1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 5.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 5.16. כַּבֵּד אֶת־אָבִיךָ וְאֶת־אִמֶּךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְמַעַן יַאֲרִיכֻן יָמֶיךָ וּלְמַעַן יִיטַב לָךְ עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ׃ | 5.16. Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God commanded thee; that thy days may be long, and that it may go well with thee, upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 20.12, 21.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 20.12. כַּבֵּד אֶת־אָבִיךָ וְאֶת־אִמֶּךָ לְמַעַן יַאֲרִכוּן יָמֶיךָ עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ׃ 21.16. וְגֹנֵב אִישׁ וּמְכָרוֹ וְנִמְצָא בְיָדוֹ מוֹת יוּמָת׃ | 20.12. Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." 21.16. And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 6.9, 17.1, 24.40 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 6.9. אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת נֹחַ נֹחַ אִישׁ צַדִּיק תָּמִים הָיָה בְּדֹרֹתָיו אֶת־הָאֱלֹהִים הִתְהַלֶּךְ־נֹחַ׃ 17.1. זֹאת בְּרִיתִי אֲשֶׁר תִּשְׁמְרוּ בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵיכֶם וּבֵין זַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ הִמּוֹל לָכֶם כָּל־זָכָר׃ 17.1. וַיְהִי אַבְרָם בֶּן־תִּשְׁעִים שָׁנָה וְתֵשַׁע שָׁנִים וַיֵּרָא יְהוָה אֶל־אַבְרָם וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֲנִי־אֵל שַׁדַּי הִתְהַלֵּךְ לְפָנַי וֶהְיֵה תָמִים׃ | 6.9. These are the generations of Noah. Noah was in his generations a man righteous and wholehearted; Noah walked with God." 17.1. And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him: ‘I am God Almighty; walk before Me, and be thou wholehearted." 24.40. And he said unto me: The LORD, before whom I walk, will send His angel with thee, and prosper thy way; and thou shalt take a wife for my son of my kindred, and of my father’s house;" |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 13.1-14.32, 19.16, 20.19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 12.1 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 12.1. וְהֶעָנָן סָר מֵעַל הָאֹהֶל וְהִנֵּה מִרְיָם מְצֹרַעַת כַּשָּׁלֶג וַיִּפֶן אַהֲרֹן אֶל־מִרְיָם וְהִנֵּה מְצֹרָעַת׃ 12.1. וַתְּדַבֵּר מִרְיָם וְאַהֲרֹן בְּמֹשֶׁה עַל־אֹדוֹת הָאִשָּׁה הַכֻּשִׁית אֲשֶׁר לָקָח כִּי־אִשָּׁה כֻשִׁית לָקָח׃ | 12.1. And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married; for he had married a Cushite woman." |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, 11.13, 20.19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 11.13. הוֹלֵךְ רָכִיל מְגַלֶּה־סּוֹד וְנֶאֱמַן־רוּחַ מְכַסֶּה דָבָר׃ 20.19. גּוֹלֶה־סּוֹד הוֹלֵךְ רָכִיל וּלְפֹתֶה שְׂפָתָיו לֹא תִתְעָרָב׃ | 11.13. He that goeth about as a talebearer revealeth secrets; But he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth a matter." 20.19. He that goeth about as a talebearer revealeth secrets; therefore meddle not with him that openeth wide his lips." |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 19.8, 107.42 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 19.8. תּוֹרַת יְהוָה תְּמִימָה מְשִׁיבַת נָפֶשׁ עֵדוּת יְהוָה נֶאֱמָנָה מַחְכִּימַת פֶּתִי׃ 107.42. יִרְאוּ יְשָׁרִים וְיִשְׂמָחוּ וְכָל־עַוְלָה קָפְצָה פִּיהָ׃ | 19.8. The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. ." 107.42. The upright see it, and are glad; And all iniquity stoppeth her mouth." |
|
8. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 1.17, 29.13, 34.16, 40.3 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 1.17. לִמְדוּ הֵיטֵב דִּרְשׁוּ מִשְׁפָּט אַשְּׁרוּ חָמוֹץ שִׁפְטוּ יָתוֹם רִיבוּ אַלְמָנָה׃ 29.13. וַיֹּאמֶר אֲדֹנָי יַעַן כִּי נִגַּשׁ הָעָם הַזֶּה בְּפִיו וּבִשְׂפָתָיו כִּבְּדוּנִי וְלִבּוֹ רִחַק מִמֶּנִּי וַתְּהִי יִרְאָתָם אֹתִי מִצְוַת אֲנָשִׁים מְלֻמָּדָה׃ 34.16. דִּרְשׁוּ מֵעַל־סֵפֶר יְהוָה וּקְרָאוּ אַחַת מֵהֵנָּה לֹא נֶעְדָּרָה אִשָּׁה רְעוּתָהּ לֹא פָקָדוּ כִּי־פִי הוּא צִוָּה וְרוּחוֹ הוּא קִבְּצָן׃ 40.3. קוֹל קוֹרֵא בַּמִּדְבָּר פַּנּוּ דֶּרֶךְ יְהוָה יַשְּׁרוּ בָּעֲרָבָה מְסִלָּה לֵאלֹהֵינוּ׃ 40.3. וְיִעֲפוּ נְעָרִים וְיִגָעוּ וּבַחוּרִים כָּשׁוֹל יִכָּשֵׁלוּ׃ | 1.17. Learn to do well; Seek justice, relieve the oppressed, Judge the fatherless, plead for the widow." 29.13. And the Lord said: Forasmuch as this people draw near, and with their mouth and with their lips do honour Me, But have removed their heart far from Me, And their fear of Me is a commandment of men learned by rote;" 34.16. Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read; No one of these shall be missing, None shall want her mate; For My mouth it hath commanded, And the breath thereof it hath gathered them." 40.3. Hark! one calleth: ‘Clear ye in the wilderness the way of the LORD, make plain in the desert a highway for our God." |
|
9. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 22.19-22.21 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 22.19. לָכֵן כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה יַעַן הֱיוֹת כֻּלְּכֶם לְסִגִים לָכֵן הִנְנִי קֹבֵץ אֶתְכֶם אֶל־תּוֹךְ יְרוּשָׁלִָם׃ 22.21. וְכִנַּסְתִּי אֶתְכֶם וְנָפַחְתִּי עֲלֵיכֶם בְּאֵשׁ עֶבְרָתִי וְנִתַּכְתֶּם בְּתוֹכָהּ׃ | 22.19. Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD: Because ye are all become dross, therefore, behold, I will gather you into the midst of Jerusalem." 22.20. As they gather silver and brass and iron and lead and tin into the midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it, to melt it; so will I gather you in Mine anger and in My fury, and I will cast you in, and melt you." 22.21. Yea, I will gather you, and blow upon you with the fire of My wrath, and ye shall be melted in the midst thereof." |
|
10. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 4.8-4.12, 5.7-5.15, 6.2-6.11, 6.14, 6.18-6.20, 7.5, 7.18, 8.16, 12.3-12.4, 12.6, 12.19, 12.21-12.22, 13.4-13.6, 14.12-14.13, 14.18, 15.7, 16.12, 20.1-20.5, 20.7-20.13, 20.30-20.33 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
11. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 4.8-4.12, 5.7-5.15, 6.2-6.11, 6.14, 6.18-6.20, 7.5, 7.18, 8.16, 12.3-12.4, 12.6, 12.19, 12.21-12.22, 13.4-13.6, 14.12-14.13, 14.18, 15.7, 16.12, 20.1-20.13, 20.30-20.33 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
12. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q174 (The Florilegium) 195, 199, 339, 1.11, 1.14 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
13. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 1.11, 3.20-3.21, 4.15, 5.7-5.12, 6.6, 6.24, 8.10-8.16, 8.26, 9.10-9.13 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
14. Mishnah, Avot, 1.1-1.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.1. Moses received the torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be patient in [the administration of] justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah." 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." |
|
15. Mishnah, Makkot, 3.15 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 3.15. All who have incurred [the penalty of] kareth, on being flogged are exempt from their punishment of kareth, for it says, “[He may be given up to forty lashes, but not more] ... lest your brother shall be dishonored before your eyes” (Deut. 25;3) once he has been lashed he is [considered] “your brother”, the words of Rabbi Haiah ben Gamaliel. Rabbi Haiah ben Gamaliel said: “Just as one who transgresses one transgression forfeits his life, how much more does one who performs one commandment have his life granted him.” Rabbi Shimon says: “You can learn this from its own passage; as it says: “[All who do any of those abhorrent things] such persons shall be cut off from their people” (Lev. 18:29), and it says: “You shall keep my statutes and my ordices which if a man do, he shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5), which means that one who desists from transgressing is granted reward like one who performs a precept. Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi says: Behold [the Torah] says, “But makes sure that you do not partake of the blood; for the blood is the life, and you must not consume the life with the flesh…[that it may go well with you and with your descendents to come..” (Deut. 12:23-25”-- now, if in the case of blood which a person’s soul loathes, anyone who refrains from it receives reward, how much more so in regard to robbery and sexual sin for which a person’s soul craves and longs shall one who refrains from them acquire merit for himself and for generations and generations to come, to the end of all generations! |
|
