1. Hebrew Bible, Esther, 1.1 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 1.1. בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי כְּטוֹב לֵב־הַמֶּלֶךְ בַּיָּיִן אָמַר לִמְהוּמָן בִּזְּתָא חַרְבוֹנָא בִּגְתָא וַאֲבַגְתָא זֵתַר וְכַרְכַּס שִׁבְעַת הַסָּרִיסִים הַמְשָׁרְתִים אֶת־פְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ׃ 1.1. וַיְהִי בִּימֵי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ הוּא אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ הַמֹּלֵךְ מֵהֹדּוּ וְעַד־כּוּשׁ שֶׁבַע וְעֶשְׂרִים וּמֵאָה מְדִינָה׃ | 1.1. NOW IT came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus—this is Ahasuerus who reigned, from India to Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces—" |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, 1 Kings, 2.27 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 2.27. וַיְגָרֶשׁ שְׁלֹמֹה אֶת־אֶבְיָתָר מִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן לַיהוָה לְמַלֵּא אֶת־דְּבַר יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר עַל־בֵּית עֵלִי בְּשִׁלֹה׃ | 2.27. So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the LORD; that the word of the LORD might be fulfilled, which He spoke concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh." |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 30.20 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 30.20. And though the Lord give you sparing bread and scant water, Yet shall not thy Teacher hide Himself any more, But thine eyes shall see thy Teacher;" |
|
4. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 15.14-15.15 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
5. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 15.14-15.15 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
6. Mishnah, Avodah Zarah, 1.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.7. One should not sell them bears, lions or anything which may injure the public. One should not join them in building a basilica, a scaffold, a stadium, or a platform. But one may join them in building public or private bathhouses. When however he reaches the cupola in which the idol is placed he must not build." |
|
7. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 9.6, 10.1-10.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 9.6. If one steals the sacred vessel called a “kasvah” (Numbers 4:7), or cursed by the name of an idol, or has sexual relations with an Aramean (non-Jewish) woman, he is punished by zealots. If a priest performed the temple service while impure, his fellow priests do not bring him to the court, but rather the young priests take him out into the courtyard and split his skull with clubs. A layman who performed the service in the Temple: Rabbi Akiva says: “He is strangled.” But the Sages say: “[His death is] at the hands of heaven.”" 10.1. All Israel have a portion in the world to come, for it says, “Your people, all of them righteous, shall possess the land for ever; They are the shoot that I planted, my handiwork in which I glory” (Isaiah 60:2. And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come: He who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, that the torah was not divinely revealed, and an epikoros. Rabbi Akiva says: “Even one who reads non-canonical books and one who whispers [a charm] over a wound and says, “I will not bring upon you any of the diseases whichbrought upon the Egyptians: for I the lord am you healer” (Exodus 15:26). Abba Shaul says: “Also one who pronounces the divine name as it is spelled.”" 10.2. Three kings and four commoners have no portion in the world to come:The three kings are Jeroboam, Ahab, and Manasseh. Rabbi Judah says: “Manasseh has a portion in the world to come, for it says, “He prayed to him, and He granted his prayer, and heard his plea and he restored him to Jerusalem, to his kingdom” (II Chronicles 33:13). They [the sages] said to him: “They restored him to his kingdom, but not to [his portion in] the world to come.” The four commoners are: Bilaam, Doeg, Ahitophel, and Gehazi." 10.3. The generation of the flood has no portion in the world to come, nor will they stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “[And the Lord said,] my spirit will not always enter into judgment with man” (Genesis 6:3), [meaning] there will be neither judgment nor [my] spirit for them. The generation of the dispersion have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “So the Lord scattered them from there upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:8): “So the lord scattered them”, refers to this world, “And from there the Lord scattered them” (Genesis 11:9), refers to the world to come. The men of Sodom have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And the men of Sodom were wicked and great sinners before the Lord” (Genesis 13:1: “wicked” in this world, and “sinners” in the world to come; Yet will they stand at judgment. R. Nehemiah says: “Neither [the generation of the flood nor the men of Sodom] will stand at judgment, as it says, “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous” (Psalms 1:5) “Therefore the wicked shall not stand in judgment”, refers to the generation of the flood; “nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous”, refers to the men of Sodom. They [the Sages] said to him: “They will not stand in the