1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 21.1-21.9 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 21.1. כִּי־יִמָּצֵא חָלָל בָּאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ לְרִשְׁתָּהּ נֹפֵל בַּשָּׂדֶה לֹא נוֹדַע מִי הִכָּהוּ׃ 21.1. כִּי־תֵצֵא לַמִּלְחָמָה עַל־אֹיְבֶיךָ וּנְתָנוֹ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּיָדֶךָ וְשָׁבִיתָ שִׁבְיוֹ׃ 21.2. וְיָצְאוּ זְקֵנֶיךָ וְשֹׁפְטֶיךָ וּמָדְדוּ אֶל־הֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹת הֶחָלָל׃ 21.2. וְאָמְרוּ אֶל־זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ בְּנֵנוּ זֶה סוֹרֵר וּמֹרֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ זוֹלֵל וְסֹבֵא׃ 21.3. וְהָיָה הָעִיר הַקְּרֹבָה אֶל־הֶחָלָל וְלָקְחוּ זִקְנֵי הָעִיר הַהִוא עֶגְלַת בָּקָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא־עֻבַּד בָּהּ אֲשֶׁר לֹא־מָשְׁכָה בְּעֹל׃ 21.4. וְהוֹרִדוּ זִקְנֵי הָעִיר הַהִוא אֶת־הָעֶגְלָה אֶל־נַחַל אֵיתָן אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יֵעָבֵד בּוֹ וְלֹא יִזָּרֵעַ וְעָרְפוּ־שָׁם אֶת־הָעֶגְלָה בַּנָּחַל׃ 21.5. וְנִגְּשׁוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי לֵוִי כִּי בָם בָּחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְשָׁרְתוֹ וּלְבָרֵךְ בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה וְעַל־פִּיהֶם יִהְיֶה כָּל־רִיב וְכָל־נָגַע׃ 21.6. וְכֹל זִקְנֵי הָעִיר הַהִוא הַקְּרֹבִים אֶל־הֶחָלָל יִרְחֲצוּ אֶת־יְדֵיהֶם עַל־הָעֶגְלָה הָעֲרוּפָה בַנָּחַל׃ 21.7. וְעָנוּ וְאָמְרוּ יָדֵינוּ לֹא שפכה [שָׁפְכוּ] אֶת־הַדָּם הַזֶּה וְעֵינֵינוּ לֹא רָאוּ׃ 21.8. כַּפֵּר לְעַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר־פָּדִיתָ יְהוָה וְאַל־תִּתֵּן דָּם נָקִי בְּקֶרֶב עַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנִכַּפֵּר לָהֶם הַדָּם׃ 21.9. וְאַתָּה תְּבַעֵר הַדָּם הַנָּקִי מִקִּרְבֶּךָ כִּי־תַעֲשֶׂה הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה׃ | 21.1. If one be found slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath smitten him;" 21.2. then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain." 21.3. And it shall be, that the city which is nearest unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take a heifer of the herd, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke." 21.4. And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which may neither be plowed nor sown, and shall break the heifer’s neck there in the valley." 21.5. And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near—for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto Him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and according to their word shall every controversy and every stroke be." 21.6. And all the elders of that city, who are nearest unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer whose neck was broken in the valley." 21.7. And they shall speak and say: ‘Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it." 21.8. Forgive, O LORD, Thy people Israel, whom Thou hast redeemed, and suffer not innocent blood to remain in the midst of Thy people Israel.’ And the blood shall be forgiven them." 21.9. So shalt thou put away the innocent blood from the midst of thee, when thou shalt do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD." |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, 1 Samuel, 2.15-2.17, 2.22 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 2.15. גַּם בְּטֶרֶם יַקְטִרוּן אֶת־הַחֵלֶב וּבָא נַעַר הַכֹּהֵן וְאָמַר לָאִישׁ הַזֹּבֵחַ תְּנָה בָשָׂר לִצְלוֹת לַכֹּהֵן וְלֹא־יִקַּח מִמְּךָ בָּשָׂר מְבֻשָּׁל כִּי אִם־חָי׃ 2.16. וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הָאִישׁ קַטֵּר יַקְטִירוּן כַּיּוֹם הַחֵלֶב וְקַח־לְךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשֶׁךָ וְאָמַר לו [לֹא] כִּי עַתָּה תִתֵּן וְאִם־לֹא לָקַחְתִּי בְחָזְקָה׃ 2.17. וַתְּהִי חַטַּאת הַנְּעָרִים גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד אֶת־פְּנֵי יְהוָה כִּי נִאֲצוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים אֵת מִנְחַת יְהוָה׃ 2.22. וְעֵלִי זָקֵן מְאֹד וְשָׁמַע אֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשׂוּן בָּנָיו לְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר־יִשְׁכְּבוּן אֶת־הַנָּשִׁים הַצֹּבְאוֹת פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃ | 2.15. Also before they burnt the fat, the priest’s lad came, and said to the man that sacrificed, Give some roasting meat for the priest; for he will not have boiled meat of thee, but raw." 2.16. And if any man said to him, Let them first burn the fat, and then take as much as thy soul desires; then he would answer him, No; but thou shalt give it me now: and if not, I will take it by force." 2.17. Wherefore the sin of the lads was very great before the Lord: for the men dishonoured the offering of the Lord." 2.22. Now ῾Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did to all Yisra᾽el; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the Tent of Meeting." |
|
3. Septuagint, 2 Maccabees, 4.7-4.8, 4.23-4.24 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
| 4.7. When Seleucus died and Antiochus who was called Epiphanes succeeded to the kingdom, Jason the brother of Onias obtained the high priesthood by corruption,' 4.8. promising the king at an interview three hundred and sixty talents of silver and, from another source of revenue, eighty talents.' 4.23. After a period of three years Jason sent Menelaus, the brother of the previously mentioned Simon, to carry the money to the king and to complete the records of essential business.' 4.24. But he, when presented to the king, extolled him with an air of authority, and secured the high priesthood for himself, outbidding Jason by three hundred talents of silver.' |
|
4. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 11.334, 15.32, 15.173, 18.271, 19.297, 19.313, 19.342, 20.16, 20.179-20.181, 20.205-20.207, 20.213-20.221 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 11.334. for I saw this very person in a dream, in this very habit, when I was at Dios in Macedonia, who, when I was considering with myself how I might obtain the dominion of Asia, exhorted me to make no delay, but boldly to pass over the sea thither, for that he would conduct my army, and would give me the dominion over the Persians; 15.32. privately conspired against his royal authority, and endeavored, by the means of Cleopatra, so to bring it about, that he might be deprived of the government, and that by Antony’s means this youth might have the management of public affairs in his stead; 15.32. There was one Simon, a citizen of Jerusalem, the son of one Boethus, a citizen of Alexandria, and a priest of great note there; this man had a daughter, who was esteemed the most beautiful woman of that time; 15.173. Now as soon as Herod had received this letter, he immediately sent for Hyrcanus, and questioned him about the league he had made with Malchus; and when he denied it, he showed his letter to the Sanhedrim, and put the man to death immediately. 18.271. and made supplication to him, that he would by no means reduce them to such distresses, nor defile their city with the dedication of the statue. Then Petronius said to them, “Will you then make war with Caesar, without considering his great preparations for war, and your own weakness?” They replied, “We will not by any means make war with him, but still we will die before we see our laws transgressed.” So they threw themselves down upon their faces, and stretched out their throats, and said they were ready to be slain; 19.297. 2. And when Agrippa had entirely finished all the duties of the divine worship, he removed Theophilus, the son of Aus, from the high priesthood, and bestowed that honor of his on Simon the son of Boethus, whose name was also Cantheras whose daughter king Herod married, as I have related above. 19.313. And now king Agrippa took the [high] priesthood away from Simon Cantheras, and put Jonathan, the son of Aus, into it again, and owned that he was more worthy of that dignity than the other. But this was not a thing acceptable to him, to recover that his former dignity. So he refused it, and said 19.342. This was very ill taken by Agrippa, who after that became his enemy. And now he took the high priesthood away from Matthias, and made Elioneus, the son of Cantheras, high priest in his stead. 20.16. So that after that time this authority continued among all his descendants till the end of the war. Accordingly, Herod removed the last high priest, called Cantheras, and bestowed that dignity on his successor Joseph, the son of Camus. 20.16. 5. Now as for the affairs of the Jews, they grew worse and worse continually, for the country was again filled with robbers and impostors, who deluded the multitude. 20.179. 8. About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, who was the son of Fabi. 20.181. And such was the impudence and boldness that had seized on the high priests, that they had the hardiness to send their servants into the threshing-floors, to take away those tithes that were due to the priests, insomuch that it so fell out that the poorest sort of the priests died for want. To this degree did the violence of the seditious prevail over all right and justice. 20.205. But as for the high priest, Aias he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents; 20.206. he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. 20.207. So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants, without any one being able to prohibit them; so that [some of the] priests, that of old were wont to be supported with those tithes, died for want of food. 20.213. And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Aias was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive. 20.214. Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us. 20.215. 5. But when Albinus heard that Gessius Florus was coming to succeed him, he was desirous to appear to do somewhat that might be grateful to the people of Jerusalem; so he brought out all those prisoners who seemed to him to be the most plainly worthy of death, and ordered them to be put to death accordingly. But as to those who had been put into prison on some trifling occasions, he took money of them, and dismissed them; by which means the prisons were indeed emptied, but the country was filled with robbers. 20.216. 6. Now as many of the Levites, which is a tribe of ours, as were singers of hymns, persuaded the king to assemble a sanhedrim, and to give them leave to wear linen garments, as well as the priests for they said that this would be a work worthy the times of his government, that he might have a memorial of such a novelty, as being his doing. 20.217. Nor did they fail of obtaining their desire; for the king, with the suffrages of those that came into the sanhedrim, granted the singers of hymns this privilege, that they might lay aside their former garments, and wear such a linen one as they desired; 20.218. and as a part of this tribe ministered in the temple, he also permitted them to learn those hymns as they had besought him for. Now all this was contrary to the laws of our country, which, whenever they have been transgressed, we have never been able to avoid the punishment of such transgressions. 20.219. 7. And now it was that the temple was finished. So when the people saw that the workmen were unemployed, who were above eighteen thousand and that they, receiving no wages, were in want because they had earned their bread by their labors about the temple; 20.221. These cloisters belonged to the outer court, and were situated in a deep valley, and had walls that reached four hundred cubits [in length], and were built of square and very white stones, the length of each of which stones was twenty cubits, and their height six cubits. This was the work of king Solomon, who first of all built the entire temple. |
|
5. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 2.111, 5.395-5.396 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 2.111. 3. And now Archelaus took possession of his ethnarchy, and used not the Jews only, but the Samaritans also, barbarously; and this out of his resentment of their old quarrels with him. Whereupon they both of them sent ambassadors against him to Caesar; and in the ninth year of his government he was banished to Vienna, a city of Gaul, and his effects were put into Caesar’s treasury. 5.395. Indeed what can it be that hath stirred up an army of the Romans against our nation? Is it not the impiety of the inhabitants? Whence did our servitude commence? 5.396. Was it not derived from the seditions that were among our forefathers, when the madness of Aristobulus and Hyrcanus, and our mutual quarrels, brought Pompey upon this city, and when God reduced those under subjection to the Romans who were unworthy of the liberty they had enjoyed? |
|
6. Josephus Flavius, Life, 80 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
|
7. Mishnah, Demai, 2.2-2.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.2. One who accepts upon himself to be trustworthy (ne’eman), must tithe whatever he eats and whatever he sells and whatever he buys, and he may not be the guest of an am haaretz. Rabbi Judah says: even one who is the guest of an am haaretz can still be considered trustworthy. They said to him: He is not trustworthy in respect of himself! How can he be considered trustworthy in respect of others?" 2.3. One who takes upon himself to become a “chaver” may not sell to an am haaretz either moist or dry [produce], nor may he buy from him moist [produce], nor may he be the guest of an am haaretz, nor may he host an am haaretz as a guest while [the am haaretz] is wearing his own garment. Rabbi Judah says: he may not also raise small animals, nor may make a lot of vows or merriment, nor may he defile himself by contact with the dead. Rather he should be an attendant at the house of study. They said to him: these [requirements] do not come within the general rule [of being a chaver]. |
|
8. Mishnah, Menachot, 10.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 10.3. How would they do it [reap the omer]?The agents of the court used to go out on the day before the festival and tie the unreaped grain in bunches to make it the easier to reap. All the inhabitants of the towns near by assembled there, so that it might be reaped with a great demonstration. As soon as it became dark he says to them: “Has the sun set?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Has the sun set?” And they answer, “Yes.” “With this sickle?” And they answer, “Yes.” “With this sickle?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Into this basket?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Into this basket?” And they answer, “Yes.” On the Sabbath he says to them, “On this Sabbath?” And they answer, “Yes.” “On this Sabbath?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Shall I reap?” And they answer, “Reap.” “Shall I reap?” And they answer, “Reap.” He repeated every matter three times, and they answer, “yes, yes, yes.” And why all of this? Because of the Boethusians who held that the reaping of the omer was not to take place at the conclusion of the [first day of the] festival." |
|
9. Mishnah, Parah, 3.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 3.5. If they did not find the residue of the ashes of the seven [red cows] they performed the sprinkling with those of six, of five, of four, of three, of two or of one. And who prepared these? Moses prepared the first, Ezra prepared the second, and five were prepared from the time of Ezra, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: seven from the time of Ezra. And who prepared them? Shimon the Just and Yoha the high priest prepared two; Elihoenai the son of Ha-Kof and Hanamel the Egyptian and Ishmael the son of Piabi prepared one each." |
|
10. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 2.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.1. The High Priest can judge and be judged; he can testify and others can testify against him. He can perform halitzah for another’s wife and others can perform halitzah for his wife or contract levirate marriage with his widow, but he cannot contract levirate marriage since he is forbidden to marry a widow. If any of his near kin die he may not follow after the bier, rather when the bearers are not visible, he is visible, when they are visible he is not visible, and he may go out with them as far as the city gate, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, “He may not leave the Temple, as it says, “Nor shall he go out of the Sanctuary”. And when he comforts other mourners the custom is for all of the people to pass by, the one after the other, while the appointed [priest] stands between him and the people. And when he receives comfort from others, all the people say to him, “Let us be your atonement”, and he says to them, “May you be blessed by Heaven.” When they feed him the funeral meal all the people sit around on the ground and he sits on a stool." |
