1. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 30.13 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 30.13. זֶה יִתְּנוּ כָּל־הָעֹבֵר עַל־הַפְּקֻדִים מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ עֶשְׂרִים גֵּרָה הַשֶּׁקֶל מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל תְּרוּמָה לַיהוָה׃ | 30.13. This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary—the shekel is twenty gerahs—half a shekel for an offering to the LORD." |
|
2. Anon., Testament of Moses, 7.1-7.9 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
3. Anon., 2 Baruch, 10.18 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
4. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 3.212, 4.253, 5.146, 13.288-13.298, 13.400-13.404, 14.77-14.78, 14.491, 15.185, 18.4-18.10, 18.12, 18.17, 18.23, 18.25, 20.199, 20.213 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 3.212. 8. But Moses refused all that honor which he saw the multitude ready to bestow upon him, and attended to nothing else but the service of God. He went no more up to Mount Sinai; but he went into the tabernacle, and brought back answers from God for what he prayed for. His habit was also that of a private man, and in all other circumstances he behaved himself like one of the common people, and was desirous to appear without distinguishing himself from the multitude, but would have it known that he did nothing else but take care of them. 4.253. He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever, (and many such causes happen among men,) let him in writing give assurance that he will never use her as his wife any more; for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another husband, although before this bill of divorce be given, she is not to be permitted so to do: but if she be misused by him also, or if, when he is dead, her first husband would marry her again, it shall not be lawful for her to return to him. 5.146. When they no way abated of their earnestness for the strange woman, but insisted absolutely on their desires to have her, he entreated them not to perpetrate any such act of injustice; but they proceeded to take her away by force, and indulging still more the violence of their inclinations, they took the woman away to their house, and when they had satisfied their lust upon her the whole night, they let her go about daybreak. 13.288. 5. However, this prosperous state of affairs moved the Jews to envy Hyrcanus; but they that were the worst disposed to him were the Pharisees, who were one of the sects of the Jews, as we have informed you already. These have so great a power over the multitude, that when they say any thing against the king, or against the high priest, they are presently believed. 13.289. Now Hyrcanus was a disciple of theirs, and greatly beloved by them. And when he once invited them to a feast, and entertained them very kindly, when he saw them in a good humor, he began to say to them, that they knew he was desirous to be a righteous man, and to do all things whereby he might please God, which was the profession of the Pharisees also. 13.291. a man of an ill temper, and delighting in seditious practices. This man said, “Since thou desirest to know the truth, if thou wilt be righteous in earnest, lay down the high priesthood, and content thyself with the civil government of the people,” 13.292. And when he desired to know for what cause he ought to lay down the high priesthood, the other replied, “We have heard it from old men, that thy mother had been a captive under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. “ This story was false, and Hyrcanus was provoked against him; and all the Pharisees had a very great indignation against him. 13.293. 6. Now there was one Jonathan, a very great friend of Hyrcanus’s, but of the sect of the Sadducees, whose notions are quite contrary to those of the Pharisees. He told Hyrcanus that Eleazar had cast such a reproach upon him, according to the common sentiments of all the Pharisees, and that this would be made manifest if he would but ask them the question, What punishment they thought this man deserved? 13.294. for that he might depend upon it, that the reproach was not laid on him with their approbation, if they were for punishing him as his crime deserved. So the Pharisees made answer, that he deserved stripes and bonds, but that it did not seem right to punish reproaches with death. And indeed the Pharisees, even upon other occasions, are not apt to be severe in punishments. 13.295. At this gentle sentence, Hyrcanus was very angry, and thought that this man reproached him by their approbation. It was this Jonathan who chiefly irritated him, and influenced him so far 13.296. that he made him leave the party of the Pharisees, and abolish the decrees they had imposed on the people, and to punish those that observed them. From this source arose that hatred which he and his sons met with from the multitude: 13.297. but of these matters we shall speak hereafter. What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers. 13.298. And concerning these things it is that great disputes and differences have arisen among them, while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side. But about these two sects, and that of the Essenes, I have treated accurately in the second book of Jewish affairs. 13.401. after this she should go in triumph, as upon a victory, to Jerusalem, and put some of her authority into the hands of the Pharisees; for that they would commend her for the honor she had done them, and would reconcile the nation to her for he told her they had great authority among the Jews, both to do hurt to such as they hated, and to bring advantages to those to whom they were friendly disposed; 13.402. for that they are then believed best of all by the multitude when they speak any severe thing against others, though it be only out of envy at them. And he said that it was by their means that he had incurred the displeasure of the nation, whom indeed he had injured. 13.403. “Do thou, therefore,” said he, “when thou art come to Jerusalem, send for the leading men among them, and show them my body, and with great appearance of sincerity, give them leave to use it as they themselves please, whether they will dishonor the dead body by refusing it burial, as having severely suffered by my means, or whether in their anger they will offer any other injury to that body. Promise them also that thou wilt do nothing without them in the affairs of the kingdom. 13.404. If thou dost but say this to them, I shall have the honor of a more glorious funeral from them than thou couldst have made for me; and when it is in their power to abuse my dead body, they will do it no injury at all, and thou wilt rule in safety.” So when he had given his wife this advice, he died, after he had reigned twenty-seven years, and lived fifty years within one. 14.77. 5. Now the occasions of this misery which came upon Jerusalem were Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, by raising a sedition one against the other; for now we lost our liberty, and became subject to the Romans, and were deprived of that country which we had gained by our arms from the Syrians, and were compelled to restore it to the Syrians. 14.78. Moreover, the Romans exacted of us, in a little time, above ten thousand talents; and the royal authority, which was a dignity formerly bestowed on those that were high priests, by the right of their family, became the property of private men. But of these matters we shall treat in their proper places. 14.491. but these men lost the government by their dissensions one with another, and it came to Herod, the son of Antipater, who was of no more than a vulgar family, and of no eminent extraction, but one that was subject to other kings. And this is what history tells us was the end of the Asamonean family. 15.185. But as to Mariamne his wife, because of the misunderstanding between her and his sister, and his sister’s mother, which made it impossible for them to live together, he placed her at Alexandrium, with Alexandra her mother, and left his treasurer Joseph and Sohemus of Iturea to take care of that fortress. These two had been very faithful to him from the beginning, and were now left as a guard to the women. 18.4. Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty; 18.4. When Phraates had had legitimate sons of his own, he had also an Italian maid-servant, whose name was Thermusa, who had been formerly sent to him by Julius Caesar, among other presents. He first made her his concubine; but he being a great admirer of her beauty, in process of time having a son by her, whose name was Phraataces, he made her his legitimate wife, and had a great respect for her. 18.5. as if they could procure them happiness and security for what they possessed, and an assured enjoyment of a still greater good, which was that of the honor and glory they would thereby acquire for magimity. They also said that God would not otherwise be assisting to them, than upon their joining with one another in such councils as might be successful, and for their own advantage; and this especially, if they would set about great exploits, and not grow weary in executing the same; 18.5. But Vonones fled away to Armenia; and as soon as he came thither, he had an inclination to have the government of the country given him, and sent ambassadors to Rome [for that purpose]. 18.6. o men received what they said with pleasure, and this bold attempt proceeded to a great height. All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; 18.6. 2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. 18.7. one violent war came upon us after another, and we lost our friends which used to alleviate our pains; there were also very great robberies and murder of our principal men. This was done in pretense indeed for the public welfare, but in reality for the hopes of gain to themselves; 18.7. and when he joyfully hearkened to her entreaty, she said she wanted no more than fifty thousand drachmae for the entrapping of the woman. So when she had encouraged the young man, and gotten as much money as she required, she did not take the same methods as had been taken before, because she perceived that the woman was by no means to be tempted by money; but as she knew that she was very much given to the worship of the goddess Isis, she devised the following stratagem: 18.8. whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men, which sometimes fell on those of their own people, (by the madness of these men towards one another, while their desire was that none of the adverse party might be left,) and sometimes on their enemies; a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities; nay, the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies’ fire. 18.8. while he only banished Mundus, but did no more to him, because he supposed that what crime he had committed was done out of the passion of love. And these were the circumstances which concerned the temple of Isis, and the injuries occasioned by her priests. I now return to the relation of what happened about this time to the Jews at Rome, as I formerly told you I would. 18.9. Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal 18.9. 3. But Vitellius came into Judea, and went up to Jerusalem; it was at the time of that festival which is called the Passover. Vitellius was there magnificently received, and released the inhabitants of Jerusalem from all the taxes upon the fruits that were bought and sold, and gave them leave to have the care of the high priest’s vestments, with all their ornaments, and to have them under the custody of the priests in the temple, which power they used to have formerly 18.12. 