1. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 1.26-1.27, 2.2, 2.21-2.22, 4.25, 5.6-5.8 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 1.26. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל־הָאָרֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל־הָאָרֶץ׃ 1.27. וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם׃ 2.2. וַיְכַל אֱלֹהִים בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וַיִּשְׁבֹּת בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מִכָּל־מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה׃ 2.2. וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁמוֹת לְכָל־הַבְּהֵמָה וּלְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְכֹל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה וּלְאָדָם לֹא־מָצָא עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ׃ 2.21. וַיַּפֵּל יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים תַּרְדֵּמָה עַל־הָאָדָם וַיִּישָׁן וַיִּקַּח אַחַת מִצַּלְעֹתָיו וַיִּסְגֹּר בָּשָׂר תַּחְתֶּנָּה׃ 2.22. וַיִּבֶן יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הַצֵּלָע אֲשֶׁר־לָקַח מִן־הָאָדָם לְאִשָּׁה וַיְבִאֶהָ אֶל־הָאָדָם׃ 4.25. וַיֵּדַע אָדָם עוֹד אֶת־אִשְׁתּוֹ וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַתִּקְרָא אֶת־שְׁמוֹ שֵׁת כִּי שָׁת־לִי אֱלֹהִים זֶרַע אַחֵר תַּחַת הֶבֶל כִּי הֲרָגוֹ קָיִן׃ 5.6. וַיְחִי־שֵׁת חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים וּמְאַת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד אֶת־אֱנוֹשׁ׃ 5.7. וַיְחִי־שֵׁת אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ אֶת־אֱנוֹשׁ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים וּשְׁמֹנֶה מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיּוֹלֶד בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת׃ 5.8. וַיִּהְיוּ כָּל־יְמֵי־שֵׁת שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וּתְשַׁע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וַיָּמֹת׃ | 1.26. And God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’" 1.27. And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them." 2.2. And on the seventh day God finished His work which He had made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had made." 2.21. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof." 2.22. And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man." 4.25. And Adam knew his wife again; and she bore a son, and called his name Seth: ‘for God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel; for Cain slew him.’" 5.6. And Seth lived a hundred and five years, and begot Enosh." 5.7. And Seth lived after he begot Enosh eight hundred and seven years, and begot sons and daughters." 5.8. And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died." |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 19.24 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 19.24. וּבַשָּׁנָה הָרְבִיעִת יִהְיֶה כָּל־פִּרְיוֹ קֹדֶשׁ הִלּוּלִים לַיהוָה׃ | 19.24. And in the fourth year all the fruit thereof shall be holy, for giving praise unto the LORD." |
|
3. Anon., 1 Enoch, 84-90, 83 (3rd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
| 83. And now, my son Methuselah, I will show thee all my visions which I have seen, recounting,them before thee. Two visions I saw before I took a wife, and the one was quite unlike the other: the first when I was learning to write: the second before I took thy mother, (when) I saw a terrible,vision. And regarding them I prayed to the Lord. I had laid me down in the house of my grandfather Mahalalel, (when) I saw in a vision how the heaven collapsed and was borne off and fell to,the earth. And when it fell to the earth I saw how the earth was swallowed up in a great abyss, and mountains were suspended on mountains, and hills sank down on hills, and high trees were rent,from their stems, and hurled down and sunk in the abyss. And thereupon a word fell into my mouth,,and I lifted up (my voice) to cry aloud, and said: ' The earth is destroyed.' And my grandfather Mahalalel waked me as I lay near him, and said unto me: ' Why dost thou cry so, my son, and why,dost thou make such lamentation' And I recounted to him the whole vision which I had seen, and he said unto me: ' A terrible thing hast thou seen, my son, and of grave moment is thy dream- vision as to the secrets of all the sin of the earth: it must sink into the abyss and be destroyed with,a great destruction. And now, my son, arise and make petition to the Lord of