1. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 48.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven d. Found in books: Kaplan (2015), My Perfect One: Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs, 43| 48.15. "כִּי זֶה אֱלֹהִים אֱלֹהֵינוּ עוֹלָם וָעֶד הוּא יְנַהֲגֵנוּ עַל־מוּת׃", | 48.15. "For such is God, our God, for ever and ever; He will guide us eternally.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 2.16-2.17 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 135| 2.16. "וַיְצַו יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים עַל־הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר מִכֹּל עֵץ־הַגָּן אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל׃", 2.17. "וּמֵעֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע לֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ כִּי בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹת תָּמוּת׃", | 2.16. "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying: ‘of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat;", 2.17. "but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.’", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 15.2, 19.3-19.7 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven d. •fraade, steven Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 44; Kaplan (2015), My Perfect One: Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs, 43| 15.2. "עָזִּי וְזִמְרָת יָהּ וַיְהִי־לִי לִישׁוּעָה זֶה אֵלִי וְאַנְוֵהוּ אֱלֹהֵי אָבִי וַאֲרֹמְמֶנְהוּ׃", 15.2. "וַתִּקַּח מִרְיָם הַנְּבִיאָה אֲחוֹת אַהֲרֹן אֶת־הַתֹּף בְּיָדָהּ וַתֵּצֶאןָ כָל־הַנָּשִׁים אַחֲרֶיהָ בְּתֻפִּים וּבִמְחֹלֹת׃", 19.3. "וּמֹשֶׁה עָלָה אֶל־הָאֱלֹהִים וַיִּקְרָא אֵלָיו יְהוָה מִן־הָהָר לֵאמֹר כֹּה תֹאמַר לְבֵית יַעֲקֹב וְתַגֵּיד לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃", 19.4. "אַתֶּם רְאִיתֶם אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי לְמִצְרָיִם וָאֶשָּׂא אֶתְכֶם עַל־כַּנְפֵי נְשָׁרִים וָאָבִא אֶתְכֶם אֵלָי׃", 19.5. "וְעַתָּה אִם־שָׁמוֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ בְּקֹלִי וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת־בְּרִיתִי וִהְיִיתֶם לִי סְגֻלָּה מִכָּל־הָעַמִּים כִּי־לִי כָּל־הָאָרֶץ׃", 19.6. "וְאַתֶּם תִּהְיוּ־לִי מַמְלֶכֶת כֹּהֲנִים וְגוֹי קָדוֹשׁ אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר תְּדַבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃", 19.7. "וַיָּבֹא מֹשֶׁה וַיִּקְרָא לְזִקְנֵי הָעָם וַיָּשֶׂם לִפְנֵיהֶם אֵת כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּהוּ יְהוָה׃", | 15.2. "The LORD is my strength and song, And He is become my salvation; This is my God, and I will glorify Him; My father’s God, and I will exalt Him.", 19.3. "And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying: ‘Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel:", 19.4. "Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’wings, and brought you unto Myself.", 19.5. "Now therefore, if ye will hearken unto My voice indeed, and keep My covet, then ye shall be Mine own treasure from among all peoples; for all the earth is Mine;", 19.6. "and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.’", 19.7. "And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and set before them all these words which the LORD commanded him.", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 43| 10.18. "עֹשֶׂה מִשְׁפַּט יָתוֹם וְאַלְמָנָה וְאֹהֵב גֵּר לָתֶת לוֹ לֶחֶם וְשִׂמְלָה׃", | 10.18. "He doth execute justice for the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment.", |
|
| 5. Aristotle, Memory And Reminiscence, None (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven d. Found in books: Kaplan (2015), My Perfect One: Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs, 38 |
| 6. Aristotle, Politics, None (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven d. Found in books: Kaplan (2015), My Perfect One: Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs, 38 |
| 7. Tosefta, Avodah Zarah, 4.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Gardner (2015), The Origins of Organized Charity in Rabbinic Judaism, 162 |
8. Mishnah, Bava Batra, 2.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 171| 2.3. לֹא יִפְתַּח אָדָם חֲנוּת שֶׁל נַחְתּוֹמִין וְשֶׁל צַבָּעִין תַּחַת אוֹצָרוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵרוֹ. וְלֹא רֶפֶת בָּקָר. בֶּאֱמֶת, בְּיַיִן הִתִּירוּ, אֲבָל לֹא רֶפֶת בָּקָר. חֲנוּת שֶׁבֶּחָצֵר, יָכוֹל לִמְחוֹת בְּיָדוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ, אֵינִי יָכוֹל לִישֹׁן מִקּוֹל הַנִּכְנָסִין וּמִקּוֹל הַיּוֹצְאִין. אֲבָל עוֹשֶׂה כֵלִים, יוֹצֵא וּמוֹכֵר בְּתוֹךְ הַשּׁוּק, אֲבָל אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִמְחוֹת בְּיָדוֹ וְלוֹמַר לוֹ, אֵינִי יָכוֹל לִישֹׁן, לֹא מִקּוֹל הַפַּטִּישׁ, וְלֹא מִקּוֹל הָרֵחַיִם, וְלֹא מִקּוֹל הַתִּינוֹקוֹת. | 2.3. "One may not open a bakery or a dyer’s shop under his fellow’s storehouse, nor a cattle stall. In truth, they have permitted these things under a winestore but not a cattle stall. A man may protest against [another that opens] a shop within the courtyard and say to him, “I cannot sleep because of the noise of them that go in and out.” One who makes utensils, should go outside and sell them in the market. But none may protest and say to him, “I cannot sleep because of the noise of the hammer” or “because of the noise of the mill-stones” or “because of the noise of children.”", |
|
9. Mishnah, Bava Metzia, 4.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 171| 4.11. "אֵין מְעָרְבִין פֵּרוֹת בְּפֵרוֹת, אֲפִלּוּ חֲדָשִׁים בַּחֲדָשִׁים, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר חֲדָשִׁים בִּישָׁנִים. בֶּאֱמֶת, בְּיַיִן הִתִּירוּ לְעָרֵב קָשֶׁה בְרַךְ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַשְׁבִּיחוֹ. אֵין מְעָרְבִין שִׁמְרֵי יַיִן בְּיַיִן, אֲבָל נוֹתֵן לוֹ אֶת שְׁמָרָיו. מִי שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב מַיִם בְּיֵינוֹ, לֹא יִמְכְּרֶנּוּ בַחֲנוּת אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הוֹדִיעוֹ, וְלֹא לְתַגָּר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוֹדִיעוֹ, שֶׁאֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְרַמּוֹת בּוֹ. מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַטִּיל מַיִם בַּיַּיִן, יַטִּילוּ: \n", | 4.11. "Produce may not be mixed together with other produce, even new produce with new produce, and needless to say new with old. In truth they permitted sharp wine to be mixed with weak wine, since this improves [the taste]. Wine lees may not be mixed with wine, but [the seller] may give [the buyer] the lees that come from the same wine. One whose wine has been mixed with water may not sell it in a store unless he informs [the buyer] and not to a merchant even if he has informed him, since [the merchant would buy it] only to deceive with it. In a place where they are accustomed to put water in wine, they may do so.", |
|
10. Mishnah, Keritot, 6.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 185| 6.9. "רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, כְּבָשִׂים קוֹדְמִין לָעִזִּים בְּכָל מָקוֹם. יָכוֹל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מֻבְחָרִין מֵהֶן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (ויקרא ד), וְאִם כֶּבֶשׂ יָבִיא קָרְבָּנוֹ לְחַטָּאת, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם שְׁקוּלִין. תּוֹרִין קוֹדְמִין לִבְנֵי יוֹנָה בְכָל מָקוֹם. יָכוֹל מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן מֻבְחָרִים מֵהֶן. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שם יב), וּבֶן יוֹנָה אוֹ תֹר לְחַטָּאת, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶן שְׁקוּלִין. הָאָב קוֹדֵם לָאֵם בְּכָל מָקוֹם. יָכוֹל שֶׁכְּבוֹד הָאָב עוֹדֵף עַל כְּבוֹד הָאֵם, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שם יט), אִישׁ אִמּוֹ וְאָבִיו תִּירָאוּ, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם שְׁקוּלִים. אֲבָל אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים, הָאָב קוֹדֵם לָאֵם בְּכָל מָקוֹם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא וְאִמּוֹ חַיָּבִין בִּכְבוֹד אָבִיו. וְכֵן בְּתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה, אִם זָכָה הַבֵּן לִפְנֵי הָרַב, קוֹדֵם אֶת הָאָב בְּכָל מָקוֹם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא וְאָבִיו חַיָּבִין בִּכְבוֹד רַבּוֹ: \n", | 6.9. "Rabbi Shimon says: lambs are mentioned before goats in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “And if he brings a lamb as his offering,” (Leviticus 4:32) to teach that both are equal. Turtle-doves are mentioned before young pigeons in all places. You might think that it is because they are choicer, therefore Scripture states, “A young pigeon or a turtle-dove for a hatat,” (Leviticus 12:6) to teach that both are equal. The father comes before the mother in all places. You might think that it is because the honor due a father is greater than the honor due a mother, therefore Scripture states, “A man shall fear his mother and his father,” (Leviticus 19: to teach that both are equal. But the sages have said: the father comes before the mother in all places, because both a son and his mother are obligated to honor the father. And so it is also with the study of Torah; if the son has been worthy [to sit] before the teacher, the teacher comes before the father in all places, because both a man and his father are obligated to honor the teacher.", |
|
11. Mishnah, Kilayim, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 171| 2.2. "בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. תְּבוּאָה בִתְבוּאָה וְקִטְנִית בְּקִטְנִית, תְּבוּאָה בְקִטְנִית וְקִטְנִית בִּתְבוּאָה. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ, זֵרְעוֹנֵי גִנָּה שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין, מִצְטָרְפִין אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע בְּנוֹפֵל לְבֵית סְאָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאָמְרוּ לְהַחְמִיר כָּךְ אָמְרוּ לְהָקֵל, הַפִּשְׁתָּן בַּתְּבוּאָה מִצְטָרֶפֶת אֶחָד מֵעֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע בְּנוֹפֵל לְבֵית סְאָה: \n", | 2.2. "To what does this refer? To [an mixture of] grain [occurring] with [different] grain, or pulse with [different] pulse, to grain with pulse, and to pulse with grain. However they stated: Seeds from a garden which are not eaten, they add up [with other seeds to form an amount sufficient to prohibit the sowing of a seah] when there is 1/24 of the quantity [of such seed] that is necessary to sow a bet seah. Rabbi Shimon says: just as they ruled to be stringent so too they ruled to be lenient flax [mixed in with] produce, combines when there is 1/24 of the quantity [of such seed] that is necessary to sow a bet seah.", |
|
12. Mishnah, Nazir, 7.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 171| 7.3. "אֲבָל הַסְּכָכוֹת, וְהַפְּרָעוֹת, וּבֵית הַפְּרָס, וְאֶרֶץ הָעַמִּים, וְהַגּוֹלֵל, וְהַדּוֹפֵק, וּרְבִיעִית דָּם, וְאֹהֶל, וְרֹבַע עֲצָמוֹת, וְכֵלִים הַנּוֹגְעִים בְּמֵת, וִימֵי סָפְרוֹ, וִימֵי גָמְרוֹ, עַל אֵלּוּ אֵין הַנָּזִיר מְגַלֵּחַ, וּמַזֶּה בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבַשְּׁבִיעִי, וְאֵינוֹ סוֹתֵר אֶת הַקּוֹדְמִין, וּמַתְחִיל וּמוֹנֶה מִיָּד, וְקָרְבָּן אֵין לוֹ. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ, יְמֵי הַזָּב וְהַזָּבָה וִימֵי הֶסְגֵּרוֹ שֶׁל מְצֹרָע, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עוֹלִין לוֹ: \n", | 7.3. "But for [defilement contracted by] overhanging branches, or protruding stones, or a field that may have once been a cemetery, or land of the Gentiles, or the stone which covers the tomb or the supporting stone of a tomb, or a quarter-log of blood, or a tent, or a quarter-kav of bones, or utensils that have been in contact with a corpse, or on account of the days of counting [after contracting scale disease] or the days during which he is certified unclean [because of scale disease]; For all these the nazirite is not required to shave, but they do sprinkle him on the third and seventh [days], and [the defilement] does not annul the formerly served period, and he begins to resume counting [his naziriteship] immediately [after purification] and there is no sacrifice. In fact they said: the days of [defilement of] a male or female sufferer from gonorrhea and the days that a leper is shut up as a leper count toward his [naziriteship].", |
|
13. Mishnah, Nedarim, 4.2-4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 180| 4.2. "הַמֻּדָּר הֲנָאָה מֵחֲבֵרוֹ, שׁוֹקֵל אֶת שִׁקְלוֹ, וּפוֹרֵעַ אֶת חוֹבוֹ, וּמַחֲזִיר לוֹ אֶת אֲבֵדָתוֹ. מְקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹטְלִין עָלֶיהָ שָׂכָר, תִּפֹּל הֲנָאָה לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ: \n", 4.3. "וְתוֹרֵם אֶת תְּרוּמָתוֹ וּמַעַשְׂרוֹתָיו לְדַעְתּוֹ. וּמַקְרִיב עָלָיו קִנֵּי זָבִין, קִנֵּי זָבוֹת, קִנֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת, חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת, וּמְלַמְּדוֹ מִדְרָשׁ, הֲלָכוֹת וְאַגָּדוֹת, אֲבָל לֹא יְלַמְּדֶנּוּ מִקְרָא. אֲבָל מְלַמֵּד הוּא אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בְּנוֹתָיו מִקְרָא, וְזָן אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְאֶת בָּנָיו אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֵיהֶם. וְלֹא יָזוּן אֶת בְּהֶמְתּוֹ, בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין טְהוֹרָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, זָן אֶת הַטְּמֵאָה, וְאֵינוֹ זָן אֶת הַטְּהוֹרָה. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מַה בֵּין טְמֵאָה לִטְהוֹרָה. אָמַר לָהֶן, שֶׁהַטְּהוֹרָה נַפְשָׁהּ לַשָּׁמַיִם וְגוּפָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ, וּטְמֵאָה נַפְשָׁהּ וְגוּפָהּ לַשָּׁמָיִם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אַף הַטְּמֵאָה נַפְשָׁהּ לַשָּׁמַיִם וְגוּפָהּ שֶׁלּוֹ, שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה, הֲרֵי הוּא מוֹכְרָהּ לְגוֹיִם אוֹ מַאֲכִילָהּ לִכְלָבִים: \n", | 4.2. "If one is under a vow not to benefit from his neighbor, [his neighbor] may pay his shekel, pay off his debts, and return a lost article to him. Where payment is taken for this, the benefit should become sacred property.", 4.3. "He may donate his terumah and his tithes with his consent. He may offer up for him the bird sacrifices of zavim and zavoth and the bird sacrifices of women after childbirth, sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. He may teach him midrash, halakhoth and aggadoth, but not Scripture, yet he may teach his sons and daughters Scripture And he may support his wife and children, even though he is liable for their maintece. But he may not feed his beasts, whether clean or unclean. Rabbi Eliezer says: he may feed an unclean beast of his, but not a clean one. They said to him: what is the difference between an unclean and a clean beast? He replied to them, a clean beast, its life belongs to heaven, but its body is his own; but an unclean animal its body and life belongs to heaven. They said to him: The life of an unclean beast too belongs to heaven and the body is his own for if he wishes, he can sell it to a non-Jew or feed dogs with it.", |
|
14. Mishnah, Shabbat, 1.3, 10.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 171| 1.3. "לֹא יֵצֵא הַחַיָּט בְּמַחְטוֹ סָמוּךְ לַחֲשֵׁכָה, שֶׁמָּא יִשְׁכַּח וְיֵצֵא. וְלֹא הַלַּבְלָר בְּקֻלְמוֹסוֹ. וְלֹא יְפַלֶּה אֶת כֵּלָיו, וְלֹא יִקְרָא לְאוֹר הַנֵּר. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ, הַחַזָּן רוֹאֶה הֵיכָן תִּינוֹקוֹת קוֹרְאִים, אֲבָל הוּא לֹא יִקְרָא. כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ, לֹא יֹאכַל הַזָּב עִם הַזָּבָה, מִפְּנֵי הֶרְגֵּל עֲבֵרָה: \n", 10.4. "הַמִּתְכַּוֵּן לְהוֹצִיא לְפָנָיו וּבָא לוֹ לְאַחֲרָיו, פָּטוּר, לְאַחֲרָיו וּבָא לוֹ לְפָנָיו, חַיָּב. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ, הָאִשָּׁה הַחוֹגֶרֶת בְּסִינָר בֵּין מִלְּפָנֶיהָ וּבֵין מִלְּאַחֲרֶיהָ חַיֶּבֶת, שֶׁכֵּן רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת חוֹזֵר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף מְקַבְּלֵי פִתְקִין:", | 1.3. "A tailor must not go out with his needle near nightfall, lest he forget and go out. Nor a scribe with his quill. And one may not search his garments [for lice or fleas], nor read by the light of a lamp. In truth it was said, the hazzan may see where the children are reading from, but he himself must not read. Similarly, a zav must not eat together with a zavah, because it may lead to sin.", 10.4. "If one intends to carry out [an object] in front of him, but it comes around behind him, he is not liable. Behind him, but it comes around in front of him, he is liable. In truth they said: a woman who wraps herself with an apron whether in front of her or behind her, is liable, because it is normal for it to reverse itself. Rabbi Judah said: also those who receive notes.", |
|
15. Mishnah, Sotah, 3.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 180, 183| 3.4. "אֵינָהּ מַסְפֶּקֶת לִשְׁתּוֹת עַד שֶׁפָּנֶיהָ מוֹרִיקוֹת וְעֵינֶיהָ בּוֹלְטוֹת וְהִיא מִתְמַלֵּאת גִּידִין, וְהֵם אוֹמְרִים הוֹצִיאוּהָ הוֹצִיאוּהָ, שֶׁלֹּא תְטַמֵּא הָעֲזָרָה. אִם יֶשׁ לָהּ זְכוּת, הָיְתָה תוֹלָה לָהּ. יֵשׁ זְכוּת תּוֹלָה שָׁנָה אַחַת, יֵשׁ זְכוּת תּוֹלָה שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, יֵשׁ זְכוּת תּוֹלָה שָׁלשׁ שָׁנִים. מִכָּאן אוֹמֵר בֶּן עַזַּאי, חַיָּב אָדָם לְלַמֵּד אֶת בִּתּוֹ תוֹרָה, שֶׁאִם תִּשְׁתֶּה, תֵּדַע שֶׁהַזְּכוּת תּוֹלָה לָהּ. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַמְלַמֵּד אֶת בִּתּוֹ תוֹרָה, כְּאִלּוּ מְלַמְּדָהּ תִּפְלוּת. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, רוֹצָה אִשָּׁה בְקַב וְתִפְלוּת מִתִּשְׁעָה קַבִּין וּפְרִישׁוּת. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, חָסִיד שׁוֹטֶה, וְרָשָׁע עָרוּם, וְאִשָּׁה פְרוּשָׁה, וּמַכּוֹת פְּרוּשִׁין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ מְכַלֵּי עוֹלָם: \n", | 3.4. "She had barely finished drinking when her face turns yellow, her eyes protrude and her veins swell. And [those who see her] exclaim, “Remove her! Remove her, so that the temple-court should not be defiled”. If she had merit, it [causes the water] to suspend its effect upon her. Some merit suspends the effect for one year, some merit suspends the effects for two years, and some merit suspends the effect for three years. Hence Ben Azzai said: a person must teach his daughter Torah, so that if she has to drink [the water of bitterness], she should know that the merit suspends its effect. Rabbi Eliezer says: whoever teaches his daughter Torah teaches her lasciviousness. Rabbi Joshua says: a woman prefers one kav (of food) and sexual indulgence to nine kav and sexual separation. He used to say, a foolish pietist, a cunning wicked person, a female separatist, and the blows of separatists bring destruction upon the world.", |
|
| 16. Mishnah, Tamid, None (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven d. Found in books: Kaplan (2015), My Perfect One: Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs, 43 |
17. Mishnah, Terumot, 2.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 171| 2.1. "אֵין תּוֹרְמִין מִטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא. וְאִם תָּרְמוּ, תְּרוּמָתָן תְּרוּמָה. בֶּאֱמֶת אָמְרוּ, הָעִגּוּל שֶׁל דְּבֵלָה שֶׁנִּטְמָא מִקְצָתוֹ, תּוֹרֵם מִן הַטָּהוֹר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ עַל הַטָּמֵא שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ. וְכֵן אֲגֻדָּה שֶׁל יָרָק, וְכֵן עֲרֵמָה. הָיוּ שְׁנֵי עִגּוּלִים, שְׁתֵּי אֲגֻדּוֹת, שְׁתֵּי עֲרֵמוֹת, אַחַת טְמֵאָה וְאַחַת טְהוֹרָה, לֹא יִתְרֹם מִזֶּה עַל זֶה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, תּוֹרְמִין מִן הַטָּהוֹר עַל הַטָּמֵא: \n", | 2.1. "They may not give terumah from pure [produce] for impure [produce], but if they did give, the terumah is terumah. In truth they said: If a cake of pressed figs had become partly defiled, one may give terumah from the clean part for that part which had become defiled. The same applies to a bunch of vegetables, or a stack of grain. If there were two cakes [of figs], two bunches [of vegetables], two stacks [of grain], one pure and one impure, one should not give terumah from one for the other. Rabbi Eliezer says: one can give terumah from that which is pure for that which is impure.", |
