1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 6.5 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 6.5. וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁךָ וּבְכָל־מְאֹדֶךָ׃ | 6.5. And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 2, 1 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 104.14-104.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 104.14. מַצְמִיחַ חָצִיר לַבְּהֵמָה וְעֵשֶׂב לַעֲבֹדַת הָאָדָם לְהוֹצִיא לֶחֶם מִן־הָאָרֶץ׃ 104.15. וְיַיִן יְשַׂמַּח לְבַב־אֱנוֹשׁ לְהַצְהִיל פָּנִים מִשָּׁמֶן וְלֶחֶם לְבַב־אֱנוֹשׁ יִסְעָד׃ | 104.14. Who causeth the grass to spring up for the cattle, And herb for the service of man; To bring forth bread out of the earth," 104.15. And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, Making the face brighter than oil, And bread that stayeth man's heart." |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 11.2, 40.13 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 11.2. וְנָחָה עָלָיו רוּחַ יְהוָה רוּחַ חָכְמָה וּבִינָה רוּחַ עֵצָה וּגְבוּרָה רוּחַ דַּעַת וְיִרְאַת יְהוָה׃ 40.13. מִי־תִכֵּן אֶת־רוּחַ יְהוָה וְאִישׁ עֲצָתוֹ יוֹדִיעֶנּוּ׃ | 11.2. And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and might, The spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD." 40.13. Who hath meted out the spirit of the LORD? Or who was His counsellor that he might instruct Him?" |
|
5. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 13.11, 14.6-14.9 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
6. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 13.11, 14.6-14.9 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
7. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.13, 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.19, 1.20, 1.24, 1.26, 2, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.16, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20, 2.21, 2.22, 2.24, 2.25, 3.1, 3.3, 3.4, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.13-4.26, 4.1, 4.5, 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, 4.24, 4.25, 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 6, 6.13, 6.14, 7.7, 8.5, 8.6, 8.9, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9, 9.12, 9.13, 9.14, 9.15, 9.16, 9.17, 9.18, 9.19, 9.20, 9.21 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
8. Dead Sea Scrolls, Hodayot, 2.7-2.10 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
9. Dead Sea Scrolls, Hodayot, 2.7-2.10 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
10. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Community, 1.8-1.9, 1.13-1.15 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
11. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Community, 1.8-1.9, 1.13-1.15 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
12. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 14.189, 14.213-14.215, 14.257, 14.260-14.261 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 14.189. Out of these evidences will I demonstrate what I say; and will now set down the decrees made both by the senate and by Julius Caesar, which relate to Hyrcanus and to our nation. 14.213. 8. “Julius Caius, praetor [consul] of Rome, to the magistrates, senate, and people of the Parians, sendeth greeting. The Jews of Delos, and some other Jews that sojourn there, in the presence of your ambassadors, signified to us, that, by a decree of yours, you forbid them to make use of the customs of their forefathers, and their way of sacred worship. 14.214. Now it does not please me that such decrees should be made against our friends and confederates, whereby they are forbidden to live according to their own customs, or to bring in contributions for common suppers and holy festivals, while they are not forbidden so to do even at Rome itself; 14.215. for even Caius Caesar, our imperator and consul, in that decree wherein he forbade the Bacchanal rioters to meet in the city, did yet permit these Jews, and these only, both to bring in their contributions, and to make their common suppers. 14.257. Since we have ever a great regard to piety towards God, and to holiness; and since we aim to follow the people of the Romans, who are the benefactors of all men, and what they have written to us about a league of friendship and mutual assistance between the Jews and our city, and that their sacred offices and accustomed festivals and assemblies may be observed by them; 14.261. Now the senate and people have decreed to permit them to assemble together on the days formerly appointed, and to act according to their own laws; and that such a place be set apart for them by the praetors, for the building and inhabiting the same, as they shall esteem fit for that purpose; and that those that take care of the provision for the city, shall take care that such sorts of food as they esteem fit for their eating may be imported into the city.” |
|
13. New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 14.14 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 14.14. For if I pray in another language, myspirit prays, but my understanding is unfruitful. |
|
14. New Testament, Hebrews, 3.8, 3.10, 3.12, 3.15, 4.7, 4.12, 10.22 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 3.8. Don't harden your hearts, as in the provocation, Like as in the day of the trial in the wilderness 3.10. Therefore I was displeased with that generation, And said, 'They always err in their heart, But they didn't know my ways;' 3.12. Beware, brothers, lest perhaps there be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God; 3.15. while it is said, "Today if you will hear his voice, Don't harden your hearts, as in the rebellion. 4.7. he again defines a certain day, today, saying through David so long a time afterward (just as has been said), "Today if you will hear his voice, Don't harden your hearts. 4.12. For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and is able to discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 10.22. let's draw near with a true heart in fullness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and having our body washed with pure water |
|
15. New Testament, Mark, 12.30 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 12.30. you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. |
|
16. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, 61b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 61b. ריאה שואבת כל מיני משקין כבד כועס מרה זורקת בו טפה ומניחתו טחול שוחק קרקבן טוחן קיבה ישנה אף נעור נעור הישן ישן הנעור נמוק והולך לו תנא אם שניהם ישנים או שניהם נעורים מיד מת,תניא רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר צדיקים יצר טוב שופטן שנאמר (תהלים קט, כב) ולבי חלל בקרבי רשעים יצר רע שופטן שנאמר (תהלים לו, ב) נאם פשע לרשע בקרב לבי אין פחד אלהים לנגד עיניו בינונים זה וזה שופטן שנאמר (תהלים קט, לא) יעמוד לימין אביון להושיע משופטי נפשו,אמר רבא כגון אנו בינונים אמר ליה אביי לא שביק מר חיי לכל בריה,ואמר רבא לא איברי עלמא אלא לרשיעי גמורי או לצדיקי גמורי אמר רבא לידע אינש בנפשיה אם צדיק גמור הוא אם לאו אמר רב לא איברי עלמא אלא לאחאב בן עמרי ולר' חנינא בן דוסא לאחאב בן עמרי העולם הזה ולרבי חנינא בן דוסא העולם הבא:,ואהבת את י"י אלהיך: תניא ר' אליעזר אומר אם נאמר בכל נפשך למה נאמר בכל מאדך ואם נאמר בכל מאדך למה נאמר בכל נפשך אלא אם יש לך אדם שגופו חביב עליו מממונו לכך נאמר בכל נפשך ואם יש לך אדם שממונו חביב עליו מגופו לכך נאמר בכל מאדך רבי עקיבא אומר בכל נפשך אפילו נוטל את נפשך,תנו רבנן פעם אחת גזרה מלכות הרשעה שלא יעסקו ישראל בתורה בא פפוס בן יהודה ומצאו לרבי עקיבא שהיה מקהיל קהלות ברבים ועוסק בתורה אמר ליה עקיבא אי אתה מתירא מפני מלכות,אמר לו אמשול לך משל למה הדבר דומה לשועל שהיה מהלך על גב הנהר וראה דגים שהיו מתקבצים ממקום למקום אמר להם מפני מה אתם בורחים אמרו לו מפני רשתות שמביאין עלינו בני אדם אמר להם רצונכם שתעלו ליבשה ונדור אני ואתם כשם שדרו אבותי עם אבותיכם אמרו לו אתה הוא שאומרים עליך פקח שבחיות לא פקח אתה אלא טפש אתה ומה במקום חיותנו אנו מתיראין במקום מיתתנו על אחת כמה וכמה אף אנחנו עכשיו שאנו יושבים ועוסקים בתורה שכתוב בה (דברים ל, כ) כי הוא חייך ואורך ימיך כך אם אנו הולכים ומבטלים ממנה עאכ"ו,אמרו לא היו ימים מועטים עד שתפסוהו לר"ע וחבשוהו בבית האסורים ותפסו לפפוס בן יהודה וחבשוהו אצלו אמר לו פפוס מי הביאך לכאן אמר ליה אשריך רבי עקיבא שנתפסת על דברי תורה אוי לו לפפוס שנתפס על דברים בטלים,בשעה שהוציאו את ר' עקיבא להריגה זמן ק"ש היה והיו סורקים את בשרו במסרקות של ברזל והיה מקבל עליו עול מלכות שמים אמרו לו תלמידיו רבינו עד כאן אמר להם כל ימי הייתי מצטער על פסוק זה בכל נפשך אפילו נוטל את נשמתך אמרתי מתי יבא לידי ואקיימנו ועכשיו שבא לידי לא אקיימנו היה מאריך באחד עד שיצתה נשמתו באחד יצתה ב"ק ואמרה אשריך ר"ע שיצאה נשמתך באחד,אמרו מלאכי השרת לפני הקב"ה זו תורה וזו שכרה (תהלים יז, יד) ממתים ידך י"י ממתים וגו' אמר להם חלקם בחיים יצתה בת קול ואמרה אשריך ר"ע שאתה מזומן לחיי העוה"ב:,לא יקל אדם את ראשו כנגד שער המזרח שהוא מכוון כנגד בית קדשי הקדשים וכו': אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לא אמרו אלא מן הצופים ולפנים וברואה איתמר נמי א"ר אבא בריה דרבי חייא בר אבא הכי אמר רבי יוחנן לא אמרו אלא מן הצופים ולפנים וברואה ובשאין גדר ובזמן שהשכינה שורה,ת"ר הנפנה ביהודה לא יפנה מזרח ומערב אלא צפון ודרום ובגליל לא יפנה אלא מזרח ומערב ורבי יוסי מתיר שהיה ר' יוסי אומר לא אסרו אלא ברואה ובמקום שאין שם גדר ובזמן שהשכינה שורה וחכמים אוסרים,חכמים היינו ת"ק איכא בינייהו צדדין,תניא אידך הנפנה ביהודה לא יפנה מזרח ומערב אלא צפון ודרום ובגליל צפון ודרום אסור מזרח ומערב מותר ורבי יוסי מתיר שהיה רבי יוסי אומר לא אסרו אלא ברואה רבי יהודה אומר בזמן שבית המקדש קיים אסור בזמן שאין בית המקדש קיים מותר רבי עקיבא אוסר בכל מקום,רבי עקיבא היינו ת"ק איכא בינייהו חוץ לארץ,רבה הוו שדיין ליה לבני מזרח ומערב אזל אביי שדנהו צפון ודרום על רבה תרצנהו אמר מאן האי דקמצער לי אנא כר' עקיבא סבירא לי דאמר בכל מקום אסור: | 61b. and the blungs draw all kinds of liquids,the bliver becomes angry,the bgallbladder binjects a dropof gall bintothe liver and ballaysanger, the bspleen laughs,the bmaw grindsthe food, and the bstomachbrings bsleep,the bnose awakens.If they reversed roles such that btheorgan which brings on bsleepwere to bawaken,or btheorgan which bawakenswere to bring on bsleep,the individual bwould gradually deteriorate. It was taught: If bothbring on bsleep or both awaken,the person bimmediately dies. /b,With regard to one’s inclinations, bit was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The good inclination rules the righteous, as it is stated: “And my heart is dead within me”(Psalms 109:22); the evil inclination has been completely banished from his heart. The bevil inclination rules the wicked, as it is stated: “Transgression speaks to the wicked, there is no fear of God before his eyes”(Psalms 36:2). bMiddling people are ruled by boththe good and evil inclinations, bas it is stated: “Because He stands at the right hand of the needy, to save him from them that rule his soul”(Psalms 109:31)., bRabba said:People blike usare bmiddling. Abaye,his student and nephew, bsaid to him:If bthe Masterclaims that he is merely middling, he bdoes not leaveroom for bany creature to live.If a person like you is middling, what of the rest of us?, bAnd Rava said: The world was created only forthe sake of bthe full-fledged wicked or the full-fledged righteous;others do not live complete lives in either world. bRava said: One should know of himself whether or not he is completely righteous,as if he is not completely righteous, he knows that his life will be a life of suffering. bRav said: The world was only created forthe wicked bAhab ben Omri and for Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa.The Gemara explains: For bAhab ben Omri, this worldwas created, as he has no place in the World-to-Come, bandfor bRabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa, the World-to-Comewas created.,We learned in our mishna the explanation of the verse: b“And you shall love the Lord your Godwith all your heart and all your soul and all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5). This was elaborated upon when bit was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Eliezer says: If it is stated: “With all your soul,” why does it state: “With all your might”?Conversely, bif it stated: “With all your might,” why does it state: “With all your soul”? Rather,this means that bif one’s body is dearer to him than his property, therefore it is stated: “With all your soul”;one must give his soul in sanctification of God. bAnd if one’s money is dearer to him than his body, therefore it is stated: “With all your might”;with all your assets. bRabbi Akiva says: “With all your soul”means: bEven ifGod btakes your soul. /b,The Gemara relates at length how Rabbi Akiva fulfilled these directives. bThe Sages taught: One time,after the bar Kokheva rebellion, bthe evil empireof Rome bdecreed that Israel may not engage inthe study and practice of bTorah. Pappos ben Yehuda came and found Rabbi Akiva, who was convening assemblies in public and engaging in Torahstudy. Pappos bsaid to him: Akiva, are you not afraid of the empire? /b,Rabbi Akiva banswered him: I will relate a parable. To what can this be compared?It is like ba fox walking along a riverbank when he sees fish gatheringand fleeing bfrom place to place. brThe fox bsaid to them: From what are you fleeing? br bThey said to him:We are fleeing bfrom the nets that people cast upon us. br bHe said to them: Do you wish to come up onto dry land, and we will reside together just as my ancestors resided with your ancestors? brThe fish bsaid to him: You are the one of whom they say, he is the cleverest of animals? You are not clever; you are a fool. If we are afraid inthe water, bournatural bhabitatwhich gives us blife,then bin a habitatthat causes our bdeath, all the more so. brThe moral is: bSo too, weJews, bnow that we sit and engage in Torahstudy, babout which it is written: “For that is your life, and the length of your days”(Deuteronomy 30:20), we fear the empire bto this extent; if we proceed tosit bidle from itsstudy, as its abandonment is the habitat that causes our death, ball the more sowill we fear the empire.,The Sages bsaid: Not a few days passed until they seized Rabbi Akiva and incarcerated him in prison, and