|
11. Mishnah, Sotah, 7.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 7.7. How were the benedictions of the high priest [performed]?The hazzan of the synagogue takes the Torah scroll and gives it to the president of the synagogue; the vice-president of the synagogue gives it to the high priest, and the high priest stands, receives [the scroll] and reads [the following portions]: “After the death” (Leviticus 16:1-34), and “But on the tenth day” (Leviticus 23:26-32). Then he rolls the Torah (scroll), places it in his bosom and exclaims, “More than I have read before you is written here!” [The portion], “On the tenth day” (Numbers 29:7-11), which is in the book of Numbers, he reads by heart. And he blesses upon it eight benedictions: “For the Torah”, “For the Temple service”, “For thanksgiving”, “For the pardon of sin”, “For the Temple”, “For Israel”, “For the priests”, viii) and the rest of the prayer." |
|
12. Mishnah, Yoma, 2.2, 7.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 2.2. Section one: It once happened that two were even as they ran up the ramp, and one of them pushed his fellow who fell and broke his leg. When the court saw that they incurred danger, they decreed that they would remove the ashes from only by a count. Section two: There were four counts. This is the first count." 7.1. The high priest [then] came to read. If he wished to read in linen garments, he reads, and if not he reads in his own white cloak. The synagogue attendant would take a Torah scroll and give it to the head of the synagogue, and the head of the synagogue gives it to deputy high priest, and the deputy high priest gives it to the high priest, and the high priest stands and receives it, and reads, [section] beginning] “After the death …” (Leviticus 16:1-34) and “But on the tenth…” (Leviticus 23:26-32). Then he would roll up the Torah scroll and put it in his bosom and say, “More than what I have read out before you is written here.” And “On the tenth …” (Numbers 29:7-11) which is in the Book of Numbers he recites by heart. And he recites on it eight benedictions: “For the law”, “For the Temple service,” “For thanksgiving,” “For the forgiveness of sins” and “For the Temple” on its own, and “For Israel” on its own and “For Jerusalem” on its own, “For the priests” on their own and “For the rest of the prayer.”" |
|
13. Mishnah, Shekalim, 1.3-1.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.3. On the fifteenth of [Adar] they would set up tables [of money changers] in the provinces. On the twenty-fifth they set them up in the Temple. When [the tables] were set up in the Temple, they began to exact pledges [from those who had not paid]. From whom did they exact pledges? From Levites and Israelites, converts and freed slaves, but not women or slaves or minors. Any minor on whose behalf his father has begun to pay the shekel, may not discontinue it again. But they did not exact pledges from the priests, because of the ways of peace." 1.4. Rabbi Judah said: Ben Bukri testified at Yavneh that a priest who paid the shekel is not a sinner. But Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai said to him: not so, but rather a priest who did not pay the shekel was guilty of a sin, only the priests expounded this verse for their own benefit: “And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt, it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16), since the omer and the two loaves and the showbread are [brought] from our [contributions], how can they be eaten?" |
|
14. Tosefta, Demai, 2.2-2.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
15. Tosefta, Menachot, 13.18-13.20 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
16. Tosefta, Rosh Hashanah, 1.15 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
17. Tosefta, Shevuot, 1.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
18. Tosefta, Sotah, 13.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 13.8. The year in which Shimon the Righteous died [he said to them] \"in this year I will die\" \"how do you know this?\" they responded. He (Shimon the Righteous) responded: \"all of the Yom Kippur days there was an old man dressed in all white who would go with me into the holy of holies and leave with me, on this year he went in with me but did not come out with me.\" Seven days passed after the holiday and he died. From the time of the death of Rebbi Shimon the Righteous they ceased blessing in the name of Hashem." |
|
19. Tosefta, Kippurim, 1.8, 1.12 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
20. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 161 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
|
21. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 80 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
| 80. The opinion of Justin with regard to the reign of a thousand years. Several Catholics reject it Trypho: I remarked to you sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? Or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies? Justin: I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genistæ, Meristæ, Galilæans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare. |
|
22. Palestinian Talmud, Taanit, 4.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
|
23. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 22a. משמשת וראתה נדה אינה צריכה טבילה אבל בעל קרי גרידא מחייב לא תימא מברך אלא מהרהר,ומי אית ליה לרבי יהודה הרהור והתניא בעל קרי שאין לו מים לטבול קורא קריאת שמע ואינו מברך לא לפניה ולא לאחריה ואוכל פתו ומברך לאחריה ואינו מברך לפניה אבל מהרהר בלבו ואינו מוציא בשפתיו דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר בין כך ובין כך מוציא בשפתיו,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק עשאן ר' יהודה כהלכות דרך ארץ,דתניא (דברים ד, ט) והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וכתיב בתריה יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב מה להלן באימה וביראה וברתת ובזיע אף כאן באימה וביראה וברתת ובזיע,מכאן אמרו הזבים והמצורעים ובאין על נדות מותרים לקרות בתורה ובנביאים ובכתובים לשנות במשנה וגמרא ובהלכות ובאגדות אבל בעלי קריין אסורים,רבי יוסי אומר שונה הוא ברגיליות ובלבד שלא יציע את המשנה רבי יונתן בן יוסף אומר מציע הוא את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא רבי נתן בן אבישלום אומר אף מציע את הגמרא ובלבד שלא יאמר אזכרות שבו רבי יוחנן הסנדלר תלמידו של רבי עקיבא משום ר"ע אומר לא יכנס למדרש כל עיקר ואמרי לה לא יכנס לבית המדרש כל עיקר ר' יהודה אומר שונה הוא בהלכות דרך ארץ,מעשה ברבי יהודה שראה קרי והיה מהלך על גב הנהר אמרו לו תלמידיו רבינו שנה לנו פרק אחד בהלכות דרך ארץ ירד וטבל ושנה להם אמרו לו לא כך למדתנו רבינו שונה הוא בהלכות דרך ארץ אמר להם אע"פ שמיקל אני על אחרים מחמיר אני על עצמי:,תניא ר' יהודה בן בתירא היה אומר אין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה מעשה בתלמיד אחד שהיה מגמגם למעלה מרבי יהודה בן בתירא אמר ליה בני פתח פיך ויאירו דבריך שאין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה שנאמר (ירמיהו כג, כט) הלא כה דברי כאש נאם ה' מה אש אינו מקבל טומאה אף דברי תורה אינן מקבלין טומאה,אמר מר מציע את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא מסייע ליה לרבי אלעאי דאמר רבי אלעאי אמר ר' אחא בר יעקב משום רבינו הלכה מציע את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא כתנאי מציע את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה בן גמליאל אומר משום רבי חנינא בן גמליאל זה וזה אסור ואמרי לה זה וזה מותר,מ"ד זה וזה אסור כרבי יוחנן הסנדלר מ"ד זה וזה מותר כרבי יהודה בן בתירא,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק נהוג עלמא כהני תלת סבי כרבי אלעאי בראשית הגז כרבי יאשיה בכלאים כרבי יהודה בן בתירא בד"ת,כרבי אלעאי בראשית הגז דתניא רבי אלעאי אומר ראשית הגז אינו נוהג אלא בארץ,כרבי יאשיה בכלאים כדכתיב (דברים כב, ט) (כרמך) לא תזרע [כרמך] כלאים רבי יאשיה אומר לעולם אינו חייב עד שיזרע חטה ושעורה וחרצן במפולת יד,כרבי יהודה בן בתירא בדברי תורה דתניא רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר אין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה,כי אתא זעירי אמר בטלוה לטבילותא ואמרי לה בטלוה לנטילותא מאן דאמר בטלוה לטבילותא כרבי יהודה בן בתירא מאן דאמר בטלוה לנטילותא כי הא דרב חסדא לייט אמאן דמהדר אמיא בעידן צלותא:,תנו רבנן בעל קרי שנתנו עליו תשעה קבין מים טהור נחום איש גם זו לחשה לרבי עקיבא ורבי עקיבא לחשה לבן עזאי ובן עזאי יצא ושנאה לתלמידיו בשוק פליגי בה תרי אמוראי במערבא רבי יוסי בר אבין ורבי יוסי בר זבידא חד תני שנאה וחד תני לחשה,מאן דתני שנאה משום בטול תורה ומשום בטול פריה ורביה ומאן דתני לחשה שלא יהו תלמידי חכמים מצויים אצל נשותיהם כתרנגולים,אמר רבי ינאי שמעתי שמקילין בה ושמעתי שמחמירין בה וכל המחמיר בה על עצמו מאריכין לו ימיו ושנותיו,אמר ריב"ל מה טיבן של טובלי שחרין מה טיבן הא איהו דאמר בעל קרי אסור בדברי תורה הכי קאמר מה טיבן בארבעים סאה אפשר בתשעה קבין מה טיבן בטבילה אפשר בנתינה,אמר רבי חנינא גדר גדול גדרו בה דתניא מעשה באחד שתבע אשה לדבר עבירה אמרה לו ריקא יש לך ארבעים סאה שאתה טובל בהן מיד פירש,אמר להו רב הונא לרבנן רבותי מפני מה אתם מזלזלין בטבילה זו אי משום צינה אפשר במרחצאות,אמר ליה רב חסדא וכי יש טבילה בחמין אמר ליה רב אדא בר אהבה קאי כוותך,רבי זירא הוה יתיב באגנא דמיא בי מסותא אמר ליה לשמעיה זיל ואייתי לי תשעה קבין ושדי עלואי אמר ליה רבי חייא בר אבא למה ליה למר כולי האי והא יתיב בגווייהו אמר ליה כארבעים סאה מה ארבעים סאה בטבילה ולא בנתינה אף תשעה קבין בנתינה ולא בטבילה,רב נחמן תקן חצבא בת תשעה קבין כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי עקיבא ורבי יהודה גלוסטרא אמרו לא שנו אלא לחולה לאונסו אבל לחולה המרגיל ארבעים סאה,אמר רב יוסף אתבר חצביה דרב נחמן כי אתא רבין אמר באושא הוה עובדא | 22a. that ba woman who engaged in intercourse and saw menstrualblood bis not required to immerse herself, but one who experienced a seminal emission alone,with no concurrent impurity, bis required to do so?If so, we must interpret Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna that one recites a blessing both beforehand and thereafter as follows: bDo not saythat one brecites a blessingorally, but rather he means that bone contemplatesthose blessings in his heart.,The Gemara challenges this explanation: bAnd does Rabbi Yehuda maintain thatthere is validity to bcontemplatingin his heart? bWasn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bOne who experienced a seminal emission and who has no water to immerseand purify himself brecites iShemaand neither recites the blessingsof iShema bbeforehand nor thereafter? Andwhen bhe eats his bread, he recites the blessing thereafter,Grace after Meals, bbut does not recite the blessing:Who brings forth bread from the earth, bbeforehand. However,in the instances where he may not recite the blessing, bhe contemplatesit bin his heart rather than utterit bwith his lips,this is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir.However bRabbi Yehuda says: In either case, he uttersall of the blessings bwith his lips.Rabbi Yehuda does not consider contemplating the blessings in his heart a solution and permits them to be recited., bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna should be interpreted in another way. bRabbi Yehuda renderedthe blessings blike iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i,which according to some Sages were not considered to be in the same category as all other matters of Torah and therefore, one is permitted to engage in their study even after having experienced a seminal emission., bAs it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: It is written: b“And you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children”(Deuteronomy 4:9), band it is written thereafter: “The day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb”(Deuteronomy 4:10). bJust as below,the Revelation at Sinai was bin reverence, fear, quaking, and trembling, so too here,in every generation, Torah must be studied with a sense of breverence, fear, quaking, and trembling. /b, bFrom herethe Sages bstated: iZavim /i, lepers, and those who engaged in intercourse with menstruating women,despite their severe impurity, bare permitted to read the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, and to study Mishna and Gemara and ihalakhotand iaggada /i. However, those who experienced a seminal emission are prohibitedfrom doing so. The reason for this distinction is that the cases of severe impurity are caused by ailment or other circumstances beyond his control and, as a result, they do not necessarily preclude a sense of reverence and awe as he studies Torah. This, however, is not the case with regard to impurity resulting from a seminal emission, which usually comes about due to frivolity and a lack of reverence and awe. Therefore, it is inappropriate for one who experiences a seminal emission to engage in matters of in Torah.,However, there are many opinions concerning the precise parameters of the Torah matters prohibited by this decree. bRabbi Yosei says:One who experiences a seminal emission bstudies imishnayotthat he is baccustomedto study, bas long as he does not expound upon anew bmishnato study it in depth. bRabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says: He expounds upon the mishna but he does not expound upon the Gemara,which is the in-depth analysis of the Torah. bRabbi Natan ben Avishalom says: He may even expound upon the Gemara, as long as he does not utterthe bmentionsof God’s name btherein. Rabbi Yoḥa the Cobbler, Rabbi Akiva’s student, says in the name of Rabbi Akiva:One who experiences a seminal emission bmay not enter into homiletic interpretation [ imidrash /i]of verses bat all. Some saythat he says: bHe may not enter the study hall [ ibeit hamidrash /i] at all. Rabbi Yehuda says: He may studyonly iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i.In terms of the problem raised above, apparently Rabbi Yehuda considers the legal status of the blessings to be parallel to the legal status of iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i, and therefore one may utter them orally.,The Gemara relates ban incident involving Rabbi Yehudahimself, who bexperienced a seminal emission and was walking along the riverbankwith his disciples. bHis disciples said to him: Rabbi, teach us a chapter from iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i,as he maintained that even in a state of impurity, it is permitted. bHe descended and immersed himselfin the river band taught them iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i. bThey said to him: Did you not teach us, our teacher, that he may study iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i? He said to them: Although I am lenient with others,and allow them to study it without immersion, bI am stringent with myself. /b,Further elaborating on the issue of Torah study while in a state of impurity, bit was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira would say: Matters of Torah do not become ritually impureand therefore one who is impure is permitted to engage in Torah study. He implemented this ihalakhain practice. The Gemara relates ban incident involving a student who wasreciting imishnayotand ibaraitot bhesitantly beforethe study hall of bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.The student experienced a seminal emission, and when he was asked to recite he did so in a rushed, uneven manner, as he did not want to utter the words of Torah explicitly. Rabbi Yehuda bsaid to him: My son, open your mouth and let your words illuminate, as matters of Torah do not become ritually impure, as it is stated: “Is not my word like fire, says the Lord”(Jeremiah 23:29). bJust as fire does not become ritually impure, so too matters of Torah do not become ritually impure. /b,In this ibaraita bthe Master saidthat one who is impure because of a seminal emission bexpounds upon the mishna but does not expound upon the Gemara.The Gemara notes: This statement bsupportsthe opinion of bRabbi El’ai,as bRabbi El’ai saidthat bRabbi Aḥa bar Ya’akov said in the name of Rabbeinu,Rav b: The ihalakhais that one who experienced a seminal emission bmay expound upon the mishna but may not expound upon the Gemara.This dispute bis parallel a tannaiticdispute, as it was taught: One who experienced a seminal emission bexpounds upon the mishna but does not expound upon the Gemara;that is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel:Both bthis and that are prohibited. And some saythat he said: Both bthis and that are permitted. /b,Comparing these opinions: bThe one who saidthat both bthis and that are prohibitedholds bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yoḥa the Cobbler; the one who saidthat both bthis and that are permittedholds bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. /b,Summarizing the ihalakha /i, bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The universallyaccepted bpractice is in accordance withthe opinions of bthese three elders: In accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi El’ai with regard tothe ihalakhotof bthe first shearing, in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yoshiya with regard tothe laws of prohibited bdiverse kinds,and bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to matters of Torah. /b,The Gemara elaborates: bIn accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi El’ai with regard to the first shearing, as it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi El’ai says:The obligation to set aside bthe first shearingfrom the sheep for the priest bis only practiced in EretzYisrael and not in the Diaspora, and that is the accepted practice., bIn accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yoshiya with regard to diverse kinds, as it is written: “You shall not sow your vineyard with diverse kinds”(Deuteronomy 22:9). bRabbi Yoshiya says:This means that bonewho sows diverse kinds bis not liableby Torah law buntil he sows wheat and barley and agrape bpit with a single hand motion,meaning that while sowing in the vineyard he violates the prohibition of diverse kinds that applies to seeds and to the vineyard simultaneously., bIn accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard toone who experiences a seminal emission is permitted to engage in bmatters of Torah, as it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Matters of Torah do not become ritually impure. /b,And the Gemara relates: bWhen Ze’iri camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, bhesuccinctly capsulated this ihalakhaand bsaid: They abolished ritual immersion, and some say thathe said: bThey abolished ritual washing of the hands.The Gemara explains: bThe one who saysthat bthey abolished immersionholds in accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteirathat one who experienced a seminal emission is not required to immerse. bAnd the one who saysthat bthey abolished washing of the handsholds bin accordance with that which Rav Ḥisda cursed one whogoes out of his way bto seek water at the time of prayer. /b, bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bOne who experienced a seminal emission who had nine ikavofdrawn bwater poured over him,that is sufficient to render him britually pureand he need not immerse himself in a ritual bath. The Gemara relates: bNaḥum of Gam Zo whisperedthis ihalakhato bRabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Akiva whispered it tohis student bben Azzai, and ben Azzai went out and taught it to his studentspublicly bin the marketplace. Two iamora’imin Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, disagreedas to the correct version of the conclusion of the incident. bOne taught:Ben Azzai btaught itto his students in the market. bAnd the other taught: Ben Azzaialso bwhispered itto his students.,The Gemara explains the rationale behind the two versions of this incident. bTheSage bwho taughtthat ben Azzai btaughtthe law openly in the market held that the leniency was bdue toconcern that the ihalakhotrequiring ritual immersion would promote bderelictionin the study bof Torah.The ruling of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira eases the way for an individual who experienced a seminal emission to study Torah. This was balso due toconcern that the ihalakhotrequiring ritual immersion would promote bthe suspension of procreation,as one might abstain from marital relations to avoid the immersion required thereafter. bAnd theSage, bwho taughtthat ben Azzai only bwhisperedthis ihalakhato his students, held that he did so bin order that Torah scholars would not be with their wives like roosters.If the purification process was that simple, Torah scholars would engage in sexual activity constantly, which would distract them from their studies.,With regard to this ritual immersion, bRabbi Yannai said: I heard that there are those who are lenient with regard to it and I have heard that there are those who are stringent with regard to it.The ihalakhain this matter was never conclusively established band anyone whoaccepts bupon himself to be stringent with regard to it, they prolong for him his days and years. /b,The Gemara relates that bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the essence of those who immerse themselves in the morning?The Gemara retorts: How can one ask bwhat is their essence? Isn’t hethe one bwho saidthat bone who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited fromengaging in bmatters of Torahand is required to immerse himself in the morning? Rather, bthis iswhat bhemeant to bsay: What is the essence ofimmersion in a ritual bath of bforty ise’a /iof water when bit is possibleto purify oneself bwith nine ikav /i?Furthermore, bwhat is the essence of immersionwhen bit isalso bpossibleto purify oneself by bpouringwater?,Regarding this, bRabbi Ḥanina said: They established a massive fenceprotecting one from sinning with their decree that one must immerse himself in forty ise’aof water. bAs it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: There was ban incident involving one who solicited a woman tocommit ba sinful act. She said to him: Good-for-nothing. Do you have forty ise’ain which to immerseand purify byourselfafterwards? He bimmediately desisted.The obligation to immerse oneself caused individuals to refrain from transgression., bRav Huna said to the Sages: Gentlemen, why do you disdain this immersion? If it is becauseit is difficult for you to immerse in the bcoldwaters of the ritual bath, bit is possibleto purify oneself by immersing oneself in the heated bbathhouses,which are unfit for immersion for other forms of ritual impurity but are fit for immersion in this case., bRabbi Ḥisda said to him: Is there ritual immersion in hot water?Rav Huna bsaid to him:Indeed, doubts with regard to the fitness of baths have been raised, and bRav Adda bar Ahava holds in accordance with youropinion. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that it is permitted.,The Gemara relates: bRabbi Zeira was sitting in a tub of water in the bathhouse. He said to his attendant: Go and get nine ikav /iof water band pourit bover meso that I may purify myself from the impurity caused by a seminal emission. bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Why does my masterrequire ball of this? Aren’t you seated inat least nine ikavof water in the tub. bHe said to him:The law of nine ikav bparallelsthe law of bforty ise’a /i,in that their ihalakhotare exclusive. bJust as forty ise’a /ican only purify an individual through bimmersion and not through pouring, so too nine ikav /ican only purify one who experienced a seminal emission bthrough pouring and not through immersion. /b,The Gemara relates that bRav Naḥman prepared a jugwith a capacity bof nine ikav /iso that his students could pour water over themselves and become pure. bWhen Rav Dimi camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, bhe said: Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda Gelostera said:The ihalakhathat one who experienced a seminal emission can be purified by pouring nine ikav bwas only taught for a sick personwho experienced the emission binvoluntarily. However, a sick personwho experienced a bnormalseminal emission in the course of marital relations, is required to immerse himself in bforty ise’a /i. /b, bRav Yosef said:In that case, bRav Naḥman’s jug is broken,meaning it is no longer of any use, as few people fall into the category of sick people who experienced seminal emissions. Nevertheless, bwhen Ravin camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia bhe said: In Usha there was an incident /b |
|
24. Babylonian Talmud, Keritot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 28a. לכבשתו והעני הואיל ונדחה ידחה,אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע שמע מינה תלת שמע מינה בעלי חיים נדחים וקדושת דמים נדחה,ודחוי מעיקרא הוי דחוי,מתיב רב עוקבא בר חמא המפריש נקבה לפסחו קודם הפסח תרעה עד שתסתאב ותמכר ויביא בדמיה פסח ילדה זכר ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויביא בדמיו פסח,ר"ש אומר הוא עצמו יקרב פסח ש"מ בעלי חיים אינם נדחים,אמרי דבי רבי אושעיא כי אמרינן לרבנן דר"ש ס"ל בעלי חיים אינן נדחין,והגרלה אינה מעכבת דתניא מת אחד מהן מביא חבירו שלא בהגרלה דברי ר"ש,אלמא קסבר בעלי חיים אינן נידחין והגרלה אינה מעכבת,אמר רב חסדא אין הקינין מתפרשות אלא אי בלקיחת בעלים אי בעשיית כהן,אמר רב שימי בר אשי מאי טעמא דרב חסדא דכתיב (ויקרא יב, ח) ולקחה שתי תורים וגו' (ויקרא טו, ל) ועשה הכהן וגו' או בלקיחת בעלים או בעשיית כהן,מיתיבי (ויקרא טז, ט) ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושהו חטאת ואין השם עושהו חטאת ואין כהן עושה חטאת,שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה במקום שלא קידש הגורל קידש השם מקום שיקדש הגורל אינו דין שיקדש השם,ת"ל ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושהו חטאת ואין השם עושהו חטאת,קתני שם דומיא דגורל מה גורל לאו בלקיחה ולאו בעשייה אף השם נמי לאו בלקיחה ולאו בעשייה,אמר רב ה"ק ומה במקום שלא קידש הגורל בלקיחת בעלים ובעשיית הכהן קידש השם אי בלקיחת בעלים אי בעשיית כהן כאן שיקדש הגורל שלא בלקיחה ושלא בעשייה אינו דין שיקדש השם אי בלקיחה אי בעשייה,ת"ל ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושהו חטאת ואין השם עושהו חטאת,מיתיבי מטמא מקדש עני שהפריש מעות לקינו והעשיר,אמר אלו לחטאתי ואלו לעולתי מוסיף ומביא חובתו מדמי חטאתו ואין מוסיף ומביא מדמי עולתו,והא הכא דליכא לא לקיחה ולא עשייה וקתני מביא חובתו מדמי חטאתו ולא מדמי עולתו,א"ר ששת ותסברא מתניתא מתקנתא היא דקתני והעשיר והא"ר אלעזר א"ר אושעיא מטמא מקדש עשיר שהביא קרבן עני לא יצא,אלא מאי אית לך למימר שכבר אמר משעת ענייתו ה"נ שכבר אמר משעת הפרשתו,ולר' חגא א"ר אושעיא דאמר יצא מאי איכא למימר תני ואח"כ לקח ואמר,מיתיבי מצורע עני שהביא קרבן עשיר יצא עשיר שהביא קרבן עני לא יצא תיובתא דר' חגא א"ר אושעיא,אמר לך שאני גבי מצורע דמיעט רחמנא (ויקרא יד, ב) זאת,אי הכי אפילו מצורע עני נמי שהביא קרבן עשיר לא יצא לאיי הא אהדריה קרא תורת והתניא תורת לרבות מצורע עני שהביא קרבן עשיר יצא יכול אפילו עשיר שהביא קרבן עני שיצא תלמוד לומר זאת,ולילף מיניה אמר קרא (ויקרא יד, כא) ואם דל הוא ואין ידו משגת מצורע הוא דעשיר שהביא קרבן עני הוא דלא יצא אבל מטמא מקדש עשיר שהביא קרבן עני יצא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ר"ש אומר כבשים קודמין את העזים בכל מקום יכול מפני שהן מובחרים מהם ת"ל (ויקרא ד, לב) ואם כבש יביא קרבנו לחטאת מלמד ששניהם שקולין,תורין קודמין לבני יונה בכל מקום יכול מפני שהן מובחרים מהן תלמוד לומר ((ויקרא יב, ו) תור ובני) יונה או תור לחטאת מלמד ששניהם שקולין,האב קודם לאם בכל מקום יכול מפני שכיבוד האב קודם על כיבוד האם ת"ל (ויקרא יט, ג) איש אמו ואביו תיראו מלמד ששניהם שקולין אבל אמרו חכמים האב קודם לאם בכל מקום מפני שהוא ואמו חייבין בכבוד אביו,וכן בתלמוד תורה אם זכה הבן לפני הרב הרב קודם את האב בכל מקום מפני שהוא ואביו חייבין בכבוד רבו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר ד' צווחות צווחה עזרה צווחה אחת הוציאו מיכן בני עלי חפני ופנחס שטימאו את ההיכל,צווחה שניה פתחו שערים ויכנס יוחנן בן נדבאי תלמידו של פינקאי וימלא כרסו מקדשי שמים אמרו על בן נדבאי שהיה אוכל ארבע סאה גוזלות | 28a. instead bof a female lamb, and hethen bbecame poorer,a bird pair is now the appropriate offering for him. Nevertheless, bsincehis offering bwas disqualifiedat the outset because at that time he was obligated to bring a female lamb, bit ispermanently bdisqualified. /b, bRav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:One can bconclude from thisruling bthree ihalakhot /i. bConclude from itthat bconsecrated living animals can bepermanently bdisqualifiedeven if the animal is unblemished, as is the case with regard to this pair of birds. bAndconclude from it that when there is bsanctitythat inheres in an animal’s bvalue,where the consecrated item will not be sacrificed as an offering, it can be bdisqualified.When he was wealthy and designated the bird pair as his offering, the two birds were consecrated only with sanctity that inheres in their value because they were unfit for sacrifice, and yet the birds were permanently disqualified., bAndfinally, conclude from this that ba disqualification at the outset,when the animal is initially consecrated, bisconsidered a permanent bdisqualification.Not only is an animal that was initially fit to be sacrificed and was later disqualified permanently disqualified, but even in a case such as this, where the birds were unfit for sacrifice from the beginning, the disqualification is permanent., bRav Ukva bar Ḥama raises an objectionfrom a ibaraita( iTosefta /i, iTemura2:3): With regard to bone who designates a femaleanimal bfor his Paschal offering before Passover,since the Paschal offering must be a male it is left to bgraze until it becomes blemished,at which point bit is sold and one brings a Paschal offering with the moneyreceived from its sale. Similarly, if this animal bgave birth to a maleanimal, the offspring is left to bgraze until it becomes blemished,at which point bit is sold and one brings a Paschal offering with the moneyreceived from its sale., bRabbi Shimon says:It is not necessary to sell the offspring in such a case, as the offspring bitself is sacrificedas ba Paschal offering. Conclude from thisstatement of Rabbi Shimon that bconsecrated living animals are notpermanently bdisqualified,as the mother was unfit to be a Paschal offering and yet the offspring, which is an extension of the mother’s sanctity, is fit for sacrifice., bThe school of Rabbi Oshaya say: When we saythat consecrated living animals can be permanently disqualified, this applies baccording tothe opinion of bthe Rabbis,who maintain that the offspring is not sacrificed. Nevertheless, it is correct bthat Rabbi Shimon holdsthat consecrated bliving animals are notpermanently bdisqualified. /b, bAndRabbi Shimon likewise maintains bthatthe bdrawingof the lots for the two goats on Yom Kippur to decide which goat is designated as a sacrifice and which is designated as the scapegoat, bis not indispensable. As it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: If bone ofthe goats bdiedfollowing their designation, one bbrings anothergoat instead of it, and it is designated bwithout drawinglots. The surviving goat is still used for the purpose for which it was designated by the lot; this is bthe statement of Rabbi Shimon. /b, bEvidently, Rabbi Shimon holds:Consecrated bliving animals are notpermanently bdisqualified.Although the surviving goat was disqualified when the other goat died, it is once again fit when a new goat is designated as its partner. bAndRabbi Shimon also holds that the bdrawingof the lots bis not indispensable,as the new goat was designated without drawing lots.,§ bRav Ḥisda says: Nests,i.e., pairs of birds, bare designated, /bone as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering, bonlyin the following manner: bEitherby the bownerat the time bof purchase or,if the owner did not designate the birds at that stage, by the bpriestat the time bof sacrifice. /b, bRav Shimi bar Ashi said: What is the reason of Rav Ḥisda? As it is writtenwith regard to the offering of a woman after childbirth: b“And she shall purchase two dovesor two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering” (Leviticus 12:8). And with regard to the offering of a leper it is written: b“And the priest shall sacrificethe one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering” (Leviticus 15:30). Together, these verses indicate that one bird is designated as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering beitherby the bownerat the time bof purchase orby the bpriestat the time bof sacrifice. /b,The Gemara braises an objectionfrom a ibaraitain the iSifrathat discusses the drawing of lots for the two goats of Yom Kippur. The verse states: “Aaron shall bring forward the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, band he shall sacrifice it for a sin offering”(Leviticus 16:9). This teaches that the drawing of bthe lot renders it a sin offering, butverbally designating bthe nameof the goat bdoes not render it a sin offering, andlikewise the act of the bpriest,placing the lot on the goat, bdoes not render it a sin offering. /b,A verse is required to teach this ihalakha /i, basone bmighthave come to the opposite conclusion: bCould this notbe derived through an ia fortiori binference,as follows: bAnd if in a case wherethe drawing of ba lot does not sanctifyan animal with a specific designation, e.g., a woman after childbirth, who cannot determine by lot the status