1. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 6.22 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 6.22. וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃ | 6.22. And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:" |
|
2. Anon., 1 Enoch, 38-71, 37 (3rd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
| 37. The second vision which he saw, the vision of wisdom -which Enoch the son of Jared, the son,of Mahalalel, the son of Cai, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, saw. And this is the beginning of the words of wisdom which I lifted up my voice to speak and say to those which dwell on earth: Hear, ye men of old time, and see, ye that come after, the words of the Holy,One which I will speak before the Lord of Spirits. It were better to declare (them only) to the men of old time, but even from those that come after we will not withhold the beginning of wisdom.,Till the present day such wisdom has never been given by the Lord of Spirits as I have received according to my insight, according to the good pleasure of the Lord of Spirits by whom the lot of,eternal life has been given to me. Now three Parables were imparted to me, and I lifted up my voice and recounted them to those that dwell on the earth. |
|
3. Septuagint, 2 Maccabees, 2.13, 15.9 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
| 2.13. The same things are reported in the records and in the memoirs of Nehemiah, and also that he founded a library and collected the books about the kings and prophets, and the writings of David, and letters of kings about votive offerings.' 15.9. Encouraging them from the law and the prophets, and reminding them also of the struggles they had won, he made them the more eager.' |
|
4. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, 2.27, 2.175, 2.201, 2.213 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 2.27. for the words iSabboand iSabbathare widely different from one another; for the word Sabbath in the Jewish language denotes rest from all sorts of work; but the word Sabbo, as he affirms, denotes among the Egyptians the malady of a bubo in the groin. /p 2.27. And to be sure Apollonius was greatly pleased with the laws of the Persians, and was an admirer of them, because the Greeks enjoyed the advantage of their courage, and had the very same opinion about the gods which they had. This last was exemplified in the temples which they burnt, and their courage in coming, and almost entirely enslaving the Grecians. However, Apollonius has imitated all the Persian institutions, and that by his offering violence to other men’s wives, and castrating his own sons. 2.175. for he did not suffer the guilt of ignorance to go on without punishment, but demonstrated the law to be the best and the most necessary instruction of all others, permitting the people to leave off their other employments, and to assemble together for the hearing of the law, and learning it exactly, and this not once or twice, or oftener, but every week; which thing all the other legislators seem to have neglected. /p 2.201. for (says the scripture) “A woman is inferior to her husband in all things.” Let her, therefore, be obedient to him; not so, that he should abuse her, but that she may acknowledge her duty to her husband; for God hath given the authority to the husband. A husband, therefore, is to lie only with his wife whom he hath married; but to have to do with another man’s wife is a wicked thing; which, if any one ventures upon, death is inevitably his punishment: no more can he avoid the same who forces a virgin betrothed to another man, or entices another man’s wife. 2.213. Indeed he hath taught us gentleness and humanity so effectually, that he hath not despised the care of brute beasts, by permitting no other than a regular use of them, and forbidding any other; and if any of them come to our houses, like supplicants, we are forbidden to slay them: nor may we kill the dams, together with their young ones; but we are obliged, even in an enemy’s country, to spare and not kill those creatures that labor for mankind. |
|
5. Mishnah, Avot, 1.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.2. Shimon the Righteous was one of the last of the men of the great assembly. He used to say: the world stands upon three things: the Torah, the Temple service, and the practice of acts of piety." |
|
6. Mishnah, Megillah, 4.1-4.4, 4.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 4.1. He who reads the Megillah may either stand or sit. Whether one read it or two read it [together] they [those listening] have fulfilled their obligation. In places where it is the custom to say a blessing, they say the blessing, and where it is not the custom they do not say the blessing. On Mondays and Thursdays and on Shabbat at minhah, three read from the torah, they do not add [to this number] nor decrease [from it], nor do they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets. The one who begins the Torah reading and the one who concludes the Torah reading blesses before it and after it." 4.2. On Rosh Hodesh and on the intermediate days of festivals four read. They do not add [to this number] nor decrease [from it], nor do they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets. The one who begins the Torah reading and the one who concludes the Torah reading blesses before it and after it. This is the general rule: on any day which has a musaf and is not a festival four read. On a festival five. On Yom Hakippurim six. On Shabbat seven; they may not decrease [from this number] but they may add [to it], and they conclude with [a haftarah] from the Prophets. The one who begins the Torah reading and the one who concludes the Torah reading blesses before it and after it." 4.3. They do not recite the Shema responsively, And they do not pass before the ark; And the [the priests] do not lift up their hands; And they do not read the Torah [publicly]; And they do not conclude with a haftarah from the prophets; And they do not make stops [at funeral] processions; And they do not say the blessing for mourners, or the comfort of mourners, or the blessing of bridegrooms; And they do not mention God’s name in the invitation [to say Birkat Hamazon]; Except in the presence of ten. [For redeeming sanctified] land nine and a priest [are sufficient], and similarly with human beings." 4.4. One who reads the Torah [in public] may not read les than three verses. And he should not read to the translator more than one verse [at a time], but [if reading from the book of a] prophet [he may read to him] three at a time. If the three verses constitute three separate paragraphs, he must read them [to the translator] one by one. They may skip [from place to place] in a prophet but not in the Torah. How far may he skip [in the prophet]? [Only] so far that the translator will not have stopped [before he finds his place]." 4.6. A child may read in the Torah and translate, but he may not pass before the ark or lift up his hands. A person in rags may lead the responsive reading of the Shema and translate, but he may not read in the Torah, pass before the ark, or lift up his hands. A blind man may lead the responsive reading of the Shema and translate. Rabbi Judah says: one who has never seen the light from his birth may not lead the responsive reading of the Shema." |
|
7. New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 14.37 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 14.37. If any man thinks himself to be a prophet, orspiritual, let him recognize the things which I write to you, that theyare the commandment of the Lord. |
|
8. New Testament, Luke, 4.18-4.19 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 4.18. The Spirit of the Lord is on me, Because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim release to the captives, Recovering of sight to the blind, To deliver those who are crushed 4.19. And to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. |
|
9. Tosefta, Hulin, 2.22-2.24 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
10. Tosefta, Megillah, 3.10-3.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
11. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, 28a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 28a. מכה של חלל אין מתרפאין מהן מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו גב היד וגב הרגל דאמר רב אדא בר מתנה אמר רב גב היד וגב הרגל הרי הן כמכה של חלל ומחללין עליהן את השבת,אמר רב זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב כל מכה שצריכה אומד מחללין עליה את השבת אמר רב שמן בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן והאי אישתא צמירתא כמכה של חלל דמי ומחללין עליה את השבת,מהיכן מכה של חלל פירש רבי אמי מן השפה ולפנים בעי רבי אליעזר ככי ושיני מאי כיון דאקושי נינהו כמכה דבראי דמו או דלמא כיון דגואי קיימי כמכה של חלל דמו,אמר אביי ת"ש החושש בשיניו לא יגמע בהן את החומץ חושש הוא דלא הא כאיב ליה טובא שפיר דמי דלמא תנא היכא דכאיב ליה טובא חושש נמי קרי ליה,ת"ש רבי יוחנן חש בצפדינא אזל לגבה דההיא מטרוניתא עבדה חמשא ומעלי שבתא א"ל למחר מאי אמרה ליה לא צריכת אי צריכנא מאי אמרה אשתבע לי דלא מגלית אישתבע לה לאלהא ישראל לא מגלינא גלייה ליה למחר נפק דרשה בפירקא,והא אישתבע לה לאלהא דישראל לא מגלינא אבל לעמיה ישראל מגלינא והאיכא חילול השם דגלי לה מעיקרא,אלמא כמכה של חלל דמיא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק שאני צפדינא הואיל ומתחיל בפה וגומר בבני מעיים,מאי סימניה רמי מידי בי ככי ומייתי דמא מבי דרי ממאי הוי מקרירי קרירי דחיטי ומחמימי חמימי דשערי ומשיורי כסא דהרסנא מאי עבדא ליה א"ר אחא בריה דרבא מי שאור ושמן זית ומלח ומר בר רב אשי אמר משחא דאווזא בגדפא דאווזא,אמר אביי אנא עבדי כולהו ולא איתסאי עד דאמר לי ההוא טייעא אייתי קשייתא דזיתא דלא מלו תילתא וקלנהו אמרא חדתא ודביק ביה דדרי עבדי הכי ואיתסאי,ורבי יוחנן היכי עביד הכי והאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כל מכה שמחללין עליה את השבת אין מתרפאין מהן אדם חשוב שאני,והא רבי אבהו דאדם חשוב הוה ורמא ליה יעקב מינאה סמא אשקיה ואי לא רבי אמי ורבי אסי דלחכוהו לשקיה פסקיה לשקיה,דרבי יוחנן רופא מומחה