומאתן משום כהנים קנסינהו ללוים אלא כולי עלמא קנסא שלא עלו בימי עזרא והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר קנסא לעניים ומר סבר כהנים בימי טומאתן עניים נינהו,בשלמא למאן דאמר קנסא לעניים משום הכי אהדריה ר"ע לפתחא לבי קברי אלא למאן דאמר לכהנים אמאי אהדריה לפתחא לבי קברי הכי קאמר ליה אי דקא אתית בתורת קנסא אית לך ואי קא אתית בתורת חלוקה לית לך,ומנא לן דלא סליקו בימי עזרא דכתיב (עזרא ח, טו) ואקבצם אל הנהר הבא על אהוא ונחנה שם ימים שלשה ואבינה בעם ובכהנים ומבני לוי לא מצאתי שם אמר רב חסדא בתחלה לא היו מעמידים שוטרי' אלא מן הלוים שנאמר (דברי הימים ב יט, יא) ושוטרים הלוים לפניכם עכשיו אין מעמידין שוטרים אלא מישראל שנאמר ושוטרים הרבים בראשיכם:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בת ישראל שניסת לכהן תאכל בתרומה מת ולה הימנו בן תאכל בתרומה ניסת ללוי תאכל במעשר מת ולה הימנו בן תאכל במעשר ניסת לישראל לא תאכל לא בתרומה ולא במעשר מת ולה הימנו בן לא תאכל לא בתרומה ולא במעשר,מת בנה מישראל תאכל במעשר מת בנה מלוי תאכל בתרומה מת בנה מכהן לא תאכל לא בתרומה ולא במעשר | 86b. The first tithe is given b to a priest. /b The Gemara is puzzled: b To a priest and not to a Levite? /b But the Torah expressly states that the first tithe is for Levites. The Gemara answers: b Say /b he means it can be given b also to a priest. /b The Gemara clarifies: b What is the reason /b for b Rabbi Akiva’s /b opinion? b As it is written: “You shall speak to the Levites, and you shall say to them” /b (Numbers 18:26). Clearly, b the verse speaks of Levites, /b not priests. b And the other /b i tanna /i , Rabbi Eliezer, maintains b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In twenty-four places /b in the Bible the b priests are called Levites. And this is one of those /b verses: b “And the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok” /b (Ezekiel 44:15)., b And Rabbi Akiva /b replies: b Here you cannot say /b the verse is referring to priests, b as it is written: “And you may eat it in any place” /b (Numbers 18:31), from which we learn that the tithe is given to b one who can eat it in any place. /b This b excludes a priest, who cannot eat it in a cemetery, /b as he is prohibited from entering such a place. Consequently, the verse cannot be referring to priests. b And the other /b Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, how does he respond to this claim? He explains the verse as follows: He may eat it b anywhere that he wishes, /b that is, in any city, b as it does not require /b the b wall /b of Jerusalem, like the second tithe. b And /b we further learn from here that b if he eats it in /b a state of b bodily impurity he is not flogged. /b Consequently, we can say that tithe may be eaten by priests in any place.,The Gemara relates: There was b a certain garden from which Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, /b a priest, b would take /b the b first tithe, /b in accordance with his opinion that priests are also entitled to this tithe. b Rabbi Akiva went, /b closed up the garden, and b changed its entrance /b so that it would be facing b toward the cemetery, /b to prevent Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya from entering the garden. Rabbi Elazar b said /b in the form of a lighthearted exaggeration: b Akiva, /b a former shepherd, comes b with his satchel, but I have to live; /b from where will I receive my livelihood if I cannot claim the first tithe? Rabbi Elazar was actually a very wealthy man and did not need the produce from this garden. However, his point was that Rabbi Akiva acted in order to stop him from receiving something that he felt was rightfully his.,§ b It was stated /b that i amora’im /i disagreed about the following question: b For what reason did /b the Sages b penalize /b the b Levites with regard to /b their b tithe, /b by declaring that it may be given to priests as well? b Rabbi Yonatan and the Elders /b who were with him b disagree /b with regard to b this /b matter. b One said /b it was because b they did not ascend, /b i.e., immigrate to the land of Israel, b in the days of Ezra. And one said /b that it was not a penalty at all, but they gave the first tithe to the priests b so that they /b could b rely on it during their days of impurity. /b Because it is prohibited for priests to consume i teruma /i while in a state of impurity, they would have had nothing to eat if they were dependent exclusively on i teruma /i . It is permitted, however, to eat the tithe while impure.,The Gemara asks: b Granted, according to the one who says /b it was because b they did not ascend, /b we can understand that b due to that /b reason b they penalized /b the Levites by forcing them to share their tithe with the priests. b But according to the one who says /b it was done b so that the priests /b could b rely on it during their days of impurity, /b should we b penalize the Levites for /b the benefit of b priests? Rather, everyone agrees /b that it was b a penalty /b for the fact b that they did not ascend in the days of Ezra, and here they disagree about this: /b One b Sage holds /b that the b penalty /b is that the tithe must be given b to the poor, and /b one b Sage holds /b that b priests are /b classified as b poor in the days of their impurity. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Granted, according to the one who says /b that the b penalty /b imposed on the Levites is that the tithe must be given b to the poor, due to that /b reason b Rabbi Akiva changed /b the garden b entrance /b so that it would be facing b toward the cemetery, /b as Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was a wealthy man. b But according to the one who says /b the tithe was given b to the priests, why did he change /b the b entrance /b so that it would be b toward the cemetery? /b The Gemara answers: b This is what he said to him, /b i.e., this is what he meant: b If you come /b to receive the tithe b by virtue of /b the b penalty /b imposed on the Levites, b you may have /b it, b but if you come by the /b standard i halakha /i b of distribution, /b demanding your share with the Levites, b you may not have /b the tithe. If the owner of the garden chooses to give it to you, you may accept it, but you may not take it yourself.,The Gemara asks with regard to the penalty imposed on Levites: b And from where do we /b derive b that /b the Levites b did not ascend in the days of Ezra? As it is written: “And I gathered them together to the river that runs to Ahava; and we encamped there /b for b three days; and I viewed the people, and the priests, and found there none of the sons of Levi” /b (Ezra 8:15). With regard to this, b Rav Ḥisda said: Initially they would establish officers /b over the people b only from /b among b the Levites, as it states: “And the officers, the Levites, before you” /b (II Chronicles 19:11), but b now they establish officers only from /b among the b Israelites, as it is stated: And the officers of the many at your heads. /b This indicates that officers were appointed from: The many, meaning the largest group, ordinary Israelites., strong MISHNA: /strong b An Israelite woman married to a priest may partake of i teruma /i . /b If the priest b died and she has a child from him, she may /b continue to b partake of i teruma /i . /b If she subsequently b married a Levite, /b she may no longer partake of i teruma /i but b she may partake of /b the first b tithe /b on his account. If he, too, b died and she /b had b a child from him, she may /b continue to b partake of tithe /b on account of the child. If she then b married an Israelite, she may partake of neither i teruma /i nor tithe. /b If her Israelite husband b died and she /b had b a child from him, she /b still b may partake of neither i teruma /i nor tithe. /b ,If b her child from the Israelite /b also b died, /b while her son from the Levite remained alive, b she may partake of tithe /b on account of the Levite’s child. If b her child from the Levite died, /b leaving her with a son from the priest, b she may /b once again b partake of i teruma /i . /b If b her child from the priest died /b as well, b she may no /b longer b partake of either i teruma /i or tithe. /b |
|
24. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 36| 56b. עבדך וירגל בעבדך אל אדוני המלך ואדוני המלך כמלאך האלהים ועשה הטוב בעיניך ויאמר לו המלך למה תדבר עוד דבריך אמרתי אתה וציבא תחלקו את השדה ויאמר מפיבשת אל המלך גם את הכל יקח אחרי אשר בא אדוני המלך בשלום אל ביתו אמר לו אני אמרתי מתי תבא בשלום ואתה עושה לי כך לא עליך יש לי תרעומות אלא על מי שהביאך בשלום,היינו דכתיב (דברי הימים א ח, לד) ובן יהונתן מריב בעל וכי מריב בעל שמו והלא מפיבשת שמו אלא מתוך שעשה מריבה עם בעליו יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו נצא בר נצא נצא הא דאמרן בר נצא דכתיב (שמואל א טו, ה) ויבא שאול עד עיר עמלק וירב בנחל אמר רבי מני על עסקי נחל,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב בשעה שאמר דוד למפיבשת אתה וציבא תחלקו את השדה יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו רחבעם וירבעם יחלקו את המלוכה,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אילמלי לא. קיבל דוד לשון הרע לא נחלקה מלכות בית דוד ולא עבדו ישראל ע"ז ולא גלינו מארצנו:,אמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן כל האומר שלמה חטא אינו אלא טועה שנאמר (מלכים א יא, ד) ולא היה לבבו שלם עם ה' אלהיו כלבב דוד אביו כלבב דוד אביו הוא דלא הוה מיחטא נמי לא חטא,אלא מה אני מקיים (מלכים א יא, ד) ויהי לעת זקנת שלמה נשיו הטו את לבבו ההיא כרבי נתן דר' נתן רמי כתיב ויהי לעת זקנת שלמה נשיו הטו את לבבו והכתיב כלבב דוד אביו כלבב דוד אביו הוא דלא הוה מיחטא נמי לא חטא הכי קאמר ויהי לעת זקנת שלמה נשיו הטו את לבבו ללכת אחרי אלהים אחרים ולא הלך,והכתיב (מלכים א יא, ז) אז יבנה שלמה במה לכמוש שקוץ מואב שבקש לבנות ולא בנה,אלא מעתה (יהושע ח, ל) אז יבנה יהושע מזבח לה' שבקש לבנות ולא בנה אלא דבנה הכא נמי דבנה,אלא כדתניא רבי יוסי אומר (מלכים ב כג, יג) ואת הבמות אשר על פני ירושלים אשר מימין להר המשחה אשר בנה שלמה מלך ישראל לעשתרות שקוץ צדונים וגו',אפשר בא אסא ולא ביערם יהושפט ולא ביערם עד שבא יאשיה וביערם והלא כל ע"ז שבארץ ישראל אסא ויהושפט ביערום אלא מקיש ראשונים לאחרונים מה אחרונים לא עשו ותלה בהן לשבח אף ראשונים לא עשו ותלה בהן לגנאי,והכתיב (מלכים א יא, ו) ויעש שלמה הרע בעיני ה' אלא מפני שהיה לו למחות בנשיו ולא מיחה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו חטא,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל נוח לו לאותו צדיק שיהא שמש לדבר אחר ואל יכתב בו ויעש הרע בעיני ה',אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בשעה שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה הכניסה לו אלף מיני זמר ואמרה לו כך עושין לעבודה זרה פלונית וכך עושים לע"ז פלונית ולא מיחה בה,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בשעה שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה ירד גבריאל ונעץ קנה בים ועלה בו שירטון ועליו נבנה כרך גדול [של רומי],במתניתא תנא אותו היום שהכניס ירבעם שני עגלי זהב אחד בבית אל ואחד בדן נבנה צריף אחד וזהו איטליאה של יון:,א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן כל האומר יאשיהו חטא אינו אלא טועה שנאמר (מלכים ב כב, ב) ויעש הישר בעיני ה' וילך בכל דרך דוד אביו אלא מה אני מקיים (מלכים ב כג, כה) וכמוהו לא היה לפניו מלך אשר שב וגו',שכל דין שדן מבן שמנה עד שמנה עשרה החזירן להן שמא תאמר נטל מזה ונתן לזה תלמוד לומר בכל מאודו שנתן להם משלו,ופליגא דרב דאמר רב אין לך גדול בבעלי תשובה יותר מיאשיהו בדורו ואחד בדורנו ומנו אבא אבוה דרבי ירמיה בר אבא ואמרי לה אחא אחוה דאבא אבוה דרב ירמיה בר אבא דאמר מר רבי אבא ואחא אחי הוו,אמר רב יוסף ועוד אחד בדורנו ומנו עוקבן בר נחמיה ריש גלותא והיינו. נתן דצוציתא אמר רב יוסף הוה יתיבנא בפירקא והוה קא מנמנם וחזאי בחילמא דקא פשט ידיה וקבליה:, br br big strongהדרן עלך במה בהמה /strong /big br br | |
