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

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database



1767
Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, 10b


מקלט היה כתוב על פרשת דרכים כדי שיכיר הרוצח ויפנה לשם אמר רב כהנא מאי קרא (דברים יט, ג) תכין לך הדרך עשה [לך] הכנה לדרך,רב חמא בר חנינא פתח לה פתחא להאי פרשתא מהכא (תהלים כה, ח) טוב וישר ה' על כן יורה חטאים בדרך אם לחטאים יורה ק"ו לצדיקים,ר"ש בן לקיש פתח לה פתחא להאי פרשתא מהכא (שמות כא, יג) ואשר לא צדה והאלהים אנה לידו וגו' (שמואל א כד, יד) כאשר יאמר משל הקדמוני מרשעים יצא רשע וגו',במה הכתוב מדבר בשני בני אדם שהרגו את הנפש אחד הרג בשוגג ואחד הרג במזיד לזה אין עדים ולזה אין עדים הקב"ה מזמינן לפונדק אחד זה שהרג במזיד יושב תחת הסולם וזה שהרג בשוגג יורד בסולם ונפל עליו והרגו זה שהרג במזיד נהרג וזה שהרג בשוגג גולה,אמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר רב הונא ואמרי לה אמר רב הונא א"ר אלעזר מן התורה ומן הנביאים ומן הכתובים בדרך שאדם רוצה לילך בה מוליכין אותו,מן התורה דכתיב (במדבר כב, יב) לא תלך עמהם וכתיב (במדבר כב, כ) קום לך אתם מן הנביאים דכתיב (ישעיהו מח, יז) אני ה' אלהיך מלמדך להועיל מדריכך בדרך (זו) תלך מן הכתובים דכתיב (משלי ג, לד) אם ללצים הוא יליץ ולענוים יתן חן,אמר רב הונא רוצח שגלה לעיר מקלט ומצאו גואל הדם והרגו פטור קסבר (דברים יט, ו) ולו אין משפט מות בגואל הדם הוא דכתיב,מיתיבי ולו אין משפט מות ברוצח הכתוב מדבר אתה אומר ברוצח או אינו אלא בגואל הדם כשהוא אומר (דברים יט, ד) והוא לא שונא לו מתמול שלשום הוי אומר ברוצח הכתוב מדבר,הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא ולו אין משפט מות בגואל הדם הכתוב מדבר אתה אומר בגואל הדם הכתוב מדבר או אינו אלא ברוצח כשהוא אומר (דברים יט, ו) כי לא שונא הוא לו מתמול שלשום הרי רוצח אמור הא מה אני מקיים ולו אין משפט מות בגואל הדם הכתוב מדבר,תנן מוסרין לו שני ת"ח שמא יהרגנו בדרך וידברו אליו מאי לאו דמתרו ביה דאי קטיל בר קטלא הוא,לא כדתניא וידברו אליו דברים הראוים לו אומרים לו אל תנהג בו מנהג שופכי דמים בשגגה בא מעשה לידו ר"מ אומר הוא מדבר ע"י עצמו שנאמר (דברים יט, ד) וזה דבר הרוצח אמרו לו הרבה שליחות עושה,אמר מר בשגגה בא מעשה לידו פשיטא דאי במזיד בר גלות הוא אין,והא תניא ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר בתחלה אחד שוגג ואחד מזיד מקדימין לערי מקלט וב"ד שולחין ומביאין אותם משם,מי שנתחייב מיתה הרגוהו שנאמר (דברים יט, יב) ושלחו זקני עירו ולקחו אותו משם ונתנו אותו ביד גואל הדם ומת מי שלא נתחייב פטרוהו שנאמר (במדבר לה, כה) והצילו העדה את הרוצח מיד גואל הדם מי שנתחייב גלות מחזירין אותו למקומו שנא' (במדבר לה, כה) והשיבו אותו העדה אל עיר מקלטו אשר נס שמה,רבי אומר מעצמן הן גולין כסבורין הן אחד שוגג ואחד מזיד קולטות והן אינן יודעין שבשוגג קולטות במזיד אינן קולטות,א"ר אלעזר עיר שרובה רוצחים אינה קולטת שנאמר (יהושע כ, ד) ודבר באזני זקני העיר ההיא את דבריו ולא שהושוו דבריהן לדבריו,וא"ר אלעזר עיר שאין בה זקנים אינה קולטת דבעינן זקני העיר וליכא איתמר עיר שאין בה זקנים רבי אמי ור' אסי חד אומר קולטת וחד אומר אינה קולטת למאן דאמר אינה קולטת בעינן זקני העיר וליכא למאן דאמר קולטת מצוה בעלמא,ועיר שאין בה זקנים ר' אמי ורבי אסי חד אמר נעשה בה בן סורר ומורה וחד אמר אין נעשה בה בן סורר ומורה למ"ד אין נעשה בה בן סורר ומורה בעינן (דברים כא, יט) זקני עירו וליכא למ"ד נעשה בה בן סורר ומורה מצוה בעלמא,ועיר שאין בה זקנים ר' אמי ור' אסי חד אמר מביאה עגלה ערופה וחד אמר אינה מביאה עגלה ערופה למ"ד אינה מביאה עגלה ערופה בעינן (דברים כא, ג) זקני העיר ההיא וליכא למאן דאמר מביאה עגלה ערופה מצוה בעלמא,א"ר חמא בר חנינא מפני מה נאמרה פרשת רוצחיםRefuge was written on signs at every crossroads marking the path to a city of refuge, so that the unintentional murderer would identify the route to the city of refuge and turn to go there. Rav Kahana said: What is the verse from which this is derived? “Prepare for you the road” (Deuteronomy 19:3), meaning: Perform for you preparation of the road.,§ Apropos that halakha, the Gemara cites that Rav Ḥama bar Ḥanina introduced this portion with regard to the halakhot of exile with an introduction from here: “Good and upright is God; therefore He directs sinners along the way” (Psalms 25:8). He said: If He directs sinners by commanding the placing of signs directing them to the city of refuge, it may be inferred a fortiori that He will assist and direct the righteous along the path of righteousness.,Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish introduced this portion with an introduction from here: It is stated with regard to an unintentional murderer: “And one who did not lie in wait, but God caused it to come to his hand, and I will appoint you a place where he may flee” (Exodus 21:13). Now this is puzzling. Why would God cause one to sin in this manner? The verse states: “As the ancient parable says: From the wicked comes forth wickedness” (I Samuel 24:13). Evil incidents befall those who have already sinned.,Reish Lakish explains: In this light, the verse “But God caused it to come to his hand” may be understood. With regard to what scenario is the verse speaking? It is with regard to two people who killed a person, where one killed unintentionally while the other killed intentionally. For this person there are no witnesses to his action, and