glory, since thou art a believer, that a remt may remain on the earth, and that He may not destroy the whole,earth. My son, from heaven all this will come upon the earth, and upon the earth there will be great,destruction. After that I arose and prayed and implored and besought, and wrote down my prayer for the generations of the world, and I will show everything to thee, my son Methuselah. And when I had gone forth below and seen the heaven, and the sun rising in the east, and the moon setting in the west, and a few stars, and the whole earth, and everything as He had known it in the beginning, then I blessed the Lord of judgement and extolled Him because He had made the sun to go forth from the windows of the east, and he ascended and rose on the face of the heaven, and set out and kept traversing the path shown unto him. |
|
4. Philo of Alexandria, On Husbandry, 20 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
| 20. Therefore, the allwise Moses attributes to the just man a knowledge of the husbandry of the soul, as an act consistent with his character, and thoroughly suited to him, saying, "Noah began to be a husbandman." But to the unjust man he attributes the task of tilling the ground, which is an employment bearing the heaviest burdens without any knowledge. |
|
5. Philo of Alexandria, On The Cherubim, 47, 18 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
| 18. This, then, is the meaning of coming in front of one's judge, when brought up for judgment. But the case of coming in front of any one which has a bearing upon connection or familiarity, may be illustrated by the example of the allwise Abraham. "For," says Moses, "he was still standing in front of God." And a proof of his familiarity is contained in the expression that "he came near to God, and spoke." For it is fitting for one who has no connection with another to stand at a distance, and to be separated from him, but he who is connected with him should stand near to him. 18. These are the causes which may be advanced by probable conjecture, to explain the question which is raised on this point; for the true causes God alone knows. But having said what is fitting concerning these matters, I shall now proceed in regular order to discuss the laws themselves with accuracy and precision: first of all of necessity, mentioning this point, that of his laws God himself, without having need of any one else, thought fit to promulgate some by himself alone, and some he promulgated by the agency of his prophet Moses, whom he selected, by reason of his pre-eminent excellence, out of all men, as the most suitable man to be the interpreter of his will. |
|
6. Philo of Alexandria, On Flight And Finding, 61 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
| 61. Because, I imagine, wickedness is an evil which can never end, but which is kindled and is never able to be extinguished; so that the lines of the poet may well be applied to wickedness-- And she is of no mortal race, But an immortal foul disgrace. Immortal, indeed, as to the life among us on earth, since with reference to the life with God it is lifeless and dead, and as some one has said, more worthless and odious than dung. XII. |
|
7. Philo of Alexandria, On The Creation of The World, 135-136, 69, 134 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
| 134. After this, Moses says that "God made man, having taken clay from the earth, and he breathed into his face the breath of life." And by this expression he shows most clearly that there is a vast difference between man as generated now, and the first man who was made according to the image of God. For man as formed now is perceptible to the external senses, partaking of qualities, consisting of body and soul, man or woman, by nature mortal. But man, made according to the image of God, was an idea, or a genus, or a seal, perceptible only by the intellect, incorporeal, neither male nor female, imperishable by nature. |
|
8. Philo of Alexandria, On The Posterity of Cain, 28, 42, 169 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