3. Now, for the Pharisees, they live meanly, and despise delicacies in diet; and they follow the conduct of reason; and what that prescribes to them as good for them they do; and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason’s dictates for practice. They also pay a respect to such as are in years; nor are they so bold as to contradict them in any thing which they have introduced; 18.12. 3. So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas, having with him two legions of armed men; he also took with him all those of light armature, and of the horsemen which belonged to them, and were drawn out of those kingdoms which were under the Romans, and made haste for Petra, and came to Ptolemais. 18.17. but this doctrine is received but by a few, yet by those still of the greatest dignity. But they are able to do almost nothing of themselves; for when they become magistrates, as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them. 18.17. for he did not admit ambassadors quickly, and no successors were despatched away to governors or procurators of the provinces that had been formerly sent, unless they were dead; whence it was that he was so negligent in hearing the causes of prisoners; 18.23. 6. But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. 18.23. Now the centurion who was set to keep Agrippa, when he saw with what haste Marsyas came, and what joy Agrippa had from what he said, he had a suspicion that his words implied some great innovation of affairs, and he asked them about what was said. 18.25. And it was in Gessius Florus’s time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy. 18.25. Now Caius saluted Herod, for he first met with him, and then looked upon the letters which Agrippa had sent him, and which were written in order to accuse Herod; wherein he accused him, that he had been in confederacy with Sejanus against Tiberius’s and that he was now confederate with Artabanus, the king of Parthia, in opposition to the government of Caius; 20.199. But this younger Aus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; 20.213. And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Aias was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive. |
|
5. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 1.110-1.114, 1.562, 2.118-2.119, 2.162, 2.409, 2.433, 4.159, 7.253 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 1.111. Now, Alexandra hearkened to them to an extraordinary degree, as being herself a woman of great piety towards God. But these Pharisees artfully insinuated themselves into her favor by little and little, and became themselves the real administrators of the public affairs: they banished and reduced whom they pleased; they bound and loosed [men] at their pleasure; and, to say all at once, they had the enjoyment of the royal authority, whilst the expenses and the difficulties of it belonged to Alexandra. 1.112. She was a sagacious woman in the management of great affairs, and intent always upon gathering soldiers together; so that she increased the army the one half, and procured a great body of foreign troops, till her own nation became not only very powerful at home, but terrible also to foreign potentates, while she governed other people, and the Pharisees governed her. 1.113. 3. Accordingly, they themselves slew Diogenes, a person of figure, and one that had been a friend to Alexander; and accused him as having assisted the king with his advice, for crucifying the eight hundred men [before mentioned]. They also prevailed with Alexandra to put to death the rest of those who had irritated him against them. Now, she was so superstitious as to comply with their desires, and accordingly they slew whom they pleased themselves. 1.114. But the principal of those that were in danger fled to Aristobulus, who persuaded his mother to spare the men on account of their dignity, but to expel them out of the city, unless she took them to be innocent; so they were suffered to go unpunished, and were dispersed all over the country. 1.562. and he besought him earnestly, since there were so many of the royal family alive, that he would change those [intended] marriages. Now the king had nine wives, and children by seven of them; Antipater was himself born of Doris, and Herod [Philip] of Mariamne, the high priest’s daughter; Antipas also and Archelaus were by Malthace, the Samaritan, as was his daughter Olympias, which his brother Joseph’s son had married. By Cleopatra of Jerusalem he had Herod and Philip; and by Pallas, Phasaelus; 2.118. Under his administration it was that a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt, and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans and would after God submit to mortal men as their lords. This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and was not at all like the rest of those their leaders. 2.119. 2. For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of which are the Pharisees; of the second, the Sadducees; and the third sect, which pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essenes. These last are Jews by birth, and seem to have a greater affection for one another than the other sects have. 2.162. 14. But then as to the two other orders at first mentioned: the Pharisees are those who are esteemed most skillful in the exact explication of their laws, and introduce the first sect. These ascribe all to fate [or providence], and to God 2.409. At the same time Eleazar, the son of Aias the high priest, a very bold youth, who was at that time governor of the temple, persuaded those that officiated in the Divine service to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner. And this was the true beginning of our war with the Romans; for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar on this account; 2.433. 8. In the meantime, one Manahem, the son of Judas, that was called the Galilean (who was a very cunning sophister, and had formerly reproached the Jews under Cyrenius, that after God they were subject to the Romans) took some of the men of note with him, and retired to Masada 4.159. and indeed they were Gorian the son of Josephus, and Symeon the son of Gamaliel, who encouraged them, by going up and down when they were assembled together in crowds, and as they saw them alone, to bear no longer, but to inflict punishment upon these pests and plagues of their freedom, and to purge the temple of these bloody polluters of it. 7.253. It was one Eleazar, a potent man, and the commander of these Sicarii, that had seized upon it. He was a descendant from that Judas who had persuaded abundance of the Jews, as we have formerly related, not to submit to the taxation when Cyrenius was sent into Judea to make one; |
|
6. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, 1.7, 1.43, 2.15-2.18, 2.146, 2.170, 2.192, 2.232-2.235, 2.293-2.294 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 1.7. for they will find, that almost all which concerns the Greeks happened not long ago; nay, one may say, is of yesterday only. I speak of the building of their cities, the invention of their arts, and the description of their laws; and as for their care about the writing down of their histories, it is very near the last thing they set about. 1.7. Now, the very same thing will I endeavor to do; for I will bring the Egyptians and the Phoenicians as my principal witnesses, because nobody can complain of their testimony as false on account that they are known to have borne the greatest ill will towards us,—I mean this as to the Egyptians, in general all of them, while of the Phoenicians it is known the Tyrians have been most of all in the same ill disposition towards us: 1.43. For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in number, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws and the records that contain them; 2.15. But then as to this chronological determination of the time when he says he brought the leprous people, the blind, and the lame, out of Egypt, see how well this most accurate grammarian of ours agrees with those that have written before him. 2.15. and if I be compelled to make mention of the laws of other nations, that are contrary to ours, those ought deservedly to thank themselves for it, who have pretended to depreciate our laws in comparison of their own; nor will there, I think, be any room after that for them to pretend, either that we have no such laws ourselves, an epitome of which I will present to the reader, or that we do not, above all men, continue in the observation of them. /p 2.16. Manetho says that the Jews departed out of Egypt, in the reign of Tethmosis, three hundred and ninety-three years before Danaus fled to Argos; Lysimachus says it was under king Bocchoris, that is, one thousand seven hundred years ago; 2.16. When he had therefore come to such a good resolution, and had performed such wonderful exploits, we had just reason to look upon ourselves as having him for a divine governor and counsellor; and when he had first persuaded himself that his actions and designs were agreeable to God’s will, he thought it his duty to impress, above all things, that notion upon the multitude; for those who have once believed that God is the inspector of their lives, will not permit themselves in any sin; 2.17. Molo and some others determined it as every one pleased; but this Apion of ours, as deserving to be believed before them, hath determined it exactly to have been in the seventh olympiad, and the first year of that olympiad; the very same year in which he says that Carthage was built by the Phoenicians. The reason why he added this building of Carthage was, to be sure, in order, as he thought, to strengthen his assertion by so evident a character of chronology. But he was not aware that this character confutes his assertion; 2.17. The reason why the constitution of this legislation was ever better directed to the utility of all than other legislations were, is this, that Moses did not make religion a part of virtue, but he saw and he ordained other virtues to be parts of religion; I mean justice, and fortitude, and temperance, and a universal agreement of the members of the community with one another; 2.18. for if we may give credit to the Phoenician records as to the time of the first coming of their colony to Carthage, they relate that Hirom their king was above one hundred and fifty years earlier than the building of Carthage; concerning whom I have formerly produced testimonials out of those Phoenician records 2.18. for no other people but we Jews have avoided all discourses about God that any way contradict one another, which yet are frequent among other nations; and this is true not only among ordinary persons, according as every one is affected, but some of the philosophers have been insolent enough to indulge such contradictions, while some of them have undertaken to use such words as entirely take away the nature of God, as others of them have taken away his providence over mankind. 2.146. for I suppose it will thence become evident that the laws we have given us are disposed after the best manner for the advancement of piety, for mutual communion with one another, for a general love of mankind, as also for justice, and for sustaining labors with fortitude, and for a contempt of death; 2.192. We see his works, the light, the heaven, the earth, the sun and the moon, the waters, the generations of animals, the productions of fruits. These things hath God made, not with hands, nor with labor, nor as wanting the assistance of any to cooperate with him; but as his will resolved they should be made and be good also, they were made, and became good immediately. All men ought to follow this Being, and to worship him in the exercise of virtue; for this way of worship of God is the most holy of all others. /p 2.232. 