|
18. Mishnah, Yadayim, 3.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven d. Found in books: Kaplan (2015), My Perfect One: Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs, 38| 3.5. "סֵפֶר שֶׁנִּמְחַק וְנִשְׁתַּיֵּר בּוֹ שְׁמוֹנִים וְחָמֵשׁ אוֹתִיּוֹת, כְּפָרָשַׁת וַיְהִי בִּנְסֹעַ הָאָרֹן, מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. מְגִלָּה שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהּ שְׁמוֹנִים וְחָמֵשׁ אוֹתִיּוֹת כְּפָרָשַׁת וַיְהִי בִּנְסֹעַ הָאָרֹן, מְטַמָּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. כָּל כִּתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים וְקֹהֶלֶת מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, וְקֹהֶלֶת מַחֲלֹקֶת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, קֹהֶלֶת אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם וְשִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים מַחֲלֹקֶת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, קֹהֶלֶת מִקֻּלֵּי בֵית שַׁמַּאי וּמֵחֻמְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי, מְקֻבָּל אֲנִי מִפִּי שִׁבְעִים וּשְׁנַיִם זָקֵן, בַּיּוֹם שֶׁהוֹשִׁיבוּ אֶת רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה בַּיְשִׁיבָה, שֶׁשִּׁיר הַשִּׁירִים וְקֹהֶלֶת מְטַמְּאִים אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם, לֹא נֶחֱלַק אָדָם מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל עַל שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים שֶׁלֹּא תְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, שֶׁאֵין כָּל הָעוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ כְדַאי כַּיּוֹם שֶׁנִּתַּן בּוֹ שִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁכָּל הַכְּתוּבִים קֹדֶשׁ, וְשִׁיר הַשִּׁירִים קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים. וְאִם נֶחְלְקוּ, לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא עַל קֹהֶלֶת. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן חָמִיו שֶׁל רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, כְּדִבְרֵי בֶן עַזַּאי, כָּךְ נֶחְלְקוּ וְכָךְ גָּמְרוּ: \n", | 3.5. "A scroll on which the writing has become erased and eighty-five letters remain, as many as are in the section beginning, \"And it came to pass when the ark set forward\" (Numbers 11:35-36) defiles the hands. A single sheet on which there are written eighty-five letters, as many as are in the section beginning, \"And it came to pass when the ark set forward\", defiles the hands. All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands. The Song of Songs and Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) defile the hands. Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet. Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs. Rabbi Shimon says: [the ruling about] Kohelet is one of the leniencies of Bet Shammai and one of the stringencies of Bet Hillel. Rabbi Shimon ben Azzai said: I have received a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah head of the academy that the Song of Songs and Kohelet defile the hands. Rabbi Akiba said: Far be it! No man in Israel disputed that the Song of Songs [saying] that it does not defile the hands. For the whole world is not as worthy as the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel; for all the writings are holy but the Song of Songs is the holy of holies. If they had a dispute, they had a dispute only about Kohelet. Rabbi Yoha ben Joshua the son of the father-in-law of Rabbi Akiva said in accordance with the words of Ben Azzai: so they disputed and so they reached a decision.", |
|
19. New Testament, Mark, 7.1-7.23 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229| 7.1. Καὶ συνἄγονται πρὸς αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καί τινες τῶν γραμματέων ἐλθόντες ἀπὸ Ἰεροσολύμων 7.2. καὶ ἰδόντες τινὰς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ ὅτι κοιναῖς χερσίν, τοῦτʼ ἔστιν ἀνίπτοις, ἐσθίουσιν τοὺς ἄρτους. 7.3. —οἱ γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἐὰν μὴ πυγμῇ νίψωνται τὰς χεῖρας οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, κρατοῦντες τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, 7.4. καὶ ἀπʼ ἀγορᾶς ἐὰν μὴ ῥαντίσωνται οὐκ ἐσθίουσιν, καὶ ἄλλα πολλά ἐστιν ἃ παρέλαβον κρατεῖν, βαπτισμοὺς ποτηρίων καὶ ξεστῶν καὶ χαλκίων. 7.5. —καὶ ἐπερωτῶσιν αὐτὸν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι καὶ οἱ γραμματεῖς Διὰ τί οὐ περιπατοῦσιν οἱ μαθηταί σου κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν πρεσβυτέρων, ἀλλὰ κοιναῖς χερσὶν ἐσθίουσιν τὸν ἄρτον; 7.6. ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Καλῶς ἐπροφήτευσεν Ἠσαίας περὶ ὑμῶν τῶν ὑποκριτῶν, ὡς γέγραπται ὅτι Οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ· 7.7. μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων· 7.8. ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 7.9. καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς Καλῶς ἀθετεῖτε τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν τηρήσητε· 7.10. Μωυσῆς γὰρ εἶπεν Τίμα τὸν πατέρα σου καὶ τὴν μητέρα σου, καί Ὁ κακολογῶν πατέρα ἢ μητερα θανάτῳ τελευτάτω· 7.11. ὑμεῖς δὲ λέγετε Ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἄνθρωπος τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί Κορβάν, ὅ ἐστιν Δῶρον, ὃ ἐὰν ἐξ ἐμοῦ ὠφεληθῇς, 7.12. οὐκέτι ἀφίετε αὐτὸν οὐδὲν ποιῆσαι τῷ πατρὶ ἢ τῇ μητρί, 7.13. ἀκυροῦντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ παραδόσει ὑμῶν ᾗ παρεδώκατε· καὶ παρόμοια τοιαῦτα πολλὰ ποιεῖτε. 7.14. Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος πάλιν τὸν ὄχλον ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς Ἀκούσατέ μου πάντες καὶ σύνετε. 7.15. οὐδὲν ἔστιν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὃ δύναται κοινῶσαι αὐτόν· ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενά ἐστιν τὰ κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον. 7.16. 7.17. Καὶ ὅτε εἰσῆλθεν εἰς οἶκον ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου, ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ τὴν παραβολήν. 7.18. καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς Οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀσύνετοί ἐστε; οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι, 7.19. ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλʼ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν, καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται; —καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα. 7.20. ἔλεγεν δὲ ὅτι Τὸ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκεῖνο κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον· 7.21. ἔσωθεν γὰρ ἐκ τῆς καρδίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων οἱ διαλογισμοὶ οἱ κακοὶ ἐκπορεύονται, πορνεῖαι, κλοπαί, φόνοι, 7.22. μοιχεῖαι, πλεονεξίαι, πονηρίαι, δόλος, ἀσέλγεια, ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός, βλασφημία, ὑπερηφανία, ἀφροσύνη· 7.23. πάντα ταῦτα τὰ πονηρὰ ἔσωθεν ἐκπορεύεται καὶ κοινοῖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον. | 7.1. Then the Pharisees, and some of the scribes gathered together to him, having come from Jerusalem. 7.2. Now when they saw some of his disciples eating bread with defiled, that is, unwashed, hands, they found fault. 7.3. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, don't eat unless they wash their hands and forearms, holding to the tradition of the elders. 7.4. They don't eat when they come from the marketplace, unless they bathe themselves, and there are many other things, which they have received to hold to: washings of cups, pitchers, bronze vessels, and couches.) 7.5. The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why don't your disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?" 7.6. He answered them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, But their heart is far from me. 7.7. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.' 7.8. "For you set aside the commandment of God, and hold tightly to the tradition of men -- the washing of pitchers and cups, and you do many other such things." 7.9. He said to them, "Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. 7.10. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother;' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' 7.11. But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to say, given to God;"' 7.12. then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother, 7.13. making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this." 7.14. He called all the multitude to himself, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand. 7.15. There is nothing from outside of the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man. 7.16. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!" 7.17. When he had entered into a house away from the multitude, his disciples asked him about the parable. 7.18. He said to them, "Are you thus without understanding also? Don't you perceive that whatever goes into the man from outside can't defile him, 7.19. because it doesn't go into his heart, but into his stomach, then into the latrine, thus making all foods clean?" 7.20. He said, "That which proceeds out of the man, that defiles the man. 7.21. For from within, out of the hearts of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, sexual sins, murders, thefts, 7.22. covetings, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness. 7.23. All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." |
|
20. Tosefta, Sotah, 7.9, 11.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 180; Gardner (2015), The Origins of Organized Charity in Rabbinic Judaism, 162| 7.9. "קורא מתחלה (דברים א׳:א׳) אלה הדברים עד שמע והיה אם שמוע תשמעו עשר תעשר וכי תכלה לעשר רבי אומר לא היה צריך להתחיל מראש הספר אלא שמע והיה אם שמוע [תשמעו] עשר תעשר וכי תכלה לעשר ופרשת המלך עד שגומר את כולה ודרשיות נדרשות בה וגו' עד סוף (דברים כ׳:ד׳) כי ה' אלהיכם ההולך עמכם זה השם שנתון בארון שנאמר (במדבר ל״א:ו׳) וישלח אותם משה אלף למטה לצבא אותם ואת פינחס מגיד שפינחס משוח מלחמה וכלי הקדש זה הארון שנאמר (במדבר ד׳:כ׳) ולא יבאו לראות כבלע וגו' וי\"א אלו בגדי כהונה שנאמר (שמות כ״ט:כ״ט) ובגדי הקדש וגו' ר' יהודה בן לקיש אומר שני ארונות היו אחד שיוצא עמהן למלחמה ואחד ששרוי עמהן במחנה זה שיוצא עמהן למלחמה היה בו ס\"ת שנאמר (במדבר י׳:ל״ג) וארון ברית ה' נוסע לפניהם וגו' וזה ששרוי [עמהן] במחנה זה שהיה בו שברי לוחות שנא' (במדבר י״ד:מ״ד) וארון ברית ה' ומשה לא משו מן המחנה.", 11.8. "כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (שמואל ב כ״א:ח׳) ואת חמשת בני מיכל בת שאול אשר ילדה לעדריאל [וגו'] המחולתי היכן מצינו שנתנה מיכל לעדריאל המחולתי והלא לא נתנה אלא לפלטי בן ליש אשר מגלים שנאמר (שמואל א כ״ה:מ״ד) ושאול נתן את מיכל בתו אשת דוד לפלטי בן ליש אלא מקיש נשואי מיכל לנשואי מרב מה נשואי מרב בעבירה אף נשואי מיכל [לפלטי בן ליש] בעבירה [היה].", | |
|
| 21. Tosefta, Kilayim, 1.16 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 171 |
22. Tosefta, Berachot, 5.17 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 171| 5.17. "מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין אינו מוציא לא [את] מינו ולא [את] שאינו מינו.", | |
|
23. Tosefta, Bava Batra, 1.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 171| 1.4. "לשכנו אין יכולין לכופו רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לשכנו יכולין לכופו. יש לו חנות ברשות הרבים ומבקש לפותחה לחצר השותפין יכולין לעכב על ידיו מפני שמרבה עליהן את הדרך יש לו בית בחצר השותפין ומבקש לחלקו ולהקרות בו את התינוקות יכולין לעכב על ידיו מפני שמרבה עליהם את הדרך יש לו גג ברשות הרבים ומבקש לבנות על גבו עלייה לפותחה לחצר השותפין יכולין לעכב על ידיו מפני שמרבה עליהן את הדרך כיצד הוא עושה עושה לו לולו ופותחה לתוך ביתו.", | |
|
24. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 2.125 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Gardner (2015), The Origins of Organized Charity in Rabbinic Judaism, 20 | 2.125. For which reason they carry nothing at all with them when they travel into remote parts, though still they take their weapons with them, for fear of thieves. Accordingly, there is, in every city where they live, one appointed particularly to take care of strangers, and to provide garments and other necessaries for them. |
|
| 25. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 26, 306, 336, 355, 357, 48, 343 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kaplan (2015), My Perfect One: Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs, 38, 43, 154; Schremer (2010), Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 41 |
| 26. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Shimeon Ben Yohai, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven d. Found in books: Kaplan (2015), My Perfect One: Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs, 154 |
| 27. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 171 |
| 28. Palestinian Talmud, Sheqalim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
29. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 25.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Gardner (2015), The Origins of Organized Charity in Rabbinic Judaism, 162| 25.1. וְכִי תָבֹאוּ אֶל הָאָרֶץ וּנְטַעְתֶּם כָּל עֵץ מַאֲכָל (ויקרא יט, כג), הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (משלי ג, יח): עֵץ חַיִּים הִיא לַמַּחֲזִיקִים בָּהּ, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אַחָא שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ דִבְרֵי תוֹרָה בְּעֵינֶיךָ כְּאָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בַּת בּוֹגֶרֶת וְהוּא רוֹצֶה לְהַשִּׂיאָהּ לְאֶחָד, אֶלָּא (משלי ב, א): בְּנִי אִם תִּקַּח אֲמָרָי וּמִצְוֹתַי תִּצְפֹּן אִתָּךְ, אִם יֵשׁ לְךָ זְכוּת קַח אֲמָרָי. רַב הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר, מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁאָמַר לִבְנוֹ צֵא לִפְרַקְמַטְיָא, אָמַר לוֹ אַבָּא מִתְיָרֵא אֲנִי בַּדֶּרֶךְ מֵהַלִּסְטִים וּבַיָּם מִפְּנֵי אַפִּירָטִין, מֶה עָשָׂה אָבִיו נָטַל מַקֵּל וַחֲקָקוֹ וְנָתַן בּוֹ קָמֵיעַ וּנְתָנָהּ לִבְנוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ יְהִי הַמַּקֵּל הַזֶּה בְּיָדֶךָ וְאִי אַתָּה מִתְיָרֵא מִשּׁוּם בְּרִיָּה, אַף כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה, אֱמֹר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בָּנַי עִסְקוּ בַּתּוֹרָה וְאֵין אַתֶּם מִתְיָרְאִים מִשּׁוּם אֻמָּה, אִלּוּ נֶאֱמַר עֵץ חַיִּים הִיא לָעֲמֵלִים בָּהּ, לֹא הָיְתָה תְּקוּמָה לְשׂוֹנְאֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶלָּא לַמַּחֲזִיקִים. אִלּוּ נֶאֱמַר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִלְמַד, לֹא הָיְתָה תְּקוּמָה לְשׂוֹנְאֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶלָּא (דברים כז, כו): אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָקִים אֶת [כל] דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: עֵץ חַיִּים הִיא לַמַּחֲזִיקִים בָּהּ. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר אִם נִכְשַׁל אָדָם בַּעֲבֵרָה חַיָּב מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם, מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה וְיִחְיֶה, אִם הָיָה לָמוּד לִקְרוֹת דַּף אֶחָד קוֹרֵא שְׁנֵי דַפִּים, וְאִם הָיָה לָמוּד לִשְׁנוֹת פֶּרֶק אֶחָד יִשְׁנֶה שְׁנַיִם, וְאִם אֵינוֹ לָמוּד לִקְרוֹת וְלִשְׁנוֹת, מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה וְיִחְיֶה, יֵלֵךְ וְיֵעָשֶׂה פַּרְנָס עַל הַצִּבּוּר וְגַבַּאי שֶׁל צְדָקָה וְהוּא חַי, שֶׁאִלּוּ נֶאֱמַר אָרוּר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִלְמַד, לֹא הָיְתָה תְּקוּמָה, אֶלָּא אָרוּר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָקִים. אִלּוּ נֶאֱמַר עֵץ חַיִּים לָעֲמֵלִים בָּהּ, לֹא הָיְתָה תְּקוּמָה, אֶלָּא עֵץ חַיִּים הִיא לַמַּחֲזִיקִים בָּהּ. (קהלת ז, יב): כִּי בְּצֵל הַחָכְמָה בְּצֵל הַכָּסֶף, אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי תַּנְחוּם בֶּן רַבִּי חִיָּא לָמַד אָדָם וְלִמֵּד וְשָׁמַר וְעָשָׂה וְהָיְתָה סִפֵּק בְּיָדוֹ לְמַחוֹת וְלֹא מִחָה, לְהַחֲזִיק וְלֹא הֶחֱזִיק, הֲרֵי זֶה בִּכְלַל אָרוּר, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: אָרוּר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָקִים. רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי חִיָּא לֹא לָמַד אָדָם וְלֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא שָׁמַר וְלֹא לִמֵּד לַאֲחֵרִים וְלֹא הָיְתָה סִפֵּק בְּיָדוֹ לְהַחֲזִיק וְהֶחֱזִיק, וְלֹא לְמַחוֹת וּמִחָה, הֲרֵי זֶה בִּכְלַל בָּרוּךְ. | |
|
30. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229| 16b. ללדת עולה לראש ההר כדי שיפול ממנה וימות ואני מזמין לה נשר שמקבלו בכנפיו ומניחו לפניה ואלמלי מקדים רגע אחד או מתאחר רגע אחד מיד מת בין רגע לרגע לא נתחלף לי בין איוב לאויב נתחלף לי,(איוב לט, א) חולל אילות תשמור אילה זו רחמה צר בשעה שכורעת ללדת אני מזמין לה דרקון שמכישה בבית הרחם ומתרפה ממולדה ואלמלי מקדים רגע אחד או מאחר רגע אחד מיד מתה בין רגע לרגע לא נתחלף לי בין איוב לאויב נתחלף לי,(איוב לד, לה) [איוב] לא בדעת ידבר ודבריו לא בהשכל (וכתיב (איוב מב, ז) כי לא דברתם אלי נכונה כעבדי איוב) אמר רבא מכאן שאין אדם נתפס בשעת צערו,(איוב ב, יא) וישמעו שלשת רעי איוב את כל הרעה הזאת הבאה עליו ויבאו איש ממקומו אליפז התימני ובלדד השוחי וצופר הנעמתי ויועדו יחדו לבוא לנוד לו ולנחמו מאי ויועדו יחדו אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מלמד שנכנסו כולן בשער אחד ותנא בין כל אחד ואחד שלש מאות פרסי,מנא הוו ידעי איכא דאמרי כלילא הוה להו ואיכא דאמרי אילני הוה להו וכיון דכמשי הוו ידעי אמר רבא היינו דאמרי אינשי או חברא כחברי דאיוב או מיתותא,(בראשית ו, א) ויהי כי החל האדם לרוב על פני האדמה ובנות יולדו להם רבי יוחנן אמר רביה באה לעולם ריש לקיש אמר מריבה באה לעולם אמר ליה ריש לקיש לרבי יוחנן לדידך דאמרת רבייה באה לעולם מפני מה לא נכפלו בנותיו של איוב,אמר לו נהי דלא נכפלו בשמות אבל נכפלו ביופי דכתיב (איוב מב, יג) ויהי לו שבענה בנים ושלוש בנות ויקרא שם האחת ימימה ושם השנית קציעה ושם השלישית קרן הפוך,ימימה שהיתה דומה ליום קציעה שהיה ריחה נודף כקציעה קרן הפוך אמרי דבי רבי שילא שדומה לקרנא דקרש מחייכו עלה במערבא קרנא דקרש לקותא היא אלא אמר רב חסדא ככורכמא דרישקא במיניה שנאמר (ירמיהו ד, ל) כי תקרעי בפוך,רבי שמעון ברבי איתילידא ליה ברתא הוה קא חלש דעתיה אמר ליה אבוה רביה באה לעולם אמר ליה בר קפרא תנחומין של הבל ניחמך אבוך [דתניא] אי אפשר לעולם בלא זכרים ובלא נקבות אלא אשרי למי שבניו זכרים אוי לו למי שבניו נקבות אי אפשר לעולם בלא בסם ובלא בורסי אשרי מי שאומנותו בוסמי אוי למי שאומנותו בורסי,כתנאי (בראשית כד, א) וה' ברך את אברהם בכל מאי בכל רבי מאיר אומר שלא היתה לו בת רבי יהודה אומר שהיתה לו בת אחרים אומרים בת היתה לו לאברהם ובכל שמה רבי אלעזר המודעי אומר איצטגנינות היתה בלבו של אברהם אבינו שכל מלכי מזרח ומערב משכימין לפתחו רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר אבן טובה היתה תלויה בצוארו של אברהם אבינו שכל חולה הרואה אותו מיד מתרפא ובשעה שנפטר אברהם אבינו מן העולם תלאה הקדוש ברוך הוא בגלגל חמה אמר אביי היינו דאמרי אינשי אידלי יומא אידלי קצירא,דבר אחר שלא מרד עשו בימיו דבר אחר שעשה ישמעאל תשובה בימיו שלא מרד עשו בימיו מנלן דכתיב (בראשית כה, כט) ויבא עשו מן השדה והוא עיף ותנא אותו היום נפטר אברהם אבינו ועשה יעקב אבינו תבשיל של עדשים לנחם את יצחק אביו,[ומ"ש של עדשים] אמרי במערבא משמיה דרבה בר מרי מה עדשה זו אין לה פה אף אבל אין לו פה דבר אחר מה עדשה זו מגולגלת אף אבילות מגלגלת ומחזרת על באי העולם מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו לנחומי בביעי,אמר רבי יוחנן חמש עבירות עבר אותו רשע באותו היום בא על נערה מאורסה והרג את הנפש וכפר בעיקר וכפר בתחיית המתים ושט את הבכורה,בא על נערה מאורסה כתיב הכא (בראשית כה, כט) ויבא עשו מן השדה וכתיב התם (דברים כב, כז) כי בשדה מצאה הרג את הנפש כתיב הכא עיף וכתיב התם (ירמיהו ד, לא) אוי נא