1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 1.17 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 1.17. לֹא־תַכִּירוּ פָנִים בַּמִּשְׁפָּט כַּקָּטֹן כַּגָּדֹל תִּשְׁמָעוּן לֹא תָגוּרוּ מִפְּנֵי־אִישׁ כִּי הַמִּשְׁפָּט לֵאלֹהִים הוּא וְהַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִקְשֶׁה מִכֶּם תַּקְרִבוּן אֵלַי וּשְׁמַעְתִּיו׃ | 1.17. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; ye shall hear the small and the great alike; ye shall not be afraid of the face of any man; for the judgment is God’s; and the cause that is too hard for you ye shall bring unto me, and I will hear it.’" |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 22.20 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 22.20. And a stranger shalt thou not wrong, neither shalt thou oppress him; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt." |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 28.9 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 28.9. וַיֵּלֶךְ עֵשָׂו אֶל־יִשְׁמָעֵאל וַיִּקַּח אֶת־מָחֲלַת בַּת־יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן־אַבְרָהָם אֲחוֹת נְבָיוֹת עַל־נָשָׁיו לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה׃ | 28.9. so Esau went unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives that he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebaioth, to be his wife." |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 19.32-19.33, 23.40 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 19.32. מִפְּנֵי שֵׂיבָה תָּקוּם וְהָדַרְתָּ פְּנֵי זָקֵן וְיָרֵאתָ מֵּאֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲנִי יְהוָה׃ 19.33. וְכִי־יָגוּר אִתְּךָ גֵּר בְּאַרְצְכֶם לֹא תוֹנוּ אֹתוֹ׃ | 19.32. Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and thou shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD." 19.33. And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong." 23.40. And ye shall take you on the first day the fruit of goodly trees, branches of palm-trees, and boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook, and ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days." |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, 1 Kings, 8 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 28.4 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 28.4. וְהָיְתָה צִיצַת נֹבֵל צְבִי תִפְאַרְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עַל־רֹאשׁ גֵּיא שְׁמָנִים כְּבִכּוּרָהּ בְּטֶרֶם קַיִץ אֲשֶׁר יִרְאֶה הָרֹאֶה אוֹתָהּ בְּעוֹדָהּ בְּכַפּוֹ יִבְלָעֶנָּה׃ | 28.4. And the fading flower of his glorious beauty, Which is on the head of the fat valley, Shall be as the first-ripe fig before the summer, Which when one looketh upon it, While it is yet in his hand he eateth it up." |
|
7. Septuagint, Judith, 15.13 (2nd cent. BCE - 0th cent. CE)
| 15.13. and they crowned themselves with olive wreaths, she and those who were with her; and she went before all the people in the dance, leading all the women, while all the men of Israel followed, bearing their arms and wearing garlands and with songs on their lips. |
|
8. Mishnah, Bikkurim, 3.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 3.3. Those who lived near [Jerusalem] would bring fresh figs and grapes, while those who lived far away would bring dried figs and raisins. An ox would go in front of them, his horns bedecked with gold and with an olive-crown on its head. The flute would play before them until they would draw close to Jerusalem. When they drew close to Jerusalem they would send messengers in advance, and they would adorn their bikkurim. The governors and chiefs and treasurers [of the Temple] would go out to greet them, and according to the rank of the entrants they would go forth. All the skilled artisans of Jerusalem would stand up before them and greet them saying, “Our brothers, men of such and such a place, we welcome you in peace.”" |
|
9. Mishnah, Sotah, 9.14 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 9.14. During the war with Vespasian they [the rabbis] decreed against [the use of] crowns worn by bridegrooms and against [the use of] the bell. During the war with Quietus they decreed against [the use of] crowns worn by brides and that nobody should teach their child Greek. During the final war they decreed that a bride should not go out in a palanquin inside the city, but our rabbis decreed that a bride may go out in a palanquin inside the city." |
|
10. Mishnah, Sukkah, 4.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 4.5. The mitzvah of the aravah how was it [performed]?There was a place below Jerusalem called Moza. They went down there and gathered tall branches of aravot and then they came and stood them up at the sides of the altar, and their tops were bent over the altar. They then sounded a teki’ah [long blast], a teru’ah [staccato blast] and again a teki’ah. Every day they went round the altar once, saying, “O Lord, save us, O Lord, make us prosper” (Psalms 118:. Rabbi Judah says: “Ani vaho, save us.” On that day they went round the altar seven times. When they departed, what did they say? “O altar, beauty is to you! O altar, beauty is to you!” Rabbi Eliezer said: [they would say,] “To the Lord and to you, O altar, to the Lord and to you, O altar.”" |
|
11. Tosefta, Megillah, 2.18 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
12. Tosefta, Pesahim, 4.13 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
13. Anon., Deuteronomy Rabbah, 7.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
| 7.8. וַיִּקְרָא משֶׁה אֶל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל (דברים כט, א), הֲלָכָה, אָדָם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁעָמַד לִקְרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה מַהוּ שֶׁיְהֵא מֻתָּר לוֹ לִקְרוֹת פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלשָׁה פְּסוּקִים, כָּךְ שָׁנוּ חֲכָמִים הַקּוֹרֵא בַּתּוֹרָה לֹא יִפְחֹת מִשְּׁלשָׁה פְּסוּקִים. לִמְדוּנוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ לָמָּה הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁלֹא יִפְחֹת מִשְּׁלשָׁה פְּסוּקִים, כְּנֶגֶד אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב. דָּבָר אַחֵר, כְּנֶגֶד משֶׁה אַהֲרֹן וּמִרְיָם, שֶׁנִּתְּנָה תּוֹרָה עַל יְדֵיהֶן. אָמַר רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא רָאָה הַפָּחוּת בִּימֵי משֶׁה מַה שֶׁלֹא רָאָה יְחֶזְקֵאל גָּדוֹל בַּנְּבִיאִים, בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁדִּבְּרָה עִמָּהֶם שְׁכִינָה פָּנִים בְּפָנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ה, ד): פָּנִים בְּפָנִים דִּבֶּר ה' עִמָּכֶם וגו'. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי, מִנַּיִן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר אִלּוּ הָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲסֵרִים אֲפִלּוּ אָדָם אֶחָד לֹא הָיְתָה הַשְּׁכִינָה נִגְלֵית עֲלֵיהֶן, דִּכְתִיב (שמות יט, יא): כִּי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִשִׁי יֵרֵד ה' לְעֵינֵי כָל הָעָם עַל הַר סִינָי, מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי שֶׁהָיָה דוֹרֵשׁ בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ הַגָּדוֹל, וּכְשֶׁהָיָה מְבַקֵּשׁ לִכָּנֵס לִדְרשׁ הָיָה אוֹמֵר רְאוּ אִם נִתְכַּנְסוּ כָּל הַקָּהָל, וּמֵהֵיכָן אַתָּה לָמֵד מִמַּתַּן תּוֹרָה, מִנַּיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ד, י): בֶּאֱמֹר ה' אֵלַי הַקְהֶל לִי אֶת הָעָם וְאַשְׁמִעֵם אֶת דְּבָרָי. דָּבָר אַחֵר, רַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי אַתְּ מוֹצֵא כְּשֶׁנָּתַן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה אֶת הַתּוֹרָה בִּקְרִיאָה נְתָנָהּ לוֹ, מִנַּיִן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יט, כ): וַיִּקְרָא ה' לְמשֶׁה אֶל רֹאשׁ הָהָר וַיַּעַל משֶׁה, אַף משֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ כְּשֶׁבָּא לִשְׁנוֹת אֶת הַתּוֹרָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אָמַר לָהֶם כְּשֵׁם שֶׁקִּבַּלְתִּי אֶת הַתּוֹרָה בִּקְרִיאָה כָּךְ אֲנִי מוֹסֵר לְבָנָיו בִּקְרִיָּה, מִנַּיִן, מִמַּה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בָּעִנְיָן (דברים כט, א): וַיִּקְרָא משֶׁה אֶל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם. | |
|
14. Anon., Qohelet Rabba, 9.17 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
|
15. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 28.3 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
| 28.3. וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶמְחֶה אֶת הָאָדָם, רַבִּי לֵוִי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֲפִלּוּ אִסְטְרוֹבִּלִּין שֶׁל רֵחַיִּים נִמְחֶה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר סִימוֹן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר אֲפִלּוּ עֲפָרוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן נִמְחֶה. כַּד דָּרְשָׁה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּצִפּוֹרִי בְּצִבּוּרָא וְלֹא קִבְּלוּ מִינֵיהּ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק אָמַר אֲפִלּוּ לוּז שֶׁל שִׁדְרָה, שֶׁמִּמֶּנוּ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵצִיץ אֶת הָאָדָם לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, נִמְחָה. אַדְרִיָּאנוֹס שְׁחִיק עֲצָמוֹת שָׁאַל אֶת רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חֲנַנְיָא אָמַר לוֹ מֵהֵיכָן הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מֵצִיץ אֶת הָאָדָם לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, אָמַר לוֹ מִלּוּז שֶׁל שִׁדְרָה, אָמַר לוֹ מִנַּיִן אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַיְתִיתֵיהּ לְיָדִי וַאֲנָא מוֹדַע לָךְ, טָחֲנוֹ בָּרֵחַיִם וְלֹא נִטְחַן, שְׂרָפוֹ בָּאֵשׁ וְלֹא נִשְׂרַף, נְתָנוֹ בְּמַיִם וְלֹא נִמְחֶה, נְתָנוֹ עַל הַסַּדָּן וְהִתְחִיל מַכֶּה עָלָיו בְּפַטִּישׁ, נֶחְלַק הַסַּדָּן וְנִבְקַע הַפַּטִּישׁ וְלֹא חָסַר כְּלוּם. | |
|
16. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 32.7, 35.12 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
| 32.7. רַבִּי זֵירָא כָּד סָלַק לְהָכָא שָׁמַע קָלְהוֹן קָרְיָן מַמְזֵרָא וּמַמְזֵרְתָּא, אֲמַר הָא אָזֵיל הוּא, דְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אֵין הַמַּמְזֵר חַי יוֹתֵר עַל שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר רַב אַחָא כְּהַהִיא דְאָמַר רָבָא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם רַב אֵין הַמַּמְזֵר חַי יוֹתֵר מִשְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, אֵימָתַי בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְפֻרְסָם אֲבָל אִם נִתְפַּרְסֵם חַי הוּא. בְּיוֹמוֹי דְּרַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה סְלֵיק לְהָכָא חַד בַּבְלָאי וַהֲוָה רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה יָדַע בֵּיהּ דְּהוּא מַמְזֵר, אָזַל גַּבֵּיהּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ זַכֵּי עִמִּי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה זִיל לָךְ וּלְמָחָר אַתְּ אָתֵי וַאֲנַן עָבְדִין לָךְ פְּסִיקָא בְּצִבּוּרָא, לְמָחָר אָזַל גַּבֵּיהּ, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ בְּבֵי כְּנִישְׁתָּא יָתֵיב דָּרֵישׁ, אַמְתֵּן לֵיהּ עַד דַּחֲסַל, כֵּיוָן דַּחֲסַל מִן דְּרַשׁ אָזַל לְגַבֵּיהּ אֲמַר לוֹן רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה אָחֵינַן זַכְוָון בַּהֲדֵין גַּבְרָא וְהוּא מַמְזֵר, עֲבַדּוּן לֵיהּ פְּסִיקָא, כֵּיוָן דְּנָפְקוּ לְהוֹן מִן תַּמָּן, אָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חַיֵּי שָׁעָה אָתֵית בָּעֵי גַבָּךְ וּפְסַקְתְּ חַיּוֹי דְּהַהוּא גַבְרָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ חַיֶּיךָ חַיִּין יַהֲבֵית לָךְ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא וְרַב הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם רַב אֵין הַמַּמְזֵר חַי יוֹתֵר מִשְּׁלשִׁים יוֹם, אֵימָתַי בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְפֻרְסָם, אֲבָל אִם נִתְפַּרְסֵם חַי הוּא. 35.12. עַד כַּמָּה גְשָׁמִים יוֹרְדִים וְהָאָרֶץ עוֹשָׂה פֵּרוֹת, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר עַד שְׁנַיִם, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר עַד שְׁלשָׁה. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּאָמַר עַד שְׁנַיִם יוֹרֶה וּמַלְקוֹשׁ, יוֹרֶה בְּמַרְחֶשְׁוָן וּמַלְקוֹשׁ בְּנִיסָן, עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי דְּהוּא אוֹמֵר עַד שְׁלשָׁה, יוֹרֶה בְּכִסְלֵו וּמַלְקוֹשׁ בְּנִיסָן וּגְשָׁמִים בָּאֶמְצַע הֲרֵי שְׁלשָׁה. רַבִּי דּוֹסְתָּאי בְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (איוב לז, ו): כִּי לַשֶּׁלֶג יֹאמַר הֱוֵא אָרֶץ וְגֶשֶׁם מָטָר וְגֶשֶׁם, הֲרֵי שְׁלשָׁה, (איוב לז, ו): מִטְרוֹת, שְׁנַיִם, הֲרֵי חֲמִשָּׁה. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרִין שִׁבְעָה, אִלּלֵין חַמְשִׁיתָה, יוֹרֶה וּמַלְקוֹשׁ, יוֹרֶה בְּכִסְלֵו וּמַלְקוֹשׁ בְּנִיסָן, הֲרֵי שִׁבְעָה. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּהוּ עָבַר הֲוֵינָא קוֹמֵי כְּנִישְׁתָּא דְּטַרְסַיָּא דְּלוֹד וּשְׁמָעִית קָלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי יָתֵיב וְדָרֵשׁ רַבָּנִין בְּשֵׁם חִזְקִיָּה אֲמַר בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל עוֹשִׂין רְצוֹנוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא פְּקִידָה אַחַת הוּא פּוֹקֵד הָאָרֶץ וּמִיָּד הִיא עוֹשָׂה, מַה טַּעְמָא (תהלים סה, י): פָּקַדְתָּ הָאָרֶץ וַתְּשֹׁקְקֶהָ רַבַּת תַּעְשְׁרֶנָּה, שֶׁהִיא עוֹשָׂה לָכֶם אֶחָד לַעֲשָׂרָה. רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה וְרַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ וְרַב פַּפֵּי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמְרֵי פְּעָמִים שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה בִּזְכוּת אִישׁ אֶחָד, בִּזְכוּת עֵשֶׂב אֶחָד, בִּזְכוּת שָׂדֶה אֶחָת, וּשְׁלָשְׁתָּן בְּפָסוּק אֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (זכריה י, א): שַׁאֲלוּ מֵה' מָטָר בְּעֵת מַלְקוֹשׁ ה' עֹשֶׂה חֲזִיזִים וּמְטַר גֶּשֶׁם יִתֵּן לָהֶם לְאִישׁ עֵשֶׂב בַּשָּׂדֶה, לְאִישׁ וְלֹא לַאֲנָשִׁים, לְעֵשֶׂב וְלֹא לַעֲשָׂבִים, לְשָׂדֶה וְלֹא לְשָׂדוֹת. (מלאכי ג, י): הָבִיאוּ [את כל] הַמַּעֲשֵׂר אֶל בֵּית הָאוֹצָר וגו' בְּרָכָה עַד בְּלִי דָּי, מַהוּ עַד בְּלִי דָּי, רַבִּי יוֹנָה בַּר אַבָּא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר דָּבָר שֶׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר עָלָיו דַּי, הוּא בְּרָכָה. רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה וְרַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ וְרַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רַב, עַד שֶׁיִּבְלוּ שִׂפְתוֹתֵיכֶם לוֹמַר דַּיֵּנוּ, לְפִי שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה גְּשָׁמִים טוֹרְדִים לָעוֹלָם יוֹצְאֵי דְרָכִים מְצֵירִין בָּהֶם, מְפָרְשֵׁי יַמִּים מְצֵירִין בָּהֶם, וְדוֹרְכֵי גִתּוֹת וְטָחֵי גַּגּוֹת. אֲבָל לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה אוֹתָן בְּרָכָה, מַה טַּעְמָא (יחזקאל לד, כו): וְנָתַתִּי אוֹתָם וּסְבִיבוֹת גִּבְעָתִי בְּרָכָה וְהוֹרַדְתִּי הַגֶּשֶׁם בְּעִתּוֹ גִּשְׁמֵי בְרָכָה יִהְיוּ. | |
|
17. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 17 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
|
18. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, 5.3 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
|
19. Palestinian Talmud, Hagigah, 2.2 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
|
20. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 2.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
|
21. Palestinian Talmud, Shabbat, 14.4 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
|
22. Palestinian Talmud, Sukkah, 5.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
|
23. Palestinian Talmud, Taanit, 1.2 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
|
24. Palestinian Talmud, Peah, 8.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
|
25. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 149a. יהנה בהן מהי דניהוי כולהו מתנה קאמר או דלמא ליתהני מינייהו מידי קאמר יראה בהן מהו יעמוד בהן מהו ישען בהן מהו תיקו,איבעיא להו מכר כל נכסיו מהו אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אם עמד אינו חוזר וזימנין אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אם עמד חוזר ולא פליגי הא דאיתנהו לזוזי בעינייהו הא דפרעינהו בחובו,איבעיא להו שכיב מרע שהודה מהו ת"ש דאיסור גיורא הוה ליה תריסר אלפי זוזי בי רבא רב מרי בריה הורתו שלא בקדושה ולידתו בקדושה הואי ובי רב הוה,אמר רבא היכי ניקנינהו רב מרי להני זוזי אי בירושה לאו בר ירושה הוא אי במתנה מתנת שכיב מרע כירושה שויוה רבנן כל היכא דאיתיה בירושה איתיה במתנה כל היכא דליתיה בירושה ליתיה במתנה,אי במשיכה ליתנהו גביה אי בחליפין אין מטבע נקנה בחליפין אי אגב קרקע לית ליה ארעא אי במעמד שלשתן אי שלח לי לא אזילנא,מתקיף לה רב איקא בריה דרב אמי אמאי ולודי איסור דהלין זוזי דרב מרי נינהו וליקנינהו באודיתא אדהכי נפק אודיתא מבי איסור איקפד רבא אמר קא מגמרי טענתא לאינשי ומפסדי לי | 149a. If a person on his deathbed says: So-and-so bshall benefit frommy property, bwhat isthe ihalakha /i? Is he bsaying that allof the property bshall be a gift? Or perhapshe is bsayingthat the recipient bshall derive some benefit fromthe property. If he says: So-and-so bshall be seen inmy property, bwhat isthe ihalakha /i? If he says: So-and-so bshall stand inmy property, bwhat isthe ihalakha /i? If he says: So-and-so bshall rely onmy property, bwhat isthe ihalakha /i? The Gemara concludes: All these dilemmas bshall standunresolved., bA dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: If a person on his deathbed bsold all of his property, what isthe ihalakha /i? bRav Yehuda saysthat bRav says: If he recovers, he cannot retractthe sale. bAndat btimes, Rav Yehuda saidthat bRav said: If he recovers, he can retractthe sale. bAndthese statements bdo not disagree. Thisstatement, that he can retract the sale, applies in a case bwhere the dinarshe received as payment barestill bextant,i.e., in his possession. bThatstatement, that he cannot retract the sale, applies in a case bwhere he paid his debt withthose dinars.,§ bA dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: In the case of ba person on his deathbed who admittedthat he owed money to a certain person, where it was possible that he did not actually owe him money, bwhat isthe ihalakha /i? Does his admission qualify as the gift of a person on his deathbed? The Gemara answers: bComeand bheara proof, bas Issur the convert had twelve thousand dinarsdeposited in bthe house of Rava. Rav Mari,Issur’s bson, whose conception was not inthe bsanctityof the Jewish people, i.e., he was conceived before his father converted, bbut his birth was inthe bsanctityof the Jewish people, i.e., he was born after his father converted, bwasin ba study hallelsewhere when his father was on his deathbed., bRavareasoned that he would acquire possession of the deposit for himself, as he bsaid: How can Rav Mari acquire these dinars? Ifhe attempts to acquire the money bas inheritance, he is not fit to inheritfrom Issur. Since he was conceived before his father converted, he is therefore not halakhically considered his son. bIfhe attempts to acquire it bas a gift, the Sages equatedthe halakhic status of the bgift of a person on his deathbed withthat of binheritance.Therefore, banywhere thatthe property bcan beacquired bas inheritance, it canalso bbeacquired bas a gift,and banywhere thatthe property bcannot beacquired bas inheritance, it cannot beacquired bas a gift. /b, bIfhe attempts to acquire the dinars bby pullingthem, which is a formal act of acquisition, he will not be able to do this, as the dinars bare not with him. Ifhe attempts to acquire them bbymeans of symbolic bexchange,a pro forma act of acquisition effecting the transfer of ownership of an article, bmoney cannot be acquired bymeans of symbolic bexchange. Ifhe attempts to acquire them bby means ofthe acquisition of bland,Issur bdoes not haveany bland. Ifhe attempts to acquire them by means of verbal instruction made by his father bin the presence ofall bthreeparties, i.e., the giver, the recipient, and the bailee, bif he sends for me,the bailee, bI shall not go,as without the presence of the bailee he cannot transfer ownership of the money., bRav Ika, son of Rav Ami, objected to this: Whyis Rav Mari unable to acquire the money? bButwhy not blet Issur admit that these dinars areowned bby Rav Mari, and he shall transferownership of bthemto Rav Mari bbymeans of a document of badmission? In the meantime,a document of badmissionstating that the dinars belonged to Rav Mari bemerged from Issur’s house. Rava became angry,and bsaid: They are teaching peoplelegal bclaims and causing me loss.In any event, this incident proves that the admission of a person on his deathbed is a valid means of transferring ownership. |
|
26. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 50a. אף ברכו ומ"מ נברך עדיף דאמר רב אדא בר אהבה אמרי בי רב תנינא ו' נחלקין עד י',אי אמרת בשלמא נברך עדיף מש"ה נחלקין אלא א"א ברכו עדיף אמאי נחלקין אלא לאו ש"מ נברך עדיף ש"מ,תניא נמי הכי בין שאמר ברכו בין שאמר נברך אין תופסין אותו על כך והנקדנין תופסין אותו על כך ומברכותיו של אדם ניכר אם ת"ח הוא אם לאו כיצד רבי אומר ובטובו הרי זה ת"ח ומטובו ה"ז בור,א"ל אביי לרב דימי והכתיב (ש"ב ז, כט) ומברכתך יברך (את) בית עבדך לעולם בשאלה שאני בשאלה נמי הכתיב (תהלים פא, יא) הרחב פיך ואמלאהו ההוא בד"ת כתיב,תניא רבי אומר בטובו חיינו הרי זה ת"ח חיים הרי זה בור נהרבלאי מתני איפכא ולית הלכתא כנהרבלאי,אמר רבי יוחנן נברך שאכלנו משלו הרי זה ת"ח למי שאכלנו משלו הרי זה בור,אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי והא אמרינן למי שעשה לאבותינו ולנו את כל הנסים האלו א"ל התם מוכחא מילתא מאן עביד ניסי קודשא ב"ה,א"ר יוחנן ברוך שאכלנו משלו הרי זה ת"ח על המזון שאכלנו הרי זה בור,א"ר הונא בריה דרב יהושע לא אמרן אלא בג' דליכא שם שמים אבל בעשרה דאיכא שם שמים מוכחא מילתא כדתנן כענין שהוא מברך כך עונין אחריו ברוך ה' אלהי ישראל אלהי הצבאות יושב הכרובים על המזון שאכלנו:,אחד עשרה ואחד עשרה רבוא: הא גופא קשיא אמרת אחד עשרה ואחד עשרה רבוא אלמא כי הדדי נינהו והדר קתני במאה אומר באלף אומר ברבוא אומר,אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא הא ר' יוסי הגלילי הא ר"ע דתנן ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר לפי רוב הקהל הם מברכין שנאמר (תהלים סח, כז) במקהלות ברכו אלהים: אר"ע מה מצינו בבית הכנסת וכו':,ור"ע האי קרא דרבי יוסי הגלילי מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתניא היה ר' מאיר אומר מנין שאפי' עוברין שבמעי אמן אמרו שירה על הים שנאמר במקהלות ברכו אלהים ה' ממקור ישראל ואידך ממקור נפקא,אמר רבא הלכה כר"ע רבינא ורב חמא בר בוזי אקלעו לבי ריש גלותא קם רב חמא וקא מהדר אבי מאה א"ל רבינא לא צריכת הכי אמר רבא הלכה כר"ע,אמר רבא כי אכלינן רפתא בי ריש גלותא מברכינן ג' ג' וליברכו י' י' שמע ריש גלותא ואיקפד וניפקו בברכתא דריש גלותא איידי דאוושו כ"ע לא שמעי,אמר רבה תוספאה הני ג' דכרכי רפתא בהדי הדדי וקדים חד מינייהו ובריך לדעתיה אינון נפקין בזמון דידיה איהו לא נפיק בזמון דידהו לפי שאין זמון למפרע:,ר' ישמעאל אומר: רפרם בר פפא איקלע לבי כנישתא דאבי גיבר קם קרא בספרא ואמר ברכו את ה' ואשתיק ולא אמר המבורך אוושו כ"ע ברכו את ה' המבורך אמר רבא פתיא אוכמא בהדי פלוגתא למה לך ועוד הא נהוג עלמא כרבי ישמעאל:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ג' שאכלו כאחת אינן רשאין ליחלק וכן ד' וכן חמשה ו' נחלקין עד עשרה ועשרה אין נחלקין עד כ',שתי חבורות שהיו אוכלות בבית אחד בזמן שמקצתן רואין אלו את אלו הרי אלו מצטרפין לזמון ואם לאו אלו מזמנין לעצמן ואלו מזמנין לעצמן,אין מברכין על היין עד שיתן לתוכו מים דברי ר' אליעזר וחכ"א מברכין:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מאי קמ"ל תנינא חדא זימנא ג' שאכלו כאחת חייבין לזמן,הא קמ"ל כי הא דאמר רבי אבא אמר שמואל ג' שישבו לאכול כאחת ועדיין לא אכלו אינן רשאין ליחלק,ל"א אמר רבי אבא אמר שמואל הכי קתני ג' שישבו לאכול כאחת אע"פ שכל אחד ואחד אוכל מככרו אינן רשאין ליחלק אי נמי כי הא דרב הונא דאמר רב הונא ג' שבאו מג' חבורות אינן רשאין ליחלק,אמר רב חסדא והוא שבאו מג' חבורות של ג' בני אדם,אמר רבא | 50a. He may bevensay: bBless; nevertheless: Let us bless, is preferable as Rav Adda bar Ahava saidthat bthey said in the school of Rav: We learned:A group of bsix to tenpeople may bdivideinto two groups, each forming its own izimmun /i. However, a group of ten, which invokes God’s name in the izimmun /i, may not divide into two groups as that would negate the opportunity to invoke God’s name.,The Gemara proceeds: bGranted, if you say: Let us bless is preferable, that is whysix people who ate together may bdivideinto two groups. bHowever, if you say: Bless is preferable, whyare they permitted to bdivideinto two groups? Neither group would be able to say: Bless. bRather, mustn’t one conclude from this: Let us bless is preferableas the one reciting the izimmundoes not exclude himself from the group? The Gemara sums up the discussion: Indeed, bconclude from thisthat that is the case., bThat was also taughtin the iTosefta /i: bBothif bhe said: Bless, andif bhe said: Let us bless, we do not reprimand him fordoing bso; and the punctilious reprimand him fordoing bso. Andthe Gemara says: As a rule, bfromthe style of bone’s blessings it is obvious whether or not he is a Torah scholar. How so?For example, bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays:In a izimmun /i, one who recites: Blessed be the One from Whose food we have eaten band by Whose goodnesswe live, bhe is a Torah scholar.However, one who recites: Blessed be the One from Whose food we have eaten band from Whose goodnesswe live, bhe is an ignoramus,as that expression insinuates that only some of God’s goodness was bestowed upon him, which is tantamount to a denial of God’s loving-kindness., bAbaye said to Rav Dimi: Isn’t it writtenthat King David articulated his prayer in that manner: “Be pleased, therefore, to bless Your servant’s house, that it abide before You forever; for You, Lord God, have spoken. bAnd from Your blessing may Your servant’s house be blessed forever”(II Samuel 7:29). David said: From Your blessing. The Gemara answers: bIna case of brequest it is different,as it is inappropriate to demand the full bounty of God’s blessing. The Gemara questions this: bIna case of brequest, too, is it not writtenthat a request for the full bounty of God’s blessing is granted: b“Open your mouth wide, that I will fill it”(Psalms 81:11)? What one receives corresponds to what he requests. The Gemara answered: bThatverse bis written with regard to matters of Torah,where it is wholly appropriate to make excessive requests.,On the topic of the izimmunformula, bit was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays:One who recites in a izimmun /i: bAnd by His goodness we live, he is a Torah scholar.However, one who recites: And by His goodness bthey live, he is a fool,as he excluded himself from the collective. The Sages bof Neharbela taught the opposite.In their opinion, they live is preferable because it is a more inclusive formula, whereas, we live is more limited and personal. Nonetheless, the Gemara concludes: bThe ihalakhais not in accordance withthe opinion of the Sages bof Neharbela. /b,On a similar note, bRabbi Yoḥa said:One who recites in a izimmun /i: bLet us bless the One Whose food we have eaten, he is a Torah scholar.However, one who recites: Let us bless bto Him from Whose food we have eaten, he is an ignoramus,as it appears that the blessing is directed to the host of the meal., bRabbi Aḥa the son of Ravaquestioned this and bsaid to Rav Ashi: Don’t we sayduring the Passover seder: bTo He Who performed all of these miracles for our ancestors and for us,using the expression: To He Who? Rav Ashi bsaid to him: There,in the case of miracles performed for our ancestors and for us, bit is self-evidentthat the blessing refers to God. bWho performs miracles? The Holy One, blessed be He.In the case of food, however, it is not self-evident, as the host of the meal also provided the food that was eaten., bRabbi Yoḥa saidwith regard to the formula of the izimmunthat one who recites in a izimmun /i: bBlessed be the One from Whose food we have eaten, he is a Torah scholar.However, one who recites: bFor the food we have eaten, he is an ignoramus,as it appears that he is blessing the host of the meal. If he was blessing God, why would he restrict the blessing to food ( iTosafot /i)?, bRav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua said: We only saidthis ihalakha bwith regard toa izimmunof bthree, where there is nomention of bGod’s name. Ina izimmunof bten, however, where there ismention of bGod’s name, it is self-evidentto whom the blessing refers, bas we learnedin our mishna: bJust as he recites the blessing, so toodo those present brecite in response: Blessed be the Lord our God, the God of Israel, the God of Hosts, Who sits upon the cherubs, for the food that we have eaten. /b,We learned in our mishna with regard to the formula of izimmun /i: This formula is recited bbothin a group of bten and ina group of bone hundred thousand.The Gemara raises an objection: bThemishna bitself is difficult.On one hand, byou said:This formula is recited bbothin a group of bten and ina group of bone hundred thousand; consequently,the two cases bare the same.On the other hand, bit is then taught: Ina group of bone hundredpeople, the one reciting the izimmun bsays; ina group of bone thousandpeople, the one reciting the izimmun bsays; ina group of bten thousandpeople, the one reciting the izimmun bsays.Evidently, the formula depends on the number of people., bRav Yosef said:This is bnot difficult,as these two statements are the opinions of different Sages. bThis isthe opinion of bRabbi Yosei HaGelili, and that isthe opinion of bRabbi Akiva. As we learnedin our mishna: bRabbi Yosei HaGelili says: According to the size of the crowd, they recite the blessing, as it is stated: “Bless you God in full assemblies,even the Lord, you who are from the fountain of Israel” (Psalms 68:27). We also learned in our mishna that bRabbi Akiva saidthat there are no distinctions based on the size of the crowd: bWhat do we find in the synagogue?Both when there are many and when there are few, as long as there is a quorum of ten, the prayer leader says: Bless the Lord. In the case of Grace after Meals as well, the formula remains the same regardless of the number of people participating in the izimmun /i.,The Gemara asks: bAnd Rabbi Akiva, what does he do with that versecited by bRabbi Yosei HaGelili?The Gemara answers: bHe needs it toderive bthat which was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Meir says: From whereis it derived bthat even fetuses in their mother’s womb recitedthe bsong at theRed bSea? As it is statedin the chapter of Psalms that describes the exodus from Egypt: b“In assemblies, bless God, the Lord, from the source of Israel,”and fetuses are included in these assemblies. The Gemara asks: bAndfrom where does bthe otherSage, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, derive the matter of the singing of the fetuses? The Gemara answers: bHe derivesit bfrom /b“fromthe sourceof Israel,” which he interprets as an allusion to the womb., bRava said: The ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Akiva.The Gemara recounts that bRavina and Rav Ḥama bar Buzi happenedto come btoa banquet at bthe house of the Exilarch.At the end of the meal, bRav Ḥama rose and was seekingto gather a group of bone hundredparticipants in the meal so that the izimmunfor one hundred could be recited. bRavina said to him: You need notdo so, as bRava declared the following: The ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Akivaand the formula remains the same regardless of the number of people participating in the izimmun /i, as long as there are at least ten.,The Gemara discusses Rava’s conduct at meals at the house of the Exilarch. bRava said: When we would eat bread at the house of the Exilarch, we would recite theGrace after Meals bblessing in groups of three.The Gemara asks: bLet them recite the blessing in groups of ten.The Gemara answers: Then bthe Exilarch would hear and become angryupon seeing a large group of Sages reciting Grace after Meals before he completed his meal. The Gemara asks: bWhy could they not satisfy their obligation with the Exilarch’s blessing?The Gemara answers: bSince everyone is making noise, they do not hearand would not fulfill their obligation., bRabba Tosefa’a said: These threepeople, bwho break bread together and one of them went ahead and recitedGrace after Meals bon his ownwithout a izimmun /i, bthey,the other two diners, bfulfilltheir obligation bwith hisparticipation in their izimmun /i; he,however, bdoes not fulfillhis obligation bwithhis participation in btheir izimmunbecause there is no retroactive izimmun /i,and once he recited his blessing, participating in the izimmunaccomplishes nothing for him.,The mishna states that Rabbi Akiva holds that in the synagogue, one recites: Bless the Lord, while bRabbi Yishmael saidthat he recites: bBless the Lord the blessed One. Rafram bar Pappa happenedto come bto the synagogue of Abei Givar when he rose to read from theTorah bscroll and recited: Bless the Lord, and was silent, and did not recite: The blessed One.Because Rafram bar Pappa followed the principle that the ihalakhais in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and those present were not accustomed to that ruling, beveryonein the synagogue bcried out: Bless the Lord the blessed One. Rava saidto Rafram bar Pappa: bYou black pot,a fond nickname for a Torah scholar who invests great effort in Torah study and worship of God, bwhy are youinvolving yourself bin thistannaitic bdispute?Although Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael disagree, Rabbi Yishmael’s formula, in which Rabbi Akiva’s formula is included, is acceptable to both. bFurthermore, standard practice is in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yishmael. /b, strongMISHNA: /strong bThreepeople bwho ate as one are not permitted to divideand recite Grace after Meals individually; rather, they recite the izimmuntogether. bAnd the sameis true of bfourwho ate together, band the sameis true of bfive.However, a group of bsix, up tobut not including btenpeople who ate as one, bmay divideinto two groups, each reciting its own izimmun /i. bAnda group of bten may not divideinto two groups buntil there are twentypeople present. The general principle is that a group may not divide unless the smaller groups will be able to recite the same izimmunformula that the whole group would have recited.,The mishna states a ihalakhawith regard to two groups joining together: bTwo groups that were eating in one house, when somemembers of each group bcan see each other, they may combine toform a izimmun /i. And if not, these recite a izimmunfor themselves and those recite a izimmunfor themselves. /b,The mishna also speaks of the blessing over wine: bOne does not recite a blessing over wine until he adds water to it,that is bthe statement of Rabbi Eliezer.Undiluted wine is too strong to drink and a blessing is inappropriate. bAnd the Rabbis say:Since it is possible to drink undiluted wine, one brecites a blessing over it. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong At the beginning of the mishna, we learned that three people who ate together may not disperse. The Gemara asks: bWhat does thismishna bteach us? Wealready blearned this once: Threepeople bwho ate as one are required to form a izimmun /i. /b,The Gemara answers: bThis teaches us that ihalakha bwhich Rabbi Abba saidthat bShmuel said: Threeindividuals bwho sat to eat as one, and they have not yet begun to eat,nevertheless, bthey are not permitted to divideand recite Grace after Meals individually.,The Gemara cites banother version: Rabbi Abba saidthat bShmuel saidthat bthis is whatthe mishna bteaches: Threeindividuals bwho sat to eat as one, even thoughthey do not share a meal, but beach and every oneof them beats from his own loaf, theyare considered a single group in terms of izimmun /i, and bare not permitted to divide. Alternatively,perhaps the mishna comes to teach bthat ihalakha bof Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: Threeindividuals bwho came from threedifferent bgroupsand sat together to continue their meals also form a izimmunand bare not permitted to divide. /b, bRav Ḥisda said: And thatis only the ihalakhain a case where the three individuals bcame from three groups of three peopleeach, so that each original group was independently obligated to recite the izimmun /i, and that obligation never lapsed., bRavaqualified this, and bsaid: /b |
|
27. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 16b. הראשונים היו נשיאים ושניים להם אב ב"ד:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר שלשה מזוגות הראשונים שאמרו שלא לסמוך ושנים מזוגות האחרונים שאמרו לסמוך (הראשונים) היו נשיאים ושניים להם אבות ב"ד דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים יהודה בן טבאי אב ב"ד ושמעון בן שטח נשיא,מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן אמר רבי יהודה בן טבאי אראה בנחמה אם לא הרגתי עד זומם להוציא מלבן של צדוקין שהיו אומרים אין עדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיהרג הנידון,אמר לו שמעון בן שטח אראה בנחמה אם לא שפכת דם נקי שהרי אמרו חכמים אין עדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיזומו שניהם ואין לוקין עד שיזומו שניהם ואין משלמין ממון עד שיזומו שניהם,מיד קבל עליו יהודה בן טבאי שאינו מורה הלכה אלא בפני שמעון בן שטח,כל ימיו של יהודה בן טבאי היה משתטח על קברו של אותו הרוג והיה קולו נשמע כסבורין העם לומר שקולו של הרוג הוא אמר להם קולי הוא תדעו שלמחר הוא מת ואין קולו נשמע,אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי ודלמא פיוסי פייסיה או בדינא תבעי',מני הא אי אמרת בשלמא רבי מאיר דאמר שמעון בן שטח אב ב"ד ר"י בן טבאי נשיא היינו דקא מורי הלכה בפני שמעון בן שטח אלא אי אמרת רבנן דאמרי יהודה בן טבאי אב ב"ד שמעון בן שטח נשיא אב ב"ד בפני נשיא מי מורה הלכה,לא מאי קבל עליו דקאמר לאצטרופי דאפי' אצטרופי נמי לא מצטריפנא:,יצא מנחם ונכנס שמאי כו': להיכן יצא אביי אמר יצא לתרבות רעה רבא אמר יצא לעבודת המלך תניא נמי הכי יצא מנחם לעבודת המלך ויצאו עמו שמונים זוגות תלמידים לבושין סיריקון,אמר רב שמן בר אבא א"ר יוחנן לעולם אל תהא שבות קלה בעיניך שהרי סמיכה אינה אלא משום שבות ונחלקו בה גדולי הדור,פשיטא שבות מצוה אצטריכא ליה,הא נמי פשיטא לאפוקי ממאן דאמר בסמיכה גופה פליגי קא משמע לן בשבות הוא דפליגי,אמר רמי בר חמא שמע מינה סמיכה בכל כחו בעינן דאי ס"ד לא בעינן בכל כחו מאי קא עביד ליסמוך,מיתיבי (ויקרא א, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל וסמך בני ישראל סומכין ואין בנות ישראל סומכות רבי יוסי ור' (ישמעאל) [שמעון] אומרים בנות ישראל סומכות רשות,אמר רבי יוסי סח לי אבא אלעזר פעם אחת היה לנו עגל של זבחי שלמים והביאנוהו לעזרת נשים וסמכו עליו נשים לא מפני שסמיכה בנשים אלא כדי לעשות נחת רוח לנשים ואי ס"ד סמיכה בכל כחו בעינן משום נחת רוח דנשים עבדינן עבודה בקדשים אלא לאו ש"מ לא בעינן בכל כחו,לעולם אימא לך בעינן בכל כחו דאמר להו אקפו ידייכו אי הכי לא מפני שסמיכה בנשים תיפוק ליה דאינה לסמיכה כלל,א"ר אמי חדא ועוד קאמר חדא דליתא לסמיכה כלל ועוד כדי לעשות נחת רוח לנשים,אמר רב פפא שמע מינה צדדין אסורין דאי ס"ד צדדין מותרין לסמוך לצדדין אלא לאו שמע מינה צדדין אסורין | 16b. bThe firstmembers of each pair bserved as iNasi /i, and their counterpartsserved as bdeputy iNasi /i. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong bThe Sages taught: Three of the first pairs who say not to place hands and two of the last pairs who say to place hands served as iNasi /i, and their counterpartsserved as bdeputy iNasi /i;this is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis saythe opposite: bYehuda ben Tabbaiwas bdeputy iNasiand Shimon ben Shataḥwas the iNasi /i. /b,The Gemara asks: bWho is the itanna /iwho taught bthat which the Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai said:I swear that bI willnot bsee the consolationof Israel bif I did not kill a conspiring witness.This means that Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai sentenced a conspiring witness to death, in order bto counter the views of the Sadducees, who would say: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless the sentenced one has been executed.Their views opposed the traditional view, which maintains that conspiring witnesses are executed only if the one sentenced by their testimony has not yet been executed., bShimon ben Shataḥ said to him:I swear that bI willnot bsee the consolationof Israel bif you did not shed innocent blood, as the Sages said: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless they are both found to be conspirators;if only one is found to be a conspirator, he is not executed. bAnd they are not floggedif they are liable to such a penalty, bunless they are both found to be conspirators. Andif they testified falsely that someone owed money, bthey do not pay money unless they are both found to be conspirators. /b,Hearing this, bYehuda ben Tabbai immediately accepted upon himself not to ruleon any matter of blaw unless he was in the presence of Shimon ben Shataḥ,as he realized he could not rely on his own judgment.,The ibaraitafurther relates: bAll of Yehuda ben Tabbai’s days, he would prostrate himself on the grave of that executedindividual, to request forgiveness, band his voice was heardweeping. bThe people thought that it was the voice of that executedperson, rising from his grave. Yehuda ben Tabbai bsaid to them: It is my voice,and byoushall bknowthat it is so, bfor tomorrow,i.e., sometime in the future, bhe will die, and his voice will nolonger bbe heard.Yehuda ben Tabbai was referring to himself, but he did not want to mention something negative about himself in direct terms., bRav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi:This provides no conclusive proof that the voice was not that of the executed man, as bperhapsben Tabbai bappeasedthe executed individual in the World-to-Come. bOr,alternatively, the latter may have bprosecuted him by the lawof Heaven, and that is why his voice can no longer be heard.,The Gemara returns to its original question: bWhoseopinion does bthis ibaraitafollow? bGranted, if you sayit is in accordance bwiththat of bRabbi Meir,who bsaidthat bShimon ben Shataḥ was deputy iNasi /iwhile bRabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai was iNasi /i, thatexplains why bhehad previously bissued a halakhic ruling in the presence of Shimon ben Shataḥto execute the conspiring witness, and only after that unfortunate incident did he undertake to issue rulings only in the presence of his colleague. bBut if you saythat the ibaraitais in accordance with bthe Sages, who said: Yehuda ben Tabbaiwas bdeputy iNasi /iand bShimon ben Shataḥthe iNasi /i,why did he need to make such a commitment? bMaythe bdeputy iNasiissue a halakhic ruling in the presence ofthe iNasi /i? /b,The Gemara refutes this: bNo; whatdid he mean by baccepting upon himselfnot to rule on his own? bHe spokewith regard bto joiningthe ruling of others: bEvenwith regard to bjoiningthe ruling of others, bI will also not joinuntil I have first heard the view of Shimon ben Shataḥ.,§ It is taught in the mishna: bMenaḥem departed and Shammai entered.The Gemara asks: bTo where didMenaḥem bdepart? Abaye said: He departed and went astray.Therefore, the mishna did not wish to delve into the details of his case. bRava said: He departed for the king’s service.He received a post from the king and had to leave the court. bThis is also taughtin a ibaraita /i: bMenaḥem departed for the king’s service, and eighty pairs of students dressed in silk robes left with himto work for the king, and that they no longer studied Torah.,§ bRav Shemen bar Abba saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: A rabbinic decree [ ishevut /i] should never be taken lightly in your eyes, since placing handson the head of an offering on a Festival bis prohibited only as a rabbinic decreebecause it is considered making use of an animal, which is not considered a prohibited labor but merely resembles one, and yet bthe greatestscholars bof each generation disputed it. /b,The Gemara is puzzled by this statement: This bis obvious.Since it is an accepted rabbinic decree, why should people take it lightly? The Gemara answers: It was bnecessary for himto state it because it is ba rabbinic decree related to a mitzva.In other words, although this rabbinic decree of placing the hands on an animal is not performed for one’s own sake but for the purpose of a mitzva, it was nevertheless a serious matter in the eyes of the Sages.,The Gemara remains puzzled: bThis too is obvious.In that case as well, the act is prohibited by the Sages. