1. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 22.9 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •daube, david Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 182, 209| 22.9. כִּי־יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵהוּ חֲמוֹר אוֹ־שׁוֹר אוֹ־שֶׂה וְכָל־בְּהֵמָה לִשְׁמֹר וּמֵת אוֹ־נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ־נִשְׁבָּה אֵין רֹאֶה׃ | 22.9. If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep, and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it; 21. If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.,And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. .,If there be laid on him a ransom, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.,Or if it be known that the ox was wont to gore in time past, and its owner hath not kept it in; he shall surely pay ox for ox, and the dead beast shall be his own.,And he that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death.,the owner of the pit shall make it good; he shall give money unto the owner of them, and the dead beast shall be his.,But if the ox was wont to gore in time past, and warning hath been given to its owner, and he hath not kept it in, but it hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.,If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he be married, then his wife shall go out with him.,And if he espouse her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.,And if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from Mine altar, that he may die.,And if one man’s ox hurt another’s, so that it dieth; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the price of it; and the dead also they shall divide.,And if a man lie not in wait, but God cause it to come to hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he may flee.,burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.,If his master give him a wife, and she bear him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.,if he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.,And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out for nothing, without money.,And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein,,Now these are the ordices which thou shalt set before them.,And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.,Whether it have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.,If the ox gore a bondman or a bondwoman, he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.,He that smiteth a man, so that he dieth, shall surely be put to death.,And if an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die, the ox shall be surely stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.,If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights, shall he not diminish.,then his master shall bring him unto God, and shall bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.,Notwithstanding if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his money.,And if men contend, and one smite the other with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keep his bed;,And if a man smite his bondman, or his bondwoman, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished.,And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.,eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,,And if he smite out his bondman’s tooth, or his bondwoman’s tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.,If a man steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep.,And if a man smite the eye of his bondman, or the eye of his bondwoman, and destroy it, he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake.,But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life,,If she please not her master, who hath espoused her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed; to sell her unto a foreign people he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.,And if a man sell his daughter to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the men-servants do.,But if the servant shall plainly say: I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free; |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 1.4, 16.21 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •daube, david Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 180| 1.4. וְסָמַךְ יָדוֹ עַל רֹאשׁ הָעֹלָה וְנִרְצָה לוֹ לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו׃ 16.21. וְסָמַךְ אַהֲרֹן אֶת־שְׁתֵּי ידו [יָדָיו] עַל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׂעִיר הַחַי וְהִתְוַדָּה עָלָיו אֶת־כָּל־עֲוֺנֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֶת־כָּל־פִּשְׁעֵיהֶם לְכָל־חַטֹּאתָם וְנָתַן אֹתָם עַל־רֹאשׁ הַשָּׂעִיר וְשִׁלַּח בְּיַד־אִישׁ עִתִּי הַמִּדְבָּרָה׃ | 1.4. And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the burnt-offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. 16.21. And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of an appointed man into the wilderness. |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 9.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •daube, david Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 179| 9.3. בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר־יוֹם בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַזֶּה בֵּין הָעֲרְבַּיִם תַּעֲשׂוּ אֹתוֹ בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ כְּכָל־חֻקֹּתָיו וּכְכָל־מִשְׁפָּטָיו תַּעֲשׂוּ אֹתוֹ׃ | 9.3. In the fourteenth day of this month, at dusk, ye shall keep it in its appointed season; according to all the statutes of it, and according to all the ordices thereof, shall ye keep it.’ 29. and one he-goat for a sin-offering; beside the continual burnt-offering, and the meal-offering thereof, and the drink-offering thereof.,On the eighth day ye shall have a solemn assembly: ye shall do no manner of servile work;,and their meal-offering and their drink-offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, after the ordice;,and their meal-offering and their drink-offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, after the ordice;,beside the burnt-offering of the new moon, and the meal-offering thereof, and the continual burnt-offering and the meal-offering thereof, and their drink-offerings, according unto their ordice, for a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD.,And on the third day eleven bullocks, two rams, fourteen he-lambs of the first year without blemish;,and one he-goat for a sin-offering; beside the continual burnt-offering, the meal-offering thereof, and the drink-offering thereof.,and ye shall present a burnt-offering, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD: thirteen young bullocks, two rams, fourteen he-lambs of the first year; they shall be without blemish;,but ye shall present a burnt-offering unto the LORD for a sweet savour: one young bullock, one ram, seven he-lambs of the first year; they shall be unto you without blemish;,And on the second day ye shall present twelve young bullocks, two rams, fourteen he-lambs of the first year without blemish;,And on the seventh day seven bullocks, two rams, fourteen he-lambs of the first year without blemish;,and one he-goat for a sin-offering; beside the continual burnt-offering, and the meal-offering thereof, and their drink-offerings.,and their meal-offering, fine flour mingled with oil, three tenth parts for the bullock, two tenth part for the ram,,and their meal-offering, fine flour mingled with oil, three tenth parts for the bullock, two tenth parts for the one ram,,and one tenth part for every lamb of the seven lambs;,And in the seventh month, on the first day of the month, ye shall have a holy convocation: ye shall do no manner of servile work; it is a day of blowing the horn unto you.,and their meal-offering and their drink-offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, after the ordice;,And ye shall prepare a burnt-offering for a sweet savour unto the LORD: one young bullock, one ram, seven he-lambs of the first year without blemish;,and one he-goat for a sin-offering, to make atonement for you;,one he-goat for a sin-offering; beside the sin-offering of atonement, and the continual burnt-offering, and the meal-offering thereof, and their drink-offerings.,and one he-goat for a sin-offering beside the continual burnt-offering, the meal-offering thereof, and the drink-offering thereof.,These ye shall offer unto the LORD in your appointed seasons, beside your vows, and your freewill-offerings, whether they be your burnt-offerings, or your meal-offerings, or your drink-offerings, or your peace-offerings.,And on the fifth day nine bullocks, two rams, fourteen he-lambs of the first year without blemish;,And on the fifteenth day of the seventh month ye shall have a holy convocation: ye shall do no manner of servile work, and ye shall keep a feast unto the LORD seven days;,And on the fourth day ten bullocks, two rams, fourteen he-lambs of the first year without blemish;,And