for that person there are no witnesses to his action; therefore, neither received the appropriate punishment of exile and execution, respectively. The Holy One, Blessed be He, summons them to one inn. This person who killed intentionally sits beneath a ladder, and that person who killed unintentionally descends the ladder, and he falls upon him and kills him. There were witnesses to that incident and therefore, that person who killed intentionally is killed, and that person who killed unintentionally is exiled, each receiving what he deserved.,Apropos the path upon which God leads people, the Gemara cites a statement that Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rav Huna says, and some say it was a statement that Rav Huna says that Rabbi Elazar says: From the Torah, from the Prophets, and from the Writings one learns that along the path a person wishes to proceed, one leads and assists him.,One learns this from the Torah, as it is written that initially God said to Balaam with regard to the contingent dispatched by Balak: “You shall not go with them” (Numbers 22:12). After Balaam implored Him and indicated his desire to go with them, it is written: “Arise, go with them” (Numbers 22:20). One learns this from the Prophets, as it is written: “I am the Lord your God, Who teaches you for your profit, Who leads you on the path that you go” (Isaiah 48:17), indicating that along the path that one seeks to go, God will direct him. One learns this from the Writings, as it is written: “If one seeks the cynics, He will cause him to join the cynics, but to the humble He will give grace” (Proverbs 3:34), indicating that if one chooses cynicism God will direct him there and if he opts for humility God will grant him grace.,§ The Gemara resumes its discussion of the halakhot of exile. Rav Huna says: In the case of an unintentional murderer who was exiled to a city of refuge, and the blood redeemer found him on the way and killed him, he is exempt. The Gemara notes: Rav Huna holds that the verse: “Lest the blood redeemer pursue the murderer…and strike him fatally…and for him there is no sentence of death, as he did not hate him from before” (Deuteronomy 19:6), is written with regard to the blood redeemer, teaching that the blood redeemer is not liable to be executed for killing the murderer.,The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita: “And for him there is no sentence of death”; the verse is speaking with regard to the unintentional murderer, teaching that the unintentional murderer is not liable to be executed. That is why the Jewish people were commanded to establish cities of refuge to protect him. The baraita proceeds to prove that the verse is written with regard to the murderer. Do you say that it is speaking with regard to the unintentional murderer, or is it speaking only with regard to the blood redeemer? When it states in an earlier verse: “And he did not hate him from before” (Deuteronomy 19:4), it is clear that the reference is to the unintentional murderer, and therefore, you must say that in the phrase: “And for him there is no sentence of death,” the verse is speaking with regard to the unintentional murderer.,The Gemara answers: Rav Huna states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that following tanna, as it is taught in another baraita: “And for him there is no sentence of death”; the verse is speaking with regard to the blood redeemer. The baraita clarifies: Do you say that it is speaking with regard to the blood redeemer, or is it speaking only with regard to the unintentional murderer? When it states: “As he did not hate him from before,” the unintentional murderer is already stated, as that phrase certainly is referring to him. How do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And for him there is no sentence of death”? It is with regard to the blood redeemer that the verse is speaking.,The Gemara cites proof concerning Rav Huna’s ruling from the mishna. We learned in the mishna: And they would provide the unintentional murderer fleeing to a city of refuge with two Torah scholars, due to the concern that perhaps the blood redeemer will seek to kill him in transit, and in that case they will talk to the blood redeemer. The Gemara asks: What, is it not that the Torah scholars forewarn him that if he kills the unintentional murderer he would be liable to be executed? That contradicts Rav Huna’s opinion that a blood redeemer who kills the unintentional murderer is exempt.,The Gemara rejects this proof: No, the statement of the Torah scholars to the blood redeemer can be explained as it is taught in a baraita: And they will speak to him about matters appropriate to him. They say to the blood redeemer: Do not accord him treatment appropriate for murderers, as it was unintentionally that he came to be involved in the incident. Rabbi Meir says: The unintentional murderer too speaks [medabber] on his own behalf to dissuade the blood redeemer, as it is stated: “And this is the matter [devar] of the murderer, who shall flee there and live” (Deuteronomy 19:4), indicating that the murderer himself apologizes and speaks to the blood redeemer. The Sages said to Rabbi Meir: Many matters are performed more effectively through agency.,The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master says in the baraita: It was unintentionally that he came to be involved in the incident. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? As, if it were intentionally that he killed a person, is he liable to be exiled? The Gemara answers: Yes, even intentional murderers flee to a city of refuge on occasion.,The Gemara continues: And so it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Initially, either one who killed another unintentionally or one who killed another intentionally would hurry and flee to the cities of refuge, and the court in his city would send for him and would bring him from there to stand trial.,The baraita continues: With regard to one who was found liable to receive the death penalty for intentional murder, after the trial the court would execute him, as it is stated: “And the elders of his city shall send and take him from there and deliver him into the hands of the blood redeemer and he shall die” (Deuteronomy 19:12). And with regard to one who was not found liable to receive the death penalty, e.g., if they deemed that it was due to circumstances beyond his control, they freed him, as it is stated: “And the congregation shall rescue the murderer from the hands of the blood redeemer” (Numbers 35:25). With regard to one who was found liable to be exiled, the court would restore him to his place in the city of refuge, as it is stated: “And the congregation shall judge between the murderer and the blood redeemer…and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, that he fled there” (Numbers 35:24–25).,The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The Torah does not command intentional murderers to flee to a city of refuge; rather, the Torah is cognizant of the fact that in practice, intentional murderers would exile themselves on their own, as they thought that they would be admitted to these cities, which would provide refuge for both unintentional and intentional murderers, and they do not know that only those who murder unintentionally are admitted to these cities, but those who murder intentionally are not admitted.Rabbi Elazar says: An unintentional murderer is not admitted to a city of refuge whose majority consists of unintentional murderers, as it is stated with regard to an unintentional murderer who fled to a city of refuge: “And he shall speak his matters in the ears of the elders of that city” (Joshua 20:4), indicating that there is some novel element in the matters that he seeks to convey to the elders of the town, but not when their matters are equal to his matters, as those elders made the same statements when they arrived at the city of refuge as unintentional murderers.,And Rabbi Elazar says: An unintentional murderer is not admitted to a city in which there are no elders, as we require the fulfillment of the verse: “And he shall speak in the ears of the elders of the city” (Joshua 20:4), and there are none. It was stated: A city in which there are no elders is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. One says: An unintentional murderer is admitted there, and one says: An unintentional murderer is not admitted there. The Gemara explains: According to the one who says that an unintentional murderer is not admitted to a city in which there are no elders, his reasoning is due to the fact that we require the presence of the elders of the city and there are none. According to the one who says that an unintentional murderer is admitted there, his reasoning is that he holds that speaking to the elders is merely a mitzva ab initio, but it does not affect the city’s status as a city of refuge.,And a city in which there are no elders is the subject of another dispute between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. One says: One can become a wayward and rebellious son in it. And one says: One cannot become a wayward and rebellious son in it. The Gemara explains: According to the one who says that one cannot become wayward and rebellious son in it, it is due to the fact that we require the presence of the elders of the city, as it is written: “And his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city and the gate of his place” (Deuteronomy 21:19), and there are none. According to the one who says that one can become a wayward and rebellious son in it, the presence of the elders is merely a mitzva ab initio.,And a city in which there are no elders is the subject of another dispute between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. One says: If a corpse was discovered proximate to that city, the inhabitants of the city bring a heifer whose neck is broken. And one says: The inhabitants of the city do not bring a heifer whose neck is broken. The Gemara explains: According to the one who says that the inhabitants of the city do not bring a heifer whose neck is broken, it is due to the fact that we require the presence of the elders of the city, as it is written: “And the elders of that city shall bring the calf down to a rough valley” (Deuteronomy 21:4), and there are no elders. According to the one who says that the inhabitants of the city bring a heifer whose neck is broken, the presence of the elders is merely a mitzva ab initio.,§ Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina says: For what reason was the portion discussing murderers stated