|
25. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 42| 7b. שנאמר (שיר השירים ג, ז) הנה מטתו שלשלמה ששים גבורים סביב לה מגבורי ישראל כולם אחוזי חרב מלומדי מלחמה איש חרבו על יריכו מפחד בלילות מפחדה של גיהנם שדומה ללילה,דרש ר' יאשיה ואיתימא רב נחמן בר יצחק מאי דכתיב (ירמיהו כא, יב) בית דוד כה אמר ה' דינו לבקר משפט והצילו גזול מיד עושק וכי בבקר דנין וכל היום אין דנין אלא אם ברור לך הדבר כבקר אמרהו ואם לאו אל תאמרהו ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יונתן מהכא (משלי ז, ד) אמור לחכמה אחותי את אם ברור לך הדבר כאחותך שהיא אסורה לך אומרהו ואם לאו אל תאמרהו,אמר ר' יהושע בן לוי עשרה שיושבין בדין קולר תלוי בצואר כולן פשיטא לא צריכא אלא לתלמיד היושב לפני רבו,רב הונא כי הוה אתי דינא לקמיה מיכניף ומייתי עשרה רבנן מבי רב אמר כי היכי דלימטיי' שיבא מכשורא רב אשי כי הוה אתי טריפתא לקמיה מכניף ומייתי להו לכולהו טבחי דמתא מחסיא אמר כי היכי דלימטיין שיבא מכשורא,כי אתא רב דימי אמר דרש רב נחמן בר כהן מאי דכתיב (משלי כט, ד) מלך במשפט יעמיד ארץ ואיש תרומות יהרסנה אם דיין דומה למלך שאינו צריך לכלום יעמיד ארץ ואם דומה לכהן שמחזר בבית הגרנות יהרסנה,דבי נשיאה אוקמו דיינא דלא הוה גמיר א"ל ליהודה בר נחמני מתורגמניה דריש לקיש קום עליה באמורא קם גחין עליה ולא א"ל ולא מידי,פתח ואמר (חבקוק ב, יט) הוי אומר לעץ הקיצה עורי לאבן דומם הוא יורה הנה הוא תפוש זהב וכסף וכל רוח אין בקרבו ועתיד הקב"ה ליפרע ממעמידין שנאמר (חבקוק ב, כ) וה' בהיכל קדשו הס מפניו כל הארץ,אמר ריש לקיש כל המעמיד דיין (על הציבור) שאינו הגון כאילו נוטע אשירה בישראל שנאמר (דברים טז, יח) שופטים ושוטרים תתן לך וסמיך ליה (דברים טז, כא) לא תטע לך אשירה כל עץ אמר רב אשי ובמקום שיש תלמידי חכמים כאילו נטעו אצל מזבח שנאמר (דברים טז, כא) אצל מזבח ה' אלהיך,כתיב (שמות כ, כג) לא תעשון אתי אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב הוא דלא עבדי הא דעץ שרי אמר רב אשי אלוה הבא בשביל כסף ואלוה הבא בשביל זהב,רב כי הוה אתי לבי דינא אמר הכי ברעות נפשיה לקטלא נפיק וצבי ביתיה לית הוא עביד וריקן לביתיה עייל ולואי שתהא ביאה כיציאה,כי הוי חזי אמבוהא (דספרי) אבתריה אמר (איוב כ, ו) אם יעלה לשמים שיאו [וגו'] כגללו לנצח יאבד (וגו') מר זוטרא חסידא כי הוו מכתפי ליה בשבתא דריגלא אמר הכי (משלי כז, כד) כי לא לעולם חוסן ואם נזר לדור ודור,דרש בר קפרא מנא הא מילתא דאמרו רבנן הוו מתונין בדין דכתיב (שמות כ, כו) לא תעלה במעלות וסמיך ליה (שמות כא, א) ואלה המשפטים אמר ר' אליעזר מניין לדיין שלא יפסע על ראשי עם קודש שנא' לא תעלה במעלות וסמיך ליה ואלה המשפטים,אשר תשים אשר תלמדם מיבעי ליה אמר רבי ירמיה ואיתימא רבי חייא בר אבא אלו כלי הדיינין רב הונא כי הוה נפק לדינא אמר הכי אפיקו לי מאני חנותאי מקל ורצועה ושופרא וסנדלא,(דברים א, טז) ואצוה את שופטיכם בעת ההיא אמר רבי יוחנן כנגד מקל ורצועה תהא זריז (דברים א, טז) שמוע בין אחיכם ושפטתם אמר רבי חנינא אזהרה לבית דין שלא ישמע דברי בעל דין קודם שיבא בעל דין חבירו ואזהרה לבעל דין שלא יטעים דבריו לדיין קודם שיבא בעל דין חבירו קרי ביה נמי שמע בין אחיכם,רב כהנא אמר מהכא (שמות כג, א) מלא תשא לא תשיא,(דברים א, טז) ושפטתם צדק אמר ריש לקיש צדק את הדין ואחר כך חתכהו (דברים א, טז) בין איש ובין אחיו (ובין גרו) אמר רב יהודה אפילו בין בית לעלייה,ובין גרו אמר רב יהודה אפילו בין תנור לכירים,(דברים א, יז) לא תכירו פנים במשפט רבי יהודה אומר לא תכירהו רבי אלעזר אומר לא תנכרהו,אושפיזכניה דרב אתא לקמיה לדינא אמר לו לאו אושפיזכני את אמר לו אין אמר ליה דינא אית לי אמר ליה | 7b. b as it is stated: “Behold, it is the bed of Solomon; sixty mighty men are around it, of the mighty men of Israel. They all handle the sword, and are expert in war; every man has his sword upon his thigh due to dread in the night” /b (Song of Songs 3:7–8). The words “due to dread in the night” mean b due to the dread of Gehenna, which is similar to the night. /b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani interprets this verse as referring to judges, who are called: Mighty men of Israel, as they preside in the Temple, which is termed: The bed of God. In this verse, God is referred to as: Solomon [ i Shlomo /i ], the King to Whom peace [ i shalom /i ] belongs., b Rabbi Yoshiya, and some say Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, interpreted /b a verse b homiletically. What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “House of David, so says the Lord: Execute justice in the morning, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor” /b (Jeremiah 21:12)? b And /b is it b so /b that a court b may judge in the morning, and all /b the rest of b the day /b a court b may not judge? /b Why does the verse specifically relate to judging in the morning? b Rather, /b the meaning is: b If the matter is as clear to you as the morning, state /b the verdict; b and if not, do not state it. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says /b that b Rabbi Yonatan /b says this principle may be derived b from here: “Say to wisdom: You are my sister” /b (Proverbs 7:4). b If the matter is /b as b clear to you as /b the fact b that your sister is forbidden to you, state it, and if not, do not state it. /b , b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: /b If b ten /b judges b are sitting in judgment, /b a prisoner’s b collar [ i kolar /i ], /b referring to responsibility for the consequences of an incorrect verdict, b hangs around all of their necks. /b The Gemara asks: Isn’t it b obvious /b that all of the judges bear joint responsibility for the verdict? The Gemara answers: It b is necessary only /b in order b to /b include b a student who is sitting in front of his teacher /b in the court, and notices that his teacher erred. Although he is not formally part of the court, he nevertheless bears responsibility if he remains silent.,The Gemara relates concerning b Rav Huna /b that b when /b a case b would come before him /b for b judgment, /b he would b gather and bring ten rabbis from Rav’s study hall. /b He b would say: /b I do this b so that /b only a small part of the responsibility, comparable to b a splinter from a beam, will reach /b each of b us. /b The greater the number of judges, the less responsibility each one assumes for the verdict. Similarly, with b Rav Ashi, when /b a person b would come before him /b with meat suspected to be from b an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [ i tereifta /i ], /b he b would gather and bring /b together b all the butchers of Mata Meḥasya /b and consult with them before ruling on the status of the meat. He b would say /b to them: I do this b so that /b only a small part of the responsibility, comparable to b a splinter from a beam, will reach /b each of b us. /b , b When Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael, he b said: Rav Naḥman bar Kohen interpreted /b a verse b homiletically: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “The king by justice establishes the land; but he who exacts gifts [ i terumot /i ] overthrows it” /b (Proverbs 29:4)? This teaches that b if the judge /b is b like a king /b in b that he does not need anything /b and is not dependent on anyone, he b establishes the land, /b i.e., he can serve as a judge. b But if he is like a priest who seeks out /b his i terumot /i b from /b various b granaries, /b as he is dependent on others, he b overthrows /b the land., b In the house of the i Nasi /i , they appointed a judge who was not learned. /b This judge b said to Yehuda bar Naḥmani, /b who was the b interpreter of Reish Lakish /b and whose role was to repeat and explain the Sage’s lectures: b Stand over /b me b as an interpreter, /b and I will lecture. Yehuda bar Naḥmani b arose /b and b bent over him /b in the conventional manner, to hear the judge’s words. b And, /b being ignorant, the judge b did not say anything to him. /b ,The interpreter b began and said: /b The verse states: b “Woe to him who says to the wood: Awake, to the dumb stone: Arise. Can this teach? Behold, it is overlaid with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it” /b (Habakkuk 2:19). So is this judge, appointed to teach the public for gold, i.e., for payment, but no more qualified than wood and stone. b And /b in the b future, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will punish those who appoint /b such judges, b as it is stated /b in the next verse: b “But the Lord is in His holy Sanctuary; let all the earth be silent before Him” /b (Habakkuk 2:20). God, Who is above everything, will judge those responsible for such appointments., b Reish Lakish says: /b With regard to b anyone who appoints over the community a judge who is not fit, /b it is b as though /b he b plants a tree /b used as part of idolatrous rites b [ i ashera /i ] among the Jewish people, as it is stated: “You shall make judges and officers for yourself” /b (Deuteronomy 16:18), b and juxtaposed to it, /b it is written: b “You shall not plant yourself an i ashera /i of any kind of tree” /b (Deuteronomy 16:21). By implication, appointing unfit judges is akin to planting a tree for idolatry. b Rav Ashi says: And in a place where there are Torah scholars, /b it is b as though /b he b planted /b the tree b next to the altar, as it is stated: /b “You shall not