The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Index Database
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

Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, 29b

ברכת הלחם של מצה וברכת היין של קידוש היום מהו כיון דחובה הוא מפיק או דלמא ברכה לאו חובה היא,ת"ש דאמר רב אשי כי הוינן בי רב פפי הוה מקדש לן וכי הוה אתי אריסיה מדברא הוה מקדש להו,ת"ר לא יפרוס אדם פרוסה לאורחין אלא אם כן אוכל עמהם אבל פורס הוא לבניו ולבני ביתו כדי לחנכן במצות ובהלל ובמגילה אף על פי שיצא מוציא:,With regard to the blessing over bread that is recited before eating matza at the Passover seder and the blessing over wine recited as part of the sanctification of the day of Shabbat or a Festival, what is the halakha? The Gemara analyzes the question: Do we say that since there is an obligation to recite these blessings due to the mitzva involved, therefore one can discharge the obligation for others, even if he himself has already fulfilled his obligation? Or perhaps we say that the blessing itself is not an obligation, but rather the obligation lies in the eating and drinking, and the blessing is recited over one’s physical enjoyment; therefore, if he already fulfilled his own obligation, he cannot recite the blessing for others, as he derives no pleasure at this time.,The Gemara answers: Come and hear an answer to this question from what Rav Ashi said: When we were studying in the school of Rav Pappi, he would recite kiddush for us, and when his tenants would arrive from the field he would recite kiddush once again on their behalf. Therefore, it is clear that one may recite kiddush on behalf of others, including the blessing that is recited over the wine, even if he himself has already fulfilled his own obligation.,The Sages taught in a baraita: One should not break bread and recite a blessing for guests unless he is eating with them, so that he is obligated to recite a blessing for himself. But he may break bread for his children and for the other members of his household and recite the blessing, in order to educate them to perform the mitzvot, so that they know how to recite a blessing. And with regard to hallel and the Scroll of Esther, the halakha is that even if he already fulfilled his obligation, he can still discharge the obligation of others.,nan,Festival day of Rosh HaShana that occurs on Shabbat, in the Temple they would sound the shofar as usual. However, they would not sound it in the rest of the country outside the Temple. After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the people should sound the shofar on Shabbat in every place where there is a court of twenty-three judges. Rabbi Elazar said: Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted this practice only in Yavne, where the Great Sanhedrin of seventy-one judges resided in his time, but nowhere else. They said to him: He instituted the practice both in Yavne and in any place where there is a court.,The mishna adds: And Jerusalem in earlier times had this additional superiority over Yavne after Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted this practice, for in any city whose residents could see Jerusalem and hear the sounding of the shofar from there, and which was near to Jerusalem and people could come to Jerusalem from there, they would sound the shofar there as well, as it was considered part of Jerusalem. But in Yavne they would sound the shofar only in the court itself, not in the surrounding cities.,From where are these matters; from where is it derived that the shofar is not sounded on Shabbat? Rabbi Levi bar Laḥma said that Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: One verse says, with regard to Rosh HaShana: “A solemn rest, a memorial of blasts” (Leviticus 23:24), which indicates that one should merely remember the shofar without actually sounding it. And another verse says: “It is a day of blowing for you” (Numbers 29:1), i.e., a day on which one must actually sound the shofar. This apparent contradiction is not difficult: Here, the verse in which the shofar is only being remembered but not sounded, is referring to a Festival that occurs on Shabbat; there, the verse in which the shofar is actually sounded, is referring to a Festival that occurs on a weekday.,Rava said: This explanation is difficult, for if the distinction between Shabbat and the rest of the week applies by Torah law, how does one sound the shofar on Shabbat in the Temple? If it is prohibited to sound the shofar on Shabbat, it should be prohibited everywhere. And furthermore, there is an additional problem with this explanation: Although the Sages prohibited sounding a shofar and playing other musical instruments on Shabbat, by Torah law sounding a shofar is not a prohibited labor on Shabbat such that a verse is necessary to exclude it when Rosh HaShana occurs on Shabbat.,The Gemara cites a proof for this last claim: As a Sage of the school of Shmuel taught in a baraita, with regard to the verse that prohibits performing prohibited labor on Festivals: “Any prohibited labor of work you shall not perform” (Numbers 29:1). This comes to exclude from the category of prohibited labors the sounding of the shofar and the removal of bread from the oven, each of which is a skill and not a labor, and therefore they are not included in the category of prohibited labor. Apparently, sounding the shofar is not prohibited by Torah law.,Rather, Rava said: By Torah law one is permitted to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana even on Shabbat, and it was the Sages who decreed that it is prohibited. This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabba, as Rabba said: All are obligated to sound the shofar on Rosh HaShana, but not all are experts in sounding the shofar. Therefore, the Sages instituted a decree that the shofar should not be sounded on Shabbat, lest one take the shofar in his hand and go to an expert to learn how to sound it or to have him sound it for him, and due to his preoccupation he might carry it four cubits in the public domain, which is a desecration of Shabbat.,The Gemara comments: And this is also the reason for the rabbinical decree that the palm branch [lulav] may not be taken on Shabbat, and this is likewise the reason for the decree that the Megilla of Esther may not be read on Shabbat. The Sages were concerned that one might carry the lulav or the Megilla four cubits in the public domain to take it to an expert who will teach him the proper manner to perform these mitzvot.,§ The mishna taught: After the Temple was destroyed, Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted that the people should sound the shofar even on Shabbat in every place where there is a court of twenty-three judges. The background to this decree is related in greater detail in a baraita, as the Sages taught: Once Rosh HaShana occurred on Shabbat, and all the cities gathered at the Great Sanhedrin in Yavne for the Festival prayers. Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai said to the sons of Beteira, who were the leading halakhic authorities of the generation: Let us sound the shofar, as in the Temple. They said to him: Let us discuss whether or not this is permitted.,He said to them: First let us sound it, and afterward, when there is time, let us discuss the matter. After they sounded the shofar, the sons of Beteira said to Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai: Let us now discuss the issue. He said to them: The horn has already been heard in Yavne, and one does not refute a ruling after action has already been taken. There is no point in discussing the matter, as it would be inappropriate to say that the community acted erroneously after the fact.,§ The mishna further stated that Rabbi Elazar said: Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai instituted this practice only in Yavne. They said to him: He instituted the practice both in Yavne and in any place where there is a court. The Gemara asks: This last statement of the Rabbis: They said to him, etc.; is the same as the opinion of the first tanna of the mishna. Why did the mishna repeat this opinion?,The Gemara answers: The practical difference between the opinion of the first tanna and the opinion of the Rabbis who issued that last statement is with regard to a temporary court, i.e., one that is not fixed in a certain place. According to the opinion of the first tanna, the shofar is sounded there as well, whereas according to the opinion of the Rabbis who responded to Rabbi Elazar, the shofar is sounded only in a place where there is a permanent court, similar to that in Yavne.,§ The mishna taught that they said to him: He instituted the practice both in Yavne and in any place where there is a court. Rav Huna said:

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

15 results
1. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 18.9 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

18.9. Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, who excited a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted withal 18.9. 3. But Vitellius came into Judea, and went up to Jerusalem; it was at the time of that festival which is called the Passover. Vitellius was there magnificently received, and released the inhabitants of Jerusalem from all the taxes upon the fruits that were bought and sold, and gave them leave to have the care of the high priest’s vestments, with all their ornaments, and to have them under the custody of the priests in the temple, which power they used to have formerly
2. Mishnah, Berachot, 5.3, 9.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

5.3. The one who says, “On a bird’s nest may Your mercy be extended,” [or] “For good may Your name be blessed” or “We give thanks, we give thanks,” they silence him. One who was passing before the ark and made a mistake, another should pass in his place, and he should not be as one who refuses at that moment. Where does he begin? At the beginning of the blessing in which the other made a mistake." 9.5. One must bless [God] for the evil in the same way as one blesses for the good, as it says, “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5). “With all your heart,” with your two impulses, the evil impulse as well as the good impulse. “With all your soul” even though he takes your soul [life] away from you. “With all your might” with all your money. Another explanation, “With all your might” whatever treatment he metes out to you. One should not show disrespect to the Eastern Gate, because it is in a direct line with the Holy of Holies. One should not enter the Temple Mount with a staff, or with shoes on, or with a wallet, or with dusty feet; nor should one make it a short cut, all the more spitting [is forbidden]. All the conclusions of blessings that were in the Temple they would say, “forever [lit. as long as the world is].” When the sectarians perverted their ways and said that there was only one world, they decreed that they should say, “for ever and ever [lit. from the end of the world to the end of the world]. They also decreed that a person should greet his fellow in God’s name, as it says, “And behold Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers, ‘May the Lord be with you.’ And they answered him, “May the Lord bless you’” (Ruth 2:. And it also says, “The Lord is with your, you valiant warrior” (Judges 6:12). And it also says, “And do not despise your mother when she grows old” (Proverbs 23:22). And it also says, “It is time to act on behalf of the Lord, for they have violated Your teaching” (Psalms 119:126). Rabbi Natan says: [this means] “They have violated your teaching It is time to act on behalf of the Lord.”"
3. Mishnah, Hulin, 2.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

