1. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 11.24 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 11.24. וּלְאֵלֶּה תִּטַּמָּאוּ כָּל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּנִבְלָתָם יִטְמָא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃ | 11.24. And by these ye shall become unclean; whosoever toucheth the carcass of them shall be unclean until even." |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 19.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 19.16. וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יִגַּע עַל־פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה בַּחֲלַל־חֶרֶב אוֹ בְמֵת אוֹ־בְעֶצֶם אָדָם אוֹ בְקָבֶר יִטְמָא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים׃ | 19.16. And whosoever in the open field toucheth one that is slain with a sword, or one that dieth of himself, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days." |
|
3. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 3.7, 4.20-4.22, 8.17 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
4. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 50.1-50.6 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
| 50.1. The leader of his brethren and the pride of his people was Simon the high priest, son of Onias,who in his life repaired the house,and in his time fortified the temple. 50.1. like an olive tree putting forth its fruit,and like a cypress towering in the clouds. 50.2. He laid the foundations for the high double walls,the high retaining walls for the temple enclosure. 50.2. Then Simon came down, and lifted up his hands over the whole congregation of the sons of Israel,to pronounce the blessing of the Lord with his lips,and to glory in his name; 50.3. In his days a cistern for water was quarried out,a reservoir like the sea in circumference. 50.4. He considered how to save his people from ruin,and fortified the city to withstand a seige. 50.5. How glorious he was when the people gathered round him as he came out of the inner sanctuary! |
|
5. Philo of Alexandria, That Every Good Person Is Free, 75 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
| 75. Moreover Palestine and Syria too are not barren of exemplary wisdom and virtue, which countries no slight portion of that most populous nation of the Jews inhabits. There is a portion of those people called Essenes, in number something more than four thousand in my opinion, who derive their name from their piety, though not according to any accurate form of the Grecian dialect, because they are above all men devoted to the service of God, not sacrificing living animals, but studying rather to preserve their own minds in a state of holiness and purity. |
|
6. Epictetus, Discourses, 4.7.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
7. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 18.23-18.25, 18.117 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 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. 18.24. And since this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain. 18.24. 1. But Herodias, Agrippa’s sister, who now lived as wife to that Herod who was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, took this authority of her brother in an envious manner, particularly when she saw that he had a greater dignity bestowed on him than her husband had; since, when he ran away, it was because he was not able to pay his debts; and now he was come back, it was because he was in a way of dignity, and of great good fortune. 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; 18.117. for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. |
|
8. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 2.119, 7.417-7.419 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 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. 7.417. whose courage, or whether we ought to call it madness, or hardiness in their opinions, everybody was amazed at. 7.418. For when all sorts of torments and vexations of their bodies that could be devised were made use of to them, they could not get anyone of them to comply so far as to confess, or seem to confess, that Caesar was their lord; but they preserved their own opinion, in spite of all the distress they were brought to, as if they received these torments and the fire itself with bodies insensible of pain, and with a soul that in a manner rejoiced under them. 7.419. But what was most of all astonishing to the beholders was the courage of the children; for not one of these children was so far overcome by these torments, as to name Caesar for their lord. So far does the strength of the courage [of the soul] prevail over the weakness of the body. |
|
9. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, 1.37-1.42 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 1.37. and this is justly, or rather necessarily done, because every one is not permitted of his own accord to be a writer, nor is there any disagreement in what is written; they being only prophets that have written the original and earliest accounts of things as they learned them of God himself by inspiration; and others have written what hath happened in their own times, and that in a very distinct manner also. 8. 1.38. For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have], but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; 1.39. and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; 1.41. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; 1.42. and how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation, is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willingly to die for them. |
|
10. Josephus Flavius, Life, 11 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
|
11. Mishnah, Avot, 1.1, 1.15-1.16, 2.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.1. Moses received the torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be patient in [the administration of] justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah." 1.15. Shammai used to say: make your [study of the] Torah a fixed practice; speak little, but do much; and receive all men with a pleasant countece." 1.16. Rabban Gamaliel used to say: appoint for thyself a teacher, avoid doubt, and do not make a habit of tithing by guesswork." 2.8. Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai received [the oral tradition] from Hillel and Shammai.He used to say: if you have learned much torah, do not claim credit for yourself, because for such a purpose were you created. Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai had five disciples and they were these: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, Rabbi Joshua ben Haiah, Rabbi Yose, the priest, Rabbi Shimon ben Nethaneel and Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach. He [Rabbi Joha] used to list their outstanding virtues: Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus is a plastered cistern which loses not a drop; Rabbi Joshua ben Haiah happy is the woman that gave birth to him; Rabbi Yose, the priest, is a pious man; Rabbi Simeon ben Nethaneel is one that fears sin, And Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach is like a spring that [ever] gathers force. He [Rabbi Yoha] used to say: if all the sages of Israel were on one scale of the balance and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus on the other scale, he would outweigh them all. Abba Shaul said in his name: if all the sages of Israel were on one scale of the balance, and Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus also with them, and Rabbi Eleazar ben Arach on the other scale, he would outweigh them all." |
|
12. Mishnah, Berachot, 9.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 9.5. One must bless [God] for the evil in the same way as one blesses for the good, as it says, “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5). “With all your heart,” with your two impulses, the evil impulse as well as the good impulse. “With all your soul” even though he takes your soul [life] away from you. “With all your might” with all your money. Another explanation, “With all your might” whatever treatment he metes out to you. One should not show disrespect to the Eastern Gate, because it is in a direct line with the Holy of Holies. One should not enter the Temple Mount with a staff, or with shoes on, or with a wallet, or with dusty feet; nor should one make it a short cut, all the more spitting [is forbidden]. All the conclusions of blessings that were in the Temple they would say, “forever [lit. as long as the world is].” When the sectarians perverted their ways and said that there was only one world, they decreed that they should say, “for ever and ever [lit. from the end of the world to the end of the world]. They also decreed that a person should greet his fellow in God’s name, as it says, “And behold Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers, ‘May the Lord be with you.’ And they answered him, “May the Lord bless you’” (Ruth 2:. And it also says, “The Lord is with your, you valiant warrior” (Judges 6:12). And it also says, “And do not despise your mother when she grows old” (Proverbs 23:22). And it also says, “It is time to act on behalf of the Lord, for they have violated Your teaching” (Psalms 119:126). Rabbi Natan says: [this means] “They have violated your teaching It is time to act on behalf of the Lord.”" |
|
13. Mishnah, Demai, 2.2-2.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.2. One who accepts upon himself to be trustworthy (ne’eman), must tithe whatever he eats and whatever he sells and whatever he buys, and he may not be the guest of an am haaretz. Rabbi Judah says: even one who is the guest of an am haaretz can still be considered trustworthy. They said to him: He is not trustworthy in respect of himself! How can he be considered trustworthy in respect of others?" 2.3. One who takes upon himself to become a “chaver” may not sell to an am haaretz either moist or dry [produce], nor may he buy from him moist [produce], nor may he be the guest of an am haaretz, nor may he host an am haaretz as a guest while [the am haaretz] is wearing his own garment. Rabbi Judah says: he may not also raise small animals, nor may make a lot of vows or merriment, nor may he defile himself by contact with the dead. Rather he should be an attendant at the house of study. They said to him: these [requirements] do not come within the general rule [of being a chaver]. |
|
14. Mishnah, Eduyot, 9.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
|
15. Mishnah, Eruvin, 6.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 6.2. Rabban Gamaliel said: A Sadducee once lived with us in the same alley in Jerusalem and father told us: “Hurry up and carry out all vessels into the alley before he carries out his and thereby restricts you”. Rabbi Judah said [the instruction was given] in different language: “Hurry up and perform all of your needs in the alley before he carries out his and thereby restricts you”." |
|
16. Mishnah, Hagigah, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 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." |
|
17. Mishnah, Makkot, 1.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.6. Perjuring witnesses are not to be put to death until [after] the end of the trial. Because the Sadducees say: “[Perjurers were put to death] only after the accused had [actually] been executed, as it says, “ A life for a life” (Deuteronomy 19:21). The [Pharisaic] Sages said to them: “But has not it already been said “You shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” (Deuteronomy 19:19) which implies when his brother is still alive? If so, why does it say “A life for life”? For it might have been that perjurers are liable to be put to death from the moment their testimony had been taken, therefore the Torah states “A life for a life” that is to say that they are not executed until [after] the termination of the trial." |
|
18. Mishnah, Menachot, 10.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 10.3. How would they do it [reap the omer]?The agents of the court used to go out on the day before the festival and tie the unreaped grain in bunches to make it the easier to reap. All the inhabitants of the towns near by assembled there, so that it might be reaped with a great demonstration. As soon as it became dark he says to them: “Has the sun set?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Has the sun set?” And they answer, “Yes.” “With this sickle?” And they answer, “Yes.” “With this sickle?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Into this basket?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Into this basket?” And they answer, “Yes.” On the Sabbath he says to them, “On this Sabbath?” And they answer, “Yes.” “On this Sabbath?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Shall I reap?” And they answer, “Reap.” “Shall I reap?” And they answer, “Reap.” He repeated every matter three times, and they answer, “yes, yes, yes.” And why all of this? Because of the Boethusians who held that the reaping of the omer was not to take place at the conclusion of the [first day of the] festival." |
|
19. Mishnah, Niddah, 4.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 4.2. The daughters of the Sadducees, so long as they are accustomed to walking in the paths of their fathers, are to be regarded as Samaritan women. If they left those paths to walk in the paths of Israel, they are to be regarded as Israelite women. Rabbi Yose says: they are always regarded as Israelite women unless they leave the paths of Israel to walk in the paths of their fathers." |
|
20. Mishnah, Oholot, 2.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.3. The following defile by contact and carriage but not by overshadowing: A bone of barleycorn size, Earth from a foreign country, A bet peras, A limb of a corpse, or a limb [severed] from a living person which has no longer its appropriate flesh, A spine or a skull which is deficient. How much is [considered] a deficiency in the spine? Bet Shammai say: two vertebrae, But Bet Hillel say: even one vertebra. And in the skull? Bet Shammai say: [the size of a] hole [made] by a drill, But Bet Hillel say: as much as would be taken from a living person and he would die. of what drill did they speak? of the small one [used] by physicians, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: of the large one in the Temple-chamber." |
|
21. Mishnah, Pesahim, 4.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 4.8. Six things the inhabitants of Jericho did: against three they [the sages] protested, and against three [they] did not protest.And these are those against which they did not protest: They grafted palm trees all day [on the eve of Pesah]; They ‘wrapped up’ the Shema; And they harvested and stacked [their produce] before [the bringing of] the ‘omer. And [for these] they did not protest. And these are those against which they did protest: They permitted [for use] the small branches [of sycamore trees] belonging to sacred property, And they ate the fallen fruit from beneath [trees] on Shabbat, and they gave pe’ah from vegetables; And [for these] they did protest." |
|
22. Mishnah, Shabbat, 16.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 16.1. All sacred writings may be saved from a fire, whether we read from them or not [on Shabbat]. And even if they are written in any language, they must be stored. And why do we not read them? Because of the neglect of the study house. One may save the container of a scroll together with the scroll, and the container of tefillin together with the tefillin, even if it [also] contains money. And to where may one rescue them? Into a closed alley. Ben Batera says: even into an open one." |
|
23. Mishnah, Sotah, 3.4, 7.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 3.4. She had barely finished drinking when her face turns yellow, her eyes protrude and her veins swell. And [those who see her] exclaim, “Remove her! Remove her, so that the temple-court should not be defiled”. If she had merit, it [causes the water] to suspend its effect upon her. Some merit suspends the effect for one year, some merit suspends the effects for two years, and some merit suspends the effect for three years. Hence Ben Azzai said: a person must teach his daughter Torah, so that if she has to drink [the water of bitterness], she should know that the merit suspends its effect. Rabbi Eliezer says: whoever teaches his daughter Torah teaches her lasciviousness. Rabbi Joshua says: a woman prefers one kav (of food) and sexual indulgence to nine kav and sexual separation. He used to say, a foolish pietist, a cunning wicked person, a female separatist, and the blows of separatists bring destruction upon the world." 7.6. How was the priestly blessing [pronounced]?In the province (outside of the Temple) it was said as three blessings, but in the Temple as one blessing. In the Temple the name was uttered as it is written, but in the province in its substituted name. In the province the priests raise their hands at the height of their shoulders, but in the Temple above their heads, except the high priest who does not raise his hands higher than the frontlet (on his forehead). Rabbi Judah says: even the high priest raises his hands higher than the frontlet, as it says, “And Aaron lifted up his hands toward the people and blessed them” (Leviticus 9:22)." |
|
