1. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 11.306-11.312, 14.172-14.176, 15.3-15.4, 15.37, 17.149-17.163, 17.165-17.166, 19.332-19.334, 20.34-20.35, 20.38-20.45, 20.179-20.181, 20.205-20.207, 20.213-20.221 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 11.306. 2. But the elders of Jerusalem being very uneasy that the brother of Jaddua the high priest, though married to a foreigner, should be a partner with him in the high priesthood, quarreled with him; 11.307. for they esteemed this man’s marriage a step to such as should be desirous of transgressing about the marriage of [strange] wives, and that this would be the beginning of a mutual society with foreigners 11.308. although the offense of some about marriages, and their having married wives that were not of their own country, had been an occasion of their former captivity, and of the miseries they then underwent; so they commanded Manasseh to divorce his wife, or not to approach the altar 11.309. the high priest himself joining with the people in their indignation against his brother, and driving him away from the altar. Whereupon Manasseh came to his father-in-law, Sanballat, and told him, that although he loved his daughter Nicaso, yet was he not willing to be deprived of his sacerdotal dignity on her account, which was the principal dignity in their nation, and always continued in the same family. 11.311. and he promised that he would do this with the approbation of Darius the king. Manasseh was elevated with these promises, and staid with Sanballat, upon a supposal that he should gain a high priesthood, as bestowed on him by Darius, for it happened that Sanballat was then in years. 11.312. But there was now a great disturbance among the people of Jerusalem, because many of those priests and Levites were entangled in such matches; for they all revolted to Manasseh, and Sanballat afforded them money, and divided among them land for tillage, and habitations also, and all this in order every way to gratify his son-in-law. 14.172. When affairs stood thus, one whose name was Sameas, a righteous man he was, and for that reason above all fear, rose up, and said, “O you that are assessors with me, and O thou that art our king, I neither have ever myself known such a case, nor do I suppose that any one of you can name its parallel, that one who is called to take his trial by us ever stood in such a manner before us; but every one, whosoever he be, that comes to be tried by this Sanhedrim, presents himself in a submissive manner, and like one that is in fear of himself, and that endeavors to move us to compassion, with his hair dishevelled, and in a black and mourning garment: 14.173. but this admirable man Herod, who is accused of murder, and called to answer so heavy an accusation, stands here clothed in purple, and with the hair of his head finely trimmed, and with his armed men about him, that if we shall condemn him by our law, he may slay us, and by overbearing justice may himself escape death. 14.174. Yet do not I make this complaint against Herod himself; he is to be sure more concerned for himself than for the laws; but my complaint is against yourselves, and your king, who gave him a license so to do. However, take you notice, that God is great, and that this very man, whom you are going to absolve and dismiss, for the sake of Hyrcanus, will one day punish both you and your king himself also.” 14.175. Nor did Sameas mistake in any part of this prediction; for when Herod had received the kingdom, he slew all the members of this Sanhedrim, and Hyrcanus himself also, excepting Sameas 14.176. for he had a great honor for him on account of his righteousness, and because, when the city was afterward besieged by Herod and Sosius, he persuaded the people to admit Herod into it; and told them that for their sins they would not be able to escape his hands:—which things will be related by us in their proper places. 15.3. But Pollio the Pharisee, and Sameas, a disciple of his, were honored by him above all the rest; for when Jerusalem was besieged, they advised the citizens to receive Herod, for which advice they were well requited. 15.3. He therefore wrote back to him, that if this boy should only go out of the country, all would be in a state of war and uproar, because the Jews were in hopes of a change in the government, and to have another king over them. 15.3. for, in the first place, there were perpetual droughts, and for that reason the ground was barren, and did not bring forth the same quantity of fruits that it used to produce; and after this barrenness of the soil, that change of food which the want of corn occasioned produced distempers in the bodies of men, and a pestilential disease prevailed, one misery following upon the back of another; 15.4. But this Pollio, at the time when Herod was once upon his trial of life and death, foretold, in way of reproach, to Hyrcanus and the other judges, how this Herod, whom they suffered now to escape, would afterward inflict punishment on them all; which had its completion in time, while God fulfilled the words he had spoken. 15.4. When this work [for the foundation] was done in this manner, and joined together as part of the hill itself to the very top of it, he wrought it all into one outward surface, and filled up the hollow places which were about the wall, and made it a level on the external upper surface, and a smooth level also. This hill was walled all round, and in compass four furlongs, [the distance of] each angle containing in length a furlong: 15.4. whence Aelus came. He was one of the stock of the high priests and had been of old a particular friend of Herod; and when he was first made king, he conferred that dignity upon him, and now put him out of it again, in order to quiet the troubles in his family, though what he did was plainly unlawful, for at no other time [of old] was any one that had once been in that dignity deprived of it. 15.37. that she was now overcome by his benefits, and thankfully accepted of this honor showed by him to her son, and that she would hereafter be entirely obedient. And she desired him to excuse her, if the nobility of her family, and that freedom of acting which she thought that allowed her, had made her act too precipitately and imprudently in this matter. 15.37. He endeavored also to persuade Pollio the Pharisee, and Sameas, and the greatest part of their scholars, to take the oath; but these would neither submit so to do, nor were they punished together with the rest, out of the reverence he bore to Pollio. 17.149. 2. There was one Judas, the son of Saripheus, and Matthias, the son of Margalothus, two of the most eloquent men among the Jews, and the most celebrated interpreters of the Jewish laws, and men wellbeloved by the people, because of their education of their youth; for all those that were studious of virtue frequented their lectures every day. 17.151. for Herod had caused such things to be made which were contrary to the law, of which he was accused by Judas and Matthias; for the king had erected over the great gate of the temple a large golden eagle, of great value, and had dedicated it to the temple. Now the law forbids those that propose to live according to it, to erect images or representations of any living creature. 17.152. So these wise men persuaded [their scholars] to pull down the golden eagle; alleging, that although they should incur any danger, which might bring them to their deaths, the virtue of the action now proposed to them would appear much more advantageous to them than the pleasures of life; since they would die for the preservation and observation of the law of their fathers; since they would also acquire an everlasting fame and commendation; since they would be both commended by the present generation, and leave an example of life that would never be forgotten to posterity; 17.153. ince that common calamity of dying cannot be avoided by our living so as to escape any such dangers; that therefore it is a right thing for those who are in love with a virtuous conduct, to wait for that fatal hour by such behavior as may carry them out of the world with praise and honor; 17.154. and that this will alleviate death to a great degree, thus to come at it by the performance of brave actions, which bring us into danger of it; and at the same time to leave that reputation behind them to their children, and to all their relations, whether they be men or women, which will be of great advantage to them afterward. 17.155. 3. And with such discourses as this did these men excite the young men to this action; and a report being come to them that the king was dead, this was an addition to the wise men’s persuasions; so, in the very middle of the day, they got upon the place, they pulled down the eagle, and cut it into pieces with axes, while a great number of the people were in the temple. 17.156. And now the king’s captain, upon hearing what the undertaking was, and supposing it was a thing of a higher nature than it proved to be, came up thither, having a great band of soldiers with him, such as was sufficient to put a stop to the multitude of those who pulled down what was dedicated to God; so he fell upon them unexpectedly, and as they were upon this bold attempt, in a foolish presumption rather than a cautious circumspection, as is usual with the multitude, and while they were in disorder, and incautious of what was for their advantage; 17.157. o he caught no fewer than forty of the young men, who had the courage to stay behind when the rest ran away, together with the authors of this bold attempt, Judas and Matthias, who thought it an ignominious thing to retire upon his approach, and led them to the king. 17.158. And when they were come to the king, and he asked them if they had been so bold as to pull down what he had dedicated to God, “Yes, (said they,) what was contrived we contrived, and what hath been performed we performed it, and that with such a virtuous courage as becomes men; for we have given our assistance to those things which were dedicated to the majesty of God 17.159. and we have provided for what we have learned by hearing the law; and it ought not to be wondered at, if we esteem those laws which Moses had suggested to him, and were taught him by God, and which he wrote and left behind him, more worthy of observation than thy commands. Accordingly we will undergo death, and all sorts of punishments which thou canst inflict upon us, with pleasure, since we are conscious to ourselves that we shall die, not for any unrighteous actions, but for our love to religion.” 