1. Hebrew Bible, Ruth, 1.4 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 1.4. וַיִּשְׂאוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים מֹאֲבִיּוֹת שֵׁם הָאַחַת עָרְפָּה וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִית רוּת וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם כְּעֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים׃ | 1.4. And they took them wives of the women of Moab: the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth; and they dwelt there about ten years." |
|
2. Septuagint, 1 Maccabees, 7.16 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
| 7.16. So they trusted him; but he seized sixty of them and killed them in one day, in accordance with the word which was written |
|
3. Mishnah, Avot, 1.1, 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.15, 1.16, 1.16-2.4, 2.4, 2.8, 2.10, 2.11, 4.11, 5.17 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.1. Moses received the torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be patient in [the administration of] justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah." |
|
4. Mishnah, Beitzah, 2.6-2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.6. In three cases Rabban Gamaliel was strict like the words of Beth Shammai.One may not cover up hot food on Yom Tov for Shabbat; And one may not join together a lamp on a festival; And one may not bake [on Yom] thick loaves but only wafer-cakes. Rabban Gamaliel said: “In all their days, my father’s house never baked large loaves but only wafer-cakes.” They said to him: “What can we do with regards to your father’s house, for they were strict in respect to themselves but were lenient towards Israel to let them bake both large loaves and even charcoal-roasted loaves.”" 2.7. Also he declared three decisions of a lenient character:One may sweep up [on a festival] between the couches, And put spices [on the coals] on a festival; And roast a kid whole on the night of Passover. But the sages forbid them." |
|
5. Mishnah, Hagigah, 2.2, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.2. Yose ben Yoezer says that [on a festival] the laying of the hands [on the head of a sacrifice] may not be performed. Yosef ben Joha says that it may be performed. Joshua ben Perahia says that it may not be performed. Nittai the Arbelite says that it may be performed. Judah ben Tabai says that it may not be performed. Shimon ben Shetah says that it may be performed. Shamayah says that it may be performed. Avtalyon says that it may not be performed. Hillel and Menahem did not dispute. Menahem went out, Shammai entered. Shammai says that it may not be performed. Hillel says that it may be performed. The former [of each] pair were patriarchs and the latter were heads of the court." 2.7. The garments of an am haaretz possess midras-impurity for Pharisees. The garments of Pharisees possess midras-impurity for those who eat terumah. The garments of those who eat terumah possess midras-impurity for [those who eat] sacred things. The garments of [those who eat] sacred things possess midras-impurity for [those who occupy themselves with the waters of] purification. Yose ben Yoezer was the most pious in the priesthood, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who ate] sacred things. Yoha ben Gudgada all his life used to eat [unconsecrated food] in accordance with the purity required for sacred things, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification." |
|
6. Mishnah, Peah, 2.5-2.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.5. He who plants his field with one kind of seed, even though he makes up of it two threshing-floors, he gives only one peah [for the lot]. If he plants it of two kinds, even though he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he must give two peahs. 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." 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." |
|
7. Tosefta, Shabbat, 7, 6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