2.9. One may not slaughter [so that the blood runs] into the sea or into rivers, or into vessels, But one may slaughter into a pool (or vessel) of water. And when on board a ship on to vessels. One may not slaughter at all into a hole, but one may dig a hole in his own house for the blood to run into. In the street, however, he should not do so as not to follow the ways of the heretics."
4. Mishnah, Megillah, 4.8-4.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

4.8. If one says, “I will not pass before the ark in colored clothes,” even in white clothes he may not pass before it. [If one says], “I will not pass before it in shoes,” even barefoot he may not pass before it. One who makes his tefillin [for the head] round, it is dangerous and has no religious value. If he put them on his forehead or on the palm of his hand, behold this is the way of heresy. If he overlaid them with gold or put [the one for the hand] on his sleeve, behold this is the manner of the outsiders." 4.9. If one says “May the good bless you,” this is the way of heresy. [If one says], “May Your mercy reach the nest of a bird,” “May Your name be mentioned for the good,” “We give thanks, we give thanks,” they silence him. One who uses euphemisms in the portion dealing with forbidden marriages, he is silenced. If he says, [instead of] “And you shall not give any of your seed to be passed to Moloch,” (Leviticus 18:21) “You shall not give [your seed] to pass to a Gentile woman,” he silenced with a rebuke."
5. Mishnah, Parah, 3.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

3.3. They arrived at the Temple Mount and got down. Beneath the Temple Mount and the courts was a hollow which served as a protection against a grave in the depths. And at the entrance of the courtyard there was the jar of the ashes of the sin-offerings. They would bring a male from among the sheep and tie a rope between its horns, and a stick or a bushy twig was tied at the other end of the rope, and this was thrown into the jar. They then struck the male [sheep] was so that it started backwards. And [a child] took the ashes and put it [enough] so that it could be seen upon the water. Rabbi Yose said: do not give the Sadducees an opportunity to rule! Rather, [a child] himself took it and mixed it."
6. Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah, 2.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

2.1. If they don’t know him [the one who came to testify], they send another with him to testify concerning [his reliability]. Originally testimony concerning the new moon was accepted from anyone. When the minim disrupted this, it was decreed that testimony should be received only from persons known [to the court]."
7. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 4.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

4.5. How did they admonish witnesses in capital cases? They brought them in and admonished them, [saying], “Perhaps you will say something that is only a supposition or hearsay or secondhand, or even from a trustworthy man. Or perhaps you do not know that we shall check you with examination and inquiry? Know, moreover, that capital cases are not like non-capital cases: in non-capital cases a man may pay money and so make atonement, but in capital cases the witness is answerable for the blood of him [that is wrongfully condemned] and the blood of his descendants [that should have been born to him] to the end of the world.” For so have we found it with Cain that murdered his brother, for it says, “The bloods of your brother cry out” (Gen. 4:10). It doesn’t say, “The blood of your brother”, but rather “The bloods of your brother” meaning his blood and the blood of his descendants. Another saying is, “The bloods of your brother” that his blood was cast over trees and stones. Therefore but a single person was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single life to perish from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had caused a whole world to perish; and anyone who saves a single soul from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world. Again [but a single person was created] for the sake of peace among humankind, that one should not say to another, “My father was greater than your father”. Again, [but a single person was created] against the heretics so they should not say, “There are many ruling powers in heaven”. Again [but a single person was created] to proclaim the greatness of the Holy Blessed One; for humans stamp many coins with one seal and they are all like one another; but the King of kings, the Holy Blessed One, has stamped every human with the seal of the first man, yet not one of them are like another. Therefore everyone must say, “For my sake was the world created.” And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be involved with this trouble”, was it not said, “He, being a witness, whether he has seen or known, [if he does not speak it, then he shall bear his iniquity] (Lev. 5:1). And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be guilty of the blood of this man?, was it not said, “When the wicked perish there is rejoicing” (Proverbs 11:10).]"
8. Mishnah, Sotah, 9.15 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

9.15. When Rabbi Meir died, the composers of fables ceased. When Ben Azzai died, the diligent students [of Torah] ceased. When Ben Zoma died, the expounders ceased. When Rabbi Joshua died, goodness ceased from the world. When Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel died, locusts come and troubles multiplied. When Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah died, the sages ceased to be wealthy. When Rabbi Akiba died, the glory of the Torah ceased. When Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa died, men of wondrous deeds ceased. When Rabbi Yose Katnuta died, the pious men (hasidim) ceased and why was his name called Katnuta? Because he was the youngest of the pious men. When Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai died, the splendor of wisdom ceased. When Rabban Gamaliel the elder died, the glory of the torah ceased, and purity and separateness perished. When Rabbi Ishmael ben Fabi died, the splendor of the priesthood ceased. When Rabbi died, humility and fear of sin ceased. Rabbi Phineas ben Yair says: when Temple was destroyed, scholars and freemen were ashamed and covered their head, men of wondrous deeds were disregarded, and violent men and big talkers grew powerful. And nobody expounds, nobody seeks, and nobody asks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: from the day the Temple was destroyed, the sages began to be like scribes, scribes like synagogue-attendants, synagogue-attendants like common people, and the common people became more and more debased. And nobody seeks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. In the footsteps of the messiah insolence (hutzpah) will increase and the cost of living will go up greatly; the vine will yield its fruit, but wine will be expensive; the government will turn to heresy, and there will be no one to rebuke; the meeting-place [of scholars] will be used for licentiousness; the Galilee will be destroyed, the Gablan will be desolated, and the dwellers on the frontier will go about [begging] from place to place without anyone to take pity on them; the wisdom of the learned will rot, fearers of sin will be despised, and the truth will be lacking; youths will put old men to shame, the old will stand up in the presence of the young, “For son spurns father, daughter rises up against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law a man’s own household are his enemies” (Micah 7:6). The face of the generation will be like the face of a dog, a son will not feel ashamed before his father. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair says, “Heedfulness leads to cleanliness, cleanliness leads to purity, purity leads to separation, separation leads to holiness, holiness leads to modesty, modesty leads to fear of sin, fear of sin leads to piety, piety leads to the Holy Spirit, The Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead, and the resurrection of the dead comes from Elijah, blessed be his memory, Amen.”"
9. Tosefta, Berachot, 3.25 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

3.25. Eighteen Berachot (blessings) that the Sages have established [for the prayer of Shemoneh Esreh have been established] corresponding to eighteen mentionings [of God’s name] that are in [the chapter of Tehillim that begins with] “Ascribe to God, children of princes…” (Tehillim 29) And [a person] should include [the Beracha against] the heretics into [the Beracha] for the Rabbinical Jews, and [the Beracha] for the converts into [the Beracha] for the elders, and [the Beracha] for [King] David into [the Beracha] for [the rebuilding of] Jerusalem. But if he said each one of them separately he has fulfilled his obligation [of praying Shemoneh Esreh]."
10. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 12.9-13.12 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