17.161. and when they were come, he made them assemble in the theater, and because he could not himself stand, he lay upon a couch, and enumerated the many labors that he had long endured on their account 17.162. and his building of the temple, and what a vast charge that was to him; while the Asamoneans, during the hundred and twenty-five years of their government, had not been able to perform any so great a work for the honor of God as that was; 17.163. that he had also adorned it with very valuable donations, on which account he hoped that he had left himself a memorial, and procured himself a reputation after his death. He then cried out, that these men had not abstained from affronting him, even in his lifetime, but that in the very day time, and in the sight of the multitude, they had abused him to that degree, as to fall upon what he had dedicated, and in that way of abuse had pulled it down to the ground. They pretended, indeed, that they did it to affront him; but if any one consider the thing truly, they will find that they were guilty of sacrilege against God therein. 17.165. Now it happened, that during the time of the high priesthood of this Matthias, there was another person made high priest for a single day, that very day which the Jews observed as a fast. 17.166. The occasion was this: This Matthias the high priest, on the night before that day when the fast was to be celebrated, seemed, in a dream, to have conversation with his wife; and because he could not officiate himself on that account, Joseph, the son of Ellemus, his kinsman, assisted him in that sacred office. 19.332. 4. However, there was a certain man of the Jewish nation at Jerusalem, who appeared to be very accurate in the knowledge of the law. His name was Simon. This man got together an assembly, while the king was absent at Caesarea, and had the insolence to accuse him as not living holily, and that he might justly be excluded out of the temple, since it belonged only to native Jews. 19.333. But the general of Agrippa’s army informed him that Simon had made such a speech to the people. So the king sent for him; and as he was sitting in the theater, he bid him sit down by him, and said to him with a low and gentle voice, “What is there done in this place that is contrary to the law?” 19.334. But he had nothing to say for himself, but begged his pardon. So the king was more easily reconciled to him than one could have imagined, as esteeming mildness a better quality in a king than anger, and knowing that moderation is more becoming in great men than passion. So he made Simon a small present, and dismissed him. 20.34. 3. Now, during the time Izates abode at Charax-Spasini, a certain Jewish merchant, whose name was Aias, got among the women that belonged to the king, and taught them to worship God according to the Jewish religion. 20.35. He, moreover, by their means, became known to Izates, and persuaded him, in like manner, to embrace that religion; he also, at the earnest entreaty of Izates, accompanied him when he was sent for by his father to come to Adiabene; it also happened that Helena, about the same time, was instructed by a certain other Jew and went over to them. 20.38. 4. And when he perceived that his mother was highly pleased with the Jewish customs, he made haste to change, and to embrace them entirely; and as he supposed that he could not be thoroughly a Jew unless he were circumcised, he was ready to have it done. 20.39. But when his mother understood what he was about, she endeavored to hinder him from doing it, and said to him that this thing would bring him into danger; and that, as he was a king, he would thereby bring himself into great odium among his subjects, when they should understand that he was so fond of rites that were to them strange and foreign; and that they would never bear to be ruled over by a Jew. 20.41. and said that he was afraid lest such an action being once become public to all, he should himself be in danger of punishment for having been the occasion of it, and having been the king’s instructor in actions that were of ill reputation; and he said that he might worship God without being circumcised, even though he did resolve to follow the Jewish law entirely, which worship of God was of a superior nature to circumcision. 20.42. He added, that God would forgive him, though he did not perform the operation, while it was omitted out of necessity, and for fear of his subjects. So the king at that time complied with these persuasions of Aias. 20.43. But afterwards, as he had not quite left off his desire of doing this thing, a certain other Jew that came out of Galilee, whose name was Eleazar, and who was esteemed very skillful in the learning of his country, persuaded him to do the thing; 20.44. for as he entered into his palace to salute him, and found him reading the law of Moses, he said to him, “Thou dost not consider, O king! that thou unjustly breakest the principal of those laws, and art injurious to God himself, [by omitting to be circumcised]; for thou oughtest not only to read them, but chiefly to practice what they enjoin thee. 20.45. How long wilt thou continue uncircumcised? But if thou hast not yet read the law about circumcision, and dost not know how great impiety thou art guilty of by neglecting it, read it now.” 20.179. 8. About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, who was the son of Fabi. 20.181. And such was the impudence and boldness that had seized on the high priests, that they had the hardiness to send their servants into the threshing-floors, to take away those tithes that were due to the priests, insomuch that it so fell out that the poorest sort of the priests died for want. To this degree did the violence of the seditious prevail over all right and justice. 20.205. But as for the high priest, Aias he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents; 20.206. he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. 20.207. So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants, without any one being able to prohibit them; so that [some of the] priests, that of old were wont to be supported with those tithes, died for want of food. 20.213. And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests, with regard to one another; for they got together bodies of the boldest sort of the people, and frequently came, from reproaches, to throwing of stones at each other. But Aias was too hard for the rest, by his riches, which enabled him to gain those that were most ready to receive. 20.214. Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us. 20.215. 5. But when Albinus heard that Gessius Florus was coming to succeed him, he was desirous to appear to do somewhat that might be grateful to the people of Jerusalem; so he brought out all those prisoners who seemed to him to be the most plainly worthy of death, and ordered them to be put to death accordingly. But as to those who had been put into prison on some trifling occasions, he took money of them, and dismissed them; by which means the prisons were indeed emptied, but the country was filled with robbers. 20.216. 6. Now as many of the Levites, which is a tribe of ours, as were singers of hymns, persuaded the king to assemble a sanhedrim, and to give them leave to wear linen garments, as well as the priests for they said that this would be a work worthy the times of his government, that he might have a memorial of such a novelty, as being his doing. 20.217. Nor did they fail of obtaining their desire; for the king, with the suffrages of those that came into the sanhedrim, granted the singers of hymns this privilege, that they might lay aside their former garments, and wear such a linen one as they desired; 20.218. and as a part of this tribe ministered in the temple, he also permitted them to learn those hymns as they had besought him for. Now all this was contrary to the laws of our country, which, whenever they have been transgressed, we have never been able to avoid the punishment of such transgressions. 20.219. 7. And now it was that the temple was finished. So when the people saw that the workmen were unemployed, who were above eighteen thousand and that they, receiving no wages, were in want because they had earned their bread by their labors about the temple; 20.221. These cloisters belonged to the outer court, and were situated in a deep valley, and had walls that reached four hundred cubits [in length], and were built of square and very white stones, the length of each of which stones was twenty cubits, and their height six cubits. This was the work of king Solomon, who first of all built the entire temple. |
|
2. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 1.648-1.655 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 1.648. 2. There also now happened to him, among his other calamities, a certain popular sedition. There were two men of learning in the city [Jerusalem], who were thought the most skillful in the laws of their country, and were on that account held in very great esteem all over the nation; they were, the one Judas, the son of Sepphoris, and the other Matthias, the son of Margalus. 1.649. There was a great concourse of the young men to these men when they expounded the laws, and there got together every day a kind of an army of such as were growing up to be men. Now when these men were informed that the king was wearing away with melancholy, and with a distemper, they dropped words to their acquaintance, how it was now a very proper time to defend the cause of God, and to pull down what had been erected contrary to the laws of their country; 1.651. 3. At the same time that these men made this speech to their disciples, a rumor was spread abroad that the king was dying, which made the young men set about the work with greater boldness; they therefore let themselves down from the top of the temple with thick cords, and this at midday, and while a great number of people were in the temple, and cut down that golden eagle with axes. 1.652. This was presently told to the king’s captain of the temple, who came running with a great body of soldiers, and caught about forty of the young men, and brought them to the king. 1.653. And when he asked them, first of all, whether they had been so hardy as to cut down the golden eagle, they confessed they had done so; and when he asked them by whose command they had done it, they replied, at the command of the law of their country; and when he further asked them how they could be so joyful when they were to be put to death, they replied, because they should enjoy greater happiness after they were dead. 1.654. 4. At this the king was in such an extravagant passion, that he overcame his disease [for the time], and went out and spake to the people; wherein he made a terrible accusation against those men, as being guilty of sacrilege, and as making greater attempts under pretense of their law, and he thought they deserved to be punished as impious persons. 1.655. Whereupon the people were afraid lest a great number should be found guilty and desired that when he had first punished those that put them upon this work, and then those that were caught in it, he would leave off his anger as to the rest. With this the king complied, though not without difficulty, and ordered those that had let themselves down, together with their Rabbins, to be burnt alive, but delivered the rest that were caught to the proper officers to be put to death by them. |
|
3. Mishnah, Yoma, 1.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 1.4. All seven days they did not withhold food or drink from him. On the eve of Yom HaKippurim near nightfall they would not let him eat much because food brings about sleep." |
|
4. Babylonian Talmud, Keritot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 28a. לכבשתו והעני הואיל ונדחה ידחה,אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע שמע מינה תלת שמע מינה בעלי חיים נדחים וקדושת דמים נדחה,ודחוי מעיקרא הוי דחוי,מתיב רב עוקבא בר חמא המפריש נקבה לפסחו קודם הפסח תרעה עד שתסתאב ותמכר ויביא בדמיה פסח ילדה זכר ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויביא בדמיו פסח,ר"ש אומר הוא עצמו יקרב פסח ש"מ בעלי חיים אינם נדחים,אמרי דבי רבי אושעיא כי אמרינן לרבנן דר"ש ס"ל בעלי חיים אינן נדחין,והגרלה אינה מעכבת דתניא מת אחד מהן מביא חבירו שלא בהגרלה דברי ר"ש,אלמא קסבר בעלי חיים אינן נידחין והגרלה אינה מעכבת,אמר רב חסדא אין הקינין מתפרשות אלא אי בלקיחת בעלים אי בעשיית כהן,אמר רב שימי בר אשי מאי טעמא דרב חסדא דכתיב (ויקרא יב, ח) ולקחה שתי תורים וגו' (ויקרא טו, ל) ועשה הכהן וגו' או בלקיחת בעלים או בעשיית כהן,מיתיבי (ויקרא טז, ט) ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושהו חטאת ואין השם עושהו חטאת ואין כהן עושה חטאת,שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה במקום שלא קידש הגורל קידש השם מקום שיקדש הגורל אינו דין שיקדש השם,ת"ל ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושהו חטאת ואין השם עושהו חטאת,קתני שם דומיא דגורל מה גורל לאו בלקיחה ולאו בעשייה אף השם נמי לאו בלקיחה ולאו בעשייה,אמר רב ה"ק ומה במקום שלא קידש הגורל בלקיחת בעלים ובעשיית הכהן קידש השם אי בלקיחת בעלים אי בעשיית כהן כאן שיקדש הגורל שלא בלקיחה ושלא בעשייה אינו דין שיקדש השם אי בלקיחה אי בעשייה,ת"ל ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושהו חטאת ואין השם עושהו חטאת,מיתיבי מטמא מקדש עני שהפריש מעות לקינו והעשיר,אמר אלו לחטאתי ואלו לעולתי מוסיף ומביא חובתו מדמי חטאתו ואין מוסיף ומביא מדמי עולתו,והא הכא דליכא לא לקיחה ולא עשייה וקתני מביא חובתו מדמי חטאתו ולא מדמי עולתו,א"ר ששת ותסברא מתניתא מתקנתא היא דקתני והעשיר והא"ר אלעזר א"ר אושעיא מטמא מקדש עשיר שהביא קרבן עני לא יצא,אלא מאי אית לך למימר שכבר אמר משעת ענייתו ה"נ שכבר אמר משעת הפרשתו,ולר' חגא א"ר אושעיא דאמר יצא מאי איכא למימר תני ואח"כ לקח ואמר,מיתיבי מצורע עני שהביא קרבן עשיר יצא עשיר שהביא קרבן עני לא יצא תיובתא דר' חגא א"ר אושעיא,אמר לך שאני גבי מצורע דמיעט רחמנא (ויקרא יד, ב) זאת,אי הכי אפילו מצורע עני נמי שהביא קרבן עשיר לא יצא לאיי הא אהדריה קרא תורת והתניא תורת לרבות מצורע עני שהביא קרבן עשיר יצא יכול אפילו עשיר שהביא קרבן עני שיצא תלמוד לומר זאת,ולילף מיניה אמר קרא (ויקרא יד, כא) ואם דל הוא ואין ידו משגת מצורע הוא דעשיר שהביא קרבן עני הוא דלא יצא אבל מטמא מקדש עשיר שהביא קרבן עני יצא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ר"ש אומר כבשים קודמין את העזים בכל מקום יכול מפני שהן מובחרים מהם ת"ל (ויקרא ד, לב) ואם כבש יביא קרבנו לחטאת מלמד ששניהם שקולין,תורין קודמין לבני יונה בכל מקום יכול מפני שהן מובחרים מהן תלמוד לומר ((ויקרא יב, ו) תור ובני) יונה או תור לחטאת מלמד ששניהם שקולין,האב קודם לאם בכל מקום יכול מפני שכיבוד האב קודם על כיבוד האם ת"ל (ויקרא יט, ג) איש אמו ואביו תיראו מלמד ששניהם שקולין אבל אמרו חכמים האב קודם לאם בכל מקום מפני שהוא ואמו חייבין בכבוד אביו,וכן בתלמוד תורה אם זכה הבן לפני הרב הרב קודם את האב בכל מקום מפני שהוא ואביו חייבין בכבוד רבו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר ד' צווחות צווחה עזרה צווחה אחת הוציאו מיכן בני עלי חפני ופנחס שטימאו את ההיכל,צווחה שניה פתחו שערים ויכנס יוחנן בן נדבאי תלמידו של פינקאי וימלא כרסו מקדשי שמים אמרו על בן נדבאי שהיה אוכל ארבע סאה גוזלות | 28a. instead bof a female lamb, and hethen bbecame poorer,a bird pair is now the appropriate offering for him. Nevertheless, bsincehis offering bwas disqualifiedat the outset because at that time he was obligated to bring a female lamb, bit ispermanently bdisqualified. /b, bRav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said:One can bconclude from thisruling bthree ihalakhot /i. bConclude from itthat bconsecrated living animals can bepermanently bdisqualifiedeven if the animal is unblemished, as is the case with regard to this pair of birds. bAndconclude from it that when there is bsanctitythat inheres in an animal’s bvalue,where the consecrated item will not be sacrificed as an offering, it can be bdisqualified.When he was wealthy and designated the bird pair as his offering, the two birds were consecrated only with sanctity that inheres in their value because they were unfit for sacrifice, and yet the birds were permanently disqualified., bAndfinally, conclude from this that ba disqualification at the outset,when the animal is initially consecrated, bisconsidered a permanent bdisqualification.Not only is an animal that was initially fit to be sacrificed and was later disqualified permanently disqualified, but even in a case such as this, where the birds were unfit for sacrifice from the beginning, the disqualification is permanent., bRav Ukva bar Ḥama raises an objectionfrom a ibaraita( iTosefta /i, iTemura2:3): With regard to bone who designates a femaleanimal bfor his Paschal offering before Passover,since the Paschal offering must be a male it is left to bgraze until it becomes blemished,at which point bit is sold and one brings a Paschal offering with the moneyreceived from its sale. Similarly, if this animal bgave birth to a maleanimal, the offspring is left to bgraze until it becomes blemished,at which point bit is sold and one brings a Paschal offering with the moneyreceived from its sale., bRabbi Shimon says:It is not necessary to sell the offspring in such a case, as the offspring bitself is sacrificedas ba Paschal offering. Conclude from thisstatement of Rabbi Shimon that bconsecrated living animals are notpermanently bdisqualified,as the mother was unfit to be a Paschal offering and yet the offspring, which is an extension of the mother’s sanctity, is fit for sacrifice., bThe school of Rabbi Oshaya say: When we saythat consecrated living animals can be permanently disqualified, this applies baccording tothe opinion of bthe Rabbis,who maintain that the offspring is not sacrificed. Nevertheless, it is correct bthat Rabbi Shimon holdsthat consecrated bliving animals are notpermanently bdisqualified. /b, bAndRabbi Shimon likewise maintains bthatthe bdrawingof the lots for the two goats on Yom Kippur to decide which goat is designated as a sacrifice and which is designated as the scapegoat, bis not indispensable. As it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: If bone ofthe goats bdiedfollowing their designation, one bbrings anothergoat instead of it, and it is designated bwithout drawinglots. The surviving goat is still used for the purpose for which it was designated by the lot; this is bthe statement of Rabbi Shimon. /b, bEvidently, Rabbi Shimon holds:Consecrated bliving animals are notpermanently bdisqualified.Although the surviving goat was disqualified when the other goat died, it is once again fit when a new goat is designated as its partner. bAndRabbi Shimon also holds that the bdrawingof the lots bis not indispensable,as the new goat was designated without drawing lots.,§ bRav Ḥisda says: Nests,i.e., pairs of birds, bare designated, /bone as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering, bonlyin the following manner: bEitherby the bownerat the time bof purchase or,if the owner did not designate the birds at that stage, by the bpriestat the time bof sacrifice. /b, bRav Shimi bar Ashi said: What is the reason of Rav Ḥisda? As it is writtenwith regard to the offering of a woman after childbirth: b“And she shall purchase two dovesor two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering” (Leviticus 12:8). And with regard to the offering of a leper it is written: b“And the priest shall sacrificethe one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering” (Leviticus 15:30). Together, these verses indicate that one bird is designated as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering beitherby the bownerat the time bof purchase orby the bpriestat the time bof sacrifice. /b,The Gemara braises an objectionfrom a ibaraitain the iSifrathat discusses the drawing of lots for the two goats of Yom Kippur. The verse states: “Aaron shall bring forward the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, band he shall sacrifice it for a sin offering”(Leviticus 16:9). This teaches that the drawing of bthe lot renders it a sin offering, butverbally designating bthe nameof the goat bdoes not render it a sin offering, andlikewise the act of the bpriest,placing the lot on the goat, bdoes not render it a sin offering. /b,A verse is required to teach this ihalakha /i, basone bmighthave come to the opposite conclusion: bCould this notbe derived through an ia fortiori binference,as follows: bAnd if in a case wherethe drawing of ba lot does not sanctifyan animal with a specific designation, e.g., a woman after childbirth, who cannot determine by lot the status of the