congregation of the righteous, but they will stand in the congregation of the wicked.” The spies have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “And those men that spread such calumnies about the land, died by the plague before the lord” (Numbers 14:37): “[they] died” in this world, “by the plague” in the world to come. The generation of the wilderness have no share in the world to come and will not stand at the [last] judgment, as it says, “In this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die” (Numbers 14:3, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘Bring in My devotees, who made a covet with Me over sacrifice” (Psalms 50:5). The congregation of Korah is not destined to ascend [from the earth], as it says, “And the earth closed upon them” in this world, “and they perished from among the congregation” (Numbers 16:33) in the world to come, according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Concerning them it is said, ‘The Lord kills and makes alive: He brings down to Sheol, and brings up” (I Samuel 2:6). The ten tribes will not return [to the Land of Israel], for it is said, “And He cast them into another land, as is this day” (Deuteronomy 29:2: just as the day goes and does not return, so they too went and will not return: according to the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Eliezer says: “‘As is this day’ just as the day darkens and then becomes light again, so the ten tribes even as it went dark for them, so will it in the future become light for them." 10.4. The inhabitants of a city seduced into worshipping idols have no portion in the world to come, as it says, “Certain men, wicked persons, have gone out from among you and seduced the inhabitants of their town” (Deuteronomy 13:14). They are not executed unless the seducers are of that city and that tribe, and until the majority of the city are seduced, and the seducers are men. If women or minors seduced it, or if a minority of the city were seduced, or if the seducers were from outside the city, they are treated as individuals, and therefore two witnesses and a formal warning are necessary for each [offender]. In this [the penalty of] individuals is severer than [that of] the multitudes, for individuals are stoned, therefore their property is saved; but the multitudes are decapitated; hence their possessions are destroyed." 10.5. “You shall surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword” (Deut. 13:16): a company of donkey-drivers or camel-drivers passing from place to place saves the city. “Doom it and all that is in it” (ibid.): From here they said that the property of the righteous, which is within [the city] is destroyed, but that which is outside of the city is saved, while that of the wicked, whether in or outside of the city, is destroyed." 10.6. “And you shall gather all its spoil into the public square” (Deut. 13:17): if it had no public square, one is made for it; if the public square was outside of [the city], it is brought within it. “And you shall burn with fire the city, and all its spoil as a whole burnt offering for the Lord your God” (ibid.): “And all its spoil”, but not the spoil of heaven. From here they said, the holy objects in the city must be redeemed and the heave offerings (terumoth) allowed to rot; and the second tithe and the sacred writings hidden. “A whole burnt offering for the Lord your God”: Rabbi Shimon said: “The holy Blessed One declared, ‘If you execute judgment upon the seduced city, I will ascribe merit to you as though you had sacrificed to me a whole offering.’” “And it shall remain an everlasting ruin, never to be rebuilt”: it may not be made even into gardens and orchards, according to the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: “Never to be rebuilt”: it may not be built as it was, but it may be made into gardens and orchards. “Let nothing that has been doomed stick to your hand, in order that the Lord may turn His blazing anger and show you compassion” (Deut. 13:18): as long as the wicked exist in the world, there is blazing anger in the world; when the wicked perish from the world, blazing anger disappears from the world. |
|
8. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
9. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, mishpatim 20 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
|
10. Palestinian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, 3.1 (42c) (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
|
11. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, 11a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 11a. (עזרא ט, ט) כי עבדים אנחנו ובעבדותנו לא עזבנו אלהינו ויט עלינו חסד לפני מלכי פרס אימתי בזמן המן,רבי חנינא בר פפא פתח לה פתחא להא פרשתא מהכא (תהלים סו, יב) הרכבת אנוש לראשנו באנו באש ובמים באש בימי נבוכדנצר הרשע ובמים בימי פרעה ותוציאנו לרויה בימי המן,רבי יוחנן פתח לה פתחא להא פרשתא מהכא (תהלים צח, ג) זכר חסדו ואמונתו לבית ישראל ראו כל אפסי ארץ את ישועת אלהינו אימתי ראו כל אפסי ארץ את ישועת אלהינו בימי מרדכי ואסתר,ריש לקיש פתח לה פתחא להא פרשתא מהכא (משלי כח, טו) ארי נוהם ודוב שוקק מושל רשע על עם דל ארי נוהם זה נבוכדנצר הרשע דכתיב ביה (ירמיהו ד, ז) עלה אריה מסובכו דוב שוקק זה אחשורוש דכתיב ביה (דניאל ז, ה) וארו חיוה אחרי תניינה דמיה לדוב ותני רב יוסף אלו פרסיים שאוכלין ושותין כדוב ומסורבלין בשר כדוב ומגדלין שער כדוב ואין להם מנוחה