|1. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 13.8 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Gamaliel (Gamliel) I, Rabbi • Gamaliel of Yavneh, Rabban, on Passover
Found in books: Hidary (2017) 69; Levine Allison and Crossan (2006) 350
13.8. וְהִגַּדְתָּ לְבִנְךָ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא לֵאמֹר בַּעֲבוּר זֶה עָשָׂה יְהוָה לִי בְּצֵאתִי מִמִּצְרָיִם׃''. None
|13.8. And thou shalt tell thy son in that day, saying: It is because of that which the LORD did for me when I came forth out of Egypt.''. None|
|2. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 1.27 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Gamali’el, Rabban • Philosopher, conversation with Rabban Gamaliel • Rabban Gamaliel, his conversation with the Philosopher
Found in books: Kosman (2012) 188; Rubenstein (2018) 200
1.27. וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם׃''. None
|1.27. And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.''. None|
|3. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 19.14 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Rabban Gamaliel (I and II) • Shimon ben Gamaliel, Rabban
Found in books: Hidary (2017) 123; Jaffee (2001) 91
19.14. זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה אָדָם כִּי־יָמוּת בְּאֹהֶל כָּל־הַבָּא אֶל־הָאֹהֶל וְכָל־אֲשֶׁר בָּאֹהֶל יִטְמָא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים׃''. None
|19.14. This is the law: when a man dieth in a tent, every one that cometh into the tent, and every thing that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days.''. None|
|4. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 12.284, 13.288-13.296, 15.370, 17.41, 18.4, 18.12, 18.15, 18.23 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Gamaliel • Gamaliel, R. • Judaism, Gamaliel • Pharisaic-rabbinic connection, Gamaliel of Yavneh as evidence of • R. Gamaliel • Rabban Gamaliel (I and II) • Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel • Simon b. Gamaliel • Simon, son of Gamaliel
Found in books: Cohen (2010) 54; Goodman (2006) 45, 121; Jaffee (2001) 52, 53; Klawans (2019) 58; Schwartz (2008) 135; Wilson (2018) 31
12.284. Μακαβαῖον δὲ τῆς στρατιᾶς δι' ἀνδρείαν καὶ ἰσχὺν στρατηγὸν ἕξετε: τὸ γὰρ ἔθνος οὗτος ἐκδικήσει καὶ ἀμυνεῖται τοὺς πολεμίους. προσίεσθε δὲ καὶ τοὺς δικαίους καὶ θεοσεβεῖς καὶ τὴν δύναμιν αὐτῶν αὔξετε.”" "
13.288. ̔Υρκανῷ δὲ φθόνον ἐκίνησεν παρὰ τῶν ̓Ιουδαίων ἡ εὐπραγία, μάλιστα δ' οἱ Φαρισαῖοι κακῶς πρὸς αὐτὸν εἶχον, αἵρεσις ὄντες μία τῶν ̓Ιουδαίων, ὡς καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐπάνω δεδηλώκαμεν. τοσαύτην δὲ ἔχουσι τὴν ἰσχὺν παρὰ τῷ πλήθει, ὡς καὶ κατὰ βασιλέως τι λέγοντες καὶ κατ' ἀρχιερέως εὐθὺς πιστεύεσθαι." "13.289. μαθητὴς δὲ αὐτῶν ἦν καὶ ̔Υρκανὸς καὶ σφόδρα ὑπ' αὐτῶν ἠγαπᾶτο. καὶ δὴ καλέσας αὐτοὺς ἐφ' ἑστίασιν καὶ φιλοφρόνως ὑποδεξάμενος, ἐπεὶ σφόδρα ἡδομένους ἑώρα, λέγειν ἤρξατο πρὸς αὐτούς, ὡς ἴσασιν μὲν αὐτὸν βουλόμενον εἶναι δίκαιον καὶ πάντα ποιοῦντα ἐξ ὧν ἀρέσειεν ἂν τῷ θεῷ καὶ αὐτοῖς:" "13.291. εἷς δέ τις τῶν κατακειμένων ̓Ελεάζαρος ὄνομα, κακοήθης ὢν φύσει καὶ στάσει χαίρων “ἐπεί, φησίν, ἠξίωσας γνῶναι τὴν ἀλήθειαν, θέλεις δὲ εἶναι δίκαιος, τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην ἀπόθου, καὶ μόνον ἀρκείτω σοι τὸ ἄρχειν τοῦ λαοῦ.” τὴν δ' αἰτίαν αὐτοῦ πυθομένου," "13.292. δι' ἣν ἀποθοῖτο τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην “ὅτι, φησίν, ἀκούομεν παρὰ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων αἰχμάλωτόν σου γεγονέναι τὴν μητέρα βασιλεύοντος ̓Αντιόχου τοῦ ̓Επιφανοῦς.” ψευδὴς λόγος ἦν: καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ̔Υρκανὸς παρωξύνθη καὶ πάντες δ' οἱ Φαρισαῖοι σφοδρῶς ἠγανάκτησαν." "13.293. Τῶν δ' ἐκ τῶν Σαδδουκαίων τῆς αἱρέσεως, οἳ τὴν ἐναντίαν τοῖς Φαρισαίοις προαίρεσιν ἔχουσιν, ̓Ιωνάθης τις ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα φίλος ὢν ̔Υρκανῷ τῇ κοινῇ πάντων Φαρισαίων γνώμῃ ποιήσασθαι τὰς βλασφημίας τὸν ̓Ελεάζαρον ἔλεγεν: καὶ τοῦτ' ἔσεσθαι φανερὸν αὐτῷ πυθομένῳ παρ' ἐκείνων, τίνος ἄξιός ἐστιν ἐπὶ τοῖς εἰρημένοις κολάσεως." '13.294. τοῦ δὲ ̔Υρκανοῦ τοὺς Φαρισαίους ἐρομένου, τίνος αὐτὸν ἄξιον ἡγοῦνται τιμωρίας: πειραθήσεσθαι γὰρ οὐ μετὰ τῆς ἐκείνων γνώμης γεγονέναι τὰς βλασφημίας τιμησαμένων αὐτὸν τῷ μέτρῳ τῆς δίκης, πληγῶν ἔφασαν καὶ δεσμῶν: οὐ γὰρ ἐδόκει λοιδορίας ἕνεκα θανάτῳ ζημιοῦν, ἄλλως τε καὶ φύσει πρὸς τὰς κολάσεις ἐπιεικῶς ἔχουσιν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι.' "13.295. πρὸς τοῦτο λίαν ἐχαλέπηνεν καὶ δοκοῦν ἐκείνοις ποιήσασθαι τὰς βλασφημίας τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐνόμισεν. μάλιστα δ' αὐτὸν ἐπιπαρώξυνεν ̓Ιωνάθης καὶ διέθηκεν οὕτως," "13.296. ὥστε τῇ Σαδδουκαίων ἐποίησεν προσθέσθαι μοίρᾳ τῶν Φαρισαίων ἀποστάντα καὶ τά τε ὑπ' αὐτῶν κατασταθέντα νόμιμα τῷ δήμῳ καταλῦσαι καὶ τοὺς φυλάττοντας αὐτὰ κολάσαι. μῖσος οὖν ἐντεῦθεν αὐτῷ τε καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς παρὰ τοῦ πλήθους ἐγένετο." "
17.41. καὶ ἦν γὰρ μόριόν τι ̓Ιουδαϊκὸν ἀνθρώπων ἐπ' ἐξακριβώσει μέγα φρονοῦν τοῦ πατρίου καὶ νόμων οἷς χαίρει τὸ θεῖον προσποιουμένων, οἷς ὑπῆκτο ἡ γυναικωνῖτις, Φαρισαῖοι καλοῦνται, βασιλεῖ δυναμένῳ μάλιστα πράσσειν προμηθεῖς κἀκ τοῦ προὔπτου εἰς τὸ πολεμεῖν τε καὶ βλάπτειν ἐπηρμένοι." "
18.4. ̓Ιούδας δὲ Γαυλανίτης ἀνὴρ ἐκ πόλεως ὄνομα Γάμαλα Σάδδωκον Φαρισαῖον προσλαβόμενος ἠπείγετο ἐπὶ ἀποστάσει, τήν τε ἀποτίμησιν οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ ἄντικρυς δουλείαν ἐπιφέρειν λέγοντες καὶ τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἐπ' ἀντιλήψει παρακαλοῦντες τὸ ἔθνος:" "
18.4. Φραάτης παίδων αὐτῷ γενομένων γνησίων ̓Ιταλικῆς παιδίσκης * ὄνομα αὐτῇ Θεσμοῦσα. ταύτῃ ὑπὸ ̓Ιουλίου Καίσαρος μετ' ἄλλων δωρεῶν ἀπεσταλμένῃ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον παλλακίδι ἐχρῆτο, καταπλαγεὶς δὲ τῷ πολλῷ τῆς εὐμορφίας προϊόντος τοῦ χρόνου καὶ παιδὸς αὐτῇ τοῦ Φραατάκου γενομένου γαμετήν τε τὴν ἄνθρωπον ἀποφαίνεται καὶ τιμίαν ἦγεν." "
18.12. Οἵ τε γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι τὴν δίαιταν ἐξευτελίζουσιν οὐδὲν ἐς τὸ μαλακώτερον ἐνδιδόντες, ὧν τε ὁ λόγος κρίνας παρέδωκεν ἀγαθῶν ἕπονται τῇ ἡγεμονίᾳ περιμάχητον ἡγούμενοι τὴν φυλακὴν ὧν ὑπαγορεύειν ἠθέλησεν. τιμῆς γε τοῖς ἡλικίᾳ προήκουσιν παραχωροῦσιν οὐδ' ἐπ' ἀντιλέξει τῶν εἰσηγηθέντων ταῦτα οἱ θράσει ἐπαιρόμενοι." '
18.12. Οὐιτέλλιος δὲ παρασκευασάμενος ὡς εἰς πόλεμον τὸν πρὸς ̓Αρέταν δυσὶ τάγμασιν ὁπλιτῶν ὅσοι τε περὶ αὐτὰ ψιλοὶ καὶ ἱππεῖς συμμαχοῦντες ἐκ τῶν ὑπὸ ̔Ρωμαίοις βασιλειῶν ἀγόμενος, ἐπὶ τῆς Πέτρας ἠπείγετο καὶ ἔσχε Πτολεμαί̈δα.' "
18.15. καὶ δι' αὐτὰ τοῖς τε δήμοις πιθανώτατοι τυγχάνουσιν καὶ ὁπόσα θεῖα εὐχῶν τε ἔχεται καὶ ἱερῶν ποιήσεως ἐξηγήσει τῇ ἐκείνων τυγχάνουσιν πρασσόμενα. εἰς τοσόνδε ἀρετῆς αὐτοῖς αἱ πόλεις ἐμαρτύρησαν ἐπιτηδεύσει τοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσι κρείσσονος ἔν τε τῇ διαίτῃ τοῦ βίου καὶ λόγοις." "
18.15. οὐ μὴν ἐπὶ πλεῖόν γε ̔Ηρώδης ἐνέμεινε τοῖς δεδογμένοις, καίτοι γε οὐδ' ὣς ἀρκοῦντα ἦν: ἐν γὰρ Τύρῳ παρὰ συνουσίαν ὑπὸ οἴνου γενομένων αὐτοῖς λοιδοριῶν, ἀνεκτὸν οὐχ ἡγησάμενος ̓Αγρίππας τοῦ ̔Ηρώδου τε ἐπονειδίσαντος εἰς ἀπορίαν καὶ τροφῆς ἀναγκαίας μετάδοσιν, ὡς Φλάκκον τὸν ὑπατικὸν εἴσεισιν φίλον ἐπὶ ̔Ρώμης τὰ μάλιστα αὐτῷ γεγονότα πρότερον: Συρίαν δὲ ἐν τῷ τότε διεῖπεν." '
18.23. Τῇ δὲ τετάρτῃ τῶν φιλοσοφιῶν ὁ Γαλιλαῖος ̓Ιούδας ἡγεμὼν κατέστη, τὰ μὲν λοιπὰ πάντα γνώμῃ τῶν Φαρισαίων ὁμολογούσῃ, δυσνίκητος δὲ τοῦ ἐλευθέρου ἔρως ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς μόνον ἡγεμόνα καὶ δεσπότην τὸν θεὸν ὑπειληφόσιν. θανάτων τε ἰδέας ὑπομένειν παρηλλαγμένας ἐν ὀλίγῳ τίθενται καὶ συγγενῶν τιμωρίας καὶ φίλων ὑπὲρ τοῦ μηδένα ἄνθρωπον προσαγορεύειν δεσπότην.' "
18.23. ὅσπερ τῇ φυλακῇ ἐφειστήκει τοῦ ̓Αγρίππου, θεώμενος τήν τε σπουδὴν μεθ' οἵας ὁ Μαρσύας ἀφίκετο καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῶν λόγων χάρμα τῷ ̓Αγρίππᾳ συνελθόν, ὑποτοπήσας καίνωσίν τινα γεγονέναι τῶν λόγων ἤρετό σφας περὶ τοῦ λόγου τοῦ ἐφεστηκότος." ". None
|12.284. Take Maccabeus for the general of your army, because of his courage and strength, for he will avenge your nation, and will bring vengeance on your enemies. Admit among you the righteous and religious, and augment their power.” |