two birds she must bring, one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering, nevertheless, in such a case a verbal designation of bthe name does sanctifywith a specific designation; bis it not logicalin ba case wherethe drawing of ba lot sanctifiesan animal with a specific designation, i.e., the two goats of Yom Kippur, bthatverbally designating bthe nameshould bsanctifyit with a specific designation?,The ibaraitaconcludes: Therefore bthe verse states,with regard to one of the two goats of Yom Kippur: b“He shall sacrifice it for a sin offering,”to teach that the drawing of bthe lot renders it a sin offering, butverbally designating bthe nameof the goat bdoes not render it a sin offering. /b,The Gemara explains the objection: The ibaraita bteachesthat verbally designating the bnameof an offering bis similar todrawing ba lot.If so, one can reason as follows: bJust asthe drawing of ba lotis bnotperformed batthe time of bpurchase nor atthe time of bsacrifice, so tooverbal designation of bthe name alsodoes bnothave to be performed batthe time of bpurchase nor atthe time of bsacrifice.This contradicts the opinion of Rav Ḥisda., bRav saidthat bthisis what the ibaraita bis saying: And if in a place wherethe drawing of ba lot,either by the bownerat the time bof purchase orby the bpriestat the time bof sacrifice, does not sanctifyan animal with a specific designation, and nevertheless a verbal designation of bthe name, eitherby the bownerat the time bof purchase orby the bpriestat the time bof sacrifice, does sanctifyit with a specific designation; bhere,with regard to the two goats, bwherethe drawing of ba lotthat does bnottake place batthe time of bpurchase nor atthe time of bsacrifice sanctifiesthe animal with a specific designation, bis it not logical thatverbally designating bthe name, either atthe time of bpurchase or atthe time of bsacrifice,should bsanctifyit with a specific designation?,Therefore, bthe verse states: “He shall sacrifice it for a sin offering,”to teach that drawing bthe lot renders it a sin offering, butverbally designating bthe nameof the goat bdoes not render it a sin offering. /b,The Gemara braisesanother bobjectionto the opinion of Rav Ḥisda from a ibaraita /i: In the case of ba poor person who defiles the Temple,i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, bwho designated money for his nest,as he is required to bring one bird as a sin offering and another bird as a burnt offering, band hethen bbecame wealthier,he is now obligated to bring a female lamb or goat as a sin offering.,If he was unaware that he is no longer obligated to bring a pair of birds, and he bsays: Thismoney bis for my sin offering and thismoney bis for my burnt offering,which is an error, as he is not obligated to bring a burnt offering, bhe addsmore money band brings his obligationof a lamb or goat for his sin offering bfromthe bmoneydesignated bfor his sin offering. But he may not addmore money band bring his obligationof a sin offering bfromthe bmoneydesignated bfor his burnt offering,as one may not use money that is designated for a burnt offering for the purchase of a sin offering.,The Gemara explains the objection: bBut here,the ibaraitais dealing with a case where he said: This money is for my sin offering and that money is for my burnt offering, which means that he designated the money at a stage bthat was notthe time of bpurchase northe time of bsacrifice; andyet the ibaraita bteachesthat the designation is established and therefore bhe brings his obligationof a sin offering bfromthe bmoneydesignated for ba sin offering but not fromthe bmoneydesignated for ba burnt offering. /b, bRav Sheshet said: And can you understandthat bthis ibaraitais properlyexplained, i.e., the ibaraitaas it stands is difficult, bas it teaches: He became wealthierand said: This money is for my sin offering and this money is for my burnt offering. bButthis is difficult, as bdoesn’t Rabbi Elazar saythat bRabbi Oshaya says: A wealthy person who defiles the Temple,i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, bwho broughtthe bofferingof ba poor personto atone for his transgression has bnot fulfilledhis obligation. Since he cannot fulfill his obligation with that offering, how can his designation permanently establish the status of the money?, bRather, what have you to say?You must say that the ibaraitais referring to a case bwhere he already said:This money is for my sin offering and this money is for my burnt offering, bat the timewhen bhe was poor. So too,it is referring to a case bwhere he already saidit even earlier, bat the timewhen bhe designatedthe money, and therefore there is no difficulty for Rav Ḥisda.,The Gemara asks: bBut according to Rabbi Ḥagga,who bsaysthat bRabbi Oshaya saysthat a wealthy person who brings the offering of a poor person has bfulfilledhis obligation, bwhat can be said?According to this opinion, there is no inherent difficulty in the ibaraitathat necessitates Rav Sheshet’s interpretation, and therefore that ibaraitaapparently contradicts Rav Ḥisda’s ruling. The Gemara answers that one should bteachthe ibaraitaas follows: bAnd afterhe became wealthier, bhe purchasedanimals band saidat the time of purchase: This is designated as my sin offering and this as my burnt offering.,With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Ḥagga in the case of a wealthy person who brings the offering of a poor person, the Gemara braises an objectionfrom a ibaraita /i: bA poor leper who brought the offering of a wealthy personhas bfulfilledhis obligation. By contrast, ba wealthyleper bwho brought the offering of a poor personhas bnot fulfilledhis obligation. This is apparently ba conclusive refutation ofthe opinion bthat Rabbi Ḥaggasays that bRabbi Oshaya says. /b,The Gemara explains that Rabbi Ḥagga could have bsaid to you:The ihalakha bis different with regard toa wealthy bleper, as the Merciful One excludedthe possibility of a wealthy person bringing the offering of a poor person in the verse: b“Thisshall be the law of the leper” (Leviticus 14:2). The emphasis of “this” teaches that a leper fulfills his obligation only with the appropriate offering.,The Gemara objects: bIf so,that this ihalakhais derived from a verse, then bevenin the case of ba poor leper who brings the offering of a wealthy person as well,he should bnot fulfillhis obligation. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: This is bnot so,as bthe verse returnedto state: “This shall be bthe lawof the leper,” which includes a leper who brings an inappropriate offering. bAs it is taughtin a ibaraitathat the phrase b“the lawof the leper” serves bto include a poor leper who brought the offering of a wealthy person,that he bhas fulfilledhis obligation. One bmighthave thought that bevenin the case of ba wealthyleper bwho brought the offering of a poor person, hehas bfulfilledhis obligation. Therefore, bthe verse states: “Thisshall be the law.”,The Gemara raises a difficulty: bButwhy not bderivea principle bfrom thatverse that with regard to any sliding-scale offering, a wealthy person who brings a poor person’s offering has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara answers: With regard to a leper bthe verse states: “And if he is poor and cannot afford”(Leviticus 14:21). The emphasis of “he” teaches that bit isonly with regard to ba leper that a wealthy person who brought a poor person’s offeringhas bnot fulfilledhis obligation. bButin the case of bone who defiles the Temple,i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, ba wealthy person who brought a poor person’s offeringhas bfulfilledhis obligation., strongMISHNA: /strong bRabbi Shimon says: Lambs precede goatsalmost beverywherein the Torah that they are both mentioned, as in the verse: “You shall take it from the lambs or from the goats” (Exodus 12:5). One bmighthave thought that it is bdue tothe fact bthatsheep bare more select thangoats. Therefore, bthe verse states:“And he shall bring for his offering a goat” (Leviticus 4:28), after which it is written: b“And if he bring a lamb as his offering for a sin offering”(Leviticus 4:32), which bteaches that both of them are equal. /b,Similarly, bdoves precede pigeonsalmost beverywherein the Torah, as in the verse: “And he shall bring his guilt offering…two doves, or two pigeons” (Leviticus 5:7). One bmighthave thought that it is bdue tothe fact bthatdoves bare more select thanpigeons. Therefore, bthe verse states: “And a pigeon or a dove for a sin offering”(Leviticus 12:6), with the usual order reversed, which bteaches that both of them are equal. /b,Likewise, mention of bthe father precedesthat of bthe motheralmost beverywherein the Torah, as in the verse: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12). One bmighthave thought that it is bdue tothe fact bthat the honor of the father takes precedence over the honor of the mother.Therefore, bthe verse states: “Every man shall fear his mother and his father”(Leviticus 19:3), with the order reversed, which bteaches that both of them are equal. But the Sages said:Honor of bthe father takes precedence overhonor of bthe mother everywhere, due tothe fact bthatboth the son band his mother are obligated in the honor of his father. /b, bAnd likewise with regard to Torah study, if the son was privilegedto acquire most of his Torah knowledge from studying bbefore the teacher,honor of bthe teacher takes precedence overhonor of bthe father, due tothe fact bthatboth the son band his father are obligated in the honor of his teacher,as everyone is obligated in the honor of Torah scholars., strongGEMARA: /strong With regard to the mishna’s discussion of lambs and goats, bthe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: The Temple bcourtyard cried four cries. The first crywas: bRemove Ḥofni and Pineḥas the sons of Elithe priest bfrom here, as they have rendered the Sanctuaryin Shiloh bimpure(see I Samuel 4:13–22)., bThe second crywas: bOpenthe bgates, and let Yoḥa ben Nedavai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly withmeat of bofferingsconsecrated to bHeaven,as he is worthy to eat offerings. bThey said about ben Nedavai that he would eat four ise’aof doves /b |
|
5. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 109b. as by slaughtering the idolatrous offering intentionally bhe became a servant of idol worship. /b, bRav Naḥman said: From where do I saythat even a priest who intentionally slaughters an idolatrous offering is nevertheless fit to serve in the Temple if he repents? bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to ba priest who servedin bidol worship and repented, his offeringin the Temple bis an aroma pleasingto the Lord and is acceptable.,Rav Naḥman clarifies: bIn whatmanner did he serve in idol worship? bIf we saythat he served in idol worship bunwittingly, whatdoes the ibaraitamean when it says: bAnd repented? He is already repentant,as he never intended to sin in the first place. bRather,it is bobviousthat the ibaraitais referring to a case bof intentionalidol worship. bAnd ifthe ibaraitais referring bto sprinklingthe blood of an idolatrous offering, bwhen he repents, what of it? Hasn’t he performedidolatrous bservice,thereby disqualifying himself from serving in the Temple in any event? bRather, is it notreferring btothe bslaughterof an idolatrous offering? Evidently, even if the priest slaughtered it intentionally, once he repents he is fit to serve in the Temple., bAndas for bRav Sheshet, hecould have bsaid to youthat bactuallythe ibaraitais referring bto unwittingslaughter. bAnd thisis what the ibaraita bis saying: Ifthe priest bis repentant from the outset, as when he servedin idol worship bhe served unwittingly,then bhis offering is an aroma pleasingto the Lord and is acceptable. bBut if not,i.e., he slaughtered an idolatrous offering intentionally, bhissubsequent bofferingin the Temple is bnot an aroma pleasingto the Lord.,§ The Gemara lists other similar disagreements between Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet. In a case where a priest bbowed toan object of bidol worship, Rav Naḥman says:If he subsequently repents and serves in the Temple, bhis offering is an aroma pleasingto the Lord. bAnd Rav Sheshet says: His offering is not an aroma pleasingto the Lord. In a case where a priest backnowledgesan object of bidol worshipas a divinity, bRav Naḥman says:If he subsequently repents and serves in the Temple, bhis offering is an aroma pleasingto the Lord. bAnd Rav Sheshet says: His offering is not an aroma pleasingto the Lord.,Having listed four similar disputes between Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet, namely, with regard to a priest who unwittingly sprinkled the blood of an idolatrous offering, a priest who intentionally slaughtered an idolatrous offering, a priest who bowed to an idol, and a priest who acknowledged an idol as a divinity, the Gemara explains: bAndit was bnecessaryto teach the dispute with regard to all four cases. bAs, hadthe Sages btaught usonly bthis firstcase, where a priest sprinkles the blood of an idolatrous offering unwittingly, one might have thought that only bin thatcase bRav Sheshet saysthat the priest’s subsequent service in the Temple is disqualified, bbecause he performed a service foridolatry that is considered a sacrificial rite in the Temple. bButin a case where the priest merely performed bslaughter, since he did not perform a service foridolatry that is a sacrificial rite in the Temple, there is room to bsaythat Rav Sheshet bconcedes tothe opinion of bRav Naḥman. /b, bAnd hadthe Sages btaught usonly the dispute with regard to a priest intentionally performing bslaughterfor an idolatrous offering, one might have thought that Rav Sheshet says that the priest’s subsequent service in the Temple is disqualified bbecause he performeda sacrificial brite foridolatry. bButif he merely bbowedto the idol, bsince he did not performa sacrificial brite foridolatry, there is room to bsaythat Rav Sheshet does bnotdisqualify the priest’s subsequent service in the Temple. Therefore, it was bnecessaryto teach this case as well., bAnd hadthe Sages btaught usonly the case of a priest bbowingto an idol, one might have thought that in this case Rav Sheshet says that the priest’s subsequent service in the Temple is disqualified bbecause he performed an action foridolatry. bButif he only backnowledgedthe idol as a divinity, bwhich is mere speech,there is room to bsaythat Rav Sheshet does bnotdisqualify the priest’s subsequent service in the Temple. The Gemara concludes: Therefore, it was bnecessaryto teach this case as well.,§ The mishna teaches: bAnd needless to say,if priests served for bsomething else,a euphemism for idolatry, they are disqualified from service in the Temple. The Gemara comments: bFromthe fact bthat it says: Needless to say,if they served for bsomething else, by inference, the temple of Onias is nota temple of bidol worship,but rather a temple devoted to the worship of God., bIt is taughtin a ibaraita blike the one who saysthat bthe temple of Onias is nota temple of bidol worship. As it is taught:During bthe year in which Shimon HaTzaddik died, he said tohis associates: bThis year, he will die,euphemistically referring to himself. bThey said to him: From where do you know? /b,Shimon HaTzaddik bsaid to them:In previous years, bevery Yom Kippur,upon entering the Holy of Holies, I had a prophetic vision in which bI would be met by an old manwho was bdressed in white, andhis head was bwrapped in white, and he would enterthe Holy of Holies bwith me, and he would leave with me.But bthis year, I was met by an old manwho was bdressed in black, andhis head was bwrapped in black, and he enteredthe Holy of Holies bwith me, but he did not leave with me.Shimon HaTzaddik understood this to be a sign that his death was impending.,Indeed, bafter the pilgrimage festivalof iSukkot /i, bhe was ill for seven days and died. And his fellow priests refrained from reciting thePriestly bBenediction with theineffable bnameof God., bAt the time of his death, he said tothe Sages: bOnias, my son, will serveas High Priest bin my stead. Shimi,Onias’ bbrother, became jealousof him, basShimi bwas two and a half years older thanOnias. Shimi bsaid toOnias treacherously: bCome and I will teach you the order of the serviceof the High Priest. Shimi bdressedOnias bin a tunic [ ibe’unkeli /i] and girded him with a ribbon [ ibetziltzul /i]as a belt, i.e., not in the vestments of the High Priest, and bstood him next to the altar.Shimi bsaid to his fellow priests: Look what thisman bvowed and fulfilled for his beloved,that he had said to her: bOn the day that I serve in the High Priesthood I will wear your tunic and gird your ribbon. /b, bThe fellow priests ofOnias bwanted to kill himbecause he had disgraced the Temple service with his garments. Onias branaway bfrom them and they ran after him. He went to Alexandria in Egypt and built an altar there, and sacrificedofferings bupon it for the sake of idol worship. When the Sages heard of the matter they said: If thisperson, Shimi, bwho did not enterthe position of High Priest, acted with bsuchjealousy, ball the more sowill bone who entersa prestigious position rebel if that position is taken away from him. This is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir.According to Rabbi Meir, the temple of Onias was built for idol worship., bRabbi Yehuda said to him:The bincident was not like this. Rather, Onias did not acceptthe position of High Priest bbecause his brother Shimi was two and a half years older than him,so Shimi was appointed as High Priest. bAnd even so,even though Onias himself offered the position to Shimi, bOnias was jealous of his brother Shimi.Onias bsaid toShimi: bCome and I will teach you the order of the serviceof the High Priest. bAndOnias bdressedShimi bin a tunic and girded him in a ribbon and stood him next to the altar.Onias bsaid to his fellow priests: Look what thisman, Shimi, bvowed and fulfilled for his beloved,that he had said to her: bOn the day that I serve in the High Priesthood I will wear your tunic and gird your ribbon. /b, bHis fellow priests wanted to killShimi. Shimi then btold them the entire incident,that he had been tricked by his brother Onias, so the priests bwanted to kill Onias.Onias branaway bfrom them, and they ran after him.Onias bran to the palace of the king, and they ran after him. Anyone who saw him would say: This is him, this is him,and he was not able to escape unnoticed. Onias bwent to Alexandria in Egypt and built an altar there, and sacrificedofferings bupon it for the sake of Heaven. As it is stated: “In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at its border, to the Lord”(Isaiah 19:19). According to Rabbi Yehuda, the temple of Onias was dedicated to the worship of God., bAnd when the Sages heard of the matter they said: If this one,Onias, bwho fled fromthe position of High Priest and offered it to his brother, still was overcome with bsuchjealousy to the point where he tried to have Shimi killed, ball the more sowill bone who wants to entera prestigious position be jealous of the one who already has that position.,§ As a corollary to the statement of the Sages with regard to one who is jealous and wants the position of another, bit is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya said: Initially,in response to banyone who would sayto me: bAscend tothe position of iNasi /i, bI would tie him up and place him in front of a lionout of anger for his suggestion. bNowthat I have become the iNasi /i, in response to banyone who tells me to leavethe position, bIwould bthrow a kettle [ ikumkum /i] of boilingwater bat himout of anger at his suggestion.,It is human nature that after one ascends to a prestigious position he does not wish to lose it. bAsevidence of this principle, bSaulinitially bfled fromthe kingship, as he did not wish to be king, as stated in the verse: “When they sought him he could not be found…Behold he has hidden himself among the baggage” (I Samuel 10:21–22). bBut when he ascendedto the kingship bhe tried to kill David,who he thought was trying to usurp his authority (see I Samuel, chapters 18–27).,§ bMar Kashisha, son of Rav Ḥisda, said to Abaye: What does Rabbi Meir do with this verse of Rabbi Yehuda?Since Rabbi Meir holds that the temple of Onias was dedicated to idol worship, how does he explain the verse in Isaiah?,Abaye answered Mar Kashisha and said that Rabbi Meir uses this verse bfor that which is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bAfter the downfall of Sennacherib,the king of Assyria who besieged Jerusalem (see II Kings, chapters 18–19), King bHezekiah emergedfrom Jerusalem band found thegentile bprincesSennacherib had brought with him from his other conquests, bsitting in carriages [ ibikronot /i] of gold. He made them vow that they would not worship idols,and they fulfilled their vow, bas it is statedin Isaiah’s prophecy about Egypt: b“In that day there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan /b |