8. Babylonian Talmud, Horayot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 11b. מה להלן שאין על גביו אלא ה' אלהיו אף נשיא שאין על גביו אלא ה' אלהיו,בעא מיניה רבי מרבי חייא כגון אני מהו בשעיר אמר ליה הרי צרתך בבבל איתיביה מלכי ישראל ומלכי בית דוד אלו מביאים לעצמם ואלו מביאים לעצמם אמר ליה התם לא כייפי אהדדי הכא אנן כייפינן להו לדידהו,רב ספרא מתני הכי בעא מיניה רבי מרבי חייא כגון אני מהו בשעיר א"ל התם שבט הכא מחוקק ותניא (בראשית מט, י) לא יסור שבט מיהודה זה ראש גולה שבבבל שרודה את ישראל במקל (בראשית מט, י) ומחוקק מבין רגליו אלו בני בניו של הלל שמלמדים תורה לישראל ברבים:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ואיזהו המשיח המשוח בשמן המשחה לא המרובה בבגדים אין בין כהן המשוח בשמן המשחה למרובה בגדים אלא פר הבא על כל המצות,ואין בין כהן משמש לכהן שעבר אלא פר יוה"כ ועשירית האיפה,זה וזה שוים בעבודת יוה"כ ומצווים על הבתולה ואסורים על האלמנה ואינם מטמאים בקרוביהם ולא פורעים ולא פורמים ומחזירין הרוצח:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר שמן המשחה שעשה משה במדבר היו שולקים בו את העיקרים דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי אומר והלא לסוך את העקרים אינו סופק אלא שורין את העקרים במים ומציף עליו שמן וקולט את הריח וקפחו,אמר לו רבי יהודה וכי נס אחד נעשה בשמן המשחה והלא תחלתו שנים עשר לוגין וממנו היה נמשח משכן וכליו אהרן ובניו כל שבעת ימי המלואים וכולו קיים לעתיד לבוא שנאמר (שמות ל, לא) שמן משחת קדש יהיה זה לי לדורותיכם,תניא אידך (ויקרא ח, י) ויקח משה את שמן המשחה וימשח [את] המשכן [ואת] כל אשר בו רבי יהודה אומר שמן המשחה שעשה משה במדבר כמה נסים נעשו בו מתחלה ועד סוף תחלתו לא היה אלא שנים עשר לוגין ראה כמה יורה בולעת וכמה עקרים בולעים וכמה האור שורף ובו נמשח משכן וכליו ואהרן ובניו כל שבעת ימי המלואים ובו נמשחו כהנים גדולים ומלכים,ואפילו כהן גדול בן כהן גדול טעון משיחה ואין מושחים מלך בן מלך ואם תאמר מפני מה משחו את שלמה מפני מחלוקתו של אדוניה ואת יואש מפני עתליה ואת יהואחז מפני יהויקים שהיה גדול ממנו שתי שנים ואותו שמן קיים לעתיד לבוא שנאמר שמן משחת קדש יהיה זה לי לדורותיכם זה בגימטריא שנים עשר לוגין הוו,אמר מר ואפילו כהן גדול בן כהן גדול טעון משיחה מנלן דכתיב (ויקרא ו, טו) והכהן המשיח תחתיו מבניו נימא קרא והכהן מתחתיו מבניו מאי המשיח קמ"ל דמבניו דכהן גדול אי הוי משיח הוי כהן גדול ואי לא לא הוי כהן גדול,אמר מר ואין מושחין מלך בן מלך מנלן אמר רב אחא בר יעקב דכתיב (דברים יז, כ) למען יאריך ימים על ממלכתו וגו' ירושה היא לכם ומנלן דכי איכא מחלוקת בעי משיחה ולאו כל דבעי מלכא מורית מלכותא לבניה אמר רב פפא אמר קרא הוא ובניו בקרב ישראל בזמן ששלום בישראל קרינא ביה הוא ובניו ואפילו בלא משיחה,תנא אף יהוא בן נמשי לא נמשח אלא מפני מחלוקתו של יורם ותיפוק ליה משום דראשון הוא חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני מלכי בית דוד משוחין מלכי ישראל אין משוחין מנלן אמר רבא אמר קרא (שמואל א טז, יב) קום משחהו כי זה וגו' זה טעון משיחה ואין אחר טעון משיחה,אמר מר אף יהוא בן נמשי לא נמשח אלא מפני מחלוקתו של יורם ומשום מחלוקתו של יורם בן אחאב נמעול בשמן כדאמר רב פפא באפרסמא דכיא ה"נ באפרסמא דכיא,ואת יהואחז מפני יהויקים שהיה גדול ממנו שתי שנים ומי קשיש מיניה והכתיב (דברי הימים א ג, טו) ובני יאשיהו הבכור יוחנן השני יהויקים השלישי צדקיהו הרביעי שלום וא"ר יוחנן הוא שלום הוא צדקיהו הוא יוחנן הוא יהואחז לעולם יהויקים קשיש ומאי בכור בכור למלכות,ומי מלכי זוטרי מקמי קשישי והא כתיב (דברי הימים ב כא, ג) ואת הממלכה נתן ליהורם כי הוא הבכור יהורם ממלא מקום אבותיו הוה יהויקים לאו ממלא מקום אבותיו הוה,אמר מר הוא שלום הוא צדקיהו הוא יוחנן הוא יהואחז והא חד חד קא חשיב דכתי' (דברי הימים א ג, טו) השלישי הרביעי מאי שלישי שלישי לבנים ומאי רביעי רביעי למלכות דמעיקרא מלך יהואחז ולבסוף יהויקים ולבסוף יכניה ולבסוף צדקיהו,ת"ר הוא שלום הוא צדקיהו ולמה נקרא שמו שלום שהיה משולם במעשיו איכא דאמרי שלום ששלמה מלכות בית דוד בימיו ומה שמו מתניה שמו שנאמר (מלכים ב כד, יז) וימלך מלך בבל את מתניה דודו תחתיו ויסב את שמו צדקיהו א"ל יה יצדיק עליך את הדין אם תמרוד בי (שנאמר (מלכים ב כה, ז) ויביאהו בבלה) וכתיב (דברי הימים ב לו, יג) וגם במלך נבוכדנצר מרד אשר השביעו באלהים | 11b. bJust as there,in the passage with regard to the king, the reference is to one bover whom there is only the Lord his God, so too,with regard to ba inasi /i,the reference is to one bover whom there is only the Lord his God. /b, bRabbiYehuda HaNasi braised a dilemma before Rabbi Ḥiyya:In a case bwhere Iperform an unwitting transgression, bwhat isthe ihalakha /i: Would I be liable to atone bwith a goatas a sin-offering because I am the iNasi /i, or is my atonement with a ewe or a female goat, like a commoner, because I am not the king? Rabbi Ḥiyya bsaid to him: Your rival,the Exilarch bin Babylonia,is as great as you; therefore, you are not akin to a king. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi braised an objection toRabbi Ḥiyya from a ibaraita /i: If bkings ofthe kingdom of bIsrael and kings of the house of Davidperform an unwitting transgression, bthese bringa sin-offering bfor themselvesas kings, band those bringa sin-offering bfor themselvesas kings. This indicates that even if a king has a counterpart who is as powerful as he is, he brings a male goat as his sin-offering. Rabbi Ḥiyya bsaid toRabbi Yehuda HaNasi: bThere,the kings bwere not subject to each other’s authority. Here,in Eretz Yisrael, bwe are subject to their authority,as the authority of the Exilarch is greater than the authority of the iNasi /i., bRav Safra taughtthe exchange in bthismanner: bRabbiYehuda HaNasi braised a dilemma before Rabbi Ḥiyya:In a case bwhere Iperform an unwitting transgression, bwhat isthe ihalakha /i: Would I be liable to atone bwith a male goatas a sin-offering because I am the iNasi /i, or is my atonement with a ewe or a female goat, like a commoner, because I am not the king? Rabbi Ḥiyya bsaid to him: There,the Exilarch has authority that is represented by ba scepter; here,in Eretz Yisrael, we have lesser authority, which is represented by ba staff. And it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: b“The scepter shall not depart from Judah”(Genesis 49:10); bthisis a reference to bthe Exilarch in Babylonia, who reigns over the Jewish people with a rod,as he is authorized by the gentile monarchy to impose his will. b“Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet”(Genesis 49:10); bthese are the descendants of Hillel, whoserve in the role of the iNasiand bteach Torah to the Jewish people in public,but who are not authorized by the government to impose their will., strongMISHNA: /strong bAnd who is the anointedpriest? It is the High Priest bwho is anointed with the anointing oil, not theHigh Priest consecrated by donning bmultiple garments,i.e., one who served after the anointing oil had been sequestered, toward the end of the First Temple period. bThe difference betweena High bPriest anointed with the anointing oil andone consecrated by donning bmultiple garmentsunique to the High Priest bis onlythat the latter does not bring the bbull that comes forthe transgression of bany of the mitzvot. /b, bAnd the difference betweena High bPriestcurrently bservingin that capacity band a formerHigh bPriestwho had temporarily filled that position while the High Priest was unfit for service bis onlywith regard to the bbullbrought by the High Priest on bYom Kippur and the tenth of an ephahmeal-offering brought by the High Priest daily. Each of these offerings is brought only by the current High Priest, and not by a former High Priest.,Both bthisHigh Priest currently serving band thatformer High Priest bare equal with regard toperforming the rest of bthe Yom Kippur service, and they areboth bcommanded with regard tomarrying ba virgin(see Leviticus 21:13), bandit is bprohibitedfor both btomarry ba widow(see Leviticus 21:14), band they may not render themselves impurewith impurity imparted by a corpse even binthe event that one of btheir relativesdies (see Leviticus 21:11), band they may not growtheir hair blong and they may not rendtheir garments as expressions of mourning (see Leviticus 21:10), bandwhen they die bthey restore theunwitting bmurdererto his home from the city of refuge (see Numbers 35:25)., strongGEMARA: /strong bThe Sages taught:To blend bthe anointing oil that Moses prepared in the wilderness, they would boil inthe oil bthe rootsof the spices in the quantities enumerated in the verse; this is bthe statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: But isn’tthat amount of oil binsufficienteven bto smear on the rootsof those spices, as the oil would be absorbed