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement comes bto excludethe opinion bof the one who saidthat bthey disagree with regard to the actualobligation of bplacing hands,i.e., whether or not obligatory peace-offerings require placing the hands. bHetherefore bteaches usthat bit is a rabbinic decreethat is the subject bof their dispute,not the requirement itself., bRami bar Ḥama said:You can blearn from here,from this dispute, that the mitzva of bplacing handsrequires not only placing one’s hands on the animal’s head, but bwe also requirethat one places his hands bwith all his strength. For if it enters your mindthat bwe do not require all his strength, whatprohibition bdoes one violateby placing his hands? bLet him placethem on a Festival as well, as this does not resemble a prohibited action at all., bThe Gemara raises an objectionto this from a ibaraita /i: b“Speak to the children of [ ibenei /i] Israel”(Leviticus 1:2). The word ibeneiliterally means: Sons of. And it states nearby: b“And he shall placehis hand on the head of the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 1:4), from which we learn that bthe sons of Israel placetheir hands, bbut the daughters of Israel do not placethem. bRabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yishmael say: It is optional for the daughters of Israel to placetheir hands. They may place their hands if they so choose, although they are not obligated to do so., bRabbi Yosei said:The Sage bAbba Elazar related to methe following incident: bOn one occasion, we had a calf for a peace-offering, and we brought it to the Women’s Courtyard, and women placedtheir hands bon it.We did this bnot because thereis an obligation of bplacing hands inthe case of bwomen, but in order to please the women,by allowing them to sacrifice an offering, in all of its particulars, as men do. Now, bif it enters your mindthat bwe requireplacing hands bwith all one’s strength,would bwe perform work with consecratedofferings bin order to pleasethe bwomen?Placing one’s hands forcefully on an animal is considered performing work with it, and if one does it without being obligated to do so, he has thereby performed work with an offering. bRather, isn’t itcorrect to bconclude from thisthat bwe do not requireplacing hands bwith all one’s strength? /b,The Gemara rejects this: bActually, Icould bsay to youthat bwe do requireplacing hands bwith all one’s strength,but here they allowed women to place their hands bby saying to them: Ease your handsand do not press forcefully, so that their hand placing should not constitute work. The Gemara retorts: bIf so,then the reason formulated as: bNot because thereis an obligation to bplace hands inthe case of bwomen,is irrelevant to this law. bLet him derivethe permission for women to do so from the reason that bit is notconsidered bplacing hands at all.If placing hands must be performed with all one’s strength, this action the women are performing does not constitute placing hands., bRabbi Ami said: He stated onereason band another. Onereason is bthat it is notconsidered bplacing hands at all,as it is not performed with all of one’s strength; band anotherreason is that they allowed it bin order to please the women. /b, bRav Pappa said: Learn from thisthat anything upon which one may not place objects or upon which one may not sit on Shabbat, its bsides arelikewise bprohibited, for if it enters your mindto say that the bsides are permitted,they could have told the women bto placetheir hands bon the sides,i.e., on the head of the animal rather than on its back, as the head of the animal is considered as if it were one of its sides. bRather,must one bnot conclude from thisthat the bsides are prohibited? /b |
|
28. Babylonian Talmud, Horayot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 13b. רב פפא אמר אפילו שופתא מרא גייצי,ת"ר חמשה דברים משכחים את הלימוד האוכל ממה שאוכל עכבר וממה שאוכל חתול והאוכל לב של בהמה והרגיל בזיתים והשותה מים של שיורי רחיצה והרוחץ רגליו זו על גבי זו ויש אומרים אף המניח כליו תחת מראשותיו חמשה דברים משיבים את הלימוד פת פחמין וכל שכן פחמין עצמן והאוכל ביצה מגולגלת בלא מלח והרגיל בשמן זית והרגיל ביין ובשמים והשותה מים של שיורי עיסה ויש אומרים אף הטובל אצבעו במלח ואוכל,הרגיל בשמן זית מסייע ליה לרבי יוחנן דאמר רבי יוחנן כשם שהזית משכח לימוד של שבעים שנה כך שמן זית משיב לימוד של שבעים שנה:,והרגיל ביין ובשמים: מסייע ליה לרבא דאמר רבא חמרא וריחני פקחין:,והטובל אצבעו במלח: אמר ר"ל ובאחת כתנאי ר' יהודה אומר אחת ולא שתים רבי יוסי אומר שתים ולא שלש וסימניך קמיצה,עשרה דברים קשים ללימוד העובר תחת האפסר [הגמל] וכל שכן תחת גמל [עצמו] והעובר בין שני גמלים והעובר בין שתי נשים והאשה העוברת בין שני אנשים והעובר מתחת ריח רע של נבילה והעובר תחת הגשר שלא עברו תחתיו מים מ' יום והאוכל פת שלא בשל כל צרכו והאוכל בשר מזוהמא ליסטרון והשותה מאמת המים העוברת בבית הקברות והמסתכל בפני המת ויש אומרים אף הקורא כתב שעל גבי הקבר,ת"ר כשהנשיא נכנס כל העם עומדים ואין יושבים עד שאומר להם שבו כשאב ב"ד נכנס עושים לו שורה אחת מכאן ושורה אחת מכאן עד שישב במקומו כשחכם נכנס אחד עומד ואחד יושב עד שישב במקומו בני חכמים ותלמידי חכמים בזמן שרבים צריכים להם מפסיעין על ראשי העם יצא לצורך יכנס וישב במקומו,בני ת"ח שממונים אביהם פרנס על הצבור בזמן שיש להם דעת לשמוע נכנסים ויושבים לפני אביהם ואחוריהם כלפי העם בזמן שאין להם דעת לשמוע נכנסים ויושבים לפני אביהם ופניהם כלפי העם רבי אלעזר בר ר' [צדוק] אומר אף בבית המשתה עושים אותם סניפין,[אמר מר] יצא לצורך נכנס ויושב במקומו אמר רב פפא לא אמרו אלא לקטנים אבל לגדולים לא הוה ליה למבדק נפשיה מעיקרא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם ילמד אדם עצמו להשכים ולהעריב כדי שלא יתרחק (אמר רבא) האידנא דחלשא עלמא אפילו לגדולים נמי,רבי אלעזר ב"ר [צדוק] אומר אף בבית המשתה עושים אותם סניפים אמר רבא בחיי אביהם בפני אביהם,א"ר יוחנן בימי רשב"ג נישנית משנה זו רבן שמעון בן גמליאל נשיא רבי מאיר חכם רבי נתן אב"ד כי הוה רשב"ג התם הוו קיימי כולי עלמא מקמיה כי הוו עיילי רבי מאיר ורבי נתן הוו קיימי כולי עלמא מקמייהו אמר רשב"ג לא בעו למיהוי היכרא בין דילי לדידהו תקין הא מתניתא,ההוא יומא לא הוו רבי מאיר ורבי נתן התם למחר כי אתו חזו דלא קמו מקמייהו כדרגילא מילתא אמרי מאי האי אמרו להו הכי תקין רשב"ג,אמר ליה ר"מ לרבי נתן אנא חכם ואת אב"ד נתקין מילתא כי לדידן מאי נעביד ליה נימא ליה גלי עוקצים דלית ליה וכיון דלא גמר נימא ליה (תהלים קו, ב) מי ימלל גבורות ה' ישמיע כל תהלתו למי נאה למלל גבורות ה' מי שיכול להשמיע כל תהלותיו נעבריה והוי אנא אב"ד ואת נשיא,שמעינהו רבי יעקב בן קרשי אמר דלמא חס ושלום אתיא מלתא לידי כיסופא אזל יתיב אחורי עיליתיה דרשב"ג פשט גרס ותנא גרס ותנא,אמר מאי דקמא דלמא חס ושלום איכא בי מדרשא מידי יהב דעתיה וגרסה למחר אמרו ליה ניתי מר וניתני בעוקצין פתח ואמר בתר דאוקים אמר להו אי לא גמירנא כסיפיתנן,פקיד ואפקינהו מבי מדרשא הוו כתבי קושייתא [בפתקא] ושדו התם דהוה מיפריק מיפריק דלא הוו מיפריק כתבי פירוקי ושדו אמר להו רבי יוסי תורה מבחוץ ואנו מבפנים,אמר להן רבן [שמעון בן] גמליאל ניעיילינהו מיהו ניקנסינהו דלא נימרו שמעתא משמייהו אסיקו לרבי מאיר אחרים ולר' נתן יש אומרים אחוו להו בחלמייהו זילו פייסוהו [לרבן שמעון ב"ג] רבי נתן אזל רבי מאיר לא אזל אמר דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין כי אזל רבי נתן אמר ליה רשב"ג נהי דאהני לך קמרא דאבוך למהוי אב ב"ד שויניך נמי נשיא,מתני ליה רבי לרבן שמעון בריה אחרים אומרים אילו היה תמורה | 13b. bRav Pappa said: They gnaw even on the handle of a hoe. /b,§ bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: There are bfive factorsthat bcauseone to bforgethis Torah bstudy: One who eats from that which a mouse eats and from that which a cat eats, and one who eats the heart of an animal, and one who is accustomed toeating bolives, and one who drinks water that remains from washing, and one who washes his feetwith bthisfoot batop thatfoot. bAnd some say: Also one who places his garments under his head.Correspondingly, there are bfive factorsthat brestoreforgotten Torah bstudy:Eating bbread baked on coals and all the more soone who warms himself with the heat of the bcoals themselves, and one who eats a hard-boiled egg [ ibeitza megulgelet /i] without salt, and one who is accustomed toeating bolive oil, and one who is accustomed todrinking bwine andsmelling bspices, and one who drinks water that remains fromkneading bdough. And some say: Also one who dips his finger in salt and eatsit.,The Gemara elaborates on the ibaraita /i: bOne who is accustomed toeating bolive oilrestores forgotten Torah study. The Gemara notes: This bsupportsthe opinion of bRabbi Yoḥa, as Rabbi Yoḥa said: Just aseating ban olive causesone bto forget seventy years’ worth ofTorah bstudy, olive oil restores seventy years’ worth ofTorah bstudy. /b,The ibaraitacontinues: bAnd one who is accustomed todrinking bwine andsmelling bspicesrestores forgotten Torah study. The Gemara notes: This bsupportsthe opinion of bRava, as Rava said: Wine and spices rendered me wise. /b,The ibaraitacontinues: bOne who dips his finger in saltand eats it restores forgotten Torah study. bReish Lakish says: Andthat is the case bwith regard to onefinger. The Gemara notes: This is bparallel toa dispute between itanna’im /i. Rabbi Yehuda says: Onefinger bbut not two. Rabbi Yosei says: Twofingers bbut not three. And your mnemonicfor the fact that the dispute is between one and two fingers is ikemitza /i,i.e., the ring finger. When one presses his ring finger to his palm, there remain two straight fingers on one side and one on the other., bTen factors are detrimental forTorah bstudy: One who passes beneath the bit of the camel, and all the more soone who passes bbeneath a camel itself; and one who passes between two camels; and one who passes between two women; and a woman who passes between two men; and one who passes beneatha place where there is the bfoul odor of an animal carcass; and one who passes under a bridge beneath which water has not passedfor bforty days; and one who eats bread that was not sufficiently baked; and one who eats meat from izuhama listeron /i,a utensil consisting of a spoon and a fork, used to remove the film on the surface of soup; band one who drinks from an aqueduct that passes through a cemetery; and one who gazes at the face of the dead. And some say: Also one who reads the writing that is onthe stone of ba grave. /b,§ bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bWhen the iNasi /iof the Sanhedrin benters, all the people stand and they do not sit until he says to them: Sit. When the deputy iNasi /iof the Sanhedrin benters,the people bform for him one row from here,on this side of the path that he takes, band one row from there,on the other side of it, in a display of deference, buntil he sits in his place,and then they may be seated. bWhen the iḤakham /i,who is ranked third among the members of the Sanhedrin, benters, oneperson bstandswhen he is within four cubits of the iḤakham /i, band another sits,i.e., when one is no longer within four cubits of the iḤakhamhe may sit. And all those whom the Ḥakham passes do this, buntil he sits in his place. When the multitudes require theirservices, i.e., they serve a public role, bsons of the Sages and Torah scholars may step over the heads of the peopleseated on the ground in order to reach their places in the Sanhedrin. If one of the Sages bleft forthe bpurposeof relieving himself, when he is finished bhe may enter and sit in his placein the Sanhedrin, and he need not be concerned that he is imposing upon those assembled., bWhen they have the wisdom to hearand to study, bthe sons of Torah scholars, whose fathers are appointed as leaders of the congregation, enter and sit before their fathers, and their backsare directed btoward the people. When they do not have the wisdom to hearand to study bthey enter and sit before their fathers, and their facesare directed btoward the people,so everyone sees that they are seated there in deference to their fathers but not as students. bRabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: Even ata wedding bparty one renders them attachments [ isenifin /i]and seats them adjacent to their fathers., bThe Master said:If one of the Sages bleft forthe bpurposeof relieving himself, when he is finished bhe may enter and sit in his place. Rav Pappa said:The Sages bsaidthis bonlywith regard to one who leaves bfor minorbodily functions, i.e., to urinate. bButwith regard to one who leaves bfor majorbodily functions, i.e., to defecate, bno,he may not return to his place, because bhe should have examined himself initiallyso that he would not need to leave. His failure to do so constitutes negligence and he may not impose upon others when he returns, bas Rav Yehuda saysthat bRav says: A person should always accustom himself torelieving himself bin the morning and in the evening so that he will notneed to bdistance himself during the daylight hours to find an appropriate place. bRava said: Today, when the world is weakand people are not as healthy as they once were, one may bevenreturn after he leaves bfor majorbodily functions., bRabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: Even ata wedding bparty one renders them attachments. Rava said:This applies bduring the lifetime of their fathers and in the presence of their fathers. /b,§ bRabbi Yoḥa says: This mishna,i.e., the preceding ibaraita /i, bwas taught during the days of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabban Shimon ben Gamlielwas the iNasi /i, Rabbi Meirwas the iḤakham /i,and bRabbi Natanwas the bdeputy iNasi /i. When Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was there, everyone would arise before him. When Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan would enter, everyone would arise before them. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Shouldn’t there be a conspicuous distinction between me and themin terms of the manner in which deference is shown? Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel binstitutedthe provisions delineated in bthis ibaraita /ithat distinguish between the iNasiand his subordinates with regard to the deference shown them., bThat day,when Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel instituted these provisions, bRabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan were not there. The following day when they cameto the study hall, bthey saw thatthe people bdid not stand before them as the matter was typicallydone. bThey said: What is this?The people bsaid to them: Thisis what bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel instituted. /b, bRabbi Meir said to Rabbi Natan: I amthe iḤakhamand you arethe bdeputy iNasi /i. Let us devise a matterand do to him bas he did to us. What shall we do to him? Let us say to him: Revealto us tractate iOkatzim /i, which he does notknow. bAnd onceit is clear to all bthat he did not learn,he will not have anything to say. Then bwe will say to him: “Who can express the mighty acts of the Lord, shall make all His praises heard?”(Psalms 106:2), indicating: bFor whom is it becoming to express the mighty acts of the Lord?It is becoming for bone who is capable of making all His praises heard,and not for one who does not know one of the tractates. bWe will remove himfrom his position as iNasi /i, band I will be deputy iNasiand youwill be iNasi /i. /b, bRabbi Ya’akov ben Korshei heard themtalking, and bsaid: Perhaps, Heaven forfend,this bmatterwill bcome toa situation of bhumiliationfor Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. He did not wish to speak criticism or gossip about Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan, so bhe wentand bsat behind the upper storywhere bRabban Shimon ben Gamliellived. bHe explainedtractate iOkatzin /i; bhe studiedit aloud band repeatedit, and bstudiedit aloud band repeatedit.,Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel bsaidto himself: bWhatis this bthatis transpiring bbefore us? Perhaps, Heaven forfend, there is somethingtranspiring in bthe study hall.He suspected that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan were planning something. bHe concentrated and studiedtractate iOkatzin /i. bThe followingday Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan bsaid to him: Let the Master come and teacha lesson bintractate iOkatzin /i. He began and statedthe lesson he had prepared. bAfter he completedteaching the tractate, bhe said to them: If I had not studiedthe tractate, byouwould have bhumiliated me. /b,Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel bcommandedthose present band they expelledRabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan bfrom the study hallas punishment. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan bwould write difficulties on a scrap of paper [ ipitka /i] and would throwthem bthereinto the study hall. Those difficulties bthat were resolved were resolved;as for those bthat were not resolved,Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan bwrote resolutionson a scrap of paper band threwthem into the study hall. bRabbi Yosei said tothe Sages: How is it that the bTorah,embodied in the preeminent Torah scholars, bis outside and we are inside? /b, bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to them: Let us admit theminto the study hall. bBut we will penalize themin bthat we will not cite ihalakhain their names. They citedstatements bof Rabbi Meirin the name of iAḥerim /i,meaning: Others, bandthey cited statements bof Rabbi Natanin the name of iyesh omerim /i,meaning: Some say. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Natan bwere showna message bin their dreams: Go, appease Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rabbi Natan went. Rabbi Meir did not go. He saidin his heart: bMatters of dreams are insignificant. When Rabbi Natan went, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said to him: Although theornate bbelt,i.e., the importance, bof your father was effectivein enabling you bto become deputy iNasi /i,as Rabbi Natan’s father was the Babylonian Exilarch, bwill it render you iNasias well? /b,Years later, bRabbiYehuda HaNasi btaught Rabban Shimon his sonthat iAḥerimsay: If it wasconsidered ba substitute, /b |
|
29. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 62b. אכולהו והא ששה חדשים קאמר אינו דומה מי שיש לו פת בסלו למי שאין לו פת בסלו,א"ל רבה בר רב חנן לאביי חמר ונעשה גמל מאי א"ל רוצה אשה בקב ותיפלות מעשרה קבין ופרישות:,הספנים אחת לששה חדשים דברי ר' אליעזר: אמר רב ברונא אמר רב הלכה כר"א אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אמר רב זו דברי ר' אליעזר אבל חכמים אומרים התלמידים יוצאין לת"ת ב' וג' שנים שלא ברשות אמר רבא סמכו רבנן אדרב אדא בר אהבה ועבדי עובדא בנפשייהו,כי הא דרב רחומי הוה שכיח קמיה דרבא במחוזא הוה רגיל דהוה אתי לביתיה כל מעלי יומא דכיפורי יומא חד משכתיה שמעתא הוה מסכיא דביתהו השתא אתי השתא אתי לא אתא חלש דעתה אחית דמעתא מעינה הוה יתיב באיגרא אפחית איגרא מתותיה ונח נפשיה,עונה של תלמידי חכמים אימת אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מע"ש לע"ש (תהלים א, ג) אשר פריו יתן בעתו אמר רב יהודה ואיתימא רב הונא ואיתימא רב נחמן זה המשמש מטתו מע"ש לע"ש,יהודה בריה דר' חייא חתניה דר' ינאי הוה אזיל ויתיב בבי רב וכל בי שמשי הוה אתי לביתיה וכי הוה אתי הוה קא חזי קמיה עמודא דנורא יומא חד משכתיה שמעתא כיון דלא חזי ההוא סימנא אמר להו רבי ינאי כפו מטתו שאילמלי יהודה קיים לא ביטל עונתו הואי (קהלת י, ה) כשגגה שיוצא מלפני השליט ונח נפשיה,רבי איעסק ליה לבריה בי רבי חייא כי מטא למיכתב כתובה נח נפשה דרביתא אמר רבי ח"ו פסולא איכא יתיבו ועיינו במשפחות רבי אתי משפטיה בן אביטל ורבי חייא אתי משמעי אחי דוד,אזיל איעסק ליה לבריה בי ר' יוסי בן זימרא פסקו ליה תרתי סרי שנין למיזל בבי רב אחלפוה קמיה אמר להו ניהוו שית שנין אחלפוה קמיה אמר להו איכניס והדר איזיל הוה קא מכסיף מאבוה א"ל בני דעת קונך יש בך,מעיקרא כתיב (שמות טו, יז) תביאמו ותטעמו ולבסוף כתיב (שמות כה, ח) ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם,אזיל יתיב תרתי סרי שני בבי רב עד דאתא איעקרא דביתהו אמר רבי היכי נעביד נגרשה יאמרו ענייה זו לשוא שימרה נינסיב איתתא אחריתי יאמרו זו אשתו וזו זונתו בעי עלה רחמי ואיתסיאת:,רבי חנניה בן חכינאי הוה קאזיל לבי רב בשילהי הלוליה דר"ש בן יוחאי א"ל איעכב לי עד דאתי בהדך לא איעכבא ליה אזל יתיב תרי סרי שני בבי רב עד דאתי אישתנו שבילי דמתא ולא ידע למיזל לביתיה,אזל יתיב אגודא דנהרא שמע לההיא רביתא דהוו קרו לה בת חכינאי בת חכינאי מלי קולתך ותא ניזיל אמר ש"מ האי רביתא דידן אזל בתרה הוה יתיבא דביתהו קא נהלה קמחא דל עינה חזיתיה סוי לבה פרח רוחה אמר לפניו רבש"ע ענייה זו זה שכרה בעא רחמי עלה וחייה,רבי חמא בר ביסא אזיל יתיב תרי סרי שני בבי מדרשא כי אתא אמר לא איעביד כדעביד בן חכינאי עייל יתיב במדרשא שלח לביתיה אתא ר' אושעיא בריה יתיב קמיה הוה קא משאיל ליה שמעתא חזא דקא מתחדדי שמעתיה חלש דעתיה אמר אי הואי הכא הוה לי זרע כי האי,על לביתיה על בריה קם קמיה הוא סבר למשאליה שמעתתא קא בעי אמרה ליה דביתהו מי איכא אבא דקאים מקמי ברא קרי עליה רמי בר חמא (קהלת ד, יב) החוט המשולש לא במהרה ינתק זה ר' אושעיא בנו של רבי חמא בר ביסא,ר"ע רעיא דבן כלבא שבוע הוה חזיתיה ברתיה דהוה צניע ומעלי אמרה ליה אי מקדשנא לך אזלת לבי רב אמר לה אין איקדשא ליה בצינעה ושדרתיה שמע אבוה אפקה מביתיה אדרה הנאה מנכסיה אזיל יתיב תרי סרי שנין בבי רב כי אתא אייתי בהדיה תרי סרי אלפי תלמידי שמעיה לההוא סבא דקאמר לה עד כמה | 62b. the itannataught us a ihalakha bwith regard to all of them,not only a man of leisure or a laborer. He asked him: bButwith regard to a sailor bit saidthat the set interval for conjugal relations is bsix months;why, then, should he have to divorce her if he vowed to forbid these relations for only a week? He answered him: It is well known that bone who has bread in his basket is not comparable to one who does not have bread in his basket.On a fast day, one who does not have bread available in his basket suffers more than one who does have bread available and knows that he will be able to eat later. In this case as well, when a woman knows that marital relations are forbidden to her due to a vow, her suffering from waiting for her husband to return is increased., bRabba bar Rav Ha said to Abaye: If a donkey driverwho is already married wants to bbecome a camel driver, whatis the ihalakha /i? Is he permitted to change his profession in order to earn more money from his work, even though this will mean he reduces the frequency with which he engages in conjugal relations with his wife? bHe answered him: A woman prefers a ikav /i,i.e., modest means, bwith conjugal relations to ten ikavwith abstinence.Consequently, he is not allowed to change his profession without her permission.,§ The mishna stated: For bsailors,the set interval for conjugal relations is bonce every six months. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Berona saidthat bRav said:The ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Eliezer. Rav Adda bar Ahava saidthat bRav said: This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, but the Rabbis say: Students may leavetheir homes bto study Torahfor as long as btwo or three years without permissionfrom their wives. bRava said: The Sages relied on Rabbi Adda bar Ahava’sopinion band performed an actionlike this bthemselves,but the results were sometimes fatal.,This is basit is related babout Rav Reḥumi, who would commonlystudy bbefore Rava in Meḥoza: He was accustomed to comeback bto his home everyyear on the beve of Yom Kippur. One day he wasparticularly bengrossed inthe ihalakha /ihe was studying, and so he remained in the study hall and did not go home. bHis wife was expecting himthat day and continually said to herself: bNow he is coming, now he is coming.But in the end, bhe did not come. She was distressedby this and ba tear fell from her eye.At that exact moment, Rav Reḥumi bwas sitting on the roof. The roof collapsed under him and he died.This teaches how much one must be careful, as he was punished severely for causing anguish to his wife, even inadvertently.,§ bWhenis btheideal btime for Torah scholarsto fulfill their conjugal obligations? bRav Yehuda saidthat bShmuel said:The appropriate time for them is bfrom Shabbat eve to Shabbat eve,i.e., on Friday nights. Similarly, it is stated with regard to the verse b“that brings forth its fruit in its season”(Psalms 1:3): bRav Yehuda said, and some saythat it was bRav Huna, and some saythat it was bRav Naḥman: Thisis referring to one bwho engages in marital relations,bringing forth his fruit, bfrom Shabbat eve to Shabbat eve. /b,It is related further that bYehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyyaand bson-in-law of Rabbi Yannai, would go and sit in the study hall, and everyShabbat eve bat twilight he would come to his house. When he would come,Rabbi Yannai bwould see a pillar of fire preceding himdue to his sanctity. bOne day he was engrossed inthe ihalakha /ihe was studying, and he stayed in the study hall and did not return home. bWhen Rabbi Yannai did not see that signpreceding him, bhe said tothe family: bTurn his bed over,as one does at times of mourning, since he must have died, reasoning that bif Yehuda were alive he would not have missed his set intervalfor conjugal relations and would certainly have come home. What he said bbecame “like an error that proceeds from a ruler”(Ecclesiastes 10:5), bandYehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, bdied. /b,It is related further that bRabbiYehuda HaNasi barranged for his sonto marry a daughter of bthe household of Rabbi Ḥiyya. When he came to write the marriage contract, the girl died. RabbiYehuda HaNasi bsaid: Is there, Heaven forbid, some disqualificationin these families, as it appears that God prevented this match from taking place? bThey sat and looked into the families’ancestry and found that bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bwas descended from Shefatya ben Avital,the wife of David, whereas bRabbi Ḥiyya was descended from Shimi, David’s brother. /b, bHe went and arranged for his sonto marry a daughter bof the household of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra. They agreed for himthat they would support him for btwelve years to go to study in the study hall.It was assumed that he would first go to study and afterward get married. bThey passedthe girl bin front ofthe groom and when he saw her bhe said: Let it bejust bsix years. They passed her in front of himagain and bhe said to them: I will marry hernow band then goto study. bHe wasthen bashamedto see bhis father,as he thought he would reprimand him because when he saw the girl he desired her and could not wait. His father placated him and bsaid to him: My son, you have your Maker’s perception,meaning you acted the same way that God does.,The proof for this is that binitially it is written: “You bring them and plant themin the mountain of Your inheritance, the place that You, O Lord, have made for You to dwell in” (Exodus 15:17), which indicates that God’s original intention was to build a Temple for the Jewish people after they had entered Eretz Yisrael. bAnd ultimately it is written: “And let them make Me a Sanctuary, that I may dwell among them”(Exodus 25:8), i.e., even while they were still in the desert, which indicates that due to their closeness to God, they enjoyed greater affection and He therefore advanced what would originally have come later.,After his wedding bhe went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. By the time he came back his wife had become infertile,as a consequence of spending many years without her husband. bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsaid: Whatshould we bdo? If he will divorce her,people bwill say: This poor woman waitedand hoped bfor naught. If he will marry another womanto beget children, people bwill say: This one,who bears him children, bis his wife and that one,who lives with him, bis his mistress.Therefore, her husband bpleadedwith God bto have mercy on her and she was cured. /b, bRabbi Ḥaya ben Ḥakhinai went to the study hall at the end of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai’s wedding feast.Rabbi Shimon bsaid to him: Wait for me until Ican bcome with you,after my days of celebration are over. However, since he wanted to learn Torah, bhe did not waitand bwent and sat for twelve years in the study hall. By the time he came back, all the paths of his city had changed and he did not know how to go to his home. /b, bHe wentand bsat on the bank of the river and heard people calling to a certain girl: Daughter of Ḥakhinai, daughter of Ḥakhinai, fill your pitcher and come up. He said: I can conclude from this that this is our daughter,meaning his own daughter, whom he had not recognized after so many years. bHe followed herto his house. bHis wife was sitting and sifting flour. She lifted her eyes up, saw himand recognized him, band her heart flutteredwith agitation and bshe passed awayfrom the emotional stress. Rabbi Ḥaya bsaid beforeGod: bMaster of the universe, is this the reward of this poor woman? He pleaded for mercy for her and she lived. /b, bRabbi Ḥama bar Bisa went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. When he cameback to his house, bhe said: I will not do what the son of Ḥakhinai,who came home suddenly with tragic consequences for his wife, bdid. He went and sat in the study hallin his hometown, band senta message bto his housethat he had arrived. While he was sitting there bhis son Rabbi Oshaya,whom he did not recognize, bcame and sat before him.Rabbi Oshaya basked himquestions about ihalakha /i, andRabbi Ḥama bsaw that the ihalakhotofRabbi Oshaya bwere incisive,i.e., he was very sharp. Rabbi Ḥama bwas distressed and said: If I had been hereand had taught my son bI would have had a child like this. /b,Rabbi Ḥama bwent in to his houseand bhis son went inwith him. Rabbi Ḥama then bstood up before himto honor a Torah scholar, since bhe thoughtthat bhe wanted to ask him a matter of ihalakha /i. His wife said to him: Is there a father who stands up before his son?The Gemara comments: bRami bar Ḥama readthe verse babout him: “A threefold cord is not quickly broken”(Ecclesiastes 4:12). bThisis referring to bRabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa,as he represented the third generation of Torah scholars in his family.,The Gemara further relates: bRabbi Akiva was the shepherd of ben Kalba Savua,one of the wealthy residents of Jerusalem. The bdaughterof Ben Kalba Savua bsaw that he was humble and refined. She said to him: If I betroth myself to you, will you go to the study hallto learn Torah? bHe said to her: Yes. She became betrothed to him privately and sent himoff to study. bHer father heardthis and became angry. bHe removed her from his houseand took a bvowprohibiting her from bbenefiting from his property.Rabbi Akiva bwentand bsat for twelve years in the study hall. When he cameback to his house bhe brought twelve thousand studentswith him, and as he approached bhe heard an old man saying tohis wife: bFor how long /b |
|
30. Babylonian Talmud, Moed Qatan, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 16a. זו עשירית האיפה שלו דברי רבי יהודה,ר"ש אומר (יחזקאל מד, כז) בבאו יקריב בזמן שראוי לביאה ראוי להקרבה בזמן שאינו ראוי לביאה אינו ראוי להקרבה,אמר רבא מנלן דמשדרין שליחא דבי דינא ומזמנינן ליה לדינא דכתיב (במדבר טז, יב) וישלח משה לקרא לדתן ולאבירם בני אליאב ומנלן דמזמנינן לדינא דכתיב (במדבר טז, טז) ויאמר משה אל קרח אתה וכל עדתך,לקמי גברא רבה דכתיב (במדבר טז, טז) לפני ה' את ופלניא דכתיב אתה והם ואהרן דקבעינן זימנא דכתיב מחר זימנא בתר זימנא דכתיב (ירמיהו מו, יז) קראו שם פרעה מלך מצרים שאון העביר המועד,ומנלן דאי מתפקר בשליחא דבי דינא ואתי ואמר לא מיתחזי כלישנא בישא דכתיב (במדבר טז, יד) העיני האנשים ההם תנקר,ומנלן דמשמתינן דכתיב (שופטים ה, כג) אורו מרוז דהכי סברא דגברא רבה דכתיב (שופטים ה, כג) אמר מלאך ה' ומנלן דמחרמינן דכתיב אורו ארור,דאכיל ושתי בהדיה וקאי בארבע אמות דידיה דכתיב יושביה ומנלן דפרטינן חטאיה בציבורא דכתיב (שופטים ה, כג) כי לא באו לעזרת ה',ואמר עולא בד' מאה שיפורי שמתיה ברק למרוז איכא דאמרי גברא רבה הוה ואיכא דאמרי כוכבא הוה שנאמר (שופטים ה, כ) מן שמים נלחמו הכוכבים,ומנלן דמפקרינן נכסיה דכתיב (עזרא י, ח) וכל אשר לא יבא לשלשת הימים בעצת השרים והזקנים יחרם כל רכושו והוא יבדל מקהל הגולה,ומנלן דנצינן ולייטינן ומחינן ותלשינן שיער ומשבעינן דכתיב (נחמיה יג, כה) ואריב עמם ואקללם ואכה מהם אנשים ואמרטם ואשביעם,ומנלן דכפתינן ואסרינן ועבדינן הרדפה דכתיב (עזרא ז, כו) הן למות הן לשרושי הן לענש נכסין ולאסורין מאי לשרושי אמר אדא מרי אמר נחמיה בר ברוך אמר רב חייא בר אבין אמר רב יהודה הרדפה מאי הרדפה אמר רב יהודה בריה דרב שמואל בר שילת משמיה דרב מנדין לאלתר ושונין לאחר ל' ומחרימין לאחר ששים,א"ל רב הונא בר חיננא הכי אמר רב חסדא מתרין ביה שני וחמישי ושני ה"מ לממונא אבל לאפקירותא לאלתר,ההוא טבחא דאיתפקר ברב טובי בר מתנה אימנו עליה אביי ורבא ושמתוהו לסוף אזל פייסיה לבעל דיניה אמר אביי היכי ליעביד לישרי ליה לא חל שמתא עליה תלתין יומין לא לישרי ליה קא בעו רבנן למיעל,א"ל לרב אידי בר אבין מידי שמיע לך בהא א"ל הכי אמר רב תחליפא בר אבימי אמר שמואל טוט אסר וטוט שרי אמר ליה ה"מ לממונא אבל לאפקירותא עד דחיילא שמתא עליה תלתין יומין,אלמא קסבר אביי הני בי תלתא דשמיתו לא אתו תלתא אחריני ושרו ליה,דאיבעיא להו הני בי תלתא דשמיתו מהו למיתי תלתא אחריני ושרו ליה ת"ש מנודה לרב מנודה לתלמיד מנודה לתלמיד אינו מנודה לרב,מנודה לעירו מנודה לעיר אחרת מנודה לעיר אחרת אינו מנודה לעירו מנודה לנשיא מנודה לכל ישראל מנודה לכל ישראל אינו מנודה לנשיא רשב"ג אומר אחד מן התלמידים שנידה ומת חלקו אינו מופר,ש"מ תלת שמע מינה תלמיד שנידה לכבודו נידויו נידוי ושמע מינה כל אחד ואחד מיפר חלקו וש"מ הני בי תלתא דשמיתו לא אתו תלתא אחריני ושרו ליה,אמר אמימר הלכתא הני בי תלתא דשמיתו אתו בי תלתא אחריני ושרו ליה א"ל רב אשי לאמימר והא תניא רשב"ג אומר אחד מן התלמידים שנידה ומת חלקו אינו מופר מאי לאו אינו מופר כלל לא עד דאתו בי תלתא אחריני ושרו ליה,ת"ר אין נידוי פחות מל' יום ואין נזיפה פחות מז' ימים ואף על פי שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר שנאמר (במדבר יב, יד) ואביה ירק ירק בפניה הלא תכלם שבעת ימים,אמר רב חסדא נידוי שלנו כנזיפה שלהן ונזיפה דידהו שבעה ותו לא והא ר"ש בר רבי ובר קפרא הוו יתבי וקא גרסי קשיא להו שמעתא א"ל ר"ש לבר קפרא דבר זה צריך רבי א"ל בר קפרא לר"ש ומה רבי אומר בדבר זה,אזל א"ל לאבוה איקפד אתא בר קפרא לאיתחזויי ליה א"ל בר קפרא איני מכירך מעולם ידע דנקט מילתא בדעתיה נהג נזיפותא בנפשיה תלתין יומין,שוב פעם אחד גזר רבי שלא ישנו לתלמידים בשוק מאי דרש (שיר השירים ז, ב) חמוקי ירכיך כמו חלאים מה ירך בסתר | 16a. bthis isthe meal-offering of ba tenth of an ephahof flour, which every priest would bring on the day he began serving in the Temple. But as long as he is ritually impure, whether because he had come into contact with a corpse or due to leprosy, he may not send his offerings to the Temple; this is bthe statement of Rabbi Yehuda. /b, bRabbi Shimon says:The verse states: “And on the day that bhe goes intothe Sanctuary, into the inner court, to minister in the Sanctuary bhe shall sacrificehis sin offering.” This teaches that bwhen he is fit to enterthe Sanctuary, bhe is fit to sacrificean offering. But bwhen he is not fit to go intothe Sanctuary, i.e., when he is ritually impure, bhe is not fit to sacrificean offering. This implies that a leper may not send his offerings to the Temple to be sacrificed on the altar, as he himself is not fit to enter the Temple.,§ Having discussed some of the restrictions applying to a person who was ostracized, the Gemara explains some of the basic principles relating to ostracism: bRava said: From where do wederive bthat a court agent is sent to summonthe defendant btoappear before the bcourtbefore he is ostracized? bAs it is written: “And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab”(Numbers 16:12). bAnd from where do wederive bthat we summonthe defendant, that he himself must appear before the bcourt? As it is written: “And Moses said to Korah: Be you and all your congregationbefore the Lord, you and they, and Aaron, tomorrow” (Numbers 16:16).,From where is it derived that the defendant must be told that he is being summoned to appear bbefore a great man? As it is written:“And Moses said to Korah: Be you and all your congregation bbefore the Lord”(Numbers 16:16). From where is it derived that the summons must mention the names of both parties: bYou and so-and-so,the plaintiff? bAs it is written: “You, and they, and Aaron”(Numbers 16:16). From where is it derived bthat we set a datefor the court proceedings? bAs it is written: “Tomorrow”(Numbers 16:16). From where is it derived that a second bdatemust be set bafterthe first bdate,if the defendant did not heed the first summons? bAs it is written: “They did cry there, Pharaoh, king of Egypt is but a noise; he has passed the time appointed… /bSurely as Tabor is among the mountains, and as Carmel by the sea, so shall he come” (Jeremiah 46:17). Although a time had been appointed and it had passed, it was not canceled entirely but pushed off to a later date., bAnd from where do wederive bthat ifthe summoned person bbehaves disrespectfully toward the agent of the court, andthe agent bcomesback band reportshis conduct, that bthis is not considered slander? As it is written: “Will you put out the eyes of these men?”(Numbers 16:14). Dathan and Abiram spoke these words to the messenger that Moses had sent to them, and the messenger reported them back to Moses., bAnd from where do wederive bthat we ostracizeone who does not obey a court summons? bAs it is written: “Curse Meroz”(Judges 5:23), who was ostracized for not coming to battle after having been summoned. From where is it derived that the ostracized person must be told bthat itwas bthe decision of a great manto ostracized him? bAs it is written:“Curse Meroz, bsaid the messenger of the Lord”(Judges 5:23). bAnd from where do wederive bthat,if he fails to mend his ways, bwe excommunicatesuch a person more harshly, putting him under the most severe form of excommunication? bAs it is written:“Curse Meroz… bcurse bitterlyits inhabitants” (Judges 5:23), implying that one curse is followed by another, i.e., lesser ostracism is followed by harsh excommunication.,From where is it derived bthatthe curse applies to anyone who beats or drinks with, or stands within, four cubits ofthe ostracized person? bAs it is written:“Curse bitterly bits inhabitants”(Judges 5:23), in reference to all those sitting together with Meroz. bAnd from where do wederive bthat we detail his sin in public? As it is written:“Curse bitterly its inhabitants, bbecause they did not come to the help of the Lord”(Judges 5:23)., bAnd Ulla said: Barak ostracized Meroz withthe blowing of bfour hundred ishofarot /idue to his failure to come. As for the identification of Meroz, bsome saythat bhe was a great manand that he was ostracized because he did not join in the war effort. bAnd others saythat the reference is to ba starand not a human being, and that it did not aid the Jewish people in their battle, bas it is stated: “The stars fought from heaven;in their courses they fought against Sisera,” (Judges 5:20). This star, which did not help the Jewish people, was cursed., bAnd from where do wederive bthatthe court bmay declare the property ofone who does not obey its orders bas ownerless? As it is written: “And that whoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the Elders, all his substance shall be forfeited [ iyaḥoram /i] and himself separated from the congregation of the exiles”(Ezra 10:8). “Shall be forfeited” is referring to excommunication., bAnd from where do wederive bthat we may contend withsuch a person, band cursehim, band beathim, band pull outhis bhair, and makehim btake an oathin order to prevent him from sinning? bAs it is written: “And I contended with them, and cursed them, and beat some of them, and pulled out their hair, and made them take oathby God” (Nehemiah 13:25)., bAnd from where do wederive bthat we may shacklehis hands and feet, bchainhim, band apply pressure? As it is written: “Whether it be for death, or for banishment [ ilishroshi /i], or for confiscation of goods, or for imprisonment”(Ezra 7:26). The Gemara asks: bWhatis the meaning of the word b“ ilishroshi /i,”translated here as banishment? bAdda Mari saidthat bNeḥemya bar Baruch saidthat bRav Ḥiyya bar Avin saidthat bRav Yehuda said:This is bpressure.Since this expression is also unclear, the Gemara asks: bWhatis bpressure? Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Ravthat this term refers to the following series of actions: bThey ostracizehim bimmediately, andthen once bagain after thirtydays, and if he still does not repent, bthey excommunicate him after sixtydays., bRav Huna bar Ḥina said to him: Rav Ḥisda said as follows:Before excommunicating a person, the court bwarns himthree times, on bMonday, Thursday, andthe following bMonday.The Gemara notes: bThis appliesin a case where one ignores ba monetary judgmentthat was issued against him. He is warned three times that he must repay his debt. bButin a case where one bbehaves disrespectfullytoward a Torah scholar, he is bimmediatelyostracized.,§ The Gemara relates that ba certain butcher behaved disrespectfully toward Rav Tuvi bar Mattana. Abaye and Rava were appointedto the case band ostracized him. In the endthe butcher bwent and appeased his disputant,Rav Tuvi. bAbaye said: What should we doin this case? Shall bhe be releasedfrom his decree of ostracism? bHisdecree of bostracism has notyet bbeen in effect forthe usual bthirty days.On the other hand, bshall he not be releasedfrom ostracism? But bthe Sages wish to enterhis shop and purchase meat, and they are presently unable to do so. What, then, is the most appropriate course of action?, bHe said to Rav Idi bar Avin:Have byou heard anything with regard to sucha case? Rav Idi bar Avin bsaid toAbaye: bRav Taḥlifa bar Avimi saidthat bShmuel said as follows:A ishofar bblastat the time of the ostracism bmakesit bbinding, anda ishofar bblast releasesit. In other words, the ishofarshould be sounded now, as it had been sounded when the decree of ostracism was pronounced, and it should be canceled, although thirty days have not passed. Abaye bsaid to him: This appliesin a case where one ignores ba monetary judgmentthat was issued against him; bbutin a case where one bbehaves disrespectfully,there must be no release buntil thedecree of bostracism has been in effect for thirty days. /b,The Gemara comments: bApparently, Abaye maintainsthat if bthreepeople bostracizedone, bthree others may not come and release him.This is derived from the fact that Abaye was concerned about releasing the butcher from ostracism and did not delegate the task to someone else., bAs a dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: If bthreepeople bostracizedsomeone, bwhat isthe ihalakhawith regard to bthree others coming and releasing himfrom his decree of ostracism? The Gemara suggests: bComeand bheara proof from that which is taught in a ibaraita /i: bOne who was ostracized by the teacherof Torah for having acted disrespectfully toward him bisconsidered bostracized with regard to the student,and the latter must keep his distance from him. However, bone who was ostracized by the student is notconsidered bostracized with regard to the teacher. /b, bOne who was ostracized by hisown bcity isconsidered bostracized with regard to another city.However, bone who was ostracized by another city is notconsidered bostracized with regard to hisown bcity. One who was ostracized by the iNasi /iof the Sanhedrin bisconsidered bostracized with regard to all the Jewish people;but bone who was ostracized by all the Jewish people is notconsidered bostracized with regard to the iNasi /iof the Sanhedrin. bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:If bone of the studentssitting as a judge on the court bhad ostracizedsomeone, band he diedbefore releasing him from the decree of ostracism, bhis portionof the decree of ostracism bis not nullified. /b,The Gemara says: bLearn three ihalakhot bfrom this ibaraita /i. bLearn from thisthat in the case of ba student who ostracizessomeone bdue toan insult to bhis dignityand not because the ostracized person was guilty of some transgression, bhisdecree of bostracism is valid.Were the case one where one was ostracized due to sin, everyone is required to respect the decree of ostracism, even the student’s teacher. bAnd learn from thisthat beach and every onewho participated in the decree of ostracism bnullifies hisown bportionof the decree of ostracism, as the ibaraitaspeaks of: His portion. bAnd learn from thisthat if bthreepeople bostracizedanother person, bthree otherpeople bmay not come and nullifythe decree of ostracism. Were this not the case, it wouldn’t matter if a certain person’s portion was not nullified. His portion could be nullified by someone else., bAmeimar said: The ihalakhaisthat if bthreepeople bostracizeanother person, bthree others may come and nullifythe decree of ostracism. bRav Ashi said to Ameimar: But isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:If bone of the students had ostracizedanother person, band he diedbefore releasing him from the decree of ostracism, bhis portion is not nullified? What, is it notthat bit is not nullified at all,i.e., it cannot be nullified by another person? The Gemara rejects this argument: bNo,this means that the decree of ostracism remains in force buntil three other people come and nullifyit.,§ bThe Sages taughtthe following ibaraita /i: bOstracism does notapply bfor less thana period of bthirty days, and admonition,which is less severe than ostracism, bdoes notapply bfor less thana period of bseven days. And although there is no proof with regard to the matter,i.e., the standard duration of admonition, there is ban allusion to the matter, as it is stated: “If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed for seven days?”(Numbers 12:14). This implies that admonition lasts for seven days., bRav Ḥisda said: Ourdecree of bostracismin Babylonia has the power bof their admonitionin Eretz Yisrael. Since the authorities in Eretz Yisrael are ordained with the title Rabbi, their admonition carries more weight than a decree of ostracism issued in Babylonia. The Gemara asks: Is btheir admonitionin Eretz Yisrael only bsevendays band no more? But isn’tit related that bRabbi Shimon, son of RabbiYehuda HaNasi, band bar Kappara were sitting and studying,and they posed ba difficulty witha certain ihalakha /i. Rabbi Shimon said to bar Kappara: This issue requiresmy father, bRabbiYehuda HaNasi, to explain it. bBar Kappara said to Rabbi Shimon,somewhat mockingly: bAnd what canyour father, bRabbiYehuda HaNasi, bsay about thisissue? What can he add and teach us about it?,Rabbi Shimon bwent and told his father,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, what bar Kappara had said, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bbecame angrywith him. When bbar Kappara cameat some later point bto visit,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bsaid to him: Bar Kappara, I do not know you at all.Bar Kappara bunderstood thatRabbi Yehuda HaNasi bhad takenhis bstatement to heart,i.e., was insulted. He subsequently bbehavedas if he had been badmonished,as a self-imposed punishment, bfor thirty days. /b, bOnce again, on another occasion, RabbiYehuda HaNasi bdecreed that students not be taught in the marketplacebut only in a study hall. bWhatverse did he bexpoundto serve as the basis for this decree? The verse states: b“Your rounded thighs are like jewels,the work of the hands of an artist” (Song of Songs 7:2). bJustas ba thigh isordinarily bhiddenand kept covered with clothes |
|
31. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 66a. אמר לו רבי עקיבא או חלוף מה אם הזאה שהיא משום שבות אינה דוחה את השבת שחיטה שהיא משום מלאכה אינו דין שלא תדחה את השבת אמר לו ר' אליעזר עקיבא עקרת מה שכתוב בתורה (במדבר ט, ב) במועדו בין בחול בין בשבת,אמר לו רבי הבא לי מועד לאלו כמועד לשחיטה כלל אמר רבי עקיבא כל מלאכה שאפשר לעשותה מערב שבת אינה דוחה את השבת שחיטה שאי אפשר לעשותה מע"ש דוחה את השבת:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנו רבנן הלכה זו נתעלמה מבני בתירא פעם אחת חל ארבעה עשר להיות בשבת שכחו ולא ידעו אם פסח דוחה את השבת אם לאו אמרו כלום יש אדם שיודע אם פסח דוחה את השבת אם לאו אמרו להם אדם אחד יש שעלה מבבל והלל הבבלי שמו ששימש שני גדולי הדור שמעיה ואבטליון ויודע אם פסח דוחה את השבת אם לאו שלחו וקראו לו אמרו לו כלום אתה יודע אם הפסח דוחה את השבת אם לאו אמר להם וכי פסח אחד יש לנו בשנה שדוחה את השבת והלא הרבה יותר ממאתים פסחים יש לנו בשנה שדוחין את השבת,אמרו לו מנין לך אמר להם נאמר מועדו בפסח ונאמר (במדבר כח, ב) מועדו בתמיד מה מועדו האמור בתמיד דוחה את השבת אף מועדו האמור בפסח דוחה את השבת,ועוד ק"ו הוא ומה תמיד שאין ענוש כרת דוחה את השבת פסח שענוש כרת אינו דין שדוחה את השבת,מיד הושיבוהו בראש ומינוהו נשיא עליהם והיה דורש כל היום כולו בהלכות הפסח התחיל מקנטרן בדברים אמר להן מי גרם לכם שאעלה מבבל ואהיה נשיא עליכם עצלות שהיתה בכם שלא שמשתם שני גדולי הדור שמעיה ואבטליון,אמרו לו ר' שכח ולא הביא סכין מע"ש מהו אמר להן הלכה זו שמעתי ושכחתי אלא הנח להן לישראל אם אין נביאים הן בני נביאים הן,למחר מי שפסחו טלה תוחבו בצמרו מי שפסחו גדי תוחבו בין קרניו ראה מעשה ונזכר הלכה ואמר כך מקובלני מפי שמעיה ואבטליון,אמר מר נאמר מועדו בפסח ונאמר מועדו בתמיד מה מועדו האמור בתמיד דוחה את השבת אף מועדו האמור בפסח דוחה שבת ותמיד גופיה מנלן דדחי שבת אילימא משום דכתיב ביה במועדו פסח נמי הא כתיב ביה מועדו,אלא מועדו לא משמע ליה הכא נמי מועדו לא משמע ליה אלא אמר קרא (במדבר כח, י) עולת שבת בשבתו על עולת התמיד מכלל [עולה] דתמיד קרבה בשבת,אמר מר ועוד ק"ו ומה תמיד שאין ענוש כרת דוחה את השבת פסח שענוש כרת אינו דין שדוחה את השבת איכא למיפרך מה לתמיד שכן תדיר וכליל ק"ו אמר להו ברישא ופרכוה והדר אמר להו גזירה שוה,וכי מאחר דגמר גזירה שוה ק"ו למה לי אלא לדידהו קאמר להו בשלמא גזירה שוה לא גמריתו דאין אדם דן גזירה שוה מעצמו אלא ק"ו דאדם דן מעצמו איבעי לכו למידן אמרו ליה קל וחומר פריכא הוא:,אמר מר למחר מי שפסחו טלה תוחב לו בצמרו גדי תוחב לו בין קרניו | 66a. bRabbi Akiva said toRabbi Eliezer: bOrperhaps we can breversethe order of your argument and say the opposite: bIf,as we know by accepted tradition, bsprinklingthe purifying water on Shabbat, bwhich isprohibited only bdue to rabbinic decree, does not override Shabbat,then with regard to bslaughter, which isprohibited bas abiblically prohibited blabor, is it not right that it should not override Shabbat?Therefore, it should be prohibited to slaughter the Paschal lamb when the eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat. bRabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva,how can you say this? bYou havethus buprooted what is written in the Torah:“Let the children of Israel offer the Paschal lamb bin its appointed time”(Numbers 9:2); the phrase “at its appointed time” indicates that the offering must be brought on that day, bwhether it is a weekday or Shabbat. /b,Rabbi Akiva bsaid toRabbi Eliezer: bMy teacher, bring me an appointed timestated in the Torah bfor thesetasks, namely, carrying the animal or bringing it from outside the Shabbat limits, blike the appointed timestated bwith respect to slaughter.The Paschal lamb must be slaughtered on the fourteenth of Nisan, but there is no fixed time when the animal must be brought to the Temple, and it is therefore possible to transport it before Shabbat. bRabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any prohibited laborrequired for the offering of the sacrifice bthat can be performed on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat; slaughter, which cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat, overrides Shabbat. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong bThe Sages taughta ibaraitawith regard to the basic ihalakhagoverning the eve of Passover that boccurson Shabbat: bThis law was forgotten by the sons of Beteira,who were the leaders of their generation. bThe fourteenthof Nisan bonce occurred on Shabbat,and bthey forgot and did not know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. They said: Is there any person who knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? They said to them: There is a certain manin Jerusalem bwho came up from Babylonia, and Hillel the Babylonian is his name.At one point, bhe served the twomost beminentscholars bof the generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, andhe certainly bknows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not.The sons of Beteira bsentmessengers band called for him. They said to him: Do you know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? He said to them: Have webut bone Paschal lamb during the year that overrides Shabbat? Do we not have many more than two hundred Paschal lambs,i.e., sacrifices, bduring the year that override Shabbat? /b, bThey said to him: From where do youknow this? bHe said to them: “Its appointed time” is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb and “its appointed time” isalso bstated with regard to the daily offering,for the verse says: “Command the children of Israel and say to them, My offering, the provision of My sacrifice made with fire, for a sweet savor to Me, shall you observe to offer Me at its appointed time” (Numbers 28:2). From here we learn that the daily offering is brought even on Shabbat. Thus, the daily morning and afternoon offerings are brought on more than fifty iShabbatotover the course of the year, and two sheep are offered every Shabbat as additional offerings, for a total of more than two hundred sacrifices a year that override Shabbat. bJust asthe expression b“its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the daily offering,indicates that it boverrides Shabbat, so too “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb,indicates that it boverrides Shabbat. /b, bAnd furthermore, it is an ia fortiori /iinference: bIf the daily offering,the neglect of which bis not punishable by ikaret /i, overrides Shabbat, is it not right that the Paschal lamb,the neglect of which bis punishable by ikaret /i, should override Shabbat? /b,After Hillel brought these proofs, bthey immediately seated him at the head and appointed him iNasiover them, and he expounded the laws of Passover that entire day.In the course of his teaching, bhe began rebuking them [ imekanteran /i] them with words. He said to them: What causedthis to happen bto you, that I should come up from Babylonia and become iNasiover you?It was bthe laziness in youthat byou did not serve the twomost beminentscholars bof the generationliving in Eretz Yisrael, bShemaya and Avtalyon. /b, bThey said toHillel: bOur teacher,if one bforgot and did not bring a knife on the eve of Shabbatand cannot slaughter his Paschal lamb, bwhat isthe law? Since he could have brought the knife before Shabbat, he cannot bring it on Shabbat; but what should he do in this situation? bHe said to them: Ionce bheard this ihalakha /ifrom my teachers bbut I have forgottenit. bBut leaveit bto the Jewish people; if they are not prophetsto whom God has revealed His secrets, bthey are the sons of prophets,and will certainly do the right thing on their own., bThe next day,on Shabbat that was the eve of Passover, bone whose Paschal offering was a lambtook the knife and bstuck it in its wool;and bone whose Paschal offering was a goat,which does not have wool, bstuck it between its horns.Hillel bsaw the incident and remembered the ihalakha /ithat he had once learned band said: Thisis the tradition bI received from the mouths of Shemaya and Avtalyon,meaning that this is in fact the proper course of action. This concludes the text of the ibaraitaand the Gemara will begin to elucidate it., bThe Master saidabove: b“Its appointed time” is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb and “its appointed time” is stated with regard to the daily offering. Just as “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the daily offering,indicates that it boverrides Shabbat, so too “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb,indicates that it boverrides Shabbat. And from where do wederive bthat the daily offering itself overrides Shabbat? If we say because “in its appointed time” is written in its regard, “in its appointed time” is also written with regard to the Paschal lamb.Were it possible to derive from this expression that the sacrifice is offered even on Shabbat, it would not be necessary to derive the law governing the Paschal lamb from a verbal analogy between the daily offering and the Paschal lamb., bRather,you must conclude that the expression b“its appointed time,”which is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb, bdoes not indicate toHillel that the Torah was so particular about the timing of the Paschal lamb that its slaughter overrides Shabbat. bHere too,with regard to the daily offering, you must say that b“its appointed time” does not indicate to himthat it is brought on Shabbat, and so this expression is not the source of this law. bRather,the law is derived from bthe versethat bstates: “The burnt-offering of Shabbat on its Shabbat, beside the continual burnt-offeringand its libation” (Numbers 28:10), from which bit may be inferred that the daily burnt-offering is broughteven bon Shabbat. /b,The Gemara raises another question: bThe Master saidin that same ibaraita /i: bAnd furthermore, it is an ia fortioriinference: If the daily offering,the neglect of which bis not punishable by ikaret /i, overrides Shabbat, is it not right that the Paschal lamb,the neglect of which bis punishable by ikaret /i, should override Shabbat?The Gemara points out that bthere is room to refutethe logic of this argument: bWhatis unique about bthe daily offeringthat enables it to override Shabbat? bThat it is frequent,and something that is frequent always takes precedence; bandalso that it is totally bconsumedon the altar, unlike the Paschal lamb, most of which is eaten by human beings. The Gemara explains that this is what happened: Hillel bfirst told them the ia fortioriinference, but they refuted itand proved that it was not reliable, as explained above; band then he told them the verbal analogy,and a verbal analogy is based on an oral tradition originating from Moses at Sinai and must be accepted.,The Gemara asks: bBut sinceHillel blearnedthis bverbal analogyfrom his teachers, bwhy do Ineed ban ia fortiori /iinference? Why did he add a logical argument of his own if he had an explicit verbal tradition that this was the ihalakha /i? The Gemara answers: bRather, he said it for them,to show that they had not sufficiently exerted themselves in clarifying this ihalakha /i: bGranted, you did not learn the verbal analogyon your own, because you acted according to the principle that bone may not expound a verbal analogy on one’s own.Since there is no limit to the laws that one can extract using this method of derivation, such a derivation is only legitimate if it has been transmitted as part of the oral tradition, and apparently they did not learn this verbal analogy from their teachers. bBut an ia fortiori /iinference, bwhich one can derive on one’s own, you should have derivedand you would then have known how to resolve this question. bThey said to him: It is a faulty ia fortiori /iinference, as we have shown that it can be easily refuted., bThe Master saidfurther in the ibaraita /i: bThe next day, one whose Paschal offering was a lamb stuckthe knife bin its wool,and one whose Paschal offering was a bgoat stuck it between its hornsso as to avoid carrying the knife on Shabbat. |
|
32. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 31a. שהמרו זה את זה אמרו כל מי שילך ויקניט את הלל יטול ד' מאות זוז אמר אחד מהם אני אקניטנו אותו היום ע"ש היה והלל חפף את ראשו הלך ועבר על פתח ביתו אמר מי כאן הלל מי כאן הלל נתעטף ויצא לקראתו אמר לו בני מה אתה מבקש א"ל שאלה יש לי לשאול א"ל שאל בני שאל מפני מה ראשיהן של בבליים סגלגלות א"ל בני שאלה גדולה שאלת מפני שאין להם חיות פקחות,הלך והמתין שעה אחת חזר ואמר מי כאן הלל מי כאן הלל נתעטף ויצא לקראתו אמר לו בני מה אתה מבקש א"ל שאלה יש לי לשאול א"ל שאל בני שאל מפני מה עיניהן של תרמודיין תרוטות אמר לו בני שאלה גדולה שאלת מפני שדרין בין החולות,הלך והמתין שעה אחת חזר ואמר מי כאן הלל מי כאן הלל נתעטף ויצא לקראתו א"ל בני מה אתה מבקש א"ל שאלה יש לי לשאול א"ל שאל בני שאל מפני מה רגליהם של אפרקיים רחבות א"ל בני שאלה גדולה שאלת מפני שדרין בין בצעי המים,אמר לו שאלות הרבה יש לי לשאול ומתירא אני שמא תכעוס נתעטף וישב לפניו א"ל כל שאלות שיש לך לשאול שאל א"ל אתה הוא הלל שקורין אותך נשיא ישראל א"ל הן א"ל אם אתה הוא לא ירבו כמותך בישראל א"ל בני מפני מה א"ל מפני שאבדתי על ידך ד' מאות זוז א"ל הוי זהיר ברוחך כדי הוא הלל שתאבד על ידו ד' מאות זוז וד' מאות זוז והלל לא יקפיד:,ת"ר מעשה בנכרי אחד שבא לפני שמאי אמר לו כמה תורות יש לכם אמר לו שתים תורה שבכתב ותורה שבעל פה א"ל שבכתב אני מאמינך ושבעל פה איני מאמינך גיירני ע"מ שתלמדני תורה שבכתב גער בו והוציאו בנזיפה בא לפני הלל גייריה יומא קמא א"ל א"ב ג"ד למחר אפיך ליה א"ל והא אתמול לא אמרת לי הכי א"ל לאו עלי דידי קא סמכת דעל פה נמי סמוך עלי:,שוב מעשה בנכרי אחד שבא לפני שמאי א"ל גיירני ע"מ שתלמדני כל התורה כולה כשאני עומד על רגל אחת דחפו באמת הבנין שבידו בא לפני הלל גייריה אמר לו דעלך סני לחברך לא תעביד זו היא כל התורה כולה ואידך פירושה הוא זיל גמור.,שוב מעשה בנכרי אחד שהיה עובר אחורי בית המדרש ושמע קול סופר שהיה אומר (שמות כח, ד) ואלה הבגדים אשר יעשו חושן ואפוד אמר הללו למי אמרו לו לכהן גדול אמר אותו נכרי בעצמו אלך ואתגייר בשביל שישימוני כהן גדול בא לפני שמאי אמר ליה גיירני על מנת שתשימני כהן גדול דחפו באמת הבנין שבידו בא לפני הלל גייריה,א"ל כלום מעמידין מלך אלא מי שיודע טכסיסי מלכות לך למוד טכסיסי מלכות הלך וקרא כיון שהגיע (במדבר א, נא) והזר הקרב יומת אמר ליה מקרא זה על מי נאמר א"ל אפי' על דוד מלך ישראל נשא אותו גר קל וחומר בעצמו ומה ישראל שנקראו בנים למקום ומתוך אהבה שאהבם קרא להם (שמות ד, כב) בני בכורי ישראל כתיב עליהם והזר הקרב יומת גר הקל שבא במקלו ובתרמילו על אחת כמה וכמה,בא לפני שמאי א"ל כלום ראוי אני להיות כהן גדול והלא כתיב בתורה והזר הקרב יומת בא לפני הלל א"ל ענוותן הלל ינוחו לך ברכות על ראשך שהקרבתני תחת כנפי השכינה לימים נזדווגו שלשתן למקום אחד אמרו קפדנותו של שמאי בקשה לטורדנו מן העולם ענוותנותו של הלל קרבנו תחת כנפי השכינה:,אמר ר"ל מאי דכתיב (ישעיהו לג, ו) והיה אמונת עתיך חוסן ישועות חכמת ודעת וגו' אמונת זה סדר זרעים עתיך זה סדר מועד חוסן זה סדר נשים ישועות זה סדר נזיקין חכמת זה סדר קדשים ודעת זה סדר טהרות ואפ"ה (ישעיהו לג, ו) יראת ה' היא אוצרו,אמר רבא בשעה שמכניסין אדם לדין אומרים לו נשאת ונתת באמונה קבעת עתים לתורה עסקת בפו"ר צפית לישועה פלפלת בחכמה הבנת דבר מתוך דבר ואפ"ה אי יראת ה' היא אוצרו אין אי לא לא משל לאדם שאמר לשלוחו העלה לי כור חיטין לעלייה הלך והעלה לו א"ל עירבת לי בהן קב חומטון א"ל לאו א"ל מוטב אם לא העליתה,תנא דבי ר"י מערב אדם קב חומטון בכור של תבואה ואינו חושש:,אמר רבה בר רב הונא כל אדם שיש בו תורה ואין בו | 31a. bwho wagered with each otherand bsaid: Anyone who will go and aggravate Hillelto the point that he reprimands him, bwill take four-hundred izuz /i. bOne of them said: I will aggravate him. That daythat he chose to bother Hillel bwas Shabbat eve, and Hillel was washingthe hair on bhis head. He went and passed the entrance toHillel’s bhouseand in a demeaning manner bsaid: Who here is Hillel, who here is Hillel?Hillel bwrapped himselfin a dignified garment band went out to greet him. He said to him: My son, what do you seek? He said to him: I have a question to ask.Hillel bsaid to him: Ask, my son, ask.The man asked him: bWhy are the heads of Babylonians oval?He was alluding to and attempting to insult Hillel, who was Babylonian. bHe said to him: My son, you have asked a significant question.The reason is bbecause they do not have clever midwives.They do not know how to shape the child’s head at birth.,That man bwent and waited one hour,a short while, breturnedto look for Hillel, band said: Who here is Hillel, who here is Hillel?Again, Hillel bwrapped himself and went out to greet him.Hillel bsaid to him: My son, what do you seek?The man bsaid to him: I have a question to ask. He said to him: Ask, my son, ask.The man asked: bWhy are the eyes of the residents of Tadmor bleary [ iterutot /i]?Hillel bsaid to him: My son, you have asked a significant question.The reason is bbecause they live among the sandsand the sand gets into their eyes.,Once again the man bwent, waited one hour, returned, and said: Who here is Hillel, who here is Hillel?Again, bhe,Hillel, bwrapped himself and went out to greet him. He said to him: My son, what do you seek? He said to him: I have a question to ask. He said to him: Ask, my son, ask.The man asked: bWhy do Africans have wide feet?Hillel bsaid to him: You have asked a significant question.The reason is bbecause they live in marshlandsand their feet widened to enable them to walk through those swampy areas.,That man bsaid to him: I have manymore bquestions to ask, but I am afraid lest you get angry.Hillel bwrapped himself and sat before him,and bhe said to him: All ofthe bquestions that you have to ask, askthem. The man got angry and bsaid to him: Are you Hillel whom they callthe iNasiof Israel? He said to him: Yes. He said to him: Ifit bis you,then bmay there not be many like you in Israel.Hillel bsaid to him: My son, for whatreason do you say this? The man bsaid to him: Because I lost four hundred izuzbecause of you.Hillel bsaid to him: Be vigilant of your spiritand avoid situations of this sort. bHillel is worthy of having you lose four hundred izuzandanother bfour hundred izuzon his account, and Hillel will not get upset. /b, bThe Sages taught:There was ban incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai.The gentile bsaid to Shammai: How many Torahs do you have? He said to him: Two, the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.The gentile bsaid to him:With regard to bthe WrittenTorah, bI believe you, butwith regard to bthe OralTorah, bI do not believe you. Convert me on condition that you will teach meonly the bWritten Torah.Shammai bscolded him and cast him out with reprimand.The same gentile bcame before Hillel,who bconverted himand began teaching him Torah. bOn the first day, heshowed him the letters of the alphabet and bsaid to him: iAlef /i, ibet /i, igimmel /i, idalet /i. The next day he reversedthe order of the letters and told him that an ialefis a itavand so on. The convert bsaid to him: But yesterday you did not tell me that.Hillel bsaid to him:You see that it is impossible to learn what is written without relying on an oral tradition. bDidn’t you rely on me?Therefore, you should balso rely on mewith regard to the matter bof the OralTorah, and accept the interpretations that it contains.,There was banother incident involving one gentile who came before Shammaiand bsaid toShammai: bConvert me on condition that you teach me the entire Torah while I am standing on one foot.Shammai bpushed himaway bwith the builder’s cubit in his hand.This was a common measuring stick and Shammai was a builder by trade. The same gentile bcame before Hillel. He converted himand bsaid to him:That bwhich is hateful to you do not do to another; that is the entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation. Go study. /b,There was banother incident involving one gentile who was passing behind the study halland bheard the voice of a teacher who wasteaching Torah to his students and bsayingthe verse: b“And these are the garments which they shall make: A breastplate, and an iefod, /iand a robe, and a tunic of checkered work, a mitre, and a girdle” (Exodus 28:4). bThe gentile said: Thesegarments, bfor whom are theydesignated? The students bsaid to him: For the High Priest. The gentile said to himself: I will go and convert so that they will install me as High Priest. He came before Shammaiand bsaid to him: Convert me on condition that you install meas High Priest. Shammai bpushed him with the builder’s cubit in his hand. He came before Hillel; he converted him. /b,Hillel bsaid to him,to the convert: bIs it notthe way of the world that bonly one who knows the protocols [ itakhsisei /i]of royalty bis appointed king? Goand blearn the royal protocolsby engaging in Torah study. bHe went and readthe Bible. bWhen he reachedthe verse which says: b“And the common man that draws near shall be put to death”(Numbers 1:51), the convert bsaid toHillel: bWith regard to whom is the verse speaking?Hillel bsaid to him: Even with regard to David, king of Israel. The convert reasoned an ia fortioriinference himself: If the Jewish people are called God’s children, and due to the love that God loved them he called them: “Israel is My son, My firstborn”(Exodus 4:22), and nevertheless bit is written about them: And the common man that draws near shall be put to death; a mere convert who camewithout merit, bwithnothing more than bhis staff and traveling bag, all the more sothat this applies to him, as well.,The convert bcame before Shammaiand btold himthat he retracts his demand to appoint him High Priest, saying: bAm I at all worthy to be High Priest? Is it not written in the Torah: And the common man that draws near shall be put to death? He came before Hilleland bsaid to him: Hillel the patient, may blessings rest upon your head as you brought me under the wings of the Divine Presence.The Gemara relates: bEventually, the threeconverts bgathered togetherin bone place,and bthey said: Shammai’s impatience sought to drive us from the world; Hillel’s patience brought us beneath the wings of the Divine Presence. /b,The Gemara continues discussing the conduct of the Sages, citing that bReish Lakish said: Whatis the meaning of bthat which is written: “And the faith of your times shall be a strength of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge,the fear of the Lord is his treasure” (Isaiah 33:6)? bFaith; that is the order of iZera /i’ iim /i, Seeds,in the Mishna, because a person has faith in God and plants his seeds (Jerusalem Talmud). bYour times; that is the order of iMoed /i, Festival,which deals with the various occasions and Festivals that occur throughout the year. bStrength; that is the order of iNashim /i, Women. Salvations; that is the order of iNezikin /i, Damages,as one who is being pursued is rescued from the hands of his pursuer. bWisdom; that is the order of iKodashim /i, Consecrated Items. And knowledge; that is the order of iTeharot /i, Purity,which is particularly difficult to master. bAnd evenif a person studies and masters all of these, b“the fear of the Lord is his treasure,”it is preeminent.,With regard to the same verse, bRava said:After departing from this world, bwhen a person is brought to judgmentfor the life he lived in this world, bthey say to himin the order of that verse: Did byou conduct business faithfully?Did byou designate times for Torahstudy? Did byou engage in procreation? Did you await salvation? Did you engagein the dialectics of bwisdomor understand bone matter from another? And, nevertheless,beyond all these, bif the fear of the Lord is his treasure, yes,he is worthy, and bif not, no,none of these accomplishments have any value. There is ba parablethat illustrates this. bA person who said to his emissary: Bring a ikorof wheat up to the attic for meto store there. The messenger bwent and brought it up for him. He said to the emissary:Did byou mix a ikavof iḥomton /i,a preservative to keep away worms, binto it for me? He said to him: No. He said to him:If so, it would have been bpreferable had you not brought it up.of what use is worm-infested wheat? Likewise, Torah and mitzvot without the fear of God are of no value.,On a related note, the Gemara cites a ihalakhathat was btaughtin bthe schoolof bRabbi Yishmael: A personwho sells wheat bmay, iab initio /i, bmix a ikavof iḥomtoninto a ikorof grain and need not be concernedthat by selling it all at the price of grain he will be guilty of theft, as the ikavof iḥomtonis essential for the preservation of the wheat., bRabba bar Rav Huna said: Any person who has Torah in him but does not have /b |
|
33. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 49b. אזלא ודלדלה ואין שואל ואין מבקש על מי יש להשען על אבינו שבשמים,בעקבות משיחא חוצפא יסגא ויוקר יאמיר הגפן תתן פריה והיין ביוקר ומלכות תהפך למינות ואין תוכחת בית וועד יהיה לזנות והגליל יחרב והגבלן ישום ואנשי הגבול יסובבו מעיר לעיר ולא יחוננו,וחכמות סופרים תסרח ויראי חטא ימאסו והאמת תהא נעדרת נערים פני זקנים ילבינו זקנים יעמדו מפני קטנים בן מנוול אב בת קמה באמה כלה בחמותה אויבי איש אנשי ביתו פני הדור כפני הכלב הבן אינו מתבייש מאביו ועל מה יש לנו להשען על אבינו שבשמים, big strong(גמ׳) /strong /big אמר רב לא שנו אלא של מלח וגפרית אבל של הדס ושל וורד מותר ושמואל אומר אף של הדס ושל וורד אסור של קנים ושל חילת מותר ולוי אמר אף של קנים ושל חילת אסור וכן תני לוי במתניתיה אף של קנים ושל חילת אסור,ועל האירוס מאי אירוס א"ר אלעזר טבלא דחד פומא רבה בר רב הונא עבד ליה לבריה טנבורא אתא אבוה תבריה אמר ליה מיחלף בטבלא דחד פומא זיל עביד ליה אפומא דחצבא או אפומא דקפיזא,בפולמוס של טיטוס גזרו על עטרות כלות וכו' מאי עטרות כלות אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן עיר של זהב תניא נמי הכי איזהו עטרות כלות עיר של זהב אבל עושה אותה כיפה של מילת,תנא אף על חופת חתנים גזרו מאי חופת חתנים זהורית המוזהבות תניא נמי הכי אלו הן חופת חתנים זהורית המוזהבות אבל עושה פפירית ותולה בה כל מה שירצה,ושלא ילמד את בנו יוונית ת"ר כשצרו מלכי בית חשמונאי זה על זה היה הורקנוס מבחוץ ואריסטובלוס מבפנים בכל יום ויום היו משלשלין דינרים בקופה ומעלין להן תמידים,היה שם זקן אחד שהיה מכיר בחכמת יוונית לעז להם בחכמת יוונית אמר להן כל זמן שעוסקים בעבודה אין נמסרין בידכם למחר שלשלו להם דינרים בקופה והעלו להם חזיר כיון שהגיע לחצי חומה נעץ צפרניו נזדעזעה א"י ארבע מאות פרסה,אותה שעה אמרו ארור אדם שיגדל חזירים וארור אדם שילמד לבנו חכמת יוונית ועל אותה שנה שנינו מעשה ובא עומר מגגות צריפים ושתי הלחם מבקעת עין סוכר,איני והאמר רבי בא"י לשון סורסי למה אלא אי לשון הקודש אי לשון יוונית ואמר רב יוסף בבבל לשון ארמי למה אלא או לשון הקודש או לשון פרסי,לשון יוונית לחוד וחכמת יוונית לחוד,וחכמת יוונית מי אסירא והאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל משום רשב"ג מאי דכתיב (איכה ג, נא) עיני עוללה לנפשי מכל בנות עירי אלף ילדים היו בבית אבא חמש מאות למדו תורה וחמש מאות למדו חכמת יוונית ולא נשתייר מהן אלא אני כאן ובן אחי אבא בעסיא,שאני של בית ר"ג דקרובין למלכות הוו דתניא מספר קומי הרי זה מדרכי האמורי אבטולוס בן ראובן התירו לספר קומי שהוא קרוב למלכות של בית רבן גמליאל התירו להן חכמה יוונית מפני שקרובין למלכות,בפולמוס האחרון גזרו שלא תצא כלה באפריון וכו' מ"ט משום צניעותא,משמת רבן יוחנן בטלה החכמה ת"ר משמת רבי אליעזר נגנז ס"ת משמת רבי יהושע בטלה עצה ומחשבה משמת ר"ע בטלו זרועי תורה ונסתתמו מעיינות החכמה,משמת רבי אלעזר בן עזריה בטלו עטרות חכמה (משלי יד, כד) שעטרת חכמים עשרם משמת רבי חנינא בן דוסא בטלו אנשי מעשה משמת אבא יוסי בן קטונתא בטלו חסידים ולמה נקרא שמו אבא יוסי בן קטונתא שהיה מקטני חסידים,משמת בן עזאי בטלו השקדנין משמת בן זומא בטלו הדרשנין משמת רשב"ג עלה גובאי ורבו צרות משמת רבי הוכפלו צרות,משמת רבי בטלה ענוה ויראת חטא אמר ליה רב יוסף לתנא לא תיתני ענוה דאיכא אנא אמר ליה רב נחמן לתנא לא תיתני יראת חטא דאיכא אנא, br br big strongהדרן עלך ערופה וסליקא לן מסכת סוטה /strong /big br br | |
|
34. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 20b. נזדמן לו אדם אחד שהיה מכוער ביותר אמר לו שלום עליך רבי ולא החזיר לו אמר לו ריקה כמה מכוער אותו האיש שמא כל בני עירך מכוערין כמותך אמר לו איני יודע אלא לך ואמור לאומן שעשאני כמה מכוער כלי זה שעשית כיון שידע בעצמו שחטא ירד מן החמור ונשתטח לפניו ואמר לו נעניתי לך מחול לי אמר לו איני מוחל לך עד שתלך לאומן שעשאני ואמור לו כמה מכוער כלי זה שעשית,היה מטייל אחריו עד שהגיע לעירו יצאו בני עירו לקראתו והיו אומרים לו שלום עליך רבי רבי מורי מורי אמר להם למי אתם קורין רבי רבי אמרו לו לזה שמטייל אחריך אמר להם אם זה רבי אל ירבו כמותו בישראל אמרו לו מפני מה אמר להם כך וכך עשה לי אמרו לו אעפ"כ מחול לו שאדם גדול בתורה הוא,אמר להם בשבילכם הריני מוחל לו ובלבד שלא יהא רגיל לעשות כן מיד נכנס רבי אלעזר בן רבי שמעון ודרש לעולם יהא אדם רך כקנה ואל יהא קשה כארז ולפיכך זכה קנה ליטול הימנה קולמוס לכתוב בו ספר תורה תפילין ומזוזות:,וכן עיר שיש בה דבר או מפולת כו': תנו רבנן מפולת שאמרו בריאות ולא רעועות שאינן ראויות ליפול ולא הראויות ליפול,הי ניהו בריאות הי ניהו שאינן ראויות ליפול הי ניהו רעועות הי ניהו ראויות ליפול לא צריכא דנפלו מחמת גובהייהו אי נמי דקיימן אגודא דנהרא,כי ההיא אשיתא רעועה דהואי בנהרדעא דלא הוה חליף רב ושמואל תותה אע"ג דקיימא באתרה תליסר שנין יומא חד איקלע רב אדא בר אהבה להתם אמר ליה שמואל לרב ניתי מר נקיף אמר ליה לא צריכנא האידנא דאיכא רב אדא בר אהבה בהדן דנפיש זכותיה ולא מסתפינא,רב הונא הוה ליה ההוא חמרא בההוא ביתא רעיעא ובעי לפנוייה עייליה לרב אדא בר אהבה להתם משכי' בשמעתא עד דפנייה בתר דנפק נפל ביתא ארגיש רב אדא בר אהבה איקפד,סבר לה כי הא דאמר רבי ינאי לעולם אל יעמוד אדם במקום סכנה ויאמר עושין לי נס שמא אין עושין לו נס ואם תימצי לומר עושין לו נס מנכין לו מזכיותיו אמר רב חנן מאי קרא דכתיב (בראשית לב, יא) קטנתי מכל החסדים ומכל האמת,מאי הוה עובדיה דרב אדא בר אהבה כי הא דאתמר שאלו תלמידיו (את רבי זירא ואמרי לה) לרב אדא בר אהבה במה הארכת ימים אמר להם מימי לא הקפדתי בתוך ביתי ולא צעדתי בפני מי שגדול ממני,ולא הרהרתי במבואות המטונפות ולא הלכתי ד' אמות בלא תורה ובלא תפילין ולא ישנתי בבית המדרש לא שינת קבע ולא שינת עראי ולא ששתי בתקלת חברי ולא קראתי לחבירי בהכינתו ואמרי לה בחניכתו,אמר ליה רבא לרפרם בר פפא לימא לן מר מהני מילי מעלייתא דהוה עביד רב הונא אמר ליה בינקותיה לא דכירנא בסיבותיה דכירנא דכל יומא דעיבא הוו מפקין ליה בגוהרקא דדהבא וסייר לה לכולה מתא וכל אשיתא דהוות רעיעתא הוה סתר לה אי אפשר למרה בני לה ואי לא אפשר בני לה איהו מדידיה,וכל פניא דמעלי שבתא הוה משדר שלוחא לשוקא וכל ירקא דהוה פייש להו לגינאי זבין ליה ושדי ליה לנהרא וליתביה לעניים זמנין דסמכא דעתייהו ולא אתו למיזבן ולשדייה לבהמה קסבר מאכל אדם אין מאכילין לבהמה,ולא ליזבניה כלל נמצאת מכשילן לעתיד לבא,כי הוה ליה מילתא דאסותא הוי מלי כוזא דמיא ותלי ליה בסיפא דביתא ואמר כל דבעי ליתי ולישקול ואיכא דאמרי מילתא דשיבתא הוה גמיר והוה מנח כוזא דמיא ודלי ליה ואמר כל דצריך ליתי וליעול דלא לסתכן,כי הוה כרך ריפתא הוה פתח לבביה ואמר כל מאן דצריך ליתי וליכול אמר רבא כולהו מצינא מקיימנא לבר מהא דלא מצינא למיעבד | 20b. bHe happenedupon ban exceedingly ugly person,who bsaid to him: Greetings to you, my rabbi, butRabbi Elazar bdid not returnhis greeting. Instead, Rabbi Elazar bsaid to him: Worthless [ ireika /i]person, bhow ugly is that man. Are all the people of your city as ugly as you?The man bsaid to him: I do not know, but youshould bgo and say to the Craftsman Who made me: How ugly is the vessel you made. WhenRabbi Elazar brealized that hehad bsinnedand insulted this man merely on account of his appearance, bhe descended from his donkey and prostrated himself before him, and he said tothe man: bI have sinned against you; forgive me.The man bsaid to him: I will not forgive you go until you go to the Craftsman Who made me and say: How ugly is the vessel you made. /b, bHe walked behindthe man, trying to appease him, buntil they reachedRabbi Elazar’s bcity. The people of his city came out to greet him, saying to him: Greetings to you, my rabbi, my rabbi, my master, my master.The man bsaid to them: Who are you calling my rabbi, my rabbi? They said to him: To this man, who is walking behind you. He said to them: If thisman bis a rabbi, may there not be many like him among the Jewish people. They asked him: For whatreason do you say this? He bsaid to them: He did such and such to me. They said to him: Even so,forgive him, bas he is a great Torah scholar. /b, bHe said to them: For your sakes I forgive him, provided thathe accepts upon himself bnot to become accustomed to behave like this. Immediately, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, entered the study hall and taught: A person should always be soft like a reed and he should not be stiff like a cedar,as one who is proud like a cedar is likely to sin. bAnd therefore,due to its gentle qualities, the breed meritedthat ba quill is taken from it to write with it a Torah scroll, phylacteries, and imezuzot /i. /b,§ The mishna taught: bAnd likewise,if a bcity isafflicted bby pestilence or collapsing buildings,that city fasts and sounds the alarm, and all of its surrounding areas fast but they do not sound the alarm. Rabbi Akiva says: They sound the alarm but they do not fast. bThe Sages taught:These collapsing buildings bto whichthe Sages breferredare those of bsturdy and not dilapidatedwalls; they have walls bthat are not ready to fall, and not those that are ready to fall. /b,The Gemara expresses puzzlement with regard to the wording of the ibaraita /i: bWhat are soundwalls; bwhat arewalls bthat are not ready to fall; what are dilapidatedwalls; bwhat are those that are ready to fall?The elements in each pair of walls are apparently the same, and the ibaraitais repetitive. The Gemara answers: bNo,it is bnecessaryto specify that in the case of walls bthat fell due to their height,i.e., they are sound but also ready to fall, due to their excessive height. bAlternatively,the ibaraitais referring to a case bwherethe walls bwere positioned on a riverbank,as they are likely to fall despite the fact that they are not dilapidated, as the riverbank itself is unstable.,The Gemara relates: This is blike thatdilapidated wall bthat was in Neharde’a, under which Rav and Shmuel would not pass, although it stood in place thirteen years. One day Rav Adda bar Ahava happenedto come bthereand walked with them. As they passed the wall, bShmuel said to Rav: Come, Master, let us circumventthis wall, so that we do not stand beneath it. Rav bsaid to him:It is bnot necessaryto do so btoday, as Rav Adda bar Ahava is with us, whose merit is great, andtherefore bI am not afraidof its collapse.,The Gemara relates another incident. bRav Huna had a certainquantity of bwine in a certain dilapidated house and he wanted to move it,but he was afraid that the building would collapse upon his entry. bHe brought Rav Adda bar Ahava to there,to the ramshackle house, and bhe draggedout a discussion with bhimconcerning a matter of ihalakhauntil they had removedall the wine. bAs soon as they exited, the building collapsed. Rav Adda bar Ahava realizedwhat had happened band became angry. /b,The Gemara explains: Rav Adda bar Ahava bholds in accordance with thisstatement, bas Rabbi Yannai said: A person should never stand in a place of danger and say: A miracle will be performed for me,and I will escape unharmed, blest a miracle is not performed for him. And if you saythat ba miraclewill be bperformed for him, they will deduct it from his merits. Rav Ḥa said: What is the versethat alludes to this idea? bAs it is written: “I have become small from all the mercies and all the truththat You have showed Your servant” (Genesis 32:11). In other words, the more benevolence one receives from God, the more his merit is reduced.,After recounting stories that reflect Rav Adda bar Ahava’s great merit, the Gemara asks: bWhat werethe exceptional deeds bof Rav Adda bar Ahava?The Gemara reports that they are bas it is stated:The students of Rabbi Zeira asked him, and some say that bthe students of Rav Adda bar Ahava asked him: To whatdo you attribute byour longevity? He said to them: In all my days I did not become angry with my household, and I never walked before someone greater than myself;rather, I always gave him the honor of walking before me.,Rav Adda bar Ahava continued: bAnd I did not thinkabout matters of Torah bin filthy alleyways; and I did not walk four cubits withoutengaging in bTorah and withoutdonning bphylacteries; and Iwould bnot fall asleep in the study hall, neither a deep sleep nor a brief nap; and Iwould bnot rejoice in the mishap of my colleague; and Iwould bnot call my colleague by his nickname. And some saythat he said: I would bnot call my colleague by hisderogatory bfamily name. /b,§ The Gemara relates another story about the righteous deeds of the Sages involving a dilapidated wall. bRava said to Rafram bar Pappa: Let the Master tell us some of those finedeeds bthat Rav Huna performed. He said to him: I do not rememberwhat he did bin his youth, butthe deeds bof his old age I remember. As on every cloudy day they would take him out in a golden carriage [ iguharka /i], and he would survey the entire city. Andhe would command bthat every unstable wallbe btorn down,lest it fall in the rain and hurt someone. bIf its owner was ableto build another, Rav Huna would instruct him bto rebuild it. And if he was unableto rebuild it, Rav Huna would bbuild it himself with his own money. /b,Rafram bar Pappa further relates: bAnd every Shabbat eve,in the bafternoon,Rav Huna bwould send a messenger to the marketplace, and he would purchase all the vegetables that were left with the gardenerswho sold their crops, band throwthem binto the river.The Gemara asks: bButwhy did he throw out the vegetables? bLet him give them to the poor.The Gemara answers: If he did this, the poor would bsometimes relyon the fact that Rav Huna would hand out vegetables, band they would not come to purchaseany. This would ruin the gardeners’ livelihood. The Gemara further asks: bAnd let him throw them to the animals.The Gemara answers: bHe holdsthat bhuman foodmay bnot be fed to animals,as this is a display of contempt for the food.,The Gemara objects: bButif Rav Huna could not use them in any way, he should bnot purchasethe vegetables bat all.The Gemara answers: If nothing is done, byouwould have been bfoundto have caused ba stumbling block for them in the future.If the vegetable sellers see that some of their produce is left unsold, the next week they will not bring enough for Shabbat. Therefore, Rav Huna made sure that the vegetables were all bought, so that the sellers would continue to bring them.,Another custom of Rav Huna was bthat when he hada new bmedicine, he would filla water bjugwith the medicine band hang it from the doorpost of his house, saying: All who need, let him come and takefrom this new medicine. bAnd there arethose bwho say: He had a remedyagainst the demon bShivtathat he knew by btradition,that one must wash his hands for protection against this evil spirit. bAndto this end, bhe would place a water jug and hangit by the door, bsaying: Anyone who needs, let him cometo the house and wash his hands, so bthat he will not be in danger. /b,The Gemara further relates: bWhenRav Huna bwould eat bread, he would open the doorsto his house, bsaying: Whoever needs, let him come in and eat. Rava said: I can fulfill all thesecustoms of Rav Huna, bexcept for this one, which I cannot do, /b |