הוה דרבי אבהו נמי רופא מומחה הוה שאני רבי אבהו דמוקמי ביה מיני בנפשייהו (שופטים טז, ל) תמות נפשי עם פלשתים,אמר שמואל האי פדעתא סכנתא היא ומחללין עליה את השבת מאי אסותא למיפסק דמא תחלי בחלא לאסוקי גרדא דיבלא וגירדא דאסנא או ניקרא מקילקלתא,אמר רב ספרא האי עינבתא פרוונקא דמלאכא דמותא היא מאי אסותא טיגנא בדובשא או כרפסא בטילייא אדהכי והכי ליתי עינבתא בת מינא וניגנדר עילוי חיורתי לחיורתי ואוכמתי לאוכמתי,אמר רבא האי סימטא פרוונקא דאשתא היא מאי אסותא למחייה שיתין איתקוטלי וליקרעיה שתי וערב והני מילי דלא חיור רישיה אבל חיור רישיה לית לן בה,רבי יעקב חש | 28a. binternal injury, one may not be treated by them.The Gemara asks: bWhatis the difference bbetweenthe two versions of Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement? bThere isa difference bbetween themwith regard to the case of one who was injured on bthe back of the hand or the back of the foot. As Rav Adda bar Mattana saysthat bRav says:Injuries to bthe back of the hand and the back,i.e., the top, bof the foot are like an internal injury, and one may desecrate Shabbat fortheir treatment., bRav Zutra bar Toviyya saysthat bRav says:With regard to bany injury that requiresa medical bevaluationto determine whether or not it is fatal, bone may desecrate Shabbat forits treatment. bRav Shemen bar Abba saysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says: And a burning fever is similar to an internal injury, andtherefore bone may desecrate Shabbat forits treatment.,The Gemara inquires: bFrom what pointon the body is a wound considered ban internal injury? Rabbi Ami explained: From the lips inward. Rabbi Eliezer raises a dilemma:With regard to afflictions located in the bgums [ ikakhei /i] or teeth, whatis the ihalakha /i? Do we say that bsince they arelocated in bfirmparts of the body, bthey are similar to external injuries, or perhapswe say that bsince they are situated withinthe mouth, bthey are similar to internal injuries? /b, bAbaye said: Comeand bheara proof from a mishna ( iShabbat111a): bOne who is concernedabout pain bin his teeth may not sip vinegar through themon Shabbat for medicinal purposes, as it is generally prohibited by rabbinic law to perform acts of healing on Shabbat. Abaye infers: bIt isonly when he is merely bconcernedabout pain in his teeth bthat he may nottreat them, which indicates that if bit hurts him greatly,it is bpermittedto seek treatment. The Gemara rejects this inference: bPerhapsthe itannaalso characterizesa situation bwhere it hurts one greatlyas one of mere bconcern. /b,The Gemara suggests a different proof: bComeand bhearthe following incident: bRabbi Yoḥa sufferedfrom the illness itzafdina /i,which affects the teeth and gums. bHe went to a certaingentile bmatronwho was a well-known healer. bShe prepareda medicine for him on bThursday and Friday.Rabbi Yoḥa bsaid to her: Whatshall I do btomorrow,on Shabbat, when I cannot come to collect the medicine from you? bShe said to him: You will not needit. Rabbi Yoḥa asked her: bIf I do needit, bwhatshall I do? bShe said to him: Take an oath to me that you will not revealthe remedy, and I will tell you, so that you can prepare it yourself should you need it. Rabbi Yoḥa btook an oath to her: To the God of the Jews, I will not reveal it. She revealedthe remedy bto him. On the following dayRabbi Yoḥa bwent out and taught it publicly,revealing the secret of the remedy.,The Gemara challenges: bButRabbi Yoḥa btook an oath to herthat he would not reveal her secret. The Gemara explains that his vow meant: bI will not reveal it to the God of the Jews,which indicates: bBut I will reveal it to His people, the Jews.The Gemara challenges: bButeven so, bisn’t there a desecration of God’s name,as the matron now thinks that a great man of Rabbi Yoḥa’s stature violated his vow? The Gemara answers bthat he revealedit bto her at the outset.As soon as she disclosed the remedy to him, he informed her that his vow would not prevent him from publicizing it.,With regard to the issue at hand, the Gemara infers: bApparently,an affliction that affects the gums bis similar to an internal injury,as it was permitted for Rabbi Yoḥa to prepare the remedy on Shabbat. bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: iTzafdinais different, since it begins in the mouth, and ends in the intestines,i.e., the disease spreads until it infects one’s intestines, and therefore it is considered an internal affliction even while it is only in the mouth. Consequently, the incident involving Rabbi Yoḥa affords no proof, and Rabbi Eliezer’s dilemma remains unresolved.,The Gemara inquires: bWhat are the symptoms of itzafdina /i? If bone places an item betweenhis bteeth, blood flows from the rowsof teeth. bFrom what does itresult? It results bfromthe consumption of bvery cold wheatfoods, band from very hot barleyfoods, band from remains of fried fish [ ikasa deharsena /i].With bwhatremedy bdidthe gentile matron btreatRabbi Yoḥa? bRabbi Aḥa, son of Rava, said:It was bwaterin which bleavenwas steeped, bolive oil, and salt. And Mar bar Rav Ashi said:She smeared bgoose fatover his gums bwith a goose feather. /b, bAbaye said: I prepared all of thesemedicines band was not curedfrom this ailment buntil a certain Arab told methe remedy for it: bTake olive seeds that are less than one-third ripe, and burn themin a fire bon top of a new hoe, and stick them along the rowof gums. bI did this and was cured. /b,§ It was stated above that Rabbi Yoḥa sought the medical attention of a gentile. The Gemara asks: bAnd how could Rabbi Yoḥa do so? But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana saythat bRabbi Yoḥa says:With regard to bany injury for which Shabbat is desecrated, one may not be treated bygentiles. iTzafdinais a disease for which Shabbat is desecrated, and yet Rabbi Yoḥa was treated by a gentile. The Gemara answers: bAn important personsuch as Rabbi Yoḥa bis different,as gentiles would not dare to kill him.,The Gemara questions this: bBut Rabbi Abbahu was an important person, andyet bYa’akov the heretic placed upon his leg a salvethat was actually a poison. bAnd ifit were bnotfor bRabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, who licked his legto remove the poison, bhis legwould have had to be bamputated.Apparently, Ya’akov the heretic attempted to kill Rabbi Abbahu despite the fact that Rabbi Abbahu was an important person.,The Gemara explains: The healer bof Rabbi Yoḥa was an expert physicianwho would not jeopardize her reputation by harming him. The Gemara rejects this explanation: But the healer bof Rabbi Abbahu was also an expert physician.The Gemara answers: The case involving bRabbi Abbahu is different, as heretics establish within themselvesthe attitude of: b“Let me die with the Philistines”(Judges 16:30), i.e., heretics are willing to risk their lives in order to hurt Jews, due to their religious disputes. By contrast, gentiles will not jeopardize their own reputation for this purpose, and therefore it was permitted for Rabbi Yoḥa to be treated by the matron.,§ The Gemara lists a series of afflictions and their remedies. bShmuel said: This gashcaused by a sword bisconsidered ba dangerto one’s life, band one may desecrate Shabbat forits treatment. The Gemara asks: bWhatis bthe remedyfor this wound? To bstop the bloodflow one should consume bcresssoaked bin vinegar.To cause flesh bto emergeover the gash, one applies a salve made of iyavlascrapings and thornbush scrapings, ora salve made from bthe worms of the trash. /b, bRav Safra said: These grapelikeboils bare the forerunners [ iparvanka /i] of the Angel of Death,i.e., they often precede one’s death. The Gemara asks: bWhat is the remedy?The remedy is either ba itigna /iplant soaked bin honey or parsleysoaked bin wine. In the meantime,while the plants are soaking, one bshould bring a grape of the same size and rub it onthe boil, ba whitegrape bfor a whiteboil, band a blackgrape bfor a blackboil., bRava said: This abscess [ isimta /i] is the forerunner of fever.The Gemara asks: bWhatis bthe remedy?One bshould snap [ iitkutlei /i]the boil bsixty timeswith his fingers, i.e., click one’s fingers on the boil, bandthen he bshould tear it vertically and horizontally.The Gemara comments: bAnd this statementapplies only in a case bwhere the head ofthe abscess bhas not whitened, butif bits head has whitened, we have noproblem bwith it,i.e., it is in the process of healing, and it does not pose any danger., bRabbi Ya’akov suffered /b |
|
12. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, 84a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 84a. וליפרקינהו וליכסינהו בעינן העמדה והערכה,וכמאן אי כר"מ דאמר הכל היו בכלל העמדה והערכה האמר שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה,אי כר' שמעון דאמר שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה האמר לא היו בכלל העמדה והערכה,אמר רב יוסף רבי היא ונסיב לה אליבא דתנאי בשחיטה שאינה ראויה סבר לה כר' שמעון בהעמדה והערכה סבר לה כר"מ,ואיבעית אימא כולה ר"ש היא ושאני הכא דאמר קרא (ויקרא יז, יג) ושפך וכסה מי שאינו מחוסר אלא שפיכה וכסוי יצא זה שמחוסר שפיכה פדייה וכסוי,והשתא דאתית להכי אפילו תימא קדשי מזבח מי שאינו מחוסר אלא שפיכה וכסוי יצא זה שמחוסר שפיכה גרירה וכסוי,מר בר רב אשי אמר אמר קרא (ויקרא יז, יג) חיה או עוף מה חיה אינה קדש אף עוף אינו קדש,אי מה חיה שאין במינו קדש אף עוף שאין במינו קדש אוציא תורין ובני יונה שיש במינן קדש,לא כחיה מה חיה לא חלקת בה אף עוף לא תחלוק בו,אמר ליה יעקב מינאה לרבא קי"ל חיה בכלל בהמה לסימנין אימא נמי בהמה בכלל חיה לכסוי,אמר ליה עליך אמר קרא (דברים יב, טז) על הארץ תשפכנו כמים מה מים לא בעי כסוי אף האי נמי לא בעי כסוי,אלא מעתה יטבילו בו אמר קרא (ויקרא יא, לו) אך מעין ובור מקוה מים יהיה טהור הני אין מידי אחרינא לא,ואימא ה"מ למעוטי שאר משקין דלא איקרו מים אבל דם דאיקרי מים ה"נ,תרי מיעוטי כתיבי מעין מים ובור מים,אימא אידי ואידי למעוטי שאר משקין חד למעוטי זוחלין וחד למעוטי מכונסין,תלתא מיעוטי כתיבי מעין מים ובור מים מקוה מים,ת"ר (ויקרא יז, יג) אשר יצוד אין לי אלא אשר יצוד נצודין ועומדין מאליהן מנין כגון אווזין ותרנגולים,ת"ל ציד מ"מ א"כ מה ת"ל אשר יצוד למדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא יאכל אדם בשר אלא בהזמנה הזאת,ת"ר (דברים יב, כ) כי ירחיב ה' אלהיך את גבולך למדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא יאכל אדם בשר אלא לתאבון,יכול יקח אדם מן השוק ויאכל ת"ל (דברים יב, כא) וזבחת מבקרך ומצאנך יכול יזבח כל בקרו ויאכל כל צאנו ויאכל ת"ל מבקרך ולא כל בקרך מצאנך ולא כל צאנך,מכאן אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מי שיש לו מנה יקח לפסו ליטרא ירק עשרה מנה יקח לפסו ליטרא דגים חמשים מנה יקח לפסו ליטרא בשר מאה מנה ישפתו לו קדרה בכל יום ואינך אימת מערב שבת לערב שבת,אמר רב צריכין אנו לחוש לדברי זקן א"ר יוחנן אבא ממשפחת בריאים הוה אבל כגון אנו מי שיש לו פרוטה בתוך כיסו יריצנה לחנווני א"ר נחמן כגון אנו לווין ואוכלין,(משלי כז, כו) כבשים ללבושך מגז כבשים יהא מלבושך (משלי כז, כו) ומחיר שדה עתודים לעולם ימכור אדם שדה ויקח עתודים ואל ימכור אדם עתודים ויקח שדה (משלי כז, כז) ודי חלב עזים דיו לאדם שיתפרנס מחלב גדיים וטלאים שבתוך ביתו,(משלי כז, כז) ללחמך ללחם ביתך לחמך קודם ללחם ביתך (משלי כז, כז) וחיים לנערותיך אמר מר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן תן חיים לנערותיך מיכן למדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא ילמד אדם את בנו בשר ויין,אמר רבי יוחנן | 84a. The Gemara challenges: bButeven if the mishna is dealing with birds consecrated for Temple maintece, blet one redeem themafter they were slaughtered bandthen bcover theirblood. The Gemara responds: This is not feasible, because in order to redeem a consecrated animal bwe require setting and valuating,i.e., the animal must be stood before a priest in order to evaluate it and only then is it redeemed (see Leviticus 27:11–12). A slaughtered bird cannot be stood before the priest; consequently, it cannot be redeemed.,The Gemara asks: bButif the mishna is dealing with birds consecrated for Temple maintece, bin accordance with whoseopinion is the mishna? bIfone suggests the mishna is bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Meir, who says: Everything,i.e., animals consecrated both for the altar and for Temple maintece, bwas included inthe requirement of bsetting and valuating,and therefore the slaughtered birds may not be redeemed, this cannot be so. bDoesn’t healso bsaythat bslaughter that is not fitto render the meat permitted bisnevertheless bconsidereda halakhic act of bslaughterthat requires the covering of the blood? If so, one should be obligated to cover the blood of the bird even if it is not redeemed.,The Gemara continues: And bifone suggests the mishna is bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Shimon, who says: Slaughter that is not fitto render the meat permitted bis not considereda halakhic act of bslaughterand therefore the bird would require redemption in order to cover its blood, this cannot be so. bDoesn’the also bsaythat animals consecrated for Temple maintece bwere not included inthe requirement of bsetting and valuating?If so, let one redeem the slaughtered birds and cover their blood., bRav Yosef saidin reconciliation of this dilemma: The mishna’s ruling bis in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbiYehuda HaNasi, band he formulatesthe mishna bin accordance withthe opinions of different itanna’im /i: With regard tothe status of an act of bslaughter that is not fitto render the meat permitted bhe holds in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Shimon,while bwith regard tothe requirement of bsetting and valuating he holds in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Meir.Therefore, since one cannot redeem a bird that was consecrated for Temple maintece once it has been slaughtered, there is no obligation to cover its blood, as the slaughter was not fit to render the meat permitted., bAnd if you wish, sayinstead that bthe entiremishna bisin accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Shimon,who holds that birds consecrated for Temple maintece may be redeemed even after their slaughter. bAndalthough it would seem that their slaughter is fit to render the meat permitted and that one should therefore be obligated in the mitzva of covering the blood, it is bdifferent here, as the verse states: “And he shall pour outits blood band coverit” (Leviticus 17:13). By juxtaposing “pour out” to “cover,” the verse indicates that the obligation to cover the blood applies only to blood bthat is lacking only pouring and covering,without any intervening step. bExcludedis bthisblood of birds consecrated for Temple maintece, bwhich is lacking pouring, redeeming, and covering. /b,The Gemara notes: bAnd now that you have arrived at thisexplanation, byoumay beven saythat the mishna is referring to birds bconsecrated for the altar.As for the question asked earlier: Why not let one scrape the blood from the altar and then cover it? The verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it,” indicating that the obligation to cover the blood applies only to blood that is blacking only pouring and covering,without any intervening step. bExcludedis bthisblood of bird offerings, bwhich is lacking pouring, scraping, and covering. /b,The Gemara cites another source for the exclusion of consecrated animals from the requirement of covering their blood: bMar bar Rav Ashi saidthat bthe verse stateswith regard to the mitzva of covering the blood: b“An undomesticated animal or bird”(Leviticus 17:13). The juxtaposition of these two species intimates an analogy between them: bJust asthe bundomesticated animalreferred to in the verse bis not consecrated,as undomesticated animals are never fit for sacrifice, bso too,the bbirdreferred to in the verse bis not consecrated. /b,The Gemara asks: bIfit is so that the ihalakhotof slaughtering a bird are derived from those of an undomesticated animal, then say: bJust asthe verse is referring to ban undomesticated animal, whose species cannot be consecratedas an offering, bso too,the verse is referring only to ba bird whose species cannot be consecratedas an offering. Therefore, bI will excludeeven non-sacred bdoves and pigeons, whose species can be consecrated. /b,The Gemara rejects this possibility: bNo,the juxtaposition indicates that the ihalakhawith regard to the slaughter of birds is entirely blikethat of ban undomesticated animal.Therefore, bjust asin the case of ban undomesticated animal, you did not differentiatebetween its various species and all non-sacred animals are included in the mitzva, bso too,with regard to the bbirdmentioned in the verse, byou should not differentiatebetween its various species.,§ Concerning the ihalakhathat covering the blood does not apply to a domesticated animal, the Gemara says that bYa’akov the heretic said to Rava: We maintainthat ban undomesticated animal,e.g., a deer, is bincludedin the category of ba domesticated animal with regard tothe bcharacteristicsnecessary to determine whether the animal is kosher, i.e., it chews its cud and has split hooves (see Deuteronomy 14:4–6). If so, bI will also saythat ba domesticated animal is includedin the category of ban undomesticated animal with regard tothe mitzva of bcoveringthe blood.,Rava bsaid to him: With regard to yourclaim, bthe verse statesin reference to the blood of a domesticated animal: “You may slaughter of your cattle and of your sheep…but be strong not to eat the blood… byou shall pour it out on the ground, like water”(Deuteronomy 12:21–24). Accordingly, bjust as water does not require covering, so too, thisblood of a domesticated animal bdoes not require covering. /b,The Gemara asks: bIf that is so,that the verse equates the blood of a domesticated animal with water, then let one bimmerseritually impure items bin itto purify them, just as he can immerse them in water. The Gemara responds: bThe verse states: “But a spring or a cistern, or a gathering of water shall be pure”(Leviticus 11:36). The exclusionary term: “But,” indicates that only concerning bthesebodies of water, byes,they render pure an impure item, while bsomething else,e.g., blood, does bnot. /b,The Gemara challenges: bButperhaps one can bsaythat bthis matter,i.e., the exclusionary term in the verse, serves only bto exclude other liquids that are not called water. Butwith regard to bblood, which is called water,as the verse states: “You shall pour it out on the ground, like water,” one may bindeedimmerse ritually impure items in it.,The Gemara responds: bTwo exclusions are writtenin the verse discussing ritually purifying waters: bA spring of water, and: A cistern of water.The term “water” is understood as being attached to each of the bodies mentioned in the verse. The additional exclusion serves to exclude blood.,The Gemara challenges: bSaythat both bthisphrase, a spring of water, band thatphrase, a cistern of water, serve bto exclude other liquids,and not blood, whereby bonephrase is bto exclude flowingliquids that are not water from having the status of a spring, which renders an item ritually pure even when it is flowing; band onephrase serves bto exclude gatheredliquids that are not water from having the status of a ritual bath, which renders an item pure only when the water in the ritual bath is gathered.,The Gemara responds: bThree exclusions are writtenin the verse: bA spring of water,to exclude flowing liquids; band: A cistern of water,to exclude gathered liquids; band: A gathering of water,to exclude blood.,§ bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: The verse states with regard to covering the blood: “And any man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, bwho trapsa trapping of an undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth” (Leviticus 17:13). bI havederived bonlythat one is obligated to cover the blood of an undomesticated animal or bird bthat one traps. From whereis it derived that undomesticated animals or birds that are balreadyconsidered btrapped on their own, such as geese and chickensthat do not roam freely, are also included in the mitzva of covering the blood?, bThe verse states “a trapping”to indicate that bin any case,one is obligated to cover the blood of an undomesticated animal. bIf