Home About Network of subjects Linked subjects heatmap Book indices included Search by subject Search by reference Browse subjects Browse texts

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database



747
Anon., Sifre Numbers, 106


nan (Bamidbar 12:14) \"And the L-rd said to Moses: Now if her father had spat in her face, etc.\" R. Achi b. R. Yoshiyah said: There were \"two rebukes,\" viz.: If her father of flesh and blood had rebuked her, she would (sit) in shame (sequestered) for seven days, does it not follow that if (her Father) He who spoke and brought the world into being (rebuked her), (she should be sequestered) fourteen (days)! But \"it suffices that what is derived from an argument a fortiori be as that which it is derived from\" — Just as her father, seven; so, He who spoke and brought the world into being, seven. (Ibid.) \"Let her be sequestered seven days outside the camp, and then let her be gathered in.\": The Holy One Blessed be He sequestered her, and the Holy One Blessed be He declared her tamei and the Holy One Blessed be He declared her clean. (Ibid. 12:15) \"And the people did not journey until Miriam had been gathered in\": to teach that \"with the measure that a man measures, so is he measured.\" Miriam waited for Moses a short while, viz. (Shemot 2:4) \"And his sister stationed herself at a distance, etc.\"; therefore, the Shechinah, the ark, the Cohanim, the Levites, and the seven clouds of glory did not journey until Miriam had been gathered in. Joseph merited taking the bones of his father (for burial), and there were none among his brothers greater than he, viz. (Bereshit 50:7-9) \"And Joseph went up to bury his father … and there went up with him both chariots and riders.\" Who was greater among us than Joseph, only Moses meriting bringing him to burial. And there is none in Israel greater than he, viz. (Shemot 13:19) \"And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him.\" Who is greater among us than Moses, none but the Holy One Blessed be He bringing him to burial, viz. (Devarim 34:6) \"And He buried him in the valley of the land of Moav\": R. Yehudah says: If it (the above) were not an explicit verse, it would be impossible to say it. Where did Moses die? In the portion of Reuven, viz. (Ibid. 1) \"And Moses went up from the steppes of Moav to Mount Nevo.\" This is the territory of the sons of Reuven, viz. (Bamidbar 32:37-38) \"And the sons of Reuven built Cheshbon and Elalei and Kiryathayim and Nevo.\" And he was buried only in the territory of Gad, viz. (Devarim 33:20-21) \"And to Gad he said: Blessed be he who broadens Gad … and he saw the best for himself. For there the portion of the lawgiver (Moses) is hidden.\" From the portion of Reuven to that of Gad is four mils. Those four mils — Who carried him\"? We are hereby taught that Moses was (carried) in the \"hand\" of the Holy One Blessed be He the four mils from the portion of Reuven to that of Gad, while the ministering angels extolled him in song, (Ibid.) \"He wrought the righteousness of the L-rd and His judgments with Israel.\" And He thus gathers in not only Moses, but all of the righteous, as it is written (Isaiah 58:8) \"And your righteousness shall go before you, and the glory of G-d will gather you in.\" (Bamidbar, Ibid. 16) \"And afterwards the people journeyed from Chatzeiroth\": This journey was after Miriam was gathered in."


Intertexts (texts cited often on the same page as the searched text):

13 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 10.6, 31.15, 33.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

10.6. וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נָסְעוּ מִבְּאֵרֹת בְּנֵי־יַעֲקָן מוֹסֵרָה שָׁם מֵת אַהֲרֹן וַיִּקָּבֵר שָׁם וַיְכַהֵן אֶלְעָזָר בְּנוֹ תַּחְתָּיו׃ 31.15. וַיֵּרָא יְהוָה בָּאֹהֶל בְּעַמּוּד עָנָן וַיַּעֲמֹד עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן עַל־פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל׃ 33.3. אַף חֹבֵב עַמִּים כָּל־קְדֹשָׁיו בְּיָדֶךָ וְהֵם תֻּכּוּ לְרַגְלֶךָ יִשָּׂא מִדַּבְּרֹתֶיךָ׃ 10.6. And the children of Israel journeyed from Beeroth-benejaakan to Moserah; there Aaron died, and there he was buried; and Eleazar his son ministered in the priest’s office in his stead." 31.15. And the LORD appeared in the Tent in a pillar of cloud; and the pillar of cloud stood over the door of the Tent." 33.3. Yea, He loveth the peoples, All His holy ones—they are in Thy hand; And they sit down at Thy feet, Receiving of Thy words."
2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 13.21-13.22, 14.19-14.20, 16.10, 34.5, 40.38 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

13.21. וַיהוָה הֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם יוֹמָם בְּעַמּוּד עָנָן לַנְחֹתָם הַדֶּרֶךְ וְלַיְלָה בְּעַמּוּד אֵשׁ לְהָאִיר לָהֶם לָלֶכֶת יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה׃ 13.22. לֹא־יָמִישׁ עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן יוֹמָם וְעַמּוּד הָאֵשׁ לָיְלָה לִפְנֵי הָעָם׃ 14.19. וַיִּסַּע מַלְאַךְ הָאֱלֹהִים הַהֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵי מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֵּלֶךְ מֵאַחֲרֵיהֶם וַיִּסַּע עַמּוּד הֶעָנָן מִפְּנֵיהֶם וַיַּעֲמֹד מֵאַחֲרֵיהֶם׃ 34.5. וַיֵּרֶד יְהוָה בֶּעָנָן וַיִּתְיַצֵּב עִמּוֹ שָׁם וַיִּקְרָא בְשֵׁם יְהוָה׃ 40.38. כִּי עֲנַן יְהוָה עַל־הַמִּשְׁכָּן יוֹמָם וְאֵשׁ תִּהְיֶה לַיְלָה בּוֹ לְעֵינֵי כָל־בֵּית־יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּכָל־מַסְעֵיהֶם׃ 13.21. And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; that they might go by day and by night:" 13.22. the pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night, departed not from before the people." 14.19. And the angel of God, who went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud removed from before them, and stood behind them;" 14.20. and it came between the camp of Egypt and the camp of Israel; and there was the cloud and the darkness here, yet gave it light by night there; and the one came not near the other all the night." 16.10. And it came to pass, as Aaron spoke unto the whole congregation of the children of Israel, that they looked toward the wilderness, and, behold, the glory of the LORD appeared in the cloud." 34.5. And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD." 40.38. For the cloud of the LORD was upon the tabernacle by day, and there was fire therein by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys.—"
3. Hebrew Bible, Job, 26.9 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

26.9. מְאַחֵז פְּנֵי־כִסֵּה פַּרְשֵׁז עָלָיו עֲנָנוֹ׃ 26.9. He closeth in the face of His throne, And spreadeth His cloud upon it."
4. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 9.15-9.16, 10.34-10.35, 12.5, 12.8-12.10, 16.10, 17.7, 21.1 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

