1. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • am haaretz • amei ha'aretz (non-rabbinic Jews), extreme hatred directed against • amei ha'aretz (non-rabbinic Jews), extreme hatred directed against, rabbis originating from amongst
Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 45, 46; Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 456
| 49b ואינו מתקבל:,תנו רבנן לעולם ימכור אדם כל מה שיש לו וישא בת תלמיד חכם לא מצא בת תלמיד חכם ישא בת גדולי הדור לא מצא בת גדולי הדור ישא בת ראשי כנסיות לא מצא בת ראשי כנסיות ישא בת גבאי צדקה לא מצא בת גבאי צדקה ישא בת מלמדי תינוקות ולא ישא בת עמי הארץ מפני שהן שקץ ונשותיהן שרץ ועל בנותיהן הוא אומר (דברים כז, כא) ארור שוכב עם כל בהמה,תניא ר' אומר עם הארץ אסור לאכול בשר (בהמה) שנאמר (ויקרא יא, מו) זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף כל העוסק בתורה מותר לאכול בשר בהמה ועוף וכל שאינו עוסק בתורה אסור לאכול בשר בהמה ועוף:,אמר רבי אלעזר עם הארץ מותר לנוחרו ביום הכיפורים שחל להיות בשבת אמרו לו תלמידיו ר' אמור לשוחטו אמר להן זה טעון ברכה וזה אינו טעון ברכה:,אמר רבי אלעזר עם הארץ אסור להתלוות עמו בדרך שנאמר (דברים ל, כ) כי היא חייך ואורך ימיך על חייו לא חס על חיי חבירו לא כל שכן,אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יוחנן עם הארץ מותר לקורעו כדג אמר רבי שמואל בר יצחק ומגבו:,תניא אמר רבי עקיבא כשהייתי עם הארץ אמרתי מי יתן לי תלמיד חכם ואנשכנו כחמור אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי אמור ככלב אמר להן זה נושך ושובר עצם וזה נושך ואינו שובר עצם:,תניא היה רבי מאיר אומר כל המשיא בתו לעם הארץ כאילו כופתה ומניחה לפני ארי מה ארי דורס ואוכל ואין לו בושת פנים אף עם הארץ מכה ובועל ואין לו בושת פנים:,תניא רבי אליעזר אומר אילמלא אנו צריכין להם למשא ומתן היו הורגין אותנו,תנא רבי חייא כל העוסק בתורה לפני עם הארץ כאילו בועל ארוסתו בפניו שנאמר (דברים לג, ד) תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה אל תקרי מורשה אלא מאורסה,גדולה שנאה ששונאין עמי הארץ לתלמיד חכם יותר משנאה ששונאין עובדי כוכבים את ישראל ונשותיהן יותר מהן: תנא שנה ופירש יותר מכולן,תנו רבנן ששה דברים נאמרו בעמי הארץ אין מוסרין להן עדות ואין מקבלין ממנו עדות ואין מגלין להן סוד ואין ממנין אותן אפוטרופוס על היתומים ואין ממנין אותן אפוטרופוס על קופה של צדקה ואין מתלוין עמהן בדרך ויש אומרים אף אין מכריזין על אבידתו,ותנא קמא זמנין דנפיק מיניה זרעא מעליא ואכיל ליה שנאמר (איוב כז, יז) יכין וצדיק ילבש:,וכן מי שיצא וכו':,למימרא דרבי מאיר סבר כביצה הוא דחשיב ורבי יהודה סבר כזית נמי חשיב ורמינהי עד כמה הן מזמנין עד כזית ורבי יהודה אומר עד כביצה,אמר רבי יוחנן מוחלפת השיטה,אביי אמר לעולם לא תיפוך התם בקראי פליגי הכא בסברא פליגי התם בקראי פליגי רבי מאיר סבר (דברים ח, י) ואכלת זו אכילה ושבעת זו שתיה ואכילה בכזית ורבי יהודה סבר ואכלת ושבעת אכילה שיש בה שביעה ואיזו זו בכביצה,הכא בסברא פליגי דרבי מאיר סבר חזרתו כטומאתו מה טומאתו בכביצה אף חזרתו בכביצה ור' יהודה סבר חזרתו"" None | 49b and unacceptable.,The Sages taught: A person should always be willing to sell all he has in order to marry the daughter of a Torah scholar. If he cannot find the daughter of a Torah scholar, he should marry the daughter of one of the great people of the generation, who are pious although they are not Torah scholars. If he cannot find the daughter of one of the great people of the generation, he should marry the daughter of one of the heads of the congregations. If he cannot find the daughter of one of the heads of the congregations, he should marry the daughter of one of the charity collectors. If he cannot find the daughter of one of the charity collectors, he should marry the daughter of one of the schoolteachers. However, he should not marry the daughter of an ignoramus am ha’aretz because they are vermin and their wives are similar to a creeping animal, as their lifestyle involves the violation of numerous prohibitions. And with regard to their daughters the verse states: “Cursed is he who lies with an animal” (Deuteronomy 27:21), as they are similar to animals in that they lack any knowledge or moral sense.,The Gemara continues its discussion with regard to an ignoramus. It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is prohibited for an ignoramus to eat meat, as it is stated: “This is the law torah of the beast and of the fowl” (Leviticus 11:46). He expounds: Anyone who engages in Torah study is permitted to eat the meat of animals and fowl, and anyone who does not engage in Torah study is prohibited to eat the meat of animals or fowl.,The Gemara proceeds to mention some sharply negative statements of the Sages in which they overstated their negative sentiments with regard to ignoramuses, although these ignoramuses were wicked in addition to being boors (ge’onim). Rabbi Elazar said: It is permitted to stab an ignoramus to death on Yom Kippur that occurs on Shabbat. His students said to him: Master, at least say that it is