11. Tosefta, Shabbat, 13.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

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

28b. רב אויא חלש ולא אתא לפרקא דרב יוסף למחר כי אתא בעא אביי לאנוחי דעתיה דרב יוסף א"ל מ"ט לא אתא מר לפרקא א"ל דהוה חליש לבאי ולא מצינא א"ל אמאי לא טעמת מידי ואתית א"ל לא סבר לה מר להא דרב הונא דאמר רב הונא אסור לו לאדם שיטעום כלום קודם שיתפלל תפלת המוספין א"ל איבעי ליה למר לצלויי צלותא דמוספין ביחיד ולטעום מידי ולמיתי א"ל ולא סבר לה מר להא דא"ר יוחנן אסור לו לאדם שיקדים תפלתו לתפלת הצבור א"ל לאו אתמר עלה א"ר אבא בצבור שנו,ולית הלכתא לא כרב הונא ולא כריב"ל כרב הונא הא דאמרן כריב"ל דאריב"ל כיון שהגיע זמן תפלת המנחה אסור לו לאדם שיטעום כלום קודם שיתפלל תפלת המנחה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ר' נחוניא בן הקנה היה מתפלל בכניסתו לבית המדרש וביציאתו תפלה קצרה אמרו לו מה מקום לתפלה זו אמר להם בכניסתי אני מתפלל שלא יארע דבר תקלה על ידי וביציאתי אני נותן הודאה על חלקי:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר בכניסתו מהו אומר יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהי שלא יארע דבר תקלה על ידי ולא אכשל בדבר הלכה וישמחו בי חברי ולא אומר על טמא טהור ולא על טהור טמא ולא יכשלו חברי בדבר הלכה ואשמח בהם,ביציאתו מהו אומר מודה אני לפניך ה' אלהי ששמת חלקי מיושבי בית המדרש ולא שמת חלקי מיושבי קרנות שאני משכים והם משכימים אני משכים לדברי תורה והם משכימים לדברים בטלים אני עמל והם עמלים אני עמל ומקבל שכר והם עמלים ואינם מקבלים שכר אני רץ והם רצים אני רץ לחיי העולם הבא והם רצים לבאר שחת:,ת"ר כשחלה ר' אליעזר נכנסו תלמידיו לבקרו אמרו לו רבינו למדנו אורחות חיים ונזכה בהן לחיי העולם הבא,אמר להם הזהרו בכבוד חבריכם ומנעו בניכם מן ההגיון והושיבום בין ברכי תלמידי חכמים וכשאתם מתפללים דעו לפני מי אתם עומדים ובשביל כך תזכו לחיי העולם הבא,וכשחלה רבי יוחנן בן זכאי נכנסו תלמידיו לבקרו כיון שראה אותם התחיל לבכות אמרו לו תלמידיו נר ישראל עמוד הימיני פטיש החזק מפני מה אתה בוכה,אמר להם אילו לפני מלך בשר ודם היו מוליכין אותי שהיום כאן ומחר בקבר שאם כועס עלי אין כעסו כעס עולם ואם אוסרני אין איסורו איסור עולם ואם ממיתני אין מיתתו מיתת עולם ואני יכול לפייסו בדברים ולשחדו בממון אעפ"כ הייתי בוכה ועכשיו שמוליכים אותי לפני ממ"ה הקב"ה שהוא חי וקיים לעולם ולעולמי עולמים שאם כועס עלי כעסו כעס עולם ואם אוסרני איסורו איסור עולם ואם ממיתני מיתתו מיתת עולם ואיני יכול לפייסו בדברים ולא לשחדו בממון ולא עוד אלא שיש לפני שני דרכים אחת של גן עדן ואחת של גיהנם ואיני יודע באיזו מוליכים אותי ולא אבכה,אמרו לו רבינו ברכנו אמר להם יהי רצון שתהא מורא שמים עליכם כמורא בשר ודם אמרו לו תלמידיו עד כאן אמר להם ולואי תדעו כשאדם עובר עבירה אומר שלא יראני אדם.,בשעת פטירתו אמר להם פנו כלים מפני הטומאה והכינו כסא לחזקיהו מלך יהודה שבא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big רבן גמליאל אומר בכל יום ויום מתפלל אדם שמנה עשרה רבי יהושע אומר מעין י"ח ר"ע אומר אם שגורה תפלתו בפיו מתפלל י"ח ואם לאו מעין י"ח,ר"א אומר העושה תפלתו קבע אין תפלתו תחנונים,ר' יהושע אומר ההולך במקום סכנה מתפלל תפלה קצרה ואומר הושע ה' את עמך את שארית ישראל בכל פרשת העבור יהיו צרכיהם לפניך ברוך אתה ה' שומע תפלה,היה רוכב על החמור ירד ויתפלל ואם אינו יכול לירד יחזיר את פניו ואם אינו יכול להחזיר את פניו יכוין את לבו כנגד בית קדשי הקדשים היה מהלך בספינה או באסדא יכוין את לבו כנגד בית קדשי הקדשים:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big הני י"ח כנגד מי,א"ר הלל בריה דר' שמואל בר נחמני כנגד י"ח אזכרות שאמר דוד (תהלים כט, א) בהבו לה' בני אלים רב יוסף אמר כנגד י"ח אזכרות שבקריאת שמע א"ר תנחום אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי כנגד שמונה עשרה חוליות שבשדרה.,ואמר ר' תנחום אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי המתפלל צריך שיכרע עד שיתפקקו כל חוליות שבשדרה,עולא אמר עד כדי שיראה איסר כנגד לבו רבי חנינא אמר כיון שנענע ראשו שוב אינו צריך אמר רבא והוא דמצער נפשיה ומחזי כמאן דכרע,הני תמני סרי תשסרי הוויין,אמר רבי לוי ברכת הצדוקים ביבנה תקנוה כנגד מי תקנוה,א"ר לוי לרבי הלל בריה דרבי שמואל בר נחמני כנגד (תהלים כט, ג) אל הכבוד הרעים לרב יוסף כנגד אחד שבקריאת שמע לר' תנחום א"ר יהושע בן לוי כנגד חוליא קטנה שבשדרה:,ת"ר שמעון הפקולי הסדיר י"ח ברכות לפני רבן גמליאל על הסדר ביבנה אמר להם ר"ג לחכמים כלום יש אדם שיודע לתקן ברכת הצדוקים עמד שמואל הקטן ותקנה,לשנה אחרת שכחה 28b. After mentioning until when the additional prayer may be recited, the Gemara relates: bRav Avya was ill and did not come to Rav Yosef’s Shabbat lecture. WhenRav Avya bcame the following day, Abaye sought to placate Rav Yosef,and through a series of questions and answers sought to make clear to him that Rav Avya’s failure to attend the lecture was not a display of contempt for Rav Yosef. brTo this end, he asked him: bWhy did the Master not attend the Shabbat lecture? brRav Avya bsaid to him: Because my heart was faint and I was unableto attend. brAbaye bsaid to him: Why did you not eat something and come? brRav Avya bsaid to him:Does bthe Master not holdin accordance with bthatstatement bof Rav Huna? As Rav Huna said: A person may not taste anything before he recites the additional prayer. brAbaye bsaid to him: My Master should have recited the additional prayer individually, eaten something, andthen bcometo the lecture. brRav Avya bsaid to him:Does bmy Master not holdin accordance with bthatstatement bof Rabbi Yoḥa: A person may not recite hisindividual bprayer prior to the communal prayer? brAbaye bsaid to him:Was bit not stated regarding this ihalakha /i, bRabbi Abba said: They taughtthis bin a communalsetting? brIn other words, only one who is part of a congregation is prohibited from praying alone prior to the prayer of the congregation. Even though Rav Avya was incorrect, the reason for his failure to attend the lecture was clarified through this discussion., bAndthe Gemara summarizes: bThe ihalakhais neither in accordance withthe statement of bRav Huna nor in accordance withthe statement of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.The Gemara explains: It is not bin accordance withthe statement of bRav Huna, as we saidabove with regard to the prohibition to eat prior to the additional prayer. It is not bin accordance withthe statement of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Once the timeto recite bthe afternoon prayer has arrived, a person may not taste anything before he recites the afternoon prayer. /b, strongMISHNA: /strong In addition to the ihalakhotrelating to the fixed prayers, the Gemara relates: bRabbi Neḥunya ben Hakana would recite a brief prayer upon his entrance into the study hall and upon his exit. They said to him:The study hall is not a dangerous place that would warrant a prayer when entering and exiting, so bwhat room is there for this prayer? He said to them: Upon my entrance, I pray that no mishap will transpirecaused bby mein the study hall. bAnd upon my exit, I give thanks for my portion. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraitathe complete formula of Rabbi Neḥunya ben Hakana’s prayer: bUpon his entrance, what does he say? May it be Your will, Lord my God, that no mishapin determining the ihalakha btranspirescaused bby me, and that I not fail in any matter of ihalakha /i, and that my colleagues,who together with me engage in clarifying the ihalakha, bwill rejoice in me.He specified: bAnd that I will neither declare pure that which is impure, nordeclare bimpure that which is pure and that my colleagues will not fail in any matter of ihalakha /i, and that I will rejoice in them. /b, bUpon his exit, what did he say? I give thanks before You, Lord my God, that You have placed my lot among those who sit in the study hall, and that you have not given me my portion among those who sitidly bonstreet bcorners. I rise early, and they rise early. I rise early topursue bmatters of Torah, and they rise early topursue bfrivolous matters. I toil and they toil. I toil and receive a reward, and they toil and do not receive a reward. I run and they run. I run to the life of the World-to-Come and they run to the pit of destruction. /b,On a similar note, the Gemara recounts related stories with different approaches. bThe Sages taught: When Rabbi Eliezer fell ill, his students entered to visit him. They said to him: Teach us paths of life,guidelines by which to live, band we will thereby merit the life of the World-to-Come. /b, bHe said to them: Be vigilant in the honor of your counterparts, and prevent your children from logicwhen studying verses that tend toward heresy ( ige /i’ ionim /i), band placeyour children, while they are still