on the sixth day eight bullocks, two rams, fourteen he-lambs of the first year without blemish;,and one he-goat for a sin-offering; beside the continual burnt-offering, the meal-offering thereof, and the drink-offering thereof.,and their meal-offering and their drink-offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, after the ordice;,but ye shall present a burnt-offering, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD: one bullock, one ram, seven he-lambs of the first year without blemish;,a several tenth part for every lamb of the seven lambs;,and one he-goat for a sin-offering; beside the continual burnt-offering, the meal-offering thereof, and the drink-offerings thereof.,And on the tenth day of this seventh month ye shall have a holy convocation; and ye shall afflict your souls; ye shall do no manner of work;,and a several tenth part for every lamb of the fourteen lambs;,and their meal-offering, fine flour mingled with oil, three tenth parts for every bullock of the thirteen bullocks, two tenth parts for each ram of the two rams,,and one he-goat for a sin-offering; beside the continual burnt-offering, and the meal-offering thereof, and the drink-offering thereof.,and one he-goat for a sin-offering; beside the continual burnt-offering, and the meal-offering thereof, and the drink-offering thereof.,their meal-offering and their drink-offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, after the ordice;,and their meal-offering and their drink-offerings for the bullocks, for the rams, and for the lambs, according to their number, after the ordice;,their meal-offering and their drink-offerings for the bullock, for the ram, and for the lambs, shall be according to their number, after the ordice; |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Judges, 7.15, 18.7 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •daube, david Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 179| 7.15. וַיְהִי כִשְׁמֹעַ גִּדְעוֹן אֶת־מִסְפַּר הַחֲלוֹם וְאֶת־שִׁבְרוֹ וַיִּשְׁתָּחוּ וַיָּשָׁב אֶל־מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמֶר קוּמוּ כִּי־נָתַן יְהוָה בְּיֶדְכֶם אֶת־מַחֲנֵה מִדְיָן׃" | 7.15. And it was, when Gid῾on heard the telling of the dream, and its interpretation, that he bowed himself down to the ground, and returned to the camp of Yisra᾽el and said, Arise; for the Lord has delivered into your hand the host of Midyan." |
|
5. Tosefta, Kiddushin, 1.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •daube, david Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 178| 1.5. ספינה נקנית במשיכה ר' נתן אומר ספינה ואותיות נקנות במשיכה ובשטר איזו היא משיכה בין שמשך בין שהנהיג בין שקרא לה ובאת אחריו ה\"ז משיכה איזו היא מסירה כל שמסר לו פרומביא ומוסרה ה\"ז מסירה אימתי אמרו מטלטלין נקנין במשיכה ברשות הרבים או בחצר שאינה של שניהם ברשות הלוקח כיון שקבל עליו קנה ברשות המוכר עד שיגביה או עד שיוציא מרשות הבעלים ברשות זה המופקדים אצלו עד שיקבל עליו או עד שישכיר לו את [מקומו]. | 1.5. A ship is acquired with drawing (meshikhah). Rabbi Natan says: A ship and documents are acquired with drawing and with a contract. Which is drawing? Whether he drew [the animal], whether he drove [it], whether he called to it and it came after him—this is drawing. Which is handing over (mesirah)? Anyone who handed over to him the halter and he took it—this is handing over. In what cases did they say that moveable property is acquired with drawing? In the public road or in a courtyard which doesn't belong to either [party in the transaction]. On the property of the buyer, whenever he accepts it, he acquires. On the property of the seller, when he lifts it or until he takes it out of the owner's property. On the property of the one with whom he deposited [the animal], until he [the bailee] accepts it [the responsibility of looking after the item for the buyer] or until he [the buyer] rents the place [where the item is stored with the bailee]. |
|
6. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •daube, david Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 201| 4.7. אוֹמְרִים צְדוֹקִין, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, פְּרוּשִׁים, שֶׁאַתֶּם מְטַהֲרִים אֶת הַנִּצּוֹק. אוֹמְרִים הַפְּרוּשִׁים, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, צְדוֹקִים, שֶׁאַתֶּם מְטַהֲרִים אֶת אַמַּת הַמַּיִם הַבָּאָה מִבֵּית הַקְּבָרוֹת. אוֹמְרִים צְדוֹקִין, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, פְּרוּשִׁים, שֶׁאַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים, שׁוֹרִי וַחֲמוֹרִי שֶׁהִזִּיקוּ, חַיָּבִין. וְעַבְדִּי וַאֲמָתִי שֶׁהִזִּיקוּ, פְּטוּרִין. מָה אִם שׁוֹרִי וַחֲמוֹרִי, שֶׁאֵינִי חַיָּב בָּהֶם מִצְוֹת, הֲרֵי אֲנִי חַיָּב בְּנִזְקָן. עַבְדִּי וַאֲמָתִי, שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב בָּהֶן מִצְוֹת, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁאֱהֵא חַיָּב בְּנִזְקָן. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם, לֹא. אִם אֲמַרְתֶּם בְּשׁוֹרִי וַחֲמוֹרִי, שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם דַּעַת, תֹּאמְרוּ בְּעַבְדִּי וּבַאֲמָתִי, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם דָּעַת. שֶׁאִם אַקְנִיטֵם, יֵלֵךְ וְיַדְלִיק גְּדִישׁוֹ שֶׁל אַחֵר וֶאֱהֵא חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם: | 4.7. The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you declare an uninterrupted flow of a liquid to be clean. The Pharisees say: we complain against you, Sadducees, that you declare a stream of water which flows from a burial-ground to be clean? The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you say, my ox or donkey which has done injury is liable, yet my male or female slave who has done injury is not liable. Now if in the case of my ox or my donkey for which I am not responsible if they do not fulfill religious duties, yet I am responsible for their damages, in the case of my male or female slave for whom I am responsible to see that they fulfill mitzvot, how much more so that I should be responsible for their damages? They said to them: No, if you argue about my ox or my donkey which have no understanding, can you deduce from there anything concerning a male or female slave who do have understanding? So that if I were to anger either of them and they would go and burn another person's stack, should I be liable to make restitution? |
|
| 7. Mishnah, Hulin, 3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •daube, david Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 16 |
8. Mishnah, Berachot, 5.1, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •daube, david •daube, david, honi hame‘agel Found in books: Simon-Shushan, Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna (2012) 255| 5.1. אֵין עוֹמְדִין לְהִתְפַּלֵּל אֶלָּא מִתּוֹךְ כֹּבֶד רֹאשׁ. חֲסִידִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הָיוּ שׁוֹהִים שָׁעָה אַחַת וּמִתְפַּלְּלִים, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּכַוְּנוּ אֶת לִבָּם לַמָּקוֹם. אֲפִלּוּ הַמֶּלֶךְ שׁוֹאֵל בִּשְׁלוֹמוֹ, לֹא יְשִׁיבֶנּוּ. וַאֲפִלּוּ נָחָשׁ כָּרוּךְ עַל עֲקֵבוֹ, לֹא יַפְסִיק: 5.5. הַמִּתְפַּלֵּל וְטָעָה, סִימָן רַע לוֹ. וְאִם שְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר הוּא, סִימָן רַע לְשׁוֹלְחָיו, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשְּׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם כְּמוֹתוֹ. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶן דּוֹסָא, כְּשֶׁהָיָה מִתְפַּלֵּל עַל הַחוֹלִים וְאוֹמֵר, זֶה חַי וְזֶה מֵת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מִנַּיִן אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ. אָמַר לָהֶם, אִם שְׁגוּרָה תְפִלָּתִי בְּפִי, יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהוּא מְקֻבָּל. וְאִם לָאו, יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהוּא מְטֹרָף: | 5.1. One should not stand up to say Tefillah except in a reverent state of mind. The pious men of old used to wait an hour before praying in order that they might direct their thoughts to God. Even if a king greets him [while praying] he should not answer him: even if a snake is wound round his heel he should not stop. 5.5. One who is praying and makes a mistake, it is a bad sign for him. And if he is the messenger of the congregation (the prayer leader) it is a bad sign for those who have sent him, because one’s messenger is equivalent to one’s self. They said about Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa that he used to pray for the sick and say, “This one will die, this one will live.” They said to him: “How do you know?” He replied: “If my prayer comes out fluently, I know that he is accepted, but if not, then I know that he is rejected.” |
|