לי כי עיפה נפשי להורגים וכפר בעיקר כתיב הכא (בראשית כה, לב) למה זה לי וכתיב התם (שמות טו, ב) זה אלי ואנוהו וכפר בתחיית המתים דכתיב (בראשית כה, לב) הנה אנכי הולך למות ושט את הבכורה דכתיב (בראשית כה, לד) ויבז עשו את הבכורה,ושעשה ישמעאל תשובה בימיו מנלן כי הא דרבינא ורב חמא בר בוזי הוו יתבי קמיה דרבא וקא מנמנם רבא א"ל רבינא לרב חמא בר בוזי ודאי דאמריתו כל מיתה שיש בה גויעה זו היא מיתתן של צדיקים אמר ליה אין והא דור המבול אמר ליה אנן גויעה ואסיפה קאמרינן,והא ישמעאל דכתיב ביה גויעה ואסיפה אדהכי איתער בהו רבא אמר להו דרדקי הכי א"ר יוחנן ישמעאל עשה תשובה בחיי אביו שנאמר (בראשית כה, ט) ויקברו אותו יצחק וישמעאל בניו,ודילמא דרך חכמתן קא חשיב להו אלא מעתה (בראשית לה, כט) ויקברו אותו עשו ויעקב בניו מאי טעמא לא חשיב להו דרך חכמתן אלא מדאקדמיה אדבורי אדבריה ומדאדבריה שמע מינה תשובה עבד בימיו,תנו רבנן שלשה הטעימן הקב"ה בעולם הזה | 16b. b to give birth she ascends to the top of a mountain so that /b the kid b should fall down from her and die. And I summon her an eagle that receives it with his wings and places it before her; and if /b the eagle b reached /b her b one moment early or was one moment late, /b the kid b would immediately die. /b Now, if b I do not confuse one moment with another moment, would I confuse i Iyov /i with i oyev /i ? /b ,Similarly: b “Can you mark when the hinds do calve?” /b (Job 39:1). b The womb of this hind is narrow, /b which makes for a difficult delivery. b When she squats to give birth, I summon her a snake [ i derakon /i ] that bites her at the opening of the womb, which /b then b becomes loose, and she gives birth, and if /b the snake b reached /b her b one moment early or was one moment late, she would immediately die. /b Now, if I b do not confuse one moment with another moment, would I confuse i Iyov /i with i oyev /i ? /b ,The Gemara comments: On the one hand, the text states: b “Job has spoken without knowledge, and his words were without wisdom” /b (Job 34:35). b But /b on the other hand, b it is written /b with regard to Job’s friends: b “You have not spoken of Me the thing that is right, like my servant Job” /b (Job 42:8). b Rava said: From here /b it may be inferred b that a person is not held responsible /b for what he says b when he is in distress. /b Although Job uttered certain words that were wrong and inappropriate, he was not punished for them because he said them at a time of pain and hardship.,The verse states: b “And Job’s three friends heard of all this evil that was come upon him, they came every one from his own place, Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite; for they had made an appointment together to come to mourn with him and to comfort him” /b (Job 2:11). b What /b does b “they had made an appointment together” /b mean? b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: This /b phrase b teaches that they all entered /b through b one gate /b at the same time. b And /b a Sage b taught /b in a i baraita /i : There were b three hundred parasangs between each and every one /b of them, i.e., each one lived three hundred parasangs away from the other.,The Gemara asks: b How did they /b all b know /b at the same time what had happened to Job so that the three of them came together? b There are /b those b who say /b that b they /b each b had a crown /b which displayed certain signs when something happened to one of the others. b And there are /b those b who say they /b each b had trees and when /b the trees b withered they knew /b that sorrow had visited one of them. b Rava said /b that b this /b closeness between Job and his friends explains the adage b that people say: Either a friend like the friends of Job or death. /b If a person lacks close friends, he is better off dead.,The Gemara cites another place where Job is mentioned. b “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply [ i larov /i ] on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them” /b (Genesis 6:1). b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b i Larov /i means that b propagation [ i reviyya /i ] came to the world /b through these daughters. b Reish Lakish says: Strife [ i meriva /i ] came to the world. /b Once daughters were born, the men began to fight among themselves over them. b Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥa: According to you who say /b that due to the daughters b propagation came to the world, for what /b reason b were /b the number of b Job’s daughters not doubled, /b when at the end of the story God doubled everything that Job had lost (see Job 1:3, 42:12)?,Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: Granted, /b the numbers of Job’s daughters b were not doubled in name, /b meaning they did not become twice as many, b but they were doubled in beauty, as it is written: “He had also seven sons and three daughters. And he called the name of the first Jemimah, and the name of the second was Keziah, and the name of the third one was Keren-happuch” /b (Job 42:13–14). All three names relate to the daughters’ beauty., b Jemimah [ i Yemima /i ]; /b in her beauty b she was similar to the day [ i yom /i ]. Keziah; her scent wafted like /b the b cassia [ i ketzia /i ] /b tree. b Keren-happuch; in the school of Rav Sheila they say: She was similar to the horn [ i keren /i ] of a i keresh /i , /b an animal whose horns are particularly beautiful. b They laughed at this in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, since it is considered b a blemish /b when a person resembles b the horn of a i keresh /i . Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: /b She was b like garden saffron [ i kekurkema derishka /i ], /b which is the best b of its kind. /b i Keren /i refers to a garden, and i pukh /i means ornament, b as it is stated: “Though you enlarge /b your eyes b with paint [ i pukh /i ], /b you beautify yourself in vain” (Jeremiah 4:30).,It is reported that b a daughter was born to Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, and b he was upset /b that he did not have a son. b His father said to him: Propagation has come to the world /b through the birth of a daughter. b Bar Kappara said to /b Rabbi Shimon: b Your father has consoled you with meaningless consolation, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The world cannot endure without males and females, /b as both are needed for the perpetuation of humanity. b But fortunate is he whose children are males and woe to him whose children are females. /b Similarly, b the world cannot endure without either a spice dealer /b whose wares are sweet-smelling, b or a tanner [ i bursi /i ], /b who is engaged in a foul-smelling occupation. b Fortunate is he whose occupation is a spice seller, /b and b woe to him whose occupation is a tanner. /b ,The Gemara comments that this disagreement is b parallel to /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i : /b The Torah states: b “And the Lord blessed Abraham with everything [ i bakkol /i ]” /b (Genesis 24:1), and the Sages disagree about b what i bakkol /i /b means. b Rabbi Meir says: /b The blessing is b that he did not have a daughter. Rabbi Yehuda says: /b On the contrary, the blessing was b that he had a daughter. Others say: Abraham had a daughter and her name was Bakkol. Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i says: Abraham our forefather was so knowledgeable in astrology [ i itztagninut /i ] that all the kings of the East and the West would come early to his door /b due to his wisdom. This is the blessing of i bakkol /i , that he possessed knowledge that everybody needed. b Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: A precious stone hung around the neck of Abraham our forefather; any sick person who looked at it would immediately be healed. When Abraham our forefather died, the Holy One, Blessed be He, hung /b this stone b from the sphere of the sun, /b which from that point on brought healing to the sick. b Abaye said: This /b explains the adage b that people say: As the day progresses, sickness is lifted. /b , b Alternatively, /b what is the blessing of i bakkol /i ? b That Esau did not rebel in /b Abraham’s b lifetime, /b that is to say, as long as Abraham lived Esau did not sin. b Alternatively, /b the blessing of i bakkol /i is b that Ishmael repented in /b Abraham’s b lifetime. /b The Gemara explains: b From where do we /b derive that b Esau did not rebel in /b Abraham’s b lifetime? As it is written: /b “And Jacob was cooking a stew b and Esau came in from the field and he was faint” /b (Genesis 25:29), b and /b a i baraita /i b taught: On that day Abraham our forefather passed away, and Jacob our forefather prepared a lentil stew to comfort Isaac, his father, /b as it was customary to serve mourners lentil stew.,The Gemara explains: b And what is different about lentils /b that they in particular are the fare customarily offered to mourners? b They say in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, b in the name of Rabba bar Mari: Just as this lentil has no mouth, /b i.e., it does not have a crack like other legumes, b so too a mourner has no mouth, /b that is, his anguish prevents him from speaking. b Alternatively, just as this lentil is /b completely b round, so too mourning comes around to the inhabitants of the world. /b The Gemara asks: b What is /b the practical difference b between /b the two explanations? The Gemara answers: b There is /b a practical difference b between them /b with regard to whether it is appropriate b to console /b a mourner b with eggs, /b which have no opening but are not completely round., b Rabbi Yoḥa says: That wicked /b Esau b committed five transgressions on that day /b that Abraham died: b He engaged in sexual intercourse with a betrothed maiden, he killed a person, he denied the principle /b of God’s existence, b he denied resurrection of the dead, and he despised the birthright. /b ,The Gemara cites proofs to support these charges. b He engaged in sexual intercourse with a betrothed maiden, /b as b it is written here: “And Esau came in from the field”; and it is written there /b with regard to rape of a betrothed maiden: b “For he found her in a field” /b (Deuteronomy 22:27). b He killed a person, /b as b it is written here: /b “And he was b faint”; and it is written there: “Woe is me, for my soul faints before the slayers” /b (Jeremiah 4:31). b And he denied the principle /b of God’s existence, as b it is written here: “What profit is this to me” /b (Genesis 25:32); b and it is written there: “This is my God and I will glorify Him” /b (Exodus 15:2). When he questioned the profit of “this,” he was challenging the assertion that “this is my God.” b And he denied resurrection of the dead, as it is written: “Behold, I am at the point of death” /b (Genesis 25:32), indicating that he did not believe in resurrection after death. b And he despised the birthright, as it is written: “And Esau despised the birthright” /b (Genesis 25:34)., b And from where do we /b derive b that Ishmael repented in /b Abraham’s b lifetime? From /b the incident involving b Ravina and Rav Ḥama bar Buzi, /b who b were sitting before Rava, and Rava was dozing /b while they were talking. b Ravina said to Rav Ḥama bar Buzi: Is it true that you say /b that b any death with regard to which /b the word b i gevia /i , /b expire, is mentioned b is the death of the righteous? /b Rav Ḥama bar Buzi b said to him: Yes. /b For example: “And Isaac expired [ i vayyigva /i ], and died” (Genesis 35:29). Ravina objected: b But /b with regard to b the generation of the flood /b it states: “And all flesh expired [ i vayyigva /i ]” (Genesis 7:21), and there they died for their wickedness. Rav Ḥama bar Buzi b said to him: We say /b this only when both b i gevia /i and i asifa /i , /b gathering, are used; when these two terms are mentioned together they indicate the death of a righteous person.,Ravina asked: b But isn’t there Ishmael, about whom i gevia /i and i asifa /i are written, /b as it is stated: “And these are the years of the life of Yishmael…and he expired and died [ i vayyigva vayyamot /i ]; and was gathered to his people” (Genesis 25:17)? b Meanwhile Rava, /b who had heard the discussion in his dozed state, fully b awoke /b and b said to them: Children [ i dardekei /i ], this is what Rabbi Yoḥa says: Ishmael repented in the lifetime of his father, as it is stated: “And Isaac and Ishmael, his sons, buried him” /b (Genesis 25:9). The fact that Ishmael allowed Isaac to precede him demonstrates that he had repented and accepted his authority.,The Gemara asks: b But perhaps /b the verse b listed them in the order of their wisdom; /b that is to say, perhaps in fact Ishmael preceded Isaac but the Torah did not list them in that order. The Gemara answers: b But if that is so, /b consider that the verse states: b “And Esau and Jacob, his sons, buried him” /b (Genesis 35:29). b What is the reason /b that the verse there b did not list them in the order of their wisdom? Rather, since /b Ishmael b allowed /b Isaac b to precede him, /b it is clear that he b made /b Isaac b his leader, and since he made him his leader, learn from it that he repented in /b Abraham’s b lifetime. /b ,Incidental to the discussion of the verse “And God blessed Abraham with everything” (Genesis 24:1), the Gemara states that b the Sages taught: /b There were b three /b people b to whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave /b already b in this world /b |
|
| 31. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, 21-22 (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229 |
32. Babylonian Talmud, Keritot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229| 4a. שפתיו נהוי מעשה גבי מגדף אמר רבא שאני מגדף הואיל וישנו בלב אבל בעלמא עקימת שפתיו הוי מעשה,מתיב רבי זירא יצאו עדים זוממין שאין בו מעשה ואמאי הא על פי כתיב בהן אמר רבא שאני עדים זוממין הואיל וישנן בראייה:,האוכל חלב: ת"ר (ויקרא ז, כג) כל חלב שור וכשב ועז לא תאכלו לחייב על כל אחת ואחת דברי ר' ישמעאל וחכ"א אינו חייב אלא אחת,נימא בהא קמיפלגי דר' ישמעאל סבר לוקין על לאו שבכללות ורבנן סברי אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות,לעולם סבר ר' ישמעאל אין לוקין על לאו שבכללות ושאני הכא דמייתרי ליה קראי נכתוב קרא כל חלב לא תאכלו שור וכשב ועז למה לי ש"מ לחלק,ורבנן אי לא כתיב שור וכשב ועז ה"א אפילו חלב חיה במשמע להכי כתב שור כשב ועז למימרא דחלב שור וכשב ועז הוא דאסור אבל דחיה שרי,שפיר קאמרי ליה אלא היינו טעמא דרבי ישמעאל דקסבר א"כ לכתוב כל חלב שור לא תאכלו כשב ועז למה לי ש"מ לחלק,ורבנן סברי אי כתב רחמנא כל חלב שור ה"א נילף שור שור מסיני,מה גבי סיני חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן אף גבי אכילה חיה ועוף כיוצא בהן להכי כתב רחמנא שור וכשב ועז למימרא דהני דאסור אבל חיה ועוף שרי,שפיר קא"ל אלא היינו טעמא דקסבר נכתוב כל חלב כשב לא תאכלו א"נ כל חלב עז לא תאכלו שור וכשב ועז למה לי ש"מ לחלק,ורבנן סברי אי כתב כל חלב כשב ה"א חלב כשב אסור ושור ועז שרי וכ"ת מאי אולמיה דכשב משום דנתרבה באליה,וכדתנא ר' חנניא למה מנה הכתוב אימורין בשור ואימורים בכשב ואימורים בעז דכתיב (במדבר יח, יז) אך בכור שור וגו',צריכי דאי כתב שור ה"א כשב ועז לא ילפינן מיניה דאיכא למיפרך מה לשור שכן נתרבה בנסכים,נכתוב רחמנא בכשב ונילף שור ועז מכשב איכא למיפרך מה לכשב שכן נתרבה באליה,נכתוב רחמנא עז ונילף שור וכשב מיניה איכא למיפרך מה לעז שכן נתרבה אצל עבודת כוכבים,מן חד לא ילפינן נכתוב תרתי ונילף חדא מתרתי הי דין נילף שור מכשב ועז אית להון פירכא מה לכשב ועז שכן נתרבו אצל הפסח,לא נכתוב כשב ונילף משור ועז אית להון פירכא מה לשור ועז שכן נתרבה אצל עבודת כוכבים,לא נכתוב עז ונילף משור וכשב אית להון פירכא מה לשור וכשב שכן יש בו צד ריבוי הלכך לא ילפי מהדדי,שפיר קא"ל אלא לעולם טעמא דרבי ישמעאל כדאמרינן מעיקרא דאם כן נכתוב כל חלב ולישתוק מאי אמרת האי דכתב שור וכשב ועז למשרי חלב חיה,הא כי כתב קרא בעניינא דקדשים ודבר למד מעניינו,מכלל דרבנן סברי לא ילפינן דבר למד מעניינו לא דכולי עלמא ילפינן דבר הלמד מעניינו והכא בהא פליגי רבי ישמעאל סבר למידין לאו מלאו בין מלאו ובין מלאו דכרת,דכל חלב שור וכשב ועז מלאו (ויקרא ג, יז) דחוקת עולם לדורותיכם בכל מושבותיכם כל חלב וכל דם לא תאכלו דכתיב בעניינא דקדשים ובקדשים לא אית בהון חיה אף כל חלב שור כי כתיב ליה סתמא ליכא לספוקי בחיה הלכך שור וכשב ועז לחלק הוא דאתא לחייב על כל אחת ואחת,וילפינן לאו דכל חלב ולאו דחוקת עולם מכרת (ויקרא ז, כה) דכי כל אוכל חלב מן הבהמה אשר יקריבו ממנה מה ההוא לחלק אף הדין לחלק,ורבנן לאו מלאו ילפינן לאו מכרת לא ילפינן,ואיבעית אימא היינו טעמייהו דרבנן כדאמר ליה רב מרי לרב זביד אלא מעתה אליה דחולין תיתסר אמר ליה עליך אמר קרא (ויקרא ז, כג) כל חלב שור וכשב ועז דבר השוה בשלשתן בעינן וליכא,הלכך כי אתא שור וכשב ועז למישרי אליה דחולין הוא דאתא ור' ישמעאל אמר לך א"כ לימא קרא כל חלב שור וכשב עז למה לי ש"מ לחלק,א"ר חנינא מודה רבי ישמעאל לענין קרבן שאין מביא אלא חטאת אחת מ"ט דלא דמי הדין לאו ללאו דעריות,ת"ר ועשה אחת ועשה הנה לחייב על כל אחת ואחת,שאם אכל חלב וחלב שם אחד בשני העלמות חייב שתים שתי שמות בהעלם אחת חייב שתים,א"ל רמי בר חמא לרב חסדא בשלמא שם אחד בשני העלמות חייב שתים משום דהעלמות מחלקין אלא שני שמות בהעלם אחת אמאי חייב שתים הא בעינן העלמות מוחלקין וליכא,א"ל הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דאכל חלב דנותר דמחייב משום נותר ומשום חלב א"ל א"כ ניחייב נמי משום קודש,אלא אמר רב ששת כגון דאכל חלב דהקדש ור' יהודה היא דתניא אכל חלב נבלה אכל חלב מוקדשין חייב שתים ר' יהודה אומר חלב מוקדשין לוקה שלש,מחייכו עלה במערבא ונוקמה כגון חלב דשור וכשב ועז ור' ישמעאל היא דאמר לוקה שלש | 4a. b his lips should be /b considered b an action in /b the case of one who b blasphemes. Rava said: /b The case of one who b blasphemes is different, since it is /b primarily b in the heart. /b In other words, the transgression of blasphemy is not the actual speech but the verbalizing of a sentiment. One is not liable to bring a sin offering for such an action, as it is essentially a matter of the heart. b But in general, the twisting of one’s lips is /b considered b an action. /b , b Rabbi Zeira raises an objection /b from that which is taught in a different context. It is stated in a i baraita /i that all who unwittingly transgress prohibitions punishable by death are liable to bring sin offerings, b except for conspiring witnesses, /b who are not obligated to bring sin offerings, b as /b their transgression b does not involve an action. But why /b is that so? b It is written with regard to /b such witnesses: b “At the mouth /b of two witnesses” (Deuteronomy 17:6). They acted through speech, and the twisting of their lips should be considered an action, as they are liable for what they actually said, not for what was in their hearts. b Rava said: /b The case of b conspiring witnesses is different, since their /b transgression b is /b primarily b through sight, /b i.e., the important part of their testimony is what they saw, which is not an action.,§ The mishna included in its list of those liable to receive i karet /i b one who eats /b forbidden b fat. /b With regard to this, b the Sages taught /b a i baraita /i which deals with the verse: b “You shall eat no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat” /b (Leviticus 7:23). This verse serves b to render one liable /b to receive lashes b for each and every one, /b i.e., one who eats the fat of an ox, and a sheep, and a goat is liable to receive three sets of lashes. This is b the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. And the Rabbis say he is liable /b to receive b only one /b set of lashes.,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that Rabbi Yishmael and the Rabbis b disagree about this /b matter, b that Rabbi Yishmael maintains one is flogged for /b violating b a general prohibition and the Rabbis maintain one is not flogged for /b violating b a general prohibition. /b This is referring to the violation of a prohibition that includes several different actions, such as this one, which pertains to eating the fat of an ox, sheep, and goat. The Rabbis contend that one does not receive multiple sets of lashes for transgressing each element of such a prohibition.,The Gemara answers: b Actually, Rabbi Yishmael /b also b maintains /b that b one is not flogged for /b violating b a general prohibition, but here it is different, as /b elements of b the verse are superfluous. /b The Gemara explains: b Let the verse write /b only: b You shall eat no fat, /b and all the individual types of fat would be included. b Why do I /b need the additional terms: b “Ox, or sheep, or goat”? Learn from it /b that the verse serves b to separate /b between them and render one liable to receive a separate set of lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat.,The Gemara asks: b And /b as for b the Rabbis, /b how do they respond to this reading of the verse? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis would say that no element of the verse is superfluous, since b if /b it had b not written: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” I would say /b that b even /b the b fat of an undomesticated animal is included /b in the prohibition. b For this /b reason the verse b writes: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” to say that it is /b the b fat of an ox, or a sheep, or a goat that is forbidden, but /b all the fats b of an undomesticated animal are permitted. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty against this interpretation of the dispute: The Rabbis b spoke well to /b Rabbi Yishmael, i.e., their response is persuasive. The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: b Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yishmael, as he holds: If so, /b that the verse serves to exclude the fat of only an undomesticated animal from the prohibition, then b let it write: You shall eat no fat of an ox, /b which would be understood as a paradigm representing every type of domesticated animal. b Why do I /b need the phrase: b “Sheep or goat”? Learn from it /b that the verse serves b to separate /b between them and render one liable to receive a separate set of lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat., b And the Rabbis maintain /b that b if the Merciful One had written /b only: You shall eat no b fat of an ox, I would say: Let us derive /b a verbal analogy b from /b the word b “ox” /b stated here as a paradigm representing every type of domesticated animal [ i behema /i ] and the word b “ox,” /b i.e., i behema /i , stated with regard to a mitzva given in preparation for the revelation at b Sinai: /b “Whether it be animal [ i behema /i ] or man, it shall not live” (Exodus 19:13).,The Gemara explains the meaning of this hypothetical verbal analogy: b Just as with regard to /b the command at b Sinai, undomesticated animals and birds are /b subject to the same prohibition b as /b domesticated animals despite the use of the term i behema /i , b so too, with regard to eating /b their fat, b undomesticated animals and birds are /b subject to the same prohibition b as /b domesticated animals despite the verse employing the example of an ox. b For this /b reason b the Merciful One writes: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” to say that these are forbidden, but /b all the fats of b an undomesticated animal and birds are permitted. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty against this interpretation of the dispute: The Rabbis b spoke well to /b Rabbi Yishmael, i.e., their response is persuasive. How could he say the terms in the verse are superfluous? The Gemara suggests an alternative explanation: b Rather, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yishmael, as he holds: Let /b the verse b write: You shall eat no fat of sheep; alternatively, /b let it state: b You shall eat no fat of goat. Why do I /b need the verse to state all three: b “Ox, or sheep, or goat”? Learn from it /b that the verse serves b to separate /b between them and render one liable to receive a separate set of lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat., b And the Rabbis maintain /b that b if /b the Torah b had written /b merely: b You shall eat no fat of sheep, I would say /b it is only b the fat of sheep /b that is b forbidden, but /b the fat of b an ox or a goat /b is b permitted. And if you would say: /b In b what /b way b is /b the category b of sheep stronger, /b i.e., more fitting to have its fats forbidden, than the categories of ox and goats, that one would think the prohibition applies only to sheep? The answer is that one might have thought so b due to /b the fact b that /b there is b an increased /b obligation b with regard to /b a sheep’s b tail, /b as it is sacrificed upon the altar, which is not the case with an ox or a goat., b And /b this is b as Rabbi Ḥanina taught: Why does the verse list /b the obligation to burn the b sacrificial portions /b on the altar b with regard to /b a firstborn b ox, and /b the obligation to burn the b sacrificial portions [ i ve’eimurim /i ] with regard to /b a firstborn b sheep, and /b the obligation to burn the b sacrificial portions with regard to /b a firstborn b goat? As it is written: “But the firstborn of a bull, /b or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are sacred. You shall dash their blood against the altar, and shall make their fat smoke for an offering made by fire” (Numbers 18:17). The “fat” mentioned in this verse is their portions to be burned on the altar.,Rabbi Ḥanina explains: These repetitions b are necessary, as, if /b the Torah b had written /b this obligation only with regard to a firstborn b ox I would say /b that b we do not derive /b the i halakha /i of b a sheep and a goat from it, as /b that derivation b can be refuted: What /b is notable b about an ox? /b It is notable b in that /b an ox b has an increased /b number b of /b wine b libations, /b more than those poured with sheep and goat offerings. Therefore, perhaps the additional obligation to burn the sacrificial portions applies only with regard to an ox.,And likewise, if you were to suggest: b Let the Merciful One write /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions only b with regard to a sheep and we will derive /b the i halakha /i of b an ox and a goat from /b the i halakha /i of b a sheep, /b that derivation b can be refuted: What /b is notable b about a sheep? /b It is notable b in that /b there is b an increased /b obligation b with regard to /b a sheep’s b tail, /b as explained earlier.,And similarly, if you suggest: b Let the Merciful One write /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions only with regard to b a goat, and we will derive /b the i halakha /i of b an ox and a sheep from /b the i halakha /i of a goat, this too b can be refuted: What /b is notable b about a goat? /b It is notable b in that /b a goat b has an increased /b applicability b with regard to idol worship, /b as one who sins unwittingly in the case of idol worship is liable to bring a goat as a sin offering (see Numbers 15:27), unlike one who transgresses other prohibitions unwittingly, for which they are liable to bring a sheep.,Rabbi Ḥanina continues: b We cannot derive /b these i halakhot /i b from /b the i halakha /i of any b one /b of the others, but b let /b the Torah b write two /b of them b and we will derive /b the i halakha /i of b one /b of them b from /b the i halakha /i of the other b two. Which /b is b this /b animal that should not be written? If one suggests b we will derive /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of a firstborn b ox from /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of b a sheep and a goat, /b this derivation b has a refutation: What /b is notable b about a sheep and a goat? /b They are notable b in that /b that b they have increased /b applicability, as they are suitable b for the Paschal offering, /b whereas an ox is not suitable for this purpose.,If one suggests the verse should b not write /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of b a sheep, and we will derive /b its i halakha /i b from /b the i halakha /i of b an ox and a goat, /b this derivation b has a refutation: What /b is notable b about an ox and a goat? /b They are notable b in that they have increased /b applicability as suitable offerings to atone b for /b an unwitting transgression of b idol worship, /b as when a community unwittingly sins with regard to idol worship they bring an ox as a burnt offering and a goat as a sin offering (see Numbers 15:24), while an individual brings a goat but not a sheep.,If one suggests that the verse should b not write /b the obligation to burn the sacrificial portions of b a goat, and we will derive /b its i halakha /i b from /b the i halakha /i of b an ox and a sheep, /b this derivation b has a refutation: What /b is notable b about an ox and a sheep? /b They are notable b in that each /b of them b has an increased aspect /b of applicability with regard to the altar, as the libations for an ox are greater than those for a goat, and the tail of a sheep, but not that of a goat, is burned on the altar. Rabbi Ḥanina concludes: b Therefore, /b all three cases are necessary, as b they cannot be derived from each other. /b ,The Rabbis have explained why all three mentions of an ox, a sheep, and a goat are necessary. Consequently, the Gemara again states: The Rabbis b spoke well to /b Rabbi Yishmael, i.e., their response is persuasive. The Gemara suggests: b Rather, the reason of Rabbi Yishmael /b is b actually as we said at the outset, that if so, /b that one who eats the forbidden fats of all three animals is liable to receive only one set of lashes, b let /b the verse b write: /b You shall eat no b fat, and be silent. What did you say /b in response? That b this /b fact b that /b the verse b writes: “Ox, or sheep, or goat,” /b serves b to permit /b the b fat of an undomesticated animal? /b This is not a valid objection.,The Gemara explains: b When the verse /b concerning forbidden fat b is written /b it is b in the context of sacrificial /b animals, since the subsequent verse concerning the prohibition against eating forbidden fat states: “For whoever eats the fat of the animal of which men present an offering of fire to the Lord, even the soul that eats it shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:25). The verse categorizes an animal whose fat one may not eat as an “animal of which men present an offering of fire to the Lord,” i.e., offerings. b And /b one of the thirteen hermeneutical principles is: b A matter /b is b derived from its context, /b i.e., one interprets a verse according to the context in which it is written. Since offerings may be brought only from domesticated, not undomesticated, animals, the prohibition against eating forbidden fat applies only to such animals.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: Can one conclude b by inference that the Rabbis maintain we do not derive /b i halakhot /i by employing the hermeneutical principle of: b A matter /b is b derived from its context? /b This cannot be correct, as it is an accepted basic principle of exegesis. The Gemara answers: b No, everyone /b agrees that b we do derive /b i halakhot /i by employing the hermeneutical principle of: b A matter /b is b derived from its context, and here /b it is b about this /b issue b that they disagree: Rabbi Yishmael maintains /b that b we derive /b the i halakhot /i of one b prohibition from /b the i halakhot /i of another b prohibition, /b and this applies b whether /b it is b from /b a standard b prohibition, /b whose transgression results in the punishment of lashes, b or whether from a prohibition /b whose transgression results in the punishment b of i karet /i . /b ,Accordingly, the prohibition b of: /b “You shall eat b no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat,” /b can be derived b from the prohibition of: “It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that you shall eat neither fat nor blood” /b (Leviticus 3:17), b which is written with regard to the matter of sacrificial /b animals. b And there are no undomesticated animals in /b the category of b sacrificial /b animals. b So too, /b with regard to the prohibition of: “You shall eat b no fat of ox, /b or sheep, or goat,” b when /b the verse b writes it without /b further b specification, there is no /b reason b to be uncertain /b whether or not it is referring also b to undomesticated animals. Therefore, /b the phrase b “ox, or sheep, or goat” comes to separate, /b i.e., b to render one liable for /b eating the forbidden fat of b each and every one /b of them.,All this teaches only that a separate prohibition applies to each type of animal. b And /b with regard to the liability to receive lashes for eating each one b we derive the prohibition of: /b “You shall eat b no fat,” and the prohibition of: “It shall be a perpetual statute,” from the /b example of b i karet /i /b stated in the verse: b “For anyone who eats the fat of the domesticated animal, of which people present /b an offering of fire to the Lord, the soul that eats it shall be cut off from its people” (Leviticus 7:25). b Just as that /b verse serves b to separate /b and teach that if one unwittingly ate the fat of an ox, a goat, and a sheep he is liable to bring a sin offering for each one, b so too, this /b verse serves b to separate /b and teach that one is liable to receive lashes for eating the fat of each one., b And the Rabbis /b maintain b we derive /b the i halakhot /i of one standard b prohibition from /b the i halakhot /i of another standard b prohibition, /b but b we do not derive /b the i halakhot /i of a standard b prohibition from /b the i halakhot /i of a prohibition whose transgression results in the punishment of b i karet /i . /b ,The Gemara suggests: b And if you wish, say /b instead that b this is the reason of the Rabbis: As Rav Mari said to Rav Zevid /b when asked about a different issue: b If that is so, /b that a sheep tail is categorized as fat by the verses and is included in the portions of an offering for which one is liable for the misuse of consecrated property, then the b tail of a non-sacred /b animal b should be prohibited /b for consumption as forbidden fat. Rav Zevid b said to /b Rav Mari: b With regard to your /b claim, b the verse states /b concerning forbidden fat: “You shall eat b no fat of ox, or sheep, or goat” /b (Leviticus 7:23). This teaches that for the prohibition against eating forbidden fat to take effect b we require an item that is /b found b equally in all three /b types of animals, an ox, and a sheep, and a goat, b and that is not /b the case here. Since an ox and goat do not have tails, the tail is not prohibited even in the case of a sheep., b Therefore, /b the same applies with regard to the issue at hand: b When /b the verse b “ox, or sheep, or goat” comes, it comes to permit /b consumption of the b tail of a non-sacred /b animal, and one cannot learn from here that a separate prohibition applies to each type of forbidden fat. b And Rabbi Yishmael /b could b say to you /b in response: b If so, let /b the verse b state: /b You shall eat b no fat of ox or sheep; why do I /b need the mention of b a goat? Learn from it /b that the verse serves b to separate /b between them and render one liable to receive lashes for eating each type of forbidden fat., b Rabbi Ḥanina says: /b Although b Rabbi Yishmael /b maintains that one who unwittingly eats the fat of an ox, a sheep, and a goat is liable to receive a separate set of lashes for each one, he b concedes with regard to /b bringing b an offering that /b if he ate those types of forbidden fat in a single lapse of awareness he b brings only one sin offering. What is the reason? /b The reason is b that this prohibition is not similar to the prohibition of those with whom relations are forbidden. /b As derived in the Gemara on 2b, one who unwittingly engages in intercourse with many women to whom he is forbidden is liable to bring a sin offering for each act. In that context the verse states a separate prohibition for each forbidden relative, whereas in this case there is a single prohibition that applies to the forbidden fat of all domesticated animals.,§ With regard to the sin offering required of one who transgresses the prohibition against eating forbidden fat, b the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: A soul that sins in error, from all the commandments of God that may not be performed, and from one of them” (Leviticus 4:2). This phrase should be interpreted as though it states: b And performs one, /b and again states: b And performs them, /b i.e., it serves b to render one liable /b to bring a sin offering b for each and every /b transgression.,The i baraita /i continues: This teaches b that if one ate /b forbidden b fat and /b again ate forbidden b fat, /b if it was from b one category, /b i.e., the same type of forbidden fat, and he ate it b in two lapses of awareness, /b that is, he was made aware of his sin after the first instance of consumption and then again ate unwittingly, he is b liable /b to bring b two /b sin offerings. If he ate forbidden fat from b two categories, /b as the Gemara will soon explain, b in one lapse of awareness, /b he is likewise b liable /b to bring b two /b sin offerings., b Rami bar Ḥama said to Rav Ḥisda: Granted, /b one who ate forbidden fat from b one category in two lapses of awareness /b is b liable /b to bring b two /b sin offerings, as this is b due to /b the fact b that the lapses of awareness separate /b between his transgressions; each time he becomes aware of his transgression he is liable to bring another sin offering. b But /b in a case where he ate forbidden fat from b two categories in one lapse of awareness, why /b is he b liable /b to bring b two /b sin offerings? b We require separate lapses of awareness and that is not /b the case here.,Rav Ḥisda b said to him: Here we are dealing with /b a case b where he ate /b forbidden b fat left over from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption [ i notar /i ], as he is liable due to /b eating b i notar /i and /b is also liable b due to /b eating forbidden b fat. /b These are the two categories mentioned in the i baraita /i . Rami bar Ḥama b said to him: If so, /b that the case involves more than one prohibition, b let him be liable due to /b eating b sacrificial /b food b as well, /b and he should be liable to bring a guilt offering for the unwitting misuse of consecrated property (see Leviticus 5:14–16)., b Rather, Rav Sheshet said: /b Here we are dealing with a case b where he ate /b forbidden b fat of sacrificial /b animals, b and /b this ruling b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b who renders one liable to bring two sin offerings for eating forbidden fat of sacrificial food. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : If one b ate /b forbidden b fat of an animal carcass, /b or if he b ate /b forbidden b fat of sacrificial /b animals, he is b liable /b to receive b two /b sets of lashes, either for transgressing the prohibitions of eating forbidden fat and eating an animal carcass, or for both eating forbidden fat and transgressing the prohibition forbidding a non-priest to partake of sacrificial animals. b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If one b ate /b forbidden b fat of sacrificial /b animals he b is flogged /b with b three /b sets of lashes, because there are two separate prohibitions of forbidden fat in the case of sacrificial animals, as the Gemara will soon explain, in addition to the prohibition forbidding a non-priest to partake of sacrificial animals.,The Gemara comments: b They laughed at this /b suggestion b in the West, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael: b And let us interpret /b this i baraita /i as referring to a case b where /b he ate the forbidden b fat of an ox, and /b of b a sheep, and /b of b a goat, and /b explain that b it is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael, who says /b that he b is flogged /b with b three /b sets of lashes for the different types of fat, if he did so intentionally and was forewarned. |