of the two birds she must bring, one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering, nevertheless, in such a case a verbal designation of bthe name does sanctifywith a specific designation; bis it not logicalin ba case wherethe drawing of ba lot sanctifiesan animal with a specific designation, i.e., the two goats of Yom Kippur, bthatverbally designating bthe nameshould bsanctifyit with a specific designation?,The ibaraitaconcludes: Therefore bthe verse states,with regard to one of the two goats of Yom Kippur: b“He shall sacrifice it for a sin offering,”to teach that the drawing of bthe lot renders it a sin offering, butverbally designating bthe nameof the goat bdoes not render it a sin offering. /b,The Gemara explains the objection: The ibaraita bteachesthat verbally designating the bnameof an offering bis similar todrawing ba lot.If so, one can reason as follows: bJust asthe drawing of ba lotis bnotperformed batthe time of bpurchase nor atthe time of bsacrifice, so tooverbal designation of bthe name alsodoes bnothave to be performed batthe time of bpurchase nor atthe time of bsacrifice.This contradicts the opinion of Rav Ḥisda., bRav saidthat bthisis what the ibaraita bis saying: And if in a place wherethe drawing of ba lot,either by the bownerat the time bof purchase orby the bpriestat the time bof sacrifice, does not sanctifyan animal with a specific designation, and nevertheless a verbal designation of bthe name, eitherby the bownerat the time bof purchase orby the bpriestat the time bof sacrifice, does sanctifyit with a specific designation; bhere,with regard to the two goats, bwherethe drawing of ba lotthat does bnottake place batthe time of bpurchase nor atthe time of bsacrifice sanctifiesthe animal with a specific designation, bis it not logical thatverbally designating bthe name, either atthe time of bpurchase or atthe time of bsacrifice,should bsanctifyit with a specific designation?,Therefore, bthe verse states: “He shall sacrifice it for a sin offering,”to teach that drawing bthe lot renders it a sin offering, butverbally designating bthe nameof the goat bdoes not render it a sin offering. /b,The Gemara braisesanother bobjectionto the opinion of Rav Ḥisda from a ibaraita /i: In the case of ba poor person who defiles the Temple,i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, bwho designated money for his nest,as he is required to bring one bird as a sin offering and another bird as a burnt offering, band hethen bbecame wealthier,he is now obligated to bring a female lamb or goat as a sin offering.,If he was unaware that he is no longer obligated to bring a pair of birds, and he bsays: Thismoney bis for my sin offering and thismoney bis for my burnt offering,which is an error, as he is not obligated to bring a burnt offering, bhe addsmore money band brings his obligationof a lamb or goat for his sin offering bfromthe bmoneydesignated bfor his sin offering. But he may not addmore money band bring his obligationof a sin offering bfromthe bmoneydesignated bfor his burnt offering,as one may not use money that is designated for a burnt offering for the purchase of a sin offering.,The Gemara explains the objection: bBut here,the ibaraitais dealing with a case where he said: This money is for my sin offering and that money is for my burnt offering, which means that he designated the money at a stage bthat was notthe time of bpurchase northe time of bsacrifice; andyet the ibaraita bteachesthat the designation is established and therefore bhe brings his obligationof a sin offering bfromthe bmoneydesignated for ba sin offering but not fromthe bmoneydesignated for ba burnt offering. /b, bRav Sheshet said: And can you understandthat bthis ibaraitais properlyexplained, i.e., the ibaraitaas it stands is difficult, bas it teaches: He became wealthierand said: This money is for my sin offering and this money is for my burnt offering. bButthis is difficult, as bdoesn’t Rabbi Elazar saythat bRabbi Oshaya says: A wealthy person who defiles the Temple,i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, bwho broughtthe bofferingof ba poor personto atone for his transgression has bnot fulfilledhis obligation. Since he cannot fulfill his obligation with that offering, how can his designation permanently establish the status of the money?, bRather, what have you to say?You must say that the ibaraitais referring to a case bwhere he already said:This money is for my sin offering and this money is for my burnt offering, bat the timewhen bhe was poor. So too,it is referring to a case bwhere he already saidit even earlier, bat the timewhen bhe designatedthe money, and therefore there is no difficulty for Rav Ḥisda.,The Gemara asks: bBut according to Rabbi Ḥagga,who bsaysthat bRabbi Oshaya saysthat a wealthy person who brings the offering of a poor person has bfulfilledhis obligation, bwhat can be said?According to this opinion, there is no inherent difficulty in the ibaraitathat necessitates Rav Sheshet’s interpretation, and therefore that ibaraitaapparently contradicts Rav Ḥisda’s ruling. The Gemara answers that one should bteachthe ibaraitaas follows: bAnd afterhe became wealthier, bhe purchasedanimals band saidat the time of purchase: This is designated as my sin offering and this as my burnt offering.,With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Ḥagga in the case of a wealthy person who brings the offering of a poor person, the Gemara braises an objectionfrom a ibaraita /i: bA poor leper who brought the offering of a wealthy personhas bfulfilledhis obligation. By contrast, ba wealthyleper bwho brought the offering of a poor personhas bnot fulfilledhis obligation. This is apparently ba conclusive refutation ofthe opinion bthat Rabbi Ḥaggasays that bRabbi Oshaya says. /b,The Gemara explains that Rabbi Ḥagga could have bsaid to you:The ihalakha bis different with regard toa wealthy bleper, as the Merciful One excludedthe possibility of a wealthy person bringing the offering of a poor person in the verse: b“Thisshall be the law of the leper” (Leviticus 14:2). The emphasis of “this” teaches that a leper fulfills his obligation only with the appropriate offering.,The Gemara objects: bIf so,that this ihalakhais derived from a verse, then bevenin the case of ba poor leper who brings the offering of a wealthy person as well,he should bnot fulfillhis obligation. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: This is bnot so,as bthe verse returnedto state: “This shall be bthe lawof the leper,” which includes a leper who brings an inappropriate offering. bAs it is taughtin a ibaraitathat the phrase b“the lawof the leper” serves bto include a poor leper who brought the offering of a wealthy person,that he bhas fulfilledhis obligation. One bmighthave thought that bevenin the case of ba wealthyleper bwho brought the offering of a poor person, hehas bfulfilledhis obligation. Therefore, bthe verse states: “Thisshall be the law.”,The Gemara raises a difficulty: bButwhy not bderivea principle bfrom thatverse that with regard to any sliding-scale offering, a wealthy person who brings a poor person’s offering has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara answers: With regard to a leper bthe verse states: “And if he is poor and cannot afford”(Leviticus 14:21). The emphasis of “he” teaches that bit isonly with regard to ba leper that a wealthy person who brought a poor person’s offeringhas bnot fulfilledhis obligation. bButin the case of bone who defiles the Temple,i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, ba wealthy person who brought a poor person’s offeringhas bfulfilledhis obligation., strongMISHNA: /strong bRabbi Shimon says: Lambs precede goatsalmost beverywherein the Torah that they are both mentioned, as in the verse: “You shall take it from the lambs or from the goats” (Exodus 12:5). One bmighthave thought that it is bdue tothe fact bthatsheep bare more select thangoats. Therefore, bthe verse states:“And he shall bring for his offering a goat” (Leviticus 4:28), after which it is written: b“And if he bring a lamb as his offering for a sin offering”(Leviticus 4:32), which bteaches that both of them are equal. /b,Similarly, bdoves precede pigeonsalmost beverywherein the Torah, as in the verse: “And he shall bring his guilt offering…two doves, or two pigeons” (Leviticus 5:7). One bmighthave thought that it is bdue tothe fact bthatdoves bare more select thanpigeons. Therefore, bthe verse states: “And a pigeon or a dove for a sin offering”(Leviticus 12:6), with the usual order reversed, which bteaches that both of them are equal. /b,Likewise, mention of bthe father precedesthat of bthe motheralmost beverywherein the Torah, as in the verse: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12). One bmighthave thought that it is bdue tothe fact bthat the honor of the father takes precedence over the honor of the mother.Therefore, bthe verse states: “Every man shall fear his mother and his father”(Leviticus 19:3), with the order reversed, which bteaches that both of them are equal. But the Sages said:Honor of bthe father takes precedence overhonor of bthe mother everywhere, due tothe fact bthatboth the son band his mother are obligated in the honor of his father. /b, bAnd likewise with regard to Torah study, if the son was privilegedto acquire most of his Torah knowledge from studying bbefore the teacher,honor of bthe teacher takes precedence overhonor of bthe father, due tothe fact bthatboth the son band his father are obligated in the honor of his teacher,as everyone is obligated in the honor of Torah scholars., strongGEMARA: /strong With regard to the mishna’s discussion of lambs and goats, bthe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: The Temple bcourtyard cried four cries. The first crywas: bRemove Ḥofni and Pineḥas the sons of Elithe priest bfrom here, as they have rendered the Sanctuaryin Shiloh bimpure(see I Samuel 4:13–22)., bThe second crywas: bOpenthe bgates, and let Yoḥa ben Nedavai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly withmeat of bofferingsconsecrated to bHeaven,as he is worthy to eat offerings. bThey said about ben Nedavai that he would eat four ise’aof doves /b |
|
25. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 65a. bAnd this is as we learnedin a mishna ( iShekalim13b): bPetaḥyawas responsible bfor the nestsof birds, i.e., the doves or pigeons brought by a izav /i, a izava /i, a woman after childbirth, and a leper. These individuals would place the appropriate sum of money into the horn designated for this purpose, and each day Petaḥya oversaw the purchase of birds from that money and their sacrifice in the proper manner. bThisSage bis Mordekhai;and bwhy was he called Petaḥya,which resembles the word for opening [ ipetaḥ /i]? The reason is bthat he would open,i.e., elucidate, difficult btopics and interpret themto the people, bandbecause bhe knewall bseventy languagesknown in that region at the time.,The Gemara asks: What was unique about Petaḥya? bAllof the members of the bSanhedrin also knowall bseventy languages. As Rabbi Yoḥa says:They bplace on theGreat bSanhedrin onlymen bof wisdom, and ofpleasant bappearance, and ofhigh bstature, and ofsuitable bageso that they will be respected. bAndthey must also be bmasters of sorcery,i.e., they know the nature of sorcery, so that they can judge sorcerers, bandthey must bknowall bseventy languagesin order bthat the Sanhedrin will notneed to bheartestimony bfrom the mouth of a translatorin a case where a witness speaks a different language.,The Gemara answers: bRather,Petaḥya was unique bashe not only knew all seventy languages, but also had the ability to bcombinevarious blanguages and interpretthem. bThis isthe meaning of that bwhich is written with regard to Mordekhai: “Bilshan”(Nehemiah 7:7). Bilshan is interpreted as another name for Mordekhai, as he would combine [ ibalil /i] languages [ ilashon /i]., strongMISHNA: /strong bHow would they performthe rite of the harvest of the iomer /i? bEmissaries of the courtwould bemerge on the eve of the festivalof Passover band fashionthe stalks of barley into bsheaves whilethe stalks were still battached to the ground, so that it would be convenient to reapthem. The residents of ball the towns adjacent tothe site of the harvest bwould assemble there, so that it would be harvested with great fanfare. /b, bOnce it grew dark,the court emissary bsays tothose assembled: bDid the sun set?The assembly bsaysin response: bYes.The emissary repeats: bDid the sun set?They again bsay: Yes.The court emissary next says to those assembled: Shall I reap the sheaves with bthis sickle?The assembly bsaysin response: bYes.The emissary repeats: With bthis sickle?The assembly bsays: Yes.The court emissary then says to those assembled: Shall I place the gathered sheaves in bthis basket?The assembly bsaysin response: bYes.The emissary repeats: In bthis basket?The assembly bsays: Yes. /b,If the sixteenth of Nisan occurs bon Shabbat,the court emissary bsays tothe assembled: Shall I cut the sheaves on bthis Shabbat?The assembly bsaysin response: bYes.The emissary repeats: On bthis Shabbat?The assembly bsays: Yes.The court emissary says to those assembled: bShall I cutthe sheaves? bAnd they say to himin response: bCut.The emissary repeats: bShall I cutthe sheaves? bAnd they sayto him: bCut. /b,The emissary asks bthree times with regard to each and every matter, andthe assembly bsays to him: Yes, yes, yes.The mishna asks: bWhy do Ineed those involved to publicize each stage of the rite bto that extent?The mishna answers: It is bdue to the Boethusians, as theydeny the validity of the Oral Law and bwould say: There is no harvest of the iomerat the conclusion of thefirst bFestivalday of Passover unless it occurs at the conclusion of Shabbat. The publicity was to underscore that the sixteenth of Nisan was the proper time for the iomerharvest., strongGEMARA: /strong bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThese are the days on which fasting is prohibited, and on some of them eulogizing is prohibitedas well: bFrom the New Moon of Nisan until the eighth ofthe month, the proper sacrifice of bthe daily offering was established,and therefore it was decreed bnot to eulogizeon these dates. bAndfurthermore, bfrom the eighth ofNisan buntil the end of the festivalof Passover, the correct date for the bfestival of iShavuotwas restored,and it was similarly decreed bnot to eulogizeduring this period.,The Gemara discusses the ibaraita /i: bFrom the New Moon of Nisan until the eighth ofthe month the proper sacrifice of bthe daily offering was established,and therefore it was decreed bnot to eulogizeon these dates. The Gemara explains bthat the Sadducees would say: An individual may donate and bringthe bdaily offering,in opposition to the accepted tradition that the daily offering must be brought from communal funds. bWhatverse did the Sadducees bexpound? “The one lamb shall you offer [ ita’aseh /i] in the morning, and the other lamb shall you offer in the afternoon”(Numbers 28:4). Since the verse is in the singular form, the Sadducees maintained that even an individual may donate the daily offering.,The Gemara asks: bWhatdid the Sages breplyto refute the argument of the Sadducees? They cited the verse: “Command the children of Israel, and say to them: bMy food that is presented to Me for offerings made by fire,of a pleasing aroma unto Me, byou shall observe [ itishmeru /i]to offer to Me in its due season” (Numbers 28:2). The term: “You shall observe” is in the plural form, which indicates that ball of thedaily offerings bshould come from collection of theTemple treasury bchamber.Since during that period, between the New Moon of Nisan and the eighth of Nisan, the Sages overruled the Sadducees, it was established as a period of rejoicing, and it was prohibited to eulogize on those dates.,The Gemara discusses the next period listed in the ibaraita /i: bFrom the eighth ofNisan buntil the end of the festivalof Passover, the correct date for the bfestival of iShavuotwas restored,and it was similarly decreed bnot to eulogizeduring this period. bAs the Boethusians would saythat the festival of iShavuot /ialways occurs bafter Shabbat,on a Sunday. Their reasoning was that the verse states, with regard to the iomeroffering and the festival of iShavuotthat follows seven weeks later: “And you shall count for you from the morrow after the day of rest [ ihashabbat /i], from the day that you brought the sheaf [ iomer /i] of the waving; seven weeks shall there be complete” (Leviticus 23:15). Disregarding the oral tradition, the Boethusians interpreted the phrase “from the morrow after the day of rest [ ihashabbat /i]” literally, as referring to Shabbat, not the Festival day.,At the time, bRabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai joinedthe discussion with the Boethusians band said to them: Fools! From wherehave byouderived this? bAnd there was no man who answered him, except for one elderly man who was prattling [ imefatpet /i] at him, and he said: Moses, our teacher, was a lover of the Jewish people and he knew that iShavuotisonly bone day.Therefore, bhe arose and established it after Shabbat, in order that the Jewish people would enjoy themselves for two days.Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai brecited this versein response btothat old man: b“It is eleven days’ journey from Horeb to Kadesh Barnea by the way of Mount Seir”(Deuteronomy 1:2). |