| 169. for God did not grant this even to the all-wise Moses; not though he addressed innumerable requests to him, all having this object; but an oracle was delivered to him, telling him, "Thou shalt see my back parts, but my face thou shalt not See;" and the meaning of this is, that all the things which are behind God are within the comprehension of a virtuous man, but he himself alone is incomprehensible; and he is incomprehensible by any direct and immediate access (for by such means it is only explained what kind of being he is), but he may be understood in his subsequent and consistent faculties; for they, by means of the works accomplished by them, declare not his essence, but his existence. XLIX. |
|
9. Philo of Alexandria, On The Sacrifices of Cain And Abel, 48, 43 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
| 43. And he learnt all these things from Abraham his grandfather, who was the author of his own education, who gave to the all-wise Isaac all that he had, leaving none of his substance to bastards, or to the spurious reasonings of concubines, but he gives them small gifts, as being inconsiderable persons. For the possessions of which he is possessed, namely, the perfect virtues, belong only to the perfect and legitimate son; but those which are of an intermediate character, are suitable to and fall to the share of those who are not perfect, but who have advanced as far as the encyclical branches of elementary education, of which Agar and Cheturah partake, Agar meaning "a dwelling near," and Cheturah meaning "sacrificing. |
|
10. Philo of Alexandria, Who Is The Heir, 214, 30-31, 170 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
| 170. The third law is one about the name of the Lord, not about that name which has not yet reached his creatures; for that name is unspeakable, but about the name which is constantly applied to him as displayed in his powers; for it is commanded that we shall not take his name in vain. The fourth commandment is concerning the seventh day, always virgin, and without any mother, in order that creation, taking care that it may be always free from labour, may in this way come to a recollection of him who does everything without being seen. |
|
11. Philo of Alexandria, That The Worse Attacks The Better, 126 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
| 126. And this will also be proved by the oracle which was given to the all-wise Moses, in which these words are contained: "Behold, is there not Aaron thy brother, the Levite? I know that he will speak for thee; and behold he will be coming forth to meet thee, and he will rejoice in himself when he seeth Thee." For here the Creator says, that he knows that uttered speech is a burden to the mind, because it speaks; for he represents it, that is to say, articulate sound, as the organ, as it were, of all this concrete being of ours. |
|
12. Philo of Alexandria, Plant., 27 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
| 27. But he receives only the second honour of this summons, and the all-wise Moses shall have the first place assigned to him. For the former fashions shadows only, like painters do, in which it is not right to form any living thing. For the very name Bezeleel is interpreted to mean, "working in shadows." But Moses does not make shadows, but the task is assigned to him of forming the archetypal natures of things themselves. And in other places, also, the great Cause of all things is accustomed to reveal his secrets to some in a more conspicuous and visible manner, as if in the pure light of the sun, and to others more sparely, as though in the shade. VII. |
|
13. Anon., The Life of Adam And Eve, 43.1-43.2 (1st cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
|
14. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 1.69 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 1.69. All these proved to be of good dispositions. They also inhabited the same country without dissensions, and in a happy condition, without any misfortunes falling upon them, till they died. They also were the inventors of that peculiar sort of wisdom which is concerned with the heavenly bodies, and their order. |
|
15. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, 35a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 35a. מתני׳ big strongכיצד /strong /big מברכין על הפירות על פירות האילן הוא אומר בורא פרי העץ חוץ מן היין שעל היין הוא אומר בורא פרי הגפן ועל פירות הארץ הוא אומר בורא פרי האדמה חוץ מן הפת שעל הפת הוא אומר המוציא לחם מן הארץ ועל הירקות הוא אומר בורא פרי האדמה רבי יהודה אומר בורא מיני דשאים:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מנא ה"מ דתנו רבנן (ויקרא יט, כד) קדש הלולים לה' מלמד שטעונים ברכה לפניהם ולאחריהם מכאן אמר ר"ע אסור לאדם שיטעום כלום קודם שיברך,והאי קדש הלולים להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה חד דאמר רחמנא אחליה והדר אכליה ואידך דבר הטעון שירה טעון חלול ושאינו טעון שירה אין טעון חלול וכדר' שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן דאמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן מנין שאין אומרים שירה אלא על היין שנאמר (שופטים ט, יג) ותאמר להם הגפן החדלתי את תירושי המשמח אלהים ואנשים אם אנשים משמח אלהים במה משמח מכאן שאין אומרים שירה אלא על היין,הניחא למאן דתני נטע רבעי אלא למאן דתני כרם רבעי מאי איכא למימר דאתמר ר' חייא ור' שמעון ברבי חד תני כרם רבעי וחד תני נטע רבעי,ולמאן דתני כרם רבעי הניחא אי יליף ג"ש דתניא ר' אומר נאמר כאן (ויקרא יט, כה) להוסיף לכם תבואתו ונאמר להלן (דברים כב, ט) ותבואת הכרם מה להלן כרם אף כאן כרם אייתר ליה חד הלול לברכה,ואי לא יליף גזרה שוה ברכה מנא ליה ואי נמי יליף גזרה שוה אשכחן לאחריו לפניו מנין,הא לא קשיא דאתיא בקל וחומר כשהוא שבע מברך כשהוא רעב לא כל שכן,אשכחן כרם שאר מינין מנין,דיליף מכרם מה כרם דבר שנהנה וטעון ברכה אף כל דבר שנהנה טעון ברכה,איכא למפרך מה לכרם שכן חייב בעוללות,קמה תוכיח מה לקמה שכן חייבת בחלה,כרם יוכיח וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן דבר שנהנה וטעון ברכה אף כל דבר שנהנה טעון ברכה,מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן יש בו צד מזבח ואתי נמי זית דאית ביה צד מזבח,וזית מצד מזבח אתי והא בהדיא כתיב ביה כרם דכתיב (שופטים טו, ה) ויבער מגדיש ועד קמה ועד כרם זית אמר רב פפא כרם זית אקרי כרם סתמא לא אקרי,מ"מ קשיא מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן יש בהן צד מזבח אלא דיליף לה משבעת המינין מה שבעת המינין דבר שנהנה וטעון ברכה אף כל דבר שנהנה טעון ברכה,מה לשבעת המינין שכן חייבין בבכורים ועוד התינח לאחריו לפניו מנין,הא לא קשיא דאתי בקל וחומר כשהוא שבע מברך כשהוא רעב לכ"ש,ולמאן דתני נטע רבעי הא תינח כל דבר נטיעה דלאו בר נטיעה כגון בשר ביצים ודגים מנא ליה אלא סברא הוא אסור לו לאדם שיהנה מן העולם הזה בלא ברכה:,ת"ר אסור לו לאדם שיהנה מן העוה"ז בלא ברכה וכל הנהנה מן העוה"ז בלא ברכה מעל מאי תקנתיה ילך אצל חכם,ילך אצל חכם מאי עביד ליה הא עביד ליה איסורא אלא אמר רבא ילך אצל חכם מעיקרא וילמדנו ברכות כדי שלא יבא לידי מעילה,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל הנהנה מן העוה"ז בלא ברכה כאילו נהנה מקדשי שמים שנא' (תהלים כד, א) לה' הארץ ומלואה ר' לוי רמי כתיב לה' הארץ ומלואה וכתיב (תהלים קטו, טז) השמים שמים לה' והארץ נתן לבני אדם לא קשיא כאן קודם ברכה | 35a. strongMISHNA: /strong This mishna discusses the blessings recited over various foods. bHow does one recite a blessing over fruits? Overdifferent bfruitsthat grow on a btree one recites: Who creates fruit of the tree, with the exception of wine.Although wine is produced from fruit of the tree, due to its significance, its blessing differs from other fruits of the tree. bOver wine one recites: Who creates fruit of the vine. Over fruitsthat grow from bthe earth, one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground, with the exception of bread.Bread, too, is significant and its blessing differs from other fruits of the ground, bas over bread one recites: Who brings forth bread from the earth. Overherbs and leafy bvegetables one recites: Who creates fruit of the ground. Rabbi Yehuda saysthat there is room to distinguish between fruits that grow from the earth, herbs, and leafy vegetables. Although they are all fruit of the ground, since they have different qualities, the blessing on the latter is: bWho creates various kinds of herbs. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong Concerning the fundamental basis for blessings, the Gemara asks: bFrom where are these matters,the obligation to recite a blessing before eating, derived? The Gemara answers: bAs the Sages taughtin the iSifra /i: With regard to saplings, it is stated that in their fourth year their fruit will be: b“…sanctified for praises before the Lord”(Leviticus 19:24). This verse bteachesthat bthey requirepraise of God in the form of a bblessingboth bbeforehand and thereafter,as the verse says praises in the plural. bFrom here, Rabbi Akiva said: A person is forbidden to taste anything before he recites a blessing,as without reciting praise over food, it has the status of a consecrated item, from which one is forbidden to derive pleasure.,The Gemara asks: bAnddid bthisverse: b“Sanctified for praises,” come for thatpurpose? bThisverse bis necessaryto derive other matters. bOnebeing bthat the Merciful One said: Redeem it and then eat it.This midrash interprets ihillul /i, praise, as iḥillul /i, redemption. bAnd the othermatter derived