young, bbetween the knees of Torah scholars, and when you pray, know before Whom you stand. Fordoing bthat, you will merit the life of the World-to-Come. /b,A similar story is told about Rabbi Eliezer’s mentor, Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai: When bRabbi Yoḥa ben Zakkai fell ill his students entered to visit him. When he saw them, he began to cry. His students said to him: Lamp of Israel, the right pillar, the mighty hammer,the man whose life’s work is the foundation of the future of the Jewish people, bfor whatreason bare you crying?With a life as complete as yours, what is upsetting you?, bHe said to them:I cry in fear of heavenly judgment, as the judgment of the heavenly court is unlike the judgment of man. bIf they were leading me before a flesh and blood kingwhose life is temporal, bwho is here today anddead bin the grave tomorrow; if he is angry with me, his anger is not eternaland, consequently, his punishment is not eternal; bif he incarcerates me, his incarceration is not an eternal incarceration,as I might maintain my hope that I would ultimately be freed. bIf he kills me, his killing is not for eternity,as there is life after any death that he might decree. Moreover, bI am able to appease him with words andeven bbribe him with money,and beven so I would crywhen standing before royal judgment. bNow that they are leading me before the supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, Who lives and endures forever and all time; if He is angry with me, His anger is eternal; if He incarcerates me, His incarceration is an eternal incarceration; and if He kills me, His killing is for eternity. I am unable to appease Him with words and bribe him with money. Moreover, but I have two paths before me, one of the Garden of Eden and one of Gehenna, and I do not know on which they are leading me; and will I not cry? /b,His students bsaid to him: Our teacher, bless us. He said to them: May it beHis bwill that the fear of Heaven shall be upon you like the fear of flesh and blood. His studentswere puzzled band said: To that pointand not beyond? Shouldn’t one fear God more? bHe said to them: Would thata person achieve that level of fear. bKnow that when one commits a transgression, he saysto himself: I hope bthat no man will see me.If one is as concerned about avoiding shame before God as he is before man, he will never sin.,The Gemara relates that bat the time of his death,immediately beforehand, bhe said to them: Remove the vesselsfrom the house and take them outside bdue to the ritual impuritythat will be imparted by my corpse, which they would otherwise contract. bAnd prepare a chair for Hezekiah, the King of Judea, who is comingfrom the upper world to accompany me., strongMISHNA: /strong The mishna cites a dispute with regard to the obligation to recite the iAmidaprayer, also known as iShemoneh Esreh /i, the prayer of eighteen blessings, or simply as itefilla /i, prayer. bRabban Gamliel says: Each and every day a person recites theprayer of beighteen blessings. Rabbi Yehoshua says:A short prayer is sufficient, and one only recites ban abridgedversion of the prayer of beighteen blessings. Rabbi Akiva saysan intermediate opinion: bIf he is fluent in his prayer, he recites theprayer of beighteen blessings, and if not,he need only recite ban abridgedversion of the prayer of beighteen blessings. /b, bRabbi Eliezer says: One whose prayer is fixed, his prayer is not supplicationand is flawed. The Gemara will clarify the halakhic implications of this flaw., bRabbi Yehoshua says: One whocannot recite a complete prayer because he bis walking in a place of danger, recites a brief prayer and says: Redeem, Lord, Your people, the remt of Israel, at every transition [ iparashat ha’ibur /i],the meaning of which will be discussed in the Gemara. bMay their needs be before You. Blessed are You, Lord, Who listens to prayer. /b,While praying, one must face toward the direction of the Holy Temple. bOne who was riding on a donkey should dismount and praycalmly. bIf he is unable to dismount, he should turn his facetoward the direction of the Temple. bIf he is unable to turn his face,it is sufficient that bhe focus his heart opposite the Holy of Holies.Similarly, bone who was traveling in a ship or on a raft [ iasda /i]and is unable to turn and face in the direction of Jerusalem, bshould focus his heart opposite the Holy of Holies. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong Since the mishna deals with the fundamental obligation to recite the iAmidaprayer, the Gemara seeks to resolve fundamental problems pertaining to this prayer. bCorresponding to what were these eighteenblessings instituted? When the iShemoneh Esrehwas instituted by the Sages, on what did they base the number of blessings?, bRabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, said: Corresponding to the eighteen mentions of God’s namethat King bDavid saidin the psalm: b“Give unto the Lord, O you sons of might”(Psalms 29). bRav Yosef said: Corresponding to the eighteen mentions of God’s name in iShema /i. Rabbi Tanḥum saidthat bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Corresponding to the eighteen vertebrae in the spinebeneath the ribs.,Since Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s opinion based the iAmidaprayer on the spinal vertebrae, the Gemara cites another statement of his that connects the two: bRabbi Tanḥum saidthat bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:In those blessings where one is required to bow, bone who prays must bow until all the vertebrae in the spine protrude. /b,Establishing a different indicator to determine when he has bowed sufficiently, bUlla said:Until bhe can see a small coin [ iissar /i],on the ground before him bopposite his heart(Rav Hai Gaon). bRabbi Ḥanina said:There is room for leniency; bonce he moves his headforward, bhe need notbow any further. bRava said: But thatapplies only if bhe is exerting himselfwhen doing so, band he appears like one who is bowing.However, if he is able, he should bow further.,Until now, the prayer of eighteen blessings has been discussed as if it was axiomatic. The Gemara wonders: Are bthese eighteenblessings? bThey are nineteen. /b, bRabbi Levi said: The blessing of the heretics,which curses informers, bwas instituted in Yavneand is not included in the original tally of blessings. Nevertheless, since the number of blessings corresponds to various allusions, the Gemara attempts to clarify: bCorresponding to what wasthis nineteenth blessing binstituted? /b, bRabbi Levi said: According to Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani,who said that the eighteen blessings correspond to the eighteen mentions of God’s name that King David said in the psalm, the nineteenth blessing bcorresponds toa reference to God in that psalm, where a name other than the tetragrammaton was used: b“The God of glory thunders” ( /bPsalms 29:3). bAccording to Rav Yosef,who said that the eighteen blessings correspond to the eighteen mentions of God’s name in iShema /i, the additional blessing bcorresponds tothe word bone that is in iShema /i.Although it is not the tetragrammaton, it expresses the essence of faith in God. bAccording towhat bRabbi Tanḥumsaid that bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said,that the eighteen blessings correspond to the eighteen vertebrae in the spine, the additional blessing bcorresponds to the small vertebra that isat the bottom bof the spine. /b,In light of the previous mention of the blessing of the heretics, the Gemara explains how this blessing was instituted: bThe Sages taught: Shimon HaPakuli arrangedthe beighteen blessings,already extant during the period of the Great Assembly, bbefore Rabban Gamliel,the iNasiof the Sanhedrin, bin order in Yavne.Due to prevailing circumstances, there was a need to institute a new blessing directed against the heretics. bRabban Gamliel said to the Sages: Is there any person who knows to institute the blessing of the heretics,a blessing directed against the Sadducees? bShmuel HaKatan,who was one of the most pious men of that generation, bstood and instituted it. /b,The Gemara relates: bThe next year,when Shmuel HaKatan served as the prayer leader, bhe forgotthat blessing
13. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