seized Pappos ben Yehuda and incarcerated him alongside him.Rabbi Akiva bsaid to him: Pappos, who brought you here?Pappos breplied: Happy are you, Rabbi Akiva, for you were arrested onthe charge of engaging in bTorahstudy. bWoe unto Pappos who was seized onthe charge of engaging in bidle matters. /b,The Gemara relates: bWhen they took Rabbi Akiva out to be executed, it was time for the recitation of iShema /i. And they were raking his flesh with iron combs, and he wasreciting iShema /i, thereby baccepting upon himself the yoke of Heaven. His students said to him: Our teacher, even now,as you suffer, you recite iShema /i? bHe said to them: All my days I have been troubled by the verse: With all your soul,meaning: bEven if God takes your soul. I saidto myself: bWhen will theopportunity bbe afforded me to fulfill thisverse? bNow that it has been afforded me, shall I not fulfill it? He prolongedhis uttering of the word: bOne, until his soul lefthis body as he uttered his final word: bOne. A voice descendedfrom heaven band said: Happy are you, Rabbi Akiva, that your soul leftyour body basyou uttered: bOne. /b, bThe ministering angels said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: This is Torah and this its reward?As it is stated: b“From death, by Your hand, O Lord, from deathof the world” (Psalms 17:14); Your hand, God, kills and does not save. God bsaidthe end of the verse btothe ministering angels: b“Whose portion is in this life.”And then ba Divine Voice emerged and said: Happy are you, Rabbi Akiva, as you are destined for life in the World-to-Come,as your portion is already in eternal life.,We learned in the mishna that bone may not act irreverently opposite the Eastern Gate, which is aligned with the Holy of Holies.Limiting this ihalakha /i, bRav Yehuda saidthat bRav said: They only saidthis ihalakhawith regard to irreverent behavior bfromMount bScopus [ iTzofim /i] and within, andspecifically areas from where bone can seethe Temple. bIt is also stated: Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said: Rabbi Yoḥa said the following: They only saidthis ihalakhawith regard to Mount bScopus and within,when bone can see, and when there is no fenceobstructing his view, band when the Divine Presence is restingthere, i.e., when the Temple is standing.,In this context, bthe Sages taught: One who defecates in Judea should not defecatewhen facing beast and west,for then he is facing Jerusalem; bratherhe should do so bfacing north and south. But in the Galileewhich is north of Jerusalem, bone should only defecatefacing beast and west. Rabbi Yosei permitsdoing so, bas Rabbi Yosei was wont to say: They only prohibiteddoing so when bone can seethe Temple, bwhere there is no fence, and when the Divine Presence is restingthere. bAnd the Rabbis prohibitdoing so.,The Gemara argues: But the opinion of the bRabbis,who prohibit this, bisidentical to that of the bfirstanonymous itanna, /iwho also prohibits doing so. The Gemara replies: The practical difference bbetween them iswith regard to bthe sides,i.e., a place in Judea that is not directly east or west of Jerusalem, or a place in the Galilee that is not directly north of Jerusalem. According to the first itanna /i, it is prohibited; according to the Rabbis, it is permitted., bIt was taughtin banother ibaraita /i: bOne who defecates in Judea should not defecatewhen facing beast and west; rather,he should only do so facing bnorth and south. And in the Galilee,defecating while facing bnorth and south is prohibited,while beast and west is permitted. And Rabbi Yosei permitteddoing so, bas Rabbi Yosei was wont to say: They only prohibiteddoing so when bone can seethe Temple. bRabbi Yehuda says: When the Temple is standing, it is prohibited,but bwhen the Temple is not standing, it is permitted.The Gemara adds that bRabbi Akiva prohibitsdefecating banywherewhile facing east and west.,The Gemara challenges this: bRabbi Akiva’sposition bis identical tothat of bthe first,anonymous itanna /i,who also prohibits doing so. The Gemara responds: The practical difference bbetween themis with regard to places boutside of EretzYisrael b,as according to Rabbi Akiva, even outside of Eretz Yisrael, defecating while facing east and west is prohibited.,The Gemara relates that in bRabba’sbathroom, bthe bricks were placed east and westin order to ensure that he would defecate facing north and south. bAbaye wentand bplaced them north and south,to test if Rabba was particular about their direction or if they had simply been placed east and west incidentally. bRabba enteredand bfixed them. He said: Who is the one that is upsetting me? I hold in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Akiva,who bsaid: It is prohibited everywhere. /b |
|
17. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, 25a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 25a. מה לערלה שכן לא היתה לה שעת הכושר תאמר בבשר בחלב שהיתה לו שעת הכושר חמץ בפסח יוכיח שהיה לו שעת הכושר ואסור בהנאה,מה לחמץ בפסח שכן ענוש כרת תאמר בבשר בחלב שאינו ענוש כרת כלאי הכרם יוכיחו שאין ענוש כרת ואסור בהנאה,ואם איתא ניפרוך מה לכלאי הכרם שכן לוקין עליהן אפילו שלא כדרך הנאתן,ואביי תאמר במאי תאמר בבשר בחלב שאין לוקין עליו אלא דרך הנאתו אטו בבשר בחלב אכילה כתיבה ביה,ואידך דקא מותיב לה סבר להכי קא גמר מנבילה מה נבילה דרך הנאתה אף בשר בחלב דרך הנאתו,ואביי להכי לא כתב אכילה בגופו לומר שלוקין עליו אפי' שלא כדרך הנאתו,וליפרוך מה לכלאי הכרם שכן לא היתה לו שעת הכושר א"ר אדא בר אהבה זאת אומרת כלאי הכרם עיקרן נאסרין הואיל והיתה להן שעת הכושר קודם השרשה,מתיב רב שמעיה המעביר עציץ נקוב בכרם אם הוסיף מאתים אסור הוסיף אין לא הוסיף לא,אמר רבא תרי קראי כתיבי כתיב (דברים כב, ט) הזרע וכתיב המלאה הא כיצד זרוע מעיקרו בהשרשה זרוע ובא הוסיף אין לא הוסיף לא,א"ר יעקב א"ר יוחנן בכל מתרפאין חוץ מעצי אשירה היכי דמי אי נימא דאיכא סכנה אפילו עצי אשירה נמי ואי דליכא סכנה אפילו כל איסורין שבתורה נמי לא,לעולם דאיכא סכנה ואפי' הכי עצי אשירה לא דתניא ר' אליעזר אומר אם נאמר (דברים ו, ה) בכל נפשך למה נאמר בכל מאודך ואם נאמר בכל מאודך למה נאמר בכל נפשך,אלא לומר לך אם יש אדם שגופו חביב עליו מממונו לכך נאמר בכל נפשך ויש אדם שממונו חביב עליו מגופו לכך נאמר בכל מאודך,כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן בכל מתרפאין חוץ מע"ז וגילוי עריות | 25a. The Gemara rejects this inference: bWhatcomparison can be made bto iorla /i,which is more stringent than meat in milk, bas it never had a time when it was fit?Can byou saythe same bwith regard to meat in milk, which had a time when it was fit?Unlike iorlafruits, which were prohibited from the beginning of their existence, both meat and milk were permitted on their own before they were cooked together. Therefore, the Gemara brings other proofs: bLet leavened bread on Passover provethat this issue is not a factor, bas it had a time when it was fit,before Passover, bandyet bit is prohibitedto derive bbenefitfrom it.,The Gemara rejects this: bWhatcomparison can be made to bleavened bread on Passover,which is a stringent prohibition, basone who eats it bis punished with ikaret /i?Can byou saythe same bwith regard toone