from this verse is: bAn object whichis offered upon the altar and brequires a songof praise when it is offered, as is the case with the libation of wine, brequires redemption. And that which does not require a songof praise, all other fruits, bdoes not require redemption. Andthis is bin accordance withthe opinion that bRabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani saidthat bRabbi Yonatan said, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani saidthat bRabbi Yonatan said: From whereis it derived that bone only recites a songof praise in the Temple bover thelibation of bwineon the altar? bAs it is stated: “And the vine replied: Should I leave my wine, which gladdens God and man,and go and wave above the trees?” (Judges 9:13). bIfwine bgladdens people, in whatway bdoes it gladden God?Rather, derive bfrom here that one only recites a songof praise bover wine,as wine gladdens God when offered as part of the service in the Temple.In any case, other ihalakhothave been derived from this verse. From where, then, is the requirement to recite blessings derived?,Indeed, bthisworks out bwell according to the one who taught,as a rule: bA fourth-year saplingin the imishnayotdealing with the prohibition to eat fruits produced during the first three years of a tree’s existence and the sanctity of the fruit produced in its fourth year; as, in his opinion, fourth-year fruits that grow on all trees must be redeemed. bHowever, according to the one who taught,as a rule: bA fourth-year grapevine, what can be said?Indeed, he derives the ihalakhathat only wine that is accompanied by a song of praise requires redemption, from the interpretation of ihillulas iḥillul /i. bAs it was stated: Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Shimon, son of RabbiYehuda HaNasi, bone taughtthese imishnayotusing the term: bA fourth-year grapevine, and one taughtusing the term: bA fourth-year sapling. /b, bAnd according to the one who taught: A fourth year grapevine, thisworks out bwell if he derivesthis matter bfrom a verbal analogy [ igezera shava /i],and therefore need not derive this ihalakhafrom the term ihillulim /i. bAs it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsaid: It is stated herewith regard to the laws of the prohibition of fruit for the tree’s first three years: “But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit, bso that it may increase your produce [ itevuato /i];I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 19:25). bAnd it is stated below,with regard to the laws of diverse kinds: “You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed, lest the growth of the seed that you have sown be forfeited bwith the produce [ iutevuat /i] of the vineyard”(Deuteronomy 22:9). Based on a verbal analogy, it can be derived: bJust as below,with regard to the laws of diverse kinds, the produce is that which grows in bvineyards; so too, here,with regard to the ihalakhotof the fruits of a sapling, the produce is that which grows in bvineyards.Consequently, according to the one who holds this verbal analogy, bone extra ihillul /iremains from which to derive bthe blessing.Since he derives that the laws of fourth-year saplings apply only to grapes from the verbal analogy, he can derive the requirement to recite blessings before partaking of food from the word ihillulim /i., bAnd if he does not derivethis ihalakhaby means of ba verbal analogy,he must derive this ihalakhafrom the term ihillulim /i, in which case, bfrom where does he derivethe mitzva bto recite a blessingbefore partaking of food? bAnd even if he derivesthis ihalakhaby means of ba verbal analogy, we founda source for the obligation to recite a blessing baftereating, similar to the obligation stated in the verse: “And you will eat and be satisfied and then you shall bless.” However, bfrom whereis it derived that there is an obligation to recite a blessing bbeforehand?From one ihillul /i, the fundamental ihalakhaof redemption of fourth-year saplings is derived.,The Gemara answers this: This is bnot difficult, as itmay be bderived by means of an ia fortioriinference: If when he is satiated,after eating, bheis obligated to brecite a blessingover food, bwhen he is hungry,before eating, ball the more sothat he is obligated to recite a blessing over food.,The Gemara comments: In that way, bwe founda source for the obligation to recite a blessing over the produce of bvineyards,but bfrom