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

1 results
1. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

10b. השתא [הא] אמרי לא צריכא לקדושי אלא מצאו את אלו ומנאום,ולא אלו בלבד אלא כל שתעלה לך מסורת בידך מאבותיך שמוקפת חומה מימות יהושע בן נון כל המצות הללו נוהגין בה מפני שקדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבא קשיא דר' ישמעאל אדר' ישמעאל,תרי תנאי אליבא דר' ישמעאל בר' יוסי ואיבעית אימא הא ר' אלעזר בר יוסי אמרה דתניא ר' אלעזר בר' יוסי אמר אשר לוא חומה (ויקרא כה, ל) אע"פ שאין לו עכשיו והיה לו קודם לכן:,ויהי בימי אחשורוש אמר רבי לוי ואיתימא רבי יונתן דבר זה מסורת בידינו מאנשי כנסת הגדולה כל מקום שנאמר ויהי אינו אלא לשון צער,ויהי בימי אחשורוש (אסתר א, א) הוה המן ויהי בימי שפוט השופטים (רות א, א) הוה רעב ויהי כי החל האדם לרוב (בראשית ו, א) וירא ה' כי רבה רעת האדם (בראשית ו, ה),ויהי בנסעם מקדם (בראשית יא, ב) הבה נבנה לנו עיר (בראשית יא, ד) ויהי בימי אמרפל (בראשית יד, א) עשו מלחמה (בראשית יד, ב) ויהי בהיות יהושע ביריחו (יהושע ה, יג) וחרבו שלופה בידו ויהי ה' את יהושע (יהושע ו, כז) וימעלו בני ישראל (יהושע ז, א) ויהי איש אחד מן הרמתים (שמואל א א, א) כי את חנה אהב וה' סגר רחמה (שמואל א א, ה),ויהי (כי) זקן שמואל ולא הלכו בניו בדרכיו (שמואל א ח, ג) ויהי דוד לכל דרכיו משכיל [וה' עמו] (שמואל א יח, יד) ויהי שאול עוין את דוד (שמואל א יח, ט) ויהי כי ישב המלך בביתו (שמואל ב ז, א) רק אתה לא תבנה הבית (מלכים א ח יט),והכתיב (ויקרא ט, א) ויהי ביום השמיני ותניא אותו היום היתה שמחה לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא כיום שנבראו בו שמים וארץ כתיב הכא ויהי ביום השמיני וכתיב התם (בראשית א, ה) ויהי (בקר) יום אחד,הא שכיב נדב ואביהוא,והכתיב (מלכים א ו, א) ויהי בשמונים שנה וארבע מאות שנה והכתיב (בראשית כט, י) ויהי כאשר ראה יעקב את רחל והכתיב ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום אחד והאיכא שני והאיכא שלישי והאיכא טובא,אמר רב אשי כל ויהי איכא הכי ואיכא הכי ויהי בימי אינו אלא לשון צער,חמשה ויהי בימי הוו ויהי בימי אחשורוש ויהי בימי שפוט השופטים ויהי בימי אמרפל (ישעיהו ז, א) ויהי בימי אחז (ירמיהו א, ג) ויהי בימי יהויקים,(א"ר) לוי דבר זה מסורת בידינו מאבותינו אמוץ ואמציה אחים הוו מאי קמ"ל,כי הא דא"ר שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן כל כלה שהיא צנועה בבית חמיה זוכה ויוצאין ממנה מלכים ונביאים מנלן מתמר דכתיב (בראשית לח, טו) ויראה יהודה ויחשבה לזונה כי כסתה פניה משום דכסתה פניה ויחשבה לזונה,אלא משום דכסתה פניה בבית חמיה ולא הוה ידע לה זכתה ויצאו ממנה מלכים ונביאים מלכים מדוד נביאים דא"ר לוי מסורת בידינו מאבותינו אמוץ ואמציה אחים היו וכתיב (ישעיהו א, א) חזון ישעיהו בן אמוץ,וא"ר לוי דבר זה מסורת בידינו מאבותינו מקום ארון אינו מן המדה,תניא נמי הכי ארון שעשה משה יש לו עשר אמות לכל רוח וכתיב (מלכים א ו, כ) ולפני הדביר עשרים אמה אורך וכתיב כנף הכרוב האחד עשר אמות וכנף הכרוב האחד עשר אמות ארון גופיה היכא הוה קאי אלא לאו שמע מינה בנס היה עומד,ר' יונתן פתח לה פיתחא להאי פרשתא מהכא (ישעיהו יד, כב) וקמתי עליהם וגו' והכרתי לבבל שם ושאר ונין ונכד נאם ה' שם זה הכתב שאר זה לשון נין זה מלכות ונכד זו ושתי,רבי שמואל בר נחמני פתח לה פיתחא להאי פרשתא מהכא (ישעיהו נה, יג) תחת הנעצוץ יעלה ברוש ותחת הסרפד יעלה הדס,תחת הנעצוץ תחת המן הרשע שעשה עצמו ע"ז דכתיב (ישעיהו ז, יט) ובכל הנעצוצים ובכל הנהלולים,יעלה ברוש זה מרדכי שנקרא ראש לכל הבשמים שנאמר (שמות ל, כג) ואתה קח לך בשמים ראש מר דרור ומתרגמינן מרי דכי,תחת הסרפד תחת ושתי הרשעה בת בנו של נבוכדנצר הרשע ששרף רפידת בית ה' דכתיב (שיר השירים ג, י) רפידתו זהב,יעלה הדס זו אסתר הצדקת שנקראת הדסה שנאמר (אסתר ב, ז) ויהי אומן את הדסה והיה לה' לשם זו מקרא מגילה לאות עולם לא יכרת אלו ימי פורים,ר' יהושע בן לוי פתח לה פיתחא להאי פרשתא מהכא (דברים כח, סג) והיה כאשר שש ה' עליכם להיטיב אתכם כן ישיש להרע אתכם,ומי חדי הקב"ה במפלתן של רשעים והא כתיב (דברי הימים ב כ, כא) בצאת לפני החלוץ ואומרים הודו לה' כי לעולם חסדו וא"ר יוחנן מפני מה לא נאמר כי טוב בהודאה זו לפי שאין הקב"ה שמח במפלתן של רשעים,ואמר רבי יוחנן מאי דכתיב (שמות יד, כ) ולא קרב זה אל זה כל הלילה בקשו מלאכי השרת לומר שירה אמר הקב"ה מעשה ידי טובעין בים ואתם אומרים שירה,אמר רבי אלעזר הוא אינו שש אבל אחרים משיש ודיקא נמי דכתיב כן ישיש ולא כתיב ישוש ש"מ,רבי אבא בר כהנא פתח לה פיתחא להאי פרשתא מהכא (קהלת ב, כו) לאדם שטוב לפניו נתן חכמה ודעת ושמחה זה מרדכי הצדיק ולחוטא נתן ענין לאסוף ולכנוס זה המן לתת לטוב לפני האלהים זה מרדכי ואסתר דכתיב ותשם אסתר את מרדכי על בית המן,רבה בר עופרן פתח לה פיתחא להאי פרשתא מהכא (ירמיהו מט, לח) ושמתי כסאי בעילם והאבדתי משם מלך ושרים מלך זו ושתי ושרים זה המן ועשרת בניו,רב דימי בר יצחק פתח לה פיתחא להאי פרשתא מהכא 