13.288. 5. However, this prosperous state of affairs moved the Jews to envy Hyrcanus; but they that were the worst disposed to him were the Pharisees, who were one of the sects of the Jews, as we have informed you already. These have so great a power over the multitude, that when they say any thing against the king, or against the high priest, they are presently believed. 13.289. Now Hyrcanus was a disciple of theirs, and greatly beloved by them. And when he once invited them to a feast, and entertained them very kindly, when he saw them in a good humor, he began to say to them, that they knew he was desirous to be a righteous man, and to do all things whereby he might please God, which was the profession of the Pharisees also. 13.291. a man of an ill temper, and delighting in seditious practices. This man said, “Since thou desirest to know the truth, if thou wilt be righteous in earnest, lay down the high priesthood, and content thyself with the civil government of the people,” 13.292. And when he desired to know for what cause he ought to lay down the high priesthood, the other replied, “We have heard it from old men, that thy mother had been a captive under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. “ This story was false, and Hyrcanus was provoked against him; and all the Pharisees had a very great indignation against him. 13.293. 6. Now there was one Jonathan, a very great friend of Hyrcanus’s, but of the sect of the Sadducees, whose notions are quite contrary to those of the Pharisees. He told Hyrcanus that Eleazar had cast such a reproach upon him, according to the common sentiments of all the Pharisees, and that this would be made manifest if he would but ask them the question, What punishment they thought this man deserved? 13.294. for that he might depend upon it, that the reproach was not laid on him with their approbation, if they were for punishing him as his crime deserved. So the Pharisees made answer, that he deserved stripes and bonds, but that it did not seem right to punish reproaches with death. And indeed the Pharisees, even upon other occasions, are not apt to be severe in punishments. 13.295. At this gentle sentence, Hyrcanus was very angry, and thought that this man reproached him by their approbation. It was this Jonathan who chiefly irritated him, and influenced him so far, 13.296. that he made him leave the party of the Pharisees, and abolish the decrees they had imposed on the people, and to punish those that observed them. From this source arose that hatred which he and his sons met with from the multitude:
17.41. For there was a certain sect of men that were Jews, who valued themselves highly upon the exact skill they had in the law of their fathers, and made men believe they were highly favored by God, by whom this set of women were inveigled. These are those that are called the sect of the Pharisees, who were in a capacity of greatly opposing kings. A cunning sect they were, and soon elevated to a pitch of open fighting and doing mischief.
18.4. When Phraates had had legitimate sons of his own, he had also an Italian maid-servant, whose name was Thermusa, who had been formerly sent to him by Julius Caesar, among other presents. He first made her his concubine; but he being a great admirer of her beauty, in process of time having a son by her, whose name was Phraataces, he made her his legitimate wife, and had a great respect for her.
18.4. Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty;
18.12. 3. Now, for the Pharisees, they live meanly, and despise delicacies in diet; and they follow the conduct of reason; and what that prescribes to them as good for them they do; and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason’s dictates for practice. They also pay a respect to such as are in years; nor are they so bold as to contradict them in any thing which they have introduced;
18.12. 3. So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas, having with him two legions of armed men; he also took with him all those of light armature, and of the horsemen which belonged to them, and were drawn out of those kingdoms which were under the Romans, and made haste for Petra, and came to Ptolemais.
18.15. Yet did not Herod long continue in that resolution of supporting him, though even that support was not sufficient for him; for as once they were at a feast at Tyre, and in their cups, and reproaches were cast upon one another, Agrippa thought that was not to be borne, while Herod hit him in the teeth with his poverty, and with his owing his necessary food to him. So he went to Flaccus, one that had been consul, and had been a very great friend to him at Rome formerly, and was now president of Syria.
18.15. on account of which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people; and whatsoever they do about divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction; insomuch that the cities give great attestations to them on account of their entire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives and their discourses also.
18.23. 6. But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord.
18.23. Now the centurion who was set to keep Agrippa, when he saw with what haste Marsyas came, and what joy Agrippa had from what he said, he had a suspicion that his words implied some great innovation of affairs, and he asked them about what was said.' '. None
|5. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 4.159 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Simon ben Gamaliel I • Simon ben Gamaliel II, Rabban • Simon, son of Gamaliel
Found in books: Klawans (2019) 58; Udoh (2006) 179
4.159. καὶ γὰρ οἱ προύχειν αὐτῶν δοκοῦντες, Γωρίων τε υἱὸς ̓Ιωσήπου καὶ ὁ Γαμαλιήλου Συμεών, παρεκρότουν ἔν τε ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ἀθρόους καὶ κατ' ἰδίαν περιιόντες ἕκαστον ἤδη ποτὲ τίσασθαι τοὺς λυμεῶνας τῆς ἐλευθερίας καὶ καθᾶραι τῶν μιαιφόνων τὸ ἅγιον,"". None
|4.159. and indeed they were Gorian the son of Josephus, and Symeon the son of Gamaliel, who encouraged them, by going up and down when they were assembled together in crowds, and as they saw them alone, to bear no longer, but to inflict punishment upon these pests and plagues of their freedom, and to purge the temple of these bloody polluters of it.''. None|
|6. Mishnah, Avodah Zarah, 3.1, 3.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Gamaliel (Rabbi) • Gamaliel II • Gamliel, Rabban (also Gamaliel) • R. Simeon b. Gamaliel II • R. hanina (son of R. Gamaliel II) • Rabban Gamaliel III
Found in books: Ayres and Ward (2021) 114; Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 247; Kessler (2004) 153; Levine (2005) 474, 478
3.1. כֵּיצַד מְבַטְּלָהּ. קִרְסֵם, וְזֵרַד, נָטַל מִמֶּנָּה מַקֵּל אוֹ שַׁרְבִיט, אֲפִלּוּ עָלֶה, הֲרֵי זוֹ בְטֵלָה. שְׁפָיָהּ לְצָרְכָּהּ, אֲסוּרָה. שֶׁלֹּא לְצָרְכָּהּ, מֻתֶּרֶת:
3.1. כָּל הַצְּלָמִים אֲסוּרִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן נֶעֱבָדִין פַּעַם אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה, דִבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא כָל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ מַקֵּל אוֹ צִפּוֹר אוֹ כַדּוּר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ כָל דָּבָר:
3.4. שָׁאַל פְּרוֹקְלוֹס בֶּן פִלוֹסְפוֹס אֶת רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּעַכּוֹ, שֶׁהָיָה רוֹחֵץ בַּמֶּרְחָץ שֶׁל אַפְרוֹדִיטִי, אָמַר לוֹ, כָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַתְכֶם, וְלֹא יִדְבַּק בְּיָדְךָ מְאוּמָה מִן הַחֵרֶם. מִפְּנֵי מָה אַתָּה רוֹחֵץ בַּמֶּרְחָץ שֶׁל אַפְרוֹדִיטִי. אָמַר לוֹ, אֵין מְשִׁיבִין בַּמֶּרְחָץ. וּכְשֶׁיָּצָא אָמַר לוֹ, אֲנִי לֹא בָאתִי בִגְבוּלָהּ, הִיא בָאתָה בִגְבוּלִי, אֵין אוֹמְרִים, נַעֲשֶׂה מֶרְחָץ לְאַפְרוֹדִיטִי נוֹי, אֶלָּא אוֹמְרִים, נַעֲשֶׂה אַפְרוֹדִיטִי נוֹי לַמֶּרְחָץ. דָּבָר אַחֵר, אִם נוֹתְנִין לְךָ מָמוֹן הַרְבֵּה, אִי אַתָּה נִכְנָס לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה שֶׁלְּךָ עָרוֹם וּבַעַל קֶרִי וּמַשְׁתִּין בְּפָנֶיהָ, וְזוֹ עוֹמֶדֶת עַל פִּי הַבִּיב וְכָל הָעָם מַשְׁתִּינִין לְפָנֶיהָ. לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא אֱלֹהֵיהֶם. אֶת שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֱלוֹהַּ, אָסוּר. וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ נוֹהֵג בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם אֱלוֹהַּ, מֻתָּר:''. None
|3.1. All images are prohibited because they are worshipped once a year, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir; But the Sages say: an image is not prohibited except one that has a staff or bird or orb in its hand. Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel says: any image which has anything in its hand is prohibited. |
3.4. Proclos, son of a plosphos, asked Rabban Gamaliel in Acco when the latter was bathing in the bathhouse of aphrodite. He said to him, “It is written in your torah, ‘let nothing that has been proscribed stick to your hand (Deuteronomy 13:18)’; why are you bathing in the bathhouse of Aphrodite?” He replied to him, “We do not answer questions relating to torah in a bathhouse.” When he came out, he said to him, “I did not come into her domain, she has come into mine. People do not say, ‘the bath was made as an adornment for Aphrodite’; rather they say, ‘Aphrodite was made as an adornment for the bath.’ Another reason is, even if you were given a large sum of money, you would not enter the presence of your idol while you were nude or had experienced seminal emission, nor would you urinate before it. But this statue of Aphrodite stands by a sewer and all people urinate before it. In the torah it is only stated, “their gods” (Deuteronomy 12:3) what is treated as a god is prohibited, what is not treated as a deity is permitted.''. None
|7. Mishnah, Avot, 1.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Rabban Gamaliel (I and II) • Shimon ben Gamaliel, Rabban
Found in books: Hidary (2017) 227; Jaffee (2001) 80
1.8. יְהוּדָה בֶן טַבַּאי וְשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. יְהוּדָה בֶן טַבַּאי אוֹמֵר, אַל תַּעַשׂ עַצְמְךָ כְעוֹרְכֵי הַדַּיָּנִין. וּכְשֶׁיִּהְיוּ בַעֲלֵי דִינִין עוֹמְדִים לְפָנֶיךָ, יִהְיוּ בְעֵינֶיךָ כִרְשָׁעִים. וּכְשֶׁנִּפְטָרִים מִלְּפָנֶיךָ, יִהְיוּ בְעֵינֶיךָ כְזַכָּאִין, כְּשֶׁקִּבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶם אֶת הַדִּין:''. None