whereis it derived with regard to bother types ofproduce?,The Gemara responds: bIt is derivedby means of the hermeneutic principle: What do we find, bfromthe produce of a bvineyard: Just asthe fruit of the bvineyard is an itemfrom bwhich one derives benefit and it requires a blessing, so too, any itemfrom bwhich one derives benefit, requires a blessing. /b,The Gemara rejects this proof: bThisderivation bcan be refuted,as a vineyard is unique: bWhatis unique about a bvineyard, that it is obligated inthe mitzva requiring to give bsmall, incomplete clusters of grapes [ iolelot /i]to the poor? That is a stringency that does not apply to other fruits. Perhaps the blessing is also a stringency that applies only to grapes.,The Gemara answers: In that case, bstanding grain can provethat the ihalakhaof iolelotis not a factor in the obligation to recite a blessing. One is obligated by Torah law to recite a blessing after eating bread, even though the ihalakhaof iolelotdoes not apply to grain. The Gemara rejects this proof: bWhatis unique about bripe grain, that it is obligated inthe mitzva of separating iḥalla /ifrom the dough? That is a stringency that does not apply to other foods. Perhaps the blessing is also a stringency that applies only to grain.,The Gemara responds: In that regard, bvineyards can provethat the ihalakhaof iḥallais not a factor in the obligation to recite a blessing. In summary: bAnd the derivation has revertedto its starting point. However, at this point the ihalakhais derived from a combination of the two sources: bThe aspect of this is not like the aspect of that, and the aspect of that is not like the aspect of this; the common denominator is:Both are bitemsfrom bwhich one derives benefit andeach brequires a blessing.A general principle may be derived: bSo too, any itemfrom bwhich one derives benefit, requires a blessing. /b,Again, the Gemara objects: bWhatis unique about bthe common denominatorbetween grapes and grain that prevents utilizing it as a paradigm for other food items? Grapes and grain bhave an aspectof being offered upon the baltar,and perhaps that is the reason that they require blessings. Based on that reasoning, although all other food items cannot be derived from the common denominator, ban olive may also be derived as it too has an aspectof being offered upon the baltar,as olive oil is one of the components of a meal offering.,The Gemara questions this point: bIs an olive derived fromthe fact that it bhas an aspectof being offered upon the baltar? Isn’t it written explicitly with regard tothe olive blistedthat the orchard in which it grows is called ikerem /i; as it is written: “And burnt up from the shocks and the standing grain and the olive yards [ ikerem zayit /i]”(Judges 15:5)? Just as the orchard in which grapes grow is called ikerem /i, and grapes require a blessing, the olive also grows in a ikeremand should require a blessing. bRav Pappa said:Nevertheless, an analogy may not be drawn between the two; where the olive grows bis called ikerem zayit /i, it is not called ikeremunmodified,which is a term reserved for grapevines.,The Gemara returns to the issue at hand, noting that bin any case, it is difficult: Whatis unique about bthe common denominatorbetween grapes and grain? That they bpossess an aspectof being offered upon the baltar. Rather, it is derived fromthe obligation to recite a blessing bupon the seven species.After the verse speaks of the seven species, it states: “And you will eat and be satisfied and then you shall bless.” This is a paradigm for all other foods, that they too require a blessing: bJust as the seven species are itemsfrom bwhich one derives benefit and require a blessing, any itemfrom bwhich one derives benefit, requires a blessing. /b,Again, the Gemara rejects this: bWhatis unique babout the seven species? That one is obligated inthe mitzva bof first fruits.However, other produce with regard to which one is not obligated in the mitzva of first fruits, from where is it derived that they require a blessing? bFurthermore,even if the seven species can serve as a paradigm, bthisworks out bwellwith regard to the blessing bthereafter;but bfrom whereis the obligation to recite a blessing bbeforehandderived?,The Gemara responds to the question: This is bnot difficult, as itmay be bderived by means of an ia fortioriinference: If when he is satiated,after eating, bheis obligated to brecite a