9.15. וּבְיוֹם הָקִים אֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּן כִּסָּה הֶעָנָן אֶת־הַמִּשְׁכָּן לְאֹהֶל הָעֵדֻת וּבָעֶרֶב יִהְיֶה עַל־הַמִּשְׁכָּן כְּמַרְאֵה־אֵשׁ עַד־בֹּקֶר׃ 9.16. כֵּן יִהְיֶה תָמִיד הֶעָנָן יְכַסֶּנּוּ וּמַרְאֵה־אֵשׁ לָיְלָה׃ 10.34. וַעֲנַן יְהוָה עֲלֵיהֶם יוֹמָם בְּנָסְעָם מִן־הַמַּחֲנֶה׃ 10.35. וַיְהִי בִּנְסֹעַ הָאָרֹן וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה קוּמָה יְהוָה וְיָפֻצוּ אֹיְבֶיךָ וְיָנֻסוּ מְשַׂנְאֶיךָ מִפָּנֶיךָ׃ 12.5. וַיֵּרֶד יְהוָה בְּעַמּוּד עָנָן וַיַּעֲמֹד פֶּתַח הָאֹהֶל וַיִּקְרָא אַהֲרֹן וּמִרְיָם וַיֵּצְאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם׃ 12.8. פֶּה אֶל־פֶּה אֲדַבֶּר־בּוֹ וּמַרְאֶה וְלֹא בְחִידֹת וּתְמֻנַת יְהוָה יַבִּיט וּמַדּוּעַ לֹא יְרֵאתֶם לְדַבֵּר בְּעַבְדִּי בְמֹשֶׁה׃ 12.9. וַיִּחַר אַף יְהוָה בָּם וַיֵּלַךְ׃ 17.7. וַיְהִי בְּהִקָּהֵל הָעֵדָה עַל־מֹשֶׁה וְעַל־אַהֲרֹן וַיִּפְנוּ אֶל־אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְהִנֵּה כִסָּהוּ הֶעָנָן וַיֵּרָא כְּבוֹד יְהוָה׃ 21.1. וַיִּשְׁמַע הַכְּנַעֲנִי מֶלֶךְ־עֲרָד יֹשֵׁב הַנֶּגֶב כִּי בָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל דֶּרֶךְ הָאֲתָרִים וַיִּלָּחֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּשְׁבְּ מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁבִי׃ 21.1. וַיִּסְעוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּחֲנוּ בְּאֹבֹת׃ 9.15. And on the day that the tabernacle was reared up the cloud covered the tabernacle, even the tent of the testimony; and at even there was upon the tabernacle as it were the appearance of fire, until morning." 9.16. So it was alway: the cloud covered it, and the appearance of fire by night." 10.34. And the cloud of the LORD was over them by day, when they set forward from the camp." 10.35. And it came to pass, when the ark set forward, that Moses said: ‘Rise up, O LORD, and let Thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate Thee flee before Thee.’" 12.5. And the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, and stood at the door of the Tent, and called Aaron and Miriam; and they both came forth." 12.8. with him do I speak mouth to mouth, even manifestly, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD doth he behold; wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against My servant, against Moses?’" 12.9. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and He departed." 12.10. And when the cloud was removed from over the Tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow; and Aaron looked upon Miriam; and, behold, she was leprous." 16.10. and that He hath brought thee near, and all thy brethren the sons of Levi with thee? and will ye seek the priesthood also?" 17.7. And it came to pass, when the congregation was assembled against Moses and against Aaron, that they looked toward the tent of meeting; and, behold, the cloud covered it, and the glory of the LORD appeared." 21.1. And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the South, heard tell that Israel came by the way of Atharim; and he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive."
5. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 62.4 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

62.4. וְאֵלֶּה תֹּלְדֹת יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן אַבְרָהָם (בראשית כה, יב), רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָא וְרַבָּנָן הֲווֹ יָתְבִין וּמִתְקַשִּׁין מַה רָאָה הַכָּתוּב לְיַחֵס תּוֹלְדוֹתָיו שֶׁל רָשָׁע כָּאן, עָבַר רַבִּי לֵוִי, אָמְרֵי הָא אֲתָא מָרָה דִּשְׁמַעְתָּה נִשְׁאֲלוּנֵיהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי חָמָא לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ בֶּן כַּמָּה שְׁנִין נִתְבָּרֵךְ זְקֵנֶךָ. (בראשית כה, יז): וְאֵלֶּה שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, מָה רָאָה הַכָּתוּב לְיַחֵס שָׁנָיו שֶׁל רָשָׁע כָּאן, עַל יְדֵי שֶׁבָּא מִקָּדְקָדָהּ שֶׁל מִדְבָּר לִגְמֹל חֶסֶד לְאָבִיו. (בראשית כה, יח): וַיִּשְׁכְּנוּ מֵחֲוִילָה וגו', הָכָא אַתְּ אָמַר נָפָל, וּלְהַלָּן אַתְּ אָמַר (בראשית טז, יב): יִשְׁכֹּן, אֶלָּא כָּל יָמִים שֶׁהָיָה אָבִינוּ אַבְרָהָם קַיָּם יִשְׁכֹּן, כֵּיוָן שֶׁמֵּת אָבִינוּ אַבְרָהָם נָפָל. עַד שֶׁלֹא פָּשַׁט יָדוֹ בְּבֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ יִשְׁכֹּן, כֵּיוָן שֶׁפָּשַׁט בּוֹ יָדוֹ נָפָל. בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה יִשְׁכֹּן, אֲבָל לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא נָפָל.
6. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 305 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

7. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 84 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

8. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

25a. לא אדון קרן מקרן אני אדון קרן מרגל ומה במקום שהקל על השן ועל הרגל ברה"ר החמיר בקרן מקום שהחמיר על השן ועל הרגל ברשות הניזק אינו דין שנחמיר בקרן,אמרו לו דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון מה ברה"ר חצי נזק אף ברשות הניזק חצי נזק:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ור"ט לית ליה דיו והא דיו דאורייתא הוא דתניא מדין ק"ו כיצד (במדבר יב, יד) ויאמר ה' אל משה ואביה ירק ירק בפניה הלא תכלם שבעת ימים ק"ו לשכינה ארבעה עשר יום אלא דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון,כי לית ליה דיו היכא דמפריך ק"ו היכא דלא מפריך ק"ו אית ליה דיו התם שבעה דשכינה לא כתיבי אתא ק"ו אייתי ארבסר אתא דיו אפיק שבעה ואוקי שבעה,אבל הכא חצי נזק כתיב ואתא ק"ו ואייתי חצי נזק אחרינא ונעשה נזק שלם אי דרשת דיו אפריך ליה ק"ו,ורבנן שבעה דשכינה כתיבי תסגר שבעת ימים,ור"ט ההוא תסגר דדרשינן דיו הוא,ורבנן כתיב קרא אחרינא ותסגר מרים ור"ט ההוא דאפי' בעלמא דרשינן דיו ולא תאמר הכא משום כבודו של משה אבל בעלמא לא קמ"ל,א"ל רב פפא לאביי הא האי תנא דלא דריש דיו ואע"ג דלא מפריך ק"ו דתניא קרי בזב מניין ודין הוא מה טהור בטהור טמא בטמא טמא בטהור אינו דין שיהא טמא בטמא,וקא מייתי לה בין למגע בין למשא ואמאי נימא אהני ק"ו למגע אהני דיו לאפוקי משא,וכי תימא למגע לא אצטריך ק"ו דלא גרע מגברא טהור איצטריך סד"א (דברים כג, יא) מקרה לילה כתיב מי שקריו גורם לו יצא זה שאין קריו גורם לו אלא דבר אחר גרם לו קמ"ל,מידי ולא ד"א כתיב,ומאן תנא דשמעת ליה דאמר שכבת זרע של זב מטמא במשא לא ר"א ולא רבי יהושע דתנן שכבת זרע של זב מטמא במגע ואין מטמא במשא דברי רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע אומר אף מטמא במשא לפי שאי אפשר בלא צחצוחי זיבה,עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יהושע התם אלא שאי אפשר בלא צחצוחי זיבה הא לאו הכי לא אלא האי תנא הוא דתנן למעלה מהן 25a. bwill not derive an inferencewith regard to bGoring froma different case of bGoring. I willinstead bderive an inferencewith regard to bGoring from Trampling: And if in a place wherethe Torah bwas lenient with regard todamage classified as bEating and Trampling,specifically bin the public domain,as the owner is exempt from liability, nevertheless the Torah was bstrict with regard todamage classified as bGoring,requiring him to pay half the cost of the damage, then in ba place wherethe Torah bwas strict with regard todamage classified as bEating and Trampling,specifically bon the property of the injuredparty as the animal’s owner is obligated to pay the full cost of the damage, bis it not right that weshould bbeequally bstrict with regard todamage classified as bGoringand require payment of the full cost of the damage in this case as well?,The Rabbis bsaid to him:Here as well, bit is sufficient for theconclusion that bemerges froman ia fortiori binference to be likeits bsource,and therefore, bjust asone is liable to pay bhalfthe cost of bthe damageclassified as Goring bin the public domain, so too,for damage classified as Goring bon the property of the injuredparty he will be liable to pay only bhalfthe cost of bthe damage,as ultimately your inference still depends on the fact that for Goring in the public domain one pays half the cost of the damage., strongGEMARA: /strong bAndis it true that bRabbi Tarfon does not acceptthe principle of: bIt is sufficientfor the conclusion that emerges from an ia fortioriinference to be like its source? bButthat cannot be, as the principle that begins with: bIt is sufficient, isan aspect bof Torah law, as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: The Sages said that one of the ways in which the Torah may be interpreted is bby an ia fortioriinference. Howis this bso?It is written (Numbers 12:14): b“And the Lord said to Moses: If her father had but spit in her face, should she not hide in shame seven days?Let her be shut up seven days outside the camp, and after that she shall be brought in again,” and therefore, using ban ia fortiori /iinference it can be derived bthatif bthe Divine Presencereprimanded her, she should hide in shame for bfourteen days.Why was Miriam banished for only seven days? bRather,it is because bit is sufficientfor the conclusion bthat emerged from the ia fortiori binference to be like the sourceof the inference. Consequently, this principle is mandated by the Torah itself.,The Gemara answers: bWhenRabbi Tarfon bdoes not acceptthe principle: bIt is sufficient,it is bwherethis principle completely brefutesthe ia fortiori /iinference, leaving no ihalakhaderived from it. But bwhere it does notcompletely brefutethe ia fortiori /iinference, Rabbi Tarfon bacceptsthe principle: bIt is sufficient.Consequently, bthere,with regard to Miriam, the bsevendays during which she deserved to be banished from the camp due to the rebuke bof the Divine Presence were not written,so bthe ia fortiori /iinference bcameand bbroughtthose days plus additional days, adding up to a total of bfourteen,and then the principle: bIt is sufficient, cameand bremoved sevendays band left sevendays intact. Consequently, the ia fortioriinference was effective with regard to the seven days during which she was banished from the camp., bBut here,payment for bhalfthe cost of bthe damage is writtenexplicitly in the Torah with regard to the ihalakhaof Goring in the public domain, band the ia fortiori /iinference bcomes and brings an additionalpayment for bhalfthe cost of bthe damage, forminga payment of bthe fullcost of the bdamage. If you interpretthe ihalakhaemploying the principle: bIt is sufficient,to reduce the payment to half the cost of the damage, this completely brefutesthe ia fortiori /iinference, as no ihalakhawould be derived from the inference; the initial payment for half the cost of the damage was written explicitly in the Torah. Consequently, in this case, Rabbi Tarfon does not employ the principle: It is sufficient.,The Gemara asks: bAndhow do bthe Rabbisunderstand this matter? How do they respond to Rabbi Tarfon’s reasoning? The Gemara answers: In their opinion, the bsevendays during which Miriam had to be banished due to the reprimand she received bfrom the Divine Presenceare in fact bwrittenin the Torah: b“Let her be shut up seven days.”This indicates that the ia fortioriinference is not required to teach