כדוב,מושל רשע זה המן על עם דל אלו ישראל שהם דלים מן המצות,ר' אלעזר פתח לה פתחא להא פרשתא מהכא (קהלת י, יח) בעצלתים ימך המקרה ובשפלות ידים ידלוף הבית בשביל עצלות שהיה להם לישראל שלא עסקו בתורה נעשה שונאו של הקב"ה מך ואין מך אלא עני שנאמר (ויקרא כז, ח) ואם מך הוא מערכך ואין מקרה אלא הקב"ה שנאמר (תהלים קד, ג) המקרה במים עליותיו,רב נחמן בר יצחק פתח לה פתחא להא פרשתא מהכא (תהלים קכד, א) שיר המעלות לולי ה' שהיה לנו יאמר נא ישראל לולי ה' שהיה לנו בקום עלינו אדם (תהלים קכד,ב) אדם ולא מלך,רבא פתח לה פתחא להא פרשתא מהכא (משלי כט, ב) ברבות צדיקים ישמח העם ובמשול רשע יאנח עם ברבות צדיקים ישמח העם זה מרדכי ואסתר דכתיב והעיר שושן צהלה ושמחה ובמשול רשע יאנח עם זה המן דכתיב והעיר שושן נבוכה,רב מתנה אמר מהכא (דברים ד, ז) כי מי גוי גדול אשר לו אלהים קרובים אליו רב אשי אמר מהכא (דברים ד, לד) או הנסה אלהים וגו',ויהי בימי אחשורוש אמר רב ויי והי הדא דכתיב (דברים כח, סח) והתמכרתם שם לאויביך לעבדים ולשפחות וגו',ושמואל אמר (ויקרא כו, מד) לא מאסתים ולא געלתים לכלותם לא מאסתים בימי יוונים ולא געלתים בימי נבוכדנצר לכלותם בימי המן להפר בריתי אתם בימי פרסיים כי אני ה' אלהיהם בימי גוג ומגוג,במתניתא תנא לא מאסתים בימי כשדים שהעמדתי להם דניאל חנניה מישאל ועזריה ולא געלתים בימי יוונים שהעמדתי להם שמעון הצדיק וחשמונאי ובניו ומתתיה כה"ג לכלותם בימי המן שהעמדתי להם מרדכי ואסתר להפר בריתי אתם בימי פרסיים שהעמדתי להם של בית רבי וחכמי דורות כי אני ה' אלהיהם לעתיד לבוא שאין כל אומה ולשון יכולה לשלוט בהם,רבי לוי אמר מהכא (במדבר לג, נה) ואם לא תורישו את יושבי הארץ,רבי חייא אמר מהכא (במדבר לג, נו) והיה כאשר דמיתי לעשות להם אעשה לכם,אחשורוש אמר רב אחיו של ראש ובן גילו של ראש אחיו של ראש אחיו של נבוכדנצר הרשע שנקרא ראש שנאמר (דניאל ב, לח) אנת הוא רישא די דהבא בן גילו של ראש הוא הרג הוא ביקש להרוג הוא החריב הוא ביקש להחריב שנאמר (עזרא ד, ו) ובמלכות אחשורוש בתחלת מלכותו כתבו שטנה על יושבי יהודה וירושלם,ושמואל אמר שהושחרו פניהם של ישראל בימיו כשולי קדרה ורבי יוחנן אמר כל שזוכרו אמר אח לראשו ורבי חנינא אמר שהכל נעשו רשין בימיו שנאמר (אסתר י, א) וישם המלך אחשורוש מס,הוא אחשורוש הוא ברשעו מתחילתו ועד סופו (בראשית לו, מג) הוא עשו הוא ברשעו מתחילתו ועד סופו (במדבר כו, ט) הוא דתן ואבירם הן ברשען מתחילתן ועד סופן (דברי הימים ב כח, כב) הוא המלך אחז הוא ברשעו מתחילתו ועד סופו,(דברי הימים א א, כז) אברם הוא אברהם הוא בצדקו מתחילתו ועד סופו (שמות ו, כו) הוא אהרן ומשה הן בצדקן מתחילתן ועד סופן (שמואל א יז, יד) ודוד הוא הקטן הוא בקטנותו מתחילתו עד סופו כשם שבקטנותו הקטין עצמו אצל מי שגדול ממנו בתורה כך במלכותו הקטין עצמו אצל מי שגדול ממנו בחכמה,המולך אמר רב שמלך מעצמו אמרי לה לשבח ואמרי לה לגנאי אמרי לה לשבח דלא הוה איניש דחשיב למלכא כוותיה ואמרי לה לגנאי דלא הוה חזי למלכותא וממונא יתירא הוא דיהב וקם,מהודו ועד כוש רב ושמואל חד אמר הודו בסוף העולם וכוש בסוף העולם וחד אמר הודו וכוש גבי הדדי הוו קיימי כשם שמלך על הודו וכוש כך מלך מסוף העולם ועד סופו,כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (מלכים א ה, ד) כי הוא רודה בכל עבר הנהר מתפסח ועד עזה רב ושמואל חד אמר תפסח בסוף העולם ועזה בסוף העולם וחד אמר תפסח ועזה בהדי הדדי הוו קיימי כשם שמלך על תפסח ועל עזה כך מלך על כל העולם כולו,שבע ועשרים ומאה מדינה אמר רב חסדא בתחילה מלך על שבע ולבסוף מלך על עשרים ולבסוף מלך על מאה אלא מעתה (שמות ו, כ) ושני חיי עמרם שבע ושלשים ומאת שנה מאי דרשת ביה שאני הכא דקרא יתירא הוא מכדי כתיב מהודו ועד כוש שבע ועשרים ומאה מדינה למה לי ש"מ לדרשה:,תנו רבנן שלשה מלכו בכיפה ואלו הן אחאב ואחשורוש ונבוכדנצר אחאב דכתיב (מלכים א יח, י) חי ה' אלהיך אם יש גוי וממלכה אשר לא שלח אדוני שם לבקשך וגו' ואי לא דהוה מליך עלייהו היכי מצי משבע להו,נבוכדנצר דכתיב (ירמיהו כז, ח) והיה הגוי והממלכה אשר לא יתן את צוארו בעול מלך בבל אחשורוש הא דאמרן | 11a. b“For we are bondmen; yet our God has not forsaken us in our bondage, but has extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia”(Ezra 9:9). bWhendid this occur? bIn the time of Haman. /b, bRabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa introduced this passage with an introduction from here:The verse states: b“You have caused men to ride over our heads; we went through fire and through water;but You brought us out into abundance” (Psalms 66:12). b“Through fire”;this was bin the days of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar,who cast the righteous into the furnace. b“And through water”;this was bin the days of Pharaoh,who decreed that all newborn males be cast into the water. b“But You brought us out into abundance”;this was bin the days of Haman,where abundant feasts played a pivotal role in their peril and salvation., bRabbi Yoḥa introduced this passage with an introduction from here:The verse states: b“He has remembered His mercy and His faithfulness toward the house of Israel: All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God”(Psalms 98:3). bWhen did all the ends of the earth see the salvation of our God? In the days of Mordecai and Esther,for their peril and salvation became known through the letters sent throughout the empire., bReish Lakish introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “As a roaring lion, and a ravenous bear, so is a wicked ruler over a poor people”(Proverbs 28:15). b“A roaring lion”; this is the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, as it is written about him: “The lion has come up from his thicket”(Jeremiah 4:7). b“A hungry bear”; this is Ahasuerus, as it is written about him: “And behold, another beast, a second one, like a bear”(Daniel 7:5). bAnd Rav Yosef taughtthat bthesewho are referred to as a bear in the verse bare the