|
33. Babylonian Talmud, Nazir, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229| 42a. הא גדילים תעשה לך מהם:,אמר מר וכולם שגילחו שלא בתער או ששיירו שתי שערות לא עשו ולא כלום אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא זאת אומרת רובו ככולו מדאורייתא,ממאי מדגלי רחמנא גבי נזיר (במדבר ו, ט) ביום השביעי יגלחנו הכא הוא דעד דאיכא כולו הא בעלמא רובו ככולו,מתקיף לה ר' יוסי ברבי חנינא האי בנזיר טמא כתיב מחכו עלה במערבא מכדי נזיר טמא דבתער מנלן מנזיר טהור יליף ליתי נזיר טהור ולילף מנזיר טמא מה טמא כי שייר שתי שערות ולא כלום עבד הכא נמי כי שייר שתי שערות ולא כלום עבד,בעי אביי נזיר שגילח ושייר שתי שערות צמח ראשו וחזר וגילחן מהו מי מעכבי או לא,בעי רבא נזיר שגילח והניח שתי שערות וגילח אחת ונשרה אחת מהו א"ל רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא גילח שערה שערה קא מיבעי ליה לרבא,אלא אימא נשרה אחת וגילח אחת מהו א"ל גילוח אין כאן שער אין כאן אי שער אין כאן גילוח יש כאן ה"ק אע"פ ששער אין כאן מצות גילוח אין כאן:,מתני' נזיר חופף ומפספס אבל לא סורק:,גמ' חופף ומפספס מני ר"ש היא דאמר דבר שאין מתכוין מותר אבל לא סורק אתאן לרבנן,רישא ר"ש וסיפא רבנן אמר רבה כולה ר"ש היא כל הסורק להסיר נימין מדולדלות מתכוין:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big רבי ישמעאל אומר לא יחוף באדמה מפני שמשרת את השער:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big איבעיא להו מפני שהיא משרת את השער תנן או דלמא מפני המשרת תנן למאי נפקא מינה,כגון דאיכא אדמה דלא מתרא אי אמרת מפני שהיא משרת תנן היכא דידעינן דלא מתרא שפיר אלא אי אמרת מפני המשרת כלל כלל לא תיקו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big נזיר שהיה שותה יין כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תשתה אל תשתה והוא שותה חייב על כל אחת ואחת היה מגלח כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תגלח אל תגלח והוא מגלח חייב על כל אחת ואחת היה מטמא למתים כל היום אינו חייב אלא אחת אמרו לו אל תטמא אל תטמא והוא מטמא חייב על כל אחת ואחת: | 42a. indicates that fringes in the mitzva stated in the adjacent verse: b “You shall make for yourself fringes” /b (Deuteronomy 22:12), can be b from them, /b wool and linen. By juxtaposing the mitzva of ritual fringes to the prohibition against diverse kinds of cloth, the Torah teaches that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes, which includes dyed blue wool, overrides the prohibition against diverse kinds of cloth, i.e., one may attach woolen ritual fringes to a linen garment. From here one derives the general principle that a positive mitzva overrides a prohibition.,§ The Gemara returns to the mishna that teaches that nazirites, lepers, and Levites must shave their hair. b The Master said /b above: b And /b with regard to b all of them, if they shaved with /b an implement b other than a razor, or if they left two hairs /b uncut, b they have done nothing. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: That is to say /b that the principle: b The majority of /b an entity is considered b like all of it, /b applies b by Torah law. /b ,The Gemara asks: b From where /b do we learn this? The Gemara explains: This principle is derived b from /b the fact b that the Merciful One revealed /b in the Torah and specified b with regard to a nazirite: “On the seventh day he shall shave it” /b (Numbers 6:9), despite the fact that the same verse already stated: “And he shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing.” This teaches that b it is /b only in this case b here /b that he does not fulfill the mitzva of shaving b until there is /b the removal b of all of it, /b i.e., shaving part of his head is insufficient. This shows that b in general the majority of /b an entity is b like all of it. /b , b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, objects to this /b assertion. b This /b verse: “On the seventh day he shall shave it,” b is written with regard to a ritually impure nazirite, /b not a pure one, whereas the i halakha /i in the mishna applies even to a pure nazirite. This shows that the above inference is invalid. b They laughed at /b this difficulty b in the West, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael: b After all, from where do we /b derive the i halakha /i that b an impure nazirite /b shaves b with a razor? /b It is b derived from /b the i halakha /i of b a pure nazirite. /b If so, b let /b the case of b a pure nazirite come and derive /b the following i halakha /i b from /b the case of b an impure nazirite: Just as /b with regard to b an impure /b nazirite, b if he leaves two hairs he has done nothing, here too, /b if a pure nazirite b leaves two hairs he has done nothing. /b ,On the same topic, b Abaye raised a dilemma: /b With regard to b a nazirite who shaved and left two hairs, /b which is not considered an act of shaving, if the hairs of b his head grew and he again shaved, /b this time those two hairs alone, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? b Do /b these hairs b invalidate /b the fulfillment of his obligation b or not? /b Has he now completed his initial act of shaving, or is the shaving of two hairs from a head full of hair of no significance, and he must now shave his entire head?,Similarly, b Rava raised a dilemma: /b With regard to b a nazirite who shaved and left two hairs, and /b afterward b shaved one /b of them, b and /b the other b one fell out /b of its own accord, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? Is this considered shaving one’s entire head or not? b Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: Is Rava raising a dilemma /b as to whether one can b shave /b his head one b hair by /b one b hair? /b How does this case differ from that of one who shaves his entire head one hair at a time, which is a fulfillment of his obligation?, b Rather, say /b that the dilemma is as follows: If b one /b hair b fell out and he shaved /b the other b one, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Has he performed the obligation of shaving if there was only one hair left when he came to shave? Ravina b said to him: /b In that case b there is no shaving here; there is no hair here. /b The Gemara expresses surprise at this expression: b If there is no hair here, /b then b there is shaving here, /b as no hair remains. The Gemara explains: b This is what he said: Even though there is no hair here, /b as only one hair remains, nevertheless b there is no /b fulfillment of the b mitzva of shaving here, /b as he failed to shave it all on the first attempt, and the second time he shaved less than the required amount., strong MISHNA: /strong b A nazirite may shampoo [ i ḥofef /i ] /b his head b and separate [ i mefaspes /i ] /b his hairs manually, without concern that hairs might fall out. b However, he may not comb /b his hair., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara clarifies: b Who is /b the i tanna /i who maintains that a nazirite b may shampoo and separate /b his hairs? b It is Rabbi Shimon, who says: An unintentional act is permitted. /b Even if hairs do fall out as a result of this action, as he did not intend this to happen the action is permitted. Yet in the latter clause of the mishna, which states: b However, he may not comb /b his hair, b we have come to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis. /b Although this nazirite also does not intend to tear out any hair when he combs it, it is nevertheless prohibited.,This leads to a surprising conclusion, that b the first clause /b represents the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon and the latter clause /b is the opinion of b the Rabbis. Rabba said: /b The b entire /b mishna b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, /b as he maintains that b anyone who combs /b his hair b intends to remove stray hairs, /b and therefore this is considered an intentional act., strong MISHNA: /strong b Rabbi Yishmael says: /b A nazirite b may not shampoo /b his hair b with earth because /b this b causes the hair to fall out. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: What is the precise wording of the mishna? Do b we learn: Because it removes hair, /b i.e., earth in general removes hair, b or do we perhaps learn: Because of that which removes /b hair. In other words, although some types of earth do not remove hair, it is prohibited to use these as well, due to those types that do remove hair. The Gemara inquires: b What /b is the b difference /b of this textual question?,The Gemara explains: There is a difference in a case b where there is /b a type of b earth that does not remove /b hair. b If you say /b that b we learned /b in the mishna: b Because it removes /b hair, then in a case b where we know that it does not remove /b hair b it is fine /b to shampoo with that substance. b However, if you say /b the text reads: b Because of that which removes /b hair, this indicates that the Sages prohibited using any type of earth, due to the type that removes hair. If so, a nazirite may b not /b shampoo his head with any earth b at all, /b not even if it does not remove hair. No answer was found, and the Gemara says that the dilemma b shall stand /b unresolved., strong MISHNA: /strong b A nazirite who was drinking wine all day is liable /b to receive b only one /b set of lashes. If people b said to him /b during the course of the day: b Do not drink, do not drink, and /b nevertheless b he /b continues to b drink, he is liable for each and every /b time he was warned. If a nazirite b kept shaving all day, he is liable /b to receive b only one /b set of lashes. If b they said to him: Do not shave, do not shave, and he shaves, he is liable for each and every /b time he was warned. If he b became ritually impure from a corpse /b many times b all day, he is liable /b to receive b only one /b set of lashes. If b they said to him: Do not become impure, do not become impure, and he /b continues to b become impure, he is liable for each and every /b time he was warned. |
|
34. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229| 17b. ומה נחש שממית ומרבה טומאה טהור שרץ שאינו ממית ומרבה טומאה אינו דין שיהא טהור ולא היא מידי דהוה אקוץ בעלמא,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל עיר שאין בה שנים לדבר ואחד לשמוע אין מושיבין בה סנהדרי ובביתר הוו שלשה וביבנה ארבעה רבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע ור"ע ושמעון התימני דן לפניהם בקרקע,מיתיבי שלישית חכמה רביעית אין למעלה הימנה הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא שניה חכמה שלישית אין למעלה הימנה,למידין לפני חכמים לוי מרבי דנין לפני חכמים שמעון בן עזאי ושמעון בן זומא וחנן המצרי וחנניא בן חכינאי רב נחמן בר יצחק מתני חמשה שמעון שמעון ושמעון חנן וחנניה,רבותינו שבבבל רב ושמואל רבותינו שבארץ ישראל רבי אבא דייני גולה קרנא דייני דארץ ישראל רבי אמי ורבי אסי דייני דפומבדיתא רב פפא בר שמואל דייני דנהרדעא רב אדא בר מניומי סבי דסורא רב הונא ורב חסדא סבי דפומבדיתא רב יהודה ורב עינא חריפי דפומבדיתא עיפה ואבימי בני רחבה אמוראי דפומבדיתא רבה ורב יוסף אמוראי דנהרדעי רב חמא,נהרבלאי מתנו רמי בר ברבי אמרי בי רב רב הונא והאמר רב הונא אמרי בי רב אלא רב המנונא אמרי במערבא רבי ירמיה שלחו מתם ר' יוסי בר חנינא מחכו עלה במערבא ר' אלעזר,והא שלחו מתם לדברי רבי יוסי בר חנינא אלא איפוך שלחו מתם ר' אלעזר מחכו עלה במערבא רבי יוסי בר חנינא:,וכמה יהא בעיר ויהא ראויה לסנהדרין מאה ועשרים וכו': מאה ועשרים מאי עבידתייהו עשרים ושלשה כנגד סנהדרי קטנה ושלש שורות של עשרים ושלשה הרי תשעים ותרתי ועשרה בטלנין של בית הכנסת הרי מאה ותרי,ושני סופרים ושני חזנין ושני בעלי דינין ושני עדים ושני זוממין ושני זוממי זוממין הרי מאה וארביסר,ותניא כל עיר שאין בה עשרה דברים הללו אין תלמיד חכם רשאי לדור בתוכה בית דין מכין ועונשין וקופה של צדקה נגבית בשנים ומתחלקת בשלשה ובית הכנסת ובית המרחץ וביהכ"ס רופא ואומן ולבלר (וטבח) ומלמד תינוקות משום ר' עקיבא אמרו אף מיני פירא מפני שמיני פירא מאירין את העינים:,ר' נחמיה אומר וכו': תניא רבי אומר | 17b. b If a snake, which kills /b other creatures whose carcasses are impure b and /b thereby b increases impurity /b in the world, is itself nevertheless b pure, /b as it is not included in the list of impure creeping animals, then concerning b a creeping animal that does not kill and /b does not b increase impurity, isn’t it logical that it should be pure? /b This argument is rejected: b But it is not so; /b the logic of the i halakha /i of a creeping animal is b just as it is /b concerning the i halakha /i b with regard to an ordinary thorn, /b which can injure people or animals and can even kill and thereby increase impurity, but is nevertheless pure. It is therefore apparent that this consideration is not relevant to the i halakhot /i of impurity.,§ b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: /b With regard to b any city that does not have /b among its residents b two /b men who are able b to speak /b all seventy languages b and one /b additional man who is able b to listen /b to and understand statements made in all the languages, even if he cannot speak all of them, b they do not place /b a lesser b Sanhedrin /b there. The members of the Sanhedrin do not all need to know all of the languages, but there must be at least this minimum number. b And in Beitar there were three /b individuals who were able to speak all seventy languages, b and in Yavne /b there were b four, /b and they were: b Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Yehoshua, and Rabbi Akiva, and Shimon HaTimni, /b who was not an ordained Sage, and he would therefore b deliberate before /b the other judges while seated b on the ground, /b not among the rows of Sages.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b to this from a i baraita /i : b A third, /b i.e., a Sanhedrin that has three individuals who can speak all seventy languages, is b a wise /b Sanhedrin, and if it also has b a fourth /b such person, b there is no /b court b above it, /b meaning that there is no need for additional language experts. Apparently the minimum requirement is three people who can speak the languages, not two. The Gemara answers: Rav b states /b his opinion b in accordance with /b the opinion of b the following i tanna /i , as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : A Sanhedrin that has b a second /b language expert b is wise; /b and if it also has b a third, there is no /b court b above it. /b ,§ Since the i baraita /i stated that Shimon HaTimni would deliberate before them on the ground, the Gemara now lists various standard formulations used to introduce the statements of various Sages throughout the generations. If a source says: b It was learned from the Sages, /b the intention is that this was a statement made by the Sage b Levi /b who sat before and learned b from Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi. If it says: They b deliberated before the Sages, /b this is referring to b Shimon ben Azzai, and Shimon ben Zoma, and Ḥa the Egyptian, and Ḥaya ben Ḥakhinai. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak /b would b teach five /b names for this list: b Shimon /b ben Azzai, b Shimon /b ben Zoma, b and Shimon /b HaTimni, b Ḥa /b the Egyptian, b and Ḥaya /b ben Ḥakhinai.,The expression: b Our Rabbis that are in Babylonia, /b is referring to b Rav and Shmuel. /b The expression: b Our Rabbis that are in Eretz Yisrael, /b is referring to b Rabbi Abba. /b The expression: b The judges of the Diaspora, /b is a reference to the Sage b Karna. /b The phrase: b The judges of Eretz Yisrael, /b is a reference to b Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. /b The phrase: b The judges of Pumbedita, /b is referring to b Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, /b who was the head of the court there, and: b The judges of Neharde’a, /b is a reference to the court headed by b Rav Adda bar Minyumi. /b The term: b The Elders of Sura, /b is referring to b Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda, /b and: b The Elders of Pumbedita, /b is referring to b Rav Yehuda and Rav Eina. The sharp ones of Pumbedita /b are b Eifa and Avimi, the sons of Raḥava. /b The expression: b The i amora’im /i of Pumbedita, /b is referring to b Rabba and Rav Yosef, /b and the phrase: b The i amora’im /i of Neharde’a, /b is referring to b Rav Ḥama. /b ,If it says: The Sages b of Neharbela taught, /b this is referring to b Rami bar Berabi, /b and the statement: b They say /b in b the school of Rav, /b is a reference to b Rav Huna. /b The Gemara asks: b But doesn’t Rav Huna /b sometimes b say /b with regard to a given i halakha /i : b They say /b in b the school of Rav? /b From this, it is apparent that a statement introduced by that formula cannot be made by Rav Huna himself, as Rav Huna quotes someone else with that introduction. The Gemara responds: b Rather, /b the expression: They say in the school of Rav, must be referring to b Rav Hamnuna. /b The formula: b They say in the West, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael, is referring to b Rabbi Yirmeya; /b the expression: b They sent /b a message b from there, /b meaning from Eretz Yisrael, is referring to b Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina; /b and the statement: b They laughed at it in the West, /b means that b Rabbi Elazar /b did not accept a particular opinion.,The Gemara asks: b But /b in one instance it is reported that: b They sent /b a message b from there /b that began: b According to the statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina. /b This indicates that the expression: They sent from there, is not itself a reference to a statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina. The Gemara answers: b Rather, reverse /b the statements. The phrase: b They sent from there, /b is a reference to b Rabbi Elazar, /b and: b They laughed at it in the West, /b means that b Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina /b did not accept a particular opinion.,§ The mishna teaches: b And how many /b men must b be in the city for /b it b to be eligible for /b a lesser b Sanhedrin? /b The opinion of the first i tanna /i is that there must be b 120 /b men. The Gemara asks: b What is the relevance of /b the number b 120? /b The Gemara explains that b 23 /b are needed to b correspond to /b the number of members of the b lesser Sanhedrin, and /b it is necessary for there to be b three rows of 23 /b students who sit before the lesser Sanhedrin to learn and also to advise them; that b is /b a total of b 92 /b people. b And /b since there also need to be b 10 idlers of the synagogue, /b people who are free from urgent work and are always sitting in the synagogue to take care of its repair and the other needs of the public, that b would be 102. /b , b And /b in addition there are b two scribes /b required for the Sanhedrin, b and two bailiffs, and two litigants /b who will come to be judged. b And /b there are b two witnesses /b for one side, b and two /b witnesses who could render those witnesses b conspiring /b witnesses by testifying that they were elsewhere at the time of the alleged incident, b and two /b additional witnesses could testify against the witnesses who rendered the first witnesses b conspiring /b witnesses, rendering the second pair b conspiring /b witnesses. All of these are necessary in order for a trial to take place, as is described in Deuteronomy 19:15–21. Therefore, b there are /b so far a total of b 114 /b men who must be in the city., b And /b it b is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A Torah scholar is not permitted to reside in any city that does not have these ten things: A court that /b has the authority to b flog and punish /b transgressors; b and /b a charity b fund /b for which monies b are collected by two /b people b and distributed by three, /b as required by i halakha /i . This leads to a requirement for another three people in the city. b And a synagogue; and a bathhouse; and /b a public b bathroom; a doctor; and a bloodletter; and a scribe /b [ b i velavlar /i /b ] to write sacred scrolls and necessary documents; b and /b a ritual b slaughterer; and a teacher of young children. /b With these additional requirements there are a minimum of 120 men who must be residents of the city. b They said in the name of Rabbi Akiva: /b The city must b also /b have b varieties of fruit, because varieties of fruit illuminate the eyes. /b ,The mishna teaches that b Rabbi Neḥemya says: /b There must be 230 men in the city in order for it to be eligible for a lesser Sanhedrin, corresponding to the ministers of tens appointed in the wilderness by Moses at the suggestion of his father-in-law, Yitro (see Exodus 18:21). Each member of the Sanhedrin can be viewed as a judge with responsibility for ten men. It b is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: /b |