|1.8. Judah ben Tabbai and Shimon ben Shetach received the oral tradition from them. Judah ben Tabbai said: do not as a judge play the part of an advocate; and when the litigants are standing before you, look upon them as if they were both guilty; and when they leave your presence, look upon them as if they were both innocent, when they have accepted the judgement.''. None|
|8. Mishnah, Berachot, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Gamliel, Rabban (also Gamaliel) • R. Gamaliel II • Rabban Gamaliel II of Yavneh, obligatory prayer liturgy
Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007) 563; Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 21, 27; Levine (2005) 544
4.3. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, בְּכָל יוֹם מִתְפַּלֵּל אָדָם שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, מֵעֵין שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אִם שְׁגוּרָה תְפִלָּתוֹ בְּפִיו, יִתְפַּלֵּל שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה. וְאִם לָאו, מֵעֵין שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה:''. None
|4.3. Rabban Gamaliel says: every day a man should pray the eighteen blessings. Rabbi Joshua says: an abstract of the eighteen. Rabbi Akiva says: if he knows it fluently he prays the eighteen, and if not an abstract of the eighteen.''. None|
|9. Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah, 2.8-2.9, 4.1, 4.6, 4.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Gamaliel • Gamaliel of Yavneh, Rabban, on nonconformity • R. hanina (son of R. Gamaliel II) • Rabban Gamaliel (I and II) • Rabban Gamaliel II of Yavneh, obligatory prayer liturgy • Rabban Gamaliel III
Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 16, 20, 27; Hidary (2017) 85, 97; Jaffee (2001) 56, 76; Levine (2005) 478, 545
2.8. דְּמוּת צוּרוֹת לְבָנוֹת הָיוּ לוֹ לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בַּטַּבְלָא וּבַכֹּתֶל בַּעֲלִיָּתוֹ, שֶׁבָּהֶן מַרְאֶה אֶת הַהֶדְיוֹטוֹת וְאוֹמֵר, הֲכָזֶה רָאִיתָ אוֹ כָזֶה. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְאָמְרוּ, רְאִינוּהוּ שַׁחֲרִית בַּמִּזְרָח וְעַרְבִית בַּמַּעֲרָב. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, עֵדֵי שֶׁקֶר הֵם. כְּשֶׁבָּאוּ לְיַבְנֶה קִבְּלָן רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. וְעוֹד בָּאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְאָמְרוּ, רְאִינוּהוּ בִזְמַנּוֹ, וּבְלֵיל עִבּוּרוֹ לֹא נִרְאָה, וְקִבְּלָן רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי דוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס, עֵדֵי שֶׁקֶר הֵן, הֵיאָךְ מְעִידִין עַל הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיָּלְדָה, וּלְמָחָר כְּרֵסָהּ בֵּין שִׁנֶּיהָ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דְּבָרֶיךָ: 2.9. שָׁלַח לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, גּוֹזְרַנִי עָלֶיךָ שֶׁתָּבֹא אֶצְלִי בְּמַקֶּלְךָ וּבִמְעוֹתֶיךָ בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹנְךָ. הָלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מֵצֵר, אָמַר לוֹ, יֶשׁ לִי לִלְמוֹד שֶׁכָּל מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל עָשׂוּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כג), אֵלֶּה מוֹעֲדֵי יְיָ מִקְרָאֵי קֹדֶשׁ, אֲשֶׁר תִּקְרְאוּ אֹתָם, בֵּין בִּזְמַנָּן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִזְמַנָּן, אֵין לִי מוֹעֲדוֹת אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ. בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל רַבִּי דוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס, אָמַר לוֹ, אִם בָּאִין אָנוּ לָדוּן אַחַר בֵּית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, צְרִיכִין אָנוּ לָדוּן אַחַר כָּל בֵּית דִּין וּבֵית דִּין שֶׁעָמַד מִימוֹת משֶׁה וְעַד עַכְשָׁיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כד), וַיַּעַל משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא וְשִׁבְעִים מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְלָמָּה לֹא נִתְפָּרְשׁוּ שְׁמוֹתָן שֶׁל זְקֵנִים, אֶלָּא לְלַמֵּד, שֶׁכָּל שְׁלשָׁה וּשְׁלשָׁה שֶׁעָמְדוּ בֵית דִּין עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, הֲרֵי הוּא כְבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל משֶׁה. נָטַל מַקְלוֹ וּמְעוֹתָיו בְּיָדוֹ, וְהָלַךְ לְיַבְנֶה אֵצֶל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּיוֹם שֶׁחָל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לִהְיוֹת בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹ. עָמַד רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּנְשָׁקוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ, בֹּא בְשָׁלוֹם, רַבִּי וְתַלְמִידִי, רַבִּי בְחָכְמָה, וְתַלְמִידִי שֶׁקִּבַּלְתָּ דְּבָרָי:
4.1. יוֹם טוֹב שֶׁל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּשַׁבָּת, בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ הָיוּ תוֹקְעִים, אֲבָל לֹא בַמְּדִינָה. מְשֶּׁחָרַב בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, הִתְקִין רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, שֶׁיְּהוּ תּוֹקְעִין בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ בֵית דִּין. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, לֹא הִתְקִין רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי אֶלָּא בְיַבְנֶה בִּלְבָד. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֶחָד יַבְנֶה וְאֶחָד כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ בֵית דִּין:
4.6. אֵין פּוֹחֲתִין מֵעֲשָׂרָה מַלְכוּיוֹת, מֵעֲשָׂרָה זִכְרוֹנוֹת, מֵעֲשָׂרָה שׁוֹפָרוֹת. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר, אִם אָמַר שָׁלשׁ שָׁלשׁ מִכֻּלָּן, יָצָא. אֵין מַזְכִּירִין זִכָּרוֹן מַלְכוּת וְשׁוֹפָר שֶׁל פֻּרְעָנוּת. מַתְחִיל בַּתּוֹרָה וּמַשְׁלִים בַּנָּבִיא. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אִם הִשְׁלִים בַּתּוֹרָה, יָצָא:
4.9. סֵדֶר תְּקִיעוֹת, שָׁלשׁ, שֶׁל שָׁלשׁ שָׁלשׁ. שִׁעוּר תְּקִיעָה כְּשָׁלשׁ תְּרוּעוֹת. שִׁעוּר תְּרוּעָה כְּשָׁלשׁ יְבָבוֹת. תָּקַע בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, וּמָשַׁךְ בַּשְּׁנִיָּה כִשְׁתַּיִם, אֵין בְּיָדוֹ אֶלָּא אֶחָת. מִי שֶׁבֵּרַךְ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְמַנָּה לוֹ שׁוֹפָר, תּוֹקֵעַ וּמֵרִיעַ וְתוֹקֵעַ שָׁלשׁ פְּעָמִים. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁשְּׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר חַיָּב, כָּךְ כָּל יָחִיד וְיָחִיד חַיָּב. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, שְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר מוֹצִיא אֶת הָרַבִּים יְדֵי חוֹבָתָן:''. None
|2.8. Rabban Gamaliel had diagrams of the moon on a tablet hung on the wall of his upper chamber, and he used to show them to the unlearned and say, “Did it look like this or this?” It happened that two witnesses came and said, “We saw it in the morning in the east and in the evening in the west.” Rabbi Yoha ben Nuri said: they are lying witnesses. When they came to Yavneh Rabban Gamaliel accepted them. On another occasion two witnesses came and said, “We saw it at its proper time, but on the night which should have been the new moon it was not seen,” and Rabban Gamaliel accepted their evidence. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: they are lying witnesses. How can they testify that a woman has given birth when on the next day her belly is between her teeth (swollen)? Rabbi Joshua to him: I see your argument. 2.9. Rabban Gamaliel sent to him: I order you to appear before me with your staff and your money on the day which according to your count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabbi Akiva went and found him in distress. He said to him: I can teach that whatever Rabban Gamaliel has done is valid, because it says, “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at their appointed times” (Leviticus 23:4), whether they are proclaimed at their proper time or not at their proper time, I have no other appointed times save these. He Rabbi Joshua then went to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. He said to him: if we call in question the court of Rabban Gamaliel we must call in question the decisions of every court which has existed since the days of Moses until now. As it says, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up” (Exodus 24:9). Why were the names of the elders not mentioned? To teach that every group of three which has acted as a court over Israel, behold it is like the court of Moses. He Rabbi Joshua took his staff and his money and went to Yavneh to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which according to his count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabban Gamaliel rose and kissed him on his head and said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student my teacher in wisdom and my student because you have accepted my decision. |
4.1. If Yom Tov of Rosh Hashanah fell on Shabbat, they would blow the shofar in the Temple but not in the country. After the destruction of the Temple, Rabban Yoha ben Zakai decreed that it should be blown on Shabbat in every place where there was a court. Rabbi Eliezer said: Rabban Yoha ben Zakai decreed for Yavneh only. They said to him: both Yavneh and any place where there is a court.