33. Now as for ourselves, I venture to say, that no one can tell of so many; nay, not of more than one or two that have betrayed our laws, no, not out of fear of death itself; I do not mean such an easy death as happens in battles, but that which comes with bodily torments, and seems to be the severest kind of death of all others. 2.233. Now I think, those that have conquered us have put us to such deaths, not out of their hatred to us when they had subdued us, but rather out of their desire of seeing a surprising sight, which is this, whether there be such men in the world who believe that no evil is to them so great as to be compelled to do or to speak any thing contrary to their own laws. 2.234. Nor ought men to wonder at us, if we are more courageous in dying for our laws than all other men are; for other men do not easily submit to the easier things in which we are instituted; I mean, working with our hands, and eating but little, and being contented to eat and drink, not at random, or at every one’s pleasure, or being under inviolable rules in lying with our wives, in magnificent furniture, and again in the observation of our times of rest; 2.235. while those that can use their swords in war, and can put their enemies to flight when they attack them, cannot bear to submit to such laws about their way of living: whereas our being accustomed willingly to submit to laws in these instances, renders us fit to show our fortitude upon other occasions also. /p 2.293. on which account I am so bold as to say that we are become the teachers of other men, in the greatest number of things, and those of the most excellent nature only; for what is more excellent than inviolable piety? what is more just than submission to laws? 2.294. and what is more advantageous than mutual love and concord? and this so far that we are to be neither divided by calamities, nor to become injurious and seditious in prosperity; but to condemn death when we are in war, and in peace to apply ourselves to our mechanical occupations, or to our tillage of the ground; while we in all things and all ways are satisfied that God is the inspector and governor of our actions. |
|
7. Josephus Flavius, Life, 102, 104-113, 115, 118-119, 12, 122-128, 130, 132, 134-135, 138, 141-144, 146-149, 151, 153, 155-173, 175-184, 188-192, 194-228, 230, 232, 235, 250, 252, 259, 264-265, 269-279, 28, 280-289, 29, 290-299, 30, 300-303, 309, 31, 313, 318, 32, 321, 33, 331, 336-339, 34, 340-349, 35, 350-359, 36, 360-367, 37, 370, 373, 376-379, 38, 381-384, 388-389, 39, 390-399, 40, 400-409, 41, 410, 412-413, 42, 426, 43-61, 63-76, 79-81, 84-87, 91-100 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
|
8. Mishnah, Avot, 1.16 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.16. Rabban Gamaliel used to say: appoint for thyself a teacher, avoid doubt, and do not make a habit of tithing by guesswork." |
|
9. Mishnah, Eduyot, 9.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
10. Mishnah, Peah, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.6. It happened that Rabbi Shimon of Mitzpah planted his field [with two different kinds] and came before Rabban Gamaliel. They both went up to the Chamber of Hewn Stone and asked [about the law]. Nahum the scribe said: I have a tradition from Rabbi Meyasha, who received it from Abba, who received it from the pairs [of sage], who received it from the prophets, a halakhah of Moses from Sinai, that one who plants his field with two species of wheat, if he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he gives only one peah, but if two threshing-floors, he gives two peahs." |
|
11. Mishnah, Shabbat, 1.4, 6.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.4. And these are of halakhot which they stated in the upper chamber of Haiah ben Hezekiah ben Gurion, when they went up to visit him. They took a count, and Bet Shammai outnumbered Beth Hillel and on that day they enacted eighteen measures." 6.4. A man may not go out with a sword, bow, shield, club, or spear, and if he does go out, he incurs a sin-offering. Rabbi Eliezer says: they are ornaments for him. But the sages say, they are nothing but a disgrace, as it is said, “And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Isaiah 2:4). A garter is clean, and they go out [wearing] it on Shabbat. Knee-bands are unclean, and they may not go out with them on Shabbat." |
|
12. New Testament, Matthew, 17.24-17.27 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 17.24. When they had come to Capernaum, those who collected the didrachmas came to Peter, and said, "Doesn't your teacher pay the didrachma? 17.25. He said, "Yes."When he came into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth receive toll or tribute? From their sons, or from strangers? 17.26. Peter said to him, "From strangers."Jesus said to him, "Therefore the sons are exempt. 17.27. But, lest we cause them to stumble, go to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the first fish that comes up. When you have opened its mouth, you will find a stater. Take that, and give it to them for me and you. |
|
13. Tosefta, Menachot, 13.18-13.19 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
14. Tosefta, Shabbat, 1.16 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
15. Tosefta, Sukkah, 2.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 2.3. The watchmen of the city who watch by day are exempt from the law of the sukkah by day, but under obligation by night; those who watch by day and by night are exempted both by day and by night. Travellers are under obligation by night, but exempted by day. Keepers of gardens and parks are exempted both by day and by night. " |
|
16. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 8a. אלו ת"ח ור"ל סבר לה כדדרש רבא (שיר השירים ח, י) אני חומה זו כנסת ישראל ושדי כמגדלות אלו בתי כנסיות ובתי מדרשות,רב נחמן בר רב חסדא רמא כרגא ארבנן א"ל רב נחמן בר יצחק עברת אדאורייתא ואדנביאי ואדכתובי,אדאורייתא דכתיב (דברים לג, ג) אף חובב עמים כל קדושיו בידך אמר משה לפני הקב"ה רבונו של עולם אפילו בשעה שאתה מחבב עמים כל קדושיו יהיו בידך והם תכו לרגלך תני רב יוסף אלו תלמידי חכמים שמכתתים רגליהם מעיר לעיר וממדינה למדינה ללמוד תורה ישא מדברותיך לישא וליתן בדבורותיו של מקום,אדנביאי דכתיב (הושע ח, י) גם כי יתנו בגוים עתה אקבצם ויחלו מעט ממשא מלך ושרים אמר עולא פסוק זה בלשון ארמית נאמר אי תנו כולהו עתה אקבצם ואם מעט מהם יחלו ממשא מלך ושרים,אדכתובי דכתיב (עזרא ז, כד) מנדה בלו והלך לא שליט למרמא עליהם ואמר רב יהודה מנדה זו מנת המלך בלו זו כסף גולגלתא והלך זו ארנונא,רב פפא רמא כריא חדתא איתמי א"ל רב שישא בריה דרב אידי לרב פפא ודילמא לא מידויל אמר ליה מישקל שקילנא מנייהו אי מידויל מידויל ואי לא מהדרנא לה ניהלייהו,אמר רב יהודה הכל לאגלי גפא אפילו מיתמי אבל רבנן לא צריכי נטירותא הכל לכריא פתיא אפילו מרבנן ולא אמרן אלא דלא נפקי באכלוזא אבל נפקי באכלוזא רבנן לאו בני מיפק באכלוזא נינהו:,רבי פתח אוצרות בשני בצורת אמר יכנסו בעלי מקרא בעלי משנה בעלי גמרא בעלי הלכה בעלי הגדה אבל עמי הארץ אל יכנסו דחק רבי יונתן בן עמרם ונכנס אמר לו רבי פרנסני אמר לו בני קרית אמר לו לאו שנית אמר לו לאו אם כן במה אפרנסך [אמר לו] פרנסני ככלב וכעורב פרנסיה,בתר דנפק יתיב רבי וקא מצטער ואמר אוי לי שנתתי פתי לעם הארץ אמר לפניו ר' שמעון בר רבי שמא יונתן בן עמרם תלמידך הוא שאינו רוצה ליהנות מכבוד תורה מימיו בדקו ואשכח אמר רבי יכנסו הכל,רבי לטעמיה דאמר רבי אין פורענות בא לעולם אלא בשביל עמי הארץ כההוא דמי כלילא דשדו אטבריא אתו לקמיה דרבי ואמרו ליה ליתבו רבנן בהדן אמר להו לא אמרו ליה ערוקינן [אמר להו] ערוקו ערקו פלגיהון דליוה פלגא,אתו הנהו פלגא קמי דרבי א"ל ליתבו רבנן בהדן אמר להו לא ערוקינן ערוקו ערקו כולהו פש ההוא כובס שדיוה אכובס ערק כובס פקע כלילא א"ר ראיתם שאין פורענות בא לעולם אלא בשביל עמי הארץ:,וכמה יהא בעיר ויהא כאנשי העיר וכו': ורמינהי החמרת והגמלת העוברת ממקום למקום ולנה בתוכה והודחה עמהן הן בסקילה וממונן פלט,ואם נשתהו שם שלשים יום הן בסייף וממונן אבד,אמר רבא לא קשיא הא לבני מתא הא ליתובי מתא כדתניא המודר הנאה מאנשי העיר כל שנשתהא שם שנים עשר חדש אסור ליהנות ממנו פחות מכאן מותר מיושבי העיר כל שנשתהא שם שלשים יום אסור ליהנות ממנו פחות מכאן מותר ליהנות ממנו,ולכל מילי מי בעינן י"ב חדש והתניא שלשים יום לתמחוי שלשה חדשים לקופה ששה לכסות תשעה לקבורה שנים עשר לפסי העיר אמר ר' אסי אמר ר' יוחנן כי תנן נמי מתניתין שנים עשר חדש לפסי העיר תנן:,וא"ר אסי אמר ר' יוחנן הכל לפסי העיר ואפי' מיתמי אבל רבנן לא דרבנן לא צריכי נטירותא אמר רב פפא לשורא ולפרשאה ולטרזינא אפילו מיתמי אבל רבנן לא צריכי נטירותא כללא דמילתא כל מילתא דאית להו הנאה מיניה אפילו מיתמי,רבה רמא צדקה איתמי דבי בר מריון א"ל אביי והתני רב שמואל בר יהודה אין פוסקין צדקה על היתומים אפילו לפדיון שבוים אמר ליה אנא לאחשובינהו קא עבידנא,איפרא הורמיז אימיה דשבור מלכא שדרה ארנקא דדינרי לקמיה דרב יוסף אמרה ליהוי למצוה רבה יתיב רב יוסף וקא מעיין בה מאי מצוה רבה א"ל אביי מדתני רב שמואל בר יהודה אין פוסקין צדקה על היתומים אפילו לפדיון שבוים שמע מינה | 8a. bthese are Torah scholars,and towers do not require additional protection? The Gemara comments: bAnd Reish Lakish,who did not cite this verse, bholdsin accordance with the way that bRava expoundedthe verse: b“I am a wall”; thisis referring to bthe Congregation of Israel. “And my breasts are like towers”; these are the synagogues and study halls. /b,It is similarly related that bRav Naḥman bar Rav Ḥisdaonce bim-posedpayment of bthepoll btax [ ikarga /i]even bon the Sages. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to him: You have transgressedthe words of bthe Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings. /b,You have transgressed the words of bthe Torah, as it is written: “Even when He loves the peoples, all His holy ones are in Your hand”(Deuteronomy 33:3), which is understood to mean that bMoses said to the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, even when You hold theother bnations dearand grant them dominion over Israel, let b“all His holy ones,”meaning the Torah scholars, bbeexclusively bin Your handand free from the authority of the nations, and therefore be exempt from pay-ing taxes. The continuation of that verse can also be understood as referring to Torah scholars, as it states: b“And they sit [ itukku /i] at Your feet,receiving Your words” (Deuteronomy 33:3), and bRav Yosef teaches: These are Torah scholars who pound [ imekhatetim /i] their feet from city to city and from country to country to study Torah; “receiving [ iyissa /i] Your words,” to discuss [ ilissa velitten /i] the utterances of God. /b,And you have transgressed the words of bthe Prophets, as it is written: “Though they have hired lovers [ iyitnu /i] among the nations, now I will gather them, and they will begin to be diminished by reason of the burden of kings and princes”(Hosea 8:10). With regard to this verse, bUlla says:Part of bthis verse is stated in the Aramaic language;the word iyitnushould be understood here in its Aramaic sense: To learn. And the verse should be interpreted as follows: bIf allof Israel blearnsTorah, bI will gather themalready bnow; and ifonly ba few of themlearn Torah, bthey will be excused from the burdenimposed bby kings and princes.This indicates that those who study Torah should not be subject to paying taxes.,And furthermore, you have transgressed the words of bthe Writings, as it is written: “It shall not be lawful to impose tribute, impost or toll upon them”(Ezra 7:24), i.e., upon the priests and Levites who serve in the Temple. This ihalakhawould apply to Torah scholars as well. bAnd Rav Yehuda says: “Tribute”; thisis referring to bthe king’s portion,a tax given to the king. b“Impost”; thisis referring to bthe head tax. “Toll”; thisis referring to ba tax [ iarnona /i]paid with property that was imposed from time to time.,It is related that bRav Pappaonce bimposeda tax for bthe digging of a newcistern even bon orphans. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said to Rav Pappa: Perhapsthey will dig, but in the end bthey will not drawany bwaterfrom there, and it will turn out that the money will have been spent for nothing. The rest of the townspeople can relinquish their rights to their money, but orphans who are minors cannot do so. Rav Pappa bsaid to him: I shall collectmoney bfromthe orphans; bif they drawwater, btheywill bdrawwater, band if not, I will returnthe money btothe orphans., bRav Yehuda says: Allof the city’s residents must contribute btothe building and upkeep of bthe city gates [ ile’aglei gappa /i],and for this purpose money is collected beven from orphans. But the Sages do not require protectionand are therefore exempt from this payment. bAllof the city’s residents must contribute bto the digging of cisterns [ ilekarya patya /i],and for this purpose money is collected beven from the Sages,since they too need water. The Gemara comments: bAnd we saidthis bonly whenthe people are bnotrequired to bgo out en masse [ ibe’akhluza /i]and do the actual digging, but are obligated merely to contribute money for that purpose. bBut ifthe people are required to bgo out en masseand actually dig, bthe Sagesare bnotexpected to bgo outwith them ben masse,but rather they are exempt from such labor.,It is related that bRabbiYehuda HaNasi once bopenedhis bstorehousesto distribute food bduring years of drought. He said: Masters of Bible, masters of Mishna, masters of Talmud, masters of ihalakha /i, masters of iaggadamay enterand receive food from me, bbut ignoramuses should not enter. Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram,whom Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did not know, bpushedhis way in, band entered,and bsaid to him: RabbiYehuda HaNasi, bsustain me.Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bsaid to him: My son, have you readthe Bible? Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram bsaid to him,out of modesty: bNo.Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi continued: bHave you studiedMishna? Once again, Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram bsaid to him: No.Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi then asked him: bIf so, by whatmerit bshould I sustain you?Rabbi Yonatan ben Amram bsaid to him: Sustain me like a dog and like a raven,who are given food even though they have not learned anything. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was moved by his words and bfed him. /b, bAfterRabbi Yonatan bleft, RabbiYehuda HaNasi bsat, and was distressed, and said: Woe is me, that I have given my bread to an ignoramus.His son, bRabbi Shimon bar RabbiYehuda HaNasi, bsaid to him: Perhaps he was your disciple Yonatan ben Amram, who never in his life wanted tomaterially bbenefit from the honorshown to the bTorah? They investigatedthe matter band foundthat such was the case. bRabbiYehuda HaNasi then bsaid: Let everyone enter,as there may also be others who hide the fact that they are true Torah scholars.,Commenting on Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion, the Gemara notes that bRabbiYehuda HaNasi conformed bto hisstandard line of breasoning,as bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays: Suffering comes to the world only due to ignoramuses.This is blikethe incident of bthe crown tax [ ikelila /i] that was imposed onthe residents of the city of bTiberias.The heads of the city bcame before RabbiYehuda HaNasi band said to him: The Sages should contributealong bwith us.Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bsaid to them: No,the Sages are exempt. bThey said to him:Then bwe will run awayand the entire burden will fall on the Torah scholars. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bsaid to them: Run awayas you please. bHalfof the city’s residents bran away.The authorities then bwaived halfthe sum that they had initially imposed on the city., bThe halfof the population that remained in the city then bcame before RabbiYehuda HaNasi, and bsaid to him: The Sages should contributealong bwith us.Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bsaid to them: No,the Sages are exempt. They said to him: Then bwetoo bwill run away.Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: bRun awayas you please. bThey all ran away,so that only bone launderer was leftin the city. The authorities bimposedthe entire tax bon the launderer. The laundererthen bran awayas well. bThe crown tax wasthen bcanceledin its entirety. bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsaid: You seefrom this bthat suffering comes to the world only due to ignoramuses,for as soon as they all fled from the city, the crown tax was completely canceled.,§ The mishna teaches: bAnd how longmust one live bin the city to beconsidered blikeone of bthe people of the city?Twelve months. bAnd we raise a contradictionfrom what is taught in a ibaraita /i: In the case of ba donkey caravan or a camel caravan that was journeying from place to place, and it lodged insidean idolatrous city, band itsmembers bwere led astrayalong bwiththe other residents of the city, and they too engaged in idol worship, bthey,the members of the caravan, are liable to death bby stoninglike ordinary individual idolaters, band their property escapesdestruction, i.e., they are not treated like the residents of an idolatrous city, who are liable to death by the sword and whose property is destroyed.,The ibaraitacontinues: bAnd ifthe caravan members bhad remainedin that city for bthirty days, theyare liable to death bby the sword and their property is destroyed,just as it is for the rest of the residents of the city. This seems to indicate that once an individual has lived in a city for thirty days, he is already considered one of its residents., bRava said:This is bnot difficult. Thisperiod, i.e., twelve months, is required in order to be considered one of the bmembers of the city;and bthatperiod, i.e., thirty days, suffices in order to be considered one of the bresidents of the city. As it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bOne who is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from the people of aparticular bcityis bprohibited from deriving benefit from anyone who has stayed therefor btwelve months,but it is permitted for him to derive benefit from anyone who has stayed there for blesstime bthan that.By contrast, if he prohibited himself by way of a vow from deriving benefit bfrom the residents of aparticular bcity,he is bprohibited from deriving benefit from anyone who has stayed therefor bthirty days,but bit is permitted for him to derive benefit fromanyone who has stayed there for blesstime bthan that. /b,The Gemara asks: bAnd do we requirethat one live in a city for btwelve months for all matters? But isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: If one lives in city for bthirty days,he must contribute btothe bcharity platterfrom which food is distributed to the poor. If he lives there for bthree months,he must contribute btothe charity bbox.If he lives there for bsixmonths, he must contribute btothe bclothingfund. If he lives there for bninemonths, he must contribute btothe bburialfund. If he lives there for btwelvemonths, he must contribute btothe bcolumns of the city [ ilepassei ha’ir /i],i.e., for the construction of a security fence. bRabbi Asi saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: When we learned twelve months in the mishna, we learnedthat with regard to contributing btothe bcolumns of the city,money used for protecting and strengthening the city, but not for other matters., bAnd Rabbi Asi saysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says: Allare required to contribute btothe bcolumns of the city, andmoney is collected for that purpose beven from orphans. But the Sagesare bnotrequired to contribute, bsince the Sages do not need protection. Rav Pappa said:Money is collected beven from orphans for thecity bwall, for thecity bhorseman, and for the guard [ iuletarzina /i]of the city armory, bbut the Sages do not require protection. The principle of the matteris: Money is collected beven from orphansfor banything from which theyderive bbenefit. /b,It is reported that bRabba imposeda contribution to a certain bcharity on the orphans of the house of bar Maryon. Abaye said to him: But didn’t Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda teach: One does not impose a charityobligation bon orphans even forthe sake of bredeeming captives,since they are minors and are not obligated in the mitzvot? Rabba bsaid to him: I did this to elevate themin standing, i.e., so that people should honor them as generous benefactors; not in order that the poor should benefit.,Incidental to this story, the Gemara relates that bIfera Hurmiz, the mother of King Shapur,king of Persia, bsent a purse [ iarneka /i]full bof dinars to Rav Yosef. She saidto him: bLetthe money be used bfor a great mitzva. Rav Yosef sat and consideredthe question: bWhatdid Ifera Hurmiz mean when she attached a condition to the gift, saying that it should be used for ba great mitzva? Abaye said to him: From what Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda taught,that bone does not impose a charityobligation bon orphans even forthe sake of bredeeming captives, learn from this /b |
|
17. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 13b. (דברים ו, ו) אשר אנכי מצוך היום על לבבך מכאן אתה למד שכל הפרשה כולה צריכה כוונה,אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן הלכה כר"ע,איכא דמתני לה אהא דתניא הקורא את שמע צריך שיכוין את לבו ר' אחא משום ר' יהודה אומר כיון שכוון לבו בפרק ראשון שוב אינו צריך אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן הלכה כר' אחא שאמר משום ר' יהודה,תניא אידך והיו שלא יקרא למפרע על לבבך ר' זוטרא אומר עד כאן מצות כוונה מכאן ואילך מצות קריאה רבי יאשיה אומר עד כאן מצות קריאה מכאן ואילך מצות כוונה,מ"ש מכאן ואילך מצות קריאה דכתיב לדבר בם הכא נמי הא כתיב ודברת בם,ה"ק עד כאן מצות כוונה וקריאה מכאן ואילך קריאה בלא כוונה,ומאי שנא עד כאן מצות כוונה וקריאה דכתיב על לבבך ודברת בם התם נמי הא כתיב על לבבכם לדבר בם,ההוא מבעי ליה לכדרבי יצחק דאמר (דברים יא, יח) ושמתם את דברי אלה צריכה שתהא שימה כנגד הלב:,אמר מר ר' יאשיה אומר עד כאן מצות קריאה מכאן ואילך מצות כוונה מ"ש מכאן ואילך מצות כוונה משום דכתיב על לבבכם הכא נמי הא כתיב על לבבך,ה"ק עד כאן מצות קריאה וכוונה מכאן ואילך כוונה בלא קריאה,ומ"ש עד כאן מצות קריאה וכוונה דכתיב על לבבך ודברת בם התם נמי הא כתיב על לבבכם לדבר בם,ההוא בדברי תורה כתיב וה"ק רחמנא אגמירו בנייכו תורה כי היכי דליגרסו בהו:,ת"ר (דברים ו, ד) שמע ישראל ה' אלהינו ה' אחד עד כאן צריכה כוונת הלב דברי ר"מ אמר רבא הלכה כר"מ,תניא סומכוס אומר כל המאריך באחד מאריכין לו ימיו ושנותיו אמר רב אחא בר יעקב ובדלי"ת אמר רב אשי ובלבד שלא יחטוף בחי"ת,ר' ירמיה הוה יתיב קמיה דר' [חייא בר אבא] חזייה דהוה מאריך טובא א"ל כיון דאמליכתיה למעלה ולמטה ולארבע רוחות השמים תו לא צריכת:,אמר רב נתן בר מר עוקבא אמר רב יהודה על לבבך בעמידה על לבבך סלקא דעתך אלא אימא עד על לבבך בעמידה מכאן ואילך לא ורבי יוחנן אמר כל הפרשה כולה בעמידה,ואזדא ר' יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן הלכה כר' אחא שאמר משום ר' יהודה:,ת"ר שמע ישראל ה' אלהינו ה' אחד