|
35. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Alexander (2013), Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism. 185| 20b. ומן התפלין וחייבין בתפלה ובמזוזה ובברכת המזון:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ק"ש פשיטא מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא הוא וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות,מהו דתימא הואיל ואית בה מלכות שמים קמ"ל:,ומן התפלין: פשיטא מהו דתימא הואיל ואתקש למזוזה קמ"ל:,וחייבין בתפלה: דרחמי נינהו מהו דתימא הואיל וכתיב בה (תהלים נה, יח) ערב ובקר וצהרים כמצות עשה שהזמן גרמא דמי קמ"ל:,ובמזוזה: פשיטא מהו דתימא הואיל ואתקש לתלמוד תורה קמשמע לן:,ובברכת המזון: פשיטא מהו דתימא הואיל וכתיב (שמות טז, ח) בתת ה' לכם בערב בשר לאכל ולחם בבקר לשבע כמצות עשה שהזמן גרמא דמי קמ"ל:,אמר רב אדא בר אהבה נשים חייבות בקדוש היום דבר תורה אמאי מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא הוא וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות אמר אביי מדרבנן,א"ל רבא והא דבר תורה קאמר ועוד כל מצות עשה נחייבינהו מדרבנן,אלא אמר רבא אמר קרא (שמות כ, ז) זכור (דברים ה, יא) ושמור כל שישנו בשמירה ישנו בזכירה והני נשי הואיל ואיתנהו בשמירה איתנהו בזכירה,א"ל רבינא לרבא נשים בברכת המזון דאורייתא או דרבנן למאי נפקא מינה לאפוקי רבים ידי חובתן אי אמרת (בשלמא) דאורייתא אתי דאורייתא ומפיק דאורייתא (אלא אי) אמרת דרבנן הוי שאינו מחוייב בדבר וכל שאינו מחוייב בדבר אינו מוציא את הרבים ידי חובתן מאי,ת"ש באמת אמרו בן מברך לאביו ועבד מברך לרבו ואשה מברכת לבעלה אבל אמרו חכמים תבא מארה לאדם שאשתו ובניו מברכין לו,אי אמרת בשלמא דאורייתא אתי דאורייתא ומפיק דאורייתא אלא אי אמרת דרבנן אתי דרבנן ומפיק דאורייתא,ולטעמיך קטן בר חיובא הוא אלא הכי במאי עסקינן כגון שאכל שיעורא דרבנן דאתי דרבנן ומפיק דרבנן:,דרש רב עוירא זמנין אמר לה משמיה דר' אמי וזמנין אמר לה משמיה דר' אסי אמרו מלאכי השרת לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע כתוב בתורתך (דברים י, יז) אשר לא ישא פנים ולא יקח שחד והלא אתה נושא פנים לישראל דכתיב (במדבר ו, כו) ישא ה' פניו אליך אמר להם וכי לא אשא פנים לישראל שכתבתי להם בתורה (דברים ח, י) ואכלת ושבעת וברכת את ה' אלהיך והם מדקדקים [על] עצמם עד כזית ועד כביצה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בעל קרי מהרהר בלבו ואינו מברך לא לפניה ולא לאחריה ועל המזון מברך לאחריו ואינו מברך לפניו רבי יהודה אומר מברך לפניהם ולאחריהם:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רבינא זאת אומרת הרהור כדבור דמי דאי סלקא דעתך לאו כדבור דמי למה מהרהר,אלא מאי הרהור כדבור דמי יוציא בשפתיו,כדאשכחן בסיני,ורב חסדא אמר הרהור לאו כדבור דמי דאי סלקא דעתך הרהור כדבור דמי יוציא בשפתיו,אלא מאי הרהור לאו כדבור דמי למה מהרהר אמר רבי אלעזר כדי שלא יהו כל העולם עוסקין בו והוא יושב ובטל,ונגרוס בפרקא אחרינא אמר רב אדא בר אהבה בדבר שהצבור עוסקין בו | 20b. b and from phylacteries, but /b they b are obligated in /b the mitzvot of b prayer, i mezuza /i , and Grace after Meals. /b The Gemara explains the rationale for these exemptions and obligations.,GEMARA With regard to the mishna’s statement that women are exempt from b the recitation of i Shema /i , /b the Gemara asks: That is b obvious, /b as i Shema /i is a b time-bound, positive mitzva, and /b the halakhic principle is: b Women are exempt from any time-bound, positive mitzva, /b i.e., any mitzva whose performance is only in effect at a particular time. i Shema /i falls into that category as its recitation is restricted to the morning and the evening. Why then did the mishna need to mention it specifically?,The Gemara replies: b Lest you say: Since /b i Shema /i b includes /b the acceptance of the yoke of b the kingdom of Heaven, /b perhaps women are obligated in its recitation despite the fact that it is a time-bound, positive mitzva. Therefore, the mishna b teaches us /b that, nevertheless, women are exempt.,We also learned in the mishna that women are exempt b from phylacteries. /b The Gemara asks: That is b obvious /b as well. The donning of phylacteries is only in effect at particular times; during the day but not at night, on weekdays but not on Shabbat or Festivals. The Gemara replies: b Lest you say: Since /b the mitzva of phylacteries b is juxtaposed /b in the Torah b to /b the mitzva of b i mezuza /i , /b as it is written: “And you shall bind them as a sign upon your hands and they shall be frontlets between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8), followed by: “And you shall write them upon the door posts of your house and on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:9), just as women are obligated in the mitzva of i mezuza /i , so too they are obligated in the mitzva of phylacteries. Therefore, the mishna b teaches us /b that nevertheless, women are exempt.,We also learned in the mishna that women, slaves, and children are b obligated in prayer. /b The Gemara explains that, although the mitzva of prayer is only in effect at particular times, which would lead to the conclusion that women are exempt, nevertheless, since prayer b is /b supplication for b mercy /b and women also require divine mercy, they are obligated. However, b lest you say: Since /b regarding prayer it is b written: “Evening and morning and afternoon /b I pray and cry aloud and He hears my voice” (Psalms 55:18), perhaps prayer should be b considered a time-bound, positive mitzva /b and women would be exempt, the mishna b teaches us /b that, fundamentally, the mitzva of prayer is not time-bound and, therefore, everyone is obligated.,We also learned in the mishna that women are obligated in the mitzva of b i mezuza /i . /b The Gemara asks: That too is b obvious. /b Why would they be exempt from fulfilling this obligation, it is a positive mitzva that is not time-bound? The Gemara replies: b Lest you say: Since /b the mitzva of i mezuza /i b is juxtaposed /b in the Torah to the mitzva of b Torah study /b (Deuteronomy 11:19–20), just as women are exempt from Torah study, so too they are exempt from the mitzva of i mezuza /i . Therefore, the mishna explicitly b teaches us /b that they are obligated.,We also learned in the mishna that women are obligated to recite the b Grace after Meals. /b The Gemara asks: That too is b obvious. /b The Gemara replies: b Lest you say: Since it is written: “When the Lord shall give you meat to eat in the evening and bread in the morning to the full” /b (Exodus 16:8), one might conclude that the Torah established fixed times for the meals and, consequently, for the mitzva of Grace after Meals and, therefore, it b is considered a time-bound, positive mitzva, /b exempting women from its recitation. Therefore, the mishna b teaches us /b that women are obligated., b Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Women are obligated to /b recite the sanctification of the Shabbat day [ b i kiddush /i ]by Torah law. /b The Gemara asks: b Why? /b i Kiddush /i is a b time-bound, positive mitzva, and women are exempt /b from b all time-bound, positive mitzvot. Abaye said: /b Indeed, women are obligated to recite i kiddush /i by b rabbinic, /b but not by Torah b law. /b , b Rava said to /b Abaye: There are two refutations to your explanation. First, Rav Adda bar Ahava said that women are obligated to recite i kiddush /i b by Torah law, and, furthermore, /b the very explanation is difficult to understand. If the Sages do indeed institute ordices in these circumstances, b let us obligate them /b to fulfill b all /b time-bound, b positive mitzvot by rabbinic law, /b even though they are exempt by Torah law., b Rather, Rava said: /b This has a unique explanation. In the Ten Commandments in the book of Exodus, b the verse said: “Remember /b Shabbat and sanctify it” (Exodus 20:8), while in the book of Deuteronomy it is said: b “Observe /b Shabbat and sanctify it” (Deuteronomy 5:12). From these two variants we can deduce that b anyone included in /b the obligation to b observe /b Shabbat by avoiding its desecration, b is /b also b included in /b the mitzva to b remember /b Shabbat by reciting i kiddush /i . b Since these women are included in /b the mitzva b to observe /b Shabbat, as there is no distinction between men and women in the obligation to observe prohibitions in general and to refrain from the desecration of Shabbat in particular, so too b are they included in /b the mitzva of b remembering /b Shabbat., b Ravina said to Rava: /b We learned in the mishna that b women /b are obligated in the mitzva of b Grace after Meals. /b However, are they obligated b by Torah law /b or merely b by rabbinic law? What difference does it make /b whether it is by Torah or rabbinic law? The difference is regarding her ability b to fulfill the obligation of others /b when reciting the blessing on their behalf. b Granted, if you say that /b their obligation b is by Torah law, /b one whose obligation b is by Torah law can come and fulfill the obligation /b of others who are obligated b by Torah law. However, if you say /b that their obligation is b by rabbinic law, /b then from the perspective of Torah law, women b are /b considered to be b one who is not obligated, and /b the general principle is that b one who is not obligated /b to fulfill a particular mitzva b cannot fulfill the obligations of the many /b in that mitzva. Therefore, it is important to know b what /b is the resolution of this dilemma., b Come /b and b hear /b from what was taught in a i baraita /i : b Actually they said /b that b a son may recite a blessing /b on behalf of b his father, and a slave may recite a blessing /b on behalf of b his master, and a woman may recite a blessing /b on behalf of b her husband, but the Sages said: May a curse come to a man /b who, due to his ignorance, requires b his wife and children to recite a blessing on his behalf. /b ,From here we may infer: b Granted, if you say that /b their obligation b is by Torah law, /b one whose obligation b is by Torah law can come and fulfill the obligation /b of others who are obligated b by Torah law. However, if you say /b that their obligation is b by rabbinic law, /b can one who is obligated b by rabbinic law, come and fulfill the obligation /b of one whose obligation is b by Torah law? /b ,The Gemara challenges this proof: b And according to your reasoning, /b is b a minor obligated /b by Torah law to perform mitzvot? Everyone agrees that a minor is exempt by Torah law, yet here the i baraita /i said that he may recite a blessing on behalf of his father. There must be another way to explain the i baraita /i . b With what we are dealing here? With a case where /b his father b ate /b a quantity of food that did not satisfy his hunger, a b measure /b for which one is only obligated b by rabbinic law /b to recite Grace after Meals. In that case, one whose obligation b is by rabbinic law can come and fulfill the obligation /b of another whose obligation b is by rabbinic law. /b ,After citing the i halakha /i that one who eats a quantity of food that does not satisfy his hunger is obligated by rabbinic law to recite Grace after Meals, the Gemara cites a related homiletic interpretation. b Rav Avira taught, sometimes he said it in the name /b of b Rabbi Ami, and sometimes he said it in the name /b of b Rabbi Asi: The ministering angels said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, in Your Torah it is written: /b “The great, mighty and awesome God b who favors no one and takes no bribe” /b (Deuteronomy 10:17), b yet You, /b nevertheless, b show favor to Israel, as it is written: “The Lord shall show favor to you /b and give you peace” (Numbers 6:26). b He replied to them: And how can I not show favor to Israel, as I wrote for them in the Torah: “And you shall eat and be satisfied, and bless the Lord your God” /b (Deuteronomy 8:10), meaning that there is no obligation to bless the Lord until one is satiated; b yet they are exacting with themselves /b to recite Grace after Meals even if they have eaten b as much as an olive-bulk or an egg-bulk. /b Since they go beyond the requirements of the law, they are worthy of favor., strong MISHNA: /strong Ezra the Scribe decreed that one who is ritually impure because of a seminal emission may not engage in matters of Torah until he has immersed in a ritual bath and purified himself. This i halakha /i was accepted over the course of many generations; however, many disputes arose with regard to the Torah matters to which it applies. Regarding this, the mishna says: If the time for the recitation of i Shema /i arrived and b one /b is impure due to a b seminal emission, /b he may b contemplate /b i Shema /i b in his heart, but neither recites the blessings preceding /b i Shema /i , b nor the blessings following it. Over food /b which, after partaking, one is obligated by Torah law to recite a blessing, b one recites a blessing afterward, but one does not recite a blessing beforehand, /b because the blessing recited prior to eating is a requirement by rabbinic law. b And /b in all of these instances b Rabbi Yehuda says: He recites a blessing beforehand and thereafter /b in both the case of i Shema /i and in the case of food., strong GEMARA: /strong b Ravina said: That is to say, /b from the mishna that b contemplation is tantamount to speech. As if it would enter your mind /b that b it is not tantamount to speech, /b then b why /b does one who is impure because of a seminal emission b contemplate? /b It must be that it is tantamount to speech.,The Gemara rejects this: b But what /b are you saying, that b contemplation is tantamount to speech? /b Then, if one who is impure because of a seminal emission is permitted to contemplate, why does he not b utter /b the words b with his lips? /b ,The Gemara answers: b As we found at /b Mount b Sinai. /b There one who had sexual relations with a woman was required to immerse himself before receiving the Torah, which was spoken and not merely contemplated. Here, too, it was decreed that one who was impure due to a seminal emission may not recite matters of Torah out loud until he immerses himself., b And Rav Ḥisda said /b that the opposite conclusion should be drawn from the mishna: b Contemplation is not tantamount to speech, as if it would enter your mind /b that b contemplation is tantamount to speech, /b then one who is impure because of a seminal emission should i ab initio /i , b utter /b i Shema /i b with his lips. /b ,The Gemara challenges this argument: b But what /b are you saying, that b contemplation is not tantamount to speech? /b If so, b why does he contemplate? Rabbi Elazar said: So that /b a situation b will not /b arise b where everyone is engaged in /b reciting i Shema /i b and he sits idly /b by.,The Gemara asks: If that is the only purpose, b let him study another chapter /b and not specifically i Shema /i or one of the blessings. b Rav Adda bar Ahava said: /b It is fitting that one engage b in a matter in which the community is engaged. /b |
|
36. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229| 26a. חדא מינייהו רב פפא אמרה:,ר' ישמעאל אומר אינו חייב אלא על העתיד לבא: ת"ר (ויקרא ה, ד) להרע או להיטיב אין לי אלא דברים שיש בהן הרעה והטבה שאין בהן הרעה והטבה מנין תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ה, ד) או נפש כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים,אין לי אלא להבא לשעבר מנין תלמוד לומר (ויקרא ה, ד) לכל אשר יבטא האדם בשבועה דברי רבי עקיבא רבי ישמעאל אומר להרע או להיטיב להבא,אמר לו רבי עקיבא אם כן אין לי אלא דברים שיש בהן הטבה והרעה דברים שאין בהן הרעה והטבה מנין אמר לו מרבוי הכתוב אמר לו אם ריבה הכתוב לכך ריבה הכתוב לכך,שפיר קא"ל רבי עקיבא לר' ישמעאל,א"ר יוחנן ר' ישמעאל ששימש את רבי נחוניא בן הקנה שהיה דורש את כל התורה כולה בכלל ופרט איהו נמי דורש בכלל ופרט רבי עקיבא ששימש את נחום איש גם זו שהיה דורש את כל התורה כולה בריבה ומיעט איהו נמי דורש ריבה ומיעט,מאי ר' עקיבא דדריש ריבויי ומיעוטי דתניא או נפש כי תשבע ריבה להרע או להיטיב מיעט לכל אשר יבטא האדם חזר וריבה ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל,מאי ריבה ריבה כל מילי ומאי מיעט מיעט דבר מצוה,ור' ישמעאל דריש כלל ופרט או נפש כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים כלל להרע או להיטיב פרט לכל אשר יבטא האדם חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש להבא אף כל להבא,אהני כללא לאתויי אפי' דברים שאין בהן הרעה והטבה להבא אהני פרטא למעוטי אפילו דברים שיש בהן הרעה והטבה לשעבר,איפוך אנא,א"ר יצחק דומיא דלהרע או להיטיב מי שאיסורו משום (במדבר ל, ג) בל יחל דברו יצאתה זו שאין איסורו משום בל יחל דברו אלא משום בל תשקרו,רב יצחק בר אבין אמר אמר קרא או נפש כי תשבע לבטא בשפתים מי שהשבועה קודמת לביטוי ולא שהביטוי קודמת לשבועה יצא זה אכלתי ולא אכלתי שהמעשה קודם לשבועה,ת"ר (ויקרא ה, ד) האדם בשבועה פרט לאנוס ונעלם פרט למזיד,ממנו שנתעלמה ממנו שבועה יכול שנתעלמה ממנו חפץ ת"ל בשבועה ונעלם על העלם שבועה הוא חייב ואינו חייב על העלם חפץ:,אמר מר האדם בשבועה פרט לאנוס היכי דמי,כדרב כהנא ורב אסי כי הוו קיימי מקמי דרב מר אמר שבועתא דהכי אמר רב ומר אמר שבועתא דהכי אמר רב כי אתו לקמיה דרב אמר כחד מינייהו אמר ליה אידך ואנא בשיקרא אישתבעי,אמר ליה לבך אנסך,ונעלם ממנו שנתעלם ממנו שבועה יכול שנתעלם ממנו חפץ תלמוד לומר בשבועה ונעלם ממנו על העלם שבועה הוא חייב ואינו חייב על העלם חפץ:,מחכו עלי' במערבא בשלמא שבועה משכחת לה בלא חפץ כגון דאמר שבועה שלא אוכל פת חטין וכסבור שאוכל קאמר דשבועתיה אינשי חפצא דכיר אלא חפץ בלא שבועה ה"ד,כגון דאמר שבועה שלא אוכל פת חטין וכסבור של שעורים קאמר דשבועתיה דכיר ליה חפצא אינשי כיון דחפצא אינשי להו היינו העלם שבועה,אלא אמר רבי אלעזר דא ודא אחת היא,מתקיף לה רב יוסף אלמא חפץ בלא שבועה לא משכחת לה והא משכחת לה כגון דאמר שבועה שלא אוכל פת חטין והושיט ידו לסל ליטול פת שעורין ועלתה בידו של חטין וכסבור שעורים היא ואכלה דשבועתיה דכיר ליה חפצא הוא דלא ידע ליה,אמר ליה אביי כלום מחייבת ליה קרבן אלא אמאי דתפיס בידיה העלם שבועה הוא,לישנא אחרינא אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף סוף סוף קרבן דקא מייתי עלה דהאי פת מיהת העלם שבועה הוא,ורב יוסף אמר לך כיון דכי ידע ליה דחטין הוא פריש מיניה העלם חפץ הוא,בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן העלם זה וזה בידו מהו אמר ליה הרי העלם שבועה בידו וחייב אדרבה הרי העלם חפץ בידו ופטור,אמר רב אשי חזינן אי מחמת שבועה קא פריש הרי העלם שבועה בידו וחייב אי מחמת חפץ קא פריש הרי העלם חפץ בידו ופטור,א"ל רבינא לרב אשי כלום פריש משבועה אלא משום חפץ כלום פריש מחפץ אלא משום שבועה אלא לא שנא,בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן | 26a. b Rav Pappa said one of those /b statements, not Abaye.,§ The mishna teaches that b Rabbi Yishmael says: One is liable only /b for an oath on an utterance taken b about the future. The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to an oath on an utterance: From the verse: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips b to do evil, or to do good” /b (Leviticus 5:4), b I have /b derived b only /b that one is liable for an oath on an utterance with regard to b matters to which doing evil and doing good apply. From where /b do I derive that one is liable for an oath on an utterance with regard to b matters to which doing evil and doing good do not apply? The verse states: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips,” /b which includes other matters., b I have /b derived b only /b that one is liable for oaths referring b to the future. From where /b do I derive that one is liable for oaths referring b to the past? The verse /b subsequently b states: “Whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly with an oath” /b (Leviticus 5:4); this is b the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yishmael says: /b The verse states: b “To do evil, or to do good,” /b referring exclusively to oaths b about the future. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b Rabbi Akiva said to him: If so, /b then b I have /b derived b only /b that one is liable for an oath on an utterance with regard to b matters to which doing evil and doing good apply. From where /b do I derive that one is liable for an oath on an utterance with regard to b matters to which doing evil and doing good do not apply? /b Rabbi Yishmael b said to /b Rabbi Akiva in response: It is derived b from an amplification /b of the meaning b of the verse. /b Rabbi Akiva b said to him: If the verse is amplified for this, /b i.e., to extend the i halakha /i of an oath on an utterance to matters that do not involve doing evil or good, b the verse is amplified for that, /b i.e., oaths about the past.,The Gemara questions: b Rabbi Akiva said well /b his critique of the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael. /b Why does Rabbi Yishmael disagree?, b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b It is because b Rabbi Yishmael /b was the one b who served /b as a disciple of b Rabbi Neḥunya ben HaKana, who would interpret the entire Torah with /b the hermeneutical principle of b a generalization and a detail. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yishmael b also interprets /b the Torah b with /b the method of b a generalization and a detail. Rabbi Akiva /b was one b who served /b as a disciple of b Naḥum of Gam Zo, who would interpret the entire Torah with /b the hermeneutical principle of b amplification and restriction. /b Therefore, Rabbi Akiva b also interprets /b the Torah by b amplification and restriction. /b , b What /b is the specific instance in this context where one finds b that Rabbi Akiva interprets /b with b amplifications and restrictions? /b It is b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that when the verse states: b “Or if anyone take an oath /b clearly with his lips” (Leviticus 5:4), it b amplifies /b the range of possible oaths for which one could be liable to bring an offering for an oath on an utterance. When the verse continues: b “To do evil, or to do good,” /b it b restricts /b that range. When it further continues: b “Whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly /b with an oath,” it b then amplifies /b again. According to the hermeneutical principle that when a verse b amplified, and /b then b restricted, and /b then b amplified, it amplified /b the relevant category to include b everything /b except for the specific matter that was excluded by the restriction., b What /b was included when the verse b amplified /b the range of liability? b It amplified /b it to include b all matters /b about which one might take an oath. b And /b in b what /b way did it b restrict /b it when it continued: “To do evil, or to do good”? It b restricted /b the range of liability for an oath on an utterance to exclude an oath that is b a matter /b involving b a mitzva, /b i.e., an oath to refrain from performing a mitzva., b And Rabbi Yishmael interprets /b the verse following the hermeneutical principle of b a generalization and a detail: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips” /b (Leviticus 5:4), is b a generalization; “to do evil, or to do good,” /b is b a detail; “whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly /b with an oath,” the verse b then /b further b generalized. /b There is a hermeneutical principle that when a verse contains b a generalization, and a detail, and /b another b generalization, you may deduce /b that the verse is referring b only /b to items b similar to the detail. Just as the detail /b in the verse is b explicitly /b an oath referring b to the future, so too, all /b the oaths for which one is liable must be referring b to the future. /b , b The generalization serves to include even /b those b matters that do not concern doing evil or doing good /b when they refer b to the future; the detail serves to exclude even matters that concern doing evil or doing good /b when they refer b to the past. /b ,The Gemara challenges: b I will reverse /b it and say that the generalization serves to include oaths concerning the past, and the detail serves to exclude matters that do not involve doing evil or doing good. Why is that not an equally legitimate interpretation of the verse?, b Rabbi Yitzḥak said /b that Rabbi Yishmael understands that liability is extended to one whose oath b is similar to an oath “to do evil, or to do good” /b (Leviticus 5:4). b He whose prohibition is due to /b the verse b : “He shall not break his word” /b (Numbers 30:3), is liable, as liability for an oath about the future entails breaking one’s word. b Excluded is that /b oath b whose prohibition is not due to /b the verse b : “He shall not break his word”; rather, /b it is b due to /b the verse b : “You shall not lie” /b (Leviticus 19:11), since liability for an oath about the past applies when the oath itself was a lie., b Rav Yitzḥak bar Avin says /b that there is a different explanation of Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion: b The verse states: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips /b to do evil, or to do good,” referring to b one whose oath precedes /b its b clarification, /b i.e., the action that breaks it, b and not /b to one who takes an oath b where the clarification, /b i.e., the action prohibited in the oath, b precedes the oath. Excluded is that /b oath where one said, for example: b I ate, or: I did not eat, where the action precedes the oath. /b ,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: “Or if anyone take an oath clearly with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall utter clearly with an oath, and it is hidden from him; and, when he knows of it, be guilty in one of these things” (Leviticus 5:4). The phrase b “a man…with an oath” /b serves b to exclude a victim of circumstances beyond his control /b from liability to bring an offering. The term b “and it is hidden” /b serves b to exclude /b from liability one who broke his oath b intentionally, /b as he does not deserve to be able to achieve atonement through bringing an offering.,The i baraita /i continues: The term b “from him” /b teaches that b one who was unaware of /b his b oath, /b i.e., forgot it, and subsequently broke it, is liable to bring an offering. One b might /b have thought that an oath taker is also liable when he broke an oath b because he was unaware /b that a particular item is forbidden as the b object /b of his oath; therefore, b the verse states: “With an oath, and it is hidden from him.” He is liable for lack of awareness of the oath but he is not liable for lack of awareness of the object /b of the oath., b The Master says /b above in the i baraita /i : The phrase b “a man…with an oath” /b serves b to exclude a victim of circumstances beyond his control. /b The Gemara asks: b What are /b such b circumstances? /b ,The Gemara answers: It is b as /b it was b with Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, /b who, b when they were standing up in the presence of Rav, /b their teacher, at the conclusion of a lesson, disagreed with regard to exactly what he said. One b Sage said: /b On my b oath Rav said like this, and /b the other b Sage said: /b On my b oath Rav said like that. When they came before Rav /b to clarify what he had said, b he stated /b his opinion b in accordance with /b what b one of them /b had said. b The other said to /b Rav: b Did I /b then b take a false oath? /b ,Rav b said to him: Your heart compelled you. /b It is not regarded as a false oath, since at the time that you took the oath you were certain that you were telling the truth.,§ The i baraita /i teaches: The phrase b “and it is hidden from him” /b teaches that b one who was unaware of his oath, /b i.e., forgot it, and subsequently broke it, is liable to bring an offering. One b might /b have thought that the oath taker is also liable when he broke the oath b because he was unaware /b that a particular item is forbidden as the b object /b of his oath; therefore, b the verse states: “With an oath, and it is hidden from him.” He is liable for lack of awareness of the oath, but he is not liable for lack of awareness of the object /b of the oath., b They laughed at this in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, and said: b Granted, you find /b lack of awareness of one’s b oath without /b there being lack of awareness of b the object /b of the oath, as in a case b where one said: /b On my b oath I will not eat wheat bread, and he thought he had said: I will eat /b wheat bread, b as /b in that case b his oath is forgotten /b and b the object /b of it b is remembered. But /b under b what circumstances /b is there a case of lack of awareness of b the object /b of the oath b without /b lack of awareness of the b oath /b itself?,The Gemara suggests: It can be found in a case b where he said: /b On my b oath I will not eat wheat bread, and he thought he had said: /b On my oath I will not eat b barley /b bread, b as /b in that case b his oath is remembered by him /b and b the object /b of it b is forgotten. /b The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b Once the object /b of the oath b is forgotten by him, that is /b a case of b lack of awareness of his oath. /b , b Rather, Rabbi Elazar said: /b The distinction made in the i baraita /i between lack of awareness of one’s oath and lack of awareness of the object of one’s oath is not valid, and both b this and that are one /b and the same., b Rav Yosef objects to this. /b Is it b really /b the case that b you do not find /b a case of lack of awareness of b the object /b of an oath b without /b lack of awareness of the b oath? But you find /b it in a case b where he said: /b On my b oath I will not eat wheat bread, and he extended his hand to the basket to take barley bread, and wheat /b bread b came up in his hand, and he thought it was barley /b bread b and ate it. /b That is a case b where his oath is remembered by him, and it is the object /b of the oath b of which he is unaware. /b , b Abaye said to him: Don’t you deem him liable /b to bring b an offering /b for breaking his oath b only for that which he holds in his hand /b and eats? When he eats the bread, that b is lack of awareness of the oath, /b since he thinks that the item in his hand is permitted.,The Gemara presents b another formulation /b of this statement. b Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Ultimately, the offering he brings for this bread is in any event /b due to b lack of awareness of the oath, /b as he thinks that the item in his hand is permitted., b And Rav Yosef /b could b say to you: Since were he to know of it that it is wheat /b bread b he would refrain from /b eating b it, /b this should be regarded as a case of b lack of awareness of the object. /b , b Rava asked of Rav Naḥman: /b In a case where one b has a lack of awareness of this, /b the oath, b and that, /b its object, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? Rav Naḥman b said to him: He /b breaks the oath while b having a lack of awareness of the oath and /b is therefore b liable. /b Rava replied: b On the contrary, he has a lack of awareness of the object /b of the oath b and /b should therefore be b exempt. /b , b Rav Ashi said: We see: If he refrains /b from eating b due to the oath, /b i.e., when he is reminded that he took an oath, b he had a lack of awareness of the oath and is liable. If he refrains due to the object /b of the oath, i.e., when he is reminded what it is he is about to eat, b he had a lack of awareness due to the object, and is exempt. /b , b Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Doesn’t he refrain only from /b breaking the b oath due to /b his recognition of the b object? Doesn’t he refrain from /b the b object due only to /b the b oath? /b In either case, he needs to remember both the oath and its object, and the manner in which he was reminded does not serve to indicate anything. b Rather, there is no difference /b between the two., b Rava asked of Rav Naḥman: /b |
|
37. Babylonian Talmud, Zevahim, None Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229| 15a. אפשר לתקונה או לא אפשר לתקונה,ת"ש קבל הכשר ונתן לפסול יחזיר לכשר,ונהי נמי דיחזור הכשר ויקבלנו אי סלקא דעתך לא אפשר לתקונה איפסלא לה,מי סברת דקאי זר גואי לא דקאי זר בראי,איתמר אמר עולא אמר ר' יוחנן הולכה שלא ברגל פסולה אלמא לא אפשר לתקונה,איתיביה רב נחמן לעולא נשפך מן הכלי על הרצפה ואספו כשר,הכא במאי עסקינן כשיצא לחוץ,לבראי נפיק לגואי לא עייל במקום מדרון איבעית אימא בגומא ואיבעית אימא בסמיכא,ואיכפל תנא לאשמועינן כל הני ועוד אדתני באידך פירקין נשפך על הרצפה ואספו פסול ליפלוג בדידיה במה דברים אמורים כשיצא לחוץ אבל נכנס לפנים פסול תיובתא,אתמר הולכה שלא ברגל מחלוקת ר"ש ורבנן בהולכה רבתי דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דפסולה כי פליגי בהולכה זוטרתי,מחכו עלה במערבא אלא חטאת העוף דפסולה בה מחשבה לר"ש היכי משכחת לה אי דחשיב עלה מקמי דליפוק דם לא כלום היא ואי בתר דנפק דם איתעבידא ליה מצותו,מאי קושיא דלמא מדפריש ועד דמטא למזבח,דהא בעא מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי זירא היה מזה ונקטעה ידו של מזה עד שלא הגיע דם לאויר המזבח מהו וא"ל [פסולה מ"ט] והזה ונתן בעינן,כי אתו רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מבי רב אמרי היינו חוכא ובהולכה רבתי לא פליגי והא כי פליגי בהולכה רבתי פליגי,אלא בהולכה זוטרתי כולי עלמא לא פליגי דלא פסלה כי פליגי בהולכה רבתי,הוליכו זר והחזירו כהן וחזר והוליכו פליגי בה בני רבי חייא ור' ינאי חד אמר כשר וחד אמר פסול מר סבר אפשר לתקונה ומר סבר לא אפשר לתקונה,הוליכו כהן והחזירו וחזר והוליכו זר אמר רב שימי בר אשי לדברי המכשיר פסול לדברי הפוסל מכשיר,רבא אמר אף לדברי הפוסל פסול מאי טעמא דהא צריך | 15a. The Gemara asks: If the blood was conveyed by hand, is it b possible to correct it /b by conveying it again properly, b or /b is it b not possible to correct it, /b and the offering is disqualified permanently?,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b proof from the aforementioned mishna: If a priest b fit /b for Temple service b collected /b the blood in a vessel b and gave /b the vessel b to an unfit /b person standing next to the altar, the latter b should return /b it b to the fit /b priest. Apparently, even after the blood is conveyed in an inappropriate manner, it can be corrected., b And though /b one can b indeed /b explain b that the fit /b priest b should then receive it /b from him, as posited above, b if it enters your mind /b that if the blood is conveyed incorrectly it is b not possible to correct it, /b the offering b was /b already b disqualified /b when the priest gave the blood to the unfit person. Taking it back is of no consequence.,The Gemara rejects this inference: b Do you maintain that /b this is referring to a case where the b non-priest is standing inside, /b between the fit priest and the altar? b No, /b it is a case b where /b the b non-priest is standing outside, /b farther away from the altar than the priest. Therefore, when the priest gave him the blood, he was not conveying it toward the altar at all; he was moving it farther away from the altar., b It was stated: Ulla says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: Conveying /b the blood b not by foot /b renders the offering b unfit. Apparently, it is not possible to correct it, /b as otherwise Rabbi Yoḥa would have merely stated that it is not considered conveying, as in his earlier statement (14b)., b Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Ulla /b from a mishna (32a): If the blood b spilled from the vessel onto the floor and one collected it /b from the floor, it is b fit /b for sacrifice. Apparently, although spilling the blood on the floor constitutes a not valid conveying toward the altar, it can still be corrected after the fact.,The Gemara explains: b Here we are dealing with /b a case b where /b the blood that spilled b went outward, /b i.e., away from the altar, so it did not constitute conveying at all.,The Gemara asks: Can spilled blood b go outward /b and b not come inward? /b Clearly, spilled blood spreads to all sides. The Gemara answers: It is a case where the blood spilled b on an inclined plane, /b and it therefore spilled only outward, away from the altar. And b if you wish, say /b instead that it spilled b into a hole /b in the ground, so it did not spread in any direction. b And if you wish, say /b instead that it is a case b where /b the blood is b thick, /b so it did not spread in all directions.,The Gemara asks: b But did the i tanna /i go to all that trouble [ i ikhpal /i /b ] just b to teach us all these /b unlikely cases? b And furthermore, rather than teaching in another chapter /b (see 25a) that if the blood b spilled /b from the animal’s neck b onto the floor and one collected it /b in a vessel from the floor it is b unfit, let /b the mishna b teach a distinction within /b the case where the blood spilled from the vessel b itself: In what /b case b is this statement, /b that the blood is fit, b said? /b In a case b where /b the spilled blood b went outward, /b away from the altar, b but /b if it b came inward /b it is b unfit. /b The Gemara concludes: This is b a conclusive refutation; /b if the blood is conveyed in a not valid manner, it can be corrected.,§ b It was stated: /b The b dispute /b in the mishna (13a) between b Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis /b as to whether improper intent while conveying the blood disqualifies the offering is only with regard to b conveying /b the blood b not by foot. With regard to greater conveying, /b i.e., conveying the blood by moving the feet, b everyone agrees that /b if one performs it with prohibited intent, the offering is b unfit. When they disagree, /b it is b with regard to lesser conveying, /b i.e., conveying the blood by hand without moving the feet, in a case where the offering was slaughtered next to the altar., b They laughed at /b this statement b in the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, saying: b But /b if so, one encounters difficulty with regard to b a bird sin offering, which /b is killed through pinching its nape on the altar and whose blood is sprinkled directly from its neck. It is known that if one sprinkled its blood with prohibited b intent, /b the offering is b unfit. /b And b according to Rabbi Shimon, /b who holds that prohibited intent while conveying the blood by hand does not disqualify the offering, b how can you find