|
6. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 57a. נימא תלתא תנאי הוו לא תרי תנאי הוו ותנא קמא דר' שמעון היינו ר' יוסי ותנא קמא דר' יוסי היינו ר' שמעון ומאי אף אקמייתא,ת"ר בן בוהיין נתן פיאה לירק ובא אביו ומצאן לעניים שהיו טעונין ירק ועומדין על פתח הגינה אמר להם בני השליכו מעליכם ואני נותן לכם כפליים במעושר לא מפני שעיני צרה אלא מפני שאמרו חכמים אין נותנין פיאה לירק,למה ליה למימרא להו לא מפני שעיני צרה כי היכי דלא לימרו דחויי קא מדחי לן,ת"ר בראשונה היו מניחין עורות קדשים בלשכת בית הפרוה לערב היו מחלקין אותן לאנשי בית אב והיו בעלי זרועות נוטלין אותן בזרוע התקינו שיהיו מחלקין אותן מערב שבת לע"ש דאתיין כולהו משמרות ושקלן בהדדי,ועדיין היו גדולי כהונה נוטלין אותן בזרוע עמדו בעלים והקדישום לשמים,אמרו לא היו ימים מועטים עד שחיפו את ההיכל כולו בטבלאות של זהב שהן אמה על אמה כעובי דינר זהב ולרגל היו מקפלין אותן ומניחין אותן על גב מעלה בהר הבית כדי שיהו עולי רגלים רואין שמלאכתם נאה ואין בה דלם,תנא אבא שאול אומר קורות של שקמה היו ביריחו והיו בעלי זרועות נוטלין אותן בזרוע עמדו בעלים והקדישום לשמים,עליהם ועל כיוצא בהם אמר אבא שאול בן בטנית משום אבא יוסף בן חנין אוי לי מבית בייתוס אוי לי מאלתן אוי לי מבית חנין אוי לי מלחישתן אוי לי מבית קתרוס אוי לי מקולמוסן אוי לי מבית ישמעאל בן פיאכי אוי לי מאגרופן שהם כהנים גדולים ובניהן גיזברין וחתניהם אמרכלין ועבדיהן חובטין את העם במקלות,תנו רבנן ארבע צווחות צוחה עזרה ראשונה צאו מכאן בני עלי שטימאו היכל ה' ועוד צווחה צא מיכן יששכר איש כפר ברקאי שמכבד את עצמו ומחלל קדשי שמים דהוה כריך ידיה בשיראי ועביד עבודה,ועוד צווחה העזרה שאו שערים ראשיכם ויכנס ישמעאל בן פיאכי תלמידו של פנחס וישמש בכהונה גדולה ועוד צווחה העזרה שאו שערים ראשיכם ויכנס יוחנן בן נרבאי תלמידו של פנקאי וימלא כריסו מקדשי שמים,אמרו עליו על יוחנן בן נרבאי שהיה אוכל ג' מאות עגלים ושותה ג' מאות גרבי יין ואוכל ארבעים סאה גוזלות בקינוח סעודה אמרו כל ימיו של יוחנן בן נרבאי לא נמצא נותר במקדש מאי סלקא ביה ביששכר איש כפר ברקאי אמרי מלכא ומלכתא הוו יתבי מלכא אמר גדיא יאי ומלכתא אמרה אימרא יאי אמרו מאן מוכח כהן גדול דקא מסיק קרבנות כל יומא אתא איהו | 57a. bLet us saythat bthere are three itanna’im /iwho dispute this point: The two unattributed opinions, each of which is referring to two vegetables, and the opinion common to Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon that includes all three vegetables. The Gemara rejects this: bNo, there areonly btwo itanna’im /iwho dispute the point, band the first itanna /iwhose opinion appears before the opinion of bRabbi Shimon is Rabbi Yosei. And the first itanna /iwhose opinion appears before the opinion of bRabbi Yosei is Rabbi Shimon. And whatis the meaning of the word bevenin both their statements? They agree with regard to bthe firstvegetable, turnips; however, they disagree with regard to the second, and replace it with another vegetable.,The Gemara cites an episode from the iTosefta /i. bThe Sages taught: The sonof a man named bBohayan designatedfor the poor btheproduce in the bcornerin a garden bof vegetables, and his fatherBohayan bfound the poor ladenwith bvegetables and standing at the opening of the gardenon their way out. bHe said to them: My sons, castthe vegetables that you have gathered bfrom upon yourselves and I will give you twicethe amount in btithedproduce, and you will be no worse off. bNot because I begrudgeyou what you have taken. bRather, it is because the Sages say: One does not designatefor the poor btheproduce in the bcornerin a garden bof vegetables.Therefore, the vegetables that you took require tithing.,The Gemara asks: bWhywas it necessary bfor him to say to them: Not because I begrudgeyou what you have taken? It would have been sufficient to offer them tithed produce. The Gemara answers that he said it bso they would not say: He is putting us off,taking what we collected now, but later he will not fulfill his commitment.,Apropos the people of Jericho, the Gemara relates that powerful people would steal wood from them. bThe Sages taught: Initially,the priests bwould place the hidesthat were flayed from animals bconsecratedas offerings of the most sacred order, which were given to the priests, bin the Parva chamber. In the evening, they would distribute them to the members of the familyof priests serving in the Temple that day. bAnd the powerfulpriests among them would btake them by forcebefore they could be distributed. The Rabbis bdecreed that they would distribute them each Shabbat eve,because then ball thefamilies of both priestly bwatches came and tooktheir part btogether.All the families from both the watch that was beginning its service and the one ending its service were together when they divided the hides. The powerful priests were unable to take the hides by force., bYet still the prominent priestsby virtue of their lineage bwould take them by force.Due to their prominence, the members of the rest of the watch dared not challenge them. When they realized that there was no equitable distribution, bthe ownersof the sacrifices ( iMe’iri /i) barose and consecratedthe hides bto Heavenso the priests could not take them.,The Sages bsaid: Not a few days passed before they had plated the entire sanctuary with golden tabletswith the proceeds from the redemption and sale of the hides. These plates bwere one cubit by one cubit and as thick as a golden dinar. Andwhen the people assembled bfor theFestival bpilgrimage they would removethe tablets band place them on a stair of the Temple Mount so that the pilgrims would see that the craftsmanshipof the tablets bwas beautiful and without flaw [ idalam /i].Afterward they replaced the tablets in the Sanctuary., bIt wassimilarly btaughtthat bAbba Shaul says: There were sycamore tree trunks in Jericho, and powerful people would take themfrom their owners bby force. The owners stood and consecratedthese trunks bto Heaven.It was with regard to these trunks and the branches that grew from them that the residents of Jericho acted against the will of the Sages., bWith regard tothe prominent priests band those like them, Abba Shaul ben Batnit said in the name of Abba Yosef ben Ḥanin: Woe is me due tothe High Priests of bthe house of Baitos, woe is me due to their clubs. Woe is me due tothe High Priests of bthe house of Ḥanin; woe is me due to their whispersand the rumors they spread. bWoe is me due tothe High Priests of bthe house of Katros; woe is me due to their pensthat they use to write lies. bWoe is me due tothe servants of the High Priests of bthe house of Yishmael ben Piakhi; woe is me due to their fists.The power of these households stemmed from the fact bthatthe fathers bwere High Priests, and their sons werethe Temple btreasurers, and their sons-in-law wereTemple boverseers [ iamarkalin /i]. And their servants strike the people with clubs,and otherwise act inappropriately.,Apropos the critique of several prominent priests, the Gemara relates that bthe Sages taught:The people in btheTemple bcourtyardall bcried four cries,as they were in agreement over various issues ( iPardes Rimonim /i). The bfirstcry was: bLeave here, sons of Eli, who defiled God’s Sanctuary(see I Samuel 2:22). Subsequently the priesthood was transferred to the house of Zadok. bAnd an additional cry: Leave here, Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai, who honors himself and desecratesthe items bconsecratedto bHeaven.Due to his delicate nature and his disrespect for the Temple service, he would bwraphis hands bin silk [ ishirai /i] and perform the service.This would invalidate the service because the silk was an interposition between his hands and the Temple vessels. Furthermore, his conduct demeaned the Temple service, as he demonstrated that he was unwilling to dirty his hands for it., bAndthe people in btheTemple bcourtyard cried additionally: Lift your heads, O gates, and letthe righteous bYishmael ben Piakhi, the student of Pinehasben Elazar the priest, benter and serve as High Priest,although the members of this family were violent. bAndthe people in btheTemple bcourtyard cried additionally: Lift your heads, O gates, and let Yoḥa ben Narbbai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly withmeat bof offeringsconsecrated to bHeaven,as he is worthy to eat offerings., bThey said about Yoḥa ben Narbbai that heand his household bwould eat three hundred calves, and drink three hundred jugs of wine, and eat forty ise’aof doves for dessert. They said:Throughout ball the days of Yoḥa ben Narbbai there was no leftoversacrificial meat bin the Temple,as he would make certain that someone ate it. The Gemara asks: bWhatultimately bhappened to Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai? They said: The king and the queen were sittingand talking. bThe king saidthat bgoatmeat bis betterfood, band the queen said lambmeat is bbetterfood. bThey said: Who can provewhich one of us is correct? bThe High Priestcan, bas he offers sacrifices all dayand tastes their meat. The High Priest had the right to take a portion from any sacrifice offered in the Temple, and therefore was well acquainted with the tastes of different meat. Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai bcame,and when they asked him this question |
|
7. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 116a. שאין זה מקומה ר' אומר לא מן השם הוא זה אלא מפני שספר חשוב הוא בפני עצמו,כמאן אזלא הא דא"ר שמואל בר נחמן א"ר יונתן (משלי ט, א) חצבה עמודיה שבעה אלו שבעה ספרי תורה כמאן כר',מאן תנא דפליג עליה דר' רשב"ג הוא דתניא רשב"ג אומר עתידה פרשה זו שתיעקר מכאן ותכתב במקומה ולמה כתבה כאן כדי להפסיק בין פורענות ראשונה לפורענות שנייה פורענות שנייה מאי היא (במדבר יא, א) ויהי העם כמתאוננים פורענות ראשונה (במדבר י, לג) ויסעו מהר ה' וא"ר חמא בר' חנינא שסרו מאחרי ה' והיכן מקומה אמר רב אשי בדגלים,איבעיא להו הגליונין של ס"ת מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה או אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה ת"ש ס"ת שבלה אם יש בו ללקט שמונים וחמש אותיות כגון פרשת ויהי בנסוע הארון מצילין ואם לאו אין מצילין ואמאי תיפוק ליה משום גיליון דידיה בלה שאני,ת"ש ס"ת שנמחק אם יש בו ללקט שמונים וחמש אותיות כגון פרשת ויהי בנסוע הארון מצילין ואם לאו אין מצילין ואמאי תיפוק ליה משום גיליון דידיה מקום הכתב לא קמיבעיא לי דכי קדוש אגב כתב הוא דקדוש אזל כתב אזלא לה קדושתיה כי קמיבעיא לי של מעלה ושל מטה שבין פרשה לפרשה שבין דף לדף שבתחלת הספר שבסוף הספר ותיפוק ליה משום ההוא דגייז ושדי,ת"ש הגליונין של מעלה ושל מטה שבין פרשה לפרשה שבין דף לדף שבתחלת הספר שבסוף הספר מטמאין את הידים דילמא אגב ס"ת שאני,ת"ש הגיליונין וספרי מינין אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה אלא נשרפין במקומן הן ואזכרותיהן מאי לאו גליונין דספר תורה לא גליונין דספרי מינין השתא ספרי מינין גופייהו אין מצילין גליונין מבעיא הכי קאמר וספרי מינין הרי הן כגליונים,גופא הגליונים וספרי מינין אין מצילין אותם מפני הדליקה רבי יוסי אומר בחול קודר את האזכרות שבהן וגונזן והשאר שורפן א"ר טרפון אקפח את בני שאם יבאו לידי שאני אשרוף אותם ואת האזכרות שבהן שאפי' אדם רודף אחריו להורגו ונחש רץ להכישו נכנס לבית ע"ז ואין נכנס לבתיהן של אלו שהללו מכירין וכופרין והללו אין מכירין וכופרין ועליהן הכתוב אומר (ישעיהו נז, ח) [ו] אחר הדלת והמזוזה שמת זכרונך,א"ר ישמעאל ק"ו ומה לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו אמרה תורה שמי שנכתב בקדושה ימחה על המים הללו שמטילין קנאה ואיבה ותחרות בין ישראל לאביהן שבשמים על אחת כמה וכמה ועליהם אמר דוד (תהלים קלט, כא) הלא משנאיך ה' אשנא ובתקוממיך אתקוטט תכלית שנאה שנאתים לאויבים היו לי וכשם שאין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה כך אין מצילין אותן לא מן המפולת ולא מן המים ולא מדבר המאבדן,בעי מיניה יוסף בר חנין מר' אבהו הני ספרי דבי אבידן מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה או אין מצילין אין ולאו ורפיא בידיה רב לא אזיל לבי אבידן וכ"ש לבי נצרפי שמואל לבי נצרפי לא אזיל לבי אבידן אזיל אמרו ליה לרבא מ"ט לא אתית לבי אבידן אמר להו דיקלא פלניא איכא באורחא וקשי לי ניעקריה דוכתיה קשי לי מר בר יוסף אמר אנא מינייהו אנא ולא מסתפינא מינייהו זימנא חדא אזיל בעו לסכוניה [הוספה מחסרונות הש"ס: רבי מאיר הוה קרי ליה און גליון רבי יוחנן הוה קרי ליה עון גליון.],אימא שלום דביתהו דרבי אליעזר אחתיה דרבן גמליאל הואי הוה ההוא פילוסופא בשבבותיה | 116a. bthat this is not its place,as the previous portion does not discuss the nation’s travels. bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays: It is not for thatreason that signs were inserted. bRather,the signs are there bbecausethis portion bis considered a book unto itself. /b,The Gemara asks: bAccording to whoseopinion is bthatwhich bRabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman saidthat bRabbi Yonatan said,that with regard to the verse: “With wisdom she built her house, bshe carved its seven pillars”(Proverbs 9:1), bthese are the seven books of the Torah? According to whoseopinion? It is baccording tothe opinion of bRabbiYehuda HaNasi, as by his count there are seven books of the Torah: Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers until: “And when the Ark traveled”; the portion: “And when the Ark traveled,” which is considered its own book; the remainder of Numbers; and Deuteronomy., bWho isthe btanna who disagrees with RabbiYehuda HaNasi? bIt is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the future, this portion will be uprooted from here,where it appears, band will be written in itsproper bplace. And why was it written here,even though it discusses the travels of the children of Israel, and the portion before it does not? It is bin order to demarcate between the first punishment and the second punishment. What is the second punishmentthat appears immediately afterward? It is the verse: b“And the people complainedwickedly in God’s ears, and God heard and became angry, and the fire of God burned in them and it consumed the edge of the camp” (Numbers 11:1). What is bthe first punishment?It is the verse: b“And they traveled from the mountain of God [ imehar Hashem /i]for three days” (Numbers 10:33), band Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: That they turned from after God [ ime’aḥarei Hashem /i]and hurriedly fled Mount Sinai. The Gemara asks: bAndif so, bwhere isthe proper bplacefor this paragraph? bRav Ashi said: Inthe portion of the bflags,where there is a description of the manner in which the Jewish people traveled through the desert., bA dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: With regard to bthe blank foliosof parchment bof a Torah scroll,does bone rescue them from the fireon Shabbat, bordoes bone not rescue them from the fire? Comeand bheara resolution to this from that which we learned: With regard to ba Torah scroll that is worn, if there isenough bin it to compile eighty-fivecomplete bletters as in the portion of: “And when the Ark traveled,” one rescuesit from the fire, band if not one does not rescueit. If even the blank folios are rescued, bwhywould one not rescue a Torah scroll with fewer than the requisite number of letters? bDerivethat this scroll may be rescued bdue to its blank folios. The Gemaraanswers: A Torah scroll that is bworn is different,because at that point its sanctity is negated, and its blank folios are not sacred. Therefore, one may rescue the scroll only if it contains eighty-five letters., bComeand bheara different resolution from that which was taught in another ibaraita /i: With regard to ba Torah scroll that was erased, if there isenough bin it to compile eighty-fivecomplete bletters as in the portion of: “And when the Ark traveled,” one rescuesit from the fire, band if not, one does not rescueit. bAnd whyis that so? bDerivethat this scroll may be rescued bdue to its blank folios,as the erased section is surely no less significant than the blank folios of the scroll. The Gemara answers: That is not so. In a case where bthe place of the writingis erased bit is not a dilemma for me, as it is sacred due tothe bwriting.If the bwriting is gone, its sanctity is gone. When it is a dilemma for me iswith regard to the blank portions that are babove and below, that are betweenone bsection andanother bsection, that are betweenone bpage andanother bpage, that are at the beginning of the scroll,and bthat are at the end of the scroll.The Gemara asks again: bDerivethat this scroll may be rescued bdue to thatarea that is blank, whose sanctity remains. The Gemara replies: There, it is referring to a case bwherethe blank area bwas cut and thrownout, and all that remains is the place of the writing., bComeand bheara different resolution from what we learned in a mishna: The Sages decreed that bthe blank foliosthat are babove and below, that are betweenone bsection andanother bsection, that are betweenone bpage andanother bpage, that are at the beginning of the scroll,and bthat are at the end of the scroll render the handsthat touch them britually impure.Apparently, the blank folios have the sanctity of a Torah scroll. The Gemara replies: That is not a proof, as bperhapswhen it is bpart of the Torah scroll, it is different,and in those circumstances the sanctity of the Torah extends to the blank portions. When they stand alone they have no sanctity.,Therefore, bcomeand bheara different resolution from that which was taught in another ibaraita /i: With regard to bthe blank folios and theTorah bscrolls of heretics, one does not rescue them from the fire; rather, they burn in their place, they and the namesof God contained therein. bWhat,is this bnotreferring to the bblank foliosof ba Torah scroll?The Gemara rejects this: bNo,it is referring to the bblank foliosof bthe scrolls of heretics.The Gemara is surprised at this: bNow,with regard to bthe scrolls of heretics themselves, one does not rescuethem; is it bnecessaryto say that one does not rescue their bblank folios?Rather, bthis is what it is saying: And the scrolls of heretics are like blank folios. /b,Apropos the scrolls of heretics, the Gemara analyzes bthe matter itself.With regard to bthe blank folios and theTorah bscrolls ofthe bheretics, one does not rescue them from the fire. Rabbi Yosei says: During the week, one cuts the namesof God contained btherein and buries them, and burns the rest. Rabbi Tarfon saidin the form of an oath: bI will bury my sonsif I fail to do the following, bthat ifthese books bcome into my possession I will burn them and the namescontained btherein. As evenif ba person is pursuing himwith the intent bto kill him, and a snake is hurrying to bite him, one enters a house of idolatry and does not enter the houses of theseheretics. The reason is bthat theseheretics bare awareof the greatness of the Creator manifest in the Torah and its mitzvot, bandnevertheless, they bdenythe existence of God; bwhereas theseidolators bare not aware, andthat is the reason that they bdenythe existence of God. bAnd with regard to theheretics, bthe verse says: “And behind the door and the doorpost you place your memory”(Isaiah 57:8). Although they remember the word of God, they treat it contemptuously, as if casting it behind the door., bRabbi Yishmael said:The fact that the names of God in the scrolls of heretics may be burned can be derived through an ia fortiori /iinference: bJust as to make peace between a husband and his wife,the bTorah says: My name that was written in sanctity shall be erased in the waterin the framework of the ordeal of the isota /i; bthese,the heretics, bwho impose jealousy, and hatred, and conflict between the Jewish people and their Father in Heaven, all the more soit is proper to erase God’s names because of them. bAnd with regard toheretics, bDavid said: “For I hate those who hate You, God, and I fight those who rise against You. I hate them with the utmost hatred, they have become enemies to me”(Psalms 139:21–22). bAnd just as they,the scrolls of heretics, bare not rescued from the fire, neither are they rescued from a rockslide, nor from water, nor fromany other bmatter that destroys them. /b, bYosef bar Ḥanin raised a dilemma before Rabbi Abbahu:With regard to bthese books of the house of Abidan,does bone rescue them from the fire ordoes bone not rescuethem? There were sacred Jewish texts in that house, which were used in debates and discussions on matters of faith. Rabbi Abbahu did not give him a clear answer but said byes and no, andthe matter was buncertain to him. Rav would not go to the house of Abidanfor conversation, band all the more sohe would not go bto the house of Nitzrefei,the Persian fire-temple. bShmuel, to the house of Nitzrefei he did not go,but bto the house of Abidan he did go.The gentile scholars bsaid to Rava: Why did you not come to the house of Abidan?He evaded their question with an excuse and bsaid to them: There is a certain palm tree on the road, andthat makes the path bdifficult for me.They said to him: bWe will uproot it.He said to them: Nevertheless, the resulting pit in bits placewill be bdifficult for me. Mar bar Yosef said: I amone bof them,we are friends, band I do not fear them.Still, bone time he wentand argued with them and bthey sought to endanger hislife. bRabbi Meir would callthe Christian writing, the Evangelion, the bwicked folio [ iaven gilyon /i]; Rabbi Yoḥacalled it the bsinful folio [ iavon gilyon /i]. /b,The Gemara relates: bImma Shalom,the bwifeof bRabbi Eliezer, was Rabban Gamliel’s sister. There wasa Christian bphilosopher [ ipilosofa /i] in their neighborhood /b |