4.6. They do not recite less than ten kingship verses, ten remembrance verses, and ten shofar verses. Rabbi Yoha ben Nuri says: if he said three from each set he has fulfilled his obligation. They do not mention kingship, remembrance and shofar verses of punishment. He begins with verses from the Torah and concludes with verses from the prophets. Rabbi Yose says: if he concludes with a verse from the Torah he has fulfilled his obligation.' "
4.9. The order of the blasts: three sets of three each. The length of a teki’ah is equal to three teru'ahs, and the length of a teru'ah is equal to three yevavot. If one prolonged the first teki'ah so that it went directly into the second, it counts only as one. One who has blessed recited the Amidah and then a shofar is given to him, he sounds a teki'ah teru'ah teki'ah three times. Just as the shaliah tzibbur is obligated, so every single individual is obligated. Rabban Gamaliel says: the shaliah tzibbur (communal prayer leader) causes the whole congregation to fulfill their obligation."'. None
|10. Mishnah, Taanit, 4.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • R. Gamaliel II • Shimon ben Gamaliel, Rabban
Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007) 573; Kaplan (2015) 67, 68
4.8. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, לֹא הָיוּ יָמִים טוֹבִים לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כַּחֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בְּאָב וּכְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, שֶׁבָּהֶן בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם יוֹצְאוֹת בִּכְלֵי לָבָן שְׁאוּלִין, שֶׁלֹּא לְבַיֵּשׁ אֶת מִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ. כָּל הַכֵּלִים טְעוּנִין טְבִילָה. וּבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם יוֹצְאוֹת וְחוֹלוֹת בַּכְּרָמִים. וּמֶה הָיוּ אוֹמְרוֹת, בָּחוּר, שָׂא נָא עֵינֶיךָ וּרְאֵה, מָה אַתָּה בוֹרֵר לָךְ. אַל תִּתֵּן עֵינֶיךָ בַנּוֹי, תֵּן עֵינֶיךָ בַמִּשְׁפָּחָה. שֶׁקֶר הַחֵן וְהֶבֶל הַיֹּפִי, אִשָּׁה יִרְאַת ה' הִיא תִתְהַלָּל (משלי לא). וְאוֹמֵר, תְּנוּ לָהּ מִפְּרִי יָדֶיהָ, וִיהַלְלוּהָ בַשְּׁעָרִים מַעֲשֶׂיהָ. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר, צְאֶינָה וּרְאֶינָה בְּנוֹת צִיּוֹן בַּמֶּלֶךְ שְׁלֹמֹה בָּעֲטָרָה שֶׁעִטְּרָה לּוֹ אִמּוֹ בְּיוֹם חֲתֻנָּתוֹ וּבְיוֹם שִׂמְחַת לִבּוֹ (שיר השירים ג). בְּיוֹם חֲתֻנָּתוֹ, זֶה מַתַּן תּוֹרָה. וּבְיוֹם שִׂמְחַת לִבּוֹ, זֶה בִּנְיַן בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁיִּבָּנֶה בִמְהֵרָה בְיָמֵינוּ. אָמֵן:"". None
|4.8. Section one: Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel said: There were no days of joy in Israel greater than the fifteenth of Av and Yom Kippur. Section two: On these days the daughters of Jerusalem would go out in borrowed white garments in order not to shame any one who had none. All these garments required immersion. The daughters of Jerusalem come out and dance in the vineyards. What would they say? Young man, lift up your eyes and see what you choose for yourself. Do not set your eyes on beauty but set your eyes on the family. “Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman that fears the Lord, she shall be praised” (Proverbs 31:30). And it further says, “Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her works praise her in the gates” (ibid, 31:31). Section three: Similarly it says, “O maidens of Zion, go forth and gaze upon King Solomon wearing the crown that his mother gave him on his wedding day, on the day of the gladness of his heart” (Song of Songs 3:11). “On his wedding day”: this refers to Matan Torah (the Giving of the Torah). “And on the day of the gladness of his heart”: this refers to the building of the Temple; may it be rebuilt speedily in our days, Amen.''. None|
|11. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Gamaliel • Rabban Gamaliel (I and II)
Found in books: Jaffee (2001) 55, 56, 57; Taylor (2012) 189
4.6. אוֹמְרִים צְדוֹקִים, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, פְּרוּשִׁים, שֶׁאַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים, כִּתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, וְסִפְרֵי הוֹמֵרִיס אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. אָמַר רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, וְכִי אֵין לָנוּ עַל הַפְּרוּשִׁים אֶלָּא זוֹ בִלְבָד. הֲרֵי הֵם אוֹמְרִים, עַצְמוֹת חֲמוֹר טְהוֹרִים וְעַצְמוֹת יוֹחָנָן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל טְמֵאִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לְפִי חִבָּתָן הִיא טֻמְאָתָן, שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם עַצְמוֹת אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ תַּרְוָדוֹת. אָמַר לָהֶם, אַף כִּתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְפִי חִבָּתָן הִיא טֻמְאָתָן, וְסִפְרֵי הוֹמֵרִיס, שֶׁאֵינָן חֲבִיבִין, אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדָיִם:''. None
|4.6. The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer do not defile the hands. Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai said: Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this? Behold they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, yet the bones of Yoha the high priest are unclean. They said to him: according to the affection for them, so is their impurity, so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother. He said to them: so also are the Holy Scriptures according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness. The books of Homer which are not precious do not defile the hands.''. None|
|12. New Testament, Acts, 2.23, 5.34, 5.38-5.39, 22.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Gamaliel • Pharisaic-rabbinic connection, Gamaliel of Yavneh as evidence of • Rabban Gamaliel (I and II) • Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel
Found in books: Cohen (2010) 54; Jaffee (2001) 52; Mendez (2022) 85, 86, 87, 122, 123; Rowland (2009) 134, 407; Taylor (2012) 189
2.23. τοῦτον τῇ ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ καὶ προγνώσει τοῦ θεοῦ ἔκδοτον διὰ χειρὸς ἀνόμων προσπήξαντες ἀνείλατε,
5.34. Ἀναστὰς δέ τις ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ Φαρισαῖος ὀνόματι Γαμαλιήλ, νομοδιδάσκαλος τίμιος παντὶ τῷ λαῷ, ἐκέλευσεν ἔξω βραχὺ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ποιῆσαι,
5.38. καὶ τὰ νῦν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀπόστητε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τούτων καὶ ἄφετε αὐτούς·?̔ὅτι ἐὰν ᾖ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἡ βουλὴ αὕτη ἢ τὸ ἔργον τοῦτο, καταλυθήσεται· 5.39. εἰ δὲ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐστίν, οὐ δυνήσεσθε καταλῦσαι αὐτούς·̓ μή ποτε καὶ θεομάχοι εὑρεθῆτε.
22.3. Ἐγώ εἰμι ἀνὴρ Ἰουδαῖος, γεγεννημένος ἐν Ταρσῷ τῆς Κιλικίας, ἀνατεθραμμένος δὲ ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ παρὰ τοὺς πόδας Γαμαλιήλ, πεπαιδευμένος κατὰ ἀκρίβειαν τοῦ πατρῴου νόμου, ζηλωτὴς ὑπάρχων τοῦ θεοῦ καθὼς πάντες ὑμεῖς ἐστὲ σήμερον,''. None
|2.23. him, being delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by the hand of lawless men, crucified and killed; |
5.34. But one stood up in the council, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, honored by all the people, and commanded to take the apostles out a little while.
5.38. Now I tell you, refrain from these men, and leave them alone. For if this counsel or this work is of men, it will be overthrown. 5.39. But if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow it, and you would be found even to be fighting against God!"
22.3. "I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, even as you all are this day. ''. None
|13. Tosefta, Sukkah, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Pharisaic-rabbinic connection, Gamaliel of Yavneh as evidence of • Rabban Gamaliel (I and II)
Found in books: Cohen (2010) 54; Jaffee (2001) 80, 82
3.1. לולב דוחה את השבת בתחלתו וערבה בסופו מעשה וכבשו עליה בייתוסין אבנים גדולים מערב שבת הכירו בהם עמי הארץ ובאו וגררום והוציאום מתחת אבנים בשבת לפי שאין בייתוסין מודים שחבוט ערבה דוחה שבת.''. None
|3.1. The lulav suspends the Sabbath in the beginning of its duty, and the willow in the end of its duty. There is a story that some Boethusians once hid the willows under some great stones on the Sabbath eve; but when this had become known to the common people they came and dragged them out from under the stones on the Sabbath, for the Boethusians do not acknowledge that the beating of the willow suspends the Sabbath.''. None|
|14. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Pharisaic-rabbinic connection, Gamaliel of Yavneh as evidence of • Rabban Gamaliel (I and II)
Found in books: Cohen (2010) 54; Jaffee (2001) 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67
|15. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Gamaliel, R. • Pharisaic-rabbinic connection, Gamaliel of Yavneh as evidence of • Rabban Gamaliel (I and II) • Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel • Simon b. Gamaliel • Simon ben Gamaliel I • Simon ben Gamaliel II, Rabban • Simon, son of Gamaliel
Found in books: Cohen (2010) 54; Goodman (2006) 45; Jaffee (2001) 52; Klawans (2019) 58; Udoh (2006) 179
|16. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: nan
Found in books: nan nan
|17. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Gamaliel of Yavneh, Rabban, on nonconformity • R. Gamaliel II • Rabban Gamaliel II of Yavneh, obligatory prayer liturgy • Rabban Gamaliel II of Yavneh, standardization of Amidah
Found in books: Bickerman and Tropper (2007) 563; Hidary (2017) 85; Levine (2005) 162, 544, 546, 566
26b. תנו רבנן טעה ולא התפלל מנחה בערב שבת מתפלל בליל שבת שתים טעה ולא התפלל מנחה בשבת מתפלל במוצאי שבת שתים של חול מבדיל בראשונה ואינו מבדיל בשניה ואם הבדיל בשניה ולא הבדיל בראשונה שניה עלתה לו ראשונה לא עלתה לו,למימרא דכיון דלא אבדיל בקמייתא כמאן דלא צלי דמי ומהדרינן ליה,ורמינהו טעה ולא הזכיר גבורות גשמים בתחיית המתים ושאלה בברכת השנים מחזירין אותו הבדלה בחונן הדעת אין מחזירין אותו מפני שיכול לאומרה על הכוס קשיא,איתמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא אמר תפלות אבות תקנום רבי יהושע בן לוי אמר תפלות כנגד תמידין תקנום,תניא כוותיה דר\' יוסי ברבי חנינא ותניא כוותיה דרבי יהושע בן לוי תניא כוותיה דרבי יוסי בר\' חנינא אברהם תקן תפלת שחרית שנא\' (בראשית יט, כז) וישכם אברהם בבקר אל המקום אשר עמד שם ואין עמידה אלא תפלה שנאמר (תהלים קו, ל) ויעמד פינחס ויפלל,יצחק תקן תפלת מנחה שנאמר (בראשית כד, סג) ויצא יצחק לשוח בשדה לפנות ערב ואין שיחה אלא תפלה שנאמר (תהלים קב, א) תפלה לעני כי יעטף ולפני ה\' ישפוך שיחו,יעקב תקן תפלת ערבית שנאמר (בראשית כח, יא) ויפגע במקום וילן שם ואין פגיעה אלא תפלה שנאמר (ירמיהו ז, טז) ואתה אל תתפלל בעד העם הזה ואל תשא בעדם רנה ותפלה ואל תפגע בי,ותניא כוותיה דר\' יהושע בן לוי מפני מה אמרו תפלת השחר עד חצות שהרי תמיד של שחר קרב והולך עד חצות ורבי יהודה אומר עד ארבע שעות שהרי תמיד של שחר קרב והולך עד ארבע שעות,ומפני מה אמרו תפלת המנחה עד הערב שהרי תמיד של בין הערבים קרב והולך עד הערב רבי יהודה אומר עד פלג המנחה שהרי תמיד של בין הערבים קרב והולך עד פלג המנחה,ומפני מה אמרו תפלת הערב אין לה קבע שהרי אברים ופדרים שלא נתעכלו מבערב קרבים והולכים כל הלילה,ומפני מה אמרו של מוספין כל היום שהרי קרבן של מוספין קרב כל היום רבי יהודה אומר עד שבע שעות שהרי קרבן מוסף קרב והולך עד שבע שעות,ואיזו היא מנחה גדולה משש שעות ומחצה ולמעלה ואיזו היא מנחה קטנה מתשע שעות ומחצה ולמעלה,איבעיא להו רבי יהודה פלג מנחה קמא קאמר או פלג מנחה אחרונה קאמר תא שמע דתניא ר\' יהודה אומר פלג המנחה אחרונה אמרו והיא י"א שעות חסר רביע,נימא תיהוי תיובתיה דר\' יוסי בר\' חנינא אמר לך ר\' יוסי בר\' חנינא לעולם אימא לך תפלות אבות תקנום ואסמכינהו רבנן אקרבנות דאי לא תימא הכי תפלת מוסף לר\' יוסי בר\' חנינא מאן תקנה אלא תפלות אבות תקנום ואסמכינהו רבנן אקרבנות:,רבי יהודה אומר עד ארבע שעות: איבעיא להו עד ועד בכלל או דלמא עד ולא עד בכלל תא שמע ר\' יהודה אומר עד פלג המנחה אי אמרת בשלמא עד ולא עד בכלל היינו דאיכא בין ר\' יהודה לרבנן אלא אי אמרת עד ועד בכלל ר\' יהודה'27b. לא כנגד רבו ולא אחורי רבו,ותניא רבי אליעזר אומר המתפלל אחורי רבו והנותן שלום לרבו והמחזיר שלום לרבו והחולק על ישיבתו של רבו והאומר דבר שלא שמע מפי רבו גורם לשכינה שתסתלק מישראל,שאני רבי ירמיה בר אבא דתלמיד חבר הוה והיינו דקאמר ליה רבי ירמיה בר אבא לרב מי בדלת אמר ליה אין בדילנא ולא אמר מי בדיל מר,ומי בדיל והאמר רבי אבין פעם אחת התפלל רבי של שבת בערב שבת ונכנס למרחץ ויצא ושנה לן פרקין ועדיין לא חשכה אמר רבא ההוא דנכנס להזיע וקודם גזירה הוה,איני והא אביי שרא ליה לרב דימי בר ליואי לכברויי סלי,ההוא טעותא הואי,וטעותא מי הדרא והא אמר אבידן פעם אחת נתקשרו שמים בעבים כסבורים העם לומר חשכה הוא ונכנסו לבית הכנסת והתפללו של מוצאי שבת בשבת ונתפזרו העבים וזרחה החמה,ובאו ושאלו את רבי ואמר הואיל והתפללו התפללו שאני צבור דלא מטרחינן להו:,א"ר חייא בר אבין רב צלי של שבת בערב שבת רבי יאשיה מצלי של מוצאי שבת בשבת רב צלי של שבת בערב שבת אומר קדושה על הכוס או אינו אומר קדושה על הכוס ת"ש דאמר רב נחמן אמר שמואל מתפלל אדם של שבת בערב שבת ואומר קדושה על הכוס והלכתא כוותיה,רבי יאשיה מצלי של מוצאי שבת בשבת אומר הבדלה על הכוס או אינו אומר הבדלה על הכוס ת"ש דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מתפלל אדם של מוצאי שבת בשבת ואומר הבדלה על הכוס,אמר ר\' זירא אמר רבי אסי אמר ר\' אלעזר א"ר חנינא אמר רב בצד עמוד זה התפלל ר\' ישמעאל בר\' יוסי של שבת בערב שבת,כי אתא עולא אמר בצד תמרה הוה ולא בצד עמוד הוה ולא ר\' ישמעאל ברבי יוסי הוה אלא ר\' אלעזר בר\' יוסי הוה ולא של שבת בערב שבת הוה אלא של מוצאי שבת בשבת הוה:,תפלת הערב אין לה קבע: מאי אין לה קבע אילימא דאי בעי מצלי כוליה ליליא ליתני תפלת הערב כל הלילה אלא מאי אין לה קבע,כמאן דאמר תפלת ערבית רשות דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל תפלת ערבית רבן גמליאל אומר חובה ר\' יהושע אומר רשות אמר אביי הלכה כדברי האומר חובה ורבא אמר הלכה כדברי האומר רשות.,ת"ר מעשה בתלמיד אחד שבא לפני ר\' יהושע א"ל תפלת ערבית רשות או חובה אמר ליה רשות,בא לפני רבן גמליאל א"ל תפלת ערבית רשות או חובה א"ל חובה א"ל והלא ר\' יהושע אמר לי רשות א"ל המתן עד שיכנסו בעלי תריסין לבית המדרש,כשנכנסו בעלי תריסין עמד השואל ושאל תפלת ערבית רשות או חובה א"ל רבן גמליאל חובה אמר להם רבן גמליאל לחכמים כלום יש אדם שחולק בדבר זה אמר ליה ר\' יהושע לאו א"ל והלא משמך אמרו לי רשות,אמר ליה יהושע עמוד על רגליך ויעידו בך עמד רבי יהושע על רגליו ואמר אלמלא אני חי והוא מת יכול החי להכחיש את המת ועכשיו שאני חי והוא חי היאך יכול החי להכחיש את החי,היה רבן גמליאל יושב ודורש ור\' יהושע עומד על רגליו עד שרננו כל העם ואמרו לחוצפית התורגמן עמוד ועמד,אמרי עד כמה נצעריה וניזיל בר"ה אשתקד צעריה בבכורות במעשה דר\' צדוק צעריה הכא נמי צעריה תא ונעבריה,מאן נוקים ליה נוקמיה לרבי יהושע בעל מעשה הוא נוקמיה לר\' עקיבא דילמא עניש ליה דלית ליה זכות אבות,אלא נוקמיה לר\' אלעזר בן עזריה דהוא חכם והוא עשיר והוא עשירי לעזרא הוא חכם דאי מקשי ליה מפרק ליה והוא עשיר דאי אית ליה לפלוחי לבי קיסר אף הוא אזל ופלח והוא עשירי לעזרא דאית ליה זכות אבות ולא מצי עניש ליה אתו ואמרו ליה ניחא ליה למר דליהוי ריש מתיבתא אמר להו איזיל ואימליך באינשי ביתי אזל ואמליך בדביתהו אמרה ליה 28b. רב אויא חלש ולא אתא לפרקא דרב יוסף למחר כי אתא בעא אביי לאנוחי דעתיה דרב יוסף א"ל מ"ט לא אתא מר לפרקא א"ל דהוה חליש לבאי ולא מצינא א"ל אמאי לא טעמת מידי ואתית א"ל לא סבר לה מר להא דרב הונא דאמר רב הונא אסור לו לאדם שיטעום כלום קודם שיתפלל תפלת המוספין א"ל איבעי ליה למר לצלויי צלותא דמוספין ביחיד ולטעום מידי ולמיתי א"ל ולא סבר לה מר להא דא"ר יוחנן אסור לו לאדם שיקדים תפלתו לתפלת הצבור א"ל לאו אתמר עלה א"ר אבא בצבור שנו,ולית הלכתא לא כרב הונא ולא כריב"ל כרב הונא הא דאמרן כריב"ל דאריב"ל כיון שהגיע זמן תפלת המנחה אסור לו לאדם שיטעום כלום קודם שיתפלל תפלת המנחה:,