זו ק"ש של ר' יהודה הנשיא א"ל רב לר' חייא לא חזינא ליה לרבי דמקבל עליה מלכות שמים אמר ליה בר פחתי בשעה שמעביר ידיו על פניו מקבל עליו עול מלכות שמים,חוזר וגומרה או אינו חוזר וגומרה בר קפרא אומר אינו חוזר וגומרה רבי שמעון ברבי אומר חוזר וגומרה א"ל בר קפרא לר"ש ברבי בשלמא לדידי דאמינא אינו חוזר וגומרה היינו דמהדר רבי אשמעתא דאית בה יציאת מצרים אלא לדידך דאמרת חוזר וגומרה למה ליה לאהדורי,כדי להזכיר יציאת מצרים בזמנה,אמר ר' אילא בריה דרב שמואל בר מרתא משמיה דרב אמר שמע ישראל ה' אלהינו ה' אחד ונאנס בשינה יצא אמר ליה רב נחמן לדרו עבדיה בפסוקא קמא צערן טפי לא תצערן אמר ליה רב יוסף לרב יוסף בריה דרבה אבוך היכי הוה עביד אמר ליה בפסוקא קמא הוה קא מצער נפשיה טפי לא הוה מצער נפשיה,אמר רב יוסף פרקדן לא יקרא קריאת שמע מקרא הוא דלא ליקרי הא מיגנא שפיר דמי והא רבי יהושע בן לוי לייט אמאן דגני אפרקיד,אמרי מיגנא כי מצלי שפיר דמי מקרא אע"ג דמצלי נמי אסור,והא ר' יוחנן מצלי וקרי,שאני ר' יוחנן דבעל בשר הוה:,ובפרקים שואל וכו',משיב מחמת מאי אילימא מפני הכבוד השתא משאל שאיל אהדורי מבעיא אלא שואל מפני הכבוד ומשיב שלום לכל אדם אימא סיפא ובאמצע שואל מפני היראה ומשיב,משיב מחמת מאי אילימא מפני היראה השתא משאל שאיל אהדורי מבעיא אלא מפני הכבוד היינו דר"י דתנן ר"י אומר באמצע שואל מפני היראה ומשיב מפני הכבוד ובפרקים שואל מפני הכבוד ומשיב שלום לכל אדם,חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני בפרקים שואל מפני הכבוד ואין צריך לומר שהוא משיב ובאמצע שואל מפני היראה ואין צריך לומר שהוא משיב דברי ר"מ רבי יהודה אומר באמצע שואל מפני היראה ומשיב מפני הכבוד | 13b. b“Which I command you this day, will be upon your heart.”Surely the word these, does not come to limit the mitzva of intent. On the contrary, bfrom here you derive that the entire portion requires intent. /b, bRabba bar bar Ḥana saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: The ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Akiva;the entire portion requires intent., bSome teach this ihalakhastated by Rabbi Yoḥa bwith regard to that which was taughtin a iTosefta /i, where there is a tannaitic dispute. The first itannaholds: bOne who recites iShemamust focus his heartfor the entire iShema /i. bRabbi Aḥa says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: Once he focused his heart for the first paragraphalone, bhe no longer requiresintent. With regard to this iTosefta /i, bRabba bar bar Ḥana saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: The ihalakhais in accordance with Rabbi Aḥa who said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda.While this differs from the previous version in form, it arrives at the same conclusion., bIt was taughtin banother ibaraitaon this subject, which cited different opinions. From: bAnd they will be,recited in iShema /i, it is derived that bit may not be recited out of order.From: bUpon your heart, Rav Zutra says: To this point,there is bthe mitzva of intent; from here on,beginning with the second paragraph, there is only bthe mitzva of recitation. Rabbi Yoshiya saysthat it means the opposite: bTo this point,there is bthe mitzva of recitation; from here onthere is only bthe mitzva of intent. /b,At first the Gemara understands that Rav Zutra required recitation only in the second paragraph, while in the first paragraph only intent was required. Therefore, the Gemara asks: bWhat is different,that bfrom here on,beginning with the second paragraph, there is bthe mitzva of recitation?Is it because bit is written:“And you shall teach them to your children, bto speak of them”(Deuteronomy 11:19)? This is no proof, as bhere too,in the first paragraph bit is written: “And you shall speak of them.”The mitzva of recitation applies to the first paragraph as well.,Rather, bhe is saying as follows: To this pointthere is bthe mitzva ofboth bintent and recitation,but bfrom here on,there is only the mitzva of brecitation without intent. /b,Again the Gemara asks: According to Rav Zutra, bwhat is different,that bto this point,in the first paragraph, there is bthe mitzva ofboth bintent and recitationbecause there are two requirements in the first paragraph, bas it is written: “Upon your heart…and you shall speak of them”? There, too,in the second paragraph bit is also written: “And you shall place these words upon your heart…to speak of them,”indicating that intent is also required in that paragraph.,The Gemara responds: bThat verse is necessary to derivethat which was taught by bRabbi Yitzḥak, who said: “And you shall place these words”refers literally to the paragraphs of iShemafound in the phylacteries. The verse teaches bthat the placementof the phylacteries of the arm bmust be opposite the heart. /b,The Gemara now attempts to clarify the second opinion in the ibaraita /i. bThe Master said, Rabbi Yoshiya says: To this pointat the end of the first paragraph, there is bthe mitzva of recitation; from here onthere is bthe mitzva of intent.The Gemara asks: bWhat is different,that bfrom here on,beginning with the second paragraph, there is bthe mitzva of intent?Is it bbecause it is writtenin the second paragraph: “And you shall place these words bupon your heart”?That is no proof, as bhere too,in the first paragraph bit is written: “Upon your heart.” /b,The Gemara responds that bhe is saying as follows: To this point,there is bthe mitzva ofboth brecitation and intent,but bfrom here on,there is only the mitzva of bintent without recitation. /b,The Gemara continues: bAnd what is different,that bto this point,in the first paragraph, there is bthe mitzva of recitation and intentbecause there are two requirements, bas it is written: Upon your heartas well as: bAnd you shall speak of them? There, too,with regard to the second paragraph bisn’t it written:And you shall place these words bupon your heart /b…and you shall teach them to your children, bto speak of them? /b,Rabbi Yoshiya responded: bThatverse refers to bTorah studyin general, not to the recitation of iShemain particular. bAnd the Torah says the following: Teach your children Torah, that they will be well-versed in them. /b, bThe Sages taughtin another ibaraitawith regard to one who recites iShemaand utters the verse, b“Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” Intent of the heart isonly brequired to this point.This is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. Rava said:In this matter, bthe ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Meir. /b, bIt was taughtin a ibaraita /i, bSumakhos says: One who extendshis intonation bofthe word bOne [ ieḥad /i]while reciting iShema /i, is rewarded that bhis days and years are extended. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said:This is only true if he extends btheletter idalet /i,so the word ieḥadis sounded in its entirety. bRav Ashi said:This is bonly so long as one does notpronounce the letter iḥethurriedly. /b,The Gemara relates that bRabbi Yirmeya was seated before Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. He saw that he was greatly extendinghis pronunciation of ieḥad /i. bHe said to him: Once you have crowned Himin your thoughts bovereverything babove,in Heaven, bbelow,on earth, band in the four corners of the heavens, you need notextend any bfurther. /b, bRav Natan bar Mar Ukva saidthat bRav Yehuda said:One must recite bupon your heart, while standingin one place. The Gemara is perplexed: bDoes it enter your mindthat bupon your heartalone must be recited while standing in one place? What distinguishes that phrase from the rest of iShema /i? bRather, say:One must recite buntil upon your heartwhile bstandingin one place. bFrom here on,one need bnotstand in one place. bRabbi Yoḥa said:One must recite bthe entirefirst bportionwhile bstandingin one place.,The Gemara notes: bRabbi Yoḥais consistent band follows his reasoningexpressed elsewhere, as bRabba bar bar Ḥana saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: The ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Aḥa who said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda;one is required to recite the entire first paragraph of iShemawith intent., bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: The single verse, b“Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One”; this is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s recitation of iShema /i.The Gemara relates: bRav said tohis uncle, bRabbi Ḥiyya: I did not see RabbiYehuda HaNasi baccept the kingship of Heaven upon himself,meaning that he did not see him recite iShema /i. Rabbi Ḥiyya bsaid to him: Son of noblemen [ ibar paḥtei/b], bwhenRabbi Yehuda HaNasi bpassed his hands over his facein the study hall in the middle of his lesson, bhe accepted the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven upon himself,as his iShemawas comprised of a single verse.,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s students and members of his household disputed: bDoes he complete iShema blater or does he not complete it later? Bar Kappara says: He does not complete it later. Rabbi Shimon, son of RabbiYehuda HaNasi, bsays: He completes it later. Bar Kappara said to Rabbi Shimon, son of RabbiYehuda HaNasi: bGranted, according to myposition, bthat I say thatRabbi Yehuda HaNasi bdoes not complete iShema blater, that is whywhen he taught, bRabbiYehuda HaNasi would specifically bseek a topic that included the exodus from Egypt,as by so doing he fulfills the mitzva to remember the Exodus; a mitzva that others fulfill in their recitation of the last paragraph of iShema /i. bBut according to you, who says that he completeshis recitation of iShema blater, why,when he teaches, bwouldhe specifically bseeka topic that included the exodus from Egypt?,Rabbi Shimon responded: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi did so bin order to mention the exodus from Egypt at itsappointed btime,during the time of the recitation of iShema /i.,Based on this ihalakha /i, bRabbi Ila, son of Rav Shmuel bar Marta, said in the name of Rav: One who recitedthe verse, b“Hear, Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One,” and wasimmediately bovercome by sleep, fulfilledhis obligation to recite iShema /i. Similarly, bRav Naḥman said to his slave, Daru:If you see that I have fallen asleep, bbother meto recite bthe first verse, do not bother meto recite any bmorethan that. Similarly, bRav Yosef said to Rav Yosef, son of Rabba: What would your father do?Rav Yosef, son of Rabba, bsaid to him: He would exert himselfnot to fall asleep in order to recite bthe first verse, he would not exert himselfto recite any bmorethan that., bRav Yosef said: One who is lying [ iperakdan /i] on his back may not recite iShema /i,for lying that way is unbecoming. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that bone may not recite iShemain this position, bbut tosleep blyingin that position bis permissible? Didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi curse one whosleeps blying on his back? /b,The Gemara answers: bIf onelies on his back bwhile leaningslightly to the side, bit is permissible.Nonetheless, bto recite iShemain this position, beven though he is leaning, is prohibited. /b,The Gemara asks: bWouldn’t Rabbi Yoḥalie on his back, bleanslightly band recite iShema /i?,The Gemara responds: The case of bRabbi Yoḥa is different,because bhe was corpulentand it was difficult for him to read any other way.,The mishna cited Rabbi Meir’s statement: bAt thebreaks between bparagraphs, one may greetan individual due to the respect that he is obligated to show him, and may respond. And in the middle of each paragraph, one may greet an individual due to the fear that the individual may harm him if he fails do so, and may respond.,About this, the Gemara asks: He may brespond due to whatcircumstance? bIf you saythat one may respond bdue to respect; now thatwe learned that bone may greetanother due to respect, bis it necessaryto say that bone may responddue to respect? bRather,it must be explained as follows: bOne may greet due to respect and respond with a greeting to any person.But if that is the case, bsay the latter clauseof the mishna: bIn the middleof each paragraph bone may greet due to fear and returnanother’s greeting due to fear.,Here too, it must be clarified: He may brespond due to whatcircumstance? bIf you saythat one may respond bdue to fear; now thatwe have learned that bone may greetanother due to fear, bis it necessaryto say that bone may responddue to fear? bRather,it must mean that one may respond to another’s greeting even bdue to honor.If so, bthat isidentical to the opinion of bRabbi Yehuda, as we learnedin the mishna: bIn the middleof each paragraph, bone may greetanother bdue to fear and respond due to respect. At thebreaks between bparagraphs, one may greetanother bdue to respect and respond with a greeting to any person.If so, what is the dispute between them?,The Gemara says: The mishna bis incomplete;it is missing an important element, band it teaches the following: At thebreaks between the bparagraphs, one may greet due to respect, and, needless to say, he may responddue to respect. bIn the middleof each paragraph bone may greet due to fear, and, needless to say, he may responddue to fear. This is the bstatement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: In the middleof each paragraph bone may greet due to fear and respond due to respect. /b |
