Home About Network of subjects Linked subjects heatmap Book indices included Search by subject Search by reference Browse subjects Browse texts

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database



8635
Palestinian Talmud, Megillah, 4.1
NaN


Intertexts (texts cited often on the same page as the searched text):

20 results
1. Josephus Flavius, Life, 11 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

2. Mishnah, Avot, 2, 5, 1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

3. Mishnah, Megillah, 4.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

4.4. One who reads the Torah [in public] may not read les than three verses. And he should not read to the translator more than one verse [at a time], but [if reading from the book of a] prophet [he may read to him] three at a time. If the three verses constitute three separate paragraphs, he must read them [to the translator] one by one. They may skip [from place to place] in a prophet but not in the Torah. How far may he skip [in the prophet]? [Only] so far that the translator will not have stopped [before he finds his place]."
4. Mishnah, Peah, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

2.6. It happened that Rabbi Shimon of Mitzpah planted his field [with two different kinds] and came before Rabban Gamaliel. They both went up to the Chamber of Hewn Stone and asked [about the law]. Nahum the scribe said: I have a tradition from Rabbi Meyasha, who received it from Abba, who received it from the pairs [of sage], who received it from the prophets, a halakhah of Moses from Sinai, that one who plants his field with two species of wheat, if he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he gives only one peah, but if two threshing-floors, he gives two peahs."
5. New Testament, Luke, 4.2 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

4.2. for forty days, being tempted by the devil. He ate nothing in those days. Afterward, when they were completed, he was hungry.
6. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 1.7, 8.8-8.9 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

1.7. רַבִּי יִצְחָק פָּתַח (תהלים קיט, קס): רֹאשׁ דְּבָרְךָ אֱמֶת וגו', אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק מִתְּחִלַּת בְּרִיָּתוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם רֹאשׁ דְּבָרְךָ אֱמֶת. בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים, (ירמיה י, י): וַה' אֱלֹהִים אֱמֶת. וּלְעוֹלָם כָּל מִשְׁפַּט צִדְקֶךָ, שֶׁכָּל גְּזֵרָה וּגְזֵרָה שֶׁאַתָּה גּוֹזֵר עַל בְּרִיּוֹתֶיךָ הֵן מַצְדִיקִין עֲלֵיהֶם אֶת הַדִּין וּמְקַבְּלִין אוֹתוֹ בֶּאֱמוּנָה, וְאֵין כָּל בְּרִיָה יְכוֹלָה לוֹמַר שְׁתֵּי רְשֻׁיּוֹת בָּרְאוּ הָעוֹלָם. וַיְדַבְּרוּ אֱלֹהִים, אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא וַיְדַבֵּר אֱלֹהִים. וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֱלֹהִים, אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים. בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרְאוּ אֱלֹהִים, אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים. 8.8. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אָמַר, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה משֶׁה כּוֹתֵב אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, הָיָה כּוֹתֵב מַעֲשֵׂה כָּל יוֹם וָיוֹם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לַפָּסוּק הַזֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ, אָמַר לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים מָה אַתָּה נוֹתֵן פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה לַמִּינִים, אֶתְמְהָא. אָמַר לוֹ כְּתֹב, וְהָרוֹצֶה לִטְעוֹת יִטְעֶה. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, משֶׁה, הָאָדָם הַזֶּה שֶׁבָּרָאתִי, לֹא גְּדוֹלִים וּקְטַנִּים אֲנִי מַעֲמִיד מִמֶּנּוּ, שֶׁאִם יָבוֹא הַגָּדוֹל לִטֹּל רְשׁוּת מִן הַקָּטָן מִמֶּנוּ וְהוּא אוֹמֵר מָה אֲנִי צָרִיךְ לִטֹּל רְשׁוּת מִן הַקָּטָן מִמֶּנִּי, וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים לוֹ לְמַד מִבּוֹרְאֶךָ, שֶׁהוּא בָּרָא אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹנִים וְאֶת הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים, כֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּא לִבְרֹאת אֶת הָאָדָם נִמְלַךְ בְּמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת. אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי לֵית הָכָא מַלְכוּ, אֶלָּא מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה מְטַיֵּל בְּפֶתַח פָּלָטִין שֶׁלּוֹ, וְרָאָה בְּלוֹרִין אַחַת מוּשְׁלֶכֶת, אָמַר מַה נַּעֲשֶׂה בָהּ, מֵהֶן אוֹמְרִים דִּימוּסִיּוֹת, וּמֵהֶן אוֹמְרִים פְּרִיבְטָאוֹת, אָמַר הַמֶּלֶךְ אִינְדַרְטִין אֲנִי עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָהּ, מִי מְעַכֵּב. 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. 1.7. Rabbi Yitzchak opened with (Psalms 119:160): \"The beginning of Your word is truth, and Your righteous law is forever.\" Rabbi Yitzchak said: From the beginning of the creation of the world \"the beginning of Your word is truth.\" \"In the beginning God created\"--(Jeremiah 10:10) \"Your God is true.\" \"And Your righteous law is forever\"--that for every restriction that you place on your creations, they affirm the righteousness of your judgement and accept it with faith. No creation can say that two powers created the world. It is not written: \"the gods spoke\", but rather: \"God spoke\". It is not written: \"the gods said\", but rather: \"God said\". It is not written: \"in the beginning the gods created\", but rather: \"God created\"." 8.8. ... “if a great person . . . says, ‘Why do I need to take permission from one lesser than me?’ . . . they say to him: Learn from your Creator, for He created upper ones and lower ones, and when He came to create the human, He ruled with the ministering angels.”" 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)."
7. Palestinian Talmud, Hagigah, 1.7 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