Persians.They are compared to a bear, bas they eat and drinkin large quantities blike a bear; and they are coated with flesh like a bear; and they grow their hairlong blike a bear; and they never rest like a bear,whose manner it is to move about from place to place., b“A wicked ruler”; this is Haman. “Over a poor people”; this is the Jewish people,who are referred to in this manner bbecause they are poor intheir observance of bthe mitzvot. /b, bRabbi Elazar introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “Through laziness the rafters [ ihamekare /i] sink in [ iyimakh /i]; and through idleness of the hands the house leaks”(Ecclesiastes 10:18). Rabbi Elazar interprets the verse homiletically: bThrough the laziness of the Jewish people, who did not occupy themselves with Torahstudy, bthe enemy of the Holy One, Blessed be He,a euphemism for God Himself, bbecame poor [ imakh /i],so that, as it were, He was unable to help them, bas imakh /iis bnothing other than poor, as it is stated: “But if he be too poor [ imakh /i] for the valuation”(Leviticus 27:8). bAndthe word imekare /iin the verse bis referringto bnoone bother than the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: “Who lays the beams [ ihamekare /i] of His chambers in the waters”(Psalms 104:3)., bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “A song of ascentsof David. bIf not for the Lord Who was with us, let Israel now say; if not for the Lord who was with us, when a man rose up against us”(Psalms 124:1–2). The verse speaks of b“a man”who rose up against us band not a king.This occurred in the days of Haman, as he, and not King Ahasuerus, was the chief enemy of the Jewish people., bRava introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “When the righteous are on the increase, the people rejoice; but when the wicked man rules, the people mourn”(Proverbs 29:2). b“When the righteous are on the increase, the people rejoice”; this is Mordecai and Esther, as it is written: “And the city of Shushan rejoiced and was glad”(Esther 8:15). b“But when the wicked man rules, the people mourn”; this is Haman, as it is written: “But the city of Shushan was perplexed”(Esther 3:15)., bRav Mattana saidhis introduction bfrom here: “For what nation is there so great, that has God so near to them”(Deuteronomy 4:7), as to witness the great miracles in the days of Mordecai and Esther? bRav Ashi saidhis introduction bfrom here:The verse states: b“Or has God venturedto go and take Him a nation from the midst of another nation?” (Deuteronomy 4:34), as in the times of Esther, God saved the Jewish people who were scattered throughout the Persian Empire.,§ The Gemara returns to its interpretation of the book of Esther. The verse states: b“And it came to pass [ ivayhi /i] in the days of Ahasuerus”(Esther 1:1). bRav said:The word ivayhimay be understood as if it said ivaiand ihi /i,meaning bwoe and mourning. This is as it is written: “And there you shall sell yourselves to your enemies for bondsmen and bondswomen,and no man shall buy you” (Deuteronomy 28:68). The repetitive nature of the verse, indicating that no one will be willing to buy you for servitude, but they will purchase you in order to murder you, indicates a doubly horrific situation, which is symbolized by the dual term ivayhi /i, meaning woe and mourning., bAnd Shmuel saidhis introduction from here: “And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, bI will not reject them, nor will I abhor them,to destroy them utterly, and to break My covet with them; for I am the Lord their God” (Leviticus 26:44). Shmuel explains: b“I will not reject them”;this was bin the days of the Greeks. “Nor will I abhor them”;this was bin the days ofVespasian. b“To destroy them utterly”;this was bin the days of Haman. “To break My covet with them”;this was bin the days of the Persians. “For I am the Lord their God”;this is bin the days of Gog and Magog. /b,An alternative understanding bwas taught in a ibaraita /i: “I will not reject them”;this was bin the days of the Chaldeans, when I appointed for them Daniel, Haiah, Mishael, and Azariahto pray on their behalf. b“Nor will I abhor them”;this was bin the days of the Greeks, when I appointed Shimon HaTzaddik for them, andthe bHasmonean and his sons, and Mattithiah the High Priest. “To destroy them utterly”;this was bin the days of Haman, when I appointed for themthe righteous leaders bMordecai and Esther. “To break My covet with them”;this was bin the days of the Romans, when I appointed for themthe Sages of bthe house of RabbiYehuda HaNasi band the Sages ofother bgenerations. “For I am the Lord their God”;this will be bin the future, when no nation orpeople of a foreign btongue will be ableto bsubjugate themfurther., bRabbi Levi saidhis introduction bfrom here: “But if you will not drive out the inhabitants of the landfrom before you, then it shall come to pass, that those whom you allow to remain of them shall be as thorns in your eyes” (Numbers 33:55). King Saul’s failure to completely annihilate Amalek allowed for the existence of his descendant Haman, who acted as a thorn in the eyes of Israel during the Purim episode., bRabbi Ḥiyya saidhis introduction bfrom here,the continuation of the previously cited verse: b“And it shall come to pass, that as I thought to do unto them, so I shall do unto you”(Numbers 33:56). Prior