plant yourself an i ashera /i … b beside the altar of the Lord your God.” /b ,It is b written: “You shall not make with Me gods of [ i elohei /i ] silver and gods of gold” /b (Exodus 20:20). The Gemara asks: It is b gods of silver and gods of gold that /b you may b not make, but /b are gods b of wood permitted? /b Rather, b Rav Ashi says: /b This verse discusses b a judge, /b called i elohim /i , b who comes, /b i.e., is appointed, b due to /b payment of b silver, and a judge who comes due to /b payment of b gold. /b ,The Gemara relates that b Rav, when he would come to court /b to judge a case, b would say this /b about himself: b By his own will /b he b goes out to /b danger of b death, /b as a judge who misjudges a case is liable to receive the punishment of death at the hand of Heaven; b and he does not do /b what is necessary to provide for b the needs of his house, and he enters his home empty-handed, /b because a judge does not receive a salary. He said: b If only /b it should be so that his b entry /b into his home b will be /b the same b as /b his b departure, /b without sin or transgression.,In a similar demonstration of humility, b when /b Rav b would see a convoy [ i ambuha /i ] of scribes /b following b after him /b to honor him, he b would say: “Though his excellency mount up to the heavens /b and his head reach the clouds, b yet he shall perish forever like his own dung; /b they who have seen him shall say: Where is he?” (Job 20:6–7). It is said of b Mar Zutra the Pious /b that b when /b the people b would carry him /b to his lectures b on their shoulders during Shabbat of the Festival, /b he would b say this /b to avoid becoming arrogant: b “For power is not forever, and does the crown endure for all generations?” /b (Proverbs 27:24)., b Bar Kappara taught, /b based on a homiletical interpretation of a verse: b From where is this matter that the Sages stated /b derived: b Be temperate in judgment /b ( i Avot /i 1:1)? b As it is written: “Neither shall you go up by steps /b onto My altar” (Exodus 20:23), i.e., do not ascend hurriedly, b and juxtaposed to it, /b it is written: b “Now these are the ordices /b that you shall set before them” (Exodus 21:1). b Rabbi Eliezer says: From where /b is it derived b that a judge may not step over the heads of the sacred nation, /b walking among those assembled for the lecture, who would sit upon the floor, in such a manner that he has the appearance of stepping on them? It is derived from that b which is stated: “Neither shall you go up by steps,” and juxtaposed to it /b is an introduction to civil laws and courtroom regulations: b “Now these are the ordices.” /b This indicates that the prohibition against ascending upon steps applies to judges.,The Gemara interprets the second part of the verse cited above: “Now these are the ordices b that you shall set /b before them.” The verse b should have /b stated: b That you shall teach them. /b What is indicated by the phrase: “Set before them”? b Rabbi Yirmeya, and some say Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, says: These are the judges’ tools. /b To illustrate this, the Gemara relates that b Rav Huna, when he would go out to a judgment, would say this: Take out for me tools from my shop: A rod and strap, /b with which to flog transgressors; b and a shofar, /b necessary in the event that someone must be excommunicated; b and a sandal, /b necessary in the event of i ḥalitza /i , the procedure by which a levirate marriage is rejected.,The Gemara interprets other verses related to the topic of adjudicating cases. b “And I charged your judges at that time, /b saying: Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the stranger who is with him” (Deuteronomy 1:16). Understanding that the word “charged” indicates alacrity, b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b Moses urged the judges: b With regard to the rod and the strap, be vigilant. /b With regard to the clause b “Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge,” Rabbi Ḥanina says: /b This is b a warning to a court that /b it b may not hear the statement of /b one b litigant before the other litigant comes, and /b it is b a warning to a litigant that /b he b may not explain his statement to the judge before the other litigant comes. Read into /b the phrase in the verse: b “Hear the causes between your brethren,” /b that it is b also concerning /b the litigant. Although he is not the judge, he is also required to assure that the case is conducted in the presence of both parties., b Rav Kahana says /b the litigant’s responsibility may be derived b from here: From “you shall not bear [ i tissa /i ] /b a false report” (Exodus 23:1). Although conjugated in this manner the verb would seem to be addressed to the judges, commanding them not to lend credence to a false report, the term may also be read as: b You shall not deliver [ i tassi /i ] /b a false report, conjugated so that it addresses the litigants and the witnesses.,The Gemara returns to the verse in Deuteronomy cited above: “And I charged your judges at that time, saying: Hear the causes between your brethren, b and judge righteously.” Reish Lakish says: Verify the judgment /b by meticulously examining the particulars of the case, b and /b only b afterward, implement it. /b The verse continues: b “Between a man and his brother, and the stranger who is with him.” Rav Yehuda says: /b The judge must distinguish b even between /b the merits of b a house and the upper story /b when dividing a two-floor property among inheriting brothers.,With regard to the clause in the verse: b “And the stranger who is with him [ i gero /i ],” /b the word i gero /i resembles the word: Dwell [ i gur /i ], and b Rav Yehuda says: /b This word teaches that the judge must distinguish b even between /b the merits of b an oven and a stove. /b The judge must carefully weigh how to divide even these domestic items in a case of inheritance, to ensure that the distribution of property is absolutely equitable.,The next verse states: b “You shall not respect [ i takiru /i ] people in judgment; /b you shall hear the small and the great alike; you shall not be afraid before any man, for the judgment is God’s; and the cause that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it” (Deuteronomy 1:17). b Rabbi Yehuda says: Do not recognize him [ i takirehu /i ], /b i.e., do not acknowledge the litigant as a friend in your role as a judge. b Rabbi Elazar says: /b Even if he is your opponent, b do not estrange him [ i tenakerehu /i ] /b in such a way as to prejudge him as liable, but treat him as though you do not know him at all., b Rav’s host [ i ushpizekhaneih /i ], /b with whom he would stay occasionally, b came before him for a judgment. /b Rav b said to /b the host: b Are you not my host? /b He b said to him: Yes, /b I am. The host then b said to him: I have /b a dispute with another that needs b a judgment. /b Rav b said to him: /b |
|
26. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 42| 26a. יקחו ספרים ספרים לוקחין תורה,אבל אם מכרו תורה לא יקחו ספרים ספרים לא יקחו מטפחות מטפחות לא יקחו תיבה תיבה לא יקחו בית הכנסת בית הכנסת לא יקחו את הרחוב,וכן במותריהן:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big בני העיר שמכרו רחובה של עיר אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן זו דברי ר' מנחם בר יוסי סתומתאה אבל חכ"א הרחוב אין בו משום קדושה,ור' מנחם בר יוסי מאי טעמיה הואיל והעם מתפללין בו בתעניות ובמעמדות ורבנן ההוא אקראי בעלמא:,בית הכנסת לוקחין תיבה: אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן לא שנו אלא בית הכנסת של כפרים אבל בית הכנסת של כרכין כיון דמעלמא אתו ליה לא מצו מזבני ליה דהוה ליה דרבים,אמר רב אשי האי בי כנישתא דמתא מחסיא אף על גב דמעלמא אתו לה כיון דאדעתא דידי קאתו אי בעינא מזבנינא לה,מיתיבי א"ר יהודה מעשה בבית הכנסת של טורסיים שהיה בירושלים שמכרוה לרבי אליעזר ועשה בה כל צרכיו והא התם דכרכים הוה ההיא בי כנישתא זוטי הוה ואינהו עבדוה,מיתיבי (ויקרא יד, לד) בבית ארץ אחוזתכם אחוזתכם מיטמא בנגעים ואין ירושלים מיטמא בנגעים אמר רבי יהודה אני לא שמעתי אלא מקום מקדש בלבד,הא בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות מיטמאין אמאי הא דכרכין הוו אימא א"ר יהודה אני לא שמעתי אלא מקום מקודש בלבד,במאי קמיפלגי ת"ק סבר לא נתחלקה ירושלים לשבטים ורבי יהודה סבר נתחלקה ירושלים לשבטים,ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי,דתניא מה היה בחלקו של יהודה הר הבית הלשכות והעזרות ומה היה בחלקו של בנימין אולם והיכל ובית קדשי הקדשים,ורצועה היתה יוצאת מחלקו של יהודה ונכנסת בחלקו של בנימין ובה מזבח בנוי והיה בנימין הצדיק מצטער עליה בכל יום לבולעה שנאמר (דברים לג, יב) חופף עליו כל היום לפיכך זכה בנימין ונעשה אושפיזכן לשכינה,והאי תנא סבר לא נתחלקה ירושלים לשבטים דתניא אין משכירים בתים בירושלים מפני שאינן שלהן ר"א (בר צדוק) אומר אף לא מטות לפיכך עורות קדשים בעלי אושפיזין נוטלין אותן בזרוע,אמר אביי ש"מ אורח ארעא למישבק אינש גולפא ומשכא באושפיזיה,אמר רבא לא שנו אלא שלא מכרו שבעה טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר אבל מכרו שבעה טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר אפילו | 26a. b they may purchase scrolls /b of the Prophets and the Writings. If they sold b scrolls /b of the Prophets and Writings, b they may purchase a Torah /b scroll., b However, /b the proceeds of a sale of a sacred item may not be used to purchase an item of a lesser degree of sanctity. Therefore, b if they sold a Torah /b scroll, b they may not /b use the proceeds to b purchase scrolls /b of the Prophets and the Writings. If they sold b scrolls /b of the Prophets and Writings, b they may not purchase wrapping cloths. /b If they sold b wrapping cloths, they may not purchase an ark. /b If they sold b an ark, they may not purchase a synagogue. /b If they sold b a synagogue, they may not purchase a town square. /b , b And similarly, /b the same limitation applies b to /b any b surplus funds /b from the sale of sacred items, i.e., if after selling an item and purchasing something of a greater degree of sanctity there remain additional, unused funds, the leftover funds are subject to the same principle and may be used to purchase only something of a degree of sanctity greater than that of the original item., strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna states: b Residents of a town who sold the