the ihalakhaof the seven days she was banished, as it would have added only the extra seven days. This means that according to the Rabbis, there is a source in the Torah that the principle: It is sufficient, is employed even when it refutes the ia fortioriinference completely.,The Gemara asks: bAndwhat would bRabbi Tarfonsay about that reasoning? The Gemara answers: He would say that bthisverse: b“Let her be shut upseven days,” is necessary to teach us the basic fact bthat we interpretthe ihalakhaaccording to the principle: bIt is sufficientfor the conclusion that emerges from an ia fortioriinference to be like its source.,The Gemara asks: bAndwhat would bthe Rabbissay in response? The Gemara answers: They would point out that ba different verse is writtenabout Miriam: b“And Miriam was shut upoutside the camp seven days” (Numbers 12:15). The Gemara asks: bAndhow would bRabbi Tarfonrespond to that? The Gemara answers: bThatverse teaches bthat we interpretthe ihalakhaaccording to the principle: bIt is sufficient, even generally,and not only in this specific case. bAndthis point is necessary so that byou do not say: Herethe principle: It is sufficient, is employed bdue to respect for Moses, but generallythat is bnotdone. This verse therefore bteaches usthat this is not so., bRav Pappa said to Abaye:Is the fundamental principle: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an ia fortioriinference to be like its source, actually accepted by all authorities? bButthere is bthis itanna /i, who does not interpretthe ihalakhain accordance with the principle: bIt is sufficient, even thoughit is a case where the principle bdoes not refutethe ia fortiori /iinference completely. bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bFrom whereis it derived that the bsemen of a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [ izav /i]imparts ritual impurity by someone carrying it as well as by coming into contact with it, just as the actual gonorrhea-like discharge does? bIt is a logical derivationfrom an ia fortioriinference: bJust asspittle, which is britually purewhen coming bfroma person who is britually pure,is bimpurewhen coming bfromsomeone like a izavwho is bimpure, is it not logical thatsemen, which is bimpurewhen coming bfromsomeone who is bpure, should be impurewhen coming bfromsomeone who is bimpure? /b, bAndthe itanna bbringsthis derivation and applies it bwhetherdiscussing ritual impurity imparted bby contactor bwhetherdiscussing impurity imparted bby carrying. And whyis this the case? bLet us say: The ia fortiori /iinference bis effective inteaching that the semen of a izavimparts ritual impurity bby contactalone, as is the ihalakhawith regard to the semen of a pure man, and the principle: bIt is sufficient, is effectiveby limiting the scope of the ia fortioriinference bto excludethe semen of a izavfrom imparting ritual impurity bby carrying.Since the itannadoes not formulate his derivation in this manner, it appears that he rejects the principle: It is sufficient, in all situations., bAnd if you would saythat the ia fortiori /iinference bwas not necessaryto teach that the seminal emission of the izavimparts ritual impurity bby contact, as it iscertainly bno lessimpure bthanif it had come from ba manwho was bpure,so the inference was necessary only to teach that the semen of a izavimparts impurity by carrying, this is not correct. In fact, it bwas necessaryto teach this point, as it may benter your mind to saythat since bit is writtenin the verse: “If there be among you any man that is not clean because of something that bhappens to him by night”(Deuteronomy 23:11), this means that a seminal emission is ritually impure if it came from bsomeone whohad something bhappen to him,and this bcauses himto experience the emission, but the verse is bexcluding this izav /i, who did bnothave something bhappen to himto bcause himto experience the emission, but brather another matter,i.e., his gonorrhea-like condition, bcaused himto experience the emission. Consequently, it bteaches usthat this is incorrect.,Abaye responded: In the verse “something that happens to him by night,” bis italso bwritten: But not another matter?This limiting clause is not written in the verse, and therefore the ihalakhathat the semen of a izavimparts ritual impurity by contact can be understood from the explicit verse in the Torah, and there is no need to derive it from an ia fortioriinference. Therefore, the only function of the ia fortioriinference is to teach the halakha that the semen of a izavimparts impurity by carrying. Applying the principle: It is sufficient, would refute the ia fortioriinference completely, so there is no proof that the itannawould apply the principle in all circumstances.,Once the Gemara raised the issue, it clarifies: bAnd who is the itanna /iabout whom byou heard that he said: Semen of a izavimparts ritual impurity by carrying?It was bnot Rabbi Eliezer and not Rabbi Yehoshua. As we learnedin a ibaraita /i: bSemen of a izavimparts ritual impurity by contact butit bdoes not impart ritual impurity by carrying;this is bthe statement of Rabbi Eliezer. And Rabbi Yehoshua says:It balso imparts ritual impurity by carrying, as it is impossiblefor semen to emerge bwithout small drops of gonorrhea-like discharge [ iziva /i]accompanying it., bRabbi Yehoshua says therethat the semen of a izavimparts ritual impurity by carrying bonly because it is impossiblefor semen to emerge bwithout small drops of iziva /iaccompanying it. This indicates that bif not for thisreason, the semen would bnotimpart ritual impurity by carrying, according to the opinions of both Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer. The Gemara explains: bRather,it must be that bthis itannaisthe one who holds the opinion that the semen of a izavimparts ritual impurity by carrying, bas we learnedin a mishna listing the sources of ritual impurity ( iKelim1:3): bof a greater degree thanthe ritual impurities listed previously in the mishna, i.e., the impurity of a creeping animal, semen, and one who contracted ritual impurity from a corpse
9. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