16. New Testament, Mark, 7.1-7.23 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 7.1. Then the Pharisees, and some of the scribes gathered together to him, having come from Jerusalem. 7.2. Now when they saw some of his disciples eating bread with defiled, that is, unwashed, hands, they found fault. 7.3. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, don't eat unless they wash their hands and forearms, holding to the tradition of the elders. 7.4. They don't eat when they come from the marketplace, unless they bathe themselves, and there are many other things, which they have received to hold to: washings of cups, pitchers, bronze vessels, and couches.) 7.5. The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why don't your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands? 7.6. He answered them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, But their heart is far from me. 7.7. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' 7.8. For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men -- the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things. 7.9. He said to them, "Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 7.10. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother;' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' 7.11. But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to say, given to God;"' 7.12. then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother 7.13. making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this. 7.14. He called all the multitude to himself, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand. 7.15. There is nothing from outside of the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man. 7.16. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear! 7.17. When he had entered into a house away from the multitude, his disciples asked him about the parable. 7.18. He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Don't you perceive that whatever goes into the man from outside can't defile him 7.19. because it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus making all foods clean? 7.20. He said, "That which proceeds out of the man, that defiles the man. 7.21. For from within, out of the hearts of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual sins, murders, thefts 7.22. covetings, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness. 7.23. All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. |
|
17. Palestinian Talmud, Peah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
|
18. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 23b. (ויקרא יח, ה) אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם הא כל היושב ולא עבר עבירה נותנין לו שכר כעושה מצוה,ר"ש בר רבי אומר הרי הוא אומר (דברים יב, כג) רק חזק לבלתי אכול (את) הדם כי הדם הוא הנפש וגו' ומה אם הדם שנפשו של אדם קצה ממנו הפורש ממנו מקבל שכר גזל ועריות שנפשו של אדם מתאוה להן ומחמדתן הפורש מהן על אחת כמה וכמה שיזכה לו ולדורותיו ולדורות דורותיו עד סוף כל הדורות,ר' חנניא בן עקשיא אומר רצה הקב"ה לזכות את ישראל לפיכך הרבה להם תורה ומצות שנאמר (ישעיהו מב, כא) ה' חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big א"ר יוחנן חלוקין עליו חבריו על רבי חנניה בן גמליאל אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אמרי בי רב תנינן אין בין שבת ליום הכפורים אלא שזה זדונו בידי אדם וזה זדונו בהכרת ואם איתא אידי ואידי בידי אדם הוא,רב נחמן (בר יצחק) אומר הא מני רבי יצחק היא דאמר מלקות בחייבי כריתות ליכא דתניא רבי יצחק אומר חייבי כריתות בכלל היו ולמה יצאת כרת באחותו לדונו בכרת ולא במלקות,רב אשי אמר אפילו תימא רבנן זה עיקר זדונו בידי אדם וזה עיקר זדונו בידי שמים,אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אמר רב הלכה כר' חנניה בן גמליאל אמר רב יוסף מאן סליק לעילא ואתא ואמר אמר ליה אביי אלא הא דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי שלשה דברים עשו ב"ד של מטה והסכימו ב"ד של מעלה על ידם מאן סליק לעילא ואתא ואמר אלא קראי קא דרשינן ה"נ קראי קא דרשינן,גופא א"ר יהושע בן לוי שלשה דברים עשו ב"ד של מטה והסכימו ב"ד של מעלה על ידם [אלו הן] מקרא מגילה ושאילת שלום [בשם] והבאת מעשר,מקרא מגילה דכתיב (אסתר ט, כז) קימו וקבלו היהודים קיימו למעלה מה שקבלו למטה,ושאילת שלום דכתיב (רות ב, ד) והנה בועז בא מבית לחם ויאמר לקוצרים ה' עמכם ואומר (שופטים ו, יב) ה' עמך גבור החיל מאי ואומר וכי תימא בועז הוא דעביד מדעתיה ומשמיא לא אסכימו על ידו ת"ש ואומר ה' עמך גבור החיל,הבאת מעשר דכתיב (מלאכי ג, י) הביאו את כל המעשר אל בית האוצר ויהי טרף בביתי ובחנוני נא בזאת אמר ה' צבאות אם לא אפתח לכם את ארובות השמים והריקותי לכם ברכה עד בלי די מאי עד בלי די אמר רמי בר רב עד שיבלו שפתותיכם מלומר די,א"ר אלעזר בג' מקומות הופיע רוח הקודש בבית דינו של שם ובבית דינו של שמואל הרמתי ובבית דינו של שלמה בבית דינו של שם דכתיב (בראשית לח, כו) ויכר יהודה ויאמר צדקה ממני מנא ידע דלמא כי היכי דאזל איהו לגבה אזל נמי אינש אחרינא [לגבה] יצאת בת קול ואמרה ממני יצאו כבושים:,בבית דינו של שמואל דכתיב (שמואל א יב, ג) הנני ענו בי נגד ה' ונגד משיחו את שור מי לקחתי ויאמרו לא עשקתנו ולא רצותנו ויאמר עד ה' ועד משיחו כי לא מצאתם בידי מאומה ויאמר עד ויאמר ויאמרו מיבעי ליה יצאת בת קול ואמרה אני עד בדבר זה,בבית דינו של שלמה דכתיב (מלכים א ג, כז) ויען המלך ויאמר תנו לה את הילד החי והמת לא תמיתוהו (כי) היא אמו מנא ידע דלמא איערומא מיערמא יצאת בת קול ואמרה היא אמו,אמר רבא ממאי דלמא יהודה כיון דחשיב ירחי ויומי ואיתרמי דחזינן מחזקינן דלא חזינן לא מחזקינן,שמואל נמי כולהו ישראל קרי להו בלשון יחידי דכתיב (ישעיהו מה, יז) ישראל נושע בה',שלמה נמי מדהא קא מרחמתא והא לא קא מרחמתא אלא גמרא:,דרש רבי שמלאי שש מאות ושלש עשרה מצות נאמרו לו למשה שלש מאות וששים וחמש לאוין כמנין ימות החמה ומאתים וארבעים ושמונה עשה כנגד איבריו של אדם אמר רב המנונא מאי קרא (דברים לג, ד) תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה תורה בגימטריא | 23b. b“That a person shall perform and live by them”(Leviticus 18:5). It is inferred bthatwith regard to bone who sits and did not perform a transgression,God bgives him a reward likethat received by one who bperforms a mitzva. /b, bRabbi Shimon bar RabbiYehuda HaNasi bsaysthat as the verse bstates: “Only be steadfast to not eat the blood, as the blood is the soul”(Deuteronomy 12:23), it can be derived ia fortiori /i: bAnd ifwith regard to bthe blood, which a person’s soul loathes, one who abstains from itsconsumption breceives a rewardfor that action, as it is written in a subsequent verse: “You shall not eat it, so that it shall be good for you and for your children after you” (Deuteronomy 12:25); then concerning brobbery andintercourse with bforbidden relatives, which a person’s soul desires and covets, one who abstains from theirperformance and overcomes his inclination, ball the more so that he and his descendants and the descendants of his descendants until the end of all generations will merita reward., bRabbi Ḥaya ben Akashya says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to confer merit upon the Jewish people; therefore, He increased for them Torah and mitzvot,as each mitzva increases merit, bas it is stated: “It pleased the Lord for the sake of His righteousness to make the Torah great and glorious”(Isaiah 42:21). God sought to make the Torah great and glorious by means of the proliferation of mitzvot., strongGEMARA: /strong bRabbi Yoḥa says: Rabbi Ḥaya ben Gamliel’s colleagues are in disagreement with himand hold that lashes do not exempt the sinner from ikaret /i. bRav Adda bar Ahava saidthat this is so, as bthey sayin bthe school of Ravthat bwe learnedin a mishna ( iMegilla7b): bThe difference between Shabbat and Yom Kippurwith regard to the labor prohibited on those days bis only thatin bthiscase, Shabbat, bits intentionaldesecration is punishable bby human hands,as he is stoned by a court based on the testimony of witnesses who forewarned the transgressor, bandin bthatcase, Yom Kippur, bits intentionaldesecration is punishable at the hand of God, bwith ikaret /i. And ifthe statement of Rabbi Ḥaya ben Gamliel bis so,in both bthiscase, Shabbat, band thatcase, Yom Kippur, the punishment would be bby human hands.Apparently, the itannaof the mishna, the Rabbis, disagrees with Rabbi Ḥaya ben Gamliel., bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says:There is no proof from here that Rabbi Ḥaya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him, as in accordance with bwhoseopinion bis thismishna taught? bIt isin accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yitzḥak, who says: There are no lashes incases of bthose liableto receive ikaret /i. As it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yitzḥak says:All bthose liableto receive ikaret /iin cases of forbidden relations bwere included inthe principle: “For whoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the people who commit them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29). bAnd why was ikaret /iin the case of relations with bone’s sister excludedfrom this verse and mentioned independently (Leviticus 20:17)? It is bto sentenceone who transgresses a prohibition punishable with ikaret btobe punished bwith ikaret /ialone, band not with lashes.Other Sages disagree with Rabbi Yitzḥak (see 13b)., bRav Ashi said: Evenif byou saythat the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of bthe Rabbis,who disagree with Rabbi Yitzḥak and hold that there are lashes even in cases where there is liability for ikaret /i, there is no proof that Rabbi Ḥaya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him. The mishna can be understood as follows: In bthiscase, Shabbat, the bprimarypunishment for bits intentionaldesecration is bby human hands, andin bthatcase, Yom Kippur, the bprimarypunishment for bits intentionaldesecration is ikaret /i, which is a punishment bat the hand of Heaven.If he was flogged, he is exempt from ikaret /i., bRav Adda bar Ahava saysthat bRav says: The ihalakha /iis bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Ḥaya ben Gamliel,who ruled that lashes exempt the sinner from ikaret /i. bRav Yosef said: Who ascended on high and came and saidto you that one who is flogged is exempted from ikaret /i? That is not dependent upon the decision of an earthly court. bAbaye said toRav Yosef: bButaccording to your reasoning, then with regard to bthat which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says:There are bthree mattersthat the bearthly court implemented and the heavenly court agreed with them,the same question applies: bWho ascended on high and came and saidto him that this is so? bRather,in arriving at Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s conclusion bwehomiletically binterpret verses. Here too,with regard to lashes and ikaret /i, bwehomiletically binterpret verses. /b,§ With regard to bthematter bitself, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says:There are bthree mattersthat the bearthly court implemented and the heavenly court agreed with them, and these are they: Reading the Scrollof Esther on Purim, band greetinganother bwith the name of God, and bringingthe first btitheto the Temple treasury in Jerusalem. From where is it derived that the heavenly court agreed with them?, bReading the Scrollof Esther is derived from a verse, bas it is written: “The Jews confirmed, and they took upon themselves”(Esther 9:27). The verse could have simply said: They took upon themselves. From the formulation of the verse it is interpreted: bThey confirmed abovein Heaven that bwhich they took upon themselves belowon earth., bAnd greetinganother with the name of God is derived from a verse, bas it is written: “And presently Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the harvesters: The Lord is with you, and they said to him: May the Lord bless you”(Ruth 2:4). bAnd it states:“And the angel of the Lord appeared to him and said to him: bThe Lord is with you, mighty man of valor”(Judges 6:12). The Gemara asks: bWhatis the reason that the Gemara cites the additional source about Gideon, introduced with the phrase: bAnd it states?Why was the proof from Boaz’s statement to the harvesters insufficient? The Gemara explains: bAnd if you would say: It is Boaz who didso bon his own, and from Heaven they did not agree with him; comeand bhearproof, band it says: “The Lord is with you, mighty man of valor.”The angel greeted Gideon with the name of God, indicating that there is agreement in Heaven that this is an acceptable form of greeting.,From where is it derived that the heavenly court agreed to the bbringingof the first btitheto the Temple treasury in Jerusalem? It is derived from a verse, bas it is written: “Bring you the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now with this, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour you out a blessing, that there shall be more than sufficiency [ iad beli dai /i]”(Malachi 3:10). This indicates that the heavenly court agreed that the first tithe should be brought to the Temple treasury. The Gemara asks: bWhatis the meaning of b“ iad beli dai /i”? Rami bar Rav says:It means that the abundance will be so great bthat your lips will be worn out [ iyivlu /i], from saying enough [ idai /i]. /b,The Gemara cites a somewhat similar statement. bRabbi Elazar says: In three places the Divine Spirit appearedbefore all to affirm that the action taken was appropriate: bIn the court of Shem, in the court of Samuel the Ramathite, and in the court of Solomon.The Gemara elaborates: This occurred bin the court of Shem, as it is writtenin the context of the episode of Judah and Tamar: b“And Judah acknowledged them and said: She is more righteous than I [ imimmenni /i]”(Genesis 38:26). bHow didJudah bknowthat Tamar’s assertion that she was bearing his child was correct? bPerhaps, just as he went to herand hired her as a prostitute, banother person went to herand hired her bas well,and he is not the father. Rather, ba Divine Voice emerged and said:It is bfrom Me [ imimmenni /i]that these bsecrets emerged.God affirmed that her assertion was correct and that it was His divine plan that Judah would father a child from Tamar.,Likewise, this occurred bin the court of Samuel, as it is written: “Here I am; testify against me before the Lord and before His anointed: Whose ox have I taken…And they said: You have neither defrauded us nor oppressed us…And he said to them: The Lord is witness against you, and His anointed is witness this day, that you have not found anything in my hand. And he said: He is witness”(I Samuel 12:3–5). Based on the context, instead of the singular: b“And he said,”the plural: bAnd they said, should havebeen written, as the verse appears to be the reply of the Jewish people to Samuel’s challenge, attesting to the truth of his statement. Rather, ba Divine Voice emerged and said: I,God, bam witness to this matter. /b,This occurred bin the court of Solomon,when the Divine Spirit appeared in the dispute between two prostitutes over who was the mother of the surviving child, bas it is written: “And the king answered and said: Give her the living child, and do not slay him; she is his mother”(I Kings 3:27). bHow didSolomon bknowthat she was the mother? bPerhaps she was deviousand was not the mother of the surviving child at all. Rather, ba Divine Voice emerged and said: She is his mother. /b, bRava said: From wheredo you draw these conclusions? None of these proofs is absolute. bPerhapsin the case of bJudah, once he calculatedthe passage of the bmonths and the daysfrom when he engaged in intercourse with Tamar band it happenedto correspond with the duration of her pregcy, he realized that her assertion is correct. There is no room to suspect that another man was the father, as the principle is: Based on that bwhich we see, we establish presumptive status;based on that bwhich we do not see, we do not establish presumptive status. /b,With regard to bSamuel too,no proof may be cited from the use of the singular, as on occasion the bentire Jewish people is referred to in the singular, as it is written,e.g.: b“The Jewish people is saved by the Lord”(Isaiah 45:17).,With regard to bSolomon too,perhaps he reasoned that bdue tothe fact bthat thiswoman bis mercifuland seeks to spare the baby band thiswoman bis not merciful,it is evident that the former is its mother. bRather,Rava concludes: There is no proof from the verses that a Divine Spirit appeared in those circumstances; rather, there is ba traditionthat this is the case.,§ bRabbi Simlai taught:There were b613 mitzvot stated to Mosesin the Torah, consisting of b365 prohibitions corresponding to the number of daysin bthe solar year, and 248 positivemitzvot bcorresponding tothe number of ba person’s limbs. Rav Hamnuna said: What is the versethat alludes to this? It is written: b“Moses commanded to us the Torah, an inheritanceof the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4). The word bTorah, interms of bits numerical value [ igimatriyya /i], /b |
|
19. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 28a. ולא ברכתי לפני כהן ולא אכלתי מבהמה שלא הורמו מתנותיה,דא"ר יצחק א"ר יוחנן אסור לאכול מבהמה שלא הורמו מתנותיה ואמר ר' יצחק כל האוכל מבהמה שלא הורמו מתנותיה כאילו אוכל טבלים ולית הלכתא כוותיה,ולא ברכתי לפני כהן,למימרא דמעליותא היא והא א"ר יוחנן כל תלמיד חכם שמברך לפניו אפילו כ"ג עם הארץ אותו ת"ח חייב מיתה שנאמר (משלי ח, לו) כל משנאי אהבו מות אל תקרי משנאי אלא משניאי,כי קאמר איהו בשוין,שאלו תלמידיו את רבי נחוניא בן הקנה במה הארכת ימים אמר להם מימי לא נתכבדתי בקלון חברי ולא עלתה על מטתי קללת חברי וותרן בממוני הייתי,לא נתכבדתי בקלון חברי כי הא דרב הונא דרי מרא אכתפיה אתא רב חנא בר חנילאי וקא דרי מיניה א"ל אי רגילת דדרית במאתיך דרי ואי לא אתייקורי אנא בזילותא דידך לא ניחא לי,ולא עלתה על מטתי קללת חברי כי הא דמר זוטרא כי הוה סליק לפורייה אמר שרי ליה לכל מאן דצערן,וותרן בממוני הייתי דאמר מר איוב וותרן בממוניה הוה שהיה מניח פרוטה לחנוני מממוניה,שאל ר"ע את רבי נחוניא הגדול (אמר לו) במה הארכת ימים אתו גווזי וקא מחו ליה סליק יתיב ארישא דדיקלא א"ל רבי אם נאמר (במדבר כח, ד) כבש למה נאמר אחד אמר להו צורבא מדרבנן הוא שבקוהו,א"ל אחד מיוחד שבעדרו,א"ל מימי לא קבלתי מתנות ולא עמדתי על מדותי וותרן בממוני הייתי,לא קבלתי מתנות כי הא דר' אלעזר כי הוו משדרי ליה מתנות מבי נשיאה לא הוה שקיל כי הוה מזמני ליה לא הוה אזיל אמר להו לא ניחא לכו דאחיה דכתיב (משלי טו, כז) שונא מתנות יחיה ר' זירא כי הוו משדרי ליה מבי נשיאה לא הוה שקיל כי הוה מזמני ליה אזיל אמר אתייקורי דמתייקרי בי,ולא עמדתי על מדותי דאמר רבא כל המעביר על מדותיו מעבירין ממנו כל פשעיו שנאמר (מיכה ז, יח) נושא עון ועובר על פשע למי נושא עון למי שעובר על פשע,שאל רבי את ר' יהושע בן קרחה במה הארכת ימים א"ל קצת בחיי אמר לו רבי תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך א"ל מימי לא נסתכלתי בדמות אדם רשע דאמר ר' יוחנן אסור לאדם להסתכל בצלם דמות אדם רשע שנאמר (מלכים ב ג, יד) לולא פני יהושפט מלך יהודה אני נושא אם אביט אליך ואם אראך,ר"א אמר עיניו כהות שנאמר (בראשית כז, א) ויהי כי זקן יצחק ותכהין עיניו מראות משום דאסתכל בעשו הרשע,והא גרמא ליה והאמר ר' יצחק לעולם אל תהי קללת הדיוט קלה בעיניך שהרי אבימלך קלל את שרה ונתקיים בזרעה שנאמר (בראשית כ, טז) הנה הוא לך כסות עינים אל תקרי כסות אלא כסיית עינים,הא והא גרמא ליה רבא אמר מהכא (משלי יח, ה) שאת פני רשע לא טוב,בשעת פטירתו א"ל [רבי] ברכני א"ל יהי רצון שתגיע לחצי ימי ולכולהו לא אמר לו הבאים אחריך בהמה ירעו,אבוה בר איהי ומנימן בר איהי חד אמר תיתי לי דלא אסתכלי בכותי וחד אמר תיתי לי דלא עבדי שותפות בהדי כותי,שאלו תלמידיו את ר' זירא במה הארכת ימים אמר להם מימי לא הקפדתי בתוך ביתי ולא צעדתי בפני מי שגדול ממני ולא הרהרתי במבואות המטונפות ולא הלכתי ד"א בלא תורה ובלא תפילין ולא ישנתי בבית המדרש לא שינת קבע ולא שינת עראי ולא ששתי בתקלת חבירי ולא קראתי לחבירי (בחניכתו) ואמרי לה (בחכינתו):, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ועוד א"ר יהודה בית הכנסת שחרב אין מספידין בתוכו ואין מפשילין בתוכו חבלים ואין פורשין לתוכו מצודות ואין שוטחין על גגו פירות ואין עושין אותו קפנדריא,שנאמר (ויקרא כו, לא) והשמותי את מקדשכם קדושתן אף כשהן שוממין,עלו בו עשבים לא יתלוש מפני עגמת נפש:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר בתי כנסיות אין נוהגין בהן קלות ראש אין אוכלין בהן ואין שותין בהן | 28a. bAnd I never recitedGrace after Meals bin the presence of a priest,but rather I gave him the privilege to lead. bAnd I never ate from an animal whosepriestly bportions,i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, bhad notalready bbeen set aside. /b,Another example of Rabbi Perida’s meticulous behavior is based on that bwhich Rabbi Yitzḥak saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: It is prohibited to eatmeat bfrom an animal whosepriestly bportions have not been set aside. And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who eatsmeat bfrom an animal whosepriestly bportions have not been set aside isregarded bas if he were eating untithed produce.The Gemara comments: bAnd the ihalakhais not in accordance with hisopinion. Rather, it is permitted to eat meat from such an animal. Nevertheless, Rabbi Perida acted stringently and did not eat from it.,The Gemara considers another of Rabbi Perida’s actions: He said: bAnd I never blessedGrace after Meals bin the presence of a priest,but rather I gave him the privilege to lead., bIs this to say thatdoing so bisespecially bvirtuous? Buthasn’t bRabbi Yoḥa said: Any Torah scholar whoallows someone else bto blessGrace after Meals bin his presence,i.e., to lead for him, bevenif that person is ba High Priest who is an ignoramus,then bthat Torah scholar is liable toreceive the bdeath penaltyfor belittling his own honor? This is bas it is stated: “All those who hate me, love death”(Proverbs 8:36). bDo not readit as b“those who hate Me [ imesan’ai /i],” ratherread it as though it said: bThose who make Me hated [ imasni’ai /i].The honor due to a Torah scholar is representative of the honor of God in the world. Therefore, by belittling his own honor, he causes others to fail to respect God, which can ultimately develop into hate. If so, why did Rabbi Perida consider his behavior to be so deserving of praise?,The Gemara answers: bWhenRabbi Perida bsays this,he was speaking bofpeople of bequalstature. He was particular to honor the priesthood only when the priest was also a Torah scholar.,The Gemara discusses the fourth Sage who was blessed with longevity: bRabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana wasonce basked by his disciples: Inthe merit of bwhichvirtue bwere youblessed with blongevity? He said to them: Inall bmy days, I never attained veneration atthe expense of bmy fellow’s degradation. Nor did my fellow’s curseever bgo up with me upon my bed.If ever I offended someone, I made sure to appease him that day. Therefore, when I went to bed I knew that no one had any grievances against me. bAnd I wasalways bopenhanded with my money. /b,The Gemara clarifies the meaning of his statement: Rabbi Neḥunya said: bI never attained veneration atthe expense of bmy fellow’s denigration.This is referring to conduct bsuch as that of Rav Huna, who was carrying a hoe over his shoulderas he returned from his work. bRav Ḥana bar Ḥanilai came and,out of respect for his teacher, btook the hoe from himto carry it for him. Rav Huna bsaid to him: If you are accustomed to carrysuch objects bin your own city,you may bcarry it; but if not,then bfor me to be venerated through your denigration is not pleasing for me. /b,Rabbi Neḥunya also said: bNor didI ever allow the resentment caused by bmy fellow’s curseto bgo up with me upon my bed.This is referring to conduct bsuch as that of Mar Zutra. When he would go to bedat night, bhe wouldfirst bsay: I forgive anyone who has vexed me. /b,Lastly, Rabbi Neḥunya said: bAnd I wasalways bopenhanded with my money.This is referring to conduct such as bthat which the Master said: Job was openhanded with his money, as he wouldalways bleaveat least ba iperutaof his money with the shopkeeper.He never demanded the change from his transactions.,On a similar occasion, bRabbi Akiva asked Rabbi Neḥunya the Great; he said to him: Inthe merit of bwhichvirtue bwere youblessed with blongevity?Rabbi Neḥunya’s battendants [ igavzei /i] came andstarted bbeatingRabbi Akiva, for they felt that he was acting disrespectfully by highlighting Rabbi Neḥunya’s old age. Rabbi Akiva ran away from them, and bhe climbed up and sat upon the top of a date palm.From there, bhe said toRabbi Neḥunya: bMy teacher,I have a question about the verse concerning the daily offering that states “one lamb” (Numbers 28:4). bIf it is stated “lamb”in the singular, bwhy is italso bstated “one”;isn’t this superfluous? Upon hearing Rabbi Akiva’s scholarly question, Rabbi Neḥunya bsaid tohis attendants: bHe isclearly ba young Torah scholar, let him be. /b,Rabbi Neḥunya then addressed Rabbi Akiva’s questions. With regard to the second question, bhe said to him:The word b“one”teaches that the lamb should be bthe unique one of its flock,i.e., only the best quality lamb should be used.,With regard to the original question, Rabbi Neḥunya bsaid to him: Inall bmy days I never accepted gifts. Nor was Iever binflexibleby exacting ba measureof retribution against those who wronged me. bAnd I wasalways bopenhanded with my money. /b,The Gemara explains: bI never accepted gifts;this is referring to conduct bsuch as that of Rabbi Elazar. When they would send him gifts from the house of the iNasi /i, he would not takethem, band when they would invite him, he would not gothere, as he considered hospitality to be a type of gift. bHewould bsay to them: Is it not pleasing to you that I should live, as it is written: “He that hates gifts shall live”(Proverbs 15:27)? In contrast, it was reported about bRabbi Zeirathat bwhen they would send himgifts bfrom the house of the iNasi /i, he would not acceptthem, bbut when they would invite him, he would gothere. bHe said: They are honored by mypresence; therefore my visiting is not considered like I am taking a gift from them.,He also said: bNor was Iever binflexiblein exacting ba measureof retribution against those who wronged me. This is referring to conduct such as that bwhich Rava said: Anyone who overlooksexacting ba measureof retribution against those who wronged him, ball his transgressions are removed from him, as it is stated: “He pardons iniquity and overlooks transgression”(Micah 7:18), which is homiletically read as saying: bFor whom does He pardon iniquity? For he who overlooks transgressionsthat others have committed against him.,In a similar incident, bRabbiYehuda HaNasi once basked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa: Inthe merit of bwhichvirtue bwere youblessed with blongevity? He said to him:Why do you ask me, bare you wearied of mylong blife?Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bsaid to him: My teacher, it is Torah andso bI must learnit. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa bsaid to him: Inall bmy days I never gazed at the likeness of a wicked man, as Rabbi Yoḥa said: It is prohibited for a person to gaze in the image of the likeness of a wicked man, as it is statedthat the prophet Elisha said to Jehoram king of Israel: b“Were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat, the king of Judea, I would not look toward you, nor see you”(II Kings 3:14)., bRabbi Elazar said:One who gazes at the likeness of an evil man, bhis eyes become dim, as it is stated: “And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim so that he could not see”(Genesis 27:1). This happened bbecause he gazed at the wicked Esau. /b,The Gemara asks: bDid this causeIsaac’s blindness? bDidn’t Rabbi Yitzḥak say: A curse of an ordinary person should not be lightly regarded in your eyes, because Abimelech cursed Sarah, andalthough he was not a righteous man, his curse bwasnevertheless bfulfilled,albeit bin her descendant. As it is statedthat Abimelech said to Sarah with regard to the gift that he gave to Abraham: b“Behold, it is for you a covering of the eyes”(Genesis 20:16). bDo not readit as b“a covering [ ikesut /i]of the eyes,” but bratherread it as: bA blindness [ ikesiat /i] of the eyes.Abimelech’s words were a veiled curse for Sarah to suffer from blindness. While she herself did not suffer, the curse was apparently fulfilled in the blindness of her son, Isaac.,According to Rabbi Yitzḥak, Abimelech’s curse was the cause of Isaac’s blindness, and it was not, as Rabbi Elazar suggested, the fact he gazed at Esau. The Gemara explains: Both bthis and thatjointly bcaused it. Rava said:The prohibition against gazing at the likeness of a wicked person is derived bfrom here: “It is not good to raise the face of the wicked”(Proverbs 18:5)., bAt the time ofRabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa’s bdeparturefrom this world, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bsaid to him: My teacher, bless me. He said to him: May it beGod’s bwill that youlive to breach to half of my days.When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard this, he asked in astonishment: Are you saying that bto the entirety ofyour days I should bnotreach? Why? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa bsaid to him: Shall those who come after youjust btend cattle?If you live as long as me, your sons will never be able to succeed you in the position of Nasi. As such, they will never achieve greatness in Torah, and it will be as if they just tended cattle throughout their lives. It is therefore better that your life not be so prolonged, so that they have the opportunity to rise to eminence., bAvuh bar Ihi and Minyamin bar Ihiboth spoke on this topic: bOneof them bsaid: Maya blessing bcome to me for I never gazed ata wicked bgentile. Andthe other bone said: Maya blessing bcome to me for I never formed a partnership witha wicked bgentile,so as not to have any association with a wicked person.,The Gemara presents a similar incident: bRabbi Zeira wasonce basked by his disciples: Inthe merit of bwhichvirtue bwere youblessed with blongevity? He said to them: Inall bmy days, I was never angry inside my housewith members of my household who acted against my wishes. bNor did Iever bwalk ahead of someone who was a greaterTorah scholar bthan me. Nor did Iever bmeditateupon words of Torah bin filthy alleyways,as doing so is a disgrace to the Torah. bNor did Iever bwalk four cubits withoutmeditating on words of bTorah or withoutwearing bphylacteries. Nor did Iever bsleep in a study hall, neither a deep sleep or a brief nap. Nor did Iever brejoice when my fellow stumbled. Nor did Iever bcall my fellow by his derogatory nickname [ iḥanikhato /i]. And some saythat he said: I never called my fellow by bhis nickname [ iḥakhinato /i],i.e., even one that is not derogatory., strongMISHNA: /strong bAnd Rabbi Yehuda said further: A synagogue that fell into ruinstill may not be used for a mundane purpose. Therefore, bone may not eulogize in it. And nor may one stretch outand repair bropes in it.The wide expanse of the synagogue would have been particularly suitable for this. bAnd nor may one spreadanimal btraps within it. And nor may one spread out produce upon its roofto dry. bAnd nor may one make itinto ba shortcut. /b,The ihalakhathat a synagogue in disrepair still may not be used for mundane purposes is derived from a verse, bas it is stated: “And I will bring desolation to your sanctuaries”(Leviticus 26:31). The fact that the word “sanctuaries” appears after the word “desolation” indicates that btheir sanctityremains upon them beven when they are desolate. /b,However, if bgrass sprang upof its own accord binthe ruined synagogue, although it is not befitting its sanctity, bone should not pickit, bdue tothe banguishthat it will bring to those who see it. It will remind them of the disrepair of the synagogue and the need to rebuild it., strongGEMARA: /strong bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to bsynagogues: One may not act inside them with frivolity.Therefore, bone may not eat in them; nor may one drink in them; /b |
|
20. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 31b. שמשהין עצמן בבטן כדי שיזריעו נשותיהן תחלה שיהו בניהם זכרים מעלה עליהן הכתוב כאילו הם מרבים בנים ובני בנים והיינו דאמר רב קטינא יכולני לעשות כל בני זכרים אמר רבא הרוצה לעשות כל בניו זכרים יבעול וישנה,ואמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי אמי אין אשה מתעברת אלא סמוך לוסתה שנאמר (תהלים נא, ז) הן בעון חוללתי,ורבי יוחנן אמר סמוך לטבילה שנאמר (תהלים נא, ז) ובחטא יחמתני אמי,מאי משמע דהאי חטא לישנא דדכויי הוא דכתיב (ויקרא יד, מט) וחטא את הבית ומתרגמינן וידכי ית ביתא ואי בעית אימא מהכא (תהלים נא, ט) תחטאני באזוב ואטהר,ואמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי אמי כיון שבא זכר בעולם בא שלום בעולם שנאמר (ישעיהו טז, א) שלחו כר מושל ארץ זכר זה כר,ואמר ר' יצחק דבי רבי אמי בא זכר בעולם בא ככרו בידו זכר זה כר דכתיב (מלכים ב ו, כג) ויכרה להם כירה גדולה,נקבה אין עמה כלום נקבה נקייה באה עד דאמרה מזוני לא יהבי לה דכתיב (בראשית ל, כח) נקבה שכרך עלי ואתנה,שאלו תלמידיו את רבי שמעון בן יוחי מפני מה אמרה תורה יולדת מביאה קרבן אמר להן בשעה שכורעת לילד קופצת ונשבעת שלא תזקק לבעלה לפיכך אמרה תורה תביא קרבן,מתקיף לה רב יוסף והא מזידה היא ובחרטה תליא מילתא ועוד קרבן שבועה בעי איתויי,ומפני מה אמרה תורה זכר לשבעה ונקבה לארבעה עשר זכר שהכל שמחים בו מתחרטת לשבעה נקבה שהכל עצבים בה מתחרטת לארבעה עשר,ומפני מה אמרה תורה מילה לשמונה שלא יהו כולם שמחים ואביו ואמו עצבים,תניא היה ר"מ אומר מפני מה אמרה תורה נדה לשבעה מפני שרגיל בה וקץ בה אמרה תורה תהא טמאה שבעה ימים כדי שתהא חביבה על בעלה כשעת כניסתה לחופה,שאלו תלמידיו את רבי דוסתאי ברבי ינאי מפני מה איש מחזר על אשה ואין אשה מחזרת על איש משל לאדם שאבד לו אבידה מי מחזר על מי בעל אבידה מחזיר על אבידתו,ומפני מה איש פניו למטה ואשה פניה למעלה כלפי האיש זה ממקום שנברא וזו ממקום שנבראת,ומפני מה האיש מקבל פיוס ואין אשה מקבלת פיוס זה ממקום שנברא וזו ממקום שנבראת,מפני מה אשה קולה ערב ואין איש קולו ערב זה ממקום שנברא וזו ממקום שנבראת שנאמר {שיר השירים ב } כי קולך ערב ומראך נאוה, br br big strongהדרן עלך המפלת חתיכה /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongבנות /strong /big כותים נדות מעריסתן והכותים מטמאים משכב תחתון כעליון מפני שהן בועלי נדות,והן יושבות על כל דם ודם,ואין חייבין עליהן על ביאת מקדש ואין שורפין עליהם את התרומה מפני שטומאתן ספק, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ה"ד אי דקא חזיין אפילו דידן נמי ואי דלא קחזיין דידהו נמי לא,אמר רבא בריה דרב אחא בר רב הונא אמר רב ששת הכא במאי עסקינן בסתמא דכיון דאיכא מיעוטא דחזיין חיישינן ומאן תנא דחייש למיעוטא | 31b. bthey delaywhile bintheir wives’ babdomen,initially refraining from emitting semen bso that their wives will emit seed first,in order bthat their children will be male, the verse ascribes themcredit bas though they have many sons and sons’ sons. And thisstatement bisthe same as that bwhich Rav Ketina said: I could have made all of my children males,by refraining from emitting seed until my wife emitted seed first. bRava saysanother method through which one can cause his children to be males: bOne who wishes to make all of his children males should