into the roots? How then could the roots be boiled in the oil? bRather, they soak the roots in water.Once the roots are waterlogged, they do not absorb the oil. The fragrance of the spices gradually rises band they float oil onthe water bandthe oil babsorbs the fragrance. Andat that point, bone removedthe oil b[ ivekippeḥo /i]from the water, and that was the anointing oil., bRabbi Yehuda said to him: And wasit merely bone miraclethat was bperformed with regard to the anointing oil? But wasn’t it initiallyonly btwelve ilog /i, and from it the Tabernacle, and its vessels, Aaron, and his sonswere banointedfor the bentire seven days of inauguration, and all of itremains bin existence for the future, as it is stated: “This shall be a sacred anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations”(Exodus 30:31)? Since the entire existence of the anointing oil is predicated on miracles, it is no wonder that its preparation also involved a miracle., bIt is taughtin banother ibaraita /i: b“And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the Tabernacle and all that was in itand sanctified them” (Leviticus 8:10). bRabbi Yehuda says:With regard to bthe anointing oil that Moses prepared in the wilderness, how many miracles were performed in itsregard continuously, bfrom beginning to end? Initially it was only twelve ilog /i. Consider how muchoil ba pot absorbs, and how muchoil is babsorbed by the roots, and how muchoil bthe fire burns, andyet bthe Tabernacle, and its vessels, Aaron, and his sonswere banointed with itfor the bentire seven days of inauguration, and High Priests and kings were anointed with itthroughout the generations.,Apropos the anointing oil, the ibaraitacontinues: bAnd even a High Priest, son of a High Priest, requires anointing, but one does not anoint a king, son of a king. And if you say: For whatreason bdid they anoint King Solomon(see I Kings, chapter 1), who was the son of a king? It was bdue to the challenge of Adonijah,who sought to succeed their father David as king. bAndthey anointed bJoash due to Athaliah(see II Kings, chapter 11). bAndthey anointed bJehoahaz due to Jehoiakim, who was two years older than hewas (see II Kings 23:30). In all these cases, it was necessary to underscore that these men were crowned king. bAnd that oil remains in existence for the future, as it is stated: “This [ izeh /i] shall be a sacred anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations”(Exodus 30:31). bThe numerical value of izehis twelve ilog /i,indicating that this amount of oil remains intact despite its use.,§ The Gemara analyzes the ibaraita /i. bThe Master said: And even a High Priest, son of a High Priest, requires anointing.The Gemara asks: bFrom where do wederive this ihalakha /i? It is derived from a verse, bas it is written: “And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons”(Leviticus 6:15). bLet the verse sayonly: bThe priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons. Whatis the reason that it says: b“The anointedpriest”? The Torah bteaches us thateven bfrom among the sons of a High Priest, if he is anointedwith oil bhe is a High Priest, and if not, he is not a High Priest. /b, bThe Master said: But one does not anoint a king, son of a king.The Gemara asks: bFrom where do wederive this ihalakha /i? bRav Aḥa bar Ya’akov saidthat it is derived from a verse, bas it is written: “So that he may prolong his days in his kingdom,he and his sons, in the midst of Israel” (Deuteronomy 17:20). His children are mentioned in the verse in order to teach them: The kingdom bis an inheritance for you.The Gemara asks: bAnd from where do wederive bthat when there is a disputewith regard to succession, the king brequires anointing, andit is bnotthat bwhenever the king wisheshe can bbequeath the kingdom to his sonwithout anointing him? bRav Pappa saidthat bthe verse states: “He and his sons, in the midst of Israel.” When there is peace in Israel we read concerning him: “He and his sons,” even without anointing;but when there is dispute, anointing is required.,It is btaught: Even Jehu, son of