|26b. On a similar note, the Sages taught in a baraita: One who erred and did not recite the afternoon prayer on the eve of Shabbat, prays in the evening prayer two Amida prayers on Shabbat evening. One who erred and did not recite the afternoon prayer on Shabbat, recites two weekday Amida prayers in the evening prayer at the conclusion of Shabbat. He recites havdala the prayer of distinction between the sanctity of Shabbat and the profanity of the week by reciting: You have graced us, etc., in the fourth blessing of the Amida, which is: Who graciously grants knowledge, in the first prayer, as it is the actual evening prayer, but he does not recite havdala in the second prayer, which is in place of the afternoon prayer. Moreover, if he recited havdala in the second prayer and did not recite havdala in the first, the second prayer fulfilled his obligation, the first one did not fulfill his obligation.,The Gemara comments: Is that to say that since he did not recite havdala in the first prayer, he is as one who did not pray and we require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it? If so, the conclusion is that one who fails to recite havdala in the prayer must repeat that prayer.,The Gemara raises a contradiction to the above conclusion from the Tosefta: One who erred and did not mention the might of the rains: He makes the wind blow and rain fall in the second blessing of the Amida, the blessing on the revival of the dead, and one who erred and failed to recite the request for rain in the ninth blessing of the Amida, the blessing of the years, we require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it. However, one who erred and failed to recite havdala in the blessing: Who graciously grants knowledge, we do not require him to return to the beginning of the prayer and repeat it, as he can recite havdala over the cup of wine, independent of his prayer. This contradiction was not resolved and remains difficult.,The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda with regard to the times beyond which the different prayers may not be recited is rooted in a profound disagreement, also manifest in a later amoraic dispute. It was stated: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: The practice of praying three times daily is ancient, albeit not in its present form; prayers were instituted by the Patriarchs. However, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that the prayers were instituted based on the daily offerings sacrificed in the Holy Temple, and the prayers parallel the offerings, in terms of both time and characteristics.,The Gemara comments: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, and it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. The Gemara elaborates: It was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina: Abraham instituted the morning prayer, as it is stated when Abraham came to look out over Sodom the day after he had prayed on its behalf: “And Abraham rose early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the Lord” (Genesis 19:27), and from the context as well as the language utilized in the verse, the verb standing means nothing other than prayer, as this language is used to describe Pinehas’ prayer after the plague, as it is stated: “And Pinehas stood up and prayed and the plague ended” (Psalms 106:30). Clearly, Abraham was accustomed to stand in prayer in the morning.,Isaac instituted the afternoon prayer, as it is stated: “And Isaac went out to converse lasuaḥ in the field toward evening” (Genesis 24:63), and conversation means nothing other than prayer, as it is stated: “A prayer of the afflicted when he is faint and pours out his complaint siḥo before the Lord” (Psalms 102:1). Obviously, Isaac was the first to pray as evening approached, at the time of the afternoon prayer.,Jacob instituted the evening prayer, as it is stated: “And he encountered vayifga the place and he slept there for the sun had set” (Genesis 28:11). The word encounter means nothing other than prayer, as it is stated when God spoke to Jeremiah: “And you, do not pray on behalf of this nation and do not raise on their behalf song and prayer, and do not encounter tifga Me for I do not hear you” (Jeremiah 7:16). Jacob prayed during the evening, after the sun had set.,And it was taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that the laws of prayer are based on the laws of the daily offerings: Why did the Rabbis say that the morning prayer may be recited until noon? Because, although the daily morning offering is typically brought early in the morning, it may be sacrificed until noon. And Rabbi Yehuda says: My opinion, that the morning prayer may be recited until four hours into the day, is because the daily morning offering is sacrificed until four hours.,And why did the Rabbis say that the afternoon prayer may be recited until the evening? Because the daily afternoon offering is sacrificed until the evening. Rabbi Yehuda says that the afternoon prayer may be recited only until the midpoint of the afternoon because, according to his opinion, the daily afternoon offering is sacrificed until the midpoint of the afternoon.,And why did they say that the evening prayer is not fixed? Because the burning of the limbs and fats of the offerings that were not consumed by the fire on the altar until the evening. They remained on the altar and were offered continuously throughout the entire night.,And why did the Rabbis say that the additional prayer may be recited all day? Because the additional offering is brought throughout the entire day. However, Rabbi Yehuda says that the additional prayer may be recited until the seventh hour of the day, because the additional offering is sacrificed until the seventh hour.,The baraita continues and states that there are two times for the afternoon prayer. Greater, earlier minḥa minḥa gedola and lesser, later minḥa minḥa ketana. The Gemara clarifies the difference between them: Which is minḥa gedola? From six-and-a-half hours after sunrise and on, which is a half an hour after noon and on. It is the earliest time that the daily afternoon offering may be sacrificed, as in the case on the eve of Passover that occurs on Shabbat. Which is minḥa ketana? From nine-and-a-half hours and on, which is the standard time that the daily afternoon offering is sacrificed.,On that note, a dilemma was raised before them: Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the afternoon prayer may be recited only until the midpoint of the afternoon, does he say the midpoint of the first minḥa, minḥa gedola? Or, does he say the midpoint of the last minḥa? Come and hear an explicit resolution to this dilemma: As it was taught in a baraita, Rabbi Yehuda says: They said the midpoint of the last minḥa, and that is eleven hours minus a quarter of an hour after sunrise, i.e., an hour-and-a-quarter hours before sunset.,In any case, it is clear that according to this baraita the halakhot of prayer are based on the Temple offerings. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who held that the forefathers instituted the prayers. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, could have said to you: Actually, I will say to you that the Patriarchs instituted the prayers and the Sages based the times and characteristics of prayer on the Temple offerings, even though they do not stem from the same source. As, if you do not say so, that even Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, would agree that the laws of offerings and those of prayers are related, then, according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who instituted the additional prayer? It is not one of the prayers instituted by the forefathers. Rather, even according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, the prayers were instituted by the Patriarchs and the Sages based them on the laws of the offerings.,We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: The morning prayer may be recited until four hours of the day. A dilemma was raised before the yeshiva students: When Rabbi Yehuda says until, does he mean until and including the fourth hour, or, perhaps when he says “until” he means until and not including, in which case one may not pray during the fourth hour? Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma based on the mishna. Rabbi Yehuda says: The afternoon prayer may be recited only until the midpoint of the afternoon. Now, granted, if you say that until means until and not including, then there is a difference between the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and the opinion of the Rabbis. However, if you say that until means until and including, then the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda'27b. directly next to his rabbi, presumptuously indicating that he is his rabbi’s equal, and behind his rabbi as it creates the impression that he is bowing to him (Tosafot)?,And it was taught in a baraita, in a more extreme manner, as Rabbi Eliezer says: One who prays behind his rabbi and one who greets his rabbi without waiting for his rabbi to greet him first, one who returns his rabbi’s greeting without saying: Greetings to you, rabbi, one who rivals his rabbi’s yeshiva, i.e., establishes a yeshiva of his own and teaches during his rabbi’s lifetime without his consent (Rambam), and one who says something in the name of his rabbi which he did not hear directly from his rabbi, causes the Divine Presence to withdraw from Israel.,With regard to Rabbi Yirmeya’s conduct, the Gemara explains that Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba is different, as he was not a mere student of Rav. Rather, he was a disciple-colleague and was, therefore, permitted to act that way. And that is why on one occasion, when Rav prayed the Shabbat prayer early, Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba asked him: Did you distance yourself from labor and accept the sanctity of Shabbat? Rav said to him: Yes, I distanced myself. And Rabbi Yirmeya did not say to him: Did the Master distance himself, as would have been appropriate had he merely been Rav’s student.,Although Rav replied that he distanced himself from labor, did he indeed need to distance himself from labor? Didn’t Rabbi Avin say: Once Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi prayed the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall. He then entered the bathhouse and emerged and taught us our chapters that we had learned, and it was not yet dark. Rava said: That is a case where he had entered the bathhouse to perspire, and it was before the Sages issued a decree prohibiting perspiring in a bathhouse on Shabbat.,The Gemara asks: Is that so, that he was required to refrain from labor? Didn’t Abaye permit Rav Dimi bar Liva’ei to fumigate baskets with sulfur even though he had already recited the Shabbat prayer, indicating that it is permitted to perform labor even after the Shabbat prayer?,The Gemara responds: That was an error, as Rav Dimi did not intend to begin Shabbat early. It was a cloudy day and he mistakenly thought that the sun had set and that was why he prayed. Consequently, even though he prayed, the Shabbat prayer did not obligate him to conduct himself in accordance with the sanctity of Shabbat and he was allowed to perform labor even after his prayer.,The Gemara goes on to ask: Can a mistake be reversed, enabling one to conduct himself as if he had not prayed? Didn’t Avidan, a student of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, say: Once the sky became overcast, leading the people to think that it was the dark of night; they entered the synagogue and recited the evening prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat. And later, the clouds cleared and the sun shone, indicating that it was still day.,And they came and asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi what they should do, and he said: Since they have prayed, they have prayed, and they need not pray again. Although they prayed erroneously, their mistake is not reversible and what was done remains. The Gemara responds: A community is different in that we do not burden them to pray again.,The Gemara continues to discuss the possibility of reciting the evening prayer early, even on Shabbat. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin said: Rav prayed the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall. Rabbi Yoshiya would pray the evening prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat. With regard to the fact that Rav prayed the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall, the dilemma is raised: In those cases, did he recite kiddush over the cup of wine, or did he not recite kiddush over the cup of wine before the stars emerged? Come and hear a resolution to this, as Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said: One prays the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall and recites kiddush over the cup of wine. And the halakha is in accordance with his ruling.,A similar dilemma was raised concerning the fact that Rabbi Yoshiya would pray the evening prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat: After praying, while it is still Shabbat, does he recite havdala over the cup of wine or does one not recite havdala over the cup of wine? Come and hear a resolution to this, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: One prays the evening prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat and recites havdala over the cup of wine.,Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Elazar said that Rabbi Ḥanina said that Rav said: Alongside this specific pillar before me, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, prayed the Shabbat prayer on the eve of Shabbat before nightfall.,But when Ulla came from the Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he related a different version of this story. He said that he had heard: This transpired beside a palm tree, not beside a pillar, and it was not Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, but it was Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, and it was not the Shabbat prayer on Shabbat eve before nightfall, rather it was the prayer of the conclusion of Shabbat on Shabbat.,We learned in the mishna: The evening prayer may be recited throughout the night and is not fixed to a specific hour. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of is not fixed? If you say that if one wishes, he may pray throughout the night, then let the mishna teach: The evening prayer may be recited throughout the night. Rather, what is the meaning of not fixed?,It is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said: The evening prayer is optional. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said with regard to the evening prayer. Rabban Gamliel says: It is obligatory. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is optional. Abaye said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who said: The evening prayer is obligatory. Rava said: The halakha is in accordance with the statement of the one who said: The evening prayer is optional.,The Sages taught: There was an incident involving a student, who came before Rabbi Yehoshua. The student said to him: Is the evening prayer optional or obligatory? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Optional.,The same student came before Rabban Gamliel and said to him: Is the evening prayer optional or obligatory? Rabban Gamliel said to him: Obligatory. The student said to Rabban Gamliel: But didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua tell me that the evening prayer is optional? Rabban Gamliel said to the student: Wait until the “masters of the shields,” a reference to the Torah scholars who battle in the war of Torah, enter the study hall, at which point we will discuss this issue.,When the masters of the shields entered, the questioner stood before everyone present and asked: Is the evening prayer optional or obligatory? Rabban Gamliel said to him: Obligatory. In order to ascertain whether or not Rabbi Yehoshua still maintained his opinion, Rabban Gamliel said to the Sages: Is there any person who disputes this matter? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, no one disagrees. In deference to the Nasi, he did not wish to argue with him publicly (Tziyyun LeNefesh Ḥayya). Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: But was it not in your name that they told me that the evening prayer is optional?,Rabban Gamliel said to Rabbi Yehoshua: Yehoshua, stand on your feet and they will testify against you. Rabbi Yehoshua stood on his feet and said: If I were alive and the student were dead, the living can contradict the dead, and I could deny issuing that ruling. Now that I am alive and he is alive, how can the living contradict the living? I have no choice but to admit that I said it.,In the meantime, Rabban Gamliel, as the Nasi, was sitting and lecturing, and Rabbi Yehoshua all the while was standing on his feet, because Rabban Gamliel did not instruct him to sit. He remained standing in deference to the Nasi. This continued for some time, until it aroused great resentment against Rabban Gamliel, and all of the people assembled began murmuring and said to Ḥutzpit the disseminator: Stop conveying Rabban Gamliel’s lecture. And he stopped.,The Gemara relates that in their murmuring they said: How long will Rabban Gamliel continue afflicting him? Last year on Rosh HaShana, he afflicted him; Rabban Gamliel ordered Rabbi Yehoshua to come to him carrying his staff and bag, on the day on which Yom Kippur occurred, according to Rabbi Yehoshua’s calculations. Regarding the firstborn, in the incident involving the question of Rabbi Tzadok, he afflicted him just as he did now, and forced him to remain standing as punishment for his failure to defend his differing opinion. Here too, he is afflicting him. Let us remove him from his position as Nasi.,It was so agreed, but the question arose: Who shall we establish in his place? Shall we establish Rabbi Yehoshua in his place? The Sages rejected that option because Rabbi Yehoshua was party to the incident for which Rabban Gamliel was deposed. Appointing him would be extremely upsetting for Rabban Gamliel. Shall we establish Rabbi Akiva in his place? The Sages rejected that option because Rabbi Akiva, who descended from a family of converts, would be vulnerable. Perhaps due to Rabban Gamliel’s resentment he would cause him to be divinely punished as he lacks the merit of his ancestors to protect him.,Rather, suggested the Sages, let us establish Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya in his place, his outstanding characteristics set him apart from the other candidates. He is wise, rich, and a tenth generation descendant of Ezra. The Gemara explains: He is wise, so if Rabban Gamliel raises a challenge in matters of Torah, he will answer it and not be embarrassed. And he is rich, so if the need arises to pay homage to the Caesar’s court and serve as a representative of Israel to lobby and negotiate, he has sufficient wealth to cover the costs of the long journeys, taxes, and gifts, so he too is able to go and pay homage. And he is a tenth generation descendant of Ezra, so he has the merit of his ancestors, and Rabban Gamliel will be unable to cause him to be punished. They came and said to him: Would the Master consent to being the Head of the Yeshiva? He said to them: I will go and consult with my household. He went and consulted with his wife. She said to him: 28b. After mentioning until when the additional prayer may be recited, the Gemara relates: Rav Avya was ill and did not come to Rav Yosef’s Shabbat lecture. When Rav Avya came the following day, Abaye sought to placate Rav Yosef, and through a series of questions and answers sought to make clear to him that Rav Avya’s failure to attend the lecture was not a display of contempt for Rav Yosef. rTo this end, he asked him: Why did the Master not attend the Shabbat lecture? rRav Avya said to him: Because my heart was faint and I was unable to attend. rAbaye said to him: Why did you not eat something and come? rRav Avya said to him: Does the Master not hold in accordance with that statement of Rav Huna? As Rav Huna said: A person may not taste anything before he recites the additional prayer. rAbaye said to him: My Master should have recited the additional prayer individually, eaten something, and then come to the lecture. rRav Avya said to him: Does my Master not hold in accordance with that statement of Rabbi Yoḥa: A person may not recite his individual prayer prior to the communal prayer? rAbaye said to him: Was it not stated regarding this halakha, Rabbi Abba said: They taught this in a communal setting? rIn other words, only one who is part of a congregation is prohibited from praying alone prior to the prayer of the congregation. Even though Rav Avya was incorrect, the reason for his failure to attend the lecture was clarified through this discussion.,And the Gemara summarizes: The halakha is neither in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna nor in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. The Gemara explains: It is not in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna, as we said above with regard to the prohibition to eat prior to the additional prayer. It is not in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Once the time to recite the afternoon prayer has arrived, a person may not taste anything before he recites the afternoon prayer.,halakhot relating to the fixed prayers, the Gemara relates: Rabbi Neḥunya ben Hakana would recite a brief prayer upon his entrance into the study hall and upon his exit. They said to him: The study hall is not a dangerous place that would warrant a prayer when entering and exiting, so what room is there for this prayer? He said to them: Upon my entrance, I pray that no mishap will transpire caused by me in the study hall. And upon my exit, I give thanks for my portion.,The Sages taught in a baraita the complete formula of Rabbi Neḥunya ben Hakana’s prayer: Upon his entrance, what does he say? May it be Your will, Lord my God, that no mishap in determining the halakha transpires caused by me, and that I not fail in any matter of halakha, and that my colleagues, who together with me engage in clarifying the halakha, will rejoice in me. He specified: And that I will neither declare pure that which is impure, nor declare impure that which is pure and that my colleagues will not fail in any matter of halakha, and that I will rejoice in them.,Upon his exit, what did he say? I give thanks before You, Lord my God, that You have placed my lot among those who sit in the study hall, and that you have not given me my portion among those who sit idly on street corners. I rise early, and they rise early. I rise early to pursue matters of Torah, and they rise early to pursue frivolous matters. I toil and they toil. I toil and receive a reward, and they toil and do not receive a reward. I run and they run. I run to the life of the World-to-Come and they run to the pit of destruction.,On a similar note, the Gemara recounts related stories with different approaches. The Sages taught: When Rabbi Eliezer fell ill, his students entered to visit him. They said to him: Teach us paths of life, guidelines by which to live, and we will thereby merit the life of the World-to-Come.,He said to them: Be vigilant in the honor of your counterparts, and prevent your children from logic when studying verses that tend toward heresy (ge’onim), and place your children, while they are still young, between the knees of Torah scholars, and when you pray, know before Whom you stand. For doing that, you will merit the life of the World-to-Come.,A similar story is told about Rabbi Eliezer’s mentor, Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai: When Rabbi Yoḥa ben Zakkai fell ill his students entered to visit him. When he saw them, he began to cry. His students said to him: Lamp of Israel, the right pillar, the mighty hammer, the man whose life’s work is the foundation of the future of the Jewish people, for what reason are you crying? With a life as complete as yours, what is upsetting you?,He said to them: I cry in fear of heavenly judgment, as the judgment of the heavenly court is unlike the judgment of man. If they were leading me before a flesh and blood king whose life is temporal, who is here today and dead in the grave tomorrow; if he is angry with me, his anger is not eternal and, consequently, his