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, 23b


(ויקרא יח, ה) אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם הא כל היושב ולא עבר עבירה נותנין לו שכר כעושה מצוה,ר"ש בר רבי אומר הרי הוא אומר (דברים יב, כג) רק חזק לבלתי אכול (את) הדם כי הדם הוא הנפש וגו' ומה אם הדם שנפשו של אדם קצה ממנו הפורש ממנו מקבל שכר גזל ועריות שנפשו של אדם מתאוה להן ומחמדתן הפורש מהן על אחת כמה וכמה שיזכה לו ולדורותיו ולדורות דורותיו עד סוף כל הדורות,ר' חנניא בן עקשיא אומר רצה הקב"ה לזכות את ישראל לפיכך הרבה להם תורה ומצות שנאמר (ישעיהו מב, כא) ה' חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר:,“That a person shall perform and live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). It is inferred that with regard to one who sits and did not perform a transgression, God gives him a reward like that received by one who performs a mitzva.,Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that as the verse states: “Only be steadfast to not eat the blood, as the blood is the soul” (Deuteronomy 12:23), it can be derived a fortiori: And if with regard to the blood, which a person’s soul loathes, one who abstains from its consumption receives a reward for that action, as it is written in a subsequent verse: “You shall not eat it, so that it shall be good for you and for your children after you” (Deuteronomy 12:25); then concerning robbery and intercourse with forbidden relatives, which a person’s soul desires and covets, one who abstains from their performance and overcomes his inclination, all the more so that he and his descendants and the descendants of his descendants until the end of all generations will merit a reward.,Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akashya says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to confer merit upon the Jewish people; therefore, He increased for them Torah and mitzvot, as each mitzva increases merit, as it is stated: “It pleased the Lord for the sake of His righteousness to make the Torah great and glorious” (Isaiah 42:21). God sought to make the Torah great and glorious by means of the proliferation of mitzvot.,Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues are in disagreement with him and hold that lashes do not exempt the sinner from karet. Rav Adda bar Ahava said that this is so, as they say in the school of Rav that we learned in a mishna (Megilla 7b): The difference between Shabbat and Yom Kippur with regard to the labor prohibited on those days is only that in this case, Shabbat, its intentional desecration is punishable by human hands, as he is stoned by a court based on the testimony of witnesses who forewarned the transgressor, and in that case, Yom Kippur, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of God, with karet. And if the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel is so, in both this case, Shabbat, and that case, Yom Kippur, the punishment would be by human hands. Apparently, the tanna of the mishna, the Rabbis, disagrees with Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel.,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: There is no proof from here that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him, as in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who says: There are no lashes in cases of those liable to receive karet. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: All those liable to receive karet in cases of forbidden relations were included in the principle: “For whoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the people who commit them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29). And why was karet in the case of relations with one’s sister excluded from this verse and mentioned independently (Leviticus 20:17)? It is to sentence one who transgresses a prohibition punishable with karet to be punished with karet alone, and not with lashes. Other Sages disagree with Rabbi Yitzḥak (see 13b).,Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yitzḥak and hold that there are lashes even in cases where there is liability for karet, there is no proof that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him. The mishna can be understood as follows: In this case, Shabbat, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is by human hands, and in that case, Yom Kippur, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is karet, which is a punishment at the hand of Heaven. If he was flogged, he is exempt from karet.,Rav Adda bar Ahava says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel, who ruled that lashes exempt the sinner from karet. Rav Yosef said: Who ascended on high and came and said to you that one who is flogged is exempted from karet? That is not dependent upon the decision of an earthly court. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But according to your reasoning, then with regard to that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: There are three matters that the earthly court implemented and the heavenly court agreed with them, the same question applies: Who ascended on high and came and said to him that this is so? Rather, in arriving at Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s conclusion we homiletically interpret verses. Here too, with regard to lashes and karet, we homiletically interpret verses.,§ With regard to the matter itself, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: There are three matters that the earthly court implemented and the heavenly court agreed with them, and these are they: Reading the Scroll of Esther on Purim, and greeting another with the name of God, and bringing the first tithe to the Temple treasury in Jerusalem. From where is it derived that the heavenly court agreed with them?,Reading the Scroll of Esther is derived from a verse, as it is written: “The Jews confirmed, and they took upon themselves” (Esther 9:27). The verse could have simply said: They took upon themselves. From the formulation of the verse it is interpreted: They confirmed above in Heaven that which they took upon themselves below on earth.,And greeting another with the name of God is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And presently Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the harvesters: The Lord is with you, and they said to him: May the Lord bless you” (Ruth 2:4). And it states: “And the angel of the Lord appeared to him and said to him: The Lord is with you, mighty man of valor” (Judges 6:12). The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Gemara cites the additional source about Gideon, introduced with the phrase: And it states? Why was the proof from Boaz’s statement to the harvesters insufficient? The Gemara explains: And if you would say: It is Boaz who did so on his own, and from Heaven they did not agree with him; come and hear proof, and it says: “The Lord is with you, mighty man of valor.” The angel greeted Gideon with the name of God, indicating that there is agreement in Heaven that this is an acceptable form of greeting.,From where is it derived that the heavenly court agreed to the bringing of the first tithe to the Temple treasury in Jerusalem? It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “Bring you the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now with this, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour you out a blessing, that there shall be more than sufficiency [ad beli dai]” (Malachi 3:10). This indicates that the heavenly court agreed that the first tithe should be brought to the Temple treasury. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of ad beli dai”? Rami bar Rav says: It means that the abundance will be so great that your lips will be worn out [yivlu], from saying enough [dai].,The Gemara cites a somewhat similar statement. Rabbi Elazar says: In three places the Divine Spirit appeared before all to affirm that the action taken was appropriate: In the court of Shem, in the court of Samuel the Ramathite, and in the court of Solomon. The Gemara elaborates: This occurred in the court of Shem, as it is written in the context of the episode of Judah and Tamar: “And Judah acknowledged them and said: She is more righteous than I [mimmenni]” (Genesis 38:26). How did Judah know that Tamar’s assertion that she was bearing his child was correct? Perhaps, just as he went to her and hired her as a prostitute, another person went to her and hired her as well, and he is not the father. Rather, a Divine Voice emerged and said: It is from Me [mimmenni] that these secrets emerged. God affirmed that her assertion was correct and that it was His divine plan that Judah would father a child from Tamar.,Likewise, this occurred in the court of Samuel, as it is written: “Here I am; testify against me before the Lord and before His anointed: Whose ox have I taken…And they said: You have neither defrauded us nor oppressed us…And he said to them: The Lord is witness against you, and His anointed is witness this day, that you have not found anything in my hand. And he said: He is witness” (I Samuel 12:3–5). Based on the context, instead of the singular: “And he said,” the plural: And they said, should have been written, as the verse appears to be the reply of the Jewish people to Samuel’s challenge, attesting to the truth of his statement. Rather, a Divine Voice emerged and said: I, God, am witness to this matter.,This occurred in the court of Solomon, when the Divine Spirit appeared in the dispute between two prostitutes over who was the mother of the surviving child, as it is written: “And the king answered and said: Give her the living child, and do not slay him; she is his mother” (I Kings 3:27). How did Solomon know that she was the mother? Perhaps she was devious and was not the mother of the surviving child at all. Rather, a Divine Voice emerged and said: She is his mother.,Rava said: From where do you draw these conclusions? None of these proofs is absolute. Perhaps in the case of Judah, once he calculated the passage of the months and the days from when he engaged in intercourse with Tamar and it happened to correspond with the duration of her pregnancy, he realized that her assertion is correct. There is no room to suspect that another man was the father, as the principle is: Based on that which we see, we establish presumptive status; based on that which we do not see, we do not establish presumptive status.,With regard to Samuel too, no proof may be cited from the use of the singular, as on occasion the entire Jewish people is referred to in the singular, as it is written, e.g.: “The Jewish people is saved by the Lord” (Isaiah 45:17).,With regard to Solomon too, perhaps he reasoned that due to the fact that this woman is merciful and seeks to spare the baby and this woman is not merciful, it is evident that the former is its mother. Rather, Rava concludes: There is no proof from the verses that a Divine Spirit appeared in those circumstances; rather, there is a tradition that this is the case.,§ Rabbi Simlai taught: There were 613 mitzvot stated to Moses in the Torah, consisting of 365 prohibitions corresponding to the number of days in the solar year, and 248 positive mitzvot corresponding to the number of a person’s limbs. Rav Hamnuna said: What is the verse that alludes to this? It is written: “Moses commanded to us the Torah, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4). The word Torah, in terms of its numerical value [gimatriyya],


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

18 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 33.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

33.15. וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אִם־אֵין פָּנֶיךָ הֹלְכִים אַל־תַּעֲלֵנוּ מִזֶּה׃ 33.15. And he said unto Him: ‘If Thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence."
2. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 38.26 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

38.26. וַיַּכֵּר יְהוּדָה וַיֹּאמֶר צָדְקָה מִמֶּנִּי כִּי־עַל־כֵּן לֹא־נְתַתִּיהָ לְשֵׁלָה בְנִי וְלֹא־יָסַף עוֹד לְדַעְתָּה׃ 38.26. And Judah acknowledged them, and said: ‘She is more righteous than I; forasmuch as I gave her not to Shelah my son.’ And he knew her again no more."
3. Hebrew Bible, Micah, 2.13 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

2.13. עָלָה הַפֹּרֵץ לִפְנֵיהֶם פָּרְצוּ וַיַּעֲבֹרוּ שַׁעַר וַיֵּצְאוּ בוֹ וַיַּעֲבֹר מַלְכָּם לִפְנֵיהֶם וַיהוָה בְּרֹאשָׁם׃ 2.13. The breaker is gone up before them; They have broken forth and passed on, By the gate, and are gone out thereat; And their king is passed on before them, And the LORD at the head of them."
4. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 19.8 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

19.8. תּוֹרַת יְהוָה תְּמִימָה מְשִׁיבַת נָפֶשׁ עֵדוּת יְהוָה נֶאֱמָנָה מַחְכִּימַת פֶּתִי׃ 19.8. The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. ."
5. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 66.7 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)

66.7. בְּטֶרֶם תָּחִיל יָלָדָה בְּטֶרֶם יָבוֹא חֵבֶל לָהּ וְהִמְלִיטָה זָכָר׃ 66.7. Before she travailed, she brought forth; Before her pain came, She was delivered of a man-child."
6. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 22.19-22.21 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)

22.19. לָכֵן כֹּה אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה יַעַן הֱיוֹת כֻּלְּכֶם לְסִגִים לָכֵן הִנְנִי קֹבֵץ אֶתְכֶם אֶל־תּוֹךְ יְרוּשָׁלִָם׃ 22.21. וְכִנַּסְתִּי אֶתְכֶם וְנָפַחְתִּי עֲלֵיכֶם בְּאֵשׁ עֶבְרָתִי וְנִתַּכְתֶּם בְּתוֹכָהּ׃ 22.19. Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD: Because ye are all become dross, therefore, behold, I will gather you into the midst of Jerusalem." 22.20. As they gather silver and brass and iron and lead and tin into the midst of the furnace, to blow the fire upon it, to melt it; so will I gather you in Mine anger and in My fury, and I will cast you in, and melt you." 22.21. Yea, I will gather you, and blow upon you with the fire of My wrath, and ye shall be melted in the midst thereof."
7. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 5.7, 7.5, 8.16, 15.7, 16.12, 20.6 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

8. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 5.7, 7.5, 8.16, 15.7, 16.12, 20.6 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

9. Mishnah, Makkot, 3.15 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

3.15. All who have incurred [the penalty of] kareth, on being flogged are exempt from their punishment of kareth, for it says, “[He may be given up to forty lashes, but not more] ... lest your brother shall be dishonored before your eyes” (Deut. 25;3) once he has been lashed he is [considered] “your brother”, the words of Rabbi Haiah ben Gamaliel. Rabbi Haiah ben Gamaliel said: “Just as one who transgresses one transgression forfeits his life, how much more does one who performs one commandment have his life granted him.” Rabbi Shimon says: “You can learn this from its own passage; as it says: “[All who do any of those abhorrent things] such persons shall be cut off from their people” (Lev. 18:29), and it says: “You shall keep my statutes and my ordices which if a man do, he shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5), which means that one who desists from transgressing is granted reward like one who performs a precept. Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi says: Behold [the Torah] says, “But makes sure that you do not partake of the blood; for the blood is the life, and you must not consume the life with the flesh…[that it may go well with you and with your descendents to come..” (Deut. 12:23-25”-- now, if in the case of blood which a person’s soul loathes, anyone who refrains from it receives reward, how much more so in regard to robbery and sexual sin for which a person’s soul craves and longs shall one who refrains from them acquire merit for himself and for generations and generations to come, to the end of all generations!
10. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 85.1, 85.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