24. Mishnah, Toharot, 4.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 4.12. \"A condition of doubt concerning non-sacred food\"--this refers to the cleanness practiced by Pharisees. \"A condition of doubt concerning a sheretz\" –according [to their condition at] the time they are found. \"A condition of doubt concerning negaim\" it is deemed clean in the beginning before it had been determined to be unclean, but after it had been determined to be unclean, a condition of doubt is deemed unclean. \"A condition of doubt concerning a nazirite vow\" [in such a condition of doubt he] is permitted [all that is forbidden to a nazirite]. \"A condition of doubt concerning first-borns\" whether they are human firstborn or firstborn of cattle, whether the firstborn of an unclean beast or a clean one, for the one who wishes to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof." |
|
25. Mishnah, Yadayim, 3.5, 4.5-4.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 3.5. A scroll on which the writing has become erased and eighty-five letters remain, as many as are in the section beginning, \"And it came to pass when the ark set forward\" (Numbers 11:35-36) defiles the hands. A single sheet on which there are written eighty-five letters, as many as are in the section beginning, \"And it came to pass when the ark set forward\", defiles the hands. All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands. The Song of Songs and Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) defile the hands. Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet. Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs. Rabbi Shimon says: [the ruling about] Kohelet is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I have received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the academy that the Song of Songs and Kohelet defile the hands. Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man in Israel disputed that the Song of Songs [saying] that it does not defile the hands. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If they had a dispute, they had a dispute only about Kohelet. Rabbi Yoha ben Joshua the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Akiva said in accordance with the words of Ben Azzai: so they disputed and so they reached a decision." 4.5. The Aramaic sections in Ezra and Daniel defile the hands. If an Aramaic section was written in Hebrew, or a Hebrew section was written in Aramaic, or [Hebrew which was written with] Hebrew script, it does not defile the hands. It never defiles the hands until it is written in the Assyrian script, on parchment, and in ink." 4.6. The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer do not defile the hands. Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai said: Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this? Behold they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, yet the bones of Yoha the high priest are unclean. They said to him: according to the affection for them, so is their impurity, so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother. He said to them: so also are the Holy Scriptures according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness. The books of Homer which are not precious do not defile the hands." 4.7. The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you declare an uninterrupted flow of a liquid to be clean. The Pharisees say: we complain against you, Sadducees, that you declare a stream of water which flows from a burial-ground to be clean? The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you say, my ox or donkey which has done injury is liable, yet my male or female slave who has done injury is not liable. Now if in the case of my ox or my donkey for which I am not responsible if they do not fulfill religious duties, yet I am responsible for their damages, in the case of my male or female slave for whom I am responsible to see that they fulfill mitzvot, how much more so that I should be responsible for their damages? They said to them: No, if you argue about my ox or my donkey which have no understanding, can you deduce from there anything concerning a male or female slave who do have understanding? So that if I were to anger either of them and they would go and burn another person's stack, should I be liable to make restitution?" |
|
26. New Testament, Acts, 2.37, 13.24, 16.30, 19.4, 22.10 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 2.37. Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do? 13.24. before his coming, when John had first preached the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel. 16.30. and brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 19.4. Paul said, "John indeed baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe in the one who would come after him, that is, on Jesus. 22.10. I said, 'What shall I do, Lord?' The Lord said to me, 'Arise, and go into Damascus. There you will be told about all things which are appointed for you to do.' |
|
27. New Testament, Luke, 3.3, 3.7-3.14, 3.16, 13.1 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 3.3. He came into all the region around the Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for remission of sins. 3.7. He said therefore to the multitudes who went out to be baptized by him, "You offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 3.8. Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and don't begin to say among yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father;' for I tell you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones! 3.9. Even now the ax also lies at the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that doesn't bring forth good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire. 3.10. The multitudes asked him, "What then must we do? 3.11. He answered them, "He who has two coats, let him give to him who has none. He who has food, let him do likewise. 3.12. Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, "Teacher, what must we do? 3.13. He said to them, "Collect no more than that which is appointed to you. 3.14. Soldiers also asked him, saying, "What about us? What must we do?"He said to them, "Extort from no one by violence, neither accuse anyone wrongfully. Be content with your wages. 3.16. John answered them all, "I indeed baptize you with water, but he comes who is mightier than I, the latchet of whose sandals I am not worthy to loosen. He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire 13.1. Now there were some present at the same time who told him about the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. |
|
28. New Testament, Mark, 1.4, 1.8, 10.17 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 1.4. John came baptizing in the wilderness and preaching the baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins. 1.8. I baptized you in water, but he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit. 10.17. As he was going out into the way, one ran to him, knelt before him, and asked him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? |
|
29. New Testament, Matthew, 3.7-3.11 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 3.7. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for his baptism, he said to them, "You offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 3.8. Therefore bring forth fruit worthy of repentance! 3.9. Don't think to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father,' for I tell you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. 3.10. Even now the ax lies at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that doesn't bring forth good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire. 3.11. I indeed baptize you in water for repentance, but he who comes after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit. |
|
30. Tacitus, Histories, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 5.5. Whatever their origin, these rites are maintained by their antiquity: the other customs of the Jews are base and abominable, and owe their persistence to their depravity. For the worst rascals among other peoples, renouncing their ancestral religions, always kept sending tribute and contributions to Jerusalem, thereby increasing the wealth of the Jews; again, the Jews are extremely loyal toward one another, and always ready to show compassion, but toward every other people they feel only hate and enmity. They sit apart at meals, and they sleep apart, and although as a race, they are prone to lust, they abstain from intercourse with foreign women; yet among themselves nothing is unlawful. They adopted circumcision to distinguish themselves from other peoples by this difference. Those who are converted to their ways follow the same practice, and the earliest lesson they receive is to despise the gods, to disown their country, and to regard their parents, children, and brothers as of little account. However, they take thought to increase their numbers; for they regard it as a crime to kill any late-born child, and they believe that the souls of those who are killed in battle or by the executioner are immortal: hence comes their passion for begetting children, and their scorn of death. They bury the body rather than burn it, thus following the Egyptians' custom; they likewise bestow the same care on the dead, and hold the same belief about the world below; but their ideas of heavenly things are quite the opposite. The Egyptians worship many animals and monstrous images; the Jews conceive of one god only, and that with the mind alone: they regard as impious those who make from perishable materials representations of gods in man's image; that supreme and eternal being is to them incapable of representation and without end. Therefore they set up no statues in their cities, still less in their temples; this flattery is not paid their kings, nor this honour given to the Caesars. But since their priests used to chant to the accompaniment of pipes and cymbals and to wear garlands of ivy, and because a golden vine was found in their temple, some have thought that they were devotees of Father Liber, the conqueror of the East, in spite of the incongruity of their customs. For Liber established festive rites of a joyous nature, while the ways of the Jews are preposterous and mean. |
|
31. Tosefta, Berachot, 3.25 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 3.25. Eighteen Berachot (blessings) that the Sages have established [for the prayer of Shemoneh Esreh have been established] corresponding to eighteen mentionings [of God’s name] that are in [the chapter of Tehillim that begins with] “Ascribe to God, children of princes…” (Tehillim 29) And [a person] should include [the Beracha against] the heretics into [the Beracha] for the Rabbinical Jews, and [the Beracha] for the converts into [the Beracha] for the elders, and [the Beracha] for [King] David into [the Beracha] for [the rebuilding of] Jerusalem. But if he said each one of them separately he has fulfilled his obligation [of praying Shemoneh Esreh]." |
|
32. Tosefta, Hagigah, 3.35 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
33. Tosefta, Ketuvot, 4.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 4.9. Hillel the Elder would explain lay-language [of contracts as if it were the biblical text]. When the people of Alexandria would betroth wives, another would come and seize her from the street. The matter came to the Sages. They sought to make their children bastards [since the betrothal was valid, so when they are married to others in the meantime their children will be illegitimate]. Hillel the Elder said to them: \"Bring to me the ketubah of your mothers.\" They brought them for him, and it was written in it \"When you enter my house, you will be my wife according to the law of Moshe and Yisrael\" [in other words, based on a fine reading of the ketubah text, the betrothal only takes full effect when she enters his house, which means that the other husband was not illegitimate and her children aren't bastards]." |
|
34. Tosefta, Niddah, 5.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
35. Tosefta, Parah, 3.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
36. Tosefta, Rosh Hashanah, 1.15 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
37. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 6.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
38. Tosefta, Shabbat, 1.15, 13.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
39. Tosefta, Sotah, 15.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
40. Tosefta, Sukkah, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 3.1. The lulav suspends the Sabbath in the beginning of its duty, and the willow in the end of its duty. There is a story that some Boethusians once hid the willows under some great stones on the Sabbath eve; but when this had become known to the common people they came and dragged them out from under the stones on the Sabbath, for the Boethusians do not acknowledge that the beating of the willow suspends the Sabbath." |
|
41. Tosefta, Kippurim, 1.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
42. Tosefta, Yadayim, 2.9, 2.12-2.13, 2.20 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
43. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 39, 43, 112 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
|
44. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 80.4 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
45. Palestinian Talmud, Sotah, 3.4 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
|
46. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 115b. הא כיצד נחלה ממשמשת והולכת עד ראובן ולימא עד יעקב אמר אביי גמירי דלא כלה שבטא,אמר רב הונא אמר רב כל האומר תירש בת עם בת הבן אפילו נשיא שבישראל אין שומעין לו שאינן אלא מעשה צדוקין דתניא בארבעה ועשרים בטבת תבנא לדיננא שהיו צדוקין אומרין תירש הבת עם בת הבן,נטפל להן רבן יוחנן בן זכאי אמר להם שוטים מנין זה לכם ולא היה אדם שהחזירו דבר חוץ מזקן אחד שהיה מפטפט כנגדו ואומר ומה בת בנו הבאה מכח בנו תירשנו בתו הבאה מכחו לא כל שכן,קרא עליו את המקרא הזה (בראשית לו, כ) אלה בני שעיר החורי יושבי הארץ לוטן ושובל וצבעון וענה וכתיב (בראשית לו, כד) אלה בני צבעון ואיה וענה אלא מלמד שבא צבעון על אמו והוליד ענה,ודלמא תרי ענה הוו אמר רבה אמינא מלתא דלא אמרה שבור מלכא ומנו שמואל איכא דאמרי אמר רב פפא אמינא מלתא דלא אמרה שבור מלכא ומנו רבה אמר קרא (בראשית לו, כד) הוא ענה הוא ענה דמעיקרא,אמר ליה רבי בכך אתה פוטרני אמר לו שוטה | 115b. The Gemara asks: bHow so,i.e., how is the investigation performed when he has no offspring at all? The Gemara answers: The family lineage that determines the binheritance is successively examined up to Reuben,son of Jacob, i.e., the heirs are determined by investigating the family genealogy, and that investigation can extend all the way to Reuben, son of our forefather Jacob. The Gemara asks: bAnd letit bsay: Until Jacobhimself, rather than until Reuben, since if none of Reuven’s descendants survive, one would have to examine Jacob’s descendants. bAbaye saidin reply: It bis learnedas a tradition bthat a tribe will not be eliminatedentirely, and some descendants will always remain.,§ bRav Huna saysthat bRav says:With regard to banyone who saysthat ba daughterof the deceased bshould inheritthe estate of her father along bwith the daughter of the sonof the deceased, bevenif he is ba prince of the Jewish people,one bshould not listen to him, as this is nothing other than an act of the Sadducees,and runs counter to the ruling of the mishna that the descendants of a son inherit before a daughter. bAs it is taughtin a ibaraitain iMegillat Ta’anit /i, which describes various minor holidays on which it is forbidden to fast or eulogize: bOn the twenty-fourth of Tevet, we returned to our law,i.e., the ihalakhawas reestablished in accordance with the opinion of the Sages after having been dictated by the Sadducees. bAs the Sadducees would say: A daughter should inheritthe estate of her father along bwith the daughter of the sonof the deceased.,The ibaraitacontinues: bRabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai joined themto discuss their ruling, and bsaid to them: Imbeciles, from wheredo byouderive bthisruling? bAnd there was no person that answered him anything, except for one oldman bwho was chattering at him and sayingthat it is an ia fortioriinference: bAnd just as a daughter ofthe deceased’s bson, who comesto claim her inheritance from her grandfather bby virtue of his son, inheritsher grandfather’s property, so too, with regard to the deceased’s own bdaughter, who comesto inherit bby virtue ofthe deceased, ball the more sois it bnotclear that she should inherit his property?,Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai brecited this verse about him: “These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan and Shobal and Zibeon and Anah”(Genesis 36:20), band it is written: “And these are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah”(Genesis 36:24). The first verse portrays Zibeon and Anah as brothers, while the second states that they are father and son. bRather,this bteaches that Zibeon engaged in sexual intercourse with his mother and begot Anah,so that he was both Anah’s father and his brother. From the fact that the first verse equates Zibeon and Anah by referring to both of them as Seir’s sons despite Anah being a grandson of Seir, it is clear that grandchildren are equal to children, contrary to the Sadducees’ assertion.,The Gemara interrupts the recounting of the ibaraitaand questions Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai’s inference: bBut perhaps there were twopeople named bAnah,so that one Anah was Zibeon’s son, and the other his brother? bRabba said: I will state a matterthat even bKing Shapur did not state. And who isthis King Shapur? This cannot be a reference to Shapur, king of Persia; rather, it must be a moniker for someone else. He is bShmuel,whose legal rulings were accepted by the public like the edicts of a king by his subjects. bSome statea different version, that it was bRav Pappawho bsaid: I will state a matterthat even bKing Shapur did not state. And who isthis King Shapur? He is bRabba. The versegoes on to bstate: “This is Anah”(Genesis 36:24), indicating that bhe isthe same bAnahmentioned binitially,earlier in the verse. Accordingly, there was only one Anah, who was both Zibeon’s brother and Zibeon’s son.,The ibaraitacontinues: The Sadducee bsaid toRabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai: bMy teacher, you dismiss me with thisretort? I agree that the son of a son precedes a daughter, as the verse you quoted suggests; I am asserting that a daughter inherits together with the daughter of a son, and the verse you quoted has no bearing on that claim. Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai bsaid to him: Imbecile, /b |