punishment is not eternal; if he incarcerates me, his incarceration is not an eternal incarceration, as I might maintain my hope that I would ultimately be freed. If he kills me, his killing is not for eternity, as there is life after any death that he might decree. Moreover, I am able to appease him with words and even bribe him with money, and even so I would cry when standing before royal judgment. Now that they are leading me before the supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, Who lives and endures forever and all time; if He is angry with me, His anger is eternal; if He incarcerates me, His incarceration is an eternal incarceration; and if He kills me, His killing is for eternity. I am unable to appease Him with words and bribe him with money. Moreover, but I have two paths before me, one of the Garden of Eden and one of Gehenna, and I do not know on which they are leading me; and will I not cry?,His students said to him: Our teacher, bless us. He said to them: May it be His will that the fear of Heaven shall be upon you like the fear of flesh and blood. His students were puzzled and said: To that point and not beyond? Shouldn’t one fear God more? He said to them: Would that a person achieve that level of fear. Know that when one commits a transgression, he says to himself: I hope that no man will see me. If one is as concerned about avoiding shame before God as he is before man, he will never sin.,The Gemara relates that at the time of his death, immediately beforehand, he said to them: Remove the vessels from the house and take them outside due to the ritual impurity that will be imparted by my corpse, which they would otherwise contract. And prepare a chair for Hezekiah, the King of Judea, who is coming from the upper world to accompany me.,Amida prayer, also known as Shemoneh Esreh, the prayer of eighteen blessings, or simply as tefilla, prayer. Rabban Gamliel says: Each and every day a person recites the prayer of eighteen blessings. Rabbi Yehoshua says: A short prayer is sufficient, and one only recites an abridged version of the prayer of eighteen blessings. Rabbi Akiva says an intermediate opinion: If he is fluent in his prayer, he recites the prayer of eighteen blessings, and if not, he need only recite an abridged version of the prayer of eighteen blessings.,Rabbi Eliezer says: One whose prayer is fixed, his prayer is not supplication and is flawed. The Gemara will clarify the halakhic implications of this flaw.,Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who cannot recite a complete prayer because he is walking in a place of danger, recites a brief prayer and says: Redeem, Lord, Your people, the remt of Israel, at every transition parashat ha’ibur, the meaning of which will be discussed in the Gemara. May their needs be before You. Blessed are You, Lord, Who listens to prayer.,While praying, one must face toward the direction of the Holy Temple. One who was riding on a donkey should dismount and pray calmly. If he is unable to dismount, he should turn his face toward the direction of the Temple. If he is unable to turn his face, it is sufficient that he focus his heart opposite the Holy of Holies. Similarly, one who was traveling in a ship or on a raft asda and is unable to turn and face in the direction of Jerusalem, should focus his heart opposite the Holy of Holies.,Amida prayer, the Gemara seeks to resolve fundamental problems pertaining to this prayer. Corresponding to what were these eighteen blessings instituted? When the Shemoneh Esreh was instituted by the Sages, on what did they base the number of blessings?,Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, said: Corresponding to the eighteen mentions of God’s name that King David said in the psalm: “Give unto the Lord, O you sons of might” (Psalms 29). Rav Yosef said: Corresponding to the eighteen mentions of God’s name in Shema. Rabbi Tanḥum said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Corresponding to the eighteen vertebrae in the spine beneath the ribs.,Since Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s opinion based the Amida prayer on the spinal vertebrae, the Gemara cites another statement of his that connects the two: Rabbi Tanḥum said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In those blessings where one is required to bow, one who prays must bow until all the vertebrae in the spine protrude.,Establishing a different indicator to determine when he has bowed sufficiently, Ulla said: Until he can see a small coin issar, on the ground before him opposite his heart (Rav Hai Gaon). Rabbi Ḥanina said: There is room for leniency; once he moves his head forward, he need not bow any further. Rava said: But that applies only if he is exerting himself when doing so, and he appears like one who is bowing. However, if he is able, he should bow further.,Until now, the prayer of eighteen blessings has been discussed as if it was axiomatic. The Gemara wonders: Are these eighteen blessings? They are nineteen.,Rabbi Levi said: The blessing of the heretics, which curses informers, was instituted in Yavne and is not included in the original tally of blessings. Nevertheless, since the number of blessings corresponds to various allusions, the Gemara attempts to clarify: Corresponding to what was this nineteenth blessing instituted?,Rabbi Levi said: According to Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani, who said that the eighteen blessings correspond to the eighteen mentions of God’s name that King David said in the psalm, the nineteenth blessing corresponds to a reference to God in that psalm, where a name other than the tetragrammaton was used: “The God of glory thunders” (Psalms 29:3). According to Rav Yosef, who said that the eighteen blessings correspond to the eighteen mentions of God’s name in Shema, the additional blessing corresponds to the word one that is in Shema. Although it is not the tetragrammaton, it expresses the essence of faith in God. According to what Rabbi Tanḥum said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, that the eighteen blessings correspond to the eighteen vertebrae in the spine, the additional blessing corresponds to the small vertebra that is at the bottom of the spine.,In light of the previous mention of the blessing of the heretics, the Gemara explains how this blessing was instituted: The Sages taught: Shimon HaPakuli arranged the eighteen blessings, already extant during the period of the Great Assembly, before Rabban Gamliel, the Nasi of the Sanhedrin, in order in Yavne. Due to prevailing circumstances, there was a need to institute a new blessing directed against the heretics. Rabban Gamliel said to the Sages: Is there any person who knows to institute the blessing of the heretics, a blessing directed against the Sadducees? Shmuel HaKatan, who was one of the most pious men of that generation, stood and instituted it.,The Gemara relates: The next year, when Shmuel HaKatan served as the prayer leader, he forgot that blessing, '. None|
|18. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Pharisaic-rabbinic connection, Gamaliel of Yavneh as evidence of • Rabban Gamaliel (I and II)
Found in books: Cohen (2010) 54; Jaffee (2001) 53, 54, 57
66a. שורך נרבע והלה שותק נאמן ותנא תונא ושנעבדה בו עבירה ושהמית על פי עד אחד או ע"פ הבעלים נאמן האי ע"פ עד אחד היכי דמי אי דקא מודו בעלים היינו ע"פ הבעלים אלא לאו דשתיק,וצריכא דאי אשמעינן הך קמייתא אי לאו דקים ליה בנפשיה דעבד חולין בעזרה לא הוה מייתי,אבל נטמאו טהרותיך מימר אמרינן האי דשתיק דסבר חזי ליה בימי טומאתו,ואי אשמעינן הא משום דקא מפסיד ליה בימי טהרתו אבל שורו נרבע מימר אמר כל השוורים לאו לגבי מזבח קיימי צריכא,איבעיא להו אשתו זינתה בעד אחד ושותק מהו אמר אביי נאמן רבא אמר אינו נאמן הוי דבר שבערוה ואין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים,אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דההוא סמיא דהוה מסדר מתנייתא קמיה דמר שמואל יומא חד נגה ליה ולא הוה קאתי שדר שליחא אבתריה אדאזיל שליח בחדא אורחא אתא איהו בחדא כי אתא שליח אמר אשתו זינתה אתא לקמיה דמר שמואל א"ל אי מהימן לך זיל אפקה ואי לא לא תפיק,מאי לאו אי מהימן עלך דלאו גזלנא הוא ורבא אי מהימן לך כבי תרי זיל אפקה ואי לא לא תפקה,ואמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דתניא מעשה בינאי המלך שהלך לכוחלית שבמדבר וכיבש שם ששים כרכים ובחזרתו היה שמח שמחה גדולה וקרא לכל חכמי ישראל אמר להם אבותינו היו אוכלים מלוחים בזמן שהיו עסוקים בבנין בית המקדש אף אנו נאכל מלוחים זכר לאבותינו והעלו מלוחים על שולחנות של זהב ואכלו,והיה שם אחד איש לץ לב רע ובליעל ואלעזר בן פועירה שמו ויאמר אלעזר בן פועירה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך לבם של פרושים עליך ומה אעשה הקם להם בציץ שבין עיניך הקים להם בציץ שבין עיניו,היה שם זקן אחד ויהודה בן גדידיה שמו ויאמר יהודה בן גדידיה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך רב לך כתר מלכות הנח כתר כהונה לזרעו של אהרן שהיו אומרים אמו נשבית במודיעים ויבוקש הדבר ולא נמצא ויבדלו חכמי ישראל בזעם,ויאמר אלעזר בן פועירה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך הדיוט שבישראל כך הוא דינו ואתה מלך וכהן גדול כך הוא דינך ומה אעשה אם אתה שומע לעצתי רומסם ותורה מה תהא עליה הרי כרוכה ומונחת בקרן זוית כל הרוצה ללמוד יבוא וילמוד,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מיד נזרקה בו אפיקורסות דהוה ליה למימר תינח תורה שבכתב תורה שבעל פה מאי מיד ותוצץ הרעה על ידי אלעזר בן פועירה ויהרגו כל חכמי ישראל והיה העולם משתומם עד שבא שמעון בן שטח והחזיר את התורה ליושנה,היכי דמי אילימא דבי תרי אמרי אישתבאי ובי תרי אמרי לא אישתבאי מאי חזית דסמכת אהני סמוך אהני,אלא בעד אחד וטעמא דקא מכחשי ליה בי תרי הא לאו הכי מהימן,ורבא לעולם תרי ותרי וכדאמר רב אחא בר רב מניומי בעדי הזמה הכא נמי בעדי הזמה,ואיבעית אימא כדרבי יצחק דאמר רבי יצחק שפחה הכניסו תחתיה,אמר רבא''. None
|66a. Your ox was used by a man for an act of bestiality and is therefore unfit for an offering, and the other, the owner of the ox, is silent, the witness is deemed credible. And the tanna of the mishna also taught (Bekhorot 41a): And with regard to an animal that was used for a transgression or that killed, if this is attested to by one witness or by the owner, he is deemed credible. The Gemara clarifies this case: What are the circumstances of this case of the mishna, where the knowledge is established by one witness? If the owner admits to the claim, this is the same as: By the owner. Rather, is it not referring to a case where the owner remains silent?,The Gemara comments: And each of these statements of Abaye is necessary. As, had he taught us only that first case, where the witness said someone ate forbidden fat, one might have said that he is deemed credible for the following reason: Were it not for the fact that he himself was convinced that he had committed a transgression, he would not commit the transgression of bringing a non-sacred animal to the Temple courtyard on the basis of the testimony of one witness. Consequently, his silence is evidently an admission.,But if the witness said: Your ritually pure foods were rendered ritually impure, and the accused was silent, we would say: The reason that he is silent and refrains from denying the claim is that he thinks he is not suffering any significant loss, as the food is fit for him to eat on his days of ritual impurity, because he is not required to destroy ritually impure foods.,And had Abaye taught us only the case of: Your ritually pure food was rendered ritually impure, one might have said that the reason this witness is deemed credible is that he causes him a loss on his days of ritual impurity, and therefore his silence is tantamount to a confession. But in the case of: His ox was used by a man for an act of bestiality, the owner of the ox can say with regard to his animal: Not all the oxen stand ready to be sacrificed as an offering on the altar. Perhaps one would think that the owner does not bother denying the claim because he merely forfeits the possibility of sacrificing his ox as an offering, which he considers an inconsequential matter. It is only if there were two witnesses to the act that the animal is put to death, whereas here there was only one witness. It is therefore necessary for Abaye to specify all these cases.,§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a husband is told by one witness that his wife committed adultery, and the husband remains silent, what is the halakha? Abaye said: The witness is deemed credible. Rava said: He is not deemed credible. Why not? Because it is a matter involving forbidden relations, and there is no matter of testimony for forbidden sexual relations that can be attested to by fewer than two witnesses.,Abaye said: From where do I say this claim of mine? It happened that there was a certain blind man who would review mishnayot before Mar Shmuel. One day the blind man was late for him and was not arriving. Mar Shmuel sent a messenger after him to assist him. While the messenger was going to the blind man’s house by one way, the blind man arrived at the house of study by a different route, and therefore the messenger missed him and reached his house. When the messenger came back, he said that he had been to the blind man’s house and saw that his wife committed adultery. The blind man came before Mar Shmuel to inquire whether he must pay heed to this testimony. Mar Shmuel said to him: If this messenger is trusted by you, go and divorce her, but if not, do