|
26. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 34a. רגל הוה וטומאת עם הארץ ברגל כטהרה שוינהו רבנן דכתיב (שופטים כ, יא) ויאסף כל איש ישראל אל העיר כאיש אחד חברים הכתוב עשאן כולן חברים, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big דם עובדת כוכבים ודם טהרה של מצורעת ב"ש מטהרים ובית הלל אומרים כרוקה וכמימי רגליה,דם היולדת שלא טבלה ב"ש אומרים כרוקה וכמימי רגליה וב"ה אומרים מטמא לח ויבש,ומודים ביולדת בזוב שהיא מטמאה לח ויבש, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ולית להו לב"ש (ויקרא טו, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל ואמרת אליהם איש איש כי יהיה זב בני ישראל מטמאין בזיבה ואין העובדי כוכבים מטמאין בזיבה אבל גזרו עליהן שיהו כזבין לכל דבריהם,אמרי לך ב"ש (ההוא בזכרים איתמר דאי בנקבות) היכי לעביד ליטמא לח ויבש עשיתו כשל תורה ליטמי לח ולא ליטמי יבש חלקת בשל תורה,אי הכי רוקה ומימי רגליה נמי כיון דעבדינן היכרא בדמה מידע ידיע דרוקה ומימי רגליה דרבנן,ולעביד היכרא ברוקה ומימי רגליה ולטמויי לדמה רוקה ומימי רגליה דשכיחי גזרו בהו רבנן דמה דלא שכיחא לא גזרו ביה רבנן,אמר רבא זובו טמא אפילו לב"ש קריו טהור אפילו לב"ה,זובו טמא אפילו לב"ש דהא איכא למעבד היכרא בקריו,קריו טהור אפי' לב"ה עבוד ביה רבנן היכרא כי היכי דלא לשרוף עליה תרומה וקדשים,ולעביד היכרא בזובו ולטמויי לקריו זובו דלא תלי במעשה גזרו ביה רבנן קריו דתלי במעשה לא גזרו ביה רבנן,לימא מסייע ליה עובדת כוכבים שפלטה שכבת זרע מישראל טמאה ובת ישראל שפלטה שכבת זרע מן העובד כוכבי' טהורה מאי לאו טהורה גמורה לא טהורה מדאורייתא טמאה מדרבנן,ת"ש נמצאת אומר שכבת זרע של ישראל טמאה בכל מקום | 34a. This incident occurred during ba pilgrimage Festival,either Passover, iSukkot /i, or iShavuot /i, band the Sages rendered the ritual impurity of an iam ha’aretzduring a pilgrimage Festival as purity. As it is written: “And all the men of Israel gathered to the city, like one man, united [ iḥaverim /i]”(Judges 20:11). Whenever all the Jewish people gather in a single place, such as on a pilgrimage Festival, bthe verse renders all of them iḥaverim /i,even one who is an iam ha’aretz /i. There was therefore no concern for impurity due to the saliva of an iam ha’aretz /i. Yet, the High Priest was concerned that this Sadducee was one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman., strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to the bblood ofa menstruating bgentile womanor a gentile izava /i, bandthe bblooddischarged bbya female Jewish bleperduring the days bof purityof a woman who gives birth, bBeit Shammai deemthem britually pure, and Beit Hillel say:The halakhic status of the blood of the gentile woman is blikethat of bher saliva and her urine,which impart impurity only while moist. Likewise, the blood discharged by a Jewish leper during the days of purity imparts impurity only when moist.,With regard to bthe blood of a woman who gave birthand reached the conclusion of her days of impurity, i.e., seven days after giving birth to a male or fourteen days after giving birth to a female, but bwho did notyet bimmersein a ritual bath, bBeit Shammai say:Although she has yet to immerse in a ritual bath, the blood does not retain the halakhic status of menstrual blood. Rather, the status of the blood is blikethat of bher saliva and her urine,and it imparts impurity only while moist. bAnd Beit Hillel say:Since she did not immerse in a ritual bath, her blood is considered like that of a menstruating woman, and it bimparts impuritywhether it is bmoist or dry. /b, bAndBeit Shammai bconcedeto Beit Hillel binthe case of ba woman who gives birth as a izava /i,where the woman must count seven clean days from the conclusion of her days of impurity, bthatany blood bshesees during those seven days bimparts impuritywhether it is bmoist or dry. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that according to Beit Shammai the blood of a gentile woman does not impart impurity. The Gemara objects: bAnd do Beit Shammai not acceptthat which is taught with regard to the verse: b“Speak to the children of Israel and say to them, when any man has an issue [ izav /i]out of his flesh, his issue is impure” (Leviticus 15:2), from which it is inferred: By Torah law, bthe children of Israel become impure through izivaand gentiles do not become impure through iziva /i, butthe Sages bdecreed concerning them that they shall be like izavinin all their mattersof ritual purity.,The Gemara responds: bBeit Shammaicould bsay to youthat bthis was statedonly bwith regard to males,not females. bAs, ifit was stated even bwith regard to females, how should one actwith regard to this impurity? bShouldtheir blood bimpart impuritywhether it is bmoist or dry?If so, byou have rendered it likeblood that imparts impurity bby Torahlaw, and people will mistakenly come to burn iterumathat comes into contact with it. Perhaps one will suggest that it bshould impart impurityonly while it is bmoist and it should not impart impuritywhen it is bdry.But if so, byouwill have bdifferentiatedbetween moist and dry blood even bwith regard toblood bthatis impure by bTorahlaw, i.e., one might mistakenly conclude that the blood of Jewish women imparts impurity only when it is moist, when in fact it imparts impurity whether it is moist or dry.,The Gemara objects: bIf so,then with regard to bthe saliva and urine ofa gentile izava /i, which impart impurity by rabbinic law only when moist, Beit Shammai should balsorule that they do not impart impurity at all, in order to distinguish their saliva and urine from that of a Jewish izava /i, which by Torah law impart impurity only when moist (see 54b). The Gemara responds: bSince we implement a conspicuous marker with regard to the blood ofa gentile woman, i.e., it is clear that her status is different from that of a Jewish woman in that her blood does not impart impurity whatsoever, everyone bwill know thatthe impurity of bher saliva and her urineis only bby rabbiniclaw, and there is no concern that people might come to mistakenly burn iterumathat comes into contact with the saliva and urine of a gentile izava /i.,The Gemara persists: bAnd let them implement a conspicuous marker with regard to the saliva and urine ofa gentile woman, that they should not impart impurity whatsoever, band let them deem her blood impureeven when dry. In this manner, everyone will know that the impurity of a gentile woman applies only by rabbinic law, and they will not come to treat that which is impure by Torah law in the same manner. The Gemara responds: With regard to bher saliva and her urine, which arerelatively bcommon, the Sages decreedthat btheyare impure, but with regard to bher blood, which is notas bcommon, the Sages did not decreethat bitis impure.,§ With regard to a gentile man, bRava says: The izivaofa gentile man is britually impure, even according tothe opinion of bBeit Shammai,who maintain that the izivaof a gentile woman does not impart impurity whatsoever. By contrast, bthe semen ofa gentile is bpure, even according tothe opinion of bBeit Hillel,who hold that the blood of menstruating gentiles and the blood of their izivaimparts impurity when it is moist.,Rava elaborates: bThe izivaofa gentile man is bimpure, even according tothe opinion of bBeit Shammai, as it ispossible bto implement a conspicuous marker with his semen,i.e., since his semen does not impart impurity whatsoever, everyone will know that the impurity imparted by the izivaof a gentile applies by rabbinic law, and they will not come to burn iterumathat comes in contact with the izivaof a gentile.,And bthe semen ofa gentile is britually pure, even according tothe opinion of bBeit Hillel.This is because bthe Sageshad to bimplement a conspicuous marker with regard to itto indicate that the izivaof a gentile imparts impurity only by rabbinic law bin order that they will notcome bto burn iterumaand consecrateditems bthatcome into contact with their iziva /i, as must be performed with iterumaand consecrated items that contract impurity by Torah law.,The Gemara objects: bAnd letthe Sages bimplement a conspicuous marker with regard to the izivaofa gentile man, that it should not impart impurity whatsoever, band let them deem his semen impure.The Gemara explains: With regard to bhis iziva /i, which is not dependent on an actionhe performs but is emitted on its own, bthe Sages decreedthat bitis impure; with regard to bhis semen, which is dependent on an actionhe performs, bthe Sages did not decreethat bitis impure.,The Gemara suggests: bLet us saythat the following mishna ( iMikvaot8:4) bsupportsRava’s opinion: In the case of ba gentile woman who discharged sementhat came bfrom a Jewwho engaged in intercourse with her, the semen is bimpure,as it came from a Jew. bAndin the case of ba Jewish woman who discharged sementhat came bfrom a gentile,the semen is bpure. What, is it notcorrect to say that the mishna means the semen of the gentile is bentirely pure,in accordance with the opinion of Rava? The Gemara refutes this suggestion: bNo,perhaps the mishna means that the semen of a gentile is bpure by Torah lawbut bimpure by rabbinic law,whereas according to Rava, the semen of a gentile is pure even by rabbinic law.,The Gemara cites another source that possibly supports Rava’s opinion: bComeand bheara ibaraita /i: bYou are foundto bsay the semen of a Jew is impure whereverit is found |
|
27. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 57a. נימא תלתא תנאי הוו לא תרי תנאי הוו ותנא קמא דר' שמעון היינו ר' יוסי ותנא קמא דר' יוסי היינו ר' שמעון ומאי אף אקמייתא,ת"ר בן בוהיין נתן פיאה לירק ובא אביו ומצאן לעניים שהיו טעונין ירק ועומדין על פתח הגינה אמר להם בני השליכו מעליכם ואני נותן לכם כפליים במעושר לא מפני שעיני צרה אלא מפני שאמרו חכמים אין נותנין פיאה לירק,למה ליה למימרא להו לא מפני שעיני צרה כי היכי דלא לימרו דחויי קא מדחי לן,ת"ר בראשונה היו מניחין עורות קדשים בלשכת בית הפרוה לערב היו מחלקין אותן לאנשי בית אב והיו בעלי זרועות נוטלין אותן בזרוע התקינו שיהיו מחלקין אותן מערב שבת לע"ש דאתיין כולהו משמרות ושקלן בהדדי,ועדיין היו גדולי כהונה נוטלין אותן בזרוע עמדו בעלים והקדישום לשמים,אמרו לא היו ימים מועטים עד שחיפו את ההיכל כולו בטבלאות של זהב שהן אמה על אמה כעובי דינר זהב ולרגל היו מקפלין אותן ומניחין אותן על גב מעלה בהר הבית כדי שיהו עולי רגלים רואין שמלאכתם נאה ואין בה דלם,תנא אבא שאול אומר קורות של שקמה היו ביריחו והיו בעלי זרועות נוטלין אותן בזרוע עמדו בעלים והקדישום לשמים,עליהם ועל כיוצא בהם אמר אבא שאול בן בטנית משום אבא יוסף בן חנין אוי לי מבית בייתוס אוי לי מאלתן אוי לי מבית חנין אוי לי מלחישתן אוי לי מבית קתרוס אוי לי מקולמוסן אוי לי מבית ישמעאל בן פיאכי אוי לי מאגרופן שהם כהנים גדולים ובניהן גיזברין וחתניהם אמרכלין ועבדיהן חובטין את העם במקלות,תנו רבנן ארבע צווחות צוחה עזרה ראשונה צאו מכאן בני עלי שטימאו היכל ה' ועוד צווחה צא מיכן יששכר איש כפר ברקאי שמכבד את עצמו ומחלל קדשי שמים דהוה כריך ידיה בשיראי ועביד עבודה,ועוד צווחה העזרה שאו שערים ראשיכם ויכנס ישמעאל בן פיאכי תלמידו של פנחס וישמש בכהונה גדולה ועוד צווחה העזרה שאו שערים ראשיכם ויכנס יוחנן בן נרבאי תלמידו של פנקאי וימלא כריסו מקדשי שמים,אמרו עליו על יוחנן בן נרבאי שהיה אוכל ג' מאות עגלים ושותה ג' מאות גרבי יין ואוכל ארבעים סאה גוזלות בקינוח סעודה אמרו כל ימיו של יוחנן בן נרבאי לא נמצא נותר במקדש מאי סלקא ביה ביששכר איש כפר ברקאי אמרי מלכא ומלכתא הוו יתבי מלכא אמר גדיא יאי ומלכתא אמרה אימרא יאי אמרו מאן מוכח כהן גדול דקא מסיק קרבנות כל יומא אתא איהו | 57a. bLet us saythat bthere are three itanna’im /iwho dispute this point: The two unattributed opinions, each of which is referring to two vegetables, and the opinion common to Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon that includes all three vegetables. The Gemara rejects this: bNo, there areonly btwo itanna’im /iwho dispute the point, band the first itanna /iwhose opinion appears before the opinion of bRabbi Shimon is Rabbi Yosei. And the first itanna /iwhose opinion appears before the opinion of bRabbi Yosei is Rabbi Shimon. And whatis the meaning of the word bevenin both their statements? They agree with regard to bthe firstvegetable, turnips; however, they disagree with regard to the second, and replace it with another vegetable.,The Gemara cites an episode from the iTosefta /i. bThe Sages taught: The sonof a man named bBohayan designatedfor the poor btheproduce in the bcornerin a garden bof vegetables, and his fatherBohayan bfound the poor ladenwith bvegetables and standing at the opening of the gardenon their way out. bHe said to them: My sons, castthe vegetables that you have gathered bfrom upon yourselves and I will give you twicethe amount in btithedproduce, and you will be no worse off. bNot because I begrudgeyou what you have taken. bRather, it is because the Sages say: One does not designatefor the poor btheproduce in the bcornerin a garden bof vegetables.Therefore, the vegetables that you took require tithing.,The Gemara asks: bWhywas it necessary bfor him to say to them: Not because I begrudgeyou what you have taken? It would have been sufficient to offer them tithed produce. The Gemara answers that he said it bso they would not say: He is putting us off,taking what we collected now, but later he will not fulfill his commitment.,Apropos the people of Jericho, the Gemara relates that powerful people would steal wood from them. bThe Sages taught: Initially,the priests bwould place the hidesthat were flayed from animals bconsecratedas offerings of the most sacred order, which were given to the priests, bin the Parva chamber. In the evening, they would distribute them to the members of the familyof priests serving in the Temple that day. bAnd the powerfulpriests among them would btake them by forcebefore they could be distributed. The Rabbis bdecreed that they would distribute them each Shabbat eve,because then ball thefamilies of both priestly bwatches came and tooktheir part btogether.All the families from both the watch that was beginning its service and the one ending its service were together when they divided the hides. The powerful priests were unable to take the hides by force., bYet still the prominent priestsby virtue of their lineage bwould take them by force.Due to their prominence, the members of the rest of the watch dared not challenge them. When they realized that there was no equitable distribution, bthe ownersof the sacrifices ( iMe’iri /i) barose and consecratedthe hides bto Heavenso the priests could not take them.,The Sages bsaid: Not a few days passed before they had plated the entire sanctuary with golden tabletswith the proceeds from the redemption and sale of the hides. These plates bwere one cubit by one cubit and as thick as a golden dinar. Andwhen the people assembled bfor theFestival bpilgrimage they would removethe tablets band place them on a stair of the Temple Mount so that the pilgrims would see that the craftsmanshipof the tablets bwas beautiful and without flaw [ idalam /i].Afterward they replaced the tablets in the Sanctuary., bIt wassimilarly btaughtthat bAbba Shaul says: There were sycamore tree trunks in Jericho, and powerful people would take themfrom their owners bby force. The owners stood and consecratedthese trunks bto Heaven.It was with regard to these trunks and the branches that grew from them that the residents of Jericho acted against the will of the Sages., bWith regard tothe prominent priests band those like them, Abba Shaul ben Batnit said in the name of Abba Yosef ben Ḥanin: Woe is me due tothe High Priests of bthe house of Baitos, woe is me due to their clubs. Woe is me due tothe High Priests of bthe house of Ḥanin; woe is me due to their whispersand the rumors they spread. bWoe is me due tothe High Priests of bthe house of Katros; woe is me due to their pensthat they use to write lies. bWoe is me due tothe servants of the High Priests of bthe house of Yishmael ben Piakhi; woe is me due to their fists.The power of these households stemmed from the fact bthatthe fathers bwere High Priests, and their sons werethe Temple btreasurers, and their sons-in-law wereTemple boverseers [ iamarkalin /i]. And their servants strike the people with clubs,and otherwise act inappropriately.,Apropos the critique of several prominent priests, the Gemara relates that bthe Sages taught:The people in btheTemple bcourtyardall bcried four cries,as they were in agreement over various issues ( iPardes Rimonim /i). The bfirstcry was: bLeave here, sons of Eli, who defiled God’s Sanctuary(see I Samuel 2:22). Subsequently the priesthood was transferred to the house of Zadok. bAnd an additional cry: Leave here, Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai, who honors himself and desecratesthe items bconsecratedto bHeaven.Due to his delicate nature and his disrespect for the Temple service, he would bwraphis hands bin silk [ ishirai /i] and perform the service.This would invalidate the service because the silk was an interposition between his hands and the Temple vessels. Furthermore, his conduct demeaned the Temple service, as he demonstrated that he was unwilling to dirty his hands for it., bAndthe people in btheTemple bcourtyard cried additionally: Lift your heads, O gates, and letthe righteous bYishmael ben Piakhi, the student of Pinehasben Elazar the priest, benter and serve as High Priest,although the members of this family were violent. bAndthe people in btheTemple bcourtyard cried additionally: Lift your heads, O gates, and let Yoḥa ben Narbbai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly withmeat bof offeringsconsecrated to bHeaven,as he is worthy to eat offerings., bThey said about Yoḥa ben Narbbai that heand his household bwould eat three hundred calves, and drink three hundred jugs of wine, and eat forty ise’aof doves for dessert. They said:Throughout ball the days of Yoḥa ben Narbbai there was no leftoversacrificial meat bin the Temple,as he would make certain that someone ate it. The Gemara asks: bWhatultimately bhappened to Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai? They said: The king and the queen were sittingand talking. bThe king saidthat bgoatmeat bis betterfood, band the queen said lambmeat is bbetterfood. bThey said: Who can provewhich one of us is correct? bThe High Priestcan, bas he offers sacrifices all dayand tastes their meat. The High Priest had the right to take a portion from any sacrifice offered in the Temple, and therefore was well acquainted with the tastes of different meat. Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai bcame,and when they asked him this question |