132a. שכן אם עבר זמנה בטלה אלא היינו טעמא דרבי אליעזר דאמר קרא (ויקרא יב, ג) וביום השמיני ימול בשר ערלתו ואפילו בשבת,וליכתוב רחמנא במילה וליתו הנך וליגמור מיניה משום דאיכא למיפרך מה למילה שכן נכרתו עליה שלש עשרה בריתות:,ע"כ לא פליגי רבנן עליה אלא במכשירי מילה אבל מילה גופה דברי הכל דוחה שבת מנלן אמר עולא הלכה וכן אמר רבי יצחק הלכה,מיתיבי מניין לפיקוח נפש שדוחה את השבת רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר מה מילה שהיא אחת מאיבריו של אדם דוחה את השבת קל וחומר לפיקוח נפש שדוחה את השבת,ואי סלקא דעתך הלכה קל וחומר מהלכה מי אתי והתניא אמר לו רבי אלעזר (בן עזריה) עקיבא עצם כשעורה מטמא הלכה ורביעית דם קל וחומר ואין דנין קל וחומר מהלכה,אלא אמר רבי אלעזר אתיא אות אות,אלא מעתה תפילין דכתיב בהן אות לידחי שבת,אלא אתיא ברית ברית,גדול דכתיב ביה ברית לידחי שבת,אלא אתיא דורות דורות,ציצית דכתיב ביה דורות לידחי שבת,אלא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק דנין אות ברית ודורות מאות ברית ודורות לאפוקי הנך דחד חד הוא דכתיב בהן,ור' יוחנן אמר אמר קרא ביום ביום אפילו בשבת,אמר ליה ריש לקיש לרבי יוחנן אלא מעתה מחוסרי כפרה דכתיב בהו ביום הכי נמי דדחו שבת ההוא מיבעי ליה ביום ולא בלילה,האי נמי מיבעי ליה ביום ולא בלילה ההוא מבן שמנת ימים נפקא,האי נמי מביום צוותו נפקא,אע"ג דנפקא מביום צוותו אצטריכא סד"א הואיל וחס רחמנא עליה לאתויי בדלות בלילה נמי ליתי קמ"ל,מתקיף לה רבינא אלא מעתה יהא זר כשר בהן ויהא אונן כשר בהן הא אהדריה קרא,רב אחא בר יעקב אמר אמר קרא שמיני שמיני אפילו בשבת,האי שמיני מיבעי ליה למעוטי שביעי שביעי מבן שמנת ימים נפקא,ואכתי מיבעי ליה חד למעוטי שביעי וחד למעוטי תשיעי דאי מחד הוה אמינא שביעי הוא דלא מטא זמניה אבל משמיני ואילך זמניה הוא אלא מחוורתא כדרבי יוחנן,תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן ודלא כרב אחא בר יעקב שמיני ימול אפילו בשבת ומה אני מקיים (שמות לא, יד) מחלליה מות יומת בשאר מלאכות חוץ ממילה או אינו אלא אפי' מילה ומה אני מקיים שמיני ימול חוץ משבת ת"ל ביום אפילו בשבת,אמר רבא האי תנא מעיקרא מאי קא ניחא ליה ולבסוף מאי קא קשיא ליה,הכי קאמר שמיני ימול אפילו בשבת ומה אני מקיים מחלליה מות יומת בשאר מלאכו' חוץ ממילה אבל מילה דחיא,מ"ט ק"ו הוא ומה צרע' שדוחה את העבודה 132a. in each, bas if its time passed, it is void,unlike the mitzva of circumcision, which can be fulfilled at a later date if the child is not circumcised on the eighth day. bRather, this is the reasonfor the opinion bof Rabbi Eliezer, as the verse says: “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised”(Leviticus 12:3), indicating that he is circumcised on the eighth day bevenif it falls bon Shabbat. /b,The Gemara asks: bAnd let the Torah writethis principle only bwith regard tothe mitzva of bcircumcision, and let theseother mitzvot bcome and derivetheir ihalakhot bfrom it.The Gemara answers: bBecausethis suggestion bcan be refuted: Whatis unique about the mitzva of bcircumcision? That thirteen covets were established over it,as the word covet is mentioned thirteen times in the passage dealing with the circumcision of Abraham (Genesis 17). Owing to its great significance, other mitzvot cannot be derived from it.,The Gemara departs from the facilitators of circumcision to the ihalakhaof circumcision itself and asks: bThe Rabbis only disagree withRabbi Eliezer bwith regard to actions that facilitate circumcision,which, in their view, do not override Shabbat; bhowever,with regard to bcircumcision itself, everyone agreesthat it boverrides Shabbat. From where do wederive this ihalakha /i? bUlla said:This is ba ihalakha /itransmitted to Moses from Sinai, but there is no biblical basis for it. bAnd so too, Rabbi Yitzḥak said:It is ba ihalakha /itransmitted to Moses from Sinai.,The Gemara braises an objectionfrom that which was taught in the iTosefta /i: bFrom whereis it derived bthat saving a life overrides Shabbat? Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya saysit is derived from the mitzva of circumcision: bJust as circumcision, whichpertains to only bone of a person’s limbs, overrides Shabbat,all the more so it is an ia fortioriinferencethat bsaving a life,which is a mitzva that pertains to the entire person, boverrides Shabbat. /b, bAnd if it should enter your mindto say that circumcision may be performed on Shabbat based on a ihalakha /itransmitted to Moses from Sinai, bis an ia fortioriinference derived from a ihalakha /itransmitted to Moses from Sinai? bWasn’t it taughtexplicitly in a ibaraitathat an ia fortioriinference cannot be derived from a ihalakhatransmitted to Moses from Sinai? Rabbi Akiva sought to derive that a nazirite who comes into contact with a quarter ilogof blood from a corpse becomes ritually impure and is required to shave his hair. He sought to do this based on an ia fortioriinference from the ihalakhaof the bone from a dead person the size of a grain of barley, as he had a received tradition that a nazirite is required to shave his hair due to that contact. bRabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him: Akiva,the ihalakhathat ba bone the size of agrain of bbarley transmits ritual impurity is a ihalakha /itransmitted to Moses from Sinai, bandyou would derive from it that ba quarterof a ilog bof bloodtransmits ritual impurity based upon ban ia fortioriinference, and one does not derive an ia fortioriinference from a ihalakha /itransmitted to Moses from Sinai. The iToseftaexplicitly states that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya himself derived an ia fortioriinference from the ihalakhaof circumcision on Shabbat. Clearly, then, it is derived from the Torah itself and not from a ihalakhatransmitted to Moses from Sinai., bRather, Rabbi Elazar said:This ihalakhais bderivedby means of a verbal analogy between the word bsignthat appears with regard to circumcision: “And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a sign of the covet between Me and you” (Genesis 17:11), and bsignthat appears with regard to Shabbat: “However, you shall keep My iShabbatot /i, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations” (Exodus 31:13). From this verbal analogy, it is derived that circumcision, which is a sign, may be performed even on Shabbat, which is itself a sign.,The Gemara asks: bBut ifwhat you say is bso, phylacteries, with regard to whichthe term bsign isalso bwritten:“And it shall be for a sign on your hand and for frontlets between your eyes” (Exodus 13:16), bshouldalso boverride Shabbat,and they should be donned on that day., bRather,this principle is bderivedby means of a different verbal analogy from the word bcovetthat appears with regard to circumcision: “And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a sign of the covet between Me and you” (Genesis 17:11), and the word bcovetthat appears with regard to Shabbat: “The children of Israel shall keep the Shabbat, to observe the Shabbat throughout their generations for a perpetual covet” (Exodus 31:16).,The Gemara raises a difficulty: If this is so, then the circumcision of ban adultshould also be permitted on Shabbat and it should not be limited to a child on the eighth day, basthe term bcovet is written with regard to himas well, as it applies to any Jewish male not yet circumcised. Therefore, blethis circumcision boverride Shabbat.The ihalakha /i, however, is that only circumcision at its proper time on the eighth day overrides Shabbat., bRather,this ihalakha bis derivedby means of a verbal analogy between the word bgenerationsthat appears with regard to Shabbat: “Throughout their generations for a perpetual covet” (Exodus 31:16), and the word bgenerationsthat appears with regard to circumcision: “And I shall establish My covet between Me and you, and between your seed