8. Palestinian Talmud, Horayot, 3.5 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

9. Palestinian Talmud, Megillah, 1.9 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

10. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

85a. ובני בתירה ויונתן בן שאול רבן שמעון בן גמליאל הא דאמרן בני בתירה דאמר מר הושיבוהו בראש ומינוהו לנשיא עליהן יונתן בן שאול דקא"ל לדוד (שמואל א כג, יז) ואתה תמלוך על ישראל ואני אהיה לך למשנה,ממאי דלמא יונתן בן שאול דחזא דגריר עלמא בתר דוד בני בתירה נמי דחזו להלל דעדיף מינייהו אלא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ודאי ענוותן הוה,אמר רבי חביבין יסורין קבל עליה תליסר שני שית בצמירתא ושבע בצפרנא ואמרי לה שבעה בצמירתא ושית בצפרנא,אהורייריה דבי רבי הוה עתיר משבור מלכא כד הוה רמי כיסתא לחיותא הוה אזיל קלא בתלתא מילי הוה מכוין דרמי בההיא שעתא דעייל רבי לבית הכסא ואפי' הכי מעבר ליה קליה לקלייהו ושמעו ליה נחותי ימא,ואפ"ה יסורי דר' אלעזר בר' שמעון עדיפי מדרבי דאילו ר"א בר"ש מאהבה באו ומאהבה הלכו דרבי ע"י מעשה באו וע"י מעשה הלכו,ע"י מעשה באו מאי היא דההוא עגלא דהוו קא ממטו ליה לשחיטה אזל תליא לרישיה בכנפיה דרבי וקא בכי אמר ליה זיל לכך נוצרת אמרי הואיל ולא קא מרחם ליתו עליה יסורין,וע"י מעשה הלכו יומא חד הוה קא כנשא אמתיה דרבי ביתא הוה שדיא בני כרכושתא וקא כנשא להו אמר לה שבקינהו כתיב (תהלים קמה, ט) ורחמיו על כל מעשיו אמרי הואיל ומרחם נרחם עליה,כולהו שני יסורי דר' אלעזר לא שכיב איניש בלא זמניה כולהו שני יסורי דרבי לא איצטריך עלמא למיטרא דאמר רבה בר רב שילא קשי יומא דמיטרא כיומא דדינא ואמר אמימר אי לאו צריך לעלמא בעו רבנן רחמי עליה ומבטלי ליה אפי' הכי כי הוו עקרי פוגלא ממשרא הוה קיימא בירא מליא מיא,איקלע רבי לאתריה דר' אלעזר בר' שמעון א"ל יש לו בן לאותו צדיק אמרו לו יש לו בן וכל זונה שנשכרת בשנים שוכרתו בשמנה אתייה אסמכיה ברבי ואשלמיה לר' שמעון בן איסי בן לקוניא אחות דאמיה,כל יומא הוה אמר לקרייתי אנא איזיל אמר ליה חכים עבדו יתך וגולתא דדהבא פרסו עלך ורבי קרו לך ואת אמרת לקרייתי אנא איזיל אמר ליה מומי עזובה דא כי גדל אתא יתיב במתיבתא דרבי שמעיה לקליה אמר הא קלא דמי לקליה דר' אלעזר בר' שמעון אמרו ליה בריה הוא,קרי עליה (משלי יא, ל) פרי צדיק עץ חיים ולוקח נפשות חכם פרי צדיק עץ חיים זה ר' יוסי בר' אלעזר בר' שמעון ולוקח נפשות חכם זה ר' שמעון בן איסי בן לקוניא,כי נח נפשיה אמטוהו למערתא דאבוה הוה הדרא לה עכנא למערתא אמר ליה עכנא עכנא פתח פיך ויכנס בן אצל אביו לא פתחא להו כסבורים העם לומר שזה גדול מזה,יצתה בת קול ואמרה לא מפני שזה גדול מזה אלא זה היה בצער מערה וזה לא היה בצער מערה,איקלע רבי לאתריה דר' טרפון אמר להו יש לו בן לאותו צדיק שהיה מקפח את בניו אמרו לו בן אין לו בן בת יש לו וכל זונה שנשכרת בשנים שוכרתו בשמנה,אתיוהו לקמיה אמר ליה אי הדרת בך יהיבנא לך ברתאי הדר ביה איכא דאמרי נסבה וגירשה איכא דאמרי לא נסבה כלל כדי שלא יאמרו בשביל זו חזר זה,ולמה ליה כולי האי דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב ואמרי לה אמר ר' חייא בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן ואמרי לה אמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן כל המלמד את בן חבירו תורה זוכה ויושב בישיבה של מעלה שנאמר (ירמיהו טו, יט) אם תשוב ואשיבך לפני תעמוד,וכל המלמד את בן עם הארץ תורה אפילו הקב"ה גוזר גזירה מבטלה בשבילו שנאמר (ירמיהו טו, יט) ואם תוציא יקר מזולל כפי תהיה,אמר ר' פרנך אמר ר' יוחנן כל שהוא תלמיד חכם ובנו תלמיד חכם ובן בנו תלמיד חכם שוב אין תורה פוסקת מזרעו לעולם שנאמר (ישעיהו נט, כא) ואני זאת בריתי וגו' לא ימושו מפיך ומפי זרעך ומפי זרע זרעך אמר ה' מעתה ועד עולם,מאי אמר ה' אמר הקב"ה אני ערב לך בדבר זה מאי מעתה ועד עולם אמר ר' ירמיה מכאן ואילך תורה מחזרת על אכסניא שלה,רב יוסף יתיב ארבעין תעניתא ואקריוהו לא ימושו מפיך יתיב ארבעים תעניתא אחריני ואקריוהו לא ימושו מפיך ומפי זרעך יתיב מאה תעניתא אחריני אתא ואקריוהו לא ימושו מפיך ומפי זרעך ומפי זרע זרעך אמר מכאן ואילך לא צריכנא תורה מחזרת על אכסניא שלה,ר' זירא כי סליק לארעא דישראל יתיב מאה תעניתא דלשתכח גמרא בבלאה מיניה כי היכי דלא נטרדיה יתיב מאה אחרניתא דלא לשכוב ר' אלעזר בשניה ונפלין עילויה מילי דצבורא ויתיב מאה אחריני דלא נשלוט ביה נורא דגיהנם,כל תלתין יומי הוה בדיק נפשיה שגר תנורא סליק ויתיב בגויה ולא הוה שלטא ביה נורא יומא חד יהבו ביה רבנן עינא ואיחרכו שקיה וקרו ליה קטין חריך שקיה,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מאי דכתיב (ירמיהו ט, יא) מי האיש החכם ויבן את זאת ואשר דבר פי ה' אליו ויגידה על מה אבדה הארץ דבר זה 85a. bthe sons of Beteira; and Jonathan, son of Saul.The Gemara discusses each case: The incident revealing the modesty of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel is thatwhich bwejust bsaid,as he referred to himself modestly as a fox. bThe sons of Beteirawere exceptionally modest, as they served in the position of iNasiand yet abdicated their positions in favor of Hillel when he emigrated from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael. bAs the Master said:The sons of Beteira, upon recognizing that Hillel was a superior expert in ihalakha /i, bseated him at the head and appointed him iNasiover them(see iPesaḥim66a). bJonathan, son of Saul,was extremely modest, bas he said to David: “And you shall be king over Israel, and I shall be second to you”(I Samuel 23:17), despite the fact that his father, Saul, was the current king.,The Gemara asks: bFrom wheredo we know that the aforementioned men were truly modest? bPerhaps Jonathan, son of Saul,relinquished his rights to the kingship not due to modesty, but bbecause he saw that the world,i.e., the masses, were bdrawn after David,and he felt he had no other recourse. With regard to the bsons of Beteira also,perhaps they abdicated only because they bsaw that Hillel was greater than they,as he was able to answer questions that they could not resolve. The Gemara adds: bBut Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel certainly wasa truly bmodestindividual.,§ The Gemara returns to the previous incident. When he heard that the greatness of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was due to his suffering, bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsaidto himself: bAfflictions areevidently bprecious. He accepted thirteen yearsof afflictions bupon himself; sixyears bof stones in the kidneys and sevenyears bof scurvy [ ibitzfarna /i]. And some sayit was bsevenyears bof stones in the kidneys and sixyears bof scurvy. /b,The Gemara relates: bThe stableman [ iahuriyareih /i] of the house of RabbiYehuda HaNasi bwas wealthier than King Shapurof Persia, due to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s abundant livestock. bWhenthe stableman bwould place fodder before the livestock, the soundof their lowing bwould travelthe distance bof three imil /i. He would calculatethe right moment so bthathe would bplacethe fodder before the animals batprecisely bthat time when RabbiYehuda HaNasi bentered the latrine,so that the lowing of the animals would drown out Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s screams of pain. bBut even so,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s bvoicewas so loud that it bovercame the sound ofthe livestock, bandeven bsailors heard itout at sea.,The Gemara says: bBut even so, the afflictions of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,were bgreater thanthose bof RabbiYehuda HaNasi. The reason is bthat whereasthe afflictions of bRabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, cameupon him bout of love, and lefthim bout of love,i.e., they were solely the result of his own request, not because he deserved them, those bof RabbiYehuda HaNasi bcameupon him bdue to an incident and lefthim bdue toanother bincident. /b,The Gemara stated that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s suffering bcameupon him bdue to an incident. What was thatincident that led to his suffering? The Gemara answers bthatthere was ba certain calf that was being led to slaughter.The calf bwent and hung its head on the corner of RabbiYehuda HaNasi’s garment band was weeping.Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bsaid to it: Go,as byou were created for thispurpose. It was bsaidin Heaven: bSince he was not compassionatetoward the calf, blet afflictions come upon him. /b,The Gemara explains the statement: bAnd lefthim bdue toanother bincident. One day, the maidservant of RabbiYehuda HaNasi bwas sweepinghis bhouse. There were young weasels [ ikarkushta /i] lyingabout, band she wasin the process of bsweeping themout. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bsaid to her: Let them be,as bit is written:“The Lord is good to all; band His mercies are over all His works”(Psalms 145:9). bThey saidin Heaven: bSince he was compassionate, we shall be compassionate on him,and he was relieved of his suffering.,The Gemara relates: During ball the years of the suffering of Rabbi Elazar,son of Rabbi Shimon, bno one died prematurely,as his afflictions atoned for the entire generation. During ball the years of the suffering of RabbiYehuda HaNasi, bthe world did not requireany brain,as the moisture of the dew was sufficient. bAs Rabba bar Rav Sheila said: A day of rain is as difficult as a day of judgment,due to the damage that storms and flooding can cause. bAnd Ameimar said: Wereit bnotfor the fact bthatrain is bneeded by people, the Sages would pray for mercy and annul it,due to the nuisances of rain. And beven so,despite the fact that there was no rain all those years, bwhen a radish was uprooted from its rowin the field, bthere remainedin its place ba hole filled with water,due to the moisture in the earth.,The Gemara continues discussing Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s relationship with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. Once bRabbiYehuda HaNasi barrived at the place of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. He said tothe locals: bDoes that righteous person have a son? They said to him: He has a sonwho is wayward, band any prostitute who hires herselfout to others bfor twocoins bhires him for eight,due to his handsomeness. Upon hearing this report, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi resolved to extricate Rabbi Elazar’s son from his plight. bHe brought himback with him, bordained him as a rabbi, and gave him over to Rabbi Shimon ben Isi ben Lakonya,the bbrother ofthe boy’s bmother,to teach him Torah., bEach day,the boy bwould say: I am going back to my town,because it was difficult for him to study. Rabbi Shimon ben Isi ben Lakonya bsaid to him: You have been made wise, and a golden cloak has been spread over youwhen you were ordained, band you are calledby the title bRabbi, andyet byou say: I am going back to my town?The boy bsaid to him: I vow [ imomei /i]that bthisthought of leaving is now babandoned,i.e., I will stay and improve my ways. bWhenthe boy bmaturedand became a Torah scholar, bhe came and sat in the academy of RabbiYehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bheard his voice and said: This voice is similar to the voice of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.Those who were present bsaid to him: It is his son. /b,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi breadthe verse babout him: “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that is wise wins souls”(Proverbs 11:30). The Gemara explains, with regard to the phrase b“the fruit of the righteous,”that bthisis referring to bRabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,who was the son of a righteous individual and became a great scholar in his own right. When the verse states: b“And he that is wise wins souls,” thisis referring to bRabbi Shimon ben Isi ben Lakonya,who successfully helped Rabbi Yosei reach his potential., bWhenthis Rabbi Yosei bdied, he was brought to his father’s cavefor burial. bA serpent encircled theentrance of the bcave,denying any access. Those present bsaid to it: Serpent, serpent! Open your mouth, so that a son may enter next to his father.The serpent bdid not openits mouth bfor them. The peoplethere bthought thatRabbi Yosei was denied burial alongside his father because bthisone, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was bgreater than thatone, Rabbi Yosei., bA Divine Voice emerged and said:It is bnot because this one is greater than that one; rather,it is because bthis one,Rabbi Elazar, bexperienced the suffering of the cave, while that one,i.e., Rabbi Yosei, bdid not experience suffering of the cave.Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, suffered with his father for thirteen years in a cave while hiding from the Romans (see iShabbat33b).,The Gemara relates a similar incident: Once bRabbiYehuda HaNasi barrived at the place of Rabbi Tarfon. He said tothe townspeople: bDoes that righteous person,Rabbi Tarfon, bwho would take an oath by the life of his children, have a son?Rabbi Tarfon was wont to take oaths by the lives of his children (see iOholot16:1). bThey said to him: He does not have a son,but bhe hasa grandson, ba sonfrom bhis daughter, and every prostitutewho is bhired for twocoins bhires him for eight. /b,The townspeople bbroughtRabbi Tarfon’s grandson bbeforeRabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who bsaid to him: If you repentfrom your evil ways, bI will give you my daughterin marriage. bHe repentedand became a righteous individual. bThere arethose bwho saythat bhe marriedRabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s daughter bandsubsequently bdivorced her. There arethose bwho saythat bhe did not marry her at all, so that it would not be saidabout him: It was bfor the sake of thatwoman that bthisman brepented. /b,§ The Gemara asks: bAnd whydid Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi exert himself bso muchto save these wayward sons? The Gemara answers: It is because of bthatwhich bRav Yehuda saysthat bRav says, and some saythat which bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba saysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says, and some saythat which bRabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani saysthat bRabbi Yonatan says: Anyone who teaches Torah to the son of another merits to sitand study bin the heavenly academy, as it is stated:“Therefore so says the Lord: bIf you return, and I bring you back, you shall stand before Me”(Jeremiah 15:19). This verse, which is addressed to Jeremiah, indicates that if he is able to cause the Jewish people to return to God, he himself will be brought to stand before God., bAnd anyone who teaches Torah to the son of an ignoramusachieves such an exalted status that beven if the Holy One, Blessed be He,were to bissuea harsh bdecree, Hemay bnullify it for his sake, as it is statedin the continuation of the verse: b“And if you bring forth the precious out of the worthless, you shall be as My mouth,”i.e., you will be like the mouth of God that can rescind a decree.,The Gemara relates other statements pertaining to Torah scholars and their descendants. bRabbi Parnakh saysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says:With regard to banyone who is a Torah scholar, and whose sonis ba Torah scholar, and whose grandsonis ba Torah scholar, the Torah will never again cease from his descendants, as it is stated: “And as for Me, this is My covet… /bMy spirit that is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, bshall not depart out of your mouth, nor out of the mouth of your seed, nor out of the mouth of your seed’s seed, says the Lord, from now and forever”(Isaiah 59:21).,The Gemara asks: bWhatis the significance of the phrase b“says the Lord”?The Gemara answers that bthe Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I am your guarantor in this matter.The Gemara asks: bWhatis the meaning of the phrase b“from now and forever”?The verse mentioned only three generations. bRabbi Yirmeya says:The verse means that bfrom thispoint bforward,after three generations, bthe Torah returns to its lodging,i.e., the Torah is now ingrained in the family.,The Gemara relates that bRav Yosef fasted forty fastsso that the Torah would become ingrained in his family, band he was readthe verse in a dream: “My words… bshall not depart out of your mouth.” He fasted an additional forty fasts and he was read: “Shall not depart out of your mouth, nor out of the mouth of your seed.” He fasted an additional one hundred fasts.In a dream, bhe came and was readthe conclusion of the verse: b“Shall not depart out of your mouth, nor out of the mouth of your seed, nor out of the mouth of your seed’s seed.” He said: From thispoint bforward I do not needto fast anymore, as I am now assured that the bTorahwill breturn to its lodging. /b,The Gemara relates a similar occurrence: bWhen Rabbi Zeira ascendedfrom Babylonia bto Eretz Yisrael, he fasted one hundred fasts so that hewould bforget the Babylonianmethod of studying bGemara, so that it would not hinder himfrom adapting to the unique style of study prevalent in Eretz Yisrael. bHe fasted an additional one hundredfasts so bthat Rabbi Elazar,son of Rabbi Shimon, would bnot die during his lifetime,which would have caused the burden of bcommunal mattersto fall bupon him.As dean of the Torah academy, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, was in charge of all public affairs, leaving Rabbi Zeira unencumbered to study Torah. Rabbi Zeira bfasted an additional one hundredfasts bso that the fire of Gehennashould bnot affect him. /b,The Gemara relates with regard to Rabbi Zeira: bEvery thirty days, he would examine himselfto ascertain if he remained on his exalted level. He would bignite an oven, climb in, and sit inside it, and the fire would not affect him. One day, the Sages gave him theevil beye,i.e., they were envious of him, band his legs became singedin the fire. bAndfrom then on bthey referred to himas: The bshort one with singed legs. /b,§ The Gemara discusses the topic of the acquisition of Torah knowledge. bRav Yehuda saysthat bRav says: Whatis the meaning of that bwhich is written: “Who is the wise man, that he may understand this? And who is he to whom the mouth of the Lord has spoken, that he may declare it? Why has the land been lostand laid waste like a wilderness, so that none passes through?” (Jeremiah 9:11). bThis matter,i.e., the question: Why has the land been lost
11. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