town square /b may purchase a synagogue with the proceeds. Concerning this mishna, b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: This is the statement of Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei, cited unattributed. However, the Rabbis say: The town square does not have any sanctity. /b Therefore, if it is sold, the residents may use the money from the sale for any purpose., b And Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei, what is his reason /b for claiming that the town square has sanctity? b Since the people pray in /b the town square b on /b communal b fast days and on /b non-priestly b watches, /b it is defined as a place of prayer and as such has sanctity. b And the Rabbis, /b why do they disagree? They maintain b that /b use of the town square b is merely an irregular occurrence. /b Consequently, the town square is not to be defined as a place of prayer, and so it has no sanctity.,§ The mishna states: If they sold b a synagogue, they may purchase an ark. /b The Gemara cites a qualification to this i halakha /i : b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yonatan said: They taught /b this b only /b with regard to b a synagogue of a village, /b which is considered the property of the residents of that village. b However, /b with regard to b a synagogue of a city, since /b people b come to it from the /b outside b world, /b the residents of the city b are not able to sell it, because it is /b considered to be the property b of the public /b at large and does not belong exclusively to the residents of the city., b Rav Ashi said: This synagogue of Mata Meḥasya, although /b people b from the /b outside b world come to it, since they come at my discretion, /b as I established it, and everything is done there in accordance with my directives, b if I wish, I can sell it. /b ,The Gemara b raises an objection /b to Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani’s statement, from a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda said: /b There was b an incident involving a synagogue of bronze workers [ i tursiyyim /i ] that was in Jerusalem, which they sold to Rabbi Eliezer, and he used it for all his /b own b needs. /b The Gemara asks: b But wasn’t /b the synagogue b there /b one b of cities, /b as Jerusalem is certainly classified as a city; why were they permitted to sell it? The Gemara explains: b That /b one b was a small synagogue, and /b it was the bronze workers b themselves /b who b built it. /b Therefore, it was considered exclusively theirs, and they were permitted to sell it.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from another i baraita /i : The verse states with regard to leprosy of houses: “And I put the plague of leprosy b in a house of the land of your possession” /b (Leviticus 14:34), from which it may be inferred: b “Your possession,” /b i.e., a privately owned house, b can become ritually impure with leprosy, but /b a house in b Jerusalem cannot become ritually impure with leprosy, /b as property there belongs collectively to the Jewish people and is not privately owned. b Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard /b this distinction stated b only /b with regard to b the site of the Temple alone, /b but not with regard to the entire city of Jerusalem.,The Gemara explains: From Rabbi Yehuda’s statement, it is apparent that only the site of the Temple cannot become ritually impure, b but synagogues and study halls /b in Jerusalem b can become ritually impure. Why /b should this be true given b that they are /b owned by the b city? /b The Gemara answers: Emend the i baraita /i and b say /b as follows: b Rabbi Yehuda said: I heard /b this distinction stated b only /b with regard to b a sacred site, /b which includes the Temple, synagogues, and study halls., b With regard to what /b principle do the first i tanna /i and Rabbi Yehuda b disagree? The first i tanna /i holds /b that b Jerusalem was not apportioned to the tribes, /b i.e., it was never assigned to any particular tribe, but rather it belongs collectively to the entire nation. b And Rabbi Yehuda holds: Jerusalem was apportioned to the tribes, /b and it is only the site of the Temple itself that belongs collectively to the entire nation.,The Gemara notes: They each follow a different opinion b in the dispute /b between b these i tanna’im /i : /b ,One i tanna /i holds that Jerusalem was apportioned to the tribes, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b What /b part of the Temple b was in the /b tribal b portion of Judah? The Temple mount, the /b Temple b chambers, and the /b Temple b courtyards. And what was in the /b tribal b portion of Benjamin? The Entrance Hall, the Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies. /b , b And a strip /b of land b issued forth from the portion of Judah and entered into the portion of Benjamin, and upon /b that strip b the altar was built, and /b the tribe of b Benjamin, the righteous, would agonize over it every day /b desiring b to absorb it /b into its portion, due to its unique sanctity, b as it is stated /b in Moses’ blessing to Benjamin: b “He covers it throughout the day, /b and he dwells between his shoulders” (Deuteronomy 33:12). The phrase “covers it” is understood to mean that Benjamin is continually focused upon that site. b Therefore, Benjamin was privileged by becoming the host [ i ushpizekhan /i ] of the /b Divine Presence, as the Holy of Holies was built in his portion., b And this /b other b i tanna /i holds /b that b Jerusalem was not apportioned to the tribes, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One may not rent out houses in Jerusalem, due to /b the fact b that /b the houses b do not belong to /b those occupying them. Rather, as is true for the entire city, they are owned collectively by the nation. b Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok says: Even beds may not /b be hired out. b Therefore, /b in the case of the b hides of /b the renter’s b offerings /b that the innkeepers take in lieu of payment, the b innkeepers /b are considered to be b taking them by force, /b as they did not have a right to demand payment.,Apropos the topic of inns, the Gemara reports: b Abaye said: Learn from /b this i baraita /i that b it is proper etiquette /b for b a person to leave /b his wine b flask and /b the b hide /b of the animal that he slaughtered b at his inn, /b i.e., the inn where he stayed, as a gift for the service he received.,§ The Gemara returns its discussion of the mishna: b Rava said: They taught /b that there is a limitation on what may be purchased with the proceeds of the sale of a synagogue b only when the seven representatives of the town /b who were appointed to administer the town’s affairs b had not sold /b the synagogue b in an assembly of the residents of the town. However, /b if b the seven representatives of the town had sold /b it b in an assembly of the residents of the town, /b then b even /b |
|
27. Babylonian Talmud, Horayot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seven Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 42| 3b. או דלמא [ידיעה] דההוא ב"ד דהורו בעינן תיקו,אמר רבי יונתן מאה שישבו להורות אין חייבין עד שיורו כולן שנאמר (ויקרא ד, יג) ואם כל עדת ישראל ישגו עד שישגו כולן [עד שתפשוט הוראה בכל עדת ישראל] אמר רב הונא בריה דרב הושעיא הכי נמי מסתברא דבכל התורה כולה קיי"ל רובו ככולו והכא כתי' כל העדה הואיל וכך אפילו הן מאה,[תנן] הורו ב"ד וידע אחד מהן שטעו או תלמיד וראוי להוראה והלך ועשה על פיהם בין שעשו ועשה עמהן ובין שעשו ועשה אחריהן ובין שלא עשו ועשה ה"ז חייב מפני שלא תלה בב"ד,האי הוא דחייב הא אחר פטור ואמאי הא לא נגמרה הוראה הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהרכין ההוא אחד מהן בראשו,ת"ש הורו ב"ד וידע אחד מהן שטעו ואמר להן טועין אתם הרי אלו פטורים טעמא דאמר להן טועין אתם דפטורים הא שתיק מישתק חייבין וגמר לה הוראה ואמאי והא לא הורו כולן אמרי ה"נ כגון שהרכין בראשו,מתיב רב משרשיא סמכו רבותינו על דברי רשב"ג ועל דברי ר"א בר' צדוק שהיו אומרים אין גוזרין גזירה על הצבור אלא א"כ רוב הצבור יכולין לעמוד בה,ואמר רב אדא בר אבא מאי קרא (מלאכי ג, ט) במארה אתם נארים ואותי אתם קובעים הגוי כולו והא הכא דכתי' הגוי כולו ורובא ככולא דמי תיובתא דר' (יוחנן) [יונתן] תיובתא,ואלא מאי כל עדת דקאמר רחמנא ה"ק אי איכא כולם הויא הוראה ואי לא לא הויא הוראה,אמר רבי יהושע י' שיושבין בדין קולר תלוי בצואר כולן פשיטא הא קמ"ל דאפילו תלמיד בפני רבו,רב הונא כי הוה נפיק לבי דינא מייתי עשרה תנאי דבי רב לקמיה כי היכי דנימטיין שיבא מכשורא רב אשי כי הוו מייתי טרפתא לקמיה מייתי עשרה טבחי ממתא מחסיא ומותיב קמיה אמר כי היכא דנימטיין שיבא מכשורא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big הורו ב"ד וידעו שטעו וחזרו בהן בין שהביאו כפרתן ובין שלא הביאו כפרתן והלך ועשה על פיהן ר' שמעון פוטר ור' אלעזר אומר ספק איזהו ספק ישב לו בתוך ביתו חייב הלך לו למדינת הים פטור,אמר רבי עקיבא מודה אני בזה שהוא קרוב לפטור מן החובה אמר לו בן עזאי מאי שנא זה מן היושב בביתו שהיושב בביתו אפשר היה לו שישמע וזה לא היה לו אפשר שישמע,הורו ב"ד לעקור את כל הגוף אמרו אין נדה בתורה אין שבת בתורה אין עבודת כוכבים בתורה הרי אלו פטורין הורו לבטל מקצת ולקיים מקצת הרי אלו חייבין,כיצד אמרו יש נדה בתורה אבל הבא על שומרת יום כנגד יום פטור,יש שבת בתורה אבל המוציא מרה"י לרה"ר פטור,יש עבודת כוכבי' בתור' אבל המשתחוה פטור הרי אלו חייבין שנא' (ויקרא ד, יג) ונעלם דבר דבר ולא כל הגוף:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מ"ט דר"ש הואיל וברשות ב"ד הוא עושה איכא דאמרי אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אומר היה ר"ש כל הוראה שיצאה ברוב צבור יחיד העושה אותה פטור לפי שלא ניתנה הוראה אלא להבחין בין שוגג למזיד,מיתיבי פר העלם דבר של צבור ושעירי עבודת כוכבים בתחלה גובין עליהן דברי ר"ש ר' יהודה אומר מתרומת הלשכה הן באין אמאי כיון דגבי להו הוי ליה הודע,איבעית אימא כגון שגבו סתם,ואב"א כגון דלא הוה ליה במתא,ואיבעית אימא רב כאידך תנא סבר דתניא איפכא בתחילה גובין להן דברי רבי יהודה ר"ש אומר מתרומת הלשכה הן באין,תני ר"מ מחייב ור"ש פוטר ר"א אומר ספק משום סומכוס אמרו תלוי אמר ר' יוחנן אשם תלוי איכא בינייהו,א"ר זירא משל דר"א למה הדבר דומה לאדם שאכל ספק חלב ספק שומן ונודע לו שמביא אשם | 3b. b Or perhaps, /b for liability b we require /b the b awareness of the same court that issued the ruling, /b and that court no longer exists. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma b shall stand /b unresolved.,§ b Rabbi Yonatan says: /b Even in the case of b one hundred /b judges b who convened to issue a ruling /b and erred, b they are not liable /b to bring an offering b unless they all issue /b that b ruling, as it is stated /b with regard to liability to bring the offering: b “And if the entire assembly of Israel shall act unwittingly” /b (Leviticus 4:13). From the term “entire” it is derived that the judges are not liable b until they all act unwittingly, and the ruling /b must b disseminate /b and be adopted b throughout the entire assembly of Israel, /b i.e., the Sanhedrin. b Rav Huna, son of Rav Hoshaya, said: So too it is reasonable /b to conclude this, b as throughout the entire Torah we maintain /b the principle: The legal status of b the majority of /b an entity is considered b like all of /b that entity, b and here: “The entire assembly,” is written. Since it is so, /b a majority does not suffice. b Even /b if b they are one hundred /b judges, they are liable only if the erroneous ruling was uimous., b We learned /b in the mishna: If the b court issued /b that b ruling, and one of /b the judges b knew that they erred, /b despite the fact that the majority ruled against his opinion, b or /b if he was b a student and /b was b qualified to issue /b halakhic b rulings, and /b that judge or student b proceeded and performed /b that transgression b on the basis of /b the court’s ruling, then b whether /b the judges b performed /b the transgression b and he performed /b it b with them, or whether /b the judges b performed /b the transgression b and he performed /b it b after them, or whether /b the judges b did not perform /b the transgression b and he performed /b it alone, in all these cases the judge or the student b is liable /b to bring an offering. This is b due to /b the fact b that he did not associate /b his action b with /b the ruling of the b court. /b ,The Gemara notes that one may infer: b It is this /b judge or student b who /b is b liable, but another /b who acts on the basis of the ruling of the court is b exempt. But why /b would he be exempt? b The ruling is not completed /b if it is not uimous. The Gemara answers: b What are we dealing with here? /b We are dealing with a case b where the one /b dissenting judge b among them bowed his head /b and indicated his agreement with the remaining judges.,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b proof from a mishna (4b): If the b court issued a ruling, and one of /b the judges b knew that they erred and he said to them: You are mistaken, they are exempt. /b One may infer: b The reason that /b they are b exempt /b is b that /b the judge b said to them: You are mistaken. But /b if b he was silent, /b they are b liable, and the ruling is complete. And why, /b according to Rabbi Yonatan, would they be liable? b But isn’t /b it so that b not all of them issued /b the same b ruling? /b The Sages b say /b in response: b So too /b here, it is a case b where /b the dissenting judge b bowed his head. /b , b Rav Mesharshiyya raises an objection /b to the statement of Rabbi Yonatan from a i baraita /i : b Our Sages relied on the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and on the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, who would say: One does not issue a decree upon the congregation unless the majority of the congregation is able to withstand it. /b , b And Rav Adda bar Abba said: What is the verse /b from which this principle is derived? It is derived from the verse: b “With the curse you are cursed, yet you rob Me, the entire nation” /b (Malachi 3:9). The verse is referring to the oath taken by the entire people to observe the i halakhot /i of tithes, and they violated those i halakhot /i . b But here it is written: “The entire nation,” and /b yet, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, relied on this verse to derive that the legal status of b the majority of /b an entity is b like /b that of b the entire /b entity, and therefore if a majority of the congregation can withstand the decree the court may issue it. The Gemara concludes: b The refutation of /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yonatan /b is indeed b a conclusive refutation. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Rather, /b now that Rabbi Yonatan’s opinion has been refuted, b what /b is derived from the phrase b “the entire assembly” that the Merciful One states? This /b is what it b is saying: If there are all /b the judges present and they issue that ruling based on the majority, b it is a ruling, and if not, it is not a ruling. /b ,With regard to a court session b Rabbi Yehoshua says: /b When there are b ten /b judges b who sit in judgment, the chain [ i kolar /i ] /b placed around the neck of the person taken to his punishment b is suspended around the neck of all of them, /b i.e., they are all responsible for the decision. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this b obvious? /b The Gemara answers: b This teaches us that even a student before his teacher /b may not be silent in deference to his teacher, as he bears responsibility for an erroneous ruling.,The Gemara relates: b Rav Huna, when he would go out to the court /b to sit in judgment, would b bring ten i tanna’im /i , /b i.e., people b who /b recited i mishnayot /i and i baraitot /i in the b study hall, /b to sit b before him /b and serve as partners in judgment with him. He said: I do this b so that we will /b each b receive a splinter from the beam, /b i.e., each of us will bear only a small part of the responsibility. The Gemara relates on a similar note: b Rav Ashi, when they would bring /b a slaughtered animal b before him /b to determine whether or not it was b a i tereifa /i , would bring ten slaughterers from Mata Meḥasya and sit /b them b before him /b while rendering his decision. b He said: /b I do this b so that we will /b each b receive a splinter from the beam. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong In a case where the judges of the b court issued /b an erroneous b ruling and they discovered that they erred and reversed their /b decision, b whether they brought their atonement /b offering for their erroneous ruling b or whether they did not bring their atonement /b offering, b and /b an individual who was unaware of the new ruling b proceeded and performed /b a transgression b on the basis of their /b first ruling, b Rabbi Shimon deems /b him b exempt /b from bringing an offering, b and Rabbi Elazar says: /b There is b uncertainty /b with regard to his status and he is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering. b Which is /b the case of b uncertainty /b for which one is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering? If one b sat inside his house /b and performed the transgression he is b liable /b to bring a provisional guilt-offering, as he could have learned of the change in the court’s ruling. If he b went to a country overseas /b and is relying on the initial ruling, he is b exempt. /b , b Rabbi Akiva said: I concede in that /b case of one who went overseas b that he is closer to exemption than /b he is to b liability. Ben Azzai said to him: /b In b what /b way b is this /b person who went overseas b different from one who sits in his house? /b Rabbi Akiva said to him: The difference is b that /b with regard to b one who sits in his house it would have been possible for him to hear /b of the court’s reversal, b but /b with regard to b that /b person who went overseas, b it would not have been possible for him to hear /b of the court’s reversal.,The mishna explains for which type of unwitting transgression based on the ruling of the court there is liability to bring an offering. In a case where the judges of the b court issued /b an erroneous b ruling to abolish the entire essence /b of a mitzva, not only a detail thereof, e.g., b they said: There is no /b prohibition against engaging in intercourse with b a menstruating woman /b written b in the Torah, /b or b there is no /b prohibition against performing prohibited labor on b Shabbat /b written b in the Torah, /b or b there is no /b prohibition against engaging in b idol worship /b written b in the Torah, these /b judges b are exempt, /b as this is an error based on ignorance, not an erroneous ruling. If the judges b issued a ruling to nullify part /b of a mitzva b and to sustain part /b of that mitzva, b these /b judges b are liable. /b , b How /b so? An example of this is if the judges b said: There is /b a prohibition against engaging in intercourse with b a menstruating woman /b written b in the Torah, but one who engages in intercourse with /b a woman b who observes /b a clean b day for a day /b she experiences a discharge is b exempt. /b When the woman sees a discharge of blood for one or two days during the eleven days between the end of one menstrual period and the expected start of another, the blood is assumed to not be menstrual blood. If after the second day, the next day passes without any discharge of blood, she may immerse immediately and she is ritually pure. The judges ruled erroneously that it is permitted to engage in intercourse with her on the day that she is observing a clean day, even without the day having passed and her having immersed.,Another example is if they said: b There is /b a prohibition against performing prohibited labor on b Shabbat /b written b in the Torah, but one who carries out /b objects b from the private domain to the public domain /b is b exempt. /b ,Another example is if they said: b There is /b a prohibition against engaging in b idol worship /b written b in the Torah, but one who bows /b to the idol but does not sacrifice an offering is b exempt. /b In all of these cases, b these /b judges b are liable, as it is stated: “And the matter is hidden” /b (Leviticus 4:13), from which it is derived that there is liability only if b a matter, /b a single detail, is hidden, b but not /b if b the entire essence /b of a mitzva is hidden., strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon deems exempt one who performed a transgression on the basis of the initial ruling of the court even though the court reversed its ruling. b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: What is the reason /b for the statement b of Rabbi Shimon? /b The reason is b since /b it is b with the permission of the court /b that b he performs /b the transgression, he is exempt. b Some say /b there is a different version of the statement cited by Rav Yehuda: b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: Rabbi Shimon would say: /b Concerning b any ruling that disseminated to the majority of /b the b congregation, /b even if the court later reversed that decision, b an individual who performs /b a transgression based on the first ruling is b exempt, because a ruling is given only to distinguish between unwitting and intentional /b acts. One who performs an action on the basis of that ruling is unwitting, as he associated his action with the court, and he is unaware that the court reversed its decision.