85.1. וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִוא וַיֵּרֶד יְהוּדָה מֵאֵת אֶחָיו (בראשית לח, א), (מלאכי ב, יא): בָּגְדָה יְהוּדָה וְתוֹעֵבָה נֶעֶשְׂתָה וגו', אֲמַר לֵיהּ כָּפַרְתְּ יְהוּדָה שְׁקַרְתְּ יְהוּדָה, וְתוֹעֵבָה נֶעֶשְׂתָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, יְהוּדָה נַעֲשָׂה חֻלִּין, (מלאכי ב, יא): כִּי חִלֵּל יְהוּדָה קֹדֶשׁ ה' אֲשֶׁר אָהֵב. וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִיא, (מיכה א, טו): עֹד הַיֹּרֵשׁ אָבִיא לָךְ יוֹשֶׁבֶת מָרֵשָׁה עַד עֲדֻלָּם יָבוֹא, מַלְכָּן וּקְדוֹשָׁן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַד עֲדֻלָּם יָבוֹא כְּבוֹדָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, עַד עֲדֻלָּם יָבוֹא, דִּכְתִיב (בראשית לח, א): וַיֵּט עַד אִישׁ עֲדֻלָּמִי. וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִוא, רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן פָּתַח (ירמיה כט, יא): כִּי אָנֹכִי יָדַעְתִּי אֶת הַמַּחֲשָׁבֹת, שְׁבָטִים הָיוּ עֲסוּקִין בִּמְכִירָתוֹ שֶׁל יוֹסֵף, וְיוֹסֵף הָיָה עָסוּק בְּשַׂקּוֹ וּבְתַעֲנִיתוֹ, רְאוּבֵן הָיָה עָסוּק בְּשַׂקּוֹ וְתַעֲנִיתוֹ, וְיַעֲקֹב הָיָה עָסוּק בְּשַׂקּוֹ וּבְתַעֲנִיתוֹ, וִיהוּדָה הָיָה עָסוּק לִקַּח לוֹ אִשָּׁה, וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא הָיָה עוֹסֵק בּוֹרֵא אוֹרוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ הַמָּשִׁיחַ, וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִיא וַיֵּרֶד יְהוּדָה. (ישעיה סו, ז): בְּטֶרֶם תָּחִיל יָלָדָה, קֹדֶם שֶׁלֹא נוֹלַד מְשַׁעְבֵּד הָרִאשׁוֹן נוֹלַד גּוֹאֵל הָאַחֲרוֹן, וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִוא, מַה כְּתִיב לְמַעְלָה מִן הָעִנְיָן, וְהַמְּדָנִים מָכְרוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל מִצְרַיִם. 85.1. סוּמְכוּס אוֹמֵר בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי מֵאִיר, מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין הָעֻבָּר נִכָּר בִּמְעֵי הָאִשָּׁה אֶלָּא עַד שְׁלשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים, מֵהָכָא (בראשית לח, כד): וַיְהִי כְּמִשְׁלשׁ חֳדָשִׁים, רַב הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי לֹא סוֹף שְׁלשָׁה שְׁלֵמִים, אֶלָּא רֻבּוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן וְרֻבּוֹ שֶׁל אַחֲרוֹן וְאֶמְצָעִי שָׁלֵם, וְלֹא סוֹף דָּבָר שְׁלשָׁה שְׁלֵמִים. (בראשית לח, כד): וְגַם הִנֵּה הָרָה לִזְנוּנִים, אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיְתָה מְטַפַּחַת עַל כְּרֵסָהּ וְאוֹמֶרֶת מְלָכִים אֲנִי מְעֻבֶּרֶת, גּוֹאֲלִים אֲנִי מְעֻבֶּרֶת. (בראשית לח, כד): הוֹצִיאוּהָ וְתִשָֹּׂרֵף, אֶפְרַיִם מַקְשָׁאָה תַּלְמִידוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי מֵאִיר אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי מֵאִיר, תָּמָר בִּתּוֹ שֶׁל שֵׁם הָיְתָה, דִּכְתִיב (ויקרא כא, ט): וּבַת אִישׁ כֹּהֵן, לְפִיכָךְ הוֹצִיאוּהָ וְתִשָֹּׂרֵף. 85.8. וַיִּרְאֶהָ יְהוּדָה (בראשית לח, טו), אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּא בַּר זַבְדָא צָרִיךְ אָדָם לְהִזָּהֵר עַצְמוֹ בַּאֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבִקְרוֹבוֹתָיו שֶׁלֹא יִכָּשֵׁל בְּאַחַת מֵהֶם, מִמִּי אַתָּה לָמֵד מִיהוּדָה, וַיִּרְאֶהָ יְהוּדָה וגו', לָמָּה (בראשית לח, טו): כִּי כִּסְתָה אֶת פָּנֶיהָ עַד שֶׁהִיא בְּבֵית חָמִיהָ. דָּבָר אַחֵר, וַיִּרְאֶהָ יְהוּדָה, לֹא הִשְׁגִּיחַ כֵּיוָן שֶׁכִּסְּתָה פָנֶיהָ, אָמַר אִלּוּ הָיְתָה זוֹנָה הָיְתָה מְכַסָּה פָנֶיהָ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בִּקֵּשׁ לַעֲבֹר וְזִמֵּן לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַלְאָךְ שֶׁהוּא מְמֻנֶּה עַל הַתַּאֲוָה, אָמַר לוֹ, יְהוּדָה, הֵיכָן אַתָּה הוֹלֵךְ מֵהֵיכָן מְלָכִים עוֹמְדִים, מֵהֵיכָן גְּדוֹלִים עוֹמְדִים. (בראשית לח, טז): וַיֵּט אֵלֶיהָ אֶל הַדֶּרֶךְ, בְּעַל כָּרְחוֹ שֶׁלֹא בְטוֹבָתוֹ.
11. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