10b. bNow, didn’t they saylater in the same ibaraitathat bit is not necessary to consecratethem? bRather,this is what the ibaraitameans to say: It is due to the fact that when the exiles ascended from Babylonia bthey discovered these and enumerated them. /b,The ibaraitacontinues. bAnd not only these, butin banycity with regard to bwhich you receive a tradition from your ancestors that it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun, all these mitzvot are observed in it, due tothe fact bthat the initial consecration sanctifiedEretz Yisrael bfor its time and sanctifiedEretz Yisrael bforever.This is bdifficult,as there is a contradiction between one statement bof Rabbi Yishmael andanother statement bof Rabbi Yishmael. /b,The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between btwolater itanna’im /i,who hold baccording tothe opinion of bRabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei.Each transmitted Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion in a different manner. bAnd if you wish, sayinstead that one of the traditions is mistaken, as with regard to bthisstatement, bRabbi Elazar bar Yosei said it, as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, saidthat the verse states: b“Which has [ ilo /i] a wall”(Leviticus 25:30). The word ilois written with an ialef /i, meaning no, that it does not have a wall, but its vocalization is in the sense of its homonym, ilowith a ivav /i, meaning that it has a wall. This indicates that beven though it does not presently havea wall, as it was destroyed, bbut it had a wall previously,it retains its status as a walled city. It is Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that the first consecration sanctified Jerusalem forever.,§ The Gemara returns to the primary topic of this chapter, the book of Esther. The Gemara cites various aggadic interpretations of the verses of the Megilla. The opening verse of the Megilla states: b“And it came to pass [ ivayhi /i] in the days of Ahasuerus”(Esther 1:1). bRabbi Levi said, and some saythat it was bRabbi Yonatanwho said: bThis matter is a traditionthat bwereceived bfrom the members of the Great Assembly. Anywhere thatthe word ivayhiis stated, it isan ominous btermindicating bnothing otherthan impending bgrief,as if the word were a contraction of the words ivaiand ihi /i, meaning woe and mourning.,The Gemara cites several proofs corroborating this interpretation. b“And it came to pass [ ivayhi /i] in the days of Ahasuerus”led to grief, as there bwas Haman. “And it came to pass [ ivayhi /i] in the days when the judges ruled”(Ruth 1:1) introduces a period when there bwas famine. “And it came to pass [ ivayhi /i], when men began to multiply”(Genesis 6:1) is immediately followed by the verse: b“And the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth”(Genesis 6:5)., b“And it came to pass [ ivayhi /i] as they journeyed from the east”(Genesis 11:2) is followed by: b“Come, let us build us a city”(Genesis 11:4), which led to the sin of the Tower of Babel. The Gemara cites further examples: b“And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel”(Genesis 14:1), about whom it is stated: b“These made war”(Genesis 14:2). Another verse states: b“And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho”(Joshua 5:13), it was there that he saw an angel b“with his sword drawn in his hand”as a warning. It is written: b“And the Lord was [ ivayhi /i] with Joshua”(Joshua 6:27), and immediately afterward: b“But the children of Israel committed a trespass”(Joshua 7:1). It states: b“And it came to pass that there was a certain man of Ramathaim”(I Samuel 1:1), and it mentions shortly afterward Hannah’s inability to conceive: b“For he loved Hannah, but the Lord had closed up her womb”(I Samuel 1:5).,Similarly, the verse states: b“And it came to pass, when Samuel was old”(I Samuel 8:1), and then it is written: b“And his sons did not walk in his ways”(I Samuel 8:3). Also, it states: b“And it came to pass that David was successful in all his ways, and the Lord was with him”(I Samuel 18:14), and only a few verses prior it is written: b“And Saul viewed David with suspicion”(I Samuel 18:9). In another instance, the verse states: b“And it came to pass, when the king dwelt in his house”(II Samuel 7:1). Here King David mentioned his desire to build a temple for God, but it is written elsewhere that he was told: b“Yet you shall not build the house”(II Chronicles 6:9).,After citing several verses where ivayhiportends grief, the Gemara mentions a number of verses that seem to indicate otherwise. bBut isn’t it written: “And it came to pass [ ivayhi /i] on the eighth day”(Leviticus 9:1), which was the day of the dedication of the Tabernacle? bAnd it is taughtin a ibaraitawith regard to that day: bOn that day there was joy before the Holy One, Blessed be He, similar tothe joy that existed on the bday on which the heavens and earth were created.The Gemara cites a verbal analogy in support of this statement. bIt is written here,with