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : For b a bull /b brought for b an unwitting communal sin, and /b for b goats /b brought for the unwitting violation of the prohibition b of idol worship, /b the Temple treasury b collects /b money from the congregation to pay b for /b the offerings b from the outset, /b i.e., a collection undertaken specifically for that offering; this is b the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yehuda says: /b The money for purchasing these offerings b comes from /b the funds of b the collection of the /b Temple treasury b chamber, /b just like the money for purchasing all other communal offerings. According to Rabbi Shimon, b why /b is this person exempt? b Since they collect /b money specifically for each of these communal sin-offerings, the transgression b is for him /b one that b became known, /b as he presumably heard about the collection, and he should be liable because he is aware of the reversal in the court’s ruling.,The Gemara answers: b If you wish, say /b that the reference in the mishna is to a case b where they collected /b the money b without specification. /b Therefore, he was unaware of the reversal of the court’s ruling., b And if you wish, say /b instead that the reference in the mishna is to a case b where /b the person b was not in the city. /b Therefore, he was unaware of the collection of the funds and unaware of the reversal of the ruling of the court., b And if you wish, say /b instead that b Rav holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b the other i tanna /i /b who cited the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i with the attribution of the opinions b reversed: /b The Temple treasury b collects /b money from the congregation to pay b for /b the offerings b from the outset; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: /b The money for purchasing these offerings b comes from /b the funds of b the collection of the /b Temple treasury b chamber. /b According to Rabbi Shimon’s opinion in this i baraita /i , it is possible that the transgressor remained unaware that the court reversed its decision.,Apropos this topic, b it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : If an individual performed a transgression on the basis of the original ruling of the court after the court reversed its ruling, b Rabbi Meir deems /b him b liable /b to bring a sin-offering b and Rabbi Shimon deems /b him b exempt. Rabbi Elazar says: /b There is b uncertainty /b with regard to his status. b In the name of Sumakhos, /b the Sages b said: /b His status is b suspended /b and remains uncertain. b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b It is with regard to b a provisional guilt-offering /b that b there is /b a practical difference b between /b the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and the opinion of Sumakhos. According to Rabbi Elazar, he is liable to bring a provisional guilt-offering, whereas according to Sumakhos the question of his liability is suspended, and he does not bring a provisional guilt-offering., b Rabbi Zeira says: /b There is b an analogy /b to illustrate the opinion b of Rabbi Elazar. To what is this matter comparable? /b It is comparable b to a person who ate /b a piece of fat with regard to which there is b uncertainty /b whether it is forbidden b fat /b and b uncertainty /b whether it is permitted b fat, /b and he thought that he was eating permitted fat. b And /b he later b became aware /b that there is uncertainty whether he unwittingly ate fat for which one is liable to receive i karet /i if he ate it intentionally, b as /b in this case he is liable to b bring /b a provisional b guilt-offering. /b In the case in the i baraita /i too, when he later discovered that the court reversed its ruling, it is like one who is uncertain whether he associated his action with the court or associated his action with himself. |
|
28. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 28| 56a. בכותל רעוע,אמר מר הכופף קמתו של חבירו בפני הדליקה היכי דמי אילימא דמטיא ליה ברוח מצויה בדיני אדם נמי נחייב אלא דמטיא ברוח שאינה מצויה,ורב אשי אמר טמון אתמר משום דשויה טמון באש:,אמר מר השוכר עדי שקר ה"ד אילימא לנפשיה ממונא בעי שלומי ובדיני אדם נמי ניחייב אלא לחבריה,והיודע עדות לחבירו ואינו מעיד לו במאי עסקינן אילימא בבי תרי פשיטא דאורייתא הוא (ויקרא ה, א) אם לא יגיד ונשא עונו,אלא בחד,ותו ליכא והאיכא (סימן העושה בסם ושליח חבירו נשבר) העושה מלאכה במי חטאת ובפרת חטאת פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,והאיכא הנותן סם המות בפני בהמת חבירו פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,והאיכא השולח את הבערה ביד חרש שוטה וקטן פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,והאיכא המבעית את חבירו פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,והאיכא נשברה כדו ברה"ר ולא סלקה נפלה גמלו ולא העמידה ר"מ מחייב בהזיקן וחכ"א פטור בדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,אין מיהא איכא טובא והני אצטריכא ליה מהו דתימא בדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,הפורץ גדר בפני בהמת חבירו מהו דתימא כיון דלמסתריה קאי מה עביד בדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,הכופף קמתו של חבירו נמי מהו דתימא לימא מי הוה ידענא דאתיא רוח שאינה מצויה ובדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,ולרב אשי דאמר נמי טמון איתמר מהו דתימא אנא כסויי כסיתיה ניהלך ובדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,והשוכר עדי שקר נמי מהו דתימא לימא דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעין ובדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,והיודע עדות לחבירו ואינו מעיד לו נמי מהו דתימא מי יימר דכי הוה (אתינא) מסהדינא ליה הוה מודה דלמא הוה משתבע לשקרא ובדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל:,נפרצה בלילה או שפרצוה לסטים כו': אמר רבה והוא שחתרה,אבל לא חתרה מאי חייב היכי דמי אילימא בכותל בריא כי לא חתרה אמאי חייב מאי ה"ל למעבד אלא בכותל רעוע כי חתרה אמאי פטור תחלתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס הוא,הניחא למ"ד תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס פטור אלא למ"ד תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס חייב מאי איכא למימר,אלא מתני' בכותל בריא ואפילו לא חתרה וכי איתמר דרבה אסיפא איתמר הניחה בחמה או שמסרה לחרש שוטה וקטן ויצתה והזיקה חייב אמר רבה ואפי' חתרה,לא מבעיא היכא דלא חתרה דכולה בפשיעה הוא אלא אפי' חתרה נמי מהו דתימא הויא לה תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס קמ"ל דכולה פשיעה היא,מ"ט דאמר ליה מידע ידעת דכיון דשבקתה בחמה כל טצדקא דאית לה למיעבד עבדא ונפקא:,הוציאוה לסטים לסטים חייבין: | 56a. the i baraita /i is speaking b of an unstable wall /b that was about to fall and break in any event, and so his action did not actually cause any loss to the owner., b The Master says: /b With regard to the case mentioned in the i baraita /i of b one who bends another’s standing /b grain b before a fire, what are the circumstances? If we say /b that the i baraita /i is referring to a case b where /b the fire would b reach /b the bent grain b in a typical wind, let him /b also b be liable /b for the damage according to b human laws. Rather, /b it must be a case b where /b the fire could b reach /b the bent grain only b in an atypical wind. /b Therefore, he is exempt according to human laws, and, since the grain was destroyed due to his action, he is liable according to the laws of Heaven., b And Rav Ashi /b offered an alternative explanation and b said: /b The i baraita /i b was stated /b in the case of b a concealed /b item; in other words, this person did not bend the grain toward the fire but bent it over another item in order to conceal it. One is not liable to pay restitution for concealed items damaged by fire. Therefore, when this person bent the grain over an item, he caused indirect damage to the owner of that item b because he made it into a concealed /b item that was subsequently damaged by b fire, /b and the owner cannot reclaim his loss., b The Master says: /b With regard to the case mentioned in the i baraita /i of b one who hires false witnesses, what are the circumstances? If we say /b that he hired them b for his own /b benefit, in order to extract payment from another, b he is required to reimburse /b that person with b money, and he is liable according to human laws /b for receiving money under false circumstances. b Rather, /b the case is one where he hired false witnesses b for /b the benefit of b another. /b In such a case the injured party cannot sue the other litigant, since the latter did not hire the witnesses, nor can he sue the person who hired them, since that person received no personal benefit.,The i baraita /i teaches: b And one who knows testimony in support of another but does not testify on his behalf /b is exempt from liability according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. b With what /b circumstances b are we dealing? If we say /b that the case b involves two /b people who could testify, and their evidence would render the other party liable to pay, it b is obvious /b that each of them is liable according to the laws of Heaven; he has committed a transgression b by Torah law: “If he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” /b (Leviticus 5:1). Therefore, it is unnecessary for the i baraita /i to mention this case., b Rather, /b the case of the i baraita /i b concerns a single /b witness, whose testimony is not sufficient to render another liable, and to which the