so, whatis the meaning when bthe verse states: “Who traps,”if it is not to be understood literally? The ibaraitaexplains: bThe Torah taughtthat it is ba desired mode of behavior that a person should consume meat only with this mode of preparation.That is, just as the meat that one traps is not readily available, so too, one should not become accustomed to consuming meat.,In a similar vein, bthe Sages taughtin a ibaraitathat the verse states: b“When the Lord, your God, expands yourboundary…according to every craving of your soul you may eat meat” (Deuteronomy 12:20). bThe Torah taughtthat it is ba desired mode of behavior that a person should consume meat due only to appetite.That is, one should consume meat only when he feels a need to eat it.,The ibaraitacontinues: One bmighthave thought that ba person may purchasemeat bfrom the marketplace and consumeit. Therefore, bthenext bverse states: “And you may slaughter of your cattle and of your flock,”indicating that one should consume the meat of animals of his own flock, not those purchased in the marketplace. One bmighthave thought that a person bmay slaughter all of his cattle,i.e., his only cow, band consumethe meat, or slaughter ball of his flock,i.e., his only sheep, band consumethe meat. Therefore, bthe verse states: “of your cattle,”indicating some, bbut not all of, your cattle; “of your flock,” but not all of your flock. /b, bFrom here, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria said: One who has one hundreddinars bshould purchase a ilitraof vegetables for his stewpot [ ilefaso /i];one who has bone thousanddinars bshould purchase a ilitraof fish for his stewpot;one who has bfive thousanddinars bshould purchase a ilitraof meat for his stewpot;and if one has bten thousanddinars, his servants bshould place a potof meat on the stove bfor him every day.The Gemara asks: bAndwith regard to btheseother individuals mentioned by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, bwhen,i.e., how often, should they consume meat? The Gemara responds: bEvery Shabbat eve. /b, bRav says: We must be concerned for the statement of the elder,i.e., Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, and be thrifty with our expenditure on food items. bRabbi Yoḥa says: Abba,i.e., Rav, bwas from a family ofparticularly bhealthyindividuals, and was able to subsist on the modest diet suggested by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria. bButwith regard to people bsuch as us,who are not as healthy, bone who haseven bone iperutain his pocket should hastenwith bit to the storekeeperand purchase food. Two generations later, bRav Naḥman said:With regard to people bsuch as us,who are physically weaker than those in previous generations, not only do we not delay the purchase of food items, we even bborrowmoney to purchase food band eat. /b,The Gemara continues its discussion with regard to one’s livelihood: The verse states: “The lambs will be for your clothing, and goats the worth of a field. And there will be goats’ milk enough for your food, for the food of your household; and sustece for your maidens” (Proverbs 27:26–27). b“The lambs will be for your clothing”indicates that byour clothing should beproduced bfrom the shearings of lambs,i.e., purchase lambs from whose wool you can produce clothing. b“And goats the worth of a field”indicates that ba person should alwaysseek to bsell a field and purchase goatsin order to benefit from their milk, wool, and offspring, band a person should not sell goats and purchase a fieldinstead. b“And there will be goats’ milk enough”indicates that bit is sufficient for a person that he be sustained from the milk of kids and lambs that are in his house. /b, b“For your food, for the food of your household”indicates that byour food comes before the food of your household,i.e., one must first ensure that he has food for himself before providing for others. With regard to the phrase: b“And sustece for your maidens,” Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said:The verse indicates that you must bgive sustece to your youth,i.e., to your children. bFrom here, the Torah taughtthat it is ba desired mode of behavior that a person should not accustom his sonto eat bmeat anddrink bwine;rather, he should teach his children to eat less expensive foods., bRabbi Yoḥa says: /b |
|
13. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, 29b, 31a, 31b, 27a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 27a. כוותיה דרב פפי מסתברא דא"ר יהושע בן לוי בהכ"נ מותר לעשותו בית המדרש ש"מ,דרש בר קפרא מאי דכתיב (מלכים ב כה, ט) וישרף את בית ה' ואת בית המלך ואת כל בתי ירושלם ואת כל בית גדול שרף באש בית ה' זה בהמ"ק בית המלך אלו פלטרין של מלך ואת כל בתי ירושלם כמשמען ואת כל בית גדול שרף באש ר' יוחנן ור' יהושע בן לוי חד אמר מקום שמגדלין בו תורה וחד אמר מקום שמגדלין בו תפלה,מ"ד תורה דכתיב (ישעיהו מב, כא) ה' חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר ומ"ד תפלה דכתיב (מלכים ב ח, ד) ספרה נא הגדולות אשר עשה אלישע ואלישע דעבד ברחמי הוא דעבד,תסתיים דר' יהושע בן לוי הוא דאמר מקום שמגדלין בו תורה דאמר ר' יהושע בן לוי בית הכנסת מותר לעשותו בית המדרש ש"מ:,אבל מכרו תורה לא יקחו ספרים וכו': איבעיא להו מהו למכור ס"ת ישן ליקח בו חדש כיון דלא מעלי ליה אסור או דלמא כיון דליכא לעלויי עילוייא אחרינא שפיר דמי,תא שמע אבל מכרו תורה לא יקחו ספרים ספרים הוא דלא הא תורה בתורה שפיר דמי מתני' דיעבד כי קא מיבעיא לן לכתחלה,ת"ש גוללין ס"ת במטפחות חומשין וחומשין במטפחות נביאים וכתובים אבל לא נביאים וכתובים במטפחות חומשין ולא חומשין במטפחות ס"ת,קתני מיהת גוללים ס"ת במטפחות חומשין מטפחות חומשין אין מטפחות ס"ת לא,אימא סיפא ולא חומשין במטפחות ס"ת הא תורה בתורה ש"ד אלא מהא ליכא למישמע מינה,תא שמע מניחין ס"ת על גבי תורה ותורה ע"ג חומשין וחומשין ע"ג נביאים וכתובים אבל לא נביאים וכתובים ע"ג חומשין ולא חומשין על גבי תורה,הנחה קאמרת שאני הנחה דלא אפשר דאי לא תימא הכי מיכרך היכי כרכינן והא קא יתיב דפא אחבריה אלא כיון דלא אפשר שרי הכא נמי כיון דלא אפשר שרי,ת"ש דאמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן משום רשב"ג לא ימכור אדם ס"ת ישן ליקח בו חדש,התם משום פשיעותא כי קאמרינן כגון דכתיב ומנח לאיפרוקי מאי,ת"ש דא"ר יוחנן משום ר"מ אין מוכרין ס"ת אלא ללמוד תורה ולישא אשה,ש"מ תורה בתורה שפיר דמי דלמא שאני תלמוד שהלמוד מביא לידי מעשה אשה נמי (ישעיהו מה, יח) לא תהו בראה לשבת יצרה אבל תורה בתורה לא,ת"ר לא ימכור אדם ס"ת אע"פ שאינו צריך לו יתר על כן ארשב"ג אפי' אין לו מה יאכל ומכר ס"ת או בתו אינו רואה סימן ברכה לעולם:,וכן במותריהן: אמר רבא ל"ש אלא שמכרו והותירו אבל גבו והותירו מותר,איתיביה אביי בד"א שלא התנו אבל התנו אפילו לדוכסוסיא מותר,ה"ד אילימא שמכרו והותירו כי התנו מאי הוי אלא שגבו והותירו טעמא דהתנו הא לא התנו לא,לעולם שמכרו והותירו וה"ק בד"א שלא התנו שבעה טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר אבל התנו שבעה טובי העיר במעמד אנשי העיר אפילו לדוכסוסיא נמי מותר,א"ל אביי לההוא מרבנן דהוה מסדר מתניתא קמיה דרב ששת מי שמיע לך מרב ששת מאי דוכסוסיא אמר ליה הכי אמר רב ששת פרשא דמתא,אמר אביי הלכך האי צורבא מרבנן דשמע ליה מילתא ולא ידע פירושא לישיילה קמיה דשכיח קמיה רבנן דלא אפשר דלא שמיע ליה מן גברא רבה,אמר רבי יוחנן משום ר"מ בני העיר שהלכו לעיר אחרת ופסקו עליהן צדקה נותנין וכשהן באין מביאין אותה עמהן ומפרנסין בה עניי עירן,תניא נמי הכי בני העיר שהלכו לעיר אחרת ופסקו עליהן צדקה נותנין וכשהן באין מביאין אותה עמהן ויחיד שהלך לעיר אחרת ופסקו עליו צדקה תנתן לעניי אותה העיר,ר"ה גזר תעניתא על לגביה רב חנה בר חנילאי וכל בני מתיה רמו עלייהו צדקה ויהבו כי בעו למיתי אמרו ליה נותבה לן מר וניזול ונפרנס בה עניי מאתין,אמר להו תנינא בד"א בשאין שם | 27a. bIt stands to reasonto rule bin accordance withthe opinion of bRav Pappi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is permittedfor ba synagogue to be madeinto ba study hall.The Gemara concludes: Indeed, blearn from itthat the opinion of Rav Pappi is correct.,§ bBar Kappara interpreteda verse bhomiletically: What isthe meaning of that bwhich is written: “And he burnt the house of the Lord, and the king’s house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great house he burnt with fire”(II Kings 25:9)? He explained: b“The house of the Lord”; this is the Holy Temple. “The king’s house”; these are the king’s palaces [ ipalterin /i]. “And all the houses of Jerusalem”; asunderstood in bits literal sense.With regard to the final phrase: b“And every great house he burnt with fire,” Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levidisagree about the meaning of “great house”: bOneof them bsaid:It is referring to ba place where the Torah is made great,i.e., the study hall; bandthe other bone said:It is referring to ba place where prayer is made great,i.e., the synagogue.,The Gemara explains their respective opinions: bThe one who saidthat the reference is to where the bTorahis made great bases his opinion on a verse that describes Torah study as great, bas it is written: “The Lord was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, to make Torah great and glorious”(Isaiah 42:21). bAnd the one who saidthat the reference is to where bprayeris made great bases his opinion on a verse that describes prayer as great, bas it is written: “Tell me,I pray you, all bthe great things that Elisha has done”(II Kings 8:4), band that which Elisha did,i.e., restored a boy to life, bhe did through prayer. /b,The Gemara comments: bConclude that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is the one who saidthat “great house” is referring to ba place where the Torah is made great, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi saidelsewhere: bIt is permittedfor ba synagogue to be madeinto ba study hall.This ruling indicates that he holds that a study hall has a higher degree of sanctity than a synagogue. It is therefore reasonable that he assumes that “great house” is referring specifically to a study hall. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, blearn from itthat he was the one who said the term is referring to a place where the Torah is made great.,§ The mishna states: bHowever,if bthey sold a Torahscroll, bthey may notuse the proceeds to bpurchase scrollsof the Prophets and the Writings. Similarly, the proceeds of the sale of any sacred item may not be used to purchase an item of a lesser degree of sanctity. bA dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: bWhat isthe ihalakhawith regard to whether it is permitted bto sell an old Torah scrollin order bto purchase a new one?The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: On the one hand, bsincethe proceeds bare not raisedto a higher degree of sanctity by doing so, maybe bit is prohibited; or, perhapsin this case, bsince there is nopossibility of braisingit to banother, higherdegree of sanctity, it bseems welland should be permitted?, bComeand bheara resolution to this dilemma from the mishna: bHowever, if they sold a Torahscroll, bthey may notuse the proceeds to bpurchase scrollsof the Prophets and the Writings. One may infer: bIt isonly bscrollsof the Prophets and the Writings bthat may notbe purchased with the proceeds, bbutto purchase a new bTorahscroll bwiththe proceeds of an old bTorahscroll bseems welland is permitted. The Gemara rejects this proof: bThe mishnadiscusses the ihalakhathat applies only bafter the factthat a Torah scroll was sold. Perhaps it is only in that case where the proceeds may be used to purchase another Torah scroll. bWhen the dilemma was raised to us,it was with respect to permitting the sale of one Torah scroll in order to purchase another iab initio /i. /b, bComeand bheara resolution to this dilemma from a ibaraita /i: bA Torah scroll may be rolled up in wrapping clothsthat are used for scrolls of bone of the fivebooks of the Torah. bAndscrolls of bone of the fivebooks of the Torah may be rolled up bin wrapping clothsthat are used for scrolls bof the Prophets or Writings,since in each case the wrapping cloths are being used for something with a greater degree of sanctity. bHowever,a scroll of bthe Prophets or Writings may notbe rolled up bin wrapping clothsthat are used for scrolls bof one of the fivebooks of the Torah, and scrolls of bone of the fivebooks of the Torah bmay notbe rolled up bin wrapping clothsthat are used bfor a Torah scroll. /b,The Gemara explains the proof: bIn any event,the ibaraita bis teaching: A Torah scroll may be rolled up in wrapping clothsthat are used for scrolls bof one of the fivebooks of the Torah. One may infer: A Torah scroll may be rolled up only in bwrapping clothsthat are used for scrolls bof one of the fivebooks of the Torah; but to roll it up in bwrapping cloths ofanother bTorah scroll, no,it is not permitted. By extension, one Torah scroll may certainly not be sold in order to purchase another.,The Gemara rejects the proof: If this inference is valid, one should be able to bsay the latter clauseand make a similar inference from it. The latter clause teaches: bAndscrolls of bone of the fivebooks of the Torah bmay notbe rolled up bin wrapping clothsthat are used for ba Torah scroll.It may be inferred from this that it is prohibited only to roll up scrolls of one of the five books of the Torah in wrapping cloths that are used for a Torah scroll, bbutto roll up one bTorahscroll binthe wrapping cloths of another bTorahscroll bseems well.By extension, one should be permitted to sell a Torah scroll to purchase another. bRather,perforce one must conclude that bnoinference beyond its basic meaning bcan be deduced fromthe ibaraita /i, as the inferences are contradictory., bComeand bheara resolution to this dilemma from the iTosefta( iMegilla3:12): bA Torah scroll may be placed uponanother bTorahscroll, band a Torahscroll may be placed buponscrolls of bone of the fivebooks of the Torah, bandscrolls of bone of the fivebooks of the Torah may be placed buponscrolls of bthe Prophets or Writings. However,scrolls of bthe Prophets or Writings may notbe placed buponscrolls of bone of the fivebooks of the Torah, bandscrolls of bone of the fivebooks of the Torah bmay not be placed upon a Torahscroll. From the first clause, it is apparent that one Torah scroll may be used for the sake of another. By extension, it should be permitted to sell one Torah scroll to purchase another.,The Gemara rejects this proof: Can byou saya proof from the ihalakha bof placingone Torah scroll upon another? The ihalakhaof bplacingscrolls upon one another bis different, because it is impossibleto place them in any other way, as they must be laid one atop the other when placed in the ark. bAs, if you do not say so,that it is indeed permitted when in an unavoidable situation, bhowcould we bfurla Torah scroll at all? bDoesone bsheetof parchment bnot rest upon another? Rather, since it is impossibleto furl the scroll in any other way, bit is permitted. Here too, since it is impossibleto place the scrolls in the ark in any other way, bit is permitted. /b, bComeand bheara resolution to this dilemma from a ibaraita /i: bAs Rabba bar bar Ḥana saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: A person may not sell an old Torah scrollin order bto purchase a new one. /b,The Gemara rejects this proof. bThere,in the case of the ibaraita /i, it is prohibited bbecause ofa concern for bnegligence.The old one might be sold and a new one never bought. However, bwhen we speak,it is of a case bwherethe new scroll bisalready bwritten and waiting to be redeemedimmediately with the proceeds of the sale. Therefore, the question remains: bWhatis the ihalakhain this case?, bComeand bheara resolution to this dilemma from a ibaraita /i: bAs Rabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Meir: A Torah scroll may be sold onlyif the seller needs the money in order bto study Torah or to marry a woman. /b, bLearn fromthis ibaraitathat exchanging one entity of bTorah,i.e., a Torah scroll, bforanother entity of bTorah,i.e., Torah study, bseems well,and by extension, it should be permitted to sell one Torah scroll to purchase another. The Gemara rejects the proof: bPerhapsTorah bstudy is different, as the studyof Torah bleads to action,i.e., the fulfillment of the mitzvot, and perhaps it is only due to its great importance of Torah study that it is permitted to sell a Torah scroll for it. Similarly, marrying ba woman is alsoof utmost importance, as it is stated with regard to Creation: b“He created it not a waste; He formed it to be inhabited”(Isaiah 45:18). This indicates that marrying and having children fulfills a primary goal of Creation. bButselling an old bTorahin order to buy a new bTorahmight bnotbe permitted.,On the same topic, bthe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bA person may not sell a Torah scroll, even if he does not need it. Furthermore, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Evenif a person bhas nothing to eat, andout of his need bhe sold a Torah scroll orhe sold bhis daughterto be a maidservant, bhe never sees a sign of blessingfrom the proceeds of either sale. Clearly, it is never appropriate to sell a Torah scroll for any purpose.,The mishna states: bAnd similarly,the same limitation applies btoany bsurplus fundsfrom the sale of sacred items. bRava said: They taughtthat the surplus funds have sanctity bonlyin a case bwherethe community bsolda sacred object and then used the proceeds to purchase something with a greater degree of sanctity, band there wasmoney bleft over. However, ifthe community bcollectedmoney from its members in order to purchase a sacred object, band there wasextra money bleft overbeyond the price of the object, that extra money bis permittedto be used for any purpose, as the money was never sanctified., bAbaye raised an objection toRava from a ibaraita /i: bIn whatcase bis this statementof the mishna bsaid? When they did notexplicitly bstipulatethat they would do with the surplus funds as they see fit. bHowever,if bthey madesuch ba stipulation,then bevento use the money bfor a idukhsusyais permitted.The Gemara will explain the meaning of the term idukhsusya /i.,Abaye explains the challenge: bWhat are the circumstancesof this stipulation? bIf we say that they solda sacred object bandafter using the proceeds to purchase another sacred object bthere wasmoney bleft over,then even bwhen they made a stipulation, of whatavail bis it?How can a stipulation desanctify the money? bRather,the mishna must be referring to a case bwhere they collectedmoney to purchase a sacred object band there wasmoney bleft overafter they made the purchase. In such a case, bthe reasonthat it is permitted to use the extra money for any purpose is bthat they madean explicit bstipulation. However, if they did not make a stipulation, no,it would not be permitted.,Rava rejects this argument: bActually,you can explain that the mishna is referring to a case bwhere they solda sacred object band there wasmoney bleft overafter purchasing a new one, band this is whatthe ibaraita bis saying: In whatcase bis this statementof the mishna bsaid?In a case bwhere the seven representatives of the town did notexplicitly bstipulatethat they could use the money as they see fit, bin an assembly of the residents of the town. However, if the seven representatives of the town madesuch ba stipulation in an assembly of the residents of the town,then bevento use the money bfor a idukhsusyawould also be permitted. /b, bAbaye said to one of the Sages who would arrange the Mishna before Rav Sheshet: Did you hearanything bfrom Rav Sheshetwith regard to bwhatthe meaning of the term idukhsusya /iis? bHe said to him: This is what Rav Sheshet said:It is bthe town horsemanwho would serve the townspeople as a sentry and for public dispatches.,The Gemara introduces a parenthetical comment: bAbaye said: Accordingly,one can learn from this incident that with regard to bthis young Torah scholar who has heard something and does not know the meaningof it, bhe should inquireof its meaning bbeforesomebody bwho is frequently before the Sages, as it is impossible thatsuch a person bdid not hearsomething about it bfromsome bgreat man. /b,§ bRabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Meir:In the case of bresidents of a town whocollectively bwent to another town and,while