9. Mishnah, Bava Batra, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •daube, david Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 178| 3.1. חֶזְקַת הַבָּתִּים וְהַבּוֹרוֹת וְהַשִּׁיחִין וְהַמְּעָרוֹת וְהַשּׁוֹבָכוֹת וְהַמֶּרְחֲצָאוֹת וּבֵית הַבַּדִּין וּבֵית הַשְּׁלָחִין וְהָעֲבָדִים וְכָל שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה פֵרוֹת תָּדִיר, חֶזְקָתָן שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם. שְׂדֵה הַבַּעַל, חֶזְקָתָהּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים, וְאֵינָהּ מִיּוֹם לְיוֹם, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁלֹשָׁה בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה וּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ בָאֶמְצַע, הֲרֵי שְׁמֹנָה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, חֹדֶשׁ בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה וְחֹדֶשׁ בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה וּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ בָּאֶמְצַע, הֲרֵי אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בִּשְׂדֵה לָבָן. אֲבָל בִּשְׂדֵה אִילָן, כָּנַס אֶת תְּבוּאָתוֹ, מָסַק אֶת זֵיתָיו, כָּנַס אֶת קֵיצוֹ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים. | 3.1. The legal period of possession [in order to establish ownership] for houses, cisterns, trenches, caves, dovecotes, bath-houses, olive-presses, irrigated fields and slaves and anything which continually produces a yield is three complete years. The legal period of possession [in order to establish ownership] for a field irrigated by rain water is three years and they need not be completed. Rabbi Yishmael says: “Three months during the first year, and three months during the last year and twelve months during the middle year, which makes eighteen months.” Rabbi Akiva says: “One month during the first year and one month during the last year and twelve months during the middle year, which makes fourteen months.” Rabbi Yishmael said: “When does this apply? With regards to a sown field, but with tree plantation, if he brought in his produce (grapes), collected the olives and gathered in his fig harvest, this counts as three years.” |
|
10. Mishnah, Avot, 1.12, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 134, 187| 1.12. הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, אוֹהֵב שָׁלוֹם וְרוֹדֵף שָׁלוֹם, אוֹהֵב אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת וּמְקָרְבָן לַתּוֹרָה: 2.6. אַף הוּא רָאָה גֻלְגֹּלֶת אַחַת שֶׁצָּפָה עַל פְּנֵי הַמַּיִם. אָמַר לָהּ, עַל דַּאֲטֵפְתְּ, אַטְפוּךְ. וְסוֹף מְטִיפַיִךְ יְטוּפוּן: | 1.12. Hillel and Shammai received [the oral tradition] from them. Hillel used to say: be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind and drawing them close to the Torah. 2.6. Moreover he saw a skull floating on the face of the water. He said to it: because you drowned others, they drowned you. And in the end, they that drowned you will be drowned. |
|
11. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 75 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •daube, david Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 187 | 75. " (Bamidbar 10:8) \"And the sons of Aaron the Cohanim shall blow on the trumpets\": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 3) \"And they shall blow with them,\" I would think that Israelites, too, may do so; it is, therefore, written \"the sons of Aaron.\" \"the Cohanim\": whether whole or blemished. These are the words of R. Tarfon. R. Akiva says: whole, not blemished, viz.: It is written here \"Cohanim,\" and, elsewhere, (Vayikra 3:2) \"Cohanim.\" Just as there, whole, not blemished; here, too, whole, not blemished. R. Tarfon: Akiva, how long will you pile up words against us! May I lose my sons if I did not see Shimon, my mother's brother, who was lame in one leg, standing and blowing the trumpets! R. Akiva: Might it be that you saw this on Rosh Hashanah or on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year? R. Tarfon: I swear that you have not erred! Happy are you Abraham our father, from whose loins Akiva came forth! Tarfon saw and forgot (the day). Akiva expounded of himself and seconded the halachah. Anyone who departs from you departs from his life! (Ibid.) \"And they (the trumpets) shall be to you for a statute forever\": What is the intent of this? From \"Make for yourself two silver trumpets,\" I would understand that once he made them they would be a heirloom for (all) the generations. It is, therefore, written \"to you for a statute forever.\" They have been given as a statute and not for (all) the generations. From here they said: All the implements that Moses made in the desert were kasher for all of the generations, except the trumpets.", |
|
| 12. Anon., Sifra, ahare mot 9.13 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •daube, david Found in books: Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 282 |
| 13. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 36.6 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •daube, david Found in books: Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 134 |
| 14. Palestinian Talmud, Kiddushin, 1.3 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •daube, david Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 178 |
| 15. Anon., Lamentations Rabbah, 4.13, proem 23 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (2009) 318 |
16. Anon., Deuteronomy Rabbah, 5.3 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •daube, david Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 178| 5.3. זֶה שֶׁאָמַר הַכָּתוּב (משלי כא, ג): עֲשׂה צְדָקָה וּמִשְׁפָּט נִבְחָר לַה' מִזָּבַח, כְּזֶבַח אֵין כְּתִיב אֶלָּא מִזָּבַח, כֵּיצַד, הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת לֹא הָיוּ קְרֵבִין נוֹהֲגוֹת אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת, אֲבָל הַצְּדָקָה וְהַדִּינִים נוֹהֲגוֹת בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת וְשֶׁלֹא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת אֵין מְכַפְּרִין אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹגֵג, וְהַצְּדָקָה וְהַדִּינִין מְכַפְּרִים בֵּין לְשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין לְמֵזִיד. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת אֵין נוֹהֲגִים אֶלָּא בַּתַּחְתּוֹנִים, וְהַצְּדָקָה וְהַדִּינִין נוֹהֲגִין בֵּין בָּעֶלְיוֹנִים וּבֵין בַּתַּחְתּוֹנִים. דָּבָר אַחֵר, הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת אֵין נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, וְהַצְּדָקָה וְהַדִּינִין נוֹהֲגִין בֵּין בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה בֵּין בָּעוֹלָם הַבָּא. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְנָתָן (דברי הימים א יז, ד ה): לֵךְ וְאָמַרְתָּ אֶל דָּוִיד עַבְדִּי כֹּה אָמַר ה' לֹא אַתָּה תִּבְנֶה לִי הַבַּיִת לָשָׁבֶת. כִּי לֹא יָשַׁבְתִּי בְּבַיִת מִן הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר הֶעֱלֵיתִי אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וָאֶהְיֶה [מתהלך] מֵאֹהֶל אֶל אֹהֶל וּמִמִּשְׁכָּן. כָּל מִי שֶׁהָיָה מְבַקֵּשׁ לְקַלֵּל אֶת דָּוִד מָה הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה הָיָה אוֹמֵר לוֹ טוֹב שֶׁיִּבָּנֶה הַבַּיִת. תֵּדַע לְךָ, מַה דָּוִד אוֹמֵר (תהלים קכב, א): שָׂמַחְתִּי בְּאֹמְרִים לִי בֵּית ה' נֵלֵךְ, מְבַקְּשִׁים לִי דְּבָרִים לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין אַתָּה בּוֹנֶה, אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, חַיֶּיךָ, שָׁעָה אַחַת מֵחַיֶּיךָ אֵין אֲנִי מְחַסֵּר, מִנַּיִן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמואל ב ז, יב): כִּי יִמְלְאוּ יָמֶיךָ וְשָׁכַבְתָּ אֶת אֲבֹתֶיךָ וַהֲקִימֹתִי אֶת זַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מִמֵּעֶיךָ וַהֲכִינֹתִי אֶת מַמְלַכְתּוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הַצְּדָקָה וְהַדִּינִין שֶׁאַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה חֲבִיבִין עָלַי מִבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, מִנַּיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמואל ב ח, טו): וַיְהִי דָּוִד עֹשֶׂה מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה. מַהוּ מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה לְכָל עַמּוֹ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַב נַחְמָן חַד אָמַר הָיָה דָן אֶת הַדִּין מְזַכֶּה אֶת הַזַּכַּאי וּמְחַיֵּב אֶת הַחַיָּב, אִם לֹא הָיָה לַחַיָּב לִתֵּן, הָיָה דָּוִד נוֹתֵן מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. הֱוֵי מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה. אָמַר לוֹ רַב נַחְמָן אִם כֵּן נִמְצֵאתָ מֵבִיא אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לִידֵי רַמָּיּוּת, וּמַהוּ מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה, הָיָה דָן אֶת הַדִּין מְזַכֶּה אֶת הַזַּכַּאי וּמְחַיֵּב אֶת הַחַיָּב, הֱוֵי מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה, שֶׁהָיָה מוֹצִיא אֶת הַגָּזֵל מִיָּדוֹ, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בָּנַי, הוֹאִיל וְכָךְ הַדִּינִין חֲבִיבִים לְפָנַי, הֱווּ זְהִירִין בָּהֶם. | 5.3. "This is what Scripture says. \"To do what is right and just is more desired by the Lord than sacrifice.\" (Prov. 21:3) Scripture does not say, \"as much as sacrifice\", but \"more than sacrifice.\" How so?Whereas sacrifices could only function inside the Temple, to do what is right and just is mandated inside and outside the Temple. Another opinion: whereas sacrifices could only atone for unintentional, accidental sins, acts of righteousness and justice atone even for intentional sins. Another opinion: whereas sacrifices are offered only by humanity, even God is obligated to practice justice and righteousness. Another opinion: whereas sacrifices are significant only in this world, righteousness and justice will remain a cornerstone in the Coming World. Rabbi Shmuel ben Nachmani said: When the Holy One of Blessing said to Natan (I Chronicles 17:3-5): \"Go and tell David My servant: Thus saith the LORD: Thou shalt not build Me a house to dwell in for I have not dwelt in a house since the day that I brought up Israel, unto this day; but have [gone] from tent to tent, and from one tabernacle [to another]\" If a person wanted to curse David, what would he do? He would say to David: It would be good if you built the House. You should know what David's answer was: (Ps. 122) 'I was glad when they said to me, let's go to the House of Hashem'.", |