47b. (במדבר יח, כח) מכל מעשרותיכם תרימו ומה ראית האי אידגן והאי לא אידגן:,מעשר שני והקדש שנפדו: פשיטא הב"ע כגון שנתן את הקרן ולא נתן את החומש והא קמ"ל דאין חומש מעכב:,השמש שאכל כזית: פשיטא מהו דתימא שמש לא קבע קמ"ל:,והכותי מזמנין עליו: אמאי לא יהא אלא עם הארץ ותניא אין מזמנין על ע"ה,אביי אמר בכותי חבר רבא אמר אפילו תימא בכותי ע"ה והכא בע"ה דרבנן דפליגי עליה דר' מאיר עסקינן דתניא איזהו ע"ה כל שאינו אוכל חוליו בטהרה דברי ר"מ וחכמים אומרים כל שאינו מעשר פירותיו כראוי והני כותאי עשורי מעשרי כדחזי דבמאי דכתיב באורייתא מזהר זהירי דאמר מר כל מצוה שהחזיקו בה כותים הרבה מדקדקין בה יותר מישראל,ת"ר איזהו ע"ה כל שאינו קורא ק"ש ערבית ושחרית דברי ר' אליעזר רבי יהושע אומר כל שאינו מניח תפילין בן עזאי אומר כל שאין לו ציצית בבגדו ר' נתן אומר כל שאין מזוזה על פתחו ר' נתן בר יוסף אומר כל שיש לו בנים ואינו מגדלם לת"ת אחרים אומרים אפי' קרא ושנה ולא שמש ת"ח הרי זה ע"ה א"ר הונא הלכה כאחרים,רמי בר חמא לא אזמין עליה דרב מנשיא בר תחליפא דתני ספרא וספרי והלכתא כי נח נפשיה דרמי בר חמא אמר רבא לא נח נפשיה דרמי בר חמא אלא דלא אזמין ארב מנשיא בר תחליפא והתניא אחרים אומרים אפילו קרא ושנה ולא שמש ת"ח הרי זה ע"ה שאני רב מנשיא בר תחליפא דמשמע להו לרבנן ורמי בר חמא הוא דלא דק אבתריה ל"א דשמע שמעתתא מפומייהו דרבנן וגריס להו כצורבא מרבנן דמי:,אכל טבל ומעשר וכו': טבל פשיטא לא צריכא בטבל טבול מדרבנן ה"ד בעציץ שאינו נקוב:,מעשר ראשון כו': פשיטא לא צריכא כגון שהקדימו בכרי מהו דתימא כדאמר ליה רב פפא לאביי קמ"ל כדשני ליה:,מעשר שני וכו': פשיטא לא צריכא שנפדו ולא נפדו כהלכתן מעשר שני כגון שפדאו על גבי אסימון ורחמנא אמר (דברים יד, כה) וצרת הכסף בידך כסף שיש (לו) עליו צורה הקדש שחללו על גבי קרקע ולא פדאו בכסף ורחמנא אמר (ויקרא כז, יט) ונתן הכסף וקם לו:,והשמש שאכל פחות מכזית: פשיטא איידי דתנא רישא כזית תנא סיפא פחות מכזית:,והנכרי אין מזמנין עליו: פשיטא הכא במאי עסקינן בגר שמל ולא טבל דאמר רבי זירא א"ר יוחנן לעולם אינו גר עד שימול ויטבול וכמה דלא טבל נכרי הוא:,נשים ועבדים וקטנים אין מזמנין עליהן: אמר רבי יוסי קטן המוטל בעריסה מזמנין עליו,והא תנן נשים ועבדים וקטנים אין מזמנין עליהם,הוא דאמר כרבי יהושע בן לוי דאמר ריב"ל אף על פי שאמרו קטן המוטל בעריסה אין מזמנין עליו אבל עושין אותו סניף לעשרה,ואמר ריב"ל תשעה ועבד מצטרפין מיתיבי מעשה ברבי אליעזר שנכנס לבית הכנסת ולא מצא עשרה ושחרר עבדו והשלימו לעשרה שחרר אין לא שחרר לא תרי אצטריכו שחרר חד ונפיק בחד,והיכי עביד הכי והאמר רב יהודה כל המשחרר עבדו עובר בעשה שנאמר (ויקרא כה, מו) לעולם בהם תעבודו לדבר מצוה שאני מצוה הבאה בעבירה היא מצוה דרבים שאני,ואמר ריב"ל לעולם ישכים אדם לבית הכנסת כדי שיזכה וימנה עם עשרה הראשונים שאפילו מאה באים אחריו קבל עליו שכר כולם שכר כולם סלקא דעתך אלא אימא נותנין לו שכר כנגד כולם,אמר רב הונא תשעה וארון מצטרפין א"ל רב נחמן וארון גברא הוא אלא אמר רב הונא תשעה נראין כעשרה מצטרפין אמרי לה כי מכנפי ואמרי לה כי מבדרי,אמר רבי אמי שנים ושבת מצטרפין אמר ליה רב נחמן ושבת גברא הוא אלא אמר רבי אמי שני תלמידי חכמים המחדדין זה את זה בהלכה מצטרפין מחוי רב חסדא כגון אנא ורב ששת מחוי רב ששת כגון אנא ורב חסדא,א"ר יוחנן קטן פורח מזמנין עליו תנ"ה קטן שהביא שתי שערות מזמנין עליו ושלא הביא שתי שערות אין מזמנין עליו ואין מדקדקין בקטן הא גופא קשיא אמרת הביא שתי שערות אין לא הביא לא והדר תני אין מדקדקין בקטן לאתויי מאי לאו 47b. b“From all of that is given to you, you shall set apartthat which is the Lord’s iteruma /i” (Numbers 18:29). God’s iteruma /i, iteruma gedola /i, must be taken from all of the Levites’ gifts. The Gemara asks: bAnd what did you seethat led you to require iteruma gedolafrom first tithe that was taken from grain in piles and not from first tithe that was taken from grain on stalks? Abaye answers: bThis,after it was threshed and placed into piles, is completely processed and bhas become grain, and that,which remained on the stalk, bdid notyet bbecome grain.The verse regarding iteruma gedolastates: “The first of your grain” (Deuteronomy 18:4), is given to the priest. Once it is considered grain, the right of the priest takes effect and the Levite is required to separate iteruma gedola /i.,The mishna states that if, among the diners, one ate bsecond tithe and consecrated food that were redeemed,he may be included in a izimmun /i.The Gemara remarks: bIt is obviousthat if these items were redeemed that one could participate in a izimmun /i. The Gemara responds: bWith what are we dealing here?We are dealing with ba casewhere the consecrated property was not completely redeemed, i.e., bwhere one gavepayment for bthe principal,the value of the tithe, bbut he did not givepayment for bthe fifththat he must add when redeeming items that he consecrated; bandthe mishna bteaches usthat failure to add bthe fifth does not invalidatethe redemption.,We learned in the mishna: bThe waiter who ateat least ban olive-bulkfrom the meal may join in a izimmun /i. The Gemara remarks: bIt is obvious.Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this ihalakha /i? The Gemara answers: bLest you say that the waiterwho stands and serves the diners bdid not establishhimself as a participant in the meal and, therefore, cannot join the izimmun /i, the mishna bteaches usthat even the waiter is considered to have established himself as a participant in the meal.,The mishna states that ba Samaritan [ iKuti /i] may be included in a izimmun /i.The Gemara asks: bWhy?Even if you consider him a member of the Jewish people, blet him be merely an iam ha’aretz /i,one who is not scrupulous in matters of ritual purity and tithes, band it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bAn iam ha’aretzmay not be included in a izimmun /i. /b,The Gemara offers several answers: bAbaye said:The mishna is referring to a iKutiwho is a iḥaver /i,one who is scrupulous in those areas. bRava said: Even if you saythat the mishna refers to ba iKuti /iwho is an iam ha’aretz /i, and herethe prohibition to include an iam ha’aretzin a izimmunrefers to an iam ha’aretz /ias defined by bthe Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Meir, as it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bWho is an iam ha’aretz /i? Anyone who does not eat non-sacred food ina state of britual purity.This is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:An iam ha’aretzis banyone who does not appropriately tithe his produce. And these iKutimtithetheir produce bappropriately, as they are scrupulous with regard to that which is written in the Torah, as the Master said: Any mitzva that the iKutimembracedand accepted upon themselves, bthey areeven bmore exacting in itsobservance bthan Jews. /b,The Gemara cites a ibaraitawith additional opinions with regard to the defining characteristics of an iam ha’aretz /i: bThe Sages taught: Who is an iam ha’aretz /i? One who does not recite iShemain the evening and morning. This is bthe statement of Rabbi Eliezer.Rabbi Yehoshua says:An iam ha’aretzis bone who does not don phylacteries. Ben Azzai says:An iam ha’aretzis bone who does not have ritual fringes on his garment. Rabbi Natan says:An iam ha’aretzis bone who does not have a imezuzaon his doorway. Rabbi Natan bar Yosef says:An iam ha’aretzis bone who has children butwho does not want them to study Torah, so he bdoes not raise them toengage in bTorah study. iAḥerimsay: Even if one read the Bible and studied Mishna and did not serve Torah scholarsto learn from them the meaning of the Torah that he studied, bthat is an iam ha’aretz /i. Rav Huna said: The ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of iAḥerim /i. /b,The Gemara relates: bRami bar Ḥama did not include Rav Menashya bar Taḥlifa, who studied iSifra /i, iSifrei,and ihalakhot,in a izimmun /ibecause he had merely studied and did not serve Torah scholars. bWhen Rami bar Ḥama passed away, Rava said: Rami bar Ḥama died only because he did not include Rabbi Menashya bar Taḥlifa in a izimmun /i.The Gemara asks: bWas it not taughtin a ibaraita /i: iAḥerimsay: Even if one read the Bible and studied mishna and did not serve Torah scholars, that is an iam ha’aretz /i?Why, then, was Rami bar Ḥama punished? The Gemara answers: bRav Menashya bar Taḥlifa is different, as he served the Sages. And it was Rami bar Ḥama who was not precisein his efforts to check bafter himto ascertain his actions. bAnother versionof the Gemara’s answer: Anyone bwho hears ihalakhotfrom the mouths of Sages and studies them is considered a Torah scholar. /b,The mishna states that bone who ate untithed produce andfirst btithe etc.is not included in a izimmun /i. The Gemara remarks: bIt is obviousas one is forbidden to eat untithed produce. The Gemara responds: bIt was only necessaryto teach this ihalakhawith regard to a case where it is only considered buntithed produce by rabbinic law,although by Torah law it was permitted. bWhat are the circumstances?Where the produce grew bin an unperforated flowerpot,as anything grown disconnected from the ground is not considered produce of the ground and is exempt by Torah law from tithing. It is only by rabbinic law that it is considered untithed.,We learned in the mishna that one who ate bfirst tithefrom which its iterumawas not separated may not be included in a izimmun /i. The Gemara remarks: bIt is obvious.The Gemara responds: bIt was only necessaryfor the mishna to teach this with regard to a case bwherethe Levite bprecededthe priest after the kernels of grain were placed bin a pile. Lest you say as Rav Pappa said to Abaye,that in that case, too, the produce should be exempt from the obligation to separate iteruma gedola /i, the itannaof the mishna bteaches us asAbaye brespondedto Rav Pappa, that there is a difference between the case when the grain was on the stalks and the case when the grain was in a pile.,We also learned in the mishna that if one ate bsecond titheand consecrated food that had not been redeemed, he may not be included in a izimmun /i. The Gemara remarks: bIt is obvious?Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this ihalakha /i? The Gemara responds: bIt was only necessaryfor the mishna to teach this ihalakhawith regard to a case bwhere they were redeemed, but not redeemed properly, i.e., second tithe that was redeemed with an unminted coin [ iasimon /i],a silver bullion that had not been engraved. bAnd the Torah says: “And bind up [ ivetzarta /i] the money in your hand”(Deuteronomy 14:25), which the Sages interpreted as follows: iVetzartarefers to bmoney that has a form [ itzura /i]engraved bupon it. Consecrated property;in a case bwhere he redeemed itby exchanging it bfor land instead of money, and the Torah states: “He will give the money and it will be assured to him”(Leviticus 27:19).,The mishna states that ba waiter who ate less than an olive-bulkmay not join a izimmun /i. The Gemara remarks: bIt is obvious.Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this ihalakha /i? The Gemara answers: bSince the first clauseof the mishna btaughtthe ihalakhawith regard to a waiter who ate ban olive-bulk, the latter clause taughtthe ihalakhawith regard to a waiter who ate bless than an olive-bulk.Although it is obvious, in the interest of arriving at a similar formulation in the two parts of the mishna, it was included.,The mishna further states that ba gentile is not included in a izimmun /i.The Gemara remarks: bIt is obvious.Why was it necessary for the mishna to teach this ihalakha /i? The Gemara answers: bWith what are we dealing here?We are dealing bwitha case of ba convert who was circumcised butdid bnotyet bimmersehimself in a ritual bath, bas Rabbi Zeira saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: One is neverconsidered ba proselyte until he is circumcised and immerseshimself. bAs long as he did not immersehimself, bhe is a gentile. /b,We also learned in the mishna that bwomen, slaves, and minors are not included in a izimmun /i. Rabbi Yosei said: A minor lying in a cradle is included in a izimmun /i. /b,The Gemara objects: bDidn’t we learnin the mishna bthat women, slaves, and minors are not included in a izimmun /i? /b,The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yosei bstatedhis opinion bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Although a minor lying in a cradle is not included in a izimmun /i, one may make him an adjunct tocomplete an assembly of btenpeople, enabling them to invoke God’s name in a izimmun /i.,On the subject of completing a izimmun /i, bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: NineJews band a slave join togetherto form a izimmunof ten. The Gemara braises an objection:There was an bincident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who entered a synagogue and did not finda quorum of bten, and he liberated his slave and he completed thequorum of bten.From this we may infer that if he bfreedhis slave, byes,he may join the quorum of ten, but if he bdid not freehim, bno,he may not join the quorum of ten. The Gemara responds: In that case, btwo were requiredto complete the quorum; Rabbi Eliezer bfreed one and fulfilled his obligation withanother bone,who completed the quorum of ten without being freed.,With regard to this incident, the Gemara asks: bHow did he do that? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say: Anyone who frees hisCanaanite bslave violates a positive mitzva, as it is statedwith regard to Canaanite slaves: “You will keep them as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold as a possession; bthey will serve as bondsmen for you forever”(Leviticus 25:46)? How, then, could Rabbi Eliezer have freed his slave? The Gemara answers: The case of ba mitzva is different.The Gemara asks: bIt is a mitzva that comes through a transgression,and a mitzva fulfilled in that manner is inherently flawed. The Gemara responds: bA mitzvathat benefits bthe many is different,and one may free his slave for that purpose.,In praise of a quorum of ten, the Gemara states that bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One should always rise earlyto go bto the synagogue in order to have the privilege and be counted among the first tento complete the quorum, bas even if one hundredpeople barrive after him, he receives the reward of them all,as they are all joining that initial quorum. The Gemara is perplexed: bDoes it enter your mindthat he receives bthe reward of them all?Why should he take away their reward? bRather,emend the statement and bsay: He receives a reward equivalent tothe reward of bthem all. /b,With regard to the laws of joining a quorum, bRav Huna said: Nine plus an arkin which the Torah scrolls are stored bjointo form a quorum of ten. bRav Naḥman said to him: Is an ark a man,that it may be counted in the quorum of ten? bRather, Rav Huna said: Nine who appear like ten may join together.There was disagreement over this: bSome said this ihalakhaas follows: Nine appear like ten bwhen they are gathered. And some said this ihalakhaas follows: Nine appear like ten bwhen they are scattered,the disagreement being which formation creates the impression of a greater number of individuals.,Similarly, bRav Ami said: Twopeople band Shabbat jointo form a izimmun /i. bRav Naḥman said to him: Is Shabbat a person,that it may be counted in a izimmun /i? bRather, Rav Ami said: Two Torah scholars who hone each other’sintellect bin halakhicdiscourse bjoin togetherand are considered three. The Gemara relates: bRav Ḥisda pointedto an example of two such Torah scholars who hone each other’s intellect: bFor example, me and Rav Sheshet.Similarly, bRav Sheshet pointed: For example, me and Rav Ḥisda. /b,With regard to a minor’s inclusion in a izimmun /i, bRabbi Yoḥa said: A mature minor,i.e., one who is still a minor in terms of age, but is displaying signs of puberty, bis included in a izimmun /i. Thatopinion bwas also taughtin a ibaraita /i: bA minor who grew twopubic bhairs,a sign of puberty, bis included in a izimmun /i; and one who did not grow two hairs is not included in a izimmun /i. And one is not exacting with regard to a minor.The Gemara comments: bThis ibaraita bitself is difficult. You said thata minor bwho grew two hairs, yes,he is included, bone who did not growtwo hairs, bno,he is not included, band then it taught that one is not exacting with regard to a minor. Whatdoes this last clause come bto include? Is it not /b
12. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

