1. Mishnah, Eduyot, 5.7, 7.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 5.7. At the time of his death he said to his son, “Retract the four opinions which I used to declare.” He (the said to him, “Why did not you retract them?” He said to him, “I heard them from the mouth of the many, and they heard [the contrary] from the mouth of the many. I stood fast by the tradition which I heard, and they stood fast by the tradition which they heard. But you have heard [my tradition] from the mouth of a single individual and [their tradition] from the mouth of the many. It is better to leave the opinion of the single individual and to hold by the opinion of the many.” He said to him, “Father commend me to your colleagues.” He said to him, “I will not commend you.” He said to him, “Have you found in me any wrong?” He said, “No; your own deeds will cause you to be near, and your own deeds will cause you to be far.”" 7.7. They testified concerning the boards of bakers, that they are impure (they can receive impurity), whereas Rabbi Eliezer declares them pure (unable to receive impurity). They testified concerning an oven which was cut into rings and sand was put between the rings that it is impure (can receive impurity), whereas Rabbi Eliezer declares it pure (unable to receive impurity). They testified that the year may be intercalated throughout the whole of Adar, whereas they used to say: only until Purim. They testified that the year may be intercalated conditionally. There was such a case with Rabban Gamaliel who went to receive permission from the governor in Syria and he delayed in coming back; and they intercalated the year on condition that rabban gamaliel should approve; and when he came back he said: I approve, and the year was intercalated." |
|
2. Mishnah, Gittin, 9.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 9.8. A get which was written in Hebrew and whose signatures are in Greek, or was written in Greek and whose signatures are in Hebrew, or which has one Hebrew signature and one Greek signature, or which was written by a scribe and signed by one witness, is valid. [If a man signs], “So-and-so, witness,” it is valid. [If he signs,] “Son of so-and-so, witness, it is valid. [If he signs,] “So-and-so son of so-and-so” and he didn’t write “witness”, it is valid. If he wrote his own family name and hers, the get is valid. And this is how the scrupulous in Jerusalem would do. A get given imposed by court: in the case of a Jewish court is valid, and in the case of a Gentile court is invalid. And with regard to Gentiles, if they beat him and say to him, “Do what the Israelites say to you,” (and it is valid)." |
|
3. Mishnah, Hagigah, 2.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.1. They may not expound upon the subject of forbidden relations in the presence of three. Nor the work of creation in the presence of two. Nor [the work of] the chariot in the presence of one, unless he is a sage and understands of his own knowledge. Whoever speculates upon four things, it would have been better had he not come into the world: what is above, what is beneath, what came before, and what came after. And whoever takes no thought for the honor of his creator, it would have been better had he not come into the world." |
|
4. Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah, 2.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.9. Rabban Gamaliel sent to him: I order you to appear before me with your staff and your money on the day which according to your count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabbi Akiva went and found him in distress. He said to him: I can teach that whatever Rabban Gamaliel has done is valid, because it says, “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at their appointed times” (Leviticus 23:4), whether they are [proclaimed] at their proper time or not at their proper time, I have no other appointed times save these. He [Rabbi Joshua] then went to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. He said to him: if we call in question the court of Rabban Gamaliel we must call in question the decisions of every court which has existed since the days of Moses until now. As it says, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up” (Exodus 24:9). Why were the names of the elders not mentioned? To teach that every group of three which has acted as a court over Israel, behold it is like the court of Moses. He [Rabbi Joshua] took his staff and his money and went to Yavneh to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which according to his count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabban Gamaliel rose and kissed him on his head and said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student my teacher in wisdom and my student because you have accepted my decision." |
|
5. New Testament, Acts, 10.45, 11.1-11.2, 11.19-11.20, 14.1, 14.27 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 10.45. They of the circumcision who believed were amazed, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was also poured out on the Gentiles. 11.1. Now the apostles and the brothers who were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God. 11.2. When Peter had come up to Jerusalem, those who were of the circumcision contended with him 11.19. They therefore who were scattered abroad by the oppression that arose about Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except only to Jews. 11.20. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they had come to Antioch, spoke to the Greeks, preaching the Lord Jesus. 14.1. It happened in Iconium that they entered together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spoke that a great multitude both of Jews and of Greeks believed. 14.27. When they had arrived, and had gathered the assembly together, they reported all the things that God had done with them, and that he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles. |
|
6. Tosefta, Berachot, 6.24 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 6.24. A person should not enter the Temple Mount2 with money bundled in his cloak, and with dust on his feet, and with his money-belt tied on him on the outside as it is said, “Watch your feet when you go to the House of God …” (Ecclesiastes 4:17)" |
|
7. Tosefta, Hagigah, 2.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
8. Tosefta, Zevahim, 2.17 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