|
8. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 45b. מנו רב יהודה והא אמר רב יהודה מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין הבא על בת ישראל אותו ולד אין לו תקנה,כי איתמר דרב יהודה כגון דקדיש בת ישראל דנמצא צד עבדות שבו משתמש באשת איש,והאמרי נהרדעי משמיה דרבי יעקב לדברי הפוסל פוסל אפילו בפנויה לדברי המכשיר מכשיר אפי' באשת איש,ושניהם לא למדוה אלא מאשת אב מאן דפסיל סבר מה אשת אב דלא תפסי בה קדושין [הולד ממזר] אף כל דלא תפסי בה קדושין הולד ממזר,ומאן דמכשר סבר מה אשת אב דלדידיה לא תפסי בה קדושין לאחריני תפסי בה קדושין לאפוקי עובד כוכבים ועבד דלא תפסי בהו קדושין כלל,אלא כי איתמר דרב יהודה כגון שבא על אשת איש ונמצא צד חירות שבו משתמש באשת איש,אמר רבינא אמר לי רב גזא איקלע ר' יוסי בר אבין לאתרין והוה עובדא בפנויה ואכשר באשת איש ופסיל א"ר ששת לדידי אמר לי רב גזא לא ר' יוסי בר אבין הוה אלא רבי יוסי ברבי זבידא הוה ואכשר בין בפנויה בין באשת איש א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבה לרבינא איקלע אמימר לאתרין ואכשר בין בפנויה בין באשת איש,והלכתא עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד כשר בין בפנויה בין באשת איש,רבא אכשריה לרב מרי בר רחל ומנייה בפורסי דבבל ואע"ג דאמר מר (דברים יז, טו) שום תשים עליך מלך כל משימות שאתה משים אל יהו אלא מקרב אחיך האי כיון דאמו מישראל מקרב אחיך קרינן ביה,עבדיה דרבי חייא בר אמי אטבלה לההיא עובדת כוכבים לשם אנתתא אמר רב יוסף יכילנא לאכשורי בה ובברתה,בה כדרב אסי דאמר רב אסי מי לא טבלה לנדותה,בברתה עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד כשר,ההוא דהוו קרו ליה בר ארמייתא אמר רב אסי מי לא טבלה לנדותה ההוא דהוו קרו ליה בר ארמאה אמר ריב"ל מי לא טבל לקריו,אמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב הלוקח עבד מן העובד כוכבים וקדם וטבל לשם בן חורין קנה עצמו בן חורין מאי טעמא | 45b. bwho is he?He is bRav Yehuda,as the Gemara cited above. bBut didn’t Rav Yehudahimself bsay:With regard to bone who is a half-slave half-freeman who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, that offspringof that union bhas no recourseto be able to marry? It is apparent, then, that even one who permits the offspring of a slave to marry into the congregation of Israel does not permit the offspring of a half-slave to do so, contrary to Rava’s assertion.,The Gemara resolves the difficulty: bWhenthis ruling bof Rav Yehuda was stated,it was referring to a case bwherethe half-slave bbetrothed a Jewish woman.Since a slave’s betrothal does not take effect, the result of that betrothal is that the woman is married to only the free half of the half-slave half-freeman, such bthat it emergesthat when he has relations with her, the bslave side of him is engaging in relations with a married womanto whom that side of him is not married, and so the offspring of that union is a imamzer /i.,The Gemara raises an objection: bBut didn’tthe Sages bof Neharde’a say in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov: According to the statement of the one who rendersthe child of a gentile or slave and a Jewish woman bunfitto marry into the congregation of Israel, bhe rendersthe child bunfit even whenthe mother is ban unmarried woman.And baccording to the statement of the one who rendersthe child bfit, he rendersthe child bfit even whenthe mother bis a married woman. /b, bAnd both of them derivedtheir opinions bonly fromthe ihalakhaof one’s bfather’s wife,as follows: bThe one who rendersthe child bunfit holdsthat bjust aswith regard to one’s bfather’s wife,one’s bbetrothal of her does not take effecteven after she is widowed or divorced, and so bthe offspringof such a union bis a imamzer /i, so too,with regard to banyone for whom bbetrothal of her does not take effect,including a gentile or a slave, bthe offspring is a imamzer /i. /b, bAnd the one who rendersthe child bfit holdsthat the derivation from the ihalakhaof one’s father’s wife is more limited, and it is derived that the offspring is a imamzeronly in a case bjust likeone’s bfather’s wife,in bthatalthough his bbetrothal of her does not take effect, with someone elsehis bbetrothalof her bdoes take effect.This is bto the exclusion of a gentile and a slave, for whom betrothalof any Jewish woman bdoes not take effect at all,and so the offspring of such a union will not be a imamzer /i. It is apparent from this statement of the Sages of Neharde’a that according to the lenient opinion, the offspring of a slave is never a imamzer /i, irrespective of the marital status of the Jewish woman. Therefore, the Gemara’s resolution is undermined.,The Gemara offers a different resolution: bRather, whenthis statement bof Rav Yehuda was stated,it was referring to a case bwherethe half-slave half-freeman bengaged in intercourse with a married womanwho was married to someone else, band ittherefore bemergesthat although the woman’s union with the slave side of him will not render the offspring a imamzer /i, the bfree side of him is engaging in relations with a married womanto whom he is not married, and due to that side of him the offspring is a imamzer /i., bRavina said: Rav Gazza said to methat bRabbi Yosei bar Avinonce bhappenedto come bto our place, and there was an incident involving an unmarried womanwho had engaged in intercourse with a slave, bandRabbi Yosei bar Avin brenderedher offspring bfitto marry into the congregation of Israel. And there was another incident binvolving a married womanwho had engaged in intercourse with a slave, band he renderedher offspring bunfitto marry into the congregation of Israel by ruling the offspring was a imamzeret /i. bRav Sheshet said: Rav Gazza told methat it was bnot Rabbi Yosei bar Avin; rather, it was Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Zevida, and he renderedthe offspring bfit both inthe case of ban unmarried woman and inthe case of ba married woman. Rav Aḥa, son of Rabba, said to Ravina: Ameimaronce bhappenedto come bto our place and renderedthe offspring bfit both inthe case of ban unmarried woman and inthe case of ba married woman. /b,The Gemara concludes: bAnd the ihalakha /iis that with regard to ba gentile or slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman,the lineage of bthe offspring is unflawed, whethershe was ban unmarried or a married woman. /b,The Gemara cites a related ihalakha /i: bRava ruledthat bRav Mari bar Raḥel,who was the son of a gentile father and a Jewish mother, was bfitto marry into the congregation of Israel, bandfurthermore bhe appointed him as one of the officials [ ipursei /i] of Babylonia. And although the Master saidthat from the verse, b“You shall place a king over youwhom the Lord your God shall chose; from among your brethren shall you place a king over you” (Deuteronomy 17:15) it is derived that not only with regard to the kingship but also with regard to ball positionsof authority bthat you appoint,the incumbents bmay beselected bonly from among your brethrenwho share your Jewish lineage. Nevertheless, with regard to bthis one,i.e., Rav Mari bar Raḥel, bsince his mother is of Jewishlineage, bwe call him “from among your brethren,”and so he is eligible. br§ A gentile slave purchased by a Jew must be circumcised and then immersed in a ritual bath. By being immersed for the sake of slavery, he takes on the status of a full slave, which, among other things, obligates him to keep certain mitzvot. However, if the slave, or any gentile, is immersed for the sake of conversion, he then becomes a full Jew and fully obligated in mitzvot like any other Jew.,The Gemara considers the result of different intentions accompanying an immersion: bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Ami’s slave immersed a certain gentile woman for the sake ofhaving bintimate relations,i.e., to purify her from her menstrual impurity. bRav Yosef said: I am able to renderboth bher and her daughter fitto marry into the congregation of Israel., bWith regard to her,I can render her fit bin accordance withthe opinion bof Rav Asi, as Rav Asi saidconcerning a woman whose status as a convert was unclear but who lived as a part of the Jewish people and acted like all other Jewish women: bDidn’t she immerse for the sake ofpurifying herself from bher menstruation?Therefore, even if the original immersion was invalid, her intention in subsequent immersions was sufficient to be considered for the sake of conversion, since ultimately she immersed as an expression of her commitment to Judaism. She is therefore fully Jewish.,And bwith regard to her daughter,she is the daughter of ba gentile or slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman,and the ihalakhais that the lineage of bthe offspring is unflawed. /b,The Gemara details the circumstances of Rav Asi’s ruling: There was ba certainman bwhompeople bwould call: Son of the Aramean woman,as they cast aspersions on the validity of his mother’s conversion. With regard to that case, bRav Asi said: Didn’t she immerse for the sake ofpurifying herself from bher menstruation?A similar incident is recounted: There was ba certainman bwhompeople bwould call: Son of an Aramean man,as they cast aspersions on the validity of his father’s conversion. bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Didn’t he immerse for the sake ofpurifying himself from bhis seminal emission?That intention is sufficient to consider the immersion an immersion for the sake of conversion., bRav Ḥama bar Gurya saidthat bRav said:In the case of a Jew bwho purchased a slave from a gentile, andbefore he managed to immerse him for the sake of slavery the slave bpreemptedhim band immersed for the sake ofconversion to render himself ba freeman, hethereby bacquired himselfand becomes ba freeman,i.e., his immersion effects a full conversion and he is no longer a slave. bWhat is the reasonfor this ihalakha /i? |
|