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

28a. ולא ברכתי לפני כהן ולא אכלתי מבהמה שלא הורמו מתנותיה,דא"ר יצחק א"ר יוחנן אסור לאכול מבהמה שלא הורמו מתנותיה ואמר ר' יצחק כל האוכל מבהמה שלא הורמו מתנותיה כאילו אוכל טבלים ולית הלכתא כוותיה,ולא ברכתי לפני כהן,למימרא דמעליותא היא והא א"ר יוחנן כל תלמיד חכם שמברך לפניו אפילו כ"ג עם הארץ אותו ת"ח חייב מיתה שנאמר (משלי ח, לו) כל משנאי אהבו מות אל תקרי משנאי אלא משניאי,כי קאמר איהו בשוין,שאלו תלמידיו את רבי נחוניא בן הקנה במה הארכת ימים אמר להם מימי לא נתכבדתי בקלון חברי ולא עלתה על מטתי קללת חברי וותרן בממוני הייתי,לא נתכבדתי בקלון חברי כי הא דרב הונא דרי מרא אכתפיה אתא רב חנא בר חנילאי וקא דרי מיניה א"ל אי רגילת דדרית במאתיך דרי ואי לא אתייקורי אנא בזילותא דידך לא ניחא לי,ולא עלתה על מטתי קללת חברי כי הא דמר זוטרא כי הוה סליק לפורייה אמר שרי ליה לכל מאן דצערן,וותרן בממוני הייתי דאמר מר איוב וותרן בממוניה הוה שהיה מניח פרוטה לחנוני מממוניה,שאל ר"ע את רבי נחוניא הגדול (אמר לו) במה הארכת ימים אתו גווזי וקא מחו ליה סליק יתיב ארישא דדיקלא א"ל רבי אם נאמר (במדבר כח, ד) כבש למה נאמר אחד אמר להו צורבא מדרבנן הוא שבקוהו,א"ל אחד מיוחד שבעדרו,א"ל מימי לא קבלתי מתנות ולא עמדתי על מדותי וותרן בממוני הייתי,לא קבלתי מתנות כי הא דר' אלעזר כי הוו משדרי ליה מתנות מבי נשיאה לא הוה שקיל כי הוה מזמני ליה לא הוה אזיל אמר להו לא ניחא לכו דאחיה דכתיב (משלי טו, כז) שונא מתנות יחיה ר' זירא כי הוו משדרי ליה מבי נשיאה לא הוה שקיל כי הוה מזמני ליה אזיל אמר אתייקורי דמתייקרי בי,ולא עמדתי על מדותי דאמר רבא כל המעביר על מדותיו מעבירין ממנו כל פשעיו שנאמר (מיכה ז, יח) נושא עון ועובר על פשע למי נושא עון למי שעובר על פשע,שאל רבי את ר' יהושע בן קרחה במה הארכת ימים א"ל קצת בחיי אמר לו רבי תורה היא וללמוד אני צריך א"ל מימי לא נסתכלתי בדמות אדם רשע דאמר ר' יוחנן אסור לאדם להסתכל בצלם דמות אדם רשע שנאמר (מלכים ב ג, יד) לולא פני יהושפט מלך יהודה אני נושא אם אביט אליך ואם אראך,ר"א אמר עיניו כהות שנאמר (בראשית כז, א) ויהי כי זקן יצחק ותכהין עיניו מראות משום דאסתכל בעשו הרשע,והא גרמא ליה והאמר ר' יצחק לעולם אל תהי קללת הדיוט קלה בעיניך שהרי אבימלך קלל את שרה ונתקיים בזרעה שנאמר (בראשית כ, טז) הנה הוא לך כסות עינים אל תקרי כסות אלא כסיית עינים,הא והא גרמא ליה רבא אמר מהכא (משלי יח, ה) שאת פני רשע לא טוב,בשעת פטירתו א"ל [רבי] ברכני א"ל יהי רצון שתגיע לחצי ימי ולכולהו לא אמר לו הבאים אחריך בהמה ירעו,אבוה בר איהי ומנימן בר איהי חד אמר תיתי לי דלא אסתכלי בכותי וחד אמר תיתי לי דלא עבדי שותפות בהדי כותי,שאלו תלמידיו את ר' זירא במה הארכת ימים אמר להם מימי לא הקפדתי בתוך ביתי ולא צעדתי בפני מי שגדול ממני ולא הרהרתי במבואות המטונפות ולא הלכתי ד"א בלא תורה ובלא תפילין ולא ישנתי בבית המדרש לא שינת קבע ולא שינת עראי ולא ששתי בתקלת חבירי ולא קראתי לחבירי (בחניכתו) ואמרי לה (בחכינתו):, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ועוד א"ר יהודה בית הכנסת שחרב אין מספידין בתוכו ואין מפשילין בתוכו חבלים ואין פורשין לתוכו מצודות ואין שוטחין על גגו פירות ואין עושין אותו קפנדריא,שנאמר (ויקרא כו, לא) והשמותי את מקדשכם קדושתן אף כשהן שוממין,עלו בו עשבים לא יתלוש מפני עגמת נפש:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר בתי כנסיות אין נוהגין בהן קלות ראש אין אוכלין בהן ואין שותין בהן 28a. bAnd I never recitedGrace after Meals bin the presence of a priest,but rather I gave him the privilege to lead. bAnd I never ate from an animal whosepriestly bportions,i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, bhad notalready bbeen set aside. /b,Another example of Rabbi Perida’s meticulous behavior is based on that bwhich Rabbi Yitzḥak saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: It is prohibited to eatmeat bfrom an animal whosepriestly bportions have not been set aside. And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who eatsmeat bfrom an animal whosepriestly bportions have not been set aside isregarded bas if he were eating untithed produce.The Gemara comments: bAnd the ihalakhais not in accordance with hisopinion. Rather, it is permitted to eat meat from such an animal. Nevertheless, Rabbi Perida acted stringently and did not eat from it.,The Gemara considers another of Rabbi Perida’s actions: He said: bAnd I never blessedGrace after Meals bin the presence of a priest,but rather I gave him the privilege to lead., bIs this to say thatdoing so bisespecially bvirtuous? Buthasn’t bRabbi Yoḥa said: Any Torah scholar whoallows someone else bto blessGrace after Meals bin his presence,i.e., to lead for him, bevenif that person is ba High Priest who is an ignoramus,then bthat Torah scholar is liable toreceive the bdeath penaltyfor belittling his own honor? This is bas it is stated: “All those who hate me, love death”(Proverbs 8:36). bDo not readit as b“those who hate Me [ imesan’ai /i],” ratherread it as though it said: bThose who make Me hated [ imasni’ai /i].The honor due to a Torah scholar is representative of the honor of God in the world. Therefore, by belittling his own honor, he causes others to fail to respect God, which can ultimately develop into hate. If so, why did Rabbi Perida consider his behavior to be so deserving of praise?,The Gemara answers: bWhenRabbi Perida bsays this,he was speaking bofpeople of bequalstature. He was particular to honor the priesthood only when the priest was also a Torah scholar.,The Gemara discusses the fourth Sage who was blessed with longevity: bRabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana wasonce basked by his disciples: Inthe merit of bwhichvirtue bwere youblessed with blongevity? He said to them: Inall bmy days, I never attained veneration atthe expense of bmy fellow’s degradation. Nor did my fellow’s curseever bgo up with me upon my bed.If ever I offended someone, I made sure to appease him that day. Therefore, when I went to bed I knew that no one had any grievances against me. bAnd I wasalways bopenhanded with my money. /b,The Gemara clarifies the meaning of his statement: Rabbi Neḥunya said: bI never attained veneration atthe expense of bmy fellow’s denigration.This is referring to conduct bsuch as that of Rav Huna, who was carrying a hoe over his shoulderas he returned from his work. bRav Ḥana bar Ḥanilai came and,out of respect for his teacher, btook the hoe from himto carry it for him. Rav Huna bsaid to him: If you are accustomed to carrysuch objects bin your own city,you may bcarry it; but if not,then bfor me to be venerated through your denigration is not pleasing for me. /b,Rabbi Neḥunya also said: bNor didI ever allow the resentment caused by bmy fellow’s curseto bgo up with me upon my bed.This is referring to conduct bsuch as that of Mar Zutra. When he would go to bedat night, bhe wouldfirst bsay: I forgive anyone who has vexed me. /b,Lastly, Rabbi Neḥunya said: bAnd I wasalways bopenhanded with my money.This is referring to conduct such as bthat which the Master said: Job was openhanded with his money, as he wouldalways bleaveat least ba iperutaof his money with the shopkeeper.He never demanded the change from his transactions.,On a similar occasion, bRabbi Akiva asked Rabbi Neḥunya the Great; he said to him: Inthe merit of bwhichvirtue bwere youblessed with blongevity?Rabbi Neḥunya’s battendants [ igavzei /i] came andstarted bbeatingRabbi Akiva, for they felt that he was acting disrespectfully by highlighting Rabbi Neḥunya’s old age. Rabbi Akiva ran away from them, and bhe climbed up and sat upon the top of a date palm.From there, bhe said toRabbi Neḥunya: bMy teacher,I have a question about the verse concerning the daily offering that states “one lamb” (Numbers 28:4). bIf it is stated “lamb”in the singular, bwhy is italso bstated “one”;isn’t this superfluous? Upon hearing Rabbi Akiva’s scholarly question, Rabbi Neḥunya bsaid tohis attendants: bHe isclearly ba young Torah scholar, let him be. /b,Rabbi Neḥunya then addressed Rabbi Akiva’s questions. With regard to the second question, bhe said to him:The word b“one”teaches that the lamb should be bthe unique one of its flock,i.e., only the best quality lamb should be used.,With regard to the original question, Rabbi Neḥunya bsaid to him: Inall bmy days I never accepted gifts. Nor was Iever binflexibleby exacting ba measureof retribution against those who wronged me. bAnd I wasalways bopenhanded with my money. /b,The Gemara explains: bI never accepted gifts;this is referring to conduct bsuch as that of Rabbi Elazar. When they would send him gifts from the house of the iNasi /i, he would not takethem, band when they would invite him, he would not gothere, as he considered hospitality to be a type of gift. bHewould bsay to them: Is it not pleasing to you that I should live, as it is written: “He that hates gifts shall live”(Proverbs 15:27)? In contrast, it was reported about bRabbi Zeirathat bwhen they would send himgifts bfrom the house of the iNasi /i, he would not acceptthem, bbut when they would invite him, he would gothere. bHe said: They are honored by mypresence; therefore my visiting is not considered like I am taking a gift from them.,He also said: bNor was Iever binflexiblein exacting ba measureof retribution against those who wronged me. This is referring to conduct such as that bwhich Rava said: Anyone who overlooksexacting ba measureof retribution against those who wronged him, ball his transgressions are removed from him, as it is stated: “He pardons iniquity and overlooks transgression”(Micah 7:18), which is homiletically read as saying: bFor whom does He pardon iniquity? For he who overlooks transgressionsthat others have committed against him.,In a similar incident, bRabbiYehuda HaNasi once basked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa: Inthe merit of bwhichvirtue bwere youblessed with blongevity? He said to him:Why do you ask me, bare you wearied of mylong blife?Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bsaid to him: My teacher, it is Torah andso bI must learnit. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa bsaid to him: Inall bmy days I never gazed at the likeness of a wicked man, as Rabbi Yoḥa said: It is prohibited for a person to gaze in the image of the likeness of a wicked man, as it is statedthat the prophet Elisha said to Jehoram king of Israel: b“Were it not that I regard the presence of Jehoshaphat, the king of Judea, I would not look toward you, nor see you”(II Kings 3:14)., bRabbi Elazar said:One who gazes at the likeness of an evil man, bhis eyes become dim, as it is stated: “And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim so that he could not see”(Genesis 27:1). This happened bbecause he gazed at the wicked Esau. /b,The Gemara asks: bDid this causeIsaac’s blindness? bDidn’t Rabbi Yitzḥak say: A curse of an ordinary person should not be lightly regarded in your eyes, because Abimelech cursed Sarah, andalthough he was not a righteous man, his curse bwasnevertheless bfulfilled,albeit bin her descendant. As it is statedthat Abimelech said to Sarah with regard to the gift that he gave to Abraham: b“Behold, it is for you a covering of the eyes”(Genesis 20:16). bDo not readit as b“a covering [ ikesut /i]of the eyes,” but bratherread it as: bA blindness [ ikesiat /i] of the eyes.Abimelech’s words were a veiled curse for Sarah to suffer from blindness. While she herself did not suffer, the curse was apparently fulfilled in the blindness of her son, Isaac.,According to Rabbi Yitzḥak, Abimelech’s curse was the cause of Isaac’s blindness, and it was not, as Rabbi Elazar suggested, the fact he gazed at Esau. The Gemara explains: Both bthis and thatjointly bcaused it. Rava said:The prohibition against gazing at the likeness of a wicked person is derived bfrom here: “It is not good to raise the face of the wicked”(Proverbs 18:5)., bAt the time ofRabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa’s bdeparturefrom this world, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bsaid to him: My teacher, bless me. He said to him: May it beGod’s bwill that youlive to breach to half of my days.When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi heard this, he asked in astonishment: Are you saying that bto the entirety ofyour days I should bnotreach? Why? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa bsaid to him: Shall those who come after youjust btend cattle?If you live as long as me, your sons will never be able to succeed you in the position of Nasi. As such, they will never achieve greatness in Torah, and it will be as if they just tended cattle throughout their lives. It is therefore better that your life not be so prolonged, so that they have the opportunity to rise to eminence., bAvuh bar Ihi and Minyamin bar Ihiboth spoke on this topic: bOneof them bsaid: Maya blessing bcome to me for I never gazed ata wicked bgentile. Andthe other bone said: Maya blessing bcome to me for I never formed a partnership witha wicked bgentile,so as not to have any association with a wicked person.,The Gemara presents a similar incident: bRabbi Zeira wasonce basked by his disciples: Inthe merit of bwhichvirtue bwere youblessed with blongevity? He said to them: Inall bmy days, I was never angry inside my housewith members of my household who acted against my wishes. bNor did Iever bwalk ahead of someone who was a greaterTorah scholar bthan me. Nor did Iever bmeditateupon words of Torah bin filthy alleyways,as doing so is a disgrace to the Torah. bNor did Iever bwalk four cubits withoutmeditating on words of bTorah or withoutwearing bphylacteries. Nor did Iever bsleep in a study hall, neither a deep sleep or a brief nap. Nor did Iever brejoice when my fellow stumbled. Nor did Iever bcall my fellow by his derogatory nickname [ iḥanikhato /i]. And some saythat he said: I never called my fellow by bhis nickname [ iḥakhinato /i],i.e., even one that is not derogatory., strongMISHNA: /strong bAnd Rabbi Yehuda said further: A synagogue that fell into ruinstill may not be used for a mundane purpose. Therefore, bone may not eulogize in it. And nor may one stretch outand repair bropes in it.The wide expanse of the synagogue would have been particularly suitable for this. bAnd nor may one spreadanimal btraps within it. And nor may one spread out produce upon its roofto dry. bAnd nor may one make itinto ba shortcut. /b,The ihalakhathat a synagogue in disrepair still may not be used for mundane purposes is derived from a verse, bas it is stated: “And I will bring desolation to your sanctuaries”(Leviticus 26:31). The fact that the word “sanctuaries” appears after the word “desolation” indicates that btheir sanctityremains upon them beven when they are desolate. /b,However, if bgrass sprang upof its own accord binthe ruined synagogue, although it is not befitting its sanctity, bone should not pickit, bdue tothe banguishthat it will bring to those who see it. It will remind them of the disrepair of the synagogue and the need to rebuild it., strongGEMARA: /strong bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to bsynagogues: One may not act inside them with frivolity.Therefore, bone may not eat in them; nor may one drink in them; /b
13. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

14. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

31b. שמשהין עצמן בבטן כדי שיזריעו נשותיהן תחלה שיהו בניהם זכרים מעלה עליהן הכתוב כאילו הם מרבים בנים ובני בנים והיינו דאמר רב קטינא יכולני לעשות כל בני זכרים אמר רבא הרוצה לעשות כל בניו זכרים יבעול וישנה,ואמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי אמי אין אשה מתעברת אלא סמוך לוסתה שנאמר (תהלים נא, ז) הן בעון חוללתי,ורבי יוחנן אמר סמוך לטבילה שנאמר (תהלים נא, ז) ובחטא יחמתני אמי,מאי משמע דהאי חטא לישנא דדכויי הוא דכתיב (ויקרא יד, מט) וחטא את הבית ומתרגמינן וידכי ית ביתא ואי בעית אימא מהכא (תהלים נא, ט) תחטאני באזוב ואטהר,ואמר רבי יצחק אמר רבי אמי כיון שבא זכר בעולם בא שלום בעולם שנאמר (ישעיהו טז, א) שלחו כר מושל ארץ זכר זה כר,ואמר ר' יצחק דבי רבי אמי בא זכר בעולם בא ככרו בידו זכר זה כר דכתיב (מלכים ב ו, כג) ויכרה להם כירה גדולה,נקבה אין עמה כלום נקבה נקייה באה עד דאמרה מזוני לא יהבי לה דכתיב (בראשית ל, כח) נקבה שכרך עלי ואתנה,שאלו תלמידיו את רבי שמעון בן יוחי מפני מה אמרה תורה יולדת מביאה קרבן אמר להן בשעה שכורעת לילד קופצת ונשבעת שלא תזקק לבעלה לפיכך אמרה תורה תביא קרבן,מתקיף לה רב יוסף והא מזידה היא ובחרטה תליא מילתא ועוד קרבן שבועה בעי איתויי,ומפני מה אמרה תורה זכר לשבעה ונקבה לארבעה עשר זכר שהכל שמחים בו מתחרטת לשבעה נקבה שהכל עצבים בה מתחרטת לארבעה עשר,ומפני מה אמרה תורה מילה לשמונה שלא יהו כולם שמחים ואביו ואמו עצבים,תניא היה ר"מ אומר מפני מה אמרה תורה נדה לשבעה מפני שרגיל בה וקץ בה אמרה תורה תהא טמאה שבעה ימים כדי שתהא חביבה על בעלה כשעת כניסתה לחופה,שאלו תלמידיו את רבי דוסתאי ברבי ינאי מפני מה איש מחזר על אשה ואין אשה מחזרת על איש משל לאדם שאבד לו אבידה מי מחזר על מי בעל אבידה מחזיר על אבידתו,ומפני מה איש פניו למטה ואשה פניה למעלה כלפי האיש זה ממקום שנברא וזו ממקום שנבראת,ומפני מה האיש מקבל פיוס ואין אשה מקבלת פיוס זה ממקום שנברא וזו ממקום שנבראת,מפני מה אשה קולה ערב ואין איש קולו ערב זה ממקום שנברא וזו ממקום שנבראת שנאמר {שיר השירים ב } כי קולך ערב ומראך נאוה, br br big strongהדרן עלך המפלת חתיכה /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongבנות /strong /big כותים נדות מעריסתן והכותים מטמאים משכב תחתון כעליון מפני שהן בועלי נדות,והן יושבות על כל דם ודם,ואין חייבין עליהן על ביאת מקדש ואין שורפין עליהם את התרומה מפני שטומאתן ספק, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ה"ד אי דקא חזיין אפילו דידן נמי ואי דלא קחזיין דידהו נמי לא,אמר רבא בריה דרב אחא בר רב הונא אמר רב ששת הכא במאי עסקינן בסתמא דכיון דאיכא מיעוטא דחזיין חיישינן ומאן תנא דחייש למיעוטא 31b. bthey delaywhile bintheir wives’ babdomen,initially refraining from emitting semen bso that their wives will emit seed first,in order bthat their children will be male, the verse ascribes themcredit bas though they have many sons and sons’ sons. And thisstatement bisthe same as that bwhich Rav Ketina said: I could have made all of my children males,by refraining from emitting seed until my wife emitted seed first. bRava saysanother method through which one can cause his children to be males: bOne who wishes to make all of his children males should engage in intercoursewith his wife band repeatthe act.,§ bAnd Rabbi Yitzḥak saysthat bRabbi Ami says: A woman becomes pregt onlyby engaging in intercourse bclose to the onset of hermenstrual bcycle, as it is stated: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity”(Psalms 51:7). This iniquity is referring to intercourse close to the woman’s menstrual cycle, when intercourse is prohibited. Accordingly, David is saying that his mother presumably conceived him at this time., bAnd Rabbi Yoḥa says:A woman becomes pregt only by engaging in intercourse bnearthe time of her bimmersionin a ritual bath, through which she is purified from her status as a menstruating woman, bas it is statedin the continuation of the same verse: b“And in sin [ iuvḥet /i] did my mother conceive me”(Psalms 51:7).,The Gemara explains this derivation: bFrom where mayit bbe inferred that this term “ iḥet /i” isa reference bto purity?The Gemara answers: bAs it is writtenwith regard to leprosy of houses: b“ iVeḥitteithe house”(Leviticus 14:52), band we translatethe verse into Aramaic as: bAnd he shall purify the house. And if you wish, saythat the interpretation is derived bfrom here: “Purge me [ iteḥatte’eni /i] with hyssop, and I shall be pure”(Psalms 51:9). Evidently, the root iḥet /i, itet /i, ialefrefers to purification.,§ bAnd Rabbi Yitzḥak saysthat bRabbi Ami says: When a male comes into the world,i.e., when a male baby is born, bpeace comes to the world, as it is stated: “Send the lambs [ ikhar /i] for the ruler of the land”(Isaiah 16:1). This ikhar /i, or ikar /i, a gift one sends the ruler, contributes to the stability of the government and peace, and the word bmale [ izakhar /i]can be interpreted homiletically as an abbreviation of: bThis is a ikar[ izeh kar /i]. /b, bAnd Rabbi Yitzḥak from the school of Rabbi Ami says: When a male comes into the world, his loafof bread, i.e., his sustece, bcomes into his possession.In other words, a male can provide for himself. This is based on the aforementioned interpretation of the word bmale [ izakhar /i]as an abbreviation of: bThis is a ikar[ izeh kar /i],and the term ikarrefers to sustece, bas it is written: “And he prepared great provision [ ikera /i] for them”(II Kings 6:23).,By contrast, bwhen a female comes into the world, nothing,i.e., no sustece, comes bwith her.This is derived from the homiletic interpretation of the word bfemale [ inekeva /i]as an abbreviation of the phrase: bShe comes clean [ inekiya ba’a /i],i.e., empty. Furthermore, buntil she says:Give me bsustece,people bdo not give her, as it is writtenin Laban’s request of Jacob: b“Appoint me [ inokva /i] your wages, and I will give it”(Genesis 30:28). Laban used the word inokva /i, similar to inekeva /i, when he said that he would pay Jacob only if he explicitly demanded his wages., bThe students of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai asked him: For whatreason bdoes the Torah saythat ba woman after childbirth brings an offering? He said to them: At the time thata woman bcrouches to give birth,her pain is so great that bshe impulsively takes an oath that she will not engage in intercourse with her husbandever again, so that she will never again experience this pain. bTherefore, the Torah saysthat bshe must bring an offeringfor violating her oath and continuing to engage in intercourse with her husband., bRav Yosef objects to thisanswer: bBut isn’tthe woman ban intentional violatorof her oath? bAndif she wishes that her oath be dissolved, so that she may engage in intercourse with her husband, bthe matter depends onher bregretof her oath. One is obligated to bring an offering for violating an oath of an utterance only if his transgression is unwitting. bAnd furthermore,if the purpose of the offering that a woman brings after childbirth is to atone for violating an oath, then bsheshould be brequired to bringa female lamb or goat as ban offering,which is the requirement of one who violated ban oath,rather than the bird offering brought by a woman after childbirth., bAndthe students of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai further inquired of him: bFor whatreason bdoes the Torah saythat a woman who gives birth to ba maleis ritually impure bfor sevendays, bbuta woman who gives birth to ba femaleis impure bfor fourteendays? Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai answered them: When a woman gives birth to ba male, over which everyone is happy, she regretsher oath, that she will never again engage in intercourse with her husband, already bsevendays after giving birth. By contrast, after giving birth to ba female, over which everyone is unhappy, she regretsher oath only bfourteendays after giving birth., bAndthe students further asked him: bFor whatreason bdoes the Torah saythat bcircumcisionis performed only bon the eighthday of the baby’s life, and not beforehand? He answered them: It is bso thatthere bwill not bea situation where beveryoneis bhappyat the circumcision ceremony bbut the father and mother ofthe infant bare unhappy,as they are still prohibited from engaging in intercourse., bIt is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Meir would say: For whatreason bdoes the Torah saythat ba menstruating womanis prohibited from engaging in intercourse with her husband bfor sevendays? It is bbecauseif a woman were permitted to engage in intercourse with her husband all the time, her husband would be too baccustomed to her, andwould eventually be brepulsed by her.Therefore, bthe Torah saysthat a menstruating woman bshall be ritually impurefor bseven days,during which she is prohibited from engaging in intercourse with her husband, bso thatwhen she becomes pure again bshe will be dear to her husband asat bthe time when she entered the wedding canopywith him.,§ bThe students of Rabbi Dostai, son of Rabbi Yannai, asked him: For whatreason is it the norm that ba man pursues a womanfor marriage, bbut a woman does not pursue a man?Rabbi Dostai answered them by citing ba parable of a person who lost an item. Who searches for what?Certainly bthe owner of the lost item searches for his item;the item does not search for its owner. Since the first woman was created from the body of the first man, the man seeks that which he has lost., bAndthe students of Rabbi Dostai further asked him: bFor whatreason does ba manengage in intercourse bfacing down, and a womanengage in intercourse bfacing up toward the man?Rabbi Dostai answered them: bThisman faces bthe place from which he was created,i.e., the earth, band thatwoman faces bthe place from which she was created,namely man., bAndthe students also inquired: bFor whatreason is ba manwho is angry likely to baccept appeasement, but a womanis bnotas likely to baccept appeasement?Rabbi Dostai answered them: It is bbecause thisman behaves like bthe place from which he was created,i.e., the earth, which yields to pressure, band thatwoman behaves like bthe place from which she was created,i.e., from bone, which cannot be molded easily.,The students continued to ask Rabbi Dostai: bFor whatreason bis a woman’s voice pleasant, but a man’s voice is not pleasant?He answered: bThisman is similar to bthe place from which he was created,the earth, which does not issue a sound when it is struck, band thatwoman is similar to bthe place from which she was created,a bone, which makes a sound when it is struck. The proof that a woman’s voice is pleasant is bthat it is statedin Song of Songs that the man says to his beloved: b“For sweet is your voice, and your countece is beautiful”(Song of Songs 2:14).,, strongMISHNA: /strong Samaritan bgirlsare considered bmenstruating women fromthe time they lie in btheir cradle. And the Samaritanmen bimpart ritual impurityto the blower bedding like the upperbedding, i.e., all layers of bedding beneath them are impure, and their status is like the bedding above a man who experiences a gonorrhea-like discharge [ izav /i]: The status of both levels of bedding is that of first-degree ritual impurity, which can impart impurity to food and drink. This is bdue tothe fact bthatSamaritan men are considered men who bengage in intercourse with menstruating women. /b, bAndthey are considered men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women because Samaritan women bobservethe seven-day menstrual period of ritual impurity bfor each and everyemission of bblood,even for blood that does not render them impure. Accordingly, if a Samaritan woman has an emission of impure blood during the seven-day period, she will nevertheless continue counting seven days from the first emission. It is therefore possible that the Samaritan men will engage in intercourse with their wives while they are still halakhically considered menstruating women, as the seven-day period of impurity should have been counted from the emission of the impure blood., bButone who enters the Temple while wearing bthosegarments upon which a Samaritan had lain bis not liableto bring an offering bfor entering the Templein a status of impurity, bnor does one burn iteruma /ithat came into contact with bthosegarments, bbecause their impurityis buncertain. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that Samaritan girls are considered menstruating women from the time they lie in their cradle. The Gemara asks: bWhat are the circumstancesof this statement? bIfthe mishna is referring to girls bwhoalready bseemenstrual blood, then beven our own,i.e., Jewish girls, are balsoconsidered menstruating women under such circumstances. bAnd ifit is referring to girls bwho do notyet bseemenstrual blood, then btheirgirls, i.e., those of the Samaritans, should balso nothave the status of menstruating women., bRava, son of Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna, saysthat bRav Sheshet says: Here we are dealing with an unspecifiedcase, i.e., it is unknown whether these girls have experienced their first menstrual period. bSince there is a minorityof girls bwho seemenstrual blood, bwe are concernedwith regard to each Samaritan girl that she might be from this minority. The Gemara asks: bAnd whois the itannawho btaught that one must be concerned for the minority? /b
15. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