there, the charity collectors in that town bmade them pledgea certain sum for bcharity, they must givethe promised sum to the town’s charity collector, so as not to be suspected of reneging. bBut when they gohome, their money is returned to them, and bthey bring itback bwith them, and with it they fice the poor of theirown btown. /b,The Gemara comments: bThat is also taughtin a ibaraita /i: In the case of bresidents of a town whocollectively bwent to another town and,while there, the local charity collectors bmade them pledgea certain sum for bcharity, they must givethe promised sum to the town’s charity collector. bBut when they gohome, their money is returned to them, and bthey bring itback bwith them. Butin the case of ban individual who wentfrom his hometown bto another town and,while there, the local charity collectors bmade him pledgea certain sum for bcharity, he should give it to the poor of that town. /b,The Gemara relates: bRav Hunaonce bdecreed a fast day.On the day of the fast, bRav Ḥana bar Ḥanilai and all the people of his town came toRav Huna. A certain sum of bcharity was imposed upon them and they gaveit. bWhen they wanted to gohome, bthey said toRav Huna: bMay our Master give to usthe charity that we gave, band we will goback, band with it we will fice the poor of our own town. /b, bHe said to them: It was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bIn whatcase bis this statement,that the money is returned when the people leave, bsaid? When there is no /b |
|
14. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 43a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 43a. (ויקרא כד, כג) ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה,אלא מעתה (ויקרא כד, כג) וירגמו אותו אבן מאי עבדי ליה ההוא מבעי ליה לכדתניא וירגמו אותו באבן אותו ולא בכסותו אבן שאם מת באבן אחת יצא,ואצטריך למיכתב אבן ואיצטריך למיכתב אבנים דאי כתב רחמנא אבן הוה אמינא היכא דלא מת בחדא לא ניתי אחריתי ומיקטליה כתב רחמנא אבנים ואי כתב רחמנא אבנים הוה אמינא מעיקרא נייתי תרתי כתב רחמנא אבן,והא האי תנא נאמר קאמר אילו לא נאמר קאמר וה"ק אילו לא נאמר קרא הייתי אומר גזירה שוה עכשיו שנאמר קרא גזירה שוה לא צריך,רב אשי אמר משה היכא הוה יתיב במחנה לוייה ואמר ליה רחמנא הוצא את המקלל חוץ למחנה לוייה אל מחוץ למחנה חוץ למחנה ישראל ויוציאו את המקלל לעשייה,עשייה בהדיא כתיב בהו ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה ההוא מיבעי ליה חד לסמיכה וחד לדחייה,אמרו ליה רבנן לרב אשי לדידך כל הני הוציא דכתיבי בפרים הנשרפים מאי דרשת בהו קשיא:,אחד עומד כו': אמר רב הונא פשיטא לי אחד אבן שנסקל בה ואחד עץ שנתלה בו ואחד סייף שנהרג בו ואחד סודר שנחנק בו כולן משל צבור מ"ט דמדידיה לא אמרינן ליה זיל וליתיה וליקטול נפשיה,בעי רב הונא סודר שמניפין בו וסוס שרץ ומעמידן משל מי הוא כיון דהצלה דידיה מדידיה הוא או דילמא כיון דבי דינא מחייבין למעבד בה הצלה מדידהו,ותו הא דאמר ר' חייא בר רב אשי אמר רב חסדא היוצא ליהרג משקין אותו קורט של לבונה בכוס של יין כדי שתטרף דעתו שנאמר (משלי לא, ו) תנו שכר לאובד ויין למרי נפש ותניא נשים יקרות שבירושלים היו מתנדבות ומביאות אותן לא התנדבו נשים יקרות משל מי הא ודאי מסתברא משל צבור כיון דכתיב תנו מדידהו,בעא מיניה רב אחא בר הונא מרב ששת אמר אחד מן התלמידים יש לי ללמד עליו זכות ונשתתק מהו מנפח רב ששת בידיה נשתתק אפילו אחד בסוף העולם נמי התם לא קאמר הכא קאמר מאי,תא שמע דאמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא אחד מן התלמידים שזיכה ומת רואין אותו כאילו חי ועומד במקומו זיכה אין לא זיכה לא,זיכה פשיטא לי אמר תיבעי לך:,אפילו הוא כו': ואפילו פעם ראשונה ושניה והתניא פעם ראשונה ושניה בין שיש ממש בדבריו בין שאין ממש בדבריו מחזירין אותו מכאן ואילך אם יש ממש בדבריו מחזירין אותו אין ממש בדבריו אין מחזירין אותו,אמר רב פפא תרגומה מפעם שניה ואילך,מנא ידעי אמר אביי דמסרינן ליה זוגא דרבנן אי איכא ממש בדבריו אין אי לא לא,ולימסר ליה מעיקרא אגב דבעית לא מצי אמר כל מאי דאית ליה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מצאו לו זכות פטרוהו ואם לאו יצא ליסקל וכרוז יוצא לפניו איש פלוני בן פלוני יוצא ליסקל על שעבר עבירה פלונית ופלוני ופלוני עדיו כל מי שיודע לו זכות יבא וילמד עליו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר אביי וצריך למימר ביום פלוני ובשעה פלונית ובמקום פלוני דילמא איכא דידעי ואתו ומזים להו:,וכרוז יוצא לפניו לפניו אין מעיקרא לא והתניא בערב הפסח תלאוהו לישו והכרוז יוצא לפניו מ' יום ישו יוצא ליסקל על שכישף והסית והדיח את ישראל כל מי שיודע לו זכות יבא וילמד עליו ולא מצאו לו זכות ותלאוהו בערב הפסח,אמר עולא ותסברא בר הפוכי זכות הוא מסית הוא ורחמנא אמר (דברים יג, ט) לא תחמול ולא תכסה עליו אלא שאני ישו דקרוב למלכות הוה,ת"ר חמשה תלמידים היו לו לישו מתאי נקאי נצר ובוני ותודה אתיוהו למתי אמר להו מתי יהרג הכתיב (תהלים מב, ג) מתי אבוא ואראה פני אלהים אמרו לו אין מתי יהרג דכתיב (שם מא, ו) מתי ימות ואבד שמו,אתיוהו לנקאי אמר להו נקאי יהרג הכתיב (שמות כג, ז) ונקי וצדיק אל תהרוג אמרו לו אין נקאי יהרג דכתיב (תהלים י, ח) במסתרים יהרג נקי,אתיוהו לנצר אמר נצר יהרג הכתיב (ישעיה יא, א) ונצר משרשיו יפרה אמרו לו אין נצר יהרג דכתיב (שם יד, יט) ואתה השלכת מקברך כנצר נתעב,אתיוהו לבוני אמר אמר בוני יהרג הכתיב (שמות ד, כב) בני בכורי ישראל אמרו לי' אין בוני יהרג דכתיב (שם, כג) הנה אנכי הורג את בנך בכורך,אתיוהו לתודה אמר תודה יהרג הכתיב (תהלים ק, א) מזמור לתודה אמרו לו אין תודה יהרג דכתיב (שם נ, כג) זובח תודה יכבדנני | 43a. b“And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses.” /b,The Gemara asks: bIf that is so, what do they do withthe words in the verse: b“And they stoned him with a stone”?These words appear to be superfluous, as even without them we would know that God’s instructions to stone the blasphemer were implemented. What then do they serve to teach? The Gemara answers: bThatphrase is bnecessary for that which is taughtin a ibaraita /i: The verse states: b“And they stoned him with a stone.”The word b“him”teaches that they stoned him alone, while he was naked, bbut notwhile he was bin his clothing.The verse uses the singular term b“stone [ iaven /i]”rather than the plural term stones [ iavanim /i] to teach bthat ifthe condemned man bdiedafter being struck bwith one stone,the court has bfulfilledits obligation.,The Gemara notes: bAndit bwas necessary to writewith regard to the blasphemer that “they stoned him with ba stone,”in the singular, bandit bwas necessary to writewith regard to the man who gathered sticks on Shabbat that “they stoned him with bstones”(Numbers 15:36), in the plural. bAs, had the Merciful One writtenonly b“stone,” I would saythat bwherethe condemned man bdid not dieafter being struck bwith onestone, bthey do not bring otherstones band kill himwith them. Therefore, bthe Merciful One writes “stones.” And had the Merciful One writtenonly b“stones,” I would saythat bfrom the outset they should bring twoor more stones. Therefore, bthe Merciful One writes “stone.” /b,The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappa’s derivation: bBut this itanna /iof the ibaraitacited above bsaid: It is statedhere and it is stated elsewhere, thereby basing his derivation on a verbal analogy between the verse concerning the blasphemer and the verse concerning the bulls brought as sin-offerings that are burned. How, then, can Rav Pappa, an iamora /i, disagree and derive the ihalakhadirectly from the verse dealing with the blasphemer? The Gemara answers: According to Rav Pappa, the itannaof the ibaraita bsaid: Had it not been stated, and thisis what he bis saying: Had a verse not been statedfrom which it can be directly derived that the condemned man is stoned outside all three camps, bI would have saidthat this can be learned by way of ba verbal analogy.But bnow thatsuch ba verse has been stated,the bverbal analogy is not needed. /b, bRav Ashi said:The location of the place of stoning can be directly derived from the verse discussing the blasphemer but in a slightly different manner. bWhere was Moses sittingwhen the matter of the blasphemer was brought before him? bIn the Levite camp. And the Merciful One said to him: “Take out him who has cursed”(Leviticus 24:14), indicating that he should be taken boutside the Levite campinto the Israelite camp. And God continued in that verse: b“Outside the camp,”which is an additional command that he should be removed even further, to boutside the Israelite camp.And the later verse, which says: b“And they brought him that had cursedout of the camp…and the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses” (Leviticus 24:23), teaches us babout the implementationof God’s instructions, i.e., that the children of Israel did in fact carry out His command.,The Gemara raises an objection: bThe implementationof God’s instructions is bwritten explicitly in thiscontext, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: b“And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses.”The Gemara answers: bThatverse bis necessaryto teach us that not only was the condemned man taken outside the three camps and stoned, but the rest of God’s instructions were also fulfilled. These instructions relate bto the placingof the witnesses’ bhandsupon the head of the condemned man, as it is stated: “And let all that heard him place their hands upon his head” (Leviticus 24:14), band to thewitnesses’ bpushingof the condemned man from a platform the height of two stories., bThe Sages said to Rav Ashi: According to you,that the expression “take out” by itself means outside the camp, and “outside the camp” means outside an additional camp, bwhat do you learn from all thoseinstances of b“take out” that are written with regard to the bullsbrought as sin-offerings bthat are burned?According to your explanation, there are many superfluous phrases in the verses. The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is bdifficultwith regard to the opinion of Rav Ashi.,§ The mishna teaches that boneman bstandsat the entrance to the court, with cloths in his hand, ready to signal to the court agents leading the condemned man to his execution that some doubt has been raised with respect to the latter’s guilt. bRav Huna says:It is bobvious to methat bthe stone with whichthe condemned man bis stoned and the tree on whichhis corpse bis hungafter his execution, bor the sword with which he is killed, or the scarf with which he is strangled, all of thesecome bfromthe property of bthe community. What is the reasonfor this? bWe do not tellthe condemned man to bgo and bringthese items bfrom his ownproperty bandeffectively bkill himself. /b, bRav Huna raiseda dilemma: With regard to bthe cloth that is waved and the horse that racesoff after the court agents bto stopthe latter from carrying out the execution, bfrom whoseproperty bdo they come,that of the condemned man or that of the community? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: bSincethey are needed to bsavethe man being led to his execution, these items should be taken bfrom hisproperty. bOr perhaps, since the court is obligated totake all possible measures to bsave himfrom death, they should be taken bfrom them,i.e., the community., bAnd furthermore,another question is raised along similar lines: With regard to bthat which Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi saysthat bRav Ḥisda says:The court bgives one who is being led out to be killed a grain [ ikoret /i] of frankincense in a cup of wine in order to confuse his mindand thereby minimize his suffering from the fear of his impending death, bas it is stated: “Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter in soul”(Proverbs 31:6). bAnd it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThe prominent women of Jerusalem would donatethis drink band bringit to those being led out to be killed. The question is: If bthese prominent women did not donatethis drink, bfrom whomis it taken? The Gemara answers: With regard to bthisquestion, it bis certainly reasonablethat this drink should be taken bfrom the community, as it is written: “Give [ itenu /i]strong drink,” in the plural, indicating that it should come bfrom them,the community.,§ bRav Aḥa bar Huna asked Rav Sheshet:If bone of the studentssitting before the judges bsaid: I can teacha reason to bacquit him, and he became muteand cannot explain himself, bwhat isthe ihalakhain such a case? Does the court take heed of his words, or do they disregard him? bRav Sheshet waved his handsin scorn and said: If the student bbecame mute,the court certainly does not pay attention to him, as were the court to concern themselves with what he said, they would have to be concerned beventhat perhaps there is bsomeone at the end of the worldwho can propose an argument in the condemned man’s favor. The Gemara rejects this argument: The cases are not similar. bThere, no one saidthat he had a reason to acquit the condemned man. bHere,the student already bsaidthat he had a reason to acquit the condemned man. The question, therefore, is appropriate. bWhatis the ihalakhain such a case?,The Gemara suggests: bComeand bhearan answer: bAs Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says:In a case where there was bone of the students whoargued to bacquitthe defendant bandthen bdied,the court bviews him as ifhe were balive and standing in his placeand voting to acquit the defendant. The implication is that if bheargued to bacquitthe defendant and explained his reasoning, byes,the court counts his vote as if he were still alive. But if bhe did notactually argue to bacquitthe defendant, but only said that he wished to propose such an argument, his vote is bnotcounted as though he were still alive.,The Gemara rejects this proof: If the student barguedto bacquitthe defendant, it is bobvious to methat he should be counted among those favoring acquittal. But if he only bsaysthat he wishes to propose such an argument, blet the dilemma be raisedwhether or not he should be regarded as having presented a convincing argument in favor of acquittal. The question is left unresolved.,The mishna teaches: And bevenif bhe,the condemned man himself, says: I can teach a reason to acquit myself, he is returned to the courthouse even four or five times, provided that there is substance to his words. The Gemara asks: bAndis the ihalakhathat there must be substance to his words beven the first and second timethat the condemned man says that he can teach a reason to acquit himself? bBut isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThe first and second timesthat he says that he can teach a reason to acquit himself, bthey return himto the courthouse and consider bwhether there is substance to his statement or there is no substance to his statement. From thispoint bforward, if there is substance to his statement they return himto the courthouse, but if bthere is no substance to his statement, they do not return him.This appears to contradict the mishna., bRav Pappa said: Explainthat the mishna’s ruling applies only bfromafter bthe second time forward,that from that point on we examine whether there is substance to his words.,The Gemara asks: bHow do we knowwhether or not there is substance to his words? bAbaye said:If the condemned man has already been returned twice to the courthouse, bwe send a pair of rabbis with himto evaluate his claim. bIfthey find that bthere is substance to his statement, yes,he is returned once again to the courthouse; bif not,he is bnotreturned.,The Gemara asks: bButwhy not bsenda pair of rabbis bwith him from the outset,even the first time, and have them make an initial assessment of his claim? The Gemara answers: bSincea man facing execution bis frightenedby the thought of his impending death, bhe is not able to say all that he hasto say, and perhaps out of fear he will be confused and not provide a substantial reason to overturn his verdict. Therefore, the first two times he is returned to the courthouse without an initial examination of his arguments. Once he has already been returned on two occasions, the court allows for no further delay, and they send two rabbis to evaluate his claim before returning him a third time., strongMISHNA: /strong If, after the condemned man is returned to the courthouse, the judges bfinda reason to bacquit him, theyacquit him and brelease himimmediately. bBut ifthey do bnotfind a reason to acquit him, bhe goes out to be stoned. And a crier goes out before himand publicly proclaims: bSo-and-so, son of so-and-so, is going out to be stoned because he committed such and such a transgression. And so-and-so and so-and-so are his witnesses. Anyone who knowsof a reason to bacquit him should comeforward band teachit bon his behalf. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong bAbaye says: Andthe crier bmustalso publicly bproclaimthat the transgression was committed bon such and such a day, at such and such an hour, and at such and such a place,as bperhaps there are those who knowthat the witnesses could not have been in that place at that time, band they will comeforward band renderthe witnesses bconspiring witnesses. /b,The mishna teaches that ba crier goes out beforethe condemned man. This indicates that it is only bbefore him,i.e., while he is being led to his execution, that byes,the crier goes out, but bfrom the outset,before the accused is convicted, he does bnotgo out. The Gemara raises a difficulty: bBut isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bOn Passover Eve they hungthe corpse of bJesus the Nazareneafter they killed him by way of stoning. bAnd a crier went out before himfor bforty days,publicly proclaiming: bJesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incitedpeople to idol worship, band led the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knowsof a reason to bacquit him should comeforward band teachit bon his behalf. Andthe court bdid not finda reason to bacquit him, andso btheystoned him and bhung hiscorpse bon Passover eve. /b, bUlla said: Andhow can byou understandthis proof? Was bJesus the Nazarene worthy ofconducting ba searchfor a reason to bacquithim? bHewas ban inciterto idol worship, band the Merciful One stateswith regard to an inciter to idol worship: b“Neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him”(Deuteronomy 13:9). bRather, Jesus was different, as hehad bcloseties bwith the government,and the gentile authorities were interested in his acquittal. Consequently, the court gave him every opportunity to clear himself, so that it could not be claimed that he was falsely convicted.,Apropos the trial of Jesus, the Gemara cites another ibaraita /i, where bthe Sages taught: Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples: Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Toda. They brought Mattai into stand trial. Mattai bsaid tothe judges: bShall Mattai be executed?But bisn’t it written: “When [ imatai /i] shall I come and appear before God?”(Psalms 42:3). Mattai claimed that this verse alludes to the fact he is righteous. bThey said to him: Yes, Mattai shall be executed, as it is written: “When [ imatai /i] shall he die, and his name perish?”(Psalms 41:6).,Then bthey brought Nakai into stand trial. Nakai bsaidto the judges: bShall Nakai be executed?But bisn’t it written: “And the innocent [ inaki /i] and righteous you shall not slay”(Exodus 23:7)? bThey said to him: Yes, Nakai shall be executed, as it is written: “In secret places he kills the innocent [ inaki /i]”(Psalms 10:8).,Then bthey brought Netzer into stand trial. bHe saidto the judges: bShall Netzer be executed?But bisn’t it written: “And a branch [ inetzer /i] shall grow out of his roots”(Isaiah 11:1)? bThey said to him: Yes, Netzer shall be executed, as it is written: “But you are cast out of your grave like an abhorred branch [ inetzer /i]”(Isaiah 14:19).,Then bthey brought Buni into stand trial. Buni bsaidto the judges: bShall Buni be executed?But bisn’t it written: “My firstborn son [ ibeni /i] is Israel”(Exodus 4:22)? bThey said to him: Yes, Buni shall be executed, as it is written: “Behold, I shall kill your firstborn son [ ibinkha /i]”(Exodus 4:23).,Then bthey brought Toda into stand trial. Toda bsaidto the judges: bShall Toda be executed?But bisn’t it written: “A psalm of thanksgiving [ itoda /i]”(Psalms 100:1)? bThey said to him: Yes, Toda shall be executed, as it is written: “Whoever slaughters a thanks-offering [ itoda /i] honors Me”(Psalms 50:23). |