who eats bmeat in milk, who is not punished with ikaret /i?The Gemara answers: bLetthe case of bdiverse kindsplanted bin the vineyard provethat this is not relevant, basone who violates that prohibition bis not punished with ikaret /i, andyet bit is prohibitedto derive bbenefitfrom the resulting mixtures.,The Gemara returns to the issue of Abaye’s statement with regard to the unique stringency of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard: bAnd if it is sothat one is flogged for deriving benefit from diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, even if one derives benefit from them in an unusual manner, bwe can challengethis last proof: How can one compare meat in milk to diverse kinds in a vineyard, baswith regard to diverse kinds in a vineyard, bone is flogged even if hederives bbenefit from them in an unusual manner? /b, bAndhow would bAbayerespond to this question? When one draws this challenge to its logical conclusion with the phrase: Can byou say,and explains in detail how the prohibition of meat in milk differs from that of diverse kinds in a vineyard, bwith regard to whatdifference would the challenge be raised? bYoumay bsaythat bwith regard to meat in milk one is flogged only forderiving bbenefit in the usual manner,as opposed to the ihalakhawith regard to diverse kinds, according to which one is flogged even for deriving benefit in an unusual manner. However, bis that to saythat the term beating is writtenin the Torah bwith regard to meat in milk?The basis for this ihalakhawith regard to diverse kinds in a vineyard is the lack of the term eating in the verse; however, the prohibition of meat in milk is also missing that term. Therefore, there are no grounds for this challenge: If the lack of the word eating leads to the conclusion that one is flogged even when deriving benefit in an unusual manner, logically that punishment should apply to both diverse kinds and meat in milk.,The Gemara asks: bAnd the otherSage, bwho raised this objection,holds that bfor thisreason Isi ben Yehuda bderivesthis aspect of the prohibition bfromthe case of ban animal carcass. Just aswith regard to ban animal carcassone is flogged only bwhenderiving bbenefit in the usual manner,as the verse that prohibits it uses the term eating, bso too,with regard to bmeat in milk,one is flogged only when deriving bbenefit in the usual manner.Despite what is written in the Gemara, the fact that one is flogged only for deriving benefit from the animal in the usual manner is not derived from the carcass of an unslaughtered animal but from itereifa /i, an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months. With regard to itereifait is written: “And you shall be holy men unto Me; therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field [ itereifa /i]; you shall cast it to the dogs” (Exodus 22:30). From the fact that one may cast it to the dogs it can be derived that one may derive benefit in any manner other than the usual manner, i.e., eating., bAnd Abayeholds that bfor thisreason it bdid not writethe term beatingin the verse bitselfwith regard to the prohibition of meat in milk: In order bto say that one is flogged evenwhen deriving bbenefit in an unusual manner. /b,The Gemara continues. bLetIsi ben Yehuda bchallenge: Whatcomparison can be made bto diverse kinds in a vineyard, asthe forbidden produce bhad no time that it was fitbecause the prohibition came into effect as soon as the produce began to grow? bRabbi Adda bar Ahava said:Apparently, since this question was not asked, bthat is to say thatwith regard to bdiverse kinds in a vineyard, their roots are forbiddenas well, including the seeds and saplings from which the mature plants grow. Therefore, no challenge can be raised, bsince they had a time when they were fit, before taking root. /b, bRav Shemaya raised an objectionbased on what was taught in a mishna: With regard to bone who transfers a perforated potwith seeds in it binto a vineyard, ifthe size of the seeds growing in the pot bincreasesby one btwo-hundredthof their previous size, such that the permitted portion is not two hundred times the forbidden, newly grown portion, then the mixture bis prohibiteddue to the prohibition against planting diverse kinds in a vineyard. The forbidden portion is nullified only if it comprises less than one two-hundredth of the mixture. The Gemara reads precisely: bIf it increases, yes,it is prohibited; bif it does not increase, no,it is not prohibited. Apparently, only additional growth is prohibited, and not the seeds themselves., bRava said: Two verses are writtenabout this ihalakha /i, i.e., two separate terms in one verse indicate two separate prohibitions. The verse states: “You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed; lest the fullness of the seed which you have sown be forfeited together with the increase of the vineyard” (Deuteronomy 22:9). bIt is written: “The seed,”indicating that it is prohibited once it is planted and takes root, band it is written: “The fullness,”indicating that it is prohibited only if it has grown. bHowcan bthesetwo terms be reconciled? If it were bplanted initiallyin the vineyard, it becomes prohibited immediately bupon taking root.If it were bplantedelsewhere band broughtinto the vineyard later, such as in a perforated pot, then the following distinction applies: If bitssize bincreasesin the vineyard, byes,it is prohibited; if bitssize bdoes not increase, no,it is not prohibited.,The Gemara discusses another matter pertaining to deriving benefit. bRabbi Ya’akov saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa saidwith regard to objects from which it is prohibited to derive benefit: bOnemay bheal oneself with any substance except for wood of a tree designated for idolatry [ iasheira /i].The Gemara asks: bWhat are the circumstances? If we sayit is a case in which bthere is dangerto a person’s life, then it is permitted to use beven the wood of an iasheira /i. And ifit is a situation bwhere there is no danger,then ball the prohibitedsubstances bin the Torah alsomay bnotbe used, as one may not derive benefit from them.,The Gemara answers: bActually,it is referring to a case where bthere is danger, and even so,one my bnotderive benefit from bthe wood of an iasheira /i. As it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Eliezer says: If it is stated:“And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, band with all your soul,” why is it stated: “And with all your might”(Deuteronomy 6:5)? bAnd if it is stated: “With all your might,” why is it stated: “With all your soul”?One of these statements appears to be superfluous., bRather,it is bto tell youthat bif there is a person whose body is more beloved to him than his property, therefore it is stated: “With all your soul.”The verse teaches that one must be willing to sacrifice his life to sanctify God’s name. bAnd there is a person whose property is more beloved to him than his body, therefore it is stated: “With all your might.”Rabbi Eliezer understands the phrase: “With all your might,” to mean: With all your possessions. Apparently, there are circumstances in which a person must be prepared to die rather than be healed with a prohibited substance., bWhen Ravin camefrom the Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he bsaidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: Onemay bheal oneself with any substancefrom which one may not derive benefit, bexcept for idolatry or forbidden sexual relations /b |