9. Anon., Acts of Thomas, 52-57, 51 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 51. Now there was a certain youth who had wrought an abominable deed, and he came near and received of the eucharist with his mouth: but his two hands withered up, so that he could no more put them unto his own mouth. And they that were there saw him and told the apostle what had befallen; and the apostle called him and said unto him: Tell me, my child, and be not ashamed, what was it that thou didst and camest hither? for the eucharist of the Lord hath convicted thee. For this gift which passeth among many doth rather heal them that with faith and love draw near thereto, but thee it hath withered away; and that which is come to pass hath not befallen without some effectual cause. And the Youth, being convicted by the eucharist of the Lord, came and tell at the apostle's feet and besought him, saying: I have done an evil deed, yet I thought to do somewhat good. I was enamoured of a woman that dwelleth at an inn without the city, and she also loved me; and when I heard of thee and believed, that thou proclaimest a living God, I came and received of thee the seal with the rest; for thou saidst: Whosoever shall partake in the polluted union, and especially in adultery, he shall not have life with the God whom I preach. Whereas therefore I loved her much, I entreated her and would have persuaded her to become my consort in chastity and pure conversation, which thou also teachest: but she would not. When, therefore, she consented not, I took a sword and slew her: for I could not endure to see her commit adultery with another man. |
|
10. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 8.9 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
8.9. שָׁאֲלוּ הַמִּינִים אֶת רַבִּי שִׂמְלָאי, כַּמָּה אֱלֹהוֹת בָּרְאוּ אֶת הָעוֹלָם. אָמַר לָהֶם אֲנִי וְאַתֶּם נִשְׁאַל לְיָמִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים. הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (דברים ד, לב): כִּי שְׁאַל נָא לְיָמִים רִאשֹׁנִים לְמִן הַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם, אֲשֶׁר בָּרְאוּ אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא אֲשֶׁר בָּרָא. חָזְרוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ אוֹתוֹ, אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מָה הוּא דֵין דִּכְתִיב: בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, אָמַר לָהֶם בָּרְאוּ אֱלֹהִים אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׂמְלָאי בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לַמִּינִים, אַתָּה מוֹצֵא תְּשׁוּבָה בְּצִדָּהּ. חָזְרוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ אוֹתוֹ, אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מָה הוּא דֵּין דִּכְתִיב: נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ. אָמַר לָהֶם קִרְאוּן מַה דְּבַתְרֵיהּ, וַיִּבְרְאוּ אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמֵיהֶם, לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁיָּצְאוּ אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו, רַבִּי, לְאֵלּוּ דָּחִית בְּקָנֶה, לָנוּ מָה אַתְּ מֵשִׁיב. אָמַר לָהֶם, לְשֶׁעָבַר אָדָם נִבְרָא מִן הָאֲדָמָה, חַוָּה נִבְרֵאת מִן הָאָדָם, מִכָּאן וָאֵילָךְ בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ, לֹא אִישׁ בְּלֹא אִשָּׁה וְלֹא אִשָּׁה בְּלֹא אִישׁ וְלֹא שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּלֹא שְׁכִינָה. חָזְרוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ אוֹתוֹ, אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ, מַה דֵּין דִּכְתִיב (יהושע כב, כב): אֵל אֱלֹהִים ה' וגו', אָמַר לָהֶם הֵם יוֹדְעִים אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא (יהושע כב, כב): הוּא יֹדֵעַ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו, לְאֵלּוּ דָּחִיתָ בְּקָנֶה, לָנוּ מָה אַתָּה מֵשִׁיב. אָמַר לָהֶם, שְׁלָשְׁתָּן שֵׁם אֱלֹהִים הֵן. כְּאֵינַשׁ דַּאֲמַר, בְּסִילוּגוּס קֵיסָר, אֲגוּסְטוּס קֵיסָר. חָזְרוּ וְשָׁאֲלוּ לוֹ, אָמְרוּ לוֹ מָה הוּא דֵין דִּכְתִיב (יהושע כד, יט): כִּי אֱלֹהִים קְדשִׁים הוּא, אָמַר לָהֶן, קְדשִׁים הֵמָּה אֵין כְּתִיב, אֶלָּא קְדשִׁים הוּא. | 8.9. ... [R’ Simlai] said to them: In the past Adam was created from the adamah and Chavah was created from the adam. From here and onward, “in our image as our likeness”—not man without woman and not woman without man, and not both of them without Shekhinah (God’s presence)." |
|
11. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 5.6 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
5.6. דָּבָר אַחֵר, אִם הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ יֶחֱטָא, הַכֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ מְכַפֵּר וְצָרִיךְ כַּפָּרָה. תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּא הוֹאִיל וּמָשִׁיחַ מְכַפֵּר וְצִבּוּר מִתְכַּפֵּר, מוּטָב שֶׁיַּקְדִּים מְכַפֵּר לְמִתְכַּפֵּר, דִּתְנַן (ויקרא טז, יא): וְכִפֶּר בַּעֲדוֹ וּבְעַד בֵּיתוֹ, בֵּיתוֹ זוֹ אִשְׁתּוֹ. דָּבָר אַחֵר, אִם הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ יֶחֱטָא, וְכֹהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ חוֹטֵא, אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי עֲלוּבָה הִיא מְדִינְתָּא דְאַסְיָא פּוֹדַגְרִיס, וּדְאִיקוּטָטָא בְּחָדָא עֵינָא, וְסָנֵיגוֹרְיָא מְקַטְרֵג בְּדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. (ויקרא ד, ג): לְאַשְׁמַת הָעָם, לְאֵשׁ מֵת הָעָם, מָשָׁל לְשׁוֹשִׁיטָה שֶׁל דֹּב שֶׁהָיָה אוֹכֵל סְדוּרִים שֶׁל דֹּב, אָמַר הַמֶּלֶךְ הוֹאִיל וְהוּא אוֹכֵל סְדוּרִים שֶׁל דֹּב תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ הַדֹּב. כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הוֹאִיל וְהוּא נֶהֱנֶה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ הָאֵשׁ. אָמַר רַבִּי אַיְבוּ מַעֲשֶׂה בְּטַבָּח אֶחָד בְּצִפּוֹרִי שֶׁהָיָה מַאֲכִיל אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת, פַּעַם אַחַת עֶרֶב יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אָכַל וְשָׁתָה וְנִשְׁתַּכֵּר וְעָלָה לְרֹאשׁ הַגַּג וְנָפַל וּמֵת, הִתְחִילוּ הַכְּלָבִים מְלַקְּקִין אֶת דָּמוֹ, אָתוֹן וְשָׁיְילוּן לְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא מַהוּ לְאַעֲבָרָא יָתֵיהּ מִן קֳדָמֵיהוֹן, אֲמַר לְהוֹן כְּתִיב (שמות כב, ל): וְאַנְשֵׁי קֹדֶשׁ תִּהְיוּן לִי וּבָשָׂר בַּשָּׂדֶה טְרֵפָה לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִיכוּן אֹתוֹ, זֶה שֶׁהָיָה גּוֹזֵל אֶת הַכְּלָבִים וּמַאֲכִיל אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל נְבֵלוֹת וּטְרֵפוֹת, אַרְפּוּן לְהוֹן מִדִּידְהוֹן אִינוּן אָכְלִין. (ויקרא ד, ד): וְהֵבִיא אֶת הַפָּר אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק מָשָׁל לְאוֹהֲבוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ שֶׁכִּבְדוֹ בְּדוֹרוֹן וּבְקִלּוּסִין נָאֶה, אָמַר הַמֶּלֶךְ הַנִּיחוּ אוֹתוֹ עַל פֶּתַח פָּלָטִין, כָּל שֶׁיֵּצֵא וְנִכְנַס יְהֵא רוֹאֶה אוֹתוֹ, כָּךְ וְהֵבִיא אֶת הַפָּר אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד. | |
|
12. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 17, 343-344, 16 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
|
13. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 92, 118 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
|
14. Apuleius, The Golden Ass, 1.9 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
15. Palestinian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, 2.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
|
16. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, 9.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
|
17. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