permitted to slaughter him. He said to them: I intentionally used the word stab, as this term, slaughtering, requires a blessing when one slaughters an animal, and that term, stabbing, does not require a blessing in any context.,Rabbi Elazar said: It is prohibited to accompany an ignoramus while traveling on the road due to concern that the ignoramus might try to harm his traveling partner, as it is stated with regard to Torah: “For it is your life and the length of your days” (Deuteronomy 30:20). An ignoramus has not studied any Torah, indicating that he is not concerned about his own life; with regard to another’s life, all the more so.,Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: It is permitted to tear open an ignoramus like a fish. Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: And one may cut him open from his back and thereby cause his immediate death by piercing his spinal cord rather than his stomach.,It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva said: When I was an ignoramus I said: Who will give me a Torah scholar so that I will bite him like a donkey? His students said to him: Master, say that you would bite him like a dog! He said to them: I specifically used that wording, as this one, a donkey, bites and breaks bones, and that one, a dog, bites but does not break bones.,It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: Anyone who marries off his daughter to an ignoramus is considered as though he binds her and places her before a lion. Why is this so? Just as a lion mauls its prey and eats and has no shame, so too, an ignoramus strikes his wife and then engages in sexual relations with her without appeasing her first, and has no shame.,It was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: If we did not need the ignoramuses for business, they would kill us.,The Gemara shifts to a discussion of an ignoramus who has some degree of sensitivity (Me’iri). Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Anyone who engages in Torah study in the presence of an ignoramus, causing the ignoramus embarrassment and anguish over his inability to study Torah, is considered as though he had sexual relations with the ignoramus’s betrothed bride in his presence, as it is stated: “Moses commanded us the Torah, an inheritance morasha for the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4). Do not read it as inheritance morasha; rather, read it as betrothed me’orasa. The Torah is compared to the betrothed bride of the Jewish people until one studies it and thereby consummates his marriage with it.,Similarly, he said: The hatred which ignoramuses have for a Torah scholar is greater than the hatred that the nations of the world have for the Jewish people. And the wives of the ignoramuses hate Torah scholars more than the ignoramuses themselves. It was taught in the Tosefta that one who studied Torah and left his studies hates Torah scholars more than all of them.,The Sages taught: Six statements were made with regard to ignoramuses: One may not entrust them with testimony, i.e., one may not appoint them as witnesses to a particular event or transaction. Additionally, one may not accept testimony from them, as they are not considered trustworthy, and one should not reveal a secret to them, as they will reveal it. One may not appoint them as steward apotropos over an estate belonging to orphans, due to concern that they might make improper use of the orphans’ property. Likewise, one may not appoint them as guardian over a charity fund. Finally, one should not accompany them while traveling on the road, due to concern for one’s safety. And there are those who say: One does not even announce their lost items, meaning that if one finds a lost article from such a person, he is allowed to keep it without making an effort to locate the owner (Me’iri).,The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the first tanna, who holds that one must announce having found the lost article of an ignoramus? The Gemara explains: Sometimes upstanding offspring will come from him and will consume the property, as it is stated: “He may prepare it but the just shall put it on” (Job 27:17). It is possible for a wicked person to prepare something for himself that will later be used by a righteous person.,The Gemara returns to explaining the mishna. It was taught: And so too, one who left Jerusalem with sacrificial meat in his possession must return to Jerusalem to burn it, just as one is required to return in order to remove leaven from his possession. According to Rabbi Meir, this halakha applies with regard to an egg-bulk of sacrificial meat or leaven, whereas Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says the minimum amount for both is an olive-bulk.,The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Meir holds that an egg-bulk is the minimal amount that is considered significant, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that an olive-bulk is also considered significant? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna in Berakhot: How much food must one eat in order to obligate those with whom he ate in a zimmun? An olive-bulk of food is sufficient according to the unattributed opinion in the mishna, which is generally that of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Yehuda says: An egg-bulk is the minimum measure to obligate those with whom one ate in a zimmun. This seems to contradict the opinions of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda stated in the mishna here.,Rabbi Yoḥa said: The opinions are reversed in one of these sources, and must be emended.,Abaye said: Actually, do not reverse the opinions. There, they disagree with regard to the interpretation of verses, while here, they disagree with regard to logical reasoning. How so? There, with regard to zimmun, they disagree with regard to the interpretation of verses. Rabbi Meir holds that the verse: “And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:10) should be understood as follows: “And you shall eat,” that is eating; “and be satisfied,” that is drinking. The standard halakhic principle is that eating is defined as the consumption of an olive-bulk. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: “And you shall eat and you shall be satisfied” refers to eating that includes satisfaction. And what is considered eating with satisfaction? It is consumption of an egg-bulk.,However, here, in the cases of leaven and consecrated food, they disagree not with regard to the interpretation of verses but with regard to logical reasoning, as Rabbi Meir holds: The requirement to return consecrated food is analogous to its ritual impurity. Just as its susceptibility to ritual impurity is only when it is the size of an egg-bulk, so too, the requirement to return it is only when it is the size of an egg-bulk. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: The requirement to return consecrated food'' None |
|
2. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Palestinian rabbis, sages, teaching undertaken in house of am haaretz • am haaretz
Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 37; Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 476
29b הניחו בקופסא דברי הכל טמא לא נחלקו אלא שתלאו במגוד או שהניחו לאחורי הדלת ר\' אליעזר סבר מדלא זרקו באשפה דעתיה עילויה ומאי קרי ליה שלא מן המוכן דלגבי קופסא לאו מוכן הוא ור\' יהושע סבר מדלא הניחו בקופסא בטולי בטליה ומאי קרי ליה מוכן דלגבי אשפה מוכן הוא ור\' עקיבא בתלאו במגוד סבר כרבי אליעזר בהניחו אחורי הדלת סבר לה כרבי יהושע,והדר ביה ר"ע לגביה דר\' יהושע ממאי אמר רבא מדקתני פתילת הבגד מאי איריא דתני פתילת הבגד ליתני פתילה של בגד מאי פתילת הבגד דעדיין בגד הוא:,| 29b If one placed it in a box, everyone agrees that it can become ritually impure because his placing the cloth in a box indicates that he considers the cloth significant and is keeping it in order to use it. They only disagreed in a case where one hung the garment on a dryer, i.e., a stake in the wall, or where he placed it behind a door. Rabbi Eliezer held: From the fact that he did not throw it in the garbage dump, it is certainly on his mind and he is planning to use it. And what is the reason that he called it not prepared? It is because, relative to a cloth placed in a box, it is not considered prepared for use. And Rabbi Yehoshua held that since he did not place it in a box, certainly he has negated its garment status. And what is the reason that he called it prepared? Because relative to one thrown in the garbage, this garment is prepared for use, although, in fact, the cloth has already been negated. And Rabbi Akiva, in the case where he hung it on a dryer, held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer that one has not yet negated it from use and it can therefore become ritually impure. In the case where he placed it behind a door, Rabbi Akiva held in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua that, in doing so, he negated its garment status, and it can no longer become ritually impure.,The Gemara comments: And Rabbi Akiva retracted his opinion in favor of the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua and held in accordance with his opinion. And from where do we know this? Rava said: From the term that we learned in our mishna: The wick of a garment petilat habeged. Why did it specifically teach: The wick of a garment? Teach that halakha using the phrase: A wick made from a garment. What is the reason that