|
| 17. Babylonian Talmud, Temurah, 16a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •daube, david Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 187 |
18. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, 1.8, 23a, 22b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 187; Simon-Shushan, Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna (2012) 255| 22b. (דברי הימים ב לה, כא) וישלח אליו מלאכים לאמר מה לי ולך מלך יהודה לא עליך אתה היום כי אל בית מלחמתי ואלהים אמר לבהלני חדל לך מאלהים אשר עמי ואל ישחיתך,מאי אלהים אשר עמי אמר רב יהודה אמר רב זו ע"ז אמר הואיל וקא בטח בע"ז יכילנא ליה,(דברי הימים ב לה, כג) ויורו היורים למלך יאשיהו ויאמר המלך לעבדיו העבירוני כי החליתי מאד מאי כי החליתי מאד אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מלמד שעשו כל גופו ככברה,אמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי (יוחנן) מפני מה נענש יאשיהו מפני שהיה לו לימלך בירמיהו ולא נמלך מאי דרש (ויקרא כו, ו) וחרב לא תעבור בארצכם,מאי חרב אילימא חרב שאינה של שלום והכתיב ונתתי שלום בארץ אלא אפילו של שלום והוא אינו יודע שאין דורו דומה יפה,כי הוה ניחא נפשיה חזא ירמיהו שפוותיה דקא מרחשן אמר שמא ח"ו מילתא דלא מהגנא אמר אגב צעריה גחין ושמעיה דקא מצדיק עליה דינא אנפשיה אמר (איכה א, יח) צדיק הוא ה' כי פיהו מריתי פתח עליה ההיא שעתא (איכה ד, כ) רוח אפינו משיח ה':,מעשה וירדו זקנים מירושלים לעריהם כו' איבעיא להו כמלא תנור תבואה או דלמא כמלא תנור פת,תא שמע כמלא פי תנור ועדיין תיבעי להו ככיסויא דתנורא או דלמא כי דרא דריפתא דהדר ליה לפומא דתנורא תיקו:,ועוד גזרו תענית על שאכלו זאבים כו' אמר עולא משום ר' שמעון בן יהוצדק מעשה ובלעו זאבים שני תינוקות והקיאום דרך בית הרעי ובא מעשה לפני חכמים וטיהרו את הבשר וטמאו את העצמות:,על אלו מתריעין בשבת כו': תנו רבנן עיר שהקיפוה נכרים או נהר ואחד ספינה המיטרפת בים ואחד יחיד שנרדף מפני נכרים או מפני לסטין ומפני רוח רעה על כולן יחיד רשאי לסגף את עצמו בתענית,רבי יוסי אומר אין היחיד רשאי לסגף את עצמו בתענית שמא יצטרך לבריות ואין הבריות מרחמות עליו אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מ"ט דרבי יוסי דכתיב (בראשית ב, ז) ויהי האדם לנפש חיה נשמה שנתתי בך החייה:,שמעון התימני אומר אף על הדבר כו': איבעיא להו לא הודו לו חכמים בשבת אבל בחול הודו לו או דלמא לא הודו לו כלל,ת"ש דתניא מתריעין על הדבר בשבת ואצ"ל בחול ר' חנן בן פיטום תלמידו של ר' עקיבא משום רבי עקיבא אומר אין מתריעין על הדבר כל עיקר:,על כל צרה שלא תבא על הצבור כו': ת"ר על כל צרה שלא תבא על הצבור מתריעין עליה חוץ מרוב גשמים מ"ט אמר ר' יוחנן לפי שאין מתפללין על רוב הטובה,ואמר רבי יוחנן מניין שאין מתפללין על רוב הטובה שנאמר (מלאכי ג, י) הביאו את כל המעשר אל בית האוצר וגו' מאי עד בלי די אמר רמי בר רב (יוד) עד שיבלו שפתותיכם מלומר די,אמר רמי בר רב יוד ובגולה מתריעין עליה תניא נמי הכי שנה שגשמיה מרובין אנשי משמר שולחין לאנשי מעמד תנו עיניכם באחיכם שבגולה שלא יהא בתיהם קבריהם,שאלו את ר' אליעזר עד היכן גשמים יורדין ויתפללו שלא ירדו אמר להם כדי שיעמוד אדם בקרן אפל וישכשך רגליו במים והתניא ידיו רגליו כידיו קאמינא,אמר רבה בר בר חנה לדידי חזיא לי קרן אפל דקם ההוא טייעא כי רכיב גמלא ונקיט רומחא בידיה מתחזי איניבא,ת"ר (ויקרא כו, ד) ונתתי גשמיכם בעתם לא שכורה ולא צמאה אלא בינונית שכל זמן שהגשמים מרובין מטשטשין את הארץ ואינה מוציאה פירות דבר אחר | 22b. “But he sent ambassadors to him saying: What have I to do with you, king of Judea? I do not come against you this day, but against the house with which I am at war; and God has commanded me to make haste. Forbear from meddling with God, Who is with me, so that He will not destroy you” (II Chronicles 35:21). This clearly shows that Pharaoh Neco had no intention of engaging Josiah in battle.,The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase “God, Who is with me”? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This is referring to Neco’s idolatry, which he brought for assistance. In other words, it is a secular reference and should be read as: The god that is with me, in my possession. Josiah said: Since he trusts in idolatry, I will be able to defeat him.,With regard to Josiah’s battle with Pharaoh Neco, the verse states: “And the archers shot at King Josiah and the king said to his servants: Move me away, for I am seriously wounded” (II Chronicles 35:23). What is the meaning of the phrase: “For I am seriously wounded”? Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This teaches that the Egyptian archers made his entire body like a sieve from the many arrows they shot at him.,Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: For what reason was Josiah punished? Because he should have consulted with the prophet Jeremiah to find out if he should go to war, but he did not consult with him. How did Josiah interpret the verses of the Torah? How did they lead him to go to war? The verse states: “Neither shall a sword go through your land” (Leviticus 26:6).,What is the meaning of the term: “Sword”? If we say that it is referring to a sword that is not of peace, but isn’t it written earlier in the same verse: “And I will give peace in the land”? Rather, the verse must mean that even a sword of peace shall not pass through the land, and Josiah sought to prevent this occurrence, in fulfillment of the blessing. But he did not know that his generation did not merit these blessings, and he would therefore not receive divine assistance in this regard.,The Gemara discusses Josiah’s deathbed reflections. When Josiah was dying, Jeremiah saw his lips moving. Jeremiah said: Perhaps, Heaven forbid, he is saying something improper and complaining about God’s judgment on account of his great distress. Jeremiah bent over and heard that he was justifying God’s judgment against himself. Josiah said: “The Lord is righteous, for I have rebelled against His word” (Lamentations 1:18). At that moment, Jeremiah began his eulogy for Josiah: “The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord, was trapped in their pits” (Lamentations 4:20).,§ The mishna taught: An incident occurred in which Elders descended from Jerusalem to their cities and decreed a fast throughout the land because a small amount of blight was seen in the city of Ashkelon, enough to fill the mouth of an oven. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Did they mean enough grain to fill an entire oven, or perhaps they meant enough grain to prepare bread to fill an oven? This is far less, as bread is stuck to the walls of the oven and does not fill its inner area.,The Gemara answers: Come and hear the phrase of the mishna: Enough to fill the mouth of an oven. This indicates that the bread referred to does not fill the entire oven, but rather covers the mouth of the oven. The Gemara further asks: And still you can raise this dilemma before them: Is the mishna referring to the bread of the cover of the oven? Perhaps it is referring to a row of bread around the mouth of the oven. No resolution was found, and the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.,§ The mishna taught: And furthermore, they decreed a fast because wolves had eaten two children in Transjordan. Ulla said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: An incident occurred in which wolves swallowed two children and excreted them. And the incident came before the Sages for a ruling. They were asked if the remains were ritually impure even after they had passed through the animal’s digestive tract, and they pronounced the flesh ritually pure, as it had been digested, but they pronounced the intact bones ritually impure.,§ The mishna further taught: For the following calamities they sound the alarm even on Shabbat: For a city that is surrounded by gentile troops, for a place in danger of being flooded by a river that has swelled its banks, or for a ship tossed about at sea. The Sages taught: In the case of a city that is surrounded by gentile troops or a river that has swelled beyond its banks, and this also applies to both a ship tossed about at sea and an individual who is being pursued by gentiles, or by thieves, or by an evil spirit, which may lead him to harm himself, they sound the alarm even on Shabbat. And in all these cases, an individual is permitted to afflict himself by fasting to annul the evil decrees against him.,Rabbi Yosei says: An individual is not permitted to afflict himself by fasting, lest he become too weak to work and be beholden to other beings, and those beings will not have mercy on him. Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yosei? It is as it is written: “And man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). Rabbi Yosei interprets this verse as a command: The soul I placed within you, preserve and sustain it.,§ The mishna taught that Shimon the Timnite says: One may cry out on Shabbat even for pestilence, but the Rabbis did not agree with him. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does this mean that the Rabbis did not agree with him with regard to crying out in these cases on Shabbat, but if they occur on a weekday they agreed with him? Or perhaps they did not agree with him at all, as they maintain that one never cries out over pestilence.,The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita: One cries out for a plague of pestilence on Shabbat, and needless to say on weekdays. Rabbi Ḥa ben Pitom, the student of Rabbi Akiva, says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: One does not cry out for pestilence at all. This opinion attributed to Rabbi Akiva is the ruling of the Rabbis in the mishna.,§ The mishna further states that they sound the alarm on account of any trouble that should not befall the community, a euphemism for trouble that may befall the community, except for an overabundance of rain. The Sages taught in a baraita: For any trouble that should not befall the community, they sound the alarm for it, except for an overabundance of rain. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Rabbi Yoḥa said: Because one does not pray over an excess of good. Since rain is generally good for the world, it is not appropriate to pray for it to stop, even when it falls in excess.,And Rabbi Yoḥa said: From where is it derived that one does not pray over an excess of good? It is stated: “Bring the whole tithe into the storeroom, that there may be food in My house, and test Me now by this, said the Lord of hosts, if I will not open for you the windows of heaven, and pour out for you a blessing that there shall be more than sufficiency” (Malachi 3:10). What is the meaning of the phrase: “That there shall be more than sufficiency [ad beli dai]”? Rami bar Ḥama said: It means that the abundance will be so great that your lips will be worn out [yivlu], similar to the word beli, from saying enough [dai]. In other words, even when a blessing is delivered in gross excess, one should not pray for it to cease, as the verse blesses the people with an excess.,Rami bar Rav Yud said: This is true in Eretz Yisrael, but in the Diaspora, i.e., Babylonia, they do sound the alarm over excessive rain. The reason is that Babylonia is in a low-lying region, where excessive rain poses a real danger. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: In a year whose rains are abundant, the members of the priestly watch in the Temple would send a message to the members of the non-priestly watch: Cast your eyes on your brothers in the Diaspora and have them in mind when you pray, so that their houses should not collapse from excessive rain and become their graves.,They asked Rabbi Eliezer: How much rain must fall until they should pray that it should not fall anymore? He said to them by way of exaggeration: Enough rain must fall so that a person stands at the colossal cliff Keren Ophel and dips his feet in water. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer said he must be able to place his hands in water? Rabbi Eliezer could answer: When I said to you that he must be able to place his feet, I meant like his hands, i.e., the water must be high enough that he can dip both his hands and feet into the water with ease.,With regard to the height of this great cliff, Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: I personally saw Keren Ophel, and when I peered down I saw that an Arab was positioned below, and while riding a camel and holding a spear in his hand, he looked like a worm [iniva].,The Sages taught: “Then I will give your rains in their season” (Leviticus 26:4). This means that the earth will be neither drunk nor thirsty; rather, a moderate amount of rain will fall. For as long as the rains are abundant, they muddy the soil of the land, and it does not give out its produce. Alternatively, |
|
19. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, 93b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •daube, david Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 180 | 93b. The Gemara answers: He holds that one derives the halakhot of the offering of an individual from the halakhot of another offering of an individual, such as the burnt offering of appearance, and one does not derive the halakhot of the offering of an individual from the halakhot of a communal offering, e.g., the bull brought for a community-wide violation.,The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said that the exclusion of a blind person is derived from the placing of hands performed by the Elders of the congregation, what is the reason that he does not derive this from the burnt offering of appearance? The Gemara answers: He holds that one derives the halakhot of a matter concerning which the requirement of placing hands is explicitly written with regard to that case itself, as is the case in the passage detailing the general requirement of placing hands, from another matter concerning which placing hands is also explicitly written with regard to that case itself, as is the case in the passage describing the bull brought for a community-wide violation of a sin. This serves to exclude the possibility of deriving the halakhot from those of the burnt offering of appearance, as the requirement to place hands upon it is not explicitly written in the Torah with regard to it, but rather it itself is derived from the requirement stated with regard to a voluntary burnt offering.,This is as a tanna taught in a baraita in the presence of Rav Yitzḥak bar Abba: With regard to the obligatory offering brought by Aaron the High Priest on the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle, it is written: “And the burnt offering was presented, and he sacrificed in accordance with the ordice” (Leviticus 9:16). This last phrase means: In accordance with the ordice of a voluntary burnt offering. Accordingly, this verse teaches about every obligatory burnt offering, including the burnt offering of appearance, that it requires placing hands, just as a voluntary burnt offering does.,§ The mishna states: A Canaanite slave, the agent of the owner of the offering who brings the offering on his behalf, and a woman do not place hands on their offerings. Concerning these halakhot, the Sages taught in a baraita: The term “his hand” is mentioned three times in Leviticus, chapter 3, which details the requirement of placing hands. Each mention is expounded to exclude a different case. “His hand” (Leviticus 3:2), but not the hand of his Canaanite slave; “his hand” (Leviticus 3:8), but not the hand of his agent; “his hand” (Leviticus 3:13), but not the hand of his wife.,The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these three exclusions? The Gemara explains that all three mentions are necessary, as had the Merciful One written only one exclusion, I would say that it serves to exclude only a Canaanite slave, as since he is not commanded in mitzvot it is reasonable that he cannot perform the rite of placing hands. But with regard to an agent, since he is commanded in mitzvot, and there is a principle that the halakhic status of a person’s agent is like that of himself, one might say that he could place his hands on the offering of the owner on the owner’s behalf, and thereby fulfill the requirement. Therefore, it is necessary to have an independent source to exclude an agent.,And had the Merciful One taught us only these two halakhot, one would have excluded only a Canaanite slave and an agent, as they are not considered like his own flesh. But with regard to his wife, who is considered like his own flesh, one might say that she places her hands on her husband’s offering. Therefore, the third mention is necessary to teach that even a wife cannot fulfill the requirement on behalf of her husband.,§ The mishna states: The requirement of placing hands is a non-essential mitzva. The Sages taught in a baraita: “And he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to effect atonement for him” (Leviticus 1:4). The baraita asks: But does the rite of placing hands effect atonement? Isn’t atonement effected only through the presentation of the blood? As it is stated with regard to blood: “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to effect atonement for your souls, for it is