98a. מבושם אני מוכר לך חייב להעמיד לו עד העצרת וישן משל אשתקד ומיושן משל ג' שנים:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר ר' יוסי בר' חנינא לא שנו אלא בקנקנים דלוקח אבל בקנקנים דמוכר אמר ליה הא חמרך והא קנקנך,וכי קנקנין דמוכר מאי הוי לימא ליה לא איבעי לך לשהויי לא צריכא דאמר ליה למקפה,ומאי דוחקיה דר' יוסי בר' חנינא לאוקמא למתניתין בקנקנין דלוקח ודאמר ליה למקפה לוקמא בקנקנין דמוכר ודלא אמר ליה למקפה,אמר רבא מתניתין קשיתיה דקתני אם ידוע שיינו מחמיץ הרי זה מקח טעות אמאי לימא ליה לא איבעי לך לשהויי אלא לאו שמע מינה דאמר ליה למקפה שמע מינה,ופליגא דרב חייא בר יוסף דאמר רב חייא בר יוסף חמרא מזלא דמריה גרים שנא' (חבקוק ב, ה) ואף כי היין בוגד גבר יהיר וגו',אמר רב מרי האי מאן דיהיר אפילו אאינשי ביתיה לא מיקבל שנא' (חבקוק ב, ה) גבר יהיר ולא ינוה מאי ולא ינוה בנוה שלו,א"ר יהודה אמר רב כל המתגאה בטלית של ת"ח ואינו ת"ח אין מכניסין אותו במחיצתו של הקב"ה כתיב הכא ולא ינוה וכתיב התם (שמות טו, יג) אל נוה קדשך,אמר רבא האי מאן דזבין ליה חביתא דחמרא לחנואה אדעתא לסבוייה ותקיף אפלגא או אתילתא דינא הוא דמקבל לה מיניה ולא אמרן אלא דלא שני בברזא אבל שני בברזא לא ולא אמרן אלא דלא מטא יומא דשוקא אבל מטא יומא דשוקא לא,ואמר רבא האי מאן דקביל חמרא אדעתא דממטי ליה לפרוותא דוול שפט ואדמטי התם זל דינא הוא דמקבל ליה,איבעיא להו הוה חלא מאי אמר ליה רב הלל לרב אשי כי הואן בי רב כהנא אמר לן חלא לא ודלא כר' יוסי בר' חנינא,ואיכא דאמרי אפילו חלא נמי מקבל כמאן כר' יוסי בר' חנינא:,ישן משל אשתקד כו': | 98a. that is bspiced,which is preserved and of lasting quality, that bI am selling to you,then bhe bearsficial bresponsibility to provide himwith wine that will keep buntilthe festival of iShavuot /i. Andif the seller said: I am selling you boldwine, he is responsible to provide wine bfrom the previous year. Andif he said: I am selling you bagedwine, he is responsible to provide wine that is bfrom three yearsearlier., strongGEMARA: /strong bRabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says:When bthey taughtthat the seller does not bear responsibility if the wine sours, that was bonlyif it soured while binthe bjugs of the buyer; butif it soured binthe bjugs of the seller,then the buyer bcould say to him: This is your wine and this is your jug;take it and reimburse me. Since it soured while still in the original jugs, it was clearly flawed from the outset.,The Gemara asks: bButeven bifthe wine soured while in the bjugs of the seller, what of it? Letthe seller bsayto the buyer: bYou should not have left itfor so long after purchasing it; I should not be responsible just because you chose to do so. The Gemara answers: bNo,this ruling is bnecessaryin a case where the buyer bhad said to himthat he was purchasing the wine bfor cooking,in which case it is understood that he needs it to maintain its quality over a longer period of time, as only a small amount is used each time.,The Gemara asks: bAnd what impelled Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, to interpret the mishna as referring toa case where the wine soured while in the bjugs of the buyer, and where he had said to himthat he wanted the wine bfor cooking?Instead, blet him interpret it as referring toa case where the wine soured while in the bjugs of the seller, andto bwhere he had not said to himthat he wanted the wine bfor cooking. /b,In explanation, bRava said: The mishna was difficult for him, as it teachesin the following clause: bBut if it is knownof this seller bthat his winealways bsours, then thissale bis a mistaken transaction.With regard to this clause one could ask: bWhyis that so? bLetthe seller bsay to him: You should not have left itfor so long after purchasing it. bRather, isn’t itcorrect to bconclude fromthat clause bthatthe mishna is referring to a case bwherethe buyer bhad said to himthat he wants the wine bfor cooking?The Gemara concludes: Yes, one can bconclude from itthat this is so., bAndRabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, bdisagreeswith the opinion bof Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef, as Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef says:With regard to bwine,it is bthe owner’spoor bfortunethat bcausesthe wine to go sour, bas it is stated: “And moreover, wine is a treacherous dealer;the bhaughty manabides not” (Habakkuk 2:5), which is interpreted to mean that the wine of a haughty man will betray him, as it will sour as a punishment for his arrogance. Accordingly, since the wine soured after the buyer purchased it, he cannot place the blame upon the seller.,The Gemara offers additional homiletic interpretations of the verse just cited. bRav Mari said: One who is haughty is not accepted even by the members of his household, as it is stated: “The haughty man abides not”(Habakkuk 2:5). bWhatdoes the phrase b“abides [ iyinveh /i] not”mean? It means that beven in his abode [ inaveh /i],he is not accepted., bRav Yehuda saysthat bRav says:With regard to banyone who glorifies himselfby wearing ba garment ofthe style worn by ba Torah scholar, butin reality bhe is not a Torah scholar, he will not be brought within the boundary of the Holy One, Blessed be He,in the World-to-Come. This is alluded to by the fact that it is bwrittenin the verse bhere: “Abides [ iyinveh /i] not,” andthe meaning of the word iyinvehmay be derived from that which bis writtenin a verse bthere: “To Your holy habitation [ ineveh /i]”(Exodus 15:13)., bRava says:In the case of bone who sells a barrel of wine to a shopkeeper with the understandingthat the wine will be bfor servingto the shopkeeper’s customers and that he will be liable to pay the seller only once the barrel is finished, bandthe wine bspoiledwhen bone-half or one-thirdof the wine still remained, bthe ihalakhais thatthe seller must bacceptback the remaining wine bfromthe shopkeeper, as the shopkeeper is liable to pay only for the wine that he sells. bAnd we stated this ihalakha bonlyin a case bwherethe shopkeeper bhad not switched the tapof the barrel; bbutif bhe had switched the tap,the seller does bnothave to take the wine back and the shopkeeper must pay for it all. bAndfurthermore, bwe stated this ihalakha bonly wherethe wine soured bbefore the market day arrivedand the shopkeeper did not have the opportunity to sell the entire barrel; bbutif the wine was still of good quality when bthe market day arrived,then the seller does bnothave to take the wine back., bAnd Rava says:In the case of a vintner who enters a business venture with another person who will sell the wine for him and afterward they will split the profits, then if bthismiddleman bwho receives the wineto sell does so bwith the understanding that he will bring it to the port ofthe city of bVol Shefatand sell it only there, band before he arrives therethe bpriceof the wine bdrops, the ihalakha /iis bthatthe vintner must bacceptthe loss.,With regard to the previous case, ba dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: If the wine bbecomes vinegarbefore he reaches Vol Shefat, bwhatis the ihalakha /i? bRav Hillel said to Rav Ashi: When we were in the study hall of Rav Kahana, he said to us:If the wine becomes bvinegar,the vintner does bnothave to accept the loss; bandthis is bnot in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina,who holds that as long as the wine is in the jug of the seller he is able to return it to the seller. The reason for this is that it is possible that the poor fortune of the middleman caused it to sour., bAnd there arethose bwho saythat bevenif the wine turns into bvinegar,the vintner must balso acceptthe loss. bIn accordance with whoseopinion is this? It is bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina. /b,The mishna teaches: If the seller said: I am selling you boldwine, he is responsible to provide wine bfrom the previous year.And if he said: I am selling you aged wine, he is responsible to provide wine that is from three years earlier. |