|
47. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 104a. איבעי לך לאתויי בדוולא,אמר רב פפא הני תרתי מתניתא קמייתא משכחת לה בין בחכרנותא בין בקבלנותא מכאן ואילך דאיתא בקבלנותא ליתא בחכרנותא ודאיתא בחכרנותא ליתא בקבלנותא:,אם אמר לו חכור לי שדה בית השלחין זה [וכו']: ואמאי לימא ליה שמא בעלמא אמרי לך מי לא תניא האומר לחבירו בית כור עפר אני מוכר לך אע"פ שאין בו אלא לתך הגיעו שלא מכר לו אלא שמא והוא דמתקרי בית כור,כרמא אני מוכר לך אע"פ שאין בו גפנים הגיעו שלא מכר לו אלא שמא והוא דמתקרי כרמא פרדס אני מוכר לך אע"פ שאין בו רמונים הגיעו שלא מכר לו אלא שמא והוא דמתקרי פרדסא אלמא אמר ליה שמא בעלמא אמרי לך הכא נמי נימא ליה שמא בעלמא אמרי לך,אמר שמואל לא קשיא הא דאמר ליה מחכיר לחוכר הא דאמר ליה חוכר למחכיר אמר ליה מחכיר לחוכר שמא בעלמא א"ל א"ל חוכר למחכיר קפידא,רבינא אמר אידי ואידי דא"ל מחכיר לחוכר מדקאמר זה מכלל דקאי בגוה עסקינן בית השלחין למה ליה למימר דקאמר ליה בית השלחין כדקיימא השתא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המקבל שדה מחבירו והובירה שמין אותה כמה ראויה לעשות ונותן לו שכך כותב לו אם אוביר ולא אעביד אשלם במיטבא:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ר"מ היה דורש לשון הדיוט דתניא ר"מ אומר אם אוביר ולא אעביד אשלם במיטבא,רבי יהודה היה דורש לשון הדיוט דתניא ר' יהודה אומר אדם מביא קרבן עשיר על אשתו וכן כל קרבן וקרבן שהיא חייבת שכך כותב לה אחריות דאית ליך עלי מן קדמת דנא,הלל הזקן היה דורש לשון הדיוט דתניא אנשי אלכסנדריא היו מקדשין את נשותיהם ובשעת כניסתן לחופה באין אחרים וחוטפים אותם מהן ובקשו חכמים לעשות בניהם ממזרים,אמר להן הלל הזקן הביאו לי כתובת אמכם הביאו לו כתובת אמן ומצא שכתוב בהן לכשתכנסי לחופה הוי לי לאינתו ולא עשו בניהם ממזרים,ר"י בן קרחה היה דורש לשון הדיוט דתניא ר"י בן קרחה אומר המלוה את חבירו לא ימשכננו יותר מחובו שכך כותב לו תשלומתא דאית לך עלי כל קבל דיכי,טעמא דכתב ליה הכי הא אי לא כתב ליה הכי לא קניא והא אמר רבי יוחנן משכנו והשיב לו המשכון ומת שומטו מעל גבי בניו | 104a. bYou should have broughtwater bin a bucket. /b, bRav Pappa said:With regard to bthese first two imishnayot /i, you findthat they are correct, bconcerning both tecy,where the tet farmer gives a certain amount of produce to the owner and keeps the rest, bas well asthe case of ba contractor,who gives a set proportion, e.g., one-quarter or one-third, of the yield to the owner, and keeps the rest. bFrom thispoint bforward,i.e., from the third mishna of the chapter until its end, that bwhich isrelevant to the case bof a contractor is notapplicable bto tecy, andthat bwhich isrelevant bto tecy is notapplicable btothe case of ba contractor. /b,§ The mishna teaches: bIfthe cultivator bsaid tothe landowner explicitly: bLease me this irrigated field,or he said: Lease me this field with trees, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may subtract from the produce he owes as part of his tecy. The Gemara asks: bBut whyis this so? bLetthe owner bsay to him: I told you only the name,i.e., the type, of the field, but this does not mean it would actually be irrigated during the time you are cultivating it. bIsn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: In the case of bone who says to another: I am selling you a ibeit kor /ifield bof dirt, althoughthe field bcontains only a half- ikor /i,once the buyer purchases the dirt bit has come to him,i.e., he may not retract from the transaction, basthe seller bsold himthe dirt bonlyby bthe name,and he did not mean that its size was precisely a ibeit kor /i. The ibaraitaadds: bAndthis bisthe ihalakhaonly bwherethat field bis calledby people ba ibeit kor /i. /b,The ibaraitacontinues: Similarly, if he said: bI am selling you a vineyard,then balthough it does not have vines,once he purchases the land bit has come to him, asthe seller bsold himthe field bonlyby bthe name; andthis bisthe ihalakhaonly bwhere it is called a vineyard.Likewise, if he said: bI am selling you an orchard,then beven though it does not have pomegranates,once he purchases the land bit has come to him, as he sold him onlyby bthe name; andagain this bisthe case only bwhere it is called an orchard. Apparently,the seller can bsay to him: I told you only the name. So toohere, bletthe seller bsay to him: I told you only the name. /b, bShmuel said:It is bnot difficult; this ibaraitais comparable to a case bwhere the owner of the land said to the tet farmerwhat he was leasing him, while in bthatmishna bthe tet farmer said to the owner of the landwhat he was leasing from him. The reason for the difference is that if bthe owner of the land saidthe terms bto the tet farmer,then he can claim that bhe told him only the name,and the tet farmer cannot object. But if bthe tet farmer saidthe terms bto the owner of the land,then he was clearly bparticularto receive a field that would be irrigated when he cultivated it., bRavina said:Both bthis ibaraita band thatmishna are referring to a case bwhere the owner of the land told the tet farmerwhat he was leasing him, as implied by the mishna, but bsincethe owner bsaid: Thisirrigated field, bby inference we are dealing withone bwho is standing inside it. Why,then, bdoesthe owner bneed to statethe fact that it is ban irrigated field?It is obvious simply from looking at it that it is irrigated. Rather, the owner must have bsaid to himby way of emphasis that he is providing ban irrigatedfield bas it currently stands. /b, strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to bone who receives a field from anotheras a contractor bandthen blets it lie fallowand does not work the land at all, the court bappraises itby evaluating bhow much it was able to produceif cultivated, band he giveshis share of this amount btothe owner. The reason is bthat thisis what a cultivator bwrites tothe owner in a standard contract: bIf I letthe field blie fallow and do not cultivateit, bI will pay with best /b-quality produce., strongGEMARA: /strong bRabbi Meir would expound common languageused in legal documents written by ordinary Jews to deduce halakhic conclusions. Although these formulations were not prescribed by the Sages, one can nevertheless infer ihalakhotfrom them if they are used in legal documents. bAs it is taughtin a ibaraitathat presents a similar case to the mishna: bRabbi Meir sayshe is liable to pay, as the document states: bIf I letthe field blie fallow and do not cultivateit, bI will pay with best /b-quality produce.,Likewise, bRabbi Yehuda wouldalso bexpound common language, as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yehuda says:In a case where a woman who has given birth is commanded to bring the offering of a childbearing woman and her husband is sufficiently wealthy, ba person brings the offering of the rich on behalf of his wife.This is so even if his wife does not possess money of her own and perhaps should have been considered poor. bSimilarly,he may bring bevery offering that she is obligatedto bring, such as a sin offering or guilt offering. He pays for all these offerings bbecause thisis what bhe writes to herin her marriage contract: I accept bupon myselfto repay you for all bobligations that you have,even those bfrom beforehand.Consequently, he must fund all of her offerings.,Similarly, bHillel the Elder would expound common languageas well, bas it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThe inhabitants of Alexandria would betroth their wivesa significant amount of time before the wedding, as was customary in those days, band at the time of their entry to the wedding canopy, otherswould bcome and snatchthe women bfrom theirhusbands. bThe Sagesconsequently bsought to establish the childrenof these women as imamzerim /i.This is because with regard to sexual intercourse with other men, a betrothed woman has the status of a married woman. Consequently, if she is taken by another man, her children fathered by that man are imamzerim /i, just like children of a married woman who were fathered by a man other than her husband., bHillel the Elder said tothe children who came before him for a ruling on their status: bBring me your mother’s marriage contractfor examination. bThey brought him their mother’s marriage contract, and he found thatthe following formulation bwas written in it: When you will enter the wedding canopy, be for me a wife.This shows that the marriage would not take effect at the time of her betrothal, but only after she would enter the wedding canopy. Consequently, the marriage did not occur at all, as she never entered the wedding canopy, bandtherefore these women bdid not cause their childrento be imamzerim /iby engaging in intercourse with the other man.,The Gemara adds: bRabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa wouldalso bexpound common language. As it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says:One bwho lendsmoney to banother may not take more collateral from him thanthe value of bhis debt, as thisis what the debtor bwrites tothe creditor if the creditor temporarily returns a deposit for the debtor’s use: bThe paymentto bwhich you havea right, which it is bupon meto pay, bcorresponds to the entirevalue of bthisitem, indicating that the item cannot be greater in value than the debt itself.,The Gemara infers: bThe reasonthe creditor acquires the collateral is bthat he wrote this to him. But ifthe creditor bdid not write this tothe debtor, would the creditor bnot acquirethe collateral? bBut doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say:If a creditor btook collateralfrom the debtor band returned the collateral to him andthen the debtor bdied,the creditor bremovesthe collateral bfromthe debtor’s bchildren.The reason for this is that although movable property of orphans is not acquired by their father’s creditor, the collateral is considered to belong to the creditor, and he can collect the debt from it. |
|
48. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 22a. משמשת וראתה נדה אינה צריכה טבילה אבל בעל קרי גרידא מחייב לא תימא מברך אלא מהרהר,ומי אית ליה לרבי יהודה הרהור והתניא בעל קרי שאין לו מים לטבול קורא קריאת שמע ואינו מברך לא לפניה ולא לאחריה ואוכל פתו ומברך לאחריה ואינו מברך לפניה אבל מהרהר בלבו ואינו מוציא בשפתיו דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר בין כך ובין כך מוציא בשפתיו,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק עשאן ר' יהודה כהלכות דרך ארץ,דתניא (דברים ד, ט) והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וכתיב בתריה יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב מה להלן באימה וביראה וברתת ובזיע אף כאן באימה וביראה וברתת ובזיע,מכאן אמרו הזבים והמצורעים ובאין על נדות מותרים לקרות בתורה ובנביאים ובכתובים לשנות במשנה וגמרא ובהלכות ובאגדות אבל בעלי קריין אסורים,רבי יוסי אומר שונה הוא ברגיליות ובלבד שלא יציע את המשנה רבי יונתן בן יוסף אומר מציע הוא את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא רבי נתן בן אבישלום אומר אף מציע את הגמרא ובלבד שלא יאמר אזכרות שבו רבי יוחנן הסנדלר תלמידו של רבי עקיבא משום ר"ע אומר לא יכנס למדרש כל עיקר ואמרי לה לא יכנס לבית המדרש כל עיקר ר' יהודה אומר שונה הוא בהלכות דרך ארץ,מעשה ברבי יהודה שראה קרי והיה מהלך על גב הנהר אמרו לו תלמידיו רבינו שנה לנו פרק אחד בהלכות דרך ארץ ירד וטבל ושנה להם אמרו לו לא כך למדתנו רבינו שונה הוא בהלכות דרך ארץ אמר להם אע"פ שמיקל אני על אחרים מחמיר אני על עצמי:,תניא ר' יהודה בן בתירא היה אומר אין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה מעשה בתלמיד אחד שהיה מגמגם למעלה מרבי יהודה בן בתירא אמר ליה בני פתח פיך ויאירו דבריך שאין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה שנאמר (ירמיהו כג, כט) הלא כה דברי כאש נאם ה' מה אש אינו מקבל טומאה אף דברי תורה אינן מקבלין טומאה,אמר מר מציע את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא מסייע ליה לרבי אלעאי דאמר רבי אלעאי אמר ר' אחא בר יעקב משום רבינו הלכה מציע את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא כתנאי מציע את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה בן גמליאל אומר משום רבי חנינא בן גמליאל זה וזה אסור ואמרי לה זה וזה מותר,מ"ד זה וזה אסור כרבי יוחנן הסנדלר מ"ד זה וזה מותר כרבי יהודה בן בתירא,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק נהוג עלמא כהני תלת סבי כרבי אלעאי בראשית הגז כרבי יאשיה בכלאים כרבי יהודה בן בתירא בד"ת,כרבי אלעאי בראשית הגז דתניא רבי אלעאי אומר ראשית הגז אינו נוהג אלא בארץ,כרבי יאשיה בכלאים כדכתיב (דברים כב, ט) (כרמך) לא תזרע [כרמך] כלאים רבי יאשיה אומר לעולם אינו חייב עד שיזרע חטה ושעורה וחרצן במפולת יד,כרבי יהודה בן בתירא בדברי תורה דתניא רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר אין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה,כי אתא זעירי אמר בטלוה לטבילותא ואמרי לה בטלוה לנטילותא מאן דאמר בטלוה לטבילותא כרבי יהודה בן בתירא מאן דאמר בטלוה לנטילותא כי הא דרב חסדא לייט אמאן דמהדר אמיא בעידן צלותא:,תנו רבנן בעל קרי שנתנו עליו תשעה קבין מים טהור נחום איש גם זו לחשה לרבי עקיבא ורבי עקיבא לחשה לבן עזאי ובן עזאי יצא ושנאה לתלמידיו בשוק פליגי בה תרי אמוראי במערבא רבי יוסי בר אבין ורבי יוסי בר זבידא חד תני שנאה וחד תני לחשה,מאן דתני שנאה משום בטול תורה ומשום בטול פריה ורביה ומאן דתני לחשה שלא יהו תלמידי חכמים מצויים אצל נשותיהם כתרנגולים,אמר רבי ינאי שמעתי שמקילין בה ושמעתי שמחמירין בה וכל המחמיר בה על עצמו מאריכין לו ימיו ושנותיו,אמר ריב"ל מה טיבן של טובלי שחרין מה טיבן הא איהו דאמר בעל קרי אסור בדברי תורה הכי קאמר מה טיבן בארבעים סאה אפשר בתשעה קבין מה טיבן בטבילה אפשר בנתינה,אמר רבי חנינא גדר גדול גדרו בה דתניא מעשה באחד שתבע אשה לדבר עבירה אמרה לו ריקא יש לך ארבעים סאה שאתה טובל בהן מיד פירש,אמר להו רב הונא לרבנן רבותי מפני מה אתם מזלזלין בטבילה זו אי משום צינה אפשר במרחצאות,אמר ליה רב חסדא וכי יש טבילה בחמין אמר ליה רב אדא בר אהבה קאי כוותך,רבי זירא הוה יתיב באגנא דמיא בי מסותא אמר ליה לשמעיה זיל ואייתי לי תשעה קבין ושדי עלואי אמר ליה רבי חייא בר אבא למה ליה למר כולי האי והא יתיב בגווייהו אמר ליה כארבעים סאה מה ארבעים סאה בטבילה ולא בנתינה אף תשעה קבין בנתינה ולא בטבילה,רב נחמן תקן חצבא בת תשעה קבין כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי עקיבא ורבי יהודה גלוסטרא אמרו לא שנו אלא לחולה לאונסו אבל לחולה המרגיל ארבעים סאה,אמר רב יוסף אתבר חצביה דרב נחמן כי אתא רבין אמר באושא הוה עובדא | 22a. that ba woman who engaged in intercourse and saw menstrualblood bis not required to immerse herself, but one who experienced a seminal emission alone,with no concurrent impurity, bis required to do so?If so, we must interpret Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna that one recites a blessing both beforehand and thereafter as follows: bDo not saythat one brecites a blessingorally, but rather he means that bone contemplatesthose blessings in his heart.,The Gemara challenges this explanation: bAnd does Rabbi Yehuda maintain thatthere is validity to bcontemplatingin his heart? bWasn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bOne who experienced a seminal emission and who has no water to immerseand purify himself brecites iShemaand neither recites the blessingsof iShema bbeforehand nor thereafter? Andwhen bhe eats his bread, he recites the blessing thereafter,Grace after Meals, bbut does not recite the blessing:Who brings forth bread from the earth, bbeforehand. However,in the instances where he may not recite the blessing, bhe contemplatesit bin his heart rather than utterit bwith his lips,this is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir.However bRabbi Yehuda says: In either case, he uttersall of the blessings bwith his lips.Rabbi Yehuda does not consider contemplating the blessings in his heart a solution and permits them to be recited., bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna should be interpreted in another way. bRabbi Yehuda renderedthe blessings blike iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i,which according to some Sages were not considered to be in the same category as all other matters of Torah and therefore, one is permitted to engage in their study even after having experienced a seminal emission., bAs it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: It is written: b“And you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children”(Deuteronomy 4:9), band it is written thereafter: “The day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb”(Deuteronomy 4:10). bJust as below,the Revelation at Sinai was bin reverence, fear, quaking, and trembling, so too here,in every generation, Torah must be studied with a sense of breverence, fear, quaking, and trembling. /b, bFrom herethe Sages bstated: iZavim /i, lepers, and those who engaged in intercourse with menstruating women,despite their severe impurity, bare permitted to read the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, and