after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covet” (Genesis 17:7).,The Gemara asks: If so, blet ritual fringestoo, bwith regard to whichthe term bgenerations isalso bwritten, override Shabbat,and it should be permitted to affix ritual fringes to a garment on Shabbat., bRather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:This ihalakhais derived not from one common word alone, but bone derivesit based upon the three words bsign, covet, and generationsthat appear with regard to circumcision, bfrom sign, covet, and generationsthat appear with regard to Shabbat, bto the exclusion of these,i.e., ritual fringes and phylacteries, bthat with regard to each of them, oneof these bis writtenbut not all three words together., bAnd Rabbi Yoḥa said: The verse says:“And bon theeighth day…shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3), which means that the child is circumcised bon theeighth bdaywhenever it occurs, beven on Shabbat. /b, bReish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥa: But ifwhat you say is bso,then, with regard to bthose lacking atonement,such as a izavor a healed leper, who must after their immersion still bring an atonement offering in order to complete their purification process, bwith regard to whomthe term bon the day isalso bwritten,as in the verse: “And on the eighth day he shall take two he-lambs without blemish, and one ewe-lamb of the first year without blemish” (Leviticus 14:10), sacrificing their atonement offerings bshould also override Shabbat.Rabbi Yoḥa responded: bThatverse bis necessaryto teach that the sacrifice must be brought bduring the day and not at night. /b,Reish Lakish asked: bThisverse with regard to the mitzva of circumcision bis also necessaryto teach that circumcision must be performed bduring the day and not at night.Rabbi Yoḥa replied: bThatis derived bfroma different verse, which states: “And bhe that is eight days oldshall be circumcised among you throughout your generations” (Genesis 17:12). That circumcision must take place during the day is derived from that verse.,Reish Lakish says: bThatmatter, that the atonement offering must be sacrificed during the day, can balsobe derived bfroma different verse, as it is stated: “This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the consecration-offering, and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings; which the Lord commanded Moses at Mount Sinai bon the day He commandedthe children of Israel to present their offerings to the Lord in the wilderness of Sinai” (Leviticus 7:37–38), and from here bit is derivedthat all offerings are sacrificed by day and not at night.,The Gemara answers: bAlthoughthis ihalakha bis derived from: “On the day He commanded,”an additional source bis necessaryfor those lacking atonement. bIt might have entered your mind to saythat bsince the Torah shows him mercyby allowing him bto bringan offering bof poverty,as if one cannot afford to sacrifice the regular atonement offering, the Torah enables him to sacrifice a less costly one, blet him also bring it at night,as perhaps the Torah shows him mercy and allows him to hasten his atonement. Therefore, bit teaches usthat he too must bring his offering only by day and not at night., bRavina strongly objects to thisreasoning: bBut ifwhat you say is bso,that the Torah has compassion on a person lacking atonement and is lenient with regard to the ihalakhotof the atonement offering, ba non-priest should be fitto sacrifice bthem, andsimilarly, a priest who is ban acute mourner,i.e., one whose relative died that same day and has not yet been buried, bshould be fit tosacrifice bthem.The Gemara answers: bThe verse has restored this.The additional verse that teaches that even one lacking atonement must sacrifice during the day, also teaches that the Torah was lenient with regard to this offering only in the ways explicitly stated in the Torah., bRav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said:There is a different proof from the Torah that circumcision is performed even on Shabbat, for bthe verse said:“On the beighthday,” underscoring that circumcision is performed specifically on the beighthday and indicating that it is performed beven on Shabbat. /b,The Gemara raises a difficulty: bThisusage of the term beighth is necessary to excludethe bseventhday, i.e., a child may not be circumcised before the eighth day. The Gemara answers: The fact that one may not circumcise on the bseventhday bis derivedfrom a different verse, as it is stated: “And bhe that is eight days oldshall be circumcised among you throughout your generations” (Genesis 17:12).,The Gemara raises a further difficulty: Both verses are bstill necessary, one to excludethe bseventhday band one to excludethe bninthday. bAs ifit were derived bfrom oneverse alone, bI would have said: It ison the bseventhday that one may not circumcise, since bthe timeto circumcise this child bhas notyet barrivedand the obligation of circumcision is not yet in effect; bhowever, fromthe beighthday band onward is its time,and therefore it is permissible to postpone a circumcision until the ninth day. No answer was found to this question, and the Gemara concludes: bRather,the derivation bis clear according to Rabbi Yoḥa. /b, bIt was taughtin a ibaraita bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yoḥa and not in accordance withthe opinion of bRav Aḥa bar Ya’akov,as the itannainterprets the phrase: “On the beighthday bhe shall be circumcised”to mean that the circumcision must be performed beven on Shabbat. And how do I fulfillthe prohibition against performing prohibited labor explicit in the Torah in the verse: “And you shall guard the Shabbat, for it is holy to you; bhe who desecrates it shall surely die”(Exodus 31:14)? That is referring bto other prohibited labors besides circumcision.The itannaquestions his previous statement: bOr perhaps that is notthe case, and the prohibition of performing prohibited labor on Shabbat includes beven circumcision, and,on the contrary, bhow do I fulfillthe verse: “On the beighthday bhe shall be circumcised”?It applies when the eighth day is any day bother than Shabbat. The verse states: “On the day,”meaning on that very day when he turns eight days old, beven on Shabbat.The itannaof this ibaraitarejects Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov’s proof and accepts Rabbi Yoḥa’s assertion that the phrase “On the day” conclusively establishes that circumcision is performed even on Shabbat.,With regard to this ibaraita /i, bRava said: Initially, whatdid bthis itanna /ifind bacceptable, and ultimately, whatdid bhefind bdifficult?Initially he suggested that: “On the eighth day he shall be circumcised” is a valid source for the fact that circumcision overrides Shabbat, but ultimately, he deemed that difficult and turned to an alternative source, yet provided no reason, neither for his initial statement nor for his second statement.,Rather, we can explain that bthis is what he is saying:“On the beighthday bhe shall be circumcised”applies beven on Shabbat. And how do I fulfill: “He who desecrates it shall surely die”?That is referring to the bother prohibited labors besides circumcision; however, circumcision overridesShabbat., bWhat is the reasonfor this? bIt isderived by means of ban ia fortioriinference: Just as leprosy, which overrides theTemple bservice,as a priest who is a leper may not serve in the Temple and it is prohibited to cut off the symptoms of leprosy
10. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