60a. מי קוראין לא הוה בידיה אתא ושייליה לרבי יצחק נפחא א"ל אחריהן קוראין ת"ח הממונין פרנסים על הצבור ואחריהן ת"ח הראויין למנותם פרנסים על הציבור ואחריהן בני ת"ח שאבותיהן ממונים פרנסים על הצבור ואחריהן ראשי כנסיות וכל אדם,שלחו ליה בני גליל לר' חלבו מהו לקרות בחומשים בבהכ"נ בציבור לא הוה בידיה אתא שייליה לר' יצחק נפחא לא הוה בידיה אתא שאיל בי מדרשא ופשטוה מהא דא"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יוחנן ס"ת שחסר יריעה אחת אין קורין בו,ולא היא התם מחסר במילתיה הכא לא מחסר במילתיה רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו אין קוראין בחומשין בבית הכנסת משום כבוד צבור,ורבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו האי ספר אפטרתא אסור למקרי ביה בשבת מאי טעמא דלא ניתן ליכתב,מר בר רב אשי אמר לטלטולי נמי אסור מ"ט דהא לא חזי למיקרי ביה ולא היא שרי לטלטולי ושרי למיקרי ביה,דר' יוחנן ור"ש בן לקיש מעייני בספרא דאגדתא בשבתא והא לא ניתן ליכתב אלא כיון דלא אפשר (תהלים קיט, קכו) עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך ה"נ כיון דלא אפשר עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך,בעא מיניה אביי מרבה מהו לכתוב מגילה לתינוק להתלמד בה תיבעי למאן דאמר תורה מגילה מגילה ניתנה תיבעי למאן דאמר תורה חתומה ניתנה,תיבעי למ"ד תורה מגילה מגילה ניתנה כיון דמגילה מגילה ניתנה כותבין או דילמא כיון דאידבק אידבק,תיבעי למ"ד תורה חתומה ניתנה כיון דחתומה ניתנה אין כותבין או דילמא כיון דלא אפשר כתבינן א"ל אין כותבין ומה טעם לפי שאין כותבין,איתיביה אף היא עשתה טבלא של זהב שפרשת סוטה כתובה עליה א"ר שמעון בן לקיש משום ר' ינאי באל"ף בי"ת,איתיביה כשהוא כותב רואה וכותב מה שכתוב בטבלא אימא כמה שכתוב בטבלא,איתיביה כשהוא כותב רואה בטבלא וכותב מה שכתוב בטבלא מה הוא כתוב בטבלא (במדבר ה, יט) אם שכב אם לא שכב הכא במאי עסקינן בסירוגין,כתנאי אין כותבין מגילה לתינוק להתלמד בה ואם דעתו להשלים מותר ר' יהודה אומר בבראשית עד דור המבול בתורת כהנים עד ויהי ביום השמיני,א"ר יוחנן משום רבי בנאה תורה מגילה מגילה ניתנה שנא' (תהלים מ, ח) אז אמרתי הנה באתי במגילת ספר כתוב עלי ר"ש בן לקיש אומר תורה חתומה ניתנה שנאמר (דברים לא, כו) לקוח את ספר התורה הזאת,ואידך נמי הכתיב לקוח ההוא לבתר דאידבק,ואידך נמי הכתיב במגילת ספר כתוב עלי ההוא דכל התורה כולה איקרי מגילה דכתיב (זכריה ה, ב) ויאמר אלי מה אתה רואה ואומר אני רואה מגילה עפה,אי נמי לכדרבי לוי דאמר רבי לוי שמנה פרשיות נאמרו ביום שהוקם בו המשכן אלו הן פרשת כהנים ופרשת לוים ופרשת טמאים ופרשת שילוח טמאים ופרשת אחרי מות 60a. bwho readsfrom the Torah? An answer bwas notreadily bavailable to him. He came and asked Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa,who bsaid to him: After them readthe bTorah scholars who are appointed as leaders [ iparnasim /i] of the community. And after themread bTorah scholars who are fit to be appointed as leaders of the community,even if in practice they received no such appointment. The Sages said that a Torah scholar who knows how to answer any question asked of him is fit to be appointed as leader of the community. bAnd after themread bthe sons of Torah scholars whose fathers were appointed as leaders of the community. And after themread bthe heads of synagogues, andafter them bany person. /b, bThe people of the Galilee senta question bto Rabbi Ḥelbo: What isthe ihalakhawith regard bto reading from iḥumashim /i,i.e., scrolls containing only one of the five books of the Torah, bin the synagogue in public?Is this permitted, or is it necessary to read from a complete Torah scroll? An answer bwas notreadily bavailable to him. He came and asked Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa,but an answer bwas notreadily bavailable to himeither. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa bcame and askedthis question bin the study hall, and they resolvedthe difficulty bfrom that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani saysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says:With regard to ba Torah scroll that is missingeven bone sheetof parchment, bone may not read from itin public. This indicates that an incomplete Torah scroll may not be used for a public Torah reading.,The Gemara rejects this argument: bButthat bis not so,i.e., this cannot serve as a proof to the matter at hand. bThere,it is blackingpart bof the matterit is addressing, as a sheet of parchment is missing, whereas bhere, it is not lackingpart bof the matterit is addressing, as it contains a complete book. bRabba and Rav Yosef both say: One does not read from iḥumashimin the synagogue out of respect for the community. /b, bAnd Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: It is prohibited topublicly breadthe ihaftara /i, the portion from the Prophets that is read after the weekly Torah portion, bon Shabbat, from a scrollcontaining only bthe ihaftarot /i. What is the reasonfor this? It is bbecausethis type of scroll bmay not be written,as the words of the Prophets must also be written as complete books., bMar bar Rav Ashi said: To handlesuch a scroll on Shabbat bis also prohibited. What is the reasonfor this? It is bbecause it is not fit to be read.Consequently, it is treated as set-aside [ imuktze /i] on Shabbat. The Gemara rejects this argument: bButthat bis not so;rather, bit is permitted to handlesuch a scroll band it is permitted to read from it. /b,And a proof for this is bthat Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish used to read from a scroll of iaggada /icontaining the words of the Sages bon Shabbat. Butsuch a scroll bmay not be written,for in principle, the statements of the Oral Law may not be committed to writing. bRather, since it is not possibleto remember the Oral Law without writing it down, it is permitted to violate the ihalakha /i, as indicated by the verse: b“It is time to act for the Lord; they have nullified your Torah”(Psalms 119:126). bHere too,in the case of a ihaftarascroll, bsince it is notalways bpossibleto write complete books of the Bible, due to the expense, it is permitted to apply the reasoning of b“It is time to act for the Lord; they have nullified your Torah.” /b, bAbaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: What isthe ihalakhawith regard to whether it is permitted bto write a scrollcontaining only one portion of the Torah bforthe purpose of enabling ba child to study it?The Gemara notes: bLet the dilemma be raised according to the one who saysthat bthe Torah was givenfrom the outset bscroll by scroll,meaning that Moses would teach the Jewish people one portion of the Torah, and then write it down, and then teach them the next portion of the Torah, and then write that down, and continue in this way until he committed the entire Torah to writing. And blet the dilemmaalso bbe raised according to the one who saysthat bthe Torah was givenas ba completebook, meaning that the Torah was not written down incrementally, but rather, after teaching the Jewish people the entire Torah, Moses committed it to writing all at once.,The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma according to each opinion: bLet the dilemma be raised according to the one who saysthat bthe Torah was given scroll by scroll.On the one hand it is possible to say that bsincethe Torah bwasoriginally bgiven scroll by scroll,today as well bone may writethe Torah in separate scrolls. bOron the other hand, bperhapsone should say that bsince it wasultimately bjoinedtogether to form a single scroll, bit was joinedtogether and can no longer be written in separate scrolls.,And blet the dilemmaalso bbe raised according to the one who saysthat bthe Torah was givenas ba completebook. On the one hand it is possible to say that bsince it was givenfrom the outset as ba completebook, bone may not writeit today in separate scrolls. bOron the other hand, bperhapsone could say that bsince it is notalways bpossibleto write a complete Torah, bone may writeit in separate scrolls. Rabba bsaid to him: One may not writethe Torah in separate scrolls. bAnd what is the reason? Because one may not writea scroll that is only part of the Torah.,Abaye braised an objection to hisopinion from a mishna ( iYoma37b) where it was taught: Queen Helene balso fashioned a golden tabletas a gift for the Temple bon which theTorah bportiondiscussing ba isotawas written.When the priest would write the scroll of a isotain the Temple, he would copy this Torah portion from the tablet, so that a Torah scroll need not be taken out for that purpose. This indicates that it is permitted for one to write a single portion of the Torah. bRabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yannai:There is no proof from this mishna, as the tablet prepared by Queen Helene was not written in an ordinary manner, but rather it consisted of the letters bofthe ialef-beit /i,i.e., only the first letter of each word was written on the tablet, and by looking at it the priest writing the isotascroll would remember what to write.,The Gemara braised an objectionfrom a ibaraitathat teaches: bWhenthe priest bwritesthe isotascroll, bhe looksat band writes that which is written on the tablet,which indicates that the full text of the passage was written on the tablet. The Gemara rejects this argument: Emend the ibaraitaand bsaythat it should read as follows: He looks at and writes blike that which is written on the tablet.The tablet aids the priest in remembering the text that must actually be written.,The Gemara braised an objectionfrom a different ibaraita /i: bWhen he writes, he looks at the tablet and writes that which is written on the tablet.And bwhat is written on the tablet? “Ifa man blaywith you…and bif he did not laywith you” (see Numbers 5:19). Apparently, the full text of the passage was written on the tablet. The Gemara answers: bWith what are we dealing here?The tablet fashioned by Queen Helene was written bby alternatingcomplete words and initials. The first words of each verse were written there, but the rest of the words in the verse were represented by initials. Therefore, this contribution of Queen Helene does not resolve the question of whether writing a scroll for a child is permitted.,The Gemara comments: The question of whether or not writing a scroll for a child is permitted is bsubject toa dispute between itanna’im /i,as it is taught in the following ibaraita /i: bOne may not write a scrollcontaining only one portion of the Torah bforthe purpose of enabling ba child to study, but ifthe writer’s bintention is to completethe scroll, bit is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda says: Inthe book of bGenesishe may write a scroll from the beginning buntil the generation of the flood. In iTorat Kohanim /i,the book of Leviticus, he may write a scroll from the beginning buntil “And it came to pass on the eighth day”(Leviticus 9:1).,The Gemara returns to discuss the previously mentioned dispute. bRabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Bana’a: The Torah was givenfrom the outset bscroll by scroll, as it is stated: “Then I said, behold, I come with the scroll of the book that is written for me”(Psalms 40:8). King David is saying about himself that there is a section of the Torah, “the scroll of the book,” that alludes to him, i.e., “that is written for me.” This indicates that each portion of the Torah constitutes a separate scroll. bRabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The Torah was givenas ba completebook, bas it is stated: “Take this scroll of the Torah”(Deuteronomy 31:26), which teaches that from the outset the Torah was given as a complete unit.,The Gemara asks: bAndaccording to bthe otherSage, Rabbi Yoḥa, bas well, isn’t it written “take,”indicating that the Torah scroll was given whole? How does he explain this verse? The Gemara answers: bThatverse is speaking about the Torah bafter it was joinedtogether to form a single unit.,The Gemara asks: bAndaccording to bthe otherSage, Reish Lakish, bas well, isn’t it written: “With the scroll of the book that is written for me,”indicating that the Torah was given scroll by scroll? How does he explain this verse? The Gemara answers: bThatverse teaches that bthe entire Torah is called a scroll.This is indicated in another verse as well, bas it is written: “And He said to me: What do you see? And I said: I see a flying scroll”(Zechariah 5:2)., bAlternatively,this verse serves to allude btothe sections of the Torah discussed in bthatstatement bof Rabbi Levi, as Rabbi Levi says: Eight sections were said on the day that the Tabernacle was erected,on the first of Nisan. bThey are: The section of the priests(Leviticus 21:1–22:26); bthe section of the Levites(Numbers 8:5–26); bthe section of the impure(Leviticus 13:1– 14:57); bthe section of the sending away of the impure(Numbers 5:1–4); bthe sectionbeginning with the words b“After the death”(Leviticus, chapter 16);
13. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