36a. דמדרינן ליה ברבים הניחא למאן דאמר נדר שהודר ברבים אין לו הפרה אלא למאן דאמר יש לו הפרה מאי איכא למימר,דמדרינן ליה על דעת רבים דאמר אמימר הלכתא אפילו למאן דאמר נדר שהודר ברבים יש לו הפרה על דעת רבים אין לו הפרה,והני מילי לדבר הרשות אבל לדבר מצוה יש לו הפרה כי ההוא מקרי דרדקי דאדריה רב אחא על דעת רבים דהוה פשע בינוקי ואהדריה רבינא דלא אישתכח דדייק כוותיה:,והעדים חותמין על הגט מפני תיקון העולם: מפני תיקון העולם דאורייתא הוא דכתיב (ירמיהו לב, מד) וכתוב בספר וחתום,אמר רבה לא צריכא לרבי אלעזר דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי תקינו רבנן עדי חתימה מפני תיקון העולם דזמנין דמייתי סהדי אי נמי זימנין דאזלי למדינת הים,רב יוסף אמר אפי' תימא לר' מאיר התקינו שיהא עדים מפרשין שמותיהן בגיטין מפני תיקון העולם,כדתניא בראשונה היה כותב אני פלוני חתמתי עד אם כתב ידו יוצא ממקום אחר כשר ואם לאו פסול,אמר רבן גמליאל תקנה גדולה התקינו שיהיו מפרשין שמותיהן בגיטין מפני תיקון העולם,ובסימנא לא והא רב צייר כורא ורבי חנינא צייר חרותא רב חסדא סמך ורב הושעיא עין רבה בר רב הונא צייר מכותא שאני רבנן דבקיאין סימנייהו,מעיקרא במאי אפקעינהו בדיסקי:,הלל התקין פרוסבול וכו': תנן התם פרוסבול אינו משמט זה אחד מן הדברים שהתקין הלל הזקן שראה את העם שנמנעו מלהלוות זה את זה ועברו על מה שכתוב בתורה (דברים טו, ט) השמר לך פן יהיה דבר עם לבבך בליעל וגו' עמד והתקין פרוסבול,וזה הוא גופו של פרוסבול מוסרני לכם פלוני דיינין שבמקום פלוני שכל חוב שיש לי אצל פלוני שאגבנו כל זמן שארצה והדיינים חותמים למטה או העדים,ומי איכא מידי דמדאורייתא משמטא שביעית והתקין הלל דלא משמטא אמר אביי בשביעית בזמן הזה ורבי היא,דתניא רבי אומר (דברים טו, ב) וזה דבר השמיטה שמוט בשתי שמיטות הכתוב מדבר אחת שמיטת קרקע ואחת שמיטת כספים בזמן שאתה משמט קרקע אתה משמט כספים בזמן שאי אתה משמט קרקע אי אתה משמט כספים 36a. The Gemara answers bthat we administer the vowto the priest bin public.The Gemara asks: bThis works out well according to the one who saysthat ba vow that was taken in public has nopossibility of bnullificationby a halakhic authority, bbut according to the one who says it hasthe possibility of bnullification, what can be said? /b,The Gemara answers bthat we administer the vow tothe priest based bon the consent of the public,making it a type of vow that cannot be dissolved without their consent. bAs Ameimar said,the ihalakha /iis as follows: bEven according to the one who saysthat ba vow that was taken in public hasthe possibility of bnullification,if it was taken based bon the consent of the public,it bhas nopossibility of bnullification. /b,The Gemara comments: bAnd this matter appliesonly to when the nullification of a vow is in order to enable one btoperform ban optional matter, but toenable one to perform ba matter of a mitzva, it hasthe possibility of bnullification.This is blikethe incident involving ba certain teacher of children,upon bwhom Rav Aḥa administered a vowbased bon the consent of the publicto cease teaching, bas he was negligent with regard to the childrenby hitting them too much. bAnd Ravinahad his vow nullified and breinstated him, as they did not findanother teacher bwho was as meticulous as hewas.,§ The mishna taught: bAnd the witnesses sign the bill of divorce for the betterment of the world.The Gemara asks: Is the reason that the witnesses sign the bill of divorce bfor the betterment of the world? It is by Torah lawthat they must sign, bas it is written: “And subscribe the deeds, and signthem, and call witnesses” (Jeremiah 32:44)., bRabba said: No,it is bnecessary according tothe opinion of bRabbi Elazar, who says: Witnesses of the transmissionof the bill of divorce beffectthe divorce, and not the witnesses who sign the bill of divorce, and by Torah law it does not need to be signed. Nevertheless, bthe Sages instituted signatory witnesses for the betterment of the world, as sometimesit occurs bthat the witnesseswho witnessed the transmission of the bill of divorce bdie, or sometimesit occurs bthat they go overseas,and the validity of the bill of divorce may be contested. Since they are not present, there are no witnesses who can ratify the bill of divorce. Once the Sages instituted that the witnesses’ signatures appear on the bill of divorce, then the bill of divorce can be ratified by authenticating their signatures., bRav Yosef said: Youcan beven saythat it is baccording tothe opinion of bRabbi Meir,that signatory witnesses on the bill of divorce effect the divorce, and the mishna should be understood as follows: bThey instituted that the witnesses must specify theirfull bnames on bills of divorceand not merely sign the document, bfor the betterment of the world. /b, bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita( iTosefta9:13): bAt first,the witness bwould writeonly: bI, so-and-so, signedas ba witness,but they did not state their full names. Therefore, the only way to identify the witness was to see if an identical signature could be found on a different document that had been ratified in court. Therefore, bifanother copy of a witness’s bsignature is produced from elsewhere,i.e., another court document, it is bvalid, but if not,then the bill of divorce is binvalideven though it is possible that he was a valid witness, and as a result of this women were left unable to remarry., bRabban Gamliel said: They instituted a great ordice thatthe witnesses bmust specify theirfull bnames on bills of divorce,stating that they are so-and-so, son of so-and-so, and other identifying features, bfor the betterment of the world.This made it possible to easily clarify who the witnesses were and to ratify the bill of divorce by finding acquaintances of the witnesses who recognized their signatures.,The Gemara asks: bButis it bnotsufficient to sign bwitha pictorial bmark? But Rav drew a fishinstead of a signature, band Rabbi Ḥanina drew a palm branch[iḥaruta/b]; bRav Ḥisdadrew the letter isamekh /i, and Rav Hoshayadrew the letter iayin /i;and bRabba bar Rav Huna drew a sail[imakota/b]. None of these Sages would sign their actual names. The Gemara answers: bThe Sages are different, aseveryone is bwell versed in theirpictorial bmarks. /b,The Gemara asks: bInitially, with what did they publicizethese marks, as they could not use them in place of signatures before people were well versed in them? The Gemara answers: They initially used their marks bin letters,where there is no legal requirement to sign their names. Once it became known that they would use these marks as their signatures, they were able to use them as signatures even on legal documents.,§ The mishna taught that bHillelthe Elder binstituted a document that prevents the SabbaticalYear bfrom abrogating an outstanding debt [ iprosbol /i]. We learnedin a mishna bthere( iShevi’it10:3): If one writes ba iprosbol /i,the Sabbatical Year bdoes not abrogatedebt. bThis is one of the matters that Hillel the Elder instituted because he saw thatthe people of bthe nation were refraining from lending to one anotheraround the time of the Sabbatical Year, as they were concerned that the debtor would not repay the loan, band they violated that which is written in the Torah: “Beware that there be not a base thought in your heart,saying: The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and your eye be evil against your needy brother, and you give him nothing” (Deuteronomy 15:9). bHe arose and institutedthe iprosbol /iso that it would also be possible to collect those debts in order to ensure that people would continue to give loans., bAnd this is the essence of thetext of the iprosbol /i: I transfer to you, so-and-sothe bjudges, who are in such and such a place,so bthat I will collect any debt that I am owed by so-and-so whenever I wish,as the court now has the right to collect the debts. bAnd the judges or the witnesses sign below,and this is sufficient. The creditor will then be able to collect the debt on behalf of the court, and the court can give it to him.,The Gemara asks about the iprosbolitself: bBut is there anythinglike this, bwhere by Torah law the SabbaticalYear bcancelsthe debt bbut Hillel instituted that it does not cancelthe debt? bAbaye said:The ibaraitais referring bto the SabbaticalYear bin the present,and bit isin accordance with the opinion of bRabbiYehuda HaNasi., bAs it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays:The verse states in the context of the cancellation of debts: b“And this is the manner of the abrogation: He shall abrogate”(Deuteronomy 15:2). bThe verse speaks of twotypes of babrogation: Oneis bthe release of land and oneis the babrogation of monetarydebts. Since the two are equated, one can learn the following: bAt a time when you release land,when the Jubilee Year is practiced, byou abrogate monetarydebts; bat a time when you do not release land,such as the present time, when the Jubilee Year is no longer practiced, byoualso bdo not abrogate monetarydebts.
14. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