to study Mishna and Gemara and ihalakhotand iaggada /i. However, those who experienced a seminal emission are prohibitedfrom doing so. The reason for this distinction is that the cases of severe impurity are caused by ailment or other circumstances beyond his control and, as a result, they do not necessarily preclude a sense of reverence and awe as he studies Torah. This, however, is not the case with regard to impurity resulting from a seminal emission, which usually comes about due to frivolity and a lack of reverence and awe. Therefore, it is inappropriate for one who experiences a seminal emission to engage in matters of in Torah.,However, there are many opinions concerning the precise parameters of the Torah matters prohibited by this decree. bRabbi Yosei says:One who experiences a seminal emission bstudies imishnayotthat he is baccustomedto study, bas long as he does not expound upon anew bmishnato study it in depth. bRabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says: He expounds upon the mishna but he does not expound upon the Gemara,which is the in-depth analysis of the Torah. bRabbi Natan ben Avishalom says: He may even expound upon the Gemara, as long as he does not utterthe bmentionsof God’s name btherein. Rabbi Yoḥa the Cobbler, Rabbi Akiva’s student, says in the name of Rabbi Akiva:One who experiences a seminal emission bmay not enter into homiletic interpretation [ imidrash /i]of verses bat all. Some saythat he says: bHe may not enter the study hall [ ibeit hamidrash /i] at all. Rabbi Yehuda says: He may studyonly iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i.In terms of the problem raised above, apparently Rabbi Yehuda considers the legal status of the blessings to be parallel to the legal status of iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i, and therefore one may utter them orally.,The Gemara relates ban incident involving Rabbi Yehudahimself, who bexperienced a seminal emission and was walking along the riverbankwith his disciples. bHis disciples said to him: Rabbi, teach us a chapter from iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i,as he maintained that even in a state of impurity, it is permitted. bHe descended and immersed himselfin the river band taught them iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i. bThey said to him: Did you not teach us, our teacher, that he may study iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i? He said to them: Although I am lenient with others,and allow them to study it without immersion, bI am stringent with myself. /b,Further elaborating on the issue of Torah study while in a state of impurity, bit was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira would say: Matters of Torah do not become ritually impureand therefore one who is impure is permitted to engage in Torah study. He implemented this ihalakhain practice. The Gemara relates ban incident involving a student who wasreciting imishnayotand ibaraitot bhesitantly beforethe study hall of bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.The student experienced a seminal emission, and when he was asked to recite he did so in a rushed, uneven manner, as he did not want to utter the words of Torah explicitly. Rabbi Yehuda bsaid to him: My son, open your mouth and let your words illuminate, as matters of Torah do not become ritually impure, as it is stated: “Is not my word like fire, says the Lord”(Jeremiah 23:29). bJust as fire does not become ritually impure, so too matters of Torah do not become ritually impure. /b,In this ibaraita bthe Master saidthat one who is impure because of a seminal emission bexpounds upon the mishna but does not expound upon the Gemara.The Gemara notes: This statement bsupportsthe opinion of bRabbi El’ai,as bRabbi El’ai saidthat bRabbi Aḥa bar Ya’akov said in the name of Rabbeinu,Rav b: The ihalakhais that one who experienced a seminal emission bmay expound upon the mishna but may not expound upon the Gemara.This dispute bis parallel a tannaiticdispute, as it was taught: One who experienced a seminal emission bexpounds upon the mishna but does not expound upon the Gemara;that is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel:Both bthis and that are prohibited. And some saythat he said: Both bthis and that are permitted. /b,Comparing these opinions: bThe one who saidthat both bthis and that are prohibitedholds bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yoḥa the Cobbler; the one who saidthat both bthis and that are permittedholds bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. /b,Summarizing the ihalakha /i, bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The universallyaccepted bpractice is in accordance withthe opinions of bthese three elders: In accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi El’ai with regard tothe ihalakhotof bthe first shearing, in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yoshiya with regard tothe laws of prohibited bdiverse kinds,and bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to matters of Torah. /b,The Gemara elaborates: bIn accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi El’ai with regard to the first shearing, as it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi El’ai says:The obligation to set aside bthe first shearingfrom the sheep for the priest bis only practiced in EretzYisrael and not in the Diaspora, and that is the accepted practice., bIn accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yoshiya with regard to diverse kinds, as it is written: “You shall not sow your vineyard with diverse kinds”(Deuteronomy 22:9). bRabbi Yoshiya says:This means that bonewho sows diverse kinds bis not liableby Torah law buntil he sows wheat and barley and agrape bpit with a single hand motion,meaning that while sowing in the vineyard he violates the prohibition of diverse kinds that applies to seeds and to the vineyard simultaneously., bIn accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard toone who experiences a seminal emission is permitted to engage in bmatters of Torah, as it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Matters of Torah do not become ritually impure. /b,And the Gemara relates: bWhen Ze’iri camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, bhesuccinctly capsulated this ihalakhaand bsaid: They abolished ritual immersion, and some say thathe said: bThey abolished ritual washing of the hands.The Gemara explains: bThe one who saysthat bthey abolished immersionholds in accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteirathat one who experienced a seminal emission is not required to immerse. bAnd the one who saysthat bthey abolished washing of the handsholds bin accordance with that which Rav Ḥisda cursed one whogoes out of his way bto seek water at the time of prayer. /b, bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bOne who experienced a seminal emission who had nine ikavofdrawn bwater poured over him,that is sufficient to render him britually pureand he need not immerse himself in a ritual bath. The Gemara relates: bNaḥum of Gam Zo whisperedthis ihalakhato bRabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Akiva whispered it tohis student bben Azzai, and ben Azzai went out and taught it to his studentspublicly bin the marketplace. Two iamora’imin Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, disagreedas to the correct version of the conclusion of the incident. bOne taught:Ben Azzai btaught itto his students in the market. bAnd the other taught: Ben Azzaialso bwhispered itto his students.,The Gemara explains the rationale behind the two versions of this incident. bTheSage bwho taughtthat ben Azzai btaughtthe law openly in the market held that the leniency was bdue toconcern that the ihalakhotrequiring ritual immersion would promote bderelictionin the study bof Torah.The ruling of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira eases the way for an individual who experienced a seminal emission to study Torah. This was balso due toconcern that the ihalakhotrequiring ritual immersion would promote bthe suspension of procreation,as one might abstain from marital relations to avoid the immersion required thereafter. bAnd theSage, bwho taughtthat ben Azzai only bwhisperedthis ihalakhato his students, held that he did so bin order that Torah scholars would not be with their wives like roosters.If the purification process was that simple, Torah scholars would engage in sexual activity constantly, which would distract them from their studies.,With regard to this ritual immersion, bRabbi Yannai said: I heard that there are those who are lenient with regard to it and I have heard that there are those who are stringent with regard to it.The ihalakhain this matter was never conclusively established band anyone whoaccepts bupon himself to be stringent with regard to it, they prolong for him his days and years. /b,The Gemara relates that bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the essence of those who immerse themselves in the morning?The Gemara retorts: How can one ask bwhat is their essence? Isn’t hethe one bwho saidthat bone who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited fromengaging in bmatters of Torahand is required to immerse himself in the morning? Rather, bthis iswhat bhemeant to bsay: What is the essence ofimmersion in a ritual bath of bforty ise’a /iof water when bit is possibleto purify oneself bwith nine ikav /i?Furthermore, bwhat is the essence of immersionwhen bit isalso bpossibleto purify oneself by bpouringwater?,Regarding this, bRabbi Ḥanina said: They established a massive fenceprotecting one from sinning with their decree that one must immerse himself in forty ise’aof water. bAs it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: There was ban incident involving one who solicited a woman tocommit ba sinful act. She said to him: Good-for-nothing. Do you have forty ise’ain which to immerseand purify byourselfafterwards? He bimmediately desisted.The obligation to immerse oneself caused individuals to refrain from transgression., bRav Huna said to the Sages: Gentlemen, why do you disdain this immersion? If it is becauseit is difficult for you to immerse in the bcoldwaters of the ritual bath, bit is possibleto purify oneself by immersing oneself in the heated bbathhouses,which are unfit for immersion for other forms of ritual impurity but are fit for immersion in this case., bRabbi Ḥisda said to him: Is there ritual immersion in hot water?Rav Huna bsaid to him:Indeed, doubts with regard to the fitness of baths have been raised, and bRav Adda bar Ahava holds in accordance with youropinion. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that it is permitted.,The Gemara relates: bRabbi Zeira was sitting in a tub of water in the bathhouse. He said to his attendant: Go and get nine ikav /iof water band pourit bover meso that I may purify myself from the impurity caused by a seminal emission. bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Why does my masterrequire ball of this? Aren’t you seated inat least nine ikavof water in the tub. bHe said to him:The law of nine ikav bparallelsthe law of bforty ise’a /i,in that their ihalakhotare exclusive. bJust as forty ise’a /ican only purify an individual through bimmersion and not through pouring, so too nine ikav /ican only purify one who experienced a seminal emission bthrough pouring and not through immersion. /b,The Gemara relates that bRav Naḥman prepared a jugwith a capacity bof nine ikav /iso that his students could pour water over themselves and become pure. bWhen Rav Dimi camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, bhe said: Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda Gelostera said:The ihalakhathat one who experienced a seminal emission can be purified by pouring nine ikav bwas only taught for a sick personwho experienced the emission binvoluntarily. However, a sick personwho experienced a bnormalseminal emission in the course of marital relations, is required to immerse himself in bforty ise’a /i. /b, bRav Yosef said:In that case, bRav Naḥman’s jug is broken,meaning it is no longer of any use, as few people fall into the category of sick people who experienced seminal emissions. Nevertheless, bwhen Ravin camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia bhe said: In Usha there was an incident /b |
|
49. Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 66a. bYour ox was usedby a man bfor an act of bestialityand is therefore unfit for an offering, band the other,the owner of the ox, bis silent,the witness is bdeemed credible. And the itanna /iof the mishna also btaught( iBekhorot41a): bAndwith regard to an animal bthat was used for a transgressionor bthat killed,if this is attested to bby one witness or by the owner,he is bdeemed credible.The Gemara clarifies this case: bWhat are the circumstancesof bthiscase of the mishna, where the knowledge is established bby one witness? If the owner admitsto the claim, bthis isthe same as: bBy the owner. Rather, is it notreferring to a case bwherethe owner remains bsilent? /b,The Gemara comments: bAndeach of these statements of Abaye is bnecessary. As, had he taught usonly bthat firstcase, where the witness said someone ate forbidden fat, one might have said that he is deemed credible for the following reason: bWere it notfor the fact bthat he himselfwas bconvinced that he had committeda transgression, bhe would notcommit the transgression of bbringing a non-sacredanimal btothe Temple bcourtyardon the basis of the testimony of one witness. Consequently, his silence is evidently an admission., bButif the witness said: bYour ritually purefoods bwere rendered ritually impure,and the accused was silent, bwe would say:The reason bthathe is bsilentand refrains from denying the claim is bthat he thinkshe is not suffering any significant loss, as the food bis fit for himto eat bon his days of ritual impurity,because he is not required to destroy ritually impure foods., bAnd hadAbaye btaught usonly the case of: Your ritually pure food was rendered ritually impure, one might have said that the reason bthiswitness is deemed credible is bthat he causes him a loss on his days of ritual impurity,and therefore his silence is tantamount to a confession. bButin the case of: bHis ox was usedby a man bfor an act of bestiality,the owner of the ox bcan saywith regard to his animal: bNot all the oxen standready to be sacrificed basan offering on the baltar.Perhaps one would think that the owner does not bother denying the claim because he merely forfeits the possibility of sacrificing his ox as an offering, which he considers an inconsequential matter. It is only if there were two witnesses to the act that the animal is put to death, whereas here there was only one witness. It is therefore bnecessaryfor Abaye to specify all these cases.,§ bA dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: If a husband is told bby one witnessthat bhis wife committed adultery, andthe husband remains bsilent, what isthe ihalakha /i? bAbaye said:The witness is bdeemed credible. Rava said: He is not deemed credible.Why not? Because bit is a matter involving forbidden relations, and there is no matterof testimony bfor forbidden sexual relationsthat can be attested to by bfewer than twowitnesses., bAbaye said: From where do I saythis claim of mine? It happened bthatthere was ba certain blind man who would review imishnayotbefore Mar Shmuel. One daythe blind man bwas late for him and was not arriving.Mar Shmuel bsent a messenger after himto assist him. bWhilethe bmessenger was goingto the blind man’s house bby one way,the blind man barrivedat the house of study bby a differentroute, and therefore the messenger missed him and reached his house. bWhenthe bmessenger cameback, bhe saidthat he had been to the blind man’s house and saw that bhis wife committed adultery.The blind man bcame before Mar Shmuelto inquire whether he must pay heed to this testimony. Mar Shmuel bsaid to him: Ifthis messenger bis trusted by you, goand bdivorce her, but if not, do not divorceher.,Abaye comments: bWhat, is it notcorrect to say that this means that bif he is trusted by you that he is not a thiefbut is a valid witness, you must rely on him? This would prove that a single witness can testify in a case of this kind. bAnd Ravaexplains that Mar Shmuel meant: bIfhe bis trusted by you like twowitnesses, bgoand bdivorce her, but if not, do not divorceher. Consequently, Rava maintains that this episode affords no proof., bAnd Abaye said: From where do I saythis claim of mine? bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bAn incidentoccurred bwith King Yannai, who went tothe region of bKoḥalit in the desert and conquered sixty cities there. And upon his return he rejoicedwith ba great happinessover his victory. bAnd hesubsequently bsummoned all the Sages of the Jewish peopleand bsaid to them: Our ancestorsin their poverty bwould eat salty foods when they were busy with the building of the Temple; we too shall eat salty foods in memory of our ancestors. And they brought salty food on tables of gold, and ate. /b, bAnd there was oneperson bpresent, a scoffer,a man of ban evil heart and a scoundrel called Elazar ben Po’ira. And Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the hearts of the Pharisees,the Sages, bare against you.In other words, they harbor secret resentment against you and do not like you. The king replied: bAnd what shall I doto