|
15. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, 48b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 48b. כמין שני חוטמין דקין (ואחד) מעובה ואחד דק כדי שיהו שניהם כלין בבת אחת מערבו של מים מזרחו של יין עירה של מים לתוך של יין ושל יין לתוך של מים יצא,ר' יהודה אומר בלוג היה מנסך כל שמונה ולמנסך אומר לו הגבה ידך שפעם אחד נסך אחד על גבי רגליו ורגמוהו כל העם באתרוגיהן,כמעשהו בחול כך מעשהו בשבת אלא שהיה ממלא מערב שבת חבית של זהב שאינה מקודשת מן השילוח ומניחה בלשכה נשפכה נתגלתה היה ממלא מן הכיור שהיין והמים מגולין פסולין לגבי מזבח:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מנא הנ"מ אמר רב עינא דאמר קרא (ישעיהו יב, ג) ושאבתם מים בששון וגו',הנהו תרי מיני חד שמיה ששון וחד שמיה שמחה א"ל ששון לשמחה אנא עדיפנא מינך דכתיב (ישעיהו לה, י) ששון ושמחה ישיגו וגו' א"ל שמחה לששון אנא עדיפנא מינך דכתיב (אסתר ח, יז) שמחה וששון ליהודים א"ל ששון לשמחה חד יומא שבקוך ושויוך פרוונקא דכתיב (ישעיהו נה, יב) כי בשמחה תצאו א"ל שמחה לששון חד יומא שבקוך ומלו בך מיא דכתיב ושאבתם מים בששון,א"ל ההוא מינא דשמיה ששון לר' אבהו עתידיתו דתמלו לי מים לעלמא דאתי דכתיב ושאבתם מים בששון א"ל אי הוה כתיב לששון כדקאמרת השתא דכתיב בששון משכיה דההוא גברא משוינן ליה גודא ומלינן ביה מיא:,עלה בכבש ופנה לשמאלו כו': ת"ר כל העולים למזבח עולין דרך ימין ומקיפין ויורדין דרך שמאל חוץ מן העולה לשלשה דברים הללו שעולין דרך שמאל וחוזרין על העקב ואלו הן ניסוך המים וניסוך היין ועולת העוף כשרבתה במזרח:,אלא שהיו משחירין: בשלמא דיין משחיר דמיא אמאי משחיר כיון דאמר מר עירה של מים לתוך של יין ושל יין לתוך של מים יצא של מים אתי לאשחורי:,ומנוקבים כמין ב' חוטמין וכו': לימא מתניתין ר' יהודה היא ולא רבנן דתנן רבי יהודה אומר בלוג היה מנסך כל שמונה דאי רבנן כי הדדי נינהו,אפי' תימא רבנן חמרא סמיך מיא קליש,הכי נמי מסתברא דאי רבי יהודה רחב וקצר אית ליה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר שני קשוואות היו שם אחד של מים ואחד של יין של יין פיה רחב של מים פיה קצר כדי שיהו שניהם כלין בבת אחת ש"מ:,מערבו של מים: ת"ר מעשה בצדוקי אחד שניסך על גבי רגליו ורגמוהו כל העם באתרוגיהן ואותו היום נפגמה קרן המזבח והביאו בול של מלח וסתמוהו לא מפני שהוכשר לעבודה אלא מפני שלא יראה מזבח פגום | 48b. with btwo thinperforated bnose-likeprotrusions. bOneof the basins, used for the wine libation, had a perforation that was bbroad, and one,used for the water libation, had a perforation that was bthin, so thatthe flow of bboththe water and the wine, which do not have the same viscosity, would bconclude simultaneously.The basin to the bwest ofthe altar was bfor water,and the basin to the beast ofthe altar was bfor wine.However, if bone pouredthe contents of the basin bof water intothe basin bof wine, orthe contents of the basin bof wine intothe basin bof water, he fulfilledhis obligation, as failure to pour the libation from the prescribed location does not disqualify the libation after the fact., bRabbi Yehuda says:The basin for the water libation was not that large; rather, bone would pourthe water bwitha vessel that had a capacity of bone ilog /ion ball eightdays of the Festival and not only seven. bAndthe appointee bsays to the one pouringthe water into the silver basin: bRaise your hand,so that his actions would be visible, bas one timea Sadducee priest intentionally bpouredthe water bon his feet,as the Sadducees did not accept the oral tradition requiring water libation, and in their rage ball the people pelted him with their ietrogim /i. /b,Rabbi Yehuda continues: bAs its performance during the week, so is its performance on Shabbat, exceptthat on Shabbat one would not draw water. Instead, bon Shabbat eve, one would fill a golden barrel that was not consecratedfor exclusive use in the Temple bfrom the Siloampool, band hewould bplace it in theTemple bchamberand draw water from there on Shabbat. If the water in the barrel bspilled,or if it bwas exposedovernight, leading to concern that a snake may have deposited poison in the water, bone would fillthe jug with water bfrom the basinin the Temple courtyard, bas exposed wine or water is unfit for the altar.Just as it is prohibited for people to drink them due to the potential danger, so too, they may not be poured on the altar., strongGEMARA: /strong With regard to the customs accompanying the drawing of the water, the Gemara asks: bFrom where are these mattersderived? bRav Eina saidthat it is bas the verse states: “With joy [ isason /i] you shall draw waterout of the springs of salvation” (Isaiah 12:3), indicating that the water was to be drawn from the spring and the rite performed in extreme joy.,Apropos this verse, the Gemara relates: There were bthese two heretics, one named Sason and one named Simḥa. Sason said to Simḥa: I am superior to you, as it is written: “They shall obtain joy [ isason /i] and happiness [ isimḥa /i],and sorrow and sighing shall flee” (Isaiah 35:10). The verse mentions joy first. bSimḥa said to Sason,On the contrary, bI am superior to you, as it is written: “There was happiness [ isimḥa /i] and joy [ isason /i] for the Jews”(Esther 8:17). bSason said to Simḥa: One day they will dismiss you and render you a messenger [ iparvanka /i], as it is written: “For you shall go out with happiness [ isimḥa /i]”(Isaiah 55:12). bSimḥa said to Sason: One day they will dismiss you and draw water with you, as it is written: “With joy [ isason /i] you shall draw water.” /b,The Gemara relates a similar incident: bA certain heretic named Sason said to Rabbi Abbahu: You areall bdestined to draw water for me in the World-to-Come, as it is written: “With isasonyou shall draw water.”Rabbi Abbahu bsaid to him: If it had been written: For isason /i,it would have been bas you say; now that it is written: With isason /i,it means that bthe skin of that man,you, bwill be rendered a wineskin, and we will draw water with it. /b,§ The mishna continues: The priest bascended the rampof the altar band turned to his left. The Sages taught: All who ascend the altar ascendand turn bviathe bright, and circlethe altar, band descend viathe bleft.This is the case bexcept for one ascendingto perform one of bthese three tasks, asthe ones who perform these tasks bascend viathe bleft, andthen bturn ontheir bheel and returnin the direction that they came. bAndthese tasks bare: The water libation, and the wine libation, and the birdsacrificed as ba burnt-offering when there weretoo bmanypriests engaged in the sacrifice of these burnt-offerings bin thepreferred location beastof the altar. When that was the case, additional priests engaged in sacrificing the same offering would pinch the neck of the bird west of the altar.,The mishna continues: Rabbi Yehuda said that they were limestone, not silver, basins, bbut they would blackendue to the wine. The Gemara asks: bGranted,the basin bfor wine blackeneddue to the wine; however, bwhy did thebasin bfor water blacken?The Gemara answers: bSince the Master saidin the mishna: However, if boneinadvertently bpouredthe contents of the basin bof water intothe basin bof wine orthe contents of the basin bof wine intothe basin bof water, he fulfilledhis obligation. Then even the basin bfor waterwould bcome to blackenover the course of time as well.,§ The mishna continues: bAndthe two basins were bperforatedat the bottom with btwo thin,perforated, bnose-likeprotrusions, one broad and one thin. The Gemara asks: bLet us saythat bthe mishna isin accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yehuda and notwith that of bthe Rabbis, as we learnedin the mishna that bRabbi Yehuda says: One would pourthe water bwitha vessel that had a capacity of bone ilog /ion ball eightdays of the Festival, unlike the wine libation, for which a three- ilogbasin was used. According to his opinion, there is a difference between the capacity of the wine vessel and that of the water vessel; therefore, it is clear why the opening in the wine vessel was broader. bAs, ifthe mishna is in accordance with the opinion of bthe Rabbis, they are the sameas the capacity of the water basin, three ilog /i. Why, then, were there different sized openings?,The Gemara answers: bEvenif byou saythat the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of bthe Rabbis,the reason for the different-sized openings is that bwine is thickand bwater is thin,and therefore wine flows more slowly than water. In order to ensure that the emptying of both basins would conclude simultaneously, the wine basin required a wider opening., bSo too, it is reasonableto establish that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, bas, ifit is in accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yehuda,unlike the description of the two openings in the mishna as broad and thin, elsewhere he bis ofthe opinion that the openings bas wide and narrow, as it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yehuda says: There were twosmall bpipes there, one for water and one for wine. The mouth ofthe pipe bfor wine was wide and the mouth ofthe pipe bfor water was narrow, so thatthe emptying of both basins bwould conclude simultaneously.The disparity between wide and narrow is greater than the disparity between broad and thin, thereby facilitating the simultaneous emptying of the three- ilogand one- ilogbasins according to Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, blearn from itthat the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.,§ The mishna continues: The basin to the bwest ofthe altar was bfor water,and the basin to the east of the altar was for wine, and they would tell the one pouring the water to raise his hand. bThe Sages taught:There was ban incident involving one Sadduceepriest bwho pouredthe water bon his feet,and in anger ball the people pelted him with their ietrogim /i. And that day, the horn of the altar was damagedas a result of the pelting and the ensuing chaos. bThey brought a fistful of salt and sealedthe damaged section, bnot because it renderedthe altar bfit for theTemple bservice, butin deference to the altar, bso that the altar would not be seenin its bdamagedstate. |
|
16. Anon., Soferim, 1
|