|
18. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 74a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 74a. רב פפא אמר במפותה ודברי הכל,אביי אמר ביכול להציל באחד מאבריו ורבי יונתן בן שאול היא דתניא רבי יונתן בן שאול אומר רודף שהיה רודף אחר חבירו להורגו ויכול להצילו באחד מאבריו ולא הציל נהרג עליו,מאי טעמא דרבי יונתן בן שאול דכתיב (שמות כא, כב) וכי ינצו אנשים (יחדו) וגו' וא"ר אלעזר במצות שבמיתה הכתוב מדבר דכתיב (שמות כא, כג) ואם אסון יהיה ונתתה נפש תחת נפש ואפ"ה אמר רחמנא ולא יהיה אסון ענוש יענש,אי אמרת בשלמא יכול להציל באחד מאבריו לא ניתן להצילו בנפשו היינו דמשכחת לה דיענש כגון שיכול להציל באחד מאבריו,אלא אי אמרת יכול להציל באחד מאבריו נמי ניתן להצילו בנפשו היכי משכחת לה דיענש,דילמא שאני הכא דמיתה לזה ותשלומין לזה,לא שנא דאמר רבא רודף שהיה רודף אחר חבירו ושיבר את הכלים בין של נרדף ובין של כל אדם פטור מאי טעמא מתחייב בנפשו הוא,ונרדף ששיבר את הכלים של רודף פטור של כל אדם חייב של רודף פטור שלא יהא ממונו חביב עליו מגופו של כל אדם חייב שמציל עצמו בממון חבירו,ורודף שהיה רודף אחר רודף להצילו ושיבר את הכלים בין של רודף בין של נרדף בין של כל אדם פטור ולא מן הדין שאם אי אתה אומר כן נמצא אין לך כל אדם שמציל את חבירו מיד הרודף:,אבל הרודף אחר בהמה: תניא רשב"י אומר העובד עבודת כוכבים ניתן להצילו בנפשו מק"ו ומה פגם הדיוט ניתן להצילו בנפשו פגם גבוה לא כל שכן וכי עונשין מן הדין קא סבר עונשין מן הדין,תניא רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר המחלל את השבת ניתן להצילו בנפשו סבר לה כאבוה דאמר עונשין מן הדין ואתיא שבת בחילול חילול מעבודת כוכבים,א"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יהוצדק נימנו וגמרו בעליית בית נתזה בלוד כל עבירות שבתורה אם אומרין לאדם עבור ואל תהרג יעבור ואל יהרג חוץ מעבודת כוכבים וגילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים,ועבודת כוכבים לא והא תניא א"ר ישמעאל מנין שאם אמרו לו לאדם עבוד עבודת כוכבים ואל תהרג מנין שיעבוד ואל יהרג ת"ל (ויקרא יח, ה) וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם,יכול אפילו בפרהסיא תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כב, לב) ולא תחללו את שם קדשי ונקדשתי,אינהו דאמור כר"א דתניא ר"א אומר (דברים ו, ה) ואהבת את ה' אלהיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך ובכל מאדך אם נאמר בכל נפשך למה נאמר בכל מאדך ואם נאמר בכל מאדך למה נאמר בכל נפשך,אם יש לך אדם שגופו חביב עליו מממונו לכך נאמר בכל נפשך ואם יש לך אדם שממונו חביב עליו מגופו לכך נאמר בכל מאדך,גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים כדרבי דתניא רבי אומר (דברים כב, כו) כי כאשר יקום איש על רעהו ורצחו נפש כן הדבר הזה וכי מה למדנו מרוצח,מעתה הרי זה בא ללמד ונמצא למד מקיש רוצח לנערה המאורסה מה נערה המאורסה ניתן להצילו בנפשו אף רוצח ניתן להצילו בנפשו,ומקיש נערה המאורסה לרוצח מה רוצח יהרג ואל יעבור אף נערה המאורסה תהרג ואל תעבור,רוצח גופיה מנא לן סברא הוא דההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבה ואמר ליה אמר לי מרי דוראי זיל קטליה לפלניא ואי לא קטלינא לך אמר ליה לקטלוך ולא תיקטול מי יימר דדמא דידך סומק טפי דילמא דמא דהוא גברא סומק טפי,כי אתא רב דימי א"ר יוחנן לא שנו אלא שלא בשעת גזרת המלכות) אבל בשעת גזרת המלכות אפי' מצוה קלה יהרג ואל יעבור,כי אתא רבין א"ר יוחנן אפי' שלא בשעת גזרת מלכות לא אמרו אלא בצינעא אבל בפרהסיא אפי' מצוה קלה יהרג ואל יעבור,מאי מצוה קלה אמר רבא בר רב יצחק אמר רב | 74a. bRav Pappa says:The ruling of the mishna, which lists his sister among those for whom he must pay a fine, is stated bwith regard toa young woman who was bseduced, andin the case of seduction ball agreethat the woman is not saved at the cost of the seducer’s life, as the intercourse was consensual., bAbaye says:The ruling of the mishna is stated bwith regard toa young woman who was raped in a case bwhereone was bable to saveher by injuring the pursuer bin one of his limbs,so that it was not necessary to kill him in order to achieve her rescue, band it isin accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yonatan ben Shaul. As it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yonatan ben Shaul says:If ba pursuer was pursuing another to kill him, andone was bable to savethe pursued party without killing the pursuer, but instead by injuring him bin one of his limbs, but he did not save himin this manner and rather chose to kill him, bhe is executed on his accountas a murderer.,The Gemara explains: bWhat is the reason of Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul? As it is written: “If men striveand strike a woman with child, so that her fruit departs, and yet no further harm ensues, he shall be punished, according to the demands that the woman’s husband makes on him; and he shall pay it as the judges determine” (Exodus 21:22). bAndconcerning this bRabbi Elazar says: The verse is speaking of striving to kill,where each man was trying to kill the other. The proof is bthat it is written: “But if any harm ensues, then you shall give life for life”(Exodus 21:23), and if there was no intention to kill, why should he be executed? bAnd even so, the Merciful One states: “And yet no further harm ensues, he shall be punished,”teaching that he must pay the monetary value of the fetus to the woman’s husband., bGranted, if you saythat in a case where one is bable to savethe pursued party by injuring the pursuer bin one of his limbs, he may not savethe pursued party batthe cost of the pursuer’s blife,and if he killed the pursuer rather than injure him he is liable to receive the death penalty, bthat is how you findthe possibility bthatthe one who ultimately struck the woman bwould be punished.This would be in a case bwhere it was possible to savethe man under attack, i.e., one of the men who were fighting, by injuring the pursuer, i.e., the other man, who ultimately struck the woman, bin one of his limbs.In this case, the one who ultimately struck the woman was not subject to being killed. Therefore, he is subject to pay a fine., bBut if you saythat even if one is bable to savethe pursued party by injuring the pursuer bin one of his limbs, he can also save him atthe cost of the pursuer’s blife, how can you findthe possibility bthatthe one who ultimately struck the woman bwould be punished?When he was going to strike the other man, he was at risk of being killed, as anybody could have killed him at that time, and the ihalakhais that anybody who commits an act warranting death exempts himself from any monetary obligation ensuing from that act.,The Gemara tries to refute this reasoning: bPerhaps it is different here becausehis two liabilities are not on account of the same person; rather, his liability to be put to bdeath is on account of thisperson, the man with whom he fought, bwhilehis liability to give bpayment is on account of thatperson, the woman he ultimately