|
18. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
15a. כל נרות של מתכת מטלטלין חוץ מן הנר שהדליקו בו באותה שבת,ודלמא שאני התם דהוא דחי ליה בידים,אלא אמר רב אשי רבי יהודה דמבשל היא דתנן המבשל בשבת בשוגג יאכל במזיד לא יאכל דברי רבי מאיר,רבי יהודה אומר בשוגג יאכל במוצאי שבת במזיד לא יאכל עולמית,רבי יוחנן הסנדלר אומר בשוגג יאכל למוצאי שבת לאחרים ולא לו במזיד לא יאכל עולמית לא לו ולא לאחרים,ונוקמה במזיד ורבי מאיר,לא סלקא דעתך דקתני דומיא דיום הכפורים מה יום הכפורים לא שנא בשוגג ולא שנא במזיד לא אכיל אף הכא נמי לא שנא בשוגג ולא שנא במזיד לא אכיל,ומי מצית מוקמת לה בשוגג ורבי יהודה והא אף על פי שמתחייב בנפשו קתני הכי קאמר אע"פ דבמזיד מתחייב בנפשו הוא הכא דבשוגג שחיטתו כשרה,ונוקמה כרבי יוחנן הסנדלר דאמר לא שנא בשוגג ולא שנא במזיד לא אכיל רבי יוחנן הסנדלר קמפליג במוצאי שבת לאחרים ולא לו תנא דידן שחיטתו כשרה קתני לא שנא לו ולא שנא לאחרים,תני תנא קמיה דרב המבשל בשבת בשוגג יאכל במזיד לא יאכל ומשתיק ליה רב,מאי טעמא משתיק ליה אילימא משום דסבירא ליה כרבי יהודה ותנא תני כרבי מאיר משום דסבירא ליה כרבי יהודה מאן דתני כרבי מאיר משתיק ליה,ועוד מי סבר לה כרבי יהודה והאמר רב חנן בר אמי כי מורי להו רב לתלמידיה מורי להו כר' מאיר וכי דריש בפירקא דריש כרבי יהודה משום עמי הארץ,וכי תימא תנא בפירקיה תנא קמיה אטו כולי עלמא לתנא צייתי לאמורא צייתי,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק תנא שוחט תנא קמיה דרב השוחט בשבת בשוגג יאכל במזיד לא יאכל אמר ליה מאי דעתיך כרבי מאיר עד כאן לא קשרי רבי מאיר אלא במבשל דראוי לכוס אבל שוחט דאין ראוי לכוס לא,והא מתניתין דשוחט הוא ואמר רב הונא דרש חייא בר רב משמיה דרב אסורה באכילה ליומא ונסבין חבריא למימר רבי יהודה היא הא רבי מאיר שרי,כי שרי רבי מאיר | 15a. bOne may move all metal lampson Shabbat, even old ones, because they do not become repugt like earthenware lamps, bexcept fora metal blamp that one kindled on that same Shabbatand that was burning when Shabbat began, which it is prohibited to move for the entire Shabbat due to the prohibition against extinguishing.,The Gemara rejects that analogy. bAnd perhapsit bis different there,in the case of the burning lamp, bas he set it aside bydirect bactionwhen he kindled the lamp. By contrast, in the case of an animal, he did not set it aside, and therefore, perhaps once it is slaughtered it is permitted., bRather, Rav Ashi said:When Rav said that the ihalakhathat consumption of the animal is prohibited for that day is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, the reference bisto the opinion of bRabbi Yehuda with regard to one who cooks, as we learnedin a ibaraita /i: With regard to bone who cooks on Shabbat,if he did so bunwittingly, he may eatwhat he cooked. If he acted bintentionally, he may not eatwhat he cooked. This is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. /b, bRabbi Yehuda says:If he cooked the food bunwittingly, he may eatit bat the conclusion of Shabbat,as the Sages penalized even one who sinned unwittingly by prohibiting him from deriving immediate benefit from the dish that he cooked. If he cooked it bintentionally, he may never eatfrom it., bRabbi Yoḥa HaSandlar says:If he acted bunwittingly,the food bmay be eaten at the conclusion of Shabbat by others, but not by him.If he cooked the food bintentionally, it may never be eaten, neither by him nor by others.According to Rav, the mishna is referring to a case where one slaughtered the animal unwittingly. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the slaughter is valid but it is prohibited to eat the animal on Shabbat.,The Gemara challenges this: bAnd let us interpretthe mishna as referring btoa case where he slaughtered the animal bintentionally, andexplain that it is in accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Meir,who rules that eating the animal in such a case is permitted only after the conclusion of Shabbat.,The Gemara responds: That possibility should bnot enter your mind, asthe case of slaughter on Shabbat is juxtaposed to and btaughtin a manner bsimilar tothe case of slaughter on bYom Kippur. Just aswith regard to slaughter on bYom Kippur,it bis no differentwhether one slaughtered it bunwittingly andit bis no differentwhether he slaughtered it bintentionally, he may not eatit that day due to the fast, bso too here,with regard to slaughter on Shabbat, it bis no differentwhether he slaughtered it bunwittingly andit bis no differentwhether he slaughtered it bintentionally, he may not eatit that day. Rabbi Meir, though, deems it permitted for one who cooked unwittingly to eat the cooked food on Shabbat.,The Gemara asks: bAnd can you interpretthe mishna as referring btoa case of bunwittingslaughter bandin accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yehuda? But isn’t it taughtin the mishna: bAlthough he is liable toreceive the bdeathpenalty? One is liable to be executed only if he intentionally performs labor on Shabbat. The Gemara answers that bthisis what the mishna bis saying: Althoughif he slaughtered it bintentionally he is liable toreceive the bdeathpenalty, bhere,in a case bwherehe slaughtered the animal bunwittingly, his slaughter is valid. /b,The Gemara challenges: bAnd let us interpretthe mishna bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yoḥa HaSandlar, who says:It bis no differentwhether he cooked bunwittingly andit bis no differentwhether he cooked bintentionally; he may not eat iton Shabbat. The Gemara explains: bRabbi Yoḥa HaSandlar draws a distinction with regard to the conclusion of Shabbat,in that he permits eating food cooked on Shabbat bfor others and not for him,while bthe itannaof ourmishna bteaches: His slaughter is valid,without qualification, indicating that with regard to his ruling it bis no different for him andit bis no different for others. /b,§ bThe itannataughta ibaraita bbefore Rav: One who cooks on Shabbat unwittingly may eatthe food that he cooked; if he did so bintentionally, he may not eatthe food that he cooked, band Rav silenced him. /b,The Gemara asks: bWhat is the reasonthat bRav silenced him? If we sayit is bbecauseRav bholds in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda and the itannataughtthe ibaraita bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Meir,can it be that merely bbecause he holds in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda he silences one who teachesa ibaraita bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Meir? /b, bAnd furthermore, doesRav bhold in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda? But doesn’t Rav Ḥa bar Ami say: When Rav issues a ruling to his students, he issues a ruling in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Meir, and when he teaches inhis bpublic lecturedelivered on the Festival, bhe teaches in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda, due tohis concern that bthe ignoramuseswould treat the prohibition of labor on Shabbat with disdain?, bAnd if you would saythat bthe itannataughtthe ibaraita bbeforeRav bduring the public lectureand Rav silenced him so that the ignoramuses would not learn from him, bis that to saythat beveryoneattending the public lecture blistens to the itanna /iwho is citing the ibaraita /i? There is no need to silence the itanna /i, because bthey listen to the disseminator [ iamora /i],the Sage who repeats what he hears from Rav loudly for the benefit of those attending the lecture, and the iamoraquoted Rav’s ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda., bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The itannataughtthe ihalakhaof one who bslaughters before Rav: One who slaughtersan animal bon Shabbat unwittingly may eatfrom the slaughtered animal; if he slaughtered it bintentionally, he may not eatfrom the slaughtered animal. Rav bsaid tothe itanna /i: bWhat do you think,that the ihalakhais bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Meir? Rabbi Meir deemseating bpermitted only inthe case of bone who cooksunwittingly on Shabbat, baseven before he cooks the food bit is fit to be chewed [ ilakhos /i],i.e., to be eaten uncooked, in a permitted manner, and therefore it was not set aside from use when Shabbat began. bButin the case of one who bslaughtersan animal, bwherethe meat was bnot fit to chew,Rabbi Meir does bnotpermit eating it on Shabbat, because it was set aside from use on Shabbat.,The Gemara asks: bBut isn’t the mishnaaddressing the case bof one who slaughtersan animal, band Rav Huna saysthat bḤiyya bar Rav taught in the name of Rav: Consumptionof the animal is bprohibited forthat bday, andthe members of bthe companyof Sages, i.e., those in the academy, btended to saythat this ihalakha bisthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda,from which it may be inferred: bBut Rabbi Meir permitsconsumption of the slaughtered animal even on Shabbat, and he is not concerned that the animal was set aside from use when Shabbat began?,The Gemara answers: bWhen Rabbi Meir permitsconsumption of the slaughtered animal even on Shabbat |
|
19. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
49b. ואינו מתקבל:,תנו רבנן לעולם ימכור אדם כל מה שיש לו וישא בת תלמיד חכם לא מצא בת תלמיד חכם ישא בת גדולי הדור לא מצא בת גדולי הדור ישא בת ראשי כנסיות לא מצא בת ראשי כנסיות ישא בת גבאי צדקה לא מצא בת גבאי צדקה ישא בת מלמדי תינוקות ולא ישא בת עמי הארץ מפני שהן שקץ ונשותיהן שרץ ועל בנותיהן הוא אומר (דברים כז, כא) ארור שוכב עם כל בהמה,תניא ר' אומר עם הארץ אסור לאכול בשר (בהמה) שנאמר (ויקרא יא, מו) זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף כל העוסק בתורה מותר לאכול בשר בהמה ועוף וכל שאינו עוסק בתורה אסור לאכול בשר בהמה ועוף:,אמר רבי אלעזר עם הארץ מותר לנוחרו ביום הכיפורים שחל להיות בשבת אמרו לו תלמידיו ר' אמור לשוחטו אמר להן זה טעון ברכה וזה אינו טעון ברכה:,אמר רבי אלעזר עם הארץ אסור להתלוות עמו בדרך שנאמר (דברים ל, כ) כי היא חייך ואורך ימיך על חייו לא חס על חיי חבירו לא כל שכן,אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יוחנן עם הארץ מותר לקורעו כדג אמר רבי שמואל בר יצחק ומגבו:,תניא אמר רבי עקיבא כשהייתי עם הארץ אמרתי מי יתן לי תלמיד חכם ואנשכנו כחמור אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי אמור ככלב אמר להן זה נושך ושובר עצם וזה נושך ואינו שובר עצם:,תניא היה רבי מאיר אומר כל המשיא בתו לעם הארץ כאילו כופתה ומניחה לפני ארי מה ארי דורס ואוכל ואין לו בושת פנים אף עם הארץ מכה ובועל ואין לו בושת פנים:,תניא רבי אליעזר אומר אילמלא אנו צריכין להם למשא ומתן היו הורגין אותנו,תנא רבי חייא כל העוסק בתורה לפני עם הארץ כאילו בועל ארוסתו בפניו שנאמר (דברים לג, ד) תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה אל תקרי מורשה אלא מאורסה,גדולה שנאה ששונאין עמי הארץ לתלמיד חכם יותר משנאה ששונאין עובדי כוכבים את ישראל ונשותיהן יותר מהן: תנא שנה ופירש יותר מכולן,תנו רבנן ששה דברים נאמרו בעמי הארץ אין מוסרין להן עדות ואין מקבלין ממנו עדות ואין מגלין להן סוד ואין ממנין אותן אפוטרופוס על היתומים ואין ממנין אותן אפוטרופוס על קופה של צדקה ואין מתלוין עמהן בדרך ויש אומרים אף אין מכריזין על אבידתו,ותנא קמא זמנין דנפיק מיניה זרעא מעליא ואכיל ליה שנאמר (איוב כז, יז) יכין וצדיק ילבש:,וכן מי שיצא וכו':,למימרא דרבי מאיר סבר כביצה הוא דחשיב ורבי יהודה סבר כזית נמי חשיב ורמינהי עד כמה הן מזמנין עד כזית ורבי יהודה אומר עד כביצה,אמר רבי יוחנן מוחלפת השיטה,אביי אמר לעולם לא תיפוך התם בקראי פליגי הכא בסברא פליגי התם בקראי פליגי רבי מאיר סבר (דברים ח, י) ואכלת זו אכילה ושבעת זו שתיה ואכילה בכזית ורבי יהודה סבר ואכלת ושבעת אכילה שיש בה שביעה ואיזו זו בכביצה,הכא בסברא פליגי דרבי מאיר סבר חזרתו כטומאתו מה טומאתו בכביצה אף חזרתו בכביצה ור' יהודה סבר חזרתו | 49b. band unacceptable. /b, bThe Sages taught: A person should alwaysbe willing to bsell all he hasin order to bmarry the daughter of a Torah scholar.If bhe cannot find the daughter of a Torah scholar, he should marry the daughter ofone of the bgreatpeople bof the generation,who are pious although they are not Torah scholars. If bhe cannot find the daughter ofone of the bgreatpeople bof the generation, he should marry the daughter ofone of bthe heads of the congregations.If bhe cannot find the daughter ofone of bthe heads of the congregations, he should marry the daughter ofone of bthe charity collectors.If bhe cannot find the daughter ofone of bthe charity collectors, he should marry the daughter ofone of bthe schoolteachers.However, bhe should not marry the daughter of an ignoramus [ iam ha’aretz /i] because they are vermin and their wives aresimilar to ba creeping animal,as their lifestyle involves the violation of numerous prohibitions. bAnd with regard to their daughtersthe verse bstates: “Cursed is he who lies with an animal”(Deuteronomy 27:21), as they are similar to animals in that they lack any knowledge or moral sense.,The Gemara continues its discussion with regard to an ignoramus. bIt was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays: It is prohibited for an ignoramus to eat meat, as it is stated: “This is the law [ itorah /i] of the beast and of the fowl”(Leviticus 11:46). He expounds: bAnyone who engages in Torahstudy bis permitted to eat the meat of animals and fowl, and anyone who does not engage in Torahstudy bis prohibited to eat the meat of animals or fowl. /b,The Gemara proceeds to mention some sharply negative statements of the Sages in which they overstated their negative sentiments with regard to ignoramuses, although these ignoramuses were wicked in addition to being boors ( ige’onim /i). bRabbi Elazar said: It is permitted to stab an ignoramusto death bon Yom Kippur that occurs on Shabbat. His students said to him: Master,at least bsaythat it is permitted bto slaughter him. He said to them:I intentionally used the word stab, as bthisterm, slaughtering, brequires a blessingwhen one slaughters an animal, band thatterm, stabbing, bdoes not require a blessingin any context., bRabbi Elazar said: It is prohibited to accompany an ignoramuswhile traveling bon the roaddue to concern that the ignoramus might try to harm his traveling partner, bas it is statedwith regard to Torah: b“For it is your life and the length of your days”(Deuteronomy 30:20). An ignoramus has not studied any Torah, indicating that bhe is not concerned about his own life;with regard bto another’s life, all the more so. /b, bRabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: It is permitted to tearopen ban ignoramus like a fish. Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: Andone may cut him open bfrom his backand thereby cause his immediate death by piercing his spinal cord rather than his stomach., bIt was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Akiva said: When I was an ignoramus I said: Who will give me a Torah scholarso that bI will bite him like a donkey? His students said to him: Master, saythat you would bite him blike a dog! He said to them:I specifically used that wording, as bthis one,a donkey, bbites and breaks bones, and that one,a dog, bbites but does not break bones. /b, bIt was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Meir would say: Anyone who marries off his daughter to an ignoramusis considered bas though he binds her and places her before a lion.Why is this so? bJust as a lion maulsits prey band eats and has no shame, so too, an ignoramus strikeshis wife bandthen bengages in sexual relationswith her without appeasing her first, band has no shame. /b, bIt was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Eliezer says: If we did not needthe ignoramuses bfor business, they would kill us. /b,The Gemara shifts to a discussion of an ignoramus who has some degree of sensitivity ( iMe’iri /i). bRabbi Ḥiyya taught: Anyone who engages in Torahstudy bin the presence of an ignoramus,causing the ignoramus embarrassment and anguish over his inability to study Torah, bis considered as though he had sexual relations withthe ignoramus’s bbetrothedbride bin his presence, as it is stated: “Moses commanded us the Torah, an inheritance[imorasha/b] for the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4). bDo not read itas binheritance [ imorasha /i]; rather,read it as bbetrothed [ ime’orasa /i].The Torah is compared to the betrothed bride of the Jewish people until one studies it and thereby consummates his marriage with it.,Similarly, he said: bThe hatred which ignoramuses have for a Torah scholar is greater than the hatred that the nations of the world have for the Jewish people. Andthe bwivesof the ignoramuses hate Torah scholars bmore thanthe ignoramuses themselves. bIt was taughtin the iToseftathat one bwho studiedTorah band lefthis studies hates Torah scholars bmore than all of them. /b, bThe Sages taught: Six statements were made with regard to ignoramuses: One may not entrust them with testimony,i.e., one may not appoint them as witnesses to a particular event or transaction. Additionally, bone may not accept testimony from them,as they are not considered trustworthy, and bone should not reveal a secret to them,as they will reveal it. bOne may not appoint them as steward [ iapotropos /i] overan estate belonging to borphans,due to concern that they might make improper use of the orphans’ property. Likewise, bone may not appoint them as guardian over a charity fund.Finally, bone should not accompany themwhile traveling bon the road,due to concern for one’s safety. bAnd there are those who say: One does not even announce their lostitems, meaning that if one finds a lost article from such a person, he is allowed to keep it without making an effort to locate the owner ( iMe’iri /i).,The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of bthe first itanna /i,who holds that one must announce having found the lost article of an ignoramus? The Gemara explains: bSometimes upstanding offspring will come from him and will consumethe property, bas it is stated: “He may prepare it but the just shall put it on”(Job 27:17). It is possible for a wicked person to prepare something for himself that will later be used by a righteous person.,The Gemara returns to explaining the mishna. It was taught: bAnd so too, one who leftJerusalem with sacrificial meat in his possession must return to Jerusalem to burn it, just as one is required to return in order to remove leaven from his possession. According to Rabbi Meir, this ihalakhaapplies with regard to an egg-bulk of sacrificial meat or leaven, whereas Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says the minimum amount for both is an olive-bulk.,The Gemara asks: bIs that to say that Rabbi Meir holdsthat ban egg-bulk isthe minimal amount that is considered bsignificant, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that an olive-bulk is alsoconsidered bsignificant?The Gemara braises a contradictionfrom a mishna in iBerakhot /i: bHow muchfood must one eat in order bto obligatethose with whom he ate bin a izimmun /i? An olive-bulkof food is sufficient according to the unattributed opinion in the mishna, which is generally that of Rabbi Meir. bAnd Rabbi Yehuda says: An egg-bulkis the minimum measure to obligate those with whom one ate in a izimmun /i. This seems to contradict the opinions of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda stated in the mishna here., bRabbi Yoḥa said: The opinions are reversedin one of these sources, and must be emended., bAbaye said: Actually, do not reversethe opinions. bThere, they disagree with regard tothe interpretation of bverses,while bhere, they disagree with regard to logical reasoning.How so? bThere,with regard to izimmun /i, bthey disagree with regard tothe interpretation of bverses. Rabbi Meir holdsthat the verse: “And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:10) should be understood as follows: b“And you shall eat,” that is eating; “and be satisfied,” that is drinking.The standard halakhic principle is that beatingis defined as the consumption of ban olive-bulk. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: “And you shall eat and you shall be satisfied”refers bto eating that includes satisfaction. And what isconsidered eating with satisfaction? It is consumption of ban egg-bulk. /b,However, bhere,in the cases of leaven and consecrated food, bthey disagreenot with regard to the interpretation of verses but bwith regard to logical reasoning, as Rabbi Meir holds:The requirement to breturnconsecrated food bis analogous to its ritual impurity. Just as itssusceptibility to britual impurity isonly when it is the size of an begg-bulk, so too,the requirement to breturn it isonly when it is the size of an begg-bulk. And Rabbi Yehuda holds:The requirement to breturnconsecrated food |