103b. והושיבו ישיבה לאחר שלשים יום שמעון בני חכם גמליאל בני נשיא חנינא בר חמא ישב בראש:,אל תספדוני בעיירות: סבור מינה משום טרחא הוא דקאמר כיון דחזי דקספדי בכרכים וקאתו כולי עלמא אמרו שמע מינה משום יקרא הוא דקאמר,הושיבו ישיבה לאחר שלשים יום דלא עדיפנא ממשה רבינו דכתיב (דברים לד, ח) ויבכו בני ישראל את משה בערבות מואב שלשים יום תלתין יומין ספדין ביממא וליליא מכאן ואילך ספדו ביממא וגרסי בליליא או ספדו בליליא וגרסי ביממא עד דספדי תריסר ירחי שתא,ההוא יומא דאשכבתיה דרבי נפקא בת קלא ואמרה כל דהוה באשכבתיה דרבי מזומן הוא לחיי העוה"ב ההוא כובס כל יומא הוה אתי קמיה ההוא יומא לא אתא כיון דשמע הכי סליק לאיגרא ונפל לארעא ומית יצתה בת קול ואמרה אף ההוא כובס מזומן הוא לחיי העולם הבא:,שמעון בני חכם: מאי קאמר הכי קאמר אע"פ ששמעון בני חכם גמליאל בני נשיא,אמר לוי צריכא למימר אמר רבי שמעון בר רבי צריכא לך ולמטלעתך מאי קשיא ליה הא קרא קאמר (דברי הימים ב כא, ג) ואת הממלכה נתן ליהורם כי הוא הבכור,ההוא ממלא מקום אבותיו הוה ורבן גמליאל אינו ממלא מקום אבותיו הוה,ורבי מאי טעמא עבד הכי נהי דאינו ממלא מקום אבותיו בחכמה ביראת חטא ממלא מקום אבותיו הוה:,חנינא בר חמא ישב בראש לא קיבל רבי חנינא שהיה ר' אפס גדול ממנו שתי שנים ומחצה יתיב רבי אפס ברישא ויתיב רבי חנינא אבראי ואתא לוי ויתיב גביה,נח נפשיה דרבי אפס ויתיב רבי חנינא ברישא ולא הוה ליה ללוי איניש למיתב גביה וקאתא לבבל והיינו דאמרי ליה לרב גברא רבה אקלע לנהרדעא ומטלע ודריש כלילא שרי אמר שמע מינה נח נפשיה דרבי אפס ויתיב רבי חנינא ברישא ולא הוה ליה ללוי איניש למיתב גביה וקאתא,ואימא רבי חנינא נח נפשיה ור' אפס כדיתיב יתיב ולא הוה ליה ללוי איניש למיתב גביה וקאתא איבעית אימא לוי לר' אפס מיכף הוה כייף ליה,ואי בעית אימא כיון דאמר ר' חנינא בר חמא ישב בראש לא סגי דלא מליך דכתיב בהו בצדיקים (איוב כב, כח) ותגזר אומר ויקם לך,והא הוה ר' חייא נח נפשיה והאמר ר' חייא אני ראיתי קברו של רבי והורדתי עליו דמעות איפוך,והאמר רבי חייא אותו היום שמת רבי בטלה קדושה איפוך,והתניא כשחלה רבי נכנס ר' חייא אצלו ומצאו שהוא בוכה אמר לו רבי מפני מה אתה בוכה והתניא מת מתוך השחוק סימן יפה לו מתוך הבכי סימן רע לו פניו למעלה סימן יפה לו פניו למטה סימן רע לו פניו כלפי העם סימן יפה לו כלפי הכותל סימן רע לו פניו ירוקין סימן רע לו פניו צהובין ואדומים סימן יפה לו מת בע"ש סימן יפה לו במו"ש סימן רע לו מת בערב יוהכ"פ סימן רע לו במוצאי יוהכ"פ סימן יפה לו מת מחולי מעיים סימן יפה לו מפני שרובם של צדיקים מיתתן בחולי מעיים,א"ל אנא אתורה ומצות קא בכינא,איבעית אימא איפוך ואיבעית אימא לעולם לא תיפוך ר' חייא עסוק במצות הוה ורבי סבר לא אפגריה,והיינו דכי הוו מינצו ר' חנינא ור' חייא א"ל ר' חנינא לר' חייא בהדי דידי מינצת דאם חס ושלום נשתכחה תורה מישראל מהדרנא ליה מפלפולי,א"ל ר' חייא אנא עבדי דלא משתכחה תורה מישראל דאייתינא כיתנא ושדיינא ומגדלנא נישבי וציידנא טביא ומאכילנא בישרא ליתמי ואריכנא מגילתא ממשכי דטביא וסליקנא למתא דלית בה מקרי דרדקי וכתיבנא חמשא חומשי לחמשא ינוקי ומתנינא שיתא סידרי לשיתא ינוקי לכל חד וחד אמרי ליה אתני סידרך לחברך,והיינו דאמר רבי כמה גדולים מעשה חייא א"ל ר"ש ב"ר אפילו ממך א"ל אין א"ל רבי ישמעאל ברבי יוסי אפילו מאבא א"ל חס ושלום לא תהא כזאת בישראל,אמר להן לבני קטן אני צריך נכנס ר' שמעון אצלו מסר לו סדרי חכמה,אמר להן לבני גדול אני צריך נכנס רבן גמליאל אצלו ומסר לו סדרי נשיאות אמר לו בני נהוג נשיאותך ברמים זרוק מרה בתלמידים,איני והא כתיב (תהלים טו, ד) ואת יראי ה' יכבד ואמר מר זה יהושפט מלך יהודה כשהיה רואה תלמיד חכם היה עומד מכסאו ומחבקו ומנשקו וקורא לו רבי רבי מרי מרי,לא קשיא הא בצינעא הא בפרהסיא,תניא רבי מוטל בציפורי ומקום מוכן לו בבית שערים והתניא (דברים טז, כ) צדק צדק תרדף הלך אחר ר' לבית שערים,ר' בבית שערים הוה אלא כיון דחלש אמטיוהי לציפורי 103b. band reconvene thestudy sessions at the byeshiva after thirty daysof mourning. bMy son Shimon is a Sage. My son Gamlielshould be the iNasi /i. Ḥanina bar Ḥama will sit at the headof the yeshiva.,The Gemara explains the requests of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: bDo not eulogize me in thesmall btowns.They bunderstood fromthis statement bthat he said this due to the troublethat would be caused for many if he were eulogized in every town, since they would have to travel from the outlying villages to take part in the eulogies. However, bwhen they saw that they were eulogizing him in the cities and everyone camedespite the trouble, bthey said: Conclude from here that he said this due toconsiderations of bhonor.Had they eulogized him in the towns, the gatherings would have been small and unfitting for a man of his stature. He therefore requested that they arrange things in a way that large crowds would gather.,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi further instructed: bReconvene thestudy sessions at the byeshiva after thirty daysof mourning. This is bbecause I am not better than Moses, our teacher, as it is written: “And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days”(Deuteronomy 34:8), which means that for bthirty days they eulogizedhim bby day and night. From thispoint bforward they eulogizedhim bby day and they studied by night, or they eulogizedhim bby night and studied by day, until they eulogizedhim bfor twelve monthsof bthe year. /b,The Gemara relates that bon the day of the funeralof bRabbiYehuda HaNasi, ba Divine Voice emerged and said: Whoever waspresent bat the funeral of RabbiYehuda HaNasi bis destined for lifein bthe World-to-Come.There was ba certain laundererwho bwould come beforeRabbi Yehuda HaNasi bevery day. On thatparticular bday, he did not comeand was therefore not present at the funeral. bWhen he heard this,that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had died, he was so full of grief that bhe ascended to the roof and fell to the ground and died. A Divine Voice emerged and said: That launderer too is destined for lifein bthe World-to-Come. /b,§ Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: bMy son Shimon is a Sage;my son Gamliel should be the iNasi /i. bWhatwas bhe saying,i.e., what did he mean by these remarks? The Gemara explains: bThis is what hewas bsaying: Although my son Shimon is agreater bSage, my son Gamlielshould be the iNasi /i. /b, bLevi said: Need this be said?After all, Gamliel was the firstborn. bRabbi Shimon, son of RabbiYehuda HaNasi, bsaid:It is bnecessary for you and for your limp.The Gemara asks: bWhat didRabbi Shimon find bdifficultwith Levi’s question that caused him to scoff? bDoesn’t the verse state: “But the kingdom he gave to Jehoram because he was the firstborn”(II Chronicles 21:3)? This indicates that the firstborn is the one who inherits his father’s appointment, and so Levi legitimately asked why Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had to leave specific instructions about this.,The Gemara explains: bHe,Jehoram, bfilled the place of his fathers,i.e., he was their equal in his personal attributes and leadership capabilities. However, bRabban Gamliel did not fill the place of his fathers,and for this reason Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had to specifically command that he nevertheless be appointed as the iNasi /i.,The Gemara asks: bAndif that is so, bwhat is the reasonthat bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bdid this?Why did he choose this son to be his successor if he was unfit for the position? The Gemara answers: bAlthough he did not fill the place of his fathers with regard to wisdom,as he was not as great a Torah scholar as his father, bhe did fill the place of his fathers with regard to fear of sinand was therefore fit to be appointed as the iNasi /i.,§ Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi instructed: bḤanina bar Ḥama will sit at the headof the yeshiva. The Gemara relates: bRabbi Ḥanina did not acceptthis appointment, bbecause Rabbi Afes was older than himby btwo and a half yearsand he did not want to precede him in accepting this position. Consequently, bRabbi Afes sat at the headof the yeshiva, band Rabbi Ḥanina sat outside,as it was unbefitting for him to sit as a student before Rabbi Afes. bAnd Levi came and satand studied bwith himoutside., bRabbi Afes died, and Rabbi Ḥanina,taking his place, bsat at the headof the yeshiva. bAnd Levi did not have anyone to sitand study bwith, andso bhe came to Babylonia. And this isthe background to the incident in which bthey said to Rav: A great man came to Neharde’a, and he limps, and he taught:It bis permittedfor a woman who is wearing a ikelila /i,a tiara-like ornament, to go out into the public domain on Shabbat. Rav then bsaid: Conclude from thisthat bRabbi Afes died and Rabbi Ḥanina,taking his place, bsat at the headof the yeshiva, band Levi did not have anyone to sitand study bwith, andso bhe cameto Babylonia.,The Gemara asks: How did Rav know that it was Rabbi Afes who died? bSaythat bRabbi Ḥaninawas the one who bdied,and bRabbi Afes sat as he had sat,i.e., he continued to sit at the head of the yeshiva, band Levi did not have anyone to sit with, andso bhe cameto Babylonia. The Gemara answers: bIf you wish, saythat bLevi was subordinate to Rabbi Afesand would have sat before him as a student had Rabbi Afes still been alive, and the only reason why he sat outside in the first place was in deference to Rabbi Ḥanina, who sat outside because he did not consider himself subordinate to Rabbi Afes., bAnd if you wish, sayinstead that bsince RabbiYehuda HaNasi had bsaid: Ḥanina bar Ḥama will sit at the headof the yeshiva, bit is not possible that he will notone day brulethe yeshiva. Therefore, it must have been Rabbi Afes who died and Rabbi Ḥanina who took his place, bas it is written about the righteous: “You shall also decree a thing, and it shall be established unto you”(Job 22:28).,The Gemara asks: bBut wasn’t Rabbi Ḥiyyathere? Why didn’t Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi appoint him as head of the yeshiva? The Gemara answers: bHe diedbefore Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara asks: bBut didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya say: I saw the grave site of RabbiYehuda HaNasi band I shed tears over it?The Gemara answers: bReversethe names. It was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who said that he saw the grave site of Rabbi Ḥiyya.,The Gemara asks: bBut didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya say:On bthat day that RabbiYehuda HaNasi bdied, sanctity ceased?The Gemara answers: bReversethe names. It was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who made this statement about Rabbi Ḥiyya.,The Gemara asks: bBut isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bWhen RabbiYehuda HaNasi bfell ill, Rabbi Ḥiyya enteredto be bwith him and found him crying. He said to him: My teacher, for whatreason bare you crying? Isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: brIf one bdies while laughing, it is a good sign for him; while crying, it is a bad sign for him. brIf one dies with bhis face upward, it is a good sign for him;with bhis face downward, it is a bad sign for him. brIf one dies with bhis face facing the peoplestanding around him, bit is a good sign for him;with bhis face facing the wall, it is a bad sign for him. brIf one’s bfaceis bsallow, it is a bad sign for him;if bhis faceis byellow or ruddy, it is a good sign for him. brIf one bdies on the Shabbat eve it is a good sign for him,because he is heading straight into the Shabbat rest; if one dies bat the conclusion of Shabbat it is a bad sign for him. brIf one bdies on the eve of Yom Kippur, it is a bad sign for him,as his sins have not yet been forgiven; if one dies at bthe conclusion of Yom Kippur it is a good sign for him,because he died after his sins have been forgiven. brIf one bdies due to an intestinal disease, it is a good sign for him, because most of the righteous die due to intestinal disease. /b,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bsaid to him: I am crying for the Torah and the mitzvotthat I will be unable to fulfill after I die. This indicates that Rabbi Ḥiyya was present at the time of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s death.,The Gemara answers: bIf you wish, saythat one must breversethe names and that it was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who came to visit Rabbi Ḥiyya prior to his death. bAnd if you wish, sayinstead that bactuallywe bdo notneed to breversethe names in all of the above statements, but rather explain that bRabbi Ḥiyya was occupied withthe performance of bmitzvot and RabbiYehuda HaNasi bthought: I will not hold him backfrom his performance of mitzvot by appointing him head of the yeshiva., bAnd this isthe background to an exchange that took place bwhen Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Ḥiyya argued. Rabbi Ḥanina said to Rabbi Ḥiyya: You are arguing with me? If, Heaven forfend, the Torah would be forgotten from the Jewish people, I would restore it through my analyses,i.e., using my abilities of analysis I would be able to rediscover all that had been lost., bRabbi Ḥiyya saidto Rabbi Ḥanina: bI am workingto ensure bthat the Torah will not be forgotten from the Jewish people. For I bring flax and I plant it, and Ithen bweave netsfrom the flax fibers. bIthen go out and btrap deer, and I feedthe bmeat to orphans, and I form scrolls from the skins of the deer. And I go to a town that has no teachers of children in it and I write the five booksof the Torah bfor five children. And I teach the six ordersof the Mishna bto six children. To each and every oneof these children bI say: Teach your order to your friends.In this way all of the children will learn the whole of the Torah and the Mishna., bAnd this iswhat bRabbiYehuda HaNasi referred to when he bsaid: How great are the actions of Ḥiyya. Rabbi Shimon, son of RabbiYehuda HaNasi, bsaid tohis father: bEvengreater bthan yourworks? bHe said to him: Yes. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said toRabbi Yehuda HaNasi: bEvengreater bthanthe work of Rabbi Yosei, my bfather?Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bsaid to him: Heaven forfend. Suchcomments bshould not bemade bamong the Jewish people. /b,§ The Gemara returns to the narrative of the impending death of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: bHe said to them: I need my younger son. Rabbi Shimon entered hispresence. bHe transmitted to him the orders of wisdom,including how he should conduct himself and the essential principles of the Torah., bHe said to them: I need my older son. Rabban Gamliel entered hispresence, bandRabbi Yehuda HaNasi btransmitted to him the proceduresof the office bof the iNasi /i.Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bsaid toRabban Gamliel: bMy son, conduct yourterm as iNasiwith assertivenessand bcast fear uponyour bstudents,i.e., treat them in a firm manner so that they will fear you.,The Gemara asks: bIs that sothat it is correct to behave in such a manner? bBut isn’t it written: “But he honors those that fear the Lord”(Psalms 15:4), band the Master said: Thisis referring to bJehoshaphat, king of Judea. When he would see a Torah scholar he would rise from his throne and hug him and kiss him and call to him: My teacher, my teacher, my master, my master.This demonstrates that it is appropriate even for a king to behave with affection toward Torah scholars.,The Gemara answers: This is bnot difficult. Thisdisplay of affection should be applied bin private,when only the teacher and student are present, and bthatstern demeanor should be applied bin public,in order to ensure the teacher’s authority., bIt is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbiYehuda HaNasi was blyingill in bTzippori and aburial bsite was ready for him in Beit She’arim.The Gemara asks: bBut isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: b“Justice, justice shall you follow”(Deuteronomy 16:20); bfollow RabbiYehuda HaNasi bto Beit She’arim,i.e., one should seek to have his case adjudicated by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s court in Beit She’arim. This indicates that Beit She’arim, not Tzippori, was Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s place of residence, and therefore he must have been lying ill in Beit She’arim.,The Gemara answers: bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bwas in Beit She’arim, but when he became ill they transferred him to Tzippori, /b
14. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