struck. Consequently, he is liable to receive both punishments.,The Gemara rejects this distinction: There bis no difference. As Rava says:If ba pursuer was pursuing anotherto kill him, bandduring the course of the chase the pursuer bbroke vesselsbelonging beither to the person being pursued or to anyone else,he is bexemptfrom paying for the broken vessels. bWhat is the reasonfor this? The reason is that bhe is liable to be killed,since everyone is entitled to kill him in order to save the victim’s life, and one who commits an act rendering himself liable to be killed is exempt from any monetary obligation arising from that act, even if the payment were to be made to a person not connected to the act for which he is liable to be killed.,Rava continues: bAndif bthe pursuedparty bbroke vesselswhile fleeing from the pursuer, if those vessels bbelonged to the pursuer,the pursued party is bexempt.But if they bbelonged to anyoneelse, he is bliableto pay for them. The Gemara explains: If the vessels bbelonged to the pursuer,he is bexempt.The reason for this is bso that thepursuer’s bproperty should not be more precious tothe pursuer bthan hisown bbody.Were the one being pursued to cause the pursuer bodily harm, he would be exempt; all the more so when the pursued one breaks the pursuer’s vessels. And if the vessels belonged bto anyoneelse, he is bliable, as he saved himself atthe expense of banother’s property,and that other person should not have to suffer a loss on his account.,Rava continues: bButif one bpursuer was pursuinganother bpursuerin order bto save him,i.e., if he was trying to save the person being pursued by killing the pursuer, bandwhile doing so bhe broke vesselsbelonging beither to the pursuer or to the one being pursued, or to anyoneelse, he is bexemptfrom paying for them. The Gemara comments: This bis not bystrict blaw,as if one who saves himself at another’s expense is liable to pay for the damage, certainly one who saves another at the expense of a third party should bear similar liability. Rather, it is an ordice instituted by the Sages. This is bbecause if you do not saythat he is exempt, it will bbe found that no person will save another from a pursuer,as everyone will be afraid of becoming liable to pay for damage caused in the course of saving the pursued party.,§ The mishna teaches: bButwith regard to bone who pursues an animalto sodomize it, or one who seeks to desecrate Shabbat, or one who is going to engage in idol worship, they are not saved at the cost of their lives. bIt is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: One whoseeks to bworship idols may be savedfrom transgressing batthe cost of bhis life.This is derived bthrough an ia fortiori /iinference: bIfto avoid bthe degradation of an ordinaryperson, such as in the case of a rapist who degrades his victim, bhe can be savedeven batthe cost of bhis life, all the more sois it bnotclear that one may kill the transgressor to avoid bthe degrading ofthe honor of bGodthrough the worship of idols? The Gemara asks: bBut doesthe court badminister punishmentbased bonan ia fortiori binference?The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai bmaintainsthat the court badministers punishmentbased bonan ia fortiori binference. /b, bIt is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One whoseeks to bdesecrate Shabbat may be savedfrom transgressing even batthe cost of bhis life.The Gemara explains that Rabbi Elazar bholds in accordance withthe opinion of bhis father,Rabbi Shimon, bwho says:The court badministers punishmentbased bonan ia fortiori binference, andthe ihalakhawith regard to one who desecrates bShabbat is derived fromthe ihalakhawith regard to bidol worshipby way of a verbal analogy between the word b“desecration”mentioned in the context of Shabbat and the word b“desecration”mentioned in the context of idol worship.,§ The Gemara now considers which prohibitions are permitted in times of mortal danger. bRabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak:The Sages who discussed this issue bcountedthe votes of those assembled band concluded in the upper story of the house of Nitza inthe city of bLod:With regard to ballother btransgressions in the Torah, if a person is told: Transgressthis prohibition band you will not be killed, he may transgressthat prohibition band not be killed,because the preserving of his own life overrides all of the Torah’s prohibitions. This is the ihalakhaconcerning all prohibitions bexcept forthose of bidol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed.Concerning those prohibitions, one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress them.,The Gemara asks: bAndshould one bnottransgress the prohibition of bidol worshipto save his life? bBut isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yishmael said: From whereis it derived bthat if a person is told: Worship idols and you will not be killed, from whereis it derived bthat he should worshipthe idol band not be killed? The verse states:“You shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which a person shall do, band he shall live by them”(Leviticus 18:5), thereby teaching that the mitzvot were given to provide life, bbutthey were bnotgiven so bthatone will bdie due to theirobservance.,The ibaraitacontinues: One bmighthave thought that it is permitted to worship the idol in this circumstance beven in public,i.e., in the presence of many people. Therefore, bthe verse states: “Neither shall you profane My holy name; but I will be hallowedamong the children of Israel: I am the Lord Who sanctifies you” (Leviticus 22:32). Evidently, one is not required to allow himself to be killed so as not to transgress the prohibition of idol worship when in private; but in public he must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress.,The Gemara answers: bThosein the upper story of the house of Nitza bstatedtheir opinion bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Eliezer. As it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Eliezer says:It is stated: b“And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might”(Deuteronomy 6:5). bIf it is stated: “With all your soul,” why is italso bstated: “With all your might,”which indicates with all your material possessions? bAnd if it is stated: “With all your might,” why is italso bstated: “With all your soul”?One of these clauses seems to be superfluous.,Rather, this serves to teach that bif you have a person whose body is more precious to him than his property, it is therefore stated: “With all your soul.”That person must be willing to sacrifice even his life to sanctify God’s name. bAnd if you have a person whose property is more precious to him than his body, it is therefore stated: “With all your might.”That person must even be prepared to sacrifice all his property for the love of God. According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, one must allow himself to be killed rather than worship an idol.,From where is it derived that