|
28. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 66a. שורך נרבע והלה שותק נאמן ותנא תונא ושנעבדה בו עבירה ושהמית על פי עד אחד או ע"פ הבעלים נאמן האי ע"פ עד אחד היכי דמי אי דקא מודו בעלים היינו ע"פ הבעלים אלא לאו דשתיק,וצריכא דאי אשמעינן הך קמייתא אי לאו דקים ליה בנפשיה דעבד חולין בעזרה לא הוה מייתי,אבל נטמאו טהרותיך מימר אמרינן האי דשתיק דסבר חזי ליה בימי טומאתו,ואי אשמעינן הא משום דקא מפסיד ליה בימי טהרתו אבל שורו נרבע מימר אמר כל השוורים לאו לגבי מזבח קיימי צריכא,איבעיא להו אשתו זינתה בעד אחד ושותק מהו אמר אביי נאמן רבא אמר אינו נאמן הוי דבר שבערוה ואין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים,אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דההוא סמיא דהוה מסדר מתנייתא קמיה דמר שמואל יומא חד נגה ליה ולא הוה קאתי שדר שליחא אבתריה אדאזיל שליח בחדא אורחא אתא איהו בחדא כי אתא שליח אמר אשתו זינתה אתא לקמיה דמר שמואל א"ל אי מהימן לך זיל אפקה ואי לא לא תפיק,מאי לאו אי מהימן עלך דלאו גזלנא הוא ורבא אי מהימן לך כבי תרי זיל אפקה ואי לא לא תפקה,ואמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דתניא מעשה בינאי המלך שהלך לכוחלית שבמדבר וכיבש שם ששים כרכים ובחזרתו היה שמח שמחה גדולה וקרא לכל חכמי ישראל אמר להם אבותינו היו אוכלים מלוחים בזמן שהיו עסוקים בבנין בית המקדש אף אנו נאכל מלוחים זכר לאבותינו והעלו מלוחים על שולחנות של זהב ואכלו,והיה שם אחד איש לץ לב רע ובליעל ואלעזר בן פועירה שמו ויאמר אלעזר בן פועירה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך לבם של פרושים עליך ומה אעשה הקם להם בציץ שבין עיניך הקים להם בציץ שבין עיניו,היה שם זקן אחד ויהודה בן גדידיה שמו ויאמר יהודה בן גדידיה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך רב לך כתר מלכות הנח כתר כהונה לזרעו של אהרן שהיו אומרים אמו נשבית במודיעים ויבוקש הדבר ולא נמצא ויבדלו חכמי ישראל בזעם,ויאמר אלעזר בן פועירה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך הדיוט שבישראל כך הוא דינו ואתה מלך וכהן גדול כך הוא דינך ומה אעשה אם אתה שומע לעצתי רומסם ותורה מה תהא עליה הרי כרוכה ומונחת בקרן זוית כל הרוצה ללמוד יבוא וילמוד,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מיד נזרקה בו אפיקורסות דהוה ליה למימר תינח תורה שבכתב תורה שבעל פה מאי מיד ותוצץ הרעה על ידי אלעזר בן פועירה ויהרגו כל חכמי ישראל והיה העולם משתומם עד שבא שמעון בן שטח והחזיר את התורה ליושנה,היכי דמי אילימא דבי תרי אמרי אישתבאי ובי תרי אמרי לא אישתבאי מאי חזית דסמכת אהני סמוך אהני,אלא בעד אחד וטעמא דקא מכחשי ליה בי תרי הא לאו הכי מהימן,ורבא לעולם תרי ותרי וכדאמר רב אחא בר רב מניומי בעדי הזמה הכא נמי בעדי הזמה,ואיבעית אימא כדרבי יצחק דאמר רבי יצחק שפחה הכניסו תחתיה,אמר רבא | 66a. bYour ox was usedby a man bfor an act of bestialityand is therefore unfit for an offering, band the other,the owner of the ox, bis silent,the witness is bdeemed credible. And the itanna /iof the mishna also btaught( iBekhorot41a): bAndwith regard to an animal bthat was used for a transgressionor bthat killed,if this is attested to bby one witness or by the owner,he is bdeemed credible.The Gemara clarifies this case: bWhat are the circumstancesof bthiscase of the mishna, where the knowledge is established bby one witness? If the owner admitsto the claim, bthis isthe same as: bBy the owner. Rather, is it notreferring to a case bwherethe owner remains bsilent? /b,The Gemara comments: bAndeach of these statements of Abaye is bnecessary. As, had he taught usonly bthat firstcase, where the witness said someone ate forbidden fat, one might have said that he is deemed credible for the following reason: bWere it notfor the fact bthat he himselfwas bconvinced that he had committeda transgression, bhe would notcommit the transgression of bbringing a non-sacredanimal btothe Temple bcourtyardon the basis of the testimony of one witness. Consequently, his silence is evidently an admission., bButif the witness said: bYour ritually purefoods bwere rendered ritually impure,and the accused was silent, bwe would say:The reason bthathe is bsilentand refrains from denying the claim is bthat he thinkshe is not suffering any significant loss, as the food bis fit for himto eat bon his days of ritual impurity,because he is not required to destroy ritually impure foods., bAnd hadAbaye btaught usonly the case of: Your ritually pure food was rendered ritually impure, one might have said that the reason bthiswitness is deemed credible is bthat he causes him a loss on his days of ritual impurity,and therefore his silence is tantamount to a confession. bButin the case of: bHis ox was usedby a man bfor an act of bestiality,the owner of the ox bcan saywith regard to his animal: bNot all the oxen standready to be sacrificed basan offering on the baltar.Perhaps one would think that the owner does not bother denying the claim because he merely forfeits the possibility of sacrificing his ox as an offering, which he considers an inconsequential matter. It is only if there were two witnesses to the act that the animal is put to death, whereas here there was only one witness. It is therefore bnecessaryfor Abaye to specify all these cases.,§ bA dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: If a husband is told bby one witnessthat bhis wife committed adultery, andthe husband remains bsilent, what isthe ihalakha /i? bAbaye said:The witness is bdeemed credible. Rava said: He is not deemed credible.Why not? Because bit is a matter involving forbidden relations, and there is no matterof testimony bfor forbidden sexual relationsthat can be attested to by bfewer than twowitnesses., bAbaye said: From where do I saythis claim of mine? It happened bthatthere was ba certain blind man who would review imishnayotbefore Mar Shmuel. One daythe blind man bwas late for him and was not arriving.Mar Shmuel bsent a messenger after himto assist him. bWhilethe bmessenger was goingto the blind man’s house bby one way,the blind man barrivedat the house of study bby a differentroute, and therefore the messenger missed him and reached his house. bWhenthe bmessenger cameback, bhe saidthat he had been to the blind man’s house and saw that bhis wife committed adultery.The blind man bcame before Mar Shmuelto inquire whether he must pay heed to this testimony. Mar Shmuel bsaid to him: Ifthis messenger bis trusted by you, goand bdivorce her, but if not, do not divorceher.,Abaye comments: bWhat, is it notcorrect to say that this means that bif he is trusted by you that he is not a thiefbut is a valid witness, you must rely on him? This would prove that a single witness can testify in a case of this kind. bAnd Ravaexplains that Mar Shmuel meant: bIfhe bis trusted by you like twowitnesses, bgoand bdivorce her, but if not, do not divorceher. Consequently, Rava maintains that this episode affords no proof., bAnd Abaye said: From where do I saythis claim of mine? bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bAn incidentoccurred bwith King Yannai, who went tothe region of bKoḥalit in the desert and conquered sixty cities there. And upon his return he rejoicedwith ba great happinessover his victory. bAnd hesubsequently bsummoned all the Sages of the Jewish peopleand bsaid to them: Our ancestorsin their poverty bwould eat salty foods when they were busy with the building of the Temple; we too shall eat salty foods in memory of our ancestors. And they brought salty food on tables of gold, and ate. /b, bAnd there was oneperson bpresent, a scoffer,a man of ban evil heart and a scoundrel called Elazar ben Po’ira. And Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the hearts of the Pharisees,the Sages, bare against you.In other words, they harbor secret resentment against you and do not like you. The king replied: bAnd what shall I doto clarify this matter? Elazar responded: bHave them stand bywearing bthe frontplate between your eyes.Since the frontplate bears the Divine Name, they should stand in its honor. Yannai, who was a member of the priestly Hasmonean family, also served as High Priest, who wears the frontplate. bHe hadthe Pharisees bstand bywearing bthe frontplate between his eyes. /b,Now bthere was a certain elder present called Yehuda ben Gedidya, and Yehuda ben Gedidya said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the crown of the monarchy suffices for you,i.e., you should be satisfied that you are king. bLeave the crown of the priesthood for the descendants of Aaron.The Gemara explains this last comment: bAs they would saythat Yannai’s bmother was taken captive in Modi’in,and she was therefore disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, which meant that Yannai was a iḥalal /i. bAnd the matter was investigated and was not discovered,i.e., they sought witnesses for that event but none were found. bAnd the Sages of Israel were expelled inthe king’s brage,due to this rumor., bAnd Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, such is the judgment of a common person in Israel.In other words, merely expelling a slanderer is appropriate if the subject of the slander is a commoner. bBut you are a king and a High Priest.Is bthis your judgmentas well? Yannai replied: bAnd what should I do?Elazar responded: bIf you listen to my advice, crush them.Yannai countered: bBut what will become of the Torah?He retorted: bBehold,it bis wrapped and placed in the corner. Anyone who wishes to study can come and study.We have no need for the Sages.,The Gemara interjects: bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Immediately, heresy was injected intoYannai, bas he should have saidto Elazar ben Po’ira: This bworks out wellwith regard to bthe Written Torah,as it can be studied by all on their own, but bwhatwill become of bthe Oral Torah?The Oral Torah is transmitted only by the Sages. The ibaraitacontinues: bImmediately, the evilarose and bcaught fire through Elazar ben Po’ira, and all the Sages of the Jewish people were killed. And the world was desolateof Torah buntil Shimon ben Shataḥ came and restored the Torah to its formerglory. This completes the ibaraita /i.,Abaye asks: bWhat are the circumstancesof this case? How did those who conducted the investigation refute the rumor that Yannai’s mother had been taken captive? bIf we say that twowitnesses bsaidthat bshe was taken captive, and twoothers bsaidthat bshe was not taken captive, what did you see that you rely on thesewho said that she was not taken captive? Instead, brely on thesewho said that she was taken captive. In such a scenario, one cannot say definitively that the matter was investigated and found to be false., bRather,it must be referring bto one witnesswho testified she was taken captive, and two testified that she was not taken captive. bAnd the reasonthat the lone witness is not deemed credible is only bthat he is contradicted by theother btwo,from which it may be inferred that bif not for thatfact, bhe would be deemed credible.This supports Abaye’s claim that an uncontested lone witness is deemed credible in a case of this kind., bAnd Ravacould reply that this incident affords no proof, for the following reason: bActually,one can say that there were btwowitnesses who testified that she was captured band twowho testified that she was not, bandthe case was decided bin accordance with thatwhich bRav Aḥa bar Rav Minyumi saysin a different context, that it is referring bto conspiring witnesses.The second pair of witnesses did not contradict the testimony of the first pair but established them as liars by stating that the first pair were not there to witness the event. This serves to disqualify the testimony of the first pair altogether. bHere too,it is referring btowitnesses who rendered the first set bconspiring witnesses. /b, bAnd if you wish, saythat this is bin accordance withthe version of the story stated bby Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: They replacedYannai’s mother bwith a maidservant.The first witnesses saw that Yannai’s mother was about to be taken captive, but the second pair revealed that she had actually been replaced with a maidservant, thereby negating the testimony of the first set., bRava says: /b |
|
29. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 29b. ברכת הלחם של מצה וברכת היין של קידוש היום מהו כיון דחובה הוא מפיק או דלמא ברכה לאו חובה היא,ת"ש דאמר רב אשי כי הוינן בי רב פפי הוה מקדש לן וכי הוה אתי אריסיה מדברא הוה מקדש להו,ת"ר לא יפרוס אדם פרוסה לאורחין אלא אם כן אוכל עמהם אבל פורס הוא לבניו ולבני ביתו כדי לחנכן במצות ובהלל ובמגילה אף על פי שיצא מוציא:, br br big strongהדרן עלך ראוהו בית דין /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongיום /strong /big טוב של ר"ה שחל להיות בשבת במקדש היו תוקעין אבל לא במדינה משחרב בהמ"ק התקין רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שיהו תוקעין בכל מקום שיש בו ב"ד אמר רבי אלעזר לא התקין רבן יוחנן בן זכאי אלא ביבנה בלבד אמרו לו אחד יבנה ואחד כל מקום שיש בו בית דין,ועוד זאת היתה ירושלים יתירה על יבנה שכל עיר שהיא רואה ושומעת וקרובה ויכולה לבוא תוקעין וביבנה לא היו תוקעין אלא בב"ד בלבד:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מנה"מ אמר רבי לוי בר לחמא אמר רבי חמא בר חנינא כתוב אחד אומר (ויקרא כג, כד) שבתון זכרון תרועה וכתוב אחד אומר (במדבר כט, א) יום תרועה יהיה לכם לא קשיא כאן ביו"ט שחל להיות בשבת כאן ביום טוב שחל להיות בחול,אמר רבא אי מדאורייתא היא במקדש היכי תקעינן ועוד הא לאו מלאכה היא דאצטריך קרא למעוטי,דתנא דבי שמואל (במדבר כט, א) כל מלאכת עבודה לא תעשו יצתה תקיעת שופר ורדיית הפת שהיא חכמה ואינה מלאכה,אלא אמר רבא מדאורייתא מישרא שרי ורבנן הוא דגזור ביה כדרבה דאמר רבה הכל חייבין בתקיעת שופר ואין הכל בקיאין בתקיעת שופר גזירה שמא יטלנו בידו וילך אצל הבקי ללמוד ויעבירנו ד' אמות ברה"ר,והיינו טעמא דלולב והיינו טעמא דמגילה:,משחרב בהמ"ק התקין רבי יוחנן בן זכאי כו': תנו רבנן פעם אחת חל ראש השנה להיות בשבת [והיו כל הערים מתכנסין] אמר להם רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לבני בתירה נתקע אמרו לו נדון,אמר להם נתקע ואחר כך נדון לאחר שתקעו אמרו לו נדון אמר להם כבר נשמעה קרן ביבנה ואין משיבין לאחר מעשה:,אמר רבי אלעזר לא התקין רבן יוחנן בן זכאי אלא ביבנה בלבד אמרו לו אחד יבנה ואחד כל מקום שיש בו ב"ד: אמרו לו היינו ת"ק,איכא בינייהו בי דינא דאקראי:,אמרו לו אחד יבנה ואחד כל מקום שיש בו ב"ד: אמר רב הונא | 29b. With regard to bthe blessing over breadthat is recited before eating imatza /iat the Passover seder band the blessing over winerecited as part bof the sanctification of the dayof Shabbat or a Festival, bwhat isthe ihalakha /i? The Gemara analyzes the question: Do we say that bsince there is an obligationto recite these blessings due to the mitzva involved, therefore bone can dischargethe obligation for others, even if he himself has already fulfilled his obligation? bOr perhapswe say that bthe blessingitself bis not an obligation,but rather the obligation lies in the eating and drinking, and the blessing is recited over one’s physical enjoyment; therefore, if he already fulfilled his own obligation, he cannot recite the blessing for others, as he derives no pleasure at this time.,The Gemara answers: bComeand bhearan answer to this question from what bRav Ashi said: When we werestudying bin the school of Rav Pappi, he would recite ikiddushfor us, and when his tets would arrive from the field he would recite ikiddush /ionce again bon their behalf.Therefore, it is clear that one may recite ikiddushon behalf of others, including the blessing that is recited over the wine, even if he himself has already fulfilled his own obligation., bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bOne should not break breadand recite a blessing bfor guests unless he is eating with them,so that he is obligated to recite a blessing for himself. bBut he may breakbread bfor his children and forthe other bmembers of his householdand recite the blessing, bin order to educate them toperform bthe mitzvot,so that they know how to recite a blessing. bAnd with regard to ihalleland the Scrollof Esther, the ihalakhais that beven if healready bfulfilledhis obligation, bhe canstill bdischargethe obligation of others.,, strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to the bFestival day of Rosh HaShana that occurs on Shabbat, in the Temple they would soundthe ishofaras usual. bHowever,they would bnotsound it bin therest of the bcountryoutside the Temple. bAfter the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai instituted thatthe people bshould soundthe ishofaron Shabbat bin every place where there is a courtof twenty-three judges. bRabbi Elazar said: Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai institutedthis practice bonly in Yavne,where the Great Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges resided in his time, but nowhere else. bThey said to him:He instituted the practice bbothin bYavne andin bany place where there is a court. /b,The mishna adds: bAnd Jerusalemin earlier times bhad this additional superiority over Yavneafter Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai instituted this practice, bforin bany city whoseresidents bcould seeJerusalem band hearthe sounding of the ishofarfrom there, bandwhich bwas nearto Jerusalem bandpeople bcould cometo Jerusalem from there, btheywould bsoundthe ishofarthere as well, as it was considered part of Jerusalem. bBut in Yavne they would soundthe ishofar bonly in the courtitself, not in the surrounding cities., strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: bFrom whereare bthese matters;from where is it derived that the ishofaris not sounded on Shabbat? bRabbi Levi bar Laḥma saidthat bRabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: One verse says,with regard to Rosh HaShana: b“A solemn rest, a memorial of blasts”(Leviticus 23:24), which indicates that one should merely remember the ishofarwithout actually sounding it. bAnd another verse says: “It is a day of blowing for you”(Numbers 29:1), i.e., a day on which one must actually sound the ishofar /i. This apparent contradiction is bnot difficult: Here,the verse in which the ishofaris only being remembered but not sounded, is referring bto a Festival that occurs on Shabbat; there,the verse in which the ishofaris actually sounded, is referring bto a Festival that occurs on a weekday. /b, bRava said:This explanation is difficult, for bifthe distinction between Shabbat and the rest of the week applies bby Torah law, how does one soundthe ishofaron Shabbat bin the Temple?If it is prohibited to sound the ishofaron Shabbat, it should be prohibited everywhere. bAnd furthermore,there is an additional problem with this explanation: Although the Sages prohibited sounding a ishofarand playing other musical instruments on Shabbat, by Torah law sounding a ishofar bis not a prohibited laboron Shabbat such bthat a verse is necessary to excludeit when Rosh HaShana occurs on Shabbat.,The Gemara cites a proof for this last claim: bAsa Sage bof the school of Shmuel taughtin a ibaraita /i, with regard to the verse that prohibits performing prohibited labor on Festivals: b“Any prohibited labor of work you shall not perform”(Numbers 29:1). This comes bto excludefrom the category of prohibited labors bthe sounding of the ishofarand the removal of breadfrom the oven, each of bwhich is a skill and not a labor,and therefore they are not included in the category of prohibited labor. Apparently, sounding the ishofaris not prohibited by Torah law., bRather, Rava said: By Torah law one is permittedto sound the ishofaron Rosh HaShana even on Shabbat, band it was the Sages who decreedthat bitis prohibited. This is bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabba, as Rabba said: All are obligated to sound the ishofar /ion Rosh HaShana, bbut not all are experts in sounding the ishofar /i.Therefore, the Sages instituted ba decreethat the ishofarshould not be sounded on Shabbat, blest one takethe ishofar bin his hand and go to an expert to learnhow to sound it or to have him sound it for him, banddue to his preoccupation bhemight bcarry it four cubits in the public domain,which is a desecration of Shabbat.,The Gemara comments: bAnd this isalso bthe reason forthe rabbinical decree that bthe palm branch[ilulav/b] may not be taken on Shabbat, band this islikewise bthe reason forthe decree that bthe Megillaof Esther may not be read on Shabbat. The Sages were concerned that one might carry the ilulavor the Megilla four cubits in the public domain to take it to an expert who will teach him the proper manner to perform these mitzvot.,§ The mishna taught: bAfter the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai instituted thatthe people should sound the ishofareven on Shabbat in every place where there is a court of twenty-three judges. The background to this decree is related in greater detail in a ibaraita /i, as bthe Sages taught: Once Rosh HaShana occurred on Shabbat, and all the cities gatheredat the Great Sanhedrin in Yavne for the Festival prayers. bRabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai said to the sons of Beteira,who were the leading halakhic authorities of the generation: bLet us soundthe ishofar /i, as in the Temple. bThey said to him: Let us discusswhether or not this is permitted., bHe said to them:First blet us soundit, band afterward,when there is time, blet us discussthe matter. bAfter they soundedthe ishofar /i, the sons of Beteira bsaid toRabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai: bLet usnow bdiscussthe issue. bHe said to them: The horn has already been heard in Yavne, and one does not refutea ruling bafter actionhas already been taken. There is no point in discussing the matter, as it would be inappropriate to say that the community acted erroneously after the fact.,§ The mishna further stated that bRabbi Elazar said: Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai institutedthis practice bonly in Yavne. They said to him:He instituted the practice bbothin bYavne andin bany place where there is a court.The Gemara asks: This last statement of the Rabbis: bThey said to him,etc.; bisthe same as the opinion of bthe first itanna /iof the mishna. Why did the mishna repeat this opinion?,The Gemara answers: The practical difference bbetweenthe opinion of the first itannaand the opinion of the Rabbis who issued that last statement is with regard to ba temporary court,i.e., one that is not fixed in a certain place. According to the opinion of the first itanna /i, the ishofaris sounded there as well, whereas according to the opinion of the Rabbis who responded to Rabbi Elazar, the ishofaris sounded only in a place where there is a permanent court, similar to that in Yavne.,§ The mishna taught that bthey said to him:He instituted the practice bbothin bYavne andin bany place where there is a court. Rav Huna said: /b |
|
30. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 116a. שאין זה מקומה ר' אומר לא מן השם הוא זה אלא מפני שספר חשוב הוא בפני עצמו,כמאן אזלא הא דא"ר שמואל בר נחמן א"ר יונתן (משלי ט, א) חצבה עמודיה שבעה אלו שבעה ספרי תורה כמאן כר',מאן תנא דפליג עליה דר' רשב"ג הוא דתניא רשב"ג אומר עתידה פרשה זו שתיעקר מכאן ותכתב במקומה ולמה כתבה כאן כדי להפסיק בין פורענות ראשונה לפורענות שנייה פורענות שנייה מאי היא (במדבר יא, א) ויהי העם כמתאוננים פורענות ראשונה (במדבר י, לג) ויסעו מהר ה' וא"ר חמא בר' חנינא שסרו מאחרי ה' והיכן מקומה אמר רב אשי בדגלים,איבעיא להו הגליונין של ס"ת מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה או אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה ת"ש ס"ת שבלה אם יש בו ללקט שמונים וחמש אותיות כגון פרשת ויהי בנסוע הארון מצילין ואם לאו אין מצילין ואמאי תיפוק ליה משום גיליון דידיה בלה שאני,ת"ש ס"ת שנמחק אם יש בו ללקט שמונים וחמש אותיות כגון פרשת ויהי בנסוע הארון מצילין ואם לאו אין מצילין ואמאי תיפוק ליה משום גיליון דידיה מקום הכתב לא קמיבעיא לי דכי קדוש אגב כתב הוא דקדוש אזל כתב אזלא לה קדושתיה כי קמיבעיא לי של מעלה ושל מטה שבין פרשה לפרשה שבין דף לדף שבתחלת הספר שבסוף הספר ותיפוק ליה משום ההוא דגייז ושדי,ת"ש הגליונין של מעלה ושל מטה שבין פרשה לפרשה שבין דף לדף שבתחלת הספר שבסוף הספר מטמאין את הידים דילמא אגב ס"ת שאני,ת"ש הגיליונין וספרי מינין אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה אלא נשרפין במקומן הן ואזכרותיהן מאי לאו גליונין דספר תורה לא גליונין דספרי מינין השתא ספרי מינין גופייהו אין מצילין גליונין מבעיא הכי קאמר וספרי מינין הרי הן כגליונים,גופא הגליונים וספרי מינין אין מצילין אותם מפני הדליקה רבי יוסי אומר בחול קודר את האזכרות שבהן וגונזן והשאר שורפן א"ר טרפון אקפח את בני שאם יבאו לידי שאני אשרוף אותם ואת האזכרות שבהן שאפי' אדם רודף אחריו להורגו ונחש רץ להכישו נכנס לבית ע"ז ואין נכנס לבתיהן של אלו שהללו מכירין וכופרין והללו אין מכירין וכופרין ועליהן הכתוב אומר (ישעיהו נז, ח) [ו] אחר הדלת והמזוזה שמת זכרונך,א"ר ישמעאל ק"ו ומה לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו אמרה תורה שמי שנכתב בקדושה ימחה על המים הללו שמטילין קנאה ואיבה ותחרות בין ישראל לאביהן שבשמים על אחת כמה וכמה ועליהם אמר דוד (תהלים קלט, כא) הלא משנאיך ה' אשנא ובתקוממיך אתקוטט תכלית שנאה שנאתים לאויבים היו לי וכשם שאין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה כך אין מצילין אותן לא מן המפולת ולא מן המים ולא מדבר המאבדן,בעי מיניה יוסף בר חנין מר' אבהו הני ספרי דבי אבידן מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה או אין מצילין אין ולאו ורפיא בידיה רב לא אזיל לבי אבידן וכ"ש לבי נצרפי שמואל לבי נצרפי לא אזיל לבי אבידן אזיל אמרו ליה לרבא מ"ט לא אתית לבי אבידן אמר להו דיקלא פלניא איכא באורחא וקשי לי ניעקריה דוכתיה קשי לי מר בר יוסף אמר אנא מינייהו אנא ולא מסתפינא מינייהו זימנא חדא אזיל בעו לסכוניה [הוספה מחסרונות הש"ס: רבי מאיר הוה קרי ליה און גליון רבי יוחנן הוה קרי ליה עון גליון.],אימא שלום דביתהו דרבי אליעזר אחתיה דרבן גמליאל הואי הוה ההוא פילוסופא בשבבותיה | 116a. bthat this is not its place,as the previous portion does not discuss the nation’s travels. bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays: It is not for thatreason that signs were inserted. bRather,the signs are there bbecausethis portion bis considered a book unto itself. /b,The Gemara asks: bAccording to whoseopinion is bthatwhich bRabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman saidthat bRabbi Yonatan said,that with regard to the verse: “With wisdom she built her house, bshe carved its seven pillars”(Proverbs 9:1), bthese are the seven books of the Torah? According to whoseopinion? It is baccording tothe opinion of bRabbiYehuda HaNasi, as by his count there are seven books of the Torah: Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers until: “And when the Ark traveled”; the portion: “And when the Ark traveled,” which is considered its own book; the remainder of Numbers; and Deuteronomy., bWho isthe btanna who disagrees with RabbiYehuda HaNasi? bIt is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the future, this portion will be uprooted from here,where it appears, band will be written in itsproper bplace. And why was it written here,even though it discusses the travels of the children of Israel, and the portion before it does not? It is bin order to demarcate between the first punishment and the second punishment. What is the second punishmentthat appears immediately afterward? It is the verse: b“And the people complainedwickedly in God’s ears, and God heard and became angry, and the fire of God burned in them and it consumed the edge of the camp” (Numbers 11:1). What is bthe first punishment?It is the verse: b“And they traveled from the mountain of God [ imehar Hashem /i]for three days” (Numbers 10:33), band Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: That they turned from after God [ ime’aḥarei Hashem /i]and hurriedly fled Mount Sinai. The Gemara asks: bAndif so, bwhere isthe proper bplacefor this paragraph? bRav Ashi said: Inthe portion of the bflags,where there is a description of the manner in which the Jewish people traveled through the desert., bA dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: With regard to bthe blank foliosof parchment bof a Torah scroll,does bone rescue them from the fireon Shabbat, bordoes bone not rescue them from the fire? Comeand bheara resolution to this from that which we learned: With regard to ba Torah scroll that is worn, if there isenough bin it to compile eighty-fivecomplete bletters as in the portion of: “And when the Ark traveled,” one rescuesit from the fire, band if not one does not rescueit. If even the blank folios are rescued, bwhywould one not rescue a Torah scroll with fewer than the requisite number of letters? bDerivethat this scroll may be rescued bdue to its blank folios. The Gemaraanswers: A Torah scroll that is bworn is different,because at that point its sanctity is negated, and its blank folios are not sacred. Therefore, one may rescue the scroll only if it contains eighty-five letters., bComeand bheara different resolution from that which was taught in another ibaraita /i: With regard to ba Torah scroll that was erased, if there isenough bin it to compile eighty-fivecomplete bletters as in the portion of: “And when the Ark traveled,” one rescuesit from the fire, band if not, one does not rescueit. bAnd whyis that so? bDerivethat this scroll may be rescued bdue to its blank folios,as the erased section is surely no less significant than the blank folios of the scroll. The Gemara answers: That is not so. In a case where bthe place of the writingis erased bit is not a dilemma for me, as it is sacred due tothe bwriting.If the bwriting is gone, its sanctity is gone. When it is a dilemma for me iswith regard to the blank portions that are babove and below, that are betweenone bsection andanother bsection, that are betweenone bpage andanother bpage, that are at the beginning of the scroll,and bthat are at the end of the scroll.The Gemara asks again: bDerivethat this scroll may be rescued bdue to thatarea that is blank, whose sanctity remains. The Gemara replies: There, it is referring to a case bwherethe blank area bwas cut and thrownout, and all that remains is the place of the writing., bComeand bheara different resolution from what we learned in a mishna: The Sages decreed that bthe blank foliosthat are babove and below, that are betweenone bsection andanother bsection, that are betweenone bpage andanother bpage, that are at the beginning of the scroll,and bthat are at the end of the scroll render the handsthat touch them britually impure.Apparently, the blank folios have the sanctity of a Torah scroll. The Gemara replies: That is not a proof, as bperhapswhen it is bpart of the Torah scroll, it is different,and in those circumstances the sanctity of the Torah extends to the blank portions. When they stand alone they have no sanctity.,Therefore, bcomeand bheara different resolution from that which was taught in another ibaraita /i: With regard to bthe blank folios and theTorah bscrolls of heretics, one does not rescue them from the fire; rather, they burn in their place, they and the namesof God contained therein. bWhat,is this bnotreferring to the bblank foliosof ba Torah scroll?The Gemara rejects this: bNo,it is referring to the bblank foliosof bthe scrolls of heretics.The Gemara is surprised at this: bNow,with regard to bthe scrolls of heretics themselves, one does not rescuethem; is it bnecessaryto say that one does not rescue their