blessingover food, bwhen he is hungry,before eating, ball the more sohe is obligated to recite a blessing over food.,In any case, this is not an absolute proof. Furthermore, even baccording to the one who taught: A fourth-year saplingin all the relevant imishnayot /i, bitworks out bwellwith regard to beverything that can be planted,that one is obligated to recite a blessing. However, with regard to bitems that cannot be planted, such as meat, eggs, and fish, from where does hederive the ihalakhathat one is obligated to recite a blessing? bRather,all previous attempts at deriving this ihalakhaare rejected. The fundamental obligation to recite a blessing over food is founded on breason: One is forbidden to derive benefit from this world without a blessing. /b, bThe Sages taughtin a iTosefta /i: bOne is forbidden to derive benefit from this world,which is the property of God, bwithoutreciting ba blessingbeforehand. bAnd anyone who derives benefit from this world without a blessing,it is as if he is guilty of bmisuseof a consecrated object. The Gemara adds: bWhat is his remedy? He should go to a Sage. /b,The Gemara is puzzled: bHe should go to a Sage; what will he do to him?How can the Sage help after bhe has already violated a prohibition? Rather, Rava said,this is how it should be understood: bHe should go to a Sage initially,in his youth, bandthe Sage bwill teach him blessings, so that he will not come tobe guilty of this type of bmisuseof a consecrated object in the future.,Similarly, bRav Yehuda saidthat bShmuel said: One who derives benefit from this world without a blessing, it is as if he enjoyed objects consecrated to the heavens, as it is stated: “The earth and all it contains is the Lord’s,the world and all those who live in it” (Psalms 24:1). Rabbi Levi expressed this concept differently. bRabbi Levi raised a contradiction: It is written: “The earth and all it contains is the Lord’s,” and it is writtenelsewhere: b“The heavens are the Lord’s and the earth He has given over to mankind”(Psalms 115:16). There is clearly a contradiction with regard to whom the earth belongs. He himself resolves the contradiction: This is bnot difficult. Here,the verse that says that the earth is the Lord’s refers to the situation bbefore a blessingis recited |
|
16. Origen, Against Celsus, 5.14 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 5.14. The following, then, are his words: It is folly on their part to suppose that when God, as if He were a cook, introduces the fire (which is to consume the world), all the rest of the human race will be burnt up, while they alone will remain, not only such of them as are then alive, but also those who are long since dead, which latter will arise from the earth clothed with the self-same flesh (as during life); for such a hope is simply one which might be cherished by worms. For what sort of human soul is that which would still long for a body that had been subject to corruption? Whence, also, this opinion of yours is not shared by some of the Christians, and they pronounce it to be exceedingly vile, and loathsome, and impossible; for what kind of body is that which, after being completely corrupted, can return to its original nature, and to that self-same first condition out of which it fell into dissolution? Being unable to return any answer, they betake themselves to a most absurd refuge, viz., that all things are possible to God. And yet God cannot do things that are disgraceful, nor does He wish to do things that are contrary to His nature; nor, if (in accordance with the wickedness of your own heart) you desired anything that was evil, would God accomplish it; nor must you believe at once that it will be done. For God does not rule the world in order to satisfy inordinate desires, or to allow disorder and confusion, but to govern a nature that is upright and just. For the soul, indeed, He might be able to provide an everlasting life; while dead bodies, on the contrary, are, as Heraclitus observes, more worthless than dung. God, however, neither can nor will declare, contrary to all reason, that the flesh, which is full of those things which it is not even honourable to mention, is to exist forever. For He is the reason of all things that exist, and therefore can do nothing either contrary to reason or contrary to Himself. |
|
17. Anon., Pirqei De Rabbi Eliezer, 22 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE)
|