|
35. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 46a. עובד כוכבים גופא לא קני ליה מאי דקני ליה הוא דמקני ליה לישראל וכיון דקדם וטבל לשם בן חורין אפקעיה לשעבודיה,כדרבא דאמר רבא הקדש חמץ ושחרור מפקיעין מידי שעבוד,מתיב רב חסדא מעשה בבלוריא הגיורת שקדמו עבדיה וטבלו לפניה ובא מעשה לפני חכמים ואמרו קנו עצמן בני חורין לפניה אין לאחריה לא,אמר רבא לפניה בין בסתם בין במפורש לאחריה במפורש אין בסתם לא,אמר רב אויא לא שנו אלא בלוקח מן העובד כוכבים אבל עובד כוכבים גופיה קני,דכתיב (ויקרא כה, מה) וגם מבני התושבים הגרים עמכם מהם תקנו אתם קונים מהם ולא הם קונים מכם ולא הם קונים זה מזה,ולא הם קונים מכם למאי אילימא למעשה ידיו אטו עובד כוכבים לא קני ליה לישראל למעשה ידיו והכתיב (ויקרא כה, מז) או לעקר משפחת גר ואמר מר משפחת גר זה העובד כוכבים אלא לאו לגופיה וקאמר רחמנא אתם קונין מהם אפילו גופיה,פריך רב אחא אימא בכספא ובטבילה קשיא,אמר שמואל וצריך לתקפו במים,כי האי דמנימין עבדיה דרב אשי בעא לאטבולי מסריה ניהלייהו לרבינא ולרב אחא ברי' דרבא אמר להו חזו דמינייכו קבעית ליה רמו ליה ארויסא בצואריה ארפו ליה וצמצמו ליה,ארפו ליה כי היכי דלא להוי חציצה צמצמו ליה כי היכי דלא לקדים ולימא להו לשם בן חורין אני טובל בהדי דדלי רישיה ממיא אנחו ליה זולטא דטינא ארישיה ואמרו ליה זיל אמטי לבי מרך,א"ל רב פפא לרבא חזי מר הני דבי פפא בר אבא דיהבי זוזי לאינשי לכרגייהו ומשעבדי בהו כי נפקי צריכי גיטא דחירותא או לא,א"ל איכו שכיבי לא אמרי לכו הא מילתא הכי א"ר ששת מוהרקייהו דהני בטפסא דמלכא מנח ומלכא אמר מאן דלא יהיב כרגא משתעבד למאן דיהיב כרגא,ר' חייא בר אבא איקלע לגבלא חזא בנות ישראל דמעברן מגרים שמלו ולא טבלו וחזא חמרא דישראל דמזגי עובדי כוכבים ושתו ישראל וחזא תורמוסין דשלקי עובדי כוכבים ואכלי ישראל ולא אמר להו ולא מידי,אתא לקמיה דר' יוחנן א"ל צא והכרז על בניהם שהם ממזרים ועל יינם משום יין נסך ועל תורמוסן משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים לפי שאינן בני תורה,על בניהן שהם ממזרים ר' יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר ר' חייא בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן לעולם אין גר עד שימול ויטבול וכיון דלא טביל עובד כוכבים הוא ואמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד ממזר,ועל יינם משום יין נסך משום לך לך אמרין נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב,ועל תורמוסן משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים לפי שאינן בני תורה הא בני תורה שרי והאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק משמי' דרב כל הנאכל כמות שהוא חי אין בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים והא תורמוס אינו נאכל כמות שהוא חי ויש בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים,ר' יוחנן כאידך לישנא סבירא ליה דאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק משמי' דרב כל שאין עולה על שולחן מלכים לאכול בו את הפת אין בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים וטעמא דאינן בני תורה הא בני תורה שרי,ת"ר גר שמל ולא טבל ר"א אומר הרי זה גר שכן מצינו באבותינו שמלו ולא טבלו טבל ולא מל ר' יהושע אומר הרי זה גר שכן מצינו באמהות שטבלו ולא מלו וחכמים אומרים טבל ולא מל מל ולא טבל אין גר עד שימול ויטבול,ורבי יהושע נמי נילף מאבות ור"א נמי נילף מאמהות וכי תימא אין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר,והתניא ר"א אומר מנין לפסח דורות שאין בא אלא מן החולין נאמר פסח במצרים ונאמר פסח בדורות מה פסח האמור במצרים אין בא אלא מן החולין אף פסח האמור לדורות אין בא אלא מן החולין,א"ל ר' עקיבא וכי דנין אפשר משאי אפשר א"ל אע"פ שאי אפשר ראיה גדולה היא ונלמד הימנה,אלא | 46a. His previous bgentileowner bdid not have ownership of theslave’s bbody,since a gentile is unable to have ownership of another’s body; rather, he had rights to only the slave’s labor. And only bthat which he owned in him was heable to bsell tothe bJew.Therefore, before immersion, the Jew had rights to only the slave’s labor, but not ownership of his body, bandtherefore, boncethe slave bpreemptedhis owner band immersed for the sake ofconversion to make him ba freeman, he abrogateshis master’s blienupon him.,The Gemara notes: This explanation is bin accordance withthe opinion bof Rava, as Rava said: Consecrationof an item to the Temple, the prohibition of bleavened breadtaking effect upon a leavened food, bandthe bemancipationof a slave babrogateany blienthat exists upon them., bRav Ḥisda raised an objectionfrom a ibaraita /i: There was ban incident involving Beloreya the female convert in which her slaves preemptedher band immersed before herown immersion for her own conversion. bAndthe details of the bincident came before the Sages, and they said:The slaves bacquired themselvesand became bfreemen.Rav Ḥisda explains how the ibaraitaposes a challenge: The ibaraitaimplies that only because the slaves immersed bbefore her,while she was still a gentile, that byes,they became freemen; however, had they immersed bafter her,i.e., after she had already converted, then bno,they would not have become freemen. The reason for this is presumably that upon her conversion she attains the rights to her slaves’ bodies, and therefore their immersion for the sake of becoming freemen would be ineffective. However, this contradicts the Gemara’s explanation above that when a Jew gains ownership of a slave from a gentile, he has a right to only the slave’s labor.,To resolve the challenge bRava said:When the ibaraitasays that because they immersed bbefore herthey acquired themselves, that is bwhetherthey immersed bwithout a specifiedintention bor whetherthey immersed bwith explicitintention to convert and become freemen. However, had they immersed bafter her,if they did so bwith explicitintention to convert, then byes,the immersion would achieve that end, but if they did so bwithout a specifiedintention, then bno,their immersion would, by default, be considered for the sake of slavery and they would not become free., bRav Avya said: They taughtthat one acquires only the rights to the slave’s labor bonly with regard toa Jew bwho purchaseda slave bfrom a gentileslave owner, bbutif ba gentilesold bhisown bbodyas a slave directly to a Jew, then the Jew bacquireshis body., bAs it is written: “Moreover, of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them you may acquire”(Leviticus 25:45). The verse states only that byou,i.e., Jews, bcan acquirea slave bfrom them,i.e., a gentile slave, bbut they cannot acquirea slave bfrom you,i.e., a Jewish slave, band they cannot acquirea slave bfrom one another. /b,When it is derived that: bBut they cannot acquireslaves bfrom you, to whattype of acquisition is it referring? bIf we sayit is bfor his labor, is that to saythat ba gentile cannot acquire a Jew for his labor? Isn’t it written:“And if a stranger who is a settler with you becomes rich, and your brother becomes poor beside him, and he sells himself to the stranger who is a settler with you, bor to the offshoot of a stranger’s family”(Leviticus 25:47), band the Master saidin explanation of the phrase b“a stranger’s family”that bthisis referring to ba gentile.If so, the verse explicitly states that a Jew can sell himself as a slave to a gentile. bRather, is it notthat the reference is btoselling bhis body, and the Merciful One statesthat byou,i.e., Jews, bcan acquirea slave bfrom them,which means beven his body.Accordingly the verse indicates that a Jew can acquire a gentile slave’s body, but a gentile is unable to acquire ownership of another’s body, even that of another gentile., bRav Aḥa refutesRav Avya’s explanation: bSaythat the verse is referring to acquiring a gentile slave by both purchasing him bwith money andthen bby immersinghim for the purpose of slavery, and only in that case does it teach that a Jew acquires the gentile slave’s body. However, until he has been immersed the acquisition is not fully complete, and therefore if the slave immerses himself with the intention to become free, then his immersion would achieve that end. The Gemara concedes: This is bdifficult. /b, bShmuel said: Andif one wishes to ensure that one’s slave does not declare the immersion to be for the sake of conversion, then bone needs to hold him tightly in the waterin a way that demonstrates the owner’s domice over the slave at that time, thereby defining the immersion as one for the sake of slavery.,That is basdemonstrated bin thisincident binvolving Minyamin, Rav Ashi’s slave:When bhe wished to immersehim, bhe passed him to Ravina and Rav Aḥa, son of Rava,to perform the immersion on his behalf, and bhe said to them: Be aware that I will claimcompensation bfor him from youif you do not prevent my slave from immersing for the sake of conversion. bThey placed a bridle [ iarvisa /i] upon his neck,and at the moment of immersion bthey loosened it andthen immediately btightened itagain while he was still immersed.,The Gemara explains their actions: bTheyinitially bloosened it in order that there should not be any interpositionbetween the slave and the water during the immersion, which would invalidate it. bTheyimmediately btightened itagain bin order thatthe slave bshould not preemptthem band say to them: I am immersing for the sake ofbecoming ba freeman. When he lifted his head from the water they placed a bucket of clay upon his head and said to him: Goand bbringthis bto the house of your master.They did this in order to demonstrate that the immersion had been successful and that he was still a slave., bRav Pappa said to Rava:Has bthe Master seen those of the house of Pappa bar Abba who give moneyto the tax-collectors bon behalf ofpoor bpeople topay bfor their poll tax [ ikarga /i], andas a result bthey would enslave them.Anyone who did not pay the tax would be taken as a slave for the king. By paying for such people’s taxes, the members of the house of Pappa bar Abba essentially purchased those people, who had become the king’s slaves, for themselves. Rav Pappa asked: bWhenthose slaves bgo free, do they require a bill of emancipation,because the members of the house of Pappa bar Abba actually attained ownership of the slaves’ bodies, bor not,as they were owned only for the sake of their labor?, bHe said to him: Were I dead I could not say this matter to you,so it is good that you have asked me while I am still alive, as I know that bthisis what bRav Sheshet saidwith regard to the matter: bThe writ of slavery [ imoharkayehu /i] of theseresidents of the kingdom brests in the treasury [ itafsa /i] of the king,and in fact all the residents of the kingdom are considered to be full slaves of the king, i.e., he owns their bodies, irrespective of whether they pay their taxes. bAndso when bthe king says: One who does not give the poll tax is to be enslaved to the one whodoes bgive the poll taxon his behalf, the king’s decree is fully effective in making those residents full slaves of those who paid for them. As such, they will require a bill of emancipation when they are freed.,§ The Gemara relates: bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Abbaonce bhappenedto come bto Gavla. He saw Jewish womenthere bwho had become pregt from converts who were circumcised but hadstill bnot immersedto complete their conversion process; band he saw wine of Jews that gentiles were pouring, and Jews were drinkingit; band he saw lupines [ iturmusin /i] that gentiles were cooking, and Jews were eatingthem; bbut he did not say anything to them. /b,Later, bhe came before Rabbi Yoḥaand told him what he had witnessed. bRabbi Yoḥa said to him: Go and makea public bdeclaration concerning their children that they are imamzerim /i, and concerning their winethat it is forbidden bbecauseit is like bwine poured as anidolatrous blibation, and concerning their lupinesthat they are forbidden bbecausethey are bfood cooked by gentiles.One should be stringent and make such a declaration bbecause they are notwell-versed bin Torah,and if they are left to be lax in this regard they will eventually transgress Torah prohibitions.,The Gemara explains: With regard to the declaration bconcerning their children that they are imamzerim /i, Rabbi Yoḥaconforms bto hisstandard line of breasoningin two ihalakhot /i: The first is bas Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said:One bis neverconsidered to be ba convert until he has been circumcised and has immersed. And sincethe convert in the case in Gavla bhad not immersed, he isstill considered ba gentile. Andthe second ihalakhais as bRabba bar bar Ḥana saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said:With regard to ba gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspringof that union bis a imamzer /i. /b, bAndthe reason to declare bconcerning their winethat it is forbidden bbecauseit is like bwine poured as anidolatrous blibationis that although their wine was not actually poured as an idolatrous libation, it was prohibited by rabbinic decree bdue tothe maxim that: bGo, go, we say to a nazirite, go around and go around,but bdo not come near to the vineyard.Although a nazirite is prohibited only from eating produce of the vine, he is warned not even to come into close proximity of a vineyard as a protective measure to ensure that he will not transgress this prohibition. So too, in many cases, the Sages decreed certain items and actions to be prohibited because they understood that if people would partake of them, they would eventually transgress Torah prohibitions., bAndthe final declaration bconcerning their lupinesthat they are forbidden bbecausethey are bfood cooked by gentilesis issued bbecause they are notwell versed bin Torah.The Gemara expresses astonishment: Does this imply that bwere they students of the Torahtheir lupines would bbe permitted? Didn’t Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak say in the name of Rav: Anyfood item bthat is eaten as it is, raw, is notsubject btothe prohibition of bfood cooked by gentiles,even when cooked by them? bBut a lupine is not eaten as it is, raw, andtherefore bit is subject tothe prohibition of bfood cooked by gentiles. /b,The Gemara explains that bRabbi Yoḥa holdsin this matter bin accordance withthe opinion of bthe other versionof what bRav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said in the name of Rav: Anyfood item that lacks sufficient importance such that it bdoes not appear on the table of kingsin order bto eat bread with it is notsubject btothe prohibition of bfood cooked by gentiles.Lupines lack importance and are therefore permitted even if cooked by gentiles. bAndconsequently, btheonly breasonto make a declaration prohibiting the residents of Gavla from eating them is bbecause they are notwell versed bin Torah,and if they are left to be lax in this regard they will eventually become lax in actual Torah prohibitions; by inference, to those well versed bin Torah, it is permitted.br§ During their sojourn in Egypt, the children of Israel had the halakhic status of gentiles. At the revelation at Sinai they entered into a national covet with God in which they attained their status of the Jewish people. This transformation was essentially the mass conversion of the people, and so their preparation for the revelation provides a paradigm of the process required for conversion for all generations. The itanna’imdisagree as to which aspects of that original conversion are to be derived for all generations., bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to ba convert who was circumcised but did not immerse, Rabbi Eliezer saysthat bthis is a convert, as so we found with our forefathersfollowing the exodus from Egypt bthat they were circumcised but were not immersed.With regard to one who bimmersed but was not circumcised, Rabbi Yehoshua saysthat bthis is a convert, as so we found with our foremothers that they immersed but were not circumcised. And the Rabbis say:Whether bhe immersed but was not circumcisedor whether bhe was circumcised but did not immerse, he is not a convert until he is circumcised and he immerses. /b,The Gemara questions the opinions in the ibaraita /i: bBut let Rabbi Yehoshua also derivewhat is required for conversion bfromour bforefathers;why didn’t he do so? bAnd let Rabbi Eliezer also derivethe ihalakha bfromour bforemothers;why didn’t he do so? bAnd if you would saythat Rabbi Eliezer did not derive the ihalakhafrom our foremothers because he holds bone cannot derivethe bpossible fromthe bimpossible,i.e., one cannot derive that men do not require circumcision from the ihalakhathat women do not require it, because for women it is a physical impossibility, that claim may be refuted.,It would appear that Rabbi Eliezer does not accept that principle, as bisn’t it taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Eliezer says: From whereis it derived with regard btothe bPaschal lambbrought throughout the bgenerations that it may be brought only from non-sacredanimals? bA Paschal lamb is statedin the Torah binreference to the lamb that the Jewish people brought prior to the exodus from bEgypt, and a Paschal lamb is stated inreference to the yearly obligation throughout the bgenerations.The association between them teaches that bjust as the Paschal lamb stated inreference to bEgypt was only brought from non-sacredanimals, since prior to the giving of the Torah there was no possibility to consecrate property, bso too,with regard to bthe Paschal lamb statedin reference btothe obligation throughout the bgenerations, it may be brought only from non-sacredanimals., bRabbi Akiva said to him: But can one derivethe bpossible,i.e., the ihalakhafor the Paschal lamb throughout the generations, where a possibility exists to bring it from consecrated animals, bfromthe bimpossible,i.e., from the Paschal lamb in Egypt, where it was not a possibility? Rabbi Eliezer bsaid to him: Although it was impossibleto bring the Paschal lamb in Egypt from consecrated animals, nevertheless, bit isstill ba great proof, and we may learn from it.It is apparent, then, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one can derive the possible from the impossible. Therefore the original question stands: Why didn’t Rabbi Eliezer derive from the foremothers that circumcision is not essential for conversion?,The Gemara concedes: bRather,the ibaraitamust be reinterpreted as follows: |
|
36. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 81b. הוא גופיה שבת איקרי דכתיב תשבתו שבתכם בשלמא רב פפא לא אמר כרב אחא בר יעקב דקרא דכתיב בגופיה עדיף אלא רב אחא בר יעקב מאי טעמא לא אמר כרב פפא,מיבעי ליה לכדתניא (ויקרא כג, לב) ועניתם את נפשותיכם בתשעה לחודש יכול יתחיל ויתענה בתשעה ת"ל בערב אי בערב יכול משתחשך ת"ל בתשעה הא כיצד מתחיל ומתענה מבעוד יום מכאן שמוסיפין מחול על הקודש,ואין לי אלא בכניסתו ביציאתו מנין ת"ל (ויקרא כג, לב) מערב עד ערב ואין לי אלא יוה"כ (ימים טובים) מניין ת"ל (ויקרא כג, לב) תשבתו אין לי אלא (ימים טובים שבתות) מנין ת"ל (ויקרא כג, לב) שבתכם הא כיצד כל מקום שנאמר שבות (מכאן שמוסיפין) מחול על הקודש,ותנא דעצם עצם האי בתשעה לחודש מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתני חייא בר רב מדיפתי דתני חייא בר רב מדיפתי ועניתם את נפשותיכם בתשעה וכי בתשעה מתענין והלא בעשור מתענין אלא לומר לך כל האוכל ושותה בתשיעי מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו התענה תשיעי ועשירי,אכל אוכלין שאין ראוין לאכילה אמר רבא כס פלפלי ביומא דכפורי פטור כס זנגבילא ביומא דכפורי פטור,מיתיבי היה רבי מאיר אומר ממשמע שנאמר (ויקרא יט, כג) וערלתם ערלתו את פריו איני יודע שעץ מאכל הוא אלא מה תלמוד לומר עץ מאכל עץ שטעם עצו ופריו שוה הוי אומר זה פלפלין ללמדך שהפלפלין חייבין בערלה ואין ארץ ישראל חסרה כלום שנא' (דברים ח, ט) לא תחסר כל בה,ל"ק הא ברטיבתא והא ביבישתא,א"ל רבינא למרימר והאמר רב נחמן האי הימלתא דאתי מבי הנדואי שריא ומברכינן עליה בורא פרי האדמה לא קשיא הא ברטיבתא והא ביבישתא,ת"ר אכל עלי קנים פטור לולבי גפנים חייב אלו הן לולבי גפנים אמר רבי יצחק מגדלאה כל שלבלבו מר"ה ועד יוה"כ ורב כהנא אמר כל שלשים יום תניא כוותיה דר' יצחק מגדלאה אכל עלי קנים פטור ולולבי גפנים חייב אלו הן לולבי גפנים כל שלבלבו מר"ה ועד יוה"כ,שתה ציר או מורייס פטור הא חומץ חייב מתני' מני רבי היא דתניא ר' אומר חומץ משיב את הנפש,דרש רב גידל בר מנשה מבירי דנרש אין הלכה כרבי לשנה נפקי כולי עלמא מזגו ושתו חלא שמע רב גידל ואיקפד אמר אימר דאמרי אנא דיעבד לכתחלה מי אמרי אימר דאמרי אנא פורתא טובא מי אמרי אימר דאמרי אנא חי מזוג מי אמרי | 81b. Yom Kippur bitself is called “Shabbat,” as it is written:“From evening until evening, byou shall rest on your Shabbat”(Leviticus 23:32). The Gemara compares the various opinions. bGranted, Rav Pappa did not say as Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akovdid because ba verse that is written about the matter itself is preferableto a verbal analogy. bBut what is the reasonthat bRav Aḥa bar Ya’akov did not statehis opinion bin accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa? /b,The Gemara answers: bHe requires thisverse of “keep your Shabbat” bfor that which was taughtin a ibaraita /i: The verse states: b“And you shall afflict your souls on the ninth day of the monthat evening, from evening until evening, you shall rest on your Shabbat” (Leviticus 23:32). One bmighthave thought that bone should start to afflict oneself on the ninthof Tishrei; therefore, bthe verse states “at evening.” Ifthe Torah had stated only b“at evening,”one bmighthave thought that the fast starts only bwhen darkness falls;therefore, bthe verse states “on the ninth,”implying that one begins to fast on the ninth of Tishrei. bHowcan these verses be reconciled? bOne begins to fast while it is still daytime; from hereit is derived bthat onesanctifies and bextends fromthe bnon-sacredweekday btothe bsacredday of Yom Kippur., bI havederived bonlythat one must add time bat the beginningof Yom Kippur. bFrom wheredo I derive that one adds time bat the conclusion ofYom Kippur? bThe verse states: “From evening until evening”(Leviticus 23:32), implying that one adds at the end as well, just as he does at the beginning. bAnd Ihave derived bonlythe mitzva of adding to bYom Kippur; from whereis it derived that one must also sanctify and append time before and after bFestivals? The verse states: “You shall rest”(Leviticus 23:32), to teach that this rule applies even to Festivals, on which one is commanded to rest. bI havederived bonlythat one adds an extension to bFestivals; from wheredo I derive that one must also sanctify and append to iShabbatot /i? The verse states: “Your Shabbat”(Leviticus 23:32). bHow so? Every place the term: Rest [ ishevut /i] is stated,it teaches bfrom here that onesanctifies and bappends fromthe bnon-sacredweekday btothe bsacred. /b,The Gemara asks: bAnd the itanna /iwho learns a verbal analogy from the words “that bsameday,” “that bsameday,” bwhat does he do withthe phrase: b“On the ninth day of the month”?The Gemara answers: bHe requires it, in accordance withthat bwhich Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught. As Ḥiyya bar Rav of Difti taught:It states: b“And you shall afflict your souls on the ninthday of the month” (Leviticus 23:32). bBut does one afflict oneself on the ninthof Tishrei? bDoesn’t onein fact bafflict oneself on the tenthof Tishrei? bRather,the verse comes bto tell you: Anyone who eats and drinks on the ninthof Tishrei and then fasts on the tenth, bthe verse ascribes himcredit bas though he fasted onboth the bninth and the tenth.The verse alludes to this when it states that the fast is on the ninth.,§ It was taught in the mishna: If one bate food that isnot bfit for eating,he is exempt. bRava said:If bone chewsraw bpepper on Yom Kippur, he is exempt,since this is not considered eating. Similarly, if bone chews ginger [ izangvila /i] on Yom Kippur, he is exempt. /b,The Gemara braises an objectionto this. bRabbi Meir would sayabout the verse: “And when you shall come into the land, and shall have planted all manner of trees for food, then you shall count the fruit of it as forbidden [ iorla /i]; three years it shall be forbidden to you, it shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 19:23). bFrom the implication of what is stated: “Then you shall count the fruit of it as forbidden,” do I not know thatthe verse is referring to b“trees for food,”since it uses the word “fruit”? bRather, whatis the meaning when bthe verse states “trees for food”?It includes ba tree whose wood and fruit taste the same,i.e., a tree that is itself eaten in addition to its fruit. One bmust saythat bthisis referring to bpepperthat grows on a tree, bto teach you thateven bpepper is subject tothe ihalakha bof iorla /i. Andthis also teaches that bEretz Yisrael lacks nothing,as even pepper can grow there, bas it is statedamong the listed praises of Eretz Yisrael: b“You will not lack anything in it”(Deuteronomy 8:9). In any event, it has been derived that pepper is called food, which contradicts Rava’s statement.,The Gemara answers: bThisis bnot difficult. Thisstatement about edible pepper is referring btofresh pepper, which is bmoist; and that ihalakhapertaining to Yom Kippur is referring to bdrypepper, which is not considered food., bRavina said to Mareimar: But didn’t Rav Naḥman saythat bit is permittedto eat bthis cooked ginger [ ihimalta /i] that comes from India,and there is no concern that gentiles may have cooked it. bAnd we recite the blessing: Who creates the fruit of the ground, over it.Apparently, ginger is edible. The Gemara answers: bThisis bnot difficult: Thisstatement is referring bto wetginger, which is considered food; band thatearlier statement pertaining to Yom Kippur, which maintained that ginger is not food, is referring bto dryginger., bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: If bone ate leaves of reedson Yom Kippur, bhe is exempt,but if one ate bgrapevine shoots he is liable.The Gemara clarifies: bWhat are these grapevine shoots? Rabbi Yitzḥak fromthe city of bMigdal said: Allshoots bthat sprouted between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippurand are still very soft are considered food. bAnd Rav Kahana said:All shoots that sprouted up to bthirty daysbefore Yom Kippur are considered food. The Gemara comments: bIt was taughtin a ibaraita bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yitzḥak from Migdal:If bone ate leaves of reeds he is exempt, butif one ate bgrapevine shoots he is liable. What are these grapevine shoots?They are ball those that sprouted between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur. /b,It was taught in the mishna that if on Yom Kippur one bdrank fish brine orthe briny bliquidin which fish are pickled, bhe is exempt.The Gemara comments: From the language of the mishna it may be inferred that bif one drank vinegar, he is liable. Who isthe itannaof bthe mishna? It is RabbiYehuda HaNasi, bas it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays: Vinegar revives the spiritand is therefore considered a beverage.,The Gemara relates: bRav Giddel bar Menashe fromthe town of bBirei DeNeresh taughtin a public lecture that the ihalakhais not in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbiYehuda HaNasi, and vinegar is not considered a beverage. bThenext byear everyone went out and mixedvinegar with water band drank vinegaron Yom Kippur. bRav Giddel heardthis band became angrywith them for their actions. bHe said: Say that I saidone is not liable for drinking vinegar bonly after the fact;however, bdid I sayit is permitted to drink it iab initio /i?Furthermore: bSay that I saidmy statement with regard to one who drinks ba little,but bdid I sayit is permitted to drink ba lot?Furthermore: bSay that I saidmy statement in reference to bpurevinegar, which is very strong, bbut did I sayanything about bdilutedvinegar? That is certainly prohibited. |
|
37. Babylonian Talmud, Arakhin, None (6th cent. CE - missingth cent. CE)
| 6b. איני והא רבי ינאי יזיף ופרע שאני רבי ינאי דניחא להו לעניים דכמה דמשהי מעשי ומייתי להו,ת"ר ישראל שהתנדב מנורה או נר לבית הכנסת אסור לשנותה סבר רבי חייא בר אבא למימר לא שנא לדבר הרשות ולא שנא לדבר מצוה אמר ליה רב אמי הכי אמר רבי יוחנן לא שנו אלא לדבר הרשות אבל לדבר מצוה מותר לשנותה,מדאמר ר' אסי אמר ר' יוחנן בעובד כוכבים שהתנדב מנורה או נר לבית הכנסת עד שלא נשתקע שם בעליה אסור לשנותה משנשתקע שם בעליה מותר לשנותה,למאי אילימא לדבר הרשות מאי איריא עובד כוכבים אפילו ישראל נמי,אלא לדבר מצוה וטעמא דעובד כוכבים הוא דפעי אבל ישראל דלא פעי שפיר דמי,שעזרק טייעא אינדב שרגא לבי כנישתא דרב יהודה שנייה רחבא ואיקפד רבא איכא דאמרי שנייה רבא ואיקפד רחבא וא"ד שנייה חזני דפומבדיתא ואיקפד רחבא ואיקפד רבה,מאן דשנייה סבר דלא שכיח ומאן דאיקפד סבר זמנין דמקרי ואתי:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big הגוסס והיוצא ליהרג לא נידר ולא נערך ר' חנינא בן עקביא אומר נערך מפני שדמיו קצובין רבי יוסי אומר דנודר ומעריך ומקדיש ואם הזיק חייב:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big בשלמא גוסס לא נידר דלאו בר דמים הוא ולא נערך דלאו בר העמדה והערכה הוא אלא יוצא ליהרג בשלמא לא נידר דלאו בר דמים הוא אלא לא נערך אמאי לא,דתניא מנין היוצא ליהרג ואמר ערכי עלי שלא אמר כלום ת"ל (ויקרא כז, כח) כל חרם לא יפדה יכול אפילו קודם שנגמר דינו תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כז, כט) מן האדם ולא כל האדם,ולרבי חנינא בן עקביא דאמר נערך מפני שדמיו קצובין האי כל חרם מאי עביד ליה,לכדתניא רבי ישמעאל בנו של רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר לפי שמצינו למומתים בידי שמים שנותנין ממון ומתכפר להם שנאמר (שמות כא, ל) אם כופר יושת עליו יכול אף בידי אדם כן תלמוד לומר כל חרם לא יפדה,אין לי אלא מיתות חמורות שלא ניתנה שגגתן לכפרה מיתות קלות שניתנה שגגתן לכפרה מנין תלמוד לומר כל חרם:,רבי יוסי אומר נודר ומעריך כו': ותנא קמא מי קאמר דלא,אלא בנודר ומעריך ומקדיש כ"ע לא פליגי כי פליגי באם הזיק תנא קמא סבר אם הזיק אינו חייב בתשלומין ורבי יוסי סבר אם הזיק חייב בתשלומין,במאי קמיפלגי אמר רב יוסף במלוה על פה גובה מן היורשין קמיפלגי תנא קמא סבר מלוה על פה אינו גובה מן היורשין ורבי יוסי סבר המלוה על פה גובה מן היורשין,רבא אמר דכ"ע מלוה על פה אינו גובה מן היורשין והכא במלוה כתובה בתורה קמיפלגי תנא קמא סבר מלוה כתובה בתורה לאו ככתובה בשטר דמיא ורבי יוסי סבר ככתובה בשטר דמיא,ואיכא דמתני לה אהא היוצא ליהרג הוא שחבל באחרים חייב אחרים שחבלו בו פטורין רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אף הוא אם חבל באחרים פטור שלא ניתן לחזרת עמידת בית דין | 6b. The Gemara asks: bIs that so? But Rabbi Yannai,who was a charity collector, bborrowedmoney belonging to charity band repaid.The Gemara answers: The case of bRabbi Yannai is different;it is bbeneficial to the poorthat he be allowed to borrow and repay, bas the longer he leavesthe charity fund empty, the more he bimpelspeople to give charity, bandhe thereby bbringsmore money btothe poor., bThe Sages taughta ibaraitathat deals with a similar matter: In the case of ba Jew who donated a candelabrum or a lamp to the synagogue,it is bprohibited to change itand use it for another purpose. bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba thought to saythat there bis no differencewhether he wishes to change bfor a voluntary matter or for a matterinvolving ba mitzva,as in both cases it is prohibited. bRav Ami said toRabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: bThisis what bRabbi Yoḥa says:When the Sages taught the ibaraita /i, they btaught onlythat it is prohibited when he changes it bfor a voluntary matter, butit is bpermitted to change it for a matterinvolving ba mitzva. /b,This ihalakhais derived bfromthe fact bthat Rabbi Asi saysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says:With regard to ba gentile who donated a candelabrum or a lamp to the synagogue, ifit is bbefore its owner’s namehas been bforgotten,i.e., people still remember that he donated the item, it is bprohibited to change itand use it for another purpose. bOnce its owner’s namehas been bforgotten,it is bpermitted to change it. /b,The Gemara clarifies: bWith regard to whatpurpose is it stated that one may not change it before the owner’s name was forgotten? bIf we saythat it is prohibited to change it bfor a voluntary matter, whydoes the ibaraita bspecificallymention ba gentile?It is prohibited to change it in this manner bevenif it was donated by ba Jew. /b, bRather,the ibaraitamust be dealing with a change bfor a matterinvolving ba mitzva,and therefore it is prohibited only if the donor is a gentile and his name has not yet been forgotten. bAnd the reasonfor this ihalakhais bthat it isspecifically ba gentile whowould protest and bscream:Where is the candelabrum that I donated? bButin the case of ba Jew, whowould bnotprotest and bscreamif they used his donation for a different mitzva, one may bwellchange it.,The Gemara relates that bSha’azrak, an Arab [ itayya’a /i]merchant, bdonated a candelabrum to Rav Yehuda’s synagogue. Raḥava changed itspurpose before Sha’azrak’s name was forgotten as the donor, and bRava became angryat Raḥava for not waiting. bSome saythe opposite: bRava changed itspurpose, and bRaḥava became angryat Rava. bAnd some saythat the battendants of Pumbedita,the charity collectors, bchangedits purpose, and bRaḥava became angryat them, band Rabba became angryat them as well.,The Gemara explains: The bone who changedits purpose bholds thatit was permitted to change it, basit was bnot commonfor Sha’azrak to be in the city and it was unlikely that he would protest the change. bAndthe bone who became angry holdsthat even so, they should not have changed it, as bsometimes he happens to comethere., strongMISHNA: /strong bOne who is moribund and one who is taken to be executedafter being sentenced by the court bis neitherthe object of ba vow nor valuated. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akavya says:He is not the object of a vow, because he has no market value; but bhe is valuated, due tothe fact bthat one’s value is fixedby the Torah based on age and sex. bRabbi Yosei says:One with that status bvowsto donate the assessment of another person to the Temple treasury, band takesvows of bvaluation, and consecrateshis property; band if he damagesthe property of others, he is bliableto pay compensation., strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: bGranted,it makes sense that bone who is moribund is notthe object of ba vow, as he has no monetaryvalue. bAndit also stands to reason that he bis not valuated,as bhe is not subject to setting,i.e., standing, bandtherefore is not subject to bvaluation.The verse states: “Then he shall be set before the priest, and the priest shall value him” (Leviticus 27:8). This teaches that anyone who cannot stand, such as one who is dying, is not included in the ihalakhaof valuation. bButwith regard to bone who is taken to be executed, granted,he bis notthe object of ba vow, as he has no monetaryvalue, since no one would purchase him. bButwith regard to the mishna’s statement that he is bnot valuated, why not? /b,The Gemara answers that the reason is bas it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bFrom whereis it derived that in the case of bone whois being btaken to be executed andwho bsaid: My valuation is upon meto donate to the Temple, bthat he did not say anything,and the valuation is not collected from his estate? bThe verse states: “Anything dedicated [ iḥerem /i],that may be dedicated of men, bshall not be redeemed”(Leviticus 27:29). This teaches that with regard to one who is worthy of excommunication [ iḥerem /i], i.e., condemned to death, one cannot redeem him, i.e., pay his valuation. One bmighthave thought that this applies beven before his verdict is issued,i.e., that this ihalakhaapplies even if one issued this statement before being sentenced to death. Therefore, bthe verse states: “of men,” and not all men,i.e., only some men destined to be executed have no valuation, and not all of them.,The Gemara asks: bAnd with regard to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akavya, who saysin the mishna that even a person taken to be executed bis valuated, due tothe fact bthat one’s value is fixed, what does he dowith the phrase b“anything dedicated”? /b,The Gemara answers that he requires it bfor that which is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka, says: Since we found with regard to those executed at the hand of Heaven that they give money and theirsins bare atoned, as it is statedin the case of the owner of a forewarned ox that killed a person: “The ox shall be stoned, and its owner shall also be put to death. bIf there be laid upon him a ransom,then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatsoever is laid upon him” (Exodus 21:29–30), one bmighthave thought that bevenwith regard to those liable to receive the death penalty bat the hands of manit is bso,that one can pay in lieu of execution. Therefore, bthe verse states: “Anything dedicatedthat may be dedicated of men, bshall not be redeemed”(Leviticus 27:29)., bI havederived bonlythat one cannot give payment in lieu of execution with regard to bsevereprohibitions punishable by the bdeathpenalty, e.g., blasphemy or cursing one’s father, bfor which no atonement is designatedin the Torah bfor their unwittingviolation. bFrom whereis it derived that the same applies to bless severeprohibitions punishable by the bdeathpenalty, e.g., violating Shabbat or killing, bfor which atonementof an offering or exile bis designatedin the Torah bfor their unwittingviolation? bThe verse states: “Anything dedicated,”to include all prohibitions punishable by court-administered execution.,§ The mishna teaches, with regard to one who is taken to be executed, that bRabbi Yosei says:Such a person bvowsto donate the assessment of another person to the Temple treasury, band takesvows of bvaluation,and consecrates his property; and if he damages the property of others, he is liable to pay compensation. The Gemara asks: bAnd does the first itannasaythat such a person does bnotvow to donate the assessment of another person to the Temple treasury and take vows of valuation, such that Rabbi Yosei could be understood as disputing his opinion? The first itannamerely said that such an individual is not subject to vows and valuations. What is the difference between their opinions?, bRather, with regard towhether or not one who is taken to be executed can bvowto donate the assessment of another person to the Temple treasury, band takevows of bvaluation, and consecratehis property, beveryone,including the first itanna /i, bagreesthat he can. bWhen they disagree,it is bina case bwherehe bcauses damage. The first itannaholdsthat bifhe bcauses damagehe is bnot liable for payment, and Rabbi Yosei holdsthat bifhe bcauses damagehe is bliable to paycompensation.,The Gemara asks: bWith regard to whatprinciple bdothese itanna’im bdisagree,as it is an accepted principle that one who causes damage must pay? bRav Yosef said:They bdisagreeas to whether the payment can be collected from his estate. This depends on the question of whether or not one who is owed money from ba loan by oralagreement, i.e., a loan given without a document that places a lien on the land, can bcollect from the heirs. The first itannaholdsthat one who is owed money from ba loan by oralagreement bcannot collect from the heirs, and Rabbi Yosei holdsthat one who is owed money from ba loan by oralagreement can bcollect from the heirs. /b, bRava says:In fact, beveryoneagrees that one who is owed money from ba loan by oralagreement bcannot collect from the heirs; and herethe itanna’im bdisagree with regard tothe status of ba loan that is written in the Torah,i.e., a ficial obligation decreed by Torah law, such as paying damages. bThe first itannaholdsthat ba loan that is written in the Torah is notconsidered bas though it is written in a document,and may not be collected from the heirs. bRabbi Yosei holdsthat such a loan bisconsidered bas though it is written in a document,and therefore it may be collected from the heirs., bAnd there are those who teachthe dispute between Rava and Rav Yosef bwith regard to this ibaraita /i: In the case of bone who is taken to be executedafter being sentenced by the court, if bhe injured anotherhe is bliablefor payment. But if bothers injured himthey are bexempt,as they would be if they injured a dead person. bRabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even ifit was bhewho binjured others,he is bexempt, ashe bcannot be brought back to standbefore bthe courtfor judgment, since he must be executed without delay. |
|