49a. גט פשוט עדיו מתוכו מקושר עדיו מאחוריו פשוט שכתבו עדיו מאחוריו ומקושר שכתבו עדיו מתוכו שניהם פסולים ר' חנינא בן גמליאל אומר מקושר שכתבו עדיו מתוכו כשר שיכול לעשותו פשוט רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר הכל כמנהג המדינה,והוינן בה ותנא קמא לית ליה מנהג המדינה ואמר רב אשי באתרא דנהיגי בפשוט ועבד ליה מקושר א"נ באתרא דנהיגי במקושר ועבד ליה פשוט כולי עלמא לא פליגי דודאי קפידא,כי פליגי באתרא דנהיגי בין בפשוט בין במקושר ואמר ליה עביד לי פשוט ואזל ועבד ליה מקושר מר סבר קפידא ומר סבר מראה מקום הוא לו,ר' אלעזר דתנן האשה שאמרה התקבל לי גיטי ממקום פלוני וקבל לה גיטה ממקום אחר פסול ורבי אלעזר מכשיר אלמא קסבר מראה מקום היא לו,אמר עולא מחלוקת בשבח ממון אבל בשבח יוחסין דברי הכל אינה מקודשת מאי טעמא מסאנא דרב מכרעאי לא בעינא תניא נמי הכי מודה ר' שמעון אם הטעה לשבח יוחסים אינה מקודשת,אמר רב אשי מתניתין נמי דיקא דקתני ע"מ שאני כהן ונמצא לוי לוי ונמצא כהן נתין ונמצא ממזר ממזר ונמצא נתין ולא פליג ר"ש,מתקיף לה מר בר רב אשי אלא דקתני ע"מ שיש לי בת או שפחה מגודלת ואין לו על מנת שאין לו ויש לו דשבח ממון הוא הכי נמי דלא פליג,אלא פליג ברישא וה"ה לסיפא הכא נמי פליג ברישא וה"ה לסיפא,הכי השתא התם אידי ואידי דשבח ממון פליג ברישא והוא הדין בסיפא הכא דשבח יוחסים הוא אם איתא דפליג נתני,איבעית אימא הכא נמי שבח יוחסים מי סברת מאי מגודלת גדולה ממש מאי מגודלת גדלת דאמרה היא לא ניחא לי דשקלה מילי מינאי ואזלא נדיא קמי שיבבותיי,תנו רבנן על מנת שאני קריינא כיון שקרא שלשה פסוקים בבית הכנסת הרי זו מקודשת ר' יהודה אומר עד שיקרא ויתרגם יתרגם מדעתיה והתניא ר' יהודה אומר המתרגם פסוק כצורתו הרי זה בדאי והמוסיף עליו הרי זה מחרף ומגדף אלא מאי תרגום תרגום דידן,והני מילי דא"ל קריינ' אבל אמר לה קרא אנא עד דקרי אורייתא נביאי וכתובי בדיוקא,על מנת שאני שונה חזקיה אמר הלכות ור' יוחנן אמר תורה,מיתיבי איזו היא משנה ר' מאיר אומר הלכות ר' יהודה אומר מדרש 49a. In ban ordinary document, its witnessesare to sign binside it,i.e., on the written side of the paper. In a folded and btieddocument, bits witnessesare to sign bon the back of it.With regard to ban ordinarydocument bwhose witnesses wrotetheir signatures bon the back of it, or a tieddocument bwhose witnesses wrotetheir signatures binside of it, both of theseare bnot valid. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: A tieddocument bwhose witnesses wrotetheir signatures binside of itis bvalid, because one can transform it into an ordinarydocument by untying it. bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Everythingis bin accordance with regional custom.If an ordinary document is generally used and one wrote a bound one, or vice versa, the document is invalid., bAnd we discussed it: And does the first itannanot acceptthat one should follow the bregional custom?It is not reasonable that he should take issue with such a basic concept. bAnd Rav Ashi saysthat they have a dispute in a case where one instructed a scribe to write a document for him: If they are bin a place where the custom isto write ban ordinarydocument, band he made a tied one for him; alternatively,if they are bin a place where the custom isto write ba tieddocument, band he made an ordinaryone bfor him;in both of these cases, beveryone agrees thathe was bcertainly particularin his instructions to the agent that he should follow the regional custom, and if the latter deviated from the custom the document is invalid.,The situation bin which they disagreeis where they are bin a place where the custom isto use beither an ordinarydocument bor a tiedone, bandthe one requesting the document bsaid tothe scribe: bMake an ordinarydocument bfor me, andthe scribe bwent and made a tieddocument bfor him.In such a case, one bSage,the first itanna /i, bholdsthat the one requesting the document was bparticularabout wanting an ordinary document, and since the scribe wrote a tied document, it is considered to have been written without his consent. bAndone bSage,Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, bholdsthat the one requesting the document merely bindicatinghis bposition tothe scribe, stating that if the scribe wanted to save himself the trouble of writing a tied document there would no objection., bRabbi Elazaralso holds that when one instructs an agent in such a manner he is merely indicating his position to him, bas we learnedin a mishna ( iGittin65a): If there was ba woman who saidto her agent: bReceive my bill of divorce for mefrom my husband bin such and such a place, and he received her bill of divorce for her elsewhere, it is invalid. And Rabbi Elazar deems it valid. Apparently, he holdsthat bshe ismerely bindicating a place to himwhere he can receive the bill of divorce, but she does not insist that he accept it in that particular spot.,§ bUlla says:The bdisputein the mishna between the first itannaand Rabbi Shimon is only where he misled her bwith enhanced monetaryvalue, i.e., he gave her something worth more than the item he had stipulated. bButwhere he misled her bwith enhanced lineage,so that she was under the impression that his genealogy was less impressive than it in fact is, beveryone agreesthat bshe is not betrothed. What is the reasonfor this? A woman says: bI do not desire a shoe that is larger than my foot.She does not wish to marry a man whose social standing is far greater than her own. bThis is also taughtin a ibaraita( iTosefta2:6): bRabbi Shimon concedesthat bif he misled her with enhanced lineage, she is not betrothed. /b, bRav Ashi says:The wording of bthe mishna is also precise, asthe following mishna (49b) bteaches:If one betroths a woman and states that the betrothal is: bOn the condition that I am a priest, and he was foundto be ba Levite;or: On the condition that I am ba Levite, and he was foundto be ba priest;or: On the condition that I am ba Gibeonite,a people prohibited by rabbinic law from marrying into the congregation, i.e., from marrying a Jew of fit lineage, band he was foundto be ba imamzer /i,who is prohibited by Torah law from marrying into the congregation; or: On the condition that I am ba imamzer /i, and he was foundto be ba Gibeonite,in all of these cases she is not betrothed. bAnd Rabbi Shimon does not disagreewith these rulings. This indicates that if one misled a woman with regard to his lineage, Rabbi Shimon concedes that she is not betrothed., bMar bar Rav Ashi objects to thisinference: bButwhat about bthatwhich bis taughtin the same mishna: If one betroths a woman and states that the betrothal is: bOn the condition that I have a grown daughter or maidservant, and he does not haveone; or if one betroths a woman bon the condition that he does not havea grown daughter or maidservant band he does haveone, the latter of bwhich isan issue of benhanced monetaryvalue, as the difference between one who has a maidservant and one who does not impacts how hard the woman will have to work in the home; in these cases will you balsosay bthatRabbi Shimon bdoes not disagreesimply because the mishna does not mention his opinion in that case?, bRather,it must be that bhe disagrees in the first clauseof the mishna with regard to enhanced monetary value, band the same is true with regard to the latter clause,i.e., he also disagrees in that clause, and it was not necessary to state his dispute another time. bHere too,with regard to lineage, bhe disagrees in the first clause, and the same is true with regard to the latter clause. /b,The Gemara rejects this: bHow canthese cases bbe compared? There,where bboth thiscase band thatcase involve an inaccuracy bof enhanced monetaryvalue, it is possible that bhe disagreed in the first clause and the same is true in the last clause,and the mishna did not need to restate his opinion. But bhere,where it bisa case bof enhanced lineage,which is a different issue, bif it is so thatRabbi Shimon bdisagrees, let him teachthat explicitly. The fact that no dispute is recorded in the case of enhanced lineage is proof that he concedes in that case., bIf you wish, sayinstead: bHere too,the issue of a daughter or maidservant involves benhanced lineage,not enhanced monetary value. His statement should be understood differently. bDo you maintainthat bwhatis the meaning of his statement that he has ba growndaughter or maidservant; that she is bactually grownup, so that she can be of help to his wife? That is not the meaning of his statement. Rather, bwhatis the meaning of: bGrown?That she bgrowsand plaits hair, i.e., he has a daughter or maidservant who is a hairdresser. Why might the potential bride view this as a drawback? bBecause shecan bsay:It is bnot satisfactory for meto live in the house with a hairdresser, bas she will take wordsshe hears bfrom me and will go passthem bbefore my neighbors,meaning she will gossip about me to others. This concern is more akin to a matter of lineage than a matter of monetary value.,§ bThe Sages taught:If one said to a woman: Be betrothed to me bon the condition that I am literatewith regard to the Torah, bonce he has read three verses in the synagogue she is betrothed. Rabbi Yehuda saysthat she is not betrothed buntil he reads and translatesthe verses. The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Yehuda mean that bone translatesaccording to bhis own understanding? But isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita( iTosefta /i, iMegilla3:21) that bRabbi Yehuda says: One who translates a verse literally is a liar,since he distorts the meaning of the text, bandconversely, bone who addshis own translation bistantamount to one who bcurses and blasphemesGod? bRather,to bwhich translationis Rabbi Yehuda referring? He is referring to bouraccepted btranslation. /b, bAnd this statement appliesonly bif he said to her: I am literate, butif bhe said to her: I am a reader,this indicates that he is an expert in the reading of the Torah, and she is not betrothed bunlesshe knows how bto read the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings with precision. /b,The Gemara discusses a similar case: If one said to a woman: Be betrothed to me bon the condition that I study [ ishoneh /i], Ḥizkiyya saysit means that he studies ihalakhot /i, and Rabbi Yoḥa saysit means that he studies bTorah,i.e., the written Torah.,The Gemara braises an objectionto Rabbi Yoḥa from a ibaraita /i: bWhat isthe meaning of: bMishna? Rabbi Meir says ihalakhot /i, Rabbi Yehuda says homiletics.Neither of them, however, says that it refers to the written Torah.
16. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