29a. כי הא (דרבה) בר חמא כי הוו קיימי מקמיה דרב חסדא מרהטי בגמרא בהדי הדדי והדר מעייני בסברא,אמר רבא מאני משתיא במטללתא מאני מיכלא בר ממטללתא חצבא ושחיל בר ממטללתא ושרגא במטללתא ואמרי לה בר ממטללתא ולא פליגי הא בסוכה גדולה הא בסוכה קטנה:,ירדו גשמים: תנא משתסרח המקפה של גריסין,אביי הוה קא יתיב קמיה דרב יוסף במטללתא נשב זיקא וקא מייתי ציבותא אמר להו רב יוסף פנו לי מאני מהכא אמר ליה אביי והא תנן משתסרח המקפה אמר ליה לדידי כיון דאנינא דעתאי כמי שתסרח המקפה דמי לי,ת"ר היה אוכל בסוכה וירדו גשמים וירד אין מטריחין אותו לעלות עד שיגמור סעודתו היה ישן תחת הסוכה וירדו גשמים וירד אין מטריחין אותו לעלות עד שיאור,איבעיא להו עד שיעור או עד שיאור ת"ש עד שיאור ויעלה עמוד השחר תרתי אלא אימא עד שיעור ויעלה עמוד השחר:,משל למה הדבר דומה: איבעיא להו מי שפך למי ת"ש דתניא שפך לו רבו קיתון על פניו ואמר לו אי אפשי בשמושך,ת"ר בזמן שהחמה לוקה סימן רע לכל העולם כולו משל למה הדבר דומה למלך בשר ודם שעשה סעודה לעבדיו והניח פנס לפניהם כעס עליהם ואמר לעבדו טול פנס מפניהם והושיבם בחושך,תניא רבי מאיר אומר כל זמן שמאורות לוקין סימן רע לשונאיהם של ישראל מפני שמלומדין במכותיהן משל לסופר שבא לבית הספר ורצועה בידו מי דואג מי שרגיל ללקות בכל יום ויום הוא דואג,תנו רבנן בזמן שהחמה לוקה סימן רע לעובדי כוכבים לבנה לוקה סימן רע לשונאיהם של ישראל מפני שישראל מונין ללבנה ועובדי כוכבים לחמה לוקה במזרח סימן רע ליושבי מזרח במערב סימן רע ליושבי מערב באמצע הרקיע סימן רע לכל העולם כולו,פניו דומין לדם חרב בא לעולם לשק חיצי רעב באין לעולם לזו ולזו חרב וחיצי רעב באין לעולם לקה בכניסתו פורענות שוהה לבא ביציאתו ממהרת לבא וי"א חילוף הדברים,ואין לך כל אומה ואומה שלוקה שאין אלהיה לוקה עמה שנאמר (שמות יב, יב) ובכל אלהי מצרים אעשה שפטים ובזמן שישראל עושין רצונו של מקום אין מתיראין מכל אלו שנאמר (ירמיהו י, ב) כה אמר ה' אל דרך הגוים אל תלמדו ומאותות השמים אל תחתו כי יחתו הגוים מהמה עובדי כוכבים יחתו ואין ישראל יחתו,ת"ר בשביל ארבעה דברים חמה לוקה על אב בית דין שמת ואינו נספד כהלכה ועל נערה המאורסה שצעקה בעיר ואין מושיע לה ועל משכב זכור ועל שני אחין שנשפך דמן כאחד,ובשביל ארבעה דברים מאורות לוקין על כותבי (פלסתר) ועל מעידי עדות שקר ועל מגדלי בהמה דקה בא"י ועל קוצצי אילנות טובות,ובשביל ד' דברים נכסי בעלי בתים נמסרין למלכות על משהי שטרות פרועים ועל מלוי ברבית 29a. bAsin bthatsituation involving Rava and Rami bbar Ḥama, when they would stand before Rav Ḥisda,after he taught them a ihalakha btheywould bquicklyreview bthe traditionthat they heard from him btogether andonly bthen analyze the rationaleof the tradition that they had received. Apparently, in the study of Mishna and the amoraic commentary on the Mishna there is a distinction between extensive and intensive study.,With regard to residence in the isukka /i, bRava said: Drinking vesselssuch as cups, which are usually clean, remain bin the isukka /i. Eating vesselsare taken bout of the isukka /iafter use. bAn earthenware jug and a wicker basket [ ishaḥil]that are used for drawing water are taken boutside the isukka /i. And a lampremains binside the isukka /i, and some sayit is taken boutside the isukka /i.The Gemara comments: bAnd they do not disagree.Rather, bthisopinion, that a lamp remains inside the isukka /i, is referring bto a large isukka /i,where the lamp and its odor do not disturb those residing in the isukka /i. And bthatopinion, that the lamp is taken outside the isukka /i, is referring bto a small isukka /i,where the lamp’s odor is offensive.,§ The mishna stated: If brain fell,it is permitted to leave the isukkafrom the point that it is raining so hard that the congealed dish will spoil. bIt was taughtin the iTosefta /i: The measure is bfrom when a congealed dish of pounded grain,a dish ruined by even slight rainfall, bwill spoil. /b, bAbaye was sitting before Rav Yosef in the isukka /i. The wind blew and broughtwith it bsplintersfrom the roofing, and they fell onto the food. bRav Yosef said to him: Vacate my vessels from here,and I will eat in the house. bAbaye said to him: Didn’t we learnin the mishna that one remains in the isukka buntil the congealed dish will spoil?That is not yet the case. bHe said to him: For me, since I am delicate,this situation bis as if the congealed dish will spoil. /b, bThe Sages taught:If bone was eating in the isukka /i, and rain fell,and bhe descendedfrom the isukkaon the roof to eat in his house, bone does not burden him to ascendback to the isukkaonce the rain ceases buntilafter bhe finishes his meal.Similarly, if bone was sleeping underthe roofing of bthe isukka /i, and rain fell, and he descendedto sleep in the house, bone does not burden him to ascendback to the isukkaonce the rain ceases; rather, he may sleep in the house buntil it becomes light. /b, bA dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: Is the correct reading of the ibaraita /i: bUntil one awakens [ isheyeor /i],spelled with an iayin /i, and once he awakens he returns to the isukkaeven in the middle of the night? Or is the correct reading: bUntil it becomes light [ isheyeor /i],spelled with an ialef /i, and he need not return to the isukkauntil morning? bComeand bheara proof that will resolve the matter from a related ibaraita /i: One need not return to the isukka buntil it becomes light [ isheyeor /i],spelled with an ialef /i, band dawnarrives. The Gemara asks: Why did the ibaraitarepeat the arrival of light btwotimes (Ritva)? bRather, sayinstead: bUntil he awakens [ isheyeor /i],spelled with an iayin /i, band the dawnarrives. Both of the readings are accurate, as until one awakens and it becomes light he may remain in the house.,§ The mishna continues: The Sages btold a parable: To what is this matter comparable?It is comparable to a servant who comes to pour wine for his master, and he pours a jug of water in his face. bA dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: bWho pouredthe water bin whoseface? bComeand bheara proof, bas it is taughtexplicitly in a ibaraita /i: bHis master poured a jugof water bon his face and said to him: I do not want your service. /b,Apropos the fact that rain on iSukkotis an indication of divine rebuke, the Gemara cites several related topics. bThe Sages taught: When the sun is eclipsed it is a bad omen for the entire world.The Gemara tells ba parable. To what is this matter comparable?It is comparable bto a king of flesh and blood who prepared a feast for his servants and placed a lantern [ ipanas /i] before themto illuminate the hall. bHe became angry at them and said to his servant: Take the lantern from before them and seat them in darkness. /b, bIt is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Meir says: When theheavenly blights,i.e., the sun and the moon, bare eclipsed, it is a bad omen for the enemies of the Jewish people,which is a euphemism for the Jewish people, bbecause they are experienced in their beatings.Based on past experience, they assume that any calamity that afflicts the world is directed at them. The Gemara suggests ba parable:This is similar bto a teacher who comes to the school with a strap in his hand. Who worries?The child bwho is accustomed to be beaten each and every day isthe one who bworries. /b, bThe Sages taughtin another ibaraita /i: bWhen the sun is eclipsed, it is a bad omen for theother bnations.When bthe moon is eclipsed, it is a bad omen for the enemies of the Jewish people.This is bdue tothe fact bthat the Jewish people calculatetheir calendar primarily based bon the moon, and theother bnationscalculate based bon the sun.When the sun is beclipsed in the east, it is a bad omen for the residentsof the lands of bthe east.When it is eclipsed bin the west, it is a bad omen for the residentsof the lands of bthe west.When it is eclipsed bin the middle of the sky, it is a bad omen for the entire world. /b,If, during an eclipse, bthe visageof the sun bisred blike blood,it is an omen that bsword,i.e., war, bis coming to the world.If the sun bisblack blike sackclothmade of dark goat hair, it is an omen that barrows of hunger are coming to the world,because hunger darkens people’s faces. When it is similar both bto this,to blood, band to that,to sackcloth, it is a sign that both bsword and arrows of hunger are coming to the world.If it was beclipsed upon its entry,soon after rising, it is an omen that bcalamity is tarrying to come.If the sun is eclipsed bupon its departureat the end of the day, it is an omen that bcalamity is hastening to come. And some say the matters are reversed:An eclipse in the early morning is an omen that calamity is hastening, while an eclipse in the late afternoon is an omen that calamity is tarrying.,The Sages said: bThere is no nation that is afflicted whose god is not afflicted with it, as it is stated: “And against all the gods of Egypt I will mete out judgment; I am God”(Exodus 12:12). The Gemara adds: bWhen the Jewish people perform God’s will, theyneed bnot fear any of theseomens, bas it is stated: “Thus says the Lord: Learn not the way of the nations, and be not dismayed at the signs of Heaven; for the nations are dismayed at them”(Jeremiah 10:2). bThe nations will be dismayed, but the Jewish people will not be dismayed,provided they do not follow the ways of the nations., bThe Sages taughtthat bon account of four matters the sun is eclipsed: Onaccount of ba president of the court who dies and is not eulogized appropriately,and the eclipse is a type of eulogy by Heaven; bonaccount of ba betrothed young woman who screamed in the citythat she was being raped band there was no one to rescue her; onaccount of bhomosexuality; and onaccount of btwo brothers whose blood was spilled as one. /b, bAnd on account of four matters theheavenly blightsare beclipsed: Onaccount of bforgers of a fraudulent document [ ipelaster /i]that is intended to discredit others; bonaccount of btestifiers of false testimony; onaccount of braisers of small domesticated animals in Eretz Yisraelin a settled area; band onaccount of bchoppers of good,fruit-producing btrees. /b, bAnd on account of four matters the property of homeowners is delivered to the monarchyas punishment: bOnaccount of those bkeepers of paidpromissory bnotes,who keep these documents instead of tearing them or returning them to the borrowers, as that would allow the lender to collect money with the note a second time; band onaccount of blenders with interest; /b
11. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