|
18. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 15a. שלמה גזר לקדשים ואתו אינהו וגזור אף לתרומה,גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל י"ח גזרו ובי"ח נחלקו והתניא הושוו בו ביום נחלקו ולמחר הושוו,גופא אמר רב הונא בג' מקומות נחלקו שמאי והלל שמאי אומר מקב חלה והלל אומר מקביים וחכמים אומרים לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה אלא קב ומחצה חייב בחלה משהגדילו המדות אמרו חמשת רבעים קמח חייבין בחלה ר' יוסי אומר ה' פטורין ה' ועוד חייבין,ואידך הלל אומר מלא הין מים שאובים פוסלים את המקוה שחייב אדם לומר בלשון רבו שמאי אומר תשעה קבין וחכמים אומרים לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה עד שבאו ב' גרדיים משער האשפה שבירושלים והעידו משום שמעיה ואבטליון ששלשה לוגין מים שאובין פוסלים את המקוה וקיימו חכמים את דבריהם,ואידך שמאי אומר כל הנשים דיין שעתן והלל אומר מפקידה לפקידה ואפילו לימים הרבה וחכמים אומרים לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה אלא מעת לעת ממעט ע"י מפקידה לפקידה ומפקידה לפקידה ממעט על יד מעת לעת,ותו ליכא והאיכא הלל אומר לסמוך ושמאי אומר שלא לסמוך כי קאמר רב הונא היכא דליכא פלוגתא דרבוותא בהדייהו,והאיכא הבוצר לגת שמאי אומר הוכשר והלל אומר לא הוכשר בר מיניה דההיא דהתם קא שתיק ליה הלל לשמאי:,יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה ויוסי בן יוחנן איש ירושלים גזרו טומא' על ארץ העמים ועל כלי זכוכית: והא רבנן דשמנים שנה גזור דאמר רב כהנא כשחלה ר' ישמעאל בר' יוסי שלחו לו ר' אמור לנו ב' וג' דברים שאמרת (לנו) משום אביך,שלח להם כך אמר אבא ק"פ שנה עד שלא חרב הבית פשטה מלכות הרשעה על ישראל פ' שנה עד שלא חרב הבית גזרו טומאה על ארץ העמים ועל כלי זכוכית מ' שנה עד שלא חרב הבית גלתה לה סנהדרין וישבה לה בחנויות למאי הילכתא א"ר יצחק בר אבדימי לומר שלא דנו דיני קנסות דיני קנסות ס"ד אלא אימא שלא דנו דיני נפשות,וכי תימא בפ' שנה נמי אינהו הוו והתניא הלל ושמעון גמליאל ושמעון נהגו נשיאותן (לפני) הבית מאה שנה ואילו יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה ויוסי בן יוחנן הוו קדמי טובא | 15a. bSolomonand bdecreedimpurity on hands btoprohibit contact with bconsecrated items,and Shammai, Hillel, and their disciples bcame and decreedimpurity on hands even btoprohibit contact with iteruma /i. /b, bAs to the matter itselfthat was mentioned above in passing, bRav Yehuda saidthat bShmuel said: With regard to eighteen matters they issued decreesthat day, band with regard tothose beighteenmatters bthey disagreedprior to that. The Gemara asks: bWasn’t it taughtin a ibaraitathat bthey reached a consensusin their opinions with regard to the eighteen decrees? They answer: bOn that day they disagreed, and the following day,after the matter was decided in a vote, bthey reached a consensusin their opinions., bAs to the matter itselfthat was mentioned above in passing, bRav Huna said: Shammai and Hillel disagreed in three places.The Gemara cites the disputes. One, bShammai says: From a ikav /iof dough, one is required to separate iḥalla /i,the portion of the dough given to a priest. From any less than that measure there is no obligation to separate iḥalla,as that is not the measure alluded to in the verse: “The first of your dough” (Numbers 15:20), written with regard to the mitzva of separating iḥalla /i. bAnd Hillel says:One must separate iḥallaonly bfrom two ikav /i. And the Rabbis say:The ihalakhais bneither in accordance with the statement of thisone, who is stringent, bnor in accordance with the statement of thatone, who is lenient. bRather, one and a half ikav /iis the measure from which one bis obligatedto separate iḥalla /i. Once the measures increasedand the Sages recalculated the volume of a ikavto be greater, bthey saidthat based on the measure of the new ikav /i, bfive quartersof a ikavof bflouris the measure from which one bis obligatedto separate iḥalla /i. Rabbi Yosei says: Fivequarters bare exempt;only from dough the size of bfivequarters banda bit bmore isone bobligatedto separate iḥalla /i., bAnd anotherdispute between Hillel and Shammai is that bHillel says: A full ihin /i,twelve ilog /i, bof drawn waterpoured into a ritual bath in which there was not yet a full measure of forty ise’a bdisqualifies thewater of the britual bathand accords even the water that had been there previously the status of drawn water. Even if water fit for a ritual bath is subsequently added to complete the measure of forty ise’a /i, the ritual bath remains unfit for immersion. Hillel used the biblical measure, ihin /i, bbecause,when quoting one’s teacher, ba person must speakemploying bthe language of his teacher. Shammai says: Nine ikav /iof water is enough to disqualify the ritual bath. bAnd the Rabbis say:The ihalakhais bneither in accordance with the statement of thisone bnor in accordance with the statement of thatone. The Sages did not determine a measure for the water disqualifying a ritual bath buntil two weavers came from the Dung Gate in Jerusalem and testified in the name of Shemaya and Avtalyon that three ilogof drawn water disqualify the ritual bath, and the Rabbis upheld their statementagainst the opinions of the great Sages of Israel, Hillel and Shammai. The Gemara emphasized their occupation and the place that they lived to underscore that, despite the fact that their occupation was despised and their place was contemptible, there is no preferential treatment when it comes to Torah., bAnd anotherdispute between Hillel and Shammai is that bShammai says: All women, their time is sufficient,i.e., a woman who notices that she saw blood of menstruation but did not feel the flow beforehand, need not worry that perhaps the flow of blood began before she saw it, and it is sufficient if she assumes ritual impurity status beginning at that moment. bHillel says: From examination to examination,i.e., a woman who saw blood, if she does not know when the menstrual flow began, she is considered impure retroactive to the last time she examined herself and found herself to be ritually pure, band evenif the examination took place bseveral daysearlier. Anything that she touched in the interim becomes ritually impure. bAnd the Rabbis say:The ihalakhais bneither in accordance with the statement of thisone bnor in accordance with the statement of thatone; brather,the principle is: bA full day,twenty-four hours, breducesthe time bfrom examination to examination,i.e., if her final self-examination took place a long time before, she need only concern herself with ritual impurity for the twenty-four hour period prior to noticing the blood. bAnd from examination to examination reducesthe time bfrom a full day,i.e., if she examined herself in the course of the previous day and discovered no blood, she was certainly ritually pure prior to the examination.,The Gemara asks: bAnd are there no moredisputes between them? bIsn’t therewhat we learned that bHillel saysthat it is permitted bto lay handson the heads of offerings sacrificed on a Festival, and one performs no prohibited labor and does not desecrate the Festival by doing so; band Shammai says not to lay hands?The Gemara answers: bWhen Rav Huna saidhis statement, he was referring to disputes bwhere there is no disputebetween the great bSageswho predated them bconcomitant with theirs.The dispute with regard to laying hands on the Festival is ancient, and their predecessors, Sages dating back to the beginning of the era of the pairs, already disputed it.,The Gemara asks further: bIsn’t therealso the dispute with regard to bone who harvestsgrapes in order to take them bto the pressand stomp them as to whether or not the liquid that seeps out of the grapes is considered as having seeped out willfully and renders the grapes susceptible to impurity? bShammai says: It has become susceptible, and Hillel says: It has not become susceptible.The Gemara rejects this: bExcept for that one, as there,although they originally disagreed, ultimately bHillel was silentand did not respond bto Shammaiand ultimately accepted his opinion.,Earlier it was mentioned that bYosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥa of Jerusalem decreed impurity upon the land of the nations and upon glass vessels.The Gemara asks: Was it these two Sages, who were among the first Sages in the era of the pairs, who issued these decrees? bWasn’t it theSages who lived in the final beighty yearsof the Second Temple period who bissuedthese bdecrees?As bRav Kahana said: When Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, fell ill,the Sages bsent to him: Rabbi, tell us two or three statements that youonce btoldus bin the name of your father. /b, bHe sent to them: Thisis what my bfather said: One hundred and eighty years before the Temple was destroyed, the evil kingdomof Rome binvaded Israel. Eighty years before the Temple was destroyed, they decreed impurity on the land of the nations and on glass vessels. Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the Sanhedrin was exiledfrom the Chamber of Hewn Stones band sat in the storeson the Temple Mount. With regard to the last statement, the Gemara asks: bWhatare the bhalakhicramifications of this statement? bRabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: To say that they nolonger bjudged cases of fines.The Gemara wonders: bDoes it enter your mindthat they no longer judged bcases of fines?Even several generations after the Temple was destroyed they continued to judge cases of fines in Eretz Yisrael. bRather,emend and bsay: That they no longer judged capital cases.The authority to impose the death penalty was stripped from the Sanhedrin, and therefore they willingly left the Chamber of Hewn Stone. Since the Sanhedrin no longer convenes in its designated place, the ihalakhais that it no longer has the authority to judge capital cases ( iTosafot /i).,In any case, we learned that the Sages of the last eighty years before the destruction are the ones who decreed impurity on the land of the nations. bAnd if you saythat Yosei ben Yo’ezer and Yosei ben Yoḥa bwere also there duringthose beighty years, wasn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bHillel, andhis son bShimon,and his grandson bGamliel, andhis great-grandson bShimon filled theirposition of iNasibefore the House,while the Temple was standing, for ba hundred years, while Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥa were much earlierthan Hillel? |