bblank folios?Rather, bthis is what it is saying: And the scrolls of heretics are like blank folios. /b,Apropos the scrolls of heretics, the Gemara analyzes bthe matter itself.With regard to bthe blank folios and theTorah bscrolls ofthe bheretics, one does not rescue them from the fire. Rabbi Yosei says: During the week, one cuts the namesof God contained btherein and buries them, and burns the rest. Rabbi Tarfon saidin the form of an oath: bI will bury my sonsif I fail to do the following, bthat ifthese books bcome into my possession I will burn them and the namescontained btherein. As evenif ba person is pursuing himwith the intent bto kill him, and a snake is hurrying to bite him, one enters a house of idolatry and does not enter the houses of theseheretics. The reason is bthat theseheretics bare awareof the greatness of the Creator manifest in the Torah and its mitzvot, bandnevertheless, they bdenythe existence of God; bwhereas theseidolators bare not aware, andthat is the reason that they bdenythe existence of God. bAnd with regard to theheretics, bthe verse says: “And behind the door and the doorpost you place your memory”(Isaiah 57:8). Although they remember the word of God, they treat it contemptuously, as if casting it behind the door., bRabbi Yishmael said:The fact that the names of God in the scrolls of heretics may be burned can be derived through an ia fortiori /iinference: bJust as to make peace between a husband and his wife,the bTorah says: My name that was written in sanctity shall be erased in the waterin the framework of the ordeal of the isota /i; bthese,the heretics, bwho impose jealousy, and hatred, and conflict between the Jewish people and their Father in Heaven, all the more soit is proper to erase God’s names because of them. bAnd with regard toheretics, bDavid said: “For I hate those who hate You, God, and I fight those who rise against You. I hate them with the utmost hatred, they have become enemies to me”(Psalms 139:21–22). bAnd just as they,the scrolls of heretics, bare not rescued from the fire, neither are they rescued from a rockslide, nor from water, nor fromany other bmatter that destroys them. /b, bYosef bar Ḥanin raised a dilemma before Rabbi Abbahu:With regard to bthese books of the house of Abidan,does bone rescue them from the fire ordoes bone not rescuethem? There were sacred Jewish texts in that house, which were used in debates and discussions on matters of faith. Rabbi Abbahu did not give him a clear answer but said byes and no, andthe matter was buncertain to him. Rav would not go to the house of Abidanfor conversation, band all the more sohe would not go bto the house of Nitzrefei,the Persian fire-temple. bShmuel, to the house of Nitzrefei he did not go,but bto the house of Abidan he did go.The gentile scholars bsaid to Rava: Why did you not come to the house of Abidan?He evaded their question with an excuse and bsaid to them: There is a certain palm tree on the road, andthat makes the path bdifficult for me.They said to him: bWe will uproot it.He said to them: Nevertheless, the resulting pit in bits placewill be bdifficult for me. Mar bar Yosef said: I amone bof them,we are friends, band I do not fear them.Still, bone time he wentand argued with them and bthey sought to endanger hislife. bRabbi Meir would callthe Christian writing, the Evangelion, the bwicked folio [ iaven gilyon /i]; Rabbi Yoḥacalled it the bsinful folio [ iavon gilyon /i]. /b,The Gemara relates: bImma Shalom,the bwifeof bRabbi Eliezer, was Rabban Gamliel’s sister. There wasa Christian bphilosopher [ ipilosofa /i] in their neighborhood /b |
|
31. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 19b. מי איכא מידי דאנן לא מצינן למעבד ושלוחי דידן מצו עבדי הכי קאמרי ליה משביעין אנו עליך על דעתינו ועל דעת בית דין,הוא פורש ובוכה והן פורשין ובוכין וכו' הוא פורש ובוכה שחשדוהו צדוקי והם פורשין ובוכין דא"ר יהושע בן לוי כל החושד בכשרים לוקה בגופו,וכל כך למה שלא יתקן מבחוץ ויכניס כדרך שהצדוקין עושין,ת"ר מעשה בצדוקי אחד שהתקין מבחוץ והכניס ביציאתו היה שמח שמחה גדולה פגע בו אביו אמר לו בני אף על פי שצדוקין אנו מתיראין אנו מן הפרושים אמר לו כל ימי הייתי מצטער על המקרא הזה (ויקרא טז, ב) כי בענן אראה על הכפורת אמרתי מתי יבוא לידי ואקיימנו עכשיו שבא לידי לא אקיימנו,אמרו לא היו ימים מועטין עד שמת והוטל באשפה והיו תולעין יוצאין מחוטמו ויש אומרים ביציאתו ניגף דתני רבי חייא כמין קול נשמע בעזרה שבא מלאך וחבטו על פניו ונכנסו אחיו הכהנים ומצאו ככף רגל עגל בין כתפיו שנאמר (יחזקאל א, ז) ורגליהם רגל ישרה וכף רגליהם ככף רגל עגל,א"ר זכריה בן קבוטל וכו' מתני ליה רב חנן בר רבא לחייא בר רב קמיה דרב א"ר זכריה בן קפוטל ומחוי ליה רב בידיה קבוטל ונימא ליה מימר ק"ש הוה קרי,וכי האי גוונא מי שרי והא"ר יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא הקורא את שמע לא ירמוז בעיניו ולא יקרוץ בשפתותיו ולא יורה באצבעותיו ותניא רבי אלעזר חסמא אומר הקורא את שמע ומרמז בעיניו ומקרץ בשפתותיו ומראה באצבעו עליו הכתוב אומר (ישעיהו מג, כב) ולא אותי קראת יעקב,לא קשיא הא בפרק ראשון הא בפרק שני,ת"ר (דברים ו, ז) ודברת בם בם ולא בתפלה ודברת בם בם יש לך רשות לדבר ולא בדברים אחרים,רבי אחא אומר ודברת בם עשה אותן קבע ואל תעשם עראי אמר רבא השח שיחת חולין עובר בעשה שנאמר ודברת בם בם ולא בדברים אחרים רב אחא בר יעקב אמר עובר בלאו שנאמר (קהלת א, ח) כל הדברים יגעים לא יוכל איש לדבר, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בקש להתנמנם פרחי כהונה מכין לפניו באצבע צרדא ואומרים לו אישי כ"ג עמוד והפג אחת על הרצפה ומעסיקין אותו עד שיגיע זמן השחיטה, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מאי צרדא אמר רב יהודה צרתה דדא מאי היא גודל מחוי רב הונא ואזל קלא בכולי בי רב,ואומרים לו אישי כ"ג הפג אחת על הרצפה וכו' אמר רב יצחק על חדת מאי היא אמרי ליה אחוי קידה,ומעסיקין אותו עד שיגיע זמן שחיטה (וכו') תנא לא היו מעסיקין אותו לא בנבל ולא בכנור אלא בפה ומה היו אומרין (תהלים קכז, א) אם ה' לא יבנה בית שוא עמלו בוניו בו,מיקירי ירושלים לא היו ישנין כל הלילה כדי שישמע כ"ג קול הברה ולא תהא שינה חוטפתו תניא אבא שאול אמר אף בגבולין היו עושין כן זכר למקדש אלא שהיו חוטאין,אמר אביי ואיתימא ר"נ בר יצחק תרגומא נהרדעא דא"ל אליהו לרב יהודה אחוה דרב סלא חסידא אמריתו אמאי לא אתי משיח והא האידנא יומא דכיפורי הוא ואבעול כמה בתולתא בנהרדעא אמר ליה הקב"ה מאי אמר אמר ליה | 19b. bis there any matter that we are unable to perform and our agents are able to perform?The role of the agent is to perform a task on behalf of the one who commissioned him. The agent cannot perform a task that the one who commissioned him is unable to perform. Since it is prohibited for Israelites to enter the priests’ courtyard and to perform the sacrificial rites, clearly the priests are not agents representing the Israelites. The language of the mishna in which the court Elders address the High Priest as their agent apparently contradicts that understanding. The Gemara answers: bThis is what they say to him: We administer an oath to you according to our understanding and the understanding of the court,cautioning him that he cannot rationalize violating the oath by claiming that he took the oath based on his own interpretation. He is bound by the understanding of the court. The mishna does not address the nature of the High Priest’s agency.,§ The mishna continues: After this oath, bhe would leavethem band cry and they would leavehim band cry.The Gemara explains: bHe turned aside and crieddue to the indignity bthat they suspected himof being ba Sadducee; and they turned aside and cried, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who suspects the innocentof indiscretion bis afflicted in his body.The High Priest might in fact be beyond reproach and they may have suspected him falsely.,The Gemara asks: bAnd whywere the Elders bsoinsistent that the High Priest take an oath? The Gemara explains: So that bhe would not preparethe incense and light it boutsidein the Sanctuary, before entering the Holy of Holies, band bringthe coal pan with the incense already burning on it bintothe Holy of Holies bin the mannerthat bthe Sadducees did.Since the High Priest is alone inside the Sanctuary and there is no way to ascertain whether he is in fact performing the service in the proper manner, the Elders insisted that he take an oath to perform it according to their instructions., bThe Sages taughtin the iTosefta /i: There was ban incident involving acertain bSadduceewho was appointed as High Priest, bwho prepared the incense outsideand then bbroughtit into the Holy of Holies. bUpon his emergence he was overjoyedthat he had succeeded. bThe father ofthat Sadducee bmet him and said to him: My son, although we are Sadduceesand you performed the service in accordance with our opinion, bwe fear the Phariseesand do not actually implement that procedure in practice. The son bsaid to hisfather: bAll my days I have been troubled over this verse: “For I will appear in the cloud above the Ark cover”(Leviticus 16:2). The Sadducees interpreted this verse to mean that God will appear above the Ark cover, i.e., will enter the Holy of Holies, only after the incense cloud is already there. bI said: When willthe opportunity bbecome available to me, and I will fulfill itaccording to the Sadducee interpretation? bNow thatthe opportunity bhas become available to me,will bI not fulfill it? /b,The Sages bsaid: Noteven ba few dayspassed buntil he died and was laid out in the garbagedump, band worms were coming out of his nosein punishment for his actions. bAnd some saythat bhe was struckas soon bas he emergedfrom the Holy of Holies, bas Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: A type of sound was heard in theTemple bcourtyard, as an angel came and struck him in the face. And his fellow priests came into remove him from there band they found the likeness of a footprint of a calf between his shoulders.That is the mark left by an angel striking, bas it is statedwith regard to angels: b“And their feet were straight feet, and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf’s foot”(Ezekiel 1:7).,§ It was taught in the mishna that bRabbi Zekharya ben Kevutalsays: Many times I read before the High Priest from the book of Daniel. bRav Ḥa bar Rava taught this to Ḥiyya bar Rav before Ravin the following manner: bRabbi Zekharya bar Kefutal said, and Rav demonstrated with his handthat the name should be pronounced bKevutal.The Gemara asks: Why did Rav demonstrate his point with a gesture? bLet himsimply bsay it.The Gemara answers: Rav bwas reciting iShema /iat that moment and could not interrupt iShemaby speaking.,The Gemara asks: bAnd isinterrupting in a manner bof that sort,by gesturing, bpermittedduring iShema /i? bDidn’t Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta say: One who is reciting iShemashould neither make allusions with his eyes, nor open and closehis mouth bwith his lipsto convey a message, bnor gesture with his fingers? And it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Elazar Ḥisma says: Concerning one who recites iShemaand makes allusions with his eyes, or opens and closeshis mouth bwith his lips, or gestures with his fingers, the verse says: “And you did not call out to Me, O Jacob”(Isaiah 43:22). By signaling while reciting iShemahe behaves contemptuously toward God, and it is tantamount to not having recited iShemabefore Him. How, then, could Rav gesture while reading iShema /i?,The Gemara answers: This is bnot difficult. Thisprohibition to interrupt one’s recitation of iShemawith a gesture applies binthe course of reciting the bfirst paragraphof iShema /i, which is more fundamental; bthatcase where Rav gestured was binthe course of reciting the bsecond paragraphof iShema /i, where gesturing to convey a significant message is permitted.,Apropos interruptions in the course of reciting iShema /i, the Gemara cites a ibaraitain which bthe Sages taught:“And these words, which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart; and you shall teach them diligently unto your children, band you shall talk of themwhen you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you arise” (Deuteronomy 6:6–7). This means that in the course bofreciting bthem,the study of Torah and the recitation of iShema /i, it is permitted to interrupt to state a significant matter, bbut notin the course bofreciting the iAmida bprayer,which may not be interrupted for any kind of speech. Another interpretation of the verse is: bAnd you shall talk of themis to emphasize that bit is permittedto interrupt iShema bto speak these mattersof Torah, but not to speak bother mattersthat may lead to levity., bRabbi Aḥa says: Talk of themmeans one must brender them,the words of Torah, ba permanentfixture, band not render them a temporaryexercise. bRava said: One who engages in idle chatterwithout Torah or any particular purpose bviolatesa bpositivecommandment, bas it is stated: And you shall talk of them;talk bof them and not of other matters. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said:Furthermore, boneeven bviolates a negativecommandment, bas it is stated: “All these matters are wearisome; no man can ever state them”(Ecclesiastes 1:8). The phrase: No man can ever state them, is understood as a prohibition against engaging in idle chatter., strongMISHNA: /strong If the High Priest bsought to sleepat night, bthe young priestswould bsnap the middle [ itzerada /i] fingeragainst the thumb bbefore him, and theywould bsay to himevery so often: bMy Master, High Priest. Standfrom your bed band chillyourself bonce on the floorand overcome your drowsiness. bAnd theywould bengage himin various ways buntil the time would arrive to slaughter thedaily offering., strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: bWhatis the itzerada /ifinger mentioned in the mishna? bRav Yehuda said: It is the rival [ itzara /i] of that [ ida /i]one. Which finger bis it? iTzeradais the rival of bthe thumb;it is the middle finger. The middle finger would be strongly positioned against the thumb, and when one separates them, the finger hits the palm, creating a sound. bRav Huna demonstratedthe loud noise that could be achieved by snapping with the middle finger, and bthe sound traveled throughout Rav’s study hall.The sound created was loud enough to keep the High Priest awake.,It was taught in the mishna that bthey said to him: My Master, High Priest.Stand from your bed and bchillyourself bonce on the floorand overcome your drowsiness. bRav Yitzḥak saidthat they said to the High Priest: bIntroduce something new.The Gemara asks: bWhat is itthat they asked him to introduce? bThey say to him: Demonstratehow to perform the ceremonial bbowing[ikidda /i].This was a form of bowing that was difficult to perform, in which the High Priest was expert. The thought was that the exercise would keep him awake.,The mishna continues: bAnd theywould bengage himin different ways buntil the time to slaughter thedaily offering bwould arrive.It was btaught: They would not occupy him with a harp or a lyre,which may not be played on a Festival, bbutwould sing bwiththeir bmouths. And what would they say?They would say this verse: b“Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain on it;unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman keeps vigil in vain” (Psalms 127:1). The message to the High Priest was that his service must be performed for the sake of Heaven for it to be accepted by God; otherwise his efforts would be in vain.,The Gemara relates that bthe prominentmen bof Jerusalem would not sleep the entire nightbut instead engaged in Torah study, bso thatthe bHigh Priest would hearthe bsound of noisein the city band sleep would not overcome himin the silence of the sleeping city. bIt was taughtin a ibaraitathat bAbba Shaul said: They would do so even in the outlying areasand stay awake all night bin acknowledgment of the Temple; however,the result was bthat they would sin,as the men and women would participate in games together to pass the time, leading to transgression., bAbaye said, and some sayit was bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥakwho said: bInterpretthat statement as referring to bNeharde’a, as Elijahthe Prophet bsaid to Rav Yehuda, brotherof bRav Salla Ḥasida: You have saidand wondered: bWhy has the Messiah not come?Why is that surprising? bIsn’t today Yom Kippur, and relations were had with several virgins in Neharde’a,as the men and women stayed awake all night and that led to promiscuity? Rav Yehuda bsaid to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, sayabout those sins committed by the Jewish people? bHe said:This is what God said: |
|
32. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 4.22 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
|
33. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan A, 5 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE)
|