clarify this matter? Elazar responded: bHave them stand bywearing bthe frontplate between your eyes.Since the frontplate bears the Divine Name, they should stand in its honor. Yannai, who was a member of the priestly Hasmonean family, also served as High Priest, who wears the frontplate. bHe hadthe Pharisees bstand bywearing bthe frontplate between his eyes. /b,Now bthere was a certain elder present called Yehuda ben Gedidya, and Yehuda ben Gedidya said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the crown of the monarchy suffices for you,i.e., you should be satisfied that you are king. bLeave the crown of the priesthood for the descendants of Aaron.The Gemara explains this last comment: bAs they would saythat Yannai’s bmother was taken captive in Modi’in,and she was therefore disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, which meant that Yannai was a iḥalal /i. bAnd the matter was investigated and was not discovered,i.e., they sought witnesses for that event but none were found. bAnd the Sages of Israel were expelled inthe king’s brage,due to this rumor., bAnd Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, such is the judgment of a common person in Israel.In other words, merely expelling a slanderer is appropriate if the subject of the slander is a commoner. bBut you are a king and a High Priest.Is bthis your judgmentas well? Yannai replied: bAnd what should I do?Elazar responded: bIf you listen to my advice, crush them.Yannai countered: bBut what will become of the Torah?He retorted: bBehold,it bis wrapped and placed in the corner. Anyone who wishes to study can come and study.We have no need for the Sages.,The Gemara interjects: bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Immediately, heresy was injected intoYannai, bas he should have saidto Elazar ben Po’ira: This bworks out wellwith regard to bthe Written Torah,as it can be studied by all on their own, but bwhatwill become of bthe Oral Torah?The Oral Torah is transmitted only by the Sages. The ibaraitacontinues: bImmediately, the evilarose and bcaught fire through Elazar ben Po’ira, and all the Sages of the Jewish people were killed. And the world was desolateof Torah buntil Shimon ben Shataḥ came and restored the Torah to its formerglory. This completes the ibaraita /i.,Abaye asks: bWhat are the circumstancesof this case? How did those who conducted the investigation refute the rumor that Yannai’s mother had been taken captive? bIf we say that twowitnesses bsaidthat bshe was taken captive, and twoothers bsaidthat bshe was not taken captive, what did you see that you rely on thesewho said that she was not taken captive? Instead, brely on thesewho said that she was taken captive. In such a scenario, one cannot say definitively that the matter was investigated and found to be false., bRather,it must be referring bto one witnesswho testified she was taken captive, and two testified that she was not taken captive. bAnd the reasonthat the lone witness is not deemed credible is only bthat he is contradicted by theother btwo,from which it may be inferred that bif not for thatfact, bhe would be deemed credible.This supports Abaye’s claim that an uncontested lone witness is deemed credible in a case of this kind., bAnd Ravacould reply that this incident affords no proof, for the following reason: bActually,one can say that there were btwowitnesses who testified that she was captured band twowho testified that she was not, bandthe case was decided bin accordance with thatwhich bRav Aḥa bar Rav Minyumi saysin a different context, that it is referring bto conspiring witnesses.The second pair of witnesses did not contradict the testimony of the first pair but established them as liars by stating that the first pair were not there to witness the event. This serves to disqualify the testimony of the first pair altogether. bHere too,it is referring btowitnesses who rendered the first set bconspiring witnesses. /b, bAnd if you wish, saythat this is bin accordance withthe version of the story stated bby Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: They replacedYannai’s mother bwith a maidservant.The first witnesses saw that Yannai’s mother was about to be taken captive, but the second pair revealed that she had actually been replaced with a maidservant, thereby negating the testimony of the first set., bRava says: /b |
|
50. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 65a. bAnd this is as we learnedin a mishna ( iShekalim13b): bPetaḥyawas responsible bfor the nestsof birds, i.e., the doves or pigeons brought by a izav /i, a izava /i, a woman after childbirth, and a leper. These individuals would place the appropriate sum of money into the horn designated for this purpose, and each day Petaḥya oversaw the purchase of birds from that money and their sacrifice in the proper manner. bThisSage bis Mordekhai;and bwhy was he called Petaḥya,which resembles the word for opening [ ipetaḥ /i]? The reason is bthat he would open,i.e., elucidate, difficult btopics and interpret themto the people, bandbecause bhe knewall bseventy languagesknown in that region at the time.,The Gemara asks: What was unique about Petaḥya? bAllof the members of the bSanhedrin also knowall bseventy languages. As Rabbi Yoḥa says:They bplace on theGreat bSanhedrin onlymen bof wisdom, and ofpleasant bappearance, and ofhigh bstature, and ofsuitable bageso that they will be respected. bAndthey must also be bmasters of sorcery,i.e., they know the nature of sorcery, so that they can judge sorcerers, bandthey must bknowall bseventy languagesin order bthat the Sanhedrin will notneed to bheartestimony bfrom the mouth of a translatorin a case where a witness speaks a different language.,The Gemara answers: bRather,Petaḥya was unique bashe not only knew all seventy languages, but also had the ability to bcombinevarious blanguages and interpretthem. bThis isthe meaning of that bwhich is written with regard to Mordekhai: “Bilshan”(Nehemiah 7:7). Bilshan is interpreted as another name for Mordekhai, as he would combine [ ibalil /i] languages [ ilashon /i]., strongMISHNA: /strong bHow would they performthe rite of the harvest of the iomer /i? bEmissaries of the courtwould bemerge on the eve of the festivalof Passover band fashionthe stalks of barley into bsheaves whilethe stalks were still battached to the ground, so that it would be convenient to reapthem. The residents of ball the towns adjacent tothe site of the harvest bwould assemble there, so that it would be harvested with great fanfare. /b, bOnce it grew dark,the court emissary bsays tothose assembled: bDid the sun set?The assembly bsaysin response: bYes.The emissary repeats: bDid the sun set?They again bsay: Yes.The court emissary next says to those assembled: Shall I reap the sheaves with bthis sickle?The assembly bsaysin response: bYes.The emissary repeats: With bthis sickle?The assembly bsays: Yes.The court emissary then says to those assembled: Shall I place the gathered sheaves in bthis basket?The assembly bsaysin response: bYes.The emissary repeats: In bthis basket?The assembly bsays: Yes. /b,If the sixteenth of Nisan occurs bon Shabbat,the court emissary bsays tothe assembled: Shall I cut the sheaves on bthis Shabbat?The assembly bsaysin response: bYes.The emissary repeats: On bthis Shabbat?The assembly bsays: Yes.The court emissary says to those assembled: bShall I cutthe sheaves? bAnd they say to himin response: bCut.The emissary repeats: bShall I cutthe sheaves? bAnd they sayto him: bCut. /b,The emissary asks bthree times with regard to each and every matter, andthe assembly bsays to him: Yes, yes, yes.The mishna asks: bWhy do Ineed those involved to publicize each stage of the rite bto that extent?The mishna answers: It is bdue to the Boethusians, as theydeny the validity of the Oral Law and bwould say: There is no harvest of the iomerat the conclusion of thefirst bFestivalday of Passover unless it occurs at the conclusion of Shabbat. The publicity was to underscore that the sixteenth of Nisan was the proper time for the iomerharvest., strongGEMARA: /strong bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThese are the days on which fasting is prohibited, and on some of them eulogizing is prohibitedas well: bFrom the New Moon of Nisan until the eighth ofthe month, the proper sacrifice of bthe daily offering was established,and therefore it was decreed bnot to eulogizeon these dates. bAndfurthermore, bfrom the eighth ofNisan buntil the end of the festivalof Passover, the correct date for the bfestival of iShavuotwas restored,and it was similarly decreed bnot to eulogizeduring this period.,The Gemara discusses the ibaraita /i: bFrom the New Moon of Nisan until the eighth ofthe month the proper sacrifice of bthe daily offering was established,and therefore it was decreed bnot to eulogizeon these dates. The Gemara explains bthat the Sadducees would say: An individual may donate and bringthe bdaily offering,in opposition to the accepted tradition that the daily offering must be brought from communal funds. bWhatverse did the Sadducees bexpound? “The one lamb shall you offer [ ita’aseh /i] in the morning, and the other lamb shall you offer in the afternoon”(Numbers 28:4). Since the verse is in the singular form, the Sadducees maintained that even an individual may donate the daily offering.,The Gemara asks: bWhatdid the Sages breplyto refute the argument of the Sadducees? They cited the verse: “Command the children of Israel, and say to them: bMy food that is presented to Me for offerings made by fire,of a pleasing aroma unto Me, byou shall observe [ itishmeru /i]to offer to Me in its due season” (Numbers 28:2). The term: “You shall observe” is in the plural form, which indicates that ball of thedaily offerings bshould come from collection of theTemple treasury bchamber.Since during that period, between the New Moon of Nisan and the eighth of Nisan, the Sages overruled the Sadducees, it was established as a period of rejoicing, and it was prohibited to eulogize on those dates.,The Gemara discusses the next period listed in the ibaraita /i: bFrom the eighth ofNisan buntil the end of the festivalof Passover, the correct date for the bfestival of iShavuotwas restored,and it was similarly decreed bnot to eulogizeduring this period. bAs the Boethusians would saythat the festival of iShavuot /ialways occurs bafter Shabbat,on a Sunday. Their reasoning was that the verse states, with regard to the iomeroffering and the festival of iShavuotthat follows seven weeks later: “And you shall count for you from the morrow after the day of rest [ ihashabbat /i], from the day that you brought the sheaf [ iomer /i] of the waving; seven weeks shall there be complete” (Leviticus 23:15). Disregarding the oral tradition, the Boethusians interpreted the phrase “from the morrow after the day of rest [ ihashabbat /i]” literally, as referring to Shabbat, not the Festival day.,At the time, bRabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai joinedthe discussion with the Boethusians band said to them: Fools! From wherehave byouderived this? bAnd there was no man who answered him, except for one elderly man who was prattling [ imefatpet /i] at him, and he said: Moses, our teacher, was a lover of the Jewish people and he knew that iShavuotisonly bone day.Therefore, bhe arose and established it after Shabbat, in order that the Jewish people would enjoy themselves for two days.Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai brecited this versein response btothat old man: b“It is eleven days’ journey from Horeb to Kadesh Barnea by the way of Mount Seir”(Deuteronomy 1:2). |
|
51. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 33b. או דילמא נוגעת היתה ולא סתרה,אמר רבא לפום חורפא שבשתא נהי נמי דסתרה כמה תסתור תסתור שבעה דיה כבועלה,תסתור יום אחד (ויקרא טו, כח) ואחר תטהר אמר רחמנא אחר אחר לכולן שלא תהא טומאה מפסקת ביניהם,וליטעמיך זב גופיה היכי סתר לטהרתו אמר רחמנא שלא תהא טומאה מפסקת ביניהן,אלא מאי אית לך למימר שלא תהא טומאת זיבה מפסקת ביניהן הכא נמי שלא תהא טומאת זיבה מפסקת ביניהן,ואין חייבין עליהן על ביאת מקדש וכו' רב פפא איקלע לתואך אמר אי איכא צורבא מרבנן הכא איזיל אקבל אפיה אמרה ליה ההיא סבתא איכא הכא צורבא מרבנן ורב שמואל שמיה ותני מתניתא יהא רעוא דתהוי כוותיה,אמר מדקמברכי לי בגוויה ש"מ ירא שמים הוא אזל לגביה רמא ליה תורא רמא ליה מתני' אהדדי תנן אין חייבין עליהן על ביאת מקדש ואין שורפין עליהן את התרומה מפני שטומאתה ספק אלמא מספיקא לא שרפינן תרומה,ורמינהי על ששה ספקות שורפין את התרומה על ספק בגדי עם הארץ,אמר רב פפא יהא רעוא דלתאכיל האי תורא לשלמא הכא במאי עסקינן בכותי חבר,כותי חבר בועל נדה משוית ליה,שבקיה ואתא לקמיה דרב שימי בר אשי אמר ליה מאי טעמא לא משנית ליה בכותי שטבל ועלה ודרס על בגדי חבר ואזלו בגדי חבר ונגעו בתרומה,דאי משום טומאת עם הארץ הא טביל ליה ואי משום בועל נדה ספק בעל בקרוב ספק לא בעל בקרוב,ואם תמצי לומר בעל בקרוב ספק השלימתו ירוק ספק לא השלימתו והוי ספק ספיקא ואספק ספיקא לא שרפינן תרומה,ותיפוק ליה משום בגדי עם הארץ דאמר מר בגדי עם הארץ מדרס לפרושין אמר ליה בכותי ערום, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בנות צדוקין בזמן שנהגו ללכת בדרכי אבותיהן הרי הן ככותיות פרשו ללכת בדרכי ישראל הרי הן כישראלית רבי יוסי אומר לעולם הן כישראלית עד שיפרשו ללכת בדרכי אבותיהן, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big איבעיא להו סתמא מאי ת"ש בנות צדוקין בזמן שנוהגות ללכת בדרכי אבותיהן הרי הן ככותיות הא סתמא כישראלית אימא סיפא פרשו ללכת בדרכי ישראל הרי הן כישראלית הא סתמא ככותיות אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מיניה,ת"ש דתנן ר' יוסי אומר לעולם הן כישראלית עד שיפרשו ללכת בדרכי אבותיהן מכלל דת"ק סבר סתמא ככותיות ש"מ,תנו רבנן מעשה בצדוקי אחד שספר עם כהן גדול בשוק ונתזה צנורא מפיו ונפלה לכהן גדול על בגדיו והוריקו פניו של כהן גדול וקדם אצל אשתו,אמרה לו אף על פי שנשי צדוקים הן מתיראות מן הפרושים ומראות דם לחכמים,אמר רבי יוסי בקיאין אנו בהן יותר מן הכל והן מראות דם לחכמים חוץ מאשה אחת שהיתה בשכונתינו שלא הראת דם לחכמים ומתה,ותיפוק ליה משום צנורא דעם הארץ אמר אביי בצדוקי חבר אמר רבא צדוקי חבר בועל נדה משוית ליה אלא אמר רבא | 33b. bOr perhapsit is because bshe was touchingthe semen, bandif so bshe has notthereby bnegatedher count, just as a izavdoes not negate his count if he touches semen., bRava says: Commensurate with the sharpnessof Rami bar Ḥama is the extent of his berror,as this is not a dilemma at all, since bevenif one could suggest bthata izavawho discharges semen has bindeed negatedher count, one must ask: bHow much should she negate?If one suggests bshe should negateall bsevendays of her counting, this is untenable, as bit is enough for herthat she should negate her count blikethe man who bengages in intercourse with her,i.e., like a izavwho discharges semen, who negates only one day.,And if one suggests that bshe should negate one dayalone, this too is untenable, as bthe Merciful One states:“But if she is purified from her izivathen she shall count to herself seven days, band after that she shall be pure”(Leviticus 15:28). The word b“after”indicates that she shall be pure only bafter all of them,i.e., after seven consecutive clean days, such bthat there should be no impurity separating between them.If so, there cannot be a situation where a izavanegates a single day, and consequently it cannot be that a izavawho discharges semen negates any part of her count.,The Gemara rejects Rava’s response: bAnd according to your reasoning, how does a izavhimself negateonly one day from his count due to a seminal emission? After all, bthe Merciful One states:“And when the izavis purified of his iziva /i, then he shall count for himself seven days for his purification, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and he shall be pure” (Leviticus 15:13). The phrase: “Seven days bfor his purification,”indicates bthat there should be no impurity separating between them. /b, bRather, what have you to say?The verse means only bthat there should not be an impurity of izivaseparating between them. Here too,with regard to a izava /i, the verse means only bthat there should not be an impurity of izivaseparating between them;a discharge of semen is not included in this restriction. It is therefore possible that a discharge of semen from a izavanegates only one day from her count. Accordingly, the dilemma raised by Rami bar Ḥama remains in place.,§ The mishna teaches: bButone who enters the Temple while wearing bthosegarments upon which a Samaritan had lain bis not liableto bring an offering bfor entering the Temple,nor does one burn iterumathat came into contact with those garments, because their impurity is uncertain. In connection to these ihalakhot /i, the Gemara relates that bRav Pappa happenedto come btothe city of bTavakh. He said: If there is a Torah scholar here I will go and greet him. A certain elderly woman said to him: There is a Torah scholar here and Rav Shmuel is his name, and he teaches imishnayot /i; may it beGod’s bwill that you should be like him. /b,Rav Pappa bsaidto himself: bFromthe fact bthat they bless me throughthis Rav Shmuel that I should be like him, I may bconclude from itthat bhe is a God-fearingindividual. Rav Pappa bwent tovisit bhim,and Rav Shmuel braised a bull for him,i.e., he slaughtered a bull in honor of Rav Pappa, and he also braiseda difficulty between two imishnayot /ithat apparently contradict bone another: We learnin the mishna: One who enters the Temple while wearing bthosegarments upon which a Samaritan had lain is bnot liableto bring an offering bfor entering the Temple, nor does one burn iteruma /ithat came into contact with bthosegarments, bbecause their impurity is uncertain. Evidently, we