102a. ואף אחיה השילוני טעה וחתם דהא יהוא צדיקא רבה הוה שנאמר (מלכים ב י, ל) ויאמר ה' אל יהוא יען אשר הטיבות לעשות הישר בעיני ככל אשר בלבבי עשית לבית אחאב בני רביעים ישבו לך על כסא ישראל וכתיב (מלכים ב י, לא) ויהוא לא שמר ללכת בתורת ה' אלהי ישראל בכל לבבו לא סר מעל חטאת ירבעם אשר החטיא את ישראל,מאי גרמא ליה אמר אביי ברית כרותה לשפתים שנאמר (מלכים ב י, יח) אחאב עבד הבעל מעט יהוא יעבדנו הרבה רבא אמר חותמו של אחיה השילוני ראה וטעה,דכתיב (הושע ה, ב) ושחטה שטים העמיקו ואני מוסר לכולם אמר רבי יוחנן אמר הקב"ה הם העמיקו משלי אני אמרתי כל שאינו עולה לרגל עובר בעשה והם אמרו כל העולה לרגל ידקר בחרב,(מלכים א יא, כט) ויהי בעת ההיא וירבעם יצא מירושלם וימצא אותו אחיה השילוני הנביא בדרך והוא מתכסה בשלמה חדשה תנא משום רבי יוסי עת היא מזומנת לפורענות,(ירמיהו נא, יח) בעת פקודתם יאבדו תנא משום רבי יוסי עת מזומנת לפורענות (ישעיהו מט, ח) בעת רצון עניתיך תנא משום ר' יוסי עת מזומנת לטובה (שמות לב, לד) וביום פקדי ופקדתי עליהם חטאתם תנא משום רבי יוסי עת היא מזומנת לפורענות (בראשית לח, א) ויהי בעת ההיא וירד יהודה מאת אחיו תנא משום ר' יוסי עת מזומנת לפורענות,(מלכים א יב, א) וילך רחבעם שכם כי שכם בא כל ישראל להמליך אותו תנא משום ר' יוסי מקום מזומן לפורענות בשכם עינו את דינה בשכם מכרו אחיו את יוסף בשכם נחלקה מלכות בית דוד,(מלכים א יא, כט) וירבעם יצא מירושלים אמר ר' חנינא בר פפא שיצא מפיתקה של ירושלים,(מלכים א יא, כט) וימצא אותו אחיה השילוני הנביא בדרך והוא מתכסה בשלמה חדשה ושניהם לבדם בשדה מאי בשלמה חדשה אמר רב נחמן כשלמה חדשה מה שלמה חדשה אין בה שום דופי אף תורתו של ירבעם לא היה בה שום דופי ד"א שלמה חדשה שחידשו דברים שלא שמעה אזן מעולם,מאי ושניהם לבדם בשדה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב שכל תלמידי חכמים דומין לפניהם כעשבי השדה ואיכא דאמר שכל טעמי תורה מגולין להם כשדה,(מיכה א, יד) לכן תתני שלוחים על מורשת גת בתי אכזיב לאכזב למלכי ישראל אמר ר' חנינא בר פפא יצאה בת קול ואמרה להן מי שהרג את הפלשתי והוריש אתכם גת תתנו שילוחים לבניו בתי אכזיב לאכזב למלכי ישראל,אמר רב חיננא בר פפא כל הנהנה מן העולם הזה בלא ברכה כאילו גוזל להקב"ה וכנסת ישראל שנאמר (משלי כח, כד) גוזל אביו ואמו ואומר אין פושע חבר הוא לאיש משחית ואין אביו אלא הקב"ה שנאמר (דברים לב, ו) הלא הוא אביך קנך ואין אמו אלא כנסת ישראל שנאמר (משלי א, ח) שמע בני מוסר אביך ואל תטוש תורת אמך,מאי חבר הוא לאיש משחית חבר הוא לירבעם בן נבט שהשחית ישראל לאביהם שבשמים,(מלכים ב יז, כא) וידח ירבעם (בן נבט) את ישראל מאחרי ה' והחטיאם חטאה גדולה אמר רבי חנין כשתי מקלות המתיזות זו את זו,(דברים א, א) ודי זהב אמרו דבי ר' ינאי אמר משה לפני הקב"ה רבונו של עולם בשביל כסף וזהב שהשפעת להן לישראל עד שיאמרו דיי גרם להם לעשות להם אלהי זהב משל אין ארי דורס ונוהם מתוך קופה של תבן אלא מתוך קופה של בשר,אמר ר' אושעיא עד ירבעם היו ישראל יונקים מעגל אחד מכאן ואילך משנים ושלשה עגלים אמר ר' יצחק אין לך כל פורענות ופורענות שבאה לעולם שאין בה אחד מעשרים וארבעה בהכרע ליטרא של עגל הראשון שנאמר (שמות לב, לד) וביום פקדי ופקדתי עליהם חטאתם,אמר רבי חנינא לאחר עשרים וארבעה דורות נגבה פסוק זה שנאמר (יחזקאל ט, א) ויקרא באזני קול גדול לאמר קרבו פקדות העיר ואיש כלי משחתו בידו,(מלכים א יג, לג) אחר הדבר הזה לא שב ירבעם מדרכו הרעה מאי אחר אמר ר' אבא אחר שתפשו הקב"ה לירבעם בבגדו ואמר לו חזור בך ואני ואתה ובן ישי נטייל בגן עדן אמר לו מי בראש בן ישי בראש אי הכי לא בעינא,ר' אבהו הוה רגיל דהוה קא דריש בשלשה מלכים חלש קביל עליה דלא דריש כיון 102a. bAnd even Ahijah the Shilonite erredin this matter band signedthat he would accept all of Jeroboam’s pronouncements. And generations later this caused Jehu to sin. The Gemara explains: bAs Jehu was an extremely righteous person. As it is stated: “And the Lord said to Jehu: Because you have done well, to perform what is right in My eyes, and have done to the house of Ahab according to all that was in My heart, your children of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel”(II Kings 10:30). bAnd it is written: “But Jehu took no care to walk in the Torah of the Lord, God of Israel, with all his heart; he departed not from the sins of Jeroboam, who made Israel sin”(II Kings 10:31)., bWhat causedJehu to do so? bAbaye says: A covet is made with the lips, as it is statedthat Jehu said cunningly in an attempt to entrap the priests of the Baal: b“Ahab worshipped Baal a little, but Jehu shall serve him much”(II Kings 10:18). Although it was not his intention, once the statement escaped his lips he began following the path to its fulfillment. bRava says: He saw the seal of Ahijah the Shiloniteon the coronation document of Jeroboam band he erredand believed that it was permitted to act as Jeroboam did.,The Gemara continues its discussion of Jeroboam. With regard to that bwhich is written: “And the apostates are deep in slaughter and I am rejected by them all”(Hosea 5:2), bRabbi Yoḥa saysthat bthe Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Theyissued decrees that are bmore profoundand more extreme bthan my own. I said: Anyone who does not ascendto Jerusalem bfor the pilgrimage Festival violates a positive mitzva, and they said: Anyone who ascendsto Jerusalem bfor the pilgrimage Festival will be stabbed with the sword.In that way, Jeroboam successfully prevented the residents of the kingdom of Israel from ascending to Jerusalem.,The verse states: b“And it came to pass at that time, and Jeroboam left Jerusalem, and the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him on the way, and he was clad in a new garment,and the two were alone in the field” (I Kings 11:29). It was btaught in the name of Rabbi Yosei:The phrase “at that time” indicates that bit is a time ordained for calamity. /b,The verse states: b“At the time of their punishment, they shall perish”(Jeremiah 51:18). It was btaught in the name of Rabbi Yosei:The phrase “at the time” indicates that it is ba time ordained for calamity.The verse states: b“In an acceptable time have I answered you”(Isaiah 49:8). It was btaught in the name of Rabbi Yosei:The phrase “in an acceptable time” indicates that it is ba time ordained for good.The verse states: b“On the day when I punish, I will punish their sin upon them”(Exodus 32:34). It was btaught in the name of Rabbi Yosei:The phrase “on the day when I punish” indicates that bit is a time ordained for calamity.The verse states: b“And it came to pass at that time, and Judah descended from his brothers”(Genesis 38:1). It was btaught in the name of Rabbi Yosei:The phrase “at that time” indicates that it is ba time ordained for calamity. /b,The verse states: b“And Rehoboam went to Shechem; for all Israel came to Shechem, to make him king”(I Kings 12:1). It was btaught in the name of Rabbi Yosei:Shechem is ba place ordained for calamity. In Shechem, they tormentedand raped bDinah, inthe outskirts of bShechem the brothers sold Joseph, in Shechem the kingdom of the house of David was divided. /b,With regard to the verse which states: b“And Jeroboam left Jerusalem”(I Kings 11:29), bRabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa says:It means bthat he left the destiny of Jerusalem,meaning he removed himself from the category of the residents of Jerusalem, never to return.,The verse states: b“And the prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him on the way, and he was clad in a new [ iḥadasha /i] garment, and the two were alone in the field.” Whatis taught by the phrase b“in a new garment”? Rav Naḥman says:It was blike a new garment; just as a new garment has no imperfection, so too, the Torahstudies bof Jeroboamat that time bhad no imperfection. Alternatively, “a new garment”teaches bthat they introduced [ isheḥideshu /i] matters thatno bear had ever heard. /b, bWhatis taught by the phrase b“and the two were alone in the field”? Rav Yehuda saysthat bRav says:It teaches bthat allthe bTorah scholarsof that generation bseemed,relative bto them, like grass of the field,as they were wiser than all of them. bAnd there arethose bwho say:It teaches bthat all the rationales of the Torah were revealed to them like a fieldthat is exposed for all to see.,The verse states: b“Therefore shall you give parting gifts to Moresheth Gath; the houses of Achzib are a deceitful thing for the kings of Israel”(Micah 1:14). bRabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa says:When they crowned Jeroboam, ba Divine Voice emerged and said tothe subjects of the kingdom of Israel: bHe who killed the Philistine and bequeathedthe city of bGath to you,i.e., King David, bwill you give parting gifts to his sonsand revolt against them? Ultimately, bthe houses of Achzib are a deceitful thing for the kings of Israel,as the kings of Israel will also be forsaken by their subjects., bRabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa says:With regard to banyone who derives benefit from this world withoutreciting ba blessing, it is as though he stole from the Holy One, Blessed be He, and the congregation of Israel, as it is stated: “Whoever robs his father and his mother and says: It is no transgression, he is the companion of a corrupter”(Proverbs 28:24). bAndthe term b“his father”is referring to bnone other than the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is stated: “Is He not your Father Who created you,Who made you and established you?” (Deuteronomy 32:6). bAndthe term b“his mother”is referring to bnone other than the congregation of Israel, as it is stated: “Hear, my son, the discipline of your father, and do not forsake the Torah of your mother”(Proverbs 1:8). The mention of the Torah as emanating from the mother indicates that the mother represents the congregation of Israel, and the Torah of the mother is the tradition of the Jewish people., bWhatis the meaning of the phrase b“He is the companion of a corrupter”?It means that bhe is a companion of Jeroboam, son of Nebat, who corruptedthe people of bIsrael before their Father in Heavenby sinning and by causing others to sin.,With regard to the verse: b“And Jeroboam drove Israel from following the Lord, and caused them to sin a great sin”(II Kings 17:21), bRabbi Ḥanin says:This is blike two sticksthat when they collide bcause each other to carom,as due to the strife, Jeroboam caused the subjects of the kingdom of Israel to grow distant from God.,§ Apropos the calves of Jeroboam, the Gemara discusses the Golden Calf discussed in the Torah. The verse states: b“And Di Zahav”(Deuteronomy 1:1). bThe school of Rabbi Yannai said: Moses said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, because of the gold and silver that You lavished upon the Jewish peopleduring the exodus from Egypt buntil they said enough [ idai /i],this wealth bcaused the Jewish people to fashion for themselves gods of gold.The combination of wealth and leisure left them open to a transgression of that sort. There is ba parablefor this: bA lion does not maul and roar over a basket of strawfrom which he derives no pleasure; brather,he mauls and roars bover a basket of meat,as he roars only when satiated. In other words, the guilt is not exclusively theirs., bRabbi Oshaya says: Until Jeroboam, Israel was suckling,i.e., suffering the consequences, bfromworshipping bone calfthat they fashioned in the wilderness. bFrom thatpoint bforward,they were suckling bfrom two and three calves,as Jeroboam added the calves in Bethel and Dan. bRabbi Yitzḥak says: You have no punishment that comes to the world in which there is not one twenty-fourth of the surplus of a ilitraof the first calf.When weighing a substance, there would often be a disparity of up to one twenty-fourth of its weight. The point is that a minuscule portion of the sin of the Golden Calf is added to every punishment imposed upon the Jewish people, bas it is stated: “On the day when I punish, I will punish their sin upon them”(Exodus 32:34), indicating that atonement for that sin is incomplete, and the Jewish people will continue to suffer for it., bRabbi Ḥanina says: After twenty-four generationselapsed from the sin of the Golden Calf, the debt referred to in bthis verse was collected, as it is stated: “And he cried in my ears with a loud voice, saying: Those who have charge over the city draw near, every man with his deadly weapon in his hand”(Ezekiel 9:1). This prophecy occurred twenty-four generations after the sin of the Golden Calf.,The verse states: b“And after this matter, Jeroboam returned not from his evil way”(I Kings 13:33). To bwhatevent is the verse alluding, when it states: b“Afterthis matter”? bRabbi Abba says:It is bafter the Holy One, Blessed be He, grabbed Jeroboam by his garment,i.e., he sent prophets and implored him, band said to him: Repent, and you and I andthe bson of Yishai will strolltogether bin the Garden of Eden.Jeroboam bsaid to Him: Whowill walk bin the lead?God bsaid toJeroboam: The bson of Yishaiwill walk bin the lead.Jeroboam said: bIf so, I do not wishto repent.,§ The Gemara relates: bRabbi Abbahu was accustomed to lectureat great length babout the three kingsenumerated in the mishna, who have no share in the World-to-Come. bHe fell ill, and he undertook that he would not lectureabout those kings. bOnce /b
17. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