transgression of Torah law consequently does not apply. Nevertheless, a litigant can be forced to take an oath based on the testimony of a single witness, and refusal to take this oath would obligate the litigant to pay. Therefore, the witness has caused an indirect loss and is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,The Gemara asks: b And is there nothing else, /b i.e., is there no other case in which one is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven? b But there is /b such a case. And before citing several cases that are not written in the i baraita /i the Gemara presents b a mnemonic /b device: b One who performs; with poison; and an agent; another; is broken. /b The Gemara returns to the first case: One b who performs labor with water of purification, /b which was meant to be used to purify one rendered ritually impure by a corpse, thereby rendering the water unfit for use, b or /b who performs labor b with the /b red b heifer of purification, /b invalidating the animal for use as an element of the purification ritual, is b exempt according to human laws, /b since the damage he caused is not evident, b but liable according to the laws of Heaven, /b as he caused a ficial loss.,The Gemara adds: b But there is /b the following i halakha /i : With regard to b one who places poison before another’s animal, /b and the animal eats it and dies, he is b exempt according to human laws, /b since the animal caused its own death, b but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b ,The Gemara adds: b But there is /b the case of b one who sends /b an exposed b flame in the hand of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, /b and the fire spreads, causing damage; he is b exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b ,The Gemara adds: b But there is /b the case of b one who frightens another /b without touching him, but causes him injury; he is b exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b ,The Gemara adds: b But there is /b the case of one b whose jug broke in the public domain and he did not remove /b the broken pieces, or one b whose camel fell and he did not stand it up /b again. b Rabbi Meir deems /b the owner of jug or of the camel b liable /b for the damage thereby caused to others, b and the Rabbis say that /b he is b exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b Since there are so many other cases, why did Rabbi Yehoshua claim in the i baraita /i that there are only four cases when one is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven?,The Gemara answers: b Yes, there are, in any event, many /b other cases, b but /b Rabbi Yehoshua held that it b was necessary for him /b to state the i halakha /i of b these /b four cases. The reason he stated them is b lest you say /b that in these cases b one should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in these cases one is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,The Gemara explains why one might have thought that there is no liability at all for each case in the i baraita /i : Rabbi Yehoshua taught that b one who breaches a fence /b that stood b before another’s animal, /b thereby allowing the animal to escape, is liable according to the laws of Heaven, b lest you say: Since /b the fence b is about to collapse /b even without this person’s intervention, b what did /b he really b do? /b Based on that logic, one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,Rabbi Yehoshua taught that b one who bends another’s standing /b grain is liable according to the laws of Heaven, b lest you say: Let /b the one who bent the grain b say /b to the owner: b Did I know that an atypical wind would come /b and cause the fire to spread? Based on that logic, one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven., b And according to Rav Ashi, who said /b that Rabbi Yehoshua’s ruling b was stated /b with regard to the case of b a concealed /b item, Rabbi Yehoshua mentioned liability according to the laws of Heaven b lest you say /b that the one who concealed the item could say: b I covered it for you /b in order to protect it from the fire. Based on that logic, one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven., b And /b Rabbi Yehoshua taught that there is liability b also /b in the case of b one who hires false witnesses, lest you say: Let /b the one who hired them b say: /b If the witnesses hear b the statement of the teacher, /b i.e., God, Who prohibited giving false testimony, b and the statement of the student, /b i.e., the one who hired them, b to whose statement /b should they b listen? /b Although the one who hired them encouraged these witnesses to sin, ultimately it was they who transgressed by not adhering to the instructions of God. b And /b based on this logic one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,Finally, Rabbi Yehoshua taught that b one who knows testimony /b in support b of another but does not testify on his behalf /b is liable according to the laws of Heaven, b lest you say /b that the witness could claim: b Who says that had I come forward /b and b testified on behalf of /b one litigant, the other litigant b would admit /b liability? b Perhaps he would have /b chosen to b take a false oath /b and absolve himself. Based on that logic one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,§ The mishna teaches: If the pen b was breached at night, or bandits breached it, /b and sheep subsequently went out and caused damage, the owner of the sheep is exempt. b Rabba says: And this /b first instance of a pen that was breached is referring specifically to a case b where /b the animal b tunneled /b under the wall of the pen and by doing so caused the wall to collapse. In that case, the owner is completely blameless and therefore exempt from liability for any damage that ensues.,The Gemara asks: b But /b if the animal b did not tunnel /b under the wall, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? Would the owner be b liable? What are the circumstances? If we say /b that the pen had b a stable wall, /b then even b if /b the animal b did not tunnel, why /b is the owner b liable? What should he have done? /b Clearly, he cannot be held liable for the damage. b Rather, /b the pen had b an unstable wall. /b The Gemara asks: Even b if /b the animal b tunneled /b under the wall and knocked it down, b why /b is he b exempt? /b The damage in this case is b initially through negligence and ultimately by accident. /b , b This works out well according to the one who said /b that in any case of damage that is b initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, /b he is b exempt /b from liability, since the ultimate cause of the damage was not his fault. b But according to the one who says /b that in any case of damage that is b initially through negligence and ultimately by accident /b he is b liable, /b as even without the accident his negligence could have caused damage, b what is there to say? /b , b Rather, /b the case of b the mishna concerns a stable wall, and even /b if the animal b did not tunnel /b under the wall the owner is exempt. b And when /b the statement b of Rabba was stated, it was stated with regard to the latter clause /b of the mishna that says: If the owner b left /b the animal b in the sun or conveyed it to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, and /b the animal b went out and caused damage, /b the owner is b liable. /b Concerning this b Rabba stated: And /b the owner is liable b even if /b the animal b tunneled /b its way out under the wall of the pen.,The Gemara explains: b It is not necessary /b for the mishna to mention the case b where the animal did not tunnel /b its way out. In that case the owner is clearly liable, since b the entire /b incident occurred due to his b negligence /b of leaving the animal in the sun, thereby causing it distress and leading it to attempt escape by any possible means. b But even if /b the animal b tunneled /b its way out, the owner is liable, and this is the novelty in this ruling: b Lest you say /b that b this is /b a case of damage that is b initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, /b because animals do not typically tunnel their way out of a pen, the mishna b teaches us that /b it is considered as though b the entire /b damage resulted from the owner’s b negligence. /b , b What is the reason /b that the owner is liable? It is b that /b the one who suffered the damage b can say to /b the owner of the sheep: b You should have known that since you left it in the sun, it would utilize any means [ i tatzdeka /i ] available for it to use and /b it would b escape, /b so you are ultimately responsible for the damage.,§ The mishna teaches: If the b bandits /b themselves b took /b the sheep b out, the bandits are liable. /b |
|
29. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 45| 26a. למאי אתא לכדתניא כיצד היה עושה נותן את הפדר אבית השחיטה ומעלהו וזה הוא דרך כבוד של מעלה, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big הפייס השלישי חדשים לקטרת באו והפיסו והרביעי חדשים עם ישנים מי מעלה אברים מן הכבש למזבח, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנא מעולם לא שנה אדם בה מ"ט א"ר חנינא מפני שמעשרת,א"ל רב פפא לאביי מ"ט אילימא משום דכתיב (דברים לג, י) ישימו קטורה באפך וכתיב בתריה (דברים לג, יא) ברך ה' חילו אי הכי עולה נמי הכתיב (דברים לג, י) וכליל על מזבחך,א"ל הא שכיחא והא לא שכיחא,אמר רבא לא משכחת צורבא מרבנן דמורי אלא דאתי משבט לוי או משבט יששכר לוי דכתיב (דברים לג, י) יורו משפטיך ליעקב יששכר דכתב (דברי הימים א יב, לג) (ובני) יששכר יודעי בינה לעתים לדעת מה יעשה ישראל ואימא יהודה נמי דכתיב (תהלים ס, ט) יהודה מחוקקי אסוקי שמעתא אליבא דהילכתא קאמינא,א"ר יוחנן אין מפייסין על תמיד של בין הערבים אלא כהן שזכה בו בשחרית זוכה בו ערבית מיתיבי כשם שמפייסין שחרית כך מפייסין בין הערבים כי תניא ההיא בקטורת,והתניא כשם שמפייסין לו שחרית כך מפייסין לו ערבית אימא לה,והתניא כשם שמפייסין לו שחרית כך מפייסין לו ערבית וכשם שמפייסין לה שחרית כך מפייסין לה ערבית,אמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק הכא בשבת עסקינן הואיל ומשמרות מתחדשות,ולמאי דסליק אדעתין מעיקרא נפישי להו פייסות מייתי כולהו מצפרא אתו דזכי ביה שחרית זכי דזכי בערבית זכי,הרביעי חדשים עם ישנים וכו' מתניתין דלא כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב דתנן רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר המעלה איברים לכבש הוא מעלה אותן למזבח,במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר (משלי יד, כח) ברב עם הדרת מלך ומר סבר מקום שכינה לאו אורח ארעא,אמר רבא לא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אית ליה דרבי יהודה ולא רבי יהודה אית ליה דרבי אליעזר בן יעקב דא"כ בצרו להו פייסות,ואי משכחת תנא דתני חמש | 26a. b what does /b that b come /b to teach us? The Gemara explains: b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b In what manner would /b the priest placing the pieces on the altar b do /b so? b He /b would b place the fat /b right b over the place of slaughter, /b that is, on the cut neck, b and bring it up /b that way, b and that is the /b most b respectful way toward the Most High, /b that the bloody point of slaughter not be exposed., strong MISHNA: /strong Before b the third lottery, /b the appointee declared: Let only those priests who are b new to /b offering b the incense /b come and b participate in the lottery /b for the incense. b The fourth /b lottery was open to those b new /b to the service along b with /b those b old /b hands who had already performed it, to determine b who /b would b take the limbs up from the ramp, /b where they had been placed earlier, b to the altar. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong A Sage b taught /b in the i Tosefta /i : b No person ever performed /b the service of the incense b twice, /b as a new priest was always found for this service. The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that they were insistent that no priest should be assigned this task more than once in his life? b Rabbi Ḥanina said: /b It is b because it brings wealth /b to the one who performs it. Since bringing the incense was a blessing for wealth, it was decided that as many different priests as possible should have an opportunity to do this service., b Rav Pappa said to Abaye: What is the reason /b for this assertion that the one who burns the incense becomes wealthy? b If we say it is because it is written: “They shall put incense before You /b and whole burnt-offerings on Your altar” (Deuteronomy 33:10), b and it is written /b immediately b after that: “Bless, O Lord, his substance” /b (Deuteronomy 33:11), b if so, /b we should b also /b make the same assertion concerning those who perform the sacrifice of b a burnt-offering, since it is written /b in that same verse: b “And whole burnt-offerings on Your altar.” /b ,Abaye b said to him: /b There is a difference between the two: b This, /b the sacrifice of a burnt-offering, b is frequent, and that, /b the burning of incense, b is infrequent. /b There were many burnt-offerings, both obligatory and voluntary, brought during the course of a day, whereas the incense was burned only twice a day. It is logical to assume that the blessing of riches was not extended to the many priests who participated in the burnt-offerings, but to the few priests who performed the burning of the incense.,Apropos this passage in Deuteronomy, b Rava said: You do not find a young Torah scholar who gives /b halakhic b instruction unless he comes from the tribe of Levi or from the tribe of Issachar. /b The assertion with regard to the tribe of b Levi /b is b as it is written: “They shall teach Jacob Your ordices /b and Israel Your law” (Deuteronomy 33:10). And the assertion with regard to the tribe of b Issachar /b is b as it is written: “And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel should do” /b (I Chronicles 12:33). The Gemara asks: b And say /b that scholars come from the tribe of b Judah also, as it is written: “Judah is my lawgiver” /b (Psalms 60:9). Rava answers: While it is true that the tribe of Judah also taught Torah, in my statement b I was speaking /b only b of those who /b can b draw conclusions according to the i halakha /i . /b Although Judah produces great scholars, men capable of translating abstract analysis of the Torah into legal principles come from the two tribes mentioned.,§ b Rabbi Yoḥa said: They did not hold /b a separate b lottery /b for the slaughtering and sacrifice of the b daily afternoon offering. Rather, /b the same b priest who won /b a particular privilege for b the morning /b offering b wins /b the privilege for the corresponding task in the b evening, /b i.e., for the b afternoon /b service. In this way, the morning lottery covered both services. The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : b Just as they hold a lottery in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery in the afternoon. /b This shows that there was a separate lottery for the daily afternoon offering. The Gemara answers: b When that /b i baraita /i b was taught, /b it referred only b to the incense, /b which, as stated above, was given to a different priest each time it was offered.,The Gemara asks: b But wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Just as they hold a lottery for it [ i lo /i ] in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [ i lo /i ] in the afternoon. /b The masculine pronoun i lo /i indicates that it is not referring to the incense, which is a feminine noun in Hebrew, but to the daily afternoon offering, which is described by a masculine noun. The Gemara answers: Change the wording of the i baraita /i and b say: i Lah /i , /b using the feminine pronoun instead of the masculine i lo /i , so that it is indeed referring to the incense.,The Gemara asks further: b But wasn’t it taught /b in another i baraita /i : b Just as they hold a lottery for it [ i lo /i ] the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [ i lo /i ] in the afternoon; and just as they hold a lottery for it [ i lah /i ] in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [ i lah /i ] in the afternoon. /b This i baraita /i makes the statement twice, once using the masculine pronoun and once using the feminine pronoun, which shows that there was a separate lottery in the afternoon not only for the incense but also for the daily offering., b Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: /b There is no contradiction. b Here, /b in this last i baraita /i , b we are dealing with Shabbat, /b when a second lottery in the afternoon was necessary, b since the priestly rotations are renewed /b each Shabbat. On Shabbat the outgoing watch of priests performs the morning service, and the incoming watch performs the afternoon service. Therefore, the same priest could not perform the service of both the morning and afternoon offerings, necessitating a second lottery on that day to designate priests for the various afternoon tasks.,The Gemara asks: b And /b according b to what we thought initially, /b that there was a separate lottery each day for the daily afternoon offering, b there would be /b too b many lotteries, /b as the mishna states that there were just four lotteries daily. How was it conceivable even to consider such a possibility? The Gemara answers: The thought was that b all /b the priests b would come /b and assemble just once, b in the morning, /b for both lotteries, and the priest b who would win /b the lottery for sacrificing b the /b daily b morning /b offering b would win /b that privilege for the morning only, and the priest b who would win /b the lottery for sacrificing b the /b daily b afternoon /b offering b would win /b the privilege for the afternoon.,§ The mishna states: b The fourth /b lottery was open to those b new /b to the service along b with /b those b old /b hands who had already performed it, to determine who would take the limbs up from the ramp to the altar. The Gemara states: b The mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. As we learned /b in a mishna in tractate i Tamid /i that b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: /b The priest b who takes the limbs up to the ramp is the one who takes them up /b from the ramp b to the altar. /b In contrast, according to the mishna discussed here, it is implied that a different priest won the privilege for the latter service in the lottery.,The Gemara asks: b With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the mishna discussed here, b holds /b that it is proper to follow the verse: b “In the multitude of people is the king’s glory” /b (Proverbs 14:28). It is a glorification of God for many priests to participate in the service, so different priests were assigned the task of taking the limbs to the ramp, and others were tasked with carrying them up the ramp to the altar. b And one Sage, /b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, b holds /b that it is b not proper conduct /b in b the place of the Divine Presence /b to have two sets of priests for these tasks, as it gives the appearance that the first set does not want to be bothered to take the limbs up to the altar., b Rava said: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, /b who holds that the same priest who brought the limbs to the ramp also brought them up to the altar, b is not of /b the same opinion as b Rabbi Yehuda, /b who holds that there is no separate lottery for the privilege of carrying the coal pan for the incense. b And /b conversely, b Rabbi Yehuda is not of /b the same opinion as b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. /b As, b if it would be so /b that these two Sages agreed with each other, b there would be too few lotteries; /b there would be only three lotteries rather than four. Rather, one must say that according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who maintains that there was no lottery held for taking the limbs up to the altar, there was a fourth lottery to determine who would carry the coal pan; and according to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that there was no lottery for carrying the coal pan, there must have been a lottery for carrying the limbs up to the ramp., b And if you find a i tanna /i /b in a i baraita /i b who teaches /b that there were b five /b lotteries for the Temple service, |
|
| 30. Anon., Exodus Rabbah, 15.20 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seven •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 25 |