do not burn iterumadue to uncertainimpurity., bAndone can braise a contradictionfrom another mishna ( iTeharot4:5): bFor sixcases of buncertainimpurity bone burns the iteruma /iif it came into contact with them, or if a person came into contact with them and subsequently touched the iteruma /i. One of these is bfor the uncertaincase bof the garments of one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity [ iam ha’aretz /i].Such garments impart impurity through contact and through carrying, due to a concern that the wife of the iam ha’aretzmight have sat on them while she was menstruating. Evidently, one burns iterumadue to uncertain impurity., bRav Pappabegan his response with a supplication and bsaid: May it beGod’s bwill that this bull shall be eaten peacefully,i.e., that I will provide a satisfactory resolution of this contradiction. Since the bull was slaughtered in my honor, failing to resolve the contradiction might spoil the meal. Rav Pappa continued: bHere we are dealing with a Samaritanwho is bdevoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially ihalakhotof ritual purity, iteruma /i, and tithes [ iḥaver /i].There is therefore less concern with regard to his ritual purity than that of an iam ha’aretz /i. Consequently, the mishna here states that iterumais not burned on account of him.,Rav Shmuel rejected this response: Since the mishna is referring to men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women, bare you equating a Samaritan iḥaver /iwith a man who bengages in intercourse with a menstruating woman? /b,Rav Pappa bleftRav Shmuel in embarrassment band came before Rav Shimi bar Ashi,to whom he related this incident. Rav Shimi bar Ashi bsaid to him: What is the reasonthat byou did not respond to himthat the ruling of the mishna is stated bwith regard to a Samaritan who immersedin a ritual bath band arosefrom his impure status, bandsubsequently btrod on the garments of a iḥaver /i,which means they are now considered the bedding of the Samaritan, bandthen those bgarments ofthe iḥaverwent and touched iteruma /i?In such a case one does not burn the iteruma /i., bAs, ifone would say to burn it bdue to the impurity of an iam ha’aretz /i, hehas bimmersedin a ritual bath. bAnd ifone were to suggest that it should be burned bbecausethe Samaritan is one who bengages in intercourse with a menstruating woman,this too is an unsatisfactory reason. This is because it is buncertainwhether bhe recently engaged in intercoursewith his wife, in which case his immersion does not remove his impurity; and it is buncertainwhether bhe did not recently engage in intercoursewith his wife, in which case he is in fact pure., bAndeven bif you saythat bhe recently engaged in intercoursewith his wife, another uncertainty remains: It is buncertainwhether his wife began counting seven days from an emission of green blood and ignored any subsequent emission of red blood and bcompletedher count for the bgreenblood, which would mean that she was in fact a menstruating woman when she engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband; and it is buncertainwhether bshe did not completea count of seven days from the emission of the green blood, rather from the emission of red blood, in which case she was not a menstruating woman when her husband engaged in intercourse with her. bAndtherefore bthis is a compound uncertainty, andthere is a principle that bone does not burn iterumaonaccount of ba compound uncertainty. /b,Rav Pappa raised an objection to Rav Shimi bar Ashi: bAnd letone bderivethat the garments of the iḥaverare impure bbecausethey came into contact with the bgarments of an iam ha’aretz /i. As the Master said:The bgarments of an iam ha’aretz /iare considered impure with the ritual impurity imparted by the btreadingof a izav /i, which means they impart impurity to people and to garments, bfor individuals who are scrupulous with regard to impurity [ iperushin /i].Rav Shimi bar Ashi bsaid toRav Pappa: The mishna is referring bto a naked Samaritan.Consequently, none of his garments came into contact with the garments of the iḥaver /i., strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to bSadducee girls, when they were accustomed to follow in the ways of theirSadducee bancestors theirstatus bis likethat of bSamaritan women,whose ihalakhawas discussed in the previous mishna. If the Sadducee women babandonedthe customs of their ancestors in order bto follow in the ways of the Jewish peopletheir status bis likethat of ba Jewish woman. Rabbi Yosei says: Theirstatus bis always likethat of ba Jewish woman, until they will abandonthe ways of the Jewish people in order bto follow in the ways of theirSadducee bancestors. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong bA dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: bWhatis the ihalakhain ban unspecifiedcase, i.e., when the custom of a Sadducee woman is unknown? The Gemara suggests: bComeand bhearevidence from the mishna: With regard to bSadducee girls, when they are accustomed to follow in the ways of theirSadducee bancestors theirstatus bis likethat of bSamaritan women.It can be inferred from the mishna bthatin ban unspecifiedcase their status bis likethat of ba Jewish woman.The Gemara rejects this suggestion: bSay the latter clause:If the Sadducee women babandonedthe customs of their ancestors in order bto follow in the ways of the Jewish people theirstatus bis likethat of ba Jewish woman.One may infer from this bthatin ban unspecifiedcase their status bis likethat of bSamaritan women. Rather, noinference is bto be learned from thismishna.,The Gemara suggests: bComeand bhearthe last clause of the mishna, bas we learnedin the mishna that bRabbi Yosei says: Theirstatus bis always likethat of ba Jewish woman, until they will abandonthe ways of the Jewish people in order bto follow in the ways of theirSadducee bancestors. By inference,one may conclude bthat the first itannaholdsthat in ban unspecifiedcase their status bis likethat of bSamaritan women.The Gemara affirms: bConclude from itthat this is the case.,§ bThe Sages taught:There was ban incident involving a certain Sadducee who was conversing with the High Priest in the marketplace, andas he was speaking, bsaliva [ itzinora /i] sprayed from his mouth and fell onto the garments of the High Priest. And the face of the High Priest turned green,as he feared that his garments had been rendered ritually impure. bAnd he rushed tothe Sadducee’s bwifeto inquire whether she properly observed the ihalakhotof menstruation, in which case his garments were not rendered impure by the saliva of her husband, as he is not considered one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman., bShe said to him: Even thoughwomen such as myself bare the wives of Sadducees,who do not follow in the ways of the iperushim /i, bthey are scared of the iperushimand they showtheir bblood to the Sageswhen an uncertainty arises. The garments of the High Priest are therefore pure, as the Sadducee wives properly observe the ihalakhotof menstruation., bRabbi Yosei says: We are familiar with thewives of Sadducees bmore so than everyoneelse, as they are our neighbors, bandI can testify that btheyall bshowtheir bblood to the Sages, except for a certain woman who wasliving bin our neighborhood who did not showher bblood to the Sages, and she died,as a punishment for her behavior.,The Gemara objects: bAnd letthe High Priest bderivethat his garments are impure bdue to the saliva of an iam ha’aretz /i,which imparts impurity. bAbaye said:That case involved ba Sadducee iḥaver /i,who was particular with regard to the ihalakhotof ritual purity. bRava said: Are you equating a Sadducee iḥaver /iwith a man who bengages in intercourse with a menstruating woman?After all, the High Priest was initially concerned that the Sadducee might engage in intercourse with his wife while she is still menstruating. bRather, Rava said: /b |
|
52. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 50a. כאיסורו מה איסורו בכזית אף חזרתו בכזית,תניא ר' נתן אומר זה וזה כשתי ביצים ולא הודו לו חכמים,(זכריה יד, ו) והיה ביום ההוא לא יהיה אור יקרות וקפאון מאי יקרות וקפאון,א"ר אלעזר זה אור שיקר בעולם הזה וקפוי לעולם הבא,ר' יוחנן אמר אלו נגעים ואהלות שיקרין הן בעוה"ז וקפויין הן לעולם הבא,ור' יהושע בן לוי אמר אלו בני אדם שיקרין הן בעולם הזה וקפויין הן לעוה"ב כי הא דרב יוסף בריה דר' יהושע בן לוי חלש ואיתנגיד כי הדר אמר ליה אבוה מאי חזית אמר ליה עולם הפוך ראיתי עליונים למטה ותחתונים למעלה אמר לו בני עולם ברור ראית ואנן היכי התם כי היכי דאיתו אנן הכא הכי איתינן התם,ושמעתי שהיו אומרים אשרי מי שבא לכאן ותלמודו בידו ושמעתי שהיו אומרים הרוגי מלכות אין אדם יכול לעמוד במחיצתן,(ומאן) נינהו אילימא ר"ע וחביריו משום הרוגי מלכות ותו לא אלא הרוגי לוד,(זכריה יד, כ) ביום ההוא יהיה על מצלות הסוס קדש לה' מאי מצלות הסוס,א"ר יהושע בן לוי עתיד הקב"ה להוסיף על ירושלים עד שהסוס רץ ומציל,ר' אלעזר אמר כל מצילות שתולין לסוס בין עיניו יהיה קדש לה',ור' יוחנן אמר כל ביזה שבוזזין ישראל עד שעה שהסוס רץ ומציל יהיה קדש לה',בשלמא למאן דאמר כל ביזה שבזזו ישראל היינו דכתיב (זכריה יד, כ) והיה הסירות בבית ה' כמזרקים לפני המזבח אלא למ"ד בהנך תרתי מאי והיה הסירות בבית ה' מילתא אחריתי קאמר דמתעתרי ישראל ומתנדבי ומייתי,בשלמא למ"ד ביזה היינו דכתיב (זכריה יד, כא) ולא יהיה כנעני עוד בבית ה' צבאות אלא למ"ד הנך תרתי מאי ולא יהיה כנעני א"ר ירמיה אין כאן עני,וכנעני מנלן דאיקרי תגר דכתיב (בראשית לח, ב) וירא שם יהודה בת איש כנעני מאי כנעני אילימא כנעני ממש אפשר בא אברהם והזהיר את יצחק בא יצחק והזהיר את יעקב ויהודה אזיל ונסיב אלא אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש בת גברא תגרא דכתיב (הושע יב, ח) כנען בידו מאזני מרמה ואיבעית אימא מהכא (ישעיהו כג, ח) אשר סוחריה שרים כנעניה נכבדי ארץ:,(זכריה יד, ט) והיה ה' למלך על כל הארץ ביום ההוא יהיה ה' אחד ושמו אחד אטו האידנא לאו אחד הוא,אמר רבי אחא בר חנינא לא כעולם הזה העולם הבא העולם הזה על בשורות טובות אומר ברוך הטוב והמטיב ועל בשורות רעות אומר ברוך דיין האמת לעולם הבא כולו הטוב והמטיב,ושמו אחד מאי אחד אטו האידנא לאו שמו אחד הוא,א"ר נחמן בר יצחק לא כעולם הזה העולם הבא העולם הזה נכתב ביו"ד ה"י ונקרא באל"ף דל"ת אבל לעולם הבא כולו אחד נקרא ביו"ד ה"י ונכתב ביו"ד ה"י,סבר רבא למדרשה בפירקא א"ל ההוא סבא לעלם כתיב,ר' אבינא רמי כתיב (שמות ג, טו) זה שמי לעלם וזה זכרי לדור דור אמר הקב"ה לא כשאני נכתב אני נקרא נכתב אני ביו"ד ה"א ונקרא אני באל"ף דל"ת:, br br big strongהדרן עלך אלו עוברין /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongמקום /strong /big שנהגו לעשות מלאכה בערבי פסחים עד חצות עושין מקום שנהגו שלא לעשות אין עושין ההולך ממקום שעושין למקום שאין עושין או ממקום שאין עושין למקום שעושין נותנין עליו חומרי מקום שיצא משם וחומרי מקום שהלך לשם | 50a. bis analogous to its prohibition. Just as its prohibition isonly when it is the size of an bolive-bulk, so too,the requirement to breturn it isonly when it is the size of an bolive-bulk. /b,Another opinion on this issue bwas taughtin a ibaraita /i. bRabbi Natan says:The minimum measure for both bthis and that,leaven and sacrificial meat, is btwo egg-bulksof prohibited material, bbut the Rabbis did not agree with him. /b,Incidental to the discussion of leaving Jerusalem and its surrounding area, the Gemara cites expositions of a prophetic passage, including a statement that God will eventually expand the boundaries of Jerusalem. The verse states: b“And it shall come to pass on that day that there shall not be light,but bheavy clouds [ iyekarot /i] and thickness [ ivekippaon /i]”(Zechariah 14:6). The Gemara asks: bWhat isthe meaning of the expression b“ iyekarot vekippaon /i”? /b, bRabbi Elazar said: This isthe blightcurrently provided by the sun, bwhich is significant[iyakar /i] in this world and insignificant[ikafuy /i] in the World-to-Come,when the moon will shine as brightly as the sun does now and the sun will be seven times brighter than it is currently., bRabbi Yoḥa said: Thisexpression refers to the tractates of iNega’imand iOholot /i, which are weighty [ iyekarim /i]owing to their difficulty bin this world,as they are among the most complex subjects, bbutwill be beasy [ ikefuyin /i] in the World-to-Come,when people will be much wiser., bAnd Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: These are people who areconsidered bimportant [ iyekarim /i] in this world and unimportant[ikefuyim /i] in the World-to-Come.This is blikethe incident involving bRav Yosef, son of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi,who bbecame ill andwas about to bexpire. When he returnedto good health, bhis father said to him: What did you seewhen you were about to die? bHe said to him: I saw an inverted world. Those above,i.e., those who are considered important in this world, were bbelow,insignificant, while bthose below,i.e., those who are insignificant in this world, were babove. He said to him: My son, you have seen a clear world.The world you have seen is the true world, as in that world people’s standings befit them. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked: bAnd where are we,the Torah scholars, bthere?Rav Yosef responded: bJust as we areregarded bhere, so are weregarded bthere. /b,Rav Yosef added: bAnd I heard that they were sayingin that world: bPraiseworthy is the one who arrives here with his studies in hand. And Ialso bheard that they were saying: Those executed by the governmentenjoy such an exalted status that bno one can stand in their enclosure. /b,The Gemara asks: bAnd who are thesemartyrs that Rav Yosef was referring to? bIf you saythat he was referring to bRabbi Akiva and his colleagues,who were martyred, this cannot be: Is their elevated status bdueonly btothe fact that bthey were martyred bythe Roman bgovernment and nothing more?These men were exceptional in their piety and sanctity during their lives as well. bRather,it is referring to bthe martyrs of Lod,Pappos and Luliyanos, who gave themselves up to be martyred for the sake of the Jewish people. They falsely admitted to killing the king’s daughter in order to prevent a harsh decree from being issued against the entire community. Although they were not known for exceptional piety before that event, they are considered to be extremely holy due to their martyrdom.,The Gemara continues to expound the section of the book of Zechariah cited above. The verse states: b“On that day there shall be upon the bells of the horses [ imetzillot hasus /i]: Holy unto the Lord”(Zechariah 14:20). The Gemara asks: bWhat isthe meaning of the expression imetzillot hasus /i? /b, bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In the future the Holy One, Blessed be He, will extend Jerusalemby bas much asthe distance that ba horse can runthe entire time bit casts a shadow [ imetzeil /i].Jerusalem will be so large that a horse running from one side of the city in the morning will not arrive at the other end of the city until midday, when its shadow will have disappeared., bRabbi Elazar said: Alldecorative bbells [ imetzillot /i] that one hangs between the eyes of a horse will be sanctified to God,i.e., they will be consecrated for the Temple treasury., bAnd Rabbi Yoḥa said: All spoils that the Jewish peoplewill btakefrom gentiles who wage war against them, bup to the time a horse runs and casts a shadow [ imetzeil /i],i.e., half a day, bwill be sanctified for God. /b,The Gemara asks: bGranted, according to the one who saidthat this expression refers to ball spoils that the Jewish peoplewill btake, this is as it is writtenin the continuation of the verse, which mentions additional treasure donated to the Temple: b“And the pots in the Lord’s house shall be like the basins before the altar.” However, according to the ones who said theseother btwoexplanations, bwhatis the meaning of: b“And the pots in the Lord’s house”?The Gemara explains that according to these opinions the verse bis saying something else:It is prophesying that in the future bthe Jewish people will become wealthy and bring donationsto the Temple.,The Gemara goes on to ask: bGranted, according to the one who saidthat this expression refers to bspoils, this is as it is writtenin the next verse: b“Andon that day bthere shall no longer be a merchant [ ikena’ani /i] in the house of the Lord of hosts”(Zechariah 14:21), as he will no longer be needed. bHowever, according to the ones who said theseother btwoexplanations, bwhatis the meaning of the expression: b“There shall no longer be a merchant”? Rabbi Yirmeya said:The word ikena’aniis in fact a contraction of the phrase: bThere is no poor person here [ iein kan ani /i].In other words, there will no longer be poor people, and therefore the Jews themselves will be able to donate whatever is needed in the Temple (Maharsha)., bAnd from where do wederive bthat a merchant can be called a ikena’ani /i? As it is written: “And Judah saw there the daughter of a certain ikena’ani /i… /band he took her, and went in unto her” (Genesis 38:2). bWhat isthe meaning of the word ikena’ani /iin this context? bIf you sayit refers to ban actual Canaanite, is it possible that Abraham warned Isaacnot to marry a Canaanite woman, and bIsaac warned Jacobto the same effect, bandnonetheless bJudah went and marrieda Canaanite woman? bRather, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said:She was bthe daughter of a merchant, as it is written: “As for the merchant [ ikena’an /i], the balances of deceit are in his hand. He lovesto oppress” (Hosea 12:8). bAnd if you wish, sayinstead that this meaning of the word can be understood from the following verse, which describes Tyre: b“Whose traders are princes, whose merchants [ ikieha /i] are the honorable of the earth”(Isaiah 23:8).,The Gemara cites