3a. בנס היו עומדין,אין מהוה הוו ולא הוו ידעי הי באמצע תיבה והי בסוף תיבה ואתו צופים ותקינו פתוחין באמצע תיבה וסתומין בסוף תיבה,סוף סוף אלה המצות שאין נביא עתיד לחדש דבר מעתה אלא שכחום וחזרו ויסדום,וא"ר ירמיה ואיתימא רבי חייא בר אבא תרגום של תורה אונקלוס הגר אמרו מפי ר' אליעזר ור' יהושע תרגום של נביאים יונתן בן עוזיאל אמרו מפי חגי זכריה ומלאכי ונזדעזעה ארץ ישראל ארבע מאות פרסה על ארבע מאות פרסה יצתה בת קול ואמרה מי הוא זה שגילה סתריי לבני אדם,עמד יונתן בן עוזיאל על רגליו ואמר אני הוא שגליתי סתריך לבני אדם גלוי וידוע לפניך שלא לכבודי עשיתי ולא לכבוד בית אבא אלא לכבודך עשיתי שלא ירבו מחלוקת בישראל,ועוד ביקש לגלות תרגום של כתובים יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו דייך מ"ט משום דאית ביה קץ משיח,ותרגום של תורה אונקלוס הגר אמרו והא אמר רב איקא בר אבין אמר רב חננאל אמר רב מאי דכתיב (נחמיה ח, ח) ויקראו בספר תורת האלהים מפורש ושום שכל ויבינו במקרא ויקראו בספר תורת האלהים זה מקרא מפורש זה תרגום,ושום שכל אלו הפסוקין ויבינו במקרא אלו פיסקי טעמים ואמרי לה אלו המסורת שכחום וחזרו ויסדום,מאי שנא דאורייתא דלא אזדעזעה ואדנביאי אזדעזעה דאורייתא מיפרשא מלתא דנביאי איכא מילי דמיפרשן ואיכא מילי דמסתמן דכתיב (זכריה יב, יא) ביום ההוא יגדל המספד בירושלם כמספד הדדרימון בבקעת מגידון,ואמר רב יוסף אלמלא תרגומא דהאי קרא לא ידענא מאי קאמר ביומא ההוא יסגי מספדא בירושלים כמספדא דאחאב בר עמרי דקטל יתיה הדדרימון בן טברימון ברמות גלעד וכמספדא דיאשיה בר אמון דקטל יתיה פרעה חגירא בבקעת מגידו,(דניאל י, ז) וראיתי אני דניאל לבדי את המראה והאנשים אשר היו עמי לא ראו את המראה אבל חרדה גדולה נפלה עליהם ויברחו בהחבא מאן נינהו אנשים אמר ר' ירמיה ואיתימא רבי חייא בר אבא זה חגי זכריה ומלאכי,אינהו עדיפי מיניה ואיהו עדיף מינייהו אינהו עדיפי מיניה דאינהו נביאי ואיהו לאו נביא איהו עדיף מינייהו דאיהו חזא ואינהו לא חזו,וכי מאחר דלא חזו מ"ט איבעיתו אע"ג דאינהו לא חזו מזלייהו חזו,אמר רבינא שמע מינה האי מאן דמיבעית אע"ג דאיהו לא חזי מזליה חזי מאי תקנתיה ליקרי ק"ש ואי קאים במקום הטנופת לינשוף מדוכתיה ארבע גרמידי ואי לא לימא הכי עיזא דבי טבחי שמינא מינאי:,והשתא דאמרת מדינה ומדינה ועיר ועיר לדרשה משפחה ומשפחה למאי אתא אמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא להביא משפחות כהונה ולויה שמבטלין עבודתן ובאין לשמוע מקרא מגילה,דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב כהנים בעבודתן ולוים בדוכנן וישראל במעמדן כולן מבטלין עבודתן ובאין לשמוע מקרא מגילה,תניא נמי הכי כהנים בעבודתן ולוים בדוכנן וישראל במעמדן כולן מבטלין עבודתן ובאין לשמוע מקרא מגילה מכאן סמכו של בית רבי שמבטלין תלמוד תורה ובאין לשמוע מקרא מגילה קל וחומר מעבודה ומה עבודה שהיא חמורה מבטלינן תלמוד תורה לא כל שכן,ועבודה חמורה מתלמוד תורה והכתיב (יהושע ה, יג) ויהי בהיות יהושע ביריחו וישא עיניו וירא והנה איש עומד לנגדו [וגו'] וישתחו (לאפיו),והיכי עביד הכי והאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי אסור לאדם שיתן שלום לחבירו בלילה חיישינן שמא שד הוא שאני התם דאמר ליה כי אני שר צבא ה',ודלמא משקרי גמירי דלא מפקי שם שמים לבטלה,אמר לו אמש בטלתם תמיד של בין הערבים ועכשיו בטלתם תלמוד תורה אמר לו על איזה מהן באת אמר לו עתה באתי מיד (יהושע ח, ט) וילן יהושע בלילה ההוא בתוך העמק אמר רבי יוחנן 3a. bstood by way of a miracle? /b,The Gemara answers: bYes,two forms of these letters bdid existat that time, bbutthe people bdid not know whichone of them was to be used bin the middle of the word and which at the end of the word, and the Seers came and establishedthat bthe openforms are to used be bin the middle of the word and the closedforms bat the end of the word. /b,The Gemara asks: bUltimately,however, doesn’t the phrase b“these are the commandments”(Leviticus 27:34) indicate bthat a prophet is not permitted to initiate any matterof ihalakha bfrom now on? Rather,it may be suggested that the final letters already existed at the time of the giving of the Torah, but over the course of time the people bforgot them,and the prophets bthencame and breestablished them. /b,§ The Gemara cites another ruling of Rabbi Yirmeya or Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. bRabbi Yirmeya said, and some saythat it was bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Abbawho said: bTheAramaic btranslation of the Torahused in the synagogues bwas composed by Onkelos the convert based onthe teachings of bRabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua. TheAramaic btranslation of the Prophets was composed by Yonatan ben Uzziel based ona tradition going back to the last prophets, bHaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.The Gemara relates that when Yonatan ben Uzziel wrote his translation, bEretz Yisrael quakedover an area of bfour hundred parasangs [ iparsa /i] by four hundred parasangs,and ba Divine Voice emerged and said: Who is this who has revealed My secrets to mankind? /b, bYonatan ben Uzziel stood up on his feet and said: I am the one who has revealed Your secrets to mankindthrough my translation. However, bit is revealed and known to You that I did this not for myown bhonor, and not for the honor of the house ofmy bfather, but ratherit was bfor Your honorthat bI did this, so that discord not increase among the Jewish people.In the absence of an accepted translation, people will disagree about the meaning of obscure verses, but with a translation, the meaning will be clear., bAndYonatan ben Uzziel balso sought to reveal a translation of the Writings,but ba Divine Voice emerged and said to him: It is enough for youthat you translated the Prophets. The Gemara explains: bWhat is the reasonthat he was denied permission to translate the Writings? bBecause it has in ita revelation of bthe end,when the bMessiahwill arrive. The end is foretold in a cryptic manner in the book of Daniel, and were the book of Daniel translated, the end would become manifestly revealed to all.,The Gemara asks: bWas the translation of the Torahreally bcomposed by Onkelos the convert? Didn’t Rav Ika bar Avin saythat bRav Ḥael saidthat bRav said: What isthe meaning of that bwhich is writtenwith respect to the days of Ezra: b“And they read in the book, the Torah of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, and they caused them to understand the reading”(Nehemiah 8:8)? The verse should be understood as follows: b“And they read in the book, the Torah of God,” this is thescriptural btext; “distinctly,” this is the translation,indicating that they immediately translated the text into Aramaic, as was customary during public Torah readings., b“And they gave the sense,” these arethe divisions of the text into separate bverses. “And they caused them to understand the reading,” these are the cantillation notes,through which the meaning of the text is further clarified. bAnd some saythat bthese are theMasoretic btraditionswith regard to the manner in which each word is to be written. This indicates that the Aramaic translation already existed at the beginning of the Second Temple period, well before the time of Onkelos. The Gemara answers: bTheancient Aramaic translation bwas forgotten and thenOnkelos came and breestablished it. /b,The Gemara asks: bWhat is differentabout the translation of Prophets? Why is it that when Onkelos revealed the translation bof the Torah,Eretz Yisrael bdid not quake, andwhen he revealed the translation bof the Prophets, it quaked?The Gemara explains: bThemeaning of bmattersdiscussed bin the Torah is clear,and therefore its Aramaic translation did not reveal the meaning of passages that had not been understood previously. Conversely, in bthe Prophets, there are matters that are clear and there are matters that are obscure,and the Aramaic translation revealed the meaning of obscure passages. The Gemara cites an example of an obscure verse that is clarified by the Aramaic translation: bAs it is written: “On that day shall there be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon”(Zechariah 12:11)., bAndwith regard to that verse, bRav Yosef said: Were it not for theAramaic btranslation of this verse, we would not have known what it is saying,as the Bible does not mention any incident involving Hadadrimmon in the valley of Megiddon. The Aramaic translation reads as follows: bOn that day, the mourning in Jerusalem will be as great as the mourning for Ahab, son of Omri, who was slain by Hadadrimmon, son of Tavrimon, in Ramoth-Gilead, and like the mourning for Josiah, son of Amon, who was slain by Pharaoh the lame in the valley of Megiddon.The translation clarifies that the verse is referring to two separate incidents of mourning, and thereby clarifies the meaning of this verse.,§ The Gemara introduces another statement from the same line of tradition. The verse states: b“And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me did not see the vision; but a great trembling fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves”(Daniel 10:7). bWho were these men?The term “men” in the Bible indicates important people; who were they? bRabbi Yirmeya said, and some saythat it was bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Abbawho said: bThese arethe prophets bHaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. /b,The Gemara comments: In certain ways bthey,the prophets, bwere greater than him,Daniel, and in certain ways bhe,Daniel, bwas greater than them. They were greater than him, as they were prophets and he was not a prophet.Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi were sent to convey the word of God to the Jewish people, while Daniel was not sent to reveal his visions to others. In another way, however, bhe was greater than them, as he sawthis vision, band they did not seethis vision, indicating that his ability to perceive obscure and cryptic visions was greater than theirs.,The Gemara asks: bSince they did not seethe vision, bwhat is the reason that they were frightened?The Gemara answers: bEven though they did not seethe vision, btheir guardian angels sawit, and therefore they sensed that there was something fearful there and they fled., bRavina said: Learn fromthis incident that with regard to bone who is frightenedfor no apparent reason, balthough he does not seeanything menacing, bhis guardian angel seesit, and therefore he should take steps in order to escape the danger. The Gemara asks: bWhat is his remedy? He should recite iShema /i,which will afford him protection. bAnd if he is standing in a place of filth,where it is prohibited to recite verses from the Torah, bhe should distance himself four cubits from hiscurrent blocationin order to escape the danger. bAnd ifhe is bnotable to do so, blet him say the followingincantation: bThe goat of the slaughterhouse is fatter than I am,and if a calamity must fall upon something, it should fall upon it.,§ After this digression, the Gemara returns to the exposition of a verse cited above. bNowthat byou have saidthat the phrases b“every province” and “every city”appear bforthe purposes of midrashic bexposition, for whatexposition do the words b“every family”appear in that same verse (Esther 9:28)? bRabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said:These words come bto include the priestly and Levitical families,and indicate bthat they cancel their servicein the Temple band come to hear the reading of the Megilla. /b, bAs Rav Yehuda saidthat bRav said: The priests at theirTemple bservice, the Levites on their platformin the Temple, where they sung the daily psalm, band the Israelites at their watches,i.e., the group of Israelites, corresponding to the priestly watches, who would come to Jerusalem and gather in other locations as representatives of the entire nation to observe or pray for the success of the Temple service, ball cancel their service and come to hear the reading of the Megilla. /b, bThis is also taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThe priests at their service, the Levites on the platform, and the Israelites at their watches, all cancel their service and come to hear the reading of the Megilla.The Sages of bthe house of RabbiYehuda HaNasi breliedupon the ihalakhastated bhereand determined bthat one cancels his Torah study and comes to hear the reading of the Megilla.They derived this principle by means of ban ia fortiori /iinference bfrom theTemple bservice: Just asone who is engaged in performing bservicein the Temple, bwhich isvery bimportant, cancelshis service in order to hear the Megilla, is it bnot all the more soobvious that one who is engaged in bTorah studycancels his study to hear the Megilla?,The Gemara asks: bIs theTemple bservice more important than Torah study? Isn’t it written: “And it came to pass when Joshua was by Jericho that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man stood over against himwith his sword drawn in his hand. And Joshua went over to him and said to him: Are you for us, or for our adversaries? And he said, No, but I am captain of the host of the Lord, I have come now. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, band bowed down”(Joshua 5:13–14).,The Gemara first seeks to clarify the incident described in the verse. bHow didJoshua bdo this,i.e., how could he bow to a figure he did not recognize? bDidn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: It is prohibited for a person to greet his fellow at nightif he does not recognize him, as bwe are concerned that perhaps it is a demon?How did Joshua know that it was not a demon? The Gemara answers: bThere it was different, asthe visitor bsaid to him: But I am captain of the host of the Lord. /b,The Gemara asks: bPerhapsthis was a demon band he lied?The Gemara answers: It bis learnedas a tradition that demons bdo not utter the name of Heaven for naught,and therefore since the visitor had mentioned the name of God, Joshua was certain that this was indeed an angel.,As for the angel’s mission, the Gemara explains that the angel bsaid toJoshua: bYesterday,i.e., during the afternoon, byou neglected the afternoon daily offeringdue to the impending battle, band now,at night, byou have neglected Torah study,and I have come to rebuke you. Joshua bsaid to him: For which of thesesins bhave you come? He said to him: I have come now,indicating that neglecting Torah study is more severe than neglecting to sacrifice the daily offering. Joshua bimmediatelydetermined to rectify the matter, as the verses states: b“And Joshua lodged that night”(Joshua 8:9) b“in the midst of the valley[iha’emek/b]” (Joshua 8:13), and bRabbi Yoḥa said: /b
15. Babylonian Talmud, Temurah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