the blood of the soul that effects atonement” (Leviticus 17:11). Rather, the verse serves to say to you that if one treated placing hands as though it were a non-essential mitzva and therefore neglected to perform it, then the verse ascribes him blame as though he did not effect atonement; but nevertheless, in actuality, the offering atones for his sin and he does not need to bring another offering.,And it is taught in a baraita with regard to waving in this way: “He shall take one male lamb as a guilt offering to be waved to effect atonement for him” (Leviticus 14:21). The baraita asks: Does waving the offering effect atonement? Isn’t atonement effected only through the presentation of the blood? As it is stated: “For it is the blood of the soul that effects atonement” (Leviticus 17:11). Rather, the verse serves to say to you that if one treated waving as though it were a non-essential mitzva and therefore neglected to perform it, then the verse ascribes him blame as though he did not effect atonement; but nevertheless, in actuality, the offering effects atonement for his sin and he does not need to bring another offering.,§ The mishna further states that that placing hands is performed by leaning on the head of the offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: The phrase “his hand upon the head” is mentioned three times in Leviticus, chapter 3. Each mention is expounded to exclude the possibility of performing the rite on a different part of the animal’s body. Placing hands is performed with “his hand upon the head” (Leviticus 3:2), but not with his hand on the neck of the animal; with “his hand upon the head” (Leviticus 3:8), but not with his hand on the back of the animal; with “his hand upon the head” (Leviticus 3:13), but not with his hand on the breast of the animal.,The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these three exclusions? The Gemara explains that all three mentions are necessary, as had the Merciful One written only one exclusion, I would say that it serves to exclude only the animal’s neck, as it is not level with the head of the animal. But with regard to its back, which is level with its head, one might say that it is not precluded and that one can fulfill the requirement by placing one’s hands there. Therefore, it is necessary to have an independent source to exclude the animal’s back.,And had the Torah taught us only these two halakhot, one would have excluded only the neck and the back, as those parts are not included in the waving of the offering, i.e., they are not waved. But with regard to the animal’s breast, which is included in the waving of the offering, one might say that it is not precluded and that one can fulfill the requirement by placing one’s hands there. Therefore, the third mention is necessary to teach that placing hands cannot be performed even on the animal’s breast.,A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one placed his hand on the sides of the animal’s head, what is the halakha; does one fulfill the requirement of placing hands by doing so? The Gemara answers: Come and hear, as it is taught in a baraita: Abba Bira’a, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, says that the verse: “And he shall place his hand upon the head of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 1:4), indicates that it must be done with his hand on the top of its head and not with his hand on the sides of its head.,Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If one’s hands were wrapped in a cloth, what is the halakha as to whether the cloth is regarded as an interposition between his hands and the animal such that it invalidates the rite? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution from a baraita, which states: The rite is valid provided that there is no item that interposes between him and the offering.,§ The mishna adds that the placing of hands is performed with two hands. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Reish Lakish said: As the verse states with regard to the Yom Kippur service: “And Aaron shall place both his hands [yadav] upon the head of the live goat” (Leviticus 16:21). The word yadav, meaning: His hands, is written without a second yod, and so if read without vowels it reads as: His hand. But it is also written “both,” which makes clear that the intention is that he must use both of his hands. This established a paradigm that in any place where it is stated in the Torah: His hand, there are here two hands, unless the verse explicitly specifies that there is only one.,The Gemara relates: Rabbi Elazar went and stated this halakha in the study hall, but he did not say it in the name of Reish Lakish. Reish Lakish heard about this and became angry. He said to Rabbi Elazar: If it enters your mind that wherever it is written: His hand, the meaning is that there are actually two hands, then why do I ever need the Torah to write: His hands, his hands, i.e., yadav in the plural, which it does on numerous occasions?,Reish Lakish raised objections against him from twenty-four occasions where the Torah writes: His hands, for example: “His own hands [yadav] shall bring the offerings of the Lord” (Leviticus 7:30); “his hands [yadav] shall contend for him, and You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7); “Guiding his hands [yadav] wittingly, for Manasseh was the firstborn” (Genesis 48:14). Rabbi Elazar was silent, as he had no response.,After Reish Lakish had calmed down, he said to Rabbi Elazar: What is the reason that you did not say to me the following: When I established that paradigm, I was speaking only about the term: His hands [yadav], with regard to placing hands. But with regard to other halakhot, when the Torah says “his hand” the reference is to just one hand, and so when referring to two hands it must say “his hands.”,The Gemara asks: But also with regard to placing hands it is written, concerning Moses’ ordination of Joshua: “And he placed his hands [yadav] upon him and gave him a charge” (Numbers 27:23), using the plural “his hands” [yadav] instead of: His hand [yado]. The Gemara clarifies that Reish Lakish meant that one could say: When I established that paradigm, I was speaking only about the term: His hands [yadav], with regard to placing hands on an animal offering. But in all other cases, if the intention is that there were two hands, the plural must be used.,§ The mishna teaches: And in the same location in the Temple that one places hands, one slaughters the animal. And immediately following the rite of placing hands, the slaughter is performed. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying? The mishna appears to state two distinct rulings. But if so, the first statement is superfluous, because if the slaughter immediately follows the placing of hands, then it is obvious that the animal is slaughtered without changing its location. The Gemara explains that this is what the mishna is saying: In the same location in the Temple that one places hands one slaughters the animal, because immediately following the rite of placing hands, the slaughter is performed. There are not two distinct rulings; rather, the second statement is the explanation of the first.,stringency with regard to placing hands than there is with regard to waving, and there is an aspect of greater stringency with regard to waving than there is with regard to placing hands. The stringency with regard to placing hands is that if several people are partners in bringing an offering, one of them waves the offering on behalf of all the other partners, but one cannot fulfill the requirement of placing hands if he alone places hands on behalf of all the other partners; rather, each member must place hands himself. The stringency with regard to waving is that waving is practiced in the cases of both offerings of an individual, e.g., peace offerings, where the breast and thigh and sacrificial portions are waved, and in the cases of communal offerings, e.g., the two lambs sacrificed on Shavuot, which are waved together with the two loaves; |
|
| 20. Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin, 22b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •daube, david Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 178 |
21. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, 60a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •daube, david •daube, david, honi hame‘agel Found in books: Simon-Shushan, Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna (2012) 255| 60a. מכלל דכי קנה וחזר וקנה דברי הכל אין צריך לברך,וא"ד אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא שלא קנה וחזר וקנה אבל קנה וחזר וקנה אין צריך לברך ור' יוחנן אמר אפילו קנה וחזר וקנה צריך לברך מכלל דכי יש לו וקנה דברי הכל צריך לברך,מיתיבי בנה בית חדש ואין לו כיוצא בו קנה כלים חדשים ואין לו כיוצא בהם צריך לברך יש לו כיוצא בהם אין צריך לברך דברי ר"מ ר' יהודה אומר בין כך ובין כך צריך לברך,בשלמא ללישנא קמא רב הונא כר"מ ורבי יוחנן כרבי יהודה אלא ללישנא בתרא בשלמא רב הונא כרבי יהודה אלא רבי יוחנן דאמר כמאן לא כר"מ ולא כרבי יהודה,אמר לך רבי יוחנן הוא הדין דלרבי יהודה קנה וחזר וקנה נמי צריך לברך והא דקא מיפלגי ביש לו וקנה להודיעך כחו דר"מ דאפי' קנה ויש לו אין צריך לברך וכל שכן קנה וחזר וקנה דאין צריך לברך,וליפלגו בקנה וחזר וקנה דאין צריך לברך להודיעך כחו דר' יהודה כח דהתירא עדיף ליה:,מברך על הרעה כו':,היכי דמי כגון דשקל בדקא בארעיה אף על גב דטבא היא לדידיה דמסקא ארעא שירטון ושבחא השתא מיהא רעה היא:,ועל הטובה כו':,היכי דמי כגון דאשכח מציאה אף על גב דרעה היא לדידיה דאי שמע בה מלכא שקיל לה מיניה השתא מיהא טובה היא:,היתה אשתו מעוברת ואמר יהי רצון שתלד כו' הרי זו תפלת שוא:,ולא מהני רחמי מתיב רב יוסף (בראשית ל, כא) ואחר ילדה בת ותקרא את שמה דינה מאי ואחר אמר רב לאחר שדנה לאה דין בעצמה ואמרה י"ב שבטים עתידין לצאת מיעקב ששה יצאו ממני וארבעה מן השפחות הרי עשרה אם זה זכר לא תהא אחותי רחל כאחת השפחות מיד נהפכה לבת שנא' ותקרא את שמה דינה אין מזכירין מעשה נסים,ואיבעית אימא מעשה דלאה בתוך ארבעים יום הוה כדתניא שלשה ימים הראשונים יבקש אדם רחמים שלא יסריח משלשה ועד ארבעים יבקש רחמים שיהא זכר מארבעים יום ועד שלשה חדשים יבקש רחמים שלא יהא סנדל משלשה חדשים ועד ששה יבקש רחמים שלא יהא נפל מששה ועד תשעה יבקש רחמים שיצא בשלום,ומי מהני רחמי והא"ר יצחק בריה דרב אמי איש מזריע תחלה יולדת נקבה אשה מזרעת תחלה יולדת זכר שנאמר (ויקרא יב, ב) אשה כי תזריע וילדה זכר הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהזריעו שניהם בבת אחת:,היה בא בדרך:,ת"ר מעשה בהלל הזקן שהיה בא בדרך ושמע קול צוחה בעיר אמר מובטח אני שאין זה בתוך ביתי ועליו הכתוב אומר (תהלים קיב, ז) משמועה רעה לא יירא נכון לבו בטוח בה' אמר רבא כל היכי דדרשת להאי קרא מרישיה לסיפיה מדריש מסיפיה לרישיה מדריש מרישיה לסיפיה מדריש משמועה רעה לא יירא מה טעם נכון לבו בטוח בה' מסיפיה לרישיה מדריש נכון לבו בטוח בה' משמועה רעה לא יירא,ההוא תלמידא דהוה קא אזיל בתריה דרבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי בשוקא דציון חזייה דקא מפחיד אמר ליה חטאה את דכתיב (ישעיהו לג, יד) פחדו בציון חטאים אמר ליה והכתיב (משלי כח, יד) אשרי אדם מפחד תמיד אמר ליה ההוא בדברי תורה כתיב,יהודה בר נתן הוה שקיל ואזיל בתריה דרב המנונא אתנח אמר ליה יסורים בעי ההוא גברא לאתויי אנפשיה דכתיב (איוב ג, כה) כי פחד פחדתי ויאתיני ואשר יגורתי יבא לי והא כתיב אשרי אדם מפחד תמיד ההוא בדברי תורה כתיב:,הנכנס לכרך:,תנו רבנן בכניסתו מהו אומר יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהי שתכניסני לכרך זה לשלום נכנס אומר מודה אני לפניך ה' אלהי שהכנסתני לכרך זה לשלום בקש לצאת אומר יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהי ואלהי אבותי שתוציאני מכרך זה לשלום יצא אומר מודה אני לפניך ה' אלהי שהוצאתני מכרך זה לשלום וכשם שהוצאתני לשלום כך תוליכני לשלום ותסמכני לשלום ותצעידני לשלום ותצילני מכף כל אויב ואורב בדרך,אמר רב מתנא ל"ש אלא בכרך שאין דנין והורגין בו אבל בכרך שדנין והורגין בו לית לן בה,א"ד אמר רב מתנא אפילו בכרך שדנין והורגין בו זימנין דלא מתרמי ליה אינש דיליף ליה זכותא,ת"ר הנכנס לבית המרחץ אומר יהי רצון מלפניך יי' אלהי שתצילני מזה ומכיוצא בו ואל יארע בי דבר קלקלה ועון ואם יארע בי דבר קלקלה ועון תהא מיתתי כפרה לכל עונותי,אמר אביי לא לימא אינש הכי דלא לפתח פומיה לשטן דאמר ר"ל וכן תנא משמיה דר' יוסי לעולם אל יפתח אדם פיו לשטן,אמר רב יוסף מאי קראה דכתיב (ישעיהו א, ט) כמעט כסדום היינו לעמורה דמינו מאי אהדר להו נביא שמעו דבר יי' קציני סדום וגו',כי נפיק מאי אומר א"ר אחא מודה אני לפניך יי' אלהי שהצלתני מן האור,ר' אבהו על לבי בני אפחית בי בני מתותיה אתרחיש ליה ניסא קם על עמודא שזיב מאה וחד גברי בחד אבריה אמר היינו דר' אחא,דאמר רב אחא הנכנס להקיז דם אומר יהי רצון מלפניך יי' אלהי שיהא עסק זה לי לרפואה ותרפאני כי אל רופא נאמן אתה ורפואתך אמת לפי שאין דרכן של בני אדם לרפאות אלא שנהגו,אמר אביי לא לימא אינש הכי דתני דבי רבי ישמעאל (שמות כא, יט) ורפא ירפא מכאן שניתנה רשות לרופא לרפאות,כי קאי מאי אומר אמר רב אחא ברוך רופא חנם | 60a. The Gemara deduces: This proves by inference that if he purchases a new object and then purchases a similar object, everyone agrees that he is not required to recite a blessing, as he has already recited a blessing over the purchase of that type of item.,Some say a different version of this dispute: Rav Huna said: They only taught that one recites the blessing: Who has given us life, on a new vessel if he did not purchase that item in the past and purchased the item now, for the first time. However, if he purchased that item in the past and purchased the item again, he need not recite a blessing. And Rabbi Yoḥa said: Even if one purchased that item in the past and purchased a similar item again, he must recite a blessing. This proves by inference that if one already has a vessel and then purchased similar vessels, everyone agrees that he must recite a blessing.,The Gemara raises an objection based on what was taught in a baraita: One who built a new house and does not already own a similar house, or purchased new vessels and does not already own similar vessels, must recite a blessing. However, if he already owns a similar one, he need not recite a blessing, this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda, on the other hand, says: In either case, he must recite a blessing.,The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the first version of the dispute between Rav Huna and Rabbi Yoḥa, one could say that Rav Huna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and that Rabbi Yoḥa holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. However, according to the latter version of the dispute, granted, Rav Huna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but in accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Yoḥa state his opinion? His statement is neither in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir nor in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.,The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥa could have said to you: The same is true according to Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion; in a case where one has purchased an item in the past and purchased a similar item again, he must recite a blessing. The fact that they only disagreed with regard to a case where he already owned similar vessels and he purchased new ones does not indicate that this is their only disagreement. The dispute was presented in this way to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Meir’s opinion; even in a case where one purchased an item while owning a similar item, he need not recite a blessing; all the more so in a case where he purchased an item and then purchased a similar item again, he need not recite a blessing.,The Gemara asks: And if that is the reason for presenting the dispute in this manner, let them disagree with regard to a case where one purchased an item in the past and then purchased a similar item again, where according to Rabbi Meir one need not recite a blessing, in order to convey the far-reaching nature of Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion; as Rabbi Yehuda requires a blessing in that case. The Gemara responds: The Gemara preferred the version before us in order to demonstrate the extent to which Rabbi Meir was lenient in not requiring a blessing because the strength of leniency is preferable.,We learned in the mishna: One recites a blessing for the bad that befalls him just as he does for the good. This is to say that one recites the blessing appropriate for the present situation even if it is bad, despite the fact that it may develop into a positive situation in the future.,The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? The Gemara explains: In a case where a dam was breached and water flowed onto one’s land, despite the fact that this will ultimately be beneficial for him, for his land will be covered with sediment from the flowing water which will enhance the quality of his soil, it is nonetheless bad at present.,One must recite a blessing for the good that befalls him just as for the bad.,The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? The Gemara explains: In a case where one found a lost object, despite the fact that it is ultimately bad for him because if the king heard about it, he would certainly take it from him. At that time, the law deemed all found objects the property of the king’s treasury and one who did not report such an object would be punished. Nevertheless, it is favorable at present.,We learned in the mishna: One whose wife was pregt and he said: May it be God’s will that my wife will give birth to a male child, it is a vain prayer.,Is a prayer in that case ineffective? Rav Yosef raises an objection based on a baraita: It is stated: “And afterwards she bore a daughter, and called her name Dina” (Genesis 30:21). The Gemara asks: What is meant by the addition of the word: Afterwards? What does the verse seek to convey by emphasizing that after the birth of Zebulun she gave birth to Dina? Rav said: After Leah passed judgment on herself and said: Twelve tribes are destined to descend from Jacob, six came from me and four from the maidservants, that is ten, and if this fetus is male, my sister Rachel will not even