another verse from the prophecy at the end of the book of Zechariah: b“And the Lord shall be King over all the earth, on that day shall the Lord be one and His name one”(Zechariah 14:9). The Gemara asks: bIs that to say that now He is not one? /b, bRabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: The World-to-Come is not like this world.In bthis world, upon good tidings one recites: Blessed…Who is good and does good, and over bad tidings one recites: Blessed…the true Judge. In the World-to-Comeone will balwaysrecite: bBlessed…Who is good and does good.There will be only one mode of blessing God for tidings.,The verse states: “On that day shall the Lord be one band His name one.”The Gemara asks: bWhatis the meaning of the word bonein this context? bIs that to say that now His name is not one? /b, bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The World-to-Come is not like this world. In this world,God’s name that bis written withthe letters iyod /iand ihehis readas iAdonai /i, which begins with the letters ialef /iand idalet /i.God’s name is not pronounced in the same way as it is written. bHowever, in the World-to-Come it will all be one,as God’s name will be both bread withthe letters iyod /iand ihehand written withthe letters iyod /iand iheh /i. /b, bRava thought to expoundupon the correct punctuation and enunciation of the name of God during his public blecturebefore one of the Festivals. bA certain old man said to him:The word bforever is writtenin the verse: “This is My name forever [ ile’olam /i]” (Exodus 3:15) without the letter ivav /i, such that it can be read ile’alem /i, to conceal, meaning that the name should be concealed., bRabbi Avina raised a contradiction: It is writtenin the verse: b“This is My name forever,”implying a requirement to conceal the name of God, and in the very next phrase it states: b“And this is My memorial unto all generations”(Exodus 3:15), which indicates that the name of God is to be publicized and remembered by all. Rather, bthe Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I,i.e., My name, is bnot read as I am written. I am written withthe letters iyod /iand iheh /i, and I am read withthe letters ialef /iand idalet /i. /b,, strongMISHNA: /strong In ba place wherethe people were baccustomed to perform labor on Passover eve until midday, onemay bdoso on that day. In ba place wherethe people were baccustomed not to performlabor, bonemay bnot doso. The performance of labor on the eve of Passover is not prohibited by Torah law, but is dependent on local custom. If one btravels from a place wherepeople bperformlabor on Passover eve bto a place wherepeople bdo not performlabor, bor from a place wherepeople bdo not performlabor on Passover eve bto a place wherepeople bperformlabor, the Sages bimpose upon him the stringencies ofboth bthe place from which he left and the stringencies of the place to which he went.In both cases, he may not perform labor. |
|
53. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 66a. שורך נרבע והלה שותק נאמן ותנא תונא ושנעבדה בו עבירה ושהמית על פי עד אחד או ע"פ הבעלים נאמן האי ע"פ עד אחד היכי דמי אי דקא מודו בעלים היינו ע"פ הבעלים אלא לאו דשתיק,וצריכא דאי אשמעינן הך קמייתא אי לאו דקים ליה בנפשיה דעבד חולין בעזרה לא הוה מייתי,אבל נטמאו טהרותיך מימר אמרינן האי דשתיק דסבר חזי ליה בימי טומאתו,ואי אשמעינן הא משום דקא מפסיד ליה בימי טהרתו אבל שורו נרבע מימר אמר כל השוורים לאו לגבי מזבח קיימי צריכא,איבעיא להו אשתו זינתה בעד אחד ושותק מהו אמר אביי נאמן רבא אמר אינו נאמן הוי דבר שבערוה ואין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים,אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דההוא סמיא דהוה מסדר מתנייתא קמיה דמר שמואל יומא חד נגה ליה ולא הוה קאתי שדר שליחא אבתריה אדאזיל שליח בחדא אורחא אתא איהו בחדא כי אתא שליח אמר אשתו זינתה אתא לקמיה דמר שמואל א"ל אי מהימן לך זיל אפקה ואי לא לא תפיק,מאי לאו אי מהימן עלך דלאו גזלנא הוא ורבא אי מהימן לך כבי תרי זיל אפקה ואי לא לא תפקה,ואמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דתניא מעשה בינאי המלך שהלך לכוחלית שבמדבר וכיבש שם ששים כרכים ובחזרתו היה שמח שמחה גדולה וקרא לכל חכמי ישראל אמר להם אבותינו היו אוכלים מלוחים בזמן שהיו עסוקים בבנין בית המקדש אף אנו נאכל מלוחים זכר לאבותינו והעלו מלוחים על שולחנות של זהב ואכלו,והיה שם אחד איש לץ לב רע ובליעל ואלעזר בן פועירה שמו ויאמר אלעזר בן פועירה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך לבם של פרושים עליך ומה אעשה הקם להם בציץ שבין עיניך הקים להם בציץ שבין עיניו,היה שם זקן אחד ויהודה בן גדידיה שמו ויאמר יהודה בן גדידיה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך רב לך כתר מלכות הנח כתר כהונה לזרעו של אהרן שהיו אומרים אמו נשבית במודיעים ויבוקש הדבר ולא נמצא ויבדלו חכמי ישראל בזעם,ויאמר אלעזר בן פועירה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך הדיוט שבישראל כך הוא דינו ואתה מלך וכהן גדול כך הוא דינך ומה אעשה אם אתה שומע לעצתי רומסם ותורה מה תהא עליה הרי כרוכה ומונחת בקרן זוית כל הרוצה ללמוד יבוא וילמוד,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מיד נזרקה בו אפיקורסות דהוה ליה למימר תינח תורה שבכתב תורה שבעל פה מאי מיד ותוצץ הרעה על ידי אלעזר בן פועירה ויהרגו כל חכמי ישראל והיה העולם משתומם עד שבא שמעון בן שטח והחזיר את התורה ליושנה,היכי דמי אילימא דבי תרי אמרי אישתבאי ובי תרי אמרי לא אישתבאי מאי חזית דסמכת אהני סמוך אהני,אלא בעד אחד וטעמא דקא מכחשי ליה בי תרי הא לאו הכי מהימן,ורבא לעולם תרי ותרי וכדאמר רב אחא בר רב מניומי בעדי הזמה הכא נמי בעדי הזמה,ואיבעית אימא כדרבי יצחק דאמר רבי יצחק שפחה הכניסו תחתיה,אמר רבא | 66a. bYour ox was usedby a man bfor an act of bestialityand is therefore unfit for an offering, band the other,the owner of the ox, bis silent,the witness is bdeemed credible. And the itanna /iof the mishna also btaught( iBekhorot41a): bAndwith regard to an animal bthat was used for a transgressionor bthat killed,if this is attested to bby one witness or by the owner,he is bdeemed credible.The Gemara clarifies this case: bWhat are the circumstancesof bthiscase of the mishna, where the knowledge is established bby one witness? If the owner admitsto the claim, bthis isthe same as: bBy the owner. Rather, is it notreferring to a case bwherethe owner remains bsilent? /b,The Gemara comments: bAndeach of these statements of Abaye is bnecessary. As, had he taught usonly bthat firstcase, where the witness said someone ate forbidden fat, one might have said that he is deemed credible for the following reason: bWere it notfor the fact bthat he himselfwas bconvinced that he had committeda transgression, bhe would notcommit the transgression of bbringing a non-sacredanimal btothe Temple bcourtyardon the basis of the testimony of one witness. Consequently, his silence is evidently an admission., bButif the witness said: bYour ritually purefoods bwere rendered ritually impure,and the accused was silent, bwe would say:The reason bthathe is bsilentand refrains from denying the claim is bthat he thinkshe is not suffering any significant loss, as the food bis fit for himto eat bon his days of ritual impurity,because he is not required to destroy ritually impure foods., bAnd hadAbaye btaught usonly the case of: Your ritually pure food was rendered ritually impure, one might have said that the reason bthiswitness is deemed credible is bthat he causes him a loss on his days of ritual impurity,and therefore his silence is tantamount to a confession. bButin the case of: bHis ox was usedby a man bfor an act of bestiality,the owner of the ox bcan saywith regard to his animal: bNot all the oxen standready to be sacrificed basan offering on the baltar.Perhaps one would think that the owner does not bother denying the claim because he merely forfeits the possibility of sacrificing his ox as an offering, which he considers an inconsequential matter. It is only if there were two witnesses to the act that the animal is put to death, whereas here there was only one witness. It is therefore bnecessaryfor Abaye to specify all these cases.,§ bA dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: If a husband is told bby one witnessthat bhis wife committed adultery, andthe husband remains bsilent, what isthe ihalakha /i? bAbaye said:The witness is bdeemed credible. Rava said: He is not deemed credible.Why not? Because bit is a matter involving forbidden relations, and there is no matterof testimony bfor forbidden sexual relationsthat can be attested to by bfewer than twowitnesses., bAbaye said: From where do I saythis claim of mine? It happened bthatthere was ba certain blind man who would review imishnayotbefore Mar Shmuel. One daythe blind man bwas late for him and was not arriving.Mar Shmuel bsent a messenger after himto assist him. bWhilethe bmessenger was goingto the blind man’s house bby one way,the blind man barrivedat the house of study bby a differentroute, and therefore the messenger missed him and reached his house. bWhenthe bmessenger cameback, bhe saidthat he had been to the blind man’s house and saw that bhis wife committed adultery.The blind man bcame before Mar Shmuelto inquire whether he must pay heed to this testimony. Mar Shmuel bsaid to him: Ifthis messenger bis trusted by you, goand bdivorce her, but if not, do not divorceher.,Abaye comments: bWhat, is it notcorrect to say that this means that bif he is trusted by you that he is not a thiefbut is a valid witness, you must rely on him? This would prove that a single witness can testify in a case of this kind. bAnd Ravaexplains that Mar Shmuel meant: bIfhe bis trusted by you like twowitnesses, bgoand bdivorce her, but if not, do not divorceher. Consequently, Rava maintains that this episode affords no proof., bAnd Abaye said: From where do I saythis claim of mine? bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bAn incidentoccurred bwith King Yannai, who went tothe region of bKoḥalit in the desert and conquered sixty cities there. And upon his return he rejoicedwith ba great happinessover his victory. bAnd hesubsequently bsummoned all the Sages of the Jewish peopleand bsaid to them: Our ancestorsin their poverty bwould eat salty foods when they were busy with the building of the Temple; we too shall eat salty foods in memory of our ancestors. And they brought salty food on tables of gold, and ate. /b, bAnd there was oneperson bpresent, a scoffer,a man of ban evil heart and a scoundrel called Elazar ben Po’ira. And Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the hearts of the Pharisees,the Sages, bare against you.In other words, they harbor secret resentment against you and do not like you. The king replied: bAnd what shall I doto clarify this matter? Elazar responded: bHave them stand bywearing bthe frontplate between your eyes.Since the frontplate bears the Divine Name, they should stand in its honor. Yannai, who was a member of the priestly Hasmonean family, also served as High Priest, who wears the frontplate. bHe hadthe Pharisees bstand bywearing bthe frontplate between his eyes. /b,Now bthere was a certain elder present called Yehuda ben Gedidya, and Yehuda ben Gedidya said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the crown of the monarchy suffices for you,i.e., you should be satisfied that you are king. bLeave the crown of the priesthood for the descendants of Aaron.The Gemara explains this last comment: bAs they would saythat Yannai’s bmother was taken captive in Modi’in,and she was therefore disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, which meant that Yannai was a iḥalal /i. bAnd the matter was investigated and was not discovered,i.e., they sought witnesses for that event but none were found. bAnd the Sages of Israel were expelled inthe king’s brage,due to this rumor., bAnd Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, such is the judgment of a common person in Israel.In other words, merely expelling a slanderer is appropriate if the subject of the slander is a commoner. bBut you are a king and a High Priest.Is bthis your judgmentas well? Yannai replied: bAnd what should I do?Elazar responded: bIf you listen to my advice, crush them.Yannai countered: bBut what will become of the Torah?He retorted: bBehold,it bis wrapped and placed in the corner. Anyone who wishes to study can come and study.We have no need for the Sages.,The Gemara interjects: bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Immediately, heresy was injected intoYannai, bas he should have saidto Elazar ben Po’ira: This bworks out wellwith regard to bthe Written Torah,as it can be studied by all on their own, but bwhatwill become of bthe Oral Torah?The Oral Torah is transmitted only by the Sages. The ibaraitacontinues: bImmediately, the evilarose and bcaught fire through Elazar ben Po’ira, and all the Sages of the Jewish people were killed. And the world was desolateof Torah buntil Shimon ben Shataḥ came and restored the Torah to its formerglory. This completes the ibaraita /i.,Abaye asks: bWhat are the circumstancesof this case? How did those who conducted the investigation refute the rumor that Yannai’s mother had been taken captive? bIf we say that twowitnesses bsaidthat bshe was taken captive, and twoothers bsaidthat bshe was not taken captive, what did you see that you rely on thesewho said that she was not taken captive? Instead, brely on thesewho said that she was taken captive. In such a scenario, one cannot say definitively that the matter was investigated and found to be false., bRather,it must be referring bto one witnesswho testified she was taken captive, and two testified that she was not taken captive. bAnd the reasonthat the lone witness is not deemed credible is only bthat he is contradicted by theother btwo,from which it may be inferred that bif not for thatfact, bhe would be deemed credible.This supports Abaye’s claim that an uncontested lone witness is deemed credible in a case of this kind., bAnd Ravacould reply that this incident affords no proof, for the following reason: bActually,one can say that there were btwowitnesses who testified that she was captured band twowho testified that she was not, bandthe case was decided bin accordance with thatwhich bRav Aḥa bar Rav Minyumi saysin a different context, that it is referring bto conspiring witnesses.The second pair of witnesses did not contradict the testimony of the first pair but established them as liars by stating that the first pair were not there to witness the event. This serves to disqualify the testimony of the first pair altogether. bHere too,it is referring btowitnesses who rendered the first set bconspiring witnesses. /b, bAnd if you wish, saythat this is bin accordance withthe version of the story stated bby Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: They replacedYannai’s mother bwith a maidservant.The first witnesses saw that Yannai’s mother was about to be taken captive, but the second pair revealed that she had actually been replaced with a maidservant, thereby negating the testimony of the first set., bRava says: /b |
|
54. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 21b. אומר בן עזאי חייב אדם ללמד את וכו' ר' אליעזר אומר כל המלמד את בתו תורה מלמדה תיפלות תיפלות ס"ד אלא אימא כאילו למדה תיפלות,א"ר אבהו מ"ט דר"א דכתיב (משלי ח, יב) אני חכמה שכנתי ערמה כיון שנכנסה חכמה באדם נכנסה עמו ערמומית,ורבנן האי אני חכמה מאי עבדי ליה מיבעי ליה לכדרבי יוסי בר' חנינא דא"ר יוסי בר' חנינא אין דברי תורה מתקיימין אלא במי שמעמיד עצמו ערום עליהן שנאמר אני חכמה שכנתי ערמה א"ר יוחנן אין דברי תורה מתקיימין אלא במי שמשים עצמו כמי שאינו שנאמר (איוב כח, יב) והחכמה מאין תמצא,רבי יהושע אומר רוצה אשה וכו' מאי קאמר הכי קאמר רוצה אשה בקב ותיפלות עמו מתשעת קבין ופרישות,הוא היה אומר חסיד שוטה כו' היכי דמי חסיד שוטה כגון דקא טבעה איתתא בנהרא ואמר לאו אורח ארעא לאיסתכולי בה ואצולה,היכי דמי רשע ערום אמר רבי יוחנן זה המטעים דבריו לדיין קודם שיבא בעל דין חברו ר' אבהו אומר זה הנותן דינר לעני להשלים לו מאתים זוז דתנן מי שיש לו מאתים זוז לא יטול לקט שכחה ופאה ומעשר עני היה לו מאתים חסר דינר אפילו אלף נותנין לו כאחת הרי זה יטול,רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן זה המשיא עצה למכור בנכסים מועטין דאמר רבי אסי א"ר יוחנן יתומים שקדמו ומכרו בנכסים מועטין מה שמכרו מכרו,אביי אמר זה המשיא עצה למכור בנכסים כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל דתניא נכסי לך ואחריך לפלוני וירד הראשון ומכר ואכל השני מוציא מיד הלקוחות דברי רבי רשב"ג אומר אין לשני אלא מה ששייר ראשון,רב יוסף בר חמא אמר רב ששת זה המכריע אחרים באורחותיו רבי זריקא אמר רב הונא זה המיקל לעצמו ומחמיר לאחרים עולא אמר זה | 21b. § The mishna states: From here bben Azzai states: A person is obligated to teachhis daughter Torah, so that if she drinks and does not die immediately, she will know that some merit of hers has delayed her punishment. bRabbi Eliezer says: Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah is teaching her promiscuity.The Gemara asks: Could it benter your mindto say that teaching one’s daughter Torah is actually teaching her bpromiscuity? Rather, say:It is considered bas if he taught her promiscuity. /b, bRabbi Abbahu says: What is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’sstatement? It is bas it is written: “I, wisdom, dwell with cunning”(Proverbs 8:12), which indicates that bonce wisdom enters into a person, cunning enters with it.Rabbi Eliezer fears that the woman will use the cunning she achieves by learning the wisdom of the Torah to engage in promiscuous behavior.,The Gemara asks: bAnd the Rabbiswho disagree with him, bwhat do they do with thisverse: b“I, wisdom,dwell with cunning [ iorma /i]”; how do they interpret it? The Gemara responds: bHe requires thatverse bfor that which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina,states, interpreting the word “ iorma /i” as