|
20. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
145b. אלא לעדות אשה בלבד,איבעיא להו עד מפי עד לעדות בכור מהו רב אמי אסיר ורב אסי שרי,א"ל רב אמי לרב אסי והא תנא דבי מנשיא אין עד מפי עד כשר אלא לעדות אשה בלבד אימא לעדות שהאשה כשרה לה בלבד רב יימר אכשר עד מפי עד לבכור קרי עליה מרימר יימר שרי בוכרא והלכתא עד מפי עד כשר לבכור:,חלות דבש: כי אתא רב הושעיא מנהרדעא אתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה זיתים וענבים שריסקן מע"ש ויצאו מעצמן אסורין ור"א ור"ש מתירין,אמר רב יוסף גברא יתירא אתא לאשמעינן א"ל אביי טובא קמ"ל דאי ממתניתין הוה אמינא התם הוא דמעיקרא אוכלא ולבסוף אוכלא אבל הכא דמעיקרא אוכלא ולבסוף משקה אימא לא קמ"ל:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כל שבא בחמין מערב שבת שורין אותו בחמין בשבת וכל שלא בא בחמין מערב שבת מדיחין אותו בחמין בשבת חוץ מן המליח הישן (ודגים מלוחין קטנים) וקולייס האיספנין שהדחתן זו היא גמר מלאכתן:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big כגון מאי אמר רב ספרא כגון תרנגולתא דר' אבא ואמר רב ספרא זימנא חדא איקלעית להתם ואוכלן מיניה ואי לא רבי אבא דאשקיין חמרא בר תלתא טרפי איתנסי,רבי יוחנן רייק מכותח דבבלאי אמר רב יוסף ולירוק אנן מתרנגולתא דרבי אבא ועוד אמר רב גזא זימנא חדא איקלעית להתם ועבדית כותח דבבלאי שאילו מיניה כל בריחי מערבא:,כל שלא בא בחמין וכו': הדיח מאי אמר רב יוסף הדיח חייב חטאת אמר מר בריה דרבינא אף אנן נמי תנינא חוץ ממליח ישן וקולייס האיספנין שהדחתן זו היא גמר מלאכתן שמע מינה,יתיב רבי חייא בר אבא ורבי אסי קמיה דרבי יוחנן ויתיב רבי יוחנן וקא מנמנם אמר ליה רבי חייא בר אבא לרבי אסי מפני מה עופות שבבבל שמנים א"ל כלך למדבר עזה ואראך שמנים מהן מפני מה מועדים שבבבל שמחים מפני שהן עניים מפני מה ת"ח שבבבל מצויינין לפי שאינן בני תורה מפני מה עובדי כוכבים מזוהמי' מפני שאוכלין שקצי' ורמשי',איתער בהו רבי יוחנן אמר להו דרדקי לא כך אמרתי לכם (משלי ז, ד) אמור לחכמה אחותי את אם ברור לך הדבר כאחותך שהיא אסורה לך אומרהו ואם לאו לא תאמרהו אמרו ליה ולימא לן מר איזה מהן מפני מה עופות שבבבל שמנים מפני שלא גלו שנאמר (ירמיהו מח, יא) שאנן מואב מנעוריו ושקט הוא אל שמריו ובגולה לא הלך,והכא מנלן דגלו דתניא רבי יהודה אומר נ"ב שנה לא עבר איש ביהודה שנאמר (ירמיהו ט, ט) על ההרים אשא בכי ונהי וגו' מעוף השמים ועד בהמה נדדו הלכו בהמ"ה בגימטריא חמשין ותרתין הוו,א"ר יעקב א"ר יוחנן כולן חזרו חוץ מקולייס האיספנין דאמר רב הני מדרי דבבל מהדרי מיא לעין עיטם והאי כיון דלא שריר שדריה לא מצי סליק,מפני מה מועדים שבבבל שמחים מפני שלא היו באותה קללה דכתיב (הושע ב, יג) והשבתי כל משושה חגה חדשה ושבתה וכל מועדה וכתיב (ישעיהו א, יד) חדשיכם ומועדיכם שנאה נפשי היו עלי לטורח מאי היו עלי לטורח א"ר אלעזר אמר הקב"ה לא דיין לישראל שחוטאין לפני אלא שמטריחין אותי לידע איזו גזירה קשה אביא עליהן א"ר יצחק אין לך כל רגל ורגל שלא באתה בולשת לציפורי ואמר רבי חנינא אין לך כל רגל ורגל שלא בא לטבריה אגמון וקמטון ובעל זמורה,מפני מה ת"ח שבבבל מצויינין לפי שאינן בני מקומן דאמרי אינשי במתא שמאי בלא מתא תותבאי (ישעיהו כז, ו) הבאים ישרש יעקב יציץ ופרח ישראל תני רב יוסף אלו תלמידי חכמים שבבבל שעושין ציצין ופרחים לתורה,מפני מה עובדי כוכבים מזוהמין שלא עמדו על הר סיני שבשעה | 145b. bonly for testimonythat ba woman’shusband died, enabling her to remarry. Only in that case can a ruling rely on hearsay testimony, and that is specifically so the woman will be allowed to remarry., bA dilemma was raised beforethe Sages about a related matter: With regard to bhearsay testimony in testimonypermitting a priest to eat ba firstbornanimal, bwhat isthe ihalakha /i? After the destruction of the Temple, the Sages decreed that if a priest has the firstborn offspring of a kosher animal and it becomes blemished, he must bring witnesses to testify that he did not cause the blemish. Priests were suspected of violating the prohibition against inflicting a wound on firstborn animals to enable them to eat the animals. The question here pertains to a case in which there is no one available who can testify that he saw firsthand how the animal was blemished, but there is someone who heard from an eyewitness how the blemish was caused. bRav Ami prohibitedaccepting hearsay testimony in this case, band Rav Asi permitteddoing so., bRav Ami said to Rav Asi: Didn’t the schoolof bMenashya teachthat bhearsay testimony is only valid in testimonyenabling ba womanto remarry, indicating that it is not accepted in the case of a firstborn animal? Rav Asi answered: Emend the previously cited ruling and bsay:Hearsay testimony is bonlyvalid bin testimony for whichthe testimony of ba woman is valid.A woman’s testimony is accepted with regard to the death of a man, enabling his wife to remarry, and it is also accepted with regard to a firstborn animal. bRav Yeimar deemed hearsay testimonyvalid in permitting the slaughter of a firstborn animal that developed a blemish. bMareimar called him: Yeimar who permits the firstborn;Mareimar was of the opinion that testimony of that kind is invalid and cannot provide the basis to allow the animal to be slaughtered. The Gemara concludes: bAnd the ihalakhaisthat bhearsay testimony is valid with regard to a firstbornanimal.,We learned in the mishna that according to Rabbi Eliezer, honey that flows on its own from bhoneycombsis permitted on Shabbat. bWhen Rav Hoshaya came from Neharde’a, he came and brought a ibaraitawith him:With regard to bolives and grapes that one crushed before Shabbat andtheir juices bseeped out on their ownon Shabbat, the juices bare prohibitedfor use on Shabbat; band Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon permitusing them., bRav Yosef saidrhetorically: bDid hemerely bcome to teach us an additional person?This opinion already appears in the mishna in the name of Rabbi Elazar. Did Rav Hoshaya cite the ibaraitamerely to add the name of Rabbi Shimon? bAbaye said to him: He is teaching us a great deal, as ifwe learned this matter bfrom the mishnaalone, bI would have said: It is there that it ispermitted, because binitiallyit was bfood and ultimatelyit remained bfood,since it is possible to assert that the honey that seeped is a food rather than a liquid. bHowever, here,with regard to olives and grapes, bwhich initiallywere bfood and ultimatelybecame bliquid, saythat it is bnotpermitted even according to Rabbi Elazar. Therefore, bhe is teaching usthat Rabbi Elazar rules leniently even in the case of olives and grapes., strongMISHNA: /strong bAnysalted food item bthat wasalready bplaced in hot water,i.e., cooked, bbefore Shabbat, one may soak it in hot watereven bon Shabbat. And anything that was not placed in hot water before Shabbat, one may rinse it in hot water on Shabbatbut may not soak it, bwith the exception of old saltedfish band small salted fish andthe ikolyas ha’ispanin /ifish, bfor which rinsingwith hot water bitself is completion of the prohibited laborof cooking., strongGEMARA: /strong We learned in the mishna that an item that was cooked before Shabbat may be soaked in hot water on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: bIn what casewould soaking in hot water be required after the item was already cooked? bRav Safra said: In the case of the chicken of Rabbi Abba,which for medical