55b. מיתיבי אמרו מלאכי השרת לפני הקב"ה רבונו של עולם מפני מה קנסת מיתה על אדם הראשון אמר להם מצוה קלה צויתיו ועבר עליה א"ל והלא משה ואהרן שקיימו כל התורה כולה ומתו א"ל (קהלת ט, ב) מקרה אחד לצדיק ולרשע לטוב וגו',הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר אף משה ואהרן בחטאם מתו שנא' (במדבר כ, יב) יען לא האמנתם בי הא האמנתם בי עדיין לא הגיע זמנכם ליפטר מן העולם,מיתיבי ארבעה מתו בעטיו של נחש ואלו הן בנימין בן יעקב ועמרם אבי משה וישי אבי דוד וכלאב בן דוד וכולהו גמרא לבר מישי אבי דוד דמפרש ביה קרא דכתיב (שמואל ב יז, כה) ואת עמשא שם אבשלום תחת יואב (שר) הצבא ועמשא בן איש ושמו יתרא הישראלי אשר בא אל אביגיל בת נחש אחות צרויה אם יואב,וכי בת נחש הואי והלא בת ישי הואי דכתיב (דברי הימים א ב, טז) ואחיותיהן צרויה ואביגיל אלא בת מי שמת בעטיו של נחש,מני אילימא תנא דמלאכי השרת והא איכא משה ואהרן אלא לאו ר"ש בן אלעזר היא וש"מ יש מיתה בלא חטא ויש יסורין בלא עון ותיובתא דרב אמי תיובתא:,א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן כל האומר ראובן חטא אינו אלא טועה שנאמר (בראשית לה, כב) ויהיו בני יעקב שנים עשר מלמד שכולן שקולים כאחת אלא מה אני מקיים (בראשית לה, כב) וישכב את בלהה פילגש אביו מלמד שבלבל מצעו של אביו ומעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו שכב עמה,תניא ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר מוצל אותו צדיק מאותו עון ולא בא מעשה זה לידו אפשר עתיד זרעו לעמוד על הר עיבל ולומר (דברים כז, כ) ארור שוכב עם אשת אביו ויבא חטא זה לידו אלא מה אני מקיים וישכב את בלהה פילגש אביו עלבון אמו תבע אמר אם אחות אמי היתה צרה לאמי שפחת אחות אמי תהא צרה לאמי עמד ובלבל את מצעה,אחרים אומרים שתי מצעות בלבל אחת של שכינה ואחת של אביו והיינו דכתיב (בראשית מט, ד) אז חללת יצועי עלה (אל תקרי יצועי אלא יצועיי),כתנאי פחז כמים אל תותר ר' אליעזר אומר פזתה חבתה זלתה ר' יהושע אומר פסעתה על דת חטאת זנית ר"ג אומר פיללתה חלתה זרחה תפלתך,אמר ר"ג עדיין צריכין אנו למודעי ר' אלעזר המודעי אומר הפוך את התיבה ודורשה זעזעתה הרתעתה פרחה חטא ממך רבא אמר ואמרי לה ר' ירמיה בר אבא זכרת עונשו של דבר חלית עצמך חולי גדול פירשת מלחטוא:,ראובן בני עלי בני שמואל דוד ושלמה ויואש סימן:,אמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן כל האומר בני עלי חטאו אינו אלא טועה שנאמר (שמואל א א, ג) ושם שני בני עלי (עם ארון ברית האלהים) חפני ופנחס כהנים לה',סבר לה כרב דאמר רב פנחס לא חטא מקיש חפני לפנחס מה פנחס לא חטא אף חפני לא חטא אלא מה אני מקיים אשר ישכבון את הנשים מתוך ששהו את קיניהן שלא הלכו אצל בעליהן מעלה עליהן הכתוב כאילו שכבום,גופא אמר רב פנחס לא חטא שנאמר (שמואל א יד, ג) ואחיה בן אחיטוב אחי אי כבוד בן פנחס בן עלי כהן ה' וגו' אפשר חטא בא לידו והכתוב מייחסו,והלא כבר נאמר (מלאכי ב, יב) יכרת ה' לאיש אשר יעשנה ער ועונה מאהלי יעקב ומגיש מנחה לה' צבאות אם ישראל הוא לא יהיה לו ער בחכמים ולא עונה בתלמידים ואם כהן הוא לא יהיה לו בן מגיש מנחה אלא לאו שמע מינה פנחס לא חטא,אלא הא כתיב (שמואל א ב, כב) אשר ישכבון ישכבן כתיב,והכתיב (שמואל א ב, כד) אל בני כי לא טובה השמועה א"ר נחמן בר יצחק בני כתיב,והכתיב מעבירים א"ר הונא בריה דרב יהושע מעבירם כתיב,והכתיב בני בליעל מתוך שהיה לו לפנחס למחות לחפני ולא מיחה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו חטא,א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן כל האומר 55b. The Gemara braises an objectionfrom the following ibaraita /i: bThe ministering angels said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, why did You penalize Adam, the first man, withthe bdeathpenalty? bHe said to them: I gave him a simple mitzva, and he violated it. They said to Him: Didn’t Moses and Aaron, who observed the whole Torah in its entirety,nevertheless bdie?The Holy One, Blessed be He, bsaid to them,citing the verse: “All things come alike to all; bthere is one event to the righteous and to the wicked; to the goodand to the clean, and to the unclean; to him who sacrifices, and to him who does not sacrifice; as is the good, so is the sinner; and he who swears, as he who fears an oath” (Ecclesiastes 9:2). Apparently, death is not dependent upon one’s actions. Everyone dies.,The Gemara answers: Rav Ami bstatedhis position bin accordance with this itanna /i, as it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Even Moses and Aaron died due to their sin, as it is stated:“And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron: bBecause you did not believe in Me /b, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this congregation in to the land which I have given them” (Numbers 20:12). bHad you believed in Meand spoken to the rock as commanded, byour time would notyet bhave come to leave the world.Apparently, even Moses and Aaron died due to their sins.,The Gemara braises an objectionfrom what was taught in the following ibaraita /i: bFourpeople bdied due toAdam’s sin with bthe serpent,in the wake of which death was decreed upon all of mankind, although they themselves were free of sin. bAnd they are: Benjamin, son of Jacob; Amram, father of Moses; Yishai, father of David; and Kilab, son of David. And all of themwere learned through btradition, except for Yishai, father of David, with regard to whom there is an explicit verseinterpreted homiletically, bas it is written: “And Absalom placed Amasa in charge of the army in place of Joab, and Amasa was the son of a man named Ithra the Israelite, who had taken to himself Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister of Zeruiah, the mother of Joab”(II Samuel 17:25).,The Gemara asks: bAnd wasAbigail bthe daughter of Nahash? Wasn’t she the daughter of Yishai, as it is written:“And Yishai begot his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimea the third, Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: band their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail.And the sons of Zeruiah: Abishai, and Joab, and Asahel, three. And Abigail bore Amasa; and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite” (I Chronicles 2:13–17)? Apparently, Abigail was the daughter of Yishai. bRather,the verse states that Abigail was the daughter of Nahash in order to teach us that she was bthe daughter of one who died on account ofAdam’s sin with bthe serpent [ inaḥash /i],though he himself was free of sin.,The Gemara now clarifies the matter: bWhois the itannaof the ibaraitathat states that four people did not die due to their own sins? bIf you saythat it is the itanna /iwho taught the conversation between bthe ministering angelsand God, it is difficult, bas weren’t therealso bMoses and Aaronwho did not die due to their own sins? bRather, it must be Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,who holds that even Moses and Aaron died because of their own sins. bLearn from itthen that, in principle, he agrees that bthere is death without sin and there is suffering without iniquity, andthis is a bconclusive refutationof the opinion bof Rav Ami.The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a bconclusive refutation. /b,Having mentioned the sins of some of the significant ancestors of the Jewish people, the Gemara now addresses several additional ancestors. bRabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani saidthat bRabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who says that Reuben sinnedwith Bilhah bis nothing other than mistaken, as it is stated:“And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine; and Israel heard of it. bNow the sons of Jacob were twelve”(Genesis 35:22). The fact that the Torah stated the number of Jacob’s sons at that point in the narrative bteaches that,even after the incident involving Bilhah, ballof the brothers bwere equalin righteousness. Apparently, Reuben did not sin. bHowthen bdo I establishthe meaning of the verse: b“And he lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine”?The plain understanding of the verse indicates sin. bThisverse bteaches thatReuben brearranged his father’s bedin protest of Jacob’s placement of his bed in the tent of Bilhah and not in the tent of his mother Leah after the death of Rachel. bAnd the verse ascribes to himliability for his action bas if he hadactually blain withBilhah., bIt was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: This righteous person,Reuben, bwas saved from that sinof adultery, band that action did not come tobe performed by bhim? Is it possiblethat bhis descendants are destined to stand on Mount Eival and say: “Cursed be he that lies with his father’s wife;because he uncovers his father’s skirt. And all the people shall say, amen” (Deuteronomy 27:20), band this sin will come tobe performed by bhim?Is it conceivable that the members of a tribe would curse their ancestor? bHowthen bdo I establishthe meaning of the verse: b“And he lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine”?It is understood as follows: bHe protested the affront to his mother. He said: If my mother’s sisterRachel bwas a rival to my mother, will my mother’s sister’s concubine be a rival to my mother? Heimmediately bstood and rearranged her bedso that Jacob would enter Leah’s tent.,iAḥerimsay: He rearranged two beds, one of the Divine Presence and one of his father. And that isthe meaning of bthat which is written:“Unstable as water, you shall not excel; because you went up to your father’s bed; bthen you did defile it; he went up to my bed [ iyetzu /i’ ii /i]”(Genesis 49:4). bDo not read it as iyetzu’i /i,in the singular; brather, read it as iyetzu /i’ iai /i, my beds,in the plural, referring to both the bed of his father and to the bed of the Divine Presence, which rests in the tents of the righteous.,The Gemara notes that the matter of Reuben’s innocence is bparallel toa dispute between itanna’im /i.As it was taught in a ibaraita /i: The verse states: b“Unstable [ ipaḥaz /i] as water, you shall not excel.”The Sages understood ipaḥazas an acronym. bRabbi Eliezer saysthat it means: bYou were impulsive [ ipazta /i], you were liable [ iḥavta /i], and you acted contemptuously [ izalta /i]. Rabbi Yehoshua saysthat it means: bYou trampled the law [ ipasata al dat /i], you sinned [ iḥatata /i],and byou were promiscuous [ izanita /i]. Rabban Gamliel says:The acronym does not refer to Reuben’s sin. It refers to his repentance: bYou prayed [ ipilalta /i], you trembledin fear b[ iḥalta /i],and byour prayer shone forth [ izarḥa /i]. /b, bRabban Gamliel said: We still needthe explanation of bthe Modaite,as bRabbi Elazar HaModa’i said: Reversethe order of the letters in bthe word ipaḥaz bandthen binterpret it homiletically: You shook [ izizata /i], you recoiled[ihirtata /i];the iḥetin ipaḥazis interchanged with the letter iheh /i, so that you would not sin, and bthe sin flew [ iparḥa /i] from you.Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i are of the opinion that Reuben did not sin. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua held that he did. bRava said, and some saythat bRabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said:Reverse the letters in ipaḥazand interpret: bYou remembered [ izakharta /i] the punishmentfor that offense, byou made yourself gravely ill [ iḥalita /i]in order to refrain from sinning, and byousuccessfully bwithdrew [ ipeirashta /i] from sinning. /b,The Gemara prefaces the following statements of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani with a bmnemonic: Reuben, the sons of Eli, the sons of Samuel, David, Solomon, and Josiah. /b, bRabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani saidthat bRabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who says that the sons of Eli sinned is nothing other than mistaken, as it is written: “And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Pinehas, were there priests of the Lord”(I Samuel 1:3).,The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yonatan bholds in accordance withthe opinion of bRav, as Rav said: Pinehas did not sin.And the verse bjuxtaposes Hophni to Pinehas; just as Pinehas did not sin, so too Hophni did not sin.The Gemara asks: bHow,then, bdo I establishthe meaning of the verse: “Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did to all Israel; and bhow they lay with the womenthat assembled at the door of the Tent of Meeting” (I Samuel 2:22), which indicates otherwise? The Gemara answers: bSincethe sons of Eli bdelayedsacrificing bthe bird-offeringsof women who had given birth, a pair of doves brought as part of the purification process, and this delay caused the women bnot to go to their husbandsin timely fashion, bthe verse ascribes toHophni and Pinehas liability bas if they had lain with them.They were guilty of nothing more than negligence and carelessness.,The Gemara now examines bthe matter itselfof Rav’s statement cited in the course of the previous discussion. bRav said: Pinehas did not sin, as it is stated: “And Ahijah, the son of Ahitub, Ichabod’s brother, the son of Pinehas, the son of Eli, was the Lord’s priestin Shiloh, wearing an ephod” (I Samuel 14:3). bIs it possible that sin came toPinehas’ bhand and,nevertheless, bthe verse traces the lineageof his grandson, Ahijah, back bto him? /b, bWasn’t it was already statedwith regard to those who engage in promiscuous relations: b“The Lord will cut off from the man that does this, him that is awake and him that answers from the tents of Jacob, or any to present an offering to the Lord of hosts”(Malachi 2:12). The Sages interpreted the verse homiletically: bIfthe sinner is ban Israelite, he will not haveamong his descendants bone who issharp and bawake among the Sages, oreven bone amongtheir bdisciples who can answerquestions. bAnd if he is a priest, he will not have a son who will present a meal-offering.If Pinehas had sons and grandsons serving as priests, bconclude from it that Pinehas did not sin. /b,The Gemara asks: bHowever, isn’t it written: “And how they lay [ iyishkevun /i]with the women.” The verb iyishkevunis in the plural, indicating that both sons were guilty. The Gemara answers: It bis writtenwithout a ivavso that it can be read as iyishkeven /iin the singular, i.e., how he lay, indicating that only one of them sinned.,The Gemara asks further: bIsn’t it writtenthat Eli said: b“No, my sons [ ibanai /i]; for it is not a good reportthat I hear; you make the Lord’s people to transgress” (I Samuel 2:24). The fact that Eli referred to his sons in the plural indicates that they both sinned. bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is writtenin a manner that can be read as bmy son [ ibeni /i]in the singular.,The Gemara raises another question: bIsn’t it written: “You makethe Lord’s people bto transgress [ ima’avirim /i]in the plural, indicating that both sons were guilty. bRav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:Here too, the word bis writtenwithout a iyodso that it can be read as: bYou causethe Lord’s people bto transgress [ ima’aviram /i]in the singular, indicating that only one of them sinned.,The Gemara raises one last challenge: bIsn’t it written:“Now the sons of Eli were bscoundrels;they knew not the Lord” (I Samuel 2:12), indicating that they were both sinners. The Gemara answers: bSince Pinehas should have protested Hophni’sconduct, bbut he did not protest, the verse ascribes to himliability bas if hetoo bhad sinned. /b, bRabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani saidthat bRabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who says /b
18. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