52b. אין פודין את השבויין יותר על כדי דמיהם מפני תקון העולם הא בכדי דמיהן פודין אע"ג דפרקונה יותר על כתובתה,ורמינהי נשבית והיו מבקשין ממנו עד עשרה בכתובתה פעם ראשונה פודה מכאן ואילך רצה פודה רצה אינו פודה ר"ש בן גמליאל אומר אם היה פרקונה כנגד כתובתה פודה אם לאו אינו פודה,רבן שמעון בן גמליאל תרי קולי אית ליה:,לקתה חייב לרפאותה: תנו רבנן אלמנה ניזונת מנכסי יתומין וצריכה רפואה הרי היא כמזונות רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר רפואה שיש לה קצבה נתרפאת מכתובתה שאין לה קצבה הרי היא כמזונות,אמר רבי יוחנן עשו הקזת דם בארץ ישראל כרפואה שאין לה קצבה קריביה דרבי יוחנן הוה להו איתת אבא דהות צריכה רפואה כל יומא אתו לקמיה דר' יוחנן אמר להו איזילו קוצו ליה מידי לרופא,אמר רבי יוחנן עשינו עצמינו כעורכי הדיינין מעיקרא מאי סבר ולבסוף מאי סבר מעיקרא סבר (ישעיהו נח, ז) ומבשרך לא תתעלם ולבסוף סבר אדם חשוב שאני:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big לא כתב לה בנין דכרין דיהוו ליכי מינאי אינון ירתון כסף כתובתיך יתר על חולקהון דעם אחוהון חייב שהוא תנאי ב"ד בנן נוקבן דיהוין ליכי מינאי יהוין יתבן בביתי ומיתזנן מנכסי עד דתלקחון לגוברין חייב שהוא תנאי בית דין,את תהא יתבא בביתי ומיתזנא מנכסי כל ימי מיגר אלמנותיך בביתי חייב שהוא תנאי בית דין כך היו אנשי ירושלים כותבין אנשי גליל היו כותבין כאנשי ירושלים אנשי יהודה היו כותבין עד שירצו היורשין ליתן לך כתובתיך לפיכך אם רצו יורשין נותנין לה כתובתה ופוטרין אותה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחאי מפני מה התקינו כתובת בנין דכרין כדי שיקפוץ אדם ויכתוב לבתו כבנו,ומי איכא מידי דרחמנא אמר ברא לירות ברתא לא תירות ואתו רבנן ומתקני דתירות ברתא,הא נמי דאורייתא הוא דכתיב (ירמיהו כט, ו) קחו נשים והולידו בנים ובנות וקחו לבניכם נשים ואת בנותיכם תנו לאנשים בשלמא בנים בידיה קיימי אלא בנתיה מי קיימן בידיה,הא קא משמע לן דנלבשה וניכסה וניתיב לה מידי כי היכי דקפצי עלה ואתו נסבי לה ועד כמה אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו עד לעישור נכסי,ואימא דאב לירות דבעל לא לירות אם כן אב נמי מימנע ולא כתב,ואימא היכא דכתב אב לכתוב בעל היכא דלא כתב אב לא לכתוב בעל לא פלוג רבנן,בת בין הבנים נמי תירות כנחלה שויוה רבנן,בת בין הבנות תירות לא פלוג רבנן ותיגבי ממטלטלי ככתובה שויוה רבנן,תטרוף ממשעבדי ירתון תנן ואימא אף על גב דליכא מותר דינר במקום דקא מיעקרא נחלה דאורייתא לא תקינו רבנן,רב פפא איעסק ליה לבריה בי אבא סוראה אזיל למיכתב לה כתובתה שמע יהודה בר מרימר נפק אתא איתחזי ליה כי מטו לפיתחא הוה קא מפטר מיניה אמר ליה ניעול מר בהדאי 52b. bOne does not redeem captives at more than their value.This policy is bfor the betterment of the world,because if captives are ransomed at exorbitant prices, this will encourage their captors to kidnap more people. The Gemara notes: This implies that if the captors seek a ransom binaccordance with btheiractual bvalue one does redeemcaptives, beven thoughthis includes a case where a woman’s bredemptionis bmore than her marriage contract. /b, bAndthe Gemara braises a contradictionfrom a different ibaraita /i, which states: If bshe was taken captive andthe captors bwere seeking fromher husband a ransom of bup to ten times the value of her marriage contract,on the bfirst occasionhe must bredeemher. bFrom thispoint bforward,if he bwantsto bhe redeemsher, but if he does not bwantto redeem her, bhe does nothave to bredeemher. bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Ifthe price of bher ransom was equal to her marriage contract he redeemsher. bIf not,i.e., the price of her ransom was greater than the sum of money guaranteed to her in her marriage contract upon divorce or the death of her husband, bhe does nothave to bredeemher. He can suffice with paying her marriage contract.,The Gemara answers: bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel is ofthe opinion that there are btwo leniencieswith regard to the ihalakhotof redemption. First, he maintains that one does not pay more than the general ransom given for such a captive, and second, a husband does not have to pay more than the sum of his wife’s marriage contract.,§ The mishna taught (51a) that if a woman bwas struckwith illness, her husband is bobligated to heal her,i.e., to pay for her medical expenses. bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: In the case of ba widowwho bis sustained from the property ofthe borphans and who requires medical treatment,her medical needs bare likeher bsustece,and the orphans must bear the costs. bRabban Shimon ben Gamlieldisagrees and bsays:With regard to btreatment that has a fixedcost, she bis healed from her marriage contract,i.e., the amount is subtracted from her marriage contract. If it is a treatment bthat does not have a fixedcost, bit isconsidered blike sustece. /b, bRabbi Yoḥa said:The Sages bestablishedthat bin Eretz Yisrael, bloodlettingis considered blike a treatment that does not have a fixedcost, and therefore the heirs must pay for that treatment. The Gemara relates: bThe relatives of Rabbi Yoḥa hadto take care of the bwife of their father, who required treatment every day,and therefore her medical expenses were high. bThey came before Rabbi Yoḥato ask him what to do. bHe said to them: Goand bfixa lump bsum with the doctorfor his services. The treatment would then be considered as having a fixed cost, which is deducted from the marriage contract.,Later bRabbi Yoḥa saidin regret: bWe have made ourselves like legal advisors,who help people with their legal claims. The Gemara asks: bAt the outset, what did he hold and ultimately, what did he hold?The Gemara explains: bAt the outset he heldthat one should act in accordance with the verse b“and that you do not hide yourself from your own flesh”(Isaiah 58:7), which indicates that one must help his relatives. bAnd ultimately he heldthat ban important person is different.If a man of stature offers assistance to his family in a manner that causes a loss to another individual, it appears as though he were unfairly favoring his relatives., strongMISHNA: /strong If the husband bdid not write for herin her marriage contract: Any bmale children you will have from me will inherit the money of your marriage contract in addition to their portionof the inheritance bthatthey receive together bwith their brothers,he bisnevertheless bobligatedas though he had written it, bas it is a stipulation of the courtand therefore takes effect even if it is not explicitly stated. Likewise, if he omitted from the marriage contract the sentence: Any bfemale children you will have from me will sit in my house and be sustained from my property until they are taken by men,i.e., until they are married, he bisnevertheless bobligatedas though he had written it, bas ittoo bis a stipulation of the court. /b,Similarly, if he omitted from the marriage contract the clause: bYou will sit in my house and be sustained from my property all the days you liveas ba widow in my house,he bisnevertheless bobligatedas though he had written it, bas it is a stipulation of the court.The mishna comments: bThe residents of Jerusalem would write in this manner,that a widow may remain in her husband’s house throughout her widowhood, and bthe residents of the Galilee would writein this manner as well, blike the inhabitants of Jerusalem.In contrast, bthe residents of Judea would write: Until the heirs want to give you your marriage contract. Consequently, if the heirs wish, they may give her marriage contract to her and release her,and she must find her own living arrangements and provide for herself., strongGEMARA: /strong bRabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: For what reason didthe Sages benact the marriage document concerning male children?It was enacted bso that a man willbe willing to btake the initiative and writean agreement to give bhis daughtera dowry baslarge as the portion of his possessions that bhis sonwill receive as an inheritance. The marriage document concerning male children ensures that even if one’s daughter dies and her husband inherits her possessions, the dowry will eventually be inherited by her sons when her husband dies. Since the father of the bride knows that his grandchildren will inherit the dowry, he will give a larger dowry.,The Gemara asks: bAnd is there anythingthat justifies a situation bwhere the Merciful One saysthat bthe son inheritsand bthe daughter does not inherit, andyet bthe Sages came and enacted that the daughter should inherit?The practical effect of their decree is that daughters receive a significant portion of their father’s estate, just like sons.,The Gemara answers: bThis alsoapplies bby Torahlaw, bas it is written: “Take wives for yourselves and bear sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands”(Jeremiah 29:6). This verse requires clarification. bGranted, sons are in his hands,i.e., a father can select wives for them, bbut daughters, are they in his powerthat he can select husbands for them? It is not the manner of a woman or her family to court a man.,Rather, the verse bteaches us this, thatthe father bshould dress her and cover her and give her something,i.e., property, bso thatmen bwill take the initiative with her and cometo bmarry her.When the verse instructs fathers to marry off their daughters, it means that they must make efforts to ensure this outcome, including bestowing a dowry. The Gemara asks: bAnd up to how muchmust a father give his daughters? bAbaye and Rava both say: Up to one-tenthof one’s bpropertyshould be handed over to his daughter for her dowry.,The Gemara asks: bButif this is the reason for the institution of the marriage document concerning male children, bsay thatit is only the portion bthebride’s bfathergave as a dowry that her sons bshould inherit,but the money bthe husbandguarantees to pay his wife, they bshould not inherit.The Gemara answers: bIf so,the bride’s bfather will also refrainfrom bwritinga large dowry. If his daughter’s sons will not inherit the husband’s portion of the marriage contract, her father will be reluctant to give generously himself.,The Gemara continues to ask: bButif the concern is that the father will not give, bsaythat in a case bwherethe bfather wrotea large dowry for his daughter, bletthe bhusbandalso bwritethe stipulation in the marriage document concerning male children, and bwhenthe bfather did not writea large dowry, bletthe bhusband not writethis stipulation. The Gemara replies: bThe Sages did not distinguishbetween these cases. Although the main purpose of their enactment was to encourage fathers to provide their daughters with generous dowries, the Sages applied their decree equally to all women, even when the father failed to do so.,The Gemara poses another question: If the aim is to ensure that the money of the marriage contract will remain with the woman’s descendants, in a case when one has ba daughterfrom one woman bamonghis bsonsfrom another woman, the daughter should blikewise inherither mother’s dowry. Why do only male children inherit their mother’s dowry? The Gemara responds: bThe Sages establishedthis enactment as bsimilar tothe ihalakhaof binheritance:Just as a regular inheritance belongs to sons and not daughters, the same applies to the marriage document concerning male children.,The Gemara continues to inquire: Why shouldn’t one at least say that ba daughter among daughters should inherit?If he had a daughter from this wife, and his other children are also daughters, in which case all the daughters divide the inheritance, the daughters of each wife should receive the portion her maternal grandfather gave to her mother. The Gemara again answers: bThe Sages did not distinguishbetween these cases when establishing their decree. The Gemara further asks: bAnd letthe marriage document concerning male children bbe collectedeven bfrom movable property,if that is all the father possesses. The Gemara replies: bThe Sages establishedthis enactment as bsimilar toa regular bmarriage contract,which can be collected only from land.,The Gemara poses yet another question: bLet it be collectedeven bfrom lienedproperty, i.e., property the father sold after he wrote the marriage contract. The Gemara answers that bwe learnedin the mishna: bWill inherit,and one’s heirs do not inherit property that he has sold. The Gemara asks: bButif this is the reason for this enactment, bsaythat it should apply beven though there is no morethan ba dinarbeyond the value of the marriage contract that the father bleft overin his estate. The Sages stated that if no property is left for the inheritance, all the sons share the inheritance equally, in accordance with Torah law. The Gemara answers: bIn a case wheretheir decree bwouldentirely buprootthe ihalakhaof binheritance by Torahlaw, bthe Sages did not enactthe marriage document concerning male children.,The Gemara relates: bRav Pappa,having barranged for his sonto marry into bthe familyof bAbba of Sura, wentto supervise bthe writing ofthe bride’s bmarriage contract. Yehuda bar Mareimar heardthat Rav Pappa was coming, and bcame outto bpresent himself before him,in honor of his arrival. bWhen they came to the entranceof Abba of Sura’s house, Yehuda bar Mareimar btook his leave of him,as he did not wish to enter. Rav Pappa bsaid to him: Let the Master enterinside bwith me. /b
15. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