regard to the dedication of the Tabernacle: b“And it came to pass [ ivayhi /i] on the eighth day,” and it is written there,in the Creation story: b“And it was [ ivayhi /i]evening, and it was bmorning, one day”(Genesis 1:5). This indicates that there was joy on the eighth day, when the Tabernacle was dedicated, similar to the joy that existed on the day the world was created. Apparently, the term ivayhiis not necessarily a portent of grief.,The Gemara answers: This verse does not contradict the principle. On the day of the dedication of the Tabernacle, a calamity also befell the people, bas Nadav and Avihu died. /b,The Gemara cites additional verses where ivayhiis not indicative of impending grief: bBut isn’t it written: “And it came to pass [ ivayhi /i] in the four hundred and eightieth year”(I Kings 6:1), which discusses the joyous occasion of the building of the Temple? bAndfurthermore, bisn’t it written: “And it came to pass [ ivayhi /i] when Jacob saw Rachel”(Genesis 29:10), which was a momentous occasion? bAnd isn’t it written: “And it was [ ivayhi /i] evening, and it was [ ivayhi /i] morning, one day”(Genesis 1:5)? bAnd isn’t there the secondday of Creation, band isn’t there the thirdday, where the term ivayhiis used? bAnd aren’t there manyverses in the Bible in which the term ivayhiappears and no grief ensues? Apparently, the proposed principle is incorrect.,Rather, bRav Ashi said:With regard to beveryinstance of ivayhi /ialone, bthere aresome that mean bthis,grief, band there aresome that mean bthat,joy. However, wherever the phrase b“and it came to pass in the days of [ ivayhi bimei /i]”is used in the Bible, bit is nothing otherthan ba term ofimpending bgrief. /b,The Gemara states that bthere are fiveinstances of ivayhi bimei /iin the Bible. b“And it came to pass in the days of [ ivayhi bimei /i] Ahasuerus”; “And it came to pass in the days [ ivayhi bimei /i] when the judges ruled”; “And it came to pass in the days of [ ivayhi bimei /i] Amraphel”; “And it came to pass in the days of [ ivayhi bimei /i] Ahaz”(Isaiah 7:1); b“And it came to pass in the days of [ ivayhi bimei /i] Jehoiakim”(Jeremiah 1:3). In all those incidents, grief ensued.,§ Apropos the tradition cited by Rabbi Levi above, the Gemara cites additional traditions that he transmitted. bRabbi Levi said: This matter is a traditionthat bwereceived bfrom our ancestors: Amoz,father of Isaiah, band Amaziah,king of Judea, bwere brothers.The Gemara questions: bWhatnovel element bis thisstatement bteaching us? /b,The Gemara responds: It is bin accordance with that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani saidthat bRabbi Yonatan said: Any bride who is modest in the house of her father-in-law merits that kings and prophetswill bemerge from her. From where do wederive this? bFrom Tamar, as it is written: “When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a prostitute; for she had covered her face”(Genesis 38:15). Can it be that bbecauseTamar bcovered her face he thought her to be a prostitute?On the contrary, a harlot tends to uncover her face., bRather, because she covered her face in the house of her father-in-law and he was not familiar with herappearance, Judah didn’t recognize Tamar, thought she was a harlot, and sought to have sexual relations with her. Ultimately, bshe merited that kings and prophets emerged from her. Kingsemerged from her bthrough David,who was a descendant of Tamar’s son, Peretz. However, there is no explicit mention that she was the forebear of bprophets.This is derived from that bwhich Rabbi Levi said: This matter is a traditionthat bwereceived bfrom our ancestors. Amoz,father of Isaiah, band Amaziah,king of Judea, bwere brothers, and it is written: “The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz”(Isaiah 1:1). Amoz was a member of the Davidic dynasty, and his son, the prophet Isaiah, was also a descendant of Tamar., bAnd Rabbi Levi said: This matter is a traditionthat bwereceived bfrom our ancestors: The place of the Arkof the Covet bis notincluded bin the measurementof the Holy of Holies in which it rested.,The Gemara comments: bThis is also taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThe Ark crafted by Moses had ten cubitsof empty space bon each side. And it is writtenin the description of Solomon’s Temple: b“And before the Sanctuary, which was twenty cubits in length,and twenty cubits in breadth” (I Kings 6:20). The place “before the Sanctuary” is referring to the Holy of Holies. It was twenty by twenty cubits. If there were ten cubits of empty space on either side of the Ark, apparently the Ark itself occupied no space. bAnd it is written: And the wing of one of the cherubs was ten cubits and the wing of the other cherub was ten cubits;the wings of the cherubs occupied the entire area. If so, bwhere was the Ark itself standing? Rather,must one bnot conclude from itthat the Ark bstood by means of a miracleand occupied no space?,§ The Gemara cites prologues utilized by various Sages