the mishna taught: A wick of a garment? It is because it remains a garment. Nevertheless, Rabbi Akiva deemed it ritually pure, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.,A person may not pierce a hole in an eggshell and fill it with oil, and place it over the mouth of a lamp so that the egg will drip additional oil into the lamp and thereby extend the time that it burns. And this is the ruling even if it is not an actual egg but an earthenware vessel. And Rabbi Yehuda permits doing so. However, if the craftsman, who crafts ceramic vessels, attached the egg to the lamp from the outset, one is permitted to fill it with oil because it constitutes a single, large vessel. The Rabbis decreed that a person may not fill a bowl with oil, and place it beside the lamp, and place the unlit head of the wick into the bowl so that it draws additional oil from the bowl and thereby extend the time that the lamp burns. And Rabbi Yehuda permits doing so.,And it was necessary to cite all of the aforementioned cases because it is impossible to derive one from the other. As, had the Gemara only taught us the prohibition of an eggshell, I would have said that, specifically in that case, the Rabbis said that it is prohibited to do so. Since the egg is not dirty and disgusting, there is room for concern that one might come to take oil from it, which would be tantamount to taking oil from a burning lamp on Shabbat, because it causes the flame to be extinguished faster. However, an earthenware tube that is disgusting, say that the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Yehuda that there is no room for concern, and even according to their opinion it would be permitted. And, conversely, had the Gemara only taught us the prohibition of an earthenware tube, I would have said that, specifically in that case, Rabbi Yehuda says that one is permitted to do so because it is disgusting, as explained above; however, in that case of the eggshell that is not disgusting, say that he agrees with the Rabbis that it is prohibited. And had the Gemara taught us only those two cases of the eggshell and the earthenware tube, I would have said that, specifically in those cases, Rabbi Yehuda said that it is permitted because there is no separation between the lamp and the second receptacle. However, in the case of a bowl, which is separate, say that he agrees with the Rabbis that it is prohibited. And, conversely, had the Gemara only taught us in that case of the added bowl, I would have said that only in that case did the Rabbis say it is prohibited because it is separate. However, in these two cases of the eggshell and the ceramic tube, I would say that the Rabbis agree with Rabbi Yehuda and permit doing so. Therefore, it was necessary for the mishna to specifically state the halakha in each of the cases cited.,And we also learned in our mishna that if the craftsman attached the tube to the lamp from the outset, it is permitted to fill it with oil and use it. It was taught in a baraita that even if a homeowner attached it to the vessel before Shabbat by means of plaster or with dry potter’s clay, it is permitted. The Gemara asks: Didn’t we specifically learn in the mishna: If the craftsman attached it from the outset, not a layman? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of craftsman in the mishna? It refers to any attachment similar to the attachment of the craftsman.,With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis: One time we spent our Shabbat in the upper story of the house of Nit’za in the city of Lod. And they brought us an eggshell, and we filled it with oil, and pierced it, and left it over the lamp in order to extend its burning. And Rabbi Tarfon and other Elders were there and they did not say anything to us. Apparently, there is no prohibition. The Rabbis said to him: Do you bring proof from there? The legal status of the Elders who were sitting in the house of Nit’za is different. They are vigilant. There is no room for concern lest they use the oil in the eggshell and accelerate the extinguishing of the lamp. However, in every other circumstance, doing so is prohibited.,The Gemara relates: Avin from the city of Tzippori dragged a bench in an upper story, whose floor was made of marble, before Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar. Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Elazar said to him: If I remain silent and say nothing to you, as Rabbi Tarfon and the members of the group of Elders were silent and said nothing to Rabbi Yehuda, damage will result, as it will lead to unfounded leniency in the future. Had they told Rabbi Yehuda at that time that it is prohibited to puncture the eggshell, he would not have disagreed with the Rabbis. He would not have mistakenly derived a general leniency. So too, here the Sages issued a decree on a marble-floored upper story due to a standard upper story with an earth floor. One who drags a bench on an earth floor will create a furrow.,On the topic of dragging, the Gemara relates that the Head of the Kenesset of Batzra dragged a bench before Rabbi Yirmeya the Great on Shabbat. Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: In accordance with whose opinion do you permit yourself to drag a bench on Shabbat? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? Say that Rabbi Shimon said his statement specifically with regard to large benches that are impossible to move from place to place in any other way, but in the case of small benches did he say that one is permitted to drag them? And this disagrees with the opinion of Ulla, as Ulla said: The dispute with regard to dragging is in the case of small benches; however, in the case of large benches, everyone agrees that one is permitted to drag them, as there is no other way to move them.,Rav Yosef raised an objection from what was taught in a baraita, Rabbi Shimon says: One may drag a bed, a chair, and a bench across the floor on Shabbat even though it creates a furrow, as long as he does not intend to create a furrow. This baraita teaches about large objects, like a bed, and teaches about small objects, like a chair. If so, this is difficult for both Rabbi Yirmeya the Great and for Ulla. Rabbi Yirmeya holds that Rabbi Shimon prohibits dragging even small furniture. Ulla holds that even Rabbi Yehuda permits dragging large pieces of furniture. According to his opinion, there is no need for Rabbi Shimon to state that it is permitted.,The Gemara answers that Ulla reconciles the objection in accordance with his reasoning and Rabbi Yirmeya the Great reconciles the objection in accordance with his reasoning. The Gemara explains: Ulla reconciles the objection in accordance with his reasoning: A bed, similar to a chair; the baraita is referring here to a small bed that can be carried like a chair, with regard to which there is a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda. And Rabbi Yirmeya the Great reconciles the objection in accordance with his reasoning: A chair, similar to a bed; the baraita is referring to dragging a heavy chair that cannot be moved in any other way.,Rabba raised an objection to Rabbi Yirmeya’s statement from that which we learned in a mishna: Clothing merchants who sell garments made of diverse kinds, a prohibited mixture of wool and linen, may sell them as they normally would to gentiles, and they may place the garments that they are selling on their shoulders and need not be concerned about the prohibition against wearing diverse kinds, as long as the merchant does not intend to benefit from the garments in the sun as protection from the sun, or in the rain as protection from the rain. However, the modest people, those who are particularly fastidious in performing mitzvot, would suspend the wool and linen garments on a stick behind them. And here, in the case of dragging benches, where it is possible to act like the modest people, as the clothes are similar to small benches, and nevertheless, when one does not intend to perform the prohibited action, Rabbi Shimon permits dragging even ab initio. Rabbi Shimon holds that one who does not intend to violate a prohibition need not take an alternative course of action due to concern that resulting from his action, the prohibited act might come to be performed. Based on that principle, it is clear that Rabbi Shimon would permit dragging small benches since one does not intend to create a furrow in dragging them. This is a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rabbi Yirmeya the Great, who held that dragging small objects is prohibited according to Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is a conclusive refutation.,One who extinguishes the lamp on Shabbat because he is afraid due to gentiles, from whom he is hiding in his home, and due to thieves, or if one is afraid due to an evil spirit, i.e., he is depressed and prefers sitting in the dark, or if he extinguished the flame due to the sick person so that he will sleep, he is exempt. However, in a case where he extinguishes the flame in order to spare the lamp, spare the oil, or spare the wick, he is liable. Rabbi Yosei exempts him in all of those cases, as in his opinion no labor prohibited by Torah law is being performed by extinguishing the flame, except for the case where he seeks to spare the wick. Only in that case is extinguishing a creative action because he makes the wick into charcoal by extinguishing the flame.'' None | |
|