reasons was cooked so thoroughly that it completely dissolved. bAnd Rav Safra said: One time I happened to come there and he fed mechicken prepared that way, band if notfor the fact that bRabbi Abba gave me three-leaf-,i.e., year, bold wine to drink, I would have been forcedto vomit., bThe Gemara relates that Rabbi Yoḥa would spit from the thought of Babylonian ikutaḥ /i,because he found it so disgusting. bRav Yosef said: Then we should spit fromthe thought of bRabbi Abba’s chicken,which is even more disgusting to people from Babylonia. bAnd furthermore, Rav Gaza said:On bone occasion I happened to come there,to Eretz Yisrael, band I prepared Babylonian ikutaḥ /i,and ball of the sick people of the West,Eretz Yisrael, basked me for it.Apparently, not everyone in Eretz Yisrael found it disgusting.,We learned in the mishna: bAnything that was notcooked bin hot waterbefore Shabbat, one may rinse it in hot water on Shabbat except for salted fish and ikolyas ha’ispanin /i. The Gemara asks: If boneunwittingly brinsedit, bwhat isthe ihalakha /i? bRav Yosef said:If bone rinsedthese foods, he is bliable tobring ba sin-offeringfor having performed the prohibited labor of cooking. bMar, son of Ravina, said: We, too, have also learnedthis ruling in the mishna, which states: bExcept for old salted fish and ikolyas ha’ispanin /i, rinsing itself is completion of their prohibited laborof cooking. One who rinses these items is considered to have performed a prohibited labor. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, blearn from thisthat this is the ruling.,Apropos relations between the Jews of Eretz Yisrael and Babylonia, the Gemara relates: bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Asi were sitting before Rabbi Yoḥa, and Rabbi Yoḥa was sitting and dozing.In the meantime the two of them conversed. bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Asi: For whatreason bare the fowl in Babylonia fatterthan those in Eretz Yisrael? bHe said to him:This is not at all the case; bgo to the desert of Gazain Eretz Yisrael, band I will show youfowl that are bfatter than them.Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba then asked: bFor whatreason are bFestivals in Babylonia more joyousthan those in Eretz Yisrael? Rabbi Asi answered him: bBecausein Babylonia bthey are poor,and it is only on Festivals that they have a lot to eat, which causes them to rejoice. Rabbi Ḥiyya then asked: bFor whatreason bare Torah scholars in Babylonia distinguishedby their special rabbinic garb? Rabbi Asi answered: bBecause they are not well-versed in Torah.If they would not distinguish themselves by dressing differently, they would not be respected for their Torah knowledge. He then asked: bFor whatreason bare gentilesethically bcontaminated?He answered: bBecause they eat abominable creatures and crawling things,and that causes bad character traits., bRabbi Yoḥa woke updue to their discussion band said to them:You bchildren, did I not tell you this,that the verse b“Say to wisdom: You are my sister,and call understanding your kin” (Proverbs 7:4) means that bif the matter is as clear to you asthe fact that byour sister is forbidden to you, say it, and if not, do not say it;and these explanations that you offered are unfounded. bThey said to him: Then will the Master tell usthe answers to bsome of them?He said to them: bWhy arethe bfowl in Babylonia fatterthan those in Eretz Yisrael? bBecause they were not exiled, as it says: “Moab has been at ease since his youth and he has settled on his lees,and he was not emptied from vessel to vessel band did not go into captivity;therefore his taste remained in him and his scent did not change” (Jeremiah 48:11). Apparently, one who is not exiled retains his strength., bAnd herein Eretz Yisrael, bfrom where do wederive bthateven the animals and birds bwere exiled? As it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yehuda saysthat bno person passed throughthe land of bJudeafor bfifty-two years, as it is stated: “I will raise crying and wailing for the mountainsand a lamentation for the pastures of the wilderness, for they have been burned, with no person passing through, and they do not hear the voice of the cattle, bfrom the bird of the heavens to the beast [ ibehema /i,spelled ibeit /i, iheh /i, imem /i, iheh /i], ball have fled and gone”(Jeremiah 9:9). iBehemahas a numerical value of fifty-two,alluding to the fact that no one passed through for fifty-two years. From the verse cited in this ibaraita /i, it is clear that even the animals and birds were exiled, as it states: “All have fled and gone.”, bRabbi Ya’akov saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: They all returned except for the ikolyas ha’ispanin /i, as Rav said: Those inclines of Babylonia return the waterthrough underground watercourses bto the spring of Eitamin Eretz Yisrael, and the fish also returned through these watercourses. bAnd thisfish, the ikolyas /i, bbecause its spine is not strong, it could not ascendthese watercourses and did not return to Eretz Yisrael.,Rabbi Yoḥa continued to answer the questions of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Asi: bFor whatreason are the bFestivals in Babylonia more joyousthan those in Eretz Yisrael? bBecause they were notincluded bin that cursewith which Eretz Yisrael was cursed, bas it is written: “And I will cause all of her happiness to cease, her Festival, her New Moon, and her Shabbat and all her Festivals”(Hosea 2:13). bAnd it isalso bwritten: “My soul hates your New Moons and your Festivals; they are a burden to Me;I am weary to bear them” (Isaiah 1:14). bWhat isthe meaning of the phrase: b“They are a burden to me”? Rabbi Elazar saidthat bthe Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Is it not enough for the Jewish people that they sin before Me, that theyalso bburden Me to know which harsh decree I will bring upon them? Rabbi Yitzḥak said:Because of this curse, bthere is not a single Festival on which troops did not come to Tzipporito conduct searches or to collect taxes. bAnd Rabbi Ḥanina said: There is not a single Festival on which an iegmonand a ikamtonand a branch bearer,Roman officials, bdid not come to Tiberiasto collect taxes, thereby disrupting the festive celebrations., bFor whatreason are bthe Torah scholars in Babylonia distinguishedby special garb? bBecause they are not native to that placeand therefore require special dress to distinguish themselves, bas people sayin the folk expression: bInmy own bcity,I am honored for bmy name; ina place that is bnotmy own bcity,I am honored for bmy clothing.The Gemara then praised the Sages of Babylonia by interpreting the verse “In days bto come Jacob will take root, Israel will bud and blossom”(Isaiah 27:6). bRav Yosef taught: These are the Torah scholars in Babylonia, who add buds and blossoms to the Torah. /b,Rabbi Yoḥa then explained to them: bWhy are gentilesethically bcontaminated?It is because bthey did not stand on Mount Sinai. As when /b |
|