10b. אלא ויקריא מלמד שהקריא אברהם אבינו לשמו של הקב"ה בפה כל עובר ושב כיצד לאחר שאכלו ושתו עמדו לברכו אמר להם וכי משלי אכלתם משל אלהי עולם אכלתם הודו ושבחו וברכו למי שאמר והיה העולם,(בראשית לח, טו) ויראה יהודה ויחשבה לזונה כי כסתה פניה משום דכסתה פניה חשבה לזונה,א"ר אלעזר שכסתה פניה בבית חמיה דא"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן כל כלה שהיא צנועה בבית חמיה זוכה ויוצאין ממנה מלכים ונביאים מנלן מתמר נביאים דכתיב (ישעיהו א, א) חזון ישעיהו בן אמוץ מלכים מדוד ואמר רבי לוי דבר זה מסורת בידינו מאבותינו אמוץ ואמציה אחים הוו,(בראשית לח, כה) היא מוצאת היא מיתוצאת מיבעי ליה א"ר אלעזר לאחר שנמצאו סימניה בא סמאל וריחקן בא גבריאל וקירבן,היינו דכתיב (תהלים נו, א) למנצח על יונת אלם רחוקים לדוד מכתם א"ר יוחנן משעה שנתרחקו סימניה נעשית כיונה אילמת לדוד מכתם שיצא ממנה דוד שהיה מך ותם לכל דבר אחר מכתם שהיתה מכתו תמה שנולד כשהוא מהול דבר אחר מכתם כשם שבקטנותו הקטין עצמו אצל מי שגדול ממנו ללמוד תורה כך בגדולתו,(בראשית לח, כה) והיא שלחה אל חמיה לאמר לאיש אשר אלה לו אנכי הרה ותימא ליה מימר אמר רב זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב ואמרי לה אמר רב חנא בר ביזנא אמר רבי שמעון חסידא ואמרי לה אמר רבי יוחנן משום ר' שמעון בן יוחי נוח לו לאדם שיפיל עצמו לתוך כבשן האש ואל ילבין פני חבירו ברבים מנלן מתמר,(בראשית לח, כה) הכר נא א"ר חמא ברבי חנינא בהכר בישר לאביו בהכר בישרוהו בהכר בישר (בראשית לז, לב) הכר נא הכתנת בנך היא בהכר בישרוהו הכר נא למי,נא אין נא אלא לשון בקשה אמרה ליה בבקשה ממך הכר פני בוראך ואל תעלים עיניך ממני,(בראשית לח, כו) ויכר יהודה ויאמר צדקה ממני היינו דאמר רב חנין בר ביזנא א"ר שמעון חסידא יוסף שקדש ש"ש בסתר זכה והוסיפו לו אות אחת משמו של הקב"ה דכתיב (תהלים פא, ו) עדות ביהוסף שמו,יהודה שקדש ש"ש בפרהסיא זכה ונקרא כולו על שמו של הקב"ה כיון שהודה ואמר צדקה ממני יצתה בת קול ואמרה אתה הצלת תמר ושני בניה מן האור חייך שאני מציל בזכותך ג' מבניך מן האור מאן נינהו חנניה מישאל ועזריה,צדקה ממני מנא ידע יצתה בת קול ואמרה ממני יצאו כבושים,(בראשית לח, כו) ולא יסף עוד לדעתה אמר שמואל סבא חמוה דרב שמואל בר אמי משמיה דרב שמואל בר אמי כיון שידעה שוב לא פסק ממנה כתיב הכא ולא יסף עוד לדעתה וכתיב התם (דברים ה, יט) קול גדול ולא יסף,אבשלום נתגאה בשערו וכו' ת"ר אבשלום בשערו מרד שנאמר (שמואל ב יד, כה) וכאבשלום לא היה איש יפה וגו' ובגלחו את ראשו (וגו') והיה מקץ ימים לימים אשר יגלח כי כבד עליו וגלחו ושקל את שער ראשו מאתים שקלים באבן המלך תנא אבן שאנשי טבריא ואנשי ציפורי שוקלים בה,לפיכך נתלה בשערו שנאמר (שמואל ב יח, ט) ויקרא אבשלום לפני עבדי דוד ואבשלום רוכב על הפרד ויבא הפרד תחת שובך האלה הגדולה ויאחז ראשו באלה ויותן בין השמים ובין הארץ והפרד אשר תחתיו עבר [שקל ספסירא בעא למיפסקיה] תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל באותה שעה נבקע שאול מתחתיו,(שמואל ב יט, א) וירגז המלך ויעל על עליית השער ויבך וכה אמר בלכתו בני אבשלום בני בני [אבשלום] מי יתן מותי אני תחתיך אבשלום בני בני והמלך לאט את פניו ויזעק המלך קול גדול בני אבשלום אבשלום בני בני הני תמניא בני למה שבעה דאסקיה משבעה מדורי גיהנם ואידך איכא דאמרי דקריב רישיה לגבי גופיה ואיכא דאמרי דאייתיה לעלמא דאתי,(שמואל ב יח, יח) ואבשלום לקח ויצב לו בחייו מאי לקח אמר ריש לקיש שלקח מקח רע לעצמו את מצבת אשר בעמק המלך וגו' א"ר חנינא בר פפא בעצה עמוקה של מלכו של עולם 10b. but bratheras ivayyakri /i, and he causedothers bto call.This bteaches that Abraham our forefather caused the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, to be calledout bin the mouth of all passersby. How so? Afterthe guests of Abraham bate and drank, they arose to bless him. He said to them: But did you eat fromwhat is bmine?Rather, byou ate fromthe food of bthe God of the world.Therefore, byoushould bthank and praise and bless the One Who spoke and the world wascreated. In this way, Abraham caused everyone to call out to God.,The Gemara continues its discussion of the incident of Judah and Tamar. It is written: b“When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a prostitute, for she had covered her face”(Genesis 38:15). The Gemara asks: bBecause she had covered her face he thought her to be a prostitute?Prostitutes usually uncover their faces in order to attract men., bRabbi Elazar says:The verse means bthatTamar bcovered her face in the home of her father-in-law,Judah. Therefore, he did not recognize her when her face was uncovered. bAs Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani saysthat bRabbi Yonatan says: Any daughter-in-law who is modest in the house of her father-in-law merits that kings and prophets emerge from her. From where do wederive this? bFrom Tamar. Prophetsemerged from her, bas it is written: “The vision of Isaiah, the son of Amoz”(Isaiah 1:1). bKingsemerged from her, as seen bfrom David. And Rabbi Levi says: This matter is a traditionthat bwereceived bfrom our ancestors: Amoz,father of Isaiah, band Amaziah,king of Judea, bwere brothers.This indi-cates that Isaiah was also from the house of David and therefore a descendant of Tamar.,The verse describes Tamar’s court hearing: b“When she was brought forth [ imutzet /i],she sent to her father-in-law, saying: By the man whose these are, am I with child” (Genesis 38:25). The Gemara comments: bIt should havestated: bWhen she was imitutzet /i.The word imutzetalso carries the implication of being found. What then, is taught by the use of that term? bRabbi Elazar says: After her signs,which she was using to prove that she was impregnated by Judah, bwere brought out,the evil angel bSamael came and distanced themfrom each other in an attempt to prevent Judah’s admission and Tamar’s survival, which would enable the birth of King David. The angel bGabrielthen bcame and movedthe signs bcloseragain. Therefore, the word imutzetis used, as it alludes to the signs being found again.,The Gemara comments: bThis is as it is written: “For the leader, upon iyonat eilem reḥokim /i, a psalm [ imikhtam /i] of David”(Psalms 56:1). bRabbi Yoḥa saysthe verse means: bFrom the moment that her signs were distanced [ ireḥokim /i], she became like a mute dove [ iyona illemet /i].And the phrase b“a psalm [ imikhtam /i] of David”means: The one bfrom whom David emerged, as he was modest [ imakh /i] and flawless [ itam /i] with everyone. Alternatively, imikhtam /iindicates bthat imakkato /i,the place on his body that would have required wounding [ imakka /i], bwas complete [ itama /i],i.e., bthatDavid bwas born circumcised. Alternatively, imikhtam /iindicates that bjust as in his youthDavid bmade himself small in front of one who was greater than himin order bto learn Torahfrom that person, bso too, when he became greatand was crowned king, he still behaved in this manner, so that his modesty, imakh /i, was complete, itam /i, all of his life.,The verse concerning Tamar then states: b“She sent to her father-in-law, saying: By the man whose these are, am I with child”(Genesis 38:25). The Gemara comments: bAnd let her say to himexplicitly that she was impregnated by him. bRav Zutra bar Tuviyya saysthat bRav says, and some say Rav Ḥana bar Bizna saysthat bRabbi Shimon Ḥasida says, and some saythat bRabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: It is more amenable for a person to throw himself into a fiery furnaceif faced with the choice of publicly embarrassing another or remaining silent even if it leads to being burned, band not humiliate another in public. From where do wederive this? bFrom Tamar,as she was prepared to be burned if Judah did not confess, rather than humiliate him in public.,The verse continues: “And she said: bDiscern, please,whose are these, the signet, and the cords, and the staff” (Genesis 38:25). bRabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Withuse of the word bdiscernJudah binformed his fatherthat Joseph was lost, and also bwithuse of the word bdiscern they informedJudah about the signs. The Gemara explains: bWiththe word bdiscern he informedJacob his father when he brought him the coat of Joseph and said to his father: “And they sent the coat of many colors, and they brought it to their father; and said: This have we found. bDiscern now whether it is your son’s coator not” (Genesis 37:32). bWiththe word bdiscern they informed him:“And she said: bDiscern, please, whose arethese.”,It states: “Discern, bplease [ ina /i].”The word ina /iis bnothing otherthan ba language of request.The Gemara explains: bShe said to him: I request of you: Discern the image of your Creatorin every person, band do not avert your eyes from me. /b,The verse states: b“And Judah acknowledged them, and said: She is more righteous than I;forasmuch as I gave her not to Shelah my son” (Genesis 38:26). bThis isthe same bas Rav Ḥanin bar Bizna saysthat bRabbi Shimon Ḥasida says: Joseph, who sanctified the name of Heaven in privateby not committing adultery with the wife of Potiphar, bmerited that one letter from the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, was added to hisname, bas it is written: “He appointed it in Joseph [ ibihosef] for a testimony in his name,when He went forth against the land of Egypt” (Psalms 81:6). In this verse the name Joseph is written with an additional letter iheh /i, found in the ineffable name of God.,He continues: bJudah, who sanctified the name of Heaven in public, merited that his entirename bis called by the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He,for all the letters of the ineffable name of God are included within the name of Judah, with the addition of the letter idalet /i. bWhen he confessed and said: “She is more righteous than I,” a Divine Voice went forth and said: You saved Tamar and her two childrenin her womb bfrombeing burned by bthe fire.By byour life,i.e., bin your merit, I will save three of your children from the fire.And bwho are they? Haiah, Mishael, and Azariah(see Daniel, chapter 3).,Judah said: b“She is more righteous than I [ imimmenni /i].”The word “ imimmenni /i” can also be understood as “from me,” with Judah thereby admitting that he is the father. The Gemara asks: bFrom where did he knowthat it was in fact from him that Tamar was pregt? The Gemara answers: bA Divine Voice went forth and said: From Me these hiddenmatters bemerged,and this woman will be the mother of royalty, which requires that Judah be the father.,The same verse continues: b“And he knew her [ ileda’atah /i] again no more [ ivelo yasaf],”seemingly indicating that Judah did not engage in sexual intercourse with Tamar again. bShmuel the Elder, father-in-law of Rav Shmuel bar Ami, says in the name of Rav Shmuel bar Ami:The verse actually means that bonce he knewof bherthat her intentions were for the sake of Heaven, bhe did not desist fromengaging in sexual intercourse with bher again,as bit is written here: “ iVelo yasaf od leda’atah /i,” and it is written thereat the giving of the Torah: “These words the Lord spoke unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, bwith a great voice and it went on no more [ ivelo yasaf]”(Deuteronomy 5:18), which is interpreted to mean: A great voice that did not cease.,§ The mishna teaches: bAbsalom wasexcessively bproud of his hair,and therefore he was hung by his hair. bThe Sages taught( iTosefta3:16): bAbsalom rebelledand sinned bdue to his hair, as it is stated:“Now in all Israel bthere was noneto be so much praised bas Absalom for his beauty;from the sole of his foot even to the crown of his head there was no blemish in him. bAnd when he shaved his head, as it was at every year’s end that he shaved it; because the hair was heavy on him, therefore he shaved it, and he weighed the hair of his head at two hundred shekels, by the king’s stone”(II Samuel 14:25–26). What is the king’s stone? The Sages btaught: A stone with which the people of Tiberias and the people of Tzippori weighitems.,The ibaraitacontinues: And since he was proud of his hair, btherefore, he was hung by his hair, as it is statedin the verse describing the battle between the forces of David and Absalom: b“And Absalom chanced to meet the servants of David. And Absalom was riding upon his mule, and the mule went under the thick boughs of a great terebinth, and his head caught hold of the terebinth, and he was taken up between the heaven and the earth; and the mule that was under him went on”(II Samuel 18:9). After he was spotted by the opposing troops, Absalom btook a sword [ isafseira /i] and wanted to cut his hairto save himself. bThe school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: At that moment,the gates of bthe netherworld opened beneath himand he was afraid to fall into it, so he did not cut his hair, and he was killed by the opposing troops.,It is written with regard to David’s reaction after he learns of the death of Absalom: b“And the king was much moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and wept; and as he went about he said: O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom! Would I had died in your place, O Absalom, my son, my son”(II Samuel 19:1), and a few verses later it adds: b“And the king covered his face, and the king cried with a loud voice: O my son Absalom, O Absalom, my son, my son”(II Samuel 19:5). The Gemara asks: bWhyare there bthese eightmentions of b“my son”by David, i.e., to what do they correspond? The Gemara answers: bSeventimes he said “my son,” by bwhich he raised him up from the seven chambers of Gehenna. Andas for bthe other,eighth, time, bsome say thatDavid bbroughtthe bheadof Absalom bclose toAbsalom’s bbody, and some say thatwith this eighth mention David bbroughtAbsalom bto the World-to-Come. /b,It is written there: b“Now Absalom in his lifetime had taken and reared up for himselfthe pillar, which is in the king’s valley; for he said: I have no son to keep my name in remembrance” (II Samuel 18:18). The Gemara asks: bWhat didAbsalom btake? Reish Lakish says: He engaged in a bad transaction for himselfby accepting bad advice for which he was punished. The verse continues: b“The pillar, which is in the king’s valley [ ibe’emek hammelekh /i].” Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa says:This alludes to the pillar that is bin the deep [ iamukka /i] counsel of the King [ imelekh /i] of the universe,as God had already decreed in the aftermath of the incident with Bathsheba that this would occur.


Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
abaye, r. Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 250
aggadah, halakhah compared with Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 251
angel, fallen/evil Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 236
bacher, wilhelm Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 230, 251
canaan/canaanite Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 236
exegesis, pesher Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 185
gabriel Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 236
god Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 185
halakhah, aggadah compared with Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 251
halakhah, authority challenged in Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 250
halakhah, definition of Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 251
halakhah, refutation of opinions in Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 250, 251
halakhah, terminology of Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 250
heavens Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 236
hebrew, biblical Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 185
hebrew, medieval Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 185
hebrew, mishnaic Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 185
hebrew, qumran Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 185
hebrew bible Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 236
heinemann, joseph Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 230
herog, isaac Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 251
israel Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 236
jastrow, marcus Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 250
jerusalem Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 185
joshua b. levi, r., on heavenly sanctions for rabbinic rulings Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 250
judah, r. Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 230
judah Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 236
manual of discipline, literary structure of, history of text Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 185
mashal, defined Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 230
matkif Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 251
messiah Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 236
midrashim, narrative of interpretation Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 230
monarchy Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 236
nahman, r., dismissal of r. zechariahs ruling Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 250
nehemiah, r. Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 230
neusner, jacob, on halakhah Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 251
penal code of the manual of discipline Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 185
perez Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 236
pharaoh Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 236
pray, prayer Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 236
priests, aaronide Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 185
punishment Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 236
rabbis, aggadic traditions of (gemara) Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 230
rabbis, authority of Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 250, 251
rabbis, divergent opinions of Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 250, 251
rabinowitz, a. z. Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 230
righteous/ness Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 236
safek Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 250
sammael Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 236
sect, admittance to Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 185
sect, enemies of Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 185
sexual relations Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 236
sheshet, r. Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 251
shochetman, eliav Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 251
stern, david, on midrash Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 230
talui Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 250
tamar Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 236
tetragrammaton Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 185
tiyuvta Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 251
yohanan b. dahabai, r. Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 250
zadokite fragments Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 185
zechariah, r. Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 250
zerah' Grypeou and Spurling, The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (2009) 236