to the miracle of Purim, the Jewish people were subject to the punishment that the Torah designated for its enemies, because they did not fulfill God’s commandments.,The Gemara continues with its explanation of the book of Esther, beginning with a discussion of the name bAhasuerus. Rav said:The name should be viewed as a contraction: bThe brother of the head [ iaḥiv shel rosh /i] and of the same character as the head [ iben gilo shel rosh /i].Rav explains: bThe brother of the head,i.e., bthe brother of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, who is called “head,” as it is stated: “You are the head of gold”(Daniel 2:38). bof the same character as the head, for he,Nebuchadnezzar, bkilledthe Jews, and bhe,Ahasuerus, bsought to killthem. bHe destroyedthe Temple, and bhe sought to destroythe foundations for the Temple laid by Zerubbabel, bas it is stated: “And in the reign of Ahasuerus, in the beginning of his reign, they wrote to him an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem”(Ezra 4:6), and he ordered that the construction of the Temple cease., bAnd Shmuel said:The name Ahasuerus should be understood in the sense of black [ ishaḥor /i], as bthe face of the Jewish people was blackened in his days like the bottom of a pot. And Rabbi Yoḥa saida different explanation: bEveryone who recalled him said: “Woe upon his head” [ iaḥ lerosho /i]. And Rabbi Ḥanina said:The name alludes to the fact bthat everyone became poor[irash /i] in his days, as it is stated: “And the king Ahasuerus laid a tributeupon the land” (Esther 10:1).,The Gemara continues: b“This is [ ihu /i] Ahasuerus”(Esther 1:1); the term ihu /i, this is, comes to teach that bheremained as he was bin his wickedness from beginning to end.Similarly, wherever the words “this is” appear in this manner, the verse indicates that the individual under discussion remained the same from beginning to end, for example: b“This is [ ihu /i] Esau”(Genesis 36:43); bheremained bin his wickedness from beginning to end. “This is [ ihu /i] Dathan and Abiram”(Numbers 26:9); btheyremained bin their wickedness from beginning to end. “This is [ ihu /i] the king Ahaz”(II Chronicles 28:22); bheremained bin his wickedness from beginning to end. /b,The Gemara continues: The word ihuis also used to recognize sustained righteousness. b“Abram, this is [ ihu /i] Abraham”(I Chronicles 1:27); this indicates that Abraham didn’t change, as bheremained bin his righteousness from beginning to end.Similarly, b“This is [ ihu /i] Aaron and Moses”(Exodus 6:26); bthey remained in their righteousness fromthe bbeginningof their life btothe bendof their life. Similarly, with respect to David: b“And David, this was [ ihu /i] the youngest”(I Samuel 17:14), indicates that bhe remained in his humility from beginning to end. Just as in his youth,when he was still an ordinary individual, bhe humbled himself before anyone who was greater than him in Torah, so too, in his kingship, he humbled himself before anyone who was greater than him in wisdom. /b,The next term in the opening verse: b“Who reigned”(Esther 1:1), is now interpreted. bRav said:This comes to teach bthat he reigned on his own,without having inherited the throne. bSome saythis btohis bcredit, and some say it tohis bdisgrace.The Gemara explains: bSome saythis btohis bcredit, that there was noother bman as fit as him to be king. And some say it tohis bdisgrace, that he was not fit to be king, but he distributed large amounts of money, andin that way broseto the throne.,The opening verse continues that Ahasuerus reigned b“from Hodu to Cush.” Rav and Shmueldisagreed about its meaning. bOne said: Hoduis a country bat one end of the world, and Cushis a country bat theother bend of the world. And one said: Hodu and Cush are situated next to each other,and the verse means to say as follows: bJust asAhasuerus breignedwith ease boverthe adjacent countries of bHodu and Cush, so too, he reignedwith ease bfrom one end of the world to the other. /b, bOn a similarnote, byou saywith regard to Solomon: b“For he had dominion over all the region on this side of the river, from Tiphsah even to Gaza”(I Kings 5:4), and also with regard to this bRav and Shmueldisagreed. bOne said: Tiphsah is at one end of the world, whereas Gaza is at the other end of the world. And one said: Tiphsah and Gaza are situated next to each other,and the verse means to say as follows: bJust asSolomon breignedwith ease boverthe adjacent bTiphsah and Gaza, so too, he reignedwith ease bover the entire world. /b,The opening verse continues, stating that Ahasuerus reigned “over bseven and twenty and a hundred provinces”(Esther 1:1). bRav Ḥisda said:This verse should be understood as follows: bAt first he reigned over sevenprovinces; band then he reigned over twentymore; band finally he reigned overanother bhundred.The Gemara asks: bHowever, ifthat is bso,with regard to the similarly worded verse: b“And the years of the life of Amram were seven and thirty and a hundred years”(Exodus 6:20), bwhat would you expoundfrom bit?The Gemara answers: bIt is different here,in the book of Esther, basthis part of bthe verse isentirely bsuperfluous. Since it isalready bwritten: “From Hodu to Cush,” whythen bdo I need “Seven and twenty and a hundred provinces”?Rather, blearn from herethat these words come bforthis bexposition,to teach that