one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress the prohibition of bforbidden sexual relations andthe prohibition of bbloodshed?This is bin accordance withthe opinion bof RabbiYehuda HaNasi. bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays:With regard to the rape of a betrothed young woman it is written: “But you shall do nothing to the young woman; the young woman has committed no sin worthy of death; bfor as when a man rises against his neighbor, and slays him,so too with this matter” (Deuteronomy 22:26). But why would the verse mention murder in this context? bBut what do we learnhere bfrom a murderer? /b, bNow,the mention of murder bcamein order bto teacha ihalakhaabout the betrothed young woman, band it turns outthat, in addition, bit derivesa ihalakhafrom that case. The Torah bjuxtaposesthe case of ba murderer tothe case of ba betrothed young womanto indicate that bjust asin the case of a betrothed young woman bone may save her atthe cost of the rapist’s blife, so too,in the case of ba murderer, one may savethe potential victim batthe cost of the murderer’s blife. /b, bAndconversely, the Torah bjuxtaposes a betrothed young woman to a murdererto indicate that bjust aswith regard to a potential bmurderer,the ihalakhais that if one was ordered to murder another, bhe must be killed and not transgressthe prohibition of bloodshed, bso too,with regard to ba betrothed young woman,if she is faced with rape, bshe must be killed and not transgressthe prohibition of forbidden sexual relations.,The Gemara asks: bFrom where do wederive this ihalakhawith regard to ba murderer himself,that one must allow himself to be killed rather than commit murder? The Gemara answers: bIt isbased on blogical reasoningthat one life is not preferable to another, and therefore there is no need for a verse to teach this ihalakha /i. The Gemara relates an incident to demonstrate this: bAswhen ba certain person came before Rabba and said to him: The lord of my place,a local official, bsaid to me: Go kill so-and-so, and if not I will kill you,what shall I do? Rabba bsaid to him:It is preferable that bhe should kill you and you should not kill. Who is to say that your blood is redderthan his, that your life is worth more than the one he wants you to kill? bPerhaps that man’s blood is redder.This logical reasoning is the basis for the ihalakhathat one may not save his own life by killing another.,§ bWhen Rav Dimi camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, bhe saidthat bRabbi Yoḥasaid: The Sages btaughtthat one is permitted to transgress prohibitions in the face of mortal danger bonly when it is not a time ofreligious bpersecution. But in a time ofreligious bpersecution,when the gentile authorities are trying to force Jews to violate their religion, bevenif they issued a decree about ba minor mitzva, one must be killed and not transgress. /b, bWhen Ravin camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that bRabbi Yoḥa said: Even whenit is bnot a time ofreligious bpersecution,the Sages bsaidthat one is permitted to transgress a prohibition in the face of mortal danger bonlywhen he was ordered to do so bin private. Butif he was ordered to commit a transgression bin public, evenif they threaten him with death if he does not transgress ba minor mitzva, he must be killed and not transgress. /b,The Gemara asks: bWhat is a minor mitzvafor this purpose? bRava bar Yitzḥak saysthat bRav says: /b |
|
19. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, 82a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 82a. big strongמתני׳ /strong /big התינוקות אין מענין אותן ביוה"כ אבל מחנכין אותן לפני שנה ולפני שנתיים בשביל שיהיו רגילין במצות, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big השתא בפני שתים מחנכין להו בפני שנה מבעיא אמר רב חסדא לא קשיא הא בחולה הא בבריא,א"ר הונא בן ח' ובן ט' מחנכין אותו לשעות בן י' ובן י"א משלימין מדרבנן בן י"ב משלימין מדאורייתא בתינוקת ורב נחמן אמר בן ט' בן י' מחנכין אותן לשעות בן י"א בן י"ב משלימין מדרבנן בן י"ג משלימין מדאורייתא בתינוק ור' יוחנן אמר השלמה דרבנן ליכא בן י' בן י"א מחנכין אותו לשעות בן י"ב משלימין מדאורייתא,תנן התינוקות אין מענין אותן ביוה"כ אבל מחנכין אותן לפני שנה ולפני שתים בשלמא לרב הונא ורב נחמן לפני שנה ולפני שתים לפני שנה לדבריהן ולפני שתים לדבריהן,אלא לרבי יוחנן קשיא אמר לך רבי יוחנן מאי שנה או שתים סמוך לפירקן,ת"ש דתני רבה בר שמואל תינוקות אין מענין אותן ביוה"כ אבל מחנכין אותן שנה או שתים סמוך לפירקן בשלמא לר' יוחנן ניחא אלא לרב הונא ולרב נחמן קשיא אמרי לך רבנן מאי חינוך נמי דקתני השלמה,ומי קרי לחינוך השלמה והא תניא אי זה חינוך היה רגיל לאכול בשתי שעות מאכילין אותו לשלש בשלש מאכילין אותו בארבע אמר רבא בר עולא תרי חנוכי הוו, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big עוברה שהריחה מאכילין אותה עד שתשיב נפשה חולה מאכילין אותו ע"פ בקיאין ואם אין שם בקיאין מאכילין אותו על פי עצמו עד שיאמר די, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר עוברה שהריחה בשר קודש או בשר חזיר תוחבין לה כוש ברוטב ומניחין לה על פיה אם נתיישבה דעתה מוטב ואם לאו מאכילין אותה רוטב עצמה ואם נתיישבה דעתה מוטב ואם לאו מאכילין אותה שומן עצמו שאין לך דבר שעומד בפני פקוח נפש חוץ מע"ז וגילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים,ע"ז מנלן דתניא ר"א אומר אם נאמר (דברים ו, ה) בכל נפשך למה נאמר (דברים ו, ה) בכל מאדך ואם נאמר בכל מאדך למה נאמר בכל נפשך,אם יש לך אדם שגופו חביב עליו מממונו לכך נאמר בכל נפשך ואם יש לך אדם שממונו חביב עליו מגופו לכך נאמר ובכל מאדך,גילוי עריות ושפיכת דמים מנא לן דתניא רבי אומר (דברים כב, כו) כי כאשר יקום איש על רעהו ורצחו נפש כן הדבר הזה וכי מה ענין למדנו מרוצח לנערה המאורסה,אלא ה"ז בא ללמד ונמצא למד מה נערה המאורסה ניתן להצילה בנפשו אף רוצח (כו') מה רוצח יהרג ואל יעבור אף נערה המאורסה יהרג ואל יעבור | 82a. strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to bthe children, one does not afflict themby withholding food bon Yom Kippur; however, one trains them one year before or two years beforethey reach majority, by means of a partial fast lasting several hours, bso that they will be accustomed tofulfill bmitzvot. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks about the wording of the mishna: bSinceit is stated that one trains children btwoyears bbeforetheir maturity, is it bnecessary to say that one trains them one year before?This expression in the mishna is superfluous. bRav Ḥisda said:This is bnot difficult. Thisstatement that one trains children one year before their maturity is referring bto a feeblechild; bthatstatement that one trains children two years before their maturity is referring bto a healthychild., bRav Huna said: One trainsa healthy child bof eightyears band nineyears to fast bforseveral bhours;at btenyears band elevenyears, bthey completethe fast bby rabbiniclaw; bat twelveyears bthey completethe fast bby Torahlaw. This applies bto girlswho reach maturity and become obligated in mitzvot at age twelve. bAnd Rav Naḥman said: At nineyears and btenyears bone trains themto fast bforseveral bhours; at eleven and twelveyears bthey completethe fast bby rabbiniclaw; bat thirteenyears bthey completethe fast bby Torahlaw. This applies bto