nakedness rather than cunningness, bas Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The matters of Torah do not endure except in one who stands naked for them, as it is stated: “I, wisdom, dwell with nakedness [ iorma /i]”(Proverbs 8:12). This means that wisdom dwells only in one who is prepared to give away all of his possessions for the sake of Torah study. bRabbi Yoḥa says: The matters of Torah do not endure except in one who considers himself as one who does notexist, bas it is stated: “But wisdom, it can be found in nothingness”(Job 28:12).,§ The mishna states that bRabbi Yehoshua says: A woman desiresto receive the amount of a ikavof food and a sexual relation-ship rather than to receive nine ikavof food and abstinence. The Gemara asks: bWhat is he saying? This is whatRabbi Yehoshua bis saying: A woman desires toreceive the amount of ba ikav /iof food band with it a sexual relationship,i.e., her husband’s availability to fulfill her sexual desires, rather bthan nine ikav /iof food bandwith it babstinence,and since her desires are of a sexual nature, it is undesirable for her to study Torah.,§ The mishna continues: bHe,Rabbi Yehoshua, bwould say: A foolish man of piety,and a conniving wicked person, and an abstinent woman, and those who injure themselves out of false abstinence; all these are people who erode the world. The Gemara asks: bWho is considered a foolish man of piety? For example,it is one who sees bthat a woman is drowning in a river, and he says:It is bnot proper conduct to look at herwhile she is undressed band save her. /b,The Gemara asks: bWho is considered a conniving wicked person? Rabbi Yoḥa says: This is one who presents his statement to the judge before the other litigant comesand thereby prejudices the judge in his favor. bRabbi Abbahu says: Thisis referring to bone who gives a dinar to a poor manin order bto completethe sum of btwo hundred dinars for him,so that he will no longer be entitled to receive charity, bas we learnedin a mishna ( iPe’a8:8): bOne who has two hundred dinars may not collect gleanings, forgottensheaves, ipe’a /i, andthe bpoor man’s tithe,since he is not defined as poor. However, if bhe has two hundred lessone bdinar, evenif bhe is given one thousanddinars bat once, he may collect. /b, bRabbi Asisays that bRabbi Yoḥa says:A conniving wicked person is bone who provides adviceto male orphans bto sell from the small quantity of propertyleft to them by their father, before it is appropriated by the court for the purpose of providing for the daughters, who do not inherit property. This causes the daughters to lose their right to sustece, because although it is improper to do so, the sale is valid, bas Rabbi Asi saysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says:With regard to male borphans who preemptively soldthe property bfrom a small estate, that which they sold, they sold,and the sons retain the money., bAbaye says:A conniving wicked person bis one who provides advice to sell property in accordance withthe ruling of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel, as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to one who said: bMy propertyis given bto you, and after youdie, bto so-and-so, and the firstbeneficiary benteredthe property band soldit band consumedthe profits, bthe secondbeneficiary brepossessesthe property bfrom the purchasers,as the property belongs to him after the death of the first beneficiary; bthis is the statement of RabbiYehuda HaNasi. bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The secondbeneficiary receives bonly that which the firstbeneficiary bleft,since his sale is valid. However, it is not permitted to sell the property iab initio /i, since the giver intended for the second beneficiary to receive the property., bRav Yosef bar Ḥamasays that bRav Sheshet says:A conniving wicked person is bone who persuades others with his ways,convincing others to mimic his seemingly righteous behavior, in order to hide his faults. bRabbi Zerikasays that bRav Huna says:A conniving wicked person is bone who is lenientin the ihalakha bfor himself and strict for others. Ulla says: This /b |
|
55. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 19b. מי איכא מידי דאנן לא מצינן למעבד ושלוחי דידן מצו עבדי הכי קאמרי ליה משביעין אנו עליך על דעתינו ועל דעת בית דין,הוא פורש ובוכה והן פורשין ובוכין וכו' הוא פורש ובוכה שחשדוהו צדוקי והם פורשין ובוכין דא"ר יהושע בן לוי כל החושד בכשרים לוקה בגופו,וכל כך למה שלא יתקן מבחוץ ויכניס כדרך שהצדוקין עושין,ת"ר מעשה בצדוקי אחד שהתקין מבחוץ והכניס ביציאתו היה שמח שמחה גדולה פגע בו אביו אמר לו בני אף על פי שצדוקין אנו מתיראין אנו מן הפרושים אמר לו כל ימי הייתי מצטער על המקרא הזה (ויקרא טז, ב) כי בענן אראה על הכפורת אמרתי מתי יבוא לידי ואקיימנו עכשיו שבא לידי לא אקיימנו,אמרו לא היו ימים מועטין עד שמת והוטל באשפה והיו תולעין יוצאין מחוטמו ויש אומרים ביציאתו ניגף דתני רבי חייא כמין קול נשמע בעזרה שבא מלאך וחבטו על פניו ונכנסו אחיו הכהנים ומצאו ככף רגל עגל בין כתפיו שנאמר (יחזקאל א, ז) ורגליהם רגל ישרה וכף רגליהם ככף רגל עגל,א"ר זכריה בן קבוטל וכו' מתני ליה רב חנן בר רבא לחייא בר רב קמיה דרב א"ר זכריה בן קפוטל ומחוי ליה רב בידיה קבוטל ונימא ליה מימר ק"ש הוה קרי,וכי האי גוונא מי שרי והא"ר יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא הקורא את שמע לא ירמוז בעיניו ולא יקרוץ בשפתותיו ולא יורה באצבעותיו ותניא רבי אלעזר חסמא אומר הקורא את שמע ומרמז בעיניו ומקרץ בשפתותיו ומראה באצבעו עליו הכתוב אומר (ישעיהו מג, כב) ולא אותי קראת יעקב,לא קשיא הא בפרק ראשון הא בפרק שני,ת"ר (דברים ו, ז) ודברת בם בם ולא בתפלה ודברת בם בם יש לך רשות לדבר ולא בדברים אחרים,רבי אחא אומר ודברת בם עשה אותן קבע ואל תעשם עראי אמר רבא השח שיחת חולין עובר בעשה שנאמר ודברת בם בם ולא בדברים אחרים רב אחא בר יעקב אמר עובר בלאו שנאמר (קהלת א, ח) כל הדברים יגעים לא יוכל איש לדבר, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בקש להתנמנם פרחי כהונה מכין לפניו באצבע צרדא ואומרים לו אישי כ"ג עמוד והפג אחת על הרצפה ומעסיקין אותו עד שיגיע זמן השחיטה, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מאי צרדא אמר רב יהודה צרתה דדא מאי היא גודל מחוי רב הונא ואזל קלא בכולי בי רב,ואומרים לו אישי כ"ג הפג אחת על הרצפה וכו' אמר רב יצחק על חדת מאי היא אמרי ליה אחוי קידה,ומעסיקין אותו עד שיגיע זמן שחיטה (וכו') תנא לא היו מעסיקין אותו לא בנבל ולא בכנור אלא בפה ומה היו אומרין (תהלים קכז, א) אם ה' לא יבנה בית שוא עמלו בוניו בו,מיקירי ירושלים לא היו ישנין כל הלילה כדי שישמע כ"ג קול הברה ולא תהא שינה חוטפתו תניא אבא שאול אמר אף בגבולין היו עושין כן זכר למקדש אלא שהיו חוטאין,אמר אביי ואיתימא ר"נ בר יצחק תרגומא נהרדעא דא"ל אליהו לרב יהודה אחוה דרב סלא חסידא אמריתו אמאי לא אתי משיח והא האידנא יומא דכיפורי הוא ואבעול כמה בתולתא בנהרדעא אמר ליה הקב"ה מאי אמר אמר ליה | 19b. bis there any matter that we are unable to perform and our agents are able to perform?The role of the agent is to perform a task on behalf of the one who commissioned him. The agent cannot perform a task that the one who commissioned him is unable to perform. Since it is prohibited for Israelites to enter the priests’ courtyard and to perform the sacrificial rites, clearly the priests are not agents representing the Israelites. The language of the mishna in which the court Elders address the High Priest as their agent apparently contradicts that understanding. The Gemara answers: bThis is what they say to him: We administer an oath to you according to our understanding and the understanding of the court,cautioning him that he cannot rationalize violating the oath by claiming that he took the oath based on his own interpretation. He is bound by the understanding of the court. The mishna does not address the nature of the High Priest’s agency.,§ The mishna continues: After this oath, bhe would leavethem band cry and they would leavehim band cry.The Gemara explains: bHe turned aside and crieddue to the indignity bthat they suspected himof being ba Sadducee; and they turned aside and cried, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who suspects the innocentof indiscretion bis afflicted in his body.The High Priest might in fact be beyond reproach and they may have suspected him falsely.,The Gemara asks: bAnd whywere the Elders bsoinsistent that the High Priest take an oath? The Gemara explains: So that bhe would not preparethe incense and light it boutsidein the Sanctuary, before entering the Holy of Holies, band bringthe coal pan with the incense already burning on it bintothe Holy of Holies bin the mannerthat bthe Sadducees did.Since the High Priest is alone inside the Sanctuary and there is no way to ascertain whether he is in fact performing the service in the proper manner, the Elders insisted that he take an oath to perform it according to their instructions., bThe Sages taughtin the iTosefta /i: There was ban incident involving acertain bSadduceewho was appointed as High Priest, bwho prepared the incense outsideand then bbroughtit into the Holy of Holies. bUpon his emergence he was overjoyedthat he had succeeded. bThe father ofthat Sadducee bmet him and said to him: My son, although we are Sadduceesand you performed the service in accordance with our opinion, bwe fear the Phariseesand do not actually implement that procedure in practice. The son bsaid to hisfather: bAll my days I have been troubled over this verse: “For I will appear in the cloud above the Ark cover”(Leviticus 16:2). The Sadducees interpreted this verse to mean that God will appear above the Ark cover, i.e., will enter the Holy of Holies, only after the incense cloud is already there. bI said: When willthe opportunity bbecome available to me, and I will fulfill itaccording to the Sadducee interpretation? bNow thatthe opportunity bhas become available to me,will bI not fulfill it? /b,The Sages bsaid: Noteven ba few dayspassed buntil he died and was laid out in the garbagedump, band worms were coming out of his nosein punishment for his actions. bAnd some saythat bhe was struckas soon bas he emergedfrom the Holy of Holies, bas Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: A type of sound was heard in theTemple bcourtyard, as an angel came and struck him in the face. And his fellow priests came into remove him from there band they found the likeness of a footprint of a calf between his shoulders.That is the mark left by an angel striking, bas it is statedwith regard to angels: b“And their feet were straight feet, and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf’s foot”(Ezekiel 1:7).,§ It was taught in the mishna that bRabbi Zekharya ben Kevutalsays: Many times I read before the High Priest from the book of Daniel. bRav Ḥa bar Rava taught this to Ḥiyya bar Rav before Ravin the following manner: bRabbi Zekharya bar Kefutal said, and Rav demonstrated with his handthat the name should be pronounced bKevutal.The Gemara asks: Why did Rav demonstrate his point with a gesture? bLet himsimply bsay it.The Gemara answers: Rav bwas reciting iShema /iat that moment and could not interrupt iShemaby speaking.,The Gemara asks: bAnd isinterrupting in a manner bof that sort,by gesturing, bpermittedduring iShema /i? bDidn’t Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta say: One who is reciting iShemashould neither make allusions with his eyes, nor open and closehis mouth bwith his lipsto convey a message, bnor gesture with his fingers? And it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Elazar Ḥisma says: Concerning one who recites iShemaand makes allusions with his eyes, or opens and closeshis mouth bwith his lips, or gestures with his fingers, the verse says: “And you did not call out to Me, O Jacob”(Isaiah 43:22). By signaling while reciting iShemahe behaves contemptuously toward God, and it is tantamount to not having recited iShemabefore Him. How, then, could Rav gesture while reading iShema /i?,The Gemara answers: This is bnot difficult. Thisprohibition to interrupt one’s recitation of iShemawith a gesture applies binthe course of reciting the bfirst paragraphof iShema /i, which is more fundamental; bthatcase where Rav gestured was binthe course of reciting the bsecond paragraphof iShema /i, where gesturing to convey a significant message is permitted.,Apropos interruptions in the course of reciting iShema /i, the Gemara cites a ibaraitain which bthe Sages taught:“And these words, which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart; and you shall teach them diligently unto your children, band you shall talk of themwhen you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you arise” (Deuteronomy 6:6–7). This means that in the course bofreciting bthem,the study of Torah and the recitation of iShema /i, it is permitted to interrupt to state a significant matter, bbut notin the course bofreciting the iAmida bprayer,which may not be interrupted for any kind of speech. Another interpretation of the verse is: bAnd you shall talk of themis to emphasize that bit is permittedto interrupt iShema bto speak these mattersof Torah, but not to speak bother mattersthat may lead to levity., bRabbi Aḥa says: Talk of themmeans one must brender them,the words of Torah, ba permanentfixture, band not render them a temporaryexercise. bRava said: One who engages in idle chatterwithout Torah or any particular purpose bviolatesa bpositivecommandment, bas it is stated: And you shall talk of them;talk bof them and not of other matters. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said:Furthermore, boneeven bviolates a negativecommandment, bas it is stated: “All these matters are wearisome; no man can ever state them”(Ecclesiastes 1:8). The phrase: No man can ever state them, is understood as a prohibition against engaging in idle chatter., strongMISHNA: /strong If the High Priest bsought to sleepat night, bthe young priestswould bsnap the middle [ itzerada /i] fingeragainst the thumb bbefore him, and theywould bsay to himevery so often: bMy Master, High Priest. Standfrom your bed band chillyourself bonce on the floorand overcome your drowsiness. bAnd theywould bengage himin various ways buntil the time would arrive to slaughter thedaily offering., strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: bWhatis the itzerada /ifinger mentioned in the mishna? bRav Yehuda said: It is the rival [ itzara /i] of that [ ida /i]one. Which finger bis it? iTzeradais the rival of bthe thumb;it is the middle finger. The middle finger would be strongly positioned against the thumb, and when one separates them, the finger hits the palm, creating a sound. bRav Huna demonstratedthe loud noise that could be achieved by snapping with the middle finger, and bthe sound traveled throughout Rav’s study hall.The sound created was loud enough to keep the High Priest awake.,It was taught in the mishna that bthey said to him: My Master, High Priest.Stand from your bed and bchillyourself bonce on the floorand overcome your drowsiness. bRav Yitzḥak saidthat they said to the High Priest: bIntroduce something new.The Gemara asks: bWhat is itthat they asked him to introduce? bThey say to him: Demonstratehow to perform the ceremonial bbowing[ikidda /i].This was a form of bowing that was difficult to perform, in which the High Priest was expert. The thought was that the exercise would keep him awake.,The mishna continues: bAnd theywould bengage himin different ways buntil the time to slaughter thedaily offering bwould arrive.It was btaught: They would not occupy him with a harp or a lyre,which may not be played on a Festival, bbutwould sing bwiththeir bmouths. And what would they say?They would say this verse: b“Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain on it;unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman keeps vigil in vain” (Psalms 127:1). The message to the High Priest was that his service must be performed for the sake of Heaven for it to be accepted by God; otherwise his efforts would be in vain.,The Gemara relates that bthe prominentmen bof Jerusalem would not sleep the entire nightbut instead engaged in Torah study, bso thatthe bHigh Priest would hearthe bsound of noisein the city band sleep would not overcome himin the silence of the sleeping city. bIt was taughtin a ibaraitathat bAbba Shaul said: They would do so even in the outlying areasand stay awake all night bin acknowledgment of the Temple; however,the result was bthat they would sin,as the men and women would participate in games together to pass the time, leading to transgression., bAbaye said, and some sayit was bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥakwho said: bInterpretthat statement as referring to bNeharde’a, as Elijahthe Prophet bsaid to Rav Yehuda, brotherof bRav Salla Ḥasida: You have saidand wondered: bWhy has the Messiah not come?Why is that surprising? bIsn’t today Yom Kippur, and relations were had with several virgins in Neharde’a,as the men and women stayed awake all night and that led to promiscuity? Rav Yehuda bsaid to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, sayabout those sins committed by the Jewish people? bHe said:This is what God said: |
|
56. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 4.22.7 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
| 4.22.7. And he wrote of many other matters, which we have in part already mentioned, introducing the accounts in their appropriate places. And from the Syriac Gospel according to the Hebrews he quotes some passages in the Hebrew tongue, showing that he was a convert from the Hebrews, and he mentions other matters as taken from the unwritten tradition of the Jews. |
|
57. Anon., 4 Ezra, 12.46
| 12.46. Take courage, O Israel; and do not be sorrowful, O house of Jacob; |
|