|
19. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 61a. קברי עובדי כוכבים אינן מטמאין באהל שנא' (יחזקאל לד, לא) ואתן צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם אתם קרויין אדם ואין העובדי כוכבים קרויין אדם,מיתיבי (במדבר לא, מ) ונפש אדם ששה עשר אלף משום בהמה,(יונה ד, יא) אשר יש בה הרבה משתים עשרה רבוא אדם אשר לא ידע בין ימינו לשמאלו (ובהמה רבה) משום בהמה,(במדבר לא, יט) כל הורג נפש וכל נוגע בחלל תתחטאו דלמא איקטיל חד מישראל ורבנן לא נפקד ממנו איש ור' שמעון בן יוחי לא נפקד ממנו איש לעבירה,רבינא אמר נהי דמעטינהו קרא מאטמויי באהל דכתיב (במדבר יט, יד) אדם כי ימות באהל ממגע ומשא מי מעטינהו קרא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אירס את האלמנה ונתמנה להיות כהן גדול יכנוס ומעשה ביהושע בן גמלא שקדש את מרתא בת ביתוס ומנהו המלך להיות כה"ג וכנסה שומרת יבם שנפלה לפני כהן הדיוט ונתמנה להיות כה"ג אע"פ שעשה בה מאמר הרי זה לא יכנוס:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר מנין שאם אירס את האלמנה ונתמנה להיות כהן גדול שיכנוס ת"ל (ויקרא כא, יד) יקח אשה א"ה שומרת יבם נמי אשה ולא יבמה:,מעשה ביהושע וכו': מנהו אין נתמנה לא אמר רב יוסף קטיר קחזינא הכא דאמר רב אסי תרקבא דדינרי עיילה ליה מרתא בת ביתוס לינאי מלכא עד דמוקי ליה ליהושע בן גמלא בכהני רברבי:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כהן גדול שמת אחיו חולץ ולא מייבם:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big קא פסיק ותני לא שנא מן האירוסין ולא שנא מן הנשואין בשלמא מן הנשואין עשה ולא תעשה הוא ואין עשה דוחה ל"ת ועשה אלא מן האירוסין יבא עשה וידחה את לא תעשה,גזירה ביאה ראשונה אטו ביאה שניה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כהן הדיוט לא ישא אילונית אלא א"כ יש לו אשה ובנים רבי יהודה אומר אע"פ שיש לו אשה ובנים לא ישא אילונית שהיא זונה האמורה בתורה וחכמים אומרים אין זונה אלא גיורת ומשוחררת ושנבעלה בעילת זנות:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big א"ל ריש גלותא לרב הונא מ"ט משום פריה ורביה אפריה ורביה כהנים הוא דמפקדי וישראל לא מפקדי אמר ליה משום דקא בעי למיתני סיפא רבי יהודה אומר אע"פ שיש לו אשה | 61a. bThe graves of gentiles do not renderitems bimpure though a tent, as it is stated: “And you My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are men [ iadam /i]”(Ezekiel 34:31), from which it is derived that byou,the Jewish people, bare called men [ iadam /i] but gentiles are not called men [ iadam /i].Since the Torah introduces the ihalakhaof ritual impurity of a tent with the words: “When a man [ iadam /i] dies in a tent” (Numbers 19:14), this ihalakhaapplies only to corpses of Jews but not those of gentiles.,The Gemara braises an objectionbased upon the verse with regard to captives taken during the war against Midian: b“And the persons [ inefesh adam /i] were sixteen thousand”(Numbers 31:40), which indicates that gentiles are also referred to as iadam /i. The Gemara answers: They are given this title bdue tothe need to distinguish the people taken captive from the banimalsthat were taken as spoils of war.,The Gemara raises another difficulty based upon a verse with regard to the city of Nineveh: b“Wherein are more than one hundred and twenty thousand men [ iadam /i] that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand, and also much cattle”(Jonah 4:11). The Gemara answers: There, too, the gentiles are given this title bdue tothe need to distinguish them from the banimalsmentioned in the verse.,The Gemara continues to question Rabbi Shimon’s ruling based upon a verse pertaining to the war against Midian: b“Whoever has killed anyone, and whoever has touched any slain, purify yourselves”(Numbers 31:19). This indicates that gentile corpses convey ritual impurity. The Gemara answers: bPerhaps a Jew was killed,and the concern was for impurity caused by his corpse. bAnd the Rabbisreply that the verse attests: b“Not one man of us is missing”(Numbers 31:49). No Jewish soldiers fell in battle, and therefore the concern for impurity must have been due to the corpses of gentiles. bAnd Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥairesponds: The intent of that verse is that bnot one man of us is missingdue to btransgression,i.e., none of them sinned., bRavina saidthat the explanation above is unnecessary: bGranted, the verse excludedgentiles bfrom renderingitems bimpure through a tent, as it is written: “When a man [ iadam /i] dies in a tent”(Numbers 19:14); but bdid the verse exclude them fromrendering items impure via btouching and carrying?Since gentile corpses convey impurity in these ways, they could have rendered impure the Jews involved in the war with Midian, even according to Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai., strongMISHNA: /strong If a priest bbetrothed a widow and wassubsequently bappointed to be High Priest, he may marryher. bAndthere was ban incident with Yehoshua ben Gamla, who betrothed Marta bat Baitos,a widow, band the kingsubsequently bappointed him to be High Priest, andhe nevertheless bmarried her.Conversely, in the case of ba widow waiting for her iyavamwho happened before a common priest,i.e., the priest was her iyavam /i, band he wassubsequently bappointed to be High Priest,then beven if hehad already bperformed levirate betrothal with her, he may not marry her,because she is a widow., strongGEMARA: /strong bThe Sages taught: From whereis it derived bthat ifa priest bbetrothed a widow and wassubsequently bappointed to be High Priest, that he may marryher? bThe verse states: “Shall he take for a wife”(Leviticus 21:14), an inclusive phrase that indicates that he may marry her in this situation despite the general prohibition for a High Priest to marry a widow. The Gemara asks: bIf so, a widow waiting for her iyavam /ishould balsobe permitted to a High Priest. The Gemara answers: The word b“wife”indicates that this does bnotinclude ba iyevama /i,who was not initially his wife but his brother’s.,The mishna related ban incident with Yehoshuaben Gamla. The Gemara notes that the mishna states that the king bappointed him, yes,but bnotthat he bwasworthy of being bappointed. Rav Yosef said: I see a conspiracy here,as this was clearly not a proper appointment by the priests and the Sanhedrin but rather a political appointment, bas Rav Asi said: Marta bat Baitos broughta vessel the size of ba half- ise’a[ itarkav /i]full bof dinars to King Yannai until he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla High Priest. /b, strongMISHNA: /strong bA High Priest whose brother diedwithout children bperforms iḥalitzaand he does not perform levirate marriage,as he may not marry a widow., strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara comments: The mishna bteachesthis ihalakha bcategorically,indicating that bit is no differentif she is his brother’s widow bfrom betrothal, and it is no differentif she is his widow bfrom marriage.The Gemara analyzes this ihalakha /i: bGranted,she is forbidden to him if she was widowed bfrom marriage, as,if he were to marry her, bitwould be a violation of both the bpositive mitzvathat the High Priest marry a virgin bandthe bprohibitionfor him to marry a widow. bAnd a positive mitzva,i.e., levirate marriage, bdoes not override a prohibition and a positivemitzva together. bHowever,if she was a widow bfrom betrothaland is therefore still a virgin, bthe positive mitzvaof levirate marriage bshould come and override the prohibitionfor a High Priest to marry a widow.,The Gemara answers: By Torah law, levirate marriage is permitted in this case. However, there is a rabbinic bdecreeprohibiting their bfirstact of bintercourse due totheir bsecondact of bintercourse.After they have engaged in intercourse once, they have fulfilled the mitzva of levirate marriage, and any subsequent act of intercourse would constitute a violation of the prohibition without the fulfillment of a mitzva., strongMISHNA: /strong bA common priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman [ iaylonit /i],who is incapable of bearing children, bunless healready bhas a wife and children. Rabbi Yehuda says: Evenif bhe has a wife and children, he may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman, as she is the izona /iabout whom it is bstated in the Torahthat a priest may not marry her. Intercourse with her is considered a licentious act because she is incapable of bearing children. bAnd the Rabbis say: The onlywomen in the category of izona /i,who are therefore forbidden to a priest, are ba female convert, a freedmaidservant, bandany woman bwho engaged in licentious sexual intercoursewith a man she is prohibited from marrying., strongGEMARA: /strong bThe Exilarch said to Rav Huna: What is the reasonfor the ihalakhathat a priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman? It is bbecausehe is obligated to fulfill the mitzva to bbe fruitful and multiply. Is itonly bpriests who were commanded to be fruitful and multiply, but Israelites were not commanded?Why does the mishna specify that a priest may not marry a sexually underdeveloped woman? Rav Huna bsaid to him:This ihalakhadoes in fact apply even to Israelites, and the itannamentions priests bbecause he wants to teachit in a way that would parallel bthe latter clauseof the mishna, which states that bRabbi Yehuda says: Evenif bhe has a wife /b |
|
20. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 18a. ומאי ארבע או חמש לרבנן דאמרי נכנס נוטל שש ויוצא נוטל שש ושכר הגפת דלתות לא משתים עשרה בעי מיפלג בציר חדא מפלגא חמש שקיל,לר' יהודה דאמר נכנס נוטל שבע שתים בשכר הגפת דלתות ויוצא נוטל חמש מעשר בעי מיפלג בציר חדא מפלגא ושקיל ארבע,רבא אמר כולה רבי היא וסבר לה כר' יהודה ואלא מאי ארבע הא חמש בעי למשקל,לא קשיא הא דאיכא משמר המתעכב הא דליכא משמר המתעכב,אי איכא משמר המתעכב משמנה בעי למפלג ושקיל ארבע אי ליכא משמר המתעכב מעשר בעי למפלג ושקיל חמש,אי הכי מאי רבי אומר לעולם חמש קשיא, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מסרו לו זקנים מזקני בית דין וקורין לפניו בסדר היום ואומרים לו אישי כהן גדול קרא אתה בפיך שמא שכחת או שמא לא למדת ערב יום כפורים שחרית מעמידין אותו בשער מזרח ומעבירין לפניו פרים ואילים וכבשים כדי שיהא מכיר ורגיל בעבודה כל שבעת הימים לא היו מונעין ממנו מאכל ומשתה ערב יוה"כ עם חשיכה לא היו מניחין אותו לאכול הרבה מפני שהמאכל מביא את השינה, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big בשלמא שמא שכח לחיי אלא שמא לא למד מי מוקמינן כי האי גוונא,והתניא (ויקרא כא, י) והכהן הגדול מאחיו שיהא גדול מאחיו בכח בנוי בחכמה ובעושר אחרים אומרים מנין שאם אין לו שאחיו הכהנים מגדלין אותו ת"ל והכהן הגדול מאחיו גדלהו משל אחיו,אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא כאן במקדש ראשון כאן במקדש שני דאמר ר' אסי תרקבא דדינרי עיילא ליה מרתא בת בייתוס לינאי מלכא על דאוקמיה ליהושע בן גמלא בכהני רברבי,ערב יום הכפורים שחרית וכו' תנא אף השעירים ותנא דידן מאי טעמא לא תנא שעירים כיון דעל חטא קא אתו חלשא דעתיה,אי הכי פר נמי על חטא הוא דאתי פר כיון דעליו ועל אחיו הכהנים הוא דאתי באחיו הכהנים אי איכא איניש דאית ביה מילתא מידע ידע ליה ומהדר ליה בתשובה בכולהו ישראל לא ידע,אמר רבינא היינו דאמרי אינשי אי בר אחתיך דיילא הוי חזי בשוקא קמיה לא תחליף,כל שבעת הימים לא היו מונעין וכו' תניא רבי יהודה בן נקוסא אומר מאכילין אותו סלתות וביצים כדי למסמסו אמרו לו כל שכן שאתה מביאו לידי חימום,תניא סומכוס אמר משום ר' מאיר אין מאכילין אותו לא אב"י ואמרי לה לא אבב"י ויש אומרים אף לא יין לבן לא אב"י לא אתרוג ולא ביצים ולא יין ישן ואמרי לה לא אבב"י לא אתרוג ולא ביצים ולא בשר שמן ולא יין ישן ויש אומרים אף לא יין לבן מפני שהיין לבן מביא את האדם לידי טומאה,תנו רבנן זב תולין לו במאכל וכל מיני מאכל אלעזר בן פנחס אומר משום רבי יהודה בן בתירא אין מאכילין