boys. And Rabbi Yoḥa said: There is noobligation with regard to children bcompletingthe fast bby rabbiniclaw. Rather, bat ten and elevenyears, bone trains themto fast bforseveral bhours; and at twelveyears girls are obligated to bcompletetheir fast bby Torahlaw.,§ bWe learnedin the mishna: With regard to bthe children, one does not afflict themby withholding food bon Yom Kippur; however, one trains themfor bone year before or twoyears bbeforethey reach maturity. bGranted,this makes sense according to the opinion of bRav Huna and Rav Naḥman,who hold that for one or two years before reaching maturity there is a rabbinic law requiring children to complete the fast. The mishna that states bone year before or twoyears bbeforeshould be understood as follows: A feeble child is obligated to complete the fast on Yom Kippur in the byear beforereaching maturity bby rabbiniclaw, banda healthy child is obligated to complete the fast on Yom Kippur in the btwoyears bbeforereaching maturity bby rabbiniclaw (Vilna Gaon)., bButaccording bto Rabbi Yoḥa,who holds that there is no rabbinic law to complete the fast, this is bdifficult.In his opinion, what is the difference between one year before and two years before? bRabbi Yoḥacould have bsaid to you: Whatis the meaning of bone year or twoyears? One year is referring not to the year before the year preceding their maturity, i.e. the two years preceding it, but actually to the year bpreceding their maturity.The phrase: One or two years, indicates that there is a difference between those who are required for one year and those who required for two, which depends on their health: The healthy child is required to fast two years, but one year is sufficient for a feeble child., bComeand bhear thatwhich bRabba bar Shmuel taughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to bchildren, one does not afflict themby withholding food bon Yom Kippur; however, one trains them one yearfor a feeble child bor twoyears for a healthy child bpreceding their maturity. Granted,according btothe opinion of bRabbi Yoḥa, this works out well; butaccording bto Rav Huna and Rav Naḥman,who say that there is an additional year that one is required to complete the fast according to rabbinic law, this is bdifficult. The Rabbiscould bsay to you: What isthis btraining that is also taughtthere? It is referring to fasting ba completeday, which is required by rabbinic law. By rabbinic law, the time of completing the fast for a healthy child is two years before he reaches maturity.,The Gemara asks: bAnd is training called completion?Doesn’t training mean that the child performs only part of the mitzva? bWasn’tit btaughtexplicitly in a ibaraita /i: bWhat is training? Ifthe child bwas accustomed to eatevery day bat the secondhour of the day, bone feeds him at the thirdhour, so he will begin to understand the concept of affliction. If he was accustomed to eat bat the thirdhour, bone feeds him at the fourthhour. bRava bar Ulla said:This is not difficult; bthese are twodifferent types of btraining.There is training of small children to wait slightly longer before eating, and training of older children, in which one habituates them to fasting a full day., strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to ba pregt woman who smelledfood and was overcome by a craving to eat it, bone feeds her until she recovers,as failure to do so could lead to a life-threatening situation. If a person is billand requires food due to potential danger, bone feeds him according tothe advice of medical bexpertswho determine that he indeed requires food. bAnd if there are no experts there, one feeds him according to his owninstructions, buntil he saysthat he has eaten benoughand needs no more., strongGEMARA: /strong bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to ba pregt woman who smelled consecrated meat or pig meatand craved those specific foods, bone inserts a thin reed into the juiceof that item band places it on her mouth. If her mind become settledwith that, bit is well. And if not, one feeds her the gravy itselfof that forbidden food. bIf her mind becomes settledwith that, bit is well. And if not, one feeds her the fatof the forbidden food bitself, as there is no ihalakha bthat stands in the way of saving a life except forthe prohibitions against bidol worship, and forbidden sexual relationships, and bloodshed. /b,The Gemara clarifies: With regard to the ihalakhathat the prohibition against bidol worshiptakes precedence over saving one’s life, bfrom wheredo bwederive this? bAs it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Eliezer says: If it is stated:“And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, band with all your soul”(Deuteronomy 6:5), bwhy is it statedin the continuation of the verse: b“And with all your might”(Deuteronomy 6:5)? bAnd if it is stated: “With all your might,” why is it stated: “With all your soul”?One of these statements appears to be superfluous.,Rather, it is to teach that bif there is a person whose body is more beloved to him than his property, therefore it is stated: “With all your soul.”The verse teaches that one must be willing to sacrifice his life to sanctify God’s name. bAnd if there is a person whose property is more beloved to him than his body, therefore it is stated: “With all your might.”Rabbi Eliezer understands the phrase “with all your might” to mean: With all your possessions. Therefore, one must be prepared to forfeit his life rather than be saved through idol worship.,§ With regard to the concept that one must surrender his life rather than have bforbidden sexual relations or shed bloodthrough murder, bfrom wheredo bwederive this? bAs it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays:It is stated about the rape of a betrothed woman: b“For as when a man rises against his fellow and slays him, even so is this matter”(Deuteronomy 22:26). One might ask: bWhat idea did we learn about a betrothed woman from a murderer?The ihalakhaof a betrothed woman is clear; what new point is learned by comparing it to the ihalakhaof a murderer?, bRather, this ihalakhaabout the murderer, which appears to bcome to teachabout the betrothed woman, bis found toactually be the bsubject of teaching.The inference is as follows: bJust aswith regard to bthe betrothed woman,permission is bgiven to save her atthe cost of the blife ofher attacker, bso too,the bmurderermay be saved from committing the crime at the cost of his life, i.e., one may save the victim by killing the attacker. Another teaching is derived in the opposite direction, from the case of murder to the case of rape. bJust asthe bmurdereris subject to the ihalakhaof blet him be killed, and let him not transgress,i.e., one must even allow himself to be killed rather than take the life of another, bso too,a man must surrender his life rather than engage in forbidden sexual relations with ba betrothed young woman.By inference, the ihalakhaof blet him be killed, and let him not transgress,applies to all forbidden sexual relations. |
|