90b. אמר ליה בעאי לאותובך ערל הזאה,ואזמל סדין בציצית,וכבשי עצרת ושופר,ולולב השתא דשנית לן שב ואל תעשה לא מיעקר הוא כולהו נמי שב ואל תעשה נינהו,ת"ש (דברים יח, טו) אליו תשמעון אפילו אומר לך עבור על אחת מכל מצות שבתורה כגון אליהו בהר הכרמל הכל לפי שעה שמע לו,שאני התם דכתיב אליו תשמעון וליגמר מיניה מיגדר מילתא שאני:,ת"ש בטלו מבוטל דברי רבי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אינו יכול לא לבטלו ולא להוסיף על תנאו א"כ מה כח ב"ד יפה,והא הכא דמדאורייתא בטל גט ומשום מה כח בית דין קא שרינן אשת איש לעלמא מאן דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש ואפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין,א"ל רבינא לרב אשי התינח דקדיש בכספא קדיש בביאה מאי איכא למימר שויוה רבנן לבעילתו בעילת זנות,ת"ש א"ר אלעזר בן יעקב שמעתי שב"ד מכין ועונשין שלא מן התורה ולא לעבור על דברי תורה אלא לעשות סייג לתורה ומעשה באדם אחד שרכב על סוס בשבת בימי יונים והביאוהו לב"ד וסקלוהו לא מפני שראוי לכך אלא שהשעה צריכה לכך,ושוב מעשה באדם אחד שהטיח באשתו תחת התאנה והביאוהו לבית דין והלקוהו לא מפני שראוי לכך אלא שהשעה צריכה לכך מיגדר מילתא שאני:,ולא זה וזה מטמאין לה: מנלן דכתיב (ויקרא כא, ב) כי אם לשארו הקרוב אליו ואמר מר שארו זו אשתו,וכתיב (ויקרא כא, ד) לא יטמא בעל בעמיו להחלו יש בעל שמיטמא ויש בעל שאין מיטמא הא כיצד מיטמא הוא לאשתו כשרה ואינו מיטמא לאשתו פסולה:,ולא זה וזה זכאין במציאתה וכו': טעמא מאי אמור רבנן מציאת אשה לבעלה כי היכי דלא תיהוי ליה איבה הכא תיהוי ליה איבה ואיבה:,ובמעשה ידיה: טעמא מאי אמרי רבנן מעשה ידיה לבעלה משום דקאכלה מזוני הכא כיון דמזוני לית לה מעשה ידיה לאו דידיה:,ולא מיפר נדריה: טעמא מאי אמר רחמנא בעל מיפר כדי שלא תתגנה הכא תתגנה ותתגנה:,היתה בת ישראל נפסלה מן הכהונה וכו': 90b. Rav Ḥisda bsaid toRabba: bI wanted to raise a difficulty against youfrom the ihalakhaof ban uncircumcised man.The Sages decreed that one who converts on the eve of Passover may not partake of the Paschal lamb, due to his ritual impurity. According to Beit Hillel, one who separates from the foreskin by being circumcised is ritually impure like one who separates from the grave ( iPesaḥim92a). This is the ihalakhadespite the fact that by Torah law he is obligated to bring the offering. Rav Ḥisda continued: And I also thought of asking from the case of bsprinklingthe waters of a purification offering for one who became ritually impure through contact with a corpse, as the Sages rendered it prohibited for one who is impure to receive the sprinkling on the eve of Passover that occurred on Shabbat, although this prevents him from partaking of the Paschal lamb., bAndI was likewise going to raise a question from the case of a circumcision bknife,which the Sages decreed may not be carried on Shabbat, despite the fact that this entails the neglect of a Torah mitzva. bAndI also wanted to raise a question from the case of a linen bcloak, onwhich the Sages did not allow one to place britual fringesmade of wool. This is a decree that was issued lest he do the same with a garment worn only at night, which is exempt from fringes, and therefore this would be a mixture of wool and linen that is forbidden, although this means that he is unable to fulfill the mitzva of ritual fringes., bAndlikewise I wanted to mention a difficulty from the case of bthe lambs sacrificed on iShavuot /i.When the festival of iShavuotoccurs on Shabbat, the Sages rendered it prohibited to sprinkle the blood of its sacrificial lambs if the offerings had not been slaughtered with the proper intention, despite the fact that the sprinkling itself is not prohibited by Torah law. bAndsimilarly, there is a difficulty with regard to the ihalakhaof the ishofar /i,which is sounded on Rosh HaShana, and yet the Sages rendered it prohibited for it to be blown on Shabbat, lest one carry it four cubits in the public domain., bAndfinally I wished to raise a difficulty from the case of ba ilulav /i,which may not be carried on the first day of iSukkotthat occurred on Shabbat, for the same reason the Sages rendered it prohibited to sound the ishofaron Rosh HaShana that occurs on Shabbat. However, bnow that you have resolved for usthat an action defined as a case of: bSit and refrain from action, is notconsidered buprooting, all these are alsocases of bsit and refrain from action. /b,The Gemara suggests: bComeand bhearanother proof. The verse states with regard to a true prophet: b“To him you shall listen”(Deuteronomy 18:15). From here it is derived that bevenif the prophet bsays to you: Transgress one of the mitzvot of the Torah, for example,as in the case of bElijah at Mount Carmel,who brought an offering to God on that mountain during a period when it was forbidden on pain of ikaretto sacrifice offerings outside the Temple, with regard to beverythingthat he permits bforthe requirement of the bhour,you must blisten to him.This indicates that a Torah mitzva can indeed be uprooted in an active manner.,The Gemara answers: bThere it is different, as it is written: “To him you shall listen,”which means that it is a positive mitzva to obey a prophet, and a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition. The Gemara asks: bAnd let him derive fromthis case a principle that the Sages have the same power as a prophet. The Gemara answers: bSafeguarding a matter is different.Since Elijah acted with the aim of preventing the Jewish people from worshipping idols, it was temporarily permitted for him to override a mitzva, in order to strengthen Torah observance with regard to a particular matter in which the people are lax.,The Gemara suggests another proof. bComeand bhear:The Sages rendered it prohibited for a man who has sent a bill of divorce to his wife to cancel it in the presence of a court without her knowledge after he has given the bill of divorce to his messenger but before she gets the document. The prohibition was instituted to prevent a situation where the messenger, who is unaware of the cancellation, gives her the bill of divorce and she marries another man under the mistaken impression that she is divorced. If he proceeded to bnullify itregardless, it is bnullified;this is bthe statement of RabbiYehuda HaNasi. bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He cannot nullify or add to its conditionin a case where the bill of divorce included a stipulation. For bif so,i.e., if he has the ability to cancel the bill of divorce, bwhat good is the power of the courtin their decree that one may not do so?,The Gemara explains the proof from this source: bAnd hereit is a case bwhere by Torahlaw, the bbill of divorce is nullified, andyet bdue tothe reason of: bWhatgood bis the power of the court,his nullification is ineffective, which means that bwe permit a married woman to allmen. The Gemara answers: The ihalakhotof marriage afford no proof, as with regard to bone who betrothsa woman, he bbetroths on the authorization of the Sages, andin this case bthe Sages nullified the betrothal,which they can do because their consent was required for the betrothal to be effective in the first place., bRavina said to Rav Ashi:This bworks out wellin a case bwhen he betrothed with money,as it can be explained that the Sages declared the money ownerless, thereby negating the betrothal. However, if bhe betrothed bymeans of bsexual relations, what can be said?The Gemara answers: bThe Sages equated his relationswith this woman with blicentious sexual intercourse.Since in this situation as well the acquisition of betrothal is effective only by authorization of the Sages, they have the power to declare it invalid.,The Gemara cites yet another relevant source. bComeand bhear,as bRabbi Elazar ben Ya’akov said: I have heard thatthe reason why bthe court may administer lashes and punish not by Torahlaw, i.e., in response to actions for which one is not liable to receive punishment by Torah law, is bnotso as bto transgress matters of Torah, but to establish a safeguard for the Torah. Andan example of this is ban incident involving a certain person who rode on a horse on Shabbat in the days of the Greeks,an act that is prohibited by rabbinic law, band they brought him to the court and they stoned himas a desecrator of Shabbat. They did so bnot because he was deserving of this,as riding a horse is not punishable by stoning by Torah law, bbut because the hour required it,as at that time Jews were negligent with regard to Shabbat observance., bAnd again, an incidentoccurred binvolving a certain person who cohabited with hisown bwife under a fig treein plain view, band they brought him to the court and flogged him, not because thispunishment was bfitting for him,as it is not prohibited by the Torah for one to engage in relations with his wife wherever he chooses, bbut because the hour required it,to discourage others from engaging in licentious behavior. This shows that the court can uproot a Torah mitzva even by means of a positive action such as stoning. The Gemara answers: bSafeguarding a matter is different.As stated above, the court may uproot a Torah mitzva so as to strengthen Torah observance in general, as was the case with the prophet Elijah.,§ The mishna taught: bNeither this one,her first husband, bnor that one,her second, bmay become impure for her,if they were priests. The Gemara asks: bFrom where do wederive this ihalakha /i? The Gemara explains bthat it is written: “But to his relative, who is close to him,for her he may defile himself” (Leviticus 21:2), band the Master said: “His relative” is his wife. /b, bAnd it isfurther bwritten: “He shall not defile himself, a husband among his people, to profane himself”(Leviticus 21:4). It may be inferred from this apparent contradiction between the verses that bthere is a husband who becomes impurefor his wife, band there is a husband who does not become impure. How so? He becomes impure for his fit wife, but he does not become impure for his disqualified wife.Since in the case of the mishna, the woman in question is disqualified with regard to both men, neither of them may become impure for her.,§ The mishna further taught: bNeither this one nor that one is entitled to her foundarticles. The Gemara explains: bWhat is the reasonthat bthe Sages saidthat the bfoundobject bof a wifebelongs bto her husband? So that he should not harbor enmitytoward her, due to her refusal to give him the item she found. bHere,however, blet him harbor much enmitytoward her, as the Sages want him to divorce her.,§ bAndthe mishna also taught that neither man is entitled bto her earnings.The Gemara explains: bWhat is the reasonthat bthe Sages saidthat a wife’s bearningsbelong to her husband? bBecause she eatshis bfood.In this case bhere, since she does not haverights to his bfood, her earnings are not hiseither.,§ bAndthe mishna further taught that they bmay not nullify her vows.The Gemara similarly explains: bWhat is the reasonthat bthe Merciful One statesthat ba husband may nullifyhis wife’s vows? bSo thatshe should bnothave to fulfill a vow that will cause her bto become repulsiveto him, such as refraining from washing or from applying cosmetics. bHere,let bher be highly repulsive,as the Sages want their relationship to end.,§ The mishna taught that if she bwas an Israelite woman, she is disqualified frommarrying into bthe priesthood. /b

Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
arbel,synagogue orientation Levine (2005) 199
birkat haminim Cohen (2010) 59
bloch,moshe Hayes (2015) 293
discourses of divine law,in biblical literature Hayes (2015) 15
divine law,in biblical israel Hayes (2015) 15
ethrog Levine (2005) 199
expulsion of books from canon Cohen (2010) 59
fast days,public,priestly blessing,priests Levine (2005) 519
fast days,public,rabbis Levine (2005) 519
gilat,yitzhak Hayes (2015) 293
greenberg,moshe Hayes (2015) 15
horvat anim Levine (2005) 199
horvat rimmon Levine (2005) 199
horvat sumaqa Levine (2005) 199
immutability,of divine law,and rabbinic rejection of Hayes (2015) 293
innovation through exegesis in rabbinic sources,through legislation in rabbinic sources Hayes (2015) 293
kronman,anthony Hayes (2015) 15
maon (judaea) Levine (2005) 199
maoz hayyim Levine (2005) 199
panken,aaron Hayes (2015) 293
pharisaic-rabbinic connection Cohen (2010) 59
positive divine law (biblical) Hayes (2015) 15
priest,priests,synagogue ritual Levine (2005) 199
r. yohanan b. zakkai Levine (2005) 199
rosh hashanah Levine (2005) 199
sanctity of,doors,doorways Levine (2005) 199
sanctuary Levine (2005) 199
sepphoris synagogue,orientation Levine (2005) 199
shofar Levine (2005) 199
sons of bathyra Levine (2005) 199
sukkot,shofar,lulav,ethrog Levine (2005) 199
tannaim,treatment of heretics Cohen (2010) 59
uprooting torah law Hayes (2015) 293
weber,max Hayes (2015) 15
will,as grounding biblical divine law' Hayes (2015) 15