engage in intercoursewith his wife band repeatthe act.,§ bAnd Rabbi Yitzḥak saysthat bRabbi Ami says: A woman becomes pregt onlyby engaging in intercourse bclose to the onset of hermenstrual bcycle, as it is stated: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity”(Psalms 51:7). This iniquity is referring to intercourse close to the woman’s menstrual cycle, when intercourse is prohibited. Accordingly, David is saying that his mother presumably conceived him at this time., bAnd Rabbi Yoḥa says:A woman becomes pregt only by engaging in intercourse bnearthe time of her bimmersionin a ritual bath, through which she is purified from her status as a menstruating woman, bas it is statedin the continuation of the same verse: b“And in sin [ iuvḥet /i] did my mother conceive me”(Psalms 51:7).,The Gemara explains this derivation: bFrom where mayit bbe inferred that this term “ iḥet /i” isa reference bto purity?The Gemara answers: bAs it is writtenwith regard to leprosy of houses: b“ iVeḥitteithe house”(Leviticus 14:52), band we translatethe verse into Aramaic as: bAnd he shall purify the house. And if you wish, saythat the interpretation is derived bfrom here: “Purge me [ iteḥatte’eni /i] with hyssop, and I shall be pure”(Psalms 51:9). Evidently, the root iḥet /i, itet /i, ialefrefers to purification.,§ bAnd Rabbi Yitzḥak saysthat bRabbi Ami says: When a male comes into the world,i.e., when a male baby is born, bpeace comes to the world, as it is stated: “Send the lambs [ ikhar /i] for the ruler of the land”(Isaiah 16:1). This ikhar /i, or ikar /i, a gift one sends the ruler, contributes to the stability of the government and peace, and the word bmale [ izakhar /i]can be interpreted homiletically as an abbreviation of: bThis is a ikar[ izeh kar /i]. /b, bAnd Rabbi Yitzḥak from the school of Rabbi Ami says: When a male comes into the world, his loafof bread, i.e., his sustece, bcomes into his possession.In other words, a male can provide for himself. This is based on the aforementioned interpretation of the word bmale [ izakhar /i]as an abbreviation of: bThis is a ikar[ izeh kar /i],and the term ikarrefers to sustece, bas it is written: “And he prepared great provision [ ikera /i] for them”(II Kings 6:23).,By contrast, bwhen a female comes into the world, nothing,i.e., no sustece, comes bwith her.This is derived from the homiletic interpretation of the word bfemale [ inekeva /i]as an abbreviation of the phrase: bShe comes clean [ inekiya ba’a /i],i.e., empty. Furthermore, buntil she says:Give me bsustece,people bdo not give her, as it is writtenin Laban’s request of Jacob: b“Appoint me [ inokva /i] your wages, and I will give it”(Genesis 30:28). Laban used the word inokva /i, similar to inekeva /i, when he said that he would pay Jacob only if he explicitly demanded his wages., bThe students of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai asked him: For whatreason bdoes the Torah saythat ba woman after childbirth brings an offering? He said to them: At the time thata woman bcrouches to give birth,her pain is so great that bshe impulsively takes an oath that she will not engage in intercourse with her husbandever again, so that she will never again experience this pain. bTherefore, the Torah saysthat bshe must bring an offeringfor violating her oath and continuing to engage in intercourse with her husband., bRav Yosef objects to thisanswer: bBut isn’tthe woman ban intentional violatorof her oath? bAndif she wishes that her oath be dissolved, so that she may engage in intercourse with her husband, bthe matter depends onher bregretof her oath. One is obligated to bring an offering for violating an oath of an utterance only if his transgression is unwitting. bAnd furthermore,if the purpose of the offering that a woman brings after childbirth is to atone for violating an oath, then bsheshould be brequired to bringa female lamb or goat as ban offering,which is the requirement of one who violated ban oath,rather than the bird offering brought by a woman after childbirth., bAndthe students of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai further inquired of him: bFor whatreason bdoes the Torah saythat a woman who gives birth to ba maleis ritually impure bfor sevendays, bbuta woman who gives birth to ba femaleis impure bfor fourteendays? Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai answered them: When a woman gives birth to ba male, over which everyone is happy, she regretsher oath, that she will never again engage in intercourse with her husband, already bsevendays after giving birth. By contrast, after giving birth to ba female, over which everyone is unhappy, she regretsher oath only bfourteendays after giving birth., bAndthe students further asked him: bFor whatreason bdoes the Torah saythat bcircumcisionis performed only bon the eighthday of the baby’s life, and not beforehand? He answered them: It is bso thatthere bwill not bea situation where beveryoneis bhappyat the circumcision ceremony bbut the father and mother ofthe infant bare unhappy,as they are still prohibited from engaging in intercourse., bIt is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Meir would say: For whatreason bdoes the Torah saythat ba menstruating womanis prohibited from engaging in intercourse with her husband bfor sevendays? It is bbecauseif a woman were permitted to engage in intercourse with her husband all the time, her husband would be too baccustomed to her, andwould eventually be brepulsed by her.Therefore, bthe Torah saysthat a menstruating woman bshall be ritually impurefor bseven days,during which she is prohibited from engaging in intercourse with her husband, bso thatwhen she becomes pure again bshe will be dear to her husband asat bthe time when she entered the wedding canopywith him.,§ bThe students of Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Yannai, asked him: For whatreason is it the norm that ba man pursues a womanfor marriage, bbut a woman does not pursue a man?Rabbi Dostai answered them by citing ba parable of a person who lost an item. Who searches for what?Certainly bthe owner of the lost item searches for his item;the item does not search for its owner. Since the first woman was created from the body of the first man, the man seeks that which he has lost., bAndthe students of Rabbi Dostai further asked him: bFor whatreason does ba manengage in intercourse bfacing down, and a womanengage in intercourse bfacing up toward the man?Rabbi Dostai answered them: bThisman faces bthe place from which he was created,i.e., the earth, band thatwoman faces bthe place from which she was created,namely man., bAndthe students also inquired: bFor whatreason is ba manwho is angry likely to baccept appeasement, but a womanis bnotas likely to baccept appeasement?Rabbi Dostai answered them: It is bbecause thisman behaves like bthe place from which he was created,i.e., the earth, which yields to pressure, band thatwoman behaves like bthe place from which she was created,i.e., from bone, which cannot be molded easily.,The students continued to ask Rabbi Dostai: bFor whatreason bis a woman’s voice pleasant, but a man’s voice is not pleasant?He answered: bThisman is similar to bthe place from which he was created,the earth, which does not issue a sound when it is struck, band thatwoman is similar to bthe place from which she was created,a bone, which makes a sound when it is struck. The proof that a woman’s voice is pleasant is bthat it is statedin Song of Songs that the man says to his beloved: b“For sweet is your voice, and your countece is beautiful”(Song of Songs 2:14).,, strongMISHNA: /strong Samaritan bgirlsare considered bmenstruating women fromthe time they lie in btheir cradle. And the Samaritanmen bimpart ritual impurityto the blower bedding like the upperbedding, i.e., all layers of bedding beneath them are impure, and their status is like the bedding above a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [ izav /i]: The status of both levels of bedding is that of first-degree ritual impurity, which can impart impurity to food and drink. This is bdue tothe fact bthatSamaritan men are considered men who bengage in intercourse with menstruating women. /b, bAndthey are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women because Samaritan women bobservethe seven-day menstrual period of ritual impurity bfor each and everyemission of bblood,even for blood that does not render them impure. Accordingly, if a Samaritan woman has an emission of impure blood during the seven-day period, she will nevertheless continue counting seven days from the first emission. It is therefore possible that the Samaritan men will engage in intercourse with their wives while they are still halakhically considered menstruating women, as the seven-day period of impurity should have been counted from the emission of the impure blood., bButone who enters the Temple while wearing bthosegarments upon which a Samaritan had lain bis not liableto bring an offering bfor entering the Templein a status of impurity, bnor does one burn iteruma /ithat came into contact with bthosegarments, bbecause their impurityis buncertain. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that Samaritan girls are considered menstruating women from the time they lie in their cradle. The Gemara asks: bWhat are the circumstancesof this statement? bIfthe mishna is referring to girls bwhoalready bseemenstrual blood, then beven our own,i.e., Jewish girls, are balsoconsidered menstruating women under such circumstances. bAnd ifit is referring to girls bwho do notyet bseemenstrual blood, then btheirgirls, i.e., those of the Samaritans, should balso nothave the status of menstruating women., bRava, son of Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna, saysthat bRav Sheshet says: Here we are dealing with an unspecifiedcase, i.e., it is unknown whether these girls have experienced their first menstrual period. bSince there is a minorityof girls bwho seemenstrual blood, bwe are concernedwith regard to each Samaritan girl that she might be from this minority. The Gemara asks: bAnd whois the itannawho btaught that one must be concerned for the minority? /b |
|
21. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 31a. גברא אגברא קא רמית,נהרדעי אמרי אפילו אחד אומר מנה שחור ואחד אומר מנה לבן מצטרפים,כמאן כרבי יהושע בן קרחה אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי יהושע בן קרחה היכא דלא מכחשו אהדדי היכא דמכחשי אהדדי מי אמר,אלא הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא אמר ר' שמעון בן אלעזר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על שתי כיתי עדים שאחת אומרת מאתים ואחת אומרת מנה שיש בכלל מאתים מנה,על מה נחלקו על כת אחת שבית שמאי אומרים נחלקה עדותן ובית הלל אומרים יש בכלל מאתים מנה,אחד אומר חבית של יין ואחד אומר חבית של שמן הוה עובדא ואתי לקמיה דרבי אמי חייביה רבי אמי לשלומי ליה חביתא דחמרא מיגו חביתא דמשחא,כמאן כר"ש בן אלעזר אימר דאמר ר"ש [ב"א] היכא דיש בכלל מאתים מנה כי האי גוונא מי אמר,לא צריכא לדמי,אחד אומר בדיוטא העליונה ואחד אומר בדיוטא התחתונה אמר רבי חנינא מעשה בא לפני רבי וצירף עדותן:,ומניין לכשיצא כו': תנו רבנן מניין לכשיצא לא יאמר הריני מזכה וחבירי מחייבין אבל מה אעשה שחבירי רבו עלי תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יט, טז) לא תלך רכיל בעמך ואומר (משלי יא, יג) הולך רכיל מגלה סוד,ההוא תלמידא דנפיק עליה קלא דגלי מילתא דאיתמר בי מדרשא בתר עשרין ותרתין שנין אפקיה רב אמי מבי מדרשא אמר דין גלי רזיא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כל זמן שמביא ראיה סותר את הדין אמר לו כל ראיות שיש לך הבא מיכן עד שלשים יום מצא בתוך שלשים יום סותר לאחר שלשים יום אינו סותר,אמר רשב"ג מה יעשה זה שלא מצא בתוך שלשים ומצא לאחר שלשים,אמר לו הבא עדים ואמר אין לי עדים אמר הבא ראיה ואמר אין לי ראיה ולאחר זמן הביא ראיה ומצא עדים הרי זה אינו כלום,אמר רשב"ג מה יעשה זה שלא היה יודע שיש לו עדים ומצא עדים לא היה יודע שיש לו ראיה ומצא ראיה,ראה שמתחייב בדין ואמר קרבו פלוני ופלוני ויעידוני או שהוציא ראיה מתחת פונדתו הרי זה אינו כלום:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רבה בר רב הונא הלכה כרשב"ג ואמר רבה בר רב הונא אין הלכה כדברי חכמים,פשיטא כיון דאמר הלכה כרשב"ג ממילא ידענא דאין הלכה כחכמים,מהו דתימא הני מילי לכתחילה אבל דיעבד שפיר דמי קמ"ל דאי עביד מהדרינן ליה:,אמר לו הבא עדים כו' אמר רשב"ג כו': אמר רבה בר רב הונא א"ר יוחנן הלכה כדברי חכמים ואמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר רבי יוחנן אין הלכה כרשב"ג,פשיטא כיון דאמר הלכה כדברי חכמים ממילא ידענא דאין הלכה כרשב"ג,הא קמ"ל דבההיא אין הלכה כרשב"ג הא בכולהו הלכה כרשב"ג,לאפוקי מהא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן כל מקום ששנה רשב"ג במשנתנו הלכה כמותו חוץ מערב וצידן וראיה אחרונה,ההוא ינוקא דתבעוהו לדינא קמיה דרב נחמן א"ל אית לך סהדי א"ל לא אית לך ראיה א"ל לא חייביה רב נחמן,הוה קא בכי ואזיל שמעוהו הנך אינשי אמרו ליה אנן ידעינן במילי דאבוך אמר רב נחמן בהא אפילו רבנן מודו דינוקא במילי דאבוה לא ידע,ההיא איתתא דנפק שטרא מתותי ידה אמרה ליה ידענא בהאי שטרא דפריע הוה הימנה רב נחמן,אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן כמאן כרבי דאמר אותיות נקנות במסירה,אמר ליה שאני הכא דאי בעיא קלתיה,איכא דאמרי לא הימנה רב נחמן אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן והא אי בעיא | 31a. The Gemara answers: bAre you settingthe statement of one bman againstthe statement of another bman?Rav Ḥisda holds that a contradiction with regard to secondary details does not disqualify the testimony even in capital law, and Rav Yehuda holds that it does disqualify the testimony. Neither Sage is bound by the statement of the other.,The Sages bof Neharde’a say: Evenif bone saysthat it was ba black coin andthe other bone saysthat it was ba white cointheir testimonies bare combined. /b,The Gemara asks: bIn accordance with whoseopinion is this? Is it bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa,that as long as both witnesses testify that the defendant owes the plaintiff the same sum, the testimonies are combined? bSay that you heard Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥasaying that two testimonies are combined in a case bwhere they do not contradict each other;but in a case bwhere they contradict each other, did he saythat they are combined?, bRather,the Sages of Neharde’a bstatedtheir opinion bin accordance withthe opinion of bthat itanna /i, as it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree with regard toa case of btwo sets of witnesses, where oneset bsaysthat the plaintiff lent the defendant btwo hundreddinars, bandthe other bone saysthat he lent him bone hundred dinars.Both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai agree that this is not considered a contradiction, and the testimony is accepted concerning the amount of one hundred dinars, bas one hundred dinars issubsumed bwithin two hundred,i.e., testimony concerning a large amount includes testimony concerning a smaller amount., bWith regard to whatcase bdo they disagree?They disagree boverthe case of bone setof two witnesses, where one witness testifies that the defendant owes the plaintiff two hundred dinars, and the other witness says that he owes him one hundred. bAs Beit Shammai saythat btheir testimony is divided.Since they are not testifying about the same amount, the entire testimony is disqualified. bAnd Beit Hillel say: One hundred dinars issubsumed bwithin two hundred.Apparently, according to Beit Hillel’s opinion, as transmitted by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, although the testimonies are not identical, since both attest to the defendant’s liability to pay a certain amount of money, they are combined and accepted to that effect. This is the source for the opinion of the Sages of Neharde’a.,With regard to a case where bonewitness bsaysthat the plaintiff gave the defendant ba barrel of wine, andthe other bone saysthat he gave him ba barrel of oil, there wasactually such ban incident, and it came before Rabbi Ami.Since wine was cheaper than oil, bRabbi Ami deemedthe defendant bliable to paythe plaintiff only the value of ba barrel of wine out ofthe value of ba barrel of oil,an amount both witnesses agreed that he owed.,The Gemara asks: bIn accordance with whoseopinion is this ruling? Is it bin accordance withthe opinion transmitted by bRabbi Shimon ben Elazar? Say that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar saidthat two contradicting testimonies can be combined in a case bwhere one hundred dinars issubsumed bwithin two hundred;perhaps one of the witnesses saw only half the loan, and the other one saw it all. But in ba case like this,where the testimonies are about completely different items, bdid he saythat they can be combined?,The Gemara answers: bNo,this is not a case of a direct contradiction. This ruling is bnecessaryonly bwith regard to monetary value,i.e., where one witness says that the defendant owes the value of a barrel of wine, and the second one says that he owes the value of a barrel of oil. Therefore, it is comparable to a case of one hundred dinars and two hundred dinars.,With regard to a case where bonewitness bsaysthat the incident took place bon the upper floor [ ibadeyota /i] andthe other bone saysthat it occurred bon the lower floor, Rabbi Ḥanina saysthat ban incidentlike this bcame before RabbiYehuda HaNasi band he combined their testimonies.This was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, that since