to introduce study of the Megilla: bRabbi Yonatan introduced this passage,the book of Esther, bwith an introduction from here: “For I will rise up against them,says the Lord of hosts, band cut off from Babylonia name, and remt, and offspring [ inin /i], and posterity, says the Lord”(Isaiah 14:22). This verse may be interpreted homiletically: b“Name,” this isthe bwritingof ancient Babylonia that will disappear from the world. b“Remt,” this isthe blanguageof ancient Babylonia. b“offspring,” this istheir bkingdom. And “posterity,” this is Vashti,who according to tradition was Nebuchadnezzar’s granddaughter, and the book of Esther relates how she too was removed from the throne., bRabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “Instead of the thorn shall the cypress come up, and instead of the nettle shall the myrtle come up;and it shall be to the Lord for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off” (Isaiah 55:13). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani interpreted the verse homiletically as referring to the righteous individuals who superseded the wicked ones in the book of Esther., b“Instead of the thorn”;this means binstead of the wicked Haman.He is referred to as a thorn bbecause he turned himself into an object of idol worship,as he decreed that all must prostrate themselves before him. The Gemara cites proof that the term thorn is used in connection with idol worship, bas it is written: “And upon all thorns, and upon all brambles”(Isaiah 7:19), which is understood to be a reference to idol worship.,The next section of the verse discusses what will replace the thorns, i.e., Haman: b“Shall the cypress [ iberosh /i] come up”; this is Mordecai.Why is he called a cypress [ iberosh /i]? bBecause he was called the chief[irosh/b] bof all the spices, as it is stated: “Take you also to yourself the chief spices, of pure myrrh [ imar deror /i]”(Exodus 30:23), band we translate“pure myrrh,” into Aramaic as imari dakhei /i.Mordecai was like imari dakhi /i, the chief [ irosh /i] of spices, and therefore he is called iberosh /i.,The verse continues: “And binstead of the nettle [ isirpad /i],”this means binstead of the wicked Vashti.Why is she called a nettle [ isirpad /i]? Because she was bthe daughter of the son of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, who burned the ceiling [ isaraf refidat /i] of the House of God, as it is written: “Its top [ irefidato /i] of gold”(Song of Songs 3:10).,The next section of the verse states: b“Shall the myrtle [ ihadas /i] come up”; this is the righteous Esther, who was called Hadassahin the Megilla, bas it is stated: “And he had brought up Hadassah;that is, Esther” (Esther 2:7). The concluding section of the verse states: b“And it shall be to the Lord for a name”; this is the reading of the Megilla. “For an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off”; these are the days of Purim. /b, bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good,and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to cause you to perish, and to destroy you” (Deuteronomy 28:63). The verse indicates that just as the Lord rejoiced in the good he did on behalf of Israel, so too, the Lord bwill rejoice to cause you harm. /b,Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked: bDoes the Holy One, Blessed be He,in fact brejoice over the downfall of the wicked? But it is written: “As they went out before the army, and say: Give thanks to the Lord, for His kindness endures forever”(II Chronicles 20:21), band Rabbi Yoḥa said: For whatreason were the words: b“for He is good” not stated in thisstatement of bthanksgiving,as the classic formulation is: “Give thanks to the Lord; for He is good; for His kindness endures forever” (I Chronicles 16:34)? bBecause the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not rejoice over the downfall of the wicked.Since this song was sung in the aftermath of a military victory, which involved the downfall of the wicked, the name of God was not mentioned for the good., bAndsimilarly, bRabbi Yoḥa said: What isthe meaning of bthat which is written: “And the one came not near the other all the night”(Exodus 14:20)? bThe ministering angels wanted to singtheir bsong,for the angels would sing songs to each other, as it states: “And they called out to each other and said” (Isaiah 6:3), but bthe Holy One, Blessed be He, said: The work of My hands,the Egyptians, are bdrowning at sea, and youwish to bsay songs?This indicates that God does not rejoice over the downfall of the wicked., bRabbi Elazar saidthat this is how the matter is to be understood: Indeed, God Himself bdoes not rejoiceover the downfall of the wicked, bbut He causes others to rejoice.The Gemara comments: One can blearn fromthe language of the verse bas well, as it is written: “Sothe Lord bwill rejoice [ iken yasis /i]”(Deuteronomy 28:63). bAnd it is not written iyasus /i,the grammatical form of the verb meaning: He will rejoice. Rather, it is written iyasis /i. The grammatical form of this verb indicates that one causes another to rejoice. Consequently, these words are understood to mean that God will cause others to rejoice. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, blearn fromit that this is the case., bRabbi Abba bar Kahana introduced this passage with an introduction from here.The verse states with regard to God’s reward to the righteous: b“He gives to a man that is good in His sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy”(Ecclesiastes 2:26). The Gemara explains that bthisverse bisreferring to bthe righteous Mordecai.With regard to the next part of the verse: b“But to the sinner He gives the task of gathering and heaping up,” this isreferring to bHaman.The conclusion of the verse states: b“That he may give it to one who is good before God”(Ecclesiastes 2:26). bThis is Mordecai and Esther, as it is written: “And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman”(Esther 8:2)., bRabba bar oferan introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “And I will set my throne in Elam, and destroy from there the king and the princes, says the Lord”(Jeremiah 49:38). b“The king”who was destroyed; bthis isreferring to bVashti. “And the princes”; this isreferring to bHaman and his ten sons. /b, bRav Dimi bar Yitzḥak introduced this passage with an introduction from here: /b


Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
beit midrash Stern, From Rebuke to Consolation: Exegesis and Theology in the Liturgical Anthology of the Ninth of Av Season (2004) 81, 82
bitton- ashkelony, brouria Bar Asher Siegal, Early Christian Monastic Literature and the Babylonian Talmud (2013) 179
friedman, m. Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 115
goldberg, a. Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 115
goldberg, abraham Stern, From Rebuke to Consolation: Exegesis and Theology in the Liturgical Anthology of the Ninth of Av Season (2004) 81
greek language Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 48
kofsky, aryeh Bar Asher Siegal, Early Christian Monastic Literature and the Babylonian Talmud (2013) 179
mandel, paul Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 48
mandelbaum, bernard Stern, From Rebuke to Consolation: Exegesis and Theology in the Liturgical Anthology of the Ninth of Av Season (2004) 81
midrash aggadah Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 48
paul, sermon at antioch by Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 48
pesikta de-rav kahana, as beit midrash product Stern, From Rebuke to Consolation: Exegesis and Theology in the Liturgical Anthology of the Ninth of Av Season (2004) 81, 82
pesikta de-rav kahana, calendrical order of Stern, From Rebuke to Consolation: Exegesis and Theology in the Liturgical Anthology of the Ninth of Av Season (2004) 81, 82
pesikta de-rav kahana, petiḥtot as sermons Stern, From Rebuke to Consolation: Exegesis and Theology in the Liturgical Anthology of the Ninth of Av Season (2004) 81, 82
pesikta de-rav kahana, public recitation of scripture and Stern, From Rebuke to Consolation: Exegesis and Theology in the Liturgical Anthology of the Ninth of Av Season (2004) 82
petiḥtot, as sermons Stern, From Rebuke to Consolation: Exegesis and Theology in the Liturgical Anthology of the Ninth of Av Season (2004) 81, 82
petiḥtot, sitz im leben of Stern, From Rebuke to Consolation: Exegesis and Theology in the Liturgical Anthology of the Ninth of Av Season (2004) 81, 82
proem Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 48
proems Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 115
rabbinic judaism, beit midrash and Stern, From Rebuke to Consolation: Exegesis and Theology in the Liturgical Anthology of the Ninth of Av Season (2004) 81, 82
rabbinic judaism, literature of Stern, From Rebuke to Consolation: Exegesis and Theology in the Liturgical Anthology of the Ninth of Av Season (2004) 81, 82
repentance, in christian sources Bar Asher Siegal, Early Christian Monastic Literature and the Babylonian Talmud (2013) 179
repentance, in rabbinic literature Bar Asher Siegal, Early Christian Monastic Literature and the Babylonian Talmud (2013) 179
sabbath, sermon of Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 48
sarason, richard Stern, From Rebuke to Consolation: Exegesis and Theology in the Liturgical Anthology of the Ninth of Av Season (2004) 81, 82
schwartz, seth Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 48
sermon Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 48
sermons Stern, From Rebuke to Consolation: Exegesis and Theology in the Liturgical Anthology of the Ninth of Av Season (2004) 81, 82
stern, david Stern, From Rebuke to Consolation: Exegesis and Theology in the Liturgical Anthology of the Ninth of Av Season (2004) 81, 82
synagogue Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 48
visotzky, burton' Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 48
ḥeinemann, j. Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 115