אותו לא חגב"י ולא גב"ם ולא כל דברים המביאין לידי טומאה לא חגב"י לא חלב ולא גבינה ולא ביצה ולא יין ולא גב"ם מי גריסין של פול ובשר שמן ומרייס,ולא כל דברים המביאין לידי טומאה לאתויי מאי לאתויי הא דת"ר חמשה דברים מביאים את האדם לידי טומאה ואלו הן השום | 18a. bAnd whatis the meaning of bfour or five;i.e., when does the High Priest take four loaves and when does he take five? According bto the Rabbis, who say:The priestly watch that is bincomingon Shabbat btakes sixof the loaves, bandthe boutgoingwatch btakes six, andthe incoming watch receives bnogreater portion as bpayment for closing the doors,it is bfrom twelveloaves that the High Priest bmust divideand take his share, but he receives bhalfof the loaves bless one,meaning that bhe takes five.According to the Rabbis, the High Priest receives less than half; however, since it is inappropriate to give him a piece of a loaf, less than half is five whole loaves.,According bto Rabbi Yehuda, who said:The priestly watch that is bincomingon Shabbat btakes sevenof the loaves, btwoof which bare payment for closing the doors;and the boutgoingwatch btakes fiveloaves, it is bfrom tenthat bhe must dividethe loaves. Those two of the twelve loaves are a separate payment and are not factored into the tally of those designated for distribution. bSubtract one from halfof that total, as subtracting less than one loaf would lead to a situation where the High Priest receives a piece of a loaf, which is inappropriate. bAndtherefore, the High Priest btakes four. /b, bRava saidthat the ibaraitashould be explained differently. The bentire ibaraita bisin accordance with the opinion of bRabbiYehuda HaNasi, band he holdsin accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yehudathat only ten loaves are divided. bRather, whatthen is the meaning of the statement that the High Priest takes bfourloaves? According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, bdoesn’t he need to take five? /b,The Gemara answers: This is bnot difficult. This ihalakhathat the High Priest takes four loaves is in a case bwhere there is a watch that is detained.When the start of a Festival occurs on a Sunday night and one of the priestly watches was forced to arrive before Shabbat to ensure that they would arrive in time for the Festival; or, alternatively, if the Festival ended on a Thursday and one of the priestly watches was detained until the conclusion of Shabbat and only then departed, that priestly watch takes two loaves. bThat ihalakhathat the High Priest takes five loaves is in a case bwhere there is not a watch that is detained,and the shewbread in divided only between the watch that concludes its service that Shabbat and the watch that begins its service that Shabbat., bIf there is a watch that is detained,that detained watch takes two loaves, and the outgoing watch takes two loaves as payment for closing the doors. Therefore, it is bfrom eightthat the High Priest bmust dividethe loaves, and he btakes four. If there is not a watch that is detained,it is bfrom tenthat bhe must dividethe loaves and the High Priest btakes five. /b,The Gemara asks: bIf so,that even the middle statement of the ibaraitais attributed to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and it is referring to a watch that is detained, bwhatis the meaning of the last clause in the ibaraita /i: bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays:The High Priest balwaystakes bfiveloaves? That statement indicates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagrees with the middle clause, while according to Rava’s interpretation Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that in certain circumstances the High Priest takes only four loaves. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is bdifficultto reconcile Rava’s interpretation with the language of the ibaraita /i., strongMISHNA: /strong The Sages bprovidedthe High Priest bwith Eldersselected bfrom the Elders of the court, and theywould bread before him the orderof the service bof the dayof Yom Kippur. bAnd theywould bsay to him: My Master, High Priest. Readthe order of the service bwith your own mouth,as bperhaps you forgotthis reading bor perhaps you did not learnto read. bOn Yom Kippur evein the bmorning,the Elders bstand him atthe beastern gateof the courtyard band pass before him bulls and rams and sheep so that he will be familiarwith the animals bandgrow baccustomed to the service,as these were the animals sacrificed on Yom Kippur. Throughout ball the seven daysthat the High Priest was in the iParhedrinchamber, bthey would not withhold from himany bfood or drinkthat he desired. However, bon Yom Kippur eve at nightfall, they would not allow him to eat a great deal because food induces sleepand they did not allow him to sleep, as will be explained., strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara wonders about the depiction in the mishna of the Elders questioning the High Priest as to whether he forgot this reading or perhaps did not learn to read. bGranted, perhaps he forgot,that is bfine,as it is conceivable that he is not accustomed to reading the Torah and might have forgotten this portion. bHowever,is it conceivable that bperhapsthe High Priest bdid not learnto read? bDo we appointa High Priest bof that sortwho never learned the Bible?, bBut wasn’t it taughtin a ibaraitathat it is stated: b“And the priest who is greater than his brethren”(Leviticus 21:10); this teaches bthat hemust bbe greater than hispriestly bbrethren in strength, in beauty, in wisdom, and in wealth. iAḥerimsay:Wealth is not a prerequisite for selecting a High Priest, but bfrom whereis it derived bthat if he does not haveproperty of his own bthat his brethren the priests elevate himand render him wealthy from their own property? bThe verse states: “And the priest who is greater [ ihaggadol /i] than his brethren”; elevate him [ igaddelehu /i] fromthe property bof his brethren.In any event, there is a consensus that wisdom is a prerequisite for his selection., bRav Yosef said:This is bnot difficult. There,the ibaraitathat lists wisdom among the attributes of the High Priest is referring to bthe First Temple,where this ihalakhawas observed and the High Priests possessed those attributes listed. bHere,the mishna is referring to bthe Second Temple,where this ihalakhawas not observed, so a situation where the High Priest was not well-versed in the Bible was conceivable. bAs Rav Asi said:The wealthy bMarta, daughter of Baitos, brought a half- ise’aof dinars in to King Yannai forthe fact bthat he appointed Yehoshua ben Gamla as High Priest.This is an example of the appointment of High Priests by means of bribery and gifts. Since that was the practice, a totally ignorant High Priest could have been appointed.,§ It was taught in the mishna: bOn Yom Kippur evein the bmorning,the elders pass different animals before the High Priest. A itanna btaughtin the iTosefta /i: bEven goatswere brought before him. The Gemara asks: bAnd the itanna /iof bourmishna, bwhat is the reasonthat bhe did not teachthat bgoatswere among the animals that passed before the High Priest? The Gemara answers: bSincegoats bcomeas atonement bfor sins,passing them before the High Priest will evoke transgressions and he will bbecome distraught. /b,The Gemara asks: bIf so, a bullshould not be passed before him, bas it too comesto atone bfor sin.The Gemara answers that there is a difference in the case of ba bull, sinceit is to atone bfor hissins band forthe sins of bhis brethren the priests that it comes; among his brethren the priests, if there is a person who has asinful bmatter,the High Priest bwould knowabout it bandlead bhim back tothe path of righteousness bthrough repentance.Therefore, passing a bull before the High Priest will not render him distraught, as it will merely remind him of his responsibility toward his priestly brethren. On the other hand, bwith regard to the entire Jewish people, he does not knowof their sinful matters and is unable to facilitate their repentance. Passing goats before the High Priest will evoke their sins as well as his inability to correct the situation, leaving him distraught.,Apropos the High Priest being privy to the sinful behavior of his fellow priests, bRavina saidthat bthisexplains the folk saying bthat people say: Ifthe beloved bson of yourbeloved bsister becomes a policeman [ idayyala /i], seeto it that bin the marketplace you do not pass before him.Be wary of him because he knows your sins.,§ We learned in the mishna: Throughout ball the seven daysthat the High Priest was in the iParhedrinchamber, bthey would not withholdfrom him any food or drink that he desired. bIt was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yehuda ben Nekosa says:On Yom Kippur eve bthey feed him fine flour and eggs in order to loosen hisbowels, so that he will not need to relieve himself on Yom Kippur. bThey said toRabbi Yehuda ben Nekosa: In feeding him those foods, ball the more so that you bring him to a state of arousal.Feeding him those foods is antithetical to the efforts to prevent the High Priest from becoming impure, as they are liable to cause him to experience a seminal emission., bIt was taughtin a ibaraitathat bSumakhos said in the name of Rabbi Meir: One does not feed himfoods represented by the acrostic: iAlef /i, ibeit /i, iyod /i; and some saythat one does bnotfeed him foods represented by the acrostic: iAlef /i, ibeit /i, ibeit /i, iyod /i; and some say neitherdoes one feed him bwhite wine.The Gemara elaborates: bNot ialef /i, ibeit /i, iyod /imeans bneither ietrog /i, nor eggs [ ibeitzim /i], nor old wine [ iyayin /i]. And some say: Not ialef /i, ibeit /i, ibeit /i, iyod /imeans bneither ietrog /i, nor eggs [ ibeitzim /i], nor fatty meat [ ibasar /i], nor old wine [ iyayin /i]. And some say neitherdoes one feed him bwhite wine because white wine bringsa bman tothe bimpurityof a seminal emission.,Similarly, bthe Sages taught:If a man experienced an emission that could render him ba izav /i, one attributesthe emission not to his being a izavbut perhaps to a different cause, e.g., bto food, or to all kinds of food,i.e., he may have eaten too much food, which could have caused the emission. bElazar ben Pineḥas says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira:During the days that a izavis examining himself to determine whether or not he is impure, bone feeds him neitherfoods represented by the acrostic: iḤet /i, igimmel /i, ibeit /i, iyod /i, norfoods represented by the acrostic: iGimmel /i, ibeit /i, imem /i, nor anyfood bitems thatmight bbring him to impuritycaused by an emission. The Gemara explains: bNot iḥet /i, igimmel /i, ibeit /i, iyod /imeans bneither milk [ iḥalav /i], nor cheese [ igevina /i], nor egg [ ibeitza /i], nor wine [ iyayin /i]. And not igimmel /i, ibeit /i, imem /imeans bneither soup of pounded beans [ imei gerisin /i], nor fatty meat [ ibasar /i], norsmall bfishpickled bin brine [ imuryas /i]. /b,The Gemara asks about the phrase: bNor anyfood bitems thatmight bbring him to impurity; what does itcome bto include? Itcomes bto include that which the Sages taught: Fivefood bitems bringa bman toa state of bimpuritydue to emission. bAnd these are: Garlic, /b |
|
21. Anon., 4 Baruch, 4.4-4.5
| 4.4. But taking the keys of the temple, Jeremiah went outside the city andthrew them away in the presence of the sun, saying: I say to you, Sun, take the keys of the temple of God and guard them until the day in which the Lord asks you for them. 4.5. For we have not been found worthy to keep them, for we have become unfaithful guardians. |
|