they agree with regard to the matter itself, the secondary details are insignificant.,§ The mishna teaches: bAnd from whereis it derived that bwhenthe judge bleavesthe courtroom, he should not say: I deemed you exempt and my colleagues deemed you liable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered me and consequently you were deemed liable? About this it is stated: “You shall not go as a talebearer among your people” (Leviticus 19:16), and it says: “One who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but one who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter” (Proverbs 11:13). bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bFrom whereis it derived that bwhenthe judge bleaves he should not say: I deemedyou bexempt and my colleagues deemedyou bliable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered meand consequently you were deemed liable? bThe verse states: “You shall not go as a talebearer among your people”(Leviticus 19:16), band it says: “One who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets”(Proverbs 11:13).,The Gemara relates: There was ba certain student, about whom a rumor emerged that he revealed a statement that was stated in the study halland should have been kept secret, and the rumor emerged btwenty-two years afterthe time the statement was revealed. bRav Ami removed him from the study hallas a punishment. Rav Ami bsaid: This is a revealer of secretsand he cannot be trusted., strongMISHNA: /strong bAny timeone of the litigants bbringsadditional bproof, he can overturn the verdictthat was decided according to previous proofs. If one litigant bsaid tothe other: bBring all the proofs that you have from now until thirty daysfrom now, if bhe foundadditional proof bwithin thirty days, he can overturnthe verdict. If he found it bafter thirty days, he cannot overturnthe verdict anymore., bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel said:He can still overturn the verdict, as bwhat should thislitigant, bwhosought and bdid not findadditional proof bwithin thirtydays bbut foundit bafter thirtydays, bhave done? /b,In a case where one litigant bsaid tothe other: bBring witnesses, andthe latter bsaid: I have no witnesses,and the former bsaidto him: bBring a proof, and he said: I have no proof, and he later brought a proof or found witnesses,in this case, bthisproof or these witnesses are worth bnothing.It is apparently a false proof or false testimony., bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: What should thislitigant, bwho did not know that he has witnesses andultimately bfound witnesses,or who bdid not know that he has a proof andultimately bfound proof, have done?Therefore, he can still overturn the verdict.,If at the beginning of the discussion in the court one did not bring witnesses or other evidence for his claims, but then bhe saw that hewas about to be bdeemed liableto pay bin the judgment, and said: Bring so-and-so and so-and-so, and they will testify on my behalf, or he pulled out a proof from under his belt [ ipundato /i],even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds bthat this isworth bnothing.If there was truth in the testimony of these witnesses or in this proof, he would not have hidden it until now., strongGEMARA: /strong With regard to the first ihalakhain the mishna, bRabba bar Rav Huna says:The ihalakha /iis bin accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rabba bar Rav Hunaalso bsays:The ihalakha /iis bnot in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. /b,The Gemara asks: Isn’t it bobvious? Since he saysthat the ihalakha /iis bin accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel, we know by ourselves thatthe ihalakha /iis bnot in accordance withthe statement of bthe Rabbis. /b,The Gemara answers: bLest you saythat bthis statement,that the ihalakhais not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, applies iab initio /i, but after the fact,even if the court ruled in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the ruling is bvalid,as their opinion was not entirely rejected, Rabba bar Rav Huna therefore bteaches us that ifthe court bactsin accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, bwe sendthe case bbackto court.,§ The mishna teaches that in a case where one litigant bsaid tothe other: bBring witnesses,and he admitted that he had none, and he subsequently found witnesses, bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel saidthat their testimony is valid. bRabba bar Rav Huna saysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says:The ihalakha /iis bin accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. And Rabba bar Rav Hunaalso bsaysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says:The ihalakha /iis bnot in accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel. /b,The Gemara asks: Isn’t it bobvious? Since he saysthat the ihalakha /iis bin accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, we know by ourselves thatthe ihalakhais not in accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel. /b,The Gemara answers: bThisstatement of Rabba bar Rav Huna bteaches us thatspecifically bwith regard to that ihalakha /i, the ihalakha /iis bnot in accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel; but with regard to allother statements of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the corpus of the Mishna, the ihalakha /iis bin accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel. /b,This is bto the exclusion of that which Rabba bar bar Ḥanna saysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says: Anywhere that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taughta ruling bin our Mishna,the ihalakha /iis bin accordance with hisopinion, bexcept forthe following three cases: The responsibility of the bguarantor, andthe incident that occurred in the city of bTzaidan, andthe dispute with regard to bevidencein the bfinaldisagreement. Whereas in the former dispute in the mishna here, the ihalakhais in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, in the latter dispute in the mishna here, the ihalakhais in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabba bar Rav Huna, by contrast, maintains that in the case of a guarantor and in the case in Tzaidan, the ihalakhais in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.,The Gemara relates: There was ba certain child who was taken to court before Rav Naḥman. They said to him: Do you have witnesseson your behalf? The child bsaid to them: No.They continued to ask: bDo you have evidence?The child bsaid to them: No. Rav Naḥman deemed him liable,in accordance with the claim of the other litigant.,The child bwas walking and crying. These people heard him,and bsaid to him: We know about themonetary bmatters of your fatherand can testify on your behalf. When he brought them before Rav Naḥman, bRav Naḥman said: Ina case like bthis, even the Rabbis concedethat the testimony is accepted, bas a child does not know about themonetary bmatters of his father.Clearly, when he said that he has no witnesses or proof, he said so out of ignorance and was mistaken; there is no concern about artifice.,The Gemara relates: There was ba certain woman from whose possessiona promissory bnote emerged,i.e., she was appointed to hold it. bShe said tothe judge: bI know that thispromissory bnote was repaid.The creditor should not use it to collect. bRav Naḥman deemed hertestimony bcredibleand did not allow the creditor to collect the debt., bRava said to Rav Naḥman: In accordance with whoseopinion is your ruling? Is it bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbiYehuda HaNasi, bwho saysthat bletters,i.e., the content of a promissory note, bare acquired bymerely btransferringthe document? In other words, there is no need to write a deed for the transfer of a monetary document from one individual’s ownership to another. By giving it to the recipient, he becomes the owner of the document. Therefore, since the promissory note is in this woman’s possession, she is considered its legal owner, and her claim that it was repaid is consequently accepted.,Rav Naḥman bsaid to him:That is not the reason for my ruling; rather, bhere it is different.Here the woman’s claim is accepted in any event, bas,since the promissory note was in her possession, bif she had wantedto, bshecould have bburned it.Therefore, she is presumably telling the truth., bSome saythat there is another version of the story, according to which bRav Naḥman did not deem hertestimony bcredible. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: But if she had wantedto |
|