14a. מתני׳ big strongיש /strong /big בקרבנות יחיד שאין בקרבנות הציבור ויש בקרבנות הציבור שאין בקרבנות היחיד שקרבנות היחיד עושין תמורה ואין קרבנות הציבור עושין תמורה,קרבנות היחיד נוהגות בין בזכרים בין בנקבות וקרבנות הציבור אין נוהגין אלא בזכרים קרבנות היחיד חייבין באחריותן ובאחריות נסכיהם וקרבנות הציבור אין חייבין באחריותן ולא באחריות נסכיהן אבל חייבין באחריות נסכיהן משקרב הזבח,יש בקרבנות הציבור מה שאין בקרבנות יחיד שקרבנות הציבור דוחין את השבת ואת הטומאה וקרבנות יחיד אינן דוחות לא את השבת ולא את הטומאה,א"ר מאיר והלא חביתי כ"ג ופר של יוה"כ קרבנות היחיד הן ודוחין את השבת ואת הטומאה אלא שזמנו קבוע, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big קרבן יחיד עושה תמורה כו' וכללא הוא והרי עופות דקרבן יחיד ואין עושה תמורה כי קתני בבהמה קתני,והרי ולד דקרבן יחיד הוא ואין עושה תמורה הא מני רבי יהודה היא דאמר הולד עושה תמורה,והרי תמורה עצמה דקרבן יחיד היא ואין תמורה עושה תמורה כי קתני בעיקר זיבחא קתני,השתא דאתית להכי אפילו תימא רבנן בעיקר זיבחא קתני,קרבנות היחיד נוהגות בין בזכרים בין בנקבות וכללא הוא והרי עולה דקרבן יחיד וזכר אתיא נקבה לא אתיא,האיכא עולת העוף דתניא תמות וזכרות בבהמה ואין תמות וזכרות בעופות,והרי חטאת דקרבן יחיד היא ונקבה אתיא זכר לא אתיא האיכא שעיר נשיא דמייתי זכר,והאיכא אשם יחיד דזכר אתי נקבה לא אתי כי קאמרי רבנן קרבן דשוי בין ביחיד בין בציבור אשם ביחיד איתיה בצבור ליתיה ואיבעית אימא מי קתני כל קרבנות יש בקרבנות קתני ומאי ניהו שלמים ואי בעי נקבה מייתי ואי בעי זכר מייתי,קרבנות יחיד חייבין באחריותן [כו'] מנא לן,דת"ר (ויקרא כג, לז) דבר יום [ביומו] מלמד שכל היום כשר למוספין (ויקרא כג, לז) ביומו מלמד שאם עבר היום ולא הביאן אינו חייב באחריותן,יכול לא יהא חייב באחריות נסכיהם ואע"פ שקרב הזבח ת"ל (במדבר כט, יח) מנחתם ונסכיהם בלילה מנחתם ונסכיהם למחר,ר"ל אמר מהכא (ויקרא כג, לח) מלבד שבתות ה',וצריכא דאי כתב רחמנא מלבד שבתות ה' הוה אמינא ביום אין ובלילה לא אמר קרא ומנחתם ונסכיהם ואי כתב רחמנא מנחתם ונסכיהם ולא כתב מלבד שבתות ה' הוה אמינא בלילה אין ביממא לא,ומאי שנא משום דבקדשים לילה הולך אחר היום צריכי,ונסכים מי קרבי בלילה והתנן אין לי אלא דברים שדרכן ליקרב בלילה כגון אברים ופדרים שמקריבין מבוא השמש ומתעכלין והולכין כל הלילה כולו,דברים שדרכן ליקרב ביום כגון הקומץ הלבונה ומנחת נסכים שמעלן מבוא השמש מבוא השמש סלקא דעתך והאמרת דברים שדרכן ליקרב ביום נינהו אלא עם בא השמש שמתעכלין והולכין כל הלילה מנין תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ו, ב) זאת תורת העולה ריבה,קתני מיהא נסכים ביום אמר רמי בר חמא לא קשיא כאן ליקדש כאן ליקרב,אמר ליה רבא אי מיקדש קדשי קרובי מיקרבי והא תניא זה הכלל כל הקרב ביום אין קדוש אלא ביום וכל הקרב בלילה קדוש בלילה בין ביום בין בלילה קדוש בין ביום בין בלילה אלא אמר רב יוסף סמי מנחת נסכים מהא מתניתא,כי סליק רב דימי אשכחיה לרב ירמיה דיתיב וקאמר משמיה דרבי יהושע בן לוי מנין לנסכים הבאים עם הזבח שאין קריבין אלא ביום ת"ל (במדבר כט, לט) ולנסכיכם ולשלמיכם מה שלמים ביום אף נסכים ביום,אמר אי אשכחיה דכתיב איגרתא שלחי ליה לרב יוסף 14a. strongMISHNA: /strong bThere are ihalakhotin effect bwith regard to offerings of an individual that are notin effect bwith regard to communal offerings; and there are ihalakhotin effect bwith regard to communal offerings that are notin effect bwith regard to offerings of an individual.The mishna elaborates: There are ihalakhotin effect with regard to offerings of an individual that are not in effect with regard to communal offerings, bas offerings of an individual rendera non-sacred animal exchanged for the offering ba substitute, and communal offerings do not rendera non-sacred animal exchanged for the offering ba substitute. /b, bofferings of an individual apply to,i.e., can be brought from, bboth males and females, but communal offerings apply only to males.If bofferings of an individualwere not brought at the appropriate time, one is bobligated tobring btheir compensation and compensationfor btheiraccompanying meal offering and blibationsat a later date, bbutif bcommunal offeringswere not brought at the appropriate time, one is bobligated tobring bneither their compensation nor compensationfor btheiraccompanying meal offering and blibationsat a later date. bButone is bobligated tobring bcompensationfor btheiraccompanying meal offering and blibations once the offering is sacrificed. /b, bThere are ihalakhotin effect bwith regard to communal offerings that are notin effect bwith regard to offerings of an individual, as communal offerings override Shabbat,in that they are sacrificed on Shabbat, bandthey override britual impurity,i.e., they are sacrificed even if the priests are impure with impurity imparted by a corpse; band offerings of an individual override neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity. /b, bRabbi Meir said: But aren’t the High Priest’s griddle-cakeofferings band the bull of Yom Kippur offerings of an individual, andyet bthey override Shabbat and ritual impurity. Rather,this is the principle: Any offering, individual or communal, bwhose time is fixedoverrides Shabbat and ritual impurity, whereas any offering, individual or communal, whose time is not fixed overrides neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity., strongGEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that bofferings of an individual rendera non-sacred animal exchanged for the offering ba substitute.The Gemara asks: bAndis bthisan established bprinciple?Does every offering of an individual render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute? bButwhat about bbirds,i.e., a dove or a pigeon, bwhichare brought as ban offering of an individual, but they do not rendera non-sacred animal exchanged for them ba substitute?The Gemara answers: bWhenthe mishna bteachesthat offerings of an individual render a non-sacred animal exchanged for the offering a substitute, it bis teachingthis only bwith regard to an animaloffering, not a bird offering.,The Gemara objects: bButwhat about the boffspringof a sanctified animal, bwhich isbrought and sacrificed on the altar as ban offering of an individualof the same type as its mother, bandyet it bdoes not rendera non-sacred animal exchanged for it ba substitute?The Gemara explains: In accordance with bwhoseopinion bis thismishna? bIt isin accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yehuda, who saidthat bthe offspringof a sanctified animal brendersa non-sacred animal exchanged for it ba substitute. /b,The Gemara objects: bButwhat about ba substitute itself, which isbrought and sacrificed on the altar as ban offering of an individual, andyet ba substitute does not rendera non-sacred animal exchanged for it ba substitute?The Gemara answers: bWhenthe mishna bteachesthat an offering of an individual renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, it bis teachingthis only bwith regard to the primary offering,not a substitute of an offering.,The Gemara comments: bNow that you have arrived at thisanswer, byoucan beven saythat the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of bthe Rabbis,who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and maintain that the offspring of an offering does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. The reason is that one can explain that the mishna bis teachingits ihalakhaonly bwith regard to the primary offering,not the offspring of an offering.,§ The mishna teaches: bofferings of an individual apply to,i.e., can be brought from, bboth males and females.The Gemara asks: bIsthis an established bprinciple,that all offerings of an individual may be brought from either a male or female animal? bButwhat about ba burnt offering, which is an offering of an individual, andyet it bcomesas ba maleanimal but does bnot comeas ba femaleanimal.,The Gemara answers that bthere is a bird burnt offering,i.e., there is a type of burnt offering that can be either a female or male bird. bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: The requirement of bunblemished status andthe requirement of bmale statusboth apply to a sacrificial banimalbrought as a burnt offering, bbutthe requirement of bunblemished status andthe requirement of bmale statusdo bnotapply to sacrificial bbirdsbrought as burnt offerings.,The Gemara objects: bButwhat about ba sin offering, which is an offering of an individual, andyet bcomesas ba femaleanimal but does bnot comeas ba maleanimal. The Gemara explains: Although burnt offerings of an individual must be female, bthere is the goat sin offering of a king, whichis sacrificed by a specific individual and bis broughtspecifically as ba maleanimal.,The Gemara further objects: bBut there isthe bindividual guilt offering, which comesas ba maleanimal but does bnot comeas ba femaleanimal. The Gemara explains: bWhen the Sages statedthis ihalakhain the mishna they were referring only to ban offering that is equivalent,i.e., which is brought bbothas ban offering of an individual andas ba communaloffering, whereas ba guilt offering isbrought as ban offering of an individualbut bis notbrought as ba communaloffering. bAnd if you wish, sayinstead an alternative explanation: bDoesthe mishna bteach: All offeringsmay be brought as either male or female? It does not. Rather, the mishna bteaches: There are offeringsof an individual that may be brought as male or female; band what are they? Peace offerings; andin the case of such an offering, bifone bwants he brings a femaleanimal band ifhe bwants he brings a maleanimal.,§ The mishna teaches: If bofferings of an individualwere not brought at the appropriate time, one is bobligated tobring btheir compensationand compensation for their accompanying meal offering and libations at a later date, whereas if communal offerings were not brought at the appropriate time, one is obligated to bring neither their compensation nor compensation for their accompanying meal offering and libations at a later date. The Gemara asks: bFrom where do wederive this ihalakha /i, that if a communal offering was not sacrificed at the appropriate time it is not brought at a later stage?,The Gemara answers: bAs the Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: The verse states in the section of the Torah dealing with additional offerings: “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to bring an offering made by fire to the Lord, a burnt offering, and a meal offering, a sacrifice, and libations, beach dayon its own day” (Leviticus 23:37). This bteaches that the entire day is fit forbringing the badditionalofferings. The term: b“On its own day,” teaches that if the day has passed andthe priests bdid not bringthe additional offerings, bone is not obligated tobring btheir compensation,and the offering cannot be brought at a later date.,The ibaraitacontinues: One bmighthave thought that bone should not be obligated tobring bcompensationfor btheiraccompanying blibationsat a later date beven if theadditional boffering has been sacrificed,e.g., if there were no meal offerings or libations available at that time. Therefore, bthe verse states,in the chapter dealing with the additional offerings of the Festivals: b“Their meal offerings and their libations”(Numbers 29:37). It is derived from here that the meal offerings and libations which are brought with the additional animal offerings of the Festivals can be sacrificed even bin the nightafter the animal offering. The phrase b“their meal offerings and their libations”further teaches that these meal offerings and libations can be sacrificed even bon the following day. /b, bReish Lakish saidthat the source is from the following verse: “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to bring an offering made by fire unto the Lord…each on its own day; bbeside the iShabbatotof the Lord”(Leviticus 23:37–38). The verse is expounded as speaking of a Festival that occurred on a Sunday, and therefore it is teaching that the meal offerings and libations for the additional offerings of the previous Shabbat may be brought on the following Festival day., bAndthe Gemara notes that both verses are bnecessary, as if the Merciful One had writtenonly the verse: b“Beside the iShabbatotof the Lord,” I would saythat bon the dayfollowing Shabbat, byes,one may bring the offerings, bbut on the nightafter Shabbat, bno,one may not bring them, just as the offering itself could not have been brought at night. Therefore, bthe verse states: “And their meal offerings and their libations.” And if the Merciful One had writtenonly: b“Their meal offerings and their libations,” and not written: “Beside the iShabbatotof the Lord,” I would saythat bat night, yes,the offerings may be brought, bbut on thefollowing bdaythey may bnotbe brought.,The Gemara asks: bAndin bwhatway bisthe night bdifferent fromthe day, that one might have thought the outstanding meal offerings and libations may be brought only at night but not during the day? The Gemara explains bthatone might have thought so because bwith regard to sacrificialanimals and offerings the bnight follows the day.Therefore, the Torah had to teach that the meal offering and libations may be brought even the following day. The Gemara concludes that indeed both verses bare necessary. /b,The Gemara asks: bAnd libations, may they be sacrificed at night? Didn’t we learnin a ibaraita /i: bI havederived bonlywith regard to bitems that are normally sacrificed at night, for example, the limbsof a burnt offering band the fatsof burnt offerings and other offerings, bthat one sacrificesthem bafter sunset and they are consumed throughout the entire night.This is derived from the verse: “This is the law of the burnt offering: It is that which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning” (Leviticus 6:2).,The ibaraitacontinues: But with regard to bitems that are normally sacrificed in the day, for example the handfulof the meal offering, and bthe frankincense, and the meal offeringthat accompanies bthe libations,from where is it derived bthat one may bring them upand burn them bafter sunset?The Gemara asks: Would it benter your mindthat they may be burned bafter sunset? But didn’t you saythat these are bitems that are normally sacrificed in the day? Rather,the question of the ibaraitais as follows: bFrom whereis it derived that these items may be sacrificed bwith sunset,i.e., just before sunset, binwhich case bthey are consumed throughout the entire nightand not during the day? bThe verse states: “This is the law of the burnt offering”(Leviticus 6:2), a phrase that bincludedeverything sacrificed on the altar.,The Gemara reiterates its previous difficulty: bIn any event,the ibaraita bteachesthat the meal offering that accompanies the blibationsis brought only bin the day,not at night. bRami bar Ḥama saidthat this is bnot difficult. Here,where the verse states: “Their meal offerings and libations,” it is referring bto consecratingthe offering if one placed it in a consecrated utensil at night. The offering becomes consecrated and may not be used for non-sacred purposes. bThere,in the verse cited by the ibaraitaas teaching that it may be brought only in the day and not at night, it is referring bto sacrificingthe offering on the altar. Even if an offering was consecrated at night, it may not be sacrificed until the following morning., bRava said toRami bar Ḥama: bIfthe meal offering accompanying the libations bcan be consecratedat night, it should also be fit bto be sacrificedat night. No distinction can be made between consecrating and sacrificing, as bisn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThis is the principle: Anyoffering bthat is sacrificed in the day is consecrated only in the day; and anyoffering bthat is sacrificed at night is consecratedonly bat night;and any offering that is sacrificed bboth in the day and at night is consecratedboth bin the day and at night. Rather, Rav Yosef said:The meal offering accompanying the libations may be sacrificed at night, and therefore one should bdelete from this ibaraita /ithe item: Meal offering that accompanies bthe libations,from the list of the offerings that may not be brought at night.,With regard to Rav Yosef’s claim that the item: Meal offering that accompanies the libations, should be removed from the ibaraita /i, the Gemara states: bWhen Rav Dimi ascendedfrom Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, bhe found Rav Yirmeya sitting and saying in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: From whereis it derived that blibations that come withan animal boffering may be sacrificed only in the day? The verse states:“These you shall offer to the Lord in your appointed seasons, beside your vows, and your voluntary offerings, and your burnt offerings, and your meal offerings, band your libations, and your peace offerings”(Numbers 29:39). The juxtaposition of these two items teaches that bjust as peace offeringsmay be sacrificed only during bthe day, so too libationsmay be sacrificed only during bthe day. /b,Rav Dimi bsaidto Rav Yirmeya: bIf I findsomeone bwhocan bwritethis opinion in ba letter,I will bsend it to Rav Yosefin Babylonia
16. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 3.1.2, 3.5.3, 3.27.1-3.27.6 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