these /b circumstances? b If /b the priest b has /b prohibited b intent with regard to /b the offering b before /b the b blood comes out /b of the bird, this intent b is nothing, /b since his waving it is like conveying by hand. b And if /b he has such intent b after the blood came out, its mitzva was /b already b performed, /b as the blood already reached the altar.,The Gemara asks: b What is the difficulty? Perhaps /b the offering is disqualified due to prohibited intent b from /b the moment the blood b leaves /b the bird b until /b the moment b it reaches the altar. /b ,This is b as Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: /b If the priest b was sprinkling /b the blood, b and the hand of the one sprinkling was severed before /b the b blood reached the airspace of the altar, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Is the sprinkling not valid since it was performed by a blemished priest, or is it valid because the blood left the bird before he was blemished? b And /b Rabbi Zeira b said to him: /b It is b not valid. What is the reason? We require /b that the verse: b “And sprinkle /b of the blood” (Leviticus 4:6), be fulfilled in the same manner as the verse that follows it: b “And /b the priest shall b place /b of the blood upon the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:7), namely, that the blood reach the altar. Therefore, the blood can be disqualified anytime until it reaches the altar, whether through the priest becoming blemished or through prohibited intent., b When Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from the study hall, they said: This is /b the reason for b the laughter /b of the scholars of Eretz Yisrael: b With regard to greater conveying, /b i.e., conveying by foot, can one say Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis b do not disagree? /b Clearly, b when they disagree /b in the mishna, b they disagree with regard to greater conveying, /b as Rabbi Shimon reasons that conveying is a dispensable rite. Only conveying by foot is dispensable, since even if the offering is slaughtered next to the altar, the priest will need to move its blood somewhat with his hand., b Rather, /b the statement under discussion should be emended to say: b With regard to lesser conveying, /b i.e., conveying the blood by hand, b everyone agrees that it does not disqualify /b the offering due to prohibited intent. b When they disagree, /b it is b with regard to greater conveying, /b i.e., conveying the blood for a distance by foot. Rabbi Shimon holds that improper intent even then does not disqualify the offering, as the rite is dispensable, and the Rabbis maintain that it does disqualify it.,§ If b a non-priest conveyed /b the blood to the altar, b and a priest returned it /b to its original location, b and /b a priest then b conveyed it again /b to the altar, b the sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yannai disagree with regard to /b the i halakha /i . b One says /b that the offering is b fit, and one says /b it is b unfit. /b This is because one b Sage holds /b that if the blood is conveyed improperly, it is b possible to correct it, and /b one b Sage holds /b that it is b not possible to correct it. /b ,If b a priest conveyed it /b to the altar, b and /b then b returned it, and a non-priest /b then b conveyed it again, Rav Shimi bar Ashi says: According to the statement of the one who deems /b the offering b fit /b in the previous case, where a non-priest conveyed it the first time and a priest conveyed it the second time, in this case the offering is b unfit, /b as a non-priest conveyed it the second time. b According to the statement of the one who deems /b the offering b unfit /b in the previous case, as a non-priest conveyed it the first time, in this case, where a priest conveyed it the first time, b he deems /b the offering b fit. /b , b Rava says: Even according to the statement of the one who deems /b the offering b unfit /b in a case where a non-priest conveyed it the first time, it is b unfit /b in this case as well, where a priest conveyed it the first time and a non-priest conveyed it the second time. b What is the reason? Because /b after the blood is returned to its original location, b it is necessary /b |
|
46. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven d. Found in books: Kaplan (2015), My Perfect One: Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs, 43| 35b. כאן קודם חזרה כאן לאחר חזרה ומשנה לא זזה ממקומה,רב מלכיא משמיה דרב אדא בר אהבה אמר מפני שמחליקין פניה בשומן חזיר רב חסדא אמר מפני שמעמידין אותה בחומץ רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר מפני שמעמידין אותה בשרף הערלה,כמאן כי האי תנא (דתניא) ר"א אומר המעמיד בשרף הערלה אסור מפני שהוא פירי,אפי' תימא ר' יהושע עד כאן לא פליג ר' יהושע עליה דר"א אלא בקטפא דגוזא אבל בקטפא דפירא מודי,והיינו דתנן א"ר יהושע שמעתי בפירוש שהמעמיד בשרף העלין ובשרף העיקרין מותר בשרף הפגין אסור מפני שהוא פירי,בין לרב חסדא בין לרב נחמן בר יצחק תתסר בהנאה קשיא,דרש רב נחמן בריה דרב חסדא מאי דכתיב (שיר השירים א, ג) לריח שמניך טובים למה ת"ח דומה לצלוחית של פלייטין מגולה ריחה נודף מכוסה אין ריחה נודף,ולא עוד אלא דברים שמכוסין ממנו מתגלין לו שנאמר (שיר השירים א, ג) עלמות אהבוך קרי ביה עלומות ולא עוד אלא שמלאך המות אוהבו שנא' עלמות אהבוך קרי ביה על מות ולא עוד אלא שנוחל שני עולמות אחד העוה"ז ואחד העוה"ב שנא' עלמות קרי ביה עולמות:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ואלו דברים של עובדי כוכבים אסורין ואין איסורן איסור הנאה חלב שחלבו עובד כוכבים ואין ישראל רואהו והפת והשמן שלהן רבי ובית דינו התירו השמן,והשלקות וכבשין שדרכן לתת לתוכן יין וחומץ וטרית טרופה וציר שאין בה דגה כלבית שוטטת בו והחילק וקורט של חלתית ומלח שלקונדית הרי אלו אסורין ואין איסורן איסור הנאה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big חלב למאי ניחוש לה אי משום איחלופי טהור חיור טמא ירוק ואי משום איערובי ניקום דאמר מר חלב טהור עומד חלב טמא אינו עומד,אי דקא בעי לגבינה ה"נ הכא במאי עסקינן דקא בעי ליה לכמכא,ונשקול מיניה קלי וניקום כיון דבטהור נמי איכא נסיובי דלא קיימי ליכא למיקם עלה דמילתא,ואב"א אפי' תימא דקבעי לה לגבינה איכא דקאי ביני אטפי:,והפת: א"ר כהנא א"ר יוחנן פת לא הותרה בב"ד מכלל דאיכא מאן דשרי,אין דכי אתא רב דימי אמר פעם אחת יצא רבי לשדה והביא עובד כוכבים לפניו פת פורני מאפה סאה אמר רבי כמה נאה פת זו מה ראו חכמים לאוסרה מה ראו חכמים משום חתנות,אלא מה ראו חכמים לאוסרה בשדה כסבורין העם התיר רבי הפת ולא היא רבי לא התיר את הפת,רב יוסף ואיתימא רב שמואל בר יהודה אמר לא כך היה מעשה אלא אמרו פעם אחת הלך רבי למקום אחד וראה פת דחוק לתלמידים אמר רבי אין כאן פלטר כסבורין העם לומר פלטר עובד כוכבים והוא לא אמר אלא פלטר ישראל,א"ר חלבו אפילו למ"ד פלטר עובד כוכבים לא אמרן אלא דליכא פלטר ישראל אבל במקום דאיכא פלטר ישראל לא ורבי יוחנן אמר אפי' למ"ד פלטר עובד כוכבים ה"מ בשדה אבל בעיר לא משום חתנות,איבו הוה מנכית ואכיל פת אבי מצרי אמר להו רבא ואיתימא רב נחמן בר יצחק לא תשתעו בהדיה דאיבו דקאכיל לחמא דארמאי:,והשמן שלהן: שמן רב אמר דניאל גזר עליו ושמואל אמר | 35b. b Here, /b with regard to the mishna in i Ḥullin /i , Shmuel’s comment reflects the explanation of Rabbi Yehoshua b before /b Rabbi Yehoshua’s b retraction /b of the assertion that it is prohibited to derive benefit from the stomach contents of an animal carcass. b There, /b with regard to the mishna in i Avoda Zara /i , Shmuel’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua b after /b his b retraction /b of that claim. b And /b although this indicates that the mishna in i Ḥullin /i presents an outdated ruling that was later rescinded, b a mishna does not move from its place. /b In other words, once it has been taught in a certain manner, the i tanna /i will not change the text of a mishna in order to reflect a change of opinion, so as to avoid confusion.,The Gemara suggests additional reasons for the decree of the Sages. b Rav Malkiyya says in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava: /b The cheese is prohibited b because /b gentiles b smooth its surface with pig fat. Rav Ḥisda says: /b It is b because they curdle it with vinegar /b produced from their wine, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit. b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: /b It is b because they curdle it with sap /b that is subject to the prohibition against consuming b the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [ i orla /i ]. /b ,Parenthetically, the Gemara asks: b In accordance with whose /b opinion is Rav Naḥman’s claim that the cheese of gentiles is prohibited because it is curdled in the sap of i orla /i ? The Gemara answers: It is b in accordance with the opinion of this i tanna /i , as it is taught /b in a mishna ( i Orla /i 1:7): b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b With regard to b one who curdles /b cheese b with the sap of i orla /i , /b the cheese is b prohibited, because /b the sap b is /b considered to be b fruit /b of the tree.,The Gemara comments: b You /b may b even say /b that the statement is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua, /b who disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as b Rabbi Yehoshua disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to the sap of a branch, but with regard to the sap of a fruit /b Rabbi Yehoshua b concedes /b that it is prohibited as i orla /i . Rav Naḥman’s statement can be understood as referring specifically to the sap of the fruit, which would mean that it is in accordance with the opinions of both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua.,The Gemara adds: b And this is /b in accordance with b that /b which b we learned /b in the continuation of that mishna: b Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard explicitly that /b with regard to b one who curdles /b cheese b with the sap of the leaves and the sap of the roots /b of an i orla /i tree, the cheese b is permitted. /b But if it is curdled b with the sap of unripe figs it is prohibited, because /b that sap b is /b considered to be b fruit. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty against the last two suggested reasons for the decree of the Sages. b According to both Rav Ḥisda, /b who holds that the cheese is prohibited because it is curdled with vinegar made from wine of gentiles, b and Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak, /b who maintains that it is prohibited because it is curdled with the sap of i orla /i , b one should be prohibited from /b deriving b benefit /b from the cheese, as one may not derive benefit from either the wine of gentiles or i orla /i . The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is b difficult. /b ,§ b Rav Naḥman, son of Rav Ḥisda, interpreted /b a verse b homiletically: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “Your ointments have a goodly fragrance” /b (Song of Songs 1:3)? This is a metaphor for a Torah scholar: b To what is a Torah scholar comparable? To a flask of i pelaitin /i : /b When it is b exposed, its scent diffuses; /b when it is b covered, its scent does not diffuse. /b ,The Gemara remarks: b And moreover, /b when a Torah scholar spreads his knowledge, b matters that are /b generally b hidden from him are revealed to him, as it is stated: “Maidens [ i alamot /i ] love You” /b (Song of Songs 1:3), and one may b read into /b the verse: b The hidden [ i alumot /i ]. And moreover, the Angel of Death loves him, as it is stated: “Maidens [ i alamot /i ] love You,” /b and one may b read into /b the verse: The one appointed b over death [ i al mot /i ] /b loves you. b And moreover, /b a Torah scholar b inherits two worlds: One /b is b this world, and /b the other b one /b is b the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Maidens [ i alamot /i ] /b love You,” and one may b read into /b the verse: b Worlds [ i olamot /i ]. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong This mishna lists items belonging to gentiles which it is prohibited to consume, but from which it is permitted to derive benefit. b And these are items /b that belong b to gentiles /b and are b prohibited, but their prohibition is not /b that of b an item from which /b deriving b benefit is prohibited: Milk that was milked by a gentile and a Jew did not see him /b performing this action, b and their bread and oil. /b The mishna notes that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b and his court permitted the oil /b of gentiles entirely.,The mishna resumes its list: b And boiled and pickled /b vegetables, b whose /b usual b manner /b of preparation involves b adding wine and vinegar to them, and minced i tarit /i /b fish, b and brine that does not have a i kilbit /i fish floating in it, and i ḥilak /i , and a sliver of i ḥiltit /i , and i salkondit /i salt /b (see 39b); all b these are prohibited, but their prohibition is not /b that of b item from which /b deriving b benefit is prohibited. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: Concerning b milk, with regard to what /b need b we be concerned? /b Why is the milk prohibited? b If /b it is b due to /b the concern that a gentile might b exchange /b the milk of a kosher animal with the milk of a non-kosher animal, this concern is unfounded, as b kosher /b milk is b white /b whereas b non-kosher /b milk has b a green /b tinge to it, and therefore they are easily distinguishable. b And if /b it is prohibited b due to /b the concern that it might be b mixed /b with non-kosher milk, let the Jew b curdle /b the milk obtained from the gentile, b as the Master said: Milk /b from b a kosher /b animal b curdles, /b but milk from b a non-kosher /b animal b does not curdle. /b ,The Gemara answers: b If one desires to /b eat it as b cheese, indeed, /b one can simply curdle it, as the milk of non-kosher animals does not curdle. b What are we dealing with here? /b We are dealing with a case b where one desires to /b use the milk in b i kamkha /i , /b also known as i kutaḥ /i , a food item that contains milk.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But /b in that case, b let him take a bit of /b milk b and curdle /b it, to test whether or not it has been mixed with the milk of a non-kosher animal: If it curdles completely, it is kosher; if some milk is left over, it is not. The Gemara explains: b Since there is also whey in kosher milk, which does not curdle, there is no /b way b to establish /b the halakhic b matter with regard to it. /b Even kosher milk will not curdle completely, and therefore this is not a reliable method to determine the halakhic status of the milk.,The Gemara presents an alternative suggestion: b And if you wish, say /b instead that b you /b may b even say /b that the concern applies b where he intends /b to use the milk b to /b make b cheese, /b as b there is /b milk b that remains between the crevices /b of curdled cheese, and therefore there is a concern that drops of non-kosher milk might be mixed with it.,§ The mishna teaches: b And bread /b belonging to gentiles is prohibited for consumption. b Rav Kahana says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b Unlike oil, b bread was not permitted by a court. /b The Gemara asks: b From the fact /b that Rabbi Yoḥa states that bread was not permitted in court, can it be inferred b that there is /b a different opinion b that /b claims that a court b did permit /b it?,The Gemara answers: b Yes, as when Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he b said: Once Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b went out to the field, and a gentile brought before him a i se’a /i of bread baked in a large baker’s oven [ i purnei /i ]. Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said: How exquisite is this /b loaf of b bread! What did the Sages see /b that caused them b to prohibit it? /b The Gemara asks, incredulously: b What did the Sages see /b that caused them to prohibit it? It was prohibited b due to /b the concern that Jews might befriend gentiles while breaking bread with them, which could lead to b marriage /b with gentiles.,The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was not asking why bread was prohibited in general. b Rather, /b he asked: b What did the Sages see /b that caused them b to prohibit /b bread even b in the field, /b where this concern does not apply? The Gemara notes that upon hearing of this incident b the people thought /b that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b permitted the bread /b of gentiles. b But /b that b is not so; Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b did not /b actually b permit /b such b bread. /b This is why Rabbi Yoḥa emphasized that the bread of gentiles was never permitted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s court.,The Gemara records an alternate version of this episode. b Rav Yosef, and some say Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, says: /b The b incident did not occur /b in b this /b manner. b Rather, they said: Once Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b went to a certain place and saw /b that b bread /b was b scarce for the students /b in the study hall. b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said: Is there no baker [ i palter /i ] here /b who can prepare bread? Upon hearing of this incident, b the people thought to say /b that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was referring to b a gentile baker, /b which would indicate that bread baked by a professional baker is permitted, even if he is a gentile. b But /b in reality, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b stated /b his question b only /b in reference to b a Jewish baker. /b ,The Gemara cites two qualifications of the leniency that people inferred from the above incident. b Rabbi Ḥelbo said: Even according to the one who /b thought to b say /b that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was referring to b a gentile baker, we said /b that the bread is permitted b only where there is no Jewish baker, but in a place where there is a Jewish baker, /b the leniency would certainly b not /b apply. b And Rabbi Yoḥa said: Even according to the one who /b thought to b say /b that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was referring to b a gentile baker, that statement /b applies only b in the field, but in the city /b it would b not /b apply, and the bread would still be prohibited b due to /b the possibility of b marriage /b with a gentile.,The Gemara relates: b Aivu would bite and eat bread /b of gentiles b at the boundaries /b of the fields. b Rava said to /b the students in the study hall, b and some say /b that it was b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak /b who said to them: b Do not speak with Aivu, as he eats bread of Arameans /b in deliberate violation of a rabbinic decree.,§ The mishna teaches: b And their oil /b was originally prohibited but later permitted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court. The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to the origin of the prohibition of b oil. Rav says: Daniel decreed /b that oil is prohibited, b and Shmuel says: /b |
|
| 47. Sextus Propertius, Elegies, 2.33 Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven d. Found in books: Kaplan (2015), My Perfect One: Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs, 43 |
| 49. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q199, None Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 229 |
| 50. Cassius Dio, Persica, 1.31, 1.92-1.95 Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 135 |
| 52. Anon., Midrash On Song of Songs, 3.21 Tagged with subjects: •fraade, steven d. Found in books: Kaplan (2015), My Perfect One: Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs, 155 |