Nimshi,king of Israel, bwas anointed only due to the challenge of Joram(see II Kings 9:1–14). The Sages challenge: bAnd let him derivethat Jehu was anointed bdue tothe fact bthat hewas the bfirstof his dynasty and was not the son of a king. The Gemara answers: The ibaraita bis incomplete and thisis what bit is teaching: Kings of the house of David are anointed; kings of Israel are not anointed.The Gemara asks: bFrom where do wederive this? bRava saidthat bthe verse states: “Arise, anoint him, for thisis he” (I Samuel 16:12), from which it is derived: bThisking, David, brequires anointing, but anotherking bdoes not require anointing. /b,The Gemara analyzes the ibaraita /i. bThe Master said: Even Jehu, son of Nimshi,king of Israel, bwas anointed only due to the challenge of Joram.The Gemara asks: bAnd due to the challenge of Joram, son of Ahab, shall we misuse consecrated anointing oiland anoint a king of Israel, who does not require anointing? The Gemara answers that it is blikethat bwhich Rav Pappa saidin another context: They anointed him bwith pure balsamoil, not with anointing oil. bSo too,with regard to Jehu, they anointed him bwith pure balsamoil, not with anointing oil.,The ibaraitateaches: bAndthey anointed bJehoahaz due to Jehoiakim, who was two years older than hewas. The Gemara asks: bAnd wasJehoiakim bolder thanJehoahaz? bBut isn’t it written: “And the sons of Josiah: The firstborn Joha, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum”(I Chronicles 3:15), band Rabbi Yoḥa says: He is Shallum, he is Zedekiah;these are two names for one person. Likewise, bhe is Joha, he is Jehoahaz,who is mentioned in the book of Kings. Since Jehoahaz was the eldest, why was it necessary to anoint him? The Gemara answers: bActually, Jehoiakimwas bolderthan Jehoahaz. bAnd whatis the meaning of the term b“firstborn”written with regard to Jehoahaz? It means that his status was like that of ba firstbornin terms of ascent bto the kingship. /b,The Gemara asks: bAnd do youngersons brule before eldersons? bBut isn’t it written: “And the kingdom he gave to Jehoram, because he was the firstborn”(II Chronicles 21:3). The Gemara answers: bJehoram was a surrogate for his ancestorsas he was suited to serve as king, so since he was firstborn, he ascended to the throne. bJehoiakim was not a surrogate for his ancestors;he was not suited to serve as king. Therefore, his brother ascended to the throne before him., bThe Master said: He is Shallum, he is Zedekiah; he is Joha, he is Jehoahaz.The Gemara asks: bBut doesn’tthe verse benumerate them individually, as it is written: “The thirdZedekiah, bthe fourthShallum,” indicating that they are two people? The Gemara answers: bWhatis the meaning of bthird?It means the bthird among the sons. And whatis the meaning of bfourth?It means the bfourthto ascend bto the kingship.How so? bInitially, Jehoahaz reigned, and ultimately,after him, bJehoiakim, and ultimately,after him, bJeconiah,son of Jehoiakim, band ultimately,after him, bZedekiah,who was fourth to the kingship., bThe Sages taught: He is Shallum, he is Zedekiah. And why was he called Shallum?It is bdue tothe fact bthat he was perfect [ imeshullam /i] is his actions. Some say:He was called bShallum because the kingdom of the house of David was concluded [ isheshalema /i] during his days. And whatwas bhisactual bname? Mattaniahwas bhis name, as it is stated: “And the king of Babylon crowned Mattaniah his uncle in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah”(II Kings 24:17). Why did Nebuchadnezzar call him Zedekiah? bHe said to him: God will justify the judgment against you if you rebel against me; and it is written: “And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had imposed upon him an oath by God”(II Chronicles 36:13). |
|
9. 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? |
|
10. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan A, 3, 40, 12 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE)
|
11. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan B, 24, 46, 23 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE)
|