Ahasuerus did not begin to reign over all of them at the same time.,§ Apropos the discussion of the kingdoms of Ahasuerus and Solomon, the Gemara cites a ibaraitain which bthe Sages taught: Threemen bruled over theentire bworld, and they were Ahab, and Ahasuerus, and Nebuchadnezzar.The Gemara explains: bAhab, as it is writtenin the words of Obadiah, servant of Ahab, to Elijah: b“As the Lord your God lives, there is no nation or kingdom where my master has not sent to seek you,and they said: He is not there; and he made the kingdom and nation swear, that they had not found you” (I Kings 18:10). bAnd if he did not reign over them, how could he have made them swear?Apparently, then, he reigned over the entire world., bNebuchadnezzaralso ruled over the whole world, bas it is written: “And it shall come to pass, that the nation and the kingdomthat not serve this same Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylonia, and that bwill not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylonia,that nation will I visit, says the Lord, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand” (Jeremiah 27:8). bAhasuerusalso ruled the world, bas we have saidabove. |
|
12. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 81b, 30b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 30b. ודכולי עלמא כרבנן דפליגי עליה דרבי יהושע בן קרחה והכא באקושי הגדה לראיה קא מיפלגי מר סבר מקשינן הגדה לראיה ומר סבר לא מקשינן,רבי שמעון בן אליקים הוה משתקיד עליה דר' יוסי ברבי חנינא למסמכיה ולא קא מיסתייע מילתא יומא חד הוה יתיב קמיה דר' יוחנן,אמר להו מי איכא דידע הלכה כרבי יהושע בן קרחה או לא א"ל רבי שמעון בן אליקים דין ידע אמר ליה לימא איזו אמר ליה ליסמכיה מר ברישא סמכיה,אמר ליה בני אמור לי כיצד שמעת א"ל כך שמעתי שמודה ר' יהושע בן קרחה לרבי נתן,אמר לזה הוצרכתי השתא ומה עיקר ראיה בהדי הדדי אמר ר' יהושע בן קרחה לא בעינן הגדה מיבעיא,א"ל הואיל ועלית לא תרד אמר ר' זירא שמע מינה גברא רבה כיון דסמיך סמיך,א"ר חייא בר אבין אמר רב הלכה כר' יהושע בן קרחה בין בקרקעות בין במטלטלין,עולא אמר הלכה כרבי יהושע בן קרחה בקרקעות אבל לא במטלטלין,א"ל אביי הלכה מכלל דפליגי והאמר ר' אבא א"ר הונא אמר רב מודים חכמים לרבי יהושע בן קרחה בעדות קרקע,ותני רב אידי בר אבין בנזיקין דבי קרנא מודין חכמים לרבי יהושע בן קרחה בעדות בכור ובעדות קרקע ובעדות חזקה וכן שבבן ושבבת,גברא אגברא קא רמית מר סבר פליגי ומר סבר לא פליגי,מאי וכן שבבן ושבבת אילימא אחד אומר אחת בגבה ואחד אומר אחת בכריסה האי חצי דבר וחצי עדות הוא,אלא אחד אומר שתים בגבה ואחד אומר שתים בכריסה,אמר רב יוסף אנא אמינא משמיה דעולא הלכה כרבי יהושע בן קרחה בין בקרקעות בין במטלטלין ורבנן דאתו ממחוזא אמרי אמר ר' זירא משמיה דרב בקרקעות אין אבל לא במטלטלין,רב לטעמיה דאמר רב הודאה אחר הודאה הודאה אחר הלואה מצטרפי,הלואה אחר הלואה הלואה אחר הודאה לא מצטרפי,אשכחיה רב נחמן בר יצחק לרב הונא בריה דרב יהושע א"ל מאי שנא הלואה אחר הלואה דלא דמנה דקא חזי האי לא קא חזי האי הודאה אחר הודאה נמי אמנה דקא מודה קמי האי לא מודי קמי האי,דא"ל להאי בתרא בהאי מנה דאודיי ליה קמך אודיי ליה נמי קמי פלוני,אכתי בתרא ידע קמא לא ידע,דהדר אזיל א"ל לקמא האי מנה דאודיי ליה קמך אודיי ליה נמי קמי פלוני א"ל תנוח דעתך שהתנחת את דעתי,א"ל מאי ניחותא דרבא ואיתימא רב ששת שדא בה נרגא לאו היינו הודאה אחר הלואה,אמר ליה היינו דשמיע לי עלייכו דרמיתו דיקלי וזקפיתו להו,נהרדעי אמרי בין הודאה אחר הודאה בין הודאה אחר הלואה בין הלואה אחר הלואה בין הלואה אחר הודאה מצטרפות כמאן כר' יהושע בן קרחה,אמר רב יהודה עדות המכחשת זו את זו בבדיקות כשרה בדיני ממונות,אמר רבא מסתברא מילתיה דרב יהודה באחד אומר בארנקי שחורה ואחד אומר בארנקי לבנה אבל אחד אומר מנה שחור ואחד אומר מנה לבן אין מצטרפין,וארנקי שחורה בדיני נפשות לא והאמר רב חסדא אחד אומר בסייף הרגו ואחד אומר בארירן הרגו אין זה נכון אחד אומר כליו שחורים ואחד אומר כליו לבנים הרי זה נכון | 30b. band everyone,both the first itannaand Rabbi Natan, holds bin accordance withthe opinion of bthe Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa,and derive from this verse that it is necessary that the witnesses see the incident together, i.e., they were both present and observed the incident at the same time. bAnd here,with regard to whether or not the witnesses must testify in court together, bthey disagree with regard towhether or not the bstatementof the witnesses, i.e., their testimony in court, bis compared totheir bobservationof the incident. One bSage,the first itanna /i, bholdsthat bwe comparetheir bstatement totheir bobservation.Therefore, just as they must see the incident together, so too, they must testify together in court. bAndone bSage,Rabbi Natan, bholdsthat bwe do not comparetheir statement to their observation.,The Gemara relates: bRabbi Shimon ben Elyakim was striving to ordain Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, and was not successfulin his attempts. bOne day,Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim bwas sitting before Rabbi Yoḥaamong Rabbi Yoḥa’s other students.,Rabbi Yoḥa bsaid tohis students: bIs thereanyone bwho knowswhether the ihalakha /iis bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, or not? Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said to him: Thisone, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, bknows.Rabbi Yoḥa bsaid to him: If so, let him say.Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim bsaid to him: Let the Master ordain him first;since we are all in need of his wisdom, he is fit for ordination. Rabbi Yoḥa then bordainedRabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina.,Rabbi Yoḥa bsaid to him: My son, tell me what you heard.Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, bsaid to him: This is what I heard: That Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa concedes tothe opinion of bRabbi Natanthat it is unnecessary for the witnesses to testify together.,Rabbi Yoḥa was disappointed, and bsaid: For this I neededto ordain him? bNowthat with regard to the bmainelement of testimony, i.e., bobservingthe incident, bRabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says we do not needboth witnesses to see it btogether,with regard to their bstatementin court, bisit bnecessaryto explicate that there is no requirement that they testify together?,Although the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, was unnecessary, Rabbi Yoḥa bsaid to him: Since you ascended,i.e., you were ordained, byou will not descend,even though it was in error. bRabbi Zeira said: Conclude from itthat with regard to ba great man, once he is ordained,even if it was due to mistaken judgment, bhe is ordained.The ordination is not canceled.,As for the ihalakhain this matter, bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin saysthat bRav says:The ihalakha /iis bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥathat it is unnecessary for the two witnesses to observe the incident together, bboth with regard tocases of blandand bwith regard tocases of bmovable property. /b, bUlla says:The ihalakha /iis bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa with regard to land,which is unmovable, and therefore both testimonies are certainly about the same piece of land; bbut not with regard to movable property,as there is a concern that they are not testifying about the same item., bAbaye said toUlla: If you say that the ihalakha /iis in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa with regard to land, bby inferenceyou hold bthat they disagreewith regard to this matter. bBut doesn’t Rabbi Abba saythat bRav Huna saysthat bRav says: The Rabbis concede tothe opinion of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa with regard to testimonyconcerning bland? /b, bAnd Rav Idi bar Avin teaches inthe ihalakhotof bdamagesthat were taught bat the school ofthe Sage bKarna: The Rabbis concede tothe opinion of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥathat the witnesses do not need to see the incident together bwith regard to testimonyconcerning a blemish in a male bfirstbornkosher animal, which renders it permitted to derive benefit from it, band with regard to testimonyconcerning ownership of bland, and with regard to testimonyconcerning bpresumptive ownershipof land. Since it is clear that they are testifying about the same land, it is unnecessary for them to see it together. bAnd sothey concede with regard to testimony over the two pubic hairs bof a boy or of a girl,which are a sign of adulthood.,The Gemara rejects Abaye’s question: bAre you settingthe statement of one bman againstthe statement of another bman?One bSage,Ulla, bholdsthat the Rabbis bdisagreewith Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa even with regard to land, bandone bSage,i.e., Rav and Rav Idi, bholdsthat bthey do not disagree. /b,The Gemara asks tangentially about the statement: bAnd sothey concede with regard to testimony over the two pubic hairs bof a boy or of a girl: Whatis this referring to? bIf we sayit is referring to testimony that a girl has reached majority, in which bonewitness bsaysthat he saw bonehair bonthe bherlower bback and onewitness bsaysthat he saw bonehair bon herlower babdomen,that is difficult. A girl is considered to have reached maturity when she has two pubic hairs. In this case, two witnesses separately testify that they have each seen one hair. In bthiscase each testimony is obviously invalid, as it bis half a matter andalso bhalf a testimony.Not only does each testimony refer to one hair, which is half a matter, it is submitted by one witness, which is half a testimony. Consequently, it is obvious that the girl is not considered to have reached majority in this case., bRather,it must be referring to a case where bone saysthat he saw btwohairs bon herlower bback, andthe other bone sayshe saw btwohairs bon herlower babdomen.Since they each testify that she has reached adulthood, it is unnecessary for them to see the same hairs., bRav Yosef said: I say in the name of Ullathat the ihalakha /iis bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa both with regard to land and with regard to movable property. But the Sages who came from Meḥoza saythat bRabbi Zeira says in the name of Rav: With regard to landthe ihalakha bisin accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, bbut not with regard to movable property. /b,The Gemara comments: bRavconforms bto hisstandard line of breasoning, as Rav says:Testimonies of ban admission following an admissionare combined into one; if one witness testifies that the respondent admitted in his presence that he owes the claimant, and the other witness testifies that the respondent admitted in his presence that he owes the claimant in a separate incident, their testimonies are combined. Likewise, testimonies of ban admission following a loan are combinedinto one; where one witness testifies that the respondent admitted in his presence that he owes the claimant, and