4a. לטומאת ביתו,אמר ליה ר' יוחנן לריש לקיש בשלמא לדידי דילפינא ממלואים היינו דתניא זה וזה מזין עליו כל שבעה מכל חטאות שהיו שם דהואי נמי הזאה במלואים אלא לדידך דילפת מסיני הזאה בסיני מי הואי,אמר ליה ולטעמיך מי ניחא במלואים דם הכא מים הא לא קשיא דתני רבי חייא נכנסו מים תחת דם אלא לדידך הזאה בסיני מי הואי אמר ליה מעלה בעלמא,תניא כוותי' דרבי יוחנן תניא כוותיה דריש לקיש תניא כוותיה דר' יוחנן (ויקרא טז, ג) בזאת יבא אהרן אל הקדש במה שאמור בענין מאי היא בענין דמלואים ומה אמור בענין דמלואים אהרן פירש שבעה ושמש יום אחד ומשה מסר לו כל שבעה כדי לחנכו בעבודה,ואף לדורות כהן גדול פורש שבעה ומשמש יום אחד ושני תלמידי חכמים מתלמידיו של משה לאפוקי צדוקין מוסרין לו כל שבעה כדי לחנכו בעבודה,מכאן אמרו שבעת ימים קודם יוה"כ מפרישין כהן גדול מביתו ללשכת פרהדרין וכשם שמפרישין כ"ג כך מפרישין כהן השורף את הפרה ללשכה שעל פני הבירה צפונה מזרחה ואחד זה ואחד זה מזין עליו כל שבעה מכל חטאות שהיו שם,ואם תאמר במלואים דם הכא מים אמרת נכנסו מים תחת דם ואומר כאשר עשה ביום הזה צוה ה' לעשות לכפר עליכם לעשות אלו מעשה פרה לכפר אלו מעשה יוה"כ,והאי בזאת מיבעי ליה לגופיה בפר בן בקר לחטאת ואיל לעולה אמרי אי לקרבן לחודיה לימא קרא בזה או באלה מאי בזאת שמעת מינה תרתי,מאי ואומר וכי תימא יוה"כ קמא הוא דבעי פרישה כדאשכחן במלואים אבל ביוה"כ דעלמא לא אי נמי כ"ג קמא הוא דבעי פרישה אבל כ"ג בעלמא לא ת"ש כאשר עשה וכו',תניא כוותיה דריש לקיש משה עלה בענן ונתכסה בענן ונתקדש בענן כדי לקבל תורה לישראל בקדושה שנאמר (שמות כד, טז) וישכון כבוד ה' על הר סיני זה היה מעשה אחר עשרת הדברות שהיו תחלה לארבעים יום דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי,ר"ע אומר וישכון כבוד ה' מראש חודש 4a. babout the ritual impurity ofthe priest’s bhome,i.e., his wife. This is done lest he become impure through relations with a menstruating woman, which is ritual impurity lasting seven days. Therefore, he is removed from his home for seven days., bRabbi Yoḥa said to Reish Lakish: Granted,according bto myopinion, bthat I derivethe ihalakhaof sequestering bfromthe binauguration,that explains bthat which is taughtin the ibaraita /i: With regard to both bthispriest engaged in the burning of the red heifer band thatHigh Priest prior to Yom Kippur, bone sprinkles upon himfor ball sevendays the purification water mixed with ashes from samples bfrom allthe previous red heifer bsin-offerings that weresafeguarded btherein the Temple. The reason for this practice is bthat there was also sprinkling duringthe binauguration. However, according to youropinion, bthat you derive it from Sinai, was therein fact bsprinkling at Sinai?According to your opinion, why are the priests sprinkled?,Reish Lakish bsaid to him: And according to your reasoning, does itwork out bwell?At the binauguration,the sprinkling was with bblood; here,the sprinkling was with bwater.Rabbi Yoḥa answered: bThat is not difficult, as Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Water replaced blood,but both have the status of sprinkling. bHowever, according to yourreasoning, bat Sinai, was there sprinklingat all? Reish Lakish bsaid to him:The Sages bmerelyestablished ba higher standard,and this sprinkling is not a requirement.,§ The Gemara comments: A ibaraita bwas taught in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yoḥathat the sequestering is derived from the inauguration; banda ibaraita bwas taught in accordance withthe opinion of bReish Lakishthat it is derived from Sinai. The Gemara elaborates: A ibaraita bwas taught in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yoḥa:It was stated with regard to the inauguration: b“With this Aaron will come into the Sanctuary,with a young bull for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 16:3). To what is the term: With this, referring? It is referring to bthat which is stated in the matter. What isthe matter? It is bthe matter of the inauguration.In the manner that the priest was prepared for the inauguration, so too is he prepared for Yom Kippur. bAnd what is stated in the matter ofthe binauguration?It is that bAaronthe priest bwithdrewfor bsevendays band served one day, and Moses transmittedthe Torah guidelines bto him all sevendays bin order to train him in theSanctuary bservice. /b, bAndthroughout the bgenerations as well,the bHigh Priest withdraws sevendays prior to Yom Kippur band serves one day. And two Torah scholars fromamong bthe students of Moses, to the exclusion of Sadducees,who are not students of Moses, btransmitthe Torah guidelines bto him all sevendays bin order to train him in theSanctuary bservice. /b, bFrom therethe Sages bsaidin the mishna: bSeven days prior to Yom Kippurthe Sages would bremove the High Priest,who performs the entire Yom Kippur service, bfrom his house to the Chamber of iParhedrin /i; and just asthe Sages would bremove the High Priest, so do they remove the priest who burns the heifer,from his house bto the chamber that was before the ibira /iat the bnortheastcorner of the courtyard on the Temple Mount. bAndwith regard to bboth thispriest whom the Sages sequester prior to Yom Kippur band thatpriest whom the Sages sequester prior to engaging in the burning of the heifer, bone sprinkles upon him,for ball sevendays of sequestering, the purification water with ashes bfrom all theprevious red heifer bsin-offerings that weresafeguarded btherein the Temple., bAnd if you saythat at the binaugurationthe sprinkling was with bblood,and bherethe sprinkling was with bwater, you said: Water replaced blood. And it saysin the verse: b“As has been done this day, so the Lord has commanded to do, to make atonement for you”(Leviticus 8:34). bTo do, these are the actionsperformed in the burning bof thered bheifer; to make atonement, these are the actionsperformed on bYom Kippur.This ibaraita /i, then, is proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥa.,The Gemara analyzes the ibaraita /i. bButthe term: bWith this [ ibezot /i], is required forthe meaning of the verse bitself;the priest is required to bring ba young bull for a sin-offering and a ram for a burnt-offering.The Sages bsayin response: bIfthe term comes to teach bonlywith regard bto the offerings, let the verse say: With this [ ibezeh /i],in the masculine, referring to the bull, bor: With these [ ibe’elleh /i],referring to the bull and the ram. bWhat,then, may be derived from the use of the feminine term ibezot /i,which refers to neither the bull nor the ram? bLearn from it twoconclusions; one with regard to the offerings and one with regard to sequestering.,The Gemara continues its analysis of the ibaraita /i. bWhatis the meaning of the term: bAnd it says?Why does the ibaraitacite an additional proof from another verse? Why wasn’t the first proof sufficient? bAnd if you saythat bit ison bthe first Yom Kippurwhen Aaron performed the service bthatthe High Priest brequires sequestering, as we find inthe binaugurationwhen the priests were sequestered before being consecrated as priests, bbut on Yom Kippur in general, no,subsequent High Priests do not require sequestering; or balternatively,if you say: bIt is the first High Priest who requires sequestering,as did all the priests during the inauguration, bbutsubsequent bHigh Priests in general, no,they do not require sequestering before Yom Kippur; then bcomeand bhearthat which it says in the verse: b“As has been donethis day, so the Lord has commanded to do,” meaning that this is a mitzva for all generations.,§ And a ibaraita bwas taught in accordance withthe opinion of bReish Lakishthat sequestering is derived from Sinai: bMoses ascended in the cloud, and was covered in the cloud, and was sanctified in the cloud, in order to receive the Torah for the Jewish people in sanctity, as it is stated: “And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinaiand the cloud covered him six days, and He called to Moses on the seventh day from the midst of the cloud” (Exodus 24:16). bThis was an incidentthat occurred bafter therevelation of bthe Ten Commandmentsto the Jewish people, and these six days bwere the beginningof the bforty daysthat Moses was on the mountain (see Exodus 24:18); this is bthe statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.The opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili corresponds to that of Reish Lakish; Moses withdrew for six days before receiving permission to stand in the presence of God., bRabbi Akiva says:This incident occurred before the revelation of the Ten Commandments to the Jewish people, and when the Torah says: b“And the glory of the Lord abodeupon Mount Sinai,” it is referring to the revelation of the Divine Presence that began on the bNew Moonof Sivan, which was six days before the revelation of the Ten Commandments.
12. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan A, 34 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE)

13. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan B, 37 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE)



Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
aaron Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 246
angel Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 246
clouds of glory, cloud Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 246
dayo Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 204
hermeneutics Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 204
moses Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 204; Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 246
qal va-ḥomer Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 204
rashi Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 204
shekhina Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 246
targum Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 246
topos/topoi Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 204
yadin, azzan' Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 204