be the equivalent of one the maidservants; immediately the fetus was transformed into a daughter, as it is stated: And she called her name Dina; meaning she named her after her judgment [din]. The Gemara rejects this: One does not mention miraculous acts to teach general halakha.,The Gemara introduces an alternative explanation: And if you wish, say instead that the story of Leah and her prayer with regard to the fetus was within forty days of conception. As it was taught in a baraita: During the first three days after intercourse, one should pray that the seed not putrefy, that it will fertilize the egg and develop into a fetus. From the third day until the fortieth, one should pray that it will be male. From the fortieth day until three months, one should pray that it will not be deformed, in the shape of a flat fish, as when the fetus does not develop it assumes a shape somewhat similar to a flat sandal fish. From the third month until the sixth, one should pray that it will not be stillborn. And from the sixth month until the ninth, one should pray that it will be emerge safely. Therefore, during the first forty days from conception, one may still pray to affect the gender of the fetus.,The Gemara asks: Is prayer effective for that purpose? Didn’t Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Ami, say: The tradition teaches that the gender of the fetus is determined at the moment of conception. If the man emits seed first, his wife gives birth to a female; if the woman emits seed first, she gives birth to a male, as it is stated: “When a woman emitted seed and bore a male” (Leviticus 12:2). The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where they both emit seed simultaneously. In that case, the gender is undetermined and prayer may be effectual.,We learned in the mishna: One who was walking along the way and heard a scream from the city, and says: May it be God’s will that this scream will not be from my house, it is a vain prayer.,The Sages taught: There was an incident involving Hillel the Elder, who was coming on the road when he heard a scream in the city. He said: I am certain that the scream is not coming from my house. And of him, the verse says: “He shall not be afraid of evil tidings; his heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord” (Psalms 112:7). Rava said: Any way that you interpret this verse, its meaning is clear. It can be interpreted from beginning to end or it can be interpreted from end to beginning. The Gemara explains: It can be interpreted from beginning to end: Why is it that: He shall not be afraid of evil tidings? Because his heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord. The Gemara continues: And it can be interpreted from end to beginning: One whose heart is steadfast, trusting in the Lord is a person who shall not be afraid of evil tidings.,The Gemara relates: This student was once walking after Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, in the marketplace of Zion. Rabbi Yishmael saw that the student was afraid. He said to him: You are a sinner, as it is written: “The transgressors in Zion are afraid, trembling has seized the ungodly” (Isaiah 33:14). The student replied: And is it not written: “Happy is the man that fears always” (Proverbs 28:14)? Rabbi Yishmael said to him: That verse is written with regard to matters of Torah, that one should be afraid lest he forget them. For everything else, one must trust in God.,In a similar vein, the Gemara relates: Yehuda bar Natan was coming and going after Rav Hamnuna. Yehuda bar Natan sighed; Rav Hamnuna said to him: Do you wish to bring suffering upon yourself; as it is stated: “For that which I did fear is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of has overtaken me” (Job 3:25)? He responded: Is it not said: “Happy is the man who fears always”? Rav Hamnuna answered: That verse is written with regard to matters of Torah.,We learned in the mishna: One who enters a large city recites two prayers; Ben Azzai says he recites four prayers.,The Sages taught the details of Ben Azzai’s teaching in a baraita: rUpon his entrance to the city what does he recite? rMay it be Your will, O Lord my God, that You bring me into this city to peace. rAfter he entered the city, he recites: I thank You, O Lord my God, that You brought me into this city to peace. rWhen he seeks to leave the city, he recites: May it be Your will, O Lord my God and God of my ancestors, that You take me out of this city to peace. rAfter he left, he recites: I give thanks before You, O Lord my God, that You took me out of this city to peace; rand just as You took me out to peace, rso too lead me to peace, support me to peace, direct my steps to peace, rand rescue me from the hand of any enemy or those lying in ambush along the way.,Rav Mattana said: This was taught only with regard to a city where criminals are not tried and executed, as in a place like that he may be killed without trial. However, in a city where criminals are tried and executed, these prayers do not apply, as if one is not guilty he will not be harmed.,Some say that Rav Mattana said the opposite: Even in a city where criminals are tried and executed one must pray for mercy, as sometimes he may not encounter a person who will plead in his favor.,The Sages taught: One who enters a Roman bathhouse, where a fire burns beneath the pool of water used for bathing, and where there is the risk of collapse, says: rMay it be Your will, O Lord my God, that you save me from this and similar matters, rand do not let ruin or iniquity befall me, rand if ruin or iniquity does befall me, let my death be atonement for all of my transgressions.,Abaye said: One should not say: If ruin befalls me, so as not to open his mouth to Satan and provoke him. As Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said and as it was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Yosei: One should never open his mouth to Satan by raising, at his own initiative, the possibility of mishap or death.,Rav Yosef said: What is the verse that alludes to this? As it is written: “We should have almost been as Sodom, we should have been like unto Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:9), after which what did the prophet reply to them? “Hear the word of the Lord, rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, people of Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:10). After the analogy to Sodom was raised, it was realized.,Returning to the subject of the Roman bathhouse, the Gemara asks: When he emerges from the bathhouse, what does he say? Rav Aḥa said: I give thanks to You, Lord, that You saved me from the fire.,The Gemara relates: Rabbi Abbahu entered a bathhouse when the bathhouse floor collapsed beneath him and a miracle transpired on his behalf. He stood on a pillar and saved one hundred and one men with one arm. He held one or two people in his arm, with others holding on them and so on, so that all were saved. He said: This is confirmation of the statement of Rav Aḥa, who said that one should offer thanks upon leaving the bathhouse safely.,As Rav Aḥa said: One who enters to let blood says: rMay it be Your will, O Lord my God, rthat this enterprise be for healing and that You should heal me. rAs You are a faithful God of healing and Your healing is truth. rBecause it is not the way of people to heal, but they have become accustomed. rRav Aḥa is saying that people should not practice medicine as they lack the ability to heal; rather, healing should be left to God.,Abaye responded and said: One should not say this, as it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael that from the verse, “And shall cause him to be thoroughly healed” (Exodus 21:19), from here we derive that permission is granted to a doctor to heal. The practice of medicine is in accordance with the will of God.,As for bloodletting, the Gemara asks: When one stands after having let blood, what does he say? Rav Aḥa said: He recites in gratitude: Blessed…Who heals without payment. |
|
| 22. Jerome, Praecepta Ac Leges S. Pachomii, 175 (5th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •daube, david Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 176, 182 |
| 23. Justinian, Digest, 177 (5th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •daube, david Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 182 |
| 24. Anon., Leges Publicae, 4.13, proem 23 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (2009) 318 |
| 26. Anon., Pesiqta De Rav Kahana, 4.7, 15.7 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 282; Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (2009) 318 |
| 28. Nilus, De Mon. Ex., 2.23.4 Tagged with subjects: •daube, david Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 179 |
| 29. Babylonian Talmud, Meg., 10b Tagged with subjects: •daube, david Found in books: Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 134 |