the other one testifies that on a previous date the respondent borrowed money from the claimant in his presence, their testimonies are combined.,Rav continues: But testimonies of ba loan following a loanare not combined. If one testifies that the claimant lent the respondent one hundred dinars in his presence, and the other testifies that he lent him one hundred dinars in a separate incident in his presence, their testimonies are not combined, as they are clearly testifying about two separate loans. Similarly, testimonies of ba loan following an admission are not combined.If one testifies that the claimant lent money to the respondent, and the other one testifies that on an earlier date the respondent admitted to owing the claimant, their testimonies are not combined., bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak encountered Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua. He said to him: What is differentabout ba loan following a loan,in bwhichcase the testimonies are bnotcombined, bas the one hundred dinars that thiswitness bsaw, thatwitness bdid not see?In the case of ban admission following an admission as well,perhaps bthe one hundred dinars about whichthe respondent badmitted in the presence of thiswitness, bhe did not admit in the presence of thatwitness. Perhaps his admissions were in reference to two separate loans, and therefore the testimonies should not be combined.,Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, answered him: The reference is to a case bwherethe respondent bsaid to this lastwitness: bWith regard to the one hundred dinars that I admittedto owing bin your presence, I admittedto owing bthem in the presence of so-and-so,the first witness, bas well. /b,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak asked: bStill, the lastwitness bknowsthat he is testifying about the same loan as the first witness, but bthe firstwitness bdoes not knowthis. Since only one witness testifies that it is the same loan, the testimonies still cannot be combined.,Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, answered: It is a case bwhere,after his admission to the second witness, the respondent bwent backand bsaid to the firstwitness: With regard to bthose one hundred dinars that I admittedto owing bin your presence, I admittedowing bthem in the presence of so-and-so as well.Therefore, both witnesses know that they are testifying about the same loan. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak bsaid to him: May your mind be settled, as you have settled my mindand put it at ease by answering this question that was troubling me.,Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, bsaid to him: What is settlingabout this explanation? bAs Rava, and some say Rav Sheshet, threw an ax atmy answer, i.e., he rejected my explanation, as follows: According to this interpretation of the case of an admission following an admission, bisn’t thisthe same as ban admission following a loan?The case of an admission following an admission is now rendered superfluous, as it adds no new insight on the matter.,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak bsaid to him: This is what I heard about youSages of Meḥoza, bthat you knock down palm trees and erect them,i.e., you build and then destroy what you built. After you came up with such an excellent explanation, you ruined it yourselves.,The Sages bof Neharde’a say: Whetherit is a case of ban admission following an admission, or an admission following a loan, or a loan following a loan, or a loan following an admission,in all these cases the testimonies bare combined. In accordance with whoseopinion is this? It is bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa,who teaches that since both witnesses testify about a debt of one hundred dinars, it is considered like one testimony.,§ bRav Yehuda says: Testimonyof two witnesses bwho contradictthe testimony of beach other inresponse to the judges’ bexaminationof the details of the story bis valid incases of bmonetary law,although a contradiction of this type disqualifies testimony in cases of capital law., bRava says: The statement of Rav Yehuda is reasonable ina case where bonewitness bsays:The money was bin a black purse [ ibe’arnaki /i], andthe other bone says:It was bin a white purse.Since this is a secondary detail, they may not remember it accurately. bButif bone says:He lent him ba black coin,i.e., the coin was dark, bandthe other bone says:He lent him ba white coin,the testimonies bare not combined.Since they contradict each other with regard to a characteristic of the money itself, one is probably lying.,The Gemara challenges Rabbi Yehuda’s ruling: bAndif witnesses contradict each other with regard to secondary details such as ba black purse incases of bcapital law,is it the case that their testimony is bnotaccepted? bBut doesn’t Rav Ḥisda say:In a case where boneof the witnesses bsays:The murderer bkilledthe victim bwith a sword, and oneof the witnesses bsays:The murderer bkilledthe victim bwith an iariran /i,another type of weapon, bthis is not congruenttestimony, as this is a clear contradiction. But if boneof the witnesses bsays:The murderer’s bgarmentswere bblack, and oneof the witnesses bsays:The murderer’s bgarmentswere bwhite, this is congruenttestimony, as this is not a meaningful discrepancy. |
|