3.1.2. Peter appears to have preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews of the dispersion. And at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer in this way. What do we need to say concerning Paul, who preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to Illyricum, and afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero? These facts are related by Origen in the third volume of his Commentary on Genesis. 3.5.3. But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come there from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men. 3.27.1. The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ. 3.27.2. For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life. 3.27.3. There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same name, but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law. 3.27.4. These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest. 3.27.5. The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord's days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour. 3.27.6. Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews.
17. Pseudo Clementine Literature, Homilies, 8.7, 11.29 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

18. Pseudo Clementine Literature, Recognitiones (E Pseudocaesario), 1.27-1.71 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

19. Anon., Pesikta Rabbati, 5

20. Anon., Tanhuma, None



Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
abaye Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 176
aggadah/aggadot Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 369
amoraim, and argumentation Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 176
amoraim, and law Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 176
apostolic succession Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 107
aquila, greek translation of hebrew bible by, rabbinic exegesis and Carleton Paget and Schaper, The New Cambridge History of the Bible (2013) 211
aramaic targums, fragmentary targums Carleton Paget and Schaper, The New Cambridge History of the Bible (2013) 211
aramaic targums, rabbinic exegesis and Carleton Paget and Schaper, The New Cambridge History of the Bible (2013) 211
aramaic targums, targum onqelos Carleton Paget and Schaper, The New Cambridge History of the Bible (2013) 211
argumentation, dialectical, and amoraim Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 176
argumentation, dialectical, and tannaim Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 176
babylonian sages, association of targum onqelos with Carleton Paget and Schaper, The New Cambridge History of the Bible (2013) 211
baraitot (tannaitic sources not in mishna), knowledge of Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 176
bilingual(ism) Fraade, Multilingualism and Translation in Ancient Judaism: Before and After Babel (2023) 155
ebionites Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 107
eusebius of caesarea Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 107
ezra (scribe) Balberg, Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture (2023) 222
fragmentary targums Carleton Paget and Schaper, The New Cambridge History of the Bible (2013) 211
halakhah/halakhot Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 368, 369
hanina (rabbi) Balberg, Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture (2023) 222
hiyya (rabbi) Balberg, Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture (2023) 222
identity Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 107
interpretation—see also midrash Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 368, 369
james (brother) Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 107
jewish christianity Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 105, 107
law, and amoraim Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 176
law, biblical/rabbinic—see also, halakhah Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 368, 369
law, practical Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 176
menashiah, r. Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 176
meturgeman (interpreter) Fraade, Multilingualism and Translation in Ancient Judaism: Before and After Babel (2023) 155
midrash/midrashim Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 368, 369
mishnah and tosefta, relationship to, targums quoted in Carleton Paget and Schaper, The New Cambridge History of the Bible (2013) 211
moses Fraade, Multilingualism and Translation in Ancient Judaism: Before and After Babel (2023) 155; Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 105, 107
nazarenes Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 107
new testament—see also, christianity Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 368
onqelos Carleton Paget and Schaper, The New Cambridge History of the Bible (2013) 211
oral torah Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 105, 107
orality Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 368, 369
orthodoxy and heresy Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 107
patriarchs, texts Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 368, 369
peter (apostle) Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 105, 107
pharisees Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 107
prayer Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 368, 369
rabbinic exegesis, targums and Carleton Paget and Schaper, The New Cambridge History of the Bible (2013) 211
rabbinic exegesis Carleton Paget and Schaper, The New Cambridge History of the Bible (2013) 211
rava Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 176
redaction criticism Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 105
synagogue, ancient Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 369
talmud, targums quoted in Carleton Paget and Schaper, The New Cambridge History of the Bible (2013) 211
tannaim, and dialectical argumentation Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 176
textuality Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 368, 369
torah' Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 368
torah Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 369