not divorce her.,Abaye comments: What, is it not correct to say that this means that if he is trusted by you that he is not a thief but is a valid witness, you must rely on him? This would prove that a single witness can testify in a case of this kind. And Rava explains that Mar Shmuel meant: If he is trusted by you like two witnesses, go and divorce her, but if not, do not divorce her. Consequently, Rava maintains that this episode affords no proof.,And Abaye said: From where do I say this claim of mine? As it is taught in a baraita: An incident occurred with King Yannai, who went to the region of Koḥalit in the desert and conquered sixty cities there. And upon his return he rejoiced with a great happiness over his victory. And he subsequently summoned all the Sages of the Jewish people and said to them: Our ancestors in their poverty would eat salty foods when they were busy with the building of the Temple; we too shall eat salty foods in memory of our ancestors. And they brought salty food on tables of gold, and ate.,And there was one person present, a scoffer, a man of an evil heart and a scoundrel called Elazar ben Po’ira. And Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the hearts of the Pharisees, the Sages, are against you. In other words, they harbor secret resentment against you and do not like you. The king replied: And what shall I do to clarify this matter? Elazar responded: Have them stand by wearing the frontplate between your eyes. Since the frontplate bears the Divine Name, they should stand in its honor. Yannai, who was a member of the priestly Hasmonean family, also served as High Priest, who wears the frontplate. He had the Pharisees stand by wearing the frontplate between his eyes.,Now there was a certain elder present called Yehuda ben Gedidya, and Yehuda ben Gedidya said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the crown of the monarchy suffices for you, i.e., you should be satisfied that you are king. Leave the crown of the priesthood for the descendants of Aaron. The Gemara explains this last comment: As they would say that Yannai’s mother was taken captive in Modi’in, and she was therefore disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, which meant that Yannai was a ḥalal. And the matter was investigated and was not discovered, i.e., they sought witnesses for that event but none were found. And the Sages of Israel were expelled in the king’s rage, due to this rumor.,And Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, such is the judgment of a common person in Israel. In other words, merely expelling a slanderer is appropriate if the subject of the slander is a commoner. But you are a king and a High Priest. Is this your judgment as well? Yannai replied: And what should I do? Elazar responded: If you listen to my advice, crush them. Yannai countered: But what will become of the Torah? He retorted: Behold, it is wrapped and placed in the corner. Anyone who wishes to study can come and study. We have no need for the Sages.,The Gemara interjects: Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Immediately, heresy was injected into Yannai, as he should have said to Elazar ben Po’ira: This works out well with regard to the Written Torah, as it can be studied by all on their own, but what will become of the Oral Torah? The Oral Torah is transmitted only by the Sages. The baraita continues: Immediately, the evil arose and caught fire through Elazar ben Po’ira, and all the Sages of the Jewish people were killed. And the world was desolate of Torah until Shimon ben Shataḥ came and restored the Torah to its former glory. This completes the baraita.,Abaye asks: What are the circumstances of this case? How did those who conducted the investigation refute the rumor that Yannai’s mother had been taken captive? If we say that two witnesses said that she was taken captive, and two others said that she was not taken captive, what did you see that you rely on these who said that she was not taken captive? Instead, rely on these who said that she was taken captive. In such a scenario, one cannot say definitively that the matter was investigated and found to be false.,Rather, it must be referring to one witness who testified she was taken captive, and two testified that she was not taken captive. And the reason that the lone witness is not deemed credible is only that he is contradicted by the other two, from which it may be inferred that if not for that fact, he would be deemed credible. This supports Abaye’s claim that an uncontested lone witness is deemed credible in a case of this kind.,And Rava could reply that this incident affords no proof, for the following reason: Actually, one can say that there were two witnesses who testified that she was captured and two who testified that she was not, and the case was decided in accordance with that which Rav Aḥa bar Rav Minyumi says in a different context, that it is referring to conspiring witnesses. The second pair of witnesses did not contradict the testimony of the first pair but established them as liars by stating that the first pair were not there to witness the event. This serves to disqualify the testimony of the first pair altogether. Here too, it is referring to witnesses who rendered the first set conspiring witnesses.,And if you wish, say that this is in accordance with the version of the story stated by Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: They replaced Yannai’s mother with a maidservant. The first witnesses saw that Yannai’s mother was about to be taken captive, but the second pair revealed that she had actually been replaced with a maidservant, thereby negating the testimony of the first set.,Rava says:''. None|
|19. None, None, nan (5th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Gamaliel VI, demotion from senatorial rank of • Gamaliel, R. • synagogues, Jewish, Gamaliel VI and
Found in books: Goodman (2006) 228; Kraemer (2020) 86, 155, 227
|20. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None
Tagged with subjects: • Gamaliel • Gamliel, Rabban (also Gamaliel)
Found in books: Binder (2012) 179; Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 247
|44b. Proclus ben Plospus, once asked a question of Rabban Gamliel in the city of Akko when he was bathing in the bathhouse of the Greek god Aphrodite. Proclus said to him: It is written in your Torah: “And nothing of the proscribed items shall cleave to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18). For what reason do you bathe before an idol in the bathhouse of Aphrodite?,Rabban Gamliel said to him: One may not answer questions related to Torah in the bathhouse. And when he left the bathhouse, Rabban Gamliel gave him several answers. He said to him: I did not come into its domain; it came into my domain. The bathhouse existed before the statue dedicated to Aphrodite was erected. Furthermore, people do not say: Let us make a bathhouse as an adornment for Aphrodite; rather, they say: Let us make a statue of Aphrodite as an adornment for the bathhouse. Therefore, the main structure is not the Aphrodite statue, but the bathhouse.,Rabban Gamliel continued: Alternatively, there is another answer: Even if people would give you a lot of money, you would not enter before your object of idol worship naked, or as one who experienced a seminal emission who comes to the bathhouse to purify himself, nor would you urinate before it. This statue stands upon the sewage pipe and all the people urinate before it. There is no prohibition in this case, as it is stated in the verse only: “Their gods” (see Deuteronomy 12:2), which indicates that a statue that people treat as a deity is forbidden, but one that people do not treat with the respect that is due to a deity is permitted.,And how could he have acted in this manner? How could Rabban Gamliel have stated even this halakha in the bathhouse? But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say that Rabbi Yoḥa says: It is permitted to contemplate matters of Torah everywhere except for the bathhouse and the bathroom?,And if you would say that Rabban Gamliel stated this ruling to him in a secular language, and therefore it was permitted for him to do so, this would not be a satisfactory answer; but doesn’t Abaye say that it is permitted to say secular statements in a bathhouse or bathroom in the sacred tongue, Hebrew, but it is prohibited to say sacred, Torah-related, statements even in a secular language in a bathhouse or bathroom?,The Gemara answers that the mishna actually taught as follows: When he left the bathhouse, Rabban Gamliel said to him: One may not answer questions related to Torah in the bathhouse.,§ Rav Ḥama bar Yosef the Distinguished says that Rabbi Oshaya says: Rabban Gamliel gave a deceptive response to that officer, Proclus. And I, Rav Ḥama, say that the response was not deceptive but truthful.,The Gemara explains: What was its deception, according to Rabbi Oshaya? It was that Rabban Gamliel said to him: This statue stands upon the sewage pipe and all people urinate before it. In saying this, Rabban Gamliel meant that the statue has no idolatrous status as is evident from the demeaning conduct performed before it. And this claim is deceptive, as even if one urinates before it, what of it? Does that really negate its idolatrous status? But doesn’t Rava say that the idol of Peor proves the contrary, as its worshippers defecate before it daily, and its idolatrous status still is not revoked?,Rav Ḥama bar Yosef himself disagrees: And I say that it is not a deceptive answer. With regard to that idol, Peor, its standard manner of worship is in that manner; therefore, its status is certainly not revoked by that behavior. But with regard to this statue, Aphrodite, its standard manner of worship is not in that manner. Therefore, the display of demeaning conduct in its presence is indicative of a lack of reverence for it and of its lack of idolatrous status.,Abaye said: The deception in Rabban Gamliel’s response was from here, when he said to him: I did not come into its domain, but rather it came into my domain. He explains: And even if it, the bathhouse, had come into its domain, what of it? Even if the idol had preceded the bathhouse, it would still not render use of the bathhouse prohibited; but didn’t we learn in a mishna (51b): With regard to an object of idol worship that has a bathhouse or a garden in front of it, one may derive benefit from the bathhouse or garden without showing favor by giving thanks or payment to its priests, but one may not derive benefit from it while showing it favor? Rabban Gamliel’s answer was therefore deceptive because the permissibility of using the bathhouse had nothing to do with its antecedence to the statue.,Rav Ḥama bar Yosef himself disagrees: And I say that it is not a deceptive answer, as even though Rabban Gamliel visited the bathhouse without showing favor by expressing thanks or giving payment, the very fact that such an esteemed visitor paid it a visit is the equivalent of others actively showing favor.,Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya says: The deception in Rabban Gamliel’s response was from here, when he said to him: This statue stands upon the sewage pipe and all people urinate before it. He explains: And if people urinate before it, what of it? That does not indicate a lack of idolatrous status; but didn’t we learn in a mishna (53a): If one spit in front of it, urinated in front of it, dragged it, or threw feces at it, its status as an object of idol worship is not revoked?,Rav Ḥama bar Yosef himself disagrees: And I say that it is not a deceptive answer. There, the case of that mishna is of one who temporarily rages against the idol, and afterward he appeases it. Here, in the case of the Aphrodite statue erected on the sewage pipe, each and every hour the statue remains in a constant state of disparagement. This setup indicates a permanent lack of reverence and an absence of true idolatrous status.,Rabba bar Ulla said: The deception in Rabban Gamliel’s response was from here, when he said to him that people do not say: Let us make a bathhouse as an adornment for Aphrodite; rather, they say: Let us make a statue of Aphrodite as an adornment for the bathhouse. He explains: And even if people say: Let us make a bathhouse as an adornment for Aphrodite, what of it? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: In the case of one who says: This house is hereby dedicated to idol worship, or: This cup is hereby dedicated to idol worship, he has said nothing, i.e., his words take no effect, as there is no halakha of consecration with regard to objects of idol worship. While one can consecrate an item to the Temple through verbal designation, there is no such method for according idolatrous status to an object. Therefore, Rabban Gamliel’s deception lies in his indication that such a formulation would render the bathhouse forbidden as an object of idol worship.,Rav Ḥama bar Yosef himself disagrees: And I say that it is not a deceptive answer. Although the bathhouse would not be rendered forbidden as an object of idol worship due to a verbal designation, it would at least have the status of an adornment of an object of idol worship, which is also forbidden.''. None|